Wednesday, September 28, 2011

VILLAS DE CARMELO PROJECT: Notice of Public Hearing, Monterey County Board of Supervisors Public Hearing October 11, 2011 @ 1:30 P.M.

ABSTRACT: The Monterey County Board of Supervisors is scheduled to hold a Public Hearing to consider the proposed Villas De Carmelo project, specifically Amendments to the Local Coast Plan (LCP) and a Combined Development Permit for the proposed project, on Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 1:30 P.M., Monterey County Board of Supervisors Chambers, County Government Center, 168 West Alisal Street, Salinas, CA. The text of the Notice of Public Hearing is reproduced and an ADDENDUM consisting of the Monterey County Supervisors and Their Districts, including contact information, and links is provided.

Notice of Public Hearing

Monterey County Board of Supervisors


NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Monterey County Board of Supervisors, State of California will hold a Public Hearing to consider the project described below. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, October 11, 2011, at the hour of 1:30 p.m. 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.

Owner: Rigoulette LLC (Villas De Carmelo)

Project File No.: PLN070497

Project Location: The existing hospital address is 24945 Valley Way, generally located between Valley Way and Highway 1, Carmel

Assessor’s Parcel No.: 009-061-002-000, 009-061-003-000, and 009-061-005-000

Permit Type: Local Coastal Plan Amendment, Combined Development Permit

Planning Area: Carmel Area Land Use Plan, Coastal Zone

Environmental Status: An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the proposed project. This EIR document provides technical analysis to be used by the CCC with their consideration of the LCP Amendment.

Project Description: The Board of Supervisors will consider:

a) Amendments to the Local Coast Plan (LCP) consisting of:

1) Amending the Land Use Map changing the land use designation for the 3.68 acre parcel from Medium Density Residential, two units per acre (MDR/2) to High Density Residential, 12.5 units per acre (HDR/12.5);

2) Text changes to the Carmel Area Land Use Plan and Coastal Implementation Plan, Chapter 20.146.120 (Land Use and Development standards) that would allow high density residential zoning district in the Carmel Area Land Use Plan. Actions to amend the LCP require certification by the California Coastal Commission (CCC).

b) A Combined Development Permit for the proposed project (PLN070497) that consist of:

1) Standard Subdivision for a Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide 3.68 acres into 46 condominium parcels and common open space;

2) Coastal Development Permit to convert the former convalescent hospital into nine condominium units with underground parking, recreation room, storage, and a gym, and convert existing garage/shop building into three condominium units (part of the total 46 total);

3) Coastal Administrative Permit to demolish one existing structure and construct eight buildings for a total of 46 condominium units to include 9 moderate income housing units;

4) Coastal Development Permit to allow development on slopes of 30% or greater;

5) Coastal Development permit to allow the removal of 97 trees (21 Coast Live Oak and 76 Monterey Pines);

6) Design Approval and approximately 13,500 cubic yards of grading.

There can be no final action on this project until/unless the proposed LCP amendment is approved and certified by the CCC.

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:
Elizabeth Gonzales, Planner
Monterey County Resource Management Agency-Planning Department
168 West Alisal St., 2nd Floor, Salinas CA. 93901
(831) 755-5102 or gonzalesl@co.monterey.ca.us

ADDENDUM:
Board of Supervisors Agendas

Monterey County Board of Supervisors
Meeting Agenda and Minutes, Video, MP3 Audio


Monterey County Supervisors and Their Districts

Monterey County Supervisorial Districts 2001 Map

Monterey County 1st District Supervisor Fernando Armenta
District: Most of urban Salinas
Email: district1@co.monterey.ca.us
Phone: (831) 755-5011

Monterey County 2nd District Supervisor Louis Calcagno
District: Aromas, Boronda, Castroville, Las Lomas, Moss Landing, North Salinas, Pajaro, Prunedale, and Royal Oaks
Email: district2@co.monterey.ca.us
Phone: (831) 755-5022

Monterey County 3rd District Supervisor Simon Salinas
District: East Salinas, Spreckels, Chualar, Greenfield, Gonzales, Ft. Hunter Liggett, King City, Soledad, Lake San Antonio, South County,
Email: district3@co.monterey.ca.us
Phone: (831) 755-5033

Supervisor Jane Parker
District: Del Rey Oaks, Marina, Sand City, Seaside, Southwest Salinas
Email: Jane.Parker@co.monterey.ca.us
Phone: (831) 883-7570 and (831) 755-5044

Monterey County 5th District Supervisor Dave Potter
District (North) (South): Carmel, Carmel Valley, Big Sur, Pacific Grove, Pebble Beach, Monterey, Hwy 68, Las Palmas
Email: district5@co.monterey.ca.us
Phone: (831) 755-5055 and (831) 647-7755

Saturday, September 17, 2011

Sixth Appellate District: Oral Argument, October 20, 2011, The Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-by-he-Sea, et al. (H035818)

UPDATE: The justices assigned to hear this case on the Monterey calendar are (in seniority order): Mihara, Acting P.J. (Presiding Justice) ; Duffy, J.; and Walsh, J. (pro tem)

ABSTRACT: ORAL ARGUMENT is scheduled for The Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-by-he-Sea, et al. (H035818) on Thursday, October 20, 2011 at 9:30 A.M. at the Monterey County Board of Supervisors Chambers, 168 West Alisal St., 1st Floor, Salinas, CA. “Oral argument, a tradition that dates back to the early days of the English court system, gives justices the opportunity to question counsel in person concerning the issues raised in their briefs. The court provides each side with a set amount of time for oral argument. It is customary for justices to interrupt an argument at any time to ask the attorney to address a specific point. The justices ask such questions to clarify issues of concern as they consider how to decide a case.” After the panel of three Justices has heard oral argument, “a designated panel member prepares an opinion, which is a written statement of the panel’s decision.” “Under the California Constitution, the final majority opinion and any opinions expressing agreement (concurrence) or disagreement (dissent) must be filed within 90 days after the case has been submitted.” Information and links to more information regarding the Justices of the Sixth District Court of Appeal, the 6th District and the California Courts of Appeal process is provided.

Justices
6th District Court of Appeal


Presiding Justice Conrad L. Rushing

Associate Justice Eugene M. Premo

Associate Justice Franklin D. Elia

Associate Justice Patricia Bamattre-Manoukian

Associate Justice Nathan D. Mihara

Associate Justice Wendy Clark Duffy

About the 6th District

A Visitors’ Guide to the California Courts of Appeal

The California Courts of Appeal were established by constitutional amendment in 1904 and are California’s intermediate courts of review. The primary function of the Courts of Appeal is to ensure that the law is interpreted and applied correctly.

California has 6 appellate districts composed of 9 court sites, 19 divisions, and 101 justices. More than 22,000 appeals and original proceedings were filed in the Courts of Appeal during the 2001–2002 fiscal year, representing a nearly 30 percent increase in Court of Appeal filings over the last decade.

WHAT IS AN APPEAL?
An appeal is a request to a higher court to review a decision made in a completed trial or proceeding. Most legal disputes are initially decided by superior courts or certain administrative agencies. After the trial or proceeding is completed, if the losing party is dissatisfied with the outcome and believes that the superior court or administrative agency made an error that adversely affected the result, it may ask the trial court judge to overturn the decision or to order a new trial. If the judge denies the request, the losing party may file an appeal in the Court of Appeal.

