CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
Monday, January 4, 2021
Showing posts with label Forest Theatre. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Forest Theatre. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 30, 2020
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING, January 4, 2021
Wednesday, July 01, 2020
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING, July 6, 2020
CITY OF
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING
Monday, July 6,
2020
4:30 PM
Friday, April 29, 2016
Five Noteworthy 3 May 2016 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Items
ABSTRACT: Five Noteworthy 3 May 2016 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Items including PUBLIC APPEARANCES, Consideration of process options to fill the vacancy on the City Council, Consideration of a request to authorize shared use of the Indoor Forest Theater between the Forest Theater Guild, Pacific Repertory Theater, and the 2016 Centennial Committee during the 2016 season, Consideration of the approval of the proposed Draft Forest Theater Use Agreement and Consideration of Use Permit (UP 16-100) and Coastal Development Permit applications for the addition of a second-level mezzanine (floor area) to an existing commercial building and for a temporary (6 month) amendment to an existing Use Permit (UP 12-20) to allow for a food store/restaurant use at the subject location. The project site is located at the southeast corner of Dolores Street and 7th Ave in the Service Commercial (SC) Zoning District, are featured. Agenda Bills document copies are embedded.
6. AB 1121 Consideration of process options to fill the vacancy on the City Council.
Options to Fill the Vacancy on the City Council 05-03-16 by L. A. Paterson
11. AB 1126 Consideration of Use Permit (UP 16-100) and Coastal Development Permit applications for the addition of a second-level mezzanine (floor area) to an existing commercial building and for a temporary (6 month) amendment to an existing Use Permit (UP 12-20) to allow for a food store/restaurant use at the subject location. The project site is located at the southeast corner of Dolores Street and 7th Ave in the Service Commercial (SC) Zoning District.
Dolores Street and 7th Ave 05-03-16 by L. A. Paterson
CITY OF
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PACKET
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, MAY 3,
2016
4:30 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER,
ROLL CALL, & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
PUBLIC
APPEARANCES
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. Presentations will be limited to three (3) minutes, or as otherwise established by the City Council. Persons are not required to give their names, but it is helpful for speakers to state their names in order that the City Clerk may identify them in the minutes of the meeting. Always speak into the microphone, as the meeting is recorded
ORDERS
Orders of Council are agenda items that require City Council discussion, debate and/or direction.Options to Fill the Vacancy on the City Council 05-03-16 by L. A. Paterson
Consideration of
process options to fill the vacancy on the City Council.
7. AB 1122
Consideration of a request to authorize shared use of the Indoor Forest Theater
between the Forest Theater Guild, Pacific Repertory Theater, and the 2016 Centennial
Committee during the 2016 season.
Shared Use of the Indoor Forest Theater 05-03-16 by L. A. Paterson
Shared Use of the Indoor Forest Theater 05-03-16 by L. A. Paterson
Consideration of
a request to authorize shared use of the Indoor Forest Theater between the
Forest Theater Guild, Pacific Repertory Theater, and the 2016 Centennial
Committee during the 2016 season.
8. AB 1123
Consideration of the approval of the proposed Draft Forest Theater Use Agreement.
Draft Forest Theater Use Agreement 05-03-16 by L. A. Paterson
Draft Forest Theater Use Agreement 05-03-16 by L. A. Paterson
Consideration of
the approval of the proposed Draft Forest Theater Use Agreement.
PUBLIC HEARING
Public Hearings consist of Zoning amendments, General Plan amendments, appeals of Commission decisions and other State-mandated items. If the Public Hearing is an appeal, appellants are allowed a total of 10 minutes to speak on their own behalf after the staff report and at the close of public comment in order to have an opportunity to rebut public comments. Other speakers will be allowed three minutes.
Dolores Street and 7th Ave 05-03-16 by L. A. Paterson
Wednesday, July 15, 2015
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING, JULY 15, 2015: Agenda Item Consideration of Options for the Forest Theater Project, including: Handicapped Parking, West Pathway and Driveway, and Vehicular Access Location(s)
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCILSPECIAL MEETING AGENDA PACKET
WEDNESDAY, JULY 15, 2015
Monday, June 01, 2015
NOTICE TO RESIDENTS Project: Forest Theater Renovation, Project/Work Start Date: June 15, 2015, Project Duration: 100 Working Days & Planned Construction Ending Month: October 2015
ABSTRACT: Today, Otto Construction representatives distributed a NOTICE TO RESIDENTS to residences within approximately 300 feet of the Forest Theatre. The NOTICE reads, in part, From the month of June 2015 to October 2015 there will be construction occurring at Forest Theater. Below is information in regards to the construction that will be taking place and contact information:
Project: Forest Theater Renovation
(NE Corner of Mountain View and Santa Rita, Carmel-By-The-Sea, CA 93921)
Project /Work Start Date: June 15, 2015
Project Duration: 100 Working Days
Planned Construction Ending Month: October 2015
Contractor: OTTO Construction
((831) 657-9820 office)
City Representative:
City of Carmel-By-The-Sea
Public Works Department
Andy Vanderford ((831} 620-2078 office) or ((831}-869-1477 cell)
The NOTICE TO RESIDENTS document copy is embedded.
CORRECTION: "Thank you in advance for your time and patience!" for “Thank you in advance for your time and patients!”
Project: Forest Theater Renovation
June 2015
Project: Forest Theater Renovation
(NE Corner of Mountain View and Santa Rita, Carmel-By-The-Sea, CA 93921)
Project /Work Start Date: June 15, 2015
Project Duration: 100 Working Days
Planned Construction Ending Month: October 2015
Contractor: OTTO Construction
((831) 657-9820 office)
City Representative:
City of Carmel-By-The-Sea
Public Works Department
Andy Vanderford ((831} 620-2078 office) or ((831}-869-1477 cell)
The NOTICE TO RESIDENTS document copy is embedded.
CORRECTION: "Thank you in advance for your time and patience!" for “Thank you in advance for your time and patients!”
Project: Forest Theater Renovation
June 2015
Wednesday, March 18, 2015
FOREST THEATER RENOVATION: SPECIFICATIONS FOR FOREST THEATER RENOVATION, ADDENDUM NO. 1 & ADDENDUM NO. 2 AND FOREST THEATER – BID SET – VOLUME 1 & FOREST THEATER – BID SET – VOLUME 2
ABSTRACT: CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA,
CALIFORNIA
Project:
Forest Theater Renovation
NOTICE
TO BIDDERS
Notice
is hereby given that the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea will receive sealed bids at
City Hall, located on the east side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and
Seventh Avenues until 10:00 A.M. on Monday, March 30, 2015, at
which time bids will be opened for the Forest Theater Renovation project.
Sealed bids shall be submitted to the attention of the City Clerk.
This work consists primarily of renovating of an existing facility including; demolition of various components; mitigation of hazardous building materials; site grading; new asphalt access road; new concrete and asphalt pedestrian walkways - incorporating ramps, landings, stairs, handrails, etc.; structural improvements; new light I sound towers; new electrical lighting; restrooms remodeling; masonry; painting; etc.The Construction Allocation for this project is $1,200,000. No bid will be considered for award unless the Bidder at the time of bid opening, is licensed with a valid Class "A" or "B" Contractor's License issued by the State of California.
All bids must be submitted only on forms furnished by the City. Bid plans and specifications for this project may be obtained as follows:
1.
As of 8 AM Monday, March 2, 2015:
a.https://www.dropbox.com/sh/21sipn1ii3m721p/AACHLpglscvAL6QcyRmpeYbHa?dl=O
2.
Approximate availability as of March 4, 2015:
a.
Central Coast Builders Association
i.
Salinas Office: 20 Quail Run Cir Ste A, Salinas, CA 93907, Phone 831.758 .1624,
Fax 831.758.6203.
admin@ccbabuilds.com
ii.
Monterey Office: 100 12th St #2861 , Marina, CA 93933, Phone 831.883.3933
b.
Builder's Exchange of Santa Clara County
i.
400 Reed St., in Santa Clara, CA, info@bxscco.com, 408.727.4000
c.
Bay Area Builders Exchange
i.
San Leandro Location: 3055 Alvarado Street, San Leandro, CA 94577, Phone: (510)
483-8880,
Fax:
(510) 352-1509, E-Mail: info@bayareabx.com
ii.
Concord Location: 2440 Stanwell Dr. Suite B, Concord CA, 94520, Tel.:
925-685-8630,
Fax.
925-685-3424
d.
Central California Builders Exchange
i.
1244 North Mariposa Street, Fresno, CA 93703, (559) 237-1831
A non-mandatory pre-bid conference will be held at 10:00 AM, on Wednesday, March 11, 2015, in the community room at Vista Lobos Park, located on Torres Street, east side of street, between 3rd Avenue and 4th Avenue, Carmel-by-the-Sea, California. Prospective Bidders are encouraged to attend since City Staff will be present to answer any questions regarding the plans and specifications; and following there will be an inspection tour of the job site.
The Contractor shall have the right to substitute securities for any monies withheld by the City to insure performance under the contract pursuant to Government Code Section 4590. All questions regarding plans and specifications should be directed to Andy Vanderford, Project Manager, City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Public Works Department, 831-620-2078, Avandeford@ci.carmel.ca.us . Bidders shall use the suppl ied Bid Question Form as found within the specifications. Bidders shall not contact the Architect.
