Date:

Tuesday, December 4, 2007

Place:

Anderson Room
Richmond City Hall

Present:

Councillor Harold Steves, Chair
Councillor Bill McNulty, Vice-Chair
Councillor Linda Barnes

Mayor Malcolm Brodie

Councillor Derek Dang
Councillor Sue Halsey-Brandt
Councillor Rob Howard

Call to Order:

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

MINUTES

1.

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on Tuesday, November 20, 2007, be adopted as circulated.

CARRIED

NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING DATE

2.

The next meeting of the Committee will be held on Tuesday, December 18, 2007, at 4:00 p.m. in the Anderson Room.

3.

APPLICATION BY INTERFACE ARCHITECTURE INC. FOR A STRATA TITLE CONVERSION AT 14380 TRIANGLE ROAD

(Report:  November 5, 2007, File No.:  SC 07-381275) (REDMS No. 2299229, 113733,)

It was moved and seconded

That the application for a strata title conversion by Interface Architecture Inc. for the property located at 14380 Triangle Road be approved on fulfilment of the following conditions:

(1)

Registration of a flood indemnity covenant on title;

(2)

Payment of all City utility charges and property taxes up to and including the year 2007; and

(3)

Submission of appropriate plans and documents for execution by the Mayor and City Clerk within 180 days of the date of this resolution.

CARRIED

4.

CONSERVATION OPTIONS FOR THE 4091 CHATHAM STREET HERITAGE BUILDING

(Report:  November 22, 2007, File No.:  06-2025-01) (REDMS No. 2305436)

Terry Crowe, Manager, Policy Planning, advised that he was available to respond if Committee had queries with regard to the options outlined in the staff report.

The Chair stated that the heritage building in question had not always faced Chatham Street, and that in the past it faced No. 1 Road. He suggested that instead of moving the heritage building off the Army Navy & Air Force (ANAF) Legion Branch No. 1 Road site, that the ANAF be approached with the idea of moving the heritage building to the south east corner of the site, so that it once again faces No. 1 Road. He further suggested that a land swap could be suggested to the ANAF.

Discussion ensued with regard to the Chair’s suggestion and its ramifications, including the possibility of the ANAF being approached to finance the renovation of the heritage building.

In response to a query, Joe Erceg, General Manager, Planning and Development Department, advised that the ANAF’s plan is to build a low-rise senior’s housing building on its site. The plans are at the rezoning application stage and Committee can expect to see the application report in February 2008. Mr. Erceg further advised that staff has worked on the ANAF’s project with the understanding that the ANAF would not be asked to finance the renovation of the heritage building on its site, but, he stated, that it is possible to approach them with that idea.

Discussion ensued on the following topics:

·         

the heritage building’s connection to Richmond’s Japanese heritage;

·         

the ramifications of moving the heritage building to the Britannia Heritage Shipyard site;

·         

the intricacies of a land swap;

Jim Tanaka and Frank Kanno, representing the Nikkei Fishermen’s Project Committee (NFPC) addressed Committee. Mr. Tanaka expressed appreciation for everything done to date by Council and City staff to determine the feasibility of preserving the heritage of the building at 4091 Chatham Street.

Mr. Tanaka stressed the importance of the heritage building, and pointed out that it is the only building in Steveston closely attached to the Japanese heritage of the village.

Mr. Tanaka stated that the NFPC desired that the heritage building remain in the village’s core. His Committee: (i) supports moving the building to the Richmond Museum site, (ii) does not support moving the building to the Britannia Heritage Shipyard site, and (iii)  would support the idea of keeping it on the ANAF site.

In response to a query from the Chair, Mr. Tenaka commented that the NFPC envisions utilizing the space the heritage building affords for a general display that would represent the rich history of Steveston’s Japanese community. 

Graham Turnbull, Chair, Richmond Heritage Commission addressed Committee and stated he felt encouraged that there seemed to be unanimity that the heritage building should be preserved. 

Mr. Turnbull stated his opinion that the building should not be moved to the Richmond Museum site, as that would mean a decrease of green space in Steveston Village. He does not support moving the building to the Britannia Heritage Shipyard site. Mr. Turnbull did state support for the idea to encourage the ANAF to retain the building on its site.

In response to a query from Mr. Turnbull, Mr. Crowe advised that staff explored the Steveston Parksite, near the Martial Arts Centre and Japanese Cultural Centre, as a possible relocation site, but that the site was rejected as a possible relocation site because it (i) lacks heritage context, and (ii) the heritage building’s architecture would be incompatible with the modern architecture already located at the Steveston Parksite.

In response to a query from Committee, staff advised that the City’s Heritage Strategy discusses individual heritage structures, but that the heritage building at 4091 Chatham Street is not discussed in the Heritage Strategy.

