UPDATE: Motion: approve the City’s revised beach fire management program (propane only).
The Commission voted to reject the proposal with Coastal Commissioners Kinsey, Shallenberger, Leuvano, Howell, and Mitchell all voting no, and Commissioners McClure, Bochco, Turnbull-Sanders, and Vargas voting yes. Commissioners Uranga, Groom, and Cox were absent. In doing so, the Commission also rejected Staff’s recommended 26 wood fire ring proposal and now there is no beach fire program in Carmel.
Source: Mike Watson, Coastal Planner ABSTRACT: “In a 5 to 4 vote, the commission voted down its own staff recommendation of allowing a maximum of 26 fires on Carmel Beach and took no action to stop Carmel from enforcing its current ban,” according to reporting by Caitlin Conrad, KSBW.com
ABSTRACT: RE: California Coastal Commission and “public nuisance”
In September 2015, San Diego Superior Court Judge Randa Trapp ruled in favor of the California Coastal Commission stating that “the court found that the city’s emergency ordinance was based on “nothing more than speculation, conjecture and fear mongering.”" “The decision is a significant victory for public access and clarifies that municipalities can’t circumvent the Coastal Act under the guise of protecting the public.” Moreover, Charles Lester, Executive Director, California Coastal Commission stated “If you have a real, legitimate threat and you need to take emergency action to safeguard the public, you can take steps to do that,” “But you can’t pretend there’s a nuisance just to avoid your Coastal Act obligations.” The STATEMENT OF DECISION and CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION Press Release document copies are embedded.
STATEMENT OF DECISION [CCP §632, Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1590]
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF DANA POINT, a California Municipal Corporation Petitioner and Plaintiffs, vs. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION, a California public agency, and DOES 1 through 5, inclusive.
ABSTRACT: On December 1, 2015, Richard A. Stedman, Air Pollution Control Officer, Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, stated in an email to Mayor Jason Burnett “The purpose of this email is to inform you that, if the City is unable to resolve the public health impacts and nuisance conditions caused by wood fires on Carmel Beach, the Air District intends to take enforcement action to remedy the situation. While we appreciate and support the City's efforts to control wood smoke emissions from beach fires, failure to greatly reduce or eliminate wood smoke impacts on residents will most likely res ult in an Air District enforcement action against the City. Enforcement action can include sanctions and prohibitory restrictions to address the adverse impacts caused by wood smoke from beach fires.” The email document copy is embedded.
ABSTRACT: Eddie Miranda, District Manager, Cal/OSHA – Enforcement, stated in an email to Yvette Oblander “The Division has received your complaint response and reviewed your response to ensure the complaint issues have been investigated. A letter stating the complaint issues have been reviewed and a copy of your response will be sent to the complainant for their file and the case closed.” The email document copy is embedded.
Mission Statement: The
Association exists to provide its members with a permanent art gallery, to
advance knowledge of, and interest in the arts, and to create a spirit of
cooperation and fellowship among artists and the community. A Proud Heritage:
legendary Carmel Art Association was formed on August 8, 1927 by a small group
of artists who gathered at “Gray Gables,” the modest home/studio of Josephine
Culbertson and Ida Johnson at the corner of Seventh and Lincoln in
Carmel-by-the-Sea. These nineteen “pioneers”—who grew up in the 19th century
and individually found their respective paths to Carmel from all corners of the
world—each desired a greater sense of community, a spirit of collaboration, and
a place to show their work. Before the meeting concluded, they had established
an association with a mission “to advance art and cooperation among artists,
secure a permanent exhibition space, and promote greater fellowship between
artists and the public.”
Dolores St. between 5th Av. & 6th Av.
10:00 A.M. – 5:00 P.M., Daily
Open to the Public at No Charge
Carmel Art Association Presents ALL-MEMBER SHOW: ANNUAL MINIATURE & SMALL PAINTING SHOW!
