UPDATE:
Letters: Clearing air around editorial
Deborah Mall and Don Freeman
Editor's note: Mall is the Monterey city attorney and Freeman is the city attorney for Carmel and Seaside
The Monterey County Herald, 08/07/2011
HIGHLIGHTS:
• Relative to the CDO (Cease and Desist Order, State Water Resources Control Board) mediation, outside counsel Russ McGlothlin of Brownstein Hyatt Farber and Schreck prepared a confidentiality and nondisclosure agreement for signature. Signatories were advised by city attorneys Deborah Mall and Don Freeman that the nondisclosure agreement and all pertinent documents were subject to the Public Records Act.
Note: City of Carmel-by-the-Sea July 2011 Check Register
122748 7/28/2011 BROWNSTEIN/HYATT/FARBER/SCHRECK $6,584.41
• Michael Stamp made a Public Records Act request to the cities for a copy of the nondisclosure agreement. Freeman sent a letter and copy of the nondisclosure agreement to Stamp on July 28 advising that Freeman was responding on behalf of the mayors of Carmel, Del Rey Oaks, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Seaside and Sand City.
City Council
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
4:30 p.m., Open Session
Video streaming
V. Announcements from Closed Session, from City Council Members and the City Administrator.
B. Announcements from City Council members (Council members may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement or report on his or her activities).
City Council Member Jason Burnett’s Queries regarding Confidentiality & Nondisclosure Agreement to City Attorney Don Freeman:
City Council Member Jason Burnett: An individual council member or mayor cannot bind the other council members to the agreement.
City Attorney Don Freeman: That's correct.
Council Member Jason Burnett: An individual council member or mayor cannot unilaterally create a liability by signing a document of that sort saying that if certain things happen, the city would be liable.
City Attorney Don Freeman: That's correct, unless authorized by the City Council to do so.
Council Member Jason Burnett: And, in this case it was not authorized by the City Council.
City Attorney Don Freeman: That's correct.
(City Council Meeting Video 15:25 – 16:15)
VI. Public Appearances
Adam Moniz’s Questions of City Attorney and City Council Members regarding Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Agreement and ended by advocating for “openness and transparency” in city government.
1. As the city attorney, did you or did you not advise Mayor McCloud to execute the Confidentiality Agreement?
2. As city council members, is it your understanding that you are bound by the Confidentiality Agreement? Why or why not?
3. As reported by The Monterey County Herald, City Attorney Don Freeman suggested mayors not take the Agreement back to their respective cities, is that true?
4. As a general law city and as city attorney, where does the mayor derive his/her authority too bind his/her city to an Agreement without city council authorization?
5. As city attorney, how did you envision the other five cities complying with the terms and conditions of the Agreement without a copy of the Confidentiality Agreement?
No Responses from City Attorney or City Council Members to Adam Moniz’s Questions.
(City Council Meeting Video 00:54:45)
Editorial: Secrecy puts desal project in deep hole
The Monterey County Herald 08/03/2011
HIGHLIGHTS:
• City officials not only gagged themselves but also mounted a poorly conceived and haplessly executed effort to keep the formal confidentiality agreement confidential.
• What makes it all even more remarkable is that the secret had already gotten out, quite publicly. Stamp made his written request for the agreement on July 22, two weeks after Dale Hekhuis, former chairman of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, complained about the confidentiality agreement in a letter to the editor that was published in The Herald on July 8.
• We said from the start and still believe that failure to involve the bill-paying public has been the desalination project's biggest failing. If the venture is to be saved, the cone of silence must be lifted and soon. If the cities are to play any role in advancing this project, the mayors need to tear up their agreement and ask for the public's forgiveness and assistance.
Mayors agree not to talk desal
Confidentiality deal not reviewed by city councils
By JIM JOHNSON Herald staff writer, 08/02/2011
HIGHLIGHTS:
• A 90-day confidentiality agreement banning Peninsula mayors, city officials and staff from publicly discussing the embattled regional seawater desalination project was kept largely secret itself, perhaps in violation of state public records law.
• The agreement, written by attorney Don Freeman — legal counsel to Carmel and Seaside, was introduced and signed by six Peninsula mayors, as well as city managers and city attorneys, and California American Water officials, then handed to Freeman for safekeeping, said Monterey Mayor Chuck Della Sala.
• Stamp said the mayors' actions are "particularly offensive" given the importance of the desal project and the public right to be kept apprised of developments.
"They completely shut down political debate and then played hot potato (with the agreement)," Stamp said. "This was a gag order on every city council member and every city employee. It was an official act of the city. I don't think the public should have to guess who has it."
• In releasing the agreements, Freeman wrote that the mayors were not agreeing they were public documents but were providing them in the "interest of public transparency."
• Stamp said he has yet to receive any documents, which he requested, showing how the agreement was proposed and acted on, and authorized, as well as the mayors' authority to impose the terms of the agreement on city officials and staff.
Thursday, August 04, 2011
Carmel Art Association Presents SPECIAL SHOW ‘NOW & THEN: 84 YEARS OF WATERCOLOR’
Carmel Art Association presents 84 years of perspective in new watercolor exhibit opening this weekend
By LISA CRAWFORD WATSON Herald Correspondent, 08/04/2011
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 SPECIAL SHOW ‘NOW & THEN: 84 YEARS OF WATERCOLOR’
Thursday, August 4, 2011– September 7, 2011
SPECIAL SHOW “NOW & THEN: 84 YEARS OF WATERCOLOR (Beardsley Room):
The Carmel Art Association presents a special watercolor show featuring past and present artist members’ works; featured watercolors by legendary artists Sam Colburn, Victor DiGesu, Percy Gray, Armin Hansen, Nancy Johnson, Jo Mora, Mary DeNeale Morgan, Edgar Payne, Joan Savo, Donald Teague, James Vance and current Carmel Art Association artist members, including Dick Crispo, Miguel Dominguez, Mark Farina, Peggy Jelmini, Alicia Meheen and Wilda Northrop. A portion of the proceeds from the sale of past members’ work will benefit the Carmel Art Association.
Opening Reception - Saturday, August 6, 6:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M.
ADDENDUM:
Wednesday, August 25 @ 7:00 P.M.
Painter Dick Crispo presents the history of the “Watercolorists of the Carmel Art Association, Past & Present”.
Week-long Silent Auction & Annual Summer BBQ
Silent Auction: Saturday, August 13 – Saturday, August 20
Summer BBQ Grilled tri-tip, hot dogs and hamburgers, soft drink for $5.00/ticket available at the BBQ: Saturday, August 20, 11:00 A.M. – 1:00 P.M.
Live Auction: Saturday, August 20, 2:00 P.M.
By LISA CRAWFORD WATSON Herald Correspondent, 08/04/2011
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 SPECIAL SHOW ‘NOW & THEN: 84 YEARS OF WATERCOLOR’
Thursday, August 4, 2011– September 7, 2011
SPECIAL SHOW “NOW & THEN: 84 YEARS OF WATERCOLOR (Beardsley Room):
The Carmel Art Association presents a special watercolor show featuring past and present artist members’ works; featured watercolors by legendary artists Sam Colburn, Victor DiGesu, Percy Gray, Armin Hansen, Nancy Johnson, Jo Mora, Mary DeNeale Morgan, Edgar Payne, Joan Savo, Donald Teague, James Vance and current Carmel Art Association artist members, including Dick Crispo, Miguel Dominguez, Mark Farina, Peggy Jelmini, Alicia Meheen and Wilda Northrop. A portion of the proceeds from the sale of past members’ work will benefit the Carmel Art Association.
Opening Reception - Saturday, August 6, 6:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M.
ADDENDUM:
Wednesday, August 25 @ 7:00 P.M.
Painter Dick Crispo presents the history of the “Watercolorists of the Carmel Art Association, Past & Present”.
