ABSTRACT: The "Agenda" for the Special City Council Meeting/Workshop held yesterday, Thursday, June 19, 2008, at the Forest Theater consisted of “Proposed Changes to the Forest Theater Plan.” "Proposed Changes to the Forest Theater Plan" covered 11 areas, namely FENCE, PARKING, CONCESSION STAND, RESTROOMS, ACCESS FROM SANTA RITA, STAGE, UNDER-SEATING SPACE, CONTROL BOOTH, LIGHTS AND SOUND, LANDSCAPING and SEATING. “Proposed Changes to the Forest Theater Plan” is reproduced with accompanying "Objectives for Meeting" and "Next Steps." After each of the 11 areas, Public Consensus is presented. Finally, COMMENTS are made with regard to the Meeting/Workshop and kudos to the Carmel Residents Association (CRA) and a prescient blogger.
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Speical City Council Meeting
Thursday, June 19, 2008
On site at the Forest Theater
On Mountain View at Santa Rita
IV. Orders of Council
A. Workshop to receive input and provide policy direction on the proposed Forest Theater Renovation Project.
Proposed Changes to the Forest Theater Plan
Context: on May 25th, Rich, Paula and Sue toured the Theater with the McCann plans in hand. Following summarizes our thoughts, input we have had to date form the public and our concern for costs:
1. FENCE: Remain with a 6’ perimeter grape-stake fence. Could be double-sided. Add green to soften fence and absorb some sound. Grape-stake is more “Carmel” but will not provide the barrier for sound and light flowing out or coming in that a stucco fence would.
Public Consensus: Retain perimeter grape-stake fence; by hand count, majority favored a double-sided grape-stake fence. Vegetation planted in Forest Theater also favored to soften fence.
2. **PARKING: Stay with parking inside the fence. Reconfigure whole area for maximum parking and move trash enclosure elsewhere to better landscape the area for forest and maximum parking. Remove and replace shrubs, sick and dying trees. Mark stalls for parking spaces as opposed to current haphazard system. Omit on-street parking plan on Mt. View and Guadalupe, but leave existing parking on those two streets. There is the potential for two ADA spaces near CET’s entrance as well as perhaps four on north side of entrance from Santa Rita, if built. If Santa Rita not accessible, will have to rely on access from parking lot to CET and theater.
Public Consensus: Retain parking within the Forest Theater, against perimeter parking on Mt. View Av. and Guadalupe St. Mark parking spaces with natural materials favored.
3. **CONCESSION STAND: Utilize what we have although we need weather tight coverings to protect the two serving windows. Shield lights from audience. Add ticket booth to this building. Do away with the proposed concession/ticket booth.
Public Consensus: Remove existing Box Office and add Box Office to existing Concession Stand.
4. RESTROOMS: Can be moved closer to one another by doing away with the flex space or just construct one building with separate entrances. Why are entrances to both at the south end: shouldn’t they both face NE? Since there is a public restroom inside CET, moving entrances to the north end would be more advantageous for the stage patrons, but remain accessible to CET. Add 911 phone to outside of restrooms.
Correction: Marcia Gambrell Hovick, Children’s Experimental Theatre (CET) Artistic Director, stated there was not a “public restroom inside CET;” there is a restroom, but it is not available to the public.
Public Consensus: Additional restroom facilities needed. Inadequate information about Flex Space between Men’s & Women’s Restrooms to form consensus.
5. ACCESS FROM SANTA RITA: As drawn, this road would provide the ADA access to allow tickets to be picked up easily. Some handicapped parking can be on the north side of this access road inside the fence. Would there need to be an ADA ramp from here to seating area?
Public Consensus: Provide ADA access from Santa Rita St. to the Forest Theater.
6. STAGE: Build as shown, except don’t build (at least initially) the “optional additional space” room shown on the Under-Seating fold-out. What is cost if this room is built now?
Public Consensus: Existing Stage area inadequate; need more than 1 toilet and 1 sink for actors.
7. UNDER-SEATING SPACE: Eliminate the under-seating corridor.
8. CONTROL BOOTH: If possible, eliminate the underground level of the control booth and use instead the area to the east for storage.
Public Consensus: Eliminate underground corridor. Inadequate information about requirement for transformers underground to form consensus.
9. LIGHTS AND SOUND: Plans seem to be fine. Please provide number and height of poles and number and size of speakers.
Public Consensus: Uncertainty about whether there exists a decibel cap value.
