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