ROLE OF THE COURTS OF APPEAL
The California Courts of Appeal review the vast majority of appealable orders or judgments from a superior court. The primary exception arises following a judgment of death, which is automatically appealed directly to the California Supreme Court. Courts of Appeal also do not ordinarily review decisions that are within the jurisdiction of the appellate division of the superior court, such as misdemeanor convictions and limited civil cases.

The Courts of Appeal decide questions of law, such as whether the superior court judge applied the law correctly in a case. The Courts of Appeal do not hear testimony or retry cases. An appeal from a superior court judgment is decided based on the record from the original trial or proceeding.

Issues brought to a Court of Appeal for review commonly include claims such as an incorrect ruling on admissibility of evidence, incorrect application of a law or regulation, unconstitutionality of a law or regulation, improper jury instructions, and insufficient evidence to support the verdict.

HOW THE APPEAL PROCESS WORKS
FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL
An appeal generally is heard in the appellate district in which the superior court is located. To begin the process, the appealing party files a written notice of appeal with the clerk of the superior court in which the proceeding took place. In civil cases, both the appellant and the respondent (the opposing party) must file notices with the clerk of the
appellate court within prescribed periods of time, designating which transcripts or papers filed in the superior court are to become part of the appellate record. In criminal and juvenile cases, transcripts are prepared automatically. All parties are notified once the record on appeal has been filed with the Court of Appeal.

BRIEFS
From the date the record was filed, the appellant has a specified period of time within which to file an appellant’s opening brief, depending on the type of case. A brief is a written argument that a party or an attorney prepares for the court. It details issues raised by the appellant, including challenges to superior court rulings or findings, and refers to applicable statutes and previous cases to support the appellant’s position. The respondent is then given an opportunity to file a brief in response, and the appellant may then file a reply brief.

APPEALS PANELS
Once all briefs have been submitted, the case is considered “fully briefed” and is ready for assignment to a panel consisting of three justices within a district or a division.

Cases are assigned to justices randomly, based on a rotation system that equalizes the numbers of cases in which the justices participate. On average, 10 to 15 appeals are assigned to each justice every month, in addition to a monthly caseload of roughly 7 to 10 original proceedings.

After the case is fully briefed, it is placed on the court calendar, and a justice on the panel typically is designated to write a memorandum discussing the issues and facts of the case. Each district or division schedules oral arguments on a limited number of days each month. The deputy clerk prepares the monthly calendars and notifies the parties of the date, time, and place of the hearing. Before hearing oral argument, the justices review the briefs and memorandum that have been prepared concerning the appeal

ORAL ARGUMENT
Oral argument, a tradition that dates back to the early days of the English court system, gives justices the opportunity to question counsel in person concerning the issues raised in their briefs. The court provides each side with a set amount of time for oral argument.

It is customary for justices to interrupt an argument at any time to ask the attorney to address a specific point. The justices ask such questions to clarify issues of concern as they consider how to decide a case.

OPINIONS
After the panel has heard oral argument or oral argument has been waived by the parties, a designated panel member prepares an opinion, which is a written statement of the
panel’s decision.

Writing an opinion is an integral part of the decision-making process. Draft opinions are circulated among all three justices until an agreement is reached on a majority opinion. A concurrence of two out of the three justices is necessary to form a majority.

The panel also decides whether to certify the opinion for publication. In general, an opinion is published if it establishes a new rule of law, involves a legal issue of continuing public interest, criticizes existing law, or makes a significant contribution to legal literature. During fiscal year 2001–2002, 7 percent of California Court of Appeal opinions were ordered published.

Under the California Constitution, the final majority opinion and any opinions expressing agreement (concurrence) or disagreement (dissent) must be filed within 90 days after the case has been submitted.

Published opinions establish precedent and must be followed by all California superior courts. Unpublished opinions do not establish precedent and may not be cited as authority to support an argument.

REVIEW OF APPELLATE DECISIONS
Decisions of the Courts of Appeal are subject to discretionary review by the California Supreme Court as well as to review in the U.S. Supreme Court based on the U.S. Constitution and federal statutes.

STEPS IN THE APPEAL PROCESS
Superior court decision made.

Losing party files notice of appeal with superior court.

Superior court clerk notifies other parties and Court of Appeal.

Superior court record is submitted to Court of Appeal.

Both appellant and respondent submit written briefs presenting their legal arguments.

Case is placed on calendar and assigned to a panel of three Court of Appeal justices.

Panel of justices reviews superior court record, written briefs, and applicable law and precedent.

Oral argument is heard, unless waived by litigants.

Concurrence of two of the three justices is necessary to form a majority.

Opinion is written and filed.

Petition for Rehearing
Losing party may ask Court of Appeal to rehear case.

Petition for Review
The losing party may file a petition for review with the California Supreme Court, which grants review in 4 to 5 percent of cases each year.

SOURCE: A Visitors’ Guide to the California Courts of Appeal
Published by the Judicial Council of California
Administrative Office of the Courts
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, California 94102-3688
415-865-4200

ADDENUDM:
Sixth District Court of Appeal
333 West Santa Clara Street
Suite 1060
San Jose, CA 95113

Phone: (408) 277-1004
E-mail: Sixth.District@jud.ca.gov

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

‘MINUTES’ for Eight Noteworthy 13 September 2011 City Council Agenda Items

UPDATE:Council decides Fink's burger joint won't be fast food, MARY BROWNFIELD, The Carmel Pine Cone, September 16, 2011

Fire department to merge with Monterey's, MARY BROWNFIELD, The Carmel Pine Cone, September 16, 2011

“MINUTES”
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
Tuesday, September 13, 2011


Archived Video Streaming

City Hall
East side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues

II. Roll Call

PRESENT: Council Members Burnett, Hazdovac, Sharp, Talmage, and Mayor McCloud
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: John Goss, Interim City Administrator
Heidi Burch, Asst. City Administrator/City Clerk
Don Freeman, City Attorney
Mike Calhoun, Interim Police Chief
Sean Conroy, Planning Services Manager

V. Announcements from Closed Session, from City Council Members and the City Administrator.

A. Announcements from Closed Session.


1. Labor Negotiations – Gov’t. Code Section 54957.6(a) Meet and confer with the Carmel-by-the-Sea’s Meyers-Milias Brown Act representative, Interim City Administrator Goss, to give direction regarding labor negotiations with the Carmel-by-the-Sea Police Officers Association and LIUNA/UPEC Local 792.

2. Existing Litigation - Government Code Section 54956.9(a) - Conference with legal counsel regarding The Flanders Foundation, a California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation, Petitioner v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Respondents – Monterey County Superior Court Case No. M99437/State of California Court of Appeals, Sixth District, Civil Case No. H035818.

There were no announcements from Closed Session.

C. Announcements from City Administrator.

1. Report from the ad hoc CalPERS Committee.


William Sharpe, Professor of Finance, Emeritus, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University (Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences, 1990), presented the Carmel CalPERS Committee Interim Report Power Point Presentation. Members of the Committee: Richard Borda, Joseph Mark, Barbara Santry, William Sharpe and Laura Zehm

Carmel CalPERS Committee Interim Report September 2011

Carmel CalPERS Committee Interim Report Power Point Presentation
William F. Sharpe
September 2011


VII. Consent Calendar

E. Consideration of a Resolution entering into an employment agreement with Jason Stilwell for the position of City Administrator.

