Carmel-by-the-Sea
Municipal Code
Chapter 2.04
CITY COUNCIL*
2.04.140 Reconsideration of Council Action.
Any City Council member voting in the majority on any given item may move reconsideration of Council action on that item for consideration at a future meeting. (Ord. 98-6 § 1, 1998; Ord. 127 C.S. § 1, 1966; Code 1975 § 211.1).
Reconsideration of the City Council’s decision that the Palo Alto Saving and Loan Building does not qualify as an historic resource would therefore require one of the City Council members who voted in the majority to move reconsideration of Council action i.e., City Council Members Michael Cunningham or Gerard Rose.
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
November 7, 2006
VII. CONSENT CALENDAR
I. Consideration of Findings for a Council decision determining that the Palo Alto Savings and Loan Building located in the Service Commercial District does not qualify as an historic resource. (Blk 91, Lots 2, 4, 6, & 8).
Mayor McCloud pulled Item I.
Mayor McCloud spoke regarding the Palo Alto Bank Building. Olof Dahlstrand, Brian Congleton, Miriam Schakat, Rich Barrett, Elinor Laiolo, Monte Miller, Fred Kern, John Mandurrago, Bill Strid and Joe Mashock addressed the Council regarding the Palo Alto Bank Building.
Mayor McCloud closed the hearing to public comment at 6:12 p.m.
Council Member Hazdovac, Mayor McCloud and Mike Cunningham discussed the Item.
Council Member ROSE moved to adopt the Findings, seconded by Council Member
CUNNINGHAM
Council Member Bethel amended the motion to have the last two sentences in Finding 38 deleted; and
Council Member Hazdovac amended the motion to add, in Finding 36, Barnet Segal was a founding member of the Carmel Business Association and started the bond to build the Carmel Fire Station; and
Mayor McCloud amended the motion to replace, in Finding 38, the last two sentences with note that Barnet Segal established the Carmel Art Association carried as amended by the following roll call:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BETHEL, CUNNINGHAM, & ROSE
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: HAZDOVAC & McCLOUD
DECISION RECORD:
19 December 2005: The Historic Resources Board (HRB) voted unanimously to uphold the appeal, reverse staff’s determination, and place the property on the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources.
8 June 2006: The City Council deliberated on the appeal and determined that the building did not qualify as historic for architectural reasons.
3 October 2006: The City Council deliberated on the appeal and determined that the building did not qualify as historic for its association with historically important persons.
7 November 2006: The City Council adopted findings overturning a decision of the Historic Resources Board determining that a commercial structure, designed by Walter Burde and known as the Palo Alto Savings And Loan Building, is eligible for the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources.
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Friday, December 29, 2006
PART IV (of IV): Reconsideration of a Mills Act Contract...and adoption of Findings?
Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday, December 19, 2006 at 4:30 p.m.
IV. Orders of Business
B. Reconsideration of a Mills Act Contract and a Maintenance and Management Plan and adoption of Findings for an existing historic residence located on the west side of Lincoln Street between 8th and 9th Avenues. The property owners are David & Debbie Hutchings. (De novo Hearing).
On Wednesday, 20 December 2006, a Carmelite emailed the following to Senior Planner Sean Conroy, the Planner who prepared the Staff Report for the Special City Council Meeting, 19 December 2006.
Subject: MILLS ACT CONTRACT AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Sean Conroy, Senior Planner:
RE: Reconsideration of a Mills Act Contract and a Maintenance and Management Plan and adoption of Findings for an existing historic residence located on the west side of Lincoln Street between 8th and 9th Avenues. The property owners are David & Debbie Hutchings. (De novo Hearing).
In your 19 December 2006 Agenda Item Summary, you wrote, “At the request of the applicant, the City Council reconsidered the application on 19 December 2006 and reached the same decision.” Given that the Agenda Item Summary was prepared prior to the 19 December 2006 City Council meeting, how is it that you articulated the outcome (“and reached the same decision”) when the public hearing had not yet occurred? And how is it that the item was to be a De Novo Hearing, a consideration “as if it had not been previously heard nor decided,” yet the Name states “Reconsideration…and adoption of Findings?”
On Thursday, Senior Planner Sean Conroy responded, as follows:
The City Attorney clarified this matter during the hearing. If you have any questions, please contact Don Freeman at 624-5339. Thank you and happy holidays!
Sean Conroy, Senior Planner City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Community Planning & Building
(831) 620-2010
COMMENTS:
Contrary to Senior Planner Sean Conroy’s assertion that the City Attorney clarified this matter during the hearing, City Attorney Don Freeman failed to address the questions raised in the email to Sean Conroy. Specifically, Conroy was asked about his Agenda Item Summary statement, “At the request of the applicant, the City Council reconsidered the application on 19 December 2006 and reached the same decision.” Note: This question is a planning question, not a legal question.
Thus, not only was the agenda item incorrectly written, the Agenda Item Summary contained the statement that the City Council “reached the same decision.” Despite City Attorney Don Freeman’s admonition to “disregard those Findings” in each City Council Member’s packets, the agenda item and the Agenda Item Summary signify prejudice against Mr. & Mrs. Hutchings. As a result, Mr. & Mrs. Hutchings did not receive a fair and impartial De Novo Hearing on their proposed Mills Act contract and Maintenance and Management Plan.
Note: On 8 August 2006, Senior Planner Sean Conroy prepared a Staff Report on Mr. & Mrs. Hutchings Mills Act Contract and Maintenance and Management Plan for their historic residence. The RECOMMENDED MOTION, as follows: “Approve the Mills Act Contract and adopt the Maintenance and Management Plan.”
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday, December 19, 2006 at 4:30 p.m.
IV. Orders of Business
B. Reconsideration of a Mills Act Contract and a Maintenance and Management Plan and adoption of Findings for an existing historic residence located on the west side of Lincoln Street between 8th and 9th Avenues. The property owners are David & Debbie Hutchings. (De novo Hearing).
On Wednesday, 20 December 2006, a Carmelite emailed the following to Senior Planner Sean Conroy, the Planner who prepared the Staff Report for the Special City Council Meeting, 19 December 2006.
Subject: MILLS ACT CONTRACT AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Sean Conroy, Senior Planner:
RE: Reconsideration of a Mills Act Contract and a Maintenance and Management Plan and adoption of Findings for an existing historic residence located on the west side of Lincoln Street between 8th and 9th Avenues. The property owners are David & Debbie Hutchings. (De novo Hearing).
In your 19 December 2006 Agenda Item Summary, you wrote, “At the request of the applicant, the City Council reconsidered the application on 19 December 2006 and reached the same decision.” Given that the Agenda Item Summary was prepared prior to the 19 December 2006 City Council meeting, how is it that you articulated the outcome (“and reached the same decision”) when the public hearing had not yet occurred? And how is it that the item was to be a De Novo Hearing, a consideration “as if it had not been previously heard nor decided,” yet the Name states “Reconsideration…and adoption of Findings?”
On Thursday, Senior Planner Sean Conroy responded, as follows:
The City Attorney clarified this matter during the hearing. If you have any questions, please contact Don Freeman at 624-5339. Thank you and happy holidays!
Sean Conroy, Senior Planner City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Community Planning & Building
(831) 620-2010
COMMENTS:
Contrary to Senior Planner Sean Conroy’s assertion that the City Attorney clarified this matter during the hearing, City Attorney Don Freeman failed to address the questions raised in the email to Sean Conroy. Specifically, Conroy was asked about his Agenda Item Summary statement, “At the request of the applicant, the City Council reconsidered the application on 19 December 2006 and reached the same decision.” Note: This question is a planning question, not a legal question.
Thus, not only was the agenda item incorrectly written, the Agenda Item Summary contained the statement that the City Council “reached the same decision.” Despite City Attorney Don Freeman’s admonition to “disregard those Findings” in each City Council Member’s packets, the agenda item and the Agenda Item Summary signify prejudice against Mr. & Mrs. Hutchings. As a result, Mr. & Mrs. Hutchings did not receive a fair and impartial De Novo Hearing on their proposed Mills Act contract and Maintenance and Management Plan.
Note: On 8 August 2006, Senior Planner Sean Conroy prepared a Staff Report on Mr. & Mrs. Hutchings Mills Act Contract and Maintenance and Management Plan for their historic residence. The RECOMMENDED MOTION, as follows: “Approve the Mills Act Contract and adopt the Maintenance and Management Plan.”
Thursday, December 28, 2006
PART III (of IV): Reconsideration of a Mills Act Contract...and adoption of Findings?
Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday, December 19, 2006 at 4:30 p.m.
IV. Orders of Business
B. Reconsideration of a Mills Act Contract and a Maintenance and Management Plan and adoption of Findings for an existing historic residence located on the west side of Lincoln Street between 8th and 9th Avenues. The property owners are David & Debbie Hutchings. (De novo Hearing).
Public Hearing
Kent Seavey: The Elizabeth F. Armstrong House is historically significant, designed by noted California architect C. J. Ryland. Peer reviewed and evaluated by 5 entities for historical significance, all concurred house qualifies as an historic resource.
Meeting Closed to Public Comment
City Councilman Michael Cunningham:
Cited Finding #3: Alternations to the historic resource have been in the past, and will continue to be in the future, limited to interior work and to exterior rehabilitation and alterations that: (F) Meet all zoning standards applicable to the location of the property.
Changes to property in 2002 were approved as an exception by the Planning Commission, different from the property conforms to a zoning ordinance.
Hutchings Representative: Existing non-conformities…excess height, encroachments that are essential to maintain the integrity of the resource…treat it as conforming. In 2002 “you conditioned this property to conform with your then current zoning…”
Sean Conroy, Senior Planner:
Clarification of non-conformity issue;
Definition: Non-conformities associated with the historic resource, part of the historic fabric of the property, are considered conforming, but new non-conformities are not considered conforming as historic conformities are.
Council Member CUNNINGHAM moved denial of a Mills Act contract based on the property’s failure to meet all zoning standards applicable to the location of the property, seconded by Council Member ROSE and carried by the following vote:
AYES: CUNNINGHAM, HAZDOVAC, ROSE & McCLOUD
NOES: NONE
COMMENTS:
Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code
Chapter 17.32HISTORIC PRESERVATION
17.32.100 Benefits Available to Historic Resources on the Register.
The Board is authorized to develop and implement preservation incentive programs that are consistent with this chapter. The following preservation incentives are available to owners of resources listed in the Carmel Register:
B. Mills Act Historical Property Contracts.
1. Purpose. A Mills Act contract under State law is an agreement between the City of Carmel and a property owner of an historic building listed on the Carmel Register. The property owner benefits from a reduction in property taxes, and the City is assured that the historic building is rehabilitated, maintained and preserved. All Mills Act contracts shall be established, processed and approved in conformance with California law.
Since potentially all historic resources are nonconforming properties, the City Council cannot have it both ways; that is, City Council Members recognize that historic resources in Carmel-by-the-Sea are nonconforming with regard to the city’s zoning code, and therefore ineligible for Mills Act contracts, and yet include in the City’s Local Coastal Program the promotion and implementation of preservation incentive programs, such as the Mills Act Contract.
· Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code
17.32.100 Benefits Available to Historic Resources on the Register.
B. Mills Act Historical Property Contracts.
D. Nonconformities. Existing structural nonconformities associated with a historic resource listed on the register (e.g., setback encroachments, excess height or insufficient parking, etc.) that are essential to maintaining the integrity of the resource shall be treated as conforming for the purposes of applying CMC 17.36.030 and 17.36.040, in the review of maintenance, repair, alterations and additions. Design nonconformities shall be expanded or created only when this is found necessary to achieve consistency with the Secretary’s Standards.
As Mr. & Mrs. Hutchings representative stated, prior to the Planning Commission approving the requested changes in 2002, the Commission Members found the property in conformity with R-1 zoning standards. Ergo, for purposes of a Mills Act contract, the property does meet Finding (F) Meet all zoning standards applicable to the location of the property.
Reference:
17.32.100 Benefits Available to Historic Resources on the Register.
The Board is authorized to develop and implement preservation incentive programs that are consistent with this chapter. The following preservation incentives are available to owners of resources listed in the Carmel Register:
B. Mills Act Historical Property Contracts.
6. Review Process.
c. To grant approval of a Mills Act contract, the Board and City Council shall make all of the following findings:
i. The building is designated as an historic resource by the City and is listed on the Carmel Register.
ii. The proposed maintenance plan is appropriate in scope and sufficient in detail to guide long-term maintenance.
iii. Alterations to the historic resource have been in the past, and will continue to be in the future, limited to interior work and to exterior rehabilitation and alterations that:
(A) Comply with the Secretary’s Standards, and do not affect the basic form and design of the original historic resource, and
(B) Do not affect any primary elevation, and
(C) Do not alter, damage or diminish any character-defining feature, and
(D) Do not increase floor area on the property by more than 15 percent beyond the amount established in the documented original or historic design of the resource, and
(E) Do not result in any second-story addition to a single-story historic resource, and
(F) Meet all zoning standards applicable to the location of the property.
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday, December 19, 2006 at 4:30 p.m.
IV. Orders of Business
B. Reconsideration of a Mills Act Contract and a Maintenance and Management Plan and adoption of Findings for an existing historic residence located on the west side of Lincoln Street between 8th and 9th Avenues. The property owners are David & Debbie Hutchings. (De novo Hearing).
Public Hearing
Kent Seavey: The Elizabeth F. Armstrong House is historically significant, designed by noted California architect C. J. Ryland. Peer reviewed and evaluated by 5 entities for historical significance, all concurred house qualifies as an historic resource.
Meeting Closed to Public Comment
City Councilman Michael Cunningham:
Cited Finding #3: Alternations to the historic resource have been in the past, and will continue to be in the future, limited to interior work and to exterior rehabilitation and alterations that: (F) Meet all zoning standards applicable to the location of the property.
Changes to property in 2002 were approved as an exception by the Planning Commission, different from the property conforms to a zoning ordinance.
Hutchings Representative: Existing non-conformities…excess height, encroachments that are essential to maintain the integrity of the resource…treat it as conforming. In 2002 “you conditioned this property to conform with your then current zoning…”
Sean Conroy, Senior Planner:
Clarification of non-conformity issue;
Definition: Non-conformities associated with the historic resource, part of the historic fabric of the property, are considered conforming, but new non-conformities are not considered conforming as historic conformities are.
Council Member CUNNINGHAM moved denial of a Mills Act contract based on the property’s failure to meet all zoning standards applicable to the location of the property, seconded by Council Member ROSE and carried by the following vote:
AYES: CUNNINGHAM, HAZDOVAC, ROSE & McCLOUD
NOES: NONE
COMMENTS:
Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code
Chapter 17.32HISTORIC PRESERVATION
17.32.100 Benefits Available to Historic Resources on the Register.
The Board is authorized to develop and implement preservation incentive programs that are consistent with this chapter. The following preservation incentives are available to owners of resources listed in the Carmel Register:
B. Mills Act Historical Property Contracts.
1. Purpose. A Mills Act contract under State law is an agreement between the City of Carmel and a property owner of an historic building listed on the Carmel Register. The property owner benefits from a reduction in property taxes, and the City is assured that the historic building is rehabilitated, maintained and preserved. All Mills Act contracts shall be established, processed and approved in conformance with California law.
