1. Business Licence Refusal Reconsideration

(File Ref. No. 12-8275-06, 12-8275-20-2014677570) (REDMS No. 4453794 v. 2)

Glenn McLaughlin, Chief Licence Inspector and Risk Manager, stated that the City received an application by Eric Lam for the business operation of an airsoft facility at 6711 Elmbridge Way. As with all business licence applications, he stated that staff reviewed the application for compliance with Richmond Zoning Bylaw No. 8500; it was determined that the activities proposed by the applicant are interpreted to meet the definition of an “indoor shooting range” as staff interpret an airsoft gun to meet the definition of a firearm within that definition.

Mr. McLaughlin read the definition of a firearm as defined in the definition of an “indoor shooting range” in Richmond Zoning Bylaw No. 8500:

Firearm for the purpose of this definition includes any gun using propellant, compressed air, explosives or gas.

Also, he advised that the definition does not exclude other manners to propel a projectile.

Mr. McLaughlin stated that a business licence could not be issued as the proposed business premise is not zoned to permit an indoor shooting range, and it has been determined that the activities proposed by the applicant are interpreted to meet the definition of an indoor shooting range and that an airsoft gun meets the definition of a firearm.

As per the provision of the Community Charter, Mr. McLaughlin advised that the refusal of a business licence may be appealed before City Council and that Council may (i) uphold the refusal, (ii) rezone the subject site, or (iii) refer the matter to staff to review the applicable bylaws and bring forward bylaw amendments accordingly.

In reply to a query from the Chair, Mr. McLaughlin stated that should the proposed subject site be rezoned to include said activity in the definition of Recreation, indoor, then a subsequent report would be brought forward for Council’s consideration to permit the operation of an indoor shooting range in accordance with Firearm Discharge Regulation Bylaw No. 4183.

In reply to queries from Council, Mr. McLaughlin provided the following information:

§ within its jurisdiction, the City may define a firearm under its bylaws and this definition may vary from that of the Federal Government’s;

§ the City regulates indoor shooting ranges and paintball facilities; there are currently no licensed facilities in the City that utilize airsoft guns;

§ staff interpret an airsoft gun to meet the definition of a firearm as per Richmond Zoning Bylaw No. 8500;

§ the City does not have the ability to determine the type of device used within an indoor shooting range or paintball facility;

§ the transportation of firearms is federally regulated;

§ airsoft guns may be replica firearms; and

§ staff are not aware of any airsoft arenas in other Lower Mainland municipalities.

Discussion ensued regarding replica firearms and its effects on the City and it was noted that it would be worthwhile to hear from the Richmond RCMP with regard to their position on airsoft guns. Also, concerns were raised with regard to injuries and the proximity of the proposed facility to heavily trafficked public buildings.

In reply to further queries from Council, Mr. McLaughlin advised that (i) for the purposes of compliance with Richmond Zoning Bylaw No. 8500, it has been determined that the activities proposed by the applicant are interpreted to meet the definition of an indoor shooting range and that an airsoft gun meets the definition of a firearm, and (ii) paintball is a defined activity in Richmond Zoning Bylaw No. 8500 under Recreation, indoor. Furthermore, Mr. McLaughlin stated that an airsoft gun is not permitted in a paintball facility as it is interpreted as a firearm; therefore, regulatory enforcement action will be pursued toward any paintball facility permitting the use of airsoft guns as the business operator would be in contravention of Business Licence Bylaw No. 7360 for carrying on a business without a licence.

Also, Mr. McLaughlin commented that the Community Charter provides Council with the authority to regulate the discharge of firearms, and remarked that the discharge of an airsoft gun is permitted at the indoor shooting range on Mitchell Island. Moreover, Mr. McLaughlin stated that a regulatory regime for the use of airsoft guns could be drafted should Council permit said activity.

Councillor Steves commented on the former Council’s rationale for defining firearm as it currently is in Richmond Zoning Bylaw No. 8500, noting that it was an express decision by Council to discourage gun culture.

