ABSTRACT: According to a source at the Carmel Post Office, the U.S. Postal Service has mandated that the Carmel Post Office update Post Office Box applications due to a new computer system. About a month ago, the Carmel Postmaster began sending letters to Post Office Boxholders. The “Updating PO Box application” letters are being sent in staggered groups beginning with Post Office Box 1 and will be sent to Carmel Post Office Boxholders until all approximately 4900 Carmel Post Office Boxholders are notified. The “Updating PO Box application” letter is transcribed; the letter includes a PLEASE RETURN BY date. A COMMENT is made regarding methods of compliance.
Herewith is the POSTMASTER, CARMEL, “Updating PO Box application” letter:
Updating PO Box application
CARMEL BY THE SEA
DOLORES ST & 5TH AVE
CARMEL, CA 93921
A recent review of our Post Office Box records revealed that the information on your application needs to be updated.
Please complete the attached application and return it to the Post Office with 2 forms of identification, one ID must contain a photograph of the applicant. The following are acceptable:
1. Valid driver’s license or state non-driver’s identification card.
2. Armed forces, government, university, or recognized corporate identification card.
3. Passport, alien registration cards, or certificate of naturalization.
4. Current lease, mortgage or deed of trust.
5. Vehicle registration certificate.
6. Home or vehicle insurance policy.
Proof of residency (phone bill, PG & E bill, bank statement are acceptable)
(STATE PROPERTY TAX OR DEED OF TRUST).
PROOF OF BUSINESS. (BUSINESS LICENSE)
The identification presented must be current and traceable to the bearer. Other adult persons receiving mail at the box must also present 2 items of identification. Minor’s names and ages must be listed on the application in order to receive mail. Refusal to furnish required information may be sufficient reason to discontinue service. (PLEASE RETURN BY ______________________________)
Thank you in advance for your patience and prompt response.
POSTMASTER, CARMEL
COMMENT:
• Enclosed with the “Updating PO Box application” letter and application is a postage paid envelope addressed to the Carmel Post Office. Carmel Post Office Boxholders can either complete the application, go in person to the Post Office and show the required items of identification OR complete the application, make copies of the required items of identification and place them in the envelope and mail ASAP.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Sunday, October 26, 2008
FREE PUBLIC WORKSHOP on the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program
ABSTRACT: A Free Public Workshop on the Monterey Regional Storm Water Management Program, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program, Draft Annual Report, is to be held on Monday, November 3, 2008 at 12:00 P.M. at the Monterey City Council Chambers. Email comments on the Draft Annual Report to Program Manager by November 9, 2008. The Executive Summary of the DRAFT ANNUAL REPORT is reproduced and a link to the document is provided. A link to Appendix C, Year Two Annual Report Materials, City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, is presented.
WHAT: Free Public Workshop on the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program undertaken by the local cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Marina, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Sand City and Seaside, the County of Monterey, Pebble Beach Company and Unified School Districts of Carmel, Monterey and Pacific Grove
WHEN: Monday, November 3, 2008 @ 12:00 P.M.
WHERE: Monterey City Council Chambers
Corner of Madison St. & Pacific St., Monterey, CA.
PUBLIC INPUT:
Email comments on the Draft Annual Report to the Program Manager @ bobj@mrwpca.com. Please type “Annual Report Public Comments” in the subject box and email comments by Sunday, November 9, 2008.
DRAFT ANNUAL REPORT
Monterey Regional Storm Water Management Program
November 15, 2008
VOLUME NO. 1
Executive Summary
This document comprises the annual reports required by the General Permit issued to the Monterey Regional Storm Water Permit Participants Group by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) on September 7, 2006. The Storm Water Management Program (SWMP) for each of these Permittees is the Monterey Regional Storm Water Management Program (MRSWMP) which was reviewed and approved by the RWQCB in conjunction with issuing permit coverage to the entities comprising this Group. The Permittees in this Group consist of the cities of Pacific Grove, Monterey, Seaside, Del Rey Oaks, Sand City, Marina, and the County of Monterey.
Subsequent to the issuance of permit coverage to these entities, the city of Carmel-by-the-Sea submitted to the RWQCB its Notice of Intent to be covered by the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB’s) General Permit. The RWQCB granted permit coverage to Carmel-by-the-Sea on May 2, 2008, and authorized it to join with these other entities by using the MRSWMP as its Storm Water Management Program. When it submitted its Notice of Intent, Carmel-by-the-Sea also submitted an addendum to the MRSWMP to incorporate specific information pertaining to its facilities and programs. Prior to being granted permit coverage Carmel-by-the-Sea had been taking the same steps and had been working to implement the same types of procedures and policies as the other Permittees, just as though it was already permitted and using the MRSWMP as its SWMP.
This Annual Report has been prepared in the format recommended by the SWRCB for NPDES Phase 2 storm water permittees to use in preparing their annual reports. It has been adapted only slightly to match the BMP and Measurable Goals matrix format used in the MRSWMP. It constitutes a single Annual Report that fulfills the annual reporting requirements for all of the Permittees.
This Executive Summary briefly covers all of the major sections of the annual report. In preparing this Executive Summary, the following series of questions, which were recommended by the SWRCB for use in preparing the Annual Report, were considered by all of the Permittees. The responses represent the collective input from all of the Permittees covered by the MRSWMP.
Question: How effective was your program at reducing pollutants in your storm water discharge?
Response: This is a difficult question to answer, as the term “effective” can have different meanings under different contexts. The question is answered in general terms below, with reference to each of the six Minimum Control Measures:
Minimum Control Measure No. 1 – Public Education and Outreach
We believe that our Program was very effective in educating the public about storm water pollution prevention issues. The educational component was presented in a variety of forms including print ads, brochures, posters, and hands-on experiences. The public was reached through a variety of venues including movie theater ads, print ads, bus ads, classroom presentations, and informational booths at public events. The Program reached many different segments of the public, from young children to older adults, as described in detail in Appendix A. There has been a noticeable increase in public awareness. Some entities reported that they observed more residential car washing being done on soil areas where the water percolates rather than running off into the storm drainage system. It was also reported that more mobile washers were observed using proper BMPs to prevent storm water pollution. This is believed to be in part a result of the public education program of the MRSWMP.
Minimum Control Measure No. 2 – Public Involvement and Participation
We believe that our Program was very effective in involving the public in activities and events that were directly related to storm water pollution prevention measures. In these activities and events, a broad cross-section of the public participated in hands-on activities which helped to carry out the types of storm water pollution prevention messages that were presented under MCM No. 1. These are described in detail in Appendix B and in the Section of this Annual Report pertaining to MCM No. 2. One of the most direct indicators of the effectiveness of the MRSWMP are the results of the outfall monitoring work that is being conducted under this MCM. The Urban Watch and First Flush Monitoring Report contained in Appendix P provides a comparison of the monitoring results from the six years preceding Year 2 (the average of results from the period 2000 to 2006) and for Year 2 (2007-2008).
Results from the Year 2 Urban Watch and First Flush expanded monitoring program showed that:
Dry Run/First Flush (wet season):
• Nitrate concentrations were lower than previous years’ averages and rarely exceed the water quality objective during wet weather.
• Orthophosphate concentrations reflected comparable values from previous years and
usually exceeded the water quality objective.
• E. coli and enterrococcus were high everywhere; however, enterrococcus was not as high as in previous years.
• Most copper concentrations were lower than in previous years.
• Urea measurements were generally less than 1000 ppb.
Urban Watch (dry season):
• The Steinbeck Plaza drainage area in Monterey remained a problem during the dry season for bacteria, orthophosphate and detergents.
• The Greenwood Park drainage area in Pacific Grove had high bacteria levels and intermittently high hits of detergent.
• Trash is a problem at all Monterey Peninsula outfalls.
• Most of the Carmel outfalls, most of the new expanded Pacific Grove outfalls, and the Pajaro outfall were dry during the summer.
A trend analysis was performed on the data using a statistical analytical methodology. Only three outfalls were found to have produced data that indicated a significant trend with a high level of statistical confidence. These were the outfalls at:
1. The Monterey Library where copper was trending to lower levels,
2. The Twin 51 outfalls in Monterey where the E. Coli levels were trending higher, and
3. The Congress site in Pacific Grove where the orthophosphate levels were trending
higher
Data from the other sites did not indicate any significant trends. It may be that it will take additional years of monitoring data before trends will become statistically apparent.
With regard to the cost information provided under BMP 2-2.d pertaining to the Urban Watch and First Flush monitoring programs, it should be noted that the citizen volunteers are not paid. However, the professional personnel that oversee and direct them are paid. In addition to these labor costs, there are significant costs for the sampling equipment, laboratory analyses, data interpretation, and report preparation. The total cost to carry out these two monitoring programs during Year 2 was $43,210. The program was funded as a Group activity on behalf of all of the co-permittees.
Some entities felt that the storm drain inlet stenciling program was effective both in terms of educating people to not put non-storm water discharges into the inlets, and also in getting the stenciling done via volunteers, rather than having to pay city staff to do this work. Other entities elected to perform the stenciling work using their own staff, based on their determination that this was more cost-effective than overseeing the stenciling work in their jurisdictions.
Minimum Control Measure No. 3 – Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
Work under this MCM was in the preliminary stages during the current reporting period. It included adopting and implementing storm water ordinances containing specific requirements pertaining to illicit connections and illegal discharges, encouraging the public as well as members of the permittee’s staffs to report such activities, following up on such reports to correct these violations, and developing and implementing business inspection programs. Some entities reported that a moderate number of illicit connections and illegal discharges were reported or detected during the current reporting period, while others reported from none to very few such reports. The co-permittees will be discussing their procedures and experiences in detecting and following up on reports of these types of incidents in an effort to have a consistent approach being used throughout the MRSWMP area.
Minimum Control Measure No. 4 - Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control
This MCM become effective beginning in Year 2, and the Ordinances adopted by the permittees establish the effective date for these ordinance provisions to be September 8, 2007. During the current reporting period we continued providing educational programs to alert and acquaint construction contractors with the Ordinance requirements pertaining to construction site storm water pollution prevention. However, it appears that the market for such presentations was nearly satisfied as a result of these presentations that were made during Year 1, and it was not possible to find enough contractor organizations to make these presentations to during Year 2 to reach the target number of attendees. Permittee staff members who are involved in site plan reviews and in construction inspection were provided the opportunity to receive refresher training on these requirements and in the use of the construction site inspection checklists and the BMP Guidance Series materials contained in the MRSWMP. Most of the entities reported that they have increased their surveillance of construction sites as a result of implementing the MRSWMP. However, it has proven to be a challenge to integrate the detailed construction site plan review and inspection procedures, which are contained in the MRSWMP, into the standard operating procedures of each of the co-permittees.
Minimum Control Measure No. 5 – Post-Construction Storm Water Management in New Development and Redevelopment
The Program calls for this MCM to become effective in Permit Year 3, and the Ordinances adopted by the permittees establish the effective date for these ordinance provisions to be September 8, 2008. Accordingly, the Ordinances adopted by the permittees establish the effective date for these ordinance provisions to be September 8, 2008. To prepare for this MCM, during the Year 3, an educational program was held during Year 2 to alert and acquaint design professionals with the Ordinance requirements pertaining to post-construction storm water management in new development and redevelopment projects. Also during Year 2, permittee staff members who will be involved in plan reviews for the types of projects to which these requirements are applicable were provided training on these requirements and in the associated BMP Guidance Series materials contained in the MRSWMP. Permit Year 3 will provide the opportunity to begin assessing the process of implementing these measures into the design of new development and redevelopment projects to help prevent storm water pollution.
Minimum Control Measure No. 6 –Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations
We believe that the Program was very effective in improving the knowledge and sensitivity of the permittee’s staffs in recognizing and preventing storm water pollution resulting from municipal operations. Some focused training sessions were held, and numerous inspections were conducted on a variety of types of municipal facilities to identify and correct sources of storm water pollution. It was rewarding to find from these inspections that relatively few instances of storm water pollution were occurring at municipal facilities. Those which were identified have either already been corrected, or are in the process of being corrected.
The effectiveness of these BMPs was assessed using the California Stormwater Quality Association’s (CASQA) guidelines contained in the CASQA publication titled “Municipal Stormwater Program Effectiveness Guide.” The individual BMP assessments are contained in each of the MCM sections of this Annual Report under heading “iv. Effectiveness” [OR THEY MAY ALL BE CONSOLIDATED INTO A SEPARATE APPENDIX]. The following is an overview of the CASQA effectiveness assessment process.
The CASQA Effectiveness Assessment is a process to evaluate whether BMPs are resulting in desired Outcomes (or meeting performance standards) and if these Outcomes are being achieved efficiently and cost-effectively. The assessment is performed for different Outcome Levels, which are depicted in the figure on the following page.
Outcomes refer to the results of a control measure, program element, or overall program and have been categorized into the six Outcome Levels shown in the figure. Although each Level has value in informing and/or supporting management decisions, not all Outcome Levels are used in every assessment and the Outcome Levels are not necessarily conducted in sequence. The six Levels are described below.
The purpose of this effectiveness assessment process is to confirm the desired results of the overall program, and to identify modifications that may be needed, thus ensuring the iterative process is used as an effective management tool throughout the permit implementation. The following primary questions, or Outcome Levels, help to categorize and describe the desired results of the program:
• Level 1 Outcome – Was the Program Element implemented in accordance with the Permit Provisions and SWMP?
• Level 2 Outcome – Did the Program Element raise the target audience’s awareness of an issue?
• Level 3 Outcome – Did the Program Element change a target audience’s behavior, resulting in the implementation of recommended BMPs?
• Level 4 Outcome – Did the Program Element reduce the load of pollutants from the sources to the storm drain system?
Although each level has value in informing and/or supporting management decisions, not all Outcome Levels are used and the Outcome Levels are not necessarily conducted in sequence. In some cases, assessments at different levels may occur at once.
EFFECTIVENESS LEVELS
Level 6 - Protecting Receiving Water Quality
Level 5 - Improving Runoff Quality
Level 4 - Reducing Loads from Sources
Level 3 - Changing Behavior
Level 2 - Raising Awareness
Level 1 - Documenting Acitivities
Source: CASQA “Municipal Stormwater Program Effectiveness Guide,” May 2007.
The following steps will be taken to revise the MRSWMP and to optimize BMP effectiveness, when the effectiveness assessment process identifies BMPs or programs that are ineffective or need improvement:
1. A review of each such BMP or program will be made by the Program Manager to try to ascertain what is making it ineffective, or how it can be improved.
2. The results of this review will be formally presented to the Management Committee which oversees the implementation of the MRSWMP, for discussion and action by that body.
3. The changes recommended by the Management Committee will be described in each Year’s Annual Report as proposed as modifications to the MRSWMP to be carried out in future years under heading “v. Proposed Modifications.”
Question: Were you in compliance with the General Permit?
Response: With the following exceptions, yes. The two principle areas of noncompliance were in the adoption of stormwater ordinances by two of the permittees (the County of Monterey and the City of Marina) and in getting all of the appropriate personnel to attend training sessions under MCMs 5 and 6. While these two entities have not yet adopted stormwater ordinances, for reasons which are detailed in the respective Appendices for these entities, these entities have existing ordinances and laws in place for grading activities and discharges to waterways that are protective of water quality. These entities anticipate that they will have their Stormwater ordinances adopted in Permit Year 3. Having all personnel available to attend Group training sessions has sometimes been difficult, due to factors such as unpredictable changes in workload, e.g. emergency repair or maintenance assignments, sickness, vacations, and internal dissemination of the information regarding the training session schedules and who should attend them. Some of the training programs will be repeated in the future to give those personnel who could not attend the earlier sessions another opportunity to attend.
Question: What was the most successful part of the program?
Response: The permittees felt that the public education and public involvement components of the Program under MCMs No. 1 and 2 were the most successful. It was gratifying to find significant improvement in public awareness and understanding of storm water pollution prevention issues that were the direct result of these efforts. The permittees also felt that the business inspections performed under MCM 3 were raising awareness regarding storm water pollution prevention within the business community, and they were pleased to find that most of the inspections were finding that the businesses were using the proper BMPs to prevent such pollution.
The permittees also felt that the training and inspections performed under MCM No. 6 were successful in building an increased level of storm water pollution awareness and understanding among their own staffs, and that this had been effective in eliminating nearly all sources of storm water pollution from public facilities.
Question: What was the most challenging?