Since potentially all historic resources are nonconforming properties, the City Council cannot have it both ways; that is, City Council Members recognize that historic resources in Carmel-by-the-Sea are nonconforming with regard to the city’s zoning code, and therefore ineligible for Mills Act contracts, and yet include in the City’s Local Coastal Program the promotion and implementation of preservation incentive programs, such as the Mills Act Contract.
· Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code
17.32.100 Benefits Available to Historic Resources on the Register.
B. Mills Act Historical Property Contracts.
D. Nonconformities. Existing structural nonconformities associated with a historic resource listed on the register (e.g., setback encroachments, excess height or insufficient parking, etc.) that are essential to maintaining the integrity of the resource shall be treated as conforming for the purposes of applying CMC 17.36.030 and 17.36.040, in the review of maintenance, repair, alterations and additions. Design nonconformities shall be expanded or created only when this is found necessary to achieve consistency with the Secretary’s Standards.
As Mr. & Mrs. Hutchings representative stated, prior to the Planning Commission approving the requested changes in 2002, the Commission Members found the property in conformity with R-1 zoning standards. Ergo, for purposes of a Mills Act contract, the property does meet Finding (F) Meet all zoning standards applicable to the location of the property.
Reference:
17.32.100 Benefits Available to Historic Resources on the Register.
The Board is authorized to develop and implement preservation incentive programs that are consistent with this chapter. The following preservation incentives are available to owners of resources listed in the Carmel Register:
B. Mills Act Historical Property Contracts.
6. Review Process.
c. To grant approval of a Mills Act contract, the Board and City Council shall make all of the following findings:
i. The building is designated as an historic resource by the City and is listed on the Carmel Register.
ii. The proposed maintenance plan is appropriate in scope and sufficient in detail to guide long-term maintenance.
iii. Alterations to the historic resource have been in the past, and will continue to be in the future, limited to interior work and to exterior rehabilitation and alterations that:
(A) Comply with the Secretary’s Standards, and do not affect the basic form and design of the original historic resource, and
(B) Do not affect any primary elevation, and
(C) Do not alter, damage or diminish any character-defining feature, and
(D) Do not increase floor area on the property by more than 15 percent beyond the amount established in the documented original or historic design of the resource, and
(E) Do not result in any second-story addition to a single-story historic resource, and
(F) Meet all zoning standards applicable to the location of the property.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
PART II (of IV): Reconsideration of a Mills Act Contract...and adoption of Findings?
Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday, December 19, 2006 at 4:30 p.m.
IV. Orders of Business
B. Reconsideration of a Mills Act Contract and a Maintenance and Management Plan and adoption of Findings for an existing historic residence located on the west side of Lincoln Street between 8th and 9th Avenues. The property owners are David & Debbie Hutchings. (De novo Hearing).
In representing Mr. & Mrs. Hutchings, their representation presented a Power Point Presentation, as follows:
CURRENT LAW
MILLS ACT
(GOVERNMENT CODE 50281)
CARMEL LAND USE PLAN
CMC 17.32.100
Purposes of Mills Act
“The Mills Act program is especially beneficial for recent buyers of historic properties and for current owners who have made major improvements to their properties, Technical Assistance Bulletin #12.”
“The Mills Act program allows the property owner to utilize the tax savings per year to be used in future years for repair, maintenance and rehabilitation of historic properties.”
Dennis Webber, State of California Department of Parks
CMC 17.32.100
The following preservation incentives are available to owners of resources listed in the Carmel Register.
B. Mills Act Historic Property Contracts. All Mills Act contracts shall be established, processed and approved in conformance with California law.
EXISTING HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT
Developed in 1997
Currently in effect
First Inventory, then Register
Historical Consultants
Hutchings’ property has been evaluated by at least 3 historic consultants:
Kent Seavey, April 9, 2002
“The Elizabeth F. Armstrong House is significant under California Register criteria 3, in the area of architecture as an excellent and unaltered example of the English Arts and Crafts style of architecture, articulated in a sophisticated, individualistic design by noted California architect C. J. Ryland.”
William Salmon, May 13, 2002
“THE ORIGINAL HOUSE HAS RETAINED A HIGH DEGREE OF PHYSICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY TO THE ORIGINAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION…”
Sheila McElroy, October 10, 2005.
“The Elizabeth Armstrong House is an intact example of an English Arts and Crafts style, as an example of residential architectural design (Ryland) and craftsmanship (Bain) and maintains a high level of integrity.”
Historic Elements of House
Original Carmel Stone Chimney, 1935.
Original Garage with wood doors,…
Casement Windows, original panes
Naturalistic Landscaping
Zoning Issues
Plans Approved
2002
In compliance with Current Zoning Code
Changes to an existing non-conformity, no change in historicity.
Exception to Zoning Code Standards
2002 Staff Report
Plate Height and Continuation of the three stories on lower level addition, existing non-conformities
Neither change visible from the front of the house
In conformance with R-1 Zoning Standards; a condition of approval in 2002 of Planning Commission.
CMC 17.32.100
D. Existing structural nonconformities associated with a historic resource listed on the register…excess height or insufficient parking, etc…shall be treated as conforming.
Financial Impacts
Cost to City: $2,000.00/year
(Figure derived from consultation with Monterey County Assessor’s Office)
Maintenance Plan
Created by City consultant
Designed in accord with Secretary of Interior Standards
Designed to be renewable, modifiable and flexible
Plan need to be updated, as Plan was prepared 2 years ago.
Updated Exhibit B
Updated Expenses
10/1/04 through 11/30/06
$231,000 now, $216,000 originally
Elements of the Maintenance Plan
Deferred maintenance premium
Correct stucco finish
Ongoing maintenance
Erosion and drainage control
Paint, stucco and caulk house garage
Repainting windows
Improvement of less than “E” items. (“E” means excellent)
Updated Maintenance Plan
Secretary of Interior Standards
Specific standards for:
Protect and Maintain
Repair
Replace
“Not a normal maintenance program.”
EFFECT ON CONTEXT STATEMENT
Only 8 historical properties on Register and as demonstrated not all will seek contracts.
City can rely upon extensive historical review of this property built in 1935.
No Effect. City reserves its right in non-renewal, no financial impact to City if include Fee for Contract language.
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday, December 19, 2006 at 4:30 p.m.
IV. Orders of Business
B. Reconsideration of a Mills Act Contract and a Maintenance and Management Plan and adoption of Findings for an existing historic residence located on the west side of Lincoln Street between 8th and 9th Avenues. The property owners are David & Debbie Hutchings. (De novo Hearing).
In representing Mr. & Mrs. Hutchings, their representation presented a Power Point Presentation, as follows:
CURRENT LAW
MILLS ACT
(GOVERNMENT CODE 50281)
CARMEL LAND USE PLAN
CMC 17.32.100
Purposes of Mills Act
“The Mills Act program is especially beneficial for recent buyers of historic properties and for current owners who have made major improvements to their properties, Technical Assistance Bulletin #12.”
“The Mills Act program allows the property owner to utilize the tax savings per year to be used in future years for repair, maintenance and rehabilitation of historic properties.”
Dennis Webber, State of California Department of Parks
CMC 17.32.100
The following preservation incentives are available to owners of resources listed in the Carmel Register.
B. Mills Act Historic Property Contracts. All Mills Act contracts shall be established, processed and approved in conformance with California law.
EXISTING HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT
Developed in 1997
Currently in effect
First Inventory, then Register
Historical Consultants
Hutchings’ property has been evaluated by at least 3 historic consultants:
Kent Seavey, April 9, 2002
“The Elizabeth F. Armstrong House is significant under California Register criteria 3, in the area of architecture as an excellent and unaltered example of the English Arts and Crafts style of architecture, articulated in a sophisticated, individualistic design by noted California architect C. J. Ryland.”
William Salmon, May 13, 2002
“THE ORIGINAL HOUSE HAS RETAINED A HIGH DEGREE OF PHYSICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY TO THE ORIGINAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION…”
Sheila McElroy, October 10, 2005.
“The Elizabeth Armstrong House is an intact example of an English Arts and Crafts style, as an example of residential architectural design (Ryland) and craftsmanship (Bain) and maintains a high level of integrity.”
Historic Elements of House
Original Carmel Stone Chimney, 1935.
Original Garage with wood doors,…
Casement Windows, original panes
Naturalistic Landscaping
Zoning Issues
Plans Approved
2002
In compliance with Current Zoning Code
Changes to an existing non-conformity, no change in historicity.
Exception to Zoning Code Standards
2002 Staff Report
Plate Height and Continuation of the three stories on lower level addition, existing non-conformities
Neither change visible from the front of the house
In conformance with R-1 Zoning Standards; a condition of approval in 2002 of Planning Commission.
CMC 17.32.100
D. Existing structural nonconformities associated with a historic resource listed on the register…excess height or insufficient parking, etc…shall be treated as conforming.
Financial Impacts
Cost to City: $2,000.00/year
(Figure derived from consultation with Monterey County Assessor’s Office)
Maintenance Plan
Created by City consultant
Designed in accord with Secretary of Interior Standards
Designed to be renewable, modifiable and flexible
Plan need to be updated, as Plan was prepared 2 years ago.
Updated Exhibit B
Updated Expenses
10/1/04 through 11/30/06
$231,000 now, $216,000 originally
Elements of the Maintenance Plan
Deferred maintenance premium
Correct stucco finish
Ongoing maintenance
Erosion and drainage control
Paint, stucco and caulk house garage
Repainting windows
Improvement of less than “E” items. (“E” means excellent)
Updated Maintenance Plan
Secretary of Interior Standards
Specific standards for:
Protect and Maintain
Repair
Replace
“Not a normal maintenance program.”
EFFECT ON CONTEXT STATEMENT
Only 8 historical properties on Register and as demonstrated not all will seek contracts.
City can rely upon extensive historical review of this property built in 1935.
No Effect. City reserves its right in non-renewal, no financial impact to City if include Fee for Contract language.
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
PART I (of IV): Reconsideration of a Mills Act Contract...and adoption of Findings?
Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday, December 19, 2006 at 4:30 p.m.
IV. Orders of Business
B. Reconsideration of a Mills Act Contract and a Maintenance and Management Plan and adoption of Findings for an existing historic residence located on the west side of Lincoln Street between 8th and 9th Avenues. The property owners are David & Debbie Hutchings. (De novo Hearing).
After Mayor Sue McCloud’s recitation of the item, excluding “adoption of Findings,” City Attorney Don Freeman remarked, as follows:
De Novo Hearing; “brand new hearing”
"Inadvertently, there are a set of Findings that were distributed in the packet, you should disregard those Findings, again this is a De Novo hearing, and regardless of what the decision is today, we will bring back findings at the January meeting for your approval…”
While City Attorney Don Freeman instructed the City Council to disregard the Findings For Decision in the City Council Members’ packets, Freeman failed to mention the inaccurate noticing of the agenda item; that is, the agenda item should have read “Reconsideration of a Mills Act Contract and a Maintenance and Management Plan,” not “Reconsideration…and adoption of Findings.” Note: Mayor Sue McCloud, Mayor Pro Tem Paula Hazdovac and City Administrator Rich Guillen are responsible for the agenda. Interestingly, all three were silent during the deliberations.
The Findings For Decision in the City Council Members packets included Findings 1 and 2, as follows:
FINDINGS FOR DECISION:
1. While the property is listed on the City’s Historic Register, the Council questioned the validity of the historic designation of the property.
2. The minimal maintenance needed for the residence, as identified in the Maintenance and Management Plan, did not meet the intent of the Mills Act. The maintenance items were typical of normal care of a residence. Since there was no serious damage and no need for extensive rehabilitation, the significant monetary value of the tax reduction was not needed or warranted.
At a previous City Council meeting, Finding 1 was solely expressed by City Council Member Paula Hazdovac, while Finding 2 was solely expressed by Mayor Sue McCloud. Needless to say, Mr. & Mrs. Hutchings’ representative thoroughly discredited both Findings 1 and 2.
Rebutting Finding 1, the representative cited the evaluations and conclusions of three architectural historians, Kent Seavey, William Salmon and Sheila McElroy. All three architectural historians concluded that the Elizabeth F. Armstrong House qualified as an historic resource. Additionally, Kent Seavey stated that 5 entities had evaluated the Hutchings residence, and all concluded that the Elizabeth F. Armstrong House was an historic resource.
Rebutting Finding 2, the representative stated the proposed Maintenance and Management Plan was “not a normal maintenance plan.” It is not a normal maintenance plan, comparable to maintenance typical of the normal care of a residence because all maintenance, including repairs and replacements, require that the owner adhere to Secretary of Interior Standards.
Sunday, December 24, 2006
Barney Laiolo Redwood Grove
Grass trodden path to Barney Laiolo Redwood GroveMission Trail Nature Preserve
Off Serra Trail, about ¼ mile from the Mission Trail Nature Preserve entrance at Rio Road, are two trails leading to Barney Laiolo Redwood Grove; a grove of redwood trees shading 2 wooden benches and a bronze plaque mounted on a rock. The inscription on the bronze plaque, as follows:
BARNEY LAIOLO REDWOOD GROVE
DEDICATED JANUARY 1994
IN HONOR OF MAYOR BERNARD F. LAIOLO
AND HIS FELLOW COUNCIL MEMBERS
ANDERSON, BROWN, FALGE, AND WHITTLESEY
WHO, IN 1971, ACQUIRED THE
MISSION TRAIL PARK FOR THE CITY
OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA. THE ACQUISITION
WAS MADE POSSIBLE BY A GENEROUS
DONATION FROM WILIAM G. DOOLITTLE
PLACED BY THE FRIENDS OF BARNEY LAIOLO
The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea should honor the spirit of Barney Laiolo by creating wood chip trails from Serra Trail to the Barney Laiolo Redwood Grove to enable park users to more easily walk to and enjoy Barney’s Grove.
Saturday, December 23, 2006
Part II: FOREST & BEACH COMMISSION
SUMMARY OF 2006 FOREST & BEACH COMMISSION APPLICATIONS/PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR REMOVAL OF TREES
Of 17 total Applications for tree removal between January – November 2006, 10 applications were APPROVED (a total of 32 trees) and 7 applications were DENIED.
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
FOREST AND BEACH COMMISSION
APPLICATIONS/PUBLIC HEARINGS
Regular Meeting
7 December 2006
Application: Removal of 3 Public Oak trees (2 6” dbh and 1 8” dbh), 1 Oak tree on Private Property (6” dbh) and relocate 1 Redwood tree (3” dbh).
