ABSTRACT: A thesis of wrong policy preference priorities by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea as symbolic of Mayor Sue McCloud’s 8-year reign as mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea is illustrated with examples involving entertainment vs. infrastructure, studies vs. action, consultants vs. full-time employees and police vs. all other departments. Comments and Questions are presented, including a Final Comment and Question regarding the potential of a continuation of unilateral and wrongheaded decisions made by the mayor regarding taxpayer monies.
In 2007, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s wrong policy preference priorities are symbolic of Mayor Sue McCloud’s 8-Year Reign as Mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
ENTERTAINMENT OVER INFRASTRUCTURE:
Sunset Cultural Center, Inc. vs. Capital Improvements, as follows:
Sunset Cultural Center, Inc.:
FY 2007/08 Community and Cultural $ 750,000 (Sunset Cultural Center, Inc. Operating Subsidy)
And Capital Outlays for Sunset Cultural Center FY 2007/08:
Sunset Ctr Walkway Lights-E. Side $ 5,250
Sunset Ctr Theater Monitor Syst Speakers $ 18,000
Sunset Ctr Theater Fall Arrest System $ 18,000
Sunset Ctr Theater Sound Syst & Exhaust (for film events) $ 42,035
Total: $833,285 FY 2007/08.
Capital Improvements:
4th Avenue Riparian Habitat Project (City's portion) $196,000
Repave Mission between 3rd & 4th $150,000
Repave 5th Avenue betwn S. Carlos & Dolores $27,000
Parking Lot Across from Post Office, repaving $20,000
City Hall Carpeting - (Chambers in FY 07-08, $10,000)
Del Mar Restrooms (Assumption is that proj is not completed in FY 06-07) $55,200
Forest Study Implementation $50,000
Total: $508,200 FY 2007/08
COMMENTS:
• For FY 2007/08, budget totals of $833,285 and $508,200 for Sunset Cultural Center, Inc. and Capital Improvements, respectively.
• Given the magnitude of deferred maintenance, a larger comparative share of taxpayer monies expended for “entertainment,” rather than expended for capital improvement projects raises questions about the competence and priorities of the City Administrator and Mayor.
QUESTION:
• Should “entertainment” have a greater share of the budget than capital improvements, especially given the fact that of all the tickets sold for Sunset Center events, only 14% are purchases by Carmelites, whereas 100% of all Carmelites benefit from capital improvements to Carmel-by-the-Sea?
STUDIES OVER ACTION:
Organization Study of Library Operations Study & Forest Studies & Pavement Study vs. Implementation of Findings and Recommendations
I. Organization Study of Library Operations:
City Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
February 6, 2007
Review the Organization Study of Library Operations from John Goss of Ralph Andersen & Associates and provide policy direction.
COMMENT:
• While the Study has been completed, the City Council has not informed the public about decisions regarding the implementation of any of the recommendations.
II. Forest Studies by Barrie D. Coate, Consulting Arborist:
City Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
December 4, 2007
XI. Orders of Council
A. Receive recommendations by the City Forester on suggestions presented by consulting arborist Barrie Coate and provide policy direction.
Forest, Parks & Beach
Reforestation 7/1/07 6/30/08 $ 56,650 Contract for Carmel forest study, $6,650 + $50,000 estimated to implement forest study recommendations.
NOTE: Forest Study Implementation $50,000 (Capital Improvement)
COMMENT:
• At their December 4, 2007 meeting, the City Council approved Forest Study Implementation of $50,000; however, as Barrie Coate stated in his report, the City Council must fund a comprehensive Forest Plan long-term for the Plan to be successful. Given the state of our neglected forest, $50,000 is a minimal amount relative the needs of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s forest.
III. Pavement Management System & Truck Impact Fee Study:
City Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
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.
Public Works
Pavement Management System & Truck Impact Fee study 5/1/07 9/30/07 $ 45,500
Nichols Engineering has been contracted to perform updated pavement management system and truck impact fee study.
City Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Consideration of a Resolution 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.
COMMENT:
• At the March 13, 2007 meeting, the City Council approved a Resolution entering into an agreement for a 2007 Pavement Management and Truck Impact Fee study in an amount not to exceed $60,300. Not only have the findings and recommendations of this Study not been placed on a City Council agenda, the City Council went ahead with a contract for three street paving projects for a total cost of $261,628.without a public discussion about the 2007 Pavement Management and Truck Impact Fee Study.
CONSULTANTS OVER FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES:
Case in Point:
City Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, January 9, 2007
Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to execute a Consultant Services Agreement with the firm of RBF Consulting in an amount not to exceed $166,488 for the General Plan Update project.
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
FY 2007-2008
COMMUNITY PLANNING & BUILDING:
DIRECTOR
Building Inspector
Planning Services Mgr.
Senior Planner
Assistant Planner
NOTE: Although a DIRECTOR & Assistant Planner are on the City’s Organizational Chart, presently these positions are vacant.
COMMENTS:
• With a fully staffed Community Planning & Building Department of competent and experienced planners, staff members could update the General Plan. Moreover, staff members with institutional memory are in the best position to update the General Plan, not consultants.
• Due to the City having the Community Planning & Building Department Director position vacant for over 4 years and an understaffed department, the City has had to rely on too many consultants.
POLICE OVER ALL OTHER DEPARTMENTS:
EXPENDITURE SUMMARY
2007/08 Budget Summary
Top 9 Expenditure Categories (Salaries/Benefits and Materials / Services Totals), as follows:
Police $ 2,673,132
Fire $ 1,678,154 (according to the Citygate Fire Department Consolidation Feasibility Study for the Cities of Carmel, Monterey, and Pacific Grove, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is currently underfunding the Fire Department by $400,000)
Public Works $ 1,028,340
Harrison Memorial Library $ 879,465
Administration $ 815,105
Administrative Services $ 762,914
Community and Cultural $ 750,000
Community Planning and Building $ 721,001
Forest, Parks and Beach $ 457,661
TOTAL: $ 13,094,894
COMMENTS:
• Of the total FY 2007/08 budget of $ 13,094,894, the Police Department garners the greatest taxpayer monies at $ 2,673,132/FY 2007/08, whereas the Fire Department has a budget of $1,678,154/FY 2007/08.
• Of the total 66 full-time city employees, 28 are dedicated to public safety (Police & Fire); 22 full-time police department employees, including Public Safety Director/Police Chief, 4 Sergeants, 1 Corporal, 8 Officers, 6 PSOs/CSOs and 2 CSOs vs. 6 full-time fire department employees, including 3 Captains and 3 Engineers.
• Given the nature and magnitude of “crime” in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea from the weekly published Police Log in The Carmel Pine Cone, questions should be asked about the appropriate size of the Police Department budget and the number of Police Department employees. Moreover, Public Safety Director /Police Chief George Rawson should be made to justify the Police Department’s budget and City Administrator Rich Guillen should justify the Police Department’s budget in relation to the other city departments.
• According to the recent Citygate Fire Department Consolidation Feasibility Study for the Cities of Carmel, Monterey, and Pacific Grove, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is currently underfunding the Fire Department by $400,000. In terms of public safety, it could be argued that the City’s Police Department is overfunded at
$2,673,132/FY 2007/08 while the Fire Department is underfunded at $1,678,154/FY 2007/08.
• With regard to the Police Department, there have been too many instances where the Police have acted in the interests of the mayor and not in the interests of the citizens the police are sworn to protect and serve. Just recently, the Police authorized the posting of “No Parking” signs on the Forest Theatre grapestake fence along the west side of Guadalupe Street. Even though the Police were notified about a superseding resolution making the signs illegal, apparently the Police issued parking citations to car owners parked there. Another example involved the removal of opposition campaign signs which were legal.
FINAL COMMENT & QUESTION:• Given Sue McCloud’s 8-year mayoral record of wrong policy preference priorities, if re-elected for a fifth term, the denizens of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea will continue to see unilateral and wrongheaded decisions made regarding taxpayer monies. Don’t the denizens of Carmel-by-the-Sea and the City itself deserve better?
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Thursday, December 27, 2007
City’s Ocean Avenue “Holiday Lights:" What Would J.S. Holliday Think?
ABSTRACT: For the 2007/08 Holiday Season, the City’s “Holiday Lights” on Ocean Avenue consist of the traditional multi-colored lights on the “Holiday Tree” at the intersection of Junipero Av. & Ocean Av., white lights around the trunks of trees, trees and shrubs, along the ground and on Christmas trees forms. Photos of some of the “Holiday Lights” are shown. Comments for context pruposes are presented. Questions are asked regarding the decision-making process involving the 2007/08 “Holiday Lights” selection and whether the City “Holiday Light” display is or is not “Disneylandish” and inconsistent or consistent with the traditions of Carmel-by-the-Sea, namely respect for Carmel’s “serene natural beauty” and “starlight, moonlight and lights from within buildings predominate rather than bright, glaring street lights or twinkling lights.”
2007/08 "Holiday Lights" on Ocean Avenue
View of "Holiday Lights" on Ocean Av. from San Carlos St. to Junipero Av.
View of Ocean Av. Medians
COMMENTS:
• For context, during the 2004/05 Holiday Season, the Ocean Avenue median lights were left up beyond the second Wednesday in January; at that time, J.S. Holliday communicated to the City Council that the City has had a law since 1995 requiring lights on trees in the public right-of-way be removed by the second Wednesday in January. Mayor Sue McCloud and City Administrator Rich Guillen made the decision to keep the holiday lights up beyond the second Wednesday in January. Later, in February 2005, the holiday lights were finally removed.
• In the Carmel Residents Association Newsletter of February 2005, the Editorial, “A community conversation is needed for issues such as twinkle lights” took issue with the 2004/05 "Holiday Lights." Some of the reasons cited included, as follows:
“Carmel has always been known and admired for its serene natural beauty. At night, starlight, moonlight and lights from within buildings predominate rather than bright, glaring street lights or twinkling lights.”
“People make jokes about touristy towns such as Solvang or Poulsbo, Washington, using words like kitschy, cutesy or Disneylandish. Could the proliferation of twinkling lights move Carmel in this direction?”
(Source: http://www.carmelresidents.org/News0502.html)
• In 2006/07, electrical upgrades and low-voltage flood-type lights were installed in the Ocean Avenue medians simultaneously with the re-landscaping of the Ocean Avenue medians from Junipero Av. to Monte Verde St. without a public hearing and in violation of the Municipal Code. By early 2007, there were approximately 80 low-voltage flood-type lights installed and on from dusk to dawn.
QUESTIONS:
• Who was involved in the selection of the 2007/08 “Holiday Lights” display? What criteria did those involved use to lead to the present display of “Holiday Lights.”
• Do the “Holiday Lights” for the 2007/08 Holiday Season respect the traditions of Carmel-by-the-Sea or are the 2007/08 “Holiday Lights” “Disneylandish?”
2007/08 "Holiday Lights" on Ocean Avenue
View of "Holiday Lights" on Ocean Av. from San Carlos St. to Junipero Av.
View of Ocean Av. MediansCOMMENTS:
• For context, during the 2004/05 Holiday Season, the Ocean Avenue median lights were left up beyond the second Wednesday in January; at that time, J.S. Holliday communicated to the City Council that the City has had a law since 1995 requiring lights on trees in the public right-of-way be removed by the second Wednesday in January. Mayor Sue McCloud and City Administrator Rich Guillen made the decision to keep the holiday lights up beyond the second Wednesday in January. Later, in February 2005, the holiday lights were finally removed.
• In the Carmel Residents Association Newsletter of February 2005, the Editorial, “A community conversation is needed for issues such as twinkle lights” took issue with the 2004/05 "Holiday Lights." Some of the reasons cited included, as follows:
“Carmel has always been known and admired for its serene natural beauty. At night, starlight, moonlight and lights from within buildings predominate rather than bright, glaring street lights or twinkling lights.”
“People make jokes about touristy towns such as Solvang or Poulsbo, Washington, using words like kitschy, cutesy or Disneylandish. Could the proliferation of twinkling lights move Carmel in this direction?”
(Source: http://www.carmelresidents.org/News0502.html)
• In 2006/07, electrical upgrades and low-voltage flood-type lights were installed in the Ocean Avenue medians simultaneously with the re-landscaping of the Ocean Avenue medians from Junipero Av. to Monte Verde St. without a public hearing and in violation of the Municipal Code. By early 2007, there were approximately 80 low-voltage flood-type lights installed and on from dusk to dawn.
QUESTIONS:
• Who was involved in the selection of the 2007/08 “Holiday Lights” display? What criteria did those involved use to lead to the present display of “Holiday Lights.”
• Do the “Holiday Lights” for the 2007/08 Holiday Season respect the traditions of Carmel-by-the-Sea or are the 2007/08 “Holiday Lights” “Disneylandish?”
Sunday, December 23, 2007
UPDATE: Historic Designation Appeals to the Historic Resources Board
Resource Name: Ernest Bixler HouseLocation: Forest Rd & 7th Av, S.W. Corner
Distinction: APPEAL GRANTED, Residence Removed from City’s Inventory of Historic Resources
UPDATE: HISTORIC APPEALS TO THE HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD
(November 2005 – December 2007)
APPEALS GRANTED: 40
APPEALS DENIED: 20
APPEALS DISMISSED: 14
APPEALS OF A PRELMINARY DETERMINATION OF INELIGIBILITY:
GRANTED: 1
DENIED: 3
TOTAL NUMBER OF APPEALS: 78
NUMBER ADDED TO REGISTER FROM INVENTORY: 1
HISTORIC APPEAL TO THE HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD (December 2007)
(Name of Property Owner, Physical Location, Resource Name, APPEAL GRANTED or DENIED)
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD
REGULAR MEEGING AGENDA
Monday, December 17, 2007
BOARD MEMBERS:
ERIK DYAR, CHAIRPERSON
ELINOR LAIOLO
ERLING LAGERHOLM
NICOLE SCHROEDER (Absent)
JULIE WENDT
VII. APPEALS
Consideration of an appeal of the City’s determination to place an existing residence and detached garage located in the Single Family Residential (R-1) District on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources.
