February 16, 2015 - Minutes
 |
General Purposes Committee
|
Date: |
Monday, February 16, 2015 |
|
Place: |
Anderson Room |
|
Present: |
Mayor Malcolm D. Brodie, Chair |
|
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 special meeting of the General Purposes Committee held on Tuesday, February 10, 2015, be adopted as circulated. |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
|
|
COUNCILLOR ALEXA LOO |
|
|
1. |
Sports Wall of Honour Nomination Committee Requests |
|
|
|
|
The Chair referenced the Sports Wall of Honour’s Terms of Reference (copy on file, City Clerk’s Office), noting that a copy was distributed to all members of Council. |
|
|
|
|
Councillor Loo spoke of the Sports Wall of Honour Nominating Committee’s requests, noting that the Committee is of the opinion that a Sports of Wall of Fame is a more fitting title for its nominees, and a Selection Committee better reflects the tasks of selecting individuals and teams for Council’s approval. |
|
|
|
|
Discussion ensued and the following Committee comments were noted: |
|
|
|
|
§ |
the word fame connotes that an individual (or team) is a celebrity; |
|
|
|
§ |
the intent of the Sports Wall of Honour is to showcase Richmond’s sporting history by recognizing residents or those with a strong community connection; and |
|
|
|
§ |
sports walls of fame worldwide do not necessarily only recognize famous athletes. |
|
|
|
Discussion took place regarding the suitability of renaming the Sports Wall of Honour Nominating Committee to the Sports Wall of Honour Selection Committee. It was noted that the Committee screens individuals and then makes recommendation to Council for their ultimate approval; if the Sports Wall of Honour Nominating Committee were renamed the Sports Wall of Honour Selection Committee it implies that the Committee selects the inductees. |
|
|
|
|
In reply to a query from Committee, Serena Lusk, Senior Manager, Recreation and Sport, advised that staff do not anticipate a financial impact should the Sports Wall of Honour be renamed. |
|
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
That the “Sports Wall of Honour” be renamed the “Sports Wall of Fame;” and |
|
|
|
(2) |
That the “Sports Wall of Honour Nomination Committee” be renamed the “Sports Wall of Fame Selection Committee.” |
|
|
|
The question on the motion was not called as there was agreement to separate the motion for voting purposes. |
|
|
|
|
The question on Part (1) was then called and it was CARRIED with Mayor Brodie, Cllrs. Au, Johnston, and McPhail opposed. |
|
|
|
|
The question on Part (2) was then called and it was DEFEATED with Mayor Brodie, Cllrs. Au, Day, Dang, Johnston, McPhail, and Steves opposed. |
|
|
|
|
COMMUNITY SERVICES DIVISION |
|
|
2. |
Funding for Major Events and Festivals 2015 |
|
|
|
|
In reply to queries from Committee, Jane Fernyhough, Director, Arts, Culture and Heritage Services, accompanied by Bryan Tasaka, Manager, Major Events and Film, provided the following information: |
|
|
|
|
§ |
the Richmond Days of Summer is an umbrella marketing program designed to promote the broad range of community events occurring throughout the summer months; |
|
|
|
§ |
the Summer PlayDays, which took place in August 2014, was to activate the Oval Waterfront plazas; |
|
|
|
§ |
the Richmond World Block Party differs from the Summer PlayDays in that it will be the City’s first major multicultural festival; and |
|
|
|
§ |
staff can review the proposed event dates to ensure that they do not coincide. |
|
|
|
In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Tasaka advised that the proposed Richmond World Block Party is in essence a large festival, similar to that of Vancouver’s Khatsahlano Street Party. |
|
|
|
|
Discussion took place and Committee raised concern with regard to funding for local block parties and the location and benefit to the community of the proposed Richmond World Block Party. |
|
|
|
|
In reply to a query from the Chair, Mr. Tasaka advised that staff can report back to Committee on the concept and scope of the proposed Richmond World Block Party. |
|
|
|
|
It was noted that the concept and scope of the proposed Richmond World Block Party be presented to Council prior to the consideration of the staff report titled Funding for Major Events and Festivals 2015. |
|
|
|
|
In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Tasaka advised that additional festival infrastructure and City branded assets are required as the City builds its inventory of such resources. |
|
|
|
|
In reply to comments regarding the Children’s Arts Festival, Ms. Fernyhough advised that the event was well attended; in an effort to ensure that the line ups for various activities are manageable for small children, staff are proposing that the event be expanded. It was noted that an event of this scale is beyond the scope of a community association. Also, Ms. Fernyhough commented on the City’s partnership with Tourism Richmond on such events. |
|
|
|
|
