CITY OF RICHMOND RE: Policy Recommendation on Proposed Plans of the Garden City Lands Attention: Councillors of Richmond City Council and the Mayor of Richmond Eagle’s Wings 3/14/2014
Apr 03, 2016
CITY OF RICHMOND
RE: Policy Recommendation on Proposed
Plans of the Garden City Lands
Attention: Councillors of Richmond City Council and the Mayor of Richmond
Eagle’s Wings
3/14/2014
2
Abstract The City of Richmond recently acquired the 136.5 acres (55.2 hectares) Garden City Lands in
the heart of Richmond. Major stakeholders have been involved since the beginning of this
purchase, advocating for proper management of this land and even developed unofficial draft
plans. Now, the planning has entered into the Conceptual Phase, where three main options have
been presented before the City Council. Stakeholder draft plans, in addition to the three official
plans were considered and analyzed. Three priorities and plans A) and B) were recommended.
Implementation issues in stakeholder engagement and biophysical features were raised.
The Issue and Context
In 2010, the City of Richmond (hereafter, „the City‟) purchased the Garden City Lands
(hereafter, „the GCL‟) from the Canada Lands Company and the Musqueam Band for $59.17
million1. The GCL are approximately 136.5 acres (55.2 hectares) located on the eastern edge of
Richmond City Centre within the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR), and designated as
„Conservation and Recreation‟ by Metro Vancouver, the regional infrastructure institutional
body of the Greater Vancouver area 2. Upon acquisition, the City had no existing plan for future
use of the lands3.
While there have been numerous discussions surrounding the plans and use of GCL, The
Richmond City Council (hereafter , „the Council‟) has delegated a team to plan and consult
citizens on the use of the land, and followed a methodological plan4.
Since the Ideas Fair on June 1, 2013, there have been numerous proposals and ideas pitched to
the City. After three conceptual options were presented to the Parks, Recreation and Cultural
Services Committee of Richmond Council on October 29, 2013, a public consultation open
house was held on November 7, 2013 and online for responses until January 17, 2014. Currently,
public comments are being consolidated and reviewed for consideration before the next stage,
where the final concept will be presented before the Council5.
The GCL is an integral and unique component of Richmond‟s ecological and cultural history
and heritage. The GCL is ecologically diverse, significant and sensitive. Originally a portion of
the larger Greater Lulu Island Bog ecosystem, GCL has been retained as a semi-natural open
space with introduced plant species beside local reeds, peat and sphagnum moss and natural
water reigime flows into tributaries feeding into the Fraser River. It contains varying clay and silt
loam soils, which has poor drainage, and adjacedent to the Richmond Nature Park, and the
biodiversity corridor beyond Alderbridge Way in the northern edge6.
Even though there are proposed plans by the City, the decision to recommend the best option
must be primarily premised on consensus and santisfaction of the citizens in Richmond, open
collaboration with major stakeholders, and the biophysical capacity of the GCL.
Major Stakeholders
1City of Richmond (2014). Garden City Lands. Retrieved from http://www.richmond.ca/parks/about/design-
construction/gardencitylands.htm?PageMode=HTML. 2 Redpath, M. (2013). RE: Garden City Lands – Phase Two Concept Plan Options. Retrieved from
http://creategardencitylands.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Phase-Two-Concept-Plan-Committee.pdf. 3 Ibid.
4 City of Richmond (2014). Public Process. Retrieved from http://www.richmond.ca/parks/about/design-
construction/gardencitylands/GCL-public-process.htm. 5 City of Richmond (2014). Garden City Lands. Retrieved from http://www.richmond.ca/parks/about/design-
construction/gardencitylands.htm?PageMode=HTML. 6 Diamond Head Consulting Ltd (2013). City of Richmond Garden City Lands Biophysical Inventory and Analysis.
Retrieved from http://creategardencitylands.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/GCL-BioPhysical-Inventory-July-
2013.pdf
3
These stakeholders have been involved in the GCL discussion in the beginning from 2010.
1) Garden City Conservation Society (hereafter GCCS). GCCS is a group of citizens from
Richmond who are striving towards keeping the GCL “green in the Agricultural Land Reserve
and [stewarding] their natural legacy for agricultural, ecological and open-land park uses for
community wellness” 7
. They organize annual gatherings, publish frequent updates on the City‟s
decisions on the GCL and local conservation issues.
2) The Richmond Sports Association (RSA). RSA is a community-based advocacy
organization represents community sports groups and facilitates communication and problem
solving amongst stakeholder groups, community user groups and the Council8. They advocated
for more sports facilities in Richmond, and believe the GCL are a suitable spot for erecting new
facilities while also respecting the ALR designation9.
