The State of California, Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health, Interpreted Public Safety Director/Police Chief Paul Tomasi’s statements “I’ve had three electrical fires in the building in the past three years. We have shingles falling off the roof that have not been repaired. The emergency operations center flooded two years ago, and the fire department had to come clean it out. This building is an absolute mess” as a Complaint

ABSTRACT: In the news article entitled “Board: police station is ‘an eyesore,’ not historic,” MARY SCHLEY, The Carmel Pine Cone April 20, 2018, Public Safety Director/Police Chief Paul Tomasi “described the sad state of the station.”

“I spend more time in this building than I do my own home, so I know it pretty well,” he said, adding that it has been neglected for decades.
“We’ve had water leaks for over 30 years in this building,” he said, as has public works below. “I’ve had three electrical fires in the building in the past three years. We have shingles falling off the roof that have not been repaired. The emergency operations center flooded two years ago, and the fire department had to come clean it out. This building is an absolute mess.”
He also said its dispatch center is so outdated that employees have been injured working in it, and there’s nowhere to safely package evidence.
The State of California Department of Industrial Relations Division of Occupational Safety and Health interpreted that statement as a Complaint (Complaint No. 1332073) and transmitted a letter dated April 30, 2018 to the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Police Department. The letter stated, in part, Code Section(s) and Alleged Condition(sl:
1. Potential concerns with hazards associated with electrical fires in building due to contact with water.
(Reference T8 CCR Sec. 2340.1, 2340.2, 3203)
2. Potential concerns with hazards associated with flooding inside building due to leaks in roof.
(Reference T8 CCR Sec. 3362, 3203)
3. Potential concerns with hazards associated with missing roof shingles on building. (Reference T8 CCR Sec. 1632, 3203)
… you are required to investigate the alleged condition(s) and notify this office in writing no later than fourteen (14) calendar days after receipt of this letter whether the alleged condition(s) exist and, if so, specify the corrective action(s) you have taken 2nd the estimated date when the corrections will be completed. If possible, please e-mail your response to Kelly Tatum, district manager, at DIRDOSHFREMONT@dir.ca.gov
Please include any written documentation, e.g., equipment purchase orders or contracts for corrective work, and photographs, if appropriate, in your response. If you do not respond in a timely and satisfactory manner, an unannounced inspection of your workplace will be scheduled, which may result in citation(s) and monetary penalties. Also, every tenth satisfactory letter response from employers is subject to verification by an inspection.
In a letter dated May 31, 2018, Robert Harary, P.E., Public Works Director, responded. The City’s response document copy is embedded.

 

REFERENCE: Board: police station is ‘an eyesore,’ not historic By MARY SCHLEY, The Carmel Pine Cone April 20, 2018, 1A & 15A

EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
Division of Occupational Safety and Health
Fremont District Office
39141 Civic Center Drive, Suite 310 Fremont, CA 94538
Tel. # (510) 794-2521 Fax# (510) 794-3889
April 30, 2018
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Police Department

City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
May 31, 2018
State of California
Department of Industrial Relations
Division of Occupational Safety and Health
Fremont District
39141 Civic Center Drive, Suite 310
Fremont, CA 94538
Attention: Kelly Tatum, District Manager
RE: COMPLAINT NO. 1332073 RELATED TO CONCERNS AT THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA POLICE DEPARTMENT FACILITY

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND GENERAL RELEASE OF CLAIMS Between STU ROSS & CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, May 20, 2015

ABSTRACT: The Settlement Agreement and General Release of Claims document copy between STU ROSS and the City of CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, a municipal corporation, is embedded. Significant RECITALS include, as follows: ROSS was employed by the CITY as the Superintendent of Public Works. ROSS's position is included in the bargaining unit represented by the Carmel Management Employees Union ("ASSOCIATION") and is covered by a memorandum of understanding between the CITY and the ASSOCIATION. The CITY has received the results of an investigation report that the CITY believes warrants termination of ROSS's employment with the CITY. The investigation report also indicated that, over the past approximately eighteen (18) months, ROSS has recorded hours on his CITY timesheet that he did not actually work. ROSS received payment for those recorded hours. The total amount of payment ROSS received for hours that he did not actually work is $4,860.92. ROSS disputes that disciplinary action is warranted and, should the CITY move forward with a termination, would invoke his right to appeal the termination. The CITY is prepared to oppose an appeal and to advocate to uphold the termination. The PARTIES desire to resolve all disputes of every kind and nature between them arising out of or related to ROSS's employment with the CITY, (including, but not limited to, ROSS'S termination) amicably, fully, and finally, under the terms and conditions specified in this AGREEMENT, for good and sufficient reasons and consideration, including but not limited to, avoiding expending or incurring additional time or money, avoiding the uncertainties and cost of an appeal hearing, and avoiding any costs or uncertainties of administrative proceedings or litigation. The PARTIES agree that this AGREEMENT resolves a disputed matter and is not an admission of liability, fault, or wrongdoing on the part of the PARTIES. CONSIDERATION includes, in part, as follows: In exchange for the consideration and releases set forth herein, within a reasonable period following the EFFECTIVE DATE of this AGREEMENT, the CITY and ROSS agree to the following:
i. The CITY shall not move forward with any disciplinary action against ROSS.
ii. ROSS shall submit a letter of retirement, identifying May 20, 2015 as his last day of employment with the CITY.
iii. The CITY shall deduct $4,860.92, the amount ROSS has been paid for hours he did not actually work, from ROSS's final payment from the CITY.
WHEREFORE the PARTIES have read all of the foregoing, understand the same, and agree to all of the provisions of this AGREEMENT.
STU ROSS
CITY OF CARMEL Doug Schmitz, City Administrator
Approved as to Form:
J. Ocean Motley, Staff Attorney
LIUNA/UPEC Local 792
On behalf of Ross and the Association
Samantha W. Zutler
Attorney for City of CARMEL
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP

Ross and City Settlement Agreement and General Release of Claims 05-20-15

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND GENERAL RELEASE OF CLAIMS
STU ROSS and the City of CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
May 20, 2015

