OPINION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, AG LAND TRUST, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT, Defendant and Appellant: Judgment Reversed & Matter Remanded with Directions to the Trial Court to Dismiss the Petition for Writ of Mandate as Moot

RELATED NEWS ARTICLE:
Failed desal project: Court rules appeal moot
Reverses decision on EIR
By JIM JOHNSON Herald Staff Writer, 08/29/2013

Highlight Excerpts:
In a ruling issued Monday, the Sixth District Court of Appeal found the Marina Coast Water District's appeal of a decision by a Monterey County judge that the project's EIR was inadequate is "moot," or irrelevant, because both sides agree the project is essentially dead.
The appeals court rejected requests by attorneys for Marina Coast and Ag Land Trust, which challenged the EIR in court, to issue even an advisory opinion on the merits of the appeal issues.
The three regional project partners, including the county Water Resources Agency, are still locked in a San Francisco Superior Court battle aimed at determining if the project agreements are still valid and if so which party was responsible for breaching them, and thus could be held responsible for the project's stranded costs.

ABSTRACT: In an uncertified opinion, filed 26 August 2013, IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, AG LAND TRUST, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT, Defendant and Appellant, The Disposition: “The judgment is reversed and the matter is remanded with directions to the trial court to dismiss the petition for writ of mandate as moot. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal,” Bamattre-Manoukian, Patricia and Marquez, Miguel (Concur) Elia, Franklin D. (Concur). The Opinion is embedded.

AG Land Trust v. Marina Coast Water Dist. Opinion H038550

Filed 8/26/13
Opinion (uncertified)
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT AG LAND TRUST, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT, Defendant and Appellant.

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) REGULAR MEETING CANCELLATION NOTICE August 22, 2013

Regular Meeting Cancellation Notice 08-22-13 CANCELLATION NOTICE, REGULAR MEETING
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
August 22, 2013

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) REGULAR MEETING August 19, 2013

TAC MPRWA Agenda Packet 08-19-13 AGENDA PACKET, REGULAR MEETING

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
August 19, 2013

TAC MPRWA Draft Minutes 08-19-13 DRAFT MINUTES, REGULAR MEETING

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
August 19, 2013

ROBERT MULLANE (AICP): New Community Planning & Building Director

ABSTRACT:  After nearly ten years without a Community Planning & Building Director, the City announced the hiring of a new Community Planning & Building Director, Robert Mullane, American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP), on August 6, 2013.  Mullane is set to start on Monday, August 26, 2013 and will receive a $154,000 annual salary, according to reporting in The Monterey County Herald.  Mulane’s EMPLOYMENT HISTORY, EDUCATION are featured; and RELATED INFORMATION, INTERVIEW & NEWS ARTICLE links are provided.  Interestingly, when asked by Ojai Valley News (OVN) “What are your proudest achievements in municipal work so far?”  Mullane responded: “I think in my capacity at Rincon Consultants, I provided staffing of their planning department, and carried forth both important projects, and important changes to their planning code. One of those was setting the building code for city of Guadalupe, which previously had a lot of flaws. That was a good experience.”

“Another would be a large coastal land swap for the city of Goleta when they hired me. It was a pretty complex land swap, basically it involved selling a portion of a coastal park to a developer, moving (the development) away from a very environmentally sensitive area. Development of that piece of property had been tied up in litigation for years and years. Once the city brought forth the idea of a land swap and gave the developer the opportunity to develop on part of the park, it allowed movement forward of the Ellwood Mesa land swap. And I was involved in the review of that development, some of the arrangement for the land swap. There was $21 million in fund raising (because the size of the new property was substantially smaller than what the developer was giving up). Ultimately, that project went on to win American Planning Association recognition at state level, as well as the Helen Putnam Award. It was a prestigious accomplishment. And it involved a low-scale development of a parking lot, the city of Goleta, the city of Santa Barbara, and UCSB. It’s gratifying to see the parking lot (in the finished development), and also the butterflies in wintertime, raptors, all kinds of hawks. It’s very satisfying. It’s a really beautiful spot.”

  

EMPLOYMENT HISTORY

Community Development Director

City of Ojai

Government Agency; 11-50 employees; Government Administration industry

March 2012 – August 2013 (1 year 6 months)

Planning Manager

Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Privately Held; 51-200 employees; Environmental Services industry

June 2007 – March 2012 (4 years 10 months)

Senior Planner

City of Goleta

Government Agency; 11-50 employees; Government Administration industry

June 2003 – June 2007 (4 years 1 month)

Planner III

County of Santa Barbara

Government Agency; 1-10 employees; Public Safety industry

January 2001 – June 2003 (2 years 6 months)

Coastal Processes Extension Agent

University of Hawaii Sea Grant

September 1996 – January 2001 (4 years 5 months)

EDUCATION

University of Hawaii at Manoa

M.S., Geology and Geophysics

1993 – 1996

Duke University

B.S., Geology

1989 – 1993

RELATED INFORMATION, INTERVIEW & NEWS ARTICLE

City of Ojai

Community Development Department

Mullane New Community Development Director

Ojai Valley News Blog

March 31st, 2012 

Former Ojai official named Carmel director of planning and building

The Monterey County Herald
Herald Staff Report, 08/07/2013

New planning and building director to start Aug. 26

By MARY SCHLEY, The Carmel Pine Cone

Published: August 9, 2013

John Hanson, First Sergeant, U.S. Army National Guard (Retired), Legion of Merit Medal Recipient