Week-long Silent Auction & Annual Summer BBQ
Silent Auction: Saturday, August 13 – Saturday, August 20
Summer BBQ Grilled tri-tip, hot dogs and hamburgers, soft drink for $5.00/ticket available at the BBQ: Saturday, August 20, 11:00 A.M. – 1:00 P.M.
Live Auction: Saturday, August 20, 2:00 P.M.
Wednesday, August 03, 2011
‘MINUTES’ for One Noteworthy 1 August 2011 City Council Closed Session Agenda Item & Three Noteworthy 2 August 2011 City Council Agenda Items
“MINUTES”
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Archived Video Streaming
City Hall
East side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues
II. Roll Call
PRESENT: Council Members Burnett, Hazdovac, Sharp, Talmage, and Mayor McCloud
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT (partial list): John Goss, Interim City Administrator
Heidi Burch, Assistant City Clerk
Don Freeman, City Attorney
Marc Wiener, Associate Planner
Andrew Miller, Fire Chief
V. Announcements from Closed Session, from City Council Members and the City Administrator.
A. Announcements from Closed Session.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956 et seq. of the State of California, the City Council will adjourn to Closed Session to consider the following:
1. Labor Negotiations – Gov’t. Code Section 54957.6(a) Meet and confer with the Carmel-by-the-Sea’s Meyers-Milias Brown Act representative, Interim City Administrator Goss, to give direction regarding labor negotiations with the International Association of Firefighters, Carmel-by-the-Sea Police Officers Association, and LIUNA/UPEC Local 792.
Mayor McCloud announced there were no public announcements regarding the aforementioned agenda item.
C. Announcements from City Administrator.
4. Update on provision of fire services.
Interim City Administrator John Goss stated it his intention to provide a report on fire services at the next City Council meeting.
VIII. Public Hearings
A. Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve Design Study, Demolition Permit and Coastal Development Permit applications for the construction of a new residence located on Mission Street 2 NW of 11th Avenue. The property owner is Domicile Properties, LLC. The appellant is Sherrie Spendlove Gallo, joined by three other neighbors. (Continued from July.)
Associate Planner Marc Wiener presented the staff report, including staff recommendation to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s unanimous approval and answered questions from council members.
Sherrie Spendlove, the appellant, and the neighbor who lives directly to the north of the subject property, stated her concerns regarding proposed garage location, safety issues and view issues.
Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment.
Jerry Case, architect for the project, stated he worked closely with staff on this project. The residence is “not massive” and the garage located on the front setback is the only way to place the residence on the property with existing trees.
Ron Kabat, CPA, asked why the City would allow a limited liability company to come into a residential area and attributed changes in residential neighborhoods to the existence of limited liability companies in the residential area.
Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment.
Council Member Hazdovac advocated for moving garage back from the street.
Council Member Sharp mentioned possibility of removal of the pittosporum tree.
Council Member Talmage stated he opposed placing garages on the front setback as a former planning commissioner based on safety considerations.
Mayor McCloud advocated for moving garage back six feet from street.
Council Member Burnett advocated for moving garage back by giving client and architect discretion about garage location back between three feet to six feet.
Council Member BURNETT moved to approve the project with stipulation that garage be moved back at least three feet and recommend Planning Commission grant a variance if required, seconded by Council Member TALMAGE.
Mayor McCLOUD made a substitute motion to move back garage and attach garage to the residence, seconded by Council Member HAZDOVAC (later withdrawn).
Council Member TALMAGE made a substitute motion to move back garage a maximum allowed by the fire code and a minimum of three feet, whichever is greater, seconded by Council Member BURNETT, 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
X. Resolutions
B. Consideration of a Resolution to adopt a Fire Department Emergency Medical Service Fee.
Interim City Administrator John Goss presented the staff report, emphasizing general tax dollars should not be required to support ambulance transport services, the response to emergency medical calls by the Fire Department also should not be subsidized by general tax dollars and a different business model to support services. In response to Council Member Sharp, Goss stated that contracting with either the City of Monterey or CalFire would not affect Emergency Medical Service Fee, if adopted. In response to Council Member Burnett, Goss stated that there is no evidence that Fee would discourage emergency medical calls. In response to Mayor McCloud, Goss stated that the use of a collection agency is very valuable.
Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment.
Carolyn Hardy spoke of her concern about individuals who might hesitate to make a call and the need to resolve fire protection service solution and ambulance solution prior to approving EMS Fee.
Bill Hill, former Carmel Fire Chief, spoke of his concerns about “fear factor” in elderly individuals not calling 911 and the lack of “nuisance calls.” He questioned $300/call charge. He stated that adopting Fee would add to the “fear factor.”
Dick Stiles, representing the Board of Directors of the Carmel Residents Association, advocated the Council vote “no” on the Fee. As an individual, he stated that expected revenue of about $40,000 is not worth putting health and safety of residents at risk.
Pat Sipple stated she did not think the EMS Fee was a good idea: that a EMS Fee is “not what we are about.”
Robin Hamelin, CalFire Battalion Chief, stated the EMS Fee is the wrong way to go and the City has the “cart before the horse.”
Ken Hutchinson, Vice President, Carmel Professional Firefighters, stated that the Carmel Professional Firefighters do not feel this EMS Fee is the "right fit for Carmel-by-the-Sea at this time and under the current conditions."
Ron Kabat inquired which one of the council members will potentially have to face the widow or widower of a person who died because they did not call the ambulance.
Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment.
Interim City Administrator John Goss addressed the “fear factor,” structuring the EMS Fee, EMS Fee as part of a contract with Monterey or CalFire, insurance, $300/call Fee charge and “a different business model.”
Council Member Talmage addressed “a different business model;” the ambulance service costs the City $200,000/year for six highly trained personnel and $400,000 from third-party reimbursements. How do third-party reimbursements pay for this service, i.e., how to maximize payments from non-residents? This EMS Fee “does not work” for him.
Council Member Burnett stated the City is not moving forward with the EMS Fee in its current form and a desire to shift costs to non-residents like the ambulance service charging a higher fee for non-residents.
Interim City Administrator John Goss stated ambulance concept of service outside of Carmel, charge county rate, service within Carmel-by-the-Sea, charge discounted rate. Why not have County rate front-end and discounted rate rear –end for reimbursement purposes?
Council Member Sharp requested another agenda item next month.
Council Member Hazdovac stated that ambulance service and fire service should be determined prior to EMS Fee consideration. She observed that there was no public support because of “fear factor.”
Council Member Talmage requested Interim City Administrator John Goss address ambulance billing and discounting issues at next month’s city council meeting.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Archived Video Streaming
City Hall
East side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues
II. Roll Call
PRESENT: Council Members Burnett, Hazdovac, Sharp, Talmage, and Mayor McCloud
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT (partial list): John Goss, Interim City Administrator
Heidi Burch, Assistant City Clerk
Don Freeman, City Attorney
Marc Wiener, Associate Planner
Andrew Miller, Fire Chief
V. Announcements from Closed Session, from City Council Members and the City Administrator.
A. Announcements from Closed Session.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956 et seq. of the State of California, the City Council will adjourn to Closed Session to consider the following:
1. Labor Negotiations – Gov’t. Code Section 54957.6(a) Meet and confer with the Carmel-by-the-Sea’s Meyers-Milias Brown Act representative, Interim City Administrator Goss, to give direction regarding labor negotiations with the International Association of Firefighters, Carmel-by-the-Sea Police Officers Association, and LIUNA/UPEC Local 792.
Mayor McCloud announced there were no public announcements regarding the aforementioned agenda item.
C. Announcements from City Administrator.
4. Update on provision of fire services.
Interim City Administrator John Goss stated it his intention to provide a report on fire services at the next City Council meeting.
