FOREST & BEACH COMMISSION: Agenda Item regarding 'Issues of Allowing Fires on Carmel Beach'

“MINUTES”
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
FOREST AND BEACH COMMISSION
2 July 2009
Thursday
1:30 p.m.

I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL:
The regular meeting of the Forest and Beach Commission of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California was held on the above date at the hour of 1:30 p.m. Chairperson John called the meeting to order.

PRESENT:
Joe Ford (Chairperson)
Kathleen Coss
Nancy John
Les Kadis
Vicki Lynch

ABSENT: None

STAFF PRESENT:
Mike Branson, City Forester
Margi Perotti, Administrative Coordinator

VI. ORDERS OF BUSINESS
1. Discussion of fires on Carmel Beach and provide a recommendation to the Planning commission regarding the management of beach fires.

Mike Branson City Forester presented the staff report.

Chairperson FORD opened the public hearing.

Approximately twenty-five speakers appeared before the Commission; the vast majority of public speakers spoke in favor of continuing the long established tradition of fires on Carmel Beach.

Chairperson FORD closed the public hearing.

Commissioners Nancy John, Vicki Lynch, Les Kadis, Kathleen Coss and lastly Chairperson Joe Ford concurred that the banning of fires on Carmel Beach was “not an option.” There was a consensus that the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is not adequately maintaining Carmel Beach; public education must be a priority; and solutions to charcoal remnants and the removal of other debris can be found.

Commissioner KADIS moved to recommend to the Planning Commission that fires on Carmel Beach continue, a campaign of education and awareness about Beach Rules be instituted and the budget allocation for Carmel beach cleanup be increased to at least double the current expenditure, carried by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COSS, JOHN, KADIS, LYNCH, FORD
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: NONE
ABSENT: NONE

ADDENDUM:
View Internet Petition against banning open fires on Carmel Beach; approximately 1200 People, with Name, Address, City, State and Email.

ABSTRACT: An Agenda Item on the Forest and Beach Commission’s Agenda for Thursday, 2 July 2009, is a “Discussion on the issues of allowing fires on Carmel Beach and provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission regarding the management of beach fires.” Applicable selected sections of the FOREST AND BEACH COMMISSION AGENDA and Staff Report, including a MEMORANDUM, BEACH RULES and Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code, Article IV. Beach and Riparian Overlay District, 17.20.200 Regulations Incorporated from Other Titles, are reproduced. The Staff Report identifies several possible options for discussion, including 1. Status quo. Continue with the current regulations and part-time cleanup efforts; 2. Ban fires from the entire beach; 3. Allow fires only in designated fire rings; 4. Restrict the number of fires allowed through a permit process; 5. Further reduce the areas where fires are allowed; and 6. Other possibilities?


CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
FOREST AND BEACH COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Thursday, 2 July 2009
Tour of Inspection – 1:30 p.m.
Regular Meeting – 2:00 p.m.

City Hall, Council Chambers
East side Monte Verde St. between Ocean & 7th Avenues
Carmel, California

I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL

COMMISSION MEMBERS:
KATHLEEN COSS
JOE FORD, CHAIRPERSON
NANCY JOHN
LESLIE KADIS
VICTORIA LYNCH

II. TOUR OF INSPECTION

Shortly after 1:30 p.m. the Commission will leave Council Chambers for an on-site Tour of Inspection of all properties listed on this agenda (including those on the Consent Calendar or Orders of Business). Prior to the beginning of the Tour of Inspection, the Forest and Beach Commission may eliminate one or more on-site visits. The public is welcome to follow the Commission on its tour of the determined sites. The Commission will return to Council Chambers as soon thereafter as possible to deliberate on the below listed items.

VI. ORDERS OF BUSINESS

1. Discussion of fires on Carmel Beach and provide a recommendation to the Planning commission regarding the management of beach fires.


MEMORANDUM

TO: Joe Ford, Chairperson
Members of the Forest and Beach Commission

FROM: Mike Branson, City Forester

DATE: 25 June 2009

SUBJECT: Discussion on the issues of allowing fires on Carmel Beach and provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission regarding the management of beach fires.


Staff has been directed to present the issues of fires on Carmel beach to the Forest and Beach Commission for discussion and for the commission to present a recommendation to the Planning Commission regarding beach fires.

Fires have always been allowed on Carmel Beach. Over the years various regulations and restrictions on the size and location of fires have been implemented by the city to minimize some of the negative effects unregulated fires have on the quality of the beach experience for all beach users. Some of the major issues raised by fires are: staining of the white sand from the charcoal, burning trash and garbage, burning wood with nails or other non-natural items, excessively large fires, late night fires, drifting smoke, burns from fires covered with sand, and injuries from remnants of trash and debris placed in fires.

The current beach fires rules and Municipal Code (attached) have evolved in an effort to minimize the detrimental effects of fires on the quality of the beach environment and a visitor’s beach experience.

Designating fires only south of Tenth Ave. was implemented to prevent discoloration of the sand slopes north of Tenth Ave. to the Del Mar area. The beach south of Tenth Ave. experiences a more regular natural sand erosion and deposition cycle which arguably “cleanses” the sand. Unfortunately this sand cycle does not impact all areas of the beach where fires are allowed every year, leaving some sections untouched for several seasons.

Recently, a few people have proposed banning fires due to discoloration of the sand not only in the permitted areas but along the entire beachfront as the charcoal is redistributed by wave and tide action. Additionally, the potential harm to sea life from charcoal being washed into the ocean has been mentioned as a reason for banning fires.

For the past years, from the first part of summer to mid-fall, the city has used temporary workers on a weekly basis along with staff to cleanup the charcoal and partially burned wood from the beach. This effort has appeared to make an improvement in the appearance of the beach sand and significantly reduced the amount of charcoal on the beach. There is still some visual evidence of the fires since the very fine material cannot be effectively separated from the beach sand. The Carmel Residents Association also sponsors a monthly beach cleanup that helps with the charcoal removal from the beach.

The city tried using fire rings in the past but not at the exclusive fire locations. These rings became loaded with large amounts of burned and partially burned trash and seemed to be perpetually smoldering. The area around the rings also becomes heavily stained from charcoal blowing out of the ring or spilling over the rim.

The appreciation for the ambiance and special nature of Carmel Beach is shared by all beach users, residents and visitors alike. However, some people think that a small open fire accentuates the beach experience while others believe fires to ultimately be a detriment to the character and charm of Carmel Beach.

Several possible options are open for discussion on this issue:

1. Status quo. Continue with the current regulations and part-time cleanup efforts.
2. Ban fires from the entire beach.
3. Allow fires only in designated fire rings.
4. Restrict the number of fires allowed through a permit process.
5. Further reduce the areas where fires are allowed.
6. Other possibilities?

Implementation of any one or combination of these strategies will require significant amount of public education and enforcement.

Carmel is not alone in dealing with the issue of beach fires. A quick internet search found the discussion of beach fire management a controversial issue in California, Florida, Washington, the Great Lakes, along the Atlantic coast, Canada, Great Britain, and Australia.

BEACH RULES

If you plan on having more than fifty people, catered food, support of any commercial enterprise, require any type of city staff support (personnel or equipment), use of a generator or request an exemption from current City Codes, rules, regulations, restrictions, and policies governing activities on City property, then you may be required to obtain a Special Event Permit, if you require a permit you will need to provide the city with a Certificate of Liability/Endorsement Page. Please call for complete insurance requirements. Please contact us well ahead of your event when requiring a permit, minimum of 90 days.

For large gatherings we recommend that you notify residents in the immediate neighborhood of an upcoming event so that they will be less alarmed about any noise or increased traffic generated.

We hope you enjoy a lovely event and thank you for your cooperation with the following regulations. It would be our wish that you take away beautiful memories and leave only your footprints.

If you have any questions or require a Special Event Permit, please contact Cindi Lopez, Community Services at (831)620-2020, PO Box CC, Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA 93921 or email at srana@ci.carmel.ca.us.

I. NOISE REGULATIONS: Live music and sound production equipment are not allowed.

II. CATERED FOOD: You may be required to obtain a Special Event Permit if you plan on having your event catered. The caterer will need to have a valid business license with the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. The license can be purchased at City Hall in the Community Planning and Building Department.

III. FIRES: The following restrictions apply to fires on the beach:

1. All fires must be extinguished by 10:00PM.
2. Fires are permitted only south of 10th Avenue.
3. No fires larger than 3’ x 3’ x 3’.
4. All fires must be at least 25 feet from the slopes.
5. Do not burn trash or any wood containing nails or sharp objects.
6. Extinguish fires with water not sand. Leave the coals open and visible to pedestrians.

IV. TEMPORARY STRUCTURES and ENCLOSURES: Tents, canopies or similar structures and enclosures are not allowed. You must provide your own garbage cans/bags and recycle bins in order to leave the area litter-free. It is your responsibility to leave the area you use clean. NO HAY BALES!

V. ALCOHOL/SMOKING: Alcohol is allowed only on the beach. No alcohol is allowed on the roadway, the pathway, or after 10:00 p.m. NO SMOKING IS ALLOWED ON THE SCENIC PATHWAY, ACCESS TO THE BEACH OR ON CARMEL BEACH PROPER.

