ABSTRACT: Bob
Profeta’s website states “QUALIFIED – REASONABLE – RESPONSIBLE” and “I have an
intimate connection with Carmel
having lived and worked here for almost 20 years.” “Robert “Bob” Profeta for Carmel City Council
2012” website consists of Home, Issues (Priorities & Endorsements), About Bob, Get Involved and Contact sections. HIGHLIGHTS of About Bob, including excerpts from Priorities, are
presented. Contact information is
provided.
"I hope to help solve the issues and problems that will
surely arise, always with the ideal and objective of preserving our communities
existing character for the future."
Who I am . . .
"In 1993, Judie and I moved to Carmel. Together we own Alain Pinel
Realtors. We represent buyers and sellers in home sales; we do not
develop real estate. I am proud that together we have grown Alain Pinel
to become one of the largest local employers in Carmel."
What I can contribute to the Town and City Council . . .
"My vision, and my goal, is to preserve these special
qualities for our present community and the generations to follow."
"Using my management experience of over 40+ years, budgetary
oversight and analysis, careful negotiation, and consensus building skills, I
will add balance and reasonableness to help solve other issues and
problems if permitted by Carmel
residents to serve on their City Council."
Please, let me hear from you . . .
"If given the opportunity to serve the residents of Carmel on their City
Council, I will endeavor to preserve in changing times the quality of life
residents have come to treasure. This is why I am seeking election to the
City Council, to preserve what Carmel
residents have enjoyed during the first 96 years of the City’s history."
ISSUES: Priorities
Pursue
solutions to maintain security and essential services for Carmel residents with
a balanced budget not invading City financial reserves.
Pursue
solutions to revitalize our down businesses recognizing that they provide
a large part of our City revenues.
Pursue
solutions to update the City infrastructure such as roads and sidewalks,
which are in disrepair.
Pursue
solutions to issues and problems with new ideas and fresh approaches while
listening to members of our community and then take Action.
Pursue
a dialog and consensus between residents and their City Council to seek
enhancement of resident control over their community while preserving the
unique qualities of Carmel.
Remember
and honor the principle that it is the residents of Carmel the City Council serves.
ABSTRACT: City
Council Member Ken Talmage’s campaign website “Re-ELECT KEN TALMAGE to the Carmel City Council” states “A PROVEN EFFECTIVE DECISION MAKER.” He states: “I make decisions based on facts,
budgets, Carmel’s
Municipal Code and Design Guidelines, with a keen eye to our village’s history,
traditions, and natural beauty. I try to balance differing interests and find
the best overall solutions.” Talmage’s campaign website features Home, About Ken, Issues, My Contributions, Nomination, and Donate sections. HIGHLIGHTS of Issues & My Contributions are
presented.
HIGHLIGHTS of Issues & My Contributions
Issues
Challenges We Will Address:
Ensure
the continued high level of fire, ambulance and police services
Work within
the financial realties that affect city revenues. Although we have high
revenue per capita, it is not likely to grow going forward. Spending
decisions must be considered carefully.
Undertake
a comprehensive long-term financial forecast, identify trends and suggest
a range of possible actions.
Maintain
core city capabilities, but explore options for outsourcing, shared
services and general efficiency gains.
Principles:
Preservation
of Carmel's Community Character: Carmel is a special
place like no other. It is essential to preserve Carmel's singular character for
ourselves, our guests and future generations.
Vibrant
Community: Cultural venues, unique local shops, special events, and our
village hospitality are significant contributing factors to our community
and it's quality of life. Maintaining this vibrancy is critical to Carmel's future.
Recognition
of Economic Reality: Planning and decisions must be based on three
factors: The "new normal" (post 2008 recession), the city's
obligation to our employee retirement fund (CalPERS), and responsibility
to spend tax dollars wisely.
Community
Involvement: We have far more in common then we have differences of
opinion. I listen to all perspectives and encourage participation in order
to make better decisions.
Ken's Key Contributions:
Ken
was instrumental in refinancing the SunsetCenter
bonds. The City Auditor said this will save the city more then $1,000,000
over the remaining term of the bonds.
Ken
added several provisions to the recent Fire and Ambulance contracts with
the City of Monterey
with increase safety and accountability.
ABSTRACT: Current City Council Member Ken Talmage was sworn in as Council Member in December 2006 and elected in April 2008; his term expires in April 2012. Between December 2006 and 2010, Council Member Ken Talmage was part of the City Council which approved settlements to Executive Assistant Sandy Farrell and Human Resources Manager Jane Miller. The settlement to Sandy Farrell was related to “claims of being forced from employment” and the settlement to Jane Miller was $600,000 for claims of Sex-Based Discrimination in Employment, Age-Based Discrimination in Employment, Sexual Harassment in Employment, Failure to Take All Reasonable Steps to Prevent Sexual Harassment from Occurring, Failure to Take All Reasonable Steps to Prevent Discrimination and Harassment Based on Age from Occurring and Retaliation in Violation of Law. Selected excerpts from the court file of JANE KINGSLEY MILLER. Plaintiff, v. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, (Case No. H 99513) related to former city employees Sandy Farrell (“Employee #4”) and Jane Miller are presented, followed by the 28-page COMPLAINT text, in an embedded document.
ABSTRACT: Planning Commissioner Victoria Beach states
on her campaign website VICTORIA BEACH FOR CARMEL CITY COUNCIL “I believe I have the ability, and the responsibility, to do my part
now. That's why I currently work on the town’s Planning Commission, and it's
why I want to build on that work as a member of the City Council.” Beach’s campaign website features HOME, ABOUT,
EVENTS, GET INVOLVED, DONATE AND CONTACT sections. HIGHLIGHTS are presented, including Qualifications
and Leadership Experience, and an ADDENDUM of information and links to web
posts, including “Is the Profession of Architecture Corrupt?”
is presented.