Response: The most challenging part of the Program for all of the permittees was in coordinating and tracking the efforts of multiple departments within each entity’s organizational structure. These departments typically included Public Works, Building, Construction Management, Parks, Fire, and Police. Building an internal awareness of storm water pollution prevention issues, ordinance requirements, tracking and reporting requirements, and coordinating the work of these various departments continued to be a significant challenge for most of the permittees, particularly as additional BMPs were implemented. There is also a substantial amount of additional paperwork that must be prepared in order to carry out the BMPs and to document them. This adds to the workload, and there is a natural resistance to this in many members of the staff, in part due to the fact that budget impacts have caused many of the permittees to operate with fewer staff members than they had in the past.
Appendix C
Year Two Annual Report Materials
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
WHAT: Free Public Workshop on the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program undertaken by the local cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Marina, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Sand City and Seaside, the County of Monterey, Pebble Beach Company and Unified School Districts of Carmel, Monterey and Pacific Grove
WHEN: Monday, November 3, 2008 @ 12:00 P.M.
WHERE: Monterey City Council Chambers
Corner of Madison St. & Pacific St., Monterey, CA.
PUBLIC INPUT:
Email comments on the Draft Annual Report to the Program Manager @ bobj@mrwpca.com. Please type “Annual Report Public Comments” in the subject box and email comments by Sunday, November 9, 2008.
DRAFT ANNUAL REPORT
Monterey Regional Storm Water Management Program
November 15, 2008
VOLUME NO. 1
Executive Summary
This document comprises the annual reports required by the General Permit issued to the Monterey Regional Storm Water Permit Participants Group by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) on September 7, 2006. The Storm Water Management Program (SWMP) for each of these Permittees is the Monterey Regional Storm Water Management Program (MRSWMP) which was reviewed and approved by the RWQCB in conjunction with issuing permit coverage to the entities comprising this Group. The Permittees in this Group consist of the cities of Pacific Grove, Monterey, Seaside, Del Rey Oaks, Sand City, Marina, and the County of Monterey.
Subsequent to the issuance of permit coverage to these entities, the city of Carmel-by-the-Sea submitted to the RWQCB its Notice of Intent to be covered by the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB’s) General Permit. The RWQCB granted permit coverage to Carmel-by-the-Sea on May 2, 2008, and authorized it to join with these other entities by using the MRSWMP as its Storm Water Management Program. When it submitted its Notice of Intent, Carmel-by-the-Sea also submitted an addendum to the MRSWMP to incorporate specific information pertaining to its facilities and programs. Prior to being granted permit coverage Carmel-by-the-Sea had been taking the same steps and had been working to implement the same types of procedures and policies as the other Permittees, just as though it was already permitted and using the MRSWMP as its SWMP.
This Annual Report has been prepared in the format recommended by the SWRCB for NPDES Phase 2 storm water permittees to use in preparing their annual reports. It has been adapted only slightly to match the BMP and Measurable Goals matrix format used in the MRSWMP. It constitutes a single Annual Report that fulfills the annual reporting requirements for all of the Permittees.
This Executive Summary briefly covers all of the major sections of the annual report. In preparing this Executive Summary, the following series of questions, which were recommended by the SWRCB for use in preparing the Annual Report, were considered by all of the Permittees. The responses represent the collective input from all of the Permittees covered by the MRSWMP.
Question: How effective was your program at reducing pollutants in your storm water discharge?
Response: This is a difficult question to answer, as the term “effective” can have different meanings under different contexts. The question is answered in general terms below, with reference to each of the six Minimum Control Measures:
Minimum Control Measure No. 1 – Public Education and Outreach
We believe that our Program was very effective in educating the public about storm water pollution prevention issues. The educational component was presented in a variety of forms including print ads, brochures, posters, and hands-on experiences. The public was reached through a variety of venues including movie theater ads, print ads, bus ads, classroom presentations, and informational booths at public events. The Program reached many different segments of the public, from young children to older adults, as described in detail in Appendix A. There has been a noticeable increase in public awareness. Some entities reported that they observed more residential car washing being done on soil areas where the water percolates rather than running off into the storm drainage system. It was also reported that more mobile washers were observed using proper BMPs to prevent storm water pollution. This is believed to be in part a result of the public education program of the MRSWMP.
Minimum Control Measure No. 2 – Public Involvement and Participation
We believe that our Program was very effective in involving the public in activities and events that were directly related to storm water pollution prevention measures. In these activities and events, a broad cross-section of the public participated in hands-on activities which helped to carry out the types of storm water pollution prevention messages that were presented under MCM No. 1. These are described in detail in Appendix B and in the Section of this Annual Report pertaining to MCM No. 2. One of the most direct indicators of the effectiveness of the MRSWMP are the results of the outfall monitoring work that is being conducted under this MCM. The Urban Watch and First Flush Monitoring Report contained in Appendix P provides a comparison of the monitoring results from the six years preceding Year 2 (the average of results from the period 2000 to 2006) and for Year 2 (2007-2008).
Results from the Year 2 Urban Watch and First Flush expanded monitoring program showed that:
Dry Run/First Flush (wet season):
• Nitrate concentrations were lower than previous years’ averages and rarely exceed the water quality objective during wet weather.
• Orthophosphate concentrations reflected comparable values from previous years and
usually exceeded the water quality objective.
• E. coli and enterrococcus were high everywhere; however, enterrococcus was not as high as in previous years.
• Most copper concentrations were lower than in previous years.
• Urea measurements were generally less than 1000 ppb.
Urban Watch (dry season):
• The Steinbeck Plaza drainage area in Monterey remained a problem during the dry season for bacteria, orthophosphate and detergents.
• The Greenwood Park drainage area in Pacific Grove had high bacteria levels and intermittently high hits of detergent.
• Trash is a problem at all Monterey Peninsula outfalls.
• Most of the Carmel outfalls, most of the new expanded Pacific Grove outfalls, and the Pajaro outfall were dry during the summer.
A trend analysis was performed on the data using a statistical analytical methodology. Only three outfalls were found to have produced data that indicated a significant trend with a high level of statistical confidence. These were the outfalls at:
1. The Monterey Library where copper was trending to lower levels,
2. The Twin 51 outfalls in Monterey where the E. Coli levels were trending higher, and
3. The Congress site in Pacific Grove where the orthophosphate levels were trending
higher
Data from the other sites did not indicate any significant trends. It may be that it will take additional years of monitoring data before trends will become statistically apparent.
With regard to the cost information provided under BMP 2-2.d pertaining to the Urban Watch and First Flush monitoring programs, it should be noted that the citizen volunteers are not paid. However, the professional personnel that oversee and direct them are paid. In addition to these labor costs, there are significant costs for the sampling equipment, laboratory analyses, data interpretation, and report preparation. The total cost to carry out these two monitoring programs during Year 2 was $43,210. The program was funded as a Group activity on behalf of all of the co-permittees.
Some entities felt that the storm drain inlet stenciling program was effective both in terms of educating people to not put non-storm water discharges into the inlets, and also in getting the stenciling done via volunteers, rather than having to pay city staff to do this work. Other entities elected to perform the stenciling work using their own staff, based on their determination that this was more cost-effective than overseeing the stenciling work in their jurisdictions.
Minimum Control Measure No. 3 – Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
Work under this MCM was in the preliminary stages during the current reporting period. It included adopting and implementing storm water ordinances containing specific requirements pertaining to illicit connections and illegal discharges, encouraging the public as well as members of the permittee’s staffs to report such activities, following up on such reports to correct these violations, and developing and implementing business inspection programs. Some entities reported that a moderate number of illicit connections and illegal discharges were reported or detected during the current reporting period, while others reported from none to very few such reports. The co-permittees will be discussing their procedures and experiences in detecting and following up on reports of these types of incidents in an effort to have a consistent approach being used throughout the MRSWMP area.
Minimum Control Measure No. 4 - Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control
This MCM become effective beginning in Year 2, and the Ordinances adopted by the permittees establish the effective date for these ordinance provisions to be September 8, 2007. During the current reporting period we continued providing educational programs to alert and acquaint construction contractors with the Ordinance requirements pertaining to construction site storm water pollution prevention. However, it appears that the market for such presentations was nearly satisfied as a result of these presentations that were made during Year 1, and it was not possible to find enough contractor organizations to make these presentations to during Year 2 to reach the target number of attendees. Permittee staff members who are involved in site plan reviews and in construction inspection were provided the opportunity to receive refresher training on these requirements and in the use of the construction site inspection checklists and the BMP Guidance Series materials contained in the MRSWMP. Most of the entities reported that they have increased their surveillance of construction sites as a result of implementing the MRSWMP. However, it has proven to be a challenge to integrate the detailed construction site plan review and inspection procedures, which are contained in the MRSWMP, into the standard operating procedures of each of the co-permittees.
Minimum Control Measure No. 5 – Post-Construction Storm Water Management in New Development and Redevelopment
The Program calls for this MCM to become effective in Permit Year 3, and the Ordinances adopted by the permittees establish the effective date for these ordinance provisions to be September 8, 2008. Accordingly, the Ordinances adopted by the permittees establish the effective date for these ordinance provisions to be September 8, 2008. To prepare for this MCM, during the Year 3, an educational program was held during Year 2 to alert and acquaint design professionals with the Ordinance requirements pertaining to post-construction storm water management in new development and redevelopment projects. Also during Year 2, permittee staff members who will be involved in plan reviews for the types of projects to which these requirements are applicable were provided training on these requirements and in the associated BMP Guidance Series materials contained in the MRSWMP. Permit Year 3 will provide the opportunity to begin assessing the process of implementing these measures into the design of new development and redevelopment projects to help prevent storm water pollution.
Minimum Control Measure No. 6 –Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations
We believe that the Program was very effective in improving the knowledge and sensitivity of the permittee’s staffs in recognizing and preventing storm water pollution resulting from municipal operations. Some focused training sessions were held, and numerous inspections were conducted on a variety of types of municipal facilities to identify and correct sources of storm water pollution. It was rewarding to find from these inspections that relatively few instances of storm water pollution were occurring at municipal facilities. Those which were identified have either already been corrected, or are in the process of being corrected.
The effectiveness of these BMPs was assessed using the California Stormwater Quality Association’s (CASQA) guidelines contained in the CASQA publication titled “Municipal Stormwater Program Effectiveness Guide.” The individual BMP assessments are contained in each of the MCM sections of this Annual Report under heading “iv. Effectiveness” [OR THEY MAY ALL BE CONSOLIDATED INTO A SEPARATE APPENDIX]. The following is an overview of the CASQA effectiveness assessment process.
The CASQA Effectiveness Assessment is a process to evaluate whether BMPs are resulting in desired Outcomes (or meeting performance standards) and if these Outcomes are being achieved efficiently and cost-effectively. The assessment is performed for different Outcome Levels, which are depicted in the figure on the following page.
Outcomes refer to the results of a control measure, program element, or overall program and have been categorized into the six Outcome Levels shown in the figure. Although each Level has value in informing and/or supporting management decisions, not all Outcome Levels are used in every assessment and the Outcome Levels are not necessarily conducted in sequence. The six Levels are described below.
The purpose of this effectiveness assessment process is to confirm the desired results of the overall program, and to identify modifications that may be needed, thus ensuring the iterative process is used as an effective management tool throughout the permit implementation. The following primary questions, or Outcome Levels, help to categorize and describe the desired results of the program:
• Level 1 Outcome – Was the Program Element implemented in accordance with the Permit Provisions and SWMP?
• Level 2 Outcome – Did the Program Element raise the target audience’s awareness of an issue?
• Level 3 Outcome – Did the Program Element change a target audience’s behavior, resulting in the implementation of recommended BMPs?
• Level 4 Outcome – Did the Program Element reduce the load of pollutants from the sources to the storm drain system?
Although each level has value in informing and/or supporting management decisions, not all Outcome Levels are used and the Outcome Levels are not necessarily conducted in sequence. In some cases, assessments at different levels may occur at once.
EFFECTIVENESS LEVELS
Level 6 - Protecting Receiving Water Quality
Level 5 - Improving Runoff Quality
Level 4 - Reducing Loads from Sources
Level 3 - Changing Behavior
Level 2 - Raising Awareness
Level 1 - Documenting Acitivities
Source: CASQA “Municipal Stormwater Program Effectiveness Guide,” May 2007.
The following steps will be taken to revise the MRSWMP and to optimize BMP effectiveness, when the effectiveness assessment process identifies BMPs or programs that are ineffective or need improvement:
1. A review of each such BMP or program will be made by the Program Manager to try to ascertain what is making it ineffective, or how it can be improved.
2. The results of this review will be formally presented to the Management Committee which oversees the implementation of the MRSWMP, for discussion and action by that body.
3. The changes recommended by the Management Committee will be described in each Year’s Annual Report as proposed as modifications to the MRSWMP to be carried out in future years under heading “v. Proposed Modifications.”
Question: Were you in compliance with the General Permit?
Response: With the following exceptions, yes. The two principle areas of noncompliance were in the adoption of stormwater ordinances by two of the permittees (the County of Monterey and the City of Marina) and in getting all of the appropriate personnel to attend training sessions under MCMs 5 and 6. While these two entities have not yet adopted stormwater ordinances, for reasons which are detailed in the respective Appendices for these entities, these entities have existing ordinances and laws in place for grading activities and discharges to waterways that are protective of water quality. These entities anticipate that they will have their Stormwater ordinances adopted in Permit Year 3. Having all personnel available to attend Group training sessions has sometimes been difficult, due to factors such as unpredictable changes in workload, e.g. emergency repair or maintenance assignments, sickness, vacations, and internal dissemination of the information regarding the training session schedules and who should attend them. Some of the training programs will be repeated in the future to give those personnel who could not attend the earlier sessions another opportunity to attend.
Question: What was the most successful part of the program?
Response: The permittees felt that the public education and public involvement components of the Program under MCMs No. 1 and 2 were the most successful. It was gratifying to find significant improvement in public awareness and understanding of storm water pollution prevention issues that were the direct result of these efforts. The permittees also felt that the business inspections performed under MCM 3 were raising awareness regarding storm water pollution prevention within the business community, and they were pleased to find that most of the inspections were finding that the businesses were using the proper BMPs to prevent such pollution.
The permittees also felt that the training and inspections performed under MCM No. 6 were successful in building an increased level of storm water pollution awareness and understanding among their own staffs, and that this had been effective in eliminating nearly all sources of storm water pollution from public facilities.
Question: What was the most challenging?
Response: The most challenging part of the Program for all of the permittees was in coordinating and tracking the efforts of multiple departments within each entity’s organizational structure. These departments typically included Public Works, Building, Construction Management, Parks, Fire, and Police. Building an internal awareness of storm water pollution prevention issues, ordinance requirements, tracking and reporting requirements, and coordinating the work of these various departments continued to be a significant challenge for most of the permittees, particularly as additional BMPs were implemented. There is also a substantial amount of additional paperwork that must be prepared in order to carry out the BMPs and to document them. This adds to the workload, and there is a natural resistance to this in many members of the staff, in part due to the fact that budget impacts have caused many of the permittees to operate with fewer staff members than they had in the past.
Appendix C
Year Two Annual Report Materials
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
When the City Attorney Acts as the Mayor’s Attorney, Not the Peoples’ Attorney
ABSTRACT: At the City Council Meeting on September 9, 2008, City Attorney Don Freeman made introductory comments regarding the City’s actions with regard to Carmelite Susan Page’s request for the removal of her black acacia tree. City Attorney Don Freeman’s comments are transcribed; a REFERENCE link to his comments is provided. COMMENTS regarding the words, actions and/or inactions of City Attorney Don Freeman and the City’s treatment of Susan Page with respect to her request for her black acacia tree removal are presented.
AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
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.
B. Consideration of an appeal of a decision by the Forest and Beach Commission approving the removal of a 30-inch diameter black acacia at a property at 2922 Santa Lucia Avenue. The appellant is Sue McCloud, property owner of the home next door, on the east side.
City Attorney Don Freeman:
“Sue McCloud just read, Mayor McCloud just read the title of the particular item this evening.”
“I want to make a few introductory comments. First of all, there’s a supplemental packet that has been passed out, I think each of the council members has it before them, you’ll notice in the supplemental packet that there are some highlights that are done in yellow. I want to assure the public and everyone else that those were done by the appellant, not done by city staff.”
“As you are aware anyone that does have a conflict of interest, must step down and leave the room, those are our new ethics rules. In addition to that, in order to ensure that there’s a, how shall I say this, that it’s impartial, that it is fair, that everybody gets a fair hearing, anybody that has a conflict also is not entitled to be able to communicate with staff regarding the item or to actually do anything else, but because this deals with the particular individual who actually owns the property as well next door, actually that person is giving up a right to actually appear before the city council and to make a presentation.”
“What we are trying to do here is to ensure for again the applicant, the appellant and the general public that we have a clean and open and fair process for everybody involved and we’ve taken great pains to do that, to ensure that nobody has been able to try to influence the staff or any of the elected or appointed officials this evening.”
