HAPPY NEW YEAR

ONLY 466 DAYS & 16 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS UNTIL THE NEXT MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON APRIL 10, 2012!

Monterey County Standard Subdivision Committee: RIGOULETTE, LLC (VILLAS DE CARMELO) Project

ABSTRACT: WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE for the Monterey County Standard Subdivision Committee Public Hearing on the RIGOULETTE, LLC (VILLAS DE CARMELO) Project is presented. The “Notice of Public Hearing” is reproduced. An ADDENDUM of relevant links is provided.

WHO: Monterey County Standard Subdivision Committee
Chair: Tom Moss, Water Resources Agency
Vice-Chair: James McPharlin, Fire
Secretary: Jacqueline Onciano, RMA Planning
Chad Alinio, RMA Public Works
Nicki Silva, Environmental Health
David Lutes, Parks (Subdivision only)

WHAT: Monterey County Standard Subdivision Committee Public Hearing to consider RIGOULETTE, LLC (VILLAS DE CARMELO) Project

WHEN: Thursday, January 13, 2010 @ 10:30 A.M.

WHERE: Monterey County Board of Supervisors Chambers, County Government Center
168 West Alisal Street
Salinas, CA.


Notice of Public Hearing

Monterey County Standard Subdivision Committee

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Monterey County Standard Subdivision Committee, State of California, will hold a Public Hearing to consider the project described below. The hearing will be held on Thursday, January 13, 2011 at the hour of 10:30 AM in the Monterey County Board of Supervisors Chambers, County Government Center, 168 West Alisal Street, Salinas, California, at which time and place any and all interested persons may appear and be heard thereon.

Project Title: RIGOULETTE, LLC (VILLAS DE CARMELO)

Project File Number: PLN070497

Project Location: 24945 VALLEY WAY, CARMEL

Assessor’s Parcel Number: 009-061-002-000, 009-061-003-000 AND 009-061-005-000

Permit Type: COMBINED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT

Planning Area: CARMEL AREA LAND USE PLAN

Environmental Status: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

Project Description: COMBINED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO REDEVELOP THE EXISTING CARMEL CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL SITE, GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY ONE AND VALLEY WAY, WITH A 46-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT. REQUIRED ENTITLEMENTS INCLUDE: 1) STANDARD SUBDIVISION FOR A VESTING TENTATIVE MAP TO SUBDIVIDE 3.68 ACRES IN TO 46 CONDOMINIUM PARCELS AND COMMON OPEN SPACE; 2) LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, TWO UNITS PER ACRE (MDR/2) TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, 12.5 UNITS PER ACRE (HDR/12.5), INCLUDING ASSOCIATED AMENDMENTS TO THE CARMEL AREA LAND USE PLAN; 3) COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO CONVERT THE FORMER CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL INTO NINE CONDOMINIUM UNITS WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING, RECREATION ROOM, STORAGE, AND A GYM; 4) COASTAL ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT TO DEMOLISH ONE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCT 12 BUILDINGS FOR A TOTAL OF 46 CONDOMINIUM UNITS; 5) COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT ON SLOPES OF 30% OR GREATER; 6) COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW THE REMOVAL OF 97 TREES (21 COAST LIVE OAK AND 76 MONTEREY PINES); AND 7) DESIGN APPROVAL. THE EXISTING HOSPITAL ADDRESS IS 24945 VALLEY WAY, CARMEL (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 009-061-002-000, 009-061-003-000 AND 009-061-005-000), COASTAL ZONE.



IF YOU CHALLENGE THIS MATTER IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS PUBLIC NOTICE OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY AT OR BEFORE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONTACT:
LIZ GONZALES, Project Planner
(831) 755-5102 or gonzales@co.monterey.ca.us
Monterey County Resource Management Agency – Planning Department
168 West Alisal St. 2nd Floor, Salinas, CA 93901
(831) 755-5025


ADDENDUM:
MONTEREY COUNTY
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY - PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM

Monterey County Planning Department
as of Monday, December 27, 2010
Active Planning Projects as of December 27, 2010

Villas De Carmelo

Monterey County Planning Department
Meetings Videos

‘DOG TREE’ 2010

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL (and especially to All Canines and Their Human Companions)

Ornaments, close-up

“DOG TREE” 2010, Ornaments to Honor:
Aby, Alvin, Andre, Angel, Angus, Annie, Arrow, Bailey, Baily, Barney, Baue, Beaux, Bell, Belle, Beret, Biggy, Brandy, Brie, Brindle, Brownie, Buck, Buddy, Buffy, Bunny, Buster, Buttons, Carl, Carla, Celeste, Charley, Chewy, Clementine, Cody, Cosmo, Daisy, Dewey, Dot, Duke, Duncan, Elroy, Emma, Fritz, George, Gracie, Harvey, Heidi, Herman, Hershy, Huck, Huckleberry, India, Jake, Jackson, Jane, Jazzy, Katie, Keillor, Kelsey, Kodi, Lady, Leo, Lily, Lucas, Lucy, Malik, Mariah, Max, May, Micki, Midge, Miley, Milo, Molly, Muffin, Murhy, Myrna, Noah, Nutmeg, Olivia, Otis, Ozzy, Peaches, Peanut, Pedro, Peluche, Piasso, Pooka, Ranger, Rover, Roxy, Rudy, Rupert, Ryan, Ryder, Sadie, Sarah, Sam, Sanji, Sasha, Scrapes, Schubert, Scotland, Shani, Shelby, Shooter, Snicker Doodles, Snorkel, Snowbear, Solo, Soula, Spanky, Squirt, Sugar, Suki, Summer, Sunshine, Syrah, Trevor, Toby, Topaz, Waldo, Weaver, Whidbey, Willy, Winston, Wrangler, Zande, Zoey

Ornaments, close-up

AGREEMENT Between CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, A Municipal Corporation And SUNSET CULTURAL CENTER, INC.

ABSTRACT: The AGREEMENT Between CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, A Municipal Corporation And SUNSET CULTURAL CENTER, INC. A California Not-For-Profit Corporation, June 8, 2004, is uploaded. This Agreement is in effect presently; SCC Board of Trustees notified the Mayor and Council members in December 2009 that SCC was exercising its option under the Agreement for a second contract renewal of three years beginning July 1, 2010 and ending June 30, 2013. The current three-year Agreement renewal is the final extension provided in the Agreement. The Agreement does not have a three-year budget commitment like the original Agreement; the FY 2010/2011 City subsidy is $650,000 and FY 2011/12 City subsidy and FY 2012/13 City subsidy will be determined during the City’s budget process, according to Assistant Director Barbara Davison.


City _ SCC Agreement
AGREEMENT Between CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, A Municipal Corporation And SUNSET CULTURAL CENTER, INC. June 8, 2004

SUNSET CENTER PRESS RELEASE (December 8, 2010) & Peter’s Point of View: A Word from our Executive Director, SUNSET CENTER NEWS (December 7, 2010)

ABSTRACT: The SUNSET CENTER PRESS RELEASE (December 8, 2010) entitled “SUNSET CULTURAL CENTER BOARD OF TRUSTEES ANNOUNCES ORGANIZATIONAL RESTRUCTURING” and Peter’s Point of View: A Word from our Executive Director, SUNSET CENTER NEWS (December 7, 2010), are reproduced. According to the PRESS RELEASE, “a modified management strategy for operating the facility has emerged and will take effect January 1, 2011. Current Executive Director, Peter Lesnik, will shift his role to that of an advisor to a newly appointed Managing Director (TBD) who will assume an overall administrative role while Lesnik consults on theater programming and operations.” A QUESTION is posed regarding the management of the Sunset Center, past and present.

SUNSET CENTER PRESS RELEASE
For Immediate Release: December 8, 2010
Media Contact: Christine Sandin, (831) 620-2077

SUNSET CULTURAL CENTER BOARD OF TRUSTEES ANNOUNCES ORGANIZATIONAL RESTRUCTURING

Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA – Sunset Cultural Center, Inc. the non-profit organization contracted by the City of Carmel to manage Sunset Center, announces plans to restructure overall facility operations. With the tightening economy, the Board and venue staff have been busy exploring new business models and examining strategies for optimizing usage of the overall facility, including the north wing of the building that houses the administrative offices, the Marjorie Evans Gallery and a variety of meeting and conference space.

While Sunset Center Theater continues to be a sustainable operation in its own right, additional opportunities exist to develop the usage and revenues of the facility beyond the performances, and pursuing these newer ventures is a priority for the Sunset Center Board of Trustees. Concurrently, a modified management strategy for operating the facility has emerged and will take effect January 1, 2011. Current Executive Director, Peter Lesnik, will shift his role to that of an advisor to a newly appointed Managing Director (TBD) who will assume an overall administrative role while Lesnik consults on theater programming and operations.

