ABSTRACT: On Thursday, 22 October 2009, the Staff of the Monterey County Weekly recommended a 'No' vote on Measure I involving the sale of the Flanders Mansion Property in Mission Trail Nature Preserve. Highlights of the endorsement and a link to the complete endorsement are presented.
• “...no convincing argument has been mounted for why that time should be now,” regarding the sale of the Flanders Mansion Property.
• It is “short-sighted” for the City to not “preserve one of its historic sites.”
• Selling the Flanders Mansion Property “seems like a bad idea, especially at a time when other publicly-owned parks have been at risk.”
• “Flanders could be an asset to the community for decades to come, even if it’s not clear what the immediate best use of this public building is.”
• “The short-term gain on the sale doesn’t outweigh its permanent loss to a private owner.”
ADDENDUM:
Endorsements
The Weekly editorial board’s endorsements for the upcoming elections on Nov. 3. By Staff
Monday, October 26, 2009
Sunday, October 25, 2009
UPDATE V: Flanders Mansion Property: SALIENT POINTS AGAINST THE SALE OF THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY
ABSTRACT: On the 3 November 2009 General Election Ballot, there appears the following question: “Shall discontinuance and abandonment of the Flanders Mansion Property (APN 010-061-005) as public parkland, and authorization to sell the Flanders Mansion Property "with Conservation Easements and Mitigation" as passed on May 12, 2009 by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council by Resolutions No. 2009-30 through 2009-33, be approved.” A Summary of the SALIENT POINTS AGAINST THE SALE OF THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY gleaned from Letters to the Editor and Editorial Commentaries between March 13, 2009 and October 23, 2009 are compiled and presented. REFERENCES consisting of links to the entire original letters and commentaries are provided.
SALIENT POINTS AGAINST THE SALE OF THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY:
• “Selling Flanders breaks up the Mission Trail Nature Preserve and creates an inholding in its midst. Inholdings within parks cause problems: privacy issues, noise, fences, etc.” (October 23, 2009)
• If the Flanders Mansion Property is sold, “it would greatly impact the use and enjoyment of the Harriet Rowntree Native Plant Garden, the Martin Meadow, and access to many of the trails.” (October 23, 2009)
• The sale of the Flanders Mansion Property “would create a private in-holding completely surrounded by parkland. Bad idea.” (10/19/2009)
• “...voting 'NO' on Measure I. That would be a step towards preserving Carmel's precious parklands.” (10/19/2009)
• “As one of only two Carmel properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the Flanders Mansion is an important community asset and should be accessible to all. Its sale would not only fragment a public park, it would deprive Carmelites access to a key piece of their heritage that can be retained and enjoyed through adaptive reuse.” (10/17/2009)
• “The sale of parkland is particularly unwise as there are other ways to reduce the city's costs and keep the historic resource in public hands. The city has the authority, for instance, to lease the property and contribute the revenue to the estate's maintenance and upkeep at no cost to the taxpayer.” (10/17/2009)
• “When elected to public office the stewardship of public property became the responsibility of the city council. To abandon that public trust and duty in the application of personal political agendas is both arrogant and irresponsible.” (October 16, 2009)
• Since the current City Council has been “unable to achieve a good solution to the issue of an appropriate use for the Flanders Mansion that no council, now or at some time in the future, can...That position ignores the fact that there are good uses that have been proposed for Flanders, but McCloud and the council apparently don’t like the people making the offers.” (October 16, 2009)
• “One of the main selling points that the mayor and the council members have stressed is that the Flanders Mansion will remain forever a historic single-family residence. There is absolutely no guarantee that the residence will be just a single-family home. California law does not allow them to make that determination...There is absolutely no guarantee that the residence will be just a single-family home.” (October 15, 2009)
• “Stewardship of public assets is a significant responsibility of elected public officials. Public use options, such as an art and/or natural history venue, should be publicly explored prior to a decision to sell the Flanders Mansion property. Vote no on Measure I and make certain our public servants fulfill their stewardship and open government responsibilities.” (10/14/2009)
• “Selling Flanders breaks up the Mission Trail Nature Preserve and creates an inholding in its midst. Inholdings cause problems: privacy issues, noise, fences, etc.” (10/14/2009)
• If the Flanders Mansion Property “is sold, it would greatly impact the use and enjoyment of the Rowntree Native Plant Garden, the Martin Meadow, and access to many trails.” (10/14/2009)
• “Bravo to those who support preserving this special piece of parkland so future generations can know of the work of this amazing woman (Lester Rowntree, author, plant collector, lecturer and early popularizer of California native plants for the garden) who died in Carmel in 1979 at the age of 100!” (October 9, 2009)
• “A precedent-setting sale of Flanders could empower current or future Carmel-by-the-Sea city councils to carve up more of the Mission Trail park. For starters, there are nine 40-by-100 lots in the native plant garden which could be sold and developed. Imagine the years of construction disruption, traffic congestion, noise and parking problems that would cause.” (October 9, 2009)
• “...the long battle to save the integrity of Carmel’s one lovely natural park, Mission Trail Nature Preserve. Without a doubt, the nature-loving artists, writers and musicians whose vision gave our town its original soul would turn over in their graves that the idea to sell a part of this treasure could gain any currency here. Though the mansion itself would not be to their taste, since “small is beautiful” expressed their value system, its location within the park and the potential for its use to serve as a venue to preserve and celebrate Carmel’s remarkable past would gain their enthusiastic support. To them it would be a no-brainer!” (October 9, 2009)
• “Back in 1987, when faced with another council’s intention to sell Flanders Mansion and adjacent Martin Meadow, a group of us, neighbors of the park, natives and enlightened newcomers, got together a petition and in a week garnered over 600 signatures to save the mansion and the meadow. It was an inspiring grassroots effort, and we got the city’s promise that they would not ever sell these treasures.” (October 9, 2009)
• “Over the years, there have been a number of suggestions as to a use for it. One, which is echoed by the Flanders Foundation, which is waging a further inspiring battle on behalf of the park, was to utilize the mansion as a library, heritage museum, natural history study center and small gathering place. It had the support of CSUMB and all the Monterey Peninsula’s living artistic luminaries. This is the use that cries out to be implemented.” (October 9, 2009)
• “A precedent-setting sale of Flanders Parkland could empower the current or future Carmel City Councils to carve up more of the Mission Trail Park…there are nine 40-foot-by-100-foot lots in the Native Plant Garden that could be sold and developed. Imagine the years of construction disruption, traffic congestion, noise and parking problems that would cause.” (10/05/2009)
• “Sell Flanders and a precedent is set to carve up another large chunk of our park. The public loses recreational, educational and environmental treasures.” (09/21/2009)
• “I always thought that the city leaders were to be stewards of the public's land, not the agents of their demise.” (09/21/2009)
• ”Land matters. If a piece of our city is taken away, if our parkland is sold off acre by acre, bit by bit, our community begins to lose the distinctiveness, and charm it once created.” (09/19/2009)
• “The park thus would lose its most dramatic area with incomparable views of the Carmel Mission, and the littoral of the Carmel River entering the Pacific with Carmel Bay and Point Lobos in the background.” (September 18, 2009)
• The Flanders Mansion Property “is so clearly a central part of the park that the wooden map signs at park entrances feature the Flanders Mansion as a prominent landmark.” (September 11, 2009)
• “Once the property is sold, this beautiful piece of our park is gone forever.” (September 11, 2009)
• “...substantive reasons for voting not to sell the Flanders Mansion property, including maintaining the physical integrity of Mission Trail Nature Preserve and retaining a National Register of Historic Places resource as a public asset...” (09/10/2009)
• “For over nine years, the mayor has refused to meet and confer with the Flanders Foundation to explore possible public uses; City Council members have failed to present persuasive reasons for the sale of the Flanders Mansion; and the sale of the Flanders Mansion Property would result in the loss of significant parkland that is considered an integral component of Mission Trail Nature Preserve.” (09/10/2009)
• General Plan goals and objectives: "To protect, conserve and enhance the unique natural beauty and irreplaceable natural resources of Carmel"; "Use, maintain, and enhance publicly owned land for the benefit of Carmel residents"; "Establish an acquisitions list when opportunities arise to obtain land and/or facilities within the Carmel city limits"; and "Develop, preserve and enhance areas of scenic interest." (09/07/2009)
• “...tragic to permit this irretrievable loss.” (09/07/2009)
• ”...if our parkland is sold off acre by acre, bit by bit, our community begins to lose the distinctiveness, and charm it once created.” (SEPTEMBER 03, 2009)
• General Plan encourages the city “to preserve, protect our forest and open space; conserve and enhance the irreplaceable natural resources of Carmel.” (SEPTEMBER 3, 2009)
• The City, since Sue McCloud was elected mayor, has “failed to look at lease options that keep the park public and achieve restoration.” (08/23/2009)
• The City, since Sue McCloud was elected mayor, has not “explored any viable uses” for the Flanders Mansion Property; five task forces “looked for uses” “11 to 30 years ago.” (08/23/2009)
• “Once parkland is sold, it is gone forever.” (07/13/2009)
• City has rejected offers to “lease and refurbish” Flanders Mansion from “numerous individuals and organizations” and City has failed to “avail itself of public or private grants.” (07/13/2009)
• City does not lack money to maintain or rehabilitate Flanders Mansion; City reserves $10 million, FY 2008/09 budget “$1.2 million in the black.” (07/13/2009)
• “No reason to sell” Flanders Mansion Property, a 1.25 acre parcel in the “heart of the park.” (7/13/2009)
• Encourages “all of good faith to join the committee to preserve and enhance Flanders Mansion, instead of selling it to a rich party-developer for personal gain.” (6/24/2009)
• Senses “some ulterior motive for the city not putting energy and foresight into Flanders.” (6/24/2009)
• Flanders Mansion a “jewel in the crown of Carmel;” it “could be as well-known and visited as the Carmel Beach and Ocean Avenue." (6/24/2009)
• “Win-win proposition” of a resident curatorship; City leases Flanders Mansion Property to an individual for life and upon death property reverts to the City. Resident curator restores Flanders Mansion at his/her expense and allows public access to Flanders Mansion Property at specified times. (5/8/2009)
• “...once Flanders is gone, it is gone forever.” (4/16/2009)
• Flanders Mansion is “a beautiful mansion situated in spectacular park setting.” (4/16/2009)
• Urges city government representatives and Carmelites in favor of selling the Flanders Mansion Property to meet with Carmelites opposed to selling the Flanders Mansion Property and “work out a solution that keeps this priceless property in the community’s hands.” (4/16/2009)
• Comparison made between what Flanders Mansion and Mission Trail Nature Preserve could be and Villa Montalvo, Gamble House, Filoli, Steinbeck House and La Mirada. (3/13/2009)
• City cites reason to sell Flanders Mansion Property based on need of “significant” repairs, yet the City had failed to apply for grants and meet with local groups during the last 10 years. (3/13/2009)
• Sale of parkland in the “heart of the park” “will damage the park irrevocably." (3/13/2009)
REFERENCES:
The Carmel Pine Cone, LETTERS, (The wonder of parks, Karen and Hugo Ferlito, Carmel) October 23, 2009), 21A
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, (See Flanders Mansion, then vote, Roy L. Thomas), Carmel), 10/20/2009
The Monterey County Herald, Letters, (Preserve Carmel parks, Joyce Stevens, Carmel) 10/19/2009
The Monterey County Herald, Letters, (Preserve Flanders Mansion, Brian R. Turner, NTHP regional attorney), 10/17/2009
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, (Power grab? David Maradei, Carmel), October 16, 2009, 28A
MONTEREY COUNTY WEEKLY, Letters, (Flanders Flap, Karen Brown), October 15, 2009
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, (Help fulfill potential of Flanders site, D.L. Trout, Carmel), 10/14/2009
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, (No vote on Measure I preserves Flanders, Karen and Hugo Ferlito, Carmel), 10/14/2009
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, October 9, 2009 (Move the garden? Mary Ann Matthews, Carmel Valley) 22A & 15 IYD
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, October 9, 2009 (‘Be careful what you wish for,’ Robert E. Kohn, Carmel) 15IYD
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, October 9, 2009 (The importance of parks, Linda Lachmund Smith, Carmel) 15IYD
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 10/05/2009, (Be wary of parkland sale, Robert E. Kohn, Carmel)
The Monterey County Weekly, The Public Voice Letters, SEPTEMBER 24, 2009 (WHAT’S AT STAKE, Margaret L. Purchase | Carmel-by-the-Sea
The Monterey County Herald, 09/21/2009 (Save Carmel park, vote no on Measure I, Margaret L. Purchase Carmel)
The Monterey County Herald, 09/19/2009 (Don't sell off Carmel parkland, Roberta Miller Carmel)
The Carmel Pine Cone, September 18, 2009 (‘Simple solution,’ Olof Dahlstrand, Carmel) pg. 28A
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 11, 2009 (Same parcel? Ann Flower, Carmel) 20A
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 09/10/ 2009 (Don't sell Flanders Mansion for short-term gain, Barbara Stiles, Carmel)
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 09/10/ 2009 (Carmel council failed residents on mansion, L.A. Paterson, Carmel)
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 09/07/2009 (Protect Carmel: Vote 'no' on Measure I, Richard M. Flower, Carmel)
The Monterey County Weekly, Letters to the Editor, SEPTEMBER 03, 2009 (PARK PLACES, Roberta Miller|Carmel)
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 08/23/2009 (Flanders options ignored, Shirley Humann, Carmel)
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 07/13/2009 (No reason to sell Flanders Mansion, Brie Tripp, Carmel)
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 06/24/2009 (Invest in Flanders Mansion, JoAnn Vincent, Carmel)
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, May 8, 2009 (‘Resident curatorship,’ Virginia Connelly, Carmel) 26A
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 04/16/2009 (Flanders priceless property, Richard Stiles, Carmel)
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, March 13, 2009 (‘Enrich our lives,’ Shirley Humann, Carmel) 26A
SALIENT POINTS AGAINST THE SALE OF THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY:
• “Selling Flanders breaks up the Mission Trail Nature Preserve and creates an inholding in its midst. Inholdings within parks cause problems: privacy issues, noise, fences, etc.” (October 23, 2009)
• If the Flanders Mansion Property is sold, “it would greatly impact the use and enjoyment of the Harriet Rowntree Native Plant Garden, the Martin Meadow, and access to many of the trails.” (October 23, 2009)
• The sale of the Flanders Mansion Property “would create a private in-holding completely surrounded by parkland. Bad idea.” (10/19/2009)
• “...voting 'NO' on Measure I. That would be a step towards preserving Carmel's precious parklands.” (10/19/2009)
• “As one of only two Carmel properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the Flanders Mansion is an important community asset and should be accessible to all. Its sale would not only fragment a public park, it would deprive Carmelites access to a key piece of their heritage that can be retained and enjoyed through adaptive reuse.” (10/17/2009)
• “The sale of parkland is particularly unwise as there are other ways to reduce the city's costs and keep the historic resource in public hands. The city has the authority, for instance, to lease the property and contribute the revenue to the estate's maintenance and upkeep at no cost to the taxpayer.” (10/17/2009)
• “When elected to public office the stewardship of public property became the responsibility of the city council. To abandon that public trust and duty in the application of personal political agendas is both arrogant and irresponsible.” (October 16, 2009)
• Since the current City Council has been “unable to achieve a good solution to the issue of an appropriate use for the Flanders Mansion that no council, now or at some time in the future, can...That position ignores the fact that there are good uses that have been proposed for Flanders, but McCloud and the council apparently don’t like the people making the offers.” (October 16, 2009)
• “One of the main selling points that the mayor and the council members have stressed is that the Flanders Mansion will remain forever a historic single-family residence. There is absolutely no guarantee that the residence will be just a single-family home. California law does not allow them to make that determination...There is absolutely no guarantee that the residence will be just a single-family home.” (October 15, 2009)
• “Stewardship of public assets is a significant responsibility of elected public officials. Public use options, such as an art and/or natural history venue, should be publicly explored prior to a decision to sell the Flanders Mansion property. Vote no on Measure I and make certain our public servants fulfill their stewardship and open government responsibilities.” (10/14/2009)
• “Selling Flanders breaks up the Mission Trail Nature Preserve and creates an inholding in its midst. Inholdings cause problems: privacy issues, noise, fences, etc.” (10/14/2009)
• If the Flanders Mansion Property “is sold, it would greatly impact the use and enjoyment of the Rowntree Native Plant Garden, the Martin Meadow, and access to many trails.” (10/14/2009)
• “Bravo to those who support preserving this special piece of parkland so future generations can know of the work of this amazing woman (Lester Rowntree, author, plant collector, lecturer and early popularizer of California native plants for the garden) who died in Carmel in 1979 at the age of 100!” (October 9, 2009)