Reason: Construction
Location: Monte Verde St. 2 S.E. 2nd Av.
Owner: Robert Pettit
Applicant: Mandurrago, Mandurrago & Sullivan
Regular Meeting
2 November 2006
Application: Removal of 1 Monterey Cypress tree (27” dbh).
Reason: Decline and Safety Concerns
Location: Guadalupe St. 2 S.E. 2nd Av.
Applicant/Owner: Steve Dallas
Commissioner moved to DENY the application seconded and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COSS, PRITCHETT, TIERNEY, MILLER
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: JOHN
Application: Removal of 14 Monterey Pine trees (10”, 11”, 4 12”, 13”, 14”, 15”, 18”, 20”, 24”, 28” dbh)
Reason: New Construction
Location: S.W. Corner Dolores St. & 7th Av.
Owner: Pacific Grove Land Company
Applicant: Mandurrago, Mandurrago & Sullivan
Commissioner moved to APPROVE the application, with the exception of #2 and #11 trees, seconded and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COSS, PRITCHETT, TIERNEY, MILLER
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: JOHN
Regular Meeting
5 October 2006
Application: Removal of 2 Monterey Cypress trees (15” and 22” dbh)
Reason: Safety and potential damage concerns
Location: Carpenter St. & 3rd Av., N.E. Corner
Owners/Applicants: Stephan and Joan Robinson.
Commissioner moved to APPROVE the application, seconded, and carried.
Application: Removal of 1 Monterey Cypress tree (30” dbh)
Reason: Potential damage
Location: Torres St. & 4th Av. S.W. Corner
City’s Carmel Youth Center
Commissioner moved to APPROVE the application, seconded, and carried.
Regular Meeting
7 September 2006
Application: Removal of 1 Monterey Pine tree (32” dbh)
Reason: Safety concerns
Location: Carpenter St. & 2nd Av., S.E. Corner
Owmers: Gregory and Conceth McBride
Applicant: Frank Grupe.
Commissioner TIERNEY moved to APPROVE the application, seconded by PRITCHETT, and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: JOHN, PRITCHETT, TIERNEY, MILLER
NOES: COSS
No August 2006 Meeting
No Applications at July 2006 Meeting
Regular Meeting
1 June 2006
Application: Removal of 1 Monterey Cypress Tree (55” dbh)
Reason: Age, size and possible danger
Location: San Antonio, 4 S.W. of 9th Av.
Applicant: Mr. Galakatos
Commissioner Miller moved to APPROVE the application, seconded by Pritchard and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COSS, JOHN, PRITCHETT, MILLER
NOES: TIERNEY
Regular Meeting
4 May 2006
Application: Removal of 1 Monterey Pine tree (50” dbh)
Reason: Age, size and possible danger
Location: Camino Real 4 N.W. Ocean Av.
Applicant: Linda Yellich.
Commissioner Miller moved to DENY the application seconded by Pritchard and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: JOHN, PRITCHETT, TIERNEY, MILLER
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: COSS
Application: Removal of 1 Monterey Pine tree (30” dbh)
Reason: Lean and age.
Location: 8th Av. between Junipero Av. & Torres St.
Property Owner/Applicant: Alan and Ruth Scott.
Commissioner Miller moved to DENY the application and recommend the ivy be removed and that the tree be safety pruned, seconded by Pritchett and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COSS, JOHN, PRITCHETT, TIERNEY, MILLER
NOES:NONE
Regular Meeting
6 April 2006
Application: Removal of 3 Monterey Pine trees (2 33” dbh and 1 23” dbh)
Reason: Foundation damage and breaks in driveway carport.
Location: Santa Lucia Av. 2 N.W. Rio Rd.
Applicants/Owners: Thomas and Diane Stone.
Commissioner Coss moved to APPROVE the removal of tree A located by the front porch and the offending roots in the carport and deny removal of the two trees at the back of the property and recommended they remove the concrete around the trees to determine which tree is causing the damage, seconded by Miller and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COSS, JOHN, TIERNEY, MILLER
NOES: PRITCHETT
Application: Removal of 2 Monterey Pine trees (34” dbh and 36” dbh) and 1 spar from Pittosporum
Reason: Safety concerns due to leaning
Location: Camino Del Monte 2 N.W. San Carlos St.
Applicant: Linda O’Connor.
Commissioner John moved to DENY the application, and recommend the owner plant two substantial upper canopy trees and return in two years for reconsideration, seconded by Miller and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COSS, JOHN, TIERNEY, MILLER
NOES: PRITCHETT
Application: Removal of 1 Oak tree (10” dbh) on City property
Reason: Construction of a carport and parking area
Location: Santa Fe St. 5 N.W. 5th Av.
Applicant: Jon Erlandson for Mr. Lara.
Commissioner John moved to APPROVE the application and with the condition that two 5 gallon size pine trees be planted as replacements (size, location and species to be determined by the City Forester) seconded by Miller, and carried by the following roll call vote:
A substitute motion was made by Pritchett to APPROVE the application, declare the oak tree as non-significant and replant 2-15 gallon size upper canopy pine trees, the trees must be maintained in a healthy condition for a minimal of five years. In addition, removal of this tree will provide safe off street parking, and by adding significant upper canopy trees will help the City with its reforestation efforts, seconded by John and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COSS, JOHN, PRITCHETT, MILLER, TIERNEY
NOES: NONE
Application: Removal of 6 Oak trees (11” dbh, 9” dbh, 8” dbh, 2 7” dbh, 6”dbh) and prune 1 Oak branch (7” diameter)
Reason: Construction
Location: Santa Fe St. S.W. 8th Av.
Applicant/Owner: Mr. Hodges.
Commissioner Tierney moved to APPROVE the application, accept staff recommendation with the addition that one additional 15 gallon upper canopy tree be planted as a replacement, seconded by Miller and carried by the following roll vote:
AYES: COSS, JOHN, PRITCHETT, TIERNEY, MILLER
NOES: NONE
Application: Removal of 2 Oak trees (1 16” dbh and 1 12” dbh) and 1 Acacia
Reason: New Construction
Location: Santa Fe St. 3 S.W. 8th Av.
Applicant/Owner: Mr. Hodges.
Commissioner Coss moved to APPROVE the application with staff’s recommendations and with the condition that the house be pulled forward on the lot by approximately 5 feet staff, and one upper canopy tree be planted as a replacement and maintained in a healthy condition for a minimal of five years, seconded by Pritchett and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COSS, JOHN, TIERNEY, PRITCHETT, MILLER
NOES: NONE
Regular Meeting
2 March 2006
Application: Removal of 1 Monterey Pine tree
Reason: Demise
Location: Ocean Av. 2 S.E. Carmelo
Applicants/Owners: Susan and Robert Pesavento.
Commissioner Tierney moved to DENY the application, seconded by John and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES : JOHN, TIERNEY, MILLER
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: COSS, PRITCHETT
Regular Meeting
2 February 2006
Application: Removal of 3 Monterey Pine trees
Reason: Foundation damage and cracking the carport.
Location: Santa Lucia Av. 3 N.W. Rio Rd.
Applicants: Thomas and Diane Stone.
Commissioner Tierney moved to DENY the application and recommend the applicant submit an engineers report showing damage to the building, seconded by Coss and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COSS, TIERNEY, MILLER
NOES: PRITCHETT
ABSENT: JOHN
Regular Meeting
5 January 2006
Application: Removal of 1 Monterey Pine tree (40” dbh)
Reason: Root interference with foundation
Location: Monte Verde St. & 4th Av. N.E. Corner
Applicant: Jon Erlandson for D&D Residential Renovations.
Commissioner Miller moved to DENY the removal of the Monterey pine tree, seconded by John and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: JOHN, MILLER, PRITCHETT
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: COSS, TIERNEY
Application: Removal of 5 trees, 1 Black Acacia (4” dbh), 1 Australian Tea tree (7” dbh), 1 Pittosporum (9” dbh), 2 Coast Live Oaks (10” dbh and 12” dbh); changing designation of 12” Oak tree from significant to non-significant; and relocating 6 significant Coast Live Oak trees (10”, 11”, 12”, 14”, 24”, 25”)
Reason: Demolition and new construction
Location: 26041 Ridgewood Road
Applicant: Eric Miller for property owner Lee Cox
Commissioner John, moved to APPROVE the removal of the trees, change the designation of the 12” oak from significant to non-significant, approve the relocation of the above mentioned trees, and to have the City Forester supervise exploratory trenching and recommend possible changes in the retaining wall excavation in order to preserve root integrity around the oaks and the pine on the west and north side of the property., seconded by Miller and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: JOHN, MILLER, PRITCHETT
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: COSS, TIERNEY
ADDENDUM: In a Memorandum from the Forest & Beach Commission to City Administrator Rich Guillen, dated 31 March 2006, SUBJECT: FOREST & BEACH COMMISSION GOAL FOR FY 2006, appears the following:
Since the Fall of 2003, 350 trees have been removed and 95 dead and dying trees stand awaiting removal; only 92 trees have been planted by staff in the same time period.
The reality described above is in stark contrast to the Forestry Management Plan statement in the City’s General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Open Space Document:
“As noted in the Forestry Management Plan, the City Forestry Department plants on an average of over five hundred trees per year.”
Ergo, according to the City’s Land Use Plan, over 1500 trees should have been planted by staff between the Fall of 2003 and 2006, yet only 92 trees were actually planted by staff in that time period; a deficit of 1408 trees in Carmel-by-the-Sea!
Reference:
General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Open Space, Conservation & Scenic Highways Element
Carmel-by-the-Sea Page 7-5
Supporting Information
Open Space
Forestry Management Plan.
http://ci.carmel.ca.us/
Of 17 total Applications for tree removal between January – November 2006, 10 applications were APPROVED (a total of 32 trees) and 7 applications were DENIED.
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
FOREST AND BEACH COMMISSION
APPLICATIONS/PUBLIC HEARINGS
Regular Meeting
7 December 2006
Application: Removal of 3 Public Oak trees (2 6” dbh and 1 8” dbh), 1 Oak tree on Private Property (6” dbh) and relocate 1 Redwood tree (3” dbh).
Reason: Construction
Location: Monte Verde St. 2 S.E. 2nd Av.
Owner: Robert Pettit
Applicant: Mandurrago, Mandurrago & Sullivan
Regular Meeting
2 November 2006
Application: Removal of 1 Monterey Cypress tree (27” dbh).
Reason: Decline and Safety Concerns
Location: Guadalupe St. 2 S.E. 2nd Av.
Applicant/Owner: Steve Dallas
Commissioner moved to DENY the application seconded and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COSS, PRITCHETT, TIERNEY, MILLER
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: JOHN
Application: Removal of 14 Monterey Pine trees (10”, 11”, 4 12”, 13”, 14”, 15”, 18”, 20”, 24”, 28” dbh)
Reason: New Construction
Location: S.W. Corner Dolores St. & 7th Av.
Owner: Pacific Grove Land Company
Applicant: Mandurrago, Mandurrago & Sullivan
Commissioner moved to APPROVE the application, with the exception of #2 and #11 trees, seconded and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COSS, PRITCHETT, TIERNEY, MILLER
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: JOHN
Regular Meeting
5 October 2006
Application: Removal of 2 Monterey Cypress trees (15” and 22” dbh)
Reason: Safety and potential damage concerns
Location: Carpenter St. & 3rd Av., N.E. Corner
Owners/Applicants: Stephan and Joan Robinson.
Commissioner moved to APPROVE the application, seconded, and carried.
Application: Removal of 1 Monterey Cypress tree (30” dbh)
Reason: Potential damage
Location: Torres St. & 4th Av. S.W. Corner
City’s Carmel Youth Center
Commissioner moved to APPROVE the application, seconded, and carried.
Regular Meeting
7 September 2006
Application: Removal of 1 Monterey Pine tree (32” dbh)
Reason: Safety concerns
Location: Carpenter St. & 2nd Av., S.E. Corner
Owmers: Gregory and Conceth McBride
Applicant: Frank Grupe.
Commissioner TIERNEY moved to APPROVE the application, seconded by PRITCHETT, and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: JOHN, PRITCHETT, TIERNEY, MILLER
NOES: COSS
No August 2006 Meeting
No Applications at July 2006 Meeting
Regular Meeting
1 June 2006
Application: Removal of 1 Monterey Cypress Tree (55” dbh)
Reason: Age, size and possible danger
Location: San Antonio, 4 S.W. of 9th Av.
Applicant: Mr. Galakatos
Commissioner Miller moved to APPROVE the application, seconded by Pritchard and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COSS, JOHN, PRITCHETT, MILLER
NOES: TIERNEY
Regular Meeting
4 May 2006
Application: Removal of 1 Monterey Pine tree (50” dbh)
Reason: Age, size and possible danger
Location: Camino Real 4 N.W. Ocean Av.
Applicant: Linda Yellich.
Commissioner Miller moved to DENY the application seconded by Pritchard and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: JOHN, PRITCHETT, TIERNEY, MILLER
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: COSS
Application: Removal of 1 Monterey Pine tree (30” dbh)
Reason: Lean and age.
Location: 8th Av. between Junipero Av. & Torres St.
Property Owner/Applicant: Alan and Ruth Scott.
Commissioner Miller moved to DENY the application and recommend the ivy be removed and that the tree be safety pruned, seconded by Pritchett and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COSS, JOHN, PRITCHETT, TIERNEY, MILLER
NOES:NONE
Regular Meeting
6 April 2006
Application: Removal of 3 Monterey Pine trees (2 33” dbh and 1 23” dbh)
Reason: Foundation damage and breaks in driveway carport.
Location: Santa Lucia Av. 2 N.W. Rio Rd.
Applicants/Owners: Thomas and Diane Stone.
Commissioner Coss moved to APPROVE the removal of tree A located by the front porch and the offending roots in the carport and deny removal of the two trees at the back of the property and recommended they remove the concrete around the trees to determine which tree is causing the damage, seconded by Miller and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COSS, JOHN, TIERNEY, MILLER
NOES: PRITCHETT
Application: Removal of 2 Monterey Pine trees (34” dbh and 36” dbh) and 1 spar from Pittosporum
Reason: Safety concerns due to leaning
Location: Camino Del Monte 2 N.W. San Carlos St.
Applicant: Linda O’Connor.
Commissioner John moved to DENY the application, and recommend the owner plant two substantial upper canopy trees and return in two years for reconsideration, seconded by Miller and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COSS, JOHN, TIERNEY, MILLER
NOES: PRITCHETT
Application: Removal of 1 Oak tree (10” dbh) on City property
Reason: Construction of a carport and parking area
Location: Santa Fe St. 5 N.W. 5th Av.
Applicant: Jon Erlandson for Mr. Lara.
