May 23, 2007 Minutes
Planning Committee
|
Date: |
Wednesday, May 23rd, 2007 |
|
Place: |
Anderson Room |
|
Present: |
Councillor Harold Steves, Chair |
|
Absent: |
Councillor Rob Howard |
|
Also Present: |
Councillor Derek Dang |
|
Call to Order: |
The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. |
|
|
|
MINUTES |
|
|
1. |
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on Tuesday, May 8th, 2007, be adopted as circulated. |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
|
|
NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING DATE |
|
|
2. |
The next meeting of the Committee will be held on Tuesday, June 5th, 2007, at 4:00 p.m. in the Anderson Room. |
|
|
|
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT |
|
|
3. |
(RZ 05-318567 - Report: April 23, 2007, File No.: 12-8060-20-8020) (REDMS No. 2170976, 2222701) | |
|
|
|
The Director, Development Jean Lamontagne briefly reviewed the report with the Committee, noting that the applicant was proposing to increase the number of children in the existing daycare at 10940 Mortfield Road. | |
|
|
|
Discussion then took place among Committee members and staff, during which, in response to questions, the following information was provided: | |
|
|
|
§ |
the existing daycare currently has 10 children, and the City had not received any complaints from adjacent residents about traffic congestion or noise when children were dropped off or picked up from the daycare; the daycare was located one block away from a bus stop and at least one parent utilized transit as well as a majority of the staff members |
|
|
|
§ |
staff had reviewed the traffic situation in the area, and it was determined that children being dropped off at the nearby school had more of an impact because the children at the daycare arrived and left at different times |
|
|
|
§ |
the children at the daycare would range in age from six months to five years, and would be separated into two different groups – 3 to 5 years of age and infant to toddler |
|
|
|
§ |
with respect to Building Code compliance, the applicant had chosen to work with a Fire Protection Engineer and had submitted an application for an ‘alternative solution’ which was permitted within the Building Code |
|
|
|
§ |
once all requirements have been met, the daycare operator would obtain a licence through Vancouver Coastal Health and would be monitored through that agency |
|
|
|
§ |
the younger age group – six months to toddler would have a higher staff ration of 1 staff member for every 4 children; the 3 to 5 year old age group was required to make the daycare operation economically viable. |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded | |
|
|
|
That Bylaw No. 8020, for the rezoning of 10940 Mortfield Road from “Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area E (R1/E)” to “Residential Child Care District (R6)”, be introduced and given first reading. | |
|
|
|
CARRIED | |
|
|
4. |
(RZ 06-335516 - Report: April 16, 2007, File No.: 12-8060-20-8087) (REDMS No. 1904238, 2161745) |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That Bylaw No. 8087, for the rezoning of 8471 No. 1 Road from “Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area E (R1/E)” to “Single-Family Housing District (R1-0.6)”, be introduced and given first reading. |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
|
5. |
(RZ 06-323970 - Report: May 1, 2007, File No.: 12-8060-20-8203) (REDMS No. 2078292, 822951, 2141887) |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That Bylaw No. 8203, to reduce the minimum lot size from 1,865 m2 (20,075 ft2) to 1,560 m2 (16,800 ft2) in “Comprehensive Development District (CD/79)”, and to rezone 4211 Garry Street and portions of unconstructed road to the north and east from “Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area E (R1/E)” to “Comprehensive Development District (CD/79)”, be introduced and given first reading. |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
|
6. |
(RZ 06-333717 - Report: March 12, 2007, File No.: 12-8060-20-8218) (REDMS No. 2090071, 280247, 2103563, 2090848) |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That Bylaw No. 8218, for the rezoning of 2431 McKessock Avenue from “Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area D (R1/D)” to “Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area B (R1/B)”, be introduced and given first reading. |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
|
7. |
(RZ 05-303370 - Report: May 3, 2007, File No.: 12-8060-20-8225; xr: 4430-00) (REDMS No. 2111205, 2123892, 280255, 2120455, 2120157) | |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded | |
|
|
|
(1) |
That the following recommendation be forwarded to Public Hearing: |
|
|
|
|