In reply to queries from Council, Mr. McLaughlin provided the following information:

§ the staff report did not assess if the Federal or Provincial Governments have determined whether airsoft guns are classified as firearms;

§ in late 2014, staff received another business licence application for the business operation of an airsoft facility, which was also refused;

§ the cost to draft a bylaw amendment is minimal; however, an extensive analysis of the federal definition of firearms would be conducted to determine the classification of an airsoft gun;

§ the sale and possession of firearms is not in the purview of local government; however, staff understand that the sale of an airsoft gun is restricted to those 18 years of age or older;

§ in order for the proposed business to operate an airsoft facility at 6711 Elmbridge Way, the subject site would have to be rezoned to allow an indoor shooting range, and Council would have to approve a permit in accordance with Firearm Discharge Regulation Bylaw No. 4183; and

§ paintball facilities are permitted as paintball is a defined activity under Recreation, indoor in Richmond Zoning Bylaw No. 8500.

Eric Lam, applicant for Sigma AEG Arena, queried Mr. McLaughlin with regard to the City’s practice to add an activity that is currently not defined in Richmond Zoning Bylaw No. 8500.

In reply to Mr. Lam’s queries, Mr. McLaughlin advised the following:

§ if a proposed business’ business activity does not meet a permitted use definition in the Richmond Zoning Bylaw No. 8500, staff would typically review the Bylaw to determine where said activity would be most appropriate;

§ there are no licensed airsoft facilities in Richmond; and

§ as per Richmond Zoning Bylaw No. 8500, an airsoft gun is defined as a firearm.

Mr. Lam posed hypothetical questions related to airsoft guns not being defined as a firearm and the origin of the definition of a firearm, and the Chair remarked that an airsoft gun is clearly a firearm as defined by Richmond Zoning Bylaw No. 8500, and that the Bylaw, in its entirety, was approved by Council.

Mr. Lam then stated that he researched the origin of the definition of a firearm and believed that the City’s definition is derived from that of the Provincial Government’s Neighbourhood Act. He commented on rulings of the BC Supreme Court, stating that in these cases airsoft guns were not deemed as firearms.

With the aid of a PowerPoint presentation (attached to and forming part of these Minutes as Schedule 1), Mr. Lam was of the opinion that airsoft, as represented by paintball, has the lowest number of injuries per 1,000 participants. He noted that in airsoft, participants wear face protection and the activity is not very strenuous as little running is involved; therefore, he believes that airsoft is one of the safest recreational activities.

With regard to concerns expressed regarding injuries, Mr. Lam referenced a graph from the Centre of Airsoft Participants and Research, noting that a sample of approximately 4,000 players indicates that eye injuries merely make up three per cent of all injuries related to airsoft; conversely, participants are more likely to suffer from cuts and sprained ankles.

Mr. Lam stated that airsoft is not a new activity in BC, noting that several other municipalities have businesses where airsoft is available: Maple Ridge, Vancouver, and Surrey. Mr. Lam remarked that approximately 80% of Surrey’s paintball business is airsoft, noting that there are approximately 150 airsoft participants. Also, he stated that while he was at a Surrey arena, he queried participants in the queue and believed that four of ten participants originated from Richmond.

Mr. Lam remarked that he would like to open an airsoft arena as one currently does not exist in the Lower Mainland that is strictly dedicated to airsoft. He stated that his facility would enhance the community and increase gun awareness as he believes that his facility would provide airsoft participants with a professionally built space where they can utilize airsoft guns, which are available at Richmond retailers, as opposed to them being fired in backyards or garages. Mr. Lam advised that there are over 2,000 airsoft participants in Richmond, and they currently do not have a venue to carry out their activities. Furthermore, Mr. Lam stated that a business in Richmond has been offering airsoft every Thursday for the past two years, and thus, this fact supported his belief that airsoft is a safe activity, and that there is a community need for an airsoft facility.

