ABSTRACT: During Public Appearances at the 3 August 2010 City Council meeting, former mayoral candidate Adam Moniz addressed the public on the subject of harassment at City Hall. Moniz’s remarks are transcribed. A COMMENT is made.
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
City Hall
East side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues
VI. Public Appearances
Anyone wishing to address the City Council on matters within the jurisdiction of the City that are not on today’s agenda may do so now. Matters not appearing on the City Council’s agenda will not receive action at this meeting but may be referred to staff for a future meeting. Presentations will be limited to three (3) minutes, or as otherwise established by the City Council. Persons are not required to give their names, but it is helpful for speakers to state their names in order that the City Clerk may identify them in the minutes of the meeting. Always speak into the microphone, as the meeting is recorded. The City Council Chamber is equipped with a portable microphone for anyone unable to come to the podium. If you need assistance, please advise City Clerk Heidi Burch as to which item you wish to comment on and the microphone will be brought to you.
“I’m Adam Moniz and I’m a resident of Carmel-by-the-Sea. Indeed, you are running the meeting, just barely. I would like to note there is no such in the Carmel Code which prohibits anyone of you from doing whatever you like in terms of rounds of applause. We have to make sure we don’t allow our elected officials to think that they have more power than they really do.”
“I ran against Sue McCloud for mayor of Carmel a few months ago. During the April 2010 election, some candidates seeking re-election made what we all now know were undeniably false, or at absolute best, utterly misleading statements to Carmel voters regarding the validity of claims of harassment in City Hall. The pertinent facts can be boiled down to this: There was harassment. And that harassment was in fact tolerated. The question is not if any of you directly knew or actually knew; it’s that you should have known. It’s not acceptable to simply look the other way or choose to put your head in the sand. For elected officials are rightfully held to a higher standard by the public they are supposed to be in office to serve.”
“If any of you think that in voting behind closed doors to pay out over $600,000 you have somehow resolved in full this deeply troubling matter, your constituents have told you now, loud and clear, that you are mistaken. It’s time for accountability.”
“To all those city employees who have been forced to work in a hostile workplace environment, you deserve better. I am so deeply sorry for what you and your families have been forced to go through and for you and your families are still being forced to go through.”
“While this particular litigation may no longer be pending in a court of law, it is still very much alive and active in the court of public opinion And fortunately for all of us, the entirely of the jury, are the voters of Carmel-by-the-Sea. So, to quote Mayor McCloud, stay tuned.”
(Archived Videos, August 03, 2010, 32:05 - 34:10)
COMMENT:
• Adam Moniz has demonstrated with these remarks alone that he is more worthy and deserving of being mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea than the current mayor.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Monday, August 09, 2010
Carolyn Hardy: 'It is incumbent upon the City Council to restore integrity and dignity to City Hall by removing the offender whose actions have brought dishonor to Carmel.'
ABSTRACT: During Public Appearances at the 3 August 2010 City Council meeting, resident Carolyn Hardy addressed the public on the subject of sexual harassment at City Hall and Jane Miller’s lawsuit. Hardy’s remarks are transcribed. A COMMENT is made.
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
City Hall
East side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues
VI. Public Appearances
Anyone wishing to address the City Council on matters within the jurisdiction of the City that are not on today’s agenda may do so now. Matters not appearing on the City Council’s agenda will not receive action at this meeting but may be referred to staff for a future meeting. Presentations will be limited to three (3) minutes, or as otherwise established by the City Council. Persons are not required to give their names, but it is helpful for speakers to state their names in order that the City Clerk may identify them in the minutes of the meeting. Always speak into the microphone, as the meeting is recorded. The City Council Chamber is equipped with a portable microphone for anyone unable to come to the podium. If you need assistance, please advise City Clerk Heidi Burch as to which item you wish to comment on and the microphone will be brought to you.
“Carolyn Hardy. I am conveying thoughts here on behalf of myself and my husband. The huge turnout at Jason’s town hall meeting yesterday evidenced the depth and breath of concern, frustration, and anger over the circumstances revealed in Jane Miller’s sexual harassment lawsuit. But just because the lawsuit has been settled does not mean the problems have gone away, the liability still remains. And I regret deeply that I feel compelled to say this, but our small town has experienced enough shame over this. It is time to make a change at City Hall. The damage done is not just monetary; our damages include loss of employee morale and loss of a safe work environment that’s free from harassment, intimidation and retaliation. It is time for Rich Guillen to leave either by departure or removal. Without a clean start this community and City Hall cannot forget and cannot heal.”
“I too have experienced sexual harassment in the workplace, in the 70s when there were no policies to prohibit it and no remedies to correct it. It is insidious, it affects your work and your work relationships, it is not something you can wave off. You endure it to keep your job or you leave to escape it.”
“I am incensed that our local newspaper would imply that determination of whether sexual harassment occurred depended on the victim’s response. That is in the same vein as implying a rape victim may have enjoyed the experience. The paper’s editor attempts to turn the victim into a villain.”
“During a recent election forum two council members said that if either knew of sexual harassment in the workplace neither would tolerate it. Well, because of the documents from Miller’s lawsuit we have concrete evidence that sexual harassment flourished. Most telling were the documents that surfaced in response to the city’s attempt to disqualify the plaintiff’s attorney. We now have a clearer picture of what has been going on at City Hall and the evidence revealed in emails from Rich to Jane Miller contradicted all the denials and likely led to the settlement. It is incumbent upon the City Council to restore integrity and dignity to City Hall by removing the offender whose actions have brought dishonor to Carmel.”
(Archived Videos, August 03, 2010, 29:05 - 31:50)
COMMENT:
• Carolyn Hardy’s comments are articulate and courageous. She is absolutely correct in her comments that “The paper’s editor attempts to turn the victim into a villain,” “It is time for Rich Guillen to leave either by departure or removal. Without a clean start this community and City Hall cannot forget and cannot heal” and “It is incumbent upon the City Council to restore integrity and dignity to City Hall by removing the offender whose actions have brought dishonor to Carmel.”
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
City Hall
East side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues
VI. Public Appearances
Anyone wishing to address the City Council on matters within the jurisdiction of the City that are not on today’s agenda may do so now. Matters not appearing on the City Council’s agenda will not receive action at this meeting but may be referred to staff for a future meeting. Presentations will be limited to three (3) minutes, or as otherwise established by the City Council. Persons are not required to give their names, but it is helpful for speakers to state their names in order that the City Clerk may identify them in the minutes of the meeting. Always speak into the microphone, as the meeting is recorded. The City Council Chamber is equipped with a portable microphone for anyone unable to come to the podium. If you need assistance, please advise City Clerk Heidi Burch as to which item you wish to comment on and the microphone will be brought to you.
“Carolyn Hardy. I am conveying thoughts here on behalf of myself and my husband. The huge turnout at Jason’s town hall meeting yesterday evidenced the depth and breath of concern, frustration, and anger over the circumstances revealed in Jane Miller’s sexual harassment lawsuit. But just because the lawsuit has been settled does not mean the problems have gone away, the liability still remains. And I regret deeply that I feel compelled to say this, but our small town has experienced enough shame over this. It is time to make a change at City Hall. The damage done is not just monetary; our damages include loss of employee morale and loss of a safe work environment that’s free from harassment, intimidation and retaliation. It is time for Rich Guillen to leave either by departure or removal. Without a clean start this community and City Hall cannot forget and cannot heal.”
“I too have experienced sexual harassment in the workplace, in the 70s when there were no policies to prohibit it and no remedies to correct it. It is insidious, it affects your work and your work relationships, it is not something you can wave off. You endure it to keep your job or you leave to escape it.”
“I am incensed that our local newspaper would imply that determination of whether sexual harassment occurred depended on the victim’s response. That is in the same vein as implying a rape victim may have enjoyed the experience. The paper’s editor attempts to turn the victim into a villain.”
“During a recent election forum two council members said that if either knew of sexual harassment in the workplace neither would tolerate it. Well, because of the documents from Miller’s lawsuit we have concrete evidence that sexual harassment flourished. Most telling were the documents that surfaced in response to the city’s attempt to disqualify the plaintiff’s attorney. We now have a clearer picture of what has been going on at City Hall and the evidence revealed in emails from Rich to Jane Miller contradicted all the denials and likely led to the settlement. It is incumbent upon the City Council to restore integrity and dignity to City Hall by removing the offender whose actions have brought dishonor to Carmel.”
(Archived Videos, August 03, 2010, 29:05 - 31:50)
COMMENT:
• Carolyn Hardy’s comments are articulate and courageous. She is absolutely correct in her comments that “The paper’s editor attempts to turn the victim into a villain,” “It is time for Rich Guillen to leave either by departure or removal. Without a clean start this community and City Hall cannot forget and cannot heal” and “It is incumbent upon the City Council to restore integrity and dignity to City Hall by removing the offender whose actions have brought dishonor to Carmel.”
Sunday, August 08, 2010
COMMENTARY: City Attorney Don Freeman’s Culpability in the Culture of Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation
At the 3 August 2010 City Council meeting, City Attorney Don Freeman presented himself as a city attorney who honors the rule of law, at least with regard to city employee confidentiality laws. However, his record as city attorney since 2003 shows the City Attorney knew about city employees’ claims of “hostile” workplace environment and forced “early retirement.” Moreover, in the Jane Miller case, the City Attorney’s “failures,” errors and omissions, and “silences” have arguably contributed significantly to the continuance of a culture of harassment, discrimination and retaliation in the city government of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
EVIDENCE:
• In 2003, the City Attorney was aware of negotiations between City Administrator Rich Guillen and attorney Michael Stamp involving Stamp’s representation of Assistant City Administrator Greg D’Ambrosio and Community and Cultural Director Brian Donoghue; both made serious employment discrimination claims against the City and City Administrator, including claims of "hostile work environment" and "forced early retirement." In fact, with regard to the Assistant City Administrator, City Attorney Freeman specifically authorized Stamp to meet directly with the City Administrator to try to negotiate the claims. With regard to the Community and Cultural Director, in 2003, Donoghue advised the City Attorney that he was concerned about retaliation relating to his role in reporting certain issues.
