Carmel Art Association
“Celebrating 80 years of local art”
Voted “Art Gallery of the Year” by the Carmel Business Association three consecutive years.
W/s Dolores St. between 5th Av. & 6th Av.
10:00 A.M. – 5:00 P.M., Daily, No Charge
Closed December 24, 25, 31, 2007 & January 1, 2008
“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, click on the post title above or copy, paste and click http://www.carmelart.org/ or (831) 624-6176.
Carmel Art Association Presents ALL-MEMBER ANNUAL MINIATURE SHOW
Thursday, November 29 – Sunday, December 30, 2007
ALL-MEMBER SHOW: (Center, Beardsley & Entry Rooms)
Members of the Carmel Art Association artist membership feature small paintings and miniatures in “a variety of styles and subject matter.” For photos of artists’ paintings, click on Post title above, then click on “artists.”
Please assist the Carmel Art Association is their collection of toys for the Salvation Army Toy Drive for local children by bringing unwrapped toys to the CAA from Saturday, December 1 – Wednesday, December 12 and non-perishable food items for Salvation Army food baskets. Thank you!
Holiday Open House and Opening Reception, Saturday, December 1, 6:00 – 8:00 P.M.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Monday, November 26, 2007
Forest Theatre: Continuous Water Flow 24/7
ABSTRACT: For many weeks now, water has been emanating from the Forest Theatre grounds near the Guadalupe Street Gate; downstream from the source, the continuous water flow has kept the pavement in Forest Theatre and Guadalupe Street wet 24/7 and allowed a large puddle of water to form at the foot of Guadalupe Street at Mt. View Avenue. Photos depicting the situation are presented. A Comment is made and relevant references are cited.
View of Forest Theatre Gate &
Continuous Water Flow Emanating from Forest Theatre Grounds onto Guadalupe St. @ Mt. View Av.
View of Area of Source of Continuous Water Flow on Forest Theatre Grounds
View of Large Puddle, Foot of Guadalupe St. @ Mt. View Av.
COMMENT:
• Whereas the City regularly maintains Sunset Center, Ocean Avenue, the Beach Bluff Pathway area along Scenic Road, Devendorf Park and Piccadilly Park to look their best, the City lets languish the City’s other cultural, historical, environmental and infrastructure assets and only attends to them when there is a perception of crisis or a real crisis.
REFERENCES:
COMMUNITY AND CULTURAL
Sunset Center Complex
The Sunset Center complex including the Theater is managed by a non-profit corporation. The non-profit corporation is responsible for administration staffing, routine maintenance of the facilities, booking and operation of the Theater and Community Rooms, marketing first-rate performances and community events, and fundraising. The non-profit operates under a management agreement and receives a subsidy to insure that the Center operates to its’ maximum utilization. The agreement is authorized and executed by the City Council and administered by the City Administrator.
Revised 07/08
Operating Budget (SCC, Inc.) $ 750,000
Capital Outlays:
Sunset Center Walkway Lights E. Side adjacent to Carpenter Hall $5,250
Sunset Theater Monitor Syst,Speakers $18,000
Sunset Theater Fall Arrest System $18,000
Sunset Theater Sound Syst & Exhaust (for film events) $42,035
TOTAL: $83,285
DEBT SERVICE
Pays the general obligation debt service for the City's outstanding debt on Rio Park and for the bonds issued for the Sunset Theater Project.
Sunset Theater/Principal $ 190,000
Sunset Theater/Interest $ 376,847
Sunset Theater - Admin. Fee $ 2,000
TOTAL: $568,847
TOTAL FY 2007/08: $1,402,132
PUBLIC WORKS
The Department of Public Works is responsible for the maintenance of all municipal infrastructure involving the construction, improvement and repair of streets, sidewalks, pathways, and storm drainage systems, installation of traffic signs, painting of street markings, and the maintenance of the City's vehicle and equipment motor pool.
Revised 07/08
Salaries/Benefits $ 644,095
Materials / Services $ 384,245
TOTAL $ 1,028,340
FOREST, PARKS AND BEACH
The Forest, Parks and Beach Department manages and maintains the City's urban forest, parks and beach in order to preserve the windbreak protection, abate soil erosion, enhance the natural beauty, and maintain the outdoor recreational facilities of the community.
Revised 07/08
Salaries / Benefits $ 274,909
Materials / Services $ 182,752
Total $ 457,661
TOTAL FY 2007/08 BUDGET: $ 13,094,894
Source:
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CALIFORNIA
ADOPTED BUDGET
FISCAL YEARS 2007/08 THROUGH 2009/10
http://www.ci.carmel.ca.us/
View of Forest Theatre Gate &Continuous Water Flow Emanating from Forest Theatre Grounds onto Guadalupe St. @ Mt. View Av.
View of Area of Source of Continuous Water Flow on Forest Theatre Grounds
View of Large Puddle, Foot of Guadalupe St. @ Mt. View Av.COMMENT:
• Whereas the City regularly maintains Sunset Center, Ocean Avenue, the Beach Bluff Pathway area along Scenic Road, Devendorf Park and Piccadilly Park to look their best, the City lets languish the City’s other cultural, historical, environmental and infrastructure assets and only attends to them when there is a perception of crisis or a real crisis.
REFERENCES:
COMMUNITY AND CULTURAL
Sunset Center Complex
The Sunset Center complex including the Theater is managed by a non-profit corporation. The non-profit corporation is responsible for administration staffing, routine maintenance of the facilities, booking and operation of the Theater and Community Rooms, marketing first-rate performances and community events, and fundraising. The non-profit operates under a management agreement and receives a subsidy to insure that the Center operates to its’ maximum utilization. The agreement is authorized and executed by the City Council and administered by the City Administrator.
Revised 07/08
Operating Budget (SCC, Inc.) $ 750,000
Capital Outlays:
Sunset Center Walkway Lights E. Side adjacent to Carpenter Hall $5,250
Sunset Theater Monitor Syst,Speakers $18,000
Sunset Theater Fall Arrest System $18,000
Sunset Theater Sound Syst & Exhaust (for film events) $42,035
TOTAL: $83,285
DEBT SERVICE
Pays the general obligation debt service for the City's outstanding debt on Rio Park and for the bonds issued for the Sunset Theater Project.
Sunset Theater/Principal $ 190,000
Sunset Theater/Interest $ 376,847
Sunset Theater - Admin. Fee $ 2,000
TOTAL: $568,847
TOTAL FY 2007/08: $1,402,132
PUBLIC WORKS
The Department of Public Works is responsible for the maintenance of all municipal infrastructure involving the construction, improvement and repair of streets, sidewalks, pathways, and storm drainage systems, installation of traffic signs, painting of street markings, and the maintenance of the City's vehicle and equipment motor pool.
Revised 07/08
Salaries/Benefits $ 644,095
Materials / Services $ 384,245
TOTAL $ 1,028,340
FOREST, PARKS AND BEACH
The Forest, Parks and Beach Department manages and maintains the City's urban forest, parks and beach in order to preserve the windbreak protection, abate soil erosion, enhance the natural beauty, and maintain the outdoor recreational facilities of the community.
Revised 07/08
Salaries / Benefits $ 274,909
Materials / Services $ 182,752
Total $ 457,661
TOTAL FY 2007/08 BUDGET: $ 13,094,894
Source:
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CALIFORNIA
ADOPTED BUDGET
FISCAL YEARS 2007/08 THROUGH 2009/10
http://www.ci.carmel.ca.us/
Sunday, November 25, 2007
City Council Finally Acts to Fill Community Planning & Building Department Director Position After Four Years Without a Director
ABSTRACT: The City’s Community Planning and Building Department has not had a full-time Director since Christi di Iorio abruptly and unexpectedly left the City in 2003. After four years, at the November 6, 2007 City Council meeting, the City Council decided to contract with Ralph Andersen and Associates for “the recruitment of a Community Planning and Building Director in an amount not-to-exceed $20,500.” Comments are made and relevant References are cited.
City Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
November 6, 2007
VII. Consent Calendar
These matters include routine financial and administrative actions, which are usually approved by a single majority vote. Individual items may be removed from Consent by a member of the Council or the public for discussion and action.
G. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to execute a contract with Ralph Andersen and Associates for the recruitment of a Community Planning and Building Director in an amount not-to-exceed $20,500.
Meeting Date: November 6, 2007
Prepared by: Jane Miller, Human Resources Mgr.
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Relevant excerpts, as follows:
Council authorized the position of Community Planning and Building Director with the adoption of the 2007/08 triennial budget.
The firm has provided a quote of $16,500 for professional services for plus expenses not to exceed $4,000.
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Planning Director Recruitment Proposal
(Task Sharing Approach)
Task 1-Review Project Management Approach - $500
Task 2–Develop Position Profile - $1,000
Task 3a–Outreach and Recruiting - $9,000
Task 3b-Advertising Strategy and Placement - $500
Task 4–Candidate Evaluation - $3,500
Task 5–Search Report - $1,500
Task 6–Selection – City Staff
Task 7–Negotiation – City Staff
Task 8–Close Out - $500
TOTAL: $16,500
COMMENTS:
• Another example of the City understaffing a City Department.
• For the City to fail to act to fill the Community Planning and Building Director position from 2003-2007 is a dereliction of responsibility.
• With annual budgets in excess of $12 million and reserve funds nearly $10 million the last few years, it is unconscionable for the Mayor, City Council Members and City Administrator to have allowed the Community Planning and Building Department to remain leaderless for four years.
• Whether the Mayor’s and City Administrator’s failure to expeditiously fill the Director position in 2003 is due to incompetence or an unarticulated motive, the result is a dysfunctional Community Planning and Building Department which has failed to fulfill its duties and responsibilities in a professional manner.
REFERENCES:
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND BUILDING
The Department of Community Planning and Building is responsible for the management of land use and environmental quality in Carmel-by-the-Sea. The planning function maintains the General Plan and ensures that capital programs, zoning and other activities of the City are consistent with the goals and policies of the Plan. The Department also provides staff support to the Planning Commission, the Historic Resources Board and the Design Review Board.
The Building function is responsible for review of construction plans and inspections of City and private development projects to ensure compliance with building codes. Enforcement of zoning, design, building and fire codes is also a responsibility of the Department.
Revised FY 2007/08
Community Planning and Building $721,001
Total: $ 13,094,894
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
FY 2007-2008
COMMUNITY
PLANNING & BUILDING
DIRECTOR
Building Inspector
Planning Services Mgr.
Senior Planner
Assistant Planner
Note: Overseeing the department are the Planning Services Manger Brian Roseth and Senior Planner Sean Conroy; the City has not had a Director since 2003, Building Inspector Tim Meroney retired this past summer and Assistant Planner Nathan Schmidt recently left the City.
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
October 2, 2007
C. Announcements from City Administrator.
Planning Department vacancies
City Administrator Guillen noted the efforts to fill the positions of Code Enforcement Officer, Assistant Planner and Community Planning and Development Director.
Ralph Andersen & Associates
Heather Renschler, President/CEO
5800 Stanford Ranch Road, Suite 410
Rocklin, CA. 95765
(916) 630-4900
Web Site: http://www.ralphandersen.com/
For more information about Ralph Andersen & Associates, click on Post title above.
City Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
November 6, 2007
VII. Consent Calendar
These matters include routine financial and administrative actions, which are usually approved by a single majority vote. Individual items may be removed from Consent by a member of the Council or the public for discussion and action.
G. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the City Administrator to execute a contract with Ralph Andersen and Associates for the recruitment of a Community Planning and Building Director in an amount not-to-exceed $20,500.
Meeting Date: November 6, 2007
Prepared by: Jane Miller, Human Resources Mgr.
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Relevant excerpts, as follows:
Council authorized the position of Community Planning and Building Director with the adoption of the 2007/08 triennial budget.
The firm has provided a quote of $16,500 for professional services for plus expenses not to exceed $4,000.
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Planning Director Recruitment Proposal
(Task Sharing Approach)
Task 1-Review Project Management Approach - $500
Task 2–Develop Position Profile - $1,000
Task 3a–Outreach and Recruiting - $9,000
Task 3b-Advertising Strategy and Placement - $500
Task 4–Candidate Evaluation - $3,500
Task 5–Search Report - $1,500
Task 6–Selection – City Staff
Task 7–Negotiation – City Staff
Task 8–Close Out - $500
TOTAL: $16,500
COMMENTS:
• Another example of the City understaffing a City Department.
• For the City to fail to act to fill the Community Planning and Building Director position from 2003-2007 is a dereliction of responsibility.
• With annual budgets in excess of $12 million and reserve funds nearly $10 million the last few years, it is unconscionable for the Mayor, City Council Members and City Administrator to have allowed the Community Planning and Building Department to remain leaderless for four years.
• Whether the Mayor’s and City Administrator’s failure to expeditiously fill the Director position in 2003 is due to incompetence or an unarticulated motive, the result is a dysfunctional Community Planning and Building Department which has failed to fulfill its duties and responsibilities in a professional manner.
