June 18, 2018 - Minutes

Place:

Council Chambers
Richmond City Hall

Present:

Mayor Malcolm D. Brodie
Councillor Chak Au
Councillor Derek Dang
Councillor Carol Day (entered at 7:03 p.m.)
Councillor Ken Johnston
Councillor Alexa Loo
Councillor Bill McNulty
Councillor Linda McPhail
Councillor Harold Steves

Claudia Jesson, Acting Corporate Officer

Call to Order:

Mayor Brodie opened the proceedings at 7:00 p.m.

1.

RICHMOND ZONING BYLAW 8500, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9764 (RZ 16-754305)
(Location:  23200 Gilley Road; Applicant:  Oris Developments (Hamilton) Corp.)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant was available to respond to queries.

Written Submissions:

(a)

Randy Barber, 23200 Gilley Road (Schedule 1)

(b)

Kal Gill, 23200 Gilley Road (Schedule 2)

(c)

Darbara Sandhu, 5520 Smith Drive (Schedule 3)

(d)

Gurnam Kaur Kaila, 126 Viscount Place, New Westminster (Schedule 4)

(e)

Uttam Singh Chane, 208 Campbell Street, New Westminster (Schedule 5)

(f)

Yadeta Meseret, 4300 Thompson Road (Schedule 6)

(g)

Jonathan Oshorne, 5211 Smith Drive (Schedule 7)

(h)

Rajan Dassan, 23200 Gilley Road (Schedule 8)

(i)

Jas Brar (Schedule 9)

Submissions from the floor:

Betty Carr, 4485 Fraserbank Place, expressed concern with regard to (i) traffic in the area as a result of the proposed density, (ii) sufficient parking for the proposed development, (iii) access to the proposed development and its effect on traffic flow, and (iv) the lack of a designated pick-up and drop-off area for the adjacent school.

In response to queries from Council, staff clarified that the proposal complies with the area plan, provides sufficient onsite parking, and that traffic calming measures will be implemented as part of the servicing plan.

Cllr. Day entered the meeting (7:03 p.m.)

PH18/6-1

It was moved and seconded

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9764 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

2.

RICHMOND ZONING BYLAW 8500, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9855 (RZ 15-694855)
(Location:  6560, 6600, 6640 and 6700 No. 3 Road; Applicant:  Bene Richmond Development Ltd.)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant was available to respond to queries.

Written Submissions:

None.

Submissions from the floor:

None.

PH18/6-2

It was moved and seconded

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9855 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

Opposed: Cllr. Day

3.

RICHMOND ZONING BYLAW 8500, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9872 (RZ 17-778834)
(Location:  10451, 10471 and 10491 No. 2 Road; Applicant:  1076694 B.C. Ltd.)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant was available to respond to queries.

Written Submissions:

None.

Submissions from the floor:

Luke Cannata, 10526 Kozier Drive, expressed concern with the current retaining wall in place between his property and 10491 No. 2 Road, noting that he has had to repair it as a result of it continuously failing.  Mr. Cannata remarked that previous construction at 10491 No. 2 Road caused damage to his home’s foundation, and he expressed concern that future construction will further damage his home’s foundation.  He then stated that with the demolition of the existing home at 10491 No. 2 Road, his backyard is open to No. 2 Road, which is worrisome.  Also, Mr. Cannata wished to see the City’s unsightly premises bylaw enforced with regard to tall grass on his neighbour’s lawn.

In reply to queries from Council, staff noted that they will discuss with the applicant the concerns regarding the retaining wall and installing perimeter fencing during construction and bylaw enforcement of unsightly premises.

PH18/6-3

It was moved and seconded

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9872 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

4.

RICHMOND OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN BYLAWS 9000 AND 7100, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9874 AND RICHMOND ZONING BYLAW 8500, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9875 (RZ 16-754625)
(Location:  5480 Parkwood Way; Applicant:  Brian Ross Motorsports Corp. dba Alfa Maserati of Richmond)

Applicant’s Comments:

The applicant was available to respond to queries.

Written Submissions:

None.

Submissions from the floor:

None.

PH18/6-4

It was moved and seconded

That Official Community Plan Bylaws 9000 and 7100, Amendment Bylaw 9874 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

PH18/6-5

It was moved and seconded

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9875 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

5.