REFERENCE:
Regular City Council Meeting Video
September 09, 2008
Beginning Time 01:38:50 – 01:41:09 Ending Time
COMMENTS:
• Either City Attorney Don Freeman was being dishonest with the public or he was uninformed about the “City’s” unfair and partial process regarding Susan Page’s application to the Forest and Beach Commission for tree removal and Mayor Sue McCloud’s appeal of the Forest and Beach Commission's unaimous decision to the City Council.
• Herewith are highlights of the “City’s” treatment of Susan Page with respect to her request for her black acacia tree removal on her property, as follows:
• Susan Page’s initial application to the Forest & Beach Commission was repeatedly placed on agendas, only to be removed without cause several times over several months.
• Sue McCloud’s appeal of the April 2008 Forest & Beach Commission’s unanimous decision approving the removal of Page’s acacia tree should have been on the May 2008 City Council Agenda, per Municipal Code; it was delayed until the September 2008 City Council Meeting. City Clerk/Assistant City Administrator Heidi Burch wrote that Page’s attorney Stephen Beals asked for it to be pulled from the May 2008 agenda, but when asked for written confirmation, the City failed to produce any evidence that Beals requested the item be pulled from any agenda.
• The City Council Agenda Packet (September 2008) included highlighted portions by Sue McCloud advocating her position. Additionally, at the meeting, a Supplemental Packet was distributed to Council Members at the meeting with highlighted portions. City Attorney Freeman expressly stated that the City was not responsible for the highlighted documents, that Sue McCloud highlighted the documents herself. Question: If the “City” was so concerned about the perception and reality of impartiality, then why didn’t the City prepare clean, non-highlighted documents for the Agenda Packet? Note: The City failed to respond to the aforementioned question.
• At that City Council Meeting, Susan Page, through her attorney, agreed to six conditions, which were included in the final vote of the City Council (3-1) upholding the Forest and Beach Commission’s decision approving the removal of the acacia tree. The first Tree Removal Permit was issued on September 17, 2008 with the agreed upon conditions. Then the next day, September 18, 2008, the Permit was voided per letter from Heidi Burch, which read, “Your tree permit has been revised to more accurately reflect Council action taken on September 9, 2008.” Later, City Administrator Rich Guillen wrote to Attorney Stephen Beals that the “reason for voiding the permit related to a minor change in the conditions of the approval that resulted after further review of the hearing minutes.” The second Tree Removal Permit had six conditions different in language from the conditions agreed to by Susan Page at the meeting and voted on by the Council. Question: Why didn’t City Attorney Don Freeman intervene and promptly make the City reissue a Tree Removal Permit as originally issued on September 17, 2008?
• If the City Attorney had acted as the Peoples’ Attorney, then City Attorney Don Freeman would have intervened and made certain that the process was fair and impartial by taking the following actions:
• City Attorney Don Freeman should have intervened when the “City” repeatedly delayed Susan Page’s application for tree removal to the Forest and Beach Commission without cause.
• City Attorney Don Freeman should have intervened when the “City” delayed Mayor Sue McCloud’s appeal of the Forest and Beach Commission decision to the City Council in violation of the Municipal Code.
• City Attorney Don Freeman should have made certain that clean, non-highlighted documents were copied for the Agenda Packet and disallowed Sue McCloud’s supplemental packet distributed at the City Council Meeting since it was introduced after the Agenda Packet had been prepared.
• City Attorney Don Freeman should have expedited the issuance of Susan Page’s Tree Removal Permit and made certain the original Tree Removal Permit was not voided and other Conditions not approved by applicant Susan Page and voted upon by the City Council were not attached to the second Tree Removal Permit.
• In short, throughout the process, Sue McCloud abused her position as mayor by directly and/or indirectly influencing the process with the intent of effecting an outcome in her favor. Therefore, prior to making introductory comments at the City Council Meeting, City Attorney Don Freeman should have informed himself of the facts in this case, intervened as the peoples’ attorney and made certain that Sue McCloud was prevented from influencing and corrupting city employees and the process.
AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
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.
B. Consideration of an appeal of a decision by the Forest and Beach Commission approving the removal of a 30-inch diameter black acacia at a property at 2922 Santa Lucia Avenue. The appellant is Sue McCloud, property owner of the home next door, on the east side.
City Attorney Don Freeman:
“Sue McCloud just read, Mayor McCloud just read the title of the particular item this evening.”
“I want to make a few introductory comments. First of all, there’s a supplemental packet that has been passed out, I think each of the council members has it before them, you’ll notice in the supplemental packet that there are some highlights that are done in yellow. I want to assure the public and everyone else that those were done by the appellant, not done by city staff.”
“As you are aware anyone that does have a conflict of interest, must step down and leave the room, those are our new ethics rules. In addition to that, in order to ensure that there’s a, how shall I say this, that it’s impartial, that it is fair, that everybody gets a fair hearing, anybody that has a conflict also is not entitled to be able to communicate with staff regarding the item or to actually do anything else, but because this deals with the particular individual who actually owns the property as well next door, actually that person is giving up a right to actually appear before the city council and to make a presentation.”
“What we are trying to do here is to ensure for again the applicant, the appellant and the general public that we have a clean and open and fair process for everybody involved and we’ve taken great pains to do that, to ensure that nobody has been able to try to influence the staff or any of the elected or appointed officials this evening.”
REFERENCE:
Regular City Council Meeting Video
September 09, 2008
Beginning Time 01:38:50 – 01:41:09 Ending Time
COMMENTS:
• Either City Attorney Don Freeman was being dishonest with the public or he was uninformed about the “City’s” unfair and partial process regarding Susan Page’s application to the Forest and Beach Commission for tree removal and Mayor Sue McCloud’s appeal of the Forest and Beach Commission's unaimous decision to the City Council.
• Herewith are highlights of the “City’s” treatment of Susan Page with respect to her request for her black acacia tree removal on her property, as follows:
• Susan Page’s initial application to the Forest & Beach Commission was repeatedly placed on agendas, only to be removed without cause several times over several months.
• Sue McCloud’s appeal of the April 2008 Forest & Beach Commission’s unanimous decision approving the removal of Page’s acacia tree should have been on the May 2008 City Council Agenda, per Municipal Code; it was delayed until the September 2008 City Council Meeting. City Clerk/Assistant City Administrator Heidi Burch wrote that Page’s attorney Stephen Beals asked for it to be pulled from the May 2008 agenda, but when asked for written confirmation, the City failed to produce any evidence that Beals requested the item be pulled from any agenda.
• The City Council Agenda Packet (September 2008) included highlighted portions by Sue McCloud advocating her position. Additionally, at the meeting, a Supplemental Packet was distributed to Council Members at the meeting with highlighted portions. City Attorney Freeman expressly stated that the City was not responsible for the highlighted documents, that Sue McCloud highlighted the documents herself. Question: If the “City” was so concerned about the perception and reality of impartiality, then why didn’t the City prepare clean, non-highlighted documents for the Agenda Packet? Note: The City failed to respond to the aforementioned question.
• At that City Council Meeting, Susan Page, through her attorney, agreed to six conditions, which were included in the final vote of the City Council (3-1) upholding the Forest and Beach Commission’s decision approving the removal of the acacia tree. The first Tree Removal Permit was issued on September 17, 2008 with the agreed upon conditions. Then the next day, September 18, 2008, the Permit was voided per letter from Heidi Burch, which read, “Your tree permit has been revised to more accurately reflect Council action taken on September 9, 2008.” Later, City Administrator Rich Guillen wrote to Attorney Stephen Beals that the “reason for voiding the permit related to a minor change in the conditions of the approval that resulted after further review of the hearing minutes.” The second Tree Removal Permit had six conditions different in language from the conditions agreed to by Susan Page at the meeting and voted on by the Council. Question: Why didn’t City Attorney Don Freeman intervene and promptly make the City reissue a Tree Removal Permit as originally issued on September 17, 2008?
• If the City Attorney had acted as the Peoples’ Attorney, then City Attorney Don Freeman would have intervened and made certain that the process was fair and impartial by taking the following actions:
• City Attorney Don Freeman should have intervened when the “City” repeatedly delayed Susan Page’s application for tree removal to the Forest and Beach Commission without cause.
• City Attorney Don Freeman should have intervened when the “City” delayed Mayor Sue McCloud’s appeal of the Forest and Beach Commission decision to the City Council in violation of the Municipal Code.
• City Attorney Don Freeman should have made certain that clean, non-highlighted documents were copied for the Agenda Packet and disallowed Sue McCloud’s supplemental packet distributed at the City Council Meeting since it was introduced after the Agenda Packet had been prepared.
• City Attorney Don Freeman should have expedited the issuance of Susan Page’s Tree Removal Permit and made certain the original Tree Removal Permit was not voided and other Conditions not approved by applicant Susan Page and voted upon by the City Council were not attached to the second Tree Removal Permit.
• In short, throughout the process, Sue McCloud abused her position as mayor by directly and/or indirectly influencing the process with the intent of effecting an outcome in her favor. Therefore, prior to making introductory comments at the City Council Meeting, City Attorney Don Freeman should have informed himself of the facts in this case, intervened as the peoples’ attorney and made certain that Sue McCloud was prevented from influencing and corrupting city employees and the process.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Random Reportings
ABSTRACT: Random Reportings regarding the Flanders Mansion property, Forest Theatre Schematic Design and the State Water Resources Control Board Hearing.
• With regard to the disposition of the Flanders Mansion property, the City has issued checks in August 2008 and September 2008 totally over $32,000, including checks to Denise Duffy & Associates for Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Services ($22,160.90) and to Attorney Joel Franklin for Legal Services ($8,857.70). The City has yet to inform the public through a public hearing about the status of their intentions with respect to the selling or leasing of the Flanders Mansion property in light of the fact that there are two "new" City Council Members who were not Members at the time of the City Council's vote to sell the Flanders Mansion property, namely City Council Members Ken Talmage and Karen Sharp.
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
August 2008 Check Register
115987 8/12/08 JOEL FRANKLIN $ 8,857.70 FEB-JUN 2008 FLANDERS LEGAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
116054 8/19/08 DENISE DUFFY & ASSOCIATES $ 4,952.15 FLANDERS PROPERTY EIR
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
September 2008 Check Register
116266 9/16/08 DENISE DUFFY & ASSOCIATES $ 17,208.75 FLANDERS PROPERTY FEIR EXPENSES
116226 9/9/08 MONTEREY BAY PLANNING SERVICES $ 4,618.47 PLAZA DEL MAR & FLANDERS MANSION PLANNING PROF SVCS
• As part of the Capital Improvement Budget, the City Council authorized the expenditure of $65,000 for “Forest Theater Master Plan-Design Work,” as follows:
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Capital Improvement and Capital Outlay Budgets
FY 2008-09 Thru 2012-13
Revised FY 2008-09
Capital Improvement
Forest Theater Master Plan-Design Work $65,000
To date, there has been no check issued to Theatre Architect Richard McCann for services related to the Schematic Design. However, according to a Forest Theater Foundation source, it is anticipated that the City will place the Schematic Design on a City Council November 2008 or December 2008 Agenda.
• For the State Water Resources Control Board Hearing regarding the proposed Cease and Desist Order for California American Water regarding the continued unauthorized diversion of water from the Carmel River, held in Sacramento, City expenditures included $40.80 to City Administrator Rich Guillen, $999.11 to City Attorney Don Freeman and $222.85 to Mayor Sue McCloud, as follows:
115909 7/29/08 RICH GUILLEN $ 40.80 SACRAMENTO WATER BOARD TRAVEL EXPENSES
116013 8/12/08 PERRY & FREEMAN LAW OFFCE $ 999.11 SACRAMENTO WATER BOARD TRAVEL EXPENSES
116096 8/19/08 WELLS FARGO (CREDIT CARD) $ ( 222.85) REFUND FOR SACRAMENTO HOTEL EXPENSES FOR MAYOR
(Source: City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, August 2008 Check Register)
• With regard to the disposition of the Flanders Mansion property, the City has issued checks in August 2008 and September 2008 totally over $32,000, including checks to Denise Duffy & Associates for Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Services ($22,160.90) and to Attorney Joel Franklin for Legal Services ($8,857.70). The City has yet to inform the public through a public hearing about the status of their intentions with respect to the selling or leasing of the Flanders Mansion property in light of the fact that there are two "new" City Council Members who were not Members at the time of the City Council's vote to sell the Flanders Mansion property, namely City Council Members Ken Talmage and Karen Sharp.
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
August 2008 Check Register
115987 8/12/08 JOEL FRANKLIN $ 8,857.70 FEB-JUN 2008 FLANDERS LEGAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
116054 8/19/08 DENISE DUFFY & ASSOCIATES $ 4,952.15 FLANDERS PROPERTY EIR
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
September 2008 Check Register
116266 9/16/08 DENISE DUFFY & ASSOCIATES $ 17,208.75 FLANDERS PROPERTY FEIR EXPENSES
116226 9/9/08 MONTEREY BAY PLANNING SERVICES $ 4,618.47 PLAZA DEL MAR & FLANDERS MANSION PLANNING PROF SVCS
• As part of the Capital Improvement Budget, the City Council authorized the expenditure of $65,000 for “Forest Theater Master Plan-Design Work,” as follows:
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Capital Improvement and Capital Outlay Budgets
FY 2008-09 Thru 2012-13
Revised FY 2008-09
Capital Improvement
Forest Theater Master Plan-Design Work $65,000
To date, there has been no check issued to Theatre Architect Richard McCann for services related to the Schematic Design. However, according to a Forest Theater Foundation source, it is anticipated that the City will place the Schematic Design on a City Council November 2008 or December 2008 Agenda.
• For the State Water Resources Control Board Hearing regarding the proposed Cease and Desist Order for California American Water regarding the continued unauthorized diversion of water from the Carmel River, held in Sacramento, City expenditures included $40.80 to City Administrator Rich Guillen, $999.11 to City Attorney Don Freeman and $222.85 to Mayor Sue McCloud, as follows:
115909 7/29/08 RICH GUILLEN $ 40.80 SACRAMENTO WATER BOARD TRAVEL EXPENSES
116013 8/12/08 PERRY & FREEMAN LAW OFFCE $ 999.11 SACRAMENTO WATER BOARD TRAVEL EXPENSES
116096 8/19/08 WELLS FARGO (CREDIT CARD) $ ( 222.85) REFUND FOR SACRAMENTO HOTEL EXPENSES FOR MAYOR
(Source: City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, August 2008 Check Register)
Monday, October 20, 2008
Draft CDO: City’s Claim of Serious Economic Impacts Unsupported by the Preponderance of Evidence & Invalid as Legal Argument
ABSTRACT: The State Water Board held hearings in the matter of the unauthorized diversion of water by California American Water (CAW) – Cease and Desist Order WR 2008-00XX-DWR – Carmel River in Monterey County. Phase 2 Hearing (July 24, 2008) Transcript of City Attorney Don Freeman and Mayor Sue McCloud and Closing Briefs Synopsis by the Attorneys for the Water Rights Prosecution Team and California American Water Company are presented. The totality of Mayor Sue McCloud’s testimony that the adoption of the Cease and Desist Order would have serious economic impacts was rebutted by the Attorneys for the Water Rights Prosecution Team, as follows: “The potential for harsh economic impact from the Draft CDO can be avoided by Cal-Am’s development of alternative water supplies and facility improvements that will reduce unaccounted for water loss…the reduction schedule in the Draft CDO could initially be met by a combination of alternative water sources and increases in Cal-Am system efficiency and some moderate amount of water conservation until water year 2014 when more substantial conservation measures would be necessary.” Furthermore, “the potential for harsh economic impacts as a result of adopting the Draft CDO is not legal grounds for finding the order improper. To the contrary, federal district courts have refused to balance economic and social utility concerns against the competing interests of protecting endangered species, because ‘Congress has decided that under the ESA, the balance of hardships always tips sharply in favor of the endangered or threatened species.’” A COMMENT is made regarding City Attorney Don Freeman’s line of questioning of Mayor Sue McCloud and his economic impact argument against the issuance of the CDO. A Decision by the State Water Resources Control Board is anticipated by the end of 2008.
