Non-Native Invasive Exotics & Other Plants Overgrowing Trails in Mission Trail Nature Preserve

Obscured Trail in Mission Trail Nature Preserve
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA.
Scientific Name: Genista monspessulana
Common Name: French Broom
Distinction: Non-Native Invasive Exotic

Not only does the City’s General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Coastal Resource Management mandate “trail maintenance and clearance” annually, it encourages the removal of both intentionally introduced plants and invasives. As depicted in the photo above, Genista, a non-native invasive exotic, is overgrowing the trail. On other parts of the trail system, encroaching ivy and poison oak are overgrowing the trails. In short, non-native invasive exotics and other plants are overgrowing the trails in Mission Trail Nature Preserve due to a lack of trail maintenance and a failure to adhere to the General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan.

Reference:
General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Coastal Resource Management
Mission Trail Nature Preserve

Selected relevant excerpts, as follows:

P5-118 Avoid removal or pruning of native riparian vegetation except for drainage channel and road/trail clearance and/or for the purpose of new native indigenous tree/shrub establishment. (LUP)

O5-28 Prepare annual maintenance plans for habitats within the Preserve. Encourage native vegetation to re-establish on sites previously mowed, cut, or invaded by exotic species. (LUP)

P5-124 Consider removal of both intentionally introduced plants and invasives by instituting an annual program through joint efforts of contract workers and volunteers. (LUP)

P5-125 Research the most appropriate time for mowing grasses to encourage the growth of native plants and discourage exotics and schedule accordingly. (LUP)

P5-140 Formalize a trail through Martin Meadows. (LUP)

O5-35 Implement the Mission Trail Nature Preserve Master Plan maintenance provisions. (LUP)

P5-153 Mow meadow grasses to reduce the risk of fire (June.) if consistent with special status plant management needs. (LUP)

P5-156 Conduct trail maintenance and clearance (June - August.) (LUP)
(Source: http://www.ci.carmel.ca.us/, Planning, General Plan & Local Use Plan Revisions, Coastal Resource Management Element PDF, Mission Trail Nature Preserve)

Sources of information about weeds and invasive exotics, as follows:

Extremely invasive horticultural introductions that replace native species are among the most serious weeds. Known as Invasive exotics, they include species of Genistra (brooms). Invasive exotics are “threats to our native flora.”
(Source: http://www.stanford.edu/~rawlings/bulspec1.htm#weeds)
Click on post title above for short article.

An interesting article about non-native invasives, “Do You Sell Broom?” by Sally de Becker.
(http://www.stanford.edu/~rawlings/broom.htm)

California Invasive Plant Council
http://www.cal-ipc.org/ip/inventory/index.php#inventory

TABLE 1: Invasive Non-Native Plants that Threaten Wildlands in California
http://www.cal-ipc.org/ip/inventory/pdf/Inventory2006.pdf

For images of Genista,
The Nature Conservancy
The Global Invasive Species Initiative
Genista monspessulanus (French Broom)
http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/esadocs/genimons.html

Another interesting web site, the California Native Plant Society.
http://cnps.org/cnps/nativeplants/

FOREST THEATRE NATIVE PLANTS LANDSCAPE RESTORATION PROJECT: The Regional Occupational Program Ornamental Horticultural Class of Carmel Middle School

Forest Theater
Mt. View Av. between Santa Rita St. & Guadalupe St.
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA.
Close-Up View: Shallow continuous trench for drip irrigation lines and holes for native drought-tolerant plants
Project made possible by Hilton Bialek Biological Sciences Habitat, Carmel Middle School & Regional Occupational Program (ROP) Ornamental Horticultural Class of Carmel High School.

The Hilton Bialek Biological Sciences Habitat, Carmel Middle School & Regional Occupational Program (ROP) Ornamental Horticultural Class of Carmel High School Forest Theatre Native Plants Landscape Restoration Project

The Hilton Bialek Biological Sciences Habitat
Craig Hohenberger, Director

“The Hilton Bialek Biological Sciences Habitat at Carmel Middle School is one of the most unique environmental education centers in the nation.”

“Our mission is to inspire students to understand, appreciate and protect the natural environment.”

Community Restoration Projects include the Carmel River Lagoon, Carmel Beach and Lester Rowntree Arboretum.
For more information about the Hilton Bialek Biological Sciences Habitat, click on the post title above, or copy, paste and click, http://www.carmelhabitat.org/


The Regional Occupational Program (ROP) Ornamental Horticultural class is landscaping an area of the Forest Theatre courtesy of a grant from the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and the assistance of Gary Girard and Greg D’Ambrosio. The class is tentatively scheduled to give a presentation at the 5 April 2007 Forest and Beach Commission meeting.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
FOREST AND BEACH COMMISSION
AGENDA
Regular Meeting
1 March 2007
1:30 p.m. – Tour of Inspection
2:00 p.m. - Regular Agenda

I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Peggy Miller, Chairperson
Tad Pritchett
Bob Tierney
Nancy John
Kathleen Coss

VII. ORDERS OF BUSINESS

Receive presentation from Carmel Middle School regarding the Forest Theatre Landscape Restoration Project and provide recommendations on future site improvements. CONTINUED TO 5 APRIL 2007 MEETING


Note: As preparation, Assured Landscape installed water mains and valves as described in the post, February 13, 2007, "Forest Theatre: Outsourced Preparatory Work for Future Landscaping."

CITY ADMINISTRATOR: administrative and executive ability?

Mountain View Avenue
View Towards Mountain View Av. Entrance to Mission Trail Nature Preserve
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, March 13, 2007

VII. Consent Calendar

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

City Administrator Rich Guillen presented the staff report written by Administration Services Director Joyce Giuffre, dated March 13, 2007.

City Administrator Rich Guillen:
“During the budget hearings last May, the council did get into some discussion regarding our streets and the condition of our streets and whether we should actually think of upgrading them. And at that time instead of selecting the streets randomly, we discussed possibly going back to the study that had been done in 1997 which was a pavement management study. The pavement management study that came out in the late 90s was mainly a result of trying to obtain federal funding. And they were required at that time. Today, they are no longer required. But, I thought that I would recommend at the time of the budget hearing to kind of update our pavement management study, which I didn’t think would take a large amount cost so that we would have empirical data to base our decisions on what streets need to be repaired quicker than others so what we did is we contacted, after some time, contacted the consulting engineering firm that did the original 1997 and apparently they did a 2003 amendment, and that was Nichols Consulting Engineers and so we met with them and discussed updating the report. And I think you see the tasks at the very back of that on page 36 of your packet."

"As a sub note to that, we also have been monitoring what the city of Monterey did as far as the truck impact fees and they were successful in adopting a fee for any type of truck that comes into their city because typically a truck is equivalent to 6 to 10 cars on your streets so every truck that drives on your street is like 6 or 10 cars have driven in that same location. So we asked Nichols Consulting Engineers to take a look and also developing criteria so there would be the nexus between what the impacts are and what the fee we’re going to charge the truck companies for coming into our city and so they added that as an additional scope of work which is under task F of the list here."

"So basically what you have is a menu, and if you look at page 36, A through E are related to the pavement management system update, and that is related to the road impact fee study. You can do any combination of A through E, if you want to, like I said it is no longer required by federal or state law, but it might be a useful tool for us and separate from that you can do F also or do A or F or F alone. So with that I conclude my report. The total cost is $60,300."

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH NICHOLS CONSULTING ENGINEERS FOR A 2007 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT AND TRUCK IMPACT FEE STUDY...