VICTORIA BEACH FOR CARMEL CITY COUNCIL
“As your Council member I will (1) commit to preserving and enhancing the village character we all enjoy as we walk through our downtown, neighborhoods, and parks, (2) support businesses in providing valuable services for our residents and visitors alike, and (3) welcome the impressive talents of our citizens through open, productive dialogue on how to care for this wonderful place in a fiscally sustainable way."
About Victoria HIGHLIGHTS: Qualifications and Leadership Experience: • Carmel Planning Commissioner • Licensed Architect • Business Owner •AIA National Young Architect Award • Harvard Design Ethics Fund Founder • Yale University Bachelors Degree • Harvard University Professional Degree • Harvard Professor of Design and Ethics
ABSTRACT: The conduct of the City Council (Mayor Sue McCloud, City Council Members Jason Burnett, Paula Hazdovac, Karen Sharp and Ken Talmage), City Administrator Jason Stilwell and Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk Heidi Burch is presented in the context of the City Council’s unanimous vote to adopt the City’s revised, updated Harassment Prevention Policy at the 7 February 2012 City Council meeting. Since the City does have an Administrative Services Director, the “designated Human Resources Manager” (HR Manager) to implement the Policy was identified as Heidi Burch, Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk. An email from a Carmelite was subsequently sent to City Administrator Jason Stilwell; the email is reproduced. City Administrator Stilwell did not respond to the email, but previously claimed that he has “a strong moral compass” and is not “driven by situational ethics.” Pertinent comments on the new city administrator by a noted ethicist are quoted. Selected excerpts from former Human Resources Manager Jane Miller’s Monterey County Superior Court file are complied involving Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk Heidi Burch’s record of conduct. One of the excerpts states “The evidence is overwhelming that Ms. Burch has been the beneficiary of Mr. Guillen's actions, and that Ms. Miller has made claims about that favoritism and about the role of Ms. Burch. Nevertheless, Ms. Burch has been authorized by the City to act on behalf of the City in regard to Ms. Miller, to bypass Ms. Miller's legal counsel, and to communicate directly with a represented party.It is hard to imagine a more inappropriate person to be designated to give orders and impose deadlines on Ms. Miller.” Similarly and significantly, it is hard to imagine a more inappropriate person than Heidi Burch being designated by the City Council to act as HR Manager in charge of implementing the City’s Harassment Prevention Policy. Michael Stamp, attorney representing Jane Miller, wrote in a letter to the editor (The Carmel Pine Cone, April 22, 2011) “This is no way to run a city. As long as the city and The Pine Cone blame the victim, the city will be at risk.” It is also no way to run a city to have the new city administrator not recognize that his top priority is to restore public trust in Carmel’s city government. And it is also no way to run a city to have the mayor and city council members refuse to acknowledge and explain settlements totaling in excess of $1,000,000 to city employees for claims of “hostile work environment,” Sex-Based Discrimination in Employment, Age-Based Discrimination in Employment, Sexual Harassment in Employment, Failure to Take All Reasonable Steps to Prevent Sexual Harassment from Occurring, Failure to Take All Reasonable Steps to Prevent Discrimination and Harassment Based on Age from Occurring and Retaliation in Violation of Law.
EMAIL TO CITY ADMINISTRATOR JASON STILWELL FROM A CARMELITE
Sent: February 13, 2012
At the 7 February 2012 City Council meeting, the City Council unanimously adopted the City’s revised Harassment Prevention Policy. Prior to that vote, the designated HR Manager was identified as Heidi Burch, Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk.
Questions:
1. Please explain the rationale for designating Heidi Burch the HR Manager given her past record of having an “inappropriate,” “unprofessional” relationship in the workplace based on “favoritism” which resulted in preferential treatment, non-standard pay raises and promotions based on her relationship with the previous city administrator and her record of active involvement in City Hall’s culture of harassment, discrimination and retaliation.
2. Please explain how designating Heidi Burch the HR Manager in the context of implementing the Harassment Prevention Policy is not a classic case of situational ethics.
As the aforementioned questions are not rhetorical, I would appreciate thoughtful and honest responses.
COMMENTS ON NEW CITY ADMINISTRATOR BY NOTED ETHICIST
"Democratic accountability is based on the explanation of decisions by those who represent us and run our community...If the new city administrator won't fully answer that question, it could only be because (1) he is afraid of losing his position if he does (situational ethics) or (2) he does not believe in accountability. "That's all in the past," is not a professional or responsible explanation."
SELECTED EXCERPTS FROM JANE MILLER’S COURT FILE
(References to Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk Heidi Burch):
Note: “Female B” is believed to be Heidi Burch, Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk
By May 2007, the talk at City Hall increased about Guillen's relationship with Female A and, recently, with another female employee. Female B. The talk was open and widespread and was known to City employees and others, including the Mayor and City Attorney. Guillen at that time knew that the comments were being made about him and Female A and Female B. Guillen knew that the comments were adversely affecting the workplace, particularly in regard to women in the workplace, for whom the relationships with Female A and Female B were perceived as inappropriate, unprofessional and based on favoritism.
Guillen was involved in an inappropriately close relationship in the workplace with Female B, who had been hired by Guillen in 2005 and who had received a favorable and non-standard pay raise from Guillen within the first six months of her employment. By March 2007, Guillen had "reclassified" Female B's position and provided her with favorable salary, benefits, and working conditions, including responsibility for actions that she had never performed previously and for which she needed training to perform. Female B's work activities involved spending private time with Guillen, going to meetings with Guillen, taking steps to deceive other employees about her activities. and jointly undertaking City tasks with Guillen.
In May 2007, Guillen created a new job title for Female B. via the draft City budget, giving her power and responsibility not approved by the Human Resources Manager and not approved at the time by the City Council. Contrary to standard City policy, Guillen and Female 8 did not create a job description and Female B was not given a performance evaluation. Plaintiff, the Human Resources Manager, was excluded from personnel/human resources decisions involving Female 8, because Plaintiff had objected to Guillen's similar favoritism toward Female A. Female B's salary had been increased by about 70% since 2005, far above that for other employees and positions of a similar nature in the City, including Plaintiff's.