The Contractor shall have the right to substitute securities for any monies withheld by the City to insure performance under the contract pursuant to Government Code Section 4590. All questions regarding plans and specifications should be directed to Andy Vanderford, Project Manager, City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Public Works Department, 831-620-2078, Avandeford@ci.carmel.ca.us . Bidders shall use the suppl ied Bid Question Form as found within the specifications. Bidders shall not contact the Architect.
The City reserves the right to reject any or all bids and waive any irregularities.
Each bid shall be in accordance with the plans and specifications adopted therefore, submitted on the proposal forms furnished.
Bids shall be in accordance with the prevailing hourly rate of per diem wages for this locality and project as determined by the State of California Director of Industrial Relations pursuant to California Labor Code Section 1771, which prevailing hourly rate of wages is made a part of this Notice to Bidders by reference as though fully set forth herein.
If the project requires the employment of workers in any apprenticeable craft or trade , once awarded, the contractor of subcontractors must apply to the Joint Apprenticeship Council unless already covered by local apprentice standards (California Labor Code Section 1777.5).
The Contractor shall submit with the proposal on the forms supplied, a list of the names and addresses of each subcontractor and the portions of the work, which each subcontractor will do. If no such list is submitted, it will be assumed that the contractor will do all the work herein specified.
BID DEPOSIT. Bidders must submit a Bid Deposit in the amount of TEN PERCENT (10%) of the Total Net Bid Amount (or, in bids with Add Alternates , the highest possible combination of the Base Bid plus Add Alternates) with their Bid Proposal. Such Bid Deposit shall be in the form of a certified or cashier's check, an irrevocable letter of credit or a certificate of deposit payable to the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, or a bidder's bond executed by a corporate surety, admitted by the California Insurance Commissioner to do business in California, payable and acceptable to the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea . Such Deposit shall be retained by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea as a guarantee that the Bidder, if awarded all or part of the Contract, will within 10 working days from the date the Notice of Award is mailed to the Bidder, execute and return a Contract furnished by the City. No Bid Deposits will be returned to Bidders until either a Contract has been executed for all items awarded, or all bids have been rejected. Bid bonds will not be returned, except upon bidder's written request.
Within ten (10) working days after award of the bid, Contractor must provide a Performance Bond to insure performance under the contract pursuant to Government Code Section 4590, and a Material and Labor Bond.
The successful bidder and his sub-contractors must obtain a City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Business License. Proof of valid Workers' Compensation Insurance and General Liability and Property Insurance, with limits as specified under the Public Liability and Property Damage Insurance Section of this document, shall be submitted to the City. The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, its elected officials, agents, officers, and employees shall be specifically named, by written endorsement to the Certificate of Insurance, as additionally insured's for this project under such insurance policy and Contractor shall provide the certification of such insurance for the term of this contract. The amount of such insurance shall be as follows: One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence and Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00) in aggregate. The Certificate of Insurance shall guarantee that the issuing company shall provide to the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea no less than ten (10) days prior written notice of any cancellation of the Public Liability and Property Damage Policy. All required documents, licenses and permits to include proof of all applicable insurance coverages as required by the State of California or by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea shall be placed on file with the City Clerk before work shall commence and no later than ten (10) working days after award of the bid.
Each bid shall be in accordance with the plans and specifications adopted therefore, submitted on the proposal forms furnished.
Bids shall be in accordance with the prevailing hourly rate of per diem wages for this locality and project as determined by the State of California Director of Industrial Relations pursuant to California Labor Code Section 1771, which prevailing hourly rate of wages is made a part of this Notice to Bidders by reference as though fully set forth herein.
If the project requires the employment of workers in any apprenticeable craft or trade , once awarded, the contractor of subcontractors must apply to the Joint Apprenticeship Council unless already covered by local apprentice standards (California Labor Code Section 1777.5).
The Contractor shall submit with the proposal on the forms supplied, a list of the names and addresses of each subcontractor and the portions of the work, which each subcontractor will do. If no such list is submitted, it will be assumed that the contractor will do all the work herein specified.
BID DEPOSIT. Bidders must submit a Bid Deposit in the amount of TEN PERCENT (10%) of the Total Net Bid Amount (or, in bids with Add Alternates , the highest possible combination of the Base Bid plus Add Alternates) with their Bid Proposal. Such Bid Deposit shall be in the form of a certified or cashier's check, an irrevocable letter of credit or a certificate of deposit payable to the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, or a bidder's bond executed by a corporate surety, admitted by the California Insurance Commissioner to do business in California, payable and acceptable to the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea . Such Deposit shall be retained by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea as a guarantee that the Bidder, if awarded all or part of the Contract, will within 10 working days from the date the Notice of Award is mailed to the Bidder, execute and return a Contract furnished by the City. No Bid Deposits will be returned to Bidders until either a Contract has been executed for all items awarded, or all bids have been rejected. Bid bonds will not be returned, except upon bidder's written request.
Within ten (10) working days after award of the bid, Contractor must provide a Performance Bond to insure performance under the contract pursuant to Government Code Section 4590, and a Material and Labor Bond.
The successful bidder and his sub-contractors must obtain a City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Business License. Proof of valid Workers' Compensation Insurance and General Liability and Property Insurance, with limits as specified under the Public Liability and Property Damage Insurance Section of this document, shall be submitted to the City. The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, its elected officials, agents, officers, and employees shall be specifically named, by written endorsement to the Certificate of Insurance, as additionally insured's for this project under such insurance policy and Contractor shall provide the certification of such insurance for the term of this contract. The amount of such insurance shall be as follows: One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence and Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00) in aggregate. The Certificate of Insurance shall guarantee that the issuing company shall provide to the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea no less than ten (10) days prior written notice of any cancellation of the Public Liability and Property Damage Policy. All required documents, licenses and permits to include proof of all applicable insurance coverages as required by the State of California or by the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea shall be placed on file with the City Clerk before work shall commence and no later than ten (10) working days after award of the bid.
Dated: 2/25/15
Lee Price, City Clerk
The SPECIFICATIONS FOR FOREST THEATER RENOVATION, ADDENDUM NO. 1 & ADDENDUM NO. 2 and FOREST THEATER – BID SET – VOLUME 1 & FOREST THEATER – BID SET – VOLUME 2 documents are embedded.
Lee Price, City Clerk
The SPECIFICATIONS FOR FOREST THEATER RENOVATION, ADDENDUM NO. 1 & ADDENDUM NO. 2 and FOREST THEATER – BID SET – VOLUME 1 & FOREST THEATER – BID SET – VOLUME 2 documents are embedded.
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CALIFORNIA
March 2015
NOTES: CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CALIFORNIA
Project: Forest Theater Renovation
NOTICE TO BIDDERS
Notice is hereby given that the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea will receive sealed bids at City Hall, located on the east side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues until 10:00 A.M. on Monday, March 30, 2015, at which time bids will be opened for the Forest Theater Renovation project. Sealed bids shall be submitted to the attention of the City Clerk.
This work consists primarily of renovating of an existing facility including; demolition of various components; mitigation of hazardous building materials; site grading; new asphalt access road; new concrete and asphalt pedestrian walkways - incorporating ramps, landings, stairs, handrails, etc.; structural improvements; new light / sound towers; new electrical lighting; restrooms remodeling; masonry; painting; etc.
Forest Theater Renovation
FOREST THEATER – BID SET – VOLUME 1 (pages 1-23) & FOREST THEATER – BID SET – VOLUME 2 (pages 24-51)
Wednesday, January 14, 2015
AMENDED CITY COUNCIL CLOSED AND WORKSTUDY MEETING AGENDA, January 15, 2015
*AMENDED AGENDA PACKET (Pages 1-7, diagrams pages 8-11 below)
CLOSED AND WORKSTUDY MEETING
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CITY COUNCIL
Thursday, January 15, 2015- 3:30 p.m.
Pg
8 of 11
Pg 9 of 11
Pg 10 of 11
Pg 11 of 11
Forest
Theater Alternate Plan - from Theatre User Groups
AMENDED CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA PLANNING COMMISSON AND HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA, January 13, 2015
*AMENDED
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEAPLANNING COMMISSON AND HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
Forest Theater Site Tour
Northeast comer of Santa Rita St. and Mountain View Ave.
January 13, 2015
NOTE: “The City Council is expected to consider the second phase and other theater matters at a 6:30 p.m. meeting Thursday at City Hall,” according to reporting in The Monterey County Herald.