With regard to gun culture, Mr. Lam played a promotional video from Richmond Indoor Paintball depicting the use of airsoft guns. Referencing the guns used in the promotional video, Mr. Lam commented on the realistic appearance of airsoft guns, noting that these guns have been used over the past five years with no detriment to the community. Moreover, Mr. Lam was of the opinion that if those participating in airsoft did not have a facility to engage in the activity, they would likely be at home playing mature video games that display a strong gun culture. Also, he commented that such video games did not exist when the City’s gun-related bylaws were brought into force. Mr. Lam stated that he believes that his facility will draw people out of their homes to engage in an activity where they run around, noting that an hour of participation in airsoft can burn approximately 500 calories. Furthermore, he stated that he believed airsoft brings people together, and indicated that several airsoft participants were in the audience.

Mr. Lam then played a video that compared a pellet gun, an airsoft gun, and a paintball gun with respect to their ammunition, the energy they release, and the potential injury they may cause to an eye.

Mr. Lam remarked that the City’s Firearm Discharge Regulation Bylaw No. 4183 was originally adopted in 1983 – a time when airsoft guns did not exist. Also, he noted that airsoft guns are federally classified as uncontrolled firearms; Mr. Lam referenced a memorandum to Council regarding replica firearms in relation to airsoft guns as described in the staff report and stated that in order for a gun to be considered a replica firearm, it cannot be classified as a firearm as defined by the Firearms Act.

In reply to queries from Council, Mr. Lam stated that airsoft is a recreational sport that can be played in various formats, such as Team Deathmatch, where opposing teams try to eliminate one another. Also, Mr. Lam commented on an airsoft match in Los Angeles, California, where approximately 1,200 participants engaged in an airsoft match.

Councillor Au queried the determination of airsoft as a sport as he remarked that sports have a set of rules and guidelines that must be followed, and he was of the opinion that it appears that airsoft can be played in any which fashion.

Mr. Lam stated that the only difference between a paintball match and an airsoft match are the guns used, noting that participants engage in the same type of scenarios.

In reply to a query by Councillor McNulty, Mr. Lam stated that he believes that his facility will allow people to utilize airsoft guns safely.

Councillor McNulty raised concern with Mr. Lam’s proposed facility as he was of the opinion that it would provide a forum where people shoot guns at one another in various ways, including “gangster style.” Also, Councillor

McNulty queried the safety of airsoft in reference to hostage taking and bondage as was demonstrated in the promotional video from Richmond Indoor Paintball played by Mr. Lam and speculated how this could be considered a sport. Mr. Lam clarified that the promotional video shown was not for his proposed facility but that of another business in Richmond.

Furthermore, Councillor McNulty queried the acceptability of even one eye injury as a result of participating in airsoft. Mr. Lam stated that people are free to choose whether or not they wish to participate in airsoft and that his proposed facility would have strict standards with 20 different rules. In response to a query from Councillor McNulty, Mr. Lam advised that he did not include a copy of the aforementioned rules in his submission to Council.

In reply to queries from Councillor Day, Mr. Lam spoke on how he anticipates addressing concerns related to ensuring the safety of participants, stating that prior to participating in an airsoft match, all participants would watch a mandatory video and be given a presentation by a staff member; also, he noted that any airsoft gun that is not provided by the facility would first be tested and marked by staff to ensure that the gun does not shoot over 240 feet per second.

Mr. Lam commented on airsoft facilities in China and the United States, and stated that people are accustomed to shooting one another in video games; an airsoft facility will allow them to get out of the house and to meet others. Also, Mr. Lam stated that his proposed business would (i) have a first aid kit on hand, (ii) only hire individuals who are certified with basic first aid, and (iii) train staff on common injuries; also, he noted that the Richmond Hospital is in close proximity to his proposed facility.

In reply to queries from Councillor Dang, Mr. Lam advised that he found that four of ten participants were from Richmond while at Panther Paintball in Surrey. Also, he stated that he believed that the average age of airsoft participants is between 18 years old to 24 years old, an age where people are free to choose whether or not they wish to participate in a given activity.