A time-honored tradition at the CAA that started with what were called "thumbnail sketches" in the 1930's. Over 80 years later the Miniature Show in December continues to be a top favorite for our local patrons & collectors and anyone who loves art. Many of our 100+ Artist Members participate, showing small-scale pieces created especially for this show.
Thursday, December 3 – Tuesday, January 5, 2016
ALL-MEMBER SHOW: ANNUAL MINIATURE & SMALL PAINTING SHOW!
SPECIAL EVENT: HOLIDAY OPEN HOUSE/OPENING RECEPTION
Saturday, December 5, 2015, 5:00 P.M. – 700 P.M.
Join the CAA for the opening of the Miniature Show and a
celebration to start off the Holiday Season with hors d'oeuvres, wine, open bar
SPECIAL EVENT: “WORLD OF WONDER: THE ART OF DIANE WOLCOTT”
Saturday, December 5, 2015, 5:00 P.M. – 700 P.M.
Diane Wolcottwill sign copies of her new book. The beautiful 144 page volume contains reproductions of many of her naive style oil paintings populated with tiny children, animals and nuns—harkening to a gentler time, and evoking remembrances of innocence and wonder. The book recounts her life story, not withstanding her encounters with tragedy and loss at an early age, and her unceasing vision that propels her art.
ABSTRACT: Yesterday, the City Council voted unanimously to adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute an employment agreement between the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and Mike Calhoun, Public Safety Director, Chief of Police, and Interim City Administrator, as part of the Consent Calendar. However, according to Attorney General Opinion Office of the Attorney General, State of California, Opinion No. 98-707 (September 30, 1998), the positions of police chief and city manager/city administrator are incompatible. To wit, “the city manager, if allowed to serve simultaneously as chief of police, would be authorized to control, order and give directions to himself, appoint and remove himself, prepare and submit his own budget to the city council, conduct investigations into the affairs of his own office, and investigate complaints in relation to matters concerning the administration of his own department. As noted at the outset, offices are incompatible "where one is subordinate to the other and subject in some degree to the supervisory power of its incumbent." (People ex rel. Deputy Sheriffs' Assn. v. County of Santa Clara (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1471, 1481; 80 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen., supra, at 75.)” Therefore, “Acceptance of the city manager office automatically causes the police chief office to be vacated," according to Richard M. Kreisler, L.A. County Police Chief Update, October 01, 1998. And importantly, “It is this office's opinion that the Attorney General would be likely to find that holding an acting city manager position is likewise incompatible with maintaining your permanent appointment as chief of police. Given that the apparent purpose or intent of the “incompatible public office” doctrine is to prevent a person from simultaneously holding two public offices where the performance of the duties of either office could have an adverse effect on the other, it is arguably of little import that your exercise of duties as a city manager is occurring while you are temporarily the city manager. In such case, the city manager can still impact the operations of the two public offices inasmuch as an acting city manager is typically invested with all of the powers, duties and obligations of the office of the city manager, and is therefore called upon to in essence supervise the chief of police.” Moreover, according to Robert Wechsler, Director of Research for City Ethics, "The California statute has an interesting penalty provision. The public officer is "deemed to have forfeited the first office upon acceding to the second." Thus, a mayor who successfully runs for or accepts an incompatible office is no longer mayor. If the mayor won't budge, this penalty may be enforced in an action by the AG, or by a private party with the AG's consent."
ABSTRACT: On Friday, December 11, 2015, the California Coastal Commission is scheduled to consider Appeal No. A-3-CML-15-0033 (Carmel Fire Management Program, Carmel) Appeal by Alexis Delehanty of City of Carmel-by-the-Sea decision granting permit with conditions to Carmel authorizing implementation of Beach Fire Management Program including installation of 26 fire rings, signage, maintenance provisions, and monitoring on Carmel Beach seaward of Scenic Road from 10th Avenue south to Martin Way, Carmel, Monterey County. (MW-SC) at Portola Plaza Hotel, 2 Portola Plaza, Monterey, CA 93940. The APPEAL STAFF REPORT: SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE DETERMINATION & DE NOVO HEARING document copy is embedded; the SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION section is
reproduced. Importantly, Staff recommends that the Commission find that the
appeal raises a substantial issue and that the Commission take jurisdiction
over the CDP application. Staff further recommends that the Commission approve
a CDP for a modified pilot program at Carmel Beach.
