Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-05-12 Workshop - Agenda and Reports.pdfDistrict of Maple Ridge COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA May 12, 2008 10:30 am. Blaney Room, 1st Floor, Municipal Hall The purpose of the Council Workshop is to review and discuss policies and other items of interest to Council. Although resolutions may be passed at this meeting, the intent is to make a consensus decision to send an item to Council for debate and vote or refer the item back to staff for more information or clarification. REMINDERS May 12 Closed Council Audit Committee Meeting May 13 Council Meeting following Workshop 1:00 P.M. 7:00 p.m. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA MINUTES - May 5, 2008 PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS 4.1 Tempest Tax System Property tax system demonstration by the Manager of Business Systems 4.2 Election Communication Project Verbal report by the Manager of Communications 4.3 Review of Recommended Regulations for Detached Garden Suites Staff report dated May 7, 2008 providing recommendations to allow detached garden suites as a housing form in Maple Ridge. Council Workshop May 12, 2008 Page 2 of 3 5. CORRESPONDENCE The following correspondence has been received and requires a response. Staff is seeking direction from Council on each item. Options that Council may consider include: Acknowledge receipt of correspondence and advise that no further action will be taken. Direct staff to prepare a report and recommendation regarding the subject matter. Forward the correspondence to a regular Council meeting for further discussion. Other. Once direction is given the appropriate response will be sent 5.1 City of Vancouver - Unbundled Parking E-mail dated April 10, 2008 from Jo Ye Yung Fung, Sustainability Group, City of Vancouver requesting support of a resolution for the Union of British Columbia Municipalities pertaining to changes in Provincial legislation which will give BC municipalities the authority to require developers to provide unbundled parking. Recommendation: receive for information 5.2 Canadian Restaurant & Food Services Association - Drive Throughs and Idling E-mail dated May 1, 2008 from Mark von Schellwitz, Vice President, Western Canada, Canadian Restaurant & Food Services Association providing information on drive throughs and idling and offering to attend a Council meeting to further discuss this issue. Recommendation: receive for information 6. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL 7. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT 8. ADJOURNMENT Checked by: _________ Date: Council Workshop May 12, 2008 Page 3 of 3 Rules for Holding a Closed Meeting A part of a council meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to one or more of the following: personal information about an identifiable individual whoholds or is being considered for a position as an officer, employee or agent of the municipality or another position appointed by the municipality; personal information about an identifiable individual who is being considered for a municipal award or honour, or who has offered to provide a gift to the municipality on condition of anonymity; labour relations or employee negotiations; the security of property of the municipality; the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements, if the council considers that disclosure might reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality; law enforcement, if the council considers that disclosure might reasonably be expected to harm the conduct of an investigation under or enforcement of an enactment; litigation or potential litigation affecting the municipality; an administrative tribunal hearing or potential administrative tribunal hearing affecting the municipality, other than a hearing to be conducted by the council or a delegate of council the receiving of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose; information that is prohibited or information that if it were presented in a document would be prohibited from disclosure under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act; negotiations and related discussions respecting the proposed provision of a municipal service that are at their preliminary stages and that, in the view of the council, could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality if they were held in public; (I) discussions with municipal officers and employees respecting municipal objectives, measures and progress reports for the purposes of preparing an annual report under section 98 [annual municipal report] a matter that, under another enactment, is such that the public may be excluded from the meeting; the consideration of whether a council meeting should be closed under a provision of this subsection of subsection (2) (0) the consideration of whether the authority under section 91 (other persons attending closed meetings) should be exercised in relation to a council meeting. (p) information relating to local government participation in provincial negotiations with First Nations, where an agreement provides that the information is to be kept confidential. ---- .