Councillor Dang expressed concern with regard to promoting violence even if it is a game. Councillor Dang echoed Councillor McNulty’s concerns with regard to the promotional video played by Mr. Lam, noting that it was a terrible example to show Council as it depicted a girl taken hostage with a gun to her head with an assailant saying “I’ll blow her head off.” Councillor Dang stated that he did not want that type of scenario in Richmond. Mr. Lam stated that he would like to open his own facility and expressly not promote such a scenario; also, he stated that he would not permit such a scenario to take place at his proposed facility.

Councillor Au queried how Mr. Lam could prevent such a scenario from taking place at his proposed facility, and Mr. Lam stated that prior to each match, rules would be set and enforced by referees employed by his business. He further commented that the referees would ensure that the rules are followed, and should the rules not be followed by a participant, a referee would confiscate his or her gun.

In reply to further queries from Councillor Au, Mr. Lam stated that he could arrange to only have specific scenarios carried out in his proposed facility. Also, Mr. Lam stated that his proposed facility differs from those currently offering airsoft as it would be the only facility that solely offers airsoft.

Councillor Johnston cited concern with regard to replica guns, particularly AR-15s and M16s as these have proven to be problematic in the United States over the past two years. In reply to Councillor Johnston’s query regarding Mr. Lam’s position on replica guns, Mr. Lam stated that he did not believe that it was a problem. Mr. Lam was of the opinion that his facility would provide a safe venue for such gun owners as it would be monitored by trained staff that could provide first aid to anyone who may get injured. Furthermore, Mr. Lam stated that any gun brought in by a participant for use at his facility would first have to pass a chronograph test – a test that measures how fast a gun can project a projectile.

Councillor Johnston then expressed grave concern with the transportation of replica guns to the proposed facility, noting that these guns are often misidentified. Councillor Johnston was of the opinion that the proposed facility would enable people to train for violence and thus promote it. Also, Councillor Johnston echoed previous Council members’ comments with regard to the promotional video shown by Mr. Lam noting that it was frightening and queried the permissibility of paintball if hostage taking scenarios are being carried out. Councillor Johnston then stated that he was concerned with the demographic that Mr. Lam’s proposed business may attract and generate.

Mayor Brodie spoke of the proposed facility’s location, and queried the suitability of said location for the proposed business, noting that a more industrial area may be more appropriate. In response to Mayor Brodie’s comment, Mr. Lam stated that Richmond Indoor Paintball is approximately 30 metres away from his proposed facility; therefore, Mr. Lam was of the opinion that the proposed location was appropriate for an airsoft arena. He further noted that the proposed location is not near schools or shopping areas.

Councillor Day agreed with previous Council members’ comments regarding the promotional video shown by Mr. Lam and queried the importance of role play. Mr. Lam advised that many teenagers play gun-related video games and was of the opinion that these teenagers want the opportunity to get out of the house and carry out video game-like scenarios. Mr. Lam compared participants of airsoft to that of children playing cowboys.

In reply to queries from Councillor Dang, Mr. Lam stated that being hit by a paintball is comparable to being punched, and that being hit by an airsoft projectile is comparable to being pinched. In referencing the video played earlier comparing an airsoft gun and a paintball gun, Mr. Lam noted that a paintball gun is 15 times stronger than an airsoft gun.

Councillor Dang restated his aversion of the promotional video played by Mr. Lam, stating that the scenario was distasteful as it depicted hostage taking, takedowns, and people shooting at one another and that this was not the type of message he wanted in Richmond.

Councillor McNulty also reiterated his dislike of the promotional video played by Mr. Lam and queried the source of Mr. Lam’s information as it relates to the average age of airsoft participants and their “getting out of the house and having fun.” Mr. Lam was unable to respond to Councillor McNulty’s query, however, he further clarified that the promotional video shown was not for his proposed facility but that of another business in Richmond.

In response to further queries from Councillor McNulty, Mr. Lam advised that (i) he consulted with approximately 120 families in Richmond, (ii) he anticipates marketing his business as a community activity by promoting that it brings people together, and (iii) it is possible to limit his proposed business to only permit the use of airsoft guns provided by the business as rentals to participants; thereby, prohibiting participants from utilizing their own airsoft guns.

