Friday, August 31, 2007

The Future of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s Fire Department? FIRE DEPARTMENT CONSOLIDATION FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS FOR THE CITIES MONTEREY, PACIFIC GROVE & CARMEL

• ABSTRACT: The cities of Monterey, Pacific Grove and Carmel-by-the-Sea retained CITYGATE ASSOCIATES, LLC, “to conduct a high level assessment of the feasibility to fully or partially consolidate their fire agencies.” The analysis includes Findings #1 – 21 and Recommendations #1-3. Regardless of consolidation or no consolidation, CITYGATE recommends that the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea add a “3rd full-time firefighter to the engine every day to staff this unit more effectively and at a level comparable to its neighboring fire departments.” The additional cost would be $400,000/year to the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. Since small fire departments are “no longer viable in providing fully effective emergency services,” CITYGATE recommends that “Carmel, Pacific Grove and Monterey strongly consider forming a Fire Services Joint Powers Authority...merge the fire management teams of the three cities...and conduct long range planning necessary to actually merge the operating portions” of the fire departments.

FIRE DEPARTMENT CONSOLIDATION FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS FOR THE CITIES OF MONTEREY, PACIFIC GROVE AND CARMEL
Final Report
June 12, 2007
CITYGATE ASSOCIATES, LLC
MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS
FOLSOM (SACRAMENTO), CA.


The cities of Monterey, Pacific Grove and Carmel-by-the-Sea retained Citygate Associates, LLC, “to conduct a high level assessment of the feasibility to fully or partially consolidate their fire agencies.”

Citygate views this “three city fire consolidation as a very cost effective way to improve the coordination, command, and control of fire services.”

FINDINGS #1 – #21:
Finding # 1: The availability of volunteers in communities like those on the Monterey Peninsula is rapidly diminishing and is not likely to provide an effective long-term solution to the need for readily available and trained firefighters.

Finding #2: Today’s regulations, responsibilities and competencies mean that a minimum command staff of seven chief officers – one fire chief, an assistant chief, three shift supervising chiefs, a training officer and a fire marshal, supported by clerical staff and inspectors can manage a five-station department. This represents a significant reduction from the number required in each city to separately administer that city’s fire department.

Finding #3: Given the current fire station spacing and topography, there is not an opportunity in a consolidation to re-locate or share fire stations, thus lowering the number of firefighters on-duty.

Finding #4: Given the considerable sharing that already exists at the operational levels, the three cultures have already taken many of the needed steps to operate more as one department.

Finding #5: Among all three agencies, the equipment and special training exists to a substantial degree to handle the risks present in the combined department area.

Finding #6: The three cultures understand the need to discuss in a positive format a consolidation and know if the technical details can be solved without harming the three cities’ services, that in the long run, a consolidated department has more positives than negatives.

Finding #7: Due to revenue limitations in all three cities, none of the departments has an adequately staffed fire prevention and public education function.

Finding #8: Due to city size and revenue limitations, even Monterey does not have the needed compliment of chief officers for a small department and should add a full-time fire marshal position. Given residency and increasing technical requirements on chief officers, both Carmel and Pacific Grove will have trouble replacing and maintaining a well-trained and adequately sized chief officer team.

Finding #9: A consolidation of the headquarters functions of the three cities would provide enough personnel that could more effectively handle both the field command and the specialty assignments than is presently done by each city separately or through the current contract arrangement.

Finding #10: If a full consolidation occurred, there are enough office support (clerical) positions to adequately support the combined command and fire prevention functions. Over the long-term, if Carmel and Pacific Grove could agree to one consolidated headquarters office location in a three-department consolidation, perhaps one half to one of the office support positions could be transferred away.

Finding #11: A consolidation of headquarters positions would not only save significant money for all three cities, but there would be a significant increase in supervision and program effectiveness by combining for the common benefit the existing headquarters staff.

Finding #12: The difference in retirement rates paid by the three cities is largely due to a difference in side fund obligation. If the cities decide to merge all or part of their fire departments, the disparate impact of this side fund obligation can be relieved by Carmel and Monterey funding this through a bond issue as Pacific Grove has already done.

Finding #13: A merger of either all employees or even simply a merger of headquarters units of the three cities will necessitate consideration with the employees of how to combine the different benefit structures. This is a “meet and confer” obligation for each city and may result in all of the cities agreeing to a higher benefit than they now provide in one or more of the benefit categories.

Finding #14: While combining or merging benefits from each of the cities could represent an added cost, once we compared the combination of salary and benefits for each category, we found that the added cost is not likely to be an overall significant number.

Finding #15: Carmel experiences a lower total cost for its 6 full-time fire safety personnel than do Monterey or Pacific Grove for their combined 63 line staff. The apparent difference as well between Monterey and Pacific Grove is partially due to a difference in the way each agency funds benefits, so that the actual difference to employees may depend on the tax status of each employee.

Finding #16: A merger of line and/or headquarters fire personnel will require some adjustment in cost for each city. However, as this report illustrates in a later section, the total cost of at least a single headquarters unit will be less than what is spent in combination by all three cities and represent a savings to each city even if the salaries and benefits paid to headquarters personnel is at the level of the highest paying city.

Finding #17: Without the reduction of personnel, there would little savings and the salaries and benefits for line personnel of the merged fire department would likely be that of the highest paying agency at the time of merger.

Finding #18: While there will be little, if any dollar cost savings from line merger, the three cities can expect an improvement in operational response to emergencies, employee retention and promotion opportunities.

Finding #19: Merged headquarters functions will save $1,300,000 at current salary and benefits compared to the staffing level that will be needed if each agency operates a separate fire department. In addition to the cost savings, the operational improvements argue in favor of merging all of the headquarters functions into a single unit.

Finding #20: A cost formula can be devised which will result is significant cost savings to each city. The more critical issue is the perception of “fairness” that each city has for the formulas.

Finding #21: Far more important than fiscal considerations are the operational advantages of consolidation and the creation of a fire department that is sized to provide effective service throughout the three-city area well into the foreseeable future.

