February 3, 2015 - Minutes

Date:

Tuesday, February 3, 2015

Place:

Anderson Room
Richmond City Hall

Present:

Councillor Linda McPhail, Chair
Councillor Bill McNulty
Councillor Chak Au
Councillor Carol Day
Councillor Harold Steves

Also Present:

Councillor Alexa Loo

Call to Order:

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.

MINUTES

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on Tuesday, January 20, 2015, be adopted as circulated.

CARRIED

NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING DATE

Tuesday, February 17, 2015, (tentative date) at 4:00 p.m. in the Anderson Room

The Chair advised that the order of the agenda would be varied to consider Item No. 6 after Item No. 2.

COMMUNITY SERVICES DIVISION

1.

Richmond Seniors Advisory Committee 2014 Annual Report and 2015 Work Program
(File Ref. No. 01-0100-30-SADV1-01) (REDMS No. 4461428)

In reply to queries from Committee with regard to monthly meetings organized by the faith based communities, Sean Davies, Diversity Services Coordinator, noted that the meetings are an opportunity for senior residents to be involved in the community and exchange information.

Discussion ensued with regard to the distribution of the Newcomers Guide in other languages.

In reply to queries regarding isolated seniors, Mr. Davies noted that the City is making an effort to seek opportunities to engage seniors in available program services. He added that the City is working with partner organizations to develop further opportunities.

Discussion ensued with regard to (i) putting an emphasis on programming for seniors, (ii) new home construction in the city, and (iii) the availability of housing for seniors.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Davies noted that staff can examine options to promote the programming available for senior residents.

Discussion ensued with respect to senior abuse in the city, and in reply to queries, Mr. Davies noted that the Richmond Seniors Advisory Committee (RSAC) is not aware of a senior abuse trend in the city. He added that the RSAC had guest speakers from the RCMP speak about senior abuse.

Committee thanked the RSAC for their work.

It was moved and seconded

That the Richmond Seniors Advisory Committee 2014 Annual Report and 2015 Work Program be approved.

CARRIED

2.

Richmond Community Services Advisory Committee 2014 Annual Report and 2015 Work Program
(File Ref. No. 11-7000-01) (REDMS No. 4457839)

Discussion ensued with regard to the meeting with Richmond MLAs on the RCSAC’s Addictions and Mental Health Gap Analysis. Lisa Whittaker and Colin Dring, Co-Chairs, Richmond Community Services Advisory Committee (RCSAC) noted that the Province has not committed to funding, however communication channels remain open.

In reply to queries from Committee, Ms. Whittaker spoke of the trending complex social issues facing RCSAC clients and the social services available.

In reply to queries, Mr. Dring noted that income disparity has increased in the community and demands for social services such as the Richmond Food Bank have doubled.

Discussion ensued regarding instances where individuals misuse the available social services. Mr. Dring noted that individuals are referred to a social service by an agency or community organization and that the number of individuals suspected of misusing the social services is small relative to the number of individuals who require assistance.

Committee thanked the RCSAC for their work in raising awareness of social issues in the community.

It was moved and seconded

That the Richmond Community Services Advisory Committee’s 2015 Work Program be approved.

CARRIED

PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

6.

Application by Alan Kwok and Angelina Kwok for Rezoning at 11760 Seaton Road from Single Detached (RS1/E) to Single Detached (RS2/B)
(File Ref. No. 12-8060-20-009182; RZ 14-666216) (REDMS No. 4475035)

Wayne Craig, Director, Development, briefed Committee on the proposed application, noting that the rezoning is consistent with the lot size policy in the area.

In reply to queries from Committee, Andrew Yu, Planning Technician, advised that the proposed frontage on each lot is approximately six metres and that the subdivision plans will meet all applicable City regulations.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Craig noted that parking along the cul-de-sac is not being proposed at this time.

Discussion ensued with regard to subdivision requirements and Mr. Craig advised that introducing a bylaw to require subdivision of a large lot would be difficult.

It was moved and seconded

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9182, for the rezoning of 11760 Seaton Road from “Single Detached (RS1/E)” to “Single Detached (RS2/B)”, be introduced and given first reading.