Commissioner John moved to APPROVE the application and with the condition that two 5 gallon size pine trees be planted as replacements (size, location and species to be determined by the City Forester) seconded by Miller, and carried by the following roll call vote:
A substitute motion was made by Pritchett to APPROVE the application, declare the oak tree as non-significant and replant 2-15 gallon size upper canopy pine trees, the trees must be maintained in a healthy condition for a minimal of five years. In addition, removal of this tree will provide safe off street parking, and by adding significant upper canopy trees will help the City with its reforestation efforts, seconded by John and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COSS, JOHN, PRITCHETT, MILLER, TIERNEY
NOES: NONE
Application: Removal of 6 Oak trees (11” dbh, 9” dbh, 8” dbh, 2 7” dbh, 6”dbh) and prune 1 Oak branch (7” diameter)
Reason: Construction
Location: Santa Fe St. S.W. 8th Av.
Applicant/Owner: Mr. Hodges.
Commissioner Tierney moved to APPROVE the application, accept staff recommendation with the addition that one additional 15 gallon upper canopy tree be planted as a replacement, seconded by Miller and carried by the following roll vote:
AYES: COSS, JOHN, PRITCHETT, TIERNEY, MILLER
NOES: NONE
Application: Removal of 2 Oak trees (1 16” dbh and 1 12” dbh) and 1 Acacia
Reason: New Construction
Location: Santa Fe St. 3 S.W. 8th Av.
Applicant/Owner: Mr. Hodges.
Commissioner Coss moved to APPROVE the application with staff’s recommendations and with the condition that the house be pulled forward on the lot by approximately 5 feet staff, and one upper canopy tree be planted as a replacement and maintained in a healthy condition for a minimal of five years, seconded by Pritchett and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COSS, JOHN, TIERNEY, PRITCHETT, MILLER
NOES: NONE
Regular Meeting
2 March 2006
Application: Removal of 1 Monterey Pine tree
Reason: Demise
Location: Ocean Av. 2 S.E. Carmelo
Applicants/Owners: Susan and Robert Pesavento.
Commissioner Tierney moved to DENY the application, seconded by John and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES : JOHN, TIERNEY, MILLER
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: COSS, PRITCHETT
Regular Meeting
2 February 2006
Application: Removal of 3 Monterey Pine trees
Reason: Foundation damage and cracking the carport.
Location: Santa Lucia Av. 3 N.W. Rio Rd.
Applicants: Thomas and Diane Stone.
Commissioner Tierney moved to DENY the application and recommend the applicant submit an engineers report showing damage to the building, seconded by Coss and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COSS, TIERNEY, MILLER
NOES: PRITCHETT
ABSENT: JOHN
Regular Meeting
5 January 2006
Application: Removal of 1 Monterey Pine tree (40” dbh)
Reason: Root interference with foundation
Location: Monte Verde St. & 4th Av. N.E. Corner
Applicant: Jon Erlandson for D&D Residential Renovations.
Commissioner Miller moved to DENY the removal of the Monterey pine tree, seconded by John and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: JOHN, MILLER, PRITCHETT
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: COSS, TIERNEY
Application: Removal of 5 trees, 1 Black Acacia (4” dbh), 1 Australian Tea tree (7” dbh), 1 Pittosporum (9” dbh), 2 Coast Live Oaks (10” dbh and 12” dbh); changing designation of 12” Oak tree from significant to non-significant; and relocating 6 significant Coast Live Oak trees (10”, 11”, 12”, 14”, 24”, 25”)
Reason: Demolition and new construction
Location: 26041 Ridgewood Road
Applicant: Eric Miller for property owner Lee Cox
Commissioner John, moved to APPROVE the removal of the trees, change the designation of the 12” oak from significant to non-significant, approve the relocation of the above mentioned trees, and to have the City Forester supervise exploratory trenching and recommend possible changes in the retaining wall excavation in order to preserve root integrity around the oaks and the pine on the west and north side of the property., seconded by Miller and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: JOHN, MILLER, PRITCHETT
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: COSS, TIERNEY
ADDENDUM: In a Memorandum from the Forest & Beach Commission to City Administrator Rich Guillen, dated 31 March 2006, SUBJECT: FOREST & BEACH COMMISSION GOAL FOR FY 2006, appears the following:
Since the Fall of 2003, 350 trees have been removed and 95 dead and dying trees stand awaiting removal; only 92 trees have been planted by staff in the same time period.
The reality described above is in stark contrast to the Forestry Management Plan statement in the City’s General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Open Space Document:
“As noted in the Forestry Management Plan, the City Forestry Department plants on an average of over five hundred trees per year.”
Ergo, according to the City’s Land Use Plan, over 1500 trees should have been planted by staff between the Fall of 2003 and 2006, yet only 92 trees were actually planted by staff in that time period; a deficit of 1408 trees in Carmel-by-the-Sea!
Reference:
General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Open Space, Conservation & Scenic Highways Element
Carmel-by-the-Sea Page 7-5
Supporting Information
Open Space
Forestry Management Plan.
http://ci.carmel.ca.us/
Friday, December 22, 2006
Part I: FOREST & BEACH COMMISSION
Selected excerpts from a Memo written by City Administrator Rich Guillen to Chair, Peggy Miller, Forest & Beach Commission, dated October 10, 2006, as follows:
SUBJECT: SW CORNER OF FIFTH AND LINCOLN STREETS
Traffic safety has been a concern at this intersection for a long time (for approximately 10 years). Both the city Engineer and the former Public Works Director acknowledged that street improvements are needed. In fact, the former Public Works Director a few years ago attempted to have a eucalyptus tree on Fifth Avenue removed in order to rectify a trip hazard due to surface roots.
The median that was located at this corner protected young scrawny trees that were at a height that interfered with the sight distance for motorists. I personally toured the area once with the City Forester and Public Works Superintendent and on another occasion with the City Engineer. The City Engineer and I agreed that the sight distance and the intersection needed to be improved for safety reasons and unfortunately the only way that could be accomplished was to remove the island and small trees.
Staff appreciates your regard for the stated objectives in the General Plan and agrees that it’s in our interest to not replace trees with asphalt concrete in order to maintain our community character. However, in this case where trees are in the street and obstruct the sight distance of the motorists, I have no choice but to eliminate this traffic hazard. Thus, I intend to move forward with this project…”
COMMENTS & QUESTIONS:
If, as City Administrator Rich Guillen stated, “traffic safety” at the SW corner of 5th Av. and Lincoln St. was a concern for approximately 10 years, then why did Guillen only now, 6 years after becoming City Administrator, decide to “move forward” to replace the trees with asphalt concrete in late 2006?
SUBJECT: SW CORNER OF FIFTH AND LINCOLN STREETS
Traffic safety has been a concern at this intersection for a long time (for approximately 10 years). Both the city Engineer and the former Public Works Director acknowledged that street improvements are needed. In fact, the former Public Works Director a few years ago attempted to have a eucalyptus tree on Fifth Avenue removed in order to rectify a trip hazard due to surface roots.
The median that was located at this corner protected young scrawny trees that were at a height that interfered with the sight distance for motorists. I personally toured the area once with the City Forester and Public Works Superintendent and on another occasion with the City Engineer. The City Engineer and I agreed that the sight distance and the intersection needed to be improved for safety reasons and unfortunately the only way that could be accomplished was to remove the island and small trees.
Staff appreciates your regard for the stated objectives in the General Plan and agrees that it’s in our interest to not replace trees with asphalt concrete in order to maintain our community character. However, in this case where trees are in the street and obstruct the sight distance of the motorists, I have no choice but to eliminate this traffic hazard. Thus, I intend to move forward with this project…”
COMMENTS & QUESTIONS:
If, as City Administrator Rich Guillen stated, “traffic safety” at the SW corner of 5th Av. and Lincoln St. was a concern for approximately 10 years, then why did Guillen only now, 6 years after becoming City Administrator, decide to “move forward” to replace the trees with asphalt concrete in late 2006?
Is there any evidence in the Police Record to indicate any traffic collisions or vehicle-pedestrian accidents at this intersection due to the “young scrawny trees” at the SW corner of 5th Av. & Lincoln St.?
City Administrator Guillen cited “the sight distance and the intersection needed to be improved for safety reasons and unfortunately the only way that could be accomplished was to remove the island and small trees.” Does this set a precedent? Is the City Administrator now going to order the removal of all trees at all intersections in Carmel-by-the-Sea which “obstruct the sight distance of motorists?”
Since approximately 10 years have elapsed since the SW corner of 5th Av. and Lincoln St. was identified as a traffic safety concern, the City Administrator had plenty of time to place this item on a Forest & Beach Commission agenda for their input, analysis and recommendation.
During the Appearances of the 7 September 2006 Forest & Beach Commission meeting, the Minutes reflect the following: “Clayton Anderson reported a tree planter was removed on Lincoln and 5th and it did not come before the Commission for approval.”
While City Administrator Guillen appears to recognize that his proposed actions are a violation of the General Plan i.e., replacing trees with “asphalt concrete,” he states he intends “to move forward with this project” anyway.
While City Administrator Guillen appears to recognize the needed to maintain Carmel’s “community character,” the present asphalt concrete pavement and 4’ high traffic guidance posts detract from Carmel’s community character; another reason why the item should have been placed on a Forest & Beach Commission agenda for their recommendation, et cetera.
City Administrator Guillen’s reference to the former Public Works Director’s attempt “to have a eucalyptus tree on Fifth Avenue removed in order to rectify a trip hazard due to surface roots” implicitly communicates to the Forest & Beach Commission that the members cannot be trusted with such issues because in the 5th Av. eucalyptus tree case the Forest & Beach Commission intervened and made the wrong decision.
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
UPDATE: Writ of Mandate Hearing & Special Counsel William Conners Compensation
Flanders Mansion
Mission Trail Nature Preserve
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA.
Case Details of Flanders Foundation vs. City of Carmel By the Sea, et al
Writ of Mandate Hearing: Thursday, 1/11/2007 9:00 A.M. Courtroom 14, Monterey, CA.
Case Number: GNM76728
Case Caption: Flanders Foundation vs. City of Carmel By the Sea, et al
Case Type: Civil: Monterey
Original Filing Date: 11/3/2005
(For Up-to-Date Court Information, http://www.justicepartners.monterey.courts.ca.gov/Public/ or click on post title above, click on Online Case Information box, then click on Index Search, then Select Civil Unlimited and type Case Number M76728 in box, then click Search.
TOTAL CITY MONETARY AMOUNT TO SPECIAL COUNSEL
WILLIAM B. CONNERS
GNM76728, FLANDERS FOUNDATION v. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA:
(March 2005 – November 2006):
TOTAL: $41,120.00 (March 2005 - November 2006)
111794 11/14/06 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 4,660.00 LEGAL SERVICES-FLANDERS LAWSUIT
111606 10/17/06 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 1,920.00 LEGAL SERVICES-FLANDERS LAWSUIT
111097 8/8/06 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 260.00 LEGAL SERVICES-FLANDERS LAWSUIT
111150 8/15/06 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 500.00 LEGAL SERVICES-FLANDERS LAWSUIT
----Vendor Total---- $ 760.00
110707 6/13/06 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 580.00 LEGAL SERVICES-FLANDERS LAWSUIT
110419 5/2/06 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 1,400.00 LEGAL SERVICES-FLANDERS LAWSUIT
110570 5/23/06 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 540.00 LEGAL SERVICES-FLANDERS LAWSUIT
----Vendor Total---- $ 1,940.00
110141 3/21/06 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 880.00 LEGAL SERVICES – FLANDERS LAWSUIT
110014 2/28/06 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 3,780.00 JAN '06 LEGAL SERVICES
109798 1/24/06 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 1,260.00 LEGAL SERVICES
109626 12/27/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 1,780.00 LEGAL SERVICES-FLANDERS
109353 11/15/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 40.00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
109165 10/11/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 7,220.00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
108976 9/13/2005 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 4,280.00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
108897 8/30/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 2,520.00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
108622 7/20/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 2,940.00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
108410 6/14/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 2,360.00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
108242 5/24/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 2,660.00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
107869 3/22/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 1,540.00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
(Source: City of Carmel-by-the-Sea web site http://www.ci.carmel.ca.us/ March 2005 – November 2006 Check Registers)
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Carmel-by-the-Sea California - Official City Website: A Deterrent to an Informed Citizenry
Given that an informed citizenry is crucial to the proper functioning of a participatory democracy, it is disturbing that the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea does not have a complete and up-to-date website, including Agendas & Minutes for all Commissions.
As of Tuesday, 19 December 2006, a Summary of the City’s Website regarding the City’s Commissions/Board Agendas & Minutes:
Planning Commission
January 11, 2006 – December 13, 2006
No Minutes for June 14, September 13, October 11, 2006.
Note: Between January 10, 2001 (first entry) and December 2006, there are 26 omitted Meeting Minutes of a total of 98 Meeting Minutes, excluding December 2006, for an omission rate of 27%.
Design Review Board
February 1, 2006 – December 2006
No Minutes for April 26 (Regular Meeting), June 28, September 27, October 25, November 15.
Note: Between January 23, 2002 and December 20, 2006, there are 18 omitted Meeting Minutes of a total of 55 Meeting Minutes, excluding December 2006, for an omission rate of 33%.
Historic Resources Board
January 23, 2006 – December 2006
No Minutes for March 20, April 17, May 15, May 22, June 19, June 26, July 17, August 21, September18, October 18, November 20, 2006.
No Agenda for December 2006.
Note: Between April 19, 2001 and November 20, 2006, there are 24 omitted Meeting Minutes of a total of 47 Meeting Minutes, for an omission rate of 51%.
Note: The web site title “Carmel-by-the-Sea Historic Preservation Committee Agendas & Minutes” is incorrect; it is now the Historic Resources Board, since LCP certification in 2004.
Forest & Beach Commission
January 5, 2006 – December 7, 2006
No Minutes for June 1, August 3, September 7, October 5, 2006.
Note: Between January 3, 2002 and 2006, there are 13 omitted Meeting Minutes of a total of 56 Meeting Minutes, excluding December 7, 2006, for an omission rate of 23%.
Community Activities & Cultural Commission
January 18, 2006 – December 2006.
No Minutes for October 12, November 9, 2006.
No Agenda for December 2006.
Note: Between January 24, 2005 and November 9, 2006, there are 5 omitted Meeting Minutes of a total of 21 Meeting Minutes, for an omission rate of 24%.
Harrison Memorial Library Board of Trustees
January 18, 2006 – August 22, 2006
No Agendas or Minutes for Meetings after August 2006, i.e., September, October November, December 2006.
Note: Between October 26, 2995 and August 22, 2006, the agendas and minutes are complete.
COMMENTS:
• Qualitatively, City Council, Commissions and Board Minutes are not descriptive or informative; for example, public speakers’ words are not recorded verbatim or paraphrased so that the public has a sense of the content of their remarks---for public meetings and governmental hearings, this is often done.
