Advisory Final Review of Ice Rink Project
Design Commission Hearing
March 12, 2007

Impressions:

As one would expect for a "final" review, more details were presented and/or made available then had been the case for the concept review in January.  Overall, there was very little change in the design.  Some things were still in flux, and additional changes could occur before it goes to the City Council (including in response to commissioner concerns).

The one significant new concept is window box spectator seating on the exterior balcony/terrace.  Every second window on the balcony would have a glass walled enclosure that extends out onto the balcony.  There would be a door to the balcony.  Spectators could sit or stand in the enclosure, closed off from both the inside and outside elements.   Initially presented as if part of the design, planning staff then clarified that it is still a concept under review for practicality and cost, and not yet budgeted for.  There was some question by commissioners whether with windows still between the spectators and the ice area it would be significantly better then the previous concept that people could stand on the balcony and look through the windows.  The downside of having the interior windows is potential glare and separation from the noise and other spectators.  The upside from a spectator standpoint is not freezing or boiling, and having separation for your group not only from the inside but from the outside.  The boxes would seem rather expensive to build though, since each would need to have its own ventilation and sound system in addition to all the extra glass and doors.

This meeting seemed to proceed in a more orderly way then the concept review had.  Perhaps because commissioners had had more time to ponder the project and their limited purview.  Generally this meeting was less contentious.  One commissioner was vehemently critical, but other criticism was calm and collected.   Commissioner comments made clear they were not all in agreement about what they liked or did not like about the design.  One liked the outside balcony, while some dislike it.  One liked the simplicity of the north and south and would like the east to be simplified, while another felt the north and south are too boring.  One liked the green screen while others were dubious it would work as desired.

Result:

The commission passed a motion listing concerns to be passed along to the City Council.  It did not seem to directly speak to either approval or disapproval of the project.   Among the concerns:
 Not part of the resolution, but also brought up were:
Issues that weren't discussed:
Some meeting details:

(Parenthesized italics means comment by note taker.)

Design Commission staffer (unintroduced) briefly reviewed the Staff Report contents, including responses to comments made by the Design Commission for the concept review.  Among details pointed out:
Staff report recommends more substantial bushes for the parking lot perimeter to better screen headlights
The green screens would be grown from 5 gallon trumpet vines
The eastern wall base is 22' high block wall with random groupings of glass blocks for light into the locker rooms
The letters on the Pasadena Ice sign are 9' high.

Commissioner Andrew Wilson asked question about sign conformance to code.
Answer:  Don't think it is beyond code, but in any case all signage has to go through a master sign plan process.

Commissioner Abe Chorbajian asked about driveway and easement status.
Answer:  Need access easements from both PCC and Edison.  Issues is outside of Design Commission review.  City is confident will be able to get it.

Stephen Albert, the architect got up to present.  His assistant worked the laptop displaying slides from the staff report attachment A.  The landscape architect was noted as being available, sitting in the audience.
Noted that the City Manager is taking the lead on the access agreements and they've been told it is moving along.
Showed drawing of how the building would not fit on the north end of the property.  (This was a major thing that Commissioner Abe Chorbajian pushed for at the concept review.)

Looking at the east side artist drawing.
Talked about balcony on east side (above the locker rooms).  North end is relatively close to ground level and there are steps up to it there. An elevator from the lobby in the center of the east side provides access too.  Where the balcony is adjacent to the north rink inside, glass boxes at every second window provide an "inside" seating opportunity.  The spectators would still be looking through the building windows but would not be exposed to outside temperatures, noise, activities.
Lobby is double height space.  Looking at the doors, the single door on the left provides direct access to the party room. Double doors to lobby provide the operators the option of moving equipment for a show or whatever in that way.
At night the Pasadena Ice sign is back lighted from light coming through the windows of the building.  There would also be a light shining up at it from below. The sign and other stuff at the entrance is to highlight where the entrance is.
Did a study of raising the level of the north end of the building and lowering the south (as requested by the commission at concept review to better follow the slope of the land and not be one big block of a building).  Too expensive and ruins the continuity of the east side pattern.
Noted that since concept review, have much more glass on east side, replacing what had been stucco.
Green screen over the glass face will cause an alternating light dark pattern which will be reversed at night.
Counting on simplicity of structure to meet budget.
Trumpet vine growing out of boxes on balcony will be the "moderate" growing variety, as opposed to fast or slow. Planter boxes are 3' x 10', will be filled with dirt, and there is a drain to the outside for each one.
Inside of building, the ceiling is reflective surface, like foil, to help distribute lighting and to keep the ice from evaporating over night.

Looking at south side drawing.
Channel glass surrounded by "eyebrow" for shading.  A few clear panels so insiders can see the sky.
North side similar except with clear glass.
?? from, strong color, lighting, at entrance.

Commissioner Glenn DeVeer questioned about the west elevation.
Architect:  Now louvered screened and channel glass.  (Green screen is gone.) Actual louvers for mechanical room.

