General Purposes Committee Meeting Minutes - June 19, 2000

Date:

Monday, June 19^th, 2000

Place:

W.H. Anderson Room

Richmond City Hall

Present:

Mayor Greg Halsey-Brandt, Chair

Councillor Linda Barnes

Councillor Malcolm Brodie

Councillor Derek Dang

Councillor Lyn Greenhill

Councillor Kiichi Kumagai

Councillor Ken Johnston

Councillor Bill McNulty

Councillor Harold Steves

Call to Order:

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

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the General Purposes Committee held on Monday, June 5^th, 2000, be adopted as circulated.

CARRIED

(Correspondence: June 9/00; File No.: 0100-20-RCD11-01)

Reference was made to a statement in the letter received from Ms. Frances Clark about the lack of accessible parking around the new City Hall facility, and a short discussion took place between Mr. Miele and the Chair on this matter. Information was also provided by staff on the location of accessible parking in the area.

Mr. Vince Miele, Chair of the Richmond Committee on Disability (RCD), then spoke on what the RCD hoped to accomplish as a result of todays meeting. A copy of the submission is on file in the City Clerks Office. Mr. Miele also sought clarification on how the City proposed to deal with the Universal Design Guidelines and the proposed bylaw which would make it illegal for individuals to park in disabled parking spaces without the appropriate placard displayed in their vehicles.

A lengthy discussion ensued among Committee members and the delegation, during which the following issues were addressed:

• implementation of a new audible signal device - concern was expressed that this matter had been included even though the Committee was aware that it was not possible to continue with this project at the present time;

• City policies relation to people with disabilities - the Chair suggested that the Committee provide examples of the policies which need to be reviewed

• Handicapped Parking Placard - questions were raised about the availability of these placards and the criteria which had to be met before they were issued

• whether the City should be providing separate or integrated programs for people with disabilities.

Arlen Johnson, 8311 Cambie Road, spoke about transit and the improvements which had been made, and the accessibility of all residents to transit. A copy of Mr. Johnsons submission is on file in the City Clerks Office. During the discussion which ensued with Mr. Johnson about accessible transit stops, the suggestion was made that the RCD should prepare a list of obvious transit stops which should be made accessible to the disabled.

James Sullivan, spoke at length on the history and need for an Independent Living Resource Centre.

In response to questions about the types of programs needed by the disabled and whether the RCD or the City would be responsible, Mr. Sullivan advised that the program offered by the Therapeutic Riding Association, which did not have sufficient funding to work with anyone but children and could not match requests for need, was very beneficial. He added that programs which offered activities such as wheelchair basketball and dancing opportunities would also be helpful. Mr. Sullivan stated that the centre could organize programs which the City had not thought to provide, and if a need was found, the Centre would approach a recreation centre as a place to go and ask staff for assistance. He stated, however, that he did not want to say that the RCD would do it all.

Reference was made to the resolution adopted at the March 14^th, 2000 meeting of the Community Services Committee, which referred the issue of space at the former City Hall on Elmbridge Way to staff for review of the overall disposition, and discussion ensued between Councillor Steves and Mr. Sullivan on this matter.

Questions were raised about whether City staff were actively seeking a suitable location for the centre, and the General Manager, Urban Development, David McLellan, provided information on the status of this matter. He advised that when it became clear that a major tenant would be moving into the former City Hall building, staff were directed to look at other facilities; however, nothing was found in an appropriately accessible central location in the City Centre.

Rob Sleath, of 4160 Bonavista Drive, President of Advocates for Sight-Impaired Customers, provided background information on the request made one year ago to the Public Works & Transportation Committee about the feasibility of installing audible signals as a pilot project at a Richmond intersection. He expressed his frustration that the software was not yet available, and that staff were questioning how many individuals would benefit from the installation of these signals on No. 2 Road at McDonalds. Mr. Sleath stated that his organization had raised funds and offered to pay for half of the device to get the pilot project initiated, however, that offer was rejected. He further advised that he had been told that the device would be subject to vandalism, and he expressed the opinion that vandalism was not a reasonable excuse for not proceeding with an analysis of the device. Mr. Sleath also expressed concern about fact that the change in traffic pattern at Blundell Road and No. 2 Road and that audible devices were not yet in place.

