IceRink Design Comm Hearing on Redesign 080811

Design Commission Hearing
Redesign of Ice Rink Building to Reduce Building Costs
August 11, 2008

In order to reduce construction costs, the building has been redesigned. The Design Commission discussed the redesign at a hearing held at the Pasadena Senior Center on August 11, 2008.

Staff Report (note no attachments are included)

East Facing View

Screen Resolution (52 kb)
High Resolution (1986 kb)

South and North Facing Views

Screen Resolution (109 kb)
High Resolution (1223 kb)

(No west facing view provided.)

Site Plan (layout)

Screen Resolution (179 kb)
High Resolution (1709 kb)

Unofficial and unapproved slide presentation on city website
Commission presented with changes made to previous design to save on construction costs
New design involves using concrete block for walls all the way to the roof. Although heavier, the load is spread out more. Saves on steel, which is said to be costliest item.
East wall is moved back out so there is again room for spectator seating inside atop the locker rooms.
Now using "storefront" glazing systems for building entrance and north and south walls. Presumably this is less expensive then the things they were using before.
The blocks used for the walls are described as "black smooth-face concrete block (8x8x16)"
East side still has green screen trellises, but they now come closer to the ground. Trumpet vines are supposed to grow up on them.
Between the trellises on the east side are what are described as "Polygal window boxes". Polygal is described as "a solar-grade polycarbonate multi-wall system mostly used for glazing in sports arenas and in industrial and agricultural buildings". The area below the window boxes is "highlighted with a different concrete block material (split-face) and a band of random groupings of glass block."
The west side has been simplified to have no windows, just the mechanical screen.
There is still a "tower" (previously called parapet) over the entrance. It is to have smooth stucco painted a brick accent color, matching some projections on the north and south faces of the building.
Landscaping is described as "native plant palette". Chinese flame trees and Australian willows throughout the parking lot. Additional coast live oak on the west side.
Shrubs are mentioned as providing a green screen for residences to the west, but no landscaping at all is described for the east. Everything east of the building, including the access road, is still being withheld from any public scrutiny.
Main sign is still over the entrance on east side of building. Looks pretty much the same. It is not lighted, but lighting will be visible from windows behind it at night.
Although building footprint is supposedly the same, it is now being described as 500 feet long instead of 450.
Commission only gets to make recommendations, not approval or disapproval.

Meeting

Became fairly contentious, though polite, between city staff and commissioners. Commissioners knew they were getting an end-run.
Staffer summarized report
City planner

Mentioned surroundings, except only Edison to East, not our neighborhood

Discussion of access through PCC parking lot.

Commissioner questioned exact route, impact on existing spaces, safety of cars backing from spaces into through-way.
Planner said cannot bring specifics of access until have signed agreement with PCC. But he did say they were looking at eliminating the "guard shack" and realigning things so the route would be less angular.

Commission asked many questions about traffic circulation, practicalities of drop-off and pickup.

City planner could/would not give details.

First tried to tell Commission the area is outside of the project and therefore not in the purview of the Design Commission. Claimed the access road is "off-site civil work", to be done by a city engineer and therefore only requires normal city staff review.
Claimed the project had been to the Planning Commission (it never was). When asked when, he ventured maybe 2005 and that there was a "consistency finding".
Another tact he took is that the agreement with Edison is still under negotiation and until that agreement is final it isn't appropriate to show the public how it will be used.

Said that next to building the easement from Edison would be at least 24' for the access road but also mentioned the entire parcel is under negotiation.
Commissioner asked about allowing circling around at south-east corner of the building for drop-off. Planner answered that not practical because of a grade drop-off there and also must maintain distance from water well facility.
In later questioning about pedestrian access, planner said there are two problems to address, one of access to the park during construction and the other permanent.

Said thinking of covered walkway during construction - like used for sidewalks next to construction sites.
City is working with Edison to figure out permanent access.
Will have sidewalk along entire access road including through PCC.
Will be pedestrian access between park and ice rink parking.

Commissioner asked about landscaping on east side. "Straight thru shot to residences".

