Regular Meeting
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
4:30 p.m., Open Session
Live video streaming available at:
www.ci.carmel.ca.us
Broadcast date
Sunday, December 12, 2010
8:00 a.m., MCAET 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. None.
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. Receive City’s Year-End and First Quarter 2010-2011 financial reports.
2. Present FY 2009-10 Draft Audited Financial Statements by Ralph Marcello, Marcello & Company CPAs.
VI. Public 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 November 2, 2010.
B. Ratify the bills paid for the month of November 2010.
C. Consideration of a Resolution approving the Regular Meeting Schedule of the City Council for 2011.
D. Consideration of a Resolution accepting a gift of $15,987.00 from the Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company Heritage Reward and Paul Bystrowski of Monterey Insurance Agencies to purchase equipment for the Fire Department.
E. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing co-sponsorship with the Carmel Public Library Foundation and Harrison Memorial Library Board of Trustees of two events: the Annual Donor Salute on March 6, 2011, and the Sterling Circle Reception on April 10, 2011.
F. Consideration of Findings for the City Council’s Decision on an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the Carmel Sands Redevelopment Project and the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND).
G. Consideration of a Resolution Consideration of a Resolution authorizing
$244,048 in fiscal year-end departmental budget transfers and a transfer of
$7,659.73 in unspent grant revenues for fiscal year 2009/10 to comply with state financial restrictions.
H. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the Carmel Police Department to
renew an agreement for Sexual Assault Examiner Services with the Monterey County Health Department Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) in an amount not to exceed $5,000.
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. None.
IX. Ordinances
A. Consideration of an Ordinance amending Municipal Code Section 6.08 to allow for the keeping of hens on properties in the R-1 District in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. (First reading)
X. Resolutions
A. None.
XI. Orders of Council
A. Receive report and provide policy direction on extending the shared fire services agreement for 30 days.
B. Receive report and provide policy direction on the City’s directory signs.
C. Receive report and provide policy direction on holiday lights in the Business Distri
ct.
D. Ratify the Mayor’s reappointment to the Monterey Regional Waste Management District/Authority Board of Directors.
E. 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, January 4, 2011
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
December 7, 2010
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 4:36 p.m. Mayor McCloud called the meeting to order.
II. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Council Members Burnett, Hazdovac, Sharp, Talmage, McCloud
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Rich Guillen, City Administrator
Molly Laughlin, Deputy City Clerk Don Freeman, City Attorney Mike Calhoun, Police Commander/Acting Police Chief
Sean Conroy, Planning and Building Services Manager
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Members of the audience joined the Mayor and Council Members in the Pledge of Allegiance.
IV. EXTRAORDINARY BUSINESS
A. Mayor McCloud asked for a moment of silence for Jennefer Lloyd Wineman and Jane Galante.
V. ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM CLOSED SESSION, FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS AND THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR
A. Announcements from Closed Session.
There was no Closed Session.
B. Announcements from City Council members.
Mayor McCloud asked everyone to think of the military men and women serving abroad and those less fortunate in our own community. She provided an update on the Monterey Peninsula water situation and noted two public meetings set for December 13th at the Monterey City Council Chambers to discuss the regional water situation. Finally, she noted that a Carmel home was featured in the January 2011 issue of Architectural Digest magazine.
Council Member Sharp introduced Georgeanne Thurston, president of the Carmel Woman’s Club, who provided an overview of her organization, which celebrated its 85th anniversary on December 6.
Council Member Talmage discussed a new booklet published by the Association of Monterey Bay Governments (AMBAG) on “smart growth” in housing and transportation needs.
Council Member Hazdovac asked everyone to remember those who died in Pearl Harbor 69 years ago, including her own uncle, Jack Hazdovac. She also said that the November issue of Conde Nast magazine named Carmel the #8 Top City in the United States for “delivering unparalleled urban riches”.
C. Announcements from City Administrator
1. Receive City’s Year-End and First Quarter 2010-2011 financial reports.
Interim Finance Director Laura Dadiw gave the presentation.
2. Present FY 2009-10 Draft Audited Financial Statements by Ralph Marcello, Marcello & Company CPAs.
City Administrator Guillen said this item would be continued to the January 2011 meeting.
City Administrator Guillen acknowledged Commander Mike Calhoun’s new role as Interim Police Chief and praised retired Public Safety Director George Rawson’s service to the City.
VI. PUBLIC APPEARANCES
Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment at 5:28 p.m.
Amy Donahue, executive director of the Carmel Public Library Foundation, discussed the Annual Campaign for the Library.
Ken White, chair of the Friends of Sunset Center Foundation mentioned $55,000 in grants given by the group this year to allow a wider circle to enjoy the arts. He introduced Adam Moniz from the Membership Committee, who encouraged people to join the Foundation.
Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment at 5:35 p.m.
VII. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Ratify the minutes for the regular meeting of November 2, 2010.
B. Ratify the bills paid for the month of November 2010.
C. Consideration of a Resolution approving the Regular Meeting Schedule of the City Council for 2011.
D. Consideration of a Resolution accepting a gift of $15,987.00 from the Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company Heritage Reward and Paul Bystrowski of Monterey Insurance Agencies to purchase equipment for the Fire Department.
E. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing co-sponsorship with the Carmel Public Library Foundation and Harrison Memorial Library Board of Trustees of two events: the Annual Donor Salute on March 6, 2011, and the Sterling Circle Reception on April 10, 2011.
F. Consideration of Findings for the City Council’s Decision on an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the Carmel Sands Redevelopment Project and the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND).
G. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing $244,048 in fiscal year-end departmental budget transfers and a transfer of $7,659.73 in unspent grant revenues for fiscal year 2009/10 to comply with state financial restrictions.
H. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the Carmel Police Department to renew an agreement for Sexual Assault Examiner Services with the Monterey County Health Department Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) in an amount not to exceed $5,000.
Mayor McCloud asked to pull Item “F” for discussion at the end of the meeting.
Council Member HAZDOVAC moved to approve Consent Agenda Items A-E, G and H, seconded by Council Member SHARP and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BURNETT; HAZDOVAC; SHARP; TALMAGE & McCLOUD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. None.
IX. ORDINANCES
A. Consideration of an Ordinance amending Municipal Code Section 6.08 to allow for the keeping of hens on properties in the R-1 District in the City of Carmel-by-the- Sea. (First reading)
This item was continued so the Planning Commission could review the draft and make recommendations to City Council.
X. RESOLUTIONS
A. None.
XI. ORDERS OF COUNCIL
A. Receive report and provide policy direction on extending the shared fire services agreement for 30 days.
City Administrator Guillen gave the presentation. He further added that he has requested a relief firefighter from Monterey/Pacific Grove to help the City of Carmel during its period of decreased staffing (due to a firefighter injury).
Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment at 5:57 p.m.
Carolyn Hardy spoke to the issue.
Dick Stiles, speaking on behalf of the Carmel Residents Association Board, spoke to the issue.
Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment at 6:02 p.m.
Mayor McCloud requested Council take a five minute break at 6:03 p.m. Council reconvened at 6:08 p.m.
City Administrator returned from the break and reported that the City of Monterey had extended the fire services agreement for an additional 60 days beyond that of what Council was considering at this meeting. By consensus, Council agreed to extend the shared fire services agreement with the City of Monterey until January 31, 2011 and to approve the request for a relief firefighter. The Council will consider the approval of the City of Monterey’s subsequent offer of the additional 60-day extension at its January 4, 2011 meeting. Further, a public workshop will be scheduled for a date in January (to be determined) to discuss various fire options.
B. Receive report and provide policy direction on the City’s directory signs.
City Administrator Guillen gave the presentation.
Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment at 6:24 p.m.
Monta Potter, Chief Executive Officer of the Carmel Chamber of Commerce, Shirley Humann, and Jonathan Sapp addressed Council.
Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment at 6:29 p.m.
By consensus, Council directed sending this to the Planning Commission for its recommendations.
C. Receive report and provide policy direction on holiday lights in the Business District.
City Administrator Guillen gave the presentation.
Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment at 6:36 p.m.
Jonathan Sapp distributed a petition with the names of 36 business people and residents who favor low-intensity lights on the downtown sidewalk trees for the extended holiday light period.
Barbara Livingston spoke to the issue.
Monta Potter, Chief Executive Officer of the Carmel Chamber of Commerce, said she had conducted an informal survey which indicated most merchants favor a 90-day window of time for the downtown holiday lights to be up.
Roberta Miller spoke to the issue.
Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment at 6:43 p.m.
By consensus, Council approved allowing holiday lights in the Business District to remain up until the second Wednesday of January (same date as the removal of the City’s holiday tree). Council will consider amendments to Holiday Lights Policy C95-08 at its January 4 meeting.
D. Ratify the Mayor’s reappointment to the Monterey Regional Waste Management District/Authority Board of Directors.
Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment at 6:54 p.m.
Council Member TALMAGE moved to ratify the Mayor’s reappointment to the Monterey Regional Waste Management District/Authority Board of Directors, seconded by Council Member SHARP and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BURNETT; HAZDOVAC; SHARP; TALMAGE & McCLOUD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
E. Scheduling Future City Council meetings – Please Bring Your Calendar.
VII. CONSENT CALENDAR
F. Consideration of Findings for the City Council’s Decision on an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the Carmel Sands Redevelopment Project and the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND).
This item had been pulled earlier by Mayor McCloud for further discussion.
Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment at 7:06 p.m.
Barbara Livingston spoke to the issue.
Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment at 7:08 p.m.
Council Member HAZDOVAC moved to approve Consent Agenda Item F, as amended, seconded by Council Member TALMAGE and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BURNETT; HAZDOVAC; SHARP; TALMAGE & McCLOUD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor McCloud declared the meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, ATTEST:
_____________________________ _____________________________
Molly Laughlin, Deputy City Clerk MAYOR SUE McCLOUD
Thursday, December 2, 2010
CITY COUNCIL: Resolution Approving Regular Meeting Schedule of the City Council for 2011
Meeting Date: December 7, 2010
Prepared by: Heidi Burch
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of a Resolution approving the Regular Meeting Schedule of the
City Council for 2011.
Description: Adoption of the Resolution will establish the meeting dates of the City
Council Regular Meetings in 2011. Special Meetings are not included.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.
Important Considerations: The Resolution is in accordance with Municipal Code
Section 2.04.020, which directs the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore to place the
City Council’s calendar of meetings for the upcoming year on the December
Council agenda.
Decision Record: Annually in December.
Reviewed by:
_____________________________ __________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
18
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2010-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA APPROVING THE MEETING DATES OF THE
CITY COUNCIL FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2011
________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS, Section 2.04.020 of the Municipal Code directs the Mayor and
Mayor Pro Tempore to place on the December agenda the City Council’s calendar of
meetings for the coming year; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore have submitted the proposed
meeting dates, attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BYTHE-
SEA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
1. To accept the calendar of City Council meetings for calendar year 2011 as
attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA on this 7th day of December 2010, by the following roll call
vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SIGNED:
______________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR
ATTEST:
______________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
19
Exhibit “A”
2011 Calendar of City Council Meetings
Month
Tour of
Inspection Regular Meeting
January 3 4
February January 31 1
March February 28 1
April 4 5
May 2 3
June 6 7
July* 11 12
August 1 2
September * 12 13
October 3 4
November October 31 1
December 5 6
* meetings moved to the second Tuesday because of 4th of July and Labor Day holidays.
Prepared by: Heidi Burch
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of a Resolution approving the Regular Meeting Schedule of the
City Council for 2011.
Description: Adoption of the Resolution will establish the meeting dates of the City
Council Regular Meetings in 2011. Special Meetings are not included.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.
Important Considerations: The Resolution is in accordance with Municipal Code
Section 2.04.020, which directs the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore to place the
City Council’s calendar of meetings for the upcoming year on the December
Council agenda.
Decision Record: Annually in December.
Reviewed by:
_____________________________ __________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
18
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2010-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA APPROVING THE MEETING DATES OF THE
CITY COUNCIL FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2011
________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS, Section 2.04.020 of the Municipal Code directs the Mayor and
Mayor Pro Tempore to place on the December agenda the City Council’s calendar of
meetings for the coming year; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore have submitted the proposed
meeting dates, attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BYTHE-
SEA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
1. To accept the calendar of City Council meetings for calendar year 2011 as
attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA on this 7th day of December 2010, by the following roll call
vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SIGNED:
______________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR
ATTEST:
______________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
19
Exhibit “A”
2011 Calendar of City Council Meetings
Month
Tour of
Inspection Regular Meeting
January 3 4
February January 31 1
March February 28 1
April 4 5
May 2 3
June 6 7
July* 11 12
August 1 2
September * 12 13
October 3 4
November October 31 1
December 5 6
* meetings moved to the second Tuesday because of 4th of July and Labor Day holidays.
CITY COUNCIL: Resolution Accepting Gift of $15,987 from Fireman's Fund Insurance Company Heritage Reward & paul Bystrowski/Monterey Insurance Agencies to Purchase Fire Department Equipment
Meeting Date: December 7, 2010
Prepared by: Mitchell Kastros
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of a Resolution accepting a gift of $15,987.00 from the Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company Heritage Reward and Paul Bystrowski of Monterey Insurance Agencies to purchase equipment for the Fire Department.
Description: In accordance to City Policy C89-41, all donations and gifts to the City of more
$1,000 must be approved and accepted by Resolution of the City Council. Fireman’s
Fund Insurance Company, Monterey Insurance Agencies, and Paul Bystrowski, have
donated $15,987.00 to assist the City of Carmel Fire Department acquire firefighting,
rescue and medical equipment under the provisions of the Fireman’s Fund Heritage
Reward. This gift of funds is restricted for use by the Fire Department to fund
community fire protection needs.
The Fire Department staff identified a list of needed equipment (see Attachment “A”).
The list of equipment was approved by the insurance company and the chiefs.
A media event will be held at the Carmel Fire Station to demonstrate the life-saving
equipment paid for by the donated funds. At that time, City officials will acknowledge
and recognize the support and generosity of the Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company and
Paul Bystrowski of Monterey Insurance Agencies.
Overall Cost: City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: $15,987.00
Staff Recommendation: Approve the Resolution accepting the $15,987.00 gift from Mr. Paul
Bystrowski and Monterey Insurance Agencies, and the Fireman’s Fund Heritage Reward.
Important Considerations: City Policy C89-41 requires City Council approve all donations and
gifts to the City valued in excess of $1,000.
Decision Record: Resolution 2009-1 (January 6, 2009): Acceptance of a similar grant from
Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company and Monterey Insurance Agencies in the amount of
$25,302.00.
Reviewed by:
______________________________ _________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
21
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2010-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA ACCEPTING A GIFT OF $15,987 FROM
THE FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY HERITAGE REWARD
PROGRAM AND PAUL BYSTROWSKI OF MONTEREY INSURANCE
AGENCIES TO PURCHASE EQUIPMENT FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT
________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Fire Department intends to purchase
firefighting, rescue and/or medical equipment; and
WHEREAS, the costs to acquire the equipment for the Fire Department shall be
no less than $15,987; and
WHEREAS, this gift is restricted to pay for equipment designated by the Fire
Department, with the approval of the Fireman’s Fund Heritage Reward Program;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DOES:
1. Accept with gratitude the $15,987 donation from the Fireman’s Fund Insurance
Company Heritage Reward Program, under the direction of Monterey Insurance
Agencies and Paul Bystrowski, and deposit said funds in the Fire Department
Donations Deposit Account # 50-24050-0477.