REFERENCE:
Ross retires to avoid fight with city over timecards, By MARY SCHLEY, The Carmel Pine Cone, May 22, 2015, 1A & 13A

CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD San Jose Office of Appeals ALJ Luma S. Williams’ DECISION IN THE LESLIE S. FENTON CASE NO. 5258347

ABSTRACT:  In Administrative Law Judge Luma S. Williams’ decision in the Leslie S. Fenton Case No.: 5258347 (July 2014), the DECISION states: “The department determination is reversed. The claimant is not disqualified under code section 1256. Benefits are payable provided the claimant is otherwise eligible.”  Moreover, “The claimant appealed from a determination disqualifying the claimant for unemployment benefits under Unemployment Insurance Code section 1256.  The issue in this case is whether the claimant was discharged for misconduct connected with the most recent work.”  REASONS FOR DECISION, states, in part, “In this matter, the claimant made credible statements in her written declaration, supported by documentation from a forensic expert, to rebut the allegations made by the employer.  The employer, on the other hand, did not appear at the hearing, nor did it provide any evidence, aside from hearsay statements, to support the allegations made against the claimant, even though it had the opportunity to do so. Accordingly, the statements made by the claimant are given greater weight.”  And “In this matter, the employer has not met its burden of proving that the claimant substantially breached any duty or obligation owed to the employer.  Accordingly. the claimant was discharged for reasons other than misconduct connected with her most recent work and is not disqualified under code section 1256.  Benefits are payable provided the claimant is otherwise eligible.”  ALJ Luma S. Williams’ Decision in Case No.: 5258347 document is embedded.

NOTE:  On August 22, 2014, a public records act request was submitted to the City for Administrative Law Judge Luma Williams’ decision in former Administrative Coordinator Leslie Fenton’s case. On August 28, 2014, the City denied the request.  On September 3, 2014, the City’s response, copied to City Attorney Don Freeman via Leanne Graham, his legal secretary, stated “Attached regarding your Public Records Request is additional statue of Unemployment Code exemption from Public Records as follows: Except as otherwise specifically provided in this code, the information obtained in the administration of this code is confidential, not open to the public, and shall be for the exclusive use and information of the director in discharge of his or her duties.”  However, on September 26, 2014, Presiding ALJ Mitchell Davis facilitated requestor’s receipt of ALJ Luma S. Williams’ decision in the Leslie S. Fenton case stating that the decision was a public record, subject to the Public Records Act.

CUIAB Leslie Fenton Case No. 5258347

San Jose Office of Appeals

ALJ: Luma S. Williams

Case No.: 5258347

CL T/PET: Leslie S. Fenton

REFERENCE:
Judge finds that planning department worker was not fired for ‘misconduct’
By MARY SCHLEY, The Carmel Pine Cone, August 22, 2014, 27A

CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD San Jose Office of Appeals ALJ T.J. MINOR’S DECISION IN THE MARGATET M. PEROTTI CASE NOS. 5307895 & 5307896

ABSTRACT:  In Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) T.J. Minor’s decision in the Margatet M. Perotti Case No.: 5307895 (September 2014), the DECISION states: “The time to appeal is extended. The Department determination is reversed.  The claimant is qualified under code section 1256. Benefits are payable provided the claimant is otherwise eligible.”  Moreover, “The claimant appealed from a determination disqualifying the claimant for unemployment benefits under Unemployment Insurance Code section 1256.  The issue in this case is whether the claimant was discharged for misconduct connected with the most recent work.  An additional issue is whether the appeal was filed within 20 days from the date the department's notice was mailed and, if not, whether there is good cause to extend the 20-day deadline.”  REASONS FOR DECISION, states, in part, “The employer's "factual basis" for the termination, so called in its letter of March 26, 2014 presented by the employer for the hearing, apparently is the "systems surveillance log" purportedly listing the individual uses of the claimant's computer to access other employee's computers and emails.  The foundation for this evidence is substantially lacking.  Further, the conclusions asserted by the employer concerning that surveillance log data were substantially and compellingly debunked by a technical analysis report presented by the claimant at the hearing.  The employer had the ability to present witness testimony to support its conclusions but failed to do so.  This gives further cause to view the employer's evidence with distrust.  As a result of the foregoing, the claimant's credible testimony was entitled to and was given greater weight than the employer's hearsay evidence, resulting in the Findings of Fact, above.”  And “In the present case, the evidence has failed to demonstrate the claimant knowingly violated any policy or duty she owed the employer.  The employer had not warned her previously about any similar conduct.  Despite the numerous allegations of wrongdoing, the employer presented no evidence of any motive for the claimant to invade her co-workers' emails or access and destroy any of the employer's documents.  Such tends strongly to further undercut the credibility of the accusations.  The employer has not met its burden of proving the claimant willfully or wantonly breached an important duty.  It is therefore found that the claimant was discharged for reasons other than misconduct and is qualified under code section 1256. Benefits are payable provided the claimant is otherwise eligible.”  In Case No.: 5307896, “The claimant appealed from a determination that held the claimant not eligible for benefits under Unemployment Insurance Code section 1253(c) beginning May 4, 2014.  The issue in this case is whether the claimant was available for work. An additional issue is whether the appeal was filed within 20 days from the date the department's notice was mailed and, if not whether there is good cause to extend the 20-day deadline.”  DECISION “The time to appeal is extended.  The department determination is reversed.  The claimant is eligible for benefits under code section 1253(c) beginning May 4, 2014. Benefits are payable provided the claimant is otherwise eligible.”  ALJ T.J. Minor’s Decision in Case No.: 5307895 and Case No.: 5307896, document is embedded.

CUIAB Margaret Perotti Case Nos. 530795, 5307896

San Jose Office of Appeals

ALJ: T.J. Minor

Case No.: 5307895

CL T/PET: Margaret M Perotti

Case No.: 5307896

CL T/PET: Margaret M Perotti

REFERENCE:

Perotti awarded unemployment benefits

City’s evidence against her ‘substantially lacking,’ judge says
By MARY SCHLEY, The Carmel Pine Cone September 26, 2014, 8A

The California Public Records Act (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6250-6270): ‘In enacting this chapter, the Legislature, mindful of the right of individuals to privacy, finds and declares that access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state.’

