Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-05-12 Workshop Meeting Agenda and Reports.pdfDistrict of Maple Ridge 1.ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 2.MINUTES – May 5, 2014 3.PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL 4.UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS 4.1 Draft Wildfire Development Permit Area Guidelines: Review of Proposed Development Permit Area •P. Grootendorst, Retired Maple Ridge Fire Chief •Mark Brown, Cambrian Consulting Staff report dated May 12, 2014 recommending that two additional areas be included in the proposed Wildfire Development Permit Area boundaries map and that the Wildfire Development Permit Area Guidelines Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw be prepared along with an amendment to Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999. COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA May 12, 2014 9:00 a.m. 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, 2014 Audit and Finance Committee Meeting 8:00 a.m. Closed Council following Workshop Committee of the Whole Meeting 1:00 p.m. May 13, 2014 Council Meeting 7:00 p.m. Council Workshop May 12, 2014 Page 2 of 3 4.2 Parks and Leisure Services Update Presentation by the General Manager of Community Development, Parks and Recreation Services 4.3 LED Street Light Pilot Project Staff report dated May 12, 2014 recommending that a pilot project testing the performance of LED Street light luminaires in a subdivision development be implemented and that use of existing funding be authorized. 4.4 Cash-in-Lieu Requirements for the Conversion of Overhead Wiring Staff report dated May 12, 2014 providing information on cash-in-lieu payments for the conversion of overhead wiring to underground wiring. 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: a) Acknowledge receipt of correspondence and advise that no further action will be taken. b) Direct staff to prepare a report and recommendation regarding the subject matter. c) Forward the correspondence to a regular Council meeting for further discussion. d) Other. Once direction is given the appropriate response will be sent. 5.1 6. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL 7. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT 8. ADJOURNMENT Checked by: ___________ Date: _________________ Council Workshop May 12, 2014 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: (a) personal information about an identifiable individual who holds or is being considered for a position as an officer, employee or agent of the municipality or another position appointed by the municipality; (b) 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; (c) labour relations or employee negotiations; (d) the security of property of the municipality; (e) 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; (f) 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; (g) litigation or potential litigation affecting the municipality; (h) 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 (i) the receiving of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose; (j) 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; (k) 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; (l) 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] (m) a matter that, under another enactment, is such that the public may be excluded from the meeting; (n) the consideration of whether a council meeting should be closed under a provision of this subsection of subsection (2) (o) 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. District of Maple Ridge COUNCIL WORKSHOP May 5, 2014 The Minutes of the Municipal Council Workshop held on May 5, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. in the Blaney Room of the Municipal Hall, 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, British Columbia for the purpose of transacting regular Municipal business. PRESENT Elected Officials Appointed Staff Mayor E. Daykin J. Rule, Chief Administrative Officer Councillor C. Ashlie K. Swift, General Manager of Community Development, Councillor C. Bell Parks and Recreation Services Councillor J. Dueck P. Gill, General Manager Corporate and Financial Services Councillor A. Hogarth F. Quinn, General Manager Public Works and Development Councillor B. Masse Services Councillor M. Morden C. Marlo, Manager of Legislative Services A. Gaunt, Confidential Secretary Other Staff as Required L. Holitzki, Director of Licences, Permits and Bylaws D. Pollock, Municipal Engineer T. Thompson, Manager of Financial Planning J. Bastaja, Director of Corporate Support F. Armstrong, Manager of Corporate Communications Note: These Minutes are posted on the Municipal Web Site at www.mapleridge.ca 1.ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA The agenda was adopted as circulated. 2.MINUTES R/2014-195 Minutes It was moved and seconded That the minutes of the Council Workshop Meeting of April 7 and April 14, 2014 be adopted as circulated. CARRIED 2.0 Council Workshop Minutes May 5, 2014 Page 2 of 4 3. PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL – Nil 4. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS 4.1 Downtown Maple Ridge Business Improvement Association (“DMRBIA”) • Ineke Boekhorst, Executive Director Ms. Boekhorst gave a PowerPoint presentation providing information on the Downtown Maple Ridge Business Improvement Association. She introduced the mandate of the association, the DMRBIA Board of Directors, provided an update on activities and various events held during the year and highlighted feedback gathered through a consumer survey on shopping habits in Maple Ridge conducted during the summer of 2013. Ms. Boekhorst also provided examples of the façade improvement program in downtown Maple Ridge. 4.2 Joint Leisure Services Model Review • Brian Johnson, Facilitator, PERC The Facilitator provided a number of questions for consideration and discussion by Council pertaining to the current Joint Leisure Services Agreement. Note: Councillor Dueck left the meeting at 9:58 a.m. Councillor Morden left the meeting at 10:05 a.m. 4.3 Document Management Implementation Update The Manager of Legislative Services and Emergency Program provided an update on the Laser Fiche document management system. She provided information on the background of the work and outlined the improvements the new system will make to the current document management system. The Director of Corporate Support provided an update on the implementation program of the new document management system and spoke to the timeline of the implementation. Note: Councillor Morden returned to the meeting at 10:17 a.m. 4.4 Amendments to the 2014-2018 Financial Plan Amending Bylaw Statement 2 and the 2014 Property Tax Rates Bylaw Schedule A Staff report dated May 5, 2014 advising on amendments to Maple Ridge 2014 Property Tax Rates Bylaw No. 7078-2014 and Maple Ridge 2014-2018 Financial Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7076-2014. Council Workshop Minutes May 5, 2014 Page 3 of 4 The Manager of Financial Planning reviewed the report. R/2014-196 Amendments to It was moved and seconded BL 7078-2014 and BL 7076-2014 That the report dated May 5,2014 titled “Amendments to the 2014-2018 Financial Plan Amending Bylaw Statement 2 and the 2014 Property Tax Rates Bylaw Schedule A” be received for information. CARRIED 5. CORRESPONDENCE 5.1 E-Comm Board of Directors Designate – 2014/2015 Term Letter dated March 31, 2014 from Jody Robertson, Corporate Secretary, E- Comm 911, requesting written confirmation of the designation of one individual for election to the Board of Directors of E-Comm. R/2014-197 E-Comm Board 2014/2015 Year It was moved and seconded Appointment That Mayor Ernie Daykin be designated for election to the Board of Directors of E-Comm for the 2014-2015 year. CARRIED 5.2 Alouette River Management Society – Allco Hatchery Well Funds Letter from Greta Borick-Cunningham, Executive Director, Alouette River Management Society providing information on the Allco Hatchery Well Funds for Experimental Sockeye Rearing Project. Council Workshop Minutes May 5, 2014 Page 4 of 4 R/2014-198 Alouette River Management It was moved and seconded Society Letter That Letter from Greta Borick-Cunningham, Executive Director, Alouette River Management Society providing information on the Allco Hatchery Well Funds for Experimental Sockeye Rearing Project be received for information. CARRIED 6. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL 6.1 Financial Plan 2014-2018 Public Budget Q & A #2 Results Staff report dated May 5, 2014 providing information on the results of the April 28, 2014 live-streamed Budget Q & A. Methods of engaging the public to be considered for the next live-streamed question and answer session were suggested by Council. 7. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT – Nil 8. ADJOURNMENT – 10:30 a.m. _______________________________ E. Daykin, Mayor Certified Correct ___________________________________ R. Riach, Acting Corporate Officer District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: May 12, 2014 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2012-036-CP FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Workshop SUBJECT: Draft Wildfire Development Permit Area Guidelines: Review of Proposed DP Area EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: At the January 7, 2013 Council Workshop, a report was presented on the outcomes of the public consultation for the Draft Wildfire Development Permit Area Guidelines. Participants in the process included both residents and the development community and the majority recognized the importance of wildfire risk mitigation (note that discussions with the development community were primarily with those involved in development projects in the forest interface area). At Workshop, issues were raised with regard to the extent of the area covered by the proposed Development Permit Area boundaries (Appendix D) and the potential costs that will be incurred by the development community. At this meeting, the following resolution was passed: That the staff report dated January 7, 2013 titled “2012-036-CP, Update on Public Consultation for Draft Wildfire Development Permit Area Guidelines” be referred back to staff. With the technical concerns raised around the boundaries of the proposed wildfire development permit area, former Fire Chief Grootendorst engaged Cambrian Consulting to undertake a peer review of the proposed Wildfire Development Permit Area boundaries that were recommended by B.A. Blackwell & Associates. The peer review report was completed in March 2013 and is attached