Time:

7:00 p.m.

Place:

Council Chambers

Richmond City Hall

Present:

Mayor Malcolm D. Brodie

Councillor Linda Barnes

Councillor Derek Dang

Councillor Evelina Halsey-Brandt

Councillor Greg Halsey-Brandt

Councillor Sue Halsey-Brandt

Councillor Ken Johnston

Councillor Bill McNulty

Councillor Harold Steves (7:02 p.m.)

Director, City Clerk’s Office – David Weber

Call to Order:

Mayor Brodie called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

RES NO.

ITEM

MINUTES

R10/16-1

1.

It was moved and seconded

That:

(1)

the minutes of the Regular Council Meeting held on Monday, September 27, 2010;

(2)

the minutes of the Special Council Meeting held on Monday, September 27, 2010; and

(3)

the minutes of the Special Council Meeting held on Tuesday, September 28, 2010;

each be adopted as circulated; and

That the Metro Vancouver ‘Board in Brief’ dated September 24, 2010 be received for information.

CARRIED

AGENDA ADDITIONS & DELETIONS

R10/16-2

It was moved and seconded

That Item No. 8 – Banning the Sale of Dogs in Storefronts – Referral Report – be adjusted by replacing part (2) of the Committee recommendation with the additional staff recommendation for the same item, which reads, “Business Regulation Bylaw No. 7538, Amendment Bylaw No. 8663 (Attachment 1) to ban the sale of dogs and puppies from Pet Stores in Richmond, be introduced and given first, second and third readings”.

CARRIED

Councillor Harold Steves entered the meeting at 7:02 p.m..

PRESENTATIONS

THE NATIONAL PUBLIC WORKS WEEK AWARD

Tom Stewart, Director, Public Works Operations and Maurice Gravelle of the Canadian Public Works Association (CPWA) presented the City of Richmond with the National Public Works Week Award.  Mr. Gravelle indicated that each year the CPWA encourages and recognizes outstanding celebrations of National Public works week.  The events are held during the month of May throughout Canada, and include presentations, demonstrations, and other public events to increase public awareness and knowledge of the benefits that public works bring to everyday life.  This year the City of Richmond was being awarded for excelling in two categories, the First Time Entry category and the Medium Centre category.

COMMUNITY EXCELLENCE AWARD

Ted Townsend, Senior Manager, Corporate Communications, advised that the Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM) annually present Community Excellence awards which this year was being presented to Richmond in recognition of the partnership it had developed with Tourism Richmond to promote the 2010 Winter Olympics, The Richmond Ozone, and the Richmond Olympic Oval.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

R10/16-3

2.

It was moved and seconded

That Council resolve into Committee of the Whole to hear delegations on agenda items (7:11 p.m.).

CARRIED

3.

Delegations from the floor on Agenda items:

Item No. 8 – Banning the Sale of Dogs in Storefronts – Referral Report

Christie Lagally, Animal Welfare Advocacy Coalition (AWAC), spoke in support of banning the sale of dogs in storefronts.  Ms. Lagally referenced the gratitude that had been expressed to her and other animal welfare groups since the City’s proposal to change Business Licence Bylaw No. 7538 to ban the sale of dogs in pet stores.  Ms. Lagally then had all members in the audience in support of the ban raise their hands to illustrate the support to Council.

In conclusion Ms. Lagally read a statement from a City of Coquitlam Councillor who expressed her support for a province wide ban of the sale of dogs in pet stores, as well as increased sentences and fines for animal abuse and abandonment. 

Item No. 8 – Banning the Sale of Dogs in Storefronts – Referral Report

Lori Chortyk, General Manager, Community Relations BC SPCA, spoke in support of banning the sale of dogs in storefronts.  Ms. Chortyk indicated that there is a perception that banning the sale of dogs in storefronts would drive the puppy mill industry underground.  She pointed out that the puppy mill industry is already underground, and that is why the industry has managed to survive.  In conclusion, she thanked Council for its consideration of this issue, noting that the BC SPCA has been inundated with feedback from people who are saying that proceeding with the ban would be a landmark decision,  and that many other jurisdictions are watching this matter closely.

Item No. 8 – Banning the Sale of Dogs in Storefronts – Referral Report

Tim Hansen, Assistant Store Manager, PJs Pets, spoke in opposition to banning the sale of dogs in storefronts, stating that the City was about to make a huge mistake by driving the supply of dogs even further underground, which would result in uncontrolled and unregulated sale of dogs.  Mr. Hansen stated that pet stores represent a known reputable source for the community to purchase pets.  He suggested that the City undertake more regulatory measures to deal with the matter and questioned where people would get their pets once the reputable sources have been eliminated. 