ABSTRACT:  Today, August 10, 2013, John Hanson was awarded the Legion of Merit Medal “for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding services and achievements” in San Diego, CA.  Information about the medals awarded to John Hanson, including the Legion of Merit Medal and the Bronze Star, are presented. Five days earlier, on Monday, August 5, 2013, after 26 years in city employment, Building Official and Reserve Carmel Police Officer John Hanson was fired at the Carmel police station. “This week, city administrator Jason Stilwell wouldn’t say why he fired Hanson, and Hanson did not want to comment about anything having to do with the city or his termination, which was done in the presence of CPD Chief Mike Calhoun,” according to reporting in The Carmel Pine Cone.

RELATED NEWS ARTICLE: 
Building official fired after weeks of paid leave
By MARY SCHLEY, The Carmel Pine Cone

Published: August 9, 2013

Legion of Merit Medal

Service: All Services

Instituted: 1942 (retroactive to 8 Sept 1939)

Legion of Merit Medal Criteria: Exceptionally merit­orious conduct in the per­formance of outstanding services to the United States

Devices: Army/Air Force: Bronze, Silver Oak Leaf Cluster; Navy/Mar­ine Corps/Coast Guard: Bronze Letter “V” Device (for valor), Gold, Silver Star

Notes: Issued in four deg­rees (Legionnaire, Officer, Commander & Chief Commander) to foreign nationals

The Legion of Merit Medal was Authorized by Congress on July 20, 1942 to award to members of the Armed Forces of the United States for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service. Superior performance of normal duties will not alone justify award of this decoration. This military medal is not awarded for heroism, but rather service and achievement while performing duties in a key position of responsibility. It may be presented to foreign personnel, but is not authorized for presentation to civilian personnel. There are four degrees of this decoration that are awarded to foreign personnel only (Chief Commander, Commander, Officer and Legionnaire). The first two degrees are comparable in rank to the Distinguished Service Medal and are usually awarded to heads of state and to commanders of armed forces, respectively. The last two degrees are comparable in rank to the award of the Legion of Merit Medal to U.S. service members. The Legion of Merit was designed by Colonel Robert Townsend Heard and sculpted by Katharine W. Lane of Boston.

The name and design of the Legion of Merit was strongly influenced by the French Legion of Honor. The medal is a white enameled five-armed cross with ten points, each tipped with a gold ball and bordered in red enamel. In the center of the cross, thirteen stars on a blue field are surrounded by a circle of heraldic clouds. A green enameled laurel wreath circles behind the arms of the cross. Between the wreath and the center of the medal, in between the arms of the cross are two crossed arrows pointing outward. The blue circle with thirteen stars surrounded by clouds is taken from the Great Seal of the United States and is symbolic of a “new constellation,” as the signers of the Declaration of Independence called our new republic. The laurel wreath represents achievement, while the arrows represent protection of the nation. The reverse of the cross is a gold colored copy of the front with blank space to be used for engraving. The raised inscription, “ANNUIT COEPTIS MDCCLXXXII” with a bullet separating each word encircles the area to be engraved. The words, “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA” and “ANNUIT COEPTIS” (He [God] Has Favored Our Undertaking) come from the Great Seal of the United States and the date, “MDCCLXXXII” (1782) refers to the year General Washington established the Badge of Military Merit. The ribbon is a purple-red called American Beauty Red which is edged in white. The color is a variation of the original color of the Badge of Military Merit.

Bronze Star Medal

Service: All Services

Instituted: 1944 (retroactive to 7 Dec. 1941)

Criteria: The Bronze Star Medal is awarded to individuals who, while serving in the United States Armed Forces in a combat theater, distinguish themselves by heroism, outstanding achievement or by meritorious service not involving aerial flight

Devices: Bronze Letter “V” (for Valor) Army/Air Force: Bronze, Silver Oak Leaf Cluster; Navy/Marine Corps/Coast Guard: Gold, Silver Star

Notes: Awarded for meritorious service to WW II holders of Army Combat Infantryman or Combat Medical Badge

Authorized on February 4, 1944, retroactive to December 7, 1941. It is awarded to individuals who, while serving in the United States Armed Forces in a combat theater, distinguish themselves by heroism, outstanding achievement or by meritorious service not involving aerial flight.

The Bronze Star was originally conceived by the U.S. Navy as a junior decoration comparable to the Air Medal for heroic or meritorious actions by ground and surface personnel. The level of required service would not be sufficient to warrant the Silver Star if awarded for heroism or the Legion of Merit if awarded for meritorious achievement. In a strange twist of fate, the Bronze Star Medal did not reach fruition until championed by General George C. Marshall, the Army Chief of Staff during World War II. Marshall was seeking a decoration that would reward front line troops, particularly infantrymen, whose ranks suffered the heaviest casualties and were forced to endure the greatest danger and hardships during the conflict. Once established, the Bronze Star Medal virtually became the sole province of the Army in terms of the number of medals awarded.