RECOMMENDATIONS #1 - #3
Recommendation #1: The best-fit governance model for this consolidation effort would be Joint Powers Authority. The JPA Board’s powers would be limited in the JPA agreement so that the Board could not unilaterally impose costs on the cities without their advice and co-ratification.

Recommendation #2: Regardless of whether the three cities consolidate fire operations, Carmel and Monterey should pay off their CalPERS side fund obligation by issue bonds at a lower interest rate than is being charged by CalPERS.

Recommendation #3: Merge the fire management teams of the three cities to provide an immediate improvement in management support services and the structure to conduct the long range planning necessary to actually merge the operating portion of the three city fire services.

For the complete CITYGATE Feasibility Study, click on Post title above or copy, paste and click http://www.monterey.org/fire/news/feasibilitystudy.pdf

NOTES:
•The Citygate Associates, LLC Executive Summary includes Findings #2, #3, #4, #9, #16, #17, #18, #19 and Recommendations #1, #2, #3, inclusive. (Bold-type above)

• The report notes that all three cities have a “long and proud tradition of providing fire services.” It notes Carmel’s “early reliance upon, and continued participate of,” volunteer firefighters, which is increasingly problematic.

• “Of the departments reviewed in this study, Carmel has the most 'fragile' line firefighter staffing situation and, regardless of consolidation, should strive to add a 3rd full-time firefighter to the engine every day to staff this unit more effectively and at a level comparable to its neighboring fire departments;” Added cost would be $400,000/year to the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.

• “Carmel has no management staff members of its own and likely would have trouble, given its size and fiscal situation, in recruiting several chief officers.”

• Carmel has limited clerical support positions, given the size of the department and the fiscal situation.

• As for Fire Prevention services, “all three fire departments are individually thin. Carmel contracts out new fire construction issues.”

• Carmel contracts with Pacific Grove for chief officer assistance and is working on contracting with Monterey for daily incident command coverage.

• The main drawback to headquarters consolidation of these three fire departments is “geography and road network.”

• “There is clear recognition that neither operationally nor with appropriate cost effectiveness can Carmel maintain its own fire headquarters function basically from now on.”

• Using 2006/07 salaries and benefits, Carmel “experiences a lower cost for fire safety personnel.”

• Estimated saving to the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, $357,530.

• “The fiscal, legal and operational changes in the fire service make small departments no longer viable in providing fully effective emergency services.”

• Citygate recommends that “Carmel, Pacific Grove and Monterey strongly consider forming a Fire Services Joint Powers Authority...Merge the fire management teams of the three cities...and conduct long range planning necessary to actually merge the operating portions” of the fire departments.

REFERENCE:
M I N U T E S
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MONTEREY
MONDAY, June 18, 2007
6:00 – 8:00 P.M.
Monterey Conference Center, Ferrante Room
MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA

City Council Special Meeting Minutes June 18, 2007

1. Report and Discussion on Fire Department Consolidation Feasibility Study for the Cities of Carmel, Monterey, and Pacific Grove (Fire)

Pacific Grove Fire Chief Miller introduced the staff report, giving a brief history of the shared services agreements between the cities. Dwane Milnes, Citygate Associates, presented the results of the Fire Department Consolidation Feasibility Analysis. Stewart Gary, Citygate Associates, presented additional details of the report.

Mr. Gary and Mr. Milnes answered the City Councils’ questions with regard to advantages and difficulties of consolidation.

Mayor Della Sala opened the floor for public comments. Charles Carter, Monterey, said that Monterey would be the biggest loser in a consolidation situation. John Fischer, Pacific Grove, raised questions regarding specialized equipment and risks. Char Carter, Monterey, questioned bringing three bureaucracies together and said that she does not believe in regional government.

August Beecham, Carmel Fire Department, agreed with the findings in the report and encouraged the Councils to continue the study. David Potter, Monterey Fire Division Chief, spoke in support of continuing to study the consolidation, noting the increasing number of calls and saying that each of the departments could do a better job by working together. Having no further requests to speak, Mayor Della Sala closed public comment on the item.

Monterey City Manager Meurer clarified that fire-fighting efforts are already a regional team effort without the benefits of a consolidated headquarters. He said that it is important to manage the risks. On question, Mr. Milnes explained the side fund obligations for each city. Mayor Della Sala clarified that no reduction in the number of fire stations is anticipated in a merged department. Pacific Grove Councilmember Bennett clarified that she anticipates that Pacific Grove paid volunteers would continue to serve.

Carmel Mayor McCloud thanked the City of Monterey for arranging the meeting. She noted that major metropolitan areas such as San Jose have only one fire department. Monterey Mayor Della Sala summarized the information that was presented, saying that this is an opportunity for a sustainable model for the future, and that it would be adaptable to changes.

Pacific Grove Mayor Cort thanked the Councils for coming together to collaborate. He said that he was proud to see Pacific Grove’s fire truck on Alvarado during the recent fire.

ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the City Councils, Mayor Della Sala adjourned the meeting at 7:59 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
_____________________________ ___________________________
Bonnie L. Gawf, City Clerk Chuck Della Sala, Mayor

(Source: http://www.monterey.org/ccncl/minutes/2007/070618mspjt.pdf)

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

1 of 3 Replacement Trees in Commercial District a "Preferred Tree"


Location: North side 6th Av. between Dolores St. & Lincoln St.
Olea europaea – “Olive
Lower Canopy Tree, Evergreen.
A medium sized evergreen tree (25-30 feet). willow like foliage is a soft gray green that combines well with most colors. With time, these trees develop into a round dome shape and have interesting gnarled trunks. Needs full sun and are tolerant of most soils. Plant fruitless variety to avoid messy litter. (Lower canopy tree).
(Source: Forest Management Plan, Appendix G, CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA RECOMMENDED TREE SPECIES LIST)


Location: North side 8th Av. between Mission St. & San Carlos St.
Robinia pseudoacacia – “Black Locust
Lower Canopy Tree, Deciduous
Fast growth to 40-70 feet with rather open, sparse-branching habit. Thorny branchlets and showy flowers form grape-like clusters. A very aggressive tree which tolerates the most adverse conditions. (Lower canopy tree).
(Source: Forest Management Plan, Appendix G, CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA RECOMMENDED TREE SPECIES LIST)