• In 2006, the City Attorney was advised by the City Administrator regarding negotiations between Stamp and the City Administrator involving serious employment discrimination claims against the City and the City Administrator by Library Director Margaret Pelikan, including allegations of "hostile work environment, forced retirement and the City Administrator’s favoritism towards Christie Miller." The City Attorney approved and signed off for the City on the settlement agreement.
• In 2008, the City Attorney was involved with the negotiations regarding Executive Assistant Sandy Farrell’s discrimination claims against the City and the City Administrator, including claims of "hostile work environment and forced retirement." The City Attorney approved the settlement agreement.
Note: The four cases from 2003 to 2009 resulted in the City paying negotiation payments of more than $500,000 to the four employees, which the City considered to be “significant.”
• In May 2008, attorney Michael Stamp, in his representation of Human Resources Manager Jane Miller, wrote a May 20 letter to the Mayor and City Council, with a copy to the City Attorney, raising Miller’s claims of "sex-based discrimination, age-based discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation against the City and the City Administrator." The City Attorney recognized Stamp’s role as Miller’s litigation counsel if the case did not settle.
• In May 2008, the City Attorney’s Office wrote a May 22 letter to Jane Miller’s attorney Michael Stamp that City Attorney Don Freeman would “prepare a response” to Stamp’s May 20, 2008 letter when he returned from a trip on June 2, 2008. The City Attorney never responded in writing to the May 20, 2008 letter. He later communicated to attorney Michael Stamp by telephone that he was letting Liebert Cassidy speak for him, and that he had ordered Liebert Cassidy Whitmore to assign a senior attorney to the matter.
• In September/October 2008, the City Attorney reviewed an Employee Agreement between the City and City Administrator Rich Guillen approving a retroactive compensation increase of $14,500, which was unanimously approved by the Mayor and City Council at the October 7, 2008 City Council meeting.
• In October 2008, Stamp provided the City Attorney with a letter summarizing the problems with the City’s lack of action since May 20, 2008. The City failed to respond.
• In late October 2008, Stamp provided the City Attorney with an original letter and five copies of a 13 page statement by Jane Miller. The City failed to respond.
• In November 2008, Stamp had a telephone conversation with the City Attorney concerning City Council discussions in regard to Jane Miller, particularly about the City Attorney’s question as to whether Miller had copies of emails to support her allegations. “The City Attorney made a statement about the Mayor and the City Administrator’s conduct, which highlighted the seriousness and significance of Miller’s claims.” Stamp explained to the City Attorney that Miller had received more than one hundred non-work-related emails - not including instant messages and telephone calls – from the City Administrator over several years.
• August 7, 2008 – January 16, 2009: “Investigation” by private investigator/attorney Karen Kramer; Kramer interviewed twelve witnesses, eleven current employees and one former employee, including “a majority of the witnesses Ms. Miller identified in her written complaints.” However, Kramer did not interview Employee #1 (Assistant City Administrator Greg D’Ambrosio), Employee #2 (Community and Cultural Director Brian Donoghue), Employee #3 (Library Director Margaret Pelikan) and Employee #4 (Executive Assistant Sandy Farrell).
• February 9, 2009: Letter, Re: Notice of Completion of Investigation – Jane Miller’s Workplace Complaints, from Liebert Cassidy Whitmore (LCW) to attorney Michael Stamp stating “Based on Ms. Kramer’s findings and conclusions the City has determined that Ms. Miller’s allegations are not substantiated. Accordingly, this investigation is now closed and deemed completed.”
• In September 2009, LCW, presumably with the authorization of the City Attorney, filed a motion by Defendant City of Carmel-by-the-Sea to disqualify plaintiff’s counsel. Incredibly, the City had Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk Heidi Burch make a declaration which “provided the primary evidentiary basis for the City’s motion to disqualify attorney Michael Stamp” from representing his client, Jane Miller. Burch's declaration was characterized as “insubstantial and inadmissible.” In fact, the Burch declaration was characterized as an “interested person’s unqualified conclusions.” Moreover, Burch was not only unqualified to make conclusions about documents, she was not associated with the City when attorney Michael Stamp performed work for the City and she herself was directly implicated in the lawsuit as “Female B.”
•In the Court’s denial of Defendant City of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff’s Counsel, Judge Larry E. Hayes wrote on February 3, 2010, as follows:
The City had actual knowledge of any claim of a potential conflict beginning in 2003 when Mr. Stamp represented the first senior City employee in his employment claims against the City. Between 2003 and 2008, Mr. Stamp represented an additional three senior City employees in their employment claims against the City.
The City failed to prove that the City performed a reasonable investigation into the potential merits of the disqualification motion by interviewing the key City personnel, including the City Attorney. The Court finds disingenuous the City’s assertion that the actual knowledge of material facts by the City Attorney need not be inquired into by the City’s lawyers or disclosed by the City in regard to this motion. The Court finds that City Administrator Richard Guillen and City Attorney Don Freeman knew about the former representations during the pertinent time period. The weight of the evidence shows that those individuals would have had specific knowledge about those former representations...
• The City Attorney announced a settlement in the Jane Miller case after a Closed Session on July 13, 2010: “This settlement means all parties avoid the further burden and expense of litigation and the uncertainty of a jury trial. By resolving this matter and avoiding months of litigation and expenses, we can look forward to redirecting more energy and resources to the many challenges facing the city in these uncertain economic times.” The City Council's unanimous approval of the $600,000 settlement, paid by the City's insurance agency, California State Association of Counties (CSAC) Excess Insurance Authority (EIA), was approved at the recommendation of EIA.
• At the August 2010 City Council meeting, City Attorney Don Freeman emphasized that the “investigation” was not conducted by the city, but rather by the city’s original law firm, LCW. Yet, the City embraced the findings and conclusions of the “investigation” when the City Attorney knew, or should have known, that the “investigation” was not a thorough and complete investigation.
CONCLUSION
The weight of the evidence suggests that the City Attorney’s “failures,” errors and omissions, and “silences” had the net effect of protecting and shielding from public accountability the city administrator, mayor and city council members at the expense of city employees, citizens and the city’s reputation. Moreover, the City Attorney not only committed “failures,” errors and omissions, and “silences,” but he reviewed and approved a retroactive $14,500 compensation increase for the City Administrator within five months of receipt of attorney Michael Stamp’s May 20, 2008 letter outlining Jane Miller’s complaints and during a yet to be concluded “investigation” into Jane Miller’s claims. The Mayor and City Council later unanimously approved the Employment Agreement between the City and City Administrator Rich Guillen at the 7 October 2010 City Council meeting.
While the City’s Code of Ethics states “Our actions are deemed representative of those we serve and our function, therefore, carries with it a greater responsibility than that of the private enterprise employee,” the Mayor and City Council have had most recently over two years, since May 2008, to take appropriate action and have failed to date to take appropriate action whereas in the private section recently, the Board of Hewlett-Packard acted swiftly and decisively (within one month) by conducting an investigation which concluded that the CEO had violated the company’s ethics code thus precipitating CEO Mark Hurd’s resignation. As HP General Counsel Michael Holston stated, Hurd “demonstrated a profound lack of judgment that seriously undermined his credibility and damaged his effectiveness in leading HP.” “The board took immediate action in this matter and their decision was right and necessary to uphold HP’s values of trust, respect and uncompromising integrity.”
Moreover, as Charles Elson, director of the corporate governance centre at the University of Delaware stated: “Once trust is broken between a CEO and a board, it makes it harder to have confidence in anything he says in future. He had to go.” Similarly, in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, trust has been irreparably broken between the City Administrator and the denizens of Carmel-by-the-Sea. Ergo, the City Administrator has to go!
EVIDENCE:
• In 2003, the City Attorney was aware of negotiations between City Administrator Rich Guillen and attorney Michael Stamp involving Stamp’s representation of Assistant City Administrator Greg D’Ambrosio and Community and Cultural Director Brian Donoghue; both made serious employment discrimination claims against the City and City Administrator, including claims of "hostile work environment" and "forced early retirement." In fact, with regard to the Assistant City Administrator, City Attorney Freeman specifically authorized Stamp to meet directly with the City Administrator to try to negotiate the claims. With regard to the Community and Cultural Director, in 2003, Donoghue advised the City Attorney that he was concerned about retaliation relating to his role in reporting certain issues.
• In 2006, the City Attorney was advised by the City Administrator regarding negotiations between Stamp and the City Administrator involving serious employment discrimination claims against the City and the City Administrator by Library Director Margaret Pelikan, including allegations of "hostile work environment, forced retirement and the City Administrator’s favoritism towards Christie Miller." The City Attorney approved and signed off for the City on the settlement agreement.
• In 2008, the City Attorney was involved with the negotiations regarding Executive Assistant Sandy Farrell’s discrimination claims against the City and the City Administrator, including claims of "hostile work environment and forced retirement." The City Attorney approved the settlement agreement.
Note: The four cases from 2003 to 2009 resulted in the City paying negotiation payments of more than $500,000 to the four employees, which the City considered to be “significant.”
• In May 2008, attorney Michael Stamp, in his representation of Human Resources Manager Jane Miller, wrote a May 20 letter to the Mayor and City Council, with a copy to the City Attorney, raising Miller’s claims of "sex-based discrimination, age-based discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation against the City and the City Administrator." The City Attorney recognized Stamp’s role as Miller’s litigation counsel if the case did not settle.