Lesnik states, “This is an opportune time for me since I am ready to end my career as an Executive Director of performing arts centers. It has been 27 fulfilling years of building, guiding, creating and nurturing, but now is the time for me to select projects, work with people I share values and vision with, and focus on making art a greater part of day-to-day life for as many people as possible. I will continue to work with Sunset Center and help program the artist series and Classroom Connections, as well as assist with marketing and development. I have enjoyed working with the board, staff and community to bring the Sunset Center to new levels of professionalism while knitting it more into the daily life of Carmel and the region. I look forward to continuing in my new role.”

Jim Price, SCC Board Chair, said on behalf of the trustees that Lesnik’s leadership in arranging a diverse and popular series under the Sunset Presents banner is a significant contribution to Sunset Center’s program calendar, which has great benefit for the community. He engaged a large number of shows and worked to deepen the audience experience by adding special pre- and post-show events. The board intends to continue these events as well as to bring new performances to Carmel. The board congratulates Lesnik for his achievements and looks forward to his new consultant role.

###

SUNSET CENTER NEWS
December 7, 2010

Peter’s Point of View
A Word from our Executive Director

Change is in the air at Sunset Center. With the tightening economy, we have been busy exploring new business models and examining strategies for optimizing usage of our overall facility. As such, the Sunset Center Board of Trustees and I have agreed that there is a concurrent need for a modified management strategy at SCC.

As of January 1, I will shift my role at Sunset Center to that of an advisor to a newly appointed Managing Director who will assume an overall administrative role. This is an opportune time for me since I am ready to end my career as an Executive Director of performing arts centers. It has been 27 fulfilling years of building, guiding, creating and nurturing, but now is the time for me to select projects, work with people I share values and vision with, and focus on making art a greater part of day to day life for as many people as possible. I intend to do this by working with artists on new projects, working with organizations who are trying to increase their cultural participation and by working with professionals to improve their effectiveness. This will involve producing new shows, collaborating with diverse artists and organizations, and working side by side with organizational leaders and their boards/administrations at expanding the scope and impact of their programs.

I will continue to work with Sunset Center and help program the artist series and Classroom Connections as well as assist with marketing and development. I will base myself on the Monterey Peninsula, though I will be spending more time in the Los Angeles and San Francisco areas. I have enjoyed working with the board, staff and community to bring the Sunset Center to new levels of professionalism while knitting it more into the daily life of Carmel and the region. Thank you for your support.

Best,

Peter

QUESTION: Why should Carmel-by-the-Sea taxpayers continue to subsidize a non-profit to manage the city-owned Sunset Center when SCC’s “organizational restructuring” involves a management structure not substantively different from that of a City Community and Cultural Department with a Community and Cultural Director, as has been the management history of the Sunset Center prior to SCC’s management takeover in 2004?

Sunset Cultural Center (SCC) Board of Trustees ousts Executive Director Peter Lesnik

ABSTRACT: The Sunset Cultural Center, Inc. (SCC) Board of Trustees did not renew Executive Director Peter Lesnik’s contract; Lesnik was originally hired in January 2008 and will leave SCC at the beginning of 2011. Apparently, Peter Lesnik will be acting as an “advisor” to the next executive director and acting as a consultant booking acts for Performance Carmel. And according to reporting in Monterey County Weekly, SCC Board of Trustees believes SCC requires a new executive director to implement “a new strategy” which includes developing opportunities “beyond performances.,” based on a statement issued Wednesday, 8 December 2010, by SCC. QUESTIONS, COMMENT and ADDENDUM are presented.

Lesnik Sunset
Carmel's Sunset Center undergoes reorganization.
By Mary Duan, MONTEREY COUNTY WEEKLY, December 9, 2010

QUESTIONS: In reporting and commenting on the second SCC Executive Director to prematurely leave his position, will The Monterey County Herald, Monterey County Weekly and The Carmel Pine Cone satisfactorily address these questions, as follows: Why couldn’t the SCC Board of Trustees work with Executive Director Peter Lesnik to implement a “new strategy” for Sunset Center? Why was it necessary to search for a “new managing director?” When did the Board of Trustees decide to search for a new managing director and how long has it been since the Board of Trustees “identified a candidate” for executive director? What are the other “opportunities” which exist to “develop revenues and use of the facility beyond performances?”

COMMENT:
• Since 2001, under the auspices and arguably, at the instigation of Mayor Sue McCloud, many senior management city employees have prematurely retired from the City, including the Assistant City Administrator, Community and Cultural Director, Public Works Director, Financial Services Coordinator, Planning Director, Library Director, Executive Assistant, and Human Resources Manager. And since 2004, two SCC Executive Directors, namely Jack Globenfelt and Peter Lesnik, have departed from Sunset Cultural Center, Inc.

Questions: How has the loss of “institutional memory” and experience represented by these city employees and executive directors contributed to the instability, chaos and confusion that is currently the state of Carmel-by-the-Sea and city government? What does the high number of former members of the SCC Board of Trustees (12) compared to the present number of members (8) say about the management of the Sunset Center?

ADDENDUM:
Sunset Cultural Center, Inc. Board of Trustees
Jim Price - Chair
David S. Parker - Treasurer
Deanna R. Adolph - Secretary
Robert L. Oppenheim
Judith Profeta
Gerard Rose
Kurt Grasing
Sally Reed

Former Trustees
Demi Briscoe
Katherine Bucquet
Sarah W. Brown
Steven Hillyard
Karen D. Kadushin
Mara Kerr
Gary Luce
Michael L. McMahan
James Sanders
Fred O'Such
Perry L. Walker
Ron Wormser

NOTES: Sunset Cultural Center, Inc., a non-profit corporation, assumed management of Sunset Center in 2004. Since 2004, there have been twenty Trustees, including twelve former Trustees, more than the current number of eight Trustees on the Board today.

In 2007, SCC received 26 applications and interviewed seven finalists, according to board chairman Jim Price. “We wanted someone not only with theater experience, but with strong administrative and marketing know-how, and also someone who would work well in the community and with the city,” Price said. “There were a number of candidates who had excellent qualifications in some of those areas, but Peter has qualifications in all of those areas.” The Board of Trustees unanimously voted to hire Peter Lesnik.
(Source: Veteran theater exec, producer, director to head Sunset Center, MARY BROWNFIELD, The Carmel Pine Cone, November 23, 2007)

COMMENTARY Carmel-by-the-Sea: Theatre of the Absurd

In City Administrator Rich Guillen’s oral presentation, Agenda Item Summary and Staff Report for the City Council’s 7 December 2010 holiday lights in the Business District agenda item, he stated that “Policy No. C95-08 allows the temporary placement of lights in or on commercial property during the holiday season. According to the policy, the “holiday season” begins on the third Wednesday in November and continues until the second Wednesday in January. Last year Council extended this period to the Monday following the AT&T Pebble Beach Pro-Am Golf Tournament or the second Monday in February.” However, City Policy No. C95-08 HOLIDAY LIGHTS states The “holiday season” is defined as the period beginning with the third Wednesday in November and continuing until the Tuesday following Presidents Day. Presidents Day is always celebrated on the third Monday of February.

City Administrator Rich Guillen also stated that the existing Holiday Lights Policy is out-of-date. Specifically, Guillen cited item 6 of the Policy as being out-of-date and in need of revision. However, item 6 states “Lights shall be removed if, in the opinion of the City Forester, they are damaging a tree.” Guillen stated that it read “Forest, Parks and Beach Director” and since the City “no longer has a Forest, Parks and Beach Director,” “City Administrator” should be substituted for the Forest, Parks and Beach Director. Parenthetically, Mike Branson is the City Forester, Parks & Beach. Adding to the confusion is City Policy No. C95-08 which City Administrator Rich Guillen appended to his Staff Report which states: The “holiday season” is defined as the period beginning with the third Wednesday in November and continuing until the second Wednesday in January and item 6. “Lights shall be removed if, in the opinion of the Forest, Parks and Beach Director, they are damaging a tree.”

Furthermore, at the City Council's 2 November 2010 meeting, the City Council authorized the installation of LED lighting in the Ocean Avenue medians and approved lighting beginning the Monday prior to the Thanksgiving holiday and extending through the beginning of Daylight Saving Time, or the second Sunday of March. However, City Administrator Rich Guillen stated in his Agenda Item Summary and Staff Report that “the City Council may want to amend the Policy C95-08 to make the placement of lights consistent with the action taken on the Ocean Avenue medians” when he should have known from Fire Marshall Art Black’s statement of January 2009 that decorative light strings are for seasonal use and “cannot be used for more than 90 days.” The number of City Council approved lighting days between the Monday prior to the Thanksgiving holiday 2010 and the beginning of Daylight Savings Time on the second Sunday, 13 March 2011, is over 110 days. And according to Fire Marshall Art Black, “As well as the fire safety concerns with these light strings, the Municipal Code of the City prohibits display in commercial occupancies of these seasonal light strings.”

