Meeting Date: 3 March 2009
Prepared by: Sean Conroy,
Planning & Building Svcs. Manager
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Second Reading of an Ordinance amending Carmel Municipal Code Section 15.08.010 to adopt the High Fire Hazard Severity Zone map for the City as required by State Fire Marshal and Government Code Section 51179.
Description: The State recently adopted amendments of Chapter 7A of the California Building Code that addresses materials and construction methods in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. The new code, which took effect on 1 July 2008, requires all roofing and exterior walls for new buildings to be constructed of noncombustible materials. This requirement does not apply to remodels and/or additions -- only new buildings.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Ordinance.
Important Considerations: The purpose of the map is to identify properties that must comply with Chapter 7A of the California Building Code. This chapter establishes minimum standards for materials and material assemblies and provides a reasonable level of exterior wildfire exposure protection for buildings in high fire hazard areas.
Decision Record: The Council adopted the first reading of this ordinance on 3 February 2009.
Reviewed by:
__________________________ _____________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
ORDINANCE 2009-
CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CARMEL MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 15.08.010 TO ADOPT THE HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE MAP FOR THE CITY AS REQUIRED BY STATE FIRE MARSHAL AND GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 51179
WHEREAS, the City has adopted a General Plan and Municipal Code that strive to
protect the village character through clear policies and regulations; and
WHEREAS, the City adopted revisions to the State Building Code on 5 February 2008
that includes the requirement for new construction in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone to consist of noncombustible exterior materials; and
WHEREAS, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection forwarded a map identifying the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea on 18 November 2008; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 51179 requires the City to adopt the map by ordinance within 120 days of receipt of the map from the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA does hereby resolve to:
Amend Municipal Code Section 15.08.010 to adopt the High Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map for the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (see attachments).
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 3rd day of March 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
Attachment “A”
CMC 15.08.010
The 2007 California Building Code, including the appendix thereto, and the California Building Code Standards, copies of which are on file with the City Clerk as required by law, are adopted by reference and incorporated into this title as the building code for the City except as amended in this chapter and Chapter 15.04 CMC. The Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map, as transmitted to the City on 18 November 2008 by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection is also adopted as required by law.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
CITY COUNCIL: Ordinance Revising Municipal Code & Zoning Ordinance/Local Coastal Implement Plan to Dissolve the DRB
Meeting Date: 3 March 2009
Prepared by: Sean Conroy,
Planning & Building Services Manager
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of an Ordinance to revise the Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance/Local Coastal Implementation Plan to dissolve the Design Review Board (First Reading).
Description: The Design Review Board currently reviews applications for design eview not requiring land use permits or those that are not otherwise reserved for the Planning Commission. This ordinance would dissolve the Design Review Board and shift its responsibilities to the Planning Commission.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Adopt ordinance.
Important Considerations: CMC chapter 17.52.050 establishes the responsibilities of the Design Review Board. The Board’s role has been limited to the review of design applications not involving other land use permits. Dissolving the Board will shift more responsibility to the Planning Commission, but will create more consistency for applicants going through the planning process. This also will reduce pressures on staff, as it will be one fewer Board to manage.
Decision Record: N/A
Reviewed by:
__________________________ _____________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR McCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: SEAN CONROY, PLNG & BLDG SERVICES MANAGER
THROUGH: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: 3 MARCH 2009
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE TO REVISE
THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND ZONING ORDINANCE/LOCAL COASTAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TO DISSOLVE THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (FIRST READING)
BACKGROUND & PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Carmel Municipal Code (CMC) chapter 2.30 establishes the policies and procedures of the Design Review Board, and CMC chapter 17.52.050 establishes the responsibilities of the Board. The Board’s role is limited to the review of design applications not involving other land use permits (i.e. variances, conditional use permits, subdivisions, etc). This ordinance would dissolve the Design Review Board and shift its responsibilities to the Planning Commission.
The Design Review Board is referenced throughout the zoning ordinance. Theattached ordinance includes strikeouts where the Board is listed and includes some new text, shown in underline, to clarify or expand the duties of the Planning Commission. This ordinance will require a Local Coastal Program amendment by the California Coastal Commission.
The intent of this ordinance is to simplify the design review process by creating a single decision-making body. This also will ensure consistency for applicants in how the City interprets its design guidelines and criteria. An additional benefit is a reduced workload for staff, as it will have one fewer board to manage.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached ordinance on first reading, revising several sections of the Municipal Code.
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
ORDINANCE 2009-
CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE REVISING THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND ZONING ORDINANCE/LOCAL COASTAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TO DISSOLVE THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (1ST READING)
WHEREAS, The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is a unique community that prides itself on
its village character; and
WHEREAS, the City has adopted a General Plan and Municipal Code that strive to
protect the village character through clear policies and regulations that guide property owners in the protection of the residential character; and
WHEREAS, the Municipal Code establishes the duties and responsibilities of the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, this ordinance will dissolve the Design Review Board and shift its responsibilities to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, this ordinance will create more consistency for applicants in design review decisions made by the City and will result in a reduced workload for City staff; and
WHEREAS, this ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (15305) as it will not have a significant impact on the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea does hereby adopt this ordinance with the attached revisions to the Municipal Code and Zoning Code/Local Coastal Implementation Plan.
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, or upon certification by the California Coastal Commission, which ever occurs 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
Attachment “A”
CMC Chapter 2.30
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Sections:
2.30.010 Establishment of Board.
2.30.020 Membership and Criteria for Appointment.
2.30.030 Appointment Process.
2.30.040 Termination of Members.
2.30.050 Bylaws, Policies, Rules and Procedures.
2.30.060 Duties, Responsibilities and Authority.
2.30.010 Establishment of Board.
There hereby is created and established the Design Review Board for the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. (Ord. 2000-10 § 1, 2000).
2.30.020 Membership and Criteria for Appointment.
A. The Design Review Board shall consist of five members each of whom shall be appointed to serve a four-year term.
B. In establishing these criteria for appointment, the City Council seeks to insure that the Design Review Board appointees both support and will advocate for the enhancement and preservation of Carmel-by-the-Sea as “primarily, essentially and predominately a residential City...” With this being the City Council’s intention:
1. All members of the Design Review Board shall be residents and electors of the City.
2. All members, if possible, should share varied backgrounds and experience in
architecture, historical architecture, design art, landscaping or construction/building industry or any combination thereof. (Ord. 2000-10 § 1, 2000).
2.30.030 Appointment Process.
A. Members of the Design Review Board shall be appointed in accordance with City Council policy adopted by resolution of the Council.
B. Terms of members shall be staggered so that no more than two terms shall expire in any one year. Appointments shall be, where possible, made prior to the beginning of the term of office in order that the new member(s) shall be able to become familiar with the functions of the Board prior to being seated. Terms of office for new members shall begin at the commencement of the first regular meeting in the month of October of the appropriate year. Terms of office for outgoing members shall end simultaneously. The newly appointed members shall be sworn in by the City Clerk. (Ord. 2000-10 § 1, 2000).
2.30.040 Termination of Members.
A member of the Design Review Board shall be terminated only under the following
circumstances:
A. The member ceases to be a resident or an elector of the City.
B. The member is ill or absent from the City and unable to attend three consecutive regular Board meetings, but fails to so notify either the Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, or the Director of the Department of Community Planning and Building.
C. The member, when neither ill nor absent from the City, fails to attend three consecutive regular Board meetings.
D. The member is terminated by a majority vote of the City Council. (Ord. 2000-10 § 1, 2000).
2.30.050 Bylaws, Policies, Rules and Procedures.
The Design Review Board shall adopt or maintain bylaws, policies, rules and procedures governing parliamentary actions. The bylaws shall be filed with the City Clerk. (Ord. 2000-10 § 1, 2000).
2.30.060 Duties, Responsibilities and Authority.
The Design Review Board shall have the duties defined in CMC Title 17 and is formed generally to review residential, commercial and public works projects involving
construction of new dwellings, substantial alterations and projects that do not qualify for administrative review and do not involve land use or variances. (Ord. 2000-10 § 1, 2000).
CMC 17.10.030.A
1. Detached Garages and Carports. To encourage variety and diversity in neighborhood design, detached garages and carports may be authorized by the Planning Commission or the Design Review Board within rear yard setbacks or front or side yard setbacks facing a street, subject to the following standards:
a. Front or Side Yard Setback Facing a Street. The Design Review Board or Planning
Commission may authorize a single-car, detached garage or carport not exceeding 12 feet in width, 250 square feet in floor area and 15 feet in height in either the front yard setback or a side yard setback facing a street (but not both) if:
i. At least 50 percent of the adjacent right-of-way is landscaped or preserved in a natural and forested condition to compensate for the loss of open space;
ii. The proposed setback encroachment would not impact significant or moderately
significant trees;
iii. Free and safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles in adjacent rights-of-way is protected;
iv. All development on site will be in scale with adjacent properties and the neighborhood context consistent with adopted design guidelines; and
v. Placement of the garage or carport in the setback will add diversity to the neighborhood streetscape.
b. Interior Side Yard Setback and/or Rear Setback. Detached garages may encroach into an interior side yard setback, rear yard setbacks, or both, if limited to 15 feet in height, the setback encroachment would not impact significant or moderately significant trees, and the garage location/design complies with design guidelines.
