Meeting Date: 3 November 2009
Prepared by: George Rawson, Public Safety Director
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of a Resolution to approve participation in the “Avoid the 18” DUI-enforcement program and accept State grant funds for fiscal years 2009-2012.
Description: The State of California approved a three-year grant to fund the “Avoid the 18” DUI-enforcement program for fiscal years 2009 – 2012. The State allocated $619,000 to Monterey County for this program. The Salinas Police Department will administer and allocate these funds to allied agencies throughout the County on an “as-used” basis. All 18 Monterey County law enforcement agencies are eligible to participate in the grant.
Over the next three years, the program will target 47 days, primarily on holiday weekends, where DUI injuries and fatalities may be especially prevalent.
Officers volunteering on DUI enforcement on these days will work
overtime hours, so normal duty shifts will not be affected by this program.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: Net zero cost to the city. Officers will be paid their normal overtime rate for working in the “Avoid the 18” program. A report summarizing total overtime worked for each weekend period will be submitted to the Salinas Police Department for 100% reimbursement. These reimbursed funds received by the City will be transferred back to the Carmel Police Department’s Overtime Account #21-38899.
Grant Funds: Not to exceed $33,000 per fiscal year over the next three years.
Staff Recommendation: Authorize staff to participate in the “Avoid the 18” grant program using reimbursable overtime to pay for Carmel Police Department participation.
Important Considerations: It is in the best interest for all law enforcement agencies to work together for the common purpose of taking impaired drivers off the road.
Decision Record: None.
Reviewed by:
__________________________ _____________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
RESOLUTION 2009-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA APPROVING PARTICIPATION IN THE “AVOID THE 18” DUI-ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM AND ACCEPTING STATE GRANT FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2009-2012
________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS, the State of California has made available to the County of
Monterey $619,000 in grant funds for the “Avoid the 18” DUI-enforcement program for fiscal years 2009 - 2012; and
WHEREAS, the funds will be made available to all 18 Monterey County law enforcement agencies and administered by the Salinas Police Department; and
WHEREAS, there is no cost to the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea for its participation in the “Avoid the 18” program; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest for all law enforcement agencies to work together for the common purpose of taking impaired drivers off of the road;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DOES:
1. Approve Police Department personnel to work overtime and participate in the three-year Monterey County “Avoid the 18” DUI-enforcement grant program.
2. Authorize reimbursable overtime expenses for the DUI program, not to exceed $33,000 per fiscal year, for the next three fiscal years.
3. Deposit all reimbursed funds from the Monterey County “Avoid the 18” grant program to Police Department Overtime Account #21-38899.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 3rd day of November 2009 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SIGNED,
________________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR
________________________
ATTEST: Heidi Burch, City Clerk
Sunday, November 1, 2009
CITY COUNCIL: Resolution Approving Transfer from Reserve to General Fund for Trolley Service
Meeting Date: November 3, 2009
Prepared by: Joyce Giuffre, Admin Services Director
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of a Resolution approving a transfer of $32,000 from the General Operating Reserve to the General Fund for trolley service expenditures in fiscal year 2009/10 until grant funds are received.
Description: On October 6, 2009, the City Council approved Resolution 2009-70, approving the AB2766 grant application to the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD) for trolley service. Carmel-by-the-Sea’s application requested $132,194 in grant funding. On September 16, 2009, MBUAPCD awarded the City a grant of $85,000.
The grant agreement with MBUAPCD stipulates that grant reimbursements will be processed after expenditures are made. There is no funding in the current fiscal year budget to cover expenditures for scheduled trolley service dates from December 2009 through June 2010. The $12,600 that was included in the FY 2009/10 budget only covered weekend amounts between July 4th and Labor Day 2009.
For the remainder of the 2009/10 fiscal year, daily trolley service is scheduled for two periods: a) December 26, 2009 through January 3, 2010 and b) May 31, 2010 through June 30, 2010. The estimated cost for these periods of service is $32,000. To cover trolley service expenditures until grant monies are received, staff recommends a transfer be made from the General Operating Reserve to the General Fund. Once the grant monies are received, a transfer of $32,000 will be made back to the General Operating Reserve.
Overall Cost: City Funds: $32,000 from the General Operating Reserve
Staff Recommendation: Approve the transfer of $32,000 from the General Operating Reserve to the General Fund to cover trolley service expenditures for the remainder of the current fiscal year. The transfer can be considered a temporary transfer as the money will be transferred back to the General Operating Reserve once grant funds are received. The General Operating Reserve balance is currently $2,296,841.
Important Considerations: Upfront trolley service expenditures for fiscal year 2010/11 will be addressed during the next Triennial Budget process.
Decision Record: Resolution 2009-70, dated October 6, 2009 approving the AB2766 grant application to MBUAPCD.
Reviewed by:
______________________________ _________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2009-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA APPROVING A TRANSFER OF $32,000 FROM THE GENERAL OPERATING RESERVE TO THE GENERAL FUND FOR TROLLEY SERVICE EXPENDITURES IN FISCAL YEAR 2009/10 UNTIL
GRANT FUNDS ARE RECEIVED
__________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS, on October 6, 2009, the City Council approved Resolution 2009-70
approving the AB2766 grant application to the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD) for Carmel-by-the-Sea trolley service; and
WHEREAS, the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD)
awarded Carmel-by-the-Sea an AB2766 grant of $85,000 for the trolley service; and
WHEREAS, MBUAPCD will reimburse grant-eligible expenditures incurred by the
City after the expenditures have been made; and
WHEREAS, trolley service General Fund expenditures for scheduled dates between December 2009 and June 2010 are estimated at $32,000; and
WHEREAS, $32,000 can be transferred from the City’s General Operating Reserve to the General Fund to cover the trolley service expenditures in December 2009 through June 2010 until grant proceeds are received.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DOES:
1. Approve a transfer of $32,000 from the General Operating Reserve to the General Fund for trolley service expenditures in fiscal year 2009/10 until grant funds are received.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 3rd day of November 2009, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SIGNED,
___________________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR
ATTEST:
________________________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
Prepared by: Joyce Giuffre, Admin Services Director
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of a Resolution approving a transfer of $32,000 from the General Operating Reserve to the General Fund for trolley service expenditures in fiscal year 2009/10 until grant funds are received.
Description: On October 6, 2009, the City Council approved Resolution 2009-70, approving the AB2766 grant application to the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD) for trolley service. Carmel-by-the-Sea’s application requested $132,194 in grant funding. On September 16, 2009, MBUAPCD awarded the City a grant of $85,000.
The grant agreement with MBUAPCD stipulates that grant reimbursements will be processed after expenditures are made. There is no funding in the current fiscal year budget to cover expenditures for scheduled trolley service dates from December 2009 through June 2010. The $12,600 that was included in the FY 2009/10 budget only covered weekend amounts between July 4th and Labor Day 2009.
For the remainder of the 2009/10 fiscal year, daily trolley service is scheduled for two periods: a) December 26, 2009 through January 3, 2010 and b) May 31, 2010 through June 30, 2010. The estimated cost for these periods of service is $32,000. To cover trolley service expenditures until grant monies are received, staff recommends a transfer be made from the General Operating Reserve to the General Fund. Once the grant monies are received, a transfer of $32,000 will be made back to the General Operating Reserve.
Overall Cost: City Funds: $32,000 from the General Operating Reserve
Staff Recommendation: Approve the transfer of $32,000 from the General Operating Reserve to the General Fund to cover trolley service expenditures for the remainder of the current fiscal year. The transfer can be considered a temporary transfer as the money will be transferred back to the General Operating Reserve once grant funds are received. The General Operating Reserve balance is currently $2,296,841.
Important Considerations: Upfront trolley service expenditures for fiscal year 2010/11 will be addressed during the next Triennial Budget process.
Decision Record: Resolution 2009-70, dated October 6, 2009 approving the AB2766 grant application to MBUAPCD.