2. Authorize expenditure of said funds in accordance to the equipment listed in
Attachment “A.”
3. Direct the Mayor to send a letter of thanks and appreciation to the Fireman’s Fund
Insurance Company and Paul Bystrowski for their generous donation.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMELBY-
THE-SEA this 7th day of December, 2010, by the following roll call votes:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SIGNED:
ATTEST:
______________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR
_____________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
22
Attachment “A”
Approved List of Items for Purchase by Carmel Fire Department through
Fireman’s Fund Heritage Reward and Monterey Insurance Agencies
Bullard Eclipse Thermal Imaging Camera……………………… $3,600.00
Tuffstuff CXT-100 and Tuffstuff CXT-125 Exercise Machines… $4,156.00 tax
included
Tamahawk E Series Indoor Cycle………………………………... $1,000.00 plus tax
Bowflex Dumbbells……………………………………………… .$599.00 plus tax
Stryker “Stair Pro” Stair Chair Model 6252…………………… $2,800.00 freight
included
Stihl Model MS 460 24-inch Chainsaw
with Heavy-Duty Chain…………………………………………… $1,000.00 plus tax
Sub-Total…………………………………………………………… $13,155.00
Tax Where Applicable...……………………………………………..$832.40
Total, Not Including Freight………………………………………...$13,987.40
If, after freight is figured into the equation, there is still a balance on the reward, we
would like to use that balance towards the purchase of personal protective clothing
(turnouts). We normally must replace one to two sets of turnouts per year due to
excessive wear and tear. These items were approved by Fireman’s Fund Insurance
Company.
The Carmel Fire Department deeply appreciates the tremendous support and generosity
from the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company and Monterey
Insurance Agencies in making it possible for us to acquire this valuable equipment. The
end result will be enhanced service to our community and safer, more effective, working
conditions for our firefighters.
Thank you so much,
Mitchell Kastros
B Shift Captain--Carmel Fire Department
Prepared by: Mitchell Kastros
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of a Resolution accepting a gift of $15,987.00 from the Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company Heritage Reward and Paul Bystrowski of Monterey Insurance Agencies to purchase equipment for the Fire Department.
Description: In accordance to City Policy C89-41, all donations and gifts to the City of more
$1,000 must be approved and accepted by Resolution of the City Council. Fireman’s
Fund Insurance Company, Monterey Insurance Agencies, and Paul Bystrowski, have
donated $15,987.00 to assist the City of Carmel Fire Department acquire firefighting,
rescue and medical equipment under the provisions of the Fireman’s Fund Heritage
Reward. This gift of funds is restricted for use by the Fire Department to fund
community fire protection needs.
The Fire Department staff identified a list of needed equipment (see Attachment “A”).
The list of equipment was approved by the insurance company and the chiefs.
A media event will be held at the Carmel Fire Station to demonstrate the life-saving
equipment paid for by the donated funds. At that time, City officials will acknowledge
and recognize the support and generosity of the Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company and
Paul Bystrowski of Monterey Insurance Agencies.
Overall Cost: City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: $15,987.00
Staff Recommendation: Approve the Resolution accepting the $15,987.00 gift from Mr. Paul
Bystrowski and Monterey Insurance Agencies, and the Fireman’s Fund Heritage Reward.
Important Considerations: City Policy C89-41 requires City Council approve all donations and
gifts to the City valued in excess of $1,000.
Decision Record: Resolution 2009-1 (January 6, 2009): Acceptance of a similar grant from
Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company and Monterey Insurance Agencies in the amount of
$25,302.00.
Reviewed by:
______________________________ _________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
21
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2010-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA ACCEPTING A GIFT OF $15,987 FROM
THE FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY HERITAGE REWARD
PROGRAM AND PAUL BYSTROWSKI OF MONTEREY INSURANCE
AGENCIES TO PURCHASE EQUIPMENT FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT
________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Fire Department intends to purchase
firefighting, rescue and/or medical equipment; and
WHEREAS, the costs to acquire the equipment for the Fire Department shall be
no less than $15,987; and
WHEREAS, this gift is restricted to pay for equipment designated by the Fire
Department, with the approval of the Fireman’s Fund Heritage Reward Program;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DOES:
1. Accept with gratitude the $15,987 donation from the Fireman’s Fund Insurance
Company Heritage Reward Program, under the direction of Monterey Insurance
Agencies and Paul Bystrowski, and deposit said funds in the Fire Department
Donations Deposit Account # 50-24050-0477.
2. Authorize expenditure of said funds in accordance to the equipment listed in
Attachment “A.”
3. Direct the Mayor to send a letter of thanks and appreciation to the Fireman’s Fund
Insurance Company and Paul Bystrowski for their generous donation.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMELBY-
THE-SEA this 7th day of December, 2010, by the following roll call votes:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SIGNED:
ATTEST:
______________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR
_____________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
22
Attachment “A”
Approved List of Items for Purchase by Carmel Fire Department through
Fireman’s Fund Heritage Reward and Monterey Insurance Agencies
Bullard Eclipse Thermal Imaging Camera……………………… $3,600.00
Tuffstuff CXT-100 and Tuffstuff CXT-125 Exercise Machines… $4,156.00 tax
included
Tamahawk E Series Indoor Cycle………………………………... $1,000.00 plus tax
Bowflex Dumbbells……………………………………………… .$599.00 plus tax
Stryker “Stair Pro” Stair Chair Model 6252…………………… $2,800.00 freight
included
Stihl Model MS 460 24-inch Chainsaw
with Heavy-Duty Chain…………………………………………… $1,000.00 plus tax
Sub-Total…………………………………………………………… $13,155.00
Tax Where Applicable...……………………………………………..$832.40
Total, Not Including Freight………………………………………...$13,987.40
If, after freight is figured into the equation, there is still a balance on the reward, we
would like to use that balance towards the purchase of personal protective clothing
(turnouts). We normally must replace one to two sets of turnouts per year due to
excessive wear and tear. These items were approved by Fireman’s Fund Insurance
Company.
The Carmel Fire Department deeply appreciates the tremendous support and generosity
from the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company and Monterey
Insurance Agencies in making it possible for us to acquire this valuable equipment. The
end result will be enhanced service to our community and safer, more effective, working
conditions for our firefighters.
Thank you so much,
Mitchell Kastros
B Shift Captain--Carmel Fire Department
CITY COUNCIL: Resolution Authorizing Co-Sponsorship with Carmel Public Library Foundation & Harrison Memorial Library Board of Trustees of Annual Donor Salure and Sterling Circle Reception
Meeting Date: December 7, 2010
Prepared by: Janet Cubbage, Library Director
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of a Resolution authorizing co-sponsorship with the Carmel Public Library Foundation and Harrison Memorial Library Board of Trustees of two events: the Annual Donor Salute on March 6, 2011, and the Sterling Circle Reception on April 10, 2011.
Description: The Library Board of Trustees and the Carmel Public Library Foundation
request City co-sponsorship of the Annual Donor Salute on Sunday, March 6, 2011,
at Harrison Memorial Library and the Sterling Circle Reception at Harrison
Memorial Library Park Branch on Sunday, April 10, 2011. Authorization for the City
Administrator to close two parking spaces to public use in order to provide valet
parking service during the Donor Salute event also is requested.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.
Important Considerations: These events are held annually to thank Carmel Public Library
Foundation donors. City Policy C89-47 requires support groups to obtain City
Council co-sponsorship of events at which alcohol is served. The Carmel Public
Library Foundation will secure Daily License Permits from the Department of
Alcoholic Beverage Control.
Decision Record: The City Council has approved co-sponsorship of the Annual Donor
Salute ever since 1994. The City Council approved co-sponsorship of the first
Annual Sterling Circle Reception in April 2010.
Reviewed by:
______________________________ _________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
24
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2010-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
AUTHORIZING CO-SPONSORSHIP OF TWO EVENTS WITH THE
HARRISON MEMORIAL LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES AND THE
CARMEL PUBLIC LIBRARY FOUNDATION OF TWO EVENTS:
THE ANNUAL DONOR SALUTE ON MARCH 6, 2011 AND
THE STERLING CIRCLE RECEPTION ON APRIL 11, 2011
WHEREAS, the City Support Groups Policy C 89-47 requires support groups to obtain
the approval of City Council to co-sponsor events at which alcohol is served; and
WHEREAS, the Library Board of Trustees and the Carmel Public Library Foundation
request City co-sponsorship of the Annual Donor Salute on Sunday, March 6, 2011 at Harrison
Memorial Library and the Annual Sterling Circle Reception at Harrison Library Park Branch on
Sunday, April 10, 2011; and
WHEREAS, valet parking will be provided and two parking stalls are needed to provide
this service in a safe manner for the events:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DOES:
1. Agree to co-sponsor with the Harrison Memorial Library Board of Trustees and
Carmel Public Library Foundation the March 6th Annual Donor Salute and the
April 10th Annual Sterling Circle Reception.
2. Authorize the City Administrator to notify the Harrison Memorial Library Board
of Trustees and Carmel Public Library Foundation of the Council’s concurrence
to co-sponsor the two events.
3. Authorize the City Administrator to officially notify the City’s insurance carrier
of the co-sponsorship.
4. Authorize the City Administrator to close two parking stalls on the north side of
Ocean Avenue at Lincoln Street to public use during the March 6th event.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMELBY-
THE-SEA this 7th day of December, 2010 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SIGNED:
ATTEST: _______________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR
___________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
Prepared by: Janet Cubbage, Library Director
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of a Resolution authorizing co-sponsorship with the Carmel Public Library Foundation and Harrison Memorial Library Board of Trustees of two events: the Annual Donor Salute on March 6, 2011, and the Sterling Circle Reception on April 10, 2011.
Description: The Library Board of Trustees and the Carmel Public Library Foundation
request City co-sponsorship of the Annual Donor Salute on Sunday, March 6, 2011,
at Harrison Memorial Library and the Sterling Circle Reception at Harrison
Memorial Library Park Branch on Sunday, April 10, 2011. Authorization for the City
Administrator to close two parking spaces to public use in order to provide valet
parking service during the Donor Salute event also is requested.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.
Important Considerations: These events are held annually to thank Carmel Public Library
Foundation donors. City Policy C89-47 requires support groups to obtain City
Council co-sponsorship of events at which alcohol is served. The Carmel Public
Library Foundation will secure Daily License Permits from the Department of
Alcoholic Beverage Control.
Decision Record: The City Council has approved co-sponsorship of the Annual Donor
Salute ever since 1994. The City Council approved co-sponsorship of the first
Annual Sterling Circle Reception in April 2010.
Reviewed by:
______________________________ _________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
24
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2010-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
AUTHORIZING CO-SPONSORSHIP OF TWO EVENTS WITH THE
HARRISON MEMORIAL LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES AND THE
CARMEL PUBLIC LIBRARY FOUNDATION OF TWO EVENTS:
THE ANNUAL DONOR SALUTE ON MARCH 6, 2011 AND
THE STERLING CIRCLE RECEPTION ON APRIL 11, 2011
WHEREAS, the City Support Groups Policy C 89-47 requires support groups to obtain
the approval of City Council to co-sponsor events at which alcohol is served; and
WHEREAS, the Library Board of Trustees and the Carmel Public Library Foundation
request City co-sponsorship of the Annual Donor Salute on Sunday, March 6, 2011 at Harrison
Memorial Library and the Annual Sterling Circle Reception at Harrison Library Park Branch on
Sunday, April 10, 2011; and
WHEREAS, valet parking will be provided and two parking stalls are needed to provide
this service in a safe manner for the events:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DOES:
1. Agree to co-sponsor with the Harrison Memorial Library Board of Trustees and
Carmel Public Library Foundation the March 6th Annual Donor Salute and the
April 10th Annual Sterling Circle Reception.
2. Authorize the City Administrator to notify the Harrison Memorial Library Board
of Trustees and Carmel Public Library Foundation of the Council’s concurrence
to co-sponsor the two events.
3. Authorize the City Administrator to officially notify the City’s insurance carrier
of the co-sponsorship.
4. Authorize the City Administrator to close two parking stalls on the north side of
Ocean Avenue at Lincoln Street to public use during the March 6th event.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMELBY-
THE-SEA this 7th day of December, 2010 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SIGNED:
ATTEST: _______________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR
___________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL: Findings for City Council's Decision on Appeal of Planning Commission's Approval of Carmel Sands Redevelopment Project & Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
Meeting Date: 7 December 2010
Prepared by: Sean Conroy, Plng & Bldg Services Manager
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of Findings for the City Council’s Decision on an appeal of the Planning
Commission's approval of the Carmel Sands Redevelopment Project and the adoption
of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND).
Description: The project consists of the demolition of the existing 42-room Carmel Sands
Lodge and the construction of a new 42-room hotel that includes a 64-space underground
garage, a restaurant, a day spa and two retail spaces, and the adoption of an MND. The
proposed findings were written to reflect the basis for the Council’s decision to deny the
appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the project.
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the attached Findings.
Important Considerations: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Report when a fair argument can be made, based
on substantial evidence, that a project may have a significant adverse environmental
impact. The Council determined that a fair argument, based on substantial evidence, can
not be made that the project will have a significant adverse environmental impact, and
upheld the Planning Commission’s decision.
Decision Record: The Planning Commission approved the project and adopted an MND on 14
July 2010. An appeal was filed on 27 July 2010. The City Council denied the appeal on
2 November 2010.
Reviewed by:
__________________________ _____________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
26
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
FINDINGS FOR DECISION
UP 08-2/DR 08-9
Barbara Livingston Appeal
Carmel Sands Redevelopment Project
NE Cor. San Carlos & 5th
Block 50, Lots Part 12 & 13-20
CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of Findings for the City Council’s Decision on an appeal of the Planning
Commission's approval of the Carmel Sands Redevelopment Project and the adoption of a
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND).
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. This site is 32,997 square feet in size and is comprised of a portion of lot 12 and all of
lots 13-20 of Block 50 in the Service Commercial (SC) District of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
Evidence
• City of Carmel-by-the Sea property file and Monterey County Assessor’s
records.
• Official Zoning Map of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
2. This site is developed with a 42-unit motel known as the Carmel Sands Lodge and
includes a 120-seat full service restaurant.
Evidence
• City of Carmel-by-the Sea property file and business license records.
3. The existing buildings on the site are not considered historically significant. The City
issued a Determination of Ineligibility for listing on the City’s Historic Inventory on 1
September 2006.
Evidence
• Determination of Ineligibility dated 1 September 2006.
• Letter dated 17 August 2010 from Preservation Consultant Kent Seavey.
4. The property owner submitted an application for the demolition of the existing motel
and the construction of a new 57-unit motel on 21 March 2008.
Evidence
• Application Materials on file at City Hall.
27
Carmel Sands Redevelopment Project
Livingston Appeal
7 December 2010
Findings
Page 2
5. The City circulated an Initial Study (IS)/Mitigated Negative Declaration(MND) for the
project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) from 13
November 2008 through 3 December 2008.
