City Council Timeline: Monday, August 24, 2020

A controversial request from the Prince Rupert Port Authority to make temporary use of land on Park Avenue provided for the bulk of discussion for a two and a half hour Council session on Monday night.

The majority of the discussion on the theme coming in the public commentary period of the Committee of the Whole where Council heard a number of presentations from Ken Veldman the Vice President of Public Affairs and Sustainability, as well as a pair of local residents.

Also as part of that limited public engagement session, another Prince Rupert resident, this one a representative of the city's youth, spoke to the desire to see the Civic Centre arena opened for the youth of the community to use.

Council also heard a number of reports from the Chief Financial Officer,  as well as a number of Bylaw updates related to some recent Alternate Approval process consultations in the community.

A late addition to the Agenda allowed for a look at an update on the progress of the city's Official Community Plan, with the city's contract planner delivering those talking points, as well as to put forward two initiatives towards progress on housing in the community.

Some background on the work of Council on the evening and the various Regular Agenda elements for the August 24th Council session can be explored here. 

Council also hosted a Closed Session earlier in the evening (their eleventh such closed session of the year), the details as to why they required the doors to be closed for the 5PM meeting can be reviewed here. 

Further information from our overview and placement in the video archive can be found below, with the permanent record of the minutes added as they are posted to the city website.

In attendance Monday, August 24, 2020

Mayor Lee Brain -- Present 
Councillor Nick Adey --  Present  
Councillor Barry Cunningham --  Present 
Councillor Blair Mirau -- Present  
Councillor Reid Skelton-Morven --  Present
Councillor Wade Niesh -- Present 
Councillor Gurvinder Randhawa --   Present 

Video Archive for Monday, August 24, 2020

 

***************************************************************************
Committee of the Whole Session

( 0:00 -- 59:00 )  Mayor Lee Brain outlined the introduction to the Committee of the Whole session.

The session began with Councillors Adey and Randhawa recusing themselves from discussion related to a proposed temporary land use plan from the Prince Rupert Port Authority, with Mr. Adey offering up a detailed overview of how he reached his decision to sit out the discussion, debate and subsequent vote on the issue later in the evening. 

As part of his overview,  the councillor explained how he lives in close proximity to the area that may be impacted by the proposed plan and how he would recuse himself on the topic for the night. Councillor Randhawa also took his leave from the Park Avenue discussion he made note that he lived in the area as well and believed he may be in conflict on the topic. 

To lead off the discussion on the night, Ken Veldman, the Prince Rupert Port Authority's Vice President of Public Affairs and Sustainability offered up some background towards the proposed use of the land and the potential in the future for purchase of the site in question.

The focus was on the concept of providing a buffer and a light industrial service cluster on the land under consideration, the Port official noting that there are impacts with development, but balancing that by observing how the Port has been an active participant in the City's Vision2030 project, as well as to relay some of the elements that the Port has implemented to separate industrial and community as much as possible.

As for the Park Avenue land which was the subject of the Temporary Use application, he observed that the Port's belief is that the land is not going to sit vacant in perpetuity; he then posed a number of questions for Council to consider. 

What kind of development is appropriate, when can it happen and who can make that investment to move it forward with the Community's values.

To answer those themes, he added, that that the Port believes that their proposal does that in exactly that way.

The main use proposed in the short term would be for container storage tied in with the Fairview Container Port expansion program expected later this year or early in 2021, the use of the Park Avenue land would allow the port to handle the peaks of container volume surges, with off site container storage considered the best approach during the construction period.

He then provided a short overview of how the Port would be looking towards noise mitigation issues that could come from the temporary use.

The Port official observed that any decision by Council towards the use of the land should be weighed by considering broad economic benefit for the community both short and long term,  versus the risk of impact that may be there.

Council members made a number of enquiries towards both the short and long term aspect of the PRPA plans, Councillor Cunningham had questions related to the hours of operation and whether the Temporary use request was precursor towards any further use of the land, wondering why the port is looking to move north, as opposed to continuing the focus it has on the south. 

Mr. Cunningham also raised concerns over past monitoring programs which he observed have not been considered enough, adding how the Park Avenue plans will impact property values along a wide area of that side of the city.