I. MOTIONS AND
recommends that the Commission determine that a substantial
issue exists with respect to the grounds on which the appeal was filed. A finding of substantial issue would
bring the CDP application
for the proposed project under the jurisdiction of the Commission for de novo hearing
and action. To implement this recommendation, staff recommends a NO vote
on the following
motion. Failure of this motion will result in a de novo hearing on the CDP
adoption of the following resolution and findings. Passage of this motion will
result in a finding of No Substantial Issue and the local action will become final and effective.
The motion passes
only by affirmative vote of a majority of the Commissioners present.
Motion: I move that the Commission determine that Appeal
Number A-3-CML-15-0033 raises no substantial issue with respect to the
grounds on which the appeal has been filed under Section 30603 of the Coastal Act, and I
recommend a no vote.
Find Substantial Issue: The
Commission hereby finds that Appeal Number A-3-CML-15-0033 presents a substantial issue with
respect to the grounds on which the appeal has been filed under Section 30603 of the
Coastal Act regarding consistency with the certified Local Coastal Program and/or the public
access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act.
recommends that the Commission, after public hearing, approve a
coastal development permit
for the proposed development. To implement this recommendation, staff
recommends a YES vote
on the following motion. Passage of this motion will result in approval of the
CDP as conditioned
and adoption of the following resolution and findings. The motion passes only
vote of a majority of the Commissioners present.
Motion: I move that the Commission approve Coastal Development
Permit Number A-3-CML-15-0033 pursuant to the staff recommendation, and
I recommend a yes vote.
Approve CDP: The Commission hereby approves
Coastal Development Permit Number A-3-CML-15-0033 and adopts the findings
set forth below on grounds that the development as conditioned will be in
conformity with the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Local Coastal Program policies and Coastal Act
access and recreation policies. Approval of the permit complies with the California
Environmental Quality Act because either 1) feasible mitigation measures and/or
alternatives have been incorporated to substantially lessen any significant adverse effects
of the development on the environment, or 2) there are no further feasible
mitigation measures or alternatives that would substantially lessen any significant adverse
impacts of the development on the environment.
2 Portola Plaza
Monterey, CA 93940
SUMMARY OF STAFF
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea approved a coastal development permit (CDP) to allow
the City to install 26 fire rings on Carmel Beach and to implement a new Beach Fire
Management Pilot Program
(Program) along the south end of Carmel Beach, seaward of Scenic Road between Tenth
Avenue and Martin Way. The City’s CDP decision was appealed to the Commission,
Appellant alleging Local Coastal Program (LCP) conformance issues with respect
to hazards, public
safety, public access and recreation, air and water quality, public views, and
After reviewing the local record, Commission staff believes that the approved
a substantial issue with respect to the project’s conformance with the City’s
certified LCP and
the public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act.
Beach is a significant local and regional beach access destination. Its wide
expanse of white
sand extends along a mile of the City’s shoreline, and attracts beach visitors
from far and wide
who come to walk, sit, and play on the beach and in the ocean waves offshore.
also come to sit around a beach fire in the early afternoon and evening. These
have long been a part of both the cultural fabric and recreational utility
associated with Carmel
Beach, and are called out as an important part of the beach recreational
experience here in
the City’s LCP. Per the LCP, beach fires are only allowed on the beach south of
City’s Program is in response to concerns raised by the City and its residents
that these beach
fires are leading to both health issues and beach degradation. The former is
associated with the
smoke from beach fires, and the latter associated with the debris left on the
beach, including because
the beach currently does not have any fire rings and fires are made directly on
the sand. The
Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD), in concert with
the City, has
been monitoring smoke levels (actually PM2.5 levels)2
inland of the beach since late May of this
year, for a total of 140 days monitored.3 Data
from the smoke monitor shows that there was one
exceedance of the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 24-hour PM2.5
this time, which occurred on a day when wood beach fires were not allowed.