VI. FOOT TRAFFIC, ACCESS TO THE BEACH:

1. Only use stairways or designated points for Beach Access. No foot traffic allowed on beach bluffs.
2. Do not throw items such as firewood, chairs, barbecues, etc. down or over the beach bluffs.

VII. PARKING: Parking is allowed without charge along Scenic Road until midnight.

Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code
Article IV. Beach and Riparian Overlay District
17.20.200 Regulations Incorporated from Other Titles.

The following regulations apply in the beach overlay district.
A. Riding on Beach. Equestrians are allowed on the beach without restriction.

B. Dogs on Public Beach and Park Land. It is unlawful for the owner or person having charge of any dog to permit the dog to run at large on any City-owned beach lands or on any City-owned park lands unless the owner or person having charge is also present and in control of the dog at such time as it is running loose.

C. Dogs on Scenic Road and the Beach Bluff Pathway. On Scenic Road from its eastern property edge to the base of the beach embankment between Eighth Avenue and the south City limits, all dogs and other animals shall be deemed running at large within the meaning of this chapter unless led or restrained by a chain, strap, or cord attached to their collars or harness that is actually held by a person or made fast to a stationary object.

D. Location and Time Limits on Beach Fires. No person, firm, corporation or other entity shall build, light, maintain, cause or permit to be built, lighted or maintained any open or outdoor fire on any public beach designated by the City after the hour of 10:00 p.m. No fires shall be permitted at any time on the slopes leading thereto within the City. This prohibition is applicable to all that beach and slope area lying west of Scenic Road and south of Ocean Avenue to the southern City boundary. No fires shall be permitted at any time on all that beach and slope area lying west of San Antonio from Ocean Avenue to the northern City boundary. The prohibition against all fires on all the beach that lies at or below the high tide line shall extend from 10:00 p.m. on the day it commences until 7:00 a.m. the following day.

E. Recreational Fires on Carmel Beach. All fires on Carmel Beach shall meet the following requirements:
1. Beach fires shall be used for cooking or warmth and shall be located on that part of the City beach property which lies south of an extension of the center line of Tenth Avenue and west of a line reached by the high tide; provided, that all of the following conditions are met:
a. The base of the fire shall be defined as the level at which the lowest burnable material or ash is located, and it shall be on the beach sand unless the fire is in a hibachi, charcoal grill or other like receptacle, in which case the base shall be a horizontal plane touched by the lowest burning material.
b. The burnable material used in the fire shall not extend more than two feet above the base of the fire.
c. Flames from the fire shall not extend into the air more than five feet from the base of the burnable material in the fire.
d. The longest horizontal straight-line distance through the base of the fire shall not exceed four feet.
e. Flammable liquids other than charcoal starter shall not be used in any manner in connection with starting or maintaining the fire.
f. No fire shall be built, lit, or maintained on any slope or within 25 feet of any wall, vegetation or combustible material not intended to be used in the fire.
g. All flammable coals, embers or burning material shall be extinguished with sea water by the person or persons building, lighting or maintaining the fire prior to said person or persons leaving the beach.
h. The extinguished remains of all fires shall be left exposed and not covered with sand.
i. Building, lighting, maintaining or causing or permitting to build light or maintain a fire in violation of any of the above conditions shall be an infraction.
j. Penalties. Any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this chapter that necessitates the response of the Fire Department shall be guilty of an infraction punishable by a fine of not more than $50.00 per hour or portion thereof, not to exceed $500.00.

NOTES:
“The $4,000 for charcoal cleanup on Carmel Beach is in the Public Works budget and is performed by hourly laborers on a weekly basis from early summer to mid-fall. So far in FY 2008-09 (July-October) $3,780.28 has been spent to pickup 12,060 pounds of charcoal. Other beach cleanup efforts are the weekly in-house trash pickup and the monthly CRA cleanup.”
(Source: CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, TRIENNIAL BUDGET, FISCAL YEARS 2009/10 - 2011/12, BUDGET QUESTIONS & ANSWERS)

EXPENDITURE SUMMARY
2009/10 Budget Summary
Public Works
Salary/Benefits: $ 685,452
Materials/Services: $ 484,690
Total: $ 1,170,142
(Source: CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, TRIENNIAL BUDGET, FISCAL YEARS 2009/10 - 2011/12)

PUBLIC NOTICE: Election on the Proposed Discontinuance & Abandonment of the Flanders Mansion Property in Mission Trail Nature Preserve

ABSTRACT: The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s PUBLIC NOTICE regarding the NOTICE OF PROPOSED ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION on 3 November 2009 for the purpose of deciding by a vote of Carmel-by-the-Sea voters whether or not the Flanders Mansion Property within Mission Trail Nature Preserve should be discontinued and abandoned as parkland is reproduced. On Tuesday, 7 July 2009, the City Council will conduct a public hearing at 4:30 P.M. at City Hall and will consider final adoption (second reading) of the ordinance. The City Council will receive oral and written comments from the public at the hearing; written comments can be delivered or sent to City Hall. Note: The Flanders Foundation’s lawsuit against the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (The Flanders Foundation vs. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea et al. (M99437)) will proceed; no Hearing or Case Management Conference dates have yet been set for this case.

PUBLIC NOTICE

NOTICE OF PROPOSED ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION

On 16 June 2009, the City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea had the first reading of an ordinance containing the following provisions:

Section One. Call Special Election. A special election is hereby called to put to a vote of the City’s electors the question of whether the use of that specific public park land known as the Flanders Mansion Property should be discontinued and abandoned. The specific property subject to this action is an approximately 1.252 acre parcel located at 25800 Hatton Road in Carmel, Monterey County, California and situated within the Mission Trail Nature Preserve (APN
010-061-005).

Section Two. Date of Election. The election is hereby called, and will take place on 3 November 2009.

Section Three. Severability. If any part of this ordinance, even as small as a word of phrase, is found to be unenforceable such fining shall not affect the enforceability of any other part.

Section Four. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after final adoption.

On 7 July 2009, the City Council will conduct a public hearing and will consider final adoption (second reading) of the ordinance described in this Notice. The hearing will be held at 4:30 p.m., in City Hall, East Side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues, in Carmel-by-the-Sea, California. The City Council will receive oral and written comments from the public at the hearing. Anyone interested in this matter also may submit written comments to:

Delivered to:
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
East Side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA

Mailed to:
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
P.O. Box CC
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA 93921

Date of Notice: June 26, 2009
Publication date: June 26, 2009 (PC639)

Annual Community Meeting of the Sunset Cultural Center, Inc. (SCC)

ABSTRACT: Interesting statistics and facts from the Sunset Cultural Center, Inc. (SCC) Annual Community Meeting, Summary of Operations (July 2008 – June 2009) Table and Facility Utilization Report are presented. About 35 people attended the Meeting this morning in the Sunset Center Lobby, including Executive Director Peter Lesnik, SCC Chairman Jim Price, three Board of Trustee Members, Staff Members, the mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea and other interested individuals.

• SCC has accrued a reserve or “surplus” of $274,000 since its inception in 2004. Over the same time period, the City subsidy to SCC has been approximately $3.8 million.

• For FY 2008/09, the 4th Quarter ended with $81,658 (Worse) than YTD Budget; the 1st Quarter was the first quarter to post a (Worse) than Budget result, namely $22,526 (Worse), followed by the 2nd Quarter YTD $33,000 (Worse), 3rd Quarter YTD $71,000 (Worse) and 4th Quarter YTD $81,658 (Worse).

• Of the three income sources, namely Rental income, Performance revenue (tickets) and Fees and other income, Performance revenue and Fees and other income were (Worse) than YTD Budget by ($91,494) and ($131,371), respectively. Note: Performance revenue was less than anticipated largely due to the cancellation of two shows, according to Executive Director Peter Lesnik.

• Total Actual YTD Operating Income: $910,881
Total Actual YTD Expenses $1,705,539
City’s Enabling Grant $713,000
$81,658 Deficit FY 2008/09.

• The average audience size for the Sunset Theater was approximately 500 people/performance.

• A total of 76,000 people attended the Sunset Theater and 42,115 people used non-theater venues, namely Babcock, Bingham, Carpenter Hall, Chapman, MEG, Green Room, Lobby, Plaza, Rehearsal Room, Studio 105 (old gym) and Terrace, a grand total of 118,115 people attended the Sunset Center.

• All Sunset Center venues had YTD Totals of 1076 (FY 2007/08) and 1486 (FY 2008/09); the Theater had YTD Totals of 150 (FY 2007/08) and 152 (FY 2008/09).

• Studio 105 has been repainted, et cetera. It was identified as an underutilized venue. Potential uses for Studio 105 are conferences and/or a Bistro, according to Chairman Jim Price.

• Of the 132 Total Awards and $23,393,000 Total Awards Amount awarded in 2008 for the Arts by The James Irvine Foundation, Sunset Cultural Center, Inc. was awarded $300,000 over three years for the purpose of improving “organizational financial stability, management, governance and growth capacity.”

Sunset Cultural Center, Inc.
www.sunsetcenter.org
Carmel-by-the-Sea

Program Area: Arts
Awarded: October 2008
Region Served: Central Coast Region
Grant Amount: $300,000
Grant Term: 36 months

To improve organizational financial stability, management, governance and growth capacity, as part of the Arts Regional Initiative.

