CITY COUNCIL: Receive Recommendations on Santa Lucia Restrooms Project & Provide Direction on Final Design

City Council
Agenda Item Summary

Meeting Date: 6 March 2012
Prepared by: Sean Conroy, Ping & Bldg Services Manager

Name: Receive recommendations on the Santa Lucia Restrooms project and provide direction on the final design.

Description: Preliminary concept plans have been prepared for the construction of a permanent restroom facility at the intersection of Scenic Road and Santa Lucia A venue. The purpose of this hearing is for the Council to review the recommendations made by the Forest and Beach Commission, the Planning Commission, and comments received during the Public Workshop, and to provide direction to the architect for preparation of the final design.

Overall Cost:
City Funds: N/ A
Grant Funds: N/ A

Staff Recommendation: Provide direction to staff and the architect on the final design of the restrooms.

Important Considerations: In 2011, the City Council authorized funds to complete the design of the restroom facilities at Scenic and Santa Lucia. No funding has been authorized for the construction of the facility.

Decision Record: N/ A

Reviewed by:

Jason Stilwell, City Administrator Date

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR MCCLOUD AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: SEAN CONROY, PLANNING & BUILDING SERVICES MGR.
THROUGH: JASON STILWELL, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: 6 MARCH 2012
SUBJECT: RECEIVE RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE SANTA LUCIA RESTROOMS PROJECT AND PROVIDE DIRECTION ON THE FINAL DESIGN