Discussion took place and Committee raised concern regarding the proposed Richmond World Block Party, noting that this proposal should have been presented to the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Committee. Also, Committee queried the allocation of funds to the proposed events, and the anticipated sponsorship and grant funding projected for said events. |
|
|
|
|
Ms. Tasaka spoke of the proposed Richmond World Block Party, highlighting that is will be a new free community festival located in the City Centre; the Block Party is anticipated to include a main stage, which in turn creates excellent opportunities for corporate sponsorship. |
|
|
|
|
Discussion further took place among Committee members and concerns regarding the proposed Richmond World Block Party were echoed. |
|
|
|
|
As a result of the discussion, the following referral was introduced: |
|
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
|
That the staff report titled Funding for Major Events and Festivals 2015, dated January 21, 2015 from the Director, Arts, Culture and Heritage Services be referred back to staff for (i) more information on sponsorship, (ii) more information on the Richmond World Block Party and on its plan, and (iii) the allocation of resources. |
|
|
|
|
The question on the referral was not called as discussion took place and Committee commented on the need to examine lasting community benefits such as infrastructure upgrades as a result of the proposed Richmond World Block Party. Also, it was suggested that a main stage be examined for the Ships to Shore event. |
|
|
|
|
Committee noted that it would be suitable for staff to report back to the General Purposes Committee on the aforementioned referral. |
|
|
|
|
Discussion took place and it was noted that the proposed Richmond World Block Party’s concept needs to be refined to highlight its uniqueness. |
|
|
|
|
The question on the referral was then called and it was CARRIED. |
|
|
|
|
ENGINEERING & PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION |
|
|
3. |
Minoru Complex Energy Saving and Sustainable Initiatives Update |
|
|
|
|
In reply to queries from Committee, Martin Younis, Senior Project Manager, and Levi Higgs, Corporate Energy Manager provided the following information: |
|
|
|
|
§ |
the proposed design and mechanical system for the new Minoru Complex is anticipated to reduce associated greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by 70%; |
|
|
|
§ |
the pursuit of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED®) Gold rating would be the equivalent to 24% better than current building code requirements for energy performance; |
|
|
|
§ |
approximately one to two per cent of construction costs can be attributed to LEED® Gold certification; |
|
|
|
§ |
panels that convert solar energy to electrical energy will displace some of the purchased electrical energy of the new Minoru Complex; and |
|
|
|
§ |
the new Minoru Complex reduces the City’s corporate carbon footprint and minimizes conventional energy costs increases, while increasing recreational capacity. |
|
|
|
In reply to a query from the Chair, Mr. Younis advised that the implementation of energy efficient systems can be without the pursuit of LEED® Gold certification is at Council’s discretion. |
|
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
|
That the staff report titled Minoru Complex Energy Saving and Sustainable Initiatives Update, dated January 28, 2015, from the Senior Manager, Project Development, be received for information. |
|
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
|
|
4. |
Trans Mountain Pipeline Project National Energy Board – Update |
|
|
|
Amarjeet Rattan, Director, Intergovernmental Relations and Protocol Unit, provided background information and noted that the City’s next major milestone opportunity in the National Energy Board review process is to submit written evidence to the Panel. Mr. Rattan stated that, should Council choose to proceed in participating in submitting written evidence to the Panel, costs related to research, the retention of technical experts and travel will be significant. |
|
|
|
In reply to queries from Committee, Lesley Douglas, Manager, Environmental Sustainability, advised that written evidence submissions are due on May 26, 2015. |
|
|
|
Discussion ensued regarding Council’s objective for seeking Intervenor status, and it was noted that the importance of being at the meetings was to protect Richmond’s interests. Also, discussion took place on the potential to coordinate the submission of written evidence with other local governments with Intervenor status. |
|
|
|
John Irving, Director, Engineering, remarked that although the project footprint is outside of Richmond, Council has identified concerns in regards to the projects and potential risks to the city’s foreshore areas. He stated that, should an alternate footprint with higher potential for impact on the City be considered in the future, the City’s further involvement in the process would be advisable. |
|
|
|
Discussion took place and it was noted that, with over 400 bodies granted Intervenor status, it is unlikely that the City’s efforts in potential partnership with other local governments with Intervenor status would provide new information to the Panel. |