Mr. Hansen advised that an online poll indicated that the majority of residents were opposed to such a ban.  He also provided information related to the number of dogs for sale in Richmond pet stores in comparison to internet sites such as Kijiji.  In conclusion, Mr. Hansen stated that if the City of Richmond approached the provincial government regarding regulation of dog breeding operations, it would have the pet industry’s support. 

Item No. 8 – Banning the Sale of Dogs in Storefronts – Referral Report

Helen Savkovic, Richmond Animal Protection Society, spoke in support of banning the sale of dogs in storefronts.  In an effort to create an image of the living conditions and dangers that puppy mill dogs are exposed to, Ms. Savkovic referred to a number of United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Reports for various breeders’ sites and provided examples of infractions and spoke of the related dangers.

Item No. 8 – Banning the Sale of Dogs in Storefronts – Referral Report

Robert Church, National Director, Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council of Canada, advocate for responsible pet ownership, and pet store owner, provided an overview of the work he has done in the pet industry for the past 25 years.  He spoke in opposition to banning the sale of dogs in storefronts, and requested Council to take a leadership role in abolishing substandard breeding operations across BC by encouraging, lobbying, and demanding that the provincial government establish an animal care act that licenses, regulates and inspects all breeders, pet stores and animal shelters.  Mr. Church questioned the rationale of the proposed ban which would “shut down” the only visible source of puppies that the public, the City, and animal protection officers are able to monitor.

Item No. 8 – Banning the Sale of Dogs in Storefronts – Referral Report

Bob Harrison, Richmond resident, spoke in opposition to the banning of dogs in storefronts, expressing his belief that such a ban would drive the sellers underground.  He noted that pet stores are the only controlled source of puppies.  Mr. Harrison stated that responsible laws to outlaw puppy mills and abuse of animals are required and urged City Council to think seriously about maintaining control over the industry and solving the problem rather than banning dogs from the pet stores. 

Item No. 8 – Banning the Sale of Dogs in Storefronts – Referral Report

Kristin Bryson, Director, BC SPCA, spoke in support of banning the sale of dogs in storefronts.  Ms. Bryson spoke about how some US exporters of  puppies being brought into the City of Richmond as well as numerous other Canadian cities, suggest that those puppies are from a licensed USDA source and that those puppies come from parents that are healthy and humanely cared for when they are not. 

Ms. Bryson made reference to the May 2010 report entitled “Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Animal Care Program Inspections of Problematic Dealers”, from the USDA Inspector General’s Office, (on file City Clerk’s Office), and advised that the Inspector General identified the following concerns: (i) the enforcement process was ineffective against problematic dealers; (ii) inspectors did not cite and document violations properly, or support enforcement actions; (iii) inspectors mis-used guidelines resulting in lower penalties for violators. 

She also advised that at this time there are only 99 inspection officers employed by the USDA and that they are responsible for inspections of dog breeders as well as other animal facilities such as zoos and labs.  Ms. Bryson further noted that when violations were actually recorded, enforcement action beyond an official warning was only given in 4% of the cases.

Item No. 8 – Banning the Sale of Dogs in Storefronts – Referral Report

Rae Goodridge, Manager, Richmond BC SPCA, spoke in support of banning the sale of puppies in storefronts, and described her experience when purchasing a puppy from a breeder.  Ms. Goodridge advised that she had to go through an intense approval process which included a three page application form.  She noted that this breeder had allowed the dogs to live in her home and play in her yard.  She commented that animals that are shipped to pet stores are usually treated as livestock rather than pets.  She also noted that the SPCA provides information on reputable breeders for anyone searching for pure bred puppies that may otherwise be difficult to find in rescue shelters.

Item No. 8 – Banning the Sale of Dogs in Storefronts – Referral Report

Margaret Schmitky, Sr. Field Representative, Pet Land Canada, spoke in opposition to the banning of dogs in storefronts, and stated that Pet Land Canada was one of the largest full line pet stores in Canada, and that their 400 employees across Canada loved pets.  She advised that Pet Land has been regulating itself in accordance with PJAC guidelines and the Canadian Code of Kennel Practices.  She further advised that every Pet Land location has one or more companion animal purchaser and that their job is to actively investigate and inspect every puppy breeder before purchasing pets.