REFERENCE:
Carmel Planning Commission gets a closer look at Forest Theater
By Tom Leyde, The Monterey County Herald
Posted: 01/13/15
REFERENCE:
Carmel Planning Commission gets a closer look at Forest Theater
By Tom Leyde, The Monterey County Herald
Posted: 01/13/15
Monday, October 27, 2014
CITY COUNCIL, FOREST AND BEACH COMMISSION, COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES & CULTURAL COMMISSION, HISTORICAL RESOURCES BOARD, PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL WORK-STUDY SESSION, October 29, 2014
FOREST THEATER RENOVATION
CITY OF CARMEL - BY - THE - SEA
CODY ANDERSON WASNEY ARCHITECTS
Special Work-study Session Agenda 10-29-14
CITY OF CARMEL - BY - THE - SEA
CODY ANDERSON WASNEY ARCHITECTS
Special Work-study Session Agenda 10-29-14
AGENDA
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CITY COUNCIL, FOREST AND BEACH COMMISSION, COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES & CULTURAL COMMISSION, HISTORICAL RESOURCES BOARD, PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL WORK-STUDY SESSION
Wednesday, October 29, 2014
Staff Report Forest Theater 10-29-14 Meeting
Council Report
October 29, 2014
Subject: Update of the Forest Theater Renovation
On October 21, 2014, City Council received an update on the Forest Theater by Chris Wasney of Cody Anderson Wasney Architects. The update included an assessment of the facilities, its current deficiencies, and the proposed schematic scope of work to address the deficiencies. Council requested the architect to explore other options pertaining to accessible seating and path of travel. In addition, Council requested the architect continue to explore the concept of the boardwalk as an accessible path of travel; the feasibility of reducing stairs to access seating; the use of handrails for aisle seating and adding more curvature to the proposed accessible parking and driveway. The purpose of this agenda item is to receive an update from Cody Anderson Wasney Architects regarding these possible design changes and then consider authorizing the project to move forward for preparation of construction documents, permits and bidding in order to reopen the facility by June 2015.
Saturday, October 18, 2014
CITY COUNCIL, FOREST AND BEACH COMMISSION, COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES & CULTURAL COMMISSION, HISTORICAL RESOURCES BOARD, PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL WORK-STUDY SESSION AND CLOSED SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL, October 21, 2014
ABSTRACT: The CITY COUNCIL, FOREST AND BEACH COMMISSION, COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES & CULTURAL COMMISSION, HISTORICAL RESOURCES BOARD, PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL WORK-STUDY SESSION AND CLOSED SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL, October 21, 2014, Agenda Packet is embedded. Regarding SPECIAL WORK-STUDY SESSION, Council Report Highlights:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City retained Cody Anderson Wasney Architects in August 2014 to assess the Forest Theater and make recommendations regarding the improvements required to reopen the facility (“Triage Phase”). The purpose of this meeting is to receive an update by Chris Wasney on the needs assessment of the Theater, including the proposed mitigations to address current deficiencies and the estimated costs of the various mitigations. This item also requests the consideration of the approval of the plan and authorizing staff, working with the architect, to move forward in preparing construction documents needed to obtain permits and prepare for bidding of the project so that it can reopen in spring 2015.
The estimated cost includes construction items related to structural, electrical, inadequate exiting, inadequate lighting and inadequate accessibility, and associated architectural and other fees. At this time, the estimate is $1,379,523.
(B) Authorization for the Project to move forward for preparation of Construction Documents, Permits and Bidding.
AMENDED AGENDA Special Workstudy & Closed Session Packet 10-21-14
The estimated cost includes construction items related to structural, electrical, inadequate exiting, inadequate lighting and inadequate accessibility, and associated architectural and other fees. At this time, the estimate is $1,379,523.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
(A) Receive an update on the Forest Theater.(B) Authorization for the Project to move forward for preparation of Construction Documents, Permits and Bidding.
AMENDED AGENDA Special Workstudy & Closed Session Packet 10-21-14
*AMENDED AGENDA
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL, FOREST AND BEACH COMMISSION, COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES & CULTURAL COMMISSION, HISTORICAL RESOURCES BOARD, PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL WORK-STUDY SESSION AND CLOSED SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, October 21, 2014 – 4:00 p.m.
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL, FOREST AND BEACH COMMISSION, COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES & CULTURAL COMMISSION, HISTORICAL RESOURCES BOARD, PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL WORK-STUDY SESSION AND CLOSED SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, October 21, 2014 – 4:00 p.m.
Sunday, July 27, 2014
LIFE-SAFETY REMEDY 'PUNCH-LIST' FOR REOPENING OF THE FOREST THEATRE & SITE, June 2, 2014
ABSTRACT: FOREST THEATRE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, LIFE-SAFETY REMEDY "PUNCH-LIST" FOR REOPENING OF THE FOREST THEATRE & SITE, prepared by R.F. McCann & Company, dated 06/02/2014, document is embedded. "The Punch List identifies compromised safety relative to occupancy areas and facilities" under four general categories, namely Main Stage, Audience Seating, Accessory Facilities and Accessibility for the Disabled. "Cost to implement repairs and/or replacements ranges from $2 million to $4 million and requires between 24 and 36 months."
Date: 06/02/2014
R.F. McCann & Company
Theatre Architecture For Performing Arts and the Entertainment Industry
FOREST THEATRE CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
LIFE-SAFETY REMEDY "PUNCH-LIST" FOR REOPENING OF THE FOREST THEATRE & SITEDate: 06/02/2014
R.F. McCann & Company
Theatre Architecture For Performing Arts and the Entertainment Industry
Monday, May 19, 2014
America's Best Small Towns to Visit, SMITHSONIAN MAGAZINE
SMITHSONIAN MAGAZINE features “America's Best Small Towns to Visit” 2012, 2013 and 2014. SMITHSONIAN “worked with the geographical information systems company Esri, which analyzed tons of data to find towns or cities of fewer than 15,000 residents where cultural opportunities abound, at least on a per capita basis” in 2014.
1. Chautauqua, NY
2. Healdsburg, CA
3. Williamsburg, VA
4. Steamboat Springs, CO
5. Woods Hole, MA
6. Marietta, OH
7. Beaufort, SC
8. Sedona, AZ
9. Nebraska City, NE
10. Lanesboro, MN
11. Spring Green, WI
12. Havre de Grace, MD
13. Columbia, PA
14. Mount Dora, FL
15. Ketchum, ID
16. Montpelier, VT
17. Harrodsburg, KY
18. Silver City, NM
19. Decorah, IA
20. The Dalles, OR
The 20 Best Small Towns to Visit in 2013, SMITHSONIAN “sought a statistical answer to this question by asking the geographic information company Esri to search its databases for small towns and cities—this time, with populations of less than 15,000—that have exceptional concentrations of museums, art galleries, orchestras, theaters, historic sites and other cultural blessings.”
1. Gettysburg, PA
2. Cleveland, MS
3. St. Augustine, FL
4. Baraboo, WI
5. Astoria, OR
6. Petoskey, MI
7. Fairfield, IA
8. Los Alamos, NM
9. Sitka, AK
10. Provincetown, MA
11. Galena, IL
12. Sausalito, CA
13. Hanover, NH
14. Oberlin, OH
15. Jackson, WY
16. Lexington, VA
17. Abilene, KS
18. Lihue, HI
19. Fredericksburg, TX
20. Glenwood Springs, CO
The 20 Best Small Towns in America of 2012, SMITHSONIAN “asked the geographic information systems company Esri to search its data bases for high concentrations of museums, historic sites, botanic gardens, resident orchestras, art galleries and other cultural assets common to big cities. But we focused on towns with populations less than 25,000, so travelers could experience what might be called enlightened good times in an unhurried, charming setting.”
1. Chautauqua, NY
2. Healdsburg, CA
3. Williamsburg, VA
4. Steamboat Springs, CO
5. Woods Hole, MA
6. Marietta, OH
7. Beaufort, SC
8. Sedona, AZ
9. Nebraska City, NE
10. Lanesboro, MN
11. Spring Green, WI
12. Havre de Grace, MD
13. Columbia, PA
14. Mount Dora, FL
15. Ketchum, ID
16. Montpelier, VT
17. Harrodsburg, KY
18. Silver City, NM
19. Decorah, IA
20. The Dalles, OR
The 20 Best Small Towns to Visit in 2013, SMITHSONIAN “sought a statistical answer to this question by asking the geographic information company Esri to search its databases for small towns and cities—this time, with populations of less than 15,000—that have exceptional concentrations of museums, art galleries, orchestras, theaters, historic sites and other cultural blessings.”
2. Cleveland, MS
3. St. Augustine, FL
4. Baraboo, WI
5. Astoria, OR
6. Petoskey, MI
7. Fairfield, IA
8. Los Alamos, NM
9. Sitka, AK
10. Provincetown, MA
11. Galena, IL
12. Sausalito, CA
13. Hanover, NH
14. Oberlin, OH
15. Jackson, WY
16. Lexington, VA
17. Abilene, KS
18. Lihue, HI
19. Fredericksburg, TX
20. Glenwood Springs, CO
The 20 Best Small Towns in America of 2012, SMITHSONIAN “asked the geographic information systems company Esri to search its data bases for high concentrations of museums, historic sites, botanic gardens, resident orchestras, art galleries and other cultural assets common to big cities. But we focused on towns with populations less than 25,000, so travelers could experience what might be called enlightened good times in an unhurried, charming setting.”
