HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-04-22; Split Pavilion Committee Ad Hoc; MinutesTRANSCRIPT
Split Pavilion Committee Meeting
April 22, 1992 - 4:00 PM City Council Chambers
1200 Carisbad Village Drive, Carisbad
Meefing was convened at 4:09 p.m.
Present: Eric Larson, Margaret Stanton, Laurie Batter, Gary Wrench, David Sammons
Chair Eric Larson stated the first Item on the agenda was approval of the minutes of April 16.
He noted the Committee had received not only a copy of the minutes, but also a verbafim
transcript of the meefing. He informed the Committee it was the minutes that it was accepfing
and asked for comments, changes or discussion.
Laurie Batter suggested the Committee use the transcript as the minutes rather than the edited
version. Gary Wrench stated the transcript needed to be resubmitted if used as minutes because
of typos but, "I'm not going to change anything it says,". He would provide staff with a copy of
changes. Chair Larson asked for a motion to accept the transcript as submitted as the minutes
of the April 16 meefing. Laurie Batter motioned to accept the transcript. Margaret Stanton
seconded. It was approved unanimously.
Chair Larson stated that the next item was a review of the April 16 meeting. He continued, "Not
having read the agenda I'm not too sure what we're to accomplish under review, but maybe to
discuss how the meeting went or any observafions you may have before we actually get into item
No. 3. My vision of item No. 3, preparation of the report, will talk about the specifics. Any
observations on the meefing before we actually get into what we need to do today? What we
need to do is the preparation of the report. Does anyone have any suggestions or concerns
about how you want the format of that report to be? I thought what we might do is we have
three objectives: One was giving the community response to the artwork - which we did, and I
thought Gary did that very well. And then, the re-examination by the artist and the subcommittee
of the design and materials, landscape planfing and other issues, and that's the materials issues
and seeking the artist's cooperafion in defining artistically acceptable changes. I think we can
just list those, pull out of the transcript. I'd like to pull out of the transcript her exact quotes on
when we posed precise questions to her on the acceptable changes, and then convey those to
the Arts Commission."
Ms. Stanton asked if the Arts Commission was going to receive the entire transcript.
Chair Larson stated he was sure they'll want it. "At the same time we'll be giving a report to the
Arts Commission with our observations on it. I guess as far as the report goes, we'll just state
on the community response to the artwork. Do we want something that refiects what Gary's
comments were or do we want to just state that was done and took place?" Ms. Stanton stated
that it should be what was done and took place.
Edited May 5. 1992
split Pavilion Committee Meefing 2
Transcript
April 22, 1992
Mr. Larson stated the second item was the re-examination by the artist and subcommittee of the
design and materials of the landscaping and other issues involving the materials. "So on the
landscaping, what's stated in here, let me see if I can get the exact verbatim - I highlighted it
somewhere in the text, what I've got here as an'...acceptable change to Ms. Blum would be to
have a dialogue with the landscape architect to discuss materials, textures, height, placement of
shrubs, succulents In a generic sense. Once the plan Is done, take a look at It and see the
layout of it and perhaps get some exposure on what these materials are as opposed to a
landscape architect's plan.' And she replied (This is on page 7, second paragraph up. The
highlighted items there...), the fact that she was willing for us to go out and seek out a landscape
architect. She would then like to have a conversation with that architect. The architect would
then prepare a plan. She would like to take a look at the plan and she would like to have some
input on the plant materials selected. Evidently she spent some fime and I don't know if I can
confirm this or if anyone here can, that she spent some time looking at plant materials before she
left here that weekend; but nonetheless, getting some exposure to local natives and some
drought resistant plantings. And then Mr. Wrench went on and questioned her and she stated
she would permit a variety of plants not looking for uniformity. Does anyone have any different
view of what it was that we accomplished on that?"
David Sammons asked what would be the process of selecfing a landscape architect. 'That's
probably not for us to get into."
Mr. Larson agreed. "Anyone of a number of ways that can be done. It might even be an in-
house landscape architect that might be able to do a job like that with the City."
Assistant City Manager Frank Mannen responded that, "we do have a park coordinator who is
a licensed landscape architect and we could coordinate it through that person who could
approach and consult with any experts in native plant materials or succulents or array a number
of options that would be possible for the landscaping. And that seemed to be what Ms. Blum
was interested in. Reacting to some plans she didn't seem to indicate that she wanted to do the
plan, but she had some parameters."