• “A precedent-setting sale of Flanders could empower current or future Carmel-by-the-Sea city councils to carve up more of the Mission Trail park. For starters, there are nine 40-by-100 lots in the native plant garden which could be sold and developed. Imagine the years of construction disruption, traffic congestion, noise and parking problems that would cause.” (October 9, 2009)
• “...the long battle to save the integrity of Carmel’s one lovely natural park, Mission Trail Nature Preserve. Without a doubt, the nature-loving artists, writers and musicians whose vision gave our town its original soul would turn over in their graves that the idea to sell a part of this treasure could gain any currency here. Though the mansion itself would not be to their taste, since “small is beautiful” expressed their value system, its location within the park and the potential for its use to serve as a venue to preserve and celebrate Carmel’s remarkable past would gain their enthusiastic support. To them it would be a no-brainer!” (October 9, 2009)
• “Back in 1987, when faced with another council’s intention to sell Flanders Mansion and adjacent Martin Meadow, a group of us, neighbors of the park, natives and enlightened newcomers, got together a petition and in a week garnered over 600 signatures to save the mansion and the meadow. It was an inspiring grassroots effort, and we got the city’s promise that they would not ever sell these treasures.” (October 9, 2009)
• “Over the years, there have been a number of suggestions as to a use for it. One, which is echoed by the Flanders Foundation, which is waging a further inspiring battle on behalf of the park, was to utilize the mansion as a library, heritage museum, natural history study center and small gathering place. It had the support of CSUMB and all the Monterey Peninsula’s living artistic luminaries. This is the use that cries out to be implemented.” (October 9, 2009)
• “A precedent-setting sale of Flanders Parkland could empower the current or future Carmel City Councils to carve up more of the Mission Trail Park…there are nine 40-foot-by-100-foot lots in the Native Plant Garden that could be sold and developed. Imagine the years of construction disruption, traffic congestion, noise and parking problems that would cause.” (10/05/2009)
• “Sell Flanders and a precedent is set to carve up another large chunk of our park. The public loses recreational, educational and environmental treasures.” (09/21/2009)
• “I always thought that the city leaders were to be stewards of the public's land, not the agents of their demise.” (09/21/2009)
• ”Land matters. If a piece of our city is taken away, if our parkland is sold off acre by acre, bit by bit, our community begins to lose the distinctiveness, and charm it once created.” (09/19/2009)
• “The park thus would lose its most dramatic area with incomparable views of the Carmel Mission, and the littoral of the Carmel River entering the Pacific with Carmel Bay and Point Lobos in the background.” (September 18, 2009)
• The Flanders Mansion Property “is so clearly a central part of the park that the wooden map signs at park entrances feature the Flanders Mansion as a prominent landmark.” (September 11, 2009)
• “Once the property is sold, this beautiful piece of our park is gone forever.” (September 11, 2009)
• “...substantive reasons for voting not to sell the Flanders Mansion property, including maintaining the physical integrity of Mission Trail Nature Preserve and retaining a National Register of Historic Places resource as a public asset...” (09/10/2009)
• “For over nine years, the mayor has refused to meet and confer with the Flanders Foundation to explore possible public uses; City Council members have failed to present persuasive reasons for the sale of the Flanders Mansion; and the sale of the Flanders Mansion Property would result in the loss of significant parkland that is considered an integral component of Mission Trail Nature Preserve.” (09/10/2009)
• General Plan goals and objectives: "To protect, conserve and enhance the unique natural beauty and irreplaceable natural resources of Carmel"; "Use, maintain, and enhance publicly owned land for the benefit of Carmel residents"; "Establish an acquisitions list when opportunities arise to obtain land and/or facilities within the Carmel city limits"; and "Develop, preserve and enhance areas of scenic interest." (09/07/2009)
• “...tragic to permit this irretrievable loss.” (09/07/2009)
• ”...if our parkland is sold off acre by acre, bit by bit, our community begins to lose the distinctiveness, and charm it once created.” (SEPTEMBER 03, 2009)
• General Plan encourages the city “to preserve, protect our forest and open space; conserve and enhance the irreplaceable natural resources of Carmel.” (SEPTEMBER 3, 2009)
• The City, since Sue McCloud was elected mayor, has “failed to look at lease options that keep the park public and achieve restoration.” (08/23/2009)
• The City, since Sue McCloud was elected mayor, has not “explored any viable uses” for the Flanders Mansion Property; five task forces “looked for uses” “11 to 30 years ago.” (08/23/2009)
• “Once parkland is sold, it is gone forever.” (07/13/2009)
• City has rejected offers to “lease and refurbish” Flanders Mansion from “numerous individuals and organizations” and City has failed to “avail itself of public or private grants.” (07/13/2009)
• City does not lack money to maintain or rehabilitate Flanders Mansion; City reserves $10 million, FY 2008/09 budget “$1.2 million in the black.” (07/13/2009)
• “No reason to sell” Flanders Mansion Property, a 1.25 acre parcel in the “heart of the park.” (7/13/2009)
• Encourages “all of good faith to join the committee to preserve and enhance Flanders Mansion, instead of selling it to a rich party-developer for personal gain.” (6/24/2009)
• Senses “some ulterior motive for the city not putting energy and foresight into Flanders.” (6/24/2009)
• Flanders Mansion a “jewel in the crown of Carmel;” it “could be as well-known and visited as the Carmel Beach and Ocean Avenue." (6/24/2009)
• “Win-win proposition” of a resident curatorship; City leases Flanders Mansion Property to an individual for life and upon death property reverts to the City. Resident curator restores Flanders Mansion at his/her expense and allows public access to Flanders Mansion Property at specified times. (5/8/2009)
• “...once Flanders is gone, it is gone forever.” (4/16/2009)
• Flanders Mansion is “a beautiful mansion situated in spectacular park setting.” (4/16/2009)
• Urges city government representatives and Carmelites in favor of selling the Flanders Mansion Property to meet with Carmelites opposed to selling the Flanders Mansion Property and “work out a solution that keeps this priceless property in the community’s hands.” (4/16/2009)
• Comparison made between what Flanders Mansion and Mission Trail Nature Preserve could be and Villa Montalvo, Gamble House, Filoli, Steinbeck House and La Mirada. (3/13/2009)
• City cites reason to sell Flanders Mansion Property based on need of “significant” repairs, yet the City had failed to apply for grants and meet with local groups during the last 10 years. (3/13/2009)
• Sale of parkland in the “heart of the park” “will damage the park irrevocably." (3/13/2009)
REFERENCES:
The Carmel Pine Cone, LETTERS, (The wonder of parks, Karen and Hugo Ferlito, Carmel) October 23, 2009), 21A
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, (See Flanders Mansion, then vote, Roy L. Thomas), Carmel), 10/20/2009
The Monterey County Herald, Letters, (Preserve Carmel parks, Joyce Stevens, Carmel) 10/19/2009
The Monterey County Herald, Letters, (Preserve Flanders Mansion, Brian R. Turner, NTHP regional attorney), 10/17/2009
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, (Power grab? David Maradei, Carmel), October 16, 2009, 28A
MONTEREY COUNTY WEEKLY, Letters, (Flanders Flap, Karen Brown), October 15, 2009
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, (Help fulfill potential of Flanders site, D.L. Trout, Carmel), 10/14/2009
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, (No vote on Measure I preserves Flanders, Karen and Hugo Ferlito, Carmel), 10/14/2009
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, October 9, 2009 (Move the garden? Mary Ann Matthews, Carmel Valley) 22A & 15 IYD
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, October 9, 2009 (‘Be careful what you wish for,’ Robert E. Kohn, Carmel) 15IYD
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, October 9, 2009 (The importance of parks, Linda Lachmund Smith, Carmel) 15IYD
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 10/05/2009, (Be wary of parkland sale, Robert E. Kohn, Carmel)
The Monterey County Weekly, The Public Voice Letters, SEPTEMBER 24, 2009 (WHAT’S AT STAKE, Margaret L. Purchase | Carmel-by-the-Sea
The Monterey County Herald, 09/21/2009 (Save Carmel park, vote no on Measure I, Margaret L. Purchase Carmel)
The Monterey County Herald, 09/19/2009 (Don't sell off Carmel parkland, Roberta Miller Carmel)
The Carmel Pine Cone, September 18, 2009 (‘Simple solution,’ Olof Dahlstrand, Carmel) pg. 28A
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 11, 2009 (Same parcel? Ann Flower, Carmel) 20A
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 09/10/ 2009 (Don't sell Flanders Mansion for short-term gain, Barbara Stiles, Carmel)
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 09/10/ 2009 (Carmel council failed residents on mansion, L.A. Paterson, Carmel)
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 09/07/2009 (Protect Carmel: Vote 'no' on Measure I, Richard M. Flower, Carmel)
The Monterey County Weekly, Letters to the Editor, SEPTEMBER 03, 2009 (PARK PLACES, Roberta Miller|Carmel)
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 08/23/2009 (Flanders options ignored, Shirley Humann, Carmel)
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 07/13/2009 (No reason to sell Flanders Mansion, Brie Tripp, Carmel)
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 06/24/2009 (Invest in Flanders Mansion, JoAnn Vincent, Carmel)
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, May 8, 2009 (‘Resident curatorship,’ Virginia Connelly, Carmel) 26A
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 04/16/2009 (Flanders priceless property, Richard Stiles, Carmel)
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, March 13, 2009 (‘Enrich our lives,’ Shirley Humann, Carmel) 26A
UPDATE V: Flanders Mansion Property: SALIENT POINTS FOR THE SALE OF THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY
ABSTRACT: On the 3 November 2009 General Election Ballot, there appears the following question: “Shall discontinuance and abandonment of the Flanders Mansion Property (APN 010-061-005) as public parkland, and authorization to sell the Flanders Mansion Property "with Conservation Easements and Mitigation" as passed on May 12, 2009 by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council by Resolutions No. 2009-30 through 2009-33, be approved.” A Summary of the SALIENT POINTS FOR THE SALE OF THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY gleaned from Letters to the Editor and Editorial Commentaries between March 13, 2009 and October 23, 2009 are compiled and presented. REFERENCES consisting of links to the entire original letters and commentaries are provided.
SALIENT POINTS FOR THE SALE OF THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY:
• “Selling Flanders is one way to raise important revenues when voters reject tax increases.” (October 23, 2009)
• Claims “Making the Flanders Mansion a convention center, or an arts center, or any kind of a public building just doesn't make good economic sense in today's economy.” (10/22/2009)
• “The money that would come from the sale of this property could fund other projects or lessen budget deficits.” (10/22/2009)
• “In this time of fiscal uncertainty, the city should recoup this money by selling the mansion—and using the rest of the proceeds for good causes, like more low-cost housing for elderly Carmelites, as well as for the city's ongoing expenses.” (10/21/2009)
• Urges sale of the Flanders Mansion Property “based on its dubious historic value, its awkward location, its cost for maintenance or refurbishment, its loss of tax revenue, and its very costly ADA requirements for a public use structure.” (October 16, 2009)
• “Sale of the Flanders Mansion would still leave Mission Trail Park with more than 96 percent of the current 32.4 acres and would not encroach on any trails.” (October 16, 2009)
• “The best plan is to sell the Flanders house to someone who will restore it to its original use as a single-family house. The property will then go back on the tax rolls and, finally, the house will be in use again as a home.” (October 9, 2009)
• “...the preserve does not have adequate traffic and circulation paved roads and paved parking for public or quasi-public use, as was reported in the EIR of January 2009…. Currently and historically, it only has capacity for single-family land use.” (October 9, 2009)
• “Selling Flanders Mansion to a private party will end the exposure of Carmel to the environmental legal actions associated.” (October 9, 2009)
• Claims “The city has examined many suggestions for use, but none — except sale — has merit.” (October 9, 2009)
• “Flanders Mansion was built as a single-family home in a neighborhood of single-family homes. There were no objections to it then and there should be no objections to it now.” (October 9, 2009)
• Claims “Narrow Hatton Road, which provides access to Flanders Mansion, cannot safely accommodate significantly increased traffic.” (October 9, 2009)
• Claims the Flanders Mansion “has been vacant for most of a 30-year period and has been cost-generating and non-revenue-producing throughout the entire period.” (10/05/2009)
• “Keep the unused asset and get little or no value, or sell the unused asset and use the interest income off the proceeds to fund important things for your family. Selling is the sensible thing to do.” (September 25, 2009)
• “There will still be lots of room for dogs, people and wild animals to roam around if we return the home to private use.” (September 18, 2009)
• Asks “How safe is it to have a building and its surrounding area continually exposed to people coming in to prepare for a public event with the extra traffic, water use, possibility of damage to the property and improper use of a narrow county road?” (September 11, 2009)
• Claims it is “very unlikely” that if Flanders Mansion were on Scenic Road instead of Hatton Road, the Flanders Foundation would not take the position that the property should be other than “a single family residence— perhaps a museum, or put to use for some other public purpose.” (September 11, 2009)
• “By not selling the house, the community risks a possible devastating fire or continuing acts of vandalism. New residents would not only restore the home, but would oversee the property. It could then return to its primary purpose — a lovely home in a welcoming residential neighborhood.” (09/05/2009)
• Claims “If the mansion is not sold and becomes some kind of public institution, increased traffic and pedestrians will be at risk.” (09/05/2009)
• ”...the sale can become a shot in our economic arm and our wallet.” (09/04/2009)
• States that the “Carmel City Council and the previous mayor voted to sell the Flanders Mansion property in December 1999.” (08/26/2009)
• “Selling 2 percent leaves 98 percent total parkland for Carmel.” (August 14, 2009)
• Claims using Flanders Mansion “as a quasi-public institution would disrupt the tranquility of the area, with traffic and service vehicles, and even unsettling to flora and fauna.” (August 14, 2009)
• Claims the Flanders Mansion is “unsuitable” for any “worthy public use” “due to its location in a quiet, residential neighborhood.” (7/03/2009)
• Wants “objectors” to purchase Flanders Mansion Property and pay for restoration rather that waste “taxpayers money with legal obstructions.” (5/08/2009)
• Claims, if polled, neighbors want private residence “compatible with the area.” (5/08/2009)
• Claims “no public use that’s suitable” for the Flanders Mansion; cites committee proposal for use as a culinary academy voted down by City Council under Mayor Ken White. (3/27/2009)
REFERENCES:
The Carmel Pine Cone, LETTERS, (Too big to fail? Chris Tescher, Carmel), October 23, 2009, 21A
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, (Public-owned Flanders Mansion, Jon Kannegaard and Pat Sandoval, Carmel), 10/22/2009
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, (Vote for sale of Flanders Mansion, Riane Eisler, Carmel), 10/21/2009
Editorial: Flanders Mansion sale makes sense, THE HERALD'S VIEW, The Monterey County Herald, 10/20/2009
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, (Flanders issue should be non-partisan, Clay Berling, Carmel), October 16, 2009, 28A & 25A
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, (How park was created, William Doolittle, Carmel), October 16, 2009, 25A
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, (Yes vote on Measure I helps sell Flanders, Dale Hekhuis, Carmel), 10/14/2009
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, October 9, 2009 (‘Best plan is to sell,’ Pat Sippel, Carmel), 22 A
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, October 9, 2009 (Hatton Road inadequate, Robert G. Morris, Carmel) 15IYD
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, October 9, 2009 (‘End the exposure to litigation,’Pamela Heisinger, Carmel) 15IYD
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, October 9, 2009 (‘Abandon the myth,’ Jeffrey Lehr, M.D., Carmel) 15IYD
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, October 9, 2009 (Thank the Doolittles, Erling Lagerholm, Carmel) 15IYD
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, October 9, 2009 (Hatton Road too narrow, Laura Newmark, Carmel) 15IYD
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 10/05/2009, (It's time to sell Flanders, Dale Hekhuis, Carmel)
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 25, 2009 (A Useful Analogy, Mike Cunningham, Carmel) pg. 36A
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 18, 2009 (A ‘mistake’ to buy it, Carolyn S. Akcan, Carmel) pg. 28A-29A
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 11, 2009 (How safe? J. Daniel Tibbitts, Carmel) 20A
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 11, 2009 (Flanders ‘fiasco,’ William J.Woska, Carmel) 20A-21A
The Carmel Pine Cone, Editorial: Through the looking glass, September 4, 2009
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 4, 2009 (Vote Aye on Measure “I,” Patricia Sandoval, Carmel)
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 4, 2009 (‘A lovely private home,’ Suzanne Lehr, Carmel)
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 09/04/2009 (Proceeds from Flanders Mansion would help city, Jon Kannegaard Carmel)
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 08/26/2009 (Flanders options to be studied, Sue McCloud, Mayor of Carmel)
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, August 14, 2009 (Flanders ‘myth,’ Marikay Morris, Carmel) 26A
The Carmel Pine Cone July 3, 2009 (Editorial: The power of one)
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, May 8, 2009 (‘Get rid of Flanders now,’ P. S. Chase, Carmel) 26A
Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, March 27, 2009 (‘Here we go again,’ Rita Holloway, Carmel Valley) 22A
SALIENT POINTS FOR THE SALE OF THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY:
• “Selling Flanders is one way to raise important revenues when voters reject tax increases.” (October 23, 2009)