Location: East side San Carlos St. between Ocean Av. & 7th Av.
Pinus radita – “Monterey Pine
Upper Canopy Tree, Evergreen
An attractive pine that creates the forested character of our village. A fast growing native species, which naturally occurs along the coast of central California, and can rapidly attain 70-100 feet. It is best suited to coastal landscapes where it becomes drought tolerant. Monterey pine has the form of a pyramid, but at maturity develops a rounded or flattish crown. Accepts lots of water, but can get overgrown and die at early ages, therefore, watering should be limited to the first few years after planting. (Native, evergreen, upper canopy tree).
(Source: Forest Management Plan, Appendix G, CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA RECOMMENDED TREE SPECIES LIST)

COMMENTS:
The three trees photographed above are the most recently planted trees in the commercial district. In the case of the Olive tree, the original tree species is unknown. The Locust tree replaced a damaged, broken trunk Locust tree. And the Monterey Pine tree replaced a pest infested, dead Japanese Black Pine tree.

Even though the City’s Municipal Code and Local Coastal Program, including Appendix G, Forest Management Plan, state unequivocally that the planting of native Monterey Pine, Coast Live Oaks and Monterey Cypress are the preferred trees, as in the example above, only 1 of 3 replacement trees is a preferred tree.

The Municipal Code recognizes the “dominant Monterey Pine forest.” Moreover, for tree removal and replacement, “particular emphasis shall be placed on maintaining a significant population of native Monterey Pine, coast live oaks and Monterey Cypress on a City-wide basis.”

The Forest Management Plan recognizes that “Monterey pines (Pinus radiata) and cypresses (Cypressus macrocarpa) are the primary upper canopy trees of the forest and the planting of these species shall receive the greatest priority in appropriate situations. Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) is the preferred lower canopy tree.”

Furthermore, elements of the Land Use Plan state, as follows:

G5-4 Preserve and enhance the City's legacy of an urbanized forest of
predominantly Monterey pine, coast live oak and Monterey Cypress. (LUP)

P5-58 Maintain, restore and enhance a predominantly indigenous forest of native Monterey pines and coast live oaks. (LUP)

P5-63 Manage the tree-planting program to achieve an uneven-aged, healthy forest with particular emphasis on native Monterey pines and coast live oaks. (LUP)

And while it is understood that “a healthy forest requires a variety of tree species to preclude a single disease from causing irreversible damage,” the City and Acting City Forester could emphasis the planting of the three preferred trees, namely Monterey Pine, Coast Live Oak and Monterey Cypress. As this example illustrates, it appears that the City is not implementing the City’s Land Use Plan and Municipal Code with respect to tree replacement species; rather the City appears to have a poorly understood and haphazard method of planting trees in Carmel-by-the-Sea.

REFERENCES:
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Municipal Code
Chapter 17.48
TREES AND SHRUBS


17.48.010 Purpose.
The City Council finds that in order to preserve windbreaks, reduce soil erosion, and preserve the natural beauty of the City’s urbanized forest, it is necessary to maintain the extent and health of the dominant Monterey Pine forest, along with other native tree species and adopts this chapter in the interest of public health and safety. (Ord. 2004-02 § 1, 2004; Ord. 2004-01 § 1, 2004).

17.48.080 Tree Removal and Replacement.
3. Tree Species. Replacement trees shall be the same species as the removed tree or another species listed on the Tree Species List and as approved by the City Forester except that particular emphasis shall be placed on maintaining a significant population of native Monterey Pine, coast live oaks and Monterey Cypress on a City-wide basis. Replacement Monterey Pine trees shall be of local genetic stock.

4. Tree Quality. Replacement trees shall be of substantial size, caliper, and height to produce an immediate visual impact and reduce the incidence of unauthorized removal. Replacement trees shall be a minimum 24-inch box size except for Monterey Pines which shall be a minimum 15-gallon size. Larger sizes may be required by the Forest and Beach Commission, the Planning Commission or the Design Review Board based in specific design considerations applicable to the project. The City Forester may authorize the use of smaller sizes when trees meeting these standards, or meeting specific conditions of approval, are unavailable.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA RECOMMENDED TREE SPECIES LIST

Selected excerpts, as follows:

The goal of the Forest and Beach Commission is to manage that operation for the improvement of the urban forest and the quality of life of the City’s residents.

Our forest is based on the concept of a two-story canopy consisting of native and indigenous trees and is one that the Commission feels is essential for the continuation of Carmel’s forest. Monterey pines (Pinus radiata) and cypresses (Cypressus macrocarpa) are the primary upper canopy trees of the forest and the planting of these species shall receive the greatest priority in appropriate situations. Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) is the preferred lower canopy tree. In general, the native indigenous trees (pine, cypress, and oaks) will do well planted at any location throughout the City.

General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Coastal Resource Management Element
Carmel-by-the-Sea Page 5-23
Urban Forests, Parks and Open Spaces


Selected excerpts, as follows:

G5-4 Preserve and enhance the City's legacy of an urbanized forest of
predominantly Monterey pine, coast live oak and Monterey Cypress. (LUP)

P5-52 Commit resources necessary to support the forest, parks and beach programs. (LUP)

O5-10 Maintain a Citywide map and database of trees and landscaped areas to support tree planting and maintenance programs. (LUP)

P5-53 Complete a Citywide survey and database update every four years. Compile the data by size of tree and species in an electronic format. Also survey replacement trees required by permit conditions of approval. Report survey information and the status of replacement trees to the Forest and Beach Commission and Planning Commission at the conclusion of each yearly survey. Continue to monitor replacement trees for at least one survey cycle (i.e., 4
years). (LUP)

O5-11 Maintain, restore and enhance the upper and lower tree canopy of Carmel's urbanized forest. (LUP)

P5-56 Establish and implement tree canopy policies for the commercial district. (LUP)

P5-57 Maintain a list of tree species that could qualify as indigenous upper and lower canopy trees, for the purposes of meeting tree density and replacement policies. (LUP)

P5-58 Maintain, restore and enhance a predominantly indigenous forest of native Monterey pines and coast live oaks. (LUP)

P5-62 Use tree species and sizes well adapted for each planting site.
(LUP)

P5-63 Manage the tree-planting program to achieve an uneven-aged, healthy forest with particular emphasis on native Monterey pines and coast live oaks. (LUP)

O5-13 Perform all tree work and landscaping within the City in accordance with City codes and policies and uniform planting practices that reflect the best current knowledge of tree and plant care. (LUP)

P5-73 Require that all City departments, utility companies, tree service companies, arborists, landscapers and gardeners adhere to the adopted Tree Maintenance Standards policies and guidelines. (LUP)

O5-14 Maintain a healthy forest.