Ms. Batter asked if in this section the Committee needed to add the limitation of the height to ttA/o
feet or did that belong in section three under the changes that are acceptable. Mr. Larson
responded, "No, that's part of the landscaping. She did make that statement. I'm sorry I didn't
pick that up." Ms. Batter further stated it was in about the middle of the paragraph on page 7.
Mr. Wrench stated that the Committee had to make sure it put into the report exactly what she
said. "The final analysis, I threw my notes away of the evening before because I felt that
everything that was said got on the record. Of course, if we get a little fime we could go through
and Identify and examine the plant materials, , characterization, lush, grasses,
thickened, height, variafion, variety of plants ."
Mr. Larson stated that he thought there would be a certain give and take between herself
Edited May 5, 1992
Split Pavilion Committee Meefing 3
Transcript
April 22, 1992
perhaps and the landscape architect also. "And saying two feet, that's almost an impossible
criteria. Say plant materials can only be at this height because its not that exact a science - they
grow."
Ms. Stanton stated .
Mr. Larson replied, "I think we agreed on the landscape changes and then the format that was
discussed. We select a landscape architect who has a discussion with her", Mr. Wrench clarified
with "the process"; Mr. Larson continued, "the process that she agreed to which is here. I think
that ought to be what we report then to the Commission is the process. The real specifics about
plant materials, who knows what that might ultimately be."
Ms. Stanton stated it was important she agreed to a variety and a height of ttA/o feet. Mr. Larson
and Ms. Stanton discussed the term "lush". Mr. Larson asked, "What's lush? I think lush is
contradictory with drought-resistance sometimes. Lush tends to mean the tropicals. Lush I think
is a full planfing."
Mr. Wrench stated, "To me, lush doesn't mean tropical. Although I acknowledge that is a way
to describe it -its the fullness of it - the abundance of it more than a lot of watering."
Mr. Larson replied, "We can go ahead and use lush then, I'll be happy to use lush if we do. In
fact, that she said to be specific, it could be drought tolerant materials and perhaps some
natives. So I think that we've got it covered in both regards. So whoever looks at it in terms
they can understand that lush then means the volume of plant materials and the thickness of the
planfings." Chair Larson then asked if there was anything else on the landscaping.
The next issue discussed was materials. Patra Straub a member of the audience, asked to
address the Committee. Mr. Larson replied, "If we start taking comments from the audience, then
we'll be here all day because everyone will want to speak. I know so." Ms. Straub stated that
she had some problem with the word "lush."
Mr. Wrench stated that he objected to input from the audience. "We had a lot of dialogue about
this and the notes are really quite thorough. I am comfortable with .
Chair Larson further clarified that they were setting up a situafion where they were going to have
the artist and a landscape architect. 'The landscape architect selected by the City will be getting
together and doing that and I don't think that lush or any of the other terms can really be defined
that well. I really don't think they can. That's something we'll see once we get those plans
back." The Committee agreed that there are a lot of words in the transcript when its taken
altogether.
Ms. Stanton stated, "It's important to do a little framework and extract certain words."
Ms. Batter stated "Maybe we could say that the artist's view of lush - its clear that whatever is
lush to the artist in working with the landscape architect."
Edited May 5, 1992
Split Pavilion Committee Meefing 4
Transcript
April 22, 1992
David Sammons stated "Which will probably change by the fime this
_ anyway." Mr. Wrench replied that Mr. Sammons was a cynic - Mr. Sammons then stated, "1
talked to her."
Mr. Mannen informed the audience of the opportunity for public comment when this is presented
to the Arts Commission. Mr. Larson also stated "I have no doubt that a landscape plan will at
some point in time be on the agenda of either the Council or the Arts Commission anyway. That
will be part of the process. And then there will probably be great dialogue on what's lush and
what it turns out to be."
Mr. Larson confinued, "Next we talked about materials. I'm talking about materials in terms of
what was physically on the site. The materials used. I think she generally stated she was
safisfied with the materials that were used."
Ms. Stanton interjected, "Not the finishing."
Mr. Larson replied "Not the finishing. That's fine. Let's make a note of that, that she thought the
finishing could have been done better. There was a discussion about the shape of the rails -
what they would be. I think her basic comment was, that they needed to be round." Mr. Wrench
stated that he pressed at that quite a lot and ttied to get her to say something else, but she
never would go off of that. Mr. Larson stated that the comment that she made is that circular is
more refiective. Ms. Batter stated it had to do with the lighting. Mr. Larson agreed, "It dissipates
the structure, it has a regulated shape. I guess we'll have to leave it at that. That she's stating
that on the rails that round is what she wants, not painted, but she did make statements that her
vision was it would be as small as possible to support its weight at that height."
