Advisory Concept Review of Ice Rink Project
Design Commission Hearing
January 8, 2007


Impressions:

There was confusion and/or differing viewpoints about the purpose of the hearing.  It was made clear that the commission was not to render any decision or request changes, but rather to just make a recommendation to the City Council as to whether the design should be approved.  But it wasn't so clear, at least to the Commissioners, what exactly they were to be evaluating.  And was this a concept review or a final review?  The presentation materials and staff ability to answer questions on the design were quite vague in many respects, the planner at one point said it was a concept review, and the staff report seems to indicate there will be a later review. But there was no indication during the meeting or anywhere else that the Commission would have any future review.

Commissioners were unhappy they had not been given the opportunity to review the project earlier in its life.  And at least some felt that it should have also been reviewed by other commissions, and since it wasn't, they had a broader responsibility to do so.

Commissioners were not happy with the location.  So far away from commercial areas and from public transit.

There really was much too little time for the commissioners to get up to speed and provide good feedback for the project design.  Though if they had chosen to focus on exterior aesthetics, as planning staff had previously claimed was their responsibility, they might have managed to extract more information about it.

The presenters seemed ill-prepared / poorly organized.  They should have had and presented more closeup details of the facades and materials, or options under consideration.   They offered very little detail on the project aesthestics, even though planners had said that is what the Design Commission is supposed to be most concerned with.  (Granted, the commissioners interrupted with a lot of site questions.)  And the presenters couldn't remember an awful lot of things that one would think somebody spending so much time on a project should know.  They should have refreshed their memories of the site, prior approvals such as the Environmental Initial Study and the CUP, and the history as to why they made certain crucial decisions.

Planning staff didn't seem to try very hard to defend their plans - not even offering answers they had provided at previous public meetings.  And sometimes the architect and planner went on and on about things they clearly hadn't thought through, and that made their other answers appear more suspect. 

Some commissioners seemed committed to disagreeing with any rebuttal to their preconceived notions.  Some seemed unwilling to admit cost should be a design factor. 

It was a very messy and frustrating meeting.


Result:

The Commission voted to recommend against approval, with a long list of objections.


Valid issues raised:

The "green screens" idea has not been fully thought through.  Where will the "green" grow from on east side, since what it is supposed to grow on doesn't reach the ground?  How well will it actually grow and survive?  How it will be maintained?

The ugly "shadow box" sign.

Public transit access.

Adequacy of the quality of proposed spectator seating.


Issues that weren't quite raised:

Why the parapet?  What's it's purpose?

If there is an outdoor walkway used for spectating, that raises the potential that announcing from inside would be put on speakers outside.  Usage for parties raises the prospect that partygoers will expect/want/provide their own music or other amplified noise.  These prospects directly contradict promises neighbors have been made from the beginning that the noise would be contained within the building.


Bad ideas raised:

Access directly from Alameda instead of the route through PCC parking lot.

Tailgate parties.  Now that really would be noisy.


Interesting things on drawings:

The A0.01 - Area site plan drawing shows a rectangle labeled "City of Pasadena PCC Warehouse ~2,000 sf"  just south of the water well (labeled "water pump", and just north of "Proposed T.M. Goodrich Receiving Station Expansion".   The "~2,000 sf" appears at odds with notations on the rectangle sides of "130 ft." and what appears to be "170 ft."  That would be 22100 square feet.

Neither the staff report nor the drawings make any reference to a "green screen" on the west side of the building although that is what was stated in this meeting and in the community meeting on January 3rd.  The drawings only refer to "existing vegetation" in the landscape plan, and "7/8" thick sand finished stucco" on the exterior elevation drawing .


Some meeting details:

According to the Agenda, there was to be a site visit at 5 pm.  Three commissioners showed up, but no staff. 

Meeting presentation was begun by someone who is apparently a commission staffer.  He did not introduce himself, though commissioners clearly knew who he was.  He may have been the staffer who wrote the staff report, but he didn't seem very familiar with the details.