Table 17.10-G: Maximum Track One Fence and Wall Heights
Setback Location
Design
Element
Front
Setback
Side
Setback
Side Setback Facing
Street
Rear
Setback
Fence 4 feet* 6 feet 4 feet* 6 feet
Garden Wall 3 feet* 6 feet 3 feet* 6 feet
Retaining Wall 3 feet** 6 feet 3 feet** 6 feet
Pillars and
Gates 6 feet N/A 6 feet N/A
Arbor/Trellis 7 feet 7 feet 7 feet 7 feet
* These limits shall not be altered through Design Review by the Design Review Board
or Planning Commission.
CMC 17.30.010 Demolition or Rebuilding of Buildings.
Except when required for the emergency protection of public health or safety as
determined by the City Administrator in consultation with the Building Official, no
permit authorizing the demolition of any building within any district shall be issued until reviewed by the Planning Commission or Design Review Board in accordance with the findings established in CMC 17.64.070, Demolition and Conversion of Residential Structures (if applicable). No permit for demolition shall be approved without the concurrent review and approval of replacement construction for the site. If the structure or site is identified as an historic resource, the demolition is prohibited except when approved by the Historic Resources Board and the Planning Commission consistent with the findings established in CMC 17.64.050. All related land use, design review and environmental review approvals and the processes established in Chapter 17.32 CMC, Historic Preservation, also shall be followed. The demolition or relocation of any structure shall require a coastal development permit. (Ord. 2004-02 § 1, 2004; Ord. 2004-01 § 1, 2004).
CMC 17.40.010
C. Prohibit all signs not expressly permitted by this chapter unless authorized by specific action of the Planning Commission Design Review Board. Prohibited signs and displays include those which are visible from exterior areas accessible to pedestrians and which are flashing, self-illuminated, neon, phosphorescent, glossy, incorporate internal lights or movement or that include strings of small lights around doors or windows. Also prohibited are exterior signs, displays or other installations that include balloons, streamers, or other notice-attracting appendages. (Ord. 2004-02 § 1, 2004; Ord. 2004-01 § 1, 2004).
17.40.020
B. Planning Commission Approval. Signs which, in the opinion of the Director, require exception from the standards described in this chapter shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission Design Review Board. The Planning Commission Design Review Board also shall review all business signs painted, etched or otherwise applied to glass, all signs made of plastics, fabric or imitation wood and all signs of architectural, cultural, and historical significance. The Commission Board may grant exceptions only to the number, location and design of business signs. The following criteria must be satisfied to grant the exception:
C. No Permit Required. The following signs on private property do not require a permit if they meet the purpose, objectives, and standards in this chapter as determined by the Director: interior signs, alarm system identification signs, house/occupant name, no soliciting/no handbills, garage/rummage/estate sale, home business, public information signs (exit, restroom, elevator, etc.) and a variety of temporary signs as identified in this chapter. Signs which, in the opinion of the Director, are out of the ordinary or which do not meet the purpose, objectives and standards of this chapter shall be removed or referred to the Planning Commission Design Review Board for review.
CMC 17.48.080.A
4. Tree Quality. Replacement trees shall be of substantial size, caliper, and height to produce an immediate visual impact and reduce the incidence of unauthorized removal. Replacement trees shall be a minimum 24-inch box size except for Monterey Pines which shall be a minimum 15-gallon size. Larger sizes may be required by the Forest and Beach Commission, or the Planning Commission or the Design Review Board based in specific design considerations applicable to the project. The City Forester may authorize the use of smaller sizes when trees meeting these standards, or meeting specific conditions of approval, are unavailable.
CMC 17.52.050 Duties and Powers of the Design Review Board.
The Design Review Board shall have the following duties and responsibilities:
A. To conduct public hearings, review evidence and act on permit applications not
reserved to the Planning Commission, Historic Resources Board or to the Director.
B. To act on commercial district design review applications not involving any land use permit pursuant to CMC 17.58.030, Commercial Design Review.
C. To act on residential design studies for projects not involving any land use permit pursuant to CMC 17.58.040, Residential Design Review.
D. To act on projects subject to coastal permit requirements pursuant to Chapter 17.58 CMC, Design Review, when such projects are within the categories listed above. (Ord. 2004-02 § 1, 2004; Ord. 2004-01 § 1, 2004).
17.52.060 Duties and Powers of the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission as the designated planning agency of the City shall have the following power and responsibilities:
A. To develop and maintain a General Plan.
B. To develop specific plans, master plans and area plans as may be necessary or
desirable.
C. To periodically, at least once each fiscal year, review the capital improvement
program of the City.
D. To determine the consistency of capital improvements projects and programs with the General Plan.
E. To prepare an annual report to the City Council on the status of the General Plan and progress in its application.
F. To interpret the meaning and intent of the City’s land use code.
G. To hear and render decisions on appeals of discretionary decisions made by administrative officials.
H. To review environmental impact reports and initial studies.
I. To conduct public hearings, review evidence and determine requests for use permits, variances, lot line adjustments, subdivisions, rezones and land use code amendments.
J. To act on design review and design study applications for those projects involving issuance of a land use permit.
K. To act on projects subject to coastal permit requirements when such projects are within the categories listed above.
L. To review the water management plan annually.
17.52.160 Planning Commission and Design Review Board Procedures.
A. Purpose. It is the purpose of this section to establish uniform minimum procedures to be followed by the Planning Commission and the Design Review Board for all projects subject to their review. This section shall not preclude the Commission or Board from adopting additional procedures as necessary for the completion of their duties.
B. Permit Issuance – Review of Plans. No building permit, license or other required
permit for any structure, site development or land use shall be issued prior to Planning Commission or Design Review Board approval if any form of Commission or Board review is required for said improvement by this code. The Director shall ensure that development is executed and completed according to the approved plans.
C. Conduct of Meetings. The Planning Commission shall meet at least once each month
and may establish a more frequent schedule as needed. The Design Review Board shall
meet at least once each month and may establish a more frequent schedule as needed. The Commission and Board shall keep minutes of all meetings and complete records of all examinations, findings and other official actions, together with a record of all facts pertinent to the cases submitted for their approval.
D. Public Participation. Actions on all applications considered by the Planning
Commission or the Design Review Board shall be open to public testimony. Written
comments received from the public will be accepted and entered into the written record accompanying each matter considered by the Commission or the Board. The Commission or Board shall consider written and oral testimony insofar as they provide factual information related to the matter before the approval body and the specific criteria established for review of the application by this title.
E. Decision. Decisions of the Planning Commission and the Design Review Board shall be reached by an affirmative vote of a majority of its members present. A quorum for each approval body shall consist of three members. All Commission and Board decisions
shall be based on consideration of the facts presented to it by the applicant, City staff, and members of the public and consideration of all goals, objectives, policies, criteria and standards established in City planning documents and ordinances. Unless otherwise authorized under the municipal code, the Commission and Board shall not have the authority to waive or modify the site development requirements of this title or the requirements of any other applicable City ordinances.
F. Reports on Final Actions. All actions approving or denying applications shall be made in writing and shall include all findings necessary to support said action. Approvals shall include all findings required by the sections of the municipal code related to the project being approved. Approvals may be granted in whole or in part, with or without conditions necessary to assure the intent and purpose of all applicable policies, standards and guidelines.
G. Reports and Investigations. Reports and investigations may be required by the
Planning Commission or the Design Review Board prior to approval of any project. The Commission and the Design Review Board shall have the authority to request reports or investigations from the City Forester, City Engineer, Public Works Director, Building Official, Director or other department heads or commissions in writing prior to approval of any project.
H. Appeals. All final actions of the Planning Commission or the Design Review Board may be appealed to the City Council in accordance with Chapter 17.54 CMC, Appeals.
(Ord. 2004-02 § 1, 2004; Ord. 2004-01 § 1, 2004).
17.52.170 Time Limits on Approvals and Denials.
All applications approved by City staff, the Planning Commission, the Design Review
Board or by the City Council on appeal have a limit on the time that the approval remains valid. Permits or other approvals granted by these approval bodies or by the Historic Resources Board that are not implemented within these time limits become void.
B. General Limits. Unless otherwise stated on the permit, or indicated as a condition of approval by the approving body, the following time limits shall apply commencing upon the date of action by the City staff, Planning Commission, Design Review Board or final City Council action:
1. Commercial design review – 18 months;
2. Commercial business use permit – six months;
3. Other commercial district use permits – 18 months;
4. Variances – 12 months;
5. Signs – three months;
6. Residential design study – 12 months;
7. Residential district use permits – 12 months;
8. Lot line adjustments – six months; and
9. Subdivisions – 24 months.
C. Time Extensions. The Director may grant one extension of a time limit, equal in length to the original time limit for those approvals not subject to a public hearing. Similarly, the Planning Commission, Design Review Board or Historical Preservation Board, as appropriate, may administratively grant one extension for approvals originally subject to a public hearing. If, since the date of the original approval, the conditions surrounding the original approval have changed, or the General Plan, municipal code or Local Coastal Plan Program has been amended in any manner which causes the approval to be inconsistent with these plans or codes, no time extension or renewal shall be granted for any approval.
