REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS: RESIDENT CURATORSHIP FLANDERS MANSION, CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

ABSTRACT: RE: Request for Proposals
The City is seeking proposals for a resident curatorship at Flanders Mansion.
The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (City) is requesting proposals from individuals interested in entering into a resident curatorship agreement with the City for the rehabilitation, historic restoration and use of the City’s property known as Flanders Mansion (Mansion), located at 25800 Hatton Road in Carmel-by-the-Sea, California.
A curatorship is a public-private partnership in which private individuals donate their time, skills and financial resources to rehabilitate and restore historic buildings located on government-owned land in exchange for the long-term rent-free use of the building. The prospective curator for the Flanders Mansion will be required to rehabilitate, restore, and maintain the Mansion, at his/her own expense, in exchange for the rent-free use of the Mansion as a single-family residence for a term of twenty (20) years.
OPEN HOUSE
The City strongly encourages prospective curators to attend an open house for site and property inspections on either:
Friday, November 9, 2018 from 8 am to 5 pm or
Saturday, November 17, 2018 from 8 am to 4 pm .
Prospective curators may attend both open houses, although it is not required.
SUBMITTING A PROPOSAL
Individuals interested in this curatorship opportunity are required to submit a proposal that includes the components listed in the Request for Proposals.
Proposals submitted without these elements will not be considered by the City for evaluation (i.e. the City will deem the proposal “non-responsive”). Prospective curators are advised to submit proposals that are well organized, detailed, comprehensive and clear so as to ensure a thorough evaluation.

·         Flanders Mansion Resident Curatorship Request for Proposals

·         Attachment 1_The Flanders Mansion HABS Documentation

·         Attachment 2_Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

·         Attachment 3_Personal Financial Statement

All proposals must be in a sealed envelope and clearly marked “Proposal for Flanders Mansion Resident Curatorship” and must be received by the City by 5:00 PM PST on Wednesday, December 12, 2018.
All proposals and accompanying materials submitted become the property of the City and will not be returned. The City will not considered proposals received after the deadline.
QUESTIONS?

All questions regarding the curatorship and this RFP shall be submitted by email to Sharon Friedrichsen, the City’s Director of Budget and Contracts, at sfriedrichsen@ci.carmel.ca.us     

The deadline for the receipt of questions is 5:00 PM PST on Monday, November 19, 2018. The City anticipates responding to the questions received by no later than 5:00 PM PST on Wednesday, November 28, 2018 and will post the questions and responses on the City’s website. Depending on the nature of the questions, the City may issue an addendum to the RFP. Only such an addendum may extend the due date and time.

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS RESIDENT CURATORSHIP FLANDERS MANSION, ATTACHMENT 1 THE FLANDERS MANSION HISTORIC AMERICAN BUILDINGS SURVEY (HABS) DOCUMENTATION, ATTACHMENT 2 Mitigation Monitoring Program: City of Carmel-by-the-Sea -- Sale of Flanders Mansion Project – Lease Alternative and ATTACHMENT 3 PERSONAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT document copies are embedded

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
RESIDENT CURATORSHIP
FLANDERS MANSION
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
P.O. BOX CC
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CA 93921
831.620.2000

WWW.CI.CARMEL.CA.US

ATTACHMENT 1
THE FLANDERS MANSION
HISTORIC AMERICAN BUILDINGS SURVEY (HABS) DOCUMENTATION

ATTACHMENT 2
Mitigation Monitoring Program: City of Carmel-by-the-Sea -- Sale of Flanders Mansion Project – Lease Alternative

ATTACHMENT 3
PERSONAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) DIRECTOR’S MEETING AGENDA & MINUTES, October 25, 2018

MPRWA Agenda Packet 10-25-18 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) 

DIRECTOR’S MEETING AGENDA PACKET 

October 25, 2018

MPRWA Agenda Closed Session 10-25-18 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

Closed Session Agenda
Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA)
October 25, 2018

Mprwa Minutes October 25, 2018 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

DRAFT MINUTES
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
October 25, 2018

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 APPLICATION OF THE CITY OF MARINA FOR REHEARING OF DECISION 18-09-017

