Date:

Monday, March 28, 2011

Place:

Anderson Room

Richmond City Hall

Present:

Mayor Malcolm D. Brodie, Chair

Councillor Derek Dang

Councillor Evelina Halsey-Brandt

Councillor Greg Halsey-Brandt

Councillor Sue Halsey-Brandt

Councillor Ken Johnston

Councillor Bill McNulty

Councillor Harold Steves

Absent:

Councillor Linda Barnes

Call to Order:

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

MINUTES

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the General Purposes Committee held on Monday, March 21, 2011, be adopted as circulated.

CARRIED

1.

Vancouver Airport Fuel Delivery Project Proposal –Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Review

(File Ref. No.:  ) (REDMS No. 3179247)

John Irving, Director, Engineering, provided a summary of the report Vancouver Airport Fuel Delivery Project Proposal - Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Review, and advised that attachments 4, 5 and 6 of the report illustrated staff’s reflections on comments made by City Council regarding the matter.  He noted that the full report and attachments would be submitted to the BC Environmental Assessment Office. 

Mr. Irving also indicated that although the Federal and Provincial Environmental Assessment processes for the Pipeline Permit Applications were harmonized, ultimately the decision regarding the matter will be administered by Provincial agencies.  

A discussion took place amongst Committee members and Mr. Irving about the following points:

§       

the City’s opposition to the construction of any new jet fuel line in Richmond, however if the City had no other choice but to accept a new jet fuel pipeline, then Highway 99 is the City’s preferred route, as this route would not encumber any City rights-of-way and would not front any residential properties;

§       

safety concerns related to having a jet fuel line in an urban area;

§       

the safety measures that have been identified by the proponents and the City, including the potential need for an additional fire hall in close proximity to the proposed tank farm area in order to mitigate any risk;

§       

the City’s preference to see further details regarding fire protection measures as well as a fuel spill study;

§       

concerns related to the City being held partially responsible for remediation related to any contamination of soil, groundwater, or soil vapours that emanate from land as a result of the proposed pipeline;

§       

the short amount of time given for public consultation and public comments for submission.  It was noted that the deadline for public comments was April 11, 2011.  Staff were asked to request an extension for the public consultation period;

§       

the feasibility of placing a jet fuel pipeline and jet fuel storage facility in closer proximity to the airport rather than constructing a pipeline across the City; and

§       

communicating the City’s position of opposition to the proposed jet fuel pipeline to appropriate government officials, including Ministers and MLAs. 

At this point, the Chair requested if there was a representative for the proponents available to answer questions.  The representative for the proponents indicated that he was there as an observer and would not be answering questions or making a presentation.  City staff confirmed that the proponents had been invited to make a presentation at this meeting.

Discussion then continued about the following issues:

§       

having City staff elaborate their comments and provide further rationale for giving the Highway 99 route preference over the route proposed by the proponents; 

§       

concerns about the City possibly being required to obtain a fire boat to provide fire coverage on the south arm of the Fraser River.  It was noted that it should be the proponent’s responsibility to build a fire station or provide a fire boat, and provide funding to deal with any potential risks;

§       

concerns related to human safety and health risks posed by the proposed jet fuel pipeline;

§       

the risks associated with constructing a jet fuel pipeline in Richmond as it is below sea level;

§       

the size of the current jet fuel pipeline in comparison to the proposed jet fuel pipeline, the following was noted:

§    

the proponents had indicated that the proposed jet fuel pipeline would be designed using state of the art criteria, and that it would be more robust than the existing pipeline;

§    

the proposed line would have systems in place that would monitor the flow of fuel, however ground contamination resulting from small undetected leakages may be of significant concern; 

§    

jet fuel lines were not very common, however Europe had some of the newest related technology, and the proponents had traveled to Europe to investigate jet fuel lines;

