Date:

Monday, April 20, 2009

Place:

Anderson Room

Richmond City Hall

Present:

Mayor Malcolm D. Brodie, Chair

Councillor Linda Barnes

Councillor Evelina Halsey-Brandt

Councillor Greg Halsey-Brandt

Councillor Sue Halsey-Brandt

Councillor Ken Johnston

Councillor Bill McNulty

Councillor Harold Steves

Absent:

Councillor Derek Dang

Call to Order:

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:01 p.m.

MINUTES

1.

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the General Purposes Committee held on Monday, April 6, 2009, be adopted as circulated.

CARRIED

ENGINEERING & PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

2.

Steveston Harbour Authority Long Term Development Concept

(Report:  April 6, 2009, File No.:  08-4060-07-01/2009-Vol 01) (REDMS No. 2597416)

In answer to a query, The Director of Engineering, John Irving, advised that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) has identified the waterfront located in the subject area as highly sensitive.  He remarked that the proposal by the Steveston Harbour Authority would theoretically enhance the waterfront.

It was moved and seconded

That:

(1)

staff, working in partnership with the Steveston Harbour Authority, be directed to develop implementation options for the intertidal habitat and causeway fronting the London Farm area as presented in the Steveston Harbour Authority Long Term Development Concept drawing L.02; and

(2)

the Waterfront Strategy Implementation Plan currently under development for the Steveston Village/Homeport Waterfront Character Area;

(a)

be integrated with the intertidal habitat and causeway concept, and

(b)

include consideration of the Steveston Harbour Authority Long Term Development Concept.

The question on the motion was not called, as discussion took place about issues related to dredging and accessibility to the harbour, as well as the benefits realized by both the City and the Steveston Harbour Authority from the Steveston Harbour Authority Long Term Development Concept.

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

BUSINESS & FINANCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT

3.

Acquisition of New Taxation Software System

(Report:  March 25, 2009, File No.:) (REDMS No. 2330797)

In answer to a question, Ivy Wong, Manager, Revenue, accompanied by Glenn McLaughlin, Manager, Purchasing and Risk, advised that the agreement for the acquisition of a new taxation software system did not include an “exit clause”. 

It was moved and seconded

That the General Manager, Business and Financial Services be authorized to execute agreements associated with the licensing and support services required for the acquisition of a Taxation Software System from Tempest Development Group Inc.

CARRIED

4.

Canada Line Information and Advertising Displays

(Report:  March 30, 2009, File No.:  ) (REDMS No. 2594877)

Amarjeet Rattan, Director, Corporate Programs Management Group, was available to answer questions. 

A discussion took place about the Canada Line Information and Advertising Displays, and the following was noted:

§   

the LED screens and 360 Revolution displays would be very durable against potential vandalism.  Also there is technology available to protect the screens against permanent spray paint damage;

§   

advertising would take place on cycles of approximately two minutes each, featuring six ads which would play for about 20 seconds each;

§   

the RCMP would have the ability to take over the entire system for emergency communication purposes;

§   

the LED screens would be located and positioned in a way to limit light pollution;

§   

the light emanating from the LED screens and 360 Revolution displays would provide additional lighting to address safety concerns; 

§   

approximate capital costs for the displays would be $375,000 for each LED Screen, and $63,000 for each 360 Revolution display; and

§   

there would be a tri-party revenue sharing model between the City, Intransit BC, and a full service agency partner.

During the discussion, concerns were expressed by Committee members about:

§   

traffic safety issues related to drivers being distracted by the LED screens;

§   

setting a precedent by allowing private citizens to have LED screens displayed at their businesses; 

§   

who would control the advertising, and which parties would be involved in working out and finalizing the terms of reference related to advertising content;

§   

whether VANOC would have total control of the advertising during the 2010 Winter Olympic Games, and what the rate would be for advertising during the Games, as well as who would benefit from the advertising during that time period; and

§   

Translink’s advertising restrictions and standards.

It was moved and seconded

That staff be directed to negotiate a pilot program of Canada Line information and advertising displays as outlined in the staff report dated March 30, 2009, from the General Manager, Business & Financial Services, entitled “Canada Line Information and Advertising Displays”, and to report back on content guidelines and the draft agreement. 

The question on the motion was not called, as discussion continued, during which staff was directed to provide further information related to the feasibility of implementing the Canada Line Information And Advertising Displays program in stages or phases, for example, implementing one type of display or the other, or implementing a smaller installation. 

The question on the motion was then called, and it was CARRIED with Cllr. Evelina Halsey-Brandt opposed.

5.

Rokapa Management Ltd., doing buisness as Well Pub 6511 Buswell Street Re-location of liquor Primary Licence

(Report:  April 6, 2009, File No.:  ) (REDMS No. 2589969)

A discussion took place, and the following was noted:

§   

the application was for a Liquor Primary Licence, to allow a 25 seat capacity operation, with proposed hours of Sunday to Monday 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.;

§   

in order to increase the liquor primary hours of operation in the future,  the applicant would require a new application;

§   

it was believed that many of the concerns expressed by area residents would not be an issue since the increase in the liquor primary hours of operation would take place during the day, for four hours only;

§   

the applicant had provided 237 form letters in support of the proposed application, signed by different individuals residing in various parts of Richmond;

§   

this was the City’s first time dealing with an application to allow a new pub within an existing one;

§   

a liquor primary licence is required in order to operate a retail liquor store; and

§   

the new pub operation would need to be proven to the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch (LCLB) as a viable and separate business from the existing operation.