CMC 17.54.010 Conclusive Decision – Appeal Period.
C. The findings and actions of the Planning Commission, the Design Review Board, and
the Forest and Beach Commission shall be final and conclusive from and after the date of final action unless an appeal is filed with the City Council pursuant to CMC
17.54.040(C), Appeals to the City Council or the Coastal Commission pursuant to CMC
17.54.040(D) and 17.54.050.
17.54.040 Filing Appeals
C. Appeals to the City Council. Decisions to approve or deny projects made by the
Planning Commission, Forest and Beach Commission, the Design Review Board, or the
Historic Resources Board may be appealed to the City Council by filing a notice of
appeal in writing in the office of the City Clerk within 10 working days following the date of action by the decision-making body and paying the required filing fee as established by City Council resolution.
17.54.080 Appeals.
A. Appeals of Decisions on Permits. Any decision to approve, deny or conditionally
approve any permit made by the Director, the City Forester, the Planning Commission, or the Design Review Board or the Historic Resources Board may be appealed by any
aggrieved party. Coastal Commissioners may appeal these decisions pursuant to CMC
17.54.020 and 17.54.050.
CMC 17.58.020 General Requirements and Responsibilities.
B. Coordination of Review Bodies. For any proposed major alteration affecting an
historic resource in the commercial and R-4 districts, the Director shall schedule a review of the project plans by the Historic Resources Board for a determination of consistency with the Secretary of Interior’s standards. If the site assessment shows that trees will be affected by the project, the Director shall forward the plans to the City Forester for processing.
Any reviews by the Forest and Beach Commission and/or Historic Resources Board that are required for a project shall occur prior to consideration of the project by the Director, Design Review Board or the Planning Commission. The procedures established in Chapter 17.32 CMC, Historic Preservation, shall be followed if the project would affect a historic resource or if it is unknown whether the property contains a historic resource.
D. Design Review Responsibilities. The Planning Commission shall conduct design
review for all non-administrative projects a use permit, variance, subdivision, lot line adjustment or other land use permit and for all projects subject to environmental review.
Design review for all other projects shall be conducted by the Design Review Board or the Director pursuant to the specific requirements of this chapter. The Director may require the Design Review Board or Planning Commission to review for any application that raises new policy issues or presents unusual circumstances not addressed by adopted policies, guidelines, or review criteria.
E. Design Review Standards. When conducting design review the Department, Design
Review Board, or the Planning Commission shall use the design guidelines adopted by the City Council as the basis for review. The decision-making entity responsible for
design review shall consider the conformance of the application to the standards set forth in and promulgated under this title, and may either approve, deny or modify an
application for design review. However, no modification may be made that is not
consistent with any other requirement of this title. Specific zoning standards and criteria are established in each zoning district, overlay district, specific plan area, special district, or community plan area. These shall be coordinated with the guidelines in reviewing projects.
17.58.030 Commercial Design Review.
2. Procedures. Within 30 days of the receipt of a complete application for a commercial administrative permit, the Director shall review the proposed project for compliance with the standards and regulations of the CMC, the Coastal Implementation Plan, General Plan policies, commercial design guidelines, public way improvement design guidelines, and other applicable adopted design criteria. The Director may approve the application if all zoning standards are met and the project is consistent with all design guidelines. The Director shall refer for action by the Planning Commission Design Review Board any application for a project that does not comply with applicable adopted design guidelines and design criteria. Any proposed storefront remodels/alteration to a structure located within the downtown conservation district shall be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Board. The Director shall deny any application for a commercial track one permit that does not comply with the CMC, the Coastal Implementation Plan or the General
Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan.
B. Commercial District Track Two Design Review. This is a discretionary process for
reviewing substantial design changes in commercial zoning districts and the R-4 district.
The Planning Commission shall conduct design review under this section. for any project that requires a use permit, variance, or other land use permit. The Design Review Board shall conduct design review of all other projects subject to design review under this section.
17.58.040
3.b. Projects that comply with zoning regulations but do not comply with the design objectives or residential design guidelines will be referred to the Planning Commission Design Review Board for resolution or shall be redirected into track two.
B. Residential Track Two Design Study. Track two is a discretionary review process for projects that require a public hearing with the Planning Commission. Projects that require a demolition permit, use permit, variance, or other land use permit or environmental review shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Design Review Board shall take action on all other projects that require track two review. All track two projects are subject to the coastal development permit requirements of the certified LCP, and a track two design study approval shall constitute a coastal development permit. All track two projects shall require public notice and a hearing pursuant to CMC 17.52.110, Notice of Public Hearing.
b. Design Review Board or Planning Commission Review. Within 30 days of receiving a complete application, the Director shall schedule the project for a hearing and review of the design concept plans by the Design Review Board or Planning Commission. Public notice shall be provided in compliance with the requirements of CMC 17.52.110, Notice of Public Hearing:
B.i. The Design Review Board or Planning Commission shall review the proposed site
design, basic massing, and other elements of the design concept for compliance with the City’s design concept guidelines and the findings required in CMC 17.64.080, Design Study Approval. At the conclusion of this review the DRB or PC shall either (1) accept the design concept as submitted, (2) provisionally accept the design concept and provide direction to the applicant on plan revisions necessary to achieve compliance with the design guidelines and/or zoning standards, or (3) continue design concept for preparation of a new design concept if it is substantially out of compliance with the zoning standards or the design guidelines. Applicants unwilling to make the revisions directed by the DRB/PC in a provisionally accepted concept design or continued design concept may request denial of the project so that an appeal may be filed. A denial shall not be complete until findings are adopted.
ii. Projects involving a historic resource shall require a determination of consistency pursuant to CMC 17.32.140. All project approvals shall be consistent with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation except as provided in CMC 17.30.010. Following action by the Historic Preservation Board, the project shall be scheduled for design concept and final details review by the Planning Commission or the Design Review Board consistent with this chapter.
17.58.060 Findings Required.
A. Authority. The Director, the Design Review Board, Historic Preservation Board, or the Planning Commission as applicable to the project, shall have the authority to approve, approve with modifications and/or conditions, or deny an application for design review based on written findings stating the reasons for the action. Findings shall be based on information in the record.
B. Findings for Design Review Approval. Before approving an application for design review in any district, the Director, the Design Review Board, Historic Preservation
Board, or the Planning Commission shall find that the final design plans:
C. Additional Findings for Design Study Approval. In addition to any other findings
required by this code (see CMC 17.64.080, Design Study Approval), the Design Review Board or Planning Commission shall make all of the following findings before granting design review approval in the R-1 district:
D. Findings Required for Approval of Deviations from Design Guidelines. In addition to any other findings required by this code, before approving any project in the singlefamily residential (R-1) district that deviates from the City’s applicable adopted design guidelines, the Director, Design Review Board, Historic Preservation Board, or the Planning Commission shall adopt specific findings based on information in the record to show how the proposed deviation from the design guidelines achieves all of the applicable design objectives of CMC 17.58.010, Purpose and Applicability, as well as, or better than, would be achieved by adherence to the adopted design guidelines. (Ord. 2004-02 § 1, 2004; Ord. 2004-01 § 1, 2004).
17.58.070 Enforcement.
No building or grading permit shall be issued until the applicant submits a final site plan and building permit plans showing any changes required as a condition of design review approval. Staff shall review all building permit applications for projects subject to design review for compliance with approved design review plans and any conditions of approval. The Director may refer building permit plans to the Design Review Board or the Planning Commission for a determination of compliance with conditions of approval.
After determining that the site plan and building plans comply with all conditions of approval, the Director shall forward copies of the approved plans to the Building Official.
All future development shall comply with the approved building permit plans unless
modifications or changes are approved pursuant to the requirements of this code.
Prepared by: Sean Conroy,
Planning & Building Services Manager
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of an Ordinance to revise the Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance/Local Coastal Implementation Plan to dissolve the Design Review Board (First Reading).
Description: The Design Review Board currently reviews applications for design eview not requiring land use permits or those that are not otherwise reserved for the Planning Commission. This ordinance would dissolve the Design Review Board and shift its responsibilities to the Planning Commission.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Adopt ordinance.
Important Considerations: CMC chapter 17.52.050 establishes the responsibilities of the Design Review Board. The Board’s role has been limited to the review of design applications not involving other land use permits. Dissolving the Board will shift more responsibility to the Planning Commission, but will create more consistency for applicants going through the planning process. This also will reduce pressures on staff, as it will be one fewer Board to manage.
Decision Record: N/A
Reviewed by:
__________________________ _____________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR McCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: SEAN CONROY, PLNG & BLDG SERVICES MANAGER
THROUGH: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: 3 MARCH 2009
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE TO REVISE
THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND ZONING ORDINANCE/LOCAL COASTAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TO DISSOLVE THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (FIRST READING)
BACKGROUND & PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Carmel Municipal Code (CMC) chapter 2.30 establishes the policies and procedures of the Design Review Board, and CMC chapter 17.52.050 establishes the responsibilities of the Board. The Board’s role is limited to the review of design applications not involving other land use permits (i.e. variances, conditional use permits, subdivisions, etc). This ordinance would dissolve the Design Review Board and shift its responsibilities to the Planning Commission.
