Sunday, April 01, 2012

WEBCAM AT CARMEL BEACH & YEAR-ROUND ILLUMINATION OF THE OCEAN AVENUE MEDIAN LIGHTS: Consistent with the General Plan & the Coastal Land Use Plan?

UPDATE: Council divided over year-round fairy lights on Ocean Avenue
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 Carmel. The principle established in the 1929 policy has been and will continue to be a major factor in Carmel's planning decisions. This ordinance, now outlined in Title 17 of the Municipal Code, established the residential character of Carmel and specifically outlined the City's intent that Carmel should subordinate other activities in order to preserve the community's unique residential character.” The 1929 ordinance stated, as follows:

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.”

On the 3 April 2012 City Council Agenda, there are Orders of Council to “Receive report and provide direction on placement of a webcam at the beach” and “Receive report and provide direction on year-round illumination of the Ocean Avenue median lights.

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:

Anonymous said...

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.