Evidence
• Draft IS/MND dated 10 November 2008.
• Notice of Intent filed with Monterey County Clerk on 11/12/2008.
• Carmel Pine Cone Public Notice.
6. The Planning Commission reviewed the IS/MND on 10 December 2008 and continued
the project to a future meeting.
Evidence
• Planning Commission Minutes for 12/10/2008.
7. The applicant subsequently revised the project to reduce the number of rooms to 42,
which necessitated the preparation of a new IS.
Evidence
• Application materials on file at City Hall
8. The City prepared a revised IS/MND based on the new project description and
circulated it from 4 November 2009 through 24 November 2009. The IS/MND
identified 20 Mitigation Measures to address potentially significant impacts.
Evidence
• IS/MND dated 11/2/2009.
• Notice of Intent filed with Monterey County Clerk on 11/5/2009.
• Carmel Pine Cone Notice.
9. Ten comments were submitted during the public comment period. Staff issued a
“Response to Comments” on 9 December 2009 responding to questions and concerns
raised in comment letters.
Evidence
• Comment letters on file at City Hall.
• Planning Commission Packet dated 12/9/09.
28
Carmel Sands Redevelopment Project
Livingston Appeal
7 December 2010
Findings
Page 3
10. On 9 December 2009 and again on 10 February 2010 the Planning Commission
determined that the IS/MND was adequate for the project and that no substantial
evidence existed that the project might have a significant effect on the environment.
Evidence
• Planning Commission Minutes for 12/9/2009 and 2/10/2010.
11. On 10 March 2010 the Planning Commission accepted the Design Concept for the
project and determined that the proposed scale, massing and site design were
appropriate for the project. The Commission also determined that the proposed mass
and scale of the project was consistent with other hotels in the City and with other
projects in the vicinity.
Evidence
• Planning Commission Minutes for 3/10/2010.
• Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments dated 3/10/2010.
12. On 10 March 2010 the Planning Commission determined that the requested height
exceptions for the tower elements that exceed 30-feet in height were appropriate for the
project and consistent with the Municipal Code.
Evidence
• Planning Commission Minutes for 3/10/2010.
• CMC Section 17.14.150.B.
13. On 14 July 2010 the Planning Commission approved all project permits and adopted a
MND.
Evidence
• Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments dated 7/14/2010.
• Planning Commission Minutes for 7/14/2010.
14. An appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to adopt an MND and approve the
project was filed by Barbara Livingston on 27 July 2010. The appellant requested that
the Council overturn the Planning Commission’s decision and require an
Environmental Impact Report for the Project. The appellant further argued that the
project had drawbacks that should lead to its denial.
Evidence
• Appeal Application dated 7/27/10.
• Appeal Letter and Attachments dated 9/7/10.
29
Carmel Sands Redevelopment Project
Livingston Appeal
7 December 2010
Findings
Page 4
15. On 2 November 2010 the City Council received both oral and written testimony on the
appeal and voted to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision
with a 5-0 vote.
Evidence
• City Council Staff Report and Attachments dated 11/2/10.
• City Council Minutes for 11/2/10.
16. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) allows a lead agency to adopt a
MND only if it finds on the basis of the whole record before it that there is no
substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment,
and that the MND reflects the lead agency’s independent judgment and analysis.
Evidence
• CEQA Guidelines Section 15074.b.
17. As defined by CEQA, a “Significant effect on the environment” means a substantial, or
potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area
affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna ambient noise,
and objects of historic or aesthetic significance.
Evidence
• CEQA Guidelines Section 15382.
FINDINGS FOR DECISION:
1. The Planning Commission adopted 40 Findings related to project approval on 14 July
2010. The City Council’s decision to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning
Commission’s decision reaffirms these findings.
Evidence
• Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments dated 7/14/10.
• City Council Staff Report and Attachments dated 11/2/10.
• City Council Minutes for 11/2/10.
2. Based on a review of the whole record, including public testimony given orally and in
writing on 2 November 2010, the City Council determined that a fair argument, based
on substantial evidence, can not be made that the project will have a significant adverse
effect on the environment.
Evidence
• City Council Staff Report and Attachments dated 11/2/10.
30
Carmel Sands Redevelopment Project
Livingston Appeal
7 December 2010
Findings
Page 5
• City Council Minutes for 11/2/10.
• Definition of “Substantial Evidence” in CEQA Guidelines Section 15384.
3. The existing surface parking lot includes 42 parking spaces for the 42-room motel and
the 120 seat restaurant. The site is currently nonconforming by approximately six
parking spaces. The proposed project exceeds the on-site parking requirement by seven
spaces, a 13-space improvement based on the City’s required parking standards. The
project also creates new on-street parking spaces by eliminating existing access points
on Fifth Avenue and on Mission Street. The Porte de Cochere will also allow vehicles
to pull off the street while checking in or out of the hotel, thus limiting congestion. A
fair argument, based on substantial evidence, has not been made that the project will
result in a significant adverse effect on traffic and parking.
Evidence
• City Council Staff Report and Attachments dated 11/2/10.
• City Council Minutes for 11/2/10.
• Adopted IS/MND and Mitigation and Monitoring Plan.
4. Noise impacts are adequately addressed in the IS/MND. A fair argument, based on
substantial evidence, has not been made that the project will result in significant
adverse noise impacts.
Evidence
• MND Mitigation Measures 11-1 through 11-3.
• Planning Commission Special Conditions of Approval #’s 31 and 42.
• City Council Minutes for 11/2/10.
5. The ‘canyon effect’ referred to by the appellant is actually a desirable attribute in the
commercial district. The General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Commercial Design
Guidelines all encourage properties in the SC District to be built at, or close to the street
to create a pedestrian wall. The proposed project is consistent with these policies,
standards and guidelines.
Evidence
• City Council Staff Report dated 11/2/10.
• General Plan Objective 01-11.
• General Plan Policies P1-64 and P1-68.
• CMC Section 17.14.130.
• Commercial Design Guidelines pg. 8.
• City Council Minutes for 11/2/10.
31
Carmel Sands Redevelopment Project
Livingston Appeal
7 December 2010
Findings
Page 6
6. The IS/MND adequately addresses public and private views. A fair argument, based on
substantial evidence, has not been made that the project will result in significant
adverse impacts to public and/or private views.
Evidence
• Adopted IS/MND section I (aesthetics).
• City Council Minutes for 11/2/10.
7. The IS/MND adequately addresses air quality and global warming issues. Greenhouse
gas emissions associated with the project are negligible and all potential impacts are
appropriately addressed through the adopted mitigation measures. A fair argument,
based on substantial evidence, has not been made that the project will result in
significant adverse air quality and/or global warming impacts.
Evidence
• Adopted IS/MND section III (Air Quality).
• Mitigation Measures 3-1 through 3-3.
• City Council Minutes for 11/2/10.
8. The total proposed floor area ratio for the project is 118% and the total building
coverage is 76%. The floor area is 17% below the base allowed floor area for the site
(135%) and 27% percent below the maximum allowed floor area with bonuses (145%).
The building coverage is 19% below the maximum allowed coverage (95%). The
project is significantly less massive than could be allowed under the zoning standards
for the SC District. The variations in setbacks, building heights, and the separation of
buildings reduce the overall mass of the project. A fair argument, based on substantial
evidence, has not been made that the project will result in significant adverse impacts
on community character due to mass and bulk.
Evidence
• City Council Staff Report dated 11/2/10.
• Approved Project Plans.
• CMC Sections 17.14.130 and 17.14.140.
• City Council Minutes for 11/2/10.
9. The argument that additional rooms could be added to the site creating additional
impacts is premature as it is not part of the current project proposal. If a proposal to
add additional hotel units on this site were submitted, it would constitute a new project
under CEQA and require the appropriate review.
Evidence
• City Council Staff Report dated 11/2/10.
32
Carmel Sands Redevelopment Project
Livingston Appeal
7 December 2010
Findings
Page 7
• City Council minutes for 11/2/10.
• CEQA Guidelines.
10. Short term impacts related to project construction are adequately addressed in the
IS/MND and the Planning Commission Special Conditions of Approval. A fair
argument, based on substantial evidence, has not been made that the project will result
in significant adverse impacts due to short term construction activities.
Evidence
• Adopted IS/MND.
• Mitigation Measures 3-1, 3-2, 8-1, and 11-1 through 11-3.
• Planning Commission Special Conditions of Approval #’s 32, 33 and 42.
11. As conditioned by the City Council, the project shall include a five foot setback for the
first 40 feet along San Carlos Street beginning at the northwest corner of the site. This
ensures that the project complies with the intent and requirements of the General Plan,
Zoning Ordinance and Commercial Design Guidelines.
Evidence
• CMC Section 17.14.160.
• Commercial Design Guidelines.
• City Council minutes for 11/2/10.
Prepared by: Sean Conroy, Plng & Bldg Services Manager
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of Findings for the City Council’s Decision on an appeal of the Planning
Commission's approval of the Carmel Sands Redevelopment Project and the adoption
of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND).
Description: The project consists of the demolition of the existing 42-room Carmel Sands
Lodge and the construction of a new 42-room hotel that includes a 64-space underground
garage, a restaurant, a day spa and two retail spaces, and the adoption of an MND. The
proposed findings were written to reflect the basis for the Council’s decision to deny the
appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the project.
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the attached Findings.
Important Considerations: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Report when a fair argument can be made, based
on substantial evidence, that a project may have a significant adverse environmental
impact. The Council determined that a fair argument, based on substantial evidence, can
not be made that the project will have a significant adverse environmental impact, and
upheld the Planning Commission’s decision.
Decision Record: The Planning Commission approved the project and adopted an MND on 14
July 2010. An appeal was filed on 27 July 2010. The City Council denied the appeal on
2 November 2010.
Reviewed by:
__________________________ _____________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
26
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
FINDINGS FOR DECISION
UP 08-2/DR 08-9
Barbara Livingston Appeal
Carmel Sands Redevelopment Project
NE Cor. San Carlos & 5th
Block 50, Lots Part 12 & 13-20
CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of Findings for the City Council’s Decision on an appeal of the Planning
Commission's approval of the Carmel Sands Redevelopment Project and the adoption of a
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND).
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. This site is 32,997 square feet in size and is comprised of a portion of lot 12 and all of
lots 13-20 of Block 50 in the Service Commercial (SC) District of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
Evidence
• City of Carmel-by-the Sea property file and Monterey County Assessor’s
records.
• Official Zoning Map of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
2. This site is developed with a 42-unit motel known as the Carmel Sands Lodge and
includes a 120-seat full service restaurant.
Evidence
• City of Carmel-by-the Sea property file and business license records.
3. The existing buildings on the site are not considered historically significant. The City
issued a Determination of Ineligibility for listing on the City’s Historic Inventory on 1
September 2006.
Evidence
• Determination of Ineligibility dated 1 September 2006.
• Letter dated 17 August 2010 from Preservation Consultant Kent Seavey.
4. The property owner submitted an application for the demolition of the existing motel
and the construction of a new 57-unit motel on 21 March 2008.
Evidence
• Application Materials on file at City Hall.
27
Carmel Sands Redevelopment Project
Livingston Appeal
7 December 2010
Findings
Page 2
5. The City circulated an Initial Study (IS)/Mitigated Negative Declaration(MND) for the
project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) from 13
November 2008 through 3 December 2008.
Evidence
• Draft IS/MND dated 10 November 2008.
• Notice of Intent filed with Monterey County Clerk on 11/12/2008.
• Carmel Pine Cone Public Notice.
6. The Planning Commission reviewed the IS/MND on 10 December 2008 and continued
the project to a future meeting.
Evidence
• Planning Commission Minutes for 12/10/2008.
7. The applicant subsequently revised the project to reduce the number of rooms to 42,
which necessitated the preparation of a new IS.
Evidence
• Application materials on file at City Hall
8. The City prepared a revised IS/MND based on the new project description and
circulated it from 4 November 2009 through 24 November 2009. The IS/MND
identified 20 Mitigation Measures to address potentially significant impacts.
Evidence
• IS/MND dated 11/2/2009.
• Notice of Intent filed with Monterey County Clerk on 11/5/2009.
• Carmel Pine Cone Notice.
9. Ten comments were submitted during the public comment period. Staff issued a
“Response to Comments” on 9 December 2009 responding to questions and concerns
raised in comment letters.
Evidence
• Comment letters on file at City Hall.
• Planning Commission Packet dated 12/9/09.
28
Carmel Sands Redevelopment Project
Livingston Appeal
7 December 2010
Findings
Page 3
10. On 9 December 2009 and again on 10 February 2010 the Planning Commission
determined that the IS/MND was adequate for the project and that no substantial
evidence existed that the project might have a significant effect on the environment.
Evidence
• Planning Commission Minutes for 12/9/2009 and 2/10/2010.
11. On 10 March 2010 the Planning Commission accepted the Design Concept for the
project and determined that the proposed scale, massing and site design were
appropriate for the project. The Commission also determined that the proposed mass
and scale of the project was consistent with other hotels in the City and with other
projects in the vicinity.
Evidence
• Planning Commission Minutes for 3/10/2010.
• Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments dated 3/10/2010.
12. On 10 March 2010 the Planning Commission determined that the requested height
exceptions for the tower elements that exceed 30-feet in height were appropriate for the
project and consistent with the Municipal Code.
Evidence
• Planning Commission Minutes for 3/10/2010.
• CMC Section 17.14.150.B.
13. On 14 July 2010 the Planning Commission approved all project permits and adopted a
MND.
Evidence
• Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments dated 7/14/2010.
• Planning Commission Minutes for 7/14/2010.
14. An appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to adopt an MND and approve the
project was filed by Barbara Livingston on 27 July 2010. The appellant requested that
the Council overturn the Planning Commission’s decision and require an
Environmental Impact Report for the Project. The appellant further argued that the
project had drawbacks that should lead to its denial.
Evidence
• Appeal Application dated 7/27/10.
• Appeal Letter and Attachments dated 9/7/10.
29
Carmel Sands Redevelopment Project
Livingston Appeal
7 December 2010
Findings
Page 4
15. On 2 November 2010 the City Council received both oral and written testimony on the
appeal and voted to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision
with a 5-0 vote.
Evidence
• City Council Staff Report and Attachments dated 11/2/10.
• City Council Minutes for 11/2/10.
16. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) allows a lead agency to adopt a
MND only if it finds on the basis of the whole record before it that there is no
substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment,
and that the MND reflects the lead agency’s independent judgment and analysis.
Evidence
• CEQA Guidelines Section 15074.b.
17. As defined by CEQA, a “Significant effect on the environment” means a substantial, or
potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area
affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna ambient noise,
and objects of historic or aesthetic significance.
Evidence
• CEQA Guidelines Section 15382.
FINDINGS FOR DECISION:
1. The Planning Commission adopted 40 Findings related to project approval on 14 July
2010. The City Council’s decision to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning
Commission’s decision reaffirms these findings.
Evidence
• Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments dated 7/14/10.
• City Council Staff Report and Attachments dated 11/2/10.
• City Council Minutes for 11/2/10.
