PART I: Consulting Arborist’s “PREMINARY FINDINGS DURING A ONE BLOCK REVIEW OF CARMEL STREET TREES,” Current Observations & Comments/Conclusions

SYNOPISIS: PART I introduces the seven part series on Carmel-by-the-Sea’s commercial trees. PARTS II-V feature Consultant Arborist Barrie D. Coate’s “FINDINGS” Study, dated January 26, 2007. His “FINDINGS” Study focused on one square commercial block; the block of Ocean Av. (south side), Mission St. (west side), 7th Av. (north side) and San Carlos St. (east side). Additionally, current photos of the individual trees and their respective planter space openings and current observations as of May-June 2007 will be featured. PART VI presents Barrie Coate’s Overview Summary of Coast Live Oak, Monterey Pine and Monterey Cypress. And PART VII presents Comments & Conclusions.

PART II will delineate the trees along the south side of Ocean Av. beginning at the corner of Ocean Av. & San Carlos St. and proceeding to the corner of Ocean Av. & Mission St. The presentation is as follows: photo of individual tree, photo of planter space opening, Barrie D. Coate’s “Observations” of January 2007 and current observations as of May-June 2007.

PART III will delineate the trees along the west side of Mission St. beginning at the corner of Ocean Av. & Mission St. and proceeding to the corner of Mission St. & 7th Av.

PART IV will delineate the trees along the north side of 7th Av. beginning at the corner of Mission St. & 7th Av. and proceeding to the corner of 7th Av. & San Carlos St.

PART V will delineate the trees along the east side of San Carlos St. beginning at the corner of 7th Av. & San Carlos St. and proceeding to the corner of San Carlos St. & Ocean Av.

PART VI will present Barrie Coate’s Overview Summary of Coast Live Oak, Monterey Pine and Monterey Cypress.

PART VII will present Comments & Conclusions.

NOTE: Tomorrow, Friday, June 1, 2007, PART II (of VII): Consulting Arborist’s “PREMINARY FINDINGS DURING A ONE BLOCK REVIEW OF CARMEL STREET TREES,” CURRENT OBSERVATIONS & COMMENTS/CONCLUSIONS; trees along the south side of Ocean Av. beginning at the corner of Ocean Av. & San Carlos St. and proceeding to the corner of Ocean Av. & Mission St.

On the One Hand, One the Other Hand

"Sunset COMMUNITY AND CULTURAL CENTER" Sign
E/s San Carlos St. at 9th Av.
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA.

On the one hand, Sunset Cultural Center, Inc. (SCC) communicated to Carmelites their expectation and intention of decreasing annual city subsidies over time. On the other hand, Executive Director Jack Globenfelt and the SCC Board of Trustees now demand increasing annual city subsidies for fiscal year 2007-08 through fiscal year 2009-10.

References:
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA BUDGET
Community and Cultural (SCC Enabling Grant):
2004-05: $867,000
$762,000 (Enabling Grant) + $105,000 (Start-Up Grant) = $ 867,000
Note: In addition, SCC received $120,000 “Working Capital Advance”

2005-06: $ 772,000 (Enabling Grant)

2006-07: $ 713,000 (Enabling Grant)

2007-08: $ 750,000 (Enabling Grant)

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
TRIENNIAL BUDGET
FISCAL YEARS 2007/08 – 2009/10
BUDGET QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

Q.8. E-12 What are the City's projections for the Sunset Center enabling grant as compared to the Sunset Cultural Center Inc.'s (SCC) requested amounts? What was previously approved by the City in last year's triennial budget?

Response:
Fiscal Year 2007-08--------FY 2008-09----FY 2009-10
City Proposed:$750,000------$700,000-----$680,000
SCC Requested:$750,000----$780,000----$811,200
Previously Approved:$700,000-$680,000----N.A.

On the one hand, City Administrator Rich Guillen wrote in his 24 April 2007 BUDGET MESSAGE FOR THE FISCAL YEARS 2007-08 THROUGH 2009-10 TRIENNIAL BUDGET, as follows:

• "The Sunset Cultural Center (SCC) enabling grant is budgeted at $750,000 for FY 2007-08, $700,000 for 2008-09, and $680,000 for FY 2009-10. Staff is recommending an enabling grant increase in FY 2007-08 followed by lower amounts in FY 2008-09 and 2009-10 based on the previously approved Triennial Budget. SCC will submit a cetailed budget under separate cover regarding their operational needs."

On the other hand, the City is fully cognizant of the fact that Sunset Cultural Center, Inc. (SCC) has requested enabling grants of $750,000, $780,000 and $811,200 for fiscal years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10, respectively. Moreover, the City anticipates extending the original 3 year term agreement for an additional 3 years (“the Renewal Term”) with SCC to manage Sunset Center prior to June 30, 2007.

References:
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
TRIENNIAL BUDGET
FISCAL YEARS 2007/08 – 2009/10
BUDGET QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

Q.8. E-12 What are the City's projections for the Sunset Center enabling grant as compared to the Sunset Cultural Center Inc.'s (SCC) requested amounts? What was previously approved by the City in last year's triennial budget?

Response:
Fiscal Year 2007-08-----FY 2008-09----FY 2009-10
City Proposed:$750,000----$700,000-----$680,000
SCC Requested:$750,000---$780,000-----$811,200
Previously Approved:$700,000-$680,000---N.A.

AGREEMENT Between CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, A Municipal Corporation And SUNSET CULTURAL CENTER, A California Not-for-Profit Corporation, May 24, 2004

1.5 Agreement Term. The term of this Agreement (“Term”) shall be for a period of three (3) years commencing on July 1, 2004 (“Commencement Date”) and terminating on June 30, 2007, unless terminated sooner in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement.

1.6 Option to Extend Term. At the end of the Term, provided that SCC is not then in default under the terms of this Agreement, SCC shall have the option to extend the Term for three (3) additional years (“the Renewal Term”), followed by an option to extend the Renewal Term for an additional three-year (3) period (“the Second Renewal Term”). SCC may exercise its option to extend the Term or the Renewal Term, by giving Carmel an updated Operating Budget, as defined in Section 4.4. for the Renewal Term or the Second Renewal Term, and written notice of its intention to extend the Term or the Renewal Term not less than one hundred and eighty (180) days prior to the end of the Term or the Renewal Term. During the one hundred fifty (150) day period prior to end of the Term or the Renewal Term, Carmel and SCC shall negotiate in good faith to establish a new Enabling Grant, as defined in Section 4.4, for the Renewal Term or the Second Renewal Term. If the parties agree upon a new Enabling Grant, and if Carmel approves an updated Operating Budget, the Term shall be extended and the Renewal Term or the Second Renewal Term shall be subject to the provisions of this Agreement, but not including additional options to extend the Second Renewal Term.

On the one hand, the City is committed to expenditures of $1,402,132, $1,297,615 and $1,319,497 for fiscal years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10, respectively, for Sunset Cultural Center, Inc.’s enabling grants, debt service on bonds and capital expenditures for Sunset Center. On the other hand, the City is not committed to expenditures for the rehabilitation, renovation and ADA compliance measures for the city’s community center, the Scout House, or the Forest Theatre or the Flanders Mansion.

References:
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
TRIENNIAL BUDGET
FISCAL YEARS 2007/08 – 2009/10
BUDGET QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

Q.9. E-12 What is the total projected expenditures for Sunset Cultural Center, including the enabling grant, debt service on bonds, and capital expenditures?

Response:
Fiscal Year 2007-08----------FY 2008-09--FY 2009-10
Enabling Grant:$750,000------$700,000----$680,000
Debt Svc.:$568,847-----------$567,015----$569,715
Capital Expenditures:$83,285-$30,600------$69,782
TOTALS: $1,402,132-----------$1,297,615--$1,319,497

On the one hand, the City’s Community Activities and Cultural Commission voted 4-1 at their regular May meeting to “pursue the possibility of permanently moving the Homecrafters Marketplace back to Sunset Center starting in 2008.” On the other hand, Sunset Cultural Center, Inc. (SCC) has publicly stated that “it has no desire to host the sale (Homecrafters Marketplace) in future years” despite the fact that Homecrafters Marketplace took place in the Sunset Center parking lot for three decades prior to its move to Ocean Avenue during the renovation of the Sunset Center.
(Source: “Commission wants Homecrafters Marketplace moved back to Sunset,” Mary Brownfield, The Carmel Pine Cone, May 11, 2007). Ergo, Sunset Cultural Center, Inc. (SCC) expects the support of Carmel-by-the-Sea taxpayers, yet SCC will not extend itself to the community by honoring the tradition of having Homecrafters Marketplace at the Sunset Center.

On the one hand, Sunset Cultural Center, Inc. (SCC) Board of Trustees represented the Sunset Theater as a world class, state-of-the-art theater which would attract patrons locally and beyond. On the other hand, SCC’s Executive Director now admits their audience in within a 50 minute drive of Carmel-by-the-Sea and only 14% of all tickets sold are to Carmel-by-the-Sea residents.

On the one hand, the “crown jewel” of Carmel-by-the-Sea is named “Sunset Community and Cultural Center.” On the other hand, the non-profit group managing the “Sunset Community and Cultural Center” omitted “Community” from their organization’s name, no doubt signaling a commitment to culture, but not to community.