1. Great Barrington, MA Big-city smart meets New England natural in an art-rich mountain setting.
2. Taos, NM Modern art, ancient history and counter culture in the luminous high desert.
3. Red Bank, NJ Willie Nelson sings and Basie swings in a riverfront town graced by Victoriana.
4. Mill Valley, CA A Bay Area enclave that put mellow on the map keeps its funky vibe.
5. Gig Harbor, WA Take numerous art galleries. Add sailboats and local wines. Stir. Enjoy.
6. Durango, CO All aboard for mountain fun, plus classical tunes and—gasp—vaudeville.
7. Butler, PA An old-time rural hub as down-to-earth as its most famous product—the Jeep
8. Marfa, TX With mock couture, edgy movies and ironic motels, it’s no cow town.
9. Naples, FL World-class music, design to die for and palm trees
10. Staunton, VA A Shenandoah mix of Confederate relics and Elizabethan theater.
11. Brattleboro, VT
12. Princeton, NJ
13. Brunswick, ME
14. Siloam Springs, AR
15. Menomonie, WI
16. Key West, FL
17. Laguna Beach, CA
18. Ashland, OR
19. Beckley City, WV
20. Oxford, MS
2. Taos, NM Modern art, ancient history and counter culture in the luminous high desert.
3. Red Bank, NJ Willie Nelson sings and Basie swings in a riverfront town graced by Victoriana.
4. Mill Valley, CA A Bay Area enclave that put mellow on the map keeps its funky vibe.
5. Gig Harbor, WA Take numerous art galleries. Add sailboats and local wines. Stir. Enjoy.
6. Durango, CO All aboard for mountain fun, plus classical tunes and—gasp—vaudeville.
7. Butler, PA An old-time rural hub as down-to-earth as its most famous product—the Jeep
8. Marfa, TX With mock couture, edgy movies and ironic motels, it’s no cow town.
9. Naples, FL World-class music, design to die for and palm trees
10. Staunton, VA A Shenandoah mix of Confederate relics and Elizabethan theater.
11. Brattleboro, VT
12. Princeton, NJ
13. Brunswick, ME
14. Siloam Springs, AR
15. Menomonie, WI
16. Key West, FL
17. Laguna Beach, CA
18. Ashland, OR
19. Beckley City, WV
20. Oxford, MS
The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea touts “Travel+Leisure magazine recently recognized Carmel-by-the-Sea as one of the most romantic cities in the world - ahead of Florence, Italy and just behind Paris and Venice. In 2013, Conde Nast Traveler readers ranked Carmel as their 6th favorite city in the United States” on the City’s website. Alas, residents and visitors of the City would be better served by city government if the city council and city administration emulated Smithsonian Magazine’s “Best Small Towns to Visit.” Accordingly, if the city council and city administrator were less concerned about budget presentation awards and financial balance sheets and more concerned with the maintenance, upkeep and accessibility of all of Carmel-by-the-Sea's historical, cultural and environmental assets, then perhaps Carmel-by-the-Sea would deserve to be on Smithsonian Magazine’s list of the “Best Small Towns to Visit.”
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Forest Theater Guild Presents 2013 SEASON OF ‘FILMS IN THE FOREST’
“Films in the Forest” is a series of first-run movies, classic feature films from our past and documentary film screenings on the Big Screen at the Outdoor Forest Theater being presented by The Forest Theater Guild, and benefitting the Forest Theater Guild & our Youth Scholarship & Mentorship Programs.
TICKETS: $7.00 for regular film nights and $10.00 for special film events,
both are available for sale at the door. Our box office opens one hour
prior to the film screening.
FILMS BEGIN AT DUSK (APPROXIMATELY 8:30 P.M.)
Time: 7:00-8:15pm Reception by RSVP purchased tickets and invitation; organic ordure’s, cheese and wine Anticipate 100+ people (ticket cost $25 per person proceeds benefit Weston Scholarship)
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 19, 2013: “TBD”
THURSDAY, JUNE 20, 2013: “CASINO ROYALE”
WEDNESDAY, JULY 3, 2013: "MINDS IN THE WATER"
THURSDAY, JULY 4, 2013: “RED WHITE AND BLUE IN THE FOREST”
WEDNESDAY, JULY 10, 2013: “TBD”
THURSDAY, JULY 11, 2013: “SENSE AND SENSIBILITY”
TUESDAY, JULY 16, 2013: TBD
WEDNESDAY, JULY 17, 2013: TBD
FILMS BEGIN AT DUSK (APPROXIMATELY 8:30 P.M.)
TUESDAY, MAY 28, 2013: OPENING NIGHT OF FILMS IN THE FOREST “FINDING NEMO”
Finding Nemo - Official Trailer 2003 [HD]
Finding Nemo (2003)
100
min - Animation | Adventure | Comedy
WEDNESDAY, MAY 29, 2013: A SPECIAL NIGHT WITH WESTON
PHOTOGRAPHY
100 Story Project - Kim Weston: Growing Up Weston
“The Generations: Weston’s Past, Present, and Future” A film screening and
world premiere of Growing up Weston & A 60th Birthday celebration for Kim
Weston Time: 7:00-8:15pm Reception by RSVP purchased tickets and invitation; organic ordure’s, cheese and wine Anticipate 100+ people (ticket cost $25 per person proceeds benefit Weston Scholarship)
THURSDAY, MAY 30, 2013: “THE HOBBIT”
The Hobbit Official Trailer #1 - Lord of the Rings Movie
(2012) HD
169 min - Adventure | Fantasy
TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 2013: “E.T. THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL”
E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial Official Trailer #1
E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982)
115
min - Adventure| Drama| Family
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 5, 2013: “BOTTLE SHOCK”
The Official Bottle Shock Trailer- Sundance 2008
Bottle Shock (2008)
110 min - Comedy | Drama
THURSDAY, JUNE 6, 2013: “DESPICABLE ME”
Despicable Me Official Trailer #1 - (2010) HD
Despicable Me (2010)
95
min - Animation | Comedy | Crime
TUESDAY, JUNE 11, 2013: “DOCTORED” THE MOVIE
"Doctored" The Movie, Dr. Plasker Interviews Jeff
Hays
Documentary
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 2013: “WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT”
Movie Trailer - 1988 - Who Framed Roger Rabbit
Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988)
104
min - Animation | Comedy | Crime
THURSDAY, JUNE 13, 2013: “LES MISERABLES”
Les Misérables (2012) - Official International Trailer (HD)
Les Misérables (2012)
158
min - Drama | Musical| Romance
TUESDAY, JUNE 18, 2013 “BAND WAGON”
The Band Wagon - Fred Astaire and Cyd Charisse
The Band Wagon (1953)
112
min - Comedy | Musical | Romance
THURSDAY, JUNE 20, 2013: “CASINO ROYALE”
Casino Royale Official Trailer (2006) James Bond Movie HD
Casino Royale (2006)
144 min - Action | Crime | Thriller
TUESDAY, JULY 2, 2013: “SKY FALL”
SKYFALL - Official Trailer
Skyfall (2012)
143
min - Action | Adventure | Thriller
Minds In The Water, Movie Trailer
Minds in the Water (2011)
90 min - Documentary | Action | Adventure
THURSDAY, JULY 4, 2013: “RED WHITE AND BLUE IN THE FOREST”
LIVE CONCERT AND CELEBRATION OF THE AMERICAN MUSIC THE BLUES
6PM – 9:3PM BBQ AND THE BLUES
TUESDAY, JULY 9, 2013: “BIRDCAGE”
The Birdcage (1996) Trailer | Mike Nichols
The Birdcage (1996)
117 min - Comedy
THURSDAY, JULY 11, 2013: “SENSE AND SENSIBILITY”
Sense and Sensibility - Official Trailer [1995]
Sense and Sensibility (1995)
136 min - Drama | Romance
WEDNESDAY, JULY 17, 2013: TBD
THURSDAY, JULY 18, 2013:
“FRANKENWEENIE”
FRANKENWEENIE Trailer 2012 Movie - Official [HD]
Frankenweenie (2012)
87
min - Animation | Comedy | Family
SUNDAY, JULY 21, 2013: “UP”
UP Official Movie Trailer #3
Up (2009)
96
min - Animation | Adventure | Comedy
TUESDAY, JULY 23, 2013: TBA
WEDNESDAY, JULY 24, 2013: TBA
TUESDAY, JULY 23, 2013: TBA
WEDNESDAY, JULY 24, 2013: TBA
THURSDAY, JULY 25, 2013: TBA
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
‘Once upon a time.. Tales from Carmel by the Sea’
ABSTRACT: Featuring the best and most eclectic aspects of
Carmel-by-the-Sea and environs, Once upon a time..Tales from
Carmel by the Sea Just another WordPress.com site is presented with
stunning photographs. Links to February
2013 posts and selected posts, including “THE FENCE THAT MAKES
GOOD NEIGHBORS….. NEEDS A GATE TO MAKE GOOD FRIENDS,” are provided.
DINING AL FRESCO IN CARMEL February 2013
Yves Delorme ~ Fine Linens In Carmel-by-the Sea February 2013
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Forest Theater Guild Presents 2012 SEASON OF ‘FILMS IN THE FOREST’
ABSTRACT: “Films in
the Forest” is a series of feature and documentary film screenings on the Big
Screen at the Outdoor Forest Theater being presented by The Forest Theater
Guild, and benefiting the Forest Theater Guild and Youth Scholarship and Mentorship
Programs. The 2012 SEASON OF “FILMS IN
THE FOREST’ features “PLAYGROUND OF DREAMS,” "WAR HORSE," “PLAY MISTY FOR ME,” “HUGO,” “CAPTAIN AMERICA,”
“SINGIN IN THE RAIN,” "LAST HOLIDAY," “SEX IN THE CITY,” "MAMMA MIA," “ANONYMOUS” and other films TBD. Tickets are $7.00 each at the door. The box office opens one hour prior to the film screening, which begins at dusk
(approximately 8:30 P.M.).
