MARY SCHLEY, The Carmel
Pine Cone, April 13, 2012
Note: Council Member Karen Sharp made a motion to “keep the
lights on, as they are, from dusk until late evening every night of the year” (Ocean Avenue median
lights) which passed with Mayor McCloud, Council Members Sharp and Hazdovac
approving and Council Members Burnett
and Talmage dissenting (3-2).
On the 5th day of June 1929, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 96 which “set forth a very strong policy statement to direct the future development in
“The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is
hereby determined to be primarily, essentially and predominantly a
residential city wherein business and commerce have in the past, are now, and
are proposed to be in the future, subordinated to its residential character; and that
said determination is made having in mind the history and the development of said
city, its growth and the causes thereof; and also its geographical and
topographical aspects, together with its near proximity to the cities of Pacific Grove and Monterey ,
and the businesses, industries, trades, callings and
professions in existence and permissible therein.”
With regard to the webcam at Carmel
Beach , apparently resident Jerry
Gleason “approached the City with a proposal to place a webcam at the beach to
allow visitors to the City travel website the ability to view Carmel Beach .” Gleason subsequently “met with members of the
Economic Advisory Team who reviewed the proposal and recommended the concept be
taken to Council to proceed with the project.”
“The total estimated cost to install and service a “turnkey” beach
Webcam is $10,000. In addition, the Internet access from AT&T DSL or
Comcast Cable is estimated at approximately $75 per month, plus nominal
maintenance costs.” Additionally,
objectives of the Beach-Cam include allowing “any Carmel
City website visitor to view the beach
conditions, surf and weather along Carmel
Beach ” and “help attract more visitors
to Carmel by
displaying the appearance and conditions along this beautiful white sand
beach.”
With regard to the year-round illumination of the Ocean Avenue median
lights, apparently the City has “received many favorable comments about having
a longer period for the lights along the Ocean Avenue median. It has been
generally popular with residents, visitors and members of the business
community.” The “overall cost:” “The
PG&E bill for extending the lighting period for an additional seven months
would be approximately $490 a year.” Yet
General Plan/Coastal Land
Use Plan
Land Use & Community
Character Element policies for residential development is to “limit exterior
lighting” and for commercial development is to “prohibit business signs
incorporating lights,” as follows:
P1-54 Limit exterior lighting to prevent glare and preserve
the traditional low levels of illumination during hours of darkness.
O1-13 Maintain diligent control over signs and other
advertising or notice-attracting facilities in order to avoid unsightly,
bizarre, and/or out of scale visual impacts, including exterior lighting and
lights from window displays. (LUP)
P1-80 Prohibit unsightly design elements such as excessive
numbers of signs, nonfunctional awnings, exterior displays, interior displays, and
excessive interior lighting used primarily as advertising or attention-getting
features visible from the public rights-of-way. (LUP)
P1-81 Prohibit business signs incorporating lights, luminous
or fluorescent paints, or movement. (LUP)
Consequently, with the Beach-Cam and year-round illumination of the Ocean Avenue median lights agenda items
and their resultant emphasis on visitors and the commercial district,
would City Council adoption of the Beach-Cam and year-round
illumination of the Ocean Avenue median lights violate the letter and spirit of
Carmel-by-the-Sea’s founding Ordinance No. 96 declaring the City of
Carmel-by-the-Sea to be “primarily, essentially and predominantly a
residential city wherein business and commerce have in the past, are now, and
are proposed to be in the future, subordinated to its residential
character?”
1 comment:
Instead of commericalizing Carmel Beach and the downtown more than it already is commercial, why doesn't the city think of creative ways to make our unique cultural assets a more interesting draw for visitors to Carmel. Using Scout House and Flanders Mansion come to mind. The City's art collection could be stored and exhibited in these venues and entrance fees charged to tourists to view the city's extensive art collection.
Taxpayers already pay for tourism promotion and marketing to three different entities, but none of these entities have proposed anything like marketing Scout House, Flanders Mansion or Forest Theater. It seems the city will use fiscally hard times to justify the selling of city assets until there are no assets left except for the Sunset Center and City Hall. Because our city councils have done such a poor job in making all the public's assets available to the public and in good physical condition and have not proposed constructive programs for them we are left with a group of people who promote only one solution and that is to sell off assets. What a poor commentary on the residents who live here. If they do not appreciate the unique assets of Carmel, then one wonders why they live in Carmel.
Post a Comment