In reply to queries from Councillor Loo, Mr. Lam stated that airsoft participants may engage in different types of scenarios such as Team Deathmatch, Capture the Flag, and Find the Traitor, noting that the latter scenario is often utilized for team building.

James Martin, introduced himself as a professional paintball player, competitive airsoft player, and representative of a wholesale paintball and airsoft supplier based out of Richmond called MILSIG Canada, noting that he has been engaged in these activities since he was 11 years old.

Mr. Martin commented on the introduction of paintball approximately ten years ago, noting that it went through the same challenges as airsoft currently is. He stated that like any new activity, the public including Council needs to be educated on the activity in order to understand it; he invited Council to attend a local airsoft facility or preferably the proposed airsoft facility, should it be permitted, to be given a tour of the premises and to pose any questions they may have.

In response to comments made by Council during Mr. Lam’s presentation, Mr. Martin stated that airsoft is a sport, which has three government bodies worldwide that enforce standard regulations, however airsoft is self-regulated. He was of the opinion that airsoft is self-regulated as governments do not engage with airsoft leaders to learn more about the sport and the equipment.

Mr. Martin stated that airsoft is a community activity, noting that, as a former Panther Paintball employee, approximately 80% of their business is airsoft. He stated that the activity draws approximately 10,000 participants annually, with participants ranging from ten years old to over 50 years old. He stated that airsoft is a recreational activity for all users, and listed several large corporate users. Mr. Martin advised that of the approximate 10,000 annual participants, approximately 2,000 are considered hobbyists as they own their own airsoft gun, and the remaining participants are typically families.

Mr. Martin apologized for the promotional video played by Mr. Lam, noting that it did not display airsoft in a positive light. He stated that he has travelled across Canada and the United States, noting that there are approximately 1,000 facilities that practice airsoft in a professional manner. Moreover, he noted that the promotional video shown by Mr. Lam misrepresented the type of scenario the average airsoft participant would engage in. Mr. Martin compared an airsoft facility to a bowling alley, noting that it is a positive force in the community as it brings people from all walks of life together.

Mr. Martin then commented that the Richmond RCMP have visited MILSIG Canada’s Richmond store several times, complimenting them on their staff’s professional conduct and the lengths the company goes to ensure clients are well trained in the devices they are purchasing. He commented on the low number of incidents with regard to airsoft injuries as the energy released by airsoft guns is very low; thus being struck by an airsoft pellet does not discomfort the participants much. Mr. Martin was of the opinion that airsoft provides participants self-confidence, allows them to plan under pressure, and requires them to work well with others. He stated that airsoft is a modern form of the childhood game Cops and Robbers; however it is played in a designated facility with professional staff on hand. Mr. Martin commented on the typical protocol for an airsoft match, noting that people are filtered in, explained the rules, and then are permitted to play airsoft using a particular scenario such as Capture the Flag or Protect the Hostage. He stated that airsoft is not a negative force in the community, noting that it mirrors the Richmond Rod and Gun Club’s environment. Also, Mr. Martin stated that most retailers of airsoft guns provide some sort of storage vessel for the devices.

In reply to queries and comments from Councillor McNulty, Mr. Martin stated that this industry has made him who he is today and was of the opinion that airsoft is a positive force in the community as it brings together people of all walks of life under a common umbrella. He remarked that the promotional video shown by Mr. Lam was a poor example and stated that he would not have shown it to Council as a representation of airsoft. Furthermore, Mr. Martin stated that it is an assumption that participants kill one another during the course of an airsoft match, and instead compared an airsoft match to that of tag at a distance.

In reply to queries from Councillor Day, Mr. Martin spoke of the potential economic impacts the proposed business could have for the City, noting that in the first two years of operations, the proposed business would likely generate approximately $500,000 to $1 million; he stated that the proposed facility would provide the opportunity to educate the public on airsoft and its regulations. He stated that if the proposed facility were not to be safe nor provide a positive environment for its participants, it would likely go out of business.

In reply to queries from Councillor Au, Mr. Martin stated that if Council were to uphold the business licence refusal, the City would forego an upcoming industry and it would likely open in another municipality. Mr. Martin commented that airsoft is like any other sport that requires participants to think logically, and believed that it does not depict violence.

