Meeting Date: November 1, 2011
Prepared by: Jason Stilwell, City Administrator
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Receive, file and disseminate the report of the ad hoc Carmel CalPERS Pension Committee and direct staff to return with recommended implementation actions.
Description: In October 2010, an ad hoc committee was formed to review the City’s pension retirement plans provided by the California public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) and to make recommendations to the City concerning those and alternative plans.
Mayor McCloud charged the committee with understanding issues, developing options and recommendations, and advising the Council of its findings. All five Committee members have significant experience concerning pension and money management. Two are retired financial executive (Richard Borda and Joseph Mark), two are financial executives (Barbara Santry and Laura Zehm), and William Sharpe is a retired Professor of Finance at Stanford University. In the course of its almost year of work, the Committee studied available documents and data, supplemented by additional information provided by CalPERS and the City’s administrations.
On September 13, 2011, William Sharpe delivered the Committee’s interim report to Council. His oral presentation may be viewed on the archive of that meeting on the City’s web site.
The Committee’s final report covers many of the issues raised by the 2010 Monterey Civil Grand Jury, the findings and recommendations included in the Committee’s Interim Report, and additional background information.
This agenda item will enable the City to disseminate and share this report with other government agencies and parties interested in better understanding the California municipal government and public sector pension cost issues.
Based on this final report, staff will develop a specific action plan and timeline for implementing the Committee recommendations and will offer this plan for Council consideration and approval. Many of the Committee’s recommendations could require a long-term, concerted strategy or involve negotiations with the City’s labor groups; others could put into effect more quickly.
Fiscal Impact: None, with the recommended action. Specific fiscal impacts will be identified and included in the staff implementation plan that Council will consider.
Staff Recommendation: Receive, file and disseminate the Committee’s report and direct staff to return with recommended implementation actions.
Reviewed by:
__________________________ _________________
Jason Stilwell, City Administrator Date
REPORT
The Carmel CalPERS Pension Committee
September 27, 2011
The Committee and This Report
In October 2011, at the request of Mayor Sue McCloud an ad hoc committee was formed to review the City’s pension retirement plans provided by the California Public
Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) and to make recommendations to the City
concerning those and alternative plans.
Mayor McCloud charged the committee with understanding issues, developing options
and recommendations and advising the Council of its findings. While the committee was
initiated by Mayor McCloud, it has operated independently (at her request) since its
inception.
The members of the Committee are:
Richard Borda
Joseph Mark
Barbara Santry
William Sharpe
Laura Zehm
Committee members have significant experience concerning pension and money
management. Richard Borda and Joseph Mark are retired financial executives. Barbara
Santry and Laura Zehm currently serve as financial executives. William Sharpe is a
retired Professor of Finance. Short biographies are provided in Appendix A.
Shortly after its formation, the committee began its work, studying available documents
and data and requesting additional information from CalPERS and from the City’s
Administration. At different times, information was obtained from City Administrator
Richard Gillen, Assistant City Administrator Heidi Burch, and Interim City
Administrator John Goss. Since its inception the Committee has held numerous meetings
in person, by telephone and via email.
On several occasions the Committee communicated by phone or email with Barbara
Ware, the CalPERS actuary responsible for the City’s actuarial reports and estimates. She
was extremely cooperative, provided important information and greatly helped the
members of the Committee understand the nature of the CalPERS plans.
242
2
The Grand Jury Report
In January 2011, the 2010 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury issued a Report on the
CalPERS retirement system for public employees of the County of Monterey and the
twelve cities within the county. At the request of the City, in March, 2011, this
Committee provided suggestions concerning the City’s required responses to the Grand
Jury Report. Those recommendations, which were adopted with minor changes by the
administration, are contained in Appendix B.
The Interim Report
On September 13th, 2011 in a public meeting this Committee presented an interim report
to the Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council. The report was presented orally by William
Sharpe, with the PowerPoint slides included as Appendix C to this report. A video of the
Council meeting, including the presentation can be viewed at the Council’s web site.
This Report
This is the committee’s final report. It covers some of the issues raised by the Grand Jury,
the findings and recommendations included in the Committee’s Interim Report, and
provides additional background information.
The Committee’s Investigative Procedures
The committee worked with City Administration. At different times its meetings were
attended by Richard Gillen, City Administrator, Heidi Burch, Assistant City
Administrator, and John Goss, Interim City Administrator. The committee asked for
information from, and shared findings with the City Administration. It also obtained and
reviewed extensive information from public sources.
On numerous occasions the committee asked questions of, and received data and
explanations from Barbara Ware, Senior Pension Actuary, Actuarial Services, CalPERS.
Ms. Ware was responsive and helpful. We are grateful for her time and attention. The
committee vetted its understandings with Ms. Ware.
243
3
The City’s Pension Plans
CalPERS offers a series of defined pension benefit plans that are differentiated, in the
City’s case, between safety employees (e.g. police and firefighters) and miscellaneous
employees. In addition, CalPERS also offers “optional” benefits which amend the terms
of the defined benefit plans.
For each plan, the employee’s annual benefit is based on his or her years of service, a
salary base computed from recent pay before retirement and a specified percentage
factor. For example, a safety employee retiring at age 50 would receive annual payments
in retirement equal to the product of:
3 % times salary base times years of service
For convenience, this is generally termed a “3% at 50” plan. However, all such plans
include provision for retirement other ages, often with different percentage factors.
After the first year in retirement, benefits are adjusted either partially or fully for
inflation. The Cost-of-Living Adjustment increases the amount paid each year by the
smaller of (a) 2% per year compounded annually or (b) the cumulative change in the
Consumer Price Index. In addition there is a Purchasing Power Protection Allowance
which provides the additional guarantee that the payment in any year will not fall below
80% of the initial amount adjusted for inflation since retirement.
The City’s pension plans for current employees hired before August, 2011 are as follows.
• For safety employees, the City had selected a “3% at 50” standard plan. It pays
the employer contribution to this plan, with the safety employees paying the
employee contribution.
• For miscellaneous employees, the City had selected a “2% at 55” standard plan. It
pays the employer contribution to this plan, with the miscellaneous employees
paying the employee contribution.
• The City had selected an “optional” benefit which allows the pension obligation
for retiring employees to be based on the highest 12 months of full time
equivalent monthly pay (which may include some unused sick leave and vacation
leave). If this benefit had not been selected, the pension obligation would be
based on the highest three years of equivalent monthly pay (which may include
some unused sick leave and vacation leave). To pay for this optional benefit, the
City makes the entire additional contribution.
244
4
There are three key aspects of the City’s current pension plans.
• The Pension Obligation. When the City chooses a defined benefit plan for an
employee, it incurs an obligation to pay that employee’s pension, providing
additional money if and when prior contributions are insufficient to cover the
promised payments. This liability remains with the City, typically extends far into
the future, and is not insured by any third party. No other entity participates in the
obligation to make current and future pension payments to current and past
employees of the City based on their service to the City. (However, when
employees leave the City then work elsewhere in the CalPERS system, or when
employees come to the City after working elsewhere, CalPERS allocates the
pension obligation among the affected municipalities or agencies.)
• The Contribution Rate. CalPERS calculates a contribution rate for the City
annually. This contribution rate is generally expressed as a percentage of payroll.
Carmel is “pooled” with a large number of other small municipalities for purposes
of CalPERS’ administration. The pooled entities are reviewed together and
contribution rates are set accordingly. However, the liability to pay its’ pensions
remains with each individual municipality in the pool. CalPERS does not currently
provide the values of the individual obligations of each municipality on a regular
basis.
• Portfolio Performance. CalPERS manages the City’s funds, as well as those of
hundreds of other municipalities and agencies, in a single large, diversified,
professionally managed portfolio. The performance of this portfolio can vary
greatly from year to year. The City has, in effect, hired an investment adviser to
manage its accumulated pension contributions within a larger fund. This provides
administrative cost savings and diversification opportunities. However, the City has
no influence over the portfolio’s management.
245
5
Fiscal Year 2011/2012 contribution rates paid by the City and its employees are
summarized below:
Miscellaneous
2% at 55
Safety
3% at 50
Employer Contributions (% of payroll)
Normal Cost 7.684 % 17.164 %
Amortization Payments 1.855 % 5.927 %
Optional benefits 0.520 % 1.021 %
Side Fund Payments 9.435 % 10.756 %
Total Employer Contributions 19.494 % 34.868 %
Employee Contributions (% of salary) 7.000 % 9.000 %
Importantly, when the performance of the portfolio, plus the current contribution rate,
does not keep pace with the accumulating pension obligation, additional future
contributions are required to make the promised pension payments.
The Side Fund Debt
In 2003, when Carmel’s pension plans were pooled with other small cities and agencies,
CalPERS reviewed the contributed assets and estimated liabilities of Carmel’s pension
plans. It determined that at the time the liability values for the two plans exceeded the
asset values by roughly $6 million.
At the time, other small cities also had assets that were not equal to their liabilities.
CalPERS dealt with this by creating what it calls Side Funds, representing the differences
between assets and liabilities. At inception in 2003, Carmel’s Side Fund balances were
equal to approximately -$ 6 million. Thus Carmel had “Side Fund Debts” (this
Committee’s term) of approximately $ 6 million.
The Side Fund Debts were treated as loans from CalPERS to Carmel for unfunded
liabilities at the inception in 2003. These loans bear an interest rate of 7.75% (the return
that CalPERS expects to earn in the long run on its portfolio). CalPERS established a
payment schedule for the Side Fund Debts such that payments in the past several years
have not exceeded the accruing interest. As of June 30, 2011 Side Fund Debts for the two
funds totaled $6.2 million.
While Side Fund Debt contributions are charged to the City as percentages of estimated
payroll, these constitute payments toward the interest and possibly principal on loans
made at an above-market interest rate.
246
6
The Side Funds are analogous to revolving debt on a consumer credit card. In the last
eight years, the required payments have primarily covered only interest charges and the
balances have grown. Thus, while the City has made all required payments, the Side
Fund Debts are approximately the same as they were in 2003.
Carmel is permitted to pay the Side Fund Debts in whole or in part at any time. We
understand that the City of Pacific Grove has used this ability to pay its entire Side Fund
Debt.
The City’s cash reserves currently equal $ 8.9 million and earn interest at a rate averaging
approximately 0.50 % (one-half of one percent), well below the Side Fund interest rate.
Some of these reserves are required by law, but it is possible that some of these funds
could be used to pay off a part of the Side Fund Debts. Additional funds could be raised
by issuing bonds.
The City’s Interim Administrator has obtained estimates from investment bankers that the
City could raise funds for this purpose by participating in a pool of Pension Obligation
Bonds carrying an average interest rate of approximately 6.0% -- less than the current
cost of 7.75% for the Side Fund Debts.
Recommendation 1: Pay the Side Fund Debt
The Committee recommends that the City actively explore the possibility of using a
portion of its current reserves plus new debt obligations to pay the Side Fund Debts. This
would be equivalent to refinancing a mortgage at a lower interest rate. Importantly, no
benefit payments to current or past employees would be affected.
A question has been raised concerning the possibility that CalPERS could lower the
interest rate charged for Side Fund Debts, either prospectively or retrospectively. The
Committee has learned that in a recent email to Joe Nation of Stanford University, David
Lamoureux, CalPERS Deputy Chief Actuary, stated that this would not happen since side
fund terms were fixed at the time when employers were assigned to risk pools. This said,
the Committee recommends that before issuing any new bonds, the City administration
independently evaluate the risk that CalPERS might lower the interest rate charged on
these debts at some time in the future.
Terminating CalPERS Pension Plans
All participating cities are able to terminate their participation in CalPERS. However, this
has been rare.
247
7
Fortunately, participating cities can elect to exit the CalPERS pension system and, with
the appropriate Council resolution, be permitted to remain in the CalPERS health
insurance system.
To terminate the CalPERS pension system, a city or agency must pay an amount
determined sufficient by CalPERS to cover any difference between the value of the
subsequent benefit payments and the accumulated assets. This may be paid in a lump
sum on the date of termination or in a series of payments thereafter. In the latter event,
CalPERS will charge interest on the unpaid balances until the termination cost is paid in
full.
• From the termination date forward, CalPERS will make the same payments to
retired employees that they would have received if the plans had not been
terminated.
• Payments to all employees who worked for the City and have left but have not yet
retired will be made in exactly the same manner as if the plans had not been
terminated.
• To cover extra obligations that can arise when an employee leaves Carmel-by-the-
Sea, then works for another city or agency that uses CalPERS pension plans, the
City can elect a “non-frozen” option, at a somewhat higher termination cost.
• After termination, CalPERS will make all benefit payments for which current
employees would be eligible if they were to terminate their service with Carmel-bythe-
Sea on the date of termination of the CalPERS plans. However, CalPERS is not
liable for any additional benefits that would have been accrued had the City
remained in the CalPERS system after the date of termination.
The process required for termination takes a considerable amount of time. To begin,
Carmel-by-the-Sea must pass a resolution to terminate the CalPERS pension plans. For
each plan, CalPERS will then prepare two termination unfunded liability estimates – one
for the “frozen” option, the other for the “non-frozen” alternative. These provide
estimates of the payments that the City would be required to pay to terminate the plans.
However, the exact amounts would only be determined at a later date if the City chose to
actually terminate the plans.
The preparation of the initial termination unfunded liability estimates by CalPERS
typically requires six or more months. After it receives the estimates, the Council may
choose to proceed with the termination process or not. If the City chooses to proceed,
CalPERS then prepares a final calculation and arrangements are made for the actual
payments and termination, requiring additional months of elapsed time.
248
8
Recommendation 2: Pass a Non-binding Resolution to
Terminate the CalPERS Pension Plans
The Committee recommends that the Council pass a non-binding resolution to terminate
the CalPERS pension plans in order to obtain estimates of the termination unfunded
liabilities and to make it possible to subsequently terminate the plans if this appears to be
desirable at that time.
A key reason to pass such a resolution at this time is to obtain formal estimates of the
extent to which the City’s pension assets are insufficient to cover the costs of the benefits
already earned by current and past employees. While CalPERS has recently announced
that such estimates may be included in future actuarial reports, this is not guaranteed.
Moreover, at the earliest, estimates would be provided in October, 2012 based on the
values of assets and liabilities at the end of June, 2011.
Termination Unfunded Liabilities
Defined benefit pension plans such as those employed by the City and administered by
CalPERS guarantee employees benefits based on their service and salaries. The current
plans also provide for increases in payments to compensate for future inflation. To cover
these costs, a pool of assets is created. Ideally, the value of the assets would be sufficient
to cover the accumulated benefit obligations.
In the CalPERS plans, contributions are invested in a pool of assets that includes
marketable and non-marketable securities. At any given time, the market values of most
of these assets can be determined and the values of the remainder estimated with
reasonable accuracy. At present the CalPERS actuarial reports are not fully transparent
with regard to such termination asset values.
It is not a simple matter to determine the amount of money that would be required to
cover a plan’s accumulated benefit obligations with certainty or near-certainty. Until very
recently, CalPERS used an actuarial method that estimated benefit liabilities by
discounting expected future cash flows with an interest rate based on the expected return
on the funds’ assets (currently 7.75%). However, beginning on August 18th, 2011
CalPERS adopted a very different procedure, using a discount rate based on U.S.
Treasury bond yields (currently 3.8%). Henceforth, as shown in Appendix D, assets of
terminated plans plus cash from any payments required to be made by cities and agencies
to terminate such plans will be placed in a pool invested in a combination of U.S.
Treasury Bonds and U.S. Treasury Inflation-protected Securities. Accordingly, CalPERS
will value the liabilities of a terminated plan based on the estimated cost of placing an
amount of money in such a pool of Treasury securities that should be sufficient to cover
the required benefit payments with a high degree of confidence, since it is a larger and
249
9
lower-risk pool. At present, CalPERS actuarial reports are not transparent with regard to
such termination liability values.
If the termination asset value of a plan is smaller than its termination liability value, the
plan is underfunded; the difference is the termination unfunded liability (sometimes
called the termination net liability). At present, CalPERS actuarial reports are not
transparent with regard to such values.
If a city or agency wishes to terminate an underfunded plan, CalPERS will require a
payment equal to the termination unfunded liability plus a load charge of 7% of that
amount, designed to cover possible increases in participants’ life spans.