Last Holiday (2006)
TUESDAY, JULY 17TH
TUESDAY, MAY 29TH
SPECIAL PREMIERE OF “PLAYGROUND OF DREAMS”
playground of dreams the movie film trailer.mov
Playground of Dreams (2011)
Genre: Drama
Running Time: 83 minutes
WEDNESDAY, MAY 30TH
War Horse Movie Trailer 2011 | Official Launch Trailer | HD
War Horse (2011)
Genre: Drama, War
Running Time: 146
minutes
TUESDAY, JUNE 5TH
“PLAY MISTY FOR ME”
"Play Misty For Me" (1971) - trailer
Play Misty for Me (1971)
Genre: Crime, Drama, Romance
Running Time: 102 minutes
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 6TH
BIG SUR INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL PROGRAM TBD
TUESDAY, JUNE 12TH
Hugo - Official Trailer [HD]
Hugo (II) (2011)
Genre: Adventure,
Drama, Family
Running Time: 126 minutes
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 13TH
BIG SUR INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL PROGRAM TBD
TUESDAY, JULY 3RD
Captain America
The First Avenger Official Trailer (2011 Movie)
Genre: Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi
Running Time: 124 minutes
TUESDAY, JULY 10TH
“SINGIN IN THE RAIN”
Singin' In The Rain - Theatrical Trailer
Singin' in the Rain (1952)
Genre: Comedy, Musical, Romance
Running Time: 103 minutes
WEDNESDAY, JULY 11TH
LAST HOLIDAY (2006) -
Official Movie Trailer
Genre: Adventure, Comedy, Drama
Running Time: 112
minutes
TUESDAY, JULY 17TH
“SEX IN THE CITY”
Sex and the City: The Movie Trailer Sneak Preview
Sex and the City (2008)
Genre: Comedy, Drama,
Romance
WEDNESDAY, JULY 18TH
Mamma Mia! The Movie Trailer (2008) - Great Quality!
Mamma Mia! (2008)
Genre: Comedy, Musical, Romance
Running Time: 108 minutes
TUESDAY, JULY 24TH
Anonymous Movie Trailer Official (HD)
Anonymous (I) (2011)
Genre: Drams, History, Thriller
Running Time: 130 minutes
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Call (831) 626-1681
ADDENDUM:
Monday, April 23, 2012
FOREST THEATER RENOVATION PHASING AND CONCEPT COST PLAN prepared by William J. Camille and mack5: $8.7 million
ABSTRACT: The FOREST THEATER RENOVATION PHASING AND CONCEPT
COST PLAN prepared by William J. Camille and mack5, dated September 8, 2009, is based on the schematic design documents prepared by R.F.
McCann & Company, Architects. The “estimated total cost of the project
including both construction costs and soft costs is $8.7 million, which is more
than double the construction cost estimate provided by RF McCann &
Company.” The scope of the work
includes: 1) demolition and reconstruction of all of the stage area except the
existing under stage concrete structure which currently houses the Children's
Experimental Theater, dressing rooms, storage space, etc.; 2) demolition and
reconstruction of the audience seating area; 3) demolition and reconstruction
of a show production booth with a new subterranean level; 4) demolition and
reconstruction of the concession building, restrooms, box office, and pathways
to the various buildings, audience seating, and stage so all are ADA compliant;
and 5) demolition and reconstruction of the parking area. The EXECUTIVE SUMMARY includes, as follows:
Forest Theater Renovation Phasing and Concept Cost Plan 2009
Construction Costs $6,893,000
Design, Planning and Management $1,178,000
Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment $2,000
Development Costs $44,000
Data, Telecommunications and Security $61,000
Project Contingency $503,000
TOTAL $8,680,000
Notably, the ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES section states, as
follows:
“With a reasonably detailed conceptual estimate now
available, the City and the architect can begin to assess adjustments to the project scope that
might bring the project cost back to a more acceptable level. Modifications in scope may also
allow for a different phasing approach.”
The FOREST THEATER
RENOVATION PHASING AND CONCEPT COST PLAN document is embedded.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Attorney Stephen Beals: 'What occurred was the Council took action that directed staff to negotiate a lease agreement for the theater; which is absolutely not what is described in the Agenda. This action clearly violated California Government Code § 54954.2.'
ABSTRACT: Attorney Stephen Beals, representing the Forest Theater Guild, sent a letter via facsimile and U.S. Mail to City Attorney Don Freeman, dated January 12, 2011, regarding “CARMEL CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 2, 2010- AGENDA ITEM XI, F.” Significantly, the letter reads in part, as follows: “What occurred was the Council took action that directed staff to negotiate a lease agreement for the theater; which is absolutely not what is described in the Agenda. This action clearly violated California Government Code § 54954.2." Apparently, the City intends to “bring this matter back to the Council for consideration at their February meeting." Attorney Stephen Beals' letter is reproduced.
STEPHEN BEALS │PLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
26350 Carmel Rancho Lane
Suite 215
Carmel, CA 93923
P.O. Box 223399
Carmel, CA 93922
Voice: 831.626.6400
Fax: 866.624.7746
www.stephenbeals.com
January 12, 2011
VIA FACSIMILE AND US MAIL
Mr. Donald Freeman, City Attorney
City of Carmel
PO Box 805
Carmel, CA 93921-0805
RE: CARMEL CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 2, 2010- AGENDA ITEM XI, F
Dear Mr. Freeman:
As I mentioned in our last telephone conversation I represent the Forest Theater Guild regarding the above referenced matter. I was recently informed that the City of Carmel has agreed to bring this matter back to the Council for consideration at their February meeting- if this is not correct please let me know immediately.
As a formality, I believe it is necessary to explain our position regarding the action taken, which I will do below.
The Agenda for the November 2, 2010, meeting states:
“Receive report and provide policy direction on circulating a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the management and operation of the Children’s Experimental Theater.”
What occurred was the Council took action that directed staff to negotiate a lease agreement for the theater; which is absolutely not what is described in the Agenda. This action clearly violated California Government Code § 54954.2. On November 24, 2010, the City was provided written notice of objection to the action from Mr. Safwat Malek.
I understand the City has decided it is best to bring this matter back to the Council and place the item on the February Agenda. My clients look forward to having an opportunity to present their proposal for the “Youth Arts Academy.”
My client appreciates the City’s decision to consider all possible options for the Children’s Experimental Theater. As you know, Forest Theater Guild has been Carmel’s and Forest Theater’s “community” theater since its founding by Herbert Heron in 1910. My client is eager to present their proposal to the Council as their proposed use of the indoor space would allow a year round Forest Theater Guild operated program for youth in Carmel and offer the community an expansion into multi-media arts and film.
Assuming the City has agreed to properly re-notice this matter and conduct a public hearing at its City Council meeting in February, as I understand it has, I have been directed to withhold taking further legal action against the City at this time.
Very truly yours,
STEPHEN BEALS │ PLC
Stephen J. Beals
SJB;jmh
cc: Council Members, City Administrator
STEPHEN BEALS │PLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
26350 Carmel Rancho Lane
Suite 215
Carmel, CA 93923
P.O. Box 223399
Carmel, CA 93922
Voice: 831.626.6400
Fax: 866.624.7746
www.stephenbeals.com
January 12, 2011
VIA FACSIMILE AND US MAIL
Mr. Donald Freeman, City Attorney
City of Carmel
PO Box 805
Carmel, CA 93921-0805
RE: CARMEL CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 2, 2010- AGENDA ITEM XI, F
Dear Mr. Freeman:
As I mentioned in our last telephone conversation I represent the Forest Theater Guild regarding the above referenced matter. I was recently informed that the City of Carmel has agreed to bring this matter back to the Council for consideration at their February meeting- if this is not correct please let me know immediately.
As a formality, I believe it is necessary to explain our position regarding the action taken, which I will do below.
The Agenda for the November 2, 2010, meeting states:
“Receive report and provide policy direction on circulating a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the management and operation of the Children’s Experimental Theater.”
What occurred was the Council took action that directed staff to negotiate a lease agreement for the theater; which is absolutely not what is described in the Agenda. This action clearly violated California Government Code § 54954.2. On November 24, 2010, the City was provided written notice of objection to the action from Mr. Safwat Malek.
I understand the City has decided it is best to bring this matter back to the Council and place the item on the February Agenda. My clients look forward to having an opportunity to present their proposal for the “Youth Arts Academy.”
My client appreciates the City’s decision to consider all possible options for the Children’s Experimental Theater. As you know, Forest Theater Guild has been Carmel’s and Forest Theater’s “community” theater since its founding by Herbert Heron in 1910. My client is eager to present their proposal to the Council as their proposed use of the indoor space would allow a year round Forest Theater Guild operated program for youth in Carmel and offer the community an expansion into multi-media arts and film.
Assuming the City has agreed to properly re-notice this matter and conduct a public hearing at its City Council meeting in February, as I understand it has, I have been directed to withhold taking further legal action against the City at this time.
