ABSTRACT: Two noteworthy 1 December 2009 City Council Agenda Items, namely, Present FY 2008-09 Draft Audited Financial Statements by Ralph Marcello, Marcello & Company CPAs and a Resolution authorizing participation in an Initial Exploration and Analysis of Joint Fire Service Options, are presented. Selected excerpts from Agenda Item Summary and Staff Report are presented for the Resolution Agenda Item. Informational COMMENTS are made regarding the Initial Exploration and Analysis of Joint Fire Service Options.
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
City Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
4:30 p.m., Open Session
Live and archived video streaming available
City Hall
East side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues
V. Announcements from Closed Session, from City Council Members and the City Administrator.
C. Announcements from City Administrator
1. Present FY 2008-09 Draft Audited Financial Statements by Ralph Marcello, Marcello & Company CPAs.
X. Resolutions
A. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing participation in an Initial Exploration and Analysis of Joint Fire Service Options.
Description: At a November meeting, Mayors, City Managers and Fire Department Managers discussed the concept of joint fire services. The main discussion of the meeting was to review the current opportunities given the shrinking financial resources available to public agencies. The discussion centered on the potential of achieving organizational and operational efficiencies through some joint fire service options. The general consensus of the group was to participate in further discussions and analysis of achieving joint fire services.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: $0 with this action/unknown as to any future expense.
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.
Important Considerations: Joint fire services should only be considered if improvements occur through a joint management oversight and improvements to operational efficiencies.
Decision Record: Several discussions have occurred over the past three to four years regarding fire shared services. To date, no action has been taken by the Council to expand beyond the current fire administration contract with the City of Monterey.
Authorize participation in an initial exploration and analysis of joint fire service options with the following goals:
a. Reduce or maintain response time for each community
b. Lower ISO rating for each community
c. Lower operating cost for each community
d. Increase the number of people and equipment available for response
City Staff anticipates completion of the Initial Analysis in early 2010.
COMMENTS:
• On Monday, 16 November 2009, representatives, including Fire Chiefs, elected officials and administrators for the cities of Monterey, Seaside, Pacific Grove, Marina, Sand City, Del Rey Oaks and Carmel-by-the-Sea, as well as the Monterey Peninsula Airport District, Presidio of Monterey, and Salinas Rural and Carmel Valley Fire Districts, met in Monterey to discuss the concept of a Monterey Peninsula-wide Fire Department and agreed to further research the regional fire department concept.
(Source: Fire chiefs, political leaders want Peninsula-wide Department, MARY BROWNFIELD, The Carmel Pine Cone, 8a &30A)
• Carmel-by-the-Sea’s Interim Fire Protection Services Contract with the City of Monterey expires January 31, 2010.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Thursday, November 19, 2009
THE FLANDERS FOUNDATION v. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA et al.: Petitioner’s Opening Brief in Support of Petition for Writ of Mandamus
ABSTRACT: With regard to THE FLANDERS FOUNDATION, a California Nonprofit Public Benefit corporation, Petitioner v. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA and CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, Respondents (M99437), Petitioner’s Opening Brief in Support of Petition for Writ of Mandamus, dated October 21, 2009, was filed with Monterey County Superior Court on October 27, 2009. Selected excerpts from the Brief are presented. An ADDENDUM, consisting of links to particularly relevant court cases referred to in the Brief and Government Code Sections 38440-38462 and 54220-54222, is provided. Respondents Brief is due Thursday, November 19, 2009 and Petitioner’s Reply Brief is due Wednesday, November 25, 2009. A Hearing is scheduled for Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 9:00 A.M., Courtroom 14, Monterey Courthouse, 1200 Aguajito Rd. Monterey, CA., Hon. Kay T. Kingsley presiding and attorneys Susan Brandt-Hawley for Petitioner and Richard Harray for Respondents.
BRANDT-HAWLEY LAW GROUP
Susan Brandt-Hawley, SBN 75907
P.O. Box 1659
Glen Ellen CA. 95442
707.938.3900
Attorney for Petitioner
The Flanders Foundation
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY
THE FLANDERS FOUNDATION, a California Nonprofit Public Benefit corporation, Petitioner
v.
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA and CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA,
Respondents
Case No. M99437
Petitioner’s Opening Brief in Support of Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Honorable Kay T. Kingsley
Date: December 17, 2009
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Dept.: 17
Stamped Filed October 27, 2009
Introduction
The Flanders Foundation brings this mandamus action in the public interest regarding the proposed sale of the City-owned c. 1924 Flanders Mansion...
A sale would have concededly significant environmental impacts, creating a problematic park in-holding and restricting public access; a lease would not. Thus, “absent substantial evidence in the form of an economic analysis that most project objectives could not feasibly be accomplished via lease,…the project cannot be approved” under mandates of the California Environmental Quality Act.
New violations of CEQA are the impetus for this action...
The Foundation looks to this Court to continue to protect the historic integrity and legacy of the magnificent Mansion and the Mission Trails Nature Preserve in accord with law…the primary issue before the Court is whether substantial evidence supports the City’s findings that lease of the Mansion property is infeasible. The Foundation will show that there is no such evidence. Since a lease would meet most project objectives and avoid the admittedly significant impacts of sale, a sale remains unlawful under CEQA’s substantive mandate-regardless of the outcome of the vote.
A preemptory writ should issue in the public interest.
Issues
The issues before the Court are:
1. Did the City proceed in the manner required by law in analyzing impacts, alternatives, and responding to comments relating to proposed sale of the Flanders Mansion property?
2. Does substantial evidence support the City’s findings that alternatives to the sale of the Flanders Mansion property are infeasible?
3. Does substantial evidence support the City’s statement of overriding considerations?
Scope and Standard of Review
In deciding whether to issue a writ for violations of CEQA, the Court shall decide whether the City committed a prejudicial abuse of discretion: if it did not proceed in the manner required by law, if its decision is not supported by findings, or if its findings are not supported by substantial evidence in the record.
Discussion: Material Violations of CEQA
A. The EIR is Inadequate and Incomplete
2. Analysis of Environmental Impacts relating to the Surplus Land Act
Because the Flanders Mansion property has been judicially determined to be parkland, the judgment in the Flanders 1 case required that “in order to sell the Mansion, the City must comply with Government Code sections 38440-38462 and 54220-54222...” In particular, Surplus Land Act sections 54220 et seq. require that the City, prior to declaring the Flanders Mansion property surplus land and selling it to a private party, make it available “to sell or lease” to public agencies and qualified housing sponsors “for the purpose of developing low- and moderate-income housing.”
Priority is to be given to affordable housing “for lower income elderly or disabled persons or households, and other lower income households.” Another priority is for the City to make a written offer to sell or lease to other agencies for park and recreational purposes or open-space.
The Recirculated Draft EIR provides no analysis of potentially significant environmental impacts that could attend the potential adaptive reuse of the Flanders Mansion property by other agencies for low or moderate-income housing or other purposes.
The upshot of...about the unstudied import of the Surplus Land Act is that the EIR is inadequate. The EIR must provide the City and the public with detailed information about the effect the proposed sale is likely to have on the environment, to list ways significant effects might be minimized, and to indicate alternatives…Here, the disclosure of impacts is misleadingly incomplete.
The EIR should be revised to analyze the reasonable impacts of the Surplus Lands Act mandates and recirculated so that the public and other agencies can comment. The City Council should face the full scope of impacts of a decision to sell the Flanders Mansion property.
3. Responses to Comments
The City is required to provide a “good faith, reasoned analysis” in response to comments on the EIR: “conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice.” Responses must explain why commentators’ proposed mitigations and alternatives were rejected.
The EIR’s responses to comments should be revised and the EIR must be recirculated in these key points [Surplus Land Act, parcel size issues] which could impact the City Council’s decisions about the scope of the project.
4. Analysis of Economic Feasibility
a. Feasibility Analysis Should be in the EIR
When the feasibility of an alternative depends largely on economic factors, analysis should be in the EIR in order for the City Council to have adequate information on which to make its decision.
...the City had the economic analysis during the EIR comment period, but did not share it with the public.
This was error, as the City failed to proceed in the manner required by law.
b. The CBRE Report was Inadequate
As to the substance of the economic report and its analysis of economic feasibility, the entire premise of CBRE’s approach was faulty and the report is inadequate. The Flanders 1 judgment is binding on the City, and requires that “absent substantial evidence in the form of an economic analysis that most project objectives could not feasibly be accomplished via lease,...the project cannot be approved” under mandates of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Analysis of the feasibility of alternatives flows from the project objectives. The question is whether any alternative can feasibly accomplish most project objectives. “Feasible” means “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.”
The CBRE report does not look at factors relevant to the economic challenges of leasing an historic mansion located in parkland, or the City’s financial capabilities in restoring and maintaining the property itself, and thus failed to meet the requirements of this Court’s ruling.
The CBRE report should have been included in the EIR and circulated for comment. It is also inadequate as a basis for analyzing the feasibility of a no project or lease alternative, as it does not look at comparable park/mansion properties, City maintenance expenses, City budget and funding capabilities, nor the financial feasibility of any of the myriad potential quasi-public uses suggested by the Flanders Foundation and others. The EIR analysis of the feasibility of project alternatives failed to proceed in the manner required by law and a writ should issue.
B. Lease of Flanders Mansion is Feasible
When a discretionary project may have significant environmental impacts, it cannot be approved if there are feasible alternatives that accomplish most project objectives.
...that projects with significant environmental impacts should not be approved if there are feasible alternatives available that would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects. If a project will have such effect, it cannot be approved as proposed unless specific “economic, social, or other conditions” make alternatives and mitigations infeasible...
...the City’s reliance on the CBRE economic report is misplaced, as the wrong questions were asked and answered. The Flanders Mansion property is parkland, and not a commercial property comparable to a medical office...
...If the city is not financially able to maintain its property due to financial hardship or because the property does not warrant investment, infeasibility could be shown. But there is no such showing in the record.
As held in Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1988) 197 Cal. App. 3d 1167:
The fact that an alternative may be more expensive or less profitable is not sufficient to show that the alternative is financially infeasible. What is required is evidence that the additional costs or lost profitability are sufficiently severe as to render it impractical to proceed with the project.
Thus the fact that leasing rather than selling the Mansion parcel would net somewhat lower short-tern revenues to the City does not equate to infeasibility...
The peremptory writ must issue because the City approved a project with significant environmental impacts when the record disclosed a feasible alternative.
C. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is Unsupported
In light of the availability of alternatives, the City could not lawfully move to the next step of considering a statement of overriding considerations. The Public Resources Code requires adoption of feasible alternatives, and only if such alternatives are adopted and significant unavoidable impacts remain may an agency consider adoption of the project based on the overriding considerations of public benefit.
The statement of overriding considerations in unsupported.
...There should be no pretense that selling the Flanders Mansion property will benefit the citizens of Carmel or improve its parkland, admittedly inconsistent with at least four of its adopted General Plan goals, policies, and objectives.
Conclusion
The City has failed to meet its statutory obligations as the fortunate owner of the historic Flanders Mansion parkland, and the peremptory writ should issue on all grounds here argued.
Date: October 21, 2009
Respectfully submitted,
BRANDT-HAWLEY LAW GROUP
Susan Brandt-Hawley
Attorney for Petitioner
ADDENDUM:
Superior Court of California, County of Monterey Public Access
Search: Civil Unlimited, Case No. M99437
CITIZENS OF GOLETA VALLEY, et al., Appellants, v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS of the County of Santa Barbara, Respondent.
WALLOVER, INC., and Hyatt Corporation, Real Parties in Interest.
197 Cal.App.3d 1167
Civ. No. B026619.
Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6, California.
Jan. 22, 1988.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
UPHOLD OUR HERITAGE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
TOWN OF WOODSIDE,
Defendant and Appellant;
STEVEN JOBS,
Real Party in Interest and Appellant
A113376
(San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. 444270)
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
UPHOLD OUR HERITAGE, Petitioner vs. TOWN OF WOODSIDE, Respondent
Civil No. 444270
Assigned CEQA Judge
Hon. Marie S. Weiner, Dept. 2
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21167.1(b)
FINAL STATEMENT OF DECISION ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE UNDER CEQA
CALIFORNIA CODES
GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 38440-38462
38440. A city may discontinue and abandon the use as a public park
of any land owned in fee by it and dedicated or placed in such use by
such city, and thereafter dispose of the land, pursuant to this
article.
38441. Without a special election, the legislative body may convey
a minor portion of such a park in exchange for an equal or greater
area or value of privately owned land contiguous to the park after:
(a) Notice and a public hearing pursuant to this article.
(b) Determination that the exchange is in the public interest.
(c) Adoption of a resolution of discontinuance.
38442. Except as provided in Section 38441, this article shall not
be construed to authorize:
(a) A discontinuance and abandonment, or change in the use, of
such lands which will cause the reversion of the lands to private
ownership or a forfeiture of the city's ownership in fee.
(b) The discontinuance of the use of park lands acquired by funds
obtained from a local assessment based on benefits.
38443. Proceedings are initiated when the legislative body adopts a
resolution declaring that public interest or convenience requires
the discontinuance of the use of such land as a public park, and that
the legislative body intends to call a special election to submit
the question of discontinuance to the city electors.
38444. The resolution shall:
(a) Contain an accurate description of the lands.
(b) State the common name of the park.
(c) State the disposition which the legislative body proposes to
make of the park.
(d) Fix a time, not less than thirty nor more than sixty days
after adoption of the resolution, and a place, at which the public or
persons particularly interested may protest.