§       

research that had been undertaken regarding health and safety concerns.  It was noted that (i) an analysis regarding potential risks to farming associated with the proposed jet fuel line had not been completed by the proponents; and (ii) there was data available regarding water based spills and related emergency procedures, however data related to ground spills was minimal;

§       

the potential damages that may result from the proposed pipeline to agriculture in Richmond, including possible disruptions to agricultural water flow.  It was stressed that if the City was forced to accept a new pipeline, then the pipeline should be situated along the Highway 99 route as it would present less risk to the Richmond’s agriculture;

§       

the type of protection that a municipal access agreement / table of commitments would provide for the City, and the feasibility of the BC Environmental Assessment Office holding off on issuing a permit to the proponents until the commitments outlined in such a municipal access agreement have been met;

§       

the feasibility of upgrading the existing jet fuel pipeline, with additional jet fuel delivery trucks in order to meet the airport’s fuel demands;  and

§       

the feasibility of having the proponents post a bond.

Carol Day, 11631 Seahurst Road, spoke in opposition to the proposed jet fuel pipeline.  She requested that City Council write to the BC Environmental Assessment Office seeking an extension to the April 11, 2011 deadline for submission of the public’s comments, and call for an emergency meeting with the three MLAs to request their support in opposing the proposed jet fuel pipeline and storage facility.  As well contact Federal MPs to ask for their support in opposing the proposed jet fuel pipeline and storage facility.  Ms. Day’s written submission is attached as Schedule 1 and forms part of these minutes.

A brief discussion took place between Ms. Day and members of the Committee and in answer to queries, Ms. Day stated her opinion that updating the existing pipeline was the most environmentally friendly option.  She further stated that she believed that the reason a new pipeline was being proposed by the proponents was because it would be cheaper than upgrading the existing one.  She also noted that the public consultation process should be extended at least until the end of June 2011.

The Chair then asked the representative for the proponents if he had any comments, and he indicated that he did not. 

The Chair then provided the following direction to staff to add to the City’s comments on the proposal: 

§       

provide more explanation about why Highway 99 is preferred over Shell Road although the City is still opposed to any route; 

§       

indicate that all required Fire Services would be at the expense of the proponent;

§       

provide more explanation about the potential human health risks;

§       

provide more explanation on the potential risks to the foreshore in case of a spill in the Fraser River; and

§       

include wording regarding the requirement for a Bond or other means to ensure financial performance.

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That City Council reiterate its position on the YVR Fuel Delivery Project as follows:

(a)

The City is opposed to the delivery of jet fuel involving the South Arm of the Fraser River and/or having the line going across the City;

(b)

there has been a lack of effective public consultation, and more time is needed for public input, at least until the end of June 2011;

(2)

That, the proposed City comments identified in Attachment 4 on the Environmental Assessment Certificate Application for the Vancouver Airport Fuel Delivery Project be endorsed for submission to the BC Environmental Assessment Office; and

(3)

That letters be sent to the local MLA’s, MP Candidates, Federal and Provincial Ministers of the Environment, the Prime Minister, and the Premier stating the City’s position and seeking their support.

CARRIED

2.

CITY OF RICHMOND CONTRIBUTION TO THE JAPAN EARTHQUAKE/TSUNAMI DISASTER RELIEF FUND

(File Ref. No.:  ) (REDMS No. 3183334)

It was moved and seconded

That Council authorize a contribution from Council Contingency to match all funds raised by City employees by April 1, 2011 for the Japan Earthquake/Tsunami Disaster Relief Fund.

Prior to calling the question on the motion, the Chair directed staff to communicate the above recommendation to all City staff.

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

ADJOURNMENT

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (5:00 p.m.).

CARRIED

Certified a true and correct copy of the Minutes of the Special meeting of the General Purposes Committee of the Council of the City of Richmond held on Monday, March 28, 2011.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Mayor Malcolm D. Brodie

Chair

Shanan Dhaliwal

Executive Assistant

City Clerk’s Office