ABSTRACT: Re: Application of California-American Water Company (U210W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, the APPLICATION OF THE CITY OF MARINA FOR REHEARING OF DECISION 18-09-017document copy is embedded.  GROUNDS FOR REHEARING Public Utilities (“PU”) Code Section 1732 states that an “application for rehearing shall set forth specifically the ground or grounds on which the applicant considers the decision or order to be unlawful.” Rule 16.1(c) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure requires applications for rehearing to set forth specifically “the grounds on which the applicant considers the order or decision of the Commission to be unlawful or erroneous” and “must make specific references to the record or law.” Rule 16.1(c) further states that the purpose of an application for rehearing “is to alert the Commission to a legal error, so that the Commission may correct it expeditiously.”2
The precise purpose of this application for rehearing is to “alert” the Commission to significant legal errors in D.18-09-017 and permit the Commission to correct those errors by expeditiously granting rehearing of D.18-09-017 and issuing orders that (1) deny a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (“CPCN”) for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (“MPWSP” or “Project”) proposed by California-American Water Company (“CalAm”) in this Application, and (2) determine that the Final Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Impact Statement (“EIR”) for the Project is fatally inadequate and cannot be certified. This outcome is required based on grounds that are detailed herein and summarized as follows:
(1) D.18-09-017 is unlawful in failing to apply and comply with the statutory requirements of PU Code Sections 1001 and 1002 that govern the Commission’s review of an application for a CPCN for a jurisdictional “water corporation” to begin the construction of “a line, plant, or system, or of any extension thereof”;3
(2) D.18-09-071 is unlawful in wrongly certifying an inadequate Final EIR for the Project;
(3) D.18-09-071 is unlawful in failing to comply with the law applicable to Commission decisions; and
(4) D.18-09-017 is unlawful for endorsing and using a process to reach and support its decision to grant a CPCN for the Project that violates applicable law and due process principles to the prejudice of Marina and other parties and is arbitrary and capricious.4
REQUESTED RELIEF
To correct the legal errors in D.18-09-017 identified above, the Commission must grant rehearing of D.18-09-017 to find, conclude, and order that:
1. The Commission did not regularly pursue its authority in D.18-09-017 by failing to apply and comply with the statutory requirements of PU Code Sections 1001 and 1002 that govern the Commission’s review of an application for a CPCN for a jurisdictional “water corporation” to begin the construction of “a line, plant, or system, or of any extension thereof.”560
2. The Commission did not regularly pursue its authority by failing to conduct a comprehensive analysis of “community values” and other Section 1002 factors, with a focus on the disadvantaged City of Marina and other communities that are burdened by the Project.
3. The Commission did not regularly pursue its authority by failing to determine that the Project is not feasible because it lacks the necessary water rights and water supply, violates the export prohibition in the Agency Act, and is not needed when using the true future water demand for the applicable service area.
4. The Commission did not regularly pursue its authority in D.18-09-017 in its erroneous analysis of project “need” where the applicable law and record do not support a finding that the Project is required by the “public convenience and necessity” pursuant to PU Code Sections 1001 and 1002(a).
5. The Commission did not regularly pursue its authority in D.18-09-071 by certifying an inadequate EIR for the Project that fails to comply with CEQA.
6. The Commission prejudicially abused its discretion by failing to proceed in the manner required by CEQA and acting without substantial evidentiary support in adopting and certifying the EIR.
7. The Commission did not regularly pursue its authority in D.18-09-071 in failing to comply with the law applicable to Commission decisions, in part by taking action on the invalid premise that it was required to act quickly to prevent the applicant from suffering consequences caused by the applicant’s own legal violations.
8. The Commission did not regularly pursue its authority, and committed violations of the parties’ constitutional rights, by endorsing and using a process to reach and support its decision to grant a CPCN for the Project that violates applicable law and due process principles to the prejudice of Marina and other parties.
9. Based on the grounds set forth in this Application for Rehearing, the CPCN granted for the Project in D.18-09-017 must be reversed and the CPCN must be denied.
10. Based on the grounds set forth in this Application for Rehearing, the certification of the EIR in D.18-09-017 must be nullified and withdrawn.
11. Upon taking the steps above, the Commission should include an order that does the following: (1) Either (a) directs CalAm to file a new Application by which water supply alternatives based on the expanded PWM project or in response to offers from MCWD are addressed and to submit, for approval, water supply purchase agreements that may result from those alternatives, or (b) grants the Motion for a Phase 3 to consider these “promising” alternatives; and (2) directs the CEQA/NEPA team to revise the EIR to correct for the errors identified in this Application for Rehearing and to include consideration of other Project Alternatives that were not previously studied, including desalination projects smaller than the 6.4 mgd Project originally authorized in D.18-09-017, and alternative sources or offers of water supply, and then recirculate it for public review and comment.