Sunset Cultural Center, Inc. (SCC) ANNUAL COMMUNITY MEETING

WHO: The Board of Trustees of Sunset Cultural Center, Inc. (SCC), Chaired by Chairman Jim Price

WHAT: 2009 Annual Community Meeting
Presentation of Financial and Facility Use Information
Solicit Feedback from the Public about Programs and Operations
Questions & Answer Session

WHEN: Saturday, June 27, 2009 @ 10:00 A.M.

WHERE:
Sunset Center Lobby
E/s San Carlos St. @ 9th Av.
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA

NOTE: Refreshments served courtesy of Cypress Inn, Carmel

FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Barbara Davison - Office Manager
831-620-2052

Peter Lesnik - Executive Director
831-620-2040
execdir@sunsetcenter.org

SUNSET CULTURAL CENTER, INC
Highlights of Summary of Operations
YTD – 06/30/2009 (July 2008 – June 2009)

Income:
Total operating income:
Actual YTD: $910,881
Budget YTD:$1,123,353
Better (Worse) than Budget: ($212,472)

Expenses:
Total expenses:
Actual YTD: $1,705,539
Budget YTD: $1,836,353
Better (Worse) than Budget: $130,814

Increase (decrease) from operations:
Actual YTD: ($794,658)
Budget YTD: ($713,000)
Better (Worse) than Budget: ($81,658)

Support from City of Carmel-by-the-Sea:
Enabling grant $713,000

Increase (decrease) in net assets:
Actual YTD: ($81,658)
Budget YTD: $0
Better (Worse) than Budget:($81,658)

Enabling Grant as a % of non-performance expenses:
Actual YTD: 54%
Budget YTD: 51%
Better (Worse) than Budget: -5%

Theater Utilization:
Performance days:
Historic Presenting Partners, Sunset Center Presents, Other events
Totals:
Actual YTD: 98
Budget YTD: 100
Better (Worse) than Budget: (2)

Community events:
Totals:
Actual YTD: 23
Budget YTD: 23
Better (Worse) than Budget: 0

Total Days of Theater Use:
Actual YTD: 146
Budget YTD: 143
Better (Worse) than Budget: 3

For comparison: Total Theater Events:
Actual YTD: 152
Budget YTD: 151
Better (Worse) than Budget: 1

'Protect Our Community from the Widewaters Group' Flyer

ABSTRACT: “Save Carmel From Unsavory Developers” flyers were recently distributed in Carmel. The content of the flyers is reproduced. An ADDENDUM of links to articles corroborating information on the flyer is provided.

Protect Our Community from the Widewaters Group

Save our community from a Developer with a History of:

 Disreputable business practices
 Blatant disregard for the environment
 State, County and City fines and lawsuits
 Lies and misrepresentations on their project plans
 Lack of appreciation for the uniqueness of Carmel

Show Your Support
 Attend the Widewaters Open House at the Carmel Women’s Club on June 17th from 12-3pm or 6-9pm
 Voice your concerns

Save Carmel From Unsavory Developers

A Few Widewater Group Facts

Blatant Disregard for the Environment
• Attempted to build supercenter store next to a beautiful marsh, home to 17 endangered bird species in Bangor, Maine

State, County and City fines and lawsuits
• Ordered to pay $100K, largest fine in NY state history for storm water violations

Disreputable Business Practices
• History of beginning work on projects without obtaining permits or involving the community e.g. Buttermilk Falls, NY project

Lies and misrepresentations on their project plans
• Consistently misrepresented the impact of their project on their communities e.g. Oswego, NY project where they moved a historical cemetery

Lack of Appreciation for Carmel
• No involvement or office in the community
• Consistent lack of engagement with Neighborhood Associations

Save Carmel From Unsavory Developers

ADDENDUM:
Widewaters Group, Bangor, ME:
Wal-Mart Update
From BACORD
BEP VOTES TO REJECT WIDEWATERS
LAST-MINUTE ATTEMPT TO WITHDRAW THEIR APPLICATION.
IN FINAL DENIAL VOTE, THE BEP REAFFIRMS ITS MARCH 20 DECISION TO DENY THE WIDEWATERS APPLICATION FOR A WAL-MART SUPERSTORE.

The Bangor Journal

Widewaters Group, Storm Water Violations Settlement, NY:
Environment News Service, Syracuse Developer to Pay NY's Biggest Stormwater Fine

DEC orders halt to retail plaza work
Lack of measures to control erosion also nets $100,000 fine
By ALAN WECHSLER, Business writer
First published in print: Tuesday, May 6, 2008

Widewaters Group, Ithaca, NY:
Widewaters Group Targets Ithaca with Big-Box Retailer
CNY Business Journal (1996+), Oct 06, 2000 by Allen, Paul

"THE CURSE OF ENLIGHTENMENT"
Widewaters-Buttermilk Falls State Park Scandal enters 3rd Year
by John Milich

Widewaters Group, Oswego, NY:
Oswego County Public Information Office
Lowe's Hosts Dedication of Significant Underground Railroad Site, Oct. 6, 2006

PART II: Widewaters Group Open House

ABSTRACT: In the Carmel Women’s Club on Wednesday, June 17, 2009, Widewaters Group had available brochures on the Villas de Carmelo project; the brochure is reproduced with sections on DENSITY, TREES, PARKING, SCENIC VIEW, TRAFFIC and BENEFITS TO THE COMMUNITY accompanied with associated photos of depictions. Various presentations of the project were displayed in the room on poster board on easels. Both Ed Shagen and Kevin Kane were present to answer questions from the public. Robert and Curtis Leidig were also present (PART II: Widewaters Group Open House).
NOTE: Regarding the option to purchase the property from Thomas Rider McDowell and Victoria Knight-McDowell, the option was originally with Robert Leidig exclusively. Later, and now, the Widewaters Group is the majority partner with 59% and Robert Leidig is a minority partner with 41%. The Widewaters Group admitted the company does not have a comparable project among its past projects. According to Kevin Kane, this project “evolved;” that is, their involvement began when Curtis Leidig was an employee of Widewaters Group. Curtis Leidig is no longer an employee with Widewaters Group.


Villas de Carmelo

Community Open House
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
12:00-3:00 & 6:00-9:00

DENSITY
Plans call for 46 units in a new residential village community on the 3.68 acres property. Twelve units will be built into the existing structures, leaving 34 units to be constructed in 10 new buildings. The surrounding neighborhood has a lot coverage density of 32.7% and the proposed Villas de Carmelo would have a lot coverage density of 32.5%, as can be seen below. The proposed density mirrors the surrounding neighborhood.

Density Depiction

TREES
Villa de Carmelo design plans minimize and mitigate any removal of trees and meet all criteria required for tree removal under Monterey County Zoning Ordinance Title 20. all large pines will be replaced at a ratio of 1:1 and all smaller pines at 3:1. None of the trees to be removed are native; they were planted at the time of the hospital construction. Due to the age and health of the existing pines, this replanting plan will improve the health of the woodland environment. Invasive plant species which are threatening other vegetation and trees will be removed. All landmark oak trees will be retained.

PARKING
Each unit will have a two car garage. Additional parking will be underground in front of the Dailey building (original hospital). Parking on site will be minimally visible. In total, there will be 108 parking spaces on site.

SCENIC VIEW
The tallest unit to be constructed will stand no taller than the preexisting hospital building. Buildings on Valley Way will be no taller than 24’, and all buildings will use landscaping buffers to adequately protect the view shed.

Scenic View Depiction

TRAFFIC
Villas de Carmelo will generate 269 trips per day assuming full capacity, which is not expected given the target market of 2nd and 3rd home buyers.

This is in comparison to 306 daily trips generated by the convalescent hospital and preschool and the 413 daily trips generated by the original hospital.

The drawing to the left depicts the change which will be made to the currently difficult turn off of Highway 1 onto Valley Way.

Maintaining the ingress/egress off Highway 1 directly into the development has been determined to be infeasible. Physical site constraints on Highway 1 do not allow for this to be completed in compliance with CalTrans and Monterey County Traffic Safety Standards.

Traffic Depiction

BENEFITS TO THE COMMUNITY

• Restoration & Redevelopment of the exterior of the Historic Carmel Hospital to its original condition.

• Increase property values surrounding the site. Designed by the prestigious Warner Group, the development will be a high quality addition to the neighborhood.

• Create jobs through our use of local companies to renovate the Hospital and construct the new buildings, the site work, landscaping and the traffic improvements near the property.

• Villas de Carmelo’s community room will be made available in the Dailey Building, the main hospital building for use by the local community for meetings or events.

• Road improvements to the Highway 1/Valley Way intersection will aid traffic circulation in the surrounding area.

• The use of only pervious pavement materials and ground cover will help recharge the aquifer while cisterns will be used to save rainwater for irrigation.

• Sustainable planting of indigenous species will take place and destructive invasive species will be removed.

• Green Building & Smart Growth Principles will be used throughout to minimize the footprint on the environment.