Additional References:
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CALIFORNIA
DRAFT BUDGET
FISCAL YEARS
2007/08 THROUGH 2009/10

Capital Improvement and Capital Outlay Budgets
FY 2007-08 Thru 2011-12

Revised FY 2006-07
Capital Outlays (2006/07)
$ 7,500 Sunset Center Crest Sound Console

Revised FY 2007-08
Capital Improvement Outlays
Sunset Center Walkway Lights E/s adjacent Carpenter Hall $5,250
Sunset Theater Monitor Syst, Speakers $18,000
Sunset Theater Fall Arrest System $18,000
Sunset Theater Sound Syst & Exhaust (for film events) $42,035
TOTAL Sunset Center: $83,285
TOTAL Capital Outlays: $ 284,412

Revised FY 2008-09
Capital Improvement Outlays
Sunset Ctr Theater Monitor Syst Speakers $ 9,000
Sunset Theater Replace Tables $5,300
Sunset Theater Stage TV Monitors $11,200
Sunset Theater Lobby TV Monitor $5,100
TOTAL Sunset Center: $30,600
TOTAL Capital Outlays: $230,990

Proposed FY 2009-10
Capital Improvement
Sunset Ctr Theater carpet replacement $ 69,782
TOTAL Sunset Center: $69,782
TOTAL Capital Improvement: $387,307


CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
TRIENNIAL BUDGET
FISCAL YEARS 2007/08 – 2009/10

DEBT SERVICE
Sunset Theater/
Principal----------------Interest------Admin.Fee----Totals
FY 2005-06:$175,000---$389,710---$2,220----$566,930
FY 2006-07:$185,000---$383,410---$2,300----$570,710
FY 2007-08:$190,000---$376,847---$2,000----$568,847
FY 2008-09:$195,000---$369,915---$2,100----$567,015
FY 2009-10:$205,000---$362,515---$2,200----$569,715

Total City Debt Service:
FY 2005-06: $773,929
FY 2006-07: $759,673
FY 2007-08: $641,882
FY 2008-09: $640,049
FY 2009-10: $642,749

Mayor Presides Over Dissolution of Commissions & Vacant Key Director Positions

Since assuming the position of mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea in April 2000, Sue McCloud has disbanded key commissions and purposely left vacant key employee director positions.

Disbanded:
Community & Cultural Commission (Repealed in 2004)
Carmel-by-the-Sea Art Board (Members Preemptively Disbanded)
Community Traffic Safety Commission (Repealed by Ord. 2006-04)

Positions Left Vacant (Post Early Retirement):
Assistant City Administrator
Community & Cultural Director
Public Works Director
Library Director
City Forester

Additionally, the City Administrator has proposed these “job changes,” as follows:

Community Services Manager Christie Miller will also be responsible for building maintenance as of 1 August 2007. “Building maintenance specialist” John Hanson will become “building inspector” and the city will contract with an outside firm to perform work Hanson is unable to perform, such as “checking blueprints.”

City Clerk Heidi Burch will also be “deputy city administrator.”

COMMENTS:
Mayor Sue McCloud’s city management incompetence, particularly with regard to city finance, public works, forestry and historic preservation, her predilection for secret, closed government and her need to be in total control of all aspects of city government decision-making characterize Mayor McCloud’s seven year tenure as mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea. The end result has been and is presently an inefficient and ineffective city government which fails to serve the city and the residents well.

PART II (of II): Mayor Promotes Closed, Secretive Government through Ad Hoc Advisory Committees

With regard to ad hoc advisory committees, Mayor Sue McCloud has a record of initiating the creation of ad hoc advisory committees without direction for open meetings which is within her power to do at the time of the formation of the ad hoc advisory committees.

Basically, with respect to California’s Ralph M. Brown Act, there are two types of city council subcommittees: standing committees and ad hoc advisory committees. Under the Brown Act, ad hoc advisory committees are not required to comply with open meeting requirements, although the mayor can direct ad hoc advisory committees to conduct open meetings when the committees are formed.

Furthermore, ad hoc advisory committees have certain characteristics, including:

1. Created by the mayor; members are appointed by the mayor.

2. Ad Hoc Committees are composed of less than a quorum of the City Council.

3. Ad Hoc Committees have a “fixed, limited assignment;” they are created for a limited time for a particular purpose.

4. In general, the purpose of Ad Hoc Committees is for detailed review and analysis of complex issues.

5. The findings and recommendations of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committees must be presented to the City Council at a noticed meeting.

6. Ad Hoc Committees are disbanded after completion of their “assignments.”

Important information about Ad Hoc Advisory Committees from The Ralph M. Brown Act, as follows:

Ad Hoc Advisory Committees

CHAPTER I.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The Ralph M. Brown Act (Gov. Code, § 549501 et seq., hereinafter “the Brown Act,” or “the Act”) governs meetings conducted by local legislative bodies, such as boards of supervisors, city councils and school boards. The Act represents the Legislature’s determination of how the balance should be struck between public access to meetings of multi-member public bodies on the one hand and the need for confidential candor, debate, and information gathering on the other. As the rest of this pamphlet will indicate, the Legislature has established a presumption in favor of public access. As the courts have stated, the purpose of the Brown Act is to facilitate public participation in local government decisions and to curb misuse of the democratic process by secret legislation by public bodies. (Cohan v. City of Thousand Oaks (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 547, 555.) To these ends, the Brown Act imposes an “open meeting” requirement on local legislative bodies. (§ 54953 (a); Boyle v. City of Redondo Beach (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1116.)

However, the Act also contains specific exceptions from the open meeting requirements where government has a demonstrated need for confidentiality. These exceptions have been construed narrowly; thus if a specific statutory exception authorizing a closed session cannot be found, the matter must be conducted in public regardless of its sensitivity. (§ 54962; Rowen v. Santa Clara Unified School District (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 231, 234; 68 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 34, 41-42 (1985).)

Any board, commission, committee or other body of a local agency created by charter, ordinance, resolution or formal action of a legislative body is itself a legislative body. (§ 54952(b).) Generally, this is the case regardless of whether the body is permanent or temporary, advisory or decision-making. However, there is a specific exemption for an advisory committee which is comprised solely of less than a quorum of the members of the legislative body that created the advisory body. (§ 54952(b).) This exception does not apply if the advisory committee is a standing committee. (§ 54952(b).) A standing committee is a committee which has continuing jurisdiction over a particular subject matter (e.g., budget, finance, legislation) or if the committee’s meeting schedule is fixed by charter, ordinance, resolution or other formal action of the legislative body that created it. (See examples, infra, p. 6.)

When a legislative body designates less than a quorum of its members that does not constitute a standing committee to meet with representatives of another legislative body to exchange information and report back to their respective bodies, a meeting between the representatives woule be exempt for the Act. (Joiner v. City of Sebastopol (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 799, 805.) However, if a legislative body designates less than a quorum of its members to meet with representatives of another legislative body to perform a task, such as the making of a recommendation, an advisory committee consisting of the representatives from both bodies would be created. Such a committee would be subject to the open meeting and notice provisions of the Act. (Joiner v. City of Sebastopol (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 799, 805.) The fact that the advisory committee was contingent upon the second body’s compliance does not detract from the conclusion that the creation of the committee must be attributed to the first body’s action. (Joiner v. City of Sebastopol (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 799, 805.)

The following illustrates how section 54952(b) operates. A city council creates four bodies to address various city problems.

• Commission comprised of councilmembers, the city manager and interested citizens: This committee is covered by the Act because there is no exemption for it regardless of whether it is decision-making or advisory in nature.

• Advisory committee comprised of two councilmembers for the purpose of reviewing all issues related to parks and recreation in the city on an ongoing basis: This committee is a standing committee which is subject to the Act’s requirements because it has continuing jurisdiction over issues related to parks and recreation in the city.

• Advisory committee comprised of two city councilmembers for the purpose of producing a report in six months on downtown traffic congestion: This committee is an exempt advisory committee because it is comprised solely of less than a quorum of the members of the city council. It is not a standing committee because it is charged with accomplishing a specific task in a short period of time, i.e., it is a limited term ad hoc committee.

• Advisory committee comprised of two councilmembers to meet on the second Monday of each month pursuant to city council resolution: This committee is subject to the Act as a standing committee because its meeting schedule is fixed by the city council.

54952. Definition of legislative body
As used in this chapter, “legislative body” means:

(a) The governing body of a local agency or any other local body created by state or federal statute.

(b) A commission, committee, board, or other body of a local agency, whether permanent or temporary, decision-making or advisory, created by charter, ordinance, resolution, or formal action of a legislative body. However, advisory committees, composed solely of the members of the legislative body that are less than a quorum of the legislative body are not legislative bodies, except that standing committees of a legislative body, irrespective of their composition, which have a continuing subject matter jurisdiction, or a meeting schedule fixed by charter, ordinance, resolution, or formal action of a legislative body are legislative bodies for purposes of this chapter.

(Source: http://caag.state.ca.us/publications/2003_Main_BrownAct.pdf)
For more information, click on post title above.

COMMENT:
While the Sunset Theater Ad Hoc Management Committee, the Sunset Theater Ad Hoc Finance Committee, the Economic Revitalization (ER) Ad Hoc “Team” and the Ad Hoc Library Committee are considered ad hoc committees under the Brown Act, the Traffic Safety Commission, which was defined as a body which would meet on an “as needed basis depending on the number of traffic and safety issues that are submitted for review,” appears to be a standing committee; that is, it is “a committee which has continuing jurisdiction over a particular subject matter” (e.g., traffic and safety). Ergo, the Traffic Safety Commission would be required to hold meetings open to the public.

In any event, as stated in the Brown Act, not only is the Brown Act’s intent to “facilitate public participation in local government decisions and to curb misuse of the democratic process by secret legislation by public bodies,” but exceptions to open meeting requirements are supposed to be “construed narrowly” and the burden is on the government to demonstrate a “need for confidentiality.” Moreover, it is within the power of mayors to dictate that ad hoc committees conduct open meetings at the formation of the ad hoc committees.

PART I (of II): Mayor Promotes Closed, Secretive Government through Ad Hoc Advisory Committees

As mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Sue McCloud has created several ad hoc advisory committees on major and important issues without direction for their meetings to be open to the public.