• In May 2008, the City Attorney’s Office wrote a May 22 letter to Jane Miller’s attorney Michael Stamp that City Attorney Don Freeman would “prepare a response” to Stamp’s May 20, 2008 letter when he returned from a trip on June 2, 2008. The City Attorney never responded in writing to the May 20, 2008 letter. He later communicated to attorney Michael Stamp by telephone that he was letting Liebert Cassidy speak for him, and that he had ordered Liebert Cassidy Whitmore to assign a senior attorney to the matter.
• In September/October 2008, the City Attorney reviewed an Employee Agreement between the City and City Administrator Rich Guillen approving a retroactive compensation increase of $14,500, which was unanimously approved by the Mayor and City Council at the October 7, 2008 City Council meeting.
• In October 2008, Stamp provided the City Attorney with a letter summarizing the problems with the City’s lack of action since May 20, 2008. The City failed to respond.
• In late October 2008, Stamp provided the City Attorney with an original letter and five copies of a 13 page statement by Jane Miller. The City failed to respond.
• In November 2008, Stamp had a telephone conversation with the City Attorney concerning City Council discussions in regard to Jane Miller, particularly about the City Attorney’s question as to whether Miller had copies of emails to support her allegations. “The City Attorney made a statement about the Mayor and the City Administrator’s conduct, which highlighted the seriousness and significance of Miller’s claims.” Stamp explained to the City Attorney that Miller had received more than one hundred non-work-related emails - not including instant messages and telephone calls – from the City Administrator over several years.
• August 7, 2008 – January 16, 2009: “Investigation” by private investigator/attorney Karen Kramer; Kramer interviewed twelve witnesses, eleven current employees and one former employee, including “a majority of the witnesses Ms. Miller identified in her written complaints.” However, Kramer did not interview Employee #1 (Assistant City Administrator Greg D’Ambrosio), Employee #2 (Community and Cultural Director Brian Donoghue), Employee #3 (Library Director Margaret Pelikan) and Employee #4 (Executive Assistant Sandy Farrell).
• February 9, 2009: Letter, Re: Notice of Completion of Investigation – Jane Miller’s Workplace Complaints, from Liebert Cassidy Whitmore (LCW) to attorney Michael Stamp stating “Based on Ms. Kramer’s findings and conclusions the City has determined that Ms. Miller’s allegations are not substantiated. Accordingly, this investigation is now closed and deemed completed.”
• In September 2009, LCW, presumably with the authorization of the City Attorney, filed a motion by Defendant City of Carmel-by-the-Sea to disqualify plaintiff’s counsel. Incredibly, the City had Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk Heidi Burch make a declaration which “provided the primary evidentiary basis for the City’s motion to disqualify attorney Michael Stamp” from representing his client, Jane Miller. Burch's declaration was characterized as “insubstantial and inadmissible.” In fact, the Burch declaration was characterized as an “interested person’s unqualified conclusions.” Moreover, Burch was not only unqualified to make conclusions about documents, she was not associated with the City when attorney Michael Stamp performed work for the City and she herself was directly implicated in the lawsuit as “Female B.”
•In the Court’s denial of Defendant City of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff’s Counsel, Judge Larry E. Hayes wrote on February 3, 2010, as follows:
The City had actual knowledge of any claim of a potential conflict beginning in 2003 when Mr. Stamp represented the first senior City employee in his employment claims against the City. Between 2003 and 2008, Mr. Stamp represented an additional three senior City employees in their employment claims against the City.
The City failed to prove that the City performed a reasonable investigation into the potential merits of the disqualification motion by interviewing the key City personnel, including the City Attorney. The Court finds disingenuous the City’s assertion that the actual knowledge of material facts by the City Attorney need not be inquired into by the City’s lawyers or disclosed by the City in regard to this motion. The Court finds that City Administrator Richard Guillen and City Attorney Don Freeman knew about the former representations during the pertinent time period. The weight of the evidence shows that those individuals would have had specific knowledge about those former representations...
• The City Attorney announced a settlement in the Jane Miller case after a Closed Session on July 13, 2010: “This settlement means all parties avoid the further burden and expense of litigation and the uncertainty of a jury trial. By resolving this matter and avoiding months of litigation and expenses, we can look forward to redirecting more energy and resources to the many challenges facing the city in these uncertain economic times.” The City Council's unanimous approval of the $600,000 settlement, paid by the City's insurance agency, California State Association of Counties (CSAC) Excess Insurance Authority (EIA), was approved at the recommendation of EIA.
• At the August 2010 City Council meeting, City Attorney Don Freeman emphasized that the “investigation” was not conducted by the city, but rather by the city’s original law firm, LCW. Yet, the City embraced the findings and conclusions of the “investigation” when the City Attorney knew, or should have known, that the “investigation” was not a thorough and complete investigation.
CONCLUSION
The weight of the evidence suggests that the City Attorney’s “failures,” errors and omissions, and “silences” had the net effect of protecting and shielding from public accountability the city administrator, mayor and city council members at the expense of city employees, citizens and the city’s reputation. Moreover, the City Attorney not only committed “failures,” errors and omissions, and “silences,” but he reviewed and approved a retroactive $14,500 compensation increase for the City Administrator within five months of receipt of attorney Michael Stamp’s May 20, 2008 letter outlining Jane Miller’s complaints and during a yet to be concluded “investigation” into Jane Miller’s claims. The Mayor and City Council later unanimously approved the Employment Agreement between the City and City Administrator Rich Guillen at the 7 October 2010 City Council meeting.
While the City’s Code of Ethics states “Our actions are deemed representative of those we serve and our function, therefore, carries with it a greater responsibility than that of the private enterprise employee,” the Mayor and City Council have had most recently over two years, since May 2008, to take appropriate action and have failed to date to take appropriate action whereas in the private section recently, the Board of Hewlett-Packard acted swiftly and decisively (within one month) by conducting an investigation which concluded that the CEO had violated the company’s ethics code thus precipitating CEO Mark Hurd’s resignation. As HP General Counsel Michael Holston stated, Hurd “demonstrated a profound lack of judgment that seriously undermined his credibility and damaged his effectiveness in leading HP.” “The board took immediate action in this matter and their decision was right and necessary to uphold HP’s values of trust, respect and uncompromising integrity.”
Moreover, as Charles Elson, director of the corporate governance centre at the University of Delaware stated: “Once trust is broken between a CEO and a board, it makes it harder to have confidence in anything he says in future. He had to go.” Similarly, in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, trust has been irreparably broken between the City Administrator and the denizens of Carmel-by-the-Sea. Ergo, the City Administrator has to go!
Friday, August 06, 2010
‘MINUTES’ on Four Noteworthy 3 August 2010 City Council Agenda Items
“MINUTES”
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Archived video streaming
City Hall
East side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues
VI. Public Appearances
Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment.
Kathy Frederickson, a retired federal civil service employee, stated during her career she had required training on sexual harassment, et cetera. She asked City Hall to defend itself and asked what the city council is doing to create “an acceptable workplace environment.”
Barbara Livingston commended City Council Member Jason Burnett for calling for a closed session for discussion of the future management of our village and urged Mayor McCloud to set a date certain for that closed session meeting.
Carolyn Hardy voiced her and her husband’s "concern, frustration and anger" over the circumstances of the Jane Miller lawsuit involving sexual harassment. She stated that the liability still remains and therefore it is time for a change at City Hall. Specifically, "it is time for Rich Guillen to leave either by departure or removal." "It is incumbent on the council to restore integrity and dignity to City Hall by removing the offender whose actions have brought dishonor to Carmel."
Adam Moniz, 2010 mayoral candidate, stated that some candidates made "false" or "utterly misleading" statements about the validity of claims of sexual harassment at City Hall. He stated there was harassment and it was tolerated and the council members should have known. Further, "it’s time for accountability." "Stay tuned."
Allison Schilling stated that it was clear to her that many in Carmel-by-the-Sea and in the chamber do not understand the nature of sexual harassment; that is, it is always incumbent on the person with power to do the right thing. She urged all Carmelites to undertake sexual harassment training, including the city council.
Barbara Brooks, a former City Council Member, stated she had known attorney Michael Stamp for more than 20 years and knew him to be an ethical attorney. Further, she knew Stamp would not take a frivolous case and he would not take a case he did not believe represented a genuine need for redress. She stated that she wanted a city government that she can trust again where officials behave ethically. She requested that the city council do something to repair the "terrible damage that has happened to our city."
Skip Lloyd stated that there was a need for an "independent investigation" of the City’s personnel actions in the Jane Miller case by an outside agency, including a review of past settlements which amounted to $500,000 in the aggregate for four city employees who made similar claims of hostile workplace environment and being forced into early retirement, according to a judge. He stated that insurance companies do not pay $600,000 in settlement monies if there is no merit to a claim.
Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment.
City Attorney Don Freeman restated the City’s statement regarding the settlement agreement. He stated that a review of the City’s personnel policy, including sexual harassment policy was in process by a third party.
City Council Member Jason Burnett reiterated his July 14 request for a closed session to discuss a personnel issue and September agenda item about City policies.
VIII. Public Hearings
B. Consideration of an encroachment permit application for the construction of a driveway at the end of Lopez Avenue and review of a geotechnical report for Second Avenue.
Marc Wiener, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and power point presentation, including photos, site plan and Options depictions. With regard to the re-opening of Second Avenue, it is estimated it would cost $300,000 - $500,000 to stabilize the avenue, according to the geotechnical study. Second Avenue is currently used as a pedestrian pathway and most residents do not want the avenue re-opened to traffic. The Planning Commission recommended Option “B,” a driveway at the end of Lopez Avenue, on the east side of the street.
