ABSTRACT: The Monterey County Herald today published a Guest Commentary by Carmel Residents Association Board of Directors Secretary Carolyn Hardy and recently retired News Editor Linda Anderson; the Guest Commentary is entitled “Guillen is Carmel liability.” HIGHLIGHTS from the Commentary are presented; a link to “Sexual harassment documents reveal poor handling of case by city,” CARMEL RESIDENTS ASSOCIATON NEWS OCTOBER 2010, is provided. In their Guest Commentary, Hardy and Anderson conclude “Guillen has damaged Carmel's finances, reputation and employee morale. Despite all this and exposure to future liability, he still remains on the job at Carmel City Hall.”
Guillen is Carmel liability
By CAROLYN HARDY and LINDA ANDERSON
Guest commentary
Posted: 10/08/2010
HIGHLIGHTS:
"More than two years after Jane Miller's initial complaint of retaliation, discrimination and harassment by City Administrator Rich Guillen, the Carmel City Council hasn't corrected problems that created Carmel's scandal. After three recent closed-session meetings, the council majority appears unwilling to take the essential next step of terminating Guillen's employment."
"Disregarding Miller's complaints and ignoring the ongoing misconduct investigation, council members not only failed to put Guillen on administrative leave, but awarded him a substantial retroactive pay raise in October 2008."
"Shortcomings in the investigation were revealed during Kramer's deposition as part of Miller's lawsuit: She never saw e-mails from Guillen to Miller and interviewed one former employee, but talked to none of the four employees who had been forced from their jobs."
"It is clear Guillen misled the city's investigator, and in turn, the City Council."
"For years Guillen has operated with impunity at City Hall."
"Carmel incurred $226,447 in defense costs."
"Guillen has damaged Carmel's finances, reputation and employee morale. Despite all this and exposure to future liability, he still remains on the job at Carmel City Hall."
ADDENDUM:
Sexual harassment documents reveal poor handling of case by city
CARMEL RESIDENTS ASSOCIATON NEWS OCTOBER 2010
Friday, October 08, 2010
‘MINUTES’ for Two Noteworthy 5 October 2010 City Council Agenda Items
“MINUTES”
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Archived Video Streaming
City Hall
East side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues
XI. Orders of Council
A. Consideration of a request to amend Carmel Municipal Code Section 6.08.120 to allow for the keeping of chickens in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. The applicant is Anna Yateman.
Sean Conroy, Planning & Building Services Manager, presented the Staff Report.
Anna Yateman, the applicant, advocated for the keeping of chickens in the City; it represents sustainability of the earth movement.
Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment.
Pacific Grove Animal Control Officer Elizabeth Conti-Yeo and Carmel Animal Control Officer Cindi Mitchell expressed their willingness to answer questions.
Monta Potter, Carmel Chamber of Commerce CEO, stated the Chamber promotes Carmel as a “sophisticated city.”
Marlene Martin, who lives outside the city limits, stated she has had no problems with her chickens.
Rebecca Lee stated it is an opportunity to get back to nature for children and adults alike and advocated for the keeping of chickens.
James Jungroth, a neighbor of Anna Yateman, stated he has a problem with chickens because “it is not a good fit for Carmel;” Carmel is not a rural city.
Matt Little, insurance broker, advocated for keeping “Carmel country” by allowing for the keeping of chickens.
A woman spoke of the diversity of events, venues and cultures in Carmel and advocated for the keeping of chickens.
Kathy Lange, a neighbor of Anna Yateman, expressed her desire to meet her chickens.
Barbara Livingston, former City Council Member, stated that during WWII families raised chickens and advocated for the keeping of chickens.
Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment.
Council Member Paula Hazdovac stated her support for the keeping of chickens.
Council Member Karen Sharp advocated for establishing regulations for two hens and expressed concern with the cost of enforcement.
Pacific Grove Animal Control Officer Elizabeth Conti-Yeo stated that animals are drawn into areas with chickens, such as rodents and raccoons. The City of Pacific Grove has ten permits.
Carmel Animal Control Officer Cindi Mitchell expressed concerns about the added workload and permit process.
Council Member Jason Burnett advocated for the keeping of chickens on property owners own properties, a change in the Municipal Code and registration fee for educational purposes and to offset costs. He stated that he contacted experts at the Monterey Bay Aquarium about salmonella and concluded it is not an issue.
By consensus, the Council agreed to amend Carmel Municipal Code Section
6.08.120 to allow for the keeping of chickens (two hens) in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
Council Member SHARP moved to not waive the fee, seconded by Council Member HAZDOVAC and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BURNETT; HAZDOVAC; SHARP; & McCLOUD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
C. Receive report and provide policy direction on options for the 2012 Municipal Election.
Heidi Burch, City Clerk, presented the Staff Report, including the fact that no public comments were received on the subject.
Mayor McCloud opened and closed the meeting to public comment.
Council Member Jason Burnett advocated for an April Municipal Election in 2012 with "clear direction" to improve the election process from April 2010. He recognized the importance of public confidence in the process.
Council Member Karen Sharp stated that the April Municipal Election has been a tradition and the City would lose “celebratory feeling” if election date moved to November.
Council Member Paula Hazdovac advocated for maintaining Municipal Election in April and contract with a private contractor.
Mayor Sue McCloud advocated for the City contracting with Martin & Chapman.
Council Member HAZDOVAC moved to maintain the status quo of having the Municipal Election date in April, seconded by Council Member BURNETT and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BURNETT; HAZDOVAC; SHARP; & McCLOUD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Archived Video Streaming
City Hall
East side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues
XI. Orders of Council
A. Consideration of a request to amend Carmel Municipal Code Section 6.08.120 to allow for the keeping of chickens in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. The applicant is Anna Yateman.
Sean Conroy, Planning & Building Services Manager, presented the Staff Report.
Anna Yateman, the applicant, advocated for the keeping of chickens in the City; it represents sustainability of the earth movement.
Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment.
Pacific Grove Animal Control Officer Elizabeth Conti-Yeo and Carmel Animal Control Officer Cindi Mitchell expressed their willingness to answer questions.
Monta Potter, Carmel Chamber of Commerce CEO, stated the Chamber promotes Carmel as a “sophisticated city.”
Marlene Martin, who lives outside the city limits, stated she has had no problems with her chickens.