ABSTRACT:  Notably, after the City Council met in closed session on Thursday, October 10, 2013 and announced the settlement of The Carmel Pine Cone editor/publisher/owner Paul Miller’s lawsuit against the City (CARMEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Petitioner, v. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive Respondents, Case No.: M125118 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE), the City reaffirmed “the city’s policy and practice that the California Public Records Act be construed broadly in favor of public disclosure, consistent with the law and the rights of our employees,” according to The Carmel Pine Cone. However, five days later, on October 15, 2013, The Carmel Pine Cone received the City’s response to a September 2013 Public Records Act request for emails between Carmel Residents Association President Barbara Livingston, City Administrator Jason Stilwell and Carmel Mayor Jason Burnett from Liebert Cassidy Whitmore attorney Heather Coffman stating in a letter the City’s refusal to provide the documents because the emails had a “privacy right” that outweighed the public’s right to view the emails. “Please note that personal identifying information contained in response to the PRA requests has been redacted in order to protect the privacy interests at issue. For example, correspondence of members of the public detailing their concerns as citizens have been redacted because the public interest in disclosure of this correspondence is clearly outweighed by the interest in nondisclosure to avoid a chilling effect on the public.” Links to Secrecy at city hall reaches new heights - CRA president exchanges hidden messages with mayor, city administrator, MARY SCHLEY, October 25, 2013 and Pine Cone sues city over resume, but suit is quickly settled, PINE CONE STAFF REPORT, October 11, 2013 are provided with Excerpt Highlights. The California Public Records Act (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6250-6270) document is embedded. 

Secrecy at city hall reaches new heights
- CRA president exchanges hidden messages with mayor, city administrator
By MARY SCHLEY
Published: October 25, 2013

Excerpt Highlights:
A REQUEST from The Pine Cone for emails between Carmel Residents Association President Barbara Livingston, city administrator Jason Stilwell and Carmel Mayor Jason Burnett was refused last week because the city considers much of their correspondence too sensitive or inflammatory to allow the public to read it.
The Pine Cone asked for the emails in September, under the provisions of the California Public Records Act, which clearly requires that government officials release emails, letters, documents and other written records that are about official business.
But the city responded to The Pine Cone’s requests by providing heavily redacted copies of approximately 75 emails dated between early July and the end of September. Many of them had their entire contents redacted. The coverups were made in white, so it’s impossible to tell how much writing was hidden.
In her Oct. 15 cover letter explaining the city’s refusal to provide the documents, San Francisco attorney Heather Coffman said the people who wrote and received the emails had a “privacy right” that outweighed the public’s right to see them.
When asked if she would provide the copies herself, Livingston said she deletes every email as soon as she is done reading it. When asked if she would give permission to the city to release full copies of the messages, she simply replied, “No, thanks.”

Pine Cone sues city over resume, but suit is quickly settled
PINE CONE STAFF REPORT
Published: October 11, 2013

Excerpt Highlights:
 “We reached an agreement with the city, not only to provide us with everything substantive from Mullane’s resume, but also a promise that they would do the same in the future for all new hires to senior-management-level positions at city hall,” publisher Paul Miller said.
The city council, meeting in closed session Thursday to respond to the suit, also reaffirmed “the city’s policy and practice that the California Public Records Act be construed broadly in favor of public disclosure, consistent with the law and the rights of our employees.”

ADDENDUM:
A POCKET GUIDE TO THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT, A SERVICE OF: THE FIRST AMENDMENT PROJECT SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS (Nor. Cal.)

GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6250-6270.pdf

GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6250-6270

SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT Warrant No. 7682

ABSTRACT: The STATE OF CALIFORNIA – COUNTY OF MONTEREY RETURN FOR SEARCH WARRANT, signed by Officer Rachelle Lightfoot on June 13, 2013, and the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA County of Monterey SEARCH WARRANT, signed by the Honorable Judge Robert O’Farrell on June 5, 2013, filed June 13, 2013, Warrant No. 7682 documents are embedded. Evidence type (Penal Code § 1524) “Property or things used as a means of committing a felony” and “Property or things that are evidence that tends to show a felony has been committed, or tends to show a particular person has committed a felony.” Forensic Examiner Mark Alcock was hired by the City and began his investigation of IT Manager Steve McInchak on March 6, 2013. Based on his training and experience and forensic exam, it was his opinion that McInchak was in violation of California Code Section 502. Alcock cited the following sections:

• 502 PC: "Where the law was enacted to protect the integrity of all types and forms of lawfully created computers, computer systems, and computer data that was vital for the protection of the privacy of individuals as well as to the well being of financial institutions, business concerns and governmental agencies."

• 502 (c)(2) PC: "Knowingly accesses and without permission, takes, copies, or makes use of any data from a computer, computer system, or computer network, or takes or copies any supporting documentation, whether existing or residing internal or external to a computer, computer system, or computer network."

• 502 (c )(7) PC: "Knowingly and without permission accesses or causes to be accessed any computer, computer system or computer network."

Moreover, “the information systems manager was to act under administrative direction, and that the use of access codes of other employees to gain access to their e-mail and phone messages, or any computer account was prohibited except by management. Mclnchak's position was not considered a management position.” The District Attorney’s Office will make its decision to not charge or charge, as a misdemeanor or felony, McInchak based on Carmel Police Department investigative reports and/or analysis of seized items.

 

  

STATE OF CALIFORNIA- COUNTY OF MONTEREY 

RETURN FOR SEARCH WARRANT &
SEARCH WARRANT

RELATED NEWS ARTICLE:

Warrant: IT boss being watched for months

-         Alleges he copied private files

By MARY SCHLEY, The Carmel Pine Cone
Published: June 21, 2013

ADDENDUM:

 Information Systems Network Manager Job Description and Policy No. c03-01

INFORMATION SYSTEMS NETWORK MANAGER Job Description & POLICY NO. C03-01

 City Organization 05-07-13

City Organizational Structure

Source: City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California

Fiscal Year 2013-2014

Proposed Operating Plan & Budget

May 7, 2013

Sales Tax Increase, Hotel Fee: ANALYSIS, COMMENTS & QUESTIONS

ABSTRACT:  On Tuesday, 12 June 2012, the City Council will consider whether to place a referendum on the November ballot that would increase the sales tax rate from 7.25 percent to 8.25 percent.  Pertinent sections of the Fiscal Year 2012-2013 Proposed Budget are reproduced, including KEY ISSUES AFFECTING THE BUDGET, Revenue Stagnation, BUSINESS DATA and FINANCIAL POLICIES.  ANALYSIS, COMMENTS & QUESTIONS are presented.