During the public comment period, resident Jonathan Sapp submitted a petition to the City Council from 36 retailers, restaurateurs, innkeepers and commercial property owners commending the City Council for “expanding the time for lights in the center medians of Ocean Avenue to run through the beginning of daylight savings time” and encouraging the City Council to “consider the lights on all year round.” Further, the signers are in favor of “low intensity lights on sidewalk trees throughout the downtown to make it easier for residents and visitors alike to walk around the area especially during the dark period.” However, seemingly unknown to Jonathan Sapp, the signers of the petition and the City Council are the pertinent provisions in the City’s General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Land Use & Community Character Element, as follows:

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)

Moreover, Ordinance No. 96 passed on 5 June 1929 states, as follows:

“THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA is hereby determined to be primarily, a residential City wherein business and commerce have in the past, are now, and are proposed to be in the future subordinated to its residential character; and that said determination is made having in mind the history and the development of said city, its growth and the causes thereof; and also its geographical and topographical aspects, together with its near proximity to the cities of Pacific Grove and Monterey and the businesses, industries, trades, callings and professions in existence and permissible therein.”

In sum, the City Council should adopt policies which honor the spirit of Ordinance No. 96 and refrain from adopting policies which lend credence to Wall Street Journal travel writer Matt Schwartz’s recent characterization of downtown Carmel as “kitschy.”

“MINUTES” for Three Noteworthy 7 December 2010 City Council Agenda Items

“MINUTES”
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Archived Video Streaming

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. Receive City’s Year-End and First Quarter 2010-2011 financial reports.

Laura Dadiw, Interim Finance Manager, highlighted her report with a PowerPoint Presentation.

Highlights of the Fiscal Year July 1, 2009 – June 30, 2010, as follows:

City of Carmel-by-the-Sea “Big Three” Revenues were less than 1% off of budget and the Property Tax revenue (over $4 million) exceeded Transient Occupancy Tax revenue (less than $4 million) for the second year.

FY 2009/10 SUMMARY
Actual Revenues: $12,649,245 (Unfavorable compared to budget: $631,906)
Less Operating Expenditures: (Unfavorable $12,511,935)
Excess of Revenues over Expenditures: Favorable $137,310
Less Capital Improvements and Outlays: (Unfavorable $251,830)
Net Surplus (Deficit) – Before Transfers (Unfavorable $114,520)

Council Member Ken Talmage summarized that revenues decreased 5% from budget and expenditures on budget. The Capital Improvement budget was cut to cover shortfall and balance the budget. Talmage stated that cutting the Capital Improvement budget to balance budget was “not a sustainable strategy over the long-term” because the City has Capital Improvement needs.

City Administrator Rich Guillen admitted that deferred maintenance “continues to grow and grow and grow” when projects are not accomplished.

FY 2009/10 Capital Projects:
Forest Theatre Master Plan: $44,505
Mission Trail Nature Preserve Pedestrian Footbridge: $15,107
General Plan Housing Element: $12,964
Beach Sand Replenishment: $10,596
Del Mar Restroom Improvements: $9,219

Laura Dadiw stated an “overall favorable” status for the first quarter of FY 2010/11. Business license tax continues to lag. And revenues overall show a negative budget variance of $236,664.

Capital Project Expenditures Year Ended September 30, 2010
Top 3 Expenditures:
Pedestrian Path - San Antonio Av. between 2nd Av. & 4th Av.: $98,326
Capital Lease Obligations: $81,129
Beach Seawall Repair: $45,355

General Fund - Summary
Qtr Ended September 30, 2010
Operations:
Net Surplus (Deficit): $217,898 Favorable compared to Budget
($75,000 Unfavorable with salary accrual)
Capital Projects and Equipment Acquisitions:
$325,030 Favorable compared to Budget

2. Present FY 2009-10 Draft Audited Financial Statements by Ralph Marcello, Marcello & Company CPAs.

City Administrator Rich Guillen stated that the audit presentation would be next month, January 2010.

XI. Orders of Council
A. Receive report and provide policy direction on extending the shared fire services agreement for 30 days.

City Administrator Rich Guillen reviewed the options staff was charged by the City Council with researching, namely stand-alone fire department, contract with the City of Monterey or contract with another fire agency, CAL FIRE. Guillen stated that the City is “not anywhere close to a final decision.” Therefore, the City has asked the City of Monterey to extend the contract for another 30 days to January 31, 2011 for the purpose of scheduling a workshop to thoroughly vet all fire service options. No action is required of the Council because City Managers can mutually agree to administratively extend the agreement.

Council Member Ken Talmage expressed his concern that the 30-day extension is unrealistic and later suggested a 90-day extension.

City Administrator Rich Guillen clarified a correction in the agreement’s language; “This Agreement may be extended by mutual agreement of the Parties,” not “This Agreement may be extended by mutual agreement of the Parties conditioned upon joint commitment and good faith effort to develop and execute a successor agreement for full fire department services.”

Council Member Jason Burnett expressed the need for answers to the publics’ questions in the form of Q and A be provided to the public prior to the workshop.

Council Member Ken Talmage stated that prior to the workshop he anticipates that there will be an information packet consisting of a Staff Report and information on stand-alone fire department and ambulance service, Monterey report, CAL FIRE report and other pertinent information for the public. Talmage stated that the information needs to be made available to the public at least 10 days prior to the workshop meeting.

Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment.

Carolyn Hardy, resident, made copies for the City Council of the previous contract adopted January 5, 2010. Hardy queried the meaning of “no city council action is necessary at this time” since there is a need to set a date for the workshop, set parameters, and extend the contract.

Dick Stiles, on behalf of the CRA Board, referenced a CRA letter to the City Council. Stiles summarized some points contained in the letter, including setting a date certain for the workshop post-holiday season and the 30-day extension is insufficient time to deliberate and analyze the fire service options. Stiles expressed other concerns: First, preserve response times; second, maintain ambulance service; third, maintain governance over levels of service; fourth, cost effective service; and fifth, continue automatic aid services. Stiles advocated that relevant information about options be made available to the public in advance of the workshop, such as the suggestion of 10 days prior to the workshop.

Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment.

A 5-minute break ensued to allow Chief Andrew Miller and City Administrator Rich Guillen time to discuss a fire services contract extension.

City Administrator Rich Guillen stated that the City of Monterey agreed to a 90-day extension, but stated that the Council should approve the 30-day extension and approve an additional 60 days in January 2011.

Council Member Jason Burnett expressed the desire for information about CAL FIRE and the City of Monterey operating both the whole department and administration only. Burnett stated 10-year financial projection values from prospective fire service providers, as recommended generally by the League of California Cities, would be desirable.

Mayor Sue McCloud stated the date for the workshop will be in January 2011.

Three Noteworthy 7 December 2010 City Council Agenda Items

ABSTRACT: Three Noteworthy 7 December 2010 City Council Agenda Items, namely Receive City’s Year-End and First Quarter 2010-2011 financial reports, Present FY 2009-10 Draft Audited Financial Statements by Ralph Marcello, Marcello & Company CPAs and Receive report and provide policy direction on extending the shared fire services agreement for 30 days, are presented. Excerpts from Agenda Item Summary, Staff Report, AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE INTERIM FIRE ADMINISTRATION AND EMERGENCY INCIDENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITIES OF MONTEREY AND CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, Amendment to Agreement to Provide Limited Fire Services between the Cities of Monterey and Carmel-By-The-Sea and Amendment #2 to Agreement to Provide Interim Fire Administration and Emergency Incident Management Services between the Cities of Monterey and Carmel-By-The-Sea are provided.

AGENDA PACKET
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
4:30 p.m., Open Session

Live & Archived Video Streaming

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. Receive City’s Year-End and First Quarter 2010-2011 financial reports.

2. Present FY 2009-10 Draft Audited Financial Statements by Ralph Marcello, Marcello & Company CPAs.

XI. Orders of Council
A. Receive report and provide policy direction on extending the shared fire services agreement for 30 days.

Description: In December 2008, Council directed staff to review alternatives of providing fire services. Over the past several months, separate meetings were held with both CAL FIRE and Monterey/Pacific Grove fire departments to review all possible alternatives. There also was a period of time when all agencies were evaluating the creation of a Joint Powers Authority to provide Peninsula-wide shared fire services, however, this effort has encountered some difficulties, mostly related to risk management. Thus, staff’s efforts have refocused on developing a contractual relationship with an outside fire agency.

Staff has now formally requested a mutually agreeable, 30-day extension of the Monterey/Pacific Grove shared fire services agreement. It is recommended that the extension not go beyond January 31, 2011.

Overall Cost: The monthly payment for the current services provided by Monterey/Pacific Grove is $13,500 per month. This amount will remain the same during the 30-day contract extension period.

Staff Recommendation: Review the report and provide direction.

Important Considerations: Before the January 31, 2011 extension with Monterey/Pacific Grove ends, a comprehensive draft report will be presented at a Council workshop, the focus of which will be a review of various shared fire services alternatives. Staff will ask the Council some time before the end of January to decide which fire services alternative will best serve the City and to direct staff to prepare the appropriate agreements to implement that decision.