REFERENCES:
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND BUILDING
The Department of Community Planning and Building is responsible for the management of land use and environmental quality in Carmel-by-the-Sea. The planning function maintains the General Plan and ensures that capital programs, zoning and other activities of the City are consistent with the goals and policies of the Plan. The Department also provides staff support to the Planning Commission, the Historic Resources Board and the Design Review Board.
The Building function is responsible for review of construction plans and inspections of City and private development projects to ensure compliance with building codes. Enforcement of zoning, design, building and fire codes is also a responsibility of the Department.
Revised FY 2007/08
Community Planning and Building $721,001
Total: $ 13,094,894
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
FY 2007-2008
COMMUNITY
PLANNING & BUILDING
DIRECTOR
Building Inspector
Planning Services Mgr.
Senior Planner
Assistant Planner
Note: Overseeing the department are the Planning Services Manger Brian Roseth and Senior Planner Sean Conroy; the City has not had a Director since 2003, Building Inspector Tim Meroney retired this past summer and Assistant Planner Nathan Schmidt recently left the City.
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
October 2, 2007
C. Announcements from City Administrator.
Planning Department vacancies
City Administrator Guillen noted the efforts to fill the positions of Code Enforcement Officer, Assistant Planner and Community Planning and Development Director.
Ralph Andersen & Associates
Heather Renschler, President/CEO
5800 Stanford Ranch Road, Suite 410
Rocklin, CA. 95765
(916) 630-4900
Web Site: http://www.ralphandersen.com/
For more information about Ralph Andersen & Associates, click on Post title above.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
"The people,..., do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know."
ABSTRACT: After the Planning Commission voted unanimously (3-0) to recommend Robert Leidig’s Carmel Convalescent Hospital property annexation request be denied at their 11 April 2007 meeting, the City apparently contracted with Pacific Municipal Consultants (PMC) to assist them with Leidig’s proposal. On September 14, 2007, Rigoulette, LLC, the owner of the property, filed a "Description" with the Monterey County Planning Department. On September 25, 2007, the City wrote a check for $10,527.60 for “Professional Planning Services-Carmel Hospital Annexation Site" to PMC. In that context, the Ralph M. Brown Act is cited, information on Pacific Municipal Consultants is presented and Comments are made with regard to the actions of the Mayor, City Council Members and City Administrator.
The State of California’s Open Government Law, the Ralph M. Brown Act (California Government Code Sections 54950-54963), states, in part, as follows:
“In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.”
“The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.”
The Mayor, City Council Members and the City Administrator have failed to honor the intent of the Ralph M. Brown Act by failing to inform Carmelites about the City’s contract with Pacific Municipal Consultants involving Robert Leidig’s Carmel Hospital Redevelopment project.
Pacific Municipal Consultants“PMC offers a broad range of comprehensive municipal services to public agencies.”
Planning Services, including LAFCo And Annexations and Zoning.
Monterey Office
585 Cannery Row
Suite 304
Monterey, CA 93940
Phone: (831) 644-9174
Fax: (831) 644-7696
For more information about PMC, click on Post title above, or copy, paste and click http://www.pmcworld.com/
Carmel-by-the-Sea
October 2007 Check Register
(Includes checks dated 9/25/07)
113927 9/25/07 PMC $ 10,527.60 PROFESSIONAL PLANNING SERVICES-CARMELHOSPITAL ANNEXATION SITE
COMMENTS:
• Carmelites are unaware of the City’s contract with Pacific Municipal Consultants and the extent of the Professional Services provided to the City because this item was not placed on a public agenda.
• Another waste of taxpayer money, another covert action by the City.
• The Mayor, City Council Members and City Administrator should show respect for Carmelites by heeding the intent of the Ralph M. Brown Act, particularly with respect to the following:
“The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.”
The State of California’s Open Government Law, the Ralph M. Brown Act (California Government Code Sections 54950-54963), states, in part, as follows:
“In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.”
“The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.”
The Mayor, City Council Members and the City Administrator have failed to honor the intent of the Ralph M. Brown Act by failing to inform Carmelites about the City’s contract with Pacific Municipal Consultants involving Robert Leidig’s Carmel Hospital Redevelopment project.
Pacific Municipal Consultants“PMC offers a broad range of comprehensive municipal services to public agencies.”
Planning Services, including LAFCo And Annexations and Zoning.
Monterey Office
585 Cannery Row
Suite 304
Monterey, CA 93940
Phone: (831) 644-9174
Fax: (831) 644-7696
For more information about PMC, click on Post title above, or copy, paste and click http://www.pmcworld.com/
Carmel-by-the-Sea
October 2007 Check Register
(Includes checks dated 9/25/07)
113927 9/25/07 PMC $ 10,527.60 PROFESSIONAL PLANNING SERVICES-CARMELHOSPITAL ANNEXATION SITE
COMMENTS:
• Carmelites are unaware of the City’s contract with Pacific Municipal Consultants and the extent of the Professional Services provided to the City because this item was not placed on a public agenda.
• Another waste of taxpayer money, another covert action by the City.
• The Mayor, City Council Members and City Administrator should show respect for Carmelites by heeding the intent of the Ralph M. Brown Act, particularly with respect to the following:
“The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.”
Friday, November 23, 2007
Peter Lesnik: New (Second) Sunset Cultural Center, Inc. Executive Director
ABSTRACT: On January 1, 2008, Peter Lesnik, currently Executive Director of the Richard and Karen Carpenter Performing Arts Center at California State University, Long Beach (CSULB), will become the second Executive Director of Sunset Cultural Center, Inc. (SCC). Mr. Lesnik’s “Theatre” Biography is presented; Information, Mission & History of the Richard and Karen Carpenter Performing Arts Center is also presented.
Peter Lesnik, currently Executive Director of the Richard and Karen Carpenter Performing Arts Center at California State University, Long Beach (CSULB), will become the second Executive Director of Sunset Cultural Center, Inc. (SCC) January 1, 2008.
“THEATRE” BIOGRAPHY OF PETER LESNIK:
• Currently Executive Director of the Richard and Karen Carpenter Performing Arts Center at California State University, Long Beach (CSULB)
• Presents everything from “dance and theater to original and avant garde work; from jazz to family programming.”
• 20 years in the performing arts field, as author, performer, producer, director and presenter.
• Former Executive Director of the Herberger Theatre Center, Phoenix, AZ., the Kelsey Theater at Mercer College, New Jersey, Norris Theatre for the Performing Arts, Los Angeles, CA.
• Oversaw the revitalization of performing arts centers, including the Herberger Theatre Center, Phoenix, AZ., the Kelsey Theater at Mercer College, New Jersey and the Norris Theatre for the Performing Arts, Palos.Verdes, CA.
• Current Board Member (Vice President) of Diavolo Dance Company
• Current Member of California Presenters; established in 1985, "a statewide organization committed to advancing professional touring and presenting of the performing arts."
• Principal, TMA, Inc. (Theatre Management Associates); TMA “constructs solutions to all imaginable physical, fiscal, staffing, marketing and programmatic challenges for venues as they are being built, renovated or re-imagined.”
• Former Commissioner on the Los Angeles County Arts Commission
• Former reader and advisor to the Eugene O’Neill National Playwrights Conference
• Former Dramaturge, Acting Teacher and Director at the Performing Arts Foundation, Huntington, N.Y.
• Former Residents Director at the 13th Street Theatre, New York and the Odyssey Theatre, Los Angeles
• Creator of the Counterpane Acting Method
• Bachelor’s Degree in Theatre, University of California Riverside; Master’s Degree in Theatre and Film, Pennsylvania State University
THE RICHARD AND KAREN CARPENTER PERFORMING ARTS CENTER: INFORMATION, MISSION & HISTORY:
• Named after Richard and Karen Carpenter, the Grammy Award-winning brother and sister duo “The Carpenters.”
• Richard Carpenter and his family support the Carpenter Center philanthropically
• Mission: The mission of the Richard and Karen Carpenter Performing Arts Center is to guarantee the citizens of Long Beach, CSULB students, faculty, and staff, and surrounding communities access to the entire spectrum of performing arts experiences through resident companies, arts outreach, and unique programming.
• The Carpenter Center is the second largest performing arts center in Long Beach; second to downtown’s Long Beach Performing Arts Center.
• Built in 1993, the 1,074-seat venue was christened the Richard and Karen Carpenter Performing Arts Center after Richard donated $1 million to the facility.
• The $27 million white building, constructed with state bond money, was modeled after the New York State Theater at Lincoln Center in New York City.
• The Carpenter Center debuted in Dec. 1993; the official grand opening took place in Oct. 1994
• February 1995: Summer & Fall Performances on hold and staff laid off due to poor revenues. The Center was transferred from the university’s fund-raising office to the College of the Arts.
• September 1995: a new season announced.
• December 1997, Lesnik hired as Executive Director.
• "My basic philosophy on programming is to find out what's available to people on a professional level in and around the immediate community," Lesnik says. "What's not available is what we should be doing."
• Lesnik made international and contemporary dance a priority and started a series of family programming.
• 150 to 200 events a year take place at the center, 80 of them by the center's four residents (South Coast Chorale, Musical Theatre West, Long Beach Opera and Long Beach Community Concert Association).
• According to a recent Monterey County Herald article, Lesnik “raised programming and fundraising revenues tenfold during the past 10 years as director of the Richard and Karen Carpenter Performing Arts Center in Long Beach.”
SOURCES:
http://www.carpenterarts.org/
http://www.fiatlux.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/display.cgi?id=914
http://www.theatremgmtassociates.com/associates.htm
http://www.leadsister.com/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t1780.html
http://www.ced.csulb.edu/news-events/story.cfm?hackid=484
http://www.diavolo.org/
http://www.calpresenters.org/
http://www.montereyherald.com/
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Peter Lesnik, Executive Director
(562) 985-2488
plesnik@csulb.edu
CARPENTER CENTER
6200 Atherton Blvd.
Long Beach, CA 90815
562.985.4274
For More Information about The Carpenter Center, click on Post title above or copy, paste and click http://www.carpenterarts.org/
Peter Lesnik, currently Executive Director of the Richard and Karen Carpenter Performing Arts Center at California State University, Long Beach (CSULB), will become the second Executive Director of Sunset Cultural Center, Inc. (SCC) January 1, 2008.
“THEATRE” BIOGRAPHY OF PETER LESNIK:
• Currently Executive Director of the Richard and Karen Carpenter Performing Arts Center at California State University, Long Beach (CSULB)
• Presents everything from “dance and theater to original and avant garde work; from jazz to family programming.”
• 20 years in the performing arts field, as author, performer, producer, director and presenter.
• Former Executive Director of the Herberger Theatre Center, Phoenix, AZ., the Kelsey Theater at Mercer College, New Jersey, Norris Theatre for the Performing Arts, Los Angeles, CA.
• Oversaw the revitalization of performing arts centers, including the Herberger Theatre Center, Phoenix, AZ., the Kelsey Theater at Mercer College, New Jersey and the Norris Theatre for the Performing Arts, Palos.Verdes, CA.
• Current Board Member (Vice President) of Diavolo Dance Company
• Current Member of California Presenters; established in 1985, "a statewide organization committed to advancing professional touring and presenting of the performing arts."
• Principal, TMA, Inc. (Theatre Management Associates); TMA “constructs solutions to all imaginable physical, fiscal, staffing, marketing and programmatic challenges for venues as they are being built, renovated or re-imagined.”
• Former Commissioner on the Los Angeles County Arts Commission
• Former reader and advisor to the Eugene O’Neill National Playwrights Conference
• Former Dramaturge, Acting Teacher and Director at the Performing Arts Foundation, Huntington, N.Y.
• Former Residents Director at the 13th Street Theatre, New York and the Odyssey Theatre, Los Angeles
• Creator of the Counterpane Acting Method
• Bachelor’s Degree in Theatre, University of California Riverside; Master’s Degree in Theatre and Film, Pennsylvania State University
THE RICHARD AND KAREN CARPENTER PERFORMING ARTS CENTER: INFORMATION, MISSION & HISTORY:
• Named after Richard and Karen Carpenter, the Grammy Award-winning brother and sister duo “The Carpenters.”
• Richard Carpenter and his family support the Carpenter Center philanthropically
• Mission: The mission of the Richard and Karen Carpenter Performing Arts Center is to guarantee the citizens of Long Beach, CSULB students, faculty, and staff, and surrounding communities access to the entire spectrum of performing arts experiences through resident companies, arts outreach, and unique programming.
• The Carpenter Center is the second largest performing arts center in Long Beach; second to downtown’s Long Beach Performing Arts Center.
• Built in 1993, the 1,074-seat venue was christened the Richard and Karen Carpenter Performing Arts Center after Richard donated $1 million to the facility.
• The $27 million white building, constructed with state bond money, was modeled after the New York State Theater at Lincoln Center in New York City.
• The Carpenter Center debuted in Dec. 1993; the official grand opening took place in Oct. 1994
• February 1995: Summer & Fall Performances on hold and staff laid off due to poor revenues. The Center was transferred from the university’s fund-raising office to the College of the Arts.