HISTORY & BACKGROUND:

I. In early 2003, Mayor McCloud initiated the creation of the Sunset Theater Ad Hoc Management Committee and the Sunset Theater Ad Hoc Finance Committee. The mayor’s appointments to the Ad Hoc Management Committee included Jim Price, Alan Brenner, Walter McCarthy, Jim Sanders, and Shan Sayles. Advisors Joe Truskot and Willem Wijnbergen were also appointed. The mayor’s appointments to the Ad Hoc Finance Committee included Mike Cunningham, Dick Borda, Don Hilburn, Bill Scearce and City CPA Paul Wood.

Only later, at the Special Meeting of the City Council on 21 October 2003, was the public suddenly aware of the agenda item “CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 2003-128 RECOGNIZING THE "SUNSET CULTURAL CENTER" AS A NONPROFIT CORPORATION AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO NEGOTIATE A MANAGEMENT/LEASE AGREEMENT.”

Since at the formation of the ad hoc committees the mayor did not give direction for open meetings, the Ad Hoc Management Committee’s and the Ad Hoc Finance Committee’s closed meetings resulted in the public being unaware of the process by which the Sunset Cultural Center, Inc. (SCC) was installed as the non-profit organization to manage Sunset Center.

II. At the City Council meeting on 3 October 2006, the City Council unanimously voted “to reconstitute the Traffic Safety Commission as an ad hoc committee of the City Council.” The mayor-appointed ad hoc committee members were to consist of a member of the City Council, a member of the Planning Commission, a member of the public at-large nominated by the Mayor and ratified by the majority of the Council and the Public Safety Director. The Ad Hoc Traffic Committee would meet on an “as needed basis depending on the number of traffic and safety issues that are submitted for review.”

Since at the formation of the Ad Hoc Traffic Committee the mayor did not give direction for open meetings, the rationale for their recommendations to the City Council will not be known by Carmelites.

III. After the sudden and unexpected termination of the Economic Development Coordinator in late 2006, the City Council formed an ad hoc committee “to develop an economic development plan for the business area.” The mayor-appointed ad hoc committee included Tom Glidden (La Playa Hotel), Tod Strain (Macerich – Carmel Plaza), Jeff Burghardt (Anda Burghardt – City’s marketing consultant), Council Member Paula Hazdovac, the Community Services Director Christie Miller, City Clerk Heidi Burch, and the City Administrator. After their first meeting in January 2007, they renamed the committee the “Economic Revitalization (ER) Team." Between January 2007 and March 2007, the Ad Hoc “Team” met a total of four times.

Since the mayor did not give direction for open meetings, Carmelites are unaware of the reasoning and rationale used for many of their dubious “policy goals” and “objectives,” such as a “Fine dining concession at Del Mar Beach.” Moreover, there were no Carmel-by-the-Sea residents on the ad hoc committee to represent the residents’ point of view.

IV. At the City Council’s 6 February 2007 meeting, the City Council Members unanimously voted to “create an ad hoc committee of the Council to review the library study and encouraged the Mayor to find users of the library for the committee;" the ad hoc Library Committee included City Administrator Rich Guillen, City Clerk Heidi Burch, Acting Library Director Janet Cubbage, Library Foundation representatives Carol Nordahl (executive director) and William Tyler, Library Board member Fran Vardamis and David Evans, former Library Board member. Apparently, it was only due to the insistence of “two citizens” that the mayor acceded to their request and directed the ad hoc committee to conduct meetings open to the public. Thus, in this instance, the public is privy to the rationale employed for the ad hoc committee’s recommendations to the City Council.

SUMMARY:
In short, Mayor Sue McCloud’s over reliance on ad hoc advisory committees on major and important issues deprives citizens of the information we need to evaluate the wisdom of the ad hoc committees' recommendations and ultimately the decisions and actions of the City Council. Furthermore, the intent of the Ralph M. Brown Act is, as follows:
“...the Legislature has established a presumption in favor of public access. As the courts have stated, the purpose of the Brown Act is to facilitate public participation in local government decisions and to curb misuse of the democratic process by secret legislation by public bodies.”

On Obtaining Certified Local Government Status

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
Monday, February 26, 2007

VII. ADMINISTRATION
Consideration of Historic Resources Board goals for Fiscal Year 2007/08.

BOARD MEMBER WENDT moved to make a recommendation to the City Administrator and City Council to provide assistance to Architectural Resources Group (ARG) in completing the updated Historic Context Statement and obtain Certified Local Government Status, seconded, and carried by the following roll call vote:

AYES: LAGERHOLM, LAIOLO, WENDT, DYAR
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE

CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Certified Local Government Program

What is the Certified Local Government Program?

The 1980 amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, provided for the establishment of a CLG program to encourage the direct participation of local governments in the identification, evaluation, registration, and preservation of historic properties within their jurisdictions and promote the integration of local preservation interests and concerns into local planning and decision-making processes. The CLG program is a partnership among local governments, the State of California-OHP, and the National Park Service (NPS) which is responsible for administering the National Historic Preservation Program.
(Source: http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/default.asp?page_id=24494)

For more Questions & Answers, copy, paste and click http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/default.asp?page_id=24494


WHY BECOME A CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT (CLG)?

Answers include Credibility, Technical Assistance, Streamlining, Involvement, Funding, Autonomy and Economic Benefits.
(For details and explanations, click on post title above or copy, past and click
http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/default.asp?page_id=23581.

Note: Under “Autonomy,” “When your local governments decides to become a CLG, it agrees to carry out the intent of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards.”

COMMENT:
If the City Administrator and City Council Members were serious about historic preservation by implementing all the provisions in the City’s Local Coastal Program regarding historic preservation, then immediately post certification in late 2004, they would have begun the process of becoming a Certified Local Government. They did not. Now, nearly three years later, the Historic Resources Board is recommending to the City Council that they “obtain Certified Local Government Status.” One can surmise based the City Council’s record that the City Administrator and the City Council will be reluctant to adopt the Historic Resources Board’s recommendation because they would then be obligated to “carry out the intent of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards.”

References:
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Municipal Code

Chapter 17.32
HISTORIC PRESERVATION

17.32.010 Purpose.
The purpose of the historic preservation ordinance is to establish standards, procedures and regulations to promote identification, and preservation, and enhancement of historic resources including buildings, structures, objects, sites, districts and archaeological resources that represent the unique architectural, cultural, historic and prehistoric identity of Carmel-by-the-Sea, by:

F. Becoming a certified local government.

17.32.230 Definitions.

G. “Certified local government” (also “CLG”) shall mean the program authorized by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. Section 470 et seq., as amended) and the subsequent participatory agreement between the City and the California Office of Historic Preservation.


General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Land Use & Community Character Element

G1-5 Protect and enhance historic resources. Ensure that City ordinances, development review processes and administrative policies support, facilitate and coordinate with preservation activities. Provide incentives for property owners to preserve and rehabilitate historic resources. (LUP)

O1-16 Pursue and support the use of appropriate Federal, State, local, and private grants, loans, tax credits, and tax relief. Develop or assist financial, technical, and legal assistance programs to encourage or assist with rehabilitation and maintenance. Participate in the State and Federal preservation process and programs. Make application to the State for becoming a Certified Local Government (CLG), which enables the City to receive technical training. (LUP)

MOTION HEARING TODAY: Flanders Foundation vs. City of Carmel by the Sea, et al

"SAVE OUR FLANDERS MANSION"
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA.

UPDATE:
Yesterday, Monterey County Superior Court Judge Robert O'Farrell ruled that his decision has satisfactory factual basis, contrary to William B. Conners assertions, and the City can appeal his decision; "that's what appellate courts are for," he stated. On a related matter, Judge O'Farrell clarified his decision by stating that the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea must act to prevent further demolition by neglect ("stopgap measures"), but the City is not obligated to restore or rehabilitate the Flanders Mansion.

Case Details of GNM76728: Flanders Foundation vs. City of Carmel By the Sea, et al

Case Number: GNM76728
Case Caption: Flanders Foundation vs. City of Carmel By the Sea, et al
Filing Date: 11/3/2005
Case Type: Civil: Monterey
Filing Type: Petition
Original Filing Date: 11/3/2005

Attorney Information
Attorney Type & Names
PET Brandt-Hawley Susan
RES Conners William B.

Schedule Events
Type: Further Proceedings
Date: 5/18/2007
Time: 10:30:00
Location: Courtroom 14

MONTEREY COURTHOUSE
DEPARTMENT 14
2nd Floor
Hon. Robert O’Farrell
Supervising Judge, Civil Department
Master Civil Calendar
Civil Trial Department
Civil Law & Motion Calendar

For updated information, click on post title above, then click on "Index Search," then select "Civil Unlimited" and type "M76728" in box, then click "Search."

Carmel ART FESTIVAL 2007: 14th Annual

CARMEL Art FESTIVAL 2007 Banner
Ocean Av. between San Carlos St. & Dolores St.
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA.

The Carmel Art Festival, a non-profit organization, will celebrate their 14th Annual Carmel Art Festival from Thursday, 17 May 2007 to Sunday, 20 May 2007. Their mission is “to educate and inspire people of all ages about the visual arts.”

The 14th Annual Carmel Art Festival 2007 features the Plein Air Event, Carmel Youth Art Show, Sculpture in the Park, Sculpture Withindoors, Quick Draw and Kids Art Day.

