Mission Trail Nature Preserve: Completed Trail Maintenance and Clearance September 2007

Doolittle Trail (Lower) (September 29, 2007)
Entrance to Doolittle Trail (Lower) off Serra Trail from Rio Road Entrance
Trail maintenance and clearance completed by Friday, September 28, 2007
P5-156 Conduct trail maintenance and clearance (June - August.) (LUP)


Doolittle Trail (Lower) (September 29, 2007)
Trail maintenance and clearance completed by Friday, September 28, 2007
P5-156 Conduct trail maintenance and clearance (June - August.) (LUP)


Doolittle Trail (Lower) (September 29, 2007)
Trail maintenance and clearance completed by Friday, September 28, 2007
P5-156 Conduct trail maintenance and clearance (June - August.) (LUP)


Doolittle Trail (Lower) (September 29, 2007)
Trail to right, Debris to left.
Trail maintenance and clearance completed by Friday, September 28, 2007
P5-156 Conduct trail maintenance and clearance (June - August.) (LUP)

For Mission Trail Nature Preserve Map of Trails, Click on Post title above or copy, paste and click http://www.ci.carmel.ca.us/images/missiontrailmap1.jpg

Question: If a Carmelite hadn’t brought Mission Trail Nature Preserve trail maintenance and clearance to the attention of the city at the end of August, with a copy to a California Coastal Commission staff member, would the city belatedly have done any trail maintenance and clearance at all?

The Carmel Authors & Ideas Festival, Sunset Theater, Carmel, CA., September 28-30, 2007

The Monterey County Herald Food Writer Mike Hale asked in his Thursday, September 27 GO! article whether the full 2007 calendar of events has not lead to “event-fatigue” and “wallet fatigue.” Hale cited the “sticker shock” associated with The Carmel Authors & Ideas Festival at $500 per ticket. He also noted that the event organizer is “giving away tickets to schools and writing groups;” presumably because the Festival was not a sold-out event.

Additionally, Hale noted the Faces of Hope event at Tehama Golf and Country Club for Rising International at $500 per ticket. And the upcoming 2008 Pebble Beach Food and Wine event with prices ranging from $995 to $4,750 per packaged event.

Note: For Food Writer Mike Hale’s article, click on Post title above or copy, paste and click http://www.montereyherald.com/search/ci_7012340?IADID=Search-www.montereyherald.com-www.montereyherald.com

Even The Carmel Pine Cone noted “unfamiliarity with the event proved to be an obstacle to ticket sales.” And Festival organizer Jim McGillen stated that ticket sales were “a little tough.” Corroborating The Herald writer Mike Hale, Jim McGillen also stated that “virtually every school in the community has students participating this weekend.” Furthermore, according to The Monterey County Herald Staff Writer Marc Cabrera, Jim McGillen stated “That’s one of the biggest mistakes we made, the ticket price.”

Tickets to the Authors & Ideas Festival can still be purchased online through the Carmel Authors & Ideas Festival web site, http://www.carmelauthors.com/.

Tree Care and Proper Pruning & Landscape Plants Under Native Trees Forum Presented by Friends of Carmel Forest & Forest and Beach Commission

ABSTRACT: Yesterday afternoon, approximately 100 individuals attended the presentations by Barrie D. Coate, Consulting Arborist, and Dave Egbert, “The Coastal Gardener,” at Carpenter Hall, Sunset Center, sponsored by the Friends of Carmel Forest and the Forest and Beach Commission. Friends of Carmel Forest President Clayton Anderson, Friends of Carmel Forest founder and former City Councilwoman Barbara Livingston and Forest and Beach Commissioner Kathleen Coss addressed the audience and presented the speakers. The first speaker, Barrie D. Coate, Consulting Arborist, spoke on “Tree Care and Proper Pruning” for about 1 hour, visually illustrated with slides of properly and improperly pruned trees. Then, Dave Egbert, the enthusiastic and passionate “Coastal Gardener,” spoke about landscape plants under native trees for about 1 hour. Egbert brought specimen plants from Valley Hills Nursery in Carmel Valley to demonstrate the varied, diverse and colorful native and exotic plants available and suitable for planting under and around native trees. Audience questions of both speakers were answered during the afternoon until after 5:00 P.M. Note: Mayor Sue McCloud, City Council Members Paula Hazdovac, Karen Sharp, Ken Talmage & Gerard Rose were not seen at the city co-sponsored event. Acting City Forester Mike Branson was in attendance.


Herewith are Barrie D. Coate and Associates’ TREE CARE AND PROPER PRUNING handout reproduced below which basically covers the material he presented to the public and Dave Egbert’s “Landscape Plants for under Native Tree” handout reproduced below including information about his Coastal Gardener TV series, plant nurseries and bibliography, as follows:

TREE CARE AND PROPER PRUNING

Dr. Al Shigo, who died last year, was for thirty years the nation’s most respected researcher in applied plant physiology, the science which describes a tree’s response to man-caused tree damage, including pruning.

In his “a new Tree Biology” (1968) he said the “Pruning properly done is one of the most difficult tree treatments. Every branch will be different.”

This is a good beginning for a discussion of pruning, especially of pruning trees, because poor pruning in trees usually lives with the trees as long as they live and if those pruning errors occur early in a tree’s life, the tree will be doomed to limb failure and a short life. A flush cur made today will result in interior decay in ten years which can certainly result in tree failure in twenty years.

If you think that anyone can prune properly without instruction, you have probably already been responsible for damage that will become evident in later years.

Unfortunately, excessive pruning is the most visible, and has become the “standard of trade,” leading homeowners and facilities managers to expect to see instant major changes in the tree’s form and canopy density before they pay the bill.

As a result, it is very difficult for the more knowledgeable arborists to “sell” better quality, less destructive work.

Several definitive statements can be used to describe the pruning done by most tree companies and most gardeners including:

“More damage is done by poor pruning than benefit provided by good pruning.”

“Most tree pruning seen today is harmful.”

“Many professional gardeners do not know how to make the least destructive cuts.”

O.K., enough criticism! How do you make proper cuts? How do you know how much to remove? How do you know when to prune which plant? How do you know which tool to use, and when? How do you know when to call for professional help? Whom do you call?

Basic philosophy

The best pruning causes the plant to produce new growth where you want it so that it will not have to be removed later.

The best pruning is done to prevent growth from being produced in the wrong place.

If you can prune today with your thumb nail rather than in five years with a chain saw, you have saved the tree from investing in parts that were later discarded and avoided leaving large wounds.

The best pruning produces the smallest cuts and is the least visible.

From the standpoint of pruning, we should divide the tree’s development into four stages.

They are juvenile, developmental, mature and over-mature.

The stage at which most of us can be either highly beneficial or very harmful to the tree is during the juvenile and developmental stages when the tree is producing the basic structure, some of which will be with the tree all of its life.

At the juvenile stage, the tree should have temporary branches almost to the ground to supply carbohydrates and starches to develop a strong sturdy trunk which is capable of supporting the canopy and provide enough vascular tissue to feed a large and growing canopy.

At these stages, any permanent limbs which can be identified should be selected and their training begun.

The juvenile stage may occupy three to eight years. The development stage may occupy an additional ten to twenty years.

If the selection and pruning of the permanent branches and limbs was done during the first stages, very little corrective pruning of main structural limbs will be necessary for another ten years. Unfortunately, most of us have to deal with basic structures which the tree produced without guidance or which was damaged by untrained people who should not have been using pruning tools.

If the tree did not have the best scaffold limbs selected during the developmental stage, it will be necessary to do corrective pruning in a mature tree.

The means larger wounds, removal of proportionately more foliage and more damage but it may be necessary to solve structural defects which will become more hazardous as the tree ages.

Over-mature trees are those which are not producing much new vascular tissue, and whose scaffold limbs’ position and character have been long established and which no longer respond to pruning by production of parts which will ever be structural.

At this stage, pruning cuts should be two inches diameter or less since wounds will be covered by new tissue very slowly if ever.

At this state, loss of a major limb probably serves as prediction of loss of other large limbs and the natural disassembly of the tree.