The Design Review Board is referenced throughout the zoning ordinance. Theattached ordinance includes strikeouts where the Board is listed and includes some new text, shown in underline, to clarify or expand the duties of the Planning Commission. This ordinance will require a Local Coastal Program amendment by the California Coastal Commission.
The intent of this ordinance is to simplify the design review process by creating a single decision-making body. This also will ensure consistency for applicants in how the City interprets its design guidelines and criteria. An additional benefit is a reduced workload for staff, as it will have one fewer board to manage.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached ordinance on first reading, revising several sections of the Municipal Code.
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
ORDINANCE 2009-
CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE REVISING THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND ZONING ORDINANCE/LOCAL COASTAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TO DISSOLVE THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (1ST READING)
WHEREAS, The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is a unique community that prides itself on
its village character; and
WHEREAS, the City has adopted a General Plan and Municipal Code that strive to
protect the village character through clear policies and regulations that guide property owners in the protection of the residential character; and
WHEREAS, the Municipal Code establishes the duties and responsibilities of the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, this ordinance will dissolve the Design Review Board and shift its responsibilities to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, this ordinance will create more consistency for applicants in design review decisions made by the City and will result in a reduced workload for City staff; and
WHEREAS, this ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (15305) as it will not have a significant impact on the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea does hereby adopt this ordinance with the attached revisions to the Municipal Code and Zoning Code/Local Coastal Implementation Plan.
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, or upon certification by the California Coastal Commission, which ever occurs 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
Attachment “A”
CMC Chapter 2.30
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Sections:
2.30.010 Establishment of Board.
2.30.020 Membership and Criteria for Appointment.
2.30.030 Appointment Process.
2.30.040 Termination of Members.
2.30.050 Bylaws, Policies, Rules and Procedures.
2.30.060 Duties, Responsibilities and Authority.
2.30.010 Establishment of Board.
There hereby is created and established the Design Review Board for the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. (Ord. 2000-10 § 1, 2000).
2.30.020 Membership and Criteria for Appointment.
A. The Design Review Board shall consist of five members each of whom shall be appointed to serve a four-year term.
B. In establishing these criteria for appointment, the City Council seeks to insure that the Design Review Board appointees both support and will advocate for the enhancement and preservation of Carmel-by-the-Sea as “primarily, essentially and predominately a residential City...” With this being the City Council’s intention:
1. All members of the Design Review Board shall be residents and electors of the City.
2. All members, if possible, should share varied backgrounds and experience in
architecture, historical architecture, design art, landscaping or construction/building industry or any combination thereof. (Ord. 2000-10 § 1, 2000).
2.30.030 Appointment Process.
A. Members of the Design Review Board shall be appointed in accordance with City Council policy adopted by resolution of the Council.
B. Terms of members shall be staggered so that no more than two terms shall expire in any one year. Appointments shall be, where possible, made prior to the beginning of the term of office in order that the new member(s) shall be able to become familiar with the functions of the Board prior to being seated. Terms of office for new members shall begin at the commencement of the first regular meeting in the month of October of the appropriate year. Terms of office for outgoing members shall end simultaneously. The newly appointed members shall be sworn in by the City Clerk. (Ord. 2000-10 § 1, 2000).
2.30.040 Termination of Members.
A member of the Design Review Board shall be terminated only under the following
circumstances:
A. The member ceases to be a resident or an elector of the City.
B. The member is ill or absent from the City and unable to attend three consecutive regular Board meetings, but fails to so notify either the Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, or the Director of the Department of Community Planning and Building.
C. The member, when neither ill nor absent from the City, fails to attend three consecutive regular Board meetings.
D. The member is terminated by a majority vote of the City Council. (Ord. 2000-10 § 1, 2000).
2.30.050 Bylaws, Policies, Rules and Procedures.
The Design Review Board shall adopt or maintain bylaws, policies, rules and procedures governing parliamentary actions. The bylaws shall be filed with the City Clerk. (Ord. 2000-10 § 1, 2000).
2.30.060 Duties, Responsibilities and Authority.
The Design Review Board shall have the duties defined in CMC Title 17 and is formed generally to review residential, commercial and public works projects involving
construction of new dwellings, substantial alterations and projects that do not qualify for administrative review and do not involve land use or variances. (Ord. 2000-10 § 1, 2000).
CMC 17.10.030.A
1. Detached Garages and Carports. To encourage variety and diversity in neighborhood design, detached garages and carports may be authorized by the Planning Commission or the Design Review Board within rear yard setbacks or front or side yard setbacks facing a street, subject to the following standards:
a. Front or Side Yard Setback Facing a Street. The Design Review Board or Planning
Commission may authorize a single-car, detached garage or carport not exceeding 12 feet in width, 250 square feet in floor area and 15 feet in height in either the front yard setback or a side yard setback facing a street (but not both) if:
i. At least 50 percent of the adjacent right-of-way is landscaped or preserved in a natural and forested condition to compensate for the loss of open space;
ii. The proposed setback encroachment would not impact significant or moderately
significant trees;
iii. Free and safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles in adjacent rights-of-way is protected;
iv. All development on site will be in scale with adjacent properties and the neighborhood context consistent with adopted design guidelines; and
v. Placement of the garage or carport in the setback will add diversity to the neighborhood streetscape.
b. Interior Side Yard Setback and/or Rear Setback. Detached garages may encroach into an interior side yard setback, rear yard setbacks, or both, if limited to 15 feet in height, the setback encroachment would not impact significant or moderately significant trees, and the garage location/design complies with design guidelines.
Table 17.10-G: Maximum Track One Fence and Wall Heights
Setback Location
Design
Element
Front
Setback
Side
Setback
Side Setback Facing
Street
Rear
Setback
Fence 4 feet* 6 feet 4 feet* 6 feet
Garden Wall 3 feet* 6 feet 3 feet* 6 feet
Retaining Wall 3 feet** 6 feet 3 feet** 6 feet
Pillars and
Gates 6 feet N/A 6 feet N/A
Arbor/Trellis 7 feet 7 feet 7 feet 7 feet
* These limits shall not be altered through Design Review by the Design Review Board
or Planning Commission.
CMC 17.30.010 Demolition or Rebuilding of Buildings.
Except when required for the emergency protection of public health or safety as
determined by the City Administrator in consultation with the Building Official, no
permit authorizing the demolition of any building within any district shall be issued until reviewed by the Planning Commission or Design Review Board in accordance with the findings established in CMC 17.64.070, Demolition and Conversion of Residential Structures (if applicable). No permit for demolition shall be approved without the concurrent review and approval of replacement construction for the site. If the structure or site is identified as an historic resource, the demolition is prohibited except when approved by the Historic Resources Board and the Planning Commission consistent with the findings established in CMC 17.64.050. All related land use, design review and environmental review approvals and the processes established in Chapter 17.32 CMC, Historic Preservation, also shall be followed. The demolition or relocation of any structure shall require a coastal development permit. (Ord. 2004-02 § 1, 2004; Ord. 2004-01 § 1, 2004).
CMC 17.40.010
C. Prohibit all signs not expressly permitted by this chapter unless authorized by specific action of the Planning Commission Design Review Board. Prohibited signs and displays include those which are visible from exterior areas accessible to pedestrians and which are flashing, self-illuminated, neon, phosphorescent, glossy, incorporate internal lights or movement or that include strings of small lights around doors or windows. Also prohibited are exterior signs, displays or other installations that include balloons, streamers, or other notice-attracting appendages. (Ord. 2004-02 § 1, 2004; Ord. 2004-01 § 1, 2004).
17.40.020
B. Planning Commission Approval. Signs which, in the opinion of the Director, require exception from the standards described in this chapter shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission Design Review Board. The Planning Commission Design Review Board also shall review all business signs painted, etched or otherwise applied to glass, all signs made of plastics, fabric or imitation wood and all signs of architectural, cultural, and historical significance. The Commission Board may grant exceptions only to the number, location and design of business signs. The following criteria must be satisfied to grant the exception:
C. No Permit Required. The following signs on private property do not require a permit if they meet the purpose, objectives, and standards in this chapter as determined by the Director: interior signs, alarm system identification signs, house/occupant name, no soliciting/no handbills, garage/rummage/estate sale, home business, public information signs (exit, restroom, elevator, etc.) and a variety of temporary signs as identified in this chapter. Signs which, in the opinion of the Director, are out of the ordinary or which do not meet the purpose, objectives and standards of this chapter shall be removed or referred to the Planning Commission Design Review Board for review.
CMC 17.48.080.A
4. Tree Quality. Replacement trees shall be of substantial size, caliper, and height to produce an immediate visual impact and reduce the incidence of unauthorized removal. Replacement trees shall be a minimum 24-inch box size except for Monterey Pines which shall be a minimum 15-gallon size. Larger sizes may be required by the Forest and Beach Commission, or the Planning Commission or the Design Review Board based in specific design considerations applicable to the project. The City Forester may authorize the use of smaller sizes when trees meeting these standards, or meeting specific conditions of approval, are unavailable.
