CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING - WORKSHOP
Tuesday, May 15, 2018
Tuesday, May 15, 2018
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA: DRAFT Proposed Budget Fiscal Year 2018 – 2019
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING - WORKSHOP
Tuesday, May 15, 2018
Sunday, May 06, 2018
ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, STACY LININGER, Plaintiff, v. RONALD PFLEGER, et al., Defendants, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ABSTRACT: On April 26, 2018, SUSAN VAN KEULEN, United States Magistrate Judge, issued ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, STACY LININGER, Plaintiff, v. RONALD PFLEGER, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:17-CV-03385-SVK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Excerpts include: Before the Court is Plaintiff Stacy Lininger’s request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of this Court’s April 4, 2018 Order Granting Defendant Flippo’s Motion to Dismiss Without Leave to Amend (the “Order”). ECF 49. For the reasons discussed below, the Plaintiff’s request is denied.
DISCUSSION Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration without first seeking leave as required by the local rules. The Court will treat her motion as a request for leave to file her motion for reconsideration based on the arguments made therein. Civil L. R. 7–9(a)-(b).
Preliminarily, the Court notes that the collection of facts surrounding Plaintiff’s 2014 prosecution was not “the critical factor” upon which the Order depends as Plaintiff argues. ECF 49-1 at 2. While the fact that Plaintiff pled nolo contendere to her 2014 prosecution is significant in the analysis of whether her 2014 prosecution can support standing for the injunction she seeks, this was but one factor among many that led to the Court’s conclusion that Plaintiff had not pled facts sufficient to support standing. See generally ECF 47.
Nevertheless, Plaintiff has failed to make the required showing under Local Rule 7–9(b) to obtain leave to file her motion for reconsideration. She has not pointed to a “material difference in fact or law” that exists from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the Court’s April 4, 2018 Order. She has not pointed to “the emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of” the Court’s Order, nor has she shown a “manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court” before the Court’s Order. See ECF 46; ECF 47 at 11-12.
Plaintiff added the 2014 prosecution allegations when she amended her complaint. ECF 39 at ¶¶ 4-7. These allegations then formed the basis for Plaintiff’s argument in opposition to Flippo’s motion to dismiss that she has standing to seek injunctive relief in light of Flippo “repeatedly” violating Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. ECF 43 at 17, 20. The Court addressed this argument both at the hearing and in its Order, concluding that the 2014 prosecution could not support her argument of “repeated” constitutional violations in light of her nolo contendere plea. ECF 46; ECF 47 at 11-12. There are no new facts or law to be considered, only Plaintiff’s repetitive, and ultimately unpersuasive, argument that the 2014 prosecution supports her standing to seek injunctive relief against Defendant Flippo.
Plaintiff’s arguments regarding the Court’s judicial notice of state court documents similarly fail to present a ground to support leave to file a motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff opposed taking judicial notice of the state court documents at length in her opposition to Defendant Flippo’s motion to dismiss. ECF at 6-11. The Court took judicial notice of the documents, but did not independently analyze the facts contained in those documents as Plaintiff argues. The Court cited Plaintiff’s FAC for the fact that she pled nolo contendere to the 2014 charges, not the state court documents. See ECF 47 at 11 (citing ECF 39 at ¶¶ 4-7). The Court did not review the facts underlying the charges independently and determine her behavior was unlawful as Plaintiff suggests. Instead, the Court relied on applicable federal case law to support its conclusion that a nolo contendere plea is the functional equivalent of a guilty plea for the purposes of determining whether the outcome of the 2014 prosecution was favorable to Plaintiff, a required element in a malicious prosecution claim. See ECF 47 at 11-12. Plaintiff simply repeats arguments previously rejected by the Court in taking judicial notice; no new facts or law are presented to justify leave to file a motion for reconsideration.
CONCLUSION Plaintiff has failed to present any bases to support granting leave to file her motion for reconsideration. The arguments that she does present are merely an attempt to reargue issues already considered by the Court. As such, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file her motion for reconsideration of the Court’s April 4, 2018 Order is denied.
The ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION document copy is embedded.