• Claims “Making the Flanders Mansion a convention center, or an arts center, or any kind of a public building just doesn't make good economic sense in today's economy.” (10/22/2009)
• “The money that would come from the sale of this property could fund other projects or lessen budget deficits.” (10/22/2009)
• “In this time of fiscal uncertainty, the city should recoup this money by selling the mansion—and using the rest of the proceeds for good causes, like more low-cost housing for elderly Carmelites, as well as for the city's ongoing expenses.” (10/21/2009)
• Urges sale of the Flanders Mansion Property “based on its dubious historic value, its awkward location, its cost for maintenance or refurbishment, its loss of tax revenue, and its very costly ADA requirements for a public use structure.” (October 16, 2009)
• “Sale of the Flanders Mansion would still leave Mission Trail Park with more than 96 percent of the current 32.4 acres and would not encroach on any trails.” (October 16, 2009)
• “The best plan is to sell the Flanders house to someone who will restore it to its original use as a single-family house. The property will then go back on the tax rolls and, finally, the house will be in use again as a home.” (October 9, 2009)
• “...the preserve does not have adequate traffic and circulation paved roads and paved parking for public or quasi-public use, as was reported in the EIR of January 2009…. Currently and historically, it only has capacity for single-family land use.” (October 9, 2009)
• “Selling Flanders Mansion to a private party will end the exposure of Carmel to the environmental legal actions associated.” (October 9, 2009)
• Claims “The city has examined many suggestions for use, but none — except sale — has merit.” (October 9, 2009)
• “Flanders Mansion was built as a single-family home in a neighborhood of single-family homes. There were no objections to it then and there should be no objections to it now.” (October 9, 2009)
• Claims “Narrow Hatton Road, which provides access to Flanders Mansion, cannot safely accommodate significantly increased traffic.” (October 9, 2009)
• Claims the Flanders Mansion “has been vacant for most of a 30-year period and has been cost-generating and non-revenue-producing throughout the entire period.” (10/05/2009)
• “Keep the unused asset and get little or no value, or sell the unused asset and use the interest income off the proceeds to fund important things for your family. Selling is the sensible thing to do.” (September 25, 2009)
• “There will still be lots of room for dogs, people and wild animals to roam around if we return the home to private use.” (September 18, 2009)
• Asks “How safe is it to have a building and its surrounding area continually exposed to people coming in to prepare for a public event with the extra traffic, water use, possibility of damage to the property and improper use of a narrow county road?” (September 11, 2009)
• Claims it is “very unlikely” that if Flanders Mansion were on Scenic Road instead of Hatton Road, the Flanders Foundation would not take the position that the property should be other than “a single family residence— perhaps a museum, or put to use for some other public purpose.” (September 11, 2009)
• “By not selling the house, the community risks a possible devastating fire or continuing acts of vandalism. New residents would not only restore the home, but would oversee the property. It could then return to its primary purpose — a lovely home in a welcoming residential neighborhood.” (09/05/2009)
• Claims “If the mansion is not sold and becomes some kind of public institution, increased traffic and pedestrians will be at risk.” (09/05/2009)
• ”...the sale can become a shot in our economic arm and our wallet.” (09/04/2009)
• States that the “Carmel City Council and the previous mayor voted to sell the Flanders Mansion property in December 1999.” (08/26/2009)
• “Selling 2 percent leaves 98 percent total parkland for Carmel.” (August 14, 2009)
• Claims using Flanders Mansion “as a quasi-public institution would disrupt the tranquility of the area, with traffic and service vehicles, and even unsettling to flora and fauna.” (August 14, 2009)
• Claims the Flanders Mansion is “unsuitable” for any “worthy public use” “due to its location in a quiet, residential neighborhood.” (7/03/2009)
• Wants “objectors” to purchase Flanders Mansion Property and pay for restoration rather that waste “taxpayers money with legal obstructions.” (5/08/2009)
• Claims, if polled, neighbors want private residence “compatible with the area.” (5/08/2009)
• Claims “no public use that’s suitable” for the Flanders Mansion; cites committee proposal for use as a culinary academy voted down by City Council under Mayor Ken White. (3/27/2009)
REFERENCES:
The Carmel Pine Cone, LETTERS, (Too big to fail? Chris Tescher, Carmel), October 23, 2009, 21A
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, (Public-owned Flanders Mansion, Jon Kannegaard and Pat Sandoval, Carmel), 10/22/2009
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, (Vote for sale of Flanders Mansion, Riane Eisler, Carmel), 10/21/2009
Editorial: Flanders Mansion sale makes sense, THE HERALD'S VIEW, The Monterey County Herald, 10/20/2009
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, (Flanders issue should be non-partisan, Clay Berling, Carmel), October 16, 2009, 28A & 25A
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, (How park was created, William Doolittle, Carmel), October 16, 2009, 25A
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, (Yes vote on Measure I helps sell Flanders, Dale Hekhuis, Carmel), 10/14/2009
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, October 9, 2009 (‘Best plan is to sell,’ Pat Sippel, Carmel), 22 A
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, October 9, 2009 (Hatton Road inadequate, Robert G. Morris, Carmel) 15IYD
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, October 9, 2009 (‘End the exposure to litigation,’Pamela Heisinger, Carmel) 15IYD
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, October 9, 2009 (‘Abandon the myth,’ Jeffrey Lehr, M.D., Carmel) 15IYD
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, October 9, 2009 (Thank the Doolittles, Erling Lagerholm, Carmel) 15IYD
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, October 9, 2009 (Hatton Road too narrow, Laura Newmark, Carmel) 15IYD
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 10/05/2009, (It's time to sell Flanders, Dale Hekhuis, Carmel)
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 25, 2009 (A Useful Analogy, Mike Cunningham, Carmel) pg. 36A
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 18, 2009 (A ‘mistake’ to buy it, Carolyn S. Akcan, Carmel) pg. 28A-29A
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 11, 2009 (How safe? J. Daniel Tibbitts, Carmel) 20A
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 11, 2009 (Flanders ‘fiasco,’ William J.Woska, Carmel) 20A-21A
The Carmel Pine Cone, Editorial: Through the looking glass, September 4, 2009
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 4, 2009 (Vote Aye on Measure “I,” Patricia Sandoval, Carmel)
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 4, 2009 (‘A lovely private home,’ Suzanne Lehr, Carmel)
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 09/04/2009 (Proceeds from Flanders Mansion would help city, Jon Kannegaard Carmel)
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 08/26/2009 (Flanders options to be studied, Sue McCloud, Mayor of Carmel)
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, August 14, 2009 (Flanders ‘myth,’ Marikay Morris, Carmel) 26A
The Carmel Pine Cone July 3, 2009 (Editorial: The power of one)
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, May 8, 2009 (‘Get rid of Flanders now,’ P. S. Chase, Carmel) 26A
Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, March 27, 2009 (‘Here we go again,’ Rita Holloway, Carmel Valley) 22A
Saturday, October 24, 2009
On City's Motion to Disqualify Attorney Stamp from Representing Jane Miller: Judge Hayes to Review City's Documentation 28 October 2009
UPDATE:
Sex Plot: Carmel’s alleged harassment case thickens, goes international, Kera Abraham, MONTEREY COUNTY WEEKLY, October 29, 2009
The latest developments in the Miller, Jane Kingsley vs. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea lawsuit (M99513) involving "suspected retaliation, a judge's reproach, mounting legal bills and after-hours phone calls."
ABSTRACT: On Friday morning, 23 October 2009, the City’s Motion Hearing to disqualify attorney Michael Stamp from his representation of on-leave Human Resources Manager Jane Miller was conducted in the Courtroom of Judge Larry Hayes in Salinas. A summary of the proceeding and an ADDENDUM consisting of a link to the article, ‘Judge scolds Carmel for withholding documents in harassment case: City withheld documents from employee's lawyer in harassment case,’ from The Monterey County Herald, are presented. In June 2009, Miller, Jane Kingsley vs City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (M99513) was filed in Monterey County Superior Court alleging sex-based and age-based discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation in the workplace.
On Friday morning, 23 October 2009, the City’s Motion Hearing to disqualify attorney Michael Stamp from his representation of on-leave Human Resources Manager Jane Miller was conducted in the Courtroom of Judge Larry Hayes. In his introductory remarks, Judge Hayes stated he was disappointed that the City withheld documents pertaining to their contention that attorney Michael Stamp should be disqualified due to his previous legal relationship with the City and the confidential information he has as a result that could assist him in representing his current client, Jane Miller. Moreover, Judge Hayes stated that he was disinclined to grant the City’s motion because the City failed to file lawsuits to disqualify attorney Michael Stamp from representing any of five other city employees previously who had filed claims against the City over the past six years.
Attorney Suzanne Solomon, Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, stated the city withheld the 106 pages because "Mr. Stamp has already breached his fiduciary duty and we're not inclined to give him documents that are 24 years old to refresh his memory."
Judge Larry Hayes disagreed with that assessment.
Later, Judge Larry Hayes asked attorney Suzanne Solomon how long it would take the City to compile the documentation. To which attorney Suzanne Solomon stated she had the documents and the Judge could review them that day. Judge Hayes stated his would not be able to review them that day and decided to set the date of Wednesday, 28 October 2009, to view the documents in his chambers. He further scheduled another court date of Friday, October 30, 2009 at 8:45 A.M. After hearing arguments Judge Hayes will issue his ruling.
ADDENDUM:
Judge scolds Carmel for withholding documents in harassment case: City withheld documents from employee's lawyer in harassment case, VIRGINIA HENNESSEY, Herald Salinas Bureau, The Monterey County Herald, 10/24/2009
Sex Plot: Carmel’s alleged harassment case thickens, goes international, Kera Abraham, MONTEREY COUNTY WEEKLY, October 29, 2009
The latest developments in the Miller, Jane Kingsley vs. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea lawsuit (M99513) involving "suspected retaliation, a judge's reproach, mounting legal bills and after-hours phone calls."
ABSTRACT: On Friday morning, 23 October 2009, the City’s Motion Hearing to disqualify attorney Michael Stamp from his representation of on-leave Human Resources Manager Jane Miller was conducted in the Courtroom of Judge Larry Hayes in Salinas. A summary of the proceeding and an ADDENDUM consisting of a link to the article, ‘Judge scolds Carmel for withholding documents in harassment case: City withheld documents from employee's lawyer in harassment case,’ from The Monterey County Herald, are presented. In June 2009, Miller, Jane Kingsley vs City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (M99513) was filed in Monterey County Superior Court alleging sex-based and age-based discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation in the workplace.
On Friday morning, 23 October 2009, the City’s Motion Hearing to disqualify attorney Michael Stamp from his representation of on-leave Human Resources Manager Jane Miller was conducted in the Courtroom of Judge Larry Hayes. In his introductory remarks, Judge Hayes stated he was disappointed that the City withheld documents pertaining to their contention that attorney Michael Stamp should be disqualified due to his previous legal relationship with the City and the confidential information he has as a result that could assist him in representing his current client, Jane Miller. Moreover, Judge Hayes stated that he was disinclined to grant the City’s motion because the City failed to file lawsuits to disqualify attorney Michael Stamp from representing any of five other city employees previously who had filed claims against the City over the past six years.
Attorney Suzanne Solomon, Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, stated the city withheld the 106 pages because "Mr. Stamp has already breached his fiduciary duty and we're not inclined to give him documents that are 24 years old to refresh his memory."
Judge Larry Hayes disagreed with that assessment.
Later, Judge Larry Hayes asked attorney Suzanne Solomon how long it would take the City to compile the documentation. To which attorney Suzanne Solomon stated she had the documents and the Judge could review them that day. Judge Hayes stated his would not be able to review them that day and decided to set the date of Wednesday, 28 October 2009, to view the documents in his chambers. He further scheduled another court date of Friday, October 30, 2009 at 8:45 A.M. After hearing arguments Judge Hayes will issue his ruling.
ADDENDUM:
Judge scolds Carmel for withholding documents in harassment case: City withheld documents from employee's lawyer in harassment case, VIRGINIA HENNESSEY, Herald Salinas Bureau, The Monterey County Herald, 10/24/2009
Thursday, October 22, 2009
State Water Resources Control Board Approves Cease-and-Desist ORDER WR 2009-00XX Against Cal Am
ABSTRACT: On Tuesday, October 20, 2009, the State Water Resources Board voted to enforce a CEASE AND DESIST ORDER REQUIRING CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER COMPANY TO CEASE ITS UNAUTHORIZED DIVERSION AND USE OF WATER FROM THE CARMEL RIVER IN MONTEREY COUNTY. Selected excerpts from the Cease and Desist Order are reproduced, including as follows: Cal-Am shall diligently implement actions to terminate its unlawful diversions from the Carmel River as soon as reasonably possible and shall terminate all unlawful diversions from the river no later than December 31, 2016 and Commencing on October 1, 2009, Cal-Am shall not divert more water from the river than the base of 10,978 afa, as adjusted by the following: (1) Immediate Reduction: Commencing on October 1, 2009, Cal-Am shall reduce diversions from the river by 5 percent, or 549 afa. The Order delays an additional 121 acre-foot reduction until October 1, 2011. Additionally, the Order includes programs to retrofit the Cal Am distribution system, impose a moratorium on new water connection permits and reduce the use of potable water for irrigation. Interestingly, according to a study done by CAL-AM, Pebble Beach and Carmel residents use more water than those in any other community on the Peninsula with as much as 138 gallons a day per household being used in Pebble Beach. Residents in Monterey, Sand City and Seaside use far less, approximately 60 gallons per household.
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
BOARD MEETING SESSION – DIVISION OF WATER RIGHTS
OCTOBER 20, 2009
ITEM 7
SUBJECT
CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED CEASE AND DESIST ORDER REQUIRING CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER COMPANY TO CEASE ITS UNAUTHORIZED DIVERSION AND USE OF WATER FROM THE CARMEL RIVER IN MONTEREY COUNTY
DISCUSSION
In January 2008, the Division of Water Rights (Division) issued a draft cease and desist order (CDO) requiring California American Water (Cal Am) to cease and desist from diverting water from the Carmel River in excess of its legal rights by reducing its unlawful diversions pursuant to a schedule set forth in the CDO.
In June, July, and August of 2008, the State Water Board held seven days of evidentiary hearings to determine whether to adopt the CDO.
A draft CDO was released to the public on July 27, 2009, and a public workshop was held on September 2, 2009, in order to receive comments on the draft CDO. Following receipt of comments, a revised draft CDO was issued on September 16, 2009. Comments on the revised draft CDO were due on September 30, 2009.
The proposed CDO sets forth conditions and a schedule for Cal Am to terminate all unlawful diversions from the Carmel River no later than December 31, 2016.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the State Water Board adopt the proposed cease and desist order.
INTRODUCTION
The California American Water Company (Cal-Am or CAW) diverts water from the Carmel River in Monterey County. The water is used to supply the residential, municipal, and commercial needs of the Monterey Peninsula area (peninsula) communities. In 1995 the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) adopted Order WR 95-10 (Order 95-10). Among other matters, the order found that Cal-Am was diverting about 10,730 acre feet per annum (afa) of water from the Carmel River without a valid basis of right and directed that Cal-Am should diligently implement actions to terminate its unlawful diversion. Alleging that 13 years after the adoption of Order 95-10 Cal-Am continues to divert about 7,150 afa from the river without a valid basis of right, the Prosecution Team (Prosecution Team or PT) seeks issuance of a cease and desist order under Water Code section 1831, subdivision (d). Cal-Am requested a hearing. This order (1) finds that Cal-Am: (a) failed to comply with the requirements of Order 95-10, and (b) is in violation of Water Code section 1052; and (2) issues a cease and desist order (CDO).
D R A F T October 8, 2009
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
ORDER WR 2009-00XX
In the Matter of the Unauthorized Diversion and Use of Water by the California American Water Company
CONCLUSIONS
Order 95-10 does not authorize Cal-Am to divert water from the Carmel River in excess of its water rights, and Cal-Am is illegally diverting water from the Carmel River in violation of Order 95-10 and Water Code section 1052. The doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel are not a bar to the State Water Board’s adoption of a CDO.
Condition 2 of the Order 95-10 requires Cal-Am to diligently implement actions to terminate its unlawful diversions. Cal-Am has diverted an average of 7,602 afa from the river without a basis of right for the past 14 years, and in the roughly 10-year period since it achieved the 20 percent reduction required by Condition 3 of Order 95-10, Cal-Am has not made any meaningful progress toward reducing the amount of its unlawful diversions. Further, Cal-Am has not diligently implemented smaller water supply projects that could have enabled Cal-Am to reduce its illegal diversion from the river and to alleviate the serious condition affecting the survival of steelhead.
