Jump to main content
2002 Agendas & Minutes

Public Works & Transporation Committee Meeting Minutes - May 23, 2002



Public Works & Transportation Committee



Thursday, May 23rd, 2002


Anderson Room
Richmond City Hall


Councillor Lyn Greenhill, Chair
Councillor Kiichi Kumagai, Vice-Chair
Councillor Linda Barnes
Councillor Evelina Halsey-Brandt
Councillor Rob Howard (4:16 p.m.)

Call to Order:

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:13 p.m.









It was moved and seconded



That the minutes of the meeting of the Public Works & Transportation Committee held on Wednesday, April 17th, 2002, be adopted as circulated.












(Report:  May 2/02, File No.:  6340-01) (REDMS No. 705750)



The Manager, Engineering Design & Construction, Robert Gonzales, briefly reviewed the report with the Committee.  In response to questions, he advised that if a site located 200 metres west of the south end of No. 5 Road were utilized, the cost to the Greater Vancouver Regional District would be approximately $127,000.  He stated however, that to locate a pier immediately at the south end of No. 5 Road would cost $281,000 because the water in that area was shallower and the pier would have to extend further out into the Fraser River to deeper water.



(Cllr. Howard entered the meeting at 4:16 p.m., during the above discussion.)



Further advice was given by Mr. Gonzales that the project was still in the discussion stage, and if financing was obtained, could be initiated for the summer of 2003.



It was moved and seconded



That the report (dated May 2nd, 2002, from the Director, Engineering), regarding the Aquabus Pilot Project No. 3 Road Pier, be received for information.







(Report:  May 6/02, File No.:  6370-04) (REDMS No. 707829)



The Manager, Emergency & Environmental Programs, Suzanne Bycraft, reviewed the report and recommendations with the Committee.  In answer to questions about how a determination was made of the amount of revenue which the companies received for recycled materials, information was provided on standards or board markers received by the City. 



Reference was made to the recycling bags provided by the City at the time of the initiation of the recycling program, and questions were raised about whether any consideration was being given to sponsoring a new supply of these bags.  Ms. Bycraft spoke briefly on the matter, during which she suggested that this area could be examined at the time of the issuance of the tender for the curbside collection contract.



It was moved and seconded



That Contract T.1531, Recycling Depot, be awarded as follows:



( 1 )

That Salish Disposal be awarded container, transportation and processing/ marketing services for Newspaper, Magazines, Telephone Books, Tin, Scrap Metal, Glass, Plastics and Yard Waste (as indicated in the report dated May 6th, 2002, from the Manager, Emergency & Environmental Programs); and;



( 2 )

That BFI Canada Inc. be awarded container, transportation and processing/ marketing services for Mixed Paper, Corrugated Cardboard and Scrap Aluminum (as indicated in the report dated May 6th, 2002, from the Manager, Emergency & Environmental Programs).







(Report:  Apr. 11/02, File No.:  6045-14) (REDMS No. 654152)



Discussion ensued among Committee members and staff on the proposal, during which in answer to questions, Mr. Gonzales provided the following information:




the 2002 Capital Program included $750,000 for Local Improvement Projects (LIP)




the proposal would be a benefit to the area because of the resulting improvements in drainage (culvert elevations would be consistent, rather than some culverts being higher or lower than adjacent culverts)




applications would be considered on a case-by-case basis; an application would not be supported if the resulting culvert would be lower than the surrounding ditches




with regard to the implementation of a Neighbourhood Local Improvement Project, it was found that there were insufficient residents who supported the infilling of the ditches.



Concern was expressed during the discussion that the owners of the 324 properties in the Broadmoor area could apply and receive approval for an LIP, which would deplete funds in the account to such an extent that any other applications which might be made in 2002 could be precluded because of the lack of available funds.  A brief discussion ensued on this issue, during which information was provided that to date, there have not been any successful applications.  Information was also provided that a large scale LIP, or any application for other than a single lot, would require a petition submitted by area residents.



It was moved and seconded



That single lot storm sewer ditch infill be endorsed in Broadmoor through the Local Improvement Program.











(Report:  May 8/02, File No.:  7400-01) (REDMS No. 696618)



Transportation Planner Joan Caravan, accompanied by the Manager, Transportation Planning, Victor Wei, briefly reviewed the recommendations with the Committee.  In reply to questions, she confirmed that the City had maps available on the location of on-street cycling and trail routes, and that the GVRD provided maps which connected the trails and cycling routes of Lower Mainland municipalities. 



It was moved and seconded



( 1 )

That the overall objectives of the Bike Month campaign planned by Better Environmentally Sound Transportation (BEST) for June 2002, (as outlined in the report dated May 8th, 2002, from the Director, Transportation), be supported.



( 2 )

That the City participate in the various regional and local activities, (as described in the report dated May 8th, 2002, from the Director, Transportation), to encourage cycling as a sustainable form of transportation and reduce the use of single occupant vehicles during the Bike Month 2002 campaign; and that staff co-ordinate the undertaking of these activities with BEST and other municipalities in the region.