VIII. Public Hearings
A. Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve Design Study, Demolition Permit and Coastal Development Permit applications for the construction of a new residence located on Mission Street 2 NW of 11th Avenue. The property owner is Domicile Properties, LLC. The appellant is Sherrie Spendlove Gallo, joined by three other neighbors. (Continued from July.)
Associate Planner Marc Wiener presented the staff report, including staff recommendation to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s unanimous approval and answered questions from council members.
Sherrie Spendlove, the appellant, and the neighbor who lives directly to the north of the subject property, stated her concerns regarding proposed garage location, safety issues and view issues.
Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment.
Jerry Case, architect for the project, stated he worked closely with staff on this project. The residence is “not massive” and the garage located on the front setback is the only way to place the residence on the property with existing trees.
Ron Kabat, CPA, asked why the City would allow a limited liability company to come into a residential area and attributed changes in residential neighborhoods to the existence of limited liability companies in the residential area.
Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment.
Council Member Hazdovac advocated for moving garage back from the street.
Council Member Sharp mentioned possibility of removal of the pittosporum tree.
Council Member Talmage stated he opposed placing garages on the front setback as a former planning commissioner based on safety considerations.
Mayor McCloud advocated for moving garage back six feet from street.
Council Member Burnett advocated for moving garage back by giving client and architect discretion about garage location back between three feet to six feet.
Council Member BURNETT moved to approve the project with stipulation that garage be moved back at least three feet and recommend Planning Commission grant a variance if required, seconded by Council Member TALMAGE.
Mayor McCLOUD made a substitute motion to move back garage and attach garage to the residence, seconded by Council Member HAZDOVAC (later withdrawn).
Council Member TALMAGE made a substitute motion to move back garage a maximum allowed by the fire code and a minimum of three feet, whichever is greater, seconded by Council Member BURNETT, 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
X. Resolutions
B. Consideration of a Resolution to adopt a Fire Department Emergency Medical Service Fee.
Interim City Administrator John Goss presented the staff report, emphasizing general tax dollars should not be required to support ambulance transport services, the response to emergency medical calls by the Fire Department also should not be subsidized by general tax dollars and a different business model to support services. In response to Council Member Sharp, Goss stated that contracting with either the City of Monterey or CalFire would not affect Emergency Medical Service Fee, if adopted. In response to Council Member Burnett, Goss stated that there is no evidence that Fee would discourage emergency medical calls. In response to Mayor McCloud, Goss stated that the use of a collection agency is very valuable.
Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment.
Carolyn Hardy spoke of her concern about individuals who might hesitate to make a call and the need to resolve fire protection service solution and ambulance solution prior to approving EMS Fee.
Bill Hill, former Carmel Fire Chief, spoke of his concerns about “fear factor” in elderly individuals not calling 911 and the lack of “nuisance calls.” He questioned $300/call charge. He stated that adopting Fee would add to the “fear factor.”
Dick Stiles, representing the Board of Directors of the Carmel Residents Association, advocated the Council vote “no” on the Fee. As an individual, he stated that expected revenue of about $40,000 is not worth putting health and safety of residents at risk.
Pat Sipple stated she did not think the EMS Fee was a good idea: that a EMS Fee is “not what we are about.”
Robin Hamelin, CalFire Battalion Chief, stated the EMS Fee is the wrong way to go and the City has the “cart before the horse.”
Ken Hutchinson, Vice President, Carmel Professional Firefighters, stated that the Carmel Professional Firefighters do not feel this EMS Fee is the "right fit for Carmel-by-the-Sea at this time and under the current conditions."
Ron Kabat inquired which one of the council members will potentially have to face the widow or widower of a person who died because they did not call the ambulance.
Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment.
Interim City Administrator John Goss addressed the “fear factor,” structuring the EMS Fee, EMS Fee as part of a contract with Monterey or CalFire, insurance, $300/call Fee charge and “a different business model.”
Council Member Talmage addressed “a different business model;” the ambulance service costs the City $200,000/year for six highly trained personnel and $400,000 from third-party reimbursements. How do third-party reimbursements pay for this service, i.e., how to maximize payments from non-residents? This EMS Fee “does not work” for him.
Council Member Burnett stated the City is not moving forward with the EMS Fee in its current form and a desire to shift costs to non-residents like the ambulance service charging a higher fee for non-residents.
Interim City Administrator John Goss stated ambulance concept of service outside of Carmel, charge county rate, service within Carmel-by-the-Sea, charge discounted rate. Why not have County rate front-end and discounted rate rear –end for reimbursement purposes?
Council Member Sharp requested another agenda item next month.
Council Member Hazdovac stated that ambulance service and fire service should be determined prior to EMS Fee consideration. She observed that there was no public support because of “fear factor.”
Council Member Talmage requested Interim City Administrator John Goss address ambulance billing and discounting issues at next month’s city council meeting.
Tuesday, August 02, 2011
CONFIDENTIALITY AND NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT regarding the Regional Seawater Desalination Project
Editorial: Secrecy puts desal project in deep hole
The Monterey County Herald 08/03/2011
ABSTRACT: CONFIDENTIALITY AND NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT regarding the Regional Desalination Project, dated and entered into as of June 17, 2011 by and between the Mayors of the Cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Sand City and Seaside “for the purpose of binding each Mayor executing this Agreement, the respective City represented by each Mayor, and the staff of each respective City, to the terms of this Agreement,” is embedded. The signatory parties include, but not limited to, City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Mayor, Sue McCloud; City of Del Rey Oaks Mayor, Jerry Edelen; Monterey Mayor, Chuck Della Sala; Pacific Grove Mayor, Carmelita Garcia; City of Sand City Mayor, David Pendergrass; and City of Seaside Mayor, Felix Bachofner and respective city managers. The existence of the AGREEMENT became known to the public after attorney Michael Stamp, representing The Open Monterey Project, filed public records requests for the agreements and Carmel-by-the Sea City Attorney Don Freeman decided to release the AGREEMENT last week. Although the AGREEMENT has been made public, attorney Michael Stamp stated that “he has yet to receive any document, which he requested, showing how the agreement was proposed and acted on, and authorized, as well as the mayors’ authority to impose the terms of the agreement on city officials and staff,” according to reporting in The Monterey County Herald, 2 August 2011. Attorney Michael Stamp, in a BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE (COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE SIERRA CLUB, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, Respondent. COUNTY OF ORANGE, Real Party in Interest), wrote, as follows: “The California Constitution guarantees that access to government information is a fundamental right” and “Under the California Public Records Act, the Legislature and the Courts consistently have declared the importance of the right of public access and meaningful public participation in local government. Those rights are fundamental and essential to open government and to the democratic process itself.”
Note: The Open Monterey Project, “an unincorporated nonprofit association active in environmental and open government matters in Monterey County and throughout California” was established in 2002 and “has taken a leading role in promoting the California Public Records Act (CPRA) in several cases and in public educational efforts.”
CONFIDENTIALITY AND NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT
CONFIDENTIALITY AND NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT
(courtesy of Monterey County Weekly)
HIGHLIGHTS:
CONFIDENTIALITY AND NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT, dated and entered into as of June 17, 2011 by and between the Mayors of the Cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Sand City and Seaside for the purpose of binding each Mayor executing this Agreement, the respective City represented by each Mayor, and the staff of each respective City, to the terms of this Agreement.
The Cities are engaged with the governance and oversight over the Project as constituents of the Municipal Advisor that is a non-voting member of the Advisory Committee, which is the governing body for the Project.
Various recent developments have raised questions concerning the Project’s timing and feasibility (including financial feasibility). These developments include a pending lawsuit filed against the Project filed by the Ag land Trust, and investigations into the approval of the Project by MCWRA in light of a possible conflict of interest by one of its Directors.
Because of these recent developments the Cities desire to communicate openly among themselves about how these matters affect the Project or an equivalent alternative project, the adequacy and effectiveness of the present Project governance, and related concerns for Project timing to meet critical water supply deadlines set forth in the CDO. Given the various present uncertainties, including the pending lawsuit and the investigations referenced above, it is important that the Cities’ communications concerning the Project be kept confidential for the immediate future.