Ms. Schmitky stated that she personally believed that the proposed bylaw to ban the sale of dogs in storefronts had been brought forward with good intentions and emotion, but lacked futuristic and logical thinking.  She expressed her belief that the proposed ban would leave the public with little choice but to purchase puppies outside of their jurisdictions or directly from puppy breeders.  In conclusion, she stated that the only viable option to eradicate puppy mills is by implementing provincial legislation for regulation and licensing of breeders.

Item No. 8 – Banning the Sale of Dogs in Storefronts – Referral Report

Roger Somm, National Director, Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council of Canada (PIJAC), spoke in opposition to the banning of dogs in storefronts, and spoke of his involvement in the development of the Province of Manitoba’s Animal Care Act (on file City Clerk’s Office).  He also spoke about some of the regulations within the Act, including: (i) mandatory reporting of suspected abuse; (ii) increased fines for animal abuse; and (iii) licensing of pets stores, breeders, and shelters across Manitoba.

In answer to queries, Mr. Somm advised that it took approximately a year and a half to implement the new regulations in Manitoba, and that he had not made contact with the provincial government in BC to start a process similar to the one in Manitoba.  

Item No. 8 – Banning the Sale of Dogs in Storefronts – Referral Report

Josef Demcak, Richmond Resident, spoke against the banning of dogs in storefronts, expressing his belief that his rights were shrinking.  He stated that every time a group decided to speak up, the City implemented a new bylaw and the City’s residents were stripped of their basic rights.  He expressed frustration that the proposed ban would take away the right to go to a neighbourhood pet store to buy a puppy.  Mr. Demcak stated that people needed education on this matter rather than a bylaw. 

Item No. 8 – Banning the Sale of Dogs in Storefronts – Referral Report

Gary Batt, owner, Petland Surrey, and formerly a representative of the PIJAC, spoke against the banning of dogs for sale in storefronts.  He stated that the pet industry was nationally setting standards to find a real solution to deal with the issue of puppy mills.  Mr. Batt stated that the provincial government should bring in strong licensing and regulation requirements. He expressed his belief that the City of Richmond’s proposed action was wrong and attacked the only publicly visible source of puppies in Richmond.

In conclusion Mr. Batt advised that he operates his pet store in the highest standards and has a willingness to work with City Council.  He urged Council to table the proposed ban and refer the matter back to staff for further investigation.  He encouraged the City to approach the province to regulate puppy breeding, and to join together with the Richmond Animal Protection Society (RAPS) and the BC SPCA to resolve the puppy mill problem in BC.  He also stated that pet stores behave much more responsibly than many believe.

Item No. 8 – Banning the Sale of Dogs in Storefronts – Referral Report

Don Clintoff, Richmond resident, spoke as a taxpayer, stating that he financially supported the animal shelters and that he did not see any shortage of animals for adoption in Richmond.  He expressed his belief that the pet stores do not have a strong argument against the ban on the sale of dogs in storefronts as they sell other products.  He remarked that unless there is a very large mark-up on pets, the marginal impact associated with the proposed ban  should be minimal to the pet stores.  In closing, Mr. Clintoff stated that the shelters are subsidized by taxpayers funding to collect and store animals, and that something had to be done to protect the taxpayers from expenditures that should not be happening.

Item No. 8 – Banning the Sale of Dogs in Storefronts – Referral Report

Naz Gamadia, Richmond resident, stated that when searching for a puppy for herself, she researched breeders, shelters, and pet stores for approximately one year.  Ms. Gamadia stated that she found that most of the employees of the numerous pet stores she visited in Vancouver and Richmond did not have much knowledge about the dogs that were for sale in the stores.  She noted that the breeders and rescue shelters were able to provide far more information regarding different breeds and best care practices.  She also stated that pet stores do not take puppies back after seven days, whereas the rescue shelters will always take the animals back if the owner is no longer able to provide proper care.

Item No. 8 – Banning the Sale of Dogs in Storefronts – Referral Report

Ernest Ang, owner of the Richmond Pet Habitat, spoke in opposition to banning the sale of dogs in storefronts, and expressed his frustration, stating that he had been a proud member of Richmond’s business community until the issue of puppy mills and cruelty to animals had emerged.  He stated that his store attracts business into Richmond because a portion of his customers are from other jurisdictions.  Mr. Ang concluded by stating that he would like to work with the BC SPCA and RAPS, and advised that he has suggested that they work together to market and find good homes for unwanted pets in Richmond’s rescue shelters. 