While many alternative measures are used by the actuarial profession to measure aspects
of the funding of a pension plan, the Committee believes that the most relevant for the
City is the termination unfunded liability plus the associated load charge. This is the
amount of money that would be required to terminate a CalPERS plan and insure that all
benefits earned to date would be paid by CalPERS.
In April 2011, the Committee requested an estimate of the termination costs for its two
pension plans from Barbara Ware, the CalPERS actuary who prepares the City’s annual
actuarial reports. Using the method in place at that time, she provided a “very rough”
estimate that the total cost for the two plans at the end of June, 2009 would have been
approximately $14.4 million (over and above the costs of paying the Side Fund Debts).
Subsequently, based on the change in termination procedures made by CalPERS on
August 18, 2011, she informed the Committee that “.. the estimates that I provided
previously are much less than the results will be with the new methodology, even taking
into account the good investment returns over the past 2 years.” This information was
provided by the Committee to the City Council on September 13, 2011 in the interim
report shown in Appendix C.
In response to the August 2011 change in the actuarial procedures for determining
termination unfunded liabilities; the Committee prepared a set of estimates of the possible
values for the City’s two funds. After taking into account additional information from
Barbara Ware, the Committee prepared the estimates of termination unfunded liabilities
shown in Appendix E. These are at best very rough approximations and were reviewed
by Barbara Ware who commented that they were likely usable as talking points.
With these caveats, based on the estimate of $34.4 million in Appendix E, and adding in
the Side Fund Debts of $ 6.2 million, the Committee’s best estimate is that the total
liabilities associated with underfunded pension obligations could be between $35 million
and $45 million.
250
10
These are at the very best, crude estimates. Only if the City passes a resolution to
terminate the CalPERS plans can better values be obtained in the relatively near future.
When and if such official estimates are available, the Committee believes they should be
included in the City’s reports.
Recommendation 3: Include Side Fund Debts and Estimated
Termination Unfunded Liabilities in the City’s Financial Reports
The Side Fund Debts and the Termination Unfunded Liabilities represent costs that will
have to be paid either sooner (via termination and/or payment of the Side Fund Debt) or
later, with pension contributions that would be greater than if those liabilities did not
exist. In order that the City’s taxpayers and employees are fully informed about these
obligations, the Committee recommends that the latest estimates of their magnitudes be
included on the City’s Financial Reports, either in footnotes or comments.
Estimates of the Side Fund Debts can be found in the CalPERS annual actuarial reports.
Estimates of the Termination Unfunded Liabilities will be obtained if the Council passes
a resolution to terminate the CalPERS plans. In future years such estimates may also be
provided in the annual actuarial reports provided to the City by CalPERS, although at the
earliest, this practice will start in October 2012 with values based on assets and liabilities
at the end of June 2011.
The Financial Risks of the CalPERS Pension Plans
The CalPERS pension plans currently used by Carmel-by-the-Sea create large financial
risks for the City. Several aspects of the plans contribute to such risks:
• Pension benefits are pre-determined and are adjusted in whole or in part for
inflation
• Carmel’s assets are invested in a single multi-asset portfolio with substantial risk
and year-to-year volatility. This volatility makes it difficult for the City to assess
its obligations.
• Pre-retirement, employees pay up to a fixed percentage of salary. Post-retirement,
employees bear no risk. CalPERS’ actuarial procedures may lead to situations in
which employees nearing retirement are not assessed the increasing costs of their
pensions. In such cases the obligations remain with the City.
• The City’s share of the current contribution is substantially larger than the
employees’ share.
251
11
• Increased contributions will likely be required by CalPERS when the City is least
equipped to pay them since the contribution rate is affected by capital market
conditions in a lagged manner. Hence, CalPERS can be expected to increase
contribution rates after periods of poor capital market conditions, which typically
coincide with decreases in revenue from all the City’s sources of income.
Additional risks borne by City include:
• Inflation risk
• The risk that CalPERS will earn a lower-than-expected return on its investments
• The risk of greater-than-predicted life expectancies
• The risk that the contributions required by CalPERS will fail to fully fund the
actual accumulating pension obligations
• The risk that the City’s lack of current visibility on its increasing obligations will
lead to decisions that would not have been made if such there had been full
disclosure.
These risks can be mitigated or eliminated by either:
• Terminating the CalPERS plans and adopting lower-risk retirement benefits, such
as a combination of social security, a defined contribution plan similar to a
corporate 401(k) plan, and possibly higher salaries, or by
• remaining in the CalPERS system, but decreasing the levels of CalPERS benefits
to the extent possible.
Consideration of possible replacements for the CalPERS pension plans is beyond the
scope of this Committee’s work. The next section thus focuses on possible actions that
the Council could take to reduce the risks associated with benefits obtained within the
CalPERS system.
Adoption of Alternative CalPERS Benefit Tiers
CalPERS makes a number of alternative pension plans available for adoption by
participating cities and agencies. For each category of employees there are typically two
or more possible “tiers”. For example, as indicated earlier, Carmel-by-the-Sea has
adopted the “3% at 50” tier for its safety employees and the “2% at 55” tier for its
miscellaneous employees. Within each tier there are additional options, some of which
require higher employer contributions. In each plan, Carmel-by-the-Sea has chosen to
base an employee’s retirement income on his or her highest one-year salary – an option
that requires higher employer contributions than the standard approach which bases such
income on an employee’s highest average salary over three years.
252
12
With regard to both the tiers utilized and the salary bases elected, the City has chosen to
provide very generous pension benefits to its employees. This increases the risk to the
City associated with the provision of each employee’s total compensation – his or her
lifetime salary plus benefits received after retirement. In effect, an employee’s total
compensation is “back-end loaded” and the back-end retirement benefits create
significant financial risks for the City. These risks could be reduced, although not
eliminated, if less generous retirement benefits were provided. CalPERS rules and current
agreements with the City’s unions may restrict changes that can be made for current
employees. However, such benefits could be offered to new employees.
The Committee offers no opinion on the appropriate level of overall compensation for
City employees but believes that the City should reduce the risks inherent in the current
retirement system. If less generous CalPERS tiers are offered to new employees, it may
be necessary and appropriate to provide additional retirement benefits and/or higher
salaries in order to attract qualified applicants. One alternative would be to offer a less
generous defined benefit retirement plan (such as one of the alternative tiers) with lower
but still substantial financial risk to the city, supplemented with City contributions to a
defined contribution plan (similar to a corporate 401(k)) for which the employee bears all
the future financial risk. CalPERS offers such a defined contribution plan and allows
employers and employees to make contributions on a before-tax basis up to Federal
limits. The Committee has learned that the organization representing the City’s
miscellaneous employees has agreed to the use of a lower CalPERS tier for newly-hired
employees.
When considering alternative CalPERS tiers, it is important to understand that the simple
descriptions indicate only the percentage factor to be used if an employee chooses to
retire at a specified age. Plan provisions also specify factors that will apply if an
employee retires at other ages.
Figure 1 shows the percentage factors that apply for two alternative tiers available to be
used for miscellaneous employees. The higher (blue) curve shows the terms for the City’s
current plan. As indicated, an employee who retires at age 55 will receive an income at
retirement equal to 2% of his or her highest annual salary times the number of years of
service. However, an employee can retire at an earlier age, but the retirement benefit will
be calculated using a smaller percentage of salary – for example, less than 1.50% if the
employee retires at age 50. On the other hand, if an employee retires at an age greater
than 55, the percentage will be larger, up to age 63 after which it remains the same.
253
13
Figure 1
The lower (red) curve in Figure 1 shows the terms of an alternative tier, typically
described as “2% at 60”. It provides a lower percentage of salary than the “2% at 55” tier
for any employee retiring before age 63, but the same amount for those who retire at
older ages.
The Grand Jury report shown in Appendix B recommended that the cities in Monterey
County adopt the 2% at 60 tier for new miscellaneous employees. The Committee agreed
that a less generous tier should be utilized but recognized that at some point it might be
possible to utilize one with even lower percentages of salary. The Committee also agreed
with the Grand Jury that, to the extent permitted by CalPERS regulations and labor
agreements, the City should either require employees to pay the additional costs of the
optional benefit of basing benefits on the highest annual salary or utilize the standard
three-year average salary in its plans.
Figure 2 shows the percentages of salary for the City’s current “3% at 50” plan for Safety
employees and the “2% at 55” plan recommended by the Grand Jury. The current plan
does not provide for lower percentages for those who retire before age 50 nor for higher
percentages for those who retire at ages greater than 50. The lower tier provides lower
percentages for every retirement age, with those retiring between ages 50 and 55
receiving less than 2% of salary and all those retiring after age 55 receiving 2% of salary.
Miscellaneous 2@55 and 2@60
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64
Retirement Age
% of Salary
254
14
Figure 2
The Grand Jury also recommended utilizing the “2% at 55” tier for new safety
employees. Here, too, the Committee agreed that a less generous tier should be utilized
but recognized that at some point it might be possible to utilize one with even lower
percentages of salary. In this case the Committee also agreed with the Grand Jury that, to
the extent permitted by CalPERS regulations and labor agreements, the City should either
require employees to pay the additional costs of the optional benefits of basing benefits
on the highest annual salary or utilize the standard three-year average salary in its plans.
Safety Plan 3@50 and 2@55
0.00%
0.50%
1.00%
1.50%
2.00%
2.50%
3.00%
3.50%
50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64
Retirement Age
% of Salary
255
15
Recommendation 4: Provide Substantially Lower Defined
Benefits for New Employees
The Committee recommends while the City chooses to remain within the CalPERS
pension system it negotiate with its unions and prospective employees to provide
substantially lower defined benefits. This should be accomplished by adopting tiers with
less generous terms and basing benefits on highest three-year average salaries.
Governmental retirement systems in California are in a state of flux at this time. It is not
impossible that CalPERS will offer even lower tiers than the two analyzed here (“2% at
60” for miscellaneous employees and “2% at 55” for safety employees). In fact, there is
in principle an option for a City to adopt a “1.5% at 65” option for miscellaneous
employees. However, this would require the use of Social Security and a number of other
requirements; apparently no City has yet chosen this option and no pool exists for small
cities such as Carmel-by-the-Sea. That said, in the future it may be possible for the City
to remain within the CalPERS system and significantly reduce its financial risk by
selecting benefit choices not currently offered by CalPERS. We expect that such choices
would include moving toward a hybrid system with a combination of a considerably less
generous defined-benefit plan (with other characteristics similar to those of the current
CalPERS tiers) and a defined contribution plan (such as the current CalPERS optional
plan). This would allow the City to greatly reduce its financial risk and allow employees
to bear amounts of such risk that they deem appropriate.
256
16
257
17
Appendix A
Committee Member Biographies
William Sharpe:
• Professor of Finance Emeritus at Stanford University Graduate School of Business
• Author of seven books
• Nobel Prize winner in Economic Sciences
• Co-founder and current board member of Financial Engines, a firm that provides
investment management and advice for individuals in employer-sponsored retirement
plans.
Joseph Mark:
• Principal of Mark Investment Company
• Founding Partner, RCM Capital (retired)
• Formerly with Wells Fargo and Greenshields Ltd. (Canada)
• Past member of Board of Security Analysts Society of San Francisco, Community
Foundation for Monterey County, Monterey Institute of International Studies, and Flagg
Memorial Youth Fund
Richard Borda:
• Former Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer of National Life Insurance Company
• Former Executive Vice President of Wells Fargo Bank
• Former member of the Grace Commission
• Former Assistant Secretary of the Air Force
• Past chair of the Monterey Institute of International Studies Board
Barbara Santry:
• Former venture capitalist
• Health care reimbursement consultant
• Past Chair of Health Plan Board
• Director, Santa Lucia Community Services District
Laura Zehm:
• MBA
• Vice President/Chief Financial Officer, Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula
since 1996
• Fellow and former board member/chair of the Healthcare Financial Management
Association (HFMA) Board of Directors
• Board Member, California Hospital Association (Northern California HFMA designee)
and former Board member of Natividad Hospital (as part of the grant agreement between
CHOMP and the County of Monterey)
• Board member of the Monterey County AIDS Project, Monterey Federal Credit Union
and Monterey Institute for Research on Astronomy
258
18
Appendix B
Carmel CalPERS Pension Committee
Response to Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations
March 18, 2011
Introduction
The Carmel CalPERS Pension Committee was appointed by the Mayor in October, 2010
to investigate conditions concerning the city’s retirement systems and its participation in
the CalPERS retirement system.
On January 10, 2011 the Monterey County Civil Grand Jury released a report that
included findings and recommendations concerning retirement systems and participation
in CalPERS for the cities in the county. Each of the cities is required to provide a written
response by April 11, 2011.
This Committee has not yet completed its work and is not ready to issue a full report on
its findings and recommendations. However, in order to provide assistance to the city
administration and council, we have studied the Grand Jury findings and
recommendations. This document provides our suggestions concerning the city’s
response. For convenience we have grouped each of the Grand Jury’s findings (F1.1
through F1.12) with its associated recommendation (R1.1 through R1.12). We follow
each finding and recommendation with our comments and/or suggested response (in
italics).
Comments and Suggested Responses
F1.1. The CalPERS retirement system is worth retaining.
R1.1. Continue to participate in the CalPERS retirement system.
By virtue of its participation in the CalPERS retirement system, Carmel by the Sea
(hence, Carmel) is exposed to the uncertainty associated with a series of risks, including
reliance on a risky asset portfolio to support payments that are specified and not subject
to asset risks.
259
19
The Committee believes that more information is needed to assess whether Carmel
should continue to participate in the CalPERS retirement system. CalPERS regulations
make it possible for the Council to request that CalPERS estimate the cost of exiting the
retirement system. Our understanding is that the request for this estimate is non-binding
and does not commit Carmel to any further action.
The Committee recommends that Carmel request this “exit estimate” as a necessary first
step in considering the costs and benefits of a possible withdrawal from the system and
adoption of an alternative retirement plan better suited to the needs of the City and its
employees.
F1.2. Those local agencies that have binding arbitration have ceded their collective
bargaining authority and responsibility to an individual arbitrator.
R1.2. Abolish binding arbitration in labor matters.
The Committee agrees with the finding. Carmel’s current labor contracts do not provide
for binding arbitration and we recommend that this practice continue.
F1.3. A vote of the electorate before granting increased retirement benefits has not been
implemented as a check on overspending.
R1.3. Require a vote of the electorate as a prerequisite to increase retirement benefits
and thereby limit spending.
The Committee believes that the Council should retain a full range of choices concerning
its employees’ salaries, benefits and other contract terms. Thus we do not concur with
this recommendation. However, the Committee recommends that public notice be made
of any intention to enter into negotiations to significantly change retirement benefits in
order to allow sufficient time for comments by interested parties.
F1.4 Some agencies may allow retired employees to come back to work part time at the
same agency and receive retirement and a salary, provided they don’t work more than
960 hours per year, the maximum allowed by CalPERS.
R1.4. Do not allow those who have retired from the agency to be re-employed by the
same agency on a part-time basis.
Findings and Recommendations 4 through 9 relate to particular practices allowed within
the CalPERS retirement system. The Grand Jury recommended that each of these be
restricted. Carmel has avoided broad use of these practices and avoided use of some
them entirely.
260
20
The Committee believes that the City Council and administration should continue to have
the full range of available choices in managing its employees, and recommends against
imposing the restrictions in recommendations 4 through 9 categorically. However, the
Committee does believe it prudent to avoid frequent use of these practices.
With regard to recommendation 1.4 the Committee recommends continuation of the
restriction that retired employees can only be hired on a part-time temporary basis with
no benefits
F1.5. Some agencies may have practices that allow employees to increase or “spike”
their base year salaries by converting unused sick leave or vacation leave to salary
during their last year of employment.
R1.5. Prevent “spiking” the base salary.
The committee thoroughly concurs that practices related to unused sick leave or vacation
leave in the last year of employment have the potential to unduly increase pension costs.
There are currently caps on accumulated sick and vacation leave in the City’s Municipal
Code and we recommend that they be continued. We also recommend that the City
analyze the costs and benefits associated with changing such caps.
F1.6. The practice of offering an employee up to two years unearned credit for
retirement in exchange for taking an early retirement (“a Golden Handshake”), as
authorized by Section 20903 of the Government Code, may be subject to abuse.
R1.6. Do not offer a “Golden Handshake.”