Robert & Susan Neal
Resource Name: Ernest Bixler House
Location: Forest Rd & 7th Av. S.W. Corner
APPEAL GRANTED
Thursday, December 20, 2007
City to Submit to State Water Resources Ctrl Board a Request for an Exception to its Storm Water Discharges to Area of Special Biological Significance
ABSTRACT: According to the Storm Water Section, Division of Water Quality, State Water Resources Control Board, “Monterey Permittees that discharge to an ASBS must either (i) cease all ASBS discharges or (ii) obtain a State Water Board exception to the prohibition and comply with all conditions of the exception, including obtaining any necessary WDRs..." The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea has informed the State Water Resources Control Board that the City will be submitting a request for an exception to the Ocean Plan for its storm water discharges to the Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS). The Ocean Plan allows the State Water Resources Control Board “to grant exceptions to any plan requirement provided three conditions are met. These are procedural and substantive. The State Water Board must provide public notice and hold a hearing before acting on an exception request. Second, the Board must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. And, third, the Board must make two findings that: (1) The exception will not compromise protection of ocean waters for beneficial uses; and (2) The public interest will be served.” The City must prepare and submit an application requesting an exception, which includes specific information such as an environmental document, e.g. EIR, or other specific documentation to meet CEQA requirements. Staff then reviews the application and decides whether to grant or deny the exception. If staff recommends granting the exception, the State Board staff will prepare documents for the exception. The State Board staff will provide 45 days notice to the public of a hearing on the proposed exception. Afterwards, staff will present the item to the State Board for final action at another publicly-noticed meeting. Comments and a Question are presented.
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, FY 2007-08 QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT, 1st QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2007)
City Administrator Goals and Objectives
3) Implement storm water run-off program and plan to address ASBS requirements.
Staff is meeting with State Water Resources Control Board staff to resolve effluent requirements for discharge into Carmel Bay.
(Source: Carmel by-the-Sea City Council, Monthly Agenda Packet
for regular meetings, December 4, 2007 Meeting Agenda, http://www.ci.carmel.ca.us/)
Correspondence, as follows, from the Storm Water Section, Division of Water Quality, State Water Resources Control Board, regarding the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s intention to submit “a request for an exception to the Ocean Plan for its storm water discharges to the ASBS.”
Carmel-by-the-Sea is not enrolled in the Phase II MS4 permit. The city is participating in the Monterey Regional SWMP program, but chose not to be a co-permittee under the MRSWMP at the time that Region 3 approved it in September 2006. The City subsequently submitted a SWMP that effectively incorporates the MRSWMP along with the City-specific information. Region 3 staff intend to review their SWMP and post it for public review in the next few months. Because it mirrors the already approved MRSWMP, we were expecting a smooth process for approving the SWMP and enrolling Carmel under the Phase II permit.
The following language was used in the resolution to approve the MRSWMP:
"To comply with the General Permit and the Ocean Plan prohibition, Monterey Permittees that discharge to an ASBS must either (i) cease all ASBS discharges or (ii) obtain a State Water Board exception to the prohibition and comply with all conditions of the exception, including obtaining any necessary WDRs..."
The City has informed State Board staff that they will be submitting a request for an exception to the Ocean Plan for its storm water discharges to the ASBS.
To receive email updates about Storm Water permitting issues please sign up for our electronic mailing lists at http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/lyrisforms/swrcb_subscribe.html.
Please let us know your experience with us both positive and negative by visiting http://www.calepa.ca.gov/Customer/ and filling out a short Customer Service Survey Form.
If you have any further questions/concerns please contact us by email or at 916-341-5536.
Thank You,
Storm Water Section
Division of Water Quality
State Water Resources Control Board
Ocean Plan ASBS Exceptions. What are they? Why do you want one? How do you get one?
Based on a presentation made by Sheila Vassey, staff attorney for the State Water Board, at the ASBS Stakeholder Meeting held in La Jolla on January 13, 2005.
The State Board's Ocean Plan prohibits waste discharge into ASBS. If you are a discharger, you can legally comply in 1 of 2 ways: stop discharging or get an exception.
An exception in this case is a special permission, granted by the State Water Board, to discharge into the ASBS despite the discharge prohibition. It is not a discharge permit, however. So, if an entity is currently discharging into an ASBS, in order for the discharge to be legal, the discharger must have both a permit and an approved exception.
The State Water Board’s authority to grant exceptions comes from the Ocean Plan. The plan allows the board to grant exceptions to any plan requirement provided three conditions are met. These are procedural and substantive. The State Water Board must
provide public notice and hold a hearing before acting on an exception request. Second, the Board must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. And, third, the Board must make two findings that:
(1) The exception will not compromise protection of ocean waters for beneficial uses; and
(2) The public interest will be served.
So, what must a discharger do to apply for an exception? The discharger must prepare and submit an application requesting an esception. Send the application to both the Regional Board and the State Board. The application must include information that will enable the State Water Board to comply with CEQA and to make the necessary findings to approve the exception. I will now briefly go over the application process. (Note that the State Board does not have application forms.)
(1) The first step in the process is to contact the appropriate Regional Board and ask them to assist you in requesting an exception. The Regional Board is responsible for permitting the discharge and so they must be involved in the process.
(2) Prepare an application package that includes: [Note: If you do not have all the listed information, you may need to include a reasonable schedule to gather and submit it.]
(a) The discharger’s name, address, & contact information.
(b) Any applicable permit or order numbers, if the discharge is regulated under a permit or WDRs.
(c) The specific Ocean Plan requirement for which an exception is sought. The ASBS prohibition is found in Sections III.E.1 and III.H.2 of the Ocean Plan.
(d) Documentation that shows that allowing the discharge to continue will not compromise protection of ocean waters for beneficial uses. This documentation is needed to support 1 of the 2 required board findings.
Note that one beneficial use is the preservation and enhancement of ASBS, which are defined as “those areas designated by the [State Board] as requiring protection of species or biological communities to the extent that alteration of natural water quality is undesirable.” This means that any data that you may have on natural background is relevant and should be submitted.
(e) Documentation for the other finding, i.e. that the public interest will be served by granting the exception. For the Scripps discharge exception, for example, the board found that Scripps’ activities had invaluable education and research benefits. Other relevant factors might include the degree of environmental damage that would occur if the discharge were moved, for example, if the discharge were in a particularly fragile area and moving it would cause greater damage than leaving it. Discharges associated with defense activities might arguably be justified as in the public interest (assuming appropriate treatment, etc.).
(f) CEQA information: CEQA applies to discretionary projects by public agencies. The State Water Board has to comply with CEQA when the board decides whether or not to grant an exception because this is a discretionary decision. Also, the board did not consider the potential environmental effects of granting individual exceptions to the ASBS prohibition when the board adopted the Ocean Plan. (The NPDES CEQA
exception in Water Code §13389 does not apply because the action is not issuing the permit but rather granting the Ocean Plan exception.) So the question facing the board when it gets an exception application is: will granting the exception have a significant adverse effect on the environment?
If the applicant is a state or local agency and the agency has already adopted an environmental document, e.g. EIR, that addresses the potential significant adverse environmental effects of discharging into an ASBS; then that document should be submitted. If no analysis has been done, then the discharger needs to submit:
1. data on existing environmental conditions, including a description of marine life near the discharge and at a reference location away from the discharge.
2. an analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the discharge if it continues. This analysis should include data of discharge volume and quality, chemical analyses, toxicity,
bacteria.
3. a description of current treatment processes, pollution controls, best management practices currently used or planned
4. an analysis of alternatives to the discharge and their impacts.
5. if the facility has a discharge permit, the facility’s compliance history, including any spills or upset events that resulted in the discharge of untreated or partially treated
wastewater to the ASBS
(g) The Regional Board may also require you to submit a revised permit application. If so, forms and instructions can be obtained from the Regional Board.
Next Steps: In general, once an application is submitted, Regional Board staff will work with the discharger and State Board staff (i.e. Dominic Gregorio) to ensure that the State Board has adequate information to process the exception request. Once the application is complete, State Board staff will prepare the necessary documents for the exception. These include an appropriate environmental document and a draft resolution with detailed conditions, if staff recommends granting the exception. If the State Board is the lead agency under CEQA, staff will typically prepare an initial study and, based on the results of the study, either a negative declaration, mitigated neg dec or an EIR. Normally, if the applicant is a private party, the State Board will be the lead agency. If the applicant is a state or local agency, the board will generally look to the agency to be the lead under CEQA.
[The State Board has 2 possible processes to comply with CEQA when it acts as lead agency - the traditional way, which involves preparing an EIR, neg. dec. or mitigated neg. dec., or through the board's certified regulatory program. Under the latter, the board doesn’t have to prepare an EIR or neg dec, but rather a staff report that analyses environmental consequences, mitigation measures and alternatives. State Board staff have decided to follow the traditional route.]
Once the documents are ready, State Board staff will provide 45 days notice to the public of the upcoming hearing on the proposed exception. The public will have the opportunity to comment on the documents and to attend the hearing. After the hearing, staff will respond to comments, make any necessary changes in the documents, and present the item to the State Board for final action at a publicly-noticed meeting sometime later.
Once the State Board acts to approve an exception, it is sent to USEPA for concurrence. After that, the Regional Board will normally adopt a revised permit for the discharge that incorporates the exception conditions adopted by the State Board.
An approved exception grants permission to discharge into an ASBS but doesn't grant this right indefinitely. Exceptions generally are subject to review every 3 to 5 years. They are typically incorporated into discharge permits, which last for five years. When the permit expires, the exception is reviewed to determine whether it’s still appropriate.
State Water Board contact information:
State Water Resources Control Board
Division of Water Quality
1001 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Attention: Dominic Gregorio
Phone: (916) 341-5488
Fax: (916) 341-5584
Email: dgregorio@waterboards.ca.gov
State Board website: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/
Ocean Plan webpage: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/plnspols/oplans/index.html
SWQPA/ASBS webpage: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/plnspols/oplans/asbs.html
(Source: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/plnspols/docs/asbs/instruct_asbs_opexceptions.pdf)
COMMENTS:
• STATE WATER QUALITY PROTECTION AREAS
AREAS OF SPECIAL BIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE
California's Marine State Water Quality Protection Areas
Carmel Bay (Reconnaissance Report)
For Reconnaissance Survey Report, Click on Post title above or copy, paste and click
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/general/publications/docs/asbs_carmelbay.pdf
For (Map) (Picture) (Panoramic).
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/plnspols/asbs_info.html
• In the December 4, 2007 Meeting Agenda Packet, there is a check to Denise Duffy & Associates in the amount of $14,248.38 for “Environments Review Services,” dated 10/20/07. It is believed to be, although not confirmed, compensation for services related to the City’s intended request for an exception to the Ocean Plan for its storm water discharges to Carmel Bay, an Area of Special Biological Significance (ASBS).
114143 10/30/07 DENISE DUFFY & ASSOCIATES $ 14,248.38 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SERVICES
(Source: Carmel-by-the-Sea, November 2007 Check Register, Includes checks dated 10/30/07)
• It is expected that the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea will be submitting a request for an exception to the Ocean Plan for its storm water discharges to the ASBS. Yet, with regard to the air, the City Council was so concerned about “protecting children, youth and non-smokers from the consequences of secondhand smoke” that the City Council unanimously voted to amend Title 8, Section 8.36.020 Smoking Regulations for Public Places of the Carmel Municipal Code regarding smoking prohibition to include all City parks at their 4 December 2007 meeting.
QUESTION:
• Why does the City Council use one standard for air pollution, e.g. secondhand smoke, and another standard for water pollution, e.g. storm water discharges into an Area of Special Biological Significance? To wit, the City acted expeditiously to ban smoking in all City parks, yet the City wants to be exempted from the requirements of storm water discharge into an Area of Special Biological Significance i.e. Carmel Bay.
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, FY 2007-08 QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT, 1st QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2007)
City Administrator Goals and Objectives
3) Implement storm water run-off program and plan to address ASBS requirements.
Staff is meeting with State Water Resources Control Board staff to resolve effluent requirements for discharge into Carmel Bay.
(Source: Carmel by-the-Sea City Council, Monthly Agenda Packet
for regular meetings, December 4, 2007 Meeting Agenda, http://www.ci.carmel.ca.us/)
Correspondence, as follows, from the Storm Water Section, Division of Water Quality, State Water Resources Control Board, regarding the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s intention to submit “a request for an exception to the Ocean Plan for its storm water discharges to the ASBS.”
Carmel-by-the-Sea is not enrolled in the Phase II MS4 permit. The city is participating in the Monterey Regional SWMP program, but chose not to be a co-permittee under the MRSWMP at the time that Region 3 approved it in September 2006. The City subsequently submitted a SWMP that effectively incorporates the MRSWMP along with the City-specific information. Region 3 staff intend to review their SWMP and post it for public review in the next few months. Because it mirrors the already approved MRSWMP, we were expecting a smooth process for approving the SWMP and enrolling Carmel under the Phase II permit.
The following language was used in the resolution to approve the MRSWMP:
"To comply with the General Permit and the Ocean Plan prohibition, Monterey Permittees that discharge to an ASBS must either (i) cease all ASBS discharges or (ii) obtain a State Water Board exception to the prohibition and comply with all conditions of the exception, including obtaining any necessary WDRs..."
The City has informed State Board staff that they will be submitting a request for an exception to the Ocean Plan for its storm water discharges to the ASBS.
To receive email updates about Storm Water permitting issues please sign up for our electronic mailing lists at http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/lyrisforms/swrcb_subscribe.html.
Please let us know your experience with us both positive and negative by visiting http://www.calepa.ca.gov/Customer/ and filling out a short Customer Service Survey Form.
If you have any further questions/concerns please contact us by email or at 916-341-5536.
Thank You,
Storm Water Section
Division of Water Quality
State Water Resources Control Board
Ocean Plan ASBS Exceptions. What are they? Why do you want one? How do you get one?
Based on a presentation made by Sheila Vassey, staff attorney for the State Water Board, at the ASBS Stakeholder Meeting held in La Jolla on January 13, 2005.
The State Board's Ocean Plan prohibits waste discharge into ASBS. If you are a discharger, you can legally comply in 1 of 2 ways: stop discharging or get an exception.
An exception in this case is a special permission, granted by the State Water Board, to discharge into the ASBS despite the discharge prohibition. It is not a discharge permit, however. So, if an entity is currently discharging into an ASBS, in order for the discharge to be legal, the discharger must have both a permit and an approved exception.
The State Water Board’s authority to grant exceptions comes from the Ocean Plan. The plan allows the board to grant exceptions to any plan requirement provided three conditions are met. These are procedural and substantive. The State Water Board must
provide public notice and hold a hearing before acting on an exception request. Second, the Board must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. And, third, the Board must make two findings that:
(1) The exception will not compromise protection of ocean waters for beneficial uses; and
(2) The public interest will be served.
So, what must a discharger do to apply for an exception? The discharger must prepare and submit an application requesting an esception. Send the application to both the Regional Board and the State Board. The application must include information that will enable the State Water Board to comply with CEQA and to make the necessary findings to approve the exception. I will now briefly go over the application process. (Note that the State Board does not have application forms.)
(1) The first step in the process is to contact the appropriate Regional Board and ask them to assist you in requesting an exception. The Regional Board is responsible for permitting the discharge and so they must be involved in the process.