2. Based on a review of the whole record, including public testimony given orally and in
writing on 2 November 2010, the City Council determined that a fair argument, based
on substantial evidence, can not be made that the project will have a significant adverse
effect on the environment.
Evidence
• City Council Staff Report and Attachments dated 11/2/10.
30
Carmel Sands Redevelopment Project
Livingston Appeal
7 December 2010
Findings
Page 5
• City Council Minutes for 11/2/10.
• Definition of “Substantial Evidence” in CEQA Guidelines Section 15384.
3. The existing surface parking lot includes 42 parking spaces for the 42-room motel and
the 120 seat restaurant. The site is currently nonconforming by approximately six
parking spaces. The proposed project exceeds the on-site parking requirement by seven
spaces, a 13-space improvement based on the City’s required parking standards. The
project also creates new on-street parking spaces by eliminating existing access points
on Fifth Avenue and on Mission Street. The Porte de Cochere will also allow vehicles
to pull off the street while checking in or out of the hotel, thus limiting congestion. A
fair argument, based on substantial evidence, has not been made that the project will
result in a significant adverse effect on traffic and parking.
Evidence
• City Council Staff Report and Attachments dated 11/2/10.
• City Council Minutes for 11/2/10.
• Adopted IS/MND and Mitigation and Monitoring Plan.
4. Noise impacts are adequately addressed in the IS/MND. A fair argument, based on
substantial evidence, has not been made that the project will result in significant
adverse noise impacts.
Evidence
• MND Mitigation Measures 11-1 through 11-3.
• Planning Commission Special Conditions of Approval #’s 31 and 42.
• City Council Minutes for 11/2/10.
5. The ‘canyon effect’ referred to by the appellant is actually a desirable attribute in the
commercial district. The General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Commercial Design
Guidelines all encourage properties in the SC District to be built at, or close to the street
to create a pedestrian wall. The proposed project is consistent with these policies,
standards and guidelines.
Evidence
• City Council Staff Report dated 11/2/10.
• General Plan Objective 01-11.
• General Plan Policies P1-64 and P1-68.
• CMC Section 17.14.130.
• Commercial Design Guidelines pg. 8.
• City Council Minutes for 11/2/10.
31
Carmel Sands Redevelopment Project
Livingston Appeal
7 December 2010
Findings
Page 6
6. The IS/MND adequately addresses public and private views. A fair argument, based on
substantial evidence, has not been made that the project will result in significant
adverse impacts to public and/or private views.
Evidence
• Adopted IS/MND section I (aesthetics).
• City Council Minutes for 11/2/10.
7. The IS/MND adequately addresses air quality and global warming issues. Greenhouse
gas emissions associated with the project are negligible and all potential impacts are
appropriately addressed through the adopted mitigation measures. A fair argument,
based on substantial evidence, has not been made that the project will result in
significant adverse air quality and/or global warming impacts.
Evidence
• Adopted IS/MND section III (Air Quality).
• Mitigation Measures 3-1 through 3-3.
• City Council Minutes for 11/2/10.
8. The total proposed floor area ratio for the project is 118% and the total building
coverage is 76%. The floor area is 17% below the base allowed floor area for the site
(135%) and 27% percent below the maximum allowed floor area with bonuses (145%).
The building coverage is 19% below the maximum allowed coverage (95%). The
project is significantly less massive than could be allowed under the zoning standards
for the SC District. The variations in setbacks, building heights, and the separation of
buildings reduce the overall mass of the project. A fair argument, based on substantial
evidence, has not been made that the project will result in significant adverse impacts
on community character due to mass and bulk.
Evidence
• City Council Staff Report dated 11/2/10.
• Approved Project Plans.
• CMC Sections 17.14.130 and 17.14.140.
• City Council Minutes for 11/2/10.
9. The argument that additional rooms could be added to the site creating additional
impacts is premature as it is not part of the current project proposal. If a proposal to
add additional hotel units on this site were submitted, it would constitute a new project
under CEQA and require the appropriate review.
Evidence
• City Council Staff Report dated 11/2/10.
32
Carmel Sands Redevelopment Project
Livingston Appeal
7 December 2010
Findings
Page 7
• City Council minutes for 11/2/10.
• CEQA Guidelines.
10. Short term impacts related to project construction are adequately addressed in the
IS/MND and the Planning Commission Special Conditions of Approval. A fair
argument, based on substantial evidence, has not been made that the project will result
in significant adverse impacts due to short term construction activities.
Evidence
• Adopted IS/MND.
• Mitigation Measures 3-1, 3-2, 8-1, and 11-1 through 11-3.
• Planning Commission Special Conditions of Approval #’s 32, 33 and 42.
11. As conditioned by the City Council, the project shall include a five foot setback for the
first 40 feet along San Carlos Street beginning at the northwest corner of the site. This
ensures that the project complies with the intent and requirements of the General Plan,
Zoning Ordinance and Commercial Design Guidelines.
Evidence
• CMC Section 17.14.160.
• Commercial Design Guidelines.
• City Council minutes for 11/2/10.
CITY COUNCIL: Resolution Authorizing $244,048 in Fiscal Year-End Departmental Budget Transfers & $7,659 Transfer in Unspent Grant Revenues for FY 2009/10
Meeting Date: December 7, 2010
Prepared by: Laura Dadiw
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of a Resolution authorizing $244,048 in fiscal year-end departmental budget transfers and a $7,659.73 transfer in unspent grant revenues for fiscal year 2009/10 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 2009/10, to the appropriate grant fund accounts. This Resolution
authorizes the FY 2009/10 year-end departmental budget transfers and authorizes
transferring unspent Public Safety Augmentation funds received in FY 2009/10 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 2009/10, 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 may be made to cover the expenditure budget overages.
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 33-24021-0528 for Police Services, with a current
balance of $14,649.04; and Account 33-24021-0476 for Fire Services, with a current
balance of $16,519.23.
In FY 2009/10, the City received $7,659 in new Public Safety Augmentation Funds.
Staff recommends that 50% of the monies be transferred to Police Services Account 33-
24021-0528 and the other 50% to Fire Services Account 33-24021-0476 for future public
safety expenditures.
34
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution to authorize the FY 2009/10 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 2009-67(October 6, 2009), which approved similar year-end
transfers.
Reviewed by:
______________________________ _________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
35
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2010-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
AUTHORIZING $244,048 IN FISCAL YEAR-END DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET
TRANSFERS AND A TRANSFER OF $7,659.73 IN UNSPENT GRANT REVENUES
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009/10 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
2009/10 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 2009/10 budget transfers totaling $244,048 to and from the
departments per Exhibit “A”.
2. Authorize the transfer of Public Safety Augmentation funds of $7,659.73
received but not spent in fiscal year 2009/10 from the General Fund to Grants
Reserve Fund accounts (50% to Police Services Account 33-24021-0528 and
50% to Fire Services Account 33-24021-0476) 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 7th day of December, 2010, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SIGNED:
______________________
ATTEST: SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR
_________________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
Prepared by: Laura Dadiw
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of a Resolution authorizing $244,048 in fiscal year-end departmental budget transfers and a $7,659.73 transfer in unspent grant revenues for fiscal year 2009/10 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 2009/10, to the appropriate grant fund accounts. This Resolution
authorizes the FY 2009/10 year-end departmental budget transfers and authorizes
transferring unspent Public Safety Augmentation funds received in FY 2009/10 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 2009/10, 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 may be made to cover the expenditure budget overages.
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 33-24021-0528 for Police Services, with a current
balance of $14,649.04; and Account 33-24021-0476 for Fire Services, with a current
balance of $16,519.23.
In FY 2009/10, the City received $7,659 in new Public Safety Augmentation Funds.
Staff recommends that 50% of the monies be transferred to Police Services Account 33-
24021-0528 and the other 50% to Fire Services Account 33-24021-0476 for future public
safety expenditures.
34
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution to authorize the FY 2009/10 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 2009-67(October 6, 2009), which approved similar year-end
transfers.
Reviewed by:
______________________________ _________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
35
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2010-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
AUTHORIZING $244,048 IN FISCAL YEAR-END DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET
TRANSFERS AND A TRANSFER OF $7,659.73 IN UNSPENT GRANT REVENUES
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009/10 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
2009/10 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 2009/10 budget transfers totaling $244,048 to and from the
departments per Exhibit “A”.
2. Authorize the transfer of Public Safety Augmentation funds of $7,659.73
received but not spent in fiscal year 2009/10 from the General Fund to Grants
Reserve Fund accounts (50% to Police Services Account 33-24021-0528 and
50% to Fire Services Account 33-24021-0476) 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 7th day of December, 2010, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SIGNED:
______________________
ATTEST: SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR
_________________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL: Resolution Authorizing Carmel Police Department to Renew Agreement for Sexual Assault Examiner Services with Monterey County Health Department Sexual Assault Response Team (SART)
Meeting Date: December 7, 2010
Prepared by: Commander Michael Calhoun
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the Carmel Police Department to renew an agreement for Sexual Assault Examiner Services with the Monterey County Health Department Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) in an amount not to exceed $5,000.
Description: The Carmel Police Department and the Monterey County Health Department
Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) have a mutual interest in improving the
quality of evidence gathering involving sexual assaults to see that survivors receive
immediate medical-legal care, and to ensure the correct and accurate collection of
evidence to assist the criminal justice system. The purpose of this agreement is to
contract for administrative and related services.
The contract for SART services already was signed by the City; however, any contract
not approved through the formal process as required under Government Code 40602 is
void and unenforceable. California Government Code section 40602 provides the
method by which a General Law city can enter into a contract.
Overall Cost: Funds were allocated in the FY 2010-11 budget. Based on past crime trends, it
is estimated the costs will be less than $5,000. (See the attached invoice costs for
services).
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution. The City Attorney has reviewed the form and
content of the contract.
Important Considerations: The contract runs from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2015,
with automatic renewal terms of five (5) years.
Decision Record: None
Reviewed by:
______________________________ _________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
38
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2010-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
AUTHORIZING THE CARMEL POLICE DEPARTMENT TO RENEW AN
AGREEMENT FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT EXAMINER SERVICES
WITH THE MONTEREY COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
SEXUAL ASSAULT RESPONSE TEAM (SART)
IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $5,000
__________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS, The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Police Department desires to renew its
contract with the Monterey County Health Department to establish a cooperative mutual agreement
for Sexual Assault Examiner Services; and
WHEREAS, The Monterey County Health Department desires to renew its contract with
the Carmel-by-the-Sea Police Department to provide administrative services and use of its Sexual
Assault Response Team (SART) in the collection of evidence, and to provide assistance to the
Carmel Police Department regarding sexual assault victims.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DOES:
1. Authorize the Carmel Police Department to renew a contract with the Monterey County
Health Department to provide Sexual Assault Examiner Services in an amount not to
exceed $5,000.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THESEA
this 7th day of December, 2010 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SIGNED:
______________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_____________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
Prepared by: Commander Michael Calhoun
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the Carmel Police Department to renew an agreement for Sexual Assault Examiner Services with the Monterey County Health Department Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) in an amount not to exceed $5,000.
Description: The Carmel Police Department and the Monterey County Health Department
Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) have a mutual interest in improving the
quality of evidence gathering involving sexual assaults to see that survivors receive
immediate medical-legal care, and to ensure the correct and accurate collection of
evidence to assist the criminal justice system. The purpose of this agreement is to
contract for administrative and related services.
The contract for SART services already was signed by the City; however, any contract
not approved through the formal process as required under Government Code 40602 is
void and unenforceable. California Government Code section 40602 provides the
method by which a General Law city can enter into a contract.
Overall Cost: Funds were allocated in the FY 2010-11 budget. Based on past crime trends, it
is estimated the costs will be less than $5,000. (See the attached invoice costs for
services).
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution. The City Attorney has reviewed the form and
content of the contract.
Important Considerations: The contract runs from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2015,
with automatic renewal terms of five (5) years.
Decision Record: None
Reviewed by:
______________________________ _________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
38
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2010-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
AUTHORIZING THE CARMEL POLICE DEPARTMENT TO RENEW AN
AGREEMENT FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT EXAMINER SERVICES
WITH THE MONTEREY COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
SEXUAL ASSAULT RESPONSE TEAM (SART)
IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $5,000
__________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS, The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Police Department desires to renew its
contract with the Monterey County Health Department to establish a cooperative mutual agreement
for Sexual Assault Examiner Services; and
WHEREAS, The Monterey County Health Department desires to renew its contract with
the Carmel-by-the-Sea Police Department to provide administrative services and use of its Sexual
Assault Response Team (SART) in the collection of evidence, and to provide assistance to the
Carmel Police Department regarding sexual assault victims.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DOES:
1. Authorize the Carmel Police Department to renew a contract with the Monterey County
Health Department to provide Sexual Assault Examiner Services in an amount not to
exceed $5,000.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THESEA
this 7th day of December, 2010 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: Ordinance Amending Municipal Code Section 6.08 to Allow for the Keeping of Hens on Properties in R-1 District
Meeting Date: 7 December 2010
Prepared by: Sean Conroy, Plng & Bldg Services Manager
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of an Ordinance amending Municipal Code Section 6.08 to allow for the keeping of hens on properties in the R-1 District in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. (First reading)
Description: The proposed Ordinance would allow the keeping of up to two hens per property in the R-1 District under certain conditions.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Ordinance (First reading).
Important Considerations: The City’s Municipal Code currently does not allow for the keeping of chickens. On 5 October 2010 the City Council heard a request to allow the keeping of chickens and directed staff to prepare a draft ordinance for review.
Decision Record: N/A
Reviewed by:
__________________________ _____________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR MCCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: SEAN CONROY, PLNG & BLDG SERVICES MANAGER
THROUGH: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: 7 DECEMBER 2010
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 6.08 TO ALLOW FOR THE KEEPING OF HENS ON PROPERTIES IN THE R-1 DISTRICT IN THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
BACKGROUND & DESCRIPTION
Carmel Municipal Code (CMC) Chapter 6 establishes the City’s regulations regarding animals. Chapter 6.08.120, originally adopted in 1969, states the following:
“It is unlawful, and is declared a nuisance, for any person or persons to keep or cause to be kept any swine or barnyard fowl whatsoever within the corporate
limits of the City.”
On 5 October 2010 the City Council heard a request from a Carmel citizen to amend the municipal code to allow for the keeping of chickens. The Council agreed that the City should allow the keeping of chickens under certain conditions and directed staff to prepare a draft ordinance. Staff has prepared the attached ordinance for the Council’s review.
EVALUATION
The proposed ordinance establishes a limit of two chickens per property in the R-1 District only. The Council may want to discuss if the limit of two is appropriate, or if a higher limit should be established.
The ordinance establishes seven conditions for the keeping of chickens. These are identified below followed by a brief response from staff.
a) No roosters are permitted.
Response: Not allowing roosters will limit the noise impacts that might otherwise occur.
b) All hens must be kept and secured within an enclosure of metal chicken wire, or other suitable material as to prevent the escape of any hens. The enclosure shall be maintained in good repair and no hens shall be allowed to run at large on public property.
Response: This condition addresses the concern that chickens could escape from private property onto neighboring properties or city parks and open space. This condition will also limit the potential for incidents with other wild animals such as raccoons.
c) No enclosure shall exceed 80 square feet in size.