Thus, Cal-Am has not diligently implemented actions to terminate its unlawful diversions under Condition 2. Cal-Am’s only action reducing its illegal diversions has been the work done on two projects yielding small amounts of water: the ASR project and the Sand City Desalinization Plant. Significantly, these projects are in place due largely to the efforts made by other agencies, i.e., MPWMD and the City of Sand City.
The lower 6.5 miles of the riverbed are dry for five to six months of each year, due primarily to Cal-Am’s diversions.48 Cal-Am’s diversions from the river continue to have an adverse effect on the fish, wildlife and riparian habitat of the river, including the threatened steelhead. Since the adoption of Order 95-10, the California Central Coast steelhead has been declared as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, and the Carmel River has been declared as critical habitat for the survival of the steelhead.
The adjudication of the Seaside groundwater basin will decrease the supply of water available to supply Cal-Am’s customers by 417 af in 2009, or by about 2.8 percent of the available supply. Other projects or regulatory actions can make additional water available to Cal-Am, including: (1) the Phase I and II ASR project; (2) the City of Sand City Desalinization Project; (3) the development of temporary small water supply projects (4) the reduction of system losses within the Cal-Am distribution system; (5) the retrofit program; (6) reducing the use of potable water for outdoor irrigation; and (7) other measures to reduce consumer demand for potable water.
MPWMD's water allocation program sets aside water for growth within the limits of the supply of water available within its jurisdiction. MPWMD views water illegally diverted from the river by Cal-Am as available water supply for growth. Because water has been available for growth, the peninsula cities and their residents have had little incentive to support or pay for a project or projects to obtain a legal supply of water that can be substituted for the illegal diversions from the river.
In consideration of the foregoing, we conclude that Cal-Am should be prohibited from further degrading conditions in the river by diverting water from the river for new service connections, and that Cal-Am should be required to reduce the amount of water being diverted from the river to serve existing service connections. In reaching this conclusion, we are particularly mindful that (a) the lower 6.5 miles of the Carmel River bed are dry for 5 to 6 months of each year, (b) the steelhead is a threatened species, (c) the river has been declared to be critical habitat for the steelhead, and (d) the earliest date which Cal-Am’s illegal diversions may be brought to an end is 2016, some 21 years after the adoption of Order 95-10. We further conclude that the Pebble Beach Company and associated development interests should not be exempt from the conditions restraining Cal-Am from diverting water from the river.
ORDER
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT Cal-Am shall cease and desist from the unauthorized diversion of water from the Carmel River in accordance with the following schedule and conditions.
1. Cal-Am shall diligently implement actions to terminate its unlawful diversions from the Carmel River and shall terminate all unlawful diversions from the river no later than December 31, 2016.
2. Cal-Am shall not divert water from the Carmel River for new service connections or for any increased use of water at existing service addresses resulting from a change in zoning or use. Cal-Am may supply water from the river for new service connections or for any increased use at existing service addresses resulting from a change in zoning or use after September 2, 2009, provided that any such service had obtained all necessary written approvals required for project construction and connection to Cal-Am’s water system prior to that date.
3. At a minimum, Cal-Am shall reduce its diversions from the Carmel River in accordance with the following:
a. Commencing on October 1, 2009,51 Cal-Am shall not divert more water from the river than the base of 10,978 afa,52 as adjusted by the following:
(1) Immediate Reduction: Commencing on October 1, 2009, Cal-Am shall reduce diversions from the river by 5 percent, or 549 afa.
(2) Annual Reductions: Commencing on October 1, 2010, the base shall be further reduced by 121 afa per year through savings that will accrue from reduced system losses, the retrofit program, the reduction of potable water used for outdoor irrigation, demand reduction and similar measures. The 121 af reduction shall be cumulative. For example, 121 af shall be reduced in the first year and 242 af shall be reduced in the second year. Commencing on October 1, 2015, annual reductions shall increase to 242 af per year. The 242 af per year reduction shall also be cumulative. Annual reductions shall continue until all unlawful Cal-Am diversions from the river have been terminated.
(3) ASR Project: The amount of water diverted to underground storage under Permit 20808A (Application 27614A) as of May 31 of each year and which will be supplied to Cal-Am customers after that date shall be subtracted from the base.53 On June 1 of each year, Cal-Am shall submit an operating plan to the Deputy Director for Water Rights specifying the quantity of water it intends to supply from ASR Project for its customers after May 1 of each year. Water pumped from the project for delivery to customers should be consistent with the requirements of paragraph “c” below.
(4) Sand City Desalination Plant: Once the Sand City Desalinization Plant becomes operational, 94 af shall be subtracted from the base In addition, based on actual production from the plant, any other water that is produced and not served to persons residing within the City of Sand City shall be subtracted from the base amount for each water year.
(5) Small Projects: Water produced from new sources developed pursuant to Condition 4 of this order shall be subtracted from the base.
b. Either Cal-Am or the MPWMD may petition the State Water Board Deputy Director for Water Rights for relief from annual reductions imposed under condition 3., a (2). No relief shall be granted unless all of the following conditions are met: (a) Within 18 months of the adoption of this order, Cal-Am has imposed a moratorium on new service connections pursuant to Water Code section 350 or has obtained an order prohibiting new connections from the PUC pursuant to Public Utility Code section 2708 or MPWMD has imposed a moratorium on new service connections under its authority; (b) the demand for potable water by Cal-Am customers has been reduced by 13 percent; and (c) a showing is made that public health and safety will be threatened if relief is not granted. Any relief granted shall remain in effect only as long as (a) a prohibition on new service connections remains in effect, and (b) the 13 percent conservation requirement remains in effect.
c. ASR project water stored in the Seaside groundwater basin under Permit 20808A (Application 27614A) should be used to mitigate the effect of Cal-Am’s illegal diversions from the river. ASR water should be supplied to Cal-Am customers only during months when water is most needed in the river to preserve steelhead. Commencing no later than June 1 of each year, Cal-Am should use stored groundwater to supply the needs of its customers and reduce diversions from the river. Consistent with Cal-Am’s operating plan, water should be pumped from the groundwater basin at the maximum practicable rate for as long as possible. This condition shall apply to both Phase I and Phase II of the ASR project. The river’s habitat and fish may receive greater benefits from a substitution regime that differs from that called for by this condition, a regime requiring that substitution commence at a different date, at a different rate or be coordinated with the level of flow in the river. In addition, it may be desirable to hold stored water from one year to the next to assure that more water is available for the steelhead and its habitat in years when the potential for steelhead survival may be greater. Several substitution trials may be necessary to determine which regime will have the greatest benefit. The National Marine Fisheries Service and the California Department of Fish and Game are encouraged to negotiate different substitution regimes with Cal-Am. The State Water Board will honor such agreements, provided Cal-Am submits the written agreement to the Deputy Director for Water Rights no later than May 1 of each year and the written agreement is approved by the Deputy Director.
4. Cal-Am shall reduce its illegal diversions from the river at the same rate ASR Project water is pumped from the groundwater basin as long as stored water is available under the operating plan.
5. Cal-Am shall implement one or more small projects that, when taken together, total not less than 500 afa to reduce unlawful diversions from the river. Within 90 days of entry of this order, Cal-Am shall identify to the Deputy Director for Water Rights the projects that it will implement and shall implement the projects within 24 months of entry of this order. Cal-Am may petition the Deputy Director for additional time in which to implement the projects. However, no time extension shall be considered unless the schedules for each project. Detailed justification shall be provided for additional time. No additional time may be granted in order to allow Cal-Am time to obtain prior approval from the PUC. To the maximum practicable extent, small projects shall be operated to reduce illegal diversions from the river during the months when surface flow in the river begins to go dry and through the months when surface flow in the river disappears below river mile 6.5.
11. The conditions of this order and order 95-10 shall remain in effect until (a) Cal-Am certifies, with supporting documentation, that it has obtained a permanent supply of water that has been substituted for the water illegally diverted from the Carmel River and (b) the Deputy Director of the Division of Water Rights concurs, in writing, with the certification.
CERTIFICATION
The undersigned Clerk to the Board does hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy of an order duly and regularly adopted at a meeting of the State Water Resources Control Board held on October 20, 2009.
AYE:
NAY:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Jeanine Townsend
Clerk to the Board
ATTACHMENT 1
TABLE 1
PROJECTED REDUCTIONS IN ILLEGAL DIVERSIONS FROM THE CARMEL RIVER
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
BOARD MEETING SESSION – DIVISION OF WATER RIGHTS
OCTOBER 20, 2009
ITEM 7
SUBJECT
CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED CEASE AND DESIST ORDER REQUIRING CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER COMPANY TO CEASE ITS UNAUTHORIZED DIVERSION AND USE OF WATER FROM THE CARMEL RIVER IN MONTEREY COUNTY
DISCUSSION
In January 2008, the Division of Water Rights (Division) issued a draft cease and desist order (CDO) requiring California American Water (Cal Am) to cease and desist from diverting water from the Carmel River in excess of its legal rights by reducing its unlawful diversions pursuant to a schedule set forth in the CDO.
In June, July, and August of 2008, the State Water Board held seven days of evidentiary hearings to determine whether to adopt the CDO.
A draft CDO was released to the public on July 27, 2009, and a public workshop was held on September 2, 2009, in order to receive comments on the draft CDO. Following receipt of comments, a revised draft CDO was issued on September 16, 2009. Comments on the revised draft CDO were due on September 30, 2009.
The proposed CDO sets forth conditions and a schedule for Cal Am to terminate all unlawful diversions from the Carmel River no later than December 31, 2016.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the State Water Board adopt the proposed cease and desist order.
INTRODUCTION
The California American Water Company (Cal-Am or CAW) diverts water from the Carmel River in Monterey County. The water is used to supply the residential, municipal, and commercial needs of the Monterey Peninsula area (peninsula) communities. In 1995 the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) adopted Order WR 95-10 (Order 95-10). Among other matters, the order found that Cal-Am was diverting about 10,730 acre feet per annum (afa) of water from the Carmel River without a valid basis of right and directed that Cal-Am should diligently implement actions to terminate its unlawful diversion. Alleging that 13 years after the adoption of Order 95-10 Cal-Am continues to divert about 7,150 afa from the river without a valid basis of right, the Prosecution Team (Prosecution Team or PT) seeks issuance of a cease and desist order under Water Code section 1831, subdivision (d). Cal-Am requested a hearing. This order (1) finds that Cal-Am: (a) failed to comply with the requirements of Order 95-10, and (b) is in violation of Water Code section 1052; and (2) issues a cease and desist order (CDO).
D R A F T October 8, 2009
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
ORDER WR 2009-00XX
In the Matter of the Unauthorized Diversion and Use of Water by the California American Water Company
CONCLUSIONS
Order 95-10 does not authorize Cal-Am to divert water from the Carmel River in excess of its water rights, and Cal-Am is illegally diverting water from the Carmel River in violation of Order 95-10 and Water Code section 1052. The doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel are not a bar to the State Water Board’s adoption of a CDO.
Condition 2 of the Order 95-10 requires Cal-Am to diligently implement actions to terminate its unlawful diversions. Cal-Am has diverted an average of 7,602 afa from the river without a basis of right for the past 14 years, and in the roughly 10-year period since it achieved the 20 percent reduction required by Condition 3 of Order 95-10, Cal-Am has not made any meaningful progress toward reducing the amount of its unlawful diversions. Further, Cal-Am has not diligently implemented smaller water supply projects that could have enabled Cal-Am to reduce its illegal diversion from the river and to alleviate the serious condition affecting the survival of steelhead.
Thus, Cal-Am has not diligently implemented actions to terminate its unlawful diversions under Condition 2. Cal-Am’s only action reducing its illegal diversions has been the work done on two projects yielding small amounts of water: the ASR project and the Sand City Desalinization Plant. Significantly, these projects are in place due largely to the efforts made by other agencies, i.e., MPWMD and the City of Sand City.
The lower 6.5 miles of the riverbed are dry for five to six months of each year, due primarily to Cal-Am’s diversions.48 Cal-Am’s diversions from the river continue to have an adverse effect on the fish, wildlife and riparian habitat of the river, including the threatened steelhead. Since the adoption of Order 95-10, the California Central Coast steelhead has been declared as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, and the Carmel River has been declared as critical habitat for the survival of the steelhead.
The adjudication of the Seaside groundwater basin will decrease the supply of water available to supply Cal-Am’s customers by 417 af in 2009, or by about 2.8 percent of the available supply. Other projects or regulatory actions can make additional water available to Cal-Am, including: (1) the Phase I and II ASR project; (2) the City of Sand City Desalinization Project; (3) the development of temporary small water supply projects (4) the reduction of system losses within the Cal-Am distribution system; (5) the retrofit program; (6) reducing the use of potable water for outdoor irrigation; and (7) other measures to reduce consumer demand for potable water.
MPWMD's water allocation program sets aside water for growth within the limits of the supply of water available within its jurisdiction. MPWMD views water illegally diverted from the river by Cal-Am as available water supply for growth. Because water has been available for growth, the peninsula cities and their residents have had little incentive to support or pay for a project or projects to obtain a legal supply of water that can be substituted for the illegal diversions from the river.
In consideration of the foregoing, we conclude that Cal-Am should be prohibited from further degrading conditions in the river by diverting water from the river for new service connections, and that Cal-Am should be required to reduce the amount of water being diverted from the river to serve existing service connections. In reaching this conclusion, we are particularly mindful that (a) the lower 6.5 miles of the Carmel River bed are dry for 5 to 6 months of each year, (b) the steelhead is a threatened species, (c) the river has been declared to be critical habitat for the steelhead, and (d) the earliest date which Cal-Am’s illegal diversions may be brought to an end is 2016, some 21 years after the adoption of Order 95-10. We further conclude that the Pebble Beach Company and associated development interests should not be exempt from the conditions restraining Cal-Am from diverting water from the river.
ORDER
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT Cal-Am shall cease and desist from the unauthorized diversion of water from the Carmel River in accordance with the following schedule and conditions.
1. Cal-Am shall diligently implement actions to terminate its unlawful diversions from the Carmel River and shall terminate all unlawful diversions from the river no later than December 31, 2016.
2. Cal-Am shall not divert water from the Carmel River for new service connections or for any increased use of water at existing service addresses resulting from a change in zoning or use. Cal-Am may supply water from the river for new service connections or for any increased use at existing service addresses resulting from a change in zoning or use after September 2, 2009, provided that any such service had obtained all necessary written approvals required for project construction and connection to Cal-Am’s water system prior to that date.
3. At a minimum, Cal-Am shall reduce its diversions from the Carmel River in accordance with the following:
a. Commencing on October 1, 2009,51 Cal-Am shall not divert more water from the river than the base of 10,978 afa,52 as adjusted by the following:
(1) Immediate Reduction: Commencing on October 1, 2009, Cal-Am shall reduce diversions from the river by 5 percent, or 549 afa.
(2) Annual Reductions: Commencing on October 1, 2010, the base shall be further reduced by 121 afa per year through savings that will accrue from reduced system losses, the retrofit program, the reduction of potable water used for outdoor irrigation, demand reduction and similar measures. The 121 af reduction shall be cumulative. For example, 121 af shall be reduced in the first year and 242 af shall be reduced in the second year. Commencing on October 1, 2015, annual reductions shall increase to 242 af per year. The 242 af per year reduction shall also be cumulative. Annual reductions shall continue until all unlawful Cal-Am diversions from the river have been terminated.
(3) ASR Project: The amount of water diverted to underground storage under Permit 20808A (Application 27614A) as of May 31 of each year and which will be supplied to Cal-Am customers after that date shall be subtracted from the base.53 On June 1 of each year, Cal-Am shall submit an operating plan to the Deputy Director for Water Rights specifying the quantity of water it intends to supply from ASR Project for its customers after May 1 of each year. Water pumped from the project for delivery to customers should be consistent with the requirements of paragraph “c” below.
(4) Sand City Desalination Plant: Once the Sand City Desalinization Plant becomes operational, 94 af shall be subtracted from the base In addition, based on actual production from the plant, any other water that is produced and not served to persons residing within the City of Sand City shall be subtracted from the base amount for each water year.