as Appendix A. In addition to the above, a letter was received from the Manager of the BC Wildfire Management Branch, dated March 14, 2013 (Appendix C), expressing the importance of “proactive wildfir e risk reduction” and also offering their support for this initiative. The purpose of this report is to update Council on the findings of the peer review by Cambrian Consulting and include correspondence received from the BC Wildfire Management Branch. Also contained in this report is an update on the process and discussion regarding the early and ongoing consultation requirements outlined in the Local Government Act. 4.1 - 2 - RECOMMENDATIONS: 1) Whereas Council has considered the requirements of Section 879 of the Local Government Act that it provide, in respect of an amendment to an Official Community Plan, one or more opportunities it considers appropriate for consultation with persons, organizations and authorities it considers will be affected and has speci fically considered the matters referred to in Section 879(2) of the Act; 2) Whereas Council considers that the opportunities to consult proposed to be provided by the District in respect of an amendment to an Official Community Plan constitute appropriate consultation for the purposes of Section 879 of the Act; 3) Whereas, in respect of Section 879 of the Local Government Act, requirement for consultation during the development or amendment of an Official Community Plan, Council must consider whether consultation is required with specifically: a. The board of the Regional District in which the area covered by the plan is located, in the case of a Municipal Official Community Plan; b. The Board of any Regional District that is adjacent to the area covered by the plan; c. The Council of any municipality that is adjacent to the area covered by the plan; d. First Nations; e. School District Boards, greater boards and improvement district boards, and f. The Provincial and federal governments and their agencies; 4) That the only additional consultation to be required in respect of this matter beyond the early posting of the proposed Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw (Wildfire Development Permit Area Guidelines) on the District’s website, together with an invitation to the public to comment, is referral to: a. the Agricultural Land Commission, b. neighbouring Municipalities of Pitt Meadows and Mission, c. UBC Malcolm Knapp Research Forest, d. School District 42, e. Metro Vancouver, f. Department of Fisheries & Oceans, g. The Provincial Ministries of: Forests, Lands, and Natural Resources; Environment; and Transportation and Infrastructure, and h. Katzie and Kwantlen First Nations. 5) That the two additional areas recommended in the March 2013 consultant report entitled, District of Maple Ridge Wildfire Development Permit Area Regulations Peer Review , be included in the proposed Wildfire Development Permit Area boundaries map; 6) That the Wildfire Development Permit Area Guidelines Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw be prepared, along with an amendment to Development Procedures Bylaw 5879 - 1999; - 3 - BACKGROUND: In 2006, an application was made to the Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM) for a financial grant. UBCM agreed to fund 50% of the costs to produce a Wildfire Prote ction Plan and Risk Assessment for the District of Maple Ridge and B.A. Blackwell & Associates were retained to complete this work. The benefit of a wildfire risk assessment is that it can indicate, at any given location and under specific conditions, the probability of a wildfire occurring and for given wildfire behavior, what the potential consequences on resources may be. The assessment culminated in the report entitled, “District of Maple Ridge Community Wildfire Risk Management System”. The following statement is found early in the report: Historically the mid to low elevation stands of timber in this area have been exposed to high severity stand replacement wildfires that has the potential to significantly alter the forests adjacent to and within the District. The probability of large wildfires within this community is considered low to moderate and the consequences associated with a large wildfire could be devastating. The findings in the risk assessment report were incorporated into the Maple R idge Community Wildfire Protection Plan, also prepared by B.A. Blackwell in 2006. The Plan states that: The District of Maple Ridge is embedded within the forest; approximately 60% of the community is forested. This region of the Province is susceptible to both lightning and human caused fires. Overall, the community could be classified with a fire risk profile described by a low to moderate fire probability and high to extreme consequences based on the values at risk. The Maple Ridge Community Wildfire Protection Plan contains twenty-one (21) recommendations that focus on communication and education, structure protection, emergency response, training and post fire rehabilitation. Several of these recommendations have a lready been implemented by the Fire Department. On July 10th, 2007, the following resolution was passed by Council: That the recommendations contained in the Community Wildfire Protection Plan be adopted in principle pending the development of a detailed implementation plan with an associated financial plan which will be brought back to Council for their consideration and adoption; and That staff be instructed to make application to the Union of British Columbia Municipalities for grant funding to develop an implementation plan for the Community Wildfire Protection Plan recommendations. A technical working group was formed in 2007, made up of District staff from Fire, Planning, Engineering, Operations, Building, and Parks & Leisure Services. The group worked together for several months on draft Development Permit Area Guidelines (WFDP) and a Development Procedures Checklist (both attached to this report as Appendix E and F). These drafts were - 4 - developed using the information and recommendations made in the 2007 District of Maple Ridge Wildfire Risk Management System (WRMS) study and the 2007 District of Maple Ridge Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), the standards set in the National Fire Protection Association’s guidelines (NFPA-1144) and input from the technical working group. PEER REVIEW OF PROPOSED WILDFIRE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AREA BOUNDARIES: Subsequent to the January 7, 2013 Council Workshop, wherein concerns were raised about the extent of the proposed Wildfire Development Permit Area Boundaries and cost to the development community, former Fire Chief Grootendorst hired Cambrian Consulting to undertake a peer review of B.A. Blackwell & Associates’ recommendations on the proposed Wildfire Development Permit Area boundaries. The WFDPA boundaries were derived from the Maple Ridge Community Wildfire Protection Plan and the Maple Ridge Wildfire Risk Management System (WRMS), prepared by B.A. Blackwell & Associates. Cambrian Consulting completed a report entitled “District of Maple Ridge: Wildfire Development Permit Area Regulations Peer Review”, dated March 2013 (Appendix A). It is stated in the report findings that B.A. Blackwell’s work: represents a comprehensively researched and science-based platform from which the District of Maple Ridge will be able to improve community resilience, protect values at risk and minimize exposure to liability and demand for additional services and resources. The peer review states that: no areas are proposed for removal from the regulations at this time and also identified two additional areas recommended to be added to the proposed Wildfire Development Permit Area. These two additional areas are the forested lands around Whonnock Lake and Webster’s Corners (Appendix B) and are discussed in the peer review finding’s below. In the review of the lands proposed for inclusion in the WFDP Area, Cambrian made some initial observations: Extensive areas of contiguous hazardous fuel-types are inter-woven with both old and newly established neighbourhoods, the way in which the community has historically developed into the surrounding forest has created a significant legacy of homes (values at risk) which would be extremely difficult to protect in the event of a wildland urban interface (WUI) forest fire. A large number of homes have become embedded in forests containing hazardous fuel types often with inadequate access for evacuation or deployment of emergency response vehicles, limited water supply, vulnerable power supply and lack of defensible space. - 5 - Further, Cambrian recognizes that a WFDP is intended to reduce wildfire risk and protect the environmental, economic and social/cultural values that reside within the existing forest interface areas: The optimal goals for the WFDPA regulations will be to both reduce wildfire risk to the built environment of Maple Ridge and conserve the valuable forest ecosystems which define its cultural heritage and have the potential to provide millions of dollars in quantifiable goods and services for generations to come. The findings of the March 2013 peer review report are as follows: 1. Review of Wildfire Development Permit Area Regulations 1.1 Hazardous Fuel Type Mapping The review first looked at how the hazardous fuel type mapping resources were applied by B.A. Blackwell and found that it was “consistent with both Provincial (Hawkes et. Al. 1995) and Canadian Fire Behaviour Prediction (FBP) fuel type classification standards (Taylor et. Al. 1997)” and further found that the “fuel types have been verified by ground-truthing and aerial photography review”. 