In the matter of California American Water Company Cease and Desist Order Hearing:
• Attorneys for the Water Rights Prosecution Team
Closing Brief
SYNOPSIS OF ARGUMENTS:
THE PROSECUTION TEAM HAS PRESENTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT CAL-AM IS UNLAWFULLY DIVERTING WATER FROM THE CARMEL RIVER IN EXCESS OF ITS RECOGNIZED LEGAL RIGHT AND THAT THE REMEDY PROPOSED IN THE DRAFT CEASE AND DESIST ORDER (CDO) IS REASONABLE
CAL-AM’S DIVERSIONS FROM THE CARMEL RIVER IN EXCESS OF 3,376 AFA ARE UNLAWFUL AND CONSTITUTE A CONTINUING TRESPASS REQUIRING THE ISSUANCE OF THE DRAFT CDO
THE DRAFT CDO APPROPRIATELY ADDRESSES THE ADVERSE IMPACTS THAT CAL-AM’S DIVERSIONS HAVE CAUSED ON PUBLIC TRUST RESOURCES AND BENEFICIAL USES OF THE CARMEL RIVER
NEITHER CAL-AM NOR ANY DESIGNATED PARTY PROVIDED EVIDENCE THAT THE DRAFT CDO WOULD ADVERSELY IMPACT THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THOSE WITHIN THE CAL-AM SERVICE AREA
THE REDUCTION SCHEDULE PROPOSED IN THE DRAFT CDO IS REASONABLE AND SHOULD NOT BE MATERIALLY MODIFIED
ALLEGED ECONOMIC IMPACTS FROM THE DRAFT CDO ARE SPECULATIVE
The cities of Monterey, Seaside, and Carmel submitted testimony alleging that the Draft CDO would have serious economic impacts. The Cities’ conclusions concerning potential economic impacts are based on the general assumption that the Draft CDO will result in a moratorium on new connections and water rationing that would limit or prohibit the replacement or remodeling of existing homes or businesses, and new development for an extended period of time.
The City of Seaside is the only city that actually conducted an economic analysis in an attempt to determine the potential economic impacts of the Draft CDO. Seaside’s Economic Analysis, however, is an unrealistic worst case scenario.
Harsh economic impacts from draft CDO can be avoided.
The potential for harsh economic impact from the Draft CDO can be avoided by Cal-Am’s development of alternative water supplies and facility improvements that will reduce unaccounted for water loss…the reduction schedule in the Draft CDO could initially be met by a combination of alternative water sources and increases in Cal-Am system efficiency and some moderate amount of water conservation until water year 2014 when more substantial conservation measures would be necessary. Furthermore,..., the Deputy Director can modify the reduction schedule upon request from Cal-Am if the reductions cannot be met without endangering public health and safety.
The potential for harsh economic impacts does not make the draft CDO legally improper.
The potential for harsh economic impacts as a result of adopting the Draft CDO is not legal grounds for finding the order improper. To the contrary, federal district courts have refused to balance economic and social utility concerns against the competing interests of protecting endangered species, because “Congress has decided that under the ESA, the balance of hardships always tips sharply in favor of the endangered or threatened species.”
CAL-AM HAS THE ABILITY TO COMPEL EXISTING CUSTOMERS TO REDUCE WATER USE AND IMPOSE A CONNECTION BAN ON NEW USERS
ANY FUTURE ENFORCEMENT OF THE DRAFT CDO THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT OF LIABILITY SHOULD NOT RESULT IN THAT LIABILITY BEING PASSED ON TO THE RATE PAYERS
ALTERNATIVES TO THE DRAFT CDO SUGGESTED BY OTHER DESIGNATED PARTIES DO NOT PROVIDE CAL-AM WITH ANY INCENTIVE TO REDUCE ITS ILLEGAL DIVERSIONS FROM THE CARMEL RIVER BASIN
• Attorneys for California American Water Company
Closing Brief
SYSOPSIS OF ARGUMENTS:
Neither The Prosecution Team Nor Any Other Entity Participating In This Proceeding Presented Legal Argument Or Evidence To Support The Issuance Of A Cease And Desist Order
The Board Does Not Have An Adequate Basis To Adopt The Remedy Proposed By The prosecution Team; The Only Remedy Supported By The Law And The Record Is One That Allows CAW To Continue To Extract Up To 11, 285 Acre-Feet Of Carmel River Water Until Alternative Water Supplies Are Developed
Proceeding Violated CAW’s Due Process Rights
HEARING PHASE 2, VOLUME II
THURSDAY, JULY 24, 2008
APPEARANCES
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CITY OF SEASIDE, SEASIDE BASIN WATERMASTER:
Perry & Freeman
BY: Mr. Donald G. Freeman
San Carlos at 8th Avenue
P.O. BOX 805
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA 93921
MR. FREEMAN: Good morning. My name is Don Freeman speaking on behalf of the City of Carmel as well as other panel members up here again today.
Just to follow on what you've heard so far, I think it is important in terms of the balance, but I think what we heard in all the testimony so far to this point in time, which you're going to hear again this afternoon and this morning, deals with the frustration, the frustration of the order which says we'd like you to get out of the river, the frustration with Cal Am saying we'd like to get out of the river, but what is the project people would like to have us do in order to replace the water from the river?
The reality of it is the frustration stands with the public process. That's our process. It's a long process. It's not where it's a business decision. We have a lot of interests out there we have to relate to, all of the jurisdictions, all the different agencies that are involved, also all of the residents that are involved.
So when you look at each of the people that are about to testify from each of the cities this morning, don't look at them as just individuals or just the mayor or just a councilmember from a jurisdiction.
Look at the entire population of the city itself or the jurisdiction itself. Because any decision this Board makes is going to affect the daily lives of each and every person that lives on the Monterey Peninsula or visits the Monterey Peninsula.
You heard testimony yesterday in terms of the water that Cal Am is taking out of the river and the diversions, and you heard round numbers. You heard 300 acre feet for Sand City. You heard a number that, in terms of an ASR project, 920 feet, but that that was constant throughout this process when in fact it does fluctuate.
The really of it is, when you hear the testimony today, you're going to hear Seaside say it's not just 56 feet, acre feet of water, that we have. It's 56.4. We're getting down to decimal points.
Next you're going to hear from Carmel. Carmel is going to tell you they have water left: 3.151. That's how we're measuring water on the Monterey Peninsula.
One of the cities not present here today is Del Rey Oaks. Del Rey Oaks has no water left to it at this point in time. They didn't have the resources to send someone up here and participate in this hearing today.
The economic -- if that water is, by the effect of your decision -- and I feel certain you're not going to have a moratorium placed on the District, but the -- or the Peninsula -- but the reality of it is it's a de facto moratorium. We already have that in place now. So all you would be doing is compounding something we already have in place.
Once the water issues for each of those jurisdictions, there is no more water available until a new water source comes online.
There is a total for all of the jurisdictions14 of 119 acre feet of water still remaining unused in the Cal Am service area on the Monterey Peninsula. That water was allocated by the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District prior to 95-10. Once that water is gone, it's gone forever.
If a moratorium or the effect of any decision you have places a moratorium or forces the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District to place a moratorium on the Cal Am service area and water rationing, that's going to affect the economic viability of each one of the jurisdictions. You'll hear testimony about that today.
The net effect of that is, if it affects their economic viability, then who is left to pay for any of the projects in order to solve the long-term water supply problem on the Monterey Peninsula, including the Carmel River problems?
You're going to hear later today -- not from this panel but from other people that will be testifying -- as to what potential solutions you may wish to consider, setting aside the draft cease and desist order, because there are a number of other options that wouldn't be as draconian in effect yet would have the ability of getting people together and keeping us focused on the main mission.
That main mission is to certainly get out of the river but at the same time provide for a reliable water supply source for the Monterey Peninsula in order to protect its economic viability as well as its health and safety needs.
So I think that it's very important when you're looking at the people and you hear them today, it's not just these individuals here, but they represent a tremendous number of individuals. And the effect on their quality of life is going to be devastating unless you do that balancing act which was talked about earlier today.
Thank you.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. FREEMAN
MR. FREEMAN: Mayor McCloud, would you state your name and spell it for the record please.
MS. McCLOUD: My name is Sue McCloud, M-c-C-l-o-u-d.
MR. FREEMAN: Excuse me. Do you have in front of you a declaration of Sue McCloud in support of proposed modifications to the draft cease and disorder, which is Carmel Exhibit 1?
MS. McCLOUD: Yes, I do.
MR. FREEMAN: And have you read and approved that declaration?
MS. McCLOUD: Yes, I have.
MR. FREEMAN: And in fact, did you assist in preparation with staff in preparing this declaration?
MS. McCLOUD: Yes, I did.
MR. FREEMAN: And is this a true and correct copy of the testimony that you provided to this Board?
MS. McCLOUD: Yes, it is.
MR. FREEMAN: Would you please take a moment and sort of describe what your role is for the City and how long you've been in this position?
MS. McCLOUD: Yes. I have -- this is my fifth term as mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea. I grew up in Carmel. My family was in business there for some 30 years. My parents lived in Carmel. They're both gone now. My sister is there. I went to school---obviously, since I grew up there, I went to school there. And I have -- prior to being elected mayor, I was elected to the city council, and prior to that I was on the planning commission.
MR. FREEMAN: So are you intimately familiar with the workings of the city and especially in regard to the matter before this Board today in terms of water?
MS. McCLOUD: I believe so.
MR. FREEMAN: Can you describe briefly the demographics of the city of Carmel?
MS. McCLOUD: We're one of the smaller cities on the Peninsula. We have a population according to the 2000 census of 4,081 residents. We're 1.1 mile square.
Obviously, we're bordered by Carmel Bay on one side and greenbelt all around the other three sides. We have about 2800 homes. We have very few undeveloped lots. The development that's taking place in town is primarily upgrading, and that includes conservation measures.
But trying to get a second bathroom for people who are now aging, because one of the key points about our population, the median age is 55. So you can imagine that there are needs that they have if there's only a tub in the house in the bathroom that to convert it to a shower or put a shower someplace else, if water's not available, we've had people very adversely affected.
So we -- again, we think we have about the same amount of visitors in our town as Chuck Della Sala mentioned for Monterey, around two million. Those are figures from Monterey County Convention and Visitors Bureau.
But we have to provide for them as well, not only our infrastructure but the services they expect, whether it's restrooms on our one-mile-long beach --just the other day, June 21st to be exact, we counted 2500 people on the beach. And we essentially have one permanent restroom on the beach. So that you can compute the problems right there.
MR. FREEMAN: Are you familiar with the amount of water Carmel has unallocated –
MS. McCLOUD: Yes.
MR. FREEMAN: -- at this point in time?
MS. McCLOUD: At the present time, our 3.1519 is all we're faced with. And of that amount, we have pledged 1.9 for new affordable housing, about 14 units, which would increase our affordable housing by 10 percent in the city. That's due to go to construction in -- well, this fall.
So the trickle-down effect, if you'll pardon the pun, of not having water pervades the hotels and visitors, certainly business, and those who could count on jobs to -- you know, for their livelihood.
So if you're looking at the fact that if there were some sort of moratorium or rationing we had to close off hotel rooms -- we have a cap on our hotel rooms of just under a thousand -- you can imagine that would also, as I said, trickle down to those who are employed at those establishments or if we -- we have small, many restaurants -- I don't know if you'd call it many, but we have a number of restaurants, but they're all rather small. We don't have any large restaurants that you find in other places just because of the size of our properties.
MR. FREEMAN: If you had -- if there was a moratorium and/or water rationing, would it have an impact on the economic viability of Carmel and the services provided to the residents as well as the visitors?
MS. McCLOUD: It would have a huge impact. Our three biggest -- as you heard from the mayor of Monterey, our three biggest revenue sources are the TOT or the bed tax, as he called it, the sales taxes and property taxes. And that accounts for about 63 percent of our revenues coming into the city. So a loss of that would obviously scale back everything else.
We've scaled back -- and in the headlines in the Sacramento Bee this morning, we've already scaled back our staff as much as we can and tightened our belts over the years.
So we're -- we have done all we think we can to conserve. But as visitors continue to come, and unmandated -- unfunded mandates that come to us cause us to have to dip further and further into, you know, our imagination for how to solve some of these problems for visitors and for our residents.
MR. FREEMAN: I notice in your declaration on page 4 you mentioned the fact that if there were a moratorium it may have some detrimental effect to visitors actually coming to the Carmel area as opposed to going to other destinations. Is that –
MS. McCLOUD: That's an interesting point. Because you have to discuss this in the context of what our competition is. Our competition is obviously San Francisco, Napa, Sonoma, who do not have these constraints on their water supply; and therefore, we obviously would not be able to compete with them.
And we have also, in order to become more green, we have been converting -- some of our hotels were built a hundred years ago, and we're trying to upgrade them and make them more sustainable. And that -- if we are not able to do that, obviously our rooms and the expense of the rooms is not going to compete favorably with those who have done that type of upgrading in some of the other areas that compete directly with us.
One thing I would like to stress, going back to the water supply if I may, is the fact that the recent memories of the fires that we've just sustained on our south and east borders, our boundaries of Carmel in particular, is that 250,000 acres that were burned, and it is still not fully contained and may not be till the end of next week. Tens of millions of dollars were spent, and it came very close. And I looked out the window of my home and could see the fires, and I'm on the south end of the city.
So if people are going to use water – you know, if you live near a forest -- we have 40,000 trees in our one-mile-square city of Carmel, and people are very concerned about their safety and health.
MR. FREEMAN: Would a moratorium have any effect on the number of fire hydrants that may not be working in the city of Carmel? I know some work was done on those recently. Can you elaborate on that?
MS. McCLOUD: Yes. We discovered that we had a number, like about 30 almost, fire hydrants that were nonfunctioning. I must thank Cal Am for working very diligently with our police chief and public safety director to upgrade those.
But then putting new mains in, and we still have -- I'm not sure of the exact number at this moment, but I think it's nine have not been upgraded. They made other arrangements providing more than adequate fire prevention, but we still need to bring those back into service and replace the mains, get --the pipes are a hundred years old and have disintegrated, so that is in process as we speak. So we would not want to see that impeded, obviously.
MR. FREEMAN: Thank you.
MS. McCLOUD: Thank you.
MR. FREEMAN: That concludes the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
COMMENT:
• While as a matter of law, the Prosecution Team has the burden of proof of establishing that Cal-Am is unlawfully diverting water from the Carmel River and the Draft CDO is a reasonable remedy, similarly the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea has the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that their claims are validly supported by the requisite evidence. Accordingly, from a review of the evidence, it appears City Attorney Don Freeman failed to support the City’s claim of serious economic impacts by a preponderance of the evidence. Moreover, City Attorney Don Freeman’s assumption, based on his leading questions to Mayor Sue McCloud, that the issuance of a CDO is synonymous with a moratorium and/or water rationing, was invalid and Freeman’s argument that the issuance of the CDO would result in serious economic impacts, when economic impacts are not a valid legal justification for not issuing a CDO, was also invalid. To wit, “the potential for harsh economic impacts as a result of adopting the Draft CDO is not legal grounds for finding the order improper,” according to the Prosecution Team.
In the matter of California American Water Company Cease and Desist Order Hearing:
• Attorneys for the Water Rights Prosecution Team
Closing Brief
SYNOPSIS OF ARGUMENTS:
THE PROSECUTION TEAM HAS PRESENTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT CAL-AM IS UNLAWFULLY DIVERTING WATER FROM THE CARMEL RIVER IN EXCESS OF ITS RECOGNIZED LEGAL RIGHT AND THAT THE REMEDY PROPOSED IN THE DRAFT CEASE AND DESIST ORDER (CDO) IS REASONABLE
CAL-AM’S DIVERSIONS FROM THE CARMEL RIVER IN EXCESS OF 3,376 AFA ARE UNLAWFUL AND CONSTITUTE A CONTINUING TRESPASS REQUIRING THE ISSUANCE OF THE DRAFT CDO
THE DRAFT CDO APPROPRIATELY ADDRESSES THE ADVERSE IMPACTS THAT CAL-AM’S DIVERSIONS HAVE CAUSED ON PUBLIC TRUST RESOURCES AND BENEFICIAL USES OF THE CARMEL RIVER
NEITHER CAL-AM NOR ANY DESIGNATED PARTY PROVIDED EVIDENCE THAT THE DRAFT CDO WOULD ADVERSELY IMPACT THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THOSE WITHIN THE CAL-AM SERVICE AREA
THE REDUCTION SCHEDULE PROPOSED IN THE DRAFT CDO IS REASONABLE AND SHOULD NOT BE MATERIALLY MODIFIED
ALLEGED ECONOMIC IMPACTS FROM THE DRAFT CDO ARE SPECULATIVE
The cities of Monterey, Seaside, and Carmel submitted testimony alleging that the Draft CDO would have serious economic impacts. The Cities’ conclusions concerning potential economic impacts are based on the general assumption that the Draft CDO will result in a moratorium on new connections and water rationing that would limit or prohibit the replacement or remodeling of existing homes or businesses, and new development for an extended period of time.