|
|
|
The Chair directed staff to liaise with other bodies involved in the process and provide Council recommendations on further action to be or not to be taken. |
|
|
|
Also, it was noted that other bodies involved in the process do not necessarily share the City’s concerns. |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That the staff report titled Trans Mountain Pipeline National Energy Board (NEB) Update, dated February 2, 2015, from the Director, Engineering, and Director, Intergovernmental Relations & Protocol Unit, be received for information. |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
|
|
FINANCE & CORPORATE SERVICES DIVISION |
|
|
5. |
Business Licence Bylaw No. 7360, Amendment Bylaw NO. 9212 |
|
|
|
In reply to queries from the Chair, Glenn McLaughlin, Chief Licence Inspector and Risk Manager, spoke of the process surrounding applications submitted to the Passenger Transportation Board (PTB) for additional taxis. Mr. McLaughlin stated that typically the City does not provide comments to the PTB with regard to applications in an effort to remain unbiased. Also, he stated that should the proposed bylaw amendment not be approved, the applicant would not be able to obtain business licences for the additional vehicles. |
|
|
|
In reply to a query from Committee, Victor Wei, Director, Transportation, advised that Council would be updated on the results of a meeting with taxi companies with regard to outstanding tickets. |
|
|
|
The Chair requested that all future applications to the PTB be forwarded to Council for its comments when received by the City. |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That Business Licence Bylaw No. 7360, Amendment Bylaw No. 9212, that increases the maximum number of Class A Taxicabs to 107 and Class N Taxicabs to 41, be introduced and given first, second and third readings. |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
|
6. |
Liquor Licence Amendment Application Pioneer’s Pub Ltd. – 10111 No. 3 Road Unit 200 |
||
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
||
|
|
|
That the application from Pioneer’s Pub Ltd., for an amendment under Liquor Primary Licence No. 030591, to increase the hours of liquor service from Sunday through Thursday, 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m., and Friday and Saturday, 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m., to Monday through Sunday, 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m., be supported only for earlier service at 9:00 a.m., Monday through Sunday, and that a letter be sent to the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch advising that: |
||
|
|
|
(1) |
Council supports an earlier service time but does not support later service hours; |
|
|
|
|
(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 were considered; and |
|
|
|
|
(b) |
the impact on the community was assessed through a community consultation process; |
|
|
|
(3) |
as the operation of a licenced establishment may affect nearby residents the City gathered the view of the residents as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
property owners and businesses within a 50 metre radius of the subject property were contacted by letter detailing the application, providing instructions on how community comments or concerns could be submitted; and |
|
|
|
|
(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; and |
|
|
|
(4) |
Council’s comments and recommendations respecting the views of the residents are as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
that based on the letters sent and having received only one response from all public notifications, Council considers that the amendment is acceptable to the majority of the residents in the area and the community. |
|
|
|
The question on the motion was not called as discussion ensued and Committee commented on (i) the potential for extended hours to encourage residents to stay in Richmond as opposed to attending a pub in another municipality, (ii) the applicant’s intent for extended hours, noting that the opportunity to remain open later could be utilized for special events, and (iii) the potential for a one-year probationary period for the proposed extended hours. |
||
|
|
|
In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. McLaughlin commented on residences in proximity to the Pioneer’s Pub Ltd., and spoke of Council’s decisions on neighbourhood pub operating hours as it relates to Policy 9305: Liquor Primary Licence and Food Primary Liquor Licence – Hours of Operation. |
||
|
|
|
Discussion took place and a comment was made regarding the suitability of reviewing Policy 9305. |
||
|
|
|
The question on the motion was then called and it was CARRIED with Cllr. Day opposed. |
||
|
|
|
ADJOURNMENT |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That the meeting adjourn (5:37 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 16, 2015. |
|
_________________________________ |
_________________________________ |
|
Mayor Malcolm D. Brodie |
Hanieh Berg |