AGREEMENT
Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to provide assurances that the Confidential Information disclosed hereunder will be kept confidential by the Cities and their respective Mayors and staff during the Period of Confidentiality.
Period of Confidentiality. The Period of Confidentiality shall extend from the Effective Date for an initial period of ninety (90) days, which may be extended or shortened by unanimous written agreement of the Mayors.
Term. This Agreement shall remain in effect for one (1) year from the Effective Date.
Press Comments for the Mayors
The six Peninsula Mayors have had initial discussions regarding the recent revelations surrounding the Regional Project. The Mayors are disappointed by the issues associated with Mr. Collins and his actions that potentially threaten the validity of the RMC project management contract and the Water Purchase Agreement. The Mayors remain unanimous in their support of the Regional Project as the only project far enough along in its conceptual/technical development that it has the potential to provide water in time to avert the draconian economic impacts associated with the Cease and Desist order, scheduled to go into effect December 31, 2016.
The Mayors await the investigative finding s to determine the appropriate next steps, on the part of the cities, to ensure that a reliable and timely water supply for the peninsula is put in place. The Mayors are aware of the other potential water project concepts that are being discussed and encourage the responsible agencies to continue development of theses concepts. The Mayors completely understand and are focused on the critical need for a new, sustainable and reliable water supply to be developed for the Monterey Peninsula, so that the Peninsula can maintain economic viability.
Related News Articles:
News Blog
Mayors Sign Confidentiality Agreement On Regional Desal Project
By Kera.Abraham
July 29, 2011
Mayors agree not to talk desal
Confidentiality deal not reviewed by city councils
By JIM JOHNSON Herald staff writer 08/02/2011
The Monterey County Herald 08/03/2011
ABSTRACT: CONFIDENTIALITY AND NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT regarding the Regional Desalination Project, dated and entered into as of June 17, 2011 by and between the Mayors of the Cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Sand City and Seaside “for the purpose of binding each Mayor executing this Agreement, the respective City represented by each Mayor, and the staff of each respective City, to the terms of this Agreement,” is embedded. The signatory parties include, but not limited to, City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Mayor, Sue McCloud; City of Del Rey Oaks Mayor, Jerry Edelen; Monterey Mayor, Chuck Della Sala; Pacific Grove Mayor, Carmelita Garcia; City of Sand City Mayor, David Pendergrass; and City of Seaside Mayor, Felix Bachofner and respective city managers. The existence of the AGREEMENT became known to the public after attorney Michael Stamp, representing The Open Monterey Project, filed public records requests for the agreements and Carmel-by-the Sea City Attorney Don Freeman decided to release the AGREEMENT last week. Although the AGREEMENT has been made public, attorney Michael Stamp stated that “he has yet to receive any document, which he requested, showing how the agreement was proposed and acted on, and authorized, as well as the mayors’ authority to impose the terms of the agreement on city officials and staff,” according to reporting in The Monterey County Herald, 2 August 2011. Attorney Michael Stamp, in a BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE (COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE SIERRA CLUB, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, Respondent. COUNTY OF ORANGE, Real Party in Interest), wrote, as follows: “The California Constitution guarantees that access to government information is a fundamental right” and “Under the California Public Records Act, the Legislature and the Courts consistently have declared the importance of the right of public access and meaningful public participation in local government. Those rights are fundamental and essential to open government and to the democratic process itself.”
Note: The Open Monterey Project, “an unincorporated nonprofit association active in environmental and open government matters in Monterey County and throughout California” was established in 2002 and “has taken a leading role in promoting the California Public Records Act (CPRA) in several cases and in public educational efforts.”
CONFIDENTIALITY AND NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT
CONFIDENTIALITY AND NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT
(courtesy of Monterey County Weekly)
HIGHLIGHTS:
CONFIDENTIALITY AND NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT, dated and entered into as of June 17, 2011 by and between the Mayors of the Cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Sand City and Seaside for the purpose of binding each Mayor executing this Agreement, the respective City represented by each Mayor, and the staff of each respective City, to the terms of this Agreement.
The Cities are engaged with the governance and oversight over the Project as constituents of the Municipal Advisor that is a non-voting member of the Advisory Committee, which is the governing body for the Project.
Various recent developments have raised questions concerning the Project’s timing and feasibility (including financial feasibility). These developments include a pending lawsuit filed against the Project filed by the Ag land Trust, and investigations into the approval of the Project by MCWRA in light of a possible conflict of interest by one of its Directors.
Because of these recent developments the Cities desire to communicate openly among themselves about how these matters affect the Project or an equivalent alternative project, the adequacy and effectiveness of the present Project governance, and related concerns for Project timing to meet critical water supply deadlines set forth in the CDO. Given the various present uncertainties, including the pending lawsuit and the investigations referenced above, it is important that the Cities’ communications concerning the Project be kept confidential for the immediate future.
AGREEMENT
Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to provide assurances that the Confidential Information disclosed hereunder will be kept confidential by the Cities and their respective Mayors and staff during the Period of Confidentiality.
Period of Confidentiality. The Period of Confidentiality shall extend from the Effective Date for an initial period of ninety (90) days, which may be extended or shortened by unanimous written agreement of the Mayors.
Term. This Agreement shall remain in effect for one (1) year from the Effective Date.
Press Comments for the Mayors
The six Peninsula Mayors have had initial discussions regarding the recent revelations surrounding the Regional Project. The Mayors are disappointed by the issues associated with Mr. Collins and his actions that potentially threaten the validity of the RMC project management contract and the Water Purchase Agreement. The Mayors remain unanimous in their support of the Regional Project as the only project far enough along in its conceptual/technical development that it has the potential to provide water in time to avert the draconian economic impacts associated with the Cease and Desist order, scheduled to go into effect December 31, 2016.
The Mayors await the investigative finding s to determine the appropriate next steps, on the part of the cities, to ensure that a reliable and timely water supply for the peninsula is put in place. The Mayors are aware of the other potential water project concepts that are being discussed and encourage the responsible agencies to continue development of theses concepts. The Mayors completely understand and are focused on the critical need for a new, sustainable and reliable water supply to be developed for the Monterey Peninsula, so that the Peninsula can maintain economic viability.
Related News Articles:
News Blog
Mayors Sign Confidentiality Agreement On Regional Desal Project
By Kera.Abraham
July 29, 2011
Mayors agree not to talk desal
Confidentiality deal not reviewed by city councils
By JIM JOHNSON Herald staff writer 08/02/2011
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Monterey County Planning Commission, Villas de Carmelo: Planning Commission to Consider Rescinding its June 29, 2011 Motion to Continue Hearing on the Application for a Combined Development Permit and if Rescinded Consider Making a Recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on the Combined Development Permit
Carmel condos win back review
Plan to include moderate-income units passes muster with planners
By JIM JOHNSON Herald Staff Writer 08/04/2011
ABSTRACT: On Wednesday, August 10, 2011 at 10:00 A.M., Monterey County Board of Supervisors Chambers, County Government Center, 168 West Alisal St., Salinas, the Monterey County Planning Commission will conduct a Public Hearing to consider rescinding its June 29, 2011 motion to continue hearing on the application for a Combined Development Permit and if rescinded consider making a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on the Combined Development Permit. The Notice of Public Hearing is reproduced.
Notice of Public Hearing
Monterey County Planning Commission
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Monterey County Planning Commission, State of California will hold a Public Hearing to consider the actions described below. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, August 10, 2011 at the hour of 10:00 a.m. in the Monterey County Board of Supervisors Chambers, County Government Center, 168 West Alisal St, Salinas, California, at which time and place any and all interested persons may appear and be heard thereon.
