"Staff of the California Coastal Commission has informed the City that the Board's action violates the approved LCP. The proposed Council action would remand the issue back to the Historic Resources Board with instructions to rescind its action in light of this new information...The Board's action violates the City's approved and certified Local Coastal Program. This Program establishes a clear process for removing historic resources from the City's Inventory."
(Source: City Council Agenda Item Summary for City Council 2 May 2006 meeting, Brian Roseth, Principal Planner)
ONLY AFTER Friends of Carmel Cultural Heritage filed an appeal of the Historic Resources Board's 23 January 2006 decision to remove 43 historic properties (1940-1956) from the City's Inventory of Historic Resources...
ONLY AFTER Enid Sales, Director of the Carmel Preservation Foundation, orally expressed her concerns about the City's multiple violations of the Local Coastal Program (LCP)to the California Coastal Commissioners at their March 2006 meeting in Monterey...
ONLY AFTER Charles Lester, Deputy Director, Central Coast District Office, California Coastal Commission, made known to the Mayor, City Attorney, et al. the City's removal of 43 historic resources from the Inventory of Historic Resources was a violation of the LCP...
ONLY AFTER the extraordinary efforts of Enid Sales and Charles Lester, did the City place on the May 2006 City Council agenda the "CONSIDERATION OF REMANDING A DECISION OF THE HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD THAT REMOVED PROPERTIES FROM THE HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY DEVELOPED BETWEEN 1940 AND 1956 WITH DIRECTION TO THE BOARD TO REVERSE ITS DECISION BASED ON NEW INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS."
The City's flagrant violation of the LCP substantiates Enid Sales' claims that the City has committed multiple LCP violations.
In the future, will similar extraordinary efforts have to be made in order for the City to correctly interpret and enforce the LCP? Or will the City competently interpret and enforce the LCP without the need for external intervention?
Saturday, April 29, 2006
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Historic Resources QUIZ
Of the following 5 city-owned properties, which 2 properties are NOT on the City's Inventory of Historic Resources?
1. Carmel Fire Station
2. City Hall
3. Devendorf Park
4. Forest Theater
5. Sunset Community & Cultural Center
Answer on Sunday, 30 April 2006.
ANSWER: Amazingly, the following 2 historic properties are NOT on the City's Inventory of Historic Resources.
SUNSET COMMUNITY & CULTURAL CENTER
The Sunset Center is one of only 3 Carmel-by-the-Sea properties on the National Register of Historic Places; the other two are the Carmel Mission (Mission San Carlos de Borromeo del Rio Carmelo) and "Outlands," commonly referred to as the Flanders Mansion.
Sunset Center ** (added 1998 - Building - #97001604)
Also known as Sunset School
San Carlos St., between 8th and 10th Sts., Carmel-by-the-Sea
Historic Significance: Architecture/Engineering, Event
Architect, builder, or engineer: et.al., Donovan, John J.
Architectural Style: Late Gothic Revival
Area of Significance: Entertainment/Recreation, Architecture, Education, Performing Arts
Period of Significance: 1925-1949
Owner: Local Gov't
Historic Function: Education, Recreation And Culture, Social
Historic Sub-function: Auditorium, Meeting Hall, Music Facility, School, Theater
Current Function: Recreation And Culture, Recreation And Culture, Social
Current Sub-function: Auditorium, Civic, Meeting Hall, Museum, Music Facility, Theater, Theater
(Source:http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/ca/Monterey/state.html)
FOREST THEATER
Carmel-by-the-Sea's Forest Theater is the “oldest outdoor theater west of the Rockies.” Around 1908, a group of visionaries, including Mary Austin, Herbert Heron and Michael Williams, conceived of the idea for locally produced, directed and acted plays in an open-air theater. It was subsequently founded in 1910; the first production at Carmel-by-the-Sea’s Outdoor Theater was “David.” The Forest Theater was deeded to the city of Carmel-by-the-Sea in 1937.
(Source: http://www.foresttheaterguild.org/)
1. Carmel Fire Station
2. City Hall
3. Devendorf Park
4. Forest Theater
5. Sunset Community & Cultural Center
Answer on Sunday, 30 April 2006.
ANSWER: Amazingly, the following 2 historic properties are NOT on the City's Inventory of Historic Resources.
SUNSET COMMUNITY & CULTURAL CENTER
The Sunset Center is one of only 3 Carmel-by-the-Sea properties on the National Register of Historic Places; the other two are the Carmel Mission (Mission San Carlos de Borromeo del Rio Carmelo) and "Outlands," commonly referred to as the Flanders Mansion.
Sunset Center ** (added 1998 - Building - #97001604)
Also known as Sunset School
San Carlos St., between 8th and 10th Sts., Carmel-by-the-Sea
Historic Significance: Architecture/Engineering, Event
Architect, builder, or engineer: et.al., Donovan, John J.
Architectural Style: Late Gothic Revival
Area of Significance: Entertainment/Recreation, Architecture, Education, Performing Arts
Period of Significance: 1925-1949
Owner: Local Gov't
Historic Function: Education, Recreation And Culture, Social
Historic Sub-function: Auditorium, Meeting Hall, Music Facility, School, Theater
Current Function: Recreation And Culture, Recreation And Culture, Social
Current Sub-function: Auditorium, Civic, Meeting Hall, Museum, Music Facility, Theater, Theater
(Source:http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/ca/Monterey/state.html)
FOREST THEATER
Carmel-by-the-Sea's Forest Theater is the “oldest outdoor theater west of the Rockies.” Around 1908, a group of visionaries, including Mary Austin, Herbert Heron and Michael Williams, conceived of the idea for locally produced, directed and acted plays in an open-air theater. It was subsequently founded in 1910; the first production at Carmel-by-the-Sea’s Outdoor Theater was “David.” The Forest Theater was deeded to the city of Carmel-by-the-Sea in 1937.
(Source: http://www.foresttheaterguild.org/)
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
The POLITICALIZATION of The Scout House
BACKGROUND:
The City's Local Coastal Program, certified by the California Coastal Commission in November 2004, includes as part of the Land Use & Community Character Element, Cultural Resources & Historic Preservation, an Inventory of Historic Resources and supporting documentation in the form of California Department of Parks and Recreation Historic Resources Inventory Forms (DPR 523s) on each historic residence, commercial building, object and district.
In May 2005, City Administrator Rich Guillen placed a "Consideration of an historic determination for an existing City-owned structure located in the Residential & Limited Commercial District" (Scout House, NE corner Mission & 8th Av.) on the Historic Resources Board's agenda. The Historic Resources Board decided to "place the Scout House on Carmel Historic Resource Inventory" (Ayes: Coss, Henney, Wendt; Noes: Lagerholm; Absent: Holz) Later, in July 2005, Guillen placed the "Consideration of a request to reconsider a previous decision to place a structure on the City's Inventory of Historic Resources" on the Historic Resources Board's agenda. The Historic resources Board reaffirmed their May 2005 decision leaving "the Scout House on the City Historic Register" (Ayes: Coss, Holz, Wendt, Henney; Noes: Lagerholm). Yet months later, City Administrator Guillen pledged to place the item on an upcoming 2006 City Council agenda. And Associate Planner Sean Conroy recently stated that the City Council would decide the Scout House issue soon.
THE DOCUMENTED RECORD:
Architectural historians Kent Seavy and Katherine Gualtieri evaluated the Scout House and determined the Scout House to be an historic resource. Architectural historian Sheila McElroy concluded that the Scout House may be an historic resource if Seavy augmented his original DPR Form 523; Seavy subsequently augmented the Scout House's DPR Form 523. Jones & Stokes, architectural historians, hired by Denise Duffy & Associates, affirmed the Scout House as a historic resource in the Flanders Mansion Property Environmental Impact Report (EIR). And the City Historic Resources Board twice concluded that the Scout House is an historic resource.
Interestingly, while the Scout House IS NOT listed on the latest Inventory of Historic Resources (dated 1/26/06), the Scout House's DPR Form 523 is among the 310 DPRs at the Planning Department, City Hall. Thus, City Administrator Guillen erred in placing the "consideration of an historic determination" and "consideration of a request to reconsider a previous decision" on the Historic Resources Board's May and July 2005 agendas by virtue of Seavy's completed DPR Form 523 on the Scout House; City Administrator Guillen should have followed the procedure for removing a resource from the Inventory. Specifically, City Administrator Guillen should have followed Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code, Chapter 17.32 Historic Preservation, 17.32.070 Maintaining the Inventory D. Removal of Resources from the Inventory.
QUESTIONS:
Despite overwhelming written documentation by architectural historians that the Scout House is an historic resource, City Administrator Rich Guillen placed a "Consideration of a historic determination" and a "Consideration of a request to reconsider a previous decision" on the Historic Resources Board's agendas and pledged to place the item on a 2006 City Council agenda. WHY? Is the Scout House the latest example of a politically-motivated, pre-determined conclusion trumping overwhelming expert evidence?
Saturday, April 22, 2006
Symptomatic of City Mismanagement
"We found out we had erred in not consulting with the city administrator and city council regarding an installation on city property," said principal planner Brian Roseth. "It was much like approving a project without the property owner's consent."
("Hard feelings over display of Jeffers bust in library garden," Mary Brownfield, The Carmel Pine Cone, April 21, 2006.)
Yet, the Tor House Foundation's desire to install a copy of a Robinson Jeffers bronze bust by sculptor Jo Davidson was known to the Carmel Art Board as early as August 2003 and the Planning Commission/Planning Staff as early as May 2004. Now, in April 2006, the Planning Commission recently rescinded their earlier December 2005 decision to grant the installation of the Tor House Foundation's Robinson Jeffers bronze bust in the Harrison Memorial Library Garden. Additionally, the City had apparently adopted a no-sculpture policy previously, since Piccadilly Park.
QUESTION: Given Brian Roseth's statement, is it plausible that for 2-3 years, since 2003/04, the Planning Staff knew of the Tor House Foundation's intent, while the City Administrator and City Council Members were obliviously ignorant until April 2006?
QUESTION: Are Carmelites to believe that since 2003/04, the Mayor never spoke to Tor House Foundation members to learn of the Tor House Foundation's desire to install the Robinson Jeffers bronze bust in the Harrison Memorial Library Garden?
QUESTION: Is this fiasco an example of micromanagement as described in the 2005 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Report, Finding 7. "Over-control of this process by mayors is not in the public interest?"
("Hard feelings over display of Jeffers bust in library garden," Mary Brownfield, The Carmel Pine Cone, April 21, 2006.)
Yet, the Tor House Foundation's desire to install a copy of a Robinson Jeffers bronze bust by sculptor Jo Davidson was known to the Carmel Art Board as early as August 2003 and the Planning Commission/Planning Staff as early as May 2004. Now, in April 2006, the Planning Commission recently rescinded their earlier December 2005 decision to grant the installation of the Tor House Foundation's Robinson Jeffers bronze bust in the Harrison Memorial Library Garden. Additionally, the City had apparently adopted a no-sculpture policy previously, since Piccadilly Park.
QUESTION: Given Brian Roseth's statement, is it plausible that for 2-3 years, since 2003/04, the Planning Staff knew of the Tor House Foundation's intent, while the City Administrator and City Council Members were obliviously ignorant until April 2006?
QUESTION: Are Carmelites to believe that since 2003/04, the Mayor never spoke to Tor House Foundation members to learn of the Tor House Foundation's desire to install the Robinson Jeffers bronze bust in the Harrison Memorial Library Garden?
QUESTION: Is this fiasco an example of micromanagement as described in the 2005 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Report, Finding 7. "Over-control of this process by mayors is not in the public interest?"
Friday, April 21, 2006
Business License Tax Increase Ballot Measure
On the 2 May 2006 City Council agenda, is a "Consideration of a Business License Tax Increase Ballot Measure" for the 7 November 2006 General Election.
2 May 2006 City Council Agenda: REMAND, not consider APPEAL
2 MAY 2006 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Proposed Action:
Consideration of Remanding a Decision of the Historic Resources Board that Removed Properties From the Historic Resources Inventory Developed between 1940 and 1956 with Direction to the Board to Reconsider its Decision Based on New Information and Analysis.
Note: Instead of considering the Friends of Carmel Cultural Heritage Appeal, the City Council has decided to consider "remanding" it to the Historic Resources Board!
Proposed Action:
Consideration of Remanding a Decision of the Historic Resources Board that Removed Properties From the Historic Resources Inventory Developed between 1940 and 1956 with Direction to the Board to Reconsider its Decision Based on New Information and Analysis.
Note: Instead of considering the Friends of Carmel Cultural Heritage Appeal, the City Council has decided to consider "remanding" it to the Historic Resources Board!