Item No. 15 – Application By John Falcus For Rezoning At 3111 Springside Place From Single Detached (RS1/E) To Single Detached (RS3/E)

Linda Cooper, co-operator of the Stone Hedge B & B, spoke in support of the application.  She stated that she supported a ratio of three rooms and six guests, and noted that B & B clients are usually older and quiet.  She added that the summer months are peak months for a B & B operation and that her B & B is full for approximately 30% of the calendar year,  Ms. Cooper spoke about other businesses on the street, as well as a home which accommodates three generations of a family with a lot of people and cars, and a rental property with students coming and going.

Item No. 15 – Application By John Falcus For Rezoning At 3111 Springside Place From Single Detached (RS1/E) To Single Detached (RS3/E)

Brian Cooper, co-operator of Stone Hedge B & B, spoke in support of the application.  He stated that the bylaws regarding B&Bs have been vague and that the only way to control the B&B industry was to license it.  He spoke in support of a ratio of three rooms, three cars and six guests.  Mr. Cooper also stated that crime or other hazards are not an issue at B&Bs.

Item No. 15 – Application By John Falcus For Rezoning At 3111 Springside Place From Single Detached (RS1/E) To Single Detached (RS3/E)

Sherry Lazaruk, 3180 Springside Place, spoke in opposition to the application.  She expressed her frustration that the voices of taxpayers expressing disagreement to the proposed application, including a petition with over 40 signatures opposing a B&B in their cul de sac, were falling on deaf ears.  Ms. Lazaruk stated that Mr. Farcus had too many guests and vehicles, and that she had been noting the license plates of the vehicles at Mr. Falcus’ residence.  Ms. Lazaruk further stated that during the application process, Mr. Falcus and Tourism Richmond had been given an opportunity to speak, however none of Mr. Falcus’ neighbours had been questioned about how they felt about a B&B in their neighbourhood.

Item No. 15 – Application By John Falcus For Rezoning At 3111 Springside Place From Single Detached (RS1/E) To Single Detached (RS3/E)

Tracey Lakeman, Executive Director, Tourism Richmond, spoke in support of the application, and stated that Tourism Richmond’s policy regarding advertising of B&Bs on the Tourism Richmond website now required B&Bs to be licensed and working within the City’s bylaws.  She expressed Tourism Richmond’s interest in working with the City to ensure that all issues related to the licensing of B&Bs have been thought through.  She also noted that currently there are no B&Bs that are members of Tourism Richmond as there are none that are licensed that Tourism Richmond is aware of. 

Item No. 15 – Application By John Falcus For Rezoning At 3111 Springside Place From Single Detached (RS1/E) To Single Detached (RS3/E)

John Gausboel, 3131 Springside Place, spoke in opposition to the application.  He expressed frustration, stating that after attending all the meetings related to this application he felt that no one seemed to be listening to anyone opposing the B&B.  Mr. Gausboel stated that his neighbourhood was a quiet family neighbourhood, and urged City Council to adhere to a two room and two guest maximum for the Seabreeze Guest House B&B.  In closing, he stated that he did not see the democracy in the way this matter had been handled.

Item No. 15 – Application By John Falcus For Rezoning At 3111 Springside Place From Single Detached (RS1/E) To Single Detached (RS3/E)

Lesley Kemp, 10020 Nishi Court, spoke in support of the application, and advised that she operates the Picture Perfect B&B in another Richmond cul de sac.  She stated that cul de sacs are dead ends making it difficult to speed.  She noted that guests of B&Bs usually take transit or have family pick them up and are generally go out from about 10:00 a.m. to about 8:00 p.m..  She continued to say that most guests are usually older and rarely have small children, resulting in minimal impact on neighbours. 

Ms. Kemp advised that Mr. Falcus had been adhering to the rules of two rooms and two guests, and has in the past requested Ms. Kemp to accommodate guests at her B&B.  She concluded by stating that the B&Bs are not breaking any regulations or operating illegally as some may perceive.  She also stated that at the time the B&Bs approached the City regarding licensing they were advised that a bylaw was not in existence regarding the licensing of B&Bs.

Item No. 15 – Application By John Falcus For Rezoning At 3111 Springside Place From Single Detached (RS1/E) To Single Detached (RS3/E)

Amy Robin, 3171 Springside Place, spoke in opposition to the application.  She expressed concerns related to safety issues with the B&B’s location at the end of a small cul de sac.  She advised that she was concerned about the welfare of her future children and of others’ existing children as the B&B may attract transients, as well as additional traffic including taxis.  In conclusion, she stated that a ratio of two rooms and four guests would be more appropriate than three rooms and six guests.