(5) Small Projects: Water produced from new sources developed pursuant to Condition 4 of this order shall be subtracted from the base.
b. Either Cal-Am or the MPWMD may petition the State Water Board Deputy Director for Water Rights for relief from annual reductions imposed under condition 3., a (2). No relief shall be granted unless all of the following conditions are met: (a) Within 18 months of the adoption of this order, Cal-Am has imposed a moratorium on new service connections pursuant to Water Code section 350 or has obtained an order prohibiting new connections from the PUC pursuant to Public Utility Code section 2708 or MPWMD has imposed a moratorium on new service connections under its authority; (b) the demand for potable water by Cal-Am customers has been reduced by 13 percent; and (c) a showing is made that public health and safety will be threatened if relief is not granted. Any relief granted shall remain in effect only as long as (a) a prohibition on new service connections remains in effect, and (b) the 13 percent conservation requirement remains in effect.
c. ASR project water stored in the Seaside groundwater basin under Permit 20808A (Application 27614A) should be used to mitigate the effect of Cal-Am’s illegal diversions from the river. ASR water should be supplied to Cal-Am customers only during months when water is most needed in the river to preserve steelhead. Commencing no later than June 1 of each year, Cal-Am should use stored groundwater to supply the needs of its customers and reduce diversions from the river. Consistent with Cal-Am’s operating plan, water should be pumped from the groundwater basin at the maximum practicable rate for as long as possible. This condition shall apply to both Phase I and Phase II of the ASR project. The river’s habitat and fish may receive greater benefits from a substitution regime that differs from that called for by this condition, a regime requiring that substitution commence at a different date, at a different rate or be coordinated with the level of flow in the river. In addition, it may be desirable to hold stored water from one year to the next to assure that more water is available for the steelhead and its habitat in years when the potential for steelhead survival may be greater. Several substitution trials may be necessary to determine which regime will have the greatest benefit. The National Marine Fisheries Service and the California Department of Fish and Game are encouraged to negotiate different substitution regimes with Cal-Am. The State Water Board will honor such agreements, provided Cal-Am submits the written agreement to the Deputy Director for Water Rights no later than May 1 of each year and the written agreement is approved by the Deputy Director.
4. Cal-Am shall reduce its illegal diversions from the river at the same rate ASR Project water is pumped from the groundwater basin as long as stored water is available under the operating plan.
5. Cal-Am shall implement one or more small projects that, when taken together, total not less than 500 afa to reduce unlawful diversions from the river. Within 90 days of entry of this order, Cal-Am shall identify to the Deputy Director for Water Rights the projects that it will implement and shall implement the projects within 24 months of entry of this order. Cal-Am may petition the Deputy Director for additional time in which to implement the projects. However, no time extension shall be considered unless the schedules for each project. Detailed justification shall be provided for additional time. No additional time may be granted in order to allow Cal-Am time to obtain prior approval from the PUC. To the maximum practicable extent, small projects shall be operated to reduce illegal diversions from the river during the months when surface flow in the river begins to go dry and through the months when surface flow in the river disappears below river mile 6.5.
11. The conditions of this order and order 95-10 shall remain in effect until (a) Cal-Am certifies, with supporting documentation, that it has obtained a permanent supply of water that has been substituted for the water illegally diverted from the Carmel River and (b) the Deputy Director of the Division of Water Rights concurs, in writing, with the certification.
CERTIFICATION
The undersigned Clerk to the Board does hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy of an order duly and regularly adopted at a meeting of the State Water Resources Control Board held on October 20, 2009.
AYE:
NAY:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Jeanine Townsend
Clerk to the Board
ATTACHMENT 1
TABLE 1
PROJECTED REDUCTIONS IN ILLEGAL DIVERSIONS FROM THE CARMEL RIVER
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
UPDATE: Miller, Jane Kingsley vs. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (M99513)
ABSTRACT: The Motion Hearing regarding the City’s motion to disqualify attorney Michael Stamp from representing Human Resources Manager Jane Miller in her lawsuit against the City for sex-based and age-based discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation is scheduled for Friday, October 23, 2009 at 8:45 A.M. at the Salinas Courthouse. HIGHLIGHTS OF ATTORNEY MICHAEL STAMP’S 8 OCTOBER 2009 RESPONSE TO CITY’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY ATTORNEY MICHAEL STAMP AS PLAINTIFF JANE MILLER’S ATTORNEY as presented in the article, Scandal-by-the-Sea, MONTEREY COUNTY WEEKLY, is provided. An ADDENDUM provides a link to the complete article.
INFORMATION ON MOTION HEARING:
MOTION HEARING: City’s Motion to Disqualify Attorney Michael Stamp as Plaintiff Jane Miller’s attorney
DATE & TIME: Friday, October 23, 2009 @ 8:45 A.M.
JUDGE: Hon. Larry E. Hayes
COURTHOUSE INFORMATION: Salinas Courthouse,
240 Church St., Salinas, CA 93901, (831) 775-5400
Department 4, East Wing - 2nd Floor
HIGHLIGHTS OF ATTORNEY MICHAEL STAMP’S 8 OCTOBER 2009 RESPONSE TO CITY’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY ATTORNEY MICHAEL STAMP AS PLAINTIFF JANE MILLER’S ATTORNEY (Credit: MONTEREY COUNTY WEEKLY, see ADDENDUM)
• On “ethical conflict of interest:” “The city’s meager showing – an interested person’s unqualified conclusions about what unidentified documents ‘reflect’ – falls far short of the...direct evidence required by law.”
• Prior to the City’s Motion to disqualify Michael Stamp as Jane Miller’s attorney, Stamp had “been working on the Miller case for 16 months, and represented numerous other city employees for seven years.”
Timeline of Events:
• May 20, 2008: Letter from Stamp to the City Council “outlining Jane Miller’s complaint.”
• August 2008: Attorney Karen Kramer “advised Stamp Liebert Cassidy Whitmore (LCW) had retained her to investigate Miller’s claims.”
• October 17, 2008: Letter from Attorney Stamp to the City Council “alleging the city didn’t appropriately respond to Miller’s complaint.”
• October 23, 2008: Letter from Human Resources Manager Jane Miller to the City Council, “describing Guillen’s alleged inappropriate behavior toward his female subordinates.”
• Communications between Stamp, Karen Kramer (attorney hired by Liebert Cassidy Whitmore (LCW) to investigate Miller’s allegations) and LCW “regarding the city’s investigation into Miller’s complaint.”
• January 12, 2009: Letter from Stamp to Liebert Cassidy Whitmore (LCW) attorney Rick Bolanos, “alleging Burch had violated protocol by directly contacting Miller and making retaliatory demands on the city’s behalf.”
• June 17, 2009: Human Resources Manager Jane Miller files Complaint against the City in Monterey County Superior Court (M99513) alleging sex-based and age-based discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation in the workplace.
• July 17, 2009: City denies all allegations in response.
• September 2009: City files Motion to disqualify Stamp as the attorney representing Human Resources Manager Jane Miller in her lawsuit.
ADDENDUM:
MONTEREY COUNTY WEEKLY, Scandal-by-the-Sea, Carmel harassment suit heats up amid legal scuffles, Kera Abraham, OCTOBER 15, 2009
INFORMATION ON MOTION HEARING:
MOTION HEARING: City’s Motion to Disqualify Attorney Michael Stamp as Plaintiff Jane Miller’s attorney
DATE & TIME: Friday, October 23, 2009 @ 8:45 A.M.
JUDGE: Hon. Larry E. Hayes
COURTHOUSE INFORMATION: Salinas Courthouse,
240 Church St., Salinas, CA 93901, (831) 775-5400
Department 4, East Wing - 2nd Floor
HIGHLIGHTS OF ATTORNEY MICHAEL STAMP’S 8 OCTOBER 2009 RESPONSE TO CITY’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY ATTORNEY MICHAEL STAMP AS PLAINTIFF JANE MILLER’S ATTORNEY (Credit: MONTEREY COUNTY WEEKLY, see ADDENDUM)
• On “ethical conflict of interest:” “The city’s meager showing – an interested person’s unqualified conclusions about what unidentified documents ‘reflect’ – falls far short of the...direct evidence required by law.”
• Prior to the City’s Motion to disqualify Michael Stamp as Jane Miller’s attorney, Stamp had “been working on the Miller case for 16 months, and represented numerous other city employees for seven years.”
Timeline of Events:
• May 20, 2008: Letter from Stamp to the City Council “outlining Jane Miller’s complaint.”
• August 2008: Attorney Karen Kramer “advised Stamp Liebert Cassidy Whitmore (LCW) had retained her to investigate Miller’s claims.”
• October 17, 2008: Letter from Attorney Stamp to the City Council “alleging the city didn’t appropriately respond to Miller’s complaint.”
• October 23, 2008: Letter from Human Resources Manager Jane Miller to the City Council, “describing Guillen’s alleged inappropriate behavior toward his female subordinates.”
• Communications between Stamp, Karen Kramer (attorney hired by Liebert Cassidy Whitmore (LCW) to investigate Miller’s allegations) and LCW “regarding the city’s investigation into Miller’s complaint.”
• January 12, 2009: Letter from Stamp to Liebert Cassidy Whitmore (LCW) attorney Rick Bolanos, “alleging Burch had violated protocol by directly contacting Miller and making retaliatory demands on the city’s behalf.”
• June 17, 2009: Human Resources Manager Jane Miller files Complaint against the City in Monterey County Superior Court (M99513) alleging sex-based and age-based discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation in the workplace.
• July 17, 2009: City denies all allegations in response.
• September 2009: City files Motion to disqualify Stamp as the attorney representing Human Resources Manager Jane Miller in her lawsuit.
ADDENDUM:
MONTEREY COUNTY WEEKLY, Scandal-by-the-Sea, Carmel harassment suit heats up amid legal scuffles, Kera Abraham, OCTOBER 15, 2009
Sunday, October 11, 2009
UPDATE IV: Flanders Mansion Property: SALIENT POINTS AGAINST THE SALE OF THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY
ABSTRACT: On the 3 November 2009 General Election Ballot, there appears the following question: “Shall discontinuance and abandonment of the Flanders Mansion Property (APN 010-061-005) as public parkland, and authorization to sell the Flanders Mansion Property "with Conservation Easements and Mitigation" as passed on May 12, 2009 by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council by Resolutions No. 2009-30 through 2009-33, be approved.” A Summary of the SALIENT POINTS AGAINST THE SALE OF THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY gleaned from Letters to the Editor and Editorial Commentaries between March 13, 2009 and October 9, 2009 are compiled and presented. REFERENCES consisting of links to the entire original letters and commentaries are provided.
SALIENT POINTS AGAINST THE SALE OF THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY:
• “Bravo to those who support preserving this special piece of parkland so future generations can know of the work of this amazing woman (Lester Rowntree, author, plant collector, lecturer and early popularizer of California native plants for the garden) who died in Carmel in 1979 at the age of 100!” (October 9, 2009)
• “A precedent-setting sale of Flanders could empower current or future Carmel-by-the-Sea city councils to carve up more of the Mission Trail park. For starters, there are nine 40-by-100 lots in the native plant garden which could be sold and developed. Imagine the years of construction disruption, traffic congestion, noise and parking problems that would cause.” (October 9, 2009)
• “...the long battle to save the integrity of Carmel’s one lovely natural park, Mission Trail Nature Preserve. Without a doubt, the nature-loving artists, writers and musicians whose vision gave our town its original soul would turn over in their graves that the idea to sell a part of this treasure could gain any currency here. Though the mansion itself would not be to their taste, since “small is beautiful” expressed their value system, its location within the park and the potential for its use to serve as a venue to preserve and celebrate Carmel’s remarkable past would gain their enthusiastic support. To them it would be a no-brainer!” (October 9, 2009)
• “Back in 1987, when faced with another council’s intention to sell Flanders Mansion and adjacent Martin Meadow, a group of us, neighbors of the park, natives and enlightened newcomers, got together a petition and in a week garnered over 600 signatures to save the mansion and the meadow. It was an inspiring grassroots effort, and we got the city’s promise that they would not ever sell these treasures.” (October 9, 2009)
• “Over the years, there have been a number of suggestions as to a use for it. One, which is echoed by the Flanders Foundation, which is waging a further inspiring battle on behalf of the park, was to utilize the mansion as a library, heritage museum, natural history study center and small gathering place. It had the support of CSUMB and all the Monterey Peninsula’s living artistic luminaries. This is the use that cries out to be implemented.” (October 9, 2009)
• “A precedent-setting sale of Flanders Parkland could empower the current or future Carmel City Councils to carve up more of the Mission Trail Park…there are nine 40-foot-by-100-foot lots in the Native Plant Garden that could be sold and developed. Imagine the years of construction disruption, traffic congestion, noise and parking problems that would cause.” (10/05/2009)
• “Sell Flanders and a precedent is set to carve up another large chunk of our park. The public loses recreational, educational and environmental treasures.” (09/21/2009)
• “I always thought that the city leaders were to be stewards of the public's land, not the agents of their demise.” (09/21/2009)
• ”Land matters. If a piece of our city is taken away, if our parkland is sold off acre by acre, bit by bit, our community begins to lose the distinctiveness, and charm it once created.” (09/19/2009)
• “The park thus would lose its most dramatic area with incomparable views of the Carmel Mission, and the littoral of the Carmel River entering the Pacific with Carmel Bay and Point Lobos in the background.” (September 18, 2009)
• The Flanders Mansion Property “is so clearly a central part of the park that the wooden map signs at park entrances feature the Flanders Mansion as a prominent landmark.” (September 11, 2009)
• “Once the property is sold, this beautiful piece of our park is gone forever.” (September 11, 2009)
• “...substantive reasons for voting not to sell the Flanders Mansion property, including maintaining the physical integrity of Mission Trail Nature Preserve and retaining a National Register of Historic Places resource as a public asset...” (09/10/2009)
• “For over nine years, the mayor has refused to meet and confer with the Flanders Foundation to explore possible public uses; City Council members have failed to present persuasive reasons for the sale of the Flanders Mansion; and the sale of the Flanders Mansion Property would result in the loss of significant parkland that is considered an integral component of Mission Trail Nature Preserve.” (09/10/2009)
• General Plan goals and objectives: "To protect, conserve and enhance the unique natural beauty and irreplaceable natural resources of Carmel"; "Use, maintain, and enhance publicly owned land for the benefit of Carmel residents"; "Establish an acquisitions list when opportunities arise to obtain land and/or facilities within the Carmel city limits"; and "Develop, preserve and enhance areas of scenic interest." (09/07/2009)
• “...tragic to permit this irretrievable loss.” (09/07/2009)
• ”...if our parkland is sold off acre by acre, bit by bit, our community begins to lose the distinctiveness, and charm it once created.” (SEPTEMBER 03, 2009)
• General Plan encourages the city “to preserve, protect our forest and open space; conserve and enhance the irreplaceable natural resources of Carmel.” (SEPTEMBER 3, 2009)
• The City, since Sue McCloud was elected mayor, has “failed to look at lease options that keep the park public and achieve restoration.” (08/23/2009)
• The City, since Sue McCloud was elected mayor, has not “explored any viable uses” for the Flanders Mansion Property; five task forces “looked for uses” “11 to 30 years ago.” (08/23/2009)
• “Once parkland is sold, it is gone forever.” (07/13/2009)
• City has rejected offers to “lease and refurbish” Flanders Mansion from “numerous individuals and organizations” and City has failed to “avail itself of public or private grants.” (07/13/2009)
• City does not lack money to maintain or rehabilitate Flanders Mansion; City reserves $10 million, FY 2008/09 budget “$1.2 million in the black.” (07/13/2009)
• “No reason to sell” Flanders Mansion Property, a 1.25 acre parcel in the “heart of the park.” (7/13/2009)
• Encourages “all of good faith to join the committee to preserve and enhance Flanders Mansion, instead of selling it to a rich party-developer for personal gain.” (6/24/2009)
• Senses “some ulterior motive for the city not putting energy and foresight into Flanders.” (6/24/2009)
• Flanders Mansion a “jewel in the crown of Carmel;” it “could be as well-known and visited as the Carmel Beach and Ocean Avenue." (6/24/2009)
• “Win-win proposition” of a resident curatorship; City leases Flanders Mansion Property to an individual for life and upon death property reverts to the City. Resident curator restores Flanders Mansion at his/her expense and allows public access to Flanders Mansion Property at specified times. (5/8/2009)
• “...once Flanders is gone, it is gone forever.” (4/16/2009)
• Flanders Mansion is “a beautiful mansion situated in spectacular park setting.” (4/16/2009)
• Urges city government representatives and Carmelites in favor of selling the Flanders Mansion Property to meet with Carmelites opposed to selling the Flanders Mansion Property and “work out a solution that keeps this priceless property in the community’s hands.” (4/16/2009)
• Comparison made between what Flanders Mansion and Mission Trail Nature Preserve could be and Villa Montalvo, Gamble House, Filoli, Steinbeck House and La Mirada. (3/13/2009)
• City cites reason to sell Flanders Mansion Property based on need of “significant” repairs, yet the City had failed to apply for grants and meet with local groups during the last 10 years. (3/13/2009)
• Sale of parkland in the “heart of the park” “will damage the park irrevocably." (3/13/2009)
REFERENCES:
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, October 9, 2009 (Move the garden? Mary Ann Matthews, Carmel Valley) 22A & 15 IYD
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, October 9, 2009 (‘Be careful what you wish for,’ Robert E. Kohn, Carmel) 15IYD
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, October 9, 2009 (The importance of parks, Linda Lachmund Smith, Carmel) 15IYD
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 10/05/2009, (Be wary of parkland sale, Robert E. Kohn, Carmel)