BACKGROUND
Carmel Beach is a highly popular visitor destination and is world renowned for its scenic
beauty. The Scenic Pathway offers a unique pedestrian experience as it meanders along
the beach bluffs. The pathway is heavily used, providing a complementary experience to
the sandy beach. The City’s General Plan contains numerous polices regarding
maintaining and enhancing access and recreational opportunities in this area.
Goal G4-3 of the General Plan encourages the City to provide adequate facilities to serve
the needs of the public along the beach. Policy P4-41 states, “Retain the current second
restroom facility at Santa Lucia Avenue until it can be replaced by a permanent site.”
Temporary restrooms were installed near the intersection of Scenic Road and Santa Lucia
Avenue in 1986. In 2002 the City hired Carver and Schicketanz to evaluate two different
sites for new beach restrooms on Scenic Drive, one at Tenth Avenue and one at 13th
Avenue. Both locations presented challenges and were never pursued. In 2009 the City
again hired Carver and Schicketanz to begin design work for a restroom at the Santa
Lucia location. In 2011 the City Council authorized the funds to complete design work
for this facility.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project includes the removal of the existing temporary restroom facilities and the
construction of a new facility. The preliminary concept plans include the following:
• Excavating the site to place the finished floor of the restrooms approximately four
feet lower than the current grade.
• Inclusion of a men’s and women’s facility.
• An outdoor shower.
• A foot wash and a pet wash area.
• A stone façade.
98
MP 12-1 (Restrooms)
6 March 2012
Staff Report
Page 2
• A low pitched green roof.
• A fence to keep people off of the roof.
• Five skylights.
• Two solar collectors.
• An ADA compliant path leading from the Scenic Pathway to the restrooms.
While the Council has authorized the funding to complete the design work, no funds have
been authorized for the construction phase of the project. Preliminary construction
estimates range from $300,000 to $350,000.
The purpose of this hearing is for the Council to review the recommendations made by
the Forest and Beach Commission, the Planning Commission and comments received
during the Public Workshop, and to provide direction to the architect for preparation of
the final design.
PREVIOUS REVIEW
The Forest and Beach Commission reviewed these plans in 2010 and had the following
comments:
• Project should use non-potable water for toilets if possible.
• The shower should be eliminated for water conservation purposes.
• All excavation should be done by hand near any significant tree.
• The placement of the existing benches should be replicated.
• Investigate the possibility of extending the existing seawall north to the stairs also
with the possibility of an ADA ramp to beach.
• Use green building materials.
• Pursue grants for funding.
• The Commission also discussed a viewing deck on the roof rather than a planted
roof, but had concerns of creating view impacts on nearby homes.
The City held a public workshop on 17 November 2011 to present the concept plans to
the public. Some of the comments made during the workshop included:
• The solar powered hot water heaters may be unnecessary.
• The skylights should be removed or minimized to avoid nighttime lighting
impacts.
• The pathway materials should be designed to avoid slippage.
• The foot wash/dog wash area should be separated.
• More renderings may be needed to show the potential impacts on neighboring
properties.
99
MP 12-1 (Restrooms)
6 March 2012
Staff Report
Page 3
The Planning Commission reviewed this project on 28 February 2012. The Commission
made the following recommendations to the City Council:
• The location at Scenic and Santa Lucia is appropriate.
• The City should facilitate another workshop(s) that is more participatory in nature
to obtain more public input. Rather than just present plans and ask for responses,
a work shop that allows for brainstorming and a discussion of alternatives is
recommended.
• While the Commission supports a high class facility, the size, scale and costs of
the facility should be reconsidered.
• The excavation of the site could place the facility at risk during winter storms and
should be reconsidered.
• A clearer presentation of the landscaping and impacts to trees should be included.
QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL
Some of the questions that the Council may want to discuss include:
• Should the Council direct staff to prepare additional workshops?
• Should the size, scale and costs of the facility be reconsidered?
• Should the excavation be reconsidered to avoid potential impacts during storms?
• Are there amenities (skylights, solar hot water, shower, etc.) that should be
eliminated?
• Are there other amenities that should be considered?
RECOMMENDATION
Provide direction to staff and the architect on the final design of the restrooms.
100
101
Carmel Beach Restroom Design
Lloyd Point
Scenic Road and Santa Lucia
Commentary on the Proposed Restroom Project
Site Significance:
Lloyd Point is. an historically and aesthetically significant land feature
along the Carmel shoreline and its southern bluffs. It is a sandstone
outcrop that forms the southern edge of a fault that runs southeast from