Record of Historic Inventory Appeals
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Record of Inventory of Historic Resources Appeals
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD
MEMBERS:
Julie Wendt, Chairperson
Paul Coss
Erik Dyar
Kay Holz
Erling Lagerholm
APPEALS: Considerations of Historic appeals of the City's determination to place existing residences on the City's Inventory of Historic Resources located in the Single Family Residential R-1 District. (unless otherwise noted)
TOTAL NUMBER OF APPEALS, as of March 2006: 20
APPEALS GRANTED: 8
APPEALS DENIED: 8
APPEALS CONTINUED: 3
APPEALS NOT HEARD: 1
ON HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MARCH 2006 AGENDA:
James & Gail Finnegan
W/s Carmel bet. 11th & 12th Avs.
APPEAL GRANTED:
AYES: DYAR, COSS, HOLZ, LAGERHOLM, WENDT
NOES: NONE
Matthew & Maribeth Aguon
SE Corner Santa Rita & 2nd
APPEAL GRANTED:
AYES: DYAR, HOLZ, LAGERHOLM, WENDT
NOES: COSS
Patrick Paw & Caroline Wong
NE Corner Casanova & 10th Av.
APPEAL CONTINUED TO NEXT REGULAR MEETING, APRIL 2006:
AYES: DYAR, COSS, HOLZ, LAGERHOLM, WENDT
NOES: NONE
Doreen Silva Trust
W/s Carpenter bet. 3rd & 4th Avs.
APPEAL DENIED:
AYES: COSS, DYAR, HOLZ, LAGERHOLM
NOES: NONE
ON HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD FEBRUARY 2006 AGENDA:
David & Audrey Hall
W/s Carmelo bet. 11th & 12th Av.
APPEAL DENIED:
AYES: COSS, HOLZ, WENDT
NOES: LAGERHOLM
ABSENT: DYAR
Note: HALL'S APPEAL OF HRB'S DECISION TO CITY COUNCIL ON CITY COUNCIL 2 MAY 2006 AGENDA.
Alfred Johnson
W/s San Antonio bet. Ocean & 4th Av.
APPEAL DENIED:
AYES: COSS, HOLZ, LAGERHOLM, WENDT
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: DYAR
Deborah Storre
NW Corner Lincoln & 8th Av.
APPEAL GRANTED:
AYES: COSS, LAGERHOLM, WENDT
NOES: HOLZ
ABSENT: DYAR
Joe & Julie Villarreal
N/s 2nd bet. Guadalupe & Santa Rita
APPEAL GRANTED:
AYES: COSS, HOLZ, LAGERHOLM
NOES: WENDT
ABSENT: DYAR
ON HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD JANUARY 2006 AGENDA:
APPEAL: Consideration of an appeal of the City's issuance of a preliminary Determination of Ineligibility for listing on the City's Inventory of Historic Resources for an existing residence in the Single Family Residential (R-1) District.
Appellant: Carmel Preservation Foundation
W/s Lincolm bet. 9th & 10th
APPEAL DENIED:
AYES: DYAR, HOLZ, LAGERHOLM, WENDT
NOES: COSS
APPEAL: Consideration of a Historic Appeal of the City's determination to place an existing structure on the City's Inventory of Historic Resources located in the Central Commercial (CC) and Downtown Conservation (DC) Overlay Districts.
Appellant: Doris Rayne Trust
S/s Ocean bet. Lincoln & Dolores
APPEAL DENIED:
AYES: COSS, DYAR, HOLZ, LAGERHOLM, WENDT
NOES: NONE
Note: RAYNE APPEAL OF HRB'S DECISION TO CITY COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2006 AGENDA; AT 4 APRIL 2006 MEETING, IT WAS ANNOUNCED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD PULLED THE ITEM.
APPEAL: Consideration of a Historic appeal of the City's determination to place existing residence on the City's Inventory of Historic Resources located in the Single Family Residential R-1 District.
Norman & Eleanor Moscow
W/s Camino Real bet. 11th & 12th
APPEAL DENIED:
AYES: DYAR, HOLZ, WENDT
NOES: LOSS, LAGERHOLM
APPEAL: Consideration of an Historic appeal of the City's determination to place 4 existing residence on the City's Inventory of Historic Resources as an Historic District located in the Single Family Residential (R-1) and Beach and Riparian Overlay (BR) Districts
Appellant: Kim, Johnson, Liskin
W/s San Antonio bet. Ocean & 4th
APPEAL NOT HEARD DUE TO A POLICY DECISION EARLIER IN THE MEETING TO REMOVE ALL POST-1940 PROPERTIES FROM THE INVENTORY OF HISTORIC RESOURCES PENDING COMPLETION OF AN UPDATE OF THE HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT.
ON HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD DECEMBER 2005 AGENDA:
Carolyn Ahrens
W/s Carpenter bet. 3rd & 4th Avs.
APPEAL GRANTED:
AYES: DYAR, COSS, LAGERHOLM, WENDT
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: HOLZ
Ruth & Alan Scott
N/s 8th bet. Junipero & Torres St.
APPEAL GRANTED:
AYES: DYAR, COSS, LAGERHOLM, WENDT
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: HOLZ
Joseph & Susan Raphel
SW San Antonio & 11th Av.
APPEAL GRANTED:
AYES: DYAR, LAGERHOLM, WENDT
NOES: COSS
ABSENT: HOLZ
ON HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD NOVEMBER 2005 AGENDA:
William & Mildren Daniel
N/s 13th bet. San Antonio & Carmelo
APPEAL DENIED:
AYES: DYAR, HOLZ, LAGERHOLM, WENDT
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: COSS
Elaine Larkin
S/s Mt. View Av. bet. Santa Rita & Santa Fe Sts.
APPEAL GRANTED:
AYES: DYAR, HOLZ, LAGERHOLM, WENDT
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: COSS
William Doolitttle
E/s Casanova bet. 7th & 8th Avs.
APPEAL CONTINUED FOR 90 DAYS; YET NOT ON HRB'S FEBRUARY, MARCH 2006 AGENDAS.
Eldana Eggleston
W/s Camino Real bet. 7th & 8th Avs.
APPEAL DENIED:
AYES: DYAR, HOLZ, WENDT
NOES: LAGERHOLM
ABSENT: COSS
ON HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD OCTOBER 2005 AGENDA:
APPEAL: Consideration of an Historic Appeal of the City's determination to place an existing structure on the City's Inventory of Historic Resources located in the Central Commercial (CC) and Downtown Conservation (DC) Overlay Districts.
Appellant: Paul Laub
N.E. Corner Dolores St. & Ocean Av.
APPEAL CONTINUED AT THE REQUEST OF APPELLANT.
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD
MEMBERS:
Julie Wendt, Chairperson
Paul Coss
Erik Dyar
Kay Holz
Erling Lagerholm
APPEALS: Considerations of Historic appeals of the City's determination to place existing residences on the City's Inventory of Historic Resources located in the Single Family Residential R-1 District. (unless otherwise noted)
TOTAL NUMBER OF APPEALS, as of March 2006: 20
APPEALS GRANTED: 8
APPEALS DENIED: 8
APPEALS CONTINUED: 3
APPEALS NOT HEARD: 1
ON HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MARCH 2006 AGENDA:
James & Gail Finnegan
W/s Carmel bet. 11th & 12th Avs.
APPEAL GRANTED:
AYES: DYAR, COSS, HOLZ, LAGERHOLM, WENDT
NOES: NONE
Matthew & Maribeth Aguon
SE Corner Santa Rita & 2nd
APPEAL GRANTED:
AYES: DYAR, HOLZ, LAGERHOLM, WENDT
NOES: COSS
Patrick Paw & Caroline Wong
NE Corner Casanova & 10th Av.
APPEAL CONTINUED TO NEXT REGULAR MEETING, APRIL 2006:
AYES: DYAR, COSS, HOLZ, LAGERHOLM, WENDT
NOES: NONE
Doreen Silva Trust
W/s Carpenter bet. 3rd & 4th Avs.
APPEAL DENIED:
AYES: COSS, DYAR, HOLZ, LAGERHOLM
NOES: NONE
ON HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD FEBRUARY 2006 AGENDA:
David & Audrey Hall
W/s Carmelo bet. 11th & 12th Av.
APPEAL DENIED:
AYES: COSS, HOLZ, WENDT
NOES: LAGERHOLM
ABSENT: DYAR
Note: HALL'S APPEAL OF HRB'S DECISION TO CITY COUNCIL ON CITY COUNCIL 2 MAY 2006 AGENDA.
Alfred Johnson
W/s San Antonio bet. Ocean & 4th Av.
APPEAL DENIED:
AYES: COSS, HOLZ, LAGERHOLM, WENDT
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: DYAR
Deborah Storre
NW Corner Lincoln & 8th Av.
APPEAL GRANTED:
AYES: COSS, LAGERHOLM, WENDT
NOES: HOLZ
ABSENT: DYAR
Joe & Julie Villarreal
N/s 2nd bet. Guadalupe & Santa Rita
APPEAL GRANTED:
AYES: COSS, HOLZ, LAGERHOLM
NOES: WENDT
ABSENT: DYAR
ON HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD JANUARY 2006 AGENDA:
APPEAL: Consideration of an appeal of the City's issuance of a preliminary Determination of Ineligibility for listing on the City's Inventory of Historic Resources for an existing residence in the Single Family Residential (R-1) District.
Appellant: Carmel Preservation Foundation
W/s Lincolm bet. 9th & 10th
APPEAL DENIED:
AYES: DYAR, HOLZ, LAGERHOLM, WENDT
NOES: COSS
APPEAL: Consideration of a Historic Appeal of the City's determination to place an existing structure on the City's Inventory of Historic Resources located in the Central Commercial (CC) and Downtown Conservation (DC) Overlay Districts.
Appellant: Doris Rayne Trust
S/s Ocean bet. Lincoln & Dolores
APPEAL DENIED:
AYES: COSS, DYAR, HOLZ, LAGERHOLM, WENDT
NOES: NONE
Note: RAYNE APPEAL OF HRB'S DECISION TO CITY COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2006 AGENDA; AT 4 APRIL 2006 MEETING, IT WAS ANNOUNCED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD PULLED THE ITEM.
APPEAL: Consideration of a Historic appeal of the City's determination to place existing residence on the City's Inventory of Historic Resources located in the Single Family Residential R-1 District.
Norman & Eleanor Moscow
W/s Camino Real bet. 11th & 12th
APPEAL DENIED:
AYES: DYAR, HOLZ, WENDT
NOES: LOSS, LAGERHOLM
APPEAL: Consideration of an Historic appeal of the City's determination to place 4 existing residence on the City's Inventory of Historic Resources as an Historic District located in the Single Family Residential (R-1) and Beach and Riparian Overlay (BR) Districts
Appellant: Kim, Johnson, Liskin
W/s San Antonio bet. Ocean & 4th
APPEAL NOT HEARD DUE TO A POLICY DECISION EARLIER IN THE MEETING TO REMOVE ALL POST-1940 PROPERTIES FROM THE INVENTORY OF HISTORIC RESOURCES PENDING COMPLETION OF AN UPDATE OF THE HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT.
ON HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD DECEMBER 2005 AGENDA:
Carolyn Ahrens
W/s Carpenter bet. 3rd & 4th Avs.
APPEAL GRANTED:
AYES: DYAR, COSS, LAGERHOLM, WENDT
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: HOLZ
Ruth & Alan Scott
N/s 8th bet. Junipero & Torres St.
APPEAL GRANTED:
AYES: DYAR, COSS, LAGERHOLM, WENDT
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: HOLZ
Joseph & Susan Raphel
SW San Antonio & 11th Av.
APPEAL GRANTED:
AYES: DYAR, LAGERHOLM, WENDT
NOES: COSS
ABSENT: HOLZ
ON HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD NOVEMBER 2005 AGENDA:
William & Mildren Daniel
N/s 13th bet. San Antonio & Carmelo
APPEAL DENIED:
AYES: DYAR, HOLZ, LAGERHOLM, WENDT
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: COSS
Elaine Larkin
S/s Mt. View Av. bet. Santa Rita & Santa Fe Sts.
APPEAL GRANTED:
AYES: DYAR, HOLZ, LAGERHOLM, WENDT
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: COSS
William Doolitttle
E/s Casanova bet. 7th & 8th Avs.
APPEAL CONTINUED FOR 90 DAYS; YET NOT ON HRB'S FEBRUARY, MARCH 2006 AGENDAS.
Eldana Eggleston
W/s Camino Real bet. 7th & 8th Avs.
APPEAL DENIED:
AYES: DYAR, HOLZ, WENDT
NOES: LAGERHOLM
ABSENT: COSS
ON HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD OCTOBER 2005 AGENDA:
APPEAL: Consideration of an Historic Appeal of the City's determination to place an existing structure on the City's Inventory of Historic Resources located in the Central Commercial (CC) and Downtown Conservation (DC) Overlay Districts.
Appellant: Paul Laub
N.E. Corner Dolores St. & Ocean Av.
APPEAL CONTINUED AT THE REQUEST OF APPELLANT.