RECOMMENDATION
The agreement allows for an extension of the agreement by mutual consent of both parties. No City Council action is necessary at this time.

STAFF REVIEW
Staff has formally requested a 30-day extension on the Monterey/Pacific Grove shared fire services agreement. Staff is completing the draft report and accompanying PowerPoint presentation. It is recommended that the extension not go beyond January 31, 2011.

Prior to the end of this extension, a Council workshop will be held to review the various shared fire services alternatives. At some point before January 31st, staff will ask the Council to make a decision on which fire services alternative will best serve the City and thus, direct staff to prepare the appropriate agreements to implement that decision.

SUMMARY
A draft comprehensive report is being completed and will be presented at an upcoming Council workshop.

AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE INTERIM FIRE ADMINISTRATION AND EMERGENCY INCIDENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITIES OF MONTEREY AND CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

THIS AGREEMENT, made and executed this day of December 3, 2008 by and between the CITY OF MONTEREY, a municipal corporation, herein after referred to as “Monterey,” and the CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, a municipal corporation, herein after referred to as “Carmel” (collectively referred to as “the Parties), ...

ARTICLE I
TERM OF AGREEMENT

1.1 Initial Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from 12:00 midnight on December 15, 2009 through 11:59 p.m. on February 28, 2009.

1.2 Extension of Term. This Agreement may be extended by mutual agreement of the Parties conditioned upon joint commitment and good faith effort to develop and execute a successor agreement for full fire department services.

ARTICLE III
DUTIES OF CARMEL UNDER THIS AGREEMENT

3.1 Payment for Fire Services. Carmel agrees to compensate Monterey for all services provided pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement as follows:

(a) $11,250.00 per calendar month, prorated at $375.00 per day, or any portion of a day, for services provided during any partial calendar month.

ADOPTED BY:
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, A Municipal Corporation

By: Rich Guillen, City Administrator
Date: 12/31/08

CITY OF MONTEREY, A Municipal Corporation
By: Fred Meurer, City Manager
Date: 1/20/09


Amendment to Agreement to Provide Limited Fire Services between the Cities of Monterey and Carmel-By-The-Sea

ARTICLE I
TERM OF AGREEMENT

1.2 Extension of Term. The term of this Agreement is hereby amended to expire at 12:00 midnight on January 31, 2010.

ARTICLE III
DUTIES OF CARMEL UNDER THIS AGREEMENT

3.1 Payment for Fire Services. Carmel agrees to compensate Monterey for all services provided pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement as follows:

(a) Effective July 1, 2009, $13,500.00 per calendar month, prorated at $450.00 per day or any portion of a day, for services provided during any partial calendar month.

ADOPTED BY:

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, A Municipal Corporation

By: Rich Guillen, City Administrator
Date: 7-8-09

CITY OF MONTEREY, A Municipal Corporation

By: Fred Meurer, City Manager
Date: 7/26/09


Amendment #2 to Agreement to Provide Interim Fire Administration and Emergency Incident Management Services between the Cities of Monterey and Carmel-By-The-Sea

ARTICLE I
TERM OR AGREEMENT

1.2 Extension of Term. The term of this Agreement is hereby amended to expire at 12:00 midnight on December 31, 2010. The term of this Agreement may be further extended by mutual agreement of the Parties conditioned upon joint commitment and good faith effort to develop and execute a successor agreement for full fire department services.

All other remaining terms and conditions of the Agreement not specifically amended herein shall remain unchanged.

ADOPTED BY:

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA. A Municipal Corporation

By: Rich Guillen, City Administrator
Date: 1-25-10

CITY OF MONTEREY, A Municipal Corporation

By: Fred Meurer, City Manager
Date: 2-2-10

DECISION APPROVING REGIONAL PROJECT, ADOPTING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, AND ISSUING CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER FACILITIES (COMMISSIONER BOHN) & PUC APPROVAL OF THE REGIONAL DESALINATION PROJECT

UPDATE: California Public Utilities Commission Approved the Regional Desalination Project, a water desalination plant for the Monterey Peninsula at their meeting today in San Francisco. “The Regional Desalination Project will be developed by California American Water, a regulated utility and water provider to the Monterey Peninsula, and the Marina Coast Water District and the Monterey County Water Resources Agency, two local public water agencies. The cities of the Monterey Peninsula will also participate in oversight of the project through an advisory committee.” And "Today's decision balances the need for adequate water with the need to provide water at a reasonable price," said CPUC Commissioner John A. Bohn, author of today's decision. "The CPUC must balance the cost burden contemplated on Cal-Am ratepayers from the construction of the Regional Project, generally regarded as the only feasible project with the likelihood being completed within the time limit imposed by the State Water Resources Control Board, with the burden on those same ratepayers if no alternative source of water is produced."

ADDENDUM:
Cal-Am Gets the Go Ahead for Regional Water Desalination Plant, KION CENTRAL COAST NEWS, Dec 2, 2010

CPUC Approves Peninsula Water Project
Desalination Project Has Been In Works Since 2003, KSBW, December 2, 2010

CPUC Approves Regional Desalination Project
Community Water Supply Passes Major Milestone, Business Wire, December 2, 2010


ABSTRACT: DECISION APPROVING REGIONAL PROJECT, ADOPTING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND ISSUING CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER FACILITIES (December 2010) is uploaded. A link to “Monterey Peninsula desalination plant could skip changes,” published today in The Monterey County Herald, is provided.


Decision ALTERNATE PROPOSED DECISION OF COMMISSIONER BOHN
Bohn Alternate (Rev 2) Approving Regional Proj., Adopting Settlement Agreement and Issuing CPCN for CalAm Water Facilities.
Proceeding: A0409019

ADDENDUM:
Bohn Agenda Dec Approving Regional Proj., Adopting Settlement Agreement and Issuing CPCN for CalAm Water Facilities (REDLINED VERSION).
Proceeding: A0409019

Monterey Peninsula desalination plant could skip changes
PUC member calls for OK of backers' agreements
By JIM JOHNSON
Herald Salinas Bureau
Posted: 12/02/2010

Carmel Art Association Presents ALL MEMBER SHOW – ANNUAL MINIATURE & SMALL PAINTING SHOW, HOLIDAY OPEN HOUSE & TWO-PERSON SHOW FEATURING PRINTMAKERS TAKIGAWA AND GELLER-ROBERTSON

Carmel Art Association
“Celebrating 82 years of local art”
Voted “Art Gallery of the Year” by the Carmel Business Association three consecutive years.
W/s Dolores St. between 5th Av. & 6th Av.
10:00 A.M. – 5:00 P.M., Daily, except major Holidays.
Open to the Public at No Charge

“Founded in 1927, Carmel's oldest gallery features the work of more than 120 professional local artists, and is dedicated to presenting only the finest work for sale by artists living on the Monterey Peninsula.”

For more information, Online or (831) 624-6176.

Carmel Art Association Presents ALL MEMBER SHOW – ANNUAL MINIATURE & SMALL PAINTING SHOW, HOLIDAY OPEN HOUSE & TWO-PERSON SHOW FEATURING PRINTMAKERS TAKIGAWA AND GELLER-ROBERTSON

Thursday, December 2, 2010 - January 4, 2011

ALL MEMBER SHOW
ANNUAL MINIATURE & SMALL PAINTING SHOW
Features hundreds of paintings by Carmel Art Association artists in a myriad of styles and subject matter.

Carmel Art Association Artists (alphabetical order by surname)
Apodaca, Johnny (Painter)

Auvil, Eleen (Sculptor, Painter)

Beach, Mary FitzGerald (Painter)

Bellmer, Jeanne (Painter)

Bibler, Richard (Painter)

Bhaskar, Norma Zeigle (Painter)

Black, Blaine (Sculptor)

Bradford, Cyndra (Painter)

Bradshaw, Robert (Painter)

Burr, Mary (Painter)

Carroll, Pam (Painter)

Carvell, Fred (Painter)

Catbagan, Eileen (Painter)

Coleman, Constance Depler (Portrait Artist)

Crispo, Dick (Painter)

Crocetti, Kathleen (Sculptor)

Crozier, Christine (Artist)

Curtis, Micah (Sculptor)

Dahlstrand, Olof (Painter)

Davidson, Laurent (Painter & Sculptor)

Dominguez, Miguel (Painter)

Dominguez, Miguel A. (Painter)

Donovan, Gael (Painter)

Downs, Douglas (Sculptor)

Elmore, Gene (Painter)

Farina, Mark (Painter)

Farmer, Beva (Painter)

Farrington, Reed (Painter)

Fry, Virginia (Painter)

Geller-Robertson, Alice (Printmaker)

Giacometti, Susan (Painter/Printmaker)

Golding, Frieda (Painter)

Goldstein, Helene (Painter)

Gonzales, Alex (Painter)

Grauer, Ron (Painter)

Goyatton, Yves (Sculptor)

Handy, Dennis (Sculptor)

Harris, Sam (Painter)

Hart, Roianne (Painter)

Healey, Sarah (Painter)