P5-80 Plant native Monterey pine seedlings of different genotypes to maximize resistance to diseases and make these seedlings available to the public. (LUP)

G5-5 Maintain and enhance the informality of streetscapes. (LUP)

O5-17 Use mini-parks and islands for planting trees, with an emphasis on native Monterey Pines, oaks, and other native vegetation. (LUP)

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

Why do Carmel’s voters support a mayor and city council members, who treat them as, at best, second class citizens?

In an attempt to address the question of an Anonymous Commentator, The Carmel-by-the-Sea WATCHDOG! posits the following:

There are at least four “types” of Carmelites:

I. Apathetic Carmelites

Carmelites not directly affected by the actions of city government and not interested in the day-to-day affairs of their government.

II. Uninformed and Misinformed Carmelites

Carmelites who read and believe the city’s, specifically Mayor McCloud’s, propaganda as regurgitated and unverified in news articles and editorial commentaries in The Monterey County Herald and The Carmel Pine Cone without subsequent corrections.

III. Supporters of the Mayor & City Council Members who have directly and personally been unfairly and unjustly treated, but still support the Mayor and City Council Members

Carmelites who have personally experienced the unsupportable, unfair, capricious and unreasonable decisions of the City Council, yet still support the Mayor and City Council Members because they do not expect politicians to strive to honor the ideals of public service.

IV. Informed and knowledgeable Carmelites who place political correctness and misguided niceties ahead of confronting that which makes them uncomfortable e.g. abuse of governmental power; failure to understand principles of “open government;” subjective and personal motivations instead of objective, rational and reasoned thought and actions, et cetera

Carmelites who succumb to an aspect of human nature; and that is, they rather deny or condone actions which would make them extremely uncomfortable if directly confronted.

The Carmel-by-the-Sea WATCHDOG!’s aim, through postings and other individuals’ comments, is to empower Carmelites with facts, documentation, context and diverse thoughts, ideas and opinions on the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.

As the founders of this country believed, our form of government will only be protected by a well-informed electorate. To that end, the totality of the Blog can rectify the misinformation and disinformation purveyed by the media and persuade “Uninformed and Misinformed Carmelites.” However, the challenge for the Blog is to reach and persuade “Apathetic,” “unfairly and unjustly treated” and “Politically Correct” Carmelites.

Lastly, the Blog envisions a day when “Apathetic” Carmelites care enough about our city government to become well-informed, “Uninformed and Misinformed” Carmelites understand that the local media are merely purveyors of city government propaganda, “unfairly and unjustly treated” Carmelites expect and demand that their local representatives treat all citizens fairly and justly and “Politically Correct” Carmelites refrain from acting as enablers for those city government representatives whose conduct is unbecoming public servants. Only then will citizens get the city government all Carmelites deserve!

Monday, August 27, 2007

Tourism Expenditures In Context

City Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
August 7, 2007


VII. Consent Calendar
These matters include routine financial and administrative actions, which are usually approved by a single majority vote. Individual items may be removed from Consent by a member of the Council or the public for discussion and action.

D. Consideration of a Resolution entering into a Destination Marketing Agreement with Jeff Burghardt, President, Anda/Burghardt Advertising, Inc. for Economic Revitalization and Destination Marketing services in an amount not to exceed $60,000 for Economic Revitalization and $125,000 for Destination Marketing.

COMMENTS:
• City expenditures for tourism include, $125,000 for “Destination Marketing,” $60,000 for “Economic Revitalization,” “Economic Development and Marketing Director,” and $108,376/year for Monterey County Convention and Visitors Bureau (MCCVB) “marketing services.” Note: MCCVB figure is for FY 2006/07; anticipate higher cost for FY 2007/08.

• Total City Tourism Budget FY 2007/08: $293,376 annually. $308,600 budgeted for “Marketing and Economic Revitalization” per Adopted Budget.

• For context, compare $308,600 annually for "Marketing and Economic Revitalization" (FY 2007/08) vs. total department expenditures (FY 2007/08), as follows:

$ 308,445 Legal
$ 313,101 Information Services/Network Management
$ 328,574 Building Maintenance Services
$ 457,661 Forest, Parks and Beach

$ 13,094,894 TOTAL EXPENDITURES (FY 2007/08)
(Source: CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CALIFORNIA ADOPTED BUDGET FISCAL YEARS 2007/08 THROUGH 2009/10)

• Never in the history of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea has the City had record amounts for our annual budget (FY 2007/08 $13,094,894), Reserve Funds ($ 9.6 million), “marketing and economic revitalization” aka tourism promotion ($ 308,600). Yet from residents’ perspective, never has the City had a closed community center (Scout House) AND a cultural center which is no longer a “community center” (Sunset Center) AND a closed and publicly inaccessible National Register of Historic Places building (Flanders Mansion) AND a dilapidated and unkempt Forest Theater property AND an unused and non-maintained city park (Rio Park) AND poor streets, roads and avenues AND only now being rectified “flunked” fire hydrants and water lines AND an unfunded and non-existent tree and forest program for our senescent urbanized forest.

• Question: Does this state of affairs reflect a City Council and City Administration striving to honor the city credo, namely that “THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA is hereby determined to be primarily, a residential City” (Ordinance No. 96, 1929) or does it reflect a City Council and City Administration consumed in a vicious cycle of insatiable greed for greed’s sake?

REFERENCES:
City Council Minutes
Regular meeting
July 3, 2007

X. RESOLUTIONS

X.B. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to enter into a consulting agreement with Anda/Burghardt for the position of Economic Development and Marketing Director in an amount of $60,000 annually.