The Plein Air and Sculpture Juried Artists for the 14th Annual Carmel Art Festival 2007, as follows:

Plein Air Artists:
Ebrahim Amin, Annette Alleman, Mike Bagdonas, Brian Blood, Dee Boyles, Delia Bradford, John Burton, Larry Cannon, Ray Carpenter, Pan Yen Chou, Ken Christensen, Jon Conkey, Bethanne Cople, Kevin Courter, Nancy Crookston, Teresa Dong, Mark Farina, Terri Ford, Danny Griego, Elaine Hahn, Roianne Hart, Dali Higa, Sterling Hoffmann, Mar Jaynes, Sally Jordan, Laurie Kersey, Kristi Kraft, Paul Kratter, Greg LaRock, Robert Lewis, PoPin Lin, Shao Wei Liu, Kim Fancher Lordier, Gordon Luce, Rolf Lygren, Ronaldo Macedo, Barry Marshall, Gerard Martin, Shawn McKelvey, Ann McMillan, Alicia Meheen, Ray Mendieta, Terry Miura, Larry Moore, Donald Neff, Michael Obermeyer, Scott Prior, Robin Purcell, Lesley Rich, Don Sahli, Robert Sandidge, Stephen Sanfilippo, Jeff Sewell, John Brandon Sills, Silva Silvestri, Michael Situ, Carol Swinney, Bryan Taylor, Jim P. Wodark and Paul Youngman

Sculpture Artists:
Damon Bard, Sam Bassett, Edward Drapkin, Edward Eyth, Yves Goyatton, Arie Jacobi, Todd Kruper, Ron Lion, David Mudgett, Jeff Owen, William Pound, Jonathan Christopher Roberts, Justin Max Schoepke, Richard Starks and Jenni Ward.

Plein Air Event Schedule Highlights:
Thursday – Sunday, May 17 – 20, 2007
Gallery Receptions & Demonstrations Daily
Sculpture-in-the-Park, Devendorf Park

Thursday & Friday, May 17 – 18, 2007
Plein Air Painting Competition

Saturday, May 19, 2007:
Mission St., West of Devendorf Park
10:00 A.M. - 6:00 P.M.: View and bid on plein air paintings from competition.

5 P.M.: Plein Air Awards Ceremony.

6 P.M.: Live auction will follow immediately after closing of bidding

Sunday, May 20, 2007
Quick Draw Painting Competition
Silent Auction, Devendorf Park, 11:00 A.M.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Click on post title above or copy, paste and click http://www.carmelartfestival.org/

Carmel Gallery Alliance
P.O. Box 7191
Carmel, CA 93921
Telephone (Voice Mail only): (831) 642-2503
Quick Response Email: 2007@carmelartfestival.org

PART III (of III): Historic Context Statement Agenda Item Symbolic of City Council Members Misunderstanding & Mental Confusion

COMMENTS:

• The City Council has used the Historic Context Statement as an alibi to avoid accountability for the real problem; and that is, the lack of appropriate guidance to the surveyors in terms of the “best” historic resources and the application of the California Register of Historic Resources criteria. Moreover, the City Council and the City Administrator failed to properly review the DPR Forms prior to submission of the City’s Local Coastal Program to the California Coastal Commission for certification in late 2004. Note: The majority of appeals by property owners of properties listed on the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources have been granted because of inaccuracies and supposition statements without evidence or foundation on DPR Forms.

• Even after Bruce Judd and Catherine Petrin of Architectural Resources Group (ARG) explained that the present Historic Context Statement is not at fault, all of the City Council Members demonstrated that they still lack basis comprehension of the Historic Preservation contents as articulated in the Local Coastal Program and Municipal Code.

• The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Meeting Minutes, as follows:
“The Council expressed their concerns about the current context statement and its use in conducting surveys that resulted in an excessive number of homes being placed on the City’s List of Historic Properties. They requested that the flaws be corrected and the process for applying the context statement and determining historicity be changed.”

Again, the minutes reflect the Council’s misunderstanding of the city’s present predicament; and that is, the root cause of the city’s “excessive number of homes” on the Historic Inventory is not due to the Historic Context Statement, rather it is due to the survey process itself. Furthermore, because the Council did not properly review the Local Coastal Program as a document comprehensively prior to submittal to the California Coastal Commission, 300 residences and commercial buildings were approved for inclusion on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources.

If City Council Member Gerard Rose believes the Carmel Inventory of Historic Resources has “an absurd number of houses” on it, then it should have been obvious to him prior to the City Council’s unanimous vote to submit the City’s Local Coastal Program to the California Coastal Commission for certification in 2004. Moreover, if he had fulfilled his duties and responsibilities to his office and the public he would have conscientiously reviewed the document at that time, not realize the “obvious” 3 years later.

Note: City Council Member Gerard Rose’s characterization of “cities like Philadelphia and Baltimore” having only “a handful of homes” on their respective historic “lists” is grossly inaccurate. For example, the City of Philadelphia Register consists of approximately 13,000 buildings, structures, sites, objects and districts designated as historic by the Philadelphia Historical Commission.
(Source: http://www.phila.gov/historical/register.html). For more information, click on post title above.
Moreover, according to the Pennsylvania Historical Museum Commission, Bureau for Historic Preservation, there are 458 National Register Listed Resources and 64 National Historic Landmarks in the City of Philadelphia, PA.
(Source:
http://www.phmc.state.pa.us/bhp/inventories/Final%20National%20Register%20Properties.pdf)

In short, City Council Member Gerard Rose has a record of mischaracterization; therefore, he cannot be trusted.

Similarly, if Mayor Sue McCloud believes that “historic preservation has gotten a bad name because of the process,” then why does she fail to understand that she, as mayor, was charged with making certain she understood the “process;” that is, the contents of the historic preservation element of the Local Coastal Program so that historic preservation would not get a bad name. Furthermore, Mayor McCloud appears to fail to remember her 10 June 2005 letter to all “historic property” owners; she wrote, “Approximately ten percent of all properties in Carmel-by-the-Sea were found to qualify as historic. Like you, I too own a home in Carmel that was identified as historic; I consider it a source of pride.” Thus, it appears that Mayor McCloud failed to fulfill her duties and responsibilities by exercising due diligence by reading, comprehending and reviewing the City’s Local Coastal Program in 2004 and now.

(For letter, click on Sunday, October 08, 2006 post, “McCloud's Hypocritical Historic Record”)

• Given the conduct of City Administrator Rich Guillen, Carmelites cannot expect him to provide any modicum of leadership or guidance on this issue; at the meeting, he merely expressed satisfaction that the City Council Members were able to “vent” their frustrations to ARG’s Bruce Judd and Catherine Petrin.

• Contrary to City Council Member Gerald Rose’s characterization of the California Coastal Commission and Staff as “those clowns,” and his implication that the Coastal Commission’s approved Local Coastal Program for the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is the problem, the City’s certified Local Coastal Program contains all the elements of a successful historic preservation program, if properly followed and implemented.

PART II (of III): Historic Context Statement Agenda Item Symbolic of City Council Members Misunderstanding & Mental Confusion

The comments made by City Council Members in PART I demonstrate that Mayor Sue McCloud, City Council Member Mike Cunningham, City Council Member Paula Hazdovac and City Counicl Member Gerard Rose failed to read and comprehend the historic preservation content of the City’s Local Coastal Program prior to submittal to the California Coastal Commission for certification in late 2004. Furthermore, the City Council Members appear to be unknowledgeable about the following relevant excerpts from the City Local Coastal Program as it pertains to historic preservation.

Selected relevant excerpts from the City’s Local Coastal Program, as follows:

General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Land Use & Community Character Element

Protection of Historic Resources

Although the Coastal Act does not specifically discuss historic preservation, this topic is related to the preservation of character required by sections 30251 and 30253 of the Act. The purpose of this component of the Land Use Plan is to provide a framework for policies that address the preservation of the diverse and valuable historic resources in Carmel. Its primary goals are to educate residents and visitors about the unique architectural, cultural and historic identity of Carmel-by-the-Sea, and to promote the identification and preservation of structures and sites that best represent this history. The addition of this component to the Coastal Plan reflects Carmel’s commitment to the preservation of its important historic resources and the City’s recognition of the role that historic resources play in defining community character. (LUP)

The types of historic resources in Carmel are classified using the criteria established in the California Register of Historic Resources. These range from architecturally significant historic buildings and collections of residences that form distinctive neighborhoods to those associated with important persons or events in Carmel’s history. It also includes street features, landscaping, and both prehistoric and historic archaeological resources.

The initial step in an historic preservation program is a reconnaissance survey of potential historic resources. This is followed by thorough research and documentation in an intensive survey using the themes established in the Carmel Historic Context Statement that explore the historic people, periods, places and events important to Carmel.

An historic context is a body of information about historic properties organized by theme, place and time. A single historic context describes one or more important aspects of the development of an area relating to its history, architecture, archaeology and culture. A context may be based on one or a series of events, patterns of community development, or associations with the lives of a person or group of persons that influenced the destiny and character of a place or region (from National Register Bulletin #24). Currently there are five themes developed in Carmel’s Historic Context Statement. They are: (1) Prehistory and Hispanic Settlement, (2) Economic Development, (3) Government, Civic and Social Institutions (4) Architectural Development in Carmel and (5) Development of Art and Culture.

Goals, Objectives and Policies
Community Character and Land Use

G1-1 Continue to preserve and maintain the predominance of the residential character in Carmel through appropriate zoning and land development regulations in all districts.

G1-2 Preserve the residential village character and perpetuate a balance of land uses compatible with local resources and the environment. (LUP)

P1-85 Maintain an Historic Context Statement that documents the historic periods, themes, events, people, architects and builders who have contributed to the cultural and developmental history of the City. Use the Historic Context Statement to identify, document and understand the importance of historic resources. Exclusion from this document shall not preclude a finding of significance for any resource. The Historic Context Statement shall be updated at least every five years. Updates shall be submitted to the California Coastal Commission as LCP amendments. (See Appendix Historic Context Statement, Carmel-by-the-Sea, 1997).