1.2 Isolated Forest Polygons The approach used by B.A. Blackwell to delineate the boundaries of the WFDP Areas was parcel based, rather than a meandering buffer approach that would result in boundaries drawn through parcels, which is recommended by Cambrian Consulting due to its “ease and efficiency of administration”. Cambrian Consulting also recommends this approach: Based on our review of the prevailing conditions, landscape features, road access and availability of water supply applying the 20 hectare minimum isolated polygon size is recommended and consistent with associated program guidance documentation. Cambrian gives an example of the proposed Thornhill polygon area, which is “in excess of 580 hectares and the forest area contains a majority of hazardous fuel types”. The slopes in Thornhill contain “a significant inventory of critical telecommunications infrastructure”, which if exposed to a wildfire event similar to that in the Kelowna wildfire of 2003, would potentially cause a loss of power supply, become inoperable, and present “major challenges for emergency response and regional communication systems”. The risk to private property and ecosystem values would also be at great risk in such a wildfire event. To reduce the risk of such losses, Cambrian points to the value of having a WFDPA in place: Under the guidance of qualified professionals and the WFDPA regulations judicious community planning, structure protection and vegetation management initiatives will put in place the necessary preventative measures to protect values at risk and guide sustainable and disaster resilient community development. - 6 - 1.3 Areas of Fragmented Hazardous Fuel Type Cambrian provides additional support for their recommendation of the “isolated forest polygons” approach that was undertaken by B.A. Blackwell & Associates in determining the WFDP Area boundaries: In reality when the forest cover is continuous including a range of fuel types a wildland fire is only likely to be halted at a significant fuel or fire break. In a wildfire both deciduous and mixed forest cover is vulnerable to ignition and wildfire propagation from ember showers. It is therefore prudent to include rather than exclude small areas of less hazardous fuel types and to adopt a well-defined WFDPA administrative boundary. In this case the boundary delineator chosen corresponds with the centerline of the nearest public road, this provides clarity and parcel based WFDPA administration. 1.4 Protecting Ecosystem Values A WFDPA is intended to align with ecosystem conservation principles and as such helps protect the benefits “provided by native forests”, according to Cambrian Consulting. It is noted in their report that proposed development in WFDP Areas will, in most circumstances, require a review by a Registered Professional Forester who is trained in the management and sustainability of healthy and productive forests. 1.5 Community Planning Cambrian Consultants has characterized eco-cluster development, common in the forest interface area of Silver Valley, as: complimentary to the goals and objectives of the WFDPA regulations. Subject to careful community planning, subdivision layout, architectural design and building standards these new residential subdivisions have the potential to embrace the FireSmart principles, conserve urban forest and ecosystem values providing sustainable development and livable community opportunities for both present and future generations. 1.6 Municipal Water Supply Some of the lands in the proposed WFDPA are supplied with municipal water and some are on private wells or using other sources. In Cambrian’s review they note that in B.A. Blackwell’s work on the Wildfire Risk Management System there was: No bias to weigh a private water supply risk more heavily than municipal supply. - 7 - From Cambrian’s perspective this is an appropriate approach: Non FireSmart homes located in both areas of the community are likely to be at equal peril in the event of a large WUI [wildland urban interface] fire. Cambrian concludes their discussion on water supply as follows: The presence of less vulnerable FireSmart development in the WUI is anticipated to reduce overall dependency on limited water resources and thereby supporting a self- sufficient and disaster resilient community profile. There is often a temptation to rely on emergency response resources rather than to take the initiative to implement preventative measures and this WFDPA represents an excellent opportunity to reverse that trend. 1.7 Surrounding Land Use There are a number of surrounding land uses surrounding the proposed WFDPA. To the north is t he UBC Research Forest, BCIT and other private Woodlot holdings, which are all regulated under the Wildfire Act and Regulation. Other uses include BC Hydro, recently undertaking vegetation removal to twin transmission lines, as well as residential and agricultural. Cambrian discusses the need for landowners to work cooperatively in an effort to prevent wildfire hazards: It is important that landowners across jurisdictions work toward common goals and objectives to reduce community-wide wildfire hazards, in this instance there is an opportunity to optimize the value of a landscape scale community fire break, however in the absence of a coordinated effort increased fire hazard could be a short-term or medium-term outcome. 1.8 Wildfire Development Permit Area Delineation Parameters The approach taken by B.A. Blackwell & Associates to delineate the WFDPA boundaries was to use the “public road centerlines located in the closest proximity to the adjacent hazardous fuel types”. Cambrian Consulting notes that a wildland urban interface boundary line tends to meander across a landscape and individual properties and these are not always practical locations for applying boundary lines. Because of the “ease and efficiency” of administration, the approach applied by B.A. Blackwell & Associates is the one also recommended by Cambrian Consulting. 1.9 Proposed Additional Areas for Inclusion in WFDP Area Map Discussed in the review is the approach taken in the B.A. Blackwell study to use a baseline minimum threshold of 20 hectares for identifying WFDP Areas, with the rationale that areas of this size “would be large enough to create ember showers and spotting potential into the surrounding community if it became engaged”. Cambrian Consulting found this approach to be sound and the one they would also recommend: “Based on our review of the prevailing conditions, landscape features, road access and availability of water supply applying the 20 hectare minimum isolated polygon size is recommended and consistent with associated program guidance documentation”. - 8 - Based on the above, Cambrian Consulting recommends adding the following two areas to the proposed WFDP Area map: i. The forests around Whonnock Lake, south of Dewdney Trunk Road from 272 nd Street south to 122nd Avenue and joining the existing WFDP boundary proposed along 280th Street, with an area of 326.4 hectares (Appendix B); ii. The forest area referred to locally as Websters Corners, between 252nd Street and 261st Street North of Dewdney Trunk Road tying into the existing WFDP proposed boundary, with an area of 155.5 hectares (Appendix B). The review includes a rationale for the two proposed additional areas above, in that they are each:  extensive areas, greater than 20 hectares, containing hazardous fuel types that are contiguous with forest fuels in the current wildland urban interface forests;  areas of environmental and private/public values, which are at risk; and  challenged with access/egress for emergency response, including emergency vehicles and limited water supply, and evacuation of residents. 2. Conclusions and Recommendations Cambrian Consulting’s initial conclusion on the proposed WFDPA, prepared by B.A. Blackwell & Associates is that it is: a comprehensively researched and science-based platform from which the District of Maple Ridge will be able to improve community resilience, protect values at risk and minimize exposure to liability and demand for additional services and resources. Cambrian Consulting goes on to say that: no areas are proposed for removal from the regulations at this time. and describes the WFDP as a living document. As the community grows it may be appropriate to amend the WFDPA boundary at that time; however the WRMS [Maple Ridge Wildfire Risk Management System, 2006] has demonstrated that there is risk to a large proportion of the community created by ember showers, therefore maintaining the existing WFDPA boundary is considered prudent for the foreseeable future. The peer review report concludes with a figure depicting three common elements of a community wildfire implementation plan: 1. Operational Measures a. Vegetation management/protective measures - 9 - b. Emergency response & preparedness/training/equipment upgrades/improve suppression capabilities 2. Regulatory Measures a. Structure protection (building bylaws) b. Tree bylaws/regulations/policies c. Wildfire DP Area/OCP Amendment 3. Preventative Measures a. Education/Outreach b. Assessments and community involvement c. Infrastructure upgrades (water supply, access) d. Evacuation plans, mutual aid agreements, alternate EOC locations, command vehicles All three elements are covered in more detail in the recommendations from the B.A. Blackwell 2006 documents and to date many of these have already been implemented by the Maple Ridge Fire Department. Letter of Support from BC Wildfire Management Branch The manager of the BC Wildfire Management Branch, Lyle Gawalko, drafted a letter dated March 14, 2013 (Appendix C) to the District of Maple Ridge. It was received on March 18, 2013 and distributed to Mayor and Council, as well as senior management. The letter discusses wildfire risk throughout the Province and identifies a number of other municipalities that have adopted Wildfire Development Permit Areas. In his letter, Mr. Gawalko states the imp ortance of using Development Permit Areas to reduce wildfire risk: The importance of proactive wildfire risk reduction through community wildfire protection planning, fuel management treatments, and the application of “FireSmart” building and infrastructure designs through a wildfire development permit process cannot be overemphasized for prevention of losses to communities. In particular, the wildfire development permitting process is seen as an essential requirement to all new development planning in wildland urban interface areas and the WMB and province fully support initiatives such as this to protect community development. The letter also discusses some best practices for FireSmart design and these have all been addressed through the draft Wildfire Development Permit Area Guidelines and checklist attached to this report. Mr. Gawalko also offers encouragement and support for adopting a proactive approach to wildfire risk mitigation through the development process. - 10 - OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS: Section 919.1 of the Local Government Act permits the designation of Development Permit Guidelines for development areas at risk to hazardous conditions, such as wildfire. Development Permit Areas are designated by an Official Community Plan and as such, an Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw is also required. Highlights of Wildfire Development Permit Area Guidelines The intent of Wildfire Development Permit Area Guidelines is to minimize the risk to property and people in areas at risk. Further, the aim has been to create these Guidelines so that they work in concert with all related regulations, guidelines and bylaws. The Guidelines contain four “Key Guideline Concepts”, which will be applied to assess Wildfire Development Permit Area applications: 1. Locate development on individual sites so that when integrated with the use of mitigating construction techniques the risk of wildfire hazards is reduced; 2. Mitigate interface fire hazards without compromising environmental conservation objectives and while respecting other hazards in the area; 3. Ensure identified hazard areas are recognized and addressed within each stage of the land development process; and 4. Proactively manage potential fire behavior, thereby increasing the probability of successful fire suppression and containment and minimizing adverse impacts. There are four subsequent sections of the Guidelines document that provide guidance on achieving the above “Key Guidelines Concepts” and these are: 1. Design and Construction; 2. Building Design and Siting; 3. Hazard Mitigation through Design; 4. Landscaping Open Spaces. Generally, the highlights of the draft Wildfire Development Permit Area Guidelines are as follows:  Buffer from Forest Edge: Where buildings face a forest edge, the guidelines propose a 10m buffer, which may include a rear yard setback, public trail and/or public road. Additionally, FireSmart landscaping standards are proposed for application within rear yards to ensure minimal fuel loading within the buffer area.  