F

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
Council Report
May 4, 2015

To:

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

Douglas J. Schmitz, City Administrator

From:

Sharon Friedrichsen

Subject:

Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commissions approval of

Coastal Development Permit (MP 15-100) for the beach fire management
pilot program located along and seaward of Scenic Avenue from Eighth
Avenue to Martin Way on Scenic Road, in the Improved Parklands
Overlay (P-2), and Beach and Riparian Overlay (BR) Zoning
Districts. The application is being appealed by Nancy Chira-Garcia, Bill
Shellooe, Mary Louise Shellooe and Alexis Delehanty

RECOMMENDATION:
Remand the project to the Planning Commission for consideration of revisions to the
management plan and direct Staff to initiate additional enforcement of existing regulations
specifically related to the designated area for beach fires.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Subsequent to recommendations by the Forest and Beach and Planning Commissions, City
Council approved the concept of a beach fire management pilot program on 3 February 2015.
The Planning Commission approved a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) for the pilot
management program on 8 April 2015. The approval of the CDP was appealed by four
individuals: Nancy Chira-Garcia, Bill Shellooe, Mary Louise Shellooe and Alexis Delehanty.
The primary reason stated for the appeal is that the pilot program does not conform to the
Citys Local Coastal Program (LCP).
Subsequent to the Planning Commissions approval of the CDP, City staff received a
comment letter on the pilot program from staff at the Central Coast District Office of the
California Coastal Commission. The Commission staffs letter noted potential conflicts of the
pilot program with the Citys LCP, and recommended revisions to the pilot program to attain
LCP compliance. The revisions and additional information requested should be reviewed by
the Planning Commission, so that the Commission can act on a revised CDP. The appeal
applications are included as Attachment 1. The comment letter from Coastal Commission
staff is included as Attachment 2.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No fees have been collected for the filing this type of appeal.
Budgeted (yes/no)
Funding Source (general fund, grant, state)
No
General Fund
Council Meeting Date: May 4, 2015
Agenda Item: 7.A
Page 1

PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION/DECISION HISTORY:

Council approved the pilot program on 3 February 2015.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Appeal Applications
2. 20 April 2015 Comment Letter from Coastal Commission Staff
3. Letter from Appellants Mary Louis and Bill Shellooe
APPROVED:

____________________________________

Date: __________________

Douglas J. Schmitz, City Administrator

Council Meeting Date: May 4, 2015

Agenda Item: 7.A
Page 2

ATTACHMENT 1

City of Ca rmel-by-the-Sea

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

APR 13 2015

APPEAL OF PLANNING CO:Mlv1ISSION DECISION Received

(FILING FEE: ~)

Bt4- E:>2\\lo r{_~

~\J

l {n,/t5

Property Owner: _
Mailing Address:

-------''-"---'

Phones: Day:\ _ .) __ ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ Evening:

Fax: (

--,- ' - - --

Email: _. _. _

Date Board heard the matter:

Lf tea/ \5

"

Appeals to the City Council must be made in writing in the office of the City Clerk within
10 working days following the date of action by the Planning Commission and paying
the requiredfilingfee as established by City Council resolution.

Physical location of property that is the subject of appeal:

( ' A-f\,1)13 L

gts-~ ~

Lot(s): _ _ _ __

Block: - - -- -

APN: _________________

COMMISSION ACTION BEING APPEALED:::----------~

Ca.-tm-iL(. f3eqJ~

8'/(J+ Pcc>qt'c.tv~1 -- Ttti e~~

\j

'(j

P~~~
-~\j' CV11

If you were NOT the original applicant or the applicanfs representative, please state the
evidence that you are an aggrieved party: --- -- - - - - - - - -- - - -

(CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE)

Council Meeting Date: May 4, 2015

Agenda Item: 7.A
Page 3

-=----~-t"t-th&HIS

{ 3fitDAY OF

--~~~-'-'I_._../ _ _ _, '2QJ!;

.f f
$295.00 fee* received: (Stafflnitial)

Receipt #:

ATTEST:

*Article 9, Section 7, of the Constitution of the State of California authorizes a city to

impose fees. Also see California government Code, Section 54344.

