ABSTRACT: At the October 7, 2008 City Council Meeting, the City Council unanimously approved a “Resolution awarding the bid for the Street Resurfacing of Scenic Road; the Sunset Cultural Center South Parking lot; Ocean Avenue crosswalks; and Escolle Way to the Don Chapin Company in the amount of $128,033.” Of the four “2008 Street Resurfacing Projects,” only Escolle Way would be recommended based on the Nichols Consulting Engineers Pavement Management Program, December 2007. The cost for Escolle Way is $748.00 or considerably less than 1% of the total expenditure of $128,033.00. The rationale for these street projects, according to Administrative Services Director Joyce Giuffre, is the reduction in “potential trip and fall claims” and the enhancement of “the appearance of the City.” Informational and opinion COMMENTS are made and relevant REFERENCES are cited.
AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
X. Resolutions
B. Consideration of a Resolution awarding the bid for the 2008 Street Resurfacing of Scenic Road; the Sunset Cultural Center South Parking lot; Ocean Avenue crosswalks; and Escolle Way to the Don Chapin Company in the amount of $128,033 and authorize a 10% contingency cost of $12,803.
COMMENTS:
• Of the four 2008 Street Resurfacing Projects consisting of Scenic Road, the Sunset Cultural Center South Parking lot, Ocean Avenue crosswalks and Escolle Way, only Escolle Way would be recommended based on the Nichols Consulting Engineers Pavement Management Program, December 2007. A Pavement Condition Index (PCI) of 55 (PCI Range 40-69 “Fair”) was recorded for Escolle Way between Perry Newberry Way and the Turnaround. Given Escolle Way’s “Fair” condition, there remain three street sections of “Poor” condition (PCI Range 20-39) , as follows:
DOLORES ST.: OCEAN AV.- 8TH AV. PCI 24
7TH AV.: GUADALUPE ST.- CITY LIMITS PCI 30
LAUSEN DR.: RIO RD - CITY LIMITS PCI 31
And at least thirteen street sections categorized as “Fair,” but with lower PCI values than Escolle Way, as follows:
LADERA DR.: RIO RD. - TURN AROUND PCI 42
LINCOLN ST.: 4TH AV. - 5TH AV. PCI 45
OCEAN AV.: SAN ANTONIO - MONTE VERDE PCI 46
SANTA RITA ST.: OCEAN AV. - MT. VIEW AV. PCI 47
SANTA RITA ST.: CITY LIMITS - 3RD AV. PCI 48
GUADALUPE ST.: OCEAN AV. - MT. VIEW PCI 48
4TH AV.: GUADALUPE - CITY LIMITS PCI 48
SANTA RITA ST.: 5TH AV . -OCEAN AV. PCI 49
VALLEY WAY: N.CITY LIMITS - E.CITY LIMITS PCI 49
VISTA AV.: DOLORES ST. - JUNIPERO AV, PCI 49
10TH AV.: JUNIPERO AV. - TORRES ST. PCI 50
GUADALUPE ST.: CITY LIMITS - 2ND AV. PCI 50
PERRY NEWBERRY WAY: 4TH AV. - 6TH AV. PCI 50
• In other words, based on the Nichols Consulting Engineers Pavement Management Program, there are at least sixteen other street sections in poorer condition than Escolle Way. Needless to say, although Carpenter St. between 3rd and Ocean Av. has a PCI of 64 (“Good”), Carpenter St. between 5th Av. & Ocean Av. is in significantly poorer condition. Their estimate for Mill and Thick Overlay is $276,550 and the costs will only escalate over time. Question: Since aesthetics is an important factor in determining street projects, why isn’t Carpenter St,, a main vehicular route for visitors, residents and truck traffic into the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, especially the street section between 5th Av. and Ocean Av., a top priority street project?
• All of the Scenic Road sections are rated as “Good;” PCI range of 70-100, according to the Nichols Consulting Engineers Pavement Management Program, as follows:
Scenic Road between Ocean Av. & 8th Av.: PCI 85
Scenic Road between 8th Av. & Blk. A3S/End: PCI 74
Scenic Road between Blk. A3S/End & Santa Lucia Av.: PCI 90
Scenic Road between Santa Lucia Av. & City Limits: PCI 75
• Question: Is it a good use of taxpayer funds to expend taxpayer dollars for a consultant’s Pavement Management Program and then basically disregard the Program and substitute other projects to the extent that 99% of funded projects are not based on the Pavement Management Program and only 1% of funded projects are based on the Program?
• Additionally, if our City was governed by the ethic of Carmel-by-the-Sea as “primarily, a residential City,” then the City would have proactively budgeted for the resurfacing of the residential street sections dug up as a consequence of the installation of new replacement water mains by Cal-Am.
REFERENCES:
THE DON CHAPIN CO., INC.: $128,033.00
1) Scenic Road Slurry Seal $ 46,240
2) Sunset Center south parking lot 55,052
3) Ocean Avenue crosswalks 25,993
4) Other street & road projects (Escolle Way) 748
Total $ 128,033
(Source: City Council, Agenda Item Summary, Prepared by: Joyce Giuffre, Admin. Svcs Director)
Other Bids, as follows:
JAMES SOMMERVILLE INCORPORATED: $140,059.00
UNION CITY CONSTRUCTION: $148,115.50
GRANITEROCK PAVEX CONSTRUCTION DIV.: $164,536.50
EARTHWORKS PAVING CONSTRUCTORS, INC.: $148,636.00
AMERICAN ASPHALT REPAIR & RESURFACING CO., INC.: $158,128.00
MONTEREY PENINSULA ENGINEERING: $137,863.00
(Source: CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA STAFF REPORT)
Regular City Council Meeting Video
October 07, 2008
X. Resolutions:
B. Consideration of a Resolution awarding the bid for the 2008 Street Resurfacing of Scenic Road; the Sunset Cultural Center South Parking lot; Ocean Avenue crosswalks; and Escolle Way to the Don Chapin Company in the amount of $128,033 and authorize a 10% contingency cost of $12,803.
(Beginning 03:16:10 – 03:20:40 Ending)
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Monday, October 13, 2008
Sunset Cultural Center, Inc. to Use $300,000 Grant from The James Irvine Foundation to Hire Consultant to Develop a “New Strategic Plan"
ABSTRACT: The James Irvine Foundation, a private, nonprofit grantmaking foundation, awarded $3,825,000 to fourteen Central California Coast arts institutions as part of their Arts Regional Initiative to: “improve organizational financial stability, management, governance and growth capacity, payable over 36 months.” Sunset Cultural Center was awarded $300,000. “With the grant money, Sunset will hire a consultant to help develop a new strategic plan that will outline the center’s mission and vision, state its values and list its goals. The plan will detail everything, from staffing to programming, and community outreach efforts like arts in education and senior programs,” according to the article Sunset gets $300K grant to attract bigger audiences in The Carmel Pine Cone. Information about the James Irvine Foundation, COMMENTS and REFERENCES are presented. And MISCELLANEOUS and INTERESTING READING are presented.
About The James Irvine Foundation:
James Irvine, a California agricultural pioneer, established the Irvine Foundation in 1937 to benefit the people of California. Over the last 70 years, the Foundation has met the objectives of its founder by providing over $1 billion in grants to more than 3,000 nonprofit organizations.
The mission of The James Irvine Foundation is to expand opportunity for the people of California to participate in a vibrant, successful and inclusive society.
The James Irvine Foundation is a private, nonprofit grantmaking foundation dedicated to expanding opportunity for the people of California to participate in a vibrant, successful and inclusive society. The Foundation’s grantmaking is organized around three program areas: Arts, Youth and California Perspectives, which focuses on improving decision making on significant state issues. Since 1937 the Foundation has provided over $1 billion in grants to more than 3,000 nonprofit organizations throughout California. With current assets of over $1.8 billion, the Foundation expects to make grants of $81 million in 2008 for the people of California.
COMMENTS:
• According the Executive Director Peter Lesnik, as reported in The Carmel Pine Cone, Sunset Cultural Center, Inc. (SCC) will use the grant money to hire a consultant to development a “new strategic plan that will outline the center’s mission and vision, state its values and list its goals. The plan will detail everything, from staffing to programming, and community outreach efforts like arts in education and senior programs.” Questions: Now in its fifth year managing the City-owned Sunset Center, what does it say about SCC that they are using this grant money to develop a “new strategic plan” for the Sunset Cultural Center?
