It was moved and seconded

That the agenda for the July 4^th, 2005 General Purposes Committee meeting be amended to add the matter of “Grow-Ops” as an additional item, and that the agenda, as amended, be approved.

CARRIED

MINUTES

1.

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the General Purposes Committee held on Monday, June 20^th, 2005, be adopted as circulated.

CARRIED

DELEGATION

2.

Mr. Larry Berg, President and Chief Executive Officer, Vancouver International Airport Authority, accompanied by Anne Murray, Vice President, Community & Environmental Affairs, and City representative to the YVR Board of Directors, Peter Dhillon, to speak about:

(1)

recovery of the aviation industry;

(2)

the projected increase in passengers and the resulting changes in aircraft operations at YVR, including increased departures from the north runway;;

(3)

airport results from 2004 and plans for 2005;

(4)

environmental and noise management initiatives; and

(5)

YVR’s land use and development plans to 2027.

(File No.:  0153-01)  (REDMS No. 1446093)

Mr. Peter Dhillon spoke about the responsibility of the City representative to ensure that the Local Airport Authority Board provided regular updates to the City on the airport’s operations.  He then introduced Mr. Larry Berg and Ms. Anne Murray.

Mr. Berg thanked Council and Cllr. Howard for their efforts in obtaining a new rent plan for not only the Vancouver Airport, but for all airports across Canada.  He stated that while the airport would not be impacted until 2010, the result would be a decrease in the charges paid by airport carriers.  Mr. Berg then spoke about:

§           

the continuation of the airport improvement fees

§           

a change in airport policy which would result in an increase in the number of trips from China arriving at the airport

§           

talks being held with France which could result in Air France flying to Vancouver

§           

bilateral discussions with the United States

§           

the capital projects planned for the airport

§           

the use of Nexus to ‘fast track’ passengers through to their departure gates

§           

the airport’s successes of 2004.

Ms. Murray then addressed noise management issues, such as

§           

the use of the north runway for departures between the hours of 07:00 and 22:00 hours

§           

the one week closure of the south runway later this month for maintenance

§           

the noise management program at the airport, and in particular, proposed initiatives to improve the effectiveness of the Noise Management Committee

§           

the Environmental Advisory Committee

§           

the airport’s long term plan relating to sustainability and integration.

(A copy of the material provided by the delegation is on file in the City Clerk’s Office.)

Discussion then ensued among Committee members and the delegation on:

§           

the ‘Open Skies’ and ‘Fifth Freedoms’ resolutions

§           

the involvement of airport staff on City projects, and showing their support for these projects

§           

noise management and aircraft departures over Lulu Island; and the necessity for aircraft to depart over the City because of the direction of the wind

§           

the use of wind turbines

§           

world fuel supplies and the longevity of aircraft travel

§           

whether there had been any growth in cargo air traffic

§           

noise management and balance with the north/south runways

§           

the Airport’s master plan

§           

the terms of reference for the Noise Management Committee; the process for appointment to this Committee; and initiatives being taken to reinvigorate the Committee

§           

the need of the public to address their concerns at the Airport Noise Management Committee

§           

the impact of night arrivals and departures from the north runway on residents in the East Richmond area

§           

the noise abatement procedures which were in place

§           

the number of smaller aircraft which were following No. 4 Road and lining up with Garden City Road to make their landing approaches to the airport

§           

the expansion potential of the airport property on Sea Island, and at what point would the airport reach its capacity

§           

whether the increasing business at the Abbotsford Airport was having an impact on the Vancouver airport

§           

the rationale for not having a reduction in airport rent until 2010

§           

cargo travel and safety standards

§           

whether a screening process was in place for the processing of domestic baggage

§           

the alleged problems being caused by an insufficient number of staff being available to process passengers at the international arrivals level.

At the conclusion of the discussion, Mayor Brodie thanked the delegation for their presentation, and they then left the meeting.

FINANCE & CORPORATE SERVICES DIVISION

3.

(Report:  June 14/05, File No.:  12-8275-30-001/2005-Vol 01) (REDMS No. 1593944)

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That the application by 360 Degree Modern Dining to amend their Food-Primary liquor licence to extend the hours of sale until 2:00 am Mondays through Sundays, NOT BE SUPPORTED, (for the reasons outlined in the staff report dated June 14, 2005, from the Manager, Customer Services).

(2)

That the BC Liquor Control and Licensing Branch be so advised.

The question on the motion was not called, as concerns were voiced about the non-compliance of the applicant with regard to (i) the City’s bylaw regulations; (ii) the Liquor Control & Licencing Act; (iii) Vancouver Coastal Health requirements; and (iv) BC Fire Code requirements.  A brief discussion ensued on possible action which could be taken by the City.

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

4.