38445. The city clerk shall cause the resolution to be published
twice in a daily newspaper published and circulated in the city, or
if there is none, twice in a weekly or semiweekly newspaper so
published and circulated. If there are no such newspapers, the
resolution shall be published twice in a newspaper published in the
county. Publication shall be completed at least twenty days before
the time set for the hearing.
38446. The park superintendent or another person designated by the legislative body shall cause at least three notices of the adoption of the resolution to be posted conspicuously not more than three hundred feet apart along the exterior boundaries of the area proposed to be discontinued and abandoned as a public park. Posting shall be completed at least twenty days before the time set for the hearing. Failure to post the notices does not invalidate the proceedings or prevent the legislative body from acquiring jurisdiction to proceed with the discontinuance and abandonment.
38447. The posted notices shall be headed: "Notice of proposed
discontinuance of public park land" in legible characters, state the
date of adoption of the resolution, and recite the facts contained in
the resolution.
38448. At any time before the hour set for the hearing, any person or persons interested may protest in writing against the proposed abandonment and discontinuance, or to the extent thereof. The protest shall be delivered to the clerk of the legislative body.
38449. At the time set for the hearing or to which it is postponed, the legislative body shall hear and pass upon all such protests.
38450. Protests are sustained unless overruled by two-thirds vote of the legislative body. The legislative body may sustain protests as to one portion, and overrule them as to another portion of park land. If protests are overruled, the legislative body may adopt an ordinance calling, and fixing the date of, a special election to submit to the city electors the question of discontinuance and abandonment of the use of park land on which protests were overruled.
38451. If a majority of the electors voting on the proposition are in favor of it, the legislative body shall adopt an ordinance declaring that use of the land described in the ordinance calling the election for park purposes is discontinued and abandoned.
38452. If less than a majority of such electors vote for it, the legislative body shall not initiate proceedings for discontinuance of the use of such land for park purposes for one year after the election.
38460. When the ordinance becomes effective, the land described in it is deemed held by the city in fee. The city may sell or otherwise dispose of the property in the same manner as it may dispose of other city property no longer required for municipal purposes.
38461. If the land was acquired by money derived from bonds authorized for park purposes, and the land sold, the reasonable market value of the land at the time of adoption of the ordinance shall be transferred to the bond fund from such other municipal fund as the legislative body determines. If the land was not acquired from bond funds and the land is sold, the proceeds from such sale shall be deposited in the general fund of the city.
38462. Except as permitted by general laws allowing diversions of bond funds, money so transferred shall be devoted only to the purposes for which the bonds were authorized.
CALIFORNIA CODES
GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 54220-54222
54220. (a) The Legislature reaffirms its declaration that housing is of vital statewide importance to the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of this state and that provision of a decent home and a suitable living environment for every Californian is a priority of the highest order. The Legislature further declares that there is a shortage of sites available for housing for persons and families of low and moderate income and that surplus government land, prior to disposition, should be made available for that purpose.
(b) The Legislature reaffirms its belief that there is an identifiable deficiency in the amount of land available for recreational purposes and that surplus land, prior to disposition, should be made available for park and recreation purposes or for open-space purposes. This article shall not apply to surplus residential property as defined in Section 54236.
(c) The Legislature reaffirms its declaration of the importance of appropriate planning and development near transit stations, to encourage the clustering of housing and commercial development around such stations. Studies of transit ridership in California indicate that a higher percentage of persons who live or work within walking distance of major transit stations utilize the transit system more than those living elsewhere. The Legislature also notes that the Federal Transit Administration gives priority for funding of rail transit proposals to areas that are implementing higher-density, mixed-use development near major transit stations.
54221. (a) As used in this article, the term "local agency" means every city, whether organized under general law or by charter, county, city and county, and district, including school districts of any kind or class, empowered to acquire and hold real property.
(b) As used in this article, the term "surplus land" means land owned by any local agency, that is determined to be no longer necessary for the agency's use, except property being held by the agency for the purpose of exchange.
(c) As used in this article, the term "open-space purposes" means the use of land for public recreation, enjoyment of scenic beauty, or
conservation or use of natural resources.
(d) As used in this article, the term "persons and families of low or moderate income" means the same as provided under Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code.
(e) As used in this article, the term "exempt surplus land" means either of the following:
(1) Surplus land that is transferred pursuant to Section 25539.4.
(2) Surplus land that is (A) less than 5,000 square feet in area,
(B) less than the minimum legal residential building lot size for the jurisdiction in which the parcel is located, or 5,000 square feet in area, whichever is less, or (C) has no record access and is less than 10,000 square feet in area; and is not contiguous to land owned by a state or local agency that is used for park, recreational, open-space, or low- and moderate-income housing purposes and is located neither within an enterprise zone pursuant to Section 7073 nor a designated program area as defined in Section 7082. If the surplus land is not sold to an owner of contiguous land, it is not considered exempt surplus land and is subject to this article.
(f) Notwithstanding subdivision (e), the following properties are not considered exempt surplus land and are subject to this article:
(1) Lands within the coastal zone.
(2) Lands within 1,000 yards of a historical unit of the State Parks System.
(3) Lands within 1,000 yards of any property that has been listed on, or determined by the State Office of Historic Preservation to be eligible for, the National Register of Historic Places.
(4) Lands within the Lake Tahoe region as defined in Section 66905.5.
54222. Any local agency disposing of surplus land shall send, prior to disposing of that property, a written offer to sell or lease the property as follows:
(a) A written offer to sell or lease for the purpose of developing low- and moderate-income housing shall be sent to any local public entity, as defined in Section 50079 of the Health and Safety Code, within whose jurisdiction the surplus land is located. Housing sponsors, as defined by Section 50074 of the Health and Safety Code, shall be sent, upon written request, a written offer to sell or lease surplus land for the purpose of developing low- and moderate-income housing. All notices shall be sent by first-class mail and shall include the location and a description of the property. With respect to any offer to purchase or lease pursuant to this subdivision, priority shall be given to development of the land to provide affordable housing for lower income elderly or disabled persons or households, and other lower income households.
(b) A written offer to sell or lease for park and recreational purposes or open-space purposes shall be sent:
(1) To any park or recreation department of any city within which the land may be situated.
(2) To any park or recreation department of the county within which the land is situated.
(3) To any regional park authority having jurisdiction within the area in which the land is situated.
(4) To the State Resources Agency or any agency that may succeed to its powers.
(c) A written offer to sell or lease land suitable for school facilities construction or use by a school district for open-space purposes shall be sent to any school district in whose jurisdiction the land is located.
(d) A written offer to sell or lease for enterprise zone purposes any surplus property in an area designated as an enterprise zone pursuant to Section 7073 shall be sent to the nonprofit neighborhood enterprise association corporation in that zone.
(e) A written offer to sell or lease for the purpose of developing property located within an infill opportunity zone designated pursuant to Section 65088.4 or within an area covered by a transit village plan adopted pursuant to the Transit Village Development Planning Act of 1994 (Article 8.5 (commencing with Section 65460) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7) shall be sent to any county, city, city and county, community redevelopment agency, public transportation agency, or housing authority within whose jurisdiction the surplus land is located.
(f) The entity or association desiring to purchase or lease the surplus land for any of the purposes authorized by this section shall notify in writing the disposing agency of its intent to purchase or lease the land within 60 days after receipt of the agency's notification of intent to sell the land.
BRANDT-HAWLEY LAW GROUP
Susan Brandt-Hawley, SBN 75907
P.O. Box 1659
Glen Ellen CA. 95442
707.938.3900
Attorney for Petitioner
The Flanders Foundation
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY
THE FLANDERS FOUNDATION, a California Nonprofit Public Benefit corporation, Petitioner
v.
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA and CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA,
Respondents
Case No. M99437
Petitioner’s Opening Brief in Support of Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Honorable Kay T. Kingsley
Date: December 17, 2009
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Dept.: 17
Stamped Filed October 27, 2009
Introduction
The Flanders Foundation brings this mandamus action in the public interest regarding the proposed sale of the City-owned c. 1924 Flanders Mansion...
A sale would have concededly significant environmental impacts, creating a problematic park in-holding and restricting public access; a lease would not. Thus, “absent substantial evidence in the form of an economic analysis that most project objectives could not feasibly be accomplished via lease,…the project cannot be approved” under mandates of the California Environmental Quality Act.
New violations of CEQA are the impetus for this action...
The Foundation looks to this Court to continue to protect the historic integrity and legacy of the magnificent Mansion and the Mission Trails Nature Preserve in accord with law…the primary issue before the Court is whether substantial evidence supports the City’s findings that lease of the Mansion property is infeasible. The Foundation will show that there is no such evidence. Since a lease would meet most project objectives and avoid the admittedly significant impacts of sale, a sale remains unlawful under CEQA’s substantive mandate-regardless of the outcome of the vote.
A preemptory writ should issue in the public interest.
Issues
The issues before the Court are:
1. Did the City proceed in the manner required by law in analyzing impacts, alternatives, and responding to comments relating to proposed sale of the Flanders Mansion property?
2. Does substantial evidence support the City’s findings that alternatives to the sale of the Flanders Mansion property are infeasible?
3. Does substantial evidence support the City’s statement of overriding considerations?
Scope and Standard of Review
In deciding whether to issue a writ for violations of CEQA, the Court shall decide whether the City committed a prejudicial abuse of discretion: if it did not proceed in the manner required by law, if its decision is not supported by findings, or if its findings are not supported by substantial evidence in the record.
Discussion: Material Violations of CEQA
A. The EIR is Inadequate and Incomplete
2. Analysis of Environmental Impacts relating to the Surplus Land Act
Because the Flanders Mansion property has been judicially determined to be parkland, the judgment in the Flanders 1 case required that “in order to sell the Mansion, the City must comply with Government Code sections 38440-38462 and 54220-54222...” In particular, Surplus Land Act sections 54220 et seq. require that the City, prior to declaring the Flanders Mansion property surplus land and selling it to a private party, make it available “to sell or lease” to public agencies and qualified housing sponsors “for the purpose of developing low- and moderate-income housing.”
Priority is to be given to affordable housing “for lower income elderly or disabled persons or households, and other lower income households.” Another priority is for the City to make a written offer to sell or lease to other agencies for park and recreational purposes or open-space.
The Recirculated Draft EIR provides no analysis of potentially significant environmental impacts that could attend the potential adaptive reuse of the Flanders Mansion property by other agencies for low or moderate-income housing or other purposes.
The upshot of...about the unstudied import of the Surplus Land Act is that the EIR is inadequate. The EIR must provide the City and the public with detailed information about the effect the proposed sale is likely to have on the environment, to list ways significant effects might be minimized, and to indicate alternatives…Here, the disclosure of impacts is misleadingly incomplete.
The EIR should be revised to analyze the reasonable impacts of the Surplus Lands Act mandates and recirculated so that the public and other agencies can comment. The City Council should face the full scope of impacts of a decision to sell the Flanders Mansion property.
3. Responses to Comments
The City is required to provide a “good faith, reasoned analysis” in response to comments on the EIR: “conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice.” Responses must explain why commentators’ proposed mitigations and alternatives were rejected.
The EIR’s responses to comments should be revised and the EIR must be recirculated in these key points [Surplus Land Act, parcel size issues] which could impact the City Council’s decisions about the scope of the project.
4. Analysis of Economic Feasibility
a. Feasibility Analysis Should be in the EIR
When the feasibility of an alternative depends largely on economic factors, analysis should be in the EIR in order for the City Council to have adequate information on which to make its decision.
...the City had the economic analysis during the EIR comment period, but did not share it with the public.
This was error, as the City failed to proceed in the manner required by law.
b. The CBRE Report was Inadequate
As to the substance of the economic report and its analysis of economic feasibility, the entire premise of CBRE’s approach was faulty and the report is inadequate. The Flanders 1 judgment is binding on the City, and requires that “absent substantial evidence in the form of an economic analysis that most project objectives could not feasibly be accomplished via lease,...the project cannot be approved” under mandates of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Analysis of the feasibility of alternatives flows from the project objectives. The question is whether any alternative can feasibly accomplish most project objectives. “Feasible” means “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.”
The CBRE report does not look at factors relevant to the economic challenges of leasing an historic mansion located in parkland, or the City’s financial capabilities in restoring and maintaining the property itself, and thus failed to meet the requirements of this Court’s ruling.
The CBRE report should have been included in the EIR and circulated for comment. It is also inadequate as a basis for analyzing the feasibility of a no project or lease alternative, as it does not look at comparable park/mansion properties, City maintenance expenses, City budget and funding capabilities, nor the financial feasibility of any of the myriad potential quasi-public uses suggested by the Flanders Foundation and others. The EIR analysis of the feasibility of project alternatives failed to proceed in the manner required by law and a writ should issue.
B. Lease of Flanders Mansion is Feasible
When a discretionary project may have significant environmental impacts, it cannot be approved if there are feasible alternatives that accomplish most project objectives.
...that projects with significant environmental impacts should not be approved if there are feasible alternatives available that would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects. If a project will have such effect, it cannot be approved as proposed unless specific “economic, social, or other conditions” make alternatives and mitigations infeasible...
...the City’s reliance on the CBRE economic report is misplaced, as the wrong questions were asked and answered. The Flanders Mansion property is parkland, and not a commercial property comparable to a medical office...
...If the city is not financially able to maintain its property due to financial hardship or because the property does not warrant investment, infeasibility could be shown. But there is no such showing in the record.