FILED 10/19/18
APPLICATION OF THE CITY OF MARINA FOR REHEARING OF DECISION 18-09-017

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S APPLICATION FOR REHEARING OF DECISION

ABSTRACT: Re: Application of California-American Water Company (U210W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, the MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S APPLICATION FOR REHEARING OF DECISION document copy is embedded.  SUMMARY OF MCWD’S RECOMMENDATIONS Due to the many serious legal errors presented by D.18-09-017, which granted the instant application of the California-American Water Company (“Cal-Am”) for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (“CPCN”) to construct and operate the desalination component of its Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (“MPWSP”), the Commission should set aside and/or vacate D.18-09-017, so that it may resolve the legal errors raised in this application. Among other things, such resolution requires revision and recirculation of the Commission’s Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR” or “final EIR”) and the conduct of evidentiary hearings on all potentially feasible project alternatives, including in particular the expansion of the existing Pure Water Monterey (“PWM”) project of Monterey One Water (“M1W”), in cooperation with the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (“MPWMD”), and proposed long-term sales of water by MCWD.

CONCLUSION For all the reasons set forth herein, the Commission should promptly grant rehearing, so that it may cure each of the errors set forth above, including the Commission’s prejudicial procedural and due process errors. It should vacate or set aside D.18-09-017, rescind the CPCN, and conduct thorough evidentiary hearings on all potentially feasible project alternatives, including in particular the expansion of PWM as well as proposed long-term sales of water by MCWD. The Commission should also revise and recirculate for public comment a legally sufficient EIR prior to taking any further action on the MPWSP desalination project.
In the alternative, because the MPWSP is plainly not required for the current or future public convenience and necessity even if demand for 14,000 AFY of supply appears likely to materialize within the 30-year lifespan of the project as explained above, upon rehearing and correction of its prejudicial legal errors related to project feasibility, the Commission should deny the application and either open a Phase 3 of this proceeding to examine in thorough evidentiary hearings all potentially feasible project alternatives. Alternatively, the Commission should direct Cal-Am to negotiate new water purchase agreements with M1W and/or MCWD to augment supply for its Monterey District and return to the Commission with such agreements for Commission approval.

FILED 10/19/18
MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT’S APPLICATION FOR REHEARING OF DECISION 18-09-017 

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 DECISION APPROVING A MODIFIED MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, ADOPTING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS, ISSUING CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY AND CERTIFYING COMBINED ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT

ABSTRACT: Re: Application of California-American Water Company (U210W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, the DECISION APPROVING A MODIFIED MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, ADOPTING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS, ISSUING CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY AND CERTIFYING COMBINED ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT document copy is embedded. Summary This decision certifies and applies the combined Final Environmental Impact Report /Environmental Impact Statement, adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and authorizes a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for California-American Water Company’s (Cal-Am) Modified Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project at a size of 6.4 million gallons per day. It also addresses four proposed settlement agreements. The Commission adopts two of these settlement agreements (Brine Discharge Settlement and Return Water Settlement). This decision declines to adopt the Comprehensive Settlement but does adopt the framework set forth in that agreement based on the proceeding record independent of the proposed settlement. The fourth settlement agreement is rejected (Sizing Settlement).
This decision finds that water rate relief bonds issued by the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District will provide savings to customers on the Monterey Peninsula. It directs Cal-Am to prepare progress reports during construction of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project, and publish them on its website. It discusses the need for water supplies in Cal-Am’s Monterey District, reviewing demand and supply estimates and selecting estimates supported by the best evidence. The decision takes into account and apportions between ratepayers and Cal-Am the risks associated with various water supplies. Compliance conditions are imposed in the decision. The settlement agreements submitted, and other relevant documents are attached as appendices. To the extent they are not otherwise discussed here, any and all outstanding motions are deemed denied. The proceeding is closed.