IMPORTANT: If the appellant wishes to submit materials for duplication and

inclusion in the City of Cannel-by-the-Seas Council agenda packet, the materials must be
submitted to the City Clerk by
Commissi~ This

/~

working days after the decision of the

matter is tentatively scheduled to be heard on

s r! JfLi_5'
'

dat<JICit rt!O>unc/VAPPEAL PLANNING FORM.d

Council Meeting Date: May 4, 2015

Agenda Item: 7.A
Page 4

City of Carmel-by-the-Sea

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

APR 1 3 2015

APPEAL OF PLANNING COl\1MISSION DECISION

Received

(FILING FEE: $295.00'*) oo4 ~ B2-

Nu

r{_'-._

\'\W i fn,il 5

Property Owner: _ __ _
Mailing Address: _ --.:.::...:_

Phones: Day:
F~:(

"/ _,..._,..'---'-----'--=----'--4--- Evening: (

)______________

We c\

).
-I

Email: - -- - - -

,~x ~\ ~ (

Date Board heard the matter:

d-f!) / 5"
I
Appeals to the City Council must be made in writ1~g in the office of the City Clerk within
10 working days following the date of action by the Planning Commission and paying
the required filing fee as established by City Council resolution.
Physical location of property that is the subject of appeal:

Lot(s): _ __ _ _

Block:

APN: _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __

- - - --

COMMISSION ACTION BEING APPEALED: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

c l\.'\'N\Q. \
CA . K, ~\ -

.+;.v c

Y-) ~- c,'.(_ l \

Go~\~' r -e..

'i\ Io-\- "?{0j

yc,\_ VVl

- ' ' v1~ ~~ o.Y "')

If you were NOT the original applicant or the applicanfs representative, please state the
evidence that you are an aggrieved party: - - -- - - - - - -- - - - -

(CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE)

Council Meeting Date: May 4, 2015

Agenda Item: 7.A
Page 5

GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: (State the specific basis for your appeal, such as errors or
omissions you believe were committed by the Commission in reaching its decision, etc.)

7 '\ot 1{05/Sf/\ J)_~~ _Q~ C Cl~ )'VI

:h> -1\e_
(cy oJ Coa~kJ ?m2)~'w1 . VtA,sl,c Otccess yu), c i-t~'--J: Lct:
lrJ l \\ Lx. \,V\1\ \ -\-e d b L 1 ~ ~'CC~ . - 1.:nL~(~)' ~l () -P Lc i' ((5'tvtpvaw-t-i H' 1
5cJQ~\ ( <Sv !(.9_;('\('v "'~

[o-.c_\(:_

( y(' -~<(\v"-" "--~

s.+v~.JLf

t 0-vtVl-fL()\. ~

I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE

AND CORRECT:

nATEDAT:_CcA.'('wreJ~, THis _l3_ nAYoF ,~;qpe,

cl~
(
( ,
\
I

,2&1_5

V)Cq \

~ ~-....

' ..q, -- .., .

/ f.f ., . . C. . . / . . ,.,

..;

..

- -

$295.00 fee* received: (Stafflnitial)

Receipt#:

ATTEST:

*Article 9, Section 7, of the Constitution of the State of California authorizes a city to

impose fees. Also see California government Code, Section 54344.

IMPORTANT : If the appellant wishes to submit materials for duplication and

inclusion in the City ofCarmel-byi:/eis Council agenda packet, the materials must be
submitted to the City Clerk by

working days after the decision of the

Commission. T is matter is tentatively scheduled to be heard on

.

dotDI'CitrlV'COtlntiVAPPEAL PLANNING FORM. doc

Council Meeting Date: May 4, 2015

Agenda Item: 7.A
Page 6

City of Carmel-by-the-Sea

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

APR 13 20 15

APPEAL OF PLANNING COI\1J\1ISSION DECISION

(FILING FEE: ~)

804. e>2-

Nu
fA111Y
'ln. I .-

Appellant:

I .

Received

rt.~

\'\w 1 fn,/ls

! fJ )/'!
. ~ ~

.~
'if_
' Lf_._LLCf5'
:.1/ (/,._--_,'(-""'z~J::-""-"-c.__.,~
2~1
tb'-,.,__~L
-'-J _ __ _ __ _ _ __

Property Owner: 1..

Mailing Address: ..1..--~~-__..-~
_Evening: (

Phones: Day:\
F~:(

)______________

) ,__._ _ _ _ _ __

Email: --~~---------~~---

Date Board heard the matter: _i-L-.__,

J;"-,-'-/_-=!J'-- -- - - - - Appeals to the City Council must be made in writing in the office ofthe City Clerk within
10 working days following the date of action by the Planning Commission and paying
the required filing fee as established by City Council resolution.
Physical location of property that is the subject of appeal:
-'}

4 J

!6Lllla

j}. it,. .

{ht/-t!J(Jy_J

Lot(s): _________

Block: - - -- -

APN: _____________

COMMISSION ACTION BEING APPEALED:------------------- - -

r!&zuf.J)

~& &a~ /M If~,

If you were NOT the original applicant or the applicanfs representative, please state the
evidence that you are an aggrieved party: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -

(CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE)

Council Meeting Date: May 4, 2015

Agenda Item: 7.A
Page 7

GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: (State the specific basis for your appeal, such as errors or
omissions you believe were committed by the Commission in reaching its decision, etc.)

