October 21, 2015 - Minutes

Date:

Wednesday, October 21, 2015

Place:

Anderson Room
Richmond City Hall

Present:

Councillor Chak Au, Chair
Councillor Harold Steves
Councillor Derek Dang
Councillor Ken Johnston
Councillor Alexa Loo
Mayor Malcolm Brodie

Also Present:

Councillor Carol Day

Call to Order:

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

The Chair advised that “Port Metro Vancouver Habitat Enhancement Projects” and “Traffic Conditions Along River Road” would be added to the Agenda as Items No. 5A and 5B respectively.

MINUTES

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the Public Works and Transportation Committee held on September 23, 2015, be adopted as circulated.

CARRIED

NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING DATE

November 18, 2015, (tentative date) at 4:00 p.m. in the Anderson Room

DELEGATION

1.

With the aid of a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file, City Clerk’s Office), Ken Carrusca, Vice President, Environment and Marketing (Western Region), Cement Association of Canada, provided background information regarding the Cement Association of Canada and spoke to reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) through the use of resilient and long-lasting concrete infrastructure.

Mr. Carrusca highlighted that Contempra / Portland Limestone cement reduces GHG emissions by approximately 10% when compared to the use of regular cement.  Also, he commented on features of cement, noting that it is non-combustible and is impervious to moisture to name a few and spoke on concrete pavements.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Carrusca provided the following information:

§   

the cost of Contempra / Portland Limestone cement is competitive to that of regular cement

§   

the cost of concrete pavements versus asphalt pavements vary due to variations in installation, maintenance, and life-cycle; and

§   

pre-cast concrete sections have been utilized at intersections  in metropolitan areas in central Canada.

Discussion took place on the use of cement as opposed to asphalt for paving and Robert Gonzalez, General Manager, Engineering and Public Works, commented on its benefits while noting that concrete transmits vibration, which is why it is often utilized for paving freeways and not roads in urban areas.

ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION

2.

Alexandra District Energy Utility Bylaw No. 8641 Amendment Bylaw No. 9298
(File Ref. No. 12-8060-20-009298; 10-6600-10-01) (REDMS No. 4729245 v. 3)

It was moved and seconded

That the Alexandra District Energy Utility Bylaw No. 8641 Amendment Bylaw No. 9298 be introduced and given first, second and third reading.

CARRIED

3.

Oval Village District Energy Utility Bylaw No. 9134, Amendment Bylaw No. 9299
(File Ref. No. 12-8060-20-009299; 10-6600-10-02) (REDMS No. 4732576 v. 4)

It was moved and seconded

That the Oval Village District Energy Utility Bylaw No. 9134, Amendment Bylaw No. 9299 be introduced and given first, second and third readings.

CARRIED

4.

Small and Medium Enterprise Greenhouse Gas Management Program
(File Ref. No. 10-6125-07-02) (REDMS No. 4673854 v. 5)

It was moved and seconded

That the development and implementation of a Greenhouse Gas Management program for small and medium enterprises be endorsed.

The question on the motion was not called as in reply to queries from Committee, Peter Russell, Senior Manager, Sustainability and District Energy and Nicholas Heap, Sustainability Project Manager, spoke to the benefits of the Small and Medium Enterprise Greenhouse Gas Management Program, highlighting that it primarily enables the City to honour targets set out in the Community Energy and Emissions Plan.

Also, Mr. Heap recounted successes of the Program for Richmond businesses.

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

5.

Management of Waste and Recyclable Materials from Demolition Activities
(File Ref. No. 10-6370-01) (REDMS No. 3822689 v. 8)

Suzanne Bycraft, Manager, Fleet and Environmental Programs, accompanied by Gavin Woo, Senior Manager, Building Approvals, provided background information and spoke to the consultation process with Richmond’s Small Builders Group.  Also, Ms. Bycraft introduced Esther Bérubé, Senior Project Engineer, Solid Waste Services, Metro Vancouver.

Discussion took place on the proposed fee structure and the potential to provide incentives to preserve or relocate homes as opposed to demolish them.  Mr. Woo advised that the proposed fee structure does not prohibit home owners from demolishing their homes.  Also, Joe Erceg, General Manager, Planning and Development, advised that demolition fees are calculated based on a cost-recovery model; the City cannot impose demolition fees that are punitive in nature in an effort to discourage demolition activities.   

Mr. Erceg advised that should Council wish to have staff lobby the Provincial government to permit such a fee structure for demolitions, a Council resolution would be in order.  It was noted that incentives to preserve homes may address this matter.

In reply to queries from Committee, Ms. Bérubé provided the following information:

§   

the cities of Vancouver, Port Moody and North Vancouver, and the District of West Vancouver have enacted bylaws related to the management of waste and recyclable materials from demolition activities;

§   

Metro Vancouver encourages all member municipalities to adopt a bylaw to regulate waste and recyclable materials from demolition activities; and

§   

Metro Vancouver’s model bylaw is available to all municipalities; however, Metro Vancouver is cognizant of the varying realities in each municipality and therefore, the model bylaw can act as a starting point for those wishing to tailor it to suit the needs of their communities.