Although Marshall wanted the Bronze Star Medal to be awarded with the same freedom as the Air Medal, it never came close to the vast numbers of Air Medals distributed during the war. The only exception was the award of the Bronze Star Medal to every soldier of the 101st Airborne Division who had fought in the Normandy invasion, Operation Market Garden in Holland, the Battle of the Bulge or were wounded.

After the war, when the ratio of Air Medals to airmen was compared to the numbers of Bronze Star Medals awarded to combat soldiers, it became clear that a huge disparity existed and many troops who deserved the award for their service had not received it. Therefore, in September 1947, the Bronze Star Medal was authorized for all personnel who had received either the Combat Infantryman’s Badge (CIB) or the Combat Medical Badge (CMB) between December 7, 1941 to September 2, 1945. In addition, personnel who had participated in the defense of the Philippine Islands between December 7, 1941 and May 10, 1942 were awarded the Bronze Star Medal if their service was on the island of Luzon, the Bataan Peninsula or the harbor defenses on Corregidor Island and they had been awarded the Philippine Presidential Unit Citation. The Bronze Star Medal also replaced some awards of the Purple Heart from early in World War II when that medal was awarded for meritorious or essential service rather than for wounds.

Recipients of the Bronze Star Medal are entitled to wear a “V” device on the ribbon bar and suspension ribbon if the Medal is awarded for heroism in combat. The “V” device was approved in 1945 to clearly distinguish between awards of the medal for heroism in combat or for meritorious service. Additional awards are denoted by bronze and silver oak leaf clusters or gold and silver stars, depending on the recipient’s Service Branch.

The Bronze Star Medal is a five-pointed bronze star with a smaller star in the center (similar in design to the Silver Star Medal); the reverse contains the inscription, “HEROIC OR MERITORIOUS ACHIEVEMENT” in a circular pattern. The ribbon is red with a white-edged blue band in the center and white edge stripes. The Bronze Star Medal was designed by Rudolf Freund of Bailey, Banks and Biddle.

PEBBLE BEACH Authors & IDEAS Festival 2013 at Stevenson School; Formerly Carmel Authors & Ideas Festival at Sunset Center

RELATED NEWS ARTICLE:
Authors Fest moves to Stevenson after contract dispute with Sunset
By MARY SCHLEY, The Carmel Pine Cone, August 30, 2013
Highlight Excerpts:
McGillen, however, said the center’s leadership is incapable of making decisions, that price increases pushed him out — even as he continues to hold the ticket price at $550 for the entire festival and limit the number sold to a couple hundred — and that the board is dysfunctional.
The fact that the fest easily found a new home after McGillen contacted people he knew at the schools, and that he’s more than satisfied with the outcome, “don’t negate the fact there are major problems at Sunset Center,” he said.

ABSTRACT:  The PEBBLE BEACH Authors & IDEAS Festival, (the seventh annual Authors & Ideas Festival) presents thirty-six award winning authors and speakers at Stevenson School between Friday, September 27 – Sunday, September 29, 2013.  Founders Cynthia & Jim McGillen now host the Festival in Pebble Beach; the Carmel Ideas Foundation remains the California nonprofit corporation.  For more information INFO@CARMELAUTHORS.COM // 831-626-6243 PO BOX 2424, CARMEL, CALIFORNIA 93921.  Information from the State of California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General website, is reproduced.  IRS Forms 990 Year 2011 (IRS Process Date 07-10-2012), Year 2010 (IRS Process Date 06-02-2011) Year 2009 (IRS Process Date 05-08-2010), Year 2008 (IRS Process Date 12/15/2009), Year 2007 (IRS Process Date 01/05/2009) documents are embedded.

Note: Authors and IDEAS Festival on facebook

CARMEL IDEAS FOUNDATION

Address

CARMEL IDEAS FOUNDATION
C/O: JAMES & CYNTHIA MC GILLEN
PO BOX 2424
CARMEL,  CA  93921-2424

Financial Snapshot (for Form Year 2011)

Revenue: $476,360

Assets: $50,684

Contributions: $345,400

IRS Business Master File Information

The following information comes directly from the IRS and is posted here without any changes. If information for your organization is not right, please contact IRS Customer Account Services at 1-877-829-5500 to correct it.

EIN: 010903800
Ruling Date: 12/2007
NTEE: A60 - PERFORMING ARTS
ERI NTEE: A60 - PERFORMING ARTS 

Group Exemption Number:0000
SubSection: 03 - Charitable Organizations
Affiliate: 3 - Independent - This code is used if the organization is an independent organization or an independent auxiliary (i.e., not affiliated with a National, Regional, or Geographic grouping of organizations).
Classification:1 - Corporation
Deductibility: 1 - Contributions are deductible.
Foundation: 15 - Organization which receives a substantial part of its support from a governmental unit or the general public
Filing Requirement: 01 -

Source: State of California Department of Justice

Office of the Attorney General website

 Carmel Ideas Foundation Forms 990 2011-2007

Carmel Ideas Foundation

Available 990s Years 2011-2007

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) REGULAR MEETING AGENDA & MINUTES August 8, 2013

 MPRWA Regular Meeting Agenda Packet 08-08-13

AGENDA PACKET, REGULAR MEETING
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
August 8, 2013
including AGENDA ITEM
3. Receive Report, Discuss, and Provide Recommendations Regarding Trip to Poseidon Desalination Facility – Cullem –