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

1. Authorize the City Administrator to enter into an agreement with Nichols Consulting Engineers for a 2007 Pavement Management and Truck Impact Fee study in an amount not to exceed $42,000 (greater if Task B must be included); approve Tasks A, C and F and Task B only if consultant does not agree to eliminate it.

2. Authorize the use of Administration Department’s professional services account 01-64051 and a portion of any FY 2006-07 year-end General Fund surplus for Nichols Consulting Engineers services.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMELBY- THE SEA this 13th day of March 2007, by unanimous consent of COUNCIL MEMBERS CUNNINGHAM, HAZDOVAC, ROSE, TALMAGE & McCLOUD

Reference:
TASK A – CONDITION SURVEYS & PCI CALCULATIONS: $14,900

TASK B – MAINTENANCE & REHABILITATION HISTORY & DECISION TREE: $ 3,500

TASK C – BUDGETARY ANALYSIS & FINAL REPORTS: $7,500
StreetSaver Online Upgrade (optional) $2,200

TASK D – TRAINING & TECHNICAL SUPPORT (optional): $ 8,200

TASK E – COUNCIL PRESENTATION (Optional Task): $ 4,400

TASK F – ROAD IMPACT FEE STUDY: $19,600
TOTAL COST: $ 60,300

(Source: http://www.ci.carmel.ca.us/,
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Scope of Work
2007 Pavement Management Update
Nichols Consulting Engineers, Chtd.
Pages 34-42)

COMMENTS:
A competent, professional City Administrator with “administrative and executive ability” would present the Nichols Consulting Engineers proposed agreement to the City Council with his/her recommendation; he/she would not present the proposed agreement as a “menu” of options for the City Council to choose among all the menu options.

Reference:
Selected relevant excerpts from the Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code, as follows:
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Municipal Code
Chapter 2.08
CITY ADMINISTRATOR*
2.08.010 Office Established.
The office of City Administrator is established. The City Administrator shall be selected by and appointed by the City Council on the basis of administrative and executive ability and qualifications and shall hold office for and during the pleasure of the City Council, under the provisions set forth in this chapter. (Ord. 77-22 § 1, 1977; Code 1975 § 230).

2.08.060 Powers and Duties.
The City Administrator shall be the administrative head of the government of the City, under the direction and control of the City Council. The Administrator shall be responsible for the efficient administration of all of the affairs of the City which are under the Administrator’s control, and responsible therefore to the City Council. In addition, and not as a limitation of the general powers of the office, the Administrator shall have the duty and the powers set forth in the following:

A. Enforcement of Laws. It shall be the duty of the City Administrator to assure that all laws and ordinances of the City are enforced and that the orders of the City Council are carried out.

B. Fiscal and Budgetary Matters. The City Administrator shall supervise and be responsible for all fiscal and budgetary matters, advising the City Council on the financial needs of the City, current and future, and shall supervise budget preparation and control, and shall propose an annual salary plan for the City Council.

C. Powers Over Employees. The City Administrator shall be responsible for all employee actions, including recruiting, employment, appointment, advancement, and discharge, with the exception of actions relating to the City Attorney and City Treasurer which shall be carried out by the City Council.

D. Direction of Departments. As the head of the City’s management team, the City Administrator shall be responsible for and shall provide administrative direction for the day-to-day operation of all departmental activities.

E. Support of the City Council. The City Administrator shall be responsible to the City Council for the preparation of agendas, for the provision of all necessary clerical functions for the Council, and the maintenance of necessary records.

F. Control of Expenditures and Purchasing. It shall be the duty of the City Administrator to supervise and control expenditures of City funds. The City Administrator shall be responsible for the purchase of all supplies and services for all departments.

G. Public Works and Public Buildings and Grounds. The City Administrator shall exercise general supervision over all public buildings, public parks, and all other public property under the jurisdiction of the City Council. The Administrator shall review the scheduling of all public works, including street, sidewalk and storm drain projects and repairs, to assure that such projects and repairs create the minimum interference with the normal activities of the community.

H. Additional Duties. It shall be the duty of the City Administrator to perform such other duties and to exercise such other powers as may be delegated from time to time by the City Council. (Ord. 78-5 § 1, 1978; Ord. 77-22 § 1, 1977; Code 1975 § 232).

2.08.070 Internal Relations.
A. Council-Administrator Relations. The City Council and its members shall deal with the administrative services and department heads of the City only through the City Administrator, except for the purpose of inquiry, and neither the City Council nor any member thereof shall give orders or instructions to any subordinates of the City Administrator. The City Administrator shall take orders and instructions from the City Council only when it is sitting in a duly convened meeting, and no individual Council member shall give any orders or instructions to the City Administrator.

Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profile in Hypocrisy

"Way Station for Pets" in the public right-of-way with paver pad, bench, water hose-bibb, light and water bowl for pets.

Lincoln Street, View to the South
"Way Station for Pets" to the right in the public right-of-way with paver pad, bench, water hose-bibb, light and water bowl for pets.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, March 13, 2007

XI.Orders of Council

A. Consideration of an Encroachment Permit Request from Mr. and Mrs. Boghosian for the placement of a paver pad, bench, stones and water hose-bibb in the public right-of-way at 24936 Lincoln Street.

During deliberations, a verbal exchange occurred between City Council Member Paula Hazdovac, City Administrator Rich Guillen and Mayor Sue McCloud, as follows:

City Council Member Paula Hazdovac: “...but the lights that go all up and down the street, how will that be addressed, even though it’s not a part of this?”

City Administrator Rich Guillen: “Well, I think what staff would recommend that they also be removed.”

City Council Member Paula Hazdovac: “O.K. Thank you.”

Mayor Sue McCloud: “I would like to point out that those were placed after they were told they were in violation...does there have to be some mention of the lights in there, we remove all items as soon as possible...”

COMMENTS:
Lights in the public right-of-way...reminiscent of Mayor McCloud’s installation of approximately 50 lights in the Ocean Avenue medians without public hearings and in violation of the Municipal Code. Or the city saying the city can post "No Bicycle" signs in Mission Trail Nature Preserve without public hearings and a California Coastal Commission permit, then being told by a California Coastal Commission Staff Member that the city must follow the same public procedure as the installation of "No Smoking" signs along Carmel Beach prior to the installation of signs, and then the city posting “application for municipal project review” notices in Mission Trail Nature Preserve for the installation of 13 “No Bicycles” signs in Mission Trail Nature Preserve. Or the city disseminating inaccurate information and/or never correcting the record about using the proceeds from the sale of the Flanders Mansion property to fund the Fire Station Seismic Retrofit Project when the city knew the sale of Flanders Mansion was in litigation and the Fire Station Seismic Retrofit Project was budgeted for and under construction. And on and on and on...Do As I Say (Not As I Do!) and As I Say (As I Do! Even When I Know It's Wrong!).

$65,580: Total City Compensation to Special Counsel William B. Conners from March 2005 through February 2007

TOTAL CITY MONETARY AMOUNT TO SPECIAL COUNSEL WILLIAM B. CONNERS
GNM76728, FLANDERS FOUNDATION v. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA et al.
(March 2005 – February 2007):

TOTAL: $65,580.00 (March 2005 - February 2007)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Addendum: Since the Honorable Robert A. O’Farrell, Judge of the Superior Court, granted Flanders Foundation's writ of mandate and directed “the attorney for Flanders to prepare an appropriate judgment consistent with this ruling,” the total city compensation for attorneys in this case could be estimated at approximately double Special Counsel William B. Conners' compensation, or a total of approximately $132,000.