F. Consideration of a Resolution approving an agreement for relocation expenses for the City Administrator in the amount of $15,000.

G. Consideration of a Resolution ratifying a Memorandum of Understanding between the City and General Employees Association -LIUNA/UPEC Local 792, AFL-CIO.


Council Member Ken Talmage commented on Item E; he stated that Jason Stilwell was the “unanimous first choice” by the council as the new city administrator and welcomed Stilwell “enthusiastically.” And he commented on Item G; he commended the City’s general employees regarding the MOU and their understanding of the City’s CalPERS unfunded liability exceeding $20 million, new employees’ reforms, et cetera.

Mayor McCloud opened and closed the meeting to public comment.

Council Member TALMAGE moved to approve Consent Agenda Items A-I, seconded by Council Member BURNETT and carried unanimously.

VIII. Public Hearings

A. Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve Design Review and Use Permit applications for a new restaurant located on the northeast corner of Mission Street and Seventh Avenue in the Carmel Plaza. The project applicant is David Fink.


Sean Conroy, Planning Services Manager, presented the Staff Report Power Point Presentation, as follows:

Project History
Planning Commission approved project on 8/10/11 with a 4-0 vote.
City Administrator filed an appeal to provide Council with opportunity to review the Planning Commission’s Decision

Full Line Restaurant
Defined as providing:
a full line of prepared food and drinks using nondisposable plates, glasses and utensils for immediate consumption on the site. These restaurants provide table service to patrons of all ages who pay after eating. Takeout service may be provided.”
Additional requirements found in CMC 17.14.040

Three Main Questions
Does the proposal qualify as a fast food establishment?
Is it appropriate to allow customers to pay prior to being seated?
Is it appropriate to allow customers to order from a menu board rather than while seated?

Applicant’s Revised Proposal
Customers will pay after eating
Customers will have the option of ordering from the ordering counter or while seated.

Options
Uphold the Planning Commission’s decision.
Revise the Planning Commission’s decision.
Overturn the Planning Commission’s decision.
Remand the project back to the Commission with instructions.
Continue consideration of this project to a future meeting.

Staff’s Recommendation
Revise the Planning Commission’s decision to require that:
1) Customers pay after eating
2) Customers have the option of ordering while seated.

David Fink, project applicant, and owner and operation of L’Auberge Carmel and Cantinetta Luca, stated that the gourmet burger restaurant ("What’s Your Beef?") will fill “a very unique niche” and create 25 new jobs.

Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment.

Jean Hubert,Le St. Tropez restaurant owner and banker Charles Chrietzberg spoke in support of the new restaurant.

Preston Kincaid warned Council against favoritism which he stated he witnessed at a Planning Commission meeting.

Barry Swift, on behalf of the Carmel Residents Association Board, spoke against the Planning Commission’s decision approving the proposal and against the precedent established by this proposal.

Don Bentz, Carmel Plaza Senior Property Manger, stated that the new restaurant is a “perfect fit,” a high quality restaurant.

Michael Adamson, spoke in support of the proposal, and read a letter in support of the proposal by Dennis LeVett.

Kent Torrey, owner of the Cheese shop, Carmel Plaza, spoke in support of David Fink (“a visionary”) and his proposal.

Adam Moniz spoke of the proposal’s similarity with Carmel Belle.

Barbara Livingston spoke that the proposal violated the spirit and letter of the law.

Monte Miller spoke of his confusion about the appeal process.

Gerard Rose stated that the proposal is not a fast food restaurant and the project is good for Carmel.

Carolyn Hardy requested the Council remand the project to the Planning Commission to “look at the codes.”

Peter Baird spoke in support of the proposal and stated that leasing business is down by 40%. He stated that the proposal will occupy a space which has been vacant for over three years in the Carmel Plaza. He stated the proposal is not “a fast food restaurant.”

Rich Pepe stated that the proposal is “precedent setting.”

Roberta Miller spoke against the proposal and urged the Council to deny the proposal.

Lisa, associated with David Fink, thanked those individuals supporting the proposal.

Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment.

City Attorney Don Freeman commented that the Council’s decision needs to be limited to the land use aspect of the proposal.

Sean Conroy, Planning Services Manager, clarified the issues as to whether or not it qualifies as a fast food restaurant and order at counter and/or seated.

CMC 17.70
Fast Food Establishment. A business where food is consumed on or off the site and food is (1) pre-made and wrapped before customers place orders, and/or (2) served with disposable tableware for on-site food consumption. A fast food establishment also exhibits two or more of the following characteristics:
1. Food is ordered from a wall menu at a service counter;
2. Food consumed on the premises is ordered while customers are standing;
3. Payment is made by customers before food is consumed;
4. The service counter is closer to an entry/exit than is the seating/dining area; and/or
5. The business interior is brightly illuminated (greater than eight candlefoot power as measured in a horizontal plane three feet above the floor).

Council Member Burnett discussed the portion of the Carmel Municipal Code, as follows:
3. Restaurant, Full Line.
e. Customers shall be provided with individual menus while seated at a table or counter.
He stated a variance is therefore required to approve the proposal.

Council Member Talmage inquired as to whether or not the proposal represents a precedent that changes the rules for Carmel restaurants in “a serious way?”

Council Member Hazdovac stated that there is a need for this proposal, a place for something “simple” to eat.

Mayor McCLOUD moved to accept the findings of decision, as amended on 9/13/2011, to approve Design Review and Use Permit applications for a new restaurant located on the northeast corner of Mission Street and Seventh Avenue in the Carmel Plaza, seconded by Council Member HAZDOVAC.

Council Member TALMAGE moved to add “Customers shall order from a menu while seated or order from the counter,” seconded by Mayor McCLOUD, and carried by the following roll call vote:

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

XI. Orders of Council

A. Consideration of a Report concerning the provision of Fire Service.


John Goss, Interim City Administrator, presented the PROVISION OF FIRE SERVICE Power Point Presentation.
PROVISION OF FIRE SERVICE September 2011

PROVISION OF FIRE SERVICE Power Point Presentation
John Goss, Interim City Administrator
September 2011


Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment.

Gerard Rose advocated for an opt-out ability through an extension with Monterey for a hybrid model.

David Banks, Carmel Residents Association Board of Directors, agreed with Recommendations 1, 2 and 3; and disagreed with Recommendation 5 because of loss of local control. CRA advocated for the headquarters model.

Demetrius Kastros stated fire protection is a “team effort.” With Monterey, Carmel has a collaborative team effort now and advocated for the staff’s recommendation.

Jerry Floyd, an advocate for fire service consolidation, spoke in support of Recommendation 5.

Roberta Miller spoke against the full merger with Monterey because of a loss of a sense of community. She requested Council define the service which best suits Carmel and craft RFPs for Monterey and Cal Fire based on Council direction.

Tom Frutchey, Pacific Grove City Manager, stated that none of the fears about loss of local control have occurred. He emphasized the advantages of the full merger with Monterey.

Carolyn Hardy spoke of a concern about loss of control and that the City never resolved credibility issues involving Monterey. She stated that the best compromise now is to maintain headquarters model or administrative model.

Pat Sipple stated it is time to take action and merge with Monterey.

Monte Miller advocated due diligence by formulating a good set of requirements and then seek competitive proposals/bids.