Thank you for taking the time to learn more about Villas de Carmelo. We appreciate your interest in our project and your demand for nothing but the best for our community.

www.VillasdeCarmelo.com

PART I: Widewaters Group Open House

ABSTRACT: At the Widewaters Group Open House on Wednesday, June 17, 2009, the SAVE OUR CARMEL NEIGHBORHOODS COALITION (SOCNC) distributed a flyer to individuals as they entered the Carmel Women’s Club. The flyer presents excerpts of comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Villas de Carmelo proposed project by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Community Planning and Building Department, The League of Women Voters of the Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Residents Association, Land Watch Monterey County and the California Coastal Commission. The flyer is reproduced (PART I: Widewaters Group Open House). In the Carmel Women’s Club, Widewaters Group had available brochures on the Villas de Carmelo project; the brochure is reproduced (PART II: Widewaters Group Open House). Various presentations of the project were displayed in the room on poster boards on easels. Both Ed Shagen and Kevin Kane were present to answer questions from the public. Robert and Curtis Leidig were also present.

SAVE OUR CAMREL NEIGHBORHOODS COALITION
NO HIGH DENSITY ZONING

Save Our Carmel Neighborhoods Coalition
P.O. Box 221001
Carmel, CA. 93922-1001
SOCNCWatch@aol.com


SAVE OUR CARMEL NEIGHBORHOODS COALITION

Mission Statement

o To support the WISE and CURRENT Zoning and Smart Growth Policies that exists in Carmel’s Local Coastal Plan and in the Monterey County General Plan

We support the historical restoration and adaptive reuse of the Carmel Convalescent Hospital within the current single-family residential zoning (i.e., 2 units per acre or 7 homes for 3.68 acres).

We support the current zoning as the only compatible zoning for the infrastructure, resources, and community character of the surrounding neighborhoods.

The Save Our Carmel Neighborhoods Coalition
o We Support our Present Local and Coastal Plan
o We support our Present Zoning


June 18, 2009

To: Attendees at the Widewaters Group Presentation on the proposed Villas de Carmelo 46-condo Project

Re: Comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)

The Organizations listed below have expressed their serious concerns about the proposed Villas ce Carmelo condo project in their responses to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). The following are some of their concerns.

City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Community Planning and Building Department
(Emphasis Added)

“The removal of 213 existing trees, many of which are significant Monterey Pines and Coast Live oaks is also a significant impact.”

“The City concurs with the finding of the EIR...the resulting rehabilitation and renovation of the existing structures would cause a substantial adverse change to a historic structure."

“The character of the property is being drastically altered.”

“...(t)he project will degrade the (traffic) Level of Service to an unacceptable level at several locations.”

“...(t)the proposed project will only increase the road deterioration (of Valley Way).”

The League of Women Voters of the Monterey Peninsula

“Inconsistent with Housing Element; The project is inconsistent with the County Housing Element because it fails to provide housing for low and very low-income groups. The DEIR fails to address the impact of locating residents adjacent to a heavily traveled roadway (Highway 1).”

Carmel Residents Association
(Emphasis Added)

“We are opposed to the removal of 785 of the pines and 44% of the oaks...They are part of our urban forest...”

“This project is in Carmel-by-the-Sea’s "Sphere of Influence" and if this project is approved it would set a very dangerous precedent of Up-zoning for Carmel-by-the-Sea and surrounding areas.”

Land Watch Monterey County
(Emphasis Added)

“The proposed project would add about 269 total daily trips to the local streets and Highway 1, which have been identified as not meeting LOA (Level of Service) standards. The DEIR finds this increase is a potentially significant impact that can be reduce to a loss-than-significant level with implementation of numerous highway improvements that are included in the unconstrained list of projects in the Regional Transportation Plan. These projects are un-funded and have no schedule for implementation. They do not meet requirements for mitigation measures under CEQA.”

California Coastal Commission
(Emphasis Added)

“...we do not believe that the DEIR accurately analyzes the water supply,...associated with the project. In addition, the analysis of consistency with existing plans and policies is incorrect and incomplete.”

“The determination of water credits and water availability in the Cal-Am service area comes form the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD), and the DEIR states that the MPWMD has not made a final determination regarding water credits for this site. ...(e)ven if the MPWMD grants the historical water credits consistent with their Rule 25.5 the site is currently not utilizing that amount of water and the DEIR still must evaluate the actual physical increase in water supply to the site that would occur under the proposed development.”

“We also disagree that the project’s light and glare would be less then significant. The removal of 213 trees and the development of 46 new residential units...would substantially increase light and glare in the project area. ...The removal of 213 trees and other vegetation would “open up” the site for light and glare to extend outward, particularly given the level of light-generating development proposed."

“(T)he increase...to high density residential...has the potential to conflict with the Coastal Act policies that protect scenic areas and resources, [and] water supplies.”

If there is a Question and Answer period during the developer’s presentation, we encourage you to ask a question regarding your concerns that have arisen from the presentation or from the above comments.

Thank you for your support.

Save Our Carmel Neighborhood Coalition (SOCNC)
Mark Baynes, Nelson French, Myrna Hampton, Barry Kohler, Michael LePage

‘MINUTES’ FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY: Protest Hearing, Resolution & Ordinance on Election for Sale of NRHP Resource in MTNP

“MINUTES”
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING FLANDERS MANSION
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
June 16, 2009

V. Protest Hearing
A. Receive protests regarding the discontinuance and abandonment of the Flanders Mansion Property as Public Park Land.

Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment.

Roberta Miller spoke on the City’s failure to comply with CEQA regarding surplus land, the City’s failure to substantiate economic infeasibility of lease option, et cetera. She also spoke of the Flanders Foundation’s business plan for the rehabilitation and management of the Flanders Mansion.

Barbara Stiles stated that it is fiscally irresponsible to sell Flanders Mansion for a one time, short-term economic gain. She stated that the City fails to make the case that it cannot afford to rehabilitate and maintain the property. There are $10 plus million plus in reserve funds, the recent budget is $1.2 million in the black and this past quarter the City had a surplus. For 10 years the Flanders Foundation and private parties have offered to lease and refurbish the property. The City rejected all offers. Since there are viable lease options, the city cannot comply with CEQA. The report failed to prove infeasibility of a lease. The report also fails to demonstrate that the sale can better protect parkland. Since 2004/05 The City has spent almost $700,000 in trying to avoid complying with State and City laws. Now, the city has failed to make its legal case. Note: The $700,000 could have been spent on the rehabilitation of the Flanders Mansion and the park and be open today for people to use and enjoy. The Statement of Overriding Considerations fails to support the facts. All of the City’s goals and objectives can be met without the sale of Flanders Mansion; the City’s General Plan and LCP do not support the sale of parkland. In fact it speaks to preservation, protection, enhancement and purchase of parkland, not sale of parkland.

Richard Stiles stated that the Flanders Foundation repeatedly made requests to the City regarding rehabilitation and use of Flanders Mansion. Flanders Foundation has been ignored for over nine years. Almost $700,000 the city seems willing to continue to waste of public funds in difficult economic times rather than work with interested parties to work on a lease for the Flanders Mansion and retained by the public for the future and rehabilitated. The Flanders Foundation strongly believes the city must follow the law. We cannot ignore the City’s failure to comply with the law.

Barbara Livingston spoke of her vehement opposition to sale of parkland and Mission Trail Nature Preserve must remain intact and pleaded for them not to proceed with the sale of parkland.

Melanie Billig read into the record a letter from Susan Brandt-Hawley; On behalf of the Flanders Foundation, I am writing to protest the proposed sale of the Flanders Mansion because the sale of this parkland is not in the public interest. The basis for this protest is documented in the administrative record for the CEQA process conducted for the proposed sale…which is currently under challenge in the Flanders Foundation versus the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. The City’s pursuit of the sale of this land is a waste of public funds. Thank you for your consideration.

I regret to say as President of the Flanders Foundation that we have had to pursue this course. We have asked you repeatedly over the years to please sit down with us and try to find an amicable solution that would satisfy the county neighbors and protect this park. It is with a great deal of sadness that the Flanders Foundation has no alternative but to pursue a lawsuit against the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and that is why we have proceeded with the lawsuit.

Skip Lloyd stated that the mitigations for sale demonstrate an admission by the City that the sale does not enhance parkland, as the General Plan requires. He focused on a solution for Mission Trail Nature Preserve in its entirety; that presently, Mission Trail Nature Preserve is “a mess,” other than the Arboretum, and will require thoughtful planning, money and people of good will to return it to its natural state.

Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment.

VI. Resolutions
A. Consideration of a Resolution of the City Council Overriding All Protests Against Discontinuance and Abandonment of Use of the Flanders Mansion Property as Public Park Land.

Council Member SHARP stated that the Council is proposing the people decide the sale of the Flanders Mansion Property by public vote.

Council Member ROSE moved approval of a Resolution of the City Council Overriding All Protests Against Discontinuance and Abandonment of Use of the Flanders Mansion Property as Public Park Land, seconded by Council Member HAZDOVAC, and carried by the following roll call:

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

VII. Ordinances
A. Consideration of an Ordinance (1st Reading) of the City Council Calling and Fixing the Date of a Special Election to Submit to the City Electors the Question of Discontinuance and Abandonment of the Use of Public Park Land on Which Protests Were Overruled.

Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment.

Barbara Livingston asked who was responsible for the wording of the ballot measure for the November 3, 2009 election.

City Attorney Don Freeman stated the City is responsible for the wording of the ballot measure.

David Keyston spoke in favor of proceeding with the sale of the Flanders Mansion; the proceeds could be used for Sunset Center debt, Carmel’s streets.

Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment.

Council Member ROSE moved approval of an Ordinance (1st Reading) of the City Council Calling and Fixing the Date of a Special Election to Submit to the City Electors the Question of Discontinuance and Abandonment of the Use of Public Park Land on Which Protests Were Overruled, seconded by Council Member HAZDOVAC and carried by the following roll call:

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

(Source: Archived Videos, Special City Council Meeting, June 16, 2009)

COMMENTARY: Termination & Resignations Necessary to Uphold Integrity of Public Trust Offices

The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s Code of Ethics states, in part, as follows:

“Our system of government is viewed by the public through our acts as we fulfill the demands of our positions. We must demonstrate competency, integrity, honesty, courtesy and fairness in all relationships, private and public, to best represent the type of government desired by all. We have a patriotic duty to fulfill our roles in the highest standard possible for the purpose of assuring exemplary government for all people. A departure from this ideal creates an injustice for all. (Ord. 87-1 § 2, 1987).”

Given the severity of the credible allegations of Human Resources Manager Jane Kingsley Miller regarding the intolerable and unacceptable workplace environment at City Hall created by City Administrator Rich Guillen and Mayor Sue McCloud, it is imperative that the following actions occur immediately:

• A Special City Council Meeting is convened for the purpose of voting to terminate Rich Guillen from employment as city administrator of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.

• Mayor Sue McCloud and City Council Members Paula Hazdovac, Gerard Rose, Karen Sharp and Ken Talmage tender their resignations as city council members of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.

For arguably at least the last two years, Mayor Sue McCloud and City Council Members Paula Hazdovac, Gerard Rose, Karen Sharp and Ken Talmage knew, or should have known, about the workplace environment at City Hall. Their actions, including but not limited to, voting to approve an increase in Rich Guillen’s salary and benefits during this period, and inactions, including but not limited to, failing to investigate Jane Miller’s serious complaints, represent an irreparable breach of public trust and “an injustice for all.”

Moreover, since 2000, with the election of Sue McCloud as mayor of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and her selection of Rich Guillen as city administrator, our city government has been a government of, by, and for Sue McCloud. Now, it is time for Camelites to restore our city government to a government of the people, by the people, for the people of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea by demanding the termination from city employment of Rich Guillen as city administrator and the resignations of Mayor Sue McCloud and City Council Members Paula Hazdovac, Gerard Rose, Karen Sharp and Ken Talmage because elected officials and city employees are answerable and accountable to the people from whom all legitimate power emanates and for whom government exists. Otherwise, the constitutional principle that public office and public service is a public trust is nonexistence.

Flanders Foundation Hosts ‘A LUNCH ON THE LAWN’

WHO: Melanie Billig, President, Flanders Foundation
Joyce Stevens, Local Environmentalist
Bill Hill, Noted "Birder"

WHAT: Free Historical and Nature Walk in Mission Trail Nature Preserve and "A Lunch on the Lawn" at Flanders Mansion, a National Register of Historic Places city-owned resource.

WHEN: Saturdays, June 20, July 18, August 8, August 22, September 12 & September 26, 2009
10:30 A.M. – 1:00 P.M.

WHERE: Walk from the Rio Road Entrance of Mission Trail Nature Preserve across from the Carmel Mission to Flanders Mansion

NOTE: Complimentary cold drinks provided; please bring brown bag lunch.

FOR MORE INFORMATION & REQUIRED RESERVATIONS:
Call (831) 626-3826

Miller, Jane Kingsley vs. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (M99513)

UPDATE II (25 June 2009):
Hot Carmel
Carmel HR Manager alleges harassment and discrimination.
June 25, 2009 12:00 AM
By Kera Abraham

UPDATE (23 June 2009):
Carmel city leader used sex for power, suit alleges
Employee sues ex-boss Rich Guillen for discrimination
By VIRGINIA HENNESSEY
Herald Salinas Bureau
Updated: 06/23/2009

NOTES:
San Francisco attorney Richard Bolano is representing the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, according to The Monterey County Herald article. Richard (Rick) Bolanos is the Managing Partner of the San Francisco office of the firm Liebert Cassidy Whitmore. Attorney Cynthia O’Neill, mentioned in the article as the City’s labor law attorney, is also with the firm Liebert Cassidy Whitmore.

The State Bar of California:
Richard Charles Bolanos - #111343
Cynthia J O'Neill - #132334

ABSTRACT: On Wednesday, June 17, 2009, City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Human Resources Manager Jane Miller filed a lawsuit against the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea alleging Sex-Based Discrimination in Employment, Age-Based Discrimination in Employment, Sexual Harassment in Employment, Failure to Take All Reasonable Steps to Prevent Sexual Harassment from Occurring, Failure to Take All Reasonable Steps to Prevent Discrimination and Harassment Based on Age from Occurring and Retaliation in Violation of Law. The Plaintiff seeks damages for loss of wages, benefits, et cetera, relating to Plaintiff’s employment, emotional and physical injuries, et cetera, and attorney fees and litigation expenses, et cetera. Selected excerpts from ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION are presented and the FIRST, SECOND, THIRD, FOURTH, FIFTH and SIXTH CAUSES OF ACTION are reproduced in their entirety. NOTE: Female A is believed to be former Community Services Director Christie Miller; Female B is believed to be Heidi Burch, Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk. Attorney Michael W. Stamp represents Jane Miller. A Case Management Conference is scheduled for 17 December 2009 at 9:00 A.M. in Department 15, Judge Susan M. Dauphiné.

Highlights of Allegations, as follows:
The City delegated its personnel decisions to Guillen and unreasonably allowed him to engage in inappropriate and unethical employment-related actions that allowed for favoritism, created a hostile work environment and put Guillen outside the law. The Mayor and other top City officials set a tone that allowed, permitted, and effectively encouraged Guillen’s actions.

The City failed to reasonably prevent Guillen’s abuse of his power, failed to investigate and prevent Guillen’s continuing violation of Plaintiff and other employees’ rights by forcing employees from City employment on the basis of sex and gender, failed to remedy the complaints or timely and adequately investigate complaints, failed to take appropriate action or oversight in regard to Guillen’s actions, and endorsed, ratified, and sanctioned Guillen’s actions.

The City failed to reasonably prevent Guillen’s abuse of his power, failed to investigate and prevent Guillen’s continuing violation of Plaintiff and other employees’ rights by forcing employees from City employment on the basis of age, failed to remedy the complaints or timely and adequately investigate complaints, failed to take appropriate action or oversight in regard to Guillen’s actions, and endorsed, ratified, and sanctioned Guillen’s actions.

The City retaliated against Plaintiff for her protected expressions and activities. The retaliation included falsely blaming Plaintiff for Guillen’s actions in regard to the pay and benefits of Female A and Female B; stigmatizing and isolating Plaintiff in her professional duties and responsibilities; advising Plaintiff and others that her job had been terminated; proposing and approving the elimination of Plaintiff’s position; allowing and permitting Guillen to punish and threaten Plaintiff for reporting her claims and for speaking out taking the actions described above in forcing Plaintiff from her job and her profession; and denying Plaintiff any prompt or effective remedy after Plaintiff communicated her complaints to the City. Other employees, including Female A and Female B, who did not engage in the expression and activities of Plaintiff, did not suffer the same or similar retaliatory acts.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF MONTEREY

Miller, Jane Kingsley vs. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (M99513)

COMPLAINT

ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

“Plaintiff is an adult female employed by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. She is 62 years old. Since 1999, Plaintiff was employed by the city, first as the Personnel Specialist and, since August 2003, as the Human Resources Manager.”

“The Mayor and City Council, and their officers, agents, and attorneys had actual and/or constructive notice of the actions, omissions, and statements of Guillen, including a continuous course of conduct and continuing violations directed at Plaintiff by Guillen from 2004 to the present, and did not take reasonable, prudent, or effective steps to prevent the conduct of Guillen or to prevent injuries suffered by Plaintiff. The Mayor and City Council delegated to Guillen the power to make any and all personnel-related decisions, and did so without retaining reasonable oversight and review by the Mayor and City Council.”

“As Guillen continued his relationship with, and favoritism towards, Female A, he gradually and persistently, created a hostile work environment for other female employees, including Plaintiff. Guillen frequently demonstrated his absolute control of the workplace, and emphasized how he had been delegated by the Mayor to exercise the authority of the City, and was able to override standards applicable to other persons and to the procedures and policies in effect at the City. He demonstrated how he was able to dismiss and make derogatory remarks about others in the City, including elected officials, with impunity. He demonstrated how he was able to make decisions in the workplace that were not based upon legitimate work-related bases, but which were personal, unchecked and not challenged by others in City government, including the Mayor, City Council, and City Attorney.”