Item No. 15 – Application By John Falcus For Rezoning At 3111 Springside Place From Single Detached (RS1/E) To Single Detached (RS3/E)

Lance Carey, 10595 Springhill Crescent spoke in support of the application, stating that the applicant is a thoughtful and responsible operator.  He advised that although he does not live on the same street as the applicant, his property is adjacent to the applicant’s.  Mr. Carey highlighted that there were other businesses in the neighbourhood which included a child care facility, a rental property as well as a working farm approximately 300 meters further down the road.  In conclusion, he stated that Richmond is a growing community and that it should be diverse and inclusive.

Item No. 15 – Application By John Falcus For Rezoning At 3111 Springside Place From Single Detached (RS1/E) To Single Detached (RS3/E)

John Falcus, 3111 Springside Place, owner of Seabreeze Guest House, and the rezoning applicant, stated that the B&B Industry was very eager to legitimize the industry, and that changing the process from rezoning to licensing was a big step in the right direction.  He noted that the allowance of three rooms and six guests would allow business owners to remain financially viable and mentioned that average occupancy for a B&B is from 30-40% of the calendar year.  He also said that most guests travel as couples which usually results in one vehicle per night for most part of the year, and sometimes during the summer up to a maximum of three vehicles.  Mr. Falcus also ensured that he would take the extra steps to ensure that: (i) parking on site is in place to keep cars off street; (ii) landscaping is in place to keep cars and guests out of sight;  and (iii) that life safety measures are in place to ensure the buildings are safe.

Item No. 15 – Application By John Falcus For Rezoning At 3111 Springside Place From Single Detached (RS1/E) To Single Detached (RS3/E)

Helen Faragouchi, resident of Richmond, spoke in support of the application, expressing her belief that there were two issues – (i) licensing for the B&B and (ii) control of the neighbourhood’s cul de sac.  She stated that some people may not agree with others or how they live, but we live in a society of freedom and we must love our neighbours and accept that life is not always going to be the way we want it to be.

Item No. 15 – Application By John Falcus For Rezoning At 3111 Springside Place From Single Detached (RS1/E) To Single Detached (RS3/E)

Brian Ralphs, 4280 Moncton street, spoke in support of the application.  He spoke about how the applicant’s neighbourhood had changed and provided details about some new residents which have resulted in additional vehicles in the neighbourhood, including a bus that travels daily from 6:00 a.m. until midnight. He expressed his belief that Mr. Falcus was being blamed for the traffic in the neighbourhood and that he was being stalked by his neighbours.  Mr. Ralphs advised that he was aware that Mr. Falcus has called other B&Bs to accommodate overflow of guests at his establishment, and that he was doing his best to run a respectful and quiet B&B.

Item No. 15 – Application By John Falcus For Rezoning At 3111 Springside Place From Single Detached (RS1/E) To Single Detached (RS3/E)

Jeanette, of the Door Knocker B&B, spoke in support of the application, and advised that her B&B subsidized her income and enabled her to work from home.  She noted that the guests at her B&B have been fantastic, and that she has not had any problems with her guests or neighbours.  She added that her neighbours are supportive and have even used her B&B for guests that they are unable to accommodate.  The delegation also pointed out that the demographics of B&B guests are usually in the age range of 55 and over; that they very seldom bring kids; and that most of them take taxis or public transit. 

In closing the delegation stated that she was in support of the ratio for three rooms and six guests, and that she did not believe that the complaints of Mr. Falcus’ neighbours should affect his B&B business.

Item No. 14 – Agriculture (AG) Zone Setback

Timothy Webster, Resident of Vancouver, expressed his concerns related to the usage of agricultural land, stating that agricultural land needs to be preserved and not used for non-farming purposes.

Item No. 10 – The Methodology To Update OCP Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAS) and Item No. 14 Agriculture (AG) Zone Setback

Micheal Wolfe, 9731 Odlin Road, stated that he was representing the City Of Richmond Park Partners for Beautification, a program for adopting environmentally sensitive areas (ESA).  He expressed his belief that the matter of ESAs needed more attention than an update, and made reference to the 2005 State of Environment document.  Mr. Wolfe questioned if another State of Environment Plan had been undertaken in the five years that had elapsed.  He made comments regarding the changes in demographics and the related impact on ESAs, and stated the need to find strategies that work to protect ESAs, as some of the best ESAs are being lost to development.

With regard to Item No. 14, Mr. Wolfe spoke in opposition to the recommendation to return to the previous Zoning Bylaw 5300 setback, stating that land will be taken out of farming and put into pools, garages and other similar uses. 