Adam Moniz spoke of the need for a conclusion and finality and “long-term certainty.” “The time for action is perhaps right now.”

Ken Hutchinson, Vice President, Carmel Professional Firefighters, stood with members of the Carmel Fire Department, and stated that the staff recommendation is the best possible solution for a permanent, sustainable, professional fire service.

David Jedinak, Fire Ambulance Paramedic, advocated for the staff recommendation.

Barbara Livingston advocated for the current headquarters model for at least another year.

Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment.

John Goss, Interim City Administrator, stated that the City’s effort was to give a “balanced presentation,” a logical step-by-step process. Goss queried, as follows: Is fire service being provided successfully? Yes. Are there problems with that fire service that needs to be addressed?” No. Is there an argument for making a change in fire service? No. Are we almost totally merged already between the two operations? Yes. He stated that the relationship with Monterey is beyond a headquarters model; the relationship has evolved into more than that and recommended a complete merger. He stated the agreement with Monterey is for a term of five years. And he commented on “paralysis by analysis.”

Council Member Talmage commented on the City’s investment in the Fire Department, that is, the retrofit of the fire station, increase in the number of firefighters and compensation, purchase of new fire engine and ambulance. Monterey will not continue with headquarters model, therefore City needs to decide. 1166 annual calls and the City need to find an answer for “everything.” Staff presentation solves fire services, but does not solve medical and other calls. He believes there is a need to address fire service and ambulance in a fully integrated way (hybrid model) and have all cross-trained personnel. Question: Will Monterey continue headquarters model for five years?

John Goss, Interim City Administrator, stated that firefighters are an “insurance policy,” available to respond to emergencies. Ambulance service has improved under the fire contract with Monterey. And he emphasized advantages of being part of a larger system.

Fire Chief Andrew Miller stated that CRFA has always operated as a hybrid; Monterey has integrated CRFA with Carmel-Monterey Fire. Miller emphasized advantages of a larger integrated system and the rebuilding of Carmel Fire Department since Carmel’s association with Monterey. Miller recommended staff recommendation; Monterey has a proven record, no questions of trust or not being able to perform. And the tri-city relationship is the best fire protection service solution. Lastly, Miller stated that presently there is the opportunity to negotiate a contract and Carmel is protected through the language in the contract.

Mayor McCloud spoke of more ambulance calls than fire calls historically. She emphasized shared service movement. She apologized for statements about credibility issues with Monterey. Lastly, she stated the issue is about the public health and safety of the citizens in Carmel and the need to make a decision for the best possible fire service and give direction to staff.

Council Member Burnett agreed with Recommendations 1, 2, 3, and 4, but not yet ready to support Recommendation 5 based on questions about integration of fire and ambulance. And he emphasized the need for “a clear process for backing out” and “budgetary control.”

Council Member HAZDOVAC moved to direct staff to prepare a draft agreement with the City of Monterey based on the Goss Report Recommendations 1, 2, 3 and 5, seconded by Council Member SHARP, and carried by the following roll call vote:

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

Council Member TALMAGE suggested Recommendations 1, 2, 3 and 5 expanded including fully merged or long-term headquarters model and clearly address all 1200 of annual emergency calls.

Mayor McCloud stressed relationship with Monterey and expressed support for draft agreement for merger based on Goss Recommendations.

Saturday, September 10, 2011

'THE ENDURING SPIRIT OF FREEDOM'


Freedom Tower - The Official Promo


Daniel Libeskind and developers Silverstein on the vision for WTC site


Freedom Tower Construction 2011

Eight Noteworthy 13 September 2011 City Council Agenda Items

ABSTRACT: Eight Noteworthy 13 September 2011 City Council Agenda Items, namely Announcements from Closed Session regarding labor negotiations with the Carmel-by-the-Sea Police Officers Association and LIUNA/UPEC Local 792 and Conference with legal counsel regarding The Flanders Foundation, a California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation, Petitioner v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Respondents – Monterey County
Superior Court Case No. M99437/State of California Court of Appeals, Sixth District, Civil Case No. H035818 and Report from the ad hoc CalPERS Committee, a Resolution entering into an employment agreement with Jason Stilwell for the position of City Administrator, a Resolution approving an agreement for relocation expenses for the City Administrator in the amount of $15,000, a Resolution ratifying a Memorandum of Understanding between the City and General Employees Association - LIUNA/UPEC Local 792, AFL-CIO, an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve Design Review and Use Permit applications for a new restaurant located on the northeast corner of Mission Street and Seventh Avenue in the Carmel Plaza and a Report concerning the provision of Fire Service, are presented. Excerpts from Agenda Item Summaries and Staff Reports are provided; the text of the EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT between the City and Jason Stilwell and the PROVISION OF FIRE SERVICE Report are embedded.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PACKET
Regular Meeting

Tuesday, September 13, 2011
4:30 p.m., Open Session

Live & Archived Video Streaming

City Hall
East side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues

II. Roll Call

V. Announcements from Closed Session, from City Council Members and the City Administrator.

A. Announcements from Closed Session.


1. Labor Negotiations – Gov’t. Code Section 54957.6(a) Meet and confer with the Carmel-by-the-Sea’s Meyers-Milias Brown Act representative, Interim City Administrator Goss, to give direction regarding labor negotiations with the Carmel-by-the-Sea Police Officers Association and LIUNA/UPEC Local 792.

2. Existing Litigation - Government Code Section 54956.9(a) - Conference with legal counsel regarding The Flanders Foundation, a California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation, Petitioner v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Respondents – Monterey County Superior Court Case No. M99437/State of California Court of Appeals, Sixth District, Civil Case No. H035818.

C. Announcements from City Administrator.

1. Report from the ad hoc CalPERS Committee.


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 entering into an employment agreement with Jason Stilwell for the position of City Administrator.


Description: City Administrator Jason Stilwell will assume his new job on Wednesday, September 28, 2011. This Resolution authorizes the Mayor to execute the Agreement, attached as Exhibit “A”. This contract was negotiated and unanimously approved by Council in Closed Session.

Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT between City and Jason Stilwell City Administrator

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT between CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA & JASON STILWELL CITY ADMINISTRATOR

F. Consideration of a Resolution approving an agreement for relocation expenses for the City Administrator in the amount of $15,000.

Description: Newly appointed City Administrator Jason Stilwell and his family will relocate from Santa Barbara to the Monterey Peninsula as he assumes his new post later this month. As part of his agreement with the City, on or about September 28, 2011, the City will pay a $15,000 single, lump-sum payment to cover the costs of certain expenses
related to Stilwell’s relocation. These expenses include: the packing and shipping of the family’s household belongings; temporary housing for the family as they transition to permanent housing; and house-hunting expenses and all incidentals.

Overall Cost: $15,000 to be paid from Account #01-67110 (Pre-Employment)

Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

Important Considerations: The Relocation Agreement stipulates that Stilwell must remain in the City’s employ for a minimum of one year. Should this not occur, he would be responsible for reimbursing the City the money (or a portion of the money) received from this Agreement.

G. Consideration of a Resolution ratifying a Memorandum of Understanding between the City and General Employees Association -LIUNA/UPEC Local 792, AFL-CIO.

Description: Understanding the fiscal challenges confronting the City, LIUNA/UPEC, which represents the City General Employees, has agreed to a one-year MOU which will provide a net savings to the City, and those savings will grow going forward. The City Council’s chief objective, taking steps to control its retirement expense, is met in this MOU.

