REPORT TO COUNCIL

COMMUNITY/INDUSTRY ADVISORY COMMITTEE

FOR THE REZONING, PERMITTING AND INSPECTION (NEW) PROCESS

November 20, 1998

INFORMATION

1. Initial Report to Council RTS No. 390

CC File No. 3151

Background

The advisory panel was officially established on April 30, 1998. The Committee was formed to monitor the Pilot (New) Process as it unfolds and evolves, and to provide advice to staff and Council.

Membership

Twelve members have been appointed to the Committee, evenly divided between community and industry representatives. Community representatives have been selected by Council from a list of volunteers. Industry representatives have been nominated to serve by their trade and professional associations. Committee members will serve a four-year term (the term to coincide with the commencement of the Pilot [New] Process through 100% conversion to follow up in the last two years). Attached to this report is a listing of the Committee members.

Committee Activities - May to November, 1998

During these first six months, the Committee has focused on becoming familiar with the New Process, with beginning to understand the New Process in comparison to the Legacy processes, and in understanding the City’s position and philosophy on public sector involvement. To begin this educational phase for the Committee, the City arranged two 3-hour orientation sessions on June 5 and June 19.

Subsequent to the orientation sessions, the meetings to November 13 have included the following:

Committee Protocol
June 26

· Committee to meet every two weeks, with a “floating chairperson” - Friday mornings, 8:00 a.m. - 10:00 a.m.;

· Minute-taking to be provided by Community Services Group staff;

· Discussion on the Committee’s Terms of Reference - refer to comments below.

Pilot (New Process) Project Presentations
July 10

· Presentation by City staff of four projects - 2 facilitated projects/2 coordinated projects - the staff had determined that in each stream, they would present an example that they felt had worked well and one that they felt had presented or still presented difficulties.

July 24

· Presentation by staff on three projects - 1 facilitated/2 coordinated.

Overview on Regulatory Review
August 7

· Presentation by Ted Droettboom on Regulatory Review - similar to earlier presentation given to Council.

Public Involvement Review and Sectoring
August 21

· Presentation by Jacquie Forbes-Roberts and Michael Gordon - directions to be put forward to Council this fall on possible sectoring - Michael Gordon asked the Committee to provide him with feedback on the written portion of his presentation.

Sectoring Document Review
September 4

Internal Committee Reviews
September 17 and October 2

· These two sessions allowed the Committee members to review their reactions and the levels to which they have become familiar with the New Process, and to begin to define what they feel their advisory role will be. These meetings not only provided an opportunity to discuss and summarize positive reactions to the intent of the Process, but also to identify issues and possible limitations that may impede or compromise the Process.

Sectoring, Project Review Involvement, Staff Morale
October 16

Information Technology (IT) Presentation
October 30

· Presentation on progress of IT implementation by Pat Kostuk.

Summary Statement

The Community/Industry Advisory Committee agrees with and supports the principles of the New Process. The Committee has, however, identified several issues and concerns, as follows:

A. Terms of Reference

The Advisory Committee’s mandate is to:

(i) provide the staff with some overview as to how the Process is evolving and whether its evolution is adhering to the original principles;

(ii) give advice to the staff as to how to provide services;

(iii) make sure that the New Process is providing services to its consumers, i.e., the applicants, the public, etc.

Throughout the past six months, there was considerable discussion on the Committee’s role in the regulatory review component of DBRR as compared to the process review that has culminated in the New Process. To some Committee members the regulatory framework is much more problematic than the process review. The Committee agreed that it was imperative that regulatory issues be identified and recorded as they emerge through the review of various projects, and that a list be sent to those reviewing regulations. Two example items are:

(i) Caretaker Suites - issue of “residential” in industrial zone - conditions for admissibility;

(ii) Karaoke - an issue of using the building review process to police criminal activity.

B. Decision-making Consistency

The Items for Regulatory Review identified to the Committee the issue of decision-making consistency for projects going through the New Process. Committee members wished to see decisions that took suitable advantage of the flexibility embodied in some of the City’s by-laws; decisions that looked at “reasonable” by-law application in response to project/site opportunities and constraints rather than having decisions driven by a fear of precedent and an overriding concern for consistency.

C. Community Involvement

The Committee recognizes that one of its greatest challenges will be advising the City staff on, and reviewing with staff, communication and involvement with the public.

D. Human Resources Issues

The Committee has been made aware of the challenges the staff have undertaken with respect to increased decision-making responsibility, more intensive and time-consuming involvement with applicants and other parties in the development process, and a more complex workload. Monitoring the corporate climate and advising on overall project management will be one of the Committee’s roles.

E. Information Technology Issues

Issues of implementation time lines, the quality and usefulness of the proposed technology deliverables, the “seamlessness” of information between appropriate departments and the staff learning curve will be reviewed by the Committee.

(Sgd) Catherine Youngren (Sgd) Bob Brewster
Catherine Youngren, Member Bob Brewster, Member
Community/Industry Advisory Committee Community/Industry Advisory Committee

CITY MANAGER’S COMMENTS

The City Manager submits the foregoing for INFORMATION.

APPENDIX A

COMMUNITY/INDUSTRY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Members

Community Representatives:

R. J. (Bob) Brewster

Joyce Catliff

Angie Lee

Sophia Lum

Sean McEwen

Charlie Richmond

Industry Representatives:

Dimas Craveiro
Certified Professional Committee

Bob Heaslip
Greater Vancouver Home Builders’ Association

Brian Palmquist
Urban Development Institute

Tom Staniszkis
Architectural Institute of B.C.

Dana Taylor
Mechanical Contractors’ Association of B.C.

Catherine Youngren
Interior Designers Institute of B.C.

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver