CITY COUNCIL: AGENDA & MINUTES October 2009

AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
4:30 p.m., Open Session

Live video streaming available at:
www.ci.carmel.ca.us

Broadcast date
Sunday, October 11, 2009
8:00 a.m., KMST Channel 26

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

Hearing assistance units are available to the public for meetings held in the Council Chambers.

The City Council welcomes your interest and participation. If you want to speak on an agenda item during its review, you may do so when the Mayor opens the item for public comment. Persons are not required to give their names but it is helpful in order that the City Clerk may identify them in the minutes of the meeting. Please keep remarks to a maximum of three (3) minutes, or as otherwise established by the City Council. Always speak into the microphone, as the meeting is recorded on tape.

I. Call to Order

II. Roll Call

III. Pledge of Allegiance

IV. Extraordinary Business
A. Appreciation of Design Review members.

B. Appreciation of outgoing members of Boards and Commissions.

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

B. Announcements from City Council members (Council members may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement or report on his or her activities)

C. Announcements from City Administrator
1. Quarterly marketing update and report on new City map.

2. Receive report on award from the California Urban Forest Council for the Fourth Avenue project.

3. Report by the Public Safety Director on the Monterey County Law Enforcement Data Integration Project.

VI. Appearances
Anyone wishing to address the City Council on matters within the jurisdiction of the City and are not on the agenda may do so now. Matters not appearing on the City Council’s agenda will not receive action at this meeting but may be referred to staff for a future meeting. Presentations will be limited to three (3) minutes, or as otherwise established by the City Council. Persons are not required to give their names, but it is helpful for speakers to state their names in order that the City Clerk may identify them in the minutes of the meeting.

Always speak into the microphone, as the meeting is recorded. The City Council Chambers is equipped with a portable microphone for anyone unable to come to the podium. Assisted listening devices are available upon request of the City Clerk. If you need assistance, please advise Heidi Burch as to which item you would like to comment on and the microphone will be brought to you.

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.
A. Ratify the minutes for the regular meeting of September 1, 2009.

B. Ratify the bills paid for the month of September 2009.

C. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to amend the Consultant Services Agreement with Pacific Municipal Consultants (PMC) to prepare an Initial Study and subsequent environmental documents for the Carmel Sands Lodge redevelopment project in an additional amount of $18,524.

D. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing $342,242 in year-end departmental budget transfers and a transfer of $8,223.80 in unspent grant revenues for fiscal year 2008/09 to comply with state financial restrictions.

E. Consideration of a Resolution approving and authorizing the City cosponsorship of a donor appreciation reception on October 25, 2009 with the Harrison Memorial Library Board of Trustees and the Carmel Public Library Foundation.

F. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing a grant application to the Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District for dune habitat restoration and protection, ADA access improvements, and the installation of interpretive signs in the Del Mar and North Dunes areas of Carmel Beach.

G. Consideration of a Resolution approving the grant application for $132,194 to the Monterey Bay Unified Area Pollution Control District for the Carmel-by-the-Sea trolley service.

H. Consideration of a Resolution in support of California Assembly/Senate Joint Resolution 49, calling on the Federal Government to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the California Gray Whale.

I. Consideration of a Resolution accepting a donation of $1,000 from Sylvia Odenning to assist with curatorial work for the Devendorf-Galante Historical Collection.

VIII. Public Hearings
If you challenge the nature of the proposed action in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.

A. Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to certify an Environmental Impact Report and deny a project for the demolition of an existing building and the construction of a mixed-use development including a two-level underground parking garage, five market-rate condominiums, two low-income housing units, and commercial floor area. The project location is the SE corner of Dolores and 7th (Homescapes Building). The appellant is John Mandurrago.

IX. Ordinances
A. None.

X. Resolutions
A. Consideration of a Resolution to add a Construction Activity Road Impact Fee of 1% of the project valuation of a building permit and designate this fee for road maintenance.

XI. Orders of Council
A. Ratify the appointments of members of Boards and Commissions for 2009-2010.

B. Scheduling Future City Council meetings – Please Bring Your Calendar

XII. Adjournment
The next meeting of the City Council will be:
Regular Council Meeting – 4:30 p.m.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Council Chambers

The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea does not discriminate against persons with disabilities.

Carmel-by-the-Sea City Hall is an accessible facility. The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea telecommunications device for the Deaf/Speech Impaired (T.D.D.) number is 1-800-735-2929.

Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at Carmel-by-the-Sea City Hall, on the east side of Monte Verde Street, between Ocean and 7th Avenues, during normal business hours.

MINUTES
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
October 6, 2009

I. CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, was held on the above date at the stated hour of 4:32 p.m. Mayor McCloud called the meeting to order.

II. ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Council Members Hazdovac, Rose, Sharp, Talmage & McCloud
STAFF PRESENT: Rich Guillen, City Administrator
Don Freeman, City Attorney
Molly Laughlin, Deputy City Clerk
George Rawson, Public Safety Director
Sean Conroy, Planning and Building Services Manager
Joyce Giuffre, Administrative Services Manager

III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Members of the audience joined the Mayor and Council Members in the Pledge of Allegiance.

IV. EXTRAORDINARY BUSINESS
The appreciation of the Design Review Board and outgoing members of boards and commissions was continued until November.

V. ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM CLOSED SESSION, FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS AND THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR
A. Announcements from Closed Session.
City Attorney Don Freeman reported that Council had met in Closed Session on Monday, October 5, 2009, to discuss five items: three matters of current litigation; one matter of potential litigation; and one labor negotiation issue. There were no announcements for the public.

B. Announcements from City Council members.
Council Member Sharp announced that the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) has placed the State Route 1/Carmel Corridor Widening project on the pending list that has yet to be funded. She reported that the summer Carmel Trolley, which ran on weekends from Memorial Day to Labor Day, had a daily average of 123 riders.

Mayor McCloud announced the inaugural Carmel Art and Film Festival will run from October 8-12, 2009 at various venues including Devendorf Park and Sunset Center.

C. Announcements from City Administrator
1. Quarterly marketing update and report on new City map.
Jeff Burghardt, principal of Burghardt-Dore Advertising, presented the report.

2. Receive report on award from the California Urban Forest Council for the Fourth Avenue project.
City Forester Mike Branson presented the report.

3. Report by the Public Safety Director on the Monterey County Law
Enforcement Data Integration Project.
Public Safety Director George Rawson presented the report.

VI. APPEARANCES
Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment at 4:57 p.m.

Bob Oliver spoke about his requests to the City for information regarding a traffic warrant.

Jim Emery, speaking as a member of the Carmel Residents Association board of directors, discussed fire service options.

Barbara Livingston addressed the 4th Avenue project.

Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment at 5:04 p.m.

VII. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Ratify the minutes for the regular meeting of September 1, 2009.

B. Ratify the bills paid for the month of September 2009.

C. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to amend the Consultant Services Agreement with Pacific Municipal Consultants (PMC) to prepare an Initial Study and subsequent environmental documents for the Carmel Sands Lodge redevelopment project in an additional amount of $18,524.

D. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing $342,242 in year-end departmental budget transfers and a transfer of $8,223.80 in unspent grant revenues for fiscal year 2008/09 to comply with state financial restrictions.

E. Consideration of a Resolution approving and authorizing the City cosponsorship of a donor appreciation reception on October 25, 2009 with
the Harrison Memorial Library Board of Trustees and the Carmel Public Library Foundation.

F. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing a grant application to the Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District for dune habitat restoration and protection, ADA access improvements, and the installation of interpretive signs in the Del Mar and North Dunes areas of Carmel Beach.

G. Consideration of a Resolution approving the grant application for $132,194 to the Monterey Bay Unified Area Pollution Control District for the Carmel-by-the-Sea trolley service.

H. Consideration of a Resolution in support of California Assembly/Senate Joint Resolution 49, calling on the Federal Government to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the California Gray Whale.

I. Consideration of a Resolution accepting a donation of $1,000 from Sylvia Odenning to assist with curatorial work for the Devendorf-Galante Historical Collection.
Carolyn Hardy asked that Item D be pulled for further discussion at the end of the meeting.

Council Member ROSE moved adoption of the Consent Agenda Items A-C and E-I, seconded by Council Member SHARP and carried unanimously.

VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to certify an Environmental Impact Report and deny a project for the demolition of an existing building and the construction of a mixed-use development including a two-level underground parking garage, five market-rate condominiums, two low-income housing units, and commercial floor area. The project location is the SE corner of Dolores and 7th (Homescapes Building). The appellant is John Mandurrago.

City Attorney Don Freeman recused himself as he has a conflict of interest as a nearby property owner to the subject of the appeal. He introduced attorney John Giffin, of the law firm of Kennedy, Archer, Harray, to take his place on this item.

Brian Roseth, of Monterey Bay Planning Services, presented the staff report.

John Mandurrago, the appellant, addressed Council.

Attorney Dennis Beougher, representing Mr. Mandurrago, answered questions.

Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment at 5:27 p.m.

Barbara Livingston spoke to the issue.

Brian Congleton said he was available to answer any architectural questions.

Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment at 5:29 p.m.

Council Member ROSE moved to postpone a decision on this appeal and refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for its further findings on new issues raised (in a letter received by Council from the applicant’s counsel, dated October 6, 2009), seconded by Council Member HAZDOVAC and carried by the following roll call:

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

IX. ORDINANCES
A. None.

X. RESOLUTIONS
A. Consideration of a Resolution to add a Construction Activity Road Impact Fee of 1% of the project valuation of a building permit and designate this fee for road maintenance.

Administrative Services Manager Joyce Giuffre presented the staff report.

Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment at 5:48 p.m.

Barbara Livingston spoke in favor of the Impact Fee.

Michael LePage spoke in favor of the Impact Fee.

Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment at 5:51 p.m.

Council Member ROSE moved approval of a Resolution to add a Construction Activity Road Impact Fee of 0.50% of the project valuation of a building permit and designate this fee for road maintenance, seconded by Council Member HAZDOVAC.

On a substitute motion, Member TALMAGE moved approval of a Resolution to add a Construction Activity Road Impact Fee of 0.75% of the project valuation of a building permit and designate this fee for road maintenance and further directed staff to investigate whether franchise fees and fees assessed to tour buses also could help fund road maintenance, seconded by Council Member SHARP and carried by the following roll call:

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

XI. ORDERS OF COUNCIL
A. Ratify the appointments of members of Boards and Commissions for 2009-2010.
Mayor McCloud presented a list of appointments for positions on City boards and commissions. She noted there are still appointments to be made on the Forest and Beach Commission.

Council Member ROSE moved ratification of the appointments to the Boards and Commissions, seconded by Council Member TALMAGE and carried unanimously.

B. Scheduling Future City Council meetings – Please Bring Your Calendar

Item VII-D had been pulled from Consent Agenda by Carolyn Hardy for further discussion.

Consideration of a Resolution authorizing $342,242 in year-end departmental budget transfers and a transfer of $8,223.80 in unspent grant revenues for fiscal year 2008/09 to comply with state financial restrictions.

Council Member ROSE moved adoption of the Consent Agenda Item D, seconded by Council Member HAZDOVAC and carried unanimously.

XII. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor McCloud declared the meeting adjourned at 6:12 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

_____________________________
Molly Laughlin, Deputy City Clerk

ATTEST:

___________________________
MAYOR SUE McCLOUD

CITY COUNCIL: Check Register October 2009

City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
October 2009 Check Register
(Includes checks dated 9/29/09)
Check No.-Check Date-Vendor Name-Net Amount-Expense Account-Account Name
118740 9/29/09 AFLAC $ 10.00 01 64017 MEDICAL PROGRAM
118740 9/29/09 AFLAC $ 10.00 01 67017 MEDICAL PROGRAM
118740 9/29/09 AFLAC $ 5.00 01 69017 MEDICAL PROGRAM
118740 9/29/09 AFLAC $ 10.00 01 72017 MEDICAL PROGRAM
118740 9/29/09 AFLAC $ 30.00 01 74017 MEDICAL PROGRAM
118740 9/29/09 AFLAC $ 10.00 01 76017 MEDICAL PROGRAM
118740 9/29/09 AFLAC $ 25.00 01 84017 MEDICAL PROGRAM
----Vendor Total---- $ 100.00

118741 9/29/09 AILING HOUSE PEST CONTROL $ 329.00 01 70050 OUTSIDE LABOR
118819 10/14/09 AILING HOUSE PEST CONTROL $ 115.00 01 70050 OUTSIDE LABOR
----Vendor Total---- $ 444.00

118784 10/6/09 ALFANET $ 383.00 01 65051 INFORMATION SYST DEPT PROF SERVICES

118742 9/29/09 ALHAMBRA $ 39.83 01 64053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES

118785 10/6/09 ALWAYS UNDER PRESSURE $ 511.25 01 76045 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES
118785 10/6/09 ALWAYS UNDER PRESSURE $ 364.50 01 76050 OUTSIDE LABOR
----Vendor Total---- $ 875.75

118786 10/6/09 AMERICAN MESSAGING $ 36.13 01 64095 OPERATIONAL SERVICE/SUPPLIES

118879 10/20/09 ANDON LAUNDRY SERVICE $ 383.00 01 72053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES

118868 10/14/09 AT&T/MCI $ 800.88 01 64036 TELEPHONE
118868 10/14/09 AT&T/MCI $ ( 94.50) 01 65049 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
118868 10/14/09 AT&T/MCI $ 215.58 01 69036 TELEPHONE
118868 10/14/09 AT&T/MCI $ 372.05 01 72036 TELEPHONE
118868 10/14/09 AT&T/MCI $ 581.15 01 74036 TELEPHONE
118868 10/14/09 AT&T/MCI $ 137.92 01 76036 TELEPHONE
118868 10/14/09 AT&T/MCI $ 15.63 01 82036 TELEPHONE
118868 10/14/09 AT&T/MCI $ 15.65 60 81036 TELEPHONE
----Vendor Total---- $ 2,044.36

118787 10/6/09 BAY TEC CONTAINERS $ 1,024.80 01 76045 PUBLIC WORKS MATERIALS/SUPPLIES

118880 10/20/09 BMW OF SANTA CRUZ COUNTY $ 25.15 01 76049 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE

118788 10/6/09 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC $ 1,010.85 50 24050 FIRE DEPT MATERIALS/SUPPLIES
118820 10/14/09 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC $ 34.85 50 24050 FIRE DEPT MATERIALS/SUPPLIES
----Vendor Total---- $ 1,045.70

118881 10/20/09 BRANSON, MIKE $ 5.00 01 64030 TRAINING/PERSONAL EXP REIMBURSEMENT

118789 10/6/09 BRINTON'S $ 27.24 01 76045 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES
118789 10/6/09 BRINTON'S $ 13.62 01 76047 AUTOMOTIVE PARTS/SUPPLIES
118789 10/6/09 BRINTON'S $ 54.23 01 78045 MATERIAL/SUPPLIES
----Vendor Total---- $ 95.09

118821 10/14/09 BROADWAY LOCKSMITH $ 134.13 01 70050 OUTSIDE LABOR

118791 10/6/09 BURGHARDT-DORE ADVERTISING, INC. $ 642.50 01 85200 REGIONAL DESTINATION MARKETING

118883 10/20/09 CA COMMERCIAL INTERIORS $ 733.33 01 67170 ERGONOMIC CHAIR FOR POLICE DEPT

118882 10/20/09 CAL-AM WATER COMPANY $ 172.82 01 64026 UTILITIES
118882 10/20/09 CAL-AM WATER COMPANY $ 3,455.67 01 70026 UTILITIES
118882 10/20/09 CAL-AM WATER COMPANY $ 209.38 01 72026 UTILITIES
118882 10/20/09 CAL-AM WATER COMPANY $ 422.86 01 74026 UTILITIES
118882 10/20/09 CAL-AM WATER COMPANY $ 3,040.01 01 76026 UTILITIES
118882 10/20/09 CAL-AM WATER COMPANY $ 23.34 01 82026 UTILITIES
118882 10/20/09 CAL-AM WATER COMPANY $ 445.57 01 84026 UTILITIES
118882 10/20/09 CAL-AM WATER COMPANY $ 167.72 60 81026 UTILITIES
----Vendor Total---- $ 7,937.37

118792 10/6/09 CALIF BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION $ 251.82 50 24050 SB 1473 SPECIAL BLDG PERMIT FEES FOR QTR ENDED 9/30/09

118885 10/20/09 CARMEL CHEVRON $ 38.10 01 76046 FUEL

118743 9/29/09 CARMEL FIRE PROTCTN ASSOC $ 450.00 50 24050 PLAN CHECK (CONTRACT FIRE EXP)
118886 10/20/09 CARMEL FIRE PROTCTN ASSOC $ 1,443.42 01 69051 PLAN CHECK PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
118886 10/20/09 CARMEL FIRE PROTCTN ASSOC $ 325.00 50 24050 PLAN CHECK (CONTRACT FIRE EXP)
----Vendor Total---- $ 2,218.42

118822 10/14/09 CARMEL GLASS COMPANY $ 185.00 01 70050 OUTSIDE LABOR

118884 10/20/09 CARMEL PINE CONE $ 149.94 01 64040 ADVERTISING
118884 10/20/09 CARMEL PINE CONE $ 129.12 01 69040 ADVERTISING
----Vendor Total---- $ 279.06

118794 10/6/09 CBRE CONSULTING INC. $ 997.20 01 61051 FLANDERS PROPERTY ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

118744 9/29/09 CDW-G GOVERNMENT INC. $ 60.39 01 65045 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES

118887 10/20/09 CEMEX $ 63.23 01 76045 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES

118823 10/14/09 CHEVRON USA, INC. $ 32.63 01 64030 POLICE STAFF TRAVEL/TRAINING EXPENSES

118824 10/14/09 CIRCLE "C" ELECTRIC SVC. $ 424.80 01 70050 OUTSIDE LABOR

118745 9/29/09 CITY OF CARMEL $ 3,414.59 01 67424 WORKERS COMP SELF-FUNDED RUN-OUT CLAIMS

118795 10/6/09 CITY OF MONTEREY $ 7,819.43 01 76049 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
118825 10/14/09 CITY OF MONTEREY $ 13,500.00 01 72053 SEPT 2009 FIRE CHIEF/DUTY CHIEF SERVICES
118888 10/20/09 CITY OF MONTEREY $ 3,318.01 01 76049 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
----Vendor Total---- $ 24,637.44

118889 10/20/09 CITY OF SEASIDE $ 276.32 01 76050 STREET SWEEPING OUTSIDE LABOR

118846 10/14/09 CLYDE KLAUMANN $ 896.00 01 67428 EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION BBQ - CATERING SERVICES

118746 9/29/09 COASTAL HEALTHCARE $ 145.00 01 65017 MEDICAL PROGRAM
118746 9/29/09 COASTAL HEALTHCARE $ 204.00 01 67017 MEDICAL PROGRAM
118746 9/29/09 COASTAL HEALTHCARE $ 667.00 01 69017 MEDICAL PROGRAM
118746 9/29/09 COASTAL HEALTHCARE $ 318.00 01 72017 MEDICAL PROGRAM
118746 9/29/09 COASTAL HEALTHCARE $ 170.00 01 74017 MEDICAL PROGRAM
118746 9/29/09 COASTAL HEALTHCARE $ 108.00 01 84017 MEDICAL PROGRAM
118826 10/14/09 COASTAL HEALTHCARE $ 198.50 01 60017 MEDICAL PROGRAM
118826 10/14/09 COASTAL HEALTHCARE $ 38.80 01 64017 MEDICAL PROGRAM
118826 10/14/09 COASTAL HEALTHCARE $ 19.40 01 65017 MEDICAL PROGRAM
118826 10/14/09 COASTAL HEALTHCARE $ 38.80 01 67017 MEDICAL PROGRAM
118826 10/14/09 COASTAL HEALTHCARE $ 690.50 01 69017 MEDICAL PROGRAM
118826 10/14/09 COASTAL HEALTHCARE $ 19.40 01 70017 MEDICAL PROGRAM
118826 10/14/09 COASTAL HEALTHCARE $ 278.40 01 72017 MEDICAL PROGRAM
118826 10/14/09 COASTAL HEALTHCARE $ 1,771.50 01 74017 MEDICAL PROGRAM
118826 10/14/09 COASTAL HEALTHCARE $ 391.60 01 76017 MEDICAL PROGRAM
118826 10/14/09 COASTAL HEALTHCARE $ 29.10 01 78017 MEDICAL PROGRAM
118826 10/14/09 COASTAL HEALTHCARE $ 87.30 01 84017 MEDICAL PROGRAM
----Vendor Total---- $ 5,175.30

118747 9/29/09 COMCAST $ 93.95 01 65053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES

118797 10/6/09 COPIES BY-THE-SEA $ 130.44 01 69039 PRINTING

118748 9/29/09 CORBIN WILLITS SYSTEM $ 690.79 01 65053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES

118855 10/14/09 COUNTY OF MONTEREY $ 10.00 01 72053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
118855 10/14/09 COUNTY OF MONTEREY $ 10,692.77 01 91813 FY 2009/10 MONTEREY COUNTY NGEN PROJECT COSTS PER MOU
----Vendor Total---- $ 10,702.77

118827 10/14/09 CSAC EXCESS INS AUTHORITY $ 522.00 01 67120 EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

118828 10/14/09 DAVE'S REPAIR SERVICE $ 80.00 01 76050 OUTSIDE LABOR
118890 10/20/09 DAVE'S REPAIR SERVICE $ 80.00 01 76050 OUTSIDE LABOR
----Vendor Total---- $ 160.00

118829 10/14/09 DENCO SALES $ 1,009.03 01 76045 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES

118798 10/6/09 DEWEY D. EVANS $ 200.00 01 63053 OCT 2009 CITY TREASURER SERVICES

118835 10/14/09 DR. SANDRA FOWLER $ 1,181.25 50 24050 VOLUME STUDY

118830 10/14/09 DROUGHT RESISTANT NURSERY $ 37.35 01 76045 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES
118830 10/14/09 DROUGHT RESISTANT NURSERY $ 176.17 01 78045 MATERIAL/SUPPLIES
----Vendor Total---- $ 213.52

118749 9/29/09 ELECTRICAL DIST. COMPANY $ 634.40 01 70045 MATERIAL/SUPPLIES
118832 10/14/09 ELECTRICAL DIST. COMPANY $ 57.97 01 70045 MATERIAL/SUPPLIES
----Vendor Total---- $ 692.37

118750 9/29/09 EMBLEM ENTERPRISES INC $ 412.03 01 72031 CLOTHING

118891 10/20/09 EWING IRRIGATION $ 438.28 01 76045 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES

118833 10/14/09 FASTENAL COMPANY $ 466.61 01 76045 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES

118751 9/29/09 FEDEX $ 72.45 01 61051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
118751 9/29/09 FEDEX $ 54.13 01 76095 OPERATIONAL SERVICES/SUPPLIES
----Vendor Total---- $ 126.58

118752 9/29/09 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES,INC.#679 $ 123.71 01 70045 MATERIAL/SUPPLIES
118834 10/14/09 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES,INC.#679 $ 292.71 01 70045 MATERIAL/SUPPLIES
----Vendor Total---- $ 416.42

118753 9/29/09 FIRST ALARM-MONTEREY CO. $ 226.50 01 72053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES

118799 10/6/09 FLINT TRADING, INC. $ 341.97 01 76045 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES

118836 10/14/09 FRANZEN, ROSE $ 17.83 01 65045 REIMBURSEMENT FOR INFO SYST DEPT SUPPLIES

118754 9/29/09 GRANICUS, INC. $ 521.90 50 24050 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
118837 10/14/09 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY $ 403.90 01 76045 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES
118892 10/20/09 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY $ 207.57 01 76045 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES
----Vendor Total---- $ 611.47

118893 10/20/09 GREG GREENLEE $ 173.31 01 72095 REIMBURSEMENT FOR FIRE DEPT SUPPLIES

118838 10/14/09 HARRY B. ROBINS JR. $ 240.00 01 72600 EMERGENCY RESPONSE TRAINING

118839 10/14/09 HAYWARD LUMBER $ 162.34 01 70045 MATERIAL/SUPPLIES

118790 10/6/09 HEIDI BURCH $ 54.67 01 64030 REIMBURSEMENT FOR MEETING EXPENSES
118790 10/6/09 HEIDI BURCH $ 54.11 01 65036 REIMBURSEMENT FOR TELEPHONE SUPPLIES EXPENSE
----Vendor Total---- $ 108.78

118840 10/14/09 HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS $ 554.45 01 64030 POLICE STAFF TRAVEL/TRAINING EXPENSES

118841 10/14/09 HOME DEPOT/GECF $ 620.61 01 70045 MATERIAL/SUPPLIES

118914 10/23/09 HOTEL SIERRA SAN RAMON $ 268.00 01 64030 POLICE STAFF TRAVEL/TRAINING EXPENSES

118755 9/29/09 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS $ 37.76 01 72053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
118801 10/6/09 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS $ 222.79 01 64053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
118842 10/14/09 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS $ 328.66 01 74053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
----Vendor Total---- $ 589.21

118756 9/29/09 INGRAM PLASTERING, INC. $ 1,162.73 01 70050 OUTSIDE LABOR

118843 10/14/09 INTOXIMETERS $ 284.23 01 74054 EQUIPMENT/SUPPLIES

118757 9/29/09 IVERSON TREE SERVICE $ 850.00 01 78050 OUTSIDE LABOR

118763 9/29/09 J. W. MARSHALL $ 850.00 01 65051 INFORMATION SYST DEPT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
118808 10/6/09 J. W. MARSHALL $ 200.00 01 65051 INFORMATION SYST DEPT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
----Vendor Total---- $ 1,050.00

118908 10/20/09 JAN ROEHL $ 4,350.00 01 64051 GRANT WRITING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

118800 10/6/09 JEFF HAMILTON $ 127.00 01 67425 CLAIMS EXPENSE

118758 9/29/09 JOHN LEY'S TREE SERVICE $ 3,530.00 01 78050 OUTSIDE LABOR
118895 10/20/09 JOHN LEY'S TREE SERVICE $ 1,385.00 01 78050 OUTSIDE LABOR
----Vendor Total---- $ 4,915.00

118844 10/14/09 JOHNSON ASSOCIATES $ 444.23 01 76047 AUTOMOTIVE PARTS/SUPPLIES

118863 10/14/09 JOSH PLOSSER $ 45.99 01 64030 POLICE STAFF TRAVEL/TRAINING EXPENSES

118805 10/6/09 KAREN M. LOVE $ 200.00 01 67428 EMPLOYEE CUSTOMER SERVICE AWARD

118915 10/23/09 KEN SHEN $ 100.00 01 64030 POLICE STAFF TRAVEL/TRAINING EXPENSES

118759 9/29/09 KENNEDY, ARCHER & HARRAY $ 6,103.30 01 61051 LEGAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

118803 10/6/09 KNAPP MILL & CABINET CO. $ 2,462.03 01 70045 MATERIAL/SUPPLIES
118847 10/14/09 KNAPP MILL & CABINET CO. $ 1.46 01 72095 OPERATIONAL SERVICES/SUPPLIES
----Vendor Total---- $ 2,463.49

118804 10/6/09 LA JOLLA COLONIAL HOTEL MGT INC. $ 23.28 01 20200 HOSTELRY TAX OVERPAYMENT

118760 9/29/09 LEAGUE OF CALIF. CITIES $ 440.00 01 64030 ADMIN DEPT TRAVEL/TRAINING EXP - CONFERENCE FEE

118769 9/29/09 LISA PANETTA $ 53.22 01 72600 REIMBURSEMENT EMERGENCY RESPONSE TRAINING SUPPLIES

118849 10/14/09 LIU OF NA $ 1,448.64 01 21285 RETIREMENT
118849 10/14/09 LIU OF NA $ 187.20 01 65016 RETIREMENT
118849 10/14/09 LIU OF NA $ 187.20 01 67016 RETIREMENT
118849 10/14/09 LIU OF NA $ 748.80 01 69016 RETIREMENT
118849 10/14/09 LIU OF NA $ 187.20 01 70016 RETIREMENT
118849 10/14/09 LIU OF NA $ 1,497.60 01 76016 RETIREMENT
118849 10/14/09 LIU OF NA $ 374.40 01 78016 RETIREMENT
118849 10/14/09 LIU OF NA $ 1,054.80 01 84016 RETIREMENT
----Vendor Total---- $ 5,685.84

118850 10/14/09 M.J.MURPHY $ 20.76 01 76045 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES

118806 10/6/09 MACK5 $ 8,805.00 01 89429 REVIEW OF FOREST THEATER RENOVATION PLANS

118897 10/20/09 MAINSTAY BUSINESS SOLUTIONS $ 1,316.28 01 76050 BEACH CLEANUP OUTSIDE LABOR

118896 10/20/09 MALCOLM KNISELY $ 875.00 01 74053 DOLORES & 5TH TRAFFIC STUDY

118782 9/29/09 MARC WIENER $ 35.75 01 64030 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT

118807 10/6/09 MARINA BACKFLOW COMPANY $ 80.00 01 76050 OUTSIDE LABOR

118762 9/29/09 MARTIN'S IRRIGATION $ 11.23 01 78045 MATERIAL/SUPPLIES

118894 10/20/09 MARY HARMSTON $ 120.00 50 24050 HOMECRAFTERS FEE REFUND

118765 9/29/09 MELVIN MUKAI $ 300.00 01 67428 EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARD
118810 10/6/09 MELVIN MUKAI $ 64.91 01 64030 POLICE STAFF TRAVEL/TRAINING EXPENSES
----Vendor Total---- $ 364.91

118845 10/14/09 MELVYN KALB $ 260.00 01 36276 HISTORIC APPEAL FEE REFUND

118866 10/14/09 MICHAEL K. RACHEL $ 2,962.50 01 69051 BUILDING OFFICIAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

118851 10/14/09 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE $ 365.20 01 76031 CLOTHING EXPENSE
118851 10/14/09 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE $ 136.68 01 76053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
118851 10/14/09 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE $ 75.40 01 78031 CLOTHING EXPENSE
----Vendor Total---- $ 577.28

118856 10/14/09 MONTEREY BAY PLANNING SERVICES $ 1,647.50 01 61051 PLANNING SERVICES - FLANDERS MANSION
118856 10/14/09 MONTEREY BAY PLANNING SERVICES $ 5,553.75 01 69051 PLANNING SERVICES - PLAZA DEL MAR PROJECT
----Vendor Total---- $ 7,201.25

118852 10/14/09 MONTEREY CNTY ANIMAL SERV $ 160.00 01 74053 ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES

118854 10/14/09 MONTEREY COUNTY BUSINESS $ 124.11 01 74053 AUG 2009 BOOKING FEES

118764 9/29/09 MONTEREY COUNTY RECORDER $ 13.00 01 64032 PERMITS,LICENSES & FEES
118809 10/6/09 MONTEREY COUNTY RECORDER $ 16.00 01 64032 PERMITS,LICENSES & FEES
----Vendor Total---- $ 29.00

118898 10/20/09 MONTEREY POLICE DEPT $ 2,210.00 01 74053 QTR ENDED 9/30/09 BOOKING FEES

118853 10/14/09 MONTEREY TIRE SERVICE $ 739.86 01 76048 TIRES/TUBES

118899 10/20/09 MUNICIPAL MAINT EQUIP,INC $ 159.05 01 76047 AUTOMOTIVE PARTS/SUPPLIES

118811 10/6/09 NEILL ENGINEERS CORP. $ 150.00 01 62053 CITY ENGINEER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES

118900 10/20/09 NEW IMAGE LANDSCAPE CO. $ 2,937.50 01 78053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES

118857 10/14/09 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS $ 59.00 01 64036 TELEPHONE
118857 10/14/09 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS $ 681.97 01 65036 TELEPHONE
118857 10/14/09 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS $ 101.28 01 69036 TELEPHONE
118857 10/14/09 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS $ 117.36 01 70036 TELEPHONE
118857 10/14/09 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS $ 489.32 01 72036 TELEPHONE
118857 10/14/09 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS $ 111.41 01 76036 TELEPHONE
118857 10/14/09 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS $ 29.54 01 78036 TELEPHONE
118857 10/14/09 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS $ 24.39 01 82036 TELEPHONE
----Vendor Total---- $ 1,614.27

118901 10/20/09 NFPA $ 150.00 01 72033 ANNUAL DUES FOR FIRE DEPT

118766 9/29/09 NICHOLS CONSULTING ENG. $ 6,475.00 01 64051 CONSTRUCTION TRUCK IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS AND REPORT

118767 9/29/09 NIELSEN BROS. MARKET,INC. $ 20.00 50 24050 SENIORS-HELPING SENIORS PROGRAM EXPENSES

118768 9/29/09 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. $ 67.05 01 69042 OFFICE MACHINE SUPPLIES
118858 10/14/09 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. $ 36.75 01 72042 OFFICE MACHINE SUPPLIES
118858 10/14/09 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. $ 361.50 01 74043 OFFICE SUPPLIES
118858 10/14/09 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. $ 71.42 01 74056 PHOTOGRAPHIC SUPPLIES
118858 10/14/09 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. $ 94.70 01 82043 OFFICE SUPPLIES
118858 10/14/09 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. $ 20.87 01 82055 COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES
118902 10/20/09 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. $ 119.46 01 64042 OFFICE MACHINE SUPPLIES
118902 10/20/09 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. $ 105.82 01 64043 OFFICE SUPPLIES
118902 10/20/09 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. $ 68.26 01 67042 OFFICE MACHINE SUPPLIES
118902 10/20/09 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. $ 119.46 01 69042 OFFICE MACHINE SUPPLIES
118902 10/20/09 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. $ 6.83 01 72042 OFFICE MACHINE SUPPLIES
118902 10/20/09 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. $ 6.83 01 74042 OFFICE MACHINE SUPPLIES
118902 10/20/09 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. $ 6.83 01 76042 OFFICE MACHINE SUPPLIES
118902 10/20/09 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. $ 13.63 01 82042 OFFICE MACHINE SUPPLIES
----Vendor Total---- $ 1,099.41

118859 10/14/09 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO $ 546.62 01 64026 UTILITIES
118859 10/14/09 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO $ 80.19 01 70026 UTILITIES
118859 10/14/09 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO $ 682.82 01 72026 UTILITIES
118859 10/14/09 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO $ 2,661.60 01 74026 UTILITIES
118859 10/14/09 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO $ 1,466.01 01 76026 UTILITIES
118859 10/14/09 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO $ 41.93 01 78026 UTILITIES
118859 10/14/09 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO $ 297.93 01 82026 UTILITIES
118859 10/14/09 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO $ 2,402.26 01 84026 UTILITIES
118859 10/14/09 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO $ 408.54 60 81026 UTILITIES
----Vendor Total---- $ 8,587.90

118816 10/6/09 PAUL TOMASI $ 200.00 01 67428 EMPLOYEE OF THE YEAR AWARD

118770 9/29/09 PENINSUL HYDRONICS INC. $ 276.71 01 70050 OUTSIDE LABOR
118861 10/14/09 PENINSUL HYDRONICS INC. $ 528.36 01 70050 OUTSIDE LABOR
----Vendor Total---- $ 805.07

118860 10/14/09 PENINSULA MESSENGER SERVICE $ 4,320.00 01 64204 MAIL SERVICE CONTRACT

118903 10/20/09 PERRY & FREEMAN LAW OFFCE $ 7,900.00 01 61051 LEGAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

118862 10/14/09 PETTY CASH - RECREATION $ 53.90 01 82055 COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES
118904 10/20/09 PETTY CASH-ADMINISTRATION $ 28.00 01 64030 TRAINING/PERSONAL EXP.
118904 10/20/09 PETTY CASH-ADMINISTRATION $ 12.81 01 64038 POSTAGE
118904 10/20/09 PETTY CASH-ADMINISTRATION $ 7.99 01 64043 OFFICE SUPPLIES
118904 10/20/09 PETTY CASH-ADMINISTRATION $ 58.17 01 67043 OFFICE SUPPLIES
118904 10/20/09 PETTY CASH-ADMINISTRATION $ 55.00 01 67130 EMPLOYEE IMMUNIZATION PROGRAM
118904 10/20/09 PETTY CASH-ADMINISTRATION $ 60.00 01 67428 EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION
----Vendor Total---- $ 275.87

118771 9/29/09 PITNEY BOWES $ 670.11 01 88818 POSTAGE METER LEASE PAYMENT

118905 10/20/09 PMC $ 3,113.75 50 24050 CARMEL SANDS PROJECT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

118906 10/20/09 PROFESSIONAL EXCHANGE SERVICE CORP $ 70.90 01 67051 PHONE ANSWERING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

118864 10/14/09 PROFESSIONAL PROP MAINT $ 7,047.80 01 70053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES

118812 10/6/09 PROPERTY SERV/MAINTENANCE $ 1,040.00 01 78053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES

118772 9/29/09 PRUNEYARD PLAZA HOTEL $ 605.40 01 64030 POLICE STAFF TRAVEL/TRAINING EXPENSES

118813 10/6/09 PUBLIC STORAGE $ 286.00 01 67053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES

118865 10/14/09 QUINN COMPANY $ 517.13 01 76049 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE

118907 10/20/09 R&B EXCAVATING, INC. $ 8,096.28 01 89640 CARMEL BEACH SAND REPLENISHMENTS

118761 9/29/09 RACHELLE D. LIGHTFOOT $ 250.00 01 64030 POLICE STAFF
TRAVEL/TRAINING EXPENSES
118848 10/14/09 RACHELLE D. LIGHTFOOT $ 250.00 01 64030 POLICE STAFF TRAVEL/TRAINING EXPENSES
----Vendor Total---- $ 500.00

118774 9/29/09 RICHARD PETTY ELECTRIC $ 2,225.00 01 70050 LIBRARY GENERATOR WORK + FIRE DEPT ELECTRICAL WORK

118867 10/14/09 RICHARD SHEA $ 199.85 01 67428 EMPLOYEE AWARDS

118802 10/6/09 ROBERT S. JAQUES $ 4,100.00 01 76055 STORM WATER RUNOFF PROGRAM EXPENSES

118831 10/14/09 RYAN RANCH PRINTERS $ 186.83 01 82055 COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES

118796 10/6/09 SEAN CONROY $ 14.58 01 64030 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT

118870 10/14/09 SERGIO VILLARREAL GARDEN & LANDSCAPE $ 886.92 01 76050 OUTSIDE LABOR

118814 10/6/09 SERVICEMASTER OF MTY.CO. $ 452.60 01 72095 OPERATIONAL SERVICES/SUPPLIES
118869 10/14/09 SERVICEMASTER OF MTY.CO. $ 950.00 01 70050 OUTSIDE LABOR
----Vendor Total---- $ 1,402.60

118871 10/14/09 SKIPS ONE STOP MONTEREY $ 55.52 01 76047 AUTOMOTIVE PARTS/SUPPLIES

118773 9/29/09 STEVE RANA $ 838.39 01 64030 POLICE STAFF TRAVEL EXPENSES + DETECTIVE VEHICLE DMV FEES

118872 10/14/09 SUMMIT UNIFORMS $ 10.93 01 74031 CLOTHING EXPENSE

118815 10/6/09 SUNSET CULTURAL CTR. INC. $ 170,000.00 01 80900 2ND QTR FY 2009/10 SUNSET CENTER ENABLING GRANT
118873 10/14/09 SUNSET CULTURAL CTR. INC. $ 5,000.00 01 64051 REIMBURSEMENT FOR PORTION OF ART & FILM FESTIVAL EXPENSES
----Vendor Total---- $ 175,000.00

118874 10/14/09 THE DUPLICATION CONNECTION $ 21.65 01 64034 DOCUMENTS/PUBLICATIONS

118775 9/29/09 THOMSON WEST $ 2,154.73 01 61034 DOCUMENTS/PUBLICATIONS

118776 9/29/09 T-MOBILE $ 259.76 01 74053 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES

118817 10/6/09 TORO PETROLEUM $ 13,674.76 01 76046 FUEL

118916 10/23/09 TRAINING INNOVATIONS, INC $ 300.00 01 64030 POLICE STAFF TRAVEL/TRAINING EXPENSES

118777 9/29/09 TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT $ 1,900.00 01 67424 WORKERS COMP SELF-FUNDED RUN-OUT CLAIMS ADMIN EXP

118909 10/20/09 TRUCKSIS ENTERPRISES,INC. $ 200.00 01 69055 INSTALL/TAKE DOWN PAC REP THEATRE BANNERS

118875 10/14/09 ULTRAMAX $ 2,268.00 01 74057 SAFETY EQUIPMENT

118818 10/6/09 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA $ 1,800.00 01 91811 ANNUAL BANK FEES FOR BOND DEBT TRUSTEE ADMINISTRATION

118876 10/14/09 UPBEAT INCORPORATED $ 614.50 01 76045 MATERIALS/SUPPLIES

118877 10/14/09 VALLEY SAW & GARDEN EQUIP $ 32.84 01 78045 MATERIAL/SUPPLIES

118778 9/29/09 VASILOVICH RESIDENTIAL PLNG & DESIGN $ 276.25 50 24050 VOLUME STUDIES
118878 10/14/09 VASILOVICH RESIDENTIAL PLNG & DESIGN $ 318.75 50 24050 VOLUME STUDIES
----Vendor Total---- $ 595.00

118779 9/29/09 VERIZON WIRELESS $ 69.17 01 60036 TELEPHONE
118779 9/29/09 VERIZON WIRELESS $ 53.80 01 64036 TELEPHONE
118779 9/29/09 VERIZON WIRELESS $ 90.00 01 65036 TELEPHONE
118910 10/20/09 VERIZON WIRELESS $ 34.62 01 60036 TELEPHONE
118910 10/20/09 VERIZON WIRELESS $ 53.80 01 64036 TELEPHONE
118910 10/20/09 VERIZON WIRELESS $ 45.01 01 65036 TELEPHONE
----Vendor Total---- $ 346.40

118780 9/29/09 WELLS FARGO (CREDIT CARD) $ 18.56 01 70031 CLOTHING EXPENSE
118780 9/29/09 WELLS FARGO (CREDIT CARD) $ 344.14 01 70045 MATERIAL/SUPPLIES
118780 9/29/09 WELLS FARGO (CREDIT CARD) $ 188.65 01 82055 COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES
118911 10/20/09 WELLS FARGO (CREDIT CARD) $ 395.00 01 64030 POLICE STAFF TRAVEL/TRAINING EXPENSES
118911 10/20/09 WELLS FARGO (CREDIT CARD) $ 15.00 01 74095 OPERATIONAL SERVICES/SUPPLIES
118912 10/20/09 WELLS FARGO (CREDIT CARD) $ 41.41 01 76046 FUEL
----Vendor Total---- $ 1,002.76

118781 9/29/09 WEST COAST POLICE & FIRE $ 1,423.13 01 88531 EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT FOR POLICE DEPT DETECTIVE VEHICLE

118913 10/20/09 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE CO. $ 28.04 01 76057 SAFETY EQUIPMENT

118783 9/29/09 ZURICH NORTH AMERICA $ 350.00 01 67425 ANNUAL INSURANCE PREMIUM

173 Checks Total: $399,516.72

CITY COUNCIL: Resolution Amending Consultant Services Agreement with Pacific Municipal Consultants (PMC) for Carmel Sands Lodge Redevelopment Project

Meeting Date: 6 October 2009
Prepared by: Sean Conroy, Planning & Building Services Manager

City Council
Agenda Item Summary

Name: Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to amend the Consultant Services Agreement with Pacific Municipal Consultants (PMC) to prepare an Initial Study and subsequent environmental documents for the Carmel Sands Lodge redevelopment project in the additional amount of $18,524.

Description: On September 9, 2008, the City authorized a contract with PMC in an amount not to exceed $23,000 to prepare an Initial Study for the Carmel Sands redevelopment project, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Since then, the project applicant revised the project description, necessitating a new Initial Study and an additional $18,524. Although the City hires the consultant to perform the analysis, the applicant pays for the contract, so no City funds are required as part of this contract. The City Attorney reviewed the original contract.

Overall Cost:
City Funds: N/A, since applicant pays for the contract.
Funds are deposited into Account #50-24050-2375.
Grant Funds: N/A

Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

Important Considerations: CMC Section 17.60 establishes the City’s standards for complying with CEQA. The proposed contract complies with these standards.

Decision Record: N/A

Reviewed by:

__________________________ _____________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2009-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA AUTHORIZING THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO AMEND A CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH PACIFIC MUNICIPAL CONSULTANTS (PMC) TO PREPARE AN INITIAL STUDY AND SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS FOR THE CARMEL SANDS LODGE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF $18,524

WHEREAS, The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is a unique community that prides itself on
its unique character; and

WHEREAS, the City has adopted a General Plan and Municipal Code that strive to protect the village character through clear policies and regulations; and

WHEREAS, the property owners of the Carmel Sands Lodge propose to redevelop the
site; and

WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to
execute a consulting services agreement with PMC in an amount not to exceed $23,000 on September 9, 2008, for the preparation of an Initial Study and subsequent environmental documents in conformance with CEQA; and

WHEREAS, the applicant has since revised the project description, requiring a new
Initial Study and an additional $18,524; and

WHEREAS, the City received the attached proposal from PMC for the environmental
review.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA does hereby:

Authorize the City Administrator to amend a contract with Pacific Municipal Consultants in the additional amount of $18,524 and place deposited funds into Account #50-24050-2375.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 6th day of October, 2009, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

SIGNED,

________________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR

ATTEST:

__________________________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk

AMENDMENT TO CONSULTANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA AND PACIFIC MUNICIPAL CONSULTANTS
EXECUTED ON 9 SEPTEMBER 2008

II. COMPENSATION
A. City shall pay Consultant for the services identified in the attached Scope of Services in an amount not to exceed $23,000 $41,524 (includes a 10% contingency). Such amount shall constitute full and complete payment by City under this Agreement. Consultant agrees to perform all services required by this Agreement on an ongoing basis until this Agreement is amended or terminated.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, PACIFIC MUNICIPAL CONSULTANTS
CALIFORNIA
By: By:
__________________________ _________________________
Rich Guillen, Date Philip O. Carter Date
City Administrator President

SCOPE OF SERVICES
PMC has prepared this scope of work and budget proposal for a revised Initial Study (IS) for the demolition and redevelopment of the Carmel Sands Motel, as requested by the City. We understand the project will include the demolition of the existing 42-guest room hotel and 120-seat restaurant, and replacement with a new boutique hotel including 42 rooms, a small bar and lounge, a day spa, expanded conference facilities, and underground parking with approximately 76 parking spaces.

Based on our experience and conversations concerning the project, we understand that project aesthetics, parking demand (during both construction and operational phases) as well as potential air quality and noise impacts during the demolition and construction phase are the primary impacts anticipated for this project. Other issues that will be addressed include changes in the planned removal and relocation of oak trees on the site, as well as methods of on-site stormwater retention.

Because the project has been modified to address environmental concerns raised during the public hearing process for the previous version of the project, PMC anticipates the Initial Study will lead to the City’s issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration.

The following tasks are proposed:
Task 1 – Project Initiation and Data Collection
This task will confirm the scope of the Initial Study, involve one meeting with City staff and collection of any additional project materials from the City.

Task 2 - Prepare Initial Study
All sections of the previously-prepared initial study will be modified and augmented as necessary to reflect the revised project plans, as discussed below:
Introduction and Project Description. The formal project description will be modified to reflect changes to the project, summarizing all aspects of project design, construction and operation as proposed. The project description will be based on the project file and latest plans provided by the City, and will be included in a revised Notice of Preparation for the project for distribution by the City.

Aesthetics/Visual Resources. No significant changes are proposed for this section. It is not anticipated the City will require story poles and netting to be erected for the revised project.

Air Quality. Construction-phase air emissions will be recalculated based on the revised project design. The specific truck route to be used for transport of excavated materials will be identified, and mitigation measures included addressing potential air quality impacts along this route. The discussion on greenhouse gases and climate change will be augmented to reflect consistency with the most current Statewide efforts for reducing GHG emissions. Since the project was last reviewed, the Air Resources Board has formally adopted the Climate Change Scoping Plan. This
plan incorporates previously identified early-action items, as well as additional measures intended to reduce emissions, which may be applicable to the Carmel Sands project. This section of the initial study will include discussion on the Scoping Plan, as well as project conformance with applicable plan measures.

Secondly, in January of this year, the Office of Planning and Research issued Preliminary Draft CEQA Guideline Amendments for Greenhouse Gas Emissions, as required by SB97. While these guidelines are in draft form at present, it is appropriate to address these guidelines in the initial study to the extent practical.
Biology. The discussion in this section will reflect changes in the proposed tree
removal/relocation for the project, and will incorporate any applicable requirements included in the Forest and Beach Commission approval documents for these changes.

Hydrology and Water Quality. The Planning Commission requested that additional on site stormwater retention information be provided. PMC will prepare additional discussion, and any associated mitigation measures, based on project drainage information anticipated to be provided by the project applicant in the form of a letter by the architect or engineer.

Land Use and Planning. The project will no longer cause the City’s hotel room cap to be exceeded, therefore, this discussion will be removed from this section.

Noise. The primary noise issue identified during the public hearing process was short term impacts of construction noise on adjacent businesses and restaurants. Following the Planning Commission hearing for the project, we discussed preparing a quantitative noise study which would identify existing noise levels within the immediate area, estimate noise levels during the grading and construction phase of the project, and compare these noise levels to existing levels, as well as applicable noise standards in the general plan. Mitigation measures would be developed to minimize noise to the greatest extent feasible. We propose to subcontract with AMBIENT Consultants, Inc., to prepare this study. AMBIENT’s proposal also includes similar quantitative analysis for the operation of the hotel, however, this may not be necessary based on revisions to the design that have addressed concerns raised during the hearings. If the City desires, the scope can be adjusted to eliminate this task.

Transportation/Traffic. The previous traffic analysis identified only a small number of additional vehicle trips associated with the project, and these were associated with the increase in the number of hotel rooms over the existing number. The revised project proposes a small amount of retail space and net increase in conference space over the existing area, however, these uses are not anticipated to generate substantial vehicle traffic. The traffic discussion will be revised from a quantitative to a qualitative discussion, since the number of hotel rooms (the primary traffic generator) is not proposed to increase, and a formal traffic study is not justified.

Concern was raised during the hearing process about construction traffic impacts on the nearby businesses. It is our understanding the City is working with the project applicant to identify a staging area for construction vehicles to minimize parking impacts to the neighborhood. We will discuss the staging area plan in the initial study.

Geology, Soils and Archaeology, Utilities and Services. No changes are proposed to these sections, as they are not affected by the change in the project design.

PMC will submit the following to the City:

Ten (10) copies each of drafts and screenchecks of the Initial Study.

Twenty (20) copies of the Public Review documents.

Two (2) CDs formatted in WORD for each of the environmental review documents and
one (1) CD) in print ready form.

Task 3 –Monitoring Matrix
As required by CEQA, final documentation will include a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) which identifies the timing, responsibility and monitoring of any adopted mitigation measures and conditions of approval. The MMRP, required by CEQA for any project that has mitigation measures, will be in table format for ease of use by the City during project implementation and construction.

Task 4 – Response to Comments
Although not required by CEQA, due to the potential for community concern, we have also provided an estimate for responding to public comment on the Initial Study. Our estimate is based on a reasonable number of comment letters.

Task 5 - Meetings
PMC assumes a total of two (2) staff-level meetings to discuss the project and/or the findings of the environmental review (one of these being at project initiation as outlined under Task 1). PMC assumes that the City will take the primary role in the preparation and presentation of the project and environmental information to the public and the City’s decision making bodies. If the City decides during the course of the project to have PMC take on this role, we can adjust the scope of work as needed.

Other Tasks
PMC will consult with, coordinate with, prepare, and file all necessary documentation with appropriate agencies consistent with CEQA requirements.
In the interest of cost savings, if the City would like to assume any of the tasks outlined above, PMC
is happy to modify the scope. Alternatively, if the City requests additional assistance for these or
other tasks, PMC will scope them separately.
Continued >
22
PROJECT BUDGET
For budgeting purposes, all tasks utilize an averaged billing rate of $120 hour. This averaged rate
assumes staff resources at the Assistant Planner, Senior Planner/Project Manager, Specialist and
Principal levels.
Project Initiation/Data Collection 3 hours $ 360
Initial Study Revision 50 hours $ 6,000
Response to Public Comments 10 hours $ 1,200
Monitoring Matrix 4 hours $ 480
Meetings (2 Meetings with Staff) 5 hours $ 600
Management/ Coordination/Noticing 10 hours $ 1,200
Sub Total 82 Hours $ 9,840
Noise and Vibration Analysis (including 10% mark-up) $ 6,600
Direct Costs (Copies/mailings/incidentals) $ 400
TOTAL $ 16,840
PROJECT SCHEDULE
PMC anticipates the following schedule for preparation of the revised initial study for this project.

All timeframes are from issuance of the Notice to Proceed by the City. A total of 17 weeks are anticipated to be required.

Complete Technical Evaluations / Review Project Reports 3 weeks
Submit Draft Environmental Initial Study 6 weeks
City Review and Comment 10 weeks
Submit Public Review Copy of Environmental Initial Study 12 weeks
Public Review Period (21 days) 15 weeks
Respond to Public Comments (if required) 17 weeks

CITY COUNCIL: Resolution Authorizing $342,242 Year-End Departmental Budget Transfers & $8,223.80 Transfer in Unspent Grant Revenues for FT 2008/09

Meeting Date: October 6, 2009
Prepared by: Joyce Giuffre, Admin. Services Director

City Council
Agenda Item Summary

Name: Consideration of a Resolution authorizing $342,242 in year-end departmental budget transfers and an $8,223.80 transfer in unspent grant revenues for fiscal year 2008/09 to comply with state financial restrictions.

Description: City policies require that City Council approve year-end budget transfers between departments. Council also must approve transferring grant revenues received, but unspent by the end of fiscal year 2008/09, to the appropriate grant fund accounts. This Resolution authorizes the FY 2008/09 year-end departmental budget transfers and authorizes transferring unspent Public Safety Augmentation funds received in FY 2008/09 from the General Fund to the appropriate grant fund account until expenditures are made in future fiscal years.

Year-end Departmental Budget Transfers
At the end of each fiscal year, a report highlighting department budget to actual expenditure is reviewed. If necessary, transfers of budget monies within a department are made from one line item to another. For fiscal year 2008/09, department line item budget overages were covered by unspent monies from other line items within the same department, except for the departments listed in the top portion of attached Exhibit “A”.

Transfers from other departments and from the Workers Compensation Reserve Fund may be made to cover the expenditure budget overages. With the exception of the transfer from the Workers Compensation Reserve fund, these transfers do not increase the total General Fund expenditures budget. Rather, they shift monies from one line item to another.

Public Safety Augmentation Funds - $8,223.80
Proposition 172 mandates that Public Safety Augmentation Funds must be spent for public safety. The City has two Grants Reserve Fund accounts for Public Safety Augmentation monies:

Account 21-24021-0528 for Police Services, with a current balance of $12,268.54; and Account 21-24021-0476 for Fire Services, with a current balance of $10,955.78.

In FY 2008/09, the City received $8,223.80 in new Public Safety Augmentation Funds.
Staff recommends that 50% of the monies be transferred to Police Services Account 21-24021-0528 and the other 50% to Fire Services Account 21-24021-0476 for future public safety expenditures.

Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution to authorize the FY 2008/09 year-end departmental budget transfers and the year-end transfers of unspent grant revenues from the General Fund to the appropriate reserve accounts. By adopting the Resolution, the City complies with both City policies regarding budget transfers and with State restrictions on the use of Public Safety Augmentation Funds.

Important Considerations: None

Decision Record: Resolution 2008-70 (October 7, 2008), which approved similar year-end transfers.

Reviewed by:

______________________________ _________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2009 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA AUTHORIZING YEAR-END DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET TRANSFERS OF $342,242 AND TRANSFERS OF $8,223.80 IN UNSPENT GRANT REVENUES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008/09 TO COMPLY WITH STATE FINANCIAL RESTRICTIONS
________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS, year-end budget transfers between departments require City Council approval; and

WHEREAS, any Public Safety Augmentation monies received in fiscal year 2008/09 but not expended should be transferred to the appropriate grants reserve fund and returned to the General Fund for authorized expenditures during the next fiscal year.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DOES:

1. Authorize FY 2008/09 budget transfers totaling $342,242 to and from the departments per Exhibit “A”.

2. Authorize the transfer of Public Safety Augmentation funds of $8,223.80 received but not spent in fiscal year 2008/09 from the General Fund to Grants Reserve Fund accounts (50% to Police Services Account 21-24021-0528 and 50% to Fire Services Account 21-24021-0476) for future expenditures for public safety, as mandated by Proposition 172.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE SEA this 6th day of October 2009, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

SIGNED:

______________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR

ATTEST:

_________________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk

City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
FY 2008-09 Final Departmental Budget Adjustments
EXHIBIT A
Dept Acct # Description
Transfer To (From)
Legal 61034 Documents/Publications $ 1 ,223
Legal 61051 Professional Svcs $ 3 22,898
Information Syst 65045 Materials/Supplies $ 5 ,256
Administrative Services 67424 Workers Comp-Self Funded Claims $ 1 2,865
Subtotal - Transfer To $ 3 42,242
Administration 64051 Professional Services $ ( 10,967)
Administrative Svcs 67010 Salaries $ ( 38,266)
Administrative Svcs 67053 Contractual Services $ ( 12,732)
Community Plng/Bldg 69051 Professional Services $ ( 81,681)
Police Department 74010 Salaries $ ( 55,669)
Police Department 74011 Overtime $ ( 62,287)
Public Works 76010 Salaries $ ( 19,815)
Public Works 76055 Storm Water Runoff Program $ ( 27,960)
Community Services 82010 Salaries $ ( 20,000)
Workers Comp-Self Funded 17-10007 Workers Compensation Reserve $ ( 12,865)
Subtotal - Transfer From $ (342,242)

CITY COUNCIL: Resolution for City Cosponsorship with HML Board of Trustees & Carmel Public Library Foundation for Donor Appreciation Reception

City Council
Agenda Item Summary

Name: Consideration of a Resolution approving and authorizing the City cosponsorship of a donor appreciation reception on October 25, 2009 with the Harrison Memorial Library Board of Trustees and the Carmel Public Library Foundation.

Description: City Policy C89-47 requires support groups to obtain City Council approval to co-sponsor events at which alcohol is served. The Library Board of Trustees and Carmel Public Library Foundation (CPLF) request the City to approve and co-sponsor a donor appreciation reception at Harrison Memorial Library on October 25, 2009.

Overall Cost:
City Funds: None. The Carmel Public Library Foundation will pay all event costs.
Grant Funds: N/A

Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

Important Considerations: This afternoon event, scheduled for Sunday, October 25th at the Harrison Memorial Library, is an opportunity to thank approximately 100 CPLF benefactors and friends. This event coincides with CPLF’s Annual Campaign direct mailing, which begins the first week in November.

The Carmel Public Library Foundation will obtain a Daily License Permit from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control to serve wine at this event and will pay for all expenses incurred by this event.

Decision Record: None.

Reviewed by:

______________________________ _________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2009-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY CO-SPONSORSHIP OF A DONOR APPRECIATION RECEPTION AT HARRISON MEMORIAL LIBRARY ON OCTOBER 25, 2009

WHEREAS, the City’s Support Groups Policy requires support groups to obtain City Council approval to co-sponsor events at which alcohol is served; and

WHEREAS, the Library Board of Trustees and the Carmel Public Library Foundation request approval and City co-sponsorship of a Donor Appreciation event at the Harrison Memorial Library on October 25, 2009;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DOES:

1. Approve and authorize co-sponsorship of a Donor Appreciation event with the Harrison Memorial Library Board of Trustees and the Carmel Public Library Foundation on October 25, 2009.

2. Authorize the City Administrator to notify the Harrison Memorial Library Board of Trustees and Carmel Public Library Foundation of the Council’s agreement to co-sponsor the event.

