Date:

Monday, February 21, 2011

Place:

Anderson Room

Richmond City Hall

Present:

Mayor Malcolm D. Brodie, Chair

Councillor Linda Barnes

Councillor Derek Dang

Councillor Evelina Halsey-Brandt

Councillor Greg Halsey-Brandt

Councillor Sue Halsey-Brandt

Councillor Bill McNulty

Councillor Harold Steves

Absent:

Councillor Ken Johnston

Call to Order:

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.

MINUTES

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the General Purposes Committee held on Monday, February 7, 2011, be adopted as circulated.

CARRIED

PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

1.

The Proposed Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) Bylaw 1136, 2010, entitled, “Metro Vancouver 2040, Shaping Our Future

(File Ref. No.:  ) (REDMS No. 3136091, 3002492)

Terry Crowe, Manager, Policy Planning, provided background information and noted that Metro Vancouver has consulted on the proposed Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) over 50 times in the region, and five times in Richmond.  He stated that the proposed RGS has been accepted by Council twice before and that this would be the seventh time the proposed RGS is before Council.

Mr. Crowe advised that since the last time the proposed RGS was before Council, Metro Vancouver has made only minor changes to it, such as spelling/re-phrasing.  He remarked that these changes do not negatively impact Richmond.

He stated that the proposed RGS protects Richmond’s interests in that its designations are consistent with the existing Liveable Region Strategic Plan (LRSP), i.e., Agricultural areas, Urban areas, now called ‘General Urban’, and City Centre boundaries all remain the same.

Also, Mr. Crowe indicated that the proposed RGS introduces an Industrial and Mixed-Employment designation within the General Urban area to better protect these land uses.

Mr. Crowe stated that the proposed RGS is consistent with the 1996 Official Community Plan (OCP) and the proposed 2041 Official Community Plan Update’s population and employment projections. He advised that all issues that had been raised regarding the proposed RGS have been addressed and that there is no conflict between the City’s Official Community Plan and the proposed RGS.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Crowe and Joe Erceg, General Manager, Planning and Development, provided the following information regarding the proposed RGS:

§         

in reviewing the proposed RGS, Council and all other Metro Vancouver member municipalities have the following options: (i) they can accept it; or (ii) they can not accept it, but must provide specifics regarding their objections;

§         

if a local government does not respond within the 60-day deadline, Metro Vancouver deems that the proposed RGS has been accepted;

§         

if a municipality objects to the proposed RGS, provincial legislation provides several arbitration methods to resolve their concerns; and

§         

the proposed RGS is consistent with Richmond’s objectives as it protects the City’s autonomy in decision making and ensures effective community planning.

In response to a query from Committee, Mr. Crowe remarked that the proposed RGS is more flexible at the local level than the current LRSP. 

He stated that the proposed RGS has been designed so that the more regionally significant an issue, the higher the degree of Metro Vancouver involvement in the decision-making, and conversely, the less regionally significant an issue, the more local autonomy.

For instance, fundamental changes to core goals/strategies would require a 50% plus one Board vote and acceptance by all affected local governments.  Region-wide significance for non-urban designation would require a 2/3 Board vote and a regional public hearing.  Region-wide significance for urban designations would required a 50% plus one Board vote and no regional public hearing.  Small scale urban designation changes would only require an OCP amendment, therefore there would be no requirement to amend the Regional Context Statement.

Discussion ensued and Committee members expressed concerns regarding the proposed RGS’s legality.  It was noted that it has been suggested that the proposed RGS is inconsistent with the Agricultural Land Commission Act.

In response, Mr. Erceg advised that this concern has been reviewed by Metro Vancouver and Metro Vancouver’s legal counsel and their conclusion was that the proposed RGS as presented is consistent with other provincial legislation.

Mr. Crowe stated that the proposed RGS is dynamic and advised that every year, Metro Vancouver is to provide a performance review to the Metro Vancouver Board.  Moreover, Metro Vancouver is to review the proposed strategy every five years.

Discussion ensued regarding the proposed RGS’s flexibility and its amendment process.  Committee expressed concerns with the amendment process and it was suggested that the Department of National Defence (DND) lands, the Garden City lands, and the Terra Nova lands each be re-designated in the proposed strategy as Agriculture prior to Richmond accepting the proposed RGS.

In response to comments from Committee, Mr. Crowe spoke to (i) small parcels in the Agricultural Land Reserve in the context of section 2.3.4; (ii) Agricultural Land Commission decisions and policies with respect to Agricultural Land Reserve exclusion, inclusion, and non-farm use applications in the context of section 2.3.8; and (iii) residential floor area and setback regulations for development within the Agricultural Land Reserve in the context of section 2.3.10 of the proposed Regional Growth Strategy.