City Council Member Ken Talmage asked questions about the stability of Second Av. which were answered by Mr. Kasunich, the geotechnical engineer.
The applicants, including Mr. Schultz and Zane Blackmer, addressed the council.
Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment.
Ron Wormser, a Lopez Av. neighbor, spoke in support of Option “C” and against options involving construction of a driveway at the end of Lopez Av.
Marian Wormser read letters from two other neighbors, Harper and Hibbard, both against the construction of a driveway at the end of Lopez Av. and supportive of Option “C," paving the existing driveway from Second Av., without opening Second Av., to avoid traffic and safety problems.
A Second Av. neighbor expressed support for a driveway from Lopez Av.
Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment.
Zane Blackmer addressed the council.
Marc Wiener, Assistant Planner, answered questions and/or heard comments from Mayor Sue McCloud, City Council Members Jason Burnett, Paula Hazdovac, Karen Sharp and Ken Talmage.
Council Member BURNETT moved to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and approve Option “B,” encroachment permit application for the construction of a driveway at the end of Lopez Avenue, with special conditions, seconded by Council Member SHARP and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BURNETT; HAZDOVAC; SHARP; TALMAGE
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCLOUD
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ADDENDUM:
Option “B” Driveway on East Side of Lopez Avenue: Option “B” places the driveway on the east side of Lopez Avenue and covers an area of approximately 404 square feet in the public right-of-way. The proposed driveway is 28 feet long with an outer wall that is eight to nine feet tall. The driveway has a slope of approximately 12-13% and also serves as a walkway.
The proposed driveway requires the removal of three non-significant trees located on the property. No trees would be removed from the public right-of way.
Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission unanimously recommends that the City Council approve Option “B.” The primary reason for supporting a driveway at the end of Lopez Avenue, as opposed to maintaining the driveway at its existing location, is concern over the long-term stability of Second Avenue. The Commission raised the issue that approving a driveway on Second Avenue could potentially commit the City to future repairs and maintenance of this road for the benefit of only one property owner.
Option “C” Re-design and Pave the Existing Driveway on Second Avenue: Vehicle access to the property is provided by a steeply sloped dirt driveway located on Second Avenue.
X. Resolutions
A. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to enter into a financial assistance agreement with the State of California Water Board for the Carmel Bay Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) project.
Bob Jaques, City’s consulting engineering, presented an overview.
The State is currently finalizing requirements for stormwater outflows into ASBS at end of 2010 or early 2011. The City’s eighteen stormwater outflows are subject to the requirements. Since only discharges will be allowed during wet weather, the City proposes the building of a diversion system to eliminate discharges during summer months. The diversion system temporarily plugs outflows during the summer by diverting water to sanitary sewer or vacuuming and trucking to corporation yard to sanitary sewer or pumping to landscape area. It is anticipated that design will occur in 2010, construction in 2011 and completed in 2012. The City anticipates receipt of a state grant of $2.5 million, funded by Proposition 84.
Mayor McCloud opened and closed the meeting to public comment.
Council Member TALMAGE moved to adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to enter into a financial assistance agreement with the State of California Water Board for the Carmel Bay Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) project, seconded by Council Member SHARP, and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BURNETT; HAZDOVAC; SHARP; TALMAGE & McCLOUD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
XI. Orders of Council
A. Receive report and provide policy direction on options for the 2012 Municipal Election.
Mayor Sue McCloud announced the agenda item will by on next month’s agenda due to the absence on Heidi Burch at a conference this week.
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Archived video streaming
City Hall
East side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues
VI. Public Appearances
Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment.
Kathy Frederickson, a retired federal civil service employee, stated during her career she had required training on sexual harassment, et cetera. She asked City Hall to defend itself and asked what the city council is doing to create “an acceptable workplace environment.”
Barbara Livingston commended City Council Member Jason Burnett for calling for a closed session for discussion of the future management of our village and urged Mayor McCloud to set a date certain for that closed session meeting.
Carolyn Hardy voiced her and her husband’s "concern, frustration and anger" over the circumstances of the Jane Miller lawsuit involving sexual harassment. She stated that the liability still remains and therefore it is time for a change at City Hall. Specifically, "it is time for Rich Guillen to leave either by departure or removal." "It is incumbent on the council to restore integrity and dignity to City Hall by removing the offender whose actions have brought dishonor to Carmel."
Adam Moniz, 2010 mayoral candidate, stated that some candidates made "false" or "utterly misleading" statements about the validity of claims of sexual harassment at City Hall. He stated there was harassment and it was tolerated and the council members should have known. Further, "it’s time for accountability." "Stay tuned."
Allison Schilling stated that it was clear to her that many in Carmel-by-the-Sea and in the chamber do not understand the nature of sexual harassment; that is, it is always incumbent on the person with power to do the right thing. She urged all Carmelites to undertake sexual harassment training, including the city council.
Barbara Brooks, a former City Council Member, stated she had known attorney Michael Stamp for more than 20 years and knew him to be an ethical attorney. Further, she knew Stamp would not take a frivolous case and he would not take a case he did not believe represented a genuine need for redress. She stated that she wanted a city government that she can trust again where officials behave ethically. She requested that the city council do something to repair the "terrible damage that has happened to our city."
Skip Lloyd stated that there was a need for an "independent investigation" of the City’s personnel actions in the Jane Miller case by an outside agency, including a review of past settlements which amounted to $500,000 in the aggregate for four city employees who made similar claims of hostile workplace environment and being forced into early retirement, according to a judge. He stated that insurance companies do not pay $600,000 in settlement monies if there is no merit to a claim.
Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment.
City Attorney Don Freeman restated the City’s statement regarding the settlement agreement. He stated that a review of the City’s personnel policy, including sexual harassment policy was in process by a third party.
City Council Member Jason Burnett reiterated his July 14 request for a closed session to discuss a personnel issue and September agenda item about City policies.
VIII. Public Hearings
B. Consideration of an encroachment permit application for the construction of a driveway at the end of Lopez Avenue and review of a geotechnical report for Second Avenue.
Marc Wiener, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and power point presentation, including photos, site plan and Options depictions. With regard to the re-opening of Second Avenue, it is estimated it would cost $300,000 - $500,000 to stabilize the avenue, according to the geotechnical study. Second Avenue is currently used as a pedestrian pathway and most residents do not want the avenue re-opened to traffic. The Planning Commission recommended Option “B,” a driveway at the end of Lopez Avenue, on the east side of the street.
City Council Member Ken Talmage asked questions about the stability of Second Av. which were answered by Mr. Kasunich, the geotechnical engineer.
The applicants, including Mr. Schultz and Zane Blackmer, addressed the council.
Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment.
Ron Wormser, a Lopez Av. neighbor, spoke in support of Option “C” and against options involving construction of a driveway at the end of Lopez Av.
Marian Wormser read letters from two other neighbors, Harper and Hibbard, both against the construction of a driveway at the end of Lopez Av. and supportive of Option “C," paving the existing driveway from Second Av., without opening Second Av., to avoid traffic and safety problems.
A Second Av. neighbor expressed support for a driveway from Lopez Av.
Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment.
Zane Blackmer addressed the council.
Marc Wiener, Assistant Planner, answered questions and/or heard comments from Mayor Sue McCloud, City Council Members Jason Burnett, Paula Hazdovac, Karen Sharp and Ken Talmage.
Council Member BURNETT moved to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and approve Option “B,” encroachment permit application for the construction of a driveway at the end of Lopez Avenue, with special conditions, seconded by Council Member SHARP and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BURNETT; HAZDOVAC; SHARP; TALMAGE
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCLOUD
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ADDENDUM:
Option “B” Driveway on East Side of Lopez Avenue: Option “B” places the driveway on the east side of Lopez Avenue and covers an area of approximately 404 square feet in the public right-of-way. The proposed driveway is 28 feet long with an outer wall that is eight to nine feet tall. The driveway has a slope of approximately 12-13% and also serves as a walkway.
The proposed driveway requires the removal of three non-significant trees located on the property. No trees would be removed from the public right-of way.
Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission unanimously recommends that the City Council approve Option “B.” The primary reason for supporting a driveway at the end of Lopez Avenue, as opposed to maintaining the driveway at its existing location, is concern over the long-term stability of Second Avenue. The Commission raised the issue that approving a driveway on Second Avenue could potentially commit the City to future repairs and maintenance of this road for the benefit of only one property owner.
Option “C” Re-design and Pave the Existing Driveway on Second Avenue: Vehicle access to the property is provided by a steeply sloped dirt driveway located on Second Avenue.
X. Resolutions
A. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to enter into a financial assistance agreement with the State of California Water Board for the Carmel Bay Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) project.
Bob Jaques, City’s consulting engineering, presented an overview.
The State is currently finalizing requirements for stormwater outflows into ASBS at end of 2010 or early 2011. The City’s eighteen stormwater outflows are subject to the requirements. Since only discharges will be allowed during wet weather, the City proposes the building of a diversion system to eliminate discharges during summer months. The diversion system temporarily plugs outflows during the summer by diverting water to sanitary sewer or vacuuming and trucking to corporation yard to sanitary sewer or pumping to landscape area. It is anticipated that design will occur in 2010, construction in 2011 and completed in 2012. The City anticipates receipt of a state grant of $2.5 million, funded by Proposition 84.
Mayor McCloud opened and closed the meeting to public comment.
Council Member TALMAGE moved to adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to enter into a financial assistance agreement with the State of California Water Board for the Carmel Bay Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) project, seconded by Council Member SHARP, and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BURNETT; HAZDOVAC; SHARP; TALMAGE & McCLOUD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
XI. Orders of Council
A. Receive report and provide policy direction on options for the 2012 Municipal Election.
Mayor Sue McCloud announced the agenda item will by on next month’s agenda due to the absence on Heidi Burch at a conference this week.