3. Authorize the City Administrator to officially notify the City’s insurance carrier of the co-sponsorship.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 6th day of October, 2009, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

SIGNED:

_______________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR

ATTEST:

______________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk

CITY COUNCIL: Resolution Authorizing Grant Application to MPRPD fpr Dune Habitat Restoration & Protection, etc., at Carmel Beach

Meeting Date: October 6, 2009
Prepared by: Mike Branson

City Council
Agenda Item Summary

Name: Consideration of a Resolution authorizing a grant application to the Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District for dune habitat restoration and protection, ADA access improvements, and the installation of interpretive signs in the Del Mar and North Dunes areas of Carmel Beach.

Description: The Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District has available grants for projects related to parks, open space, and coastal preservation. The City recently adopted a Master Plan for the Del Mar and North Dunes areas of Carmel Beach, including provisions to restore and protect the native dune habitat, improve ADA accessibility, and place interpretive signs about the beach and dune habitats. Staff proposes to use grant funds to achieve some of these Master Plan goals. The grant guidelines and application are attached.

Overall Cost:
City Funds: currently none – matching fund are encouraged.
Grant Funds: $10,000 requested

Staff Recommendation: Authorize the grant application to the Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District for dune habitat restoration and protection, improvement of ADA access, and placement interpretive signs in the Del Mar and North Dunes areas of Carmel Beach.

Important Considerations: Priority consideration of community and neighborhood park and open space improvement projects that may be considered for funding include (but are not limited to) the following:
1. Projects that increase the safety of park users, particularly young children e.g. replacing older playground equipment with newer, safer equipment.

2. Projects that enhance ADA accessibility.

3. Projects that enhance public awareness and appreciation of parks, recreation and open space, such as trails, overlooks, benches, interpretive signage programs.

4. Projects that involve the acquisition of land that will be used for permanent public parks or open space.

5. Projects that enhance coastal preservation efforts.

Decision Record: The Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District awarded the city $8,500 in FY 2006-07 for facility improvements to Forest Hill Park, and $10,000 in FY 2007-08 for construction of a new footbridge in Mission Trail Nature Preserve.

Reviewed by:

______________________________ _________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2009-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF A GRANT REQUEST TO THE MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL PARKS DISTRICT FOR DUNE HABITAT RESTORATION AND PROTECTION, IMPROVEMENTS TO ADA ACCESSIBILITY, AND INSTALLATION OF INTERPRETIVE SIGNS IN THE DEL MAR AND NORTH DUNES AREAS OF CARMEL BEACH
__________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS, the Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District has made available grants for parks, open space, and coastal preservation projects within its boundaries; and

WHEREAS, local public agencies such as the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea may apply for
the grants; and

WHEREAS, the City approved a Master Plan for the Del Mar and North Dunes area of Carmel Beach which identifies goals for habitat improvements and protection, improving ADA access, and installing interpretive signs; and

WHEREAS, the grant application filing deadline is October 9, 2009; and

WHEREAS, City Policy C99-04, as amended, requires City Council approval for filing of grant applications.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DOES:

1. Authorize a grant application to the Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District for dune habitat restoration and protection, improvements to ADA access, and installation of interpretive signs in the Del Mar and North Dunes areas of Carmel Beach.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 6th day of October 2009, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

SIGNED,

________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR

ATTEST:

________________________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT PARKS, OPEN SPACE, AND COASTAL
PRESERVATION GRANT PROGRAM GRANT GUIDELINES

The MPRPD Parks, Open Space and Coastal Preservation Grant program was established to assist local public agencies and community groups with funding for improvements of community and neighborhood parks, open space and preservation of coastal areas. Funding for the program is from the MPRPD Parks, Open Space and Coastal Preservation Assessment District revenues. For FY2009/10, a total of $70,000 is available for allocation to eligible projects.

STATEMENT OF INTENT
The primary objective of the grant program is to provide funding for improvements or significant repairs/replacements at neighborhood community park facilities, and open space and coastal areas. The District recognizes the funding challenges facing local communities, particularly in the area of parks and recreation. The aim of the District is to promote parks and open space projects and to provide funding assistance to local agencies and community groups for the improvement, development, and acquisition of park and open space areas in the communities and neighborhoods where residents live.

Priority consideration of community and neighborhood park and open space improvement projects that may be considered for funding include (but are not limited to) the following:
1. Projects that increase the safety of park users, particularly young children e.g. replacing older playground equipment with newer, safer equipment.

2. Projects that enhance ADA accessibility.

3. Projects that enhance public awareness and appreciation of parks, recreation and open space, such as trails, overlooks, benches, interpretive signage programs.

4. Projects that involve the acquisition of land that will be used for permanent public parks or open space.

5. Projects that enhance coastal preservation efforts.

Any appraisal, legal, escrow, or other acquisition, development, or improvement related activities shall be managed by the participating jurisdiction.

APPLICATION PROCESS
The funding and application process will be kept simple, affording agencies and groups flexibility and discretion, with minimum paperwork and bureaucracy. This will also allow the District to keep the administrative costs associated with the program to a minimum.

1. Applicants shall submit in writing to the District with specific projects for which they propose to utilize MPRPD grant funds. Projects may include facility development and/or replacement, related direct capital costs, and land acquisitions. Costs for normal maintenance and operations, administrative overhead, staff time, insurance and other ongoing costs are not eligible. Applications shall include,
as a minimum, the following information:

• Name and location of the proposed project.
• Brief description of the proposed project. Provide photos where appropriate.
• Describe any safety, accessibility, and open space improvements included in the project.
• Describe how the proposed project is consistent with the jurisdiction's General Plan parks and open space goals and policies.
• Total cost of the proposed project and requested funding. Matching funds from the participating jurisdiction and/or other agencies are encouraged.
• Anticipated long-term maintenance costs and a statement of the jurisdiction's ability to maintain the project.
• How the proposed projects relates to the mission and goals of the Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District.

2. Applicants may include multiple projects in their application for grant funds.

3. Applicants may accumulate grant funds for a period of generally not more than three years, during which time the District would hold such funds. Any interest earnings would remain with the District.

4. As a condition of agreement, the participating jurisdiction shall indemnify the District for any third-party claims in connection with projects funded by the MPRPD grant program.

5. Payments for approved projects shall be made to the jurisdiction based on a reimbursement of actual costs. No advance payments will be made by the District to the participating jurisdiction unless specifically approved by the MPRPD Board.

6. MPRPD funding or participating projects shall be recognized through appropriate site signage or other means as approved by the participating jurisdiction and the MPRPD Board.

7. Community organizations may submit projects for consideration with a public agency co-sponsor required.

August 2009
© Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District
Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District
Parks, Open Space and Coastal Preservation
Community/Neighborhood Grant Program Application Form

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONTACT:
JOE SPLANE
FINANCE & ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES MANAGER
60 Garden Court, Suite 325
Monterey, Ca. 93940
tel. 831.372.3196 x5
fax 831.372.3197
email: splane@mprpd.org

Submit grant applications and supporting documentation to the above address. GRANT APPLICATIONS ARE DUE BY OCTOBER 9, 2009. Grant awards will be announced in November 2009.

REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS
Please use the following checklist to ensure that you have included the following documents to accompany your application
List of applicant organization Board of Directors with community affiliations
Most recent, completed 2 year audited financial statements
Agency/Organization’s current annual operating budget
Project budget and budget narrative

Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District
Parks, Open Space and Coastal Preservation
Community/Neighborhood Grant Program Application Form
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
Organization Name: City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Executive Director: Rich Guillen
City Administrator
Street Address: P.O. Box CC
City/Zip Code: Carmel, 93921
Contact Person: Mike Branson Title: City Forester
Contact Phone #: 831-620-2070 Contact Email: mbranson@ci.carmel.ca.us

MISSION STATEMENT
Briefly summarize the mission of your organization: (Approximately 100 Words)
The mission of the Public Services Department of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is to provide and maintain public services, facilities, and equipment, as established and assigned by the City Council and State Law, that contribute to the health, safety, and well-being of the community and to do so in an efficient and cost effective manner that minimizes detrimental effects to the environment. The Department is responsible for the maintenance of and improvements to the urban forest, all City parks, Carmel Beach, pavement, sidewalks, signage, storm drains, as well as the City fleet of vehicles.

GRANT REQUEST
Name of project you want funding for: (If applicable)
Del Mar and north dunes improvements.

How much are you requesting? $ 10,000 Current Organization Annual Operating Budget:
$13,094,894 – City Budget for FY 2009-10
($ 469,290 – Forest, Parks, and Beach)
($1,170,142 – Public Works)

PROJECT SUMMARY
Describe your project (include why you need our support, and how you plan to implement your project): (Up to 200 Words)

Our project is aimed at implementing the goals of the Del Mar Master Plan. This plan aims to restore sections of the native Carmel dune habitat with a focus on protecting the endangered Tidestrom’s lupine and threatened California black legless lizard. The plan also includes construction of an ADA accessible boardwalk and viewing platform to provide a natural beach experience for disabled visitors and installing interpretive signs informing visitors of the uniqueness of the dune environment and the special species that live there.

A dune restoration and enhancement plan has been developed which outlines the process and procedures to achieve the dune protection goals.

We hope for support from the MPRPD to help the City of Carmel achieve the goals of the master plan for the future enjoyment of the thousands of visitors to Carmel Beach. Implementation will be achieved through the use of volunteers, contractors, and city staff.

WHO DO YOU SERVE
What geographic area does your project serve? (city, county and, if possible, neighborhoods)
Carmel Beach is located within the city limits of Carmel-by-the-Sea and is the second largest unit of the City park system. Carmel Beach is one of the signature icons of Carmel-by-the-Sea and is recognized by many travel publications as one of the best beaches in the country, if not the world. The beach area serves the residents of Carmel, residents of the Monterey Peninsula and Monterey county, and thousands of visitors from around the globe.

OBJECTIVES
Please indicate which of the following objectives your project addresses: (check all that apply)
Increase the safety of park users, particularly young children
Enhance ADA accessibility to park and recreation facilities
Enhance public awareness and appreciation of parks, recreation, and open space
Increase the amount of permanent public parks or open space
Enhance coastal preservation

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Describe your project below. Be sure to address the following points: (500 words maximum)
􀁹 Name and location of the proposed project.
􀁹 Describe any safety, accessibility, and open space improvements included in the project.
􀁹 Describe how the project is consistent with the applicable jurisdiction’s General Plan parks and open space goals and policies.
􀁹 Identify the total cost of the proposed project and the level of funding requested. Matching funds are encouraged.
􀁹 Discuss relevant partnerships and collaborations.
􀁹 Discuss applicable long term maintenance costs, including a statement of the jurisdiction’s ability to maintain the project.
􀁹 Explain why this work is important and how it meets the priorities of the Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District.

Description: (500 words maximum)
The Del Mar and north dunes area of Carmel Beach encompass the most visited and least visited sections of Carmel Beach. The Del Mar area is located at the western end of Ocean Ave. and is the place most visitors see Carmel Beach for the first time. There is public parking and public restrooms at this location and a short walk to the edge of the dune slopes provides a panoramic view of Carmel Bay.

The north dunes are located to the north of the Del Mar area and are a quiet retreat from the hustle of Ocean Ave. This area has some of the last remnants of native dune habitat along Carmel Beach and is used mostly by locals to sunbathe, picnic, and pass through to the waterfront area.

Our project aims to restore sections of the native Carmel dune habitat with a focus on protecting the endangered Tidestrom’s lupine and threatened California black legless lizard. The plan also includes construction of an ADA accessible boardwalk and viewing platform to provide a natural beach experience for disabled visitors and installing interpretive signs informing visitors of the uniqueness of the dune environment and the special species that live there.

This project will meet three of the grant objectives of the MPRPD: enhance ADA access, enhance coastal preservation and enhance public awareness and appreciation of parks, recreation, and open space. This work if fully, or even partially achieved, will be seen by thousands of people each year and hopefully lead to an enhanced visit for all visitors to Carmel Beach.

The Del Mar master plan was recently adopted and a specific budget has not yet been fully developed for all of the work involved. The ADA walkway is estimated to cost between $4,000 and $8,000 depending on the materials and labor source. The sign estimate is $800 - $1,500 per sign depending on the materials and labor.

The dune restoration is more difficult to put a cost on estimate because of the many factors to be considered in each area such as labor source, level of prep work, amount of new plant material, level of follow-up required, etc.

While no funding is included in the current city budget for this project it will take a few years of efforts to achieve all of the master plan goals and some city funding may be available in the future.

As far as collaborations on this project, there has been some interest expressed by the Carmel Garden Club to assist with a portion of the dune restoration and preservation work. The city also works with the students and faculty of the Hilton Bialek Habitat and Carmel High School ROP programs to propagate and plant many plants along the Scenic Road walkway and other park areas each year. The Carmel Residents Association may also be part of the volunteer efforts in this endeavor.

Long term maintenance will probably rely on the direction of city staff and the periodic use of volunteers or longterm collaborations with volunteer groups.

This project is a long term goal for the City of Carmel and its residents to preserve a special part of this community and its historic legacy with the natural environment.

OUTCOMES
What are the main outcomes you expect to see from your project and this request? Please be as specific as possible in describing tangible results. (100 Words)

Expected outcomes of this project are:
Greater recognition and appreciation of the diverse Carmel Beach dune ecosystem.
Protection and enhancement of the Tidestrom’s lupine and California black legless lizard habitat.
Improved beach experience and available scenic vistas for disabled visitors to Carmel Beach.
Improved public education on the need to protect the dune plants and animals and reduce the human impact on the dune habitat.

OTHER INFORMATION
Is there any other information that we might need to understand your organization and/or the unique needs of the community that your program serves? (100 Words)

Carmel-by-the-Sea has many parks of various sizes that serve the passive and active recreational needs of the residents and visitors to the city. Carmel Beach is probably the most visited and well known park, but is considered an environmentally sensitive habitat and is home to two threatened species.

The city of Carmel-by-the-Sea is committed to the preservation and protection of the unique resources Carmel Beach to offers the diverse range of visitors to the Carmel-by-the-Sea.

MORE ABOUT YOUR ORGANIZATION
Financial Information
Tax Status:
501(c)3 Public Charity
Public Agency
School District
Other Non-profit Org:
501 (c)3 Private Foundation
IRS Employer ID #: 94-6000306

ABOUT YOUR BUDGET
Total Project Budget (If Applicable): $ 50,000 estimate – see discussion
Amount Requested: $ 10,000

OTHER MAJOR FUNDING SOURCES
Name of Source Amount Status
None at the present time.

BUDGET AND BUDGET NARRATIVE
Please attach a budget as well as descriptive budget narrative that corresponds with your request. For each line item in the budget, please provide a brief description of how the requested funds will be used.

For example, “Transportation: $2,500.00 – will allow bus transportation for 35 students to attend a 7-day outdoor nature education program.”

PRINT NAME OF INDIVIDUAL COMPLETING APPLICATION: __MIKE BRANSON________________
SIGNATURE: ______________________________________
DATE: ___SEPTEMBER 28, 2009______________________

CITY COUNCIL: Resolution Approving Grant Application to the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District for Trolley Service

Meeting Date: October 6, 2009
Prepared by: Heidi Burch

City Council
Agenda Item Summary

Name: Consideration of a Resolution approving the grant application to the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District for $132,194 for the Carmel-by-the-Sea trolley service.

Description: The Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District requested local cities to apply for $1.36 million in grant funding available through AB2766 for projects that reduce motor vehicle emissions. On June 12, 2009, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea submitted an application requesting $132,194 in funding for its summer trolley, which served the City on weekends between Memorial Day and Labor Day. The application is included in Exhibit “A”.

On September 16, 2009, the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District Board of Directors awarded the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea a grant of $85,000 for the trolley service in FY 2009-2010.

Overall Cost:
City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: $132,194

Staff Recommendation: Approve the grant application submitted to the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District for the Carmel-by-the-Sea trolley service.

Important Considerations: The City will receive the grant contract from the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District within the next few months, at which time the City Council will consider a resolution to approve this contract.

Decision Record: None. This was the first grant application the City has made to the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District.

Reviewed by:

______________________________ _________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2009-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA APPROVING THE GRANT APPLICATION TO THE MONTEREY BAY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT FOR
$132,194 FOR THE CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA TROLLEY SERVICE
__________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS, AB 2766 was enacted by the State Legislature in 1990 to provide funding to local agencies for the purpose of reducing air pollution from motor vehicles and for related planning, monitoring, enforcement and technical studies necessary to implement the California Clean Air Act; and

WHEREAS, the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD) made available $1.38 million in AB 2766 grants for local projects that reduce motor vehicle emissions; and

WHEREAS, the City identified its trolley service as a project with the potential to take many vehicles off its streets, thus reducing emissions and air pollution; and

WHEREAS, the City applied for $132,194 in grant funding to the MBUAPCD for FY 2009-2010 by the application filing deadline of June 15, 2009;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DOES:

1. Approve the grant application submitted to the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District for the Carmel-by-the-Sea trolley service.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 6th day of October 2009, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

SIGNED,

___________________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR

ATTEST:

________________________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk

CITY COUNCIL: Resolution in Support of California Assembly/Senate Joint Resoltuion 49 for a Comprehensive Assessment of Gray Whale

Meeting Date: 6 October 2009
Prepared by: Rich Guillen

City Council
Agenda Item Summary

Name: Consideration of a Resolution in support of California Assembly/Senate Joint Resolution 49, calling on the Federal Government to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the California Gray Whale.

Description: In 1970, the Federal Government protected the California Gray Whale under the Endangered Species Act. At that time, it was estimated that there were only 12,000 California Gray Whales. In 1994, the population had increased to 23,000, so they were taken off the endangered list. In the period from 1999-2000, as a result of mass starvation, the numbers declined by one third, with some scientists estimating the population at less than 14,000.

Since 2001, there have been no comprehensive studies, population estimates or funding
for California Gray Whale research.

In July 2008, the California Assembly and Senate adopted Joint Resolution 49, calling for urgent studies of the major threats facing the Gray Whales. More recently, Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey (D-6) submitted an appropriations request for government funding for a comprehensive study of the threats facing the California Gray Whale.

The City of San Diego has already adopted a resolution supporting this push for federal funding to conduct these studies. Other area cities, including Monterey and Seaside, have similar resolutions planned for their October City Council agendas.

Overall Cost:
City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: N/A

Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

Important Considerations: In 2008, whale watching in California generated $14.3 million in direct revenue, with an additional $68.5 million in indirect revenue, and an estimated 1.3 million participants. Whale watching is an important tourist attraction on the Monterey Peninsula.

Decision Record: None.

Reviewed by:

__________________________ _____________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2009-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA IN SUPPORT OF CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY/SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 49 CALLING ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO UNDERTAKE A COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE CALIFORNIA GRAY WHALE

__________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS, the federal government placed the California Gray Whale on the endangered and threatened species list in 1970 when its estimated population was approximately 12,000 and removed it in 1994 when the population rose to 23,000; and

WHEREAS, a major collapse in 1999 and 2000 is estimated to have wiped out onethird of the total population since 2001; and

WHEREAS, the National Marine Fisheries Service has not published an estimate of the California Gray Whale since 2001; and

WHEREAS, in 2008 the California State Legislature adopted Assembly/Senate Joint Resolution 49 requesting Congress and the President of the United States to call upon the National Marine Fisheries Service to undertake an immediate and comprehensive assessment of the California Gray Whale; and

WHEREAS, there is no current habitat protection for the Pacific Coast Feeding Aggregation in California, Oregon, or the State of Washington; and

WHEREAS, there are inconsistencies in the protection states give to Gray Whales;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DOES:

1. Call on the Federal Government to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the California Gray Whale. This assessment should include all current research covering the migration routes, population dynamics, mortality of the California Gray Whale, and the impacts of threats to the California Gray Whale.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 6th day of October 2009, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

SIGNED,

___________________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR

ATTEST:

________________________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk

CITY COUNCIL: Resolution Accepting $1,000 Donation form Curatorial Work for Devendorf-Galante Historical Collection

Meeting Date: October 6, 2009
Prepared by: Heidi Burch

City Council
Agenda Item Summary

Name: Consideration of a Resolution accepting a donation of $1,000 from Sylvia Odenning to assist with curatorial work for the Devendorf-Galante Historical Collection.