A letter dated November 23, 2010 from the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) was circulated (copy on file, City Clerk’s Office) and it was noted that the ALC has identified 112 hectares of Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) land in Richmond that is inconsistent with the Agricultural Land Commission Act as presented in the proposed RGS.

De Whalen, 13631 Blundell Road, believed that Council should take a leadership position and have Metro Vancouver re-designate the DND lands and the Garden City lands to reflect the reality of what they are today.  She remarked that Council’s decision should not be based on ‘what ifs’ and stated that ALR land should remain as ALR land under the proposed RGS.

April Reeves, 1051 Wellington Crescent, representing MetroVanWatch, requested that Council withhold acceptance of the proposed RGS until serious issues could be addressed not only in Richmond but for the entire region.  Ms. Reeves read from her submission, attached to and forming part of these Minutes as Schedule 1. 

Speaking for herself, Ms. Reeves stated that the proposed RGS is a critical document and its content will affect future generations to come.  She remarked that certainty with regard to the proposed RGS is required to make an informed decision.

Bruno Vernier, 6691 Francis Road, spoke to the proposed strategy’s designation of the DND and Garden City lands as ‘General Urban’.  He commented on a letter from Andrew Gage, staff counsel for West Coast Environment Law (copy on file, City Clerk’s Office), which noted that the proposed RGS as currently drafted is illegal in respect of the designations of the Richmond lands. 

Mr. Vernier queried how Council’s decision, if favourable to the proposed RGS, would be construed by the ALC and the Musqueam Indian Band in respect to the DND and Garden City lands.  He concluded by requesting that Council withhold approval of the proposed RGS until the land use designation of the DND and Garden City lands has been appropriately re-designated as Agricultural.

Olga Tkatcheva, 7680 Gilbert Road, provided background information regarding the City Centre OCP in relation to its open houses and noted that the Garden City lands were labelled as ‘Under Study’.  She stated that the Garden City lands should be designated as Agricultural under the proposed RGS and not as General Urban.  Ms. Tkatcheva read from her submission attached to and forming part of these Minutes as Schedule 2.

Derril Gudlaugson, 8351 Fairfax Place, was of the opinion that Metro Vancouver has ignore Richmond’s desire for consistent zoning.  He echoed the comments of previous speakers and believed that certain designations need to be corrected prior to the proposed RGS advancing.

Carmela Clare, 6651 Lynas Lane, queried how the proposed RGS could disrespect the ALR and its designations.  She was of the opinion that the proposed RGS’s flexibility is speculative.  Ms. Clare commented on the City’s deal with the Musequeam in respect to the Garden City lands and believed that if the lands were to be developed as under the proposed RGS’s General Urban designation, the City should return the lands to the Musqueam.

Arzeena Hamir, 8480 Dayton Court, echoed previous speakers’ comments regarding the General Urban designation of the DND and Garden City lands.  She noted however that the Terra Nova lands have no ALR designation and that this lack of protection was alarming.  Ms. Hamir expressed that she wished to the see the Terra Nova lands designated as Agricultural under the proposed RGS, however, noted that she preferred any designation other than General Urban.

Shane McMillan, long time former Richmond resident, was of the opinion that the proposed RGS has mislabelled the DND and Garden City lands and that they should be saved for the future.  He stated that he echoed Ms. Hamir’s comments in regard to the Terra Nova lands.

Jim Wright, 8300 Osgoode Drive, stated that Council’s vote on the proposed RGS would be a turning point in history for Richmond.  He referenced a letter dated February 20, 2011 from the Garden City Lands Coalition (copy on file, City Clerk’s Office) and drew attention to two attached letters from the ALC and a legal opinion from Andrew Gage, staff counsel, West Coast Environment Law.  He reviewed the documents and noted that both the ALC and Mr. Gage found that the designation of the DND and Garden City lands as General Urban as per the proposed RGS is illegal.

Mr. Wright asked that Council not approve the proposed RGS as it currently stands and ask Metro Vancouver to correct the designations of the DND and Garden City lands to the satisfaction of the ALC.

Roland Hoegler, 6560 No. 4 Road, stated that he had read the proposed RGS and it appeared to him that much of its contents are recycled from previous policy statements that have never been implemented.  He was of the opinion that the proposed RGS was a resource rationing of basic services provided by Metro Vancouver.  Mr. Hoegler believed that the proposed RGS is meant to be vague and unclear so that its implication are not fully understood.

Mr. Hoegler referenced Section F of the proposed RGS and noted that any changes to Agricultural designation would require a 2/3 Board vote and regional public hearing.  He stated that he believed small parcels under two acres in size should be excluded from the ALR.  Mr. Hoegler believed that the proposed RGS would create lots of grief for Richmond and would eliminate local autonomy.