As held in Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1988) 197 Cal. App. 3d 1167:
The fact that an alternative may be more expensive or less profitable is not sufficient to show that the alternative is financially infeasible. What is required is evidence that the additional costs or lost profitability are sufficiently severe as to render it impractical to proceed with the project.
Thus the fact that leasing rather than selling the Mansion parcel would net somewhat lower short-tern revenues to the City does not equate to infeasibility...
The peremptory writ must issue because the City approved a project with significant environmental impacts when the record disclosed a feasible alternative.
C. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is Unsupported
In light of the availability of alternatives, the City could not lawfully move to the next step of considering a statement of overriding considerations. The Public Resources Code requires adoption of feasible alternatives, and only if such alternatives are adopted and significant unavoidable impacts remain may an agency consider adoption of the project based on the overriding considerations of public benefit.
The statement of overriding considerations in unsupported.
...There should be no pretense that selling the Flanders Mansion property will benefit the citizens of Carmel or improve its parkland, admittedly inconsistent with at least four of its adopted General Plan goals, policies, and objectives.
Conclusion
The City has failed to meet its statutory obligations as the fortunate owner of the historic Flanders Mansion parkland, and the peremptory writ should issue on all grounds here argued.
Date: October 21, 2009
Respectfully submitted,
BRANDT-HAWLEY LAW GROUP
Susan Brandt-Hawley
Attorney for Petitioner
ADDENDUM:
Superior Court of California, County of Monterey Public Access
Search: Civil Unlimited, Case No. M99437
CITIZENS OF GOLETA VALLEY, et al., Appellants, v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS of the County of Santa Barbara, Respondent.
WALLOVER, INC., and Hyatt Corporation, Real Parties in Interest.
197 Cal.App.3d 1167
Civ. No. B026619.
Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6, California.
Jan. 22, 1988.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
UPHOLD OUR HERITAGE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
TOWN OF WOODSIDE,
Defendant and Appellant;
STEVEN JOBS,
Real Party in Interest and Appellant
A113376
(San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. 444270)
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
UPHOLD OUR HERITAGE, Petitioner vs. TOWN OF WOODSIDE, Respondent
Civil No. 444270
Assigned CEQA Judge
Hon. Marie S. Weiner, Dept. 2
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21167.1(b)
FINAL STATEMENT OF DECISION ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE UNDER CEQA
CALIFORNIA CODES
GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 38440-38462
38440. A city may discontinue and abandon the use as a public park
of any land owned in fee by it and dedicated or placed in such use by
such city, and thereafter dispose of the land, pursuant to this
article.
38441. Without a special election, the legislative body may convey
a minor portion of such a park in exchange for an equal or greater
area or value of privately owned land contiguous to the park after:
(a) Notice and a public hearing pursuant to this article.
(b) Determination that the exchange is in the public interest.
(c) Adoption of a resolution of discontinuance.
38442. Except as provided in Section 38441, this article shall not
be construed to authorize:
(a) A discontinuance and abandonment, or change in the use, of
such lands which will cause the reversion of the lands to private
ownership or a forfeiture of the city's ownership in fee.
(b) The discontinuance of the use of park lands acquired by funds
obtained from a local assessment based on benefits.
38443. Proceedings are initiated when the legislative body adopts a
resolution declaring that public interest or convenience requires
the discontinuance of the use of such land as a public park, and that
the legislative body intends to call a special election to submit
the question of discontinuance to the city electors.
38444. The resolution shall:
(a) Contain an accurate description of the lands.
(b) State the common name of the park.
(c) State the disposition which the legislative body proposes to
make of the park.
(d) Fix a time, not less than thirty nor more than sixty days
after adoption of the resolution, and a place, at which the public or
persons particularly interested may protest.
38445. The city clerk shall cause the resolution to be published
twice in a daily newspaper published and circulated in the city, or
if there is none, twice in a weekly or semiweekly newspaper so
published and circulated. If there are no such newspapers, the
resolution shall be published twice in a newspaper published in the
county. Publication shall be completed at least twenty days before
the time set for the hearing.
38446. The park superintendent or another person designated by the legislative body shall cause at least three notices of the adoption of the resolution to be posted conspicuously not more than three hundred feet apart along the exterior boundaries of the area proposed to be discontinued and abandoned as a public park. Posting shall be completed at least twenty days before the time set for the hearing. Failure to post the notices does not invalidate the proceedings or prevent the legislative body from acquiring jurisdiction to proceed with the discontinuance and abandonment.
38447. The posted notices shall be headed: "Notice of proposed
discontinuance of public park land" in legible characters, state the
date of adoption of the resolution, and recite the facts contained in
the resolution.
38448. At any time before the hour set for the hearing, any person or persons interested may protest in writing against the proposed abandonment and discontinuance, or to the extent thereof. The protest shall be delivered to the clerk of the legislative body.
38449. At the time set for the hearing or to which it is postponed, the legislative body shall hear and pass upon all such protests.
38450. Protests are sustained unless overruled by two-thirds vote of the legislative body. The legislative body may sustain protests as to one portion, and overrule them as to another portion of park land. If protests are overruled, the legislative body may adopt an ordinance calling, and fixing the date of, a special election to submit to the city electors the question of discontinuance and abandonment of the use of park land on which protests were overruled.
38451. If a majority of the electors voting on the proposition are in favor of it, the legislative body shall adopt an ordinance declaring that use of the land described in the ordinance calling the election for park purposes is discontinued and abandoned.
38452. If less than a majority of such electors vote for it, the legislative body shall not initiate proceedings for discontinuance of the use of such land for park purposes for one year after the election.
38460. When the ordinance becomes effective, the land described in it is deemed held by the city in fee. The city may sell or otherwise dispose of the property in the same manner as it may dispose of other city property no longer required for municipal purposes.
38461. If the land was acquired by money derived from bonds authorized for park purposes, and the land sold, the reasonable market value of the land at the time of adoption of the ordinance shall be transferred to the bond fund from such other municipal fund as the legislative body determines. If the land was not acquired from bond funds and the land is sold, the proceeds from such sale shall be deposited in the general fund of the city.
38462. Except as permitted by general laws allowing diversions of bond funds, money so transferred shall be devoted only to the purposes for which the bonds were authorized.
CALIFORNIA CODES
GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 54220-54222
54220. (a) The Legislature reaffirms its declaration that housing is of vital statewide importance to the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of this state and that provision of a decent home and a suitable living environment for every Californian is a priority of the highest order. The Legislature further declares that there is a shortage of sites available for housing for persons and families of low and moderate income and that surplus government land, prior to disposition, should be made available for that purpose.
(b) The Legislature reaffirms its belief that there is an identifiable deficiency in the amount of land available for recreational purposes and that surplus land, prior to disposition, should be made available for park and recreation purposes or for open-space purposes. This article shall not apply to surplus residential property as defined in Section 54236.
(c) The Legislature reaffirms its declaration of the importance of appropriate planning and development near transit stations, to encourage the clustering of housing and commercial development around such stations. Studies of transit ridership in California indicate that a higher percentage of persons who live or work within walking distance of major transit stations utilize the transit system more than those living elsewhere. The Legislature also notes that the Federal Transit Administration gives priority for funding of rail transit proposals to areas that are implementing higher-density, mixed-use development near major transit stations.
54221. (a) As used in this article, the term "local agency" means every city, whether organized under general law or by charter, county, city and county, and district, including school districts of any kind or class, empowered to acquire and hold real property.
(b) As used in this article, the term "surplus land" means land owned by any local agency, that is determined to be no longer necessary for the agency's use, except property being held by the agency for the purpose of exchange.
(c) As used in this article, the term "open-space purposes" means the use of land for public recreation, enjoyment of scenic beauty, or
conservation or use of natural resources.
(d) As used in this article, the term "persons and families of low or moderate income" means the same as provided under Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code.
(e) As used in this article, the term "exempt surplus land" means either of the following:
(1) Surplus land that is transferred pursuant to Section 25539.4.
(2) Surplus land that is (A) less than 5,000 square feet in area,
(B) less than the minimum legal residential building lot size for the jurisdiction in which the parcel is located, or 5,000 square feet in area, whichever is less, or (C) has no record access and is less than 10,000 square feet in area; and is not contiguous to land owned by a state or local agency that is used for park, recreational, open-space, or low- and moderate-income housing purposes and is located neither within an enterprise zone pursuant to Section 7073 nor a designated program area as defined in Section 7082. If the surplus land is not sold to an owner of contiguous land, it is not considered exempt surplus land and is subject to this article.
(f) Notwithstanding subdivision (e), the following properties are not considered exempt surplus land and are subject to this article:
(1) Lands within the coastal zone.
(2) Lands within 1,000 yards of a historical unit of the State Parks System.
(3) Lands within 1,000 yards of any property that has been listed on, or determined by the State Office of Historic Preservation to be eligible for, the National Register of Historic Places.
(4) Lands within the Lake Tahoe region as defined in Section 66905.5.
54222. Any local agency disposing of surplus land shall send, prior to disposing of that property, a written offer to sell or lease the property as follows:
(a) A written offer to sell or lease for the purpose of developing low- and moderate-income housing shall be sent to any local public entity, as defined in Section 50079 of the Health and Safety Code, within whose jurisdiction the surplus land is located. Housing sponsors, as defined by Section 50074 of the Health and Safety Code, shall be sent, upon written request, a written offer to sell or lease surplus land for the purpose of developing low- and moderate-income housing. All notices shall be sent by first-class mail and shall include the location and a description of the property. With respect to any offer to purchase or lease pursuant to this subdivision, priority shall be given to development of the land to provide affordable housing for lower income elderly or disabled persons or households, and other lower income households.
(b) A written offer to sell or lease for park and recreational purposes or open-space purposes shall be sent:
(1) To any park or recreation department of any city within which the land may be situated.
(2) To any park or recreation department of the county within which the land is situated.
(3) To any regional park authority having jurisdiction within the area in which the land is situated.
(4) To the State Resources Agency or any agency that may succeed to its powers.
(c) A written offer to sell or lease land suitable for school facilities construction or use by a school district for open-space purposes shall be sent to any school district in whose jurisdiction the land is located.
(d) A written offer to sell or lease for enterprise zone purposes any surplus property in an area designated as an enterprise zone pursuant to Section 7073 shall be sent to the nonprofit neighborhood enterprise association corporation in that zone.
(e) A written offer to sell or lease for the purpose of developing property located within an infill opportunity zone designated pursuant to Section 65088.4 or within an area covered by a transit village plan adopted pursuant to the Transit Village Development Planning Act of 1994 (Article 8.5 (commencing with Section 65460) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7) shall be sent to any county, city, city and county, community redevelopment agency, public transportation agency, or housing authority within whose jurisdiction the surplus land is located.
(f) The entity or association desiring to purchase or lease the surplus land for any of the purposes authorized by this section shall notify in writing the disposing agency of its intent to purchase or lease the land within 60 days after receipt of the agency's notification of intent to sell the land.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Carmel Art Association Presents ‘PERPETUAL COMMOTION’ & ‘MON MELANGE’ SOLO SHOWS BY ROBBINS & AUVIL AND GALLERY SHOWCASE FEATURING BRADFORD & SMITH
Carmel Art Association
“Celebrating 81 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 ‘PERPETUAL COMMOTION’ & ‘MON MELANGE’ SOLO SHOWS BY ROBBINS & AUVIL AND GALLERY SHOWCASE FEATURING BRADFORD & SMITH
Thursday, November 5 – Tuesday, December 1, 2009
SOLO SHOW “PERPETUAL COMMOTION” (Beardsley Room, South Wall):
Painter Stan Robbins presents an exhibition of oil on canvas paintings from a one-year, 52-painting project depicting the meeting of land and sea. View one of Robbins paintings.
SOLO SHOW “MON MELANGE” (Center Room):
Sculptor and painter Eleen Auvil presents new work in two mediums, bronze sculpture and monotype prints. View Eleen Auvil’s Education, Awards, Solo Shows, et cetera, and three pieces of sculpture.
GALLERY SHOWCASE (Segal Room):
Painter Cyndra Bradford exhibits animal portraits. View one of Bradford's paintings.
Painter Jeff Daniel Smith exhibits small plein air views of the Central Coast, in town and nature. View Jeff Daniel Smith’s brief biography and three oil paintings, including "Point Lobos Cliffs," “Tranquil Cove" and "Laguna Seca #4."
Opening Reception - Saturday, November 7, from 6:00 to 8:00 P.M.
Closed for Thanksgiving, Thursday, November 26, 2009.
“Celebrating 81 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 ‘PERPETUAL COMMOTION’ & ‘MON MELANGE’ SOLO SHOWS BY ROBBINS & AUVIL AND GALLERY SHOWCASE FEATURING BRADFORD & SMITH
Thursday, November 5 – Tuesday, December 1, 2009
SOLO SHOW “PERPETUAL COMMOTION” (Beardsley Room, South Wall):
Painter Stan Robbins presents an exhibition of oil on canvas paintings from a one-year, 52-painting project depicting the meeting of land and sea. View one of Robbins paintings.
SOLO SHOW “MON MELANGE” (Center Room):
Sculptor and painter Eleen Auvil presents new work in two mediums, bronze sculpture and monotype prints. View Eleen Auvil’s Education, Awards, Solo Shows, et cetera, and three pieces of sculpture.
GALLERY SHOWCASE (Segal Room):
Painter Cyndra Bradford exhibits animal portraits. View one of Bradford's paintings.
Painter Jeff Daniel Smith exhibits small plein air views of the Central Coast, in town and nature. View Jeff Daniel Smith’s brief biography and three oil paintings, including "Point Lobos Cliffs," “Tranquil Cove" and "Laguna Seca #4."