In July 2007, Guillen made sure that Female B was officially reclassified with a 19% raise.
In October 2007, Plaintiff asked for routine authorization to use leave time to care for a family member. Guillen said he approved the leave in discussions directly with Plaintiff. Shortly thereafter, Female B challenged Plaintiffs leave, singling out Plaintiff. City staff then contacted Attorney O'Neill in an effort by Female B to challenge Plaintiffs routine entitlement to leave and embarrass or humiliate Plaintiff. In December 2007, Female B challenged Plaintiffs right to a small reimbursement under a benefit provision that had been in place for years, again singling out Plaintiff. Plaintiff was advised by the City that Guillen had been the instigator of the challenge, and Plaintiff reasonably understood that Female B was acting with the consent of Guillen in both cases. Plaintiff was being ostracized and isolated by Guillen, while he continued to undercut her role in the office.
In March 2008, Guillen gave Female B another 5% raise. Guillen claimed that Female B should get another raise because she had been successfully performing her management job, which was not a standard City rationale for such raise.
On October 23, 2008, Plaintiff sent a 13-page letter to the City and City
28 Attorney in regard to the conduct of Guillen, providing additional specific information to the City, quoting inappropriate emails from Guillen, recommending that the City interview eight identified persons, and referencing other persons with direct knowledge of Guillen's actions. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the City did not interview all of those persons or analyze the documentary evidence in the City's actual or constructive possession, and did not take reasonable steps to acquire material information. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that Guillen put Female B in charge of the City's actions as to Plaintiffs claims, including the alleged retention of documents and communicating with City employees about the matter, effectively allowing Guillen to control and monitor the City's actions in regard to claims about Guillen's conduct, and providing notice to the employees that Female B was authorized by the City and Guillen to monitor the City's actions.
Source: COMPLAINT
JANE KINGSLEY MILLER, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants.
Case No. M99513
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF MONTEREY
The Burch declaration, which provides the primary evidentiary basis for the City's motion, is insubstantial and inadmissible.
Guillen and Heidi Burch are now involved in a relationship that is inappropriate for the work place. For more than a year before Guillen told me that he was eliminating my position for budgetary reasons, Guillen and Heidi Burch had almost daily meetings behind closed doors and went to lunch together on a daily basis. It's been observed by me and several other staff members that Guillen and Heidi often try to be secretive about their time together by coming and going out of separate doors at City Hall, but then joining up in the parking lot. They have gone together to functions outside the City, sometimes in circumstances that bring into question their professionalism and relationship.
Guillen hired Heidi on August I, 2005. Heidi had a good education, but no public sector or City Clerk experience. Her• starting salary was $5,379/rnonth. In February 2006, after six months on the job, Heidi received a step increase from step 2 to 3 which was equal to 5% increase in salary.
By March 2007, Heidi was unofficially "reclassified" by Guillen to City
Clerk/Deputy City Administrator for taking on more of Guillen's responsibilities. However, Guillen and Heidi continued to participate in most City Administrator functions jointly, rather than independently. In July 2007, Heidi was officially reclassified via the budget documents as City Clerk/Deputy City Administrator at a salary that was 19% higher. Later and prior to the new budget of 2008/09, without Council action, Guillen and Heidi decided that her title should be Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk. When I left in May 2008, Heidi had not been given a recent perfom1ance evaluation on the new job duties she had been assigned and no new job description had been created to categorize her duties. Her monthly salary in March 2008 was $9, 125/month.
Since 2005, Guillen increased Heidi Burch's salary by about 70%.
Source: Letter from Jane Miller to Mayor and City Council
Re: My Employment with the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
October 23, 2008
I have received your letter dated January 12, regarding the "investigation" that is underway. At the same time, my client, Jane Miller, has received two direct communications from Heidi Burch, where Ms. Burch makes certain demands and representations on behalf of the City, some of which are retaliatory.
As for the direct contact with Ms. Miller by Ms. Burch, I do not understand what the City hopes to accomplish with it. The evidence is overwhelming that Ms. Burch has been the beneficiary of Mr. Guillen's actions, and that Ms. Miller has made claims about that favoritism and about the role of Ms. Burch. Nevertheless, Ms. Burch has been authorized by the City to act on behalf of the City in regard to Ms. Miller, to bypass Ms. Miller's legal counsel, and to communicate directly with a represented party. It is hard to imagine a more inappropriate person to be designated to give orders and impose deadlines on Ms. Miller. Once more, as I did with Mr. Guillen's attempt to intimidate Ms. Miller back in May, I ask that the City not contact Ms. Miller directly. I also ask that Ms. Burch stop communicating directly with Ms. Miller.
Source: Letter from Michael Stamp, LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL W. STAMP, to Richard C. Bolanos, Liebert Cassidy, Attorney for the City, January 12, 2009
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
The City's motion to disqualify opposing counsel, Michael W. Stamp, is dated September 1, 2009. The City's sole factual basis for the City's allegations about the nature and extent of the former representations is the August 26, 2009 Declaration of Heidi Burch.
A careful review of those documents- the entire factual basis for the City’s motion- shows that Ms. Burch's characterizations of the documents were exaggerated, confused. misleading, and inaccurate. By comparing the Burch Declaration to the documents, it is apparent that Ms. Burch stretched the facts in efforts to create materiality and confidentiality.
Ms. Burch inaccurately describes each matter, as the records show.
BURCH CLAIM NO. 3.
Ms. Burch misstates the issue and the context of the cited material.
BURCH CLAIM NO. 4.
Ms. Burch misdescribes and distorts the 1987 documents in a troubling effort by the City to link them to the "personal relationship" of Mr. Guillen and Ms. Burch and of Mr. Guillen and Ms. Christie Miller in the current case.
BURCH CLAIM NO. 5.
Ms. Burch materially misstates the contents of the document.
BURCH CLAIM NO. 8.
The exaggeration by Ms. Burch is misleading.