The Monterey County Weekly, The Public Voice Letters, SEPTEMBER 24, 2009 (WHAT’S AT STAKE, Margaret L. Purchase | Carmel-by-the-Sea
The Monterey County Herald, 09/21/2009 (Save Carmel park, vote no on Measure I, Margaret L. Purchase Carmel)
The Monterey County Herald, 09/19/2009 (Don't sell off Carmel parkland, Roberta Miller Carmel)
The Carmel Pine Cone, September 18, 2009 (‘Simple solution,’ Olof Dahlstrand, Carmel) pg. 28A
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 11, 2009 (Same parcel? Ann Flower, Carmel) 20A
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 09/10/ 2009 (Don't sell Flanders Mansion for short-term gain, Barbara Stiles, Carmel)
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 09/10/ 2009 (Carmel council failed residents on mansion, L.A. Paterson, Carmel)
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 09/07/2009 (Protect Carmel: Vote 'no' on Measure I, Richard M. Flower, Carmel)
The Monterey County Weekly, Letters to the Editor, SEPTEMBER 03, 2009 (PARK PLACES, Roberta Miller|Carmel)
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 08/23/2009 (Flanders options ignored, Shirley Humann, Carmel)
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 07/13/2009 (No reason to sell Flanders Mansion, Brie Tripp, Carmel)
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 06/24/2009 (Invest in Flanders Mansion, JoAnn Vincent, Carmel)
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, May 8, 2009 (‘Resident curatorship,’ Virginia Connelly, Carmel) 26A
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 04/16/2009 (Flanders priceless property, Richard Stiles, Carmel)
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, March 13, 2009 (‘Enrich our lives,’ Shirley Humann, Carmel) 26A
SALIENT POINTS AGAINST THE SALE OF THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY:
• “Bravo to those who support preserving this special piece of parkland so future generations can know of the work of this amazing woman (Lester Rowntree, author, plant collector, lecturer and early popularizer of California native plants for the garden) who died in Carmel in 1979 at the age of 100!” (October 9, 2009)
• “A precedent-setting sale of Flanders could empower current or future Carmel-by-the-Sea city councils to carve up more of the Mission Trail park. For starters, there are nine 40-by-100 lots in the native plant garden which could be sold and developed. Imagine the years of construction disruption, traffic congestion, noise and parking problems that would cause.” (October 9, 2009)
• “...the long battle to save the integrity of Carmel’s one lovely natural park, Mission Trail Nature Preserve. Without a doubt, the nature-loving artists, writers and musicians whose vision gave our town its original soul would turn over in their graves that the idea to sell a part of this treasure could gain any currency here. Though the mansion itself would not be to their taste, since “small is beautiful” expressed their value system, its location within the park and the potential for its use to serve as a venue to preserve and celebrate Carmel’s remarkable past would gain their enthusiastic support. To them it would be a no-brainer!” (October 9, 2009)
• “Back in 1987, when faced with another council’s intention to sell Flanders Mansion and adjacent Martin Meadow, a group of us, neighbors of the park, natives and enlightened newcomers, got together a petition and in a week garnered over 600 signatures to save the mansion and the meadow. It was an inspiring grassroots effort, and we got the city’s promise that they would not ever sell these treasures.” (October 9, 2009)
• “Over the years, there have been a number of suggestions as to a use for it. One, which is echoed by the Flanders Foundation, which is waging a further inspiring battle on behalf of the park, was to utilize the mansion as a library, heritage museum, natural history study center and small gathering place. It had the support of CSUMB and all the Monterey Peninsula’s living artistic luminaries. This is the use that cries out to be implemented.” (October 9, 2009)
• “A precedent-setting sale of Flanders Parkland could empower the current or future Carmel City Councils to carve up more of the Mission Trail Park…there are nine 40-foot-by-100-foot lots in the Native Plant Garden that could be sold and developed. Imagine the years of construction disruption, traffic congestion, noise and parking problems that would cause.” (10/05/2009)
• “Sell Flanders and a precedent is set to carve up another large chunk of our park. The public loses recreational, educational and environmental treasures.” (09/21/2009)
• “I always thought that the city leaders were to be stewards of the public's land, not the agents of their demise.” (09/21/2009)
• ”Land matters. If a piece of our city is taken away, if our parkland is sold off acre by acre, bit by bit, our community begins to lose the distinctiveness, and charm it once created.” (09/19/2009)
• “The park thus would lose its most dramatic area with incomparable views of the Carmel Mission, and the littoral of the Carmel River entering the Pacific with Carmel Bay and Point Lobos in the background.” (September 18, 2009)
• The Flanders Mansion Property “is so clearly a central part of the park that the wooden map signs at park entrances feature the Flanders Mansion as a prominent landmark.” (September 11, 2009)
• “Once the property is sold, this beautiful piece of our park is gone forever.” (September 11, 2009)
• “...substantive reasons for voting not to sell the Flanders Mansion property, including maintaining the physical integrity of Mission Trail Nature Preserve and retaining a National Register of Historic Places resource as a public asset...” (09/10/2009)
• “For over nine years, the mayor has refused to meet and confer with the Flanders Foundation to explore possible public uses; City Council members have failed to present persuasive reasons for the sale of the Flanders Mansion; and the sale of the Flanders Mansion Property would result in the loss of significant parkland that is considered an integral component of Mission Trail Nature Preserve.” (09/10/2009)
• General Plan goals and objectives: "To protect, conserve and enhance the unique natural beauty and irreplaceable natural resources of Carmel"; "Use, maintain, and enhance publicly owned land for the benefit of Carmel residents"; "Establish an acquisitions list when opportunities arise to obtain land and/or facilities within the Carmel city limits"; and "Develop, preserve and enhance areas of scenic interest." (09/07/2009)
• “...tragic to permit this irretrievable loss.” (09/07/2009)
• ”...if our parkland is sold off acre by acre, bit by bit, our community begins to lose the distinctiveness, and charm it once created.” (SEPTEMBER 03, 2009)
• General Plan encourages the city “to preserve, protect our forest and open space; conserve and enhance the irreplaceable natural resources of Carmel.” (SEPTEMBER 3, 2009)
• The City, since Sue McCloud was elected mayor, has “failed to look at lease options that keep the park public and achieve restoration.” (08/23/2009)
• The City, since Sue McCloud was elected mayor, has not “explored any viable uses” for the Flanders Mansion Property; five task forces “looked for uses” “11 to 30 years ago.” (08/23/2009)
• “Once parkland is sold, it is gone forever.” (07/13/2009)
• City has rejected offers to “lease and refurbish” Flanders Mansion from “numerous individuals and organizations” and City has failed to “avail itself of public or private grants.” (07/13/2009)
• City does not lack money to maintain or rehabilitate Flanders Mansion; City reserves $10 million, FY 2008/09 budget “$1.2 million in the black.” (07/13/2009)
• “No reason to sell” Flanders Mansion Property, a 1.25 acre parcel in the “heart of the park.” (7/13/2009)
• Encourages “all of good faith to join the committee to preserve and enhance Flanders Mansion, instead of selling it to a rich party-developer for personal gain.” (6/24/2009)
• Senses “some ulterior motive for the city not putting energy and foresight into Flanders.” (6/24/2009)
• Flanders Mansion a “jewel in the crown of Carmel;” it “could be as well-known and visited as the Carmel Beach and Ocean Avenue." (6/24/2009)
• “Win-win proposition” of a resident curatorship; City leases Flanders Mansion Property to an individual for life and upon death property reverts to the City. Resident curator restores Flanders Mansion at his/her expense and allows public access to Flanders Mansion Property at specified times. (5/8/2009)
• “...once Flanders is gone, it is gone forever.” (4/16/2009)
• Flanders Mansion is “a beautiful mansion situated in spectacular park setting.” (4/16/2009)
• Urges city government representatives and Carmelites in favor of selling the Flanders Mansion Property to meet with Carmelites opposed to selling the Flanders Mansion Property and “work out a solution that keeps this priceless property in the community’s hands.” (4/16/2009)
• Comparison made between what Flanders Mansion and Mission Trail Nature Preserve could be and Villa Montalvo, Gamble House, Filoli, Steinbeck House and La Mirada. (3/13/2009)
• City cites reason to sell Flanders Mansion Property based on need of “significant” repairs, yet the City had failed to apply for grants and meet with local groups during the last 10 years. (3/13/2009)
• Sale of parkland in the “heart of the park” “will damage the park irrevocably." (3/13/2009)
REFERENCES:
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, October 9, 2009 (Move the garden? Mary Ann Matthews, Carmel Valley) 22A & 15 IYD
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, October 9, 2009 (‘Be careful what you wish for,’ Robert E. Kohn, Carmel) 15IYD
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, October 9, 2009 (The importance of parks, Linda Lachmund Smith, Carmel) 15IYD
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 10/05/2009, (Be wary of parkland sale, Robert E. Kohn, Carmel)
The Monterey County Weekly, The Public Voice Letters, SEPTEMBER 24, 2009 (WHAT’S AT STAKE, Margaret L. Purchase | Carmel-by-the-Sea
The Monterey County Herald, 09/21/2009 (Save Carmel park, vote no on Measure I, Margaret L. Purchase Carmel)
The Monterey County Herald, 09/19/2009 (Don't sell off Carmel parkland, Roberta Miller Carmel)
The Carmel Pine Cone, September 18, 2009 (‘Simple solution,’ Olof Dahlstrand, Carmel) pg. 28A
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 11, 2009 (Same parcel? Ann Flower, Carmel) 20A
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 09/10/ 2009 (Don't sell Flanders Mansion for short-term gain, Barbara Stiles, Carmel)
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 09/10/ 2009 (Carmel council failed residents on mansion, L.A. Paterson, Carmel)
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 09/07/2009 (Protect Carmel: Vote 'no' on Measure I, Richard M. Flower, Carmel)
The Monterey County Weekly, Letters to the Editor, SEPTEMBER 03, 2009 (PARK PLACES, Roberta Miller|Carmel)
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 08/23/2009 (Flanders options ignored, Shirley Humann, Carmel)
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 07/13/2009 (No reason to sell Flanders Mansion, Brie Tripp, Carmel)
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 06/24/2009 (Invest in Flanders Mansion, JoAnn Vincent, Carmel)
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, May 8, 2009 (‘Resident curatorship,’ Virginia Connelly, Carmel) 26A
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 04/16/2009 (Flanders priceless property, Richard Stiles, Carmel)
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, March 13, 2009 (‘Enrich our lives,’ Shirley Humann, Carmel) 26A
UPDATE IV: Flanders Mansion Property: SALIENT POINTS FOR THE SALE OF THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY
ABSTRACT: On the 3 November 2009 General Election Ballot, there appears the following question: “Shall discontinuance and abandonment of the Flanders Mansion Property (APN 010-061-005) as public parkland, and authorization to sell the Flanders Mansion Property "with Conservation Easements and Mitigation" as passed on May 12, 2009 by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council by Resolutions No. 2009-30 through 2009-33, be approved.” A Summary of the SALIENT POINTS FOR THE SALE OF THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY gleaned from Letters to the Editor and Editorial Commentaries between March 13, 2009 and October 9, 2009 are compiled and presented. REFERENCES consisting of links to the entire original letters and commentaries are provided.
SALIENT POINTS FOR THE SALE OF THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY:
• “The best plan is to sell the Flanders house to someone who will restore it to its original use as a single-family house. The property will then go back on the tax rolls and, finally, the house will be in use again as a home.” (October 9, 2009)
• “...the preserve does not have adequate traffic and circulation paved roads and paved parking for public or quasi-public use, as was reported in the EIR of January 2009…. Currently and historically, it only has capacity for single-family land use.” (October 9, 2009)
• “Selling Flanders Mansion to a private party will end the exposure of Carmel to the environmental legal actions associated.” (October 9, 2009)
• Claims “The city has examined many suggestions for use, but none — except sale — has merit.” (October 9, 2009)
• “Flanders Mansion was built as a single-family home in a neighborhood of single-family homes. There were no objections to it then and there should be no objections to it now.” (October 9, 2009)
• Claims “Narrow Hatton Road, which provides access to Flanders Mansion, cannot safely accommodate significantly increased traffic.” (October 9, 2009)
• Claims the Flanders Mansion “has been vacant for most of a 30-year period and has been cost-generating and non-revenue-producing throughout the entire period.” (10/05/2009)
• “Keep the unused asset and get little or no value, or sell the unused asset and use the interest income off the proceeds to fund important things for your family. Selling is the sensible thing to do.” (September 25, 2009)
• “There will still be lots of room for dogs, people and wild animals to roam around if we return the home to private use.” (September 18, 2009)
• Asks “How safe is it to have a building and its surrounding area continually exposed to people coming in to prepare for a public event with the extra traffic, water use, possibility of damage to the property and improper use of a narrow county road?” (September 11, 2009)
• Claims it is “very unlikely” that if Flanders Mansion were on Scenic Road instead of Hatton Road, the Flanders Foundation would not take the position that the property should be other than “a single family residence— perhaps a museum, or put to use for some other public purpose.” (September 11, 2009)
• “By not selling the house, the community risks a possible devastating fire or continuing acts of vandalism. New residents would not only restore the home, but would oversee the property. It could then return to its primary purpose — a lovely home in a welcoming residential neighborhood.” (09/05/2009)
• Claims “If the mansion is not sold and becomes some kind of public institution, increased traffic and pedestrians will be at risk.” (09/05/2009)
• ”...the sale can become a shot in our economic arm and our wallet.” (09/04/2009)
• States that the “Carmel City Council and the previous mayor voted to sell the Flanders Mansion property in December 1999.” (08/26/2009)
• “Selling 2 percent leaves 98 percent total parkland for Carmel.” (August 14, 2009)
• Claims using Flanders Mansion “as a quasi-public institution would disrupt the tranquility of the area, with traffic and service vehicles, and even unsettling to flora and fauna.” (August 14, 2009)
• Claims the Flanders Mansion is “unsuitable” for any “worthy public use” “due to its location in a quiet, residential neighborhood.” (7/03/2009)
• Wants “objectors” to purchase Flanders Mansion Property and pay for restoration rather that waste “taxpayers money with legal obstructions.” (5/08/2009)
• Claims, if polled, neighbors want private residence “compatible with the area.” (5/08/2009)
• Claims “no public use that’s suitable” for the Flanders Mansion; cites committee proposal for use as a culinary academy voted down by City Council under Mayor Ken White. (3/27/2009)
REFERENCES:
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, October 9, 2009 (‘Best plan is to sell,’ Pat Sippel, Carmel), 22 A
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, October 9, 2009 (Hatton Road inadequate, Robert G. Morris, Carmel) 15IYD
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, October 9, 2009 (‘End the exposure to litigation,’Pamela Heisinger, Carmel) 15IYD
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, October 9, 2009 (‘Abandon the myth,’ Jeffrey Lehr, M.D., Carmel) 15IYD
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, October 9, 2009 (Thank the Doolittles, Erling Lagerholm, Carmel) 15IYD
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, October 9, 2009 (Hatton Road too narrow, Laura Newmark, Carmel) 15IYD
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 10/05/2009, (It's time to sell Flanders, Dale Hekhuis, Carmel)
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 25, 2009 (A Useful Analogy, Mike Cunningham, Carmel) pg. 36A
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 18, 2009 (A ‘mistake’ to buy it, Carolyn S. Akcan, Carmel) pg. 28A-29A
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 11, 2009 (How safe? J. Daniel Tibbitts, Carmel) 20A
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 11, 2009 (Flanders ‘fiasco,’ William J.Woska, Carmel) 20A-21A
The Carmel Pine Cone, Editorial: Through the looking glass, September 4, 2009
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 4, 2009 (Vote Aye on Measure “I,” Patricia Sandoval, Carmel)
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 4, 2009 (‘A lovely private home,’ Suzanne Lehr, Carmel
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 09/04/2009 (Proceeds from Flanders Mansion would help city, Jon Kannegaard Carmel)
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 08/26/2009 (Flanders options to be studied, Sue McCloud, Mayor of Carmel)
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, August 14, 2009 (Flanders ‘myth,’ Marikay Morris, Carmel) 26A
The Carmel Pine Cone July 3, 2009 (Editorial: The power of one)
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, May 8, 2009 (‘Get rid of Flanders now,’ P. S. Chase, Carmel) 26A
Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, March 27, 2009 (‘Here we go again,’ Rita Holloway, Carmel Valley) 22A
SALIENT POINTS FOR THE SALE OF THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY:
• “The best plan is to sell the Flanders house to someone who will restore it to its original use as a single-family house. The property will then go back on the tax rolls and, finally, the house will be in use again as a home.” (October 9, 2009)
• “...the preserve does not have adequate traffic and circulation paved roads and paved parking for public or quasi-public use, as was reported in the EIR of January 2009…. Currently and historically, it only has capacity for single-family land use.” (October 9, 2009)
• “Selling Flanders Mansion to a private party will end the exposure of Carmel to the environmental legal actions associated.” (October 9, 2009)
• Claims “The city has examined many suggestions for use, but none — except sale — has merit.” (October 9, 2009)