Susan Holmfeld, spoke about her disabled son and the difficulties which he encountered, and about (a) the frustration she felt in not having swimming programs for disabled children (and swimming partners provided); (b) the lack of companions who could golf at the Richmond Pitch and Putt centre at no charge to assist disabled individuals who wished to participate; and (c) the disappointment of the Therapeutic Riding Society in receiving only token grants from the City and she asked for financial support to continue and expand program for children and adults with special needs

Frances Clark, 8160 Railway Avenue, referred to the funding provided to different groups and stated that the RCD only wanted to receive some of that funding. She also spoke about the independent living resource centre and suggested that the facility would allow people with disabilities to be with their peers to share comments and concerns and to provide assistance. Ms. Clark advised that people with disabilities had been recognized as comprising a significant part of the population and that this number continued to rise. She stated that the RCD was only asking the City to provide support to and recognize this population group. Ms. Clark added that accessibility at bus stops was a major issue. She advised that the RCD had now signed a lease for property for the resource centre, but it came with a cost. She also spoke about the need for a Special Needs Coordinator and appropriate programs.

In concluding the presentation, Mr. Miele spoke further about (a) the number of transit stops which were not accessible to people with disabilities and the need to address this issue, (b) the importance of providing audible signals without first having to prove whether this device would be beneficial to a certain number of individuals.

Discussion then ensued among Committee members, the delegation and staff on the concerns of the RCD, and as a result, the following referral motion was introduced:

It was moved and seconded

That the submission of the Richmond Committee on Disability be received for information, and referred to staff to prepare a report on how the City could address each of the items, in conjunction and consultation with the RCD, for a report to the General Purposes Committee by early September 2000, and that the report include:

an update on the status of previous requests made by the RCD; and

a timeline for priorities of these requests.

Prior to the question being called, staff were requested to continue to search for suitable space for the Richmond Committee on Disability to provide an independent resource centre.

Concerns were expressed by Councillor Kumagai about (a) the proposed Universal Design Guidelines, and (b) request No. 6 of the RCD that Council establish an enforceable policy relating to the percentage of accessible units which must be provided in multi-family housing projects. He stated that prior to any decision being made by Council on whether universal design guidelines were needed, information should be obtained from the BC Housing Society on the number of accessible units which have been provided to determine the appropriate level which the City could accommodate.

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

(Report: June 9/00, File No.: 2050-20-003) (REDMS No. 158813)

Councillor McNulty requested that the matter be referred to the Britannia Heritage Shipyard Building Committee for review, as the Building Committee was finalizing its report on the Britannia site and would be reporting to Council within the next short while.

It was moved and seconded

That the report (dated June 9^th, 2000, from the Director, Engineering), regarding the Britannia Heritage Site Shipyard Building #18 - Proposed Renovations, be referred to the Britannia Heritage Shipyard Building Committee for review.

Prior to the question being called, staff were requested to provide information on the rationale for reallocating funds from the Minoru Park Fieldhouse project and the West Richmond Community Centre Fitness Expansion project to complete the proposed work on the Britannia Heritage Shipyard.

Reference was made to funding which could be available through a Human Resources and Development Canada (HRDC) grant, however, the City would have to submit an application immediately because funding would expire in March, 2001. Staff were requested to review the option of obtaining HRDC funding to employ HRDC crews to complete the wharf in front of the main shipyard and the wharf immediately west of the seine loft.

The request was also made that the matter be referred to the Britannia Heritage Shipyard Building Committee as soon as possible.

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

(Report: June 6/00, File No.: 0970-01) (REDMS No. 157443)

It was moved and seconded

That the Schedule of Year 2000 Consulting Projects, totalling $355,000 (attached to the report dated June 6^th, 2000, from the Director of Finance), be received for information.