Owner: RIGOULETTE LLC (VILLAS DE CARMELO)
Project File No: PLN070497
Project Location: Northwest corner of Highway One and Valley Way
Permit Type: Local Coastal Program amendments and Combined Development Permit
Environmental Status: Environmental Impact Report
Project Description:
1) The Planning commission will consider making a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on Local Coastal Program (LCP) amendments for the former Carmel Convalescent Hospital site, generally located at the northwest corner of Highway One and Valley Way. The amendments generally consist of amendments to the Carmel Area Land Use Plan to change the land use designation from Medium Density Residential, two units per acre (MDR/2) to High Density Residential, 12.5 units per acre (HDR/12.5) and amendments to the Monterey County Coastal Implementation Plan, Part 4 (Regulations for Development in the Carmel Area Land Use Plan) (Chapter 20.146) to allow high-density residential development on the site;
2) The Planning Commission will consider rescinding its June 29, 2011 motion to continue the hearing on the application for a Combined Development Permit (PLN070497/Rigoulete, LLC (Villas de Carmelo)). The Combined Development Permit includes:
1) a Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide 3.68 acres into 46 condominium parcels and common open space;
2) Coastal Development Permit to convert the former convalescent hospital into nine condominium units with underground parking, recreation room, storage, and a gym; 3 units in garage shop;
3) Coastal Administrative Permit to demolish one existing structure and construct 8 buildings for a total of 46 condominium units;
4) Coastal Development Permit to allow development on slopes of 30% or greater;
5) Coastal Development Permit to allow the removal of 97 trees (21 coast live oak and 76 Monterey pines); and
6) Design Approval.
The June 29, 2011 motion continued the hearing on the Combined Development Permit until a final determination had been made on the LCP amendments. The Planning Commission will consider rescinding that motion for continuance.
3) If the motion to continue the hearing on the Combined Development Permit is rescinded, the Planning Commission will consider making a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on the Combined Development Permit.
The project site’s address is 24945 Valley Way, Carmel (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 009-061-002-000, 009-061-003-111, 009-061-005-111), Carmel Area Land Use Plan Area, Coastal Zone.
An Environmental Impact Report prepared for this project identified potentially significant environmental impacts to the following resources: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Noise, Transportation and Traffic, Water. Subsequently, the project was changed, or measures have been attached to the project that cause all identified impacts to be mitigated below a level of significance.
IF YOU CHALLENGE THIS MATTER IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS PUBLIC NOTICE OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY AT OR BEFORE THE PUBLIC HEARING
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONTACT:
Elizabeth Gonzales, Associate Planner
Monterey County Resource Management Agency-Planning Department
168 West Alisal St, 2nd Floor, Salinas, CA, 93901
831-755-5102 or gonzalese@co.monterey.ca.us
Plan to include moderate-income units passes muster with planners
By JIM JOHNSON Herald Staff Writer 08/04/2011
ABSTRACT: On Wednesday, August 10, 2011 at 10:00 A.M., Monterey County Board of Supervisors Chambers, County Government Center, 168 West Alisal St., Salinas, the Monterey County Planning Commission will conduct a Public Hearing to consider rescinding its June 29, 2011 motion to continue hearing on the application for a Combined Development Permit and if rescinded consider making a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on the Combined Development Permit. The Notice of Public Hearing is reproduced.
Notice of Public Hearing
Monterey County Planning Commission
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Monterey County Planning Commission, State of California will hold a Public Hearing to consider the actions described below. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, August 10, 2011 at the hour of 10:00 a.m. in the Monterey County Board of Supervisors Chambers, County Government Center, 168 West Alisal St, Salinas, California, at which time and place any and all interested persons may appear and be heard thereon.
Owner: RIGOULETTE LLC (VILLAS DE CARMELO)
Project File No: PLN070497
Project Location: Northwest corner of Highway One and Valley Way
Permit Type: Local Coastal Program amendments and Combined Development Permit
Environmental Status: Environmental Impact Report
Project Description:
1) The Planning commission will consider making a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on Local Coastal Program (LCP) amendments for the former Carmel Convalescent Hospital site, generally located at the northwest corner of Highway One and Valley Way. The amendments generally consist of amendments to the Carmel Area Land Use Plan to change the land use designation from Medium Density Residential, two units per acre (MDR/2) to High Density Residential, 12.5 units per acre (HDR/12.5) and amendments to the Monterey County Coastal Implementation Plan, Part 4 (Regulations for Development in the Carmel Area Land Use Plan) (Chapter 20.146) to allow high-density residential development on the site;
2) The Planning Commission will consider rescinding its June 29, 2011 motion to continue the hearing on the application for a Combined Development Permit (PLN070497/Rigoulete, LLC (Villas de Carmelo)). The Combined Development Permit includes:
1) a Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide 3.68 acres into 46 condominium parcels and common open space;
2) Coastal Development Permit to convert the former convalescent hospital into nine condominium units with underground parking, recreation room, storage, and a gym; 3 units in garage shop;
3) Coastal Administrative Permit to demolish one existing structure and construct 8 buildings for a total of 46 condominium units;
4) Coastal Development Permit to allow development on slopes of 30% or greater;
5) Coastal Development Permit to allow the removal of 97 trees (21 coast live oak and 76 Monterey pines); and
6) Design Approval.
The June 29, 2011 motion continued the hearing on the Combined Development Permit until a final determination had been made on the LCP amendments. The Planning Commission will consider rescinding that motion for continuance.
3) If the motion to continue the hearing on the Combined Development Permit is rescinded, the Planning Commission will consider making a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on the Combined Development Permit.
The project site’s address is 24945 Valley Way, Carmel (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 009-061-002-000, 009-061-003-111, 009-061-005-111), Carmel Area Land Use Plan Area, Coastal Zone.
An Environmental Impact Report prepared for this project identified potentially significant environmental impacts to the following resources: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Noise, Transportation and Traffic, Water. Subsequently, the project was changed, or measures have been attached to the project that cause all identified impacts to be mitigated below a level of significance.
IF YOU CHALLENGE THIS MATTER IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS PUBLIC NOTICE OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY AT OR BEFORE THE PUBLIC HEARING
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONTACT:
Elizabeth Gonzales, Associate Planner
Monterey County Resource Management Agency-Planning Department
168 West Alisal St, 2nd Floor, Salinas, CA, 93901
831-755-5102 or gonzalese@co.monterey.ca.us
One Noteworthy 1 August 2011 Closed Session Agenda Item & Three Noteworthy 2 August 2011 City Council Agenda Items
ABSTRACT: One Noteworthy 1 August 2011 Closed Session Agenda Item, namely Meet and confer with the Carmel-by- the-Sea’s Meyers-Milias Brown Act representative, Interim City Administrator Goss, to give direction regarding labor negotiations with the International Association of Firefighters, Carmel-by-the-Sea Police Officers Association, and LIUNA/UPEC Local 792 and three noteworthy 2 August 2011 Agenda Items, namely Update on provision of fire services, an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve Design Study, Demolition Permit and Coastal Development Permit applications for the construction of a new residence located on Mission Street 2 NW of 11th Avenue and a Resolution to adopt a Fire Department Emergency Medical Service Fee. Excerpts from Agenda Item Summaries and Staff Reports are presented.
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PACKET
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
4:30 p.m., Open Session
Live & Archived Video Streaming
City Hall
East side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues
V. Announcements from Closed Session, from City Council Members and the City Administrator.
A. Announcements from Closed Session.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956 et seq. of the State of California, the City Council will adjourn to Closed Session to consider the following:
1. Labor Negotiations – Gov’t. Code Section 54957.6(a) Meet and confer with the Carmel-by-the-Sea’s Meyers-Milias Brown Act representative, Interim City Administrator Goss, to give direction regarding labor negotiations with the International Association of Firefighters, Carmel-by-the-Sea Police Officers Association, and LIUNA/UPEC Local 792.