The City of Seaside is the only city that actually conducted an economic analysis in an attempt to determine the potential economic impacts of the Draft CDO. Seaside’s Economic Analysis, however, is an unrealistic worst case scenario.
Harsh economic impacts from draft CDO can be avoided.
The potential for harsh economic impact from the Draft CDO can be avoided by Cal-Am’s development of alternative water supplies and facility improvements that will reduce unaccounted for water loss…the reduction schedule in the Draft CDO could initially be met by a combination of alternative water sources and increases in Cal-Am system efficiency and some moderate amount of water conservation until water year 2014 when more substantial conservation measures would be necessary. Furthermore,..., the Deputy Director can modify the reduction schedule upon request from Cal-Am if the reductions cannot be met without endangering public health and safety.
The potential for harsh economic impacts does not make the draft CDO legally improper.
The potential for harsh economic impacts as a result of adopting the Draft CDO is not legal grounds for finding the order improper. To the contrary, federal district courts have refused to balance economic and social utility concerns against the competing interests of protecting endangered species, because “Congress has decided that under the ESA, the balance of hardships always tips sharply in favor of the endangered or threatened species.”
CAL-AM HAS THE ABILITY TO COMPEL EXISTING CUSTOMERS TO REDUCE WATER USE AND IMPOSE A CONNECTION BAN ON NEW USERS
ANY FUTURE ENFORCEMENT OF THE DRAFT CDO THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT OF LIABILITY SHOULD NOT RESULT IN THAT LIABILITY BEING PASSED ON TO THE RATE PAYERS
ALTERNATIVES TO THE DRAFT CDO SUGGESTED BY OTHER DESIGNATED PARTIES DO NOT PROVIDE CAL-AM WITH ANY INCENTIVE TO REDUCE ITS ILLEGAL DIVERSIONS FROM THE CARMEL RIVER BASIN
• Attorneys for California American Water Company
Closing Brief
SYSOPSIS OF ARGUMENTS:
Neither The Prosecution Team Nor Any Other Entity Participating In This Proceeding Presented Legal Argument Or Evidence To Support The Issuance Of A Cease And Desist Order
The Board Does Not Have An Adequate Basis To Adopt The Remedy Proposed By The prosecution Team; The Only Remedy Supported By The Law And The Record Is One That Allows CAW To Continue To Extract Up To 11, 285 Acre-Feet Of Carmel River Water Until Alternative Water Supplies Are Developed
Proceeding Violated CAW’s Due Process Rights
HEARING PHASE 2, VOLUME II
THURSDAY, JULY 24, 2008
APPEARANCES
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CITY OF SEASIDE, SEASIDE BASIN WATERMASTER:
Perry & Freeman
BY: Mr. Donald G. Freeman
San Carlos at 8th Avenue
P.O. BOX 805
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA 93921
MR. FREEMAN: Good morning. My name is Don Freeman speaking on behalf of the City of Carmel as well as other panel members up here again today.
Just to follow on what you've heard so far, I think it is important in terms of the balance, but I think what we heard in all the testimony so far to this point in time, which you're going to hear again this afternoon and this morning, deals with the frustration, the frustration of the order which says we'd like you to get out of the river, the frustration with Cal Am saying we'd like to get out of the river, but what is the project people would like to have us do in order to replace the water from the river?
The reality of it is the frustration stands with the public process. That's our process. It's a long process. It's not where it's a business decision. We have a lot of interests out there we have to relate to, all of the jurisdictions, all the different agencies that are involved, also all of the residents that are involved.
So when you look at each of the people that are about to testify from each of the cities this morning, don't look at them as just individuals or just the mayor or just a councilmember from a jurisdiction.
Look at the entire population of the city itself or the jurisdiction itself. Because any decision this Board makes is going to affect the daily lives of each and every person that lives on the Monterey Peninsula or visits the Monterey Peninsula.
You heard testimony yesterday in terms of the water that Cal Am is taking out of the river and the diversions, and you heard round numbers. You heard 300 acre feet for Sand City. You heard a number that, in terms of an ASR project, 920 feet, but that that was constant throughout this process when in fact it does fluctuate.
The really of it is, when you hear the testimony today, you're going to hear Seaside say it's not just 56 feet, acre feet of water, that we have. It's 56.4. We're getting down to decimal points.
Next you're going to hear from Carmel. Carmel is going to tell you they have water left: 3.151. That's how we're measuring water on the Monterey Peninsula.
One of the cities not present here today is Del Rey Oaks. Del Rey Oaks has no water left to it at this point in time. They didn't have the resources to send someone up here and participate in this hearing today.
The economic -- if that water is, by the effect of your decision -- and I feel certain you're not going to have a moratorium placed on the District, but the -- or the Peninsula -- but the reality of it is it's a de facto moratorium. We already have that in place now. So all you would be doing is compounding something we already have in place.
Once the water issues for each of those jurisdictions, there is no more water available until a new water source comes online.
There is a total for all of the jurisdictions14 of 119 acre feet of water still remaining unused in the Cal Am service area on the Monterey Peninsula. That water was allocated by the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District prior to 95-10. Once that water is gone, it's gone forever.
If a moratorium or the effect of any decision you have places a moratorium or forces the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District to place a moratorium on the Cal Am service area and water rationing, that's going to affect the economic viability of each one of the jurisdictions. You'll hear testimony about that today.
The net effect of that is, if it affects their economic viability, then who is left to pay for any of the projects in order to solve the long-term water supply problem on the Monterey Peninsula, including the Carmel River problems?
You're going to hear later today -- not from this panel but from other people that will be testifying -- as to what potential solutions you may wish to consider, setting aside the draft cease and desist order, because there are a number of other options that wouldn't be as draconian in effect yet would have the ability of getting people together and keeping us focused on the main mission.
That main mission is to certainly get out of the river but at the same time provide for a reliable water supply source for the Monterey Peninsula in order to protect its economic viability as well as its health and safety needs.
So I think that it's very important when you're looking at the people and you hear them today, it's not just these individuals here, but they represent a tremendous number of individuals. And the effect on their quality of life is going to be devastating unless you do that balancing act which was talked about earlier today.
Thank you.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. FREEMAN
MR. FREEMAN: Mayor McCloud, would you state your name and spell it for the record please.
MS. McCLOUD: My name is Sue McCloud, M-c-C-l-o-u-d.
MR. FREEMAN: Excuse me. Do you have in front of you a declaration of Sue McCloud in support of proposed modifications to the draft cease and disorder, which is Carmel Exhibit 1?
MS. McCLOUD: Yes, I do.
MR. FREEMAN: And have you read and approved that declaration?
MS. McCLOUD: Yes, I have.
MR. FREEMAN: And in fact, did you assist in preparation with staff in preparing this declaration?
MS. McCLOUD: Yes, I did.
MR. FREEMAN: And is this a true and correct copy of the testimony that you provided to this Board?
MS. McCLOUD: Yes, it is.
MR. FREEMAN: Would you please take a moment and sort of describe what your role is for the City and how long you've been in this position?
MS. McCLOUD: Yes. I have -- this is my fifth term as mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea. I grew up in Carmel. My family was in business there for some 30 years. My parents lived in Carmel. They're both gone now. My sister is there. I went to school---obviously, since I grew up there, I went to school there. And I have -- prior to being elected mayor, I was elected to the city council, and prior to that I was on the planning commission.
MR. FREEMAN: So are you intimately familiar with the workings of the city and especially in regard to the matter before this Board today in terms of water?
MS. McCLOUD: I believe so.
MR. FREEMAN: Can you describe briefly the demographics of the city of Carmel?
MS. McCLOUD: We're one of the smaller cities on the Peninsula. We have a population according to the 2000 census of 4,081 residents. We're 1.1 mile square.
Obviously, we're bordered by Carmel Bay on one side and greenbelt all around the other three sides. We have about 2800 homes. We have very few undeveloped lots. The development that's taking place in town is primarily upgrading, and that includes conservation measures.
But trying to get a second bathroom for people who are now aging, because one of the key points about our population, the median age is 55. So you can imagine that there are needs that they have if there's only a tub in the house in the bathroom that to convert it to a shower or put a shower someplace else, if water's not available, we've had people very adversely affected.
So we -- again, we think we have about the same amount of visitors in our town as Chuck Della Sala mentioned for Monterey, around two million. Those are figures from Monterey County Convention and Visitors Bureau.
But we have to provide for them as well, not only our infrastructure but the services they expect, whether it's restrooms on our one-mile-long beach --just the other day, June 21st to be exact, we counted 2500 people on the beach. And we essentially have one permanent restroom on the beach. So that you can compute the problems right there.
MR. FREEMAN: Are you familiar with the amount of water Carmel has unallocated –
MS. McCLOUD: Yes.
MR. FREEMAN: -- at this point in time?
MS. McCLOUD: At the present time, our 3.1519 is all we're faced with. And of that amount, we have pledged 1.9 for new affordable housing, about 14 units, which would increase our affordable housing by 10 percent in the city. That's due to go to construction in -- well, this fall.
So the trickle-down effect, if you'll pardon the pun, of not having water pervades the hotels and visitors, certainly business, and those who could count on jobs to -- you know, for their livelihood.
So if you're looking at the fact that if there were some sort of moratorium or rationing we had to close off hotel rooms -- we have a cap on our hotel rooms of just under a thousand -- you can imagine that would also, as I said, trickle down to those who are employed at those establishments or if we -- we have small, many restaurants -- I don't know if you'd call it many, but we have a number of restaurants, but they're all rather small. We don't have any large restaurants that you find in other places just because of the size of our properties.
MR. FREEMAN: If you had -- if there was a moratorium and/or water rationing, would it have an impact on the economic viability of Carmel and the services provided to the residents as well as the visitors?
MS. McCLOUD: It would have a huge impact. Our three biggest -- as you heard from the mayor of Monterey, our three biggest revenue sources are the TOT or the bed tax, as he called it, the sales taxes and property taxes. And that accounts for about 63 percent of our revenues coming into the city. So a loss of that would obviously scale back everything else.
We've scaled back -- and in the headlines in the Sacramento Bee this morning, we've already scaled back our staff as much as we can and tightened our belts over the years.
So we're -- we have done all we think we can to conserve. But as visitors continue to come, and unmandated -- unfunded mandates that come to us cause us to have to dip further and further into, you know, our imagination for how to solve some of these problems for visitors and for our residents.
MR. FREEMAN: I notice in your declaration on page 4 you mentioned the fact that if there were a moratorium it may have some detrimental effect to visitors actually coming to the Carmel area as opposed to going to other destinations. Is that –
MS. McCLOUD: That's an interesting point. Because you have to discuss this in the context of what our competition is. Our competition is obviously San Francisco, Napa, Sonoma, who do not have these constraints on their water supply; and therefore, we obviously would not be able to compete with them.
And we have also, in order to become more green, we have been converting -- some of our hotels were built a hundred years ago, and we're trying to upgrade them and make them more sustainable. And that -- if we are not able to do that, obviously our rooms and the expense of the rooms is not going to compete favorably with those who have done that type of upgrading in some of the other areas that compete directly with us.
One thing I would like to stress, going back to the water supply if I may, is the fact that the recent memories of the fires that we've just sustained on our south and east borders, our boundaries of Carmel in particular, is that 250,000 acres that were burned, and it is still not fully contained and may not be till the end of next week. Tens of millions of dollars were spent, and it came very close. And I looked out the window of my home and could see the fires, and I'm on the south end of the city.
So if people are going to use water – you know, if you live near a forest -- we have 40,000 trees in our one-mile-square city of Carmel, and people are very concerned about their safety and health.
MR. FREEMAN: Would a moratorium have any effect on the number of fire hydrants that may not be working in the city of Carmel? I know some work was done on those recently. Can you elaborate on that?
MS. McCLOUD: Yes. We discovered that we had a number, like about 30 almost, fire hydrants that were nonfunctioning. I must thank Cal Am for working very diligently with our police chief and public safety director to upgrade those.
But then putting new mains in, and we still have -- I'm not sure of the exact number at this moment, but I think it's nine have not been upgraded. They made other arrangements providing more than adequate fire prevention, but we still need to bring those back into service and replace the mains, get --the pipes are a hundred years old and have disintegrated, so that is in process as we speak. So we would not want to see that impeded, obviously.
MR. FREEMAN: Thank you.
MS. McCLOUD: Thank you.
MR. FREEMAN: That concludes the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
COMMENT:
• While as a matter of law, the Prosecution Team has the burden of proof of establishing that Cal-Am is unlawfully diverting water from the Carmel River and the Draft CDO is a reasonable remedy, similarly the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea has the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that their claims are validly supported by the requisite evidence. Accordingly, from a review of the evidence, it appears City Attorney Don Freeman failed to support the City’s claim of serious economic impacts by a preponderance of the evidence. Moreover, City Attorney Don Freeman’s assumption, based on his leading questions to Mayor Sue McCloud, that the issuance of a CDO is synonymous with a moratorium and/or water rationing, was invalid and Freeman’s argument that the issuance of the CDO would result in serious economic impacts, when economic impacts are not a valid legal justification for not issuing a CDO, was also invalid. To wit, “the potential for harsh economic impacts as a result of adopting the Draft CDO is not legal grounds for finding the order improper,” according to the Prosecution Team.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Occurrences at the Lester Rowntree Native Plant Garden and Flanders Mansion
ABSTRACT: Recently, there have been some improvements accomplished at the Lester Rowntree Native Plant Garden and Flanders Mansion. Photos depicting these improvements are presented. And supplemental information is presented. COMMENTS are made with regard to the entities responsible for the maintenance and improvements.
New “WELCOME ROWNTREE NATIVE PLANT GARDEN” Sign at an Entrance to the Lester Rowntree Native Plant Garden, 25800 Hatton Rd., Carmel, CA.
A “WELCOME” Sign denoting “WELCOME ROWNTREE NATIVE PLANT GARDEN”
Close-Up of “WELCOME ROWNTREE NATIVE PLANT GARDEN” Sign
Portion of recently installed Drip Irrigation System, Lester Rowntree Native Plant Garden
FOR INFORMATION ABOUT THE MONTEREY BAY CHAPTER OF THE CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY:
Monterey Bay Chapter of the California Native Plant Society
Rowntree Garden
email: cnps@montereybaycnps.org
View October 2008 Newsletter
COMMENT:
• Credit is due to the dedicated volunteers of the Monterey Bay Chapter of the California Native Plant Society. For the past 25 years, the dedicated volunteers of the Monterey Bay Chapter of the California Native Plant Society have maintained and tended the Lester Rowntree Native Plant Garden. Members are always welcome. Monthly meetings are held on the second Wednesday of each month at the residence of Connie Stroud, 26407 Carmelo St., Carmel, CA. Garden workdays are held on the second Saturday of each month at the Lester Rowntree Native Plant Garden at 28500 Hatton Rd, Carmel, CA.
New Pipe & Faucet at Dog Station
Flanders Mansion Driveway
Close-Up of Flanders "Storage Rooms Rebuild"
Note: 115911 7/29/08 MC ELDOWNEY & SONS, INC $ 16,500.00 FLANDERS REPAIRS - STORAGE ROOMS REBUILD (Source:
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, August 2008 Check Register)
COMMENT:
• Credit is due to City Building Services employees and Outside Contractor McEldowney & Sons, Inc.
Background:
In 2007, Judge Robert O’Farrell, Monterey County Superior Court, ruled in Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea et al., (M76728) that the City violated the Municipal Code with regard to the maintenance of a historic resource, namely the National Register of Historic Places Flanders Mansion. Accordingly, the City is under court order to maintain the Flanders Mansion property per Municipal Code Section 17.32.210 Maintenance and Upkeep. Specifically, after weeks of a leaking faucet, City Building Services employees replaced the pipe and faucet, et cetera, at the Dog Water Station and outside contractor McEldowney & Sons, Inc. rebuilt the storage shed next to the garage.
Relocated Fire Hydrant on Hatton Rd, across from the Entrance to the Lester Rowntree Native Plant Garden & Flanders Mansion
NOTE: As Fire Chief Andrew Miller reported at the September 9, 2008 City Council Meeting, as of that date, the City’s fire hydrants and water mains are fully operational. At a cost of over $1 million, California American Water Company completed the City’s fire hydrant/water main replacement project, including the removal of 5,680 feet of “severely corroded 8-inch pipeline originally installed in the 1930s” and replacement with PVC water mains.
New “WELCOME ROWNTREE NATIVE PLANT GARDEN” Sign at an Entrance to the Lester Rowntree Native Plant Garden, 25800 Hatton Rd., Carmel, CA. 