Commissioner: Can people walk from the park to the ice rink?
Commission staffer presenting didn't know answer.
Commissioner: Is there no integration between the two?
Commissioner: States he wants the parking on the other side of the building.
Commissioner: Is it LEEDS certified?
Answer, yes, working toward silver certification.
Commissioner:  Asked about the access road, how to get there.
Answer: "imagine" ...
Commissioner:  Could it be accessed via park?
Series of confused answers and more questions, with the city planner coming to the microphone to try to help.  He pointed out it would not be good to put through traffic into park with the dogs and pedestrians.
He said the traffic study looked at all options for accessing the park. (Note: This was not evidenced in the environmental initial study, of which the traffic study was an unavailable component.)
One or more commissioners complained they didn't understand why the project was not accessed via the park.
Commissioner:  This is a municipal rink open to the public?
Commissioner:  Going to have to walk all the way from the parking lot to the middle of the building?
(It was interesting that none of the staffers said anything about the expectation of a drop function in front of the building entrance, as had been mentioned in previous public meetings.)

The architect began his presumably more technical presentation.
Access way at south of building for fire department access.
An NHL rink is 200 by 85 feet.  Difficult to fit on 110 foot wide parcel.
Questioned about hours of operation, he guessed at 4 am to midnight.  (He's the architect, so it's not his responsibility.  CUP explicitly limits to 6 am to midnight).
Questioned about access route.  Answer - coming from Foothill to keep traffic away from neighborhood.  Traffic will be heaviest on weekends, but there will also be late night and evening use.
Looking from east, lobby is "belt buckle" on a belt running the length of the building.
East base is black concrete block ho(?) with speckles in it.  Random glass blocks letting light into the locker rooms and emitting light at night.
On top of locker rooms is walkway which can also be used to enter/exit the building.
Every 20 feet is a green screen with vines growing up it.
On the west side is fire department access and service from the south to the loading dock in middle of the back of the building.
Olympic type skaters in area need a loading dock for their performance.
110 foot span truss with reflective material on it inside the ceiling.  Light coming from skylights and under eastern roof overhang bounces around.  Don't need to turn on lights during day.
Inside walkway goes completely around each rink.
East side green screen bars go over the outside walkway.
There is stucco above the black bricks.
The sign shown on the diagrams is a shadow box, not lighted, except for light coming from the walkway bridge which runs behind it.
Ticket booth is at entrance.  Only for spectators at major events, otherwise for skaters.
(Emergency exit on south end of walkway?  Not shown in drawings. Think this is notetaker unspoken question.)
What buffer is between building and neighborhood?
There will be a walkway on the east side of the driveway.
Questions/confusion/dispute about whether the access road is or is not on Edison land.  In end, staff seemed to concede that it is, at least in part, on Edison land.
Parking put on-site in order to get CUP. 14th condition of CUP requires access agreement for east side.

Commissioner repeatedly pushes an opinion that the building could be moved to the north of the site and the parking lot be on the south side, and just have the traffic come via Alameda.
Architect notes that plan is to use PWP property for a "detention pond" to retain melted ice water for landscaping. Also repeatedly says that only logical servicing is from between the two rinks and that requires certain amount of space on the west side.  Commissioner refuses to believe building can't be slimmed down, perhaps equipment moved to second story, or footings be further west then architect/planners believe is possible due to issues with adjacent wash and oak trees.

Questions about south wall - how well defined it is and how can it be energy efficient.  Stated that it is combination of cal wall, channel glass, translucent but no visibility through it. 

Questions on spectator seating.
Inside specatator seating is pullout folding seating.
Outside walkway could be used for parties during the day.  Could have tailgate parties.
Debating whether to have a proshop as shown on drawing or instead have a second party room.
Spectators could stand on walkway and look at the goings on inside through the windows.
Not everybody wants to be inside in the cold anyway.
Architect went off talking about how could put folding chairs in the inner walkway around the rinks to get extra seating for exhibitions.  Questioned how many would fit - oh maybe 1000.  Staff brought that back to 500 saying they thought 500 was about the maximum allowed occupancy.
Question on cooling towers noise.  Architect believed it would be sufficiently attenuated, staff noted requirements it be within code.  Commissioner was dubious.