Lininger Order Denying Leave to File Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration 4-26-18 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
STACY LININGER, Plaintiff, v. RONALD PFLEGER, et al., Defendants,
CASE NO. 5:17-cv-03385-SVK
ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Preliminarily, the Court notes that the collection of facts surrounding Plaintiff’s 2014 prosecution was not “the critical factor” upon which the Order depends as Plaintiff argues. ECF 49-1 at 2. While the fact that Plaintiff pled nolo contendere to her 2014 prosecution is significant in the analysis of whether her 2014 prosecution can support standing for the injunction she seeks, this was but one factor among many that led to the Court’s conclusion that Plaintiff had not pled facts sufficient to support standing. See generally ECF 47.
Nevertheless, Plaintiff has failed to make the required showing under Local Rule 7–9(b) to obtain leave to file her motion for reconsideration. She has not pointed to a “material difference in fact or law” that exists from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the Court’s April 4, 2018 Order. She has not pointed to “the emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of” the Court’s Order, nor has she shown a “manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court” before the Court’s Order. See ECF 46; ECF 47 at 11-12.
Plaintiff added the 2014 prosecution allegations when she amended her complaint. ECF 39 at ¶¶ 4-7. These allegations then formed the basis for Plaintiff’s argument in opposition to Flippo’s motion to dismiss that she has standing to seek injunctive relief in light of Flippo “repeatedly” violating Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. ECF 43 at 17, 20. The Court addressed this argument both at the hearing and in its Order, concluding that the 2014 prosecution could not support her argument of “repeated” constitutional violations in light of her nolo contendere plea. ECF 46; ECF 47 at 11-12. There are no new facts or law to be considered, only Plaintiff’s repetitive, and ultimately unpersuasive, argument that the 2014 prosecution supports her standing to seek injunctive relief against Defendant Flippo.
Plaintiff’s arguments regarding the Court’s judicial notice of state court documents similarly fail to present a ground to support leave to file a motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff opposed taking judicial notice of the state court documents at length in her opposition to Defendant Flippo’s motion to dismiss. ECF at 6-11. The Court took judicial notice of the documents, but did not independently analyze the facts contained in those documents as Plaintiff argues. The Court cited Plaintiff’s FAC for the fact that she pled nolo contendere to the 2014 charges, not the state court documents. See ECF 47 at 11 (citing ECF 39 at ¶¶ 4-7). The Court did not review the facts underlying the charges independently and determine her behavior was unlawful as Plaintiff suggests. Instead, the Court relied on applicable federal case law to support its conclusion that a nolo contendere plea is the functional equivalent of a guilty plea for the purposes of determining whether the outcome of the 2014 prosecution was favorable to Plaintiff, a required element in a malicious prosecution claim. See ECF 47 at 11-12. Plaintiff simply repeats arguments previously rejected by the Court in taking judicial notice; no new facts or law are presented to justify leave to file a motion for reconsideration.
CONCLUSION Plaintiff has failed to present any bases to support granting leave to file her motion for reconsideration. The arguments that she does present are merely an attempt to reargue issues already considered by the Court. As such, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file her motion for reconsideration of the Court’s April 4, 2018 Order is denied.
The ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION document copy is embedded.
Lininger Order Denying Leave to File Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration 4-26-18 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
STACY LININGER, Plaintiff, v. RONALD PFLEGER, et al., Defendants,
CASE NO. 5:17-cv-03385-SVK
ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA, May 9, 2018
ABSTRACT: The PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA, May 9, 2018 and Planning Commission Staff Reports document copies are embedded. TOUR OF INSPECTION, ANNOUNCEMENTS/EXTRAORDINARY BUSINESS, APPEARANCES, CONSENT AGENDA; PUBLIC HEARINGS including Capital Improvement Plan Review Review of the FY 2018/19 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and determination of consistency with the City’s General Plan, Consideration of Design Review (DR 17-482), Use Permit (UP 18-144) and Coastal Development Permit applications for the construction of a new two-story mixed-use building with an underground garage located in the Service Commercial (SC) Zoning District (Leidig-Draper, Erik Dyar, Architect, W/S Dolores Between 5th and 6th Avenues), Consideration of Final Design Study (DS 17-174) and associated Coastal Development Permit for an addition to a historic residence located in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District (Munro, Scott and Karen Munro, property owners, Carmelo Street, 2 NW of 7th Avenue), Consideration of