Very truly yours,
STEPHEN BEALS │ PLC
SJB;jmh
cc: Council Members, City Administrator
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Four Noteworthy 2 November 2010 City Council Agenda Items
ABSTRACT: Four Noteworthy 2 November 2010 City Council Agenda Items, namely Receive City’s Year-End and First Quarter 2010-2011 financial reports, an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Carmel Sands Redevelopment Project and to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Revised Harassment Prevention Policy for the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and Receive report and provide policy direction on circulating a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the management and operation of the Children’s Experimental Theater. Excerpts from Agenda Item Summaries and Staff Reports are presented; uploaded documents include the Revised Harassment Prevention Policy (2010) and Carmel Sands Initial Study (IS) & Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND).
AGENDA PACKET
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
4:30 p.m., Open Session
Live & Archived Video Streaming
City Hall
East side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues
V. Announcements from Closed Session, from City Council Members and the City Administrator
C. Announcements from City Administrator.
3. Receive City’s Year-End and First Quarter 2010-2011 financial reports.
VIII. Public Hearings
If you challenge the nature of the proposed action in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.
B. Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Carmel Sands Redevelopment Project and to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Carmel Sands Lodge is located on the northeast corner of San Carlos Street and Fifth Avenue. The appellant is Barbara Livingston.
Description: The project consists of the demolition of the existing 42-room Carmel Sands Lodge and the construction of a new 42-room hotel that includes a 64-space underground garage, a restaurant, a day spa and two retail spaces. The appellant is requesting that the Council overturn the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the project and is requesting that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared for the project.
Staff Recommendation: Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision.
Important Considerations: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a lead agency prepare an Initial Study for all projects that are not categorically or statutorily exempt. An Initial Study is prepared to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment.
The City prepared an Initial Study for this project and determined that all potentially significant environmental impacts could be mitigated. The Planning Commission therefore adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project.
Decision Record: The Planning Commission approved the project and adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration on 14 July 2010. An appeal was filed on 27 July 2010.
INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND
The Carmel Sands Lodge is located at the northeast corner of San Carlos Street and Fifth Avenue in the Service Commercial (SC) District. The lodge consists of 42 guest rooms and a 120-seat restaurant in three buildings. The site also includes a large surface parking lot and a swimming pool. The buildings on the site are not considered historically significant. A Determination of Ineligibility for listing on the City’s Historic Inventory was issued on 1 September 2006.
An application was filed in 2008 for the demolition of the existing hotel and the construction of a new 57 room hotel. The Planning Commission (PC) reviewed this project on August 13th, November 12th and December 10th, 2008. The PC continued the project at its 10 December 2008 hearing. There is a cap on the number of hotel rooms allowed in the City and the applicant had not yet identified where the additional 15 rooms would come from. The PC indicated that more information was needed regarding the addition 15 rooms.
The project was subsequently revised to eliminate the proposal to add 15 rooms. The revised project was then reviewed by the PC at four separate meetings. On 10 March 2010 the PC approved the Design Concept, and on 14 July 2010 the PC approved all development permits and adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
An appeal was filed on 27 July 2010 by Carmel resident Barbara Livingston.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing buildings on-site and construct a new hotel (see project plans in attachment “G”). The redevelopment will include the following features:
• 42 hotel rooms in four buildings
• Intra-block walkway and interior courtyard
• Two retail spaces
• Limited use restaurant
• 64-space underground garage
• Day spa facility
• A Porte Cochere vehicle entrance on San Carlos Street
PROJECT DATA FOR A 32,997 SQUARE FOOT SITE:
Site Considerations: Floor Area
Allowed/Required: 44,546 sf (135%)
Existing: 20,780 sf (63%)
Proposed: 39,077 sf (118%)
Site Considerations: Building Coverage
Allowed/Required: 31,347 sf (95%)
Existing: 10,559 sf (34%)
Proposed: 25,052 sf (76%)
Site Considerations: Building Height
Allowed/Required: 30 ft.
Existing: 26 ft.
Proposed: 30 ft.*
*Applicant is requesting height exceptions for tower elements per CMC 17.14.150.
Site Considerations:
Allowed/Required: 57 spaces
Existing: 42 spaces
Proposed: 64 spaces
APPEAL
The appellant is requesting that the City Council overturn the PC’s decision to approve the project and adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration based on two points, 1) an EIR should have been prepared, and 2) the project has significant drawbacks (see attachment “A”). It is important to note that many of the letters, emails and the petition attached to the appellant’s submittal were addressing the previous proposal of a 57 unit motel, not the current proposal.
EVALUATION
The following section addresses comments raised in the appellant’s letter. The numbers below correspond to the numbers annotated on attachment “A”. Staff has summarized the concerns raised by the appellant and has included a brief response.
1. The appellant argues that the applicant’s attorney stated in a letter that an EIR should be required for the project.
Response: The letter in question was in reference to the previous proposal that included 15 new hotel rooms and not to the current proposal, which does not increase the room count. The applicant’s attorney has submitted a letter to the Council indicating that the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate for the project (see attachment “B”).
2. The primary basis of the appeal is that an EIR should be prepared for the project.
Response: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a lead agency prepare an Initial Study (IS) for all projects that are not categorically or statutorily exempt. An IS is prepared to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. Based on the results of the IS, a lead agency may determine whether to prepare a Negative Declaration (ND), a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). A MND can only be adopted if there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the project will have a significant effect on the environment that cannot be mitigated or avoided. CEQA Guidelines Section 15384 defines substantial evidence as:
“...enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might be reached…Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts.”
The City prepared an IS for this project and determined that a MND was appropriate as all potentially significant impacts could be mitigated. The IS/MND was then circulated for public comment. The City received 10 comments, most of which simply requested that an EIR be prepared (see attachment “C”). Two comment letters raised questions as to whether sufficient information had been provided in the IS/MND. The City then prepared a Response to Comments that was subsequently reviewed by the PC (see attachment “D”).
On 9 December 2009 and again on 10 February 2010 the PC determined that the MND was appropriate for the project. The PC determined that the comments had been responded to, and that no substantial evidence of significant environmental impacts had been presented. The PC then adopted the MND on 14 July 2010 (see attachment “E”).
3. The appellant argues that the project could result in a canyon effect on San Carlos Street if the properties north of Fifth Avenue were built out to the sidewalk.
Response: The ‘canyon effect’ referred to by the appellant is actually a desirable attribute in the commercial district. The General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Commercial Design Guidelines all encourage properties in the SC District to be built at, or close to the street to create a pedestrian wall (see O1-11, P1-64, & P1-68 of the General Plan, CMC 17.14.130, & Commercial Design Guideline pg. 8).
Even if the City did determine that a canyon effect at this location could be detrimental, the proposed project would not contribute any more to this effect than the existing two story structure on San Carlos Street already does, which is built to the sidewalk and stretches from lot line to lot line.
4. The appellant argues that public comments were not responded to.
Response: The Planning Commission reviewed and considered all public comments, both oral and written. The Commission determined that all of the comments were appropriately addressed through the IS/MND, the Response to Comments (see attachment “D”) and the deliberation of the Commission.
5. The appellant argues that the mass and scale of the project are inappropriate.
Response: The majority of commercial building sites in the City are between 2,500 and 8,000 square feet in size. Most of these small commercial sites were developed independently with a wide array of architectural styles. The architectural variety and small building sites contribute to the unique character of the City.
Apart from the Carmel Plaza, the majority of sites larger than 8,000 square feet are occupied by hotels. While most of the commercial buildings are modest in size and scale, many of the hotels are much larger in scale and generally consist of a single architectural style. Hotels such as the Pine Inn, La Playa, and the Cypress Inn, for example, are all developed on sites well over 8,000 square feet and are much larger in scale than surrounding development. However, these buildings add diversity and contribute significantly to the character of the City.
Tables A and B (see attachment “F”) provide some additional context as to site size, number of rooms, density and height of many of the hotels in town, including most of the hotels surrounding the Carmel Sands project. While the Sands is the second largest hotel site in the City, the project height, number of rooms, and room density are very consistent with many of the hotels in town, including those in the immediate vicinity.
The total proposed floor area ratio for the project is 118% and the total building coverage is 76%. The floor area is 17% below the base allowed floor area for the site (135%) and 27% percent below the maximum allowed floor area with bonuses (145%). The building coverage is 19% below the maximum allowed coverage (95%).
6. Traffic congestion at San Carlos and Fifth and overall parking has not been adequately addressed.
Response: The analysis shows only slight changes to peak hour and daily trips to the site. The existing surface parking lot accommodates 42 vehicles for the forty two-room motel and the 120 seat restaurant. The site is currently nonconforming by approximately six parking spaces. The proposed project exceeds the on-site parking requirement by 7 spaces, a 13-space improvement based on the City’s required parking standards. The project also creates new on-street parking spaces by eliminating existing access points on Fifth Avenue and on Mission Street. The Porte de Cochere will also allow vehicles to pull off the street while checking in or out of the hotel, thus limiting congestion (see attachment “D” for more information).
7. The appellant argues that it is unlikely an EIR would be required if this project is approved and later additional hotel units are proposed.
Response: If a proposal were submitted to add additional units to this site, an IS would be prepared. Based on the results of an IS, the City would then take the appropriate action. Adding rooms would raise potential concerns related to parking and traffic along with issues related to where the proposed new rooms were being transferred from. All of these issues would need to be addressed in the environmental review. It is impossible to know whether an EIR would or would not be required without a complete project description.
8. The appellant argues that an EIR was required for the Plaza del Mar Project and should therefore be required for this project.