Opening Reception - Saturday, November 7, from 6:00 to 8:00 P.M.
Closed for Thanksgiving, Thursday, November 26, 2009.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
UPDATE VII: Flanders Mansion Property: MORE SALIENT POINTS AGAINST THE SALE OF THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY
ABSTRACT: On 3 November 2009, by a majority vote of 63% “yes” (34% “no,”) Carmel-by-the-Sea voters voted to approve discontinuance and abandonment of, and authorization to sell the Flanders Mansion Property “with Conservations Easements and Mitigation,” Flanders mansion property public parkland. Subsequently, five days after the election, The Monterey County Herald published a letter to the editor, ‘Exploring other uses for Flanders Mansion;’ the letter's salient points are presented.
SALIENT POINTS AGAINST THE SALE OF THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY:
• “...it doesn't seem to me that all possibilities have been explored or imagined.”
• “...how about Flanders as an archive of the current work in music regarding its healing and educational capabilities? Or as an archival way station gathering the work being done on interspecies communication? Given Carmel's love for animals and dogs, what a perfect match that might be.”
• “I hope everyone will think about the possibilities not yet explored for Flanders Mansion's future. She is a star in starry place for all of Carmel's residents and creatures.”
(Source: The Monterey County Herald, Letters, (Exploring other uses for Flanders Mansion, Deanna McKinstry-Edwards, Carmel) 11/08/2009)
SALIENT POINTS AGAINST THE SALE OF THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY:
• “...it doesn't seem to me that all possibilities have been explored or imagined.”
• “...how about Flanders as an archive of the current work in music regarding its healing and educational capabilities? Or as an archival way station gathering the work being done on interspecies communication? Given Carmel's love for animals and dogs, what a perfect match that might be.”
• “I hope everyone will think about the possibilities not yet explored for Flanders Mansion's future. She is a star in starry place for all of Carmel's residents and creatures.”
(Source: The Monterey County Herald, Letters, (Exploring other uses for Flanders Mansion, Deanna McKinstry-Edwards, Carmel) 11/08/2009)
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Michael LePage: “you, Mayor McCloud and the City Council, should immediately put Mr. Guillen on administrative leave.”
ABSTRACT: At the 3 November 2009 City Council Meeting, during Appearances, Carmel-by-the-Sea resident Michael LePage addressed the public and council members; he called for Mayor McCloud and the City Council to “immediately put Mr. Guillen on administrative leave,” pending the resolution of on-leave Human Resources Manager Jane Miller’s lawsuit against the City alleging age-based and sex-based discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation in the workplace.
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
City Council Agenda -- AMENDED
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
VI. Appearances
Anyone wishing to address the City Council on matters within the jurisdiction of the City and are not on the agenda may do so now. Matters not appearing on the City Council’s agenda will not receive action at this meeting but may be referred to staff for a future meeting. Presentations will be limited to three (3) minutes, or as otherwise established by the City Council. Persons are not required to give their names, but it is helpful for speakers to state their names in order that the City Clerk may identify them in the minutes of the meeting. Always speak into the microphone, as the meeting is recorded. The City Council Chambers is equipped with a portable microphone for anyone unable to come to the podium. Assisted listening devices are available upon request of the City Clerk. If you need assistance, please advise Heidi Burch as to which item you would like to comment on and the microphone will be brought to you.
Carmel-by-the-Sea Resident Michael LePage:
"Mayor McCloud and City Council Members, I am very concerned about the message that the City of Carmel is sending out regarding the sexual harassment and discrimination lawsuit filed against the alleged actions of Rich Guillen, our city administrator."
"You, Mayor McCloud and City Council, need to send a strong message to Carmel’s employees and its residents that there will be zero tolerance for this kind of behavior in the workplace."
"The fact that two previous employees have received settlements for alleged claims of favoritism and sexual discrimination during Mr. Guillen’s tenure, along with the recent accusations of possible acts of retaliation for deposition testimony only underscores the seriousness of this situation. Because of this, the ability of Mr. Guillen has been effectively limited and compromised, along with the City’s reputation. Until this matter is fully explored in the courts, you, Mayor McCloud and the City Council, should immediately put Mr. Guillen on administrative leave."
(Source: Archived Videos, City Council November 05, 2009, 54: 35 - 55:35)
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
City Council Agenda -- AMENDED
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
VI. Appearances
Anyone wishing to address the City Council on matters within the jurisdiction of the City and are not on the agenda may do so now. Matters not appearing on the City Council’s agenda will not receive action at this meeting but may be referred to staff for a future meeting. Presentations will be limited to three (3) minutes, or as otherwise established by the City Council. Persons are not required to give their names, but it is helpful for speakers to state their names in order that the City Clerk may identify them in the minutes of the meeting. Always speak into the microphone, as the meeting is recorded. The City Council Chambers is equipped with a portable microphone for anyone unable to come to the podium. Assisted listening devices are available upon request of the City Clerk. If you need assistance, please advise Heidi Burch as to which item you would like to comment on and the microphone will be brought to you.
Carmel-by-the-Sea Resident Michael LePage:
"Mayor McCloud and City Council Members, I am very concerned about the message that the City of Carmel is sending out regarding the sexual harassment and discrimination lawsuit filed against the alleged actions of Rich Guillen, our city administrator."
"You, Mayor McCloud and City Council, need to send a strong message to Carmel’s employees and its residents that there will be zero tolerance for this kind of behavior in the workplace."
"The fact that two previous employees have received settlements for alleged claims of favoritism and sexual discrimination during Mr. Guillen’s tenure, along with the recent accusations of possible acts of retaliation for deposition testimony only underscores the seriousness of this situation. Because of this, the ability of Mr. Guillen has been effectively limited and compromised, along with the City’s reputation. Until this matter is fully explored in the courts, you, Mayor McCloud and the City Council, should immediately put Mr. Guillen on administrative leave."
(Source: Archived Videos, City Council November 05, 2009, 54: 35 - 55:35)
Sunday, November 08, 2009
'Misunderstanding' or Retaliation
ABSTRACT: At the 3 November 2009 City Council meeting, the City Council unanimously approved a Resolution authorizing the payment of salary and benefit difference to city employees who have been activated into military service from the National Guard or from the inactive military reserves, precisely for Building Official John Hanson. Despite questions from Carmelites, City Council Members did not explain how, why or who was responsible for the sending of a September 2009 letter to Building Official John Hanson advising Hanson his pay differential would cease in November 2009 and his medical benefits would cease December 31, 2009. A TIMELINE of relevant events and confusing and contradictory statements by Mayor Sue McCloud is presented. COMMENTS are made, including the proposition that the letter was sent intentionally as retaliation for John Hanson’s deposition in Jane Miller’s lawsuit against the City alleging retaliation, discrimination and harassment.
While the City Council unanimously approved a Resolution authorizing the payment of salary and benefit difference to city employees who have been activated into military service from the National Guard or from the inactive military reserves, precisely for Building Official John Hanson, at the 3 November 2009 City Council meeting, City Council Members did not respond to questions from Carmelites regarding how, why, and who was responsible for the September 2009 letter from Assistant City Administrator Heidi Burch to John Hanson advising Hanson his pay differential would cease in November 2009 and his medical benefits would cease December 31, 2009.
TIMELINE:
• April 8, 2009: Hanson informed staff that he is deploying in July 2009 to Afghanistan.
• July 2009: John Hanson gave a deposition regarding on-leave Human Resources Manager Jane Miller’s lawsuit alleging age-based and sex-based discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation in the workplace; City Administrator Rich Guillen was present.
• July 31, 2009: Hanson’s travel orders received by City for activation on August 3rd for training and deployment for approx. 400 days.
• Prior to August 3, 2009: “Before John left, [city administrator Rich Guillen] and Heidi said they were going to continue to take care of the medical and make up the difference in pay like last time, and not to worry about a thing,” Annette Hanson said. (Mary Brownfield, The Carmel Pine Cone)
• September 14, 2009: Hanson requested use of vacation time for the period of October 13-November 13, 2009, which caused a recalculation of his benefits package.
• September 2009: Certified Letter from Carmel Assistant City Administrator Heidi Burch advised the paychecks would stop after Hanson’s month of vacation time ended in November, 2009, and his medical benefits, through which Hanson, his wife and their two college going kids are insured, would cease Dec. 31, 2009. (Mary Brownfield, The Carmel Pine Cone)
• September 24, 2009: Hanson arrived in Afghanistan.
• October 8, 2009: After hearing about Hanson’s impending loss of pay differential in November 2009 and medical benefits for his family on December 31, 2009, Colonel Eric B. Grimm, U.S. Army 40th Infantry Division Agribusiness Development Team, sent a letter to City Administrator Rich Guillen requesting “all agreements made between the City and John Hanson be continued.” He assured Guillen Hanson’s mobilization was involuntary and said he had been chosen for the assignment because of his engineering background. (Letter from Eric B. Grimm, Colonel, Field Artillery, Commanding, to City Administrator Rich Guillen, dated 8 October 2009 & Mary Brownfield, The Carmel Pine Cone)
• October 23, 2009: Mayor Sue McCloud said she was not familiar with the situation and did not even know where Hanson had been sent. Col. Grimm’s letter listed her as a recipient, but she said she had not seen a copy. “The city council doesn’t have anything to do with it. I don’t know any of the particulars, but I gather something is going on,” she said. “Those things we don’t get involved in, unless there’s a policy issue.” (Mary Brownfield, The Carmel Pine Cone)
• November 2009: At first she (Mayor Sue McCloud) told me she didn’t know anything about the controversy, even though she was sent a copy of this letter in early October from First Sergeant Hanson’s Commanding Officer Colonel Eric Grimm. It asked that all agreements between the City and John Hanson be continued. Today she told me she couldn’t speak then because lawyers were involved. She said the matter is resolved.
“We amended the agenda on Saturday, and moved it forward from December to tomorrow night’s agenda.”
She said the benefits letter could have added one important bit of information. “What it maybe should have said, would have been, the next line, and it will have to go to council to provide as we’ve done
previously. We want to clear up any misunderstanding that there is and to move forward, you know, in a positive way.”
“Our track record is, I feel, excellent as far as patriotism, support to John, support to the military, and support to our veterans.”
And yet the Hanson’s family is still waiting to hear from City Hall about the letter and the resolution. (Cheryl Jennings, ABC7 News)
• November 3, 2009: The Mayor blamed city staff for sending the letter not knowing the council planned to extend Hanson’s benefits in early December before they ran out. (Lisa Amin Gulezian, ABC7 News)
COMMENTS:
• Without John Hanson’s wife, Annette Hanson, sharing the City’s September 2009 letter with the media and print and television media informing the public about John Hanson’s plight, a Resolution would not have been written, Mayor Sue McCloud would not have seen to the placement of the Resolution on the 3 November 2009 City Council Agenda and the City Council would not have voted on the Resolution.
• There is no evidence in the record to support Mayor Sue McCloud's contention that a Resolution was planned on being placed on the December 2009 City Council Agenda. In fact, his pay differential was to expire in November 2009, prior to the December City Council meeting. Therefore, a Resolution, if intended, should have been placed on a much earlier City Council Agenda.
• The record shows that Building Official John Hanson, a 20-year employee with the City, gave a deposition for on-leave Human Resources Manager Jane Miller’s lawsuit alleging age-based and sex-based discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation in the workplace, where City Administrator Rich Guillen was present, in July 2009. Given Jane Miller’s credible claims of age-based discrimination and retaliation and corroboration of her claims by several former city employees, it is reasonable to assume that the letter was sent intentionally as retaliation for his deposition; Mayor Sue McCloud’s claims that this was just a “misunderstanding” and the letter should have read “and it will have to go to council to provide as we’ve done previously,” appear to be after the fact damage control.
• Finally, leadership is taking responsibility for actions, not blaming other individuals. Yet, Mayor Sue McCloud blamed city staff for sending the letter even though the contents of the letter represented a change in policy and the Mayor sets policy for the City. Moreover, the City Administrator does not act without the knowledge and approval of the Mayor, ever.
ADDENDUM (including Sources):
Afghanistan duty costs city worker his paycheck, MARY BROWNFIELD, The Carmel Pine Cone, October 23, 2009)
Benefits lost after husband deployed overseas, ABC7 News
Cheryl Jennings (3:45)
Carmel restores Nat'l Guard's benefits, ABC7 News
Lisa Amin Gulezian (1:56)
Sex Plot
Carmel’s alleged harassment case thickens, goes international.
Oct. 29, 2009 / Kera Abraham, MONTEREY COUNTY WEEKLY
Called Out
Carmel changes tune on benefits for employees deployed to military service November 03, 2009 / Kera Abraham, MONTEREY COUNTY WEEKLY
Agenda Item Summary, L. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the payment of salary and benefit difference to city employees who have been activated into military service from the National Guard or from the inactive military reserves, Assistant City Administrator Heidi Burch, November 3, 2009
While the City Council unanimously approved a Resolution authorizing the payment of salary and benefit difference to city employees who have been activated into military service from the National Guard or from the inactive military reserves, precisely for Building Official John Hanson, at the 3 November 2009 City Council meeting, City Council Members did not respond to questions from Carmelites regarding how, why, and who was responsible for the September 2009 letter from Assistant City Administrator Heidi Burch to John Hanson advising Hanson his pay differential would cease in November 2009 and his medical benefits would cease December 31, 2009.
TIMELINE:
• April 8, 2009: Hanson informed staff that he is deploying in July 2009 to Afghanistan.