• While the City Council Agenda & Minutes Packets are usually on the website by Monday, or the day before the Tuesday Regular Meeting, the CarmelAgendaPacketDecember2006 was not available on the City’s website until days after the Tuesday, 5 December 2006 meeting. And Special Meetings are not always posted on the City’s website; the 29 November 2006 City Council Special Meeting, for example, was not posted on the City’s website.
• Omission rates between 23% and 51% for the four Commissions and 1 Board are unacceptable; the city’s website should have all agendas and minutes on the city’s website.
• For $100,000, the City currently contracts with the advertising firm, Anda- Burghardt Advertising, Inc., to promote and market the city. Interestingly, Anda- Burghardt assumed the old official city website URL, http://www.carmelcalifornia.com/. The website that Michael Adamson, a Carmel Chamber of Commerce member, stated some were dismayed about because the Anda-Burghardt website is similar to and “in competition with” the Chamber’s website.
Note: Carmel Chamber of Commerce website, http://www.carmelcalifornia.org/.
• If Anda-Burghardt failed to maintain an up-to-date website promoting and marketing Carmel-by-the-Sea, like the City fails to maintain an up-to-date and complete website, i.e., Commissions and Board Agendas & Minutes, would the city be satisfied with that level of commercial service for $100,000? What does the lack of complete and up-to-date information on the City’s website communicate to residents of Carmel-by-the-Sea?
• Contact with one city employee about a request to maintain an up-to-date website produced the response; the City is not legally required to do that.
• A request to a liaison city staff member for up-to-date minutes on the website was ignored.
As of Tuesday, 19 December 2006, a Summary of the City’s Website regarding the City’s Commissions/Board Agendas & Minutes:
Planning Commission
January 11, 2006 – December 13, 2006
No Minutes for June 14, September 13, October 11, 2006.
Note: Between January 10, 2001 (first entry) and December 2006, there are 26 omitted Meeting Minutes of a total of 98 Meeting Minutes, excluding December 2006, for an omission rate of 27%.
Design Review Board
February 1, 2006 – December 2006
No Minutes for April 26 (Regular Meeting), June 28, September 27, October 25, November 15.
Note: Between January 23, 2002 and December 20, 2006, there are 18 omitted Meeting Minutes of a total of 55 Meeting Minutes, excluding December 2006, for an omission rate of 33%.
Historic Resources Board
January 23, 2006 – December 2006
No Minutes for March 20, April 17, May 15, May 22, June 19, June 26, July 17, August 21, September18, October 18, November 20, 2006.
No Agenda for December 2006.
Note: Between April 19, 2001 and November 20, 2006, there are 24 omitted Meeting Minutes of a total of 47 Meeting Minutes, for an omission rate of 51%.
Note: The web site title “Carmel-by-the-Sea Historic Preservation Committee Agendas & Minutes” is incorrect; it is now the Historic Resources Board, since LCP certification in 2004.
Forest & Beach Commission
January 5, 2006 – December 7, 2006
No Minutes for June 1, August 3, September 7, October 5, 2006.
Note: Between January 3, 2002 and 2006, there are 13 omitted Meeting Minutes of a total of 56 Meeting Minutes, excluding December 7, 2006, for an omission rate of 23%.
Community Activities & Cultural Commission
January 18, 2006 – December 2006.
No Minutes for October 12, November 9, 2006.
No Agenda for December 2006.
Note: Between January 24, 2005 and November 9, 2006, there are 5 omitted Meeting Minutes of a total of 21 Meeting Minutes, for an omission rate of 24%.
Harrison Memorial Library Board of Trustees
January 18, 2006 – August 22, 2006
No Agendas or Minutes for Meetings after August 2006, i.e., September, October November, December 2006.
Note: Between October 26, 2995 and August 22, 2006, the agendas and minutes are complete.
COMMENTS:
• Qualitatively, City Council, Commissions and Board Minutes are not descriptive or informative; for example, public speakers’ words are not recorded verbatim or paraphrased so that the public has a sense of the content of their remarks---for public meetings and governmental hearings, this is often done.
• While the City Council Agenda & Minutes Packets are usually on the website by Monday, or the day before the Tuesday Regular Meeting, the CarmelAgendaPacketDecember2006 was not available on the City’s website until days after the Tuesday, 5 December 2006 meeting. And Special Meetings are not always posted on the City’s website; the 29 November 2006 City Council Special Meeting, for example, was not posted on the City’s website.
• Omission rates between 23% and 51% for the four Commissions and 1 Board are unacceptable; the city’s website should have all agendas and minutes on the city’s website.
• For $100,000, the City currently contracts with the advertising firm, Anda- Burghardt Advertising, Inc., to promote and market the city. Interestingly, Anda- Burghardt assumed the old official city website URL, http://www.carmelcalifornia.com/. The website that Michael Adamson, a Carmel Chamber of Commerce member, stated some were dismayed about because the Anda-Burghardt website is similar to and “in competition with” the Chamber’s website.
Note: Carmel Chamber of Commerce website, http://www.carmelcalifornia.org/.
• If Anda-Burghardt failed to maintain an up-to-date website promoting and marketing Carmel-by-the-Sea, like the City fails to maintain an up-to-date and complete website, i.e., Commissions and Board Agendas & Minutes, would the city be satisfied with that level of commercial service for $100,000? What does the lack of complete and up-to-date information on the City’s website communicate to residents of Carmel-by-the-Sea?
• Contact with one city employee about a request to maintain an up-to-date website produced the response; the City is not legally required to do that.
• A request to a liaison city staff member for up-to-date minutes on the website was ignored.
Monday, December 18, 2006
Mayor McCloud: In Her Own Mind, A Law Unto Herself
• The “City” of Carmel-by-the-Sea removed 43 historic resources, as a group, from the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources in January 2006, with the approval of Principal Planner Brian Roseth and City Attorney Don Freeman. Only when the California Coastal Commission staff communicated to the “City” that their action was in violation of the City’s Local Coastal Program and therefore “illegal,” did the City Council remand the item to the Historic Resources Board for rescission.
• Unlike the process the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is following to post “No Smoking” signs on Scenic Road along Carmel Beach, the “City” of Carmel-by-the-Sea posted numerous “No Bicycle” signs in Mission Trail Nature Preserve without a coastal permit. Only when a California Coastal Commission Staff Member contacted the “City” about the City’s violation did the “City” agree that a coastal permit was required to install the signs and implement the public access restrictions.
• Even though City Administrator Rich Guillen and Mayor Sue McCloud stated publicly that the installation of the lights issue would be placed on a public agenda prior to the lights installation, the “City” has installed approximately 50 lights in the medians on Ocean Av. between Monte Verde St. and Junipero Av.
COMMENTS:
Mayor McCloud’s initiation and /or endorsement of the removal of multiple post-1940s historic properties from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources, the posting of numerous “No Bicycle” signs in Mission Trail Nature Preserve and the installation of approximately 50 lights in the medians on Ocean Avenue between Monte Verde St. and Junipero Av. was either overtly supported or tacitly approved by Planner Services Manager Brian Roseth, City Attorney Don Freeman, Public Safety Director/Police Chief George Rawson and City Administrator Rich Guillen, even though these actions were either a violation of the Local Coastal Program, the Municipal Code or a breach of ethics.
Specifically, in the case of the removal of 43 historic properties, Planning Services Manager Brian Roseth, who wrote the Staff Report recommending removal of the properties from the Inventory of Historic Resources and City Attorney Don Freeman, who supported the option to remove the 43 historic properties, supported the removal of the historic properties.
In the case of the “No Bicycle” signs, both Public Safety Director/Police Chief George Rawson and City Administrator Rich Guillen knew about the city’s posting of “No Bicycle” signs in Mission Trail Nature Preserve without a coastal permit prior to the California Coastal Commission Staff Member contacting the “City” regarding the violation; yet they did nothing to rectify the Local Coastal Program violation.
Lastly, in the case of the “City’s” installation of approximately 50 lights in the medians on Ocean Av. between Monte Verde St. and Junipero Av., both the Mayor and the City Administrator stated publicly that the light installation issue would be placed on an agenda prior to the installation of the lights; yet the lights were installed in December without a public hearing on the issue.
CONCLUSION:
This pattern of flagrant violations and illegal actions by the “City” of Carmel-by-the-Sea, initiated and/or endorsed by Mayor Sue McCloud signifies a “the City can unilaterally do whatever it wants without regard for the law or ethics” attitude; the definition of Carmel-by-the-Sea style “corruption.”
To wit, a person of integrity, man or woman, would NEVER willfully mislead or lie to the public. Yet, in the case of the installation of the lights in the medians in the commercial district on Ocean Av., for example, Mayor McCloud showed herself as an individual unworthy of a position of public responsibility and trust.
ADDENDUM:
The following Municipal Code item and precedent demonstrate that the Municipal Code would have to be changed to allow for the installation of lights in the medians on Ocean Av. between Monte Verde St. and Junipero Av.
Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code
Chapter 15.36
ELECTRICAL CODE*
15.36.070 Lighting Requirements.
A. Commercial Buildings/Zones.
1. All light fixtures shall not be directed toward the public right-of-way.
2. Lighting intensity shall not exceed eight-candlefoot power at a point two feet beyond the storefront windows as measured in a vertical or horizontal plane three feet above the ground or public walking surface.
3. Lighting intensity within the interior of the store space shall not exceed 30-candlefoot power at any point visible from the public right-of-way as measured in a vertical or horizontal plane three feet above the floor or walking surface.
B. Residential Buildings/Zones.
1. All exterior lighting attached to the main building or any accessory building shall be no higher than 10 feet above the ground and not exceed 25 watts in power per fixture.
2. Landscape lighting shall not exceed 18 inches above the ground nor more than 15 watts per fixture and shall be spaced no closer than 10 feet apart. Landscape lighting shall not be used for tree, wall, fence or accent lighting of any type. The purpose of landscape lighting is to safely illuminate walkways and entrances to the subject property.
3. No exterior lighting is permitted upon City property and may not be directed toward City property.
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES
Regular Meeting
28 August 2002
Herb Beckett
W/s Dolores between Ocean and 7th
Consideration of a Commercial Design Review application for exterior design changes consisting of artificial vines and flowers attached to store front, window frames in the Central Commercial (CC) District
David Wright presented the staff report that recommended denial. Herb Beckett appeared to compliment David on his professional approach in dealing with a difficult task. He explained that he decorated his store with seasonal flowers attached to the vine. Chairman Pro Tem Bartron asked Mr. Wright whether seasonal decorations were okay and Mr. Wright responded that only Christmas lights were allowed in the commercial district during the holidays. Motion of LEPAGE/MANHA TO DENY THE APPLICATION AND REQUEST THAT THE DECORATIONS BE REMOVED
BY SEPTEMBER 6 CARRIED ON THE FOLLOWING ROLE CALL VOTE:
AYES: BOARD MEMBERS: Bartron, Manha, and LePage
NOES: BOARD MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: BOARD MEMBERS: Campbell and Isakson
CONTRACT CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER: WRIGHT
• Unlike the process the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is following to post “No Smoking” signs on Scenic Road along Carmel Beach, the “City” of Carmel-by-the-Sea posted numerous “No Bicycle” signs in Mission Trail Nature Preserve without a coastal permit. Only when a California Coastal Commission Staff Member contacted the “City” about the City’s violation did the “City” agree that a coastal permit was required to install the signs and implement the public access restrictions.
• Even though City Administrator Rich Guillen and Mayor Sue McCloud stated publicly that the installation of the lights issue would be placed on a public agenda prior to the lights installation, the “City” has installed approximately 50 lights in the medians on Ocean Av. between Monte Verde St. and Junipero Av.
COMMENTS:
Mayor McCloud’s initiation and /or endorsement of the removal of multiple post-1940s historic properties from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources, the posting of numerous “No Bicycle” signs in Mission Trail Nature Preserve and the installation of approximately 50 lights in the medians on Ocean Avenue between Monte Verde St. and Junipero Av. was either overtly supported or tacitly approved by Planner Services Manager Brian Roseth, City Attorney Don Freeman, Public Safety Director/Police Chief George Rawson and City Administrator Rich Guillen, even though these actions were either a violation of the Local Coastal Program, the Municipal Code or a breach of ethics.
Specifically, in the case of the removal of 43 historic properties, Planning Services Manager Brian Roseth, who wrote the Staff Report recommending removal of the properties from the Inventory of Historic Resources and City Attorney Don Freeman, who supported the option to remove the 43 historic properties, supported the removal of the historic properties.
In the case of the “No Bicycle” signs, both Public Safety Director/Police Chief George Rawson and City Administrator Rich Guillen knew about the city’s posting of “No Bicycle” signs in Mission Trail Nature Preserve without a coastal permit prior to the California Coastal Commission Staff Member contacting the “City” regarding the violation; yet they did nothing to rectify the Local Coastal Program violation.
Lastly, in the case of the “City’s” installation of approximately 50 lights in the medians on Ocean Av. between Monte Verde St. and Junipero Av., both the Mayor and the City Administrator stated publicly that the light installation issue would be placed on an agenda prior to the installation of the lights; yet the lights were installed in December without a public hearing on the issue.
CONCLUSION:
This pattern of flagrant violations and illegal actions by the “City” of Carmel-by-the-Sea, initiated and/or endorsed by Mayor Sue McCloud signifies a “the City can unilaterally do whatever it wants without regard for the law or ethics” attitude; the definition of Carmel-by-the-Sea style “corruption.”
To wit, a person of integrity, man or woman, would NEVER willfully mislead or lie to the public. Yet, in the case of the installation of the lights in the medians in the commercial district on Ocean Av., for example, Mayor McCloud showed herself as an individual unworthy of a position of public responsibility and trust.
ADDENDUM:
The following Municipal Code item and precedent demonstrate that the Municipal Code would have to be changed to allow for the installation of lights in the medians on Ocean Av. between Monte Verde St. and Junipero Av.
Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code
Chapter 15.36
ELECTRICAL CODE*
15.36.070 Lighting Requirements.
A. Commercial Buildings/Zones.
1. All light fixtures shall not be directed toward the public right-of-way.
2. Lighting intensity shall not exceed eight-candlefoot power at a point two feet beyond the storefront windows as measured in a vertical or horizontal plane three feet above the ground or public walking surface.
3. Lighting intensity within the interior of the store space shall not exceed 30-candlefoot power at any point visible from the public right-of-way as measured in a vertical or horizontal plane three feet above the floor or walking surface.
B. Residential Buildings/Zones.
1. All exterior lighting attached to the main building or any accessory building shall be no higher than 10 feet above the ground and not exceed 25 watts in power per fixture.
2. Landscape lighting shall not exceed 18 inches above the ground nor more than 15 watts per fixture and shall be spaced no closer than 10 feet apart. Landscape lighting shall not be used for tree, wall, fence or accent lighting of any type. The purpose of landscape lighting is to safely illuminate walkways and entrances to the subject property.