Reviewed by:
______________________________ _________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2009-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA APPROVING A TRANSFER OF $32,000 FROM THE GENERAL OPERATING RESERVE TO THE GENERAL FUND FOR TROLLEY SERVICE EXPENDITURES IN FISCAL YEAR 2009/10 UNTIL
GRANT FUNDS ARE RECEIVED
__________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS, on October 6, 2009, the City Council approved Resolution 2009-70
approving the AB2766 grant application to the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD) for Carmel-by-the-Sea trolley service; and
WHEREAS, the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD)
awarded Carmel-by-the-Sea an AB2766 grant of $85,000 for the trolley service; and
WHEREAS, MBUAPCD will reimburse grant-eligible expenditures incurred by the
City after the expenditures have been made; and
WHEREAS, trolley service General Fund expenditures for scheduled dates between December 2009 and June 2010 are estimated at $32,000; and
WHEREAS, $32,000 can be transferred from the City’s General Operating Reserve to the General Fund to cover the trolley service expenditures in December 2009 through June 2010 until grant proceeds are received.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DOES:
1. Approve a transfer of $32,000 from the General Operating Reserve to the General Fund for trolley service expenditures in fiscal year 2009/10 until grant funds are received.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 3rd day of November 2009, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SIGNED,
___________________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR
ATTEST:
________________________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL: Resolution Approving Grant from Mry Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District for Trolley Service
Meeting Date: November 3, 2009
Prepared by: Heidi Burch
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of a Resolution approving the receipt of an $85,000 grant from the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District for the Carmel-by-the-Sea trolley service and authorize the City Administrator to sign the Grant Acceptance Agreement.
Description: The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea applied for $132,194 in grant funds from the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD) for its trolley service.
MBUACPD had made $1.36 million of funds available to local cities through AB2766 for projects that reduce motor vehicle emissions.
On September 16, 2009, the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District Board of Directors announced it had awarded the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea a grant of $85,000 to operate its trolley service in FY 2009-2010 and 2010-11.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: $85,000
Staff Recommendation: Approve receipt of the $85,000 grant funds from the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District for the Carmel-by-the-Sea trolley service and authorize the City Administrator to sign the Grant Acceptance Agreement with the MBUAPCD.
Important Considerations: The City will be reimbursed by the MBUACPD for operations of the trolley beginning with the planned service to begin on December 26, 2009 and running through June 30, 2011.
Decision Record: Resolution 2009-70, approving the City’s grant application for $132,194 from the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District for the trolley service.
Reviewed by:
______________________________ _________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2009-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA APPROVING THE RECEIPT OF AN $85,000 GRANT FROM THE MONTEREY BAY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT FOR THE CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA TROLLEY SERVICE
__________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS, the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD)
made available $1.38 million in AB 2766 grants for local projects that reduce motor vehicle emissions; and
WHEREAS, the City identified its trolley service as a project with the potential to take many vehicles off its streets, thus reducing emissions and air pollution; and
WHEREAS, the City applied for grant funding to the MBUAPCD for FY 2009-2010 by the application filing deadline of June 15, 2009; and
WHEREAS, on September 16, 2009, the City was awarded $85,000 from the
MBUAPCD for FY 2009-2011 to fund its trolley service.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DOES:
1. Approve the receipt of $85,000 in grant funding from the Monterey Bay
Unified Air Pollution Control District for the Carmel-by-the-Sea trolley
service.
2. Authorize the City Administrator to sign the Grant Acceptance Agreement
with the MBUAPCD.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 3rd day of November 2009, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SIGNED,
___________________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR
ATTEST:
________________________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
Prepared by: Heidi Burch
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of a Resolution approving the receipt of an $85,000 grant from the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District for the Carmel-by-the-Sea trolley service and authorize the City Administrator to sign the Grant Acceptance Agreement.
Description: The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea applied for $132,194 in grant funds from the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD) for its trolley service.
MBUACPD had made $1.36 million of funds available to local cities through AB2766 for projects that reduce motor vehicle emissions.
On September 16, 2009, the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District Board of Directors announced it had awarded the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea a grant of $85,000 to operate its trolley service in FY 2009-2010 and 2010-11.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: $85,000
Staff Recommendation: Approve receipt of the $85,000 grant funds from the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District for the Carmel-by-the-Sea trolley service and authorize the City Administrator to sign the Grant Acceptance Agreement with the MBUAPCD.
Important Considerations: The City will be reimbursed by the MBUACPD for operations of the trolley beginning with the planned service to begin on December 26, 2009 and running through June 30, 2011.
Decision Record: Resolution 2009-70, approving the City’s grant application for $132,194 from the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District for the trolley service.
Reviewed by:
______________________________ _________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2009-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA APPROVING THE RECEIPT OF AN $85,000 GRANT FROM THE MONTEREY BAY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT FOR THE CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA TROLLEY SERVICE
__________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS, the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD)
made available $1.38 million in AB 2766 grants for local projects that reduce motor vehicle emissions; and
WHEREAS, the City identified its trolley service as a project with the potential to take many vehicles off its streets, thus reducing emissions and air pollution; and
WHEREAS, the City applied for grant funding to the MBUAPCD for FY 2009-2010 by the application filing deadline of June 15, 2009; and
WHEREAS, on September 16, 2009, the City was awarded $85,000 from the
MBUAPCD for FY 2009-2011 to fund its trolley service.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DOES:
1. Approve the receipt of $85,000 in grant funding from the Monterey Bay
Unified Air Pollution Control District for the Carmel-by-the-Sea trolley
service.
2. Authorize the City Administrator to sign the Grant Acceptance Agreement
with the MBUAPCD.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 3rd day of November 2009, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SIGNED,
___________________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR
ATTEST:
________________________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL: Resolution Authorizing Payment of Salary & Benefit Difference to City Employees Activated into Military Service
Meeting Date: November 3, 2009
Prepared by: Heidi Burch, City Clerk
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the payment of salary and benefit difference to city employees who have been activated into military service from the National Guard or from the inactive military reserves.
Description: This Resolution authorizes the City to pay the difference between salary and benefits paid by the military and those paid by the City for City staff activated into service. The purpose of this action is to accommodate the activation of the Building Official, John Hanson, by the National Guard to assist with construction and agriculture in Afghanistan. His deployment will be part of the Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) Asadabad encouraging international and non-governmental organizations to operate in rural areas outside of Kabul. The milestones
that lead to this activation are as follows:
• April 8, 2009 – Hanson informed staff that he is deploying in July 2009 to Afghanistan.
• July 31, 2009 – Hanson’s travel orders received by City for activation on August 3rd for training and deployment for approx. 400 days.
• September 14, 2009 –Hanson requested use of vacation time for the period of October 13-November 13, 2009, which caused a recalculation of his benefits package.
• September 24, 2009 –Hanson arrived in Afghanistan.
• October 8, 2009 – Receipt of Department of the Army letter requesting extension of Hanson’s City benefits, which will run out on December 31, 2009.
Municipal code sections 2.52.690 and 700 outline how the City will compensate employees activated for military duty (see attached). The City’s Municipal Code states, as it has, since 1987 that military leave beyond 30 days will be unpaid leave. Staff cannot authorize differential pay or benefits for employees as it is would be a gift of public funds. It is within the City Council’s authority to take this action, as it has done previously, as part of a public meeting.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: Hanson’s regular City compensation, salary plus benefits, is
$109,000. This will offset the following costs: $51,000 is estimated for
Hanson’s differential pay + $50,000 Building Official consultant during
Hanson’s activation.
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.
Important Considerations: Support of City staff members who have been activated for military service during times of emergencies or declaration of war requires the City Council to adopt a Resolution to cover any differential in pay and benefits. This is Hanson’s fourth military leave from the City since 2001 and each occurrence has followed the same City process. The costs to the City, at this time, are only estimates. As soon as the City receives information regarding military salary, allowances and premiums, the precise amounts will be determined.
Decision Record: In support of Hanson’s previous duty, Resolution 2001-156 was adopted in November 2001 and expired one year later. Resolution 2004-01 was also adopted in January 2004 and expired one year later in 2005.
Reviewed by:
_____________________________ __________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
RESOLUTION NO. 2009-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THESEA AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF SALARY AND BENEFIT DIFFERENCE TO CITY EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE BEEN ACTIVATED INTO MILITARY SERVICE FROM THE NATIONAL GUARD OR FROM THE INACTIVE MILITARY RESERVES.
WHEREAS, the City employs individuals who are members of the National Guard or the inactive military reserves; and
WHEREAS, the City recognizes the fact that during times of an emergency or war, it is sometimes necessary for Guard members or those in the inactive reserves to report for active military service as ordered; and
WHEREAS, the City also realizes that the employee(s) and their families may suffer a reduction of income as a result of being activated into military duty; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City to not allow an employee’s family to suffer financial burden during such emergencies or acts of war and is supportive of the employees of the City who have been called into active military service; and
WHEREAS, the City also finds that it is within the public interest to provide these employees with that portion of their City salary loss due to their active military duty pay.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DOES:
1. Provide for those City of Carmel-by-the-Sea permanent classified or
permanent unclassified employees who have been called into active military service duty.