Term: One year, July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012

Compensation: 0%

Pension: All new employees will be hired under the California Public Employees Retirement System (Cal PERS) 2% @ 60, highest three consecutive years, retirement plan, rather than 2% @ 55, highest one year.

Other Fringe Benefits:
Medical Plan: Permits an employee covered by another agency’s health plan to “opt out” of the City’s Medical Plan, resulting in a savings to the City.
Deferred Compensation Plan: Treats LIUNA employees consistently with other City employees by providing that the City will contribute $25/month to their deferred compensation plan (457).
Insurance Review: Agree that the parties will continue to identify more affordable dental and vision plans within the existing premium.
Harassment Policy: The City agrees to “meet and consult” with LIUNA on any revisions to the City’s Harassment Policy before any changes are presented to the City Council.

Overall Cost: There is an estimated savings of $13,628.

Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

Important Considerations: After meeting and conferring with the City’s negotiating team, the Association has ratified the new terms and conditions of employment as itemized above to be incorporated into a new one-year MOU.

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 approve Design Review and Use Permit applications for a new restaurant located on the northeast corner of Mission Street and Seventh Avenue in the Carmel Plaza. The project applicant is David Fink.


Note: The appellant is John Goss, Interim City Administrator

Description: The applicant is proposing to open a new restaurant that specializes in hamburgers, but also offers a variety of other dishes. The proposal includes 66 interior seats and 13 exterior seats. The project site is located on the northeast corner of Mission Street and Seventh Avenue in the Carmel Plaza, which is in the Central Commercial District.

Staff Recommendation: Determine whether the Planning Commission’s decision was appropriate.

Important Considerations: Full-line restaurants are considered a Conditional Use in the Central Commercial District. According to CMC Section 17.68, full line restaurants provide “a full line of prepared food and drinks using nondisposable plates, glasses and utensils for immediate consumption on the site. These restaurants provide table service to patrons of all ages who pay after eating. Takeout service may be provided.”

Decision Record: The Planning Commission approved this project on August 10, 2011. An appeal was filed on August 22, 2011.

In summary, the Council should discuss the following questions:
• Is it appropriate to allow customers to pay for their orders prior to being seated?
• Does the proposal qualify as a fast food restaurant?
• Is it appropriate to allow customers to order from a menu board rather than while seated at a table or counter?

Options: The Council could consider the following options:
• Uphold the Planning Commission’s decision.
• Revise the Planning Commission’s decision.
• Overturn the Planning Commission’s decision.
• Remand the project back to the Commission with instructions.
• Continue consideration of this appeal with a request for additional information.

Appeal Letter

To: Sean Conroy, Planning Manager
From: John Goss, Interim City Administrator
Subject: Appeal of a Recent Decision of the Planning Commission
Date: August 22, 2011

Section 2.08.070 (D) of the Municipal Code provides that the City Administrator may appeal any decision of any commission appointed by the City Council, following the procedures in the Code established for other appeals. Based on this authority, this will appeal a decision of the Planning Commission (4-0-1), dated August 10, 2011, approving an application from Mr. David Fink for Design Review and a Use Permit for a new restaurant and exterior alterations of an existing building located in the Central Commercial District in Carmel Plaza.

The reason for the appeal of this Planning Commission decision is not because of any major concerns with this project, but to give the City Council an opportunity to review the City’s policy on fast food restaurants as it applies to this unique proposal. This could include leaving the Planning Commission decision stand, or reversing or revising that decision.

cc: Mayor McCloud and City Council
City Attorney Freeman

XI. Orders of Council

A. Consideration of a Report concerning the provision of Fire Service.


Description: On April 28, 2011, a Town Hall Workshop was held in the City Council Chambers to hear a report entitled, “Fire Service Alternatives,” by former Public Safety Director George Rawson. At that workshop, presentations also were made by Andrew Miller, Fire Chief of Monterey, Pacific Grove and Carmel, and Cal Fire Unit Chief Rick Hutchinson. There also were several question-and-answer periods during the meeting. While this was not a formal City Council meeting, the general consensus of the Workshop was that the matter should be brought back to the City Council to provide direction for “next steps.”

Overall Costs:
City Funds: Potentially to be determined as a result of “next steps.”

Staff Recommendations:
It is recommended that a fire unit (engine) be maintained 24/7 at the Carmel-by-the-Sea Fire Station staffed by a minimum of three career fire fighters/EMTs and that the City retain ownership of its buildings, engines, vehicles and other equipment. It is also recommended the City should not select a stand-alone fire department option and that Carmel Fire be fully merged with Monterey Fire.

Important Considerations: The April 28, 2011 Workshop focused on two options of providing fire service in Carmel: Integrating the Carmel Fire Department with the Monterey Fire Department; or contracting for services from Cal Fire. During the discussion other alternatives were discussed, including the current contract with the City of Monterey to provide so-called “headquarters services,” receiving similar “headquarters services” from Cal Fire, and maintaining an independent Carmel Fire Department.

The fire service issue has been considered by the City for several years. Several other alternatives have been implemented or considered that are no longer viable options for the City. This report contains recommendations for the City’s next steps in providing fire services.

Decision Record: The initial agreement with the City of Monterey for interim fire services began on December 15, 2008 (as approved by Resolution 2008-89) and has been renewed ever since (Resolution 2009-47 and 2010-4). On December 7, 2010, Council approved extending the shared fire services agreement with the City of Monterey through January 31, 2011. This agreement has now been extended through December 2011 by mutual consent of the City Administrators of both cities.

PROVISION OF FIRE SERVICE September 2011

PROVISION OF FIRE SERVICE REPORT

RECOMMENDATION No. 1.
IT IS RECOMMENDED that a fire unit (engine) be maintained 24/7 at the Carmel-by-the-Sea Fire Station.

RECOMMENDATION No. 2
IT IS RECOMMENDED, that regardless of the fire service option selected by the City Council, a minimum of three career fire fighters/EMTs be available for emergency response 24/7.

RECOMMENDATION No. 3
IT IS RECOMMENDED that, regardless of the fire service option selected by the City Council, the City retain ownership of its buildings, engines, vehicles and other equipment.

RECOMMENDATION No. 4
IT IS RECOMMENDED that the City should not select a stand-alone fire department option.

RECOMMENDATION No. 5
IT IS RECOMMENDED that Carmel Fire be fully merged with Monterey Fire.

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
As the report suggests, there are several reasons to support Recommendation No. 5. These include:

Monterey is already satisfactorily overseeing and administering Carmel Fire and its staff, apparatus and equipment operating as part of a five-station system. CRFA medic fire fighters have informally been integrated into this operation. In many respects an operational merger with Monterey already has been achieved.

The current provision and level of service with the City of Monterey, administering a nearly integrated fire service model, is well received in the community, with no complaints received from the citizens.

Where other agencies have merged with Monterey Fire, satisfaction has been expressed with the service provided.

A number of successes in Monterey’s oversight of Carmel Fire have been achieved related to inoperable fire hydrants, the fire station remodel and seismic retrofit, reducing fire load at Mission Trails Park, replacing outmoded fire apparatus with new vehicles, and obtaining several grants to obtain up-to-date emergency equipment and tools.

There will be a cost savings by avoiding the MOU obligation to the Carmel fire fighters.