CMC 17.52.050 Duties and Powers of the Design Review Board.
The Design Review Board shall have the following duties and responsibilities:
A. To conduct public hearings, review evidence and act on permit applications not
reserved to the Planning Commission, Historic Resources Board or to the Director.
B. To act on commercial district design review applications not involving any land use permit pursuant to CMC 17.58.030, Commercial Design Review.
C. To act on residential design studies for projects not involving any land use permit pursuant to CMC 17.58.040, Residential Design Review.
D. To act on projects subject to coastal permit requirements pursuant to Chapter 17.58 CMC, Design Review, when such projects are within the categories listed above. (Ord. 2004-02 § 1, 2004; Ord. 2004-01 § 1, 2004).
17.52.060 Duties and Powers of the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission as the designated planning agency of the City shall have the following power and responsibilities:
A. To develop and maintain a General Plan.
B. To develop specific plans, master plans and area plans as may be necessary or
desirable.
C. To periodically, at least once each fiscal year, review the capital improvement
program of the City.
D. To determine the consistency of capital improvements projects and programs with the General Plan.
E. To prepare an annual report to the City Council on the status of the General Plan and progress in its application.
F. To interpret the meaning and intent of the City’s land use code.
G. To hear and render decisions on appeals of discretionary decisions made by administrative officials.
H. To review environmental impact reports and initial studies.
I. To conduct public hearings, review evidence and determine requests for use permits, variances, lot line adjustments, subdivisions, rezones and land use code amendments.
J. To act on design review and design study applications for those projects involving issuance of a land use permit.
K. To act on projects subject to coastal permit requirements when such projects are within the categories listed above.
L. To review the water management plan annually.
17.52.160 Planning Commission and Design Review Board Procedures.
A. Purpose. It is the purpose of this section to establish uniform minimum procedures to be followed by the Planning Commission and the Design Review Board for all projects subject to their review. This section shall not preclude the Commission or Board from adopting additional procedures as necessary for the completion of their duties.
B. Permit Issuance – Review of Plans. No building permit, license or other required
permit for any structure, site development or land use shall be issued prior to Planning Commission or Design Review Board approval if any form of Commission or Board review is required for said improvement by this code. The Director shall ensure that development is executed and completed according to the approved plans.
C. Conduct of Meetings. The Planning Commission shall meet at least once each month
and may establish a more frequent schedule as needed. The Design Review Board shall
meet at least once each month and may establish a more frequent schedule as needed. The Commission and Board shall keep minutes of all meetings and complete records of all examinations, findings and other official actions, together with a record of all facts pertinent to the cases submitted for their approval.
D. Public Participation. Actions on all applications considered by the Planning
Commission or the Design Review Board shall be open to public testimony. Written
comments received from the public will be accepted and entered into the written record accompanying each matter considered by the Commission or the Board. The Commission or Board shall consider written and oral testimony insofar as they provide factual information related to the matter before the approval body and the specific criteria established for review of the application by this title.
E. Decision. Decisions of the Planning Commission and the Design Review Board shall be reached by an affirmative vote of a majority of its members present. A quorum for each approval body shall consist of three members. All Commission and Board decisions
shall be based on consideration of the facts presented to it by the applicant, City staff, and members of the public and consideration of all goals, objectives, policies, criteria and standards established in City planning documents and ordinances. Unless otherwise authorized under the municipal code, the Commission and Board shall not have the authority to waive or modify the site development requirements of this title or the requirements of any other applicable City ordinances.
F. Reports on Final Actions. All actions approving or denying applications shall be made in writing and shall include all findings necessary to support said action. Approvals shall include all findings required by the sections of the municipal code related to the project being approved. Approvals may be granted in whole or in part, with or without conditions necessary to assure the intent and purpose of all applicable policies, standards and guidelines.
G. Reports and Investigations. Reports and investigations may be required by the
Planning Commission or the Design Review Board prior to approval of any project. The Commission and the Design Review Board shall have the authority to request reports or investigations from the City Forester, City Engineer, Public Works Director, Building Official, Director or other department heads or commissions in writing prior to approval of any project.
H. Appeals. All final actions of the Planning Commission or the Design Review Board may be appealed to the City Council in accordance with Chapter 17.54 CMC, Appeals.
(Ord. 2004-02 § 1, 2004; Ord. 2004-01 § 1, 2004).
17.52.170 Time Limits on Approvals and Denials.
All applications approved by City staff, the Planning Commission, the Design Review
Board or by the City Council on appeal have a limit on the time that the approval remains valid. Permits or other approvals granted by these approval bodies or by the Historic Resources Board that are not implemented within these time limits become void.
B. General Limits. Unless otherwise stated on the permit, or indicated as a condition of approval by the approving body, the following time limits shall apply commencing upon the date of action by the City staff, Planning Commission, Design Review Board or final City Council action:
1. Commercial design review – 18 months;
2. Commercial business use permit – six months;
3. Other commercial district use permits – 18 months;
4. Variances – 12 months;
5. Signs – three months;
6. Residential design study – 12 months;
7. Residential district use permits – 12 months;
8. Lot line adjustments – six months; and
9. Subdivisions – 24 months.
C. Time Extensions. The Director may grant one extension of a time limit, equal in length to the original time limit for those approvals not subject to a public hearing. Similarly, the Planning Commission, Design Review Board or Historical Preservation Board, as appropriate, may administratively grant one extension for approvals originally subject to a public hearing. If, since the date of the original approval, the conditions surrounding the original approval have changed, or the General Plan, municipal code or Local Coastal Plan Program has been amended in any manner which causes the approval to be inconsistent with these plans or codes, no time extension or renewal shall be granted for any approval.
CMC 17.54.010 Conclusive Decision – Appeal Period.
C. The findings and actions of the Planning Commission, the Design Review Board, and
the Forest and Beach Commission shall be final and conclusive from and after the date of final action unless an appeal is filed with the City Council pursuant to CMC
17.54.040(C), Appeals to the City Council or the Coastal Commission pursuant to CMC
17.54.040(D) and 17.54.050.
17.54.040 Filing Appeals
C. Appeals to the City Council. Decisions to approve or deny projects made by the
Planning Commission, Forest and Beach Commission, the Design Review Board, or the
Historic Resources Board may be appealed to the City Council by filing a notice of
appeal in writing in the office of the City Clerk within 10 working days following the date of action by the decision-making body and paying the required filing fee as established by City Council resolution.
17.54.080 Appeals.
A. Appeals of Decisions on Permits. Any decision to approve, deny or conditionally
approve any permit made by the Director, the City Forester, the Planning Commission, or the Design Review Board or the Historic Resources Board may be appealed by any
aggrieved party. Coastal Commissioners may appeal these decisions pursuant to CMC
17.54.020 and 17.54.050.
CMC 17.58.020 General Requirements and Responsibilities.
B. Coordination of Review Bodies. For any proposed major alteration affecting an
historic resource in the commercial and R-4 districts, the Director shall schedule a review of the project plans by the Historic Resources Board for a determination of consistency with the Secretary of Interior’s standards. If the site assessment shows that trees will be affected by the project, the Director shall forward the plans to the City Forester for processing.
Any reviews by the Forest and Beach Commission and/or Historic Resources Board that are required for a project shall occur prior to consideration of the project by the Director, Design Review Board or the Planning Commission. The procedures established in Chapter 17.32 CMC, Historic Preservation, shall be followed if the project would affect a historic resource or if it is unknown whether the property contains a historic resource.
D. Design Review Responsibilities. The Planning Commission shall conduct design
review for all non-administrative projects a use permit, variance, subdivision, lot line adjustment or other land use permit and for all projects subject to environmental review.
Design review for all other projects shall be conducted by the Design Review Board or the Director pursuant to the specific requirements of this chapter. The Director may require the Design Review Board or Planning Commission to review for any application that raises new policy issues or presents unusual circumstances not addressed by adopted policies, guidelines, or review criteria.
E. Design Review Standards. When conducting design review the Department, Design
Review Board, or the Planning Commission shall use the design guidelines adopted by the City Council as the basis for review. The decision-making entity responsible for
design review shall consider the conformance of the application to the standards set forth in and promulgated under this title, and may either approve, deny or modify an
application for design review. However, no modification may be made that is not
consistent with any other requirement of this title. Specific zoning standards and criteria are established in each zoning district, overlay district, specific plan area, special district, or community plan area. These shall be coordinated with the guidelines in reviewing projects.
17.58.030 Commercial Design Review.
2. Procedures. Within 30 days of the receipt of a complete application for a commercial administrative permit, the Director shall review the proposed project for compliance with the standards and regulations of the CMC, the Coastal Implementation Plan, General Plan policies, commercial design guidelines, public way improvement design guidelines, and other applicable adopted design criteria. The Director may approve the application if all zoning standards are met and the project is consistent with all design guidelines. The Director shall refer for action by the Planning Commission Design Review Board any application for a project that does not comply with applicable adopted design guidelines and design criteria. Any proposed storefront remodels/alteration to a structure located within the downtown conservation district shall be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Board. The Director shall deny any application for a commercial track one permit that does not comply with the CMC, the Coastal Implementation Plan or the General
Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan.