Question - how does green get to the green screen on the east when it doesn't reach to the ground?
Answer - still working that out.  There is a planter bed along the walkway which it might all grow from.
Question - how do you maintain this green screen?
Answer - hadn't really thought it through.  Have used it elsewhere without problems.  Landscape architect couldn't be at the meeting.
Commissioner - once it grows in will have to trim it regularly somehow.  Probably will need big lift truck, how will that get access all around the building?  Won't maintenance cost be high?

Opened for public statements.
Two residents of nearby neighborhoods made statements. There were maybe 10 general public attendees.
One noted another reason for not accessing via Orange Grove is the bad visibility situation with the way Orange Grove curves there.
Another noted that having two sheets of ice will greatly alleviate scheduling conflicts occurring at current rink.  He was concerned about only 325 seat spectator seating capacity.  Asked why not enclose walkway.  Questioned overflow parking since 143 does not seem like enough.  What are the overflow options?

Commission went into deliberations.

Julianna Delgado (representative from Transportation Commission):
    Understands anxious to get it off the ground. Concerned about big commercial activity in essentially residential area, and the more successful it is the bigger the nuisance it will be.
    One guiding principal is how to get there without cars.  ARTS bus? Foothill transit?  Seems like wrong place. 

Richard Quirk (representative from Planning Commission):
    Has trouble with entry.  Doesn't understand height, what is looks like from the East.

Abe Chorbajian:
    Not convinced parking will work on north side (as planned).  Thinks people will park in the fire lane on east side.
    Concerned about massing of building. Why does it have to "look like a train"? (What the architect referred to as belt and belt buckle.)   What can't the building step down in keeping with the slope. (Building has one continuous roof which retains it's elevation while the base of the building steps down in three segments with the slope of the land.)
    Suggests decreasing the mass of the south end of the building by lowering the roof and use the volume saved there to move the east wall back out, incorporating the walkway inside.
    Still confused about the easements.  (PCC and Edison)

Glenn DeVeer:
    This is a waste of time.  City doesn't even have the easements/entitlements.  They will have wasted 2 hours.
    Parking lot between the building and the park does not make any design sense.  Just drive the piles deeper to put the building at the north end of site.
    Green screen isn't going to work.  Too much sun, can't grow on horizontal (think he meant vertical) space.
    Buckle - three desparate elements not talking to each other, not connected.
    Not enough information in package to see what is going on.  Lots of info missing.
    Does not understand why slopes to follow grade.
    Does not know what to say to Council because without easements can't do it.

Chris Peck (commission chair):
    Just do it.  If don't get easements then doesn't go forward.
    Objections aren't to design.  Need to be coherant and specific regarding design.

Juliana Delgado:
    No other citizen commission has looked at it.  We are only ones, so should go futher then aesthetics.

Chris Peck:
    Already a CUP.  Difficult to change.
    Think should focus on landscape palette, screening, car lights, etc.

Glenn DeVeer:
    Question to staff:  Can we have input on siting?
    Answer: No - CUP approved already.

Julianna Delgado:
    Why didn't we get to evaluate it earlier?
    Answer:  Zoning entitlement and environmental review comes first.

Abe Chorbajian:
    Cannot approve concept approval for these reasons:  (He listed a long list, including commentary that building should be able to be at the north end of site, parking on the south and access right from Alameda)

Chris Peck:
    Thought would have drop-off site at front door.  Should do that as part of easement.

Julianna Delgado:
    Wants transportation changes to facilitate use of project.

Chris Peck:
    Is there parking lot screening?  Where is description of that?
 
Segun Abegunrin (city planner):
    Landscape plan has visual screening for neighborhood.

Glenn DeVeer:
    Why nothing on diagrams that shows shrubs, etc.?

Segun Abegunrin:
    Conceptual design, so don't have those details.

After this, they wound it up, using Abe Chorbajian's list and adding transportation issues. 
(Sorry didn't manage to get the list down.  But Staff Report for "final" review hearing of March 12, 2007 has a cleaned up version of the list.)