MINUTES

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the General Purposes Committee held on Monday, April 19, 2010, be adopted as circulated.

CARRIED

BUSINESS AND FINANCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT

1.

OJ'S RICHMOND RESTAURANT INC., DOING BUSINESS AS ORIGINAL JOE'S RESTAURANT & BAR UNIT 110 - 11080 NO. 5 ROAD

(File Ref. No.: ) (REDMS No. 2879905)

In reply to queries from Committee, Glenn McLaughlin, Chief Licence Inspector & Risk Manager, advised that one other establishment in Richmond is open until 2 a.m., and the applicant is not seeking additional hours of operation, but instead changing the business hours.

It was moved and seconded

That the application by OJ’s Richmond Restaurant Inc., doing business as Original Joe’s Restaurant & Bar, for an amendment to increase the hours of liquor service under Food Primary Liquor License No. 303766 from Monday to Sunday 9:00 a.m. to Midnight to Sunday to Thursday 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. and Friday and Saturday 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m., be supported and that a letter be sent to the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch advising that:

(1)

Council supports the amendment for an increase in liquor service, as the increase will not have a significant impact on the community.

(2)

Council’s comments on the prescribed criteria (set out in section 53 of the Liquor Control and Licensing Regulations) are as follows:

(a)

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

(b)

The impact on the community if the application is approved was assessed through a community consultation process and considered.

(c)

The amendment to permit extended hours of liquor service under the Food Primary Liquor License should not change the establishment so that it is operated in a manner that is contrary to its primary purpose as there has been no history of non-compliance with this operation.

(3)

As the operation of a licensed establishment may affect nearby residents the City gathered the views of the residents as follows:

(a)

Property owners and businesses within a 100 metre radius of the subject property were contacted by letter detailing the application and provided instructions on how community comments or concerns could be submitted.

(b)

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 instructions on how community comments or concerns could be submitted.

(4)

Council’s comments and recommendations respecting the views of the residents are as follows:

(a)

That based on the number of letters sent and the lack of response received from all public notifications, Council considers that the amendment is acceptable to the majority of the residents in the area and the community.

CARRIED

2.

LIQUOR PRIMARY CLUB LICENCE APPLICATION ARMY NAVY & AIR FORCE VETERANS IN CANADA STEVESTON UNIT NO. 284 – 3960 CHATHAM STREET UNIT 200

(File Ref. No.:) (REDMS No. 2880955)

Committee questioned the application process for existing Liquor Primary Club Licence applicants and Mr. McLaughlin advised that Liquor Control and Licensing Branch (LCLB) determines the outcome and the way the application is to be processed. 

Discussion ensued and staff was directed to investigate how the application process for existing applicants could be streamlined and asked that staff write a letter to the LCLB suggesting that the process be streamlined for this type of application.

It was moved and seconded

That the application by Army Navy & Air Force Veterans in Canada, Steveston Unit No. 294, to relocate Liquor Primary Club Licence No. 029737 from 11900 No. 1 Road to 3960 Chatham Street Unit 200, in order to offer liquor service be supported and that a letter be sent to the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch advising that:

(1)

Council supports the application as the issuance will not pose a significant impact on the community.

(2)

Council comments on the prescribed considerations are as follows:

(a)

The impact on residential districts in the area that may be impacted by the proposed location were reviewed and considered that there would be little or no impact to those residential districts or to the surrounding areas.

(b)

The proximity of the proposed liquor primary location to other social or recreational facilities and public buildings within a 500 metre radius was reviewed and it was considered that the application would not impact these facilities.

(c)

The application for a 140 person capacity operation with liquor service hours of Sunday from 11:00 a.m. to Midnight and Monday to Saturday 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m., will not pose a significant negative impact on the community based on the lack of responses received from the residents and businesses in the area.

(d)

The number and market focus of clientele to liquor primary licence establishments within a reasonable distance of the proposed location was reviewed and it was considered that there would no impact on the existing liquor primary licence establishment.

(e)

The potential for additional noise and traffic in the area if the application is approved was considered and determined that there will be little or no impact of additional noise or traffic in the area.  The zoning of the proposed location, Steveston Commercial (C2), was reviewed and the use conforms to the regulations.  The issue of parking was reviewed and it was considered to be sufficient to support the application.

(f)

The 2009 population figure of 193,555 for the City of Richmond and the population figure from 2006 of 24,105 for the planning area of Steveston was considered.

(g)

Relevant socio-economic information was reviewed and considered that continuation of the applicants operation is a required service in the community.

(h)

The impact on the community if the application is approved was considered and based on a lack of response from the community from public notices, the licence approval would have little impact on the community.

(3)

As the operation of the establishment as a licensed establishment might affect nearby residents, the City gathered the views of the residents as follows:

(a)

Property owners and businesses within a 100 metre radius of the subject property were contacted by letter detailing the application and provided with instructions on how community comments or concerns could be submitted.

(b)

Signage was posted at the subject property and three public notices were published in a local newspaper.  The signage and notice provided information on the application and instructions on how community comments or concerns could be submitted.

(4)

Council’s comments and recommendations respecting the views of the residents are as follows:

(a)

One letter from the business community against the proposal was received March 25, 2010 and no responses were received from residents in the nearby area from all public notifications.   Based on the lack of negative responses from residents in the nearby area, Council considers that the application is acceptable to the majority of the residents in the nearby area.

CARRIED

3.

RICHMOND OLYMPIC BUSINESS FINAL REVIEW

(File Ref. No.:) (REDMS No. 2872793)

Lani Schultz, Director, Richmond Olympic Business Office, joined by Jeff Day, General Manager, Project Development & Facilities Services, and Dave Semple, General Manager, Parks and Recreation, provided background information.

In reply to queries from Committee, staff advised that:

§          

the LED lights are part of the Games and O Zone legacy and will be utilized for the winter light displays;

§          

the 1% overhead administrative charge was calculated based on a Council approved formula;

§          

the O Zone Executive Lounge was redesigned party way through the Games to be more appealing to a broader number of groups;

§          

civic beautification includes display equipment, lighting, fence wraps, banners, way finding signage etc;

§          

Minoru Arenas has new boards and an upgraded sound system;

§          

non-traditional media such as Facebook and Twitter was very successful in attracting attention to the O Zone;

§          

the O Zone website attracted many visitors that registered for event email notification;

§          

City staff costs are reflected in the 1% overhead fee;

§          

the hosting and protocol program was carried out as per Council’s direction;

§          

Richmond is participating in a case study headed by the International Olympic Committee; the case study focuses on how Richmond integrated the Games into the community;

§          

staff learned that the location of the main stage and the grandstands play a large part in containing the noise within the event site; and

§          

there was 4% volunteer attrition before the opening of the O Zone and 1% once the O Zone opened.

Discussion ensued and Committee commented on the 1% overhead fee.  Also, it was noted that a presentation at the last Economic Advisory Committee meeting by the City’s Manager, Economic Development was very insightful and that a summary of the presentation in the form of a memorandum would be valuable.

Also, Committee noted that a memorandum regarding the equipment inventory would be appreciated.

It was moved and seconded

That the staff report, dated April 30, 2010, from the Director, Richmond Olympic Business Office, entitled “Richmond Olympic Business Final Review”, be received for information.

CARRIED

ADJOURNMENT

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (4:57 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, May 3, 2010.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Mayor Malcolm D. Brodie

Chair

Hanieh Floujeh

Acting Executive Assistant

City Clerk’s Office