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Flanders Mansion
Once upon a time (circa 1924), Paul & Grace Flanders hired San Francisco draftsman Henry Higby Gutterson to design "Outland," their 5,559 sq. ft. residence.
Flanders Mansion
Flanders Mansion is an exemplary example of English Cottage Tudor Revival architecture; a "unique combination of English half-timbered, English country and English cottage styles."
Flanders Mansion
In 1972, Flanders Mansion was purchased by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea for $275,000.
Flanders Mansion
In recent years, the City Council has not had the POLITICAL WILL to find a compatible public use for Flanders Mansion.
Flanders Mansion
As a result of the City Council's FAILURE to find a public use for Flanders Mansion, City Council Members McCloud, Hazdovac, Rose, Cunningham & Bethel voted unanimously to sell Flanders Mansion, without a vote of the people.
Flanders Mansion
Will Carmelites rise to the challenge and protect this unique, irreplaceable public asset for future generations OR...
Flanders Mansion
MYTH #1: When purchased by the City, the original intent was to sell Flanders Mansion.
FALSE! The original intent was to create open space and a park for Carmelites.
Flanders Mansion
MYTH #2: There is no plan to rehabilitate or maintain Flanders Mansion.
FALSE! The Flanders Foundation has received grants and raised funds for a professional business plan for Flanders Mansion.
Flanders Mansion
MYTH #3: There is no use for it.
FALSE! Historically, Flanders Mansion has been home to the Carmel Art Institute, Carmel Heritage, the Carmel Survey, Lester Rowntree Arboretum Library, City employee and caretaker.
Flanders Mansion
Finally, will City Council Members McCloud, Hazdovac, Rose, Cunningham & Bethel be rewarded for their collective FAILURE to the tune of $5 million?
Monday, April 17, 2006
"Improve Business Diversity and Business Retention?"
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR McCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: JANUARY 9, 2006
SUBJECT: FISCAL YEAR 2005/2006 MID-YEAR BUDGET REPORT
_____________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY
Once the Economic Development Manager is hired, staff will work closely with this individual to develop a strategy to improve business diversity and business retention.
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
February 7, 2006
X. C. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to enter into a consulting agreement with Greg Sellers for the position of Economic Development Manager.
City Administrator Guillen presented the staff report.
Greg Sellers discussed his background in economic development and his plan for economic development in Carmel.
Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment at 5:33 p.m.
Michael Adamson addressed the Council.
Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment at 5:34 p.m.
Council Member ROSE moved approval of the Resolution, seconded by Council
Member BETHEL and carried by the following roll call:
AYES: BETHEL, CUNNINGHAM, HAZDOVAC, ROSE, McCLOUD
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
110181 3/21/06 SELLERS ASSOCIATES $ 5,625.00 01 64051 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Greg Sellers, Morgan Hill Councilman (Term Expires November 2006)
17555 Peak Avenue
Morgan Hill, CA 95037
Phone: 779-7259
Email: greg.sellers@morgan-hill.ca.gov
Biographical Highlights
• Party: Democratic
• Occupation: business owner/consultant
• CEO/Co-Founder, political and public policy consulting firm
• Former Executive Director, Morgan Hill Downtown Revitalization Program
• Board Member, Morgan Hill Historical Society
• Founding Board Member, Leadership Morgan Hill
• Taste of Morgan Hill Founding Executive Director
• B.A., 1983, University of California, Santa Cruz
For Full Biography of Morgan Hill Councilman Greg Sellers:
http://www.morgan-hill.ca.gov/html/gov/council/council.asp?c_id=240000016
http://www.smartvoter.org/1998nov/ca/scl/vote/sellers_g/bio.html
QUESTION: In Carmel-by-the-Sea's coveted marketplace, where the landlords are in the catbird seat, will the taxpayer expense for a part-time Economic Development Manager achieve the City's stated objective of improving "business diversity and business retention?"
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR McCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: JANUARY 9, 2006
SUBJECT: FISCAL YEAR 2005/2006 MID-YEAR BUDGET REPORT
_____________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY
Once the Economic Development Manager is hired, staff will work closely with this individual to develop a strategy to improve business diversity and business retention.
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
February 7, 2006
X. C. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to enter into a consulting agreement with Greg Sellers for the position of Economic Development Manager.
City Administrator Guillen presented the staff report.
Greg Sellers discussed his background in economic development and his plan for economic development in Carmel.
Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment at 5:33 p.m.
Michael Adamson addressed the Council.
Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment at 5:34 p.m.
Council Member ROSE moved approval of the Resolution, seconded by Council
Member BETHEL and carried by the following roll call:
AYES: BETHEL, CUNNINGHAM, HAZDOVAC, ROSE, McCLOUD
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
110181 3/21/06 SELLERS ASSOCIATES $ 5,625.00 01 64051 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
Greg Sellers, Morgan Hill Councilman (Term Expires November 2006)
17555 Peak Avenue
Morgan Hill, CA 95037
Phone: 779-7259
Email: greg.sellers@morgan-hill.ca.gov
Biographical Highlights
• Party: Democratic
• Occupation: business owner/consultant
• CEO/Co-Founder, political and public policy consulting firm
• Former Executive Director, Morgan Hill Downtown Revitalization Program
• Board Member, Morgan Hill Historical Society
• Founding Board Member, Leadership Morgan Hill
• Taste of Morgan Hill Founding Executive Director
• B.A., 1983, University of California, Santa Cruz
For Full Biography of Morgan Hill Councilman Greg Sellers:
http://www.morgan-hill.ca.gov/html/gov/council/council.asp?c_id=240000016
http://www.smartvoter.org/1998nov/ca/scl/vote/sellers_g/bio.html
QUESTION: In Carmel-by-the-Sea's coveted marketplace, where the landlords are in the catbird seat, will the taxpayer expense for a part-time Economic Development Manager achieve the City's stated objective of improving "business diversity and business retention?"
Sunday, April 16, 2006
Pertinent Web Sites for Information on Flanders Mansion
1. Monterey County Superior Court
http://www.monterey.courts.ca.gov/
Click on Calendars Box
Click on: “Click Here to Search the Entire Court Calendar”
Click on: “Search by Case”
Type in Box: M76728, then Click on “Click Here to Search”
Page displays up-to-date Court Date, Time & Courtroom Number.
(as of 16 April 2006, Court Date Thursday, June 22, 2006, 9:00 A.M., Courtroom 14, Judge Robert O’Farrell)
2. Flanders Foundation
http://www.flandersfoundation.org/
Includes links to Mission Statement, Vision Statement, News and Articles, Act Now! – How You Can Help, Myths about Flanders, Reports to the City Council, Directors and Advisory Board, etc.
Publicity and Support, including “Flanders Past and Present,” by Connie Wright.
http://www.flandersfoundation.org/pr.htm
Email: info@flandersfoundation.org
Mailing Address: Flanders Foundation
P.O. Box 1414
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA 93921
Telephone Number: (831) 626-3826
3. The National Trust for Historic Preservation
“The National Trust for Historic Preservation is a private, nonprofit membership organization dedicated to saving historic places and revitalizing America's communities.”
http://www.nationaltrust.org/index.html
Western Preservation News:
“UPDATE: Prognosis Hopeful for Carmel’s Flanders Mansion and Estate?” Melanie Billig, President, Flanders Foundation, Western Preservation News September/October 2005, page 7.
http://www.nationaltrust.org/about_the_trust/newsletters/wro/wro-0905.pdf
“Liquidation History: Picturesque Community Weighs Cash Value of National Register-Listed Estate, Melanie Billig, President, Flanders Foundation, Western Preservation News July/August 2004, page 2.
http://www.nationaltrust.org/about_the_trust/newsletters/wro/wro-0704.pdf
Notice of an award of a $1000 grant “to hire a consultant to develop a profession community outreach & educational program informing the public about the history and the community value of the Flanders Mansion,” Western Preservation News March/April 2004, page 2.
http://www.nationaltrust.org/about_the_trust/newsletters/wro/wro-0304.pdf
4. California Office of Historic Preservation
http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/
“The Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) is responsible for administration of federally and state mandated historic preservation programs in California. The mission of the Office of Historic Preservation and the State Historical Resources Commission, in partnership with the people of California and governmental agencies, is to preserve and enhance California's irreplaceable historic heritage as a matter of public interest so that its vital legacy of cultural, educational, recreational, aesthetic, economic, social, and environmental benefits will be maintained and enriched for present and future generations.”
Local Government Assistance
STAFF CONTACTS:
Lucinda Woodward, Supervisor
HUD/Section 106, Ordinances, General Plans, CLG Coordinator.
State Historian III
lwoodward@parks.ca.gov
916-653-9116
Lucinda Woodward answers e-mail queries promptly; she will either answer herself or forward query to a responsible party within the Office of Historic Preservation.
Michelle Messinger
CEQA/CLG Coordinator
State Historian II
mcmes@parks.ca.gov
916-653-5099
Michelle Messinger wrote a comment letter on the City’s Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) to Brian Roseth, Principal Planner, City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, dated May 14, 2005.
5. National Register of Historic Places
“The National Register of Historic Places is the Nation's official list of cultural resources worthy of preservation. Authorized under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the National Register is part of a national program to coordinate and support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect our historic and archeological resources. Properties listed in the Register include districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture. The National Register is administered by the National Park Service, which is part of the U.S. Department of the Interior.”
http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/
National Register of Historic Places – California – Monterey County
http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/CA/Monterey/state.html
Outlands in the Eighty Acres (added 1989 - Building - #89000228)
Also known as Flanders;Paul Mansion
25800 Hatton, Carmel By-the-Sea
Historic Significance: Architecture/Engineering
Architect, builder, or engineer: Ruhl,Frederick, Gutterson,Henry Higby
Architectural Style: Tudor Revival, Other
Area of Significance: Architecture
Period of Significance: 1900-1924, 1925-1949
Owner: Local Gov't
Historic Function: Domestic
Historic Sub-function: Single Dwelling
Current Function: Education, Landscape
Current Sub-function: Park, School
6. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea web site
http://www.carmelcalifornia.com/
Click on Planning, then Click on Environmental Documents
Draft of Environmental Impact Report for the Sale of Flanders Mansion Property
http://www.carmelcalifornia.com/environmental/FlandersDEIR.pdf
Final Environmental Impact Report
http://www.carmelcalifornia.com/PDF/FlandersFinalEIR.pdf
http://www.monterey.courts.ca.gov/
Click on Calendars Box
Click on: “Click Here to Search the Entire Court Calendar”
Click on: “Search by Case”
Type in Box: M76728, then Click on “Click Here to Search”
Page displays up-to-date Court Date, Time & Courtroom Number.
(as of 16 April 2006, Court Date Thursday, June 22, 2006, 9:00 A.M., Courtroom 14, Judge Robert O’Farrell)
2. Flanders Foundation
http://www.flandersfoundation.org/
Includes links to Mission Statement, Vision Statement, News and Articles, Act Now! – How You Can Help, Myths about Flanders, Reports to the City Council, Directors and Advisory Board, etc.
Publicity and Support, including “Flanders Past and Present,” by Connie Wright.
http://www.flandersfoundation.org/pr.htm
Email: info@flandersfoundation.org
Mailing Address: Flanders Foundation
P.O. Box 1414
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA 93921
Telephone Number: (831) 626-3826
3. The National Trust for Historic Preservation
“The National Trust for Historic Preservation is a private, nonprofit membership organization dedicated to saving historic places and revitalizing America's communities.”
http://www.nationaltrust.org/index.html
Western Preservation News:
“UPDATE: Prognosis Hopeful for Carmel’s Flanders Mansion and Estate?” Melanie Billig, President, Flanders Foundation, Western Preservation News September/October 2005, page 7.
http://www.nationaltrust.org/about_the_trust/newsletters/wro/wro-0905.pdf
“Liquidation History: Picturesque Community Weighs Cash Value of National Register-Listed Estate, Melanie Billig, President, Flanders Foundation, Western Preservation News July/August 2004, page 2.
http://www.nationaltrust.org/about_the_trust/newsletters/wro/wro-0704.pdf
Notice of an award of a $1000 grant “to hire a consultant to develop a profession community outreach & educational program informing the public about the history and the community value of the Flanders Mansion,” Western Preservation News March/April 2004, page 2.
http://www.nationaltrust.org/about_the_trust/newsletters/wro/wro-0304.pdf
4. California Office of Historic Preservation
http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/
“The Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) is responsible for administration of federally and state mandated historic preservation programs in California. The mission of the Office of Historic Preservation and the State Historical Resources Commission, in partnership with the people of California and governmental agencies, is to preserve and enhance California's irreplaceable historic heritage as a matter of public interest so that its vital legacy of cultural, educational, recreational, aesthetic, economic, social, and environmental benefits will be maintained and enriched for present and future generations.”
Local Government Assistance
STAFF CONTACTS:
Lucinda Woodward, Supervisor
HUD/Section 106, Ordinances, General Plans, CLG Coordinator.