Forest Edge Mitigation Measures: A Wildfire Mitigation Assessment report, is to be prepared by a Registered Professional Forester and the recommendations implemented.  Construction Materials: Appropriate construction materials and details are prescribed in the NFPA-1144 document, which is the National Fire Protection Association’s standards for reducing structure ignitions - 11 - from wildland fire and/or equivalencies meeting the intent as acceptable to the District’s Fire Chief.  Exemptions: Public works and services and maintenance activities carried out by or on behalf of the District are exempt. Interior renovations within an existing legally constructed building are also exempt. Partial exemptions permitted for: a) small renovations; b) subdivisions resulting in no more than two residential lots; c) properties being actively farmed. Clause 8.12.2(A)(2) of the draft Development Permit document states: If the above-mentioned NFPA standards and the guidelines in this Section 8.12.2 cannot be adhered to, the District of Maple Ridge Fire Chief may consider alternate solutions that meet the intent of these guidelines and are acceptable to the District. Sections 879 & 881 of the Local Government Act An amendment to the Official Community Plan Bylaw requires consideration of public consultation in compliance with the provisions in Sections 879 and 881 of the Local Government Act, which are provided below. As such, Council must consider that these provisions have been met. Note that the recommendations in this report have been presented in a manner for Council do so formally. “Consultation during OCP development Section 879 (1) During the development of an official community plan, or the repeal or amendment of an official community plan, the proposing local government must provide one or more opportunities it considers appropriate for consultation with persons, organizations and authorities it considers will be affected. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the local government must: a. Consider whether the opportunities for consultation with one or more of the persons, organizations and authorities should be early and ongoing, and i. The board of the regional district in which the area covered by the plan is located, in the case of a municipal official community plan, ii. The board of any regional district that is adjacent to the area covered by the plan, iii. The council of any municipality that is adjacent to the area covered by the plan, iv. The council of any municipality that is adjacent to the area covered by the plan, v. First nations, vi. School district boards, greater boards and improvement district boards, and - 12 - vii. The Provincial and federal governments and their agencies. (3) Consultation under this section is in addition to the public hearing required under section 882(3) (d). In addition, Section 881 of the Act requires consultation with the School Board during the preparation of an Official Community Plan amendment: (1) If a local government has adopted or proposes to adopt or amend an official community plan for an area that includes the whole or any part of one or more school districts, the local government must consult with the boards of education for those school districts a. At the time of preparing or amending the community plan, and b. In any event, at least once in each calendar year. Formal Referrals The draft Wildfire Development Permit Area Guidelines will be sent to the following organizations for comment in accordance with Section 879 of the Local Government Act.  Neighbouring Municipalities: A copy of the draft Wildfire Development Permit Area Guidelines will be referred as an information item to the City of Pitt Meadows and the District of Mission.  UBC Malcolm Knapp Research Forest: Representatives from the Malcolm Knapp Research Forest attended the Public Open House session on October 3, 2012. A copy of the draft Wildfire Development Permit Area Guidelines will be referred as an information item to the Malcolm Knapp Research Forest after First Reading.  Agricultural Land Commission: There are properties located in the Agricultural Land Reserve that will be impacted by the WFDP. Therefore, it is recommended that the draft Development Permit be referred to the Commission for comment prior to First Reading.  Metro Vancouver Parks: Formal consultation with Metro Vancouver is not required. However, the Regional Parks division is interested in acquiring more parkland further north up along Kanaka Creek. Therefore, a copy of the proposed Wildfire Development Permit Area Guidelines will be referred as an information item to Metro Vancouver Regional Parks division after First Reading and a copy will be forwarded to Metro Vancouver upon Bylaw adoption.  School District 42: As discussed above, section 881 of the Local Government Act requires consultation with the local school board during the preparation of an amendment to an official community plan. In order to satisfy this requirement, a copy of the draft Wildfire Development Permit will be referred to the School District for comment prior to First Reading. - 13 -  Federal and Provincial governments and their agencies: A formal referral of the Wildfire Development Permit Bylaw will be sent to the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans and provincial Ministries of Environment and Transportation following First Reading of the bylaw by Council.  First Nations: A copy of the draft Wildfire Development Permit will be forwarded as information to both the Katzie and Kwantlen First Nations. Summary of Public Consultation Process and Outcomes As stated above, establishing a Wildfire Development Permit Area requires an amendment to the Official Community Plan. A public consultation process commenced with Council’s direction from the July 10, 2012 Council meeting: That staff be directed to undertake the proposed public consultation process for the Wildfire Development Permit Area Process as part of the early and ongoing consultation requirements of the Local Government Act. The consultation process was undertaken in addition to the legislative requirements prescribed for bylaw adoption in Section 879 of the Local Government Act. Public input on the draft WFDP was received through two builders’ forums, a public open house, and an on -line questionnaire. The key elements of these guidelines were presented on the following dates:  Builders’ Focus Group Meeting held at Fire Hall No. 1 – May 8, 2012  Builders’ Forum held at Fire Hall No. 1 – September 12, 2012  Public Open House held at Fire Hall No. 1 – October 3, 2012  2nd Builders’ Forum held at Fire Hall No. 1 – November 27, 2012 Given that the process included discussion with industry experts, residents, developers, and the public, the process is deemed to be appropriate. The outcomes of the public consultation process were presented at the January 7, 2013 Council workshop and are detailed in the January 7, 2013 Council report. As mentioned above, a public questionnaire was provided at the public open house and online. From the residents who chose to participate, 11 out of 12 respondents who completed the questionnaire support taking measures to reduce the risk of wildfire hazard. Additionally, during the first workshop held with the development community there were concerns raised with the cost of risk prevention measures. After working through these issues with the development community, comments received at the end of the second builders’ forum were positive and no further issues or concerns were identified. More recently, a live-streamed public Budget Q&A session was held on April 28, 2014, to provide financial plan information, receive feedback and answer questions from the public on the 2014 - 2018 Financial Plan. One five-part question related to funding provisions for water infrastructure and brush clearing on road allowances. - 14 -  The Wildfire Risk Management System took the approach that the presence of a public water system and fire hydrants would not change any of the proposed guidelines for the Wildfire Development Permit Area. This is further confirmed in the peer review report. Funding to provide a water system has not been allocated nor have grant applications been made.  As for brush clearing on road allowances, the development of a fuel break network is also one of the recommendations in the Community Wildfire Protection Plan; funding is not currently in the financial plan and will be considered alongside the implementation plan for that issue. INTERDEPARTMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: The technical working group will continue to work on implementation of the Wildfire D evelopment Permit Area Guidelines as the internal processing of development applications will involve continued participation amongst Fire, Planning, Engineering, Building, Operations, and Parks & Leisure Services Departments. It is anticipated that assis tance may be required from Information Services to update the Look-Up mapping program. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The Fire Department has submitted confirmation of the WFDP project work to UBCM, as required for payment of the $23,000 in grant funds. To date, UBCM has reported that they have received the information, but it has not yet been processed. NEXT STEPS: The next step in this process is the preparation of an amendment to the Official Community Plan that will bring the Wildfire Development Permit Area Guidelines through the bylaw adoption process, including the referrals discussed above. The document has been reviewed by the District Solicitor and has also been reviewed by staff at the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC). While a formal referral will be made to the ALC after First Reading of the Bylaw, ALC staff have stated that the proposed WFDP guidelines comply with ALC regulations. ALTERNATIVES: There are three possible alternative resolutions for Council to consider, as follows: 1. That Council direct staff not to proceed with preparation of the Wildfire Development Permit Area Guidelines Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw or the amendment to Development Procedures Bylaw 5879-1999. This resolution is not recommended as an alternative. 2. That Council direct the two additional areas recommended for inclusion in the Wildfire Development Permit Area, by Cambrian Consulting, and outlined in this report not be incorporated into the draft Wildfire Development Permit Area map, prior to staff p reparing - 15 - the Wildfire Development Permit Area Guidelines Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw and an amendment to Development Procedures Bylaw 5879-1999. This resolution is recommended as an alternative. 3. That Council direct the draft Wildfire Development Permit Area Guidelines be integrated into a Natural Hazards Development Permit document, as part of the work currently underway on the Environmental Management Strategy. And that Council pass a resolution that the draft Wildfire Development Permit Area Guidelines be required for development applications within the proposed Wildfire Development Permit Area. This resolution is not recommended as an alternative. 4. That Council direct the two additional areas identified for inclusion in the Wildfire Development Permit Area, by Cambrian Consulting, and outlined in this report be incorporated into the draft Wildfire Development Permit Area map. And that the draft Wildfire Development Permit Area Guidelines be integrated into a Natural Hazards Development Permit document, as part of the work currently underway on the Environmental Management Strategy. And that Council pass a resolution that the draft Wildfire Development Permit Area Guidelines be required for development applications within the proposed Wildfi re Development Permit Area. This resolution is not recommended as an alternative. CONCLUSION: The peer review of B.A. Blackwell & Associates’ work, related to the draft Maple Ridge Wildfire Development Permit Area, found the approach and methodology to be sound and consistent with both the Provincial and Federal fuel type classification standards. The peer review also confirmed that the WFDP Area boundary delineation approach was the most appropriate for administrative ease and efficiency. No areas were recommended for removal from the proposed WFDP Area. One area that the peer review diverged was a recommendation for additional f orested lands to be included in the WFDP Area boundaries map: 1) Whonnock Lake; and 2) Websters Corners. It is recommended that these areas be included in the proposed Wildfire Development Permit Area map. The application of the draft Wildfire Developm ent Permit is intended to mitigate the risks associated with forest interface development. These are desirable areas to live and recreate and they will continue to generate a demand for community development. As stated above, the intent of the public process was to create an awareness of the risks, listen to concerns, and identify options that will reduce impacts to key stakeholders. After working through this process and identifying - 16 - alternatives to areas of concern, no further issues have been raised and it is recommended that this process proceed to bylaw preparation for an amendment to the Official Community Plan. “Original signed by Lisa Zosiak” _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Lisa Zosiak Planner “Original signed by Dane Spence” _______________________________________________ Approved by: Dane Spence Fire Chief "Original signed by Charles R. Goddard" for _______________________________________________ Approved by: Christine Carter M.PL., MCIP, RPP Director of Planning "Original signed by Frank Quinn" _______________________________________________ Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA. P.Eng GM: Public Works & Development Services "Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule" _______________________________________________ Concurrence: J. L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A – Cambrian Consulting, District of Maple Ridge Wildfire Development Permit Area Guidelines Peer Review Report (March 2013) Appendix B – Maps of Additional DP Areas, identified by Cambrian Consulting Appendix C – Letter from BC Wildfire Management Branch (March 14, 2013) Appendix D – Draft Wildfire Development Permit Area map Appendix E – Draft Wildfire Development Permit Area Guidelines Appendix F – Draft Wildfire Development Permit Area Checklist APPENDIX A City of Pitt Meadows District of Langley District of MissionFRASER R. DATE: Mar 28, 2014FILE: AdditionallAreas4WildfireDP.mxd BY: DT CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE PLANNING DEPARTMENTKanakaCreek256 ST252 ST264 ST130 AVE 128 AVE249 ST260 ST125 AVE 117 AVE MARSHALL AVE SMITH AVE130 C ONNECT OR 249A ST262A ST251A ST 2 6 3A ST 118A AVE WEBSTER ST263 ST128 AVE 261 ST253A ST254 ST263 ST264 ST250 ST121 AVE 122 AVE 128 AVE 117 AVE 251 STFERGUSON AVE 261 ST262 ST116 AVE 13 0 A A V E 250 ST124 AVE 262 ST250 ST 121A AVE 118B AVE 120B AVE 120B AVE 126 A V E 249A ST124 AVE TRETHEWEYCRES250A ST251 ST119 AVE 116 AVE HILLAND AVE 130 A V E 2 6 1A S T LILLEY DR KATO NI E N ST ´ Scale: 1:15,000 Proposed Additional Area for WFDP - Websters Corners Proposed Additional Area APPENDIX B City of Pitt Meadows District of Langley District of MissionFRASER R. DATE: Mar 28, 2014FILE: AdditionallAreas4WildfireDP.mxd BY: DT CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE PLANNING DEPARTMENTWhonnockCrWhonnockLake284 ST108 AVE 272 ST110 AVEMCNUTT RD286 ST287 STFERGUSON AVE GARIBALDI ST271 ST123 AVEHYNES ST111 AVEROTHSAY STKATHRYN STGRAHAM ST270A ST272 ST108 AVE 122 AVE 276 ST116 AVE 288 ST2 8 5 S T 113 AVE 116 AVE 123 AVE 112 AVE 280 STDEWDNEY TRUNK RD SAYER S C R E S ´ Scale: 1:17,000 Proposed Additional Area for WFDP - Whonnock Lake Proposed Additional Area APPENDIX C Page 2 Mayor Ernie Daykin overemphasised for prevention of losses to communities. In particular, the wildfire development permitting process is seen as an essential requirement to all new development planning in wildland urban interface areas and the WMB and the province fully support initiatives such as this to protect community developments. From. our perspective a good development permit process would include community plarnling to ensure good emergency egress from more than one road and a separation of properties from the wildland urban interface using a road, park or green space that is managed to reduce wildfirex*sk from a fuel management perspective. Other important features include use of fire resistant materials in construction and use of fire resistant landscape management options. Finally, a strong wildfire prevention program is key to preventing human caused wildfire stalks that account for 50 percent of the province's wildfires. Some other elemen#s of an effec#ive DPA could be identified: - "Clustered"" subdivision design Roof -top sprinkler systems for buildings Management of fuels through `Defensible Space' A demarcated year-round water supply for fire -fighting and clear access to it Clear driveway access to houses, and staging sites throughout the subdivision. We laiow that climate change will result in more sevexe fire seasons. in the near future and every effort to reduce wildfire risks to communities in the coming decades will be important. WMB would like congratulate the Maple Ridge Municipal Council for having the foresight to embark on a process of arisk analysis and development of the Community Wildfire Protection Plan as far back 2007 and for this new proactive initiative to protect Maple Ridge from wildfire. If we can supply any information or support this initiative in any fashion, please do not hesitate to contact myself (250 387 5782) or Phil Taudin-Chabot; the Coastal Fire Centre Manager (250 951 4208). Yotu;� Truly, y e walko RFT, FIT Manager - Fire Management Wildfire Management Branch Email: Lyle.Gawallco trov.bc.ca 'Excellence in Wildfire Managen2ent and RespQrxse Services" cc: Fire Chief Peter Grootendorst 22708 Brown Avenue Maple Ridge BC V2X 9A2 Phil Taudin-Chabot Coastal Fire Centxe Managex 232 ST128 AVE104 AVE248 STEARSWAYLOUGHEED HWY112 AVEDEWDNEY TRUNK RDDEWDNEY TRUNK RDLOUGHEED HWY284 STGOLDEN228 ST232 ST102 AVE256 ST264 ST264 ST123 AVE210 ST128 AVE224 ST144 AVE224 ST240 STFERN CRES104 AVE272 ST280 STGOLDEN E A R S W A Y203 ST 207 ST LAITY STLOUGHEED HWY100 AVE124 AVE216 ST132 AVE240 ST248 ST256 ST112 AVE132 AVEHANEY BYPASS232 ST272 STFraser Ri v er Wildfire Protection Development Permit Area´Wildfire Protection Development Permit Areas (Proposed)APPENDIX D 8.12 Wildfire Areas and Objectives The Wildfire Hazard Development Permit Area Guidelines are intended for the protection of life and property in designated areas that could be at risk for wildland fire and where this risk, in some cases, may be reasonably abated through implementation of appropriate precautionary measures. A Development Permit is required for all development and subdivision activity or building permits for areas identified as wildfire hazard risk areas identified in Figure 9 of Appendix E. A Development Permit may not be required under certain circumstances indicated in the Development Permit Exemptions, Section 8.4, Items 4 and 5. These Development Permit Guidelines are to work in concert with all other regulations, guidelines and bylaws in effect. 