(2) Prepare an application package that includes: [Note: If you do not have all the listed information, you may need to include a reasonable schedule to gather and submit it.]
(a) The discharger’s name, address, & contact information.
(b) Any applicable permit or order numbers, if the discharge is regulated under a permit or WDRs.
(c) The specific Ocean Plan requirement for which an exception is sought. The ASBS prohibition is found in Sections III.E.1 and III.H.2 of the Ocean Plan.
(d) Documentation that shows that allowing the discharge to continue will not compromise protection of ocean waters for beneficial uses. This documentation is needed to support 1 of the 2 required board findings.
Note that one beneficial use is the preservation and enhancement of ASBS, which are defined as “those areas designated by the [State Board] as requiring protection of species or biological communities to the extent that alteration of natural water quality is undesirable.” This means that any data that you may have on natural background is relevant and should be submitted.
(e) Documentation for the other finding, i.e. that the public interest will be served by granting the exception. For the Scripps discharge exception, for example, the board found that Scripps’ activities had invaluable education and research benefits. Other relevant factors might include the degree of environmental damage that would occur if the discharge were moved, for example, if the discharge were in a particularly fragile area and moving it would cause greater damage than leaving it. Discharges associated with defense activities might arguably be justified as in the public interest (assuming appropriate treatment, etc.).
(f) CEQA information: CEQA applies to discretionary projects by public agencies. The State Water Board has to comply with CEQA when the board decides whether or not to grant an exception because this is a discretionary decision. Also, the board did not consider the potential environmental effects of granting individual exceptions to the ASBS prohibition when the board adopted the Ocean Plan. (The NPDES CEQA
exception in Water Code §13389 does not apply because the action is not issuing the permit but rather granting the Ocean Plan exception.) So the question facing the board when it gets an exception application is: will granting the exception have a significant adverse effect on the environment?
If the applicant is a state or local agency and the agency has already adopted an environmental document, e.g. EIR, that addresses the potential significant adverse environmental effects of discharging into an ASBS; then that document should be submitted. If no analysis has been done, then the discharger needs to submit:
1. data on existing environmental conditions, including a description of marine life near the discharge and at a reference location away from the discharge.
2. an analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the discharge if it continues. This analysis should include data of discharge volume and quality, chemical analyses, toxicity,
bacteria.
3. a description of current treatment processes, pollution controls, best management practices currently used or planned
4. an analysis of alternatives to the discharge and their impacts.
5. if the facility has a discharge permit, the facility’s compliance history, including any spills or upset events that resulted in the discharge of untreated or partially treated
wastewater to the ASBS
(g) The Regional Board may also require you to submit a revised permit application. If so, forms and instructions can be obtained from the Regional Board.
Next Steps: In general, once an application is submitted, Regional Board staff will work with the discharger and State Board staff (i.e. Dominic Gregorio) to ensure that the State Board has adequate information to process the exception request. Once the application is complete, State Board staff will prepare the necessary documents for the exception. These include an appropriate environmental document and a draft resolution with detailed conditions, if staff recommends granting the exception. If the State Board is the lead agency under CEQA, staff will typically prepare an initial study and, based on the results of the study, either a negative declaration, mitigated neg dec or an EIR. Normally, if the applicant is a private party, the State Board will be the lead agency. If the applicant is a state or local agency, the board will generally look to the agency to be the lead under CEQA.
[The State Board has 2 possible processes to comply with CEQA when it acts as lead agency - the traditional way, which involves preparing an EIR, neg. dec. or mitigated neg. dec., or through the board's certified regulatory program. Under the latter, the board doesn’t have to prepare an EIR or neg dec, but rather a staff report that analyses environmental consequences, mitigation measures and alternatives. State Board staff have decided to follow the traditional route.]
Once the documents are ready, State Board staff will provide 45 days notice to the public of the upcoming hearing on the proposed exception. The public will have the opportunity to comment on the documents and to attend the hearing. After the hearing, staff will respond to comments, make any necessary changes in the documents, and present the item to the State Board for final action at a publicly-noticed meeting sometime later.
Once the State Board acts to approve an exception, it is sent to USEPA for concurrence. After that, the Regional Board will normally adopt a revised permit for the discharge that incorporates the exception conditions adopted by the State Board.
An approved exception grants permission to discharge into an ASBS but doesn't grant this right indefinitely. Exceptions generally are subject to review every 3 to 5 years. They are typically incorporated into discharge permits, which last for five years. When the permit expires, the exception is reviewed to determine whether it’s still appropriate.
State Water Board contact information:
State Water Resources Control Board
Division of Water Quality
1001 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Attention: Dominic Gregorio
Phone: (916) 341-5488
Fax: (916) 341-5584
Email: dgregorio@waterboards.ca.gov
State Board website: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/
Ocean Plan webpage: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/plnspols/oplans/index.html
SWQPA/ASBS webpage: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/plnspols/oplans/asbs.html
(Source: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/plnspols/docs/asbs/instruct_asbs_opexceptions.pdf)
COMMENTS:
• STATE WATER QUALITY PROTECTION AREAS
AREAS OF SPECIAL BIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE
California's Marine State Water Quality Protection Areas
Carmel Bay (Reconnaissance Report)
For Reconnaissance Survey Report, Click on Post title above or copy, paste and click
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/general/publications/docs/asbs_carmelbay.pdf
For (Map) (Picture) (Panoramic).
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/plnspols/asbs_info.html
• In the December 4, 2007 Meeting Agenda Packet, there is a check to Denise Duffy & Associates in the amount of $14,248.38 for “Environments Review Services,” dated 10/20/07. It is believed to be, although not confirmed, compensation for services related to the City’s intended request for an exception to the Ocean Plan for its storm water discharges to Carmel Bay, an Area of Special Biological Significance (ASBS).
114143 10/30/07 DENISE DUFFY & ASSOCIATES $ 14,248.38 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SERVICES
(Source: Carmel-by-the-Sea, November 2007 Check Register, Includes checks dated 10/30/07)
• It is expected that the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea will be submitting a request for an exception to the Ocean Plan for its storm water discharges to the ASBS. Yet, with regard to the air, the City Council was so concerned about “protecting children, youth and non-smokers from the consequences of secondhand smoke” that the City Council unanimously voted to amend Title 8, Section 8.36.020 Smoking Regulations for Public Places of the Carmel Municipal Code regarding smoking prohibition to include all City parks at their 4 December 2007 meeting.
QUESTION:
• Why does the City Council use one standard for air pollution, e.g. secondhand smoke, and another standard for water pollution, e.g. storm water discharges into an Area of Special Biological Significance? To wit, the City acted expeditiously to ban smoking in all City parks, yet the City wants to be exempted from the requirements of storm water discharge into an Area of Special Biological Significance i.e. Carmel Bay.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Forest Theatre Tree Maintenance: Haphazard & Unsystematic
ABSTRACT: Over the past few weeks, individual trees have been cut down in Forest Theatre; one tree one day, another tree another day, et cetera. BEFORE photos of some trees and AFTER photos of some removed trees are shown. Since these trees were removed one day at a time and other nearby dead tree trunks and stumps were not removed, a conclusion is drawn that the City is haphazardly and unsystematically removing trees from the Forest Theatre. Comments are made and Questions are asked regarding the City’s lack of a proactive plan to meet the maintenance and upkeep requirements of the Forest Theatre grounds.
BEFORE
Monterey Pine Trunk, Dead
Representative of other Dead and Dying Trees
AFTER
Note dead trunk to right (5’ high) and dead Coast Live Oak in foreground, both remaining next to stump of cut and removed dead Monterey Pine Tree
BEFORE
Coast Live Oak in Need of Pruning
AFTER
Note dead Coast Live Oak trunk to right, remaining near stump of cut and removed dead Coast Live Oak.
View of Wet Pavement in Forest Theatre & Guadalupe St. & Puddles at Foot of Guadalupe St. @ Mt. View Av.
Puddles at Foot of Guadalupe St. @ Mt. View Av., View to the South towards 8th Av.
COMMENTS:
• Over the past few weeks, individual trees have been cut down and removed from Forest Theater property; one tree one day, another tree another day, et cetera. For example, the dead Monterey Pine trunk shown above was removed one day, later on another day the dead Coast Live Oak truck shown above was removed. Other nearby dead stumps and trees were not cut down and removed.
• One of the Responsibilities of the Director of Forest, Parks and Beach is to “cause to be removed all dead trees or shrubs from public property.”
QUESTIONS:
• Why is the City haphazardly and unsystematically removing some trees from the Forest Theatre?
• Why doesn’t the City have a proactive plan for the maintenance and upkeep of the Forest Theatre grounds?
• What are the City’s plans for correcting the standing water at the foot of Guadalupe Street at Mt. View Avenue?
REFERENCES:
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Municipal Code
Chapter 12.28
TREES AND SHRUBS*
12.28.140 Responsibilities of the Director of Forest, Parks and Beach.
The Director of Forest, Parks and Beach shall:
A. Supervise all tree-cutting or trimming for which a permit has been granted.
B. Cause to be removed all dead trees or shrubs from public property except in circumstances where all of the following conditions apply:
1. The dead tree is a Monterey cypress located on or adjacent to the beach;
2. The dead tree does not present a clear and present danger to persons or property or can be supported by reasonable means, thus mitigating its clear and present danger; and
3. The Forest and Beach Commission has determined that the dead tree is of substantial aesthetic value to warrant its preservation.
C. Cause to be removed or trimmed any trees or shrubs for which such removal or trimming is ordered by the Forest and Beach Commission or the City Council or is required in connection with any public works project ordered by the City Council. (Ord. 94-7 § 1, 1994; Ord. 214 C.S. § 1, 1970; Code 1975 § 1231.5).
(Source: http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/carmel.html)
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
FOREST, PARKS AND BEACH
The Forest, Parks and Beach Department manages and maintains the City's urban forest, parks and beach in order to preserve the windbreak protection, abate soil erosion, enhance the natural beauty, and maintain the outdoor recreational facilities of the community.
Revised 07/08
Salaries / Benefits $ 274,909
Materials / Services $ 182,752
Total $ 457,661
(Source: CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CALIFORNIA ADOPTED BUDGET FISCAL YEARS 2007/08 THROUGH 2009/10)
BEFOREMonterey Pine Trunk, Dead
Representative of other Dead and Dying Trees
AFTERNote dead trunk to right (5’ high) and dead Coast Live Oak in foreground, both remaining next to stump of cut and removed dead Monterey Pine Tree
BEFORECoast Live Oak in Need of Pruning
AFTERNote dead Coast Live Oak trunk to right, remaining near stump of cut and removed dead Coast Live Oak.
View of Wet Pavement in Forest Theatre & Guadalupe St. & Puddles at Foot of Guadalupe St. @ Mt. View Av.
Puddles at Foot of Guadalupe St. @ Mt. View Av., View to the South towards 8th Av.COMMENTS:
• Over the past few weeks, individual trees have been cut down and removed from Forest Theater property; one tree one day, another tree another day, et cetera. For example, the dead Monterey Pine trunk shown above was removed one day, later on another day the dead Coast Live Oak truck shown above was removed. Other nearby dead stumps and trees were not cut down and removed.
• One of the Responsibilities of the Director of Forest, Parks and Beach is to “cause to be removed all dead trees or shrubs from public property.”
QUESTIONS:
• Why is the City haphazardly and unsystematically removing some trees from the Forest Theatre?
• Why doesn’t the City have a proactive plan for the maintenance and upkeep of the Forest Theatre grounds?
• What are the City’s plans for correcting the standing water at the foot of Guadalupe Street at Mt. View Avenue?
REFERENCES:
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Municipal Code
Chapter 12.28
TREES AND SHRUBS*
12.28.140 Responsibilities of the Director of Forest, Parks and Beach.
The Director of Forest, Parks and Beach shall:
A. Supervise all tree-cutting or trimming for which a permit has been granted.
B. Cause to be removed all dead trees or shrubs from public property except in circumstances where all of the following conditions apply:
1. The dead tree is a Monterey cypress located on or adjacent to the beach;
2. The dead tree does not present a clear and present danger to persons or property or can be supported by reasonable means, thus mitigating its clear and present danger; and
3. The Forest and Beach Commission has determined that the dead tree is of substantial aesthetic value to warrant its preservation.
C. Cause to be removed or trimmed any trees or shrubs for which such removal or trimming is ordered by the Forest and Beach Commission or the City Council or is required in connection with any public works project ordered by the City Council. (Ord. 94-7 § 1, 1994; Ord. 214 C.S. § 1, 1970; Code 1975 § 1231.5).
(Source: http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/carmel.html)
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
FOREST, PARKS AND BEACH
The Forest, Parks and Beach Department manages and maintains the City's urban forest, parks and beach in order to preserve the windbreak protection, abate soil erosion, enhance the natural beauty, and maintain the outdoor recreational facilities of the community.
Revised 07/08
Salaries / Benefits $ 274,909
Materials / Services $ 182,752
Total $ 457,661
(Source: CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CALIFORNIA ADOPTED BUDGET FISCAL YEARS 2007/08 THROUGH 2009/10)
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Flanders Mansion Property: City’s Written Compliance with Judge O’Farrell’s Decision
ABSTRACT: On December 6, 2006, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea & City Council of Carmel-by-the-Sea (Respondents) filed a RETURN TO PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDAMUS pursuant to Monterey County Superior Court’s Amended Judgment Granting Petition for Writ of Mandamus, August 10, 2007. Council for Respondents (City Attorney Don Freeman) wrote of the City’s compliance with the judgment. Additionally, included was the Declaration of Bernard Martino, Building Maintenance Manager. Martino’s Declaration covered maintenance and upkeep to Roof, Electrical, Plumbing & Drainage, Vegetation, Chimney, Pest, Cleaning, Miscellaneous Repairs and Security. Comments are presented regarding Building Maintenance Manager Bernard Martino’s Declaration.
AMENDED JUDGMENT GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
August 10, 2007
Summary:
1. Violation of CEQA
Alternative 2, lease option, not been shown to be infeasible.
“Even if Alternative 2 would be more costly to the City, absent substantive evidence in the form of an economic analysis that most project objectives could not feasibly be accomplished via lease of the property, Alternative 2 is not legally infeasible and project cannot be approved.”
(Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1167; Preservation Action Council v. City of San Jose (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1336.)
2. Demolition by Neglect
Violation of Municipal Code, 17.32.210 Maintenance and Upkeep.
3. Parkland Status
Flanders Mansion is parkland as a matter of law; cited Government Code sections 38440-38462 (parkland) and 54220-54222 (surplus land).