Date of Issuance 9/20/2018
DECISION APPROVING A MODIFIED MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, ADOPTING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS, ISSUING CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY AND CERTIFYING COMBINED ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT

APPENDIX B
Parties Position on Supply and Demand

JACQUELINE SIMONELLI et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA et al., Defendants and Respondents, IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT: Disposition Description: ‘Affirmed in full’

Filed 10/15/18 Simonelli v. City of Carmel-By-the-Sea

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

JACQUELINE SIMONELLI et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA et al., Defendants and Respondents

H044251

(Monterey County Super. Ct. No. M123079)

REFERENCES: 

Case Summary

Trial Court Case:

M123079

Court of Appeal Case:

H044251

Court of Appeal Opinion:

[PDF] [DOC]

Caution: For information on when opinions may be cited or relied upon, click here.

Division:

Case Caption:

Simonelli et al. v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California

Case Type:

CV

Filing Date:

12/09/2016

Completion Date:

Oral Argument Date/Time:

09/04/2018   01:30 PM

Cross Referenced Cases:

H019862 City of Carmel by the Sea v. Workers Compensation Appeals Board et al.

H020518 Friends of Carmel Cultural Heritage v. City of Carmel By the Sea et al.

H023282 Friends of Carmel Heritage, et al. v. City of Carmel By the Sea, et al. et al.

H039996 Simonelli v. City of Carmel-By-The-Sea, California

H040488 Simonelli v. City of Carmel-By-The-Sea

City Attorney Glen R. Mozingo’s ‘Evidence’ Does Not Corroborate All of His Claims

OCTOBER 11, 2018
Documents released by Carmel provide some support for beleaguered city attorney — but not much
By Royal Calkins

Key Mozingo resumé issues

Mozingo’s “Evidence” Does Not Corroborate His Claims, As Follows:

Congressional Gold Medal, Congress’s highest civilian honor.

Special counsel to L.A. Police Chief Daryl Gates, 1984-1992.

Hired by then-San Diego Mayor Pete Wilson to handle eminent domain issues involving Horton Plaza, which was then the city’s largest redevelopment project.

Degree, International Law, Oxford University’s Balliol College.

Trial counsel for the cities of Escondido, San Diego, Laguna Hills, Vista and Mission Viejo.

Handled “hundreds of trials” including 138 jury trials, of which he won all but two.

Ergo, the assertion announced by Mayor Pro Tem Carrie Theis and supported by Mayor Steve Dallas, City Council Members Carolyn Hardy, Jan Reimers and Bobbie Richards that Mozingo’s resumé was “100 percent” accurate is demonstrably false.

Glen R. Mozingo docs. Part 1

Glen R. Mozingo docs. Part 2

Glen R. Mozingo docs. Part 3

SOURCE: GLEN R. MOZINGO, ESQ.
CURRICULUM VITAE

REFERENCES:
Carmel releases city attorney résumé documents, questions remain
By JIM JOHNSON | jjohnson@montereyherald.com | Monterey Herald
PUBLISHED: October 12, 2018 at 3:05 pm | UPDATED: October 12, 2018 at 4:20 pm

Carmel releases City Attorney Mozingo documents
Documents shed light and lead to questions about Mozingo’s resume
Felix Cortex
Updated: 7:17 PM PDT Oct 12, 2018

PUBLIC RECORDS ACT (PRA) LOG AUGUST 2018, PRA 2018-116 through PRA 2018-130

PRA LOG 

AUGUST 2018 

PRA 2018-116 through PRA 2018-130

ABSTRACT: For the month of Aigist 2018, the City Clerk’s Office received fifteen (15) California Public Records Act requests, specifically PRA 2018-116 through PRA 2018-130, according to the CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA Monthly Report April 2018 to Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, SUBMITTED BY Thomas A. Graves, City Clerk and APPROVED BY Chip Rerig, City Administrator. Information for each PRA request, including REQUEST NUMBER, REQUEST DATE, STATUS, COMPLETED DATE, REQUESTOR, INFORMATION REQUESTED, NOTES and City Response document copies are embedded.