8.12.1 Key Guideline Concepts The intent of the Key Guideline Concepts is to ensure that development within the wildfire hazard risk areas is managed to minimize the risk to property and people from wildland-urban interface fire hazards and to further reduce the risk of potential post-fire landslides and debris flows. Applications for Wildfire Development Permits will be assessed against the following key guideline concepts: 1.Locate development on individual sites so that when integrated with the use of mitigating construction techniques the risk of wildfire hazards is reduced; 2.Mitigate interface fire hazards, while respecting environmental conservation objectives and other hazards in the area; 3.Ensure identified hazard areas are recognized and addressed within each stage of the land development process; and 4.Proactively manage potential fire behavior, thereby increasing the probability of successful fire suppression and containment and minimizing adverse impacts; 8.12.2 Guidelines A. Design and Construction 1.The design and construction of buildings and structures located within the boundaries of the Wildfire Hazard Development Permit Areas shall be in accordance with this guidelines document, entitled 8.12 Wildfire Areas and Objectives. Specific details can be found in the standards set forth in the latest editions of the NFPA-1144 (Standard for Reducing Structure Ignition Hazards from Wildland Fire) and NFPA - 1141 (Standard for Fire Protection Infrastructure for Land Developments in Suburban and Rural Areas); and 2.The District of Maple Ridge Fire Chief may consider alternative design and construction solutions to the NFPA-1144 and 1141 standards if the alternate solution adheres to the intent of the guideline. See Wildfire Development Permit Application Checklist for details. APPENDIX E B. Building Design and Siting 1. NFPA-1144 (Standard for reducing structure ignition hazards from Wildland Fire) building guidelines are to be used for all new development; 2. Fire resistant building materials and methods; a) Class A or B rated roofing material on new roofs and >50% roof replacements b) All vents are screened with metal screens c) Non combustible soffits d) Overhanging projections protected e) Overhanging buildings protected f) Exterior vertical wall clad with ignition resistive material g) Non combustible window screens h) Non combustible 20 minute rated exterior doors i) Spark arrestors on all wood burning appliances j) Laminated or multi-paned windows 3. Buildings adjacent to the crest of a vegetated slope may require special mitigation measures determined by the fire department; and 4. Accessory buildings located within the Wildfire Development Permit buffer area must meet the same building standards as the house. C. Hazard Mitigation through Design 1. The development building face should be located a minimum of 10 metres away from the adjacent high risk wildfire areas. 10 meter fire breaks must be created between all sides of the foundation and the forest interface (vegetation shall be modified to mitigate hazardous conditions within 10 meters of the foundations prior to the start of construction). The fuel break may include treating fuel on the existing parcel or developing a trail as a part of the fuel break, or included in an environmental and geotechnical setback if such treatment is mutually beneficial to the intent of the setback areas and FireSmart principles. 2. 10 metre fire breaks may incorporate cleared parks roads or trails; 3. Locate building sites in the flattest areas on the property and avoid gullies or draws that accumulate fuel and funnel winds; 4. To minimize the hazard to residential buildings in Wildfire Development Permit Areas, FireSmart standards should be incorporated taking into account: (1) siting form; (2) exterior design; and (3) finish of buildings and structures (see Wildfire Development Permit Area Guidelines security policy); 5. Steep roofs, hidden gutters around roofs and screens to cover attic vent openings are preferred in order to prevent the collection of leaves or needles and to reduce the risk of ember shower accumulation; 6. Fire Hydrants must be fully functional prior to construction above the foundation level; 7. Where appropriate, if a trail system is planned for a subdivision and a park it should be capable of emergency vehicle access with 1.5 m trail base and a minimum of 2 m cleared vegetation and pullouts for passing and turnaround every 500 m (in areas where a 30 m environmental setback is required, the District may consider including the trail within the 30 m setback); and 8. Two means of access are preferred for subdivisions in a Wildfire Development Permit Area. If two access points are not possible then the single access must have the capability of accommodating two fire trucks - each with a width of 2.9 metres – safely passing each other. D. Landscaping and Open Spaces 1. FireSmart landscaping standards should be incorporated. Landscaping should be designed so as to create minimal fuel loading within the landscaped areas, provide ongoing protection from the interface fire hazard and the type and density of fire resistive plantings incorporated within landscaped areas should help mitigate the interface fire hazard; 2. Removal of all debris (wood and vegetation) after land clearing for development must be completed prior to the registration of any new subdivision plan; SECTION 8.4, DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AREA EXEMPTIONS, OF THE OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN. 4. A Wildfire Development Permit is not required for the following and will be confirmed in writing by the District: a) Where a renovation or addition to an existing structure is less than 50% of the market value of the current structure a Wildfire Development Permit will not be required. b) If a subdivision results in the creation of no more than two residential lots, and all the principles and guidelines contained in the Wildfire Development Permit are adhered to by the Developer or Builder, a Wildfire Development Permit will not be required. c) On lands where a farm use, as defined by the Agricultural Land Commission, is being practiced and where the Building Design for residential buildings comply with the NFPA-1144 (latest edition) building guidelines, a Wildfire Development Permit will not be required. Non- residential farm buildings are exempt from all Wildfire Development Permit requirements, as long as they are sited at least 10m away from all residential buildings. d) Public works and services and maintenance activities carried out by, or on behalf of, the District of Maple Ridge; e) Any construction of a building or structure or any alteration of land that does not require a permit from the District; c) Interior renovations to an existing lawfully constructed or legally non-conforming building or structure wholly contained within and not projecting beyond the foundation. APRIL 2014 DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE PLANNING DEPARTMENT Development Application Submission Checklist Schedule J WILDFIRE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION The District will provide the opportunity for applicants to meet with staff from the appropriate departments early in the application process. Applications for Wildfire Development Permits are to be made to the Planning Department, and must include the first five items listed below, as the initial step in the process; 1)Site information based on a survey plan prepared by a certified B.C. Land Surveyor; 2)Current state of title certificate and copies of all restrictive covenants registered on title, including relevant schedules and attachments; 3)Location map; 4)Map or plan of the property including topography, natural features, existing structures, infrastructure, surface drainage, parcel boundaries, adjacent streets and rights of way; 5)Detailed site plan and/or air photo overlay indicating the intended location of all proposed new lots, structures, approved environmental protection setback areas for watercourses, wetlands, and steep slopes, sewage disposal systems, storm water detention, drainage works, driveways, parking areas or impervious surfaces, servicing infrastructure. Also include details on the extent of the proposed site clearing; Subsequent to a meeting with Planning, Fire, and Engineering staff, the following will be required: 6)Assessment of fire interface hazards and mitigation measures by a Registered Professional Forester, qualified by training or experience in fire protection engineering, with at least two years of experience in fire protection engineering and with assessment and mitigation of wildfire hazards in British Columbia; 7)A description of the methodology, criteria and assumptions used to undertake the assessment; 8)The results of the assessment must include: a)Identification of hazardous C2, C3 and C4 fuels at the wildland-urban interface edges of the planned subdivision and map these edges based on the drip-line of the trees at the wildland edge; b)Recommendations for FireSmart fuel removal and fuel reduction zones to be completed for the whole development prior to Development Permit approval; c)Recommendations for establishing defensive space around all buildings by spacing of all coniferous trees and maintaining and pruning of all remaining trees; APPENDIX F d) Recommendations for the type and placement of trees and other vegetation in proximity to the development; e) Recommendations for the clean up and proper disposal of combustible material remaining from construction as soon as construction is complete; f) Recommendations for mitigation of wildfire hazard on any wildland/ green spaces to be handed over to the District; g) Results of an assessment of Wildland Fire Risk and Hazard Severity in the Structure Ignition Zone as per NFPA 1144(latest edition); h) Recommendations for the removal and proper disposal of dead trees and continued efforts to keep the land free of accumulation of any dead trees; i) Recommendations for removal and proper disposal of all tree limbs and shrubs that may overhang roofs or grow under building eaves and to continually maintain this condition; j) Recommendations for the removal and disposal of all needles, dead twigs and branches, and to maintain the lands free of such accumulation; 9) A written synopsis demonstrating that the proposed development is consistent with the applicable Development Permit Guidelines as provided by the District, and NFPA-1144 (latest edition) (Standard for reducing structure ignition hazards from “Wildland Fire) and NFPA – 1141(latest edition) (Standard for Fire Protection Infrastructure for Land Developments in Suburban and Rural Areas) identifying any mitigation or compensation measures that may be specified as development permit or rezoning conditions; a) if alternative solutions are being proposed for the consideration of the Maple Ridge Fire Chief, as noted in Section 8.12.2 of the Development Permit Area Guidelines, the alternative solutions must be provided by either a Fire Protection Engineer and/or a Registered Professional Forester registered with the Association of BC Forest Professionals and other professionals as deemed necessary by the District. Note: The Registered Professional Forester must have at least two years experience with assessment and mitigation of wildfire hazards in British Columbia. The qualifications of the Registered Professional Forester must be acceptable to the District of Maple Ridge Fire Chief; 10) Conclusions of a qualified professional (as discussed in 9(a) above), accompanied by supporting rationale; 11) The District may solicit a peer review by another qualified professional and/or ask for other additional information the District deems necessary. FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS: 1. All wood, vegetation and construction debris identified in the Registered Professional Forester’s report should be removed within three months of development permit issuance, or immediately during high fire risk seasons, and the District may require security in co nnection with such removal. 