The Committee believes that the Council and administration should continue to have the
full range of choices in managing its employees and thus recommends against restricting
the Council’s ability to make such an offer. However, we recognize that any use of early
retirement should be carefully considered, supported by a sound financial analysis
indicating that the benefits of such an offer will outweigh the costs, and endorsed by the
City Council.
F1.7. Some employees do not pay an appropriate CalPERS retirement share.
R1.7. Require employees to pay the CalPERS employee contribution rate.
At present, Carmel employees pay the full share for the standard plans specified by
CalPERS and the Committee recommends that this practice be continued.
261
21
F1.8. Some employees may pay for all optional CalPERS benefits. Some employees
may pay for some or a portion of some of these benefits and some may pay nothing for
optional benefits received.
R1.8. Require employees to pay for all optional CalPERS benefits.
At present, Carmel uses plans that include an optional provision that bases retirement
benefits on a single year’s compensation rather than the average of amounts over three
years. The additional required contribution is currently paid by the City.
The Committee concurs with the Grand Jury and recommends that Carmel require
employees to pay for optional CalPERS benefits, to the extent permitted by CalPERS
regulations and labor agreements.
F1.9. Some agencies have no caps on the maximum amount of time one can
accumulate in sick leave or vacation leave.
R1.9. Place a cap on the maximum amount of sick leave and vacation leave an
employee can accumulate.
The Committee recommends continuation of caps such as those currently specified in the
City’s Municipal Code. We also recommend that the City analyze the costs and benefits
associated with changing such caps.
F1.10. The California Legislature could enact changes that would limit new employees to
2% @ 55 for Safety with a 90% of salary retirement cap and 2% @ 60 for Miscellaneous
in the CalPERS system with a 36-month salary base for each.
R1.10. Urge passage of legislation that new hires are limited to 2% @ 60 for
Miscellaneous employees, 2% @ 55 for Safety employees with a 90% of salary
retirement cap, and a 36-month salary base for each.
The Committee believes that it is important for CalPERS to offer employers multiple
tiers, including the two included in this recommendation. This can allow employers
maximum flexibility in providing overall compensation plans, balancing salary payments,
health and retirement benefits. We understand that the two specific plans specified in the
recommendation are now available for use by employers when hiring new employees.
The Committee recommends that CalPERS continue to make these plans available in the
future, preferably with additional alternatives. However, we do not recommend that City
urge the California Legislature to mandate that all CalPERS member agencies be
required to utilize these particular plans for all new employees.
262
22
F1.11. CalPERS could be made more affordable to the agencies if new employees were
provided, in lieu of benefits accorded to existing employees, a second-tier of benefits of
2% @ 55 for Safety employees with a 90% of salary retirement cap and 2% @ 60 for
Miscellaneous employees, each with a 36-month salary base
R1.11. Contract for a CalPERS retirement benefit for newly hired employees of 2% @ 55
for Safety employees with a 90% of salary cap and 2% @ 60 for Miscellaneous
employees with a 36-month salary base for each.
As indicated in the previous response, the Committee understands that these
tiers are currently available for use by Carmel for new employees. We
recommend that the Council undertake negotiations with the employee
organizations to allow the adoption of some set of benefits for new employees
that will decrease the risk to the City associated with retirement payments. The
tiers proposed by the Grand Jury meet this criterion but the Committee
recommends that the City also consider any other plans allowed by CalPERS
that could accomplish this goal.
F1.12 Some MOUs may not allow the reopening of negotiations to make prospective
changes to salary and benefits in the event of unforeseen dire economic circumstances.
R1.12. In all future MOUs, reserve the right to reopen negotiations in the event of
unforeseen dire economic circumstances to make changes to salary and benefits with
no reduction to salary and/or benefits already earned.
The Committee understands that Carmel’s current agreements with labor organizations
(MOUs) do not preclude the reopening of negotiations to make prospective changes to
salary and benefits. In general, we recommend that no future MOUs restrict in any way
the City’s right to reopen negotiations to make prospective changes in salary and benefits.
263
23
Conclusions
The Committee recognizes that decisions concerning retirement benefits are extremely
important to the employees and to the citizens of the City of Carmel. The City’s current
CalPERS retirement plans are highly complex and increasingly costly. The Grand Jury
has made a major contribution by indentifying a number of crucial issues and
recommending the adoption of specific policies by the cities in Monterey County. We ask
the Carmel city administration and Council to consider our suggestions and
recommendations when responding to the Grand Jury report. This Committee will
continue to analyze Carmel’s current pension plans, explore possible alternatives, and
issue a final report with findings and recommendations for possible action by the City at
a later date.
Respectfully Submitted:
Richard Borda
Joseph Mark
Barbara Santry
William Sharpe
Laura Zehm
264
24
Appendix C
Interim Report1
1
Carmel CalPERS Committee
Interim Report
2
Charge
• Appointed by Mayor Sue McCloud in October, 2010
• Goal: to review the City’s pension retirement plans
provided by the California Public Employees’ Retirement
System (CalPERS) and to make recommendations to
the City concerning those and alternative plans.
• At the Mayor’s request, the committee has operated
independently since its inception.
265
25
3
Members
• Richard Borda
• Joseph Mark
• Barbara Santry
• William Sharpe
• Laura Zehm
4
Investigation
• The committee worked with City Administration
• At different times its meetings were attended by:
– Richard Gillen, City Administrator
– Heidi Burch, Assistant City Administrator
– John Goss, Interim City Administrator
• Information was obtained from
– City Administration
– CalPERS actuary
– Public sources
• There were numerous meetings in person, by phone and
email
266
26
5
The Grand Jury Report
• In January 2011, the 2010 Monterey County Civil Grand
Jury issued a Report on the CalPERS retirement system
for public employees of the County of Monterey and the
twelve cities within the county
• In March, 2011, at the request of the City, the Carmel
Committee provided suggestions to the City
administration concerning the City’s required responses
to the Grand Jury Report
• With minor changes those recommendations were
adopted by the administration for its response to the
Grand Jury
6
The City’s Pension Plans
• Formula for retitrement benefit
– % factor times years of service times salary base
– Post-retirement, payments adjusted each year for inflation
• Miscellaneous employees
– 2% at age 55
– Salary base: Highest year
• Safety employees
– 3% at age 50
– Salary base: Highest year
267
27
7
Current Contributions
• Employee contributions
– Miscellaneous: 7% of salary
– Safety: 9% of salary
• Employer contributions
– Miscellaneous: 19.494 % of payroll
– Safety: 34.868 % of payroll
8
The “Side Fund” Debt
• Established by CalPERS in 2003
– Based on estimates of past underfinding at the time
– Loans to the City
– Interest charged at 7.75 % per year
– CalPERS designates a portion of the employer contributions to
be applied each year towards interest and principal
– The City has made all required payments
– May be paid in whole or in part at any time
• Amount owed, 6/30/2011
$ 6.2 million
268
28
9
Interest Rates
• Side Fund: current interest rate
7.75 %
• Reserve Funds (many required by law)
$ 8.9 Million
• Current interest rate on reserves
0.51 %
• Estimated interest rate on a new bond issue
6.0 %
10
The Side Fund Debt:
Recommendation
• Pay the Side Fund Debt as soon as possible, using
– Proceeds from a new bond issue
– And possibly some reserves
• This is equivalent to refinancing a mortgage at a lower
interest rate
• This does not modify the benefits.
269
29
11
Termination
• Terminating the CalPERS pension plans does not
require terminating the CalPERS health plans
• A Council resolution to terminate is not binding
– After approximately 6 months, CalPERS provides an estimate of
the amount required to be paid to CalPERS to terminate the
plans
– A resolution is the only way to obtain a CalPERS estimate of the
cost
• If the plans are terminated, all benefits earned to date
will be paid by CalPERS
12
The Termination Unfunded Liability
• Termination Unfunded liability
= termination assets – termination liabilities
• Current actuarial reports are not transparent
– They do not include any of these values
• Such values may be included in future actuarial reports
– At the earliest, values as of June, 2011 will be provided in the
actuarial reports in October, 2012
270
30
13
Possible Termination Asset and
Liability Values
• In April, 2011, the City’s CalPERS actuary provided the
committee a “very rough” estimate of the termination
unfunded liability (in addition to the side fund debt) as of
6/30/2009: Total for Miscellaneous and Safety:
– $ 14.4 million
• On August 18, 2011, CalPERS changed the method
used to calculate termination unfunded liabilities
• On August 17, 2011 the City’s Actuary advised the
committee that
– “the estimates that I provided previously are much
less than what the results will be with the new
methodology, even taking into account the good
investment returns over the past 2 years.”
• At present the committee has no further CalPERS
estimate of these liabilities
14
Termination:
Recommendation
• The committee recommends that the Council pass a
resolution to terminate the CalPERS pension plans
– the only way to obtain an official estimate of the
termination assets, liabilities and unfunded liability
– makes it possible, but not necessary, to terminate the
plans at a later date if desired
271
31
15
Financial Risk
• The CalPERS pension plans create large financial risks
for the City
– Risks that asset values will decrease substantially, most likely
when City revenues also decrease
– Risks of demographic changes
– Risks associated with changes in CalPERS actuarial procedures
• These risks can be reduced by
– Decreasing the levels of CalPERS benefits, or
– Replacing the CalPERS plans
• For example, with a combination of social security, a defined
contribution pension plan and possibly higher salaries
16
Current CalPERS Tiers
and Salary Bases
• Tiers
– Percentage Factors related to age at retirement
• Salary bases
– Highest single year
– Highest 3-year average
272
32
17
Tiers and Salary Bases:
Recommendation
• For new employees
– Adopt substantially lower tiers
– Base benefits on highest 3-year average salary
18
Major Recommendations
• Pay the side fund debt as soon as possible
– to lower interest costs
• Pass a non-binding resolution to terminate the CalPERS
plans
– To obtain an estimate of the termination unfunded liabilities
– To make it possible to subsequently terminate the plans if
desired
• Include estimates of the termination unfunded liabilities
in footnotes or comments in the City’s budget reports
• Adopt substantially lower retirement benefit tiers for new
employees
Sunday, October 30, 2011
CITY COUNCIL: Receive Report & Provide Policy Direction Regarding Water Conservation
Meeting Date: November 1, 2011
Prepared by: Sean Conroy, Plng & Bldg Services Manager
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Receive report and provide policy direction regarding water conservation.
Description: This report contains a summary of the City’s water conservation efforts and a draft work plan to further examine opportunities to improve these efforts. The report includes a discussion on City facilities and operations, fire readiness, potential sources for new water, existing ordinances, and public outreach.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Approve the Draft Water Conservation Water Plan.
Important Considerations: In October 2009, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) issued a Cease and Desist Order requiring that California American Water (Cal-Am) cease its unauthorized diversions from the Carmel River by December 31, 2016. The order also established a schedule for Cal-Am to reduce pumping by a set amount each year. If a replacement water supply is not developed before 2016, Peninsula jurisdictions will be facing significant water cutbacks.
Decision Record: N/A
Reviewed by:
___________________________ ____________________
Jason Stilwell, City Administrator Date
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AND BUILDING
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR MCCLOUD & MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: SEAN CONROY, PLNG & BLDG SERVICES MANAGER
THROUGH: JASON STILWELL, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: 1 NOVEMBER 2011
SUBJECT: RECEIVE A REPORT AND PROVIDE POLICY DIRECTION ON WATER CONSERVATION EFFORTS
BACKGROUND
California American Water (Cal-Am) is the primary purveyor of water for the Monterey Peninsula. The majority of the water used by Cal-Am comes from either the Carmel River or the Seaside Basin. In 1995, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) ruled that Cal-Am did not have valid permits for the majority of the water it was pumping from the Carmel River. Order 95-10 was adopted, limiting the amount of water that could be pumped, as well as requiring Cal-Am to develop a replacement water source by December 31, 2016. Without a new source of water there would be a serious water shortage with reductions in the water supply of about 70%.
It is important to note that Peninsula residents average approximately 70 gallons of water use per day, which is roughly half of the state average. Some areas of the State average more than 200 gallons per day. Despite the exemplary record on water conservation efforts on the Peninsula, in October 2009, the SWRCB issued a Cease and Desist Order requiring that Cal-Am cease its unauthorized diversions by December 31, 2016.
With the unresolved issues related to finding a regional water solution, it is important that the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea be proactive in determining how to prepare for a restricted water supply in the future. In fact, on May 1, 2011, the Mayor submitted a memo (see attached) to the City Council advocating among other things, review of existing City practices and polices that would promote water conservation. As a follow up to that memo, staff has proposed a draft work plan to the Council that will focus on conservation efforts which can be undertaken by the City.
The purpose of this staff report is to present a draft work plan to the Council with a request for direction. The plan is shown in bold below followed by comments on the various aspects of the plan.
DRAFT WATER CONSERVATION WORK PLAN
An important element of any Water Conservation Plan is for the City to review its facilities and operations to make certain that proper steps have been and are being taken to install devices and promote operations that will conserve water. To this end, elements of a water conservation work plan should include the following elements.
A. City Facilities & Operations:
1. Evaluate current irrigation practices to determine if water saving
opportunities exist.
2. Evaluate City landscaped areas to determine if more drought
tolerant plantings or alternative materials would be appropriate.
3. Perform an audit of City buildings and facilities to determine if
retrofitting existing fixtures would be appropriate.
Comment: It should be noted that the City has been very proactive in retrofitting City facilities. The City has installed low flow toilets in almost all City facilities. The Building Maintenance department is vigilant in searching for leaks, and responds quickly to any identified problem. The possibility of waterless urinals should also be explored.
Regarding Devendorf Park, the only turf area maintained by the City, the possibility of installing artificial turf or other water use reduction options should be explored. While the existing lawn adds charm and beauty to the park, with a 70% reduction in the water supply, other options may be preferable to a small brown field.
With the exception of Devendorf Park, all city facilities with landscape irrigation utilize drought tolerant plant materials. Irrigation practices on City sites use low volume application materials and methods to maximize the value of the applied water and to minimize any waste on any given site. New technologies are constantly being developed and should be evaluated as to their possible merits to further reduce water use on city
properties without sacrificing the needs of the plants. In some instances low technology practices will reduce overall water use such as removing planted areas, shutting off the irrigation, and covering the area with a thick mulch layer.
All City irrigation sites are undergoing irrigation audits by Cal-Am to ensure the areas are correctly irrigated and billed properly for the water use.
B. Maintain Fire Readiness
1. Maintain fire hydrants.
2. Monitor and clear heavy vegetation (fuel loads)
3. Maintain fire fighting staff and adequate apparatus and equipment.
4. Continue building and fire code compliance programs.
281
(Water Conservation)
1 November 2011
Staff Report
Page 3
Comment: One of the concerns with having an adequate water supply is maintaining fire
readiness. With a limited water supply, continual efforts must be maintained to ensure
that available water supply can be efficiently and effectively used in order to suppress
fires. The basic fire delivery infrastructure must be adequately maintained.
The Carmel-by-the-Sea Fire Department is prepared and capable of responding to the
many significant fire hazards to which the City is exposed. The City is built on an uphill
slope under a canopy of trees and is surrounded by heavy vegetation (fuel loads) in
Pescadero Canyon, Mission Trail Nature Preserve and Rio Park. It also has a dense
commercial district that drives the City's economic engine comprised of existing nonconforming
aging commercial structures and older wooden residential structures built
closely together with considerable access challenges.
Thanks to the leadership and support of the City Council, Carmel-by-the-Sea maintains a
high state of operational readiness with highly trained personnel staffing a three-person
engine and two-person ambulance 24/7 with modern state of the art facilities, fire
apparatus and equipment. The City also has aggressive building and fire code
compliance programs and conducts annual fuel reduction and weed abatement surveys.
Furthermore, in 2008, Cal-Am, working in conjunction with the City, completed a major
$1 million capital investment in upgraded water mains and installation of numerous new
fire hydrants. The project involved digging up and replacing 5,680 feet of severely
corroded water-mains that were originally installed in the 1930s. It should be further
noted that the City’s original planners did an excellent job pre-planning the community’s
fire protection needs by placing fire hydrants on nearly every corner throughout the City.
This preplanning has provided the City with an efficient, City-wide fire flow distribution
system.
C. Identify Potential Sources for Additional Water
1. Evaluate the potential of using recycled water from the Carmel
Area Wastewater District (CAWD).
2. Explore opportunities to better utilize the spring water at Del Mar.
3. Support regional efforts to develop water development contingency
plans.
