ABSTRACT: With regard to Mayor Sue McCloud’s appeal of the Forest and Beach Commission’s unanimous decision to approve the removal of her neighbor’s acacia tree, the FOREST AND BEACH COMMISSION Agenda of April 3, 2008 and description of the Commission’s decision is presented. A TIMELINE OF EVENTS and COMMENTS are presented. REFERENCES, including the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code 17.54.040 Filing Appeals and 17.54.090 Notice of Hearing, are reproduced.
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
FOREST AND BEACH COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Tour of Inspection – 1:30 p.m.
Regular Meeting – 2:00 p.m.
City Hall, Council Chambers
E/side Monte Verde between Ocean & 7th Avenues
Carmel, California
I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
COMMISSION MEMBERS:
KATHLEEN COSS
JOE FORD
NANCY JOHN, CHAIRPERSON
TAD PRITCHETT
VI. APPLICATIONS/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 FOREST AND BEACH COMMISSION, OR PRIOR TO DELIBERATION OF THE ITEMS ON THE TOUR OF INSPECTION/PUBLIC HEARING.
Consideration of an application to remove one 30” dbh acacia tree due to its declining condition. The site is located on south side of Santa Lucia 3 east of Dolores. The applicant/owner is Susan Page.
A Commissioner moved to approve the removal of the acacia tree with the recommendation that 2 24” box fruitless olive trees be planted in the vicinity for screening purposes, seconded, and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COSS, FORD, PRITCHETT, JOHN
NOES: NONE
TIMELINE OF EVENTS:
• Thursday, April 3, 2008: Forest and Beach Commission’s unanimous vote (4-0) to approve Susan Page’s application for removal of a 30” dbh acacia tree with the recommendation that 2 24” box fruitless olive trees be planted in the vicinity for screening purposes.
• Friday, April 4, 2008: Mayor Sue McCloud filed an appeal of the Forest and Beach Commission’s unanimous decision.
• April 4-14, 2008: Within 10 working days, the City Clerk was to place the appeal on the next City Council agenda, the City Council agenda of May 6, 2008.
• By April 26, 2008: At least 10 calendar days prior to the date of the May 6 City Council meeting, the City Clerk was to provide written notification to the appellant to the time of the hearing AND a Notice of the public hearing was to be posted in at least three public places in the City and/or published in one newspaper at least 10 calendar days prior to the city council meeting. NOTE: Notice of public hearing was not posted and/or published in a newspaper.
• Week of April 28-May 2, 2008: Susan Page’s attorney conversed with Mayor Sue McCloud. Sue McCloud wants the acacia tree pruned, whereas Susan Page wants the acacia tree removed, per unanimous decision of the Forest and Beach Commission. No agreement between the two parties.
• Thursday, May 1, 2008: The City Council agenda for the May 6, 2008 meeting was loaded onto the City’s website. Sue McCloud’s appeal of the Forest and Beach Commission decision was not on the City Council agenda.
• Friday, May 2, 1008: Resident called City Hall and spoke with Asst. City Administrator/ City Clerk Heidi Burch who stated that the appeal was not on the May agenda because Sue McCloud and Susan Page had decided to work it out “amicably.”
COMMENTS:
• By April 26, 2008, the City should have posted and/or had published a Notice of the public hearing. The City failed to comply with the requirements of the Municipal Code.
• The Municipal Code with regard to Filing Appeals and Notice of Hearing expressly states that “All appeals shall be set for the next regular City Council meeting, unless insufficient time exists for public notice as established in CMC 17.54.090, Notice of Hearing.” Furthermore, the appeal procedure does not allow delay in the hearing of an appeal due to one party communicating with the other party or his/her attorney.
• It appears that Sue McCloud has abused her position as mayor by circumventing the City Council either through interfering with the City Clerk or removing her appeal of the Forest and Beach Commission decision from the May 6, 2008 City Council agenda.
• Definition of "Amicably:" “Characterized by or exhibiting friendliness or goodwill; friendly.”
And “characterized by an absence of antagonism, especially in commonly difficult situations”
When Mayor Sue McCloud communicates to Susan Page’s attorney that she is adamant about the acacia tree being pruned rather than removed as her appointees on the Forest and Beach Commission unanimously decided, Sue McCloud is not acting “amicably!”
REFERENCE:
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Municipal Code
17.54.040 Filing Appeals.
C. Appeals to the City Council. Decisions to approve or deny projects made by the Planning Commission, Forest and Beach Commission, the Design Review Board, or the Historic Resources Board may be appealed to the City Council by filing a notice of appeal in writing in the office of the City Clerk within 10 working days following the date of action by the decision-making body and paying the required filing fee as established by City Council resolution.
1. Such notice of appeal shall set forth specifically the ground or grounds upon which such appeal is taken, and the signature of the appellant.
2. Within 10 working days after receipt of an appeal the City Clerk shall set a date for public hearing at which the appeal shall be considered by the City Council. All appeals shall be set for the next regular City Council meeting, unless insufficient time exists for public notice as established in CMC 17.54.090, Notice of Hearing.
17.54.090 Notice of Hearing.
A. After the time for hearing such appeal is set, as provided for in CMC 17.54.040, Filing Appeals, the Planning Commission Secretary or City Clerk shall thereupon provide written notification to the appellant of the time of such hearing at least 10 calendar days prior to the date thereof.
B. Notice of the public hearing shall also be posted in at least three public places in the City and/or published in one newspaper of general circulation at least 10 calendar days prior to such public hearing as required by the applicable Government Code. (Ord. 2007-06, 2007; Ord. 2004-02 § 1, 2004; Ord. 2004-01 § 1, 2004).
4 comments:
It would appear that the Mayor's appeal was withdrawn. A later appeal seems to now be out of the question. If Page and McCloud can reach a settlement without having to resort to a legal, if not judical, process, that seems a preferable outcome. McCloud is known for not giving up on trying to get what she wants, no matter what the expense, even in the face of heavy odds against her so her capitulating to the extent of compromise is unusual. What may have prompted this is interesting to speculate about. Perhaps she felt appealing to her city council would look bad to her supporters. Perhaps she knew she would lose her appeal although this seems unlikely. Perhaps she was threatened with a lawsuit by Page and was convinced that it would be one more lawsuit she'd lose or that it would hurt her already tarnished image. Probably we'll never know.
Oh, I get it. When the F & B Commission team members rule against Sue, she goes behind their backs and antagonizes Susan Page. She must be petrified her council team might rule again her and uphold the F & B Commission ruling. Too bad voters don’t know what we have in Sue McCloud. Wake me up when Sue is gone.
I see a similarity between Sue’s actions here and her action on Bob Leidig’s project for the Carmel Convalescent Hospital. Sue has done whatever she has done to bypass the city council and not let them hear the Page and Leidig items. In Carmel, Sue rules as sole dictator and decider of all things and just look at all the collateral damage and chaos her closed government tactics cause.
Sue is a poor mayor and now we know she is an even worse neighbor. With no appeal during the stipulated time frame, Susan Page should be able to remove her acacia tree. Sue failed to follow proper city procedure; she definitely should not be allowed to bully Mrs. Page after the verdict of the F & B Commission.
If the city continues to allow Sue to call the shots, then I hope Susan Page sues Sue McCloud personally and the city for their actions.
Post a Comment