References you should have:

A Tree Care Primer, Handbook 186
The Brooklyn Botanic Garden
Christopher Roddick with Beth Hanson
All Regional Guides
1000 Washington Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11225

Arboriculture, Integrated management of Landscape Trees and Shrubs
Richard Harris, Prentiss Hall

Tree Pruning, A Worldwide Photo Guide
Alex Shigo, Shigo and Trees Associates


Barrie D. Coate, ASCA
Consulting Arborist
September, 2007

NOTE: ASCA is the American Society of Consulting Arborists; http://www.asca-consultants.org/


Dave Egbert’s Landscape Plants for under Native Trees Handout is reproduced below and information about his Coastal Gardener TV series, plant nurseries and bibliography, as follows:

“Growing Beautiful Gardens under Native Trees”

Landscape Plants for under Native Trees – Dave Egbert’s Coastal Gardener

Aquilegia hybrids, Columbine

Arctostaphylos ‘Pacific Mist,’ ‘Sunset,’ ‘Carmel Sur’

Asarum caudatum, Wild Ginger

Boronia ‘Shark Bay’

Carpentaria californica, Bush Anemone

Ceanothus ‘Centinnel,’ ‘Far Horizons,’ ‘Diamond Heights’

Galvezia speciosa, Island Snapdragon

Grevillea ‘Austraflors Fanfare,’ ‘Coastal Gen.,’ ‘Mount Tamboritha’

Heuchera mazima, Island Alum Root
(Hybrids, ‘Pewter Veil,’ ‘Chocolate Ruffles,’ ‘Marmalade,’ ‘Amber Waves’)

Iris Pacific Coast hybrids
(I. douglasiana x l. innominata)

Polysticum munitum, Western Sword Fern

Salvia ‘Bee’s Bliss,’ ‘Dara’s Choice,’ spathacea, Hummingbird Sage

Saturjea douglasii, Yerba Buena

Sollya heterophylla

Symphocarpus albus, Snowberry

Tiarella hybrids (x Heucherella), including ‘Viking Ship,’ ‘Stoplight’

Verbena

Woodwardia fimbriata, Giant Chain Fern

Zauschneria hybrids ‘Catalina,’ ‘Cloverdale,’ ‘Everrett’s Choice’

Dave Egbert:
Dave Egbert’s Coastal Gardener TV series

KGO ABC 7

www.thecoastalgardener.com
(Note: Click on Post title above for more information about "The Coastal Gardener.")

Plants Available at:

Valley Hills Nursery
7440 Carmel Valley Rd.
Carmel Valley, CA.
831-624-3482
www.valleyhillsnursey.com

Sierra Azul Nursery and Gardens
2660 East Lake Avenue
Watsonville, CA.
831-763-0939
www.sierraazul.com

Bibliography:
Sunset Western Garden Book
Sunset Publishing, 2007
www.sunset.com

California Native Plants for the Garden
Carol Bornstein, David Fross, Bart O’Brien
Cachuma Press, 2005
www.cachumapress.com

Former City Councilwoman Barbara Livingston: “Don’t let us become Festival City.”

ABSTRACT: After City Administrator Rich Guillen’s report on his conversation with the President and Producer of the Sonoma Valley Film Festival in Sonoma, CA. detailing the requirements for a successful Film Festival, former City Councilwoman Barbara Livingston shared her thoughts with the public and City Council Members. She stressed the need for only the “best, the finest, absolutely the top-notch festivals” and advised the City Council to “be really, really careful about restricting yourself to a few, two or three, and maybe look into what we are doing now, maybe there are some we can drop, but don’t let us become Festival City. Don’t let us become Festival City.”

City Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
September 11, 2007

XI. Orders of Council

B. Review the City’s participation in a proposed Carmel-by-the-Sea Film Festival and provide policy direction.

City Administrator Rich Guillen reported on his trip to Sonoma with Jeff Burghardt, Anda/Burghardt Advertising, to meet Marc Lhormer, Presdient and Producer of the Sonoma Valley Film Festival. According to Marc Lhormer, a successful Film Festival requires approximately $1 million; $500,000 from corporate sponsors and $500,000 from donations. There are three stakeholders, including a Film Society with a Board of Directors comprised of a minimum of 15 Directors who would operate the Film Festival and donate at least $5,000/director towards the $500,000 in donations, a Production Company and City sponsorship of potentially $50,000 - $100,000 annually.

After City Administrator Rich Guillen’s Staff Report, former City Councilwoman Barbara Livingston addressed the public and City Council, as follows:

Barbara Livingston. I rather like the idea of the Film Festival. To me it has much more appeal for the City than the Car Festival, or whatever we call it because it frees up the entire downtown for people to shop. I really rather like it.

I have something rather interesting though to say. In 1998, I attended the League of California Cities Conference in San Jose and one afternoon, I took a seminar or class, or whatever, on culture and what culture does for a village or a city or a town. The two speakers were the head of the cultural affairs department for the State of California and the Executive Director of the Lesher Center for the Arts in Walnut Creek, it’s a very esteemed center, as you know. And they said the benefits of bringing cultural activities to a town are wonderful. So I raised my hand and I said, “Is there a chance that a city, a town, a village or whatever, can bring in too many festivals, too many events?” And they said, “Where are you from?” And I said, “Monterey Peninsula, Carmel, specifically.” And they went, “You’re already overbooked.”

So what I’m asking you to do when you consider bringing festivals here, bring the best, the finest, absolutely the top-notch festivals, and be really, really careful about restricting yourself to a few, two or three, and maybe look into what we are doing now, maybe there are some we can drop, but don’t let us become Festival City. Don’t let us become Festival City.

In the last sentence of the paragraph on the cover sheet of the agenda packet item, Important Consideration, it says that the Film Festival will bring long-term impacts that could be beneficial to the City’s brand. Now I am totally mystified by what is meant by the City’s brand because since 1916 we’ve been known, our brand has been Carmel, a village in the forest by-the-sea. Are we changing our brand? I’m not aware of it. What is the brand? Can you tell me that?

Later, City Administrator Rich Guillen responded that the brand, Carmel, a village in the forest by-the-sea, had not changed; the City just wants to “highlight” it.

Consultant Services Agreements with JRP Consulting, LLC & Katherine Gualtieri/Susan Lehmann

ABSTRACT: At the City Council meeting on September 11, 2007, the City Council approved a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator “to execute a Consultant Services Agreement with JRP Consulting, LLC to perform a historic evaluation of the Forest Theater property” for $7,800 and a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator “to execute a Consultant Services Agreement with Katherine Gualtieri and Susan Lehmann to work as the City’s Historic Preservation Consultant.” Presently, the Forest Theater Guild and user groups are in the “preliminary process of developing a Master-Plan for the rehabilitation of the property and an expansion of the facilities.” While the City requires that the historical status of a property be determined prior to the approval of any development applications, it is unclear why the City needed to consider two agreements. That is, the City’s Historic Preservation Consultant conceivably could have been called upon to evaluate the Forest Theatre property for the City too.


Outdoor Forest Theater
"A Midsummer Night’s Day" Rehearsal
Mt. View Av. between Santa Rita St. & Guadalupe St.

City Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
September 11, 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.

H. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to execute a Consultant Services Agreement with JRP Consulting, LLC to perform a historic evaluation of the Forest Theatre property.


X. Resolutions

B. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to execute a Consultant Services Agreement with Katherine Gualtieri and Susan Lehmann to work as the City’s Historic Preservation Consultant.

COMMENTS:

According to Senior Planner Sean Conroy, “the Forest Theater is in the preliminary process of developing a Master-Plan for the rehabilitation of the property and an expansion of the facilities.” Apparently, the Forest Theater Guild and user groups of the Forest Theatre are currently developing a Master-Plan and has not yet presented their Master-Plan to the public at a City Council meeting.

While both Consultant Services Agreements with JRP Consulting, LLC and Katherine Gualtieri/Susan Lehmann include the wording, “The City requires that the historical status of a property be determined prior to the approval of any development applications,” it is unclear why the city needed to consider two agreements. That is, the city’s Historic Preservation Consultant conceivably could have been called upon to evaluate the Forest Theater property per the Agreement, as follows:

• Evaluate the historic significance of the Forest Theatre property according to the California Register criteria and the adopted standards of the City;

• Make recommendations to City staff regarding the eligibility of the Forest Theatre property for listing on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources;

• And prepare DPR 523 form for the historically significant Forest Theatre.

QUESTION: Since the City Council voted unanimously to select Katherine Gualtieri and Susan Lehmann as the City’s Historic Preservation Consultant, why didn’t the City charge them with the evaluation, et cetera, of the Forest Theatre property, instead of contracting separately with JRP Consulting, LLC for $7,800?

ADDENDUM: Incredibly, whereas the Scout House was evaluated and placed on the Inventory of Historic Resources at the time of the City’s submission of the Local Coastal Program to the California Coastal Commission for certification in late 2004, the Forest Theater property and the Sunset Community and Cultural Center were apparently not evaluated, and therefore were not on the Inventory of Historic Resources as of late 2004.

City Administrator Rich Guillen: A Dearth of Public Service Ethic

On Monday, 17 September 2007, a Carmelite sent an email to Public Safety Director George Rawson, as follows:

Police Chief/Public Safety Director George Rawson:

Question: Why did the Carmel Police Department act to enforce Resolution No. 2001-106 after the City violated the resolution by posting 7 NO PARKING ANY TIME metal signs along the west side of Guadalupe Street between 7th Av. & Mt. View Av., yet the Carmel Police Department has failed to act to enforce the prohibition of light fixtures “directed toward the public right-of-way" (e.g. 70-80 lights in the Ocean Av. medians), per the Municipal Code?

Lastly, the public expects Police Chiefs to act responsibly and with accountability with regard to their unique protect and serve mandate. Police Chiefs who fail to meet those standards besmirch their positions.