Description: The City received a check for $1,000 from Beverly Hills resident Sylvia Odenning who requests her donation help with curatorial work related to Devendorf-Galante Historical Collection. Mrs. Odenning said, in a conversation with Mayor McCloud, that she had a “soft spot” for the City of Carmel, and asked that her donation go toward cataloguing the Collection.

Staff will establish an account for Devendorf-Galante Historical Collection and deposit this donation into that account.

Overall Cost: City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: $1,000

Staff Recommendation: Approve the Resolution accepting the donation of $1,000; direct staff to establish an account for donations related to the Devendorf-Galante Historical Collection; and deposit this donation into that account.

Important Considerations: City Policy C89-41, Acceptance of Donations and Gifts to the City, requires City Council approval for donations more than $1,000.

Decision Record: None.

Reviewed by:

______________________________ _________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2009-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA ACCEPTING A DONATION OF $1,000 FROM SYLVIA ODENNING TO ASSIST WITH CURATORIAL WORK FOR THE DEVENDORF-GALANTE HISTORICAL COLLECTION

WHEREAS, an Sylvia Odenning generously donated $1,000 to assist with curatorial work for the Devendorf-Galante Historical Collection; and

WHEREAS, the City’s Policy C89-41, Acceptance of Donations and Gifts to the City, requires City Council approval for donations more than $1,000.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DOES:

1. Accept with gratitude the donation of $1,000 from Sylvia Odenning and authorize its deposit into fund to be established the Devendorf-Galante Historical Collection to assisting with cataloguing the collection.

2. Request that the Mayor send a letter of appreciation to Mrs. Odenning on behalf of the City.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 6th day of October 2009, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

SIGNED,

___________________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR

ATTEST:

________________________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk

CITY COUNCIL: Appeal of Planning Commission's Decision to Certify EIR & Deny Plaza del Mar Project

Meeting Date: 6 October 2009
Prepared by: Sean Conroy, Plng & Bldg Services Manager and Brian Roseth, Planning Consultant

City Council
Agenda Item Summary

Name: Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to certify an Environmental Impact Report and deny a project for the demolition of an existing building and the construction of a mixed-use development including a two-level underground parking garage, five market-rate condominiums, two low-income housing units, and commercial floor area. The project location is the SE corner of Dolores and 7th (Homescapes Building). The appellant is John Mandurrago.

Description: On 17 September 2009, the Planning Commission certified an Environmental Impact Report, adopted CEQA findings, and denied all permits for the Plaza del Mar project. The appellant is requesting that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the project.

Overall Cost:
City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: N/A

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

Important Considerations: In December 2008 the City Council granted an appeal and overturned the Planning Commission’s decision to approve this project. The Council remanded all project decisions back to the Planning Commission, adopted findings and provided specific direction on several issues to assist the Commission. Part of this direction was to develop better evidence regarding the feasibility of the adaptive reuse.

The Council also affirmed that demolition of the Burde Building would constitute a significant environmental impact and provided the Commission with guidance on the interaction between CEQA and California housing statutes.

Recent Decision Record:
• 9/10/2008 - Planning Commission certifies and EIR and approves the project.

• 12/2/2008 - City Council adopts findings to overturn the Planning Commission decision.

• 9/17/2009 - Planning Commission adopts findings to certify EIR and deny the project.

• 9/21/2009 - Applicant files an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision.

Reviewed by:

__________________________ _____________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR MCCLOUD AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
THROUGH: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: SEAN CONROY, PLANNING SERVICES MANAGER, AND BRIAN ROSETH, PLANNING CONSULTANT
DATE: 6 OCTOBER 2009
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO CERTIFY AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND DENY A PROJECT FOR THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING BUILDING AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING A TWO-LEVEL UNDERGROUND PARKING GARAGE, FIVE MARKET-RATE CONDOMINIUMS, TWO LOW-INCOME HOUSING UNITS, AND COMMERCIAL FLOOR AREA. THE PROJECT LOCATION IS THE SE CORNER OF DOLORES AND 7TH (HOMESCAPES BUILDING).

THE APPELLANT IS JOHN MANDURRAGO.

I. INTRODUCTION
On 17 September 2009 the Planning Commission certified the Environmental Impact Report, adopted CEQA findings and denied all permits for the Plaza del Mar project.

1 The applicant has appealed the CEQA findings and denial of permits to the City Council.
2 This appeal raises several issues, some of which the Council reviewed during Barbara Livingston’s appeal of the project approval in 2008.

In December 2008 the City Council granted the Livingston appeal and remanded all project decisions back to the Planning Commission. The Council adopted findings and provided specific direction on several issues to assist the Commission.3 Part of this direction was to develop better evidence regarding the feasibility of the adaptive reuse alternative. The Council also affirmed that demolition of the Burde Building would constitute a significant environmental impact and provided the Commission with guidance on the interaction between CEQA and California housing statutes.

1 See attachment #2: Planning Commission Resolution 2009-01 which includes Environmental Findings and Findings for Denial, dated 9/17/09
2 See attachment #1: Letter of appeal, dated 9/16/09
3 See attachment #3: City Council Findings for Decision, dated 12/2/08

In the discussion below, staff has summarized the claims in the appeal and provided a response. This report does not review in detail those issues already covered in prior Planning Commission and City Council Findings. Instead, only a brief response is given and references are provided to the relevant documents, which are attached.

II. RESPONSE TO ISSUES ON APPEAL
Mixed-Use Policies (appeal letter pages 1-2): The appeal claims that the Commission’s decision violates the applicant’s due process rights by raising a new issue, not noted in the Draft EIR or in any previous Staff Report, alleging a violation of the City’s General Plan/Coastal Plan. The appeal also claims that the Findings do not explain why the project is inconsistent with the General Plan/Coastal Plan. The appeal explains that the project was specifically designed to not increase commercial floor area and thereby avoid the need for a conditional use permit. The appeal notes that the project has nearly as much commercial square footage as currently exists on site.

Response: The Commission and staff repeatedly raised the issues related to the General Plan/Coastal Plan mixed-use policies and inadequate commercial floor area (12/13/06, 1/10/07, 5/14/08, 6/11/08 and 7/16/08). The RDEIR discussed these at pages 2-12 and 2-13 where it stated, “the project does not fully conform with the General Plan policies related to mixed-use developments”. The project requires a Use Permit regardless of the amount of commercial space because it includes construction of a parking facility.

The terms “violate” and “inconsistent with the intent of” are distinct. The Commission understood that the project does not “violate” the General Plan regarding mixed-use developments because the three applicable policies are an expression of intent. The policies are not structured to mandate a specific yes/no decision that could be violated. However, the City still has discretion to use the intent of the policies in the General Plan/Coastal Plan as a basis for its decisions. That is why they were adopted.

References:
Planning Commission Findings #3, #4 and #10 dated 9/17/09.
Planning Commission Minutes, dated 12/13/06, 1/10/07, 6/11/08
Staff Reports, dated 12/13/06, 1/10/07, 6/11/08 and 7/16/08
Revised Draft EIR pages 2-12 and 2-13
Architecture (appeal letter pages 3-4): The appeal claims that during the 2006 historic resources appeal the City Council determined that the building is not architecturally important and can be demolished. Therefore, the Planning Commission cannot subsequently determine that demolition of the Burde Building would cause a significant environmental impact on the City’s visual quality resources.

Response: In the 2006 historic resources appeal the City Council considered the architecture of the Burde Building for its historical significance. Specifically, the Council had to determine whether the architecture was so significant that it would qualify as historical even though the building was only 34 years old.4 The Council adopted the following finding:

Finding 34: Based on Findings #30 through #33, above, and pursuant to eligibility
criteria for the California Register of Historic Resources and the Carmel Municipal Code, the bank building does not embody distinctive characteristics of a type,
period, region or method of construction, or present the work of an important
creative individual or possess high artistic value, nor does it make an unusually
strong contribution to history, architecture, engineering or culture.

The preponderance of the evidence does not support the Bank building’s designation as an historic resource. Using the five tests established in National Register
Bulletins #15 and #22, and using the additional test for exceptional importance in the Carmel Municipal Code, the evidence in the record does not support a finding
that the bank building qualifies as historically significant within the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.

Since adopting this finding the Council has twice confirmed that its historical resource conclusions should not be applied to the broader context of whether the building is environmentally significant as a visual quality resource.5 The Council has never stated that the building can be demolished.

References
City Council Findings and Basis for Decision #1, #2, #3 and#4, dated 12/2/08
City Council Actions on the Appeal #1, dated 12/2/08
Planning Commission Findings for Denial #6 and 7, dated 9/17/09
Planning Commission Environmental Findings, dated 9/17/09
Concessions (appeal letter pages 4-5): The appeal claims that the project is not seeking a density bonus and does not need to qualify for one in order to get concessions. The appellant acknowledges that the project violates the Zoning Code and General Plan/LCP but cites authority to waive these violations in the Density Bonus and Other Incentives Statute.

Response: The Planning Commission interprets the statute differently than the applicant. The first two subsections of the statute discuss the mandate for concessions:
65915 (a): When an applicant seeks a density bonus for a housing development within, or for the donation of land for housing within, the jurisdiction of a city…that local jurisdiction shall provide the applicant incentives or concessions for the
production of housing units and child care facilities as prescribed in this section.

4 See attachment #4. This attachment is an excerpt from the City Council’s 2006 Findings.
5 On 2/6/07 and again on 12/2/08.

All cities…shall adopt an ordinance that specifies how compliance with this section
will be implemented.

65915 (b)(1): A city…shall grant one density bonus, the amount of which shall be as specified in subdivision (g), and incentives or concessions as described in
subdivision (d) when an applicant for a housing development seeks and agrees to
construct a housing development, excluding any units permitted by the density bonus awarded pursuant to this section, that will contain at least any one of the
following: [The statute then lists affordable housing categories that must be met by the project].

These subsections are not independent. Subsection (a) establishes the principle that
concessions are mandated when an applicant seeks a density bonus. It functions like a preamble for the entire statute. Subsection (b) establishes the mechanism and makes reference to density bonuses and the concessions. If the subsections are independent, the first subsection is redundant. This result would be contrary to accepted rules for statutory interpretation. All subsections must add meaning and value.

References
Planning Commission Findings for Denial #15 and #16, dated 9/17/09
Housing Development Project (appeal letter pages 5-6): The appeal claims that the Planning Commission erred in finding that the project does not qualify as a “housing development project” as defined in the Housing Accountability Act.

Response: The Commission reviewed the statutory definition of this term and concluded that the commercial aspects of the project disqualify it. Specifically, the second level of commercial/valet parking and the absence of any control over what could occupy the retail spaces (e.g. visitor-serving uses such as art galleries, jewelry stores) both fail to meet the criteria in the definition.

References
City Council Actions on the Appeal #2 (bullet 5)
Planning Commission Finding for Denial #17, dated 9/17/09
Significant Adverse Impacts (appeal letter pages 6-9): The appeal claims that the Planning Commission erred in its CEQA decision because it relied on impacts to visual quality resources instead of the more limited “significant adverse impacts” defined in the Housing Accountability Act.

Response: The Commission and the applicant have different interpretations of the statute.
Section 65589.5 (d)(2) of the statute defines “significant adverse impact” as a:
“Specific, quantifiable, direct and unavoidable impact based on objective, identified
written public health or safety standards, policies or conditions as they existed on
the date the application was deemed complete”.

As defined, “significant adverse impact” is specific to “public health and safety”. It does not address “impacts to the physical environment”.

Section 65915(d)(3) states:
Nothing in this subdivision shall be interpreted to require a local jurisdiction to
grant an incentive or concession that has a specific adverse impact, as defined in
paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of section 65589.5 upon health, safety, or the
physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily
mitigate the significant adverse impact. [Emphasis added]

This second term comes from CEQA. The very first step in the CEQA process is to determine whether a proposed activity may result in a physical change in the environment.

6 The hallmark of CEQA analysis is its demand for comprehensive review and consideration of all identified significant environmental impacts. If the legislature intended to limit the application of CEQA when applied to Housing Development Projects it could have amended CEQA or the CEQA Guidelines.

7 The discretion to adopt CEQA findings and deny the project is supported by another section of the statute, which states:
65589.5 (e) This section also does not relieve the local agency from making one or
more of the findings required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 or otherwise complying with the California Environmental Quality Act

The Commission concluded that the housing statute’s “specific adverse impacts” does not replace the broader scope of environmental impacts used in CEQA. By law, the Commission was obligated to consider all significant impacts, including visual quality.

References
City Council Findings and Basis for Decision #2 through #5, dated 12/2/09
City Council Action on Appeal #2 (bullet #1), dated 12/2/08
Planning Commission Findings for Denial #18 and #20
Planning Commission Environmental Findings, dated 9/17/09

6 PRC Section 21065 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15060.

7 In fact, the CEQA Guidelines were amended in 2008 to address affordable housing projects that met certain thresholds. The Plaza del Mar project does not meet these thresholds. (CEQA Guidelines Article 12.5 Sections 15191 through 15196.)

Coastal Act (appeal letter page 9): The appeal claims that the City must grant concessions from the LCP and cites authority in the Density Bonus and Other Incentives statute as well as Government Code Section 65590 related to affordable housing in the Coastal Zone.

Response: The Planning Commission’s finding addressed the Housing Accountability Act
(HAA). The appellant’s argument is based on the Density Bonus and Other Incentives statute and is not applicable. The appellant’s reference to Section 65590 overstates the statutory requirement; the City is not obligated to approve all requests.

The “or” in the statute allows discretion to offer density bonuses, modified zoning standards, accelerated processing or fee waivers. The City already waives building permit fees in proportion to the number of affordable units in a project and offers density bonuses, reduced parking requirements and increased floor area. These are more than sufficient to implement Section 65590.

References:
Planning Commission Findings for Denial #19, dated 9/17/09
Housing Accountability Act Findings (appeal letter pages 9 and 10): The appeal claims that the Commission erred in finding that project denial was required in order to comply with CEQA and the Coastal Act.

Response: The HAA specifies that a city can deny a Housing Development Project only when one of five circumstances applies. The Planning Commission found that one did apply: compliance with State statutes (CEQA and the Coastal Act) compels denial. The HAA requires that CEQA be implemented. The Commission’s CEQA findings (1) identified a significant impact, (2) found alternatives infeasible, and (3) determined that project benefits did not warrant adoption of overriding considerations. This chain of decisions mandates project denial. The HAA also requires that the Coastal Act be implemented. The project violates LCP requirements to protect significant trees and provide rental units equal in number to the proposed condominiums. The project also fails to implement the intent of the LCP policies for mixed-use developments. Unlike the Density Bonus Statute, the HAA does not override the LCP.

References:
Planning Commission Findings for Denial #18, #19 and #20, dated 9/17/09

III. NEW ISSUES
The appeal letter includes two comments not previously raised during Commission review of the project:

“The applicant will comply with the requirement to retain two significant trees if this incentive is not granted and if the applicant seeks judicial review of the City’s denial of applicant’s request for these incentives”...the applicant is willing to provide [an] equal number of rental units as market rate [units], provided a court should rule, and/or the City finds that the two incentives requested by the applicant are not appropriate. Under this condition the applicant will comply with the City ordinance/General Plan to have [an] equal number of rental units and condominium [units] in the Plaza del Mar project.

While not entirely clear, these appear to withdraw the request for concessions or offer to accept conditions of approval. If implemented, these would eliminate some of the issues that led to project denial.8 However, design revisions would be necessary, especially if the trees are to remain. At present, there are no drawings that would allow review of a revised project.

Further, the offer to withdraw the request for concessions to facilitate project approval indicates that the concessions are not needed to make the project economically feasible.

According to provisions in the Density Bonus Statute9, waivers of development standards must be “required” or “necessary” to make the affordable housing feasible.

IV. RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision.

8 The CEQA issues regarding loss of visual quality resources would still remain. The appellant’s new comments relate to the applicant’s project as submitted—not to an adaptive reuse alternative. The applicant has stated in the record, and the Planning Commission has agreed, that the project is infeasible if the Burde Building is retained.

The concessions, whether approved or denied, will not change this.

9 Sections 65915(d)(1)(A) and 65915(f)


CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION 2009-01
A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND DENYING PERMITS FOR THE PLAZA DEL MAR PROJECT

WHEREAS, the City received and reviewed a project known as Plaza del Mar to be located on the south east corner of Dolores Street and Seventh Avenue; and

WHEREAS, the project includes demolition of existing site improvements and construction of a two-level underground garage plus two stories above grade to be occupied by 4,958 square feet of commercial space and seven residential condominiums units, two of which will be restricted to low-income households for time limits as specified in the Government Code and the Health and Safety Code; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed detailed plans showing the location of buildings and open space, all parking, garage entrances, allocation of commercial and residential space and the project architecture; and

WHEREAS, the City required preparation of an Environmental Impact Report; and

WHEREAS, the final Environmental Impact Report has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and

WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report identified eight project impacts, one of which is significant and cannot feasibly be mitigated ; and

WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Report was presented to the Planning Commission on 17 September 2009; and

WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Environmental Impact Report prior to taking action on the project and has applied its understanding of this information when considering development permits for the project; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that project benefits are insufficient to warrant adoption of overriding findings pursuant to Section 15093(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines; and

WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Report reflects the Planning Commission’s independent judgment and analysis.

NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea does hereby resolve to:

1. Certify the environmental impact report.

2. Adopt all findings above.

3. Deny all project permits

4. Adopt all findings and citations to evidence attached hereto.

AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:

_______________________
Alan Hewer, Chairman

Attest:

___________________
Leslie Fenton
Secretary thereof

Planning Commission Environmental Findings
Plaza del Mar Project
Adopted: 17 September 2009

I. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The project site is a 16,000 square foot parcel of land located in the Service
Commercial Land Use District. Existing improvements on the site include a building constructed in 1972 and a paved parking lot.

2. On 9 September 2001, the project applicant filed an application for development
of this site. The project includes full demolition of all site improvements,
construction of a two-level underground garage, construction of a floor at street
grade to be occupied with a mix of commercial shop spaces and residences plus a second floor level with residences.

Evidence:
• Assessor’s parcel record showing the size and configuration of the site.
• Application materials showing existing and proposed improvements.
• Final EIR, page 1-1 describing the project scope.
• Revised design submittals received for the meeting of 9/10/08.

3. Full approval of the proposed project requires issuance of a Demolition Permit,
Tree Removal Permit, Conditional Use Permit, Design Review Permit, Coastal Development Permit and a Condominium Subdivision Map. Due to the scope of the project and the potential for impacts to historic resources, the City required preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) consistent with the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), prior to taking action on any permits.

Evidence:
• CMC Title 17:
17.48.050 Trees.
17.30.010 Demolition.
17.14.050 Use Permit.
17.14.010 Design Review.
17.52.090 Coastal Development Permit.
• California Subdivision Map Act.

II. FINDINGS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PROCESS
4. The City hired the firm of EIP Associates to prepare the EIR. Impacts identified
in the Draft EIR were:
Biology Impact BR-2: Vegetation removal may result in impacts to nesting birds. (Potentially significant)

Cultural Resources Impact CR-1: Excavation activities during demolition and construction may disturb previously unidentified cultural resources. (Potentially
significant)

Cultural Resources Impact CR-2: During excavation of the project site, the proposed project may encounter unidentified buried archaeological resources or human remains. (Potentially significant)

Noise Impact NO-1: Construction activities associated with the proposed project could generate substantial temporary or periodic noise levels. (Potentially significant)

Noise Impact NO-2: Construction activities associated with the proposed project could generate or expose persons off site to excessive ground-borne vibration. (Potentially significant)

Mitigations to reduce each impact to a level of less-than-significant were identified.

5. The Draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review and comment period beginning on 28 May 2004 and ending on 15 July 2004. The City’s Planning Commission held a public hearing during the comment period. During the comment period the City received comment letters from the following sources:
*Brian T. Congleton, American Institute of Architects (Monterey Bay Chapter)
*Kent L. Seavey
*Richard N. Janick
*Clive and Salley Anne Smith
*Enid Sales, representing the Carmel Preservation Foundation
*Richard F. Barrett

At the public hearings, testimony was received from the following speakers:
*Kent Seavey
*Richard Janick
*Marshall Hydorn
*Brian Congleton
*Ann Bell
*Richard Barrett
Don Kramer
Alan Hewer
*Julie Culver

John Mandurrago-Applicant
Several comments both oral and written (identified above with an asterisk), questioned the EIR conclusion that the bank building was not historic.