data shows PM2.5 levels to be fairly constant during the week, and generally
increase on weekends, with ‘spikes’ in smoke levels
roughly corresponding to spikes in the numbers of beach
fires.4 Based on EPA guidelines for the 1-hour
PM2.5 concentrations,5 the monitored smoke
levels have predominantly fallen into the “good” air quality category 98% of
the total number
of hours in the monitoring timeframe, but there are instances when the ‘spikes’
into the “moderate” air quality category (1.3%), and even times where the data
air (0.7%) (see Exhibit 7).7 Thus,
and although there is a need for more robust data collection
and development,8 it is clear that
the monitor has identified some PM2.5 levels that extend
into unhealthy ranges, and it is clear that there is an air quality problem in
the surrounding Carmel
Beach area to which beach fires appear to contribute that needs to be
understood and addressed.
the City’s approved Program was based on limiting and managing beach fires to address
these concerns, including no longer allowing unlimited fires directly on the
sand, and instead
limiting such fires to 26 fire rings. However, in the time since the City’s
approval (and subsequent
appeal of that approval to the Commission), the City instituted an “emergency” prohibition
on beach fires on weekends and holidays, issuing an emergency CDP (that has
and an urgency ordinance (which cannot authorize development under the Coastal
the LCP).9 In addition, the
City has taken steps towards declaring a public nuisance and banning
beach fires altogether.10 Instead of
managing beach fires as the City originally proposed, the
City’s modified approach would be to prohibit wood beach fires, but to allow
propane fires on
Carmel Beach. The City’s new proposal would provide for six City-provided
rings in the area between Tenth Avenue and Martin Way along the beach,11
and unlimited propane
fires south of Tenth Avenue on the beach if provided privately by the user.
Fires would only
be allowed in the City-provided fire rings from one hour before sunset to 10
p.m., and the user
provided fires from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. Staff does not support the City’s
concurs with the City that there are numerous problems associated with the
current beach fire
situation at Carmel Beach, including on air quality, water quality, and scenic
resources, and that
management measures are necessary to address and abate those problems. However,
not believe that the City’s proposed course of action to abate those problems
is LCP and Coastal Act compliant, and therefore raises
a series of coastal resource protection issues. In other words,
there appear to be many ways to address the identified problem, but to
institute a complete
ban on wood beach fires at this time is not an appropriate solution,
the fact that a complete ban is inconsistent with the City’s own LCP, which expressly
allows for and encourages beach fires. Furthermore, the City’s proposed
cannot be approved because the LCP explicitly prohibits flammable liquids (like propane)
on the beach. In addition, the City’s post-prohibition monitoring data does not
that such a proposal would make a significant difference in PM2.5 levels and
spikes, thus undermining
the justification for imposing a complete ban.12 To
staff, a more appropriate response
at the current juncture would be something more in line with the fire
previously approved by the City (i.e., the approval that is the subject of this
this Program as approved by the City lacks needed detail (including in terms of
size, and design of the fire rings; the timing on seasonal removal/restoration
of the rings; maintenance
provisions; public education; and monitoring requirements), it can form the
an approved program that can be used to address the identified problems while
continuing to provide
for the rich experience and recreational utility associated with fires as has
the case at Carmel Beach.
staff recommends approval of a CDP that provides for the 26 fire rings
originally approved by
the City, and that provides associated parameters for the placement, signage,
use, monitoring, and
maintenance associated with those rings, including in terms of monitoring air
quality. Staff believes
this to be an appropriately measured response, and one that can allow for
adaptation over time to adjust Program parameters as warranted.13
Such a Program would appropriately
limit beach fires (i.e., 26 allowed as opposed to the unlimited number of fires
currently allowed), and can strike an appropriate balance to the issues
presented. It will also address
all of the other issues associated with unlimited fires built directly on the
beach sand by confining them to 26 fire rings that can be
appropriately maintained to avoid beach degradation.
that the Commission find that the appeal raises a substantial issue and that the
Commission take jurisdiction over the CDP application. Staff further recommends that the
Commission approve a CDP for a modified pilot program at Carmel Beach. The motion is found on page 6 below.