2. Authorize payment of the difference between said employees’ current salary and that of his/her active military salary, as specified on the military Basic Pay Table, including all military allowances and/or premiums, from such time as the employees’ paid military leave (as provided in the California Military and Veterans Code 395 et seq.) is exhausted.
3. Effective November 14, 2009, direct that said employees’ vacation and sick leave banks will not be depleted below his/her normal accrual during the time of military duty.
4. This Resolution shall be valid for one year, at which time the City Council may elect to continue or discontinue said payment.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 3rd day of November 2009, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SIGNED:
______________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR
______________________
ATTEST: Heidi Burch, City Clerk
2.52.690 Military Leave – Annual Paid.
An employee having regular status is entitled to City-paid leave not to exceed 30 calendar days in any one-year period for training duty in any branch of the United States armed services. This leave shall be granted in accordance with provisions of the California Military and Veterans’ Code.
However, a request for annual military leave can be honored only if accompanied by a copy of the employee’s official military orders showing the employee’s name and other identifying information, and the starting and completion dates of leave. The order must also show the date of the orders and other official information including the name and rank of the person issuing the orders. Since annual training dates are ordinarily established months in advance of duty, an employee must inform the employee’s supervisor as soon as the training dates are known. Actual request for leave and official military orders should be submitted no later than 15 days prior to the requested leave beginning date. (Ord. 87-1 § 2, 1987).
2.52.700 Military Leave – Unpaid.
A. An employee having trainee status shall be granted a short-term or
extended leave when called to active duty, in accordance with the provisions of the California Military and Veterans’ Code. This requirement for proof of military orders specified in CMC 2.52.690 also applies to unpaid military leave.
B. Sick leave and vacation do not accrue to the employee while on leave, but the employee’s anniversary date remains unchanged. (Ord. 87-1 § 2, 1987).
Prepared by: Heidi Burch, City Clerk
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the payment of salary and benefit difference to city employees who have been activated into military service from the National Guard or from the inactive military reserves.
Description: This Resolution authorizes the City to pay the difference between salary and benefits paid by the military and those paid by the City for City staff activated into service. The purpose of this action is to accommodate the activation of the Building Official, John Hanson, by the National Guard to assist with construction and agriculture in Afghanistan. His deployment will be part of the Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) Asadabad encouraging international and non-governmental organizations to operate in rural areas outside of Kabul. The milestones
that lead to this activation are as follows:
• April 8, 2009 – Hanson informed staff that he is deploying in July 2009 to Afghanistan.
• July 31, 2009 – Hanson’s travel orders received by City for activation on August 3rd for training and deployment for approx. 400 days.
• September 14, 2009 –Hanson requested use of vacation time for the period of October 13-November 13, 2009, which caused a recalculation of his benefits package.
• September 24, 2009 –Hanson arrived in Afghanistan.
• October 8, 2009 – Receipt of Department of the Army letter requesting extension of Hanson’s City benefits, which will run out on December 31, 2009.
Municipal code sections 2.52.690 and 700 outline how the City will compensate employees activated for military duty (see attached). The City’s Municipal Code states, as it has, since 1987 that military leave beyond 30 days will be unpaid leave. Staff cannot authorize differential pay or benefits for employees as it is would be a gift of public funds. It is within the City Council’s authority to take this action, as it has done previously, as part of a public meeting.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: Hanson’s regular City compensation, salary plus benefits, is
$109,000. This will offset the following costs: $51,000 is estimated for
Hanson’s differential pay + $50,000 Building Official consultant during
Hanson’s activation.
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.
Important Considerations: Support of City staff members who have been activated for military service during times of emergencies or declaration of war requires the City Council to adopt a Resolution to cover any differential in pay and benefits. This is Hanson’s fourth military leave from the City since 2001 and each occurrence has followed the same City process. The costs to the City, at this time, are only estimates. As soon as the City receives information regarding military salary, allowances and premiums, the precise amounts will be determined.
Decision Record: In support of Hanson’s previous duty, Resolution 2001-156 was adopted in November 2001 and expired one year later. Resolution 2004-01 was also adopted in January 2004 and expired one year later in 2005.
Reviewed by:
_____________________________ __________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
RESOLUTION NO. 2009-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THESEA AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF SALARY AND BENEFIT DIFFERENCE TO CITY EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE BEEN ACTIVATED INTO MILITARY SERVICE FROM THE NATIONAL GUARD OR FROM THE INACTIVE MILITARY RESERVES.
WHEREAS, the City employs individuals who are members of the National Guard or the inactive military reserves; and
WHEREAS, the City recognizes the fact that during times of an emergency or war, it is sometimes necessary for Guard members or those in the inactive reserves to report for active military service as ordered; and
WHEREAS, the City also realizes that the employee(s) and their families may suffer a reduction of income as a result of being activated into military duty; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City to not allow an employee’s family to suffer financial burden during such emergencies or acts of war and is supportive of the employees of the City who have been called into active military service; and
WHEREAS, the City also finds that it is within the public interest to provide these employees with that portion of their City salary loss due to their active military duty pay.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DOES:
1. Provide for those City of Carmel-by-the-Sea permanent classified or
permanent unclassified employees who have been called into active military service duty.
2. Authorize payment of the difference between said employees’ current salary and that of his/her active military salary, as specified on the military Basic Pay Table, including all military allowances and/or premiums, from such time as the employees’ paid military leave (as provided in the California Military and Veterans Code 395 et seq.) is exhausted.
3. Effective November 14, 2009, direct that said employees’ vacation and sick leave banks will not be depleted below his/her normal accrual during the time of military duty.
4. This Resolution shall be valid for one year, at which time the City Council may elect to continue or discontinue said payment.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 3rd day of November 2009, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SIGNED:
______________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR
______________________
ATTEST: Heidi Burch, City Clerk
2.52.690 Military Leave – Annual Paid.
An employee having regular status is entitled to City-paid leave not to exceed 30 calendar days in any one-year period for training duty in any branch of the United States armed services. This leave shall be granted in accordance with provisions of the California Military and Veterans’ Code.
However, a request for annual military leave can be honored only if accompanied by a copy of the employee’s official military orders showing the employee’s name and other identifying information, and the starting and completion dates of leave. The order must also show the date of the orders and other official information including the name and rank of the person issuing the orders. Since annual training dates are ordinarily established months in advance of duty, an employee must inform the employee’s supervisor as soon as the training dates are known. Actual request for leave and official military orders should be submitted no later than 15 days prior to the requested leave beginning date. (Ord. 87-1 § 2, 1987).
2.52.700 Military Leave – Unpaid.
A. An employee having trainee status shall be granted a short-term or
extended leave when called to active duty, in accordance with the provisions of the California Military and Veterans’ Code. This requirement for proof of military orders specified in CMC 2.52.690 also applies to unpaid military leave.
B. Sick leave and vacation do not accrue to the employee while on leave, but the employee’s anniversary date remains unchanged. (Ord. 87-1 § 2, 1987).
CITY COUNCIL: Resolution Adopting Best Management Practices Guidance Series for Storm Water Runoff
Meeting Date: 3 November 2009
Prepared by: Sean Conroy, Plng & Bldg Services Manager
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of a Resolution adopting the Best Management Practices Guidance Series for the management of storm water runoff as City Council Policy 09-1.
Description: The Guidance Series provides assistance in mitigating storm water runoff for projects developed in the City and is part of the Monterey Regional Storm Water Management Program.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.
Important Considerations: The City operates under the General Storm Water Permit issued to the Monterey Regional Storm Water Permit Participants Group by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The RWQCB has requested that each jurisdiction adopt the BMP Guidance Series as part of the Regional Storm Water Management Program. The Guidance Series will supplement the City’s code requirements and will assist the City and project applicants comply with these requirements.
Decision Record: N/A
Reviewed by:
__________________________ _____________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2009-
CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES GUIDANCE SERIES FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF STORM WATER RUNOFF AS CITY COUNCIL POLICY 09-1
WHEREAS, The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is a unique community that prides itself on its village character and environmental resources; and
WHEREAS, the City operates under the General Permit issued to the Monterey Regional Storm Water Permit Participants Group by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB); and
WHEREAS, the Best Management Practices Guidance Series (BMPGS) is found in
Appendix E of the Monterey Regional Storm Water Management Program; and
WHEREAS, the Guidance Series describes Best Management Practices designed to reduce the discharge of pollutants from the municipal separate storm sewer systems to the “maximum extent practicable,” to protect water quality, and to satisfy the appropriate water quality requirements of the Clean Water Act; and
WHEREAS, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea has been implementing these BMPs as part of its permitting process; and
WHEREAS, the BMPGS will supplement the City’s existing requirements regarding storm water management.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA does hereby:
Adopt the attached Best Management Practices Guidance Series as City Council Policy 09-1.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 3rd day of November 2009 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SIGNED,
____________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
Prepared by: Sean Conroy, Plng & Bldg Services Manager
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of a Resolution adopting the Best Management Practices Guidance Series for the management of storm water runoff as City Council Policy 09-1.