Rebecca Lee stated it is an opportunity to get back to nature for children and adults alike and advocated for the keeping of chickens.
James Jungroth, a neighbor of Anna Yateman, stated he has a problem with chickens because “it is not a good fit for Carmel;” Carmel is not a rural city.
Matt Little, insurance broker, advocated for keeping “Carmel country” by allowing for the keeping of chickens.
A woman spoke of the diversity of events, venues and cultures in Carmel and advocated for the keeping of chickens.
Kathy Lange, a neighbor of Anna Yateman, expressed her desire to meet her chickens.
Barbara Livingston, former City Council Member, stated that during WWII families raised chickens and advocated for the keeping of chickens.
Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment.
Council Member Paula Hazdovac stated her support for the keeping of chickens.
Council Member Karen Sharp advocated for establishing regulations for two hens and expressed concern with the cost of enforcement.
Pacific Grove Animal Control Officer Elizabeth Conti-Yeo stated that animals are drawn into areas with chickens, such as rodents and raccoons. The City of Pacific Grove has ten permits.
Carmel Animal Control Officer Cindi Mitchell expressed concerns about the added workload and permit process.
Council Member Jason Burnett advocated for the keeping of chickens on property owners own properties, a change in the Municipal Code and registration fee for educational purposes and to offset costs. He stated that he contacted experts at the Monterey Bay Aquarium about salmonella and concluded it is not an issue.
By consensus, the Council agreed to amend Carmel Municipal Code Section
6.08.120 to allow for the keeping of chickens (two hens) in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
Council Member SHARP moved to not waive the fee, seconded by Council Member HAZDOVAC and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BURNETT; HAZDOVAC; SHARP; & McCLOUD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
C. Receive report and provide policy direction on options for the 2012 Municipal Election.
Heidi Burch, City Clerk, presented the Staff Report, including the fact that no public comments were received on the subject.
Mayor McCloud opened and closed the meeting to public comment.
Council Member Jason Burnett advocated for an April Municipal Election in 2012 with "clear direction" to improve the election process from April 2010. He recognized the importance of public confidence in the process.
Council Member Karen Sharp stated that the April Municipal Election has been a tradition and the City would lose “celebratory feeling” if election date moved to November.
Council Member Paula Hazdovac advocated for maintaining Municipal Election in April and contract with a private contractor.
Mayor Sue McCloud advocated for the City contracting with Martin & Chapman.
Council Member HAZDOVAC moved to maintain the status quo of having the Municipal Election date in April, seconded by Council Member BURNETT and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: BURNETT; HAZDOVAC; SHARP; & McCLOUD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
Thursday, October 07, 2010
Carmel Art Association Presents JEFF DANIEL SMITH & CYNDRA BRADFORD ‘MAJESTIC VIEWS’ TWO-PERSON SHOW AND GALLERY SHOWCASE FEATURING FARRINGTON & LINDBERG
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 JEFF DANIEL SMITH & CYNDRA BRADFORD ‘MAJESTIC VIEWS’ TWO-PERSON SHOW AND GALLERY SHOWCASE FEATURING FARRINGTON & LINDBERG
Thursday, October 7– November 2, 2010
TWO-PERSON SHOW: ‘MAJESTIC VIEWS’ OF JEFF DANIEL SMITH & CYNDRA BRADFORD (Beardsley Room):
Painters Jeff Daniel Smith and Cyndra Bradford exhibit regional coastal scenes and inland vistas in oil. View Jeff Daniel Smith’s brief biography and oil painting images including "Point Lobos Cliffs,” “Tranquil Cove" and "Laguna Seca #4.”
View Cyndra Bradford’s Gallery Showcase: Cyndra Bradford November 5 - December 1, 2009, eighteen paintings, including “Good Boy,” “Pony,” “Spotted Girl,” “Charlie,” “Kitty,” “Belgian,” “Rooster,” “Lion Dog,” “Tiger Cat,” “Jake,” “Sleeping Charlie,” “Bull,” “Billy Goat,” “Alley Cat,” “Lunch,” “Blue Rooster,” “Goat Nap” and “Donkey.”
GALLERY SHOWCASE: REED FARRINGTON & KEITH LINDBERG (Segal Room):
Painter Reed Farrington exhibits oil paintings of figures swimming and poolside. View REED FARRINGTON Exhibit Dates: November 8 - 27, 2007 of nine painting images, including “Green Water,” “Autumn Freshet,” “Kelp,” “The Emerald Reach,” “The Pocket,” “A Calm Sea,” “The Grotto,” “Still Water” and “Trapped Water.”
Painter Keith Lindberg exhibits semi-abstract landscapes in oil. View KEITH LINDBERG Exhibit Dates: November 8 - 27, 2007 of five painting images, including “Coastal Landscape,” “Edge of Monterey Pine Grove,” “On the Coast,” “California Landscape” and “Monterey Pines.”
Opening Reception - Saturday, October 9, 6:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M.
ADDENDUM:
Slide Show/Lecture
“Things That Come Out in the Night”
Artist and Art Historian Dick Crispo
Free, no reservations necessary.
Wednesday, October 20, 7:00 P.M.
“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 JEFF DANIEL SMITH & CYNDRA BRADFORD ‘MAJESTIC VIEWS’ TWO-PERSON SHOW AND GALLERY SHOWCASE FEATURING FARRINGTON & LINDBERG
Thursday, October 7– November 2, 2010
TWO-PERSON SHOW: ‘MAJESTIC VIEWS’ OF JEFF DANIEL SMITH & CYNDRA BRADFORD (Beardsley Room):
Painters Jeff Daniel Smith and Cyndra Bradford exhibit regional coastal scenes and inland vistas in oil. View Jeff Daniel Smith’s brief biography and oil painting images including "Point Lobos Cliffs,” “Tranquil Cove" and "Laguna Seca #4.”
View Cyndra Bradford’s Gallery Showcase: Cyndra Bradford November 5 - December 1, 2009, eighteen paintings, including “Good Boy,” “Pony,” “Spotted Girl,” “Charlie,” “Kitty,” “Belgian,” “Rooster,” “Lion Dog,” “Tiger Cat,” “Jake,” “Sleeping Charlie,” “Bull,” “Billy Goat,” “Alley Cat,” “Lunch,” “Blue Rooster,” “Goat Nap” and “Donkey.”