State Historian III
lwoodward@parks.ca.gov
916-653-9116
Lucinda Woodward answers e-mail queries promptly; she will either answer herself or forward query to a responsible party within the Office of Historic Preservation.
Michelle Messinger
CEQA/CLG Coordinator
State Historian II
mcmes@parks.ca.gov
916-653-5099
Michelle Messinger wrote a comment letter on the City’s Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) to Brian Roseth, Principal Planner, City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, dated May 14, 2005.
5. National Register of Historic Places
“The National Register of Historic Places is the Nation's official list of cultural resources worthy of preservation. Authorized under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the National Register is part of a national program to coordinate and support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect our historic and archeological resources. Properties listed in the Register include districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture. The National Register is administered by the National Park Service, which is part of the U.S. Department of the Interior.”
http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/
National Register of Historic Places – California – Monterey County
http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/CA/Monterey/state.html
Outlands in the Eighty Acres (added 1989 - Building - #89000228)
Also known as Flanders;Paul Mansion
25800 Hatton, Carmel By-the-Sea
Historic Significance: Architecture/Engineering
Architect, builder, or engineer: Ruhl,Frederick, Gutterson,Henry Higby
Architectural Style: Tudor Revival, Other
Area of Significance: Architecture
Period of Significance: 1900-1924, 1925-1949
Owner: Local Gov't
Historic Function: Domestic
Historic Sub-function: Single Dwelling
Current Function: Education, Landscape
Current Sub-function: Park, School
6. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea web site
http://www.carmelcalifornia.com/
Click on Planning, then Click on Environmental Documents
Draft of Environmental Impact Report for the Sale of Flanders Mansion Property
http://www.carmelcalifornia.com/environmental/FlandersDEIR.pdf
Final Environmental Impact Report
http://www.carmelcalifornia.com/PDF/FlandersFinalEIR.pdf
Saturday, April 15, 2006
SUMMARY: Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
M76728
FLANDERS FOUNDATION v. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
Superior Court, County of Monterey
Filing Date: 11-03-05
Category: Judicial Review-Writ Mandate
Petitioner's Attorneys:
Brandt-Hawley Law Group
Susan Brandt-Hawley SBN 075907
Paige Swartley SBN 215340
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS-CEQA
(14 pages total)
Petitioner alleges:
INTRODUCTION
• To enforce laws preventing the unlawful sale of the historic Flanders Mansion
• Sale conflicts with General Plan, Coastal Local Use Plan
• Represents a transfer of a cultural resource out of City's ownership and into private control
• Request EIR be revised to fully comply with CEQA
• Requests peremptory writ to set aside unlawful sale of Flanders Mansion
• "under mandatory provisions of CEQA, the City was therefore required to deny the project unless feasible alternatives were adopted."
• City took "belated, fatuous stance" that Flanders Mansion is not parkland.
JURISDICTION
• Public Resources Code Sections 21168, 21168.5
• Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1085, 1094.5
PARTIES
• Flanders Foundation, a California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation, established 1998
• City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and City Council (certified EIR, approved sale, lead agency under CEQA)
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
• 1.25 acres within Mission Trails Nature Preserve, a 35-acre park; P-2, zoned Improved Parkland
• Built for the Flanders family in 1924
• National Register of Historic Places, 1989
• City purchased "as a portion of a large single parcel of land," 1972.
• Mission Trail, Carmel Mission (1771)
• 1859: Gertrude Atherton, novelist, purchased land; described in "The Splendid Idle Forties."
• Flanders: purchased 80 acres from McDougal of Carnegie Institute in Carmel
• 1950's: Robert Doolitte purchased 16.5 acres
• 1971: Bill Doolittle donated 1/3 and sold remaining to City
• 1972: City purchased Flanders Mansion and 14.9 acres from the Flanders Estate, $275,000.
• September 2004: City Council reviewed list of capital projects, "surplus, underutilized properties."
• November 2004: City Council authorized an EIR
• May 2005: Draft EIR
• August 2005: Final EIR
• EIR cites significant and unavoidable impacts of sale of Flanders Mansion, including conflicts with the General Plan, LCP. Examined 6 alternatives. Alternative 2: Retain and Lease, identified as the environmentally superior alternative. Final EIR added Alternative 6: Reduced Parcel Size, identified as the second environmentally superior alternative.
• Comment letters: cited inadequacy of mitigation measures, deferral of analysis and mitigation of environmental impacts, inadequate discussion of inconsistency with General Plan, LCP. California Office of Historic Preservation, Ms. Messenger cited that a Preservation Plan needed to be included in the EIR.
• Flanders Foundation---since 1999, offered to raise money, pay for maintenance, operating costs and hired a consultant to develop a business plan. National Trust for Historic Preservation is on record stating its desire to assist Flanders Foundation. EIR deficient in not including financial data to determine the need for the project, list of capital improvement facilities, cost of repairs, proceeds of sale.
• National Trust joined Flanders Foundation in supporting EIR Alternative 2; has supported lease option since 1998.
• Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger letter: General Plan inconsistency, Planning Commission Resolution 87-23 (1987), City Council Resolution 88-97 (1988). "The relevant General Plan policies that made the sale of Flanders Mansion inconsistent and incompatible with the General Plan are still relevant today."
• August, September 2005: Planning Commission held public hearing on EIR. City staff; City not in compliance with Section 17.32.210 of Carmel Municipal Code requiring minimum maintenance and upkeep of City resources. Brandt-Hawley cited preservation parlance, "demolition by neglect.
• City staff: Conditions of Sale, residential use, constitutes a rezone to R-1 without going through rezone process which would require Coastal Commission approval.
• Planning Commission: September meeting, found Alternatives 1, 2, 6 consistent with General Plan, EIR adequate, recommended Alternative 2 (second choice Alternative 6), reduce parcel size and parcel Parkland.
• City Council: September 22, 2005 meeting, consulting attorney Bill Connors, "never been used as parkland." Brandt-Hawley cited City staff references in General Plan/LCP to site as parkland and open space.
• Flanders Foundation-: City has not complied with mandatory Government Code procedures for sale of parkland, including election (Gov. Code. Sections 38440-38462)
• Proposed sale of 1.25 acres represents a subset of National Register Property, requiring approval of the National Park Service.
• City Council adopted Findings on October 4, 2005; found project consistent with the General Plan and site not designated or used as a park.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF CEQA
a.) City unlawfully approved a project with significant environmental impacts; alternatives and mitigation measures, not adopted.
b.) City unlawfully adopted statement of overriding considerations unsupported by substantial evidence.
c.) EIR, inadequate, incomplete; defers analysis of environmental impacts and development, implementation of mitigation measures and General Plan, Zoning Code, inadequate analysis.
d.) EIR failed to respond to comments adequately.
e.) City failed to make Findings supported by substantial evidence as to feasibility of project alternatives and mitigation measures.
f.) EIR failed in including adequate mitigation measures and monitoring plan, including preservation plan and improperly deferred mitigation assessment.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODES
a.) City failed to comply with Gov. Code Sections 38440-38462, procedures for sale of parkland, including a City Council resolution justifying the proposed discontinuance of park use, a public hearing to consider protests, a vote to sustain or overrule protests and the scheduling of a special election if the City Council votes to overrule the protests.
b.) Government Code Section 54222
As parkland, "surplus" land to private party, requires City to offer for sale to other parties ex. Park District, etc.
c.) Government Code Section 65000
Inconsistent with the General Plan; reasons cited include decrease open space in public domain, eliminate areas of aesthetic quality from public domain, could degrade passive recreational environment of Mission Trails Nature Preserve and Rowntree Arboretum.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF CARMEL MUNICIPAL CODE
City failed to enforce Title 17.32.210 of the Carmel Municipal Code regarding maintenance and upkeep of historic resource.
Petitioner prays:
1.) Court issues a peremptory writ of mandate to Carmel-by-the-Sea to set aside and void all approvals of sale "pending full compliance" with CEQA, Government Code, LCP, City ordinance.
2.) Petitioners costs and fees.
3.) Other and future relief, court finds proper.
N.B. "The Flanders Foundation explained...the City had allowed the mansion to deteriorate in an indefensible effort to bolster its argument that Flanders Mansion is too costly to repair. City failed to take advantage of state, federal and local grant opportunities and rejected offers by the Flanders foundation, etc. to rehabilitate, maintain and operate Flanders Mansion."
FLANDERS FOUNDATION v. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
Superior Court, County of Monterey
Filing Date: 11-03-05
Category: Judicial Review-Writ Mandate
Petitioner's Attorneys:
Brandt-Hawley Law Group
Susan Brandt-Hawley SBN 075907
Paige Swartley SBN 215340
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS-CEQA
(14 pages total)
Petitioner alleges:
INTRODUCTION
• To enforce laws preventing the unlawful sale of the historic Flanders Mansion
• Sale conflicts with General Plan, Coastal Local Use Plan
• Represents a transfer of a cultural resource out of City's ownership and into private control
• Request EIR be revised to fully comply with CEQA
• Requests peremptory writ to set aside unlawful sale of Flanders Mansion
• "under mandatory provisions of CEQA, the City was therefore required to deny the project unless feasible alternatives were adopted."
• City took "belated, fatuous stance" that Flanders Mansion is not parkland.
JURISDICTION
• Public Resources Code Sections 21168, 21168.5
• Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1085, 1094.5
PARTIES
• Flanders Foundation, a California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation, established 1998
• City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and City Council (certified EIR, approved sale, lead agency under CEQA)
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
• 1.25 acres within Mission Trails Nature Preserve, a 35-acre park; P-2, zoned Improved Parkland
• Built for the Flanders family in 1924
• National Register of Historic Places, 1989
• City purchased "as a portion of a large single parcel of land," 1972.
• Mission Trail, Carmel Mission (1771)
• 1859: Gertrude Atherton, novelist, purchased land; described in "The Splendid Idle Forties."
• Flanders: purchased 80 acres from McDougal of Carnegie Institute in Carmel
• 1950's: Robert Doolitte purchased 16.5 acres
• 1971: Bill Doolittle donated 1/3 and sold remaining to City
• 1972: City purchased Flanders Mansion and 14.9 acres from the Flanders Estate, $275,000.
• September 2004: City Council reviewed list of capital projects, "surplus, underutilized properties."
• November 2004: City Council authorized an EIR
• May 2005: Draft EIR
• August 2005: Final EIR
• EIR cites significant and unavoidable impacts of sale of Flanders Mansion, including conflicts with the General Plan, LCP. Examined 6 alternatives. Alternative 2: Retain and Lease, identified as the environmentally superior alternative. Final EIR added Alternative 6: Reduced Parcel Size, identified as the second environmentally superior alternative.
• Comment letters: cited inadequacy of mitigation measures, deferral of analysis and mitigation of environmental impacts, inadequate discussion of inconsistency with General Plan, LCP. California Office of Historic Preservation, Ms. Messenger cited that a Preservation Plan needed to be included in the EIR.
• Flanders Foundation---since 1999, offered to raise money, pay for maintenance, operating costs and hired a consultant to develop a business plan. National Trust for Historic Preservation is on record stating its desire to assist Flanders Foundation. EIR deficient in not including financial data to determine the need for the project, list of capital improvement facilities, cost of repairs, proceeds of sale.
• National Trust joined Flanders Foundation in supporting EIR Alternative 2; has supported lease option since 1998.
• Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger letter: General Plan inconsistency, Planning Commission Resolution 87-23 (1987), City Council Resolution 88-97 (1988). "The relevant General Plan policies that made the sale of Flanders Mansion inconsistent and incompatible with the General Plan are still relevant today."
• August, September 2005: Planning Commission held public hearing on EIR. City staff; City not in compliance with Section 17.32.210 of Carmel Municipal Code requiring minimum maintenance and upkeep of City resources. Brandt-Hawley cited preservation parlance, "demolition by neglect.
• City staff: Conditions of Sale, residential use, constitutes a rezone to R-1 without going through rezone process which would require Coastal Commission approval.
• Planning Commission: September meeting, found Alternatives 1, 2, 6 consistent with General Plan, EIR adequate, recommended Alternative 2 (second choice Alternative 6), reduce parcel size and parcel Parkland.
• City Council: September 22, 2005 meeting, consulting attorney Bill Connors, "never been used as parkland." Brandt-Hawley cited City staff references in General Plan/LCP to site as parkland and open space.
• Flanders Foundation-: City has not complied with mandatory Government Code procedures for sale of parkland, including election (Gov. Code. Sections 38440-38462)
• Proposed sale of 1.25 acres represents a subset of National Register Property, requiring approval of the National Park Service.