That Single-Family Lot Size Policy 5440 for the area bounded by the rear boundaries of the properties on the south side of Bird Road, No. 5 Road, Cambie Road and the west side of Bargen Drive be amended to permit rezoning and subdivision of 3491 No. 5 Road to Single-Family Housing District (R1/B) provided there is no vehicle access to No. 5 Road. |
|
|
|
(2) |
That Bylaw No. 8225, for the rezoning of 3491 No. 5 Road from "Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area E (R1/E)” and “Roadside Stand (Class C) District (RSC)" to "Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area B (R1/B) ", be introduced and given first reading. |
|
|
|
CARRIED | |
|
|
8. |
(RZ 07-363805 - Report: April 16, 2007, File No.: 12-8060-20-8232) (REDMS No. 2136364, 1791415, 2138503) |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That Bylaw No. 8232, for the rezoning of 10560 Williams Road from “Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area E (R1/E)” to “Single-Family Housing District (R1-0.6)”, be introduced and given first reading. |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
|
9. |
(RZ 07-363794 - Report: April 16, 2007, File No.: 12-8060-20-8237) (REDMS No. 2139354, 2142076) |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That Bylaw No. 8237, for the rezoning of 10711 Williams Road from “Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area E (R1/E)” to “Single-Family Housing District (R1-0.6)”, be introduced and given first reading. |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
|
10. |
(RZ 07-361121 - Report: May 1, 2007, File No.: 12-8060-20-8245) (REDMS No. 2226202, 2226902) |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That Bylaw No. 8245, for the rezoning of 10351 Williams Road from “Single-Family Housing District, Subdivision Area E (R1/E)” to “Single-Family Housing District (R1-0.6)”, be introduced and given first reading. |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
|
11. |
DEVELOPER VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS STUDY (Report: May 2, 2007, File No.: 08-4000-00/Vol 01) (REDMS No. 2119195) | ||
|
|
|
(The following discussion relates to both Item No. 11 – Developer Voluntary Contributions Study and to Item No. 12 – Richmond Affordable Housing Strategy.) | ||
|
|
|
The Manager, Policy Planning, Terry Crowe, reviewed the history of the development of the proposed developer voluntary contributions, during which he outlined staff’s rationale for supporting the ‘density bonusing’ concept and explained how a developer could apply ‘density bonusing’ to a particular project. Mr. Crowe used display boards to further explain density bonusing and how this option would be applied to the affordable housing strategy. | ||
|
|
|
Discussion then ensued among Committee members and staff on: | ||
|
|
|
§ |
whether City staff had consulted with representatives of the local development community about the proposal – advice was given that City staff had spoken to representatives of the Urban Design Institute (UDI), to Greater Vancouver Regional District staff, and to the Greater Vancouver Home Builders Association, as well as to some of the smaller developers in Richmond | |
|
|
|
§ |
the question of whether the City should be requiring developers to build affordable housing units rather than accepting a cash-in-lieu contribution; whether any consideration had been given to using City-owned property | |
|
|
|
§ |
the concept of the City entering into partnerships with developers to construct affordable housing projects; the responsibility of the City and developers to provide affordable housing, and the responsibility of the senior levels of government to provide a greater contribution towards affordable housing | |
|
|
|
§ |
the use of funds in the affordable housing reserve account to purchase other lands for affordable housing as the money became available | |
|
|
|
§ |
the use of incentives, such as a reduction in parking standards or the types of affordable housing interior finishes and developer building ownership, as a means to encourage developers to accept density bonusing | |
|
|
|
§ |
whether the scattering of affordable housing units throughout the entire City which would result in a mix of different income and housing types would be a better solution than locating all affordable housing units within one specific area of the City | |
|
|
|
§ |
the likelihood of widespread building demolition occurring if the City’s current moratorium on the demolition or conversion of existing multi-family rental housing except where there was one to one replacement, was rescinded, and the impact which the rescission of this moratorium could have if rezoning of the multi-family property was not undertaken and a single family home constructed in its place | |
|
|
|
§ |
the timing of the implementation of the density bonusing option | |
|
|
|
§ |