( 3 )

That the City support the regional Bike Month activities by remitting to BEST $500 for registration in the annual Commuter Challenge and $250 to support Bike Month campaign costs, with the source of funds to be the 2002 Minor Capital Program (Traffic Safety Initiatives).







(Report:  May 8/02, File No.:  0154-04) (REDMS No. 710599)



Ms. Caravan briefly reviewed the report and recommendations with Committee members.



It was moved and seconded



That the use of Vulcan Way (Viking Way to No. 6 Road), No. 6 Road (Vulcan Way to Bridgeport Road) and Bridgeport Road (No. 6 Road to Viking Way) for new bus service as part of the TransLink 2002 Program Plan service changes commencing on September 2, 2002, be endorsed.



Prior to the question on the motion being called, advice was given that the roads proposed for use as part of the bus service were in good condition and could withstand the increased traffic.  Questions were raised about whether the peak hour service would accommodate the needs of Canada Post Corporate employees who worked in the area, and staff were asked to provide that information to the Committee.



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




(Report:  May 1/02, File No.:  6360-12-01) (REDMS No. 704917)



Mr. Wei briefly reviewed the report and recommendations with the Committee.  During the discussion which ensued, information was provided that the cost of constructing the asphalt walkway had been estimated at $75,000, and that a majority of the residents on Pacemore Avenue now supported the construction of a concrete sidewalk with curb and gutter on both sides of the street.



Further information was provided that the cost of the upgrade would be approximately $570,000, with area residents funding 100% of that cost; and that staff would endeavour to fast track the project to report back to Committee on the outcome of the Local Improvement Process (LIP) within two to three months.  It was noted however that if successful, construction would not take place until 2003.



Ms. June Taylor, of 3740 Pacemore Avenue, supported the construction of a concrete sidewalk to provide a safe area to walk.  She then provided a history on (i) previous requests for sidewalks on Pacemore Avenue, and (ii) the outcome of earlier sidewalk construction projects.  Ms. Taylor noted that Pacemore Avenue provided access to the Seafair area, and stated that the street should be enhanced with a concrete sidewalk and curb and gutter.



Mr. Michael Moewes, of 3880 Pacemore Avenue, advised that he had not supported the proposal to construct an asphalt sidewalk along Pacemore Avenue, and did not support the construction of a concrete sidewalk with curb and gutter.  He noted that he had submitted a letter to the City at the time of the survey on the asphalt walkway, opposing the walkway, and stated that his reasons in that letter could also be applied to the proposed sidewalk. 



Mr. Moewes suggested that the traffic problems being created had more to do with the lack of a safe drop-off area for students attending Gilmore School than the lack of a sidewalk.  He then provided information on the history of the drop-off area.  Mr. Moewes stated that construction of a concrete sidewalk would only enhance and encourage the continued drop off of children on Pacemore Avenue.  He suggested that instead, the size of the school parking lot should be increased to provide a safe location for the children to be dropped off, and that traffic calming measures should be implemented on Pacemore Avenue.



Ms. Nancy Reese-Thomas advised that the comments of the previous speaker did not reflect the views of the majority of the residents, who supported the construction of a concrete sidewalk.  She then provided information on the many area residents who used Pacemore Avenue to reach a nearby bus stop, the dyke, schools, and local shops.  Ms. Reese-Thomas noted that many of the residents were long time residents of the area.  She suggested that the taxes which these residents had been paying over the years could be used to finance the project, rather than requiring the residents of Pacemore Avenue, who represented only a small number of the people who travelled along Pacemore Avenue every day, to pay for the construction through a LIP. 



The Chair, in response to a statement made by Ms. Reese-Thomas about the construction of sidewalks in subdivisions, advised that developers and not the City constructed sidewalks as part of development agreements.



Ms. Susan Wallis, of 3700 Pacemore Avenue, stated that a better option than the construction of an asphalt walkway would be the installation of traffic circles, similar to those constructed on Seafair Drive, which she felt would help to reduce the current traffic problems in the area. 



Ms. Janet Chandler, of 3860 Pacemore Avenue, referred to property on Elsmore Road which had been purchased by the School District a number of years ago to improve access to the front of Gilmore School, and stated that steps should be taken to improve the access to the school.  Ms. Chandler advised that she did not support the construction of an asphalt walkway as (i) because of its width, the walkway would soon become a bike path, and (ii) could require constant maintenance because of tree roots eventually pushing through to the surface.  She also voiced her objections about paying a share of the cost of installing a concrete sidewalk.



A brief discussion then ensued among Committee members and the delegation on how motorists accessed the school, during which Ms. Chandler advised that motorists speeding on Pacemore Avenue was a major concern and the installation of a traffic circle could be a good solution.  In concluding the discussion, the Chair advised that it was her understanding that the School District had sold its property.



