February 19, 2018 - Minutes
|
General Purposes Committee
|
Date: |
Monday, February 19, 2018 |
|
Place: |
Anderson Room |
|
Present: |
Mayor Malcolm D. Brodie, Chair |
|
Call to Order: |
The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. |
|
|
|
MINUTES |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That the minutes of the meeting of the General Purposes Committee held on February 5, 2018, be adopted as circulated. |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
|
|
Councillor Au entered the meeting (4:31 p.m.). |
|
|
|
ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION |
|
|
1. |
Results from Public Consultation on Lane Standards |
|
|
|
|
Staff introduced the item and were available to respond to questions. |
|
|
|
|
Chris Back, Richmond resident, who has previously delegated to Council regarding the sanitary sewer replacement and laneway construction project between Richmond Street and Broadway Street, spoke on behalf of the affected residents and responded to queries from Committee. |
|
|
|
|
Mr. Back indicated that of the two property owners who had not responded previously, one is a foreign owner who Mr. Back has been unable to contact to date and the other he has had one initial conversation with and is in attendance at the meeting. |
|
|
|
|
In response to a question, Mr. Back commented that there is currently acceptance from 31 of the 33 affected residents of the four options brought forward in the Steveston Community Laneway Proposal (Resident Proposal) drafted by the affected residents and brought forward to Council at the regular Council meeting held on January 29, 2018, which includes the option to purchase the land from the City. |
|
|
|
|
The delegation further clarified that for Option 7 in the staff report, sale of the road dedication to residents, residents would need to be given the option to (i) pay up front, (ii) pay over time, or (iii) put a charge on title however, the delegation was unsure of the level of support if the payment options were not offered. |
|
|
|
|
Mr. Back explained how the residents arrived at the valuation figures in the Resident Proposal. The first is an average price of $51,500 per property based on information from a Steveston real estate agent at a price of $314 per square foot on the basis that the average land size is 10 feet by 33 feet and a 50% reduction of price due to the land being non-functional, as detailed in the Resident Proposal. The second from another individual from Steveston who looked at the property value of approximately 40 properties that currently own the back portion, versus those properties in Steveston who do not and worked out a price difference of roughly $1,000 per linear foot or approximately $33,000 per property. |
|
|
|
|
In response to a question, Mr. Back indicated that if the City were to put fences back again evenly between neighbours, residents most likely would agree to any covenants imposed by the City including no claims, no placement of permanent structures, and no liability or risk to the City, but he would need to have a conversation with the other residents to confirm. |
|
|
|
|
In response to questions from Committee regarding the restoration options for the unopened lane, staff noted that: |
|
|
|
|
§ |
under Option 5 in the staff report, the cost of putting back the fences would roughly be $145,000 and would be covered in the sewer replacement project costs; |
|
|
|
§ |
there are approximately 570 other lots in Steveston that have the potential for this same scenario; |
|
|
|
§ |
there is no specific technical work to examine the merit of reinstating lanes in Steveston for functional purposes for vehicles, however the Official Community Plan (OCP) notes that for opportunities such as this one, options of using the lanes may be examined and therefore what staff are proposing is consistent with the City’s expectations; |
|
|
|
§ |
in this particular subdivision, many existing driveways and garages are at the front of the street and from a functional point of view, there would be no need to create arterial vehicle access; |
|
|
|
§ |
there is one historical licence arrangement that staff are aware of in the Steveston area dating from the 1970s; |
|
|
|
§ |
a sale of the property is definitive and a statutory right of way (SRW) would be registered on title, however if there was another preferred option by Council, there could be some protection offered through agreements between the parties; |
|
|
|
§ |
if an agreement were made between the City and a property owner, which is in effect the licence option in the staff report, there could be no covenant registered on title, and the personal agreement and the terms and conditions would have to be renewed every time the property was sold; |
|
|
|
§ |
conditions such as setting a specified time period, no permanent structures or large trees, or a licencing fee could be specified in an agreement. |
|
|
|
Anne Piche, Richmond resident, noted concern regarding a lack of laneway policy in Steveston and offered comments on the potential impact to other residents in the area if a precedent is set. The delegation commented that there has been a lack of consistency and that it was important that any solution be fair. |
|
|
|
|
As a result of the discussion, the following motion was introduced: |
|
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
|
That Option 5, putting fences back up evenly between neighbours, as described in the staff report titled, "Results from Public Consultation on Lane Standards," dated February 5, 2018, from the Director, Engineering, be approved, subject to conditions in a licencing agreement including: |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
that the property cannot be claimed by the residents; |
|
|
|
(2) |
that no permanent structures or large trees be permitted on the land; |
|
|
|
(3) |
that there be no increase to Floor Area Ratio (FAR); and |
|
|
|
(4) |
that any agreement is reviewable by the City at any time. |
|
|
|
The question on the motion was not called as discussion took place on additional conditions that could be included in a licence agreement with property owners. |
|
|
|
|
In response to further queries from Committee, staff commented that (i) the proposed option is a separate situation from the requirement to maintain boulevards, as the City does not allow for any enclosure of a boulevard space, (ii) if the proposed option is approved by Council, conditions could only be set via a licence agreement with the owner but it would not be registered on title, (iii) a written licence agreement could set out conditions and provide a release and indemnify the City for any losses sustained, and could include the possibility of imposing an insurance requirement, but these agreements would have to be monitored and tracked as ownership changes; (iv) a written agreement with the City that is not registered anywhere would not provide more security and protection for the City, since the City, as the property owner, could be liable for any future insurance claims, and (v) the strongest position for the City would be the sale of the subject property to residents. |