Abe C.:  Is there a site set back in front?
Architect: There is a sidewalk in front.
Abe C:  ...Still pushing to move the building to north end of parcel.
Segun Abegunrin (city planner):  Restriction on width is not just an easement issue. Also have the electrical towers and lines to the east.
Abe C:  If parking were on the south, would not need as much easement because wouldn't need the road along the east side.
Segun:  Still have access issues for fire etc.  Easement from Edison has several functions.  Other issues for building position are aesthetic (not looming over park), soil condition, and slope.
Glenn DeVeer: If using piles, soil condition goes away.
Segun:  Costs are an issue.  Also have big utility costs.
Abe C:  Questioned how many oak trees would be killed - his impression is "just a few".
Abe C:  Question to architect - Is it possible to squeeze the building width.
Architect:  No.
Abe C:  Visibility from balcony booths to inside.  What about glare making hard to see through inner glass?
Architect:  Maybe in early morning, but don't expect any problem after that.
Abe C:  Which way does ticket booth face, and where is the line expected to form?
Architect:  Booth is just inside front doors and faces south.  Expect line to form on sidewalk north to parking lot.  (Actually, in looking at the plans, it appears that there is a window on both sides of the ticket booth.)
Abe C:   Both should face the line. 
Abe C:  Questioning whether slope is ok for handicapped.
Architect:  Although it looks steep on artist closeup drawing of entrance area, the slope is actually quite gradual and meets handicapped standards.
Abe C:  Asking about the green screen.  Noting on sheet 3.00, #4 is vertically disconnected.  How is vine going to reach the top piece?
Architect:  Actually isn't disconnected, just the wide part is.  Green screen pieces actually form a semaphore saying "Pasadena Ice Rink".
Commissioner Don Barker:  Why aren't the glass boxes open to the inside (ice rink)?
Architect:  Insulation.
Commissioner Juliana Delgado:  Who will benefit from seeing the letters on the east side of the building?
Architect:  Will not be inherently obvious.  But will see elevation as drive west on 210.  (None of us neighbors believe this!  Much too far away at too acute an angle and PCC building is also in the way.)  It is symbolic, but trying to take leadership in green design as well as LEEDS.  Neighbors to east will see a green building.
Commissioner Andrew Wilson:  Can you educate the commission on the surrounding environment?   Why is only sign in the wrong direction?
Architect:  Thinking of monument sign at Foothill.  Also an opportunity on the south side of the tower over the entrance.
Glenn DeVeer:  Seeing in plans references to two different brands of glass.  Which glass will be used?
Architect:  Could get either product, they are about identical.
DeVeer:  Does not think they are alike.  He is using both.
Where else is cal wall being used aside from outside lobby?
Architect:  some on south elevation
Question about north elevation
Architect:  Louvers are supporting the weight of the glass and breaking up the mass.
Abe C:  Louvers and shadow on south elevation.  Louvers are 12, 14, 18" deep?  Is that enough?
Architect:  Yes, do have calcs for heat gain and it is ok.
Wilson:  Are those mullions in the middle of the clear glass sections on the south elevation?  Rhythm violation.
Architect:  Yes.  Good point.  Will look at that.
Juliana Delgado:  What are the costs, who's paying for the development?
Segun:  City owns it.  16.2 million

At this point, stopped for public comments.

Tim Price spoke.  Noted concern that Design Commission seems to be circumnavigated by the process.  Concern that not getting first class rink as promised. Access is an issue. Sign facing east - neighbors to east don't need to see it.

Laura Ellersieck spoke.  Basically ok with building.  Noted that current building location is preferable to big building right next to the park.  Having separation from paid PCC parking also could be good thing. (Wanted to note possibility of dog park users coming via ice rink and walking through to park, but didn't get that in.)  Also noted had heard from our councilman that city has agreement with PCC on access.

A lady who is head of an ice skating organization (or something like that) spoke about wanting a rink for world class skating and urged the commission to consider the seating situation.

Public comment concluded.

Abe C.:  What do you see from the east side of the building looking up?
Wilson:  What is the seating capacity?
Architect:  Shooting for 150 in pull out seating inside next to north rink and 150 above in balcony boxes.  Becomes fire department and exiting issue, may be able to work with fire department to add temporary seating around the rink for special events.
Abe C:  What about the west side of the rink?
Architect:  For special events can take hockey storage boxes away from west side to make room for temp seating.
Segun:  For the record, the current budget does not include the balcony box seating.  Still working out the cost delta.
Abe C:  Why not take roof lower on south side to save inside volume, which could then be used to push east wall out?
Segun:  Ran the load calcs again.  Moving the east wall out dramatically increases load and the structure costs.
Abe C:  Understand.  Don't want to bury money on caissons.
Juliana D.: What are the land costs for parking? Is the parking expected to be free?
Segun:  Do not factor the cost of the land when already own it.  Currently expect the rink parking to be free.
Question about the diagram showing the balcony seating.  Answer:  red seating is enclosed, green is not
Segun:  For public record - cannot say exactly on the seating because still need to figure out all the costs vs. benefit.
Question:  Why not just enclose all the seats?
Segun:  One reason is to have flexibility for optional program needs.  Primary seating requirement is enclosed directly to ice.  During off season, operator may use walkway (balcony) for passive events.
Question:  North - south dimesion is constrained by?
Segun:  Yes.  Fitting 143 car stalls in lot takes all the space on the north side - down to last % on amount of landscaping in the lot.  On south side, just managing to fit the required fire access in.