3. No exterior lighting is permitted upon City property and may not be directed toward City property.
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES
Regular Meeting
28 August 2002
Herb Beckett
W/s Dolores between Ocean and 7th
Consideration of a Commercial Design Review application for exterior design changes consisting of artificial vines and flowers attached to store front, window frames in the Central Commercial (CC) District
David Wright presented the staff report that recommended denial. Herb Beckett appeared to compliment David on his professional approach in dealing with a difficult task. He explained that he decorated his store with seasonal flowers attached to the vine. Chairman Pro Tem Bartron asked Mr. Wright whether seasonal decorations were okay and Mr. Wright responded that only Christmas lights were allowed in the commercial district during the holidays. Motion of LEPAGE/MANHA TO DENY THE APPLICATION AND REQUEST THAT THE DECORATIONS BE REMOVED
BY SEPTEMBER 6 CARRIED ON THE FOLLOWING ROLE CALL VOTE:
AYES: BOARD MEMBERS: Bartron, Manha, and LePage
NOES: BOARD MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: BOARD MEMBERS: Campbell and Isakson
CONTRACT CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER: WRIGHT
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Aaron’s Tree – Carmel’s Canine Christmas Tree in Mission Trail Nature Preserve
Aaron's - "Merry Christmas" - Tree
Location: Mission Trail Nature Preserve, Serra Trail, 1/4 mile from Rio Road Entrance
To celebrate the Christmas season, canine lovers have again decorated Aaron’s tree in Mission Trail Nature Preserve with shiny red and silver balls, topped with a silver star. Next to the Christmas tree is a container with ornaments, hangers and markers for park users to write their dog’s name on ornaments and then hang them on the Christmas tree.
Aaron’s “Merry Christmas” Tree, a young redwood tree, is just off Serra Trail, just around the bend in the trail, about a ¼ mile from the entrance to Mission Trail Nature Preserve at Rio Road.
Canine Christmas Tree History:
Ed and Betty Anderson, of Monterey, planted their 2004 living redwood Christmas tree in Mission Trail Nature Preserve in 2005, as a memorial to their son, Aaron, who died on 21 December 2003, at the age of 31. For that first Christmas season in 2005, the tree was transformed into a magical Canine Christmas Tree. Since Aaron was an animal lover and “spent a lot of time in Mission Trail Park,” his mother, Betty, said in December 2005 that she was delighted and thankful for the decorated tree at Christmastime. And Aaron “would have really enjoyed it.”
(Source: Canine Christmas tree is memorial redwood for Monterey couple’s son, Mary Brownfield, The Carmel Pine Cone, December 23, 2005)
MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL...AND ESPECIALLY TO OUR CANINE COMPANIONS!
Saturday, December 16, 2006
Fiscal Year 2005/06: Use of Capital Improvement Reserves?
“For the 2005/06 fiscal year, revenues totaled $12,273,173 - $1.2 million more than anticipated – and expenses came in almost $400,000 lower than expected, putting Carmel solidly in the black.”
“We had to spend down capital improvement reserves so much last year, my suggestion is to replenish that account before we put other projects in place,” stated City Administrator Rich Guillen.
(AUDITS GIVE CITY, SUNSET CENTER CLEAN BILLS OF HEALTH, Mary Brownfield, The Carmel Pine Cone, December 15, 2006.)
“As of June 30, 2006, the City’s government funds (general fund and special revenue funds) had a combined fund balance of approximately $10 million, an increase of almost $1 million from the previous year. Of the total fund balance, $1.3 million was reserved; $5.4 million was designated for capital acquisitions and future expenditures; and $3 million was neither reserved nor designated.”
(Source: Nicholson & Olson, Certified Public Accountants, Independent Auditor’s Report, http://ci.carmel.ca.us/)
QUESTIONS:
With Carmel-by-the-Sea “solidly in the black,” and accountant Ralph Marcello of Nicholson & Olson stating that “While the city budgeted to break even, you actually came out ahead,” how is it that any reserves were used in FY 2005/06 as City Administrator states capital improvement reserves were “spend down” so much last year?
If, as City Administrator Rich Guillen states, capital improvement reserves were spent down so much last year, then what Capital Improvement Projects were funded from the Capital Improvement Reserves, above and beyond the $772,135 budgeted for Capital Improvements Program in FY 2005/06?
REFERENCES:
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
Funds are budgeted to provide for planning and construction of major capital improvements. The capital projects, submitted by departmental staff and their respective commissions or boards, are selected through an in-depth evaluation prioritization process and then reviewed and approved by the City’s Planning Commission as part of the City's Five-Year Capital Improvement Program.
Capital Improvements
Revised 05-06
$ 15,227 01-89277 Professional fees-Sunset Ctr Roof
$ 12,707 01-89409 Sunset Yoga Ctr Repairs
$ 577,285 01-89483 Fire Dept Seismic Retrofit
$ 119,616 01-89627 Resurface Beach Bluff Pathway
$ 9,300 01-89636 4th Avenue Riparian Restoration
$ 8,000 01-89637 Forest Hill Park Improvements
$ 18,000 01-89676 Forest Theater Fire Sprinklers
$ 12,000 01-89994 Sunset Ctr Roof/Fire System
$ 772,135 Subtotal
Proposed 2006/07
4th Avenue Riparian Restoration $ 44,594
Del Mar Restrooms $ 25,000
Subtotal $ 69,594
(Source: CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CALIFORNIA BUDGET FISCAL YEARS 2006/07 THROUGH 2008/09, http://ci.carmel.ca.us/)
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
California
Annual Financial Report
June 30, 2006
BALANCE SHEET
Government Funds
June 30, 2006
FUND BALANCES
Reserved for debt service:$627,309
Unreserved:
Designated: $5,359,692
Reserved: $552,884 (Parking)
Undesignated: $3,053,341
Total Fund Balances: $9,040,342 $552,884
TOTAL: $9,593,226.00
(Source: Financial Statements, CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, BALANCE SHEET, Government Funds, June 30, 2006, CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, California, Annual Financial Report, June 30, 2006.)
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
California
Annual Financial Report
June 30, 2005
BALANCE SHEET
Government Funds
June 30, 2005
Fund Balances
623,709 Reserved for debt service
Unreserved
$37,662 Designated for street and traffic safety
$740,451 Designated for liability insurance
$647,527 Designated for health insurance
$1,370,334 Designated for capital improvements
$249,579 Designated for equipment replacement
$1,432,394 Designated for benefits and wc insurance
$657,000 Designated for reserves
$549,690 Designated for economic uncertainty
$165,011 Designated for emergency response
$140,000 Designated for general services and operations
$468,857 Designated for customer deposits
$1,240,439 Undesignated
8,322,653 Total Fund Balances
(Source: CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA California, Annual Financial Report, June 30, 2005, FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, Fund Financial Statements, Balance Sheet – Governmental Funds.)
“We had to spend down capital improvement reserves so much last year, my suggestion is to replenish that account before we put other projects in place,” stated City Administrator Rich Guillen.
(AUDITS GIVE CITY, SUNSET CENTER CLEAN BILLS OF HEALTH, Mary Brownfield, The Carmel Pine Cone, December 15, 2006.)
“As of June 30, 2006, the City’s government funds (general fund and special revenue funds) had a combined fund balance of approximately $10 million, an increase of almost $1 million from the previous year. Of the total fund balance, $1.3 million was reserved; $5.4 million was designated for capital acquisitions and future expenditures; and $3 million was neither reserved nor designated.”
(Source: Nicholson & Olson, Certified Public Accountants, Independent Auditor’s Report, http://ci.carmel.ca.us/)
QUESTIONS:
With Carmel-by-the-Sea “solidly in the black,” and accountant Ralph Marcello of Nicholson & Olson stating that “While the city budgeted to break even, you actually came out ahead,” how is it that any reserves were used in FY 2005/06 as City Administrator states capital improvement reserves were “spend down” so much last year?
If, as City Administrator Rich Guillen states, capital improvement reserves were spent down so much last year, then what Capital Improvement Projects were funded from the Capital Improvement Reserves, above and beyond the $772,135 budgeted for Capital Improvements Program in FY 2005/06?
REFERENCES:
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
Funds are budgeted to provide for planning and construction of major capital improvements. The capital projects, submitted by departmental staff and their respective commissions or boards, are selected through an in-depth evaluation prioritization process and then reviewed and approved by the City’s Planning Commission as part of the City's Five-Year Capital Improvement Program.
Capital Improvements
Revised 05-06
$ 15,227 01-89277 Professional fees-Sunset Ctr Roof
$ 12,707 01-89409 Sunset Yoga Ctr Repairs
$ 577,285 01-89483 Fire Dept Seismic Retrofit
$ 119,616 01-89627 Resurface Beach Bluff Pathway
$ 9,300 01-89636 4th Avenue Riparian Restoration
$ 8,000 01-89637 Forest Hill Park Improvements
$ 18,000 01-89676 Forest Theater Fire Sprinklers
$ 12,000 01-89994 Sunset Ctr Roof/Fire System
$ 772,135 Subtotal
Proposed 2006/07
4th Avenue Riparian Restoration $ 44,594
Del Mar Restrooms $ 25,000
Subtotal $ 69,594
(Source: CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CALIFORNIA BUDGET FISCAL YEARS 2006/07 THROUGH 2008/09, http://ci.carmel.ca.us/)
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
California
Annual Financial Report
June 30, 2006
BALANCE SHEET
Government Funds
June 30, 2006
FUND BALANCES
Reserved for debt service:$627,309
Unreserved:
Designated: $5,359,692
Reserved: $552,884 (Parking)
Undesignated: $3,053,341
Total Fund Balances: $9,040,342 $552,884
TOTAL: $9,593,226.00
(Source: Financial Statements, CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, BALANCE SHEET, Government Funds, June 30, 2006, CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, California, Annual Financial Report, June 30, 2006.)
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
California
Annual Financial Report
June 30, 2005
BALANCE SHEET
Government Funds
June 30, 2005
Fund Balances
623,709 Reserved for debt service
Unreserved
$37,662 Designated for street and traffic safety
$740,451 Designated for liability insurance
$647,527 Designated for health insurance
$1,370,334 Designated for capital improvements
$249,579 Designated for equipment replacement
$1,432,394 Designated for benefits and wc insurance
$657,000 Designated for reserves
$549,690 Designated for economic uncertainty
$165,011 Designated for emergency response
$140,000 Designated for general services and operations
$468,857 Designated for customer deposits
$1,240,439 Undesignated
8,322,653 Total Fund Balances
(Source: CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA California, Annual Financial Report, June 30, 2005, FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, Fund Financial Statements, Balance Sheet – Governmental Funds.)
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
"Holly:" A Journey from Harrison Memorial Library Garden to "Sun Spot"
"Holly," newly transplanted holly tree.
Location: "Sun Spot," Camino Real 3 S.W. 11th Av., residence of Jim & Dianne Brun.
“I’ve started calling her ‘Holly.'"
(Dianne Brun, rescuer of the 20’ holly tree from Harrison Memorial Library Garden, Library’s holly hoisted to new home, Mary Brownfield, The Carmel Pine Cone, December 8, 2006)
Over the course of Tuesday, 5 December 2006 and Wednesday, 6 December 2006, Jim and Dianne Brun’s gardener Robert Luster, David Teas of Environmental Design, driver James Vargas and crane operator Buddy Crafton successfully prepared the cite at Camino Real 3 S.W. 11th Av., excavated and secured the holly tree’s root ball in a wooden box, transported and transplanted “Holly,” the unwanted holly tree from the Harrison Memorial Library Garden to “Sun Spot,” the residence of Jim and Dianne Brun.
Citing the holly as non-native and not “significant,” City Forester Mike Branson stated that “the tree was going to be cut down and thrown away…it would be going in a dumpster or chipper, or something.” Believing “it would be such a shame to lose that tree – it’s perfectly healthy and thriving,” Dianne Brun arranged for David Teas of Environmental Design, a company known for moving and successfully transplanting large trees, including several large trees in the Presidio, to move “Holly” from Harrison Memorial Library Garden to her front yard on Camino Real.
Cheers to Jim and Dianne Brun! And welcome to your home, “Holly!” May you grow and prosper!
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Another Sign of Dysfunctional City Government (and City Administrator Incompetence)
“...if I could do this all over again, I would have first had the council and community define what they mean by ‘economic development.’ It’s such a broad term…so what are we talking about?”
“...and he credited Sellers with being part of the overall effort to improve business in Carmel.” And “There have been a lot of good things, and Greg was a good part of that.”
(City Administrator Rich Guillen, On Economic Development Coordinator Greg Sellers nearly 10 month tenure and termination on 29 November 2006, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR CANNED, Mary Brownfield, The Carmel Pine Cone, December 8, 2006.)
After authorizing the contract between the City and Greg Sellers, the city’s Economic Development Coordinator, on 9 February 2006, and expending $37,912.59, City Administrator Rich Guillen terminated Sellers contract on 29 November 2006. In terminating Sellers’ contract, City Administrator Guillen cited the city’s desire to “grow revenues in a new direction” and a draft report which “just rehashed things we already know.”
COMMENTS:
On the one hand, City Administrator Rich Guillen credits Greg Sellers “with being part of the overall effort to improve business in Carmel.” On the other hand, he was terminated prior to the presentation of his report to the public at a city council meeting.
On the one hand, Greg Sellers was charged with completing a “strategic plan” for economic growth within six months and apparently failed to complete a plan. On the other hand, Sellers submitted a completed draft report to City Administrator Rich Guillen.
One the one hand, Greg Sellers generated some new ideas on economic growth, such as wine tasting, loosening of strict rules for signs and parking congestion remedies. One the other hand, City Administrator Guillen stated that his ideas were not new, just a rehash of things the city already knows.
On the one hand, Greg Sellers was hired as Economic Development Coordinator to work with members of the Carmel Chamber of Commerce’s economic development committee, business owners, et cetera to development plans to boost economic activity in the city. On the other hand, City Administrator stated that maybe the problem was his not “giving him exact direction...We identified we want something, but we haven’t identified what we want, and that’s a difficult position to put anybody in.”
FINAL COMMENTS:
City Administrator Rich Guillen’s on the one hand, on the other hand incoherent and contradictory statements illuminate city management incompetence. Furthermore, his statements show a pattern of conduct aptly described by an astute Carmel-by-the-Sea observer.
“On those occasions when he (City Administrator Rich Guillen) can be pressured to respond, he usually does so in vague enough terms that he fails to respond with useful information or, even worse, responds with information that completely fails to address the question or request. Whether this is because he is too ill informed to really respond and doesn't want to ask staff for fear of seeming ignorant or he is too overwhelmed by his job to keep track of his responsibilities or he has just been ordered by Mayor McCloud not to release information, no matter how routine, without her permission or a combination of all three is unclear.”