1 Fires are not
allowed on the rest of the beach, meaning beach fires are already currently
limited under the LCP to roughly 35% of the beach frontage.
2 The City and
MBUAPCD are monitoring PM2.5, which is a type of particulate matter. Particulate
matter is a generic term for particles suspended in the air, typically as a
mixture of both solid particles and liquid droplets. PM2.5 is particulate
matter with a diameter that is 2.5 micrometers and smaller. For purposes of
comparison, a human hair is about 60 micrometers in diameter.
3 The monitor is
located in the backyard of the house located at the corner of Scenic Drive and 13th
Avenue, inland of the beach area where beach fires are allowed.
4 The City
documented the number of beach fires occurring on weekends over a roughly
5-week period in late June 2015 through July 2015.
5 Based on the Revised
Air Quality Standards for Particle Pollution and Updates to the Air Quality
Index (US EPA December 14, 2012). There are no State or Federal standards
for 1-hour PM2.5 concentrations, only these guidelines.
6 In terms of
the 1-hour average, the monitor found PM2.5 concentrations to be at 153 one
time, and thus in the EPA’s “Unhealthy” category, and the monitor also found 5
instances where the PM2.5 concentrations fell into the “Unhealthy for Sensitive
7 Standards for
24-hour PM 2.5 are not explicitly set by the California Air Resources Board.
Instead, the California Air Resources Board references the National Air Quality
8 As indicated
above, the single monitor is located in a residential backyard inland of Scenic
Drive, and it does not collect the type of meteorological data to be able to
conclusively demonstrate where the smoke is coming from (e.g., in relation to
wind etc.). In addition, the City lacks baseline data against which to compare
the current data.
9 The City’s
action is being tracked by the Commission as a violation inasmuch as it is not authorized
by a CDP.
10 The City
Council adopted a first reading of a public nuisance declaration on November 3,
2015, but has not yet scheduled a time to finalize their public nuisance
11 Although the
City’s new program is not completely fleshed out, as staff understands it currently,
the City proposes to install six propane fire rings, as well as propane lines
and propane tanks in or under the sand. It is not clear whether the City would
provide propane for which users would pay a fee, or would provide propane for
free, or some other mechanism.
the monitoring data does not show much of a difference for the time period from
before the City started prohibiting beach fires to after. Indeed, there
continue to be roughly the same background values and the same types of ‘spikes’
even after beach fires were prohibited. And the one time that federal Clean Air
Act standards were exceeded occurred on a Sunday after the prohibition was put
in effect. This exceedance may instead be correlated with the Tassajara
Wildfire in Carmel Valley that occurred around that time. See Exhibit 7.
Including allowing for propane options to be considered should the LCP be
modified to allow for same.