On the hours of operation for the temporary use request, Mr. Veldman said that that was unknown at this time, noting as well that any impacts in the surrounding area are unknown at this time. He also provided a response to the question of past monitoring themes, providing a review of the actions and responses that the Port has taken on related to concerns.

Looking further ahead, Mr. Veldman observed it wasn't a case of the Port shifting its focus north, but rather making use of the land nearby for temporary container storage. 

He then explored the prospects for the future should the Prince Rupert Port Authority choose to purchase the land, providing a concept of a mix of parkland, trails serving as a buffer for the residential areas towards development of light industrial use for sections of the land.

Those plans would include potential container storage, training opportunities for longshore workers, light warehousing options, he also observed that towards developing any buffer options between residential and the light industrial does require an economic return, with the Port proposal one way of delivering that.

Councillor Niesh put his focus on the future plans, asking if the temporary container use would be a permanent feature and whether that would make for a 24 hour operation. 

Mr. Veldman returned to some of his previous thoughts from the overview on the potential use, noting that if the container storage use proved to be an issue, then it's likely that it would not make for a long term part of the future development plan.

Council members then received a presentation from Richard Wright, representing a number of residents of the Graham/Atlin/Alpine area and speaking towards the proposed land use proposal from the Prince Rupert Port Authority.

Mr. Wright provided a list of concerns from those he had consulted with, providing a petition from the residents towards them, of note from his list the prospect that temporary becomes permanent. Among the concerns he relayed were themes of noise, property devaluation, the proposed use of the land for industrial use, pollution, additional traffic and impact on quality of life.

He did observe that he does believe that the community does need more industrial development and more jobs that will increase the population, but that has to be balanced with the impact it could have on the area in question.

He relayed the main message from the neighbourhood was that the application be denied, at least until more information is available about the port's plans for the land

Mr. Wright also offered up a question for Council to consider, that being, that as the Port is a Federal entity is it exempt from local zoning bylaws, asking Council if they knew if the Port could they just purchase the land and do as they wish, bypassing any requirement of adherence to civic zoning. 

Adding if so, then everyone is just wasting their time on this topic.

Another theme he took note of was the lack of awareness for the public of the proposed use, highlighting how few in the area knew about the city's only notice on the topic, which was an advertisement which was placed in the back pages of the local paper.

Also speaking to the topic was Bruce Hansen representing family interests in the area, he outlined how the project would impact on a number of properties that they own in the vicinity. 

As well, he reminded Council of the extensive salmon rehabilitation work that has taken place in the streams of Moresby Park, highlighting how the project may have an impact on that work as well.

He made note of the past plans for residential use of the property in question, as well as to highlight the high value of taxation that the city has in place for the existing residents of that area of town. 

Mr. Hansen also reviewed some of the existing noise concerns that residents have when it comes to operations that are already underway on the waterfront of that side of the city.

He also raised the prospect of potential lawsuits over loss of value that could come from area residents when it comes to any industrial use of the site in question, calling on the city to investigate the proposal further.

Like Mr. Wright before him, Mr. Hansen also expressed concerns over the approach of notification of the proposed change in use for the land, adding that the city's notice was somewhat misleading for the public.

He also questioned why a city that is in need of residential property would be considering a proposal that would remove land presently marked for residential use and return it to industrial use.

Those comments made for the final public input on the theme for the night.

Council also received a presentation from a young Prince Rupert resident, Parker Danroth who advocated for the city to open the Arena to allow for hockey and skating at the local facility, highlighting the need for the youth of the community to have some activities to take part in.

His comments were received well by the Council membership who praised him for his contribution to the discussion, advising him that they would consider the request.

With that the Committee of the Whole session came to an end and Council moved on to its Regular Agenda.


***************************************************************************

Regular Council Session

( 58:30 -- 59:30 )   Regular City Council Session for Monday, August 24, 2020  -- Mayor Brain called the Regular Council Session to order, with Council adopting minutes of previous meetings and the agenda and revisions for the night, with the Mayor adding one late item to the list of the work ahead for the night.