Discussion ensued regarding the proposed RGS and as a result of the discussion, the following referral motion was introduced:

It was moved and seconded

That the proposed Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw 1136, 2010, entitled “Metro Vancouver 2040, Shaping Our Future” be referred back to staff for:

(1)

comment on the situation involving the Department of National Defence (DND) lands; the Terra Nova lands; and the Garden City lands including their status and alternatives;

(2)

more information on small parcels in the Agricultural Land Reserve in the context of Section 2.3.4 of the proposed Regional Growth Strategy;

(3)

more information in the context of Section 2.3.10 of the proposed Regional Growth Strategy;

(4)

comment on the mechanisms for future amendments to the proposed Regional Growth Strategy; and

(5)

more information on the ramifications and process if the City were to not accept the proposed Regional Growth Strategy.

The question on the referral motion was not called as discussion ensued regarding the amendment process for the proposed Regional Growth Strategy. 

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

BUSINESS & FINANCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT

2.

Remaining Tall Ships Fund Use and Capital Waterfront Infrastructure Financial Status report

(File Ref. No.:  11-7400-35-01/Vol 01) (REDMS No. 3141376 v4)

Sandi Swanigan, Manager, Major Events Development, provided background information and provided budgetary clarification.

In reply to queries from Committee, Ms. Swanigan advised that (i) four ships have committed to visiting Richmond in June 2011; (ii) these ships will be paid an appearance fee for their visit; and (iii) an event of this size does not require additional staff time as much of the work can be completed within the capacity of staff positions, however additional support such as waste removal may be required.

Staff distributed a memorandum dated February 21, 2011 from the Senior Manager, Parks, summarizing the costs to date and projected estimates regarding the development of the Garry Point Park Waterfront project.

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That $175,000 from the remaining Tall Ships budget be approved for the Summer of Sails event on June 4 and 5, 2011 and any other ship visits in 2011; and

(2)

That any part of the $175,000 expense that is offset by sponsor cash contributions and/or unspent on the Summer of Sails and other ship visits in 2011 together with the remaining uncommitted funding of $82,000 to be used to support ship recruitment and festival development in future years, subject to further report.

CARRIED

Opposed: Cllr. G. Halsey-Brandt

CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT

3.

Voter Turnout in Richmond

(File Ref. No.:  12-8125-01/2010-Vol 01) (REDMS No. 3063294, 3099199, 3128824, 3137773, 3137775)

In reply to queries from Committee, David Weber, Director, City Clerk's Office, provided the following information:

§          

in Vancouver, candidate profile statements are submitted in accordance with strict rules as to length and format;

§          

internet voting, if allowed and implemented in the future, would not be the only means of voting; physical voting places would continue to be offered in conjunction with internet voting;

§          

although the factors such as median income, age, level of education help to explain voter turnout for specific elections, it does not explain the declining trend over time.

Neil Smith, Richmond resident, expressed that a 22% voter turnout was alarming.  He believed that if people were taught how to vote, the voter turnout percentage would be higher.  Mr. Smith stated that schools would be ideal places to teach students how to vote and suggested that Committee include this suggestion in a recommendation to Council.  Also, Mr. Smith was of the opinion that local governments should have the right to choose their respective voting system as different voting systems have better voter turnouts.

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That the staff report entitled “Voter Turnout in Richmond” dated February 9, 2011 from the Director, City Clerk’s Office, be received for information;

(2)

That staff explore the feasibility and options for internet voting and report back to Council regarding the potential for implementation for the 2014 civic election; and that a letter be written to the Provincial Government in support of any actions or legislative changes that would be required to authorize the use of internet voting;

(3)

That the option to submit candidate profiles be included as part of the nomination papers for publication on the City website;

(4)

That $88,000 in additional funding be considered to implement a “vote anywhere / super poll” initiative for the 2011 civic election;

(5)

That the following items be referred to the 2010 surplus allocation discussion:

(a)

That $16,000 in additional funding be considered to cover the increased costs for printing and distribution of candidate profiles as included as part of the nomination papers for publication in the printed city election guide that is distributed to every Richmond household;

(b)

That $25,000 in additional funding be considered to undertake an enhanced public awareness and education strategy regarding the civic election;

(6)

That the following item be referred to the 2012 budget discussion:

(a)

That $55,000 in additional funding be considered to gather qualitative and quantitative data to measure the success of any strategies that are implemented and to explore the motivations of Richmond voters and non-voters; and

(7)

That staff liaise with the School Board regarding the education relating to the civic election process in schools.

The question on the motion was not called as discussion ensued regarding opportunities in schools to educate students about local government election proceedings.

Also, it was noted that staff is to provide suggestions for funding alternatives including the Council Contingency fund, with regard to the ‘vote anywhere’ initiative.

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

ADJOURNMENT

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (6:24 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, February 21, 2011.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Mayor Malcolm D. Brodie

Chair

Hanieh Floujeh

Committee Clerk