Pescadero Point under Carmel Bay, past Lloyd Point towards Carmel
Valley; identified as the Pescadero fault. At this location, two exposed
fracture faults run directly under Scenic Road. These surface fractures
shape the small cove and sandstone outcrops jutting from the sand
during the winter months when the beach sand budget is low. These
rock features are critically important. Combined with winter storm
currents, wave reflection and run-up, the shape of the point and
exposed faults help generate high-energy waves. These waves can easily
carry significant ocean debris, shoreline cobbles and boulders,
depositing all of them, forming large berms burying the stairway and at
times depositing debris on bluff tops and on Scenic Road itself. The
debris, including large drift logs and trees, can act as battering rams
pummeling the bluffs and coastal protective structures.
Existing Features and Amenities:
The point is shrouded with several iconic Monterey cypress and native
landscape plantings. The beach bluff pathway meanders through the
trees providing a convenient respite where three benches take
advantage of the panoramic shoreline vistas. There are two memorial
monuments to Frank and Marjory Lloyd, leaders of our community
throughout its history. A primary stairway access to the beach and
wash-off station is strategically located here. Seawalls armor the
westerly facing point because past intense winter waves repeatedly
eroded the unprotected bluffs and substantially diminished its
extension towards the water's edge.
102
With all these combined significant site issues and dynamics in mind,
we encourage a careful assessment to determine the best design
alternative with the least impact on the land and at an affordable cost. It
is critical and essential for the success of this strategic project.
Considerations:
Before moving forward with design and construction drawings,
carefully consider this project's scope and the immense impact it will
have on this site. No story poles or survey markers were erected to
determine the proposed building's footprint or the depth and breadth of
excavation. The scope of this proposed concept has not been vetted for
its impacts on the land and surrounding amenities. With no visual
relationship to go by, how can the public determine its true size and
scale? Residents cannot see or lmow what they are approving.
The conceptual design began with selection of an architectural firm.
Taking recommendations promulgated by the Carmel Beach Bluff Task
Force (198.7) and included in the Carmel Shoreline Management Plan,
staff reviewed several potential sites, at 8th, 10th, 13th and Santa Lucia
Avenues. Surveys of each site indicated that none had advantages equal
to the Santa Lucia location, if the design was sensitive to the land and
existing amenities.
Benefits:
1. The bluff at Santa Lucia is at the lowest elevation in relation to
beach access other than the 8th Avenue site.
2. The southern end of the beach provided balanced public
restroom facilities at the northern and southern reaches of
Carmel's 1.25 mile long shoreline.
3. The demographics and vehicle traffic counts at the southern
reaches of our beach are significantly less than the Ocean Avenue·
parking lot site to the north.
103
4. Available parking spaces (187 stalls vs. 27 curbside stalls)
restrict the potential numbers that would use restroom facilities.
5. Ocean Avenue serves Carmel residents but also the high numbers
of"day trip" beach visitors doing the Ocean Avenue loop, from
town to beach and back.
6. The relatively low elevation of the Santa Lucia site lends itself to
development of a ramp access to the beach for the physically
impaired. (Note: Potential funding source State Coastal
Conservancy)
7. Location and demographics lend credence to a downsized
smaller scale facility on grade with existing trees, vegetation and
screening wall.
Disadvantages:
1. Potential damage or loss of existing amenities.
2. Loss of all or nearly all trees and existing landscaping beyond
actual building footprint due to deep excavation.
3. Potential impacts on existing seawalls and revetments may
require construction of a new protective wall substantially
increasing project costs.
4. Impacts existing pathway, stairway and wash-off.
5. Cost benefit too high.
6. Subterranean structure could damage the natural rock
buttressing of the point.
7. Subterranean facility difficult to police.
8. Difficult to maintain.
9. May require septic pumping to sewer connection due to
insufficient gradients. (Note: If power fails so does pumping
service requiring facility closure)
10. High energy wave impact damages to structure.
11. Subterranean structure could be hazardous to users
during severe winter storm events.
12. Too low a profile. Does not visually identify public
facility for those requiring a restroom.
13. Low profile flat/slopped roof invites trespass and
demands increased maintenance and water use to
sustain a living roof.
14. Scale of building plus ramp access too large for site.
15. Inaccessible during winter storms.
104
16. Large facility requires more water.
17. Tree replacement will likely be problematic due to
objections from property owners.
Alternative Design Option:
1. Lloyd Pt. is a flat accessible site for all visitors.
2. At grade facility is most cost effective least damaging to
site.
3. Lower water use.
4. Could be one unisex or two smaller scale stand-alone units.