P1-86 Apply California Register of Historical Resources (California
Register) criteria to identify and document all historic resources. Use the Historic Context Statement to interpret the California Register criteria in determining the significance of Carmel’s historic resources. (LUP)

P1-87 Establish procedures to add historic resources to the Carmel Inventory based on recommendations from a qualified professional, as part of the City’s ongoing survey process. To qualify for listing in the Carmel Inventory, historic resources shall meet at least one of the California Register criteria, shall be representative of at least one theme included in the Historic Context Statement and shall retain substantial integrity5. Integrity (association, feeling, setting, location, design, materials and workmanship) shall be documented by comparing the existing condition of the resource with the original building plans or early photographs or other substantial evidence (e.g. literature review, architectural files, land records, Sanborn maps, etc.) and/or by physical inspection by a qualified historic preservation professional. (LUP)

P1-100 Implement guidelines for civic design to preserve unique community character resources (e.g. public structures, street signs, landscape features and materials, etc.). Incorporate the concept of cultural landscapes (e.g. streets and other non-building open space features) in future revisions to the Historic Context Statement and develop guidelines for their preservation. (LUP)

For the City's complete General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Land Use & Community Character, click on post title above or copy, paste and click http://www.ci.carmel.ca.us/, click on "Planning," then "Land use plan Revisions."

PART I (of III): Historic Context Statement Agenda Item Symbolic of City Council Members Misunderstanding & Mental Confusion

Carmel-by-the-Sea
City Council
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, April 3, 2007

XI. Orders of Council

A. Review an outline for the updated Historic Context Statement as presented by Architectural Resources Group (ARG) for the period of 1940 through 1965 and provide direction.

During City Council deliberations, the following verbal comments and exchanges occurred between Architectural Resources Group (ARG) consultants Bruce Judd and Catherine Petrin and Carmel-by-the-Sea Council Members. Although lengthy, this one agenda item is symbolic of the typical misunderstanding and confusion of present city council members.

CITY COUNCIL MEMBER GERARD ROSE:

“From my perspective the reason why you’re tasked to perform this job was that there were two things that needed to be done.”

“First of all, as you know, there was a period that our current Historic Context Statement did not cover, but there’s a much more important aspect of this, much more, and that is our current Historic Context Statement was not working. And it wasn’t working for a variety of reasons. Some of which were perfectly innocent, but it created disastrous results for our commissions and boards that were trying to deal with some aspects of the Historic Context Statement. For example, the way this council has traditionally seen the Historic Context Statement, is, it was seen as a context statement, in the sense of background, it’s background, it’s important background, it’s background you have to understand in order to make decisions, but it’s background only. But there are some statements in the Historic Context Statement itself that made it sound like it set standards that had to be followed by our boards and commissions. And I think it’s absolutely important as you do your rewrite that it has to be clear that the Context Statement is background only, and to the extent there is a specific ordinance, whether it be in the zoning ordinances or in the historic resources ordinance that deals with this issue, it’s the latter that controls, not the Context Statement. And I can’t tell you how many times that created confusion for our committees…”

“Secondly, because the current Historic context Statement is tied to surveys, we had many examples of the survey takers saying things like will this building is historic because it’s a good example of x and they would identify something in the Context Statement. This resulted in an absurd number of houses finding their way to our list of allegedly historic houses that didn’t belong there. I mean, you go to the east coast and you see major cities like Philadelphia and Baltimore, that truly are historic, with just a handful of homes on it, and Carmel comes up with hundreds of homes. Now, there’s something wrong with that. Not every building associated with the story of Carmel is an historic landmark. Quite clearly. And yet, there are people who apparently thought that might be the case. And unfortunately many of these people filled out DPR Forms that found there way into out surveys, which found there way to the county recorder’s office and improperly so.”

“It has been the sense of this council, repeatedly, that we’re looking for the best of the best, when it comes to architecture, the truly outstanding architects. We don’t want out historic survey and our list of historic homes to reflect every Tom, Dick and Harry that passed through Carmel. We want these buildings that are on our historic list to be truly historic, and we don’t want out historic list to be a joke. And that’s what it is right now.”

“Finally, because the current Context Statement suffers from the infirmities I just spoke about; it seems ridiculous to ground a new Historic Statement on a document that is fundamentally flawed. And that’s why when we heard, or at least when I heard that you wanted to simply do a redo on the other statement, particularly on a statement that your associate, Catherine says, draws on these surveys, that’s a non-starter.”

ARG BRUCE JUDD:

“I think we’re working backwards. I hear you on all three of your statements. The Context Statement is really a roadmap, it is the background information, as you said, that should inform decisions when you do surveys. That doesn’t mean you are supposed to literally take what’s in the Context Statement and then survey every bungalow and say because it says bungalows are important to the development of Carmel, every bungalow should be listed. That, the problem here is not with the Context Statement, it’s with the then taking that information and then translating it into terms of how you do your surveys. So that’s the first connection that’s not being done right.”

“The second part is once you’ve done the survey, you have to then decide what is important about what you’ve surveyed and when someone wants to change it, is that an appropriate change or not. So that’s a third layer which really gets to the heart of what you’re trying to do as decision-makers. When people come to you and want something to be done or not done to their property. So you have to take the foundation work, and then take that and have that inform what you’re doing with the survey work, and then you use that to inform what are the character-defining features which are pretty straight forward, what makes something important and then from that make your decisions about whether somebody is proposing something that is appropriate or not. That’s sort of how you would make those leaps.”

“Secondly, in terms of the original Context Statement, that as a beginning framework, it’s pretty good, it’s organized will, the research is done well, what we were proposing is to have an outline that matches the outline organizational way that was done with the first context Statement. That’s not a flaw in the Context Statement. So we can do it differently, if you want, but we thought the themes that they had arrived at were actually fairly good in that most of them flowed into what would happen from 1940 to 1965. so using that as a organizational element is not a bad way to go, we didn’t think…now we can do it a different way if you prefer, but I thing the big problem is not how the Context Statement is done or what we’re doing and ultimately, they will come together so you have one Context Statement. Its how you then take and make a decision about doing a survey and using that as the basis of the information for the decisions that you’re making...”

ARG CATHERINE PETRIN: “...one thing to add to that…but one thing that I was concerned was your statement that your ordinance sets standards that have to be followed and that is a bit of a red flag to me. A context is meant to do…the Context Statement lays out the different areas of historic development, where things might be , significance, and this is probably overly technical point, but one of the tools professionals use when they actually carry out a survey is the DPR Form, which I’m sure you’re familiar with, and on the second page, Building Structure and Object Record page, it asks for and this is a standard State form, that is a very good tool to use for consistency throughout the state, it asks for what is the historic context and what is the period of development and for consistency, if you can refer back to your Historic Context Statement, use the themes and dates set out in your Context Statement, it’s kind of a short cut so that you don’t have to explain on your significance form all of the information about historic development.”

CITY COUNCIL MEMBER GERARD ROSE:

“O.K. Here’s the problem with that. We live in a village that’s only 100 years old. O.K. It’s not 200 or 300 or 400 years old. I’ve lived in buildings that old, but not Carmel. Carmel is very young…so because we’re such a young city, it’s very easy to come up with criteria that become so broad that virtually every building in town qualifies. You see what I’m saying. And that’s what’s happened.”

ARG BRUCE JUDD:

“When you say criteria that is not the criteria in the Context Statement, that’s the criteria somebody is using when they are doing a survey.”

CITY COUNCIL MEMBER GERARD ROSE:

“Well, I am telling you what happened in reality. What happened in reality was, we have ordinances that weren’t being followed because the people who filled our DPR Forms were saying well here’s a home-style that was identified in our Historic Context Statement and therefore it must be historic. And bang, all of a sudden, the house is on the list. That’s what happened in reality. And you could understand with a young city how that could happen. But we don’t want it to happen. We want to save the best, we want to save the most significant, we want to save buildings that are truly historic and we need you to help us turn that around.”

ARG BRUCE JUDD:

“I think we can help you do that and I think again, that doesn’t come down to the Context Statement as being at fault, it’s how you make decisions when you’re doing surveys. And then I would say there is another element that we haven’t talked about very much and that’s community character. There’s one of these period revival cottages, like the Tuck Box, and you decide that that is the most important one so you list the Tuck Box and you don’t list any of the others. At some point, through time, if those are discarded as not being important, they will all be demolished and you’ll have larger houses going in their stead and you will end up with a community character which is not what anybody wanted because it happened gradually over 30 or 40 years. So part of this in the Context Statement is letting you know what is important about how the city developed and what you should be looking for beyond listing anything, it’s not a regulation. It tries to make everybody aware of community character, what contributes to that character and what you can do to preserve it, if you want to preserve it, and that’s your decision to preserve or not.”

“We’re doing the foundation work which I thing everybody was very unhappy with because I thin you were using it in the wrong way over time, that’s my guess.”

CITY COUNCIL MEMBER GERARD ROSE:

“I can tell you that when our Historic Resources Board made decisions about DPR Forms, well from what I read in the Historic Context Statement this qualifies.”

ARG CATHERINE PETRIN:

“Well, it might qualify, but that’s the first step and then you have to look at other, integrity and period of significance…”

ARG BRUCE JUDD:

“Qualify in that you look at it in detail, not that it is on the list.”

CITY COUNCIL MEMBER KEN TALMAGE:

“I think it’s widely recognized that we have a process that is flawed and I say that because of the number of appeals and the number of those appeals that were sustained. And we’re wrestling with the flaw in that process whether and whether it’s an over reliance on the Context Statement or the element the decision-making criteria in that Context Statement…we want to save the best…”

ARG BRUCE JUDD:

“Without the context Statement, you don’t know whether something is actually important as a theme to go look at. My sense is the real failing in the process is you have a Context Statement that is O.K., but people have then been trying to turn it into something and use it as a tool in a way it should not be uses. In terms of trying to correctly say something is mentioned in the Context Statement, therefore that if anything meets that, it’s a landmark or it’s listed. And I’m not sure that, for example bungalows. If it’s a green bungalow on the Context Statement, any green bungalow in the city ought to be listed, and that’s not the case, that’s not how you should be using it. So I think what’s missing is the decision-making before you go out and do the survey in terms of translating what’s in the context to a decision-making tool...”

