TIMELINE: Mayor McCloud's Dissolving of the Community Traffic Safety Commission

1. 26 April 2006: The Design Review Board unanimously approved Consent Calendar items for applicant Roy Malone Hodges’ Track Two Design Study (Concept), Demolition and Coastal Development Permit applications for the demolition of an existing structure and the construction of two new residences located in the Single Family Residential (R-1) District.


2. 3 May 2006: Community Traffic Safety Commission 3 May 2006 Meeting

MINUTES
COMMUNITY TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
MAY 3, 2006

A. Discuss Traffic Safety Request from George & Margaret Grasso and provide policy direction concerning potential for parking problems on Santa Fe between 8th & 9th Avenues.

After discussion, Commissioner ROETTER moved to have Public Safety Director Rawson convey a memorandum to the Design Review Board and Planning Commission expressing the need to develop criteria for analyzing traffic safety, parking, and emergency vehicle access relating to proposed new construction projects, seconded by Commissioner NEIDENBERG, and carried by the following roll call vote:

AYES: CONMY, ROETTER, NEIDENBERG, SPENCER
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:

After further discussion, Commissioner NEIDENBERG moved to have Public Safety Director Rawson convey a memorandum to the Design Review Board and Planning department staff expressing the Traffic Commission’s concerns about traffic safety relating to the Santa Fe Street proposed project and to request the applicant explore if more parking can be added on the project site; seconded by Commissioner CONMY, and carried by the following roll call vote:

AYES: CONMY, ROETTER, NEIDENBERG
NOES: SPENCER
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:

3. 22 May 2006: Community Traffic Safety Commission 22 May 2006 Special Meeting

MINUTES
COMMUNITY TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

SPECIAL MEETING
MAY 22, 2006

V. ORDERS OF BUSINESS

A. Discuss Traffic Safety Request from George & Margaret Grasso and provide policy direction concerning potential for parking problems on Santa Fe between 8th & 9th Avenues.

After discussion, Commissioner NEIDENBERG moved that Public Safety Director Rawson convey a memorandum to the Design Review Board and Planning Commission expressing the need to develop criteria for analyzing traffic safety, parking, and emergency vehicle access relating to proposed new construction projects; and further that Public Safety Director Rawson will convey a memorandum to the Design Review Board and staff of the Planning Department expressing the Traffic Commission’s concerns about traffic safety relating to the Santa Fe Street proposed project and to request the applicant explore adding more parking on the project site; and further direct Public Safety Director Rawson to request Police Department staff to monitor parking in area, seconded by Commissioner SPENCER, and carried by the following roll call vote:

AYES: CONMY, NEIDENBERG, SPENCER
NOES:
ABSENT: ROETTER
ABSTAIN:

After more discussion, Commissioner NEIDENBERG moved to have staff study the feasibility of marking two (2) parking spaces on the east side of Santa Fe near 8th Avenue as “No Parking,” seconded by Commissioner CONMY, and carried by the following roll call vote:

AYES: CONMY, NEIDENBERG, SPENCER
NOES:
ABSENT: ROETTER
ABSTAIN:


4. 24 May 2006: The Design Review Board unanimously approved, with “revised special conditions,” Roy Malone Hodges’ applications for the demolition of an existing residence and construction of two new residences.


5. 29 May 2006: The Monterey County Herald article “Homebuilder Spurs Culture Clash,” by Laith Agha, published May 29, 2006, Page A1.

Controversy about the Design Review Board’s approval of the demolition of one existing residence and the construction of two new residences involves the developer, Roy Malone Hodges, neighbor and then Community Traffic Safety Commissioner Carl Roetter and neighbors Jude Melrose, George Grasso and Mr. Greene.


6. June 2006: In June 2006, for all intents and purposes, Mayor McCloud dissolved the Community Traffic Safety Commission, a commission established by McCloud in 2002, when she contacted community traffic safety commission members and informed them that “their jobs would end soon.” The Commission’s last meeting was in May 2006.


7. 28 July 2006: In “Art board, traffic commission disbanded amid complaints,” Mary Brownfield of The Carmel Pine Cone reported that the city’s staff had already recommended the formation of a new subcommittee composed of a council member, a resident and a representative from the police department.


CONCLUSION:

Under the guise of Community Traffic Safety Commission meetings taking “three hours of the police chief’s time” and Community Traffic Safety Commission authority overlapping with the “parking” council subcommittee of Michael Cunningham and Paula Hazdovac, Mayor McCloud’s real reason was evident when Mary Brownfield quoted her as stating that members were “getting all into projects that had no approval at the council level.”

Translation: Only narrowly defined “projects,” as directed and defined by Mayor McCloud, are suitable for the city’s Community Traffic Safety Commission. Moreover, any commission or board member who does not follow McCloud’s edicts will either be terminated individually or their entire commission/board dissolved or members will be so impeded and frustrated that they resign.


Note the following relevant sections of the Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code:

Chapter 2.39
COMMUNITY TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION

2.39.010 Establishment and Purpose of Commission.

There is created and established the Community Traffic Safety Commission of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. The purpose of the Community Traffic Safety Commission is to provide the City Council with recommendations on traffic safety policies and programs related to the movement and parking of vehicles within the City and/or the City’s sphere of influence. (Ord. 2002-02 § 1, 2002).

2.39.060 Duties, Responsibilities and Authority.

The Community Traffic Safety Commission shall have the following duties, responsibilities and authority:

A. To maximize traffic safety within the City.

B. To develop rules and regulations for conducting its business and meetings in accordance with the laws of the State and the City.

C. To, on its own initiative, or at the request of the City Council or the City Administrator, make such recommendations to the City Council and the
City Administrator concerning traffic-related activities and programs as may be deemed appropriate.

D. To advise and assist the City Council and, when requested or on its own initiative, other City commissions and City public bodies, departments and residents of the city, on traffic-related programs.

E. To initiate traffic programs and projects.

F. To remain cognizant at all times of traffic problems and conditions in the City and endeavor to put resources to their best possible use.

G. To review, upon request of the City Council, traffic-related programs, benefits or services.

H. To hear citizen’s traffic-related requests and concerns, evaluate them and, when appropriate, recommend solutions to the City Council.

I. To provide long-term planning and analysis and make recommendations for dealing with future traffic issues.

J. To provide ongoing public information and education on traffic-related topics and increase the general public’s awareness of local traffic issues. (Ord. 2002-02 § 1, 2002).

QUESTION: Do Carmelites want commission and board members whose primary allegiance is to their “Duties, Responsibilities and Authority,” as delineated in the city’s Municipal Code, OR do Carmelites want commission and board members who slavishly follow the edicts of a mayor who knows she knows best, even and especially when her edicts violate the letter and spirit of the city’s Municipal Code, etc?