REQUEST NUMBER 2018-116

REQUEST DATE 8/3/2018

STATUS Completed

COMPLETED DATE 8/3/2018

REQUESTOR Kelly Basoco, Koff & Associates

INFORMATION REQUESTED 1. Current organizational chart 2. Benefit questions 3. Class specs See request for details of request

PRA 2018-116

REQUEST NUMBER 2018-117

REQUEST DATE 8/6/2018

STATUS Completed

COMPLETED DATE 8/16/2018

and 2018-102

REQUESTOR Paterson

INFORMATION REQUESTED Paterson Copies of Public Records Act requests and City's

responses to PRA requests, City Clerk's Office,

Request Numbers 2018-085 through 2018-098

Ms. Paterson -

The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea has received your request for documents and records pursuant to the California Public Records Act, sent via email on August 6, 2018. 

Electronic copies of Public Records Act requests and City’s responses to PRA requests, City Clerk’s Office, REQUEST NUMBERS 2018-085 through 2018-098 and 2018-102. (PRA LOG JUNE 2018)

In accordance with the requirements of the above referenced Act, the City is providing the following records, which are responsive to your request. 

2018-085 = Response sent 6/14/2018

2018-086 = Dropbox Link 

2018-087 = Dropbox Link

2018-088 = Dropbox Link

2018-089 = Response sent 6/8/2018

2018-090 = Dropbox Link

2018-091 = Dropbox Link

2018-092 = Dropbox Link

2018-093 = Response sent 6/27/2018

2018-094 = Response sent 6/27/2018

2018-095 = Response sent 6/27/2018

2018-096 = Dropbox Link

2018-097 = Dropbox Link

2018-098 = Response sent 7/9/2018

2018-102 = Dropbox Link

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/awwdykhfwk6ajx4/AACHXdhbVpXF1-88XLP0nb6Ea?dl=0

As authorized by the California Public Records Act, some documents may have been redacted to protect the privacy rights of individuals.

Every effort has been made to thoroughly search for all of the records which might fall within the scope of your records request.  However, in the event that you have knowledge of a specific document which has not been produced in response to your request, please notify us and we will search for that particular item.  Provided that the item that you are seeking is not exempt from disclosure, pursuant to Government Code 6254, that document will be provided in a timely manner.

--

Tom Graves, MMC

City Clerk

PO Box CC

Carmel, CA  93921

831-620-2016

REQUEST NUMBER 2018-118

REQUEST DATE 8/6/2018

STATUS Completed

COMPLETED DATE 8/6/2018

REQUESTOR Kathleen White

INFORMATION REQUESTED Kathleen White Copy of residential survey.

PRA 2018-118

REQUEST NUMBER 2018-119

REQUEST DATE 8/3/2018

STATUS Completed

COMPLETED DATE 8/6/2018

REQUESTOR 8/6/2018 Sue McCloud

INFORMATION REQUESTED Copy of Don Freeman's contract

PRA 2018-119

REQUEST NUMBER 2018-120

REQUEST DATE 8/6/2018

STATUS Completed

COMPLETED DATE 816/2018

REQUESTOR Paterson

INFORMATION REQUESTED Paterson RE: "In an email to Hardy over the weekend, Voices asked her to expand on her rationale for the current proposal. She responded with an email to Shapiro arguing that as a party to litigation with the city, this writer is somehow barred from communicating with council members. Shapiro advised her that that is not the case." Copies of the aforementioned correspondence and any other correspondence between the City & Voices, Royal Calkins, Neil Shapior on the aforementioned topic.

