March 3, 2020 - Minutes

Date:

Tuesday, March 3, 2020

Place:

Council Chambers
Richmond City Hall

Present:

Councillor Linda McPhail, Chair
Councillor Alexa Loo
Councillor Carol Day
Councillor Bill McNulty
Councillor Harold Steves

Also Present:

Councillor Chak Au 
Councillor Michael Wolfe

Call to Order:

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

The Chair advised that the order of the agenda would be varied to consider the Manager’s Report after Item 6.

MINUTES

It was moved and seconded

That the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on February 4, 2020, be adopted as circulated.

CARRIED

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

1.

Richmond Intercultural Advisory Committee 2019 Annual Report and 2020 Work Program 
(File Ref. No. 01-0100-30-RIAD1-01) (REDMS No. 6388845 v. 3)

Committee thanked the Richmond Intercultural Advisory Committee for their work in the community.

It was moved and seconded

That the staff report titled “Richmond Intercultural Advisory Committee 2019 Annual Report and 2020 Work Program,” dated January 27, 2020, from the Director of Community Social Development, be approved.

CARRIED

2.

Richmond Seniors Advisory Committee 2019 Annual Report and 2020 Work Program 
(File Ref. No. 01-0100-30-SADV1-01) (REDMS No. 6369342)

Committee thanked the Richmond Seniors Advisory Committee for their work in the community.

It was moved and seconded

That the staff report titled “Richmond Seniors Advisory Committee 2019 Annual Report and 2020 Work Program,” dated January 27, 2020, from the Director, Community Social Development, be approved.

CARRIED

3.

UBCM 2020 Poverty Reduction Planning and Action Grant Submission 
(File Ref. No. 07-3190-01) (REDMS No. 6382338 v. 3)

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That the application to the Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM) 2020 Poverty Reduction Planning and Action Program for $25,000 be endorsed; and

(2)

That should the funding application be successful, that the Chief Administrative Officer and the General Manager, Planning and Development be authorized on behalf of the City to enter into an agreement with UBCM for the above mentioned project and that the Consolidated 5 Year Financial Plan (2020–2024) be amended accordingly.

CARRIED

4.

Application by Fairchild Developments Ltd. for a Temporary Commercial Use Permit at 8320 Cambie Road and 8431 Brownwood Road 
(File Ref. No. TU 20-890944) (REDMS No. 6407191)

Staff noted that (i) the permit would be for a temporary parking lot for 35 vehicles, (ii) there is an existing temporary use permit expiring in May 2020, (iii) landscaping was installed with the previous permit and is in good condition, (iv) the applicant has met with neighbours and is aware of concerns, (v) a landscaper makes monthly site visits and the applicant has agreed to pave the site with asphalt to alleviate dust concerns, (vi) a revision to Schedule B could be made to include paving provisions, and (vii) a revised permit and memorandum will be provided to Council.

It was moved and seconded

That the application of Fairchild Developments Ltd. for a Temporary Commercial Use Permit for property at 8320 Cambie Road and 8431 Brownwood Road be considered at the special meeting of Council (for the purpose of holding a Public Hearing) to be held on April 20, 2020 at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers of Richmond City Hall, and that the following recommendation be forwarded to that meeting for consideration:

“That a Temporary Commercial Use Permit be issued to Fairchild Developments Ltd. to allow ‘Non-accessory Parking’ as a permitted use at 8320 Cambie Road and 8431 Brownwood Road for a period of three years.”

CARRIED

5.

Application by Headwater Living Inc. to Amend Section 3.3 of Official Community Plan Bylaw 9000, Create the “High Density Market Rental Residential/Limited Commercial (ZMU45) – Lansdowne Village (City Centre)” Zone, and Rezone the Site at 5500 No. 3 Road from the “Downtown Commercial (CDT1)” Zone to the “High Density Market Rental Residential/Limited Commercial (ZMU45) – Lansdowne Village (City Centre)” Zone 
(File Ref. No. 12-8060-20-010131; RZ 19-858804) (REDMS No. 6394422)

Correspondence from John Roston was referenced (attached to and forming part of these Minutes as Schedule 1).