A “WELCOME” Sign denoting “WELCOME ROWNTREE NATIVE PLANT GARDEN” 
Close-Up of “WELCOME ROWNTREE NATIVE PLANT GARDEN” Sign 
Portion of recently installed Drip Irrigation System, Lester Rowntree Native Plant GardenFOR INFORMATION ABOUT THE MONTEREY BAY CHAPTER OF THE CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY:
Monterey Bay Chapter of the California Native Plant Society
Rowntree Garden
email: cnps@montereybaycnps.org
View October 2008 Newsletter
COMMENT:
• Credit is due to the dedicated volunteers of the Monterey Bay Chapter of the California Native Plant Society. For the past 25 years, the dedicated volunteers of the Monterey Bay Chapter of the California Native Plant Society have maintained and tended the Lester Rowntree Native Plant Garden. Members are always welcome. Monthly meetings are held on the second Wednesday of each month at the residence of Connie Stroud, 26407 Carmelo St., Carmel, CA. Garden workdays are held on the second Saturday of each month at the Lester Rowntree Native Plant Garden at 28500 Hatton Rd, Carmel, CA.
New Pipe & Faucet at Dog StationFlanders Mansion Driveway
Close-Up of Flanders "Storage Rooms Rebuild"
Note: 115911 7/29/08 MC ELDOWNEY & SONS, INC $ 16,500.00 FLANDERS REPAIRS - STORAGE ROOMS REBUILD (Source:City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, August 2008 Check Register)
COMMENT:
• Credit is due to City Building Services employees and Outside Contractor McEldowney & Sons, Inc.
Background:
In 2007, Judge Robert O’Farrell, Monterey County Superior Court, ruled in Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea et al., (M76728) that the City violated the Municipal Code with regard to the maintenance of a historic resource, namely the National Register of Historic Places Flanders Mansion. Accordingly, the City is under court order to maintain the Flanders Mansion property per Municipal Code Section 17.32.210 Maintenance and Upkeep. Specifically, after weeks of a leaking faucet, City Building Services employees replaced the pipe and faucet, et cetera, at the Dog Water Station and outside contractor McEldowney & Sons, Inc. rebuilt the storage shed next to the garage.
Relocated Fire Hydrant on Hatton Rd, across from the Entrance to the Lester Rowntree Native Plant Garden & Flanders MansionNOTE: As Fire Chief Andrew Miller reported at the September 9, 2008 City Council Meeting, as of that date, the City’s fire hydrants and water mains are fully operational. At a cost of over $1 million, California American Water Company completed the City’s fire hydrant/water main replacement project, including the removal of 5,680 feet of “severely corroded 8-inch pipeline originally installed in the 1930s” and replacement with PVC water mains.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Less Than 1% of Expenditure Based on Nichols Consulting Engineers Pavement Management Program
ABSTRACT: At the October 7, 2008 City Council Meeting, the City Council unanimously approved a “Resolution awarding the bid for the Street Resurfacing of Scenic Road; the Sunset Cultural Center South Parking lot; Ocean Avenue crosswalks; and Escolle Way to the Don Chapin Company in the amount of $128,033.” Of the four “2008 Street Resurfacing Projects,” only Escolle Way would be recommended based on the Nichols Consulting Engineers Pavement Management Program, December 2007. The cost for Escolle Way is $748.00 or considerably less than 1% of the total expenditure of $128,033.00. The rationale for these street projects, according to Administrative Services Director Joyce Giuffre, is the reduction in “potential trip and fall claims” and the enhancement of “the appearance of the City.” Informational and opinion COMMENTS are made and relevant REFERENCES are cited.
AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
X. Resolutions
B. Consideration of a Resolution awarding the bid for the 2008 Street Resurfacing of Scenic Road; the Sunset Cultural Center South Parking lot; Ocean Avenue crosswalks; and Escolle Way to the Don Chapin Company in the amount of $128,033 and authorize a 10% contingency cost of $12,803.
COMMENTS:
• Of the four 2008 Street Resurfacing Projects consisting of Scenic Road, the Sunset Cultural Center South Parking lot, Ocean Avenue crosswalks and Escolle Way, only Escolle Way would be recommended based on the Nichols Consulting Engineers Pavement Management Program, December 2007. A Pavement Condition Index (PCI) of 55 (PCI Range 40-69 “Fair”) was recorded for Escolle Way between Perry Newberry Way and the Turnaround. Given Escolle Way’s “Fair” condition, there remain three street sections of “Poor” condition (PCI Range 20-39) , as follows:
DOLORES ST.: OCEAN AV.- 8TH AV. PCI 24
7TH AV.: GUADALUPE ST.- CITY LIMITS PCI 30
LAUSEN DR.: RIO RD - CITY LIMITS PCI 31
And at least thirteen street sections categorized as “Fair,” but with lower PCI values than Escolle Way, as follows:
LADERA DR.: RIO RD. - TURN AROUND PCI 42
LINCOLN ST.: 4TH AV. - 5TH AV. PCI 45
OCEAN AV.: SAN ANTONIO - MONTE VERDE PCI 46
SANTA RITA ST.: OCEAN AV. - MT. VIEW AV. PCI 47
SANTA RITA ST.: CITY LIMITS - 3RD AV. PCI 48
GUADALUPE ST.: OCEAN AV. - MT. VIEW PCI 48
4TH AV.: GUADALUPE - CITY LIMITS PCI 48
SANTA RITA ST.: 5TH AV . -OCEAN AV. PCI 49
VALLEY WAY: N.CITY LIMITS - E.CITY LIMITS PCI 49
VISTA AV.: DOLORES ST. - JUNIPERO AV, PCI 49
10TH AV.: JUNIPERO AV. - TORRES ST. PCI 50
GUADALUPE ST.: CITY LIMITS - 2ND AV. PCI 50
PERRY NEWBERRY WAY: 4TH AV. - 6TH AV. PCI 50
• In other words, based on the Nichols Consulting Engineers Pavement Management Program, there are at least sixteen other street sections in poorer condition than Escolle Way. Needless to say, although Carpenter St. between 3rd and Ocean Av. has a PCI of 64 (“Good”), Carpenter St. between 5th Av. & Ocean Av. is in significantly poorer condition. Their estimate for Mill and Thick Overlay is $276,550 and the costs will only escalate over time. Question: Since aesthetics is an important factor in determining street projects, why isn’t Carpenter St,, a main vehicular route for visitors, residents and truck traffic into the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, especially the street section between 5th Av. and Ocean Av., a top priority street project?
• All of the Scenic Road sections are rated as “Good;” PCI range of 70-100, according to the Nichols Consulting Engineers Pavement Management Program, as follows:
Scenic Road between Ocean Av. & 8th Av.: PCI 85
Scenic Road between 8th Av. & Blk. A3S/End: PCI 74
Scenic Road between Blk. A3S/End & Santa Lucia Av.: PCI 90
Scenic Road between Santa Lucia Av. & City Limits: PCI 75
• Question: Is it a good use of taxpayer funds to expend taxpayer dollars for a consultant’s Pavement Management Program and then basically disregard the Program and substitute other projects to the extent that 99% of funded projects are not based on the Pavement Management Program and only 1% of funded projects are based on the Program?
• Additionally, if our City was governed by the ethic of Carmel-by-the-Sea as “primarily, a residential City,” then the City would have proactively budgeted for the resurfacing of the residential street sections dug up as a consequence of the installation of new replacement water mains by Cal-Am.
REFERENCES:
THE DON CHAPIN CO., INC.: $128,033.00
1) Scenic Road Slurry Seal $ 46,240
2) Sunset Center south parking lot 55,052
3) Ocean Avenue crosswalks 25,993
4) Other street & road projects (Escolle Way) 748
Total $ 128,033
(Source: City Council, Agenda Item Summary, Prepared by: Joyce Giuffre, Admin. Svcs Director)
Other Bids, as follows:
JAMES SOMMERVILLE INCORPORATED: $140,059.00
UNION CITY CONSTRUCTION: $148,115.50
GRANITEROCK PAVEX CONSTRUCTION DIV.: $164,536.50
EARTHWORKS PAVING CONSTRUCTORS, INC.: $148,636.00
AMERICAN ASPHALT REPAIR & RESURFACING CO., INC.: $158,128.00
MONTEREY PENINSULA ENGINEERING: $137,863.00
(Source: CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA STAFF REPORT)
Regular City Council Meeting Video
October 07, 2008
X. Resolutions:
B. Consideration of a Resolution awarding the bid for the 2008 Street Resurfacing of Scenic Road; the Sunset Cultural Center South Parking lot; Ocean Avenue crosswalks; and Escolle Way to the Don Chapin Company in the amount of $128,033 and authorize a 10% contingency cost of $12,803.
(Beginning 03:16:10 – 03:20:40 Ending)
AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
X. Resolutions
B. Consideration of a Resolution awarding the bid for the 2008 Street Resurfacing of Scenic Road; the Sunset Cultural Center South Parking lot; Ocean Avenue crosswalks; and Escolle Way to the Don Chapin Company in the amount of $128,033 and authorize a 10% contingency cost of $12,803.
COMMENTS:
• Of the four 2008 Street Resurfacing Projects consisting of Scenic Road, the Sunset Cultural Center South Parking lot, Ocean Avenue crosswalks and Escolle Way, only Escolle Way would be recommended based on the Nichols Consulting Engineers Pavement Management Program, December 2007. A Pavement Condition Index (PCI) of 55 (PCI Range 40-69 “Fair”) was recorded for Escolle Way between Perry Newberry Way and the Turnaround. Given Escolle Way’s “Fair” condition, there remain three street sections of “Poor” condition (PCI Range 20-39) , as follows:
DOLORES ST.: OCEAN AV.- 8TH AV. PCI 24
7TH AV.: GUADALUPE ST.- CITY LIMITS PCI 30
LAUSEN DR.: RIO RD - CITY LIMITS PCI 31
And at least thirteen street sections categorized as “Fair,” but with lower PCI values than Escolle Way, as follows:
LADERA DR.: RIO RD. - TURN AROUND PCI 42
LINCOLN ST.: 4TH AV. - 5TH AV. PCI 45
OCEAN AV.: SAN ANTONIO - MONTE VERDE PCI 46
SANTA RITA ST.: OCEAN AV. - MT. VIEW AV. PCI 47
SANTA RITA ST.: CITY LIMITS - 3RD AV. PCI 48
GUADALUPE ST.: OCEAN AV. - MT. VIEW PCI 48
4TH AV.: GUADALUPE - CITY LIMITS PCI 48
SANTA RITA ST.: 5TH AV . -OCEAN AV. PCI 49
VALLEY WAY: N.CITY LIMITS - E.CITY LIMITS PCI 49
VISTA AV.: DOLORES ST. - JUNIPERO AV, PCI 49
10TH AV.: JUNIPERO AV. - TORRES ST. PCI 50
GUADALUPE ST.: CITY LIMITS - 2ND AV. PCI 50
PERRY NEWBERRY WAY: 4TH AV. - 6TH AV. PCI 50
• In other words, based on the Nichols Consulting Engineers Pavement Management Program, there are at least sixteen other street sections in poorer condition than Escolle Way. Needless to say, although Carpenter St. between 3rd and Ocean Av. has a PCI of 64 (“Good”), Carpenter St. between 5th Av. & Ocean Av. is in significantly poorer condition. Their estimate for Mill and Thick Overlay is $276,550 and the costs will only escalate over time. Question: Since aesthetics is an important factor in determining street projects, why isn’t Carpenter St,, a main vehicular route for visitors, residents and truck traffic into the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, especially the street section between 5th Av. and Ocean Av., a top priority street project?
• All of the Scenic Road sections are rated as “Good;” PCI range of 70-100, according to the Nichols Consulting Engineers Pavement Management Program, as follows:
Scenic Road between Ocean Av. & 8th Av.: PCI 85
Scenic Road between 8th Av. & Blk. A3S/End: PCI 74
Scenic Road between Blk. A3S/End & Santa Lucia Av.: PCI 90
Scenic Road between Santa Lucia Av. & City Limits: PCI 75
• Question: Is it a good use of taxpayer funds to expend taxpayer dollars for a consultant’s Pavement Management Program and then basically disregard the Program and substitute other projects to the extent that 99% of funded projects are not based on the Pavement Management Program and only 1% of funded projects are based on the Program?
• Additionally, if our City was governed by the ethic of Carmel-by-the-Sea as “primarily, a residential City,” then the City would have proactively budgeted for the resurfacing of the residential street sections dug up as a consequence of the installation of new replacement water mains by Cal-Am.
REFERENCES:
THE DON CHAPIN CO., INC.: $128,033.00
1) Scenic Road Slurry Seal $ 46,240
2) Sunset Center south parking lot 55,052
3) Ocean Avenue crosswalks 25,993
4) Other street & road projects (Escolle Way) 748
Total $ 128,033
(Source: City Council, Agenda Item Summary, Prepared by: Joyce Giuffre, Admin. Svcs Director)
Other Bids, as follows:
JAMES SOMMERVILLE INCORPORATED: $140,059.00
UNION CITY CONSTRUCTION: $148,115.50
GRANITEROCK PAVEX CONSTRUCTION DIV.: $164,536.50
EARTHWORKS PAVING CONSTRUCTORS, INC.: $148,636.00
AMERICAN ASPHALT REPAIR & RESURFACING CO., INC.: $158,128.00
MONTEREY PENINSULA ENGINEERING: $137,863.00
(Source: CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA STAFF REPORT)
Regular City Council Meeting Video
October 07, 2008
X. Resolutions:
B. Consideration of a Resolution awarding the bid for the 2008 Street Resurfacing of Scenic Road; the Sunset Cultural Center South Parking lot; Ocean Avenue crosswalks; and Escolle Way to the Don Chapin Company in the amount of $128,033 and authorize a 10% contingency cost of $12,803.
(Beginning 03:16:10 – 03:20:40 Ending)
Monday, October 13, 2008
Sunset Cultural Center, Inc. to Use $300,000 Grant from The James Irvine Foundation to Hire Consultant to Develop a “New Strategic Plan"
ABSTRACT: The James Irvine Foundation, a private, nonprofit grantmaking foundation, awarded $3,825,000 to fourteen Central California Coast arts institutions as part of their Arts Regional Initiative to: “improve organizational financial stability, management, governance and growth capacity, payable over 36 months.” Sunset Cultural Center was awarded $300,000. “With the grant money, Sunset will hire a consultant to help develop a new strategic plan that will outline the center’s mission and vision, state its values and list its goals. The plan will detail everything, from staffing to programming, and community outreach efforts like arts in education and senior programs,” according to the article Sunset gets $300K grant to attract bigger audiences in The Carmel Pine Cone. Information about the James Irvine Foundation, COMMENTS and REFERENCES are presented. And MISCELLANEOUS and INTERESTING READING are presented.
About The James Irvine Foundation:
James Irvine, a California agricultural pioneer, established the Irvine Foundation in 1937 to benefit the people of California. Over the last 70 years, the Foundation has met the objectives of its founder by providing over $1 billion in grants to more than 3,000 nonprofit organizations.
The mission of The James Irvine Foundation is to expand opportunity for the people of California to participate in a vibrant, successful and inclusive society.
The James Irvine Foundation is a private, nonprofit grantmaking foundation dedicated to expanding opportunity for the people of California to participate in a vibrant, successful and inclusive society. The Foundation’s grantmaking is organized around three program areas: Arts, Youth and California Perspectives, which focuses on improving decision making on significant state issues. Since 1937 the Foundation has provided over $1 billion in grants to more than 3,000 nonprofit organizations throughout California. With current assets of over $1.8 billion, the Foundation expects to make grants of $81 million in 2008 for the people of California.
COMMENTS:
• According the Executive Director Peter Lesnik, as reported in The Carmel Pine Cone, Sunset Cultural Center, Inc. (SCC) will use the grant money to hire a consultant to development a “new strategic plan that will outline the center’s mission and vision, state its values and list its goals. The plan will detail everything, from staffing to programming, and community outreach efforts like arts in education and senior programs.” Questions: Now in its fifth year managing the City-owned Sunset Center, what does it say about SCC that they are using this grant money to develop a “new strategic plan” for the Sunset Cultural Center?
• The “new strategic plan” is to outline the Sunset Center’s “mission and vision, state its values and list its goals.” Yet presently on the Sunset Center website, there exists, “Mission, Vision, Values and Objectives,” as follows:
Mission, Vision, Values and Objectives
Mission:
The Sunset Center is a community gathering place, where citizens of the region meet to enjoy the full spectrum of performing arts, view visual-arts exhibits, exchange ideas, learn, and attend organization meetings and educational events. The Center is also home to some of the region’s leading performing-arts organizations, visual and arts service organizations, and volunteer groups.