B. Commercial District Track Two Design Review. This is a discretionary process for
reviewing substantial design changes in commercial zoning districts and the R-4 district.
The Planning Commission shall conduct design review under this section. for any project that requires a use permit, variance, or other land use permit. The Design Review Board shall conduct design review of all other projects subject to design review under this section.
17.58.040
3.b. Projects that comply with zoning regulations but do not comply with the design objectives or residential design guidelines will be referred to the Planning Commission Design Review Board for resolution or shall be redirected into track two.
B. Residential Track Two Design Study. Track two is a discretionary review process for projects that require a public hearing with the Planning Commission. Projects that require a demolition permit, use permit, variance, or other land use permit or environmental review shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Design Review Board shall take action on all other projects that require track two review. All track two projects are subject to the coastal development permit requirements of the certified LCP, and a track two design study approval shall constitute a coastal development permit. All track two projects shall require public notice and a hearing pursuant to CMC 17.52.110, Notice of Public Hearing.
b. Design Review Board or Planning Commission Review. Within 30 days of receiving a complete application, the Director shall schedule the project for a hearing and review of the design concept plans by the Design Review Board or Planning Commission. Public notice shall be provided in compliance with the requirements of CMC 17.52.110, Notice of Public Hearing:
B.i. The Design Review Board or Planning Commission shall review the proposed site
design, basic massing, and other elements of the design concept for compliance with the City’s design concept guidelines and the findings required in CMC 17.64.080, Design Study Approval. At the conclusion of this review the DRB or PC shall either (1) accept the design concept as submitted, (2) provisionally accept the design concept and provide direction to the applicant on plan revisions necessary to achieve compliance with the design guidelines and/or zoning standards, or (3) continue design concept for preparation of a new design concept if it is substantially out of compliance with the zoning standards or the design guidelines. Applicants unwilling to make the revisions directed by the DRB/PC in a provisionally accepted concept design or continued design concept may request denial of the project so that an appeal may be filed. A denial shall not be complete until findings are adopted.
ii. Projects involving a historic resource shall require a determination of consistency pursuant to CMC 17.32.140. All project approvals shall be consistent with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation except as provided in CMC 17.30.010. Following action by the Historic Preservation Board, the project shall be scheduled for design concept and final details review by the Planning Commission or the Design Review Board consistent with this chapter.
17.58.060 Findings Required.
A. Authority. The Director, the Design Review Board, Historic Preservation Board, or the Planning Commission as applicable to the project, shall have the authority to approve, approve with modifications and/or conditions, or deny an application for design review based on written findings stating the reasons for the action. Findings shall be based on information in the record.
B. Findings for Design Review Approval. Before approving an application for design review in any district, the Director, the Design Review Board, Historic Preservation
Board, or the Planning Commission shall find that the final design plans:
C. Additional Findings for Design Study Approval. In addition to any other findings
required by this code (see CMC 17.64.080, Design Study Approval), the Design Review Board or Planning Commission shall make all of the following findings before granting design review approval in the R-1 district:
D. Findings Required for Approval of Deviations from Design Guidelines. In addition to any other findings required by this code, before approving any project in the singlefamily residential (R-1) district that deviates from the City’s applicable adopted design guidelines, the Director, Design Review Board, Historic Preservation Board, or the Planning Commission shall adopt specific findings based on information in the record to show how the proposed deviation from the design guidelines achieves all of the applicable design objectives of CMC 17.58.010, Purpose and Applicability, as well as, or better than, would be achieved by adherence to the adopted design guidelines. (Ord. 2004-02 § 1, 2004; Ord. 2004-01 § 1, 2004).
17.58.070 Enforcement.
No building or grading permit shall be issued until the applicant submits a final site plan and building permit plans showing any changes required as a condition of design review approval. Staff shall review all building permit applications for projects subject to design review for compliance with approved design review plans and any conditions of approval. The Director may refer building permit plans to the Design Review Board or the Planning Commission for a determination of compliance with conditions of approval.
After determining that the site plan and building plans comply with all conditions of approval, the Director shall forward copies of the approved plans to the Building Official.
All future development shall comply with the approved building permit plans unless
modifications or changes are approved pursuant to the requirements of this code.
CITY COUNCIL: Resolution Approving Desposal Rate Increase & COLA as Approved by MRWMD
Meeting Date: March 3, 2009
Prepared by: Rich Guillen
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of a Resolution approving a pass-through disposal rate increase of 0.54% (as approved by the Monterey Regional Waste Management District) and an annual cost-of-living adjustment of 2.48%.
Description: Waste Management (WM), Inc. is the City’s trash and recycle collector. It has an exclusive Franchise Agreement with the City. This agreement allows WM to request an annual rate adjustment whenever the Monterey Regional Waste Management District (MRWMD) Board of Directors authorizes a rate increase.
MRWMD approved a 0.54% increase, effective April 1, 2009.
WM, Inc.notified the City of the proposed fee increase on January 5, 2009. This notice conforms with the exclusive Franchise Agreement requiring WM, Inc. to notify the City at least 60 days in advance.
Overall Cost:
City and Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Provide policy direction on whether to approve the requested 0.54% fee adjustment and the 2.48% COLA or an alternate fee adjustment.
Important Considerations: The WM request conforms to Section 6, Collection Rates, as written in the City’s exclusive Franchise Agreement.
Decision Record: Council annually reviews rate adjustments. The most recent fee
adjustment of 11.95% was approved by the City Council on April 3, 2008.
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 AN ANNUAL PASS-THROUGH RATE INCREASE OF 0.54% FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES AND A 2.48% COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT
WHEREAS, Waste Management is the City’s trash and recycle collector; and
WHEREAS, the Monterey Regional Waste Management District increased the disposal fees to take effect on April 1, 2009; and
WHEREAS, Waste Management is requesting a 2.48% cost-of-living adjustment; And
WHEREAS, Waste Management submitted a formal written request 60 days prior to the effective date as required in its exclusive Franchise Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DOES:
1. Approve an annual rate adjustment of 0.54% for residential and commercial customers to cover cost increases to disposal fees, as requested by the Monterey Regional Waste Management District. Authorize the effective date of April 1, 2009 for the annual rate adjustment.
2. Approve a cost-of-living adjustment increase of 2.48% for 2009.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 3rd day of March 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: Rich Guillen
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of a Resolution approving a pass-through disposal rate increase of 0.54% (as approved by the Monterey Regional Waste Management District) and an annual cost-of-living adjustment of 2.48%.
Description: Waste Management (WM), Inc. is the City’s trash and recycle collector. It has an exclusive Franchise Agreement with the City. This agreement allows WM to request an annual rate adjustment whenever the Monterey Regional Waste Management District (MRWMD) Board of Directors authorizes a rate increase.
MRWMD approved a 0.54% increase, effective April 1, 2009.
WM, Inc.notified the City of the proposed fee increase on January 5, 2009. This notice conforms with the exclusive Franchise Agreement requiring WM, Inc. to notify the City at least 60 days in advance.
Overall Cost:
City and Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Provide policy direction on whether to approve the requested 0.54% fee adjustment and the 2.48% COLA or an alternate fee adjustment.
Important Considerations: The WM request conforms to Section 6, Collection Rates, as written in the City’s exclusive Franchise Agreement.
Decision Record: Council annually reviews rate adjustments. The most recent fee
adjustment of 11.95% was approved by the City Council on April 3, 2008.
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 AN ANNUAL PASS-THROUGH RATE INCREASE OF 0.54% FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES AND A 2.48% COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT
WHEREAS, Waste Management is the City’s trash and recycle collector; and
WHEREAS, the Monterey Regional Waste Management District increased the disposal fees to take effect on April 1, 2009; and
WHEREAS, Waste Management is requesting a 2.48% cost-of-living adjustment; And
WHEREAS, Waste Management submitted a formal written request 60 days prior to the effective date as required in its exclusive Franchise Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DOES:
1. Approve an annual rate adjustment of 0.54% for residential and commercial customers to cover cost increases to disposal fees, as requested by the Monterey Regional Waste Management District. Authorize the effective date of April 1, 2009 for the annual rate adjustment.
2. Approve a cost-of-living adjustment increase of 2.48% for 2009.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 3rd day of March 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: Policy Direction Regarding Transforming MST from a JPA to MST District
Meeting Date: 3 March 2009
Prepared by: Rich Guillen
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Receive report and provide policy direction on the proposal to transform MST from a JPA to the Monterey-Salinas Transit District.
Description: Monterey–Salinas Transit (MST) is a Joint Powers Agency (JPA) created by the State of California to provide public transit services to citizens of and visitors to communities which comprise its member jurisdictions. MST also operates transit services under contract to other communities in Monterey County and connecting services to other transit providers at Watsonville, Gilroy, Morgan Hill and San Jose. While MST is a JPA, many other transit agencies are organized by the California Public Utilities code as transit districts.
At the January 12, 2009 meeting of the MST Board of Directors, its 2009 Legislative Program was adopted. Staff was directed to explore the possibility of transforming MST from a JPA to a transit district. Since then, MST has been working with its legislative representative in Sacramento to craft a legal framework to accomplish this effort.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: None
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation:
Important Considerations: Council may offer its support of the proposal by authorizing the Mayor to draft a letter of support to be forwarded to Assembly Member Anna Caballero.