• The “new strategic plan” is to outline the Sunset Center’s “mission and vision, state its values and list its goals.” Yet presently on the Sunset Center website, there exists, “Mission, Vision, Values and Objectives,” as follows:
Mission, Vision, Values and Objectives
Mission:
The Sunset Center is a community gathering place, where citizens of the region meet to enjoy the full spectrum of performing arts, view visual-arts exhibits, exchange ideas, learn, and attend organization meetings and educational events. The Center is also home to some of the region’s leading performing-arts organizations, visual and arts service organizations, and volunteer groups.
Vision:
We bring artists, local citizens and regional neighbors together to share talents, ideas and enjoyment of one another in a carefully maintained, state-of-the-art historic facility, governed in a fiscally prudent manner that responds to the dynamic environment of the region.
Values:
• We believe in the vitality and power of the arts for all people.
• We treat our patrons, clients, artists, volunteers, neighbors and staff with care and respect.
• We build strong cooperative relationships with the diverse communities we serve.
• We deliver these services in a supportive, positive and dedicated manner.
Objectives:
• To operate in a fiscally responsible manner while working to improve facilities and programs.
• To offer a facility that meets the highest standards for all who enter.
• To present professional artists and performances otherwise not available to our communities.
• To be an active, participatory member of Carmel-by-the-Sea and to participate in the City’s marketing outreach to the wider community and its visitors.
• To provide a home for regional arts organizations.
• To host community celebrations, events, and organization meetings.
• To provide an experiential arts education program designed to inspire an appreciation of artists and their work.
Question: Are Carmelites to understand that SCC has to redefine its’ “mission” and “vision,” “values” and “goals” and requires a consultant to redevelop a “mission” and “vision,” “values” and “goals?”
• A blogger recently posted, as follows:
“So now that Sunset is to receive an unbudgetted $300,000 grant, does that mean that the city subsidy will go down by $300,000? It would be the right thing....” That would be a welcome gesture. But it is probably as unlikely as the Board of Trustees opening their meetings to the public, which also would be welcomed by Carmelites.
REFERENCES:
14 Central Coast Arts Institutions Receive $3.8 Million to Expand Audiences and Increase Sustainability
Third Phase of Irvine Foundation’s Arts Regional Initiative Continues Commitment to Leading Regional Arts Institutions
Grants Approved by The James Irvine Foundation Board of Directors
MISCELLANEOUS:
Top 10 California foundations awarding arts grants, 2004
Foundation-----------------Amount---Number of Grants
1. James Irvine Foundation $15,292,000 88
2. William and Flora Hewlett Foundation 13,329,500 111
3. Ann and Gordon Getty Foundation 12,693,538 129
4. J. Paul Getty Trust 12,272,338 114
5. Ahmanson Foundation 12,189,700 72
6. Eli and Edythe L. Broad Foundation 11,570,670 13
7. San Francisco Foundation 11,329,027 272
8. Packard Humanities Institute 9,733,798 30
9. Ann and Gordon Getty Foundation 9,202,421 123
10. McConnell Foundation 9,178,143 7
Source: The Foundation Center
INTERESTING READING
Critical Issues Facing the Arts in California: A Working Paper from The James Irvine Foundation, September 2006
About The James Irvine Foundation:
James Irvine, a California agricultural pioneer, established the Irvine Foundation in 1937 to benefit the people of California. Over the last 70 years, the Foundation has met the objectives of its founder by providing over $1 billion in grants to more than 3,000 nonprofit organizations.
The mission of The James Irvine Foundation is to expand opportunity for the people of California to participate in a vibrant, successful and inclusive society.
The James Irvine Foundation is a private, nonprofit grantmaking foundation dedicated to expanding opportunity for the people of California to participate in a vibrant, successful and inclusive society. The Foundation’s grantmaking is organized around three program areas: Arts, Youth and California Perspectives, which focuses on improving decision making on significant state issues. Since 1937 the Foundation has provided over $1 billion in grants to more than 3,000 nonprofit organizations throughout California. With current assets of over $1.8 billion, the Foundation expects to make grants of $81 million in 2008 for the people of California.
COMMENTS:
• According the Executive Director Peter Lesnik, as reported in The Carmel Pine Cone, Sunset Cultural Center, Inc. (SCC) will use the grant money to hire a consultant to development a “new strategic plan that will outline the center’s mission and vision, state its values and list its goals. The plan will detail everything, from staffing to programming, and community outreach efforts like arts in education and senior programs.” Questions: Now in its fifth year managing the City-owned Sunset Center, what does it say about SCC that they are using this grant money to develop a “new strategic plan” for the Sunset Cultural Center?
• The “new strategic plan” is to outline the Sunset Center’s “mission and vision, state its values and list its goals.” Yet presently on the Sunset Center website, there exists, “Mission, Vision, Values and Objectives,” as follows:
Mission, Vision, Values and Objectives
Mission:
The Sunset Center is a community gathering place, where citizens of the region meet to enjoy the full spectrum of performing arts, view visual-arts exhibits, exchange ideas, learn, and attend organization meetings and educational events. The Center is also home to some of the region’s leading performing-arts organizations, visual and arts service organizations, and volunteer groups.
Vision:
We bring artists, local citizens and regional neighbors together to share talents, ideas and enjoyment of one another in a carefully maintained, state-of-the-art historic facility, governed in a fiscally prudent manner that responds to the dynamic environment of the region.
Values:
• We believe in the vitality and power of the arts for all people.
• We treat our patrons, clients, artists, volunteers, neighbors and staff with care and respect.
• We build strong cooperative relationships with the diverse communities we serve.
• We deliver these services in a supportive, positive and dedicated manner.
Objectives:
• To operate in a fiscally responsible manner while working to improve facilities and programs.
• To offer a facility that meets the highest standards for all who enter.
• To present professional artists and performances otherwise not available to our communities.
• To be an active, participatory member of Carmel-by-the-Sea and to participate in the City’s marketing outreach to the wider community and its visitors.
• To provide a home for regional arts organizations.
• To host community celebrations, events, and organization meetings.
• To provide an experiential arts education program designed to inspire an appreciation of artists and their work.
Question: Are Carmelites to understand that SCC has to redefine its’ “mission” and “vision,” “values” and “goals” and requires a consultant to redevelop a “mission” and “vision,” “values” and “goals?”
• A blogger recently posted, as follows:
“So now that Sunset is to receive an unbudgetted $300,000 grant, does that mean that the city subsidy will go down by $300,000? It would be the right thing....” That would be a welcome gesture. But it is probably as unlikely as the Board of Trustees opening their meetings to the public, which also would be welcomed by Carmelites.
REFERENCES:
14 Central Coast Arts Institutions Receive $3.8 Million to Expand Audiences and Increase Sustainability
Third Phase of Irvine Foundation’s Arts Regional Initiative Continues Commitment to Leading Regional Arts Institutions
Grants Approved by The James Irvine Foundation Board of Directors
MISCELLANEOUS:
Top 10 California foundations awarding arts grants, 2004
Foundation-----------------Amount---Number of Grants
1. James Irvine Foundation $15,292,000 88
2. William and Flora Hewlett Foundation 13,329,500 111
3. Ann and Gordon Getty Foundation 12,693,538 129
4. J. Paul Getty Trust 12,272,338 114
5. Ahmanson Foundation 12,189,700 72
6. Eli and Edythe L. Broad Foundation 11,570,670 13
7. San Francisco Foundation 11,329,027 272
8. Packard Humanities Institute 9,733,798 30
9. Ann and Gordon Getty Foundation 9,202,421 123
10. McConnell Foundation 9,178,143 7
Source: The Foundation Center
INTERESTING READING
Critical Issues Facing the Arts in California: A Working Paper from The James Irvine Foundation, September 2006
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
ABUSE OF POWER AND AUTHORITY by Mayor Sue McCloud
ABSTRACT: At issue is the conduct of Mayor Sue McCloud in the case of the Forest and Beach Commission’s unanimous approval of the removal of her neighbor’s black acacia tree (April 3, 2008) and the City Council’s majority vote denying Sue McCloud’s appeal and upholding the Forest and Beach Commission’s decision (September 9, 2008). On or about September 9, 2008, the appellant Sue McCloud submitted supplemental information to the City Council Members, which was not part of the original AGENDA PACKET, about her appeal of the Forest and Beach Commission’s unanimous decision, including six conditions if the City Council denied her appeal and upheld the Forest and Beach Commission’s decision. In the City Council’s motion, and accepted by the applicant/neighbor Susan Page, were six conditions, including Condition 6 “that all of the above steps is adopted take place in a tight time frame.” Moreover, Clayton Berling, representing his sister-in-law Sue McCloud, stated that the removal of the acacia tree be done is a “timely manner.” And, Margi Perotti wrote in an attached letter to the TREE REMOVAL PERMIT “The above steps are to be taken in a ‘tight time frame.’” A day after the issuance of the TREE REMOVAL PERMIT, the City voided the TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. A second TREE REMOVAL PERMIT was issued with an attached six conditions, including a revised Condition 6, “The above steps shall take place in a continuous manner and shall be completed no later than 30 days from the issuance date of this permit.” It appears Sue McCloud abused her power and authority as mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea by instigating and/or allowing the voiding of Susan Page’s TREE REMOVAL PERMIT after it was issued and revising Condition 6 to reflect “no later than 30 days” as opposed to “tight time frame,” as approved by the City Council. In a September 30, 2008 letter from Susan Page’s attorney, Stephen J. Beals, to City Attorney Don Freeman, Attorney Stephen J. Beals requested that the permit be reissued as originally done on September 17, 2008. Accordingly, City Attorney Don Freeman, as the citizen’s attorney, should intervene immediately and order the City to reissue a TREE REMOVAL PERMIT as a final resolution of this troublesome matter. The DEFINITION of ABUSE OF POWER, A CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS and COMMENTS are presented.