Description: The Guidance Series provides assistance in mitigating storm water runoff for projects developed in the City and is part of the Monterey Regional Storm Water Management Program.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.
Important Considerations: The City operates under the General Storm Water Permit issued to the Monterey Regional Storm Water Permit Participants Group by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The RWQCB has requested that each jurisdiction adopt the BMP Guidance Series as part of the Regional Storm Water Management Program. The Guidance Series will supplement the City’s code requirements and will assist the City and project applicants comply with these requirements.
Decision Record: N/A
Reviewed by:
__________________________ _____________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2009-
CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES GUIDANCE SERIES FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF STORM WATER RUNOFF AS CITY COUNCIL POLICY 09-1
WHEREAS, The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is a unique community that prides itself on its village character and environmental resources; and
WHEREAS, the City operates under the General Permit issued to the Monterey Regional Storm Water Permit Participants Group by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB); and
WHEREAS, the Best Management Practices Guidance Series (BMPGS) is found in
Appendix E of the Monterey Regional Storm Water Management Program; and
WHEREAS, the Guidance Series describes Best Management Practices designed to reduce the discharge of pollutants from the municipal separate storm sewer systems to the “maximum extent practicable,” to protect water quality, and to satisfy the appropriate water quality requirements of the Clean Water Act; and
WHEREAS, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea has been implementing these BMPs as part of its permitting process; and
WHEREAS, the BMPGS will supplement the City’s existing requirements regarding storm water management.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA does hereby:
Adopt the attached Best Management Practices Guidance Series as City Council Policy 09-1.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 3rd day of November 2009 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SIGNED,
____________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL: Appeal of Planning Commission's Decision to Certify EIR and Deny Plaza del Mar Project
Meeting Date: 3 November 2009
Prepared by: Sean Conroy, Plng & Bldg Services Manager
Brian Roseth, Planning Consultant
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to certify an Environmental Impact Report and deny a project for the demolition of an existing building and the construction of a mixed-use development including a two-level underground parking garage, five market-rate condominiums, two low-income housing units, and commercial floor area. The project location is the SE corner of Dolores and 7th (Homescapes Building). The appellant is John Mandurrago.
Description: On September 17, 2009, the Planning Commission certified an Environmental Impact Report, adopted CEQA findings and denied all permits for the Plaza del Mar project. The appellant requests that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the project.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision.
Important Considerations: In December 2008 the City Council granted an appeal and overturned the Planning Commission’s decision to approve this project. The Council remanded all project decisions back to the Planning Commission, adopted findings and provided specific direction on several issues to assist the Commission. Part of this direction was to develop better evidence regarding the feasibility of the adaptive reuse.
The Council also affirmed that demolition of the Burde Building would constitute a significant environmental impact and provided the Commission with guidance on the interaction between CEQA and California housing statutes.
Recent Decision Record:
• 9/10/2008 - Planning Commission certifies and EIR and approves the project.
• 12/2/2008 - City Council adopts findings to overturn the Planning Commission decision.
• 9/17/2009 - Planning Commission adopts findings to certify EIR and deny the project.
• 9/21/2009 - Applicant files an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision.
Reviewed by:
__________________________ _____________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR MCCLOUD AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
THROUGH: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: SEAN CONROY, PLANNING SERVICES MANAGER,
BRIAN ROSETH, PLANNING CONSULTANT
DATE: 6 OCTOBER 2009 (AMENDED 3 NOVEMBER 2009)
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO CERTIFY AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND DENY A PROJECT FOR THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING BUILDING AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING A TWO-LEVEL UNDERGROUND PARKING GARAGE, FIVE MARKET-RATE CONDOMINIUMS, TWO LOWINCOME HOUSING UNITS, AND COMMERCIAL FLOOR
AREA. THE PROJECT LOCATION IS THE SE CORNER OF DOLORES AND 7TH (HOMESCAPES BUILDING). THE APPELLANT IS JOHN MANDURRAGO.
I. INTRODUCTION
On 17 September 2009, the Planning Commission certified the Environmental Impact Report, adopted CEQA findings and denied all permits for the Plaza del Mar project.
1The applicant has appealed the CEQA findings and denial of permits to the City Council.
2 This appeal raises several issues, some of which the Council reviewed during Barbara Livingston’s appeal of the project approval in 2008.
In December 2008, the City Council granted the Livingston appeal and remanded all project decisions back to the Planning Commission. The Council adopted findings and provided specific direction on several issues to assist the Commission.
3 Part of this direction was to develop better evidence regarding the feasibility of the adaptive reuse alternative. The Council also affirmed that demolition of the Burde Building would 1 See attachment #4: Planning Commission Resolution 2009-01 which includes Environmental Findings and
Findings for Denial, dated 9/17/09
2 See attachment #1: Letter of appeal, dated 9/16/09
3 See attachment #6: City Council Findings for Decision, dated 12/2/08
constitute a significant environmental impact and provided the Commission with guidance on the interaction between CEQA and California housing statutes.
In the discussion below, staff has summarized the claims in the appeal and provided a response. This report does not review in detail those issues already covered in prior Planning Commission and City Council findings. Instead, only a brief response is given and references are provided to the relevant documents, which are attached.
The City Council reviewed this appeal on 6 October 2009. The Council referred the application back to the Planning Commission primarily based on the applicant’s suggestion that he would be willing to make some project modifications. However, the applicant has now indicated that his is not willing to make any project changes at this time
4. Since there are no proposed project modifications, no additional review is required by the Planning Commission.
Note: The following discussion was amended since the City Council meeting on 6 October 2009 to respond to the appellant’s letter of that date. Each of these amendments is noted as an “Addendum” and is shown highlighted.
II. RESPONSE TO ISSUES ON APPEAL
Mixed-Use Policies (appeal letter pages 1-2): The appeal claims that the
Commission’s decision violates the applicant’s due process rights by raising a new issue, not noted in the Draft EIR or in any previous Staff Report, alleging a violation of the City’s General Plan/Coastal Plan. The appeal also claims that the Findings do not explain why the project is inconsistent with the General Plan/Coastal Plan. The appeal explains that the project was specifically designed to not increase commercial floor area
and thereby avoid the need for a conditional use permit. The appeal notes that the project has nearly as much commercial square footage as currently exists on site.
Response: The Commission and staff repeatedly raised the issues related to the General Plan/Coastal Plan mixed-use policies and inadequate commercial floor area (12/13/06, 1/10/07, 5/14/08, 6/11/08 and 7/16/08). The RDEIR discussed these at pages 2-12 and 2-13 where it stated, “the project does not fully conform with the General Plan policies related to mixed-use developments”. The project requires a Use Permit regardless of the amount of commercial space because it includes construction of a parking facility.
The terms “violate” and “inconsistent with the intent of” are distinct. The Commission understood that the project does not “violate” the General Plan regarding mixed-use
4 See attachment #3: Letter from appellant dated 10/13/09
developments because the three applicable policies are an expression of intent. The policies are not structured to mandate a specific yes/no decision that could be violated.
However, the City still has discretion to use the intent of the policies in the General Plan/Coastal Plan as a basis for its decisions. That is why they were adopted.
References:
Planning Commission Findings #3, #4 and #10 dated 9/17/09.
Planning Commission Minutes, dated 12/13/06, 1/10/07, 6/11/08
Staff Reports, dated 12/13/06, 1/10/07, 6/11/08 and 7/16/08
Revised Draft EIR pages 2-12 and 2-13
Architecture (appeal letter pages 3-4): The appeal claims that during the 2006 historic resources appeal the City Council determined that the building is not architecturally important and can be demolished.
Therefore, the Planning Commission cannot subsequently determine that demolition of the Burde Building would cause a significant environmental impact on the City’s visual quality resources.