3) Kwantlen Polytechnic University (KPU). KPU is a regionally based community college
with a satellite campuses across the Lower Mainland, including one in Richmond, adjacent to the
GCL.10
The main spokesperson for the GCL is Kent Mullinix, the director of the Sustainable
Agriculture and Food Security program. He has advocated the city to pursue aligning plans with
the GCCS on developing the PARC concept (explained below; Appendix 4) on the GCL.
4) Richmond Poverty Response Committee (RPRC). RPRC is a “coalition of Richmond
residents and agencies working together to reduce poverty and impacts of overty through
research, projects and public education”11
.
Policy and Plan Objectives Formal approval was set out by the Vision and Guiding Principles Report, where the City
charted out seven guiding principles for the GCL12
:
Encourage Community Parnterships and Collaboration
Respect Agricultural Land Reserve
Strive for Environmental Sustainability
Promote Community Wellness and Active Living
Maximize Connectivity and Integration
Allow for Dynamic and Flexible Spaces
Develop Science-based Resource Management Plans
These principles act as a springboard to measure and evaluate these plans with consideration
of other factors such as public input and stakeholder engagement.
Proposed Plans and Policy Options At this stage, there are currently three officially proposed plans under consideration by the
Council thus far13
. The latter two, are unofficial, are nonetheless proposed plans14
from the
GCCS and the RPRC. These plans reflect their ideal scenarios of what GCL could be, if their 7
Garden City Conservation Society (2014). About the GCCS. Retrieved from
http://www.gardencitylands.ca/contact.html. 8Richmond Sports Council (2014). Who We Are, What We Do. Retrieved from
http://www.richmondsportscouncil.com/rsc%20about.htm 9 Richmond Review (2013). Sportshopes still alive for Garden City Lands. Retrieved from http://www.richmond-
news.com/sports/sport-hopes-still-alive-for-garden-city-lands-1.679965. 10
Kwantlen Polytechnic University (2014). KPU Richmond Campus. Retrieved from http://www.kpu.ca/richmond. 11
Richmond Poverty Response Committee (2014). Front Page. Retrieved from http://www.richmondprc.org/. 12
Redpath, M. (2013). Garden City Lands – Phase One Vision and Guiding Principles. Retrieved from
http://creategardencitylands.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Open_Council_7-22-2013.pdf. 13
Redpath, M. (2013). RE: Garden City Lands – Phase Two Concept Plan Options. Retrieved from
http://creategardencitylands.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Phase-Two-Concept-Plan-Committee.pdf. 14
Garden City Conservation Society (2011). What does the future hold for the Garden City Lands?. Retrieved from
http://www.gardencitylands.ca/future.html.
4
mission and goals were incorporated. So, while the analysis is mainly designated towards the
three official proposals, the latter two should be taken into serious consideration. Given the level
of concern and involvement of these key stakeholders throughout these years and their numerous
consultations with citizens, all drafted proposals will be evaluated to integrate the City‟s and
stakeholder perspectives. Each proposed plan will be presented with their key features, and
compared by their strengths and weaknesses according to the guiding principles (Table 1). While
the plans are in principle very similar, it is important to weight out each of their priorities and
best align these with public and stakeholder interest. Furthermore, public input from the Ideas
Fair will also be taken into consideration during the final analysis (Appendix F).
A) In Nature
In Nature (Appendix A) balances the undisturbed conditions of the GCL by preserving much
of the existing landscape as a natural sancturary, woodlot and raised bog with some development.
Only the central and northwestern edges of the GCL will be disturbed, made accessible for the
public, and opened for urban agriculture.
B) On The Grid
On The Grid (Appendix B) follows the precedent of the historical city‟s grid layout but with
more disturbance through urban, parkland and agricultural land patterning. Although farmland
will be opened just like A), the extent of this will increase in the form of smaller land plots in
agriculture, demonstration and garden areas, and community activity spaces. An extensive trail
system with perimeter trails will be established to strengthen ad connect the existing Garden City
Road Greenway cycling and pedestrian network.
C) Off The Grid
Off the Grid (Appendix C) is designed to reflect the historic water flows of the GCL bogs and
slough tributaries feeding into the Fraser river. With the greatest disturbance to existing GCL,
this plan creates smaller, flexible plots of land just like B), but angled 45 degrees towards the
center with respect to the tributaries. On the western side, the sustainability and community hub
will be constructed close to the developing Landsdowne Greenway, which connects to nearby
public transit. Overall, the GCL will become less developed from east to west.