RETURN TO PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(Filed December 6, 2007)
Selected excerpts and paraphrased material, as follows:
Donald G. Freeman, Esquire
California State Bar Member No. 47833
Counsel for Respondents, City of Carmel-by-the-Sea & City Council of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Pursuant to Court’s Amended Judgment Granting Petition for Writ of Mandamus, August 10, 2007
City Council, on November 6, 2007, passed Resolution rescinding Resolutions 2005-55, 2005-56, 2005-57 & 2005-58.
Respondents will undertake further review of the proposed use and potential disposition of the Flanders mansion parcel under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). During the additional CEQA review, both sale and lease options will be furthered considered.
Respondents are maintaining the property and avoiding further significant deterioration of the property as described by Bernard Martino, Building Maintenance Manager, Declaration.
Should Respondents after further CEQA review determine to sell the property; Respondents will comply with Government Code sections 38440-38462 (parkland). If voters approve sale, Respondents will abide by Government Code sections 54220-54222 (surplus land).
Susan Brandt-Hawley, attorney for Flanders Foundation, accepted Freeman’s offer to view Flanders Mansion property, inside and out, and provide comment on areas and specific items of concern. Brandt-Hawley accepted offer; tour will be scheduled in January 2008. Court also invited at that time.
DECLARATION OF BERNARD MARTINO IN SUPPORT OF RETURN TO PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDAMUS (6 pages)
Bernard Martino, City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Building Maintenance Manager; responsible for regular inspections and maintenance of Flanders Mansion parcel and oversees outside contractors work.
“Due to budget constraints,” the staff in my section has been reduced from three people to one, me. The Public Works staff has been reduced from ten people to four and forestry department from eight to three people.
Visits Flanders Mansion property 1-2 times per month; checks building conditions, interior and exterior, grounds, makes temporary and permanent repairs.
“It is more extensive renovation work that is not feasible and awaits the final decision on ultimate disposition of the Flanders Mansion property.”
• Roof
Inspect exterior and interior for roof leaks; in past, water leaks fixed by having roof tiles removed, new membrane and battens installed, counter-flashing resealed and tile re-installed. The roof company has replaced broken and missing tiles on roof of main building and storage shed. No hole in roof where light or sky (or rain) comes through to the interior structure.
• Electrical
Problems with shorts are capped off; the electrical wiring in problem areas and breakers turned off. All electrical and lighting outlet plates in place. Power is kept “on” for light and alarm system, include fire alarm.
• Plumbing & Drainage
The water is kept “on,” which prevents gas build-up in the lines and building. Check water flow; look for leaks or drainage problems. Check basement for water; if leak discovered, patch and remove water.
• Vegetation
Garden, Forest & Landscape Service comes regularly to maintain grounds in a “well-kept appearance,” including plant material, ivy, planter beds, turf areas, walkways and driveway. Contract includes work for pruning, porches, walkways, sweeping/blowing driveway, maintaining fire safety zone, mowing, etc.
• Chimney
Inspected and swept every few years. One chimney crack in roof re-flashed and re-tiled.
• Pest
Inspections regularly. Property treated for vermin or insects inside, as needed. Not being heated, as a result mildew appears which is cleaned. No indication of hazardous black mold. Evidence of dry rot in wood of back side porch, patio bench and a wall panel near kitchen sink, solution is reconstruction of removed sections, not performed.
• Cleaning
Cleaning company, as directed when needed for general cleaning of interior, including windows.
• Miscellaneous Repairs
Check perimeter of building and interior for damages.
Broken windows replaced.
Old wood block (dry rot) underneath side porch replaced with new wood block underneath side porch.
Rain gutter re-attached to downspout
Storage shed; wall cracked and bowed-in. No solution but tear down and reconstruct shed.
Door re-hung.
Debris cleaned out of shed.
• Security
Police Department regularly patrols and responds to calls; visited Flanders Mansion at least 43 times for area checks or response to calls between March 30, 2006 and October 9, 2007.
Understand maintenance and repair per Municipal Code 17.32.210; “as necessary to prevent further significant deterioration.”
Dated December 5, 2007
COMMENTS:
• Building Maintenance Manager Bernard Martino declared, “Due to budget constraints,” the staff in my section has been reduced from three people to one, me. The Public Works staff has been reduced from ten people to four and forestry department from eight to three people. To avoid misleading the Court and readers, to the phrase, “due to budget constraints,” should be added “budget constraints self-imposed by the City Council and unrelated to a lack of revenue as the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea has an annual budget of $13 million (the highest per capita spending of any city in Monterey County) and nearly $9 million dollars in reserves funds.”
• Contrary to Bernard Martino’s declaration about the water to Flanders Mansion kept “on,” the water to the building was turned “off” several months ago at the site of the water meter next to the driveway.
AMENDED JUDGMENT GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
August 10, 2007
Summary:
1. Violation of CEQA
Alternative 2, lease option, not been shown to be infeasible.
“Even if Alternative 2 would be more costly to the City, absent substantive evidence in the form of an economic analysis that most project objectives could not feasibly be accomplished via lease of the property, Alternative 2 is not legally infeasible and project cannot be approved.”
(Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1167; Preservation Action Council v. City of San Jose (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1336.)
2. Demolition by Neglect
Violation of Municipal Code, 17.32.210 Maintenance and Upkeep.
3. Parkland Status
Flanders Mansion is parkland as a matter of law; cited Government Code sections 38440-38462 (parkland) and 54220-54222 (surplus land).
RETURN TO PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(Filed December 6, 2007)
Selected excerpts and paraphrased material, as follows:
Donald G. Freeman, Esquire
California State Bar Member No. 47833
Counsel for Respondents, City of Carmel-by-the-Sea & City Council of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Pursuant to Court’s Amended Judgment Granting Petition for Writ of Mandamus, August 10, 2007
City Council, on November 6, 2007, passed Resolution rescinding Resolutions 2005-55, 2005-56, 2005-57 & 2005-58.
Respondents will undertake further review of the proposed use and potential disposition of the Flanders mansion parcel under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). During the additional CEQA review, both sale and lease options will be furthered considered.
Respondents are maintaining the property and avoiding further significant deterioration of the property as described by Bernard Martino, Building Maintenance Manager, Declaration.
Should Respondents after further CEQA review determine to sell the property; Respondents will comply with Government Code sections 38440-38462 (parkland). If voters approve sale, Respondents will abide by Government Code sections 54220-54222 (surplus land).
Susan Brandt-Hawley, attorney for Flanders Foundation, accepted Freeman’s offer to view Flanders Mansion property, inside and out, and provide comment on areas and specific items of concern. Brandt-Hawley accepted offer; tour will be scheduled in January 2008. Court also invited at that time.
DECLARATION OF BERNARD MARTINO IN SUPPORT OF RETURN TO PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDAMUS (6 pages)
Bernard Martino, City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Building Maintenance Manager; responsible for regular inspections and maintenance of Flanders Mansion parcel and oversees outside contractors work.
“Due to budget constraints,” the staff in my section has been reduced from three people to one, me. The Public Works staff has been reduced from ten people to four and forestry department from eight to three people.
Visits Flanders Mansion property 1-2 times per month; checks building conditions, interior and exterior, grounds, makes temporary and permanent repairs.
“It is more extensive renovation work that is not feasible and awaits the final decision on ultimate disposition of the Flanders Mansion property.”
• Roof
Inspect exterior and interior for roof leaks; in past, water leaks fixed by having roof tiles removed, new membrane and battens installed, counter-flashing resealed and tile re-installed. The roof company has replaced broken and missing tiles on roof of main building and storage shed. No hole in roof where light or sky (or rain) comes through to the interior structure.
• Electrical
Problems with shorts are capped off; the electrical wiring in problem areas and breakers turned off. All electrical and lighting outlet plates in place. Power is kept “on” for light and alarm system, include fire alarm.
• Plumbing & Drainage
The water is kept “on,” which prevents gas build-up in the lines and building. Check water flow; look for leaks or drainage problems. Check basement for water; if leak discovered, patch and remove water.
• Vegetation
Garden, Forest & Landscape Service comes regularly to maintain grounds in a “well-kept appearance,” including plant material, ivy, planter beds, turf areas, walkways and driveway. Contract includes work for pruning, porches, walkways, sweeping/blowing driveway, maintaining fire safety zone, mowing, etc.
• Chimney
Inspected and swept every few years. One chimney crack in roof re-flashed and re-tiled.
• Pest
Inspections regularly. Property treated for vermin or insects inside, as needed. Not being heated, as a result mildew appears which is cleaned. No indication of hazardous black mold. Evidence of dry rot in wood of back side porch, patio bench and a wall panel near kitchen sink, solution is reconstruction of removed sections, not performed.
• Cleaning
Cleaning company, as directed when needed for general cleaning of interior, including windows.
• Miscellaneous Repairs
Check perimeter of building and interior for damages.
Broken windows replaced.
Old wood block (dry rot) underneath side porch replaced with new wood block underneath side porch.
Rain gutter re-attached to downspout
Storage shed; wall cracked and bowed-in. No solution but tear down and reconstruct shed.
Door re-hung.
Debris cleaned out of shed.
• Security
Police Department regularly patrols and responds to calls; visited Flanders Mansion at least 43 times for area checks or response to calls between March 30, 2006 and October 9, 2007.
Understand maintenance and repair per Municipal Code 17.32.210; “as necessary to prevent further significant deterioration.”
Dated December 5, 2007
COMMENTS:
• Building Maintenance Manager Bernard Martino declared, “Due to budget constraints,” the staff in my section has been reduced from three people to one, me. The Public Works staff has been reduced from ten people to four and forestry department from eight to three people. To avoid misleading the Court and readers, to the phrase, “due to budget constraints,” should be added “budget constraints self-imposed by the City Council and unrelated to a lack of revenue as the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea has an annual budget of $13 million (the highest per capita spending of any city in Monterey County) and nearly $9 million dollars in reserves funds.”
• Contrary to Bernard Martino’s declaration about the water to Flanders Mansion kept “on,” the water to the building was turned “off” several months ago at the site of the water meter next to the driveway.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
PLENTY THAT IS BROKEN, IN NEED OF FIXING!
According to The Carmel Pine Cone, City Council members and supporters of Mayor Sue McCloud encouraged her to run for a fifth mayoral term because “IF IT ain’t broke, let’s not fix it.” Actually, in reality, there is plenty that is broken in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea which needs fixing.
• Lack of Investment in City Infrastructure: Mayor McCloud’s 7-year plus record of overseeing a lack of investment in critical city infrastructure, particularly our streets, roads and avenues, which is essential to our quality of life and economic prosperity as a tourist destination; $250,000 city expenditure to Pebble Beach for legal costs associated with the Areas of Special Biological Significance Cease and Desist Order which resulted in a denial of a waiver, instead of using those monies towards compliance with the City’s stormwater runoff obligations; City expenditures of nearly $350,000 towards the sale of the Flanders Mansion Property instead of using those monies for Municipal Code mandated maintenance and upkeep of this National Register of Historic Places resource; et cetera.
• Underfunding & Understaffing City Departments: Mayor McCloud’s record of underfunding the Fire Department to at least an amount of $400,000 according to the recently completed Citygate Associates “Fire Department Consolidation Feasibility Analysis for the Cities of Monterey, Pacific Grove and Carmel” report; underfunding and understaffing of the Forest, Parks and Beach Department, which has resulted in failure to implement numerous aspects of the City’s Local Coastal Program, such as reforestation and maintenance of our forest, parks and beach; understaffing the Planning Department, which currently has personnel vacancies, including the Community Planning & Building Director (vacant since 2003), Assistant Planner, Code Enforcement Coordinator; understaffing of the Public Works Department, which currently has no Public Works Director; understaffing of the Library, which currently has a Reference Librarian vacancy; et cetera.
• Abysmal Stewardship of our Cultural, Historical & Environmental Public Assets: Mayor McCloud’s record of failing to annually budget for the maintenance, upkeep and ADA compliance measures for the Forest Theatre, Scout House and Flanders Mansion properties, including McCloud’s failure to budget for and implement the multi-phrase, multi-year recommendations of the 2001 Congleton Forest Theater Facilities Master Plan, even when she was personally aware of the conditions of the Forest Theatre when she had a minor role in “Brigadoon” years ago, calling the conditions “abominable;” McCloud’s failure to budget for and implement ADA compliance measures to the Scout House so that it could be expeditiously reopened as a community center; and McCloud’s failure to budget for the maintenance and upkeep of the National Register of Historic Places Flanders Mansion Property and her failure to determine an appropriate and compatible public use for the property in Mission Trail Nature Preserve.
• Dissolution/Disbanding of Commissions & Board: Mayor McCloud’s interference with the operations of the Community & Cultural Commission, particularly around the time of the creation and installation of Sunset Cultural Center, Inc as the non-profit to manage the Sunset Center, which led to the dissolution of the Community & Cultural Commission; McCloud’s disbanding of the Community & Safety Traffic Commission and replacing it with an Ad Hoc Traffic Committee which meets only periodically and in secret; and McCloud’s disregard for the efforts and recommendations of the Carmel Art Board, particularly with regard to the City’s Inventory of Artworks, which led to the mass resignations of the Art Board Members. The dissolution and disbanding of these Commissions and Board has demonstrated a lack of regard for expert advice from citizens on cultural, traffic and art issues.
• Illegal Means to Achieve Ends: Mayor McCloud’s insistence on the selling of the Flanders Mansion Property by adopting illegal means to achieve her goal of selling the National Register of Historic Places property in Mission Trail Nature Preserve, including disregarding the legal advise of the City Attorney and contracting with a Special Counsel for total legal costs of nearly $250,000; only complying with applicable State and City laws when Monterey County Superior Court Judge Robert O’Farrell ruled the City violated the California Environmental Quality Act, California Government Code and the City’s Municipal Code.
• Breach of Public Trust: Mayor McCloud’s failure to understand and abide by the spirit and intent of the State of California’s Open Government Law, the Ralph M. Brown Act, (California Government Code Sections 54950-54963), which states, in part, as follows:
“In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.”
“The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.”
Recent examples abound, including Mayor McCloud’s failure to communicate the professional planning services agreement with Pacific Municipal Consultants (PMC), which specializes in LAFCO and Annexations and Zoning, the scope of services provided to the City regarding the proposed Leidig Carmel Convalescent Hospital Redevelopment Project and the September 2007 city expenditure of $10,527.60 to PMC; McCloud’s failure to announce the professional services agreement with appellate attorney Joel Franklin for his advise on whether to appeal Monterey County Superior Court Judge Robert O’Farrell’s decision against the City with regard to the selling of the Flanders Mansion Property and the city expenditure of $12,800 to Franklin for his October 2007 advise; McCloud’s failure to communicate an “environmental review services” contract with Denise Duffy & Associates, the firm which completed the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Reports for the City’s selling of the Flanders Mansion Property, for a city expenditure of $14,248.38 in late October 2007.