(See BLOG Post Saturday, December 2, 2006, COMMENTS, below “Holiday Tree” photo)
Other Illuminating Comments:
“I was surprised they wanted to get rid of him before he even presented his plan.”
“We have Erik Bethel suddenly quitting, and the next thing we knew, Greg Sellers is gone, and they had been working very well together, too. It’s disappointing to me, because I felt in the last two years, the chamber had developed a good relationship with the city.”
(Michael Adamson, Member of the Carmel Chamber of Commerce’s Economic Development Committee, On the City’s termination of Economic Development Coordinator Greg Sellers, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR CANNED, Mary Brownfield, The Carmel Pine Cone, December 8, 2006.)
“...and he credited Sellers with being part of the overall effort to improve business in Carmel.” And “There have been a lot of good things, and Greg was a good part of that.”
(City Administrator Rich Guillen, On Economic Development Coordinator Greg Sellers nearly 10 month tenure and termination on 29 November 2006, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR CANNED, Mary Brownfield, The Carmel Pine Cone, December 8, 2006.)
After authorizing the contract between the City and Greg Sellers, the city’s Economic Development Coordinator, on 9 February 2006, and expending $37,912.59, City Administrator Rich Guillen terminated Sellers contract on 29 November 2006. In terminating Sellers’ contract, City Administrator Guillen cited the city’s desire to “grow revenues in a new direction” and a draft report which “just rehashed things we already know.”
COMMENTS:
On the one hand, City Administrator Rich Guillen credits Greg Sellers “with being part of the overall effort to improve business in Carmel.” On the other hand, he was terminated prior to the presentation of his report to the public at a city council meeting.
On the one hand, Greg Sellers was charged with completing a “strategic plan” for economic growth within six months and apparently failed to complete a plan. On the other hand, Sellers submitted a completed draft report to City Administrator Rich Guillen.
One the one hand, Greg Sellers generated some new ideas on economic growth, such as wine tasting, loosening of strict rules for signs and parking congestion remedies. One the other hand, City Administrator Guillen stated that his ideas were not new, just a rehash of things the city already knows.
On the one hand, Greg Sellers was hired as Economic Development Coordinator to work with members of the Carmel Chamber of Commerce’s economic development committee, business owners, et cetera to development plans to boost economic activity in the city. On the other hand, City Administrator stated that maybe the problem was his not “giving him exact direction...We identified we want something, but we haven’t identified what we want, and that’s a difficult position to put anybody in.”
FINAL COMMENTS:
City Administrator Rich Guillen’s on the one hand, on the other hand incoherent and contradictory statements illuminate city management incompetence. Furthermore, his statements show a pattern of conduct aptly described by an astute Carmel-by-the-Sea observer.
“On those occasions when he (City Administrator Rich Guillen) can be pressured to respond, he usually does so in vague enough terms that he fails to respond with useful information or, even worse, responds with information that completely fails to address the question or request. Whether this is because he is too ill informed to really respond and doesn't want to ask staff for fear of seeming ignorant or he is too overwhelmed by his job to keep track of his responsibilities or he has just been ordered by Mayor McCloud not to release information, no matter how routine, without her permission or a combination of all three is unclear.”
(See BLOG Post Saturday, December 2, 2006, COMMENTS, below “Holiday Tree” photo)
Other Illuminating Comments:
“I was surprised they wanted to get rid of him before he even presented his plan.”
“We have Erik Bethel suddenly quitting, and the next thing we knew, Greg Sellers is gone, and they had been working very well together, too. It’s disappointing to me, because I felt in the last two years, the chamber had developed a good relationship with the city.”
(Michael Adamson, Member of the Carmel Chamber of Commerce’s Economic Development Committee, On the City’s termination of Economic Development Coordinator Greg Sellers, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR CANNED, Mary Brownfield, The Carmel Pine Cone, December 8, 2006.)
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Failure to Respond: City Administrator Rich Guillen
UPDATE: 111896 12/5/06 RALPH ANDERSEN & ASSOC. $ 5,121.37 LIBRARY STUDY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Total City Expense: $12,252.62
On Friday 24 November 2006, a Carmelite contacted Heather Renschler, President and Chief Executive Officer, Ralph Andersen & Associates, with questions on the Carmel-by-the-Sea Library Study, as follows:
As a resident of Carmel-by-the-Sea, I understand you have assigned John Goss to conduct the “Library Operations Study” for the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and the completion date is 31 December 2006. I also understand that the City paid Ralph Andersen & Associates $7,131.25 in September 2006 for a Library Study estimated to cost $14,000.
Questions:
1. Will the Library Study be completed by 31 December 2006?
2. Since the Agreement of Consulting Services was dated 1 October 2006 and the Resolution entering into an agreement with you was passed on 7 November 2006, what was the $7,131.25 cost to the city for?
3. Did you begin the Library Study prior to 1 October 2006?
4. Will the final cost to the City be approximately $14,000?
Thank you for your responses.
On Wednesday, 29 November 2006, John Goss, the man Heather Renschler assigned to conduct the Library Operations Study, presented a power point presentation of the Library Operations Study to the public at the Special City Council meeting.
On Thursday, 30 November 2006, Heather Renschler, President and Chief Executive Officer, Ralph Andersen & Associates, replied, as follows:
“Thank you for your inquiry. I have referred your questions to the City Administrator.”
COMMENTS:
I. As of today, City Administrator Rich Guillen has failed to respond in a timely and professional manner.
II. “Library Operations Study” Check and Resolution
Carmel-by-the-Sea
September 2006 Check Register
111405 9/19/2006 RALPH ANDERSEN & ASSOC. 7,131.25 01 64051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES-LIBRARY STUDY
City Council
Regular Meeting
November 7, 2006
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH RALPH ANDERSEN & ASSOCIATES FOR THE PREPARATION OF A CITY LIBRARY OPERATIONS STUDY
The Resolution reads in part, as follows:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DOES:
1. Authorize the City Administrator to execute an agreement for Consulting Services with Ralph Andersen & Associates on behalf of the City for the preparation of a City Library operations study.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 7th day of November 2006...
III. Correspondence with city Financial Directors produced unanimous agreement that a signed contract is required prior to payment. Yet, the Carmel-by-the-Sea public record indicates that a Resolution authorizing “the City Administrator to execute an agreement for Consulting Services with Ralph Andersen & Associates on behalf of the City for the preparation of a City Library operations study” was passed on 7 November 2006, but a check was written 19 September 2006 to Ralph Andersen & Associates for PROFESSIONAL SERVICES-LIBRARY STUDY.
Reference:
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Municipal Code
Chapter 2.08
CITY ADMINISTRATOR*
2.08.060 Powers and Duties.
F. Control of Expenditures and Purchasing. It shall be the duty of the City Administrator to supervise and control expenditures of City funds. The City Administrator shall be responsible for the purchase of all supplies and services for all departments.
IV. Although touted as a comprehensive study, public speakers Angela Irvine and Lani Fremier revealed flaws in the methodology. For example, John Goss did not consider computer use, nor did he consider the total number of visitors to the library, even though this data was available.
Total City Expense: $12,252.62
On Friday 24 November 2006, a Carmelite contacted Heather Renschler, President and Chief Executive Officer, Ralph Andersen & Associates, with questions on the Carmel-by-the-Sea Library Study, as follows:
As a resident of Carmel-by-the-Sea, I understand you have assigned John Goss to conduct the “Library Operations Study” for the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and the completion date is 31 December 2006. I also understand that the City paid Ralph Andersen & Associates $7,131.25 in September 2006 for a Library Study estimated to cost $14,000.
Questions:
1. Will the Library Study be completed by 31 December 2006?
2. Since the Agreement of Consulting Services was dated 1 October 2006 and the Resolution entering into an agreement with you was passed on 7 November 2006, what was the $7,131.25 cost to the city for?
3. Did you begin the Library Study prior to 1 October 2006?
4. Will the final cost to the City be approximately $14,000?
Thank you for your responses.
On Wednesday, 29 November 2006, John Goss, the man Heather Renschler assigned to conduct the Library Operations Study, presented a power point presentation of the Library Operations Study to the public at the Special City Council meeting.
On Thursday, 30 November 2006, Heather Renschler, President and Chief Executive Officer, Ralph Andersen & Associates, replied, as follows:
“Thank you for your inquiry. I have referred your questions to the City Administrator.”
COMMENTS:
I. As of today, City Administrator Rich Guillen has failed to respond in a timely and professional manner.
II. “Library Operations Study” Check and Resolution
Carmel-by-the-Sea
September 2006 Check Register
111405 9/19/2006 RALPH ANDERSEN & ASSOC. 7,131.25 01 64051 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES-LIBRARY STUDY
City Council
Regular Meeting
November 7, 2006
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH RALPH ANDERSEN & ASSOCIATES FOR THE PREPARATION OF A CITY LIBRARY OPERATIONS STUDY
The Resolution reads in part, as follows:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DOES:
1. Authorize the City Administrator to execute an agreement for Consulting Services with Ralph Andersen & Associates on behalf of the City for the preparation of a City Library operations study.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 7th day of November 2006...
III. Correspondence with city Financial Directors produced unanimous agreement that a signed contract is required prior to payment. Yet, the Carmel-by-the-Sea public record indicates that a Resolution authorizing “the City Administrator to execute an agreement for Consulting Services with Ralph Andersen & Associates on behalf of the City for the preparation of a City Library operations study” was passed on 7 November 2006, but a check was written 19 September 2006 to Ralph Andersen & Associates for PROFESSIONAL SERVICES-LIBRARY STUDY.
Reference:
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Municipal Code
Chapter 2.08
CITY ADMINISTRATOR*
2.08.060 Powers and Duties.
F. Control of Expenditures and Purchasing. It shall be the duty of the City Administrator to supervise and control expenditures of City funds. The City Administrator shall be responsible for the purchase of all supplies and services for all departments.
IV. Although touted as a comprehensive study, public speakers Angela Irvine and Lani Fremier revealed flaws in the methodology. For example, John Goss did not consider computer use, nor did he consider the total number of visitors to the library, even though this data was available.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Ralph Andersen & Associates “Library Operations Study”
City Council
Regular Meeting
November 7, 2006
VII. Consent Calendar
E. Consideration of a Resolution entering into an agreement with Ralph Andersen & Associates for the preparation of a City Library operations study.
City Council
Special Meeting
November 29, 2006
John Goss, Senior Associate, Ralph Andersen & Associates, presented a power point presentation on the “Library Operations Study.” Highlights of his presentation, as follows:
LIBRARY BUDGET FY 2006/07
General Fund: $888,929
Restricted Budget (Library Board of Trustees): $368,290
Total Library Budget: $1,257,219
LIBRARY BUDGET COMPARISON WITH OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS
Police: $2,486,895
Fire $1,308,630 (excludes ambulance expense)
Library $1,257,219
Public Works: $960,205
Community/Cultural: $713,000
LIBRARY BUDGET COMPARISON WITH OTHER CITIES
Carmel is 3.6 times above National Average if General Fund was the only source of the Library Budget.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Given the city’s tight finances, expenses should be reduced, or revenues increased, to support library services.
2. A detailed analysis should be made of the additional $35,000 for library services.
3. Informally coordinate HML hours with Monterey and Pacific Grove/explore joint library cards at Monterey, Pacific Grove and Carmel.
4. Seek a volunteer coordinator.
5. Convert separate bank accounts into a City special revenue fund.
6. Review library fiscal procedures.
7. “Unrestricted” library revenues should be placed in the City’s General Fund.
8. Library funds should be budgeted to avoid loss of Public Library Act Funds.
9. The 1987 MOU should be reevaluated to determine if it should be updated.
10. “Library material acquisition” should be broadly defined to possibly enhance financial support from the Foundation.
11. Other models to define the relationship between the City and the Library should be examined.
12. Opportunities for joint library administration with another municipal library should be explored. Ex. Pacific Grove.
POLICY ISSUES
1. Are there ways to gain efficiencies, reduce costs or increase revenues in providing library services to the City of Carmel?
2. In that context, what is the appropriate amount of tax dollars that should be expended upon library programs, especially those programs serving a very limited number of local youths?
3. Should the City Council continue the existing level of General Fund support for the library, or even increase that support, when most of the library’s service measured by circulation is for non-residents? What is the answer to this question when Carmel’s low per registered borrower circulation, and high-circulated item expense, is factored in?
“It’s hoped this report presents the facts, ideas and recommendations and policy issues as you consider the future of your library.”
(John Goss, Senior Associate, Ralph Andersen & Associates, “Library Operations Study,” Special City Council Meeting, 29 November 2006.)
Regular Meeting
November 7, 2006
VII. Consent Calendar
E. Consideration of a Resolution entering into an agreement with Ralph Andersen & Associates for the preparation of a City Library operations study.
City Council
Special Meeting
November 29, 2006
John Goss, Senior Associate, Ralph Andersen & Associates, presented a power point presentation on the “Library Operations Study.” Highlights of his presentation, as follows:
LIBRARY BUDGET FY 2006/07
General Fund: $888,929
Restricted Budget (Library Board of Trustees): $368,290
Total Library Budget: $1,257,219
LIBRARY BUDGET COMPARISON WITH OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS
Police: $2,486,895
Fire $1,308,630 (excludes ambulance expense)
Library $1,257,219
Public Works: $960,205
Community/Cultural: $713,000
LIBRARY BUDGET COMPARISON WITH OTHER CITIES
Carmel is 3.6 times above National Average if General Fund was the only source of the Library Budget.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Given the city’s tight finances, expenses should be reduced, or revenues increased, to support library services.
2. A detailed analysis should be made of the additional $35,000 for library services.
3. Informally coordinate HML hours with Monterey and Pacific Grove/explore joint library cards at Monterey, Pacific Grove and Carmel.
4. Seek a volunteer coordinator.
5. Convert separate bank accounts into a City special revenue fund.
6. Review library fiscal procedures.
7. “Unrestricted” library revenues should be placed in the City’s General Fund.
8. Library funds should be budgeted to avoid loss of Public Library Act Funds.
9. The 1987 MOU should be reevaluated to determine if it should be updated.
10. “Library material acquisition” should be broadly defined to possibly enhance financial support from the Foundation.
11. Other models to define the relationship between the City and the Library should be examined.
12. Opportunities for joint library administration with another municipal library should be explored. Ex. Pacific Grove.
POLICY ISSUES
1. Are there ways to gain efficiencies, reduce costs or increase revenues in providing library services to the City of Carmel?
2. In that context, what is the appropriate amount of tax dollars that should be expended upon library programs, especially those programs serving a very limited number of local youths?
3. Should the City Council continue the existing level of General Fund support for the library, or even increase that support, when most of the library’s service measured by circulation is for non-residents? What is the answer to this question when Carmel’s low per registered borrower circulation, and high-circulated item expense, is factored in?
“It’s hoped this report presents the facts, ideas and recommendations and policy issues as you consider the future of your library.”