Mprwa Minutes 08-08-13 DRAFT MINUTES REGULAR MEETING
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
August 8, 2013

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD FINAL REVIEW OF CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER COMPANY’S MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT (MPWSP)

ABSTRACT:  The STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD FINAL REVIEW OF CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER COMPANY’S MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT (PROPOSED IN APPLICATION 12-04-019) document, including cover letter, dated July 31, 2013 is embedded. Conclusion states: The key determination is whether Cal-Am may extract water from the SVGB while avoiding injury to other groundwater users and protecting beneficial uses in the Basin. If the MPWSP is constructed with gravity wells or pumping wells the effects on the aquifer would be the same as long as the amount of drawdown in the wells is the same. But in the case of a pumped well, the operator has the ability to induce greater drawdown than they would in the gravity wells. In this case, there would be a greater effect to the aquifer. Since modeling has not been completed for the gravity well scenario, it is unknown at this time the total effect the gravity wells would have on the Basin and other groundwater users.
If the MPWSP is constructed as described in the FEIR for the North Marina Project, the slant wells would pump from the unconfined Dune Sand Aquifer. If groundwater is pumped from an unconfined aquifer and the modeling assumptions in the FEIR for the North Marina Project are accurate, there will be lowering of groundwater levels within an approximate 2-mile radius. Since seawater intrusion occurs in this area, this water developed through desalination is likely new water that is “surplus” to the current needs of other users in the Basin. Based on the information available, it is unlikely any injury would occur by the lowering of the groundwater levels in this region. Nevertheless, Cal-Am must show there is no injury and if the MPWSP reduces the amount of fresh water available to other legal users of water in the Basin or reduces the water quality so that users are no longer able to use the water for the same beneficial use, such impacts would need to be avoided or compensated for.

If the proposed slant wells are determined to be infeasible, and the project is instead designed to extract groundwater with conventional pumping wells, the potential impacts could be greater, but they would not necessarily result in injury that could not be avoided or compensated through appropriate measures. Impacts on other water users in the form of increased groundwater pumping costs could be eliminated through financial compensation within a reasonable time frame from when the costs are incurred. Impacts on the availability of fresh water could be determined through modeling and any replacement of fresh water would have to be returned in an area that is not already degraded by seawater intrusion. Impacts on users in the form of decreased water quality could be compensated through the replacement of water with similar quality to the pre-project conditions.

Modeling for the North Marina Project does not predict that Basin users’ fresh water supplies would be affected if its wells pump from an unconfined aquifer, which we assume to also be true for the MPWSP. If however, further exploratory testing shows water is removed from a confined aquifer, water levels would be lowered in a larger area and the effect on groundwater flow direction would be greater.  Although pumping from a confined condition affects a much larger area of the Basin, the quantity of fresh water extracted from the aquifer would not necessarily be greater because the capture zone for the extraction wells would be greatly influenced by existing groundwater gradients. Additional studies are needed to determine whether the revised MPWSP configuration could cause injury to other groundwater users in the Basin that would require additional measures to avoid or compensate for that injury.

Cal-Am could legally pump from the Basin by developing a new water supply through desalination and showing the developed water is surplus to the existing supply. If Cal-Am’s extractions are limited to water that currently serves no beneficial use; for example, it is entirely derived from brackish or seawater sources, and Cal-Am returns all incidental fresh water to the Basin in a method that avoids injury to other users, it is likely the MPWSP could proceed without violating other users’ groundwater rights. A no injury finding would have to be shown through monitoring, modeling, compensation, project design or other means

A physical solution could be implemented to ensure all rights are protected while maximizing the beneficial uses of the Basin’s waters. Such an approach is consistent with the general policy in California Constitution article X section 2, and case law provides guidance on solutions to address complex groundwater issues where supply is constrained. The ongoing development of solutions tailored to the specific conditions that apply to a given groundwater basin reflects the understanding that California waters are too valuable not to be utilized to the maximum extent possible if beneficial uses and other legal users’ rights are maintained.

Recommendations states: Additional information is needed to accurately determine MPWSP impacts on current and future Basin conditions regardless of whether the extraction occurs from pumped or gravity wells. First, specific information is needed on the depth of the wells and aquifer conditions. Specifically, studies are needed to determine the extent of the Dune Sand Aquifer, the water quality and quantity of the Dune Sand Aquifer, the extent and thickness of the SVA and the extent of the 180-Foot Aquifer.

Second, the effects of the MPWSP on the Basin need to be evaluated. Specifically, a series of test boring/wells would be needed to assess the hydrogeologic conditions at the site. Aquifer testing is also needed to determine the pumping effects on both the Dune Sand Aquifer and the underlying 180-Foot Aquifer. Pre-project conditions should be identified prior to aquifer testing. Aquifer tests should mimic proposed pumping rates.

Third, updated groundwater modeling will be needed to evaluate future impacts from the MPWSP. Specifically, modeling scenarios will need to be run to predict changes in groundwater levels, groundwater flow direction, and changes in the extent and boundary of the seawater intrusion front. Additional studies also will be necessary to determine how any extracted fresh water is replaced, whether through re-injection wells, percolation basins, or through existing recharge programs. It may also be necessary to survey the existing groundwater users in the affected area. The studies will form the basis for a plan that avoids injury to other groundwater users and protects beneficial uses in the Basin. To ensure that this modeling provides the best assessment of the potential effects of the MPWSP, it is important that any new information gathered during the initial phases of the groundwater investigation be incorporated into the groundwater modeling studies as well as all available information including current activities that could influence the groundwater quality in the Basin.