Vision:
We bring artists, local citizens and regional neighbors together to share talents, ideas and enjoyment of one another in a carefully maintained, state-of-the-art historic facility, governed in a fiscally prudent manner that responds to the dynamic environment of the region.
Values:
• We believe in the vitality and power of the arts for all people.
• We treat our patrons, clients, artists, volunteers, neighbors and staff with care and respect.
• We build strong cooperative relationships with the diverse communities we serve.
• We deliver these services in a supportive, positive and dedicated manner.
Objectives:
• To operate in a fiscally responsible manner while working to improve facilities and programs.
• To offer a facility that meets the highest standards for all who enter.
• To present professional artists and performances otherwise not available to our communities.
• To be an active, participatory member of Carmel-by-the-Sea and to participate in the City’s marketing outreach to the wider community and its visitors.
• To provide a home for regional arts organizations.
• To host community celebrations, events, and organization meetings.
• To provide an experiential arts education program designed to inspire an appreciation of artists and their work.
Question: Are Carmelites to understand that SCC has to redefine its’ “mission” and “vision,” “values” and “goals” and requires a consultant to redevelop a “mission” and “vision,” “values” and “goals?”
• A blogger recently posted, as follows:
“So now that Sunset is to receive an unbudgetted $300,000 grant, does that mean that the city subsidy will go down by $300,000? It would be the right thing....” That would be a welcome gesture. But it is probably as unlikely as the Board of Trustees opening their meetings to the public, which also would be welcomed by Carmelites.
REFERENCES:
14 Central Coast Arts Institutions Receive $3.8 Million to Expand Audiences and Increase Sustainability
Third Phase of Irvine Foundation’s Arts Regional Initiative Continues Commitment to Leading Regional Arts Institutions
Grants Approved by The James Irvine Foundation Board of Directors
MISCELLANEOUS:
Top 10 California foundations awarding arts grants, 2004
Foundation-----------------Amount---Number of Grants
1. James Irvine Foundation $15,292,000 88
2. William and Flora Hewlett Foundation 13,329,500 111
3. Ann and Gordon Getty Foundation 12,693,538 129
4. J. Paul Getty Trust 12,272,338 114
5. Ahmanson Foundation 12,189,700 72
6. Eli and Edythe L. Broad Foundation 11,570,670 13
7. San Francisco Foundation 11,329,027 272
8. Packard Humanities Institute 9,733,798 30
9. Ann and Gordon Getty Foundation 9,202,421 123
10. McConnell Foundation 9,178,143 7
Source: The Foundation Center
INTERESTING READING
Critical Issues Facing the Arts in California: A Working Paper from The James Irvine Foundation, September 2006
About The James Irvine Foundation:
James Irvine, a California agricultural pioneer, established the Irvine Foundation in 1937 to benefit the people of California. Over the last 70 years, the Foundation has met the objectives of its founder by providing over $1 billion in grants to more than 3,000 nonprofit organizations.
The mission of The James Irvine Foundation is to expand opportunity for the people of California to participate in a vibrant, successful and inclusive society.
The James Irvine Foundation is a private, nonprofit grantmaking foundation dedicated to expanding opportunity for the people of California to participate in a vibrant, successful and inclusive society. The Foundation’s grantmaking is organized around three program areas: Arts, Youth and California Perspectives, which focuses on improving decision making on significant state issues. Since 1937 the Foundation has provided over $1 billion in grants to more than 3,000 nonprofit organizations throughout California. With current assets of over $1.8 billion, the Foundation expects to make grants of $81 million in 2008 for the people of California.
COMMENTS:
• According the Executive Director Peter Lesnik, as reported in The Carmel Pine Cone, Sunset Cultural Center, Inc. (SCC) will use the grant money to hire a consultant to development a “new strategic plan that will outline the center’s mission and vision, state its values and list its goals. The plan will detail everything, from staffing to programming, and community outreach efforts like arts in education and senior programs.” Questions: Now in its fifth year managing the City-owned Sunset Center, what does it say about SCC that they are using this grant money to develop a “new strategic plan” for the Sunset Cultural Center?
• The “new strategic plan” is to outline the Sunset Center’s “mission and vision, state its values and list its goals.” Yet presently on the Sunset Center website, there exists, “Mission, Vision, Values and Objectives,” as follows:
Mission, Vision, Values and Objectives
Mission:
The Sunset Center is a community gathering place, where citizens of the region meet to enjoy the full spectrum of performing arts, view visual-arts exhibits, exchange ideas, learn, and attend organization meetings and educational events. The Center is also home to some of the region’s leading performing-arts organizations, visual and arts service organizations, and volunteer groups.
Vision:
We bring artists, local citizens and regional neighbors together to share talents, ideas and enjoyment of one another in a carefully maintained, state-of-the-art historic facility, governed in a fiscally prudent manner that responds to the dynamic environment of the region.
Values:
• We believe in the vitality and power of the arts for all people.
• We treat our patrons, clients, artists, volunteers, neighbors and staff with care and respect.
• We build strong cooperative relationships with the diverse communities we serve.
• We deliver these services in a supportive, positive and dedicated manner.
Objectives:
• To operate in a fiscally responsible manner while working to improve facilities and programs.
• To offer a facility that meets the highest standards for all who enter.
• To present professional artists and performances otherwise not available to our communities.
• To be an active, participatory member of Carmel-by-the-Sea and to participate in the City’s marketing outreach to the wider community and its visitors.
• To provide a home for regional arts organizations.
• To host community celebrations, events, and organization meetings.
• To provide an experiential arts education program designed to inspire an appreciation of artists and their work.
Question: Are Carmelites to understand that SCC has to redefine its’ “mission” and “vision,” “values” and “goals” and requires a consultant to redevelop a “mission” and “vision,” “values” and “goals?”
• A blogger recently posted, as follows:
“So now that Sunset is to receive an unbudgetted $300,000 grant, does that mean that the city subsidy will go down by $300,000? It would be the right thing....” That would be a welcome gesture. But it is probably as unlikely as the Board of Trustees opening their meetings to the public, which also would be welcomed by Carmelites.
REFERENCES:
14 Central Coast Arts Institutions Receive $3.8 Million to Expand Audiences and Increase Sustainability
Third Phase of Irvine Foundation’s Arts Regional Initiative Continues Commitment to Leading Regional Arts Institutions
Grants Approved by The James Irvine Foundation Board of Directors
MISCELLANEOUS:
Top 10 California foundations awarding arts grants, 2004
Foundation-----------------Amount---Number of Grants
1. James Irvine Foundation $15,292,000 88
2. William and Flora Hewlett Foundation 13,329,500 111
3. Ann and Gordon Getty Foundation 12,693,538 129
4. J. Paul Getty Trust 12,272,338 114
5. Ahmanson Foundation 12,189,700 72
6. Eli and Edythe L. Broad Foundation 11,570,670 13
7. San Francisco Foundation 11,329,027 272
8. Packard Humanities Institute 9,733,798 30
9. Ann and Gordon Getty Foundation 9,202,421 123
10. McConnell Foundation 9,178,143 7
Source: The Foundation Center
INTERESTING READING
Critical Issues Facing the Arts in California: A Working Paper from The James Irvine Foundation, September 2006
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
ABUSE OF POWER AND AUTHORITY by Mayor Sue McCloud
ABSTRACT: At issue is the conduct of Mayor Sue McCloud in the case of the Forest and Beach Commission’s unanimous approval of the removal of her neighbor’s black acacia tree (April 3, 2008) and the City Council’s majority vote denying Sue McCloud’s appeal and upholding the Forest and Beach Commission’s decision (September 9, 2008). On or about September 9, 2008, the appellant Sue McCloud submitted supplemental information to the City Council Members, which was not part of the original AGENDA PACKET, about her appeal of the Forest and Beach Commission’s unanimous decision, including six conditions if the City Council denied her appeal and upheld the Forest and Beach Commission’s decision. In the City Council’s motion, and accepted by the applicant/neighbor Susan Page, were six conditions, including Condition 6 “that all of the above steps is adopted take place in a tight time frame.” Moreover, Clayton Berling, representing his sister-in-law Sue McCloud, stated that the removal of the acacia tree be done is a “timely manner.” And, Margi Perotti wrote in an attached letter to the TREE REMOVAL PERMIT “The above steps are to be taken in a ‘tight time frame.’” A day after the issuance of the TREE REMOVAL PERMIT, the City voided the TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. A second TREE REMOVAL PERMIT was issued with an attached six conditions, including a revised Condition 6, “The above steps shall take place in a continuous manner and shall be completed no later than 30 days from the issuance date of this permit.” It appears Sue McCloud abused her power and authority as mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea by instigating and/or allowing the voiding of Susan Page’s TREE REMOVAL PERMIT after it was issued and revising Condition 6 to reflect “no later than 30 days” as opposed to “tight time frame,” as approved by the City Council. In a September 30, 2008 letter from Susan Page’s attorney, Stephen J. Beals, to City Attorney Don Freeman, Attorney Stephen J. Beals requested that the permit be reissued as originally done on September 17, 2008. Accordingly, City Attorney Don Freeman, as the citizen’s attorney, should intervene immediately and order the City to reissue a TREE REMOVAL PERMIT as a final resolution of this troublesome matter. The DEFINITION of ABUSE OF POWER, A CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS and COMMENTS are presented.
DEFINITION: ABUSE OF POWER is that situation that exists whenever someone who has POWER over others, (that is, the capacity to impose her will on those others) for example, by virtue of her political/governmental position and the trust that others have in her, unjustifiably uses that power to EXPLOIT or HARM those others.
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS:
• April 3, 2008: UNANIMOUS DECISION (4-0) OF FOREST AND BEACH COMMISSION TO APPROVE REMOVAL OF SUSAN PAGE’S BLACK ACACIA TREE
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
FOREST AND BEACH COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Thursday, April 3, 2008
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.
1. 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 a 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
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
• September, 9, 2008: MAJORITY DECISION (3-1) OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO DENY SUE MCCLOUD’S APPEAL AND UPHOLD THE FOREST AND BEACH COMMISSION’S DECISION APPROVING THE REMOVAL OF SUSAN PAGE’S BLACK ACACIA TREE
MINUTES
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
September 9, 2008
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
B. Consideration of an appeal of a decision by the Forest and Beach Commission approving the removal of a 30-inch diameter black acacia at a property at 2922 Santa Lucia Avenue. The appellant is Sue McCloud, property owner of the home next door, on the east side.
Mayor McCloud recused herself from the proceedings citing a conflict of interest, being the appellant. Mayor Pro Tem Hazdovac chaired the proceedings.
City Attorney Don Freeman made some introductory remarks, highlighting the appeal process in this particular case, emphasizing that all possible steps were taken to ensure a fair and impartial hearing for all parties concerned.
City Forester Mike Branson presented the staff report and answered Council questions.
Clayton Berling read a statement on behalf of the appellant. Included in this statement were six conditions that he said would be acceptable to the appellant, should Council vote to deny the appeal. These included: complete stump grinding of the removed tree; proper irrigation for the new trees; full repair of any damage to the fence; substitution of bamboo or planting of two (not one) 24-inch box olive trees to replace the acacia; 24-hour notification before tree removal; and the work to remove the acacia tree done is a timely manner.
Mayor Pro Tem Hazdovac opened the hearing to public comment at 6:25 p.m.
Stephen Beals, attorney for Susan Page, addressed Council.
Mayor Pro Tem Hazdovac closed the hearing to public comment at 6:27 p.m.
Stephen Beals agreed to accept the six conditions proposed by the appellant.
City Forester Mike Branson answered Council questions.
Clayton Berling requested pruning of the acacia tree be considered.
Council Member ROSE moved to overturn a decision by the Forest and Beach Commission approving the removal of a 30-inch diameter black acacia at a property at 2922 Santa Lucia Avenue on the condition that it be pruned. The appellant is Sue McCloud, property owner of the home next door, on the east side. The motion failed for lack of a second.
A motion was made by Council Member TALMAGE to deny the appeal, but to institute the six conditions requested by the appellant (noted above) and have the parties work with City Forester to find two mutually acceptable 24-inch replacement trees (or proceed with planting two 24-inch fruitless olive trees if no agreement can be reached), seconded by Council Member SHARP and carried by the following roll call:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: HAZDOVAC, SHARP & TALMAGE
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ROSE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCLOUD
NOTE: Supplemental information from Sue McCloud was apparently distributed to City Council Members on the day of the City Council Meeting, including, as follows:
If the Council denies this appeal, please consider incorporating the following 6 points in your motion to deny:
1. The stump must be ground out so that the new tree or trees can go in the same area. Mike had said that acacia roots extend 30 feet. Without removal of the stump/roots, there is no viable space for a new 24” box tree/trees in that same area.
2. Irrigation must be provided to ensure the new tree/trees survive, as there are no permanent residents in the Page home to nurture them.
3. Fence: any damage to the McCloud fence must be repaired so it is secure for dogs and children on both properties.
4. If the tree is to come down, Sue would ask Council to seriously consider substituting bamboo (which Page has on the west side of her property) that can be contained as it will be fast growing and if not, require two 24” box olive trees be planted. This was proposed by the Forest and Beach Commission, but was not in the final motion. The reason for two is that the olive trees are very vertical and one is not likely to ever come close to filling the space occupied by the acacia. Mike has said that the two examples of olives he cited on the NW corner of 8th and San Carols have taken about 5 years to be the size they are today.
The replacement tree should go on a vertical line with the only clear glass window on the west side of the McCloud home. The second tree if approved should go between the acacia and the most southern of the 2 McCloud oaks on the west side.
5. Tree removal: page should give McCloud 24 hours notice when it is to take place so the McCloud dog is not outside in the yard.
6. Pls require that all of the above steps if adopted take place in a tight time frame.
• September 17, 2008: TREE REMOVAL/PRUNING PERMIT ISSUED
Selected excerpts, as follows:
Date: 9/17/08
Exact location of property: 2922 Santa Lucia Avenue
Name of Property Owner: Susan Page
Remove one 30” dbh acacia tree
Conditions/Requirements: 1-10
REPLANT: lower canopy trees/species: olive size: 24” box size
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS: see attached letter
Approved by: City Council Meeting 9 September 2008
Attached Letter, as follows:
17 September 2008
Ms. Susan Page
Post Office Box 6521
Carmel, CA. 93921
SUBJECT:
TREE REMOVAL
SANTA LUCIA 3 SE OF DOLORES
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CA.
Dear Ms. Page:
In a majority vote, the City Council denied the appeal from Ms. McCloud and upheld the Forest and Beach Commission decision to remove the tree with the following conditions:
1. Following tree removal the stump must be ground down/out so new trees may be planted in the same area.
2. Irrigation must be provided to ensure the survival of the new tree/trees.
3. Any damage to the McCloud fence must be repaired so it is secure for dogs and children on both properties.
4. Two 24” boxed size olive trees or mutually acceptable 24” replacement trees must be planted as replacements. The replacement tree should go on a vertical line with the only clear window on the west side of the McCloud home. The second tree should be planted between the acacia and the most southern of the two McCloud oaks on the west side. The trees must be planted within 30 days of the removal of the acacia.
5. A 24-hours notice is to be given to McCloud prior to tree removal.
6. The about steps are to be taken in a “tight time frame.”
Please come to the Planning and Building office and pick up a copy of the permit. The permit must be on site when the work is being performed.
If you have any question or require additional information, please phone my office at (831) 620-2010.
Sincerely,
Margi Perotti
Secretary to the Forest and Beach Commission
• September 18, 2008: PERMIT VOIDED AFER ISSUANCE
Selected excerpt from Letter to Susan Page from City Clerk Heidi Burch, dated September 18, 2008, as follows:
RE: Tree Removal Permit
Your tree permit has been revised to more accurately reflect Council action taken on September 9, 2008. Your prior permit has been voided.
In correspondence from Susan Page’s attorney, Stephen J. Beals, to City Attorney Donald G. Freeman, Attorney Stephen J. Beals wrote that he was “advised by Rich Guillen that the reason for voiding the permit related to a minor change in the conditions of the approval that resulted after further review of the hearing minutes.”
The “new conditions of approval” deal with Condition 6; Condition 6 was modified from “tight time frame” to requiring completion by “no later than thirty days from the issuance date of the permit.”
(2nd) TREE REMOVAL/PRUNING PERMIT
Selected excerpts, as follows:
Undated
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS: see attached letter, as follows:
CONDITIONS OF TREE PERMIT APPROVAL:
(Per City Council action at their September 9, 2008 meeting, both parties shall work with the City Forester to find two mutually acceptable 24’inch replacement trees. If an agreement on the tree species can’t be reached then two fruitless olive trees shall be the replacement trees.)