C. Announcements from City Administrator.
4. Update on provision of fire services.
VIII. Public Hearings
A. Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve Design Study, Demolition Permit and Coastal Development Permit applications for the construction of a new residence located on Mission Street 2 NW of 11th Avenue. The property owner is Domicile Properties, LLC. The appellant is Sherrie Spendlove Gallo, joined by three other neighbors. (Continued from July.)
Description: The appellants are requesting that the Council overturn the approval of the project. The appellants are generally concerned with the location of the detached garage and the size of the proposed residence.
Staff Recommendation: Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s unanimous approval.
Important Considerations: The applicant is unable to develop the middle portion of the lot due to the presence of two significant trees.
Decision Record: On May 11, 2011 the Planning Commission unanimously approved this project.
RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s unanimous approval.
BACKGROUND
The project site is located on Mission Street two northwest of Eleventh Avenue and is developed with a small one-story residence. The property contains three significant trees, one of which is located near the center of the lot. A Determination of Ineligibility for listing on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources was issued on November 8, 2010.
On May 11, 2011 the Planning Commission unanimously approved the construction of a new one-story residence on the subject property. The Planning Commission was presented with opposition letters from three of the appellants at the hearing. However, the Commission determined that the proposed project met the zoning requirements and was consistent with the Design Guidelines.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed residence is 1,583 square feet in size with a 217-square-foot detached garage located in the front setback. The applicant is proposing a combination of board and batten siding with stucco. Unclad wood windows and doors are proposed throughout the residence.
EVALUATION
Basis for Appeal: This approval is being appealed by four neighbors who live within the immediate vicinity of the project. The appeal is led by Sherrie Spendlove Gallo, the neighbor who lives directly to the north of the subject property.
Summary: The proposed residence is one story, presents a simple design and
incorporates the use of wood siding. The applicant has also done a nice job of designing the residence around the three significant trees on the property and redesigned the project early in the planning process to help mitigate the impact on the northern neighbor. For these reasons the Planning Commission determined that the proposed project is consistent with the Guidelines. The Commission considered the concerns that were raised by the neighbors and determined that the project was appropriate. Staff concurs with the Commission.
RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s unanimous approval.
X. Resolutions
B. Consideration of a Resolution to adopt a Fire Department Emergency Medical Service Fee.
Description: This Resolution would establish an Emergency Medical Service Fee to reimburse the City for expenses related to the Fire Department’s response to medical emergencies within the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.
Important Considerations: This fee would allow the City to obtain reimbursement for Fire Department EMS calls from insurance companies, government health programs, and individuals. This fee would help cover the costs of Fire Department EMS calls. At a fee of $250 per call, which is the low end of the range of this fee collected in other California cities, it is estimated that the City would obtain an estimated $42,640 in annual revenue to support Fire Department emergency medical services.
Decision Record: The City Council, during its June 2011 budget workshops, indicated an interest in considering the adoption of this fee.
A potential fee for supporting emergency medical services provided by the Carmel Fire Department was suggested in the budget transmittal letter and was discussed during the budget workshops. The proposed fee is called an Emergency Medical Service (EMS) fee.
PURPOSE
The purpose of an EMS fee is to reimburse the City for the expense of its Fire Department in responding to medical emergencies within the City of Carmel-by-the-City. While general tax dollars are used to support the availability of three fire fighters and an engine 24 hours a day, seven days a week, specific service is provided for short periods of time to those who receive emergency medical service. The proposed fee will cover a portion of this expense.
Part of the rationale for such a fee is that just as general tax dollars should not be required to support ambulance transport services, the response to emergency medical calls by the Fire Department also should not be subsidized by general tax dollars. It should be noted that the City currently is unable to obtain reimbursement for Fire Department EMS calls from insurance companies, government health programs (Medi-Cal), and individuals because there is no fee structure in place. The City can recover the cost of this service by establishing a fee for service and by billing the appropriate agencies.
How Will This Fee Work? When there is a medical emergency in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, usually the fire engine with a three-person crew will arrive first on the scene and will begin treatment at the Basic Life Support (BLS) level. All of the City’s fire fighters are certified Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) and can perform service at the BLS level. This level of service can include the application of a number of emergency medical skills and services depending upon the situation found at the scene.
These include:
• Evaluate the ill and injured;
• Obtain diagnostic signs including temperature, blood pressure, pulse and respiration rates, level of consciousness and pupil status;
• Perform CPR, if needed, including the use of mechanical adjuncts to this process;
• Use of different types of adjunctive airway breathing aids, such promoting airways, basic oxygen delivery services, and manual and mechanical ventilating devices designed for pre-hospital use;
• Use of stretchers and body immobilization devices;
• Initial pre-hospital emergency care of trauma;
• Administer oral glucose or sugar solutions;
• Extricate entrapped persons;
• Perform field triage;
• Assist ALS procedures upon arrival and with the direction of a paramedic.
After the Fire Engine with its three-person crew arrives and provides emergency medical care, which can include some or all of the above described services, there may be a need for Advanced Life Support (ALS). This can be provided by the subsequently arriving ambulance which is staffed by paramedic fire fighters. If ALS service is not required, the fire engine crew will complete medical aid at the scene in a “treat and release” mode.
After the service is rendered, the insurance company and/or Medicare is billed. This billing function would be consolidated with the staff who currently files ambulance charges. It is suggested that the same debt collection agency used by CRFA also be used for these bills. This would promote the efficiency of the billing function and add only an incremental cost to bill collection, with most of that expense absorbed by existing staff.
Amount of the Fee. The cost of providing BLS service is estimated to cost $300 per call. This expense is based on the hourly salary and benefit rate of the three fire fighters plus administrative overhead. There is also included an hourly engine rate based on California Emergency Management Agency’s reimbursement rates. The expense per call is somewhat greater than the proposed $250 per incident fee for this service.
Any resolution adopted by the Council implementing this fee should make it clear that the fee is only for the cost of firefighter time and their engine in responding to and addressing a medical emergency and does not cover the cost of medical supplies, medical equipment, specialized medical radio communication equipment, and the training and certification of first responders. It also does not apply to paramedic ambulances staffed with at least one paramedic. These expenses cannot be reimbursed by this fee since they are already covered by funds collected and distributed by CSA 74 via a MOU of which Carmel is a signatory. The source of the CSA 74 funds is a $12 parcel tax; therefore a fee cannot be charged to cover these CSA 74 MOU expenses.
As pointed out earlier, this fee will allow the City to recover this expense from insurance and Medi-Cal, with its collection accomplished by the same process and personnel by which ambulance charges are collected.
Comparable Practice. While no cities in Monterey County collect this fee, many cities in the state charge an EMS fee of $250 – $350 per call. In some cities this is called an “assessment fee” but the fire department service is often substantially beyond an initial assessment.
These cities include both Charter and General Law cities. Therefore, there is no requirement that the fee can only be collected by Charter cities. General Law cities like Carmel-by-the-Sea may also can implement this fee.
Estimated Revenue. Initially, in Supplemental Budget Memo #2 a rough estimate of revenue from this fee was $92,285. It was pointed out that this was a “rough” estimate, particularly since the EMS incident data would need to be refined. There were more than 800 EMS calls reported in 2010, and a limited number were eliminated as clearly not applicable to this fee (arrival at scene with no victims, for example). But there was a need to further refine the incident calls to determine which ones were applicable to this fee. This review process has now reduced the number of EMS incident calls to 388 during 2010.
Using this number the estimated revenue from this new fee is a projected $42,640. This is based on 388 calls with a collection rate of .47 which is similar to the rate collected for the local ambulance service as well as other cities with this program. The revenue from this fee is estimated with 388 incidents x $250 x .47 = $45,590 less $2,963 for collection expense = $42,627.