Later that day, City Administrator Rich Guillen responded, as follows:

I would appreciate your requests of public records be submitted in writing to the City Clerk's office. The Public Records Act is specific on how records need to be submitted. You can come to City Hall to get specific instructions on how to submit your requests.

Staff will act promptly and within the required time lines. Copies of your public records request will be provided to you in the amount of $0.10 per page as stipulated by Act.

On Tuesday, September 18, 2007, the Carmelite responded, as follows:

City Administrator Rich Guillen:

Obfuscation IS NOT a professional, substantive, germane and intelligent response to the question posed to Police Chief/Public Safety Director George Rawson.

In future, it would be wise for you to intellectually grasp the concept of public service, particularly accountability to the public, standards of competency and the city’s Code of Ethics.

Carmel-by-the-Sea
Municipal Code
2.52.010 Code of Ethics.
As public employees we are entrusted with the confidence of those we serve to fulfill the responsibilities of our roles. Our actions are deemed representative of those we serve and our function, therefore, carries with it a greater responsibility than that of the private enterprise employee. Our system of government is viewed by the public through our acts as we fulfill the demands of our positions. We must demonstrate competency, integrity, honesty, courtesy and fairness in all relationships, private and public, to best represent the type of government desired by all. We have a patriotic duty to fulfill our roles in the highest standard possible for the purpose of assuring exemplary government for all people. A departure from this ideal creates an injustice for all. (Ord. 87-1 § 2, 1987).

P.S. City government members are charged with upholding the Municipal Code, not violating it and then demanding citizens file Public Records Act requests.

ADDENDUM:
Earlier this week, a resident was confronted by the city’s Building Maintenance Specialist, John Hanson, about rocks and a light (exactly like the lights in the Ocean Avenue medians) highlighting a bench in the public right-of-way in front of the resident’s property. Mr. Hanson informed the resident he was in violation of the Municipal Code and had to remove the rocks and light from the public right-of-way. The resident subsequently complied and removed the rocks and light from the public right-of-way. Apparently, a resident on the street complained to the “City;” the “City” then alerted the Building Maintenance Specialist, et cetera.

The “City” acts to enforce the Municipal Code when residents violate the Municipal Code, but the “City” fails to enforce the Municipal Code when the “City” violates the Municipal Code!

A Carmel Resident: “It is tragic, really tragic, that the city has not learned to follow policies, rules, guidelines, ordinances..."

ABSTRACT: On or about Tuesday, August 14, 2007, a Carmel resident saw a new residential construction building site at Casanova & 12th Av., S.E. corner, with the roots of two mature Monterey Pine trees “savagely hacked off.” A retrospective analysis of the city’s design review process showed Acting City Forester Mike Branson’s failure to conduct a preliminary site assessment per Municipal Code, Chapter 17.58, DESIGN REVIEW; Assistant Planner Nathan Schmidt’s failure to include “significant trees” and a basement in his staff report for Donald & Jenny Rose’s Design Study (Concept), Demolition Permit and Coastal Development Permit applications; and Planning Services Manager Brian Roseth’s comment, “This is not an isolated situation.” Needless to say, the confounded Carmel resident remarked, “It is tragic, really tragic, that the city has not learned to follow policies, rules, guidelines, ordinances but continued to make errors.”

New Residential Construction Site, Casanova & 12th Av., S.E. Corner
View of Two "Significant" Monterey Pine Trees on Site


New Residential Construction Site, Casanova & 12th Av., S.E. Corner
Monterey Pine Trunk approximately 2’ from basement wall
All buildings and structures will be setback a minimum of 6 feet from significant trees. (LUP)


New Residential Construction Site, Casanova & 12th Av., S.E. Corner
Monterey Pine Trunk approximately 2’ from basement wall
All buildings and structures will be setback a minimum of 6 feet from significant trees. (LUP)

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES
Regular Meeting
December 20, 2006

VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS

1. DS 06-111
Donald & Jenny Rose
SE corner Csanova & 12th
Block 134, Lot(s) 2

Consideration of Design Study (Concept), Demolition Permit and Coastal Development Permit applications for the demolition of an existing residence and the construction of a new residence located in the Single Family Residential (R-1) District

Nathan Schmidt, Assistant Planner presented the staff report. Chairman Paterson opened the public hearing at 4:38 p.m. Don Rose appeared before the Board. There being no other appearances the public hearing was closed at 4:44 p.m.

Board member Bell moved to approve the Design Study with special conditions as follows:

SPECIAL CONDITIONS:

1. The applicant shall install unclad wood windows or the Marvin brand clad windows as presented by the applicant.

2. The proposed plaster wall shall be lowered to no more than three feet in height.

Seconded by Board member Reimers and carried by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Board members: Bell, Reimers, and Chairman Paterson
NOES: None
ABSENT: Board members: LePage
ABSTAIN: Sharp

On or about Tuesday, August 14, 2007, a Carmel resident was walking home from a meeting in the village and saw a new residential construction building site at Casanova & 12th Av., S.E. Corner with the roots of two mature Monterey Pine trees “savagely hacked off.”

A review of the agenda packet for the Rose’s Design Study (Concept), Demolition Permit and Coastal Development Permit applications showed no reference to a basement, nor any reference to significant trees on the site. Yet the Municipal Code, Chapter 17.58 DESIGN REVIEW states unquivocally the proper process for a residential design study, including Step One: Preliminary Site Assessment. A Preliminary Site Assessment is to be conducted “prior to the submission of design concept plans for any project that will require grading within six feet of any tree classified by the City Forester as ‘significant’ or ‘moderately significant;’" and “any project involving tree removal or requiring significant cuts to the roots or limbs of any tree classified by the City Forester as ‘significant’ or ‘moderately significant.’” Moreover, the City Forester must conduct a review, as follows:

City Forester Review. During the site visit the Forester shall review all trees on-site, in the adjacent right-of-way, and those which significantly overhang the site from adjacent properties. The Forester shall annotate the survey regarding the following:

i. The species, approximate drip line and state of health of each tree;

ii. Each tree shall be classified as to its significance to the urbanized forest based on its species, health and condition, size, form, character, age and location. Classifications used shall be significant, moderately significant and not significant; and

iii. For trees classified as significant or moderately significant the Forester also shall note important limbs that are low enough to encroach into potential building areas and areas where excavation or fill should be avoided to protect roots. Trees classified as significant shall be rated and documented using a standardized tree appraisal form.

Needless to say, when the Carmel resident contacted Acting City Forester Mike Branson, it became apparent that he had not visited the site, let only followed the Municipal Code and conducted a review on all trees on-site. Incredibly, his final comment was “Overall I think the process work well but we need to follow all of our procedures and use our resource effectively to keep this from occurring again.” Later, Acting City Forester Mike Branson’s comment was contradicted by Planning Services Manager Brian Roseth who admitted, “This is not an isolated situation.”

“It is tragic, really tragic, that the city has not learned to follow policies, rules, guidelines, ordinances but continued to make errors,” stated the Carmel resident about this most recent design review fiasco.

REFERENCES:
Chapter 17.58
DESIGN REVIEW

17.58.040 Residential Design Review.
The City has established two different residential design review tracks for projects in the single-family residential (R-1) district.
A. Residential District Track One Design Review.
2. Restrictions. Track one review shall be limited to projects that:
a. Do not require significant cuts to the roots or limbs of any trees classified by the City Forester as “significant” or “moderately significant”;

B. Residential Track Two Design Study.
Step One: Preliminary Site Assessment.
a. Applicability. A preliminary site assessment shall be conducted prior to the submission of design concept plans for the following:
iii. Any project that will require grading within six feet of any tree classified by the City Forester as “significant” or “moderately significant”; and
iv. Any project involving tree removal or requiring significant cuts to the roots or limbs of any tree classified by the City Forester as “significant” or “moderately significant.”

b. Submittal Requirements. The applicant shall submit two copies of a topographic survey prepared by a licensed surveyor or a civil engineer prior to submittal of design plans for design review. The survey shall document property boundaries, topographic contours, the location of all trees over two inches DBH, et cetera. The survey shall be reviewed with the applicant and/or representative in the field by the City Forester and by the Director.

c. City Forester Review. During the site visit the Forester shall review all trees on-site, in the adjacent right-of-way, and those which significantly overhang the site from adjacent properties. The Forester shall annotate the survey regarding the following:
i. The species, approximate drip line and state of health of each tree;
ii. Each tree shall be classified as to its significance to the urbanized forest based on its species, health and condition, size, form, character, age and location. Classifications used shall be significant, moderately significant and not significant; and
iii. For trees classified as significant or moderately significant the Forester also shall note important limbs that are low enough to encroach into potential building areas and areas where excavation or fill should be avoided to protect roots. Trees classified as significant shall be rated and documented using a standardized tree appraisal form.