DEFINITION: ABUSE OF POWER is that situation that exists whenever someone who has POWER over others, (that is, the capacity to impose her will on those others) for example, by virtue of her political/governmental position and the trust that others have in her, unjustifiably uses that power to EXPLOIT or HARM those others.
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS:
• April 3, 2008: UNANIMOUS DECISION (4-0) OF FOREST AND BEACH COMMISSION TO APPROVE REMOVAL OF SUSAN PAGE’S BLACK ACACIA TREE
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
FOREST AND BEACH COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Thursday, April 3, 2008
VI. APPLICATIONS/PUBLIC HEARINGS
IF YOU CHALLENGE THE NATURE OF THE PROPOSED ACTION IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE FOREST AND BEACH COMMISSION, OR PRIOR TO DELIBERATION OF THE ITEMS ON THE TOUR OF INSPECTION/PUBLIC HEARING.
1. Consideration of an application to remove one 30” dbh acacia tree due to its declining condition. The site is located on south side of Santa Lucia 3 east of Dolores. The applicant/owner is Susan Page.
A Commissioner moved to approve the removal of the acacia tree with the recommendation that a 24” box fruitless olive trees be planted in the vicinity for screening purposes, seconded, and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COSS, FORD, PRITCHETT, JOHN
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
• September, 9, 2008: MAJORITY DECISION (3-1) OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO DENY SUE MCCLOUD’S APPEAL AND UPHOLD THE FOREST AND BEACH COMMISSION’S DECISION APPROVING THE REMOVAL OF SUSAN PAGE’S BLACK ACACIA TREE
MINUTES
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
September 9, 2008
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
B. Consideration of an appeal of a decision by the Forest and Beach Commission approving the removal of a 30-inch diameter black acacia at a property at 2922 Santa Lucia Avenue. The appellant is Sue McCloud, property owner of the home next door, on the east side.
Mayor McCloud recused herself from the proceedings citing a conflict of interest, being the appellant. Mayor Pro Tem Hazdovac chaired the proceedings.
City Attorney Don Freeman made some introductory remarks, highlighting the appeal process in this particular case, emphasizing that all possible steps were taken to ensure a fair and impartial hearing for all parties concerned.
City Forester Mike Branson presented the staff report and answered Council questions.
Clayton Berling read a statement on behalf of the appellant. Included in this statement were six conditions that he said would be acceptable to the appellant, should Council vote to deny the appeal. These included: complete stump grinding of the removed tree; proper irrigation for the new trees; full repair of any damage to the fence; substitution of bamboo or planting of two (not one) 24-inch box olive trees to replace the acacia; 24-hour notification before tree removal; and the work to remove the acacia tree done is a timely manner.
Mayor Pro Tem Hazdovac opened the hearing to public comment at 6:25 p.m.
Stephen Beals, attorney for Susan Page, addressed Council.
Mayor Pro Tem Hazdovac closed the hearing to public comment at 6:27 p.m.
Stephen Beals agreed to accept the six conditions proposed by the appellant.
City Forester Mike Branson answered Council questions.
Clayton Berling requested pruning of the acacia tree be considered.
Council Member ROSE moved to overturn a decision by the Forest and Beach Commission approving the removal of a 30-inch diameter black acacia at a property at 2922 Santa Lucia Avenue on the condition that it be pruned. The appellant is Sue McCloud, property owner of the home next door, on the east side. The motion failed for lack of a second.
A motion was made by Council Member TALMAGE to deny the appeal, but to institute the six conditions requested by the appellant (noted above) and have the parties work with City Forester to find two mutually acceptable 24-inch replacement trees (or proceed with planting two 24-inch fruitless olive trees if no agreement can be reached), seconded by Council Member SHARP and carried by the following roll call:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: HAZDOVAC, SHARP & TALMAGE
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ROSE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCLOUD
NOTE: Supplemental information from Sue McCloud was apparently distributed to City Council Members on the day of the City Council Meeting, including, as follows:
If the Council denies this appeal, please consider incorporating the following 6 points in your motion to deny:
1. The stump must be ground out so that the new tree or trees can go in the same area. Mike had said that acacia roots extend 30 feet. Without removal of the stump/roots, there is no viable space for a new 24” box tree/trees in that same area.
2. Irrigation must be provided to ensure the new tree/trees survive, as there are no permanent residents in the Page home to nurture them.
3. Fence: any damage to the McCloud fence must be repaired so it is secure for dogs and children on both properties.
4. If the tree is to come down, Sue would ask Council to seriously consider substituting bamboo (which Page has on the west side of her property) that can be contained as it will be fast growing and if not, require two 24” box olive trees be planted. This was proposed by the Forest and Beach Commission, but was not in the final motion. The reason for two is that the olive trees are very vertical and one is not likely to ever come close to filling the space occupied by the acacia. Mike has said that the two examples of olives he cited on the NW corner of 8th and San Carols have taken about 5 years to be the size they are today.
The replacement tree should go on a vertical line with the only clear glass window on the west side of the McCloud home. The second tree if approved should go between the acacia and the most southern of the 2 McCloud oaks on the west side.
5. Tree removal: page should give McCloud 24 hours notice when it is to take place so the McCloud dog is not outside in the yard.
6. Pls require that all of the above steps if adopted take place in a tight time frame.
• September 17, 2008: TREE REMOVAL/PRUNING PERMIT ISSUED
Selected excerpts, as follows:
Date: 9/17/08
Exact location of property: 2922 Santa Lucia Avenue
Name of Property Owner: Susan Page
Remove one 30” dbh acacia tree
Conditions/Requirements: 1-10
REPLANT: lower canopy trees/species: olive size: 24” box size
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS: see attached letter
Approved by: City Council Meeting 9 September 2008
Attached Letter, as follows:
17 September 2008
Ms. Susan Page
Post Office Box 6521
Carmel, CA. 93921
SUBJECT:
TREE REMOVAL
SANTA LUCIA 3 SE OF DOLORES
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CA.
Dear Ms. Page:
In a majority vote, the City Council denied the appeal from Ms. McCloud and upheld the Forest and Beach Commission decision to remove the tree with the following conditions:
1. Following tree removal the stump must be ground down/out so new trees may be planted in the same area.
2. Irrigation must be provided to ensure the survival of the new tree/trees.
3. Any damage to the McCloud fence must be repaired so it is secure for dogs and children on both properties.
4. Two 24” boxed size olive trees or mutually acceptable 24” replacement trees must be planted as replacements. The replacement tree should go on a vertical line with the only clear window on the west side of the McCloud home. The second tree should be planted between the acacia and the most southern of the two McCloud oaks on the west side. The trees must be planted within 30 days of the removal of the acacia.