Implementation. Besides the normal steps of setting up the billing process for this fee, it is suggested that, if adopted, implementation of this fee be delayed one month in order to inform the public about the fee.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the Resolution implementing a fire department emergency service medical fee.
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PACKET
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
4:30 p.m., Open Session
Live & Archived Video Streaming
City Hall
East side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues
V. Announcements from Closed Session, from City Council Members and the City Administrator.
A. Announcements from Closed Session.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956 et seq. of the State of California, the City Council will adjourn to Closed Session to consider the following:
1. Labor Negotiations – Gov’t. Code Section 54957.6(a) Meet and confer with the Carmel-by-the-Sea’s Meyers-Milias Brown Act representative, Interim City Administrator Goss, to give direction regarding labor negotiations with the International Association of Firefighters, Carmel-by-the-Sea Police Officers Association, and LIUNA/UPEC Local 792.
C. Announcements from City Administrator.
4. Update on provision of fire services.
VIII. Public Hearings
A. Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve Design Study, Demolition Permit and Coastal Development Permit applications for the construction of a new residence located on Mission Street 2 NW of 11th Avenue. The property owner is Domicile Properties, LLC. The appellant is Sherrie Spendlove Gallo, joined by three other neighbors. (Continued from July.)
Description: The appellants are requesting that the Council overturn the approval of the project. The appellants are generally concerned with the location of the detached garage and the size of the proposed residence.
Staff Recommendation: Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s unanimous approval.
Important Considerations: The applicant is unable to develop the middle portion of the lot due to the presence of two significant trees.
Decision Record: On May 11, 2011 the Planning Commission unanimously approved this project.
RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s unanimous approval.
BACKGROUND
The project site is located on Mission Street two northwest of Eleventh Avenue and is developed with a small one-story residence. The property contains three significant trees, one of which is located near the center of the lot. A Determination of Ineligibility for listing on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources was issued on November 8, 2010.
On May 11, 2011 the Planning Commission unanimously approved the construction of a new one-story residence on the subject property. The Planning Commission was presented with opposition letters from three of the appellants at the hearing. However, the Commission determined that the proposed project met the zoning requirements and was consistent with the Design Guidelines.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed residence is 1,583 square feet in size with a 217-square-foot detached garage located in the front setback. The applicant is proposing a combination of board and batten siding with stucco. Unclad wood windows and doors are proposed throughout the residence.
EVALUATION
Basis for Appeal: This approval is being appealed by four neighbors who live within the immediate vicinity of the project. The appeal is led by Sherrie Spendlove Gallo, the neighbor who lives directly to the north of the subject property.
Summary: The proposed residence is one story, presents a simple design and
incorporates the use of wood siding. The applicant has also done a nice job of designing the residence around the three significant trees on the property and redesigned the project early in the planning process to help mitigate the impact on the northern neighbor. For these reasons the Planning Commission determined that the proposed project is consistent with the Guidelines. The Commission considered the concerns that were raised by the neighbors and determined that the project was appropriate. Staff concurs with the Commission.
RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s unanimous approval.
X. Resolutions
B. Consideration of a Resolution to adopt a Fire Department Emergency Medical Service Fee.
Description: This Resolution would establish an Emergency Medical Service Fee to reimburse the City for expenses related to the Fire Department’s response to medical emergencies within the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.
Important Considerations: This fee would allow the City to obtain reimbursement for Fire Department EMS calls from insurance companies, government health programs, and individuals. This fee would help cover the costs of Fire Department EMS calls. At a fee of $250 per call, which is the low end of the range of this fee collected in other California cities, it is estimated that the City would obtain an estimated $42,640 in annual revenue to support Fire Department emergency medical services.
Decision Record: The City Council, during its June 2011 budget workshops, indicated an interest in considering the adoption of this fee.
A potential fee for supporting emergency medical services provided by the Carmel Fire Department was suggested in the budget transmittal letter and was discussed during the budget workshops. The proposed fee is called an Emergency Medical Service (EMS) fee.
PURPOSE
The purpose of an EMS fee is to reimburse the City for the expense of its Fire Department in responding to medical emergencies within the City of Carmel-by-the-City. While general tax dollars are used to support the availability of three fire fighters and an engine 24 hours a day, seven days a week, specific service is provided for short periods of time to those who receive emergency medical service. The proposed fee will cover a portion of this expense.
Part of the rationale for such a fee is that just as general tax dollars should not be required to support ambulance transport services, the response to emergency medical calls by the Fire Department also should not be subsidized by general tax dollars. It should be noted that the City currently is unable to obtain reimbursement for Fire Department EMS calls from insurance companies, government health programs (Medi-Cal), and individuals because there is no fee structure in place. The City can recover the cost of this service by establishing a fee for service and by billing the appropriate agencies.
How Will This Fee Work? When there is a medical emergency in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, usually the fire engine with a three-person crew will arrive first on the scene and will begin treatment at the Basic Life Support (BLS) level. All of the City’s fire fighters are certified Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) and can perform service at the BLS level. This level of service can include the application of a number of emergency medical skills and services depending upon the situation found at the scene.
These include:
• Evaluate the ill and injured;
• Obtain diagnostic signs including temperature, blood pressure, pulse and respiration rates, level of consciousness and pupil status;
• Perform CPR, if needed, including the use of mechanical adjuncts to this process;
• Use of different types of adjunctive airway breathing aids, such promoting airways, basic oxygen delivery services, and manual and mechanical ventilating devices designed for pre-hospital use;
• Use of stretchers and body immobilization devices;
• Initial pre-hospital emergency care of trauma;
• Administer oral glucose or sugar solutions;
• Extricate entrapped persons;
• Perform field triage;
• Assist ALS procedures upon arrival and with the direction of a paramedic.
After the Fire Engine with its three-person crew arrives and provides emergency medical care, which can include some or all of the above described services, there may be a need for Advanced Life Support (ALS). This can be provided by the subsequently arriving ambulance which is staffed by paramedic fire fighters. If ALS service is not required, the fire engine crew will complete medical aid at the scene in a “treat and release” mode.
After the service is rendered, the insurance company and/or Medicare is billed. This billing function would be consolidated with the staff who currently files ambulance charges. It is suggested that the same debt collection agency used by CRFA also be used for these bills. This would promote the efficiency of the billing function and add only an incremental cost to bill collection, with most of that expense absorbed by existing staff.
Amount of the Fee. The cost of providing BLS service is estimated to cost $300 per call. This expense is based on the hourly salary and benefit rate of the three fire fighters plus administrative overhead. There is also included an hourly engine rate based on California Emergency Management Agency’s reimbursement rates. The expense per call is somewhat greater than the proposed $250 per incident fee for this service.
Any resolution adopted by the Council implementing this fee should make it clear that the fee is only for the cost of firefighter time and their engine in responding to and addressing a medical emergency and does not cover the cost of medical supplies, medical equipment, specialized medical radio communication equipment, and the training and certification of first responders. It also does not apply to paramedic ambulances staffed with at least one paramedic. These expenses cannot be reimbursed by this fee since they are already covered by funds collected and distributed by CSA 74 via a MOU of which Carmel is a signatory. The source of the CSA 74 funds is a $12 parcel tax; therefore a fee cannot be charged to cover these CSA 74 MOU expenses.
As pointed out earlier, this fee will allow the City to recover this expense from insurance and Medi-Cal, with its collection accomplished by the same process and personnel by which ambulance charges are collected.
Comparable Practice. While no cities in Monterey County collect this fee, many cities in the state charge an EMS fee of $250 – $350 per call. In some cities this is called an “assessment fee” but the fire department service is often substantially beyond an initial assessment.
These cities include both Charter and General Law cities. Therefore, there is no requirement that the fee can only be collected by Charter cities. General Law cities like Carmel-by-the-Sea may also can implement this fee.