-- I MAPLE RIDGE British - Columbia DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor Gordon Robson DATE: May 7, 2008 and Members of Council FILE NO: CP/046/07 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Council Workshop SUBJECT: Review of recommended regulations for Detached Garden Suites. A*Iu1IM.iT On December 10, 2007, Council received a Discussion Paper on Detached Garden Suites as information and endorsed a report outlining the Public Consultation Process and time-line for this project. A three-phased process was endorsed by Council incorporating background work, public consultation & technical review, and policy/bylaw preparation and amendments. The first Open House occurred on January 30, 2008 with almost 50 people participating. Open House participants were supportive of the concept of Detached Garden Suites in Maple Ridge and many positive comments were heard. Following the first Open House, a Council update report was reviewed at the Council Workshop on February 25, 2008 in which the next steps were identified as preparation of recommendations for the Detached Garden Suite Policy and Bylaw amendments. The Technical Working Committee has prepared a series of recommendations to allow the Detached Garden Suites as a housing form in the community. RECOMMENDATION: That the report on "Review of recommended regulations for Detached Garden Suites" dated May 7, 2008 be received as information. BACKGROUND: The Technical Working Committee has met regularly, discussed issues relating to Detached Garden Suites and has prepared a series of regulations and policies to minimize impacts and assist in the proper siting and administration of Detached Garden Suites. The Technical Working Committee has identified the criteria and regulations that it feels make for a successful Detached Garden Suite program in the District. Definition: "A Detached. Garden Suite use means a self-contained residential use, accessory, subordinate and detached from a single family residential use, limited to one habitable unit built on the same lot in the rear yard". The following items are considered necessary for inclusion in the Detached Garden Suite Policy and Bylaws: (a) Only one Detached Garden Suite per parcel is permitted; • Allowing only one unit per lot is consistent with the approach followed in other jurisdictions. 4.3 • Allowing not more than one Detached Garden Suite per lot would help maintain existing total lot coverage and green space. Currently the total lot coverage allowed in most of the single family residential zones is 40 % which ensures that 60 % is open space. • Licenses, Permits and Bylaws Department has expressed concerns with the ramifications of having more than one such unit on any property due to enforcement challenges. . Allowing more than one unit per lot will likely have a greater impact on the single family neighborhoods with respect to character, parking, safety and privacy.The resistance of established residents and homeowners to any change in their neighbourhood is a daunting force that can derail even the soundest planning practices. The concept of Detached Garden Suite is meant to function as a modest in fill only; hence permitting only one unit per lot will justify this. • Analysis of some existing potential single family zones has demonstrated that many of these have total lot coverage below 40% and can accommodate a Detached Garden Suite. .A Detached Garden Suite is permitted at grade subject to compliance with the other criteria prescribed in the Bylaw. Properties 0.4 hectares (1 acre) or greater in area may have an at grade Detached Garden Suite or a Detached Garden Suite above an accessory structure subject to compliance with the criteria prescribed in the Bylaw; • Lessons learnt from other jurisdictions speak of greater impact felt in urban single family residential neighbourhoods. Greater height restrictions imposed on Garden Suites above a garage/accessory structure have resulted in lesser complaints from neighbours' On smaller urban residential parcels, allowing the Detached Garden Suites at grade only, will mitigate privacy concerns and protect the single family residential character. • Larger parcels in residential neighbourhoods of the District can accommodate a taller Detached Garden Suite structurewithout impacting the neighbour's privacy. Is not permitted on lots with parcel size lesser than 557 m2, subject to compliance with the criteria prescribed in the Bylaw; • Lessons learnt from other jurisdictions suggest that parcel sizes less than 557m2 (6000 ft2) are considered too small to accommodate a detached habitable unit (Garden Suite) along with the prescribed setbacks and separation distance required to comply with the prevalent Bylaw and Code. Currently, Secondary Suites are not permitted on parcel sizes smaller than 557 m2. The zones that would be eligible, subject to compliance with the Bylaw include: Single family residential zones such as: RS-1b (One Family Urban Residential- Medium Density), RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential), RS-la (One Family Amenity Residential), RS-lc (One Family Urban Residential- Low Density), RS-1d (One Family Urban Residential- Half AOre), RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential), RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) and -2- Agricultural Zones such as A-i (Small Holding Agricultural), A-2 (Upland Agricultural), A-3 (Extensive Agricultural), and A-4 (Intensive Greenhouse District). Is permitted on the condition that the registered owner of the parcel enters into a Housing Agreement (under Section 