Forest TheatreEntrance @ Mt. View Av. & Santa Rita St.
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA.
WHO: Forest Theater Foundation & Los Angeles Consultant
WHAT: Presentation of Forest Theater Foundation’s Master Plan for the Forest Theatre, prepared by a consultant from Los Angeles
WHERE: Vista Lobos, Torres St. & 3rd Av., S.W. Corner
WHEN: Tuesday, October 30, 2007, 4:45 P.M.
Forest TheatrePlaque, WORK PROJECTS ADMINISTRATION AND THE CITY OF CARMEL 1939-1940
Mt. View Av. & Santa Rita St.
6 comments:
It looks like the 2001 Congleton plan is being dismissed by the Foundation. Why? What is the relationship between the city and the foundation? And why weren’t the recommendations of the Congleton plan achieved before now? And why is the foundation hiring their own out-of-town consultant now?
The Foundation members (FTG, PRT, CET) were actively involved in, and had a great deal of input into the 2001 Congleton Master Plan for which the city paid approximately $15,000 to develop. Why on earth are they now saying the plan didn't address enough issues for them? It's because they no longer have to deal with a cultural commission who might stand in the way of what they want. A commission would look after the best interests of the city and look after the theater property. And, they have a mayor who is only to glad to turn the theater over to them now. We cannot afford another financial burden like Sunset Center, which is costing us approximately $1.2M per year to subsidize and service the debt.
Um...actually the Congleton plan was never approved by any City Council, it was only "received" from a Cultural Commission that was very combative and quite often negative towards the theatre groups. Since the plan was never actually discussed by any city council, the community never got to weigh in on it, and it was never vetted by the community at large. It is my understanding that the current plan incorporates much of the Congleton plan, but goes further in addressing the overall site, including parking, sound, and other issues that the Congleton plan did not fully address.
I'm not sure what the point of the "correction and clarification" of my earlier posting was. As the long posting shows, what I said was correct - the Congleton plan was only received and never actually accepted by council or discussed by the public at large. Posting excerpts from CRA newsletters is kind of silly - after all, the CRA, being the equivalent of a political action committee, has been known to , how shall I put it, stretch the truth, when it suits their purpose, just as much as the politicians do! In point of fact, I am not aware that the CRA ever actually commented on the Congleton plan itself, or even sent a representative to the Commission meetings where the plan was developed. Caring citizens such as Skip Lloyd (see his own comment - "As you know, there was a Master Plan done for the Forest Theater back in 2001, and I wasn’t aware much of that,") admit to knowing very little about the Congleton plan, and certainly never discussed it in a public forum. Having attended the neighborhood meeting, it was clear that the plan being discussed was merely a draft subject to hearing neighbor's comments and that the Foundation has since incorporated much of those comments into the next draft. It was also clear that there was no major "removal of trees" was being contemplated along Mountain View, so why this blog says that there was is very odd. I also understand that the Foundation has said on numerous occasions that the "New Meadow Development" was simply an option to be explored and if the neighbors prefer parking both inside and outside the park, then they would accept that as well. Ditto with the "wall" around the property - it was explained that the "wall" example was merely an option to control sound, not a final recommendation. Having heard from the neighbors, it was apparent to those of us in attendance that a "fence" was preferred. It was also clear that McCann cares deeply about the property and the community and it is sad that these pages refer to him as an "outsider" or "Los Angeles" consultant. He is obviously an expert in theatre, which Congleton, for all his best intentions, is not. Congleton paved the way for the McCann plan and I think we should thank them both and treat them both with respect.
It would be useful if you backed up your charges against the CRA with some concrete examples. The CRA's account in its newsletter is the best description I have read about what happened then.
Your logic extrapolated would mean it would be silly for anyone to quote from a city, newspaper, organization or person because everyone has an agenda. What’s important are people being up front about their agendas and not hiding them. What’s your agenda?
First, the public has not seen the “next draft” so the public does not know if their comments and concerns were incorporated into the next draft. If you have seen the next draft, you should see to it that it be brought before the public ASAP for public support reasons. Secondly, if you take away McCann’s parking along Mtn. View Av., the New Meadow Development and the sound wall, you have basically the Congleton 2001 plan. Why hire McCann for a Congleton plan? Thirdly, if the parking along Mtn. View Av. is part of the approved plan, then as described by Mr. McCann himself 18’ of land would be excavated from Mt. View Av. into the existing Forest Theater. That excavation would remove a significant number of mature and growing trees. I suggest you visit the site. As far as comments about McCann being a Los Angeles theater architect; that is an objective fact. Furthermore, while McCann’s theater specialties are feasibility and pre-design, new construction, adaptive re-use and historic restoration, his project list includes conventional theaters and there are no outdoor amphitheaters in his project lists.
Post a Comment