10. LANDSCAPING: Native drought resistant plants and trees are needed for the whole enclosure and particularly along the back to dampen sound and light of theater from existing homes. Removal of sick and dying growth noted above #2.
11. ** SEATING: Could this be phased and done after everything else or left with the center aisle and use the same concrete foundations, just new bench seats that have a more comfortable back angle? Where is ADA seating and how many seats have been allocated for them? Please provide costs for both seating plans: as is and new lower area with two aisles.
** Indicates cost savings from original proposal.
Objectives for Meeting:
1. Obtain public and council input.
2. Reach consensus on as many items as possible.
Next Steps:
1. Send revisions to McCann for redraft/comment
2. Request breakdown of costs for revisions
FOREST THEATER & GROUNDS
MASTER PLAN PROGRAM ELEMENTS
FOREST THEATRE, CARMEL
PROPOSED AUDIENCE CENTER
07-23-07
COMMENTS:
• Public dissatisfaction and opposition to the Forest Theater Foundation/McCann Pre-Design for the Forest Theater prompted Mayor Sue McCloud to preempt further growing dissatisfaction and opposition by formulating her “Proposed Changes to the Forest Theater Plan.” Her “Proposed Changes to the Forest Theater Plan” consisted of 11 areas, namely FENCE, PARKING, CONCESSION STAND, RESTROOMS, ACCESS FROM SANTA RITA, STAGE, UNDER-SEATING SPACE, CONTROL BOOTH, LIGHTS AND SOUND, LANDSCAPING and SEATING, which made up the agenda for the Special City Council Meeting/Workshop.
• Approximately 75 individuals attended the Special City Council Meeting/Workshop and about 62 comments were made by members of the public; public consensus was achieved on a majority of items. The duration of the Special City Council Meeting/Workshop was approximately 2 hours 30 minutes.
• One member of the public suggested that prior to expending $65,000 for the Schematic Design, another Pre-Design with elevations should be completed and distributed for public review and another public meeting scheduled and held for public comment purposes.
• The majority of public comments reflected the audience members’ vision of the Forest Theater as a community theater in a rustic setting of towering Monterey Pine trees. Hence, preserving the traditional Forest Theater ambiance means a renovation plan for essential, affordable improvements, such as additional restrooms for actors and patrons, ADA compliance measures, et cetera.
• Contrary to comments made by City Administrator Rich Guillen about Richard F. McCann, President, Principle-In-Charge, particularly with respect to his places of architectural practice, Richard F. McCann’s “independent professional career began in 1976 when he established R.F. McCann & Company Architects in Seattle and later a second office in Hollywood, both operating as full service firms providing all phases of performance facility design. California proved fruitful, the Seattle office was closed, and in 1988 he moved the Hollywood firm to Pasadena where he remains an integral part of all design and technical components on every project.”
• Kudos to the Carmel Residents Association for mobilizing public support for a “far more simple solution than the large-scale, multi-million-dollar proposal by the Forest Theater Foundation.”
• Kudos to the prescient blogger who wrote, “Yes - my prediction is that the Foundation won't actually give a presentation. The whole thing will be run by Sue, who will dictate who talks and for how long. Then "policy direction" will (conveniently) be whatever Sue decides! She just wants to get something done by 2010, whether or not it's good for the community or the theatre groups. Another prediction - she'll do anything to protect her stupid concession stand, even though the theatre groups all (apparently) think it not working. Otherwise, why would they have asked Mr. Macann to redesign it.”
11 comments:
Three Cheers for Old Carmel and the Traditionalists. We won one!
We want Congleton's phased-in plan!
Where has the council been since it was introduced seven (7) years ago?????
Dump McCann!
Richard McCann’s Project List epitomizes high tech theatres. Presumably that is why the Foundation preferred Richard McCann over local “non-theatre” architect Brian Congleton. It is not without irony that a low tech theatre is probably what the finalized project will be now that the public’s input is promised to be incorporated into Richard McCann’s new design. Which leads to the inevitable question: why hire Richard McCann, the high tech theatre architect, if the finalized project is a low tech theatre?
A strategy of smearing other commentators with allegations of misleading the public and/or lying is a transparent attempt to equate the opinions of people whom you disagree with the objective record of a public office holder who has engaged in a pattern of misleading the public over an eight year period.