During the brief discussion which ensued among Committee members and staff, staff were requested to provide during the Local Improvement Process, a number of options to area residents as a way of addressing their concerns, including traffic calming measures.



It was moved and seconded



( 1 )

That the proposed installation of a pedestrian walkway on Pacemore Avenue between Number 1 Road and Elsmore Road be deferred to allow residents the opportunity to pursue a Local Improvement Program process to install concrete sidewalks with curb and gutter.



( 2 )

That staff report on the outcome of the Local Improvement Program process and on whether or not the proposed pedestrian walkway should proceed as planned.



Prior to the question on the motion being called, staff were requested to ensure that the matter would be dealt with quickly to ensure that the matter did not extend over a long period of time.



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




(Report:  May 7/02, File No.:  6500-01) (REDMS No. 710904)



Mr. Wei reviewed the report with the Committee.  Discussion ensued among Committee members and staff, on:




how the proposed diamond interchange at Highway 99 and Blundell Road would function, it being noted that the design would require significantly less land for access ramps than the traditional cloverleaf design




the extension of Blundell Road eastward to Nelson Road, and the increase in development in the area which would benefit from the construction of Blundell Road between Highway 99 and Nelson Road.



With regard to the discussion on the possible widening of Nelson Road, the suggestion was made that business entrepreneurs in the area should be approached for support as part of a public/private partnership.  The request was made during the discussion that staff provide an information report to the Committee on the timing of improvements to Nelson Road to the perimeter of the Fraser Port property, which would result in the widening of the road to four lanes.



It was moved and seconded



( 1 )

That the recommended improvements to Highway 99 at Steveston Highway and Blundell Road be endorsed in principle (as described in the report dated May 7th, 2002, from the Director, Transportation); and that staff continue to work with the Ministry of Transportation and TransLink to advance these improvements towards the implementation phase by jointly addressing the outstanding design issues and financial arrangements.



( 2 )

That staff pursue the potential funding strategies for the new interchange at Blundell Road and the widening of the Steveston Highway overpass on Highway 99 by:




( a )

Submitting Blundell Road to TransLink as an addition to the Major Road Network;




( b )

Submitting the improvements of Blundell Interchange and Steveston Interchange as regional priorities in the upcoming review of TransLinks Strategic Transportation Plan;




( c )

Submitting the above improvements to TransLink as candidate projects to be considered under the Major Capital Improvement Program;




( d )

Carrying out discussions with the adjacent land owners/developers benefiting from the proposed improvements for potential public-private partnerships; and




( e )

Conveying the need for the recommended improvements to TransLink, the Ministry of Transportation, local MLAs, local MP and the Minister responsible for Transportation with a view to securing capital funding from these senior governments.



( 3 )

That staff report on the final interchange configurations, funding arrangements and timing for implementing the above recommended road improvements.












Curb Extensions on Moncton Street Reference was made to a referral from the May 21st, 2002 Public Hearing on the proposed rezoning of property for the Steveston Academy.  Mr. Wei then reviewed a memorandum circulated to all members of Council on this matter.   




Discussion ensued among Committee members and staff, during which opinions were expressed in support for and against the proposed curb extension.  Additional information was provided by staff which indicated that although the developer wished to construct a one long curb extension across the front of the school, staff were opposed to this idea as this concept would eliminate parking spaces which would be available to the public on weekends.  




In concluding the discussion Cllr. Kumagai noted that the cost of removal of the curb extensions would be minimal, and he advised that he would withhold any further concerns until the extensions had been put into place.




The Director, Engineering, Steve Ono reported that Richmond had been awarded over $700,000 in funds as part of the Canada-British Columbia Infrastructure Program, to undertake the replacement of failing watermains and the installation of fire hydrants in the More and Monds Subdivisions.




Councillor Barnes referred to the existing CN rail right-of-way located at Watermania, and a brief discussion ensued.  As a result, the following referral motion was introduced:



It was moved and seconded



That staff report to Committee on the plans of Canadian National Railway with regard to the railroad right-of-way in the area of Watermania.







The General Manager, Engineering & Public Works, Jeff Day, advised that the first of the service reviews for his division would commence at the next Committee meeting on June 5th, 2002, with a review of the Water, Sewer and Drainage Departments.  He suggested that in order to have a clear understanding of the functions and services provided, that Committee members contact Mr. Dave Semple to take a tour of the facilities prior to the June 5th meeting. 




The Acting Director of Public Works, Dave Semple, addressed the Committee on the current problem of turbidity in the City's water supply in an area of the community, and provided an explanation on the issuance of a boil water advisory by the Medical Health Officer.  He reported that staff were working with the GVRD and Delta to find the source of the problem.









It was moved and seconded



That the meeting adjourn (5:36 p.m.).








Certified a true and correct copy of the Minutes of the meeting of the Public Works & Transportation Committee of the Council of the City of Richmond held on Thursday, May 23rd, 2002.



Councillor Lyn Greenhill

Fran J. Ashton
Executive Assistant




1/1/1900 12:00:00 AM