( 59:30 -- 1:03:00   ) -- Report from Chief Financial Officer with the June 2020 Financial Variance Report    --  Ms. Corinne Bomben provided a review of the June Variances advising that halfway through the fiscal year, the city's expectations were as anticipated given the COVID pandemic and transition to essential services only. She noted that the city will have a clearer understanding of the revenue impact of the pandemic on the city's financials later in the fall. As well Ms. Bomben noted that both Alternative Approval Process votes had delivered approval for the Water Dam and Landfill project bylaws to be considered on the evening. 

Council Mirau asked if the Finance Department had an idea when the budget amendment proposal would be delivered to Council, Ms. Bomben advised it most likely would be provided in October. 

Councillor Randhawa inquired about some of the revenue losses, with Ms. Bomben outlining some of the areas that the city continues to operate despite the revenue impacts and how they are approaching those issues.

( 1:03:00 -- 1:32:30 ) Presentation from the city's Contract Planner Rob Buchan  on progress of Official Community Plan -- The topic was one added to the agenda late, with Council receiving some background on the work done to this point on the Official Community Plan, as well as some options for council to consider on themes of residential development.

Mr. Buchan first made note of the December Community vision plan that the Mayor outlined at the time, highlighting some of the benchmarks that have been reached so far and where the update program will go next.

He highlighted some of the survey work that has been done noting that the Rupert 2030 vision has been well received by those they contacted, he also made note of the current round of surveys now underway through the city's Rupert Talks online portal.

As part of the ongoing OCP program an informational video is expected to be released within the next month, with the plan ahead to have short meetings with the public towards the themes reviewed and a Draft proposal to soon be made available for comment by the public.

The theme of downtown development also made for some of his commentary on the night with Mr. Buchan providing some guidance on how the City can develop a program of incentives for developers to create housing and invest in the community.

Among the themes of his report for Council, he recommended that the city maintain the current approach of not charging development cost charges, amend bylaws to waive building permit fees, rezoning fees and development variance fees noting how that would make for  significant inducements for developers.

Hold off on the introduction of a Community Amenities contribution program, noting that it's a good program to have, but better suited towards when there is significant development underway.

Develop a plan to improve infrastructure on a block by block basis as part of a city improvement program.

Consideration of a Downtown Revitalization Tax Exemption bylaw, that would allow the City to waive the municipal part of property taxes, potentially for a period of ten years, with a suggestion to 'ladder up' the tax increases in the final five years. He recommended that the provision be used in downtown areas outside of the midtown area.

As well he recommended the same kind of tax waiver, or exemption for any new residential development in all three areas of the downtown area, noting as well that the tax relief program could also be used for building renovations of the existing stock of buildings in the downtown part of the city, observing how it could add to residential density in the area.

Fast tracking any proposals for development in the downtown area was also a theme he explored noting how that would help build the city's reputation with developers.

Towards attracting developers to the community, Mr. Buchan also suggested the city invite a group of larger investors in the province and across the country to come to Prince Rupert to explore the opportunities available here, suggesting the prospect of inviting up to fifteen developers to the city by October, timed toward the completion or near completion of the Official Community Plan.

Council members received his report with much enthusiasm, with Councillors Mirau, Adey. Niesh, Cunningham and Randhawa  all offering their endorsement of the work and the success so far on the OCP review as well as towards his range of recommendations towards development themes.

For Councillor Cunningham however, the restriction of the incentive plan to just the downtown core was an area he suggested should be reviewed towards larger local housing needs.

Mayor Brain also shared his enthusiasm for the proposals and observed as to how it could create residential space in the downtown region, also noting how some of the ideas put forward may be well received by current owners as well as any new investors

Council then voted to move forward with and endorsement to consider of both the draft incentive package plans for developers, as well as to invited and host a developer event in Prince Rupert to explore opportunities that are available in the city.

Council will consider the elements that were presented at a later date toward any implementation.

Mr. Brain also provided a short overview of how the City is planning to address the OCP review, directing the public to the city website for the full details.

 

( 1:32:30 -- 1:33:00 ) -- Report from Chief Financial Officer 2019 Statement of Financial Information  --  Ms. Bomben provided the review of compensation and goods and service from 2019, with the document received by Council. Councillor Randhawa had the only question on the topic, asking if it is available for public review, with Ms. Bomben advising that it was now available on the city website.