Ms. Paterson -

The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea has received your request for documents and records pursuant to the California Public Records Act, sent via email on August 16, 2018. 

RE: “In an email to Hardy over the weekend, Voices asked her to expand on her rationale for the current proposal. She responded with an email to Shapiro arguing that as a party to litigation with the city, this writer is somehow barred from communicating with council members. Shapiro advised her that that is not the case.”

SOURCE: AUGUST 5, 2018

Carmel Council poised to give attorney big raise despite resumé issues

KSBW editorial in support of Voices’ public records lawsuit

By Royal Calkins

https://voicesofmontereybay.org/2018/08/05/carmel-council-poised-to-give-attorney-big-raise-despite-resume-issues/

Electronic copies of the aforementioned correspondence and any other correspondence between the City & Voices, Royal Calkins, Neil Shapiro on the aforementioned topic.

In accordance with the requirements of the above referenced Act, the City is providing the following records, which are responsive to your request. 

As authorized by the California Public Records Act, some documents may have been redacted to protect the privacy rights of individuals.

Every effort has been made to thoroughly search for all of the records which might fall within the scope of your records request.  However, in the event that you have knowledge of a specific document which has not been produced in response to your request, please notify us and we will search for that particular item.  Provided that the item that you are seeking is not exempt from disclosure, pursuant to Government Code 6254, that document will be provided in a timely manner.

--

Tom Graves, MMC

City Clerk

PO Box CC

Carmel, CA  93921

831-620-2016

PRA 2018=120

From: Neil Shapiro <nlshapiro@sbcglobal.net>

Date: August 4, 2018 at 8:28:06 PM PDT

To: Carolyn Hardy <chardy824@gmail.com>

Cc: Jon Giffen <jgiffen@kaglaw.net>, Gerard Rose <Gerard@gerardroselaw.com>

Subject: Re: Your Client Calkins

REQUEST NUMBER 2018-121

REQUEST DATE 8/8/2018

STATUS Completed

COMPLETED DATE 8/9/2018

REQUESTOR Paul Jalbert Investments Retrievers

INFORMATION REQUESTED Print and email ANY business licenses, with city of Carmel, under following: Silvia J Sweidan aka: Silvia Ghanma or associated with/registered at, addresses: 15310 Rains Ct, Moorpark, CA; 3 Rancho San Carlos Rd, Carmel, CA; 25880 Rio Vista Dr, Carmel, CA

PRA 2018-121

REQUEST NUMBER 2018-122

REQUEST DATE 8/8/2018

STATUS Withdrawn

COMPLETED DATE 8/9/2018

REQUESTOR Mary Schley - Carmel Pine Cone

INFORMATION REQUESTED How much has been paid to Glen Mozingo to date

PRA 2018-122

REQUEST NUMBER 2018-123

REQUEST DATE 8/10/2018

STATUS Completed

COMPLETED DATE 8/10/2018

REQUESTOR Neil Shapiro

INFORMATION REQUESTED G Mozingo contract

PRA 2018-123

REQUEST NUMBER 2018-124

REQUEST DATE 8/13/2018

STATUS

COMPLETED DATE 8/23/2018

REQUESTOR Paterson

INFORMATION REQUESTED 1. RE: 4. City Council Special Meeting Agenda, Monday, August 6, 2018 Consent Agenda 4. Resolution No. 2018-071, Authorizing the Mayor to execute a legal service agreement with G.R. Mozingo, Esq, APC (A Professional Corporation) effective July 1, 2018 and ending June 30, 2023. Electronic copies of "amended resolution and staff report" and "provisions of the contract" and all other information not provided in the agenda packet. 2. City Council Agenda Regular Meeting Tuesday, August 7, 2018 Orders of Business 2. Update on history of legal proceedings and council decisions regarding the Flanders Mansion property. Electronic copies of materials regarding aforementioned agenda item.

Ms. Paterson -

The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea has received your request for documents and records pursuant to the California Public Records Act, sent via email on August 13, 2018. 