Decision Record: None
Reviewed by:
__________________________ _____________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
February 24, 2009
Carmel City Council
Attn: Heidi Burch
Carmel City Hall
PO Box CC
Carmel CA 93921
Dear Ms. Burch:
The City of Carmel is one of the members of the Monterey-Salinas Transit Joint Powers Agency (JPA). As you may have heard, the state deficit reduction budget deal currently under consideration in Sacramento would result in the complete elimination of the State Transit Assistance program. MST uses State Transit Assistance to fund the majority of its RIDES paratransit services for specially qualified persons with severe disabilities. Without the State Transit Assistance program, MST will need to find alternative sources of revenue to fund the RIDES program to avoid devastating cuts to our fixed-route transit services and further increases to passenger fares, which were just raised in January.
As a JPA, MST does not have the ability to raise revenues itself. Assemblymember Anna Caballero has offered to introduce a bill in the legislature that would transform MST from a JPA to a transit district, thereby granting this agency the ability to ask the voters of Monterey County directly for a local sales tax and to raise revenues through the issuance of bonds. At the February 9th meeting of the MST Board of Directors, staff was given direction to pursue this action (see attached MST Board memo).
Please note that there would be no additional expense required from the City of Carmel to affect this change in MST’s governance. Before introducing the bill, Assemblymember Caballero has asked for a resolution from each of the existing JPA members supporting MST’s efforts to develop stable long-term sources of revenue, which is one of MST’s five strategic goals that were adopted by our Board of Directors in 2007. In that regard, please find the attached draft language that can be used as a model for a resolution that would be considered by the city council at its March 3nd meeting. Thank you for expediting this matter, as Assemblymember Caballero has asked for all resolutions of support by March 20th.
Sincerely,
Carl G. Sedoryk
General Manager/CEO
Attachment
Agenda # 9-1
February 9, 2009 Meeting
_____________________________________________________________________
To: Board of Directors
From: H. Harvath, Assistant General Manager – Finance & Administration
Subject: Proposal to Create the Monterey-Salinas Transit District
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize staff to proceed in pursuing a legislative change to the Public Utilities Code to create the Monterey-Salinas Transit District.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Your Board approves changes to the governance structure of the MST Joint Powers Agency; this action would be consistent with and support “Strategic Goal #2 – Develop stable long-term revenue sources” from MST’s three-year strategic plan, adopted by your Board in 2007.
DISCUSSION:
Monterey-Salinas Transit is a Joint Powers Agency (JPA) created by the state of California to provide public transit services to citizens of and visitors to communities which comprise its member jurisdictions. In addition, MST operates transit services under contract to other communities in Monterey County as well as connecting services to other transit providers at Watsonville, Gilroy, Morgan Hill and San Jose. While MST is a JPA, many other transit agencies are organized by the California Public Utilities code as transit districts. One of the advantages of the transit district form of governance is the authority to levy taxes with the approval of the voters residing in that district. For instance, Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District receives revenues from a local sales tax that was approved by the county’s voters and that is dedicated solely to funding transit services.
Given the billions of dollars in cuts to State Transit Assistance in recent years, plus the governor’s proposed complete elimination of the State Transit Assistance program in future years, MST must seek alternative ways of funding its transit services locally. In November 2008, a ½-cent sales tax for transportation proposed by the Transportation Agency for Monterey County failed to garner the 2/3rds majority required to be implemented. Had the TAMC tax passed, MST would have received 20% of the revenues that would have been generated by that tax. While MST would continue to support TAMC’s future efforts to secure local funding for a broad range of transportation projects, it is possible that MST would need to find local sources of revenue before another TAMC sales tax would be able to garner the supermajority required to pass.
Transforming the Monterey-Salinas Transit JPA into a transit district would give MST the flexibility to ask the voters of Monterey County directly for a local sales tax to support public transit services. While there is no guarantee that a transit only sales tax would pass, MST as a transit district would, with direction by your Board, at least have the option of pursuing that funding mechanism. As a JPA, MST does not have that legal authority. In addition, an MST transit district would have bonding capabilities. As a JPA, MST has secured financing in the private markets to fund its bus replacement program. While MST has received competitive rates from the private markets, it is possible that interest rates would be even lower through bond financing, which would free up more of the agency’s money to fund transit services for its customers rather than interest
payments to banks.
At the January 12th meeting of your Board, MST’s 2009 Legislative Program was adopted. Item 2sc of the legislative program directed staff to explore the possibility of transforming MST from a JPA to transit district. In that regard, MST has been working with its legislative representative in Sacramento, JEA & Associates, to craft a legal framework accomplish this effort. The attached draft
legislation for the creation of the Monterey-Salinas Transit District has been compiled by borrowing, in part, from existing Public Utilities Code statutes for other transit districts around the state, including that for Yolo and Santa Cruz counties. In addition, the draft legislation, which has been reviewed by general counsel, has been developed with MST’s existing JPA member jurisdictions, bylaws, composition, policies and procedures in mind to facilitate a quick and easy transition to a transit district if it were enacted. Pending approval by your Board, staff would request the assistance of Assemblymember Anna Caballero with carrying this bill through the legislative process.
Subsequently, MST staff would then request letters from each member jurisdiction in support of its efforts to become a transit district to assist in moving the bill successfully through the legislature.
Attachment: Draft Public Utilities Code language creating the Monterey-Salinas Transit District
Prepared by: Rich Guillen
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Receive report and provide policy direction on the proposal to transform MST from a JPA to the Monterey-Salinas Transit District.
Description: Monterey–Salinas Transit (MST) is a Joint Powers Agency (JPA) created by the State of California to provide public transit services to citizens of and visitors to communities which comprise its member jurisdictions. MST also operates transit services under contract to other communities in Monterey County and connecting services to other transit providers at Watsonville, Gilroy, Morgan Hill and San Jose. While MST is a JPA, many other transit agencies are organized by the California Public Utilities code as transit districts.
At the January 12, 2009 meeting of the MST Board of Directors, its 2009 Legislative Program was adopted. Staff was directed to explore the possibility of transforming MST from a JPA to a transit district. Since then, MST has been working with its legislative representative in Sacramento to craft a legal framework to accomplish this effort.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: None
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation:
Important Considerations: Council may offer its support of the proposal by authorizing the Mayor to draft a letter of support to be forwarded to Assembly Member Anna Caballero.
Decision Record: None
Reviewed by:
__________________________ _____________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
February 24, 2009
Carmel City Council
Attn: Heidi Burch
Carmel City Hall
PO Box CC
Carmel CA 93921
Dear Ms. Burch:
The City of Carmel is one of the members of the Monterey-Salinas Transit Joint Powers Agency (JPA). As you may have heard, the state deficit reduction budget deal currently under consideration in Sacramento would result in the complete elimination of the State Transit Assistance program. MST uses State Transit Assistance to fund the majority of its RIDES paratransit services for specially qualified persons with severe disabilities. Without the State Transit Assistance program, MST will need to find alternative sources of revenue to fund the RIDES program to avoid devastating cuts to our fixed-route transit services and further increases to passenger fares, which were just raised in January.
As a JPA, MST does not have the ability to raise revenues itself. Assemblymember Anna Caballero has offered to introduce a bill in the legislature that would transform MST from a JPA to a transit district, thereby granting this agency the ability to ask the voters of Monterey County directly for a local sales tax and to raise revenues through the issuance of bonds. At the February 9th meeting of the MST Board of Directors, staff was given direction to pursue this action (see attached MST Board memo).
Please note that there would be no additional expense required from the City of Carmel to affect this change in MST’s governance. Before introducing the bill, Assemblymember Caballero has asked for a resolution from each of the existing JPA members supporting MST’s efforts to develop stable long-term sources of revenue, which is one of MST’s five strategic goals that were adopted by our Board of Directors in 2007. In that regard, please find the attached draft language that can be used as a model for a resolution that would be considered by the city council at its March 3nd meeting. Thank you for expediting this matter, as Assemblymember Caballero has asked for all resolutions of support by March 20th.
Sincerely,
Carl G. Sedoryk
General Manager/CEO
Attachment
Agenda # 9-1
February 9, 2009 Meeting
_____________________________________________________________________
To: Board of Directors
From: H. Harvath, Assistant General Manager – Finance & Administration
Subject: Proposal to Create the Monterey-Salinas Transit District
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize staff to proceed in pursuing a legislative change to the Public Utilities Code to create the Monterey-Salinas Transit District.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Your Board approves changes to the governance structure of the MST Joint Powers Agency; this action would be consistent with and support “Strategic Goal #2 – Develop stable long-term revenue sources” from MST’s three-year strategic plan, adopted by your Board in 2007.
DISCUSSION:
Monterey-Salinas Transit is a Joint Powers Agency (JPA) created by the state of California to provide public transit services to citizens of and visitors to communities which comprise its member jurisdictions. In addition, MST operates transit services under contract to other communities in Monterey County as well as connecting services to other transit providers at Watsonville, Gilroy, Morgan Hill and San Jose. While MST is a JPA, many other transit agencies are organized by the California Public Utilities code as transit districts. One of the advantages of the transit district form of governance is the authority to levy taxes with the approval of the voters residing in that district. For instance, Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District receives revenues from a local sales tax that was approved by the county’s voters and that is dedicated solely to funding transit services.