Evidence:
• Draft EIR 5/28/04.
• Planning Commission Minutes dated 7/14/04.
• Comment letters.

6. After the close of the public comment period, EIP Associates prepared a Final
EIR. As required by CEQA, the Final EIR responded to each comment received during the 45-day public comment period. A (draft) Final EIR was released in October 2005.

Evidence:
• (draft) Final EIR

7. The (draft) Final EIR reached the same conclusion as in the Draft EIR—the building is not historically significant. Based on this evidence, City staff prepared a Preliminary Determination of Ineligibility for the Historic Resource Inventory. This action was appealed to the Historic Resources Board. The Board granted the appeal. The Board’s action was appealed to the City Council by the applicant. The City Council’s action was to reverse the Board’s action and to determine that:
The Palo Alto Savings and Loan Building (Bank Building) does not qualify as an historic resource. It shall not be listed on the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources and shall not be considered an historic resource for purposes of any environmental review.

Evidence:
• Preliminary Determination of Ineligibility for the Historic Resources Inventory, dated 8/12/2005.
• American Institute of Architects, Monterey Bay Chapter appeal letter, dated
12/14/05.
• Historic Resources Board Minutes, dated 12/16/05.
• Letter of appeal submitted by the project applicant, dated 1/28/06.
• City Council Minutes for meetings dated, 6/6/06, 8/8/06, 10/3/06 and 11/7/06.
• Findings, evidence and conclusions in the Findings for Decision, adopted by
the City Council, dated 11/7/06.

8. Text in the EIR discussing historic resources was revised accordingly. During
the revision process it became evident that conclusions in the EIR regarding
architecture and visual quality resources were no longer valid. During the appeal
hearings there had been a significant amount of new testimony and evidence presented by professionals and lay-people recognizing the existing building on the site as visually and architecturally significant, even if it was not historically significant. The City Council adopted a finding regarding this issue:

The bank building is visually striking. It is an excellent representative of the
Second Bay Area Tradition in architecture. It is modern in design and it reflects a more recent period in the City’s history. It contrasts with earlier
historic styles of design and it adds to the architectural diversity of the City.
At the hearing, architects characterized it as heroic or monumental in design.
There are few buildings in Carmel that share all of these qualities. (Finding #25
adopted by the City Council, 7 November 2006)

The visual quality impact has two aspects. First, as an example of contemporary
architecture from the 1970’s, its loss would diminish the diversity of architecture in the City. Architectural diversity is of general benefit to the community and has been an important local issue. Second, the City would lose an individually significant building of great visual quality designed by an important architect. This is a specific benefit to the community.

If demolished, the first aspect can be recovered by constructing a new building
that reflects its time and enhances architectural diversity. The second aspect of
the visual quality impact cannot be recovered: once an architecturally important
building is demolished, it is gone forever. Using the visual impact threshold
already established in the 2005 Draft EIR, the Planning Commission identified
this loss as a significant environmental impact (hereinafter called VQ-1).
Mitigating this impact would require incorporating some or all of the existing
building into the project design. On 13 December 2006 the Planning Commission added the following text to the EIR:

Visual Quality
VQ-1 Threshold of Significance: Loss of special character-defining features of the project setting that make it architecturally and visually distinctive.

The evidence submitted by professional architects at the appeal hearing, the
determination by the City Council, the findings adopted by the Historic
Resources Board and the Planning Commission’s own judgment, all support
the conclusion that the building qualifies as having special characterdefining
features that make it architecturally and visually distinctive. Upon demolition, the loss of architectural diversity can be mitigated; the loss of great architecture cannot. Therefore, the project would result in a significant impact on visual quality.

MITIGATION MEASURES. The following two mitigation measures address this issue. Implementation of either would reduce the visual quality impacts associated with loss of the building’s architectural and visual distinction to a less-than-significant level. (LTS):

VQ-1.1 Incorporate the existing building into the design of the proposed project. This would probably require a significant reduction in the size of the underground parking garage so as to avoid excavating under the existing building.

VQ-1.2 Deconstruct the existing building, complete the underground garage, reconstruct the building and build the remainder of the project around it.

Evidence:
• City Council Minutes dated, 6/6/06, 8/8/06, 10/3/06 and 11/7/06.
• Findings, evidence and testimony documented in The Findings for Decision
adopted by the City Council, dated 11/7/06.
• Planning Commission Minutes, dated 12/13/06, 1/10/07
• Staff Reports dated, 6/6/06, 8/8/06, 10/3/06, 11/7/06, 12/13/06 and 1/10/07.
• Historic Resources Board Minutes, dated 12/16/05 and 1/23/06.
• Draft EIR, October 2005.
• Final EIR (draft), December 2006
• General Plan Land Use and Community Character Element

9. A second visual quality impact resulted from the similarity of architecture in the project to existing designs in the Historic Resource District across the street. This similarity would blur the boundary of the Historic District and diminish its value. The Planning Commission identified this as a significant environmental
impact (VQ-2). Mitigating this impact would require a redesign of the project using more contemporary architecture.

Evidence:
• Historic Resources Board Minutes, dated 1/23/06
• Planning Commission Minutes, dated 12/13/06 and 1/10/06.
• Staff Reports, dated 12/13/06 and 1/10/06.

10. On 10 January 2007, the Planning Commission reviewed the new text on visual
quality issues, found it adequate and certified the EIR. On 1/11/07, one
Commissioner filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Commission’s action on grounds that identification of a new significant impact required a recirculation
of the EIR to allow for public comment. Since the impacts on visual quality were identified as significant, certification was premature. On 1/16/07, the Commission reconsidered the issue, rescinded certification and directed staff to circulate the Revised Draft EIR with its new text discussing visual quality impacts.

Evidence:
Planning Commission Minutes for meetings dated 1/10/07 and 1/16/07.
Staff Reports, dated 1/10/07 and 1/16/07.

Request for Reconsideration, dated 1/11/07

11. On 24 January 2007, the project applicant appealed the Commission’s action to
the City Council. On 6 February 2007, the Council heard the appeal, upheld the
Commission and denied the appeal.

Evidence:
• Letter of appeal from the project applicant, dated 1/24/07.
• Staff Report to the City Council, dated 2/6/07.
• City Council Minutes for 2/6/07.

12. The Revised Draft EIR was recirculated for 30 days from 1 March 2007 to 1
April 2007. Due to an error in public notice, the comment period was extended
to 10 May 2007. Public comments were received from the following:
• Enid Sales
• Monte Miller
• Clark Watkins
• Clive and Sally Anne Smith
• Mike Cate
• Niels Reimers
• Miriam Shikat

Following the close of the public comment period, the City prepared responses to
comments for inclusion in a Revised Final EIR. The (draft) Revised Final EIR
was released on 7 June 2007.