Apparently, Mayor Sue McCloud wants to run for a fifth mayoral term because she wants to see several pressing issues through to completion, namely the “debate” over the Flanders Mansion Property, renovation of the Forest Theatre and a determination of whether there is public support for a city art museum. But given McCloud’s penchant for meddling in the affairs of commissions and dissolving commissions when members voice recommendations contrary to her personal agendas, her "ends justify illegal means" philosophy and her failure to understand and implement the tenets of open government for the benefit of all Carmelites, Mayor Sue McCloud’s 7-year plus record causing to be broken all that she cannot fix makes her undeserving of another two-year term as mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
• Lack of Investment in City Infrastructure: Mayor McCloud’s 7-year plus record of overseeing a lack of investment in critical city infrastructure, particularly our streets, roads and avenues, which is essential to our quality of life and economic prosperity as a tourist destination; $250,000 city expenditure to Pebble Beach for legal costs associated with the Areas of Special Biological Significance Cease and Desist Order which resulted in a denial of a waiver, instead of using those monies towards compliance with the City’s stormwater runoff obligations; City expenditures of nearly $350,000 towards the sale of the Flanders Mansion Property instead of using those monies for Municipal Code mandated maintenance and upkeep of this National Register of Historic Places resource; et cetera.
• Underfunding & Understaffing City Departments: Mayor McCloud’s record of underfunding the Fire Department to at least an amount of $400,000 according to the recently completed Citygate Associates “Fire Department Consolidation Feasibility Analysis for the Cities of Monterey, Pacific Grove and Carmel” report; underfunding and understaffing of the Forest, Parks and Beach Department, which has resulted in failure to implement numerous aspects of the City’s Local Coastal Program, such as reforestation and maintenance of our forest, parks and beach; understaffing the Planning Department, which currently has personnel vacancies, including the Community Planning & Building Director (vacant since 2003), Assistant Planner, Code Enforcement Coordinator; understaffing of the Public Works Department, which currently has no Public Works Director; understaffing of the Library, which currently has a Reference Librarian vacancy; et cetera.
• Abysmal Stewardship of our Cultural, Historical & Environmental Public Assets: Mayor McCloud’s record of failing to annually budget for the maintenance, upkeep and ADA compliance measures for the Forest Theatre, Scout House and Flanders Mansion properties, including McCloud’s failure to budget for and implement the multi-phrase, multi-year recommendations of the 2001 Congleton Forest Theater Facilities Master Plan, even when she was personally aware of the conditions of the Forest Theatre when she had a minor role in “Brigadoon” years ago, calling the conditions “abominable;” McCloud’s failure to budget for and implement ADA compliance measures to the Scout House so that it could be expeditiously reopened as a community center; and McCloud’s failure to budget for the maintenance and upkeep of the National Register of Historic Places Flanders Mansion Property and her failure to determine an appropriate and compatible public use for the property in Mission Trail Nature Preserve.
• Dissolution/Disbanding of Commissions & Board: Mayor McCloud’s interference with the operations of the Community & Cultural Commission, particularly around the time of the creation and installation of Sunset Cultural Center, Inc as the non-profit to manage the Sunset Center, which led to the dissolution of the Community & Cultural Commission; McCloud’s disbanding of the Community & Safety Traffic Commission and replacing it with an Ad Hoc Traffic Committee which meets only periodically and in secret; and McCloud’s disregard for the efforts and recommendations of the Carmel Art Board, particularly with regard to the City’s Inventory of Artworks, which led to the mass resignations of the Art Board Members. The dissolution and disbanding of these Commissions and Board has demonstrated a lack of regard for expert advice from citizens on cultural, traffic and art issues.
• Illegal Means to Achieve Ends: Mayor McCloud’s insistence on the selling of the Flanders Mansion Property by adopting illegal means to achieve her goal of selling the National Register of Historic Places property in Mission Trail Nature Preserve, including disregarding the legal advise of the City Attorney and contracting with a Special Counsel for total legal costs of nearly $250,000; only complying with applicable State and City laws when Monterey County Superior Court Judge Robert O’Farrell ruled the City violated the California Environmental Quality Act, California Government Code and the City’s Municipal Code.
• Breach of Public Trust: Mayor McCloud’s failure to understand and abide by the spirit and intent of the State of California’s Open Government Law, the Ralph M. Brown Act, (California Government Code Sections 54950-54963), which states, in part, as follows:
“In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.”
“The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.”
Recent examples abound, including Mayor McCloud’s failure to communicate the professional planning services agreement with Pacific Municipal Consultants (PMC), which specializes in LAFCO and Annexations and Zoning, the scope of services provided to the City regarding the proposed Leidig Carmel Convalescent Hospital Redevelopment Project and the September 2007 city expenditure of $10,527.60 to PMC; McCloud’s failure to announce the professional services agreement with appellate attorney Joel Franklin for his advise on whether to appeal Monterey County Superior Court Judge Robert O’Farrell’s decision against the City with regard to the selling of the Flanders Mansion Property and the city expenditure of $12,800 to Franklin for his October 2007 advise; McCloud’s failure to communicate an “environmental review services” contract with Denise Duffy & Associates, the firm which completed the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Reports for the City’s selling of the Flanders Mansion Property, for a city expenditure of $14,248.38 in late October 2007.
Apparently, Mayor Sue McCloud wants to run for a fifth mayoral term because she wants to see several pressing issues through to completion, namely the “debate” over the Flanders Mansion Property, renovation of the Forest Theatre and a determination of whether there is public support for a city art museum. But given McCloud’s penchant for meddling in the affairs of commissions and dissolving commissions when members voice recommendations contrary to her personal agendas, her "ends justify illegal means" philosophy and her failure to understand and implement the tenets of open government for the benefit of all Carmelites, Mayor Sue McCloud’s 7-year plus record causing to be broken all that she cannot fix makes her undeserving of another two-year term as mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
$772,443 of $1,903,518 FY 2006/07 Surplus into Capital Reserves
ABSTRACT: At the December 4, 2007 City Council meeting, the City Council voted to approve the allocation recommendations of Administrative Services Director Joyce Giufre, including the remaining amount of $772,443 into Capital Reserves of the total $1,903,518 2006/07 surplus. Comments are made regarding the allocation recommendations.
City Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
December 4, 2007
XI. Orders of Council
B. Receive report on the FY 2006/2007 General Fund Budget Surplus and provide policy direction.
On the recommendation of Administrative Services Director Joyce Giuffre, the City Council approved Giuffre’s recommended allocations of the $1,903,518 FY 2006/07 surplus, as follows:
$325,000: WestAmerica, Pay off Notes and Capital Leases.
$674,500: New Reserve Account for Sunset Center Bonds; after October 2011, the City can make prepayments without penalty.
$71,575: Autofind Mobile License Plate Recognition System: New GPS and Camera-Equipped Cart for police ticketing of overtime parkers.
$60,000: New Generator for Fire Department.
$772,443: Capital Reserves.
COMMENTS:
• $71,575 for an “Autofind Mobile License Plate Recognition System” speaks volumes about the priorities of the current City Council and City Administrator.
• While Administrative Services Director Joyce Giuffre recommended monetary amounts for a new Fire Department generator and new GPS and camera-equipped cart for ticketing of overtime parkers, Giuffre failed to recommend amounts for Capital Improvement projects, instead recommending the remaining $772,443 be put into Capital Reserves.
City Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
December 4, 2007
XI. Orders of Council
B. Receive report on the FY 2006/2007 General Fund Budget Surplus and provide policy direction.
On the recommendation of Administrative Services Director Joyce Giuffre, the City Council approved Giuffre’s recommended allocations of the $1,903,518 FY 2006/07 surplus, as follows:
$325,000: WestAmerica, Pay off Notes and Capital Leases.
$674,500: New Reserve Account for Sunset Center Bonds; after October 2011, the City can make prepayments without penalty.
$71,575: Autofind Mobile License Plate Recognition System: New GPS and Camera-Equipped Cart for police ticketing of overtime parkers.
$60,000: New Generator for Fire Department.
$772,443: Capital Reserves.
COMMENTS:
• $71,575 for an “Autofind Mobile License Plate Recognition System” speaks volumes about the priorities of the current City Council and City Administrator.
• While Administrative Services Director Joyce Giuffre recommended monetary amounts for a new Fire Department generator and new GPS and camera-equipped cart for ticketing of overtime parkers, Giuffre failed to recommend amounts for Capital Improvement projects, instead recommending the remaining $772,443 be put into Capital Reserves.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Infrastructure of Streets, Roads & Avenues
ABSTRACT: The CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, FY 2007-08 QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT, 1st QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2007 was on the December 4, 2007 City Council meeting agenda. Included in the report are Updates on Capital Projects/Outlays; of the 13 Capital Projects/Outlays, only one is for repaving projects. Comments are made and Questions are asked regarding Nichols Engineering Pavement Management System & Truck Impact Fee study (not to exceed $60,300),THE CALIFORNIA INFRASTRUCTURE COALITION and the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) “report card” on infrastructure.
City Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
December 4, 2007
V. Announcements from Closed Session, from City Council Members and the City Administrator.
C. Announcements from City Administrator.
• Receive 1st Quarter 07/08 Financial Report
Selected excerpts of the CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, FY 2007-08 QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT, 1st QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2007, as follows:
Annual Budget FY 2007/08: $ 13,094,894
Capital Improvements (2007/08): Total $ 508,200
Capital Outlays (2007/08): Total $ 347,412
Updates on Capital Projects/Outlays:
4th Avenue Riparian Habitat Project, $196,000, Capital Improvement (2007/08)
Repaving Projects: a) Mission between 3rd & 4th, $150,000 b) 5th Avenue between San Carlos & Dolores, $27,000 c) Parking Lot across from Post Office, $20,000 Capital Improvements (2007/08)
Del Mar Restroom Improvements, $55,200, Capital Improvement (2007/08)
Forest Study Implementation, $50,000, Capital Improvement (2007/08)
City Hall Carpeting, $10,000, Capital Improvement (2007/08)
Historic Context Statement, $63,000, Capital Outlay (2007/08)
General Plan-EIR, $60,000, Capital Outlay (2007/08)
Police Department Firearms Range Ricochet Protective Device, $48,707, Capital Outlay (2007/08)
Sunset Center Theater: a) Sound System, ) $ 42,035 b) Theater Monitor System Speakers, $18,000 c) Fall Arrest System, $18,000 d) Walkway Lights, $5,250, Capital Outlay (2007/08)
Del Mar & North Dunes Master Plan, $40,000, Capital Outlay (2007/08)
Fire Department Compressor, $26,315, Capital Outlay (2007/08)
Police Department Network/Telephone System, $17,700 & Computer Upgrades, $22,000, Capital Outlay (2007/08)
Vehicle Purchases/Major Repairs, $15,000, Capital Outlay (2007/08)
COMMENTS:
• Of the 13 Capital Projects/Outlays, only one is for repaving projects, as follows:
Repaving Projects: a) Mission between 3rd & 4th, b) 5th Avenue between San Carlos & Dolores, c) Parking Lot across from Post Office
At the September 11, 2007 City Council meeting, Resolution 2007-61 was approved awarding the contract for these 3 repaving projects to Pavex Construction. The Mission Street project is scheduled to be completed by November 30, 2007, weather permitting. The 5th Avenue and Post Office Parking Lot projects are now completed.
• Carmel-by-the-Sea’s infrastructure of streets, roads and avenues is in poor condition. When the repaving of Mission St. between 3rd Av. & 4th Av, the parking lot across from the Post Office and 5th Av. between San Carlos St. & Dolores St. are in the FY 2007/08 Budget, questions arise about the criteria used to prioritize repaving projects. For example, in the triennial budget for FY 2007/08 – FY 2009/10, there are repaving projects for Dolores St. between 4th Av. & 5th Av., Junipero Av. between Ocean Av. & 8th Av, and parking lots at Del Mar and Sunset Center, but no paving project for Carpenter St., a major bus/truck/vehicle route and an entry street into Carmel-by-the-Sea.
QUESTIONS:
• Since the Nichols Engineering Pavement Management System & Truck Impact Fee study contract (not to exceed $60,300) was approved by the City Council in March 2007 and completed by 30 September 2007, according to the Budget, what are the findings and conclusions of this study?
• What is the City’s proactive plan to maintain and renew our street infrastructure which is critical to our quality of life and economic prosperity as a tourist destination?
• Is the City committed to regular maintenance which prolongs use and minimizes the need for costly repairs or is the City waiting for things to happen and reacting to things?
• The City of Monterey is a member of THE CALIFORNIA INFRASTRUCTURE COALITION “Foresight in planning for, maintaining, and financing infrastructure;” why isn’t the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea? Note: For information abut The California Infrastructure Coalition, click on Post title above or copy, paste and click http://www.calinfrastructure.org/.
• The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) issues a “report card” on infrastructure. The ASCE California Infrastructure Report Card 2006 rates nine infrastructure categories. One of the recommendations is that every mayor “needs to give up a report card following the same protocol used by the American Society of Civil Engineers about the state of the infrastructure within their cities – A, B, C, D –" and assign “a price tag to fix the deficiencies.” What is Carmel-by-the-Sea’s report card from the mayor?
City Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
December 4, 2007
V. Announcements from Closed Session, from City Council Members and the City Administrator.
C. Announcements from City Administrator.
• Receive 1st Quarter 07/08 Financial Report
Selected excerpts of the CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, FY 2007-08 QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT, 1st QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2007, as follows:
Annual Budget FY 2007/08: $ 13,094,894
Capital Improvements (2007/08): Total $ 508,200
Capital Outlays (2007/08): Total $ 347,412
Updates on Capital Projects/Outlays:
4th Avenue Riparian Habitat Project, $196,000, Capital Improvement (2007/08)
Repaving Projects: a) Mission between 3rd & 4th, $150,000 b) 5th Avenue between San Carlos & Dolores, $27,000 c) Parking Lot across from Post Office, $20,000 Capital Improvements (2007/08)
Del Mar Restroom Improvements, $55,200, Capital Improvement (2007/08)
Forest Study Implementation, $50,000, Capital Improvement (2007/08)
City Hall Carpeting, $10,000, Capital Improvement (2007/08)
Historic Context Statement, $63,000, Capital Outlay (2007/08)
General Plan-EIR, $60,000, Capital Outlay (2007/08)
Police Department Firearms Range Ricochet Protective Device, $48,707, Capital Outlay (2007/08)
Sunset Center Theater: a) Sound System, ) $ 42,035 b) Theater Monitor System Speakers, $18,000 c) Fall Arrest System, $18,000 d) Walkway Lights, $5,250, Capital Outlay (2007/08)
Del Mar & North Dunes Master Plan, $40,000, Capital Outlay (2007/08)
Fire Department Compressor, $26,315, Capital Outlay (2007/08)
Police Department Network/Telephone System, $17,700 & Computer Upgrades, $22,000, Capital Outlay (2007/08)
Vehicle Purchases/Major Repairs, $15,000, Capital Outlay (2007/08)
COMMENTS:
• Of the 13 Capital Projects/Outlays, only one is for repaving projects, as follows:
Repaving Projects: a) Mission between 3rd & 4th, b) 5th Avenue between San Carlos & Dolores, c) Parking Lot across from Post Office
At the September 11, 2007 City Council meeting, Resolution 2007-61 was approved awarding the contract for these 3 repaving projects to Pavex Construction. The Mission Street project is scheduled to be completed by November 30, 2007, weather permitting. The 5th Avenue and Post Office Parking Lot projects are now completed.