Given the billions of dollars in cuts to State Transit Assistance in recent years, plus the governor’s proposed complete elimination of the State Transit Assistance program in future years, MST must seek alternative ways of funding its transit services locally. In November 2008, a ½-cent sales tax for transportation proposed by the Transportation Agency for Monterey County failed to garner the 2/3rds majority required to be implemented. Had the TAMC tax passed, MST would have received 20% of the revenues that would have been generated by that tax. While MST would continue to support TAMC’s future efforts to secure local funding for a broad range of transportation projects, it is possible that MST would need to find local sources of revenue before another TAMC sales tax would be able to garner the supermajority required to pass.
Transforming the Monterey-Salinas Transit JPA into a transit district would give MST the flexibility to ask the voters of Monterey County directly for a local sales tax to support public transit services. While there is no guarantee that a transit only sales tax would pass, MST as a transit district would, with direction by your Board, at least have the option of pursuing that funding mechanism. As a JPA, MST does not have that legal authority. In addition, an MST transit district would have bonding capabilities. As a JPA, MST has secured financing in the private markets to fund its bus replacement program. While MST has received competitive rates from the private markets, it is possible that interest rates would be even lower through bond financing, which would free up more of the agency’s money to fund transit services for its customers rather than interest
payments to banks.
At the January 12th meeting of your Board, MST’s 2009 Legislative Program was adopted. Item 2sc of the legislative program directed staff to explore the possibility of transforming MST from a JPA to transit district. In that regard, MST has been working with its legislative representative in Sacramento, JEA & Associates, to craft a legal framework accomplish this effort. The attached draft
legislation for the creation of the Monterey-Salinas Transit District has been compiled by borrowing, in part, from existing Public Utilities Code statutes for other transit districts around the state, including that for Yolo and Santa Cruz counties. In addition, the draft legislation, which has been reviewed by general counsel, has been developed with MST’s existing JPA member jurisdictions, bylaws, composition, policies and procedures in mind to facilitate a quick and easy transition to a transit district if it were enacted. Pending approval by your Board, staff would request the assistance of Assemblymember Anna Caballero with carrying this bill through the legislative process.
Subsequently, MST staff would then request letters from each member jurisdiction in support of its efforts to become a transit district to assist in moving the bill successfully through the legislature.
Attachment: Draft Public Utilities Code language creating the Monterey-Salinas Transit District
FOREST AND BEACH COMMISSION AGENDA & MINUTES March 2009
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
FOREST AND BEACH COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Thursday, 5 March 2009
Tour of Inspection – 1:30 p.m.
Regular Meeting – 2:00 p.m.
City Hall, Council Chambers
East side Monte Verde St. between Ocean & 7th Avenues
Carmel, California
I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
COMMISSION MEMBERS: KATHLEEN COSS
JOE FORD, CHAIRPERSON
NANCY JOHN
LESLIE KADIS
VICTORIA LYNCH
II. TOUR OF INSPECTION
Shortly after 1:30 p.m. the Commission will leave Council Chambers for an on-site Tour of Inspection of all properties listed on this agenda (including those on the Consent Calendar or Orders of Business). Prior to the beginning of the Tour of Inspection, the Forest and Beach Commission may eliminate one or more on-site visits. The public is welcome to follow the Commission on its tour of the determined sites. The Commission will return to Council Chambers as soon thereafter as possible to deliberate on the below listed items – SEE APPLICATION SECTION.
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IV. APPEARANCES
Thank you for attending the meeting. Anyone wishing to address the Commission on matters within the jurisdiction of the Commission may do so now. Please state the matter on which you wish to speak. Matters not appearing on the Commission’s agenda will not receive action at this meeting but may be referred to staff for a future meeting. Presentations will be limited to three minutes, or as established by the Commission. Persons are not required to give their name or address, but it is helpful for speakers to state their name in order that the Secretary may identify them.
V. CONSENT AGENDA
1. Consideration of the minutes for the 5 February 2009 regular meeting. Page 1.
VI. APPLICATIONS/PUBLIC HEARINGS
IF YOU CHALLENGE THE NATURE OF THE PROPOSED ACTION IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE FOREST AND BEACH COMMISSION, OR PRIOR TO DELIBERATION OF THE ITEMS ON THE TOUR OF INSPECTION/PUBLIC HEARING.
1. Consideration of an application to remove one 34” diameter double-trunk coast redwood due to its proximity to the house and a hazard. The site is located on the north side of 12th Ave., three west of Lincoln St. The property owner/applicant is Greg Mussallem. Page 5.
2. Consideration of an application to remove one 32” diameter blue gum eucalyptus and one 14” diameter coast live oak due to obstruction of the driveway and poor health. The site is located on the north side of 4th Ave., two east of Carmelo St. The property owner is Turi Kozel and the applicant is Terra Bella. Page 9.
VII. ORDERS OF BUSINESS
1. Consideration of Forest and Beach Commission goals for fiscal year 2009/2010. Page 14.
VIII. REPORTS FROM STAFF AND COMMISSION
1. Receive verbal report from the Ad Hoc Beach Committee No page.
2. Receive verbal progress report on the 4th Avenue Riparian Habitat Restoration Project. No page.
3. Receive verbal report on the February 23, 2009 Tree Care Workshop. No page.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Forest and Beach Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the Planning and Building Department located at City Hall, on Monte Verde between Ocean and 7th Avenues during normal business hours.
If there is not a special meeting, the next regular meeting of the Forest and Beach Commission will be:
2 April 2009
1:30 p.m. – Tour of Inspection
2:00 p.m. - Regular Agenda
The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea does not discriminate against persons with disabilities. The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Telecommunication’s Device for the Deaf/Speech Impaired (TDD) number is 1-800-735-2929.
FOREST AND BEACH COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Thursday, 5 March 2009
Tour of Inspection – 1:30 p.m.
Regular Meeting – 2:00 p.m.
City Hall, Council Chambers
East side Monte Verde St. between Ocean & 7th Avenues
Carmel, California
I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
COMMISSION MEMBERS: KATHLEEN COSS
JOE FORD, CHAIRPERSON
NANCY JOHN
LESLIE KADIS
VICTORIA LYNCH
II. TOUR OF INSPECTION
Shortly after 1:30 p.m. the Commission will leave Council Chambers for an on-site Tour of Inspection of all properties listed on this agenda (including those on the Consent Calendar or Orders of Business). Prior to the beginning of the Tour of Inspection, the Forest and Beach Commission may eliminate one or more on-site visits. The public is welcome to follow the Commission on its tour of the determined sites. The Commission will return to Council Chambers as soon thereafter as possible to deliberate on the below listed items – SEE APPLICATION SECTION.
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IV. APPEARANCES
Thank you for attending the meeting. Anyone wishing to address the Commission on matters within the jurisdiction of the Commission may do so now. Please state the matter on which you wish to speak. Matters not appearing on the Commission’s agenda will not receive action at this meeting but may be referred to staff for a future meeting. Presentations will be limited to three minutes, or as established by the Commission. Persons are not required to give their name or address, but it is helpful for speakers to state their name in order that the Secretary may identify them.
V. CONSENT AGENDA
1. Consideration of the minutes for the 5 February 2009 regular meeting. Page 1.
VI. APPLICATIONS/PUBLIC HEARINGS
IF YOU CHALLENGE THE NATURE OF THE PROPOSED ACTION IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE FOREST AND BEACH COMMISSION, OR PRIOR TO DELIBERATION OF THE ITEMS ON THE TOUR OF INSPECTION/PUBLIC HEARING.
1. Consideration of an application to remove one 34” diameter double-trunk coast redwood due to its proximity to the house and a hazard. The site is located on the north side of 12th Ave., three west of Lincoln St. The property owner/applicant is Greg Mussallem. Page 5.
2. Consideration of an application to remove one 32” diameter blue gum eucalyptus and one 14” diameter coast live oak due to obstruction of the driveway and poor health. The site is located on the north side of 4th Ave., two east of Carmelo St. The property owner is Turi Kozel and the applicant is Terra Bella. Page 9.
VII. ORDERS OF BUSINESS
1. Consideration of Forest and Beach Commission goals for fiscal year 2009/2010. Page 14.
VIII. REPORTS FROM STAFF AND COMMISSION
1. Receive verbal report from the Ad Hoc Beach Committee No page.
2. Receive verbal progress report on the 4th Avenue Riparian Habitat Restoration Project. No page.
3. Receive verbal report on the February 23, 2009 Tree Care Workshop. No page.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Forest and Beach Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the Planning and Building Department located at City Hall, on Monte Verde between Ocean and 7th Avenues during normal business hours.
If there is not a special meeting, the next regular meeting of the Forest and Beach Commission will be:
2 April 2009
1:30 p.m. – Tour of Inspection
2:00 p.m. - Regular Agenda
The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea does not discriminate against persons with disabilities. The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Telecommunication’s Device for the Deaf/Speech Impaired (TDD) number is 1-800-735-2929.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)