GALLERY SHOWCASE: REED FARRINGTON & KEITH LINDBERG (Segal Room):
Painter Reed Farrington exhibits oil paintings of figures swimming and poolside. View REED FARRINGTON Exhibit Dates: November 8 - 27, 2007 of nine painting images, including “Green Water,” “Autumn Freshet,” “Kelp,” “The Emerald Reach,” “The Pocket,” “A Calm Sea,” “The Grotto,” “Still Water” and “Trapped Water.”
Painter Keith Lindberg exhibits semi-abstract landscapes in oil. View KEITH LINDBERG Exhibit Dates: November 8 - 27, 2007 of five painting images, including “Coastal Landscape,” “Edge of Monterey Pine Grove,” “On the Coast,” “California Landscape” and “Monterey Pines.”
Opening Reception - Saturday, October 9, 6:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M.
ADDENDUM:
Slide Show/Lecture
“Things That Come Out in the Night”
Artist and Art Historian Dick Crispo
Free, no reservations necessary.
Wednesday, October 20, 7:00 P.M.
Wednesday, October 06, 2010
One Noteworthy 7 October 2010 Forest and Beach Commission Agenda Item
UPDATE II:
Five Monterey Cypress trees approved for planting along Scenic Road by Forest and Beach Commissioners, as follows:
Tree #1: 20’ south of 8th Ave. steps to beach. 35’ west of Scenic Rd.
Spoke to property owner directly across the street from this location and he was supportive of planting a new tree next to the large old cypress. No other direct contacts.
Recommend planting at this location.
Tree #2: 10’ north of vehicle ramp to beach, between 8th & 9th Aves.
Same owner as above was in favor of a tree at this location. No other direct contacts.
Recommend planting at this location. This is a location of a large cypress that was removed in 2004-05 and not immediately replaced.
Tree #3: 20’ south of 9th Ave. crossing, along Scenic pathway.
No direct contact. This is a dead cypress and it should be removed and replaced.
Recommend planting at this location.
Tree #5: Approximately 80’ south of 10th Ave. crossing, in planter area between Scenic Rd. and path. No direct contact, but both properties directly across from this site wrote letters in support of planting.
Recommend planting at this location.
Tree #9: Between 13th & Santa Lucia Aves., on the south side of the point at 13th Ave.
Contracted one resident at this location; concerned abut maintenance of existing trees and the city managing its future maintenance obligations.
Recommend planting at this location. A tree at this location will provide additional visual interest to the site but not wall off significant views of Carmel Beach.
(Source: Commission OKs five trees for Scenic Road, MARY BROWNFIELD, October 1, 2010)
UPDATE I: Of the eight Monterey cypress trees recommended by City Forester Mike Branson to be planted along Scenic Road, the Forest and Beach Commission voted on each tree and approved the planting of five Monterey cypress trees, denied the planting of two Monterey cypress trees and took no action on one Monterey cypress tree, according to Margi Perotti, Administrative Coordinator.
ABSTRACT: One noteworthy 7 October 2010 Forest and Beach Commission Agenda Item, namely provide direction of a proposal from the City of Carmel and the Friends of Carmel Forest to plant ten new Monterey cypress trees along the Scenic Road pathway between 8th Aveue and Martin Way, is presented. The MEMORANDUM from City Forester Mike Branson is transcribed. City Forester Mike Branson recommended planting Monterey Cypress Trees #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7, #8, #9 at designated locations and holding off planting Trees #6 and #10 at designated locations.
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
FOREST AND BEACH COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Thursday, 7 October 2010
Regular Meeting – 1:30 p.m.
City Hall, Council Chambers
East side Monte Verde St. between Ocean & 7th Avenues
Carmel, California
I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
COMMISSION MEMBERS: JOE FORD, CHAIRPERSON
LESLIE KADIS
VICTORIA LYNCH
TODD HORNIK
TOM LEVERONE
V. APPLICATIONS/PUBLIC HEARINGS
IF YOU CHALLENGE THE NATURE OF THE PROPOSED ACTION IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE FOREST AND BEACH COMMISSION, OR PRIOR TO DELIBERATION OF THE ITEMS ON THE TOUR OF INSPECTION/PUBLIC HEARING.
1. Consideration and provide direction of a proposal from the City of Carmel and the Friends of Carmel Forest to plant ten new Monterey cypress trees along the Scenic Rd. pathway between 8th Ave. and Martin Way. The applicant/owner is the City of Carmel.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Joe Ford, Chairperson
Members of the Forest and Beach Commission
FROM: Mike Branson, City Forester
DATE: 29 September 2010
SUBJECT: Review and provide direction on a proposal by the city of Carmel and the Friends of Carmel Forest to plant ten new Monterey cypress trees along the Scenic Road pathway.
The City of Carmel and the Friends of Carmel Forest are proposing to plant ten new Monterey cypress trees along the Scenic Road Pathway between 8th Avenue and Martin Way in an effort to replace removed and dead trees and to enhance areas that currently have no trees or only old mature trees growing.
Prior to the meetings where this proposal was agenized numerous emails and letters, both pro and con, were received and considered by the commission. After discussion during the 3 June 2010 meeting, staff was asked to try to meet with property owners in the immediate vicinity of the proposed new trees and look at the particulars of each site and work for some compromise solution.
I met with or spoke to several property owners in the immediate vicinity of the proposed planting sites; although the majority of the homes are unoccupied or are vacation rentals.
Some of the questions and comments I received are:
Is the city going to plant this many trees every year?
Ten trees at once are too many.
Why plant where there are no trees and never have been?
It will be directly in my view.
Will the city be able to maintain the new trees if it isn’t doing a good job with the existing trees?
Other observations:
Sense of history, visions and perceptions relate to times they are in their homes or since the homes were purchases.
There is a need to replace trees now to have trees in the future and have different life stages.
Several persons like the older trees but object to planting new trees – a bit of a conflict.
The selection of each tree location was done to minimize direct view impacts to the homes along Scenic Road. The city has endeavored to prune other young trees in this area to promote good branch structure and progressively lift the canopy to promote upward growth to avoid the feeling of a green wall along the pathway. It is obvious that these trees are capable of growing to 30-60+ feet tall at maturity and view impacts to homes on San Antonio may be impacted to a certain degree as the years go on. Not planting any new trees will eventually lead to a landscape that may have unhindered ocean views but is devoid of Carmel’s forest character that was established and promoted by the city founders.