AA

~ft.

ilk

.~ez?

I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE

AND CORRECT:

it

DATED AT:

(!J.Jfl1tlllt!yti.'Tms 13 DAY OF ~l

$295.00 fee* received: (Stafflnitial)

Receipt#:

ATTEST:

*Article 9, Section 7, of the Constitution of the State of California authorizes a city to

impose fees. Also see California government Code, Section 54344.

IMPORTANT: If the appellant wishes to submit materials for duplication and

inclusion in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea's Council agenda packet, the materials must be
submitted to the City Clerk by

Ji

working days after the decision of the

dat01CitrkiO>unciVAPPAL PUNNING FORM. doc

Council Meeting Date: May 4, 2015

Agenda Item: 7.A
Page 8

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

City of Carmel-by-the-S1

APR 1 3 2015

APPEAL OF PLANNING COl\1MISSION DECISION

(FILING FEE: ~)

>

Appellant:

$1, 1-/._S d i

Bo4. f>2Nu F~'-

Received

\'\W

1{n,;15

~.:. . -.:'-+--------- - - --

L=-.=..:
L.....:::.D:.........O::......=..._
.

Property Owner: .,
I

Mailing Address:

Phones: Day:(.

_Evening: (

)_ _ _ _ _ _ __

Fax: (

Email:

) _,_
. - - --

- --

-~~------~~--

Date Board heard the matter: _//,.:........:.._;,.__J:;_,__:.~-I::J"""J!

_________
Appeals to the City Council must be made in writing in the office ofthe City Clerk within
10 working days following the date of action by the Planning Commission and paying
the requiredfilingfee as established by City Council resolution.
Physical location of property that is the subject of appeal:

f!4;Jmf2 ~
Lot(s):

Block:

APN: - - - - - - - - -

COMMISSION ACTION BEING APPEALED:

~'%e e/dt~

bur~

t:u

If you were NOT the original applicant or the applicanfs representative, please state the
evidence that you are an aggrieved party: - - - - - - - - - - -- - -

(CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE)

Council Meeting Date: May 4, 2015

Agenda Item: 7.A
Page 9

GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: (State the specific basis for your appeal, such as errors or
omissions you believe were committed by the Commission in reaching its decision, etc.)

f&r;fw~~ &_

I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE

AND CORRECT:

-;:.. _

lj}/ __

DATEDAT:~THJsr}'}_
~il~/,? ~ t::? r;/ ffJ
rt/~~l(:_)i~Ytr~-- DAYOF

;, I /

Signature of appellant

.e r
$295.00 fee* received: (Stafflnitial)

Receipt#:

ATTEST:

*Article 9, Section 7, of the Constitution of the State of California authorizes a city to

impose fees. Also see California government Code, Section 54344.

IMPORTANT: If the appellant wishes to submit materials for duplication and

inclusion in the City of Carrnel-by21Se<is Council agenda packet, the materials must be
submitted to the City Clerk by

working days after the decision of the

Commissio_n. Ths matter is tentatively scheduled to be heard on

o</ ;S
datoK:IuluOnmciVAPPEAL PLAH.YING FO!W.dac

Council Meeting Date: May 4, 2015

Agenda Item: 7.A
Page 10

EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Govemor

STATE OF CALIFORNIA- NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

CENTRAL COAST DISTRICT OFFICE
725 FRONT STREET, SUITE 300
SANTA CRUZ. CA 95060
PHONE: (83 I) 427-4863
FAX: (831) <l27-4877
WWW.COASTAL.CA.GOV

ATTACHMENT 2

April 20, 2015

Sharon Friedrichsen
Carmel-by-the-Sea
PODrawerG
Carmel, CA 93921
Subject: Coastal Development Permit MP 15-10 (Carmel Beaclt Fire Managentent Program)