Council Member ROSE moved approval of the concept of a revised combined consulting agreement with Anda/Burghardt for the positions of Economic Development and Marketing Director with a required clear division of labor between the two positions for accounting purposes and measurement of results, seconded by Council Member TALMAGE and carried by the following roll call:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: HAZDOVAC, ROSE, TALMAGE
& McCLOUD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: CUNNINGHAM
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE


City Council Minutes
Regular meeting
September 12, 2006

VII. CONSENT CALENDAR

H. Consideration of a Resolution entering into an agreement with the Monterey County Convention and Visitors Bureau (MCCVB) for marketing services in an amount not to exceed $108,376 for Fiscal Year 2006-07.

Sunday, August 26, 2007

MORE Mayor McCloud Deceit, Deception & Dishonesty

ABSTRACT: At the City Council meeting, August 7, 2007, Carmelite Monte Miller stated during Appearances that he had “been told that the Mayor can’t meet with members of the public to discuss their concerns about the Leidig annexation project” and he wanted to know if this was true. After Appearances was closed, Mayor Sue McCloud stated, “I have had no request for a meet that I have responded to one way or the other.” Later, Mayor Sue McCloud said she had not turned down The Save Our Neighborhood Coalition. Yet, The Save Our Neighborhood Coalition stated The Save Our Neighborhood Coalition requested a meeting with her early this summer, but she declined citing the Brown Act. Needless to say, the Ralph M. Brown Act does not prohibit city officials from meeting with concerned citizens. Moreover, Mayor Sue McCloud appears to fail to possess the following qualities all “presiding officers” should possess; namely, honesty, credibility and good judgment.

City Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
August 7, 2007


VI. Appearances
Anyone wishing to address the City Council on matters within the jurisdiction of the City and are not on the agenda may do so now. Matters not appearing on the City Council’s agenda will not receive action at this meeting but may be referred to staff for a future meeting. Presentations will be limited to three (3) minutes, or as otherwise established by the City Council.

Carmelite Monte Miller stated, as follows:

“Mayor and Council. I have been opposed to this Leidig’s annexation. And lately I have been told that the Mayor can’t meet with members of the public to discuss their concerns about the Leidig annexation project. I’d like to know if this is true and if it’s so it’s very puzzling, I’d like to know why and whatever the reason is, I hope it can be changed because I think the public has a right to meet with their elected officials to express their concern. This is at every level of government. Thank you.”

After Appearances was closed, Mayor Sue McCloud stated, as follows:

“I have had no request for a meet that I have responded to one way or the other.”

COMMENTS:
•During a break in the meeting, Mayor Sue McCloud stated that she had not turned down the Coalition and furthermore she had tried to contact them by phone and they did not return her call.

• Yet, according to The Save Our Neighborhood Coalition, Mayor McCloud has not tried to contact them. Moreover, The Save Our Neighborhood Coalition requested a meeting with her early this summer, but she declined citing the Brown Act.

• CALIFORNIA CODES
GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 54950-54963

54950.5. This chapter shall be known as the Ralph M. Brown Act.

54952.2. (a) As used in this chapter, "meeting" includes any congregation of a majority of the members of a legislative body at the same time and place to hear, discuss, or deliberate upon any item that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body or the local agency to which it pertains.

(c) Nothing in this section shall impose the requirements of this chapter upon any of the following:
(1) Individual contacts or conversations between a member of a legislative body and any other person.
(Source: http://www.cfac.org/Law/BrownAct/Text/ba_text.html, California First Amendment Coalition)

“Individual contacts or communications between a member of a legislative body and any other person are specifically exempt from the definition of a meeting. (§ 54952.2(c)(1).) The purpose of this exception appears to be to protect the constitutional rights of individuals to contact their government representatives regarding issues which concern them.”
(Source: http://ag.ca.gov/publications/2003_Intro_BrownAct.pdf)

• Needless to say, the Ralph M. Brown Act does not prohibit city officials from meeting with citizens; indeed, the Brown Act recognizes the need to “protect the constitutional rights of individuals to contact their government representatives regarding issues which concern them.”

• Mayor Sue McCloud fails to honor a principle of parliamentary procedure, namely that the presiding officer must be a facilitator, not dictator.

• Finally, Mayor Sue McCloud fails to honor another Robert’s Rules of Order principle, namely, presiding officers must have the following qualities: honesty, credibility, neutrality, judgment and fairness.

Saturday, August 25, 2007

Sixth District Court of Appeal: Jurisdiction over Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, et al. if City Appeals Judge O’Farrell’s Decision

• ABSTRACT: Regarding The Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, et al., (M76728); the City has until 13 October 2007 to appeal Monterey County Superior Court Judge Robert O’Farrell’s decision. If the City appeals Judge O’Farrell’s decision, a panel of three justices of the Sixth District Court of Appeal, San Jose, will hear the case. The appellate court justices will only review the “written record to determine if the trial court properly interpreted the law and used the correct procedures when considering the case.” Their decision/written opinion will set forth the “facts and rules of law upon which the decision” was made and must be issued within 90 days after the case was taken under submission. According to Flanders Foundation attorney, the appellate court justices will probably hear the case in spring 2008.


CITY COUNCIL
Tour of Inspection
&
Closed Session
Monday, August 6, 2007


III. Adjournment to Closed Session at City Hall

Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956 et seq. of the State of California, the City Council will adjourn to Closed Session to consider the following:

A. Existing Litigation - Government Code Section 54956.9(a) -Conference with legal counsel regarding The Flanders Foundation, a California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation, Petitioner v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Respondents – Monterey County Superior Court Case No. M76728

COMMENTS:
If the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea decides to appeal Monterey County Superior Court Judge Robert O’Farrell’s decision, the court with jurisdiction over the case is the Sixth District Court of Appeal.

SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

Location and Contact Information
333 W. Santa Clara Street, Suite 1060
San Jose, CA 95113
Telephone: (408) 277-1004

Hours: 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M.

The Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District is located on the tenth floor of the Comerica Bank building at 333 West Santa Clara Street, Suite 1060, San Jose, CA 95113.

As of today, the City has not formally appealed. Since the filing of the judgment was delayed for “clerical reasons” at the Monterey County Superior Court, the City has until October 13, 2007 to file an appeal. If the City files an appeal, the Sixth Appellate Court will probably not hear the case until spring 2008.
(Source: Susan Brandt-Hawley, Attorney for Flanders Foundation, Plaintiff)

To Search California Appellate Court Cases of the 6th Appellate District, click on Post title above, and then Search by:
• Court of Appeal or Trial Court Case Number i.e. M76728
• Party i.e. Flanders Foundation
• Attorney i.e. Brandt-Hawley, Susan
• Case Caption i.e. Flanders Foundation, Carmel-by-the-Sea

Important Information to Know About Appellate Courts

• In most cases, the decision of the Court of Appeal is the final decision because the California Supreme Court grants review of only a few Court of Appeal decisions.

• Proceedings in appellate courts are different than proceedings in trial courts. In trail courts, as in this specific case, Judge Robert O’Farrell heard from the plaintiff’s attorney and the defendant’s attorney, reviewed exhibits and documents and later issued a decision. Appellate courts only review the “written record to determine if the trial court properly interpreted the law and used the correct procedures when considering the case.”

• Each appellate court case is considered by a panel of three justices. Appellate court justices review the parties’ written and oral arguments. Cases are decided by a majority of justices. Wherever an appellate court reverses a trail court decision, “it almost always allows the trial court to rehear the case using the correct law and procedures.”

• The California Constitution stipulates that the decision must be issued within 90 days after the case has been taken under submission; the written opinion sets forth the "facts and rules of law upon which the decision” was made.

Source: What Appellate Justice Do, http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/courtsofappeal/6thDistrict/do.htm

Friday, August 24, 2007

Announcements from Concours on the Avenue’s Doug Freedman & Sunset Cultural Center, Inc. (SCC) Chairman Perry Walker

ABSTRACT: Coucours on the Avenue’s charitable donations to The Carmel Foundation amounted to $25,000. In an unrelated announcement, SCC Chairman Perry Walker announced that the $120,000 “Working Capital Advance” was returned in full to the City at the end of the 4th quarter. And interestingly, he stated because of the “realities of the marketplace,” SCC is now the major producer at Sunset Center and “I have to put the praise where it belongs and that sits with Jack Globenfelt,” SCC Executive Director.

City Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
August 7, 2007


V. Announcements from Closed Session, from City Council Members and the City Administrator.

C. Announcements from City Administrator.
• Car Week update
• SCC, Inc. year end financial report


• Charitable Donations to The Carmel Foundation from Carmel-by-the-Sea Concours on the Avenue includes $15,000 from unsolicited donations and $10,000 from sponsors.

Doug Freedman
Carmel-by-the-Sea Concours on the Avenue Organizer:

“And something really fantastic. We received more than $15,000 in contributions to The Carmel Foundation that came with our entry applications, which is no fee, write a check to The Carmel Foundation, and on top of that we have our event patron program which is generating an additional $10,000 on top of that for The Foundation.”
(Stated by Doug Freedman, City Council meeting, August 7, 2007)


• “Praise where it belongs and that sits with Jack Globenfelt...”

“As you remember, when we took over Sunset, we really assumed we were going to be putting on 10 events, that would be Performance Carmel. But because of the realities of the marketplace, many of the presenters that were in the theater prior to the renovation either did not come back or they reduced their performances, so Sunset Center has had to step in, as you can see by these numbers, we are the major presenter now at Sunset, we are taking that risk. And that is a huge change in what our original mission was and I have to put the praise where it belongs and that sits with Jack Globenfelt who came in and his strength was presenting and finding those kinds of performances that we could put in Sunset, keep the utilization up and come out with a positive number.”
(Stated by Perry Walker, Chairman, Sunset Cultural Center, Inc. (SCC), City Council meeting, August 7, 2007)

• $120,000 “Working Capital Advance,” given to SCC in 2004, was returned as SCC did not spend any of the working capital advance and as stipulated in the Agreement.

“I’m happy and proud to say that we returned $120,000 Working Capital Advance back to the city this quarter.”
(Stated by Perry Walker, Chairman, Sunset Cultural Center, Inc. (SCC), City Council meeting, August 7, 2007)

Note: Originally, the $120,000 was to be the second year start-up grant; but because of delays, at the inception of the Agreement between the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and SCC, the City gave $105,000 to SCC in the form of a “Start-Up Grant,” $120,000 to SCC in the form of “Working Capital Advance” and an Enabling Grant for the management of Sunset Center.

Thursday, August 23, 2007

More Inept, Incompetent City Government

ABSTRACT: During Appearances at the City Council meeting, August 7, 2007, Carmelite Carl Roetter, Paige Johnson Design, Inc., stated that the “Memo” written by Steve McInchak, City’s Information Systems/Network Manager, was "full of errors and it was full of very slanted information.” And “it’s embarrassing to the city to produce a report like that, it’s embarrassing to the community for Council to then vote on that staff report which was so full of errors and so poorly produced.” City Councilman Gerard Rose expressed his desire that the item “be brought to the Council once again on the next calendar and with an amended staff report.” However, as City Administrator Rich Guillen later stated, “They’ve, we’ve signed the contract with anda/burghardt."

City Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
August 7, 2007


VI. Appearances

Anyone wishing to address the City Council on matters within the jurisdiction of the City and are not on the agenda may do so now. Matters not appearing on the City Council’s agenda will not receive action at this meeting but may be referred to staff for a future meeting. Presentations will be limited to three (3) minutes, or as otherwise established by the City Council. Persons are not required to give their names, but it is helpful for speakers to state their names in order that the City Clerk may identify them in the minutes of the meeting. Always speak into the microphone, as the meeting is recorded on tape.