Staff reviewed the application and highlighted the following information:

§   

the proposal will include 149 purpose-built market rental units;

§   

the rental units will be secured in perpetuity through the rental tenure zoning and a market rental agreement registered on title;

§   

a new zone will be created, High Density Market Rental Residential/Limited Commercial (ZMU45) – Lansdowne Village (City Centre);

§   

the applicant is working with BC Housing to secure financing;

§   

under the Housing Hub Provincial Rental Supply Program, units are restricted to no higher than market rent and household income is restricted to no higher than the 75^th percentile;

§   

the new zone restricts all residential use to rental tenure only;

§   

the applicant will be providing voluntary contributions towards community planning and public art;

§   

the building will meet BC Energy Step Code step 2;

De Whalen, Chair, Richmond Poverty Response Committee (RPRC), expressed support for the use of the rental tenure tool, the incorporation of basic universal housing features, and family friendly units.

Kathryn McCreary, Richmond Resident expressed support for the proposed project and its prime location.  She noted that it would be beneficial to include a small percentage of units that are below market rental and consider less expensive construction typology and locations.

Raymond Kwong, BC Housing, expressed support for the project noting that (i) it is based under the Provincial Supply Program, (ii) the Province works with communities to create purpose-built rentals and (iii) creating more rental supply will move the middle income bracket to new stock and open up the rental supply for the lower income bracket.

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That Richmond Official Community Plan Bylaw 9000, Amendment Bylaw 10131 to amend Section 3.3, Objective 4, Policy e) to include a provision that the market rental residential density bonus may be increased on a site specific basis for projects that provide additional rental housing to address community need, be introduced and given first reading;

(2)

That Richmond Official Community Plan Bylaw 9000, Amendment Bylaw 10131, having been considered in conjunction with:

(a)

The City’s Financial and Capital Program; and

(b)

The Greater Vancouver Regional District Solid Waste and Liquid Waste Management Plans;

is hereby found to be consistent with said programs and plans, in accordance with Section 477(3)(a) of the Local Government Act;

(3)

That Richmond Official Community Plan Bylaw 9000, Amendment Bylaw 10131, having been considered in accordance with OCP Bylaw Preparation Consultation Policy 5043, is hereby found not to require further consultation; and

(4)

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 10130 to create the “High Density Market Rental Residential/Limited Commercial (ZMU45) – Lansdowne Village (City Centre)” zone, and to rezone 5500 No. 3 Road from the “Downtown Commercial (CDT1)” zone to the “High Density Market Rental Residential/Limited Commercial (ZMU45) – Lansdowne Village (City Centre)” zone, be introduced and given first reading.

CARRIED

6.

BC Building Code Changes to Secondary Suite Provisions 
(File Ref. No. 12-8060-02-01) (REDMS No. 6398750 v. 5)

In reply to queries from Committee, James Cooper, Director, Building Approvals, noted that (i) properties that have secondary suites and coach houses will have separate addresses, (ii) clarifying addresses will improve wayfinding for emergency response teams and postal services, (iii) suite sizes were studied and the focus is on the preservation of single family character neighbourhoods and the use of workable units, and (iv) the proposed changes to secondary suite provisions are comparable to other communities.

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw No. 8500, Amendment Bylaw No. 10139, to better define secondary suites and increase the maximum permitted size of secondary suites in dwellings from 90 m² to 110m², be introduced and given first reading;

(2)

That Consolidated Fees Bylaw No. 8636, Amendment Bylaw No. 10142, to incorporate cost recovery charges for addressing secondary suites, be introduced and given first, second and third reading; and

(3)

That a 12 month grace period be authorized, from the date of Bylaw No. 10142 adoption, allowing legal secondary suite owners to secure a suite address without charge before the addressing fees take effect.

The question on the motion was not called as a motion to increase secondary suite size was introduced, but failed to receive a seconder.

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

8.

MANAGER’S REPORT

Tour of the Roderick Building

Council is invited to attend the Tour of the Roderick Building taking place March 6, 3:00 p.m. at 12088 Third Avenue.

7.