905 of the Municipal Act) with the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge which must be executed and delivered to the Municipality prior to the issuance of a Detached Garden Suite Permit. The Housing Agreement includes a term among others that either the One Family Residential use or the Detached Garden use be occupied by the registered owner; the Detached Garden Suite use is intended to provide affordable rental housing; the property owner will enter into a Housing agreement with the District of Maple Ridge for a prescribed fee; • Researched municipalities cited their owner-occupancy clauses as a key factor in their successful garden suite strategies. • Licences, Permit and Bylaws Department, Fire Department and residents are concerned with absentee ownership. The Housing Agreement is a tool to require that the registered owner resides on the property. • This is consistent with the approach taken for Secondary Suites. The applicants have an option of paying the District a fee of $ 30.25 for preparation of this document and $ 66.16 as registration fee per agreement. The Covenant is registered on title until such time as the present/future property owner has it removed. Is only permitted in the rear yard of a single family house; • For any single family neighbourhood, character, safety and privacy are important elements. The rear yard of a single family house, is the location that would have the least impact on the single family neighbourhood privacy and character. • If the Detached Garden Suite is occupied by immediate/ extended family (parents, in-laws, children, etc) having it in the rear yard would help maintain a visual contact from the main house. • Other jurisdictions such as the City of Surrey and. City of Ottawa permit Detached Garden Suites in rear yards only and claim to have had lesser complaints from the neighbours as a result. • In instances where locating the Detached Garden Suite in the rear yard is not possible and the most suitable location for the Detached Garden Suite is not the rear yard, a variance permit may be sought and would be considered on its own merits. Is not permitted where the following uses exist: Secondary Suite, Temporary Residential Use, Temporary Tourist use, Boarding Use and Accessory Employee Residential Use; • The above mentioned uses are permitted in most residential zones in the District. Experience has shown that limiting the combination of certain uses is best and minimizes potential impacts to neighbours. • It is a choice that home-ownersl developers will have to make in order to accommodate a Detached Garden Suite instead of the above stated uses based on needs and/or preferences. -3- • Licenses, Permits and Bylaws Department prefers that other uses be restricted if a Detached Garden Suite use is permitted on the property. Must provide verification from an Engineer or a Certified Professional confirming the septic capacity adequate to house the proposed Detached Garden Suite and notification to the Simon Fraser Health Unit or the appropriate authority if located on a lot which is not serviced by municipal sewer; Must provide verification from an Engineer or a Certified Professional confirming adequate water quantity and potability, if located on a lot which is not serviced by municipal water; • Although both the above are a requirement of the Licenses, Permits and Bylaw Department, it is a good reminder for interested residents with property on private services. Must not be strata-titled or subdivided and is permitted only on the same lot as the one family residential use; • Detached Garden Suites are intended to contribute to the rental housing stock in the community and are accessory uses only. • This provision is consistent with the requirement in the Secondary Suite Bylaw. Is not allowed on a property situated within the flood plain area unless the Detached. Garden Suite floor is above the established flood level; • This has been the consistent approach for Secondary Suite use and the Licenses, Permits and Bylaws Department prefers the same for Detached Garden Suites.. A Building Permit will have to be acquired by paying the applicable fees and submitting all the items listed in the Detached Garden Suites-Checklist; • This has been a consistent approach with Secondary Suite and a Detached Garden Suites Checklist will ensure complete applications and reduce processing delays. I) Required fees must be paid to the District for any necessary service upgrades; • The off-site servicing works are usually covered through a Rezoning Servicing or a Subdivision Servicing Agreement for any development proposed. There may however be some on-site servicing upgrades required such as an inspection chamber, a service line Or a meter, sanitary and storm connection inspection, etc for the proposed Detached Garden Suite. Upgrades to existing water services and sewage disposal system may also be required for properties in the Suburban and Rural areas. The Operations Department has indicated that these costs will be determined, on a case-by-case basis and an approximate range of cost incurred could be $ 2000 to $ 10,000 per Detached Garden Suite. Addressing of the Detached Garden Suite must be related to the single family residential use on. site (for e.g.: 11195 Brown Avenue, will have a Detached Garden Suite on the same lot addressed as 11195-A); • The Fire Department has