It was moved and seconded

That the agenda for the July 17^th, 2006 meeting of the General Purposes Committee be approved, and that the matter of the Canada Line Escalators be added to the agenda as an additional item.

CARRIED

MINUTES

1.

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the General Purposes Committee held on Tuesday, July 4^th, 2006, be adopted as circulated.

CARRIED

PARKS, RECREATION & CULTURAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT

2.

RICHMOND OVAL: BUTTRESS RUNNELS - ARTIST DESIGNS

(Report:  July 4, 2006, File No.:  11-7000-09-20-053/Vol 01) (REDMS No. 1991101, 1910328)

The Manager of Heritage & Cultural Services, Jane Fernyhough, accompanied by the Director, Major Projects, Greg Scott, reviewed the proposal with the Committee.

Discussion then ensued among Committee members and staff on:

·            

how disposal of the water runoff would be achieved, and whether any of this water runoff would be recycled

·            

whether an overall art plan for the Richmond Olympic Oval site had been developed; who would be responsible for the coordination of other art forms which might be placed on the site; and whether there would be an opportunity for local artists to contribute art projects for the site

·            

the timing of the hiring of the new Public Art Coordinator

·            

the rationale for indicating in the Request For Expressions Of Interest that the budget for the project was $125,000 when the report stated that the total budget was $158,750

·            

whether the designs proposed would be coloured as shown in the samples provided in the staff report, or simply grey concrete

·            

whether there would be a problem in the future with algae and dirt collecting in the channels of the design as a result of the water runoff; maintenance of the buttresses in the future; whether the contract to be entered into with the artist addressed maintenance and the removal of the art if it became worn

·            

the overall cost of the project and whether all three designs provided by the artist could be achieved within the proposed budget

·            

the proposed medicinal garden and whether terms of reference and a specific format for this project had yet been developed; the feasibility of using this garden to reflect Richmond’s pioneering history

·            

whether there would be large puddles in the plaza of the Olympic Oval site as a result of the water runoff from the runnels

·            

whether at some point during the design process for the Oval facility, Richmond’s history was to have been etched into the windows of the building

·            

copyright issues; whether there would be any opportunity to utilize the designs in other ways other than as proposed; the cost to the City of acquiring the copyrights for the three designs in the future and whether the City could acquire these copyrights

·            

the process which would be followed to create the designs in concrete; whether the City would have the opportunity to acquire the cedar carvings of the three proposed designs, and the timeframe required to complete the art project.

During the discussion, staff used artist renderings of the Oval building to explain how rain water would run off the roof of the building and into the runnels.

With reference to the discussion relating to copyright matters, further information was provided by the General Manager, Law & Community Safety, Phyllis Carlyle on the two types of copyrights which exist and the rules which apply to each.

As a result of the discussion, the following amended resolution was introduced:

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That the designs by Susan Point for the relief sculptures of the buttress runnels on the north side of the Richmond Oval, be approved;

(2)

That staff be requested to provide further information on the following matters:

(a)

which designs would be appropriate for use, and locations for those uses;

(b)

the terms of copyright, including the right to use the designs;

(c)

the cost implications of each option; and

(d)

the terms of the contract; and

(3)

That staff:

(a)

review the issue to determine how to incorporate an outline of the history of Richmond, including using etched glass; and

(b)

undertake a further analysis of the garden plan within the art budget.

The question on the motion was not called, as suggestions were provided on how Richmond’s pioneer experience could be depicted within the Oval facility itself and the surrounding precinct area.

The question on the motion was then called, and it was CARRIED.

MAJOR PROJECTS

3.

RICHMOND OLYMPIC OVAL – EXTERIOR COLOUR PALETTE AND POLYCARBONATE COLOUR SCHEME

(Report:  July 11, 2006, File No.:  06-2052-50-05/Vol 01) (REDMS No. 1992412)  (Consultants will be in attendance to make a presentation.)

Mr. Scott introduced Larry Podhora, Gene Kinoshita and Darryl Johnson, of Cannon Design, to the Committee.

The delegation and staff then used photographs and artists’ renderings to explain the proposed colour scheme, during which discussion took place on:

·            

the gradation of the colour palette and the options which were available with respect to colour

·            

the use of polycarbonate panels to replace what would have been windows in the Oval facility

·            

the rationale for choosing the colour ‘blue’

·            

the gradation of colour, and whether the use of polycarbonate panels would have an impact on the functionality of the ice surface

·            

Option 2

·            

the proposed colours for the east and west profiles of the Oval facility

·            

the necessity, if any, of stockpiling additional polycarbonate panels

·            

whether sunshades would be required for the meeting rooms to be located within the Oval facility

·            

the use of the white polycarbonate panels, and the impact of these white panels with respect to the large scale of the Oval building which could make the structure appear to be industrial.