RE: 4. CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA

Monday, August 6, 2018

CONSENT AGENDA

4. RESOLUTION NO. 2018-071, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A LEGAL SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH G.R. MOZINGO, ESQ, APC (A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION) EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2018 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 2023

Electronic copies of “amended resolution and staff report” and “provisions of the contract” and all other information not provided in the agenda packet.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA

REGULAR MEETING

Tuesday, August 7, 2018

ORDERS OF BUSINESS

2. UPDATE ON HISTORY OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND COUNCIL DECISIONS REGARDING THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY.

Electronic copies of materials regarding aforementioned agenda item.

This item was an oral presentation to the City Council by Jon Giffen, Assistant City Attorney.

In accordance with the requirements of the above referenced Act, the City is providing the following records, which are responsive to your request. 

As authorized by the California Public Records Act, some documents may have been redacted to protect the privacy rights of individuals.

Every effort has been made to thoroughly search for all of the records which might fall within the scope of your records request.  However, in the event that you have knowledge of a specific document which has not been produced in response to your request, please notify us and we will search for that particular item.  Provided that the item that you are seeking is not exempt from disclosure, pursuant to Government Code 6254, that document will be provided in a timely manner.

--

Tom Graves, MMC

City Clerk

PO Box CC

Carmel, CA  93921

831-620-2016

PRA 2018-124

REQUEST NUMBER 2018-125

REQUEST DATE 8/16/2018

STATUS Completed

COMPLETED DATE 8/16/2018

REQUESTOR Mary Schley -

Carmel Pine Cone

INFORMATION REQUESTED Copy of the petitions submitted in support of

the restaurant improvement district

PRA 2018-125

REQUEST NUMBER 2018-126

REQUEST DATE 8/16/2018

STATUS Completed

COMPLETED DATE 9/6/2018

REQUESTOR Sue McCloud

INFORMATION REQUESTED Copy of Wilson Wendt law firm analysis of Flanders options and costs

PRA 2018-126

REQUEST NUMBER 2018-127

REQUEST DATE 8/20/2018

STATUS Completed

COMPLETED DATE 8/20/2018

REQUESTOR Cameron Slovic – Stanford University

INFORMATION REQUESTED Fiscal emergency resolutions since the beginning of the 2000 fiscal year. Resolutions for holding emergency tax elections and emergency negotiations with public employees.

PRA 2018-127

REQUEST NUMBER 2018-128

REQUEST DATE 8/21/2018

STATUS Completed

COMPLETED DATE 8/22/2018

REQUESTOR Kimbley Craig

INFORMATION REQUESTED  1. Any and all records showing the number of arrests made for sex trafficking for the period January 1, 2014 through present. 2. Any and all records showing the number of arrests made for labor trafficking for the period January 1, 2014 through present.

PRA 2018-128

REQUEST NUMBER 2018-129

REQUEST DATE 8/27/2018

STATUS Completed

COMPLETED DATE 9/6/2018

REQUESTOR Paterson

INFORMATION REQUESTED  Electronic copy of document(s) articulating City of Carmel-by-the-Sea's policy and proper procedures regarding the expenditure of taxpayer monies for litigation

Ms. Paterson -

The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea has received your request for documents and records pursuant to the California Public Records Act, sent via email on August 27, 2018. 

Electronic copy of document(s) articulating City of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s policy and proper procedures regarding the expenditure of taxpayer monies for litigation.

In accordance with the requirements of the above referenced Act, the City is providing the following records, which are responsive to your request.

As authorized by the California Public Records Act, some documents may have been redacted to protect the privacy rights of individuals.

Every effort has been made to thoroughly search for all of the records which might fall within the scope of your records request. However, in the event that you have knowledge of a specific document which has not been produced in response to your request, please notify us and we will search for that particular item. Provided that the item that you are seeking is not exempt from disclosure, pursuant to Government Code 6254, that document will be provided in a timely manner.

--

Tom Graves, MMC

City Clerk

PO Box CC

Carmel, CA  93921

831-620-2016

State of California
GOVERNMENT CODE
Section 54956.9
54956.9. (a) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent a legislative body of a local agency, based on advice of its legal counsel, from holding a closed session to confer with, or receive advice from, its legal counsel regarding pending litigation when discussion in open session concerning those matters would prejudice the position of the local agency in the litigation.

