May 4, 2021 - Minutes
|
Planning Committee
|
Date: |
Tuesday, May 4, 2021 |
|
Place: |
Council Chambers |
|
Present: |
Councillor Linda McPhail, Chair |
|
Also Present: |
Councillor Chak Au (by teleconference) |
|
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 April 21, 2021, be adopted as circulated. |
|
|
|
CARRIED |
|
|
|
NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING DATE |
|
|
|
May 19, 2021, (tentative date) at 4:00 p.m. in Council Chambers |
|
|
|
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION |
|
|
1. |
Options to Secure Market Rental Housing in New Development and Options to Increase Low End Market Rental (LEMR) Contributions |
|
|
|
The Chair noted the following pieces of correspondence were distributed on-table: |
||
|
|
|
§ |
John Roston, Richmond Rental Housing Advocacy Group (attached to and forming part of these minutes as Schedule 1); |
|
|
|
|
§ |
David Hutniak, Landlord BC (attached to and forming part of these minutes as Schedule 2); |
|
|
|
|
§ |
Michelle Li, Richmond resident (attached to and forming part of these minutes as Schedule 3); |
|
|
|
|
§ |
Neil Chrystal, Polygon Homes Ltd. (attached to and forming part of these minutes as Schedule 4); |
|
|
|
|
§ |
Anne McMullin, Urban Development Institute (attached to and forming part of these minutes as Schedule 5); and |
|
|
|
|
§ |
Kim McInnes, Vanprop Investments Ltd. (attached to and forming part of these minutes as Schedule 6). |
|
|
|
|
The Chair advised that Item No. 1 - Options to Secure Market Rental Housing in New Development and Options to Increase Low End Market Rental (LEMR) Contributions and Item No. 2 - Low End Market Rental Contribution Rate Review, are related reports and can be considered together. |
||
|
|
|
Staff reviewed the proposed market rental housing policies and Low End Market Rental Contribution Rates, noting the following: |
||
|
|
|
§ |
staff have examined other market rental housing policies in other municipalities; |
|
|
|
|
§ |
proposed recommendations include (i) a new 10% market rental requirement for multi-family apartment developments with more than 60 units with an associated density bonus, (ii) increasing the Low-End Market Rental (LEMR) requirement from 10% to 15% for sites that are inside the City Centre Area Plan, (iii) updates to the LEMR cash-in-lieu rates, and (iv) a recommended community amenity contribution for townhouse development with 5 or more units and apartment developments with 5 to 60 units in lieu of constructing market rental units; |
|
|
|
|
§ |
staff are recommending that the current requirements apply to instream applications for a one-year ‘grandfathering’ period provided that the application achieves first reading within one year of adoption of the amendment bylaws and any new development applications received after Council’s adoption of amendment bylaws is subject to the updated requirements; |
|
|
|
|
§ |
opportunities for public consultation would be available during both the open Council meeting and the Public Hearing process; and |
|
|
|
|
§ |
staff will report back to Council in two years after the program’s implementation. |
|
|
|
|
Discussion ensued with regard to (i) comparing the potential advantages of a variable floor area ratio (FAR) density bonus to incentivize market rental housing, (ii) reviewing the 60 unit threshold rate for market rental developer contributions, (iii) reviewing options to introduce a city-wide LEMR requirement for new developments, (iv) reviewing resident income qualification thresholds for LEMRs, (v) conducting additional consultation with community stakeholders, and (vi) calculating the potential price increases for regular market housing. |
||
|
|
|
Gerry Mulholland, Rollo and Associates, project consultant, spoke on the economic analysis of the city’s market rental housing, noting that residential densities and land values vary throughout the city, and as such, the analysis includes variable LEMR contribution rates, especially in higher density areas such as in the city centre. |
||
|
|
|
In reply to queries from Committee, staff noted that (i) developments under the 60 unit threshold may opt to provide a cash-in-lieu contribution, however these developments will not qualify for the FAR density bonus, (ii) consultation with community stakeholders and developers were conducted, (iii) the City uses the aggregate floor area of a development as a metric for developer contributions and the LEMR and proposed market rental floor area includes only the habitable unit floor area, (iv) the proposed requirements would be the minimum contributions and developers would have the option to provide additional market rental units, (v) the proposed one-year ‘grandfathering’ period for instream applications would provide developers time to make appropriate adjustments, (vi) Richmond has constraints to densification such as maximum building height and water table considerations, and (vii) the City is not considering a conversion of industrial or commercial land for residential use. |
||
|
|
|
John Roston, Richmond resident, referred to his submission and spoke on the economic viability of market rental development and options to incentivize such developments. Also, he expressed concern that the proposed ‘grandfathering’ provisions would spur a spike in development applications. |