( 1:33:00 -- 1:33:30 ) Report from  Corporate Administrator related to a Variance permit for a property on Edward Avenue -- Ms. Miller read out the background related to the request for a variance for the property on Edward Avenue, seeking a height variance and front and side yard setbacks.

She noted that it was consistent with the previous requests from residents on the Street.

Council approved the variance application sending it to final approval.

(1:33:30 -- 1:34:00 )  Report From the City Manager -- Re: Development Variance Permit for a property at 1715 Kootenay Avenue --  Council had no comments on the issue and carried the motion.

  

(1:34:00 -- 1:34:30 ) Report From the City Manager -- Re: Development Variance Permit for a property at 212 9th Avenue East -- Council had no comments on the topic and moved it forward to public notification. 

(1:34:30 -- 2:12:00 ) Report From the City Manager -- Re: Application for Temporary Use Permit - Vacant Block 10 ( request for a temporary land use by the Prince Rupert Port Authority for land along Park Avenue)  -- The second part of the discussion once again found Councillors Adey and Randhawa recusing themselves from the Chamber, leaving the topic to the remaining Council membership to review and subsequently vote on.

Councillor Mirau offered up a slight amendment towards the recommendation, asking that any review of the  project should require a Site Plan for the land use in question, noting how the proposal has once again highlighted some of the tensions found between residents and proponents of port development.

Towards his recommendation, Mr. Mirau recounted some of the research that he has done on the Site Plan proposal and asked for some guidance from the City Manager.

For his part Mr. Long outlined some of the eclectic themes to some of the city's bylaws and land use principles and zoning themes, and noting that bylaws would require a range of amendments towards any approval of the temporary land use under consideration.

The remaining Council members that did not recuse themselves from the process, then revisited many of the themes from the Committee of the Whole public period, with the main thrust of their concerns that of encroachment north by the port when much of their focus has been on the south footprint. 

They also made note that there were still too many outstanding questions about the Port's intentions for the land and for the need for more details on the future plans for the land in question. Other elements they would like to see included for any future interest in the land would be a remediation plan for the area.

The Council members also stressed that it was their duty to represent the interests of the residents who would be most impacted by any development on it.

As part of Council's review of the issue, Mayor Brain sought out some guidance on a question posed by Richard Wright during the Committee of the Whole public comment period, asking City Manager Robert Long if the Port as a Federal entity could purchase the land and then build whatever they wish and state that the land is outside of municipal jurisdiction.

Mr. Long offered up a mixed response that wasn't particularly definitive towards an answer.

The City Manager noted for Council that there are two points of view on the theme,  observing that the Port has made their case in the past that their federal jurisdiction has paramountcy.

Mr. Long long then further suggested that past court cases in other jurisdictions have sided with municipal governments land use authority, or at least be in joint jurisdictional manner on land issues. 

Long did acknowledge that there is a possibility that such a path could also go the way of the Port when it comes to any land that it has purchased and they could make the argument that local government land use jurisdiction is not applicable.

He also observed that he doesn't believe that it's a winnable argument for the Port, but that it is one that they have made before and ultimately would be subject to a conversation with the courts.

For some final thoughts on the topic, Mayor Brain observed as to how it's not a narrative of being for or against development, reminding Council of some of the good relations and partnerships that the City has developed with the Port on a range of areas, including the City's 2030 vision plan.

He also challenged some of the elements from the presentation that was delivered by Mr. Veldman, observing how the city doesn't believe the blanket approval of a temporary use is appropriate in this case, the Mayor calling for a larger consultation process by the Port Authority, including a Public Hearing towards a complete rezoning of the land if desired.

To bring the discussion to an end, Council voted to reject the Temporary Use proposal from the PRPA, suggesting that the Port should consider applying for a permanent rezoning of the land in question as well as to provide a detailed Site Plan as part of that approach for consideration.