2. Coordination amongst all relevant consultants of record is recommended for final wildfire interface mitigation measures. Mitigation measures for wildfire areas must take place outside of approved environmental protection areas and geotechnical setback areas where possible, unless approved by the Fire Chief, Chief Building Official, and/or the District’s Approving Officer. 3. The applicant may be required to submit written “Terms of Reference” indicating the scope of work and professional expertise to be used for the preparation of development approval information. The Terms of Reference must be approved by the District prior to the information being prepared. 4. Where hazards are identified on the site, the District may require the submission of plans and reports in electronic format for inclusion in the District’s hazard database. Where the District deems any report or information submitted to be incomplete, a permit will not be issued until complete information is received, reviewed, and approved by District staff. 5. All reports and information shall be prepared in a digital format, compatible with municipal GIS mapping program, as well as three paper copies and provided at the applicant’s cost. All reports, opinions and plans shall be signed and sealed by the appropriate qualified professional. References:  National Fire Protection Association 1144 (Standard for Reducing Structure Ignition Hazards from Wildland Fire);  National Fire Protection Association 1141 (Standard for Fire Protection Infrastructure for Land Developments in Suburban and Rural Areas);  The Home Owner’s FireSmart manual – Protecting Your Home From Wildfire;  FireSmart – Protecting Your Community From Wildfire. District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: May 12, 2014 and Members of Council FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Council Workshop SUBJECT: LED Street Light Pilot Project EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On April 22, 2013, Council passed a resolution directing staff to bring forward a report outlining a pilot project to test the performance of LED street light luminaires in a new subdivision development with participation from the private sector. Since that time, District staff have researched a variety of LED street light luminaires in a post top style which is customary of new subdivision developments, performed testing on samples, collaborated with other municipalities, obtained pricing, partnered with Portrait Homes on an upcoming new subdivision development project and developed a cost-neutral business case. With Council approval, the pilot project will be implemented. The outcomes of the pilot project will be brought back for Council information. RECOMMENDATION: That staff implement a pilot project to test the performance of LED street light luminaires in a new subdivision development, as outlined in the staff report “LED Street Light Pilot Project” dated May 12, 2014, and further, That staff be authorized to utilize existing funding from the Carbon Tax Rebate of $12,000 toward the LED Street Light Pilot Project. DISCUSSION: On April 22, 2013, Council received a detailed report outlining the potential for LED street lighting to produce a higher light output with a lower wattage that has the potential to reduce electrical energy use and maintenance costs. The report provided some background, and confirmed the positive results from the LED street lights installed along Abernethy Way three years ago. A next step was to test the LED technology in a new subdivision development. In alignment with the Council resolution, this report outlines the research phase of the pilot project to date, and requests approval to implement the project. Following the April 22, 2013 Council report, District staff began work on the LED street light luminaire selection that would be suitable to install in a subdivision neighbourhood. 1 4.3 Steps undertaken in this regard were as follows: • Through workshops and webinars, District staff learned that City of Richmond have conducted the most extensive testing of LED luminaires. District staff met with City of Richmond Engineering Design & Construction staff to discuss the LED street light luminaire selection. Following this meeting, Richmond staff agreed to conduct an assessment of the fixtures using their in-house expertise and software. Following this assessment, they provided a recommendation for the best performing LED luminaire, meaning the luminaire that would meet the IESNA recommended values for subdivision neighbourhoods. • Three post top street light luminaires made by different manufacturers were selected, including City of Richmond’s recommended luminaire, and were installed on existing poles in a subdivision development, for the purposes of learning about the light quality and receiving preliminary feedback from residents. District staff tested the luminaires to ensure the recommended values set by Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) for neighbourhood were achieved. • The Nelson Peaks subdivision was chosen as a potential new subdivision development for the pilot project. This new subdivision is contained by a green belt, and is positioned alongside another contained subdivision where standard high pressure sodium (HPS) street lights were installed, making it an ideal location for comparison. • Portrait Homes, the developer, was contacted regarding the pilot, and they have since agreed to co-fund the cost differential that will make this a cost neutral proposition. Construction of phase 1 of Nelson Peaks began earlier this year and 15 of the 23 street light luminaires will be installed in June. Staff will monitor the energy savings and maintenance savings resulting from this pilot project, to see whether the assumptions used in the model were actualized. Assumptions of primary concern include life-cycle and maintenance requirements. The pilot project builds upon the District’s steady adoption of LED technology, and the knowledge gained from this test case will continue to build our knowledge base to further adoption of this technology, as the industry evolves. Strategic Plan Alignment: This project is advancing the District’s goals to be more cost efficient, energy efficient, and innovative in the use of new technologies. Citizen/Customer Implications: The long-term potential cost savings relating to LED street lighting technology can be substantial, and will help to contain property taxes in the future. In the short-term, concerns relate to property owner satisfaction with the lighting. Staff have tested three individual lights in an existing subdivision, and feedback was positive. It is anticipated that Nelson Peaks property owners will be equally satisfied. Business Plan/Financial Plan Implications: The District’s cost is estimated to be $12,000, and can be funded from existing Carbon Tax Rate funds. Portrait Homes has agreed to fund the remaining $11,000. This funding model creates a neutral net present value, and has a 14 year payback. The learning acquired from this pilot can be used in future when lower capital costs are anticipated. 2 CONCLUSIONS: In alignment with Council direction, District staff have researched a variety of LED street light luminaires, performed testing on samples, collaborated with other municipalities, obtained pricing, partnered with Portrait Homes on an upcoming new subdivision development project, and developed a cost-neutral business case in partnership with Portrait Homes. With Council approval, the pilot project will be implemented. The outcomes of the pilot project will be brought back for Council information. “Original signed by Alexandra Tudose” _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Alexandra Tudose, BA Research Technician “Original signed by Laura Benson” _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Laura Benson, CPA, CMA Manager of Sustainability & Corporate Planning “Original signed by Frank Quinn” _______________________________________________ Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng GM: Public Works and Development Services “Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule” _______________________________________________ Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer 3 District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: May 12, 2014 and Members of Council FILE NO: 11-5500-01 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop SUBJECT: Cash-In-Lieu Requirements for the Conversion of Overhead Wiring EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: At the November 4, 2013 Council Workshop, staff presented a general update of the current regulations and policies pertaining to overhead wiring facilities. At the November 4, 2013 Workshop Council passed the following motion “That staff explore cash-in-lieu payments for standard single phase wiring costs to be collected and held to advance technology and/or utility funding within the District of Maple Ridge”. As part of a preliminary exploration, other municipalities where contacted to understand their approaches. In addition legal counsel was contacted for advice on the collection and use of funds. Legal counsel has advised that any monies received for the provision of a specific service must be used for the intended purpose and cannot be transferred to an alternative objective. In other words, monies taken as cash-in-lieu of providing underground wiring must be used only to underground wiring at a future date. This preliminary review identifies three options for consideration: 1.Status Quo 2.Cash-In-Lieu of the estimated conversion costs. 