“By May 2007, the talk at City Hall increased about Guillen’s relationship with Female A and, recently, with another female employee, Female B. The talk was open and widespread and was known to city employees and others, including the Mayor and City Attorney. Guillen at that time knew that his comments were being made about him and Female A and Female B. Guillen know that the comments were adversely affecting the workplace, particularly in regard to women in the workplace, for whom the relationships with Female A and Female B were perceived as inappropriate, unprofessional and based on favoritism.”

“In November 2007, Plaintiff arranged an on-line sexual harassment training program for City supervisors. Of the thirty-six City employees enrolled in the program, only Guillen never completed the program. Guillen never even started it.”

“From January 2001 to 2003, Guillen forced out several long-time City directors and employees, including the Assistant City Administrator, Community & Cultural Director, Public Works Director and Financial Services Coordinator. Guillen negotiated with those employees, and combined the negotiations with threats to terminate certain of those employees, all of whom were significantly over the age of 40. Guillen made it clear to Plaintiff and to others that he was acting with the full support of the Mayor and City Council in his decisions to oust these older administrators, and that Guillen had the absolute power to unilaterally make and implement any personnel or other decisions he chose to make, including the decision to terminate any or all of the positions described above. “

“Also in late 2006, Guillen decided to force from employment a female career management employee over the age of 40 who had been employed for many years…Guillen told Plaintiff that Guillen personally did not like this employee, and that Guillen and the Mayor wanted the employee out of City service.”

“In January 2008, Guillen began to take steps to force out another long time female employee (over the age of 50) in City Hall. Guillen considered the employee to be too old and not loyal enough to Guillen.”

“On or about May 20, 2008, Plaintiff’s legal counsel wrote to the Mayor and City Council of the City, formerly advising them of Guillen’s sex-based discrimination and harassment and Guillen’s age-based discrimination in forcing Plaintiff from her position. Plaintiff asked that the City Council take prompt and effective action to reduce the injury to Plaintiff, to prevent Guillen from taking action in regard to her Complaint, to preserve documentary evidence, including Guillen’s emails and phone records, some of which Guillen kept at home even though they were official City records.”

“The Mayor, City Council and City Attorney did not respond further, and took no prompt or effective action in reaction to Plaintiff’s May 20, 2008 letter. Instead, they referred Plaintiff’s letter to Guillen for him to handle, without any investigation or evaluation of the conduct of Guillen or the assertions of Plaintiff, all in violation of state law and other policies and procedures designed to prevent retaliation and injury to workers who complain of inappropriate sex and age-based violations.”

“The acts and omissions of Guillen and the City constitute a continuing violation of the law against Plaintiff as part of discrimination, harassment, and efforts by Guillen ultimately to force Plaintiff from her employment and career. The City engaged in successive acts of harassment over the course of years of Plaintiff’s employment that constituted an actionable continuing violations and course of conduct under law.”

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Sex-Based Discrimination in Employment)

Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all of the preceding allegations as if fully set forth herein.

The City had a duty not to discriminate against Plaintiff in the terms and conditions of her employment on the basis of her gender and had a duty to prevent such discrimination from occurring.

The City subjected Plaintiff to discrimination based on Plaintiff’s gender. Plaintiff suffered adverse employment actions including but not limited to a hostile work environment created by discrimination based on gender and the loss of Plaintiff’s employment and career.

As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of the City’s acts and omissions, Plaintiff has suffered substantial emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other nonpecuniary losses of the nature and type commensurate with the City’s acts and omissions.

Plaintiff has suffered and continued to suffer lost earnings and other employment benefits, future lost earning, lost interest, medical expenses, mental distress and mental suffering, and other general and special damages, all to Plaintiff’s damage in an amount to be proven at trial.

Plaintiff has been required to retain legal counsel to vindicate her statutory rights and is entitled to recover attorney fees and litigation expenses.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as described below.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Age-Based Discrimination in Employment)

Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all of the preceding allegations as if fully set forth herein.

The City had a duty not to discriminate against Plaintiff in the terms and conditions of her employment on the basis of her age and to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring.

Plaintiff was subjected to a continuing discrimination by the City based on her age that is in violation of the law.

Plaintiff was discriminated against with respect to her compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.

As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of the City’s acts and omissions, Plaintiff has suffered substantial emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other nonpecuniary losses of the nature and type commensurate with the City’s acts and omissions.

Plaintiff has suffered and continued to suffer lost earnings and other employment benefits, future lost earning, lost interest, medical expenses, mental distress and mental suffering, and other general and special damages, all to Plaintiff’s damage in an amount to be proven at trial.

Plaintiff has been required to retain legal counsel to vindicate her statutory rights and is entitled to recover attorney fees and litigation expenses.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as described below.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Sexual Harassment in Employment)

Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all of the preceding allegations as if fully set forth herein.

The City had a duty to not harass Plaintiff in the terms and conditions of her employment on the basis of her gender. The city had a duty to take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment from occurring.

The City subjected Plaintiff to unwelcome, degrading and harassing comments, as described above on Plaintiff’s gender.

The City’s harassing comments were so severe and pervasive that they created a hostile work environment and adversely affected the terms and conditions of Plaintiff’s employment.

The City’s harassment of Plaintiff based on her gender, and failure to prevent the harassment are in violation of the law.

The City’s comments and acts of harassment were willful and intentional with disregard for the rights and reasonable sensibilities of Plaintiff. Plaintiff was subjected to unwelcome sexual pressure and verbal conduct of a sex-based nature. Guillen’s behavior with favored female employees conveyed a demeaning message to Plaintiff and other female employees that personal favors would be rewarded with higher pay, bonuses and other job benefits. Plaintiff was subjected to unwelcome sexual advances by Guillen, whose conduct towards Plaintiff and other females was sufficiently pervasive and offensive so as to also alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive, intimating and hostile work environment.

As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of the City’s acts and omissions, Plaintiff has suffered substantial emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other nonpecuniary losses of the nature and type commensurate with the City’s acts and omissions.

Plaintiff has suffered and continued to suffer lost earnings and other employment benefits, future lost earning, lost interest, medical expenses, mental distress and mental suffering, and other general and special damages, all to Plaintiff’s damage in an amount to be proven at trial.

Plaintiff has been required to retain legal counsel to vindicate her statutory rights and is entitled to recover attorney fees and litigation expenses.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as described below.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Failure to Take All Reasonable Steps to Prevent Sexual Harassment from Occurring)

Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all of the preceding allegations as if fully set forth herein.

The City had a duty to take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment from occurring.

The City and its agents, officers, officials and/or employees, failed to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent sexual harassment in employment from occurring, and to act promptly and effectively to prevent and remedy the harassment.

The City had a duty to provide City employees with a confidential, secure and effective way to voice and resolve their complaints. The City provided no such system.

The City delegated its personnel decisions to Guillen and unreasonably allowed him to engage in inappropriate and unethical employment-related actions that allowed for favoritism, created a hostile work environment and put Guillen outside the law. The Mayor and other top City officials set a tone that allowed, permitted, and effectively encouraged Guillen’s actions.

The City failed to reasonably prevent Guillen’s abuse of his power, failed to investigate and prevent Guillen’s continuing violation of Plaintiff and other employees’ rights by forcing employees from City employment on the basis of sex and gender, failed to remedy the complaints or timely and adequately investigate complaints, failed to take appropriate action or oversight in regard to Guillen’s actions, and endorsed, ratified, and sanctioned Guillen’s actions.

As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of the City’s acts and omissions, Plaintiff has suffered substantial emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other nonpecuniary losses of the nature and type commensurate with the City’s acts and omissions.

Plaintiff has suffered and continued to suffer lost earnings and other employment benefits, future lost earning, lost interest, medical expenses, mental distress and mental suffering, and other general and special damages, all to Plaintiff’s damage in an amount to be proven at trial.

Plaintiff has been required to retain legal counsel to vindicate her statutory rights and is entitled to recover attorney fees and litigation expenses.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as described below.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Failure to Take All Reasonable Steps to Prevent Discrimination and harassment Based on Age from Occurring)

Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all of the preceding allegations as if fully set forth herein.

The City had a duty to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination and harassment based on age from occurring.

The City and its agents, officers, officials and/or employees, failed to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent harassment in employment based on age from occurring, and to act promptly and effectively to prevent and remedy harassment.

The City failed to reasonably prevent Guillen’s abuse of his power, failed to investigate and prevent Guillen’s continuing violation of Plaintiff and other employees’ rights by forcing employees from City employment on the basis of age, failed to remedy the complaints or timely and adequately investigate complaints, failed to take appropriate action or oversight in regard to Guillen’s actions, and endorsed, ratified, and sanctioned Guillen’s actions.

As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of the City’s acts and omissions, Plaintiff has suffered substantial emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other nonpecuniary losses of the nature and type commensurate with the City’s acts and omissions.

Plaintiff has suffered and continued to suffer lost earnings and other employment benefits, future lost earning, lost interest, medical expenses, mental distress and mental suffering, and other general and special damages, all to Plaintiff’s damage in an amount to be proven at trial.

Plaintiff has been required to retain legal counsel to vindicate her statutory rights and is entitled to recover attorney fees and litigation expenses.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as described below.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Retaliation in Violation of Law)

Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all of the preceding allegations as if fully set forth herein.