Response: In the 2006 historic resources appeal, the City Council considered the architecture of the Burde Building for its historical significance only. Specifically, the Council had to determine whether the architecture was so significant that it would qualify as historical although the building was only 34 years old.5 The Council adopted
the following finding:
Finding 34: Based on Findings #30 through #33, above, and pursuant to eligibility criteria for the California Register of Historic Resources and the Carmel Municipal Code, the bank building does not embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction, or present the work of an important creative individual or possess high artistic value, nor does it make an unusually strong contribution to history, architecture, engineering or culture.
The preponderance of the evidence does not support the Bank building’s designation as an historic resource. Using the five tests established in National Register Bulletins #15 and #22, and using the additional test for exceptional importance in the Carmel Municipal Code, the evidence in the record does not support a finding that the bank building qualifies as historically significant within the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
Since adopting this finding, the Council has twice confirmed that its historical resource conclusions should not be applied to the broader context of whether the building is
5 Attachment #5 is an excerpt from the City Council’s 2006 Findings.
environmentally significant as a visual quality resource.6 The Council has never stated that the building can be demolished.
Addendum: The letter of 6 October 2009 cites five findings to prove that the City Council already has granted approval to demolish the Burde Building. These findings now appear in Attachment #4. They do not support the appellant’s position.
References
City Council Findings and Basis for Decision #1, #2, #3 and#4, dated 12/2/08
City Council Actions on the Appeal #1, dated 12/2/08
Planning Commission Findings for Denial #6 and #7, dated 9/17/09
Planning Commission Environmental Findings, dated 9/17/09
Attachment #4: Excerpts from City Council Findings on Appeal, dated 11/7/06
Concessions (appeal letter pages 4-5): The appeal claims that the project is not seeking a density bonus and does not need to qualify for one in order to get concessions. The appellant acknowledges that the project violates the Zoning Code and General Plan/LCP, but cites authority to waive these violations in the Density Bonus and Other Incentives Statute.
Response: The Planning Commission interprets the statute differently than theapplicant. The first two subsections of the statute discuss the mandate for concessions:
65915 (a): When an applicant seeks a density bonus for a housing development within, or for the donation of land for housing within, the jurisdiction of a city…that local jurisdiction shall provide the applicant incentives or concessions for the production of housing units and child care facilities as prescribed in this section. All cities…shall adopt an ordinance that specifies how compliance with this section will be implemented.
65915 (b)(1): A city…shall grant one density bonus, the amount of which shall be as specified in subdivision (g), and incentives or concessions as described in subdivision (d) when an applicant for a housing development seeks and agrees to construct a housing development, excluding any units permitted by the density bonus awarded pursuant to this section, that will contain at least any one of the following: [The statute then lists
affordable housing categories that must be met by the project].
These subsections are not independent. Subsection (a) establishes the principle that concessions are mandated when an applicant seeks a density bonus. It functions like a preamble for the entire statute. Subsection (b) establishes the mechanism and makes reference to density bonuses and the concessions. If the subsections are independent,
6 On 2/6/07 and again on 12/2/08.
the first subsection is redundant. This result would be contrary to accepted rules for statutory interpretation. All subsections must add meaning and value.
Addendum: The appellant further supports his argument by noting that other parts of the statute specifically make reference to subsection (b) and not to subsection (a). A synopsis of these references follows:
65915 (d): An applicant for a density bonus under subsection (b) may submit a proposal for specific incentives/concessions. The City must grant the concession unless it adopts findings regarding economics or adverse impacts on public health and safety or the physical environment or historic resources.
65915 (g)(1, 2, 4) and (h)(2): The amount of the density bonus allowed by subdivision (b) depends on the percentage amount of affordable housing provided.
65915 (p)(3): Cities are limited in the amount of parking they can require for projects that meet the criteria of subsection (b).
Response:
Subsection (a) is not referenced in any subsequent clause of the statute. If the applicant’s claim that it operates independent of subsection (b) is correct, this would mean that the protections for the environment and historic resources called for in subsection (d) would not apply to projects qualifying for concessions under subsection (a). The provisions regarding parking and density bonus percentages also would not
apply. The fact that subsection (a) is never mentioned throughout the statute lends weight to staff’s position that it is linked to (b).
References
Planning Commission Findings for Denial #15 and #16, dated 9/17/09
Housing Development Project (appeal letter pages 5-6): The appeal claims that the Planning Commission erred in finding that the project does not qualify as a “housing development project” as defined in the Housing Accountability Act.
Response: The Commission reviewed the statutory definition of this term and
concluded that the commercial aspects of the project disqualify it. Specifically, the second level of commercial/valet parking and the absence of any control over what could occupy the retail spaces (e.g. visitor-serving uses such as art galleries, jewelry stores) both fail to meet the criteria in the definition.
References
City Council Actions on the Appeal #2 (bullet 5)
Planning Commission Finding for Denial #17, dated 9/17/09
Significant Adverse Impacts (appeal letter pages 6-9): The appeal claims that the Planning Commission erred in its CEQA decision because it relied on impacts to visual quality resources instead of the more limited “significant adverse impacts” defined in the Housing Accountability Act.
Response: The Commission and the applicant have different interpretations of the statute. Section 65589.5 (d)(2) of the statute defines “significant adverse impact” as a:
“Specific, quantifiable, direct and unavoidable impact based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete”.
As defined, “significant adverse impact” is specific to “public health and safety”. It does not address “impacts to the physical environment”.
Section 65915(d)(3) states:
Nothing in this subdivision shall be interpreted to require a local jurisdiction to grant an incentive or concession that has a specific adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of section 65589.5 upon health, safety, or the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate the significant adverse impact. [Emphasis added]
This second term comes from CEQA. The very first step in the CEQA process is to determine whether a proposed activity may result in a physical change in the environment.
7 The hallmark of CEQA analysis is its demand for comprehensive
review and consideration of all identified significant environmental impacts. If the legislature intended to limit the application of CEQA when applied to Housing Development Projects it could have amended CEQA or the CEQA Guidelines.
8 The discretion to adopt CEQA findings and deny the project is supported by another section of the statute, which states:
7 PRC Section 21065 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15060.
8 In fact, the CEQA Guidelines were amended in 2008 to address affordable housing projects that met certain thresholds. The Plaza del Mar project does not meet these thresholds. (CEQA Guidelines Article 12.5 Sections
15191 through 15196.)
65589.5 (e) This section also does not relieve the local agency from making one or more of the findings required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 or otherwise complying with the California Environmental Quality Act
The Commission concluded that the housing statute’s “specific adverse impacts” does not replace the broader scope of environmental impacts used in CEQA. By law, the Commission was obligated to consider all significant impacts, including visual quality.
References
City Council Findings and Basis for Decision #2 through #5, dated 12/2/09
City Council Action on Appeal #2 (bullet #1), dated 12/2/08
Planning Commission Findings for Denial #18 and #20
Planning Commission Environmental Findings, dated 9/17/09
Coastal Act (appeal letter page 9): The appeal claims that the City must grant concessions from the LCP and cites authority in the Density Bonus and Other Incentives statute as well as Government Code Section 65590 related to affordable housing in the Coastal Zone.
Response: The Planning Commission’s finding addressed the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). The appellant’s argument is based on the Density Bonus and Other Incentives statute and is not applicable. The appellant’s reference to Section 65590 overstates the statutory requirement; the City is not obligated to approve all requests.
The “or” in the statute allows discretion to offer density bonuses, modified zoning standards, accelerated processing or fee waivers. The City already waives building permit fees in proportion to the number of affordable units in a project and offers density bonuses, reduced parking requirements and increased floor area. These are more than sufficient to implement Section 65590.
References:
Planning Commission Findings for Denial #19, dated 9/17/09
Housing Accountability Act Findings (appeal letter pages 9 and 10): The appeal claims that the Commission erred in finding that project denial was required in order to comply with CEQA and the Coastal Act.
Response: The HAA specifies that a city can deny a Housing Development Project only when one of five circumstances applies. The Planning Commission found that one did apply: compliance with State statutes (CEQA and the Coastal Act) compels denial.
The HAA requires that CEQA be implemented. The Commission’s CEQA findings
(1) identified a significant impact, (2) found alternatives infeasible, and (3) determined that project benefits did not warrant adoption of overriding considerations. This chain of decisions mandates project denial. The HAA also requires that the Coastal Act be implemented. The project violates LCP requirements to protect significant trees and
provide rental units equal in number to the proposed condominiums. The project also fails to implement the intent of the LCP policies for mixed-use developments. Unlike the Density Bonus Statute, the HAA does not override the LCP.