Comment: One potential option for improving water conservation would be to construct
capital projects which would eliminate existing needs for potable water. For example,
along Fourth Avenue the City is still using potable water for the landscape along this
walkway/storm drain project. Contact has been made with the Carmel Area Wastewater
District (District), Pebble Beach Community Services District (CSD), and the Pebble
Beach Company (Company) to discuss the possibility of replacing potable water with
recycled water for this project.
282
(Water Conservation)
1 November 2011
Staff Report
Page 4
By way of background, these agencies, along with the Monterey Peninsula Water
Management District ,worked together to construct a plant immediately south of Carmel
to produce recycled water to be distributed for irrigating golf courses and other
recreational areas within Pebble Beach. The distribution line of this recycled water runs
through Carmel-by-the-Sea through Rio Park and along Carmelo Avenue to Pebble
Beach. When this project was approved in 1992 the City approved a Use Permit
authorizing the District and the CSD to use the City right-of-way for the pipeline. A
condition of the Permit required “That a turnout shall be installed…in order to provide
for future irrigation demands of up to five acre-feet (of water) per year for Rio Park.”
A meeting was held with representatives of the City, the District, CSD and the Company
to discuss the potential of diverting 1/3 acre feet of recycled water from the five-acre feet
required for Rio Park to the Fourth Avenue project. There was general agreement that
this was a reasonable request. In order to accomplish the use of the recycled water for
Fourth Avenue, the following steps were identified:
1. A permit would be required from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (San
Luis Obispo). Since CSD is applying for a master permit for this area, it would be
logical to await the approval of this permit which is already being processed which
would cover the Carmel project.
2. The connection from the pipeline to the Fourth Avenue project would need to be
engineered. Subject to further analysis, this appears to be a simple connection
since there is already a relief valve on Carmelo at Fourth Avenue. The City would
pay for this connection as part of the Fourth Avenue project.
3. The Company will review the existing recycled water sales contracts between
MPWMD and the golf courses to ensure that entering into a recycled water sales
contract with the City is permissible under the existing contracts and would not
create any undesirable “precedent” regarding the sale of recycled water to entities
other than the current golf course users.
4. Assuming the issues identified in #3 can be satisfactorily resolved (which the
Company believed to be the case), the City would enter into a contract with
MPWMD or the District to buy the water. It would be at the same price as
currently paid by others purchasing recycled water, which is currently the same as
the price for potable water. For a small project like Fourth Avenue a rough
estimate of cost is $700 annually.
This process would take several months to accomplish but would be beneficial not only
to replace potable water with recycled water, but to eliminate the temporary “construction
connection” for the current potable water supply.
283
(Water Conservation)
1 November 2011
Staff Report
Page 5
The City should also explore opportunities to better utilize the spring at Del Mar for
landscape watering. The City Council has awarded a contract to replace one working
10,000-gallon tank with a 25,000-gallon tank to collect this non-potable spring water.
This new tank will have connections which will enable the City to extend the use of this
water along the bluffs as well as other landscaping in other nearby areas. The City also
has a well and 10,000-gallon water storage tank in the Mission Trail Nature Preserve that
is rarely used at the current time. This can be an alternate water source for firefighting
needs in the Preserve or other possible needs.
Finally, the City should continue to participate in regional discussions regarding the
development of water contingency plans and in determining the most productive and cost
effect approach of supplying a long-term water supply to the Peninsula.
D. City Ordinances:
1. Review City ordinances related to water conservation and
landscaping to determine if additional best management practices
should be considered.
Comment: Besides the facilities and operations under the City’s direct control, the City
can influence the water conservation on private property as well. In fact, the City has
been proactive in adopting a landscape ordinance and a water conservation ordinance.
Below is a summary of some of the City’s existing water conservation measures. As
technology continues to develop, new opportunities will continue to arise that allow for
more efficient use of water. Rain harvesting systems and gray water systems, for
example, are likely to become more common in the future. The City should work to
identify those systems that are most compatible with community character and promote
these systems to City residents.
Landscape Ordinance – CMC 17.34
• Requires 75% of landscaping to be drought tolerant.
• Landscaping plans for projects in any zoning district shall, where feasible, require
the use of water retention storage devices such as cisterns or underground bladders
to capture precipitation or surface runoff for landscape maintenance purposes or
detention basins or berms to retain water on-site for natural percolation into the
soil.
• Irrigation systems shall be designed to minimize the use of water. Landscaping
irrigation systems for projects in any zoning district shall use low-output sprinkler
heads and/or drip irrigation.
284
(Water Conservation)
1 November 2011
Staff Report
Page 6
Water Conservation – CMC 17.50
• Uniform Standards for Plumbing Fixtures. The use of water-conserving plumbing
fixtures shall be required for all new construction. All existing plumbing fixtures
within any building that do not comply with the adopted standards for water
conservation shall be replaced with complying fixtures upon issuance of any
building permit authorizing substantial construction.
E. Public Outreach:
1. Review and continue to determine the potential impact of water
rationing on residents and business owners.
2. Provide information to the public on appropriate Best Management
Practices.
3. Encourage businesses, particularly inns to retrofit old plumbing
fixtures to reduce water consumption to the extent possible.
4. Develop statements on the City’s web page with water conservation
messages.
Comment: The City can conserve water in its facilities and through its operations. It can
make certain that its ordinances include the most up-to-date water conservation
provisions. But crucial to any water conservation plan is public outreach. The City
should take on an active role in communicating to its residents, business owners and
other stakeholders the need to be proactive in water conservation efforts and to work
collaboratively to prepare for the future. The City may want to consider using its
marketing consultant to assist in developing a community awareness campaign.
SUMMARY
It should be emphasized that this is a Draft Water Conservation Work Plan. It is
designed to be expanded and revised as new thoughts and programs are developed. As a
summary, the current Draft Plan contains the following elements as a foundation for a
future Water Conservation Plan:
A. City Facilities & Operations:
1. Evaluate current irrigation practices to determine if water saving
opportunities exist.
2. Evaluate City landscaped areas to determine if more drought
tolerant plantings or alternative materials would be appropriate.
3. Perform an audit of City buildings and facilities to determine if
retrofitting existing fixtures would be appropriate.
B. Maintain Fire Readiness
1. Maintain fire hydrants.
2. Monitor and clear heavy vegetation (fuel loads)
285
(Water Conservation)
1 November 2011
Staff Report
Page 7
4. Maintain fire fighting staff and adequate apparatus and equipment.
5. Continue building and fire code compliance programs.
C. Identify Potential Sources for Additional Water
1. Evaluate the potential of using recycled water from the Carmel
Area Waste Water District (CAWD).
2. Explore opportunities to better utilize the spring water at Del Mar.
3. Support regional efforts to develop water development contingency
plans.
D. City Ordinances:
1. Review City ordinances related to water conservation and
landscaping to determine if additional best management practices
should be considered.
E. Public Outreach:
1. Review and determine the potential impact of water rationing on
residents and business owners.
2. Provide information to the public on appropriate Best Management
Practices.
3. Encourage businesses, particularly inns to retrofit old plumbing
fixtures to reduce water consumption to the extent possible.
4. Develop statements on the City’s web page with water conservation
messages.
It likely would be useful if the City creates a working group to follow through on this draft work plan and revise it as necessary. This working group could consist of members of City staff, such as the Building Maintenance Manager, Planning and Building Services Manager, City Forester, representatives of the Water Management District and the wastewater district, and members of the City’s Green Building Committee. Creation of a working group and its composition should be evaluated by the City Administrator.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Draft Water Conservation Plan be approved and referred to the City Administrator for further refinement and development.
Prepared by: Sean Conroy, Plng & Bldg Services Manager
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Receive report and provide policy direction regarding water conservation.
Description: This report contains a summary of the City’s water conservation efforts and a draft work plan to further examine opportunities to improve these efforts. The report includes a discussion on City facilities and operations, fire readiness, potential sources for new water, existing ordinances, and public outreach.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Approve the Draft Water Conservation Water Plan.
Important Considerations: In October 2009, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) issued a Cease and Desist Order requiring that California American Water (Cal-Am) cease its unauthorized diversions from the Carmel River by December 31, 2016. The order also established a schedule for Cal-Am to reduce pumping by a set amount each year. If a replacement water supply is not developed before 2016, Peninsula jurisdictions will be facing significant water cutbacks.
Decision Record: N/A
Reviewed by:
___________________________ ____________________
Jason Stilwell, City Administrator Date
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AND BUILDING
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR MCCLOUD & MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: SEAN CONROY, PLNG & BLDG SERVICES MANAGER
THROUGH: JASON STILWELL, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: 1 NOVEMBER 2011
SUBJECT: RECEIVE A REPORT AND PROVIDE POLICY DIRECTION ON WATER CONSERVATION EFFORTS
BACKGROUND
California American Water (Cal-Am) is the primary purveyor of water for the Monterey Peninsula. The majority of the water used by Cal-Am comes from either the Carmel River or the Seaside Basin. In 1995, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) ruled that Cal-Am did not have valid permits for the majority of the water it was pumping from the Carmel River. Order 95-10 was adopted, limiting the amount of water that could be pumped, as well as requiring Cal-Am to develop a replacement water source by December 31, 2016. Without a new source of water there would be a serious water shortage with reductions in the water supply of about 70%.
It is important to note that Peninsula residents average approximately 70 gallons of water use per day, which is roughly half of the state average. Some areas of the State average more than 200 gallons per day. Despite the exemplary record on water conservation efforts on the Peninsula, in October 2009, the SWRCB issued a Cease and Desist Order requiring that Cal-Am cease its unauthorized diversions by December 31, 2016.
With the unresolved issues related to finding a regional water solution, it is important that the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea be proactive in determining how to prepare for a restricted water supply in the future. In fact, on May 1, 2011, the Mayor submitted a memo (see attached) to the City Council advocating among other things, review of existing City practices and polices that would promote water conservation. As a follow up to that memo, staff has proposed a draft work plan to the Council that will focus on conservation efforts which can be undertaken by the City.
The purpose of this staff report is to present a draft work plan to the Council with a request for direction. The plan is shown in bold below followed by comments on the various aspects of the plan.
DRAFT WATER CONSERVATION WORK PLAN
An important element of any Water Conservation Plan is for the City to review its facilities and operations to make certain that proper steps have been and are being taken to install devices and promote operations that will conserve water. To this end, elements of a water conservation work plan should include the following elements.
A. City Facilities & Operations:
1. Evaluate current irrigation practices to determine if water saving
opportunities exist.
2. Evaluate City landscaped areas to determine if more drought
tolerant plantings or alternative materials would be appropriate.
3. Perform an audit of City buildings and facilities to determine if
retrofitting existing fixtures would be appropriate.
Comment: It should be noted that the City has been very proactive in retrofitting City facilities. The City has installed low flow toilets in almost all City facilities. The Building Maintenance department is vigilant in searching for leaks, and responds quickly to any identified problem. The possibility of waterless urinals should also be explored.
Regarding Devendorf Park, the only turf area maintained by the City, the possibility of installing artificial turf or other water use reduction options should be explored. While the existing lawn adds charm and beauty to the park, with a 70% reduction in the water supply, other options may be preferable to a small brown field.
With the exception of Devendorf Park, all city facilities with landscape irrigation utilize drought tolerant plant materials. Irrigation practices on City sites use low volume application materials and methods to maximize the value of the applied water and to minimize any waste on any given site. New technologies are constantly being developed and should be evaluated as to their possible merits to further reduce water use on city
properties without sacrificing the needs of the plants. In some instances low technology practices will reduce overall water use such as removing planted areas, shutting off the irrigation, and covering the area with a thick mulch layer.
All City irrigation sites are undergoing irrigation audits by Cal-Am to ensure the areas are correctly irrigated and billed properly for the water use.
B. Maintain Fire Readiness
1. Maintain fire hydrants.
2. Monitor and clear heavy vegetation (fuel loads)
3. Maintain fire fighting staff and adequate apparatus and equipment.
4. Continue building and fire code compliance programs.
281
(Water Conservation)
1 November 2011
Staff Report
Page 3
Comment: One of the concerns with having an adequate water supply is maintaining fire
readiness. With a limited water supply, continual efforts must be maintained to ensure
that available water supply can be efficiently and effectively used in order to suppress
fires. The basic fire delivery infrastructure must be adequately maintained.
The Carmel-by-the-Sea Fire Department is prepared and capable of responding to the
many significant fire hazards to which the City is exposed. The City is built on an uphill
slope under a canopy of trees and is surrounded by heavy vegetation (fuel loads) in
Pescadero Canyon, Mission Trail Nature Preserve and Rio Park. It also has a dense
commercial district that drives the City's economic engine comprised of existing nonconforming
aging commercial structures and older wooden residential structures built
closely together with considerable access challenges.
Thanks to the leadership and support of the City Council, Carmel-by-the-Sea maintains a
high state of operational readiness with highly trained personnel staffing a three-person
engine and two-person ambulance 24/7 with modern state of the art facilities, fire
apparatus and equipment. The City also has aggressive building and fire code
compliance programs and conducts annual fuel reduction and weed abatement surveys.
Furthermore, in 2008, Cal-Am, working in conjunction with the City, completed a major
$1 million capital investment in upgraded water mains and installation of numerous new
fire hydrants. The project involved digging up and replacing 5,680 feet of severely
corroded water-mains that were originally installed in the 1930s. It should be further
noted that the City’s original planners did an excellent job pre-planning the community’s
fire protection needs by placing fire hydrants on nearly every corner throughout the City.
This preplanning has provided the City with an efficient, City-wide fire flow distribution
system.
C. Identify Potential Sources for Additional Water
1. Evaluate the potential of using recycled water from the Carmel
Area Wastewater District (CAWD).
2. Explore opportunities to better utilize the spring water at Del Mar.
3. Support regional efforts to develop water development contingency
plans.
Comment: One potential option for improving water conservation would be to construct
capital projects which would eliminate existing needs for potable water. For example,
along Fourth Avenue the City is still using potable water for the landscape along this
walkway/storm drain project. Contact has been made with the Carmel Area Wastewater
District (District), Pebble Beach Community Services District (CSD), and the Pebble
Beach Company (Company) to discuss the possibility of replacing potable water with
recycled water for this project.
282
(Water Conservation)
1 November 2011
Staff Report
Page 4
By way of background, these agencies, along with the Monterey Peninsula Water
Management District ,worked together to construct a plant immediately south of Carmel
to produce recycled water to be distributed for irrigating golf courses and other
recreational areas within Pebble Beach. The distribution line of this recycled water runs
through Carmel-by-the-Sea through Rio Park and along Carmelo Avenue to Pebble
Beach. When this project was approved in 1992 the City approved a Use Permit
authorizing the District and the CSD to use the City right-of-way for the pipeline. A
condition of the Permit required “That a turnout shall be installed…in order to provide
for future irrigation demands of up to five acre-feet (of water) per year for Rio Park.”
A meeting was held with representatives of the City, the District, CSD and the Company
to discuss the potential of diverting 1/3 acre feet of recycled water from the five-acre feet
required for Rio Park to the Fourth Avenue project. There was general agreement that
this was a reasonable request. In order to accomplish the use of the recycled water for
Fourth Avenue, the following steps were identified:
1. A permit would be required from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (San
Luis Obispo). Since CSD is applying for a master permit for this area, it would be
logical to await the approval of this permit which is already being processed which
would cover the Carmel project.
2. The connection from the pipeline to the Fourth Avenue project would need to be
engineered. Subject to further analysis, this appears to be a simple connection
since there is already a relief valve on Carmelo at Fourth Avenue. The City would
pay for this connection as part of the Fourth Avenue project.
3. The Company will review the existing recycled water sales contracts between
MPWMD and the golf courses to ensure that entering into a recycled water sales
contract with the City is permissible under the existing contracts and would not
create any undesirable “precedent” regarding the sale of recycled water to entities
other than the current golf course users.
4. Assuming the issues identified in #3 can be satisfactorily resolved (which the
Company believed to be the case), the City would enter into a contract with
MPWMD or the District to buy the water. It would be at the same price as
currently paid by others purchasing recycled water, which is currently the same as
the price for potable water. For a small project like Fourth Avenue a rough
estimate of cost is $700 annually.
This process would take several months to accomplish but would be beneficial not only
to replace potable water with recycled water, but to eliminate the temporary “construction
connection” for the current potable water supply.