Through the integration of Monterey and Carmel operations, Carmel policies have been modified to reduce overtime expense.

Monterey fire fighters have already become familiar with Carmel, often providing backfill staffing for the Carmel station and providing a backup engine when the Carmel engine is out on a call or as “second in” in connection with a call for service.

Support by the Carmel, Monterey and CRFA fire fighters has been expressed for the merger. The support of the affected employees has been critical in the success of other fire services mergers.

The potential for future cooperation and shared services with Pacific Grove and Monterey would be enhanced.

Potential cost avoidance of an estimated $400,000 by avoiding the expense of replacing the 1988 reserve engine.

The uncertainty of Cal Fire’s long-term costs (duty week reduction, unfunded retiree medical expense, 3% @ 55 pension plan for new hires)

Even with the diligent efforts of Cal Fire there is a concern over Carmel fire fighters temporarily being relocated out of the area due to station assignment transfer, or during a major state-wide fire emergency since the initial drawdown of firefighting personnel would be from Cal Fire personnel.

If the City Council accepts these recommendations, staff will work with Monterey and the City Attorney to develop an agreement for review and possible adoption at the Council’s October meeting. This could be achieved by modifying the current Monterey contract. This will include developing the MOU with the local chapter of IAFF which will be the basis for the agreement.

Friday, September 09, 2011

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT between the CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA & JASON STILWELL, CITY ADMINISTRATOR

ABSTRACT: A Resolution entering into an employment agreement with Jason Stilwell for the position of City Administrator is on the City Council’s 13 September 2011 Agenda. The text of the EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT between the CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA and JASON STILWELL is embedded. HIGHLIGHTS are presented, including the Agreement shall be for a three (3) year period commencing September 28, 2011 and ending September 28, 2014, The CITY agrees to pay STILWELL the sum of one hundred and seventy six thousand five hundred dollars ($176,500.00), in salary per annum, and The CITY shall provide STILWELL the same type and extent of benefits as provided to the CITY’S other executive management employees as such benefits may be amended from time to time...benefits include, but are not limited to, paid holidays, retirement benefits and payments, health insurance, vision insurance, dental insurance, and life insurance.

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT between City and Jason Stilwell City Administrator

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA AND JASON STILWELL CITY ADMINISTRATOR

HIGHLIGHTS OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT:
THIS AGREEMENT is between the CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA (“CITY”) and JASON STILWELL and is effective as of the 28th day of September 2011.

This Agreement shall be for a three (3) year period commencing September 28, 2011 and ending September 28, 2014, unless terminated by either party in accordance with the provisions set forth in Article D. of this Agreement, or until terminated by death or permanent disability of STILWELL.

The CITY agrees to pay STILWELL the sum of one hundred and seventy six thousand five hundred dollars ($176,500.00), in salary per annum, payable in installments at the same time as other employees of the CITY are paid subject to customary withholding.

In recognition of the need for STILWELL to travel on City business from time to time, the CITY shall pay STILWELL the sum of three hundred and fifty dollars ($350.00) per month as an automobile allowance.

The CITY shall provide STILWELL the same type and extent of benefits as provided to the CITY’S other executive management employees as such benefits may be amended from time to time…benefits include, but are not limited to, paid holidays, retirement benefits and payments, health insurance, vision insurance, dental insurance, and life insurance.

The CITY shall make a monthly contribution to a 457 Deferred Compensation Account on behalf of STILWELL in the amount of five hundred and fifty dollars ($550.00) per month.

The CITY shall pay such professional dues, subscriptions and memberships in such organizations necessary for STILWELL to maintain professional relationships in appropriate national, regional, state and local associations desirable for continued professional growth, advancement and benefit to CITY.

Wednesday, September 07, 2011

Carmel Art Association Presents TWO-PERSON SHOW: SUSAN REITH & TIM SLOAN “ART OF DRAWING, ” SOLO SHOW: RICHARD TETTE “RECENT PAINTINGS” And GALLERY SHOWCASE: MARK FARINA & STAN ROBBINS “WHAT I SAW ON MY VACATION”

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 TWO-PERSON SHOW: SUSAN REITH & TIM SLOAN “ART OF DRAWING, ” SOLO SHOW: RICHARD TETTE “RECENT PAINTINGS” And GALLERY SHOWCASE: MARK FARINA & STAN ROBBINS “WHAT I SAW ON MY VACATION”

Thursday, September 8, 2011 – Tuesday, October 4, 2011

TWO-PERSON SHOW: SUSAN REITH & TIM SLOAN “ART OF DRAWING” (Center Room)

Artists Susan Reith and Tim Sloan showcase the human figure with artworks on paper in watercolor, gouache and charcoal. View
painter Tim Sloan’s brief biography, Recent Exhibits, Juried Shows, Art Organizations and Galleries and view eighteen “Art of Drawing” images, including “Blue Mood,” “Torso,” “Light Study,” “After Work,” “Sitting Pose,” :Dark and Light Patterns,” “Nude with Stool,” “Cool Shadows,” “The Blue Jacket,” “A Beach Scene,” “Study In Gouache,” “Morning Light,” “Nude With Violin,” “Seated Nude,” “Form Study,” “Bold Pose,” “Patterns,” “Strong Man” and “Nude On A Pillow.”

SOLO SHOW: RICHARD TETTE “RECENT PAINTINGS” (Beardsley Room, South Wall)

Painter Richard Tette exhibits “Recent Paintings” of the California landscape. View brief biography and seventeen “Recent Paintings” oil painting images including, “Highway One Ocean View,” “Salinas Valley Farmland,” “White Barn, Salinas Valley,” “Misty View,” “High Meadow Lake,” “River Road Ranch,” “Morning Overcast,” “Visitors from the South,” “Feed for the Crows,” “Elkhorn Meadow,” “River Orchard,” “Oak Hills,” “Open Barn, “ “Summer Gold,” “Tucked In,” “Looking West” and “Long View.”

GALLERY SHOWCASE: MARK FARINA & STAN ROBBINS “WHAT I SAW ON MY VACATION” (Segal Room)

Painter Mark Farina exhibits oil paintings inspired by the Central Coast. View Farina’s brief biography and view Mark Farina "Out & About the Monterey Peninsula" (May 5 - 31, 2011) exhibition of nineteen oil and watercolor painting images, including “Towards Hopkins Point,” “Pescadero Point, Pebble Beach,” “Dancing Cypress,” “Monterey Marina, Late Light,” “Monterey Morning,” “Towards Hopkins,” “Mission Corridor,” “Toro Park Spring,” “Tied Up at Fisherman’s Wharf,” “Winter Stream,” “Side of Big Dome,” “Spring Pastures,” “Dancing Cypress, Plein Air,” “Lighthouse & Dunes, “Monterey Marina, Last Light,” “Monterey Morning,” “Old Fog Horn Building, Pacific Grove,” “Berwick Point” and “Old Cannery.”