KEY ISSUES AFFECTING THE BUDGET

Developing and maintaining a balanced budget involves a number of trade-offs but often includes a handful of key issues. Three key issues affecting the City’s budget are 1) revenue stagnation, 2) the cost of providing retirement benefits, and 3) ambulance service.

Revenue Stagnation

One key issue for the past three budget cycles was flat or declining revenue. This issue is highlighted in the financial forecast discussed above and described in detail in the March 20, 2012 Five-Year Financial Forecast. The revenue from the City’s three primary revenue sources (property tax, sales tax, and transient occupancy tax) is projected to increase $580,000 from the Fiscal Year 2011-2012 budget.  However, use of reserves (primarily for one-time capital expenditures), loss of State intergovernmental revenue, and lower interest earnings offset the gains in the primary revenues. As a result, total sources are proposed to be lower in Fiscal Year 2012-2013 than the Fiscal Year 2011-2012 levels.

BUSINESS DATA

Three Largest Revenue Sources:

Revenue Source (Dollars in Millions)	FY05-06 Actual	FY06-07 Actual	FY07-08 Actual	FY08-09 Actual	FY09-10 Actual	FY10-11 Actual
Property Tax	$3.346	$3.726	$3.867	$4.066	$4.189	$4.158
Transient Occupancy Tax	$3.879	$4.209	$4.395	$3.787	$3.830	$3.879
Sales Tax	$2.169	$2.143	$2.340	$2.181	$1.620	$1.806

FINANCIAL POLICIES

The City recognizes that its primary revenue sources are locally generated, especially TOT and sales tax revenue, and for the most part this revenue is largely generated by non-residents. Efforts to ensure continued reliability in these revenue sources need to be maintained and with additional efforts to develop and diversify other revenue sources as applicable. The City actively practices monitoring, auditing and collecting all locally generated taxes.

SOURCE: City of Carmel-by-the-Sea

Fiscal Year 2012-2013 Proposed Budget

April 24, 2012

ANALYSIS, COMMENTS & QUESTIONS

• If the City Council votes to place a referendum on the November ballot and if it is approved by a simple majority of voters, a sales tax increase from 7.25% to 8.25% would represent an increase of 13.8%

• The sales tax – the third largest revenue source after property tax and transient occupancy tax – is already down by 22.8% from three years ago, FY 07-08.

• With an increase in the sales tax, overall sales could decline, small businesses that are barely holding on now may be forced to close their doors, and importantly, revenue projections will probably not double sales tax income from $1.806 to $4 million per year, as Mayor Jason Burnett told Mary Schley (The Carmel Pine Cone), based on past results of revenue estimates by other government entities.

• New revenues arguably may be needed, but the best way to increase revenues is to create a favorable business climate to attract business owners with the goal of 100% business occupancy in the downtown commercial district.  With full business occupancy, overall sales will increase and the City will see a healthy growth in city revenues as a result.

• Question:  Does it make economic and fiscal sense to increase the tax rate of the tax which generates significantly less than the first and second revenue sources and is the only revenue source which has been flat or declined since FY 2005/06?

• Given that “The City recognizes that its primary revenue sources are locally generated, especially TOT and sales tax revenue, and for the most part this revenue is largely generated by non-residents,” is it fair to place the entire tax increase burden on visitors and tourists in the form of a sales tax increase and a hotel fee? 

ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CARMEL MUNICIPAL CODE TO BAN THE DISTRIBUTION OF SINGLE-USE PLASTIC BAGS FROM RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS WITHIN THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

ABSTRACT:  Information pertinent to the City Council’s 5 June 2012 unanimous decision to approve an Ordinance amending the Carmel Municipal Code to ban the distribution of single-use plastic bags from retail establishments within the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is presented.   The City’s Information packet, including EXHIBIT “A” CMC 8.74 Single-Use Plastic Carryout Bags Draft Ordinance, is embedded, and links to Plastic Bags: Local Ordinances and Elements of a Successful Single-Use Bag Ordinance are provided.  Green Cities California Master Environmental Assessment on Single-Use and Reusable Bags, March 2010 is embedded; Executive Summary, Overview of Findings, is reproduced. SAVE THE PLASTIC BAG COALITION MEMORANDUM, dated April 27, 2012, regarding ban of plastic bags at restaurants and other “food facilities” is embedded. The Supreme Court of California's Opinion, SAVE THE PLASTIC BAG COALITION, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH, Defendant and Appellant and SAVE THE PLASTIC BAG COALITION Complaint against COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, dated October 17, 2011, are embedded.  Finally, THE GARBAGE PATCH IN THE OCEANS: THE PROBLEM AND POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS by Marzia Sesini, August 2011, is embedded; the EXECUTIVE SUMMARY is reproduced.

Ordinance Ban Single-use Plastic Carryout Bags June 2012 OCR Document

City Council Staff Report & Ordinance

SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF THE FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CARMEL MUNICIPAL CODE TO BAN THE DISTRIBUTION OF SINGLE-USE PLASTIC BAGS FROM RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS WITHIN THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA OR, IN THE ALTERNATE-DEFER ACTION AND DIRECT STAFF TO WORK WITH THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY

Related News Article: Council adopts ban on plastic bags - No mandatory charge for paper bags, MARY SCHLEY, TheCarmel Pine Cone, June 8, 2012

Plastic Bags: Local Ordinances, Californians Against Waste

Elements of a Successful Single-Use Bag Ordinance, Californians Against Waste

NOTES: Santa Cruz County

On September 13, 2011, the County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously in favor of a single-use bag ordinance. It bans single-use plastic bags and places a 10 cent minimum price requirement on single-use paper bags throughout unincorporated county areas. It is effective March 20, 2012.