• July 2009: John Hanson gave a deposition regarding on-leave Human Resources Manager Jane Miller’s lawsuit alleging age-based and sex-based discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation in the workplace; City Administrator Rich Guillen was present.
• July 31, 2009: Hanson’s travel orders received by City for activation on August 3rd for training and deployment for approx. 400 days.
• Prior to August 3, 2009: “Before John left, [city administrator Rich Guillen] and Heidi said they were going to continue to take care of the medical and make up the difference in pay like last time, and not to worry about a thing,” Annette Hanson said. (Mary Brownfield, The Carmel Pine Cone)
• September 14, 2009: Hanson requested use of vacation time for the period of October 13-November 13, 2009, which caused a recalculation of his benefits package.
• September 2009: Certified Letter from Carmel Assistant City Administrator Heidi Burch advised the paychecks would stop after Hanson’s month of vacation time ended in November, 2009, and his medical benefits, through which Hanson, his wife and their two college going kids are insured, would cease Dec. 31, 2009. (Mary Brownfield, The Carmel Pine Cone)
• September 24, 2009: Hanson arrived in Afghanistan.
• October 8, 2009: After hearing about Hanson’s impending loss of pay differential in November 2009 and medical benefits for his family on December 31, 2009, Colonel Eric B. Grimm, U.S. Army 40th Infantry Division Agribusiness Development Team, sent a letter to City Administrator Rich Guillen requesting “all agreements made between the City and John Hanson be continued.” He assured Guillen Hanson’s mobilization was involuntary and said he had been chosen for the assignment because of his engineering background. (Letter from Eric B. Grimm, Colonel, Field Artillery, Commanding, to City Administrator Rich Guillen, dated 8 October 2009 & Mary Brownfield, The Carmel Pine Cone)
• October 23, 2009: Mayor Sue McCloud said she was not familiar with the situation and did not even know where Hanson had been sent. Col. Grimm’s letter listed her as a recipient, but she said she had not seen a copy. “The city council doesn’t have anything to do with it. I don’t know any of the particulars, but I gather something is going on,” she said. “Those things we don’t get involved in, unless there’s a policy issue.” (Mary Brownfield, The Carmel Pine Cone)
• November 2009: At first she (Mayor Sue McCloud) told me she didn’t know anything about the controversy, even though she was sent a copy of this letter in early October from First Sergeant Hanson’s Commanding Officer Colonel Eric Grimm. It asked that all agreements between the City and John Hanson be continued. Today she told me she couldn’t speak then because lawyers were involved. She said the matter is resolved.
“We amended the agenda on Saturday, and moved it forward from December to tomorrow night’s agenda.”
She said the benefits letter could have added one important bit of information. “What it maybe should have said, would have been, the next line, and it will have to go to council to provide as we’ve done
previously. We want to clear up any misunderstanding that there is and to move forward, you know, in a positive way.”
“Our track record is, I feel, excellent as far as patriotism, support to John, support to the military, and support to our veterans.”
And yet the Hanson’s family is still waiting to hear from City Hall about the letter and the resolution. (Cheryl Jennings, ABC7 News)
• November 3, 2009: The Mayor blamed city staff for sending the letter not knowing the council planned to extend Hanson’s benefits in early December before they ran out. (Lisa Amin Gulezian, ABC7 News)
COMMENTS:
• Without John Hanson’s wife, Annette Hanson, sharing the City’s September 2009 letter with the media and print and television media informing the public about John Hanson’s plight, a Resolution would not have been written, Mayor Sue McCloud would not have seen to the placement of the Resolution on the 3 November 2009 City Council Agenda and the City Council would not have voted on the Resolution.
• There is no evidence in the record to support Mayor Sue McCloud's contention that a Resolution was planned on being placed on the December 2009 City Council Agenda. In fact, his pay differential was to expire in November 2009, prior to the December City Council meeting. Therefore, a Resolution, if intended, should have been placed on a much earlier City Council Agenda.
• The record shows that Building Official John Hanson, a 20-year employee with the City, gave a deposition for on-leave Human Resources Manager Jane Miller’s lawsuit alleging age-based and sex-based discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation in the workplace, where City Administrator Rich Guillen was present, in July 2009. Given Jane Miller’s credible claims of age-based discrimination and retaliation and corroboration of her claims by several former city employees, it is reasonable to assume that the letter was sent intentionally as retaliation for his deposition; Mayor Sue McCloud’s claims that this was just a “misunderstanding” and the letter should have read “and it will have to go to council to provide as we’ve done previously,” appear to be after the fact damage control.
• Finally, leadership is taking responsibility for actions, not blaming other individuals. Yet, Mayor Sue McCloud blamed city staff for sending the letter even though the contents of the letter represented a change in policy and the Mayor sets policy for the City. Moreover, the City Administrator does not act without the knowledge and approval of the Mayor, ever.
ADDENDUM (including Sources):
Afghanistan duty costs city worker his paycheck, MARY BROWNFIELD, The Carmel Pine Cone, October 23, 2009)
Benefits lost after husband deployed overseas, ABC7 News
Cheryl Jennings (3:45)
Carmel restores Nat'l Guard's benefits, ABC7 News
Lisa Amin Gulezian (1:56)
Sex Plot
Carmel’s alleged harassment case thickens, goes international.
Oct. 29, 2009 / Kera Abraham, MONTEREY COUNTY WEEKLY
Called Out
Carmel changes tune on benefits for employees deployed to military service November 03, 2009 / Kera Abraham, MONTEREY COUNTY WEEKLY
Agenda Item Summary, L. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the payment of salary and benefit difference to city employees who have been activated into military service from the National Guard or from the inactive military reserves, Assistant City Administrator Heidi Burch, November 3, 2009
Saturday, November 07, 2009
The Carmel-by-the-Sea WATCHDOG! Recommends MONTEREY BAY PACIFIC COAST LIFESTYLES NETWORK
ABSTRACT: Created in October 2009 by LaVern Williams, Internet Business - and Professional Guitarist and Singer, the MONTEREY BAY PACIFIC COAST LIFESTYLES NETWORK blog has interesting narrative, awesome photos and informative links for residents, our guests and visitors. Highly Recommended!
MONTEREY BAY PACIFIC COAST NETWORK &
MONTEREY CA TOURISM INFO - MONTEREY
COUNTY, CARMEL CA
FIND MONTEREY CA RESOURCES FOR MONTEREY BAY, MONTEREY COUNTY, MONTEREY PENINSULA, MONTEREY AQUARIUM, MONTEREY FISHERMAN'S WHARF, MONTEREY INFO FOR CARMEL BY THE SEA, PACIFIC GROVE, PEBBLE BEACH, 17 MILE DRIVE, BIG SUR, MONTEREY NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY, MONTEREY HOTELS, MOTELS, MONTEREY RESTAURANTS, GALLERIES, BOATING, MONTEREY WHALE TOURS. MONTEREY EVENTS, MONTEREY REAL ESTATE, COLLEGE, MONTEREY SHOPS, SEA LIONS, OTTERS, WHALES, SEABIRDS, VINEYARDS, MONTEREY HISTORY, TOURISM, TRAVEL, LODGING, ACCOMMODATIONS, WEDDINGS
"The Monterey Bay Pacific Coast Network is a tourist Information guide to Monterey California, the City of Monterey, Monterey County and the Monterey Bay Peninsula with Carmel, Pacific Grove, Pebble Beach and Marina."
Created, Written & Photos by LaVern Williams, Copyrights 2009 by Williams Publishing.
Contact Information: LaVern Williams @ Williams Publishing @ MontereyBayNet@aol.com
MONTEREY BAY PACIFIC COAST NETWORK &
MONTEREY CA TOURISM INFO - MONTEREY
COUNTY, CARMEL CA
FIND MONTEREY CA RESOURCES FOR MONTEREY BAY, MONTEREY COUNTY, MONTEREY PENINSULA, MONTEREY AQUARIUM, MONTEREY FISHERMAN'S WHARF, MONTEREY INFO FOR CARMEL BY THE SEA, PACIFIC GROVE, PEBBLE BEACH, 17 MILE DRIVE, BIG SUR, MONTEREY NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY, MONTEREY HOTELS, MOTELS, MONTEREY RESTAURANTS, GALLERIES, BOATING, MONTEREY WHALE TOURS. MONTEREY EVENTS, MONTEREY REAL ESTATE, COLLEGE, MONTEREY SHOPS, SEA LIONS, OTTERS, WHALES, SEABIRDS, VINEYARDS, MONTEREY HISTORY, TOURISM, TRAVEL, LODGING, ACCOMMODATIONS, WEDDINGS
"The Monterey Bay Pacific Coast Network is a tourist Information guide to Monterey California, the City of Monterey, Monterey County and the Monterey Bay Peninsula with Carmel, Pacific Grove, Pebble Beach and Marina."
Created, Written & Photos by LaVern Williams, Copyrights 2009 by Williams Publishing.
Contact Information: LaVern Williams @ Williams Publishing @ MontereyBayNet@aol.com
Friday, November 06, 2009
'MINUTES’ for Five Noteworthy 3 November 2009 City Council Agenda Items
“MINUTES”
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
November 3, 2009
VII. Consent Calendar
These matters include routine financial and administrative actions, which are usually approved by a single majority vote. Individual items may be removed from Consent by a member of the Council or the public for discussion and action.
E. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing a contract with Haro, Kasunich and Associates for geotechnical investigation on a road stabilization project on 2nd Avenue between Lopez Avenue and North Casanova Street in an amount not to exceed $11,980.
L. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the payment of salary and benefit difference to city employees who have been activated into military service from the National Guard or from the inactive military reserves.
Council Member ROSE requested a separate vote on Item L; ROSE personally drafted Item L Resolution and requested a unanimous vote on L, seconded by Council Member TALMAGE. City Attorney FREEMAN stated the Resolution effective October 1, 2009.
Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment.
Nine Public speakers, including but not limited to, Monte Miller I (also submitted petition in support of John Hanson), Carolyn Hardy, Colin MacDonald, Clayton Anderson, Mike Brown, Michael LePage and Linda Anderson, addressed the public, council members and staff. Comments included calling on the City Council to send a letter of apology to John Hanson and issue an apology to the public for this “embarrassment;” explain how and why this “serious failure of judgment” occurred and who was responsible for this “inhumane act;” and what were the motives for sending the letter to John Hanson.
Council Members did not explain how and why the City sent a letter to John Hanson advising him of the cessation of his pay differential and medical benefits for his family or who was responsible for the action.
Council Member ROSE moved adoption of the Consent Item L of the Consent Agenda, seconded by Council Member TALMAGE and carried unanimously.
Later, Council Member TALMAGE moved adoption of the Consent Item E. along with other items on the Consent Agenda, seconded by Council Member ROSE and carried unanimously.
VIII. Public Hearings
If you challenge the nature of the proposed action in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.
A. Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to certify an Environmental Impact Report and deny a project for the demolition of an existing building and the construction of a mixed-use development including a two-level underground parking garage, five market-rate condominiums, two low-income housing units, and commercial floor area. The project location is the SE corner of Dolores and 7th (Homescapes Building). The appellant is John Mandurrago.
Planning Consultant Brian Roseth presented the staff report.
Council Member ROSE summarized an October 27, 2009 letter from attorney Dennis Beougher, Lombardo & Gilles, LLP.
Dennis Beougher, Counsel for appellant John Mandurrago, addressed Council regarding corrections and clarifications of the record.
Appellant John Mandurrago addressed Council expressing a desire to have a decision by the City Council.
Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment.
Barbara Livingston addressed Council in support of the Planning Commission's decision and staff recommendation.
Mayor McCloud closed the hearing to public comment.
Council Member ROSE moved to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the appeal, seconded by Council Member TALMAGE and carried by the following roll call:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: HAZDOVAC, ROSE, SHARP, TALMAGE and McCLOUD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
XI. Orders of Council
D. Consideration of modifications to the City’s Volumetric Standards, as established in CMC Section 17.10.030.
Agenda Item D was continued.
E. Receive report and provide policy direction on proposed extension of the holiday season for placement of lights.
City Administrator Rich Guillen presented the report.
Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment.
Erling Lagerholm, Carrie Theis (Carmel Innkeepers Association) and Monte Potter (Carmel Chamber of Commerce) addressed the Council in support of the holiday light extension.
Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment.
Unanimous consensus regarding policy direction for the extension of the holiday season for placement of lights from the third Wednesday in November to Tuesday after President’s Day in February.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
November 3, 2009
VII. Consent Calendar
These matters include routine financial and administrative actions, which are usually approved by a single majority vote. Individual items may be removed from Consent by a member of the Council or the public for discussion and action.
E. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing a contract with Haro, Kasunich and Associates for geotechnical investigation on a road stabilization project on 2nd Avenue between Lopez Avenue and North Casanova Street in an amount not to exceed $11,980.
L. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the payment of salary and benefit difference to city employees who have been activated into military service from the National Guard or from the inactive military reserves.
Council Member ROSE requested a separate vote on Item L; ROSE personally drafted Item L Resolution and requested a unanimous vote on L, seconded by Council Member TALMAGE. City Attorney FREEMAN stated the Resolution effective October 1, 2009.
Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment.
Nine Public speakers, including but not limited to, Monte Miller I (also submitted petition in support of John Hanson), Carolyn Hardy, Colin MacDonald, Clayton Anderson, Mike Brown, Michael LePage and Linda Anderson, addressed the public, council members and staff. Comments included calling on the City Council to send a letter of apology to John Hanson and issue an apology to the public for this “embarrassment;” explain how and why this “serious failure of judgment” occurred and who was responsible for this “inhumane act;” and what were the motives for sending the letter to John Hanson.