Painter Stan Robbins exhibits oil painting landscapes of the Southwest and parts of California. View Stan Robbins: "Perpetual Commotion" exhibition (November 5 - December 1, 2009) of fifty-one oil painting images of the ocean including “Curl,” “Twins,” “Point Pinos,” “Bright Fog,” “Watery Slope,” “Sunset Glow,” “Blue Wave,” “Pebble Beach Curl,” “Windy Evening,” “Point Pinos Crash,” “Silver Fog,” “Two Waves Meet,” “Sparkle,” “Fast Curl,” “Abstract,” “Crash,” “Running the Wall,” “Point Lobos,” “Many Forms,” “Tide Pool,” “Long Wave,” “Hazy Light,” “Splash and Spray,” “Fan Shell Beach,” “Foggy Afternoon,” “Wildfire Smoke,” “Garrapata Fog,” “Capitola,” “Pfeiffer Beach,” “Bouncing Wave,” “Big Sur Coast,” “Gibson Beach,” “Glory,” “Single Curl,” “Clear Wave,” “Two Green Waves,” “Single Wave,” “Bouncing Surf,” “Cold Wave,” “Pacific Grove Shoreline,” “Spanish Bay Moonlight,” “Morning Fog,” “Green Window,” “Nearly Perfect Wave,” “Garrapata Cliffs,” “Single Curl,” “Martins Beach,” “Endless Motion,” “Four A.M.,” “Racing Foam” and “Water and Light.”

Opening Reception - Saturday, September 10, 6:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M.

ADDENDUM:
SPECIAL BENEFIT PERFORMANCE - Thursday, September 8 @ 7:00 P.M.:
A staged reading of the play "Fortune's Way, Or Notes on Art for Catholics and Others" based on the life of past CAA artist member E. Charlton Fortune.
Playwright: Steve Hauk
Director: Conrad Selving
Performers: Teresa Del Piero as E. Charlton Fortune and John F. Grady as bishop Edwin O'Hara
Tickets $20.00 - Limited Seating
Please call (831) 624-6176 Ext. 12 for reservations.

Fortune's Way: The life of E. Charlton Fortune goes on display with a staged reading at the Carmel Art Association
By LISA CRAWFORD WATSON Herald Correspondent, 09/02/2011


MULTI-MEDIA LECTURE “THE ART HISTORY OF CANNERY ROW” - Wednesday, September 21 @ 7:00 P.M.
Painter Dick Crispo covers the colorful artists and the fine art inspired by Monterey's Cannery Row, made world famous by John Steinbeck's 1945 novel. When the sardines left Monterey in the 1950s, some of the empty canneries became artist's studios, but even before that time Monterey Peninsula artists were drawn to the unique flavor of Cannery Row.

Free with no reservations necessary (Donations welcome).

Monday, September 05, 2011

Regional Desalination Project: Ag Land Trust & RMC Water and Environment

UPDATE:
Desal EIR dealt blow
Review failed to consider water rights, judge rules
By JIM JOHNSON Herald Staff Writer, 02/03/2012

Synopsis: In an amended/revised ruling, Monterey County Superior Court Judge Lydia Villarreal judge found that “the environmental review for the failed regional desalination project neglected to properly consider a number of issues, including water rights.”
The revision was released Thursday, about six weeks after Villarreal ruled that Marina Coast Water District should have prepared the EIR as the lead agency under state environmental law.”

UPDATE: GNM105019: AG Land Trust vs. Marina Coast Water District
On Monday, 19 December 2011, Monterey County Superior Judge Lydia Villareal issued her decision that the "Marina Coast Water District should be the lead agency” on the Regional Desalination Project and “must prepare and certify an environmental impact report " (EIR). Ag Land Trust sued Marina Coast, “alleging the district should have been the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, and should have been responsible for the EIR instead of the state Public Utilities Commission. The suit alleged Marina Coast's board improperly relied on the PUC's environmental report to approve the regional project, and alleged the document failed to adequately address a number of relevant issues. The issues included the reliability of the proposed desal plant, water rights, impacts to neighboring properties and exportation of water from underground sources in the Salinas Valley.” However, Judge Villareal’s decision “didn't address specific environmental issues raised by the Ag Land Trust.”
Note: The Ag Land Trust, a nonprofit organization dedicated to preservation of farm land, owns property near a proposed desal project well site.

GNM110691: AG Land Trust vs. Monterey County Water Resources, et al
Ag Land Trust attorney Michael Stamp said a similar lawsuit challenging the project's water rights, filed against the county in February, is "on hold," according to the Herald’s news article.

News Article: Judge orders new desal EIR
Villareal says Marina Coast should take lead on project
By JIM JOHNSON, Herald Staff Writer, 12/22/2011


NEWS ARTICLE:
News Blog
Court Hears Regional Desal Project Challenge
By Kera.Abraham
October 28, 2011


UPDATE:
Case Number GNM105019
Case Caption AG Land Trust vs. Marina Coast Water District
Motion Hearing 9/30/2011 09:00:00 Courtroom 15
Writ of Mandate Hearing 10/27/2011 09:00:00 Courtroom 15

ABSTRACT: Significant information regarding RMC and upcoming court hearings for Ag Land Trust v. Marina Coast Water District (M105019) and Ag Land Trust vs. Monterey County Water Resources and Board of Supervisors (M110691) is presented. The ANSWER TO PETITION FOR REVIEW, prepared by Michael W. Stamp and Molly Erickson, attorneys for Ag Land Trust (Case No. S192285) provides a summary of the issues; the document is embedded.

Ag Land Trust v. Marina Coast Water District (M105019)
Writ of Mandate Hearing scheduled for Thursday, September 29, 2011 at 9:00 A.M., Courtroom 15, Judge Lydia M. Villarreal. Marina Coast Water District’s petition for review was previously denied by the California Supreme Court.

Case Details of GNM105019; AG Land Trust vs. Marina Coast Water District
Case Information

Case Number: GNM105019
Case Caption: AG Land Trust vs. Marina Coast Water District
Filing Date: 4/5/2010
Case Type: Judicial Review: Writ Mandate (02)
Filing Type: Complaint
Original Filing Date: 4/5/2010

Schedule Events
Type: Writ of Mandate Hearing
Date: 9/29/2011 Time: 09:00:00
Location: Courtroom 15
DEPARTMENT 15 Lydia M. Villarreal

S192285 Answer to Petition for Review

ANSWER TO PETITION FOR REVIEW
Michael W. Stamp and Molly Erickson, attorneys for Ag Land Trust
Case No. S192285
(Sixth Appellate District Court of Appeal No. H036084; Monterey County Superior Court No. M105019)

Ag Land Trust vs. Monterey County Water Resources and Board of Supervisors (M110691)
Motion Hearing scheduled for Friday, September 16, 2011 at 9:00 A.M., Courtroom 15, Judge Lydia M. Villarreal. Ag Land Trust (Petitioner) filed a petition under the California Environmental Quality Act against the Monterey County Water Resources Agency (Respondents); the petition challenges Respondents’ compliance with CEQA in regard to the approval of the Regional Water Project.

Case Details of GNM110691; AG Land Trust vs. Monterey County Water Resources, et al
Case Information
Case Number: GNM110691
Case Caption: AG Land Trust vs. Monterey County Water Resources, et al Filing Date: 2/14/2011
Case Type: Judicial Review: Writ Mandate (02)
Filing Type: Petition
Original Filing Date: 2/14/2011

Schedule Events
Type: Motion Hearing
Date: 9/16/2011 Time: 09:00:00
Location: Courtroom 15
DEPARTMENT 15 Lydia M. Villarreal

Stamp Law Offices Letter to California Coastal Commission August 2011

LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL W. STAMP Letter to California Coastal Commission Members, July 29, 2011
Re: Regional Desalination Project – Slant Well Application


NOTE: At the California Coastal Commission’s Friday, August 12, 2011 meeting, agenda item “Application of Monterey County Water Resources Agency, Marina Coast Water District and California-American Water Co. to construct and develop test slant well to determine its suitability for use as a desalination facility source water well, at Marina Coast Water District offices at 11 Reservation Road, in Marina, Monterey County” was continued.