RICHMOND OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN BYLAW 9000, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9864, RICHMOND ZONING BYLAW 8500, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9865
(Location:  City-wide; Applicant:  City of Richmond)

Applicant’s Comments:

Staff was available to respond to queries.

Written Submissions:

None.

Submissions from the floor:

None.

PH18/6-6

It was moved and seconded

That Official Community Plan Bylaws 9000, Amendment Bylaw 9864 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

PH18/6-7

It was moved and seconded

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9865 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

PH18/6-8

It was moved and seconded

That Official Community Plan Bylaws 9000, Amendment Bylaw 9864 be adopted.

CARRIED

PH18/6-9

It was moved and seconded

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9865 be adopted.

CARRIED

6.

RICHMOND OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN BYLAW 9000, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9837 AND RICHMOND ZONING BYLAW 8500, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9838
(Location:  City-wide; Applicant:  City of Richmond)

Applicant’s Comments:

Staff was available to respond to queries.

Written Submissions:

None.

Submissions from the floor:

None.

PH18/6-10

It was moved and seconded

That Official Community Plan Bylaws 9000, Amendment Bylaw 9837 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

PH18/6-11

It was moved and seconded

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9838 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED

PH18/6-12

It was moved and seconded

That Official Community Plan Bylaws 9000, Amendment Bylaw 9837 be adopted.

CARRIED

PH18/6-13

It was moved and seconded

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9838 be adopted.

CARRIED

7.

RICHMOND ZONING BYLAW 8500, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9861
(Location:  City-wide; Applicant:  City of Richmond)

Staff’s Comments:

Barry Konkin, Manager, Policy Planning, provided a brief overview of Bylaw 9861 and spoke to the “fast track” review process for development applications for agricultural buildings and structures with an area of concrete slab larger than 300 m².  Mr. Konkin remarked that a “fast track” review would include a concurrent building permit and soil deposit review process, in addition to the staff report process; also, he noted that the fee for such applications would be $200.

Written Submissions:

(a)

Richmond Farmland Owners Association (Schedule 10)

(b)

Barbara Tinson, Chair, Richmond Chamber of Commerce (Schedule 11)

(c)

Richmond Farmland Owners Association (Schedule 12)

(d)

David Ryall, President, Delta Farmers Institute (Schedule 13)

(e)

Carolynn Campbell, Executive Director, Concrete BC (Schedule 14)

(f)

Darrell Zbeetnoff, Director, Zbeetnoff Agro-Environmental Inc. (Schedule 15)

(g)

Linda English, 13751 Garden City Road, (Schedule 16)

(h)

Robert S. Pringle, Chief Executive Officer, United Flower Growers Co-Operative Association (Schedule 17)

(i)

Stan Vander Waal, President, BC Agriculture Council (Schedule 18)

(j)

Armand VanderMeulen, President, Chair, BC Greenhouse Growers’ Association (Schedule 19)

Submissions from the floor:

Stephen Easterbrook, Richmond resident and Co-Chair of the Agricultural Advisory Committee (AAC), spoke against the proposed bylaw.  He commented on how farming has evolved, noting that greenhouse farming yields significantly higher crops and is necessary in order for farmers to stay competitive with international farmers.  Mr. Easterbrook was of the opinion that a restriction on the size of impermeable floor surfaces on farmland would indicate that Richmond is closed for farming.  He commented on farming regulatory practices, noting that the lack of impermeable floor surfaces would render complying with food safety and bio-security regulations extremely challenging; also, pest control would be unmanageable.  Mr. Easterbrook queried the rationale for the proposed bylaw, and was of the opinion that inadequate research has been conducted and urged Council to make an informed decision and consider all the effects the proposed bylaw may impose on local farmers.  

Niti Sharma, 11380 Kingfisher Drive, spoke in favour of Bylaw 9861, noting that it is necessary as a result of the impending legalization of cannabis. She was of the opinion that (i) a barn could easily be repurposed for cannabis production and as it is a closed structure, such activity may be difficult to detect, (ii) large impermeable surfaces on agricultural land do not support soil based agriculture and could cause irreversible damage to the ecology and bio-physical nature of the land, and (iii) large impermeable surfaces on agricultural land may exacerbate the existing drainage issues.  Ms. Sharma then stated that the proposed application process would allow Council to thoroughly assess each application and ensure all applications are genuine.