Ms. Bycraft commented on the proposed approach, noting that it would allow industry to mature independent of any additional requirement or regulations placed on builders by the City; once industry responds to the need, staff would report back with recommended next steps.

Discussion took place on the difference between diversion and recycling of waste and materials from demolition activities and Mr. Gonzalez noted that the pilot project demonstrated that diversion rates of up to 90% can be achieved with low to moderate time and cost impacts.

Jim Wright, 8300 Osgoode Drive, was of the opinion that the proposed recommended approach of 70% diversion was not sufficient.  Mr. Wright read from his submission (attached to and forming part of these Minutes as Schedule 1).  Also, he suggested that Council consider a fee structure that provides incentives based on the level of diversion achieved, with higher diversion rates being recognized with increased refunded fees.

The Chair remarked that a review of the management of waste from single-family home demolitions one year following its implementation would allow staff to examine the program and report back on its operation, including its fee structure. 

Also, discussion further ensued regarding the lack of incentives for homeowners to preserve their homes as opposed to demolish them.

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

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That staff prepare a Demolition Waste and Recyclable Materials Bylaw, which establishes the following requirements for management of waste from single-family home demolitions:

(a)

achieve a minimum of 70% diversion of demolition waste;

(b)

establish a $250 non-refundable fee assessed as part of the demolition permit application process;

(c)

establish a $2/square foot refundable fee, based on demolition waste recycling performance; and

(d)

require that demolition contractors/builders submit a Waste Disposal and Recycling Services Plan as part of their demolition permit application, and a Compliance Report at the conclusion of the demolition process;

(2)

That a new Building Inspector 1 position be approved and a position complement control number assigned;

(3)

That this program be considered as part of the 2016 Operating Budget process;

(4)

That staff examine incentives for house preservation, including a fee structure; and

(5)

That the management of waste from single-family home demolitions be reviewed one year after its implementation.

CARRIED

5A.

Port Metro Vancouver Habitat Enhancement ProjectS
(File Ref. No. 01-0140-20-PMVA1)

Councillor Steves distributed a map titled “Steveston Community Fishing Harbour Long Term Development Plan” (attached to and forming part of these Minutes as Schedule 2) and spoke of Port Metro Vancouver’s Steveston Island Tidal Marsh Habitat Enhancement Project.

Discussion took place on how this Project would affect Richmond’s shoreline as Port Metro Vancouver has applied for an environmental assessment certificate exemption for this Project.

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

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That the City of Richmond opposes the proposed Steveston Island Tidal Marsh Habitat Enhancement Project as presented to the BC Environmental Assessment Office for the following reasons:

(a)

the City of Richmond owns the Gilbert Beach upland area adjacent to the proposed Project;

(b)

the City of Richmond assumed that the adjacent waterlot would be accredited to the City as use of Gilbert Beach as a beach will be compromised;

(c)

the City of Richmond has a public boat launching ramp that will be blocked by the proposed Project; 

(d)

the City of Richmond has alternative proposals for Gilbert Beach and the waterlot that could include the Beach, a new marsh habitat, the boat launching ramp, a harbour, and diking improvements using Steveston Island and a potential replacement beach as shown on the “Steveston Community Fishing Harbour Long Term Development Plan;”

(2)

That Richmond City Council opposes the exemption of the South Arm Jetty Tidal Marsh and the Steveston Island Tidal Marsh Habitat Enhancement Projects from the BC Environmental Assessment Office’s environmental assessment certificate process and wishes to be consulted; and

(3)

That a letter be sent to Port Metro Vancouver, the Steveston Harbour Authority and the BC Environmental Assessment Office outlining the City’s concerns in relation to Port Metro Vancouver’s Steveston Island Tidal Marsh and South Arm Jetty Tidal Marsh Habitat Enhancement Projects.

CARRIED

5B.

Traffic Conditions Along River Road
(File Ref. No.)

Victor Wei, Director, Transportation, spoke to various improvements to the new River Road / Gilbert Road intersection in an effort to ameliorate traffic conditions and advised that a staff report on expediting the River Parkway expansion was forthcoming.

As a result, the following referral was introduced:

It was moved and seconded

That staff report back on the implementation of River Parkway.

CARRIED

6.

MANAGER’S REPORT

None.

ADJOURNMENT

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (5:05 p.m.).

CARRIED

Certified a true and correct copy of the Minutes of the meeting of the Public Works and Transportation Committee of the Council of the City of Richmond held on Wednesday, October 21, 2015.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Councillor Chak Au
Chair

Hanieh Berg
Legislative Services Coordinator