CARRIED

COMMUNITY SERVICES DIVISION

3.

Interim Single Family Subdivision Rezoning Policy – Affordable Housing Considerations and Proposed Amendments
(File Ref. No. 08-4057-01) (REDMS No. 4460491)

John Foster, Manager, Community Social Development, and Dena Kae Beno, Affordable Housing Coordinator, briefed Committee on the proposed amendments to the Single Family Subdivision Rezoning Policy and affordable housing contribution rates.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Foster noted that the proposed recommendations would have provisions for builders to provide a cash-in-lieu contribution if physical limitations prohibit the addition of a secondary suite.

Discussion ensued with regard to the income qualification requirements for subsidized affordable housing.

In reply to queries with regard to the projected affordable housing funds, Ms. Beno noted that economic analysis was used to determine appropriate contribution rates.

Discussion ensued regarding (i) the effect of proposed rates on small builders, (ii) waiving contribution rates on smaller single family homes, (iii) promoting smaller building lot coverage, (iv) incomes required for home ownership, (v) looking at other options to contribute to the Affordable Housing Fund, and (vi) exploring options for an affordable housing operating fund in addition to the Affordable Housing Fund to support low income residents.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Craig spoke on the zoning bylaw structure, noting that the cash-in-lieu contribution would be tied to the density bonus, so the developer would have an option to build a smaller house.

Discussion ensued with regard to large new single family homes in the city and housing policies that would help middle-class residents. Mr. Foster noted that City policies currently focus on three areas, (i) low income subsidies, (ii) low income housing, and (iii) affordable ownership.

In reply to queries from Committee, Joe Erceg, General Manager, Planning and Development, noted the following:

§   

Council may direct a policy review on lot and house size;

§   

some large homes were built on lots under land use contracts;

§   

the City is currently reviewing the process for the removal of land use contracts; and

§   

rezoning policies promote affordable housing through the creation of secondary suites or a cash-in-lieu contribution towards affordable housing units.

Discussion ensued regarding (i) rezoning policy to encourage smaller lots, (ii) the effect of market forces on lot size, and (iii) the affordability of smaller single family homes.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Craig noted that floor area ratio, lot coverage and building height regulations limit the size of homes in the city.

Discussion ensued with regard to the proposed increase in the affordable housing contribution rates and additional fees to builders, and Mr. Craig noted that the additional fees would depend on the size of the lot and the inclusion of suites.

Amit Sandhu, Ampri Real Estate Development Group, read from his submission expressing concern about the proposed amendments to the Single Family Subdivision Rezoning Policy and affordable housing contribution rates (copy on file, City Clerk’s Office) and was of the opinion that:

§   

affordable housing policy should not use a blanket approach and should be linked to market conditions;

§   

there is demand for compact single family housing;

§   

the amendments may adversely affect residents transitioning into single family housing; and

§   

current income levels may not support ownership of single family homes in the city.

Mr. Sandhu spoke of the different housing options available for families in the city, noting that the costs of single family homes may deter prospective buyers.

Discussion ensued with respect to housing options for residents who prefer to rent and in reply to queries, Mr. Sandhu noted that he was of the opinion that market rental housing is more appropriate in more densely populated areas where infrastructure and transportation options are more readily available.

Discussion then ensued with regard to the proposed amendments and the potential added costs to home development. Mr. Sandhu expressed that the affordable housing policy should be varied to account for the varying circumstances of each neighbourhood in the city.

Raman Kooner, introduced himself as a representative for single family home builders, and spoke in favour of the Hybrid Contribution (Option 3) as part of the proposed Affordable Housing Policy amendments.

In reply from queries, Mr. Craig advised that the developer retains the ability to choose the affordable housing contribution for the development, however Council has the option of directing a specific option if required. Mr. Craig noted that he is not aware of any instances where a developer’s contribution preferences were not accepted by Council.