Referral Response on Education, Dormitory and Child Care Uses in the No. 5 Road Backlands Policy Area and for Sites in the Agricultural Land Reserve 
(File Ref. No. 08-4050-10) (REDMS No. 6396117 v. 6)

A memorandum from City Clerk was distributed (attached to and forming part of these Minutes as Schedule 2)

Correspondence regarding the proposed policy was received of 11 form letters (attached to and forming part of these Minutes as Schedule 3)

Barry Konkin, Director, Policy Planning, provided an overview of the referral response to review the backlands policy to ensure that only religious institutions are permitted in this area.  Mr. Konkin noted that in order to achieve the terms of the referral the report proposes bylaw amendments to remove the education as a permitted use in the policy area and remove dormitory use and childcare would be an accessory use to religious assembly limited to 37 spaces.  Should bylaws be adopted, all existing uses would be rendered legally non-conforming.  Non-conforming uses are legally protected in perpetuity; however further expansion of non-conforming use is not allowed.  The Agricultural Land Commission approval is required and is key to the process.

In response to queries from Committee, Mr. Konkin noted that (i) schools require a non-farm use application, (ii) the ALC and the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) are committed to preserving farm land, (iii) this policy area is unique to the City of Richmond, (iv) the permitted use remains with the land , (v) in response to questions about significant damage caused to existing schools due to fire, an application to rebuild the school would be required, and (vi) under the proposed bylaw amendments, new schools or expansion to existing schools would require an ALR and rezoning application.

Will Hsu, 8240 No. 5 Road, Dharma Drum Mountain Buddhist Association, expressed concern regarding the proposed bylaws noting that in 2019 the Association received approval from the ALC to expand dormitory use.  Mr. Hsu noted that the dormitory expansion will provide modest, basic, living conditions for the nuns.

In response to queries from Committee, Mr. Hsu noted that the Association is seeking an expansion of 1,000 sq. ft. and the addition is in the direction towards the main road and currently the temple farms fruit trees and vegetables.

In response to query from Committee, staff noted that if the bylaws were approved, the applicant would need to apply for a rezoning.

Roger Grose, 4598 Kensington Court, Delta, Superintendent, Richmond Christian School expressed concern regarding the proposed bylaws noting that Richmond Christian School would like the ability to expand and grow.

In response to queries from Committee, Mr. Grose noted that (i) the school uses the farmland by having bee apiaries, student gardens and aquaponics, (ii) the Richmond Christian School was partly grandfathered in as to not require a farm plan, and (iii) the middle campus was built before the backlands policy.

In response to query from Committee, staff noted that any future plans for expansion would require a farm plan for the ALC to review.

Eric Chu, 4266 Fortune Avenue, Richmond, expressed concern regarding the proposed bylaws noting that the proposed bylaws would hinder Richmond Christian School’s plans for expansion for much needed space.  Mr. Chu further noted that the Secondary School will need to be rebuilt in 40 – 50 years.

In response to a query from Committee, Mr. Chu noted that the Richmond Christian School is in the fundraising stage in expansion planning.

Oscar Pozzolo, 4640 Albert Street, Burnaby, Principal, Az-Zahraa Islamic Academy, expressed concern regarding the proposed bylaws noting that restrictions will limit student and school growth.

In response to questions from Committee, Mr. Pozzolo noted that (i) it has been difficult for independent schools to obtain existing school property, (ii) Az-Zahraa recently purchased an adjacent property, and (iii) the school is on the 2^nd floor in the same building as the mosque.

Mohamad Al-Shakarchi, recent graduate of Az-Zahraa Islamic Academy, expressed concern regarding the proposed bylaws noting that it would be a disadvantage to not allow schools on No. 5 Road to expand.

Mahmood Jaffer, 11931 Seabrook Crescent, Richmond, representing the Shi’a Muslim Community of British Columbia, expressed concerns regarding the proposed bylaws noting that in the last 4 years their school has seen a 40% growth.

In response to a query from Committee, Mr. Jaffer noted that their school farms fruit trees and berries.

Todd Chow, 7890 No. 5 Road, Richmond, Cornerstone Christian Academy, expressed concern regarding the proposed bylaws noting that the bylaw would affect the current plan to replace aging portables.

In response to queries from Committee, staff confirmed that the applicant’s application is in the preliminary stages for staff review and will require rezoning under the new regulations and through Council direction, in-stream applications can be processed.