Item No. 10 – The Methodology To Update OCP Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAS) and Item No. 14 Agriculture (AG) Zone Setback

Steve Guthrey, resident of Richmond, stated that he was strongly opposed to the recommendation to return to the previous Zoning Bylaw 5300 setback as it was the best way to lose land that would otherwise be used for productive farming.  Mr. Guthrey expressed his belief that if the proposed recommendation is approved, it will result in country estates being occupied by non-farming residents.

Item No. 10 – The Methodology To Update OCP Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAS) and Item No. 14 Agriculture (AG) Zone Setback

David Pavititch, 12400 No. 3 Road, spoke in support of the recommendation to return to the previous Zoning Bylaw 5300 setback.  He mentioned that his family had been living on their land for over 100 years, and that property owners should have the freedom to do what they choose on their land.

Item No. 10 – The Methodology To Update OCP Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAS) and Item No. 14 Agriculture (AG) Zone Setback

Roeland Hoegler, 6560 No. 4 Road, spoke in support of the recommendation to return to the previous Zoning Bylaw 5300 setback.  He remarked that after attending Planning Committee meetings and an Open House, it was clear that there was an overwhelming support from the public to return back to the previous Agricultural Zoning.  In conclusion, Mr. Hoegler commended the City for listening to the public’s concerns and not ignoring the issue.

Item No. 10 – The Methodology To Update OCP Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAS) and Item No. 14 Agriculture (AG) Zone Setback

Arzina Hamir, 8480 Dayton Court, Coordinator of the Richmond Rood Security Society, spoke in opposition to the recommendation to return to the previous Zoning Bylaw 5300 setback.  Ms. Hamir suggested that building of non-farm use buildings on ALR areas should be conditional and allowed only if there has been agricultural production on the land.  She advised that the Ministry of Agriculture was currently giving consideration to the guidelines for housing in the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR), and asked that the City wait for the Ministry to formulate its recommendations before proceeding with a decision on this matter.

Item No. 10 – The Methodology To Update OCP Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAS) and Item No. 14 Agriculture (AG) Zone Setback

Todd May, local Farmer and Co-Chair of the Agricultural Advisory Committee, advised that a majority of the Committee supported the staff recommendation to return to the previous Zoning Bylaw 5300 setback.  He stated that consultations with members of Richmond’s agricultural community raised many concerns about the impact of the new Zoning Bylaw No. 8500, and therefore the agricultural community strongly supports reverting back to Zoning Bylaw No. 5300. 

Item No. 10 – The Methodology To Update OCP Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAS) and Item No. 14 Agriculture (AG) Zone Setback

Gurdial Badh, 7251 Ash Street, spoke in support of the recommendation to return to the previous Zoning Bylaw setback.  He spoke on behalf of property owners who had been affected by the new bylaw, and stated that democratic process had not been followed in adopting the new Zoning Bylaw No. 8500.  

R10/16-4

4.

It was moved and seconded

That Committee rise and report (9:47 p.m.).

CARRIED

CONSENT AGENDA

R10/16-5

5.

It was moved and seconded

That Item No. 13 be removed from the consent agenda and that Items 6 through 12 be adopted by general consent.

CARRIED

6.

COMMITTEE MINUTES

(1)

the Finance Committee meeting held on Monday, October 4, 2010;

(2)

the General Purposes Committee meeting held on Monday, October 4, 2010; and

(3)

the Planning Committee meetings held on Tuesday, September 28, 2010 and Tuesday, October 5, 2010;

be received for information.

ADOPTED ON CONSENT

7.

2011 PERMISSIVE EXEMPTION - BYLAW 8629

(File Ref. No.:  12-8060-20-8629) (REDMS No. 2970686, 2911255)

That the 2011 Permissive Exemption Bylaw No. 8629 be introduced and given first, second, and third readings.

ADOPTED ON CONSENT

8.

Banning the Sale of Dogs in Storefronts – Referral Report

(File Ref. No.:  12-8060-20-8663, XR: 12-8060-02-40) (REDMS No. 2987900, 2731601)

ADDITIONAL STAFF REPORT REGARDING BANNING THE SALE OF DOGS IN STOREFRONTS

That:

(1)

the staff report dated September 10, 2010, entitled “Banning the Sale of Dogs in Storefronts – Referral Report” from the Chief Licence Inspector be received for information;

(2)

Business Regulation Bylaw No. 7538, Amendment Bylaw No. 8663 (Attachment 1) to ban the sale of dogs and puppies from Pet Stores in Richmond, be introduced and given first, second and third readings.