Monterey

The Monterey City Council unanimously passed an ordinance on December 6, 2011. The ordinance bans plastic bags and places an initial 10 cent minimum price requirement on paper bags for the first year (25 cents after).

MEA.single Use Bags

Green Cities California

Master Environmental Assessment on Single-Use and Reusable Bags

March 2010

Executive Summary

Overview of Findings

 Single-Use Plastic Bags: Nearly 20 billion single-use high density polyethylene (HDPE) plastic grocery bags are used annually in California; most end up in landfills or as litter. Of the four types of bags considered, plastic bags had the greatest impact on litter.

 Single-Use Paper Bags: Kraft paper bags are recycled at a significantly higher rate than single-use plastic bags. Still, over its lifetime, a single-use paper bag has significantly larger greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and results in greater atmospheric acidification, water consumption, and ozone production than plastic bags.

 Single-Use Biodegradable Bags: Although biodegradable bags are thought to be an eco-friendly alternative to HDPE plastic bags, they have greater environmental impacts at manufacture, resulting in more GHG emissions and water consumption than conventional plastic bags. In addition, biodegradable bags may degrade only under composting conditions. Therefore, when littered, they will have a similar impact on aesthetics and marine life as HDPE plastic bags.

 Reusable Bags: Reusable bags can be made from plastic or cloth and are designed to be used up to hundreds of times. Assuming the bags are reused at least a few times, reusable bags have significantly lower environmental impacts, on a per use basis, than single-use bags. Some of the reviewed LCAs indicate that use of the non-woven plastic reusable bag results in particularly large environmental benefits.

 Effects of Policy Options on Single-Use Bags: In other regions of the world, fees and bans on bags have resulted in dramatic drops in consumption. For instance, the Irish plastic bag tax immediately resulted in a greater than 90% reduction in use. Due to California law AB2449, no fee program on plastic bags can be introduced. However, bans on single-use plastic bags, as well as fees on other single-use bags, may be implemented to minimize use.

STPB Restaurant Bag Memo

SAVE THE PLASTIC BAG COALITION MEMORANDUM

FROM: Stephen L. Joseph, Counsel

TO: California cities and counties

RE: Restaurant bags

DATE: April 27, 2012

SUMMARY

The California Retail Food Code preempts any local regulation or ban of plastic bags at restaurants and other “food facilities.” Save The Plastic Bag Coalition (“STPB”) will sue every city or county that adopts an ordinance that bans, restricts, limits, or requires a charge for plastic bags at any restaurant or “food facility.”

The City and County of San Francisco and the City of Carpinteria have adopted ordinances banning plastic bags at restaurants. STPB has filed lawsuits against San Francisco and Carpinteria to invalidate their restaurant bag bans.

All other cities and counties that have banned plastic bags have exempted restaurants, including Alameda County, Los Angeles County, Marin County, Santa Clara County, the City of Dana Point, the City of Laguna Beach, the City of Long Beach, the City of Ojai, the City of San Jose, and the City of Santa Monica. Santa Cruz County and the City of Manhattan Beach initially banned plastic bags at restaurants, but they have amended their ordinances and now exempt restaurants.

NOTE:  Proposed Carmel-by-the-Sea Ordinance: Restaurants: There have been lawsuits filed over the adoption of plastic bag bans in other California communities. One of the arguments has been that plastic bags are safer to carry hot carryout food from restaurants. For this reason, Monterey and other communities have exempted restaurants from their proposed ordinances. Staff is also proposing to exempt restaurants at this time.

California Supreme Court S180720

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

SAVE THE PLASTIC BAG COALITION, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH, Defendant and Appellant.

SUMMARY:

The Court considered two questions, namely (1) What are the standing requirements for a corporate entity to challenge a determination on the preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR)? (2) Was the city of Manhattan Beach required to prepare an EIR on the effects of an ordinance banning the use of plastic bags by local businesses?  The court ruled that the Plaintiff, a coalition of plastic bag manufactures and distributors, had standing.  And “On the merits, the courts below ruled that the city had to prepare an EIR before implementing a ban on plastic bags. We disagree. Substantial evidence and common sense support the citys determination that its ordinance would have no significant environmental effect. Therefore, a negative declaration was sufficient to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.).1 Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals judgment.”

NOTE: Manhattan Beach 

The Manhattan Beach City council voted in July 2008 to ban plastic bags. The CA Supreme Court overturned a legal challenge to the ordinance in July 2011

Santa Cruz Bags

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ

SAVE THE PLASTIC BAG COALITION, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, Defendant and Appellant.

October 17, 2011 

UPDATE:

Santa Cruz County  (Ban on plastic bags, 10 cent price requirement on paper bags in year 1, 25 cents thereafter - Mitigated Negative Declaration): This lawsuit does not discuss CEQA requirements and pertains to the ordinance's banning of plastic bags provided by restaurants. In February 2012, the County agreed to exempt restaurants as part of the settlement terms to prevent implementation delay. Restaurants may be reconsidered for future inclusion.

Garbage Patch in the Oceans

THE GARBAGE PATCH IN THE OCEANS: THE PROBLEM AND POSSIBLE

SOLUTIONS

Marzia Sesini

Advisors: Louise Rosen, Professor Nickolas J. Themelis, Professor Marco J. Castaldi

Columbia University

Master of Science in Sustainability Management

Earth Institute

Columbia University

August 2011

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A study was conducted to assess the size and impact of a Garbage Patch in the Oceans. The findings from the study were compiled from a combination of mathematical and physical models estimates and data from expeditions (Table 1).

The primary findings are:

 There are potentially five Garbage Patches scattered globally, located in the North and South Pacific Ocean; North and South Atlantic Ocean; and Indian Ocean.

 The total amount of plastic garbage estimated is 36,000 ton, unequally dispersed. The data results in 9,064 ton of garbage plastic in the North Atlantic and 20,240 ton in North Pacific.