Answer was the concept of the agreement is to allow use for landscaping, but lots of restrictions due to wires. Said there will be a fence blocking access from ice rink to weed/shrub area. (Planner has mentioned in past that can't have any trees due to wires, but that flies in the face of what is on the east side of the park where they have planted trees between the rows of wires.)
In later questioning about this, the City Planner stated that "the city has committed in writing that there will be some landscape screening along Avocado." (Didn't say where, never seen it). And "have budgeted that". Said expects to have plan in about 2 months for that landscaping.

Architect question & answer

Lots of discussion of use of material called "polygal". Described as neither opaque nor transparent - lets in filtered light. The "glow of light" from panels at night described as making an "interesting pattern". One commissioner particularly concerned about its durability. Answer was that the warranty (10 years) is the same as the previously proposed CalWall. Polygal is thinner and lighter and less expensive. Also newer, with only 5 years experience. Commissioner concerned may turn yellow. Concerned trading upfront cost for longevity. Commission questioned sound absorbing qualities. Architect did not have rating - guessed it should be similar because its double glazing.
Questioned on exterior lighting, said only exterior lighting will be glow from windows, down lighting onto sidewalk, and "lighting the tower to highlight the destination".
Architect is proposing "if can afford it" that signs on north and south faces of building would be LED sign boards which could be used to advertise events, happy birthdays, etc.
From previous design, ice rink equipment was moved to an outer room for better ventilation. So on the west (back) wall of the building there is a catwalk for a required second exit.
West wall has alternating types of concrete masonry block. Said to be mostly screened by existing oak trees.
Questioned about shade for the walk from the parking lot to the building entrance. Answer was that there would be some shade under the block windows that stick out. Would be benches under those windows (which of course means the shade wouldn't be available for walking). In spite of what one rendering has shown, there would be no trees. One commissioner described the little planting patches as looking like "weed patches".
Questions on landscaping. Supposed to be native plant palette, so why are sprinkler heads shown instead of bubblers? Could not answer some landscaping questions because landscape architect wasn't present. Planner said they would make sure landscape architect "goes in that direction".
Commissioners asked about energy usage.

Statement made that solar power is not efficient, but the proposed skylights are.
Skylights have deep boxes, like a light tube. Used at Valencia ice station and work well.
Is a "cool roof", ie. reflective.
Having trouble figuring out how to insulate west wall. Will have to do it on the inside.

Public commenters asked about

pedestrian access to facility
sign that says PASADENA ICE bothersome due to government acronym ICE.
total absence of plans for access road and landscaping to east of rink and/or along Avocado Ave

Commission questioned why this was being brought to the commission at this time given all the incomplete information - nothing about the east side, nothing about the PCC route, nothing about traffic circulation. Wanted it to come back to commission when complete

Planner said does not expect to come back to commission with any of the additional work for the areas east of the building. Will only come back if the City Council requests it.
Quite a bit of round-about. Commission chair felt the commission should not take a position and just continue the hearing until the additional info is produced. No city attorney present to advise if that could be done.
Planner said the information is "not material". Is part of entitlement process.
Planner again stated that it is in writing to do work on Avocado. (it's not)
Said terms of agreement are essentially in place for PCC and Edison. Did not believe he could tie access plan to the project to justify bringing it back to the commission. It would be "part of the public improvement process." "Better to do it as part of construction."
Questioned about transportation access and drop off, city staffer told the commission that is outside their purview.
Planner said plan has been submitted to a LEED planner. It is part of the permit package (not accessible to public). Claimed all the things commission asking for already part of CUP.
Ended up with Commission requesting that Council send the project back for review of the missing pieces when they are ready. Of course, that won't happen because staff doesn't want it to happen. The Council will not be presented with the Commission's findings including the request until it is being asked to approve everything, including the construction bid. There is no way at that point that the Council would cause any further delay by sending it back to the Design Commission. So chances are that the plans for the east side PCC and Edison properties will never be held to public scrutiny.

Final vote was 5-1 to pass findings to Council, including request that it come back to Commission. Commission chair was dissenter.