Response: There are several aspects to this project that make it very different from the Plaza del Mar Project (SE Cor. Dolores & 7th ). The Plaza del Mar project was located adjacent to an historic district, involved a potentially significant architectural structure, required the removal of significant trees, involved a significant intensification of use and was requesting exceptions to several General Plan and Zoning standards.
The Carmel Sands project is not adjacent to an historic district, does not involve historically or architecturally significant structures, does not include the removal of any significant trees, is not significantly intensifying the use on the site, and is not requesting any variances. There are two potential zoning discrepancies that do exist that are discussed below. However, these discrepancies can easily be remedied and would not alone justify the preparation of an EIR.
Planning Commission: On 14 July 2010, the Planning Commission approved the project with a 4-1 vote. One of the primary topics of discussion was whether it was appropriate to have each building include variations in materials, colors and styles, as shown on the drawings. The concern expressed by the Commission was that having several variations in materials and styles may appear unauthentic and contrived. The Commission approved the project with a condition that all of the buildings be clad with stucco siding with only slight color variations. The applicant is required to return to the Commission for the final review of the exterior treatments prior to building permit issuance.
This decision appears to conflict with CMC 17.14.120, which states that projects on building sites larger than 12,000 square feet are required to be broken up into two or more distinctively different developments to avoid the appearance of a single large project. The project was designed with separate buildings with variations in materials and styles specifically to address this issue. If the appeal is denied, the Council may want to discuss whether it prefers a unified appearance, as conditioned by the Planning Commission, or variations in materials and styles, as proposed by the applicant. The Council could then provide direction to the Planning Commission on this issue.
Setbacks: An oversight was made regarding the front setback of the northern building on San Carlos Street. The code requires a five foot setback for sites that abut the RC District. The northwest building currently has no front setback. The applicant has indicated that the plans can be revised to comply with this setback requirement. If the Council denies the appeal, the Planning Commission could review the revised plans at the same time it reviews the finished details for the project.
OPTIONS
The following are potential options for the Council to consider regarding this appeal:
Option 1: Deny the appeal in full
This option would uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the project and adopt a MND.
Option 2: Grant the appeal in full
This option would void the Planning Commission’s approval of the project and would require the preparation of an EIR before taking further action on the project.
Option 3: Grant the appeal in part
If the Council determines that an EIR is not required, but would like to see changes in the project design and/or additional information in the MND prior to final approval, this option could be selected. The Council could remand the project back to the Planning Commission with instructions.
Option 4: Continue Consideration of the Appeal to a Future Date
This option would allow the City Council to request additional information prior to making a final decision on the appeal.
RECOMMENDATION
Option 3: Deny the request to require an EIR but remand the design back to the Planning Commission to address CMC Section 17.14.120 related to providing more distinction in the project design and to address the front setback along San Carlos Street.
Carmel Sands Appeal IS and MND
Carmel Sands Initial Study (IS) & Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
XI. Orders of Council
B. Revised Harassment Prevention Policy for the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
Harassment Prevention Policy Revised 2010
Harassment Prevention Policy (Revised 2010)
Note:
The only instance in the eleven page Harassment Prevention Policy (2010) of “if the alleged harasser is the City Administrator,” as follows:
MISCELLANEOUS GUIDELINES
Complaints Against Volunteers or City Council Appointees.
3. If the alleged harasser is the City Administrator: the report must be given to the Mayor. The Mayor must review the findings and make recommendations accordingly to the entire City Council.
F. Receive report and provide policy direction on circulating a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the management and operation of the Children’s Experimental Theater.
Description: Stephen Moorer of the Pacific Repertory Theater (PacRep) informed staff that he is authorized to manage the Children’s Experimental Theater (CET) and requested that his lease with the City for the use of the Forest Theater include using the CET indoor theater. PacRep has the keys and oversight of CET’s assets and indoor theater. Forest Theater Guild (FTG) board member Safwat Malek also inquired about using the CET indoor theater and asked for FTG’s contract to be amended to manage CET. Since the lease agreements for both PacRep and FTG have expired, now is a good time to review each lease to determine which agreement should be amended to include managing and operating CET and its indoor theater.
Overall Cost: The current leasing rate for use of the indoor theater is $160/month, plus any user charging admission or collecting a donation as a condition of admission must pay 10% of gross receipts. Staff recommends as part of evaluating any RFPs received that consideration be given to revising this fee structure.
Staff Recommendation: Provide policy direction.
Important Considerations: Preparing and circulating an RFP is the most equitable way to select a manager/operator of the CET indoor theater. At minimum, the RFP should include goals and objectives for the operation of the CET indoor theater, operational budget, qualifications and evaluation criteria.
Once the RFPs are received, an independent evaluation committee must review and recommend to the Council the most qualified candidate. Council will make the final decision on who is selected. Another alternative based on the attached letter submitted by the PacRep, would be to forego circulating an RFP and instead direct staff to negotiate a lease agreement with them.
AGENDA PACKET
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
4:30 p.m., Open Session
Live & Archived Video Streaming
City Hall
East side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues
V. Announcements from Closed Session, from City Council Members and the City Administrator
C. Announcements from City Administrator.
3. Receive City’s Year-End and First Quarter 2010-2011 financial reports.
VIII. Public Hearings
If you challenge the nature of the proposed action in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.
B. Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Carmel Sands Redevelopment Project and to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Carmel Sands Lodge is located on the northeast corner of San Carlos Street and Fifth Avenue. The appellant is Barbara Livingston.
Description: The project consists of the demolition of the existing 42-room Carmel Sands Lodge and the construction of a new 42-room hotel that includes a 64-space underground garage, a restaurant, a day spa and two retail spaces. The appellant is requesting that the Council overturn the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the project and is requesting that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared for the project.
Staff Recommendation: Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision.
Important Considerations: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a lead agency prepare an Initial Study for all projects that are not categorically or statutorily exempt. An Initial Study is prepared to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment.
The City prepared an Initial Study for this project and determined that all potentially significant environmental impacts could be mitigated. The Planning Commission therefore adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project.
Decision Record: The Planning Commission approved the project and adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration on 14 July 2010. An appeal was filed on 27 July 2010.
INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND
The Carmel Sands Lodge is located at the northeast corner of San Carlos Street and Fifth Avenue in the Service Commercial (SC) District. The lodge consists of 42 guest rooms and a 120-seat restaurant in three buildings. The site also includes a large surface parking lot and a swimming pool. The buildings on the site are not considered historically significant. A Determination of Ineligibility for listing on the City’s Historic Inventory was issued on 1 September 2006.
An application was filed in 2008 for the demolition of the existing hotel and the construction of a new 57 room hotel. The Planning Commission (PC) reviewed this project on August 13th, November 12th and December 10th, 2008. The PC continued the project at its 10 December 2008 hearing. There is a cap on the number of hotel rooms allowed in the City and the applicant had not yet identified where the additional 15 rooms would come from. The PC indicated that more information was needed regarding the addition 15 rooms.
The project was subsequently revised to eliminate the proposal to add 15 rooms. The revised project was then reviewed by the PC at four separate meetings. On 10 March 2010 the PC approved the Design Concept, and on 14 July 2010 the PC approved all development permits and adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
An appeal was filed on 27 July 2010 by Carmel resident Barbara Livingston.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing buildings on-site and construct a new hotel (see project plans in attachment “G”). The redevelopment will include the following features:
• 42 hotel rooms in four buildings
• Intra-block walkway and interior courtyard
• Two retail spaces
• Limited use restaurant
• 64-space underground garage
• Day spa facility
• A Porte Cochere vehicle entrance on San Carlos Street
PROJECT DATA FOR A 32,997 SQUARE FOOT SITE:
Site Considerations: Floor Area
Allowed/Required: 44,546 sf (135%)
Existing: 20,780 sf (63%)
Proposed: 39,077 sf (118%)
Site Considerations: Building Coverage
Allowed/Required: 31,347 sf (95%)
Existing: 10,559 sf (34%)
Proposed: 25,052 sf (76%)
Site Considerations: Building Height
Allowed/Required: 30 ft.
Existing: 26 ft.
Proposed: 30 ft.*
*Applicant is requesting height exceptions for tower elements per CMC 17.14.150.
Site Considerations:
Allowed/Required: 57 spaces
Existing: 42 spaces
Proposed: 64 spaces
APPEAL
The appellant is requesting that the City Council overturn the PC’s decision to approve the project and adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration based on two points, 1) an EIR should have been prepared, and 2) the project has significant drawbacks (see attachment “A”). It is important to note that many of the letters, emails and the petition attached to the appellant’s submittal were addressing the previous proposal of a 57 unit motel, not the current proposal.
EVALUATION
The following section addresses comments raised in the appellant’s letter. The numbers below correspond to the numbers annotated on attachment “A”. Staff has summarized the concerns raised by the appellant and has included a brief response.
1. The appellant argues that the applicant’s attorney stated in a letter that an EIR should be required for the project.
Response: The letter in question was in reference to the previous proposal that included 15 new hotel rooms and not to the current proposal, which does not increase the room count. The applicant’s attorney has submitted a letter to the Council indicating that the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate for the project (see attachment “B”).