• September 1995: a new season announced.
• December 1997, Lesnik hired as Executive Director.
• "My basic philosophy on programming is to find out what's available to people on a professional level in and around the immediate community," Lesnik says. "What's not available is what we should be doing."
• Lesnik made international and contemporary dance a priority and started a series of family programming.
• 150 to 200 events a year take place at the center, 80 of them by the center's four residents (South Coast Chorale, Musical Theatre West, Long Beach Opera and Long Beach Community Concert Association).
• According to a recent Monterey County Herald article, Lesnik “raised programming and fundraising revenues tenfold during the past 10 years as director of the Richard and Karen Carpenter Performing Arts Center in Long Beach.”
SOURCES:
http://www.carpenterarts.org/
http://www.fiatlux.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/display.cgi?id=914
http://www.theatremgmtassociates.com/associates.htm
http://www.leadsister.com/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t1780.html
http://www.ced.csulb.edu/news-events/story.cfm?hackid=484
http://www.diavolo.org/
http://www.calpresenters.org/
http://www.montereyherald.com/
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Peter Lesnik, Executive Director
(562) 985-2488
plesnik@csulb.edu
CARPENTER CENTER
6200 Atherton Blvd.
Long Beach, CA 90815
562.985.4274
For More Information about The Carpenter Center, click on Post title above or copy, paste and click http://www.carpenterarts.org/
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Flanders Mansion: BEFORE & AFTER PHOTOS
ABSTRACT: BEFORE and AFTER photos of recent roof repairs and vine removal on the exterior wall at Flanders Mansion, a National Register of Historic Places resource. As reference, Chapter 17.32, HISTORIC PRESERVATION,17.32.210 Maintenance and Upkeep, Carmel-by-the-Sea’s Municipal Code, is reproduced.
BEFORE
Roof Repair, Roof near Garage
AFTER
Roof Repair, Roof near Garage
BEFORE
Roof Repair, Roof over Entry from Driveway
Nine Tiles from Right, Bottom End, Counting Right to Left
AFTER
Roof Repair, Roof over Entry from Driveway
Nine Tiles from Right, Bottom End, Counting Right to Left
BEFORE
Pruning of Vine on Exterior
AFTER
Pruning of Vine on Exterior
REFERENCE:
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Municipal Code
Chapter 17.32
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
17.32.210 Maintenance and Upkeep.
A. Minimum Maintenance.
1. All resources included in the inventory shall be preserved against decay and deterioration, kept in a state of good repair and free from structural defects. The purpose of this section is to prevent an owner or other person having legal custody and control over a property from facilitating demolition of a historic resource by neglecting it and by permitting damage to it by weather and/or vandalism.
2. Consistent with all other State and City codes requiring that buildings and structures be kept in good repair, the owner or other person having legal custody and control of a property shall repair such building or structure if it is found to have any of the following defects.
a. Building elements so attached that they may fall and injure members of the public or property.
b. Deteriorated or inadequate foundation.
c. Defective or deteriorated flooring.
d. Members of walls, partitions or other vertical supports that split, lean, list or buckle due to defective material or deterioration.
e. Members of ceilings, roofs, ceilings or roof supports or other horizontal members which that sag, split or buckle due to defective materials or deterioration.
f. Fireplaces or chimneys that list, bulge or settle due to defective material or deterioration.
g. Deteriorated, crumbling or loose exterior plaster.
h. Deteriorated or ineffective waterproofing of exterior walls, roofs, foundations or floors, including broken windows or doors.
i. Defective or lack of weather protection for exterior wall coverings, including lack of paint, or weathering due to lack of paint or other protective covering.
j. Any fault, defect or deterioration in the building which that renders it structurally unsafe or not properly watertight.
3. If the Building Official determines that a historic resource or any other property is being neglected and subject to damage from weather or vandalism, the Director and/or Building Official shall meet with the owner or other person having legal custody and control of the historic resource to discuss with them ways to improve the condition of the property. If no attempt or insufficient effort is made to correct any noted conditions thereafter, the Building Official may issue a notice to comply requiring the owner or other person having legal custody and control of the historic resource to take action to require corrections of defects in the subject property in order that such historic resource may be preserved in accordance with this section.
B. Protection of Deteriorated, Vacant and Vandalized Resources.
1. The Building Official shall have the authority to issue an order to comply to any owner of any property included in the inventory if the Building Official determines that the property has become subject to vandalism or constitutes a public nuisance. In such circumstances, the Building Official shall have the authority to issue any order deemed appropriate to keep the property from being further vandalized or from becoming a public nuisance including, but not limited to, ordering that the building be secured and fenced.
2. For the purposes of this provision, the property shall include the interiors and exteriors of any accessory building located on a property in the inventory.
3. Security measures that the Building Official may order shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
a. The installation of the maximum allowed height, under this code, chain-link perimeter fencing with at least one securely locked pedestrian gate and the posting of “No Trespassing” signs at regular intervals.
b. Steel or plywood closures, with one-inch diameter air holes, installed at all doors and windows. (Sandwich panel installation shall be used so as to avoid drilling into window frames and sashes, doors, ornament or masonry units.)
c. The removal of all debris from the premises, including but not limited to wood, paper, cans, bottles and fecal matter.
d. Any temporary modifications required to be made to secure the building shall be reversible.
4. Any plans or proposals for work required to be performed pursuant to an order to comply to secure any building from being further vandalized or from becoming a public nuisance must first be reviewed by the Department and the Building Official to ensure that any work done to secure the building will not damage or alter the historic character of the building. This review by the Department and the Building Official shall be completed within 10 working days from the date any request for review is submitted. If the work to be performed includes substantial alteration, the procedures set forth in this section shall be utilized for review.
5. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to prohibit an owner from taking immediate temporary measures to secure a building from unauthorized entry.
6. It shall be unlawful for any property owner to fail to comply with any order to comply issued by the Building Official under this provision.
7. Additional Remedies – Notice of Intention. In addition to the remedies provided by this code, should an owner fail to comply with an order to comply, the City may take the necessary measures, including those authorized under this code, to immediately secure the property against vandalism or prevent it from becoming a public nuisance. The City shall have the authority to assess the cost of performing this work as a lien against real property on which the building is located and take whatever additional action the City deems necessary to recover its costs and further secure the property and provide for its preservation. Prior to taking these measures, the City shall send a notice of intention to the owner. (Ord. 2004-02 § 1, 2004; Ord. 2004-01 § 1, 2004).
BEFORERoof Repair, Roof near Garage
AFTERRoof Repair, Roof near Garage
BEFORERoof Repair, Roof over Entry from Driveway
Nine Tiles from Right, Bottom End, Counting Right to Left
AFTERRoof Repair, Roof over Entry from Driveway
Nine Tiles from Right, Bottom End, Counting Right to Left
BEFOREPruning of Vine on Exterior
AFTERPruning of Vine on Exterior
REFERENCE:
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Municipal Code
Chapter 17.32
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
17.32.210 Maintenance and Upkeep.
A. Minimum Maintenance.
1. All resources included in the inventory shall be preserved against decay and deterioration, kept in a state of good repair and free from structural defects. The purpose of this section is to prevent an owner or other person having legal custody and control over a property from facilitating demolition of a historic resource by neglecting it and by permitting damage to it by weather and/or vandalism.
2. Consistent with all other State and City codes requiring that buildings and structures be kept in good repair, the owner or other person having legal custody and control of a property shall repair such building or structure if it is found to have any of the following defects.
a. Building elements so attached that they may fall and injure members of the public or property.
b. Deteriorated or inadequate foundation.
c. Defective or deteriorated flooring.
d. Members of walls, partitions or other vertical supports that split, lean, list or buckle due to defective material or deterioration.
e. Members of ceilings, roofs, ceilings or roof supports or other horizontal members which that sag, split or buckle due to defective materials or deterioration.
f. Fireplaces or chimneys that list, bulge or settle due to defective material or deterioration.
g. Deteriorated, crumbling or loose exterior plaster.
h. Deteriorated or ineffective waterproofing of exterior walls, roofs, foundations or floors, including broken windows or doors.
i. Defective or lack of weather protection for exterior wall coverings, including lack of paint, or weathering due to lack of paint or other protective covering.
j. Any fault, defect or deterioration in the building which that renders it structurally unsafe or not properly watertight.
3. If the Building Official determines that a historic resource or any other property is being neglected and subject to damage from weather or vandalism, the Director and/or Building Official shall meet with the owner or other person having legal custody and control of the historic resource to discuss with them ways to improve the condition of the property. If no attempt or insufficient effort is made to correct any noted conditions thereafter, the Building Official may issue a notice to comply requiring the owner or other person having legal custody and control of the historic resource to take action to require corrections of defects in the subject property in order that such historic resource may be preserved in accordance with this section.
B. Protection of Deteriorated, Vacant and Vandalized Resources.
1. The Building Official shall have the authority to issue an order to comply to any owner of any property included in the inventory if the Building Official determines that the property has become subject to vandalism or constitutes a public nuisance. In such circumstances, the Building Official shall have the authority to issue any order deemed appropriate to keep the property from being further vandalized or from becoming a public nuisance including, but not limited to, ordering that the building be secured and fenced.
2. For the purposes of this provision, the property shall include the interiors and exteriors of any accessory building located on a property in the inventory.
3. Security measures that the Building Official may order shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
a. The installation of the maximum allowed height, under this code, chain-link perimeter fencing with at least one securely locked pedestrian gate and the posting of “No Trespassing” signs at regular intervals.
b. Steel or plywood closures, with one-inch diameter air holes, installed at all doors and windows. (Sandwich panel installation shall be used so as to avoid drilling into window frames and sashes, doors, ornament or masonry units.)
c. The removal of all debris from the premises, including but not limited to wood, paper, cans, bottles and fecal matter.
d. Any temporary modifications required to be made to secure the building shall be reversible.
4. Any plans or proposals for work required to be performed pursuant to an order to comply to secure any building from being further vandalized or from becoming a public nuisance must first be reviewed by the Department and the Building Official to ensure that any work done to secure the building will not damage or alter the historic character of the building. This review by the Department and the Building Official shall be completed within 10 working days from the date any request for review is submitted. If the work to be performed includes substantial alteration, the procedures set forth in this section shall be utilized for review.
5. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to prohibit an owner from taking immediate temporary measures to secure a building from unauthorized entry.
6. It shall be unlawful for any property owner to fail to comply with any order to comply issued by the Building Official under this provision.
7. Additional Remedies – Notice of Intention. In addition to the remedies provided by this code, should an owner fail to comply with an order to comply, the City may take the necessary measures, including those authorized under this code, to immediately secure the property against vandalism or prevent it from becoming a public nuisance. The City shall have the authority to assess the cost of performing this work as a lien against real property on which the building is located and take whatever additional action the City deems necessary to recover its costs and further secure the property and provide for its preservation. Prior to taking these measures, the City shall send a notice of intention to the owner. (Ord. 2004-02 § 1, 2004; Ord. 2004-01 § 1, 2004).
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Mayor McCloud’s Modus Operandi
ABSTRACT: At the City Council meeting on November 6, 2007, during Appearances, Carmel resident Skip Lloyd spoke about his concerns about the recent Forest Theater Foundation’s Neighborhood Meeting regarding their “pre-design” plans for the Forest Theater. Mayor McCloud’s response was typical in four essential respects. A transcription of Skip Lloyd’s and Mayor McCloud’s remarks is presented. Comments are made with respect to the content of Mayor McCloud’s response.
City Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
November 6, 2007
VI. Appearances
Anyone wishing to address the City Council on matters within the jurisdiction of the City and are not on the agenda may do so now. Matters not appearing on the City Council’s agenda will not receive action at this meeting but may be referred to staff for a future meeting.
During Appearances, Carmel resident Skip Lloyd spoke about his concerns about the recent Forest Theater Foundation’s Neighborhood Meeting regarding their “pre-design” plans for the Forest Theater. Mayor Sue McCloud’s response was typical Sue McCloud in four essential respects:
1. McCloud’s insistence on having the last word
2. McCloud’s defensive posture, devoid of concern for the thoughts expressed and devoid of empathy for the speaker
3. McCloud’s poorly articulated response, characterized by extraneous information.
4. McCloud’s omission of crucial, essential information which creates false and erroneous impressions.
Herewith are the statements of Skip Lloyd and Mayor Sue McCloud, as follows:
Skip Lloyd: “I just wanted to speak for the moment; I’m Skip Lloyd, about the Forest Theater meeting the other day. As you know, there was a Master Plan done for the Forest Theater back in 2001, and I wasn’t aware much of that, but I understand that is was a very, very long process, thoughtful process, with a lot of people involved, with very deep feelings about the Forest Theater, before the plan was generated.”