with respect to the affordable housing strategy, and in a situation whether the developer retained ownership of the building, how the project would be monitored to ensure that the affordable housing units remained and were used as such units | |
|
|
|
§ |
the number of units which could be developed as affordable housing within a development project, and the shortfall of affordable housing units within the City | |
|
|
|
§ |
whether developers would prefer a flat rate over a pro-forma rate | |
|
|
|
§ |
the previous proposal which had been submitted in January, 2007, by G. P. Rollo & Associates Ltd. which recommended the adoption of a ‘land lift’ pro forma developer voluntary contribution approach | |
|
|
|
§ |
the needs of developers to have assurances on what the anticipated expenses would be and the need to ensure that the resources were available to provide this information | |
|
|
|
§ |
the impact to a developer who does not qualify for density bonusing. | |
|
|
|
During the discussion, concern was expressed about the term ‘voluntary’ and the suggestion was made that another word should be found as it was felt that the developer contributions could not be considered to be voluntary. | ||
|
|
|
Also during the discussion, advice was given that should Committee and Council adopt the recommendations now being considered, staff would initiate the density bonusing approach and Council would be taking the position that all apartment projects over 80 units in size would be required to provide 5% of the buildable square foot (BSF), as built affordable housing. If the developer chose not to provide the four units, advice was given that staff would be making a refusal recommendation to Committee. Further information was provided that adoption of the recommendations would allow staff to make use of any money which was collected as part of this strategy. | ||
|
|
|
Heather McLeod, 9360 Glenbrook Drive, referred to the proposed affordable housing strategy and indicated that she wanted the cash contributions to be earmarked for affordable housing not soft costs (i.e. staff). Information was provided in response that the City was legally required to deposit the cash contributions into an affordable housing statutory reserve fund. Advice was also given that the figure of 5% per BSF (or four units) was chosen for high-density residential buildings as it was felt that this number was the most practical. | ||
|
|
|
Ms. McLeod stated in response, that she would prefer to see the amount of 20% established for projects less than 80 units in size, suggesting that two affordable housing units could be included in a 40 unit townhouse project. A brief discussion ensued on this idea. Staff noted that developers can pool their resources and explore options on how to provide their required affordable housing units together. It was noted however that it would be onerous to hire someone to manage each affordable housing unit if they were all located separately. | ||
|
|
|
Mr. Scott Baldwin, Senior Vice President Development, Polygon Homes Ltd. and representing the Urban Development Institute (UDI), accompanied by Mr. Matt Nugent, Research Assistant, UDI, circulated material to Committee members regarding UDI’s concerns about the proposed density bonusing concept. A copy of the submission is attached as Schedule A and forms part of these minutes. | ||
|
|
|
Mr. Baldwin then reviewed an affordable housing model being put forward by UDI for City-owned property located in the area of No. 2 Road and River Road. A copy of this proposal is on file in the City Clerk’s Office. | ||
|
|
|
Discussion then took place among Committee members and the delegation regarding the UDI proposal, and in particular: | ||
|
|
|
§ |
how the proposal dealt with the placement of low income housing units within one area | |
|
|
|
§ |
whether the cost per unit of affordable housing would increase if a two bedroom unit was increased to three bedrooms | |
|
|
|
§ |
the viability of the proposed units for seniors housing | |
|
|
|
§ |
rental cost for each of the units; the anticipated market price per square foot for the affordable housing units, and the type of building design and construction which would result, based on the proposed cost per square foot. | |
|
|
|
A comment was made during the discussion that Lot A north of the property being considered for the UDI proposal had recently been sold and that only Lot B was available for affordable housing. It was also noted that the proposal assumed that the City would be providing the land for this project, and a further comment was made that the UDI proposal could not be used as proposed. However, advice was given in response that while the current UDI proposal could not be considered, staff would be submitting a report to Committee for a Request for Proposal (RFP) call for the City-owned property on No. 2 Road and on Granville Avenue and No. 3 Road. Support was given for the UDI model and it was noted that the City would be able to use funds from other projects to make the UDI proposal work. | ||