• City Council adopted Findings on October 4, 2005; found project consistent with the General Plan and site not designated or used as a park.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF CEQA
a.) City unlawfully approved a project with significant environmental impacts; alternatives and mitigation measures, not adopted.
b.) City unlawfully adopted statement of overriding considerations unsupported by substantial evidence.
c.) EIR, inadequate, incomplete; defers analysis of environmental impacts and development, implementation of mitigation measures and General Plan, Zoning Code, inadequate analysis.
d.) EIR failed to respond to comments adequately.
e.) City failed to make Findings supported by substantial evidence as to feasibility of project alternatives and mitigation measures.
f.) EIR failed in including adequate mitigation measures and monitoring plan, including preservation plan and improperly deferred mitigation assessment.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODES
a.) City failed to comply with Gov. Code Sections 38440-38462, procedures for sale of parkland, including a City Council resolution justifying the proposed discontinuance of park use, a public hearing to consider protests, a vote to sustain or overrule protests and the scheduling of a special election if the City Council votes to overrule the protests.
b.) Government Code Section 54222
As parkland, "surplus" land to private party, requires City to offer for sale to other parties ex. Park District, etc.
c.) Government Code Section 65000
Inconsistent with the General Plan; reasons cited include decrease open space in public domain, eliminate areas of aesthetic quality from public domain, could degrade passive recreational environment of Mission Trails Nature Preserve and Rowntree Arboretum.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF CARMEL MUNICIPAL CODE
City failed to enforce Title 17.32.210 of the Carmel Municipal Code regarding maintenance and upkeep of historic resource.
Petitioner prays:
1.) Court issues a peremptory writ of mandate to Carmel-by-the-Sea to set aside and void all approvals of sale "pending full compliance" with CEQA, Government Code, LCP, City ordinance.
2.) Petitioners costs and fees.
3.) Other and future relief, court finds proper.
N.B. "The Flanders Foundation explained...the City had allowed the mansion to deteriorate in an indefensible effort to bolster its argument that Flanders Mansion is too costly to repair. City failed to take advantage of state, federal and local grant opportunities and rejected offers by the Flanders foundation, etc. to rehabilitate, maintain and operate Flanders Mansion."
UPDATE: City Monetary Compensation to Attorney Conners
TOTAL CITY MONETARY AMOUNT TO SPECIAL COUNSEL WILLIAM B. CONNERS
M76728, FLANDERS FOUNDATION v. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA: $31,260.00 (March 2005-March 2006)
110141 3/21/06 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 880.00 01 61051 LEGAL SERVICES – FLANDERS LAWSUIT
110014 2/28/06 WILLIAM B. CONNERS 3,780.00 01 61051 JAN '06 LEGAL SERVICES
109798 1/24/06 WILLIAM B. CONNERS 1,260.00 01 61051 LEGAL SERVICES
109626 12/27/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS 1,780.00 01 61051 LEGAL SERVICES-FLANDERS
109353 11/15/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $40.00 01 61051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
109165 10/11/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $7,220.00 01 61051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
108976 9/13/2005 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $4,280.00 01 61051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
108897 8/30/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $2,520.00 01 61051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
108622 7/20/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $2,940.00 01 61051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
108410 6/14/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $2,360.00 01 61051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
108242 5/24/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $2,660.00 01 61051 0040 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
107869 3/22/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS 1,540.00 01 61051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
(Source: City of Carmel-by-the-Sea web site http://www.ci.carmel.ca.us/ March 2005 – March 2006 Check Registers)
M76728, FLANDERS FOUNDATION v. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA: $31,260.00 (March 2005-March 2006)
110141 3/21/06 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 880.00 01 61051 LEGAL SERVICES – FLANDERS LAWSUIT
110014 2/28/06 WILLIAM B. CONNERS 3,780.00 01 61051 JAN '06 LEGAL SERVICES
109798 1/24/06 WILLIAM B. CONNERS 1,260.00 01 61051 LEGAL SERVICES
109626 12/27/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS 1,780.00 01 61051 LEGAL SERVICES-FLANDERS
109353 11/15/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $40.00 01 61051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
109165 10/11/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $7,220.00 01 61051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
108976 9/13/2005 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $4,280.00 01 61051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
108897 8/30/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $2,520.00 01 61051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
108622 7/20/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $2,940.00 01 61051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
108410 6/14/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $2,360.00 01 61051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
108242 5/24/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $2,660.00 01 61051 0040 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
107869 3/22/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS 1,540.00 01 61051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
(Source: City of Carmel-by-the-Sea web site http://www.ci.carmel.ca.us/ March 2005 – March 2006 Check Registers)
Water: New City Resolution & Allocations
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Meeting Date: 7 March 2006
Prepared by Sean Conroy, Associate Planner
Name: Consideration of a Resolution establishing land-use categories for water allocation and assigning water amounts to each category.
Description: This Resolution amends and replaces Resolution 2000-132 to establish 1) a list of defined land use or project categories for which water will be available 2) a discrete quantity of water, expressed in acre-feet per year, to allot to each defined land use category, and 3) a discrete quantity of water for unallocated reserves.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff time: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.
Important Considerations: CMC 17.50 establishes the City’s water management program.
Following a public hearing the City Council may adopt a resolution allocating water resources for increased use. The total amount of water available for allocation is extremely limited compared to the demand. Based on General Plan/Coastal Land Use Policies, the four high priority uses are affordable housing, vacant lots of record, essential public services and coastal recreation. The Planning Commission determined that, of these, there is only enough water to meaningfully serve affordable housing. Policy P3-42 of the Housing Element of the General Plan encourages the establishment of a water allocation category for new affordable housing units.
Decision Record: On 7 December 2005, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution forwarding recommendations to the City Council on a new water allocation, including specific land-use categories with a specific amount of water for each category.
Reviewed by:
__________________________ _____________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
TO: MAYOR McCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
THROUGH: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: SEAN CONROY, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
DATE: 7 MARCH 2006
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION NO. AMENDING AND
REPLACING RESOLUTION NO. 2000-132, ESTABLISHING
CATEGORIES FOR WATER ALLOCATION AND SPECIFIC
WATER AMOUNTS TO BE ASSIGNED TO EACH CATEGORY.
RECOMMENDED MOTION
Adopt the Resolution.
BACKGROUND
The City last received water to allocate to new projects in 1993 from the Paralta Well in Seaside, and in 1995 from the distribution of a regional reserve. Water allocations, except for the City’s unallocated reserve and municipal reserve, have been exhausted for several years. Recently, .897 acre-feet of water previously pre-committed to a residential care facility, returned to the City.
According to CMC 17.50.040.C, if a water pre-commitment or allocation is abandoned, it returns to its allocation category. The water for the residential care facility originated from the City’s commercial water allocation. The City Council can decide to leave the .897 acre-feet of water in the Commercial Allocation or adopt a new water allocation distributing the water elsewhere.
EVALUATION
CMC 17.50 establishes the City’s water management program. Following a public hearing the City Council may adopt a resolution allocating water resources for increased use. The Council’s decision should include consideration of recommendations from the Planning Commission on 1) a list of defined land use or project categories, 2) a discrete quantity of water, expressed in acre-feet per year, for each defined land use category, and 3) a discrete quantity of water for unallocated reserves.
Policy P3-42 of the Housing Element of the General Plan encourages the allocation of water for new affordable housing units. In past allocations, there was no specific category for low-income housing. The Multi-Family Residential category included new market-rate apartments and condominiums plus low income and senior housing. Staff recommends the creation of a new allocation category for low-income and very-low income housing. The amount of water that is returning to the City (.897 acre-feet) is not a substantial amount, but could provide sufficient water for approximately 10 to 15 affordable units. The Planning Commission recommended that all of the .897 acre-feet of water be reserved for low-income, or very low-income housing.
In addition to creating a new water allocation, the Planning Commission included a precommitment of .109 acre-feet of water for two low-income housing units proposed as part of the Forest Cottages Specific Plan. This item is scheduled separately on the Council’s agenda at this meeting.
The Housing Element of the General Plan notes that approximately 69 sites in the R-1 District are either vacant, or underutilized. While there is a clear need for water on vacant sites, staff does not recommend that water be placed in the residential allocation until there is a more substantial water supply to distribute. Staff estimates the amount of water available for allocation would serve only three or four new single-family residences.
The City currently has approximately 1.701 acre-feet of water in unallocated reserves. Staff recommends that this water remain in unallocated reserves. The purpose of this allocation is to supply water to municipal projects or other uses that serve the broader interests of the entire community.
The recommended water allocation from the Planning Commission indicated a total availability of 3.271 acre-feet of water. Staff has conferred with the Water Management District and concluded that the actual water availability is 3.26 acre-feet. To preserve the Planning Commission’s recommended allocation for housing development, the difference of .011 acre-feet was subtracted from the City’s Unallocated Reserve category.
TOTAL AVAILABLE WATER RESOURCE 3.26 af
Category #1: Low & Very Low Income Housing .788 af
This category includes residential housing units that meet the affordable housing standards for low-income and/or very low-income households as estimated by the Municipal Code.
Category #2: Single Family Residential 0.0 af
Category #3: Multi-Family Residential 0.0 af
This category includes permanent and non-transient multi-family housing in all commercial and R-4 Districts, including new apartments and condominiums, conversions of commercial space to residential dwellings, and the housing component of mixed-use projects.
Category #4: Commercial 0.0 af
This category includes construction of new commercial floor space and conversion of existing space to uses with a greater demand for water. This category also includes the commercial component of mixed-use projects.
Category #5: Municipal .224 af
This category includes all forms of municipal projects including expansion or renovation of existing facilities, construction of new facilities and changes in use.
Category #6: Unallocated Reserve 1.69 af
This category is unallocated and is to be held as uncommitted until assigned to a defined category through adoption of a new Allocation Resolution by the City Council.
Category #7: Mallery/Pescadero Water Transfer Reserve .115 af
This category includes the remaining balance from .960 acre-feet of water originally set aside through a transfer of development rights for four vacant lots in Pescadero Canyon owned in 1998 by Tim Mallery but dedicated as permanent open-space. This water may be used for residential, multi-family residential, commercial or public use development as determined by Mallery, provided that the project complies with all zoning and provided that the project is located with the City limits.
Category #8: Spinning Wheel .334 af
This category is for water remaining from .56 acre feet of water that came from the Spinning Wheel Restaurant.
Category #9: Forest Cottages Pre-commitment .109 af
This category is for water pre-committed to the Forest Cottages Specific Plan for the creation of two low-income housing units. If this denied by the City Council or Coastal Commission or the project is not built by 1 March 2008 or is otherwise abandoned, the water shall return to Category #1.
Agenda Item Summary
Meeting Date: 7 March 2006
Prepared by Sean Conroy, Associate Planner
Name: Consideration of a Resolution establishing land-use categories for water allocation and assigning water amounts to each category.
Description: This Resolution amends and replaces Resolution 2000-132 to establish 1) a list of defined land use or project categories for which water will be available 2) a discrete quantity of water, expressed in acre-feet per year, to allot to each defined land use category, and 3) a discrete quantity of water for unallocated reserves.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff time: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.
Important Considerations: CMC 17.50 establishes the City’s water management program.
Following a public hearing the City Council may adopt a resolution allocating water resources for increased use. The total amount of water available for allocation is extremely limited compared to the demand. Based on General Plan/Coastal Land Use Policies, the four high priority uses are affordable housing, vacant lots of record, essential public services and coastal recreation. The Planning Commission determined that, of these, there is only enough water to meaningfully serve affordable housing. Policy P3-42 of the Housing Element of the General Plan encourages the establishment of a water allocation category for new affordable housing units.
Decision Record: On 7 December 2005, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution forwarding recommendations to the City Council on a new water allocation, including specific land-use categories with a specific amount of water for each category.
Reviewed by:
__________________________ _____________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
TO: MAYOR McCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
THROUGH: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: SEAN CONROY, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
DATE: 7 MARCH 2006
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION NO. AMENDING AND
REPLACING RESOLUTION NO. 2000-132, ESTABLISHING
CATEGORIES FOR WATER ALLOCATION AND SPECIFIC
WATER AMOUNTS TO BE ASSIGNED TO EACH CATEGORY.
RECOMMENDED MOTION
Adopt the Resolution.
BACKGROUND
The City last received water to allocate to new projects in 1993 from the Paralta Well in Seaside, and in 1995 from the distribution of a regional reserve. Water allocations, except for the City’s unallocated reserve and municipal reserve, have been exhausted for several years. Recently, .897 acre-feet of water previously pre-committed to a residential care facility, returned to the City.
According to CMC 17.50.040.C, if a water pre-commitment or allocation is abandoned, it returns to its allocation category. The water for the residential care facility originated from the City’s commercial water allocation. The City Council can decide to leave the .897 acre-feet of water in the Commercial Allocation or adopt a new water allocation distributing the water elsewhere.
EVALUATION
CMC 17.50 establishes the City’s water management program. Following a public hearing the City Council may adopt a resolution allocating water resources for increased use. The Council’s decision should include consideration of recommendations from the Planning Commission on 1) a list of defined land use or project categories, 2) a discrete quantity of water, expressed in acre-feet per year, for each defined land use category, and 3) a discrete quantity of water for unallocated reserves.