Ronnie Patterson, the applicant, and owner of Rokapa Management Limited, stated that the strategy behind the proposed application is an accepted business practice in other parts of the province.  He advised that if the proposed application was denied, he would have no other alternative but to relocate to another site in Richmond.  Mr. Patterson further advised that if the pub was relocated, he would consider increasing the capacity to an approximately 180 seat pub operation.

Nirmal Walia, owner of Richmond Station Pub and Liquor Store, spoke in opposition to the proposed application, as there were seven existing liquor stores along No. 3 Road.  He expressed his belief that an additional pub in the area would turn No. 3 Road into “skid-row”. 

John Grewal, J.P. Malone’s Pub, stated that he was strongly opposed to the proposed application, and that the applicant was seeking a “loop hole” in order to put a liquor store in an area that doesn’t need one right now. 

It was moved and seconded

That the application by Rokapa Management Ltd., doing business as Well Pub, for relocation of the Liquor Primary Licence from 8220 Lansdowne Road to 6511 Buswell Street, in order to operate a 25 seat capacity Liquor Primary establishment with the proposed operating hours of Sunday to Monday 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., be supported and that a letter be sent to the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch advising that:

(1)

Council recommends the issuance of the licence based on the community responses received and that the operation will not have a significant negative impact on the community;

(2)

Council’s comments on the prescribed considerations are as follows:

(a)

The potential for additional noise and traffic in the area if the application is approved was considered;

(b)

That the application for a 25 person capacity Liquor Primary operation, with limited hours of operation, will not pose a significant negative impact on the community based on the responses received from residents and businesses in the area;

(c)

The proximity of the proposed location to residential districts that may be impacted by the application was considered;

(d)

That the schools and public parks within a 500 metre radius of the proposed location        are not anticipated to be impacted by the application;

(e)

That the zoning of the proposed location, Downtown Commercial District (C7) and parking requirements were reviewed and conform to the regulations;

(f)

That the 2007 population figure of 42,600 for the City Centre area with a projected growth to 90,000 by 2031 was considered;

(3)

Council comments on the views of residents and businesses are as follows:

(a)

A large number of written responses, both opposed and in support of the application, were received and considered, as outlined in the staff report;

(b)

As per City Policy, residents, property owners and businesses within a 100 metre radius of the subject property were contacted by letter detailing the application and were provided with instruction on how comments or concerns could be submitted; and

(c)

In addition, signage was posted at the subject property and three public notices were published in a local newspaper.  This signage and notice provided information on the application and instruction on how community comments or concerns could be submitted. 

The question on the motion was not called, as members of the Committee expressed their views in support of or in opposition to the proposed application.

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

CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR’S OFFICE

6.

COUNCIL TERM GOALS

(Report:  March 2, 2009 File No.:  ) (REDMS No. 2581928)

The Director, Corporate Planning, Lani Schultz, was available to answer questions.  A discussion ensued between staff and Committee members about the Council Term Goals, and in particular on:

§   

revising the Council Term Goals to add support for expanding Asian Pacific relationships as a part of economic development;

§   

timing of priorities, establishing a starting point for this Council term, developing work plans, and identifying Council’s vision;

§   

community safety, and the RCMP contract negotiations, the possibility of unionization, as well as details related to the time frame required for executing the policing model, and associated costs;

§   

realizing many of the Council’s Term Goals through the normal Council process.  It was noted that reports appearing on agendas for individual committees would reflect Council’s priorities, as those goals would be presented to respective committees;

§   

the organizational structure would be reviewed, and work plans would be aligned to pursue Council’s goals;

§   

clearly identifying which reports deal with Council’s goals by communicating so within the report; and

§   

the feasibility of developing a simplified table that would identify the status of each goal.

Jennifer Larsen, 8680 Foster Road, expressed appreciation for the prominence given to social services in the Council Term Goals.  She also spoke about challenges experienced by the Richmond Community Services Advisory Council (RCSAC) in fulfilling its mandate since the health function was taken over by the province.

It was moved and seconded

That the attached Council Term Focus for 2008-2011 paper, with the inclusion of:

(1)

the potential effect of the unionization of the RCMP, including the financial impact as well as the effect on the overall operational model; and

(2)

economic development and expansion of Asian Pacific relations,

be approved as a working document to help guide the development of the City’s work programs, with the understanding that it will be reviewed periodically to ensure it remains relevant in light of changing community needs and opportunities.

CARRIED

ADJOURNMENT

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (6:09 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, April 20, 2009.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Mayor Malcolm D. Brodie

Chair

Shanan Dhaliwal

Executive Assistant, City Clerk’s Office