Response: This requirement limits the size of hen enclosures to mitigate potential visual impacts on neighboring properties.
d) The enclosure shall comply with all applicable R-1 standards as defined in CMC Section 17.10.
Response: Some of the R-1 standards that would be applicable include setbacks and site coverage. R-1 setback standards would require an enclosure be at least three feet from any side and rear property line and 15 feet from the front property line on most sites. The Council should determine if these setbacks are sufficient. Many communities that allow chickens have larger setback requirements for chicken enclosures.
The City limits the amount of site coverage that is allowed on each lot. Site coverage is defined as:
“The total ground area of a site occupied by materials or improvements that cover the natural soil but which are outside the perimeter of structures that count as floor area.”
A chicken enclosure would count towards the total allowed site coverage.
e) A Track 1 Design Study application shall be submitted to the Department of
Community Planning and Building for approval of the location and design of the
enclosure prior to installation.
Response: A Track 1 application includes a $150 application fee. The application would be required to ensure that an applicant complies with the rules of the ordinance and to allow the City to track the properties that have been approved to keep chickens. Using the existing design review process would also avoid the need to create a new review process at the Police Department for only this matter.
f) Animal excretion shall not be permitted to accumulate so as to become offensive to any neighboring property; and
g) Outdoor slaughtering of birds shall not be permitted.
Response: These requirements will help ensure that the keeping of chickens does not create negative impacts on neighboring properties.
SUMMARY
In summary the Council should answer the following questions:
1) Should more than two chickens be allowed on any site?
2) Are the proposed requirements appropriate or should they be modified?
3) Are there other requirements that should be included?
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Ordinance (First reading).
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
ORDINANCE 2011-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 6.08 TO ALLOW FOR THE KEEPING OF HENS ON PROPERTIES IN THE R-1 DISTRICT IN THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
WHEREAS, The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is a unique community that prides itself in its community 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 City Council has determined that the keeping of a limited number of hens on properties in the R-1 District will not be detrimental to community character; and
WHEREAS, on 11 August 2010 the Planning Commission recommended that the Council amend the Municipal Code to allow the keeping of hens; and
WHEREAS, this ordinance is exempt for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15061(b) (3).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA does hereby resolve to:
Amend Municipal Code Section 6.08 to allow for the keeping of hens on
properties in the Single Family Residential (R-1) District as described in Exhibit “A”.
Severability. If any part of this ordinance, even as small as a word or phrase, is found to be unenforceable such finding shall not affect the enforceability of any other part.
Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after final adoption by the City Council.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this ___ day of ________ 2011 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SIGNED,
________________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
Exhibit “A”
(Changes Shown in Strikeout and Underline)
6.08.120 Keeping of Swine and Barnyard Fowl.
It is unlawful, and is declared a nuisance, for any person or persons to keep or cause to be kept any swine or barnyard fowl, with the exception of hens, whatsoever within the corporate limits of the City. (Ord. 201 C.S. § 1, 1969; Code 1975 § 632.3).
6.08.180 Keeping of Hens
A maximum of two (2) hens may be permitted per building site in the R-1 District
only. All requests to keep hens shall comply with the following requirements:
a) No roosters are permitted; and
b) All hens must be kept and secured within an enclosure of metal chicken wire, or other suitable material as to prevent the escape of any hens. The enclosure shall be maintained in good repair and no hen shall be allowed to run at large on public property; and
c) No enclosure shall exceed 80 square feet in size; and
d) The enclosure shall comply with all applicable R-1 standards as defined in CMC Section 17.10; and
e) A Track 1 Design Study application shall be submitted to the Department of
Community Planning and Building for approval of the location and design of the
enclosure prior to installation; and
f) Animal excretion shall not be permitted to accumulate so as to become offensive to any neighboring property; and
g) Outdoor slaughtering of birds shall not be permitted.
Prepared by: Sean Conroy, Plng & Bldg Services Manager
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of an Ordinance amending Municipal Code Section 6.08 to allow for the keeping of hens on properties in the R-1 District in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. (First reading)
Description: The proposed Ordinance would allow the keeping of up to two hens per property in the R-1 District under certain conditions.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Ordinance (First reading).
Important Considerations: The City’s Municipal Code currently does not allow for the keeping of chickens. On 5 October 2010 the City Council heard a request to allow the keeping of chickens and directed staff to prepare a draft ordinance for review.
Decision Record: N/A
Reviewed by:
__________________________ _____________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR MCCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: SEAN CONROY, PLNG & BLDG SERVICES MANAGER
THROUGH: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: 7 DECEMBER 2010
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 6.08 TO ALLOW FOR THE KEEPING OF HENS ON PROPERTIES IN THE R-1 DISTRICT IN THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
BACKGROUND & DESCRIPTION
Carmel Municipal Code (CMC) Chapter 6 establishes the City’s regulations regarding animals. Chapter 6.08.120, originally adopted in 1969, states the following:
“It is unlawful, and is declared a nuisance, for any person or persons to keep or cause to be kept any swine or barnyard fowl whatsoever within the corporate
limits of the City.”
On 5 October 2010 the City Council heard a request from a Carmel citizen to amend the municipal code to allow for the keeping of chickens. The Council agreed that the City should allow the keeping of chickens under certain conditions and directed staff to prepare a draft ordinance. Staff has prepared the attached ordinance for the Council’s review.
EVALUATION
The proposed ordinance establishes a limit of two chickens per property in the R-1 District only. The Council may want to discuss if the limit of two is appropriate, or if a higher limit should be established.
The ordinance establishes seven conditions for the keeping of chickens. These are identified below followed by a brief response from staff.
a) No roosters are permitted.
Response: Not allowing roosters will limit the noise impacts that might otherwise occur.
b) All hens must be kept and secured within an enclosure of metal chicken wire, or other suitable material as to prevent the escape of any hens. The enclosure shall be maintained in good repair and no hens shall be allowed to run at large on public property.
Response: This condition addresses the concern that chickens could escape from private property onto neighboring properties or city parks and open space. This condition will also limit the potential for incidents with other wild animals such as raccoons.
c) No enclosure shall exceed 80 square feet in size.
Response: This requirement limits the size of hen enclosures to mitigate potential visual impacts on neighboring properties.
d) The enclosure shall comply with all applicable R-1 standards as defined in CMC Section 17.10.
Response: Some of the R-1 standards that would be applicable include setbacks and site coverage. R-1 setback standards would require an enclosure be at least three feet from any side and rear property line and 15 feet from the front property line on most sites. The Council should determine if these setbacks are sufficient. Many communities that allow chickens have larger setback requirements for chicken enclosures.
The City limits the amount of site coverage that is allowed on each lot. Site coverage is defined as:
“The total ground area of a site occupied by materials or improvements that cover the natural soil but which are outside the perimeter of structures that count as floor area.”
A chicken enclosure would count towards the total allowed site coverage.
e) A Track 1 Design Study application shall be submitted to the Department of
Community Planning and Building for approval of the location and design of the
enclosure prior to installation.
Response: A Track 1 application includes a $150 application fee. The application would be required to ensure that an applicant complies with the rules of the ordinance and to allow the City to track the properties that have been approved to keep chickens. Using the existing design review process would also avoid the need to create a new review process at the Police Department for only this matter.
f) Animal excretion shall not be permitted to accumulate so as to become offensive to any neighboring property; and
g) Outdoor slaughtering of birds shall not be permitted.
Response: These requirements will help ensure that the keeping of chickens does not create negative impacts on neighboring properties.
SUMMARY
In summary the Council should answer the following questions:
1) Should more than two chickens be allowed on any site?
2) Are the proposed requirements appropriate or should they be modified?
3) Are there other requirements that should be included?
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Ordinance (First reading).
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
ORDINANCE 2011-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 6.08 TO ALLOW FOR THE KEEPING OF HENS ON PROPERTIES IN THE R-1 DISTRICT IN THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
WHEREAS, The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is a unique community that prides itself in its community 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 City Council has determined that the keeping of a limited number of hens on properties in the R-1 District will not be detrimental to community character; and
WHEREAS, on 11 August 2010 the Planning Commission recommended that the Council amend the Municipal Code to allow the keeping of hens; and
WHEREAS, this ordinance is exempt for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15061(b) (3).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA does hereby resolve to:
Amend Municipal Code Section 6.08 to allow for the keeping of hens on
properties in the Single Family Residential (R-1) District as described in Exhibit “A”.
Severability. If any part of this ordinance, even as small as a word or phrase, is found to be unenforceable such finding shall not affect the enforceability of any other part.
Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after final adoption by the City Council.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this ___ day of ________ 2011 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SIGNED,
________________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
Exhibit “A”
(Changes Shown in Strikeout and Underline)
6.08.120 Keeping of Swine and Barnyard Fowl.
It is unlawful, and is declared a nuisance, for any person or persons to keep or cause to be kept any swine or barnyard fowl, with the exception of hens, whatsoever within the corporate limits of the City. (Ord. 201 C.S. § 1, 1969; Code 1975 § 632.3).
6.08.180 Keeping of Hens
A maximum of two (2) hens may be permitted per building site in the R-1 District
only. All requests to keep hens shall comply with the following requirements:
a) No roosters are permitted; and
b) All hens must be kept and secured within an enclosure of metal chicken wire, or other suitable material as to prevent the escape of any hens. The enclosure shall be maintained in good repair and no hen shall be allowed to run at large on public property; and
c) No enclosure shall exceed 80 square feet in size; and
d) The enclosure shall comply with all applicable R-1 standards as defined in CMC Section 17.10; and
e) A Track 1 Design Study application shall be submitted to the Department of
Community Planning and Building for approval of the location and design of the
enclosure prior to installation; and
f) Animal excretion shall not be permitted to accumulate so as to become offensive to any neighboring property; and
g) Outdoor slaughtering of birds shall not be permitted.
CITY COUNCIL: Report & Policy Direction on Extending Shared Fire Services Agreement for 30 Days
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Receive report and provide policy direction on extending the shared fire services agreement for 30 days.
Description: In December 2008, Council directed staff to review alternatives of providing fire services. Over the past several months, separate meetings were held with both CAL FIRE and Monterey/Pacific Grove fire departments to review all possible alternatives. There also was a period of time when all agencies were evaluation the creation of a Joint Powers Authority to provide Peninsula-wide shared fire services, however, this effort has encountered some difficulties, mostly related to risk management. Thus, staff’s efforts have refocused on developing a contractual relationship with an outside fire agency.
Staff has now formally requested a mutually agreeable, 30-day extension of the Monterey/Pacific Grove shared fire services agreement. It is recommended that the extension not go beyond January 31, 2011.
Overall Cost: The monthly payment for the current services provided by Monterey/Pacific Grove is $13,500 per month. This amount will remain the same during the 30-day contract extension period.
Staff Recommendation: Review the report and provide direction.
Important Considerations: Before the January 31, 2011 extension with Monterey/Pacific Grove ends, a comprehensive draft report will be presented at a Council workshop, the focus of which will be a review of various shared fire services alternatives. Staff will ack the Council some time before the end of January to decide which fire services alternative will best serve the City and to direct staff to prepare the appropriate agreements to implement that decision.
RECOMMENDATION
The agreement allows for an extension of the agreement by mutual consent of both parties. No City Council action is necessary at this time.
BACKGROUND
The City Council in December 2008 directed staff to review three alternatives of providing fire services. Over the past several months, separate meetings have been held with both CAL FIRE and Monterey/Pacific Grove fire departments to review all possible alternatives. There was a period of time that all agencies were evaluating whether to create a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) to provide Peninsula-wide shared fire services. This effort has become complicated at several levels, however, mostly from a risk management standpoint. Thus, staff’s efforts have refocused on developing a contractual relationship with an outside fire agendy.
STAFF REVIEW
Staff has formally requested a 30-day extension on the Monterey/Pacific Grove shared fire services agreement. Staff is completing the draft report and accompanying PowerPoint presentation. It is recommended that the extension not go beyond January 31, 2011.
Prior to the end of this extension, a Council workshop will be held to review the various shared fire services alternatives. At some point before January 31st, staff will ask the Council to make a decision on which fire services alternative will best serve the City and thus, direct staff to prepare the appropriate agreements to implement that decision.
FISCAL IMPACT
The monthly payment for the current services provided by Monterey/Pacific Grove is $13,500 per month. This amount will remain unchanged for the 30-day contract extension.
SUMMARY
A draft comprehensive report is being completed and will be presented at an upcoming Council workshop.
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Receive report and provide policy direction on extending the shared fire services agreement for 30 days.
Description: In December 2008, Council directed staff to review alternatives of providing fire services. Over the past several months, separate meetings were held with both CAL FIRE and Monterey/Pacific Grove fire departments to review all possible alternatives. There also was a period of time when all agencies were evaluation the creation of a Joint Powers Authority to provide Peninsula-wide shared fire services, however, this effort has encountered some difficulties, mostly related to risk management. Thus, staff’s efforts have refocused on developing a contractual relationship with an outside fire agency.
Staff has now formally requested a mutually agreeable, 30-day extension of the Monterey/Pacific Grove shared fire services agreement. It is recommended that the extension not go beyond January 31, 2011.
Overall Cost: The monthly payment for the current services provided by Monterey/Pacific Grove is $13,500 per month. This amount will remain the same during the 30-day contract extension period.
Staff Recommendation: Review the report and provide direction.
Important Considerations: Before the January 31, 2011 extension with Monterey/Pacific Grove ends, a comprehensive draft report will be presented at a Council workshop, the focus of which will be a review of various shared fire services alternatives. Staff will ack the Council some time before the end of January to decide which fire services alternative will best serve the City and to direct staff to prepare the appropriate agreements to implement that decision.
RECOMMENDATION
The agreement allows for an extension of the agreement by mutual consent of both parties. No City Council action is necessary at this time.
BACKGROUND
The City Council in December 2008 directed staff to review three alternatives of providing fire services. Over the past several months, separate meetings have been held with both CAL FIRE and Monterey/Pacific Grove fire departments to review all possible alternatives. There was a period of time that all agencies were evaluating whether to create a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) to provide Peninsula-wide shared fire services. This effort has become complicated at several levels, however, mostly from a risk management standpoint. Thus, staff’s efforts have refocused on developing a contractual relationship with an outside fire agendy.
STAFF REVIEW
Staff has formally requested a 30-day extension on the Monterey/Pacific Grove shared fire services agreement. Staff is completing the draft report and accompanying PowerPoint presentation. It is recommended that the extension not go beyond January 31, 2011.
Prior to the end of this extension, a Council workshop will be held to review the various shared fire services alternatives. At some point before January 31st, staff will ask the Council to make a decision on which fire services alternative will best serve the City and thus, direct staff to prepare the appropriate agreements to implement that decision.
FISCAL IMPACT
The monthly payment for the current services provided by Monterey/Pacific Grove is $13,500 per month. This amount will remain unchanged for the 30-day contract extension.
SUMMARY
A draft comprehensive report is being completed and will be presented at an upcoming Council workshop.
CITY COUNCIL: Report & Policy Direction on City Directory Signs
Meeting Date: December 7, 2010
Prepared by: Heidi Burch, Asst City Administrator
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Receive report and provide policy direction on City directory signs.