Estimated Revenue. Initially, in Supplemental Budget Memo #2 a rough estimate of revenue from this fee was $92,285. It was pointed out that this was a “rough” estimate, particularly since the EMS incident data would need to be refined. There were more than 800 EMS calls reported in 2010, and a limited number were eliminated as clearly not applicable to this fee (arrival at scene with no victims, for example). But there was a need to further refine the incident calls to determine which ones were applicable to this fee. This review process has now reduced the number of EMS incident calls to 388 during 2010.
Using this number the estimated revenue from this new fee is a projected $42,640. This is based on 388 calls with a collection rate of .47 which is similar to the rate collected for the local ambulance service as well as other cities with this program. The revenue from this fee is estimated with 388 incidents x $250 x .47 = $45,590 less $2,963 for collection expense = $42,627.
Implementation. Besides the normal steps of setting up the billing process for this fee, it is suggested that, if adopted, implementation of this fee be delayed one month in order to inform the public about the fee.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the Resolution implementing a fire department emergency service medical fee.
Friday, July 29, 2011
FOREST THEATER USE AGREEMENT between the CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, a municipal corporation and PACIFIC REPERTORY THEATER, a California not-for-profit corporation
ABSTRACT: The text of the FOREST THEATER USE AGREEMENT between the CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, a municipal corporation and PACIFIC REPERTORY THEATER, a California not-for-profit corporation, is embedded. The lease agreement is for five years (January 1, 2011 – December 2015) and includes the use of the Outdoor Forest Theatre and Indoor Forest Theatre. The City Council unanimously voted to approve a Resolution entering into a five-year lease agreement with the Pacific Repertory Theatre for the use of the Forest Theater facility at its 5 April 2011 City Council meeting. Estimated annual revenue is $13,200.
FOREST THEATER USE AGREEMENT PACIFIC REPERTORY THEATER
FOREST THEATER USE AGREEMENT between the CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA and PACIFIC REPERTORY THEATER
ADDENDUM:
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of a Resolution entering into a five-year lease agreement with the Pacific Repertory Theater for the use of the Forest Theater facility.
Description: At its February 1, 2011 meeting, Council directed staff to negotiate a lease agreement with Pacific Repertory Theater for the use of the Forest Theater. Using the prior five-year lease as a starting point for negotiations, staff is recommending the attached proposed lease agreement.
The lease agreement term is for five years and includes the use of the Indoor Theater formerly occupied by the Children Experimental Theater. City lease fees collected from Pacific Repertory Theater are specified on Exhibit “B” under “Schedule of Payments”.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: $13,200 estimated annual revenue
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.
Important Considerations: The Pacific Repertory Theater is a long-established local performing arts organization that offers a range of theatrical and cultural events for the community. This organization is a good tenant during the performance season and pays its City lease fees promptly. The lease fees are deposited into the Forest Theater Enterprise Fund, which offset costs to maintain the Forest Theater facilities and grounds.
Decision Record: The City Council on November 2, 2010 directed staff to negotiate a lease agreement with Pacific Repertory Theater. The City Council confirmed this action at a subsequent meeting held on February 1, 2011.
Reviewed:
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2011-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA ENTERING INTO A FIVE-YEAR LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE PACIFIC REPERTORY THEATER FOR THE USE OF THE FOREST THEATER FACILITY
WHEREAS, Pacific Repertory Theater is a performing arts organization in the City; and
WHEREAS, the City owns the Forest Theater facility and property; and
WHEREAS, the City leases the Forest Theater facility and property during a performance season, generally commencing in mid-April and ending in mid-October; and
WHEREAS, Pacific Repertory Theater is interested in leasing the Forest Theater facility (including the Indoor Theater) commencing generally the last week of July through the second week of October.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DOES:
1. Authorize a five-year lease with the Pacific Repertory Theater.
2. Authorize depositing fees generated from the Pacific Repertory Theater lease into the
Forest Theater Enterprise Fund – Account #60-40727.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 5th day of April 2011, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SIGNED:
_______________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR
ATTEST:
__________________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
MINUTES
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
April 5, 2011
VII. CONSENT CALENDAR
H. Consideration of a Resolution entering into a five-year lease agreement with the Pacific Repertory Theater for the use of the Forest Theater facility.
Carolyn Hardy asked to pull Item “H”.
H. Consideration of a Resolution entering into a five-year lease agreement with the Pacific Repertory Theater for the use of the Forest Theater facility.
Stephen Moorer, executive director of Pacific Repertory Theater, addressed the issue of the times designated for set construction.
Carolyn Hardy, Adam Moniz and Carl Iverson spoke to the issue.
Council Member BURNETT moved to approve Consent Agenda Item “H”, with the amendment that with the exception of rehearsals, all work including construction on sets shall end by 5:30 p.m. and shall not begin before 9:00 a.m. on Sundays, seconded by Council Member TALMAGE 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
FOREST THEATER USE AGREEMENT PACIFIC REPERTORY THEATER
FOREST THEATER USE AGREEMENT between the CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA and PACIFIC REPERTORY THEATER
ADDENDUM:
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of a Resolution entering into a five-year lease agreement with the Pacific Repertory Theater for the use of the Forest Theater facility.
Description: At its February 1, 2011 meeting, Council directed staff to negotiate a lease agreement with Pacific Repertory Theater for the use of the Forest Theater. Using the prior five-year lease as a starting point for negotiations, staff is recommending the attached proposed lease agreement.
The lease agreement term is for five years and includes the use of the Indoor Theater formerly occupied by the Children Experimental Theater. City lease fees collected from Pacific Repertory Theater are specified on Exhibit “B” under “Schedule of Payments”.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: $13,200 estimated annual revenue
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.
Important Considerations: The Pacific Repertory Theater is a long-established local performing arts organization that offers a range of theatrical and cultural events for the community. This organization is a good tenant during the performance season and pays its City lease fees promptly. The lease fees are deposited into the Forest Theater Enterprise Fund, which offset costs to maintain the Forest Theater facilities and grounds.
Decision Record: The City Council on November 2, 2010 directed staff to negotiate a lease agreement with Pacific Repertory Theater. The City Council confirmed this action at a subsequent meeting held on February 1, 2011.
Reviewed:
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 2011-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA ENTERING INTO A FIVE-YEAR LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE PACIFIC REPERTORY THEATER FOR THE USE OF THE FOREST THEATER FACILITY
WHEREAS, Pacific Repertory Theater is a performing arts organization in the City; and
WHEREAS, the City owns the Forest Theater facility and property; and
WHEREAS, the City leases the Forest Theater facility and property during a performance season, generally commencing in mid-April and ending in mid-October; and
WHEREAS, Pacific Repertory Theater is interested in leasing the Forest Theater facility (including the Indoor Theater) commencing generally the last week of July through the second week of October.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DOES:
1. Authorize a five-year lease with the Pacific Repertory Theater.
2. Authorize depositing fees generated from the Pacific Repertory Theater lease into the
Forest Theater Enterprise Fund – Account #60-40727.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA this 5th day of April 2011, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SIGNED:
_______________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR
ATTEST:
__________________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
MINUTES
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
April 5, 2011
VII. CONSENT CALENDAR
H. Consideration of a Resolution entering into a five-year lease agreement with the Pacific Repertory Theater for the use of the Forest Theater facility.
Carolyn Hardy asked to pull Item “H”.
H. Consideration of a Resolution entering into a five-year lease agreement with the Pacific Repertory Theater for the use of the Forest Theater facility.
Stephen Moorer, executive director of Pacific Repertory Theater, addressed the issue of the times designated for set construction.
Carolyn Hardy, Adam Moniz and Carl Iverson spoke to the issue.
Council Member BURNETT moved to approve Consent Agenda Item “H”, with the amendment that with the exception of rehearsals, all work including construction on sets shall end by 5:30 p.m. and shall not begin before 9:00 a.m. on Sundays, seconded by Council Member TALMAGE 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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)