Peter Mitchell, 6271 Nanika Crescent, addressed Committee and made the following points: (i) he could envision the Richmond Museum and the heritage building at 4091 Chatham Street sharing the same site in the centre of Steveston Village, and that others would be aided in visualizing the site with two structures if a miniature model was created; (ii) the green space at the Steveston Museum site is not used often; (iii) he is familiar with the Britannia Heritage Shipyard site, and that despite the number of buildings on the site, none of them can accommodate a full scale heritage display; and (iv) if the ANAF was asked to retain the heritage building somewhere on its site, it could mean the loss of some seniors units in the proposed development.

Mr. Mitchell concluded by noting that it might be desirable to seek an organization that would operate the heritage building on a commercial basis, and Vancouver Coastal Health might be interested as the building once served as the Hospital/Doctor’s Office and Nurses Residence, associated with the Fisherman’s Hospital Complex that was located in Steveston in the past.

At the conclusion of the delegations the following motion was introduced:

It was moved and seconded

That the building at 4091 be saved.

The question on the motion was not called, as discussion continued.

In response to a query, Mr. Erceg advised that the ANAF has undertaken a great deal of work with regard to its rezoning application and that from what staff have seen of the ANAF’s plans to develop their site, the proposed housing development would take up almost most of their land. He added that staff would speak with the ANAF representatives to gauge how receptive and able the ANAF is to retaining and accommodate the heritage building on their site.

At the conclusion of the discussion, it was agreed that the following would be added as amendments to the referral motion:

“That:

(a)

that the option to conserve the building on the Army Navy & Air Force (ANAF) Legion Branch No. 1 Road site be favoured;

(b)

that the feasibility of the ANAF making a financial contribution to conserve the building on or off the ANAF No. 1 Road site be explored; and

(c)

if (i) the option to conserve the building on the ANAF Legion Branch No. 1 Road site, and (ii) the feasibility of the ANAF making a financial contribution to conserve the building on or off the ANAF No. 1 Road site, are not feasible, that the City further investigate alternative sites for the heritage building.”

The question on the motion, as amended to read as follows, was then called,

That:

(1)

the heritage building at 4091 Chatham Street be saved;

(2)

that the option to conserve the building on the Army Navy & Air Force (ANAF) Legion Branch No. 1 Road site be favoured;

(3)

that the feasibility of the ANAF making a financial contribution to conserve the building on or off the ANAF No. 1 Road site be explored; and

(4)

if (i) the option to conserve the building on the ANAF Legion Branch No. 1 Road site, and (ii) the feasibility of the ANAF making a financial contribution to conserve the building on or off the ANAF No. 1 Road site, are not feasible, that the City further investigate alternative sites for the heritage building.

and it was CARRIED.

Councillor Bill McNulty left the meeting at 5:01 and did not return.

5.

CITY CENTRE TRANSPORTATION PLAN VISION

(Report:  November 13, 2007, File No.:  10-6500-04) (REDMS No. 2270333)

Victor Wei, Director, Transportation, stated that based on feedback from both external and internal sources during the public consultation with regard to the City Centre Transportation Plan (CCTP) Vision, the Vision has been refined. He drew attention to the following five modifications, made to the draft version of the Vision since it was presented to Council on July 9, 2007:

·         

the alignment of new streets will improve circulation and access, and proposed new streets in the Bridgeport East industrial area that are no longer required (due to the planned land uses in the area) have been deleted from the Vision;

·         

there is long-term provision for light rail transit, as an extension of the Canada Line, with greater emphasis on water transit;

·         

there are seven pedestrian/cyclist crossing enhancements in the Vision’s network map, and these are intended to facilitate walking and cycling connections, especially with relation to elementary schools;

·         

the Vision includes the addition of a network of off-street paths and bicycle-friendly streets, as well as seven pedestrian/cyclist crossing enhancements which will encourage walking and facilitate cycling connections in the neighbourhood of elementary schools; and

·         

the Vision includes refined policies and programs in order to emphasize local transportation enhancement initiatives.

In response to a query, Mr. Wei stated that staff would be both flexible and innovative in order to encourage developers and designers to submit proposals that include integrated and attractive streetscape plans.

A brief discussion ensued with regard to the CCTP Vision as it relates to the future plans of the Board of Education of School District No. 38 (Richmond). Mr. Erceg stated that the Board of Education has advised the City that there is a need for an additional elementary school site, and that staff is working with the Board of Education to determine the location.

In response to a query regarding the stakeholder groups that were consulted as part of the CCTP Vision process, Mr. Wei advised that staff did present the CCTP Vision to the Advisory Committee on the Environment (ACE) as part of the consultation process. In addition, frequent dialogues were held with TransLink planning staff.

In response to a further query, Mr. Wei advised that Vancouver Coastal Health was not one of the stakeholders at the July 24, 2007 stakeholder meeting, but that City staff met with representatives of Vancouver Coastal Health to discuss ways in which (i) riders who have mobility issues and (ii) riders who may have low incomes can be accommodated on local public transit conveyances.