“The meeting the other day, not really sure, people aren’t sure where this fits into the process here. As you know, the meeting was called with these flyers; the distribution of these to the neighbors was by putting them into an envelope and distributing them on the front porches of, or whatever else, places where they were put, of some neighbors. Obviously, that’s not going to generate a really great response because some people, as we know, don’t live in town all the time, maybe on vacation or anywhere else.”
“And so I would hope, personally, and I know some others in the community feel this way, that before this preliminary plan travels to far down the track, that there is solicitation of a lot more response to the plan because people just saw the plan on a flat one dimension approach and there were many, many questions, and of course, they begin to generate more as you take away and think about it. And so I think that would really be important for the Foundation and the City, of course, it’s the City’s property, ultimately, it’s going to have to do this, to have that work through the process without people choosing up sides and going through one of these donnybrooks which could happen.”
“Some people got a little concerned, or at least one person, over the fact that this was distributed in a city envelope with a city return address on the envelope and so that got people thinking, hey, this thing is moving fast and we better form up and get organized and a reactive kind of feeling to it which is not positive for a community project like this.”
“And as we know, it’s not just the people who live right around the Forest Theatre, they have it literally in their front years, but all of us, even those of us who live slightly out-of-town, have sometimes very deep feelings about the Forest Theater.”
“And so I hope that I would encourage you to the extent you have influence with the Foundation at this point, to have them open up the process before it’s sets to much carved into stone because then you risk having a real community donnybrook. And you don’t need another one of those right now. Thank you."
Mayor Sue McCloud: “I’ll close the Appearances section.”
“But I would like to comment on Skip’s remarks that were just made. And that was, I don’t know if you were there at the beginning when it was explained Skip, that the concern, there were about 100 notices that were passed out to the immediate neighbors, as I understand, and the idea was that they are the people who have some very strong feelings about what we have heard over the years about sound and light and parking. And we didn’t, wanted them to have the opportunity to express themselves before it got lost in a larger group, to get those factored in and so that was the purpose of the meeting. And why it was put on neighborhood doors. And the envelopes are typical of what we do with noticing, when somebody is, has something coming before the Design Review Board or Forest & Beach or whatever, it’s supposed to go out in a city envelope. Now, because we all get so much junk mail, that people were throwing them away without realizing what they were so those were our intentions as far as the Foundation putting on the meeting that night. And they have also had a series of meetings to get some consensus among the three historical partners. So it will go on from there. But, that was just a very conceptual meeting.”
COMMENTS:
• Mayor McCloud’s response failed to address the central concerns of Skip Lloyd; namely, what is the city’s role in the promotion of the Forest Theater Foundations “pre-design” plan, the apparent dismissal of the Congleton 2001 Forest Theater Facilities Master Plan and what is the process and timetable for the presentation of the Forest Theater Foundation’s plan to the public?
• While Mayor McCloud’s and the Forest Theater Foundation’s intentions may have been to solicit concerns from the immediate neighbors at the so-called Neighborhood Meeting at Vista Lobos, in fact, the majority of audience members were not immediate neighbors of the Forest Theatre. McCloud’s omission of this salient fact makes her response about the purpose of the meeting moot.
• Mayor McCloud’s statement, “And the envelopes are typical of what we do with noticing, when somebody is, has something coming before the Design Review Board or Forest & Beach or whatever, it’s supposed to go out in a city envelope.” McCloud’s analogy between the City’s noticing a Commission agenda item and the Forest Theater Foundation’s Neighborhood Meeting notice in a City Hall envelope is a false analogy; that is, the Forest Theater Foundation’s Neighborhood Meeting was not on a City Council/Commission agenda and therefore the announcement of a Forest Theater Foundation Neighborhood Meeting should not have been in City Hall envelopes.
• Mayor McCloud: “But, that was just a very conceptual meeting.” McCloud is notorious for soft pedaling the beginning phases of a proposal and then later exclaiming that so much time and effort has been expended that we have to go forward by implementing her previously predetermined course of action ex. the installation of the Sunset Cultural Center, Inc., attempt to install the Business Improvement District, attempt to install city-wide paid parking, et cetera.
• Whether intellectually challenged and/or morally challenged, Mayor McCloud fails to cogently address the essence of individuals’ remarks and seeks to manipulate and deceive the public through sins of omission and extraneous verbiage.
City Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
November 6, 2007
VI. Appearances
Anyone wishing to address the City Council on matters within the jurisdiction of the City and are not on the agenda may do so now. Matters not appearing on the City Council’s agenda will not receive action at this meeting but may be referred to staff for a future meeting.
During Appearances, Carmel resident Skip Lloyd spoke about his concerns about the recent Forest Theater Foundation’s Neighborhood Meeting regarding their “pre-design” plans for the Forest Theater. Mayor Sue McCloud’s response was typical Sue McCloud in four essential respects:
1. McCloud’s insistence on having the last word
2. McCloud’s defensive posture, devoid of concern for the thoughts expressed and devoid of empathy for the speaker
3. McCloud’s poorly articulated response, characterized by extraneous information.
4. McCloud’s omission of crucial, essential information which creates false and erroneous impressions.
Herewith are the statements of Skip Lloyd and Mayor Sue McCloud, as follows:
Skip Lloyd: “I just wanted to speak for the moment; I’m Skip Lloyd, about the Forest Theater meeting the other day. As you know, there was a Master Plan done for the Forest Theater back in 2001, and I wasn’t aware much of that, but I understand that is was a very, very long process, thoughtful process, with a lot of people involved, with very deep feelings about the Forest Theater, before the plan was generated.”
“The meeting the other day, not really sure, people aren’t sure where this fits into the process here. As you know, the meeting was called with these flyers; the distribution of these to the neighbors was by putting them into an envelope and distributing them on the front porches of, or whatever else, places where they were put, of some neighbors. Obviously, that’s not going to generate a really great response because some people, as we know, don’t live in town all the time, maybe on vacation or anywhere else.”
“And so I would hope, personally, and I know some others in the community feel this way, that before this preliminary plan travels to far down the track, that there is solicitation of a lot more response to the plan because people just saw the plan on a flat one dimension approach and there were many, many questions, and of course, they begin to generate more as you take away and think about it. And so I think that would really be important for the Foundation and the City, of course, it’s the City’s property, ultimately, it’s going to have to do this, to have that work through the process without people choosing up sides and going through one of these donnybrooks which could happen.”
“Some people got a little concerned, or at least one person, over the fact that this was distributed in a city envelope with a city return address on the envelope and so that got people thinking, hey, this thing is moving fast and we better form up and get organized and a reactive kind of feeling to it which is not positive for a community project like this.”
“And as we know, it’s not just the people who live right around the Forest Theatre, they have it literally in their front years, but all of us, even those of us who live slightly out-of-town, have sometimes very deep feelings about the Forest Theater.”
“And so I hope that I would encourage you to the extent you have influence with the Foundation at this point, to have them open up the process before it’s sets to much carved into stone because then you risk having a real community donnybrook. And you don’t need another one of those right now. Thank you."
Mayor Sue McCloud: “I’ll close the Appearances section.”
“But I would like to comment on Skip’s remarks that were just made. And that was, I don’t know if you were there at the beginning when it was explained Skip, that the concern, there were about 100 notices that were passed out to the immediate neighbors, as I understand, and the idea was that they are the people who have some very strong feelings about what we have heard over the years about sound and light and parking. And we didn’t, wanted them to have the opportunity to express themselves before it got lost in a larger group, to get those factored in and so that was the purpose of the meeting. And why it was put on neighborhood doors. And the envelopes are typical of what we do with noticing, when somebody is, has something coming before the Design Review Board or Forest & Beach or whatever, it’s supposed to go out in a city envelope. Now, because we all get so much junk mail, that people were throwing them away without realizing what they were so those were our intentions as far as the Foundation putting on the meeting that night. And they have also had a series of meetings to get some consensus among the three historical partners. So it will go on from there. But, that was just a very conceptual meeting.”
COMMENTS:
• Mayor McCloud’s response failed to address the central concerns of Skip Lloyd; namely, what is the city’s role in the promotion of the Forest Theater Foundations “pre-design” plan, the apparent dismissal of the Congleton 2001 Forest Theater Facilities Master Plan and what is the process and timetable for the presentation of the Forest Theater Foundation’s plan to the public?
• While Mayor McCloud’s and the Forest Theater Foundation’s intentions may have been to solicit concerns from the immediate neighbors at the so-called Neighborhood Meeting at Vista Lobos, in fact, the majority of audience members were not immediate neighbors of the Forest Theatre. McCloud’s omission of this salient fact makes her response about the purpose of the meeting moot.
• Mayor McCloud’s statement, “And the envelopes are typical of what we do with noticing, when somebody is, has something coming before the Design Review Board or Forest & Beach or whatever, it’s supposed to go out in a city envelope.” McCloud’s analogy between the City’s noticing a Commission agenda item and the Forest Theater Foundation’s Neighborhood Meeting notice in a City Hall envelope is a false analogy; that is, the Forest Theater Foundation’s Neighborhood Meeting was not on a City Council/Commission agenda and therefore the announcement of a Forest Theater Foundation Neighborhood Meeting should not have been in City Hall envelopes.
• Mayor McCloud: “But, that was just a very conceptual meeting.” McCloud is notorious for soft pedaling the beginning phases of a proposal and then later exclaiming that so much time and effort has been expended that we have to go forward by implementing her previously predetermined course of action ex. the installation of the Sunset Cultural Center, Inc., attempt to install the Business Improvement District, attempt to install city-wide paid parking, et cetera.
• Whether intellectually challenged and/or morally challenged, Mayor McCloud fails to cogently address the essence of individuals’ remarks and seeks to manipulate and deceive the public through sins of omission and extraneous verbiage.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Whatever Happened To...
Suzanne & Steve Diamond’s Proposal to Privately Finance the Building of a Museum in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea?
ABSTRACT: Whatever happened to Suzanne & Steve Diamond’s proposal to privately finance the building of a museum in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea? The City Council agenda item and minutes of the 1 November 2005 meeting are presented. The City Council unanimously voted to form a two-person committee consisting of City Councilman Gerard Rose and Mayor Sue McCloud to proceed with "the development of a proposal." Comments are made, including an Update related to communications from Monterey Museum of Art Executive Director E. Michael Whittington. Apparently, E. Michael Whittington expressed “collegial” support to the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and has not gone beyond that since the demise of the Diamond’s proposal.
City Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
November 1, 2005
XI. Orders of Council
A. Receive a proposal for the construction of a museum and to provide policy direction.
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
November 1, 2005
XI. ORDERS OF COUNCIL
A. Receive a proposal for the construction of a museum and to provide policy direction.
John Thodos presented a proposal on behalf on Suzanne and Steve Diamond to privately finance the building of a museum in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. Mayor McCloud requested policy direction from the Council in the form of an expression of interest by Council. Council Member Rose volunteered to work with Mayor McCloud on the proposal.
Mayor McCloud declared the public hearing open at 5:50 p.m. and closed at 5:51 p.m. as there was no public comment.
Council Member ROSE proposed forming a two-person committee consisting of himself and Mayor McCLOUD to proceed with the development of a proposal seconded by Council Member CUNNINGHAM and carried by the following roll call:
AYES: CUNNINGHAM, HAZDOVAC, ROSE, McCLOUD
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: BETHEL
ABSTAIN: NONE
COMMENTS:
• Since the November 2005 City Council meeting, the two-person committee of Mayor Sue McCloud and City Councilman Gerard Rose, charged with proceeding “with the development of a proposal,” have presented no progress report or update on the Diamond’s proposal at a City Council meeting.
• Apparently, Mayor Sue McCloud alluded to the Monterey Museum of Art having offered its services to assist the City in the planning of a museum for the city’s art collection at the north parking lot of the Sunset Center at the Carmel Residents Association 25 October 2007 meeting during her lecture “Looking Back As We Go Forward.”
• As a matter of city policy, it would behoove City Council Members who form committees to give regular updates, reasons for lack of progress, abandoning proposals, et cetera, at City Council meetings.
• UPDATE: Today, Monterey Museum of Art Executive Director E. Michael Whittington stated that Mayor Sue McCloud graciously informed him in an “informal telephone conversation” of the Diamond’s proposal. As Executive Director, Whittington extended a “collegial” gesture as a cultural institution to assist the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea in technical matters, et cetera, relating to the planning of an art museum. However, since Mayor McCloud notified him that the Diamond’s proposal was dead, the Monterey Museum of Art has not gone beyond the original statement of “collegial” support.
REFERENCE:
Meeting Date: November 1,2005
Prepared by: Rich Guillen
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Receive a proposal for the construction of a museum and provide policy direction.
Description: Mr. and Mrs. Steve Diamond are proposing the construction of a museum. A representative of the Diamonds will present a conceptual proposal to the City Council.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: $0
Grant Funds: Unknown at this time.
Staff time: Staff time will depend on whether the proposed project is pursued or not.
Staff Recommendation: Receive the report on the proposal and provide policy direction.
Important Considerations: Additional information will be provided when a firm proposal is brought forth.
Decision Record: No previous actions have been taken by the City Council.