Thursday, August 05, 2010
Carmel Art Association Presents CRISPO & TORRES TWO-PERSON SHOW AND GALLERY SHOWCASE FEATURING MEHEEN, WAGSTAFF & WILLIAMS
Carmel Art Association
“Celebrating 82 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 CRISPO & TORRES TWO-PERSON SHOW AND GALLERY SHOWCASE FEATURING MEHEEN, WAGSTAFF & WILLIAMS
Thursday, August 5– August 31, 2010
TWO-PERSON SHOW: DICK CRISPO’S ‘TREES IN THE NIGHT’ & GUSTAVO TORRES’ BRONZE FIGURATIVE SCULPTURE (Center Room):
Painter Dick Crispo exhibits color-rich abstracted nocturnal tree forms in oil, acrylic and mixed media. View artist’s statement and images, including “Trees in the Night #1," "City Trees #2" and “Orange Trees." And view images including “City Trees #5," "Cityscape," “Coal Miner's Easter," “Trees in the Night #2," "Trees in the Night #6," "Cityscape" and “Urban Tree."
Sculptor Gustavo Torres exhibits bronze figurative sculpture. View artist’s brief biography and sculpture images, including "Allegoria," "La Pareja," "Reflexion," "Symbolic Forms of Life III" and "Fragments of Life."
GALLERY SHOWCASE: ALICIA MEHEEN, JAN WAGSTAFF & ANDY WILLIAMS (Segal Room):
Painter Alicia Meheen exhibits watercolors and oils of the local landscape. View artist’s statement, brief biography and three painting images, including, "China Cove, Pt. Lobos," "Unsettled Weather, Moss Landing" and "Self Portrait - Plein Air Energies.” And view nineteen painting images from August 2010 Gallery Showcase including “Monastery Beach View,” “River Beach View,” “Carmel Beach Dunes View,” “Lagoon Reflections,” “Coastal Splendor,” “Coastal Morning,” “Chardonnay Fall,” “Down the Coast,” “Monastery Beach,” “Elkhorn Slough,” “Lagoon,” “Fanshell Beach #2,” “Cypress Cove,” “Garden Flowers,” “Fanshell Beach View,” “Fall Chardonnay #2,” “Lions Cove,” “Carmel Beach Dunes” and “Pacific Grove View.”
Painter Jan Wagstaff exhibits works on canvas based on images of her travels. View artist’s Education, Employment, Exhibitions, Professional and Community Activities, Selected Solo and Group Exhibitions, Awards and Selected Public and Private Collections and four painting images including "Celedon Hearts," "Echo," "Rivers of Grass" and "Dreaming in Color." And view nine painting images from “SEASONS” (April 8 – May 4, 2010) including “Turning,” “Between Seasons,” “Seasons,” “Molera,” “Fifth Position,” “Guadalupe,” “Lone Tree,” “Evening” and “Wall.”
Painter Andy Williams exhibits “Just Desserts,” still life paintings in oil with dessert as the subject.
Opening Reception - Saturday, August 7, 6:00 to 8:00 P.M.
ADDENDUM:
SPECIAL EVENT
“Block Party for the Arts”
A Cultural Gathering
WHAT: A gala block party to celebrate the arts and local cultural organizations; many activities including music, dance, theater, art demonstrations.
WHEN: Saturday, August 21, 10:00 A.M. – 3:00 P.M.
WHERE: Dolores Street between 5th Av. & 6th Av.
HOW: Made possible by a grant from the Arts Council for Monterey County.
“Celebrating 82 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 CRISPO & TORRES TWO-PERSON SHOW AND GALLERY SHOWCASE FEATURING MEHEEN, WAGSTAFF & WILLIAMS
Thursday, August 5– August 31, 2010
TWO-PERSON SHOW: DICK CRISPO’S ‘TREES IN THE NIGHT’ & GUSTAVO TORRES’ BRONZE FIGURATIVE SCULPTURE (Center Room):
Painter Dick Crispo exhibits color-rich abstracted nocturnal tree forms in oil, acrylic and mixed media. View artist’s statement and images, including “Trees in the Night #1," "City Trees #2" and “Orange Trees." And view images including “City Trees #5," "Cityscape," “Coal Miner's Easter," “Trees in the Night #2," "Trees in the Night #6," "Cityscape" and “Urban Tree."
Sculptor Gustavo Torres exhibits bronze figurative sculpture. View artist’s brief biography and sculpture images, including "Allegoria," "La Pareja," "Reflexion," "Symbolic Forms of Life III" and "Fragments of Life."
GALLERY SHOWCASE: ALICIA MEHEEN, JAN WAGSTAFF & ANDY WILLIAMS (Segal Room):
Painter Alicia Meheen exhibits watercolors and oils of the local landscape. View artist’s statement, brief biography and three painting images, including, "China Cove, Pt. Lobos," "Unsettled Weather, Moss Landing" and "Self Portrait - Plein Air Energies.” And view nineteen painting images from August 2010 Gallery Showcase including “Monastery Beach View,” “River Beach View,” “Carmel Beach Dunes View,” “Lagoon Reflections,” “Coastal Splendor,” “Coastal Morning,” “Chardonnay Fall,” “Down the Coast,” “Monastery Beach,” “Elkhorn Slough,” “Lagoon,” “Fanshell Beach #2,” “Cypress Cove,” “Garden Flowers,” “Fanshell Beach View,” “Fall Chardonnay #2,” “Lions Cove,” “Carmel Beach Dunes” and “Pacific Grove View.”
Painter Jan Wagstaff exhibits works on canvas based on images of her travels. View artist’s Education, Employment, Exhibitions, Professional and Community Activities, Selected Solo and Group Exhibitions, Awards and Selected Public and Private Collections and four painting images including "Celedon Hearts," "Echo," "Rivers of Grass" and "Dreaming in Color." And view nine painting images from “SEASONS” (April 8 – May 4, 2010) including “Turning,” “Between Seasons,” “Seasons,” “Molera,” “Fifth Position,” “Guadalupe,” “Lone Tree,” “Evening” and “Wall.”
Painter Andy Williams exhibits “Just Desserts,” still life paintings in oil with dessert as the subject.
Opening Reception - Saturday, August 7, 6:00 to 8:00 P.M.
ADDENDUM:
SPECIAL EVENT
“Block Party for the Arts”
A Cultural Gathering
WHAT: A gala block party to celebrate the arts and local cultural organizations; many activities including music, dance, theater, art demonstrations.
WHEN: Saturday, August 21, 10:00 A.M. – 3:00 P.M.
WHERE: Dolores Street between 5th Av. & 6th Av.
HOW: Made possible by a grant from the Arts Council for Monterey County.
Wednesday, August 04, 2010
NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY/NOTICE OF COMPLETION RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE VILLAS DE CARMELO PROJECT
ABSTRACT: NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY/NOTICE OF COMPLETION RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE VILLAS DE CARMELO PROJECT is reproduced. The Recirculated Draft EIR (RDEIR) is comprised of the following, including New Introduction, Revised Draft EIR Section 2.0, Summary, Revised Draft EIR Section 4.13, Traffic and Circulation, Revised Draft EIR Section 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems, Revised Draft EIR Section 5.0, CEQA Considerations and Revised Draft EIR Section 6.0, Alternatives. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD: AUGUST 3, 2010 TO SEPTEMBER 16, 2010 Written comments concerning the Recirculated Draft EIR are due by 5pm September 16, 2010 and should be sent to: Elizabeth Gonzales, Monterey County Planning Department, 168 W. Alisal St., 2nd Floor, Salinas, CA 93901 or by email to: ceqacomments@co.monterey.ca.us. A link to the August 2010, 326 page, RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE VILLAS DE CARMELO PROJECT,CARMEL, CALIFORNIA, prepared by DENISE DUFFY & ASSOCIATES, INC., is provided.
MONTEREY COUNTY
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
168 WEST ALISAL STREET, 2ND FLOOR
SALINAS, CA 93901
PHONE: (831) 755-5025 FAX: (831) 757-9516
NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY
RECIRCULATED
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PROJECT TITLE: VILLAS DE CARMELO
PROJECT LOCATION: CARMEL AREA,MONTEREY COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
OVERVIEW: Notice is hereby given that the County of Monterey is seeking written comment on the RECIRCULATED DRAFT Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the Villas de Carmelo Project (PLN070497, SCH# 2008071058) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA).
LEAD AGENCY: COUNTY OF MONTEREY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project is a Combined Development Permit to include a Local Coastal Plan Amendment to change land use designation from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential and a rezoning from MDR/2 to HDR/12.5 in the Coastal Zone; a Coastal Development Permit and standard subdivision to convert a 10,350 square foot convalescent hospital into nine condominium units and create 37 additional condominium units; common space will include underground parking, recreation room, storage and gym; a Coastal Administrative permit to demolish one existing structure and construct 12 buildings for a total of 46 condominium units; a Coastal Development Permit to allow development on slopes of 30% or greater; a Coastal Development Permit to allow the removal of 97 trees; and Design Approval.
BACKGROUND: This Recirculated Draft EIR is part of the ongoing environmental review process for the proposed Villas de Carmelo Project. The County of Monterey, as the Lead Agency, prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for The Villas De Carmelo Project and circulated the DEIR for public comment for a 45-day public review period, beginning on April 17, 2009, and ending on June 5, 2009. This document is considered a partially recirculated EIR because significant new information and analyses have been added or changed in portions of the Draft EIR after it was circulated for public comment in April 2009.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD: AUGUST 3, 2010 TO SEPTEMBER 16, 2010
Written comments concerning the Recirculated Draft EIR are due by 5pm September 16, 2010 and should be sent to: Elizabeth Gonzales, Monterey County Planning Department, 168 W. Alisal St., 2nd Floor, Salinas, CA 93901 or by email to: ceqacomments@co.monterey.ca.us.