ABSTRACT: Eleven Noteworthy 30 November 2015 City Council Special Meeting Agenda Items, namely CLOSED SESSION, ANNOUNCEMENTS, PUBLIC APPEARANCES, CONSENT CALENDAR including Monthly Reports for the Month of October, including a. Contracts executed within the City Administrator’s Signing Authority, b. Community Planning and Building Department Reports, c. Police, Fire, Ambulance and Beach Reports, ,d. Public Records Act Request Logs – City Clerk and Police, e. Forester’s Report and f. City Treasurer’s Report, Consideration of a Resolution approving a MOU for the LIUNA General Employees Union and Management Employees Union, LIUNA/UPEX, Local 792, AFL-CIO for 2014 to 2016, Authorization of Amendments to Professional Services Agreements for Planning Services for Rio Park and the Housing Element, Janitorial Services and IT Support for an Amount Not to Exceed $79,904 for All Amendments, Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an Employment Agreement between the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and Mike Calhoun, Public Safety Director, Chief of Police, and Interim City Administrator, Consideration of: 1. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea adopting regulations from candidate statements submitted to the voters at an election to be held Tuesday, April 12, 2016 in accordance with Government Code Section 13307 and 2. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea providing for a procedure for determining by lot a tie among candidates at the April 12, 2016 General Municipal Election in accordance with Government Code Section 15651, Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the City to join the California Coastal Trail Association and identify a Council member to be listed as the City's Primary representative of the membership form, Receive an update on the transition of solid waste and recycling services and on the development of a model solid waste ordinance and provide preliminary direction and Receive an update on the status of on 2015 Council Goals, are presented. Agenda Bills and supporting materials are embedded as document copies.
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING Monday, November 30, 2015
CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL, & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Government Code Section 54956.9: 3 cases
2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(D)(1)
Name of Case: Chilone Payton, Plaintiff v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Charge No. 485-2014-00453
3. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(D)(1)
Name of Case: Gerit Sand; Cobblestone Bakery, a sole proprietorship, Plaintiff v. City of Carmel- by-the-Sea, Defendant - Monterey County Superior Court Case No. M130393
4. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(D)(1)
Name of Case: City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Plaintiff v.Pacific Harvest Seafoods, Inc. - Monterey County Superior Court Case No. 15CV000014
5. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(D)(1)
Name of Case: Simonelli v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, United States District Court Case No. C 13-1250 LB
6. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957
Title: City Administrator.
7. LABOR NEGOTIATIONS
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6(a)
Announcements will be made by the Mayor and Council Members, City Administrator, and/or City Attorney.
Anyone wishing to address the City Council on matters within the jurisdiction of the City and are not on the agenda may do so now. Matters not appearing on the City Council’s agenda will not receive action at this meeting but may be referred to staff for a future meeting. Presentations will be limited to three (3) minutes, or as otherwise established by the City Council. Persons are not required to give their names, but it is helpful for speakers to state their names in order that the City Clerk may identify them in the minutes of the meeting. Always speak into the microphone, as the meeting is recorded..
All items on the Consent Calendar are to be acted upon by a single action of the City Council unless otherwise requested by an individual Council Member or the public for special consideration. Otherwise the recommendation of staff will be accepted and acted upon by majority voice vote.
10. Monthly Reports for the Month of October (p. 34)
a. Contracts executed within the City Administrator’s Signing Authority
b. Community Planning and Building Department Reports
c. Police, Fire, Ambulance and Beach Reports
d. Public Records Act Request Logs – City Clerk and Police
e. Forester’s Report
f. City Treasurer’s Report Monthly Reports 11-30-15
13. AB 1058 Consideration of a Resolution approving a MOU for the LIUNA General Employees Union and Management Employees Union, LIUNA/UPEX, Local 792, AFL-CIO for 2014 to 2016. Resolution Approving a MOU 11-30-15
14. AB 1059 Authorization of Amendments to Professional Services Agreements for Planning Services for Rio Park and the Housing Element, Janitorial Services and IT Support for an Amount Not to Exceed $79,904 for All Amendments. Amendments to Professional Services Agreements
19. AB 1064 Consideration of: 1. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea adopting regulations from candidate statements submitted to the voters at an election to be held Tuesday, April 12, 2016 in accordance with Government Code Section 13307 and 2. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea providing for a procedure for determining by lot a tie among candidates at the April 12, 2016 General Municipal Election in accordance with Government Code Section 15651. Election April 12, 2016 11-30-15
20. AB 1065 Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the City to join the California Coastal Trail Association and identify a Council member to be listed as the City's Primary representative of the membership form. California Coastal Trail Association 11-30-15
Orders of Council are agenda items that require City Council discussion, debate and/or direction.