This is the staff evaluation and recommendations for each location.
Tree #1: 20’ south of 8th Avenue, steps to beach. 35’ west of Scenic Road
Spoke to property owner directly across the street from this location and he was supportive of planting a new tree next to the large old cypress. No other direct contacts.
Recommend planting at this location.
Tree #2: 10’ north of vehicle ramp to beach, between 8th & 9th Avenues
Same owner as above was in favor of a tree at this location. No other direct contacts.
Recommend planting at this location. This is a location of a large cypress that was removed in 2004-05 and not immediately replaced.
Tree #3: 20’ south of 9th Avenue crossing, along Scenic pathway.
No direct contact. This is a dead cypress and it should be removed and replaced.
Recommend planting at this location.
Tree #4: Between 9th & 10th Avenues, 20’ north of north 10th Avenue stairs to beach.
Spoke to property owner across the street. They were not in favor of planting next to the old cypress tree at this location. Other neighbors are absentee owners (one home is for sale).
Recommend planting at this location. This old cypress is located between tow properties and should be replaced when removal is eventually required; a new tree planted here will hopefully have a good head start and it will be mostly hidden from view by the large girth of the current tree.
Tree #5: Approximately 80’ south of 10th Avenue crossing, in planter area between Scenic Road and path.
No direct contact, but both properties owners directly across from this site wrote letters in support of planting.
Recommend planting at this location.
Tree #6: Approximately 160’ south of 11th Avenue, in planter area between Scenic Road and patio.
Contact with new property owner on San Antonio Avenue. She is not in favor of a new tree at this site. There is a young tree doing well at the south end of the same planter area.
Recommend holding off on this site. This was the location of a single tree that was removed about 7 years ago. Since the other tree is now growing well, staff will endeavor to promote its growth and structure as the replacement for the old tree. The existing tree is also located more in between two properties.
Tree #7: Between 12th & 13th Avenues, approximately 200’ north of 13th Avenue, 15’ west of pathway.
Contacted several residents in this area concerned about view obstruction. Placement of the tree between two properties and down slope lessened concerns but objections remained.
Recommend planting at this location. While there are no trees currently in this location, one tree planted on the slope will provide some visual interest to the site but not be a large visual obstruction with proper maintenance to foster good growth and development.
Tree #8: Between 12th & 13th Avenues, approximately 60’ north of 13th Avenue, 10’ west of pathway.
Contacted three neighbors in this location who were not opposed to this specific tree, but planting plan in general. One resident would like to see some pruning of the existing trees in this area to assure the city has a commitment to the long term maintenance of new trees and old trees.
Recommend planting at this location. There was a tree planted here several years ago that was sprayed with an undetermined substance that killed the tree. This will replace that lost tree.
Tree #9: Between 13th & Santa Lucia Avenues, on the south side of the point at 13th Avenue
Contracted one resident at this location; concerned about maintenance of existing trees and the city managing its future maintenance obligations.
Recommend planting at this location. A tree at this location will provide additional visual interest to the site but not wall off significant views of Carmel Beach.
Tree #10: Between Santa Lucia Avenue and city limit, approximately 75’ south of Santa Lucia Avenue
No contacts in this area. There is a new tree just south of the pathway fork to the public restrooms.
Recommend holding off on planting at this location. This location is in or very close to the area of the ADA access for the proposed permanent public restroom construction at Santa Lucia Avenue. It may be premature to plant this site and then have to remove or relocate a new tree. There is a site further to the south in a planter east of the pathway where there had been a cypress tree growing since the pathway was built. The tree was damaged by a vehicle several years ago. The FOCF has planted several trees in this location which have died from unknown reasons (possible poisoning) and I suggest another attempt to replant this site.
Five Monterey Cypress trees approved for planting along Scenic Road by Forest and Beach Commissioners, as follows:
Tree #1: 20’ south of 8th Ave. steps to beach. 35’ west of Scenic Rd.
Spoke to property owner directly across the street from this location and he was supportive of planting a new tree next to the large old cypress. No other direct contacts.
Recommend planting at this location.
Tree #2: 10’ north of vehicle ramp to beach, between 8th & 9th Aves.
Same owner as above was in favor of a tree at this location. No other direct contacts.
Recommend planting at this location. This is a location of a large cypress that was removed in 2004-05 and not immediately replaced.
Tree #3: 20’ south of 9th Ave. crossing, along Scenic pathway.
No direct contact. This is a dead cypress and it should be removed and replaced.
Recommend planting at this location.
Tree #5: Approximately 80’ south of 10th Ave. crossing, in planter area between Scenic Rd. and path. No direct contact, but both properties directly across from this site wrote letters in support of planting.
Recommend planting at this location.
Tree #9: Between 13th & Santa Lucia Aves., on the south side of the point at 13th Ave.
Contracted one resident at this location; concerned abut maintenance of existing trees and the city managing its future maintenance obligations.
Recommend planting at this location. A tree at this location will provide additional visual interest to the site but not wall off significant views of Carmel Beach.
(Source: Commission OKs five trees for Scenic Road, MARY BROWNFIELD, October 1, 2010)
UPDATE I: Of the eight Monterey cypress trees recommended by City Forester Mike Branson to be planted along Scenic Road, the Forest and Beach Commission voted on each tree and approved the planting of five Monterey cypress trees, denied the planting of two Monterey cypress trees and took no action on one Monterey cypress tree, according to Margi Perotti, Administrative Coordinator.
ABSTRACT: One noteworthy 7 October 2010 Forest and Beach Commission Agenda Item, namely provide direction of a proposal from the City of Carmel and the Friends of Carmel Forest to plant ten new Monterey cypress trees along the Scenic Road pathway between 8th Aveue and Martin Way, is presented. The MEMORANDUM from City Forester Mike Branson is transcribed. City Forester Mike Branson recommended planting Monterey Cypress Trees #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7, #8, #9 at designated locations and holding off planting Trees #6 and #10 at designated locations.
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
FOREST AND BEACH COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Thursday, 7 October 2010
Regular Meeting – 1:30 p.m.
City Hall, Council Chambers
East side Monte Verde St. between Ocean & 7th Avenues
Carmel, California
I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
COMMISSION MEMBERS: JOE FORD, CHAIRPERSON
LESLIE KADIS
VICTORIA LYNCH
TODD HORNIK
TOM LEVERONE
V. APPLICATIONS/PUBLIC HEARINGS
IF YOU CHALLENGE THE NATURE OF THE PROPOSED ACTION IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE FOREST AND BEACH COMMISSION, OR PRIOR TO DELIBERATION OF THE ITEMS ON THE TOUR OF INSPECTION/PUBLIC HEARING.