D) Parkland for Agriculture, Recreation & Conservation (PARC)
PARC (Appendix D) maintains an integrated perspective on agriculture, parkland recreation,
and biodiversity conservation, with particular emphasis on protecting restorative sphagnum bogs
in most of the eastern portions of the GCL. The areas, trails, and boundaries are drawn based on
GCCS‟s informal survey and local knowledge of the GCL and not solely based on the
Biophysical Analysis for the City. The urban agriculture component is specifically based on
KPU‟s involvement for urban agriculture research and education. There is designation for a bee
and biodiversity habitat, which is ideal according to their experts. Aside from these
particularities, there is recognition for community farms and gardens and an area for multi-
purpose use such as a farmer‟s market with parking. According to GCCS, the amount of space
and designation is ideal for a growing urban population.
E) Sustainable Food Systems Park (SFSP)
SFSP (Appendix E) is centred around addressing the growing demand for food for a growing
population in Central Richmond. By partnering with local organizations such as the food bank
and regional institutions working on food security and land systems research, this plan develops
the GCL by opening up more than 70% of the land to heritage and community farming including
features like apiaries, orchards, storages, greenhouses and a reservoir. The remaining portions of
the land is devoted towards public trails, recreational uses, and educational programs.
Table 1. Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses for Proposed Plans To Guiding Principles
5
Strengths Weaknesses
A) In Nature -preserve most of the existing
features and biodiversity
-less opportunities for community collaboraton
and flexible spaces
B) On the Grid -more flexible and dynamic use of
spaces for gardening and
education
-greater connectivity and access
by the pulic
-more disturbance on the landscape with more
space devoted to urban agriculture
-may reduce biodiversity and increase species
invasion
C) Off the Grid
-respect of existing water flow
reigime
-greatest opportunities for urban
agriculture and flexible plots
-increased connectivity and
accessibility
-large alteration of existing landscape
-greater penetration into the sphagnum bog
D) PARC
-opennes to other stakeholders for
education and research
-recognition of restorative
sphagnum and soil types
-emphasis on the land‟s adaptive
capacities
-less opoortunities for urban agriculture for
citizens
-less open and dynamic space for citizens
-no consideration for water reigime flows
-emphasis on management through research and
restoration
E) SFSP
-emphasis on developing food
security and capacity for citizens
-maintains some flexible spaces
for parkland and recreation
-greater flexibility for more
stakeholder involvement
-less to no consideration of existing features (ex.
sphagnum, soil types, biodiversity)
-most alternation to the land for agriculture and
gardens
-high risk for tributaries and downstream impacts
from erosion
Analysis and Recommendation Based on public input from the June 1 Ideas Fair, the public‟s top three „strongly supported‟
ideas were an ecological reserve, passive recreation and open parkland (Appendix F). These
ideas would open up places similar to the adjacent Richmond Nature Park, designed with
walking trails and recreational facilities, along with open community spaces and gardens.
In the analysis above, there are some identifiable traits across the board: citizens and the City
recognize the value and desire to protect portions of the GCL for its existing features and species
but vary on how much they are willing to allocate to that priority. On the other hand, the City
and citizens want to open portions of the land for agriculture to varying extents. There is strong
recognition for the connecting the GCL to nearby residents in terms of accessibility, food
security, recreation and well-being. Hence, tradeoffs must be recognized for preserving the GCL
as a reserve, opening portions for recreation and well-being, and development for urban
agriculture. Depending on objective, different stakeholders want different outcomes for the GCL
without much consideration for overlap or collaboration with the other.
SFSP‟s option, while ideal for striving towards food security, has little consideration for over-
evaluating the demand for urban agriculture in the area. This subject has not been explored or is
unknown to the City, but it can be inferred that urban agriculture is likely to be implemented
regardless of which plan is adopted. Based on all the proposed plans, most if not all have the
south-to-center and north/northeast-to-center portions open to agricultural development. This
development corresponds well with the land use recommendations from the biophysical
analysis15
. With urban agricultural development underway, it is anticipated that facilities either to
15
Diamond Head Consulting Ltd (2013). City of Richmond Garden City Lands Biophysical Inventory and Analysis.
Retrieved from http://creategardencitylands.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/GCL-BioPhysical-Inventory-July-
2013.pdf
6
the northeastern edge or most eastern edge by the Lansdowne Greenway would be ideal places
for entry, parking, and urban farmer‟s markets.