References:
Planning Commission Findings for Denial #18, #19 and #20, dated 9/17/09
III. NEW ISSUES
The appeal letter includes two comments not previously raised during Commission review of the project:
“The applicant will comply with the requirement to retain two significant trees if this incentive is not granted and if the applicant seeks judicial review of the City’s denial of applicant’s request for these incentives”
…the applicant is willing to provide [an] equal number of rental units as market rate [units], provided a court should rule, and/or the City finds that the two incentives requested by the applicant are not appropriate. Under this condition the applicant will comply with the City ordinance/General Plan to have [an] equal number of rental units and condominium [units] in the Plaza del Mar project.
While not entirely clear, these appear to withdraw the request for concessions or offer to accept conditions of approval. If implemented, these would eliminate some of the issues that led to project denial.9 Design revisions, however, would be necessary, especially if the trees are to remain. At present, there are no drawings that would allow
review of a revised project. Further, the offer to withdraw the request for concessions to facilitate project approval indicates that the concessions are not needed to make the project economically feasible. According to provisions in the Density Bonus Statute10, waivers of development standards must be “required” or “necessary” to make the
affordable housing feasible.
Addendum: This section regarding “New Issues” has been rendered moot because the applicant has withdrawn his proposal to eliminate the need for concessions.
9 The CEQA issues regarding loss of visual quality resources would still remain. The appellant’s new comments relate to the applicant’s project as submitted—not to an adaptive reuse alternative. The applicant has stated in the record, and the Planning Commission has agreed, that the project is infeasible if the Burde Building is retained.
The concessions, whether approved or denied, will not change this.
10 Sections 65915(d)(1)(A) and 65915(f)
IV. RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision.
Prepared by: Sean Conroy, Plng & Bldg Services Manager
Brian Roseth, Planning Consultant
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to certify an Environmental Impact Report and deny a project for the demolition of an existing building and the construction of a mixed-use development including a two-level underground parking garage, five market-rate condominiums, two low-income housing units, and commercial floor area. The project location is the SE corner of Dolores and 7th (Homescapes Building). The appellant is John Mandurrago.
Description: On September 17, 2009, the Planning Commission certified an Environmental Impact Report, adopted CEQA findings and denied all permits for the Plaza del Mar project. The appellant requests that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the project.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision.
Important Considerations: In December 2008 the City Council granted an appeal and overturned the Planning Commission’s decision to approve this project. The Council remanded all project decisions back to the Planning Commission, adopted findings and provided specific direction on several issues to assist the Commission. Part of this direction was to develop better evidence regarding the feasibility of the adaptive reuse.
The Council also affirmed that demolition of the Burde Building would constitute a significant environmental impact and provided the Commission with guidance on the interaction between CEQA and California housing statutes.
Recent Decision Record:
• 9/10/2008 - Planning Commission certifies and EIR and approves the project.
• 12/2/2008 - City Council adopts findings to overturn the Planning Commission decision.
• 9/17/2009 - Planning Commission adopts findings to certify EIR and deny the project.
• 9/21/2009 - Applicant files an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision.
Reviewed by:
__________________________ _____________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR MCCLOUD AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
THROUGH: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: SEAN CONROY, PLANNING SERVICES MANAGER,
BRIAN ROSETH, PLANNING CONSULTANT
DATE: 6 OCTOBER 2009 (AMENDED 3 NOVEMBER 2009)
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO CERTIFY AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND DENY A PROJECT FOR THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING BUILDING AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING A TWO-LEVEL UNDERGROUND PARKING GARAGE, FIVE MARKET-RATE CONDOMINIUMS, TWO LOWINCOME HOUSING UNITS, AND COMMERCIAL FLOOR
AREA. THE PROJECT LOCATION IS THE SE CORNER OF DOLORES AND 7TH (HOMESCAPES BUILDING). THE APPELLANT IS JOHN MANDURRAGO.
I. INTRODUCTION
On 17 September 2009, the Planning Commission certified the Environmental Impact Report, adopted CEQA findings and denied all permits for the Plaza del Mar project.
1The applicant has appealed the CEQA findings and denial of permits to the City Council.
2 This appeal raises several issues, some of which the Council reviewed during Barbara Livingston’s appeal of the project approval in 2008.
In December 2008, the City Council granted the Livingston appeal and remanded all project decisions back to the Planning Commission. The Council adopted findings and provided specific direction on several issues to assist the Commission.
3 Part of this direction was to develop better evidence regarding the feasibility of the adaptive reuse alternative. The Council also affirmed that demolition of the Burde Building would 1 See attachment #4: Planning Commission Resolution 2009-01 which includes Environmental Findings and
Findings for Denial, dated 9/17/09
2 See attachment #1: Letter of appeal, dated 9/16/09
3 See attachment #6: City Council Findings for Decision, dated 12/2/08
constitute a significant environmental impact and provided the Commission with guidance on the interaction between CEQA and California housing statutes.
In the discussion below, staff has summarized the claims in the appeal and provided a response. This report does not review in detail those issues already covered in prior Planning Commission and City Council findings. Instead, only a brief response is given and references are provided to the relevant documents, which are attached.
The City Council reviewed this appeal on 6 October 2009. The Council referred the application back to the Planning Commission primarily based on the applicant’s suggestion that he would be willing to make some project modifications. However, the applicant has now indicated that his is not willing to make any project changes at this time
4. Since there are no proposed project modifications, no additional review is required by the Planning Commission.
Note: The following discussion was amended since the City Council meeting on 6 October 2009 to respond to the appellant’s letter of that date. Each of these amendments is noted as an “Addendum” and is shown highlighted.
II. RESPONSE TO ISSUES ON APPEAL
Mixed-Use Policies (appeal letter pages 1-2): The appeal claims that the
Commission’s decision violates the applicant’s due process rights by raising a new issue, not noted in the Draft EIR or in any previous Staff Report, alleging a violation of the City’s General Plan/Coastal Plan. The appeal also claims that the Findings do not explain why the project is inconsistent with the General Plan/Coastal Plan. The appeal explains that the project was specifically designed to not increase commercial floor area
and thereby avoid the need for a conditional use permit. The appeal notes that the project has nearly as much commercial square footage as currently exists on site.
Response: The Commission and staff repeatedly raised the issues related to the General Plan/Coastal Plan mixed-use policies and inadequate commercial floor area (12/13/06, 1/10/07, 5/14/08, 6/11/08 and 7/16/08). The RDEIR discussed these at pages 2-12 and 2-13 where it stated, “the project does not fully conform with the General Plan policies related to mixed-use developments”. The project requires a Use Permit regardless of the amount of commercial space because it includes construction of a parking facility.
The terms “violate” and “inconsistent with the intent of” are distinct. The Commission understood that the project does not “violate” the General Plan regarding mixed-use
4 See attachment #3: Letter from appellant dated 10/13/09
developments because the three applicable policies are an expression of intent. The policies are not structured to mandate a specific yes/no decision that could be violated.
However, the City still has discretion to use the intent of the policies in the General Plan/Coastal Plan as a basis for its decisions. That is why they were adopted.
References:
Planning Commission Findings #3, #4 and #10 dated 9/17/09.
Planning Commission Minutes, dated 12/13/06, 1/10/07, 6/11/08
Staff Reports, dated 12/13/06, 1/10/07, 6/11/08 and 7/16/08
Revised Draft EIR pages 2-12 and 2-13
Architecture (appeal letter pages 3-4): The appeal claims that during the 2006 historic resources appeal the City Council determined that the building is not architecturally important and can be demolished.
Therefore, the Planning Commission cannot subsequently determine that demolition of the Burde Building would cause a significant environmental impact on the City’s visual quality resources.
Response: In the 2006 historic resources appeal, the City Council considered the architecture of the Burde Building for its historical significance only. Specifically, the Council had to determine whether the architecture was so significant that it would qualify as historical although the building was only 34 years old.5 The Council adopted
the following finding:
Finding 34: Based on Findings #30 through #33, above, and pursuant to eligibility criteria for the California Register of Historic Resources and the Carmel Municipal Code, the bank building does not embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction, or present the work of an important creative individual or possess high artistic value, nor does it make an unusually strong contribution to history, architecture, engineering or culture.
The preponderance of the evidence does not support the Bank building’s designation as an historic resource. Using the five tests established in National Register Bulletins #15 and #22, and using the additional test for exceptional importance in the Carmel Municipal Code, the evidence in the record does not support a finding that the bank building qualifies as historically significant within the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
Since adopting this finding, the Council has twice confirmed that its historical resource conclusions should not be applied to the broader context of whether the building is
5 Attachment #5 is an excerpt from the City Council’s 2006 Findings.
environmentally significant as a visual quality resource.6 The Council has never stated that the building can be demolished.