5. A 24-hours notice is to be given to McCloud prior to tree removal.
6. The about steps are to be taken in a “tight time frame.”
Please come to the Planning and Building office and pick up a copy of the permit. The permit must be on site when the work is being performed.
If you have any question or require additional information, please phone my office at (831) 620-2010.
Sincerely,
Margi Perotti
Secretary to the Forest and Beach Commission
• September 18, 2008: PERMIT VOIDED AFER ISSUANCE
Selected excerpt from Letter to Susan Page from City Clerk Heidi Burch, dated September 18, 2008, as follows:
RE: Tree Removal Permit
Your tree permit has been revised to more accurately reflect Council action taken on September 9, 2008. Your prior permit has been voided.
In correspondence from Susan Page’s attorney, Stephen J. Beals, to City Attorney Donald G. Freeman, Attorney Stephen J. Beals wrote that he was “advised by Rich Guillen that the reason for voiding the permit related to a minor change in the conditions of the approval that resulted after further review of the hearing minutes.”
The “new conditions of approval” deal with Condition 6; Condition 6 was modified from “tight time frame” to requiring completion by “no later than thirty days from the issuance date of the permit.”
(2nd) TREE REMOVAL/PRUNING PERMIT
Selected excerpts, as follows:
Undated
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS: see attached letter, as follows:
CONDITIONS OF TREE PERMIT APPROVAL:
(Per City Council action at their September 9, 2008 meeting, both parties shall work with the City Forester to find two mutually acceptable 24’inch replacement trees. If an agreement on the tree species can’t be reached then two fruitless olive trees shall be the replacement trees.)
1. The stump shall be ground out and appropriate roots removed, so that the new trees can go in the same area.
2. An irrigation system shall be provided to ensure the new trees survive.
3. Any damage to the McCloud fence shall be repaired, so it is secure for dogs and children on both properties.
4. The replacement trees shall go on a vertical line with the only clear glass window on the west side of the McCloud home. A second tree shall be planted between the acacia and the most southern of the two (2) McCloud oaks on the west side.
5. Page shall give McCloud 24 hours notice when tree removal is to take place, so the McCloud dog is not outside in the year.
6. The above steps shall take place in a continuous manner and shall be completed no late than 30 days from the issuance date of this permit.
COMMENTS:
During this protracted process, appellant Sue McCloud abused her power and authority as mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea by:
• Submitting supplemental information with highlighted sections favorable to her, the appellant, to the City and City Council Members after the original Agenda Packet was issued.
• Instigating and/or allowing the City to void Susan Page’s TREE REMOVAL PERMIT without cause.
• After the voiding of Susan Page’s TREE REMOVAL PERMIT, instigating and/or allowing the attachment, including revisions to Condition 6, revisions which were not approved by the City Council at their September 9, 2008 Meeting.
• Compromising City Administrator Rich Guillen by having him inform Susan Page’s attorney, Stephen J. Beals, that the “reason for voiding the permit related to a minor change in the conditions of the approval that resulted after further review of the hearing minutes.” In fact, the Minutes, as presented in the Agenda Packet, do not support Rich Guillen’s assertion of a minor change in the conditions of the approval after a review of the Minutes, rather the Minutes support no changes at all. Moreover, the Minutes must accurately reflect actual events and not be arbitrarily altered to reflect the desires of anyone after the fact.
• In closing, City Attorney Don Freeman must therefore act as the citizen’s attorney and immediately order the City to reissue a TREE REMOVAL PERMIT to Susan Page, as originally issued on September 17, 2008, as a final resolution to this needlessly protracted and troublesome matter.
DEFINITION: ABUSE OF POWER is that situation that exists whenever someone who has POWER over others, (that is, the capacity to impose her will on those others) for example, by virtue of her political/governmental position and the trust that others have in her, unjustifiably uses that power to EXPLOIT or HARM those others.
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS:
• April 3, 2008: UNANIMOUS DECISION (4-0) OF FOREST AND BEACH COMMISSION TO APPROVE REMOVAL OF SUSAN PAGE’S BLACK ACACIA TREE
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
FOREST AND BEACH COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Thursday, April 3, 2008
VI. APPLICATIONS/PUBLIC HEARINGS
IF YOU CHALLENGE THE NATURE OF THE PROPOSED ACTION IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE FOREST AND BEACH COMMISSION, OR PRIOR TO DELIBERATION OF THE ITEMS ON THE TOUR OF INSPECTION/PUBLIC HEARING.
1. Consideration of an application to remove one 30” dbh acacia tree due to its declining condition. The site is located on south side of Santa Lucia 3 east of Dolores. The applicant/owner is Susan Page.
A Commissioner moved to approve the removal of the acacia tree with the recommendation that a 24” box fruitless olive trees be planted in the vicinity for screening purposes, seconded, and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COSS, FORD, PRITCHETT, JOHN
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
• September, 9, 2008: MAJORITY DECISION (3-1) OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO DENY SUE MCCLOUD’S APPEAL AND UPHOLD THE FOREST AND BEACH COMMISSION’S DECISION APPROVING THE REMOVAL OF SUSAN PAGE’S BLACK ACACIA TREE
MINUTES
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
September 9, 2008
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
B. Consideration of an appeal of a decision by the Forest and Beach Commission approving the removal of a 30-inch diameter black acacia at a property at 2922 Santa Lucia Avenue. The appellant is Sue McCloud, property owner of the home next door, on the east side.
Mayor McCloud recused herself from the proceedings citing a conflict of interest, being the appellant. Mayor Pro Tem Hazdovac chaired the proceedings.
City Attorney Don Freeman made some introductory remarks, highlighting the appeal process in this particular case, emphasizing that all possible steps were taken to ensure a fair and impartial hearing for all parties concerned.
City Forester Mike Branson presented the staff report and answered Council questions.
Clayton Berling read a statement on behalf of the appellant. Included in this statement were six conditions that he said would be acceptable to the appellant, should Council vote to deny the appeal. These included: complete stump grinding of the removed tree; proper irrigation for the new trees; full repair of any damage to the fence; substitution of bamboo or planting of two (not one) 24-inch box olive trees to replace the acacia; 24-hour notification before tree removal; and the work to remove the acacia tree done is a timely manner.
Mayor Pro Tem Hazdovac opened the hearing to public comment at 6:25 p.m.
Stephen Beals, attorney for Susan Page, addressed Council.
Mayor Pro Tem Hazdovac closed the hearing to public comment at 6:27 p.m.
Stephen Beals agreed to accept the six conditions proposed by the appellant.
City Forester Mike Branson answered Council questions.
Clayton Berling requested pruning of the acacia tree be considered.
Council Member ROSE moved to overturn a decision by the Forest and Beach Commission approving the removal of a 30-inch diameter black acacia at a property at 2922 Santa Lucia Avenue on the condition that it be pruned. The appellant is Sue McCloud, property owner of the home next door, on the east side. The motion failed for lack of a second.
A motion was made by Council Member TALMAGE to deny the appeal, but to institute the six conditions requested by the appellant (noted above) and have the parties work with City Forester to find two mutually acceptable 24-inch replacement trees (or proceed with planting two 24-inch fruitless olive trees if no agreement can be reached), seconded by Council Member SHARP and carried by the following roll call:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: HAZDOVAC, SHARP & TALMAGE
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ROSE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCLOUD
NOTE: Supplemental information from Sue McCloud was apparently distributed to City Council Members on the day of the City Council Meeting, including, as follows:
If the Council denies this appeal, please consider incorporating the following 6 points in your motion to deny:
1. The stump must be ground out so that the new tree or trees can go in the same area. Mike had said that acacia roots extend 30 feet. Without removal of the stump/roots, there is no viable space for a new 24” box tree/trees in that same area.
2. Irrigation must be provided to ensure the new tree/trees survive, as there are no permanent residents in the Page home to nurture them.
3. Fence: any damage to the McCloud fence must be repaired so it is secure for dogs and children on both properties.
4. If the tree is to come down, Sue would ask Council to seriously consider substituting bamboo (which Page has on the west side of her property) that can be contained as it will be fast growing and if not, require two 24” box olive trees be planted. This was proposed by the Forest and Beach Commission, but was not in the final motion. The reason for two is that the olive trees are very vertical and one is not likely to ever come close to filling the space occupied by the acacia. Mike has said that the two examples of olives he cited on the NW corner of 8th and San Carols have taken about 5 years to be the size they are today.