Todd May, Co-Chair, AAC, referenced the staff memorandum with regard to the AAC’s position on Bylaw 9861, noting that the proposed regulations are contrary to all types of agricultural viability, and that concrete slabs and related structures are essential to modern and current agricultural practices.  Mr. May remarked that the proposed bylaw was forwarded to the AAC for its review and comments, and cited concern that their expert opinions were not being respected.  He then commented on the “fast track” process, noting that a clear and defined process is required. Mr. May queried the 300 m² threshold and urged Council to work with the AAC on this figure.

Humraj Kallu, 13051 Blundell Road, distributed a booklet (attached to and forming part of these Minutes as Schedule 20). He was of the opinion that any actions that negatively impact farmers will also negatively impact businesses on agricultural land. He noted that despite the proposed “fast track” process for development variance applications, the process may pose significant financial implications for farmers.  Mr. Kallu then cited concern that those directly affected by the proposed bylaw were not consulted.

In response to Council query regarding the requirements for a greenhouse application, staff noted that the most important component would be a completed statutory declaration. Staff further noted that the proposed expedited process would be more efficient as all steps would be done concurrently. 

Vincent Quan, non-Richmond resident, spoke in opposition to the proposed bylaw, noting that it will have a negative impact on the future of farming. He was of the opinion that restrictions on buildings on agricultural land will adversely affect the future viability of a farm and in particular its ability to store and produce crops. He noted that the farming industry is evolving and better quality and large quantities of product are needed to meet consumer demands. 

John Roston, 12262 Ewen Avenue, spoke in favour of the proposed bylaw as it will introduce regulations on agricultural structures while the provincial government establishes a regulatory framework on cannabis. He was of the opinion that greenhouses could be built on industrial land to preserve farmland.

Mr. De Beer, representing Prins Greenhouses, spoke on greenhouses and the method in which vegetables are grown within them.  He stated that impermeable flooring is integral to greenhouse farming for many reasons, but in particular as it relates to sanitation and irrigation.  In addition, Mr. De Beer commented on the advantages of greenhouse farming, highlighting that production is carried out nearly year round, less water and pesticides are utilized, and yields are approximately 10 times higher than with soil-based farming.

John Moonen, West Vancouver, spoke in opposition to the proposed bylaw and read from his submission (attached to and forming part of these Minutes as Schedule 21).

Kirk Miller, former Chair of the Agricultural Land Commission, cautioned Council on the proposed bylaw, noting that an attempt to prevent certain forms of agriculture could be problematic. He spoke of the establishment of the Agricultural Land Reserve, noting that at the time, its intent was to create an industrial zone where agricultural businesses could operate. Mr. Miller then stated that farming requires the use of farm buildings and greenhouses often with impermeable surfaces. He was of the opinion that the proposed bylaw undermines the City’s Agricultural Viability Strategy and removes a farmer’s right to choose the most appropriate way to farm.  Mr. Miller urged Council to abandon the proposed bylaw.

Vincent Li, 6331 Buswell Street and member of the Richmond Farmland Owners Association, spoke against the proposed bylaw and was of the opinion that stakeholders were not adequately consulted on it.  Mr. Li wished to see no new regulations for agricultural buildings and greenhouses.

Resident of 16200 Westminster Highway and member of the Richmond Farmland Owners Association spoke against the proposed bylaw.  He was of the opinion that large agricultural buildings and greenhouses do not negatively affect soil-based agriculture.  He then stated that he wished to see no new regulations for agricultural buildings and greenhouses.

With the aid of a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file, City Clerk’s Office), Peter Karakatsoulis, Lyfe Organic, spoke in opposition to the proposed bylaw as he was of the opinion that vertical farming is the future and greenhouses use less water and protect crops from outside contaminants. He then spoke on various greenhouses being constructed, commenting on their economics.

Tristan, member of the Richmond Farmland Owners Association, spoke in opposition to the proposed bylaw, noting that farming is a complex business and one that is continuously evolving. He commented on technologies that are advancing farming and allowing farmers to increase production. He then referenced figures from Statistics Canada with regard to farming.   He was of the opinion that farmers and experts were not consulted and therefore, the Richmond Farmland Owners Association cannot support the proposed bylaw.