ATTENTION CARMELITES: Now is the Time for an Honest & Informed Debate over City Reserve Policy

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, March 13, 2007

X. Resolutions

A. Consideration of a Resolution to approve the transfer of the fiscal year 2005-06 General Fund surplus of $636,273 to the Capital Improvement Reserve Fund.

During City Council deliberations, City Administrator Rich Guillen stated the following:

“There was a question, do these funds or revenues that we place into capital improvement program funds have to remain those type of funds, and the answer is no, you can use them for something else if you decided to do that. So basically…we’re putting into a saving account for future use that the council can deliberate at your workshop during the budget process.”

Later, Mayor Sue McCloud and City Administrator Rich Guillen had the following exchange:

Mayor Sue McCloud: “...that $10 million you’ve referred for reserves, a lot of that isn’t available for reserve spending because it is like deferred workmen’s compensation and things that are restricted for use, when you factor those out, I’m not sure of the exact figure is, but it’s way less, is it half?"

Rich Guillen: “Yea, about half.”

Mayor McCloud: “About half that our reserves actually show because they’re not restricted.”

COMMENTS:
Review the following “Fund Balances” from the CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA California, Annual Financial Reports, completed by Nicholson & Olson, Certified Public Accountants.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
California
Annual Financial Report
June 30, 2006

BALANCE SHEET
Government Funds
June 30, 2006

FUND BALANCES
Reserved for debt service: $627,309

Unreserved:
Designated: $5,359,692
Reserved: $552,884 (Parking)
Undesignated: $3,053,341

Total Fund Balances: $9,040,342 $552,884

TOTAL: $9,593,226.00
Note: $9,593,226 represents an increase of $694,804 over the previous fiscal year.

(Source: Financial Statements, CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, BALANCE SHEET, Government Funds, June 30, 2006, CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, California, Annual Financial Report, June 30, 2006.)

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
California
Annual Financial Report
June 30, 2005

BALANCE SHEET
Government Funds
June 30, 2005

Fund Balances
623,709 Reserved for debt service

Unreserved
$37,662 Designated for street and traffic safety
$740,451 Designated for liability insurance
$647,527 Designated for health insurance
$1,370,334 Designated for capital improvements
$249,579 Designated for equipment replacement
$1,432,394 Designated for benefits and wc insurance
$657,000 Designated for reserves
$549,690 Designated for economic uncertainty
$165,011 Designated for emergency response
$140,000 Designated for general services and operations
$468,857 Designated for customer deposits
$1,240,439 Undesignated

8,322,653 Total Fund Balances

TOTAL: $8,898,422 (including Parking & Grants)
Note: $8,898,422 represents an increase of $266,264 from the previous fiscal year.

(Source: CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA California, Annual Financial Report, June 30, 2005, FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, Fund Financial Statements, Balance Sheet – Governmental Funds.)

• The Government Funds, or commonly referred to as reserve funds, are categorized for auditing purposes as Reserved, Unreserved /Designated and Unreserved/Undesignated. To use Fiscal Year 2004/05 as a reference due to the itemization of the Unreserved/Designated items, of the total $8,898,422, benefits and workmen’s compensation equaled 16%; liability and health insurance equaled 16%; capital improvements, equipment replacement and street/traffic safety equaled 19%; Undesignated equaled 14%; Reserved for debt service and other Unreserved/Designated equaled 35%.

• An analysis indicates that the City Council has the discretion and ability to spend up to all of the Unreserved/Undesignated amount for any project. (FY 2005/06 Undesignated: $3,053,341). Furthermore, for capital improvement projects, the city has approximately $1.7 million available for expenditure. The City Council also has the discretion at any time to move amounts from one Unreserved/Designated item to another item.

• Basically, the City is the authority over allocations and amounts in reserve fund items.

• On a City Reserve Policy: The reserve policy of any given city is at the discretion of the elected representatives of a given city. Given that the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is a one industry tourism village, a “prudent” reserve policy may be a goal of reserve fund amounts between 6 months to 1 year of income; or in the case of Carmel, between $6 million and $12 million. Still, reserve funds are reserve funds, whether Reserved, Unreserved/Designated or Unreserved/Undesignated; $9.6 million in reserve funds relative to an annual budget of approximately $12 million is extraordinarily high compared to other California cities.

• Voters ultimately decide whether they want a City Council which views reserves as a savings account to accrue more and more money or a City Council which views reserves for basis employee and insurance obligations, emergencies and long-term projects. If voters continue to support the present City Council, residents will continue to see deferred maintenance projects unfunded. Alternatively, if voters come to believe that there is a dire need to fund projects such as the Scout House, the Forest Theatre and, as required by law and now the formal order of a Superior Court Judge, the Flanders Mansion, residents will seek to influence the present City Council to do more for the city’s infrastructure and historical and cultural assets or elect other residents to the City Council.

UPDATE: HISTORIC DESIGNATION APPEALS TO THE HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD

Resource Name: Robert A. Norton House
Location: Monte Verde St. 5 N.W. 4th Av.
Distinction: APPEAL DENIED

UPDATE: HISTORIC APPEALS TO THE HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD
(November 2005 – March 2007)

APPEALS GRANTED: 37

APPEALS DENIED: 19

APPEALS DISMISSED: 14

APPEALS OF A PRELMINARY DETERMINATION OF INELIGIBILITY:
GRANTED: 1
DENIED: 3

TOTAL NUMBER OF APPEALS: 74

NUMBER ADDED TO REGISTER FROM INVENTORY: 1


HISTORIC APPEALS TO THE HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD (February & March 2007)
(Name of Property Owner, Physical Location, Resource Name, APPEAL GRANTED or DENIED)

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD
Regular Meeting
19 March 2007

BOARD MEMBERS:
ERIK DYAR, CHAIRPERSON
ELINOR LAIOLO (Absent)
ERLING LAGERHOLM
JULIE WENDT

EXTRORDINARY BUSINESS
Swearing in of new Board Member Don Wiese.

Consideration of a request to place historic properties on the City’s Register of Historic Resource.

Rob Rossi
N.W. Corner Ocean Av. & Casanova
Resource Name: C. Halstead Yates Cottages
APPROVED

Consideration of an appeal of the City’s determination to place an existing residence located in the Single Family Residential (R-1) District on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources.

Workman Brothers Development Co.
E/s Casanova between 7th Av. & 8th Av.
Resource Name: John Hancock House
APPEAL GRANTED

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD
Regular Meeting
26 February 2007

Considerations of appeals of the City’s determination to place existing residences located in the Single Family Residential (R-1) District on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources.

San Carlos, LLP
NW Cor. San Carlos & 12th
Resource Name: Cooper House
APPEAL GRANTED

Xavier Urpi
W/s Monte Verde bet. 2nd & 4th (Monte Verde St. 5 N.W. 4th Av.)
Resource Name: Robert A. Norton House
APPEAL DENIED

Evalee Harrison
E/s Junipero bet. 2nd & 3rd (Junipero Av. 4 S.E. 2nd Av.)
Resource Name: Dr. C. L. Trawin Cabin
APPEAL GRANTED

Jesse & Carol Kahn
S/s 8th bet. Junipero & Torres (8th Av 2 S.E. Junipero Av.)
Resource Name: Kahn House
APPEAL GRANTED

Tim Allen
E/s Lopez bet. 2nd & 4th (Lopez 7 S.E. 2nd Av.)
Resource Name: Mary E. Collins Cottage
APPEAL GRANTED

NOTE: For a List of Historic Appeals to the Historic Resources Board, November 2005 –September 2006, please click on Post of Tuesday, October 10, 2006 and Updated List, click on Post of Wednesday, January 24, 2007.