Hewitt, Robert Reynolds (Painter)

Hiers, Peter (Sculptor)

Hitchcock, Eric (Sculptor)

Holt, Shirley (Painter/Illustrator)

Hybl, Heidi (Painter)

Jelmini, Peggy (Painter)

Johnson, Andrea (Painter)

Johnson, Barbara (Painter and Printmaker)

Jordan, Susan (Painter)

Laney, Francyne (Painter)

Lestrade, Jack (Painter)

Lim, Y. S. (Painter)

Lindberg, Keith (Painter)

Lofton, Melissa (Painter)

Long, Michie (Painter)

Marsh, John Francis (Painter)

Martin, Gerard (Painter)

Matteson, Rip (Figurative Painter)

McWilliams, John (Painter)

Meheen, Alicia (Painter)

Minou, Carole (Printmaker & Graphic Designer)

Morrison, Brenda (Painter)

Nordmann, Joseph (Painter)

Northrop, Wilda (Painter)

Olsen, Peggy (Painter)

Parker, Carol (Painter)

Pickford, Rollin (Painter)

Plamondon, Peter (Painter)

Puckett, Randy (Sculptor)

Rappa, Anthony (Painter)

Reeves, Gail (Painter)

Reith, Susan (Painter)

Robbins, Stan (Artist & Painter)

Roberts, Margaret (Painter)

Robinson, Irene (Painter)

Sawicki, Ryszard (Richard) (Painter)

Schnute, William (Sculptor, Woodcraver)

Schwien, Guenevere (Photo Realist Oil Painter)

Sloan, Timothy (Painter)

Smith, Jeff Daniel (Painter)

Smith, Julie Brown (Artist)

St. Mary, Michael (Sculptor)

Takigawa, Pamela (Artist)

Tanous, Joe (Painter & Illustrator)

Tette, Richard (Painter)

Torres, Gustavo (Sculptor)

Tsouris, Michel (Painter)

Vidor, Belinda (Painter)

Wagstaff, Jan (Painter)

Ward, Edward Norton (Painter)

Wasserman, Gerald (Painter, Sculptor)

Whitlock, David (Painter)

Williams, Andy (Painter)

Winfield, Rodney (Painter)

Wolcott, Diane (Painter)

Woodruff, Jean (Painter)

Woodson, Richmond (Painter)

Yadon, Vern (Painter)

TWO-PERSON SHOW “THE OWL AND THE PUSSYCAT” (Center Room):
Printmakers Pamela Takigawa and Alice Geller-Robertson exhibit monotypes and monoprints depicting owls and felines. View six artwork images from Takigawa’s “Waves of the Past” exhibit (September/October 2009), including “Brace Yourself,” “Boy Toys,” “Miller Falls,” “Chiseled,” “Drink Coca-Cola” and “Stanley No. 404.”

Holiday Open House, Saturday, December 4, 6:00 P.M. – 8:00 P.M.
Please bring non-perishable food items and new, unwrapped toys and/or jackets & sweaters for children of all ages from November 30 to December 16 for the the Salvation Army's Toy Drive and Food Basket programs.

CRA Board of Directors Committee ‘CARMEL HARASSMENT SUIT’ Report & New Information Highlights

ABSTRACT: A Committee of the Board of Directors of the Carmel Residents Association prepared a Report entitled “CARMEL’S HARASSMENT SUIT,” dated November 11, 2010, based on information provided by the City through a Public Records Act request. The Report addresses the following questions: What events preceded the settlement of Miller’s harassment suit against the city? Did the city administration follow its published procedures in managing Miller’s harassment complaints? How adequate was the city’s investigation of Miller’s complaints? What were the terms of the settlement and release agreement between Miller and the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea? How much did it cost the city to defend the lawsuit? What are the provisions regarding termination in the city administrator’s Employment Agreement? The Report is uploaded. NEW INFORMATION HIGHLIGHTS are presented.


CRAReport_CarmelHarassmentSuit
CARMEL’S HARASSMENT SUIT
A Report Prepared for Members of the Carmel Residents Association
By a Committee of the Board of Directors
November 11, 2010

NEW INFORMATION HIGHLIGHTS:

What events preceded the settlement of Miller’s harassment suit against the city?
• On June 23, 2008, the city referred Miller’s complaints to Liebert, Cassidy, and Whitmore (LCW), the legal firm customarily retained to deal with personnel matters. LCW, in turn, subsequently engaged Karen Kramer to investigate the complaints.

Did the city administration follow its published procedures in managing Miller’s harassment complaints?
• The city’s procedures specified that if the alleged harasser was the city administrator, complaints should be addressed to the city council’s personnel committee. However no such committee existed.

• From the outset, the mayor and city council violated stated procedures that required the recipient of complaints to “Listen to the complainant’s allegations and discuss the actions complained of with discretion, sensitivity and due concern for the dignity of everyone involved.”

• Further violation of city procedures related to the requirement, “If the person alleged to be engaged in the harassment is the complainant’s supervisor, the complainant shall be removed from direct supervision of that supervisor…” Miller remained under Guillen’s supervision throughout her final months as a city employee.

• City policy also required that “Investigations will be timely and extensive as required.” As will be discussed in a subsequent section of this report, the investigation of Miller’s complaints was cursory at best. With respect to timeliness, the policy referred to acting “immediately,” which the policy suggested meant within three days. Yet, the first real action on the May 20 complaint letter was referral to the LCW law firm on June 24. Six weeks later, LCW engaged Kramer as investigator…Her billing records show further delays-she did not conduct her first investigative interview until October 30. Her final report was submitted on January 16, 2009.

How adequate was the city’s investigation of Miller’s complaints?
• In describing her investigative procedures, Kramer said that initially she would “determine whether or not I needed to obtain any documents from the complainant or the employer.” Yet in her deposition she responded, “No” to the question, “At any point in your work in this matter did you ask the city to put together all the documents relating to the claim and give them to you?”

• Later in her deposition, questions focused on Miller’s October 23 letter—the most detailed specification of her complaints. Kramer conceded that she had reviewed that letter and that it offered “definitely more detail than I had prior to that time.” Yet she responded, “I don’t think so” to the question, “… Her billing records also show that she spent 0.4 hours in total reviewing or doing any follow up on the lengthy Miller statement.

• Presumably Kramer’s investigation began with her retention in August. Yet she did not review the city’s harassment policy until October or November. She stated, “I don’t think I reviewed the policy as of October 21, 2008.” She acknowledged that she received the policy on November 10, and that it took her ten minutes to read it.

• The following exchanges in her deposition are significant:
Q. “Did you ever see any of Jane Miller’s emails?’
A. “No.”
Q. “Did you ever see any of Rich Guillen’s emails to Jane Miller?”
A. “No.”

• The most damning evidence against Guillen we have seen is found in the Kramer deposition transcript. In her interview with Guillen, he denied ever using the offensive statements in his emails that were cited in Miller’s complaint letters.

• Kramer interviewed a total of 12 witnesses between October 30 and December 3, 2008. According to Miller’s attorney, no more than one individual on a list of potential witnesses she submitted were ever interviewed. The persons to be interviewed were selected by city staff who reported directly to Guillen. Despite a judge’s opinion that Miller’s case shared common elements with the previously settled claims of four former employees, none of those employees was interviewed. With perhaps one exception, no other former employees were interviewed. This represents another serious violation of city policies that require “All persons named as potential witnesses and those who may have information relevant to the issues of the complaint will be contacted and interviewed during the course of the investigation.”

• Kramer’s final report was delivered on January 16, 2009, almost eight months after Miller’s initial letter of complaint. Despite the specification in her retention letter from LCW, “Transcribed witness statements or signed notes should be included with your report,” she conceded in her deposition that “I did not provide transcribed witness statements or signed notes.”

What were the terms of the settlement and release agreement between Miller and the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea?
• The agreement does not impose any constraints on the release of information related to the suit by either Miller or the city.

How much did it cost the city to defend the lawsuit?
• The largest share of the total cost has probably been covered by CSAC Excess Insurance Authority, the city’s insurer. “CSAC” stands for “County Supervisors Association of California,” also known as “California State Association of Counties”. Its Excess Insurance Authority was established by a joint powers agreement “entered into by the member counties and member public entities in order to develop and fund insurance services.”

A $10,000 deductible was paid by the city. The $600,000 settlement to Miller was covered by insurance. CSAC claims that this settlement alone will not influence future premiums.

• Payments to the two legal firms that primarily represented the city have totaled $226,447 as of August 31, 2010, with LCW paid $85,395 and Kennedy, Archer, and Harray paid $14l,051. CSAC paid all bills from the latter firm, but we don’t know what portion of LCW’s bills were covered by insurance.

• The suit was filed on June 17, 2009. It was reported to CSAC on July 27. The insurer considered this to be timely reporting.

• City policies require that all complaints that may lead to litigation must be reported to the insurer within three days. Yet, 14 months elapsed between the receipt of Miller’s first complaint letter and the ultimate reporting of the case to the insurer.