Dr. Laila Benkrima, Research Scientist and Instructor of Horticulture at the University of the Fraser Valley, advised that the food industry is highly regulated and that impermeable floors in greenhouses allow for better bio-security. She noted that farmers need to ensure safety of the food as well as earn a living and greenhouses provide an advantage as crops grown in greenhouses use less water, little to no pesticides and provide high quality yields.  She was of the opinion that with continual technological advancement and the expansion of crops, the number of greenhouses will increase and the type of flooring used will be vital to their success.

Clayton Chessa, Langley, referenced an article from Motherboard (attached to and forming part of these Minutes as Schedule 22) and commented on greenhouses being the future of food and how greenhouses are helping create food supply in areas where food security was a challenge.

Laura Gillanders, Richmond resident, spoke in support of the proposed bylaw, and was of the opinion that it would not prohibit farmers from farming as impermeable surfaces are not commonly utilized in greenhouses.  She noted that Richmond has the most high quality soil to grow ground crops and therefore was concerned with the loss of soil should large concrete slabs be permitted.

Ben Dhiman, 9360 Sidaway Road, noted that it is becoming more difficult to farm and many variables are considered in making a farm a successful business. He remarked that a controlled environment is necessary in order to expand a short farming season. He was of the opinion that placing restrictions on farm structures will hinder farm activities and urged Council to support farmers and the farming industry.

Dale Badh, 2831 Westminster Highway, echoed the comments made by previous delegations and urged Council to consider the recommendations of the Agricultural Advisory Committee and the Richmond Farmland Owners Association.

Mr. Kallu, 1342 52^nd Street, Tsawwassen, commented on the history of commercial farming, noting that since its inception, farmers have had the right to choose what to farm, how to grow it and how to sell. The Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act allows farmers to farm without fear of complaints from others; he spoke of BC Supreme Court rulings and cited concern with the proposed bylaw as he believed it would infringe on farmers’ right to farm.  Mr. Kallu then spoke of the City’s Agricultural Viability Strategy, noting that diversification in the agricultural industry should be supported.  Mr. Kallu requested that the proposed bylaw be rejected and urged Council to consider the recommendations and comments made by experts and farmers.

Brad Dore, queried the ‘fast track’ application process and whether it would be site specific.

Mayor Brodie acknowledged the conclusion of the first round of speakers. Two speakers then spoke for a second time on new information.

Niti Sharma, 11380 Kingfisher Drive, noted that evidence based policies are required when considering the proposed bylaw and therefore individual opinions do not present sufficient proof.

Todd May, Co-Chair, Agricultural Advisory Committee, spoke on the “fast track” process, noting that a clearly defined process needs to be in place. He remarked that stakeholders were not adequately consulted and therefore, he believed that there is a lack of understanding of the proposed bylaw’s impacts on farmers.

Mr. Kallu, 1342 52^nd Street, Tsawwassen, noted that limiting the size of concrete slabs in greenhouses and other agricultural buildings will also limit the design of the structures.

Joe Erceg, General Manager, Planning and Development, provided more information on the “fast track” development application process, noting that a development variance permit would be required for a concrete floor larger than 300 m² for agricultural buildings, and a rezoning permit for all greenhouses that propose a concrete floor of any size. He advised that a “fast track” review process would be applicable to these applications whereby a building permit review, soil deposit review and a “fast track” staff report process would occur concurrently. Mr. Erceg then noted that a development application fee of $200 would be applicable and the development variance permit process would take approximately two months and a rezoning application process would take approximately three months.

PH18/6-14

It was moved and seconded

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9861 be given second and third readings.

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

PH18/6-15

It was moved and seconded

That Bylaw 9861 be amended in Part 6 b) to read as follows:

“6)

The provisions of Section 14.1.4.4 and 14.1.4.5 do not apply for:

b)

Agricultural buildings and structures on a lot, excluding greenhouses, with a cumulative lot coverage equal to or less than 350 m² in total area for all existing and proposed agricultural buildings and structures.”