Addendum: The letter of 6 October 2009 cites five findings to prove that the City Council already has granted approval to demolish the Burde Building. These findings now appear in Attachment #4. They do not support the appellant’s position.
References
City Council Findings and Basis for Decision #1, #2, #3 and#4, dated 12/2/08
City Council Actions on the Appeal #1, dated 12/2/08
Planning Commission Findings for Denial #6 and #7, dated 9/17/09
Planning Commission Environmental Findings, dated 9/17/09
Attachment #4: Excerpts from City Council Findings on Appeal, dated 11/7/06
Concessions (appeal letter pages 4-5): The appeal claims that the project is not seeking a density bonus and does not need to qualify for one in order to get concessions. The appellant acknowledges that the project violates the Zoning Code and General Plan/LCP, but cites authority to waive these violations in the Density Bonus and Other Incentives Statute.
Response: The Planning Commission interprets the statute differently than theapplicant. The first two subsections of the statute discuss the mandate for concessions:
65915 (a): When an applicant seeks a density bonus for a housing development within, or for the donation of land for housing within, the jurisdiction of a city…that local jurisdiction shall provide the applicant incentives or concessions for the production of housing units and child care facilities as prescribed in this section. All cities…shall adopt an ordinance that specifies how compliance with this section will be implemented.
65915 (b)(1): A city…shall grant one density bonus, the amount of which shall be as specified in subdivision (g), and incentives or concessions as described in subdivision (d) when an applicant for a housing development seeks and agrees to construct a housing development, excluding any units permitted by the density bonus awarded pursuant to this section, that will contain at least any one of the following: [The statute then lists
affordable housing categories that must be met by the project].
These subsections are not independent. Subsection (a) establishes the principle that concessions are mandated when an applicant seeks a density bonus. It functions like a preamble for the entire statute. Subsection (b) establishes the mechanism and makes reference to density bonuses and the concessions. If the subsections are independent,
6 On 2/6/07 and again on 12/2/08.
the first subsection is redundant. This result would be contrary to accepted rules for statutory interpretation. All subsections must add meaning and value.
Addendum: The appellant further supports his argument by noting that other parts of the statute specifically make reference to subsection (b) and not to subsection (a). A synopsis of these references follows:
65915 (d): An applicant for a density bonus under subsection (b) may submit a proposal for specific incentives/concessions. The City must grant the concession unless it adopts findings regarding economics or adverse impacts on public health and safety or the physical environment or historic resources.
65915 (g)(1, 2, 4) and (h)(2): The amount of the density bonus allowed by subdivision (b) depends on the percentage amount of affordable housing provided.
65915 (p)(3): Cities are limited in the amount of parking they can require for projects that meet the criteria of subsection (b).
Response:
Subsection (a) is not referenced in any subsequent clause of the statute. If the applicant’s claim that it operates independent of subsection (b) is correct, this would mean that the protections for the environment and historic resources called for in subsection (d) would not apply to projects qualifying for concessions under subsection (a). The provisions regarding parking and density bonus percentages also would not
apply. The fact that subsection (a) is never mentioned throughout the statute lends weight to staff’s position that it is linked to (b).
References
Planning Commission Findings for Denial #15 and #16, dated 9/17/09
Housing Development Project (appeal letter pages 5-6): The appeal claims that the Planning Commission erred in finding that the project does not qualify as a “housing development project” as defined in the Housing Accountability Act.
Response: The Commission reviewed the statutory definition of this term and
concluded that the commercial aspects of the project disqualify it. Specifically, the second level of commercial/valet parking and the absence of any control over what could occupy the retail spaces (e.g. visitor-serving uses such as art galleries, jewelry stores) both fail to meet the criteria in the definition.
References
City Council Actions on the Appeal #2 (bullet 5)
Planning Commission Finding for Denial #17, dated 9/17/09
Significant Adverse Impacts (appeal letter pages 6-9): The appeal claims that the Planning Commission erred in its CEQA decision because it relied on impacts to visual quality resources instead of the more limited “significant adverse impacts” defined in the Housing Accountability Act.
Response: The Commission and the applicant have different interpretations of the statute. Section 65589.5 (d)(2) of the statute defines “significant adverse impact” as a:
“Specific, quantifiable, direct and unavoidable impact based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete”.
As defined, “significant adverse impact” is specific to “public health and safety”. It does not address “impacts to the physical environment”.
Section 65915(d)(3) states:
Nothing in this subdivision shall be interpreted to require a local jurisdiction to grant an incentive or concession that has a specific adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of section 65589.5 upon health, safety, or the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate the significant adverse impact. [Emphasis added]
This second term comes from CEQA. The very first step in the CEQA process is to determine whether a proposed activity may result in a physical change in the environment.
7 The hallmark of CEQA analysis is its demand for comprehensive
review and consideration of all identified significant environmental impacts. If the legislature intended to limit the application of CEQA when applied to Housing Development Projects it could have amended CEQA or the CEQA Guidelines.
8 The discretion to adopt CEQA findings and deny the project is supported by another section of the statute, which states:
7 PRC Section 21065 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15060.
8 In fact, the CEQA Guidelines were amended in 2008 to address affordable housing projects that met certain thresholds. The Plaza del Mar project does not meet these thresholds. (CEQA Guidelines Article 12.5 Sections
15191 through 15196.)
65589.5 (e) This section also does not relieve the local agency from making one or more of the findings required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 or otherwise complying with the California Environmental Quality Act
The Commission concluded that the housing statute’s “specific adverse impacts” does not replace the broader scope of environmental impacts used in CEQA. By law, the Commission was obligated to consider all significant impacts, including visual quality.
References
City Council Findings and Basis for Decision #2 through #5, dated 12/2/09
City Council Action on Appeal #2 (bullet #1), dated 12/2/08
Planning Commission Findings for Denial #18 and #20
Planning Commission Environmental Findings, dated 9/17/09
Coastal Act (appeal letter page 9): The appeal claims that the City must grant concessions from the LCP and cites authority in the Density Bonus and Other Incentives statute as well as Government Code Section 65590 related to affordable housing in the Coastal Zone.
Response: The Planning Commission’s finding addressed the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). The appellant’s argument is based on the Density Bonus and Other Incentives statute and is not applicable. The appellant’s reference to Section 65590 overstates the statutory requirement; the City is not obligated to approve all requests.
The “or” in the statute allows discretion to offer density bonuses, modified zoning standards, accelerated processing or fee waivers. The City already waives building permit fees in proportion to the number of affordable units in a project and offers density bonuses, reduced parking requirements and increased floor area. These are more than sufficient to implement Section 65590.
References:
Planning Commission Findings for Denial #19, dated 9/17/09
Housing Accountability Act Findings (appeal letter pages 9 and 10): The appeal claims that the Commission erred in finding that project denial was required in order to comply with CEQA and the Coastal Act.
Response: The HAA specifies that a city can deny a Housing Development Project only when one of five circumstances applies. The Planning Commission found that one did apply: compliance with State statutes (CEQA and the Coastal Act) compels denial.
The HAA requires that CEQA be implemented. The Commission’s CEQA findings
(1) identified a significant impact, (2) found alternatives infeasible, and (3) determined that project benefits did not warrant adoption of overriding considerations. This chain of decisions mandates project denial. The HAA also requires that the Coastal Act be implemented. The project violates LCP requirements to protect significant trees and
provide rental units equal in number to the proposed condominiums. The project also fails to implement the intent of the LCP policies for mixed-use developments. Unlike the Density Bonus Statute, the HAA does not override the LCP.
References:
Planning Commission Findings for Denial #18, #19 and #20, dated 9/17/09
III. NEW ISSUES
The appeal letter includes two comments not previously raised during Commission review of the project:
“The applicant will comply with the requirement to retain two significant trees if this incentive is not granted and if the applicant seeks judicial review of the City’s denial of applicant’s request for these incentives”
…the applicant is willing to provide [an] equal number of rental units as market rate [units], provided a court should rule, and/or the City finds that the two incentives requested by the applicant are not appropriate. Under this condition the applicant will comply with the City ordinance/General Plan to have [an] equal number of rental units and condominium [units] in the Plaza del Mar project.