a Combined Concept and Final Design Study (DS 17-335) and associated Coastal Development Permit for additions to an existing residence listed on the historic inventory and located in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District, (Voris, Brian Congleton, Architect, Torres Street 5 NE of 6th Avenue), Consideration of a Combined Concept and Final Design Study (DS 18-091) and associated Coastal Development Permit for the construction of a onestory residence that replaces a residence that was destroyed by fire, and construction of a detached garage in the front-yard setback. The property is located in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District (Atkinson, Darren Davis, Designer, San Carlos, 5 SW of 12th Avenue), Consideration of a Concept and Final Design Study (DS 18-098) and associated Coastal Development Permit for a 439-square-foot addition to an existing residence. The project site is located in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District (Matlock, Krebs Design Group, LLC, Designer, 9th Avenue, 2 SW of Lincoln Street), Consideration of a Concept Design Study (DS 18-090) and associated Coastal Development Permit for the demolition of an existing one-story residence and construction of a new two-story residence located in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District (Thomas, Adam Jeselnick, Architect, Camino Real 3 NE of Ocean Avenue) and Consideration of a Design Review (DR 18-077) for additions totaling 658 square feet and alterations to an existing courtyard located at Lincoln Lane in the Service Commercial (SC) Zoning District (Ipsen, Adam Jeselnick, Architect, E/S Lincoln Between 5th
and 6th Avenues); DIRECTOR’S REPORT, Update on Planning Activities and BOARD
MEMBER ANNOUNCEMENTS.
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING AGENDA
Regular Meeting
May 9, 2018
Gail Lehman, Vice Chair
Julie Wendt
Stephanie Locke
Christopher Bolton
C. ROLL CALL
D. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
E. ANNOUNCEMENTS/EXTRAORDINARY BUSINESS
F. APPEARANCES
Anyone wishing to address the Commission on matters not on the agenda, but within the jurisdiction of the Commission, may do so now. Please state the matter on which you wish to speak. Matters not appearing on the Commission agenda will not receive action at this meeting but may be referred to staff for a future meeting. Presentations will be limited to three minutes, or as otherwise established by the Commission Chair. Persons are not required to give their name or address, but it is helpful for speakers to state their name in order that the Secretary may identify them.
G. CONSENT AGENDA
Items placed on the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine and are acted upon by the Commission in one motion. There is no discussion of these items prior to the Commission action unless a member of the Commission, staff, or public requests specific items be discussed and removed from the Consent Agenda. It is understood that the staff recommends approval of all consent items. Each item on the Consent Agenda approved by the Commission shall be deemed to have been considered in full and adopted as recommended.
H. 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 Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing.
1. Capital Improvement Plan Review Review of the FY 2018/19 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and determination of consistency with the City’s General Plan.
Capital Improvement Plan Review Review of the FY 2018/19 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and determination of consistency with the City’s General Plan.
2. DR 17-482/UP 18-144 (Leidig-Draper)
Erik Dyar, Architect
W/S Dolores Between 5th and 6th Avenues
Block: 55, Lot(s): 5 & 7
APN: 010-138-003
Consideration of Design Review (DR 17-482), Use Permit (UP 18-144) and Coastal Development Permit applications for the construction of a new two-story mixed-use building with an underground garage located in the Service Commercial (SC) Zoning District.
Consideration of Final Design Study (DS 17-174) and associated Coastal Development Permit for an addition to a historic residence located in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District.
4. DR 17-335 (Voris)
Brian Congleton, Architect
Torres Street 5 NE of 6th Avenue
Block: 60, Lot(s): 10 & N. ½ of 12
APN: 010-092-010
Consideration of a Combined Concept and Final Design Study (DS 17-335) and associated Coastal Development Permit for additions to an existing residence listed on the historic inventory and located in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District.
Consideration of a Combined Concept and Final Design Study (DS 17-335) and associated Coastal Development Permit for additions to an existing residence listed on the historic inventory and located in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District.
5. DS 18-091 (Atkinson)
Darren Davis, Designer
San Carlos, 5 SW of 12th Avenue
Block: 137, Lot(s): 9
APN: 010-164-023
Consideration of a Combined Concept and Final Design Study (DS 18-091) and associated Coastal Development Permit for the construction of a onestory residence that replaces a residence that was destroyed by fire, and construction of a detached garage in the front-yard setback. The property is located in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District.