Description: When tourists arrive in Carmel-by-the-Sea, they often seek out clear, easy-tounderstand directions to frequently-visited spots in town, including the beach, the Sunset Center, Carmel Mission and the Visitors Center.
To aid in helping out-of-town guests find their way around, the Economic Development Advisory Committee proposes placing two directory signs at two downtown locations: near the bus parking at Junipero and Ocean near Carmel Plaza, on Ocean Avenue near Devendorf Park and in the lower Sunset Center parking lot. The Committee would also like to replace the existing information sign at the corner of Monte Verde and Ocean near the Lobos Lodge seating area with a new directory sign. The template for the new directories would be the Official Visitors Guide and Walking Map. This map clearly illustrates places where tourists tend to go, plus other useful information such as parking facilities, public restrooms, parks, libraries, and bank ATMs.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: Unknown at this time.
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Staff requests that Council task the Planning Commission with researching alternatives for directory signage and submitting recommendations to Council.
Important Considerations: Carmel-by-the-Sea is known worldwide as a popular destination for visitors, and is a frequent stop for tourists coming to California. Providing well located signage that provides clear directions to local attractions and amenities casts the City in a positive and welcoming light.
Decision Record: None.
Reviewed by:
_____________________________ __________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR McCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
THROUGH: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: HEIDI BURCH, CITY CLERK
DATE: DECEMBER 7, 2010
SUBJECT: RECEIVE REPORT AND PROVIDE POLICY DIRECTION ON CITY DIRECTORY SIGNS
RECOMMENDATION
On behalf of the City Economic Advisory Committee, staff is requesting Council task the Planning Commission with researching alternatives for directory signage and submitting recommendations to Council.
BACKGROUND
Seemingly common to the visitor experience in Carmel-by-the-Sea is the need to ask for directions to the beach, the Sunset Center, the visitor’s center, the nearest restrooms, etc…
The City Economic Advisory Committee is proposing the positioning of directory signs near the bus parking at Junipero and Ocean, on Ocean at Devendorf Park and in the lower Sunset Center parking lot. There is also an information sign positioned on the corner of Monte Verde and Ocean near the Lobos Lodge seating area that staff would like to replace with a new directory sign.
It has also been proposed that the Official Visitors Guide and Walking Map be the template for the directory. It denotes the locations of parking facilities, restrooms, parks, libraries, ATMs and the visitor’s center as well as providing perspective of the entire downtown and the beach. (See attached).
The Committee would also like to request that the Planning Commission research the use of green products and materials for the signage.
STAFF REVIEW
Staff researched various options for signage by evaluating directory signs in other cities. The options are many and varied. Considerations to pose to the Planning Commission include whether or not the signs should be vertical or horizontal, if they should be in the form of “message cases” that have hinged doors and can be opened to change information, weather and water resistance need to be taken into consideration, placement for visibility and a design
consistent with the city’s image should all be examined. Additionally, the use of recycled materials, which are highly durable, should be considered.
FISCAL IMPACT
Costs are unknown at this time and are contingent upon the design and materials recommended by the Planning Commission.
SUMMARY
Carmel-by-the-Sea is known worldwide as a popular destination for visitors, and is a frequent stop for tourists coming to California. The positioning of directory signs would provide a very much-needed service to visitors to Carmel-by-the-Sea by highlighting locations of parking facilities, restrooms, parks, libraries, ATMs and the visitor’s center.
Prepared by: Heidi Burch, Asst City Administrator
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Receive report and provide policy direction on City directory signs.
Description: When tourists arrive in Carmel-by-the-Sea, they often seek out clear, easy-tounderstand directions to frequently-visited spots in town, including the beach, the Sunset Center, Carmel Mission and the Visitors Center.
To aid in helping out-of-town guests find their way around, the Economic Development Advisory Committee proposes placing two directory signs at two downtown locations: near the bus parking at Junipero and Ocean near Carmel Plaza, on Ocean Avenue near Devendorf Park and in the lower Sunset Center parking lot. The Committee would also like to replace the existing information sign at the corner of Monte Verde and Ocean near the Lobos Lodge seating area with a new directory sign. The template for the new directories would be the Official Visitors Guide and Walking Map. This map clearly illustrates places where tourists tend to go, plus other useful information such as parking facilities, public restrooms, parks, libraries, and bank ATMs.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: Unknown at this time.
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Staff requests that Council task the Planning Commission with researching alternatives for directory signage and submitting recommendations to Council.
Important Considerations: Carmel-by-the-Sea is known worldwide as a popular destination for visitors, and is a frequent stop for tourists coming to California. Providing well located signage that provides clear directions to local attractions and amenities casts the City in a positive and welcoming light.
Decision Record: None.
Reviewed by:
_____________________________ __________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR McCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
THROUGH: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: HEIDI BURCH, CITY CLERK
DATE: DECEMBER 7, 2010
SUBJECT: RECEIVE REPORT AND PROVIDE POLICY DIRECTION ON CITY DIRECTORY SIGNS
RECOMMENDATION
On behalf of the City Economic Advisory Committee, staff is requesting Council task the Planning Commission with researching alternatives for directory signage and submitting recommendations to Council.
BACKGROUND
Seemingly common to the visitor experience in Carmel-by-the-Sea is the need to ask for directions to the beach, the Sunset Center, the visitor’s center, the nearest restrooms, etc…
The City Economic Advisory Committee is proposing the positioning of directory signs near the bus parking at Junipero and Ocean, on Ocean at Devendorf Park and in the lower Sunset Center parking lot. There is also an information sign positioned on the corner of Monte Verde and Ocean near the Lobos Lodge seating area that staff would like to replace with a new directory sign.
It has also been proposed that the Official Visitors Guide and Walking Map be the template for the directory. It denotes the locations of parking facilities, restrooms, parks, libraries, ATMs and the visitor’s center as well as providing perspective of the entire downtown and the beach. (See attached).
The Committee would also like to request that the Planning Commission research the use of green products and materials for the signage.
STAFF REVIEW
Staff researched various options for signage by evaluating directory signs in other cities. The options are many and varied. Considerations to pose to the Planning Commission include whether or not the signs should be vertical or horizontal, if they should be in the form of “message cases” that have hinged doors and can be opened to change information, weather and water resistance need to be taken into consideration, placement for visibility and a design
consistent with the city’s image should all be examined. Additionally, the use of recycled materials, which are highly durable, should be considered.
FISCAL IMPACT
Costs are unknown at this time and are contingent upon the design and materials recommended by the Planning Commission.
SUMMARY
Carmel-by-the-Sea is known worldwide as a popular destination for visitors, and is a frequent stop for tourists coming to California. The positioning of directory signs would provide a very much-needed service to visitors to Carmel-by-the-Sea by highlighting locations of parking facilities, restrooms, parks, libraries, ATMs and the visitor’s center.
CITY COUNCIL: Report & Policy Direction on Holiday Lights in the Business District
Meeting Date: December 7, 2010
Prepared by: Rich Guillen
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Receive report and provide policy direction on holiday lights in the Business District.
Description: Policy No. C95-08 allows the temporary placement of lights in or on commercial property during the holiday season. According to the policy, the “holiday season” begins on the third Wednesday in November and continues until the second Wednesday in January. Last year Council extended this period to the Monday following the AT&T Pebble Beach Pro-Am Golf Tournament or the second Monday in February.
At the November 2, 2010 meeting, the City Council authorized the installation of LED lighting in the Ocean Avenue medians. Since these lights are meant to be more permanent, the City Council approved installing the lights beginning the Monday prior to the Thanksgiving holiday and extending through the beginning of Daylight Saving Time, which is the second Sunday of March.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Review the policy and provide direction.
Important Considerations: To avoid confusion especially when it comes to enforcement, the City Council may want to amend the Policy C95-08 to make the placement of lights consistent with the action taken on the Ocean Avenue medians, but if not, staff will enforce the existing policy within the defined “holiday season” as originally approved.
Should Council decide to amend the Policy, staff will prepare a draft revised policy and present it at a future meeting. City policies require adoption by resolution.
Decision Record: N/A
Reviewed by:
__________________________ _____________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR McCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: DECEMBER 7, 2010
SUBJECT: RECEIVE REPORT AND PROVIDE POLICY DIRECTION ON HOLIDAY LIGHTS IN THE BUSINESS DISTRICT
RECOMMENDATION
Provide policy direction.
BACKGROUND
Policy No. C95-08 allows the placement of lights in or on commercial property on a temporary basis during the holiday season. The “holiday season” is defined as beginning with the third Wednesday in November and continuing until the second Wednesday in January. Last year the Council extended the holiday period to the Monday following the AT&T Pebble Beach Pro-Am Golf Tournament or the second Monday in February.
At the November 2, 2010 meeting, the City Council authorized the installation of LED lighting in the Ocean Avenue medians. Since the LED lights are of a more permanent type of lighting, the City Council approved installation of the lights beginning the Monday prior to the Thanksgiving holiday and extending through the middle of March 2011.
STAFF REVIEW
Policy No. C95-08 applies to the public rights-of-way and private properties in the CC and SC zones and to commercial enterprises in the residential district. The median lighting is in the commercial zone with approval by the City Council to extend the time they are in operation. Staff has received inquiries from the business community on whether the extended median lighting period also applies to the policy defined “holiday season” described above.
Staff’s position is that Policy C95-08 “holiday season” will be enforced for commercial enterprises that choose to install lights. Since we are well into the “holiday season”, staff will immediately enforce any policy revision that the City Council determines. If the City Council would like to amend this Policy, staff will prepare a draft revised policy and present it at a future meeting. City policies require adoption by resolution.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are no fiscal impacts whether the City Council amends or does not amend the “holiday season” period.
SUMMARY
To avoid confusion especially when it comes to enforcement, the City Council may want to amend the Holiday Lights Policy to make the placement of lights consistent with the action taken on the Ocean Avenue medians. On the other hand, staff is ready to enforce the existing policy within the defined “holiday season” as approved.
Prepared by: Rich Guillen
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Receive report and provide policy direction on holiday lights in the Business District.
Description: Policy No. C95-08 allows the temporary placement of lights in or on commercial property during the holiday season. According to the policy, the “holiday season” begins on the third Wednesday in November and continues until the second Wednesday in January. Last year Council extended this period to the Monday following the AT&T Pebble Beach Pro-Am Golf Tournament or the second Monday in February.
At the November 2, 2010 meeting, the City Council authorized the installation of LED lighting in the Ocean Avenue medians. Since these lights are meant to be more permanent, the City Council approved installing the lights beginning the Monday prior to the Thanksgiving holiday and extending through the beginning of Daylight Saving Time, which is the second Sunday of March.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Review the policy and provide direction.
Important Considerations: To avoid confusion especially when it comes to enforcement, the City Council may want to amend the Policy C95-08 to make the placement of lights consistent with the action taken on the Ocean Avenue medians, but if not, staff will enforce the existing policy within the defined “holiday season” as originally approved.
Should Council decide to amend the Policy, staff will prepare a draft revised policy and present it at a future meeting. City policies require adoption by resolution.
Decision Record: N/A
Reviewed by:
__________________________ _____________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR McCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: DECEMBER 7, 2010
SUBJECT: RECEIVE REPORT AND PROVIDE POLICY DIRECTION ON HOLIDAY LIGHTS IN THE BUSINESS DISTRICT
RECOMMENDATION
Provide policy direction.
BACKGROUND
Policy No. C95-08 allows the placement of lights in or on commercial property on a temporary basis during the holiday season. The “holiday season” is defined as beginning with the third Wednesday in November and continuing until the second Wednesday in January. Last year the Council extended the holiday period to the Monday following the AT&T Pebble Beach Pro-Am Golf Tournament or the second Monday in February.
At the November 2, 2010 meeting, the City Council authorized the installation of LED lighting in the Ocean Avenue medians. Since the LED lights are of a more permanent type of lighting, the City Council approved installation of the lights beginning the Monday prior to the Thanksgiving holiday and extending through the middle of March 2011.
STAFF REVIEW
Policy No. C95-08 applies to the public rights-of-way and private properties in the CC and SC zones and to commercial enterprises in the residential district. The median lighting is in the commercial zone with approval by the City Council to extend the time they are in operation. Staff has received inquiries from the business community on whether the extended median lighting period also applies to the policy defined “holiday season” described above.
Staff’s position is that Policy C95-08 “holiday season” will be enforced for commercial enterprises that choose to install lights. Since we are well into the “holiday season”, staff will immediately enforce any policy revision that the City Council determines. If the City Council would like to amend this Policy, staff will prepare a draft revised policy and present it at a future meeting. City policies require adoption by resolution.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are no fiscal impacts whether the City Council amends or does not amend the “holiday season” period.
SUMMARY
To avoid confusion especially when it comes to enforcement, the City Council may want to amend the Holiday Lights Policy to make the placement of lights consistent with the action taken on the Ocean Avenue medians. On the other hand, staff is ready to enforce the existing policy within the defined “holiday season” as approved.
CITY COUNCIL: Ratify Mayor's Reappointment to Monterey Regional Waste Management District/Authority Board of Directors
Meeting Date: December 7, 2010
Prepared by: Heidi Burch, City Clerk
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Ratification of the Mayor’s reappointment to the Monterey Regional Waste Management District/Authority Board of Directors.
Description: The Mayor has served on the Monterey Regional Waste Management District/Authority Board of Directors since May 1998. Her term as a representative expires on December 31, 2010. The General Manager has requested Council ratify her reappointment to serve another four-year term, to December 31, 2014.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Ratify the appointment.
Important Considerations: Mayor McCloud has served on the Monterey Regional Waste Management District/Authority Board of Directors since May 1998, including service as chair and vice chair.
Decision Record: On January 9, 2007, City Council ratified the Mayor’s appointment to the Monterey Regional Waste Management District/Authority Board of Directors for the four-year period ending December 31, 2010.
Reviewed by:
__________________________ _____________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
Prepared by: Heidi Burch, City Clerk
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Ratification of the Mayor’s reappointment to the Monterey Regional Waste Management District/Authority Board of Directors.
Description: The Mayor has served on the Monterey Regional Waste Management District/Authority Board of Directors since May 1998. Her term as a representative expires on December 31, 2010. The General Manager has requested Council ratify her reappointment to serve another four-year term, to December 31, 2014.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Ratify the appointment.
Important Considerations: Mayor McCloud has served on the Monterey Regional Waste Management District/Authority Board of Directors since May 1998, including service as chair and vice chair.
Decision Record: On January 9, 2007, City Council ratified the Mayor’s appointment to the Monterey Regional Waste Management District/Authority Board of Directors for the four-year period ending December 31, 2010.
Reviewed by:
__________________________ _____________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA & MINUTES December 2010
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
Regular Meeting
December 8, 2010 Wednesday
City Hall East side of Monte Verde Street Between Ocean & Seventh Avenues
2:45 Tour
Meeting 4:00 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Commissioners: Victoria Beach
Steve Dallas
Keith Paterson
Steve Hillyard, Vice-chair
Janet Reimers, Chair
II. TOUR OF INSPECTION
Shortly after 2:45 p.m. the Commission will leave the Council Chambers for an on-site Tour of Inspection of all properties listed on this agenda (including those on the Consent Agenda). The Tour may also include projects previously approved by the City and not on this agenda. Prior to the beginning of the Tour of Inspection, the Commission may eliminate one or more on-site visits. The public is welcome to follow the Commission on its tour of the determined sites. The Commission will return to the Council Chambers at 4:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible.