1. Consideration and provide direction of a proposal from the City of Carmel and the Friends of Carmel Forest to plant ten new Monterey cypress trees along the Scenic Rd. pathway between 8th Ave. and Martin Way. The applicant/owner is the City of Carmel.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Joe Ford, Chairperson
Members of the Forest and Beach Commission
FROM: Mike Branson, City Forester
DATE: 29 September 2010
SUBJECT: Review and provide direction on a proposal by the city of Carmel and the Friends of Carmel Forest to plant ten new Monterey cypress trees along the Scenic Road pathway.
The City of Carmel and the Friends of Carmel Forest are proposing to plant ten new Monterey cypress trees along the Scenic Road Pathway between 8th Avenue and Martin Way in an effort to replace removed and dead trees and to enhance areas that currently have no trees or only old mature trees growing.
Prior to the meetings where this proposal was agenized numerous emails and letters, both pro and con, were received and considered by the commission. After discussion during the 3 June 2010 meeting, staff was asked to try to meet with property owners in the immediate vicinity of the proposed new trees and look at the particulars of each site and work for some compromise solution.
I met with or spoke to several property owners in the immediate vicinity of the proposed planting sites; although the majority of the homes are unoccupied or are vacation rentals.
Some of the questions and comments I received are:
Is the city going to plant this many trees every year?
Ten trees at once are too many.
Why plant where there are no trees and never have been?
It will be directly in my view.
Will the city be able to maintain the new trees if it isn’t doing a good job with the existing trees?
Other observations:
Sense of history, visions and perceptions relate to times they are in their homes or since the homes were purchases.
There is a need to replace trees now to have trees in the future and have different life stages.
Several persons like the older trees but object to planting new trees – a bit of a conflict.
The selection of each tree location was done to minimize direct view impacts to the homes along Scenic Road. The city has endeavored to prune other young trees in this area to promote good branch structure and progressively lift the canopy to promote upward growth to avoid the feeling of a green wall along the pathway. It is obvious that these trees are capable of growing to 30-60+ feet tall at maturity and view impacts to homes on San Antonio may be impacted to a certain degree as the years go on. Not planting any new trees will eventually lead to a landscape that may have unhindered ocean views but is devoid of Carmel’s forest character that was established and promoted by the city founders.
This is the staff evaluation and recommendations for each location.
Tree #1: 20’ south of 8th Avenue, steps to beach. 35’ west of Scenic Road
Spoke to property owner directly across the street from this location and he was supportive of planting a new tree next to the large old cypress. No other direct contacts.
Recommend planting at this location.
Tree #2: 10’ north of vehicle ramp to beach, between 8th & 9th Avenues
Same owner as above was in favor of a tree at this location. No other direct contacts.
Recommend planting at this location. This is a location of a large cypress that was removed in 2004-05 and not immediately replaced.
Tree #3: 20’ south of 9th Avenue crossing, along Scenic pathway.
No direct contact. This is a dead cypress and it should be removed and replaced.
Recommend planting at this location.
Tree #4: Between 9th & 10th Avenues, 20’ north of north 10th Avenue stairs to beach.
Spoke to property owner across the street. They were not in favor of planting next to the old cypress tree at this location. Other neighbors are absentee owners (one home is for sale).
Recommend planting at this location. This old cypress is located between tow properties and should be replaced when removal is eventually required; a new tree planted here will hopefully have a good head start and it will be mostly hidden from view by the large girth of the current tree.
Tree #5: Approximately 80’ south of 10th Avenue crossing, in planter area between Scenic Road and path.
No direct contact, but both properties owners directly across from this site wrote letters in support of planting.
Recommend planting at this location.
Tree #6: Approximately 160’ south of 11th Avenue, in planter area between Scenic Road and patio.
Contact with new property owner on San Antonio Avenue. She is not in favor of a new tree at this site. There is a young tree doing well at the south end of the same planter area.
Recommend holding off on this site. This was the location of a single tree that was removed about 7 years ago. Since the other tree is now growing well, staff will endeavor to promote its growth and structure as the replacement for the old tree. The existing tree is also located more in between two properties.
Tree #7: Between 12th & 13th Avenues, approximately 200’ north of 13th Avenue, 15’ west of pathway.
Contacted several residents in this area concerned about view obstruction. Placement of the tree between two properties and down slope lessened concerns but objections remained.
Recommend planting at this location. While there are no trees currently in this location, one tree planted on the slope will provide some visual interest to the site but not be a large visual obstruction with proper maintenance to foster good growth and development.
Tree #8: Between 12th & 13th Avenues, approximately 60’ north of 13th Avenue, 10’ west of pathway.
Contacted three neighbors in this location who were not opposed to this specific tree, but planting plan in general. One resident would like to see some pruning of the existing trees in this area to assure the city has a commitment to the long term maintenance of new trees and old trees.
Recommend planting at this location. There was a tree planted here several years ago that was sprayed with an undetermined substance that killed the tree. This will replace that lost tree.
Tree #9: Between 13th & Santa Lucia Avenues, on the south side of the point at 13th Avenue
Contracted one resident at this location; concerned about maintenance of existing trees and the city managing its future maintenance obligations.
Recommend planting at this location. A tree at this location will provide additional visual interest to the site but not wall off significant views of Carmel Beach.
Tree #10: Between Santa Lucia Avenue and city limit, approximately 75’ south of Santa Lucia Avenue
No contacts in this area. There is a new tree just south of the pathway fork to the public restrooms.
Recommend holding off on planting at this location. This location is in or very close to the area of the ADA access for the proposed permanent public restroom construction at Santa Lucia Avenue. It may be premature to plant this site and then have to remove or relocate a new tree. There is a site further to the south in a planter east of the pathway where there had been a cypress tree growing since the pathway was built. The tree was damaged by a vehicle several years ago. The FOCF has planted several trees in this location which have died from unknown reasons (possible poisoning) and I suggest another attempt to replant this site.