|
|
|
Discussion continued on the feasibility of relaxing Development Cost Charges and property taxes as incentives to developers, and whether the City had the authority to reduce Development Cost Charges (DCCs). Also addressed was the availability of funding from senior levels of government. Reference was made to the proposal submitted on behalf of UDI, and the comment was made that this proposal could form the basis of an RFP. | ||
|
|
|
Mr. David Reay, 4340 Steveston Highway, representing the Richmond Affordable Housing Task Force (Richmond Poverty Response Committee), elaborated on his submission to the Committee regarding the proposed Affordable Housing Strategy. A copy of Mr. Reay’s submission is attached as Schedule B and forms part of these minutes. | ||
|
|
|
(Cllr. Dang left the meeting at 5:55 p.m., during Mr. Reay’s submission, and he did not return.) | ||
|
|
|
In response to questions raised by Mr. Reay with reference to the City of Vancouver being able to include affordable housing as a Development Cost Charge, advice was given that this authority was included within the Vancouver City Charter. Reference was also made to the rescission of the City’s moratorium on the demolition or conversion of existing multi-family rental stock and apparent difference between the staff recommendation and report recommendations as they relate to the replacement policy. Advice was given that staff were of the view that in all likelihood the owner of a rental property slated for redevelopment would apply for a rezoning which would allow the City to require developers to 100 units with 100 affordable housing units. | ||
|
|
|
Discussion then took place briefly on the stance of other municipalities and the Provincial Government regarding the inclusion of affordable housing as a Development Cost Charge. With respect to whether the City had the right to not charge Development Cost Charges, advice was given that as long as a project was for non-profit housing, the City had the ability to waive DCCs, and that staff were recommending this option if this strategy was approved. Further advice was given that City staff would be encouraging the GVRD to waive its DCC fees as well. | ||
|
|
|
(Cllr. McNulty left the meeting at 6:02 p.m., and retuned at 6:05 p.m.) | ||
|
|
|
Mr. Dana Westermark, of 13333 Princess Street, made the following comments with respect to the ‘Developer Voluntary Contributions Study’ and the ‘Affordable Housing Strategy’: | ||
|
|
|
§ |
although the general concept had merit, there were a number of issues which could prove to be challenging, the first being ‘coach houses’ or single family homes with suites in those units; it could be difficult to obtain the appropriate zoning for such projects in existing subdivisions or on arterial streets due to possible resistance from the neighbours, and he did not anticipate that that resistance would be diminished because of the inclusion of subsidized housing | |
|
|
|
§ |
consideration should be given to meeting two objectives – the pursuit by the City of densification of arterial roads, and the possibility of payment in lieu or some other alternative for single family residences in existing neighbourhoods where there could be opposition to the secondary suites and coach houses; otherwise the end result could be that affordable housing units would never be constructed and that another consequence could be extremely low densities on major arterial roads | |
|
|
|
§ |
questioned whether the proposed density was sufficient for the Townhouse Zoning District | |
|
|
|
§ |
there were a number of onerous requirements, some of which had been challenged by UDI, such as the fact that the City could fine the owner of a building containing affordable housing $100 per day in the event that the annual income of a low to middle income renter rose above the amount specified in the housing agreement until the problem is resolved | |
|
|
|
§ |
managing the housing agreement for small projects, townhouse developments or single family homes with suites would be a burden; it would be onerous to ask that the management and policing of the housing agreement fall to the property owner; this approach would be much more realistic for larger projects however, another issue relating to the housing agreement relates to rent levels, and it might be more reasonable to expect that the rents would be more in keeping with the lower end of the market so that it does not place an unreasonable burden on the homeowner to police the agreement | |
|
|
|
§ |