GENERAL LOCAL AND SCHOOL ELECTION 2005

(Report:  June 23/05, File No.:  12-8125-40-01/2005 – Vol 01) (REDMS No. 1602549)

It was moved and seconded

That the report (dated June 23, 2005, from the Director, City Clerk’s Office), regarding the administration of the 2005 General Local and School Election, be received for information.

CARRIED

URBAN DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

5.

AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE APPEAL APPLICATION BY CANADA LANDS COMPANY FOR EXCLUSION AT 5555 NO. 4 ROAD

(Report:  June 24/05, File No.:  AG 05-302706) (REDMS No. 1602629)

It was moved and seconded

That authorization for Canada Lands Company to apply to the Agricultural Land Commission for exclusion of 5555 No. 4 Road be approved.

The question on the motion was not called, as Councillor Steves expressed his strong opposition to the proposed recommendation.  He spoke about the vision which had been created many years ago for the subject property (playing fields and a sports and recreation building) which would not result in a net loss of green space.  He suggested that approval of the application would set the groundwork for the destruction of Richmond and Delta farmland. Cllr. Steves also commented on the impact which exclusion of the subject property would have First Nations land claim matters. 

Discussion ensued, with other Committee members voicing their support for the proposed exclusion.  At the same time, the following matters were addressed:

§           

the timing of the transfer of title of the subject property to the City

§           

the rationale for (i) applying to exclude the entire property from the Agricultural Land Reserve, and (ii) the Canada Lands Company making the application rather than the City

§           

the proposed development plan for the area; and whether this plan was only conceptual in nature

§           

the rationale for the comments made by the Agricultural Advisory Committee and the resolution adopted by that committee not to support the exclusion

§           

the benefits to the City which could result from approval of the exclusion because of the location of the property immediately adjacent to the City Centre

§           

the concerns of area residents about the application, and whether their properties could be removed from the Agricultural Land Reserve in the future

§           

whether, given the limited number of uses which were permitted in the Agricultural Land Reserve, the subject property could remain in the ALR if the land was developed for sports fields

§           

the need to undertake a planning study of the No. 4 Road area sooner rather than later

§           

the fact that if the application for exclusion was denied and sent back for further input, the subject property could be designated as Indian Reserve land and the City would lose control over the development of that property

§           

the belief that the proposal now being considered offered the City its best opportunity to obtain the DFO property and still maintain control over its future development

§           

the impact that the exclusion could have on for future agricultural land in British Columbia because of the First Nations treaty process

§           

whether the subject property could be considered as viable farmland

§           

the fact that the City would never have another opportunity to own the DFO property, and the desires of various sports organizations to have sports facilities constructed on the property

§           

whether approval of the application for exclusion would lead to the demise of agricultural land in the City.

Reference was made to the proposed development plan, and advice was given by staff that the proposal was a conceptual plan only which had been generated by staff, and had no weight at the present time.  Staff further advised that if the application for exclusion was successful, a master plan would be developed for the area, in consultation with the community.  Further advice was given that the City would have control over the development of the property through zoning and other bylaws.

With reference to the desires of residents on the east side of No. 4 Road about the removal of their properties from the Agricultural Land Reserve, information was provided by staff that drainage was an issue in the area.  Advice was given that one of the options would be to undertake a planning exercise to undertake replotting of the area.  However, it was noted that a careful review and study was required before removing this area from the Agricultural Land Reserve. 

In response to further questions about the timing of a review of the area, advice was given that the issue was staff workload.  However, further advice was given that the Department’s work plan was reviewed annually and staff could include the proposed study in the next review of the work plan for discussion with the Planning Committee.

Reference was made to the short timeline relating to the requirements of the Memorandum of Understanding, and advice was given that an opportunity for further public discussion would arise as the planning process commenced and rezoning applications were received.

Reference was made to the list of City initiatives (page 52 of the staff report), and the request was made that the proposed Blundell Road interchange be added to that list.

The question on the motion was then called, and it was CARRIED with Cllr. Steves opposed.

6.

RAV LINE STATION NAMES IN RICHMOND

(Report:  June 10/05, File No.:  10-6520-02-01/2005 – Vol 01) (REDMS No. 1583173)

Discussion ensued among Committee members, the Acting Director of Transportation, Victor Wei, and the Manager, Policy Planning, Terry Crowe, on the proposed road names.

Reference was made to the proposed name for the Saba Road and No. 3 Road station – Richmond City Centre, and the suggestion was made that the name be changed to ‘City Centre – Brighouse’.  Mayor Brodie further suggested that the staff recommendation be amended to add a further part, “That City Council is opposed to sponsorship and commercial names being selected for Richmond station names, and that RAVCO and TransLink be so advised.”