Reviewed by:
______________________________ _________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
ABSTRACT: Whatever happened to Suzanne & Steve Diamond’s proposal to privately finance the building of a museum in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea? The City Council agenda item and minutes of the 1 November 2005 meeting are presented. The City Council unanimously voted to form a two-person committee consisting of City Councilman Gerard Rose and Mayor Sue McCloud to proceed with "the development of a proposal." Comments are made, including an Update related to communications from Monterey Museum of Art Executive Director E. Michael Whittington. Apparently, E. Michael Whittington expressed “collegial” support to the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and has not gone beyond that since the demise of the Diamond’s proposal.
City Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
November 1, 2005
XI. Orders of Council
A. Receive a proposal for the construction of a museum and to provide policy direction.
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
November 1, 2005
XI. ORDERS OF COUNCIL
A. Receive a proposal for the construction of a museum and to provide policy direction.
John Thodos presented a proposal on behalf on Suzanne and Steve Diamond to privately finance the building of a museum in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. Mayor McCloud requested policy direction from the Council in the form of an expression of interest by Council. Council Member Rose volunteered to work with Mayor McCloud on the proposal.
Mayor McCloud declared the public hearing open at 5:50 p.m. and closed at 5:51 p.m. as there was no public comment.
Council Member ROSE proposed forming a two-person committee consisting of himself and Mayor McCLOUD to proceed with the development of a proposal seconded by Council Member CUNNINGHAM and carried by the following roll call:
AYES: CUNNINGHAM, HAZDOVAC, ROSE, McCLOUD
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: BETHEL
ABSTAIN: NONE
COMMENTS:
• Since the November 2005 City Council meeting, the two-person committee of Mayor Sue McCloud and City Councilman Gerard Rose, charged with proceeding “with the development of a proposal,” have presented no progress report or update on the Diamond’s proposal at a City Council meeting.
• Apparently, Mayor Sue McCloud alluded to the Monterey Museum of Art having offered its services to assist the City in the planning of a museum for the city’s art collection at the north parking lot of the Sunset Center at the Carmel Residents Association 25 October 2007 meeting during her lecture “Looking Back As We Go Forward.”
• As a matter of city policy, it would behoove City Council Members who form committees to give regular updates, reasons for lack of progress, abandoning proposals, et cetera, at City Council meetings.
• UPDATE: Today, Monterey Museum of Art Executive Director E. Michael Whittington stated that Mayor Sue McCloud graciously informed him in an “informal telephone conversation” of the Diamond’s proposal. As Executive Director, Whittington extended a “collegial” gesture as a cultural institution to assist the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea in technical matters, et cetera, relating to the planning of an art museum. However, since Mayor McCloud notified him that the Diamond’s proposal was dead, the Monterey Museum of Art has not gone beyond the original statement of “collegial” support.
REFERENCE:
Meeting Date: November 1,2005
Prepared by: Rich Guillen
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Receive a proposal for the construction of a museum and provide policy direction.
Description: Mr. and Mrs. Steve Diamond are proposing the construction of a museum. A representative of the Diamonds will present a conceptual proposal to the City Council.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: $0
Grant Funds: Unknown at this time.
Staff time: Staff time will depend on whether the proposed project is pursued or not.
Staff Recommendation: Receive the report on the proposal and provide policy direction.
Important Considerations: Additional information will be provided when a firm proposal is brought forth.
Decision Record: No previous actions have been taken by the City Council.
Reviewed by:
______________________________ _________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Interesting Information About Carmel-by-the-Sea Parks
Figure 7.1Parks, Open Space, Recreation and Community Facilities
General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Open Space, Conservation and Scenic Highways Element
ABSTRACT: Information about Carmel-by-the-Sea Parks, including locations, acreages, facilities/uses and zoning designations are presented. Comments and Questions are made in the context of the recent City Council vote to prohibit smoking in city parks.
Herewith are the Parks of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, including locations, acreages, facilities/uses and zoning designations, as follows:
Carmel Beach Park
W/s Scenic Rd & N. San Antonio Av., between Northern (Pebble Beach Gate) & Southern (Carmel Point) City Limits
21.5 acres
Swimming, picnicking, other beach related activities
Zoned P-1
Mission Trail Nature Preserve (Flanders Mansion and Lester Rowntree Arboretum)
Entrances at Rio Rd (across from Carmel Mission), 11th Avenue east of Torres Street, Mountain View Av. & Crespi Av., and 25800 Hatton Road.
35.0 Acres
Nature walks, jogging, picnicking, bicycling
Zoned P-1
Devendorf Park
Ocean Av./6th Av. & Junipero Av./Mission St.
0.6 Acre
Picnic
Zoned P-2
Forest Hill Park
Junipero Av. between Camino Del Monte/1st Av.
2.4 Acres
Natural area, shuffleboard, clubhouse, horseshoe pits, par course physical fitness trail, children’s playground, tennis courts, restrooms
Zoned P-2
Forest Theater
Mt. View Av. between Santa Rita St./Guadalupe St.
Zoned P-2
Picadilly Park
W/s Dolores St. between Ocean Av./7th Av.
.09 Acre
Open space, benches
Zoned CC
Vista Lobos
Third AV. between Junipero Av./Torres St.
1.24 Acres
Meeting room, observation deck, mini park, public parking
Zoned R-4
Carmelita Park
Dolores St. & 5th Av., N.W. Corner
Mini Park, hides entrance to a 100-car underground parking garage
Rio Park
Lasuen/Dolores St. between Carmel Mission/Carmel River
6.24 Acres
Open space, trails, ball field
Zoned MDR (County Zoning)
First Murphy Park
W/s Lincoln St. between 5th Av./6th Av.
Pescadero Park
North of 2nd Av. between N. Camino Real & N. Casanova (discontinuous)
Notes:
P-1 = To preserve publicly owned park and beach lands for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations, and to prevent the destruction of natural open spaces.
P-2 = To provide appropriately located areas for recreation and recreational facilities.
Source: Carmel LCP, 1981 Table 8; “Guide to Management of Carmel’s Forests, Parks and Beaches”, 1981.
NOTE: “Carmel presently owns 10.67% of the total area of the City.”
References: General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Open Space, Conservation & Scenic Highways Element, Sights, http://www.ci.carmel.ca.us/
COMMENTS & QUESTIONS:
• Prior to the City Council’s unanimous vote to prohibit smoking in the city’s parks, including Devendorf Park, First Murphy Park, Forest Hill Park, Mission Trail Nature Preserve, Piccadilly Park, Vista Lobos Park, Pescadero Park, Rio Park and Forest Theater at their 6 November 2007 meeting, a past City Council voted 4-1 (first reading), Bethel dissenting and 3-1 (second reading), Cunningham dissenting, Bethel absent, to prohibit smoking at Carmel Beach in October/November 2005.
Question: Why didn’t the City Council have the foresight to consider a prohibition of smoking in all city parks in October/November 2005, and not allow the situation to reach “crisis” proportions as City Councilman Gerard Rose contended at the 7 November 2007 City Council meeting?
• In Public Safety Director George Rawson’s Staff Report, he cites the study, “Real-Time Measurement of Outdoor Smoke,” by N. Klepeis, et al, at Stanford University to justify the smoking ban in city parks. Rawson wrote, Researchers concluded that an individual “being within a few feet of a smoker outdoors may expose you to air pollution levels that are comparable, on average, to indoor levels that we have measured in previous studies of homes and taverns.”
First, there are very few published studies on outdoor levels of secondhand smoke (SHS). In fact, the Klepeis et al. paper is the first study on outdoor smoking to be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
Secondly, the Keipeis, et al. study (2004) referenced by Public Safety Director George Rawson demonstrated that SHS particle concentrations in outdoor settings in some cases can be comparable to those in indoor setting “However, mean outdoor SHS concentration appear more variable than indoors, because outdoor SHS does not accumulate and outdoor transient peaks are more sensitive to source-receptor proximity and wind conditions.”
Therefore, since there are an absence of studies corroborating the findings and conclusions of Klepseis et al., it would have been better if Public Safety Director George E. Rawson had omitted public exposure to secondhand smoke as a reason for the smoking ban in city parks in his staff report.
• In November 2005, dissenter Mike Cunningham cited litter, specifically “papers, cups, cans, bottles, discarded clothing, dog feces, rusted coat hangers used for roasting hot dogs” as a “far greater problem” than cigarette butts based on his experiences at Carmel Beach cleanups.
Question: Since October/November 2005, what has the City Council done to proactively address the problem of litter in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea?
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Carmel Art Association Presents GALLERY SHOWCASE FEATURING DOMINGUEZ, JELMINI & MARTIN AND TWO-PERSON SHOW FEATURING FARRINGTON & LINDBERG
Carmel Art Association
“Celebrating 80 years of local art”
Voted “Art Gallery of the Year” by the Carmel Business Association three consecutive years.
W/s Dolores St. between 5th Av. & 6th Av.
10:00 A.M. – 5:00 P.M., Daily, except major Holidays, Open to the Public at No Charge
“Founded in 1927, Carmel's oldest gallery features the work of more than 120 professional local artists, and is dedicated to presenting only the finest work for sale by artists living on the Monterey Peninsula.”
For more information, click on the post title above or copy, paste and click http://www.carmelart.org/ or (831) 624-6176.
Carmel Art Association Presents GALLERY SHOWCASE FEATURING DOMINGUEZ, JELMINI & MARTIN AND TWO-PERSON SHOW FEATURING FARRINGTON & LINDBERG
Thursday, November 8 – Tuesday, November 27, 2007
TWO-PERSON SHOW: (Beardsley Room)
Painter Reed Farrington exhibits new artworks in oil depicting “secret places” along the Big Sur coastline and painter Keith Lindberg exhibits landscapes in oil.
For a photo of painter Reed Farrington’s artwork, click on Post title above, click on “artists,” then scroll down to “Farrington, Reed.”
For a photo of painter Keith Lindberg’s artwork, click on Post title above, click on “artists,” scroll down and click on “Click here for page 2,” then scroll down to “Lindberg, Keith.”
GALLERY SHOWCASE: (Segal Room)
Painter Miguel A. Dominguez exhibits new watercolor landscapes. For a photo of his artwork, click on Post title above, click on “artists,” then scroll down to “Dominguez, Miguel A.”
Painter Peggy Jelmini exhibits mixed media and oil landscape abstractions. For information, click on Post title above, click on “calendar,” then scroll down to “Jelmini, Peggy.”
Painter Gerard Martin exhibits oils on canvas depicting Harvest time in the Salinas Valley. For a photo of his artwork, click on Post title above, click on “artists,” click on “click here for page 2,” then scroll down to “Martin, Jr., Gerard.”
Opening reception Saturday, November 10, 6:00 P.M. – 8:00 P.M.
“Celebrating 80 years of local art”
Voted “Art Gallery of the Year” by the Carmel Business Association three consecutive years.
W/s Dolores St. between 5th Av. & 6th Av.
10:00 A.M. – 5:00 P.M., Daily, except major Holidays, Open to the Public at No Charge
“Founded in 1927, Carmel's oldest gallery features the work of more than 120 professional local artists, and is dedicated to presenting only the finest work for sale by artists living on the Monterey Peninsula.”
For more information, click on the post title above or copy, paste and click http://www.carmelart.org/ or (831) 624-6176.
Carmel Art Association Presents GALLERY SHOWCASE FEATURING DOMINGUEZ, JELMINI & MARTIN AND TWO-PERSON SHOW FEATURING FARRINGTON & LINDBERG
Thursday, November 8 – Tuesday, November 27, 2007
TWO-PERSON SHOW: (Beardsley Room)
Painter Reed Farrington exhibits new artworks in oil depicting “secret places” along the Big Sur coastline and painter Keith Lindberg exhibits landscapes in oil.
For a photo of painter Reed Farrington’s artwork, click on Post title above, click on “artists,” then scroll down to “Farrington, Reed.”
For a photo of painter Keith Lindberg’s artwork, click on Post title above, click on “artists,” scroll down and click on “Click here for page 2,” then scroll down to “Lindberg, Keith.”
GALLERY SHOWCASE: (Segal Room)
Painter Miguel A. Dominguez exhibits new watercolor landscapes. For a photo of his artwork, click on Post title above, click on “artists,” then scroll down to “Dominguez, Miguel A.”
Painter Peggy Jelmini exhibits mixed media and oil landscape abstractions. For information, click on Post title above, click on “calendar,” then scroll down to “Jelmini, Peggy.”
Painter Gerard Martin exhibits oils on canvas depicting Harvest time in the Salinas Valley. For a photo of his artwork, click on Post title above, click on “artists,” click on “click here for page 2,” then scroll down to “Martin, Jr., Gerard.”
Opening reception Saturday, November 10, 6:00 P.M. – 8:00 P.M.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Rebuttal to Carmel Voice 'Flanders Failure' By Sam Salerno
Carmel Voice: “It’s ironic that a judge or the courts can tell a city they can’t sell a piece of property and must retain it...”