Evidence:
• Revised Draft EIR.
• Public Notices dated 3/1/07 and 4/1/07.
• Letters to interested parties dated 4/1/07.
• Comment Letters.
• Revised Final EIR (draft).
13. The Planning Commission reviewed the project and the EIR on 13 June 2007.
The applicant presented testimony on why demolition of the existing building
was required and why any alternative or mitigation that would save all or a
93
Planning Commission
Plaza del Mar Environmental Findings
17 September 2009
Page 8
portion of the building was infeasible. The applicant also stated his willingness
to redesign the building using contemporary architecture and thereby avoid
visual impact VQ-2. The Commission accepted the applicant’s argument
regarding the infeasibility of mitigating impact VQ-1. The Commission also
accepted the applicant’s pledge to pursue project design revisions to mitigate
impact VQ-2. Without seeing the new design, or any issues it might raise, the
Commission followed staff recommendations and certified the Revised Final
EIR.
Evidence
• Revised Final EIR, dated 6/7/07.
• Planning Commission Minutes, dated 6/13/07.
• Staff Report dated 6/13/07.
14. On 3 July 2007 the City Council reviewed the Commission’s action and
determined that since the new design was not yet submitted it was uncertain
whether it might present environmental concerns. Therefore, certification should
not occur until the final project design and all project permits were ready for
approval. The Council directed the Planning Commission to decertify the EIR.
Evidence:
• City Council Minutes, dated 7/3/07.
• Staff Report, dated 7/3/07.
15. In January 2008, the applicant submitted revised plans for the project using
contemporary architecture, an increased amount of commercial floor area and
adding two housing units restricted to occupancy by low-income households.
These plans addressed land use, design and environmental issues (VQ-2). The
revised design still required full demolition of the existing building on the
property and, therefore, the significant environmental impact (VQ-1) resulting
from demolition would still occur.
Evidence:
• Revised project plans.
16. The Commission reviewed these plans at a public hearing on 6/11/08, 7/16/08
and 8/13/08. It determined that only minor revisions to the design of the project
were needed and that the EIR was ready for certification. Since no feasible
94
Planning Commission
Plaza del Mar Environmental Findings
17 September 2009
Page 9
alternative/mitigation existed to remedy the visual quality impact, project
approval would require adoption of overriding findings. The Commission
directed staff to work with the applicant on final revisions, prepare all permits for
adoption and to draft a Resolution to Certify the EIR all for review and approval
at the meeting of 10 September 2008.
Evidence:
• Planning Commission Minutes, dated 6/11/08, 7/16/08 and 8/13/08.
• Staff Reports, dated 6/11/08, 7/16/08 and 8/13/08.
• California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Sections 15091, 15092 and
15093.
III. FINDINGS ON THE 2008 CEQA DETERMINATIONS AND APPEAL
17. During project review, the California Quality Act Guidelines require cities to
consider environmental impacts classified as significant and to take one of the
following three actions:
• Adopt feasible mitigation measures or a project alternative that avoids or
substantially lessens the significant impact.
• Deny the project.
• Determine that mitigating the significant effect is infeasible and adopt findings
of overriding consideration explaining why the project is being approved in
spite of the significant effect.
Evidence:
• CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091, 15092 and 15093.
18. As stated in finding #13, above, the Commission had already determined that
mitigating the Visual Quality impact (VQ-1) was infeasible as defined in the
CEQA Guidelines. This determination eliminated the first option provided in the
Guidelines for responding to significant impacts. (Bullet #1 in Finding #17)
Evidence:
• Planning Commission Minutes, dated 6/13/07.
• CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3) and 15092(b)(2)(A).
95
Planning Commission
Plaza del Mar Environmental Findings
17 September 2009
Page 10
19. The Planning Commission believed, based on advice from City staff, that the
California Housing Accountability Act requires cities to approve projects that
include affordable housing, even if approval would result in significant
environmental impacts. Further, the Commission also believed that the
California Density Bonus Statute required City approval of concessions for this
project—including waivers of local zoning codes and General Plan policies. The
effect of these beliefs, based primarily on the advice of City staff and legal
counsel, was to eliminate the second option provided in the CEQA Guidelines
for responding to significant environmental impacts. (Bullet #2 in Finding #17)
Evidence:
• California Government Code Sections 65589.5 and 65915.
• CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3) and 15092(b)(2)(A).
• Staff Reports, dated 8/13/08 and 9/10/08.
20. The Planning Commission concluded that its only remaining option to comply
with CEQA was to acknowledge the significant environmental impact and
approve the project with overriding findings. The Commission adopted the
following Finding:
For the Plaza del Mar project the overriding finding is that because of
the important benefit of providing affordable housing, California
Statutes have removed the City’s discretion. The City is compelled to
approve the project because it includes two units of housing reserved
for low-income households.
On 10 September 2008, the Planning Commission adopted Findings for
Approval, a Resolution Certifying the Environmental Impact Report for the Plaza
del Mar Project and all project permits.
Evidence:
• CEQA Guidelines sections 15092(b)(2)(B) and 15093.
• California Government Code Section 65589.5.
• Planning Commission Minutes, dated 8/13/08 and 9/10/08.
• Staff Reports dated 8/13/08 and 9/10/08.
• Resolution Certifying an EIR for the Plaza del Mar Project, dated 9/10/08.
• Adopted Project Findings and Conditions, dated 9/10/08.
96
Planning Commission
Plaza del Mar Environmental Findings
17 September 2009
Page 11
21. The Planning Commission’s action was appealed to the City Council with
several issues raised. Among them were:
o The Planning Commission was not obligated to approve concessions just
because the project provided affordable housing. Concessions are required
only for projects that require a density bonus.
o The affordable housing statute does not trump the requirements of CEQA.
Section 65915 limits its own mandate by acknowledging that CEQA still
applies. The statute preserves the City’s discretion regarding how to respond
to significant environmental impacts.
o The Commission erred in adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations
premised solely on a conclusion that Section 65915 compelled project
approval.
o The Planning Commission erred because the project does not meet the
definition of a “housing development project” specified in the Housing
Accountability Act and therefore is not subject to the terms of the Act.
Evidence:
• Letter of Appeal from Barbara Livingston, dated 9/24/08
• Staff Report to City Council, dated 11/4/08
• City Council Minutes, dated 11/4/08
• City Council Findings, adopted 12/2 08
22. On 4 November 2008, the City Council conducted a public hearing and granted
the appeal on most of the issues raised.1 The Council remanded the project
permits and CEQA determinations to the Planning Commission with
instructions, including the following regarding CEQA:
o The affordable housing statutes in the Government Code and the environmental
review provisions in the Public Resources Code must coexist with equal force.
One obligation does not invalidate or “trump” the other. The decision-making
process established by CEQA is to be followed independently from the decisionmaking
process under the two affordable housing statutes.
1 Incorporated by reference are the City Council findings and decisions adopted 2 December 2008.
97
Planning Commission
Plaza del Mar Environmental Findings
17 September 2009
Page 12
o The Council concurs with the Commission that demolition of the Burde
Building would constitute a significant impact on the City’s visual quality
resources and therefore constitute a significant environmental impact as defined
in CEQA.
o In considering the feasibility of a project alternative (per CEQA) the
Commission’s decision should be supported by evidence in the record. To be
credible, the analysis of the evidence must be adequately reasoned and, if
possible, should be provided by an independent third party. This is consistent
with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093.
o At a minimum, an adaptive reuse project alternative that avoids demolition of
the Burde Building (or at least retains the important visual character of the
building) should be considered as an alternative in the EIR even if it does not
meet all project objectives. This is consistent with Section 15126.6 of the
CEQA Guidelines.
o In reaching a decision regarding the feasibility of providing affordable housing
without the requested incentives/concessions the Commission should rely on
evidence in the record. This too should be the product of a reasoned analysis.
Evidence:
• City Council Findings, adopted 12/2/08
IV. FINDINGS AND CEQA DETERMINATIONS: 2009
23. The Planning Commission reopened its consideration of project permits and
CEQA determinations on 11 February 2009. The Commission determined (1)
that the Adaptive Reuse Alternative discussed in the Draft EIR would could
mitigate the significant impact but (2) that there was insufficient evidence in the
record to determine if it was feasible. The Commission requested that additional
evidence be prepared on this issue, preferably from a third party source.
24. An economic analysis has now been completed on the feasibility of constructing the
project without the underground garage, keeping the existing building, altering the
site design and reducing unit sizes. The analysis shows that even with favorable
assumptions, the project would not be profitable. Therefore the Commission
concludes that the Adaptive Reuse Alternative is not economically feasible.
98
Planning Commission
Plaza del Mar Environmental Findings
17 September 2009
Page 13
Evidence:
• Final Environmental Impact Report
• Economic Feasibility Study prepared by BMR Construction
• Real Estate analysis by Alain Pinel Realtors, dated 7/14/09
• Planning Commission Minutes, dated 2/11/09, 8/12/09 and 9/17/09
• Applicant’s correspondence, dated 6/20/09
25. By companion action on this date2, the Planning Commission has determined
that the Project does not qualify for concessions per the California Density Bonus
statute and does not qualify for special treatment under the Housing
Accountability Act. Therefore, the conflicts between the project design and the
City’s Municipal Code, Local Coastal Program and the land use policies and
housing policies of the General Plan are not overcome by application of these
statutes. The project does not comply with local standards for approval.
Evidence:
California Government Code, sections 65915 and 65589.5
City Council Findings, adopted 12/2/08
Planning Commission Findings for Decision, dated 9/17/09
Project plans submitted for approval on 9/10/08
General Plan/LCP Land Use and Community Character Element
General Plan Housing Element
Municipal Code Land Use Tables and provisions regarding significant trees.
26. The project will have a significant environmental impact on the City’s visual
quality resources due to loss of the Burde Building—an outstanding architectural
design that adds to the cultural richness of the downtown area.
Evidence:
Revised Draft and Revised Final Environmental Impact Report
American Institute of Architects Letter of Appeal, dated 12/14/05
Evidence submitted during City Council appeal hearings, 6/6/06 and 8/8/06
Historic Resources Board Minutes, dated 12/19/05, 1/23/06, 6/19/06
Planning Commission Minutes, dated 12/13/06, 1/10/07, 2/11/09 and 9/17/09.
Letters from Dahlstrand, Brandt-Hawley and Sales, received 2/6/07
2 Planning Commission Findings for Decision, Plaza del Mar Project
99
Planning Commission
Plaza del Mar Environmental Findings
17 September 2009
Page 14
City Council Minutes dated 2/6/07 and 11/4/08
City Council Findings on Appeal, adopted 12/2/08
27. There is no feasible way to mitigate this impact and the Commission finds no
substantial project benefits or other considerations that would make living with
this impact “acceptable” or that would warrant approval of permits that do not
comply with City standards and policies.
Evidence:
• Revised Draft and Revised Final Environmental Impact Report
• Economic Feasibility Study prepared by BMR Construction
• Real Estate analysis by Alain Pinel Realtors, dated 7/14/09
• Planning Commission Minutes, dated 1/10/07, 6/13/07, 8/12/09
• Applicant’s correspondence, dated 6/20/09
• CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091, 15092 and 15093
• Municipal Code Land Use Tables and provisions regarding significant trees.
28. Having made the determinations in Findings #24 through #27, and pursuant to
the requirements of Sections 15091, 15092 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines,
the Planning Commission is obligated to deny the project for the reasons stated
in these Findings.
Evidence:
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091, 15092 and 15093
Planning Commission Findings for Decision, dated 9/17/09
City Council Findings, dated 12/2/08
100
Planning Commission Findings for Denial
Plaza del Mar Project
Adopted: 17 September 2009
I. DECISION SUMMARY
The project is denied based on the following conclusions:
• Project approval would violate the City’s General Plan.
• Project approval would violate the City’s Municipal Code.
• Project approval would violate the Local Coastal Program (LCP).
• The project has a significant environmental impact that cannot feasibly be mitigated.
• Project benefits are insufficient to justify a finding that environmental impact is acceptable.
• The project does not qualify for special treatment under the Density Bonus Statute.
• The project does not qualify for special treatment under the Housing Accountability Act.
II. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
Finding #1: The Plaza del Mar Project (the Project) site is located within the commercial core
area of Carmel-by-the-Sea. This area is built-up with mostly two-story buildings occupied by
retail on the street level and residences on the second story. The site is currently underdeveloped
with approximately 5,268 square feet of retail floor area and a surface parking lot.
Evidence:
Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code and Zoning Map
Project plans
Staff Reports dated 6/1/08 and 9/10/08
Finding #2: The Project includes the following elements:
• Demolish the existing single-story retail building.
• Demolish the surface-parking lot.
• Remove 16 Monterey pine trees.
• Construct an underground garage with two levels, the lowest level to be operated as valet.
parking for nearby motels and businesses and the upper level to be reserved for on-site uses.
• Construct 4,958 square feet of commercial space to be occupied by unspecified tenants.
• Construct five condominiums targeted to a high-income market.
• Construct two apartments affordable to low-income households.
Evidence:
Project application materials and design submittals
Staff Reports dated 6/1/08 and 9/10/08
101
Plaza del Mar Project
17 September 2009
Page 2
Finding #3: The following City permits are required for project approval:
• Tree Removal permit
• Demolition permit
• Use permit for underground garage
• Use permit for construction of commercial floor space
• Subdivision Map for condominiums
• Design Review
• Coastal Development Permit
Evidence:
• Carmel Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance)
• Local Coastal Implementation Plan
• Subdivision Map Act
• Staff Report dated 10 September 2008
III. FAILURE OF THE PROJECT TO COMPLY WITH LAND USE ORDINANCES,
PLANS AND POLICIES1
Finding #4: The project is inconsistent with the LCP and General Plan (Land Use and
Community Character Element) regarding the City’s downtown development pattern.
Discussion: City policies and ordinances support high-intensity land uses in the core of the
commercial area including retail uses at the street level with residential uses (condominiums
and apartments) located at the second story. This mixed-use concept is intended to create a
strong and vital downtown. Maintaining a dense concentration of retail activity in the core
area supports this vitality as the customers drawn to each business also help support other
businesses nearby. General Plan and LCP text describing the intent of the core area states:
Core Commercial: This area is intended to provide for a wide range of retail and service
uses…More intense commercial activities such as retail, restaurant and visitor commercial
uses are appropriate in this area.
General Plan and LCP direction regarding the appropriate form of mixed-use development is
provided in the following policies. Each of these policies supports full development of the
ground floor with commercial uses and placing residential uses on the second story:
1 This Section discusses land use conflicts between the Project and the General Plan/Coastal Plan and Municipal Code.
The Project’s conflicts with the City’s planning documents related to housing are addressed in Section V.
102
Plaza del Mar Project
17 September 2009
Page 3
• General Plan policy P1-8: Continue to encourage mixed land uses that create new second
floor apartments located over ground floor retail and service uses in the commercial district
on streets where a pattern of second story buildings already exists.
• General Plan policy P1-62: Continue to encourage the established mixed-use pattern
(residential over commercial uses) in all commercial districts.
• General Plan objective O3-6: Continue to encourage mixed-use developments (second-floor
housing over first-floor commercial uses) as a preferred development form contributing to
the village character in all Commercial Districts.
The project site is underdeveloped and most of the land is occupied by a surface parking lot.
The site includes just 5,268 square feet of retail space whereas the zoning allows up to 15,200
square feet. The site has no second story.
The proposed project would not increase retail space. All net new floor area would be
reserved for residential use. More than half of the ground floor space would be occupied by
residences. The General Plan and LCP do not support this development pattern in the
commercial core area. The proposed development is more characteristic of the lower-intensity
pattern intended for the periphery of the commercial area (RC District).
Evidence:
• General Plan/Coastal Plan text on pages 1-1 through 1-5 and pages 1-10 through 1-16
• General Plan/Coastal Plan policies P1-8, P1-62 and O3-6
• Chapter 3.5 (Land Use) in the Revised Draft EIR
• Staff Reports, dated 12/13/06, 1/10/07, 6/11/08 and 7/16/08
Finding #5: Approval of the project would violate the requirements of the Local Coastal
Program regarding significant trees.
Discussion: Pursuant to the California Coastal Act, the City has adopted a Local Coastal
Program (LCP). The LCP was certified by the California Coastal Commission and all City
actions on all projects requiring a Coastal Development Permit must be consistent with the
Plan. The introduction to the Land Use Plan contains the following text:
Located adjacent to Carmel Bay with gently rising slopes, the City has conscientiously
retained its residential village character in a forest setting, dominated by Monterey Pines.
The special character of this residential coastal community is considered a unique asset of
statewide and national significance that should be maintained as a resource both for local
103
Plaza del Mar Project
17 September 2009
Page 4
residents and for visitors. The incorporated limits of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea shall
be designated a “special community and a highly scenic area within the meaning of [the]
Coastal Act. New development shall protect this special community and its unique
characteristics.
The LCP also recognizes that “The Monterey pine forest is the character defining feature of the
City” (emphasis in the original). The LCP requires Forest and Beach Commission approval to
remove Monterey pine trees and prohibits removing any tree classified as “significant”. The
LCP includes a detailed system whereby the City Forester must rate trees for their significance
using criteria for species, age, form, health and other factors.
The City Forester approved removal of six trees on the project site. On 2 November 2006 the
Forest and Beach Commission approved removal of the remaining 8 non-significant trees. As
mandated by the LCP, the Commission denied removal of the two significant trees. The
Commission required that a 15-foot setback be established between the proposed construction
and both trees.2 At the meeting, the applicant stated that he could redesign the project to avoid
the significant trees. He did not appeal the Commission’s decision.
The project has not been redesigned and still requires removal of the two significant trees
located on site. Permit approval would violate the LCP.
Evidence:
• Local Coastal Land Use Plan Introduction
• Chapters 12.28 and 17.48 of the Coastal Implementation Plan
• CIP Appendix: Tree Evaluation Form
• Revised Draft EIR, pages 3.8-19 and 3.8-20
• Staff Report dated 2 November 2006
• Forest and Beach Commission Minutes dated 2 November 2006
• Project plans.
IV. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) REVIEW
Finding #6: The aesthetic effects of a project are a valid topic for environmental review and
can be the basis for finding a significant impact on the environment.
Discussion: The State CEQA Guidelines include an Environmental Checklist that is used by
local agencieswhen making an initial study of the potential effects of a project on the
environment. This checklist includes a section on aesthetics. California Appellate decisions
2 The Commission also required that this 15-foot setback be maintained from two significant trees located in the public
right-of-way, adjacent to the project site.
104
Plaza del Mar Project
17 September 2009
Page 5
have affirmed that aesthetics and visual character are important environmental issues worthy of
analysis in an EIR and can be the basis of finding significant environmental impacts.
Evidence:
• Environmental Checklist published by the California Office of Planning and Research
• Ocean View Estates Homeowners Association, Inc, v. Montecito Water District.
• Pocket Protectors, v. City of Sacramento et.al.
Finding #7: The project would have a significant environmental impact on the City’s visual
resources due to demolition of the Burde Building.
Discussion: The Project EIR identifies eight impacts. Seven of these are less-than-significant
or could be mitigated to less-than–significant. The remaining impact that would result from
demolition of the Burde Building is classified as significant. Through an appeal process in
2006, the City Council determined that the Burde Building does not qualify as a historical
resource, but it also adopted a finding stating:
The bank building is visually striking. It is an excellent representative of the Second
Bay Area Tradition in architecture. It is modern in design and it reflects a more
recent period in the City’s history. It contrasts with earlier historic styles of design
and it adds to the architectural diversity of the City. At the hearing, architects
characterized it as heroic or monumental in design. There are few buildings in
Carmel that share all of these qualities.
The Burde Building has been described as being of exceptional importance. It is a pure,
original and unique example of modern architecture. Evidence submitted by the Monterey Bay
Chapter of the American Institute of Architects, evidence submitted by individual architects,
determinations by the City Council and the Planning Commission’s own judgment, all support
the conclusion that the building qualifies as having special character-defining features that
make it architecturally and visually distinctive. Upon demolition, the loss of architectural
diversity can be mitigated; the loss of great architecture cannot. Therefore, approval of the
project would result in a significant impact on visual quality.
Evidence:
• American Institute of Architects, Monterey Bay Chapter appeal letter, dated 12/14/05
• City Council Minutes dated, 6/6/06, 8/8/06, 10/3/06 and 11/7/06.
• Findings, evidence and testimony documented in The Findings for Decision adopted by
the City Council, dated 11/7/06.
• City Council Findings and Minutes, adopted 2 December 2008
• Chapter 3.8 of the Revised Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report
105
Plaza del Mar Project
17 September 2009
Page 6
• Planning Commission Minutes, dated 12/13/06, 1/10/07, 10/9/08, 10/9/08, 11/2/09
• Staff Reports dated, 6/6/06, 8/8/06, 10/3/06, 11/7/06, 12/13/06, 1/10/07.
Finding #8: Pursuant to CEQA, when a project will have a significant adverse impact on the
environment the choices available to the City are to:
• Deny the project.
• Adopt feasible mitigation measures or a project alternative that avoids or substantially
lessens the significant impact.
• Determine that mitigating the significant effect is infeasible and adopt findings of
overriding consideration explaining why the project is being approved in spite of the
significant effect.
Evidence:
• CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091, 15092 and 15093
Finding #9: The EIR identifies one project alternative that would address the significant
environmental impact but this alternative has been found to be not feasible.
Discussion: The EIR evaluates an adaptive reuse alternative wherein the Burde Building
would not be demolished; it would be adapted for reuse. Although this addresses the
significant impact it would then be physically infeasible to excavate the two-level garage in the
area occupied by the Burde Building. An economic analysis was performed on the feasibility
of constructing the project without the underground garage, keeping the existing building,
altering the site design and reducing unit sizes. The analysis shows that even with favorable
assumptions, the project would not be profitable. Therefore the adaptive reuse project is not
economically feasible.
Evidence:
• Final Environmental Impact Report
• Economic Feasibility Study prepared by BMR Construction
• Real Estate analysis by Alain Pinel Realtors, dated 7/14/09
• Planning Commission Minutes, dated 8/12/09
• Applicant’s correspondence, dated 6/20/09
Finding #10: The Planning Commission has determined that the benefits of the project would
not outweigh the environmental impacts to the City’s visual quality.
Discussion: Project benefits include just two units of affordable housing, five units of highincome
housing, five parking spaces in excess of the number required for onsite uses at the
106
Plaza del Mar Project
17 September 2009
Page 7
first garage level plus an unspecified number of valet parking spaces in the lower garage level.
These project benefits are insufficient to warrant the loss of the Burde Building.
Evidence:
• Staff Report dated 8/12/09
• Planning Commission Minutes dated 8/13/08, 9/10/08 and 8/12/09
V. STATE AND LOCAL HOUSING POLICY
Finding #11: The State legislature has declared that California has a critical shortage of
housing and has enacted numerous laws and programs to encourage or mandate the increased
production of housing.
Discussion: Each city is required to adopt a Housing Element that addresses issues unique to
each community—including issues related to affordable housing. Housing Elements also must
demonstrate that the City has zoned sufficient land, at adequate densities, to meet housing
targets established for the city by the regional Council of Governments.3
Evidence:
• Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 10.6, California Government Code
Finding #12: The City has adopted a General Plan Housing Element and implementing
ordinances that respond to local conditions.
Discussion: After a thorough public process the City adopted its Housing Element. The State
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) certified the Element as
complete and fully in compliance with State law. One local issue identified in the Element
involves the shortage of rental housing in the City. To address this market imbalance, the City
adopted a requirement that for each new condominium unit built, an equal or greater number of
apartment units also must be built. A second local issue involves the lack of vacant land
resources to accommodate the City’s assigned housing production targets. In response to this
issue the City adopted policies and ordinances that (1) allow high densities, (2) encourage
mixed-use housing within the downtown area and (3) provide floor area, parking and other
incentives for the production of affordable housing.4 These measures overcome the lack of
vacant land by fostering additional housing construction on developed sites.
3 The Council of Governments applicable to Carmel-by-the-Sea is the Association of Monterey Bay Area
Governments (AMBAG)
4 Allowed densities are eleven dwellings per acre in the Single-family Residential District and up to 44 dwellings per
acre in all three of the Commercial districts.
107
Plaza del Mar Project
17 September 2009
Page 8
Evidence:
• General Plan Housing Element
• Title 17 of the Municipal Code
Finding #13: The Project conflicts with City ordinances regarding increased production of
rental housing.
Discussion: The project includes five market-rate condominiums but just two rental units.
This violates the City ordinance that requires at least a 1:1 ratio and would fail to help alleviate
the shortage of rental housing in Carmel. Permit approval would violate the City’s ordinance.
Evidence:
• Project plans
• Application submittals
• Staff Reports dated 9/11/08, 8/12/09
• Title 17 of the Municipal Code (land use table)
Finding #14: The low number of dwelling units in the project fails to meet the intent of City
policies and ordinances regarding density and would impede attainment of housing targets
identified in the adopted and certified General Plan Housing Element.
Discussion: The zoning capacity of the site is 17 dwelling units, but the project includes just
seven dwellings—less than half the density allowed. This would represent a significant underdevelopment
of the property and foreclose the opportunity to better use this site to meet the
housing production targets assigned by AMBAG. This would shift the burden of meeting these
targets to other properties.
Evidence:
• General Plan Housing Element (fair share housing provisions)
• Title 17 of the Municipal Code (density provisions)
• City Council Findings on Appeal, dated 2 December 2008
VI. CALIFORNIA’S AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS STATUTE
Finding #15: To encourage the production of affordable housing, the State has enacted a
density bonus statute (Section 65915) as part of the California Government Code. This statute
provides extraordinary measures to facilitate increased housing, and particularly affordable
housing.
108
Plaza del Mar Project
17 September 2009
Page 9
Discussion: Under defined circumstances, the Density Bonus Statute allows developers to
build at greater densities than local zoning ordinances otherwise allow. It mandates that cities
grant incentives or concessions to enhance project feasibility when a project seeks a density
bonus and includes specified amounts of affordable housing. Such incentives and concessions
may include waivers from local zoning standards and General Plan policies. Given the
primacy of General Plans in local planning and decision-making, and the importance placed by
the legislature on maintaining General Plans, this mandate is an extraordinary departure from
normal practice.
Evidence:
• California Government Code Section 65915.
Finding #16: The project does not qualify for concessions/incentives.
Discussion: As a concession for building two units of low-income housing, the applicant has
requested the City to waive its requirements for preserving significant trees and complying
with the City’s 1:1 apartment-to-condominium ratio.
Section 65915(a) states:
When an applicant seeks a density bonus for a housing development …[the] local
government shall provide the applicant incentives or concessions for the
production of [affordable] housing…”
The Project is not seeking a density bonus. As identified in Finding #14, the Project would
build less than half of the units allowed by the zoning ordinance. Since there is no need for a
density bonus the provisions related to granting concessions and incentives is inoperative.5
The Statute’s extraordinary mandate for cities to waive local zoning and General Plan
requirements only applies when a project will deliver an equally extraordinary amount of
housing.
Evidence:
• Correspondence from applicant, dated 8/11/09
• California Government Code 65915
• City Council Findings and supporting evidence, dated 2 December 2008
• Staff Report and Addendum, dated 12 August 2009
• Planning Commission Minutes, dated 12 August 2009
5 As understood by the Planning Commission, the City cannot lawfully grant the requested concessions. If a project
does not meet the qualifications for concessions established by Section 65915, the City is obligated by the California
Government Code to follow its adopted General Plan when acting on permits.
109
Plaza del Mar Project
17 September 2009
Page 10
VII. APPLICATION OF CALIFORNIA’S HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
Finding #17: The project is not a Housing Development Project, as defined in the HAA, and
therefore does not qualify for special treatment stipulated by the Act.6
Discussion: The HAA was adopted to increase the production of housing affordable to lowand
very-low income households. Except under limited circumstances, projects that qualify as