Swrcb Final Report on Analysis of Mpwsp Document 07-31-13

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD 

FINAL REVIEW OF CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER COMPANY’S 

MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT

July 31, 2013

RELATED NEWS ARTICLE:

Final report outlines challenges of tapping Salinas Valley Basinfor desal

By JIM JOHNSON Herald Staff Writer, 08/05/2013

Excerpts Highlights:

Cal Am could proceed with its plans, the report said, if it shows the desal water it produces is developed water, that its plans to return any fresh water it pumps from the basin are effective and feasible, and that the project won't irreparably harm other users.

The report outlines a series of studies needed to determine the nature and extent of the basin's aquifers, the project's potential effect on the basin, and updated groundwater modeling capable of evaluating future impacts from the project.

As part of a settlement agreement announced last week, Cal Am and the Salinas Valley Water Coalition agreed that their hydrologists, technical teams and other designated experts would form a "technical work group" to develop a written plan for evaluating the intake sites.
The primary purpose of the work plan is to reach a consensus on hydrogeologic studies, well tests, field work, modeling, monitoring and other data needed to evaluate to what extent Cal Am's desal plant would affect the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin and the water supply available to legal users.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DESTINATION MARKETING PLAN: Focus on Sunset Center

ABSTRACT: “The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea engaged our team from UCLA Anderson School of Management to help them create a visitor profile and provide strategic recommendations to increase the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue, driven by increasing the number of hotel room nights sold to leisure visitors, particularly younger visitors.” Research Recommendations and material strictly related to Sunset Center are reproduced and presented. Importantly, UCLA Anderson School of Management “hypothesized that it could increase visitors during slow periods by attracting corporate groups and younger visitors. However, our research did not support these hypotheses…we recommend: (a) The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea not invest additional monies in the Sunset Center for the goal of attracting group meetings because of the high costs and limited return possible, the feedback gathered from meeting planners, and the myriad other venues available for group meetings in Monterey County."  The CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DESTINATION MARKETING PLAN document is embedded.
NOTE: Jack Globenfelt, Sunset Cultural Center, Inc.’s first executive director informed the City, then-Mayor Sue McCloud and the public that the Sunset Center was not a competitive venue for conferences and group meetings seven years ago.

EXCERPTS FROM CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DESTINATION MARKETING PLAN RELATED TO SUNSET CENTER

Research Recommendations

1. Do not invest additional monies in the Sunset Center with the goal of attracting group meetings

Research Recommendation Clarification

1. The City is not pursuing any additional renovation expenses at Sunset Center but supports the Hospitality Improvement District (HID) that is actively selling and marketing to meeting planners in the group meeting industry.

The City has projected a balanced budget through 2018, and our research shows that the City has a loyal core of visitors, as well as positive 'brand equity' among leisure visitors. Given that the City is looking to ensure the sustainability of its TOT revenue, we hypothesized that it could increase visitors during slow periods by attracting corporate groups and younger visitors. However, our research did not support these hypotheses.

In sum, we recommend:

(a) The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea not invest additional monies in the Sunset Center for the goal of attracting group meetings because of the high costs and limited return possible, the feedback gathered from meeting planners, and the myriad other venues available for group meetings in Monterey County;

(b) The City target visitors 55 years and older for off-peak travel (e.g. during the winter months and weekdays);

(c) The City reallocate existing marketing budgets to the Internet to attract new visitors, to strengthen the City's loyal visitor base, which will help sustain TOT revenues.

Through several discussions with our client and refinement of the project scope, our team developed the following hypothesis to test whether small groups are a viable target consumer segment. 

Carmel-by-the-Sea is well-positioned to attract small groups during lean periods and weeknights.

The City has recently created a Hospitality Improvement District (HID), as a partnership between the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, the Carmel-by-the-Sea Chamber of Commerce, the Carmel Innkeepers Association, the Monterey County Convention and Visitors' Bureau (MCCVB) and the Sunset Center, the city-owned performing arts and conference site. Together, they are working to increase the occupancy rates in the town's many inns and hotels, as well as to market the town as a world-class destination. Moreover, renovations have recently been completed to make the Sunset Center a more desirable meeting and conference space. The town contributed $l00K to the renovations, and the HID funds supported the hiring of a meeting planner to assist groups by coordinating catering, accommodations, travel and specific meeting needs.

Based on the above analysis, we concluded the following:

• Most SMERF groups have amenity and space needs similar to corporate group needs which make hosting such groups at the Sunset Center a challenge.

Note: SMERFs (Social, Military, Educational, Religious, and Fraternal)

• Small (10-15) leisure groups (i.e. needle point groups) that enjoy a pedestrian lifestyle and are open to dining and lodging at different places would be a better fit for Carmel and specifically the Sunset Center.

3.0 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS

Hypothesis: Carmel-by-the-Sea is well-positioned to attract small groups during lean periods and weeknights

3.1.a Recommendation #1:

Do not invest additional funds in the Sunset Center to attract corporate groups.