(b) For purposes of this chapter, all expressions of the lawyer-client privilege other than those provided in this section are hereby abrogated. This section is the exclusive expression of the lawyer-client privilege for purposes of conducting closed-session meetings pursuant to this chapter.

(c) For purposes of this section, “litigation” includes any adjudicatory proceeding, including eminent domain, before a court, administrative body exercising its adjudicatory authority, hearing officer, or arbitrator.

(d) For purposes of this section, litigation shall be considered pending when any of the following circumstances exist:

(1) Litigation, to which the local agency is a party, has been initiated formally.

(2) A point has been reached where, in the opinion of the legislative body of the local agency on the advice of its legal counsel, based on existing facts and circumstances, there is a significant exposure to litigation against the local agency.

(3) Based on existing facts and circumstances, the legislative body of the local agency is meeting only to decide whether a closed session is authorized pursuant to paragraph (2).

(4) Based on existing facts and circumstances, the legislative body of the local agency has decided to initiate or is deciding whether to initiate litigation.

(e) For purposes of paragraphs (2) and (3) of subdivision (d), “existing facts and circumstances” shall consist only of one of the following:

(1) Facts and circumstances that might result in litigation against the local agency but which the local agency believes are not yet known to a potential plaintiff or plaintiffs, which facts and circumstances need not be disclosed.

(2) Facts and circumstances, including, but not limited to, an accident, disaster, incident, or transactional occurrence that might result in litigation against the agency and that are known to a potential plaintiff or plaintiffs, which facts or circumstances shall be publicly stated on the agenda or announced.

(3) The receipt of a claim pursuant to the Government Claims Act (Division 3.6 (commencing with Section 810) of Title 1 of the Government Code) or some other written communication from a potential plaintiff threatening litigation, which claim or communication shall be available for public inspection pursuant to Section 54957.5.

(4) A statement made by a person in an open and public meeting threatening litigation on a specific matter within the responsibility of the legislative body.

(5) A statement threatening litigation made by a person outside an open and public meeting on a specific matter within the responsibility of the legislative body so long as the official or employee of the local agency receiving knowledge of the threat makes a contemporaneous or other record of the statement prior to the meeting, which record shall be available for public inspection pursuant to Section 54957.5. The records so created need not identify the alleged victim of unlawful or tortious sexual conductor anyone making the threat on their behalf, or identify a public employee who is the alleged perpetrator of any unlawful or tortious conduct upon which a threat of litigation is based, unless the identity of the person has been publicly disclosed.

(f) Nothing in this section shall require disclosure of written communications that are privileged and not subject to disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1).

(g) Prior to holding a closed session pursuant to this section, the legislative body of the local agency shall state on the agenda or publicly announce the paragraph of subdivision (d) that authorizes the closed session. If the session is closed pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (d), the body shall state the title of or otherwise specifically identify the litigation to be discussed, unless the body states that to do so would jeopardize the agency’s ability to effectuate service of process upon one or more unserved parties, or that to do so would jeopardize its ability to conclude existing settlement negotiations to its advantage.

(h) A local agency shall be considered to be a “party” or to have a “significant exposure to litigation” if an officer or employee of the local agency is a party or has significant exposure to litigation concerning prior or prospective activities or alleged activities during the course and scope of that office or employment, including litigation in which it is an issue whether an activity is outside the course and scope of the office or employment.

(Amended by Stats. 2012, Ch. 759, Sec. 7. (AB 2690) Effective January 1, 2013.)

PRA 2018-129

REQUEST NUMBER 2018-130

REQUEST DATE 8/27/2018

STATUS Completed

COMPLETED DATE 8/28/2018

REQUESTOR Rita Ritz - City of Brookings, OR

INFORMATION REQUESTED Copies of Ordinances: 77-1, 78-9, 89-25, 291,

201, 380, 380.1, 380.2, 630, 630.1, 630.2, 631.01

NOTES  8/27 – clarification e-mail sent

8/28/18 response documents mailed

PRA 2018-130