3.Cash-In-Lieu that is a fixed levy charge. A change to the current process will result in additional costs to the developers. As this report explains these costs will mostly affect development in the infill area as the growth areas such as Silver Valley, Albion and Cottonwood have been and continue to be constructed with underground servicing. Should Council wish to advance a cash-in-lieu option, the preliminary review indicates a levy based cash-in-lieu methodology may be the most appropriate. However more detailed work would need to be done to understand the full legal, cost and servicing implications. RECOMMENDATION: THAT this report be received for information. 4.4 DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: The servicing requirements for overhead and underground wiring are regulated through the Subdivision Control Bylaw 4800. Policy 9.05 (Conversion of Overhead Wires) provides for variances in specific instances. Overhead wires include two components; first the distribution lines that run along the streets that bring power into the community and second the service connections that feed power directly to each property. Historically both of these systems have been overhead; however the current requirement is to require any new extensions of the system to be accomplished through underground wiring. In addition, the District has created a development process for the conversion of overhead wires; whereby the majority of developments in the growth area will be serviced by underground wires and infill development will continue to be serviced by the existing overhead wires but with underground service connections. At the November 4, 2013 Council Workshop, staff presented a general update of the current regulations and policies pertaining to overhead wiring facilities. At the November 4, 2013 Workshop Council passed the following motion “That staff explore cash-in-lieu payments for standard single phase wiring costs to be collected and held to advance technology and/or utility funding within the District of Maple Ridge”. As part of a preliminary exploration other municipalities where contacted to understand their approaches. In addition legal counsel was contacted to advise on the collection and use of funds. In order to initiate a cash-in-lieu collection process, two significant changes to the current bylaw and policy would need to be considered. Subdivision Control Bylaw 4800, 1993 – Schedule D Under the Subdivision Control Bylaw, all properties within the older urban boundary are exempt from the requirement to convert the street wiring from overhead to underground. (Schedule D to the Bylaw a copy of which is attached to this report). The area in Schedule D is largely served by single phase wiring. The poles are also shared by other utility companies such as TELUS, Shaw and Rogers. This exemption was put in place because of the physical constraints, disruption to neighbouring properties not involved in the development and the associated costs to do this work. Removing this exemption would require that all properties developing within this area either convert all the overhead wiring and utility lines or provide cash-in-lieu. In nearly all cases because of the physical constraints and disruption to neighbouring properties the developer will choose the cash-in-lieu option. Costs associated with undergrounding the local streets are approximately $2,500/m. This does not include any restoration work or modifications to private property. Policy 9.05 Conversion of Existing Overhead Utility Wiring to Underground Wiring Under the current Wiring Policy, all properties that are located along a major service corridor (A map of which is attached to this report) or the OCP identifies less than 250m of contiguous redevelopment potential receive a variance to not convert the street wiring from overhead to underground. This policy was put in place because of the associated costs and physical challenges with the major project requirements established by the service providers. The streets identified by Policy 9.05 are served by three phase wiring and transmission lines. The poles are typically shared by other utility companies such as TELUS, Shaw and Rogers. Rescinding the policy would require all developing properties to either convert the major overhead three phase wiring and utility lines or provide cash-in–lieu. In nearly all cases because of the project requirements to include a minimum conversion length of 250m as established by the utility companies, the developer would not be able to complete the conversion and would be required to provide cash-in-lieu. Costs associated with undergrounding the major overhead network are approximately $4000/m, but can escalate quickly with the inclusion of large vaults. This does not include any restoration work or modifications on private property. Growth Areas vs Infill Area Based upon the current development processes the District is separated into two areas; Growth and Infill. Growth areas typically require the construction of full urban standards to service the land whereas Infill areas require minor upgrades to address existing servicing deficiencies. The Growth area includes Silver Valley, Albion and Cottonwood and with the exception of the streets with 3 phase servicing, all of the wiring will be underground. Therefore in over 95% of the development applications in the growth area cash-in lieu will not be required as the wiring will be underground. This potential change in process will largely affect the infill development. Infill development has a number of different types of developers from the experienced savvy developer to the “ma and pa” one time developer. In all cases removing the exemption will add to the cost of development. Options This report identifies three options for consideration. Option 1 – Status Quo Under this option there would be no change to the current practice. Under this option all growth areas would continue to be serviced with underground wiring. Infill areas would continue to be exempt and there would be no additional cost to developers. This option would also result in no cash-in lieu payments being received. Option 2 - Cash-In-Lieu of the estimated conversion costs. The estimation approach would provide more control over the distribution of the funds towards the future projects by allowing the contribution to be associated to specific project. The estimated approach will however place the full cost of construction on the properties that directly benefit from the conversion of overhead wires. A preliminary typical estimated cost to underground single phase wiring is $ 2,500/m and $4,000/m for three phase wiring. It should be noted that each case is unique and the costs will increase significantly with the inclusion of larger vaults. For a typical single family infill lot the estimated cost would range between $30,000 and $48,000 depending on the phasing of wires that are being converted. In the growth area this approach would result in large disparities between developer contributions based upon the density of the proposed development and proximity to major corridors. Infill lots typically have a marginal increase in density, and the increase in development costs would place a significant burden on the individual lots. Option 3 - Cash-In-Lieu that is a fixed levy charge. A levy approach would allow the District more control over the implementation of each conversion project and would also distribute the total cost of undergrounding the overhead system amongst all of the development community therefore providing a more equitable distribution of the costs. For example Abbotsford has established the following levy rate table: * It is understood these levies are not established on full cost recovery. A levy approach appears to be a more balanced and equitable approach to funding the conversion of overhead wires. Further investigation would be required to establish the scope of projects and subsequent District rates. If Council wishes to increase servicing standards and seek additional cash-in-lieu payments, staff would provide a more detailed assessment of the necessary policy changes and potential funding sources and seek legal counsel to determine the most appropriate mechanism to establish the provision of cash-in-lieu, use of alternative funding sources and implementation of projects. Use of Funds Collected Staff contacted District legal counsel and based upon the Community Charter and the Local Government Act legislation it was the legal opinion that money received for the provision of a specific service must be used for the intended purpose and cannot be transferred to an alternative objective. Based upon this legal opinion the balance of this report focuses on options for collecting money to fund the ultimate future conversion of overhead wires when feasible. In both cash-in-lieu options the contribution could be placed into an account that would be used to pay for the future conversion cost when the project requirements are met. Additional funding sources may be considered when establishing the contribution rates; for instance, the City of Abbotsford utilizes DCC funds, general revenue and BCHydro grants to subsidize the project costs. CONCLUSIONS: Council directed that cash-in-lieu payments be explored for the conversion of overhead wiring to underground wiring. This preliminary review identifies three options for consideration: 1. Status Quo 2. Cash-In-Lieu of the estimated conversion costs. 3. Cash-In-Lieu that is a fixed levy charge. Should Council wish to advance a cash-in-lieu option, a preliminary review indicates a levy based cash-in-lieu methodology may be the most appropriate, however more detailed work would need to be done to understand the full legal, cost and servicing implications. “Original signed by Stephen Judd” _______________________________________ Prepared by: Stephen Judd, PEng. Manager of Infrastructure Development “Original signed by David Pollock” _______________________________________ Reviewed by: David Pollock, PEng. Municipal Engineer “Original signed by Frank Quinn” _______________________________________ Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, PEng. GM: Public Works & Development Services “Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule” _______________________________________ Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer SJ S�� i � / ,��. i _ N:�AlISC�WG�HYGflO-iEL-OVEFHEAD ' Date Printed: 2009-09-23 Page 2 of 2 Noiicy a.u