 The model estimation results in 2,590 ton of marine plastic debris in the South Atlantic Ocean, 2,860 ton in the South Pacific Ocean, and 2,185 ton in the Indian Ocean, which are in alignment with the data.

This total quantity of plastic debris in the earth’s oceans amounts to approximately 0.125% of all plastic produces in the US in 2009. However the ecological impacts of the Garbage Patch range from over a million of sea-birds and one hundred of thousand marine mammals killed by ingestions of plastics or entanglement, to economic impacts estimated between US$1000million and US$ 3000 million in beach cleanups (excluding volunteering efforts), tourism losses, and damages to fishing and aquaculture industries.

One Noteworthy 17 May 2012 Special City Council Agenda Item

RELATED NEWS ARTICLE:  Council labors through $13.4M spending plan, MARY SCHLEY, The Carmel Pine Cone, May 25, 2012, 9A


ABSTRACT:  One Noteworthy 17 May 2012 Special City Council Agenda Item, namely Study session and public hearing to review/adopt Fiscal Years 2012/13 – 2014/15 Triennial Budget, is presented.  The SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING PACKET is embedded.

SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING

Thursday, May 17, 2012– 4:30 p.m.

Council Chambers

East side of Monte Verde Street between

Ocean and Seventh Avenues

Live & Archived Video Streaming

II. Roll Call

IV. Orders of Council

      A. Study session and public hearing to review/adopt Fiscal Years 2012/13 – 2014/15 Triennial Budget.

1) Overview

2) Revenue

3) Operating Budgets

4) Items Not Funded in the Proposed Budget

5) Preliminary Council Deliberations

Special City Council Meeting 17 May 2012 Ocr Document

Special City Council Meeting Packet 17 May 2012

One Noteworthy 8 May 2012 Special City Council Agenda Item

ABSTRACT:  One Noteworthy 8 May 2012 Special City Council Agenda Items, namely Receive recommendation of the ad hoc Committee and consider an appointment to the vacant City Council seat, is presented.  In a Memo to Vice Mayor Talmage and Councilmember Beach from Mayor Burnett and Councilmember Hazdovac on the Subject of the Ad Hoc City Council Vacancy Interview Committee, dated May 7, 2012, major criteria used to evaluate the applicants were based on the adopted goals of the City Council, namely Community Character, Long-term Vitality, Organizational Effectiveness and Fiscal Stability.  The concluding paragraph states, as follows:  "Of all the candidates, two present themselves as having a particularly strong ability to complement the expertise of the existing City Council, to contribute to the four goals adopted by the City Council, and to likely meet the objective of being appointed unanimously by the City Council. We recommend the full City Council consider both Carrie Theis and Steven Hillyard to fill the vacant seat. After consideration of the above information and allowing time for public input and deliberation, we believe the full City Council can make a decision on May 8th."

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA PACKET

Tuesday, May 8, 2012– 5:00 P.M.

Council Chambers

East side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues

Live & Archived Video Streaming

II. Roll Call

V. Orders of Council

B. Receive recommendation of the ad hoc Committee and consider an appointment to the vacant City Council seat

NOTE:  One 2012 mayoral candidate, two 2012 city council candidates and seven Carmelites applied for the vacant city council seat vacated by Jason Burnett including Rich Pepe (2012 mayoral candidate), Tom Leverone (2012 city council candidate and third highest vote getter) and Bob Profeta (2012 city council candidate and fourth highest vote getter) and Kristy Downing, Carolyn Hardy, Steve Hillyard (Planning Commissioner), Michael LePage (former Design Review Board Member), Harrison Shields, Carrie Theis and Linda Wilde. 

ADDENDUM:

Lots of competition for Burnett's council seat, MARY SCHLEY,The Carmel Pine Cone, May 4, 2012

NEWS ARTICLES: Water Replacement Projects

ABSTRACT:  A compilation of noteworthy news articles on water replacement projects, namely the Moss Landing Commercial Park (formerly the People's Moss Landing Desal Project), Cal Am company's new Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP) involving a smaller desal plant north of Marina owned by Cal Am, expanded aquifer storage and recovery in partnership with Monterey Peninsula Water Management District and new groundwater replenishment program in partnership with the District and the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency, and DeepWater Desal in Moss Landing, is presented.  Also links and selected excerpts from news articles are provided.

RE:

6/6/12 10:00 a.m. ALJ Weatherford Comr Peevey

A.12-04-019 (PHC) - 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, Commission Courtroom, San Francisco

PUC judge predicts rough road ahead for Cal Am water project

At least a dozen parties now part of project review, JIM JOHNSON Herald Staff Writer, 06/06/2012

"Early in the hearing, Weatherford suggested he would lean toward focusing the PUC review on the proposal as presented by Cal Am and not on a parallel track with alternatives. But he left the door open to the possibility that alternatives could be considered as part of environmental review or during evidentiary hearings later this year."

Judge: Proceed with Cal Am new watersupply project application, JIM JOHNSON Herald Staff Writer, 06/01/2012

“In his ruling, Weatherford requested the parties to the proceeding submit briefs outlining their stance on critical legal issues, including the county's public desalination plant ownership ordinance, and the project backers' access to slant well intake water, groundwater replenishment product water, and the brine disposal outfall considered critical to the project's feasibility.”

“Weatherford gave the parties until July 11 to file their briefs on the legal issues, and until July 25 for replies.”

Committee seeks consultant to help evaluate desal projects

Members agree consultant needed to vet proposals

By JIM JOHNSON Herald Staff Writer, 05/23/2012 

"The committee has been charged with vetting desal projects proposed by California American Water north of Marina and by the backers of The People's Project and DeepWater Desal in Moss Landing."

Cal Am supply plan draws fire

Panelists say public input lacking, laws being ignored

By JIM JOHNSON Herald Staff Writer, 05/05/2012 

"I don't know what the (authority) will do, but I'm taking them at their word that they want to speak with one voice, and that means they need to hammer out some compromises," said Riley, a water activist. "So far it's just been public meetings and public comment, no decisions, no policy, no direction. We need a follow-up process leading toward a decision. We need more structure. There are too many problems adding up faster than the sense of progress."