Policy P3-42 of the Housing Element of the General Plan encourages the allocation of water for new affordable housing units. In past allocations, there was no specific category for low-income housing. The Multi-Family Residential category included new market-rate apartments and condominiums plus low income and senior housing. Staff recommends the creation of a new allocation category for low-income and very-low income housing. The amount of water that is returning to the City (.897 acre-feet) is not a substantial amount, but could provide sufficient water for approximately 10 to 15 affordable units. The Planning Commission recommended that all of the .897 acre-feet of water be reserved for low-income, or very low-income housing.
In addition to creating a new water allocation, the Planning Commission included a precommitment of .109 acre-feet of water for two low-income housing units proposed as part of the Forest Cottages Specific Plan. This item is scheduled separately on the Council’s agenda at this meeting.
The Housing Element of the General Plan notes that approximately 69 sites in the R-1 District are either vacant, or underutilized. While there is a clear need for water on vacant sites, staff does not recommend that water be placed in the residential allocation until there is a more substantial water supply to distribute. Staff estimates the amount of water available for allocation would serve only three or four new single-family residences.
The City currently has approximately 1.701 acre-feet of water in unallocated reserves. Staff recommends that this water remain in unallocated reserves. The purpose of this allocation is to supply water to municipal projects or other uses that serve the broader interests of the entire community.
The recommended water allocation from the Planning Commission indicated a total availability of 3.271 acre-feet of water. Staff has conferred with the Water Management District and concluded that the actual water availability is 3.26 acre-feet. To preserve the Planning Commission’s recommended allocation for housing development, the difference of .011 acre-feet was subtracted from the City’s Unallocated Reserve category.
TOTAL AVAILABLE WATER RESOURCE 3.26 af
Category #1: Low & Very Low Income Housing .788 af
This category includes residential housing units that meet the affordable housing standards for low-income and/or very low-income households as estimated by the Municipal Code.
Category #2: Single Family Residential 0.0 af
Category #3: Multi-Family Residential 0.0 af
This category includes permanent and non-transient multi-family housing in all commercial and R-4 Districts, including new apartments and condominiums, conversions of commercial space to residential dwellings, and the housing component of mixed-use projects.
Category #4: Commercial 0.0 af
This category includes construction of new commercial floor space and conversion of existing space to uses with a greater demand for water. This category also includes the commercial component of mixed-use projects.
Category #5: Municipal .224 af
This category includes all forms of municipal projects including expansion or renovation of existing facilities, construction of new facilities and changes in use.
Category #6: Unallocated Reserve 1.69 af
This category is unallocated and is to be held as uncommitted until assigned to a defined category through adoption of a new Allocation Resolution by the City Council.
Category #7: Mallery/Pescadero Water Transfer Reserve .115 af
This category includes the remaining balance from .960 acre-feet of water originally set aside through a transfer of development rights for four vacant lots in Pescadero Canyon owned in 1998 by Tim Mallery but dedicated as permanent open-space. This water may be used for residential, multi-family residential, commercial or public use development as determined by Mallery, provided that the project complies with all zoning and provided that the project is located with the City limits.
Category #8: Spinning Wheel .334 af
This category is for water remaining from .56 acre feet of water that came from the Spinning Wheel Restaurant.
Category #9: Forest Cottages Pre-commitment .109 af
This category is for water pre-committed to the Forest Cottages Specific Plan for the creation of two low-income housing units. If this denied by the City Council or Coastal Commission or the project is not built by 1 March 2008 or is otherwise abandoned, the water shall return to Category #1.
Sunday, April 09, 2006
4 April 2006 City Council Meeting: Remarks on "OPEN GOVERNMENT"
During the Appearances Section of the 4 April 2006 Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council meeting, David Dilworth, Executive Director of Helping Our Peninsula's Environment (HOPE), stated:
"Good Evening. My name is David Dilworth, Executive Director of Helping Our Peninsula's Environment...We protect our environment and democracy of our Mounterey Peninsula.
We appreciate the discussion you had on the agenda item on Open Government at the last meeting that was prompted by the Grand Jury Report which criticized this Council and this Mayor. However, your draft responses did not reflect reality or the judgment of most people. That's up for debate. But there's one thing that's not up for debate. And first of all I'm going to bring this to your attention. The Education Code allows any member of the public to put an item on a school board agenda. This is the Section:
Ed. Code Sec. 35145.5
It is the intent of the Legislature that members of the public be able to place matters directly related to school district business on the agenda of school district governing board meetings.
That's exactly what the Grand Jury was asking you to do for the City Council, which you declined.
Here's the Finding related to it.
Grand Jury Finding 6:
All cities have a published procedure and a form for the public to place items on city council agendas.
The city's response was, 'The City agrees with this Finding.' That's bewildering because the Grand Jury was mistaken. Carmel has no procedure or form for a citizen to place an item on the agenda. Carmel has no law or ordinance enabling that. So that response to the Superior Court of Monterey County was patently false. I suggest you revise your remarks that were sent to the Grand Jury because we're certainly going to point it out to them in our response.
Now, I'm going to bring a little bit of irony or actually illustrate how uncooperative this City and this Council are to allowing public input. First of all, on this exact item for last month, there was no paper copy available for the public to read what you were discussing. It was available on your web site, but it was 9 megabytes. On a slow dial-up, which I have, it takes about an hour to get that document. That's unacceptable. That's hostility to the public. It may be an oversight, but we think that needs to be straightened out. Then, when we asked to have that item pulled from the consent agenda, it was put at the end of the meeting, hours after we were here. We had two other meetings to go to---Monterey City Council meeting and one of our own monthly meetings. So we couldn't even attend those.
Well, we do have an alternative. HOPE conducted a series of 20 questions for all the candidates. Here are the answers we got from the candidates running for council. We did not get any responses from Paula Hazdovac, Gerard Rose or Mayor McCloud. But we did get responses from Ryan and the gentleman, Bill Winfield.
The last bit of irony we wanted to bring to your attention was we asked this Council to put open government on your agenda. We asked you in February. We await seeing that occur.
Thank you."
Note: Links to HOPE's Open Meetings Violation Letters to Monterey County District Attorney regarding Mayor McCloud
http://www.1hope.org/mccloud.htm (Re: Carmel-by-the-Sea Council Violates Open Meeting Law (Brown Act) FIVE times)
http://www.1hope.org/mccloud2.htm (Re: Carmel Mayor McCloud Violates Open Meeting Law Again)
"Good Evening. My name is David Dilworth, Executive Director of Helping Our Peninsula's Environment...We protect our environment and democracy of our Mounterey Peninsula.
We appreciate the discussion you had on the agenda item on Open Government at the last meeting that was prompted by the Grand Jury Report which criticized this Council and this Mayor. However, your draft responses did not reflect reality or the judgment of most people. That's up for debate. But there's one thing that's not up for debate. And first of all I'm going to bring this to your attention. The Education Code allows any member of the public to put an item on a school board agenda. This is the Section:
Ed. Code Sec. 35145.5
It is the intent of the Legislature that members of the public be able to place matters directly related to school district business on the agenda of school district governing board meetings.
That's exactly what the Grand Jury was asking you to do for the City Council, which you declined.
Here's the Finding related to it.
Grand Jury Finding 6:
All cities have a published procedure and a form for the public to place items on city council agendas.
The city's response was, 'The City agrees with this Finding.' That's bewildering because the Grand Jury was mistaken. Carmel has no procedure or form for a citizen to place an item on the agenda. Carmel has no law or ordinance enabling that. So that response to the Superior Court of Monterey County was patently false. I suggest you revise your remarks that were sent to the Grand Jury because we're certainly going to point it out to them in our response.
Now, I'm going to bring a little bit of irony or actually illustrate how uncooperative this City and this Council are to allowing public input. First of all, on this exact item for last month, there was no paper copy available for the public to read what you were discussing. It was available on your web site, but it was 9 megabytes. On a slow dial-up, which I have, it takes about an hour to get that document. That's unacceptable. That's hostility to the public. It may be an oversight, but we think that needs to be straightened out. Then, when we asked to have that item pulled from the consent agenda, it was put at the end of the meeting, hours after we were here. We had two other meetings to go to---Monterey City Council meeting and one of our own monthly meetings. So we couldn't even attend those.
Well, we do have an alternative. HOPE conducted a series of 20 questions for all the candidates. Here are the answers we got from the candidates running for council. We did not get any responses from Paula Hazdovac, Gerard Rose or Mayor McCloud. But we did get responses from Ryan and the gentleman, Bill Winfield.
The last bit of irony we wanted to bring to your attention was we asked this Council to put open government on your agenda. We asked you in February. We await seeing that occur.
Thank you."
Note: Links to HOPE's Open Meetings Violation Letters to Monterey County District Attorney regarding Mayor McCloud
http://www.1hope.org/mccloud.htm (Re: Carmel-by-the-Sea Council Violates Open Meeting Law (Brown Act) FIVE times)
http://www.1hope.org/mccloud2.htm (Re: Carmel Mayor McCloud Violates Open Meeting Law Again)
Saturday, April 08, 2006
City Administrator's DEFENSIVE PREVARICATION
Update on Friends of Carmel Cultural Heritage appeal of the Historic Resources Board's 23 January 2006 decision to remove 45 post-1940 properties from the Inventory of Historic Resources pending completion of an update of the Historic Context Statement.
At the 7 March 2006 Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council meeting, the above referenced appeal was continued by the City Council.
Transcript from the 7 March 2006 City Council meeting, Public Hearing, Appeal.
Mayor Sue McCloud: "The next item is Public Hearings. This was, as I mentioned in the beginning, Consideration of an Appeal of a Decision of the Historic Resources Board to remove properties from the Historic Resources Inventory that were developed between 1940-1956. And staff is...Brain, do you want to..
Principal Planner Brian Roseth: "Thank you Madam Mayor and members of the City Council. Before I go into this, I would like to give..."
McCloud: "We're not going to go into it, we are going to continue it."
Roseth: "Oh, I'm sorry."
McCloud: "Remember?"
Roseth: "I wasn't here at the beginning of the meeting. That saves me all this.
Laughter.
City Administrator Rich Guillen: "Yes. Staff is recommend we continue this item because we need further review of the issues,(pause) mainly with the Coastal Commission.
McCloud: "The Coastal Commission contacted us on Friday afternoon and because of their schedule this week down here, there is otherwise not time to get together with them. So, and Don you have talked to the attorneys...So, we've agreed that we would...with Susan Brandt-Hawley and the Coastal Commission...We would postpone, continue this."
Councilman Gerard Rose: "So the gist, as I understand it, is that we are postponing this so that our staff can speak to the staff of the Coastal Commission about this proposal. Is that right?"
McCloud: "It's a large...It's...Yeah."
Guillen: "That's correct."
Later that week, on Thursday, 9 March 2006, Enid Sales, Director of the Carmel Preservation Foundation, orally recited her letter to California Coastal Commission Chair Meg Caldwell and Members of the Coastal Commission at the Coastal Commission's meeting in Monterey.
Letter to Chair Meg Caldwell, and Members of the Coastal Commission from Enid Sales, director of the Carmel Preservation Foundation
CARMEL PRESERVATION FOUNDATION
P.O. BOX 3959 ~ CARMEL, CA 93921
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION MARCH 7, 2006 MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
TO: Chair Meg Caldwell, and Members of the Coastal Commission
FROM: Enid Sales, Director of the Carmel Preservation Foundation
RE: Request of an Overview of Commission Staff of the Implementation Plan of the Local Coastal Plan for Carmel, CA.
We feel that Carmel Planning Staff consistently violates the conditions of the IP regarding Historic Resources. Our concerns are with the Inventory, the consistent refusal to include relevant evaluations of the Carmel Preservation Foundation on the Agendas of the Historic Resources Board, and the Planning Commission. Following are the violations.
1. After a letter to property owners of their inclusion on the Inventory,
they did not record these buildings as required.
2. Conducted a Workshop for Owners that explained in Planning terms not too
clearly what the requirements are, but did not support the Preservation
Program. Instead they blamed the Coastal Commission because they had
made the City select an Inventory and have such a Program.
3. The City upset Owners at this meeting to such an extent that 93 requests
were made to have their properties removed from the Inventory and there
are only 300 Resources altogether on the Inventory.
4. Finding it onerous to deal with buildings one by one, their next
strategy was to remove 45 more properties from the Inventory because
they were built after 1940, the date that the Context Statement stops
its historic evaluation.
a. The Context is advisory not regulatory.
b. The Planning Department has the responsibility of updating the
Statement every five years.
c. An appeal was filed re these 45 buildings by CPF, and was
scheduled, by Municipal Code to be at the first meeting after
the filing, which was Tuesday, and the Council continued the
hearing without setting a future date even though it was
publicly requested.