Councillor Au spoke of an incident where he observed a youth being bullied during a match of paintball as other participants ganged up on him. As a result, Councillor Au stated that he does not believe the game is fair as there are no referees to inhibit such behaviour.

In reply to a query from Councillor Dang, Mr. Martin advised that he is speaking as an independent person and has no financial interest in the proposed business; he stated that he would simply like to see the activity grow and to have a facility in Richmond.

Councillor Dang remarked that the City seeks to promote activities that are wholesome and positive, noting that he finds it challenging to do so with regard to airsoft. Also, Councillor Dang noted that hearing from the Richmond RCMP would have been valuable.

Mr. Lam concluded his presentation before Council by stating that the proposed business is for a facility to participate in airsoft, and noted that currently there is no other facility like it in Richmond.

SP15/1-1 It was moved and seconded

That the Chief Licence Inspector’s decision to refuse a Business Licence to Sigma AEG Arena to operate an Airsoft Gun Arena at 6711 Elmbridge Way be upheld.

The question on Resolution SP15/1-1 was not called as discussion ensued and Council members provided their rationale in support or in opposition of upholding the Chief Licence Inspector’s decision.

Councillor Johnston remarked that he is concerned with regard to replica guns and the transportation of said guns to the proposed facility. He echoed Councillor Dang’s comment in relation to hearing from the Richmond RCMP, noting he would like to know whether or not they have any concerns regarding the proposed business. Councillor Johnston stated that, all fears aside, he would like to learn more about the activity to fully understand it and its benefits, and therefore he was of the opinion that it is unfair to judge the activity at this point in time. Nonetheless, Councillor Johnston stated that he continues to be apprehensive with regard to the transportation of replica firearms. Councillor Johnston stated that he prefers to consider a motion to delay consideration of the matter until additional information is provided so that Council may better understand the activity.

Mayor Brodie stated that in addition to the motion on the floor, Council could consider referring the matter to staff for a broad examination of the subject matter, including appropriate areas.

Councillor Loo echoed Councillor Johnston’s remarks with regard to the need for additional information to better understand the activity. She was of the opinion that the nature of the proposed business is not for children, and noted that airsoft guns are available for sale in Richmond. Councillor Loo commented on the City’s regulation with regard to the discharge of firearms, however, noted that it does not regulate the transport of replica guns. Councillor Loo then stated that although there is a visceral reaction to people shooting one another, she believed that the proposed business licence application merits further consideration so that Council may learn more about the proposed activity.

Councillor Day stated that she wished to delay consideration of the proposed business licence application as she would like to hear from the Richmond RCMP, the Richmond Rod and Gun Club, the Royal Canadian Air Cadets based out of Richmond, and retailers that sell replica firearms. She noted that setting aside the promotional video shown by Mr. Lam, she recognizes that there is a community benefit with regard to the proposed business. Councillor Day stated that anytime a new business can attract 10,000 participants annually, its spinoff effects to other Richmond businesses cannot be ignored. She remarked that if the activity were better understood, it would likely be supported. Furthermore, she stated that the City is on the cutting edge of other ventures, and believed that this could potentially be another. Councillor Day then stated that the logical thing to do is to learn more about the proposed activity and therefore, she would be voting against the motion on the floor.

Councillor Au referred to the City’s definition of a firearm and stated that he did not believe that Council should overturn staff’s decision with regard to the proposed application as staff is purely following provisions of Richmond Zoning Bylaw No. 8500. He remarked that he is open to a referral to review the definition of a firearm in concert with the Richmond RCMP and other appropriate stakeholders. Furthermore, Councillor Au was of the opinion that airsoft cannot be defined as a sport as he believed that a sport has a set of rules and fairness is intrinsic in the activity. Councillor Au referred to the promotional video shown by Mr. Lam, noting that a Richmond business is currently offering airsoft against the provisions of the City’s bylaws and urged staff to investigate the matter and take appropriate regulatory action.