(George Riley, member of the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority's technical advisory committee) 

Salt Solo

State PUC says Cal Am can ignore county and go it alone ondesal plant; county says, ‘What?’

Story by Kera Abraham Thursday, May 3, 2012

Desal plan draws opposition; water district asks PUC to reject Cal Am proposal

By JIM JOHNSON Herald Staff Writer, 05/01/2012 Updated:   05/02/2012 

Cal Am has new plan for desal

Monterey Peninsula: Public ownership rule challenged

By JIM JOHNSON Herald Staff Writer, 04/23/2012 Updated:   04/24/2012

P.G. council backs Agha desal plan

KELLY NIX, The Carmel Pine Cone, April 20, 2012

Agha's desal deal with Pacific Grove changes game, some say

By JIM JOHNSON Herald Staff Writer, 04/19/2012

Late Wednesday, the Pacific Grove City Council agreed to serve as the lead agency for local businessman Nader Agha's proposed People's Moss Landing Desal Project, which would include a $129 million desal plant on the former National Refractories site now called the Moss Landing Commercial Park.

Cal Am President Rob MacLean is scheduled to present the company's proposal to the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority during a meeting at 6 p.m. Monday at Monterey City Hall.

Pacific Grove OKs desalination partnership with Agha

By KEVIN HOWE Herald Staff Writer, 04/19/2012

The council voted 6-1 Wednesday to approve "an agreement establishing a relationship with Desal America in order to accelerate a water project for Pacific Grove and Monterey County."

PIPELINE DREAMS

A single desal plant supplying the greater Monterey Bay area is a long shot.

By Kera Abraham, Thursday, April 19, 2012

Monterey County Planning Commission, Villas de Carmelo: Consider a project to redevelop the existing Carmel Convalescent Hospital site, including Amendments to the Carmel Area Land Use Plan and Coastal Implementation Plan & Combined Development Permit for design and improvements based on the Modified Design Alternative

UPDATE II:
Divided commission OK's 46 condos
By CHRIS COUNTS, The Carmel Pine Cone, September 2, 2011

Villas de No Agua
State water board says Carmel condo project might violate cease-and-desist order.
By Kera Abraham, Thursday, September 1, 2011

Carmel condo project gets OK from planners
Water, zoning issues unresolved
By JIM JOHNSON Herald Staff Writer, 09/01/2011

UPDATE I:
“MINUTES”
MONTEREY COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 31, 2011

ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Brown, Vandevere, Roberts, Rochester, Salazar, Getzelman, Mendez, Diehl, Padilla, Hert
Absent: None

SCHEDULED ITEMS
1. 9:00AM - RIGOULETTE LLC (VILLAS DE CARMELO; FORMERLY CARMEL CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL) - PLN070497
EXHIBIT B, EXHIBIT C, EXHIBIT D, EXHIBIT E, EXHIBIT F, EXHIBIT G, EXHIBIT H, EXHIBIT I

Kevin Kane and Widewaters Group consultants gave a presentation on Traffic, LUP and CIP Amendments, Neighborhood Density, Moderate Income Housing and Water.

Public Comment: Nineteen speakers addressed the Planning Commission, including but not limited to, Mark McDonald, Carol Chapman, Tracy Manning, Wayne Iverson, Mark Bayne, Carol Stollorz, Fred Slautterback, Yoko Whitaker, Christine Jensen, Lucinda Lloyd, Jack Meehan, Barbara Warren, Richard Warren Barbara Rainer, Timothy Sanders and SOCNC attorney Molly Erickson; eighteen speakers spoke in opposition of the LCP Amendments and Villas de Carmelo project and one speaker spoke in support of the Villas de Carmelo project. Comments highlights, as follows: density as a three dimensional concept, not a two dimensional concept; other traffic studies concluded an existing level of service (LOC) of “F” for the Highway One segment between Ocean Avenue and Carmel Valley Road; EIR traffic study deficient due to no consideration of increased traffic as a result of proposed improvements/modifications to Highway One/Valley Way intersection; zoning precedent for area; State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) letters of August 10 and August 30, both by Barbara Evoy, Deputy Director, Division of Water Rights, State Water Resources Control Board, and not contradictory.

Commission Deliberation Highlights:
Commissioner Diehl emphasized the Villas de Carmelo project being a “subdivision;” density issues; County Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requirement that the project supply compliance equal to 20% of the total number of units of which 6% very low, 6% low and 8% moderate income units (or 9.2 inclusionary units with 2 very low income level, 4 low income level and 4 moderate income level and payment of an in-lieu fee for 0.2 unit); Homeowner Association Fees (approximately $662/month ) for all condo owners as determined by the applicant, not sliding scale based on unit price to accommodate less than moderate income households.

Commissioner Brown characterized the project an infill development and supported the moderate income units due to the high land costs in the Carmel area.

Commissioner Vandevere emphasized 1995 decision by the State Water Resources Control Board that Cal-Am was illegally diverting water from the Carmel River and that since the County and Cities have not solved the illegal diversion of water issue for years and have continued to approve project permits for increased water use, the SWRCB has reason to believe the County and Cities do not take the Cease and Desist Order seriously.

After approximately three hours, it was moved by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Rochester, and passed by the following vote to recommend that the Board of Supervisors consider proposed LCP Amendments to the Carmel Area Land Use Plan and Coastal Implementation Plan, Chapter 20.146.120 (Land Use and Development Standards) and recommend certification by the California Coastal Commission; and consider the proposed condominium project, including nine moderate income units, and certify the Environmental Impact Report and conditionally approve (PLN070497) design and improvements for the Modified Design Alternative (alternative 4 in EIR), based on the findings and evidence and subject to the conditions of approval and Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program.