G E N E R A L P L A N
and Local Coastal Plan

Selected relevant excerpts, as follows:

General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Land Use & Community Character
P1-44 Prohibit the removal of significant trees (as determined by the City Forester) unless it would prevent a reasonable economic use of the site or pose a threat to health and safety. Locate buildings and other site structures to avoid removal and pruning and otherwise minimize damage to existing significant trees. Avoid impacts to trees by avoiding/minimizing impacts to the root protection zone identified by the City Forester during the preliminary site assessment. Establish continuity of landscape elements throughout each neighborhood. Replace trees removed for construction with appropriate trees of the urbanized forest. Require that they be nurtured until well established. (LUP)

P1-45 All demolitions, rebuilds, remodels, and substantial alterations shall be consistent with the following findings:

The development does not require removal of any significant trees unless necessary to provide a viable economic use of the property or protect public health and safety. All buildings and structures will be setback a minimum of 6 feet from significant
trees. (LUP)

General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Circulation Element
P2-8 Prohibit the removal of significant trees within public rights-of-way except when required for health and safety. (LUP)

General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Coastal Resource Management Element
P5-59 Avoid encroachment within the root protection zone of significant trees. Removal of significant live Monterey pine trees to facilitate residential development is prohibited unless necessary to provide a viable economic use or protect public health and safety. (LUP)

P5-182 Continue to ensure that development, whether commercial or residential, does not diminish the village character by excessively blocking important public views, private views or disturbing natural topography, significant trees, or native growth. (LUP)

P5-209 New development shall be sited and designed on the most suitable portion of the site while ensuring protection and preservation of natural and sensitive site resources by providing for the following:

Minimizing disturbance of natural areas, including significant trees, native vegetation, and root structures;

Mission Trail Nature Preserve: Better Late Than Never & Still To Do

Flanders Trail (September 15, 2007)
P5-156 Conduct trail maintenance and clearance (June - August.) (LUP)
Completed trail maintenance as of 15 September 2007.


Doolittle Trail Sign
Rio Road Entrance, to right of Bench near Entrance
Mission Trail Nature Preserve


Doolittle Trail (Lower) (September 16, 2007)
P5-156 Conduct trail maintenance and clearance (June - August.) (LUP)


Doolittle Trail (Lower) (September 16, 2007)
Poison Oak impinging on trail
P5-156 Conduct trail maintenance and clearance (June - August.) (LUP)


Doolittle Trail (Lower) (September 16, 2007)
Poison Oak impinging on trail
P5-156 Conduct trail maintenance and clearance (June - August.) (LUP)

For Mission Trail Nature Preserve Map of Trails, Click on Post title above or copy, paste and click http://www.ci.carmel.ca.us/images/missiontrailmap1.jpg

Del Mar Restroom Remodel: Additonal Funding of $29,774 for "Entire Scope of Bid Project" Rejected by City Council

Del Mar Restroom
N/s Ocean Avenue & Del Mar Avenue

ABSTRACT: At the City Council’s 5 June 2007 meeting, there was a resolution on the agenda to award the bid and contract for the Del Mar Restroom Remodel to Boronda Construction in an “amount to be determined by the City Council.” Even though Building Official Tim Meroney advocated in his Staff Report for the “Entire scope of bid project” @ $84,974 because the Del Mar restrooms are the “most used restroom in the City,” the restrooms are the “front-line sanitation facility to the public and international visitors” and the 30 year old Del Mar restroom building has “never been significantly remodeled,” City Council Members Cunningham, Hazdovac, Rose, Talmage and McCloud rejected the City Staff’s recommendation to fund the “Entire scope of bid project (bid @ $84,974)” and instead voted unanimously for Boronda Construction’s Option “D,” in the amount of $55,000, the least expensive of five options outlined by Boronda Construction.

City Council Minutes
Regular meeting
June 5, 2007

X. RESOLUTIONS
A. Consideration of a Resolution awarding the bid and contract for the Del Mar Restroom Remodel to Boronda Construction in an amount to be determined by the City Council.

This item was heard out of order and earlier in the meeting.

X. A. Consideration of a Resolution awarding the bid and contract for the Del Mar Restroom Remodel to Boronda Construction in an amount to be determined by the City Council.

Tim Meroney, Building Official, presented the staff report.

Mayor McCloud opened and closed the meeting to public comment at 7:13 p.m.

Council Member ROSE moved to adopt the Resolution awarding the bid and contract for the Del Mar Restroom Remodel to Boronda Construction in an amount of $55,000 as outlined in Option “D” of the staff report, seconded by Council Member HAZDOVAC and carried by the following roll call:

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

FACTS:
• The Del Mar restrooms are recognized as the “front-line sanitation facility to the public and international visitors.”

• The Del Mar restrooms should “exemplify the kind of clean, sanitary and elegance afforded for the visitors to Carmel and its pristine beach.”

• The Del Mar restroom building is over 30 years old and has “never been significantly remodeled...”

• City Staff recommended “approving the proposed contract in its entirety and allocating additional funding to accomplish the project.”

• The City Council “identified the building as the most used restroom in the City and requested that additional remodeling and upgrading be accomplished to more enhance the appearance.”

• Of the three received bids, the low bidder was Boronda Construction; all of the bids were “over the budget for the work.”

• The City had budgeted $55,200 for the Del Mar restrooms.

• Boronda Construction proposed 5 Options, as follows:
Entire scope of bid project @ $84,974
Option A @ $73,474
Option B @ $66,474
Option C @ $71,974
Option D @ $55,000

• The City Staff recommendation was for the Entire scope of bid project @ $84,974, which would have required an additional $29,774 funding, as follows:

Entire scope of bid project (bid @ $84,974) Requires an additional $29,774 funding.
1) Repair roof structure per plans.
2) Replace all plumbing fixtures with new porcelain fixtures and hardware.
3) Replace all tile with new, lighter colored tile.
4) Remove the concrete dividers in the men’s restroom and replace with new
plastic/stainless type.

• After deliberation, the City Council unanimously voted to award the “bid and contract for the Del Mar Restroom Remodel to Boronda Construction in an amount of $55,000 as outlined in Option “D” of the staff report.”

Option D, is as follows:
Option D (revised bid of approximately $55,000)
1) Leave all existing tile and fixtures.
2) Remove existing concrete partitions in men’s and replace with plastic partitions
matching those existing in women’s.
3) Repair roof structure per plans.

CONTEXT & COMMENTS:
• In the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s Triennial Budget, MARKETING & ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION, includes three items; Regional Destination Marketing, Monterey County Convention & Visitor’s Bureau (MCCVB) and Economic Development Mgr. Contract.

For Fiscal Year 2007/08, $125,000 is budgeted for Regional Destination Marketing; $123,600 for MCCVB Contract: and $60,000 for Economic Development Mgr. Contract; a total of $308,600/FY 2007/08.

The total budgeted amounts for MARKETING & ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION for FY 2008/09 and FY 2009/10 are $312,290 and $315,491, respectively. For perspective, the actual budgeted amount for MARKETING & ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION in FY 2005/06 was $116,109. In short, FY 2007/08 budgeted amount is 2.7 times FY 2005/06 actual budgeted amount for MARKETING & ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION.

(Source: CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, FISCAL YEAR 2007/08 THROUGH 2009/10 TRIENNIAL BUDGET, http://www.ci.carmel.ca.us/)

• The City Council authorized MARKETING & ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION expenditures of $308,600 for FY 2007/08 ($308,600 represents 2.4% of the total FY 2007/08 budget of $13,094,894). And the City Council recognized that the Del Mar restrooms are the “front-line sanitation facility to the public and international visitors,” the “most used restroom in the City,” and the 30 year old structure has “never been significantly remodeled.” Yet the City Council rejected the City Staff’s recommendation and unanimously voted for Option “D,” the least costly option.

• The City Staff’s recommendation and Boronda Construction’s “Entire scope of bid project” option was $84,974. This option would have required only an additional $29,774 funding above the budgeted amount of $55,200.

QUESTIONS:
In the context of a FY 2007/08 annual budget of $13,094,894 and nearly $10 million in Reserve Funds, was the approval of $29,774 in additional funding really too much to request of City Council Members Hazdovac, Rose, Talmage, McCloud and former City Council Member Cunningham? With their action, were they supporting the following Staff Report statements, as follows?

The Del Mar restrooms should “exemplify the kind of clean, sanitary and elegance afforded for the visitors to Carmel and its pristine beach?” And the City should create “a more acceptable facility that we can be proud of and for the visitors’ use?”

REFERENCES:
Entire scope of bid project (bid @ $84,974) Requires an additional $29,774 funding.
1) Repair roof structure per plans.
2) Replace all plumbing fixtures with new porcelain fixtures and hardware.
3) Replace all tile with new, lighter colored tile.
4) Remove the concrete dividers in the men’s restroom and replace with new
plastic/stainless type.

Option A (revised bid of $73,474) Requires an additional $18,274 funding.
1) Leave existing floor tile. (-$4,500)
2) Tile the walls over the existing tile without removal of the old using epoxy grout.(-$6,000)
3) Use a less expensive tile(-$1,000)
4) Repair roof structure per plans.