CONTEXT: City Council Member Michael Cunningham’s Concern about Impacts on City Revenues

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, March 13, 2007

IX. Ordinances

A. Consideration of an Ordinance amending the City's Municipal Code Chapter 5.04.190 to amend business license exemptions for Peddlers and Solicitors. (First Reading).

Background: A citizen brought to the city’s attention a conflict between the City’s Municipal Code and State Code. Ergo, the City Council voted to approve the Ordinance amending the City’s Municipal Code by removing 5.04.190 C. 1 and 2 to be consistent with California State Code (see Reference below).

During the City Council deliberations, City Councilman Michael Cunningham stated, as follows:

“Is there enough of a fiscal impact that we need to consider it...if we have to plan for a loss in revenue from enough business licenses.”

City Attorney Don Freeman: “No.”

Comments:
City Councilman Michael Cunningham has a record of voicing concerns about city revenues and the impacts of certain city council actions on city revenues. As the above example illustrates, his concern was the potential “loss in revenue” with the change in the ordinance. Similarly, City Councilman Cunningham expressed concern over the potential loss in property tax revenue to the city from City Council approvals of Mills Act Contracts to eligible owners of historic properties.

City Councilman Michael Cunningham’s concern about individual veteran vendors affecting total business license fee revenue to the city and his concern about potential Mills Act Contract property owners affecting total property tax revenue to the city should be placed in context. In 2000, under Proposition 90, the Michael J. & Judith R. Cunningham TRS transferred the base year value of their principal residence in one county, Santa Clara County, to a newly purchased residence in another county, Monterey County. This legal action allowed Mr. and Mrs. Cunningham to transfer their tax base of approximately $125,000 to Monterey County (see Reference below), a value hundreds of thousands of dollars less than the purchase price of their new residence in Carmel-by-the-Sea.

In short, City Councilman Michael Cunningham’s and Mrs. Cunningham’s action impacted city revenues as much, if not more than, any individual veteran vendor or individual potential Mills Act Contract property owner.


Reference:
APN: 090-371-040
2900 Franciscan Way, Carmel

Cunningham, Michael J. & Judith R. Cunningham TRS
2900 Franciscan Way
Carmel, CA. 93923-9216

Land $46,648
Improvement: $84,670
Net Value: $124,318
Homeowners Exemption $7,000

Appraisal Control Index
As of 1/12/2000
Transferred Tax Base from Santa Clara to Monterey County
PROP 90 Santa Clara

(Source: Monterey County Assessor's Office, Administration Building, 168 West Alisal Street, Salinas, CA 93902)


Reference:
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Municipal Code
Chapter 5.04
GENERAL LICENSING PROVISIONS*
5.04.190 Exemptions.
C. Peddlers and Solicitors.
1. No license tax for the purpose of peddling or soliciting shall be required of any honorably discharged or honorably released soldier, sailor or marine of the United States of America exempted from the payment thereof by any laws of the State of California, and who is a qualified elector of the City; provided further, that each such soldier, sailor or marine shall upon application therefor be issued such license free of cost upon presentation of a document or documents establishing this honorable discharge or honorable release from the United States Army, Navy, Coast Guard, Air Force or Marine Corps, and also upon the presentation of a certificate of a doctor of medicine licensed to practice under the laws of the State of California, certifying that such veteran is physically unable to obtain a livelihood by manual labor.

2. No license tax for this purpose of peddling or soliciting shall be required of any blind person. A blind person, within the meaning of this section, means a person having not more than 10 percent visual acuity in the better eye, with correction. Such blindness shall be certified by a licensed physician or surgeon who specializes in diseases of the eye, and who is licensed to practice in the State of California, or by the Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation of the Department of Education of the State of California, and the exemption provided by this section shall not apply until a certificate as to such blindness shall have been furnished to the City Administrator or other designated agent of the City.

Economic Revitalization Plan: The ANTITHESIS of ORDINANCE NO. 96

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, March 13, 2007

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

C.Announcements from City Administrator.
• Presentation of Economic Revitalization Plan

OBSERVATIONS, COMMENTS & QUESTIONS

REMEMBER...
THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA is hereby determined to be primarily, a residential City wherein business and commerce have in the past, are now, and are proposed to be in the future subordinated to its residential character; and that said determination is made having in mind the history and the development of said city, its growth and the causes thereof; and also its geographical and topographical aspects, together with its near proximity to the cities of Pacific Grove and Monterey and the businesses, industries, trades, callings and professions in existence and permissible therein.
Adopted by Ordinance No. 96 passed on this 5th day of June 1929

STAFF REPORT FROM CITY ADMINISTRATOR RICH GUILLEN ON ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION PLAN
Selected quotations from Staff Report, followed by comments and questions, as follows:

“Increasing revenues through economic development was specified by the City Council as one of the City Administrator’s goals for calendar year 2006.”
Reference:
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR McCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: MARCH 5, 2007
SUBJECT: ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION PLAN

Comment And Questions: On the City Council agenda of 13 March 2007, under Resolutions, was the transfer of the fiscal year 2005-06 General Fund surplus of $636,273 to the Capital Improvement Reserve Fund. A surplus, combined with the fact that the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is one of the highest per capita spending cities in California, prompts the following question: Is it a question of a need for more city revenue or a question of mismanagement of $12 million dollars in revenue annually? Why is it that our city, with much greater per capita spending compared to other California cities, has a closed community center, a dilapidated Indoor and Outdoor Forest Theatre and an ill maintained and closed National Register of Historic Places structure?

“An ad hoc committee was formed to develop an economic development plan for the business area...The ad hoc committee included Tom Glidden (La Playa Hotel), Tod Strain (Macerich – Carmel Plaza), Jeff Burghardt (Anda Burghardt – City’s marketing consultant), Council Member Paula Hazdovac, the Community Services Director, City Clerk, and the City Administrator.”
Reference:
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR McCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: MARCH 5, 2007
SUBJECT: ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION PLAN

Comment: The ad hoc committee, the “Economic Revitalization (ER) Team," is comprised of 6 members; 4 from the city, 1 the city’s marketing consultant, and 2 representing the business sector. Question: Are these individuals qualified to formulate and dictate economic policy in Carmel-by-the-Sea?

“The ER Team commenced meeting in January 2007 and met a total of four times to develop the attached ER Plan spreadsheet.”
Reference:
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR McCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: MARCH 5, 2007
SUBJECT: ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION PLAN

Comment: Greg Sellers, the city’s former Economic Development Coordinator, completed a draft report representing approximately 10 months of part-time work. The ER Team met “a total of 4 times.” Yet no credit is given to Greg Sellers. Such unprofessional conduct is reminiscent of a previous Rich Guillen action, namely a Staff Report consisting of plagiarized MCCVB promotion materials, without source attribution.


ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION PLAN
Selected excerpts from the Economic Revitalization Plan, with Comments, as follows:

Marketing Goals & Objectives
1.) Increase all sales
Accommodations
Dining & Entertainment
Retail

Comments:
To reiterate, while the City Council specified the goal of increasing revenues through economic development as one of the City Administrator’s goals for calendar year 2006, the overall finances of the city do not support the contention that the city lacks revenue and must therefore “increase all sales;” rather, the overall finances of the city support the idea that the city mismanages $12 million annually.