283
(Water Conservation)
1 November 2011
Staff Report
Page 5
The City should also explore opportunities to better utilize the spring at Del Mar for
landscape watering. The City Council has awarded a contract to replace one working
10,000-gallon tank with a 25,000-gallon tank to collect this non-potable spring water.
This new tank will have connections which will enable the City to extend the use of this
water along the bluffs as well as other landscaping in other nearby areas. The City also
has a well and 10,000-gallon water storage tank in the Mission Trail Nature Preserve that
is rarely used at the current time. This can be an alternate water source for firefighting
needs in the Preserve or other possible needs.
Finally, the City should continue to participate in regional discussions regarding the
development of water contingency plans and in determining the most productive and cost
effect approach of supplying a long-term water supply to the Peninsula.
D. City Ordinances:
1. Review City ordinances related to water conservation and
landscaping to determine if additional best management practices
should be considered.
Comment: Besides the facilities and operations under the City’s direct control, the City
can influence the water conservation on private property as well. In fact, the City has
been proactive in adopting a landscape ordinance and a water conservation ordinance.
Below is a summary of some of the City’s existing water conservation measures. As
technology continues to develop, new opportunities will continue to arise that allow for
more efficient use of water. Rain harvesting systems and gray water systems, for
example, are likely to become more common in the future. The City should work to
identify those systems that are most compatible with community character and promote
these systems to City residents.
Landscape Ordinance – CMC 17.34
• Requires 75% of landscaping to be drought tolerant.
• Landscaping plans for projects in any zoning district shall, where feasible, require
the use of water retention storage devices such as cisterns or underground bladders
to capture precipitation or surface runoff for landscape maintenance purposes or
detention basins or berms to retain water on-site for natural percolation into the
soil.
• Irrigation systems shall be designed to minimize the use of water. Landscaping
irrigation systems for projects in any zoning district shall use low-output sprinkler
heads and/or drip irrigation.
284
(Water Conservation)
1 November 2011
Staff Report
Page 6
Water Conservation – CMC 17.50
• Uniform Standards for Plumbing Fixtures. The use of water-conserving plumbing
fixtures shall be required for all new construction. All existing plumbing fixtures
within any building that do not comply with the adopted standards for water
conservation shall be replaced with complying fixtures upon issuance of any
building permit authorizing substantial construction.
E. Public Outreach:
1. Review and continue to determine the potential impact of water
rationing on residents and business owners.
2. Provide information to the public on appropriate Best Management
Practices.
3. Encourage businesses, particularly inns to retrofit old plumbing
fixtures to reduce water consumption to the extent possible.
4. Develop statements on the City’s web page with water conservation
messages.
Comment: The City can conserve water in its facilities and through its operations. It can
make certain that its ordinances include the most up-to-date water conservation
provisions. But crucial to any water conservation plan is public outreach. The City
should take on an active role in communicating to its residents, business owners and
other stakeholders the need to be proactive in water conservation efforts and to work
collaboratively to prepare for the future. The City may want to consider using its
marketing consultant to assist in developing a community awareness campaign.
SUMMARY
It should be emphasized that this is a Draft Water Conservation Work Plan. It is
designed to be expanded and revised as new thoughts and programs are developed. As a
summary, the current Draft Plan contains the following elements as a foundation for a
future Water Conservation Plan:
A. City Facilities & Operations:
1. Evaluate current irrigation practices to determine if water saving
opportunities exist.
2. Evaluate City landscaped areas to determine if more drought
tolerant plantings or alternative materials would be appropriate.
3. Perform an audit of City buildings and facilities to determine if
retrofitting existing fixtures would be appropriate.
B. Maintain Fire Readiness
1. Maintain fire hydrants.
2. Monitor and clear heavy vegetation (fuel loads)
285
(Water Conservation)
1 November 2011
Staff Report
Page 7
4. Maintain fire fighting staff and adequate apparatus and equipment.
5. Continue building and fire code compliance programs.
C. Identify Potential Sources for Additional Water
1. Evaluate the potential of using recycled water from the Carmel
Area Waste Water District (CAWD).
2. Explore opportunities to better utilize the spring water at Del Mar.
3. Support regional efforts to develop water development contingency
plans.
D. City Ordinances:
1. Review City ordinances related to water conservation and
landscaping to determine if additional best management practices
should be considered.
E. Public Outreach:
1. Review and determine the potential impact of water rationing on
residents and business owners.
2. Provide information to the public on appropriate Best Management
Practices.
3. Encourage businesses, particularly inns to retrofit old plumbing
fixtures to reduce water consumption to the extent possible.
4. Develop statements on the City’s web page with water conservation
messages.
It likely would be useful if the City creates a working group to follow through on this draft work plan and revise it as necessary. This working group could consist of members of City staff, such as the Building Maintenance Manager, Planning and Building Services Manager, City Forester, representatives of the Water Management District and the wastewater district, and members of the City’s Green Building Committee. Creation of a working group and its composition should be evaluated by the City Administrator.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Draft Water Conservation Plan be approved and referred to the City Administrator for further refinement and development.
CITY COUNCIL: Approve the City's Art Collection Deaccession Policy
Meeting Date: November 1, 2011
Prepared by: Molly Laughlin
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Approve the City’s art collection deaccession policy.
Description: On June 8, 2010, the Carmel City Council adopted Resolution 2010-43, approving a management policy for the City’s art collection. The intent of the management policy was to define the scope of the collection as a regional collection that reflected the long artistic heritage of Carmel-by-the-Sea. As such, parameters were established in order that the collection would include art by artists who have lived, worked or belonged to art organizations in Carmel. In addition, art depicting the geography of the Carmel area would be included. Finally, art pertaining to Carmel history (people, architecture, events) also would be retained.
Resolution 2010-43 also authorized the city to hire art consultant Sheryl Nonnenberg to begin the deaccession process. Deaccessioning is defined as “the formal process of removing an object from a collection.” Nonnenberg’s report, detailing her work in this effort, is included in the attached report.
Fiscal Impact: Revenue generated by the sale of deaccessioned art works can be used for the care, maintenance and augmentation of the City’s art collection, which is a significant asset.
Staff Recommendation: Approve the art collection deaccession policy.
Important Considerations: By using these guidelines established in this deaccession policy, the City will be able to more objectively review and define its art collection so that only objects that fall within the stated parameters will be retained, and those that do not can be deaccessioned. This will reduce both staff time and the amount of physical space necessary to mange the art collection. Revenue generated by the sale of deaccessioned art works can be used for the care, maintenance and augmentation of the art collection.
Decision Record: Resolution 2010-43 (June 8, 2010) which approved a management policy for the City’s art collection and the hiring of an art consultant to begin the deaccession process.
Reviewed by:
__________________________ _________________
Jason Stilwell, City Administrator Date
ART COLLECTION DEACCESSION PROJECT
August 24, 2011
To: Sue McCloud, Mayor
From: Sheryl Nonnenberg
Re: City of Carmel Art Collection Deaccessioning
Background
On June 8, 2010, the Carmel City Council approved a resolution to establish a management policy for the City’s art collection. The major intent of the management policy was to define the scope of the collection as a regional collection that reflected the long artistic heritage of Carmel by the Sea. As such, parameters were established in order that the collection would include art by artists who have lived, worked or belonged to art organizations in Carmel. In addition, art depicting the geography of the Carmel area would be included. Finally, art pertaining to Carmel
history (people, architecture, events) would also retained. By using these guidelines to define the collection, it is possible to review the art collection objectively so that only objects that fall within the stated parameters are retained, and those that do not can be deaccessioned (formal
removal). This will decrease the amount of staff time, and physical space, required to manage the art collection. In addition, any revenue generated by the sale of deaccessioned art works can be used for the care, maintenance and augmentation of the art collection, which is a substantial
city asset.
The resolution also approved the hiring of an art consultant to begin the deaccession process. Since that time, I have carefully reviewed every object in the collection, utilizing the inventory/appraisal list compiled by Ellen Osterkamp in 2007. Only objects falling within the category of fine art (painting, prints, watercolors, drawings, etc) were considered, with objects belonging in the realm of library holdings (bookplates, rare books, letters, etc.) excluded. Each object was considered using the approved collection parameters, with supplemental research found by using the research compiled by Amy Essick, internet resources, art history books,
Harrison library documentation and membership lists from local arts organizations, such as the Carmel Art Association. In addition, several local art dealers were consulted to insure that objects did not have an historical significance.
Scope of Collection
The City of Carmel Art Collection consists of art work executed in a variety of media:
• Oil Painting
• Watercolor
• Pastel
• Prints
• Sculpture
• Photographs
While some of the art has little or no value, there are many pieces that have substantial worth, according to the most recent (2007) appraisal. This is particularly true of the works by early California artists such as Armin Hansen, Mary deNeal Morgan and Edward Weston. Most of the
Collection reflects the long and rich artistic history of Carmel by the Sea.
The approximately 1,000 works of art are housed in a variety of storage venues (Main Library, Branch Library, Sunset Center). A small percentage of the works are on view in public venues such as Harrison Library, Sunset Center and City Hall.
The scope of the collection, as it pertains to this Deaccession Policy, refers only to the works of art recently inventoried and appraised by Ellen Osterkamp. Books, bookplates, letters and historical artifacts fall outside the scope of the Art Collection and should be under the purview of
the Harrison Library.
Although documentation of the art work has not been consistent, ownership by the City is assured. The most recent appraisal resulted in each piece of art being numbered and photographed. Documentation from this appraisal is currently overseen by the City Administrator’s office.
COLLECTION PARAMETERS
1. Work by artists who have lived, worked, taught in Carmel. Also those who studied or belonged to regional art associations, such as the Carmel Art Association. This is probably the largest parameter, and includes such famous artists as Edward Weston, Armin Hansen, Mary DeNeale Morgan and Jules Tavernier. Works by these early California artists are now quite collectable and fetch high prices at auction. There are also contemporary Carmel artists represented, such as Dick Crispo and Bill Bates, current members of the Carmel Art Association.
2. Art of or about Carmel localities. This category includes artists who may not have lived in
the area, but used it as subject matter in their work.
Examples in this category would include George Demont Otis and Stanley Wood.
3. Art pertaining to Carmel history (people and places). Again, artists who may or may
not have lived in the area.
Examples in this category include portraits/busts of such notable Carmel figures as:
George Sterling, Robinson Jeffers, J.F. Devendorf and art work such as the Forest Theater
Posters.
4. Art that can be safely, effectively and appropriately cared for by the City staff.
Concerns here include: stability, size, storage ramifications and possibility for public display.
Examples of art that do NOT fit in this category include the recent gift of abstract paintings by Rudolf Haegele. They are large, contemporary works that do not fit into the categories listed above, and, because of their scale, are difficult to store. As such, they would be prime candidates for deaccessioning.
4. Contemporary art by established artists, with subject matter, such as seascapes, that can be
related to the history/geography of Carmel.
This category is included so that the City can have some flexibility in collecting works that
would be assets, both in terms of monetary value and in rounding out a possible museum
collection (should a museum be established in the future). A good example in this category
would be the work of Roy Lichtenstein. He was a well-known artist, his art is valuable and, although he had no connection with Carmel, the subject of his work “Night Seascape Banner” is applicable to a collection that includes many works that focus on the sea.
Deaccession Policy for the Art Collection, City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Deaccessioning is the formal process of removal of an object from a collection. The City of
Carmel’s deaccession policy must seek to strike a balance among the following three
considerations:
1. The fiduciary obligations with respect to the preservation of the art collection, which the
City owes to persons who have donated to the collection as a public trust and for those
individuals, the residents of Carmel, for whose benefit the City has undertaken to preserve
the collection.
2. The City’s need to periodically renew and alter its collection policies.
3. The City’s need to selectively refine its existing collection in order that it remains consistent
with these policies.
GASB 34 requires that the City have a current appraisal of its assets. In order to fulfill this
mandate, the City has determined that the art collection shall be appraised every five years.
Recommendations regarding possible deaccessioned objects will be made following review of
the appraisal report.
Criteria for Deaccessioning
All artworks owned by the City, whether acquired through donations or any other method, are
eligible for the deaccessioning process. In the case of donated artworks, all legal documents
relating to the donation will be consulted prior to beginning the process. No artwork shall be
deaccessioned unless it meets at least one of the following criteria:
1. Its retention would be inconsistent with the established Scope of Collection (approved by
City Council in June, 2010).
2. The object is proven to be a fake or forgery.
3. The collection would be improved if the object is deaccessioned and a better example
from the same historical period or by the same artists or from the same art movement or
period is acquired.
4. It is a duplicate or of inferior quality to another identical or similar article in the City’s
collection.
5. The object has deteriorated to such a poor physical condition that it is not possible or
practical for the City to adequately conserve it, or a restoration would be so extensive that
it would destroy the integrity of the work.
6. Deaccessioning of the object would help to eliminate an over-representation in an
historical area of an artist or movement in the collection.
7. It cannot be adequately stored or cared for.
8. It is in such bad condition or in such a bad state of deterioration that it is useless as part of
the City collection.
293
9. A clear determination has been made that the City does not hold legitimate title to the
work.
10. The object lacks significant artistic or historical merit.
11. The artwork endangers public safety.
12. The artwork will never, in all likelihood, be placed on display because of size, weight or
lack of a suitable site.
Restrictions
A work may not be deaccessioned or disposed of in violation of restrictions stated in the original
deed of gift, purchase agreement, or in other documents pertaining to the acquisition of the work
unless there is written approval of such action from the donor or the donor’s legal heirs.
Authorization of Deacessioning
The object intended for deaccession shall be recommended by staff to the City Administrator and
approved by City Council.
Following the action of the City Council, staff shall in good faith send a letter to the donor’s last
known address and to the donor at General Delivery in the city of the donor’s last known address
advising them of the City’s intention to deaccession the work or works. This step need not be
taken if the donors signed a release at the time of the donation.
Procedures for Disposal
The possible methods include: sale of art by city via a public sale, sale of art by an art dealer or
sale of work via competitive bidding through an established auction house. Preference shall be
given to disposing of deaccessioned objects in public sales, but other methods may be selected
after the advantages and yields of the different methods and the best interests of the City have
been examined.
Those objects that will be sold which, in the best estimation of the City, have an insured value of
over $500, will be appraised by an outside appraiser at the expense of the City.
No works of art may be sold, traded or transferred to members of the City Council, City staff or
their agents.
City staff or agent will negotiate with the public auction house the terms for sale of
deaccessioned objects, and a copy of the executed agreement will be kept in the City’s records.
294
Proceeds from the Sale of Deaccessioned Objects
Regarding proceeds from the sale of deaccessioned objects, the American Association of
Museums’ Information Fact Sheet – Ethics of Deaccessioning quotes:
The American Association for State and Local History’s Statement of Professional Standards
and Ethics specifies that “Collections shall not be deaccessioned or disposed of in order to
provide support for institutional operations, facilities maintenance, or any other reason than the
preservation or acquisition of collections.”
All proceeds from the sale of deaccessioned works of arts will be used to purchase other works
for the collection, or to restore and maintain works already owned by the City.
Deaccession Records
The City of Carmel will maintain permanent records of all deaccessions including all legal documents pertaining to the acquisition, deaccession and disposal of each object deaccessioned.
Prepared by: Molly Laughlin
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Approve the City’s art collection deaccession policy.
Description: On June 8, 2010, the Carmel City Council adopted Resolution 2010-43, approving a management policy for the City’s art collection. The intent of the management policy was to define the scope of the collection as a regional collection that reflected the long artistic heritage of Carmel-by-the-Sea. As such, parameters were established in order that the collection would include art by artists who have lived, worked or belonged to art organizations in Carmel. In addition, art depicting the geography of the Carmel area would be included. Finally, art pertaining to Carmel history (people, architecture, events) also would be retained.
Resolution 2010-43 also authorized the city to hire art consultant Sheryl Nonnenberg to begin the deaccession process. Deaccessioning is defined as “the formal process of removing an object from a collection.” Nonnenberg’s report, detailing her work in this effort, is included in the attached report.
Fiscal Impact: Revenue generated by the sale of deaccessioned art works can be used for the care, maintenance and augmentation of the City’s art collection, which is a significant asset.
Staff Recommendation: Approve the art collection deaccession policy.
Important Considerations: By using these guidelines established in this deaccession policy, the City will be able to more objectively review and define its art collection so that only objects that fall within the stated parameters will be retained, and those that do not can be deaccessioned. This will reduce both staff time and the amount of physical space necessary to mange the art collection. Revenue generated by the sale of deaccessioned art works can be used for the care, maintenance and augmentation of the art collection.