The replacement tree should go on a vertical line with the only clear glass window on the west side of the McCloud home. The second tree if approved should go between the acacia and the most southern of the 2 McCloud oaks on the west side.
5. Tree removal: page should give McCloud 24 hours notice when it is to take place so the McCloud dog is not outside in the yard.
6. Pls require that all of the above steps if adopted take place in a tight time frame.
• September 17, 2008: TREE REMOVAL/PRUNING PERMIT ISSUED
Selected excerpts, as follows:
Date: 9/17/08
Exact location of property: 2922 Santa Lucia Avenue
Name of Property Owner: Susan Page
Remove one 30” dbh acacia tree
Conditions/Requirements: 1-10
REPLANT: lower canopy trees/species: olive size: 24” box size
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS: see attached letter
Approved by: City Council Meeting 9 September 2008
Attached Letter, as follows:
17 September 2008
Ms. Susan Page
Post Office Box 6521
Carmel, CA. 93921
SUBJECT:
TREE REMOVAL
SANTA LUCIA 3 SE OF DOLORES
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CA.
Dear Ms. Page:
In a majority vote, the City Council denied the appeal from Ms. McCloud and upheld the Forest and Beach Commission decision to remove the tree with the following conditions:
1. Following tree removal the stump must be ground down/out so new trees may be planted in the same area.
2. Irrigation must be provided to ensure the survival of the new tree/trees.
3. Any damage to the McCloud fence must be repaired so it is secure for dogs and children on both properties.
4. Two 24” boxed size olive trees or mutually acceptable 24” replacement trees must be planted as replacements. The replacement tree should go on a vertical line with the only clear window on the west side of the McCloud home. The second tree should be planted between the acacia and the most southern of the two McCloud oaks on the west side. The trees must be planted within 30 days of the removal of the acacia.
5. A 24-hours notice is to be given to McCloud prior to tree removal.
6. The about steps are to be taken in a “tight time frame.”
Please come to the Planning and Building office and pick up a copy of the permit. The permit must be on site when the work is being performed.
If you have any question or require additional information, please phone my office at (831) 620-2010.
Sincerely,
Margi Perotti
Secretary to the Forest and Beach Commission
• September 18, 2008: PERMIT VOIDED AFER ISSUANCE
Selected excerpt from Letter to Susan Page from City Clerk Heidi Burch, dated September 18, 2008, as follows:
RE: Tree Removal Permit
Your tree permit has been revised to more accurately reflect Council action taken on September 9, 2008. Your prior permit has been voided.
In correspondence from Susan Page’s attorney, Stephen J. Beals, to City Attorney Donald G. Freeman, Attorney Stephen J. Beals wrote that he was “advised by Rich Guillen that the reason for voiding the permit related to a minor change in the conditions of the approval that resulted after further review of the hearing minutes.”
The “new conditions of approval” deal with Condition 6; Condition 6 was modified from “tight time frame” to requiring completion by “no later than thirty days from the issuance date of the permit.”
(2nd) TREE REMOVAL/PRUNING PERMIT
Selected excerpts, as follows:
Undated
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS: see attached letter, as follows:
CONDITIONS OF TREE PERMIT APPROVAL:
(Per City Council action at their September 9, 2008 meeting, both parties shall work with the City Forester to find two mutually acceptable 24’inch replacement trees. If an agreement on the tree species can’t be reached then two fruitless olive trees shall be the replacement trees.)
1. The stump shall be ground out and appropriate roots removed, so that the new trees can go in the same area.
2. An irrigation system shall be provided to ensure the new trees survive.
3. Any damage to the McCloud fence shall be repaired, so it is secure for dogs and children on both properties.
4. The replacement trees shall go on a vertical line with the only clear glass window on the west side of the McCloud home. A second tree shall be planted between the acacia and the most southern of the two (2) McCloud oaks on the west side.
5. Page shall give McCloud 24 hours notice when tree removal is to take place, so the McCloud dog is not outside in the year.
6. The above steps shall take place in a continuous manner and shall be completed no late than 30 days from the issuance date of this permit.
COMMENTS:
During this protracted process, appellant Sue McCloud abused her power and authority as mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea by:
• Submitting supplemental information with highlighted sections favorable to her, the appellant, to the City and City Council Members after the original Agenda Packet was issued.
• Instigating and/or allowing the City to void Susan Page’s TREE REMOVAL PERMIT without cause.
• After the voiding of Susan Page’s TREE REMOVAL PERMIT, instigating and/or allowing the attachment, including revisions to Condition 6, revisions which were not approved by the City Council at their September 9, 2008 Meeting.
• Compromising City Administrator Rich Guillen by having him inform Susan Page’s attorney, Stephen J. Beals, that the “reason for voiding the permit related to a minor change in the conditions of the approval that resulted after further review of the hearing minutes.” In fact, the Minutes, as presented in the Agenda Packet, do not support Rich Guillen’s assertion of a minor change in the conditions of the approval after a review of the Minutes, rather the Minutes support no changes at all. Moreover, the Minutes must accurately reflect actual events and not be arbitrarily altered to reflect the desires of anyone after the fact.
• In closing, City Attorney Don Freeman must therefore act as the citizen’s attorney and immediately order the City to reissue a TREE REMOVAL PERMIT to Susan Page, as originally issued on September 17, 2008, as a final resolution to this needlessly protracted and troublesome matter.
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Status: Carmel-by-the-Sea’s Exception Application to the California Ocean Plan ASBS Waste Discharge Prohibition
ABSTRACT: On the October 7, 2008 City Council Agenda is a Resolution “authorizing payment of $7,000 to Peter Raimondi of University of California-Santa Cruz to analyze and interpret biological data, as required by the State Water Resources Control Board.” A HISTORY OF CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA AND STATE WATER BOARD, with links to each letter, & EVENTS CHRONOLOGY, are presented. Peter Raimondi’s project is expected to be finalized by December 2008. Upon funding this UCSC project and completion by Raimondi, the State Water Resources Control Board will consider the City’s application for an exemption to the Area of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) waste discharge prohibition complete. Once the exception application is deemed complete, the “State Board staff will prepare the necessary documents for the exception. These include an appropriate environmental document and a draft resolution with detailed conditions, if staff recommends granting the exception.” Then the “State Water Board must provide public notice and hold a hearing before acting on an exception request. Second, the Board must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. And, third, the Board must make two findings that:
(1) The exception will not compromise protection of ocean waters for beneficial uses; and
(2) The public interest will be served.”
(Source: Ocean Plan ASBS Exceptions. What are they? Why do you want one? How do you get one?) REFERENCES, with links, are presented as background information.
Note: The State Water Board adopted exceptions to the ASBS discharge prohibition to the University of California San Diego Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO),provided that the Regional Water Board’s waste discharge requirements included 19 conditions, and to the USC Wrigley Marine Science Center (WMSC), with similar mitigation conditions, because it was determined to be in ”the best public interest.”
AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
VII. Consent Calendar
These matters include routine financial and administrative actions, which are usually approved by a single majority vote. Individual items may be removed from Consent by a member of the Council or the public for discussion and action.
J. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing payment of $7,000 to Peter Raimondi of University of California-Santa Cruz to analyze and interpret biological data, as required by the State Water Resources Control Board.
HISTORY OF CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA AND STATE WATER BOARD & EVENTS CHRONOLOGY
ASBS 34 – Carmel Bay
Carmel by the Sea - Public Works:
Date: 10/18/04 Notification Letter from State Water Board
Date: 4/23/07 Notice of Violation Letter from State Water Board
Date: 11/15/07 Exception Application Status Letter from State Water Board
Date: 12/26/07 City initially submitted exception application to the California Ocean Plan ASBS waste discharge prohibition.
Date: 6/03/08 Conditionally Approved Application Letter from State Water Board
Date: 7/23/08 City submitted additional required materials.
Date: 9/10/08 Conditionally Complete Application Addendum Letter from State Water Board
CONDITIONALLY COMPLETE EXCEPTION APPLICATION ADDENDUM FOR DISCHARGES TO CARMEL BAY AREA OF SPECIAL BIOLOGICCAL SIGNIFICANCE (ASBS)
Letter acknowledges the City’s aim of funding for the “purpose of analysis and interpretation of biological data to be performed by Dr. Peter Rainondi of the University of California, Santa Cruz (USCS).”