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
CARMEL ART & FILM FESTIVAL: ‘CHAOS & CREATIVITY’
WHO: Tom Burns, Founder & Executive Director Carmel Art & Film Festival and Erin Clark, Festival Registrar
WHAT: CARMEL ART & FILM FESTIVAL
“film, contemporary art, fresh music & modern photography”
WHEN: Wednesday, October 6 – Sunday, October 10, 2010
WHERE: Venues include Sunset Center (E/s San Carlos St. between 8th Av. & 10th Av.); Golden Bough Theatre (W/s Monte Verde St. between 8th Av. & 9th Av.); City Hall (E/s Monte Verde St. between Ocean Av. & 7th Av.); Carmel Youth Center (Torres St. & 4th Av., S.W. Corner); Carmel Beach (W/s Scenic Road).
Carmel Art & Film Headquarters, Carmel Plaza, 3rd Floor
ADDENDUM:
CARMEL ART & FILM FESTIVAL on Facebook
twitter
Carmel Art & Film Festival Schedule KSBW
KGO AM 810 Tom Burns, Executive Director Carmel Art & Film Festival and Erin Clark, Festival Registrar
Carmel Art and Film Festival: October in Carmel-by-the-Sea
August 17th, Celeste White, Monterey Tourism Examiner
WHAT: CARMEL ART & FILM FESTIVAL
“film, contemporary art, fresh music & modern photography”
WHEN: Wednesday, October 6 – Sunday, October 10, 2010
WHERE: Venues include Sunset Center (E/s San Carlos St. between 8th Av. & 10th Av.); Golden Bough Theatre (W/s Monte Verde St. between 8th Av. & 9th Av.); City Hall (E/s Monte Verde St. between Ocean Av. & 7th Av.); Carmel Youth Center (Torres St. & 4th Av., S.W. Corner); Carmel Beach (W/s Scenic Road).
Carmel Art & Film Headquarters, Carmel Plaza, 3rd Floor
ADDENDUM:
CARMEL ART & FILM FESTIVAL on Facebook
Carmel Art & Film Festival Schedule KSBW
KGO AM 810 Tom Burns, Executive Director Carmel Art & Film Festival and Erin Clark, Festival Registrar
Carmel Art and Film Festival: October in Carmel-by-the-Sea
August 17th, Celeste White, Monterey Tourism Examiner
Monday, October 04, 2010
WESTERN City, THE MONTHLY MAGAZINE OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES: 'Closed Session Leaks: Discretion Is The Better Part of Valor — and Ethics'
ABSTRACT: A link to the article, "Closed Session Leaks: Discretion Is The Better Part of Valor — and Ethics,” October 2010, WESTERN City, THE MONTHLY MAGAZINE OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES, suggested reading from Fire Rich, is provided. A COMMENT is made.
The article, “Closed Session Leaks: Discretion Is The Better Part of Valor — and Ethics,” October 2010, WESTERN City, THE MONTHLY MAGAZINE OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES, addresses a question about an elected official frequently disclosing information from closed session discussions.
COMMENT:
There is no dispute about the Brown Act specifically prohibiting the disclosure of confidential information acquired in closed sessions to a person or persons not entitled to receive it, “unless the legislative body authorizes disclosure of that confidential information” and the Courts decisions that elected officials do not have a “free-expression right” to share confidential information. There is, however, a dispute about whether an individual city council member voicing his/her opinion that it would be in the best interest of Carmelites and the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea for City Administrator Rich Guillen to leave city employment constitutes “confidential information” acquired in closed sessions.
Regardless, since city council members have chosen not to publicly give their personal opinions and judgments about the future city employment of City Administrator Rich Guillen, it is incumbent on Carmelites to eventually hold them to the following standard, as described in the article, as follows:
“...once the negotiations are concluded fuller disclosure may occur so the public can hold its representatives accountable for the decisions made in closed session. Agency officials may collectively decide to routinely disclose such information at the appropriate time, in the spirit of transparency and the public interest.”
The article, “Closed Session Leaks: Discretion Is The Better Part of Valor — and Ethics,” October 2010, WESTERN City, THE MONTHLY MAGAZINE OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES, addresses a question about an elected official frequently disclosing information from closed session discussions.
COMMENT:
There is no dispute about the Brown Act specifically prohibiting the disclosure of confidential information acquired in closed sessions to a person or persons not entitled to receive it, “unless the legislative body authorizes disclosure of that confidential information” and the Courts decisions that elected officials do not have a “free-expression right” to share confidential information. There is, however, a dispute about whether an individual city council member voicing his/her opinion that it would be in the best interest of Carmelites and the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea for City Administrator Rich Guillen to leave city employment constitutes “confidential information” acquired in closed sessions.
Regardless, since city council members have chosen not to publicly give their personal opinions and judgments about the future city employment of City Administrator Rich Guillen, it is incumbent on Carmelites to eventually hold them to the following standard, as described in the article, as follows:
“...once the negotiations are concluded fuller disclosure may occur so the public can hold its representatives accountable for the decisions made in closed session. Agency officials may collectively decide to routinely disclose such information at the appropriate time, in the spirit of transparency and the public interest.”
Sunday, October 03, 2010
Two Noteworthy 5 October 2010 City Council Agenda Items
ABSTRACT: Two Noteworthy 5 October 2010 City Council Agenda Items, namely a request to amend Carmel Municipal Code Section 6.08.120 to allow for the keeping of chickens in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and Receive report and provide policy direction on options for the 2012 Municipal Election, are presented. Excerpts from Agenda Item Summaries and Staff Reports are provided.
AGENDA PACKET
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
4:30 p.m., Open Session
Live and Archived Video Streaming Available
City Hall
East side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues
XI. Orders of Council
A. Consideration of a request to amend Carmel Municipal Code Section 6.08.120 to allow for the keeping of chickens in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. The applicant is Anna Yateman.
Description: The applicant is requesting that the Municipal Code be amended to allow the keeping of chickens in the City. The applicant is requesting to keep two hens on her property.
Staff Recommendation: Deny the application.
Important Considerations: The City has not allowed the keeping of chickens within City limits since 1969. Allowing chickens could impact the residential character of the City and increase the workload of the animal control department.
Decision Record: The Planning Commission recommended that the City allow the keeping of chickens on 11 August 2010.