III. ROLL CALL
IV. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
V. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR
VI. 2011 PROPOSED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATES
VII. ANNOUNCEMENTS
VIII. APPEARANCES
Anyone wishing to address the Commission on matters not on the agenda, but within the jurisdiction of the Commission may do so now. Please state the matter on which you wish to speak. Matters not appearing on the Commission agenda will not receive action at this meeting but may be referred to staff for a future meeting. Presentations will be limited to three minutes, or as otherwise established by the Commission. Persons are not required to give their name or address, but it is helpful for speakers to state their name in order that the Secretary may identify them.
IX. CONSENT AGENDA
Items placed on the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine and are acted upon by the Commission in one motion. There is no discussion of these items prior to the Commission action unless a member of the Commission, staff, or public requests specific items be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Agenda. It is understood that the staff recommends approval of all consent items. Each item on the Consent Agenda approved by the Commission shall be deemed to have been considered in full and adopted as recommended.
1. Consideration of Planning Commission minutes from November 10, 2010.
2. DS 10-115
San Carlos LLP
N/s 12th bt. San Carlos & 12th
Block 131, Lot(s) 11 & 13
Consideration of the Re-issuance of Design Study and Coastal Development Permit applications for the construction of a residence in the Single Family Residential (R-1) District.
X. CONSENT AGENDA (PULLED ITEMS)
XI. 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 Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing.
1. DR 10-24
Old Mill Properties
E/s San Carlos 3 S 7th
Block 90, Lot(s) 10
Consideration of Design Review, Coastal Development Permit and Use Permit applications for the construction of two residential units located in the Residential and Limited Commercial (RC) District.
2. DR 10-25
Old Mill Properties
W/s Mission 3 S of 7th
Block 90, Lot(s) 9
Consideration of Design Review, Coastal Development Permit and Use Permit applications for the construction of two residential units located in the Residential and Limited Commercial (RC) District.
3. DR 10-30
Gordon & Sandy Steuck
E/s San Carlos bt. 7th & 8th
Block 90, Lot(s) 5,6,7,8
Consideration of a Design Review application for exterior alterations to the north elevation of the Coachman’s Inn located in the Residential & Limited Commercial (RC) District.
4. DR 10-33
Tiffany’s
SW Ocean & Junipero
Block 78, Lot(s) All
Consideration of a Design Review application for the installation of awnings and two commercial signs on a storefront located in the Central Commercial (CC) District. (Carmel Plaza)
5. UP 10-22
Wrath Wines
SW Ocean & Junipero
Block 78, Lot(s) All Consideration of a Use Permit for a wine shop and wine tasting area located in the Central Commercial (CC) District. (Carmel Plaza)
6. DS 10-108
Michael Wiechers
W/s Monte Verde 3 N of Santa Lucia
Block 146, Lot(s) 25 Consideration of a Design Study application for the installation of a stone veneer on an existing residence located in the Single Family Residential (R-1) District.
7. DS 10-84
Judi & David Henke
Monte Verde 5 SW of 10th
Block E, Lot(s) 9
Reconsideration of Design Study and Coastal Development Permit applications for the substantial alteration of an existing residence located in the Single Family Residential (R-1) District.
8. DS 10-118
Edna Young
SE Cor. San Carlos & 10th
Blk 117, Lots part 2 & 4
Consideration of a Design Study application for the installation of an artificial lawn on a site located in the Single Family Residential (R-1) District.
9. DS 10-78
Katherine & Greg Morganroth
NE Scenic & Santa Lucia
Block A6, Lot(s) 14
Consideration of Design Study (Final), Demolition and Coastal Development Permit for the construction of a new residence located in R-1, BR, AS and P Districts. (Continued to 1/12/11)
XII. ADJOURNMENT
The next meeting of the Planning Commission will be:
► Regular Meeting – Wednesday, January 12, 2011 at 4:00 p.m.
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.
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 Administrative Coordinator. If you need assistance, please advise Leslie Fenton what item you would like to comment on and the microphone will be brought to you.
NO AGENDA ITEM WILL BE CONSIDERED AFTER 8:00 P.M. UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. ANY AGENDA ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED AT THE MEETING WILL BE CONTINUED TO A FUTURE DATE AS DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSION.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the Planning & Building Department located in City Hall, E/s Monte Verde between Ocean & 7th Avenues, during normal business hours.
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
PLANNING COMMISSION – MINUTES
DECEMBER 8, 2010 (Amended)
I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
PRESENT:Commission Members: Beach, Dallas, Paterson, Hillyard, Reimers
STAFF PRESENT: Sean Conroy, Planning & Building Services Manager
Marc Wiener, Associate Planner
Leslie Fenton, Administrative Coordinator
II. TOUR OF INSPECTION
The Planning Commission toured the following sites: Steuck, Old Mill Properties, Young, 26041 Ridgewood, Wiechers, Henke and Casanova 3 NW 8th.
III. ROLL CALL
IV. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Members of the audience joined Commission Members in the pledge of allegiance.
V. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR
Commissioner HILLYARD moved to nominate Commissioner Reimers as Chair, seconded by BEACH and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Beach, Dallas, Paterson, Hillyard
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Reimers
Commissioner BEACH moved to nominate Commissioner Hillyard as
Vice-chair, seconded by DALLAS and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Beach, Dallas, Paterson, Hillyard Reimers
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Reimers Hillyard
VI. 2011 PROPOSED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATES
Sean Conroy, Planning & Building Services Manager, presented a list of 2011 regular and special meeting dates.
The Commission decided to have the special meeting in January and schedule
others as needed.
VII. ANNOUNCEMENTS
None
VIII. APPEARANCES
None
IX. CONSENT AGENDA
1. Consideration of Planning Commission minutes from November 10, 2010.
Commissioner HILLYARD moved to approve item Consent Agenda item #1, seconded by DALLAS and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Beach, Dallas, Paterson, Hillyard, Reimers
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
2. DS 10-115
San Carlos LLP
N/s 12th bt. San Carlos & Dolores
Block 131, Lot(s) 11 & 13 Consideration of the Re-issuance of Design Study and Coastal Development Permit applications for the construction of a residence in the Single Family Residential (R-1) District.
Commissioner Dallas re-cused himself from the discussion.
Commissioner PATERSON moved to approve Consent Agenda item #2, seconded by HILLYARD and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Beach, Paterson, Hillyard, Reimers
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Dallas
XI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. DR 10-24
Old Mill Properties
E/s San Carlos 3 S 7th
Block 90, Lot(s) 10
Consideration of Design Review, Coastal Development Permit and Use Permit applications for the construction of two residential units located in the Residential and Limited Commercial (RC) District.
Commissioner Reimers re-cused herself from the discussion.
Marc Wiener, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Vice-chair Hillyard opened the public hearing at 4:26 p.m. Eric Miller, Niels Reimers, Gunnar Reimers, Bob Burgess, Jim Bell, Gordon Steuck and Brian Congleton appeared before the Commission. There being no other appearances, the public hearing was closed at 4:50 p.m.
After further discussion, the public hearing was re-opened at 5:10 p.m. Eric Miller and Monte Miller appeared before the Commission. There being no other appearances, the public hearing was closed at 5:15 p.m.
After further discussion, the public hearing was re-opened at 5:27 p.m. Eric Miller and Niels Reimers appeared before the Commission. There being no other appearances, the public hearing was closed at 5:37 p.m.
Commissioner BEACH moved to deny the application.
Motion failed due to lack of a second.
Commissioner DALLAS moved to continue the application, staff to come back with study on feasibility of parking issue.
Motion failed due to lack of a second.
Commissioner PATERSON moved to accept project as drawn, if Police report on parking access comes back negative then the project is denied, seconded by HILLYARD
Hillyard withdrew second. Motion failed due to lack of a second.
Commissioner HILLYARD moved to continue project, Police opinion on safety of backing out of garages, alternative changes to façade does not copy historical style, non-imitative design concept
Motion failed due to lack of a second.
Commissioner HILLYARD moved to continue project, staff to consult with Police Department regarding backing out from this project as designed, seconded by PATERSON and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Dallas, Paterson, Hillyard
NOES: Beach
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Reimers
The Commission took a break from 6:00 p.m. – 6:10 p.m.
2. DR 10-25
Old Mill Properties
W/s Mission 3 S 7th
Block 90, Lot(s) 9
Consideration of Design Review, Coastal Development Permit and Use Permit applications for the construction of two residential units located in the Residential and Limited Commercial (RC) District.
Commissioner Reimers re-cused herself from the discussion.
Marc Wiener, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Vice-chair Hillyard opened the public hearing at 6:14 p.m. Eric Miller, Brian Congleton, Wayne Johnson, Jim Bell and Gordon Steuck appeared before the Commission. There being no other appearances, the public hearing was closed at 6:30 p.m.
After further discussion, the public hearing was re-opened at 6:34 p.m. Eric Miller appeared before the Commission. There being no other appearances, the public hearing was closed at 6:36 p.m.
Commissioner BEACH moved to continue the project and request re-design of parking in the rear, seconded by DALLAS and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Beach, Dallas, Hillyard
NOES: Paterson
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Reimers
3. DR 10-30
Gordon & Sandy Steuck
E/s San Carlos bt. 7th & 8th
Block 90, Lot(s) 5,6,7,8
Consideration of a Design Review application for exterior alterations to the north elevation of the Coachman’s Inn located in the Residential & Limited Commercial (RC) District.
Commissioner Reimers re-cused herself from the discussion.
Sean Conroy, Planning & Building Services Manager, presented the staff report. Chair Reimers Vice-chair Hillyard opened the public hearing at 6:50 p.m. Wayne Johnson appeared before the Commission. There being no other appearances, the public hearing was closed at 6:56 p.m.
Commissioner PATERSON moved to approve application with an addition to staff’s Special Conditions #1 – All building elements and structures, including any cover over the service corridor, shall comply with the RC District side-yard setback requirements unless otherwise approved the Planning Commission in the future; staff’s Special Condition #2 and addition of Special Condition #3 – The applicant shall work with staff on the final color and design of the proposed awnings, seconded by DALLAS and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Beach, Dallas, Paterson, Hillyard
NOES: Paterson
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Reimers
4. DR 10-33
Tiffany’s
SW Ocean & Junipero
Block 78, Lot(s) All
Consideration of a Design Review application for the installation of awnings and two commercial signs on a storefront located in the Central Commercial (CC) District. (Carmel Plaza)
Marc Wiener, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chair Reimers opened the public hearing at 7:17 p.m. Brian Congleton and Jim Griffith appeared before the Commission. There being no other appearances, the public hearing was closed at 7:26 p.m.
Commissioner BEACH moved to approve the application with staff’s Special Conditions #1 and #4, delete #2 – The applicant shall remove two of the light fixtures so that there is only one per sign. The applicant is required to apply for an electrical permit for the installation of the lights. The change shall be reflected on the working drawings; and change to #3 – The applicant shall work with staff on determining an appropriate color for the awnings The application is approved with the traditional “Tiffany’s” blue color for the awnings, the awnings shall protrude out further, align with seam of marble work, applicant shall work with Carmel Plaza to change color of upper awning to wall color, seconded by PATERSON and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Beach, Dallas, Paterson, Reimers
NOES: Hillyard
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
5. UP 10-22
Wrath Wines
SW Ocean & Junipero
Block 78, Lot(s) All
Consideration of a Use Permit for a wine shop and wine tasting area located in the Central Commercial (CC) District. (Carmel Plaza)
Sean Conroy, Planning & Building Services Manager presented the staff report. Chair Reimers opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Christopher, Kent Tory, Jim Bell and Jim Griffith appeared before the Commission. There being no other appearances, the public hearing was closed at 7:50 p.m.
Commissioner DALLAS moved to approve the application with staff’s Special Conditions #1-12 and addition of Special Condition #13 – only Wrath wines shall be sold and distributed at this location, seconded by PATERSON and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Beach, Dallas, Hillyard, Paterson, Reimers
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
6. DS 10-108
Michael Wiechers
W/s Monte Verde 3 N Santa Lucia
Block 146, Lot(s) 25
Consideration of a Design Study application for the installation of a stone veneer on an existing residence located in the Single Family Residential (R-1) District.
Marc Wiener, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chair Reimers opened the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. Greg Holdren appeared before the Commission. There being no other appearances, the public hearing was closed at 8:11 p.m.
Commissioner HILLYARD moved to approve the application with change to staff’s Special Condition #1 – The stone shall be applied on the entire south elevation of the garage – The stone wall shall continue up from the garage to bottom of decking and enclose deck post, seconded by DALLAS and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Beach, Dallas, Hillyard, Reimers
NOES: Paterson
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
7. DS 10-84
Judi & David Henke
W/s Monte Verde 5 SW of 10th
Block E, Lot(s) 9
Reconsideration of Design Study and Coastal Development Permit applications for the substantial alteration of an existing residence located in the Single Family Residential (R-1) District.
Mar Wiener, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chair Reimers opened the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. Greg Holdren appeared before the commission. There being no other appearances, the public hearing was closed at 8:11 p.m.
Commissioner PATERSON moved to approve the application with the skylight over the living room and bedroom
Motion failed due to lack of a second.
Commissioner BEACH moved to approve the application with the installation of a skylight above the living room on the south side of the roof, with a condition that the skylight above the bedroom on the north side of the roof be eliminated, seconded by DALLAS and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Beach, Dallas, Hillyard, Reimers
NOES: Paterson
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
8. DS 10-118
Edna Young
SE San Carlos & 10th
Block 117, Lot(s) 2 & 4
Consideration of a Design Study application for the installation of an artificial lawn on a site located in the Single Family Residential (R-1) District.
Sean Conroy, Planning & Building Services Manager, presented the staff report. Chair Reimers opened the public hearing at 8:14 p.m. Edna Young, Roberta Miller and a representative of Simply Green appeared before the Commission. There being no other appearances, the public hearing was closed at 8:19 p.m.
Commissioner HILLYARD moved to approve the application with staff’s Special Condition and Special Condition #2 – should the fence be removed or lowered, making the lawn visible, lawn would need to be removed, seconded by PATERSON and failed by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Reimers, Paterson
NOES: Beach, Dallas, Paterson, Hillyard
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Commissioner BEACH moved to deny the application, seconded by DALLAS and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Beach, Dallas, Hillyard, Reimers
NOES: Paterson
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
XII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:32 p.m.
__________________________________
Leslie Fenton, Administrative Coordinator
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Janet Reimers, Chair
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
Regular Meeting
December 8, 2010 Wednesday
City Hall East side of Monte Verde Street Between Ocean & Seventh Avenues
2:45 Tour
Meeting 4:00 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Commissioners: Victoria Beach
Steve Dallas
Keith Paterson
Steve Hillyard, Vice-chair
Janet Reimers, Chair
II. TOUR OF INSPECTION
Shortly after 2:45 p.m. the Commission will leave the Council Chambers for an on-site Tour of Inspection of all properties listed on this agenda (including those on the Consent Agenda). The Tour may also include projects previously approved by the City and not on this agenda. Prior to the beginning of the Tour of Inspection, the Commission may eliminate one or more on-site visits. The public is welcome to follow the Commission on its tour of the determined sites. The Commission will return to the Council Chambers at 4:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible.
