MINUTES

1.

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the following meetings of the General Purposes Committee each be adopted as circulated:
 

(1)

Tuesday, February 24^th, 2004,

(2)

Monday, March 1^st, 2004,

(3)

Tuesday, March 2^nd, 2004,

(4)

Tuesday, March 9^th, 2004, and

(5)

Thursday, March 11^th, 2004.

CARRIED

COMMUNITY SAFETY DIVISION

2.

COMMUNITY SAFETY BUILDING REPLACEMENT SEA ISLAND FIRE HALL
(Report:  Feb. 24/04, File No.:  2050-02-F4) (REDMS No. 1126019, 1111528)
 

Fire Chief Jim Hancock, accompanied by the Director, Engineering, Robert Gonzales, explained that they were present to respond to questions from the Committee.

In response to questions, the following information was provided:

o           

the proposed tower would be used for hose drying; a 60 foot tower would offer even more options for training, including high angle rescues; a tower would allow training to take place on-site, and would allow more firefighters to be trained in rescue procedures

o           

staff were recommending that Option 3 be selected

o           

constructing a building with LEED (Leadership in Environmental Design) initiatives would somewhat reduce maintenance and operating costs.
 

During the discussion, questions were raised about whether there would be any cost savings in constructing the new Hamilton Fire Hall in conjunction with the Sea Island facility.  In response, advice was given that there could be a saving of 5 to 10%, as the design developed for the Sea Island Hall could be used to issue a call for tender for the Hamilton Fire Hall.

Reference was made to Option 1, which called for a pre-engineered building, and the Fire Chief reviewed the photographs which were on display to explain how the fire hall might look, if a pre-engineered building was chosen.  Discussion ensued on this option, with information being provided that while costs were less and the structure would be simpler to construct, steel prices were rising and tender prices could be higher.  It was also noted that the life span of a pre-engineered building was estimated to be 50 years as compared to the recommended design which had a life span of 75 years.

Mr. John Crawford, the Manufacturers Representative for Sprung Instant Structures, advised that the company he represented could construct a new fire hall at a cost of $1.1 Million.  He then spoke about the product, explaining that the structure was a stressed membrane structure which consisted of a series of aluminium arched ribs, which would not rust, corrode or crack, integrally connected by modular architectural membrane panels.  A copy of the material provided on the Sprung Instant Structures is on file in the City Clerks Office.

Discussion then ensued among Committee members and the delegation, during which the following information was provided:

o           

an Instant Sprung structure would not contain any posts or beams

o           

hedging could be planted, and other materials used to make the exterior of an Instant Sprung structure more appealing

o           

an Instant Sprung structure could be made to any length required by the City

o           

an Instant Sprung structure system was very flexible and the membrane could be easily changed when required.
 

The Chair thanked Mr. Crawford for his presentation, and staff then returned to the table.

Discussion then ensued among Committee members and staff on:

o           

whether the building envelope for the Sea Island Fire Hall could accommodate a single storey facility such as proposed with an Instant Sprung structure; and whether the configuration could accommodate rear entry and forward exiting fire trucks

o           

the estimated cost of Option 3, and what would be included in that cost, in comparison to the cost estimated for an Instant Sprung structure

o           

the aesthetic appearance of an Instant Sprung structure and the need to ensure that any facility was compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood

o           

the need to undertake a comparison of the two concepts, and whether this review would delay construction of the Sea Island Fire Hall

o           

the estimated cost of the tower.

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

It was moved and seconded

That the report (dated February 24^th, 2004, from the Fire Chief), regarding the Community Safety Building Replacement Sea Island Fire Hall, be referred to staff for report on:

(1)

how the sprung instant structure compared to the building proposed in Option 3;

(2)

the cost of the tower and all other considerations, as well as environmental and architectural aspects;

(3)

the cost to replace the membrane of a sprung instant structure;

(4)

the design and appearance of a sprung instant structure; and

(5)

the feasibility of undertaking a combined sprung instant structure and normal building design.

CARRIED

OPPOSED:  Cllrs. Dang
Howard
Kumagai

FINANCE & CORPORATE SERVICES DIVISION

3.

DEVELOPMENT COST CHARGE IMPOSITION BYLAW NO. 7676
(Report:  Mar. 3/04, File No.:  8060-20-7676) (REDMS No. 1132470, 1127073)

The Manager, Special Projects, Graham Willis, advised that he had nothing further to add. 

Reference was made to correspondence received from UDI (Urban Development Institute, Pacific Region), dated March 15^th, 2004, regarding the proposed Development Cost Charges bylaw, and Mr. Willis advised that the content summarized a discussion which he had had with Mr. Bob Ransford ten days ago.

Discussion ensued among Committee members and staff on the issue of grandfathering in-stream developments, the continuation of the waiver process, and the application of a CPI increase. 

Advice was given during the discussion that approval had been given in January of 2003 to increase DCC rates for the Commercial/Light Industry Major Industry components and that it would now be appropriate to apply a CPI increase to these classifications.

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

It was moved and seconded

That:

(1)

Development Cost Charges Imposition Bylaw No. 7676 be introduced and given first, second, and third readings, on the understanding that there would no CPI adjustment for the residential component; and
 

(2)

The waiver, which waives the right of developers to a one-year grace period under provincial legislation for in-stream subdivision applications, be continued.

The question on the motion was not called, as the request was made that the recommendations be dealt with separately.

The question on Part 1 was then called, and it was CARRIED.

The question on Part 2 was called, and it was CARRIED with Cllr. Howard opposed.

4.

APPROPRIATE LOCATIONS FOR PRIVATE RETAIL LIQUOR STORES
(Report:  Mar. 11/04, File No.:  8060-20-7688) (REDMS No. 1134600, 1173544)
 

It was moved and seconded

That Richmond Zoning and Development Bylaw 5300, Amendment Bylaw No. 7688, which designates areas for Licensee Retail Stores, be introduced and given first reading.

The question on the motion was not called, as questions were raised about whether the stores to be located in the shopping malls would be required to close (i) in conjunction with mall hours, or (ii) as specified by Provincial and local regulations.  The Manager, Customer Services, Anne Stevens, was requested to confirm the physical location of the stores in question and to provide the information to Council prior to its March 22^nd, 2004 meeting.

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

ADJOURNMENT

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (5:21 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, March 15^th, 2004.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Mayor Malcolm D. Brodie
Chair

Fran J. Ashton
Executive Assistant, City Clerks Office