Source: MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN RESPONSE TO CITY'S IN CAMERA DOCUMENTS
Michael W. Stamp, State Bar No. 72785
Molly E. Erickson, State Bar No. 253198
LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL W. STAMP
Attorneys for Plaintiff Jane Kingsley Miller
THE CITY FAILED TO MEET ITS BURDEN OF PROVING A DISQUALIFYING CONFLICT
The City's Showing - the Burch Declaration.
In filing this motion on September 1, 2009, the City stated under penalty of perjury that City Clerk Heidi Burch had accurately summarized the records that the City was relying upon for its claim of a substantial relationship between a former representation of the City and the Jane Miller case. The Burch declaration was the factual basis for the City's motion.
In the opposition filed October 8, 2009, Plaintiff Miller showed that Burch's declaration was not admissible because there was an insufficient foundation for any opinion. On October 23, 2009, this Court agreed, and ordered the City to produce the underlying documents for in camera review.
On November 9, 2009, Millers counsel got his first opportunity to address in any way the 106 City pages. At that time, Miller's counsel demonstrated that Burch's declaration supposedly summarizing the documents was materially false, stretched and exaggerated the truth, and grossly mischaracterized documents in an effort to fit them into the City's contention that there was an actual conflict with the Miller case.
In the City's most recent response filed November 17, the City makes no effort to correct the record, explain the Burch missteps, or show that the City did not in fact intend to mislead the Court and opposing counsel.
Source: PLAINTIFF'S CLOSING MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN REPLY TO CITY'S BRIEFING
Michael W. Stamp, State Bar No. 72785
Molly E. Erickson, State Bar No. 253198
LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL W. STAMP
Attorneys for Plaintiff Jane Kingsley Miller
ADDENDUM:
“Situational ethics, ethics that focuses on the ends, is not what government ethics is about. Government ethics is rules-based ethics. In rules-based ethics, one is supposed to employ the categorical imperative, that is, ask oneself if you would make the principle on which you act apply to everyone. Situational ethics is just the opposite; it assumes that principles apply or don't apply depending on who is in what situation. For example, campaign finance disclosure is important when the opposition isn't disclosing enough, but is unconstitutional when you or your supporters have something to hide.”
Carmel Residents Association Candidates Forum
Wednesday, February 29 @ 7:00 P.M.
Carpenter Hall, Sunset Center
W/s Mission St @ 9th Av.
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA.
Carmel Chamber of Commerce Candidates Forum
Thursday, March 8 @ 6:00 P.M. Church of the Wayfarer, Downstairs Hall
Lincoln St. & 7th Av., N.W. Corner
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA.
Carmel Pine Cone Candidates Forum
Tuesday, March 13 @ 7:00 P.M.
Carpenter Hall, Sunset Center
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA.
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 (partial list): Jason Stilwell, City Administrator
Heidi Burch, Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk
Don Freeman, City Attorney
Sean Conroy, Planning Services Manager
V. Announcements from Closed Session, from City Council Members and the City Administrator.
A. Announcements from Closed Session.
City Attorney Freeman stated the Council met in Closed Session (Monday, February 6, 2012). The two items on the agenda were:
1. Labor Negotiations – Government Code Section 54957.6(a) Meet and confer with the Carmel-by-the-Sea’s Meyers-Milias Brown Act representative, City Administrator Stilwell, to give direction regarding labor negotiations with the various bargaining units.
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.
City Attorney Freeman stated there were no announcements for the public on the first and second items.
B. Announcements from City Council members (Council members may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement or report on his or her activities).
C. Consideration of a Resolution accepting a grant from the California Coastal Conservancy in the amount of $250,000 to implement the Del Mar Master Plan and to authorize the City Administrator or his designee to execute the agreement and any other grant-related documents or amendments.
Sean Conroy, Planning Services Manager, stated grant includes planning and implementation.
Mayor McCloud opened and closed the meeting to public comment.
Council Member HAZDOVAC moved to approve Consent Agenda Items A-F, including Agenda Item C, seconded by Council Member BURNETT and carried unanimously.
VIII. Public Hearings
A. Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve a project with special conditions for the demolition of an existing residence located on Monte Verde, 2 N/E of Third Avenue. The appellant is Claudio Ortiz Design Group, on behalf of owner Plum Holdings, LLC.
Council Member Burnett recused himself due to his residence within 500 feet of the proposed project.
Sean Conroy, Planning Services Manager, presented the report, including a review of the Planning Commission’s ten special conditions for the project. The property owner is only appealing special conditions 5, 6 and 10.
Special Condition #5: The applicant is only permitted to install retaining walls for the driveway and rear patio. The driveway retaining walls shall taper down to the ground as they approach the street.
Special Condition #6: The applicant shall reduce the ridge height by two feet while maintaining the 6:12 roof pitch.
Special Condition #10: Any external changes to the project shall be brought before the Planning Commission for review.
Staff recommendation was to grant the appeal but revise Special Conditions 5, 6 and 10 as follows:
5. The applicant is only permitted to install retaining walls for the driveway, and rear patio, and south of the driveway to replace the existing retaining wall in roughly the same location. The driveway retaining walls shall taper down to the ground as they approach the street. The final landscape plan shall include plantings that will screen the retaining wall running south from the driveway to the extent possible and no new paving shall be added between the street edge and the wall.
6. The applicant shall reduce the ridge height by two feet one foot (1’).
10. The applicant shall submit in writing any proposed changes to the project plans as approved by the Planning Commission on 11 January 2012 and revised by the City Council on 7 February 2012, prior to incorporating changes on the site. If the applicant changes the project without first obtaining approval, the applicant will be required to either: a) Submit the change in writing and cease all work on the project until either the Planning Commission or staff has approved the change; or b) Eliminate the change and submit the proposed change in writing for review. The project will be reviewed for its compliance to the approved plans prior to final inspection approval.
Claudio Ortiz, representing Plum Holdings, addressed the Council, emphasizing an analysis of the terrain, safety and parking issues and input from the Fire Department. He stated his frustration is that they have complied with the Planning Commission’s requests through the process, specifically height issue, and the Commission mandates conditions without valid reasons for Commission’s imposed conditions. He spoke of their specific desires to maintain retaining wall in order to retain 4 feet of dirt and height allowance due to not encroaching on anyone’s privacy or views. He spoke of Commission’s “lack of commitment with residents” as reflected in Special Condition #10.
Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment.
A letter from a residence on Lincoln St. behind the site expressed support for the project and applicant and Claudio Ortiz
Another neighbor expressed support for the retaining wall and the applicant’s outreach to the community and was “disillusioned” by the Planning Commission.
Judie Profeta expressed support for the guidelines and the need to not have a Planning Commission which makes “arbitrary” decisions.
Malone Hodges addressed zoning and guidelines and the need to have a level playing field and expressed support for the project.
Monte Miller stated that the Planning Commissioners are polite and patient and have kept Carmel a world-class destination and advocated for the Council denying the appeal.
Barbara Livingston stated that she attended all three Planning Commission meetings on the project and the applicant did not comply with the Planning Commission’s requests. She expressed support for Special Condition #10 and advocated for the denial of the appeal.
A building addressed the three Special Conditions and stated that the retaining wall is “absolutely necessary.” He stated he was “appalled” by some of the Planning Commission’s comments regarding the design of the project. He urged approval of the appeal.
Fred Kern, the applicant, addressed the height of residence and stated he spoke with all the neighbors.
Roberta Miller addressed mass and bulk of project resembling three stories and style of architecture compared with other residences on street. She stated the applicant did not comply with Planning Commission’s requests for alternative designs. She urged Council to deny the appeal.
Another neighbor was “incredulous” regarding the “resistance of the Planning Commission” and “inconsistencies” and “illogic” of the Planning Commission. She addressed the stylistic variations of three projects Kern has built or remodeled nearby on the block. She stressed the importance of “fairness” and “beauty” and that the project improves the neighborhood.
Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment.
Claudio Ortiz stated that their project looks different from the other residences on the street, their project is 14 feet lower than the neighboring residence, their project is Mediterranean style whereas neighboring residence is Craftsman, their project uses Carmel stone whereas neighboring residence using linear stone. He stated that they complied with all Planning Commission requests, including garage location, green wall, green roof, window and door locations. And he stated they complied with all Planning Commission requests.
City Attorney Freeman stated that for appeals the staff represents the Planning Commissioners.
Council Member Hazdovac stated that the neighbors are supportive of the proposed project. She addressed retaining wall, architectural diversity, slope of terrain and Special Condition #10.
Council Member Sharp addressed retaining wall partially on right-of-way and the narrow street. She addressed Special Condition #10 and characterized it as “punitive” towards builder and height reduction condition of Planning Commission.
Council Member Talmage addressed the “challenging site” characterized by 23 degree pitch and the narrow street. The Planning Commission and the Staff do not agree on the project. He addressed the existing retaining wall and favored south “green” retaining wall on property. On ridge height, he favored 20 feet. He addressed Special Condition #10 and favored any external changes return to the Planning Commission.
Mayor McCloud expressed design concerns regarding “guest house” and retaining wall and existing tree.
Council Member TALMAGE moved to approve an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve a project with special conditions for the demolition of an existing residence located on Monte Verde, 2 N/E of Third Avenue, including south “green” retaining wall not in public right-of-way, ridge height of 20 feet, eliminate Special Condition #10, (Staff’s revised Special Conditions 5, 6 and 10), seconded by Council Member McCLOUD, and failed by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: TALMAGE
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: HAZDOVAC; SHARP; & McCLOUD
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BURNETT
Mayor McCloud stated that her “No” vote was a “protest vote” because she had asked Claudio Ortiz yesterday through a city planner to prepare a “visual” involving a change in roof pitch and did not receive it. City Attorney Freeman stated that a vote has to be based on a “land use issue” and everything else is off the table.
Council Member HAZDOVAC moved to approve an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve a project with special conditions for the demolition of an existing residence located on Monte Verde, 2 N/E of Third Avenue, including south “green” retaining wall not in public right-of-way, ridge height of 21 feet, eliminate Special Condition #10, (Staff’s revised Special Conditions 5, 6 and 10), seconded by Council Member SHARP, and failed by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: HAZDOVAC; SHARP
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: TALMAGE; McCLOUD
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BURNETT
Council Member TALMAGE moved to approve an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve a project with special conditions for the demolition of an existing residence located on Monte Verde, 2 N/E of Third Avenue, including south “green” retaining wall not in public right-of-way, ridge height of 20 feet, eliminate Special Condition #10, (Staff’s revised Special Conditions 5, 6 and 10), seconded by Council Member SHARP, and passed by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: HAZDOVAC; SHARP; TALMAGE & McCLOUD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BURNETT
X. Resolutions
B. Consideration of a Resolution appointing the Mayor and a designated Councilmember to represent the City on the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority.
Mayor McCloud presented the brief report, including the political aspect of the process.
Council Member Talmage stated he volunteered to be the designated Councilmember alternate to represent the City.
Mayor McCloud opened and closed the meeting to public comment.
Council Member HAZDOVAC moved to approve a Resolution appointing the Mayor and designating Councilmember Talmage to represent the City on the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority, seconded by Council Member BURNETT, and passed by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BURNETT; HAZDOVAC; SHARP; TALMAGE & McCLOUD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
XI. Orders of Council
C. Adopt updated Harassment Prevention Policy.
City Attorney Don Freeman stated the City currently has a Policy. As a result of an “unfortunate experience” the Policy was “revisited.” The City contracted with a law firm, but the city attorney reorganized the Policy. He reviewed the Policy, including reporting requirements, types of behavior, “no retaliation” permitted, past penalty section and elaborate examples eliminated, investigator responsibilities attached as an Exhibit, expanded to include Council Members, volunteers and contractors. Policy will only be effective with training every two years and City following Policy.
Council Member Sharp queried and commented on Policy.
To Council Member Ken Talmage query regarding city employees, City Administrator Stilwell stated that the final draft was given to labor unions and their feedback is incorporated in the Policy.
Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment
Jim Emery addressed a type of harassment, namely shunning or ostracism of an unfavored employee, and consensual relationship between supervisor and subordinate city employee causing a “destructive” atmosphere. One of the flaws in the last experience was the biased investigation by an external party and therefore there must be an unbiased investigator.
Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment.
City Attorney Freeman stated that certain requirements are “unenforceable.”
To Council Member Talmage’s query about references to HR Manager and the need for a designated HR Manager, City Administrator Stilwell stated that the designated HR Manager is the Administrative Services Director, currently Heidi Burch, Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk.
To Council Member Burnett’s query about mandatory training for everyone every two years, City Attorney Freeman stated that could be included in the Policy or as a separate item.
Council Member BURNETT moved to approve the Policy moving first sentence to policy section, specify training every two years for elected and appointed officials, volunteers and staff, a signed copy in files for all individuals covered in policy, add two business days for reporting, seconded by Council Member TALMAGE, and passed 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
E. Approve amendments to the contracts with the Board of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System and the City Council as follows:
1) A Resolution of Intent and first reading of an Ordinance amending provisions of Municipal Code Section 2.56 (Retirement System) establishing a 2% at 60, FAS Retirement Plan for Miscellaneous Employees hired on or after April 15, 2012.
2) A Resolution of Intent and first reading of an Ordinance amending provisions of Municipal Code Section 2.56 (Retirement System) Establishing a 2% at 50, FAS Retirement Plan for Safety Employees hired by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea on or after April l5, 2012.
City Administrator Stilwell presented the Staff Report, including implementation of CalPERS Committee’s recommendation of adopting a new tier for Miscellaneous Employees and Safety Employees. CalPERS has completed valuations and requires Council to adopt policies and ordinances for implementation of the new tier policy. There are two packets of information; one packet for Miscellaneous Employees and one packet for Safety Employees. Both contain Resolutions of Intent to Adopt an Ordinance and first reading of Ordinance, second reading at the March 6 meeting, and thus allow the City to hire new employees beginning on April 16, 2012.
To Council Member Talmage’s queries about safety employees, City Administrator Stilwell stated that safety employees include police, ambulance and fire employees.
Mayor McCloud opened and closed the meeting to public comment.
Council Member BURNETT moved to approve a Resolution of Intent of an Ordinance amending provisions of Municipal Code Section 2.56 (Retirement System) establishing a 2% at 60, FAS Retirement Plan for Miscellaneous Employees hired on or after April 15, 2012, seconded by Council Member HAZDOVAC, and passed 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 BURNETT moved to approve a first reading of an Ordinance amending provisions of Municipal Code Section 2.56 (Retirement System) establishing a 2% at 60, FAS Retirement Plan for Miscellaneous Employees hired on or after April 15, 2012, seconded by Council Member HAZDOVAC, and passed 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 BURNETT moved to approve a Resolution of Intent of an Ordinance amending provisions of Municipal Code Section 2.56 (Retirement System) Establishing a 2% at 50, FAS Retirement Plan for Safety Employees hired by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea on or after April l5, 2012, seconded by Council Member HAZDOVAC, and passed 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 BURNETT moved to approve a first reading of an Ordinance amending provisions of Municipal Code Section 2.56 (Retirement System) Establishing a 2% at 50, FAS Retirement Plan for Safety Employees hired by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea on or after April l5, 2012, seconded by Council Member HAZDOVAC, and passed 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
ABSTRACT: Seven Noteworthy 7 February 2012 City Council Agenda Items, namely Announcements from Closed Session; Receive Mayor's Annual Report; a Resolution accepting a grant from the California Coastal Conservancy in the amount of $250,000 to implement the Del Mar Master Plan and to authorize the City Administrator or his designee to execute the agreement and any other grant-related documents or amendments; an Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve a project with special conditions for the demolition of an existing residence located on Monte Verde, 2 N/E of Third Avenue. The appellant is Claudio Ortiz Design Group, on behalf of owner Plum Holdings, LLC.; a Resolution appointing the Mayor and a designated Councilmember to represent the City on the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority; Adopt updated Harassment Prevention Policy; Approve amendments to the contracts with the Board of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System and the City Council as follows: 1) A Resolution of Intent and first reading of an Ordinance amending provisions of Municipal Code Section 2.56 (Retirement System) establishing a 2% at 60, FAS Retirement Plan for Miscellaneous Employees hired on or after April 15, 2012. 2) A Resolution of Intent and first reading of an Ordinance amending provisions of Municipal Code Section 2.56 (Retirement System) Establishing a 2% at 50, FAS Retirement Plan for Safety Employees hired by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea on or after April l5, 2012; are presented. Excerpts of Agenda Item Summaries, Staff Reports, et cetera are reproduced; and the letter from appellant Claudio Ortiz Design Group, on behalf of owner Plum Holdings, LLC., the City’s HARASSMENT PREVENTION POLICY and Resolution of Intent to Adopt an Ordinance on March 6, 2012 amending the CalPERS Contract documents are embedded.
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 – Government Code Section 54957.6(a) Meet and confer with the Carmel-by-the-Sea’s Meyers-Milias Brown Act representative, City Administrator Stilwell, to give direction regarding labor negotiations with the various bargaining units.
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.
B. Announcements from City Council members (Council members may ask
a question for clarification, make a brief announcement or report on his or
her activities).
1. Receive Mayor's Annual Report.
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.
C. Consideration of a Resolution accepting a grant from the California
Coastal Conservancy in the amount of $250,000 to implement the Del Mar
Master Plan and to authorize the City Administrator or his designee to
execute the agreement and any other grant-related documents or amendments.
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 a project with special conditions for the demolition of an existing residence located on Monte Verde, 2 N/E of Third Avenue. The appellant is Claudio Ortiz Design Group, on behalf of owner Plum Holdings, LLC.
Description: The Planning Commission approved the project with 10 special conditions. The appellant is requesting that three of the special conditions for the project approval be removed. The project is located on Monte Verde 3 NE of Third A venue (Block 31 Lot 14).