Once funding and completion of project by Raimondi, the City’s application for an exception will be considered complete.
REFERENCES:
Discharges to Areas of Special Biological Significance
Update of ASBS Regulatory and Monitoring Efforts
April 1, 2008
Monterey, CA.
Status Report
Areas of Special
Biological Significance
August 2006
Ocean Plan ASBS Exceptions. What are they? Why do you want one?
Based on a presentation made by Sheila Vassey, staff attorney for the State Water Board, at the ASBS Stakeholder Meeting held in La Jolla on January 13, 2005.
(1) The exception will not compromise protection of ocean waters for beneficial uses; and
(2) The public interest will be served.”
(Source: Ocean Plan ASBS Exceptions. What are they? Why do you want one? How do you get one?) REFERENCES, with links, are presented as background information.
Note: The State Water Board adopted exceptions to the ASBS discharge prohibition to the University of California San Diego Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO),provided that the Regional Water Board’s waste discharge requirements included 19 conditions, and to the USC Wrigley Marine Science Center (WMSC), with similar mitigation conditions, because it was determined to be in ”the best public interest.”
AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
VII. Consent Calendar
These matters include routine financial and administrative actions, which are usually approved by a single majority vote. Individual items may be removed from Consent by a member of the Council or the public for discussion and action.
J. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing payment of $7,000 to Peter Raimondi of University of California-Santa Cruz to analyze and interpret biological data, as required by the State Water Resources Control Board.
HISTORY OF CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA AND STATE WATER BOARD & EVENTS CHRONOLOGY
ASBS 34 – Carmel Bay
Carmel by the Sea - Public Works:
Date: 10/18/04 Notification Letter from State Water Board
Date: 4/23/07 Notice of Violation Letter from State Water Board
Date: 11/15/07 Exception Application Status Letter from State Water Board
Date: 12/26/07 City initially submitted exception application to the California Ocean Plan ASBS waste discharge prohibition.
Date: 6/03/08 Conditionally Approved Application Letter from State Water Board
Date: 7/23/08 City submitted additional required materials.
Date: 9/10/08 Conditionally Complete Application Addendum Letter from State Water Board
CONDITIONALLY COMPLETE EXCEPTION APPLICATION ADDENDUM FOR DISCHARGES TO CARMEL BAY AREA OF SPECIAL BIOLOGICCAL SIGNIFICANCE (ASBS)
Letter acknowledges the City’s aim of funding for the “purpose of analysis and interpretation of biological data to be performed by Dr. Peter Rainondi of the University of California, Santa Cruz (USCS).”
Once funding and completion of project by Raimondi, the City’s application for an exception will be considered complete.
REFERENCES:
Discharges to Areas of Special Biological Significance
Update of ASBS Regulatory and Monitoring Efforts
April 1, 2008
Monterey, CA.
Status Report
Areas of Special
Biological Significance
August 2006
Ocean Plan ASBS Exceptions. What are they? Why do you want one?
Based on a presentation made by Sheila Vassey, staff attorney for the State Water Board, at the ASBS Stakeholder Meeting held in La Jolla on January 13, 2005.
Monday, October 06, 2008
City Council Agenda Item: New City Administrator Contractual Agreement for $150,000/Year plus Benefits
ABSTRACT: On the October 7, 2008 City Council Agenda is the “Consideration of a Resolution adopting the employment agreement between the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and Richard I. Guillen, City Administrator.” The Agreement is a 12-month contractual agreement, effective January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008. Changes to the City Administrator’s Agreement dated January 1, 2007 include compensation of $150,000/year, retroactive to April 30, 2008, and the addition of California City Management Foundation professional dues to be paid by the
City for an estimated additional annual expense of $14,500. HIGHLIGHTS of the City Administrator’s Salary and Benefits (EXHIBIT “A”) are presented. A COMMENT is made with respect to Rich I. Guillen’s compensation as City Administrator.
AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
VII. Consent Calendar
These matters include routine financial and administrative actions, which are usually approved by a single majority vote. Individual items may be removed from Consent by a member of the Council or the public for discussion and action.
G. Consideration of a Resolution adopting the employment agreement between the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and Richard I. Guillen, City Administrator.
HIGHLIGHTS OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA AND RICHARD I. GUILLEN, DATED OCTOBER 7, 2008 (EXHIBIT “A”):
• SALARY
The CITY agrees to pay EMPLOYEE the sum of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars and no/100 dollars ($150,000), in salary per annum, retroactive to April 30, 2008.
• AUTOMOBILE
The CITY shall pay EMPLOYEE the sum of three hundred and fifty dollars ($350.00) per month as an automobile allowance.
• SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFITS
The CITY shall continue to provide dental and vision coverage through the CITY’S current self-funded programs, the cost of an annual physical exam up to an amount not to exceed $500 per fiscal year, reimbursement to EMPLOYEE for the cost of a monthly fitness club membership in an amount not to exceed $35.00 per month and one hundred (100) hours annual Administrative Leave per fiscal year.
• BUSINESS EXPENSES
The CITY shall provide a City cellular telephone and, in addition, pay for the monthly service charge and related CITY user charges.
COMMENT:
• Based of City Administrator Rich Guillen’s poor management record over a period of nearly eight years (January 1, 2001 – Present), a new contractual agreement for a salary of $150,000 plus benefits is impossible to justify to Carmel-by-the-Sea taxpayers. Alas, it appears $150,000 plus is the going rate to make it appear that the City has a competent City Administrator, when in reality Rich Guillen functions as the mayor’s lackey.
NOTES:
• Earlier in his tenure as City Administrator, Rich Guillen advocated for the creation of a new administrative position; this administrative position would have had the duties and responsibilities of essentially managing the city while the City Administrator continued to be compensated as City Administrator.
• Recently, at the September 9, 2008 City Council Meeting, City Administrator Rich Guillen stated “we’re all for reducing the number of boards and commissions” because it takes “a lot of staff time to prepare agendas and meet with chairs and deal with the time involved...”
City for an estimated additional annual expense of $14,500. HIGHLIGHTS of the City Administrator’s Salary and Benefits (EXHIBIT “A”) are presented. A COMMENT is made with respect to Rich I. Guillen’s compensation as City Administrator.
AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
VII. Consent Calendar
These matters include routine financial and administrative actions, which are usually approved by a single majority vote. Individual items may be removed from Consent by a member of the Council or the public for discussion and action.
G. Consideration of a Resolution adopting the employment agreement between the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and Richard I. Guillen, City Administrator.
HIGHLIGHTS OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA AND RICHARD I. GUILLEN, DATED OCTOBER 7, 2008 (EXHIBIT “A”):
• SALARY
The CITY agrees to pay EMPLOYEE the sum of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars and no/100 dollars ($150,000), in salary per annum, retroactive to April 30, 2008.
• AUTOMOBILE
The CITY shall pay EMPLOYEE the sum of three hundred and fifty dollars ($350.00) per month as an automobile allowance.
• SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFITS
The CITY shall continue to provide dental and vision coverage through the CITY’S current self-funded programs, the cost of an annual physical exam up to an amount not to exceed $500 per fiscal year, reimbursement to EMPLOYEE for the cost of a monthly fitness club membership in an amount not to exceed $35.00 per month and one hundred (100) hours annual Administrative Leave per fiscal year.
• BUSINESS EXPENSES
The CITY shall provide a City cellular telephone and, in addition, pay for the monthly service charge and related CITY user charges.
COMMENT:
• Based of City Administrator Rich Guillen’s poor management record over a period of nearly eight years (January 1, 2001 – Present), a new contractual agreement for a salary of $150,000 plus benefits is impossible to justify to Carmel-by-the-Sea taxpayers. Alas, it appears $150,000 plus is the going rate to make it appear that the City has a competent City Administrator, when in reality Rich Guillen functions as the mayor’s lackey.
NOTES:
• Earlier in his tenure as City Administrator, Rich Guillen advocated for the creation of a new administrative position; this administrative position would have had the duties and responsibilities of essentially managing the city while the City Administrator continued to be compensated as City Administrator.
• Recently, at the September 9, 2008 City Council Meeting, City Administrator Rich Guillen stated “we’re all for reducing the number of boards and commissions” because it takes “a lot of staff time to prepare agendas and meet with chairs and deal with the time involved...”