Ms. Stanton commented. Mr. Larson replied, 'The issue is the rails, not the shape of the rail."
Mr. Larson stated that when Ms. Stanton asked her if there could be rails smaller than 1 -5/8 inch
would that be acceptable, Ms. Blum replied that would be something she would look at. She
would consider as a potenfial artisfically change a smaller rail.
Mr. Wrench stated it seemed to him her intent was clearly in the beginning that it should have
been a little smaller than it ended up being. "I guess I would conclude that if the City wanted to
propose something smaller in diameter that she would almost have (I hate to use the word force)
she would almost have to agree or else be found to be pretty inconsistent."
Ms. Stanton stated .
Mr. Wrench replied, "You may believe that but I don't. I frankly view that as a shortcoming ofthe
architecture and engineering process, rather than the artisfic process. 1 think some engineer or
contractor took liberties with her instrucfions. That's my own view."
Mr. Sammons asked if there was a way the Committee could research any of this out. Mr.
Wrench stated he thought there was but he didn't know if it was relevant at this point. "I think
you've got to decide. It's done and 1 think we're alot better off to just sort of focus on really what
Edited May 5, 1992
split Pavilion Committee Meeting 5
Transcript
April 22, 1992
the opfions are than to go back and play who shot John and figure out how it came to be. I think
that the lessons that could be learned have been learned about the future. A certain Assistant
City Manager commented early last week that it's been a lesson learned about how plans and
specs get written for art and I think he was right on."
Mr. Larson stated that the Committee should leave it at that. That there was an acceptance on
her part - an agreed acceptance that a smaller rail is acceptable if the engineering criteria can
be met. If that's something that is of relevance in this whole process - in making them smaller.
Ms. Batter added, "She does indicate that she would have to look at the shifting of space and
distance between the bars." Committee Members stated they didn't know the engineering part
of it
Chair Larson asked if there was anything else anyone had in mind and stated he didn't find
anything else. 'There was nothing else on materials that we discussed other than the size of the
bars - you know materials."
Ms. Stanton wanted clarificafion on the bars or all the materials, meaning the finish. She
continued, "Be sure to put that in because it sounded to me like it is important to correct and
bring out finish and the conttactor should make good on this
Mr. Larson replied, "That's a problem with the contractor."
Mr. Wrench said "We did, as 1 recall, get into the question of wood versus various metalics. She
expressed a clear opposifion to wood screening." Ms. Stanton stated the Committee should also
menfion when talking about the bars not only wood but painted bars were also examined.
Mr. Larson stated, "Since the bars become the center of discussions, shall we just be real specific
when we get to this part of our report and not just say what were the acceptable changes to her
but also the things that she specifically when we asked the point in quesfion were absolutely not
acceptable?" The Committee agreed this should be included. Ms. Batter also menfioned putting
in the environmental restriction of the wood in the report.
Mr. Wrench stated, "I think the record makes a lot of that clear Laurie, and to keep reiterating all
of that sort of almost risks making it worse rather than better. I think you've got one source
document now which is the transcript of what she said verbatim rather than try to paraphrase
that. In legal contracts, you make things worse when you try to paraphrase or characterize what
was said. You might as well go back to the source document I would think that if we name the
acceptable and the unacceptable from the transcript, but stayed away from characterizafions of
why, we might be better off."
Chair Larson explained, "Because in preparing this report, this is a report we're going to have to
give to the Arts Commission, they will spend alot of time reading that transcript"
Ms. Stanton agreed and stated, __.
Edited May 5, 1992
split Pavilion Committee Meefing 6
Transcript
April 22, 1992
Chair Larson asked the Committee if they were ready to make the list of acceptable and
unacceptable.
Acceptable list:
smaller diameter bar (subject to her review again of the spacing - and what's acceptable
to her is round, galvanized bars. She likes galvanizing)
David Sammons commented .
Unacceptable list:
anything painted
anything wood
anything not round
anything shorter
anything with a change in the scrim (the spacing of it - anything less regular in spacing)
Laurie Batter commented .
delefion
Ms. Stanton wanted further clarification and Mr. Larson replied, "A complete deletion ofthe bars."