Plaintiff’s expression and activities in questioning Guillen and opposing the unwarranted and extraordinary pay, working conditions, and benefits for Female A and Female B, in rejecting Guillen’s inappropriate advances, in refusing to engage in inappropriate conduct with Guillen, in complaining to the City about Guillen, and in other respects relating to Plaintiff’s performance of her duties were expressions and activities protected by law.

The City retaliated against Plaintiff for her protected expressions and activities. The retaliation included falsely blaming Plaintiff for Guillen’s actions in regard to the pay and benefits of Female A and Female B; stigmatizing and isolating Plaintiff in her professional duties and responsibilities; advising Plaintiff and others that her job had been terminated; proposing and approving the elimination of Plaintiff’s position; allowing and permitting Guillen to punish and threaten Plaintiff for reporting her claims and for speaking out taking the actions described above in forcing Plaintiff from her job and her profession; and denying Plaintiff any prompt or effective remedy after Plaintiff communicated her complaints to the City. Other employees, including Female A and Female B, who did not engage in the expression and activities of Plaintiff, did not suffer the same or similar retaliatory acts.

As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of the City’s acts and omissions, Plaintiff has suffered substantial emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other nonpecuniary losses of the nature and type commensurate with the City’s acts and omissions.

Plaintiff has suffered and continued to suffer lost earnings and other employment benefits, future lost earning, lost interest, medical expenses, mental distress and mental suffering, and other general and special damages, all to Plaintiff’s damage in an amount to be proven at trial.

Plaintiff has been required to retain legal counsel to vindicate her statutory rights and is entitled to recover attorney fees and litigation expenses.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as described below.

PRAYER FOR DAMAGES

Plaintiff prays for relief as follows:

1. For damages for loss of wages, benefits, and other compensation or compensatory damages, interest on lost wages, benefits and compensation, and back pay and front pay relating to Plaintiff’s employment, along with all amounts necessary to make Plaintiff whole.

2. For damages for emotional and physical injuries proximately caused by Defendant’s conduct, acts and omissions, including medical expenses and other special damages.

3. For attorney fees and litigation expenses, as permitted by law; and

4. For prejudgment interest and other interest as provided by law.

5. For such, other relief as is necessary and just, and as the Court may direct.

Dated: June 17, 2009

LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL W. STAMP


Michael W. Stamp
Molly E. Erickson
Attorneys for Plaintiff

ADDENDUM:
Worker alleges favoritism, sexual harrassment at city hall, MARY BROWNFIELD, The Carmel Pine Cone, June 19, 2009

Widewaters Group Hosts VILLAS de CARMELO OPEN HOUSE

WHO: The Widewaters Group (Kevin Kane, Development Manager & Ed Shagen, Director of Development) and The Warner Group

WHAT: Villas de Carmelo Open House

WHEN: Wednesday, June 17, 2009
12:00 P.M. – 3:00 P.M. and 6:00 P.M. – 9:00 P.M.

WHERE: Carmel Women’s Club
W/s San Carlos Street @ 9th Av.
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:
www.villasdecarmelo.com or
call (831) 372-2259

THE FLANDERS FOUNDATION v. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA (M99437)

ABSTRACT: The Flanders Foundation, a California Nonprofit Public Benefit corporation, filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus against the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and the City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea on June 12, 2009, within 30 calendar days of the City’s filing of the Notice of Determination. The Attorneys for Petitions are the Brandt-Hawley Law Group, specifically Susan Brandt-Hawley (SBN 095907). Selected excerpts and paraphrased portions of the eight pages PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS are presented from the INTRODUCTION, JURISDICTION, PARTIES and GENERAL ALLEGATIONS sections. The FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF CEQA, SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODES AND THE ‘WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays:’ sections are reproduced in their entirety.


THE FLANDERS FOUNDATION, a California Nonprofit Public Benefit corporation, Petitioner v. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA and CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, Respondents
Case Number: M99437
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Monterey

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

INTRODUCTION
“The Flanders Foundation, a California non-profit association, brings this mandamus action in the public interest to enforce mandatory laws preventing the unlawful sale of the historic Flanders Mansion and its environs.”

“The sale conflicts with the City’s General Plan and the Coastal Land Use Plan policies regarding open space and preservation, impacts famous local views to and from the mansion, and has foreseeable impacts to the mansion and environs stemming from the transfer of a cultural resource out of the City’s hands and into private control. The Flanders Mansion parcel is central to the Mission Trail Nature Preserve and loss of public access to the Flanders parcel would also concededly restrict access to the Preserve and open space.”

“The Flanders Foundation and many City residents have decried the unnecessary loss of an incomparable City asset in light of significant environmental impacts and the insupportable claim that a lease alternative would be infeasible. The City is solvent and the Flanders Mansion will continue to escalate in value so that even a “no project” option is economically viable. Having exhausted its administrative remedies, the Flanders Foundation now looks to this Court to protect the historic integrity of the magnificent Flanders Mansion and the Mission Trail Nature Preserve trail system and sensitive environs. The City’s continuing costly effort to divest itself of Flanders Mansion violated CEQA and is a waste of public funds.”

“A preemptory writ must issue to set aside the unlawful sale of Flanders Mansion.”

JURISDICTION
Public Resources Code Section 21168 and 21168.5 and Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 and 1094.5

PARTIES
“The Flanders Foundation, a California Nonprofit Public Benefit corporation formed in 1998 to promote the restoration and protection of the historic qualities and integrity of the Flanders Mansion, one of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s most historic houses, for the benefit of the people of Monterey County and California.”

Respondents, City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and its Council

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
“The City proposes the sale of a 1.25-acre parcel of City land located within the Mission Trail Nature Preserve that includes the historic Flanders Mansion.”

“The Flanders Mansion parcel is a special scenic resource located within the Mission Trail Nature Preserve, a 35-acre park in the southeastern portion of the City. The site is zoned Improved Parkland (P-2).”

“The 1924 Flanders Mansion, built as the residence of the Flanders family, has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places since 1989...”

The Flanders family built “Outlands” on the original 80 acres purchased from Dr. McDougal of the Carnegie Institute in Carmel.
1950s: Robert A. Doolittle bought 16.5 acres, across Rio Rd from the Mission.
1971: Bill Doolittle, Robert’s nephew, donated one-third of the property and sold the remaining portion of the City
1972: The City purchased the Flanders Mansion and 14.9 acres from the Flanders estate for $275,000.
The Doolittle (16.5 acres) and the Flanders (14.9 acres) parcels constitute the Mission Trail Park.

"The Foundation has no adequate remedy at law. Absent the relief prayed for in this Petition, the project will proceed with significant irreparable and irreversible environmental impacts to the Flanders Mansion and Mission Trails Nature Preserve. The City has the ability to correct its violations of law but has failed and refused to do so."

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

17. Petitioner incorporates all previous paragraphs as if fully set forth.
18. The City abused its discretion and failed to act in the manner required by law in approving the project because, among other things, its findings are unsupported and:
a. The City unlawfully approved a project with significant environmental impacts when the record discloses feasible alternatives and mitigation measures that would avoid significant environmental impacts, and those alternatives and mitigation measures were not adopted;
b. The City unlawfully adopted a statement of overriding considerations unsupported by substantial evidence;
c. The EIR is inadequate and incomplete because, among other things identified in the administrative record: it defers analysis of environmental impacts and the development and implementation of mitigation measures regarding the foreseeable uses of Flanders Mansion following the sale of the property, including uses of public agencies as delineated in the Government Code; the EIR inadequately analyzes general plan and local coastal plan consistency; the EIR analyzes an inadequate range of alternatives and fails to include necessary analysis of the alternatives that it does study; and the EIR’s conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence;
d. The EIR failed to respond to comments, and failed to allow comments on the CBRE economic report or to include it within the Draft EIR;
e. The EIR’s revision of the project objectives required recirculation;
f. The EIR failed to consider the sale or lease of a parcel smaller than the 1.252 now proposed for sale;
g. The EIR failed to adequately analyze the ‘no project’ alternative;
h. The EIR’s cost analysis of the proposed project and the alternatives is incomplete, inaccurate, and inadequate;
i. The EIR’s analysis of traffic impacts is inadequate;
j. The EIR fails to adequately analyze impacts of sale on the Lester Rowntree Arboretum due to proposed intensification of use of Flanders Mansion;
k. The City failed to make findings supported by substantial evidence as to feasibility of project alternatives and mitigation measures. The City’s analysis of feasibility of alternatives was not relevant to parkland property that is not expected to operate at a profit. The City findings fail to concede that it is economically practical to maintain ownership of Flanders Mansion because its economic value remains intact.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODES
19. Petitioner incorporates all previous paragraphs as if fully set forth;
20. The city abused its discretion and failed to act in the manner required by law in approving the sale of the Flanders Mansion because Government Code 65000 et seq. mandate that a jurisdiction’s land use decision be consistent with its general plan. As conceded by the EIR and repeatedly decried by the public during the administrative proceedings, the sale of Flanders Mansion is inconsistent with mandatory general plan provisions.

WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays:
1. That the Court issue a peremptory writ of mandate City of Carmel-by-the-Sea to set aside and void all approvals relating to the sale of Flanders Mansion pending full compliance with CEQA and the Government Code;
2. For Petitioner’s costs and attorney fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5; and
3. For other and further relief as the Court finds proper.