Staff Recommendation: Grant the appeal but revise the special conditions.
Important Considerations: The Planning Commission is the decision making body for Track Two Design Review project. CMC Section 17.54.040.C indicates that Commission decisions can be appealed to the City Council. Council Member Burnett lives within 500 feet of this property, so must recuse himself from considering this appeal.
Decision Record: On January 11, 2012 the Planning Commission unanimously approved this project with special conditions.
BACKGROUND & PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This site is located on Monte Verde Street three northeast of Third Avenue and is developed with a one-story residence, a detached garage and a subordinate unit. The subject property slopes from east to west at approximately 23%. The property contains 12 trees, six of which are significant.
The applicant is proposing to construct a new two-story residence with a guesthouse. The proposed residence has three levels, but is designed so that no portion of the building qualifies as three stories. The residence includes a 1,341 square foot main (upper) floor, a 1,088-square-foot middle floor (367 sq. ft. devoted to guesthouse) and a 670 square foot basement that includes a garage with tandem parking.
The Planning Commission reviewed this project on three separate hearings and on January 11, 2012 unanimously approved the project with ten special conditions (see attachment “A”). The property owner is appealing three of these conditions.
APPEAL
The property owner’s representative filed an appeal on January 11, 2012. The property owner is only appealing special conditions 5, 6 and 10. The appellant has provided a letter outlining the basis for the appeal (see attachment “B”).
Special Condition #5: The applicant is only permitted to install retaining walls for the driveway and rear patio. The driveway retaining walls shall taper down to the ground as they approach the street.
Special Condition #6: The applicant shall reduce the ridge height by two feet while maintaining the 6:12 roof pitch.
Special Condition #10: Any external changes to the project shall be brought before the Planning Commission for review.
RECOMMENDATION
Grant the appeal but revise Special Conditions 5, 6 and 10 as follows:
5. The applicant is only permitted to install retaining walls for the driveway, and rear patio, and south of the driveway to replace the existing retaining wall in roughly the same location. The driveway retaining walls shall taper down to the ground as they approach the street. The final landscape plan shall include plantings that will screen the retaining wall running south from the driveway to the extent possible and no new paving shall be added between the street edge and the wall.
6. The applicant shall reduce the ridge height by two feet one foot (1’) .
10. The applicant shall submit in writing any proposed changes to the project plans as approved by the Planning Commission on 11 January 2012 and revised by the City Council on 7 February 2012, prior to incorporating changes on the site. If the applicant changes the project without first obtaining approval, the applicant will be required to either: a) Submit the change in writing and cease all work on the project until either the Planning Commission or staff has approved the change; or b) Eliminate the change and submit the proposed change in writing for review. The project will be reviewed for its compliance to the approved plans prior to final inspection approval.”
Attachment "A" Special Conditions
1. The applicant shall plant one upper-canopy tree of substantial size and caliber and of a species approved by the City Forester. The tree shall be planted onsite located approximately 10 feet from any building and shown on the final landscape plan submitted with the building permit application.
2. The guesthouse shall not be used as a subordinate unit or permanent living facility.
3. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit for all encroachments into the right of way prior to the issuance of a building permit.
4. The walkway opening on the lower floor shall remain unenclosed.
5. The applicant is only permitted to install retaining walls for the driveway and rear patio. The driveway retaining walls shall taper down to the ground as they approach the street.
6. The applicant shall reduce the ridge height by two feet while maintaining the 6:12 roof pitch.
7. The applicant shall revise the front entry stairs so that they follow the natural grade.
8. The applicant shall eliminate the front portion of the crawlspace that extends beyond the footprint of the house.
9. The soil on the green roof above the garage shall be sloped and not terraced as shown on the plans.
10. Any external changes to the project shall be brought before the Planning Commission for review.
Claudio Ortiz, Principal, Claudio Ortiz Design Group, Inc. (CODG) Plum Holdings, LLC Appellant Letter
X. Resolutions
B. Consideration of a Resolution appointing the Mayor and a designated
Councilmember to represent the City on the Monterey Peninsula Regional
Water Authority.
Description: The mayors of the six Peninsula cities (Carmel, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Seaside, Sand City, and Del Rey Oaks) determined that it is in their best interest to form a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) to provide a diverse array of options to undertake actions with regard to development of the Regional Project or one or more alternative water supply projects to offset the water supply restrictions. The Authority will provide a public forum to deliberate and participate in the governance of such water supply projects that includes representation directly accountable to the customers served by California-American Water (Cal Am). The Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council approved participating in the JPA on January 10, 2012, and the other five cities have subsequently done so.
Each city will appoint a director and an alternate director from its elected body to serve as a member of the Authority.
Fiscal Impact: N/ A
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution appointing the Mayor to be the City's director and a Councilmember to be the alternate director to the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority.
Decision Record: City Council approved Resolution 2012-4 (January 10, 2012) approving the City's participation in the six-city Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority.
XI. Orders of Council
C. Adopt updated Harassment Prevention Policy.
Description: At the direction of Council, City Attorney Don Freeman has prepared an updated draft of the City's Harassment Prevention Policy. The draft was circulated to the employee unions and at-will employees for their comments. The comments were compiled by the City Administrator.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the updated Harassment Prevention Policy.
Important Considerations: None.
Decision Record: At the May 3, 2011 City Council meeting, City Attorney Don Freeman recommended that Council table consideration of an updated harassment policy until Fall 2011. City Council unanimously voted to retain the existing harassment prevention policy and requested the City Attorney and City Administrator determine how the existing policy has been working in practice.
E. Approve amendments to the contracts with the Board of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System and the City Council as follows:
1) A Resolution of Intent and first reading of an Ordinance amending provisions of Municipal Code Section 2.56 (Retirement System) establishing a 2% at 60, FAS Retirement Plan for Miscellaneous Employees hired on or
after April 15, 2012.