Rebuttal: Monterey Superior Court Robert A. O’Farrell ruled that the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), California Government Code and the City’s Municipal Code. As a consequence of the City Council’s illegal attempt to sell the Flanders Mansion property, the significance of the ruling is that if the City Council continues in its attempt to sell the Flanders Mansion property, the City Council must now follow all applicable laws regarding the sale of parkland, et cetera.
Carmel Voice: “...even though it is falling apart.”
Rebuttal: DEBUNKING MYTHS ABOUT FLANDERS
2. It's falling down and deteriorating.
It's falling down and deteriorating. No. Flanders is an amazingly solid structure. It has been neglected by the city for years. Like any house built in 1925 it needs upgrading. The cost of $800,000 can be paid for by grants, private donations and in kind donations if the city ceases talking of sale.(Source: http://www.flandersfoundation.org/myths.htm)
The Flanders Mansion, an English Cottage Tudor Revival, a combination of English half-timbered, English country and English cottage styles. Cement Block Building, fabricated of precast concrete units. Only known example of "cavity wall construction" in the region.
(Source: Draft Environmental Impact Report)
Ergo, by virtue of its composition and construction, the structure is not “falling apart.”
Carmel Voice: “It’s tough when certain groups can determine your fate. Is this a great country or what?”
Rebuttal: It is absolutely GREAT when a private organization has the opportunity to rectify a city’s violations of State and City Municipal laws through our country’s legal system! ABSOLUTELY!
Rebuttal: Monterey Superior Court Robert A. O’Farrell ruled that the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), California Government Code and the City’s Municipal Code. As a consequence of the City Council’s illegal attempt to sell the Flanders Mansion property, the significance of the ruling is that if the City Council continues in its attempt to sell the Flanders Mansion property, the City Council must now follow all applicable laws regarding the sale of parkland, et cetera.
Carmel Voice: “...even though it is falling apart.”
Rebuttal: DEBUNKING MYTHS ABOUT FLANDERS
2. It's falling down and deteriorating.
It's falling down and deteriorating. No. Flanders is an amazingly solid structure. It has been neglected by the city for years. Like any house built in 1925 it needs upgrading. The cost of $800,000 can be paid for by grants, private donations and in kind donations if the city ceases talking of sale.(Source: http://www.flandersfoundation.org/myths.htm)
The Flanders Mansion, an English Cottage Tudor Revival, a combination of English half-timbered, English country and English cottage styles. Cement Block Building, fabricated of precast concrete units. Only known example of "cavity wall construction" in the region.
(Source: Draft Environmental Impact Report)
Ergo, by virtue of its composition and construction, the structure is not “falling apart.”
Carmel Voice: “It’s tough when certain groups can determine your fate. Is this a great country or what?”
Rebuttal: It is absolutely GREAT when a private organization has the opportunity to rectify a city’s violations of State and City Municipal laws through our country’s legal system! ABSOLUTELY!
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Rigoulette, LLC, Owner of Carmel Convalescent Hospital Property, Requested County Application
ABSTRACT: Regarding the Carmel Convalescent Hospital property, the owner, Rigoulette, LLC, made contact with the Monterey County Planning Department, filed a “Description” on September 14, 2007 and received an application. Rigoulette, LLC, has yet to contact the assigned project planner to schedule an appointment for the purpose of submitting the application. Information on Rigoulette, LLC, the “Description,” and the assigned project planner is presented. And a synopsis of the County Planning Permit Process (Steps 1-8) is presented. Lastly, a Comment is made and the Minutes of the Carmel-by-the-Sea Planning Commission’s 11 April 2007 meeting are reproduced regarding Robert Leidig’s requests for annexation and pre-zoning.
INFORMATION ON CARMEL CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL PROPERTY
• Owner: Rigoulette, LLC
P.O. Box 485
Pebble Beach CA. 93953
APN: 009-061-002, 009-061-003 & 009-061-005
• Property currently zoned MDR or Medium Density Residential
• Rigoulette filed a “Description” of Intent with Monterey County on September 14, 2007, as follows:
DEMOLISH TWO STRUCTURES AND CONVERSION OF THE EXISTING CARMEL CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL INTO 50 CONDOMINIUMS; REMOVAL OF 40 PINE TREES; RESIDENTIAL, MIX INCLUDING AFFORDABLE AND WORKFORCE HOUSING, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WITH 2 AND 3 BEDROOM RESIDENCES WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING IN ADDITION TO EXISTING PARKING SPACES.
• Planner assigned to Rigoulette, LLC project:
Elizabeth Gonzales, Associate Planner, gonzalesl@co.monterey.ca.us, 755-5102
Based on correspondence with Elizabeth Gonzales yesterday, the applicant has an application, but has yet to contact her for the purpose of scheduling an appointment to formally submit the application (Step 3).
SYSNOPSIS OF THE COUNTY PLANNING PERMIT PROCESS
Step 1:
Complete the online questionnaire or talk with a planner at (831) 755-5025.
Step 2:
Receive an application.
Step 3:
Submit application.
To submit application, the applicant must schedule an appointment with the assigned project planner to submit the application.
Step 4:
30 day review period
The Planning & Building Inspection Department, other land use agencies and the local Land Use Advisory Committee will review the application. At the conclusion of the initial review, the project planner will deem the application “Complete” or “Incomplete.”
Step 5:
Environmental Review
Once deemed “Complete,” the application will be reviewed for compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based on the review, the project will be classified into one of three categories:
• Categorically Exempt: The proposed development activity is exempt from CEQA;
• Negative Declaration: Based on an environmental assessment it is determined that the proposed project will have no significant impacts or has potentially significant impacts that can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by modifying the project and/or attaching conditions of approval to the project.
• Environmental Impact Report: Based on an environmental assessment it is determined that the proposed project will have potentially significant environmental impacts that must be fully examined by the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
Step 6:
Prepare for the hearing
During this period, the applicant will be required to post hearing notices in the neighborhood and the assigned planner will prepare a written staff report.
Step 7:
The Hearing
The applicant makes a presentation of the project and members of the public have the opportunity to comment. After the hearing, a resolution, including the decision, legal findings and conditions of approval will be made. All decisions may be appealed.
Step 8:
Condition compliance
It is the applicant’s responsibility to satisfy all conditions of approval placed on the project.
For more on the Planning Permit Process, click on Post title above or copy, paste and click http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/planning/plan_info/planpmitproc.htm
COMMENT:
• After the Planning Commission voted unanimously (3-0) to recommend Robert Leidig’s Carmel Convalescent Hospital property annexation request be denied at their 11 April 2007 meeting, the owner of the property, Rigoulette, LLC, has since contacted the County and requested an application, but has yet to schedule an appointment with the project planner to formally submit the application. Apparently, then, it appears that the owner, Rigoulette, LLC, will proceed through the County permit process, not through the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
Note: Robert Leidig had and/or has an option to purchase the Carmel Convalescent Hospital property.
REFERENCES:
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
APRIL 11, 2007
IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. ZC 06-1
Robert Leidig
Valley Way & Highway 1
APN: 009-061-002, 003,005
Consideration of recommendations to the City Council on annexation and pre-zoning requests for a property of approximately 3.7 acres located on the north side of Valley Way, about 100 feet east of Monterey Street. The Planning Commission will consider the applicant’s request to pre-zone the property to an R-4 classification, and may review other zoning options. The Planning Commission also will review an environmental Initial Study and proposed Negative Declaration. The Planning Commission will forward all recommendations to the City Council for action.
Brian Roseth, Planning Services Manager, presented the staff report. Vice-chair Hewer opened the public hearing at 5:09 p.m. Bob Leidig, Lloyd Morain, Pam Gillooly, Herschel Peak, Stacy Steele, Barbara Livingston, Carol Stollery, Mark Bayne, Roberta Miller, President of Carmel Residents Association, Art Haseltine, Monte Miller, Cheryl Moreland, Tracy Manning read letter from Michael LePage, Richard Warren, Richard Dalsemer, Margery Mann read letter from Joyce Stevens, Michelle Smith, Liz Logan-Rondelle, Jon Blades, Kelly Steele, Yoko Whitaker, David Maridwin, Barbara Warren, Carroll Coates, Tracy Manning, Melanie Billig, Stacy Steele, Lois Layton read letter from Beverly Borgman, Angus Jeffers, Marion Maquade, Catsaki Sakakura, Shirley Human gave time to Melanie Billig, Carol Coates, Curtis Leidig, Ed Shagen, Chantal Melendez, Wayne Iverson, Myrna Hampton read letter from Alexander Henson attorney for Save our Neighborhoods Coalition, John Thodos, Steve Dallas, Linda Anderson and Derinda Messenger appeared before the Commission. There being no other appearances, the public hearing was closed at 7:41 p.m.
Vice-chair Hewer called for a break from 7:43 p.m. to 7:48 p.m.
Commissioner WILSON moved to recommend annexation request be denied, seconded by Commissioner HILLYARD and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Hewer, Hillyard, Wilson
NOES: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Sharp, Strid
ABSTAIN: None
INFORMATION ON CARMEL CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL PROPERTY
• Owner: Rigoulette, LLC
P.O. Box 485
Pebble Beach CA. 93953
APN: 009-061-002, 009-061-003 & 009-061-005
• Property currently zoned MDR or Medium Density Residential
• Rigoulette filed a “Description” of Intent with Monterey County on September 14, 2007, as follows:
DEMOLISH TWO STRUCTURES AND CONVERSION OF THE EXISTING CARMEL CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL INTO 50 CONDOMINIUMS; REMOVAL OF 40 PINE TREES; RESIDENTIAL, MIX INCLUDING AFFORDABLE AND WORKFORCE HOUSING, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WITH 2 AND 3 BEDROOM RESIDENCES WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING IN ADDITION TO EXISTING PARKING SPACES.
• Planner assigned to Rigoulette, LLC project:
Elizabeth Gonzales, Associate Planner, gonzalesl@co.monterey.ca.us, 755-5102
Based on correspondence with Elizabeth Gonzales yesterday, the applicant has an application, but has yet to contact her for the purpose of scheduling an appointment to formally submit the application (Step 3).
SYSNOPSIS OF THE COUNTY PLANNING PERMIT PROCESS
Step 1:
Complete the online questionnaire or talk with a planner at (831) 755-5025.
Step 2:
Receive an application.
Step 3:
Submit application.
To submit application, the applicant must schedule an appointment with the assigned project planner to submit the application.
Step 4:
30 day review period
The Planning & Building Inspection Department, other land use agencies and the local Land Use Advisory Committee will review the application. At the conclusion of the initial review, the project planner will deem the application “Complete” or “Incomplete.”
Step 5:
Environmental Review
Once deemed “Complete,” the application will be reviewed for compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based on the review, the project will be classified into one of three categories:
• Categorically Exempt: The proposed development activity is exempt from CEQA;
• Negative Declaration: Based on an environmental assessment it is determined that the proposed project will have no significant impacts or has potentially significant impacts that can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by modifying the project and/or attaching conditions of approval to the project.
• Environmental Impact Report: Based on an environmental assessment it is determined that the proposed project will have potentially significant environmental impacts that must be fully examined by the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
Step 6:
Prepare for the hearing
During this period, the applicant will be required to post hearing notices in the neighborhood and the assigned planner will prepare a written staff report.
Step 7:
The Hearing
The applicant makes a presentation of the project and members of the public have the opportunity to comment. After the hearing, a resolution, including the decision, legal findings and conditions of approval will be made. All decisions may be appealed.
Step 8:
Condition compliance
It is the applicant’s responsibility to satisfy all conditions of approval placed on the project.
For more on the Planning Permit Process, click on Post title above or copy, paste and click http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/planning/plan_info/planpmitproc.htm
COMMENT:
• After the Planning Commission voted unanimously (3-0) to recommend Robert Leidig’s Carmel Convalescent Hospital property annexation request be denied at their 11 April 2007 meeting, the owner of the property, Rigoulette, LLC, has since contacted the County and requested an application, but has yet to schedule an appointment with the project planner to formally submit the application. Apparently, then, it appears that the owner, Rigoulette, LLC, will proceed through the County permit process, not through the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
Note: Robert Leidig had and/or has an option to purchase the Carmel Convalescent Hospital property.
REFERENCES:
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
APRIL 11, 2007
IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. ZC 06-1
Robert Leidig
Valley Way & Highway 1
APN: 009-061-002, 003,005
Consideration of recommendations to the City Council on annexation and pre-zoning requests for a property of approximately 3.7 acres located on the north side of Valley Way, about 100 feet east of Monterey Street. The Planning Commission will consider the applicant’s request to pre-zone the property to an R-4 classification, and may review other zoning options. The Planning Commission also will review an environmental Initial Study and proposed Negative Declaration. The Planning Commission will forward all recommendations to the City Council for action.