• The total cost of Kramer’s investigation was $15,678. According to a letter from CSAC Excess Insurance Authority, they do not “launch an independent investigation” but “are provided copies of the investigation conducted by the entity.”

What are the provisions regarding termination in the city administrator’s Employment Agreement?
• The city administrator is an “at will” employee whose employment may be terminated by the city council without cause. There is no express or implied promise made for any form of continued employment.

• Deliberations and decisions by the city regarding termination shall be made in closed session in accordance with the Brown Act. Except where the administrator is charged with or alleged to have committed criminal misconduct or acts involving moral turpitude, the city shall provide the opportunity to resign in lieu of being terminated, and the parties shall cooperate regarding public announcements about his or her separation from the city.

Unless terminated for cause while the administrator is still willing and able to perform assigned duties, the city agrees to make a payment equal to six months of the then current aggregate salary. This payment will release the city from any further obligations. If the administrator is terminated because of conviction of any felony, or any crime involving moral turpitude or any offense involving a violation of official duties, or if the city determines that the administrator has misappropriated public funds, commingled public funds with personal funds, or engaged in willful corrupt conduct in office, then the city shall have no obligation to continue the administrator’s employment or to pay severance

• Summary
On May 20, 2008, the attorney representing Jane Miller, Carmel’s human resources manager, addressed a letter to the mayor and city council complaining of harassment by Rich Guillen, the city administrator. That letter was forwarded to the city attorney and, for response, to the city administrator, the alleged harasser. No other immediate response was forthcoming. Five weeks later, the city referred the matter to the law firm of Liebert, Cassidy and Whitman. After another six weeks elapsed, LCW engaged Karen Kramer as investigator. Her first investigative interviews occurred at the end of October and her final report was submitted the following January. In the meantime, having received no direct response from the city, Miller referred her complaints to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, and, eventually filed a suit against the city in June of 2009. A settlement of the suit was achieved in June of 2010.

From the outset, the city violated stated harassment policies and procedures in managing Miller’s complaints. For example:

• The city failed to respond to the initial statement of complaints with “discretion, sensitivity, and due concern for the dignity of everyone involved.”

• Policies prescribe immediate referral to a nonexistent council personnel committee. Instead complaints were referred for response to the alleged harasser.

• Policies require that “investigations will be timely and extensive as required.” The investigation essentially began five months after the complaints were filed and was cursory at best. The report on the investigation was submitted eight months after the initial letter of complaint.

The many shortcomings in the investigation include:
• The investigator failed to review many significant documents, most importantly the emails from Guillen to Miller that were so prominent among her complaints.

• The investigator failed to interview several important witnesses, including former employees and those recommended by Miller.

• The investigator accepted untruths from the city administrator without checking their veracity.

City’s Tactic in Flanders Appeal: DELAY

UPDATE: (as of 4 January 2011)
The City failed to file its opening brief by the due date of 27 December 2010. The Court grants appellants a 15-day grace period; the City must file its opening brief by Thursday, 13 January 2011.

Date 12/29/2010
Description Appellant notified re failure to timely file opening brief.
Notes Defendant and Appellant: City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Attorney: Richard Harray

Description Appeal dismissed for failure to file opening brief.
Due Date 01/13/2011

ABSTRACT: In late March 2010, attorney Richard Harray stated that the City would appeal Judge Kay Kingsley’s decision in Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, et al. (M99437) to the Sixth District Court of Appeal. Furthermore, it was reported that Harray stated “he doesn’t plan to wait” the full 60 days to file an appeal. However, the City failed to submit proposal or a briefing sequence within the time provided by rule 8.216(a)(1), California Rules of Court and Harray later requested an “extension of time” on 20 October 2010. Accordingly, the Court assigned Defendant and Appellant City of Carmel-by-the-Sea a new date of 27 December 2010 for the filing of appellant’s appendix and opening brief. Information, including selected excerpts, from the California Court of Appeal web site is provided.

CALIFORNIA APPELLATE COURTS
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

Docket (Register of Actions)
The Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, et al.
Case Number H035818

Date: 07/16/2010
Description: Notice of appeal lodged/received.
Notes: City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, et al., filed 07/07/10

Date: 08/20/2010
Notes: Briefing sequence order filed. The parties having failed to submit proposals for a briefing sequence within the time provided by rule 8.216(a)(1), California Rules of Court, the court orders the following: Appellant City of Carmel-by-the-Sea shall file an opening brief within 40 days of filing of the record on appeal. Appellant The Flanders Foundation shall file a combined respondent's and opening brief pursuant to rule 8.216(b) within 30 days of filing of appellant's opening brief. Appellant City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, et al. shall file a combined reply and respondent's brief pursuant to rule 8.216(b) within 30 days after filing of the combined respondent's and opening brief. Appellant The Flanders Foundation may file a reply brief 20 days thereafter.

Date: 10/20/2010
Notes: Stipulation of extension of time filed to:

Future Scheduled Actions
Description: Appellant's appendix and opening brief filed.
Due Date: 12/27/2010

ADDENDUM:
Case Summary
Trial Court Case: M99437
Court of Appeal Case: H035818

Division:
Case Caption: The Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, et al.
Case Type: CV
Filing Date: 07/07/2010

E-mail Notification 6th Appellate District

COMMENTARY Public Safety Director/Police Chief George Rawson’s Legacy: Protect and Serve the Mayor

In evaluating the nine-year tenure of George Rawson as Police Chief and then Public Safety Director/Police Chief, it is appropriate to judge his tenure according to the standards articulated by him at the time of his hiring in November 2001. Rawson characterized police work as a “higher calling-serving the public” and a “servant style of leadership” where “you need to be concerned about and support employees.” He emphasized Organization Values, including a commitment to “integrity, ethics and professional behavior.” Yet as the years passed, it appears George Rawson acted more in the service of the mayor and less in the service of the public, did not show concern, support or sensitivity to at least one city employee, namely Jane Miller, and did not always act with “integrity, ethics and professional behavior.”

Based on George Rawson’s relationship with City Administrator Rich Guillen and his walking the business district every Friday with City Administrator Rich Guillen, it is inconceivable that he was unaware of the claims of “hostile” workplace environment and forced “early retirement” by several city employees from at least 2003. Yet inexplicably, under his command, at the height of the Jane Miller crisis, Cpl. Steve Rana expressed his opinion on behalf of the Carmel Police Officers Association at the 5 October 2010 City Council meeting regarding Police Department “morale” and the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea being “one of the best places to work.” When Rawson was queried about how it was that a police officer felt compelled to address the public at a council meeting about “morale” and workplace, but had not felt compelled to address the public at a council meeting condemning sexual harassment, employment discrimination, and retaliation and support for a fellow city employee, namely Jane Miller, Rawson did not have the professional courtesy to reply. And he failed to reply as to whether or not he or anyone at the Police Department had taken the time to read Jane Miller’s court file.

In 2002, under Police Chief George Rawson’s command, police officers removed Livingston White Wright campaign signs from the public right-of-way during the campaign for mayor and city council.

In 2004, as Police Chief, George Rawson accepted the position of Public Safety Director to oversee the Carmel Fire and Police Departments, even though he lacked fire fighting training and experience. Moreover, the Public Safety Director position was created originally to avoid the hiring of an independent Fire Chief. Later, when it was discovered that the City had to have the fire department “under the charge of a chief who shall have had previous training and experience as a fireman,” per California Government Code Section 38611, Rawson kept the title of Public Safety Director.

During his tenure in 2007, the City “illegally” installed a speed hump, “a traffic control device,” on Dolores Street which was not approved by the city council or installed as an “emergency.” Furthermore, traffic studies involving radar tests conducted by the Police Department prior to the installation of the speed hump showed drivers did not “tend to speed.” Still, Police Chief George Rawson stated he favored “anything that improves safety and slows drivers.”

And most importantly, with regard to public safety, during George Rawson’s tenure, especially after the completion of CITYGATE ASSOCIATES, LLC Fire Department Consolidation Feasibility Analysis for the Cities of Monterey, Pacific Grove and Carmel, June 12, 2007, the City formally withdrew from consolidation discussions with the Cities of Monterey and Pacific Grove, failed to educate Carmelites on all fire protection service options and failed to make substantive progress on a permanent fire protection services solution. In short, Rawson failed to persuade the mayor and city council members to contract with Monterey for fire protection services or implement another alternative.

In sum, Public Safety Director/Police Chief George Rawson compromised himself and his position by seeming to implement the dictates of one person, namely Mayor Sue McCloud, and forgot the “mission” of the Carmel Policy Department to “protect and serve” all the citizens of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.

NOTE: The Carmel Police Department confirmed the fact that Public Safety Director/Police Chief George Rawson will be retiring on 3 December 2010.