2. The primary basis of the appeal is that an EIR should be prepared for the project.
Response: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a lead agency prepare an Initial Study (IS) for all projects that are not categorically or statutorily exempt. An IS is prepared to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. Based on the results of the IS, a lead agency may determine whether to prepare a Negative Declaration (ND), a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). A MND can only be adopted if there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the project will have a significant effect on the environment that cannot be mitigated or avoided. CEQA Guidelines Section 15384 defines substantial evidence as:
“...enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might be reached…Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts.”
The City prepared an IS for this project and determined that a MND was appropriate as all potentially significant impacts could be mitigated. The IS/MND was then circulated for public comment. The City received 10 comments, most of which simply requested that an EIR be prepared (see attachment “C”). Two comment letters raised questions as to whether sufficient information had been provided in the IS/MND. The City then prepared a Response to Comments that was subsequently reviewed by the PC (see attachment “D”).
On 9 December 2009 and again on 10 February 2010 the PC determined that the MND was appropriate for the project. The PC determined that the comments had been responded to, and that no substantial evidence of significant environmental impacts had been presented. The PC then adopted the MND on 14 July 2010 (see attachment “E”).
3. The appellant argues that the project could result in a canyon effect on San Carlos Street if the properties north of Fifth Avenue were built out to the sidewalk.
Response: The ‘canyon effect’ referred to by the appellant is actually a desirable attribute in the commercial district. The General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Commercial Design Guidelines all encourage properties in the SC District to be built at, or close to the street to create a pedestrian wall (see O1-11, P1-64, & P1-68 of the General Plan, CMC 17.14.130, & Commercial Design Guideline pg. 8).
Even if the City did determine that a canyon effect at this location could be detrimental, the proposed project would not contribute any more to this effect than the existing two story structure on San Carlos Street already does, which is built to the sidewalk and stretches from lot line to lot line.
4. The appellant argues that public comments were not responded to.
Response: The Planning Commission reviewed and considered all public comments, both oral and written. The Commission determined that all of the comments were appropriately addressed through the IS/MND, the Response to Comments (see attachment “D”) and the deliberation of the Commission.
5. The appellant argues that the mass and scale of the project are inappropriate.
Response: The majority of commercial building sites in the City are between 2,500 and 8,000 square feet in size. Most of these small commercial sites were developed independently with a wide array of architectural styles. The architectural variety and small building sites contribute to the unique character of the City.
Apart from the Carmel Plaza, the majority of sites larger than 8,000 square feet are occupied by hotels. While most of the commercial buildings are modest in size and scale, many of the hotels are much larger in scale and generally consist of a single architectural style. Hotels such as the Pine Inn, La Playa, and the Cypress Inn, for example, are all developed on sites well over 8,000 square feet and are much larger in scale than surrounding development. However, these buildings add diversity and contribute significantly to the character of the City.
Tables A and B (see attachment “F”) provide some additional context as to site size, number of rooms, density and height of many of the hotels in town, including most of the hotels surrounding the Carmel Sands project. While the Sands is the second largest hotel site in the City, the project height, number of rooms, and room density are very consistent with many of the hotels in town, including those in the immediate vicinity.
The total proposed floor area ratio for the project is 118% and the total building coverage is 76%. The floor area is 17% below the base allowed floor area for the site (135%) and 27% percent below the maximum allowed floor area with bonuses (145%). The building coverage is 19% below the maximum allowed coverage (95%).
6. Traffic congestion at San Carlos and Fifth and overall parking has not been adequately addressed.
Response: The analysis shows only slight changes to peak hour and daily trips to the site. The existing surface parking lot accommodates 42 vehicles for the forty two-room motel and the 120 seat restaurant. The site is currently nonconforming by approximately six parking spaces. The proposed project exceeds the on-site parking requirement by 7 spaces, a 13-space improvement based on the City’s required parking standards. The project also creates new on-street parking spaces by eliminating existing access points on Fifth Avenue and on Mission Street. The Porte de Cochere will also allow vehicles to pull off the street while checking in or out of the hotel, thus limiting congestion (see attachment “D” for more information).
7. The appellant argues that it is unlikely an EIR would be required if this project is approved and later additional hotel units are proposed.
Response: If a proposal were submitted to add additional units to this site, an IS would be prepared. Based on the results of an IS, the City would then take the appropriate action. Adding rooms would raise potential concerns related to parking and traffic along with issues related to where the proposed new rooms were being transferred from. All of these issues would need to be addressed in the environmental review. It is impossible to know whether an EIR would or would not be required without a complete project description.
8. The appellant argues that an EIR was required for the Plaza del Mar Project and should therefore be required for this project.
Response: There are several aspects to this project that make it very different from the Plaza del Mar Project (SE Cor. Dolores & 7th ). The Plaza del Mar project was located adjacent to an historic district, involved a potentially significant architectural structure, required the removal of significant trees, involved a significant intensification of use and was requesting exceptions to several General Plan and Zoning standards.
The Carmel Sands project is not adjacent to an historic district, does not involve historically or architecturally significant structures, does not include the removal of any significant trees, is not significantly intensifying the use on the site, and is not requesting any variances. There are two potential zoning discrepancies that do exist that are discussed below. However, these discrepancies can easily be remedied and would not alone justify the preparation of an EIR.
Planning Commission: On 14 July 2010, the Planning Commission approved the project with a 4-1 vote. One of the primary topics of discussion was whether it was appropriate to have each building include variations in materials, colors and styles, as shown on the drawings. The concern expressed by the Commission was that having several variations in materials and styles may appear unauthentic and contrived. The Commission approved the project with a condition that all of the buildings be clad with stucco siding with only slight color variations. The applicant is required to return to the Commission for the final review of the exterior treatments prior to building permit issuance.
This decision appears to conflict with CMC 17.14.120, which states that projects on building sites larger than 12,000 square feet are required to be broken up into two or more distinctively different developments to avoid the appearance of a single large project. The project was designed with separate buildings with variations in materials and styles specifically to address this issue. If the appeal is denied, the Council may want to discuss whether it prefers a unified appearance, as conditioned by the Planning Commission, or variations in materials and styles, as proposed by the applicant. The Council could then provide direction to the Planning Commission on this issue.
Setbacks: An oversight was made regarding the front setback of the northern building on San Carlos Street. The code requires a five foot setback for sites that abut the RC District. The northwest building currently has no front setback. The applicant has indicated that the plans can be revised to comply with this setback requirement. If the Council denies the appeal, the Planning Commission could review the revised plans at the same time it reviews the finished details for the project.
OPTIONS
The following are potential options for the Council to consider regarding this appeal:
Option 1: Deny the appeal in full
This option would uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the project and adopt a MND.
Option 2: Grant the appeal in full
This option would void the Planning Commission’s approval of the project and would require the preparation of an EIR before taking further action on the project.
Option 3: Grant the appeal in part
If the Council determines that an EIR is not required, but would like to see changes in the project design and/or additional information in the MND prior to final approval, this option could be selected. The Council could remand the project back to the Planning Commission with instructions.
Option 4: Continue Consideration of the Appeal to a Future Date
This option would allow the City Council to request additional information prior to making a final decision on the appeal.
RECOMMENDATION
Option 3: Deny the request to require an EIR but remand the design back to the Planning Commission to address CMC Section 17.14.120 related to providing more distinction in the project design and to address the front setback along San Carlos Street.
Carmel Sands Appeal IS and MND
Carmel Sands Initial Study (IS) & Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
XI. Orders of Council
B. Revised Harassment Prevention Policy for the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
Harassment Prevention Policy Revised 2010
Harassment Prevention Policy (Revised 2010)
Note:
The only instance in the eleven page Harassment Prevention Policy (2010) of “if the alleged harasser is the City Administrator,” as follows:
MISCELLANEOUS GUIDELINES
Complaints Against Volunteers or City Council Appointees.
3. If the alleged harasser is the City Administrator: the report must be given to the Mayor. The Mayor must review the findings and make recommendations accordingly to the entire City Council.
F. Receive report and provide policy direction on circulating a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the management and operation of the Children’s Experimental Theater.
Description: Stephen Moorer of the Pacific Repertory Theater (PacRep) informed staff that he is authorized to manage the Children’s Experimental Theater (CET) and requested that his lease with the City for the use of the Forest Theater include using the CET indoor theater. PacRep has the keys and oversight of CET’s assets and indoor theater. Forest Theater Guild (FTG) board member Safwat Malek also inquired about using the CET indoor theater and asked for FTG’s contract to be amended to manage CET. Since the lease agreements for both PacRep and FTG have expired, now is a good time to review each lease to determine which agreement should be amended to include managing and operating CET and its indoor theater.
Overall Cost: The current leasing rate for use of the indoor theater is $160/month, plus any user charging admission or collecting a donation as a condition of admission must pay 10% of gross receipts. Staff recommends as part of evaluating any RFPs received that consideration be given to revising this fee structure.
Staff Recommendation: Provide policy direction.
Important Considerations: Preparing and circulating an RFP is the most equitable way to select a manager/operator of the CET indoor theater. At minimum, the RFP should include goals and objectives for the operation of the CET indoor theater, operational budget, qualifications and evaluation criteria.
Once the RFPs are received, an independent evaluation committee must review and recommend to the Council the most qualified candidate. Council will make the final decision on who is selected. Another alternative based on the attached letter submitted by the PacRep, would be to forego circulating an RFP and instead direct staff to negotiate a lease agreement with them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)