Option B (revised bid of $66,474) Requires an additional $11,274 funding.
1) Leave all existing tile throughout. (-$18,000)
2) Repair roof structure per plans.

Option C (revised bid of $71,974) Requires an additional $16,774 funding.
1) Remove and replace existing plumbing fixtures. (-$13,000)
2) Repair roof structure per plans.

Option D (revised bid of approximately $55,000)
1) Leave all existing tile and fixtures.
2) Remove existing concrete partitions in men’s and replace with plastic partitions
matching those existing in women’s.
3) Repair roof structure per plans.

(Source: CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
COMMUNITY PLANNING & BUILDING
BUILDING SERVICES DIVISION
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
TIM MERONEY, BUILDING OFFICIAL
MAY 7, 2007
CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION AWARDING THE BID AND
CONTRACT FOR THE DEL MAR RESTROOM REMODEL TO BORONDA
CONSTRUCTION IN AN AMOUNT TO BE DETERMINED BY THE CITY
COUNCIL.)

$78,160: TOTAL CITY COMPENSATION TO SPECIAL COUNSEL WILLIAM B. CONNERS, FLANDERS FOUNDATION v. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, ET AL.

Flanders Mansion
Mission Trail Nature Preserve
September 2007
View of Trimmed Ivy Around Windows

$78,160: TOTAL CITY COMPENSATION TO SPECIAL COUNSEL WILLIAM B. CONNERS
M76728, FLANDERS FOUNDATION v. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA et al. (March 2005 – August 2007):

TOTAL: $78,160.00 (March 2005 - August 2007)
113532 7/31/07 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 1,400.00 LEGAL EXPENSES-FLANDERS LITIGATION
113717 8/29/07 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 480.00 LEGAL EXPENSES-FLANDERS LITIGATION
----Vendor Total---- $ 1,880.00

113317 6/26/07 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 2,140.00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

113026 5/15/07 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 5,040.00 LEGAL SVCS-FLANDERS LITIGATION

112811 4/17/07 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 2,720.00 LEGAL SVCS-FLANDERS LAWSUIT AND OTHER LEGAL

112637 3/20/07 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 800.00 LEGAL SERVICES-FLANDERS LAWSUIT

112355 2/13/07 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $12,040.00 LEGAL SERVICES-FLANDERS LAWSUIT

112054 12/22/06 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 7,980.00 LEGAL SERVICES-FLANDERS LAWSUIT
112165 1/16/07 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 4,440.00 LEGAL SERVICES-FLANDERS LAWSUIT
----Vendor Total---- $ 12,420.00

111794 11/14/06 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 4,660.00 LEGAL SERVICES-FLANDERS LAWSUIT

111606 10/17/06 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 1,920.00 LEGAL SERVICES-FLANDERS LAWSUIT

111097 8/8/06 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 260.00 LEGAL SERVICES-FLANDERS LAWSUIT
111150 8/15/06 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 500.00 LEGAL SERVICES-FLANDERS LAWSUIT
----Vendor Total---- $ 760.00

110707 6/13/06 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 580.00 LEGAL SERVICES-FLANDERS LAWSUIT

110419 5/2/06 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 1,400.00 LEGAL SERVICES-FLANDERS LAWSUIT
110570 5/23/06 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 540.00 LEGAL SERVICES-FLANDERS LAWSUIT
----Vendor Total---- $ 1,940.00

110141 3/21/06 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 880.00 LEGAL SERVICES – FLANDERS LAWSUIT

110014 2/28/06 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 3,780.00 JAN '06 LEGAL SERVICES

109798 1/24/06 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 1,260.00 LEGAL SERVICES

109626 12/27/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 1,780.00 LEGAL SERVICES-FLANDERS

109353 11/15/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 40.00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

109165 10/11/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 7,220.00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

108976 9/13/2005 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 4,280.00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

108897 8/30/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 2,520.00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

108622 7/20/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 2,940.00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

108410 6/14/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 2,360.00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

108242 5/24/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 2,660.00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

107869 3/22/05 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 1,540.00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

(Source: Carmel-by-the-Sea California - Official City Website http://www.ci.carmel.ca.us/ March 2005 – August 2007 Check Registers)

A Coincidental Complaint?

CONTEXT: For years and years, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea has failed to annually budget for maintenance, improvements and upgrades to the Forest Theater property. Then, within a three month period (June 2007 – September 2007), the City has focused unprecedented attention onto the Forest Theater; reassigning Carmel students from the “Forest Theater Native Plants Landscape Restoration Project” to the “Forest Hill Park Landscape Improvements” project, posting of “NO PARKING ANY TIME” metal signs on the grape stake Forest Theater fence and considering the execution of a Consultant Services Agreement with JRP Consulting, LLC to perform a “historic evaluation of the Forest Theatre property.”

Timeline for the “NO PARKING ANY TIME” signs posted on the west side of Guadalupe Street is, as follows:

I. 8 June 2007
Carmel High School Ornamental Horticulture Regional Occupational Program (ROP) Class, Carmel Middle School students and Craig Hohenberger, Director of the Hilton Bialek Biological Sciences Habitat, Carmel Middle School, complete Phase I of the Forest Theatre Native Plants Landscape Restoration Project.

(Reference: Monday, June 11, 2007
Forest Theatre Native Plants Landscape Restoration Project (Phase One): Carmel High School Ornamental Horticulture Class or Labels: Forest Theatre Native Plants Landscape Restoration Project)

II. 7 August 2007
At the City Council meeting on August 7, the City Council approved a resolution “awarding recycling grants totaling $26,450 to youth service organizations.” One of the grants was awarded to Carmel Middle School Hilton Bialek Biological Sciences Habitat for “Forest Hill Park Landscape Improvements.” Last year, however, it was understood that Carmel Middle School Hilton Bialek Biological Sciences Habitat would be applying for a grant for a three year, three phase "Forest Theater Native Plants Landscape Restoration Project;" Phase I was completed Spring 2007, Phase II to be completed Spring 2008 and Phase III to be completed Spring 2009. Thus, after successfully completing Phase I, the "Forest Theater Native Plants Landscape Restoration Project" was abruptly terminated and the students were reassigned to Forest Hill Park for 2008.

III. 30 August 2007
The “City” posted seven “NO PARKING ANY TIME” metal signs on the grape stake fence of the Forest Theater on the west side of Guadalupe Street. Based on a complaint by an unidentified citizen, a Police Officer stated that they were just enforcing Resolution No. 2001-44; City Hall provided the Police Department with Resolution No. 2001-44, but failed to provide the Police Department with the superseded, amended resolution, Resolution No. 2001-106. Resolution No. 2001-106 established No Parking Zones on the east side and parking on the west side of Guadalupe Street. Note: A 20 year plus permanent Guadalupe Street resident doubted that a resident on Guadalupe Street made the complaint.

(Reference: Wednesday, September 05, 2007
City Hall Commits “Grave Error” Leading to the Authorization & Posting of “NO PARKING ANY TIME” Metal Signs or Labels: NO PARKING ANY TIME)

IV. 11 September 2007
At the City Council’s 11 September 2007 meeting, the City Council will consider the execution of a “Consultant Services Agreement with JRP Consulting, LLC to perform a historic evaluation of the Forest Theatre property” as part of the “preliminary planning” for the “rehabilitation of the property and an expansion of the facilities.”

References:
City Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
September 11, 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.

H. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to execute a Consultant Services Agreement with JRP Consulting, LLC to perform a historic evaluation of the Forest Theatre property.


Description: The Forest Theatre is in the preliminary process of developing a Master-Plan for the rehabilitation of the property and an expansion of the facilities. A historic evaluation is an essential part of the preliminary planning as it will help the City understand and determine the potential significance of the site. The field work will be performed on September 13th and 14th of 2007.

Overall Cost:
City Funds: $7,800
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff time: N/A

Important Considerations: Prior to the approval of any development project, the City requires that a historic evaluation be performed. The Forest Theatre has, and continues to play, and important role in the character of the City.

(Source: City Council Agenda Item Summary, Sean Conroy, Senior Planner, 11 September 2007)


Establish Forest Theater Enterprise Unit and Work with Foundation to establish Phases for Implementation of Master Plan –
The Forest Theater Foundation has reviewed the first draft of the pre-design for the Forest Theater and returned it to the architect for update. The Foundation is awaiting the completed pre-design before submitting it to the City. Meta Bunse will begin an historical inventory and evaluation of the property in September.

(Source: Guillen FY 2006-07 Financial Report, September 11, 2007, http://www.ci.carmel.ca.us/)

Citizen's Letter to City Administrator: Request for City Council Agenda Item on 70-80 "Low Voltage Landscape Lights" in Ocean Avenue Medians

1 of 70-80 Low Voltage Landscape Lights in the Ocean Avenue Medians Highlighting Trees, Shrubs, Signs & Banners
Ocean Avenue between Junipero Avenue & Monte Verde St.