Brian Roseth, Planning Services Manager, presented the staff report. Vice-chair Hewer opened the public hearing at 5:09 p.m. Bob Leidig, Lloyd Morain, Pam Gillooly, Herschel Peak, Stacy Steele, Barbara Livingston, Carol Stollery, Mark Bayne, Roberta Miller, President of Carmel Residents Association, Art Haseltine, Monte Miller, Cheryl Moreland, Tracy Manning read letter from Michael LePage, Richard Warren, Richard Dalsemer, Margery Mann read letter from Joyce Stevens, Michelle Smith, Liz Logan-Rondelle, Jon Blades, Kelly Steele, Yoko Whitaker, David Maridwin, Barbara Warren, Carroll Coates, Tracy Manning, Melanie Billig, Stacy Steele, Lois Layton read letter from Beverly Borgman, Angus Jeffers, Marion Maquade, Catsaki Sakakura, Shirley Human gave time to Melanie Billig, Carol Coates, Curtis Leidig, Ed Shagen, Chantal Melendez, Wayne Iverson, Myrna Hampton read letter from Alexander Henson attorney for Save our Neighborhoods Coalition, John Thodos, Steve Dallas, Linda Anderson and Derinda Messenger appeared before the Commission. There being no other appearances, the public hearing was closed at 7:41 p.m.
Vice-chair Hewer called for a break from 7:43 p.m. to 7:48 p.m.
Commissioner WILSON moved to recommend annexation request be denied, seconded by Commissioner HILLYARD and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Hewer, Hillyard, Wilson
NOES: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Sharp, Strid
ABSTAIN: None
Monday, November 05, 2007
“Maintenance and Upkeep” of National Register of Historic Places Flanders Mansion Property per Municipal Code 17.32.210?
Flanders MansionPiece of black material secured over a missing roof tile
Note: Missing roof tiles to the left
Filled pothole in the driveway with crushed rockABSTRACT: In early December 2007, the City will submit a response to the writ delineating a maintenance plan for the Flanders Mansion property. Meanwhile, as the court ruled the City violated the Municipal Code with regard to the maintenance and upkeep of a historic resource, the City has recently secured a piece of black plastic over a missing roof tile and filled a pothole in the driveway with crushed rock, as shown in photos. Comments are made; and National Register of Historic Places information on the Flanders Mansion is presented and the Municipal Code, HISTORIC PRESERVATION, 17.32.210 Maintenance and Upkeep, is reproduced in its entirety.
COMMENTS:
• After years and years of neglect and a refusal to comply with the City’s Municipal Code with respect to Maintenance and Upkeep of a historic resource, the City must now comply with Monterey Superior Court Judge Robert O’Farrell’s decision.
• With an annual budget of $13 million and nearly $10 million in reserve funds, it is unconscionable that the City Council only seems to respect the concept of proper stewardship of public assets when a court ruled the City Council violated the City’s Municipal Code.
• Apparently, per court order, the city will present a response to the writ to Judge Robert O’Farrell delineating a plan to maintain the Flanders Mansion property in early December 2007. Judge O’Farrell may visit the Flanders Mansion property in order to get a better understanding of the condition and maintenance requirements of the Flanders Mansion property.
REFERENCES:
National Register of Historic Places
CALIFORNIA - Monterey County
Outlands in the Eighty Acres (added 1989 - Building - #89000228)
Also known as Flanders;Paul Mansion
25800 Hatton, Carmel By-the-Sea
Historic Significance: Architecture/Engineering
Architect, builder, or engineer: Ruhl,Frederick, Gutterson,Henry Higby
Architectural Style: Tudor Revival, Other
Area of Significance: Architecture
Period of Significance: 1900-1924, 1925-1949
Owner: Local Gov't
Historic Function: Domestic
Historic Sub-function: Single Dwelling
Current Function: Education, Landscape
Current Sub-function: Park, School
(Source: http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/CA/Monterey/state.html)
NOTE: On the National Register of Historic Places, there are only three properties in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
• Carmel Mission (also known as Mission San Carlos de Borromeo del Rio Carmelo), added 1966.
• Outlands in the Eighty Acres (also known as Paul Flanders Mansion), added 1989.
• Sunset Center (also known as Sunset Sehool), added 1998.
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Municipal Code
Chapter 17.32
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
17.32.210 Maintenance and Upkeep.
A. Minimum Maintenance.
1. All resources included in the inventory shall be preserved against decay and deterioration, kept in a state of good repair and free from structural defects. The purpose of this section is to prevent an owner or other person having legal custody and control over a property from facilitating demolition of a historic resource by neglecting it and by permitting damage to it by weather and/or vandalism.
2. Consistent with all other State and City codes requiring that buildings and structures be kept in good repair, the owner or other person having legal custody and control of a property shall repair such building or structure if it is found to have any of the following defects.
a. Building elements so attached that they may fall and injure members of the public or property.
b. Deteriorated or inadequate foundation.
c. Defective or deteriorated flooring.
d. Members of walls, partitions or other vertical supports that split, lean, list or buckle due to defective material or deterioration.
e. Members of ceilings, roofs, ceilings or roof supports or other horizontal members which that sag, split or buckle due to defective materials or deterioration.
f. Fireplaces or chimneys that list, bulge or settle due to defective material or deterioration.
g. Deteriorated, crumbling or loose exterior plaster.
h. Deteriorated or ineffective waterproofing of exterior walls, roofs, foundations or floors, including broken windows or doors.
i. Defective or lack of weather protection for exterior wall coverings, including lack of paint, or weathering due to lack of paint or other protective covering.
j. Any fault, defect or deterioration in the building which that renders it structurally unsafe or not properly watertight.
3. If the Building Official determines that a historic resource or any other property is being neglected and subject to damage from weather or vandalism, the Director and/or Building Official shall meet with the owner or other person having legal custody and control of the historic resource to discuss with them ways to improve the condition of the property. If no attempt or insufficient effort is made to correct any noted conditions thereafter, the Building Official may issue a notice to comply requiring the owner or other person having legal custody and control of the historic resource to take action to require corrections of defects in the subject property in order that such historic resource may be preserved in accordance with this section.
B. Protection of Deteriorated, Vacant and Vandalized Resources.
1. The Building Official shall have the authority to issue an order to comply to any owner of any property included in the inventory if the Building Official determines that the property has become subject to vandalism or constitutes a public nuisance. In such circumstances, the Building Official shall have the authority to issue any order deemed appropriate to keep the property from being further vandalized or from becoming a public nuisance including, but not limited to, ordering that the building be secured and fenced.
2. For the purposes of this provision, the property shall include the interiors and exteriors of any accessory building located on a property in the inventory.
3. Security measures that the Building Official may order shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
a. The installation of the maximum allowed height, under this code, chain-link perimeter fencing with at least one securely locked pedestrian gate and the posting of “No Trespassing” signs at regular intervals.
b. Steel or plywood closures, with one-inch diameter air holes, installed at all doors and windows. (Sandwich panel installation shall be used so as to avoid drilling into window frames and sashes, doors, ornament or masonry units.)
c. The removal of all debris from the premises, including but not limited to wood, paper, cans, bottles and fecal matter.
d. Any temporary modifications required to be made to secure the building shall be reversible.
4. Any plans or proposals for work required to be performed pursuant to an order to comply to secure any building from being further vandalized or from becoming a public nuisance must first be reviewed by the Department and the Building Official to ensure that any work done to secure the building will not damage or alter the historic character of the building. This review by the Department and the Building Official shall be completed within 10 working days from the date any request for review is submitted. If the work to be performed includes substantial alteration, the procedures set forth in this section shall be utilized for review.
5. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to prohibit an owner from taking immediate temporary measures to secure a building from unauthorized entry.
6. It shall be unlawful for any property owner to fail to comply with any order to comply issued by the Building Official under this provision.
7. Additional Remedies – Notice of Intention. In addition to the remedies provided by this code, should an owner fail to comply with an order to comply, the City may take the necessary measures, including those authorized under this code, to immediately secure the property against vandalism or prevent it from becoming a public nuisance. The City shall have the authority to assess the cost of performing this work as a lien against real property on which the building is located and take whatever additional action the City deems necessary to recover its costs and further secure the property and provide for its preservation. Prior to taking these measures, the City shall send a notice of intention to the owner. (Ord. 2004-02 § 1, 2004; Ord. 2004-01 § 1, 2004).
Sunday, November 04, 2007
City Council to Decertify EIR and Rescind Resolutions for the Sale of the Flanders Mansion Property
ABSTRACT: On the City Council Agenda (November 6, 2007), there is a Resolution “decertifying the environmental impact report for the Sale of Flanders mansion property project and rescinding resolutions of the city council related to project selection, overriding considerations, project implementation, mitigation measures and findings regarding the Flanders mansion property project.” The Agenda Item Summary and Resolution are reproduced in their entirety. Comments are made and References are cited.
City Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
November 6, 2007
X. Resolutions
B. Consideration of a Resolution decertifying the environmental impact report for the Sale of Flanders mansion property project and rescinding resolutions of the city council related to project selection, overriding considerations, project implementation, mitigation measures and findings regarding the Flanders mansion property project.
Meeting Date: 6 November 2007
Prepared by: Brian Roseth,
Planning Services Manager
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of a Resolution decertifying the environmental impact report for the Sale of Flanders mansion property project and rescinding resolutions of the city council related to project selection, overriding considerations, project implementation, mitigation measures and findings regarding the Flanders mansion property project
Description: In September 2005, the City Council certified the Environmental Impact Report for the Flanders Mansion project. This action was challenged in Superior Court. The Court directed the City to de-certify the EIR and the proposed resolution fulfills this direction.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff time: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.
Important Considerations: The decision in the Flanders case in Monterey County Superior Court requires the City to de-certify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Flanders Mansion project. The proposed resolution would de-certify the EIR and rescind all resolutions adopted by the City Council when the project was approved.
Decision Record: The resolutions being rescinded were adopted on 22 September 2005.
Reviewed by:
__________________________ _____________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DECERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SALE OF FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY PROJECT AND RESCINDING RESOLUTIONS OF THE CITY COUNCIL RELATED TO PROJECT SELECTION, OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION, MITIGATION MEASURES AND FINDINGS REGARDING THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City proposed the sale of the Flanders Mansion property located on an approximately 1.25 acre site in Carmel; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Environmental Impact Report to review potential impacts of project implementation; and
WHEREAS, the City reviewed the Environmental Impact Report, selected a project, adopted findings, a mitigation monitoring program and a statement of overriding considerations and took other actions related to project implementation; and
WHEREAS, the Monterey County Superior Court has directed the City to decertify the Environmental Impact Report and remedy errors in the environmental review process and documents.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY OF CARMEL BY-THE-SEA DOES:
Rescind each of the following City Council Resolutions:
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-55: A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SALE OF THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-56: A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A PROJECT FOR IMPLEMENTATION; SALE OF THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-57: A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO SELL THAT REAL PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE FLANDERS MANSION
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-58: A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE SALE OF THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMELBY-THE-SEA this __ day of ______2007, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
SIGNED:
__________________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR
ATTEST:
___________________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
COMMENTS:
• After expending nearly $350,000 in professional fees and services, the City Council must now decertify the EIR and rescind resolutions regarding the proposed sale of the Flanders Mansion property because Monterey Superior Court Judge Robert A. O’Farrell ruled against the City Council, thereby ordering the City Council to “decertify the Environmental Impact Report and remedy errors in the environmental review process and documents.” What a grievous waste of taxpayer resources, which could have been better spent on the rehabilitation and renovation of this unique National Register of Historic Places resource.
• To those Carmelites who ingratiate themselves to elected city officials with records of not acting in the best interests of Carmelites and the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, the lesson of the Flanders Foundation “victory” is basic; namely, the Flanders Foundation and their supporters are able to celebrate their “victory” not because they chose to be congenial and conciliatory, but because they chose to be confrontation, they risked being labeled controversial and they chose to stand up for the rule of law, even when these actions made them uncomfortable.
REFERENCES:
UPDATE: $78,780 TOTAL CITY COMPENSATION TO SPECIAL COUNSEL WILLIAM B. CONNERS
M76728, FLANDERS FOUNDATION v. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA et al. (March 2005 – October 2007)
113901 9/25/07 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 620.00 LEGAL EXPENSES-FLANDERS LITIGATION
113982 10/9/07 BRANDT-HAWLEY LAW GROUP $ 160,000.00 FLANDERS LAWSUIT SETTLEMENT PAYMENT
(Source: Carmel-by-the-Sea, October 2007 Check Register, http://www.ci.carmel.ca.us/)
City Council Agenda
Regular Meeting
November 6, 2007
X. Resolutions
B. Consideration of a Resolution decertifying the environmental impact report for the Sale of Flanders mansion property project and rescinding resolutions of the city council related to project selection, overriding considerations, project implementation, mitigation measures and findings regarding the Flanders mansion property project.