(3)

a letter be sent to the Premier and the appropriate minister and local MLAs emphasizing the urgent need for provincial regulations regarding the condition of dogs offered for sale; and

(4)

a letter be sent to the other communities in Metro Vancouver and the BC SPCA advising them of this resolution.

ADOPTED ON CONSENT

9.

Anderson Room - Lighting Control

(File Ref. No.: 06-2050-20-CH/Vol 01) (REDMS No. 2996355)

That additional electric blinds be installed in the Anderson Room to improve lighting conditions for audio-visual presentations and to address the low angle of the sun in the fall months on the occupants of the room.

ADOPTED ON CONSENT

10.

THE METHODOLOGY TO UPDATE OCP ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS (ESAS)

(File Ref. No.: 08-4045-02) (REDMS No. 2982049)

That the methodology for identifying and mapping ESAs, as described in Attachment 3 in the staff report from the General Manager, Planning and Development, dated September 22, 2010, be endorsed.

ADOPTED ON CONSENT

11.

2009 - 2016 RICHMOND CHILD CARE NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND STRATEGY

(File Ref. No.: 07-3070-00) (REDMS No. 2887672, 2974318, 2869942, 1340592)

That:

(1)

the following recommendations, based on proposed City actions from the 2009 – 2016 Richmond Child Care Needs Assessment and Strategy, be endorsed:

(a)

work to meet implementation targets based on the 2009 – 2016 Richmond Child Care Needs Assessment and Strategy, to maximize the community benefit of City-owned facilities, by:

(i)

prioritizing the development of child care spaces for School-age children & Infant/toddlers

(ii)

continuing to identify priority child care needs and establish short term targets to address service needs

(iii)

monitoring provision of child care spaces and changes in community child care needs.

(b)

continue to make City-owned facilities available to child care operators at a nominal rent.

(c)

where space in City-owned facilities is sufficient, encourage a hub model of care whereby at least two types of child care are offered and co-located with other services to families.

(d)

consider developing a City-owned child care facility for City employees and the community in the vicinity of City Hall.

(e)

request that the Provincial Government undertake actions proposed in the 2009 – 2016 Richmond Child Care Needs Assessment and Strategy, with the addition of providing child care coordination at the local level. 

(f)

request that the Federal Government undertake actions proposed in the 2009 – 2016 Richmond Child Care Needs Assessment and Strategy.  

(2)

a Child Care Project Leader be retained for 2011, through allocation of $50,000 from the Child Care Development Statutory Reserve Fund, to oversee the planning, design, construction and lease of negotiated City-owned child care facilities, and

(3)

in preparation of the Social Planning Strategy, consideration be given to permanently incorporating expertise in child care facility development and early and middle childhood services into City social planning staff capacity.

(4)

the 2009 – 2016 Richmond Child Care Needs Assessment and Strategy be submitted to the Richmond School District, for their information.

ADOPTED ON CONSENT

12.

APPLICATION BY THOMAS CHALISSERY FOR REZONING AT 9131 AND 9151 WILLIAMS ROAD FROM SINGLE DETACHED (RS1/E) TO LOW DENSITY TOWNHOUSES (RTL4)

(File Ref. No.:  12-8060-20-8656, RZ 08-423193) (REDMS No. 2987214, 2989812)

That Bylaw No. 8656, for the rezoning of 9131 and 9151 Williams Road from “Single Detached (RS1/E)” to “Low Density Townhouses (RTL4)”, be introduced and given first reading.

ADOPTED ON CONSENT

CONSIDERATION OF MATTERS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA

PLANNING COMMITTEE –
Councillor Bill McNulty, Chair

13.

CITY OF RICHMOND COMMENTS ON THE METRO VANCOUVER REGIONAL GROWTH STRATEGY (RGS) (SEPTEMBER 3, 2010 VERSION)

(File Ref. No.:  01-0157-20-RGST1) (REDMS No. 3002492)

R10/16-6

It was moved and seconded

That the comments in Attachment 1 in the staff report from the General Manager, Planning and Development, dated September 30, 2010, regarding the September 3, 2010 version of the Regional Growth Strategy, be endorsed and forwarded to Metro Vancouver before their October 22, 2010 deadline.

CARRIED

OPPOSED: Cllrs. G. Halsey-Brandt

 Steves

R10/16-7

It was moved and seconded

That:

(1)

staff provide further information on the specific boundaries of the Regional Growth Strategy in Richmond and information on the boundaries of Riverside Industrial Park; and

(2)

staff provide further information regarding the designation of the Department of National Defence Lands (DND).