I'm confused. Can someone please tell me what the high tech elements of the plan are? I see a traditional covered orchestra pit, and a concrete tunnel (cut from the plan, but hardly "state of the art"). Does anyone seriously consider these items high tech? Was the proposed (but also cut) park and parking area high tech? Hardly, so what are you talking about? The only thing vaguely "technical" is the possible sound system, but that is only being added because of the neighbors complaints about sound, and has nothing to do with adding "high tech" to the theatrical productions. I'm just what definition of "high tech" is being used in these comments.
Whatever the relative merits of a dissertation on the high tech elements of McCann’s design, such as sound and stage lighting, (these elements have the most potential for greatly enhancing the theater experience for audience members), and low tech elements, such as wooden bench seating, it is not nearly as important as this: Delete perimeter parking, delete the meadow, delete the subterranean corridor, delete the raised stage, retain the concession stand, delete the multi pavilion complex, and you no longer have the McCann design. The process of having McCann complete the predesign before a public workshop and now having McCann face massive and numerous revisions to his predesign is putting Richard McCann in an unhappy position and begs the question will a theater architect of the caliber of Richard McCann eagerly commit to a project so far divorced from his original vision and design?
I see the request to actually list the "high tech" elements was nicely avoided in the response posted above. Why? Because there were no high tech elements, that's why.
Delete the raised stage? What on earth are you talking about? Do you just make this stuff up?
Also, the audience pavilion consisted of added bathrooms, concession and box-office and a small flex-room, most of which are being retained. The park and parking lot were merely an option that no one was really tied to. Delete a service corridor? Big deal.
What is being embraced is the heart of the plan: the thrust stage and orchestra pit, the dressing rooms, backstage and understage improvements, the entire CET redesign, etc., etc.
One last suggestion - you need to go back and look up "pre-design". I suggest you focus on the meaning of "pre"!
The tone of voice and the argumentative, combative nature of the above comment posted at 7:40 a.m. does absolutely nothing to garner support for the renovation project. That's a real turn-off to wanting to support the user groups in their endeavors. Instead of the vengeful slap-down retorts, a pursuasive, reasoned explanation would go a lot farther in winning people over to accept the idea. A detailed explanation of what the pre-design plan encompasses would go a lot farther and you seem to have some knowledge about what went into the pre-design. At this point, you cannot be so sure as to what the city is willing to commit to because the costs have not yet been fully addressed. A quiet, wait and see approach would be prudent so as to not scare off support.
In response to the 12:20 comment, I can only say that as a local theater technician who also built my own house, I understand the difference between pre-design and design. I have also heard plenty about this plan, including the fact that the underground corridor was only really wanted by one pushy producer. Sure, it would have been helpful, but it's no big deal to do without it. And the park/parking lot? Who cares? What did they have to do with the theater? The producers will come and go, but no matter what happens, there will always be a need for us stagehands. And we don't need dressing rooms either! Sure - I'll wait and see, cuz whatever happens, they will still need me and the rest of the techies!
As a frequent theater goer and supporter of the arts in Carmel, I have some questions for the Forest Theater Foundation.
1. Why wasn’t the McCann predesign made available to the public in May 2007 when it was completed?
2. Why were the comments made at the neighborhood meeting in October 2007 not incorporated in Mr. McCann’s first presentation of his predesign to the public at the council meeting in May 2008?
3. Why didn’t the Foundation work with Brian Congleton, the architect responsible for the Master Plan? Why did the Foundation hire Mr. McCann?
4. Why is PacRep spearheading a $10 million capital campaign (phase 1 $6 million and phrase 2 $4 million) at the same time a campaign will be needed to raise private donor dollars for the Forest Theater renovation?
5. Why didn’t Walter De Faria, president of the Foundation, and Stephen Moorer of PacRep correct the erroneous remarks about McCann not really being an L.A. architect by City Administrator Rich Guillen at the special council meeting at the Forest Theater like Marcia Hovick corrected Mayor McCloud about her comment about the Indoor Forest Theater restroom facility?
The problem with the Foundation hiring Mr. McCann is that everything has been done in secret, away from the public. The public does not know, for example, what instructions or guidance the Foundation gave to Mr. McCann for his predesign. At least with the Community & Cultural Commission hearings, the public had the opportunity to know what was going on and hold the city accountable for its actions.
I await McCann's second predesign or the schematic design. Will all the public comments be in the new design, that will be interesting to see? It's time for the user groups to stop monopolizing the process and let all the players contribute to the design equally i.e. patrons, neighbors, citizen owners and user groups, all of us, for a better and improved and preserved Forest Theater.
Post a Comment