Quarterly “Business” Newsletter
Policy Goals & Objectives
B.) Update businesses with a "What's Happening" quarterly newsletter

Comment:
The ER Team proposes a business quarterly newsletter, yet the City Administrator rejected the continuation of a Carmel-by-the-Sea tradition, namely the City Administrator’s weekly Friday letter for the residents. Businesses, yes, Residents, no!!!

Use of Internet-Online
Accommodations Goals & Objectives
2.) Coordinate effort for booking rooms
A.) Research and implement online booking engine

Marketing Goals & Objectives
1.) Increase all sales
B.) Create online booking and packages web interface

Retail
B.) Provide branded merchandise online

Comment:
The above Goals and Objectives from the Economic Revitalization Plan involve using the internet. Yet the City does not even have a current, up-to-date and complete Official City Web Site of Carmel-by-the-Sea!

Younger Tourists Targeted, Hipper shows, Restaurants and Bars
Dining & Entertainment Goals & Objectives
2.) Expand performing arts attendance
B.) Attract broader audiences with more contemporary performers

3.) Increase night-time activities
C.) Attract new, hip restaurants and bars

Retail
2.) Revitalize the Carmel brand
C.) Work with performing arts to attract hipper shows
D.) Expand brand strengths (e.g. artist colony) with younger angle

Comment:
Younger and hipper..what about catering to the residents of Carmel-by-the-Sea?

Violations of the City’s Municipal Code
Ambiance Goals & Objectives
2.) Improve night lighting
A.) Add tasteful night lighting in commercial areas

5.) Decorate for major city events
A.) Put Christmas lights up earlier and keep up longer

Comments:
Four of the 6 members of the ER Team are city employees. Yet they are advocating violations of the Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code without a mention of the need to amend the Municipal Code if the above items are instituted. Moreover, as a former city employee corroborated, the purpose of lighting in the Municipal Code is safety, not ambiance.

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

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

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

B. Residential Buildings/Zones.
1. All exterior lighting attached to the main building or any accessory building shall be no higher than 10 feet above the ground and not exceed 25 watts in power per fixture.

2. Landscape lighting shall not exceed 18 inches above the ground nor more than 15 watts per fixture and shall be spaced no closer than 10 feet apart. Landscape lighting shall not be used for tree, wall, fence or accent lighting of any type. The purpose of landscape lighting is to safely illuminate walkways and entrances to the subject property.

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

4. Flood-type lighting is prohibited at all times.

WHAT?
Ambiance Goals & Objectives
6.) Fine dining concession at Del Mar Beach
A.) Identify best fit and seek business

Comments:
Only AFTER Announcements from the City Administrator, the Power Point presentation of the Economic Revitalization Plan and resident Linda Anderson objecting to the commercialization of the beach during Appearances, did City Administrator Rich Guillen state, “...it was a mistake, we had the same reaction at our committee and it was supposed to be taken off, it is now officially removed...” His words lend credence to the idea that the Economic Revitalization Plan reprinted in the packet and on the city’s web site is the original report compiled by former Economic Development Coordinator Greg Sellers, which was copied before any editing was done by the ER Team. No other corrections to the Plan reprinted in the packet and on the city’s web site were announced, although the Power Point presentation differed from the reprinted Plan in the packet and on the city’s web site.

NOTE: To read and review the STAFF REPORT and Economic Revitalization Plan, click on the post title above, then click on “City Council,” then click on “Agendas & Minutes,” then click on “March 13, 2007 Meeting Agenda Packet,” scroll to pages 7-14.

Carmel-by-the-Sea: A Tree City USA

Carmel-by-the-Sea
City Council
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, March 13, 2007

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

C. Announcements from City Administrator.
• Recognition of City as a 2006 Tree City USA

Tree City USA
The National Arbor Day Foundation

“The Tree City USA® program, sponsored by The National Arbor Day Foundation in cooperation with the USDA Forest Service and the National Association of State Foresters, provides direction, technical assistance, public attention, and national recognition for urban and community forestry programs in thousands of towns and cities that more than 93 million Americans call home.”

The Four Standards of a Tree City USA
To qualify for Tree City USA, a town or city must meet four standards established by The National Arbor Day Foundation and the National Association of State Foresters.

1. A Tree Board or Department
2. A Tree Care Ordinance
3. A Community Forestry Program With an Annual Budget of at Least $2 Per Capita
4. An Arbor Day Observance and Proclamation

Click on post title above, then click on “Tree City Standards,” for more detailed information or http://www.arborday.org/programs/TreeCityStandards.cfm

For the benefits of being a Tree City, click on post title above, then click on “Benefits of Being a Tree City” or http://www.arborday.org/programs/TreeCityBenefits.cfm
Benefits include: Framework for Action, Education, Public Image, Citizen Pride, Financial Assistance and Publicity.

To receive a free Tree City USA booklet:
E-mail: treecity@arborday.org

Tree Cities in California
The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is one of 144 California Tree Cities USA.

Tree Cities in California
CITY YEARS POPULATION
Anaheim 22 345000
Antioch 1 101049
Arcadia 12 53054
Arroyo Grande 24 17005
Atascadero 18 28677
Atherton 16 7200
Azusa 3 47165
Bakersfield 9 295000
Beale AFB 7 7500
Beverly Hills 21 33784
Brea 9 39584
Burbank 29 104000
Burlingame 27 29050
Calabasas 8 23123
Campbell 24 39312
Carmel-By-The-Sea 2 4200
Carpinteria 18 14300
Ceres 13 37388
Cerritos 8 51000
Chico 22 73558
Chula Vista 14 215000
Claremont 21 35077
Commerce 20 13292
Concord 25 121780
Corona 17 141000
Coronado 21 26000
Costa Mesa 8 113011
Covina 7 49565
Cypress 17 45000
Davis 28 64500
Diamond Bar 5 59487
Downey 8 110700
El Cajon 9 96664
El Segundo 4 16600
Escondido 15 141350
Fontana 10 151965
Fremont 10 210000
Fullerton 25 135672
Garden Grove 12 169000
Gilroy 27 46594
Glendale 22 200200
Glendora 17 52000
Grover Beach 22 13067
Hanford 13 48070
Hayward 20 146027
Hemet 19 65044
Highland 16 50860
Huntington Beach 4 200000
Irvine 16 180803
La Canada Flintridge 18 21500
La Habra 8 61188
La Mesa 26 56049
La Mirada 18 50136
La Puente 2 44000
La Verne 20 38000
Lakewood 22 74000
Lancaster 12 133500
Lemoore 3 21950
Livermore 13 76500
Lodi 4 60000
Lompoc 19 42320
Los Angeles 21 3900000
Los Banos 16 36000
Los Gatos 26 30000
Manteca 15 61927
Martinez 4 36000
Menlo Park 10 30000
Merced 25 73600
Millbrae 14 20800
Milpitas 4 64998
Mission Viejo 7 98197
Modesto 26 207634
Monrovia 19 37566
Montclair 8 35245
Monterey 25 30300
Morro Bay 17 10522
Mount Shasta 8 3600
Mountain View 5 71000
Napa 15 74000
Newark 19 43708
Newport Beach 16 80800
Oakland 22 351000
Ontario 16 170373
Orange 17 136701
Oroville 26 13250
Oxnard 22 182027
Palo Alto 21 62000
Pasadena 16 133936
Petaluma 7 56000
Pismo Beach 15 8200
Pittsburg 16 59650
Pomona 14 155000
Porterville 13 42000
Poway 7 50675
Rancho Cucamonga 17 147000
Redding 25 80000
Redlands 11 70324
Redwood City 25 76000
Riverside 18 281515
Roseville 24 102191
Sacramento 29 430000
San Bruno 1 40165
San Buenaventura 18 105000
San Diego 4 1300000
San Fernando 4 24564
San Jose 24 923000
San Leandro 9 79542
San Luis Obispo 23 44500
San Marino 8 12945
San Mateo 25 93630
San Rafael 24 56000
San Ramon 6 50000
Santa Ana 7 348000
Santa Barbara 26 95000
Santa Barbara County 3 164000
Santa Clara 19 109106
Santa Clarita 16 164900
Santa Cruz 13 56300
Santa Fe Springs 20 16600
Santa Maria 25 88793
Santa Monica 25 90000
Santa Rosa 28 156200
Santee 4 55097
Simi Valley 6 122485
Solvang 1 5342
Sonora 11 4573
South Pasadena 9 25789
South San Francisco 20 60552
St Helena 8 6000
Stockton 25 261300
Sunnyvale 17 131700
Temple City 3 33000
Thousand Oaks 8 126081
Tulare 17 50000
Turlock 15 67009
Tustin 10 70871
Upland 8 46000
Visalia 23 102684
Weed 12 3005
West Covina 24 106500
Westminster 4 92270
Whittier 22 85500
Woodland 6 52519
Yuba City 7 58368