1 of 2 Low Voltage Landscape Lights Highlighting World War I Memorial
Ocean Avenue & San Carlos St. (West End of Median)

ABSTRACT: A Carmelite wrote a letter to City Administrator Rich Guillen on Monday, 10 September 2007, with a copy to City Attorney Don Freeman, regarding approximately 70-80 low voltage landscape lights in the Ocean Avenue medians. The letter cites violations of the Municipal Code and requests a City Council agenda item on the Ocean Avenue median lights, including amendments to the Municipal Code and hours of operation.

10 September 2007

City Administrator Rich Guillen:

As the City has had months to rectify the dissonance between the installation of approximately 70-80 lights in the Ocean Avenue medians and the Municipal Code Lighting Requirements, I am writing to request a City Council agenda item for the Ocean Avenue Median Lights, including amendments to the Municipal Code and hours of operation. For energy conservation purposes, hours of operation between sunset and midnight should be considered. Presently, the lights highlight trees, shrubs, signs and banners until about 6:00 A.M., approximately 10-12 hours of operation daily.

RESOLUTION NO. 2006-38 approved “THE HIRING OF AURUM CONSULTING ENGINEERS MONTEREY BAY LIGHTING FOR DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE OCEAN AVENUE LANDSCAPE PROJECT IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $6,300” for “design services” only.

Therefore, according to Municipal Code, Chapter 10.70, REGULATION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY USES, Section 10.70.010, it is incumbent on the City Council to approve “lighting,” as follows:

10.70.010 Unauthorized Regulation of Public Property Uses.
It is unlawful for any person to regulate uses of public property including traffic and vehicular uses, by sign, object, logo, lighting, paint or other method, without prior authorization from the City Council. (Ord. 91-6 § 1, 1991).

The installation of lights in the Ocean Avenue Medians also violates Municipal Code, Chapter 15.36 ELECTRICAL CODE, Section 15.36.070 Lighting Requirements, as follows:

15.36.070 Lighting Requirements.
A. Commercial Buildings/Zones.
1. All light fixtures shall not be directed toward the public right-of-way.

Additionally, A. 2. states, “Lighting intensity shall not exceed eight-candlefoot power at a point two feet beyond the storefront windows as measured in a vertical or horizontal plane three feet above the ground or public walking surface.”

For uniformity and consistency purposes, Residential Buildings/Zones B. 2. states, “Landscape lighting shall not exceed 18 inches above the ground nor more than 15 watts per fixture and shall be spaced no closer than 10 feet apart. Landscape lighting shall not be used for tree, wall, fence or accent lighting of any type. The purpose of landscape lighting is to safely illuminate walkways and entrances to the subject property.” “Flood-type lighting is prohibited at all times,” except with written approval of the Planning Division and/or Building Official. Within the lighting industry, the low voltage landscape lights installed in the Ocean Avenue medians are considered “flood lights.” (see Malibu Landscape Lighting, http://www.malibulights.com/) The lights in the Ocean Avenue medians are 12 volt, 20 watt and numerous light fixtures are closer than 10 feet apart.

Lastly, the intent of open meeting laws is to “facilitate public participation in local government decisions and to curb misuse of the democratic process by secret legislation by public bodies.” Moreover, the City’s Code of Ethic states, as follows: “We must demonstrate competency, integrity, honesty, courtesy and fairness in all relationships, private and public, to best represent the type of government desired by all. We have a patriotic duty to fulfill our roles in the highest standard possible for the purpose of assuring exemplary government for all people. A departure from this ideal creates an injustice for all.”

REFERENCES:
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Municipal Code
Chapter 10.70
REGULATION OF PUBLIC
PROPERTY USES

10.70.010 Unauthorized Regulation of Public Property Uses.
It is unlawful for any person to regulate uses of public property, including traffic and vehicular uses, by sign, object, logo, lighting, paint or other method, without prior authorization from the City Council. (Ord. 91-6 § 1, 1991).

Chapter 15.36
ELECTRICAL CODE*
15.36.070 Lighting Requirements.
A. Commercial Buildings/Zones.
1. All light fixtures shall not be directed toward the public right-of-way.

2. Lighting intensity shall not exceed eight-candlefoot power at a point two feet beyond the storefront windows as measured in a vertical or horizontal plane three feet above the ground or public walking surface.

3. Lighting intensity within the interior of the store space shall not exceed 30-candlefoot power at any point visible from the public right-of-way as measured in a vertical or horizontal plane three feet above the floor or walking surface.

B. Residential Buildings/Zones.
1. All exterior lighting attached to the main building or any accessory building shall be no higher than 10 feet above the ground and not exceed 25 watts in power per fixture.
2. Landscape lighting shall not exceed 18 inches above the ground nor more than 15 watts per fixture and shall be spaced no closer than 10 feet apart. Landscape lighting shall not be used for tree, wall, fence or accent lighting of any type. The purpose of landscape lighting is to safely illuminate walkways and entrances to the subject property.

3. No exterior lighting is permitted upon City property and may not be directed toward City property.

4. Flood-type lighting is prohibited at all times.
EXCEPTION: Flood-type lighting may be permitted with expressed written approval of the Planning Division and/or Building Official upon written request and used for the sole purpose of security and each fixture connected to a motion sensor. Each fixture shall be limited to 50 watts each. (Ord. 99-04 (Exh. B), 1999).

MINUTES
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
June 22, 2006

IV. CONSENT CALENDAR

A. Consideration of a Resolution entering into a professional services Agreement with Aurum Consulting Engineers Monterey Bay, Inc. for Electrical and Lighting Design of the Ocean Avenue Median Renovation Project.

Mayor McCloud opened to public comment at 4:36 p.m.

Monte Miller requested and received clarification of Consent Item “A.”

Mayor McCloud closed to public comment at 4:38 p.m.

Council Member CUNNINGHAM moved approval of the Consent Calendar, seconded by Council Member HAZDOVAC and carried by the following roll call:

AYES: BETHEL, CUNNINGHAM, HAZDOVAC,ROSE & McCLOUD
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE

Meeting Date: June 23, 2006
Prepared by: Rich Guillen
City Council
Agenda Item Summary

Name: Consideration of a Resolution approving hiring Aurum Consulting Engineers
Monterey Bay lighting design services for the Ocean Avenue Landscape Project in an amount not to exceed $6,300.

Description: The landscape upgrading of the Ocean Avenue islands is underway. Bid documents have been prepared and are currently being circulated. The Project includes landscape lighting. Aurum Consulting will design the lighting system which includes fixtures, lighting controls and wiring. In addition, Aurum Consulting will prepare specifications that will be included as an addendum in the bid documents currently circulating.

Overall Cost:
City Funds: $6,300
Grant Funds: Donated Funds

Staff time: 2 hours for contract administration

Staff Recommendation: Approve the Resolution.

Important Considerations: Professional services for engineering and design of the median lighting system doesn’t require going out to bid. Due to the time constraints on the project, staff is recommending that Aurum be hired as a sole source consultant.

Decision Record: The City Council conceptually approved the landscape plan.

Reviewed by:
______________________________ _________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date


CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2006-38
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA APPROVING THE HIRING OF AURUM CONSULTING ENGINEERS MONTEREY BAY LIGHTING FOR DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE OCEAN AVENUE LANDSCAPE PROJECT IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $6,300.

WHEREAS, the Ocean Avenue Landscape Project will upgrade the irrigation and
electrical system as well as install new landscaping;

WHEREAS, an important element of the Project will include landscape lighting;

WHEREAS, Aurum Consulting Engineers Monterey Bay Lighting provide design services for landscape lighting;

WHEREAS, Aurum Consulting will prepare job specifications to be included as an addendum in the Ocean Avenue Landscape Project bid documents.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DOES:

1. Authorizes the hiring of Aurum Consulting Engineers Monterey Bay Lighting for landscape lighting design services in an amount not to exceed $6,300.

2. Approve the payment for the above design services to be funded from deposit account no. 50-24050-0580.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 22nd day of June 2006, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS

SIGNED:
_______________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR
ATTEST:
__________________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk

Carmel-by-the-Sea
Municipal Code
2.52.010 Code of Ethics.

As public employees we are entrusted with the confidence of those we serve to fulfill the responsibilities of our roles. Our actions are deemed representative of those we serve and our function, therefore, carries with it a greater responsibility than that of the private enterprise employee. Our system of government is viewed by the public through our acts as we fulfill the demands of our positions. We must demonstrate competency, integrity, honesty, courtesy and fairness in all relationships, private and public, to best represent the type of government desired by all. We have a patriotic duty to fulfill our roles in the highest standard possible for the purpose of assuring exemplary government for all people. A departure from this ideal creates an injustice for all. (Ord. 87-1 § 2, 1987).

Yet Another Pavement Management Study

ABSTRACT: At the City Council’s March 2007 meeting, the City Council unanimously voted to contract with Nichols Consulting Engineers (NCE) for a "not to exceed $60,300" 2007 Pavement Management Study; the last Pavement Management Study was performed by NCE in 1997 and updated in December 2003. At the end of August, a Nichols Consulting Engineers employee was seen surveying the City’s street network of approximately 220 street sections. A proposition was proposed that since Rich Guillen has been City Administrator since 2000 and is a Profession Civil Engineer, he could perform an update to the 2003 Study for the purpose of using taxpayer monies for actual “maintenance and rehabilitation of City pavements” instead of another study.