CARRIED

14.

AGRICULTURE (AG) ZONE SETBACK

(File Ref. No.:  12-8060-20-8609) (REDMS No. 2969065, 2974133, 2970407)

R10/16-8

It was moved and seconded

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw Amendment Bylaw 8609, to return to the previous regulatory framework of Zoning Bylaw 5300 which had no setback limitation from a constructed public road for accessory residential buildings, structures and septic fields in the Agriculture (AG) zone (Option 1), be introduced and given first reading.

CARRIED

OPPOSED: Cllrs. S. Halsey-Brandt

 Steves 

R10/16-9

It was moved and seconded

That the Tuesday, October 12, 2010 Council meeting continue past 11:00 p.m.

CARRIED

15.

APPLICATION BY JOHN FALCUS FOR REZONING AT 3111 SPRINGSIDE PLACE FROM SINGLE DETACHED (RS1/E) TO SINGLE DETACHED (RS3/E)

(File Ref. No.:  12-8060-20-8621, XR: 12-8275-09, XR: 12-8060-20-8500) (RZ 10-511408) (REDMS No. 2998662, 2998842, 2997881, 2997883, 2914075, 2924671)

R10/16-10

It was moved and seconded

That staff be directed to bring forward amendments to the Zoning Bylaw to allow a three (3) bedroom Bed and Breakfast (B & B) with a maximum of six (6) guests in Single-Family zoning districts provided that performance criteria addressing landscaping, privacy, parking and life safety are included in an amended Business License Bylaw.

CARRIED

OPPOSED: Cllr. Steves

MAYOR MALCOM BRODIE

16.

RESCISSION AND RECONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION IN RELATION TO A SITE CLEAN UP OF AN UNSIGHTLY PROPERTY, CIVIC ADDRESS: 13371 BLUNDELL ROAD, LEGAL ADDRESS: LOT 3, SEC 17 BLK4N RG5W, PLAN 10158 

(File Ref. No.: 12-8060-05, UP 2010-526391)

R10/16-11

It was moved and seconded

WHEREAS a miscommunication resulted in the property owner of 13371 Blundell Road attending the wrong Council meeting on September 27, 2010; and

WHEREAS the property owner did not have a fair opportunity to be heard before Council on the matter as a result of this miscommunication; and

WHEREAS City staff have not yet taken any action to implement Council’s previous decision on the matter knowing the circumstances surrounding the meeting on September 27, 2010;

THEREFORE be it resolved:

(1)

That the following resolution (Resolution SP10/11-3), adopted by Council on September 27, 2010, be rescinded:

That:

(a)

Walden Disposal Services, as contractor for the City, be authorized to remove and dispose of all discarded materials at 13371 Blundell Road, Richmond, in accordance with the “Order to Comply” dated June 25, 2010 issued under the Unsightly Premises Bylaw No. 7162 and section 17(1) of the Community Charter; and

(b)

the final cost of this removal and disposal, estimated at $4939.20 (including fees and taxes), be invoiced to the registered owners of the property located at 13371 Blundell Road.

(2)

That the matter be reconsidered at a Special (Open) Council Meeting to be held on Monday, October 25, 2010, at 4:00 p.m., in the Anderson Room at Richmond City Hall.

CARRIED

BYLAWS FOR ADOPTION

R10/16-12

It was moved and seconded

That the following bylaws be adopted:

Richmond Zoning Bylaw No. 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 8586

(9131 No. 2 Road, RZ 09-497038)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw No. 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 8594

(10140 Ruskin Road, RZ 09-499265)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw No. 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 8608

(5051 Williams Road, RZ 09-504936)

Richmond Zoning Bylaw No. 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 8625

(9451 No. 1 Road, RZ 10-510756)

CARRIED

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PANEL

R10/16-13

17.

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That the minutes and the Chair’s report for the Development Permit Panel meeting held on Wednesday, September 29, 2010, be received for information; and

(2)

That the recommendation of the Panel to authorize the issuance of a Development Permit (DP 10-541722) for the property at 10551 St. Edwards Drive, be endorsed, and the Permit so issued.

CARRIED

ADJOURNMENT

R10/16-14

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (11:19 p.m.).

CARRIED

Certified a true and correct copy of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Council of the City of Richmond held on Tuesday, October 12, 2010.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Mayor (Malcolm D. Brodie)

Corporate Officer (David Weber)