• “Flanders Mansion was built as a single-family home in a neighborhood of single-family homes. There were no objections to it then and there should be no objections to it now.” (October 9, 2009)
• Claims “Narrow Hatton Road, which provides access to Flanders Mansion, cannot safely accommodate significantly increased traffic.” (October 9, 2009)
• Claims the Flanders Mansion “has been vacant for most of a 30-year period and has been cost-generating and non-revenue-producing throughout the entire period.” (10/05/2009)
• “Keep the unused asset and get little or no value, or sell the unused asset and use the interest income off the proceeds to fund important things for your family. Selling is the sensible thing to do.” (September 25, 2009)
• “There will still be lots of room for dogs, people and wild animals to roam around if we return the home to private use.” (September 18, 2009)
• Asks “How safe is it to have a building and its surrounding area continually exposed to people coming in to prepare for a public event with the extra traffic, water use, possibility of damage to the property and improper use of a narrow county road?” (September 11, 2009)
• Claims it is “very unlikely” that if Flanders Mansion were on Scenic Road instead of Hatton Road, the Flanders Foundation would not take the position that the property should be other than “a single family residence— perhaps a museum, or put to use for some other public purpose.” (September 11, 2009)
• “By not selling the house, the community risks a possible devastating fire or continuing acts of vandalism. New residents would not only restore the home, but would oversee the property. It could then return to its primary purpose — a lovely home in a welcoming residential neighborhood.” (09/05/2009)
• Claims “If the mansion is not sold and becomes some kind of public institution, increased traffic and pedestrians will be at risk.” (09/05/2009)
• ”...the sale can become a shot in our economic arm and our wallet.” (09/04/2009)
• States that the “Carmel City Council and the previous mayor voted to sell the Flanders Mansion property in December 1999.” (08/26/2009)
• “Selling 2 percent leaves 98 percent total parkland for Carmel.” (August 14, 2009)
• Claims using Flanders Mansion “as a quasi-public institution would disrupt the tranquility of the area, with traffic and service vehicles, and even unsettling to flora and fauna.” (August 14, 2009)
• Claims the Flanders Mansion is “unsuitable” for any “worthy public use” “due to its location in a quiet, residential neighborhood.” (7/03/2009)
• Wants “objectors” to purchase Flanders Mansion Property and pay for restoration rather that waste “taxpayers money with legal obstructions.” (5/08/2009)
• Claims, if polled, neighbors want private residence “compatible with the area.” (5/08/2009)
• Claims “no public use that’s suitable” for the Flanders Mansion; cites committee proposal for use as a culinary academy voted down by City Council under Mayor Ken White. (3/27/2009)
REFERENCES:
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, October 9, 2009 (‘Best plan is to sell,’ Pat Sippel, Carmel), 22 A
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, October 9, 2009 (Hatton Road inadequate, Robert G. Morris, Carmel) 15IYD
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, October 9, 2009 (‘End the exposure to litigation,’Pamela Heisinger, Carmel) 15IYD
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, October 9, 2009 (‘Abandon the myth,’ Jeffrey Lehr, M.D., Carmel) 15IYD
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, October 9, 2009 (Thank the Doolittles, Erling Lagerholm, Carmel) 15IYD
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, October 9, 2009 (Hatton Road too narrow, Laura Newmark, Carmel) 15IYD
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 10/05/2009, (It's time to sell Flanders, Dale Hekhuis, Carmel)
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 25, 2009 (A Useful Analogy, Mike Cunningham, Carmel) pg. 36A
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 18, 2009 (A ‘mistake’ to buy it, Carolyn S. Akcan, Carmel) pg. 28A-29A
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 11, 2009 (How safe? J. Daniel Tibbitts, Carmel) 20A
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 11, 2009 (Flanders ‘fiasco,’ William J.Woska, Carmel) 20A-21A
The Carmel Pine Cone, Editorial: Through the looking glass, September 4, 2009
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 4, 2009 (Vote Aye on Measure “I,” Patricia Sandoval, Carmel)
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, September 4, 2009 (‘A lovely private home,’ Suzanne Lehr, Carmel
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 09/04/2009 (Proceeds from Flanders Mansion would help city, Jon Kannegaard Carmel)
The Monterey County Herald, Letters to the Editor, 08/26/2009 (Flanders options to be studied, Sue McCloud, Mayor of Carmel)
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, August 14, 2009 (Flanders ‘myth,’ Marikay Morris, Carmel) 26A
The Carmel Pine Cone July 3, 2009 (Editorial: The power of one)
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, May 8, 2009 (‘Get rid of Flanders now,’ P. S. Chase, Carmel) 26A
Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, March 27, 2009 (‘Here we go again,’ Rita Holloway, Carmel Valley) 22A
Friday, October 09, 2009
Significant New Information from Letters to the Editor Writers
ABSTRACT: In The Carmel Pine Cone, October 9, 2009 issue, three Letters to the Editor provide new information regarding Flanders Mansion, namely that a City Committee adopted “one overriding fact” that precluded the Committee from objectively analyzing and evaluating potential pubic uses, city officials have apparently violated the terms of an agreement between the City and CNPS and a group of “neighbors of the park, natives and enlightened newcomers” got the city’s “promise that they would not ever sell these treasures” in 1987. Comments are made on each Letter to the Editor.
• Letter to the Editor, The Carmel Pine Cone, by Pat Sippel:
In describing her “eight years on a city committee which studied possible uses for the Flanders house,” Pat Sippel wrote, as follows: “We worked with one overriding fact: The house is a single-family dwelling in a quiet residential neighborhood located on a winding road. The neighbors have always made it known to the city council that they do not want any public or commercial use of the residence. Do you blame them?”
Comment: Sippel’s statement betrays a mindset which precluded the committee from objectively analyzing and evaluating potential public uses for the Flanders Mansion; and that is, the committee’s assumption that no public use would be acceptable because of their beliefs about the opinions of some Hatton Fields residents. Moreover, since 2000, the City has not appointed members to a committee to study the issue and the mayor has not met and conferred with Flanders Foundation, which formally became a non-profit, 501(c)3 organization in 1999, or any other groups or individuals, to explore public use options for the Flanders Mansion.
• Letter to the Editor by Mary Ann Matthews, Past President of the Monterey Bay Chapter of the California Native Plant Society:
Mary Ann Matthews wrote that “city officials are known to have asked the Rowntree Garden Committee to agree to move it” (Lester Rowntree Native Plant Garden) and “the Rowntree Garden Committee members voted unanimously to oppose moving the garden and so informed the city.” Moreover, “the terms of the agreement between the city and CNPS state that the garden is to remain a quiet natural retreat, encouraging walk-in visits from local residents and from visitors who park at the Mission.”
Comment: Ergo, city officials apparently have violated the terms of an agreement between the City and CNPS by making requests that the Rowntree Garden Committee agree to move the Native Plant Garden to another location.
• Letter to the Editor by Linda Lachmund Smith:
Linda Lachmund Smith wrote, as follows: “Back in 1987, when faced with another council’s intention to sell Flanders Mansion and adjacent Martin Meadow, a group of us, neighbors of the park, natives and enlightened newcomers, got together a petition and in a week garnered over 600 signatures to save the mansion and the meadow. It was an inspiring grassroots effort, and we got the city’s promise that they would not ever sell these treasures.”
Furthermore, one public use for Flanders Mansion “was to utilize the mansion as a library, heritage museum, natural history study center and small gathering place. It had the support of CSUMB and all the Monterey Peninsula’s living artistic luminaries. This is the use that cries out to be implemented.”
Comment: The Mayor and City Council should honor the “promise” made by the City in 1987 to the group of neighbors of the park that the City would not ever sell Flanders Mansion, et cetera.
(Source: The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, October 9, 2009, 22A and 15IYD)
• Letter to the Editor, The Carmel Pine Cone, by Pat Sippel:
In describing her “eight years on a city committee which studied possible uses for the Flanders house,” Pat Sippel wrote, as follows: “We worked with one overriding fact: The house is a single-family dwelling in a quiet residential neighborhood located on a winding road. The neighbors have always made it known to the city council that they do not want any public or commercial use of the residence. Do you blame them?”
Comment: Sippel’s statement betrays a mindset which precluded the committee from objectively analyzing and evaluating potential public uses for the Flanders Mansion; and that is, the committee’s assumption that no public use would be acceptable because of their beliefs about the opinions of some Hatton Fields residents. Moreover, since 2000, the City has not appointed members to a committee to study the issue and the mayor has not met and conferred with Flanders Foundation, which formally became a non-profit, 501(c)3 organization in 1999, or any other groups or individuals, to explore public use options for the Flanders Mansion.
• Letter to the Editor by Mary Ann Matthews, Past President of the Monterey Bay Chapter of the California Native Plant Society:
Mary Ann Matthews wrote that “city officials are known to have asked the Rowntree Garden Committee to agree to move it” (Lester Rowntree Native Plant Garden) and “the Rowntree Garden Committee members voted unanimously to oppose moving the garden and so informed the city.” Moreover, “the terms of the agreement between the city and CNPS state that the garden is to remain a quiet natural retreat, encouraging walk-in visits from local residents and from visitors who park at the Mission.”
Comment: Ergo, city officials apparently have violated the terms of an agreement between the City and CNPS by making requests that the Rowntree Garden Committee agree to move the Native Plant Garden to another location.
• Letter to the Editor by Linda Lachmund Smith:
Linda Lachmund Smith wrote, as follows: “Back in 1987, when faced with another council’s intention to sell Flanders Mansion and adjacent Martin Meadow, a group of us, neighbors of the park, natives and enlightened newcomers, got together a petition and in a week garnered over 600 signatures to save the mansion and the meadow. It was an inspiring grassroots effort, and we got the city’s promise that they would not ever sell these treasures.”
Furthermore, one public use for Flanders Mansion “was to utilize the mansion as a library, heritage museum, natural history study center and small gathering place. It had the support of CSUMB and all the Monterey Peninsula’s living artistic luminaries. This is the use that cries out to be implemented.”
Comment: The Mayor and City Council should honor the “promise” made by the City in 1987 to the group of neighbors of the park that the City would not ever sell Flanders Mansion, et cetera.
(Source: The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, October 9, 2009, 22A and 15IYD)
Save Our Park, Vote No on Measure ‘I’
ABSTRACT: The text of the Save Our Park, Vote No on Measure “I” color postcard mailed to Carmelites, sent by the Committee to Oppose Measure I and Save Mission Trail Park, is reproduced, including a link to their website.
Save Our Park
Vote No on Measure “I”
"There’s so much here to love – and protect.”
Learn more at heartofthepark.org
The heart of Mission Trail park will be gone forever – if we sell.
Mission Trail Park is a treasured resource for us all. The Flanders property is at its heart. But if we sell it, it will be gone forever. We must keep our park whole:
• Because it saves trails, views and open space – why exchange them for wall and fences?
• Because the city has an obligation to the public to “preserve and acquire parkland.” It’s right there in the General Plan.
• Because the city doesn’t need the money, with millions in reserves, and we should not raise temporary cash by selling precious assets.
• Because keeping the property will cost us nothing. Several groups and individuals have offered to restore and maintain it at no expense.
We can and must keep Mission Trail Park whole – for ourselves and for future generations.
Vote no on the sale of our parkland. Vote No on Measure “I.”
The League of Women Voters, and the Carmel Residents Association
Recommend Vote No on Measure “I”
Sent by the Committee to Oppose Measure I and Save Mission Trail Park
P.O. Box 2303, Carmel, Ca. 93921
To volunteer or contribute, call 624-3942
Save Our Park
Vote No on Measure “I”
"There’s so much here to love – and protect.”
Learn more at heartofthepark.org
The heart of Mission Trail park will be gone forever – if we sell.
Mission Trail Park is a treasured resource for us all. The Flanders property is at its heart. But if we sell it, it will be gone forever. We must keep our park whole:
• Because it saves trails, views and open space – why exchange them for wall and fences?
• Because the city has an obligation to the public to “preserve and acquire parkland.” It’s right there in the General Plan.
• Because the city doesn’t need the money, with millions in reserves, and we should not raise temporary cash by selling precious assets.
• Because keeping the property will cost us nothing. Several groups and individuals have offered to restore and maintain it at no expense.
We can and must keep Mission Trail Park whole – for ourselves and for future generations.
Vote no on the sale of our parkland. Vote No on Measure “I.”
The League of Women Voters, and the Carmel Residents Association
Recommend Vote No on Measure “I”
Sent by the Committee to Oppose Measure I and Save Mission Trail Park
P.O. Box 2303, Carmel, Ca. 93921
To volunteer or contribute, call 624-3942
SELL THE HOUSE & SAVE THE PARK! Vote YES on measure I
ABSTRACT: The text of the SELL THE HOUSE & SAVE THE PARK! Vote YES on measure I color postcard mailed to Carmelites, sent by the Committee for AYE on Measure I, is reproduced and COMMENTS are made.
SELL THE HOUSE & SAVE THE PARK!
Vote YES on measure I
IT’S AS EASY AS AYE ON I
A = ACTIONS by Carmel City Mayors and Councils since 1999 have been to sell the house. Any public use with public events is impractical, with the burden of financing on the taxpayers.
Y = YOU have the power to stop the payment of taxpayer money in frivolous litigation, nearly $800,000 to date, which could be used to improve our local needs.
E = ENVIRONMENT and parkland will be preserved. The Flanders Mansion is on 2% of the Preserve. All 5 trails are unaffected.
VOTE YES ON MEASURE I
Paid for by Committee for AYE on Measure I P.O. box 22351, Carmel, CA 93922
COMMENTS:
• The color photo on the postcard depicts a park bench and bridge near the 11th Av. Entrance surrounded by invasive vegetation overgrowth.
• Since 2000 when Sue McCloud was elected mayor, the City has not appointed an Ad Hoc Committee or Task Force to examine potential public uses for the Flanders Mansion, nor has the City placed proposals for potential public uses on any public hearing agenda for public input and consideration. Therefore, there is no evidence since 2000 that “any public use with public events is impractical.”
• The Committee for AYE on Measure I characterizes litigation involving defendant City of Carmel-by-the-Sea as “frivolous;” translation, the City defines “frivolous” as substantive violations of municipal and state laws. This definition places the City above the law. Interestingly, at the 6 October 2009 City Council meeting, a private attorney deemed the City’s motion to dismiss his clients’ lawsuit against the City as “frivolous,” to which Council Member Gerard Rose replied that a court’s decision in favor of the City granting dismissal of the lawsuit made the motion not frivolous. Applying the same rationale, if a court’s ruling in favor of the City made the City’s motion not frivolous, then a court’s ruling in favor of Flanders Foundation and against the City made the Flanders Foundation similarly not “frivolous.”
• As parkland, the Flanders Mansion Property in Mission Trail Nature Preserve will not be preserved according to the goals, objectives and policies in the City’s General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan. The construction of new trails is mandated due to the creation of a private inholding, if sold to a private owner, because of the permanent loss of parkland currently used by the public.
SELL THE HOUSE & SAVE THE PARK!
Vote YES on measure I
IT’S AS EASY AS AYE ON I
A = ACTIONS by Carmel City Mayors and Councils since 1999 have been to sell the house. Any public use with public events is impractical, with the burden of financing on the taxpayers.
Y = YOU have the power to stop the payment of taxpayer money in frivolous litigation, nearly $800,000 to date, which could be used to improve our local needs.
E = ENVIRONMENT and parkland will be preserved. The Flanders Mansion is on 2% of the Preserve. All 5 trails are unaffected.
VOTE YES ON MEASURE I
Paid for by Committee for AYE on Measure I P.O. box 22351, Carmel, CA 93922
COMMENTS:
• The color photo on the postcard depicts a park bench and bridge near the 11th Av. Entrance surrounded by invasive vegetation overgrowth.
• Since 2000 when Sue McCloud was elected mayor, the City has not appointed an Ad Hoc Committee or Task Force to examine potential public uses for the Flanders Mansion, nor has the City placed proposals for potential public uses on any public hearing agenda for public input and consideration. Therefore, there is no evidence since 2000 that “any public use with public events is impractical.”
• The Committee for AYE on Measure I characterizes litigation involving defendant City of Carmel-by-the-Sea as “frivolous;” translation, the City defines “frivolous” as substantive violations of municipal and state laws. This definition places the City above the law. Interestingly, at the 6 October 2009 City Council meeting, a private attorney deemed the City’s motion to dismiss his clients’ lawsuit against the City as “frivolous,” to which Council Member Gerard Rose replied that a court’s decision in favor of the City granting dismissal of the lawsuit made the motion not frivolous. Applying the same rationale, if a court’s ruling in favor of the City made the City’s motion not frivolous, then a court’s ruling in favor of Flanders Foundation and against the City made the Flanders Foundation similarly not “frivolous.”
• As parkland, the Flanders Mansion Property in Mission Trail Nature Preserve will not be preserved according to the goals, objectives and policies in the City’s General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan. The construction of new trails is mandated due to the creation of a private inholding, if sold to a private owner, because of the permanent loss of parkland currently used by the public.