“You don’t want to try to use it to make your decisions about whether it’s listed or not listed on a register.”

MAYOR SUE McCLOUD:

“The concern is… historic preservation has gotten a bad name because of the process...”

CITY COUNICL MEMBER MIKE CUNNINGHAM:

“We need the criteria to drive the survey process. That’s the thing that‘s broken. We need your help...”

CITY COUNCIL MEMBER GERARD ROSE:

“...make it clear in the Historic Context Statement that a survey that’s done poorly is recognized as having been done poorly and one that’s done correctly is recognized as one that’s been done correctly and if we have a good Historic Context Statement for the entire period, it well make it easier to make that distinction.”

ARG BRUCE JUDD:

“The next step is trying to come up with the criteria of how you are going to make those decisions.”

For information about Architectural Resources Group: Architects, Planners & Conservators, Inc. (ARG), click on post title above or copy, paste and click http://www.argsf.com/home.shtml.

Forest, Parks & Beach Budget Only 3.5% of Total Budget

Iverson Tree Service
Tree Removal
Santa Fe St. between 5th Av. & 6th Av.
April 2007
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA.

City Outsourced Tree Services (January 2007 – April 2007)

TOTAL (January 2007 – April 2007): $ 45,525

Carmel-by-the-Sea
April 2007 Check Register
(Includes Checks Dated 3/27/07)

112737 4/3/07 GATES TREE SERVICE, INC. $ 1,600.00 TREE REMOVAL - JUNIPERO & 9TH

112740 4/3/07 IVERSON TREE SERVICE $ 6,050.00 TREE REMOVAL SERVICES

112706 3/27/07 JOHN LEY'S TREE SERVICE $ 8,615.00 TREE REMOVAL SERVICES
112741 4/3/07 JOHN LEY'S TREE SERVICE $ 1,800.00 TREE REMOVAL SERVICES
112857 4/20/07 JOHN LEY'S TREE SERVICE $ 1,650.00 TREE REMOVAL SERVICES
----Vendor Total---- $ 12,065.00

TOTAL: $19,715.00

Carmel-by-the-Sea
March 2007 Check Register
(Includes Checks Dated 2/27/07)

112521 3/6/07 JOHN LEY'S TREE SERVICE $ 485.00 OUTSIDE LABOR

TOTAL: $485.00

Carmel-by-the-Sea
February 2007 Check Register
Includes Checks Dated 1/30/07)

112271 1/30/07 IVERSON TREE SERVICE $1,100.00 OUTSIDE LABOR

112272 1/30/07 JOHN LEY'S TREE SERVICE $3,045.00 OUTSIDE LABOR
112368 2/13/07 JOHN LEY'S TREE SERVICE $1,735.00 OUTSIDE LABOR
----Vendor Total---- $4,780.00

112385 2/13/07 SPENCERS TREE SERVICE $1,500.00 OUTSIDE LABOR

112303 1/30/07 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC $15,120.00 TREE GRID PRUNING

TOTAL: $22,500

Carmel-by-the-Sea
January 2007 Check Register
Includes Checks Dated 12/22/06 - 12/31/06)

112061 12/22/06 IVERSON TREE SERVICE $ 2,000.00 OUTSIDE LABOR

112062 12/22/06 JOHN LEY'S TREE SERVICE $ 675.00 REMOVAL OF TWO OAK TREES NEAR SUNSET CTR

112080 12/22/06 TOPE'S TREE SERVICE $ 150.00 FORESTRY OUTSIDE LABOR

TOTAL: $2,825


COMMENTS:

From the current CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CALIFORNIA DRAFT BUDGET, as follows:

FOREST, PARKS AND BEACH

The Forest, Parks and Beach Department manages and maintains the City's urban forest, parks and beach in order to preserve the windbreak protection, abate soil erosion, enhance the natural beauty, and maintain the outdoor recreational facilities of the community.

Revised 06/07

$ 284,137 Salaries / Benefits
$ 160,854 Materials / Services (includes $104,431 Outside Labor)
$ 444,991 Total

TOTAL FY 2006/07 Expenditures: $ 12,536,960

Note: For Fiscal Year 2006/07, the Total Forest, Parks and Beach Department Budget represents only 3.5% of the Total 2006/07 Budget. For comparison purposes, the City’s Enabling Grant to Sunset Cultural Center for the management of the Sunset Center is proposed to be $750,000 in FY 2007/08, representing 6% of the FY 2007/08 Budget.

Over the three year period, Fiscal Years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, as follows:

Forest, Parks and Beach $ 393,759 $ 444,991 $ 457,661
Total: $1,296,411
3.5% of 3-Year Total

Community and Cultural (SCC Enabling Grant) $ 772,000 $ 713,000 $ 750,000
Total: $2,235,000
6.0% of 3-Year Total

Total City Expenditures $ 11,585,933 $ 12,536,960 $ 12,875,794
3-Year Total: $36,998,687

(Source: CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CALIFORNIA DRAFT BUDGET FISCAL YEARS 2007/08 THROUGH 2009/10)

QUESTIONS:

1. For the current fiscal year, FY 2006/07, specifically January 2007 – April 2007, and given the state of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s forest and all the expenditures for “TREE REMOVAL” AND “PRUNING,” where are the commensurate expenditures for tree planting and care? For example, the most recent check register entry for “TREE REPLANTINGS” was a December 2006 check, as follows:

112030 12/19/06 JOHN LEY'S TREE SERVICE $ 4,025.00 STUMP GRINDING AND TREE REPLANTINGS

2. Is it equitable city policy to subsidy a non-profit organization for the management of the Sunset Center, only one arts and entertainment venue in Carmel-by-the-Sea, at a rate of 6% of the annual city budget, while only funding the city’s forest, parks and beach department at a rate 3.5%?

Flanders Foundation Hosts “LUNCH ON THE LAWN: DISCOVER THE BEAUTIFUL FLANDERS MANSION”

Flanders Mansion
Mission Trail Nature Preserve
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA.

Lester Rowntree Arboretum & Native Plant Garden
Mission Trail Nature Preserve
View of Gate at Entrance off Driveway
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA.

WHO:
Flanders Foundation, a non-profit corporation, is the sole local organization dedicated to the restoration and maintenance of the National Register of Historic Places Flanders Mansion.

MISSION STATEMENT OF THE FLANDERS FOUNDATION
“To preserve, enhance, and maintain the Flanders mansion property as an historical, cultural, and educational resource for the benefit of residents and visitors to Carmel-by-the-Sea.”

For information about Flanders Foundation’s Mission Statement, Vision Statement, News and Articles, Act Now! - How You Can Help, Myths about Flanders, Reports to the City Council, December 1999 Report to the City Council and Directors and Advisory Board, click on post title above or copy, paste and click http://www.flandersfoundation.org/.

Flanders Foundation
P.O. Box 1414
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA 93921
Telephone: (831) 626-3826
Email: info@flandersfoundation.org

WHAT:
“Lunch on the Lawn: Discover the Beautiful Flanders Mansion”
A Walk through Mission Trail Nature Preserve to the Flanders Mansion.

Tomorrow’s “Nature Walk” will feature the history and biology of Mission Trail Nature Preserve, Flanders Mansion and the Lester Rowntree Native Plant Garden by Flanders Foundation President Melanie Billig and a historical/nature talk by former Carmel-by-the-Sea Fire Chief Bill Hill.

Note: Please bring a brown bag lunch; complimentary cold drinks will be provided by the Flanders Foundation.

WHEN:
Saturday, May 12, 2007, 10:30 A.M. – 1:00 P.M.
Saturday, June 16, 2007, 10:30 A.M. – 12:30 P.M.
Saturday, July 14, 2007, 10:30 A.M. – 12:30 P.M.

WHERE:
Mission Trail Nature Preserve
Start: Entrance to Mission Trail Nature Preserve at Rio Road across from the Carmel Mission.
End: Flanders Mansion

HOW:
Please call for a reservation:
(831) 626-3826 or (831) 620-0532.

WHY:
Promote greater awareness, understanding and appreciation for Mission Trail Nature Preserve, Flanders Mansion and the Lester Rowntree Arboretum as unique historical/cultural/environmental resources for the public, residents and visitors alike.

INCOHERENT JUXTAPOSITION: Objection to Judge’s Decision vs. William's Roofing “Repair”

Flanders Mansion
Portion of Ridge which William’s Roofing “Repaired”
April 2007


Close-Up of “Repaired” Ridge
Original Tiles & Replacement Tiles Visible

After Monterey Superior Court Judge Robert A. O’Farrell issued his decision on Flanders Foundation vs. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, et al, the City Council of Carmel-by-the-Sea instructed Special Counsel William Conners to file an objection to the decision arguing that the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is not obligated to maintain the National Register of Historic Places Flanders Mansion. Judge O’Farrell then agreed to a Motion Hearing on Friday, 18 May 2007 at 9:00 A.M.

In April 2007, the City contracted with William’s Roofing Company for “REPAIRS TO FLANDERS MANSION ROOF,” at a cost of $3960.00 Apparently, the “repair” was to the ridge as pictured above. Is appears that tiles were either removed or replaced with dissimilar material tiles along the ridge in discontinuous fashion, i.e. a temporary “repair.”

Comments & Questions:

1. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation,Roofs

not recommended

Removing a major portion of the roof or roofing material that is repairable, then reconstructing it with new material in order to create a uniform, or "improved" appearance.
(Source: http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/tps/tax/rhb/roofs01.htm)
For more information, click on post title above.