Decision Record: Resolution 2010-43 (June 8, 2010) which approved a management policy for the City’s art collection and the hiring of an art consultant to begin the deaccession process.
Reviewed by:
__________________________ _________________
Jason Stilwell, City Administrator Date
ART COLLECTION DEACCESSION PROJECT
August 24, 2011
To: Sue McCloud, Mayor
From: Sheryl Nonnenberg
Re: City of Carmel Art Collection Deaccessioning
Background
On June 8, 2010, the Carmel City Council approved a resolution to establish a management policy for the City’s art collection. The major intent of the management policy was to define the scope of the collection as a regional collection that reflected the long artistic heritage of Carmel by the Sea. As such, parameters were established in order that the collection would include art by artists who have lived, worked or belonged to art organizations in Carmel. In addition, art depicting the geography of the Carmel area would be included. Finally, art pertaining to Carmel
history (people, architecture, events) would also retained. By using these guidelines to define the collection, it is possible to review the art collection objectively so that only objects that fall within the stated parameters are retained, and those that do not can be deaccessioned (formal
removal). This will decrease the amount of staff time, and physical space, required to manage the art collection. In addition, any revenue generated by the sale of deaccessioned art works can be used for the care, maintenance and augmentation of the art collection, which is a substantial
city asset.
The resolution also approved the hiring of an art consultant to begin the deaccession process. Since that time, I have carefully reviewed every object in the collection, utilizing the inventory/appraisal list compiled by Ellen Osterkamp in 2007. Only objects falling within the category of fine art (painting, prints, watercolors, drawings, etc) were considered, with objects belonging in the realm of library holdings (bookplates, rare books, letters, etc.) excluded. Each object was considered using the approved collection parameters, with supplemental research found by using the research compiled by Amy Essick, internet resources, art history books,
Harrison library documentation and membership lists from local arts organizations, such as the Carmel Art Association. In addition, several local art dealers were consulted to insure that objects did not have an historical significance.
Scope of Collection
The City of Carmel Art Collection consists of art work executed in a variety of media:
• Oil Painting
• Watercolor
• Pastel
• Prints
• Sculpture
• Photographs
While some of the art has little or no value, there are many pieces that have substantial worth, according to the most recent (2007) appraisal. This is particularly true of the works by early California artists such as Armin Hansen, Mary deNeal Morgan and Edward Weston. Most of the
Collection reflects the long and rich artistic history of Carmel by the Sea.
The approximately 1,000 works of art are housed in a variety of storage venues (Main Library, Branch Library, Sunset Center). A small percentage of the works are on view in public venues such as Harrison Library, Sunset Center and City Hall.
The scope of the collection, as it pertains to this Deaccession Policy, refers only to the works of art recently inventoried and appraised by Ellen Osterkamp. Books, bookplates, letters and historical artifacts fall outside the scope of the Art Collection and should be under the purview of
the Harrison Library.
Although documentation of the art work has not been consistent, ownership by the City is assured. The most recent appraisal resulted in each piece of art being numbered and photographed. Documentation from this appraisal is currently overseen by the City Administrator’s office.
COLLECTION PARAMETERS
1. Work by artists who have lived, worked, taught in Carmel. Also those who studied or belonged to regional art associations, such as the Carmel Art Association. This is probably the largest parameter, and includes such famous artists as Edward Weston, Armin Hansen, Mary DeNeale Morgan and Jules Tavernier. Works by these early California artists are now quite collectable and fetch high prices at auction. There are also contemporary Carmel artists represented, such as Dick Crispo and Bill Bates, current members of the Carmel Art Association.
2. Art of or about Carmel localities. This category includes artists who may not have lived in
the area, but used it as subject matter in their work.
Examples in this category would include George Demont Otis and Stanley Wood.
3. Art pertaining to Carmel history (people and places). Again, artists who may or may
not have lived in the area.
Examples in this category include portraits/busts of such notable Carmel figures as:
George Sterling, Robinson Jeffers, J.F. Devendorf and art work such as the Forest Theater
Posters.
4. Art that can be safely, effectively and appropriately cared for by the City staff.
Concerns here include: stability, size, storage ramifications and possibility for public display.
Examples of art that do NOT fit in this category include the recent gift of abstract paintings by Rudolf Haegele. They are large, contemporary works that do not fit into the categories listed above, and, because of their scale, are difficult to store. As such, they would be prime candidates for deaccessioning.
4. Contemporary art by established artists, with subject matter, such as seascapes, that can be
related to the history/geography of Carmel.
This category is included so that the City can have some flexibility in collecting works that
would be assets, both in terms of monetary value and in rounding out a possible museum
collection (should a museum be established in the future). A good example in this category
would be the work of Roy Lichtenstein. He was a well-known artist, his art is valuable and, although he had no connection with Carmel, the subject of his work “Night Seascape Banner” is applicable to a collection that includes many works that focus on the sea.
Deaccession Policy for the Art Collection, City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Deaccessioning is the formal process of removal of an object from a collection. The City of
Carmel’s deaccession policy must seek to strike a balance among the following three
considerations:
1. The fiduciary obligations with respect to the preservation of the art collection, which the
City owes to persons who have donated to the collection as a public trust and for those
individuals, the residents of Carmel, for whose benefit the City has undertaken to preserve
the collection.
2. The City’s need to periodically renew and alter its collection policies.
3. The City’s need to selectively refine its existing collection in order that it remains consistent
with these policies.
GASB 34 requires that the City have a current appraisal of its assets. In order to fulfill this
mandate, the City has determined that the art collection shall be appraised every five years.
Recommendations regarding possible deaccessioned objects will be made following review of
the appraisal report.
Criteria for Deaccessioning
All artworks owned by the City, whether acquired through donations or any other method, are
eligible for the deaccessioning process. In the case of donated artworks, all legal documents
relating to the donation will be consulted prior to beginning the process. No artwork shall be
deaccessioned unless it meets at least one of the following criteria:
1. Its retention would be inconsistent with the established Scope of Collection (approved by
City Council in June, 2010).
2. The object is proven to be a fake or forgery.
3. The collection would be improved if the object is deaccessioned and a better example
from the same historical period or by the same artists or from the same art movement or
period is acquired.
4. It is a duplicate or of inferior quality to another identical or similar article in the City’s
collection.
5. The object has deteriorated to such a poor physical condition that it is not possible or
practical for the City to adequately conserve it, or a restoration would be so extensive that
it would destroy the integrity of the work.
6. Deaccessioning of the object would help to eliminate an over-representation in an
historical area of an artist or movement in the collection.
7. It cannot be adequately stored or cared for.
8. It is in such bad condition or in such a bad state of deterioration that it is useless as part of
the City collection.
293
9. A clear determination has been made that the City does not hold legitimate title to the
work.
10. The object lacks significant artistic or historical merit.
11. The artwork endangers public safety.
12. The artwork will never, in all likelihood, be placed on display because of size, weight or
lack of a suitable site.
Restrictions
A work may not be deaccessioned or disposed of in violation of restrictions stated in the original
deed of gift, purchase agreement, or in other documents pertaining to the acquisition of the work
unless there is written approval of such action from the donor or the donor’s legal heirs.
Authorization of Deacessioning
The object intended for deaccession shall be recommended by staff to the City Administrator and
approved by City Council.
Following the action of the City Council, staff shall in good faith send a letter to the donor’s last
known address and to the donor at General Delivery in the city of the donor’s last known address
advising them of the City’s intention to deaccession the work or works. This step need not be
taken if the donors signed a release at the time of the donation.
Procedures for Disposal
The possible methods include: sale of art by city via a public sale, sale of art by an art dealer or
sale of work via competitive bidding through an established auction house. Preference shall be
given to disposing of deaccessioned objects in public sales, but other methods may be selected
after the advantages and yields of the different methods and the best interests of the City have
been examined.
Those objects that will be sold which, in the best estimation of the City, have an insured value of
over $500, will be appraised by an outside appraiser at the expense of the City.
No works of art may be sold, traded or transferred to members of the City Council, City staff or
their agents.
City staff or agent will negotiate with the public auction house the terms for sale of
deaccessioned objects, and a copy of the executed agreement will be kept in the City’s records.
294
Proceeds from the Sale of Deaccessioned Objects
Regarding proceeds from the sale of deaccessioned objects, the American Association of
Museums’ Information Fact Sheet – Ethics of Deaccessioning quotes:
The American Association for State and Local History’s Statement of Professional Standards
and Ethics specifies that “Collections shall not be deaccessioned or disposed of in order to
provide support for institutional operations, facilities maintenance, or any other reason than the
preservation or acquisition of collections.”
All proceeds from the sale of deaccessioned works of arts will be used to purchase other works
for the collection, or to restore and maintain works already owned by the City.
Deaccession Records
The City of Carmel will maintain permanent records of all deaccessions including all legal documents pertaining to the acquisition, deaccession and disposal of each object deaccessioned.
CITY COUNCIL: Approve Nomination of Jason Stilwell to Serve as the City's Representative to the Monterey County Integrated Waste Management Task Force
Meeting Date: November 1, 2011
Prepared by: Molly Laughlin
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Approve the nomination of Jason Stilwell to serve as the City’s representative to the Monterey County Integrated Waste Management Task Force.
Description: The Monterey County Integrated Waste Management Task Force is a 33-member committee composed of representatives from the Monterey County’s 12 incorporated cities, as well as special districts, the military groups representing interests such as agriculture, the environment, solid waste and five members of the general public. The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea currently has no representative.
Fiscal Impact: None.
Staff Recommendation: Approve the nomination of Jason Stilwell to the Monterey County Integrated Waste Management Task Force as the City’s representative.
Important Considerations: According to the by-laws of the Integrated Waste Management Task Force approved in 2010, each member city must approve the nomination of its representative. This nomination is then ratified by the Task Force and submitted to the Board of Supervisors for final confirmation.
Decision Record: None
Reviewed by:
___________________________ ____________________
Jason Stilwell, City Administrator Date
Prepared by: Molly Laughlin
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Approve the nomination of Jason Stilwell to serve as the City’s representative to the Monterey County Integrated Waste Management Task Force.
Description: The Monterey County Integrated Waste Management Task Force is a 33-member committee composed of representatives from the Monterey County’s 12 incorporated cities, as well as special districts, the military groups representing interests such as agriculture, the environment, solid waste and five members of the general public. The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea currently has no representative.
Fiscal Impact: None.
Staff Recommendation: Approve the nomination of Jason Stilwell to the Monterey County Integrated Waste Management Task Force as the City’s representative.
Important Considerations: According to the by-laws of the Integrated Waste Management Task Force approved in 2010, each member city must approve the nomination of its representative. This nomination is then ratified by the Task Force and submitted to the Board of Supervisors for final confirmation.
Decision Record: None
Reviewed by:
___________________________ ____________________
Jason Stilwell, City Administrator Date
FOREST AND BEACH COMMISSION AGENDA & MINUTES November 2011
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE SEA
FOREST & BEACH COMMISSION
AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Thursday, November 3, 2011 1:30 p.m.
City Hall, Council Chambers
E/s Monte Verde between Ocean & 7th Avenues
Carmel, California
THE NOVEMBER 3, 2011 REGULAR MEETING OF THE FOREST AND BEACH COMMISSION
HAS BEEN CANCELLED
The next regular meeting of the Forest and Beach Commission is scheduled for December 1, 2011
FOREST & BEACH COMMISSION
AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Thursday, November 3, 2011 1:30 p.m.
City Hall, Council Chambers
E/s Monte Verde between Ocean & 7th Avenues
Carmel, California
THE NOVEMBER 3, 2011 REGULAR MEETING OF THE FOREST AND BEACH COMMISSION
HAS BEEN CANCELLED
The next regular meeting of the Forest and Beach Commission is scheduled for December 1, 2011
COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES & CULTURAL COMMISSION AGENDA & MINUTES November 2011
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES & CULTURAL COMMISSION
AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Tuesday November 8, 2011 9:30 AM
City Hall
East Side Monte Verde between Ocean and Seventh Avenues
I. Roll Call-Clyde Klaumann, Dixie Dixon, Donna Jett, Conrad Kohrs, Ruth Rachel
II. Pledge of Allegiance
III. Appearances
Anyone wishing to address the Commission on items within its jurisdiction may do so now. Please rise, state your name and the matter on which you wish to speak. Matters not appearing on the Community Activities & Cultural Commission agenda will not receive action at this meeting. Presentation will be limited to three minutes, or as established by the Community Activities & Cultural Commission.
IV. Approval of minutes for the meeting of September 13, 2011
V. Orders of Business
A. Discuss disbanding the Community Activities & Cultural Commission
VI. Announcements from the Chair and/or Commissioners
VII. Announcements from the Assistant City Administrator – Receive and Discuss Reports, provide direction as necessary.
• Special Event Permits
51st Annual Sandcastle Contest, Sun., Sept. 25, 2011, 8 AM, Scenic S/10th Ave.-Recap
Carmel High Homecoming Parade, Fri., Sept. 30, 2011, 3:00 PM, Ocean Ave.-Recap
3rd Annual Carmel Art & Film Festival, Oct. 6-9, 2011, Various locations-Recap
95th City Birthday Party & Halloween Parade, Oct. 29, 2011, 11:00 AM/12 Noon Lunch-Recap
Veteran’s Day Ceremony, Fri., Nov. 11, 2011, 11:00 a.m., Devendorf Park
41st Annual Homecrafters’ Marketplace, Sat., Nov. 19, 2011, Sunset Center
Holiday Tree Lighting, Fri., Dec. 2, 2011, 4:30 p.m., Ocean Ave.
Future Agenda Items
IX. Adjournment
The next regular meeting of the Community Activities & Cultural Commission Is Tuesday, December 13, 2011 at 9:30 AM
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Community Activities & Cultural Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection by calling the Community Services Department at 831/620.2020.
MINUTES
COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES & CULTURAL COMMISSION
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
NOVEMBER 8, 2011
I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Commission Members Klaumann, Jett, Rachel, Dixon (9:36 AM)
ABSENT: NONE
STAFF PRESENT: Cindi Lopez-Frincke, Community Services Assistant
Sarah Gunter, Community Services Assistant
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Members of the audience joined Commission Members in the pledge of allegiance.
III. APPEARANCES
None.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner DIXON moved ratification of the minutes from the September 13, 2011 meeting seconded by Commissioner RACHEL and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: KLAUMANN, JETT, RACHEL, DIXON
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
V. ORDERS OF BUSINESS
A. Discuss disbanding the Community Activities & Cultural Commission
The Commission is down two members as no potential candidates applied for the position. Following discussion of disbanding the Commission, which leaves only Klaumann, Dixon, and Rachel, Commissioner Dixon moved to keep the Community Activities and Cultural Commission in its current form. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Rachel and followed by the following roll-call vote:
AYES: KLAUMANN, RACHEL, DIXON
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE CHAIR AND/OR COMMISSIONERS
None.
VII. ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE ASSISTANT CITY ADMINISTRATOR-RECEIVE AND DISCUSS REPORTS, PROVIDE DIRECTION AS NECESSARY.
None
VIII. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
A. Discuss electing a Vice-Chair.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Commission, Chair Klaumann adjourned the meeting at 10:10 a.m.
Before the meeting was adjourned, Commission Rachel made a motion to cancel the October 11, 2011, meeting due to unavailability of some Commissioners however, if needed, a special meeting would be noticed. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Jett and carried unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________________________
Cindi Lopez-Frincke, Community Services Assistant
ATTEST:
_______________________________________
Clyde Klaumann, Chair of the Commission
COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES & CULTURAL COMMISSION
AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Tuesday November 8, 2011 9:30 AM
City Hall
East Side Monte Verde between Ocean and Seventh Avenues
I. Roll Call-Clyde Klaumann, Dixie Dixon, Donna Jett, Conrad Kohrs, Ruth Rachel
II. Pledge of Allegiance
III. Appearances
Anyone wishing to address the Commission on items within its jurisdiction may do so now. Please rise, state your name and the matter on which you wish to speak. Matters not appearing on the Community Activities & Cultural Commission agenda will not receive action at this meeting. Presentation will be limited to three minutes, or as established by the Community Activities & Cultural Commission.