MEASURE I: IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS BY CITY ATTORNEY
ABSTRACT: The IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS BY CITY ATTORNEY on Measure I is reproduced from the MONTEREY COUNTY ELECTIONS SAMPLE BALLOT pamphlet.
MEASURE I
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Approve discontinuance and abandonment of, and authorization to sell, Flanders mansion property public parkland. Shall discontinuance and abandonment of the Flanders Mansion Property(APN 010-061-005) as public parkland, and authorization to sell the Flanders Mansion Property "with Conservation Easements and Mitigation" as passed on May 12,2009 by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council by Resolutions No. 2009-30 through 2009-33, be approved?
IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS BY CITY ATTORNEY
IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS BY CITY ATTORNEY, CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA REGARDING MEASURE I – A MEASURE TO DISCONTINUE AND ABANDON AS PUBLID PARKLAND APPROXIMATELY 1.252 ACRES KNOWN AS FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY, WITH CONDITINS TO INCLUDE CONSERVATION EASEMENTS AND MITIGATIONS, AND AUTHORIZATION TO SELL THIS PARCEL KNOWN AS FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY.
The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea owns an approximately 1.252 acre parcel known as the Flanders Mansion Property. This property is part of the Mission Trail Nature Preserve. On May 12, 2009, the City Council of Carmel-by-the-Sea approved discontinuance and abandonment of the Flanders Mansion Property as public parkland, and sale of the property subject to conservation easements and mitigations. California State law requires voter approval to sell parkland. The City Council has placed this proposed measure on the ballot so voters can determine whether this action shall or shall not be enacted.
A vote FOR this measure will allow a parcel of land, approximately 1.252 acres in size, which contains a building known as the Flanders Mansion to be discontinued and abandoned as public parkland within Mission Trail Nature Preserve, and will authorize sale of this parcel including the land, buildings and all improvements. Any action to sell the Property would be subject to certain conservation easements and mitigations. Upon sale, the property could be used consistent with zoning standards. Current zoning allows residential use as well as a limited range of non residential uses.
The effect of the conservation easements and mitigations would be to (1) preserve public access to the Mission Trail Nature Preserve and the Lester Rowntree Arboretum at this location, and (2) minimize potential biological impacts on adjacent environmentally sensitive habitat areas that might result from future use of the property by a new owner. Easement restrictions and mitigations would provide for continued public use of portions of the property for trail access and prohibit a future owner of the parcel from installing fencing, walls or other man-made features within the boundaries of the easements. The Flanders Mansion is recognized as an historical resource and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Mitigations would require that the Flanders Mansion be fully rehabilitated as an historical resource consistent with local, State and Federal standards.
A vote AGAINST this measure will not allow the approximately 1.252-acre parcel of land, which contains a building known as the Flanders Mansion, to be discontinued and abandoned as public parkland within the Mission Trail Nature Preserve, will not authorize sale of the parcel, and specified conservation easements and mitigations associated with the measure will not be applicable.
BALLOT MEASURE INFORMATION HAS BEEN PRINTED “AS SUBMITTED” AND PROOFED BY THE PUBLIC AGENCY SUBMITTING THE MEASURE PRIOR TO PRINTING
MEASURE I
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Approve discontinuance and abandonment of, and authorization to sell, Flanders mansion property public parkland. Shall discontinuance and abandonment of the Flanders Mansion Property(APN 010-061-005) as public parkland, and authorization to sell the Flanders Mansion Property "with Conservation Easements and Mitigation" as passed on May 12,2009 by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council by Resolutions No. 2009-30 through 2009-33, be approved?
IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS BY CITY ATTORNEY
IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS BY CITY ATTORNEY, CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA REGARDING MEASURE I – A MEASURE TO DISCONTINUE AND ABANDON AS PUBLID PARKLAND APPROXIMATELY 1.252 ACRES KNOWN AS FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY, WITH CONDITINS TO INCLUDE CONSERVATION EASEMENTS AND MITIGATIONS, AND AUTHORIZATION TO SELL THIS PARCEL KNOWN AS FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY.
The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea owns an approximately 1.252 acre parcel known as the Flanders Mansion Property. This property is part of the Mission Trail Nature Preserve. On May 12, 2009, the City Council of Carmel-by-the-Sea approved discontinuance and abandonment of the Flanders Mansion Property as public parkland, and sale of the property subject to conservation easements and mitigations. California State law requires voter approval to sell parkland. The City Council has placed this proposed measure on the ballot so voters can determine whether this action shall or shall not be enacted.
A vote FOR this measure will allow a parcel of land, approximately 1.252 acres in size, which contains a building known as the Flanders Mansion to be discontinued and abandoned as public parkland within Mission Trail Nature Preserve, and will authorize sale of this parcel including the land, buildings and all improvements. Any action to sell the Property would be subject to certain conservation easements and mitigations. Upon sale, the property could be used consistent with zoning standards. Current zoning allows residential use as well as a limited range of non residential uses.
The effect of the conservation easements and mitigations would be to (1) preserve public access to the Mission Trail Nature Preserve and the Lester Rowntree Arboretum at this location, and (2) minimize potential biological impacts on adjacent environmentally sensitive habitat areas that might result from future use of the property by a new owner. Easement restrictions and mitigations would provide for continued public use of portions of the property for trail access and prohibit a future owner of the parcel from installing fencing, walls or other man-made features within the boundaries of the easements. The Flanders Mansion is recognized as an historical resource and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Mitigations would require that the Flanders Mansion be fully rehabilitated as an historical resource consistent with local, State and Federal standards.
A vote AGAINST this measure will not allow the approximately 1.252-acre parcel of land, which contains a building known as the Flanders Mansion, to be discontinued and abandoned as public parkland within the Mission Trail Nature Preserve, will not authorize sale of the parcel, and specified conservation easements and mitigations associated with the measure will not be applicable.
BALLOT MEASURE INFORMATION HAS BEEN PRINTED “AS SUBMITTED” AND PROOFED BY THE PUBLIC AGENCY SUBMITTING THE MEASURE PRIOR TO PRINTING
MONTEREY COUNTY ELECTIONS: MEASURE “I” ARGUMENTS & REBUTTALS
Abstract: With regard to Measure I, the texts of ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE I and REBUTTAL TO THE ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE I, from the MONTEREY COUNTY ELECTIONS SAMPLE BALLOT pamphlet, are reproduced. Measure I requires Majority Approval for passage.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF OR IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED LAWS ARE THE OPINIONS OF THE AUTHORS.
MEASURE I
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE I
For 10 plus years, City Councils have voted to preserve Flanders Mansion by ensuring its continued use as an historic family residence. After 35 years of study, the City found no municipal use for this isolated building that would merit its restoration cost and long-term maintenance. Sale as an historic home will put it back on property tax rolls and end these costs.
Built in 1924 on the eastern edge of the Mission Trail Park (MTP) at 25800 Hatton Road, the approximately 6,000-square-foot Flanders Mansion is accessed by a driveway from Hatton Road. In 1971 Carmel purchased 17.5 acres and in 1972 14.9 acres including Flanders to form MTP. Twice during this period the City denied subdivision of the property. In 1989 Flanders was placed on the National Register of Historic Places for its local significance.
After the City’s purchase, Council twice discussed the possibility of selling the house to finance the purchase of the 32.4 acres of open space (of which the City has a total of 135 acres). The City borders three sides of MTP, while the east side (Hatton Road) is a residential area located in Monterey County.
The City began discussing possible uses of Flanders at a town hall meeting in 1977. Subsequently, five task forces were formed, one deliberated for eight years, to determine a use which would be compatible with the Hatton Road residential area. None was found. Flanders has been vacant since 2003 as it is not compatible with the Americans with Disabilities Act nor seismically retrofitted as necessary for public use.
Please vote with the last six Councils to sell Flanders (including 1.252 improved acres—house, roundabout and driveway access) to preserve this historic family residence, while retaining 31 plus acres in MTP.
/s/ Sue McCloud Mayor
/s/ Karen Sharp Mayor Pro Tempore
/s/Paula Hazdovac Councilperson
/s/ Gerard Rose Councilperson
/s/ Ken Talmage Councilperson
REBUTTAL TO THE ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE I
Proponents of Measure “I” claim that the best way to preserve the property at the heart of Mission Trail Park is to sell it.
But you cannot preserve park land by selling it. If park land is sold into private hands, it is no longer park land. The physical property may be “preserved,” but as a park, it is eliminated.
Let there by no confusion, a sale would eliminate a critical part of Mission Trail Park forever. We would lose trails, views and ambiance. Open space would be replaced by walls and fences.
The city’s General Plan contains a clear, firm commitment to “preserve and acquire open space and parks.” This is a public trust: The city council is required to protect our park land on our behalf.
But if the property is sold, the heart of Mission Trail Park will be gone forever.
And there is no need to sell. The city has significant reserves and budget surpluses. Several organizations have already offered to take on the repair and maintenance of the building and land, at no cost to the city of Carmel.
Mission Trail Park is a treasured recreational and environmental resource. Please help keep the park intact, for all of us, and for future generations.
Please vote no on the sale of park land: Vote No on Measure “I.”
/s/ James C. Emery Retired/Resident
/s/ Margaret Young Resident
/s/ Margery C. Adams Retired/Resident
/s/ Gregory D’Ambrosio Retired/Resident
/s/ Roberta G. Miller Retired/Resident
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF OR IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED LAWS ARE THE OPINIONS OF THE AUTHORS.
MEASURE I
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE I
For 10 plus years, City Councils have voted to preserve Flanders Mansion by ensuring its continued use as an historic family residence. After 35 years of study, the City found no municipal use for this isolated building that would merit its restoration cost and long-term maintenance. Sale as an historic home will put it back on property tax rolls and end these costs.
Built in 1924 on the eastern edge of the Mission Trail Park (MTP) at 25800 Hatton Road, the approximately 6,000-square-foot Flanders Mansion is accessed by a driveway from Hatton Road. In 1971 Carmel purchased 17.5 acres and in 1972 14.9 acres including Flanders to form MTP. Twice during this period the City denied subdivision of the property. In 1989 Flanders was placed on the National Register of Historic Places for its local significance.
After the City’s purchase, Council twice discussed the possibility of selling the house to finance the purchase of the 32.4 acres of open space (of which the City has a total of 135 acres). The City borders three sides of MTP, while the east side (Hatton Road) is a residential area located in Monterey County.
The City began discussing possible uses of Flanders at a town hall meeting in 1977. Subsequently, five task forces were formed, one deliberated for eight years, to determine a use which would be compatible with the Hatton Road residential area. None was found. Flanders has been vacant since 2003 as it is not compatible with the Americans with Disabilities Act nor seismically retrofitted as necessary for public use.
Please vote with the last six Councils to sell Flanders (including 1.252 improved acres—house, roundabout and driveway access) to preserve this historic family residence, while retaining 31 plus acres in MTP.
/s/ Sue McCloud Mayor
/s/ Karen Sharp Mayor Pro Tempore
/s/Paula Hazdovac Councilperson
/s/ Gerard Rose Councilperson
/s/ Ken Talmage Councilperson
REBUTTAL TO THE ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE I
Proponents of Measure “I” claim that the best way to preserve the property at the heart of Mission Trail Park is to sell it.
But you cannot preserve park land by selling it. If park land is sold into private hands, it is no longer park land. The physical property may be “preserved,” but as a park, it is eliminated.
Let there by no confusion, a sale would eliminate a critical part of Mission Trail Park forever. We would lose trails, views and ambiance. Open space would be replaced by walls and fences.
The city’s General Plan contains a clear, firm commitment to “preserve and acquire open space and parks.” This is a public trust: The city council is required to protect our park land on our behalf.
But if the property is sold, the heart of Mission Trail Park will be gone forever.
And there is no need to sell. The city has significant reserves and budget surpluses. Several organizations have already offered to take on the repair and maintenance of the building and land, at no cost to the city of Carmel.
Mission Trail Park is a treasured recreational and environmental resource. Please help keep the park intact, for all of us, and for future generations.
Please vote no on the sale of park land: Vote No on Measure “I.”
/s/ James C. Emery Retired/Resident
/s/ Margaret Young Resident
/s/ Margery C. Adams Retired/Resident
/s/ Gregory D’Ambrosio Retired/Resident
/s/ Roberta G. Miller Retired/Resident
Thursday, October 08, 2009
Carmel Art Association Presents MELISSA LOFTON SOLO SHOW ‘INBREATH,’ JELMINI & WILLIAMS GALLERY SHOWCASE AND FARRINGTON & LINDBERG TWO-PERSON SHOW ‘FIGURE IT OUT’
Carmel Art Association
“Celebrating 82 years of local art”
Voted “Art Gallery of the Year” by the Carmel Business Association three consecutive years.
W/s Dolores St. between 5th Av. & 6th Av.
10:00 A.M. – 5:00 P.M., Daily, except major Holidays.
Open to the Public at No Charge
“Founded in 1927, Carmel's oldest gallery features the work of more than 120 professional local artists, and is dedicated to presenting only the finest work for sale by artists living on the Monterey Peninsula.”
For more information, Online or (831) 624-6176.
Carmel Art Association Presents MELISSA LOFTON SOLO SHOW ‘INBREATH,’ JELMINI & WILLIAMS GALLERY SHOWCASE AND FARRINGTON & LINDBERG TWO-PERSON SHOW ‘FIGURE IT OUT’
Thursday, October 8 – Tuesday, November 3, 2009
SOLO SHOW “INBREATH” (Center Room):
Painter Melissa Lofton presents new work. View Big Sur painter Melissa Lofton’s brief biography and oil on canvas paintings, including "Pond V," "Untidaled" and "Tree in Field.”
GALLERY SHOWCASE (Segal Room):
Painter Peggy Jelmini exhibits new oil paintings of California wine country, farmlands and the coast. View Peggy Jelmini’s brief biography and oil paintings, including 'The Grapes,' 'Orchard Light' and 'October Vines.'
Painter Andy Williams exhibits contemporary oil landscapes. View paintings from Andy Williams’ New Member Show (June 5 - July 1, 2008) including, "Surfing at Edgar's Point," "Dude," "Where are you?," "California Bronco," "Bottom Lands," "Tres Pinos Tractor," "River Road Spring" and "San Juan Tractor."
TWO-PERSON SHOW: “FIGURE IT OUT” (Beardsley Room, South Wall):
Painters Reed Farrington and Keith Lindberg exhibit new oil paintings of poolside figures and figures in other settings. View one painting by Reed Farrington. And view paintings, including “Coastal Landscape," “Edge of Monterey Pine Grove,” "On the Coast," “California Landscape" and "Monterey Pines," from Keith Lindberg’s November 2007 Exhibit.
Opening Reception - Saturday, October 10, from 6:00 to 8:00 P.M.
“Celebrating 82 years of local art”
Voted “Art Gallery of the Year” by the Carmel Business Association three consecutive years.
W/s Dolores St. between 5th Av. & 6th Av.
10:00 A.M. – 5:00 P.M., Daily, except major Holidays.
Open to the Public at No Charge
“Founded in 1927, Carmel's oldest gallery features the work of more than 120 professional local artists, and is dedicated to presenting only the finest work for sale by artists living on the Monterey Peninsula.”
For more information, Online or (831) 624-6176.
Carmel Art Association Presents MELISSA LOFTON SOLO SHOW ‘INBREATH,’ JELMINI & WILLIAMS GALLERY SHOWCASE AND FARRINGTON & LINDBERG TWO-PERSON SHOW ‘FIGURE IT OUT’
Thursday, October 8 – Tuesday, November 3, 2009
SOLO SHOW “INBREATH” (Center Room):
Painter Melissa Lofton presents new work. View Big Sur painter Melissa Lofton’s brief biography and oil on canvas paintings, including "Pond V," "Untidaled" and "Tree in Field.”
GALLERY SHOWCASE (Segal Room):
Painter Peggy Jelmini exhibits new oil paintings of California wine country, farmlands and the coast. View Peggy Jelmini’s brief biography and oil paintings, including 'The Grapes,' 'Orchard Light' and 'October Vines.'
Painter Andy Williams exhibits contemporary oil landscapes. View paintings from Andy Williams’ New Member Show (June 5 - July 1, 2008) including, "Surfing at Edgar's Point," "Dude," "Where are you?," "California Bronco," "Bottom Lands," "Tres Pinos Tractor," "River Road Spring" and "San Juan Tractor."
TWO-PERSON SHOW: “FIGURE IT OUT” (Beardsley Room, South Wall):
Painters Reed Farrington and Keith Lindberg exhibit new oil paintings of poolside figures and figures in other settings. View one painting by Reed Farrington. And view paintings, including “Coastal Landscape," “Edge of Monterey Pine Grove,” "On the Coast," “California Landscape" and "Monterey Pines," from Keith Lindberg’s November 2007 Exhibit.
Opening Reception - Saturday, October 10, from 6:00 to 8:00 P.M.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)