While not entirely clear, these appear to withdraw the request for concessions or offer to accept conditions of approval. If implemented, these would eliminate some of the issues that led to project denial.9 Design revisions, however, would be necessary, especially if the trees are to remain. At present, there are no drawings that would allow
review of a revised project. Further, the offer to withdraw the request for concessions to facilitate project approval indicates that the concessions are not needed to make the project economically feasible. According to provisions in the Density Bonus Statute10, waivers of development standards must be “required” or “necessary” to make the
affordable housing feasible.
Addendum: This section regarding “New Issues” has been rendered moot because the applicant has withdrawn his proposal to eliminate the need for concessions.
9 The CEQA issues regarding loss of visual quality resources would still remain. The appellant’s new comments relate to the applicant’s project as submitted—not to an adaptive reuse alternative. The applicant has stated in the record, and the Planning Commission has agreed, that the project is infeasible if the Burde Building is retained.
The concessions, whether approved or denied, will not change this.
10 Sections 65915(d)(1)(A) and 65915(f)
IV. RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision.
CITY COUNCIL: Ordinance Amending Green Building Ordinance to Move Mandatory Date of Compliance
Meeting Date: 3 November 2009
Prepared by: Sean Conroy, Plng & Bldg Services Manager
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of an Ordinance amending Green Building Ordinance 2009-8 to move the mandatory date of compliance from January 1, 2010 to August 1, 2010. (First Reading)
Description: The Green Building Ordinance 2009-8, was adopted by the City Council on August 4, 2009, establishing the criteria new construction projects must have in order to receive a building permit. The ordinance specified that these requirements would become mandatory on January 1, 2010. Staff proposes to extend the mandatory date by seven months to August 1, 2010.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Ordinance (First reading).
Important Considerations: The original purpose of delaying mandatory compliance with the Green Building Ordinance until January 2010 was to give the public a trial period to become familiar with the program and for staff to determine the reasonableness of the standards. Since then, the significant slowdown in construction activity has caused staff to recommend extending the trial period even further.
Decision Record: At its October 14, 2009 meeting, Planning Commission voted to recommend to City Council to extend the trial period of the ordinance until August 1, 2010.
Reviewed by:
__________________________ _____________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AND BUILDING
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR MCCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: SEAN CONROY, PLNG & BLDG SERVICES MANAGER
THROUGH: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: 3 NOVEMBER 2009
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND GREEN BUILDING ORDINANCE 2009-8 MOVING THE MANDATORY COMPLIANCE DATE FROM JANUARY 1, 2010 TO AUGUST 1, 2010
INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND
Green Building Ordinance 2009-8 was adopted by the City Council on August 4, 2009. It established criteria for new construction projects to meet in order to receive a building permit. The ordinance states that the requirements will become mandatory on January 1, 2010. The original intent of the trial period was to allow the public to become familiar with the program and for staff to determine the reasonableness of the standards.
Since passage of the ordinance, construction activity and building permit
submittals have significantly decreased. Staff now recommends further extending the trial period until August 1, 2010, giving the public even more time to become familiar with the program and staff more time to evaluate the standards. During the trial period, applicants will still be required to fill out the appropriate Green Building Checklist, but will not be required to obtain a specific number of points in order to receive a building permit.
The Planning Commission recommended extending the trial period to the City
Council on 14 October 2009.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Ordinance (First reading).
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
ORDINANCE 2009-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA AMENDING GREEN BUILDING ORDINANCE 2009-8 TO MOVE THE MANDATORY DATE OF COMPLIANCE FROM JANUARY 1, 2010 TO AUGUST 1, 2010
WHEREAS, The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is a unique community that prides itself on its village character and environmental resources; and
WHEREAS, the City has adopted a General Plan and Municipal Code that strive to protect the village character through clear policies and regulations that guide property owners in the protection this character; and
WHEREAS, the City adopted green building requirements as section 15.54 of the Carmel Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the goal of the ordinance it to guide development in a sustainable manner, promote energy efficiency, improve air quality, preserve natural resources and encourage architectural design that is consistent with the City's design traditions; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment will extend the trial period of the ordinance from January 1, 2010 to August 1, 2010.
WHEREAS, the ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act as it will have no negative impact on the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea does hereby adopt the following amendments to CMC Section 15.54:
15.54.050 - Ordinance Phasing
Phase 1: Prior to 1 January August 2010 this ordinance shall not be mandatory. Unless exempt, all applicants shall submit the appropriate checklist properly filled out, but are not required to achieve a specific point total in order to obtain building permit approval.
Phase 2: Beginning on 1 January August 2010, all building permit applications that are not exempt, or that are not associated with planning permit applications that have been approved or determined to be “complete” by the Planning Department prior to 1 January August 2010, shall comply with the requirements of this ordinance.
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 TIME PERIOD
This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after final passage and adoption last.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
this ___ day of ________ 2009 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBER:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBER:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBER:
SIGNED:
________________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
Prepared by: Sean Conroy, Plng & Bldg Services Manager
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of an Ordinance amending Green Building Ordinance 2009-8 to move the mandatory date of compliance from January 1, 2010 to August 1, 2010. (First Reading)
Description: The Green Building Ordinance 2009-8, was adopted by the City Council on August 4, 2009, establishing the criteria new construction projects must have in order to receive a building permit. The ordinance specified that these requirements would become mandatory on January 1, 2010. Staff proposes to extend the mandatory date by seven months to August 1, 2010.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Ordinance (First reading).
Important Considerations: The original purpose of delaying mandatory compliance with the Green Building Ordinance until January 2010 was to give the public a trial period to become familiar with the program and for staff to determine the reasonableness of the standards. Since then, the significant slowdown in construction activity has caused staff to recommend extending the trial period even further.
Decision Record: At its October 14, 2009 meeting, Planning Commission voted to recommend to City Council to extend the trial period of the ordinance until August 1, 2010.
Reviewed by:
__________________________ _____________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AND BUILDING
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR MCCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: SEAN CONROY, PLNG & BLDG SERVICES MANAGER
THROUGH: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: 3 NOVEMBER 2009
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND GREEN BUILDING ORDINANCE 2009-8 MOVING THE MANDATORY COMPLIANCE DATE FROM JANUARY 1, 2010 TO AUGUST 1, 2010
INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND
Green Building Ordinance 2009-8 was adopted by the City Council on August 4, 2009. It established criteria for new construction projects to meet in order to receive a building permit. The ordinance states that the requirements will become mandatory on January 1, 2010. The original intent of the trial period was to allow the public to become familiar with the program and for staff to determine the reasonableness of the standards.
Since passage of the ordinance, construction activity and building permit
submittals have significantly decreased. Staff now recommends further extending the trial period until August 1, 2010, giving the public even more time to become familiar with the program and staff more time to evaluate the standards. During the trial period, applicants will still be required to fill out the appropriate Green Building Checklist, but will not be required to obtain a specific number of points in order to receive a building permit.
The Planning Commission recommended extending the trial period to the City
Council on 14 October 2009.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Ordinance (First reading).
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
ORDINANCE 2009-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA AMENDING GREEN BUILDING ORDINANCE 2009-8 TO MOVE THE MANDATORY DATE OF COMPLIANCE FROM JANUARY 1, 2010 TO AUGUST 1, 2010
WHEREAS, The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is a unique community that prides itself on its village character and environmental resources; and
WHEREAS, the City has adopted a General Plan and Municipal Code that strive to protect the village character through clear policies and regulations that guide property owners in the protection this character; and
WHEREAS, the City adopted green building requirements as section 15.54 of the Carmel Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the goal of the ordinance it to guide development in a sustainable manner, promote energy efficiency, improve air quality, preserve natural resources and encourage architectural design that is consistent with the City's design traditions; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment will extend the trial period of the ordinance from January 1, 2010 to August 1, 2010.
WHEREAS, the ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act as it will have no negative impact on the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea does hereby adopt the following amendments to CMC Section 15.54:
15.54.050 - Ordinance Phasing
Phase 1: Prior to 1 January August 2010 this ordinance shall not be mandatory. Unless exempt, all applicants shall submit the appropriate checklist properly filled out, but are not required to achieve a specific point total in order to obtain building permit approval.
Phase 2: Beginning on 1 January August 2010, all building permit applications that are not exempt, or that are not associated with planning permit applications that have been approved or determined to be “complete” by the Planning Department prior to 1 January August 2010, shall comply with the requirements of this ordinance.
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 TIME PERIOD
This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after final passage and adoption last.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
this ___ day of ________ 2009 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBER:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBER:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBER:
SIGNED:
________________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)