• Finding lA: The investments in the kitchen renovation (estimated at $250k) and personnel necessary to staff group meetings ($106,370, for two FTE including benefits) significantly outweigh the projected increases in TOT receipts for the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.

• Evidence lA: If Carmel-by-the-Sea can achieve the average returns of its competitive set (approximately 5.2% growth from current occupancy rates in Q1 months of January, February and March), it will only realize an additional $38k in TOT. Because the TOT revenue the City receives is a 10% surcharge on each room night sold, an increase 5.2% increase in occupancy would not significantly impact the City's revenues (see chart below). Additionally, because it is off-peak season, room rates are generally lower than the rest of the year thus limiting the amount of additional TOT revenue for the City.

Destination Marketing Plan 08-06-13 

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DESTINATION MARKETING PLAN, 2013

GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE FOR THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT CANCELLATION NOTICE August 8, 2013

Governance Committee CANCELLATION Notice 08-08-13

CANCALLATION NOTICE, REGULAR MEETING
GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE FOR THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT
August 8, 2013

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) REGULAR MEETING CANCELLATION NOTICE August 5, 2013

Agenda

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA)

Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)

Regular Meeting

CANCELLATION NOTICE

2:00 PM, Monday, August 5, 2013

Council Chamber

580 Pacific Street

Monterey, California

CANCELLATION NOTICE

This meeting has been cancelled.

The next MPRWA TAC meeting is scheduled for August 19, 2013 at 2:00 p.m.

Please visit www.mprwa.org/agenda for the TAC meeting agenda.

Twelve Noteworthy 6 August 2013 City Council Agenda Items

ABSTRACT:  Twelve Noteworthy 6 August 2013 City Council Agenda Items, namely Announcements from Closed Session, Announcements from City Administrator, Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea to enter into an automatic aid and mutual aid agreement with American Medical Response (AMR) to provide ambulance and emergency medical services outside each agency’s respective designated response areas, Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Government Staffing Services, Inc., (MuniTemps) for City Clerk consulting services in an amount not to exceed $25,000, Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to enter into a Mills-Act Contract with Roy and Kim Scheingart for the historic property located at the northeast corner of Carpenter Street and Fifth Avenue, Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to amend an existing contract with Public Consulting Group (PCG) for services related to finalization of the City’s 2013 key initiatives; the development of the strategic information technology plan and interactive government projects and related information technology consulting services, Adoption of a Resolution amending the City’s Position Classification and Salary Plan by adopting Job Descriptions and Salary Schedules/Ranges for the Finance Manager, the Deputy City Clerk, Human Resources Manager and Project Manager positions, Approve fee schedule and terms for work on Odello Water project, Water settlement agreement update, Consideration of a Resolution establishing land-use categories for water allocation and assigning water amount to each category and Consideration of a use permit application; water allocation Resolution; and certification of an initial study/negative declaration for the establishment of an event center at a site located in the Service Commercial (SC) District, are presented. Supporting materials are embedded.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PACKETS

AGENDA

 PART I 

PART II

PART III

Regular Meeting

Tuesday, August 6, 2013

4:30 p.m., Open Session

City Hall

East side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues

Live & Archived Video Streaming

II. Roll Call

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

A. Announcements from Closed Session.

1. Public Employee Performance Evaluation - Government Code Section 54957.

Title: City Engineer

2. Property Negotiations – Government Code Section 54956.8, Property strategy negotiations regarding the lease of Flanders Mansion (APN 010-061-005).

3. Potential Litigation - Government Code Section 54956.9(b).2 -Conference with legal counsel regarding potential litigation – one (1) matter.

4. 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 terms and conditions of employment for all represented and  unrepresented employees.

C. Announcements from City Administrator.

1. Community Planning & Building Director recruitment update.

D. Report from City Treasurer.

Report From City Treasurer 08-06-13

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.

F. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea to enter into an automatic aid and mutual aid agreement with American Medical Response (AMR) to provide ambulance and emergency medical services outside each agency’s respective designated response areas.

Resolution Automatic Aid and Mutual Aid Agreement With AMR 08-06-13

K. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Government Staffing Services, Inc., (MuniTemps) for City Clerk consulting services in an amount not to exceed $25,000.
Resolution Agreement With Government Staffing Services, Inc., For City Clerk 08-06-13

M. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to enter into a Mills-Act Contract with Roy and Kim Scheingart for the historic property located at the northeast corner of Carpenter Street and Fifth Avenue.

Resolution Mills Act Contract With Roy and Kim Scheingart 08-06-13

O. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to amend an existing contract with Public Consulting Group (PCG) for services related to finalization of the City’s 2013 key initiatives; the development of the strategic information technology plan and interactive government projects and related information technology consulting services.

Resolution to Amend Contract With Public Consulting Group (PCG) 08-06-13

P. Adoption of a Resolution amending the City’s Position Classification and Salary Plan by adopting Job Descriptions and Salary Schedules/Ranges for the Finance Manager, the Deputy City Clerk, Human Resources Manager and Project Manager positions.

Resolution Amending the City's Position Classification and Salary Plan 08-06-13

Q. Approve fee schedule and terms for work on Odello Water project.

Approve Fee Schedule and Terms for Work on Odello Water Project.08!06!13

VIII. Orders of Council

A. Water settlement agreement update.

Water Settlement Agreement Update 08-06-13

C. Consideration of a Resolution establishing land-use categories for water allocation and assigning water amount to each category.

