Date:

Monday, February 28, 2011

Place:

Anderson Room

Richmond City Hall

Present:

Mayor Malcolm D. Brodie, Chair

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

Call to Order:

The Chair called the meeting to order at 5:11 p.m.

MINUTES

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the General Purposes Committee held on Monday, February 21, 2011, be adopted as circulated.

CARRIED

PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

1.

Referral Response: Proposed 2041 Regional Growth Strategy (RGS)

(File Ref. No.: ) (REDMS No. 3164630)

Regional Growth Strategy Report from the General Purposes Committee meeting held on Monday, February 21, 2011.

Correspondence related to the Regional Growth Strategy received at or since the General Purposes Committee meeting of February 21, 2011 is included for information.

Joe Erceg, General Manager, Planning and Development, accompanied by Terry Crowe, Manager, Policy Planning, provided background information on the referral response and briefly reviewed the options outlined in the report for Committee consideration. 

A discussion took place about:

§                 

what may happen (i) if the City does not accept the Regional Growth Strategy (RGS); and (ii) if the City requests that changes be made to the RGS after accepting it in its current form.  It was noted that accepting the RGS and simultaneously requesting changes would be advantageous and would result in the most straight forward approval process;

§                 

the consistency of population targets and designations in the RGS and the City’s Official Community Plan (OCP).  It was noted that Richmond would not need to make changes to its OCP, and that it was up to each municipality to ensure that its OCP fit in within the RGS;

§                 

definitions of the RGS designations of “General Urban”, “Agricultural”, “Conservation and Recreation”, and “Rural”;

§                 

concerns related to the City losing its autonomy and control to make designations;

§                 

how the RGS would not restrict the City from reviewing the zoning and municipal designations in some specific areas such as the lots along No. 4 Road;

§                 

concerns associated with option 3 in the staff report to accept the RGS prior to receiving a guarantee from Metro Vancouver that the City’s requested changes will actually be made to the RGS.  Staff noted that option 3 was the easiest method as it would not trigger any formal mediation.  Staff further noted that Metro Vancouver staff had indicated a willingness to consider whatever changes City Council wishes to make.  However, it was also confirmed that option 3 does carry the risk that the RGS may be adopted without knowing whether the requested changes would be made;

§                 

if the City chose not to accept the proposed RGS (option 1) it would be required to provide its objections to Metro Vancouver and the matter would be resolved by a non binding or binding process or arbitration.  If the City chose not to accept the proposed RGS and requested specific changes (option 2), again the matter would be resolved by a non binding or binding process or arbitration;

§                 

the flexibility of the RGS would allow the City to set its own regulations related to small parcels lots;

§                 

the current OCP and Liveable Regional Strategic Plan (LRSP) designations for the Garden City Lands (GLC), the Department of National Defence Lands (DND), and the Terra Nova Lands, as well as the RGS proposed designations for each as follows:

§    

the GCL and the DND are designated as “Urban” in the LRSP,  “Public & Open Space” in the OCP, and “General Urban” in the proposed RGS as this designation most closely corresponds with the current Urban designation in the LRSP and provides the most flexibility;

§    

the Terra Nova Lands are designated as “Urban” in the LRSP,  “Agriculture and Open Space” in the OCP, and “General Urban” in the proposed RGS;

§                 

once an area has been designated as Agricultural, it would be difficult to change the designation if the City finds that it does not fit the needs of the area;

§                 

the General Urban designation in the proposed RGS provides the most flexibility; and

§                 

the proposed RGS is not connected to the City’s previous rezoning bylaw, Bylaw No. 5300.

Jim Wright, 8300 Osgood Drive, spoke about pertinent details that he stated had been left out of the staff report, and made reference to the legal opinion of Andrew Gage, staff counsel, West Coast Environmental Law, with regard to the proposed RGS and Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) Lands.  Mr. Wright stated that Mr. Gage’s legal opinion and the communication from the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) interpreted the law and essentially was the law in the matter. 

Mr. Wright concluded by noting that Council had two options, either to respect the law or break the law, and stated that the citizens were counting on Council to respect the law. A detailed submission from Mr. Wright is attached as Schedule 1 and forms part of these minutes.

Carol Day, 11621 Seahurst Road, shared her belief that endorsing the proposed RGS as it currently stands would be illogical because the proposed designation of the GCL and the DND as General Urban was incorrect, and staff’s recommendation to endorse option 3 as outlined in the staff report would result in a deliberate legal error, making the City appear foolish and disrespectful of the law as well as the Agricultural Land Commission.  A detailed submission from Ms. Day is attached as Schedule 2 and forms part of these minutes.