• Carmel-by-the-Sea’s infrastructure of streets, roads and avenues is in poor condition. When the repaving of Mission St. between 3rd Av. & 4th Av, the parking lot across from the Post Office and 5th Av. between San Carlos St. & Dolores St. are in the FY 2007/08 Budget, questions arise about the criteria used to prioritize repaving projects. For example, in the triennial budget for FY 2007/08 – FY 2009/10, there are repaving projects for Dolores St. between 4th Av. & 5th Av., Junipero Av. between Ocean Av. & 8th Av, and parking lots at Del Mar and Sunset Center, but no paving project for Carpenter St., a major bus/truck/vehicle route and an entry street into Carmel-by-the-Sea.
QUESTIONS:
• Since the Nichols Engineering Pavement Management System & Truck Impact Fee study contract (not to exceed $60,300) was approved by the City Council in March 2007 and completed by 30 September 2007, according to the Budget, what are the findings and conclusions of this study?
• What is the City’s proactive plan to maintain and renew our street infrastructure which is critical to our quality of life and economic prosperity as a tourist destination?
• Is the City committed to regular maintenance which prolongs use and minimizes the need for costly repairs or is the City waiting for things to happen and reacting to things?
• The City of Monterey is a member of THE CALIFORNIA INFRASTRUCTURE COALITION “Foresight in planning for, maintaining, and financing infrastructure;” why isn’t the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea? Note: For information abut The California Infrastructure Coalition, click on Post title above or copy, paste and click http://www.calinfrastructure.org/.
• The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) issues a “report card” on infrastructure. The ASCE California Infrastructure Report Card 2006 rates nine infrastructure categories. One of the recommendations is that every mayor “needs to give up a report card following the same protocol used by the American Society of Civil Engineers about the state of the infrastructure within their cities – A, B, C, D –" and assign “a price tag to fix the deficiencies.” What is Carmel-by-the-Sea’s report card from the mayor?
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Aaron’s Tree – Carmel’s Canine Christmas Tree
Close-Up of Aaron's - "Merry Christmas" - TreeLocation: Mission Trail Nature Preserve, Serra Trail, 1/4 mile from Rio Road Entrance
To celebrate the Christmas season, canine lovers have again decorated Aaron’s tree in Mission Trail Nature Preserve. Next to the Christmas tree is a container with ornaments, hangers and markers for park users to write their dog’s name on ornaments and then hang them on the Christmas tree.
Aaron’s “Merry Christmas” Tree, a young redwood tree, is just off Serra Trail, just around the bend in the trail, about a ¼ mile from the entrance to Mission Trail Nature Preserve at Rio Road.
Canine Christmas Tree History:
Ed and Betty Anderson, of Monterey, planted their 2004 living redwood Christmas tree in Mission Trail Nature Preserve in 2005, as a memorial to their son, Aaron, who died on 21 December 2003, at the age of 31. For that first Christmas season in 2005, the tree was transformed into a magical Canine Christmas Tree. Since Aaron was an animal lover and “spent a lot of time in Mission Trail Park,” Aaron's mother said in December 2005 that she was delighted and thankful for the decorated tree at Christmastime. And Aaron “would have really enjoyed it.”
(Source: Canine Christmas tree is memorial redwood for Monterey couple’s son, Mary Brownfield, The Carmel Pine Cone, December 23, 2005, http://www.carmelpinecone.com/051223PineCone.pdf)
MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL OUR ANIMAL COMPANIONS...AND ESPECIALLY TO OUR CANINE COMPANIONS!
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Dysfunctional City Council Deliberations
ABSTRACT: At the 4 December 2007 City Council meeting, an agenda item on an appellant’s appeal of a Historic Resources Board decision to deny a request to remove a commercial property from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources was heard by the City Council. Selected excerpts of City Council Members remarks from their deliberations are presented and Comments are made following each comment group. References of selected excerpts from the Agenda Item Summary and Staff Report are reproduced.
City Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
December 4, 2007
VIII. Public Hearings
If you challenge the nature of the proposed action in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.
A. Consideration of an appeal of the Historic Resources Board’s decision to deny a request to remove a property located on the northeast corner of Ocean and Dolores from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources. The appellant and property owners are Theodore Leidig and Ocean and Sixth Ave. Investment, LTD.
Selected excerpts of the City Council deliberation, as follows:
• MAYOR SUE McCLOUD: I’m sort of lost...That really throws me for a loop.
• MAYOR SUE McCLOUD: You know, the word that’s sort of the catch phrase of the day is sustainable, we talk about sustainable energy and so forth and I think that’s also caught on and there have been some meetings recently where they talked about sustainable tourism. And when you look at that, you know, what is it that we have in Carmel that in the way that tourists come to see that is sustainable in their minds and one of them is our architecture. Much is made about the Carmel cottages, much is made about the Comstock, you know, dollhouses-type architecture and so forth. And the integrity of Ocean Avenue and the buildings that are there for the most part except for the change in the Carmel Plaza where the theatre was torn down, the lumberyard went away, the rest of it looks, you know, starting from the Carmel Diary and the milk bottle, as Earl mentioned, down that side and down the other side, it hasn’t changed dramatically at all. And I guess the concern that I would have is, is that, that is the key intersection, the hotel where Meta Bunse pointed to the sort of porch that came out, that’s the Carmel Hotel that was rolled down the street that became the Pine Inn and that was the, you know, the watering trough was there for the horses to water themselves. That was the center part of town. And that building, as I said, if Rip Van Winkle walked down the street, you know, he would recognize that building. And yes it can be destroyed. And if you took those down and put something else there, like right behind Pernille, where the gas station used to be, you know, you would have a very different feeling on Carmel and Ocean Avenue and our sustainable tourism or our architecture. And I think the integrity of our downtown is, would be really impacted by such a change. As much as I could say the same thing, Ted has been very generous to this town. And the family is long known. But, you know, Carmel Development Company is not as important to me as the fact that Carmel Drug has been there since the 30s and Village Hardware was there from the 1940s and the building on the corner, Sharper Image façade has changed the most just because the way it was when it was a market. But the framing of that, when you look at those pictures, it’s still the same to me. I just think that quite apart from taking the emotionalism out of it, it would change, if something is done to these buildings, because we’ve permitted them to be torn down, potentially, because they are no longer historic, we’re no longer protecting them, we will definitely change the ambience of out Central Commercial District.
COMMENT: As was evident after the City’s Staff Report, the issue before the City Council was whether the cumulative changes to the Carmel Development Company Building at the N.W. corner of Ocean Av. & San Carlos St. has resulted in a loss of substantial integrity so as to render the building not historic or has retained it’s integrity as a historic resource. Mayor McCloud’s non-germane, extraneous comments about “sustainable tourism,” architecture and the potential for demolition are typical. Comments should focus on the definition of “integrity” and whether the cumulative changes to the building represent a loss of substantial integrity or not.
• CITY COUNCIL MEMBER PAULA HAZDOVAC: It will be another mistake that we’ve made that, oh well, so what.
COMMENT: Hazdovac’s comment suggested that she is cognizant of other “mistakes” the City has made and the City’s cavalier attitude about their duties, responsibilities and accountability to the public.
• CITY ADMINISTRATOR RICH GUILLEN: You know, one of the concerns I have is there is a couple of things not answered here tonight. One is the second story. I don’t think you have all the facts to make a decision in that regard…So I’m just wondering if maybe staff should do a little more research on the second story issue…and bring it back next month.
CITY ATTORNEY DON FREEMAN: The only real issue left for the Council to decide is whether or not the cumulative changes over time have changed the integrity of the building...so really it doesn’t deal with second stories. You don’t have to worry about second stories. The only thing you haven’t had this evening is the City did have a consultant declare or suggest this was historic when it was placed on the list and you have not heard from that consultant…In a sense of fairness the City should ask that person to, and sort of, defend their position on why they did it because that is the person the City hired to do it. And you haven’t actually had that person before you this evening.
COMMENT: As City Attorney Don Freeman stated in response to City Administrator Rich Guillen’s comment about studying the second story issue, the real issue doesn’t deal with second stories. Again, the focus of the deliberations should be on “integrity,” not on second stories or other irrelevant issues.
• CITY COUNCIL MEMBER GERARD ROSE: ...a terrible precedent...that has never been done ever, to my knowledge, to these historic designations.
MAYOR SUE McCLOUD: Sean, was Mr. Seavey invited to come tonight?
SENIOR PLANNER SEAN CONROY: No.
MICHAEL ALBOV (representing Appellant Ted Leidig): I’m just a little surprised by the process. But, the Council can do whatever is wants and we recognize that, buts it’s a little weird.
COMMENT: For all of the previous historic appeals to the City Council, the City’s Preservation Consultant who evaluated and completed DPR 523 Forms for the properties on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources was never present to defend or update his DPRs, et cetera. If the City was concerned about this appeal or changed its policy with respect to having the City’s consultant present to verbally review his findings and conclusions, then the City should have contacted the consultant and arranged in advance to have him at the City Council meeting.
• CITY ATTORNEY DON FREEMAN: You adopted the list in its entirety, but you could have gone through and limited it to those that you felt didn’t qualify because that’s what happens
CITY COUNCIL MEMBER GERARD ROSE: Well, we didn’t even adopt the list, not that way.
MAYOR SUE MCCLOUD: Well, it went forward with the LCP.
CITY ATTORNEY DON FREEMAN: It went forward with the LCP so the City Council actually did
CITY COUNCIL MEMBER GERARD ROSE: We recognized that it was a list, we didn’t adopt the list. That’s not correct.
CITY ATTORNEY DON FREEMAN: Well, it is, because it was adopted as
CITY COUNCIL MEMBER GERARD ROSE: I was there Don.
MAYOR SUE McCLOUD: Wait a minute.
CITY ATTORNEY DON FREEMAN: It was an attachment to the LCP and when you adopt the LCP you adopt all the attachments.
CITY COUNCIL MEMBER GERARD ROSE: No.
CITY ATTORNEY DON FREEMAN: Well, you do.
CITY COUNCIL MEMBER GERARD ROSE: No. That’s not what happened.
MAYOR SUE MCCLOUD: O.K. that’s enough…
CITY COUNCIL MEMBER GERARD ROSE: Oh, wait a minute Sue. Excuse me Sue.
MAYOR SUE McCLOUD: It went forward with the LCP. Let's not get
CITY COUNCIL MEMBER GERARD ROSE: I respectfully disagree, Sue, I mean, if you want to have your say that’s fine, let me have my say O.K. My say, I was there too and we didn’t adopt the list as such, we didn’t analyze any of the properties. All we did was recognize that there was a list out there. That’s all we did and we attached it as a list that’s out there. We did not adopt anything. That’s misleading and not true.
CITY ATTORNEY DON FREEMAN: I’m not suggesting you adopted the list on and by itself, all I’m saying is when you adopted the LCP that was an attachment that went with it.
CITY COUNCIL MEMBER GERARD ROSE: So what!
COMMENT: Although City Council Member Gerard Rose finally conceded the list (Inventory) was adopted by the City as an attachment to the LCP, his failure to take responsibility for his role in the adoption of the Inventory as part of the LCP is indicative of the City’s failure to exercise due diligence in reviewing the LCP prior to the City’s submittal to the California Coastal Commission for certification in late 2004.
• CITY COUNCIL MEMBER GERARD ROSE: ...At this late date, at this late time, to say O.K., because we obviously see we’re going to lose, let’s bring in Kent Seavey, I think that’s frankly, an unfair thing to do to the applicant and you know, I mean, if you get a majority that’s fine, but it’s an unfair thing to do, it sets a lousy precedent and frankly, it’s is kind of thing that makes us look foolish.
MAYOR SUE McCLOUD: Well, I would rather look foolish, Gerard, that not take the step so that we can be criticized in the future for not having heard all the evidence there was to hear from two different people.
HAZDOVAC made a substitute MOTION to CONTINUE the agenda item until Kent Seavey could appear before the City Council, seconded by McCLOUD and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: HAZDOVAC, SHARP, McCLOUD
NOES: ROSE, TALMAGE
COMMENT: On the one hand, Mayor Sue McCloud stated that there was no reason to delay a vote on the agenda item; on the other hand, McCloud stated she didn’t want to be criticized for “not having heard all the evidence there was to hear” from the two consultants, Kent Seavey and Meta Bunse, and voted to continue the agenda item. Furthermore, it is not a good precedent to appear to change policy during the historic appeal process; namely, the City has never had their historic consultant appear before the City Council during an appeal of a designated historic resource, only now to demand the presence of Kent Seavey in order to proceed with a City Council determination to grant or deny the appeal.
REFERENCES:
Selected excerpts from the Agenda Item Summary and Staff Report, as follows:
Meeting Date: 4 December 2007
Prepared by: Sean Conroy, Senior Planner
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of an appeal of the Historic Resources Board’s decision to deny a request to remove a property located on the northeast corner of Ocean and Dolores from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources. The appellant and property owners are Theodore Leidig and Ocean and Sixth Ave. Investment, LTD. (Block 71, Lots 1-3, APN #’s 010-134-004/011).
Description: The appellant seeks removal of the property from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources. Approval of the appeal would overturn a decision of the Historic Resources Board and result in the removal of the property from the list.
Staff Recommendation: Grant the appeal.
Important Considerations: The subject property has been included on the City's Inventory of Historic Resources that was adopted as part of the Local Coastal Program in 2004.
CMC 17.32.070 states that a property identified as an historic resource on the Carmel Inventory shall be presumed historically significant and shall not be removed from the City’s Inventory unless substantial evidence demonstrates that it is not an historic resource.
Decision Record: The Historic Resources Board denied the request to remove the property from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources on 22 October 2007. The property owner filed an appeal with the City Clerk on 1 November 2007.