Commissioner Richard Quirk:  It's already done.  No matter what we say.  Disappointed that didn't get a redesign.  Doesn't like the "large thumb in middle of something" look.
Commissioner Jim Ipekjian:  Sign is in wrong place and too big.  Likes green screen, but concerned if actually going to work.

Juliana D.:  Has come long way from last time.  Likes green screen allusion.  Cannot support project because of the location.  Goes against all urban design principles.  Does think having an ice rink is great, just can't approve of it in this location.

Abe C:  Appreciates effort put in.
   Worried about green screen, can it really be pulled off?  What happens if get freeze killing it off?  How hard will it be to keep it contained?
    On fence with regard to north south siting sees points both ways.
    If signage changes, that changes everything?  How can they proceed when signs still need to be addressed?  Sign does belong on south. But existing sign is integral to the east elevation.
     Why can't we have green screens on the west side where they really would work?
     North & south elevations really need work.
     Seating issue is concern.  Need to understand better how the rink will function in terms of seats.
     Should compare vs. industry standard rather than just talking raw numbers of seats.
     Need better description of ceiling, sample of material.

Don Barker:
     Real problem with second floor observation - looking through windows into inside.
     Large letters on east don't make a lot of sense.  Signage should be on south.

Chris Peck:  Appreciates clarity of presentation.
     Likes north-south elevation simplicity of design.
     If talking about moving signage to south, maybe it's an opportunity to simplify the east side.
     Indoor/outdoor seating.  Consider operational sliders to inside on window boxes.  Consider ganging boxes together to avoid door overage.
     Planting for headlight protection.  Should reinforce that that should be condition of project.
Architect:  Will include detailed landscape response.
Chris Peck:
     Fiber concrete.  Has seen problems before with exposed edges.  They nick/chip easily.  Worried that in 10 years will be sorry.
     On metal, what about the finishing of those edges?
     City should get enough easement from Edison so it can include a drop off area in front of entrance.
     Commission can't continue the project, so all can do is advise council what they should look at.

Glenn DeVeer:
     Council should be advised that the commission is being railroaded again.  Every project from the city - they don't take advice.  They just go do what they were already going to do.  Pisses him off.  Siting issues from git-go.  Number of ways to make building work.  Going to be a disaster. ...
City staffer:  comments are not appropriate

Commissioner Susana Bautista:
    Likes boldness of the east design, but  (??can't figure out scribble) belongs on south side.
    Worried about seating and potential loss of revenue.
    Likes second floor outside space.  Generally thinks the more outside space, the better.  But need to choose the greater good.

Wilson:  Recap
    Signage - not functional on east, needs to be on south.
    Issues of green screen.  (durability, maintenance)
    Urban design issues - project location
    Seating capacity - need to understand exactly what programming for
    Durability of materials (eg. fiber cement panels)
    North + south facades are really the primary public facades.  Shouldn't bring some of those colors from the east side to set the tone?
Abe C.:
    Landscaping on west side of building
    Reverse ticket booth to face north so queing is straight.  (Of course, that is great for special events, but maybe not so good for day to day public skating. Drawings appear to show windows on both sides)
Glenn DeVeer:  36" difference in height between north and south and how does that elevation change work for the ticket booth?
Richard Quirk:  East elevation needs to be relooked at.  Facing neighborhood.  Will always have empty land in between.

Commission would welcome review again if signage changed.

Juliana D.  - wants opportunity to vote on a motion

Discussion insued as to whether the commission could vote on a motion of what to say to city council.

Chris Peck - making motion to recommend to city council:
    Signage should be reconsidered.  Too large in wrong place.  need on south side.
    Greenscape maintenance concerns.
    Disappointment at building location.
    North + south elevations are primary public elevations.  Consider moving colored elements.
    Seating should be reconsidered to reach industry standard viewing capacity for anticipated events.  Seating should preferably be open to interior space.
    Durability of materials.
    Enl??d landscape planting plan on west.

Richard Quirk and Gleen DeVeer interupting - make design review process more important.  Not significantly changed.  Public projects should get same scrutiny as private projects.
Segun:  Not the case that public works ignores the commission.  If need process improvements, call Martin Pastucha and talk to him.  (Gave the phone number.)

Susan Bautista: (speaking to motion again) Agree, except likes exterior balcony, including viewing,
Discussion about making friendly amendments.
Chris Peck:  Amend to allow for outside space
Juliana D.  Encourage city to look at shared parking arrangements.
Roll Call:  Glenn DeVeer and Richard Quirk voted no.  Not sure how Juliana Delgado voted.  But the motion passed.