Discussion ensued with regard to TransLink’s future plans for public transportation in Richmond. Mr. Wei advised that in 2008, TransLink will undertake a redesign of its bus services for Richmond. A comment was made that TransLink could explore ways to improve commuting times for its Richmond riders.

With reference to transit modes other than buses, and in relation to the Canada Line train cars, the Chair asked if the possibility existed that the rail spur along Shell Road (used by Canadian National Railway’s (CNR) to access Fraser Port) could, in the future, be a potential public transit artery.

In response to this query, Mr. Wei advised that the City has not received any confirmation from the CNR with regard to its future abandonment of that rail spur. Mr. Wei added that when the City is notified by CNR of the timeline of the abandonment of their rail spur, staff will report to Council.

At the conclusion of the discussion the following motion was introduced:

That:

(1)

 the proposed City Centre Transportation Plan Vision (as described in the report dated November 13, 2007 from the Director, Transportation) be endorsed; and

(2)

staff explore the question of the Shell Road rail corridor in terms of Canadian National Railway’s future intentions for the line, and the City’s options.

CARRIED

6.

STEVESTON HIGHWAY-NO. 5 ROAD AREA TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN

(Report:  November 16, 2007, File No.:  10-6500-01) (REDMS No. 2302095)

It was moved and seconded

That the British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and TransLink be forwarded a copy of the above report and requested to include the future improvements for the Highway 99 corridor, including the George Massey Tunnel, Blundell Interchange, and Steveston Interchange, in their respective transportation improvement plans for the region and as part of TransLink’s 2040 Transportation Strategy.

CARRIED

The Chair commented that members of the Planning Committee had received a memorandum, dated December 4, 2007, from George Duncan, Chief Administrative Officer, and that the memorandum addressed a November 20, 2007 Planning Committee referral on the Garden City Lands.

As a result of the Chair’s comment the following motion was introduced:

It was moved and seconded

That Item 2 on the Planning Committee Agenda (closed) for December 4, 2007 be placed on the Planning Committee Agenda (open) and discussed as Item 6A.

CARRIED

6A

RESPONSE TO PLANNING COMMITTEE REFERRAL OF NOVEMBER 20, 2007 ON GARDEN CITY LANDS

(File No.: 12-8060-20-8303)

George Duncan, Chief Administrative Officer, accompanied by Celeste Curran, City Solicitor, referred to his December 4, 2007 Memorandum to the Planning Committee (on file in the City Clerk’s Office), and advised that, as a result of the referral to staff, from the November 20, 2007 Planning Committee, the City’s Law Section had obtained a quote of approximately $10,000 from the firm of Staples McDonald Stewart.

Mr. Duncan then referred to the three other points raised in the referral of November 20, 2007 and summarized responses to each one:

(i)

with regard to whether an offer to purchase the entire Garden City lands for $10 million can be made to the Canada Lands Company (CLC) the answer is yes, the City can approach the CLC and the Musqueam Indian Band but it is unlikely that the two parties would be willing to sell the land until the ALR exemption process is complete, because if the land is removed from the ALR the value would increase substantially;

(ii)

with regard to whether or not the City can abandon the application to the Agriculture Land Commission (ALC) to remove the Garden City lands from the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) under the purchase sale agreement, it was established that, if the City fails to continue through with the application, one of the potential legal implications would be that the City could be accused of being in breach of contract;

(iii)

with regard to allowing the MOU between the CLC and the Musqueam and the City to expire, then the City would have no further interest in the lands or any right to claim any interest in the lands, including the right to use the lands for community uses, without the agreement of the owner(s) of the lands.

Committee and staff discussed the findings in the memorandum.

In response to a query, staff advised that a report on the Garden City Lands will go to the Monday, December 17, 2007 General Purposes Committee meeting.

As a result of the discussion of the memorandum, the following motion was introduced:

It was moved and seconded

That the memorandum from the Chief Administrative Officer, dated December 4, 2007, (i) be confirmed, and (ii) that it responds to the terms of the referral made at the Planning Committee meeting of November 20, 2007.

Prior to the question on the motion being called, Committee directed staff to incorporate the findings in the memorandum in subsequent Garden City Lands reports.

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

7.

MANAGER’S REPORT

(1)

City Centre Area Plan (CCAP) – No report was given.

(2)

Steveston Study – No report was given.

(3)

Official Community Plan (OCP) – No report was given.

(4)

Liveable Region Strategic Plan Review (LRSP) – No report was given.

ADJOURNMENT

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (6:11 p.m.).

CARRIED

Certified a true and correct copy of the Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee of the Council of the City of Richmond held on Tuesday, December 4, 2007.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Councillor Harold Steves
Chair

Sheila Johnston
Committee Clerk