coach houses and townhouses do help to make housing more affordable | |
|
|
|
§ |
with respect to the possibility of providing larger affordable units and the related cost, the challenge was that the rent would be scaled proportionately to the size of the units; he suggested that there needed to be recognition of greater subsidies for larger affordable units | |
|
|
|
§ |
the proposal submitted by UDI and the proposal being developed by Mr. Westermark were examples of how the industry responded to the affordable housing issue; he believed that the housing industry had a desire and a willingness to respond and pursue development partnerships with developers who were interested in providing affordable housing opportunities. | |
|
|
|
A brief discussion then took place among Committee members and the delegation, during which the comment was made that developers would have to be aggressive in their approach and would need to work to pursue partnership possibilities. | ||
|
|
|
Discussion then ensued among Committee members and staff on the matter of secondary suites in relation to the proposed housing agreements. Advice was given that housing agreements were not being proposed for secondary suites which already exist which were not in the process of being rezoned. Further advice was given that a housing agreement would be imposed when a rezoning application was submitted. Also addressed was the cash in lieu option which was available in the event that at the time of rezoning adjacent residents who indicated that they did not have a problem with the proposed rezoning but did not want to have an secondary suite affordable housing agreement imposed. | ||
|
|
|
Mr. Vince Miele, 4691 Cabot Drive, Chair of the Richmond Committee on Disability, spoke about the need for accessibility in the affordable housing strategy, and in particular, the concept of “visitability”. He noted that other countries along with some provinces within Canada had taken steps to incorporate this term in their affordable housing strategies, and asked that Richmond consider including “visitability” in all future housing projects. Mr. Miele commented that ‘visitability’ would allow a person with a disability or injury to be part of the entire community to visit someone without problems being encountered. He added that this concept would eliminate stairs in all entrances and ensure that a wide accessible path to entrance was provided, as well as ensuring that a half bathroom was included on the main floor. | ||
|
|
|
The Manager, Building Approvals, John Irving, in commenting on Mr. Miele’s request, advised that staff would be submitting a report to Committee in June regarding accessibility and the universal guidelines. | ||
|
|
|
In concluding his presentation, Mr. Miele stated that the design guidelines were much broader and stated that the PowerPoint presentation attached to the email which he had sent to all members of Council regarding “visitability” highlighted the terms of visitability. He advised that the basic focus of “visitability” meant that someone in a wheelchair could visit a neighbour and make use of facilities. | ||
|
|
|
(Cllr. Barnes left the meeting at 6:25 p.m., and returned at 6:28 p.m.) | ||
|
|
|
Ms. Helen Collinge, representing the Canadian Federation of University Women, stated that her organization had concerns about the proposal to take the funds for the temporary full time employee from the Affordable Housing Capital Reserve Fund, and did not support this proposal. She indicated that the funds for this position should be taken from general revenue. Ms. Collins noted that the City had had three social planners at one time and that now there was only one social planner for the entire City. She added that affordable housing was an important issue for Richmond residents and that the more money there was in the Affordable Housing Capital Reserve Fund would allow the City to leverage other senior levels of government for additional funding. | ||
|
|
|
Discussion then took place among Committee members and staff as to why the recommendation was being made that funding for the position be taken from the Affordable Housing Reserve Fund. Comments were made that if the recommendations were approved, and the additional staff position supported, that another way of providing funding had to be found which was not the Affordable Housing Reserve Fund. Opposition was also voiced to any funding option which would result in a further draw on taxes, and the suggestion was made that staff should be examining ways to ensure that this program financed itself. Further comments were made about the need for a job description and that the position should be funded through General Revenue. | ||
|
|
|