Meeting Date: 6 November 2007
Prepared by: Brian Roseth,
Planning Services Manager
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of a Resolution decertifying the environmental impact report for the Sale of Flanders mansion property project and rescinding resolutions of the city council related to project selection, overriding considerations, project implementation, mitigation measures and findings regarding the Flanders mansion property project
Description: In September 2005, the City Council certified the Environmental Impact Report for the Flanders Mansion project. This action was challenged in Superior Court. The Court directed the City to de-certify the EIR and the proposed resolution fulfills this direction.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff time: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.
Important Considerations: The decision in the Flanders case in Monterey County Superior Court requires the City to de-certify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Flanders Mansion project. The proposed resolution would de-certify the EIR and rescind all resolutions adopted by the City Council when the project was approved.
Decision Record: The resolutions being rescinded were adopted on 22 September 2005.
Reviewed by:
__________________________ _____________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA DECERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SALE OF FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY PROJECT AND RESCINDING RESOLUTIONS OF THE CITY COUNCIL RELATED TO PROJECT SELECTION, OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION, MITIGATION MEASURES AND FINDINGS REGARDING THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City proposed the sale of the Flanders Mansion property located on an approximately 1.25 acre site in Carmel; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Environmental Impact Report to review potential impacts of project implementation; and
WHEREAS, the City reviewed the Environmental Impact Report, selected a project, adopted findings, a mitigation monitoring program and a statement of overriding considerations and took other actions related to project implementation; and
WHEREAS, the Monterey County Superior Court has directed the City to decertify the Environmental Impact Report and remedy errors in the environmental review process and documents.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY OF CARMEL BY-THE-SEA DOES:
Rescind each of the following City Council Resolutions:
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-55: A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SALE OF THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-56: A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A PROJECT FOR IMPLEMENTATION; SALE OF THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-57: A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO SELL THAT REAL PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE FLANDERS MANSION
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-58: A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE SALE OF THE FLANDERS MANSION PROPERTY PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMELBY-THE-SEA this __ day of ______2007, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
SIGNED:
__________________________
SUE McCLOUD, MAYOR
ATTEST:
___________________________
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
COMMENTS:
• After expending nearly $350,000 in professional fees and services, the City Council must now decertify the EIR and rescind resolutions regarding the proposed sale of the Flanders Mansion property because Monterey Superior Court Judge Robert A. O’Farrell ruled against the City Council, thereby ordering the City Council to “decertify the Environmental Impact Report and remedy errors in the environmental review process and documents.” What a grievous waste of taxpayer resources, which could have been better spent on the rehabilitation and renovation of this unique National Register of Historic Places resource.
• To those Carmelites who ingratiate themselves to elected city officials with records of not acting in the best interests of Carmelites and the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, the lesson of the Flanders Foundation “victory” is basic; namely, the Flanders Foundation and their supporters are able to celebrate their “victory” not because they chose to be congenial and conciliatory, but because they chose to be confrontation, they risked being labeled controversial and they chose to stand up for the rule of law, even when these actions made them uncomfortable.
REFERENCES:
UPDATE: $78,780 TOTAL CITY COMPENSATION TO SPECIAL COUNSEL WILLIAM B. CONNERS
M76728, FLANDERS FOUNDATION v. CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA et al. (March 2005 – October 2007)
113901 9/25/07 WILLIAM B. CONNERS $ 620.00 LEGAL EXPENSES-FLANDERS LITIGATION
113982 10/9/07 BRANDT-HAWLEY LAW GROUP $ 160,000.00 FLANDERS LAWSUIT SETTLEMENT PAYMENT
(Source: Carmel-by-the-Sea, October 2007 Check Register, http://www.ci.carmel.ca.us/)
Thursday, November 01, 2007
The Forest Theater Foundation’s NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING on Theater Architect Richard McCann’s “pre-design” for the Forest Theater property
FOREST THEATER & GROUNDSCARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
MASTER PLAN PROGRAM ELEMENTS
R. F. McCann & Company Architects, Inc.
October 30, 2007
ABSTRACT: At Vista Lobos this past Tuesday afternoon, a NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING sponsored by the Forest Theater Foundation was held for the presentation of their “pre-design” for the Forest Theater property. Three handouts were available to the public, including FOREST THEATER & GROUNDS, OUR VISION for an improved Community Theater and RFM ARCHITECTS. McCann presented an overview of his “pre-design,” basically detailing MASTER PLAN PROGRAM ELEMENTS 1-9b. Later McCann and Walt de Faria, President of the Forest Theater Foundation, responded to questions and concerns raised by audience members. The MASTER PLAN PROGRAM ELEMENTS from the FOREST THEATER & GROUNDS handout and the OUR VISION handout are reproduced. HIGHLIGHTS OF FOREST THEATER FOUNDATION “PRE-DESIGN” PRESENTATION BY THEATER ARCHITECT RICHARD McCANN, HIGHLIGHTS OF SOME ANSWERS TO AUDIENCE QUESTIONS, MAJOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE CONGLETON FOREST THEATER FACILITY MASTER PLAN (2001) & FOREST THEATER FOUNDATION “PRE-DESIGN” BY THEATER ARCHITECT RICHARD McCANN and COMMENTS & QUESTIONS are presented.
At Vista Lobos this past Tuesday afternoon, a NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING sponsored by The Forest Theater Foundation was held for the presentation of their “pre-design” for the Forest Theater property. On a table at the entrance, there were three handouts for the public. One handout was the FOREST THEATER & GROUNDS handout which comprised the MASTER PLAN PROGRAM ELEMENTS 1-9b. Another handout was OUR VISION for an improved Community Theater. And the last handout was a five page RFM ARCHITECTS handout which included the Firm’s Profile, Project List and Richard F. McCann’s Resume.
The Forest Theater Foundation President Walt de Faria made a brief statement and then introduced Theater Architect Richard McCann. McCann presented an overview of his “pre-design,” basically detailing MASTER PLAN PROGRAM ELEMENTS 1-9b. Later McCann and de Faria answered questions and concerns raised by audience members. Most of the questions and concerns involved PROGRAM ELEMENT 1. Proposed Sound Booth & Follow Spots, specifically options for decreasing sound projection at the corner of Josselyn Lane and Guadalupe Street and PROGRAM ELEMENT 7. Proposed Additional Parking, specifically the removal of the stone wall, grape stake fence and trees along Mt. View Avenue for parking spaces and the construction of a new retaining wall, et cetera, and “New Meadow Development” in place of the current parking areas in Forest Theater.
Herewith are the MASTER PLAN PROGRAM ELEMENTS from the FOREST THEATER & GROUNDS handout and the OUR VISION handout, as follows:
MASTER PLAN PROGRAM ELEMENTS
1. Proposed Sound Booth & Follow Spots
2. Audience Center – Multiplex Pavilion (includes new Men’s & Women’s Toilets)
3. Stage Additions
a. Dressing Rooms
b. Production Support
c. Scenery Dock (Stage Right & Left)
4. Pedestrian Walkways (grading for ADA accessibility)
5. Emergency Vehicle Access Route/Disabled Access/Scenery Loading
6. a. Seating Form & Benches (proposed stage capacity 550)
b. New Radius Bench Seating
7. Proposed Addition Parking
8. Ticket Sales & Concession
9 a. New Meadow Development
b. New Woodland Canopy of new & existing trees
OUR VISION for an improved Community Theater
A collaborated effort…
Forest Theater Foundation
R. F. McCann & Company Architects
• DEVELOPMENT OF ACCOMMODATIONS on site
– Audience Center-Multi-Pavilion Complex
• SOUND PROPAGATION beyond surrounding edges of the Forest Theater Park
• PATRON COMFORT Including Seating, Sightlines, and Paths-of-Travel
• ACTOR ACCOMMODATIONS on the Mainstage
• ACCOMMODATIONS UNDER the MAINSTAGE for the Childrens’ Experimental Theater (CET)
• ORCHESTRA PIT & PROCUCTION EQUIPMENT Accommodations
HIGHLIGHTS OF FOREST THEATER FOUNDATION “PRE-DESIGN” PRESENTATION BY THEATER ARCHITECT RICHARD McCANN
• President of the Forest Theater Foundation, Walter de Faria stated at the outset that the Congleton Forest Theater Master Plan was consulted, but was deemed deficient from the actor’s point of view. Ergo, the Foundation hired Theater Architect Richard McCann to address those deficiencies.
• Since September 2004, the Forest Theater Foundation has raised $30,000 to fund their Plan to rehabilitate and preserve the Forest Theater.
• Theater Architect Richard McCann gave an overview of his “pre-design;” namely, MASTER PLAN PROGRAM ELEMENTS 1-9. McCann stressed his “pre-design” was to bring the “Forest Theatre into the 21st century.”
• McCann emphasized his “pre-design” encompassed no additional seating and de Faria insisted no intensification of use, that is, no increase in the number of performances or longer season, due to weather as a limiting factor.
• McCann’s plan would extend the stage 14 ft. towards the audience and a traditional orchestra pit under the stage would be constructed. And the audience seats would be moved closer to the stage.
• McCann’s recommendation for sound problems was “technological;” that is, multiple speakers hanging by cable over the audience, approximately 1 speaker per 30-40 audience members. He claimed this would reduce the sound energy by 30% - 40% for low, middle and high frequencies.
• McCann stated the size of the “Multiplex Pavilion,” including Men’s & Women’s Toilets, was necessary in order to meet the requirement for the number of seats per restrooms, approximately 1 toilet per 25-30 audience members.
• McCann cited Olmstead’s theories as influential in his “pre-design” plan; McCann emphasized the ability of individuals to view a green space, “landscape horizon” from the streets around Forest Theater.
• McCann cited building around trees to preserve significant trees; however, McCann’s parking spaces on Mt. View Avenue would require 18 feet of horizontal excavation into the Forest Theater property and necessitate the removal of nine Monterey Pine trees, one Monterey Cypress tree and multiple Coast Live Oak trees.
HIGHLIGHTS OF SOME ANSWERS TO AUDIENCE QUESTIONS
• In response to a question regarding the City’s hiring of a consultant to determine the historicity of the Forest Theater property, City Administrator Rich Guillen responded that Meta Bunse, the historical consultant, has made a preliminary determination that the site is historical at the local level, but the structures are not historical. (Meta Bunse, Partner, JRP Historical Consulting)
• The majority of questions and concerns involved the MASTER PLAN PROGRAM ELEMENT 1. Proposed Sound Booth & Follow Spots, specifically options for decreasing sound projection at the corner of Josselyn Lane and Guadalupe Street and PROGRAM ELEMENT 7. Proposed Additional Parking, specifically the removal of the stone wall, grape stake fence and trees along Mt. View Av. for parking spaces and the construction of a new retaining wall, et cetera, and “New Meadow Development” in place of the current parking areas in Forest Theatre.
MAJOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE CONGLETON FOREST THEATER FACILITY MASTER PLAN (2001) & FOREST THEATER FOUNDATION “PRE-DESIGN” BY THEATER ARCHITECT RICHARD McCANN
• Parking: In the McCann “pre-design” plan, the parking area would be converted into “New Meadow Development” and parking spaces would be along Mt. View Avenue and Guadalupe Street, approximately 18 ft. into the existing Forest Theatre property from the street. This would necessitate the removal of the stone wall, the grape stake fence, removal of trees and the construction of a new retaining wall, et cetera.
• Potential Perimeter Wall: In the McCann “pre-design” plan, there is the potential of a perimeter wall around much of the Forest Theater.
COMMENTS & QUESTIONS:
• The Forest Theater Foundation President Walt de Faria stated that the Congleton Forest Theater Master Plan was inadequate because it failed to address the concerns of actors; therefore, the Foundation hired Theater Architect Richard McCann to address those deficiencies. However, the Congleton Forest Theater Master Plan did address user groups concerns, namely Dressing rooms & onstage restrooms, Storage, Control booth, Sound systems, House & stage lighting, Loading & unloading – Stage set materials and Indoor theater needs.
• Foundation President Walt de Faria stated that the purpose of the “neighborhood meeting” was to gather input from residents of the Forest Theater to then incorporate into the “pre-design.” Question: Then why didn’t the Forest Theater Foundation invite all the residents of Carmel-by-the-Sea for the purpose of gathering more input from more residents, not just the “neighbors” of Forest Theatre. Note: Total attendance of approximately 39 individuals was comprised of four City Council Members, the City Administrator, Community Services Director, PacRep Artistic Director Stephen Moorer, Carmel Residents Association non-neighbor members and about eight “neighbors.”
• On the “New Meadow Development,” which would essentially encompass the existing pavement for parking; currently, the City does not even weed the areas recently planted with drought-tolerant plants. How then would the City propose to maintain an even larger area of “New Meadow Development?”
• An audience member expressed concerns about whether the rural, rustic ambiance of the Forest Theater would be preserved if the “pre-design” elements were accomplished.
• After listening to Foundation President Walt de Faria and audience members, it was unclear why the Forest Theater Foundation needed to hire Theater Architect Richard McCann when the Foundation could have contacted local architect Brian Congleton for an update to his Forest Theater Facilities Master Plan, since the 2001 edition included basically all the elements of Richard McCann’s “pre-design” for the Forest Theater.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)