2) A Resolution of Intent and first reading of an Ordinance amending provisions of Municipal Code Section 2.56 (Retirement System) Establishing a 2% at 50, FAS Retirement Plan for Safety Employees hired by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea on or after April l5, 2012.
“The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive.”
---Thomas Jefferson November 13, 1787, Letter to William S. Smith
On 3 November 2009, the “will of the people” was, as follows: 913 Carmel-by-the-Sea voters (62%) voted to approve Measure I and 552 Carmel-by-the-Sea voters (38%) voted against Measure I, which stated:
"Approve discontinuance and abandonment of, and authorization to sell, Flanders mansion property public parkland. Shall discontinuance and abandonment of the Flanders Mansion Property (APN 010-061-005) as public parkland, and authorization to sell the Flanders Mansion Property "with Conservation Easements and Mitigation" as passed on May 12, 2009 by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council by Resolutions No. 2009-30 through 2009-33, be approved?"
Moving forward, given the prospect of another vote on the sale of Flanders Mansion, Carmel-by-the-Sea voters would be wise to consider the following:
• The Flanders Mansion, a National Register of Historic Places property, one of only two properties in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, is “located within, and surrounded on all sides by Mission Trail Nature Preserve,” the City’s largest park. The City’s General Plan/Local Coastal Plan supports the preservation, protection and enhancement of historic structures, parkland and open space. A sale of the Flanders Mansion Property would create an in-holding within Mission Trail Nature Preserve. The creation of a private in-holding in a pubic park is the antithesis of good planning policy and often results in conflicts between private owners and public park users.
• In carrying out the policies of the General Plan/Local Coastal Plan, the City’s Historic Resources Board, Forest and Beach Commission and Planning Commission are responsible for the preservation and protection of historic resources and parkland.
• In Environmental Impact Reports, the identified “Environmentally Superior Alternative” was the Lease Alternative because “that alternative would reduce impacts to historic resources and park resources since the City would retain ownership. In addition, the 2005 DEIR also determined that the Lease Alternative would minimize potential impacts on adjacent parkland since the property would be retained by the City. Moreover, it was also determined that this alternative would avoid significant and unavoidable impacts related to 1) land use and planning, and 2) parks and recreation.”
• The Mayor’s and City Councils’ decisions to sell the Flanders Mansion Property have resulted in taxpayer expenditures of $1,047,319.39, as of the City's December 2011 Check Register. Initial expenditures were required for environmental impact reports as required under CEQA. Subsequent litigation expenditures were required due to a Superior Court Judge determining that the City violated its Municipal Code with respect to maintenance and upkeep of historic structures and the City violated state law in not allowing a public vote to sell Flanders Mansion. Ergo, without litigation, the City would have continued to violate the Municipal Code and State law. Therefore, contrary to recent letters to the editor and public perception, city expenditures have been the result of the City violating municipal and state laws.
• Since Sue McCloud became Mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea in 2000, the City has failed to place the issue of a potential use for the Flanders Mansion on a public agenda and has failed to negotiate in good faith with parties expressing interest in a life estate, lease and/or curatorship. Moreover, during the past twelve years, the City did not apply for grants or solicit donations for Flanders Mansion.
• As recognized by the Sierra Club, Ventana Chapter, “This park is also a county asset. There are monthly walks with cultural and natural history talks. This nature preserve is a unique regional asset and must be protected for future generations.” And, consistent with the City’s General Plan/Local Coastal Plan, as follows: “The purpose of the City’s General Plan/Local Coastal Plan is to favor the general interest over the special interest in order to give durability to the Carmel experience and our special quality of living.”
After carefully considering the aforementioned facts, we, Carmel-by-the-Sea voters, should ask ourselves: Is it consistent with our values and our General Plan/Local Coastal Plan to sell a National Register of Historic Places resource in Mission Trail Nature Preserve? Would our interests be best served if we explored alternative options for potential uses of the Flanders Mansion at public meetings where we can engage in a consensus-driven process to determine the best use for the Flanders Mansion in the context of Mission Trail Nature Preserve? Is it possible that the City, in its myopic intent to sell the Flanders Mansion, colluded with the local media to present a distorted and misleading presentation of all the facts surrounding the sale of the Flanders Mansion and manipulated a majority of voters into voting to sell a cultural resource when it arguably is in our best interest to retain an irreplaceable, historic resource and celebrate its contribution to our village character, natural beauty and unique sense of place?
Carmel Art Association A Proud Heritage: "Since 1927, this historic Carmel gallery has been a showcase for the works of some of California's most renowned artists. Continuing that proud tradition today, the CAA features paintings and sculpture by over 120 of the area's most noted professional artists living on the Central Coast."
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
For more information, Online or (831) 624-6176.
RETROSPECTIVE: GERALD WASSERMAN (1920-2011) (Center Room):
Curated by Gerald Wasserman’s friend, artist and art historian Dick Crispo, the Retrospective features Gerald Wasserman’s diverse body of work which spanned decades, including paintings in oil, gouache and watercolor, pen and ink and graphite drawings, monotype prints and bronze sculpture. Much of his artwork was inspired by the human figure, abstract and real presentations. View Wasserman’s painting images, including “Caffe´ Barocco,” Caffe´ Vecchia, Roma,” “Lo Stazione Bar” and “Caffe´ Cortona, ” et cetera. View Gerald Wasserman - New Work: 90th Birthday Exhibition (November 4 - 30, 2010) of twelve painting images, including Eurydice's Address, Persephone's Plan, The Golden Crown, Athene, Zeus, Helene, "321," Apollo, Kouros, Pericles Power, Ariadne's Arc and Euripides Euros. And view Gallery Showcase - Gerald Wasserman "Viva Mexico" (July 3 - August 5, 2008) of five painting images, including Wasserman 1, Wasserman 2, Wasserman 3, Wasserman 4 and Wasserman 5.
Painter Heidi Hybl exhibits abstract oil paintings inspired by the Big Sur coastline. View brief biography and three oil painting images including "Some Red," "Big Picture" and "Evolution.”
Opening Reception - Saturday, February 4, 6:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M.