Council Members did not explain how and why the City sent a letter to John Hanson advising him of the cessation of his pay differential and medical benefits for his family or who was responsible for the action.
Council Member ROSE moved adoption of the Consent Item L of the Consent Agenda, seconded by Council Member TALMAGE and carried unanimously.
Later, Council Member TALMAGE moved adoption of the Consent Item E. along with other items on the Consent Agenda, seconded by Council Member ROSE and carried unanimously.
VIII. Public Hearings
If you challenge the nature of the proposed action in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.
A. Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to certify an Environmental Impact Report and deny a project for the demolition of an existing building and the construction of a mixed-use development including a two-level underground parking garage, five market-rate condominiums, two low-income housing units, and commercial floor area. The project location is the SE corner of Dolores and 7th (Homescapes Building). The appellant is John Mandurrago.
Planning Consultant Brian Roseth presented the staff report.
Council Member ROSE summarized an October 27, 2009 letter from attorney Dennis Beougher, Lombardo & Gilles, LLP.
Dennis Beougher, Counsel for appellant John Mandurrago, addressed Council regarding corrections and clarifications of the record.
Appellant John Mandurrago addressed Council expressing a desire to have a decision by the City Council.
Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment.
Barbara Livingston addressed Council in support of the Planning Commission's decision and staff recommendation.
Mayor McCloud closed the hearing to public comment.
Council Member ROSE moved to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the appeal, seconded by Council Member TALMAGE and carried by the following roll call:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: HAZDOVAC, ROSE, SHARP, TALMAGE and McCLOUD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
XI. Orders of Council
D. Consideration of modifications to the City’s Volumetric Standards, as established in CMC Section 17.10.030.
Agenda Item D was continued.
E. Receive report and provide policy direction on proposed extension of the holiday season for placement of lights.
City Administrator Rich Guillen presented the report.
Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment.
Erling Lagerholm, Carrie Theis (Carmel Innkeepers Association) and Monte Potter (Carmel Chamber of Commerce) addressed the Council in support of the holiday light extension.
Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment.
Unanimous consensus regarding policy direction for the extension of the holiday season for placement of lights from the third Wednesday in November to Tuesday after President’s Day in February.
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
UPDATE: City's Motion to Disqualify Attorney Michael Stamp from Representing On-Leave Human Resources Manager Jane Miller
ABSTRACT: A synopsis of the events which occurred at the Motion Hearing on Friday, 23 October 2009, Courtroom 4, Salinas Courthouse, Monterey County Superior Court Judge Larry Hayes presiding is presented. Judge Hayes scheduled a date for another Hearing on the City’s Motion to disqualify attorney Michael Stamp from representing his client on-leave Human Resources Manager Jane Miller in her lawsuit (M99513) for Friday, 18 December 2009 at 8:45 A.M in Courtroom 4, Salinas Courthouse.
On the morning of Friday, 23 October 2009, the Motion Hearing involving the City’s Motion to disqualify attorney Michael Stamp from representing on-leave Human Resources Manager Jane Miller in her lawsuit against the City alleging age-based and sex-based discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation was conducted in Courtroom 4, Judge Larry Hayes presiding.
After a pre-motion conference with attorneys Suzanne Solomon representing the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and Michael Stamp representing his client Jane Miller, Judge Larry Hayes made several decisions, including, as follows:
• Judge Larry Hayes stated that an attorney having a “substantial relationship” with the City for ten years does not necessarily merit disqualification from the case.
• Judge Hayes ordered the City to make the 106 pages of documentation which allegedly supports the City’s motion to disqualify attorney Michael Stamp from representing Jane Miller available to attorney Michael Stamp; the City had previously withheld the documentation from attorney Michael Stamp.
• Judge Hayes scheduled deadline dates in November and December for briefs involving justification by the City as to why it delayed the request for the disqualification of attorney Michael Stamp when attorney Michael Stamp had advised the city of his representation as early as May 2008 and briefs on the concepts of “prejudice” and “extreme prejudice” with respect to disqualification.
• Judge Hayes vacated the date for the Case Management Conference and scheduled a date for another Hearing on the City’s Motion to disqualify attorney Michael Stamp from representing his client Jane Miller in her lawsuit (M99513) for Friday, 18 December 2009 at 8:45 A.M in Courtroom 4, Salinas Courthouse.
On the morning of Friday, 23 October 2009, the Motion Hearing involving the City’s Motion to disqualify attorney Michael Stamp from representing on-leave Human Resources Manager Jane Miller in her lawsuit against the City alleging age-based and sex-based discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation was conducted in Courtroom 4, Judge Larry Hayes presiding.
After a pre-motion conference with attorneys Suzanne Solomon representing the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and Michael Stamp representing his client Jane Miller, Judge Larry Hayes made several decisions, including, as follows:
• Judge Larry Hayes stated that an attorney having a “substantial relationship” with the City for ten years does not necessarily merit disqualification from the case.
• Judge Hayes ordered the City to make the 106 pages of documentation which allegedly supports the City’s motion to disqualify attorney Michael Stamp from representing Jane Miller available to attorney Michael Stamp; the City had previously withheld the documentation from attorney Michael Stamp.
• Judge Hayes scheduled deadline dates in November and December for briefs involving justification by the City as to why it delayed the request for the disqualification of attorney Michael Stamp when attorney Michael Stamp had advised the city of his representation as early as May 2008 and briefs on the concepts of “prejudice” and “extreme prejudice” with respect to disqualification.
• Judge Hayes vacated the date for the Case Management Conference and scheduled a date for another Hearing on the City’s Motion to disqualify attorney Michael Stamp from representing his client Jane Miller in her lawsuit (M99513) for Friday, 18 December 2009 at 8:45 A.M in Courtroom 4, Salinas Courthouse.
MEASURE I: YES 63.3%, NO 36.8%
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?
Majority Approval
COUNTY OF MONTEREY
CITY/SCHOOL/SPECIAL DISTRICT ELECTIONS
November 3, 2009
Semi-Final Official Report 4
Measure I (2/2) 100%
YES Vote Count: 757 (63.29%)
NO Vote Count: 439 (36.71%)
TOTAL: Vote Count: 1,196 (100.0%)
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?
Majority Approval
COUNTY OF MONTEREY
CITY/SCHOOL/SPECIAL DISTRICT ELECTIONS
November 3, 2009
Semi-Final Official Report 4
Measure I (2/2) 100%
YES Vote Count: 757 (63.29%)
NO Vote Count: 439 (36.71%)
TOTAL: Vote Count: 1,196 (100.0%)
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Five Noteworthy 3 November 2009 City Council Agenda Items
ABSTRACT: Five noteworthy 3 November 2009 City Council Agenda Items, namely, a Resolution authorizing a contract with Haro, Kasunich and Associates for geotechnical investigation on a road stabilization project on 2nd Avenue between Lopez Avenue and North Casanova Street, a Resolution authorizing the payment of salary and benefit difference to city employees who have been activated into military service from the National Guard or from the inactive military reserves, an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to certify an Environmental Impact Report and deny a project for the demolition of an existing building and the construction of a mixed-use development including a two-level underground parking garage, five market-rate condominiums, two low-income housing units, and commercial floor area at the SE corner of Dolores and 7th (Homescapes Building), modifications to the City’s Volumetric Standards and report and policy direction on proposed extension of the holiday season for placement of lights, are presented. Selected excerpts from Agenda Item Summaries, Staff Reports and a letter are presented for Agenda Items. COMMENTS are made on the Resolution affecting Building Official John Hanson and on holiday lights.
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
City Council Agenda – AMENDED
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
4:30 p.m., Open Session
Live and archived video streaming available
City Hall
East side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues
VII. Consent Calendar
These matters include routine financial and administrative actions, which are usually approved by a single majority vote. Individual items may be removed from Consent by a member of the Council or the public for discussion and action.
E. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing a contract with Haro, Kasunich and Associates for geotechnical investigation on a road stabilization project on 2nd Avenue between Lopez Avenue and North Casanova Street in an amount not to exceed $11,980.
Description: At its September 1, 2009 meeting, the City Council reviewed a driveway application submitted by Mr. Zane Blackmer. The driveway application approval was continued by the City Council, pending evaluation of opening 2nd Avenue to through traffic. The City Council directed staff to evaluate the stabilization of 2nd Avenue between Lopez Avenue and North Casanova Street to accommodate the road opening.
The City Engineer advised staff to hire a geotechnical engineer to review the stabilization issue on 2nd Avenue and recommended hiring the Watsonville-based firm, Haro, Kasunich and Associates (HKA), to perform the geotechnical investigation. HKA’s proposal includes site drilling to help develop a soils profile for stabilization analysis. Their analysis will be summarized in a report to the City, along with recommendations.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: $11,980
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.
Important Considerations: Second Avenue has been closed to through traffic for a number of years. A section of 2nd Avenue has some stabilization issues that must be investigated before reopening for vehicular traffic. This type of investigation is best accomplished by a geotechnical engineer.
Decision Record: The City Council directed staff to review the 2nd Avenue stabilization to evaluate whether the street can be opened for access to the Blackmer property.
L. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the payment of salary and benefit difference to city employees who have been activated into military service from the National Guard or from the inactive military reserves.
Description: This Resolution authorizes the City to pay the difference between salary and benefits paid by the military and those paid by the City for City staff activated into service. The purpose of this action is to accommodate the activation of the Building Official, John Hanson, by the National Guard to assist with construction and agriculture in Afghanistan. His deployment will be part of the Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) Asadabad encouraging international and non-governmental organizations to operate in rural areas outside of Kabul. The milestones that lead to this activation are as follows:
• April 8, 2009 – Hanson informed staff that he is deploying in July 2009 to Afghanistan.
• July 31, 2009 – Hanson’s travel orders received by City for activation on August 3rd for training and deployment for approx. 400 days.
• September 14, 2009 –Hanson requested use of vacation time for the period of October 13-November 13, 2009, which caused a recalculation of his benefits package.
• September 24, 2009 –Hanson arrived in Afghanistan.
• October 8, 2009 – Receipt of Department of the Army letter requesting extension of Hanson’s City benefits, which will run out on December 31, 2009.
Municipal code sections 2.52.690 and 700 outline how the City will compensate employees activated for military duty (see attached). The City’s Municipal Code states, as it has, since 1987 that military leave beyond 30 days will be unpaid leave. Staff cannot authorize differential pay or benefits for employees as it is would be a gift of public funds. It is within the City Council’s authority to take this action, as it has done previously, as part of a public meeting.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: Hanson’s regular City compensation, salary plus benefits, is $109,000. This will offset the following costs: $51,000 is estimated for Hanson’s differential pay + $50,000 Building Official consultant during Hanson’s activation.
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.
Important Considerations: Support of City staff members who have been activated for military service during times of emergencies or declaration of war requires the City Council to adopt a Resolution to cover any differential in pay and benefits. This is Hanson’s fourth military leave from the City since 2001 and each occurrence has followed the same City process. The costs to the City, at this time, are only estimates. As soon as the City receives information regarding military salary, allowances and premiums, the precise amounts will be determined.
Decision Record: In support of Hanson’s previous duty, Resolution 2001-156 was adopted in November 2001 and expired one year later. Resolution 2004-01 was also adopted in January 2004 and expired one year later in 2005.
COMMENTS:
• Omitted from the Agenda Item Summary, under Description, written by City Clerk Heidi Burch, is her September 2009 letter informing Building Official John Hanson of the cessation of his pay differential and medical benefits for his family in November and December 2009, respectively.
• Since City Council Resolutions to cover differential pay and medical benefits have been approved for John Hanson’s previous military leaves from city employment, it appears the change in city policy this time was due to retaliation for his deposition in the sex-based and age-based discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit filed by on-leave Human Resources Manager Jane Miller, which was given in July 2009; City Administrator Rich Guillen was in attendance at the deposition.
VIII. Public Hearings
If you challenge the nature of the proposed action in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.
A. Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to certify an Environmental Impact Report and deny a project for the demolition of an existing building and the construction of a mixed-use development including a two-level underground parking garage, five market rate condominiums, two low-income housing units, and commercial floor area. The project location is the SE corner of Dolores and 7th (Homescapes Building). The appellant is John Mandurrago.
Description: On September 17, 2009, the Planning Commission certified an Environmental Impact Report, adopted CEQA findings and denied all permits for the Plaza del Mar project. The appellant requests that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the project.
Staff Recommendation: Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision.
Important Considerations: In December 2008 the City Council granted an appeal and overturned the Planning Commission’s decision to approve this project. The Council remanded all project decisions back to the Planning Commission, adopted findings and provided specific direction on several issues to assist the Commission. Part of this direction was to develop better evidence regarding the feasibility of the adaptive reuse.
The Council also affirmed that demolition of the Burde Building would constitute a significant environmental impact and provided the Commission with guidance on the interaction between CEQA and California housing statutes.
Recent Decision Record:
• 9/10/2008 - Planning Commission certifies and EIR and approves the project.
• 12/2/2008 - City Council adopts findings to overturn the Planning Commission decision.
• 9/17/2009 - Planning Commission adopts findings to certify EIR and deny the project.
• 9/21/2009 - Applicant files an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision.