||
|
|
|
Michelle Li, Richmond resident, referred to her submission expressing that there is a high demand for affordable housing in the city and that the proposed requirements could be improved and the number of market rental developments optimized. |
||
|
|
|
Robin Glover, Polygon Homes, spoke on the proposed requirements, expressing that land prices and other variable costs such as construction costs play a significant role in determining the economic viability of a development. He expressed support for the ‘grandfathering’ provisions and that a gradual introduction of the proposed requirements would allow developers to make appropriate adjustments. He added that proposed density incentives may not offset the potential costs of the proposed requirements and there are constraints to densification such as maximum building height and water table considerations. |
||
|
|
|
Discussion ensued with regard to reviewing the proposed requirements, and as a result it was directed that staff: |
||
|
|
|
§ |
provide information on the number of instream development applications; |
|
|
|
|
§ |
review a sliding-scale or variable FAR density bonus approach to market rental contributions and associated feasibility; |
|
|
|
|
§ |
examine areas in city where increasing building height and density is feasible; |
|
|
|
|
§ |
review opportunities to conduct additional consultation with community partners, developers, and residential rental groups; and |
|
|
|
|
§ |
review options to further enhance incentives to increase the supply of market rental housing. |
|
|
|
|
Staff distributed a memorandum titled, “Status of Housing Referrals and Potential 2022 OCP Update”, dated April 29, 2021, from the Director, Policy Planning (attached to and forming part of these minutes as Schedule 7), and a graph of Market Rental and LEMR composition (attached to and forming part of these minutes as Schedule 8). |
||
|
|
|
As a result of the discussion, it was suggested that consideration of the proposed market rental housing requirements be tabled to a future Planning Committee meeting, and the following motion was introduced: |
||
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
||
|
|
|
(1) |
That the staff report titled “Options to Secure Market Rental Housing in New Development and Options to Increase Low End Market Rental (LEMR) Contributions”, dated April 19, 2021, from the Director, Policy Planning; and |
|
|
|
|
(2) |
That the staff report titled “Low End Market Rental Contribution Rate Review”, dated April 19, 2021, from the Director, Community Social Development; |
|
|
|
|
be tabled to the June 23, 2021 Special Planning Committee. |
||
|
|
|
The question on the motion was not called as discussion ensued with regard to enhanced development incentives such as reduction of parking requirements and options to freeze the intake of applications during consideration of the proposed policy. |
||
|
|
|
The question on the motion was then called and it was CARRIED. |
||
|
|
2. |
Low End Market Rental Contribution Rate Review |
|
|
|
Please see pages 2 and 5 for action on this item. |
|
|
3. |
Referral on Rental and Age Restrictions in Future Development |
||
|
|
|
Staff reviewed the proposed policy, noting that should it proceed, the policy would only apply to future rezoning applications of townhouse and multi-family residential developments. Staff added that no consultations has occurred with existing strata corporations as they are not subject to the policy. Staff further noted that the proposed policy will not impact the City’s regulations on short-term rentals. |
||
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
||
|
|
|
(1) |
That Richmond Official Community Plan Bylaw 9000, Amendment Bylaw 10257, which would restrict a strata corporation from imposing rental and age restrictions in future rezoning applications for multiple family residential developments, be introduced and given first reading; |
|
|
|
|
(2) |
That Richmond Official Community Plan Bylaw 9000, Amendment Bylaw 10257, 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; and |
|
|
|
|
(3) |
That Richmond Official Community Plan Bylaw 9000, Amendment Bylaw 10257, having been considered in accordance with Section 475 of the Local Government Act and the City’s Official Community Plan Bylaw Preparation Consultation Policy 5043, is found not to require further consultation. |
|
|
|
|
CARRIED |
||
|
|
4. |
MANAGER’S REPORT |
|
|
|
|
(i) |
Non-Farm Use Application – Choice School |
|
|
|
Staff noted that the Non-Farm Use Application for Choice School has been approved by the Agricultural Land Commission. Staff added that the related rezoning application for the subject site will be presented to Council at a future date. |
|
|
|
|
(ii) |
Office Stratification |
|
|
|
Staff have conducted initial research on the matter and will proceed to public consultation with stakeholders and the public. It is anticipated that staff will report back to Council in the third quarter this year. |
|
|
|
|
ADJOURNMENT |
|
|
|
It was moved and seconded |
|
|
|
That the meeting adjourn (5:18 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, May 4, 2021. |
|
_________________________________ |
_________________________________ |
|
Councillor Linda McPhail |
Evangel Biason |