Consideration of a Combined Concept and Final Design Study (DS 18-091) and associated Coastal Development Permit for the construction of a onestory residence that replaces a residence that was destroyed by fire, and construction of a detached garage in the front-yard setback. The property is located in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District.
6. DS 18-098 (Matlock)
Krebs Design Group, LLC, Designer
9th Avenue, 2 SW of Lincoln Street
Block: 113, Lot(s): 1 & 3
APN: 010-181-002
Consideration of a Concept and Final Design Study (DS 18-098) and associated Coastal Development Permit for a 439-square-foot addition to an existing residence. The project site is located in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District.
Consideration of a Concept and Final Design Study (DS 18-098) and associated Coastal Development Permit for a 439-square-foot addition to an existing residence. The project site is located in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District.
7. DS 18-090 (Thomas)
Adam Jeselnick, Architect
Camino Real 3 NE of Ocean Avenue
Block: FF, Lot(s): 8 & 10
APN: 010-251-013
Consideration of a Concept Design Study (DS 18-090) and associated Coastal Development Permit for the demolition of an existing one-story residence and construction of a new two-story residence located in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District.
Consideration of a Concept Design Study (DS 18-090) and associated Coastal Development Permit for the demolition of an existing one-story residence and construction of a new two-story residence located in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District.
8. DR 18-077 (Ipsen)
Adam Jeselnick, Architect
E/S Lincoln Between 5th and 6th Avenues
Block: 55, Lot(s): 10 & 12
APN: 010-138-019
Consideration of a Design Review (DR 18-077) for additions totaling 658 square feet and alterations to an existing courtyard located at Lincoln Lane in the Service Commercial (SC) Zoning District.
I. DIRECTOR’S REPORT
J. BOARD MEMBER ANNOUNCEMENTS
K. ADJOURNMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING AGENDA
Regular Meeting
May 9, 2018
A. CALL TO ORDER
AND ROLL CALL
Commissioners: Michael LePage, Chair Gail Lehman, Vice Chair
Julie Wendt
Stephanie Locke
Christopher Bolton
B. TOUR OF
INSPECTION
Shortly after 1:45
p.m., the Commission will leave the Council Chambers for an on-site Tour of Inspection of all properties listed on this agenda (including those on the Consent Agenda). The Tour may also include projects previously approved by the City and not on this agenda. Prior to the beginning of the Tour of Inspection, the Commission may eliminate one or more on-site visits. The public is welcome to follow the Commission on its tour of the determined sites. The Commission will return to the Council Chambers at 4:00 p.m. or as soon
thereafter as possible.
D. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
E. ANNOUNCEMENTS/EXTRAORDINARY BUSINESS
Anyone wishing to address the Commission on matters not on the agenda, but within the jurisdiction of the Commission, may do so now. Please state the matter on which you wish to speak. Matters not appearing on the Commission agenda will not receive action at this meeting but may be referred to staff for a future meeting. Presentations will be limited to three minutes, or as otherwise established by the Commission Chair. Persons are not required to give their name or address, but it is helpful for speakers to state their name in order that the Secretary may identify them.
Items placed on the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine and are acted upon by the Commission in one motion. There is no discussion of these items prior to the Commission action unless a member of the Commission, staff, or public requests specific items be discussed and removed from the Consent Agenda. It is understood that the staff recommends approval of all consent items. Each item on the Consent Agenda approved by the Commission shall be deemed to have been considered in full and adopted as recommended.
1. Draft minutes
from the April 11, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting
2. Draft minutes
from the April 24, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting
H. 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 Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing.
1. Capital Improvement Plan Review Review of the FY 2018/19 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and determination of consistency with the City’s General Plan.
2. DR 17-482/UP 18-144 (Leidig-Draper)
Erik Dyar, Architect
W/S Dolores Between 5th and 6th Avenues
Block: 55, Lot(s): 5 & 7
APN: 010-138-003
Consideration of Design Review (DR 17-482), Use Permit (UP 18-144) and Coastal Development Permit applications for the construction of a new two-story mixed-use building with an underground garage located in the Service Commercial (SC) Zoning District.
Consideration of
Design Review (DR 17-482), Use Permit (UP 18-144) and Coastal Development Permit
applications for the construction of a new two-story mixed-use building with an
underground garage located in the Service Commercial (SC) Zoning District.