expressed concerns over addressing that causes delays in life-threatening medical or fire emergencies. Hence proper addressing and unobstructed access to a Detached Garden Suite is crucial. Must have a minimum floor area of 37m2 and a maximum floor area of 65m2, not to exceed the total lot coverage permitted in the zone or 10 % of the lot, whichever is less; • The minimum size of 37m2 (398.2 ft2) for a Detached Garden Suite is regulated by BC Code requirements. • It is important to note that these units are not intended to be second houses on a property but are rather meant to be detached, accessory and subordinate in nature compared to the main house. • Unit size is directly related to housing affordability (affordable cost for the owner to build it and affordable rent for the renter). • It is important to note that there are fewer impacts with smaller units. For example, a smaller foot print will ensure more green space and minimize impervious areas on the lot. • Restricting lot coverage and maximum size will encourage new homes to be built correspondingly smaller to be able to accommodate a Detached Garden Suite and reduce potential impacts on a single family neighbourhood. •, The Technical Working Committee suggests that a maximum of 62m2 is appropriate and is consistent with the Canadian Mortgage Housing Corporation (CMHC) example which is a one bedroom portable unit of 62m2 (665 ft2) which is 8.5 metres (27.9 feet) wide and 7.3 metres (23.9 feet) deep with a 25 year life-span. A Detached Garden Suite, must comply with the following: 1) Siting and Height: I) Must not exceed a height of 4.5 metres from the existing grade for parcel sizes less than 0.4 hectares (1 acre),except properties zoned RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) and RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) in which case it must not exceed a height of 6.0 metres; Must not exceed a height of 6.0 metres for parcel sizes 0.4 hectares (1 acre) or more, except for a Detached Garden Suite permitted above the detached accessory residential structure/ garage in which case it must not exceed a height of 7.5 metres; The distance between Detached Garden Suite and One Family Residential use -5- must comply with the prevalent BC Building Code and must not be less than 2.4 metres. (a) Must not be sited less than: (I) 2.4 metres from the rear lot lines, except when the Detached Garden Suite is permitted above an accessory residential use structure/ garage where the minimum distance from rear lot line must be 7.5 metres; 1.5 metres from an interior side lot line; 4.5 metres from an exterior side lot line; 2.4 metres from a building used for one family residential use. This distance could be more depending on the proportion of glazed areas on the main house wall facing the Detached Garden Suite to comply with the prevalent BC Building Code requirements. • Proper siting is very important as this is a habitable detached unit (unlike an accessory residential structure such as a garage or workshop) on the same lot as the single family residential use. Liming height is an important lesson learnt through the researched jurisdictions in order to maintain the privacy and character of single family residential neighbourhood. The prescribed heights are consistent with the zoning bylaw requirements and heights in other jurisdictions. Access: One unobstructed pathway, at least 1.5 metres wide is required between the front street and the Detached Garden Suite. This 1.5 metres unobstructed pathway must be levelled or gravelled and be clear of any cornices, sills, pilasters, hutches, eaves, nooks and bay windows or architectural features cantilevering beyond the building face; • The Fire Department has recommended this to improve access to the Detached Garden Suites during fire and medical emergency. They have observed that narrow lanes obstructed with parking on one side are difficult for a fire truck or ambulance to access. Parking: One additional parking space must be provided for the Detached Garden Suite in addition to two parking spaces required for the main house on the lot; • This is consistent with requirements in other jurisdiction and for Secondary Suite use. • This parking space may be located either outside on a parking pad on the lot or enclosed in a carport/ garage. The parking spot for the Detached Garden Suite must not be tandem with the parking spots required for the principal residence. Private Outdoor Space: A minimum 25% of the gross floor area of the Detached Garden Suite must be provided as private outdoor space, adjacent toand accessible from a habitable room of the Detached Garden Suite (may include any covered or uncovered sundeck/patio or veranda). Any building separation requirements for additional accessory buildings on the same lot must meet the prevalent bylaw and BC Building Code requirements. S • The intent behind this provision is to ensure that adequate green space and private usable outdoor space is available to the residents of the Detached Garden Suite. This private outdoor space may possibly take the form of a kitchen garden, patio,, barbeque area, play area, etc. and would not be shared with the main house. It would be dedicated to the Detached Garden Suite resident. (p) Lands in the Agricultural Land Reserve seeking a "Detached Garden Suite" require "Non- farm use" approval by the Agricultural Land