( 2:12:00 -- 2:13:30 )Report from the Chief Financial Officer  -- Re:  Federation of Canadian Municipalities' Municipal Asset Management Program ) -- Ms. Bomben outlined the scope of the grant program to assist municipalities in Asset Management strategies available. Later in the session, Council noted one revision for the motion,  adding approval for the cost of 12,500 dollars from the Capital budget for the City of Prince Rupert to participate in the program. 

( 2:13:30 -- 2:20:30 ) Report from the Corporate Administrator -- Re: COVID-19 Re-opening Policy -- Ms. Miller relayed some of the background on the work done by Civic departments on Safety plans towards reopening services.  Councillors Adey asked questions related to flexibility for the measures depending on evolving situations, the City Manager noted that the city is working with and takes guidance from WorkSafe  BC and provincial authorities.  Councillors Sketlon-Morven and Cunningham also offered up some further observations towards the policies.

( 2:20:30 -- 2:22:30 )  Bylaws

Report from the Corporate Administrator -- Re: Woodworth Dam Replacement Loan Authorization Bylaw No.  3433, 2019 -- Ms. Miller provided the details of the result of the AAP process, which noted of the 10,767 potential respondents, the City saw no responses either positive or negative from the public received by the City.  That clears the way for final approval for the loan bylaw.

Report from the Corporate Administrator -- Re: Solid Waste Infrastructure Loan Authorization Bylaw No.  3454, 2020 -- Ms. Miller again provided the details of the result of the AAP process, which noted of the 10,767 potential respondents, the City saw no responses either positive or negative from the public received by the City.  That clears the way for final approval for the loan bylaw.  

( 2:22:30 -- 2:29:30 ) Report from the Director of Operations -- Re: Edward and Alberta Avenue Road Closure  Bylaw No.  3461, 2020  -- Mr. Pucci provided the background to the road closure request, noting how it's related to consolidation of lots for a proposed housing development for land adjacent to the road.  He observed that further details on that proposed development would be made public at some point in the future. 

As for the lane closure, Councillor Cunningham reminded council that the residents currently adjacent to the lane use that access for their homes, suggesting that the lane remain open to their use.

The Mayor sought out some guidance on the process to retain that access for residents, that sentiment was shared by Councillor Niesh.

Councillor Mirau followed up with a question on the nature of the land that is being proposed for housing, and how the city has divided the parcels.

Council then voted to approve the move towards public notification for the lane closure, but allowing for the access of existing residents. 

The Mayor observed that the topic will develop some curiosity towards the future development plans and how those will be reviewed by Council in the future.

(2:29:30-- 2:34:00) Reports from Council 

Councillor Niesh observed as to how the night's work made for one of the longest council sessions in recent months, the also paid tribute to the work of the paving contractor that won the award for the city's road remediation program this year, highlighting their work and the challenges that they have faced with the weather this summer.  

Councillor Cunningham did offer up one note on that theme suggesting some concerns over the areas around manhole covers.

Mr. Cunningham also offered praise for the work of Corporate Administrator Rosa Miller for her dedication in delivering packages on proposed housing plans along Kootenay Avenue.

Councillor Adey made an inquiry about the Rushbrook Trail, asking if bicycles and ebikes are allowed on the trail, noting of some of the limitations that the trail offers for pedestrians and cyclists.

The City Manager advised that bikes are not allowed on the trail, with signage on the trail to advise such, though that there are none at trail heads.

Mr. Adey observed that perhaps the placement of signs at the either end of the trial would be more helpful and serve to advise of the restrictions for use.

The Mayor noted that the trail is maintained by the Kaien Trails Society and how staff could contact them to explore the topic further.

You can access our archive on the City Council session here, where a number of items regarding the council session, including links to local media coverage, can also be found.

As always, our Council Timeline is only a reflection of our observations from the Council session of the night. Be sure to consult with the official minutes from the City, when posted to their website for further review.

Official Minutes of the Regular Council Session from August 24, 2020 (not available yet)

In addition to the city's official minutes, the City's Video archive provides a helpful record of the events from each public council session.

Monday marked the last of the twice a month sessions for City Council, with the city's elected officials taking to a more relaxed summer schedule of once a week sessions through until October.

Council members next meet on September 14th.

To return to the most recent blog posting of the day, click here.