Leila Chen, Principal, 7890 No. 5 Road, Richmond, Cornerstone Christian Academy, expressed concern regarding the proposed bylaws noting that the bylaw would hinder the plan to move students out of portables and into a school building.

Charlotte Sakaki, 7890 No. 5 Road, Richmond, Vice-Principal and teacher, Cornerstone Christian Academy, expressed concern regarding the proposed bylaws noting that the bylaw would affect the current development plan to expand the school.

In response to query from Committee, Ms. Sakaki noted that at the time of the original application, Cornerstone Christian Academy was not required to farm the land as the land was designated as a sports field.

Sara Lam, 7890 No. 5 Road, Richmond, Cornerstone Christian Academy, expressed concern regarding the proposed bylaws and noting that expanding the school would benefit the community through the programs that the school offers.

Virginia Wong, 7890 No. 5 Road, Richmond, Cornerstone Christian Academy, expressed concern regarding the proposed bylaws nothing that the school has grown over the years and requires expansion.

Kairavee Mulye, 7890 No. 5 Road, Richmond, expressed concern regarding the proposed bylaws and noting her positive experience attending Cornerstone Christian Academy.

Urvee Mulye, 7890 No. 5 Road, Richmond, expressed concern regarding the proposed bylaws and noting her positive experience attending Cornerstone Christian Academy.

Jonathon Warren, 10117 Lawson Drive, Richmond, expressed concern regarding the proposed bylaws noting that the Cornerstone Christian Academy has been waiting many years to build a new school.

Cheryl Cheung, 7890 No. 5 Road, Richmond, referenced materials (attached to and forming part of these Minutes as Schedule 4) and expressed concern regarding the proposed bylaws noting that restricting expansion would inhibit enrolment for Cornerstone Christian Academy and negatively affect the community.

In response to a query from Committee, Ms. Cheung noted that there are approximately 200 families on the waitlist.

Fulton Jung, 7890 No. 5 Road, Richmond, expressed concern regarding the proposed bylaws noting that the students at Cornerstone Christian Academy would like to have a proper school building so that the school can offer programs to students with adequate facility space.

Karen Russell, 5260 Oak Place, Ladner, expressed concern regarding the proposed bylaws and requested Committee consider this issue on a case by case basis.

Melissa Flores, 4764 Cedar Tree, Delta, teacher, Richmond Christian School, expressed concern regarding the proposed bylaws noting that it would negatively affect the school’s plans to combine their three campuses onto one site and restrict any maintenance and repair of aging buildings.

In response to a query from Committee, staff noted that maintenance and repair is allowed as long as the building size does not increase.

Shingo Kawamura, 23 - 8631 Bennett Road, Richmond, teacher, Richmond Christian School, expressed concern regarding the proposed bylaws.

Adrienne Ya-Yan Leung, 5431 Lackner Crescent, Richmond, expressed concern regarding the proposed bylaws and noted the positive experiences of learning about agriculture and community at Richmond Christian School.

Richard McDonald, 9478 Thomas Drive, Richmond, expressed concern regarding the proposed bylaws noting that the elementary school is at capacity and the Richmond Christian School’s plans for expansion and seismic upgrades will be affected.

In response to a query from Committee, staff noted that the elementary school is not located on No. 5 Road and is not impacted by the bylaw.

Chi Kwong Tsui, 6380 Skaha Crescent, Richmond, expressed concern regarding the proposed bylaws and request clarity of the policy amendments.

Michael Lipton, 300 - 10991 Shellbridge Road, Richmond, expressed concern regarding the proposed bylaws noting that the Richmond Jewish Day School would like the ability to plan for future upgrades without exceptions.

In response to a query from Committee, Mr. Lipton remarked that under legal non-conforming status, the school may be denied any future rebuilding or obtaining insurance.

In response to a further query from Committee, staff noted that as a land use, schools are defined separately from religious institutions.

Sean O’Brien, 3151 Springfield Drive, Richmond, Director of Finance, Roman Catholic Archdiocese, expressed opposition regarding the proposed bylaws noting that this would negatively affect future plans of building a regional high school as the property located at 9360 No. 5 Road was zoned for religious schools at the time of purchase.

