June 1, 2026 - Minutes

Date:

Monday, June 1, 2026

Place:

Anderson Room
Richmond City Hall

Present:

Mayor Malcolm D. Brodie, Chair
Councillor Carol Day
Councillor Laura Gillanders
Councillor Kash Heed
Councillor Andy Hobbs
Councillor Alexa Loo
Councillor Bill McNulty
Councillor Michael Wolfe

Call to Order:

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m.

MINUTES

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the General Purposes Committee held on May 19, 2026, be adopted as circulated.

CARRIED

DELEGATIONS

1.

Joanne Stich and Greg Parnell, Vancouver Coastal Health Authority will delegate on the Richmond Hospital Re-Development.

Joanne Stich and Greg Parnell, Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, accompanied by a project design lead, provided an update on the Richmond Hospital Re-Development, as follows:

The project is advancing, through work with the City on permitting; the site preparation permit has been submitted and the structural, building envelope, and building permits are to follow, with detailed design continuing over several years. Pre-construction site preparation is anticipated to begin in the summer 2026, with installation of the site construction office and groundbreaking in the fall 2026. Early conversations have begun with the City’s public art program regarding engaging a local artist. The design is guided by a “Healing Community Naturally” theme, and the presentation addressed the project’s massing and orientation, building envelope and materiality, material expression, palette concept, landscape, and interior design.

In response to queries from Committee, the delegation advised that (i) construction is projected for completion in 2031, (ii) building height is limited to 47 metres in accordance with airport height restrictions, (iii) one level of underground parking is proposed, with service and below-grade parking being explored with City staff to meet bylaw requirements, (iv) there are 430 existing parking stalls, with 120 provided in the new building and a solution being developed for the balance, (v) staff parking has been relocated to an alternate location for the duration of construction, (vi) the hospital is expected to serve approximately 25 to 30 percent of patients from outside Richmond, particularly for surgery and maternity, (vii) $1.9 billion is identified in the Province’s 2026 fiscal plan and the project would be delivered within that funding envelope, (viii) a sewer line running through the site footprint would be relocated over the summer 2026 and a new line rebuilt at the edge of the property, in coordination with City staff, (ix) the building is set back approximately 18 metres above the podium, with a road offset retained for fire department response, (x) the campus would total eight storeys and 353 beds; and (xi) an interim site plan has been shared, with a comprehensive master plan to follow, and the temporary site construction office would be reduced in footprint and incorporate public art on the façade facing Minoru Park.

FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES DIVISION

2.

RICHMOND FOOD HUB GAP ANALYSIS AND FEASIBILITY STUDY

(File Ref. No. 08-4150-20-001) (REDMS No. 8392971)

In response to queries from Committee, staff advised that (i) a range of business support services had been identified through public consultation, including mentorship and training, product development and innovation, and connecting suppliers to new buyers, (ii) Option 1, a non-profit distribution hub, would retain greater wealth locally and reduce end costs to consumers by shortening the supply chain, while Option 2 is more directly targeted to growth in local employment by helping businesses scale to production, with both options offering overlapping benefits, (iii) a minimum level of business engagement, in the order of 40 food businesses, would be required to progress from a services stage to a facility stage, with pricing based on transaction volumes and user fees, and alternative models available should engagement targets not be met, (iv) Phase 1 would use the $1 million grant to establish a virtual hub and programming, including market insights, coordination support, and distribution services delivered virtually or at rented facilities for specific events, while Phase 2 would require private investment to develop a physical facility with loading bays and shared storage, (v) the hub would be the 13th or 14th in the Province’s food hub network and is designed as a “made in Richmond” solution, distinct from the commissary-kitchen model already served regionally and by the private sector, (vi) the harvesting of lamb did not emerge as a major consideration during consultation and is subject to regulatory limits, (vii) participation would be open to all interested businesses, including farmers and small processors seeking market insights or new buyers, and (viii) the next stage would be procurement of an operator to submit a business plan for the services stage, which would return to Council before any move to a facilities stage.

It was moved and seconded

That Option 1: Food Distribution Hub as detailed in the report titled “Richmond Food Hub Gap Analysis and Feasibility Study”, dated May 19, 2026, from the General Manager, Finance and Corporate Services, be approved.

CARRIED

ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION

3.

Advocacy for Renewed Local Government Climate Action Program Funding

(File Ref. No. 10-6125-07-01) (REDMS No. 8409329)

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That, as described in the report titled “Advocacy for Renewed Local Government Climate Action Program Funding”, dated May 5, 2026, from the General Manager, Engineering and Public Works, letters be sent to the Premier, relevant Provincial ministers, and Richmond MLAs outlining the benefits of local government climate action funding and the need for its continuation; and

(2)

That the proposed resolution on Continued Local Government Climate Action Funding, described in Attachment 1, for submission to the Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM), in the report titled “Advocacy for Renewed Local Government Climate Action Program Funding”, dated May 5, 2026, be endorsed.

The question on the motion was not called as discussion ensued with respect to the use of the funding for permanent infrastructure, such as electric vehicle charging.

In response to queries from Committee, staff advised that climate action would continue to be prioritized and that the funding is required to be expended by March 31, 2028.

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

LAW AND COMMUNITY SAFETY DIVISION

4.