AYES: Padilla, Salazar, Mendez, Rochester, Brown, Getzelman
NOES: Diehl, Vandevere, Hert, Roberts
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None

ABSTRACT: On Wednesday, August 31, 2011 at 9:00 A.M., the Monterey County Planning Commission is scheduled to consider Rigoulette LLC (Villas de Carmelo; Formerly Carmel Convalescent Hospital) - PLN070497, specifically “a project to redevelop the existing Carmel Convalescent Hospital site, including Amendments to the Carmel Area Land Use Plan and Coastal Implementation Plan & Combined Development Permit for design and improvements based on the Modified Design Alternative.” The text of the AGENDA is reproduced (minus SCHEDULED ITEMS 2, 3 and 4). The Staff Report and EXHIBIT B, EXHIBIT C, EXHIBIT D, EXHIBIT E, EXHIBIT F, EXHIBIT G, EXHIBIT H, EXHIBIT I are linked and/or embedded. The Staff’s Recommended Action: 1) consider proposed LCP Amendments to the Carmel Area Land Use Plan and Coastal Implementation Plan, Chapter 20.146.120 (Land Use and Development Standards); 2) consider the proposed condominium project and related Environmental Impact Report; and 3) make recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.

Monterey County Planning Commission

AGENDA
Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Monterey County Government Center – Board of Supervisors Chambers
168 W. Alisal Street
Salinas, CA 93901
9:00 a.m.

Chair: Paul Getzelman
Vice-Chair: Amy Roberts
Secretary: Mike Novo
Commissioners:
Paul C. Getzelman Cosme Padilla
Jay Brown Aurelio Salazar, Jr
Amy Roberts Jose Mendez
Luther Hert Martha Diehl
Don Rochester Keith Vandevere

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

A. ROLL CALL

B. PUBLIC COMMENTS

C. AGENDA ADDITIONS, DELETIONS AND CORRECTIONS

D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 26 and June 8, 2011

E. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS, REQUESTS AND REFERRALS

F. SCHEDULED ITEMS

1. 9:00AM - RIGOULETTE LLC (VILLAS DE CARMELO; FORMERLY CARMEL CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL) - PLN070497
EXHIBIT B, EXHIBIT C, EXHIBIT D, EXHIBIT E, EXHIBIT F, EXHIBIT G, EXHIBIT H, EXHIBIT I
Project Planner: Elizabeth Gonzales. Environmental Status: Environmental Impact Report. Project Description: (Continued from August 10, 2011.) 1) Consider a project to redevelop the existing Carmel Convalescent Hospital site, generally located at the northwest corner of Highway One and Valley Way, with a 46 unit condominium project called Villas de Carmelo, including:
1) Amendments to the Carmel Area Land Use Plan and Coastal Implementation Plan, Chapter 20.146.120 (Land Use and Development Standards), subject to approval by the Board of Supervisors and certification by the California Coastal Commission; and

2) Combined Development Permit for design and improvements based on the Modified Design Alternative (identified as Alternative 4 in the EIR).

Required entitlements include:

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

2) Coastal Development Permit to allow alterations to two historic structures including; a) converting the former convalescent hospital into nine condominium units with underground parking, recreation room, storage, and a gym; and b) converting an existing garage/shop building into three condominium units;

3) Coastal Administrative Permit to demolish one existing structure and construct eight new buildings consisting of 34 units for a total of 46 condominium units;

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

5) Coastal Development Permit to allow the removal of up to 97 trees (21 coast live oak and 76 Monterey pines);

6) Design Approval and approximately 13,500 cubic yards of grading. The project site’s address is 24945 Valley Way, Carmel (Assessor's Parcel Numbers 009 061 002 000, 009 061 003 000, 009 061 005 000), Carmel Area Land Use Plan area, Coastal Zone.

Recommended Action: 1) consider proposed LCP Amendments to the Carmel Area Land Use Plan and Coastal Implementation Plan, Chapter 20.146.120 (Land Use and Development Standards); 2) consider the proposed condominium project and related Environmental Impact Report; and 3) make recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.

MONTEREY COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION August 31 2011

RIGOULETTE LLC (VILLAS DE CARMELO; FORMERLY CARMEL CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL) - PLN070497
MONTEREY COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 8-31-2011

EXHIBIT B: Rigoulette LLC (PLN070497) (Villas De Carmelo; Formerly Carmel Convalescent Hospital) Planning Commission Staff Report and Exhibits for the Hearing of (June 29, 2011)

MONTEREY COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 7-27-11

EXHIBIT C: MONTEREY COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 7-29-2011

EXHIBIT D Villas de Carmelo

EXHIBIT D: Carmel Area Vacant Parcels Map

EXHIBIT E Villas de Carmelo

EXHIBIT E: Applicants’ Proposed Amendments to Local Coastal Program June 27, 2011

EXHIBIT F Villas de Carmelo

EXHIBIT F: Applicants’ Proposal to Housing Advisory Committee July 14, 2011 AND RMA Redevelopment & Housing Memo November 19, 2010

EXHIBIT G Villas de Carmelo

EXHIBIT G; WATER LETTERS:
MPWMD Letter dated June 29, 2011
Stamp Letter dated August 16, 2011
Stamp Letter dated July 8, 2011
SWRCB Letter dated August 10, 2011
J. Zischke Letter dated August 25, 2011

EXHIBIT H Villas de Carmelo

EXHIBIT H: Appendix A Monterey County Growth Management Policy

EXHIBIT I Villas de Carmelo

EXHIBIT I: Revised Site Plan with recommended changes previously discussed

G. OTHER MATTERS: NONE

H. DEPARTMENT REPORT

I. ADJOURNMENT

The Recommended Action indicates the staff recommendation at the time the agenda was prepared. That recommendation does not limit the Planning Commission’s alternative actions on any matter before it.

BREAKS will be taken approximately at 10:15 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.

DOCUMENT DISTRIBUTION: Documents relating to agenda items that are distributed to the Planning Commission less than 72 hours prior to the meeting are available for public inspection at the front counter of the Resource Management Agency – Planning and Building Services Departments, Monterey County Government Center , 168 W. Alisal Street, 2nd Floor, Salinas, CA. Documents distributed by County staff at the meeting of the Planning Commission will be available at the meeting.

If requested, the agenda shall be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 USC Sec. 12132) and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof. For information regarding how, to whom and when a person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in the public meeting may make a request for disability-related modification or accommodation including auxiliary aids or services or if you have any questions about any of the items listed on this agenda, please call the Monterey County Resource Management Agency - Planning Department at (831) 755-5025.