2. Was the Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation complied with by the City and William Roofing Company when the Flanders Mansion roof “repair” was made to the ridge?

3. Since the Historic Resources Board (HRB) did not meet in April 2007, it appears that the Flanders Mansion roof “repair” was not on their agenda prior to the “repair.” Why was the “repair” not on a HRB agenda prior to contracting with Williams Roofing Company?

References:
General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Land Use & Community Character Element

Cultural Resources
Historic Preservation

P1-106 Recognize existing architectural features and styles when reviewing alterations to historic resources. Strive to achieve compatibility between these historic elements and proposed changes. Allow historic resources included in the Carmel Inventory to retain existing land use and/or design nonconformities when proposed rehabilitation or repairs are found to be consistent with the Secretary of Interios's Standards and Guidelines. Allow changes to historic resources in the Carmel Inventory that expand an existing design nonconformity or create a new design nonconformity only when this is found to be necessary to achieve consistency with the Secretary of Interior's Standands and Guidelines. (LUP)
(Source: http://www.ci.carmel.ca.us/)


Carmel-by-the-Sea
Municipal Code

Chapter 17.32
HISTORIC PRESERVATION

17.32.140 Determination of Consistency with the Secretary’s Standards.

A. All major and minor alterations to historic resources shall require a determination of consistency with the Secretary’s Standards. The Department shall make consistency determinations for minor alterations. Staff may shall retain a qualified professional, when necessary, to assist in making the determination.

17.32.150 Historic Evaluation Process for Minor Alterations.

A. For the purposes of evaluating alterations to historic resources, the following shall constitute minor alterations:

8. Repair or replacement of roofing, gutters and downspouts when replacement is done in-kind to match existing materials and form.

D. Staff shall issue a determination of consistency for minor alterations that comply with the Secretary’s Standards. In approving minor alterations, staff shall ensure that integrity of the resource is maintained, that all character-defining features are maintained and that no change will be authorized that would diminish the historic resource’s value or result in a subsequent determination that the resource is no longer eligible for the Carmel Inventory. Staff may prepare and process a categorical exemption for the proposed alteration. The Department shall then cause the processing of the permit application to continue pursuant to standard City practices. Minor alterations that are found not to comply with the Secretary’s Standards shall be considered and processed as major alterations requiring an evaluation by a qualified professional and final action by the Historic Resources Board. (Ord. 2004-02 § 1, 2004; Ord. 2004-01 § 1, 2004).
(Source: http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/carmel.html)


GNM76728: Flanders Foundation vs. City of Carmel By the Sea, et al

Motion Hearing
5/18/2007
09:00:00
Courtroom 15
(Source: https://www.justicepartners.monterey.courts.ca.gov/Public/)


Checks
Carmel-by-the-Sea
April 2007 Check Register
(Includes Checks Dated 3/27/07)

112871 4/20/07 WILLIAM'S ROOFING COMPANY $ 3,960.00 REPAIRS TO FLANDERS MANSION ROOF
(Source: http://www.ci.carmel.ca.us/)

PART II (of II): Timeline & Context for Forest & Beach Commission Actions at 5 April 2007 Meeting

TIMELINE:

I. March 2007: Forest & Beach Commission receipt of "An Overview of Trees in the City of Carmel"

Forest & Beach Commission receipt of their commissioned report, “An Overview of Trees in the City of Carmel,” by Consulting Arborist Barrie D. Coate. The report recommends “Replacement of mature Monterey Pines with several species which mature at 70-100’ tall” and “Development of an acceptable list of replacement species, accompanied by quality standards fro purchasing, installation and maintenance of those trees.”

Note: The report does not indicate an understanding or appreciation of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s traditions, forest or Local Coastal Program as it pertains to tree and forestry issues.

II. 5 April 2007: FOREST AND BEACH COMMISSION MEETING

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
FOREST AND BEACH COMMISSION
MINUTES
5 April 2007

ROLL CALL:
PRESENT:
Nancy John
Peggy Miller
Tad Pritchett
Bob Tierney

ABSENT:
Kathleen Coss

STAFF PRESENT:
Mike Branson, City Forester
Stephanie Pearce, Administrative Coordinator

APPLICATIONS/PUBLIC HEARINGS
Consideration of an application to remove two (20” and 25” dbh) Monterey pine trees due to damage to the retaining walls. The site is located on Dolores 3 NE of 1st. The applicant is Natalie Taggart.

Chairperson MILLER moved to approve the removal of the two trees, plus the diseased tree recommended for removal by City Forester Mike Branson, and to require planting three 5 gallon Canary Pine trees in the back yard, seconded by Commission Member PRITCHETT and carried by the following roll call vote:

AYES: JOHN, PRITCHETT, TIERNEY, MILLER
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: COSS

Consideration of an application to remove one 24” dbh Monterey pine tree growing on City property to resurface the driveway. The site is located on the SE corner of Carpenter & 5th . The applicants and Sharon and Larry De St. Jeor.

Commission Member PRITCHETT moved to approve the removal of the tree, and to require planting a replacement 5 gallon Canary Pine in a location further away from the power lines, seconded by Chairperson MILLER and carried by the following roll call vote:

AYES: JOHN, PRITCHETT, MILLER
NOES: TIERNEY
ABSENT: COSS

Consideration of an application to remove 1-9” cypress tree, 1-48” dbh eucalyptus, 1-32” dbh eucalyptus and 1-28” dbh Monterey pine tree to enhance safety, vitality and beauty of the Urban Forest, and prune dead and intertwining branches of 4 additional trees. All trees are growing on public property. The site is located on the NE corner of San Antonio and 7th Av. The applicant is Mr. and Mrs. Samuel Dodson; the applicant is Nancy Porteous-Thomas.

Chairperson MILLER moved to approve the removal of the four trees and to require planting two 24” box Canary Pine trees on 7th and one standard 24” box Coast Live Oak tree on San Antonio; to recommend removal of soil under the eucalyptus trees and replace it with top soil and to allow pruning of the Cypress trees adjacent to the property, seconded by Commission Member PRITCHETT and carried by the following roll call vote:

AYES: PRITCHETT, TIERNEY, MILLER
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: COSS, JOHN

III. 3 May 2007: FOREST AND BEACH COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING

CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
COMMISSION MEMBERS:
PEGGY MILLER, CHAIRPERSON
KATHLEEN COSS
NANCY JOHN
TAD PRITCHETT (ABSENT)
BOB TIERNEY

REPORTS FROM STAFF
Receive verbal report from City Forester regarding the Coastal Commission’s position on tree replacement plantings and compliance with the Local Coastal Plan.

City Forester Mike Branson received a call from California Coastal Commission Staff Member Mike Watson about concerns over a city change in forest policy with the substitution of Canary Island Pines for removed Monterey Pine trees. Branson assured Mike Watson that there had been no change in tree policy. However, Branson only vaguely alluded to the April meeting when the Forest & Beach Commissioner Members approved Canary Island Pine trees for all 3 “approved for removal” Monterey Pine trees.. Branson then alluded to the belief that “resistant” Monterey Pine trees were difficult to acquire and that they were only available as seedlings. When questioned, Branson stated that he had contacted Rana Creek Nursery and Rana has available 5 gallon and 15 gallon pitch canker “resistant” Monterey Pine trees.

Note: Rana Creek Nursery’s web site includes a Download Plant Availability List; Pinus radiata appear, as follows:

30250 Pinus radiata 15 Gallon $ 60.00
30271 Pinus radiata Super Cell $ 0.00
30282 Pinus radiata 5 Gallon $ 20.00
31360 Pinus radiata 24" Box $ 150.00

Whereas, Pinus canariensis (Canary Island Pine) is not available.

Reference:
Rana Creek Nursery
35351 East Carmel Valley Road Carmel Valley CA 93924
Phone: (831) 659-3820 Fax: (831) 659-4851 Website: www.ranacreek.com

Apparently, Mike Watson also communicated to City Forester Mike Branson that native tree species, i.e., Monterey Pine, Monterey Cypress and Coast Live Oak, be approved for planting for replacement of dead, diseased or removed trees as described in the Local Coastal Program, not non-native species. Moreover, Mike Watson stated that he would provide writen documentation to that effect for the Forest & Beach Commission Members. Branson either declined or did not give the documentation from the California Coastal Commission Staff Member to the Forest & Beach Commissioners at the public meeting.

Comment:
That the Forest & Beach Commission Members and City Forester did not recognize that their actions at the April 2007 meeting constituted a policy change is indicative of a holistic ignorance of Carmel-by-the-Sea's traditions, Municipal Code and Local Coastal Program.

PART I (of II): Timeline & Context for Forest & Beach Commission Actions at 5 April 2007 Meeting

Herewith is a Forest & Beach Commission commissioned report, “An Overview of Trees in the City of Carmel,” by Consulting Arborist Barrie D. Coate.

BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES
Horticultural Consultants
23535 Summit Road
Los Gatos, CA. 95033
408/353-1052

An Overview of Trees in the City of Carmel

Prepared for Kathleen Coss
Carmel Forest and Beach Commission
P.O. Box 4673
Carmel, CA. 93921

Prepared by Barrie D. Coate
Consulting Arborist
March 22, 2007


An Overview of Trees in the City of Carmel

It is not an exaggeration to state that the general condition of trees in the City of Carmel is deteriorating fairly rapidly, nor is it an exaggeration to state that Carmel will not be as attractive either to residents or to visitors within a fairly short period unless significant, municipally supported steps are taken to reverse the tree decline where possible or alternatively to plant new trees of appropriate species as part of an organized program on an ongoing, long term basis.