Letter to Mayor and City Council from Dennis C. Beougher, Lombardo & Gilles, LLP
Dated: October 6, 2009
Re: Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Findings for Denial of Plaza Del Mar-October 6, 2009
Conclusion
The Plaza del Mar application is a clear history of delay (eight years to review and over four years to certify a completed EIR, filing a frivolous anti-SLAPP motion, filing an objection to a calendar preference on appeal, a year to review the adaptive reuse alternative that was never a feasible alternative even on December 2008 when the city required further review of this alternative) and a three year delay for a trumped up significant environmental impact of visual quality which was not based upon any written statement, policy, regulations, resolution, or ordinances and clearly contradicted a City council November, 2006 findings and conclusion that the Burde building could be demolished and should not be placed on the Carmel Inventory. It is also history of misinterpretation of city ordinances and state statures.
Federal equal protection clause (U.S. Const. 14th Amendment) and its California counterpart (Cal. Consts. Article I, sec. 7, subd.(a)) provide that persons who are similarly situated with respect to legitimate purpose of a law must be treated alike under the law. The applicant has been denied equal protection and due process rights for his exercise of First Amendment as to the Mayor. Also, the applicant has not been treated alike other applications (i.e., eight years to process the application) as stated above. The “class of one” allows the applicant to seek federal damages for differential treatment if he raises a concern of arbitrary classification and a wholly irrational decision, not based upon any legitimate reasons (no written policy, regulation, ordinance, or resolution).
XI. Orders of Council
D. Consideration of modifications to the City’s Volumetric Standards, as established in CMC Section 17.10.030.
Description: The City’s volumetric standards establish the maximum amount of exterior volume that may be built on sites located in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) District.
The Planning Commission recommended modifications to the volumetric standards.
Staff Recommendation: Request the Council to provide direction on this issue.
Important Considerations: The City adopted standards several years ago, limiting the amount of exterior volume that could be constructed as part of new development in the Residential (R-1) District. The standards were meant to address concerns about the size of new homes and their affect on the City’s character.
Decision Record: The Planning Commission recommended some modifications to the City Council on 8 July 2009.
A small committee was appointed to review the City’s volumetric standards and make recommendations on the appropriateness of the standards. The Committee includes:
􀂉 John Thodos, Architect
􀂉 Bill Strid, former Planning Commission Chair
􀂉 Sean Conroy, Planning & Building Services Manager (facilitator)
The Committee determined that the volume requirements have been effective, but it recommended some modifications. The Planning Commission reviewed these recommendations on 8 July 2009
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM (LCP)
Any proposed changes to the zoning ordinance constitute an amendment to the LCP and would require Coastal Commission approval.
OPTIONS
The Council may wish to discuss at least the following options:
1) Make no changes to the City’s Volumetric Standards.
2) Direct staff to prepare an ordinance addressing all of the recommendations of the Volume Committee and the Planning Commission.
3) Direct staff to prepare an ordinance addressing some of the recommendations of the Volume Committee and the Planning Commission.
RECOMMENDATION
Provide direction on potential modifications to the City’s Volumetric Standards.
E. Receive report and provide policy direction on proposed extension of the holiday season for placement of lights.
Description: City policy defines the “holiday season” for the purpose of placing lights in the public right-of-way and in or on commercial property as beginning on the third Wednesday in November and continuing until the second Wednesday in January. The holiday season, as defined, has been staff’s guideline for to place and remove the Ocean Avenue median lights.
This guideline also applies to commercial properties and the staff code enforcement officer inspects after the second Wednesday in January to ensure that the holiday lights are removed in a timely manner (see the attached policy).
This proposal would define the “holiday season” as beginning on November 27, 2009 (the day after the Thanksgiving Holiday) and ending on February 14, 2010 (the last day of the AT&T Pebble Beach National Pro-Am).
Overall Cost:
City Funds: $200 more than holiday season 2008-09 (23 additional days)
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Review the report and provide direction.
Important Considerations: The minimal additional energy cost is a small price to pay for Ocean Avenue to appear more festive. The additional lighting also enhances public safety and security during the “holiday season”.
Decision Record: None.
STAFF REPORT
FROM: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
Review Policy No. C95-08 regarding Holiday Lights and provide policy direction.
BACKGROUND
City policy for placement of Holiday Lights in the public right-of-way and in or on commercial property defines the “holiday season” as beginning on the third Wednesday in November and continuing until the second Wednesday in January. The holiday season, as defined, has been staff’s guideline for placing and removing the Ocean Avenue median lights.
This guideline also applies to commercial properties and of those properties which do install holiday lights, the staff code enforcement officer makes an inspection after the second Wednesday in January to ensure that the holiday lights are removed in a timely manner (see the attached policy).
STAFF REVIEW
In past years, staff has administratively extended the time for the holiday lights to remain.
Generally, this decision has been met favorably by business owners. For the upcoming holiday season, staff is proposing to extend the period for the placement of holiday lights.
This proposal would define the “holiday season” as beginning on November 27, 2009 (the day after the Thanksgiving Holiday) and ending on February 14, 2010 (the last day of the AT&T Pebble Beach National Pro-Am).
There is no provision in the Zoning Code or the Local Coastal Plan that requires a special permit. The decision to extend the “holiday season” is a policy that can be revised by the City Council at its discretion. In light of the challenging economic times, the added time for the holiday season can help attract business and improve community safety in the business district.
FISCAL IMPACT
Last holiday season in little under 60 days of having lights placed on the Ocean Avenue medians, the energy costs increased approximately $550 or the equivalent of $9/day. Under the current policy, the holiday season would start on November 18, 2009 and end on January 13, 2010 for a total of 57 days. The proposed holiday season as stated above would be for a total of 80 days, which is an additional 23 days from last year. Using the $9/day energy cost increase when the Ocean Avenue median lights are illuminated, the energy cost for the added days is approximately $200 total.
SUMMARY
The minimal additional energy cost is a small price to pay for Ocean Avenue to appear more festive. The additional lighting also enhances public safety and security during the “holiday season”.
COMMENT:
• General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Land Use & Community Character Element
P1-54 Limit exterior lighting to prevent glare and preserve the traditional low levels of illumination during hours of darkness.
O1-13 Maintain diligent control over signs and other advertising or notice attracting facilities in order to avoid unsightly, bizarre, and/or out of scale visual impacts, including exterior lighting and lights from window displays. (LUP)
P1-80 Prohibit unsightly design elements such as excessive numbers of signs, nonfunctional awnings, exterior displays, interior displays,
and excessive interior lighting used primarily as advertising or
attention-getting features visible from the public rights-of-way. (LUP)
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
City Council Agenda – AMENDED
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
4:30 p.m., Open Session
Live and archived video streaming available
City Hall
East side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues
VII. Consent Calendar
These matters include routine financial and administrative actions, which are usually approved by a single majority vote. Individual items may be removed from Consent by a member of the Council or the public for discussion and action.
E. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing a contract with Haro, Kasunich and Associates for geotechnical investigation on a road stabilization project on 2nd Avenue between Lopez Avenue and North Casanova Street in an amount not to exceed $11,980.
Description: At its September 1, 2009 meeting, the City Council reviewed a driveway application submitted by Mr. Zane Blackmer. The driveway application approval was continued by the City Council, pending evaluation of opening 2nd Avenue to through traffic. The City Council directed staff to evaluate the stabilization of 2nd Avenue between Lopez Avenue and North Casanova Street to accommodate the road opening.
The City Engineer advised staff to hire a geotechnical engineer to review the stabilization issue on 2nd Avenue and recommended hiring the Watsonville-based firm, Haro, Kasunich and Associates (HKA), to perform the geotechnical investigation. HKA’s proposal includes site drilling to help develop a soils profile for stabilization analysis. Their analysis will be summarized in a report to the City, along with recommendations.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: $11,980
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.
Important Considerations: Second Avenue has been closed to through traffic for a number of years. A section of 2nd Avenue has some stabilization issues that must be investigated before reopening for vehicular traffic. This type of investigation is best accomplished by a geotechnical engineer.
Decision Record: The City Council directed staff to review the 2nd Avenue stabilization to evaluate whether the street can be opened for access to the Blackmer property.
L. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the payment of salary and benefit difference to city employees who have been activated into military service from the National Guard or from the inactive military reserves.
Description: This Resolution authorizes the City to pay the difference between salary and benefits paid by the military and those paid by the City for City staff activated into service. The purpose of this action is to accommodate the activation of the Building Official, John Hanson, by the National Guard to assist with construction and agriculture in Afghanistan. His deployment will be part of the Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) Asadabad encouraging international and non-governmental organizations to operate in rural areas outside of Kabul. The milestones that lead to this activation are as follows:
• April 8, 2009 – Hanson informed staff that he is deploying in July 2009 to Afghanistan.
• July 31, 2009 – Hanson’s travel orders received by City for activation on August 3rd for training and deployment for approx. 400 days.
• September 14, 2009 –Hanson requested use of vacation time for the period of October 13-November 13, 2009, which caused a recalculation of his benefits package.
• September 24, 2009 –Hanson arrived in Afghanistan.
• October 8, 2009 – Receipt of Department of the Army letter requesting extension of Hanson’s City benefits, which will run out on December 31, 2009.
Municipal code sections 2.52.690 and 700 outline how the City will compensate employees activated for military duty (see attached). The City’s Municipal Code states, as it has, since 1987 that military leave beyond 30 days will be unpaid leave. Staff cannot authorize differential pay or benefits for employees as it is would be a gift of public funds. It is within the City Council’s authority to take this action, as it has done previously, as part of a public meeting.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: Hanson’s regular City compensation, salary plus benefits, is $109,000. This will offset the following costs: $51,000 is estimated for Hanson’s differential pay + $50,000 Building Official consultant during Hanson’s activation.
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.
Important Considerations: Support of City staff members who have been activated for military service during times of emergencies or declaration of war requires the City Council to adopt a Resolution to cover any differential in pay and benefits. This is Hanson’s fourth military leave from the City since 2001 and each occurrence has followed the same City process. The costs to the City, at this time, are only estimates. As soon as the City receives information regarding military salary, allowances and premiums, the precise amounts will be determined.
Decision Record: In support of Hanson’s previous duty, Resolution 2001-156 was adopted in November 2001 and expired one year later. Resolution 2004-01 was also adopted in January 2004 and expired one year later in 2005.
COMMENTS:
• Omitted from the Agenda Item Summary, under Description, written by City Clerk Heidi Burch, is her September 2009 letter informing Building Official John Hanson of the cessation of his pay differential and medical benefits for his family in November and December 2009, respectively.
• Since City Council Resolutions to cover differential pay and medical benefits have been approved for John Hanson’s previous military leaves from city employment, it appears the change in city policy this time was due to retaliation for his deposition in the sex-based and age-based discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit filed by on-leave Human Resources Manager Jane Miller, which was given in July 2009; City Administrator Rich Guillen was in attendance at the deposition.
VIII. Public Hearings
If you challenge the nature of the proposed action in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.
A. Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to certify an Environmental Impact Report and deny a project for the demolition of an existing building and the construction of a mixed-use development including a two-level underground parking garage, five market rate condominiums, two low-income housing units, and commercial floor area. The project location is the SE corner of Dolores and 7th (Homescapes Building). The appellant is John Mandurrago.
Description: On September 17, 2009, the Planning Commission certified an Environmental Impact Report, adopted CEQA findings and denied all permits for the Plaza del Mar project. The appellant requests that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the project.
Staff Recommendation: Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision.
Important Considerations: In December 2008 the City Council granted an appeal and overturned the Planning Commission’s decision to approve this project. The Council remanded all project decisions back to the Planning Commission, adopted findings and provided specific direction on several issues to assist the Commission. Part of this direction was to develop better evidence regarding the feasibility of the adaptive reuse.
The Council also affirmed that demolition of the Burde Building would constitute a significant environmental impact and provided the Commission with guidance on the interaction between CEQA and California housing statutes.
Recent Decision Record:
• 9/10/2008 - Planning Commission certifies and EIR and approves the project.
• 12/2/2008 - City Council adopts findings to overturn the Planning Commission decision.
• 9/17/2009 - Planning Commission adopts findings to certify EIR and deny the project.
• 9/21/2009 - Applicant files an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision.
Letter to Mayor and City Council from Dennis C. Beougher, Lombardo & Gilles, LLP
Dated: October 6, 2009
Re: Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Findings for Denial of Plaza Del Mar-October 6, 2009
Conclusion
The Plaza del Mar application is a clear history of delay (eight years to review and over four years to certify a completed EIR, filing a frivolous anti-SLAPP motion, filing an objection to a calendar preference on appeal, a year to review the adaptive reuse alternative that was never a feasible alternative even on December 2008 when the city required further review of this alternative) and a three year delay for a trumped up significant environmental impact of visual quality which was not based upon any written statement, policy, regulations, resolution, or ordinances and clearly contradicted a City council November, 2006 findings and conclusion that the Burde building could be demolished and should not be placed on the Carmel Inventory. It is also history of misinterpretation of city ordinances and state statures.
Federal equal protection clause (U.S. Const. 14th Amendment) and its California counterpart (Cal. Consts. Article I, sec. 7, subd.(a)) provide that persons who are similarly situated with respect to legitimate purpose of a law must be treated alike under the law. The applicant has been denied equal protection and due process rights for his exercise of First Amendment as to the Mayor. Also, the applicant has not been treated alike other applications (i.e., eight years to process the application) as stated above. The “class of one” allows the applicant to seek federal damages for differential treatment if he raises a concern of arbitrary classification and a wholly irrational decision, not based upon any legitimate reasons (no written policy, regulation, ordinance, or resolution).