In response to queries from Committee, Mr. O’Brien noted that (i) he cannot provide the specific size of the property, (ii) the property is not being farmed, and (iii) the church acquires lands with demographics in mind and plans for a regional school would typically be for 600-800 students.

Edward Wong, 12011 Woodhead Road, Richmond, expressed opposition to the proposed bylaw amendments noting that any changes will cause hardship to the Archdiocese of Vancouver.

In response to queries from Committee, Mr. Wong noted that the property is for a standalone school and if the Catholic community grows, there would be plans for a future church.

Lachmi Asnani-ma, 5471 Mytko Crescent, Richmond, expressed concern regarding the proposed bylaws noting that as the population grows, faith based schools should be allowed to expand as well.

Lawrence Lim, 4635 St. Brides Court, Richmond, expressed opposition regarding the proposed bylaws requesting Committee to consider grandfathering in existing schools and institutions.  Mr. Lim also noted that it is very difficult for independent schools to compete on the market for land sales.

Murtaza Bachoo, 15 - 22800 Windsor Court, Richmond, Az-Zahraa Islamic Academy, expressed concern regarding the proposed bylaws noting that restricting the ability to expand at their current location would negatively affect the students as the connection to the mosque would be lost.

In response to queries from Committee, Mr. Bachoo noted that the school would be able to offer more programs in a larger space and currently they have 180 students enrolled in day school and 270 students attending weekend programs.

In response to query from Committee, staff noted that there could be customized zoning for sites with schools with no restrictions, or specify floor area maximum and student maximum.

Gary Wu, Lingyen Mountain Temple, expressed concern regarding the proposed bylaws noting that the temple’s plans for a Buddhist school would be negatively affected.

Michael Bouchard, Pythagoras Academy, expressed concern regarding the proposed bylaws emphasizing the need for independent schools and offering a choice for education.

Joe Erceg, General Manager, Planning, noted that the report to Council titled “Referral Response on the Education, Dormitory and Child Care Uses in the No. 5 Road Backlands Policy Area and for Sites in the Agricultural Land Reserve” is consistent with the referral resolutions from the Planning Committee and General Purposes Committee.  The identification of options was not included in this report but a memorandum with options could be provided to Committee.

In response to queries from Committee, staff noted that (i) guidelines could be put in place for each school, in terms of student limits, size of school, or site area, (ii) each application would be considered based on its own merits, (iii) it is difficult to estimate the needs of each school, (iv) the proposed bylaw amendments do not restrict existing schools from making applications, (v) upgrades to the sanitary sewer and water would be assessed for large school expansions or new schools, (vi) the proposed bylaw amendments require another level of Council consideration by way of a rezoning application, (vii) the process for expansion remains the same in the initial stages for an ALR non-farm use application, (viii) each application for expansion would be considered case by case basis, (ix) the services required are determined at the time of receiving a building permit, and (x) zoning based on profit and non-profit status would not be advised.

Discussion ensued with regard to the range of expansions, including schools, dormitories and childcare facilities along No. 5 Road and the possibility of amending the bylaws so that the existing properties are exempt.

In response to further queries from Committee, staff noted that (i) legal advice will be required regarding exempting existing properties from the proposed bylaw amendments, (ii) the floor area ratio (FAR) is based on 110 metre depth of the lot dedicated to institutional use and varies depending on the width of the lot, (iii) establishing a cap would be challenging as each site has its own site specific configuration and needs of the organization, (iv) staff can provide a bulletin to explain the application process, and (v) the ALC allows applications but has ultimate authority to decide what use is permitted on agricultural land.

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That Richmond Official Community Plan (OCP) Bylaw 9000 and 7100, Amendment Bylaw 10132, to revise Section 7.3 of Schedule 1 of the OCP (No. 5 Road Backlands Policy) and Schedule 2.13A of the OCP (East Richmond Area McLennan Sub-Area Plan) to clarify permitted uses and related policies for religious institutional uses, be introduced and granted first reading;

(2)

That Richmond Official Community Plan Bylaw 9000 and 7100, Amendment Bylaw 10132, having been considered in conjunction with:

(a)

the City’s Financial Plan and Capital Program; and

(b)

the Greater Vancouver Regional District Solid Waste and Liquid Waste Management Plans;

is hereby found to be consistent with said program and plans, in accordance with Section 477 (3) (a) of the Local Government Act;