(Note: National Parks Service has off-the-shelf designs
modifiable to enhance aesthetics and function)
5. No physically impaired access ramps required.
6. No impacts on existing seawalls, revetments, pathways, stairway,
wash -off station or benches.
7. Significantly less impact on trees and vegetation.
8. Similar footprint to existing "temporary'' facilities.
9. Track record of existing facilities demonstrates smaller is better
and adequately addresses public demand.
10. No pumping necessary for waste disposal.
11. A small-scale on-grade facility would not need costly
electrical undergrounding. With no pump system or
other electrical requirements, skylights would provide
sufficient illumination.
12. Less maintenance.
13. Logical sensible solution.
We encourage the Planning Commission members to carefully review
this project as proposed and consider each of the issues raised in this
commentary before remanding this project to the City Council.
Lucinda ~~Cindy" Lloyd
Gregory D'Ambrosio
Francis "Skip" Lloyd
105
To: City of Carmel~by-the Sea Planning Commission: February 23, 2012
Re: February 28, 2012 meeting
Some concerns regarding the scheril.e for a proposed restroom complex at the beach at
Santa Lucia and Scenic Drive:
1. The mass of the proposed project is much too large for the site.
2. Does the level of service for which the project is designed exist or is it
anticipated?
3. The level of service proposed to be provided by the design will be an "attractive
nuisance", drawing people to the site for convenience, rather than merely serving
a need. This will be an annoyance to the surrounding residents and will increase
traffic congestion at that location. It likely will draw surfers to the site for
changing, washing down, etc. Surfers now swf mainly off the beach at about 1 Otb
street and c~e into and out of their gear on Scenic Drive at that location. They
would be drawn to a facility of the proposed level of improvement.
4. the massive excavation for this proposed project appears to be for the purpose of
providing better views from Scenic Drive than exist now, as the six ( 6) well
established cypress trees on the site, with their many years of growth, now are in
the very viewshed which is to be "enhanced" by the new structure, which would
require the destruction of these trees.
5. The destruction of the six (6) established cypress trees is against city policy.
What is the justification for removal of these trees?
6. Might high surf surmount the low wall at the lower level resulting from the
excavated site, as proposed, causing damage to the improvements, increased
maintenance issues and danger to the public?
7. The shower is unnecessary and would draw usage to the site.
8. The existing foot washing and dog watering facilities adjacent to the existing
steps are all that is needed in these regards. The proposed "exit wash and pet water area"
is unnecessary in its size and concept
9. There is no need for the separate washing up rooms and toilet rooms, both men's
and women's. This is not an area with the level of usage remotely near that which exists
at the d1mes at the north end of the beach.
10. The ''mutt mitt'' space is not n~ed. A dispenser would suffice.
11. The excavation and flat roof structure, designed to "disappear'' into the landscape
invites vandalism, and collection of debris. The architect bas acknowledged that it
invites walking on the roofby pranksters. At the workshop in November, 2011, he
suggested that the roof could be protected by installation of barbed wire. This suggests a
design flaw and certainly is not in the spirit of Carmel.
l.
106
12. The north elevation of the design illustrates the conversion of the view of the site
from the beach from a benign, l;l:~ rural, natural look to an urban "bunker''
look, with massive facades of stone and with exposed restroom doors
visible :from the beach, completely out of keeping with the rest of the beachftont.
13. The expense of the proposed structure seems unjustified.
14. A mechanical room is included in the proposal, presumably mandated by the
intense level ofthe facilities in the design, which level may not be warranted.
15. Question: What parameters drove the design concept? (i.e. what were the
architect's "marching orders" and how were these established? How was it
determined that the viewshed from Scenic Drive should be enhanced and the
existing screening provided by established cypress 1rees destroyed? What studies
provided the underpinnings for the very high level of service to be provided by
the proposed design?)
16. What level of maintenance will be required for this proposal? Won't it inevitably
become an unsightly and unpleasant site?
17. The skylights in the proposal are unsightly.
18. The views to the north, up the beach, from the existing benches would be lost or
substantially diminished, as the new benches are facing to the west.
19. The quiet, sublime experience enjoyed while sitting on the e~g benches
would be lost, as the area would become a much less natural, unspoiled site,
backing up into a shower area and entrances to the toilets, with increased foot
traffic.
20. The proposal would convert a low key and relatively unspoiled stretch of
beachfront into a paved, overbuilt and over improved development
Suggestion: It would be helpful to a study of this proposal if it were not presented solely
in a mockup as proposed, with the proposed improvements in place. Rather, pictures of