June 12, 2009 BRANDT-HAWLEY LAW GROUP

__________________
Susan Brandt-Hawley

ADDENDUM:
Public Resources Code Section 21168 and 21168.5
21168. Any action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void or annul a determination, finding, or decision of a public agency, made as a result of a proceeding in which by law a hearing is required to be given, evidence is required to be taken and discretion in the determination of facts is vested in a public agency, on the grounds of noncompliance with the provisions of this division shall be in accordance with the provisions of Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
In any such action, the court shall not exercise its independent judgment on the evidence but shall only determine whether the act or decision is supported by substantial evidence in the light of the whole record.

21168.5. In any action or proceeding, other than an action or proceeding under Section 21168, to attack, review, set aside, void or annul a determination, finding, or decision of a public agency on the grounds of noncompliance with this division, the inquiry shall extend only to whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion. Abuse of discretion is established if the agency has not proceeded in a manner required by law or if the determination or decision is not supported by substantial evidence.

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 1084-1097
1085. (a) A writ of mandate may be issued by any court to any inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person, to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins, as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or to compel the admission of a party to the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which the party is entitled, and from which the party is unlawfully precluded by such inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person.
(b) The appellate division of the superior court may grant a writ of mandate directed to the superior court in a limited civil case or in a misdemeanor or infraction case. Where the appellate division grants a writ of review directed to the superior court, the superior court is an inferior tribunal for purposes of this chapter.

1094.5. (a) Where the writ is issued for the purpose of inquiring into the validity of any final administrative order or decision made as the result of a proceeding in which by law a hearing is required to be given, evidence is required to be taken, and discretion in the determination of facts is vested in the inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or officer, the case shall be heard by the court sitting without a jury. All or part of the record of the proceedings before the inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or officer may be filed with the petition, may be filed with respondent's points and authorities, or may be ordered to be filed by the court. Except when otherwise prescribed by statute, the cost of preparing the record shall be borne by the petitioner. Where the petitioner has proceeded pursuant to Section 68511.3 of the Government Code and the Rules of Court implementing that section and where the transcript is necessary to a proper review of the administrative proceedings, the cost of preparing the transcript shall be borne by the respondent. Where the party seeking the writ has proceeded pursuant to Section 1088.5, the administrative record shall be filed as expeditiously as possible, and may be filed with the petition, or by the respondent after payment of the costs by the petitioner, where required, or as otherwise directed by the court. If the expense of preparing all or any part of the record has been borne by the prevailing party, the expense shall be taxable as costs.
(b) The inquiry in such a case shall extend to the questions whether the respondent has proceeded without, or in excess of jurisdiction; whether there was a fair trial; and whether there was any prejudicial abuse of discretion. Abuse of discretion is established if the respondent has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the order or decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence.
(c) Where it is claimed that the findings are not supported by the evidence, in cases in which the court is authorized by law to exercise its independent judgment on the evidence, abuse of discretion is established if the court determines that the findings are not supported by the weight of the evidence. In all other cases, abuse of discretion is established if the court determines that the findings are not supported by substantial evidence in the light of the whole record.
(d) Notwithstanding subdivision (c), in cases arising from private hospital boards or boards of directors of districts organized pursuant to The Local Hospital District Law, Division 23 (commencing with Section 32000) of the Health and Safety Code or governing bodies of municipal hospitals formed pursuant to Article 7 (commencing with Section 37600) or Article 8 (commencing with Section 37650) of Chapter 5 of Division 3 of Title 4 of the Government Code, abuse of discretion is established if the court determines that the findings are not supported by substantial evidence in the light of the whole record. However, in all cases in which the petition alleges discriminatory actions prohibited by Section 1316 of the Health and Safety Code, and the plaintiff makes a preliminary showing of substantial evidence in support of that allegation, the court shall exercise its independent judgment on the evidence and abuse of discretion shall be established if the court determines that the findings are not supported by the weight of the evidence.
(e) Where the court finds that there is relevant evidence that, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced or that was improperly excluded at the hearing before respondent, it may enter judgment as provided in subdivision (f) remanding the case to be reconsidered in the light of that evidence; or, in cases in which the court is authorized by law to exercise its independent
judgment on the evidence, the court may admit the evidence at the hearing on the writ without remanding the case.
(f) The court shall enter judgment either commanding respondent to set aside the order or decision, or denying the writ. Where the judgment commands that the order or decision be set aside, it may order the reconsideration of the case in the light of the court's opinion and judgment and may order respondent to take such further action as is specially enjoined upon it by law, but the judgment shall not limit or control in any way the discretion legally vested in the respondent.
(g) Except as provided in subdivision (h), the court in which proceedings under this section are instituted may stay the operation of the administrative order or decision pending the judgment of the court, or until the filing of a notice of appeal from the judgment or until the expiration of the time for filing the notice, whichever occurs first. However, no such stay shall be imposed or continued if the court is satisfied that it is against the public interest. The application for the stay shall be accompanied by proof of service of a copy of the application on the respondent. Service shall be made in the manner provided by Title 5 (commencing with Section 405) of Part 2 or Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 1010) of Title 14 of Part 2. If an appeal is taken from a denial of the writ, the order or decision of the agency shall not be stayed except upon the order of the court to which the appeal is taken. However, in cases where a stay is in effect at the time of filing the notice of appeal, the stay shall be continued by operation of law for a period of 20 days from the filing of the notice. If an appeal is taken from the granting of the writ, the order or decision of the agency is stayed pending the determination of the appeal unless the court to which the appeal is taken shall otherwise order. Where any final administrative order or decision is the subject of proceedings under this section, if the petition shall have been filed while the penalty imposed is in full force and effect, the determination shall not be considered to have become moot in cases where the penalty imposed by the administrative agency has been completed or complied with during the pendency of the proceedings.
(h) (1) The court in which proceedings under this section are instituted may stay the operation of the administrative order or decision of any licensed hospital or any state agency made after a hearing required by statute to be conducted under the Administrative Procedure Act, as set forth in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 11500) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code, conducted by the agency itself or an administrative law judge on the staff of the Office of Administrative Hearings pending the judgment of the court, or until the filing of a notice of appeal from the judgment or until the expiration of the time for filing the notice, whichever occurs first. However, the stay shall not be imposed or continued unless the court is satisfied that the public interest will not suffer and that the licensed hospital or agency is unlikely to prevail ultimately on the merits. The application for the stay shall be accompanied by proof of service of a copy of the application on the respondent. Service shall be made in the manner provided by Title 5 (commencing with Section 405) of Part 2 or Chapter 5 (commencing
with Section 1010) of Title 14 of Part 2.
(2) The standard set forth in this subdivision for obtaining a stay shall apply to any administrative order or decision of an agency that issues licenses pursuant to Division 2 (commencing with Section 500) of the Business and Professions Code or pursuant to the Osteopathic Initiative Act or the Chiropractic Initiative Act. With respect to orders or decisions of other state agencies, the standard in this subdivision shall apply only when the agency has adopted the proposed decision of the administrative law judge in its entirety or has adopted the proposed decision but reduced the proposed penalty pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 11517 of the Government Code; otherwise the standard in subdivision (g) shall apply.
(3) If an appeal is taken from a denial of the writ, the order or decision of the hospital or agency shall not be stayed except upon the order of the court to which the appeal is taken. However, in cases where a stay is in effect at the time of filing the notice of appeal, the stay shall be continued by operation of law for a period of 20 days from the filing of the notice. If an appeal is taken from the granting of the writ, the order or decision of the hospital or agency is stayed pending the determination of the appeal unless the court to which the appeal is taken shall otherwise order. Where any final administrative order or decision is the subject of proceedings under this section, if the petition shall have been filed while the penalty imposed is in full force and effect, the determination shall not be considered to have become moot in cases where the penalty imposed by the administrative agency has been completed or complied with during the pendency of the proceedings.
(i) Any administrative record received for filing by the clerk of the court may be disposed of as provided in Sections 1952, 1952.2, and 1952.3.
(j) Effective January 1, 1996, this subdivision shall apply to state employees in State Bargaining Unit 5. For purposes of this section, the court is not authorized to review any disciplinary decisions reached pursuant to Section 19576.1 of the Government Code.

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 1021.5. Upon motion, a court may award attorneys' fees to a successful party against one or more opposing parties in any action which has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest if: (a) a significant benefit, whether pecuniary or nonpecuniary, has been conferred on the general public or a large class of persons, (b) the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement, or of enforcement by one public entity against another public entity, are such as to make the award appropriate, and (c) such fees should not in the interest of justice be paid out of the recovery, if any. With respect to actions involving public entities, this section applies to allowances against, but not in favor of, public entities, and no claim shall be required to be filed therefor, unless one or more successful parties and one or more opposing parties are public entities, in which case no claim shall be required to be filed therefor under Part 3 (commencing with Section 900) of Division 3.6 of Title 1 of the Government Code.
Attorneys' fees awarded to a public entity pursuant to this section shall not be increased or decreased by a multiplier based upon extrinsic circumstances, as discussed in Serrano v. Priest, 20 Cal. 3d 25, 49.

Litigation Record for Susan Brandt-Hawley