The Recirculated Draft EIR is available on the County website at http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/planning/. The document is also available for purchase from the Monterey County Planning Department at the above address.
Public Review Process: CEQA Guidelines §15088.5 describes the procedures for recirculation of an EIR. The RDEIR will be subject to public review and comment for a period of 45 days. The County of Monterey requests that reviewers submit new comments on the RDEIR consistent with the provisions of CEQA Guidelines §15088.5(f)(2), and focus comments specifically on the revised sections of the DEIR. Comment letters submitted on the previously circulated Draft EIR will be addressed in the Final EIR and do not need to be resubmitted in conjunction with this RDEIR.
Consistent with the provisions of §15088.5(f)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, portions of the 2009 DEIR have been revised and only those sections are being recirculated. This Recirculated Draft EIR (RDEIR) is comprised of the following:
􀂃New Introduction
􀂃Revised Draft EIR Section 2.0, Summary
􀂃Revised Draft EIR Section 4.13, Traffic and Circulation
􀂃Revised Draft EIR Section 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems
􀂃Revised Draft EIR Section 5.0, CEQA Considerations
􀂃 Revised Draft EIR Section 6.0, Alternatives
This RDEIR also contains additional technical data included as appendices.
Public hearings will be held, subsequent to the public review period, at a time and place to be specified by legal advertisement in a local newspaper of general circulation.
For additional information or if you would like to be notified of the hearings, please contact:
Elizabeth Gonzales at (831) 755-5102 or gonzalesl@co.monterey.ca.us
ADDENDUM:
RECIRCULATED DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE VILLAS DE CARMELO PROJECT
CARMEL, CALIFORNIA
SCH#: 2008071058
Lead Agency:
MONTEREY COUNTY
Prepared by:
DENISE DUFFY & ASSOCIATES, INC.
947 Cass Street, Suite 5
Monterey, CA 93940
August 2010
MONTEREY COUNTY
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
168 WEST ALISAL STREET, 2ND FLOOR
SALINAS, CA 93901
PHONE: (831) 755-5025 FAX: (831) 757-9516
NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY
RECIRCULATED
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PROJECT TITLE: VILLAS DE CARMELO
PROJECT LOCATION: CARMEL AREA,MONTEREY COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
OVERVIEW: Notice is hereby given that the County of Monterey is seeking written comment on the RECIRCULATED DRAFT Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the Villas de Carmelo Project (PLN070497, SCH# 2008071058) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA).
LEAD AGENCY: COUNTY OF MONTEREY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project is a Combined Development Permit to include a Local Coastal Plan Amendment to change land use designation from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential and a rezoning from MDR/2 to HDR/12.5 in the Coastal Zone; a Coastal Development Permit and standard subdivision to convert a 10,350 square foot convalescent hospital into nine condominium units and create 37 additional condominium units; common space will include underground parking, recreation room, storage and gym; a Coastal Administrative permit to demolish one existing structure and construct 12 buildings for a total of 46 condominium units; a Coastal Development Permit to allow development on slopes of 30% or greater; a Coastal Development Permit to allow the removal of 97 trees; and Design Approval.
BACKGROUND: This Recirculated Draft EIR is part of the ongoing environmental review process for the proposed Villas de Carmelo Project. The County of Monterey, as the Lead Agency, prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for The Villas De Carmelo Project and circulated the DEIR for public comment for a 45-day public review period, beginning on April 17, 2009, and ending on June 5, 2009. This document is considered a partially recirculated EIR because significant new information and analyses have been added or changed in portions of the Draft EIR after it was circulated for public comment in April 2009.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD: AUGUST 3, 2010 TO SEPTEMBER 16, 2010
Written comments concerning the Recirculated Draft EIR are due by 5pm September 16, 2010 and should be sent to: Elizabeth Gonzales, Monterey County Planning Department, 168 W. Alisal St., 2nd Floor, Salinas, CA 93901 or by email to: ceqacomments@co.monterey.ca.us.
The Recirculated Draft EIR is available on the County website at http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/planning/. The document is also available for purchase from the Monterey County Planning Department at the above address.
Public Review Process: CEQA Guidelines §15088.5 describes the procedures for recirculation of an EIR. The RDEIR will be subject to public review and comment for a period of 45 days. The County of Monterey requests that reviewers submit new comments on the RDEIR consistent with the provisions of CEQA Guidelines §15088.5(f)(2), and focus comments specifically on the revised sections of the DEIR. Comment letters submitted on the previously circulated Draft EIR will be addressed in the Final EIR and do not need to be resubmitted in conjunction with this RDEIR.
Consistent with the provisions of §15088.5(f)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, portions of the 2009 DEIR have been revised and only those sections are being recirculated. This Recirculated Draft EIR (RDEIR) is comprised of the following:
􀂃New Introduction
􀂃Revised Draft EIR Section 2.0, Summary
􀂃Revised Draft EIR Section 4.13, Traffic and Circulation
􀂃Revised Draft EIR Section 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems
􀂃Revised Draft EIR Section 5.0, CEQA Considerations
􀂃 Revised Draft EIR Section 6.0, Alternatives
This RDEIR also contains additional technical data included as appendices.
Public hearings will be held, subsequent to the public review period, at a time and place to be specified by legal advertisement in a local newspaper of general circulation.
For additional information or if you would like to be notified of the hearings, please contact:
Elizabeth Gonzales at (831) 755-5102 or gonzalesl@co.monterey.ca.us
ADDENDUM:
RECIRCULATED DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE VILLAS DE CARMELO PROJECT
CARMEL, CALIFORNIA
SCH#: 2008071058
Lead Agency:
MONTEREY COUNTY
Prepared by:
DENISE DUFFY & ASSOCIATES, INC.
947 Cass Street, Suite 5
Monterey, CA 93940
August 2010
Tuesday, August 03, 2010
Four Noteworthy 3 August 2010 City Council Agenda Items
ABSTRACT: Four noteworthy 3 August 2010 City Council Agenda Items, namely Public Appearances, Consideration of an encroachment permit application for the construction of a driveway at the end of Lopez Avenue and review of a geotechnical report for Second Avenue, a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to enter into a financial assistance agreement with the State of California Water Board for the Carmel Bay Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) project and Receive report and provide policy direction on options for the 2012 Municipal Election, are presented. Excerpts from Agenda Item Summaries, Resolutions and Staff Reports are presented.
AGENDA PACKET
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
4:30 p.m., Open Session
Live and Archived video streaming
City Hall
East side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues
VI. Public Appearances
Anyone wishing to address the City Council on matters within the jurisdiction of the City that are not on today’s agenda may do so now. Matters not appearing on the City Council’s agenda will not receive action at this meeting but may be referred to staff for a future meeting. Presentations will be limited to three (3) minutes, or as otherwise established by the City Council. Persons are not required to give their names, but it is helpful for speakers to state their names in order that the City Clerk may identify them in the minutes of the meeting. Always speak into the microphone, as the meeting is recorded. The City Council Chamber is equipped with a portable microphone for anyone unable to come to the podium. If you need assistance, please advise City Clerk Heidi Burch as to which item you wish to comment on and the microphone will be brought to you.
ADDENDUM:
Carmel residents blast settlement of sexual harassment lawsuit
Carmel councilman holds meeting about lawsuit
KEVIN HOWE Herald Staff Writer, 08/03/2010
VIII. 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 City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.
B. Consideration of an encroachment permit application for the construction of a driveway at the end of Lopez Avenue and review of a geotechnical report for Second Avenue.
Description: The applicant is requesting permission to construct a driveway in the public right-of- way at the end of Lopez Avenue. A geotechnical report was prepared at the request of the City Council to determine the feasibility of re-opening Second Avenue.
Recommendation: Review the information and determine if Second Avenue should be re-opened.
Important Considerations: 1) Current vehicle access to the subject property is provided by a dirt driveway on Second Avenue. As developed, this driveway does not provide adequate vehicle access to the property. The applicant is proposing to construct a driveway at the end of Lopez Avenue to provide vehicle access to the property. 2) The geotechnical study indicates that the closed portion of Second Avenue is unstable, with an estimated cost of $300,000 to $500,000 to repair. The geotechnical engineer has indicated that a larger section of Second Avenue also may be unstable.
Decision Record: The Planning Commission reviewed this project on 14 July 2010 and unanimously recommended that the City Council approve a driveway at the end of Lopez Avenue, on the east side of the street.
STAFF REPORT
BACKGROUND/PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is a 7,908-square-foot parcel of land located at the southeast corner of the Lopez and Second Avenues, across the street from Pescadero Canyon. The lot is developed with a one-story home along the hillside. Vehicle access to the property is limited due to the slope of the driveway and condition of Second Avenue.
In July 2009, the applicant submitted a Design Study application to construct a driveway at the end of Lopez Avenue. The driveway would provide vehicle access near the southwest corner of the property, as opposed to the north end off of Second Avenue. The Design Review Board reviewed the proposal and forwarded it to the City Council for a final decision. The DRB recommended that the City Council approve the driveway with special conditions.
At its 1 September 2009 meeting, the City Council reviewed the proposal and requested the following additional information before making a decision:
• That the proposed driveway be staked with story poles.
• That the City Forester re-evaluate the two significant trees on Second Avenue which prohibit paving or grading of the existing dirt driveway.
• That the City Engineer review the proposal for a driveway at the end of Lopez Avenue.
• Provide information on public utilities within the vicinity.
• Provide a plan for the proposed new residence.