1. The stump shall be ground out and appropriate roots removed, so that the new trees can go in the same area.
2. An irrigation system shall be provided to ensure the new trees survive.
3. Any damage to the McCloud fence shall be repaired, so it is secure for dogs and children on both properties.
4. The replacement trees shall go on a vertical line with the only clear glass window on the west side of the McCloud home. A second tree shall be planted between the acacia and the most southern of the two (2) McCloud oaks on the west side.
5. Page shall give McCloud 24 hours notice when tree removal is to take place, so the McCloud dog is not outside in the year.
6. The above steps shall take place in a continuous manner and shall be completed no late than 30 days from the issuance date of this permit.
COMMENTS:
During this protracted process, appellant Sue McCloud abused her power and authority as mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea by:
• Submitting supplemental information with highlighted sections favorable to her, the appellant, to the City and City Council Members after the original Agenda Packet was issued.
• Instigating and/or allowing the City to void Susan Page’s TREE REMOVAL PERMIT without cause.
• After the voiding of Susan Page’s TREE REMOVAL PERMIT, instigating and/or allowing the attachment, including revisions to Condition 6, revisions which were not approved by the City Council at their September 9, 2008 Meeting.
• Compromising City Administrator Rich Guillen by having him inform Susan Page’s attorney, Stephen J. Beals, that the “reason for voiding the permit related to a minor change in the conditions of the approval that resulted after further review of the hearing minutes.” In fact, the Minutes, as presented in the Agenda Packet, do not support Rich Guillen’s assertion of a minor change in the conditions of the approval after a review of the Minutes, rather the Minutes support no changes at all. Moreover, the Minutes must accurately reflect actual events and not be arbitrarily altered to reflect the desires of anyone after the fact.
• In closing, City Attorney Don Freeman must therefore act as the citizen’s attorney and immediately order the City to reissue a TREE REMOVAL PERMIT to Susan Page, as originally issued on September 17, 2008, as a final resolution to this needlessly protracted and troublesome matter.
DEFINITION: ABUSE OF POWER is that situation that exists whenever someone who has POWER over others, (that is, the capacity to impose her will on those others) for example, by virtue of her political/governmental position and the trust that others have in her, unjustifiably uses that power to EXPLOIT or HARM those others.
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS:
• April 3, 2008: UNANIMOUS DECISION (4-0) OF FOREST AND BEACH COMMISSION TO APPROVE REMOVAL OF SUSAN PAGE’S BLACK ACACIA TREE
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
FOREST AND BEACH COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Thursday, April 3, 2008
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.
1. 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 a 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
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
• September, 9, 2008: MAJORITY DECISION (3-1) OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO DENY SUE MCCLOUD’S APPEAL AND UPHOLD THE FOREST AND BEACH COMMISSION’S DECISION APPROVING THE REMOVAL OF SUSAN PAGE’S BLACK ACACIA TREE
MINUTES
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
September 9, 2008
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
B. Consideration of an appeal of a decision by the Forest and Beach Commission approving the removal of a 30-inch diameter black acacia at a property at 2922 Santa Lucia Avenue. The appellant is Sue McCloud, property owner of the home next door, on the east side.
Mayor McCloud recused herself from the proceedings citing a conflict of interest, being the appellant. Mayor Pro Tem Hazdovac chaired the proceedings.
City Attorney Don Freeman made some introductory remarks, highlighting the appeal process in this particular case, emphasizing that all possible steps were taken to ensure a fair and impartial hearing for all parties concerned.
City Forester Mike Branson presented the staff report and answered Council questions.
Clayton Berling read a statement on behalf of the appellant. Included in this statement were six conditions that he said would be acceptable to the appellant, should Council vote to deny the appeal. These included: complete stump grinding of the removed tree; proper irrigation for the new trees; full repair of any damage to the fence; substitution of bamboo or planting of two (not one) 24-inch box olive trees to replace the acacia; 24-hour notification before tree removal; and the work to remove the acacia tree done is a timely manner.
Mayor Pro Tem Hazdovac opened the hearing to public comment at 6:25 p.m.
Stephen Beals, attorney for Susan Page, addressed Council.
Mayor Pro Tem Hazdovac closed the hearing to public comment at 6:27 p.m.
Stephen Beals agreed to accept the six conditions proposed by the appellant.
City Forester Mike Branson answered Council questions.
Clayton Berling requested pruning of the acacia tree be considered.
Council Member ROSE moved to overturn a decision by the Forest and Beach Commission approving the removal of a 30-inch diameter black acacia at a property at 2922 Santa Lucia Avenue on the condition that it be pruned. The appellant is Sue McCloud, property owner of the home next door, on the east side. The motion failed for lack of a second.
A motion was made by Council Member TALMAGE to deny the appeal, but to institute the six conditions requested by the appellant (noted above) and have the parties work with City Forester to find two mutually acceptable 24-inch replacement trees (or proceed with planting two 24-inch fruitless olive trees if no agreement can be reached), seconded by Council Member SHARP and carried by the following roll call:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: HAZDOVAC, SHARP & TALMAGE
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ROSE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCLOUD
NOTE: Supplemental information from Sue McCloud was apparently distributed to City Council Members on the day of the City Council Meeting, including, as follows:
If the Council denies this appeal, please consider incorporating the following 6 points in your motion to deny:
1. The stump must be ground out so that the new tree or trees can go in the same area. Mike had said that acacia roots extend 30 feet. Without removal of the stump/roots, there is no viable space for a new 24” box tree/trees in that same area.
2. Irrigation must be provided to ensure the new tree/trees survive, as there are no permanent residents in the Page home to nurture them.
3. Fence: any damage to the McCloud fence must be repaired so it is secure for dogs and children on both properties.
4. If the tree is to come down, Sue would ask Council to seriously consider substituting bamboo (which Page has on the west side of her property) that can be contained as it will be fast growing and if not, require two 24” box olive trees be planted. This was proposed by the Forest and Beach Commission, but was not in the final motion. The reason for two is that the olive trees are very vertical and one is not likely to ever come close to filling the space occupied by the acacia. Mike has said that the two examples of olives he cited on the NW corner of 8th and San Carols have taken about 5 years to be the size they are today.
The replacement tree should go on a vertical line with the only clear glass window on the west side of the McCloud home. The second tree if approved should go between the acacia and the most southern of the 2 McCloud oaks on the west side.
5. Tree removal: page should give McCloud 24 hours notice when it is to take place so the McCloud dog is not outside in the yard.
6. Pls require that all of the above steps if adopted take place in a tight time frame.
• September 17, 2008: TREE REMOVAL/PRUNING PERMIT ISSUED
Selected excerpts, as follows:
Date: 9/17/08
Exact location of property: 2922 Santa Lucia Avenue
Name of Property Owner: Susan Page
Remove one 30” dbh acacia tree
Conditions/Requirements: 1-10
REPLANT: lower canopy trees/species: olive size: 24” box size
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS: see attached letter
Approved by: City Council Meeting 9 September 2008
Attached Letter, as follows:
17 September 2008
Ms. Susan Page
Post Office Box 6521
Carmel, CA. 93921
SUBJECT:
TREE REMOVAL
SANTA LUCIA 3 SE OF DOLORES
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CA.
Dear Ms. Page:
In a majority vote, the City Council denied the appeal from Ms. McCloud and upheld the Forest and Beach Commission decision to remove the tree with the following conditions:
1. Following tree removal the stump must be ground down/out so new trees may be planted in the same area.
2. Irrigation must be provided to ensure the survival of the new tree/trees.
3. Any damage to the McCloud fence must be repaired so it is secure for dogs and children on both properties.
4. Two 24” boxed size olive trees or mutually acceptable 24” replacement trees must be planted as replacements. The replacement tree should go on a vertical line with the only clear window on the west side of the McCloud home. The second tree should be planted between the acacia and the most southern of the two McCloud oaks on the west side. The trees must be planted within 30 days of the removal of the acacia.
5. A 24-hours notice is to be given to McCloud prior to tree removal.
6. The about steps are to be taken in a “tight time frame.”
Please come to the Planning and Building office and pick up a copy of the permit. The permit must be on site when the work is being performed.
If you have any question or require additional information, please phone my office at (831) 620-2010.
Sincerely,
Margi Perotti
Secretary to the Forest and Beach Commission
• September 18, 2008: PERMIT VOIDED AFER ISSUANCE
Selected excerpt from Letter to Susan Page from City Clerk Heidi Burch, dated September 18, 2008, as follows:
RE: Tree Removal Permit
Your tree permit has been revised to more accurately reflect Council action taken on September 9, 2008. Your prior permit has been voided.
In correspondence from Susan Page’s attorney, Stephen J. Beals, to City Attorney Donald G. Freeman, Attorney Stephen J. Beals wrote that he was “advised by Rich Guillen that the reason for voiding the permit related to a minor change in the conditions of the approval that resulted after further review of the hearing minutes.”
The “new conditions of approval” deal with Condition 6; Condition 6 was modified from “tight time frame” to requiring completion by “no later than thirty days from the issuance date of the permit.”
(2nd) TREE REMOVAL/PRUNING PERMIT
Selected excerpts, as follows:
Undated
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS: see attached letter, as follows:
CONDITIONS OF TREE PERMIT APPROVAL:
(Per City Council action at their September 9, 2008 meeting, both parties shall work with the City Forester to find two mutually acceptable 24’inch replacement trees. If an agreement on the tree species can’t be reached then two fruitless olive trees shall be the replacement trees.)
1. The stump shall be ground out and appropriate roots removed, so that the new trees can go in the same area.
2. An irrigation system shall be provided to ensure the new trees survive.
3. Any damage to the McCloud fence shall be repaired, so it is secure for dogs and children on both properties.
4. The replacement trees shall go on a vertical line with the only clear glass window on the west side of the McCloud home. A second tree shall be planted between the acacia and the most southern of the two (2) McCloud oaks on the west side.
5. Page shall give McCloud 24 hours notice when tree removal is to take place, so the McCloud dog is not outside in the year.
6. The above steps shall take place in a continuous manner and shall be completed no late than 30 days from the issuance date of this permit.
COMMENTS:
During this protracted process, appellant Sue McCloud abused her power and authority as mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea by:
• Submitting supplemental information with highlighted sections favorable to her, the appellant, to the City and City Council Members after the original Agenda Packet was issued.
• Instigating and/or allowing the City to void Susan Page’s TREE REMOVAL PERMIT without cause.
• After the voiding of Susan Page’s TREE REMOVAL PERMIT, instigating and/or allowing the attachment, including revisions to Condition 6, revisions which were not approved by the City Council at their September 9, 2008 Meeting.
• Compromising City Administrator Rich Guillen by having him inform Susan Page’s attorney, Stephen J. Beals, that the “reason for voiding the permit related to a minor change in the conditions of the approval that resulted after further review of the hearing minutes.” In fact, the Minutes, as presented in the Agenda Packet, do not support Rich Guillen’s assertion of a minor change in the conditions of the approval after a review of the Minutes, rather the Minutes support no changes at all. Moreover, the Minutes must accurately reflect actual events and not be arbitrarily altered to reflect the desires of anyone after the fact.
• In closing, City Attorney Don Freeman must therefore act as the citizen’s attorney and immediately order the City to reissue a TREE REMOVAL PERMIT to Susan Page, as originally issued on September 17, 2008, as a final resolution to this needlessly protracted and troublesome matter.
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Status: Carmel-by-the-Sea’s Exception Application to the California Ocean Plan ASBS Waste Discharge Prohibition
ABSTRACT: On the October 7, 2008 City Council Agenda is a Resolution “authorizing payment of $7,000 to Peter Raimondi of University of California-Santa Cruz to analyze and interpret biological data, as required by the State Water Resources Control Board.” A HISTORY OF CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA AND STATE WATER BOARD, with links to each letter, & EVENTS CHRONOLOGY, are presented. Peter Raimondi’s project is expected to be finalized by December 2008. Upon funding this UCSC project and completion by Raimondi, the State Water Resources Control Board will consider the City’s application for an exemption to the Area of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) waste discharge prohibition complete. Once the exception application is deemed complete, the “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.” Then 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.”
(Source: Ocean Plan ASBS Exceptions. What are they? Why do you want one? How do you get one?) REFERENCES, with links, are presented as background information.
Note: The State Water Board adopted exceptions to the ASBS discharge prohibition to the University of California San Diego Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO),provided that the Regional Water Board’s waste discharge requirements included 19 conditions, and to the USC Wrigley Marine Science Center (WMSC), with similar mitigation conditions, because it was determined to be in ”the best public interest.”
AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
VII. Consent Calendar
These matters include routine financial and administrative actions, which are usually approved by a single majority vote. Individual items may be removed from Consent by a member of the Council or the public for discussion and action.
J. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing payment of $7,000 to Peter Raimondi of University of California-Santa Cruz to analyze and interpret biological data, as required by the State Water Resources Control Board.
HISTORY OF CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA AND STATE WATER BOARD & EVENTS CHRONOLOGY
ASBS 34 – Carmel Bay
Carmel by the Sea - Public Works:
Date: 10/18/04 Notification Letter from State Water Board
Date: 4/23/07 Notice of Violation Letter from State Water Board
Date: 11/15/07 Exception Application Status Letter from State Water Board
Date: 12/26/07 City initially submitted exception application to the California Ocean Plan ASBS waste discharge prohibition.
Date: 6/03/08 Conditionally Approved Application Letter from State Water Board
Date: 7/23/08 City submitted additional required materials.
Date: 9/10/08 Conditionally Complete Application Addendum Letter from State Water Board
CONDITIONALLY COMPLETE EXCEPTION APPLICATION ADDENDUM FOR DISCHARGES TO CARMEL BAY AREA OF SPECIAL BIOLOGICCAL SIGNIFICANCE (ASBS)
Letter acknowledges the City’s aim of funding for the “purpose of analysis and interpretation of biological data to be performed by Dr. Peter Rainondi of the University of California, Santa Cruz (USCS).”
Once funding and completion of project by Raimondi, the City’s application for an exception will be considered complete.
REFERENCES:
Discharges to Areas of Special Biological Significance
Update of ASBS Regulatory and Monitoring Efforts
April 1, 2008
Monterey, CA.
Status Report
Areas of Special
Biological Significance
August 2006
Ocean Plan ASBS Exceptions. What are they? Why do you want 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.
(1) The exception will not compromise protection of ocean waters for beneficial uses; and
(2) The public interest will be served.”
(Source: Ocean Plan ASBS Exceptions. What are they? Why do you want one? How do you get one?) REFERENCES, with links, are presented as background information.
Note: The State Water Board adopted exceptions to the ASBS discharge prohibition to the University of California San Diego Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO),provided that the Regional Water Board’s waste discharge requirements included 19 conditions, and to the USC Wrigley Marine Science Center (WMSC), with similar mitigation conditions, because it was determined to be in ”the best public interest.”
AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
VII. Consent Calendar
These matters include routine financial and administrative actions, which are usually approved by a single majority vote. Individual items may be removed from Consent by a member of the Council or the public for discussion and action.
J. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing payment of $7,000 to Peter Raimondi of University of California-Santa Cruz to analyze and interpret biological data, as required by the State Water Resources Control Board.
HISTORY OF CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA AND STATE WATER BOARD & EVENTS CHRONOLOGY
ASBS 34 – Carmel Bay
Carmel by the Sea - Public Works:
Date: 10/18/04 Notification Letter from State Water Board
Date: 4/23/07 Notice of Violation Letter from State Water Board
Date: 11/15/07 Exception Application Status Letter from State Water Board
Date: 12/26/07 City initially submitted exception application to the California Ocean Plan ASBS waste discharge prohibition.
Date: 6/03/08 Conditionally Approved Application Letter from State Water Board
Date: 7/23/08 City submitted additional required materials.
Date: 9/10/08 Conditionally Complete Application Addendum Letter from State Water Board
CONDITIONALLY COMPLETE EXCEPTION APPLICATION ADDENDUM FOR DISCHARGES TO CARMEL BAY AREA OF SPECIAL BIOLOGICCAL SIGNIFICANCE (ASBS)
Letter acknowledges the City’s aim of funding for the “purpose of analysis and interpretation of biological data to be performed by Dr. Peter Rainondi of the University of California, Santa Cruz (USCS).”
Once funding and completion of project by Raimondi, the City’s application for an exception will be considered complete.
REFERENCES:
Discharges to Areas of Special Biological Significance
Update of ASBS Regulatory and Monitoring Efforts
April 1, 2008
Monterey, CA.
Status Report
Areas of Special
Biological Significance
August 2006
Ocean Plan ASBS Exceptions. What are they? Why do you want 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)