(Source: http://www.arborday.org/programs/treecities.cfm?chosenstate=California)

For list on Web Site, click on post title above, then click on "Tree City USA Directory" (left column), then click on "California."

MORE CONSULTANTS STUDIES/SURVEYS IN LIEU OF IMPLEMENTATION & ACTION BY CITY COUNCIL

The Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council has a record of approving and funding studies and surveys, and then either not implementing the studies recommendations expeditiously or using studies/surveys as ruses for further procrastination and inaction. As examples, three case studies, as follows:

CASE STUDY I:
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, November 7, 2006

VII. Consent Calendar

E. Consideration of a Resolution entering into an agreement with Ralph Andersen & Associates for the preparation of a City Library operations study.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH RALPH ANDERSEN & ASSOCIATES FOR THE PREPARATION OF A CITY LIBRARY OPERATIONS STUDY

Overall Cost: City Funds: Estimate of $14,000

COMMENT:
In June 2006, the City Council approved an additional $35,000 to the budget for “library services.” Five months later, in November 2006, the City Council approved a Ralph Andersen & Associates Library Operations Study to “determine the best use for the additional funds.” Despite overwhelming public testimony at public hearings to implement the $35,000 towards the restoration of library hours at Harrison Memorial Library and the Park Branch, the City has failed to act.

CASE STUDY II:
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, March 13, 2007

VII. Consent Calendar

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

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 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

Overall Cost: City Funds: $60,300

COMMENT: In 1997, Nichols Consulting Engineers performed a pavement management study for the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea; this study was updated in December 2003. Yet today, at the 13 March 2007 City Council meeting, the City Council is to consider another update because only another update will provide City staff with information “to make cost effective decisions concerning the maintenance and rehabilitation of City pavements.”

QUESTION: Wouldn’t $60,300 be better spent on the paving of those city streets in most need of paving, as described in the December 2003 updated study?

CASE STUDY III:
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
FOREST AND BEACH COMMISSION
Special Meeting
Monday, March 5, 2007

VII. ORDERS OF BUSINESS

Consideration of a Forest and Beach Commission Goal to be forwarded to the City Administrator for consideration in the FY 2007/08 budget.

The Forest & Beach Commission members decided one of their goals for fiscal year 2007/08 would be a request for $6,650 to fund a commercial district tree survey by arborist Barry Coates.

COMMENTS:
In the opinion of an informed Carmelite, the scarce dollars allocated to the Forest, Parks & Beach budget would be better spent on “substantive improvements,” not yet another survey.

As required by the city’s Local Coastal Program (LCP), the City Council should annually budget for a tree survey. Budgeting for the required items in the LCP should be assumed by the City Council, thus allowing the Forest & Beach Commission members to focus on long-term forest regeneration issues which are paramount if the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is to remain a village in the forest.

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

Carmel Art Association Presents ARTWORKS BY ARTISTS WASSERMAN, CARVELL, PLAMONDON & HEWITT

Carmel Art Association Presents Wasserman’s Retrospective Exhibition, Carvell’s “Abstract Portraits of the Land,” Plamondon’s Still Life Paintings and Hewitt’s Landscape and Figurative Paintings

Carmel Art Association
Voted “Art Gallery of the Year” by the Carmel Business Association

W/s Dolores St. between 5th Av. & 6th Av.
10:00 A.M. – 5:00 P.M., Daily, Open to the Public at No Charge

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

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

Gerard Wasserman’s Retrospective Exhibition And
Fred Carvell’s “Abstract Portraits of the Land,” Peter Plamondon’s Still Life Paintings and Robert Reynolds Hewitt’s Landscape and Figurative Paintings

Thursday, 8 March 2007 – Tuesday, 3 April 2007

SOLO SHOW:
GERALD WASSERMAN RETROSPECTIVE EXHIBITION: Beardsley Room
Gerald Wasserman’s exhibition features oil and gouache paintings, drawings, monoprints and sculpture completed over his 60 years as a professional artist. A catalog is available to purchase.
For more information about Gerard Wasserman and photos of his paintings, click on post title above, then click on “artists,” go to page 3, then click on “Gerald Wasserman” or
http://www.carmelart.org/artists_new.html

GALLERY SHOWCASE:
Fred Carvell’s “Abstract Portraits of the Land,” Peter Plamondon’s Still Life Paintings and Robert Reynolds Hewitt’s Landscape and Figurative Paintings: Segal Room
Fred Carvell is a “contemporary landscape artist.” Known as a “colorist,” his paintings are characterized by their luminosity. His “Abstract Portraits of the Land” portray new acrylic landscapes on canvas and paper. For more information about Mr. Carvell and photos of his paintings, click on post title above, then click on “calendar,” scroll down and then click on “Fred Carvell.”

Peter Plamondo features still life acrylic paintings. For a photo of one of his paintings, click on post title above, then click on “artists,” go to page 3 for “Peter Plamondo.”

Robert Reynolds Hewitt features small landscape and figurative acrylic paintings. For more information about Mr. Hewitt and photos of his paintings, click on post title above, then click on “calendar,” scroll down and then click on “Robert Reynolds Hewitt.”

Opening reception Saturday, March 10, 6:00 P.M. – 8:00 P.M.

PARODY on LAFCO should allow vote THE HERALD'S VIEW, Wednesday, March 7, 2007

Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council should allow vote
THE HERALD’S VIEW

Now that supporters of retaining Flanders Mansion in the public domain have been vindicated with the recent court decision by Monterey County Superior Court Judge Robert A. O’Farrell to force the issue to a public vote and require the city to maintain the National Register of Historic Places resource per the city’s municipal code, expect the City Council and The Carmel Pine Cone editor to push the argument that the pro-city owned Flanders Mansion folks are being undemocratic, that they’re not playing fair, not honoring the tenets of representative government, that they’re a tyranny of a few.

Don’t buy it.