the present status of the site as it exists, from all sides, should be presented in similar
scale, for comparison. This would provide a helpful backdrop for examining the scale of
improvements which would be tolerable on the site, consistent with current amenities of
the site, the preservation of much of which may be de · le.
~0~
107
Februazy 22, 2012
Mr. Sean Conroy
Cannel Planning Department and Staff
Cannel Planning Commission
Re: Proposed Restrooms at Scenic and Santa Lucia
To the Department, Staff and Commissioners:
After attending the November 17, 2011, public workshop presented by the Planning
Department, and learning what the proposed design for the beach restrooms at Santa
Lucia and Scenic were, I have given the subject some thought and have some concerns.
It is my hope that the restrooms shall be small, functional, unobtrusive and made of
materials compatible with our beachfront shoreline.
Excavation of the current sandstone point in order to build the restrooms below grade,
seems expensive, destructive to the natural landscape, disruptive to the Beach Bluff
Walkway, as well as making the restrooms difficult to see and to access. During our
winter storms, the restrooms would be vulnerable to damage from wave action, and they
would not be accessible for use. City staff would need to post danger signs, closed signs,
and remove them when the situation passed.
The proposed sloping roof would provide an invitation to trespassers, creating a need to
deter them and to monitor them, not to mention the liability hazard from accidental falls.
The proposal of a "green" roof of living plants would require maintenance for upkeep.
The cypress trees on the point are slated for removal during excavation for the proposed
plan, while they could be preserved, if the restrooms were built at current grade level.
The trees could provide aesthetic incorporation of the restrooms into the landscape.
If it were necessary to include a shower in the plan, it should be open, simple and
primarily for use to rinse off sand and seawater, not for bathing.
Thank you for your consideration of my suggestions. I look forward, with interest, to see
the development of a plan to meet the needs of us all.
Sincerely,
LU£~~ 24329 San Juan Road
Carmel, CA 93923
831 624-8422
108
Sean Conroy
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
To : Sean Conroy
From: Nance Hoeft
Nance Hoeft [ _
Monday, February 27, 2012 6:23PM
Sean Conroy
Meeting Tuesday Feb 28, 2012
Santa Rita/4th NW 4th Ave
831 915-7523
I understand that there will be discussion tomorrow on the building of
bathrooms in Carmel. I will try but probably cannot attend the meeting. I
just want to say that is is wrong to spend money building new facilities
you are ignoring & neglecting the buildings you already own.
I am part of a group that used to rent the Scout House, until it was
closed due to not being handicap accessible. That was probably 8-9 years
ago. I am repeatedly told that there are 11 historic issuesn to be clear
about & that it is too expensive to bring up to code . Let me say that if I
had been able to rent the Scout House one weekend a month for the past 8
years, it would have amounted to $25,000. That would be the result of
just one renter. I am a dancer & have searched the Peninsula for dance
space to rent for years. It is scarce. As it is, I have been taking my
dance business to Pacific Grove. ·I rent a dance space there & people come
from out of town. They eat in Pacific Grove & if overnight lodging is
needed they stay in Pacific Grove. I wish I could bring that busi ness to
Carmel but it is not possible . I believe it is your responsibility to
take care of what has already been entrusted to you before you build
something new.
I have rented the dance space at Sunset Center in the past with
difficulty. I would get 11 bumped" for someone who wanted to perhaps conduct
a meeting or show a film. . . . . . that room has a wooden floor with
mirrors & a barre & was built & intended for dance .
I would appreciate a response . Thank you. Nance
1
109
Sean Conroy
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Barbara Livingston t]
Wednesday, February a, ~U12 5:33 PM
Sean Conroy
Beach Restrooms
TO: Planning Staff and Planning Commissioners
RE: Santa Lucia Restrooms
I deeply regret I am unable to attend your special meeting of Tuesday,
February 28. I have some concerns about the proposed beach restrooms
which I hope you will take into consideration.
Size:
The proposed building is much too large. 1200 sq feet????? There is no
need for 2 restrooms. One unisex handicap accessible restroom should
suffice.
Location:
The existing site with a restroom snuggled into the existing mature
cypress trees is ideal.It would be folly to excavate for lower profile .
The restroom should be visible to the extent that beach goers, hikers can
easily identify and access this facility. Hiding it down slope invites
nefarious activities and opportunity for winter storm damage .
Construction:
The building should be as simple as possible. Construction materials
should be age-weathered rustic wood. Whatever interior materials are used
should be as seamless as possible to keep urine from penetrating. (i.e. no
tile with grout). Construction should be utilitarian, simple, functional.
Thank you . Barbara Livingston
Barbara Livingston
P.O.Box 6025
Carmel, CA 9392l
E. green.gardens®att.net
p. 83l. 626 .l610