Ms. Jennifer Larsen, 8680 Foster Road, spoke briefly about the lack of social planners. She then referred to the proposal to hire a temporary fulltime employee to work in the Real Estate Services Division, and commented that this individual would have a great deal of work to undertake. Ms. Larsen added that the City was expecting a great deal if it was felt that one person would be able to do it all. | ||
|
|
|
Ms. Larsen referred to the proposed rescission of the moratorium on the demolition or conversion of existing multi-family rental housing, and questioned what protection would be provided for existing rental units in the City prior to the implementation of the new program. | ||
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded | ||
|
|
|
That, (as outlined in the report from the Director of Development and Manager, Policy Planning dated May 2, 2007: | ||
|
|
|
(1) |
Option 2 – “Shelf Ready” Residential Density Bonus Zones be endorsed for use for residential rezoning applications submitted after July 1, 2007; and | |
|
|
|
(2) |
Staff review and update the existing policies or approaches to receiving developer voluntary contributions to amenities besides affordable housing to improve their effectiveness. | |
|
|
|
CARRIED | ||
|
|
12. |
RICHMOND AFFORDABLE HOUSING STRATEGY (Report: May 9, 2007, File No.: 12-8060-20-8213; xr: 1075-07; xr: 12-8060-20-8206; xr: 08-4057-05/2007-Vol 01) (REDMS No. 2074745, 2085023, 2179277, 2077353, 2080459, 2081083) | ||||||
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded | ||||||
|
|
|
(1) |
That the Richmond Affordable Housing Strategy dated May 9, 2007 be approved, and that the specific staff recommendations in Attachment 1 be endorsed with amendments to: | |||||
|
|
|
|
(a) |
delete Staff Recommendation No. (4) - “Moratorium and 1:1 Rental Replacement” (identified in Attachment 1 to the report dated May 15th, 2007, from the Manager, Policy Planning), in its entirety; | ||||
|
|
|
|
(b) |
add that staff be requested to review the 1:1 replacement for those situations where there would be no rezoning or stratification; and | ||||
|
|
|
|
(c) |
add to Staff Recommendation No. (1) – “Staff Resources”, (identified in Attachment 1 to the report dated May 15th, 2007, from the Manager, Policy Planning), the following words, “and that this position be referred for discussion as part of the 2008 budget process”. | ||||
|
|
|
(2) |
That Affordable Housing Operating Reserve Fund Establishment Bylaw No. 8206 be introduced and given first, second and third reading. | |||||
|
|
|
(3) |
(a) |
That Bylaw No. 8213, to amend Schedule 1 of Official Community Plan Bylaw 7100 to add the following policies in Section 3.2 Housing under Variety of Tenure: | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
(i) |
encourage a 1:1 replacement for the conversion or rezoning of existing rental housing units in multi-family and mixed use developments, with the 1:1 replacement being secured as affordable housing by a housing agreement in appropriate circumstances; and | |||
|
|
|
|
|
(ii) |
expedite rezoning and development permit applications, at no additional cost to the applicant, where the entire building(s) or development consists of affordable subsidized rental housing units, | |||
|
|
|
|
|
be introduced and given first reading. | ||||
|
|
|
|
(b) |
That Bylaw No. 8213, having been considered in conjunction with: | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
(i) |
the City’s Financial Plan; and | |||
|
|
|
|
|
(ii) |
the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Solid Waste and Liquid Waste Management Plans; | |||
|
|
|
|
|
be deemed to be consistent with said program and plans, in accordance with Section 882(3)(a) of the Local Government Act. | ||||
|
|
|
|
(c) |
That Bylaw No. 8213, has been considered in accordance with OCP Bylaw Preparation Consultation Policy 5043, and accordingly Council has: | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
(i) |
considered whether opportunities for consultation have been early and ongoing; | |||
|
|
|
|
|
(ii) |
specifically considered whether and the extent to which consultation is required with: | |||
|
|
|
|
|
|
§ |
the regional district board; | ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
§ |
the councils of adjacent municipalities; | ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
§ |
first nations; | ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
§ |
the school board and greater boards; and | ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
§ |
the provincial and federal governments and their agencies. | ||
|
|
|
(4) |
That Development Application Fees Bylaw No. 7984, Amendment Bylaw No. 8214, to expedite rezoning and development permit applications where the entire building(s) or development consists of affordable subsidized rental housing units as newly defined, at no additional cost to the applicant, be introduced and given first, second and third reading. | |||||