At its September 1 hearing, the City Council also expressed an interest in re-opening Second Avenue as a potential solution to the driveway situation. The ability to approach the driveway from a westbound direction would significantly improve the use of the existing driveway.
Questions were also raised about the necessity of Second Avenue as an emergency access road. The portion of Second Avenue that is closed is approximately 200 feet long and is located on the hillside between North Casanova Street and Lopez Avenue. The road was closed as a result of distress following heavy storms in 1998.
On 9 October 2009, the Council commissioned a geotechnical study to investigate reopening Second Avenue. The geotechnical report provides an evaluation of the hillside stability and recommendations regarding the re-opening of Second Avenue.
Since the September 1 Council hearing, more information has been obtained and the applicant is now proposing a second option for placing a driveway at the end of Lopez Avenue. On 14 July 2010, this project was reviewed by the Planning Commission to review new information and evaluate the new driveway proposal. The Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal and made recommendations to the City Council, which are summarized at the end of this staff report.
EVALUATION:
The purpose of this hearing to is to 1) review the geotechnical report; and 2) evaluate all options of providing a functional driveway to the subject property, including the possibility of re-opening Second Avenue. Staff will begin by providing a summary of the geotechnical report and issues related to re-opening Second Avenue.
Second Avenue Geotechnical Report: Subsurface conditions were explored by drilling a total of seven exploratory borings to depths of up to 21.5 feet. Soil samples were analyzed to evaluate stability. The analysis indicates that the subject road is both statically and seismically unstable. The road will continue to fail over time and will incur additional distress as a result of seismic events. In order to re-open the road to traffic, the engineer recommends that a retaining wall be constructed to support the outboard edge of the road. The estimated cost is between $300,000 and $500,000.
Emergency Access: The geotechnical engineer has indicated that the subject road has the stability to support the weight of emergency vehicles in the case of an emergency. Staff met with members of the Carmel Fire Department to discuss the use of Second Avenue as an emergency access road. The Fire Department likely would use Second Avenue as a secondary option in the event of a structure fire. The Fire Department would also use Second Avenue in the case of a vegetation fire or rescue operation. Public Input for Second Avenue: A Carmel resident submitted a letter in opposition to the re-opening of Second Avenue. The resident is concerned that re-opening Second Avenue will adversely impact the character of the neighborhood by increasing traffic and noise. The letter also raises concerns about pedestrian safety since Second Avenue is currently used as a pedestrian pathway. A petition was submitted with numerous signatures from Carmel residents who have read the letter and are opposed to re-opening
Second Avenue. A copy of the letter and petition are included for Council review.
Encroachment Permit: Encroachment permits are required any time a private property owner proposes to construct improvements in the City’s public right-of-way. Minor encroachment permits can be approved at the staff level by the City Administrator. More significant encroachment permits typically are forwarded for City Council review.
Options for the Driveway: Staff will present four options to the City Council referenced as options A, B, C and D. Option “A” is the original proposal, which places the driveway on the west side of Lopez Avenue. Option “B” is a new proposal, which places the driveway on the east side of Lopez Avenue. Staff will also present an option of paving the existing driveway without re-opening Second Avenue (Option “C”) and the option of re-opening Second Avenue to improve the use of the existing driveway (Option “D”).
Option “B” Driveway on East Side of Lopez Avenue: Option “B” places the driveway on the east side of Lopez Avenue and covers an area of approximately 404 square feet in the public right-of-way. The proposed driveway is 28 feet long with an outer wall that is eight to nine feet tall. The driveway has a slope of approximately 12-13% and also serves as a walkway. The proposed driveway requires the removal of three non-significant trees located on the property. No trees would be removed from the public right-of way.
City Engineer’s Review: The City Engineer has reviewed both proposals and made the following recommendations:
• Both a soils report and engineering study should be required for both proposals.
• Evaluate drainage and provide erosion control measures to handle the drainage from the street.
• Verify that the turning radius is sufficient for larger vehicles.
• Recommends that a guard rail be installed at the outer radius of the turn.
Public Utilities: There is a water main that runs under the area of the proposed driveway. Should a driveway be approved at this location, the applicant and staff will need to work with Cal-Am Water on this issue. It is the applicant’s responsibility to pay for re-routing the water main if needed. Gas, sewer and electric utilities will not be impacted by either of the proposed driveways.
Public Input for Lopez Driveways: The applicant has submitted a petition with more than 100 signatures from Carmel residents living in the vicinity of the project who support a driveway at the end of Lopez. Several opposition letters were also submitted by residents who live at the north end of Lopez, near the proposed driveway. The residents who live at the end of Lopez Avenue are concerned with increased congestion and safety issues associated with a new driveway at this location. Both the petition and letters are provided as attachments.
Staff has visited the site with a member of the Police Department to evaluate potential safety issues created by either of the proposed driveways. The officer did not identify any significant safety issues that would be created by either driveway.
Option “D” Re-open Second Avenue and Pave Existing Driveway: At its September 1 hearing, the City Council expressed interest in re-opening Second Avenue as a potential solution to the driveway situation. Re-opening Second Avenue would allow the applicant to pave and use the existing dirt driveway without having to grade the hillside. The Council also had concerns about the necessity of opening Second Avenue as an emergency access road. As previously mentioned, the geotechnical study indicated that it would probably cost between $300,000 and $500,000 to re-open Second Avenue. This estimate only includes stabilizing the 200-foot stretch of road that is closed. It appears that opening Second Avenue is not a viable option.
Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission unanimously recommends that the City Council approve Option “B.” The primary reason for supporting a driveway at the end of Lopez Avenue, as opposed to maintaining the driveway at its existing location, is concern over the long-term stability of Second Avenue. The Commission raised the issue that approving a driveway on Second Avenue could potentially commit the City to future repairs and maintenance of this road for the benefit of only one property owner.
The Commission recommended that the driveway incorporate a natural stone veneer and that landscaping be provided to soften the mass of the structure. It also recommended that the property owner provide two parking spaces to take cars off of Lopez Avenue.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Review the information and determine the appropriate action.
X. Resolutions
A. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to enter into a financial assistance agreement with the State of California Water Board for the Carmel Bay Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) project.
Description: The State Water Resources Control Board has determined that the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is eligible to receive funds from the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006 (Proposition 84) Clean Beaches Program for its storm water program. The grant cannot be fully executed until a Resolution has been adopted. This resolution authorizes the City Administrator to enter into a financial assistance agreement with the State Water Board.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: $125,000 City match
Grant Funds: $2.5 million
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.
Important Considerations: The grant cannot be fully executed until a Resolution is adopted by Council.
Decision Record: Resolution 2008-42 (July 1, 2008), authorizing the submittal of a $2.5 million grant application to the State Water Resources Board for projects associated with storm water runoff.
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2010-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA AUTHORIZING THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO ENTER INTO A FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WATER BOARD FOR THE CARMEL BAY AREAS OF SPECIAL BIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE PROJECT
WHEREAS, the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) has
determined that the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is eligible to receive funds from the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006 (Proposition 84) Clean Beaches Program; and
WHEREAS, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea will use these funds for eligible project costs of the Carmel Bay Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) Project, which is designed to comply with the discharge prohibition into Areas of Special Biological Significance contained in the California Ocean Plan eligible project costs; and
WHEREAS, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is authorized to enter into a financial assistance agreement with the State of California and the State Water Board.
XI. Orders of Council
A. Receive report and provide policy direction on options for the 2012 Municipal Election.
Description: Staff is requesting direction regarding whether the City should continue to conduct a standalone election for the mayoral and council seats in April or consolidate with the County’s November election.
Overall Cost:
City Funds:
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Provide staff direction.
Important Considerations:
Decision Record: None.
STAFF REPORT
ANTICIPATED COSTS
November consolidated election – County estimate $12-$17,000*
Traditional April election –County estimate $50,679
Traditional April election – Martin & Chapman estimate $23,000
• The City was charged $16,340 by the County for the election in November 2009.
SUMMARY
Contracting with the Monterey County Registrar’s office for election services for an April election is no longer a viable alternative. Staff requests Council direction to continue contracting with Martin & Chapman for its April election or to take measures to move the election to November and consolidate with the County and other agencies.
AGENDA PACKET
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
4:30 p.m., Open Session
Live and Archived video streaming
City Hall
East side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues
VI. Public Appearances
Anyone wishing to address the City Council on matters within the jurisdiction of the City that are not on today’s agenda may do so now. Matters not appearing on the City Council’s agenda will not receive action at this meeting but may be referred to staff for a future meeting. Presentations will be limited to three (3) minutes, or as otherwise established by the City Council. Persons are not required to give their names, but it is helpful for speakers to state their names in order that the City Clerk may identify them in the minutes of the meeting. Always speak into the microphone, as the meeting is recorded. The City Council Chamber is equipped with a portable microphone for anyone unable to come to the podium. If you need assistance, please advise City Clerk Heidi Burch as to which item you wish to comment on and the microphone will be brought to you.
ADDENDUM:
Carmel residents blast settlement of sexual harassment lawsuit
Carmel councilman holds meeting about lawsuit
KEVIN HOWE Herald Staff Writer, 08/03/2010
VIII. 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 City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.
B. Consideration of an encroachment permit application for the construction of a driveway at the end of Lopez Avenue and review of a geotechnical report for Second Avenue.
Description: The applicant is requesting permission to construct a driveway in the public right-of- way at the end of Lopez Avenue. A geotechnical report was prepared at the request of the City Council to determine the feasibility of re-opening Second Avenue.
Recommendation: Review the information and determine if Second Avenue should be re-opened.
