MINUTES

1.

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the General Purposes Committee held on Monday, October 16^th, 2006, be adopted as circulated.

CARRIED

BUSINESS & FINANCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT

2.

NOTIFICATION POLICY FOR BUSINESS REGULATION BYLAWS
(Report:  October 26, 2006, File No.:  12-8060-00/Vol 02) (REDMS No. 2033250, 2033246)

It was moved and seconded

That the Business Regulation Bylaw Notification policy (as outlined in the report dated October 26, 2006 from the Manager, Business Liaison) be adopted.

CARRIED

CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT

3.

CANCELLATION OF THE DECEMBER 27, 2006 REGULAR OPEN AND CLOSED COUNCIL MEETINGS
(Report:  October 25, 2006, File No.:  10-0105-01/2006 – Vol 01) (REDMS No. 2035264)

It was moved and seconded

That both the Regular Open and Regular Closed Council Meetings scheduled for December 27^th, 2006, be cancelled (as permitted by Council Procedure Bylaw No. 7560).

CARRIED

PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT

4.

RICHMOND SPIRIT OF BC COMMITTEE

(Report:  October 6, 2006, File No.:  01-0100-20-OLYMI-01) (REDMS No. 2028262, 2028265, 2028681)

It was moved and seconded

That the report (dated October 6^th, 2006, from the Director, Recreation & Cultural Services), regarding an Update on the Richmond Spirit of BC Committee, be received for information with thanks to the Committee, and that the report be referred to staff for consideration, and for consideration of the budget.

The question on the motion was not called, as discussion ensued among Committee members, staff and Ron Coleman, Chair of the Richmond Spirit of BC Committee, on:

Ø          

the workload of the Committee, and whether this workload was the cause for the recent resignations of a number of members from the Committee

Ø          

the development of the four legacy initiatives – arts; literacy; sports and recreation; and volunteerism, and the events which could take place; and the work undertaken by the Committee to develop these initiatives

Ø          

the availability of funding, and whether the Provincial Government had provided any support to the Committee

Ø          

the Provincial initiative “Act Now”, and whether any requests had been made to the Richmond Spirit of BC Committee regarding this initiative.

Reference was made during the discussion to the implementation of the four legacy initiatives, and advice was given that the Richmond Spirit of BC Committee would coordinate and organize the data required to host a specific event related to the legacy initiatives, such as holding an arts festival, but the Committee would not be responsible for ‘making it happen’.

Comments were made during the discussion about (i) the large amount of work completed by the Committee; and (ii) the fact that the four legacy initiatives chosen fit into the ideals of the International Olympic Committee.

In concluding the discussion, Mayor Brodie commended the Committee for an excellent job and asked Mr. Coleman to pass his comments on to the Committee.  He also expressed his appreciation to Mr. Coleman for the focus he brought to the Committee. 

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

5.

RESPONSE TO REFERRAL TO PROVIDE UPDATES ON VISIONS FOR THE WATERFRONT STRATEGY, BRITANNIA BUSINESS PLAN, THE HERITAGE & MUSEUM STRATEGY AND PROVIDE CONTEXT FOR THE ACQUISITION OF A VESSEL SUCH AS THE BRORA THOR

(Report: October 25  File No.: 11-7000-03/2006-Vol 01) (REDMS No. 2035585)

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That staff report to Council on the Vision (program) to position Richmond as a community that celebrates its maritime location and heritage; and

(2)

That staff report to Council on the Major Events program for pre, during and post 2010 Vancouver Olympic and Paralympic Games; and

(3)

That staff report on the Business Case for the acquisition of a sailing vessel in general, and the Brora Thor in particular, prior to final decision regarding the purchase.

The question on the motion was not called, as Cllrs. Steves spoke further on the sailing vessel ‘Brora Thor’, and the alterations which would be required to bring the vessel up to code with respect to the carrying of passengers on the ship.  He referred to the shortage of parkland in the City, and suggested that consideration should be given in the business case analysis to viewing the available waterfront in the same way as parkland, in relation to the types of programs which could take place on the water, as opposed to purchasing land for park purposes. 

Discussion then took place on the need for a vision for the Britannia Heritage Shipyard and the development of a maritime strategy for the Steveston area, with opinions being expressed that it would be irresponsible to proceed with the purchase of a sailing vessel (if that should in fact, occur) without first completing a business case analysis.  Comments were made that there were other sailing vessels available for purchase, if Council made a decision in the future to acquire a ship, in the event that the Brora Thor was not available for purchase.

Information was provided during the discussion that staff would report to the Committee at its January, 2007 meeting.

Discussion continued, with questions being raised about whether the purchase of the Brora Thor or other sailing vessel should be a priority, and whether it was the City’s responsibility to purchase a tall ship for the Steveston area.  The comment was made that this would a project better suited to the private sector, and that if the outcome of the business case analysis was that the acquisition of a tall ship would be a success, then it should be the private sector which takes responsibility for the purchase.

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

PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

6.

PERMANENT TREE PROTECTION BYLAW – SIX-MONTH STATUS REPORT

(Report:  October 23, 2006, File No.:  12-8060-20-8157) (REDMS No. 2028447, 2035753)

The Manager, Building Approvals, John Irving, introduced the City’s new Tree Preservation Coordinator, Nancy Stairs.

It was moved and seconded

That the Richmond Tree Protection Bylaw 8057, Amendment Bylaw 8157 be introduced and given first, second and third readings.

The question on the motion was not called, as information was provided that the proposed amendments were intended to clarify (i) the number of trees to be replanted in the event that hedge trees were removed; and (ii) the definition of ‘tree topping’. 

Discussion then ensued among Committee members and staff on:

Ø          

the status of the tree protection budget

Ø          

the length of time required to process tree removal permit applications

Ø          

the amount of money being spent by the City to save trees ($250,000 to save 150 trees with a total value of $75,000), and whether it would be more cost effective to simply have the City plant trees based on what had been spent

Ø          

whether the proposed amendments would provide clarity to the public about hedges and/or tree topping

Ø          

the number of responses received by the City in answer to the survey sent out to tree permit applicants

Ø          

tree protection bylaw infractions and how these infractions were dealt with by staff to ensure a successful resolution, and the number of cases which were being pursued through the court process

Ø          

the Tree Care workshops being developed to educate the public and whether the cost of these workshops, including staff time, was included within the $250,000 budget

Ø          

the fact that the majority of complaints received were about neighbours removing trees for which permits had been approved, and whether any steps could be taken to advise citizens about tree permit approvals

Ø          

the types of trees to be used as replacement trees and whether it would be feasible to include fruit trees as possible replacement trees

Ø          

the Tree Protection Bylaw as it related to the City’s development permit process.

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

7.

STRATA BYLAWS

Cllr. Chen referred to correspondence which she had received questioning whether home-based businesses would be permitted in strata unit developments, and whether this would be the responsibility of the City or Strata Council.  In response, information was provided that it was the responsibility of each Strata Council to enforce their own Strata bylaws regarding Home Occupations.  The General Manager, Planning & Development, Joe Erceg, indicated that he would have the Business Licence staff follow up on this matter.

ADJOURNMENT

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (5:13 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, November 6^th, 2006.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Mayor Malcolm D. Brodie
Chair

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