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AND BUILDING
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR MCCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: SEAN CONROY, PLNG & BLDG SERVICES MANAGER
DATE: 5 OCTOBER 2010
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO AMEND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 6.08.120 TO ALLOW FOR THE KEEPING OF CHICKENS IN THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA. THE APPLICANT IS ANNA YATEMAN
BACKGROUND & DESCRIPTION
Carmel Municipal Code (CMC) Section 6 establishes the City’s regulations regarding animals. Section 6.08.120, originally adopted in 1969, states the following:
“It is unlawful, and is declared a nuisance, for any person or persons to keep or cause to be kept any swine or barnyard fowl whatsoever within the corporate
limits of the City.”
The applicant is requesting permission to keep two hens on her property. Since the keeping of chickens is prohibited, the applicant is requesting that the municipal code be amended. The applicant is also requesting that the $420 application fee be waived.
EVALUATION
Process: Staff has not prepared an ordinance amendment for Council review at this time. If the Council determines that the Municipal Code should be amended, then staff would prepare a draft ordinance for review at a future hearing. If the Council determines that the Municipal Code should not be amended, no further action is required.
Planning Commission: On 11 August 2010 the Planning Commission recommended that the Council amend the Municipal Code to allow for the keeping of chickens. The Commission recommended the following requirements be included in any new ordinance amendment:
• Require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
• Limit it to the keeping of hens, not roosters
• Require all fowl to be maintained in an enclosure of chicken wire or other suitable material
• Establish a limit on the number of fowl on any one property
• Limit it to the R-1 District
Staff does not support amending the Municipal Code for the following reasons:
1) Residential Character: The City is predominately a residential village set in a forest. However, the rustic residential character does not equate to a rural setting. With small lots and minimal setbacks between dwellings, the neighborhoods are relatively dense for a single-family zone. One of the primary purposes of the current standards related to fowl is to avoid uses that are more appropriate for larger, rural lots. Allowing chickens could lead to requests to allow other barnyard fowl and/or swine, and could result in diminishing the residential character of the City.
2) Animal Control: Allowing chickens could attract more wild animals into the city, particularly raccoons. Raccoons already present a challenge to Carmel residents and pets, as they can be quite aggressive. If numerous residents began keeping chickens, this could result in an increase in the number of raccoons or other predators coming into the City.
The City has only one part-time animal control officer, who is already heavily burdened with animal control issues. Allowing the keeping of chickens would likely add to the enforcement burden on the City.
3) Public Health: If the City began allowing chickens, and numerous residents began keeping them, several public health concerns could arise. While staff has not performed a thorough public health analysis, some of the common health concerns related to the raising of chickens include:
• The transfer of bacteria, particularly Salmonella
• High levels of arsenic that can often be found in many types of chicken feed
• Potential water quality issues related to animal waste and storm water run-off
Other Communities: Some neighboring communities, including Monterey and Pacific Grove, do allow the keeping of chickens (see attached ordinances). While these communities have many small lots similar to Carmel, they also have many larger lots where the keeping of chickens may be more appropriate.
The Police Department did speak with an official with the City of Pacific Grove who indicated that they have had problems with predators, such as raccoons and skunks, attacking chickens. They have also had incidents of chickens either escaping from a particular property or being discarded by their owner, which creates additional animal control issues.
Fee Waiver: The applicant has requested that the City Council waive the application fee for this project. Staff does not support the fee waiver as there are costs involved in amending the Municipal Code. Costs include staff time for preparing a draft ordinance, public notices, staff reports, and other documents along with costs associated with publishing public notices and Municipal Code amendments. If the Council directs staff to prepare an ordinance for future review by the Council, staff recommends that the application fee be submitted prior to any further work on this project.
RECOMMENDATION
Deny the request to amend the Municipal Code.
ADDENDUM:
Links to other material included in Agenda Packet:
Chicken Run Rescue
C. 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 General Election.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: see staff report for cost estimates
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Provide staff direction.
Important Considerations: Contracting with the Monterey County Registrar’s office for election services for an April election is no longer a viable alternative due to significant increases in costs.
Decision Record: Council considered this item at its September 14, 2010 meeting. It was widely decided to continue this item so Council and the public could have more time to consider the various options.
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR MCCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: HEIDI BURCH, CITY CLERK
THROUGH: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: OCTOBER 5, 2010
SUBJECT: CITY ELECTIONS
INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND
The City has held its elections in April of even years since its incorporation in 1916. In the past, the City has contracted with the Monterey County Elections Department to conduct its elections. Significant cost increases, however, forced the City to conduct its own election in April 2010 rather than contracting with the County. The City contracted with Martin & Chapman to conduct its election, thereby saving the City between $28,000 and $40,000. (Because the County quotes varied greatly, savings by the City can only be placed in a range).
In reviewing the City’s 2010 election, the following items were noted:
The City would need to have at least one more experienced poll worker during the closing of the polls. Poll workers that had previously worked on County elections had been placed at the two precincts throughout the day. One precinct, however, did not have an experienced poll worker present for the closing of the polls. This would be remedied going forward as a number of former poll workers volunteered their services for the 2012 election.
The City’s use of volunteers to set up the polling places, post signage, work at the precincts from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m., close down the polls and reconcile votes placed saved the City thousands of dollars in costs previously charged by the County.
The results of the election were calculated significantly quicker than during the election in 2008. Results for the 2010 election were tabulated within 1.5 hours. The final results were available the next day. By law, the county has 28 days to conduct the canvass and determine the final results of an election.
City staff time to conduct the election did not increase significantly. City staff already had election duties when contracting with the County. The main additions to those duties in contracting with Martin & Chapman were the processing of the vote-by-the-mail ballots, which included the verification of signatures, and duties on the day of the election. Deputy City Clerk, Molly Laughlin, spent 25 hours and I spent 13 hours verifying signatures, photocopying ballots and supervising the polls.
As contracting with the County to conduct future elections in April is cost prohibitive, there are two remaining viable options for future Carmel-by-the-Sea elections. The City can continue to conduct its election in April of even years or change the election to November and consolidate with the General Election.
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, October 5, 2010
4:30 p.m., Open Session
Live and Archived Video Streaming Available
City Hall
East side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues
XI. Orders of Council
A. Consideration of a request to amend Carmel Municipal Code Section 6.08.120 to allow for the keeping of chickens in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. The applicant is Anna Yateman.
Description: The applicant is requesting that the Municipal Code be amended to allow the keeping of chickens in the City. The applicant is requesting to keep two hens on her property.
Staff Recommendation: Deny the application.