Bruno Vernier, 6691 Francis Road, spoke to the staff report, Referral Response: Proposed 2041 Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) and made several points about details that he believed were mistakes.  He stated that the designation of the GCL and the DND as “Urban” in the LRSP was incorrect as the only designation in the LRSP was for a “green zone”; the proposed RGS General Urban designation of the GCL and DND would not provide the most flexibility as both properties were in the ALR; the Agricultural designation in the proposed RGS was not as limiting as noted in the staff report.  Mr. Vernier also spoke about the Conservation and Recreation designation and commented that the most suitable designation, for the GCL was Agricultural, and that the City of Richmond had everything to gain and nothing to lose by designating the GCL as Agricultural.

Nancy Trant, 10100 No. 3 Road, spoke to the proposed RGS stating that the GCL and Terra Nova Lands should be designated as Agricultural prior to accepting the proposed RGS, as the City should not trust Metro Vancouver to honour the City’s request at a later time.  She was of the belief that if the designation was not changed before the proposed RGS was accepted the matter would re-surface again. 

Jim Lamond, Chair, Richmond Sport Council, spoke about the community’s needs for playing fields, parks, and future upgrades to arenas and other facilities that are currently leased.  He advised that Hugh Boyd and Minoru are the two most used parks, and urged Council to make the best decision for the people of Richmond when considering the designation for the GCL.

Roeland Hoegler, 6560 No. 4 Road, stated that the proposed RGS is a semantic method to deny sewers to properties deemed ALR.  He further stated that changes to the Agricultural designation would require a 2/3 Board vote from Metro Vancouver’s 38 Directors.  He continued by stating that two of the Directors were from the City of Richmond, and 11 out of the 24 local governments did not have any ALR land.  Mr. Hoegler concluded by stating the proposed RGS would turn the City of Richmond into a colony of Metro Vancouver and would eliminate autonomy.

Bob Sethi, 7988 McLennan Avenue, spoke about his concerns related to the proposed RGS and the switch from Zoning Bylaw No. 5300 to Bylaw No. 8500.  He expressed his belief that height restrictions cited in Bylaw No. 8500 were still in place following Council’s direction to put Bylaw No. 5300 back in place for small ALR parcels.  Mr. Sethi stated that the proposed RGS defines ALR properties as “country estates” and “vacation homes” which is untrue of such properties located in Richmond as Richmond has many small and unique ALR lots. 

In conclusion Mr. Sethi requested Council to reinstate Zoning Bylaw No. 5300, and designate Richmond’s small ALR parcels as General Urban under the proposed RGS while leaving them in the ALR.

Dale Badh, 7251 Ash Street, expressed his concerns related to the change from Zoning Bylaw 5300 to the current Zoning Bylaw 8500, stating that residents affected by the change were not given sufficient notice.  He questioned why Richmond would be giving up control to Metro Vancouver, and remarked that he was not comfortable with “Richmond turning over the key to some other authority who will have greater say”. 

Mr. Badh continued by stating that Richmond currently has some of the best regulations related to setbacks, and that the City would lose its autonomy as Metro Vancouver would speak to the Province on its behalf in the future. 

It was moved and seconded

That the Proposed 2041 Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw 1136 not be accepted and that the Metro Vancouver Board be advised that the City of Richmond will be requesting changes to designations through option 1.

DEFEATED

OPPOSED: Cllrs. Barnes

Dang

E. Halsey-Brandt

Johnston

McNulty

Steves

Mayor Brodie

Discussion ensued and several committee members expressed a preference for option 3 as outlined in the staff report, that is, to accept the RGS and then request specific designation changes following approval of the RGS.

It was moved and seconded

That the Proposed Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw 1136 be accepted.

CARRIED

OPPOSED: Cllrs. G. Halsey-Brandt

S. Halsey-Brandt

It was moved and seconded

That the Metro Vancouver Board be advised that the City of Richmond is hereby requesting the following changes in designations following approval:

(1)

For the Terra Nova Land, from “General Urban” to “Conservation and Recreation”;

(2)

For the Garden City Lands, from “General Urban” to “Conservation and Recreation”; and

(3)

For the Department of National Defence Lands, from “General Urban” to “Agricultural”.

The question on the motion was not called as requests were made to deal with each part separately.

The question on Part (1) of the motion was then called and it was CARRIED.

The question on Part (2) of the motion was then called and it was CARRIED with Cllrs. Dang, S. Halsey-Brandt, Steves opposed.

The question on Part (3) of the motion was then called and it was DEFEATED with Cllrs. Barnes, Dang, E. Halsey-Brandt, G. Halsey-Brandt, McNulty, and Mayor Brodie opposed.

It was moved and seconded

That the Metro Vancouver Board be advised that the City of Richmond is hereby requesting a change in designation following approval for the Department of National Defence Lands, from “General Urban” to “Conservation and Recreation”.

CARRIED

ADJOURNMENT

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (6:58 p.m.).

CARRIED

Certified a true and correct copy of the Minutes of the Special meeting of the General Purposes Committee of the Council of the City of Richmond held on Monday, February 28, 2011.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Mayor Malcolm D. Brodie

Chair

Shanan Dhaliwal

Executive Assistant

City Clerk’s Office