DearMs.F~
We received a copy of the City's staff repot1 on Coastal Development Pennit MP 15-10 (Carmel
Beach Fire Management Program (Program)) on April 7, 2105 in advance of its Apri18, 2015
Planning Commission hearing. The Program is intended to implement new rules for beach fires
to address public safety and health, degradation in the quality of beach sand, and other issues
associated with overuse of the beach (e.g., trash, noise, etc.). The Progran1 extends along Carmel
Beach south of 1oth A venue and is within the City's retained permitting jurisdiction. The
Program also lies within the Coastal Commission's appeal jurisdiction. For these reasons, the
standard of review is the City's Local Coastal Program (LCP). The intent of the following
comments is to alert the City to the project's potential conflicts with the LCP and to allow the
City the opportunity to make the necessary changes to its approval to avoid a Commission
appeal. Please see the following conunents and recommendations below.
1. Program not adequately defined. The Program in its current fonn is too vague. Other than a
general description of the Program in the staff report fmdings, there isn't adequate detail to
fully evaluate the Program for consistency with the LCP. We recommend the City prepare a
plan that contains all the elements and details of the Program, starting with a site plan that
illustrates the context of the Progratn such as the Progratn's location) location of access
points, fire rings, restrootns, etc. The Program n1ust also contain all the specific project
details that will be impletnented over the course of the pilot period and include the
objectives, purpose, and specific details, such as the number of rings, size, design, use
provisions, exceptions, signage, maintenance provisions, educational elements, performance
review criteria, etc. Much of this has already developed by the City but now needs to be
expanded and compiled into a comprehensive Progrru.n for evaluation at the next public
hearing for the project. .

2. Reservation System. In past discussions with City staff, we have indicated that Cmnmission
staff would view a reservation system as an i1npediment to public access and recreational
opportunities on Cannel Beach. We have also indicated that a reservation system would be
inconsistent with current LUP guidance that beach fires be available to all beach users. In
order to comply with the LUP policies that protect lower cost visitor-serving and recreational
facilities, the fire rings must be made available on a "frrst come first serve" basis. Any
language to the contrru.y should be deleted from the Progra1n. One possible exception would

Council Meeting Date: May 4, 2015

Agenda Item: 7.A
Page 11

Sharon Friedrichsen
Carmel Beach Fire Management Program
April 20, 2015

Page2

be that fire rings could be reserved in combination with special events and a special event
permit. This exception however should be appropriately limited to ensure that the general
public has adequate access to the fire rings.
3. Timing on Seasonal Use. One area of the Program that appears to require :further refinement
is the timing on seasonal use of the fire rings. The Progrrun 1nust include specific guidance
on when fire rings will be available on Cannel Beach, including when it is appropriate to
remove and replace the rings during winter and spring months. The presumption should be
that persons have the ability to have a fire throughout the year including during the winter,
except during periods of exceptional storm driven wave run-up and scour when the beach is
not safely accessible. Additionally, the City should consider maintaining several fire rings
during the winter in areas of the beach that are less susceptible to wave run-up and scow.
Again, the presumption should be that beach fires are allowed during the entire year Wlless
extreme hazardous conditions exist on the majority of the beach. See LUP Coastal Access
and Recreation Element Policies 04-14, P4-57 and Zoning Ordinance Section 17.20.20.E.
4. User-Supplied Propane Devices. User-supplied propane devices could be an impediment to
having a beach fire particularly for those who have had wood fires on the beach in the past
and/or those who are unfamiliar with the revised beach fire rules. Additionally, these devices
do not provide the same experience as a wood fire in terms of warmth, light, and runbiance.
Finally, these devices do not appear to be consistent with the City's LCP which provides for
year-round wood fires. We recommend that the City delete this aspect of the Program unless
it is necessary to expand the list of allowable uses on the beach, including those that support
the use of user-supplied propane or gas devices for cooking.
5. Term of the Permit. The City must define the term of the coastal permit for the Program.
The current staff report findings indicate that the term of the pilot project will be between
three and five years. Commission staff recommends that the pilot project be limited to three
years, which should be adequate time to assess Program efficacy. In any case, however,
please define the exact term of the permit (e.g., three years or five years).
Thank you for your consideration of these comments, which we feel are necessary to ensure that
the beach fire management program is consistent with the LUP's public access and recreation
policies. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you should have any questions regarding this
matter.
Sincerely,

"'fh;kW~
Mike Watson
Coastal Planner
Central Coast District

Council Meeting Date: May 4, 2015

Agenda Item: 7.A
Page 12

City Council
Meeting Date

Carmel City Council

Subject: Fire Pit Appeal

5-4-2015

MAY -4 2015

Agenda Item

# ---'2__.' ;.4
. ~

--

The proposed fire pit locations are not defined other than dots
on a beach map. The dots indicate several fire pit locations on
, the beach near the bluff located in front of our property on
Scenic Road between 11th and 12th. Air Quality Representative
Mr. Stedman acknowledged to me that the fire smoke to our
house would increase with the proposed fire pit locations and
was a concern that we should address.

Presently, beach fire locations are spread out sufficiently to

mitigate smoke effects to our house.

City of Carmel-by-the-Sea

MAY -1 2015
Received by City Clerk

Council Meeting Date: May 4, 2015

Agenda Item: 7.A
Page 13

..