Ms. Stanton agreed. Mr. Larson stated. That would be under her unacceptable list when we were
discussing the bars." Ms. Stanton further clarified complete or partial delefion of the bars. Ms.
Batter asked a quesfion regarding removal of bars at the north end. Mr. Larson stated that was
another category for the Committee.
Ms. Batter further clarified her question as delefion of one or more of the bars; "In other words,
you had asked her a quesfion of, could you have every other bar removed." Mr. Larson replied
that that was spacing. Chair Larson asked if there was anything else from the Committee on the
acceptable or unacceptable.
He then confinued, "Let's go ahead and talk about that east/west secfion. She had some criteria
involved in that and the criteria was, once the landscaping plan is done and installed and it is
seen again, then she would consider the removal of that east/west secfion."
Ms. Batter stated "North". Mr. Wrench stated he didn't think her criteria was clear yet.
He further asked if the Committee wanted to take her up on the idea of reviewing the future
delefion of the east/west secfion or change or delefion of it "She suggested that she would
consider either the removal or the modification of the east/west bars. The part that's along the
businesses there. But she said she would consider that after she saw how the landscaping is.
She didn't tell us how it would have to look, she didn't tell us how she was going to evaluate
that" Ms. Stanton stated that she did at one point say she wanted to redesign the perimeter
somehow _.
Edited May 5, 1992
Split Pavilion Committee Meeting 7
Transcript
April 22, 1992
Mr. Larson stated, "That's right, I found it here, [referring to the transcript] She talked about the
fact that, that could be a specific charge of the landscape architect - to create that perimeter and
make that secfion of the bars unnecessary. So that could be a specific charge of the landscape
plan. To accomplish that so that it would create that barrier or whatever it is at that end."
Ms. Stanton commented it should go in the report somehow
Chair Larson stated, "A final subject that we asked her was about a redesign of the project and
she said 'No.'. And then she went into some reasons why, but the answer was 'No.'. Actually
her final statement was, 'I would not redesign something that I've already designed.'. And that
again is right out of the transcript Any points we've missed?"
Mr. Sammons stated, "I just think we listed as possible alternatives we covered ttA/o of them and
the second ttA/o we failed to discuss with her. And the way the tone of the meefing went, I
probably have an idea that probably wasn't the right fime. Is there a way we could look into the
last ttA/o alternatives that we discussed trying to get to her with before we make this report or
not? The other two alternatives were to buy the artist's rights and consider the work temporary
and allow It unchanged for a period of fime and ask the artist to agree to waive her rights at the
end of that period of time. Is that something that maybe we should have tried to do in our
discussion and failed?"
Mr. Larson stated, "That definitely exists in the realm of possibilities as this goes on, but 1 don't
know that our Committee was to do that."
Mr. Sammons replied, "It was listed on my sheet and I overlooked it maybe, because maybe that
was a quesfion we could have asked her -1 don't know. But it seems as though we're limited
in the amount of options she gave us as far as what we've heard as public reacfion - public will.
These were other points that were probably important and maybe should have asked her and
I now question our inability to ask those bottom two points. It's a shame, maybe it was
something that should have been asked and obviously that might be something that will have
to be asked in the future."
Mr. Larson replied that, "by the fact that we didn't ask them doesn't preclude that someone may
ask those quesfions in the future if it comes down to that. But I don't know where those quite
fall under the artistically acceptable changes." Mr. Wrench stated those were not in the
recommendation of the Arts Commission
^Mr. Larson asked if there was anything else to include in the report. "Let's
see, the Arts Commission meefing that we have to bring the report is on May 7." Mr. Wrench
stated the Committee needed to see the draft and meet again. Mr. Larson asked if Committee
Members wanted to get together to discuss the draft or do they just want to take a look at the
draft and if there are problems get together again, or set a specific time to get together and go
over it.
Mr. Wrench stated^ •
Edited May 5, 1992
Split Pavilion Committee Meeting 8
Transcript
April 22, 1992
Mr. Larson then asked Mr. Mannen what would be involved in getting this done. Mr. Mannen
stated staff would prepare a draft report based on minutes (transcript) of this meeting and
present it to the Committee in a week. Mr. Larson asked if the group was comfortable In meeting
In a week. May 4 or 5 was suggested to hold the meeting. Consensus of the Committee was
to meet on May 4 at 4 pm. Mr. Larson stated that any changes that had to be made would be
minor in nature and could be accomplished by the 7th.
The meefing adjourned at 4:45 pm
Edited May 5, 1992