Dana Westermark, Urban Design Institute (UDI), spoke of the Affordable Housing Strategy’s positive impact in the city and noted the following:

§   

Option 3 offers the appropriate provisions to allow for alternative contributions if building secondary suites is not possible;

§   

incentives for developers such as bonus density and an increase in Floor Area Ratios (FAR) could be incorporated in the Affordable Housing Strategy amendments;

§   

affordable housing is a complex issue and requires extensive consultation with all stakeholders; and

§   

the Affordable Housing Strategy can be supported by using market forces.

Cathryn Volkering Carlile, General Manager, Community Services, noted that the proposed amendments to the Affordable Housing Policy can be brought forward to Council and that there will be additional consultation opportunities regarding the matter.

In reply to queries from Committee, Ms. Beno noted that a report regarding the proposed Affordable Housing Policy amendments and feedback from stakeholders is anticipated to be presented by April 2015. Ms. Carlile noted that a broader examination of the Affordable Housing Strategy will require more time.

Discussion ensued with regard to the consultation for the proposed amendments to the Affordable Housing Policy and in reply to queries, Mr. Craig noted that the amendments will not apply to pending applications prior to the final approval of the said amendments.

Mr. Craig summarized the proposed amendments including the options for developers to build secondary suites and increasing the cash-in-lieu contribution rates to $2.00. He added that Option 3 addresses concerns raised by developers.

Ms. Carlile commented on the consultation framework that will be used to review the Affordable Housing Policy.

In reply to queries from Committee, Ms. Carlile advised (i) that staff can examine how market forces can be used to encourage the subdivision of large lots into smaller lots, and (ii) the consultation will focus on the proposed amendments and not a broad examination of the Affordable Housing Strategy.

Discussion ensued regarding (i) the consultation process, (ii) the timeline of the consultation and reporting back in six months time, and (iii) and having a broad discussion on affordable housing policies.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Foster noted that applications already received and being processed will be grandfathered with existing affordable housing contribution rates prior to adoption of the proposed amendments. He added that there will be additional opportunities for consultation on the proposed affordable housing contribution rates.

Discussion ensued with respect to the affordable housing contribution rates of other municipalities and in reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Erceg noted that comparison of rates between municipalities is difficult to assess because each municipality uses different metrics to calculate rates.

Discussion then ensued with regard to the densification along arterial roads and established neighbourhoods. Mr. Erceg advised that most densification would occur along arterial roads and established neighbourhoods would not see excess densification.

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That, as per the staff report titled Interim Single Family Subdivision Rezoning Policy – Affordable Housing Considerations and Proposed Amendments, dated January 16, 2015, from the General Manager of Community Services, the City’s secondary suite policy for single family rezoning applications, where the density bonusing approach is taken in exchange for a higher density, all the lots that are being rezoned, be amended to require developers to either: 

(a)

build a suite on 100% of the single family lots subdivided through rezoning applications; or

(b)

provide a built unit on 50% of the single family lots subdivided through rezoning applications and a cash-in-lieu contribution of $2 per square foot per total buildable area from the remaining lot; or

(c)

provide a 100% cash-in-lieu contribution of $2.00 per square foot per total buildable area on lots subdivided through rezoning applications that cannot accommodate the provision of built secondary suites; and

(2)

That the $2.00 per square foot interim contribution rate be implemented and is subject to final adoption when the contribution rates for all development types identified in the report “Richmond Affordable Housing Contribution Rate and Reserve Fund Analysis” be adopted.

The question on the motion was not called as discussion ensued with regard to house size and density along arterial roads.

The question on the motion was then called and it was CARRIED.

4.

Richmond Affordable Housing Contribution Rate and Reserve Fund Strategy Review - Recommendations for Stakeholder Consultation
(File Ref. No. 08-4057-01) (REDMS No. 4479632)

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That the staff report titled Richmond Affordable Housing Contribution Rate and Reserve Fund Strategy Review,  dated January 13, 2015, from the General Manager of Community Services be received for information;

(2)

That staff be directed to seek comments from the development community and other key stakeholders regarding the recommended Affordable Housing Contribution rates and report back to Planning Committee;

(3)

That development applications already received and being processed by the City, prior to adoption of the proposed rates, be grandfathered with existing Affordable Housing Contribution rates; and

(4)

That approved rates undergo periodic review to account for current market conditions and affordable housing demands.