At the end of August, a Nichols Consulting Engineers employee was surveying the City’s street network of approximately 220 street sections; the employee stated that the total time for the fieldwork would be approximately 10 days.

City Council Minutes
Regular meeting
March 13, 2007

Items pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion:

VII. C. Consideration of a Resolution entering into an agreement with Nichols Consulting Engineers for a 2007 Pavement Management and Truck Impact Fee study in an amount not to exceed $60,300.

City Administrator Guillen presented the report.

Mayor McCloud opened and closed the meeting to public comment at 6:50 p.m.

Council Member ROSE moved to adopt a resolution entering into an agreement with Nichols Consulting Engineers for items A, C.1, F and, if necessary, B. of the
proposed 2007 Pavement Management and Truck Impact Fee study, seconded by Council Member HAZDOVAC and carried by the following roll call:

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

NOTE: Nichols Consulting Engineers proposed TASKS A-F, as follows:

TASK A – CONDITION SURVEYS & PCI CALCULATIONS
TASK B – MAINTENANCE & REHABILITATION HISTORY & DECISION TREE
TASK C – BUDGETARY ANALYSIS & FINAL REPORTS
TASK D – TRAINING & TECHNICAL SUPPORT (optional)
TASK E – COUNCIL PRESENTATION (Optional Task)
TASK F – ROAD IMPACT FEE STUDY
(Source: City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Scope of Work, 2007 Pavement Management Update, Nichols Consulting Engineers, Chtd.)

The City Council unanimously voted to include TASK A – CONDITION SURVEYS & PCI CALCULATIONS, TASK C – BUDGETARY ANALYSIS & FINAL REPORTS, TASK F – ROAD IMPACT FEE STUDY and “if necessary” TASK B – MAINTENANCE & REHABILITATION HISTORY & DECISION TREE.

COMMENTS:
• In 1997, the last pavement management study for the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea was performed by Nichols Consulting Engineers (NCE) and was followed by an update in December 2003. Administrative Services Director Joyce Giuffre states in her Agenda Item Summary that the 2003 Update “should be updated again for City staff to make cost effective decisions concerning the maintenance and rehabilitation of City pavements. In addition, the road impact fee study will provide information to help determine if a road impact fee should be implemented.”

• The City Administrator is an engineering graduate of California State Polytechnic University with a BS/Civil Engineering.

• The City Administrator is a Professional Civil Engineer, State of California (#C27904).

• Previously, City Administrator Rich Guillen held positions with the County of Placer and Auburn Public Works Department; his “assignments ranged from highway and bridge designer to the interim district engineer in the fledgling County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.” And he supervised several mayor public works projects including “a sewer treatment plant master plan, an airport master plan, repair of the Old Town drainage system, and the restoration of two former grammar schools into a Civic Center.” Yet, as City Administrator and Professional Civil Engineer, State of California (#C27904), he recommends to the City Council a 2007 Pavement Management Update by Nichols Consulting Engineers not to exceed $60,300.

• Proposition: Since the last update was December 2003, the City Administrator/Profession Civil Engineer could update the existing study for the purpose of implementing street, road and avenue “maintenance and rehabilitation.” And since Rich Guillen has been City Administrator since October 2000, Rich Guillen should know Carmel-by-the-Sea’s streets, roads and avenues well enough to be able to implement a triage system, thus using taxpayer monies for actual “maintenance and rehabilitation of City pavements” instead of another study.

ADDENDUM:
On the September 11, 2007 City Council agenda, there is a resolution regarding reconstruction and paving, as follows:

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA AWARDING THE BID FOR THREE STREET PROJECTS AT THE POST OFFICE, MISSION STREET – 3rd TO 4th, AND OCEAN AVE. CROSSWALKS TO PAVEX CONSTRUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $237,844 AND AUTHORIZE A CONTINGENCY COST OF $23,784 FOR A TOTAL PROJECT COST OF $261,628.

While City Administrator Rich Guillen wrote in his Staff Report that “The projects will improve the street and parking lot surfaces and eliminate some potential trip and fall hazards,” it is disconcerting that these projects were not considered in the context of the results and recommendations of the not yet completed 2007 Pavement Management Study by Nichols Consulting Engineers.

$19,628.86: Traffic Relief Congestion Funds Plus Interest Returned to State

Views of Carpenter Street between 5th Avenue & 6th Avenue, a representative block on Carpenter Street

ABSTRACT: The State of California established the Traffic Congestion Relief Fund (TCRF) for “allocating monies to cities and counties for street or road maintenance or reconstruction.” For Fiscal year 2006-06, the City received $18,288.00. To receive and expend funds, a city must meet the requirements of either the “Three-Year Average” or the “Two-Year Option.” The City failed to meet either requirement, being $140,285 below the minimum for the “Three-Year Average” calculation and $269,617 lower than the required “Two-year Option” minimum threshold. Thus, the City must return $18,288.00 of TCRF monies plus $1,340.86 accrued interest, a total amount to be returned to the State of $19,628.86.

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.

C. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the return of Traffic Congestion Relief Funds received in fiscal year 2005-06, plus accrued interest, in the amount of $19,628.86 to the State Controller’s Office.

According to Administrative Services Director Joyce Giuffre’s Agenda Item Summary, the California legislature established the Traffic Congestion Relief Fund (TCRF) for “allocating monies to cities and counties for street or road maintenance or reconstruction.” To receive funds, a city must annually expend General Funds for street purposes an “amount not less than the annual average of expenditures from its general funds during FY 1996-97, FY 1997-98 and FY 1998-99." Using this “Three-Year Average” requirement, the minimum that the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea should have expended in FY 2005-06 is as follows:

Total Discretionary Funds
Reported in Annual Street Report
FY 1996-97 $ 855,525
FY 1997-98 1,290,665
FY 1998-99 1,163,209
Total $3,309,399 divided by 3 = $1,103,133 (Three-Year Average Minimum Expenditure)

The City’s actual expenditure for street and road purposes in FY 2005-06 was $962,848 or $140,285 below the minimum Three-Year Average requirement.

If the city fails to meet the minimum Three-Year Average requirement, then the City must then meet the “Two-Year Option” requirement. The “Two-Year Option” requires “the City to spend in the following fiscal year an amount that is not less than twice the three-year average less the previous year’s expenditures combined." The minimum that the City would have to spend in FY 2006-07 to meet this “Two-Year Option” is as follows:”

Total Two-Year Option minimum $1,243,418

"The City spent $973,801, which is $269,617 lower than the required minimum spending threshold.”

Therefore, since the city did not comply with the Three-Year Average or the Two-Year Option requirements, that is, the City’s FY 2003-06 and 2006-07 total expenditures for street purposes did not meet the “minimum maintenance of effort expenditures,” the City must return TCRF monies and interest to the State Controller. For FY 2005-06, the City received $18,288.00 of TCRF monies. With accrued interest, the total amount to be returned to the State is $19,628.86.

Finally, the Summary states, as follows:
“Complying with the Three-Year Average or the Two-Year Option is financially burdensome on the City in fiscal years where minimal road projects are completed. In order to meet the TCRF requirements, the City needs to expend at least $1.1 million on street and road improvements.”
(Source: City Council, Agenda Item Summary, Joyce Giuffre, August 7, 2007)

COMMENTS:
• “Subsequently, Rich was hired by the City of Seaside. While in Seaside, he held the position of Public Works Director, Community Development Director and finally as the Acting City Manager. He assisted with the city's plans for the reuse of Fort Ord Military Base, improving employee morale, and conservatively planning fiscal practices to stabilize the City's financial condition.”
(Source: City Administrator: Rich Guillen, Carmel-by-the-Sea California - Official City Website, http://www.ci.carmel.ca.us/)

• Guillen claims credit for “conservatively planning fiscal practices to stabilize the City’s financial condition” when he was an employee of the City of Seaside.

• The City has a Finance Manager, now an Administrative Services Director

• Yet the City Administrator and the Finance Manager, now Administrative Services Director, did not have the fiscal planning acumen to budget $1,103,133 ($140,285 short) in actual expenditures for “street and road purposes” in FY 2005-06 in order to comply with the State’s requirements to expend Traffic Congestion Relief Funds. Given the long-term deferred maintenance and poor condition of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s streets, roads and avenues, it is reprehensible for the City Administration to have failed to budget the minimum State required amount in order to receive and expend Traffic Congestion Relief Funds.

Carmel Art Association Presents “RETURN” FEATURING MELISSA LOFTON & GUSTAVO TORRES AND GALLERY SHOWCASE FEATURING HOLT, STONE, JR. & GIACOMETTI

Carmel Art Association
“Celebrating 80 years of local art”
Voted “Art Gallery of the Year” by the Carmel Business Association three consecutive years.
W/s Dolores St. between 5th Av. & 6th Av.
10:00 A.M. – 5:00 P.M., Daily, except major Holidays, Open to the Public at No Charge

“Founded in 1927, Carmel's oldest gallery features the work of more than 120 professional local artists, and is dedicated to presenting only the finest work for sale by artists living on the Monterey Peninsula.”

