Subject: Reflections on Ice Rink project after July 13 Finance Comm meeting
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:29:09 -0700
To: bbogaard@cityofpasadena.net, Margaret McAustin
<mmcaustin@cityofpasadena.net>, Jacque Robinson
<jacquerobinson@cityofpasadena.net>, cholden@cityofpasadena.net,
Steve Haderlein <shaderlein@cityofpasadena.net>,
vgordo@cityofpasadena.net, ttornek@cityofpasadena.net, "Madison, Steve"
<smadison@cityofpasadena.net>
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers,
The following comments are based on information available up to and including the Finance Committee meeting on July 13.
1. Edison agreement and its cost needs to be nailed down and included in the financial projections.
2. When would the bonds be issued?
3. I note the City Manager's recommendation to the Council at
presented to the Finance Committee on July 13 does not explicitly
include approval of the facility's design, even though throughout the
project process it was stated that the City Council would review the
design and make the decision to approve it at the same time as approval
of everything else. (The Design Commission was explicitly not allowed
to approve / disapprove anything, only comment.) To this point
the City Council has never looked at the design in any detail,
bypassing the few opportunities to even examine elevation drawings.
So this raises the question as to whether the design is included in
item 5, where the City Manager would be authorized to approve any other
documents, or will it be an explicit item in the recommended Council
actions.
4. Since the City Manager's recommendation to the Council as
presented to the Finance Committee on July 13 does not explicitly
mention them as items of approval, apparently the terms of the
contracts with Edison and PCC are included as other documents the City
Manager would approve, per item 5?
5. What would the time line be for the unlikely stimulus enabled
lease the City Manager and Finance Director mentioned on July 13?
How would that be done if the bonds are already issued and/or
management agreement is already in place? Would seem management
agreement vs. lease is material to any bond issue.
6. Concerned about signage, especially given the corporate naming
rights, advertising, etc. Useful external signage is difficult
given the landlocked location on a narrow corridor well north of
Foothill and the freeway. Only a very large sign facing south
could be seen. Even directional signs are an issue relative
to city ordinance due to the unusual circumstances of the site.
All along it has been stated that signage would be covered by a Master
Sign Plan for the site. The Design Commission was not allowed
anything to say about it. The last elevation drawings shown to
the Commission in August 08 included a new wrinkle, what were described
as digital signs (if they could be afforded) on the north and south
faces of the building.
All along the major identifying sign shown in the design diagrams has
been on the east face of the building, even though it would not be
visible from the freeway or Foothill, only from within my residential
neighborhood. If you were going to the building it would be only
tangentially visible from the access road next to PCC. Once one
is close to the building large signs high up won't be visible; only
smaller lower level signs make sense.
At least the sign that was shown in the drawings on the east face of
the building, but always described as just a concept subject to the
future sign plan, was relatively benign and not highly lighted up at
night. My neighborhood to the east has no need to be constantly
reminded what the monstrous building is by a big sign. Certainly
not a lighted or, even worse, a blinking or moving sign. And park
patrons to the north and residents to the west don't need or want any
sign blight either.
So I would like Council to state, if they approve going forward, that
they are not giving the green light to grant exceptions to the city's
signage rules, especially for any signs on the east, north, or west
side of the building.
7. The question posed by Councilman Haderlein during Public
Comment before the closed session on June 22 about which Commissions
had reviewed the project has not been answered.
Although off the cuff comments have been made by planning staff that
the Planning Commission had discussed it at some point, we are not
aware that it was ever presented to that Commission. If it was,
what was the date of that presentation, had the process even progressed
to picking this location yet, and was it presented as anything more
then an informational item?
We do know it was presented to the Design Commission for comment three
times at points in the process where their input could have little
impact. 1/8/07 concept advisory, but building design almost
complete; 3/12/07 final advisory, design complete except still futzing
with possibilities for outside spectators; 8/11/08, redesign for cost.
8. During Martin Pastucha's presentation to the Finance Committee
on July 13 he mis-stated that the "site plan" had been to Design
Commission and that it had "approved it".
The Design Commission had no authority to approve or disapprove any of
the design, only to make comments to be delivered to the City
Council. And those comments would not to be delivered until the
time when the entire package including the design, construction
contract, financing, etc are presented for approval. (In other
words, you should be seeing them as part of the approval package
now.) Of course, it is really too late to make changes to address
any concerns the Design Commission had, so they were effectively cut
out.
In part due to the uproar from the Design Commission about this
project, the process which minimized Commission review of city projects
was changed by the Council in April 2008 to a process more like that
required of private developers. But in doing so the Council
specifically excluded the Ice Rink project from the new process so as
to avoid any possible delay to the project. So it is still up to
the Council to review and approve the design.
Further, the Design Commission was presented the design only for the
city owned property itself, none of the access plan or area to the east
of the project. Design of the access road or anything else
outside of the city property line has to date never been made
public. At the Design Commission hearing on August 11,
2008, where the revised design to save money was presented, the city
planner told the Commission that the access road was not part of the
project but was rather work being done by a city civil engineer and
therefore was outside of the Commission's purview. When they
pushed back on that, he said the design wasn't finished yet and in any
case could not be made public because agreements with Edison and PCC
were not complete. When the Commission asked that the information
be brought to them once it was available, the planner told them they
would do so only if the Council requested it, and that the information
is part of the entitlement process and "not material".
Essentially he was arguing there is no requirement for any public
knowledge or oversight of the access plan design even though it really
is integral to the project.
9. Small technicality. In attachment E of the report to the
Finance Committee on July 13, the Council resolution for reimbursing
itself, the word "Reimburse" is misspelled "Reimurse" in the title.
Thank you for your consideration,