Parkland spaces and recreational facilities have been considered and well-represented with all
the City proposed plans but is less so with PARC and SFSP. In addition, public input suggests
that there is a great demand for these spaces and infrastructure. This could come in the variety of
facilities suggested by both Plan A) and B). They maintain a good balance of existing landscapes,
more flexible urban agriculture, as well as recreational spaces, trails, and accessibility. It is
recommended that Council take into further consideration of Plan A) and B).
From this analysis, three priorities are recommended to Council in the final design phase:
Preserve existing conditions of the GCL as a reserve and restorative bog but being
open to educational and research opportunities
Open viable portions of the GCL for agricultural development, work in in
coordination with RPRC and local social organizations to achieve and enhance food
security and access to a growing population
Ensure adequate parkland and recreation space be incorporated and integrated into
overall layout of the GCL in addition to making use of previously used space for
facilities and infrastructure
Policy and Plan Implementations and Challenges With these policy recommendations, there are a number of implementation issues at hand.
First, these general policy and plan recommendations are not binding, but mindful towards all the
proposals thus far. After reviewing all the online comments, the City should attempt to
incorporate the recommendations proposed here and align them with concerns from commenters
to increase the level of public participation into the GCL, since the only public input document
from the June 1st Ideas Fair was taken into consideration.
Second, the RSC has been an advocate for sports facilities in Richmond, but there are only
one or two dedicated portions of community fields in the City plans. The City should approach
RSC to solicit their feedback and approval on the currently proposed plans
Third, As GCCS suggested in their plan, there are opoortunities to work with local
stakeholders such as KPU for collaborative agricultural education and research work on site. The
challenge will come down in negotiations, in terms of the extent of their involvement and
potential contribution to the financing of GCL operations.
And fourth, with agricultural development, the City must be mindful of the soil and water
quality management on site. In the GCL management, the City should abide by three key
conservation practices: do not over drain, till, and fertililze16
. This way, erosion of fertile soils
and impacts downstream in the Fraser river and its ecological health will be minimized.
Furthermore, respecting existing water flows and ensuring riparian zones beyond the minimum
distance will act as barriers against erosion and maintain water quality. Thus, in the final design
of agricultural and water features, the City should be mindful of these design issues and begin
monitoring the status of these biophysical features during and after the creation of the GCL.
Sustained public input and dialogue with key stakeholders are fundamental to the success of
the creating the GCL. So far, key stakeholders have been informative throughout the various
stages, but their proposals have not been taken into serious consideration. This analysis connects
guiding principles with public and stakeholder inputs. By following these three priorities and the
two recommended plans to the City, it is hoped that these recommendations will serve as guides
for the City and Council towards a more informed, stakeholder-based decision-making come
time for the final design phase of the GCL.
16
Ibid.
7
References
City of Richmond (2014). Garden City Lands. Retrieved from
http://www.richmond.ca/parks/about/designconstruction/gardencitylands.htm?PageMode=
HTML
City of Richmond (2014). Public Process. Retrieved from
http://www.richmond.ca/parks/about/design-construction/gardencitylands/GCL-public-
process.htm
Diamond Head Consulting Ltd (2013). City of Richmond Garden City Lands Biophysical
Inventory and Analysis. Retrieved from http://creategardencitylands.ca/wp-
content/uploads/2013/09/GCL-BioPhysical-Inventory-July-2013.pdf
Garden City Conservation Society (2014). About the GCCS. Retrieved from
http://www.gardencitylands.ca/contact.html.
Kwantlen Polytechnic University (2014). KPU Richmond Campus. Retrieved from
http://www.kpu.ca/richmond.
Redpath, M. (2013). Garden City Lands – Phase One Vision and Guiding Principles. Retrieved
from http://creategardencitylands.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Open_Council_7-22-
2013.pdf.
Redpath, M. (2013). RE: Garden City Lands – Phase Two Concept Plan Options. Retrieved from
http://creategardencitylands.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Phase-Two-Concept-Plan-
Committee.pdf.
Richmond Poverty Response Committee (2014). Front Page. Retrieved from
http://www.richmondprc.org/.
Richmond Review (2013). Sportshopes still alive for Garden City Lands. Retrieved from
http://www.richmond-news.com/sports/sport-hopes-still-alive-for-garden-city-lands-
1.679965
Richmond Sports Council (2014). Who We Are, What We Do. Retrieved from
http://www.richmondsportscouncil.com/rsc%20about.htm
8
Appendices
Appendix A) In Nature
9
Appendix B) On the Grid
10
Appendix C) Off the Grid
11
Appendix D) Parkland for Agriculture, Recreation & Conservation (PARC)
12
Appendix E) Sustainable Food Systems Park
13
Appendix F) Garden City Lands Public Input from Ideas Fair on June 1st, 2013