(3)

That Richmond Official Community Plan (OCP) Bylaw 9000 and 7100, Amendment Bylaw 10132, having been considered in conjunction with Section 477(3) (b) of the Local Government Act, be referred to the Agricultural Land Commission for comment prior to a Public Hearing;

(4)

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 10133, to revise the “Assembly (ASY)” zoning district contained in Section 13.3 to prohibit education and dormitory as permitted uses in this zone for areas within the No. 5 Road Backlands Policy area located in the Agricultural Land Reserve and revise the “Religious Assembly (ZIS7) – No. 5 Road” zoning district contained in Section 24.7 to prohibit education use in this zone, be introduced and granted first reading;

(5)

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 10141, to revise the “Assembly (ASY)” zoning district contained in Section 13.3 to prohibit education and dormitory uses for areas outside of the No. 5 Road Backlands Policy area and located in the Agricultural Land Reserve, be introduced and granted first reading;

(6)

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 10140, to revise the “Assembly (ASY)” zoning district contained in Section 13.3 to add site-specific dormitory use regulations for the property at 8100 No. 5 Road, be introduced and granted first reading;

(7)

That final adoption of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 10140 be considered in conjunction with Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 9586  (RZ 14-667707);

(8)

That Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaw 10146, to revise the “Assembly (ASY)” zoning district contained in Section 13.3 and revise the “Religious Assembly (ZIS7) – No. 5 Road” zoning district contained in Section 24.7 to regulate child care use in these zones for lands located in the Agricultural Land Reserve, be introduced and granted first reading;

(9)

That staff bring to Council all building permit applications involving education, dormitory or child care uses for lands zoned “Assembly (ASY)” and “Religious Assembly (ZIS7) – No. 5 Road” located in the Agricultural Land Reserve, received more than 7 days after the date of first reading of Richmond Zoning Bylaw 8500, Amendment Bylaws 10133, 10141, and 10146, for consideration of a resolution that the building permit be withheld pursuant to Section 463 of the Local Government Act.

The question on the motion was not called, as discussion ensued with regards to (i) approving the bylaw amendments as is, (ii) requesting staff to come up with solutions to ensure that existing institutions are able to rebuild schools in the event of fires, (iii) allowing smaller schools the ability to expand modestly, and (iv) preserving the religious assembly use along the No. 5 Road backlands.

Further discussion ensued with regard to (i) referring the report back to staff for further analysis on the issues with the current policy and providing options and solutions for future and existing schools, (ii) examining each institution’s needs, (iii) considering the impact to the City’s infrastructure, and (iv) exploring the future of the Highway to Heaven and the limits of expansion.

In response to further query from Committee, staff noted that the City would continue to accept and process applications under the existing policy with no guarantee of approval at the Council level and at the Provincial level.

As a result of the discussion, the following referral  motion was introduced:

It was moved and seconded

(1)

That the staff report titled “Referral Response on Education, Dormitory and Child Care Uses in the No. 5 Road Backlands Policy Area and for Sites in the Agricultural Land Reserve” be referred back to staff to review, provide information and options, where applicable, on the following:

(a)

Exempting in-stream applications from the proposed bylaws;

(b)

Exempting existing schools and religious institutions from     the proposed bylaws;

(c)

Overall expansion potential for institutional uses (size of school floor area) in the No. 5 Road Backlands Policy Area and for Sites in the Agricultural Land Reserve;

(d)

Potential implications of expansion for institutional uses in the No.5 Road Backlands Policy Area and for Sites in the Agricultural Land Reserve on City infrastructure;

(e)

Traffic safety concerns, specifically speeding, on No.5 Road and proximity to schools; and,

(f)

Developing an information bulletin that details the proposed application process;

(2)

That applications for school expansion continue to be accepted from existing schools;

(3)

That staff be directed to contact each of the existing land owners to obtain detailed assessments of each institution’s expansion needs for schools, dormitories, and child care services.

CARRIED 
Opposed:  Cllr. Loo

ADJOURNMENT

It was moved and seconded

That the meeting adjourn (8:08 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, March 3, 2020.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Councillor Linda McPhail
Chair

Stephanie Walrond
Legislative Services Coordinator