Commission. • Currently, Detached Garden Suite is not a permitted use under the Agricultural Land Reserve regulations. Other Amendments: Definition Section of the Zoning bylaw will require addition of the following: Detached Garden Suite: A Detached Garden Suite use means a self-contained residential use, accessory, subordinate and detached from a single family residential use, limited to one habitable unit built on the same lot in the rear yard". - Rear yard: to be defined as the area between the rear lot line and the nearest wall of the single family residential use. Maple Ridge Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw # 4350-1990: Schedule "A" of the Maple Ridge Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw # 4350-1990 will require amendment to require that a Detached Garden Suite Residential use provide one parking space. This is consistent with the requirements for Secondary Suite use. - Fees: • Currently an application fee of $ 250 is charged for registering an existing secondary suite or upgrading an existing unfinished basement, not for a new secondary suite. An inspection fee is charged where the services of a building inspector are requested. For a Detached Garden Suite use, although no application fee may be deemed necessary because it would be a new construction, an inspection fee of $ 100 may be required. The prevailing fee schedule will have to be amended to include this. The building permit fees depend on the type of structure and are specified in the prevalent building bylaw (calculated as a factor/$ 1000). • Currently homeowners with a Secondary Suite pay an additional utility fee of 2.0 times charges for sewer and 1.5 times for water. The sewer and water rates per single family residential use fluctuate every year. The homeowners of a Detached Garden Suite will pay similar utility charges based on prevailing sewer and water charges per single family residential use. This is not applicable to properties that are not on Municipal water and sewer. Maple Ridge Sewer rate Bylaw # 6537-2007 and Maple Ridge Water rate Bylaw # 6521-2007 may have to be amended. • Maple Ridge Recycling Charges Bylaw #6538-2007 may have to be amended to require the Detached Garden Suite residents to pay an annual curbside collection charge of $28.03 per unit in addition to the existing charges for the single family use. Bylaw Enforcement: Enforcement will be in accordance with existing Bylaw enforcement regulations and procedures. Schedule 12 of the Maple Ridge Ticket Information System Utilization Bylaw # -7- 4432-1990 will have to be amended to include ticketing for unlawful/illegal Detached Garden Suite of $ 200 (per day) which is consistent with that for unlawful Secondary Suites. NEXT STEPS: The regulations recommended by the Technical Working Committee address all the issues outlined in the Discussion Paper dated November 30, 2007 and concerns expressed by the residents in the first Open House. A Detached Garden Suite checklist and brochure will be drafted to render complete information and reduce processing delays. Time-intensive processing discourages home- owners hence a brochure/handout will be useful. Visual examples and site plan prototypes do much to guide in terms of quality, cost and time and could be a possibility on District owned land. Time-line for next steos: Second Open House to inform and acquire public input on the proposed regulations around permitting Detached Garden Suites May 28, 2008 Drafting the Detached Garden Suite - handout/ manual/ brochure June 2008 Council update following the second Open House June 2008 Bylaw and Policy preparation June/July 2008 Presentation of the Bylaws and Policy to Council JULY 2008 CONCLUSION: After the first open house, it was evident that there is positive support for Detached Garden Suite concept and the citizens have commended Council for taking up this initiative. Numerous benefits of this form of housing as mentioned in the discussion paper and the interest shown by residents (through several calls and emails) in proposed regulations around this permitted use has reiterated this fact. Lessons learnt from researched jurisdictions have helped in outlining regulations and the Technical Working Committee believe that a conservative approach would help monitor bylaw enforcement challenges better as it is much easier to ease strict requirements over time than it is to tighten regulations that are too lax. A conservative approach will provide a more acceptable method of introducing this unique form of housing to the community. Prepared by Rasika harya, B-Arch, M-Tech (Ping.), UD (SFU) Planner , iP Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA. . n (7 GM: P c Wo s evelopment Services J. L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer rA WIN From: Fung, Jo [mailto:Jo. Fung@vancouver.ca] Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 1:49 PM To: Christina DeMarco - Cc: sarah_mcmillan@translink.bc.ca Subject: FW: Unbundled Parking UBCM Resolution Hi Chris, As I understand that there were some confusions about the next step. To clarify my position, Vancouver would like the other TAC members to request their councils to support this UBCM resolution in the LMLGA May meeting. Please call if you have any questions. Many thanks! Jo Yee Yung Fung, M.Eng., P.Eng., PTOE I Sustainability Group City of Vancouver I 453 West 12th Avenue, V5Y 1V4 T 604.871.6911 