During the presentation and discussion, information was provided that the two options being proposed were intended to interpret a natural event which occurred on the West Coast, that being the projection of a thin surface layer of silt from the Fraser River out into the Georgia Strait, with the silt layer reflecting the colour of the sky and then gradating to the deep blue of the Strait.  The suggestion was made during the discussion that interpretive kiosks should be placed within the Oval facility to explain the design process and the rationale for the colour selection to visitors to the site. 

Reference was made to Option 2, and advice was given that Option 2 was not being recommended because of the colour selection process and the issues which could arise.  Further information was provided that the ability to achieve a smooth gradation of colours would be compromised, and that technical constraints could be encountered. 

In addition, in the event that a polycarbonate panel had to be replaced at some point in the future (if Option 2 was selected), difficulties could be encountered in replacing the panel because of its customized colour.  Information was provided that while the colours in both options were custom colours, the colours in Option 2 were not standard.  Comments were made that the more conservative option, Option 1, would be preferable as it offered a simplified strategy.

Discussion then took place among the delegation, staff and Committee members on the other colours which were being recommended for the exterior of the Oval building.  Reference was made to the colours proposed for the east and west gateway walls of the facility, and information was provided that additional colours for these ends would be presented to Committee in September.  It was noted that the original proposal had been to use wood for the exterior of these end exterior walls, however, due to budget constraints, it was felt that it would be more economical to use a paint finished aluminum metal panel in place of the wood. 

Reference was made to the tenders which had been awarded, which had been under budget, and questions were raised about the possibility of reverting back to the original design which would allow the use of wood for the east and west walls.  Discussion ensued on this matter, with comments being made about:

·            

the colour proposed for the aluminum panel and the appearance of this panel in the sunlight (became the colour of gold)

·            

the discolouration of wood surfaces over time (the wood would turn dark and would require maintenance to retain the proper colour) whereas the metal surface would last an extremely long time

·            

whether the colour proposed would overpower the building because of the sheer size of the facility.

Advice was given during the discussion, that staff should be able to provide answers to the questions raised at an upcoming General Purposes Committee meeting in September.  Staff were requested to provide at that meeting, samples of the proposed exterior colours in natural light along with full-size sheets of the sample products, and information on the cost to maintain the pine beetle lumber to be used for the roof structure.

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That the exterior colour palette for the Richmond Olympic Oval be endorsed, with the exclusion of the profile metal; and

(2)

That the polycarbonate colour scheme for the Richmond Olympic Oval, illustrated as option 1, be approved.

CARRIED

4.

RICHMOND OVAL – MONTYLY STATUS REPORTING

(Report: July 10, 2006, File No.: 01-0370-03-01/2006-Vol 01) REDMS No. 1992556)

Mr. Scott reported that the Richmond Oval project was on time and on budget.  In response to questions, he talked briefly about the revised cash flow projections.  Mr. Scott also provided information on the status of the rowing tank study being undertaken to determine whether if this project could be included in the Oval facility.  He reported that a comprehensive report would be submitted to the Committee in September as to the future of the rowing tank in the building, and would provide an analysis of what the City would lose from the facility to accommodate the rowing tank, if that proposal was approved. 

It was moved and seconded

That the General Purposes Committee receive the following information:

(1)

Executive Summary of Project Status Report (June 2006)

(2)

50% Design Project Cost Overview.

CARRIED

5.

CANADA LINE - DOWN ESCALATORS AT RICHMOND STATIONS

Councillor Sue Halsey-Brandt referred to a memorandum circulated to all members of Council (a copy of which is on file in the City Clerk’s Office), regarding the provision of down escalators at the Richmond Canada Line stations, and she voiced her concern that escalators would not be installed at all Richmond stations.

Discussion then ensued among Committee members and staff on this matter, with the suggestion being made that a strong letter should be written to Canada Line Rapid Transit Inc. (CLCO) on this issue. 

As a result of the discussion, the following motion was introduced:

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That a letter be sent now and at the Development Permit Panel stage to CLCO and TransLink, strongly requesting down escalators at each Richmond station; and

(2)

That staff ask CLCO and TransLink senior staff to meet with representatives of Richmond with regard to the down escalators.

CARRIED

ADJOURNMENT

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (6:00 p.m.).

CARRIED

Certified a true and correct copy of the Minutes of the meeting of the General Purposes Committee of the Council of the City of Richmond held on Monday, July 17^th, 2006.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Mayor Malcolm D. Brodie
Chair

Fran J. Ashton
Executive Assistant, City Clerk’s Office