Important Considerations: 1) Current vehicle access to the subject property is provided by a dirt driveway on Second Avenue. As developed, this driveway does not provide adequate vehicle access to the property. The applicant is proposing to construct a driveway at the end of Lopez Avenue to provide vehicle access to the property. 2) The geotechnical study indicates that the closed portion of Second Avenue is unstable, with an estimated cost of $300,000 to $500,000 to repair. The geotechnical engineer has indicated that a larger section of Second Avenue also may be unstable.
Decision Record: The Planning Commission reviewed this project on 14 July 2010 and unanimously recommended that the City Council approve a driveway at the end of Lopez Avenue, on the east side of the street.
STAFF REPORT
BACKGROUND/PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is a 7,908-square-foot parcel of land located at the southeast corner of the Lopez and Second Avenues, across the street from Pescadero Canyon. The lot is developed with a one-story home along the hillside. Vehicle access to the property is limited due to the slope of the driveway and condition of Second Avenue.
In July 2009, the applicant submitted a Design Study application to construct a driveway at the end of Lopez Avenue. The driveway would provide vehicle access near the southwest corner of the property, as opposed to the north end off of Second Avenue. The Design Review Board reviewed the proposal and forwarded it to the City Council for a final decision. The DRB recommended that the City Council approve the driveway with special conditions.
At its 1 September 2009 meeting, the City Council reviewed the proposal and requested the following additional information before making a decision:
• That the proposed driveway be staked with story poles.
• That the City Forester re-evaluate the two significant trees on Second Avenue which prohibit paving or grading of the existing dirt driveway.
• That the City Engineer review the proposal for a driveway at the end of Lopez Avenue.
• Provide information on public utilities within the vicinity.
• Provide a plan for the proposed new residence.
At its September 1 hearing, the City Council also expressed an interest in re-opening Second Avenue as a potential solution to the driveway situation. The ability to approach the driveway from a westbound direction would significantly improve the use of the existing driveway.
Questions were also raised about the necessity of Second Avenue as an emergency access road. The portion of Second Avenue that is closed is approximately 200 feet long and is located on the hillside between North Casanova Street and Lopez Avenue. The road was closed as a result of distress following heavy storms in 1998.
On 9 October 2009, the Council commissioned a geotechnical study to investigate reopening Second Avenue. The geotechnical report provides an evaluation of the hillside stability and recommendations regarding the re-opening of Second Avenue.
Since the September 1 Council hearing, more information has been obtained and the applicant is now proposing a second option for placing a driveway at the end of Lopez Avenue. On 14 July 2010, this project was reviewed by the Planning Commission to review new information and evaluate the new driveway proposal. The Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal and made recommendations to the City Council, which are summarized at the end of this staff report.
EVALUATION:
The purpose of this hearing to is to 1) review the geotechnical report; and 2) evaluate all options of providing a functional driveway to the subject property, including the possibility of re-opening Second Avenue. Staff will begin by providing a summary of the geotechnical report and issues related to re-opening Second Avenue.
Second Avenue Geotechnical Report: Subsurface conditions were explored by drilling a total of seven exploratory borings to depths of up to 21.5 feet. Soil samples were analyzed to evaluate stability. The analysis indicates that the subject road is both statically and seismically unstable. The road will continue to fail over time and will incur additional distress as a result of seismic events. In order to re-open the road to traffic, the engineer recommends that a retaining wall be constructed to support the outboard edge of the road. The estimated cost is between $300,000 and $500,000.
Emergency Access: The geotechnical engineer has indicated that the subject road has the stability to support the weight of emergency vehicles in the case of an emergency. Staff met with members of the Carmel Fire Department to discuss the use of Second Avenue as an emergency access road. The Fire Department likely would use Second Avenue as a secondary option in the event of a structure fire. The Fire Department would also use Second Avenue in the case of a vegetation fire or rescue operation. Public Input for Second Avenue: A Carmel resident submitted a letter in opposition to the re-opening of Second Avenue. The resident is concerned that re-opening Second Avenue will adversely impact the character of the neighborhood by increasing traffic and noise. The letter also raises concerns about pedestrian safety since Second Avenue is currently used as a pedestrian pathway. A petition was submitted with numerous signatures from Carmel residents who have read the letter and are opposed to re-opening
Second Avenue. A copy of the letter and petition are included for Council review.
Encroachment Permit: Encroachment permits are required any time a private property owner proposes to construct improvements in the City’s public right-of-way. Minor encroachment permits can be approved at the staff level by the City Administrator. More significant encroachment permits typically are forwarded for City Council review.
Options for the Driveway: Staff will present four options to the City Council referenced as options A, B, C and D. Option “A” is the original proposal, which places the driveway on the west side of Lopez Avenue. Option “B” is a new proposal, which places the driveway on the east side of Lopez Avenue. Staff will also present an option of paving the existing driveway without re-opening Second Avenue (Option “C”) and the option of re-opening Second Avenue to improve the use of the existing driveway (Option “D”).
Option “B” Driveway on East Side of Lopez Avenue: Option “B” places the driveway on the east side of Lopez Avenue and covers an area of approximately 404 square feet in the public right-of-way. The proposed driveway is 28 feet long with an outer wall that is eight to nine feet tall. The driveway has a slope of approximately 12-13% and also serves as a walkway. The proposed driveway requires the removal of three non-significant trees located on the property. No trees would be removed from the public right-of way.
City Engineer’s Review: The City Engineer has reviewed both proposals and made the following recommendations:
• Both a soils report and engineering study should be required for both proposals.
• Evaluate drainage and provide erosion control measures to handle the drainage from the street.
• Verify that the turning radius is sufficient for larger vehicles.
• Recommends that a guard rail be installed at the outer radius of the turn.
Public Utilities: There is a water main that runs under the area of the proposed driveway. Should a driveway be approved at this location, the applicant and staff will need to work with Cal-Am Water on this issue. It is the applicant’s responsibility to pay for re-routing the water main if needed. Gas, sewer and electric utilities will not be impacted by either of the proposed driveways.
Public Input for Lopez Driveways: The applicant has submitted a petition with more than 100 signatures from Carmel residents living in the vicinity of the project who support a driveway at the end of Lopez. Several opposition letters were also submitted by residents who live at the north end of Lopez, near the proposed driveway. The residents who live at the end of Lopez Avenue are concerned with increased congestion and safety issues associated with a new driveway at this location. Both the petition and letters are provided as attachments.
Staff has visited the site with a member of the Police Department to evaluate potential safety issues created by either of the proposed driveways. The officer did not identify any significant safety issues that would be created by either driveway.
Option “D” Re-open Second Avenue and Pave Existing Driveway: At its September 1 hearing, the City Council expressed interest in re-opening Second Avenue as a potential solution to the driveway situation. Re-opening Second Avenue would allow the applicant to pave and use the existing dirt driveway without having to grade the hillside. The Council also had concerns about the necessity of opening Second Avenue as an emergency access road. As previously mentioned, the geotechnical study indicated that it would probably cost between $300,000 and $500,000 to re-open Second Avenue. This estimate only includes stabilizing the 200-foot stretch of road that is closed. It appears that opening Second Avenue is not a viable option.
Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission unanimously recommends that the City Council approve Option “B.” The primary reason for supporting a driveway at the end of Lopez Avenue, as opposed to maintaining the driveway at its existing location, is concern over the long-term stability of Second Avenue. The Commission raised the issue that approving a driveway on Second Avenue could potentially commit the City to future repairs and maintenance of this road for the benefit of only one property owner.
The Commission recommended that the driveway incorporate a natural stone veneer and that landscaping be provided to soften the mass of the structure. It also recommended that the property owner provide two parking spaces to take cars off of Lopez Avenue.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Review the information and determine the appropriate action.
X. Resolutions
A. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to enter into a financial assistance agreement with the State of California Water Board for the Carmel Bay Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) project.
Description: The State Water Resources Control Board has determined that the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is eligible to receive funds from the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006 (Proposition 84) Clean Beaches Program for its storm water program. The grant cannot be fully executed until a Resolution has been adopted. This resolution authorizes the City Administrator to enter into a financial assistance agreement with the State Water Board.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: $125,000 City match
Grant Funds: $2.5 million
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.
Important Considerations: The grant cannot be fully executed until a Resolution is adopted by Council.
Decision Record: Resolution 2008-42 (July 1, 2008), authorizing the submittal of a $2.5 million grant application to the State Water Resources Board for projects associated with storm water runoff.
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2010-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA AUTHORIZING THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO ENTER INTO A FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WATER BOARD FOR THE CARMEL BAY AREAS OF SPECIAL BIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE PROJECT
WHEREAS, the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) has
determined that the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is eligible to receive funds from the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006 (Proposition 84) Clean Beaches Program; and
WHEREAS, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea will use these funds for eligible project costs of the Carmel Bay Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) Project, which is designed to comply with the discharge prohibition into Areas of Special Biological Significance contained in the California Ocean Plan eligible project costs; and
WHEREAS, the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is authorized to enter into a financial assistance agreement with the State of California and the State Water Board.
XI. Orders of Council
A. Receive report and provide policy direction on options for the 2012 Municipal Election.
Description: Staff is requesting direction regarding whether the City should continue to conduct a standalone election for the mayoral and council seats in April or consolidate with the County’s November election.
Overall Cost:
City Funds:
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Provide staff direction.
Important Considerations:
Decision Record: None.
STAFF REPORT
ANTICIPATED COSTS
November consolidated election – County estimate $12-$17,000*
Traditional April election –County estimate $50,679
Traditional April election – Martin & Chapman estimate $23,000
• The City was charged $16,340 by the County for the election in November 2009.
SUMMARY
Contracting with the Monterey County Registrar’s office for election services for an April election is no longer a viable alternative. Staff requests Council direction to continue contracting with Martin & Chapman for its April election or to take measures to move the election to November and consolidate with the County and other agencies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)