I F 604.871.61921 C 604.418.1149 vancouver.ca/sustainability I onedayvancouver.ca 51 City of Vancouver UNBUNDLED PARKING REQUIREMENT WHEREAS the Provincial Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Targets Act requires a GHG emission reduction of 33% from 2007 levels by 2020, and a reduction of 80% from 2007 Levels by 2050, with legislated targets for 2012 and 2016 to be put in place by December 31st, 2008. AND WHEREAS sixty British Columbia (B.C.) Local governments signed a Climate Action Charter with the Province and with the Union of BC Municipalities in 2007 to develop , strategies to become carbon-neutral by 2012 and to create compact energy-efficient communities by making environmentally responsible choices. AND WHEREAS B.C. municipalities have jurisdiction over Land use and parking regulation to achieve community goals such as GHG emission reductions. AND WHEREAS B.C. municipalities do not currently have the authority to require developers to provide unbundled parking (i.e., the separation of the sate price for a parking space from the sale price for a freehold or leasehold property or strata lot) in new developments, which would provide home-buyers with purchasing flexibility and greater transparency regarding the cost of parking, and would lead to more informed decision making about vehicle ownership and usage. AND WHEREAS if the authority is provided to B.C. municipalities to require developers to unbundle parking, they have the option to exercise that authority as they deem appropriate. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the UBCM requests the Province to make the necessary legislative changes to provide B.C. municipalities the authority to have the option to require unbundled parking in new developments, in support of sustainabitity commitments. UNBUNDLED PARKING REQUIREMENT Background The City of Vancouver and the Province of British Columbia recognize the importance of sustainable transportation in urban centres and elsewhere with the transportation sector accounting for about 40 per cent of all GHG emission in the Vancouver region. In January 2008, the Province announced a $14 billion public transit plan to reduce Provincial transportation GHG emissions. In July 2007, Vancouver City Council approved the submission of a number of Vancouver Charter Amendment Proposals to the Province for consideration, including the authority to have the option to require unbundled parking in new developments. The Province indicated that the unbundled parking component would require legislative changes that affect all municipalities and therefore recommended additional consultation with other municipalities and the development industry. Unbundled parking refers to the separation of the sale of strata units and their assigned parking spaces in new developments. Unbundling parking provides home- buyers with the flexibility and choice of deciding whether they wish to purchase a parking stall in conjunction with their strata unit. This flexibility creates greater transparency regarding the cost of parking and would lead to more informed decision making about vehicle ownership and usage. It also encourages market-based pricing for off-street parking spaces. The City of Vancouver is interested in unbundled parking because it is consistent with its sustainability initiatives of reducing car usage and greenhouse gas emissions. It could also increase housing affordability if home-buyers are not required to purchase a parking space. with a strata unit. Currently the City of Vancouver does not have the authority to require developers to provide unbundled parking. Without this authority, the idea of providing unbundled parking to the general public will not likely succeed because it would depend on developers to voluntarily unbundle parking. Therefore, the City of Vancouver is seeking the authority, through Provincial legislative changes, to require developers to unbundle parking. With this authority, the City would undertake a consultation process with developers and other stakeholders to determine the appropriate circumstances and conditions in which unbundled parking could be required. In an effort to consult with other Metro Vancouver municipalities, a joint working group on unbundled parking was established through Metro Vancouver's Technical Advisory Committee and TransLink's Major Roads and Transportation Advisory Committee. Through this process, municipalities have indicated that they are supportive of the proposal, particularly given the fact that municipalities have the option to exercise the authority to require unbundled parking in new developments as they deem appropriate. Discussions with other stakeholders have also been initiated. While representatives from the Urban Development Institute (UDI) support the provision of unbundled parking on an incentive voluntary basis only, representatives from the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver (REBGV) are not supportive because widespread unbundled parking may create unacceptable consequences for strata unit owners, such as diminished parking security or loss of control of their parkades. From: Mark von Schellwitz [mailto:crfa@telus.net] Sent: May 1, 2008 13:37 To: Mayor and Council; Gordon Robson; Ernie Daykin; Judy Dueck; Al Hogarth; Linda King; Craig Speirs; Ken Stewart Cc: 'Joyce Reynolds' Subject: Drive Throughs and Idling Dear