Discussion then ensued among Committee members and staff on:

§           

the use of the name “Brighouse” and its historical reference to the City’s town centre, with a suggestion being made that the name of the Saba Road & No. 3 Road station be “Brighouse Station”

§           

whether RAVCO and TransLink would be agreeable to substituting the name “Brighouse” for the “Richmond City Centre” station

§           

whether the City had the authority to choose the names for the airport stations

§           

the need to educate the public about the history of “Brighouse” through the placement of information material in the station.

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

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That the following names of the RAV Line stations in Richmond be forwarded to RAV Project Management Ltd. for incorporation into the project:

Station Location

Recommended Station Name

River Road & No. 3 Road

Capstan Way & No. 3 Road

Cambie Road & No. 3 Road

Lansdowne Road & No. 3 Road

Saba Road & No. 3 Road

Bridgeport

Capstan
Cambie

Lansdowne *

Richmond City Centre

* - subject to current station location being moved 150m south.

provided that the name “Brighouse” is incorporated into the name for the Saba Road & No. 3 Road station.

(2)

That if the station currently proposed at Alderbridge Way and No. 3 Road is not shifted south closer to Lansdowne Road, as proposed by staff, that the name “Alderbridge” be retained for this station.

(3)

That RAVCO and TransLink be advised that Richmond City Council is opposed to the use of sponsorship and commercial names being selected for Richmond station names.

(4)

That City staff contact RAVCO, TransLink and the YVR regarding the City having input into the naming of the YVR stations.

The question on the motion was not called, as the following amendment was introduced:

It was moved and seconded

That Part (1) of the main motion be amended by:

(1)

deleting the words:

(a)

“provided that the name “Brighouse” is incorporated into the name for the Saba Road & No. 3 Road station”, and

(b)

the recommended station name of “Richmond City Centre”, and

(2)

substituting as the recommended station name for the Saba Road & No. 3 Road station, the name “Brighouse”.

CARRIED

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

7.

BC PORTS STRATEGY UPDATE

(Report:  May 18/05, File No.:   01-0150-01) (REDMS No. 1557212)

Discussion ensued among Committee members and staff on the BC Ports Strategy.  Cllr. Kumagai commented on the work being done by the GVRD with respect to this strategy, and he commented on the current wildcat strike by truckers seeking compensation for the large increases in fuel costs.

Also addressed were the changes being proposed to the Canada Marine Act, and steps taken by City Council to help promote these changes.

It was moved and seconded

That the (report dated May 18^th, 2005, from the Manager, Policy Planning), regarding the BC Ports Strategy Update, be received for information.

CARRIED

8.

richmond 2010 winter games speed skating oval public art project plan

(Report:  June 29/05, File No.: 11-7000-09-01/Vol.1) (REDMS No. 1579982)

Discussion took place among Committee members, Mr. Crowe and Mr. Huhtala on:

§           

whether the amount being requested would be sufficient to obtain a public art consultant of a high calibre and with the appropriate expertise

§           

whether the selected public art consultant would be working with the appropriate building and design teams to ensure that any art chosen would reflect the overall design of the building

§           

whether any consideration would be given to selecting art of a particular theme, such as First Nations, and whether the consultant would be working with the Musqueam on the art project

§           

whether there were individuals in Canada who could undertake the proposed work

§           

the integral role which public art would play in the building process to ensure that the City could provide the best facility; the importance of hiring an individual from the initial steps, who would work well with the engineers and other staff members

§           

the process which would be followed to hire the public art consultant

§           

the information which would be included in the proposal call

§           

the importance of involving Council in the selection process, and when this opportunity would be provided; whether Council could review portfolios of each of the short-listed consultants, prior to staff making a recommendation to Council

§           

the lack of a budget at the present time for the value of the oval project, and when this budget would be available

§           

the need to have public art for the Oval which had meaning to the citizens of Richmond

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

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That, (as per the report dated June 29^th, 2005 from the Manager, Policy Planning and the Manager, Cultural Services), $80,000 be transferred from the existing Public Art Provision Account (#2441) to prepare an Oval Public Art Plan and Implementation Strategy.

(2)

That staff issue a Request for Proposal call for the development of the Oval Public Art Plan and Implementation Strategy, and that City Council approve the selection of the public art consultant, based on the advice of staff.

Prior to the question on the motion being called, staff were requested to provide to Council, a portfolio of each of the short-listed public art consultants.

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

9.

GROW-OPS

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That staff investigate with BC Hydro, the possibility of identifying those properties in Richmond which have spikes in the use of electricity, as has recently been implemented in the City of Surrey; and

(2)

That staff comment on the strategies of other municipalities regarding ‘crystal methamphetamines’.

Prior to the question on the motion being called, staff were asked to obtain a copy of the Surrey bylaw, and to provide information on why BC Hydro in the past had indicated that they could not release electrical use information for specific properties because of Freedom of Information issues.

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

ADJOURNMENT

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (7:02 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 4^th, 2005.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Mayor Malcolm D. Brodie
Chair

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