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR McCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
THROUGH: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: SEAN CONROY, SENIOR PLANNER
DATE: 4 DECEMBER 2007
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD’S DECISION TO DENY A REQUEST TO REMOVE A PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL (CC) DISTRICT FROM THE CITY’S INVENTORY OF HISTORIC RESOURCES. THE APPELLANT AND PROPERTY OWNERS ARE THEODORE LEIDIG & OCEAN AND SIXTH AVE INVESTMENT LTD. (NE COR. OCEAN & DOLORES, BLK 71, LOTS 1-3, APN #’S 010-134-004/011).
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Grant the appeal.
BACKGROUND & PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The structure subject to this appeal is a one-story concrete block building with three bays and is located on the northwest corner of Ocean Avenue and San Carlos Street. The building was originally constructed in approximately 1902. A fourth bay was constructed to the west in 1923 but is not considered historic. Mr. Leidig owns the two eastern most bays, while the bay occupied by the Carmel Drug Store is owned by Ocean and Sixth Ave Investment LTD.
The property was identified as an historic resource as part of the City’s on-going survey of historic structures. The DPR indicates that the structure qualifies as an historic resource under California Criterion #1 (history) as the first and oldest commercial business block, and under California Criterion #3 (architecture) for its use of “fireproof” concrete block construction. The DPR indicates that the property relates to the Architectural Development and Economic Development themes of the City’s Historic Context Statement.
The Historic Resources Board denied this appeal on 22 October 2007.
Basis for Appeal: The appellant is requesting that the property be removed from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources for the following reason:
1) Due to extensive additions and alterations, the property does not retain sufficient integrity to qualify as significant under Criterion 1 and/or 3.
California Register Criteria: CMC 17.32.040 indicates that historic properties must relate to at least one of the California Register Criteria. The original DPR indicates that the property qualifies under Criterion #1 and Criterion #3. These criteria are listed below:
1) It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterms of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States.
3) It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values.
Integrity: CMC 17.32.040 indicates that historic properties must maintain substantial integrity. The appellant points out that numerous changes have taken place over the years including expansion of a fourth bay on the west of the building in 1923, two additions to the north of the structure in 1957, several store front alterations including changes to the transom windows above the storefront windows, and the installation of three new windows on the east elevation in 1989.
However, the window additions, combined with the other alterations have caused the property to lose its integrity.
HRB Review: The HRB denied this appeal on 22 October 2007. The Board strongly recommended that the Council have a third review performed by another professional historian before making a final decision on the property. This was based on the fact that there were two competing historic reports. The Board’s final decision was based on the following points:
• The property qualifies as historic under California Register Criterion #1 for its association with the Carmel Development Company and as the first commercial building block constructed in the City.
• The property qualifies as historic under California Register Criterion #3 for its use of innovative construction materials, fireproof blocks.
• The property has not been altered so drastically as to make it unrecognizable to someone who was familiar with the building when it was originally constructed.
• The additions and alterations have not caused the property to lose its historic integrity.
RECOMMENDATION:
Grant the appeal.
NOTES:
Meta Bunse, JRP Historical Consulting, DPR 523, 16 pages, 2006.
Kent L. Seavey, Preservation Consultant, DPR 523, 3 pages, 2003.
City Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
December 4, 2007
VIII. Public Hearings
If you challenge the nature of the proposed action in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.
A. Consideration of an appeal of the Historic Resources Board’s decision to deny a request to remove a property located on the northeast corner of Ocean and Dolores from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources. The appellant and property owners are Theodore Leidig and Ocean and Sixth Ave. Investment, LTD.
Selected excerpts of the City Council deliberation, as follows:
• MAYOR SUE McCLOUD: I’m sort of lost...That really throws me for a loop.
• MAYOR SUE McCLOUD: You know, the word that’s sort of the catch phrase of the day is sustainable, we talk about sustainable energy and so forth and I think that’s also caught on and there have been some meetings recently where they talked about sustainable tourism. And when you look at that, you know, what is it that we have in Carmel that in the way that tourists come to see that is sustainable in their minds and one of them is our architecture. Much is made about the Carmel cottages, much is made about the Comstock, you know, dollhouses-type architecture and so forth. And the integrity of Ocean Avenue and the buildings that are there for the most part except for the change in the Carmel Plaza where the theatre was torn down, the lumberyard went away, the rest of it looks, you know, starting from the Carmel Diary and the milk bottle, as Earl mentioned, down that side and down the other side, it hasn’t changed dramatically at all. And I guess the concern that I would have is, is that, that is the key intersection, the hotel where Meta Bunse pointed to the sort of porch that came out, that’s the Carmel Hotel that was rolled down the street that became the Pine Inn and that was the, you know, the watering trough was there for the horses to water themselves. That was the center part of town. And that building, as I said, if Rip Van Winkle walked down the street, you know, he would recognize that building. And yes it can be destroyed. And if you took those down and put something else there, like right behind Pernille, where the gas station used to be, you know, you would have a very different feeling on Carmel and Ocean Avenue and our sustainable tourism or our architecture. And I think the integrity of our downtown is, would be really impacted by such a change. As much as I could say the same thing, Ted has been very generous to this town. And the family is long known. But, you know, Carmel Development Company is not as important to me as the fact that Carmel Drug has been there since the 30s and Village Hardware was there from the 1940s and the building on the corner, Sharper Image façade has changed the most just because the way it was when it was a market. But the framing of that, when you look at those pictures, it’s still the same to me. I just think that quite apart from taking the emotionalism out of it, it would change, if something is done to these buildings, because we’ve permitted them to be torn down, potentially, because they are no longer historic, we’re no longer protecting them, we will definitely change the ambience of out Central Commercial District.
COMMENT: As was evident after the City’s Staff Report, the issue before the City Council was whether the cumulative changes to the Carmel Development Company Building at the N.W. corner of Ocean Av. & San Carlos St. has resulted in a loss of substantial integrity so as to render the building not historic or has retained it’s integrity as a historic resource. Mayor McCloud’s non-germane, extraneous comments about “sustainable tourism,” architecture and the potential for demolition are typical. Comments should focus on the definition of “integrity” and whether the cumulative changes to the building represent a loss of substantial integrity or not.
• CITY COUNCIL MEMBER PAULA HAZDOVAC: It will be another mistake that we’ve made that, oh well, so what.
COMMENT: Hazdovac’s comment suggested that she is cognizant of other “mistakes” the City has made and the City’s cavalier attitude about their duties, responsibilities and accountability to the public.
• CITY ADMINISTRATOR RICH GUILLEN: You know, one of the concerns I have is there is a couple of things not answered here tonight. One is the second story. I don’t think you have all the facts to make a decision in that regard…So I’m just wondering if maybe staff should do a little more research on the second story issue…and bring it back next month.
CITY ATTORNEY DON FREEMAN: The only real issue left for the Council to decide is whether or not the cumulative changes over time have changed the integrity of the building...so really it doesn’t deal with second stories. You don’t have to worry about second stories. The only thing you haven’t had this evening is the City did have a consultant declare or suggest this was historic when it was placed on the list and you have not heard from that consultant…In a sense of fairness the City should ask that person to, and sort of, defend their position on why they did it because that is the person the City hired to do it. And you haven’t actually had that person before you this evening.
COMMENT: As City Attorney Don Freeman stated in response to City Administrator Rich Guillen’s comment about studying the second story issue, the real issue doesn’t deal with second stories. Again, the focus of the deliberations should be on “integrity,” not on second stories or other irrelevant issues.
• CITY COUNCIL MEMBER GERARD ROSE: ...a terrible precedent...that has never been done ever, to my knowledge, to these historic designations.
MAYOR SUE McCLOUD: Sean, was Mr. Seavey invited to come tonight?
SENIOR PLANNER SEAN CONROY: No.
MICHAEL ALBOV (representing Appellant Ted Leidig): I’m just a little surprised by the process. But, the Council can do whatever is wants and we recognize that, buts it’s a little weird.
COMMENT: For all of the previous historic appeals to the City Council, the City’s Preservation Consultant who evaluated and completed DPR 523 Forms for the properties on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources was never present to defend or update his DPRs, et cetera. If the City was concerned about this appeal or changed its policy with respect to having the City’s consultant present to verbally review his findings and conclusions, then the City should have contacted the consultant and arranged in advance to have him at the City Council meeting.
• CITY ATTORNEY DON FREEMAN: You adopted the list in its entirety, but you could have gone through and limited it to those that you felt didn’t qualify because that’s what happens
CITY COUNCIL MEMBER GERARD ROSE: Well, we didn’t even adopt the list, not that way.
MAYOR SUE MCCLOUD: Well, it went forward with the LCP.
CITY ATTORNEY DON FREEMAN: It went forward with the LCP so the City Council actually did
CITY COUNCIL MEMBER GERARD ROSE: We recognized that it was a list, we didn’t adopt the list. That’s not correct.
CITY ATTORNEY DON FREEMAN: Well, it is, because it was adopted as
CITY COUNCIL MEMBER GERARD ROSE: I was there Don.
MAYOR SUE McCLOUD: Wait a minute.
CITY ATTORNEY DON FREEMAN: It was an attachment to the LCP and when you adopt the LCP you adopt all the attachments.
CITY COUNCIL MEMBER GERARD ROSE: No.
CITY ATTORNEY DON FREEMAN: Well, you do.
CITY COUNCIL MEMBER GERARD ROSE: No. That’s not what happened.
MAYOR SUE MCCLOUD: O.K. that’s enough…
CITY COUNCIL MEMBER GERARD ROSE: Oh, wait a minute Sue. Excuse me Sue.
MAYOR SUE McCLOUD: It went forward with the LCP. Let's not get
CITY COUNCIL MEMBER GERARD ROSE: I respectfully disagree, Sue, I mean, if you want to have your say that’s fine, let me have my say O.K. My say, I was there too and we didn’t adopt the list as such, we didn’t analyze any of the properties. All we did was recognize that there was a list out there. That’s all we did and we attached it as a list that’s out there. We did not adopt anything. That’s misleading and not true.
CITY ATTORNEY DON FREEMAN: I’m not suggesting you adopted the list on and by itself, all I’m saying is when you adopted the LCP that was an attachment that went with it.
CITY COUNCIL MEMBER GERARD ROSE: So what!
COMMENT: Although City Council Member Gerard Rose finally conceded the list (Inventory) was adopted by the City as an attachment to the LCP, his failure to take responsibility for his role in the adoption of the Inventory as part of the LCP is indicative of the City’s failure to exercise due diligence in reviewing the LCP prior to the City’s submittal to the California Coastal Commission for certification in late 2004.
• CITY COUNCIL MEMBER GERARD ROSE: ...At this late date, at this late time, to say O.K., because we obviously see we’re going to lose, let’s bring in Kent Seavey, I think that’s frankly, an unfair thing to do to the applicant and you know, I mean, if you get a majority that’s fine, but it’s an unfair thing to do, it sets a lousy precedent and frankly, it’s is kind of thing that makes us look foolish.
MAYOR SUE McCLOUD: Well, I would rather look foolish, Gerard, that not take the step so that we can be criticized in the future for not having heard all the evidence there was to hear from two different people.
HAZDOVAC made a substitute MOTION to CONTINUE the agenda item until Kent Seavey could appear before the City Council, seconded by McCLOUD and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: HAZDOVAC, SHARP, McCLOUD
NOES: ROSE, TALMAGE
COMMENT: On the one hand, Mayor Sue McCloud stated that there was no reason to delay a vote on the agenda item; on the other hand, McCloud stated she didn’t want to be criticized for “not having heard all the evidence there was to hear” from the two consultants, Kent Seavey and Meta Bunse, and voted to continue the agenda item. Furthermore, it is not a good precedent to appear to change policy during the historic appeal process; namely, the City has never had their historic consultant appear before the City Council during an appeal of a designated historic resource, only now to demand the presence of Kent Seavey in order to proceed with a City Council determination to grant or deny the appeal.
REFERENCES:
Selected excerpts from the Agenda Item Summary and Staff Report, as follows:
Meeting Date: 4 December 2007
Prepared by: Sean Conroy, Senior Planner
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of an appeal of the Historic Resources Board’s decision to deny a request to remove a property located on the northeast corner of Ocean and Dolores from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources. The appellant and property owners are Theodore Leidig and Ocean and Sixth Ave. Investment, LTD. (Block 71, Lots 1-3, APN #’s 010-134-004/011).
Description: The appellant seeks removal of the property from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources. Approval of the appeal would overturn a decision of the Historic Resources Board and result in the removal of the property from the list.
Staff Recommendation: Grant the appeal.
Important Considerations: The subject property has been included on the City's Inventory of Historic Resources that was adopted as part of the Local Coastal Program in 2004.
CMC 17.32.070 states that a property identified as an historic resource on the Carmel Inventory shall be presumed historically significant and shall not be removed from the City’s Inventory unless substantial evidence demonstrates that it is not an historic resource.
Decision Record: The Historic Resources Board denied the request to remove the property from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources on 22 October 2007. The property owner filed an appeal with the City Clerk on 1 November 2007.
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR McCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
THROUGH: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: SEAN CONROY, SENIOR PLANNER
DATE: 4 DECEMBER 2007
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD’S DECISION TO DENY A REQUEST TO REMOVE A PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL (CC) DISTRICT FROM THE CITY’S INVENTORY OF HISTORIC RESOURCES. THE APPELLANT AND PROPERTY OWNERS ARE THEODORE LEIDIG & OCEAN AND SIXTH AVE INVESTMENT LTD. (NE COR. OCEAN & DOLORES, BLK 71, LOTS 1-3, APN #’S 010-134-004/011).
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Grant the appeal.
BACKGROUND & PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The structure subject to this appeal is a one-story concrete block building with three bays and is located on the northwest corner of Ocean Avenue and San Carlos Street. The building was originally constructed in approximately 1902. A fourth bay was constructed to the west in 1923 but is not considered historic. Mr. Leidig owns the two eastern most bays, while the bay occupied by the Carmel Drug Store is owned by Ocean and Sixth Ave Investment LTD.
The property was identified as an historic resource as part of the City’s on-going survey of historic structures. The DPR indicates that the structure qualifies as an historic resource under California Criterion #1 (history) as the first and oldest commercial business block, and under California Criterion #3 (architecture) for its use of “fireproof” concrete block construction. The DPR indicates that the property relates to the Architectural Development and Economic Development themes of the City’s Historic Context Statement.
The Historic Resources Board denied this appeal on 22 October 2007.
Basis for Appeal: The appellant is requesting that the property be removed from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources for the following reason:
1) Due to extensive additions and alterations, the property does not retain sufficient integrity to qualify as significant under Criterion 1 and/or 3.