Mayor and Council, After reading Councillor Linda King's comments in the April 29th Maple Ridge Times regarding drive throughs, I wanted to take the opportunity to provide you with some information on drive throughs and idling that will help ensure an informed debate on the issue. The Canadian Restaurant & Foodservices Association (CRFA) is concerned about misconceptions about idling and would like to bring to your attention recent changes to information provided by Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) which is often cited as a source of information on idling and emissions. In early February, NRCan recognized that the idling section of its website is misleading and incomplete and removed information often referred to as the guidelines for idling emissions standards. Research findings, including the study commissioned by NRCan officials entitled "Review of the Incidence, Energy Use and Costs of Passenger Vehicle Idling" by G.W. Taylor Consulting dated March 2003, clearly state that turning the engine on and off will not reduce emissions, and in fact will slightly increase emissions, from cars with catalytic converters (99% of cars on the road) idling between 10 seconds and 10 minutes. "The emission rate of gasoline fuelled vehicles, at all operating conditions, is most dramatically affected by the efficient operation of the catalytic converter. The advent of catalyst technology for exhaust aftertreatment, first introduced in the mid-1970's, has reduced emission levels of vehicles by over 98 percent, compared to non-catalytic technology. If the catalyst fails, through age or misfuelling, then the idle, and all other modes' emissions, will increase by more than 100 times." "When a fully warmed up vehicle is turned off, the catalyst immediately starts to cool down and its temperature quickly drops below its optimal temperature and thus when the vehicle is restarted there is an increase in emissions due to the lower efficiency of the catalysts."... "When the emissions generated by the tested vehicles that were idled and then driven over the 505 cycle were compared to those that were shut off and then restarted to drive the cycle, there were no consistent statistical differences at any of the idle/soak periods. However, there was a weak trend (mostly the differences were not statistically significant) for the emissions to be lower for the idling ootion throughout the range of stoo durations. Thus, from these tests on modern vehicles, it is concluded that there is little impact on the choice of vehicle operational option (idling or shut down) when the vehicle is stopped for duration between 10 seconds and 10 minutes." 5.2 It's also important to recognize that our members are very sensitive to the environment and are dedicated to green business practices - things like reducing energy consumption, recycling, and supporting many community programs that help the environment. However, the fact is that restricting or banning drive-throughs would produce questionable environmental benefits. The absence of drive-throughs would have serious implications for people who see service windows as a vital convenience. Specifically, parents with small children, people with disability challenges, elderly patrons - especially on bad weather days, and people who want the option of staying in the safety of their car when getting a bite to eat late at night. The drive-through issue is a priority for our members who continue to work closely with neighbourhoods across the country to design and run drive-throughs in ways that respect each individual community. Our members are continually working to improve their drive- through locations and in every drive-through, they use things like noise barriers, light shields, frequent litter collection and order post volume controls to make sure restaurants with drive- thoughs are good neighbours. We think drive- throughs certainly have a place in communities and we're dedicated to working co-operatively with municipalities to ensure they are designed and run appropriately. Our industry has partnered with many other municipalities to manage this issue and we would welcome working with Maple Ridge Council as well. CRFA would be happy to meet with Council to further discuss this important issue. Please contact me if you are interested in meeting or have any questions with respect to the above. Sincerely, Mark von Schellwitz Vice President, Western Canada Mark von Schellwitz Vice President, Western Canada Canadian Restaurant & Foodservices Association #2410 - 555 West Hastings Street P.O. Box 12125 Vancouver, B.C. V6B 4N6 Phone 604-685-9655 Toll Free 1-866-300-7675 Email mark@crfa.ca Website www.crfa.ca DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 2.0 MAPLE RIDGE Council Workshop Meeting of: May 12, 2008 That the minutes of the Council Workshop Meeting of May 12, 2008 be adopted as circulated. "Gordon Robson" ED DEFEATED DEFERRED YOR ACTION NOTICE TO: - Chief Administrative Officer - Executive Director - Mgr - Economic Development - Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial RCMP Fire Chief - Dir - Finance - Chief Information Officer - Gen Mgr - Public Works & Development_________________________________________________ - Dir - Planning - Dir - Licenses, Permits & By-laws Municipal Engineer - Mgr - Corporate and Development Eng - Dir - Engineering Operations - Dir - Project Engineering - Gen Mgr - Com. Dev. & Rec. Services - Dir - Parks&Facilities - Dir - Recreation - Dir - Community Services Clerk's Section - Corporate Officer - Property & Risk Manager - Tracy Camire - Diana Dalton - Amanda Allen - Amanda Gaunt - Karen Kaake The above decision was made at a meeting of the Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for notation and/or such action as may be required by your Department. May 12. 