III. ROLL CALL
IV. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
V. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR
VI. 2011 PROPOSED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATES
VII. ANNOUNCEMENTS
VIII. APPEARANCES
Anyone wishing to address the Commission on matters not on the agenda, but within the jurisdiction of the Commission may do so now. Please state the matter on which you wish to speak. Matters not appearing on the Commission agenda will not receive action at this meeting but may be referred to staff for a future meeting. Presentations will be limited to three minutes, or as otherwise established by the Commission. Persons are not required to give their name or address, but it is helpful for speakers to state their name in order that the Secretary may identify them.
IX. CONSENT AGENDA
Items placed on the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine and are acted upon by the Commission in one motion. There is no discussion of these items prior to the Commission action unless a member of the Commission, staff, or public requests specific items be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Agenda. It is understood that the staff recommends approval of all consent items. Each item on the Consent Agenda approved by the Commission shall be deemed to have been considered in full and adopted as recommended.
1. Consideration of Planning Commission minutes from November 10, 2010.
2. DS 10-115
San Carlos LLP
N/s 12th bt. San Carlos & 12th
Block 131, Lot(s) 11 & 13
Consideration of the Re-issuance of Design Study and Coastal Development Permit applications for the construction of a residence in the Single Family Residential (R-1) District.
X. CONSENT AGENDA (PULLED ITEMS)
XI. 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 Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing.
1. DR 10-24
Old Mill Properties
E/s San Carlos 3 S 7th
Block 90, Lot(s) 10
Consideration of Design Review, Coastal Development Permit and Use Permit applications for the construction of two residential units located in the Residential and Limited Commercial (RC) District.
2. DR 10-25
Old Mill Properties
W/s Mission 3 S of 7th
Block 90, Lot(s) 9
Consideration of Design Review, Coastal Development Permit and Use Permit applications for the construction of two residential units located in the Residential and Limited Commercial (RC) District.
3. DR 10-30
Gordon & Sandy Steuck
E/s San Carlos bt. 7th & 8th
Block 90, Lot(s) 5,6,7,8
Consideration of a Design Review application for exterior alterations to the north elevation of the Coachman’s Inn located in the Residential & Limited Commercial (RC) District.
4. DR 10-33
Tiffany’s
SW Ocean & Junipero
Block 78, Lot(s) All
Consideration of a Design Review application for the installation of awnings and two commercial signs on a storefront located in the Central Commercial (CC) District. (Carmel Plaza)
5. UP 10-22
Wrath Wines
SW Ocean & Junipero
Block 78, Lot(s) All Consideration of a Use Permit for a wine shop and wine tasting area located in the Central Commercial (CC) District. (Carmel Plaza)
6. DS 10-108
Michael Wiechers
W/s Monte Verde 3 N of Santa Lucia
Block 146, Lot(s) 25 Consideration of a Design Study application for the installation of a stone veneer on an existing residence located in the Single Family Residential (R-1) District.
7. DS 10-84
Judi & David Henke
Monte Verde 5 SW of 10th
Block E, Lot(s) 9
Reconsideration of Design Study and Coastal Development Permit applications for the substantial alteration of an existing residence located in the Single Family Residential (R-1) District.
8. DS 10-118
Edna Young
SE Cor. San Carlos & 10th
Blk 117, Lots part 2 & 4
Consideration of a Design Study application for the installation of an artificial lawn on a site located in the Single Family Residential (R-1) District.
9. DS 10-78
Katherine & Greg Morganroth
NE Scenic & Santa Lucia
Block A6, Lot(s) 14
Consideration of Design Study (Final), Demolition and Coastal Development Permit for the construction of a new residence located in R-1, BR, AS and P Districts. (Continued to 1/12/11)
XII. ADJOURNMENT
The next meeting of the Planning Commission will be:
► Regular Meeting – Wednesday, January 12, 2011 at 4:00 p.m.
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.
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 Administrative Coordinator. If you need assistance, please advise Leslie Fenton what item you would like to comment on and the microphone will be brought to you.
NO AGENDA ITEM WILL BE CONSIDERED AFTER 8:00 P.M. UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. ANY AGENDA ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED AT THE MEETING WILL BE CONTINUED TO A FUTURE DATE AS DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSION.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the Planning & Building Department located in City Hall, E/s Monte Verde between Ocean & 7th Avenues, during normal business hours.
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
PLANNING COMMISSION – MINUTES
DECEMBER 8, 2010 (Amended)
I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
PRESENT:Commission Members: Beach, Dallas, Paterson, Hillyard, Reimers
STAFF PRESENT: Sean Conroy, Planning & Building Services Manager
Marc Wiener, Associate Planner
Leslie Fenton, Administrative Coordinator
II. TOUR OF INSPECTION
The Planning Commission toured the following sites: Steuck, Old Mill Properties, Young, 26041 Ridgewood, Wiechers, Henke and Casanova 3 NW 8th.
III. ROLL CALL
IV. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Members of the audience joined Commission Members in the pledge of allegiance.
V. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR
Commissioner HILLYARD moved to nominate Commissioner Reimers as Chair, seconded by BEACH and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Beach, Dallas, Paterson, Hillyard
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Reimers
Commissioner BEACH moved to nominate Commissioner Hillyard as
Vice-chair, seconded by DALLAS and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Beach, Dallas, Paterson, Hillyard Reimers
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Reimers Hillyard
VI. 2011 PROPOSED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATES
Sean Conroy, Planning & Building Services Manager, presented a list of 2011 regular and special meeting dates.
The Commission decided to have the special meeting in January and schedule
others as needed.
VII. ANNOUNCEMENTS
None
VIII. APPEARANCES
None
IX. CONSENT AGENDA
1. Consideration of Planning Commission minutes from November 10, 2010.
Commissioner HILLYARD moved to approve item Consent Agenda item #1, seconded by DALLAS and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Beach, Dallas, Paterson, Hillyard, Reimers
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
2. DS 10-115
San Carlos LLP
N/s 12th bt. San Carlos & Dolores
Block 131, Lot(s) 11 & 13 Consideration of the Re-issuance of Design Study and Coastal Development Permit applications for the construction of a residence in the Single Family Residential (R-1) District.
Commissioner Dallas re-cused himself from the discussion.
Commissioner PATERSON moved to approve Consent Agenda item #2, seconded by HILLYARD and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Beach, Paterson, Hillyard, Reimers
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Dallas
XI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. DR 10-24
Old Mill Properties
E/s San Carlos 3 S 7th
Block 90, Lot(s) 10
Consideration of Design Review, Coastal Development Permit and Use Permit applications for the construction of two residential units located in the Residential and Limited Commercial (RC) District.
Commissioner Reimers re-cused herself from the discussion.
Marc Wiener, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Vice-chair Hillyard opened the public hearing at 4:26 p.m. Eric Miller, Niels Reimers, Gunnar Reimers, Bob Burgess, Jim Bell, Gordon Steuck and Brian Congleton appeared before the Commission. There being no other appearances, the public hearing was closed at 4:50 p.m.
After further discussion, the public hearing was re-opened at 5:10 p.m. Eric Miller and Monte Miller appeared before the Commission. There being no other appearances, the public hearing was closed at 5:15 p.m.
After further discussion, the public hearing was re-opened at 5:27 p.m. Eric Miller and Niels Reimers appeared before the Commission. There being no other appearances, the public hearing was closed at 5:37 p.m.
Commissioner BEACH moved to deny the application.
Motion failed due to lack of a second.
Commissioner DALLAS moved to continue the application, staff to come back with study on feasibility of parking issue.
Motion failed due to lack of a second.
Commissioner PATERSON moved to accept project as drawn, if Police report on parking access comes back negative then the project is denied, seconded by HILLYARD
Hillyard withdrew second. Motion failed due to lack of a second.
Commissioner HILLYARD moved to continue project, Police opinion on safety of backing out of garages, alternative changes to façade does not copy historical style, non-imitative design concept
Motion failed due to lack of a second.
Commissioner HILLYARD moved to continue project, staff to consult with Police Department regarding backing out from this project as designed, seconded by PATERSON and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Dallas, Paterson, Hillyard
NOES: Beach
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Reimers
The Commission took a break from 6:00 p.m. – 6:10 p.m.
2. DR 10-25
Old Mill Properties
W/s Mission 3 S 7th
Block 90, Lot(s) 9
Consideration of Design Review, Coastal Development Permit and Use Permit applications for the construction of two residential units located in the Residential and Limited Commercial (RC) District.
Commissioner Reimers re-cused herself from the discussion.
Marc Wiener, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Vice-chair Hillyard opened the public hearing at 6:14 p.m. Eric Miller, Brian Congleton, Wayne Johnson, Jim Bell and Gordon Steuck appeared before the Commission. There being no other appearances, the public hearing was closed at 6:30 p.m.
After further discussion, the public hearing was re-opened at 6:34 p.m. Eric Miller appeared before the Commission. There being no other appearances, the public hearing was closed at 6:36 p.m.
Commissioner BEACH moved to continue the project and request re-design of parking in the rear, seconded by DALLAS and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Beach, Dallas, Hillyard
NOES: Paterson
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Reimers
3. DR 10-30
Gordon & Sandy Steuck
E/s San Carlos bt. 7th & 8th
Block 90, Lot(s) 5,6,7,8
Consideration of a Design Review application for exterior alterations to the north elevation of the Coachman’s Inn located in the Residential & Limited Commercial (RC) District.
Commissioner Reimers re-cused herself from the discussion.
Sean Conroy, Planning & Building Services Manager, presented the staff report. Chair Reimers Vice-chair Hillyard opened the public hearing at 6:50 p.m. Wayne Johnson appeared before the Commission. There being no other appearances, the public hearing was closed at 6:56 p.m.
Commissioner PATERSON moved to approve application with an addition to staff’s Special Conditions #1 – All building elements and structures, including any cover over the service corridor, shall comply with the RC District side-yard setback requirements unless otherwise approved the Planning Commission in the future; staff’s Special Condition #2 and addition of Special Condition #3 – The applicant shall work with staff on the final color and design of the proposed awnings, seconded by DALLAS and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Beach, Dallas, Paterson, Hillyard
NOES: Paterson
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Reimers
4. DR 10-33
Tiffany’s
SW Ocean & Junipero
Block 78, Lot(s) All
Consideration of a Design Review application for the installation of awnings and two commercial signs on a storefront located in the Central Commercial (CC) District. (Carmel Plaza)
Marc Wiener, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chair Reimers opened the public hearing at 7:17 p.m. Brian Congleton and Jim Griffith appeared before the Commission. There being no other appearances, the public hearing was closed at 7:26 p.m.
Commissioner BEACH moved to approve the application with staff’s Special Conditions #1 and #4, delete #2 – The applicant shall remove two of the light fixtures so that there is only one per sign. The applicant is required to apply for an electrical permit for the installation of the lights. The change shall be reflected on the working drawings; and change to #3 – The applicant shall work with staff on determining an appropriate color for the awnings The application is approved with the traditional “Tiffany’s” blue color for the awnings, the awnings shall protrude out further, align with seam of marble work, applicant shall work with Carmel Plaza to change color of upper awning to wall color, seconded by PATERSON and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Beach, Dallas, Paterson, Reimers
NOES: Hillyard
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
5. UP 10-22
Wrath Wines
SW Ocean & Junipero
Block 78, Lot(s) All
Consideration of a Use Permit for a wine shop and wine tasting area located in the Central Commercial (CC) District. (Carmel Plaza)
Sean Conroy, Planning & Building Services Manager presented the staff report. Chair Reimers opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Christopher, Kent Tory, Jim Bell and Jim Griffith appeared before the Commission. There being no other appearances, the public hearing was closed at 7:50 p.m.
Commissioner DALLAS moved to approve the application with staff’s Special Conditions #1-12 and addition of Special Condition #13 – only Wrath wines shall be sold and distributed at this location, seconded by PATERSON and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Beach, Dallas, Hillyard, Paterson, Reimers
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
6. DS 10-108
Michael Wiechers
W/s Monte Verde 3 N Santa Lucia
Block 146, Lot(s) 25
Consideration of a Design Study application for the installation of a stone veneer on an existing residence located in the Single Family Residential (R-1) District.
Marc Wiener, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chair Reimers opened the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. Greg Holdren appeared before the Commission. There being no other appearances, the public hearing was closed at 8:11 p.m.
Commissioner HILLYARD moved to approve the application with change to staff’s Special Condition #1 – The stone shall be applied on the entire south elevation of the garage – The stone wall shall continue up from the garage to bottom of decking and enclose deck post, seconded by DALLAS and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Beach, Dallas, Hillyard, Reimers
NOES: Paterson
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
7. DS 10-84
Judi & David Henke
W/s Monte Verde 5 SW of 10th
Block E, Lot(s) 9
Reconsideration of Design Study and Coastal Development Permit applications for the substantial alteration of an existing residence located in the Single Family Residential (R-1) District.
Mar Wiener, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chair Reimers opened the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. Greg Holdren appeared before the commission. There being no other appearances, the public hearing was closed at 8:11 p.m.
Commissioner PATERSON moved to approve the application with the skylight over the living room and bedroom
Motion failed due to lack of a second.
Commissioner BEACH moved to approve the application with the installation of a skylight above the living room on the south side of the roof, with a condition that the skylight above the bedroom on the north side of the roof be eliminated, seconded by DALLAS and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Beach, Dallas, Hillyard, Reimers
NOES: Paterson
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
8. DS 10-118
Edna Young
SE San Carlos & 10th
Block 117, Lot(s) 2 & 4
Consideration of a Design Study application for the installation of an artificial lawn on a site located in the Single Family Residential (R-1) District.
Sean Conroy, Planning & Building Services Manager, presented the staff report. Chair Reimers opened the public hearing at 8:14 p.m. Edna Young, Roberta Miller and a representative of Simply Green appeared before the Commission. There being no other appearances, the public hearing was closed at 8:19 p.m.
Commissioner HILLYARD moved to approve the application with staff’s Special Condition and Special Condition #2 – should the fence be removed or lowered, making the lawn visible, lawn would need to be removed, seconded by PATERSON and failed by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Reimers, Paterson
NOES: Beach, Dallas, Paterson, Hillyard
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Commissioner BEACH moved to deny the application, seconded by DALLAS and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Beach, Dallas, Hillyard, Reimers
NOES: Paterson
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
XII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:32 p.m.
__________________________________
Leslie Fenton, Administrative Coordinator
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Janet Reimers, Chair
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD AGENDA & MINUTES December 2010
CITY OF CARMEL BY-THE-SEA
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD
AGENDA
Please be advised that the regular Historic Resources Board Meetings
Scheduled for Monday, December 20, 2010 IS CANCELLED
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD
AGENDA
Please be advised that the regular Historic Resources Board Meetings
Scheduled for Monday, December 20, 2010 IS CANCELLED
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)