The mature, 90’ tall Monterey Pines, which form the skyline character in postcards of Carmel from the 1940’s, are dying off, primarily due to infection by pine pitch canker disease, leaving large gaps in the municipal tree canopy.

Unfortunately, the drama involved in the loss of this large a tree usually steals the show from the gradual decline of the other most frequently encountered native, tree, Coast Live Oak. Between severe infestation of Oak Leaf Caterpillar larvae, Fruit Tree Leaf roller larvae, Oak mildew disease and witches broom disease damage, our native Oaks have a very hard life.

When they are planted in very small spaces which severely restrict their roots’ access to oxygen and water and those species are further restricted by expansion of pavement, it should no be surprising that these natural and man-made stresses combine to result in loss of more growth annually that they can replace.

A program designed to address these subjects is urgently needed, which includes:

1) Replacement of mature Monterey Pines with several species which mature at 70-100’ tall.

2) Deep, voluminous irrigation of the Oaks in restricted soil spaces.

3) Pest control for Oaks which are most severely stressed.

4) Control over the quality of pruning of at least publicly owned trees.

5) Development of an acceptable list of replacement species, accompanied by quality standards fro purchasing, installation and maintenance of those trees.

6) Assignment of a well trained person or persons to the responsibility of irrigation and pruning of newly installed trees, using the latest recommended procedures.

Respectfully submitted,


Barrie D. Coate

March 22, 2007


Questions:

1. Why did the Forest & Beach Commission and Acting City Forester commission a non-local, “consulting arborist” to complete “An Overview of Trees in the City of Carmel?”

2. Why didn’t the Forest & Beach Commission and Acting City Forester commission Friends of Carmel Forest, a local, more knowledgeable and informed group about Carmel-by-the-Sea’s traditions, forest and Local Coastal Program as it pertains to forestry and tree issues to complete “An Overview of Trees in the City of Carmel?”

Another Example of Mayor McCloud’s Flagrant Violation of the Municipal Code

Monterey Cypress Trees at Carmel Beach
Scenic Road
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA.

Carmel by-the-Sea
Forest & Beach Commission

Peggy Miller- Chairperson
Nancy John
Kathleen Coss
Tad Pritchett
Bob Tierney
Mike Branson, City Staff Member

Prompted by notification to the City and City Attorney Don Freeman of a vacancy on the Forest & Beach Commission, Mayor Sue McCloud stated that there was "no vacancy,” but admitted that Forest & Beach Commission Chairperson Peggy Miller was “living in Carmel Valley.”

Since Peggy Miller is no longer a resident of Carmel-by-the-Sea, it is incumbent on her to resign her position forthwith and for the Mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea is fulfill her duties and responsibilities with respect to the municipal code and advertise for a vacancy on the Forest & Beach Commission.

Note: Forest & Beach Commissioner Nancy John is a resident of Carmel Point. Per the municipal code, only one member can be a non-resident of Carmel-by-the-Sea. (Reference 2.32.020 B. and 2.32.040 A., at end of post)

Peggy Miller’s “Sale Pending” Carmel-by-the-Sea Residence:

25951 Ridgewood Rd.
Carmel, CA.

$4,295,000 Sale Pending

Ben Heinrich (831) 626-2434
ben@benheinrich.com
http://www.benheinrich.com
Carole Heinrich (831) 626-2452
THE HEINRICH TEAM
Broker Sales Associate
Certified Residential Specialist
Coldwell Banker
3775 Via Nona Marie
Po Box 22070
Carmel, CA 93923

For more information, click on post title above or copy, paste and click
http://www.californiamoves.com/property/propertydetails.aspx?propertyguid=7988348b-3aac-4c39-a9be-1bb477a1b893&PropSearch=0&qstext=ridgewood&sort1=listprice&sortord=D&rpp=10&page=1

COMMENTS:

Either Mayor Sue McCloud is ignorant of the Municipal Code or she believes that she does not have to uphold her oath of office and abide by the Municipal Code. Either way, another reason why Mayor McCloud is unfit for the mayorship.

Furthermore, Mayor McCloud exhibits the behavioral habit pattern of interjecting non-germane items into her explanations as a form of distraction. For example, she stated Peggy Miller’s house is “in escrow but we don't know if the sale will go through;” per the Municipal Code, the issue is not whether a city commissioner has a property in escrow, rather the issue is whether the city commissioner is a RESIDENT of Carmel-by-the-Sea. And apparently, Forest & Beach Commissioner Peggy Miller has been living in Carmel Valley.

In short, Mayor Sue McCloud’s use of distraction is a form of deception and deceit and a reason why she is unfit for the mayorship or any other elected office.


References:
Carmel by-the-Sea
Appointment Procedure and Policy
Appointments to Commissions and Boards

Appointments to all City Boards, and Commissions are established by the City's Municipal Code as Mayoral appointments with confirmation by the City Council.

Posting and Notification of Vacancies

State law presently requires that an annual posting prior to December 31 of all appointive terms on Boards and Commissions which are scheduled to expire within the next year. The posting is available to anyone at any time. Present law requires unscheduled vacancies (resignations, etc.) to be advertised within twenty days after the occurrence of the vacancy and prohibits appointment to the vacancy within ten days of the public notice.

1. The following additional practices to facilitate appointments are adopted:

2. The City Clerk shall maintain a file containing all applications for appointive positions. All applications for Boards and Commissions must be made on a form provided by the City Clerk.

• Immediately following each municipal election, the City Clerk shall provide to the newly elected Mayor and Council Members a book of all current applications for appointment to Boards and Commissions. Additions and deletions will be submitted to the Mayor and Council on an ongoing basis.

• Throughout the year, copies of each new application or withdrawal of application received will be given to the Mayor, Council Member, the City Administrator, and the appropriate Commission Chairperson and Department Head.

3. Applications will be maintained in an active file for no longer than three years. The City Clerk shall send a letter to each person whose application becomes outdated to ascertain if the applicant wishes to file a new form for placement in the active files.

4. The City Clerk shall acknowledge all applicants.

5. Thirty days before a scheduled vacancy occurs, and upon receipt of an unscheduled vacancy, the City Clerk shall notify the Mayor, Council members, the Board/Commission Chairperson and appropriate Department Head of the upcoming vacancy.

6. A member of a Board or Commission whose term is scheduled to expire must file a new application if she/he wishes to be considered for reappointment. The application will be mailed to the incumbent three weeks or more prior to the expiration date of her/his term.

7. All resignations from Boards and Commissions shall be in writing and filed with the City Clerk. A Notice of Unscheduled Vacancy will not be posted until a written letter of resignation is received by the City Clerk.

Appointment Procedure

1. City Council Members may provide the Mayor a written list of up to two choices (with supporting statements) to fill the vacancy. Chairpersons of Boards and Commissions may also provide the Mayor with their recommendations.

2. The Mayor shall forward to the City Council a list of her nominees one week prior to the meeting.

3. Appointments shall be confirmed by a majority vote of those present at the Council meeting at which the appointments have been scheduled.

Oath of Office

1. The Oath of Office will be administered by the City Clerk at the next meeting of the applicable Board/Commission.

2. The City Clerk shall present a Certificate of Appointment to each new appointee.

Chapter 2.32
FOREST AND BEACH COMMISSION

2.32.020 Membership and Criteria for Appointment.

A. The Forest and Beach Commission shall consist of five members, each of whom shall be appointed to serve a four-year term.

B. A two-thirds majority of the members of the Forest and Beach Commission shall be residents of the City, and the remainder may be residents of the City’s sphere of influence.

C. Membership shall be representative of persons who have an interest in, or familiarity with, the City’s parks and open space. (Ord. 2000-05 § 2, 2000; Ord. 95-5 § 2, 1995; Ord. 91-19 § 2, 1991; Ord. 88-12 § 1 (Exh. A), 1988; Ord. 77-27 § 1(a), 1977; Ord. 213 C.S. § 1, 1970; Code 1975 § 270).

2.32.030 Appointment Process.

A. Members of the Forest and Beach Commission shall be nominated by the Mayor, whose nomination shall be ratified by at least three of the five members of the City Council.

B. Terms of members shall be staggered so that at least two terms, but no more than three terms, shall expire in any one year. Appointments shall be, where possible, made prior to the beginning of the term of office, in order that the new member(s) shall be able to become familiar with the functions of the commission. Terms of office for new members shall begin at the commencement of the first regular meeting in the month of October of the appropriate year. Terms of outgoing members shall end simultaneously. The newly appointed member(s) shall be sworn in by the City Clerk.

C. In the event an appointment cannot be made in a timely manner, the City Council, with the consent of the incumbent, may extend the incumbent’s term for up to 90 days. (Ord. 93-8 § 1, 1993; Ord. 91-19 § 2, 1991; Ord. 89-3 § 2, 1989; Ord. 88-12 § 1 (Exh. A), 1988; Ord. 77-27 § 1(b), 1977; Ord. 142 C.S. § 2, 1967; Code 1975 § 281.1).

2.32.040 Termination of Members.

Members of the Forest and Beach Commission shall be terminated only under the following circumstances:

A. The member ceases to be a resident of the City, thereby causing less than a two-thirds majority of the commission to be residents of the City.

B. The member is ill or absent from the City and unable to attend three consecutive regular commission meetings, but fails to so notify either the Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, or the Director of Forest, Parks and Beach.

C. The member, when neither ill nor absent from the City, fails to attend three consecutive regular commission meetings.

D. The member is terminated by a majority vote of the City Council. (Ord. 95-5 § 2, 1995; Ord. 93-8 § 1, 1993; Ord. 91-19 § 2, 1991; Ord. 89-3 § 2, 1989; Ord. 88-12 § 1 (Exh. A), 1988; Ord. 77-27 § 1(b), 1977; Ord. 142 C.S. § 2, 1967; Code 1975 § 281.1).