2008 Date Corporate Officer DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 4.3 MAPLE RIDGE Council Workshop Meeting of: May 12, 2908 That the staff report dated May 7, 2008 titled "Review of Recommended Regulations for Detached Garden Suites" be received for information. / "Gordon Robson" CA9'IED DEFEATED DEFERRED MAYOR ACTION NOTICE TO: Chief Administrative Officer - Executive Director - Mgr - Economic Development - Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial RCMP Fire Chief - Dir - Finance - phief Information Officer en Mgr - Public Works & Development_________________________________________________ - Dir - Planning - Dir - Licenses, Permits & By-laws - Municipal Engineer - Mgr - corporate and Development Eng - Dir - Engineering Operations - Dir - Project Engineering - Gen Mgr - Com. Dev. & Rec. Services - Dir - Parks & Facilities - Dir - Recreation - Dir Community Services Clerk's Section - Corporate Officer - Property & Risk Manager - Tracy Camire - Diana Dalton - Amanda Allen - Amanda Gaunt - Karen Kaake The above decision was made at a meeting of the Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for notation and/or such action as may be required by your Department. May 12, 2008 Date Corporate Officer DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 4.7 MAPLE RIDGE Council Workshop Meeting of: May 12, 2008 That a subcommittee be formed to review District policies. "Gordon Robson" CAR ED DEFEATED DEFERRED MAYOR ACTION NOTICE TO: Chief Administrative Officer - Executive Director — Mgr - Economic Development - Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial RCMP Fire Chief - Dir - Finance - Chief Information Officer - Gen Mgr - Public Works & Development_________________________________________________ - Dir - Planning - Dir - Licenses, Permits & By-laws - Municipal Engineer - Mgr - Corporate and Development Eng - Dir - Engineering Operations Dir - Project Engineering - Gen Mgr - Com. Dev. & Rec. Services - Dir - Parks & Facilities - Dir - Recreation - Dir - Community Services Clerk's Section - Corporate Officer - Property & Risk Manager - Tracy Cam ire - Diana Dalton - Amanda Allen Amanda Gaunt Karen Kaake The above decision was made at a meeting of the Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for notation and/or such action as may be required by your Department. May 12. 2008 Date Corporate Officer I DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 5.1 MAPLE RIDGE Council Workshop Meeting of: May 12, 2008 I That the e-mail dated April 10, 2008 from Jo Ye Yung Fung, Sustainability Group, City of Vancouver pertaining to unbundled parking be received for information. / "Gordon Robson" CA , .4IED DEFEATED DEFERRED MAYOR ACTION NOTICE TO: — Chief Administrative Officer - Executive Director — Mgr - Economic Development -- Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial RCMP Fire Chief - Dir - Finance — 9hief Information Officer - 9én Mgr - Public Works & Development_________________________________________________ t,./ Dir - Planning — Dir - Licenses, Permits & By-laws — Municipal Engineer — Mgr - Corporate and Development Eng - Dir - Engineering Operations — Dir - Project Engineering — Gen Mgr - Corn. Dev. & Rec. Services - Dir - Parks & Facilities Dir - Recreation — Dir - Community Services Clerk's Section — Corporate Officer - — Property & Risk Manager Aciana racy Carnire — Dalton /11L-iiL..LL/ ViL1L't / - Amanda Allen / — Amanda Gaunt — Karen Kaake The above decision was made at a meeting of the Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for notation and/or such action as may be required by your Department. May 12, 2008 Date Corporate Officer DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 5.2 MAPLE RIDGE Council Workshop Meeting of: May 12, 2008 That the e-mail dated May 1, 2008 from Mark von Schellwitz, Vice President, Western Canada, Canadian Restaurant & Food Services be received for information. "Gordon Robson" CARRD DEFEATED DEFERRED MAYOR ACTION NOTICE TO: - Chief Administrative Officer - Executive Director - Mgr - Economic Development - Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial RCMP Fire Chief - Dir - Finance - Chief Information Officer - Gen Mgr - Public Works & Development_________________________________________________ - Dir- Planning - Dir - Licenses, Permits & By-laws - Municipal Engineer - Mgr - Corporate and Development Eng_________________________________________________ - Dir - Engineering Operations - Dir - Project Engineering - Gen Mgr - Com. Dev. & Rec. Services - Dir - Parks & Facilities - Dir - Recreation - Dir - Community Services Clerk's Section - Corporate Officer - Property & Risk Manager 'acyCamire ,1 j/"Diana Dalton - Amanda Allen / - Amanda Gaunt - Karen Kaake The above decision was made at a meeting of the Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for notation and/or such action as may be required by your Department. May 12, 2008 C~~ IV6T~&_ Date Corporate Officer