Resolution establishing land-use categories for water allocation 08-06-13.pdf

D. Consideration of a use permit application; water allocation Resolution; and certification of an initial study/negative declaration for the establishment of an event center at a site located in the Service Commercial (SC) District.

Carmel Event Center 08-06-13

Carmel Event Center

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CITY COUNCIL: Tour, Closed Session and Public Workshop 5 August 2013

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CITY COUNCIL

Tour, Closed Session and

Public Workshop

Monday, August 5, 2013 – 4:00 p.m.,

with workshop to follow at 5:30 p.m.

Council Chambers

East side of Monte Verde Street between

Ocean and Seventh Avenues

ABSTRACT:  On Monday, August 5, 2013, the Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council is scheduled to conduct a Tour and Closed Session beginning at 4:00 P.M. and a Public Workshop at 5:30 P.M. Subject: PG&E & City infrastructure improvement.  The Tour, Closed Session and Public Workshop Agenda document is embedded.

 City Council Tour, Closed Session and Public Workshop 08-05-13

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CITY COUNCIL
Tour, Closed Session and Public Workshop
Monday, August 5, 2013

MINUTES for Seven Noteworthy 2 July 2013 City Council Agenda Items

MINUTES

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

July 2, 2013

II. PRESENT: Council Members Talmage, Theis & Mayor Burnett

ABSENT: Council Members Beach & Hillyard

STAFF PRESENT: Jason Stilwell, City Administrator

Heidi Burch, Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk

Mike Calhoun, Public Safety Director

Sharon Friedrichsen, Director of Public Services

Marc Wiener, Interim Senior Planner

V. ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM CLOSED SESSION, FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS

AND THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR

1. Announcements from Closed Session.

1. Public Employee Performance Evaluation- Gov't. Code Section 54957.

Title: City Administrator.

City Attorney Don Freeman indicated that the City Council had met in closed session

and that there was one item that was Public Employee performance evaluation City

Administrator and that there are no announcements for the public.

C. Announcements from City Administrator.

1. Community Planning & Building Director recruitment update

City Administrator Stilwell noted that the City will be making an offer to a candidate in July with a start date in August.

VII. CONSENT CALENDAR

I. Considered a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement to form the Monterey Regional Storm Water Management Program (MRSWMP).

K. Authorize approval of Auto/Mutual Aid agreement with American Medical Response (AMR). (Item continued to a future meeting)

L. Considered a Resolution entering into an agreement with SCC Inc. for the operation of the Sunset Cultural Center.

M. Authorized the Mayor to send a letter to the Governor in support of the State maintaining the requirements of the Public Records Act.

City Administrator Stilwell noted that Item K will be continued to August or a future Council meeting

Council Member Talmage indicated he wished to pull item I.

Council Member TALMAGE moved to approve Consent Agenda items A – H with two corrections to the minutes as noted, and J and M; and pulled items K, L, and I for further discussion. Motion seconded by Council Member THEIS and carried unanimously.

Item VII.L. Consideration of a Resolution entering into an agreement with SCC Inc. for

the operation of the Sunset Cultural Center.

City Administrator Stilwell presented the staff report providing a brief overview of the Agreement.

Elece Leverone and Kathy Bang addressed the City Council on behalf of the SCC, Inc. Board of Directors.

Mayor Burnett opened the meeting to public comment at 5:45p.m.

Jim Emery addressed the City Council.

Mayor Burnett seeing no additional speakers, closed the meeting to public comment at 5:46p.m.

Council Member TALMAGE moved to adopt the resolution and accept the contract with Exhibit B as presented and recognize that the ad-hoc committee will work with the SCC Board and come before the end of December with revised performance measures. Motion seconded by Council Member THEIS and carried by the following roll call vote:

AYES:  COUNCIL MEMBERS: TALMAGE, THEIS & BURNETT

NOES:  COUNCIL MEMBERS:  NONE

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:  BEACH & HILLYARD

ABSTAIN:  COUNCIL MEMBERS:  NONE

Item VII.I. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement to form the Monterey Regional Storm Water Management Program (MRSWMP).

Mayor Burnett opened the meeting to public comment at 6:02 p.m. Seeing no additional speakers, closed the meeting to public comment at 6:02 p.m.

Council Member TALMAGE moved to adopt the resolution authorizing the City

Administrator to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOA) to form the Monterey Regional Storm Water Management Program, seconded by Council Member THEIS. Motion carried by the following roll call vote:

AYES:  COUNCIL MEMBERS: TALMAGE, THEIS & BURNETT

NOES:  COUNCIL MEMBERS:  NONE

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:  BEACH & HILLYARD

ABSTAIN:  COUNCIL MEMBERS:  NONE

VIII. ORDERS OF COUNCIL

B. Consideration of an Ordinance amending Municipal Code Sections 17.42 and 17.43 to revise requirements pertaining to the prevention of storm water pollution. (First Reading)

Interim Senior Planner Marc Wiener provided the staff report.

Mayor Burnett opened to public comment at 6:39 p.m.

Barbara Livingston addressed Council

Mayor Burnett seeing no additional speakers, closed the meeting to public comment at 6:41p.m.