DEFEATED
Opposed: Mayor Brodie
Cllrs. Dang
Johnston
Loo
McNulty
McPhail

PH18/6-16

It was moved and seconded

That Bylaw 9861 be amended in Part 6 b) to read as follows:

“6)

The provisions of Section 14.1.4.4 and 14.1.4.5 do not apply for:

b)

Agricultural buildings and structures on a lot, excluding greenhouses, with a cumulative lot coverage equal to or less than 500 m² in total area for all existing and proposed agricultural buildings and structures.”

DEFEATED
Opposed: Cllrs. Au
Dang
Johnston
Loo
McNulty
McPhail

PH18/6-17

It was moved and seconded

That Bylaw 9861 be amended in Part 6 b) to read as follows:

“6)

The provisions of Section 14.1.4.4 and 14.1.4.5 do not apply for:

b)

Agricultural buildings and structures on a lot, excluding greenhouses, with a cumulative lot coverage equal to or less than 750 m² in total area for all existing and proposed agricultural buildings and structures.”

CARRIED
Opposed: Cllr: McNulty

The question on second and third readings of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9861, as amended, was then called and it was CARRIED with Cllr. Loo opposed.

PH18/6-18

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9861 be reviewed in one year; and

(2)

That staff report back regarding undertaking a public consultation process.

CARRIED

PH18/6-19

It was moved and seconded

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9861 be adopted.

CARRIED
Opposed: Cllr. Loo

8.

RICHMOND OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN BYLAW 9000, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9869 AND RICHMOND ZONING BYLAW 8500, AMENDMENT BYLAW 9870
(Location:  All properties zoned Agriculture (AG1); Applicant:  City of Richmond)

Applicant’s Comments:

Staff was available to respond to queries.

Written Submissions:

None.

Submissions from the floor:

John Roston, 12262 Ewen Road, expressed concern with the elimination of the rezoning process for additional farm worker dwellings. He noted that a rezoning process would allow for a more thorough review of the use of the additional dwelling. He questioned the authenticity of requests for additional dwellings and therefore wished to see a vetting process in place to validate that the requested additional dwelling is in fact for farm workers.

Niti Sharma, 11380 Kingfisher Drive, spoke in opposition to the proposed bylaw and suggested incorporating a rezoning process for additional dwellings on agricultural land. She was of the opinion that allowing secondary dwellings on agricultural land would further increase real estate speculation on agricultural land.  

Todd May, Co-Chair, Agricultural Advisory Committee, noted that the AAC supports the proposed bylaw and believed that the proposed bylaws will further sustain the viability of agriculture in Richmond.

Laura Gillanders, Richmond resident, expressed concern with the proposed bylaw and stated that she is discouraged to see it in light of the discussions on the effects of large homes on farmland. She was of the opinion that implementing a rezoning process for additional dwellings on agricultural land is important as it would implement a thorough review of the request.

PH18/6-20

It was moved and seconded

That the June 18, 2018 Public Hearing proceed past 11:00 p.m.

CARRIED

PH18/6-21

It was moved and seconded

That Official Community Plan Bylaws 9000, Amendment Bylaw 9869 be given second and third readings.

The question on the motion was not called as discussion took place on the application process for an additional dwelling on agricultural land. In reply to queries from Council, Mr. Erceg noted applications that meet the criteria for an additional dwelling unit would not be further evaluated by staff.

The question on the motion was then called and it was CARRIED with Mayor Brodie, Cllrs. Day and Steves opposed.

PH18/6-22

It was moved and seconded

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9870 be given second and third readings.

CARRIED
Opposed: Mayor Brodie
Cllrs. Day
Steves

PH18/6-23

It was moved and seconded

That Official Community Plan Bylaws 9000, Amendment Bylaw 9869 be adopted.

CARRIED
Opposed: Mayor Brodie
Cllrs. Day
Steves

PH18/6-24

It was moved and seconded

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9870 be adopted.

CARRIED
Opposed: Mayor Brodie
Cllrs. Day
Steves

ADJOURNMENT

PH18/6-25

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (10:58 p.m.).

CARRIED

Certified a true and correct copy of the Minutes of the Regular meeting for Public Hearings of the City of Richmond held on Monday, June 18, 2018.

Mayor (Malcolm D. Brodie)

Acting Corporate Officer (Claudia Jesson)