During Appearances, Carmelite Carl Roetter stated, as follows:

“Madam Mayor, Council, City Administrator. Carl Roetter, Paige Johnson Design. Thank you Don for your comments. After the Memo from Mr. Steve McInchak that made it very clear that Paige Johnson Design did not have any of those capabilities, we received some unfortunate calls from clients, and it was, since all of that was clearly outlined in our proposal to the city, it was unfortunate to see that those many errors in the Memo from Mr. McInchak. Unfortunately, it was that Memo that was full of errors and it was full of very slanted information, upon which council made its’ decision. It was the staff report that council voted on. And that was just pulled, I understand, from the Consent agenda, but I would wonder if Council and the City Administrator would consider going back and looking again at that staff report. It certainly did not come up to the quality of the kind of work that our staff does, it’s embarrassing to the city to produce a report like that, it’s embarrassing to the community for Council to then vote on that staff report which was so full of errors and so poorly produced. So, I guess I’m just requesting that the City Administrator pull that staff report, bring it back to council this time, perhaps a little better done. Thanks.”

Immediately after Carl Roetter spoke, Michael Batori stated, as follows:

“At last meeting, I spoke on that very subject, asking that I felt that the information that was being presented and that City Council members spoke on the fact that they didn’t want to go against staff recommendation which I felt they didn’t understand and there were inaccuracies. I also think that it should be revisited because of the fact that there were inaccuracies that the Council was making decisions on. Thank you.”

After the close of Appearances, during deliberations on Consent Calendar items, City Council Member Gerard Rose stated, as follows:

“As to D. I am troubled that we are being asked to agree to a contract that we concede was grounded on an erroneous staff report. And as much as I hate to postpone this kind of thing, because I think it is very important, I would prefer that it be brought to the Council once again on the next calendar and with an amended staff report.”

To which City Administrator Rich Guillen later responded, as follows:

“Plus, based on the Council’s action, you approved moving forward with Anda/Burghardt, They’ve, we’ve signed the contract.”

NOTES:
Carl Roetter, Former Community Traffic Safety Commissioner
PAIGE JOHNSON DESIGN, INC.
Graphic Design and Web Services
Telephone: (831) 625.0480
Fax: (831) 625.2079
Email: carl@pjdesign.com
http://www.pjdesign.com/


Steve McInchak, Information Systems/Network Manager

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
INFORMATION SERVICES
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR MCCLOUD AND COUNCILMEMBERS
THROUGH: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: STEVE McINCHAK, IS/NETWORK MANAGER
DATE: 26 JUNE 2007
SUBJECT: AWARD CONTRACT FOR WEB SITE DESIGN

Selected excerpts, as follows:

RECOMMENDED MOTION
Adopt Resolution authorizing the design of a new City website and award the contract to anda/burghardt.

DISCUSSION
Our website should be new and fresh and easy to use capitalizing on new technology and programs that are now available in website design. The bidding process resulted in 3 bids;
Flying Cow Design Studio $61,490
Paige Johnson Design, Inc. $24,700
anda/burghardt $30,000

Staff recommends anda/burghardt with a bid of $30,000. Although the bid submitted by Paige Johnson Design, Inc. was lower, video production and integration can not be provided by the firm. This service is an important component of the proposed website and the value of the service will ultimately exceed the cost differential between the two quotes.

COMMENTS:
• Steve McInchak’s Staff Report for the “design, production and maintenance of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Web Site at domain ci.carmel.ca.us” contract mischaracterized the proposal submitted by Paige Johnson Design, Inc. As a result, City Attorney Don Freeman corrected these mischaracterizations with his comments at the August 7, 2007 City Council meeting. The bid submitted by Paige Johnson Design, Inc. then was lower than anda/burghardt and included video production and integration.

• All of the City Council Members, except City Councilman Gerard Rose, expressed no qualms or regrets about their previous deliberations and decision on the city web site design contract based on an erroneous, inaccurate and biased staff report on Paige Johnson Design, Inc.

• In short, not only was this process indicative of an incompetent and biased city administration, it was illustrative of a city council without an ethic of accountability to the public.

REFERENCES:
City Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
August 7, 2007


VII. Consent Calendar

These matters include routine financial and administrative actions, which are usually approved by a single majority vote. Individual items may be removed from Consent by a member of the Council or the public for discussion and action.

D. Consideration of a Resolution entering into a Destination Marketing Agreement with Jeff Burghardt, President, Anda/Burghardt Advertising, Inc. for Economic Revitalization and Destination Marketing services in an amount not to exceed $60,000 for Economic Revitalization and $125,000 for Destination Marketing.

City Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
July 3, 2007


X. Resolutions

A. Consideration of Resolution to award a contract in an amount not to exceed $30,000 to anda/Burghardt for the design, production and maintenance of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Web Site at domain ci.carmel.ca.us.

B. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to enter into a consulting agreement with anda/burghardt for the position of Economic Development and Marketing Director in an amount of $60,000 annually.

City Council Minutes
Regular meeting
July 3, 2007


X. RESOLUTIONS
A. Consideration of Resolution to award a contract in an amount not to exceed $30,000 to Anda/Burghardt for the design, production and maintenance of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Web Site at domain ci.carmel.ca.us.

City Administrator Guillen presented the staff report. Information Services Manager,
Steve McInchak, answered Council questions.

Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment at 6:25 p.m.

Michael Batori addressed Council.

At 6:26 p.m., Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment.

Council Member ROSE moved approval of a Resolution to award a contract in an amount not to exceed $30,000 to Anda/Burghardt for the design, production and maintenance of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Web Site at domain www.ci.carmel.ca.us., seconded by Council Member HAZDOVAC and carried by the following roll call:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: HAZDOVAC, ROSE & TALMAGE
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: CUNNINGHAM & McCLOUD
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

CITY’S CORE COMMERCIAL TREES: 4th Av. – San Carlos St. – 5th Av. – Dolores St. Block

CITY BLOCK, TREE SPECIES, PLANTER SPACE OPENING MATERIAL INVENTORY

4th Av. – Junipero Av. – 5th Av. – Dolores St. Blocks

4th Av. – San Carlos St. – 5th Av. – Dolores St. Block

4th Av. (south side):
1. Black Locust (Robinia pseudoacacia): Soil, Plants, Rock Perimeter Bump-Out



2. Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens): Soil, Plants


3. Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens): Soil, Pavement to Trunk
4. Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens): Soil, Pavement to Trunk
5. Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens): Soil, Pavement to Trunk
6. Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens): Soil, Pavement to Trunk
7. Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens): Soil, Pavement to Trunk



San Carlos St. (west side):
8. Deodar Cedar (Cedrus deodara): Soil



9. Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens): Soil, Decomposed Granite, Rocks



10. Cypress (Cupressus): Soil, Decomposed Granite



11. Monterey Pine (Pinus Radiata): Soil Bed, Plants
13. Monterey Pine (Pinus Radiata): Soil Bed, Plants



12. Deodar Cedar (Cedrus deodara): Soil Bed, Plants



14. London Plane (Platanus acerifolia): Soil, Bark, Plants, 90 minutes parking metal pole
15. London Plane (Platanus acerifolia): Compacted Decomposed Granite, Plants



16. Palm (Arecaceae) (Ivy on Trunk): Soil, Compacted Decomposed Granite



17. Cypress (Cupressus): Soil



18. Monterey Pine (Pinus Radiata): Soil Pavement to Exposed Root



19. Palm (Arecaceae): Soil, Succulents, Asphalt to Trunk
20. Palm (Arecaceae): Soil, Succulents, Asphalt to Trunk


21. Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia): Soil Bed, Plants, 90 minutes parking metal pole


22. Monterey Cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa): Soil, Succulents, Pavement to Trunk



5th Av. (north side):
23. Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens): Soil, Bark Bed, 10 minutes parking metal pole, Wooden Post, Rock Perimeter Bump-Out



24. Monterey Pine (Pinus Radiata): Soil, Meter, Pavement to Trunk



25. Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua): Compacted Decomposed Granite, 10 minutes parking metal pole



26. Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia): Soil, Plants, Fence
27. Monterey Pine Stump (4’ Height) (Pinus Radiata): Soil, Plants, Pavement to Trunk



28. Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia): Compacted Decomposed Granite, Soil


29. Oak (Quercus): Compacted Decomposed Granite, Soil, Irrigation Tubing


30. Cypress (Cupressus): Soil, Bark Chips, Plants, Irrigation Tubing


31. Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens): Soil, Bark Chips, Irrigation Tubing



Dolores St. (east side):
32. Monterey Pine: (Pinus Radiata): Soil, Plants, Metal light pole



33. Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia): Soil, 10 minutes parking Wooden Post



34. Pine (Pinus): Soil, Plants, Ivy on Trunk



35. Blackwood Acacia (Acicia melanoxylon): Soil, Plants



36. Black Locust (Robinia pseudoacacia): Soil, Succulents
37. Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia): Soil


38. Black Locust (Robinia pseudoacacia): Soil Bed
39. Black Locust (Robinia pseudoacacia): Soil Bed
40. Black Locust (Robinia pseudoacacia): Soil Bed


41. Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia): Soil Bed



42. Pittosporum (Pittosporum): Soil, Plants, STOP sign metal pole, Rock Perimeter Bump-Out



THE END!









Previous Posts on the City’s Core Commercial Trees:
(For all Posts, see Labels)

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

CITY’S CORE COMMERCIAL TREES: 4th Av. – Mission St. – 5th Av. – San Carlos St. Block

CITY BLOCK, TREE SPECIES, PLANTER SPACE OPENING MATERIAL INVENTORY

4th Av. – Junipero Av. – 5th Av. – Dolores St. Blocks

4th Av. – Mission St. – 5th Av. – San Carlos St. Block


4th Av. (south side):
1. Unknown: Soil Bed, Plants
2. Monterey Pine (Pinus Radiata): Soil Bed, Plants, Pavement to Trunk
3. Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens): Soil Bed, Plants, Bump-Out
4. Unknown: Soil, Pavement to Trunk
5. Monterey Pine (Pinus Radiata): Soil, Plants, Pavement to Trunk



6. Cypress (Cupressus): Soil, Meter, Plants, 90 minutes parking metal pole, Bump-Out



7. Monterey Pine (Pinus Radiata): Carmel Stone Soil Bed, Plants



8. Monterey Pine (Pinus Radiata): Soil Bed, Plants, Pavement to Trunk



Mission St. (west side):
9. Maple (Acer): Soil, Bark


10. Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia): Soil, Embedded Rocks



11. Monterey Pine (Pinus Radiata): Pavement to Trunk


5th Av. (north side):
12. Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia): Soil Bed



13. Catalina Ironwood (Lyonothamnus floribundus asplenifolius): Soil Bed



14. Oak (Quercus): Soil, Decomposed Granite



15. London Plane (Platanus acerifolia): Compacted Decomposed Granite


16. Cypress (Cupressus): Soil, Rock, Compacted Decomposed Granite, Succulent


17. Monterey Pine (Pinus Radiata): Soil Bed, Plants, Bump-Out
18. Monterey Pine Stump (50’ Height) (Pinus Radiata): Soil Bed, Plants
19. Monterey Pine (Pinus Radiata): Soil Bed, Plants, Pavement to Trunk



San Carlos St. (east side):
20. Plum (Prunus): Soil, Plants


21. Cypress (Cupressus): Soil, Plants
22. Plum (Prunus): Soil, Plants


23. Plum (Prunus): Soil, Plants



24. Monterey Pine (Pinus Radiata): Soil, Plants, Pavement to Trunk
25. Monterey Pine (Pinus Radiata): Soil, Succulents



26. Incense Cedar (Calocedrus decurrens): Soil, Weeds, Asphalt to Trunk


27. Holly Oak (Quercus ilex): Soil, Plants


28. Monterey Cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa): Soil Bed, Pavement to Trunk, Rock Perimeter Bump-Out
29. Monterey Pine (Pinus Radiata): Soil Bed, Rock Perimeter Bump-Out
30. Unknown: Soil Bed, Rock Perimeter Bump-Out
31. Monterey Cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa): Soil Bed, Rock Perimeter Bump-Out


32. Monterey Cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa): Soil, Pavement to Trunk

Previous Posts on the City’s Core Commercial Trees:
(For all Posts, see Labels: City's Core Commercial Trees)