|
|
|
CARRIED | ||||||
|
|
13. |
SECONDARY SUITES LEGALIZATION PROGRAM (Report: May 9, 2007, File No.: 12-8060-20-8200; xr: 1810-01) (REDMS No. 2073585, 2078100) | ||
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded | ||
|
|
|
(1) |
||
|
|
|
(2) |
That the following three new permanent full-time positions be created within the Building Approvals Division to administer secondary suite legalization: | |
|
|
|
|
(i) |
Building Inspector I |
|
|
|
|
(ii) |
Plumbing/Gas Inspector I |
|
|
|
|
(iii) |
Plan Checker I. |
|
|
|
CARRIED | ||
|
|
14. |
THE TRADE, INVESTMENT AND LABOUR MOBILITY AGREEMENT (TILMA) (Report: April 2, 2007, File No.: 01-0150-01) (REDMS No. 2120138) | |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded | |
|
|
|
That the report (dated April 2, 2007, from the Manger of Economic Development), regarding the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA), be received for information. | |
|
|
|
The question on the motion was not called, as concern was voiced that if the report was only received for information, there would be no further action taken. As a result, it was agreed that the following would be added as Part (2) to the main motion, “(2) That a letter be sent to the Provincial Government, with a copy to the Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM), requesting that the Provincial Government consult with the UBCM and the City of Richmond to work through the areas of concern relating to the Trade, Investment & Labour Mobility Agreement.” | |
|
|
|
Discussion continued, with concern being expressed about the fact that the Provincial Government was negotiating after the fact, and staff were requested to emphasize this concern in the letter to the Provincial Government as well as the fact that Richmond has concerns about TILMA. Concern was also voiced about the fact that the Provincial Government was entering into agreements which affect the City without consulting with the City beforehand. | |
|
|
|
The question on the following amended motion, | |
|
|
|
(1) |
That the report (dated April 2, 2007, from the Manger of Economic Development), regarding the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA), be received for information. |
|
|
|
(2) |
That a letter be sent to the Provincial Government, with a copy to the Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM), requesting that the Provincial Government consult with the UBCM and the City of Richmond to work through the areas of concern relating to the Trade, Investment & Labour Mobility Agreement, |
|
|
|
was then called, and it was CARRIED. | |
|
|
15. |
CITY OF RICHMOND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BC AGRICULTURE PLAN (Report: May 1, 2007 , File No.: 01-0150-20-AF1S1; xr: 08-4050-10) (REDMS No. 2062708) | |||
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded | |||
|
|
|
(1) |
That the recommendations presented in Attachment 5 to the staff report entitled “City of Richmond Recommendations to the BC Agriculture Plan” dated May 1, 2007 from the Manager of Policy Planning be adopted with amendments to add: | ||
|
|
|
|
(a) |
to the fourth bullet under No. 6 – Agricultural Sector Growth Strategies,- Recommendations, the following, “or alternatively, increasing taxes where land was not being farmed”; and | |
|
|
|
|
(b) |
the following to “Agricultural Sector Growth Strategies”: | |
|
|
|
|
|
“Food Security Climate change, growing and shifting populations and potential reduction of the food producing capabilities of exporting nations, necessitate a concern for food security. Programs need to be developed to assist and promote urban agriculture to augment Richmond’s agricultural production capability.” | |
|
|
|
(2) |
That the recommendations, along with the staff report entitled “City of Richmond Recommendations to the BC Agriculture Plan” (dated May 1, 2007 from the Manager of Policy Planning), be forwarded to the BC Agriculture Planning Committee and the Greater Vancouver Regional District Agriculture Committee. | ||
|
|
|
CARRIED | |||
|
|
16. |
MANAGER’S REPORT |
|
|
|
There were no reports made. |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That staff examine the possibility of providing wireless Internet access in affordable housing projects. |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
|
|
ADJOURNMENT |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That the meeting adjourn (6:57 p.m.). |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
|
Certified a true and correct copy of the Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee of the Council of the City of Richmond held on Wednesday, May 23rd, 2007. |
|
_________________________________ |
_________________________________ |
|
Councillor Harold Steves |
Fran J. Ashton |