|
|
|
|
The question on the motion was then called and it was CARRIED with Mayor Brodie and Cllr. Loo opposed. |
|
|
|
|
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION |
|
|
2. |
City of Richmond Comments on Proposed Gaming Facility in Delta |
||
|
|
|
In response to questions from Committee, Will Ng, Superintendent, Officer in Charge and Victor Wei, Director, Transportation, noted that: |
||
|
|
|
§ |
the square footage of the River Rock Casino Resort is approximately 90,000 and contains 1100 slot machines while the proposed Delta gaming facility would be approximately 47,000 square feet and hold approximately 500-600 slot machines; |
|
|
|
|
§ |
cycling and pedestrian access to the site would be limited and the site would be heavily auto-oriented given its location; |
|
|
|
|
§ |
while the scope of which the City can provide comments is limited to policing, traffic and highway use, and infrastructure, an objection to the British Columbia Lottery Corporation (BCLC) can be wider in scope; |
|
|
|
|
§ |
comparative data on crime statistics for gaming facilities would be from the River Rock Casino Resort Hotel and in 2017 there were 432 police incidents reported comprised of: 42 for causing disturbance, 43 for theft under $5000, 30 for fraud, 21 drug possessions, 19 assaults, 9 impaired drivers, 17 mischiefs, 14 thefts from motor vehicles, 6 mental health calls, and 8 Liquor Act calls; and |
|
|
|
|
§ |
as a result of providing comments to the City of Delta and filing an objection with BCLC, it is likely that BCLC would initiate non-binding arbitration between Richmond and Delta. |
|
|
|
|
Direction was then given to staff to provide details on any other objections that can be made to BCLC regarding the proposed gaming facility in Delta prior to the next Council meeting. |
||
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
||
|
|
|
That, as per Option 1 as described in the report titled “City of Richmond Comments on Proposed Gaming Facility in Delta” dated February 15, 2018 from the Director, Transportation and the Officer in Charge, Richmond RCMP Detachment: |
||
|
|
|
(1) |
the City’s comments on infrastructure, policing costs, traffic, and highway use regarding the proposed gaming facility to be located at 6005 Highway 17A in Delta, be conveyed to the City of Delta; |
|
|
|
|
(2) |
the City of Delta be requested to provide a written reply to the City’s comments; and |
|
|
|
|
(3) |
the Chief Administrative Officer and the General Manager, Planning and Development, be authorized to execute on behalf of the City all necessary and related documentation to file an objection to the proposed relocation of the gaming facility with British Columbia Lottery Corporation based on: |
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
the absence of any traffic impact analysis provided by the City of Delta to allow a meaningful assessment of traffic and highway use impacts; |
|
|
|
|
(b) |
potential negative traffic impacts on Richmond roadways and congestion on the adjacent provincial highway system due to increased vehicular activity exacerbated by insufficient transit, cycling and pedestrian access to the proposed site resulting in potential road and traffic improvements in Richmond near the north end of George Massey Tunnel; and |
|
|
|
|
(c) |
potential increase in the overall crime rate and policing costs due to a new gaming facility. |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
||
|
|
|
COMMUNITY SERVICES DIVISION |
|
|
3. |
Consent to Metro Vancouver Regional District Regional Parks Service Amending Bylaw No. 1255, 2017 |
|
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
That the adoption of Metro Vancouver Regional District Regional Parks Service Amending Bylaw No. 1255, 2017, be approved by providing consent on behalf of the electors of the City of Richmond, as detailed in the staff report titled “Consent to Metro Vancouver Regional District Regional Parks Service Amending Bylaw No. 1255, 2017, dated February 1, 2018, from the General Manager, Community Services; and |
|
|
|
(2) |
That the Metro Vancouver Regional District be informed by letter of the foregoing recommendation, as detailed in the staff report titled “Consent to Metro Vancouver Regional District Regional Parks Service Amending Bylaw No. 1255, 2017”, dated February 1, 2018, from the General Manager, Community Services. |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
|
|
4. |
Minoru Centre for Active Living Entries and Arrivals Public Art Concept |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That the concept proposal and installation for the Minoru Centre for Active Living Entries and Arrivals public artwork “Together” by artist David Jacob Harder, as presented in the report titled “Minoru Centre for Active Living Entries and Arrivals Public Art Concept,” dated January 17, 2018, from the Director, Arts, Culture and Heritage Services, be endorsed. |
|
|
|
The question on the motion was not called as Eric Fiss, Public Art Planner, noted that the artists, David Jacob Harder and Aaron Harder, of the proposed installation were in attendance and presented a scale model of the artwork to Committee. |
|
|
|
In response to a query from Committee, Mr. Fiss commented that although the artists intend to keep the artwork monochromatic, they are prepared to add an additional colour and that the proposal includes a multi-coloured LED, which will be installed to illuminate the piece and provide further colour. |
|
|
|
The question on the motion was then called and it was CARRIED. |
|
|
|
FINANCE AND CORPORATE SERVICES DIVISION |
|
|
5. |
Appointment of Chief Election Officer and Deputy Chief Election Officer for the 2018 General Local and School Election |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That David Weber be appointed as Chief Election Officer and Claudia Jesson be appointed Deputy Chief Election Officer for the 2018 General Local and School Election. |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
|
6. |
Housekeeping Amendments to the Council Procedure Bylaw |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That Council Procedure Bylaw No. 7560, Amendment Bylaw No. 9832, which introduces various housekeeping amendments relating to the change in date of the general local elections from the month of November to October, be introduced and given first, second, and third readings. |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
|
|
ADJOURNMENT |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That the meeting adjourn (5:29 p.m.). |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
|
Certified a true and correct copy of the Minutes of the meeting of the General Purposes Committee of the Council of the City of Richmond held on Monday, February 19, 2018. |
|
_________________________________ |
_________________________________ |
|
Mayor Malcolm D. Brodie |
Amanda Welby |