XI. Orders of Council
D. Consideration of modifications to the City’s Volumetric Standards, as established in CMC Section 17.10.030.
Description: The City’s volumetric standards establish the maximum amount of exterior volume that may be built on sites located in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) District.
The Planning Commission recommended modifications to the volumetric standards.
Staff Recommendation: Request the Council to provide direction on this issue.
Important Considerations: The City adopted standards several years ago, limiting the amount of exterior volume that could be constructed as part of new development in the Residential (R-1) District. The standards were meant to address concerns about the size of new homes and their affect on the City’s character.
Decision Record: The Planning Commission recommended some modifications to the City Council on 8 July 2009.
A small committee was appointed to review the City’s volumetric standards and make recommendations on the appropriateness of the standards. The Committee includes:
􀂉 John Thodos, Architect
􀂉 Bill Strid, former Planning Commission Chair
􀂉 Sean Conroy, Planning & Building Services Manager (facilitator)
The Committee determined that the volume requirements have been effective, but it recommended some modifications. The Planning Commission reviewed these recommendations on 8 July 2009
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM (LCP)
Any proposed changes to the zoning ordinance constitute an amendment to the LCP and would require Coastal Commission approval.
OPTIONS
The Council may wish to discuss at least the following options:
1) Make no changes to the City’s Volumetric Standards.
2) Direct staff to prepare an ordinance addressing all of the recommendations of the Volume Committee and the Planning Commission.
3) Direct staff to prepare an ordinance addressing some of the recommendations of the Volume Committee and the Planning Commission.
RECOMMENDATION
Provide direction on potential modifications to the City’s Volumetric Standards.
E. Receive report and provide policy direction on proposed extension of the holiday season for placement of lights.
Description: City policy defines the “holiday season” for the purpose of placing lights in the public right-of-way and in or on commercial property as beginning on the third Wednesday in November and continuing until the second Wednesday in January. The holiday season, as defined, has been staff’s guideline for to place and remove the Ocean Avenue median lights.
This guideline also applies to commercial properties and the staff code enforcement officer inspects after the second Wednesday in January to ensure that the holiday lights are removed in a timely manner (see the attached policy).
This proposal would define the “holiday season” as beginning on November 27, 2009 (the day after the Thanksgiving Holiday) and ending on February 14, 2010 (the last day of the AT&T Pebble Beach National Pro-Am).
Overall Cost:
City Funds: $200 more than holiday season 2008-09 (23 additional days)
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Review the report and provide direction.
Important Considerations: The minimal additional energy cost is a small price to pay for Ocean Avenue to appear more festive. The additional lighting also enhances public safety and security during the “holiday season”.
Decision Record: None.
STAFF REPORT
FROM: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
Review Policy No. C95-08 regarding Holiday Lights and provide policy direction.
BACKGROUND
City policy for placement of Holiday Lights in the public right-of-way and in or on commercial property defines the “holiday season” as beginning on the third Wednesday in November and continuing until the second Wednesday in January. The holiday season, as defined, has been staff’s guideline for placing and removing the Ocean Avenue median lights.
This guideline also applies to commercial properties and of those properties which do install holiday lights, the staff code enforcement officer makes an inspection after the second Wednesday in January to ensure that the holiday lights are removed in a timely manner (see the attached policy).
STAFF REVIEW
In past years, staff has administratively extended the time for the holiday lights to remain.
Generally, this decision has been met favorably by business owners. For the upcoming holiday season, staff is proposing to extend the period for the placement of holiday lights.
This proposal would define the “holiday season” as beginning on November 27, 2009 (the day after the Thanksgiving Holiday) and ending on February 14, 2010 (the last day of the AT&T Pebble Beach National Pro-Am).
There is no provision in the Zoning Code or the Local Coastal Plan that requires a special permit. The decision to extend the “holiday season” is a policy that can be revised by the City Council at its discretion. In light of the challenging economic times, the added time for the holiday season can help attract business and improve community safety in the business district.
FISCAL IMPACT
Last holiday season in little under 60 days of having lights placed on the Ocean Avenue medians, the energy costs increased approximately $550 or the equivalent of $9/day. Under the current policy, the holiday season would start on November 18, 2009 and end on January 13, 2010 for a total of 57 days. The proposed holiday season as stated above would be for a total of 80 days, which is an additional 23 days from last year. Using the $9/day energy cost increase when the Ocean Avenue median lights are illuminated, the energy cost for the added days is approximately $200 total.
SUMMARY
The minimal additional energy cost is a small price to pay for Ocean Avenue to appear more festive. The additional lighting also enhances public safety and security during the “holiday season”.
COMMENT:
• General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Land Use & Community Character Element
P1-54 Limit exterior lighting to prevent glare and preserve the traditional low levels of illumination during hours of darkness.
O1-13 Maintain diligent control over signs and other advertising or notice attracting facilities in order to avoid unsightly, bizarre, and/or out of scale visual impacts, including exterior lighting and lights from window displays. (LUP)
P1-80 Prohibit unsightly design elements such as excessive numbers of signs, nonfunctional awnings, exterior displays, interior displays,
and excessive interior lighting used primarily as advertising or
attention-getting features visible from the public rights-of-way. (LUP)
Sunday, November 01, 2009
UPDATE VI: 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 November 1, 2009 are compiled and presented. REFERENCES consisting of links to the entire original letters and commentaries are provided. Polls open Tuesday, 3 November 2009 from 7:00 A.M. – 8:00 P.M.
SALIENT POINTS AGAINST THE SALE OF THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY:
• The City’s purchase of the Flanders Mansion property was “visionary.” And it was “a great investment!” “It has appreciated, since 1972, by about $2.7 million, or about $70,000 per year, with minimal maintenance.” (10/31/2009)
• “...the lawsuit was necessary to make the council follow state law and hold an election regarding the sale. The council shouldn't have to be forced to act lawfully.” (10/31/2009)
• “Blowing all of this taxpayers' money in an attempt to sell this irreplaceable parkland, which appreciates at $70,000 per year, at a time when the city, with its $10.5 million in reserves, needs no money, is, fiscally speaking, shortsighted.” (10/31/2009)
• When the Carmel City Council purchased the Flanders estate in 1972 it was “presumed the property would be dedicated to use and enjoyment by Carmel taxpayers” and it has “served that purpose for many years.” (10/31/2009)
• “There's a reason people live in Carmel...It has to do with values that are intangible, but greater: beauty, nature and community.” 10/30/2009
• “Carmel's general plan requires the city to 'acquire and enhance parkland'—certainly not sell it.” 10/30/2009
• “The city has put forward other arguments to sell the parkland that are based on similarly flimsy assumptions. For example: No viable use has been found for the historic home...It's too expensive for the city to repair and maintain...Too much money has been spent already on Flanders...The house is not accessible to the handicapped...The property is at the edge of the park...Neighbors would not tolerate the traffic and noise from public use.” 10/30/2009
• “We are not alone in our belief that we live in a village that does not sell its parkland. We are joined by the Carmel Residents Association, the Monterey Peninsula Chapter of the League of Women Voters, the Sierra Club, the National Trust of Historic Preservation, the California State Office of Historic Preservation, the Monterey Regional Park District, and the Monterey Peninsula Audubon Society.” 10/30/2009
• “Carmel and its precious beach and parklands are a gift from our predecessors, a gift we are holding in trust for those who will follow us. Measure I betrays that trust.” 10/30/2009
• “I believe the defeat of Measure I will make the City Council and the Flanders Foundation find the best usage of the parkland/estate; selling it means putting the money into the General Fund so it can be wasted.” (October 29, 2009)
• “Ask yourself two questions: Does selling the parkland/estate now make sense, when housing values are at their low value; and what is the city thinking when it wants to compete with its residents in the sale of parkland/property?” (October 29, 2009)
• “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 Monterey County Herald, (Flanders sale shortsighted, Francis "Skip" Lloyd, Carmel), 10/31/2009
The Monterey County Herald, (Outsiders flex Flanders muscle, Brie Tripp, Carmel), 10/31/2009
The Monterey County Herald, (Flanders Mansion sale betrays trust, ANNE BELL, Guest commentary) 10/30/2009
MONTEREY COUNTY WEEKLY, The Public Voice, Letters (Flanders Founder, Mike Brown | Carmel) October 29, 2009
The Carmel Pine Cone, LETTERS, (The wonder of parks, Karen and Hugo Ferlito, Carmel) October 23, 2009), 21A
MONTEREY COUNTY WEEKLY: MEASURE I ‘No,’ October 22, 2009
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:
• The City’s purchase of the Flanders Mansion property was “visionary.” And it was “a great investment!” “It has appreciated, since 1972, by about $2.7 million, or about $70,000 per year, with minimal maintenance.” (10/31/2009)
• “...the lawsuit was necessary to make the council follow state law and hold an election regarding the sale. The council shouldn't have to be forced to act lawfully.” (10/31/2009)
• “Blowing all of this taxpayers' money in an attempt to sell this irreplaceable parkland, which appreciates at $70,000 per year, at a time when the city, with its $10.5 million in reserves, needs no money, is, fiscally speaking, shortsighted.” (10/31/2009)
• When the Carmel City Council purchased the Flanders estate in 1972 it was “presumed the property would be dedicated to use and enjoyment by Carmel taxpayers” and it has “served that purpose for many years.” (10/31/2009)
• “There's a reason people live in Carmel...It has to do with values that are intangible, but greater: beauty, nature and community.” 10/30/2009
• “Carmel's general plan requires the city to 'acquire and enhance parkland'—certainly not sell it.” 10/30/2009
• “The city has put forward other arguments to sell the parkland that are based on similarly flimsy assumptions. For example: No viable use has been found for the historic home...It's too expensive for the city to repair and maintain...Too much money has been spent already on Flanders...The house is not accessible to the handicapped...The property is at the edge of the park...Neighbors would not tolerate the traffic and noise from public use.” 10/30/2009
• “We are not alone in our belief that we live in a village that does not sell its parkland. We are joined by the Carmel Residents Association, the Monterey Peninsula Chapter of the League of Women Voters, the Sierra Club, the National Trust of Historic Preservation, the California State Office of Historic Preservation, the Monterey Regional Park District, and the Monterey Peninsula Audubon Society.” 10/30/2009
• “Carmel and its precious beach and parklands are a gift from our predecessors, a gift we are holding in trust for those who will follow us. Measure I betrays that trust.” 10/30/2009
• “I believe the defeat of Measure I will make the City Council and the Flanders Foundation find the best usage of the parkland/estate; selling it means putting the money into the General Fund so it can be wasted.” (October 29, 2009)
• “Ask yourself two questions: Does selling the parkland/estate now make sense, when housing values are at their low value; and what is the city thinking when it wants to compete with its residents in the sale of parkland/property?” (October 29, 2009)
• “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 Monterey County Herald, (Flanders sale shortsighted, Francis "Skip" Lloyd, Carmel), 10/31/2009
The Monterey County Herald, (Outsiders flex Flanders muscle, Brie Tripp, Carmel), 10/31/2009
The Monterey County Herald, (Flanders Mansion sale betrays trust, ANNE BELL, Guest commentary) 10/30/2009
MONTEREY COUNTY WEEKLY, The Public Voice, Letters (Flanders Founder, Mike Brown | Carmel) October 29, 2009
The Carmel Pine Cone, LETTERS, (The wonder of parks, Karen and Hugo Ferlito, Carmel) October 23, 2009), 21A
MONTEREY COUNTY WEEKLY: MEASURE I ‘No,’ October 22, 2009
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 VI: 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 November 1, 2009 are compiled and presented. REFERENCES consisting of links to the entire original letters and commentaries are provided. Polls open Tuesday, 3 November 2009 from 7:00 A.M. – 8:00 P.M.
SALIENT POINTS FOR THE SALE OF THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY:
• Claims “It is a total drain on the budget. Fixing broken windows, leaking pipes, rotten electrical wiring and roof leaks is, as Mayor Sue McCloud pointed out, an expenditure of over $20,000 yearly.” (10/30/2009)
• Claims “Flanders is a revenue drain; it serves no useful purpose. It should be sold to someone who can enjoy its unique characteristics.” (October 30, 2009)
• Claims “Despite honest and repeated efforts, there has been no viable public usage that would make sense for this house other than a sale. The expenses to make the house accessible for public use would be irresponsible.” (October 30, 2009)
• “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 Monterey County Herald, Letters, (Flanders Mansion a money pit, Tim Meroney, Carmel), 10/30/2009
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, (Flanders a ‘revenue drain,’ Amber Archangel, Carmel), October 30, 2009, 31A
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, (‘Misleading voters’ Donna Shore, Carmel), October 30, 2009, 31A
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:
• Claims “It is a total drain on the budget. Fixing broken windows, leaking pipes, rotten electrical wiring and roof leaks is, as Mayor Sue McCloud pointed out, an expenditure of over $20,000 yearly.” (10/30/2009)
• Claims “Flanders is a revenue drain; it serves no useful purpose. It should be sold to someone who can enjoy its unique characteristics.” (October 30, 2009)
• Claims “Despite honest and repeated efforts, there has been no viable public usage that would make sense for this house other than a sale. The expenses to make the house accessible for public use would be irresponsible.” (October 30, 2009)
• “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 Monterey County Herald, Letters, (Flanders Mansion a money pit, Tim Meroney, Carmel), 10/30/2009
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, (Flanders a ‘revenue drain,’ Amber Archangel, Carmel), October 30, 2009, 31A
The Carmel Pine Cone, Letters to the Editor, (‘Misleading voters’ Donna Shore, Carmel), October 30, 2009, 31A
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)