5. Since the LCP was certified in October 2004, the City has misused the
methodology for determining what properties are and are not historic.
We need your Staff to examine the their use of ineligible, loss of
integrity, age, and misuse of the Secretary of Interior's Standards.
6. There have been two requests for Mills Act Contracts, Both buildings
are on the Carmel Historic Register. Both requests have been continued
twice with no explanation for why they can't proceed. This has been
since December 2005.
We sincerely request that we can make our specific problems clear directly to Central Coast Staff so that we can be assured that the excellent Implementation Plan can be practiced correctly. Thank you.
After Enid Sales' presentation, the Chair spoke to Charles Lester, Deputy Director, Central Coast District Office, and he said he was going to speak with the Mayor. The Chair made it clear that Mr. Lester must and with what Enid Sales had requested.
On or about Friday,7 April 2006, City Administrator Rich Guillen remarked that the meeting between the City and the Coastal Commission Staff was about all of the Local Coastal Program (LCP)---this was a factually inaccurate statement. When confronted with the reasons stated by the City at the 7 March 2006 City Council meeting, Guillen refused to admit the reason for the meeting was the Historic Resources Board's decision, upon the recommendation of Principal Planner Brian Roseth, to remove 45 post-1940 properties from the Inventory of Historic Resources. Defensively, he reiterated that the meeting was not a public meeting and "I don't have to tell you."
In the context of the 2005 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Report citing the lack of "open government" in Carmel-by-the-Sea, it is extremely disappointing, discouraging and disheartening to learn of a City Administrator who responds to a citizen's query with defensive prevarications,instead of genuine interest for a citizen's concerns.
Finally, in an April 7, 2006 Letter to The Carmel Pine Cone, Olof Dahlstrand wrote of the incumbents responses to his question on the meaning of "open government;" "the incumbents' replies showed their continuing misunderstanding of this concept which has dogged them for several years. (The reluctance of the incumbents to support an open public discussion of the issues in the privatization of the management of Sunset Center comes to mind.)" Is it any wonder then, that the City Administrator, who serves at the pleasure of the City Council, similarly suffers from a "continuing misunderstanding" of open government?" The City Administrator and the Members of the Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council just don't get it and never will get it!
At the 7 March 2006 Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council meeting, the above referenced appeal was continued by the City Council.
Transcript from the 7 March 2006 City Council meeting, Public Hearing, Appeal.
Mayor Sue McCloud: "The next item is Public Hearings. This was, as I mentioned in the beginning, Consideration of an Appeal of a Decision of the Historic Resources Board to remove properties from the Historic Resources Inventory that were developed between 1940-1956. And staff is...Brain, do you want to..
Principal Planner Brian Roseth: "Thank you Madam Mayor and members of the City Council. Before I go into this, I would like to give..."
McCloud: "We're not going to go into it, we are going to continue it."
Roseth: "Oh, I'm sorry."
McCloud: "Remember?"
Roseth: "I wasn't here at the beginning of the meeting. That saves me all this.
Laughter.
City Administrator Rich Guillen: "Yes. Staff is recommend we continue this item because we need further review of the issues,(pause) mainly with the Coastal Commission.
McCloud: "The Coastal Commission contacted us on Friday afternoon and because of their schedule this week down here, there is otherwise not time to get together with them. So, and Don you have talked to the attorneys...So, we've agreed that we would...with Susan Brandt-Hawley and the Coastal Commission...We would postpone, continue this."
Councilman Gerard Rose: "So the gist, as I understand it, is that we are postponing this so that our staff can speak to the staff of the Coastal Commission about this proposal. Is that right?"
McCloud: "It's a large...It's...Yeah."
Guillen: "That's correct."
Later that week, on Thursday, 9 March 2006, Enid Sales, Director of the Carmel Preservation Foundation, orally recited her letter to California Coastal Commission Chair Meg Caldwell and Members of the Coastal Commission at the Coastal Commission's meeting in Monterey.
Letter to Chair Meg Caldwell, and Members of the Coastal Commission from Enid Sales, director of the Carmel Preservation Foundation
CARMEL PRESERVATION FOUNDATION
P.O. BOX 3959 ~ CARMEL, CA 93921
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION MARCH 7, 2006 MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
TO: Chair Meg Caldwell, and Members of the Coastal Commission
FROM: Enid Sales, Director of the Carmel Preservation Foundation
RE: Request of an Overview of Commission Staff of the Implementation Plan of the Local Coastal Plan for Carmel, CA.
We feel that Carmel Planning Staff consistently violates the conditions of the IP regarding Historic Resources. Our concerns are with the Inventory, the consistent refusal to include relevant evaluations of the Carmel Preservation Foundation on the Agendas of the Historic Resources Board, and the Planning Commission. Following are the violations.
1. After a letter to property owners of their inclusion on the Inventory,
they did not record these buildings as required.
2. Conducted a Workshop for Owners that explained in Planning terms not too
clearly what the requirements are, but did not support the Preservation
Program. Instead they blamed the Coastal Commission because they had
made the City select an Inventory and have such a Program.
3. The City upset Owners at this meeting to such an extent that 93 requests
were made to have their properties removed from the Inventory and there
are only 300 Resources altogether on the Inventory.
4. Finding it onerous to deal with buildings one by one, their next
strategy was to remove 45 more properties from the Inventory because
they were built after 1940, the date that the Context Statement stops
its historic evaluation.
a. The Context is advisory not regulatory.
b. The Planning Department has the responsibility of updating the
Statement every five years.
c. An appeal was filed re these 45 buildings by CPF, and was
scheduled, by Municipal Code to be at the first meeting after
the filing, which was Tuesday, and the Council continued the
hearing without setting a future date even though it was
publicly requested.
5. Since the LCP was certified in October 2004, the City has misused the
methodology for determining what properties are and are not historic.
We need your Staff to examine the their use of ineligible, loss of
integrity, age, and misuse of the Secretary of Interior's Standards.
6. There have been two requests for Mills Act Contracts, Both buildings
are on the Carmel Historic Register. Both requests have been continued
twice with no explanation for why they can't proceed. This has been
since December 2005.
We sincerely request that we can make our specific problems clear directly to Central Coast Staff so that we can be assured that the excellent Implementation Plan can be practiced correctly. Thank you.
After Enid Sales' presentation, the Chair spoke to Charles Lester, Deputy Director, Central Coast District Office, and he said he was going to speak with the Mayor. The Chair made it clear that Mr. Lester must and with what Enid Sales had requested.
On or about Friday,7 April 2006, City Administrator Rich Guillen remarked that the meeting between the City and the Coastal Commission Staff was about all of the Local Coastal Program (LCP)---this was a factually inaccurate statement. When confronted with the reasons stated by the City at the 7 March 2006 City Council meeting, Guillen refused to admit the reason for the meeting was the Historic Resources Board's decision, upon the recommendation of Principal Planner Brian Roseth, to remove 45 post-1940 properties from the Inventory of Historic Resources. Defensively, he reiterated that the meeting was not a public meeting and "I don't have to tell you."
In the context of the 2005 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Report citing the lack of "open government" in Carmel-by-the-Sea, it is extremely disappointing, discouraging and disheartening to learn of a City Administrator who responds to a citizen's query with defensive prevarications,instead of genuine interest for a citizen's concerns.
Finally, in an April 7, 2006 Letter to The Carmel Pine Cone, Olof Dahlstrand wrote of the incumbents responses to his question on the meaning of "open government;" "the incumbents' replies showed their continuing misunderstanding of this concept which has dogged them for several years. (The reluctance of the incumbents to support an open public discussion of the issues in the privatization of the management of Sunset Center comes to mind.)" Is it any wonder then, that the City Administrator, who serves at the pleasure of the City Council, similarly suffers from a "continuing misunderstanding" of open government?" The City Administrator and the Members of the Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council just don't get it and never will get it!
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
This One Is For Chet Lowney
Location: Guadalupe St., North of Mt. View Av., near Forest Theater gate on Guadalupe St.
City's Removal of 43 Historic Inventory Properties
Herewith is a Chronology Of Events of the City's Removal of 43 Properties from the City's Inventory of Historic Resources.
1. Certification of Local Coastal Program (LCP), November 2004.
2. Mayor Sue McCloud’s 10 June 2005 letter notifying property owners that their residences/commercial buildings are on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources (part of the LCP).
3. Approximately 93 “historic” property owners filed appeals to remove their residences/commercial buildings from the Inventory of Historic Resources.
4. Upon the recommendation of Principal Planner Brian Roseth, the Historic Resources Board removed "all post-1940 properties from the Inventory of Historic Resources pending completion of an update of the Historic Context Statement" at their 23 January 2006 meeting.
5. Friends of Carmel Cultural Heritage appealed the Historic Resources Board’s decision to “temporarily remove” 43 properties from the Inventory of Historic Resources, 2 February 2006. Representing Friends of Carmel Cultural Heritage, Attorney Susan Brandt-Hawley wrote:
"The precipitous removal of properties from the Inventory violates the LCP, including but not limited to sections P1-84,85,88, and 91, and also violates the Carmel Municipal Code, including but not limited to section 17.32.070, and also violates the California Environmental Quality Act."
6. Communication with City Attorney Don Freeman revealed the City’s position that the City was not under any obligation or requirement to place the appeal on a City Council agenda in a timely manner. Yet, the Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code states:
Chapter 17.54
APPEALS
17.54.040 Filing Appeals.
C. Appeals to the City Council.
2. Within 10 working days after receipt of an appeal the City Clerk shall set a date for public hearing at which the appeal shall be considered by the City Council. All appeals shall be set for the next regular City Council meeting, unless insufficient time exists for public notice as established in CMC 17.54.090, Notice of Hearing.
7. The City places the Friends of Carmel Cultural Heritage appeal of the Historic Resources Board’s decision on the 7 March 2006 agenda.
8. At the 7 March 2006 City Council meeting, the City Council continued the appeal indefinitely, without setting a specific future City Council meeting date, as is customary procedure for cities. Mayor McCloud cited the need to confer with the California Coastal Commission staff as the reason for the continuance and stated that she did not know when the appeal would be heard because of uncertainly associated with the Coastal Commission staff’s schedule.
9. The Friends of Carmel Cultural Heritage appeal was not on the 4 April 2006 City Council agenda and therefore was not given a public hearing at the meeting.
The future of the Friends of Carmel Cultural Heritage appeal remains uncertain.
1. Certification of Local Coastal Program (LCP), November 2004.
2. Mayor Sue McCloud’s 10 June 2005 letter notifying property owners that their residences/commercial buildings are on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources (part of the LCP).
3. Approximately 93 “historic” property owners filed appeals to remove their residences/commercial buildings from the Inventory of Historic Resources.
4. Upon the recommendation of Principal Planner Brian Roseth, the Historic Resources Board removed "all post-1940 properties from the Inventory of Historic Resources pending completion of an update of the Historic Context Statement" at their 23 January 2006 meeting.
5. Friends of Carmel Cultural Heritage appealed the Historic Resources Board’s decision to “temporarily remove” 43 properties from the Inventory of Historic Resources, 2 February 2006. Representing Friends of Carmel Cultural Heritage, Attorney Susan Brandt-Hawley wrote:
"The precipitous removal of properties from the Inventory violates the LCP, including but not limited to sections P1-84,85,88, and 91, and also violates the Carmel Municipal Code, including but not limited to section 17.32.070, and also violates the California Environmental Quality Act."
6. Communication with City Attorney Don Freeman revealed the City’s position that the City was not under any obligation or requirement to place the appeal on a City Council agenda in a timely manner. Yet, the Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code states:
Chapter 17.54
APPEALS
17.54.040 Filing Appeals.
C. Appeals to the City Council.
2. Within 10 working days after receipt of an appeal the City Clerk shall set a date for public hearing at which the appeal shall be considered by the City Council. All appeals shall be set for the next regular City Council meeting, unless insufficient time exists for public notice as established in CMC 17.54.090, Notice of Hearing.
7. The City places the Friends of Carmel Cultural Heritage appeal of the Historic Resources Board’s decision on the 7 March 2006 agenda.
8. At the 7 March 2006 City Council meeting, the City Council continued the appeal indefinitely, without setting a specific future City Council meeting date, as is customary procedure for cities. Mayor McCloud cited the need to confer with the California Coastal Commission staff as the reason for the continuance and stated that she did not know when the appeal would be heard because of uncertainly associated with the Coastal Commission staff’s schedule.
9. The Friends of Carmel Cultural Heritage appeal was not on the 4 April 2006 City Council agenda and therefore was not given a public hearing at the meeting.
The future of the Friends of Carmel Cultural Heritage appeal remains uncertain.
City's Unilateral Action
Unilaterally, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s Community Planning & Building Department Staff has redefined and embellished the “reasons” cited in the City’s Local Coastal Program (LCP) for the removal of properties from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources.