COMMENTARY: Without Fear or Favor

No man or woman of integrity would participate in a city council meeting with City Administrator Rich Guillen knowing Rich Guillen has engaged in a pattern of unethical conduct over many, many years involving former Human Resources Manager Jane Miller, former Assistant City Administrator Greg D’Ambrosio, former Community and Cultural Director Brian Donoghue, former Library Director Margaret Pelikan, former Executive Assistant Sandy Farrell, former city employee Christie Miller and Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk Heidi Burch.

All men and women of integrity recognize that if the City Administrator lacks credibility with the public, then he/she must be removed or resign for the “good” of the City.

All men and women of integrity recognize that integrity means deeds must be commensurate with words. Words, in the form of opinions, do not stand alone; they must be accompanied by acts which support articulated opinions. Otherwise, words are meaningless.

All men and women of integrity expect their elected officials, namely Mayor Sue McCloud and Council Members Jason Burnett, Paula Hazdovac, Karen Sharp and Ken Talmage and their appointed officials, namely Planning Commissioners Keith Paterson, Steve Hillyard, Jan Reimers, Victoria Beach and Steve Dallas, Forest & Beach Commissioners Les Kadis, Tom Leverone, Joe Ford, Todd Hornik and Vicki Lynch, Historic Resources Board Members Erik Dyar, Erl Lagerholm, Elinor Laiolo, Gregory Carper and Matthew Little, Community Activities and Cultural Commissioners Ruth Rachel, Dixie Dixon, Donna Jett, Clyde Klaumann and Conrad Kohrs and Harrison Memorial Library Board of Trustees, Robert R. Irvine, Martha Mosher, Nancy Collins, Elisabeth Ungaretti and Michael Lynch to have a “zero tolerance” policy for sexual harassment, employment discrimination and retaliation. We further expect them to take seriously the claims of “hostile” workplace environment and forced “early retirement” of five former senior management city employees. Accordingly, we would expect them to act by signing a petition calling for the resignation or removal of City Administrator Rich Guillen for the “good” of Carmel-by-the-Sea and present the petition to Mayor Sue McCloud. And if City Administrator Rich Guillen did not resign or the City Council failed to vote to remove him, then the appointed city officials and council members in support of the resignation or removal of the city administrator would resign from their respective offices on principle.

All men and women of integrity value principle over politics and the “good” of Carmel-by-the-Sea over any single elected official’s ambitions and agenda.

All men and women of integrity would not characterize this crisis as a “controversy” in order to rationalize the need to bury the proper resolution of the future city employment of Rich Guillen in order to address other important issues.

Finally, elected and appointed officials would do the right thing if we, their constituents, expected and demanded it of them.

'MINUTES' for Four Noteworthy 2 November 2010 City Council Agenda Items

“MINUTES”
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Archived Video Streaming

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.

3. Receive City’s Year-End and First Quarter 2010-2011 financial reports.

City Administrator Rich Guillen announced this agenda item continued due to the inability of Interim Finance Manager Laura Dadiw to attend the City Council meeting.

VIII. Public Hearings
If you challenge the nature of the proposed action in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.

B. Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Carmel Sands Redevelopment Project and to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Carmel Sands Lodge is located on the northeast corner of San Carlos Street and Fifth Avenue. The appellant is Barbara Livingston.

Sean Conroy, Planning & Building Services Manager, presented the staff report. Conroy reviewed the Options for the Council to consider regarding the appeal, as follows:

Option 1: Deny the appeal in full
This option would uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the project and adopt a MND.

Option 2: Grant the appeal in full

This option would void the Planning Commission’s approval of the project and would require the preparation of an EIR before taking further action on the project.

Option 3: Grant the appeal in part
If the Council determines that an EIR is not required, but would like to see changes in the project design and/or additional information in the MND prior to final approval, this option could be selected. The Council could remand the project back to the Planning Commission with instructions.

Option 4: Continue Consideration of the Appeal to a Future Date
This option would allow the City Council to request additional information prior to making a final decision on the appeal.

Sean Conroy, Planning & Building Services Manager, addressed questions from City Council Members Paula Hazdovac, Jason Burnett and Mayor Sue McCloud regarding setbacks.

The appellant, Barbara Livingston, addressed the public, Council and staff and Dick Stiles read Livingston’s statement citing CEQA low threshold requirements for EIRs and Planning Commissioners Bill Strid and Jan Reimers expressed advocacy for an EIR for the Carmel Sands project. Livingston also requested a three dimensional model to better visualize the project.

Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment.

Catherine Compagno, owner of Village Court on Mission Street, spoke in favor of a boutique hotel and an EIR.

Resident Jim Wright expressed concerns about Carmel Sands project compatibility with the zoning code.

Monta Potter, CEO Carmel Chamber of Commerce, read from two letters from property owners included in Agenda Packet in support of the Carmel Sands project.

Mike Brown, resident and business owner, expressed concerns about the precedence established for such a large project and urged an EIR.

A former business owner on Mission Street expressed support for an EIR and concerns about traffic.

Thompson Lange, owner of Homescapes and Chair of the Economic Advisory Committee for the Chamber of Commerce, expressed support for the Carmel Sands project.

Tom Glidden, General Manager, La Playa Hotel, expressed support for the Carmel Sands project as a high-end project. Glidden also expressed the idea of Carmel lodgings not being competitive with other tourist destinations lodgings.

Jordan Daniels, Green Building Committee Member and consultant, expressed support for the Carmel Sands project as a “sustainable” project.

Lucia Dahlstrand expressed her husband architect Olof Dahlstand’s support for an EIR in order to produce “the best possible result.”

Amanda LeVett, owner of four Carmel inns, expressed property management and hospitality views in support of the Carmel Sands project.

A resident expressed concerns about the appellant’s appeal and support of not requiring an EIR due to the staff and consultant determining no cumulative impacts anticipated and support of the Carmel Sands project.

Carrie Thies, resident, hotel owner, President Carmel Innkeepers Association, requested the Council deny the appeal. Thies stated that the Carmel Sands project as a high end hotel is “great for hospitality, it’s great for the City.”

Linda Anderson, resident, clarified that the appeal is not meant to stop a first class hotel from being built.

Monte Miller, resident, expressed concerns about the proposed conference rooms and restaurant and advocated for a redesign.

Matthew Little, Sr. expressed not “living the dream” of remodeling the Carmel Sands when he was owner of the hotel and expressed support of the Carmel Sands project.

Matthew Little, Jr. expressed right of the property owner to rebuild the property.

David Howe, managing partner of Carmel Sands Partners (“a handful of investors),” expressed their intention to upgrade the property in “a meaningful way.” Rowe cited the 14 July 2010 approval of Carmel Sands project by the Planning Commission, environmental review performed by independent consultant concluding upgrade would not result in long-term environmental impacts and recommended a MND. Howe also cited the project’s “benefit to the community,” fee income to the City and TOT anticipated to be five times the current transient occupancy tax revenue amount.

Art Coon, Miller, Starr & Regalia, attorney for Carmel Sands Lodge Partners, LLC, stated that the Carmel Sands is a redevelopment and smart growth project. Coon stated his support for the MND and cited legal cases supporting denial of the appeal.

Carmel Sands project architect Eric Miller highlighted working with the Planning Commission and general public for over two years, significant and major changes to the project during the planning phase in response to concerns by neighbors and the Planning Commission and the fact that the project is consistent with all design guidelines.

Carolyn Hardy, resident, requested the City Attorney address requirements for an EIR.

Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment.

Barbara Livingston, appellant, expressed the Council’s role to protect Carmel’s character, concerns about mass, bulk and density, and cited General Plan Policies 1-27, 1-72 and 1-74.

City Attorney Don Freeman cited “substantial evidence” for an EIR in the record as a “whole.” “Substantial evidence” defined as “may have a significant environmental impact” which means enough relevant information that “a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion.”

Sean Conroy, Planning & Building Services Manager, addressed questions from Mayor Sue McCloud regarding construction truck impacts and traffic and public safety impacts, from City Council Member Ken Talmage regarding setbacks and design guidelines concerning monolithic, uniform appearance and from City Council Member Karen Sharp regarding exterior finish colors. City Council Member Jason Burnett stated his concern regarding a systematic approach for considering appellant’s appeal on issues of traffic and parking, noise, canyon effect, views, greenhouse gases and other emissions, mass and scale, additional rooms and construction truck impacts. The Mayor and Council Members decided by consensus that there was no evidence in the record of significant environmental impacts which cannot be mitigated for the aforementioned issues.

Council Member HAZDOVAC moved to deny the appeal, uphold the Planning Commission’s decision and adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, seconded by Council Member BURNETT and carried by the following roll call vote:

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

Council Member Ken Talmage spoke to the 5’ setback on San Carlos Street and the exterior finish which is contrary to the design guidelines. Planning & Building Services Manager Sean Conroy explained the Planning Commission’s decision regarding exterior finish and color was based on the design being more authentic than contrived or artificial.