The pro-city owned Flanders Mansion movement may never have enough support to win at the ballot box--Mayor Sue McCloud and The Carmel Pine Cone Editor Paul Miller have colluded to perpetrate the myth that a majority of Carmelites favor selling Flanders Mansion--but the undemocratic, unfair, dishonorable and illegal actions occurred in 2005 when the City Council maneuvered to prevent a public vote. That was the result of overriding the decision of the Planning Commission which declared the Flanders Mansion 1.25 acre parcel “parkland.” That City Council decision, not so incidentally, was a direct response to Mayor Sue McCloud’s promotion of the fallacious notions that it was always the intention of Carmelites that the Flanders Mansion be sold and the city doesn’t have the money to rehabilitate it and determine an appropriate public use.

Flanders Foundation supporters then filed a Writ of Mandamus with Monterey County Superior Court to compel the City Council to follow the law and spent months completing the administrative record for the hearing before Judge Robert A. O’Farrell because democracy by Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council failed them. Appropriately, they went to court as a last resort.

Those who want the issue of retaining the National Register of Historic Places Flanders Mansion in the public domain versus selling the Flanders Mansion into private ownership settled should press the City Council to reverse itself and allow a public vote now that Judge Robert A. O’Farrell has issued his Intended Decision; after, of course, the City Council proves to the court at a future date that the environmentally superior alternative, leasing the Flanders Mansion, is economically infeasible. The Flanders Mansion issue would be resolved through a fair process, a vote of the affected people, Carmelites. What could be fairer?

Note: Click on the title post above for LAFCO should allow vote
THE HERALD'S VIEW

FIRE HYDRANT WATER FLOW TESTS: Monday, 5 March 2007 - Friday, 16 March 2007

"GREEN" FIRE HYDRANT
GREEN signifies a water flow rate of 1,000 - 1,499 gallons per minute (gpm)
S/s Mt. View Av. & 8th Av.

Of a total of 201 fire hydrants in Carmel-by-the-Sea, the Carmel Fire Department and California American Water Company (Cal Am) have water flow tested approximately 110 fire hydrants; some or all of the remaining 91 fire hydrants wil be water flow tested beginning Monday, 5 March 2007 and ending Friday, 16 March 2007.

The water flow tests will measure the flow rate based on the size of the fire hydants and the water mains. Based on the results, the fire hydrants are color coded with paint and a reflective strap, indicating the water flow rate. For example, "LIGHT BLUE" is equivalent to 1,500 gallons per minute (gpm) or more, "GREEN" is equivalent to 1,000 - 1,499 gpm, "ORANGE" is equivalent to 500 - 999 gpm and "RED" is equivalent to less than 500 gpm. The color coding provides firefighers with immediate visual water flow information to aid them in fighting fires, et cetera.

For more information, contact Cal Am 1-888-237-1333 or the Carmel Fire Department (831) 620-2030.

Reference: The Carmel Pine Cone, "More hydrant flow tests on tap," March 2, 2007, page 31A.

For information about water and hydrant systems, including color codes and markings, click on title post above, or http://www.firehydrant.org/info/index.html
Information on Flow Testing Hydrant Procedures, go to http://www.firehydrant.org/info/ftest1.html.

Failure to Respond & Act: Information Systems/Network Manager Steve McInchak

On Tuesday, 30 January 2007, a Carmelite contacted Steve McInchak, Information Systems/Network Manager with the following request:

Since a web site is only as good as it is up-to-date and current, can you please load Minutes onto the Commissions/Boards web pages to reflect up-to-date information, particularly the Forest & Beach Commission Minutes, since the last Minutes posted date May 4, 2006 and the Historic Resources Board Minutes, since the last Minutes posted date February 27, 2006?


NOTE: The Historic Resources Board Minutes for February 26, 2007 appear on the Forest & Beach Commission Agendas & Minutes page; the latest Minutes for the Forest & Beach Commission are May 4, 2006. The latest Minutes posted on the Historic Resources Board page are the February 27, 2006 Minutes; there are no Agendas since November 20, 2006.

INFORMATION FROM CITY’S WEB SITE:
Steve McInchak,
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Information Systems/
Network Manager

Contact Information:
P.O. Box CC
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA 93921
Tel. (831) 620-2025
Fax (831) 625-1953
E-Mail: smcinchak@ci.carmel.ca.us

“Steve McInchack has been the Information Systems Network Manager for the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea since July 1997. He maintains the city's entire computer network which includes five servers, forty-six workstations and eighteen printers located in five different buildings: City Hall, Sunset Center, Police Station, Fire Department, Public Works and Forest & Beach. Steve is also the City's website administrator and coordinator of its new for 2002 television broadcast facility in City Hall…He is a Certified NetWare Engineer and has extensive knowledge of everything from servers, email, cabling, and the Internet.”(Source: http://www.ci.carmel.ca.us/, “City Hall,” “Network Manager.”)

COMMENTS:

Over one month later, as of today, there had been no response from Steve McInchak, nor have any of the requested Minutes been loaded onto the City’s Official Web Site, except for the Historic Resources Board February 26, 2007 Minutes on the Forest & Beach Commission Agendas & Minutes page.

City employees of Carmel-by-the-Sea do not have an ethic of accountability to the residents of Carmel-by-the-Sea. By comparison, contacts with city officials from other California cities have yielded prompt and professional responses.

ABSTRACT, ANALYSIS & SUMMARY: FLANDERS FOUNDATION vs. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA ET AL.

National Register of Historic Places Flanders Mansion
View of Roof Condition
Mission Trail Nature Preserve
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF MONTEREY

THE FLANDERS FOUNDATION, Petitioner

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA and
CITY COUNCIL OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA et al.

Case No.: M76728
Intended Decision

ABSTRACT: Honorable Robert A. O’Farrell, Judge of the Superior Court, issued his “Intended Decision,” dated Wednesday, February 21, 2007. Judge O’Farrell’s Intended Decision granted Flander’s writ of mandate as set forth in a 22 page decision. The Disposition ordered the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea to “implement, without delay, reasonable interim measures necessary to avoid further significant deterioration of the Mansion.” The Court further ruled that “the Mansion parcel, zoned P-2, is parkland and Carmel must comply with the government Code if it sells parkland.” Most importantly, the Court ruled that it “disagrees with Flanders position that Carmel must adopt Alternative 2 (lease of the property). However, the Court agrees that Alternative 2 cannot be rejected unless evidence in the form of an economic analysis is presented to show that leasing the property would be infeasible.”

ANALYSIS: For the City Council to proceed with the sale of the Flanders Mansion property, the City Council must commission an “economic analysis.” Furthermore, the “economic analysis” must present evidence that “the additional costs or lost profitability are sufficiently severe as to render it impractical to proceed with the project” for a legal determination to be made that the City can then proceed with the sale process of the Flanders Mansion property. If that legal determination is made, then the City would be obligated to comply with the Surplus Land Act and comply with Government Code Sections 38440-38462, which potentially involves a City Council Resolution discontinuing the use of the land as a public park, Notices, Hearings, Protests, Vote of the City Council to Overrule Protests, Ordinance setting a date for a Special Election and ultimately a vote of the people of Carmel-by-the-Sea.

SUMMARY: Sections of “Intended Decision” include Background, Administrative Record, Judicial Notice, Standard Review and Discussion.

Discussion
(A). Prefatory issues
(1) CEQA project and exemption issue
“Carmel has not pointed to any portion of the record where Carmel determined that the sale of the Mansion was not a project or made any findings in this regard...”
(2) Park issue
“Carmel’s decision to sell the Mansion is an 'approval' of a 'project.' Environmental review was not meaningless. Carmel’s action of selling the Mansion could have a significant effect on the Mansion (improved parkland) and the surrounding park.”