Housing Development Projects must be approved by local jurisdictions even if such projects
are inconsistent with local General Plan and zoning provisions.7
The HAA defines a Housing Development Project as being composed entirely of residential
units or as a mixed-use project wherein non-residential uses are limited to neighborhood
commercial uses located on the first floor. “Neighborhood Commercial” is defined as “small
scale general or specialty stores that furnish goods and services primarily to residents in the
neighborhood”.
As proposed, the project is not limited to a single floor of nonresidential use. Both the street
level shops and the lower level parking garage would be commercially operated as
independent businesses. The project also is not limited to neighborhood commercial uses. The
lower level parking garage would serve visitor-occupied motels on other properties with a
valet parking operation. Further, the applicant is unwilling to limit occupancy of the retail
businesses to local, resident-serving uses. Without this limitation, the retail spaces could be
occupied by visitor-serving uses otherwise allowed within the District by the zoning ordinance
(e.g. art galleries, jewelry stores).
Evidence:
• California Government Code Section 65589.5
• Project plans
• Planning Commission Minutes, dated 12 August 2009
Finding #18: The HAA does not override the City’s obligations under the California
Environmental Quality Act.
Discussion: Section 65589.5(e), of the HAA states:
6 The Planning Commission acknowledges the City Council’s direction on this issue but, after further deliberation,
respectfully disagrees for the reasons stated in the discussion of this issue, above.
7 The applicant has argued that the PDM project qualifies as a Housing Development Project and, therefore, the City is
obligated to waive zoning and General Plan conflicts. Given this dispute, Findings #19 and #20, below, address other
issues related to the HAA. Each of these findings is an independent basis for permit denial.
110
Plaza del Mar Project
17 September 2009
Page 11
This section also does not relieve the local agency from making one or more of the
findings required by section 21081 of the Public Resources Code, or otherwise
complying with CEQA.
The HAA does not interfere with the mandates contained in the California Environmental
Quality Act. The City must consider a project’s significant environmental impacts and either
mitigate them or adopt an alternative that avoids them. If this is not feasible, the City must
deny the project unless it can make special overriding findings. In all of these determinations,
the HAA preserves the City’s discretion regarding how best to respond to significant
environmental impacts.
Evidence:
• Housing Accountability Act
• City Council Findings, dated 2 December 2008
• CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091, 15092 and 15093
Finding #19: The HAA does not override the City’s obligation to implement the California
Coastal Act.
Discussion: Section 65589.5(e) of the HAA, states:
Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve the local agency from complying
with…the California Coastal Act…
The City’s LCP was certified by the California Coastal Commission as the document to
implement the Coastal Act in Carmel-by-the-Sea. The City is required to deny Coastal
Development Permits for projects that do not conform to the requirements of the certified LCP.
Evidence:
• Housing Accountability Act
• Planning Commission Minutes, dated 12 August 2009
Finding #20: Denial of the project is required in order to comply with specific State laws and
there is no feasible method to comply without rendering the development unaffordable to lowand
moderate-income households.8
8 The text of this Finding follows the required language in Section 65589.5(d)(3).
111
Planning Commission Findings for Denial
Plaza del Mar Project
17 September 2009
Page 12
Discussion: The HAA requires approval of projects containing affordable housing unless one
or more special findings are made. The HAA does not obligate a city to approve a project if
doing so would violate a State or Federal law.
As documented above in Findings #4 and #5, the Plaza del Mar Project has direct conflicts
with the LCP. The project does not conform to LCP requirements related to appropriate
development patterns in the core area of the commercial district and to preserving significant
trees. Therefore, the City is obligated to deny the Coastal Development Permit if it is to fulfill
its responsibility to implement the California Coastal Act.
The Planning Commission’s CEQA determinations (Findings #7, #9 and #10) and Sections
15091(a) and 15092(b) of the CEQA Guidelines obligates the City to deny the project. A
project with significant environmental impacts that cannot feasibly be mitigated must be
denied unless the City finds the impacts “acceptable” due to overriding project benefits or
other considerations. The Plaza del Mar project benefits are insufficient to support such a
finding.
Evidence
• CEQA Guidelines
• Public Resources Code
112
CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS FOR DECISION
Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Approval of the Plaza del Mar Project
Adopted by the City Council 2 December 2008
BACKGROUND FINDINGS
1. The Plaza del Mar project includes the following elements:
4,958 square feet of commercial space
5 market-rate condominiums
2 apartments affordable to low-income households, and
2 levels of underground parking, including a level of valet parking that will be a commercial
business.
2. The project was reviewed through a lengthy public process that included two Environmental
Impact Reports (EIRs) and three appeals. This action constitutes a fourth appeal.
3. The Revised Final EIR identified eight impacts. Seven of these were less-than-significant or
could be mitigated to less-than–significant. The remaining impact was on the City’s visual
quality resources that would result from demolition of the Burde Building. The EIR classified
this impact as significant. The public, professional architects and the local chapter of the
American Institute of Architects identified this building as an important architectural resource1.
4. Pursuant to CEQA, when a project will have a significant adverse impact on the environment
the choices available to the City are to:
Deny the project
Approve an alternative project that avoids the impact, or
Determine that no alternative to the project is feasible and approve the project with findings
that document the infeasibility and explain to the public why project benefits warrant
approval in spite of the significant adverse environmental impact (Statement of Overriding
Considerations).
5. On 10 September 2008 the Planning Commission certified the project EIR, approved all project
permits and adopted findings supporting a Statement of Overriding Consideration to explain
why the impact on visual quality was acceptable. The basis for the Commission’s action rested
on two California affordable housing Statutes.
6. The first Statute (codified as California Government Code Section 65915) requires the City to
grant “incentives or concessions” for projects that include specified amounts of affordable
housing. Incentives or concessions can include waivers of City design standards, General Plan
policies or Municipal Code provisions that, if applied, would make the affordable housing
infeasible. The Statute does not specify how a city should determine the feasibility or
1 See Council Findings dated 11 November 2006, Planning Commission Findings dated 10 September 2008 and the
Visual Quality Section in the Final Environmental Impact Report.
113
City Council
Findings for Decision: Plaza del Mar
2 December 2008
Page 2
infeasibility of affordable housing in this context. Cities are obligated to approve requested
incentives or concessions unless very specific circumstances apply. The Planning Commission
determined that for the proposed project, none of the special circumstances applied.
7. The Plaza del Mar project needed two incentives/concessions: approval to remove two
significant trees2 and approval to alter the City’s required ratio between condominiums and
apartments3. Given the Statute’s clear mandate to encourage affordable housing, the Planning
Commission accepted at face value the applicant’s statements that affordable housing was
feasible only if the requested incentives/concessions were approved. The Commission granted
the two requested incentives/concessions.
8. The second Statute influencing the Commission’s decision (California Government Code
Section 65589.5) mandates approval of projects that include affordable housing except under
very limited circumstances. The Commission determined that none of the circumstances
applied. The Commission, acting on the recommendation of the City’s planning staff and legal
counsel, believed it was obligated to approve the project.
9. The Commission was faced with the challenge of harmonizing the requirements of the Public
Resources Code (CEQA) and the Government Code (Affordable Housing Statutes). Acting on
the recommendation of the City’s planning staff and legal counsel, the Commission approved
the project and adopted findings to support a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The sole
basis for these findings was the Commission’s perceived mandate to approve affordable housing
projects.
10. On 24 September 2008 the Planning Commission decisions on approval of the demolition,
certification of the EIR and project approval were appealed to the City Council and on 4
November 2008 the City Council heard the appeal.
11. The grounds for appeal4 were:
a. The Planning Commission was not obligated to approve concessions or incentives just because
the project provided affordable housing. The lead sentence in the applicable Government Code
section says “When an applicant seeks a density bonus for a housing development …[the] local
government shall provide the applicant incentives or concessions for the production of
[affordable] housing…” This language obligates approval of incentives or concessions only for
projects that supply so much affordable housing that they require a density bonus. This project
doesn’t.
2 The City’s Local Coastal Program and its Municipal Code prohibit removal of significant trees except under unusual
circumstances that do not apply to the Plaza del Mar project.
3 The City requires at least a 1:1 ratio of apartments to condominiums. This helps implement the General Plan
Housing Element which identifies that the City has abundant opportunities for owner-housing and more limited
opportunities for rental-housing.
4 The original letter of appeal was supplemented by additional letters received on 27 October 2008 and 4 November
2008.
114
City Council
Findings for Decision: Plaza del Mar
2 December 2008
Page 3
b. The project is proposing just seven units, just two of which are affordable to low-income
households. The allowable density for the project site is 16 units. Since the Plaza del Mar project
does not need a density bonus Section 65915 does not apply and granting the incentives or
concessions would violate the City’s General Plan. Approving the developer’s request to reduce
the number of required apartments and to build less than half the density allowed on the site runs
counter to the intent of the statute which is to maximize housing production.
c. The section 65915 requires a finding that a requested incentive or concession is necessary to
make the production of affordable housing feasible in the project. There is no evidence in the
record to support such a finding other than the applicant’s own statement.
d. Even if the affordable housing statute does obligate approval of incentives or concessions it does
not trump the requirements of CEQA. Section 65915 limits its own mandate by providing a
caveat acknowledging CEQA: “nothing in this subdivision shall be interpreted to require a local
government to waive or reduce development standards if …[it] would have a specific, adverse
impact…[upon] the physical environment, and for which there is no feasible method to
satisfactorily mitigate the …impact.
e. The aesthetic effects of a project are a valid topic for analysis in CEQA and can be the basis of a
significant impact on the environment. The Plaza del Mar project will have a significant adverse
impact on the City’s visual quality and there is no feasible way to mitigate the impact. These
points are conceded in the EIR. Because of the statutory caveat in section 65915, the City is not
obligated to grant the concessions/waivers to facilitate the proposed affordable housing.
f. The City retains its authority to deny the project because of its environmental impact on visual
quality. This is consistent with the CEQA Guidelines. The Commission erred in adopting a
Statement of Overriding Considerations premised solely on a conclusion that Section 65915
compelled project approval.
g. The existing building on the project should be adaptively reused and could accommodate
condominiums and affordable apartments without demolition.
h. The applicant and the Planning Commission cite Section 65589.5 as mandating approval of the
project because it qualifies as a “housing development project” that includes affordable housing.
The Commission erred because the project does not meet the definition of a “housing
development project” specified in the statute. A “housing development project” is either entirely
residential or it is a mixed-use project where non-residential uses are limited to “neighborhood
commercial” and all commercial uses are limited to the first floor. “Neighborhood Commercial”
is defined as “small scale general or specialty stores that furnish goods and services primarily to
residents in the neighborhood”. As approved by the Commission, there are no limits on what can
occupy the first floor commercial space and commercial uses are not limited to the first floor.
There is an entire level of parking that will be operated as a commercial use.
i. The EIR’s conclusion that there are no impacts to historical resources is not based on substantial
evidence.
115
City Council
Findings for Decision: Plaza del Mar
2 December 2008
Page 4
12. In response to the original letter of appeal the applicant’s representative submitted a response
letter addressing the following points:
a. The original draft EIR stated that the Burde Building was “...not consistent with the surrounding
architectural style or setting in the project area. …the loss of these buildings is considered to be
a less-than-significant impact. The Planning Commission overrode this conclusion and made
new findings, using its own subjective criteria, that the building was great or exceptional
architecture.
b. These findings were not based on any written criteria or objective standards in the General Plan
and were based merely on subjective statements which are not substantial evidence. Section
65589.5(d)(2) of the California Government Code states: …a local agency shall not disapprove
an affordable housing project …unless it makes written findings based on substantial evidence
in the record [that] the development project… would have a specific adverse impact upon the
public health or safety and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily avoid the significant
impact without rendering the project unaffordable to low and moderate income households.
c. Section 65915 of the Government Code defines “specific adverse impact” as: “A significant,
quantifiable, direct and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified, written public health
or safety standards, policies or conditions…” Visual quality is not a public health or safety
standard. It is subjective, not supported by evidence in the record, not appropriate for evaluating
this project and not a legitimate basis for an appeal.
d. The Council already settled issues related to historicity and architecture/visual quality when it
acted in 2006 to deny an earlier appeal. Raising architecture/visual quality issues again is barred
by the principles of res judicata and estopple.
13. At the appeal hearing the City Council received additional testimony was received from the
following:
Susan Brandt-Hawley, representing the appellant.
Dennis Boegher, representing the project applicant
Jim Wright
Olaf Dahlstrand
Lucia Dahlstrand, representing Jean Grace
Mike Dawson, representing Monterey Bay Area Preservation
Brian Congleton, representing the American Institute of Architects, Monterey Bay Chapter
Roberta Miller, representing the Carmel Residents Association
Clayton Anderson, representing the Friends of the Forest
Claudine Van Vleet, representing the Carmel Preservation Foundation
Barbara Brooks
Linda Anderson
Richard Rhodes
Ken White
Richard Barrett
116
City Council
Findings for Decision: Plaza del Mar
2 December 2008
Page 5
Monte Miller
Anne Bell
Elinor Laiolo
John Mandurrago, project applicant
14. The City Council also received written testimony from the following:
American Institute of Architects, Monterey Bay Chapter
Friends of Carmel Forest
Carmel Residents Association
Alliance of Monterey Bay Area Preservationists
Erling Lagerholm
Jean Grace
CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS AND BASIS FOR DECISION
Finding: The Council concurs with the Planning Commission’s decision to revise the draft EIR
regarding the importance of the Burde Building’s architectural and visual quality.
Basis: The Commission’s action was taken in December 2006 following the City Council’s
adoption of findings in November 2006. Although these findings included a consideration of
architectural merit, they did so in the context of determining whether the Burde building is a
historical resource. This is far different from a determination that the Burde building contributes
significantly to Carmel’s visual quality. These findings, in fact, recognized the value of the
building’s architecture even though it is not historical. The Council’s action, its adopted findings
and all supporting documentation constituted new evidence in the record that the Commission
rightfully considered. The basis of the Commission’s action was well-documented in the revised
EIR and in associated Staff Reports.
Finding: Visual quality issues are a valid topic for evaluation in environmental review under
CEQA and can be the basis for finding a significant impact.
Basis: This is consistent with the forms and other supporting documents for the State CEQA
Guidelines.5 This also is consistent with California Appellate decisions affirming that aesthetics and
visual character are important environmental issues worthy of analysis in an EIR and can be the
basis of finding significant environmental impacts.6
5 See: The Environmental Checklist published by the Office of Planning and Research—the State agency charged with
administering CEQA. The Checklist includes a section covering aesthetics.
6 See: The Environmental Checklist published by the Office of Planning and Research—the State agency charged with
administering CEQA. The Checklist includes a section covering aesthetics.
See also: Ocean View Estates Homeowners Association, Inc, v. Montecito Water District, and
117
City Council
Findings for Decision: Plaza del Mar
2 December 2008
Page 6
Finding: The Council concurs with the Commission that demolition of the Burde Building would
constitute a significant impact on the City’s visual quality resources and therefore constitute a
significant environmental impact as defined in CEQA.
Basis: The analysis contained in the final EIR.
Finding: The Council reaffirms its 6 February 2007 decision that the 2006 appeal regarding the
historicity of the Burde Building was exclusive to historicity and did not address whether the Burde
building is an important architectural/visual resource.
Basis: The final conclusion of the Council’s 7 November 2006 findings stated in its entirety: The
Historic Resources Board decision is reversed. The Palo Alto Savings and Loan Building (Bank Building)
does not qualify as an historic resource. It shall not be listed on the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources
and shall not be considered an historic resource for purposes of any environmental review. This action
reached no conclusions about the visual quality or architectural value of the Burde Building.
Finding: The affordable housing statutes in the Government Code and the environmental review
provisions in the Public Resources Code must coexist with equal force. One obligation does not
invalidate or “trump” the other. The decision-making process established by CEQA is to be
followed independently from the decision-making process under the two affordable housing
statutes.
Basis: This is consistent with subsection 65589.5 (e) which states “This section also does not
relieve the local agency from making one or more of the findings required pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21081 or otherwise complying with the California Environmental Quality
Act.7 This also is consistent with Government Code Section 65915(d)(1)(B) which states: The
City…shall grant the concession or incentive…unless the City…makes a written finding, based
upon substantial evidence [that] the concession or incentive would have a specific adverse impact,
as defined in Section 65598.5 (d)(2), upon public health and safety or the physical environment or
on any real property that is listed on the California Register of Historical Resources…(emphasis
added). This section is clear that impacts need not be limited to health and safety issues.
COUNCIL ACTIONS ON THE APPEAL
1. The Council denies the appellant’s argument that the Burde Building should be treated as a
historical resource. The appellant presented no evidence in the record that would warrant
revisiting the appeal of 2006 in which the Council determined the building is not historical.
Pocket Protectors, v. City of Sacramento et.al.
7 The referenced findings related to the decision-making process discussed above in Background Finding #4.
118
City Council
Findings for Decision: Plaza del Mar
2 December 2008
Page 7
2. The Council grants the appeal regarding certification of the EIR and approval of all project
permits. The Council remands the project to the Planning Commission with the following
determinations and instructions:
The Commission should consider the project’s significant impact on visual quality and take
one of the following approaches:
o Deny the project, or
o Evaluate the feasibility of alternatives and adopt one if found to be feasible, or
o Approve the project with findings that support a Statement of Overriding
Considerations. Such findings may include reference to affordable housing, but
shall not conclude that Section 65915 mandates approval of incentives or
concessions, or that Section 65589.5 mandates approval of the project in spite of
significant adverse environmental impacts.
In considering the feasibility of a project alternative (per CEQA) the Commission’s decision
should be supported by evidence in the record. To be credible, the analysis of the evidence
must be adequately reasoned and, if possible, should be provided by an independent third
party. This is consistent with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093.8
At a minimum, an adaptive reuse project alternative that avoids demolition of the Burde
Building (or at least retains the important visual character of the building) should be
considered as an alternative in the EIR even if it does not meet all project objectives. This is
consistent with Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines.9
In reaching a decision regarding the feasibility of providing affordable housing without the
requested incentives/concessions the Commission should rely on evidence in the record.
This too should be the product of a reasoned analysis.
8 If the Commission determines that the project should be approved in spite of unmitigated, significant impacts, there
must be findings explaining why alternatives or mitigations are not feasible. Section 15091 states that findings
supporting a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be based on “Specific economic, legal, social, technological,
or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible
the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. And further that: “The findings required
…shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.” Section 15093 provides additional clarification: When a
lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final
EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its
action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. The Statement of Overriding Considerations shall
be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
9 Subsection (a): “…An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project…which would feasibly attain
most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the
project.” and (b) “…the discussion…shall focus on alternatives to the project…which are capable of avoiding or
substantially lessening any significant impacts of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree
the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly.”
119
City Council
Findings for Decision: Plaza del Mar
2 December 2008
Page 8
For purposes of applying Section 65589.5 of the Government Code, the Planning
Commission should assume that the project does qualify as a “Housing Development
Project”. If the project is approved, the Commission should either limit allowed commercial
land uses to “neighborhood commercial” or should adopt findings explaining why this is
unnecessary or inappropriate.
120
Findings for City Council Action on Appeal
Adopted 7 November 2006
In its decision determining that the Palo Alto Savings and Loan building does not qualify as a historical
resource, the City Council adopted 41 findings covering 18 pages. The following ten findings, related
solely to the building’s architecture, are a verbatim excerpt from those findings.
24. The bank building is only 34 years old. In order to consider such a young building
historic it should meet a higher threshold of significance than would be used for a
building 50 years old or older. Using the decision-making framework established
in findings #12 through #16, above, the Council considered whether the bank
building meets the tests for identifying historic resources as laid out in National
Register Bulletin #15 and #22.
Evidence: City Council Meeting Minutes, 6 June 2006.
City Building Records.
National Register Bulletins #15 and #22.
25. The bank building is visually striking. It is an excellent representative of the Second
Bay Area Tradition in architecture. It is modern in design and it reflects a more
recent period in the City’s history. It contrasts with earlier historic styles of design
and it adds to the architectural diversity of the City. At the hearing, architects
characterized it as heroic or monumental in design. There are few buildings in
Carmel that share all of these qualities.
Evidence: City Council Meeting Minutes, 6 June 2006.
Draft and Final EIR.
26. Testimony at the appeal hearing praised the bank building as contributing to the
City’s architectural diversity—a goal strongly supported by the City’s General Plan.
Policy P1-89 of the General Plan states that…particularly rare architectural styles
shall be given special consideration due to their particularly unusual qualities.
Such rare examples, which contribute to diversity in the community, need not have
been designed by known architects, design/builders or contractors. Rather, rare
styles and types that contribute to Carmel’s unique sense of time and place shall be
deemed significant. The Historic Resources Board determined that the bank
building is of exceptional importance, calling it a unique bank of monumental style.
The Board praised the building for the unusually strong contribution it makes to
architectural diversity in the City.
27. While preserving important architecture from each period in the City’s history is
one goal of the historic preservation program, the building’s architectural diversity
121
is not relevant to a determination of its historic status if it is not recognized as a rare
style or type. As established below in findings #30 through #33, the bank building
does not qualify as a rare style or type within the meaning of Policy P1-89.
Furthermore, upon demolition a replacement building of the modern period could be
designed that contributes equally to the City’s architectural diversity.
Evidence: City Council Meeting Minutes, 6 June 2006.
Carmel-by-the-Sea General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan.
Historic Resources Board Meeting Minutes, 16 December 2005.
Historic Resources Board Findings, 23 January 2006.
28. Walter Burde and his works are well respected by his peers who consider him an
outstanding architect. Walter Burde was given the AIA’s highest recognition by
bestowing the National Honor Award in 1969 and electing him to the College of
Fellows in the AIA. The evidence in the record supports a finding that Walter
Burde was a very important architect within the local context.
Evidence: City Council Meeting Minutes, 6 June 2006.
Public Comment letters on the Draft EIR
Historic Resources Board Meeting Minutes, 16 December 2005.
Updated DPR 523 and supporting materials, prepared by Rick Janic.
Letter from Brian T. Congleton, AIA, dated 15 December 2005.
29. Evidence in the record relevant to the historic significance of the building includes
both the City as the context of analysis as well as the Monterey Peninsula area at the
context of analysis. However, during the Council’s deliberation, expert testimony
was received from the author of the historic preservation section of the EIR who
explained that the term “local context”, as used in the EIR, meant the Monterey
Peninsula area.
Evidence: Draft EIR.
Public Comment letters and the Final EIR.
Historic Resources Board Meeting Minutes, 16 December 2006.
City Council Meeting Minutes, 6 June 2006.
30. Walter Burde’s works include several buildings of note within the Monterey
Peninsula area, but only two commercial buildings located within the City limits of
Carmel-by-the-Sea. One of these is the bank building; the other is the Shell Service
Station. Within the context of the Monterey Peninsula area, no less than eight
Walter Burde buildings have won awards. Even if the analysis of context is limited
to the City limits of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Walter Burde’s Shell Service Station is
considered more important in professional circles than the bank building; it won the
Governor’s Design Award in 1966. The Bank building won no awards.
122
31. The Council concludes that Walter Burde should be considered a very important
architect, but the bank building is not one of his most important works within the
local context—regardless of whether the context is defined as the City limits or as
the Peninsula. Within City limits, the Shell Service Station is of greater
architectural importance than the Bank Building. Therefore, the bank building is
not of exceptional importance using the National Register Bulletin “important
architect/important works” criterion.
32. If the bank building is evaluated as significant for its architecture alone, not
specifically tied to Walter Burde, comparisons between the bank building and other
examples of the Second Bay Area Tradition style of architecture are required. No
such analysis appears in the record. The City’s Historic Context Statement also
provides no guidance because it does not cover the relevant period of history. The
Council incorporates by reference, findings of the Historic Resources Board #12 and
#13 dated 23 January 2006 which are based on the analysis contained in the Draft
and Final EIR. The Council notes that there are hundreds of Second Bay Area
Tradition commercial buildings in California and several are within the local
context. Based on a careful review of the evidence in the record, the Council
concludes that the bank building is not the best representation of its kind within the
local context. The bank building also is not the best example of a particular
historical period or architectural style, within the local context. Therefore, it is not
of exceptional importance under the National Register’s “best example” criterion.
Evidence: Carmel-by-the-Sea Historic Context Statement, 1997.
Historic Resources Board Meeting Minutes, 16 December 2005.
Draft and Final EIR.
33. The building is not unique. There is one other commercial building designed by
Walter Burde in Carmel-by-the-Sea and many more within the Monterey Peninsula
area. There are other commercial buildings within the Monterey Peninsula area, and
within the City limits of Carmel-by-the-Sea, that are designed in the Second Bay
Area Tradition of architecture. There also are other buildings that can be described
as “heroic” or “monumental” within Carmel-by-the-Sea and within the Monterey
Peninsula area. The Council concludes that the building is not of exceptional
importance using the National Register’s “one of a kind” criterion.
Evidence: Significant Buildings Survey.
Draft and Final EIR.
Public Testimony and letters of Richard Barrett, architect, at the City Council
meeting of 6 June 2006 and at the meeting of the Planning Commission of 14
July 2004
123
34. Based on Findings #30 through #33, above, and pursuant to eligibility criteria for
the California Register of Historic Resources and the Carmel Municipal Code, the
bank building does not embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region
or method of construction, or present the work of an important creative individual or
possess high artistic value, nor does it make an unusually strong contribution to
history, architecture, engineering or culture.
The preponderance of the evidence does not support the Bank building’s designation
as an historic resource. Using the five tests established in National Register
Bulletins #15 and #22, and using the additional test for exceptional importance in
the Carmel Municipal Code, the evidence in the record does not support a finding
that the bank building qualifies as historically significant within the City of Carmelby-
the-Sea.