Bob Jaques, the City's Storm Water Consultant, answered questions from the public.

Council Member TALMAGE moved to adopt Ordinance amending Municipal Code Sections 17.42 and 17.43 to revise requirements pertaining to the prevention of Storm Water Pollution. Motion seconded by Council Member THEIS. Motion carried by the following roll call vote:

AYES:  COUNCIL MEMBERS: TALMAGE, THEIS & BURNETT

NOES:  COUNCIL MEMBERS:  NONE

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:  BEACH & HILLYARD

ABSTAIN:  COUNCIL MEMBERS:  NONE

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 SETTLING PARTIES’ MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT OF CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY, CITIZENS FOR PUBLIC WATER, CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE, COALITION OF PENINSULA BUSINESSES, COUNTY OF MONTEREY, DIVISION OF RATEPAYER ADVOCATES, LANDWATCH MONTEREY COUNTY, MONTEREY COUNTY FARM BUREAU, MONTEREY COUNTY WATER RESOURCES AGENCY, MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY, MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, MONTEREY REGIONAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY, PLANNING AND CONSERVATION LEAGUE FOUNDATION, SALINAS VALLEY WATER COALITION, SIERRA CLUB, AND SURFRIDER FOUNDATION & SETTLING PARTIES’ MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PLANT SIZE AND OPERATION

ABSTRACT:  Re: In the Matter of the Application of California American Water Company (U 210 W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, SETTLING PARTIES’ MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT including Attachment A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT OF CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY, CITIZENS FOR PUBLIC WATER, CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE, COALITION OF PENINSULA BUSINESSES, COUNTY OF MONTEREY, DIVISION OF RATEPAYER ADVOCATES, LANDWATCH MONTEREY COUNTY, MONTEREY COUNTY FARM BUREAU, MONTEREY COUNTY WATER RESOURCES AGENCY, MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY, MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, MONTEREY REGIONAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY, PLANNING AND CONSERVATION LEAGUE FOUNDATION, SALINAS VALLEY WATER COALITION, SIERRA CLUB, AND SURFRIDER FOUNDATION, Appendix 1 AGREEMENT TO FORM THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE, March 8, 2013, Appendix 2 MPWSP – Confidential Settlement Discussions (Financing for both the 9.6 MGD and 6.4 MGD plant size) and Appendix 3 MPWSP – Confidential Settlement Discussions (Uses and Sources of Cash) document is embedded.  The CONCLUSION states: The Parties respectfully request that the Commission adopt and approve the Settlement Agreement and grant California American Water a CPCN authorizing it to construct the MPWSP, which will include a desalination plant and the CAW-Only Facilities, dated July 31, 2013. And SETTLING PARTIES’ MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PLANT SIZE AND OPERATION, including Attachment A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PLANT SIZE AND LEVEL OF OPERATION, ENTERED BY THE FOLLOWING PARTIES: CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY, CITIZENS FOR PUBLIC WATER, CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE, COALITION OF PENINSULA BUSINESSES, DIVISION OF RATEPAYER ADVOCATES, MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY, MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, MONTEREY REGIONAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY, AND PLANNING AND CONSERVATION LEAGUE FOUNDATION document is embedded.  The CONCLUSION: The Parties respectfully request that the Commission adopt and approve the Sizing Settlement and grant California American Water a CPCN authorizing it to construct the MPWS, dated July 31, 2013.

PUC SETTLING PARTIES’ MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 2013  

SETTLING PARTIES’ MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT including Attachment A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT OF CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY, CITIZENS FOR PUBLIC WATER, CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE, COALITION OF PENINSULA BUSINESSES, COUNTY OF MONTEREY, DIVISION OF RATEPAYER ADVOCATES, LANDWATCH MONTEREY COUNTY, MONTEREY COUNTY FARM BUREAU, MONTEREY COUNTY WATER RESOURCES AGENCY, MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY, MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, MONTEREY REGIONAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY, PLANNING AND CONSERVATION LEAGUE FOUNDATION, SALINAS VALLEY WATER COALITION, SIERRA CLUB, AND SURFRIDER FOUNDATION,

PUC SETTLING PARTIES’ MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PLANT SIZE AND OPERATION 2013

SETTLING PARTIES’ MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ON PLANT SIZE AND OPERATION

RELATED NEWS ARTICLE:

Montereywater project agreements hailed as breakthrough

Cal Am agreements called 'breakthrough' for project

By JIM JOHNSON Herald Staff Writer. 07/31/2013

HIGHLIGHT EXCERPTS:

On Wednesday, three formal agreements between Cal Am and 15 parties aimed at resolving issues ranging from project cost and financing to desalination plant size and source water were submitted to the state Public Utilities Commission, which is conducting a review of the company's $400 million proposal.
The first agreement addresses most of the contested issues, including cost and financing, evaluation of the project's source water proposal, contingency plans, environmental factors and plant size
A second agreement calls for a separate review process for the groundwater replenishment project and established criteria for determining whether to move forward with the proposal.
The third agreement encourages Cal Am to go ahead with a delivery pipeline and other facilities, Burnett said
Participants that didn't sign were WaterPlus, Marina Coast Water District and the Public Trust Alliance.