Important Considerations: The City has not allowed the keeping of chickens within City limits since 1969. Allowing chickens could impact the residential character of the City and increase the workload of the animal control department.
Decision Record: The Planning Commission recommended that the City allow the keeping of chickens on 11 August 2010.
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AND BUILDING
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR MCCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: SEAN CONROY, PLNG & BLDG SERVICES MANAGER
DATE: 5 OCTOBER 2010
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO AMEND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 6.08.120 TO ALLOW FOR THE KEEPING OF CHICKENS IN THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA. THE APPLICANT IS ANNA YATEMAN
BACKGROUND & DESCRIPTION
Carmel Municipal Code (CMC) Section 6 establishes the City’s regulations regarding animals. Section 6.08.120, originally adopted in 1969, states the following:
“It is unlawful, and is declared a nuisance, for any person or persons to keep or cause to be kept any swine or barnyard fowl whatsoever within the corporate
limits of the City.”
The applicant is requesting permission to keep two hens on her property. Since the keeping of chickens is prohibited, the applicant is requesting that the municipal code be amended. The applicant is also requesting that the $420 application fee be waived.
EVALUATION
Process: Staff has not prepared an ordinance amendment for Council review at this time. If the Council determines that the Municipal Code should be amended, then staff would prepare a draft ordinance for review at a future hearing. If the Council determines that the Municipal Code should not be amended, no further action is required.
Planning Commission: On 11 August 2010 the Planning Commission recommended that the Council amend the Municipal Code to allow for the keeping of chickens. The Commission recommended the following requirements be included in any new ordinance amendment:
• Require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
• Limit it to the keeping of hens, not roosters
• Require all fowl to be maintained in an enclosure of chicken wire or other suitable material
• Establish a limit on the number of fowl on any one property
• Limit it to the R-1 District
Staff does not support amending the Municipal Code for the following reasons:
1) Residential Character: The City is predominately a residential village set in a forest. However, the rustic residential character does not equate to a rural setting. With small lots and minimal setbacks between dwellings, the neighborhoods are relatively dense for a single-family zone. One of the primary purposes of the current standards related to fowl is to avoid uses that are more appropriate for larger, rural lots. Allowing chickens could lead to requests to allow other barnyard fowl and/or swine, and could result in diminishing the residential character of the City.
2) Animal Control: Allowing chickens could attract more wild animals into the city, particularly raccoons. Raccoons already present a challenge to Carmel residents and pets, as they can be quite aggressive. If numerous residents began keeping chickens, this could result in an increase in the number of raccoons or other predators coming into the City.
The City has only one part-time animal control officer, who is already heavily burdened with animal control issues. Allowing the keeping of chickens would likely add to the enforcement burden on the City.
3) Public Health: If the City began allowing chickens, and numerous residents began keeping them, several public health concerns could arise. While staff has not performed a thorough public health analysis, some of the common health concerns related to the raising of chickens include:
• The transfer of bacteria, particularly Salmonella
• High levels of arsenic that can often be found in many types of chicken feed
• Potential water quality issues related to animal waste and storm water run-off
Other Communities: Some neighboring communities, including Monterey and Pacific Grove, do allow the keeping of chickens (see attached ordinances). While these communities have many small lots similar to Carmel, they also have many larger lots where the keeping of chickens may be more appropriate.
The Police Department did speak with an official with the City of Pacific Grove who indicated that they have had problems with predators, such as raccoons and skunks, attacking chickens. They have also had incidents of chickens either escaping from a particular property or being discarded by their owner, which creates additional animal control issues.
Fee Waiver: The applicant has requested that the City Council waive the application fee for this project. Staff does not support the fee waiver as there are costs involved in amending the Municipal Code. Costs include staff time for preparing a draft ordinance, public notices, staff reports, and other documents along with costs associated with publishing public notices and Municipal Code amendments. If the Council directs staff to prepare an ordinance for future review by the Council, staff recommends that the application fee be submitted prior to any further work on this project.
RECOMMENDATION
Deny the request to amend the Municipal Code.
ADDENDUM:
Links to other material included in Agenda Packet:
Chicken Run Rescue
C. 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 General Election.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: see staff report for cost estimates
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Provide staff direction.
Important Considerations: Contracting with the Monterey County Registrar’s office for election services for an April election is no longer a viable alternative due to significant increases in costs.
Decision Record: Council considered this item at its September 14, 2010 meeting. It was widely decided to continue this item so Council and the public could have more time to consider the various options.
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR MCCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: HEIDI BURCH, CITY CLERK
THROUGH: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: OCTOBER 5, 2010
SUBJECT: CITY ELECTIONS
INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND
The City has held its elections in April of even years since its incorporation in 1916. In the past, the City has contracted with the Monterey County Elections Department to conduct its elections. Significant cost increases, however, forced the City to conduct its own election in April 2010 rather than contracting with the County. The City contracted with Martin & Chapman to conduct its election, thereby saving the City between $28,000 and $40,000. (Because the County quotes varied greatly, savings by the City can only be placed in a range).
In reviewing the City’s 2010 election, the following items were noted:
The City would need to have at least one more experienced poll worker during the closing of the polls. Poll workers that had previously worked on County elections had been placed at the two precincts throughout the day. One precinct, however, did not have an experienced poll worker present for the closing of the polls. This would be remedied going forward as a number of former poll workers volunteered their services for the 2012 election.
The City’s use of volunteers to set up the polling places, post signage, work at the precincts from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m., close down the polls and reconcile votes placed saved the City thousands of dollars in costs previously charged by the County.
The results of the election were calculated significantly quicker than during the election in 2008. Results for the 2010 election were tabulated within 1.5 hours. The final results were available the next day. By law, the county has 28 days to conduct the canvass and determine the final results of an election.
City staff time to conduct the election did not increase significantly. City staff already had election duties when contracting with the County. The main additions to those duties in contracting with Martin & Chapman were the processing of the vote-by-the-mail ballots, which included the verification of signatures, and duties on the day of the election. Deputy City Clerk, Molly Laughlin, spent 25 hours and I spent 13 hours verifying signatures, photocopying ballots and supervising the polls.
As contracting with the County to conduct future elections in April is cost prohibitive, there are two remaining viable options for future Carmel-by-the-Sea elections. The City can continue to conduct its election in April of even years or change the election to November and consolidate with the General Election.
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)