IV. Approval of minutes for the meeting of September 13, 2011
V. Orders of Business
A. Discuss disbanding the Community Activities & Cultural Commission
VI. Announcements from the Chair and/or Commissioners
VII. Announcements from the Assistant City Administrator – Receive and Discuss Reports, provide direction as necessary.
• Special Event Permits
51st Annual Sandcastle Contest, Sun., Sept. 25, 2011, 8 AM, Scenic S/10th Ave.-Recap
Carmel High Homecoming Parade, Fri., Sept. 30, 2011, 3:00 PM, Ocean Ave.-Recap
3rd Annual Carmel Art & Film Festival, Oct. 6-9, 2011, Various locations-Recap
95th City Birthday Party & Halloween Parade, Oct. 29, 2011, 11:00 AM/12 Noon Lunch-Recap
Veteran’s Day Ceremony, Fri., Nov. 11, 2011, 11:00 a.m., Devendorf Park
41st Annual Homecrafters’ Marketplace, Sat., Nov. 19, 2011, Sunset Center
Holiday Tree Lighting, Fri., Dec. 2, 2011, 4:30 p.m., Ocean Ave.
Future Agenda Items
IX. Adjournment
The next regular meeting of the Community Activities & Cultural Commission Is Tuesday, December 13, 2011 at 9:30 AM
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Community Activities & Cultural Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection by calling the Community Services Department at 831/620.2020.
MINUTES
COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES & CULTURAL COMMISSION
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
NOVEMBER 8, 2011
I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Commission Members Klaumann, Jett, Rachel, Dixon (9:36 AM)
ABSENT: NONE
STAFF PRESENT: Cindi Lopez-Frincke, Community Services Assistant
Sarah Gunter, Community Services Assistant
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Members of the audience joined Commission Members in the pledge of allegiance.
III. APPEARANCES
None.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner DIXON moved ratification of the minutes from the September 13, 2011 meeting seconded by Commissioner RACHEL and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: KLAUMANN, JETT, RACHEL, DIXON
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
V. ORDERS OF BUSINESS
A. Discuss disbanding the Community Activities & Cultural Commission
The Commission is down two members as no potential candidates applied for the position. Following discussion of disbanding the Commission, which leaves only Klaumann, Dixon, and Rachel, Commissioner Dixon moved to keep the Community Activities and Cultural Commission in its current form. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Rachel and followed by the following roll-call vote:
AYES: KLAUMANN, RACHEL, DIXON
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE CHAIR AND/OR COMMISSIONERS
None.
VII. ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE ASSISTANT CITY ADMINISTRATOR-RECEIVE AND DISCUSS REPORTS, PROVIDE DIRECTION AS NECESSARY.
None
VIII. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
A. Discuss electing a Vice-Chair.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Commission, Chair Klaumann adjourned the meeting at 10:10 a.m.
Before the meeting was adjourned, Commission Rachel made a motion to cancel the October 11, 2011, meeting due to unavailability of some Commissioners however, if needed, a special meeting would be noticed. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Jett and carried unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________________________
Cindi Lopez-Frincke, Community Services Assistant
ATTEST:
_______________________________________
Clyde Klaumann, Chair of the Commission
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA & MINUTES November 2011
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Wednesday November 9, 2011
Tour – 2:45 p.m.
Meeting – 4:00 p.m.
City Hall
East side of Monte Verde Street Between Ocean & Seventh Avenues
I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Commissioners: Victoria Beach
Steve Dallas
Keith Paterson
Steve Hillyard, Vice-chair
Janet Reimers, Chair
II. TOUR OF INSPECTION
Shortly after 2:45 p.m. the Commission will leave the Council Chambers for an on-site Tour of Inspection of all properties listed on this agenda (including those on the Consent Agenda). The Tour may also include projects previously approved by the City and not on this agenda. Prior to the beginning of the Tour of Inspection, the Commission may eliminate one or more on-site visits. The public is welcome to follow the Commission on its tour of the determined sites. The Commission will return to the Council Chambers at 4:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible.
III. ROLL CALL
IV. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
V. ANNOUNCEMENTS/EXTAORDINARY BUSINESS
VI. APPEARANCES
Anyone wishing to address the Commission on matters not on the agenda, but within the jurisdiction of the Commission may do so now. Please state the matter on which you wish to speak. Matters not appearing on the Commission agenda will not receive action at this meeting but may be referred to staff for a future meeting. Presentations will be limited to three minutes, or as otherwise established by the Commission. Persons are not required to give their name or address, but it is helpful for speakers to state their name in order that the Secretary may identify them.
VII. CONSENT AGENDA
Items placed on the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine and are acted upon by the Commission in one motion. There is no discussion of these items prior to the Commission action unless a member of the Commission, staff, or public requests specific items be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Agenda. It is understood that the staff recommends approval of all consent items. Each item on the Consent Agenda approved by the Commission shall be deemed to have been considered in full and adopted as recommended.
1. Consideration of minutes from October 12, 2011.
2. Consideration of minutes from October 26, 2011.
3. DR 11-22
Diocese of Monterey
3080 Rio Road
Block US, Lot(s) 38
Consideration of a time extension for Design Review and Use Permit applications for alterations to the Carmel Mission located in the Single Family Residential (R-1) and Park Overlay (P) Districts.
4. DS 11-111
San Carlos LLP
NW San Carlos & 12th
Block 131, Lot(s) 11 & 13
Consideration of a time extension for Design Review, Coastal Development Permit and Demolition Permit applications for the demolition of an existing residence and the construction of a new residence located in the Single Family Residential (R-1) District.
5. UP 11-17
Laurie Leidig (Lund)
NW Mission & 7th
Block 77, Lot(s) 15,17,19,21
Consideration of a Use Permit application for a Specialty Food Store located in the Central Commercial (CC) District.
6. DR 11-18
G. Erling Linggi
S/6th bt. San Carlos & Dolores
Block 71, Lot(s) 7
Consideration of Design Review and Use Permit Amendment applications for exterior alterations, including exterior seating, for a restaurant located in the Central Commercial (CC) District.
VIII. CONSENT AGENDA (PULLED ITEMS)
IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS
If you challenge the nature of the proposed action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing.
1. DS 11-113
Pacific Repertory Theater
E/s Casanova bt. 8th & 9th
Block C, Lot(s) 11-14
Consideration of a Design Study application (Track 1 Referral) for the installation of an electric transformer on a site located in the Theatrical (A-1) District.
2. DS 11-89
Michael & Anna Szabados
W/s Monte Verde 4 N 13th
Block 134, Lot(s) 15 & 17
Consideration of Design Study and Coastal Development Permit applications for the substantial alteration of an existing residence located in the Single Family Residential (R-1) District.
3. DS 11-100
Plum Holdings, LLC
E/s Monte Verde 2 N 3rd
Block 31, Lot(s) 14
Consideration of Design Study, Demolition Permit and Coastal Development Permit applications for a new residence located in the Single Family Residential (R-1), Beach and Riparian (BR), Archaeological Significance (AS) and Park (P) Overlay Districts.
4. DS 10-18
Dan & Kathy McCraine
NE Camino Real & 8th
Block 11, Lot(s) 20
Consideration of Design Study, Demolition Permit and Coastal Development Permit applications for the demolition of an existing residence and the construction of a new residence located in the Single Family Residential (R-1) District.
5. DS 11-105
Adam & Anita Wray
W/s Mission 2 S 1st
Block 11, Lot(s) 7
Consideration of Design Study and Coastal Development Permit applications for the construction of a new residence located in the Single Family Residential (R-1), Beach and Riparian (BR), Archaeological Significance (AS) and Park (P) Overlay Districts.
6. PC 11-1
Karl & Charlotte Empey
Location undetermined
Consideration of a Preliminary Concept Review of a business that would offer a combination of the sale of olive oils, art and wine.
7. DS 11-112
William & Laurie Masa
NE end of Flanders off Rio
Block MA, Lot(s) 9
Consideration of a Preliminary Design Concept for the substantial alteration of an existing residence on a property located in the Single Family Residential (R-1-C-20), Park Overlay (PO) and AS Overlay District.
8. DR 11-21
Mike Cobler
NW Mission & 6th
Block 57, Lot(s) 17 & 19
Consideration of a Design Review application for the replacement of a wood shake roof with composition shingles for a commercial building located in the Central Commercial (CC) District.
X. ADJOURNMENT
The next meeting of the Planning Commission will be:
► Regular Meeting – Wednesday, December 14, 2011 at 4:00 p.m.
The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea does not discriminate against persons with disabilities. Carmel-by-the-Sea City Hall is an accessible facility. The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea telecommunications device for the Deaf/Speech Impaired (T.D.D.) Number is 1-800-735-2929.
The City Council Chambers is equipped with a portable microphone for anyone unable to come to the podium. Assisted listening devices are available upon request of the Administrative Coordinator. If you need assistance, please advise Leslie Fenton what item you would like to comment on and the microphone will be brought to you.
NO AGENDA ITEM WILL BE CONSIDERED AFTER 8:00 P.M. UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. ANY AGENDA ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED AT THE MEETING WILL BE CONTINUED TO A FUTURE DATE AS DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSION.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the Planning & Building Department located in City Hall, E/s Monte Verde between Ocean & 7th Avenues, during normal business hours.
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
PLANNING COMMISSION – MINUTES
NOVEMBER 9, 2011
I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Commission Members: Beach, Dallas, Paterson, Hillyard, Reimers
STAFF PRESENT: Sean Conroy, Planning & Building Services Manager
Marc Wiener, Associate Planner
Leslie Fenton, Administrative Coordinator
II. TOUR OF INSPECTION
The Planning Commission toured the following sites: Plum Holdings LLC, Linggi, Wray, Masa, Szabados, Fein, and McCraine.
III. ROLL CALL
IV. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Members of the audience joined Commission members in the pledge of
allegiance.
V. ANNOUNCEMENTS/EXTRAORDINARY BUSINESS
Sean Conroy, Planning & Building Services Manager, announced that a workshop on the beach public restrooms will be held on Thursday, November 17, 2011.
VI. APPEARANCES
Barbara Livingston appeared before the Commission.
VII. CONSENT AGENDA
1. Consideration of minutes from October 12, 2011.
2. Consideration of minutes from October 26, 2011.
3. DR 11-22
Diocese of Monterey
3080 Rio Road
Block US, Lot(s) 38
Consideration of a time extension for Design Review and Use Permit applications for alterations to the Carmel Mission located in the Single Family Residential (R-1) and Park Overlay (P) Districts.
5. UP 11-17
Laurie Leidig (Lund)
NW Mission & 7th
Block 77, Lot(s) 15,17,19,21
Consideration of a Use Permit application for a Specialty Food Store located in the Central Commercial (CC) District.
6. DR 11-18
G. Erling Linggi
S/6th bt. San Carlos & Dolores
Block 71, Lot(s) 7
Consideration of Design Review and Use Permit Amendment applications for exterior alterations, including exterior seating, for a restaurant located in the Central Commercial (CC) District.
Commissioner HILLYARD moved to approve Consent Agenda items #1, #2, #3, #5 and #6, seconded by PATERSON and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Dallas, Paterson, Beach, Hillyard, Reimers
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
4. DS 11-111
San Carlos LLP
NW San Carlos & 12th
Block 131, Lot(s) 11 & 13
Consideration of a time extension for Design Review, Coastal Development Permit and Demolition Permit applications for the demolition of an existing residence and the construction of a new residence located in the Single Family Residential (R-1) District.
Commissioner HILLYARD moved to approve Consent Agenda item #4, seconded by PATERSON and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Paterson, Beach, Hillyard, Reimers
NOES: None
ABSENT: Dallas
ABSTAIN: None
VIII. CONSENT AGENDA (PULLED ITEMS)
None
IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. DS 11-113
Pacific Repertory Theater
E/s Casanova bt. 8th & 9th
Block C, Lot(s) 11-14
Consideration of a Design Study application (Track 1 Referral) for the installation of an electric transformer on a site located in the Theatrical (A-1) District.
(PULLED)
2. DS 11-89
Michael & Anna Szabados
W/s Monte Verde 4 N 13th
Block 134, Lot(s) 15 & 17
Consideration of Design Study and Coastal Development Permit applications for the substantial alteration of an existing residence located in the Single Family Residential (R-1) District.
Marc Wiener, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chair Reimers opened the public hearing at 4:17 p.m. Claudio Ortiz and Barbara Livingston appeared before the Commission. There being no other appearances, the public hearing was closed at 4:32 p.m.
Commissioner HILLYARD moved to approve the application with staff’s Special Conditions and stone as presented in Option #2, seconded by PATERSON and failed by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Paterson, Hillyard
NOES: Dallas, Beach, Reimers
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Commissioner PATERSON moved to approve the application with stone as presented in Option #1, lower the chimney, garage to remain in set-back, skylight to remain as drawn with shade and landscaping in right-of-way
Motion withdrawn
Commissioner PATERSON moved to approve the application with staff’s Special Conditions and Special Conditions #3 - The applicant shall use stone within the interior of the archway and on the media room only; #4 - The applicant shall lower the height of the chimney by either using a gas fireplace or by relocating the fireplace; 5 - The applicant shall reduce the length of the garage so that it does not encroach into the front setback and #6 - The applicant shall provide a landscape plan showing landscaping in the right-of-way, seconded by HILLYARD and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Dallas, Paterson, Beach, Hillyard, Reimers
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
3. DS 11-100
Plum Holding LLC
E/s Monte Verde 4 N 13th
Block 134, Lot(s) 14
Consideration of Design Study, Demolition Permit and Coastal Development Permit applications for a new residence located in the Single Family Residential (R-1), Beach and Riparian (BR), Archaeological Significance (AS) and Park (P) Overlay Districts.
Marc Wiener, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chair Reimers opened the public hearing at 5:21 p.m. Claudio Ortiz, Fred Kern, Barbara Livingston, Roberta Miller, Steven Silver, John Picel, Carolyn Dellecker and Steve Gleitsmann appeared before the Commission. There being no other appearances, the public hearing was closed at 5:32 p.m.
Commissioner HILLYARD moved to approve Use Permit contingent upon design approval, seconded by BEACH and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Dallas, Paterson, Beach, Hillyard, Reimers
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Commissioner PATERSON moved to approve application with staff’s Special Conditions, seconded by HILLYARD and failed by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Paterson, Hillyard
NOES: Dallas, Beach, Reimers
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Commissioner BEACH moved to continue the project with a request to look at options of pulling the garage closer to the street and to look at alternative options of the use of stone, seconded by DALLAS and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Dallas, Beach, Hillyard, Reimers
NOES: Paterson
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
4. DS 10-18
Dan & Kathy McCraine
NE Camino Real & 8th
Block 11, Lot(s) 20
Consideration of Design Study (Concept & Final), Demolition Permit and Coastal Development Permit applications for the demolition of an existing residence and the construction of a new residence located in the Single Family Residential (R-1) District.
Chair Reimers re-cused herself from the discussion.
Marc Wiener, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Vice-chair Hillyard opened the public hearing at 6:26 p.m. Al Saroyan and Barbara Livingston appeared before the Commission. There being no other appearances, the public hearing was closed at 6:54 p.m.
Commissioner PATERSON moved to approve the application with the following Special Conditions #1 - The applicant is permitted to construct the arched rooftop wall. The wall shall have a maximum height of 8-10 inches above the ridge and shall have only one step; #2 - The applicant is permitted to construct the retaining wall along the north side of the property. The wall shall terminate at the side-yard gate; #3 – provide alternative design options to allow for landscaping at the front of the wall and #4 – provide a landscape plan, seconded by BEACH and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Dallas, Paterson, Beach, Hillyard
NOES: None
ABSENT: Reimers
ABSTAIN: None
5. DS 11-105
Adam & Anita Wray
W/s Mission 2 S 1st
Block 11, Lot(s) 7
Consideration of Design Study and Coastal Development Permit applications for the construction of a new residence located in the Single Family Residential (R-1), Beach and Riparian (BR), Archaeological Significance (AS) and Park (P) Overlay Districts.
Marc Wiener, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chair Reimers opened the public hearing at 7:32 p.m. Adam Wray, Pat Corrigan and Barbara Livingston appeared before the Commission. There being no other appearances, the public hearing was closed at 7:39 p.m.