RMC Water and Environment, the engineering company hired to design and manage the proposed $400 million regional desalination plant has suspended work on the project because the county has failed to pay the firm $458,290 in unpaid bills since January 11, 2011. The Monterey County Board of Supervisors decided not to pay RMC until the County and California American Water and Marina Coast Water District resolve conflict of interest allegations involving former county water agency director Steve Collins while RMC contends there isn’t any legal basis for the county “to link payment for [RMC’s] services to mediation with third parties.” However, RMC said it could “proceed with these tasks if MCWD and Cal Am agree to revise the cost allocation...and fund the portion of the shared services that would otherwise have been funded by MCWRA,” according to reporting in The Carmel Pine Cone, 2 September 2011.

SOURCE: Water consultant hasn't been paid, stops work, KELLY NIX, The Carmel Pine Cone, September 2, 2011

Friday, September 02, 2011

New City Administrator: Jason Stilwell, Assistant County Executive Officer/Budget Director, County of Santa Barbara

UPDATE: Assistant CEO Takes Carmel City Administrator Position
Jason Stilwell Credited with Helping Close Santa Barbara’s Budget Gap, Santa Barbara Independent, Thursday, September 15, 2011


ABSTRACT: The City Council selected Jason Stilwell, Assistant County Executive Officer/Budget Director, County of Santa Barbara, as the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea's new city administrator, according to reporting today in The Carmel Pine Cone. A contract between the City and Stilwell is to be on the 13 September 2011 City Council Agenda. On Jason Stilwell’s website, he states, as follows: “I am a public administrator supporting the profession of city management. My passion is the efficient and effective execution of governmental activities in the public interest as expressed by elected officials.” Resume, Professional Expertise and Research highlights are presented. Further information and links to his website are provided. An article, “The Ethical Foundation of Performance Management: Performance Management is Ethical Management,” is embedded. “This article highlights the intimate relationship among professional local government management, ethics, and performance measurement. Describes performance measurement as a practical tool to meet core ethical values—trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship. Explores responsibilities resulting from these relationships.”

Jason Stilwell
"Respecting the profession of city management through practice, scholarship, and teaching"

I am a public administrator supporting the profession of city management. My passion is the efficient and effective execution of governmental activities in the public interest as expressed by elected officials.”

Assistant County Executive Officer/Budget Director

County of Santa Barbara
105 E. Anapamu Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
jstil@co.santa-barbara.ca.us
(805) 568-3400

Jason Stilwell
Post Office Box 91132 Santa Barbara CA, 93190
stilwelljason@hotmail.com

EMPLOYMENT HISTORY
County of Santa Barbara, California
Assistant County Executive Officer

Serve as the primary assistant to the County Executive Officer in operating the County organization consisting of 23 departments, 4400 employees, and a budget of $900 million. Additional responsibilities include:
Budget Director: Develop and control the County's annual budget organized into 115 separate funds with 233 capital projects; supervise the employees of the Budget and Research division of the County Executive Office;
Financial Officer: coordinate Countywide financial issues including debt issuances and financial forecasting.

Director – Parks Department
This interim assignment demonstrated the confidence the elected officials and County Executive Officer had in me to direct a department of 85 employees with a budget of approximately $5 million. Primary accomplishments:
Developed and implemented a departmental strategic plan; Recruited and retained a permanent Director;
Assured a complex labor-centric organization operated efficiently and effectively and had the resources necessary to excel as expected by the public.

Project Manager – County Executive’s Office
A member of the County Executive’s management team involved in strategic planning and high profile special projects.
Strategic Planning: financial analyses of annexations, overseeing performance management for the organization, developing a technology business plan for the entire County, identifying budget policies and practices;
High Profile Projects: Coordinating annexations and community facilities districts; serving as intergovernmental liaison; coordinating analysis for a voter initiative to split the County; and managing a breadth of other high profile projects including tax negotiations, economic development, homeless programs, GIS implementation, and others.

Town of Superior, Colorado
Assistant Town Manager

Key staff person managing the fastest growing municipality in the U.S. during the 1990s (according to Census data).
As part of the management team, I managed all aspects of the municipality with the following accomplishments:
Financial: managed a growing accounting and finance staff, implemented an automated accounting system, created an investment program, designed a long-range financial planning model, enhanced financial reporting;
Budget: formulated budgets for the Town, Urban Renewal Authority, and Metropolitan Districts; negotiated annual law enforcement and other contracts; increased reserves to nearly 100% of annual expenditures;
Planning: staffed Planning and Zoning Commission meetings; coordinated development operations; successfully negotiated retail, residential, and office development. Oversaw Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Code updates;
Districts: created districts including developing and managing service plans; gained control of a utility district which had been developer controlled; negotiated a dissolution and reorganization plan for two service districts;
Other Successes: construction management of park and public work projects, implemented a retirement benefit program, revised the personnel manual, developed an urban renewal authority, and improved Town's revenue base.

EDUCATION
University of Colorado at Denver. Graduate School of Public Affairs. Doctor of Philosophy. 2000.
Studies emphasize municipal management and law including municipal home rule.
San Jose State University. Master of Public Administration. 1993.
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. Bachelor of Arts (Political Science), 1991.
Cuesta College, San Luis Obispo, California. Associate in Arts. 1989.

PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIP
International City Management Association (Credentialed, 10-year service award)
Government Finance Officers' Association (Distinguished Budget Award Reviewer)
American Political Science Association
Treasurer, Central Coast Chapter, Municipal Management Assoc. of Southern California (MMASC)
American Society for Public Administration
Local Government Chapter of the American Bar Assc.
ICMA Adjuncts (Practitioners Who Teach)

Practitioner Resume

Curriculum Vitae

Professional Expertise
MANAGEMENT EXPERTISE
Credentialed Manager - International City County Management Association (ICMA) BUDGET EXPERTISE
Budget Reviewer - Government Finance Officers Association's Distinguished Budget Presentation Award Program

SPECIAL DISTRICT EXPERTISE
Fire protection districts: these single purpose special districts can be valuable tools for designating funding for fire protection services and can create an organizational structure that is single focused on quality fire services. I have worked in local governments that have had dependent fire protection districts (whereas the local government's and fire district's elected officials are the same), independent fire protection districts (where the community was served by a fire department separate from the community), and have transitioned from an in-house fire service to an independent special district (where the municipality essentially outsourced the fire protection services to a fire district).

Research
PUBLICATIONS
Ethical Foundation of Performance Measurement and Management Jason Stilwell

The Ethical Foundation of Performance Management: Performance Management is Ethical Management
With Michael F. Brown, “The Ethical Foundation of Performance Measurement and Management,” Public Management 87:5 (June 2005), 22-25.

This article highlights the intimate relationship among professional local government management, ethics, and performance measurement. Describes performance measurement as a practical tool to meet core ethical values—trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship. Explores responsibilities resulting from these relationships.

ADDENDUM:
Council selects new city administrator, The Carmel Pine Cone September 2, 2011, 8A