(John Goss, Senior Associate, Ralph Andersen & Associates, “Library Operations Study,” Special City Council Meeting, 29 November 2006.)
Monday, December 04, 2006
Mayor McCloud: “We’re trying to move forward with all deliberate speed.”
“We’re trying to move forward with all deliberate speed.”
(Mayor Sue McCloud, On the replacement for City Councilman Erik Bethel, Special City Council Meeting, 29 November 2006)
Finding 7: Over-control of this process by mayors is not in the public interest.
(2005 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Report on Open Government)
COMMENTS:
In Carmel-by-the-Sea, “with all deliberate speed” is a fraudulent rationale used by Mayor McCloud to justify her unilateral, covert actions. Furthermore, McCloud’s unilateral, covert actions indicate her failure to understand the meaning of the Grand Jury Finding cited above.
Examples of Mayor McCloud’s unilateral, covert actions abound, including:
• Unilateral decision to create a non profit organization to manage the Sunset Center without public consensus for Sunset Cultural Center (SCC, Inc.)
• Dissolution of the Community & Cultural Commission and the Community Safety & Traffic Commission; Disbanding of the Carmel Art Board.
• Eviction of the Caretaker at Flanders Mansion.
• Eviction of the tenants and closure of the Scout House under the guise of not having the financial resources to make the structure compliant with ADA requirements.
• Removal of the Bump-Out at the Post Office on 5th Av.
• Letter to 300 owners of “historic properties” on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources regarding the city’s imminent action to record historic status information on their respective deeds.
• Removal of 43 “historic resources” as a group from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources; the action was later rescinded only because the California Coastal Commission Staff articulated to the city that the removal was a violation of the City's Local Coastal Program.
• Acceptance of the $40,000 Donation from the Carmel Fire Belles against the legal advice of the City Attorney, resulting in a 3-2 non-unanimous vote.
• Contract with another consultant to complete the city’s art inventory without consultation with the Carmel Art Board.
• Contract with Ralph Andersen & Associates for a “Library Operations Study” instead of working with Library Director Margaret Pelikan.
• Asphalt pavement in lieu of a replacement tree for a removed tree at 5th Av. & Lincoln St., S.W. corner; replacement tree policy per Local Coastal Program.
• Unilateral installation and operation of approximately 50 lights in the median blocks between Monte Verde St. & Junipero Av. on Ocean Av., despite the City Administrator and Mayor stating publicly that the “lights” would be on a City Council agenda prior to their installation.
“...McCloud announced she and Hazdovac had already made a choice and were ready to name their nominee.”
“McCloud argued for immediate appointment of the nominee – whom she did not name – so the person could participate in the December 5 meeting.”(CITY SEEKS APPLICANTS TO FILL COUNCIL SEAT, Mary Brownfield, The Carmel Pine Cone, December 1, 2006.)
COMMENTS:
Mayor McCloud’s nominee is Planning Commissioner Ken Talmage, according to an insider source.
According to The Carmel Pine Cone, four individuals submitted their “names” for consideration: Olof Dahlstrand, Maggie Hardy, Steve Dallas, Ken Talmage.
“The mayor reported eight people inquired and three people submitted applications, though Hazdovac said she thought only one person had.”(CITY SEEKS APPLICANTS TO FILL COUNCIL SEAT, Mary Brownfield, The Carmel Pine Cone, December 1, 2006.)
COMMENTS:
If City Councilwoman and Mayor Pro-Tem Paula Hazdovac thought “only one person had” applied, then obviously the mayor and the mayor pro-tem did not interview all three applicants. Ergo, Mayor McCloud unilaterally and solely selected one nominee.
FINAL COMMENTS:
The following is very telling:
“As soon as the council unanimously agreed on appointment rather than election, McCloud announced she and Hazdovac had already made a choice and were ready to name their nominee."
(CITY SEEKS APPLICANTS TO FILL COUNCIL SEAT, Mary Brownfield, The Carmel Pine Cone, December 1, 2006.)
Once Mayor McCloud got the City Council to unanimously agree on appointment rather than an election, she then announced that she had a preferred nominee. Her announcement of a preferred nominee irreparably tainted and prejudiced the appointment process. And since the City Council has agreed to an appointment, an election, the only fair, impartial option, has been precluded.
QUESTION: With the vote for Erik Bethel’s replacement on Tuesday, 19 December 2006 at the Special City Council meeting, will Mayor McCloud’s preferred nominee, Planner Commissioner Ken Talmage, be selected anyway?
OTHER COMMENTS DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING
“The information coming out of city hall has been inconsistent in terms of the process…” I have received “conflicting information regarding applying for the appointment.” “I feel very uncomfortable with how this is going forward.”
(Maria Murray, Café owner and Chamber of Commerce Board member, Public Comment, Special City Council Meeting, 29 November 2006)
“Former Carmel Residents Association President Sherry Shollenbarger said an open process would engender goodwill between citizens and city hall.”
(CITY SEEKS APPLICANTS TO FILL COUNCIL SEAT, Mary Brownfield, The Carmel Pine Cone, December 1, 2006.)
Sherry Shollenbarger actually said the following;
“Sherry Shollenbarger. I just want to say too, that the more open, the more process is followed, is just an alleviator of bad feeling. And this behind closed doors sensation is not a good feeling in the community. One business week for applications, made known to the public, you can set your timetable, it’s already apparent you have 30 days to do something in. I just heartily appeal that you choose this path so that we feel it’s been out in the open and due process has been followed for us as residents.”
(Sherry Shollenbarger, Former Carmel Residents Association President, Public Comment, Special City Council Meeting, 29 November 2006)
NOTE: At the Special City Council Meeting, 29 November 2006, the City Council decided to notify the public of the vacancy and accept applications from members of the public until Thursday, 14 Decmber 2006. Another Special City Council meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, 19 December 2006, to name the mayor's and mayor pro-tem's recommendation and vote on the recommended nominee.
(Mayor Sue McCloud, On the replacement for City Councilman Erik Bethel, Special City Council Meeting, 29 November 2006)
Finding 7: Over-control of this process by mayors is not in the public interest.
(2005 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Report on Open Government)
COMMENTS:
In Carmel-by-the-Sea, “with all deliberate speed” is a fraudulent rationale used by Mayor McCloud to justify her unilateral, covert actions. Furthermore, McCloud’s unilateral, covert actions indicate her failure to understand the meaning of the Grand Jury Finding cited above.
Examples of Mayor McCloud’s unilateral, covert actions abound, including:
• Unilateral decision to create a non profit organization to manage the Sunset Center without public consensus for Sunset Cultural Center (SCC, Inc.)
• Dissolution of the Community & Cultural Commission and the Community Safety & Traffic Commission; Disbanding of the Carmel Art Board.
• Eviction of the Caretaker at Flanders Mansion.
• Eviction of the tenants and closure of the Scout House under the guise of not having the financial resources to make the structure compliant with ADA requirements.
• Removal of the Bump-Out at the Post Office on 5th Av.
• Letter to 300 owners of “historic properties” on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources regarding the city’s imminent action to record historic status information on their respective deeds.
• Removal of 43 “historic resources” as a group from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources; the action was later rescinded only because the California Coastal Commission Staff articulated to the city that the removal was a violation of the City's Local Coastal Program.
• Acceptance of the $40,000 Donation from the Carmel Fire Belles against the legal advice of the City Attorney, resulting in a 3-2 non-unanimous vote.
• Contract with another consultant to complete the city’s art inventory without consultation with the Carmel Art Board.
• Contract with Ralph Andersen & Associates for a “Library Operations Study” instead of working with Library Director Margaret Pelikan.
• Asphalt pavement in lieu of a replacement tree for a removed tree at 5th Av. & Lincoln St., S.W. corner; replacement tree policy per Local Coastal Program.
• Unilateral installation and operation of approximately 50 lights in the median blocks between Monte Verde St. & Junipero Av. on Ocean Av., despite the City Administrator and Mayor stating publicly that the “lights” would be on a City Council agenda prior to their installation.
“...McCloud announced she and Hazdovac had already made a choice and were ready to name their nominee.”
“McCloud argued for immediate appointment of the nominee – whom she did not name – so the person could participate in the December 5 meeting.”(CITY SEEKS APPLICANTS TO FILL COUNCIL SEAT, Mary Brownfield, The Carmel Pine Cone, December 1, 2006.)
COMMENTS:
Mayor McCloud’s nominee is Planning Commissioner Ken Talmage, according to an insider source.
According to The Carmel Pine Cone, four individuals submitted their “names” for consideration: Olof Dahlstrand, Maggie Hardy, Steve Dallas, Ken Talmage.
“The mayor reported eight people inquired and three people submitted applications, though Hazdovac said she thought only one person had.”(CITY SEEKS APPLICANTS TO FILL COUNCIL SEAT, Mary Brownfield, The Carmel Pine Cone, December 1, 2006.)
COMMENTS:
If City Councilwoman and Mayor Pro-Tem Paula Hazdovac thought “only one person had” applied, then obviously the mayor and the mayor pro-tem did not interview all three applicants. Ergo, Mayor McCloud unilaterally and solely selected one nominee.
FINAL COMMENTS:
The following is very telling:
“As soon as the council unanimously agreed on appointment rather than election, McCloud announced she and Hazdovac had already made a choice and were ready to name their nominee."
(CITY SEEKS APPLICANTS TO FILL COUNCIL SEAT, Mary Brownfield, The Carmel Pine Cone, December 1, 2006.)
Once Mayor McCloud got the City Council to unanimously agree on appointment rather than an election, she then announced that she had a preferred nominee. Her announcement of a preferred nominee irreparably tainted and prejudiced the appointment process. And since the City Council has agreed to an appointment, an election, the only fair, impartial option, has been precluded.
QUESTION: With the vote for Erik Bethel’s replacement on Tuesday, 19 December 2006 at the Special City Council meeting, will Mayor McCloud’s preferred nominee, Planner Commissioner Ken Talmage, be selected anyway?
OTHER COMMENTS DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING
“The information coming out of city hall has been inconsistent in terms of the process…” I have received “conflicting information regarding applying for the appointment.” “I feel very uncomfortable with how this is going forward.”
(Maria Murray, Café owner and Chamber of Commerce Board member, Public Comment, Special City Council Meeting, 29 November 2006)
“Former Carmel Residents Association President Sherry Shollenbarger said an open process would engender goodwill between citizens and city hall.”
(CITY SEEKS APPLICANTS TO FILL COUNCIL SEAT, Mary Brownfield, The Carmel Pine Cone, December 1, 2006.)
Sherry Shollenbarger actually said the following;
“Sherry Shollenbarger. I just want to say too, that the more open, the more process is followed, is just an alleviator of bad feeling. And this behind closed doors sensation is not a good feeling in the community. One business week for applications, made known to the public, you can set your timetable, it’s already apparent you have 30 days to do something in. I just heartily appeal that you choose this path so that we feel it’s been out in the open and due process has been followed for us as residents.”
(Sherry Shollenbarger, Former Carmel Residents Association President, Public Comment, Special City Council Meeting, 29 November 2006)
NOTE: At the Special City Council Meeting, 29 November 2006, the City Council decided to notify the public of the vacancy and accept applications from members of the public until Thursday, 14 Decmber 2006. Another Special City Council meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, 19 December 2006, to name the mayor's and mayor pro-tem's recommendation and vote on the recommended nominee.
Sunday, December 03, 2006
Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District's PALO CORONA REGIONAL PARK
Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District's
Palo Corona Regional Park
View from Inspiration Point; views of the Carmel River, Carmel River State Beach, Carmel-by-the-Sea, Pescadero Point and beyond.
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT’S
PALO CORONA REGIONAL PARK
“Preserving & Protecting Parks & Open Space”
http://www.mprpd.org/parks/palocorona.htm or click on the post title above.
Interesting Facts about Palo Corona Regional Park, as follows:
• One of the Central California Coast’s “most significant undeveloped open spaces.”
• Acquisition of the 10,000 acre Palo Corona Ranch represents the “largest land conservation project in Monterey County history.” Acquired through a partnership between Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District, The Nature Conservancy, The Big Sur Land Trust and the State of California; finalized in 2004.
• The State Department of Fish & Game and The Park District will protect the 10,000 acres as “public conservation and parkland in perpetuity.” The State Department of Fish & Game added the southern 5,500 acres to its existing 640 acre Joshua Creek Ecological Preserve and the Park District created the Palo Corona Regional Park from the northern 4,350 acres.
• Palo Corona Regional Park is a “critical environmental link in a protected 70 mile wild land corridor;” almost 7 miles long and 4,300 acres of “rugged, spectacular country.”
• The park protects significant habitat areas for diverse species of wildlife, including deer, mountain lion, bobcat, golden eagle, California condor, mountain quail, horned larks, coastal trout, red-legged frog, tiger salamander and endangered species, including the Smith’s blue butterfly. And there are over 500 species of plants, including “some of the highest numbers of individual grass and wildflower species found anywhere along California’s central coast.”
Public Access to Palo Corona Regional Park:
Presently, public access is limited to the main road that leads to Inspiration Point and Animus Pond. This is a distance of over 2 miles from the park entrance gate. All other areas are closed to public access.
Importantly, due to the lack of available parking, only 13 access permits per day will be issued. For Access Permit, click on post title above and scroll down to PARK RULES, click on Access Permit; allow 48 hours to process permit.
Destinations:
INSPIRATION POINT
(1.3 miles, 850 ft. elevation climb)
Spectacular views of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Carmel Point, Pebble Beach, Carmel Valley, the Carmel River, Pt. Lobos et cetera.
ANIMAS POND
(0.6 mile from Inspiration Point)
This time of year Animas Pond was nearly dry; the hike from Inspiration Point to Animas Pond was downhill and shady, a respite from the 850 ft. elevation climb to Inspiration Point.
NOTES: The Access Permit includes a Parking Permit #, Valid Date, instructions on gaining entrance, i.e., Entrance Gate Lock Combination, and other important information. Once through the Entrance Gate, there is a Visitor Sign In area; a clipboard requesting number of individuals in your party, date, and whether it is your first visit or repeated visit to the Park. Along Palo Corona Trail, there is a Barn and Corrals, then the steep ascent to Inspiration Point; there are two picnic tables at Inspiration Point. And then downhill to Animas Pond. Roundtrip hike approximately 2-3 hours.
On Thursday, 30 November 2006, visitors to Palo Corona Regional Park were treated to citings of a coyote, a flock of blue birds, a hawk and witnessed beautiful unspoiled wetlands, grasslands and forested areas. Quite a remarkable experience this close to Carmel-by-the-Sea. Highly Recommended.
For those not interested in a strenuous hike, there is a hike along flat ground from the Park Entrance Gate along Palo Corona Trail, past the Barn and Corrals and then a left fork in the trail on River Trail to a closed gate and closed area; less than 2 miles roundtrip.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)