For more information, click on the post title above or copy, paste and click http://www.carmelart.org/ or (831) 624-6176.

Carmel Art Association Presents SOLO SHOW “RETURN” FEATURING MELISSA LOFTON & GUSTAVO TORRES AND GALLERY SHOWCASE FEATURING SHIRLEY HOLT, WILLIAM F. STONE, JR. & SUSAN GIACOMETTI

Thursday, September 6 – Tuesday, October 2, 2007

SOLO SHOW “Return”
“Chromophile” painter Melissa Lofton and sculptor Gustavo Torres exhibit new artwork. For samples and slide show of Lofton’s paintings, click on post title above, click on “artists,” then click on “Click here for page 2,” then scroll down to “Lofton, Melissa.” For an example of Torres’ sculpture, click on post title above, click on “artists,” click on “Click here for page 2,” then “Click her for page 3,” then scroll down to “Torres, Gustavo.”

GALLERY SHOWCASE: (Segal Room)
Painter/Illustrator Shirley Holt exhibits fantasy-like acrylic paintings. For a brief biography, Group Shows, Illustrated Books, One Woman Shows and seven samples of her artwork, click on post title above, click on “artists,” click on “Click here for page 2,” then scroll down to “Holt, Shirley.”

Painter William F. Stone, Jr. exhibits “colorful stylized watercolors.” For a brief biography and four samples of his artwork, click on post title above, click on “artists,” click on “Click here for page 2,” “Click here for page 3,” then scroll down to “Stone, Jr., William F.”

Painter/Printmaker Susan Giacometti exhibits watercolor, acrylic and mixed-media paintings and prints. For a sample of her artwork, click on post title above, click on “artists,” then view “Giacometti, Susan.”

Opening reception Saturday, September 8, 6:00 – 8:00 P.M.

City Hall Commits “Grave Error” Leading to the Authorization & Posting of “NO PARKING ANY TIME” Metal Signs

View of Guadalupe Street from Mt. View Avenue towards 7th Avenue
Time: Saturday, September 8, 7:00 P.M., Forest Theater Production of "Peter Pan"


View of Guadalupe Street from Mt. View Avenue towards 7th Avenue
One of Seven "NO PARKING ANY TIME" Metal Signs Posted on the West Side of Guadalupe Street between 7th Avenue & Mt. View Avenue

UPDATE: The "NO PARKING" wooden post was observed gone from the west side of Guadalupe Street by Saturday, 8 September 2007.

UPDATE: As of today, Thursday, 6 September 2007, the 7 "NO PARKING ANY TIME" metal signs on the grape stake fence of Forest Theater on the west side of Guadalupe Street have been removed; there remains one "NO PARKING" wooden post on the west side of Guadalupe near 7th Avenue.

ABSTRACT: The City’s Ad Hoc Traffic Committee decided to post seven “NO PARKING ANY TIME” metal signs on the grape stake fence of the Forest Theater along the west side of Guadalupe Street between 7th Avenue and Mt. View Avenue based on information provided by City Hall, namely Resolution No. 2001-44. Subsequently, a resident discovered a superseding resolution, Resolution No. 2001-106 and brought this resolution to the attention of the Police Department and City Hall. Resolution No. 2001-106 amended Resolution No. 2001-44 to relocate the “NO PARKING ZONES” on Guadalupe Street from the “West Side to the East Side.” Finally, Sandy Farrell, Executive Assistant, found Resolution No. 2001-106, stated that the posting of the "NO PARKING ANY TIME” signs was a “grave error” and would forward Resolution No. 2001-106 to the Police Department and Public Works for the removal of the “NO PARKING ANY TIME” signs. The “NO PARKING ANY TIME” signs have yet to be removed.

On Thursday, August 30, 2007, seven “NO PARKING ANY TIME” metal signs were posted on the grape stake fence of the Forest Theater along the west side of Guadalupe Street between 7th Avenue & Mt. View Avenue (1 block)

Later, a resident living on the east side of Guadalupe Street called the police department about the signs. The resident said the police officer “sympathized” with the resident, but another resident had complained about vehicles parked on the west side of Guadalupe Street. Upon researching the issue, the police authorized the posting of the “NO PARKING ANY TIME” signs citing Resolution No. 2001-44. Furthermore, the police had no choice but to post the signs when Resolution No. 2001-44 was brought to their attention, the police officer told the resident.

Resolution No. 2002-44 was unanimously passed by the City Council at their 3 April 2001 meeting, as follows:

City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting
3 April 2001

IX. Resolutions
A. Consideration of Resolution No. 2001-44 establishing no parking zones on Guadalupe Street, Santa Rita Street, Mt. View and Eighth Avenue, in the vicinity of the Forest Theater.

Entered into the record were memoranda from Public Works Director Cullem dated 20 March and Resolution No. 2001-44.

Public Works Director Cullem gave the staff report and addressed questions of Council.

Mayor McCloud opened the public hearing.

Linda Anderson, Stephan Moorer, Carolyn Hardy and Antonia Verleye addressed the Council.

There being no further public comment, the hearing was closed.

The Council discussed Provision 5 of the Resolution, which includes the unpaved areas within the Forest Theater fence in the designated no parking zone. City Attorney Freeman advised the Council that this area should not be included in the Resolution as it was not specifically identified in the notice that was provided to the general public. He advised the Council that the signage in that area may meet the criteria for administrative approval. If that is not the case, this area will be brought back for Council review. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVINGSTON, AND SECONDED BY HAZDOVAC TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2001-44, EXCLUDING THE PROVISION FOR THE UNPAVED AREAS WITHIN THE FOREST THEATER FENCE. THE MOTION CARRIED ON THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ely, Hazdovac, Livingston, Rose, McCloud

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None

Over the Labor Day weekend, another resident discovered a superseding resolution which amended Resolution No. 2001-44. Resolution No. 2001-106, amending Resolution No. 2001-44, was unanimously passed as a Consent Calendar agenda item at the City Council’s 7 August 2001 meeting, as follows:

City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting
11 September 2001

The Regular Meeting
Tuesday, 7 August 2001

VII. Consent Calendar

D. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 2001-106 AMENDING RESOLUTIONS NO. 2001-44 TO RELOCATE THE NO PARKING ZONES ON GUADALUPE STREET, SOUTH OF 7TH AVENUE FROM THE WEST SIDE TO THE EAST SIDE OF THE STREET.


A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROSE, AND SECONDED BY ELY TO ADOPT THE CONSENT AGENDA, MINUS ITEMS E AND ITEM L. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Upon calling the Carmel-by-the-Sea Police Department, a resident spoke with the Watch Commander and related a Police Officer had informed concerned citizens who called about the posting of the seven “NO PARKING ANY TIME” signs on Guadalupe St. about Resolution No. 2001-44, but failed to mention Resolution No. 2002-106. When Sgt Muki was asked the source of the Police Department’s information on this matter, he pleaded “ignorance,” as he was not part of the committee who made the decision. Furthermore, he assured the resident that the decision was not "arbitrary," but the Chief of Police would have to be informed about the new information.

A resident’s call to Police Chief/Public Safety Director George Rawson was returned by Sgt. Muki. (Previously, as Public Safety Director, George Rawson refused to directly address a citizen’s question regarding the reason the Fire Department failed to conduct standardized water flow tests for over ten years.) Sgt. Muki recited Resolution No. 2001-44, but failed to remember Resolution No. 2001-106.

Some time later, another resident called Sandy Farrell, Executive Assistant at City Hall; the resident specifically asked Ms. Farrell to look up Resolution No. 2001-106. During a three minute interval, Sandy Farrell located Resolution No. 2001-106 in the archives downstairs, read the Resolution and stated there had been a “grave error” and she would act as the “messenger” and forward Resolution No. 2001-106 to the Police Department and Public Works for the removal of the “NO PARKING ANY TIME” signs on the west side of Guadalupe Street.

In this particular instance, it appears that the Ad Hoc Traffic Committee, including Police Chief/Public Safety Director George Rawson, decided to post seven “NO PARKING ANY TIME” metal signs along the west side of Guadalupe Street based on incomplete information provided by City Hall. Not only was a decision made without Resolution No. 2001-106, but there appears to have been little or no thought to the possibility of displacing parking from one area which had not had a record of public safety complaints to another area where public safety could be impacted to a greater extent.

This instance begs the following questions:
• Will the City Administration and Police Department rectify this situation with the prompt removal of the “NO PARKING ANY TIME” signs along the west side of Guadalupe Street?

• What other decisions and actions have been taken by the City’s Administration and Police Department based on incomplete, misleading or erroneous information?

• And how many of these dubious decisions and actions have not been brought to the attention of the City and rectified?