3. DS 17-174
(Munro)
Scott and Karen
Munro, property owners
Carmelo Street,
2 NW of 7th Avenue
Block: S,
Lot(s): 13 & 15
APN: 010-267-004
Consideration of
Final Design Study (DS 17-174) and associated Coastal Development Permit for an
addition to a historic residence located in the Single-Family Residential (R-1)
Zoning District.
4. DR 17-335 (Voris)
Brian Congleton, Architect
Torres Street 5 NE of 6th Avenue
Block: 60, Lot(s): 10 & N. ½ of 12
APN: 010-092-010
Consideration of a Combined Concept and Final Design Study (DS 17-335) and associated Coastal Development Permit for additions to an existing residence listed on the historic inventory and located in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District.
5. DS 18-091 (Atkinson)
Darren Davis, Designer
San Carlos, 5 SW of 12th Avenue
Block: 137, Lot(s): 9
APN: 010-164-023
Consideration of a Combined Concept and Final Design Study (DS 18-091) and associated Coastal Development Permit for the construction of a onestory residence that replaces a residence that was destroyed by fire, and construction of a detached garage in the front-yard setback. The property is located in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District.
6. DS 18-098 (Matlock)
Krebs Design Group, LLC, Designer
9th Avenue, 2 SW of Lincoln Street
Block: 113, Lot(s): 1 & 3
APN: 010-181-002
Consideration of a Concept and Final Design Study (DS 18-098) and associated Coastal Development Permit for a 439-square-foot addition to an existing residence. The project site is located in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District.
7. DS 18-090 (Thomas)
Adam Jeselnick, Architect
Camino Real 3 NE of Ocean Avenue
Block: FF, Lot(s): 8 & 10
APN: 010-251-013
Consideration of a Concept Design Study (DS 18-090) and associated Coastal Development Permit for the demolition of an existing one-story residence and construction of a new two-story residence located in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District.
8. DR 18-077 (Ipsen)
Adam Jeselnick, Architect
E/S Lincoln Between 5th and 6th Avenues
Block: 55, Lot(s): 10 & 12
APN: 010-138-019
Consideration of a Design Review (DR 18-077) for additions totaling 658 square feet and alterations to an existing courtyard located at Lincoln Lane in the Service Commercial (SC) Zoning District.
Consideration of
a Design Review (DR 18-077) for additions totaling 658 square feet and
alterations to an existing courtyard located at Lincoln Lane in the Service
Commercial (SC) Zoning District.
1. Update on
Planning Activities
K. ADJOURNMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES, April 11, 2018 & SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES, April 24, 2018
PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES, April 24, 2018
City Administrator Chip Rerig: FRIDAY LETTER, May 4, 2018
FRIDAY LETTER, May 4, 2018
Christina Woznuk - Shield Pinning
Carmel PD - Helping our Animal Friends
[Free] Marketing Workshop
Highway 1 Climbing Lane Project Community Meeting on May 8th
And Also - Motorists to See Increased Truck Traffic at Highway 1 Climbing Lane Project Starting May 7
Out with the Old and In with the New
Beach Stairs Repair Update
Weed Abatement
City-wide Paving Project Update
Curb Ramps South Ocean Avenue
[New] Beach Signs Vandalized
Spring Cleanup for Fire Safety
Happening at Sunset Center and Forest Theater
Christina Woznuk - Shield Pinning
Carmel PD - Helping our Animal Friends
[Free] Marketing Workshop
Highway 1 Climbing Lane Project Community Meeting on May 8th
And Also - Motorists to See Increased Truck Traffic at Highway 1 Climbing Lane Project Starting May 7
Out with the Old and In with the New
Beach Stairs Repair Update
Weed Abatement
City-wide Paving Project Update
Curb Ramps South Ocean Avenue
[New] Beach Signs Vandalized
Spring Cleanup for Fire Safety
Happening at Sunset Center and Forest Theater
Wednesday, May 02, 2018
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) DIRECTOR’S MEETING & SPECIAL MEETING AGENDAS & MINUTES, May 10, 2018
MPRWA Agenda Packet 05-10-18 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd
AGENDA PACKET, DIRECTOR’S MEETING
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA) May 10, 2018
MPRWA Special Meeting Agenda Packet 05-10-18 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd
AGENDA PACKET, DIRECTOR’S SPECIAL MEETING
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
May 10, 2018
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)