The relevant section of the LCP, General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Land Use & Community Character Element, Cultural Resources, Historic Preservation
states:
P1-91 Establish procedures for the Historic Preservation Board, based on
recommendations from qualified professionals, to remove historic resources from the Carmel Inventory based on substantial evidence (e.g. incorrect evidence, invalid analysis, or loss of integrity of the identified historic resource). An historic resource listed on the Carmel Inventory shall be presumed historically significant and shall not be removed unless substantial evidence demonstrates that
it is not an historic resource. (LUP)
Yet, in the City's 4 April 2006 Staff Report for the Doris M. Rayne Trust appeal of the Historic Resources Board’s unanimous decision to deny a request to remove the property from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources located in the Central Commercial and Downtown Conservation Overlay Districts, the Staff Report states:
“Staff recognizes four possible reasons for removing a property from the Carmel Inventory: 1) There are gross, non-correctable errors in the historic documentation, 2) The property bears a poor or minimal relationship to the adopted Historic Context Statement, 3) There are a sufficient number of other, better preserved or more important resources of the same type elsewhere within the City, and 4)The resource has lost its historic integrity through past alterations.”
These changes/additions were created and implemented by the City without public hearings at the Historic Resources Board and City Council levels.
CONCLUSION: Without checks and balances, it appears that the staff in the City’s Community Planning & Building Department is implementing policy that is not articulated in the LCP and without public deliberation at the Historic Resources Board and City Council levels.
The relevant section of the LCP, General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Land Use & Community Character Element, Cultural Resources, Historic Preservation
states:
P1-91 Establish procedures for the Historic Preservation Board, based on
recommendations from qualified professionals, to remove historic resources from the Carmel Inventory based on substantial evidence (e.g. incorrect evidence, invalid analysis, or loss of integrity of the identified historic resource). An historic resource listed on the Carmel Inventory shall be presumed historically significant and shall not be removed unless substantial evidence demonstrates that
it is not an historic resource. (LUP)
Yet, in the City's 4 April 2006 Staff Report for the Doris M. Rayne Trust appeal of the Historic Resources Board’s unanimous decision to deny a request to remove the property from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources located in the Central Commercial and Downtown Conservation Overlay Districts, the Staff Report states:
“Staff recognizes four possible reasons for removing a property from the Carmel Inventory: 1) There are gross, non-correctable errors in the historic documentation, 2) The property bears a poor or minimal relationship to the adopted Historic Context Statement, 3) There are a sufficient number of other, better preserved or more important resources of the same type elsewhere within the City, and 4)The resource has lost its historic integrity through past alterations.”
These changes/additions were created and implemented by the City without public hearings at the Historic Resources Board and City Council levels.
CONCLUSION: Without checks and balances, it appears that the staff in the City’s Community Planning & Building Department is implementing policy that is not articulated in the LCP and without public deliberation at the Historic Resources Board and City Council levels.
Sunday, April 02, 2006
Sunset Cultural Center, Inc.: Annual Public Meeting
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE SUNSET CULTURAL CENTER, INC.'S ANNUAL PUBLIC MEETING
Saturday, April 1, 2006 at Carpenter Hall, 10:00 A.M.
Present:
Six Sunset Cultural Center, Inc. (SCC) Board of Directors
Chair Perry Walker, Treasurer Sarah Brown (Accounting & Finance), Michael McMahan (Governance), Demi Briscoe (Human Resources), Jim Price (Building & Grounds), Katherine Bucquet (Leases) and Executive Director Jack Globenfelt.
Absent:
Three SCC Directors
Vice Chair Fred O'Such (Marketing), Secretary Karen Kadushin, Steven Hillyard.
In Audience,
Present:
One City Council Member, Mayor Sue McCloud
Absent:
Four City Council Members; Councilwoman Paula Hazdovac, Councilman Gerard Rose, Councilman Michael Cunningham, Councilman Erik Bethel.
Format of Annual Public Meeting:
Chair Perry Walker gave a brief introduction; presently SCC is in the second year of our three year contract, SCC is "learning to run the theater," SCC's mission is to maximize potential of theater for "patrons of Monterey County and beyond." Then Walker solicited questions from the audience of about 28 people.
Audience comments included:
1. Carmel Opera Festival representative recalled contacting Executive Director Globenfelt in January 2006 through SCC web site and never received a response.
2. Friends of Sunset long-time volunteer voiced amazement that in 2 years SCC has not addressed rate structure for rental rooms for not-for-profit organizations vs. for-profit groups.
3. Member of the public expressed concern that since the City has problems with open government (as reported in the 2005 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Report), citizens are denied complete SCC financial reports.
Responses from Chair Perry Walker:
1. On a trend line of reducing the city subsidy to operate Sunset Center.
2. SCC views the Sunset Center theater as a "regional theater."
3. SCC's mission is to establish the Sunset Center theater as a "Brand;" a brand associated with "premier," quality performing arts performances.
4. Sunset Center theater is a "difficult venue to book" because it is so expensive as a 718 seat theater.
5. Some performances are sold out (ex. Lily Tomlin, The Tempations), while other performances attract 200 people.
6. Sunset Center performs art, does not create art.
7. Conventions, "not practical;" conferences o.k.
8. Vision for Box Office ticketing for all presenters not realized ie. Many presenters sell tickets to their patrons directly.
9. SCC Web Site: 8000 visits (of 3-4 minutes/visit) per month and a 1000 person e-mail list.
10. 14% of total tickets purchased are by Carmel-by-the-Sea residents.
11. By June 30 2007 (end of first 3 year contract), SCC renegotiates contract with City and Sunset Center Union Employees.
Final Thoughts:
SCC Board of Directors and Executive Director gave no formal presentation to the public ex. No power point presentation on the past year, future expectations, etc., no written material on past year, etc. provided to attendees. Ergo, for the one and only public meeting of the year, there was evidence of a lack of preparation and thought by the SCC Board of Directors and the Executive Director. Hence, a lack of respect for the public's right to be informed about Sunset Center operations under SCC management was shown by the SCC Board and the Executive Director.
Repetitive Mantra by Chair Perry Walker, Michael McMahan and Treasurer Sarah Brown; Achieving our goal of reducing the subsidy from the City.
Actual Record:
FY 2004/05 (SCC's first year of management):
$762,000 (4 quarterly "Enabling Grants")
$105,000 (Start-Up Grant for Web Site, Box Office Ticketing, etc.)
Total City Subsidy: $867,000
Plus $120,000 "Working Capital Advance" (Treasurer Sarah Brown confirmed that SCC does not intend to use any of loan and SCC will pay back loan by end of third year ie. June 30, 2007.)
FY 2005/06 (SCC's second year of management):
$772,000 (4 quarterly "Enabling Grants")
Note: SCC's claim that the City spent $806,000 for the Sunset Center in FY 2003/04 is not an actual figure based on the City's FY 2003/04 audit, rather it is an SCC "estimate." (Source: W. Craig Robertson, Director of Finance & Administration, Sunset Cultural Center, Inc.)
Reflecting on the SCC Annual Public Meeting, I am reminded of a statement in the 2005 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Report: "Whether or not the public interest is being subverted through any covert process may be immaterial if the public has the perception their interests are not represented and outcomes are predetermined."
It is my impression that the Board of Directors and the Executive Director, at times other than at this public meeting, are aloof, non-responsive and unaccountable for their actions to the public. Moreover, their lack of complete disclosure and candidness does not portend well for the future.
RECOMMENDATION: At the third Annual Public Meeting in 2007 the SCC Board of Directors and Executive Director should make a formal presentation to the public covering FY 2004/05 and FY 2005/06, FY 2006/07, future expectations, etc. This approach would succeed in not only informing the public about SCC management operations, but it would demonstrate a recognition and commitment to the public/not-for-profit organization partnership that is now Sunset Center.
Saturday, April 1, 2006 at Carpenter Hall, 10:00 A.M.
Present:
Six Sunset Cultural Center, Inc. (SCC) Board of Directors
Chair Perry Walker, Treasurer Sarah Brown (Accounting & Finance), Michael McMahan (Governance), Demi Briscoe (Human Resources), Jim Price (Building & Grounds), Katherine Bucquet (Leases) and Executive Director Jack Globenfelt.
Absent:
Three SCC Directors
Vice Chair Fred O'Such (Marketing), Secretary Karen Kadushin, Steven Hillyard.
In Audience,
Present:
One City Council Member, Mayor Sue McCloud
Absent:
Four City Council Members; Councilwoman Paula Hazdovac, Councilman Gerard Rose, Councilman Michael Cunningham, Councilman Erik Bethel.
Format of Annual Public Meeting:
Chair Perry Walker gave a brief introduction; presently SCC is in the second year of our three year contract, SCC is "learning to run the theater," SCC's mission is to maximize potential of theater for "patrons of Monterey County and beyond." Then Walker solicited questions from the audience of about 28 people.
Audience comments included:
1. Carmel Opera Festival representative recalled contacting Executive Director Globenfelt in January 2006 through SCC web site and never received a response.
2. Friends of Sunset long-time volunteer voiced amazement that in 2 years SCC has not addressed rate structure for rental rooms for not-for-profit organizations vs. for-profit groups.
3. Member of the public expressed concern that since the City has problems with open government (as reported in the 2005 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Report), citizens are denied complete SCC financial reports.
Responses from Chair Perry Walker:
1. On a trend line of reducing the city subsidy to operate Sunset Center.
2. SCC views the Sunset Center theater as a "regional theater."
3. SCC's mission is to establish the Sunset Center theater as a "Brand;" a brand associated with "premier," quality performing arts performances.
4. Sunset Center theater is a "difficult venue to book" because it is so expensive as a 718 seat theater.
5. Some performances are sold out (ex. Lily Tomlin, The Tempations), while other performances attract 200 people.
6. Sunset Center performs art, does not create art.
7. Conventions, "not practical;" conferences o.k.
8. Vision for Box Office ticketing for all presenters not realized ie. Many presenters sell tickets to their patrons directly.
9. SCC Web Site: 8000 visits (of 3-4 minutes/visit) per month and a 1000 person e-mail list.
10. 14% of total tickets purchased are by Carmel-by-the-Sea residents.
11. By June 30 2007 (end of first 3 year contract), SCC renegotiates contract with City and Sunset Center Union Employees.
Final Thoughts:
SCC Board of Directors and Executive Director gave no formal presentation to the public ex. No power point presentation on the past year, future expectations, etc., no written material on past year, etc. provided to attendees. Ergo, for the one and only public meeting of the year, there was evidence of a lack of preparation and thought by the SCC Board of Directors and the Executive Director. Hence, a lack of respect for the public's right to be informed about Sunset Center operations under SCC management was shown by the SCC Board and the Executive Director.
Repetitive Mantra by Chair Perry Walker, Michael McMahan and Treasurer Sarah Brown; Achieving our goal of reducing the subsidy from the City.
Actual Record:
FY 2004/05 (SCC's first year of management):
$762,000 (4 quarterly "Enabling Grants")
$105,000 (Start-Up Grant for Web Site, Box Office Ticketing, etc.)
Total City Subsidy: $867,000
Plus $120,000 "Working Capital Advance" (Treasurer Sarah Brown confirmed that SCC does not intend to use any of loan and SCC will pay back loan by end of third year ie. June 30, 2007.)
FY 2005/06 (SCC's second year of management):
$772,000 (4 quarterly "Enabling Grants")
Note: SCC's claim that the City spent $806,000 for the Sunset Center in FY 2003/04 is not an actual figure based on the City's FY 2003/04 audit, rather it is an SCC "estimate." (Source: W. Craig Robertson, Director of Finance & Administration, Sunset Cultural Center, Inc.)
Reflecting on the SCC Annual Public Meeting, I am reminded of a statement in the 2005 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Report: "Whether or not the public interest is being subverted through any covert process may be immaterial if the public has the perception their interests are not represented and outcomes are predetermined."
It is my impression that the Board of Directors and the Executive Director, at times other than at this public meeting, are aloof, non-responsive and unaccountable for their actions to the public. Moreover, their lack of complete disclosure and candidness does not portend well for the future.
RECOMMENDATION: At the third Annual Public Meeting in 2007 the SCC Board of Directors and Executive Director should make a formal presentation to the public covering FY 2004/05 and FY 2005/06, FY 2006/07, future expectations, etc. This approach would succeed in not only informing the public about SCC management operations, but it would demonstrate a recognition and commitment to the public/not-for-profit organization partnership that is now Sunset Center.
Pothole Town: The Condition of Our Streets
(Location: Torres St. between 8th Av. & Mt. View Av.)
In a Sunday, April 2, 2006 Letter to the Editor, a Carmelite wrote about his "pet peeve --- the continued neglect of the village's streets. They have grown steadily worse over the years under the present administration's fiscal cutback policies."
For a village of:
1 square mile
4,000 permanent residents
$11.2 million annual budget
$7-8 million reserves
the degraded condition of our streets is SHAMEFUL!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)