Sunday, October 05, 2008
Evidence of Dysfunction: Design Review Board & Planning Commission
ABSTRACT: On the City Council Agenda of September 9, 2008 was an Order of Council to “Provide policy direction regarding the responsibilities of the Planning Commission and Design Review Board.” Although the Staff Report, written by Planning & Building Services Manager Sean Conroy, stated the Report was in response to a request to analyze the workloads of the Design Review Board (DRB) and the Planning Commission (PC), it became apparent that the DRB and PC are making inconsistent decisions with respect to each other. Statements by Mayor Sue McCloud, City Council Members Gerard Rose and Ken Talmage at the City Council Meeting illustrate some aspects of the current state of dysfunction. However, instead of having a discussion on the cause of the dysfunction and possible solutions, the City Council directed City Administrator Rich Guillen to prepare a proposal revising the Municipal Code to move responsibility for demolitions from the DRB to the PC as a mechanism to equalize the workloads of the DRB and PC. COMMENTS are made regarding Mayor Sue McCloud and City Council Member Gerard Rose, the City Council's arrogation of the intended authority of a Community Planning & Building Director and a solution to inconsistent decision-making by the DRB and PC. REFERENCES, as links, are presented.
AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
XI. Orders of Council
B. Provide policy direction regarding the responsibilities of the Planning Commission and Design Review Board.
Statements by Mayor Sue McCloud, City Council Members Gerard Rose and Ken Talmage:
Mayor Sue McCloud: It has ended up, all demolitions are going to the Design Review Board, “I don’t think that was what was envisioned in the beginning, I know is wasn’t what was envisioned in the beginning.”
“...we’ve got two bodies (Design Review Board and Planning Commission) that are working sometimes at cross purposes and they are aware of it...”
City Council Member Gerard Rose: “And the fact is, when we dreamt this whole concept of two separate commissions up, we thought that’s what the Planning Commission was going to do, was going to handle demolitions, I don’t know how that fell between the cracks and went the other way, that was the plan.”
City Council Member Ken Talmage: “...when I was on the Planning Commission, it was very clear there was venue shopping going on and that you could get a different result depending upon which of the commissions you ended up in front of and that’s what we don’t want to happen, but that has been happening.”
The City’s Municipal Code section 17.52 identifies the duties and responsibilities of the Design Review Board (DRB) and Planning Commission (PC). These responsibilities are summarized below, as presented in the Staff Report.
DRB: The Design Review Board’s primary responsibility is to review Design Review applications that do not require any type of land use permit. These include:
• Demolitions
• Construction of new homes
• Remodeling of homes and commercial buildings
• Signs
PC: The Planning Commission has a much broader range of responsibilities, including:
• Maintain and update the General Plan & Zoning Ordinance
• Develop specific plans and master plans
• Review Capital Improvements Plan
• Review environmental documents
• Review land use permits (variances, subdivisions, conditional use permits, etc.)
• Perform design review for projects that include land use permits
• Interpret land use regulations
• Review appeals of staff approved projects
The Staff Report listed 4 potential options for redefining the responsibilities of the two bodies, as follows:
1) Revise the code to give staff discretion to assign applications to PC or DRB. While this would allow staff to balance the agendas between the two bodies, this could lead to accusations of unfair or inconsistent treatment by applicants.
2) Revise the code to redefine the roles of the PC and DRB. The simplest way to redistribute the workload would be to require a use permit for demolitions. This would send all demolitions and rebuilds to the Planning Commission and leave the smaller projects to the DRB. This would increase the length of PC agendas and decrease the length of DRB agendas.
3) Dissolve the DRB and have the PC meet twice a month. This would require a larger time commitment from planning commissioners, but would avoid inconsistent decisions between the two bodies. If this option is taken, staff recommends adding several alternates to the Commission to cover for absent members.
4) Maintain the responsibilities as currently defined in the Municipal Code. Since the DRB and PC duties are part of the zoning ordinance, any proposals to modify these requirements would require an amendment to the Local Coastal Program. This would require hearings with the Planning Commission, City Council and California Coastal Commission.
COMMENTS:
• While Mayor Sue McCloud and City Council Member Gerard Rose stated that it was their understanding that demolitions were to be the responsibility of the PC, neither McCloud nor Rose cited any references to support their contention. Moreover, given that the Municipal Code unambiguously states that the Duties and Responsibilities of the DRB are permit applications not reserved to the PC and projects not involving any land use permit, e.g. demolitions, and the General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Housing Element specifically states that “Design study applications that do not require a Use Permit or CDP are reviewed by the Design Review Board (DRB). Design Study applications that do require a Use Permit or Coastal Development Permit (CDP) are reviewed by the Planning Commission,” it is astonishing that five years have elapsed since certification of the City’s Local Coastal Program and both Sue McCloud and Gerard Rose only now seem to realize that demolitions have been the purview of the DRB, not the PC, for all these years. This state of affairs begs the question, if Sue McCloud and Gerard Rose do not grasp and comprehend the contents of the Municipal Code and the Local Coastal Program as it pertains to this particular planning issue, what else do they not grasp and comprehend?
• Instead of placing a priority of the hiring of a Community Planning & Building Department Director with the background and expertise to make the best decisions with regard to the duties, responsibilities and operations of the DRB and PC, the City Council has arrogated the intended authority of the Director in an attempt to micromanage the City’s Planning & Building Department, specifically the duties and responsibilities of the DRB and PC.
• The importance of rectifying inconsistent decisions between the DRB and PC is much more important than attempting to equalize the bodies’ respective workloads through the transfer of demolitions from the DRB to PC. To wit, inconsistent decisions can most easily be rectified by adopting Option 3 on the Staff Report, as follows:
3) Dissolve the DRB and have the PC meet twice a month. This would require a larger time commitment from planning commissioners, but would avoid inconsistent decisions between the two bodies. If this option is taken, staff recommends adding several alternates to the Commission to cover for absent members.
For contextual purposes, it is important to note that the Planning Commission was once composed of seven members and met twice monthly. And the original concept in the Design Traditions Project was for design review to be accomplished by a subcommittee of the Planning Commission.
REFERENCES:
Regular Meeting Video
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
XI. Orders of Council
B. Provide policy direction regarding the responsibilities of the Planning Commission and Design Review Board.
(Beginning Time 03:53:50 – 04:09:32 Ending Time)
AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR McCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: SEAN CONROY, PLNG & BLDG SERVICES MANAGER
THROUGH: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: 9 SEPTEMBER 2008
SUBJECT: PROVIDE POLICY DIRECTION REGARDING THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND DESIGN REVIEW BOARD BACKGROUND
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
MUNICIPAL CODE
Division V. Processes and Authorities
Chapter 17.52
PERMIT PROCEDURES
17.52.050 Duties and Powers of the Design Review Board.
17.52.060 Duties and Powers of the Planning Commission.
General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Housing Element
Design study applications that do not require a Use Permit or CDP are reviewed by the Design Review Board (DRB). Design Study applications that do require a Use Permit or Coastal Development Permit (CDP) are reviewed by the Planning Commission.
AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
XI. Orders of Council
B. Provide policy direction regarding the responsibilities of the Planning Commission and Design Review Board.
Statements by Mayor Sue McCloud, City Council Members Gerard Rose and Ken Talmage:
Mayor Sue McCloud: It has ended up, all demolitions are going to the Design Review Board, “I don’t think that was what was envisioned in the beginning, I know is wasn’t what was envisioned in the beginning.”
“...we’ve got two bodies (Design Review Board and Planning Commission) that are working sometimes at cross purposes and they are aware of it...”
City Council Member Gerard Rose: “And the fact is, when we dreamt this whole concept of two separate commissions up, we thought that’s what the Planning Commission was going to do, was going to handle demolitions, I don’t know how that fell between the cracks and went the other way, that was the plan.”
City Council Member Ken Talmage: “...when I was on the Planning Commission, it was very clear there was venue shopping going on and that you could get a different result depending upon which of the commissions you ended up in front of and that’s what we don’t want to happen, but that has been happening.”
The City’s Municipal Code section 17.52 identifies the duties and responsibilities of the Design Review Board (DRB) and Planning Commission (PC). These responsibilities are summarized below, as presented in the Staff Report.