Commissioner DALLAS moved to approve the application with staff’s Special Conditions #1, #3 and #4; change to Special Condition #2 - The applicant shall withdraw the proposal for boulder and gravel in the public right-of-way as shown on the plans. The right-of-way shall be landscaped at the front of the property to provide soil stability. The applicant shall maintain the landscaping in the right-of-way; delete Special Condition #5 - The front walkway shall be reduced to a maximum width of four feet. The change shall be reflected on the working drawings; addition of Special Conditions #6 - The applicant shall use board and batten siding on the residence. The use of stone shall appear structural and shall be carried around the entire residence and #7 - The only cut at the front of the property shall be for the driveway. The proposed walkway shall connect to the driveway as opposed to the front of the property, seconded by BEACH and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Dallas, Paterson, Beach, Hillyard, Reimers
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
6. PC 11-1
Karl & Charlotte Empey
Location undetermined
Consideration of a Preliminary Concept Review of a business that would offer a combination of the sale of olive oils, art and wine.
No motion needed. Discussion only.
7. DS 11-112
William & Laurie Masa
NE end of Flanders off Rio
Block MA, Lot(s) 9
Consideration of a Preliminary Design Concept for the substantial alteration of an existing residence on a property located in the Single Family Residential (R-1-C-20), Park Overlay (PO) and Archaeological Significance (AS) Overlay Districts
No motion needed. Discussion only.
8. DR 11-21
Mike Cobler
NW Mission & 6th
Block 57, Lot(s) 17 & 19
Consideration of a Design Review application for the replacement of a wood shake roof with composition shingles for a commercial building located in the Central Commercial (CC) District. (PULLED)
X. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
___________________________________
Leslie Fenton, Administrative Coordinator
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Janet Reimers, Chair
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Wednesday November 9, 2011
Tour – 2:45 p.m.
Meeting – 4:00 p.m.
City Hall
East side of Monte Verde Street Between Ocean & Seventh Avenues
I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Commissioners: Victoria Beach
Steve Dallas
Keith Paterson
Steve Hillyard, Vice-chair
Janet Reimers, Chair
II. TOUR OF INSPECTION
Shortly after 2:45 p.m. the Commission will leave the Council Chambers for an on-site Tour of Inspection of all properties listed on this agenda (including those on the Consent Agenda). The Tour may also include projects previously approved by the City and not on this agenda. Prior to the beginning of the Tour of Inspection, the Commission may eliminate one or more on-site visits. The public is welcome to follow the Commission on its tour of the determined sites. The Commission will return to the Council Chambers at 4:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible.
III. ROLL CALL
IV. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
V. ANNOUNCEMENTS/EXTAORDINARY BUSINESS
VI. APPEARANCES
Anyone wishing to address the Commission on matters not on the agenda, but within the jurisdiction of the Commission may do so now. Please state the matter on which you wish to speak. Matters not appearing on the Commission agenda will not receive action at this meeting but may be referred to staff for a future meeting. Presentations will be limited to three minutes, or as otherwise established by the Commission. Persons are not required to give their name or address, but it is helpful for speakers to state their name in order that the Secretary may identify them.
VII. CONSENT AGENDA
Items placed on the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine and are acted upon by the Commission in one motion. There is no discussion of these items prior to the Commission action unless a member of the Commission, staff, or public requests specific items be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Agenda. It is understood that the staff recommends approval of all consent items. Each item on the Consent Agenda approved by the Commission shall be deemed to have been considered in full and adopted as recommended.
1. Consideration of minutes from October 12, 2011.
2. Consideration of minutes from October 26, 2011.
3. DR 11-22
Diocese of Monterey
3080 Rio Road
Block US, Lot(s) 38
Consideration of a time extension for Design Review and Use Permit applications for alterations to the Carmel Mission located in the Single Family Residential (R-1) and Park Overlay (P) Districts.
4. DS 11-111
San Carlos LLP
NW San Carlos & 12th
Block 131, Lot(s) 11 & 13
Consideration of a time extension for Design Review, Coastal Development Permit and Demolition Permit applications for the demolition of an existing residence and the construction of a new residence located in the Single Family Residential (R-1) District.
5. UP 11-17
Laurie Leidig (Lund)
NW Mission & 7th
Block 77, Lot(s) 15,17,19,21
Consideration of a Use Permit application for a Specialty Food Store located in the Central Commercial (CC) District.
6. DR 11-18
G. Erling Linggi
S/6th bt. San Carlos & Dolores
Block 71, Lot(s) 7
Consideration of Design Review and Use Permit Amendment applications for exterior alterations, including exterior seating, for a restaurant located in the Central Commercial (CC) District.
VIII. CONSENT AGENDA (PULLED ITEMS)
IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS
If you challenge the nature of the proposed action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing.
1. DS 11-113
Pacific Repertory Theater
E/s Casanova bt. 8th & 9th
Block C, Lot(s) 11-14
Consideration of a Design Study application (Track 1 Referral) for the installation of an electric transformer on a site located in the Theatrical (A-1) District.
2. DS 11-89
Michael & Anna Szabados
W/s Monte Verde 4 N 13th
Block 134, Lot(s) 15 & 17
Consideration of Design Study and Coastal Development Permit applications for the substantial alteration of an existing residence located in the Single Family Residential (R-1) District.
3. DS 11-100
Plum Holdings, LLC
E/s Monte Verde 2 N 3rd
Block 31, Lot(s) 14
Consideration of Design Study, Demolition Permit and Coastal Development Permit applications for a new residence located in the Single Family Residential (R-1), Beach and Riparian (BR), Archaeological Significance (AS) and Park (P) Overlay Districts.
4. DS 10-18
Dan & Kathy McCraine
NE Camino Real & 8th
Block 11, Lot(s) 20
Consideration of Design Study, Demolition Permit and Coastal Development Permit applications for the demolition of an existing residence and the construction of a new residence located in the Single Family Residential (R-1) District.
5. DS 11-105
Adam & Anita Wray
W/s Mission 2 S 1st
Block 11, Lot(s) 7
Consideration of Design Study and Coastal Development Permit applications for the construction of a new residence located in the Single Family Residential (R-1), Beach and Riparian (BR), Archaeological Significance (AS) and Park (P) Overlay Districts.
6. PC 11-1
Karl & Charlotte Empey
Location undetermined
Consideration of a Preliminary Concept Review of a business that would offer a combination of the sale of olive oils, art and wine.
7. DS 11-112
William & Laurie Masa
NE end of Flanders off Rio
Block MA, Lot(s) 9
Consideration of a Preliminary Design Concept for the substantial alteration of an existing residence on a property located in the Single Family Residential (R-1-C-20), Park Overlay (PO) and AS Overlay District.
8. DR 11-21
Mike Cobler
NW Mission & 6th
Block 57, Lot(s) 17 & 19
Consideration of a Design Review application for the replacement of a wood shake roof with composition shingles for a commercial building located in the Central Commercial (CC) District.
X. ADJOURNMENT
The next meeting of the Planning Commission will be:
► Regular Meeting – Wednesday, December 14, 2011 at 4:00 p.m.
The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea does not discriminate against persons with disabilities. Carmel-by-the-Sea City Hall is an accessible facility. The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea telecommunications device for the Deaf/Speech Impaired (T.D.D.) Number is 1-800-735-2929.
The City Council Chambers is equipped with a portable microphone for anyone unable to come to the podium. Assisted listening devices are available upon request of the Administrative Coordinator. If you need assistance, please advise Leslie Fenton what item you would like to comment on and the microphone will be brought to you.
NO AGENDA ITEM WILL BE CONSIDERED AFTER 8:00 P.M. UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. ANY AGENDA ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED AT THE MEETING WILL BE CONTINUED TO A FUTURE DATE AS DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSION.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the Planning & Building Department located in City Hall, E/s Monte Verde between Ocean & 7th Avenues, during normal business hours.
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
PLANNING COMMISSION – MINUTES
NOVEMBER 9, 2011
I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Commission Members: Beach, Dallas, Paterson, Hillyard, Reimers
STAFF PRESENT: Sean Conroy, Planning & Building Services Manager
Marc Wiener, Associate Planner
Leslie Fenton, Administrative Coordinator
II. TOUR OF INSPECTION
The Planning Commission toured the following sites: Plum Holdings LLC, Linggi, Wray, Masa, Szabados, Fein, and McCraine.
III. ROLL CALL
IV. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Members of the audience joined Commission members in the pledge of
allegiance.
V. ANNOUNCEMENTS/EXTRAORDINARY BUSINESS
Sean Conroy, Planning & Building Services Manager, announced that a workshop on the beach public restrooms will be held on Thursday, November 17, 2011.
VI. APPEARANCES
Barbara Livingston appeared before the Commission.
VII. CONSENT AGENDA
1. Consideration of minutes from October 12, 2011.
2. Consideration of minutes from October 26, 2011.
3. DR 11-22
Diocese of Monterey
3080 Rio Road
Block US, Lot(s) 38
Consideration of a time extension for Design Review and Use Permit applications for alterations to the Carmel Mission located in the Single Family Residential (R-1) and Park Overlay (P) Districts.
5. UP 11-17
Laurie Leidig (Lund)
NW Mission & 7th
Block 77, Lot(s) 15,17,19,21
Consideration of a Use Permit application for a Specialty Food Store located in the Central Commercial (CC) District.
6. DR 11-18
G. Erling Linggi
S/6th bt. San Carlos & Dolores
Block 71, Lot(s) 7
Consideration of Design Review and Use Permit Amendment applications for exterior alterations, including exterior seating, for a restaurant located in the Central Commercial (CC) District.
Commissioner HILLYARD moved to approve Consent Agenda items #1, #2, #3, #5 and #6, seconded by PATERSON and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Dallas, Paterson, Beach, Hillyard, Reimers
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
4. DS 11-111
San Carlos LLP
NW San Carlos & 12th
Block 131, Lot(s) 11 & 13
Consideration of a time extension for Design Review, Coastal Development Permit and Demolition Permit applications for the demolition of an existing residence and the construction of a new residence located in the Single Family Residential (R-1) District.
Commissioner HILLYARD moved to approve Consent Agenda item #4, seconded by PATERSON and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Paterson, Beach, Hillyard, Reimers
NOES: None
ABSENT: Dallas
ABSTAIN: None
VIII. CONSENT AGENDA (PULLED ITEMS)
None
IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. DS 11-113
Pacific Repertory Theater
E/s Casanova bt. 8th & 9th
Block C, Lot(s) 11-14
Consideration of a Design Study application (Track 1 Referral) for the installation of an electric transformer on a site located in the Theatrical (A-1) District.
(PULLED)
2. DS 11-89
Michael & Anna Szabados
W/s Monte Verde 4 N 13th
Block 134, Lot(s) 15 & 17
Consideration of Design Study and Coastal Development Permit applications for the substantial alteration of an existing residence located in the Single Family Residential (R-1) District.
Marc Wiener, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chair Reimers opened the public hearing at 4:17 p.m. Claudio Ortiz and Barbara Livingston appeared before the Commission. There being no other appearances, the public hearing was closed at 4:32 p.m.
Commissioner HILLYARD moved to approve the application with staff’s Special Conditions and stone as presented in Option #2, seconded by PATERSON and failed by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Paterson, Hillyard
NOES: Dallas, Beach, Reimers
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Commissioner PATERSON moved to approve the application with stone as presented in Option #1, lower the chimney, garage to remain in set-back, skylight to remain as drawn with shade and landscaping in right-of-way
Motion withdrawn
Commissioner PATERSON moved to approve the application with staff’s Special Conditions and Special Conditions #3 - The applicant shall use stone within the interior of the archway and on the media room only; #4 - The applicant shall lower the height of the chimney by either using a gas fireplace or by relocating the fireplace; 5 - The applicant shall reduce the length of the garage so that it does not encroach into the front setback and #6 - The applicant shall provide a landscape plan showing landscaping in the right-of-way, seconded by HILLYARD and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Dallas, Paterson, Beach, Hillyard, Reimers
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
3. DS 11-100
Plum Holding LLC
E/s Monte Verde 4 N 13th
Block 134, Lot(s) 14
Consideration of Design Study, Demolition Permit and Coastal Development Permit applications for a new residence located in the Single Family Residential (R-1), Beach and Riparian (BR), Archaeological Significance (AS) and Park (P) Overlay Districts.
Marc Wiener, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chair Reimers opened the public hearing at 5:21 p.m. Claudio Ortiz, Fred Kern, Barbara Livingston, Roberta Miller, Steven Silver, John Picel, Carolyn Dellecker and Steve Gleitsmann appeared before the Commission. There being no other appearances, the public hearing was closed at 5:32 p.m.
Commissioner HILLYARD moved to approve Use Permit contingent upon design approval, seconded by BEACH and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Dallas, Paterson, Beach, Hillyard, Reimers
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Commissioner PATERSON moved to approve application with staff’s Special Conditions, seconded by HILLYARD and failed by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Paterson, Hillyard
NOES: Dallas, Beach, Reimers
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Commissioner BEACH moved to continue the project with a request to look at options of pulling the garage closer to the street and to look at alternative options of the use of stone, seconded by DALLAS and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Dallas, Beach, Hillyard, Reimers
NOES: Paterson
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
4. DS 10-18
Dan & Kathy McCraine
NE Camino Real & 8th
Block 11, Lot(s) 20
Consideration of Design Study (Concept & Final), Demolition Permit and Coastal Development Permit applications for the demolition of an existing residence and the construction of a new residence located in the Single Family Residential (R-1) District.
Chair Reimers re-cused herself from the discussion.
Marc Wiener, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Vice-chair Hillyard opened the public hearing at 6:26 p.m. Al Saroyan and Barbara Livingston appeared before the Commission. There being no other appearances, the public hearing was closed at 6:54 p.m.
Commissioner PATERSON moved to approve the application with the following Special Conditions #1 - The applicant is permitted to construct the arched rooftop wall. The wall shall have a maximum height of 8-10 inches above the ridge and shall have only one step; #2 - The applicant is permitted to construct the retaining wall along the north side of the property. The wall shall terminate at the side-yard gate; #3 – provide alternative design options to allow for landscaping at the front of the wall and #4 – provide a landscape plan, seconded by BEACH and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Dallas, Paterson, Beach, Hillyard
NOES: None
ABSENT: Reimers
ABSTAIN: None
5. DS 11-105
Adam & Anita Wray
W/s Mission 2 S 1st
Block 11, Lot(s) 7
Consideration of Design Study and Coastal Development Permit applications for the construction of a new residence located in the Single Family Residential (R-1), Beach and Riparian (BR), Archaeological Significance (AS) and Park (P) Overlay Districts.
Marc Wiener, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chair Reimers opened the public hearing at 7:32 p.m. Adam Wray, Pat Corrigan and Barbara Livingston appeared before the Commission. There being no other appearances, the public hearing was closed at 7:39 p.m.
Commissioner DALLAS moved to approve the application with staff’s Special Conditions #1, #3 and #4; change to Special Condition #2 - The applicant shall withdraw the proposal for boulder and gravel in the public right-of-way as shown on the plans. The right-of-way shall be landscaped at the front of the property to provide soil stability. The applicant shall maintain the landscaping in the right-of-way; delete Special Condition #5 - The front walkway shall be reduced to a maximum width of four feet. The change shall be reflected on the working drawings; addition of Special Conditions #6 - The applicant shall use board and batten siding on the residence. The use of stone shall appear structural and shall be carried around the entire residence and #7 - The only cut at the front of the property shall be for the driveway. The proposed walkway shall connect to the driveway as opposed to the front of the property, seconded by BEACH and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Dallas, Paterson, Beach, Hillyard, Reimers
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
6. PC 11-1
Karl & Charlotte Empey
Location undetermined
Consideration of a Preliminary Concept Review of a business that would offer a combination of the sale of olive oils, art and wine.
No motion needed. Discussion only.
7. DS 11-112
William & Laurie Masa
NE end of Flanders off Rio
Block MA, Lot(s) 9
Consideration of a Preliminary Design Concept for the substantial alteration of an existing residence on a property located in the Single Family Residential (R-1-C-20), Park Overlay (PO) and Archaeological Significance (AS) Overlay Districts
No motion needed. Discussion only.
8. DR 11-21
Mike Cobler
NW Mission & 6th
Block 57, Lot(s) 17 & 19
Consideration of a Design Review application for the replacement of a wood shake roof with composition shingles for a commercial building located in the Central Commercial (CC) District. (PULLED)
X. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
___________________________________
Leslie Fenton, Administrative Coordinator
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Janet Reimers, Chair
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)