(B). Demolition of the Mansion by Neglect
Cited Section Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code Section 17.32.210
“It is clear that the Carmel Municipal Code requires Carmel to preserve the Mansion 'against decay and deterioration' and Carmel has failed to keep the Mansion 'in a state of good repair and free from structural defects.'”

(C) CEQA issues
(1) Alternative analysis
“The Court disagrees with Flander’s position that Carmel must adopt Alternative 2. (Alternative 2, lease of the property) However, the Court agrees that Alternative 2 cannot be rejected unless evidence in the form of an economic analysis is presented to show that leasing the property would be infeasible.”

“The law requires financial evidence in the form of an economic analysis, followed by findings regarding feasibility based upon that evidence.”

“...to show that the alternative is financially infeasible. What is required is evidence that the additional costs or lost profitability are sufficiently severe as to render it impractical to proceed with the project.”

“In order to approve a project that would have a significant environment impact, the City was required to make findings identifying (1) the ‘specific...considerations’ that ‘make infeasible’ the environmental superior alternatives and (2) the ‘specific...benefits of the project which outweigh the environmental harm.”

Carmel did not make findings ‘identifying’ (1) and (2)...

“City Planner Brain Roseth reiterated that Carmel has ranked the retrofit of the firehouse as the most important potential use of the funds from the sale of the Mansion. Second was upgrading the Forest Theater, third, Scout House, fourth, a new roof on the Public Works buildings and fifth, storm drain improvements and finally debt reduction." (Note: Debt, in 2004, estimated $9 million)

“Rich Guillen told the Mayor and council that the approved budget had close to 1.1 million dollars of deferred maintenance and an additional $909,000 that is not funded going out fiscal year 2006-2007 and 2007-2008." (Note: Estimated cost of rehabilitating Flanders Mansion $1.5 – 2.0 million, not included.)

“The testimony of Roseth and Guillen, without studies and reports in support of an economic analysis does not constitute evidence that Alternative 2 is economic infeasible.”

(2) Statement of Overriding Considerations
“Carmel has not demonstrated that Alternative 2 is infeasible...”

(3) Inadequate and incomplete responses to comments
(a) Messinger comments
(b) Flanders comment regarding the use of the funds from the sale
(c) Flander’s comment regarding mitigation if a subsequent owner sells or leases the property
The Court determined that the city responded adequately to comments.

(4) Deferred mitigation measures issue
“The Court finds that Petitioner has failed to establish that Carmel has improperly deferred mitigation issues.”

(5) Government Code issues
(a) Government Code 38440-38462
“...the Court has determined that the Mansion parcel, zone P-2, is parkland and Carmel must comply with the Government Code if it sells parkland.”

(b) Government Code 54220-54222
“The City Council apparently made no determination whether the Mansion was or was not surplus property and Carmel has not compiled with the Surplus Land Act.”

(c) Government Code 65000 et seq.
“The Court finds no abuse of discretion in Carmel’s determination of consistency.” (i.e. consistency with the General Plan)

Disposition
"Flander’s writ of mandate is granted as set forth above. Additionally, the Court orders the City to implement, without delay, reasonable interim measures necessary to avoid further significant deterioration of the Mansion."

"The Court directs the attorney for Flanders to prepare an appropriate judgment consistent with this ruling, present it to opposing counsel for approval as to form, and return it to this court for signature."

Dated: February 21, 2007

HONORABLE ROBERT A. O’FARRELL
Judge of the Superior Court

ESTABLISHING RESERVE POLICY: Are Carmel-by-the-Sea's City Administrator & Finance Mananger Using These Criteria & Asking/Answering These Questions?

As follows, selected excerpts from MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC FUNDS – THE ADOPTION OF RESERVE POLICIES IN CALIFORNIA CITIES by Anita Lawrence, Finance Director for the City of Camarillo (2000, 2001, 2005) concerning questions and criteria managers should consider when formulating a city’s reserve policy.

In Evaluating Financial Condition, a 1994 publication by the International City/County Management Association (ICMA), p. 198, one of the appendices includes a discussion on analyzing reserves. The discussion offers the following commentary:

There are no rules for determining which kinds of reserves a government should have or what level of funding should be in any reserve. Much depends on the kinds of natural disasters or hardships that the jurisdiction is subject to and the adequacy of its insurance coverage, the flexibility of the jurisdiction’s revenue base, the overall financial health of the local government, state regulations, and national economic conditions.

The need for reserves is determined primarily by the degree of risk associated with revenues and revenue sources, and by the likelihood of major contingencies and the amount of funds required to respond to them. The following are questions managers can ask to see how well their community is protected against risk, as well as how much flexibility is available to meet special needs.

• What is the potential for revenue shortfalls – that is, how stable is the tax base in the face of adverse economic conditions?

• How much of the budget now depends on intergovernmental funds, and what are the chances that these funds might be terminated?

• What is the present policy on equipment replacement? Would replacement of a large item, such as a fire truck or road grader, severely distort the budget or disrupt service?

• What kinds of insurance protects the government against loss from legal suits or destruction of assets? Will the insurance cover all the loss or only a portion of it?

• What kinds of losses might the government suffer from natural disasters? What federal or state programs can help?

• How much and how quickly could the government borrow in the event of a problem?

• How much liquidity is usually available in the government’s accounts?

“…the National Advisory Council on State and Local Budgeting
(NACSLB)…They encourage a policy that identifies the use of these funds for temporary
cash flow shortages, emergencies, unanticipated economic downturns, and one-time opportunities.

“Taxpayers expect government to use taxes to provide essential services, not to create huge savings accounts.”

The specific criteria that were identified for establishing reserve policies:
1) cash flow
2) exposure to natural or other disasters
3) exposure to economic conditions
4) vulnerability to State actions which results in reduction of income

Respondents were also provided the opportunity to supplement this list with other criteria they thought was important. The additional criteria provided is as follows:

♦ Ability of Council to review and adjust accordingly -Council direction/actions/ opinion/education level - political issues and considerations.

♦ Unanticipated needs/projects - to sustain quality service/meet service demands/ contingencies/cost overruns – ability to respond to contractor actions.

♦ Insurance deductibles.

♦ Capital replacement - project or program facilitation pool - asset condition.

♦ Opportunity - ability - deterrent to overspending - management policy.

♦ Reliance on Reserves to generate investment income for operations.

♦ Increasing public safety contract costs/labor negotiations.

♦ Community sentiment/expectations - bad information.

♦ Indenture requirement - improved bond ratings - long term liabilities/debt.

♦ Size of annual budget - predictability of income and expenditure requests.

♦ The overall flexibility and capability of the management system to provide resources to match fortuitous events without special reserves for contingencies.

(Source: MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC FUNDS – THE ADOPTION OF RESERVE POLICIES IN CALIFORNIA CITIES by Anita Lawrence, Finance Director for the City of Camarillo 2000, 2001, 2005).


QUESTIONS UNIQUE TO CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
• What is the City’s Reserve Policy?

• What criteria has the City used to determine the appropriate level of reserves?

• What is the City’s rationale for Fund Balance as % of General Fund Budget 82%?

• With Fund Balance as % of General Fund Budget 82% and Fund Balance Per Capita – General Fund $2,341, and millions and millions of dollars in deferred maintenance, is the Fund Balance “tantamount to hoarding taxpayers’ money” or “prudent?”

• Is the City violating taxpayers expectation that “Taxpayers expect government to use taxes to provide essential services, not to create huge savings accounts?”