In reply to a query from the Chair, Mr. McLaughlin advised that if the City upholds the refusal of a business licence for airsoft at the subject site, there is nothing that would preclude the City from reconsidering it in the future.

Councillor Steves stated that he did not believe that Council needs to hear from the Richmond RCMP as he believes Council needs to consider community values, and not whether or not the RCMP approve of airsoft. He then commented on his upbringing with guns, noting that he was taught to never point a gun at another person. Councillor Steves stated that he found paintball and airsoft both abhorrent; he was of the opinion that what was demonstrated in the promotional video shown by Mr. Lam is what is actually occurring in these arenas, which is why the activity is attracting video gamers.

Councillor Steves stated that he did not believe that Council should promote a culture where people carry guns dressed as police, guerillas or terrorists and shoot at one another carrying out their fantasies.

Councillor Dang agreed with Councillor Johnston in that he also believed that Council should be looking at the matter with as much information as possible. He queried the need for such a facility in Richmond and commented that he would like to hear from the Richmond RCMP with regard to whether this activity can be carried out safely. Councillor Dang remarked that based on what he viewed today he does not want such a facility in Richmond, noting that the zoning of the proposed site does not even permit such use. In the essence of being open minded, Councillor Dang then stated that he wished to learn more about the activity.

Councillor McNulty echoed Councillor Steves’ comments in relation to Council’s role to make the best decision possible for the City. He stated that he agreed that Council should have all the information necessary to make an informed decision, and in particular all relevant information essential to compel Council to allow such a business. Councillor McNulty then stated that the location of the proposed business is incorrect; however there is a location within the city that permits such activity – Mitchell Island. Councillor McNulty remarked that one business should not dictate Council’s standards. He was of the opinion that airsoft is not a sport but perhaps a recreational activity for a specific demographic. Councillor McNulty stated that the applicant’s attitude toward firearms and violence against people was bothersome, and queried the psychological impacts of bullying in scenarios where one participant is singled out and how the activity could be considered as a team building exercise.

Councillor McNulty then spoke of his upbringing with hunting in the country, noting that he too was taught to never point a gun at another person. Furthermore, he raised concern with the Richmond business that is currently offering airsoft every Thursday against the provisions of the City’s bylaws and requested that staff investigate the matter and take appropriate regulatory action.

Councillor McNulty requested that should the matter be referred to staff for analysis, staff report on enforceable rules and regulations surrounding airsoft participation, and also wished to see information related to the implications of said activity on Mitchell Island. For these reasons, Councillor McNulty stated that he would be voting in favour of the motion on the floor and in favour of a referral to examine airsoft guns and arenas.

In reply to a query from the Chair, Mr. McLaughlin advised that the discharge of firearms at the Richmond Rod and Gun Club’s facility on Mitchell Island is permitted as a site specific allowance.

Mayor Brodie stated that he would be voting in favour of the motion on the floor as he does not believe that the proposed subject site is appropriate for the proposed business activity, regardless of the merits of said activity. Mayor Brodie recollected Council’s actions with regard to raves, noting that in some ways this situation mirrors that of raves.

The question on Resolution SP15/1-1 was then called and it was CARRIED with Cllrs. Day and Loo opposed.

SP15/1-2 It was moved and seconded

That staff consider the advisability of allowing the use of airsoft guns and arenas in the City of Richmond and report back.

The question on Resolution SP15/1-2 was not called as discussion ensued and it was noted that it would be valuable to consider in tandem with the referral the Firearm Discharge Regulation Bylaw No. 4183 and possible appropriate areas for such facilities.

Discussion further took place regarding the potential for a stakeholders group to meet with staff regarding the matters, and it was noted that as part of staff’s consideration, staff would consult with the public, including stakeholders. It was noted that a task force be struck as opposed to a public consultation with the public and stakeholders. As a result, the following motion was introduced:

SP15/1-3 It was moved and seconded

That a task force made up of airsoft community members be created.

DEFEATED

Opposed: Mayor Brodie

Cllrs. Au

Dang

Johnston

Loo

McNulty

Steves

Staff was directed to consult with the public, including stakeholders with regard to the referral.