DRB: The Design Review Board’s primary responsibility is to review Design Review applications that do not require any type of land use permit. These include:
• Demolitions
• Construction of new homes
• Remodeling of homes and commercial buildings
• Signs
PC: The Planning Commission has a much broader range of responsibilities, including:
• Maintain and update the General Plan & Zoning Ordinance
• Develop specific plans and master plans
• Review Capital Improvements Plan
• Review environmental documents
• Review land use permits (variances, subdivisions, conditional use permits, etc.)
• Perform design review for projects that include land use permits
• Interpret land use regulations
• Review appeals of staff approved projects
The Staff Report listed 4 potential options for redefining the responsibilities of the two bodies, as follows:
1) Revise the code to give staff discretion to assign applications to PC or DRB. While this would allow staff to balance the agendas between the two bodies, this could lead to accusations of unfair or inconsistent treatment by applicants.
2) Revise the code to redefine the roles of the PC and DRB. The simplest way to redistribute the workload would be to require a use permit for demolitions. This would send all demolitions and rebuilds to the Planning Commission and leave the smaller projects to the DRB. This would increase the length of PC agendas and decrease the length of DRB agendas.
3) Dissolve the DRB and have the PC meet twice a month. This would require a larger time commitment from planning commissioners, but would avoid inconsistent decisions between the two bodies. If this option is taken, staff recommends adding several alternates to the Commission to cover for absent members.
4) Maintain the responsibilities as currently defined in the Municipal Code. Since the DRB and PC duties are part of the zoning ordinance, any proposals to modify these requirements would require an amendment to the Local Coastal Program. This would require hearings with the Planning Commission, City Council and California Coastal Commission.
COMMENTS:
• While Mayor Sue McCloud and City Council Member Gerard Rose stated that it was their understanding that demolitions were to be the responsibility of the PC, neither McCloud nor Rose cited any references to support their contention. Moreover, given that the Municipal Code unambiguously states that the Duties and Responsibilities of the DRB are permit applications not reserved to the PC and projects not involving any land use permit, e.g. demolitions, and the General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Housing Element specifically states that “Design study applications that do not require a Use Permit or CDP are reviewed by the Design Review Board (DRB). Design Study applications that do require a Use Permit or Coastal Development Permit (CDP) are reviewed by the Planning Commission,” it is astonishing that five years have elapsed since certification of the City’s Local Coastal Program and both Sue McCloud and Gerard Rose only now seem to realize that demolitions have been the purview of the DRB, not the PC, for all these years. This state of affairs begs the question, if Sue McCloud and Gerard Rose do not grasp and comprehend the contents of the Municipal Code and the Local Coastal Program as it pertains to this particular planning issue, what else do they not grasp and comprehend?
• Instead of placing a priority of the hiring of a Community Planning & Building Department Director with the background and expertise to make the best decisions with regard to the duties, responsibilities and operations of the DRB and PC, the City Council has arrogated the intended authority of the Director in an attempt to micromanage the City’s Planning & Building Department, specifically the duties and responsibilities of the DRB and PC.
• The importance of rectifying inconsistent decisions between the DRB and PC is much more important than attempting to equalize the bodies’ respective workloads through the transfer of demolitions from the DRB to PC. To wit, inconsistent decisions can most easily be rectified by adopting Option 3 on the Staff Report, as follows:
3) Dissolve the DRB and have the PC meet twice a month. This would require a larger time commitment from planning commissioners, but would avoid inconsistent decisions between the two bodies. If this option is taken, staff recommends adding several alternates to the Commission to cover for absent members.
For contextual purposes, it is important to note that the Planning Commission was once composed of seven members and met twice monthly. And the original concept in the Design Traditions Project was for design review to be accomplished by a subcommittee of the Planning Commission.
REFERENCES:
Regular Meeting Video
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
XI. Orders of Council
B. Provide policy direction regarding the responsibilities of the Planning Commission and Design Review Board.
(Beginning Time 03:53:50 – 04:09:32 Ending Time)
AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR McCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: SEAN CONROY, PLNG & BLDG SERVICES MANAGER
THROUGH: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: 9 SEPTEMBER 2008
SUBJECT: PROVIDE POLICY DIRECTION REGARDING THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND DESIGN REVIEW BOARD BACKGROUND
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
MUNICIPAL CODE
Division V. Processes and Authorities
Chapter 17.52
PERMIT PROCEDURES
17.52.050 Duties and Powers of the Design Review Board.
17.52.060 Duties and Powers of the Planning Commission.
General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Housing Element
Design study applications that do not require a Use Permit or CDP are reviewed by the Design Review Board (DRB). Design Study applications that do require a Use Permit or Coastal Development Permit (CDP) are reviewed by the Planning Commission.
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Carmel Art Association Presents PEGGY OLSEN’S SOLO SHOW AND GALLERY SHOWCASE FEATURING NORMA ZEIGLE BHASKAR & HEIDI HYBL
Carmel Art Association
“Celebrating 80 years of local art”
Voted “Art Gallery of the Year” by the Carmel Business Association three consecutive years.
W/s Dolores St. between 5th Av. & 6th Av.
10:00 A.M. – 5:00 P.M., Daily, except major Holidays.
Open to the Public at No Charge
“Founded in 1927, Carmel's oldest gallery features the work of more than 120 professional local artists, and is dedicated to presenting only the finest work for sale by artists living on the Monterey Peninsula.”
For more information, Online or (831) 624-6176.
Carmel Art Association Presents PEGGY OLSEN’S SOLO SHOW AND GALLERY SHOWCASE FEATURING NORMA ZEIGLE BHASKAR & HEIDI HYBL
Thursday, October 2 – Tuesday, November 4, 2008
SOLO SHOW “ALMOST ABSTRACT” (Beardsley Room – South Wall):
Painter Peggy Olsen exhibits “Almost Abstract,” comprising new work leaning toward abstraction with a fresh collection of California hillsides and landscapes painted in bold color on canvas and linen. View "Poppy Fields," "Vineyard of the West," "Hillside Melody," “Where Lupin Linger,” “Vista by the Bay,” “Eucalyptus High” and “Fine Vines.”
GALLERY SHOWCASE (Segal Room):
Painter Norma Zeigle Bhaskar exhibits figurative monotype prints and paintings in acrylic. View Norma Zeigle Bhaskar’s biography, education and artwork "High Sierras," "Cove" and “Mono Nude#1.”
Painter Heidi Hybl exhibits "Living on the Edge: Landscapes After the Fires," new abstract landscapes of the Big Sur coast in oil. View Heidi Hybl’s biography and paintings "Fir Piece," "Branch Crossing" and "Date Palm."
Opening Reception Saturday, October 4, 6:00 P.M. – 8:00 P.M.
“Celebrating 80 years of local art”
Voted “Art Gallery of the Year” by the Carmel Business Association three consecutive years.
W/s Dolores St. between 5th Av. & 6th Av.
10:00 A.M. – 5:00 P.M., Daily, except major Holidays.
Open to the Public at No Charge
“Founded in 1927, Carmel's oldest gallery features the work of more than 120 professional local artists, and is dedicated to presenting only the finest work for sale by artists living on the Monterey Peninsula.”
For more information, Online or (831) 624-6176.
Carmel Art Association Presents PEGGY OLSEN’S SOLO SHOW AND GALLERY SHOWCASE FEATURING NORMA ZEIGLE BHASKAR & HEIDI HYBL
Thursday, October 2 – Tuesday, November 4, 2008
SOLO SHOW “ALMOST ABSTRACT” (Beardsley Room – South Wall):
Painter Peggy Olsen exhibits “Almost Abstract,” comprising new work leaning toward abstraction with a fresh collection of California hillsides and landscapes painted in bold color on canvas and linen. View "Poppy Fields," "Vineyard of the West," "Hillside Melody," “Where Lupin Linger,” “Vista by the Bay,” “Eucalyptus High” and “Fine Vines.”
GALLERY SHOWCASE (Segal Room):
Painter Norma Zeigle Bhaskar exhibits figurative monotype prints and paintings in acrylic. View Norma Zeigle Bhaskar’s biography, education and artwork "High Sierras," "Cove" and “Mono Nude#1.”
Painter Heidi Hybl exhibits "Living on the Edge: Landscapes After the Fires," new abstract landscapes of the Big Sur coast in oil. View Heidi Hybl’s biography and paintings "Fir Piece," "Branch Crossing" and "Date Palm."
Opening Reception Saturday, October 4, 6:00 P.M. – 8:00 P.M.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)