Prior to the question being called, the General Manager, Finance & Corporate Services, Jim Bruce, explained that a number of smaller projects had been eliminated from the original list submitted to Council, and that larger projects had been reduced in size.

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

(Report: May 19/00, File No.: 8060-20-7141) (REDMS No. 154477, 156987, 152679)

City Solicitor Paul Kendrick reviewed the changes which had been to the original bylaw, such as (i) making the owner of the facility responsible for any activities which might occur at a rave party; (ii) changing the definition of Late Night Events to delete the requirement that it be a commercial event and (iii) under General Prohibitions adding a clause to deal with late night graduation events.

Discussion then ensued among Committee members and staff, during which in response to questions, the following information was provided:

• on the rationale for not requiring bonding to be put in place by the event organizer - it was felt that the requirement of payment for policing based on the maximum capacity of the building and the submission of a security plan would be sufficient

• the noise complaint regarding the Riverside facility had occurred because the operator used the upper floor, which was not properly soundproofed; no further rave events would take place on that floor until it had been appropriately soundproofed

• with regard to the raves taking place in a building on Horseshoe Way - these parties end at 2:00 a.m. and therefore do not qualify as rave events; however staff were working with the owner to ensure that he fulfilled the commitments made previously to Council

• the only illegal rave events taking place were on Mitchell Island and charges have not yet been laid; staff were putting pressure on the owner of the building in question about this issue.

Concern was expressed about the lack of bonding requirements in the proposed bylaw, and as a result, the following amendment was introduced:

It was moved and seconded

That Bylaw No. 7141 be amended to include a clause which would require the provision of sufficient security bonding from the organizers of a rave event, which would include payment of policing and other damageable items.

The question on the motion was not called, as Mr. Kendrick advised that the City did not have the authority to require a bond. As a result, the above motion was WITHDRAWN.

It was moved and seconded

That Bylaw No. 7141 be referred to the City Solicitor (a) to provide information on the legalities of the proposed amendment, and (b) prepare an amendment to require the provision of bonding.

Prior to the question being called, discussion continued briefly between Committee members and Mr. Kendrick on possible options which might be available.

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

(Report: June 5, 2000, File No.: 8060-20-7137/7138/7139/7140) (REDMS No. 148826, 136312, 136334, 148100, 152222)

The Manager, Property Use & Administration, Sandra Tokarczyk, reviewed the report with Committee members. She indicated, during her review, that Mr. Brian Nelson of the SPCA was present to respond to questions.

Discussion then ensued among Committee members, Mr. Nelson and staff on whether the definition of vicious dog should be amended to be breed specific, and about the ramifications of such a definition. A question was also raised about the number of rabbits which an individual could own. Information was provided that the regulation regarding the number of rabbits which could be owned was contained in the Zoning & Development Bylaw, and was based on the size of the individuals property, with the minimum size being acre for a single-family residence. Questions were also raised about venomous snakes and whether these dangerous reptiles should be included in the Animal & Bird Control Bylaw, and advice was given that staff would provide information on whether this would be necessary.

It was moved and seconded

That the following bylaws, which together address a number of outstanding animal control issues, especially with regard to dogs, each be introduced and given first, second, and third readings:

Animal, Bird, and Beekeeping Bylaw 7137;

Dog Licencing Bylaw 7138;

Municipal Ticket Information Authorization Bylaw 7139; and

Public Health Protection Bylaw 6989, Amendment Bylaw 7140.

The question on the motion was not called, as the following amendment was introduced:

It was moved and seconded

That the definition of "Vicious Dog" in Part 8 of Animal, Bird and Beekeeping Bylaw No. 7137 be deleted in its entirety, and that the following be substituted:

CARRIED

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

It was moved and seconded

That Animal, Bird, and Beekeeping Bylaw 7137 be referred to the Companion Animal Task Force for review.

CARRIED

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (6:37 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 19^th, 2000.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Mayor Greg Halsey-Brandt

Chair

Fran J. Ashton

Executive Assistant