Council Member BURNETT moved to approve the Carmel Sands Redevelopment Project with the modification of the 5’ setback and deny the appeal, subject to modifications of the Planning Commission regarding exterior finish issues, seconded by Council Member TALMAGE and carried by the following roll call vote:

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

XI. Orders of Council

B. Revised Harassment Prevention Policy for the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea

Jon Giffen, Kennedy, Archer & Harray shareholder and attorney, stated his firm was hired to draft a harassment prevention policy for the City which revises the existing policy. The objectives include “prohibit all unlawful workplace harassment,” provide for several reporting persons, prevent retaliation, promise confidentiality, and require an immediate investigation of claims. Changes include encouraging employees to communicate with the offending person immediately and the addition of the vice mayor as a reporting person. The twelve-page policy consists of a definitions section, complaint procedure section including employee, supervisor and investigator responsibilities, and penalties section.

To Council Member Jason Burnett’s question about the policy, Jon Giffen stated that this is a revised policy of the “revised policy” which contains minor modifications, except for the timing of written reports by investigators which now states reports completed “at the conclusion of the investigation.”

Mayor McCloud asked about obligations to report harassment to which Jon Giffen responded that all instances of harassment should be reported.

Council Member Karen Sharp asked about 40 years and older to which Jon Giffen responded it is required by law, based on age.

Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment.

James Emery, resident, cited needed corrections including a compromise between confidentiality and transparency, include emails and the need for an unbiased investigator. Emery concluded that in the Jane Miller case the council violated the policy.

Adam Moniz, resident, asked what currently happens to a person who violates the City’s existing policy. Since four of five council members have had commentaries published in The Monterey County Herald, Moniz asked the mayor and council members to please state their respective positions “on what you think should be done in the Miller-Guillen matter.”

Carolyn Hardy, resident, voiced concerns about the elimination of the Personnel Committee. Hardy advocated for input from employees on the revised policy and the Council selecting Personnel Committee members. She expressed concern about the burden of the duty to complain by the person being harassed. She cited the inclusion in the policy of victims of harassments also including observers of harassment. She advocated for administrative leave for the alleged harasser until at least the investigation was completed.

Mike Brown, resident and business owner, asked how much the revised policy costs.

Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment.

City Attorney Don Freeman addressed city employees’ “bundle of rights.” The cost is “not to exceed $5000.” The Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem are only reporting people and their duty and obligation is to call a council meeting to inform the council of the complaint. Administrative leave would be paid and could be included. Freeman expressed his desire to circulate revised policy to employees, on the City website, et cetera, for input and establish a timeline for adoption. He expressed supervisor prohibition of relationship with subordinate could also be included in the policy.

Council Member Ken Talmage expressed opposition to circulating the revised draft until a second draft is completed and then circulate the second draft. City Attorney Don Freeman agreed. Jon Giffen stated that is will take a “couple of days” to complete the second draft. Council Member Ken Talmage expressed his concern about making the victim’s reporting of harassment to the supervisor mandatory to which Council Member Jason Burnett offered the use of discretionary, not mandatory, verbiage. Council Member Karen Sharp expressed her concern about including false accusations “because that does happen as well.” Council Member Jason Burnett expressed concern about including mandatory sexual harassment training.

F. Receive report and provide policy direction on circulating a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the management and operation of the Children’s Experimental Theater

City Administrator Rich Guillen presented the staff report. The alternatives included either the staff preparation of a RFP and subsequent council review of proposals or negotiation for an amended lease with PacRep for the management and operation of the Children’s Experimental Theater.

Council Member Ken Talmage stated that there are no legal contracts in effect.

Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to the public.

Stephen Moorer acknowledged that PacRep does not currently have a lease for the Indoor Forest Theater. Moorer expressed his desire to have the SODA program at the Indoor Forest Theater. He clarified that he and Marsha Hovick have discussed the consolidation of programs once her legacy was at an end. He also stated that PacRep has been financially supporting CET by paying monthly rent to the City.

Alex Heid, representing the Board of CET, stated that “we have a proved winner with PacRep,” a legacy with the Hovicks which we would like to continue, such as melding the two organizations together. He stated that he doubted the Forest Theater Guild had the capacity to manage and operate the Indoor Forest Theater. He stated that an RFP “could delay the process of what Steven wants to do.”

Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment.

Council Member Ken Talmage stated the need to have language in the lease about carrying liability insurance and responsibility for upkeep and maintenance of the Indoor Forest Theater facility. The lease has been a three-year lease. Council Member Burnett expressed his disappointment about the Forest Theater Guild not being there to represent their view.

Council Member HAZDOVAC moved the City negotiate a lease for the CET facility with PacRep with consideration of a revised rental fee structure, seconded by Council Member TALMAGE, and carried by the following roll call vote:

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

Carmel Art Association Presents WASSERMAN SOLO SHOW ‘90th BIRTHDAY EXHIBITION,’ HYBL SOLO SHOW ‘CELEBRATING DARWIN: HOW A POPULATION OF ABSTRACT FORMS DIVERSIFIED OVER TIME’& GALLERY SHOWCASE FEATURING DOMINGUEZ, JELMINI & LOFTON

Carmel Art Association
“Celebrating 82 years of local art”
Voted “Art Gallery of the Year” by the Carmel Business Association three consecutive years.
W/s Dolores St. between 5th Av. & 6th Av.
10:00 A.M. – 5:00 P.M., Daily, except major Holidays.
Open to the Public at No Charge

“Founded in 1927, Carmel's oldest gallery features the work of more than 120 professional local artists, and is dedicated to presenting only the finest work for sale by artists living on the Monterey Peninsula.”

For more information, Online or (831) 624-6176.

Carmel Art Association Presents WASSERMAN SOLO SHOW ‘90th BIRTHDAY EXHIBITION,’ HYBL SOLO SHOW ‘CELEBRATING DARWIN: HOW A POPULATION OF ABSTRACT FORMS DIVERSIFIED OVER TIME’& GALLERY SHOWCASE FEATURING DOMINGUEZ, JELMINI & LOFTON

SOLO SHOW: 90th BIRTHDAY EXHIBITION: NEW WORKS (Center Room):
Painter, Sculptor Gerald Wasserman exhibits “90th Birthday Exhibition: New Works,” comprised of abstract paintings, oil on canvas. View Wasserman’s brief biography and Recent Solo Shows and Awards. And view twelve painting images from “New Work - 90th Birthday Exhibition,” including “Eurydice’s Address,” “Persephone’s Plan,” “The Golden Crown,” “Athene,” “Zeus,” “Helene,” “321,” “Apollo,” “Kouros,” “Pericles Power,” “Ariadne’s Arc” and “Euripides Euros.”

SOLO SHOW “CELEBRATING DARWIN: HOW A POPULATION OF ABSTRACT FORMS DIVERSIFIED OVER TIME” (Beardsley Room, South Wall):
Painter Heidi Hybl exhibits “Celebrating Darwin: How a Population of Abstract Forms Diversified Over Time," a series of paintings on one motif, a linear abstraction of a palm frond (and its mirror image). View Hybl’s brief biography and three painting images, including “Evolution," “Some Red" and "Big Picture."

GALLERY SHOWCASE (Segal Room):
Painter Miguel Dominguez exhibits landscapes inspired by the Central Coast in watercolor and acrylic. View Dominguez’s brief biography and three watercolor images, including “Evening's Departure," Two Egrets” and "Lupin Canyon.” And view Gallery Showcase November 2010 of five painting images, including “Poppy Blossoms,” “Old Roost,” “Misty Sunrise,” “Twins” and “Elk’s Winter.”

Painter Peggy Jelmini exhibits California vineyards and valleys. View Jelmini’s brief biography and three oil painting images, including 'Path to the Mustard Field,’ ‘The Grand Valley' and 'Golden Day.’ And view Gallery Showcase November 2010 of six painting images, including “Vineyard Hymm,” “Vineyard Varieties,” “Summer Fields,” “Path Through the Vines,” “Vineyard Light” and “Rhythms.” And “Wildflowers & Wild Flowers" – July/August 2010 of twenty-three painting images, including “Path to the Mustard Fields,” “Wildflower Orchard,” “Daydream,” “Wildflowers & Oaks,” “Early Spring Wildflowers,” “Mustard Fields,” “Amazing Grace,” “Towards Point Lobos,” “Roses Among the Vines,” “Iris Dance,” “Poppies,” “Flower Rap,” “Happy Day,” “My Friend’s Bouquet,” “Picnic,” “Carousel,” “Quiet Day,” “A Bouquet in Blue & White,” “Pansies in Blue & White,” “Pansies,” “Garden Party,” “Spring Iris” and “The Bouquets.”

Painter Melissa Lofton exhibits new artworks in oil. View Lofton’s brief biography and three oil painting images, including "Pond V", "Untidaled" and "Tree in Field.” And view "I N B R E A T H" October 2009 Show of eight painting images, including “Hillside,” “Sedges and Pond,” “Violet Madrones,” “Bluffs and Fog,” “Madrones Along the Road,” “Long Ridge, 7 A.M.,” “Palo Corona” and “Rowboats.”

Opening Reception, Saturday, November 6, 6:00 P.M. – 8:00 P.M.