Annual Funding Requirement for Equipment Replacement Reserve Fund - Fire Rescue Vehicles

(File Ref. No. 99-Fire Rescue) (REDMS No. 8364999)

It was moved and seconded

That an increase of $900,000 per year to the annual contribution to the Equipment Replacement Reserve Fund – Fire Rescue Vehicles (the “Reserve”) for a period of three year as outlined in Option 1 in the report titled “Annual Funding Requirement for Equipment Replacement Reserve Fund – Fire Rescue Vehicles” be considered in the annual budget process.

The question on the motion was not called as discussion ensued with respect to (i) the purpose of the additional contribution, (ii) the Reserve balance, past purchases, and projections, and (iii) delivery timelines for fire apparatus.

In response to queries from Committee, staff advised that (i) a longer-term, 10-year history of the Reserve could be provided in future, and (ii) a potential gap in funding had been identified, prompting the request for Council to consider the additional contribution before further apparatus is ordered, noting that apparatus costs have increased over time.

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

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

It was moved and seconded

That staff be directed to investigate purchasing Medical Response units for responding to medical calls.

The question on the referral motion was not called as the Committee were provided copies of the rationale for the referral motion (attached to and forming part of these minutes as Schedule 1).

Further discussion ensued with respect to (i) the differences between the City of Vancouver and Richmond in call volumes and the geographic dispersion of calls, (ii) the staffing implications of operating a separate medical response unit, (iii) whether the underlying need relates to provincial ambulance service levels, and (iv) the suitability of Richmond’s current deployment model.

In response to queries from Committee, staff advised that (i) medical response units have not been factored into Richmond’s staffing model, which relies on a lean complement able to deploy directly to fire calls without delay, (ii) the City of Vancouver’s program arose in response to high call volumes during the opioid crisis, concentrated in higher-density areas, and that city’s larger apparatus complement allows dedicated staffing of additional units, and (iii) deploying lighter units to medical calls in Richmond could reduce secondary and tertiary coverage.

The question on the motion was then called and it was DEFEATED with Mayor Brodie and Cllrs. Heed, Hobbs, Loo and McNulty opposed.

PARKS, RECREATION & CULTURE DIVISION

5.

Richmond Community Memorial Garden – Planning Process Update, Site Selection Criteria, and Next Steps

(File Ref. No. 06-2000-20-004) (REDMS No. 8385767)

It was moved and seconded

That the report titled “Richmond Community Memorial Garden – Planning Process Update, Site Selection Criteria, and Next Steps”, from the General Manager, Parks, Recreation and Culture, dated May 11, 2026, be received for information.

The question on the motion was not called as discussion ensued with respect to (i) potential operating models, including City-operated, subcontracted, partnership, and outsourced approaches, (ii) the range of burial and remembrance options, including a scattering garden, benches, tables, trees, and supporting facilities, as well as the provision of a wall or plaques, (iii) cultural and faith-based considerations and the scattering of remains on the Fraser River; (iv) green burial and Terramation, (v) the projected service life and the five-acre size of the site, and (vi) the scope and methods of public and stakeholder engagement.

In response to queries from Committee, staff advised that (i) public engagement indicated a preference for a mix of burial types, with the greatest interest in cremation and approximately 33 percent support for green burial, (ii) Terramation is an emerging human-composting practice that produces remains comparable in volume to cremated remains, (iii) coordination is underway with Surrey and Delta regarding the scattering of remains on the Fraser River, with the City of Surrey having approved proceeding in that direction, (iv) the site is anticipated to provide an approximately 50-year service term under a hybrid model, and (v) engagement to date captured individual responses, with subsequent engagement planned with faith groups, funeral homes, and hospice providers, noting these matters are regulated under provincial legislation.

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

It was moved and seconded

That the main motion be amended to add “and the approach be endorsed” at the end of the motion.

CARRIED

The question on the main motion as amended, which reads as follows:

That the report titled “Richmond Community Memorial Garden – Planning Process Update, Site Selection Criteria, and Next Steps”, from the General Manager, Parks, Recreation and Culture, dated May 11, 2026, be received for information and the approach be endorsed.

was then called and it was CARRIED.

COUNCILLOR ANDY HOBBS

6.

ARTERIAL ROAD POLICY

(File Ref. No.) (REDMS No.)

It was moved and seconded

That a letter be written from the Mayor to the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs and Kelly Greene, Minister of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness, requesting that Richmond be exempted from SSMUH zoning for properties along a designated Arterial Road where higher density residential uses are permitted through an Area Plan or Official Community Plan.

The question on the motion was not called as discussion ensued with respect to (i) the implications for the City’s Arterial Road Policy and future rezoning, (ii) the treatment of heritage properties, (iii) the effect on lot assemblies and development incentives, and (iv) raising related density-bonus and fairness matters at the UBCM convention.

In response to queries from Committee, staff advised that (i) if the Province agreed not to enforce SSMUH zoning on arterial roads, Council would retain the opportunity to rezone, with heritage properties subject to a further level of review; and (ii) the Arterial Road Policy has supported density along arterial roads for decades, whereas SSMUH provisions may make smaller-scale development more attractive than lot assembly.

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

ADJOURNMENT

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (5:29 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, June 1, 2026.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Mayor Malcolm D. Brodie
Chair

Rae Ratslles
Raincoast Ventures