California Register Criteria: CMC 17.32.040 indicates that historic properties must relate to at least one of the California Register Criteria. The original DPR indicates that the property qualifies under Criterion #1 and Criterion #3. These criteria are listed below:
1) It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterms of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States.
3) It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values.
Integrity: CMC 17.32.040 indicates that historic properties must maintain substantial integrity. The appellant points out that numerous changes have taken place over the years including expansion of a fourth bay on the west of the building in 1923, two additions to the north of the structure in 1957, several store front alterations including changes to the transom windows above the storefront windows, and the installation of three new windows on the east elevation in 1989.
However, the window additions, combined with the other alterations have caused the property to lose its integrity.
HRB Review: The HRB denied this appeal on 22 October 2007. The Board strongly recommended that the Council have a third review performed by another professional historian before making a final decision on the property. This was based on the fact that there were two competing historic reports. The Board’s final decision was based on the following points:
• The property qualifies as historic under California Register Criterion #1 for its association with the Carmel Development Company and as the first commercial building block constructed in the City.
• The property qualifies as historic under California Register Criterion #3 for its use of innovative construction materials, fireproof blocks.
• The property has not been altered so drastically as to make it unrecognizable to someone who was familiar with the building when it was originally constructed.
• The additions and alterations have not caused the property to lose its historic integrity.
RECOMMENDATION:
Grant the appeal.
NOTES:
Meta Bunse, JRP Historical Consulting, DPR 523, 16 pages, 2006.
Kent L. Seavey, Preservation Consultant, DPR 523, 3 pages, 2003.
Saturday, December 08, 2007
Art Installation Chaos
TITLE: Nureyev MEDIUM: Bronze
ARTIST: Richard MacDonald
SITE: Dawson Cole Fine Art
W/s San Carlos St. between 5th Av. & 6th Av.
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA.
ABSTRACT: In the absence of the Carmel-by-the-Sea Art Board, the Planning Commission and the Community Activities & Cultural Commission have made decisions regarding the installation of art in public places. A Chronology of Events of important dates and actions by the City Council, Carmel-by-the-Sea Art Board, Community Activities & Cultural Commission and Planning Commission is presented. Comments are made and a Question about the City Council not reconstituting the Carmel-by-the-Sea Art Board in the last 18 months is asked.
“I’m still very torn about my place in choosing the art that goes in these locations,” Strid said, adding that he could not say whether the increasing number of outdoor pieces is good or bad for the town. “I don’t know where control of the proliferation of art in Carmel should be, but I don’t think it should be here in this commission.”
(Planning Commission Chairman Bill Strid, The Carmel Pine Cone, Sculptures, not hamburgers, Mary Brownfield, November 23-29, 2007.)
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS:
• September-October 2002: City Council established the former Committee for Art and Public Places (CAPP) as an independent board, The Carmel By-The-Sea Art Board (CAB).
• June 2006: Mass resignations by Carmel-by-the-Sea Art Board Members
“We are treated like school kids and must be chaperoned in case we might make a decision concerning art. In my opinion, a good working committee is needed in Carmel to remind the city and citizens that our heritage is from the early artists. That won’t happen as long as the tight control is in place.”
(Eleen Auvil’s Letter of Resignation from the Carmel Art Board, June 2006)
“I am saddened and frustrated by this stasis,” adding that the city council failed to consult CAB before deciding some art-related matters.
(Margot Petit Nichols’ Letter of Resignation from the Carmel Art Board, June 2006)
With the mass resignations of Carmel Art Board Members Belinda Vidor Holliday, Eleen Auvil and Margot Petit Nichols, the Carmel Art Board was put on “the shelf for the moment.” Alibing her decision to “put the Art Board on the shelf for the moment,” Mayor Sue McCloud cited the city council’s approval of a $90,000 contract for the review of city-owned artwork. She stated that “The results,...will dictate the role of the art board,...”
• June 12, 2007
COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES & CULTURAL COMMISSION
Approved the “concept” of the McDonald Gallery displaying the sculptures in Devendorf Park, 4-0 (AYES: Commission Members Dixon, Jones, Klaumann, Jett; ABSENT, Coniglio)
• July 10, 2007
COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES & CULTURAL COMMISSION
Christie Miller, Community Services Manager announced meeting with Carrie Ann on July 13, 2007 regarding the MacDonald Gallery Exhibit October 12-25, 2007.
• July 11, 2007
PLANNING COMMISSION
Unanimously approved Dawson Cole Fine Art’s application for the installation of a bronze, “Trumpeter,” by Richard MacDonald, outdoors and “visible from the public right of way in the Central Commercial District.” 5-0 (AYES: Commission Members Hewer, Hillyard, Sharp, Wilson, Strid)
• September 11, 2007
COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES & CULTURAL COMMISSION
Christie Miller, Community Services Director, announced MacDonald Gallery Exhibit October 12-15 proceeding as planned in Devendorf Park.
• September 12, 2007
PLANNING COMMISSION
Unanimously approved Carmel Plaza’s application for the installation of “Trumpeter,” by Richard MacDonald, outdoors and visible from the public right of way in the Central Commercial District “for one year with the understanding that Carmel Plaza talk with local artists to discuss the possibility of a rotating art show in this area.” 4-0 (AYES: Commission Members Hewer, Hillyard, Wilson, Strid)
• November 14, 2007
PLANNING COMMISSION
Approved recommendation to city council to “make arrangements for the fair and equitable assessment of the display of sculpture at Carmel Plaza” with no item on site longer than one year and no one artist dominating the location. 3-0 (AYES: Commission Members Hillyard, Wilson, Strid, ABSENT Hewer)
Approved Dawson Cole Find Art’s application for the installation of a 6’10” bronze Rudolf Nureyev, the Russian dancer and choreographer, by Richard MacDonald, outside its gallery on San Carlos St. between 5th Av. & 6th Av.
COMMENTS:
• Previously, the City’s Committee for Art and Public Places (CAPP) and then the Carmel By-The-Sea Art Board (CAB) had among their duties, responsibilities and authority the review of plans for the installation of art in public places. Moreover, according to the Municipal Code, a majority of the Carmel-by-the-Sea Art Board membership shall be comprised of “artists, art educators, art collectors and art scholars or a combination thereof.”
• In June 2007, the Community Activities & Cultural Commission approved the “concept” to utilize Devendorf Park for a display of Richard MacDonald’s sculptures from October 12-15, 2007. Note: For information about Richard MacDonald, click on Post title above or copy, paste and click http://www.richardmacdonald.com/
• In July and September 2007, the Planning Commission approved a “Commercial Design Review application for the installation of an outdoor sculpture visible from the public right of way in the Central Commercial (CC) District” from Dawson Cole Fine Art and the Carmel Plaza, respectively.
• For 18 months, the City has not reconstituted the Carmel-by-the-Sea Art Board. Consequently, the Planning Commission and the Community Activities & Cultural Commission have made decisions about the installation of art in public places despite members of both these commissions not having the requisite expertise or duties, responsibilities and authority to make these decisions with respect to the City’s Municipal Code.
• Mayor Sue McCloud’s assessment that the results of the Art Inventory and Art Appraisal of City-owned artworks by Ellen Osterkamp would dictate the role of the art board is specious given that the Municipal Code delineates many more duties, responsibilities and authority than merely issues having to do with the art inventory. (See REFERENCES, 2.37.060 Duties, Responsibilities and Authority.) Note: The Resolution of the City Council entering into a professional services agreement with Ellen Osterkamp for Art Inventory and Art Appraisal Services in an amount not to exceed $90,000 was approved in May 2006 and per contract supposed to be completed by June 30, 2007.
• Question: Why has the City Council been negligent in not reconstituting the Carmel-by-the-Sea Art Board?
REFERENCES:
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Municipal Code
Title 2
ADMINISTRATION AND PERSONNEL
Chapter 2.37
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA ART BOARD
Sections:
2.37.010 Establishment of Board.
2.37.020 Membership and Criteria for Appointment.
2.37.030 Appointment Process.
2.37.040 Termination of Members.
2.37.050 Bylaws, Policies, Rules and Procedures.
2.37.060 Duties, Responsibilities and Authority.
2.37.070 Authority to Expend Funds.
2.37.010 Establishment of Board.
There is created and established the Carmel-by-the-Sea Art Board (CAB). (Ord. 2002-07 § 1, 2002).
2.37.020 Membership and Criteria for Appointment.
A. The Carmel-by-the-Sea Art Board shall consist of five members, each of whom shall be appointed to serve a four-year term.
B. A two-thirds majority of the members of the Carmel-by-the-Sea Art Board shall be residents of the City, and the remainder may be residents of the City’s sphere of influence.
C. Membership shall be representative of persons who have an interest in, or familiarity with, the City’s artistic heritage. Artists, art educators, art collectors and art scholars or a combination thereof shall make up a majority of the Carmel-by-the-Sea Art Board membership. (Ord. 2002-07 § 1, 2002).
2.37.030 Appointment Process.
A. Members of the Carmel-by-the-Sea Art Board shall be nominated by the Mayor, whose nomination shall be ratified by at least three of the five members of the City Council.
B. Terms of members shall be staggered so that at least two terms, but no more than three terms, shall expire in any one year. Appointments shall be made, where possible, prior to the beginning of the term of office, in order that the new member(s) shall be able to become familiar with the functions of the Board. Terms of office for new members shall begin at the commencement of the first regular meeting in the month of October of the appropriate year. Terms of outgoing members shall end simultaneously. The newly appointed member(s) shall be sworn in by the City Clerk.
C. In the event an appointment cannot be made in a timely manner, the City Council, with the consent of the incumbent, may extend the incumbent’s term for up to 90 days. (Ord. 2002-07 § 1, 2002).
2.37.040 Termination of Members.
Members of the Carmel-by-the-Sea Art Board shall be terminated only under the following circumstances:
A. The member ceases to be a resident of the City, thereby causing less than a two-thirds majority of the Board to be residents of the City.
B. The member is ill or absent from the City and unable to attend three consecutive regular Board meetings, but fails to so notify either the Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, or the Community and Cultural Director.
C. The member, when neither ill nor absent from the City, fails to attend three regular consecutive Board meetings.
D. The member is terminated by a majority vote of the City Council. (Ord. 2002-07 § 1, 2002).
2.37.050 Bylaws, Policies, Rules and Procedures.
The Carmel-by-the-Sea Art Board shall adopt or maintain bylaws, policies, rules, and procedures governing parliamentary actions, election of officers and formation of committees. The bylaws shall be filed with the City Clerk. (Ord. 2002-07 § 1, 2002).
2.37.060 Duties, Responsibilities and Authority.
The Carmel-by-the-Sea Art Board shall have the following duties, responsibilities and authority:
A. To develop and upgrade the City’s permanent art collection, by advising Council on items which should be acquired or deaccessioned.
B. To direct the Art in Public Places Program, which is any work of art displayed in an open City-owned area, on the exterior of any City-owned facility, within any City-owned facility in areas designated as public areas, lobbies or for public assemblies.
C. To explore on a continuing basis the availability of funds for the Art in Public Places Program from private, corporate and government sources.
D. To review plans for the installation of art in public places.
E. To enrich the public environment for both residents and visitors to the area through their exposure to the visual arts.
F. To nurture, enhance and encourage the City’s artistic community.
G. To increase public access to works of art and to promote understanding and awareness of visual arts in the public environment.
H. To promote diversity of the visual arts through a variety of styles, designs and media.
I. To maintain a current inventory and appropriate appraisals of City-owned visual arts and to advise Council as needed on matters pertaining to the maintenance, placement, alteration, sale, transfer, ownership and acceptance or refusal of donations and other matters pertaining to art in public places. (Ord. 2002-07 § 1, 2002).
2.37.070 Authority to Expend Funds.
Under the supervision and control of the City Administrator, the Board may incur indebtedness or expend funds on behalf of the City in furtherance of its authorized objectives; provided, that the funds therefore are appropriated, approved, or budgeted by the City Council, in advance, for such purpose. (Ord. 2002-07 § 1, 2002).
(Source: http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/carmel.html)
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JULY 11, 2007
IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. DR 07-14
Dawson Cole Fine Art
W/s San Carlos bt. 5th & 6th
Cottage Row
Block 56, Lot(s) 17 & 19
Commercial Design Review application for the installation of an outdoor sculpture visible from the public right of way in the Central Commercial (CC) District.
Nathan Schmidt, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Strid opened the public hearing at 4:33 p.m. Monte Miller appeared before the Commission. There being no other appearances, the public hearing was closed at 4:34 p.m.
Commissioner HILLYARD moved to approve application as submitted, seconded by SHARP and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSONERS: Hewer, Hillyard, Sharp, Wilson, Strid
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 12, 2007
IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS
DR 07-21
Carmel Plaza
S/s Ocean bt. Mission & Junipero
Block 78, Lot(s) All
Commercial Design Review application for the installation of an outdoor sculpture visible from the public right of way in the Central Commercial (CC) District.
Nathan Schmidt, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Strid opened the public hearing at 5:07 p.m. Eileen Ovilee, Monte Miller, Shirley Human, Roberta Miller and Carrieann appeared before the Commission. There being no other appearances, the public hearing was closed at 5:20 p.m.
Commissioner WILSON moved to approve application for one (1) year with the understanding that Carmel Plaza talk with local artists to discuss the possibility of a rotating art show in this area, seconded by HEWER and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Hewer, Hillyard, Wilson, Strid
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None
MINUTES
COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES & CULTURAL COMMISSION
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
JUNE 12, 2007
V. ORDERS OF BUSINESS
Request from Richard McDonald Gallery to utilize Devendorf Park for a display of his sculptures from October 12-15, 2007. Receive presentation, discuss and take appropriate action.
Commissioner Klaumann opened the discussion to the public.
Carrie Ann and Michelle McDonald presented their proposal to the Commission for the display of Mr. McDonald’s very large pieces ranging between 8 and 10 sculptures.
After discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner JETT to pursue the concept of the McDonald Gallery displaying the sculptures in Devendorf Park but to return to the July Community Activities & Cultural Commission meeting with a final proposal.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner JONES and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: JETT, DIXON, KLAUMANN, JONES
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: CONIGLIO
ABSTAIN: NONE
MINUTES
COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES & CULTURAL COMMISSION
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
JULY 10, 2007
VII. ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR
MacDonald Gallery Exhibit October 12-15 – meeting with Carrie Ann on July 13, 2007.
MINUTES
COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES & CULTURAL COMMISSION
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
SEPTEMBER 11, 2007
VII. ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR
MacDonald Gallery Exhibit October 12-15 proceeding as planned in Devendorf Park.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)