The question on the motion was not called as discussion ensued with regard to (i) grandfathering current affordable housing contribution rates to received applications, (ii) consultation with neighbourhoods, and (iii) time line of consultation with stakeholders, completed within six months.

The question on the motion was then called and it was CARRIED.

Cllr. Loo left the meeting (5:38 p.m.) and did not return.

PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

5.

Richmond Response: Adopted Port Metro Vancouver Land Use Plan
(File Ref. No. 01-0140-20-PMVA1) (REDMS No. 4460917)

Amarjeet Rattan, Director, Intergovernmental Relations and Protocol Unit and Terry Crowe, Manager, Policy Planning, briefed Committee on the City’s response to the Adopted Port Metro Vancouver (PMV) Land Use Plan and noted the following:

§   

the PMV Land Use Plan does not take into account the protection of agricultural lands;

§   

a request can be made to the federal Minister of Environment to reinstate an inter-governmental agency similar to the former Fraser River Estuary Management Program (FREMP); and

§   

collaborative action can be taken with other municipalities to oppose the adopted PMV Land Use Plan at the federal level.

Discussion ensued with regard to (i) taking a legal action towards the adopted PMV Land Use Plan, (ii) reinstating an inter-governmental agency similar to FREMP, and (iii) exploring alternatives to mainstream shipping activities such as short sea shipping and using inland ports.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Rattan noted that dispute resolution mechanism models were previously in place which included members of the former Greater Vancouver Regional District Port Cities Committee. He added that the agencies such as the PMV fall under federal jurisdiction, which limits options for municipalities to resolve expressed concerns.

Discussion ensued with regard to the amalgamation of the previous three port authorities into the current PMV model. Mr. Rattan noted that the PMV operates via federal Letters of Patent and that the current PMV consultation process is insufficient.

Mr. Rattan advised that instead of seeking legislative solutions, it may be more practical to explore regulatory changes to PMV operations. Staff will be pursuing collaborative efforts with other municipalities and groups with similar port concerns, to garner support from the Union of British Columbia Municipalities and Federation of Canadian Municipalities.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Erceg spoke of the positive working relationship with the former Fraser River Port Authority and noted that since the amalgamation, the City’s partnership with the PMV has eroded.

Discussion ensued with regard to (i) collaborating with other municipalities and agencies, (ii) reinstating dispute resolution mechanisms, (iii) environmentally risky PMV activities such as coal, jet fuel and oil shipments, (iv) high river traffic, (v) PMV expansion, and (vi) political and legal options for resolution.

In reply to queries from Committee, Mr. Rattan noted that he is not aware of any examples where a federal decision which was of concern to a municipality was reversed in favour of a municipality.

It was moved and seconded

That:

(1)

Port Metro Vancouver be advised that the City of Richmond continues to strongly object to the Port Metro Vancouver Land Use Plan, as it does not protect agricultural land and that the Port Metro Vancouver Board be requested to delete the ‘Special Study Areas’ located within the City of Richmond and add a policy which prohibits the expansion of Port uses on all agricultural lands;

(2)

Port Metro Vancouver prepare an annual work plan in consultation with the City of Richmond and other affected stakeholders indicating how Port Metro Vancouver will implement and consult regarding the implementation of their Land Use Plan;

(3)

the Minister of Environment Canada be requested to establish an inter-governmental agency similar to the former Fraser River Estuary Management Program (FREMP), to better protect the environment for all major projects including proposals from Port Metro Vancouver;

(4)

all Richmond Members of Parliament and the Legislative Assembly, the Minister of Transport Canada, BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, BC Ministry of the Environment, the BC Minister of Agriculture, the Chair of the BC Agricultural Land Commission, the Metro Vancouver Board and all Metro Vancouver municipalities be advised of the above recommendations; and

(5)

a resolution be sent to the Lower Mainland Local Government Association for submission to the Union of British Columbia Municipalities and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.

CARRIED

ADJOURNMENT

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (6:12 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 Tuesday, February 3, 2015.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Councillor Linda McPhail
Chair

Evangel Biason
Auxiliary Committee Clerk