HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-12-07 Workshop Meeting Agenda and Reports.pdf
City of Maple Ridge
1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
2. MINUTES
2.1 Minutes of the November 16, 2015 Council Workshop Meeting
2.2 Minutes of Meetings of Committees and Commissions of Council
• Agricultural Advisory Committee – October 22, 2015
• Community Heritage Commission – November 3, 2015
• Public Art Steering Committee – September 29, 2015
2.3 Business Arising from Committee and Commission Minutes
3. PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL
3.1
COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA
December 7, 2015
9:00 a.m.
Blaney Room, 1st Floor, City 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. The meeting is live streamed and recorded by
the City of Maple Ridge.
REMINDERS
December 7, 2015
Closed Council following Workshop
Committee of the Whole Meeting 1:00 p.m.
December 8, 2015
Public Hearing 6:00 p.m.
Council Meeting following Public Hearing
Council Workshop
December 7, 2015
Page 2 of 4
4.MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS’ REPORTS
5.UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
5.1 Maple Ridge Community Amenity Program 9:15 – 10:00 a.m.
Staff report dated December 7, 2015 recommending that feedback be obtained
on Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7188-2015, a
Council policy be drafted and a summary of input be provided in a future report.
5.2 Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 10:00 – 10:30 a.m.
Staff report dated December 7, 2015 recommending that Maple Ridge Business
Licencing and Regulation Bylaw No. 6815-2011 be amended to revise base
licence fees for buildings certified under the Crime Free Multi-Housing Program.
5.3 Medical Marihuana Dispensaries 10:30 – 11:30 a.m.
Staff report dated December 7, 2015 providing information on the medical
marihuana legislation, the legal history of dispensaries and implications for bylaw
enforcement and presenting options for consideration.
5.4 Trail Infrastructure 11:30 – 12:00 p.m.
Presentation by the Director of Parks and Facilities
5.5 Hospital Parking
Discussion by Council
Legal opinion dated June 5, 2013 from Young Anderson providing information on
the City’s authority to regulation parking fees at the Ridge Meadows Hospital
attached for reference.
6.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.
Council Workshop
December 7, 2015
Page 3 of 4
6.1 Upcoming Events
December 10, 2015
6:30 pm
Parks & Leisure Services and Vancouver Foundation
Partnership Launch – Maple Ridge Arts Centre Theatre
Organizer: Vancouver Foundation and MRPM Parks and Leisure
Services
December 12, 2015
3:00 pm
Bright Nights – Stanley Park
Organizer: International Association of Fire Fighters
December 18, 2015
6:00 pm
Holiday Train – Haney Station
Canadian Pacific
7. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL
8. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT
9. ADJOURNMENT
Checked by: ___________
Date: _________________
Council Workshop
December 7, 2015
Page 4 of 4
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.
2.1 Council Workshop Meeting Minutes
2.1
City of Maple Ridge
COUNCIL WORKSHOP MINUTES
November 16, 2015
The Minutes of the City Council Workshop held on November 16, 2015 at 9:00 a.m.
in the Blaney Room of City Hall, 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, British Columbia
for the purpose of transacting regular City business.
PRESENT
Elected Officials Appointed Staff
Mayor N. Read P. Gill, Acting Chief Administration Officer/General
Councillor C. Bell Manager Corporate and Financial Services
Councillor K. Duncan K. Swift, General Manager of Community Development,
Councillor B. Masse Parks and Recreation Services
Councillor G Robson F. Quinn, General Manager Public Works and Development
Councillor T. Shymkiw Services
Councillor C. Speirs C. Marlo, Manager of Legislative Services
Other Staff as Required
D. Pollock, Municipal Engineer
R. McNair, Manager of Bylaw and LIcencing Services
R. Stott, Environmental Planner
C. Goddard, Manager of Development and Environmental
Services
C. Carter, Director of Planning
Note: These Minutes are posted on the City Web Site at www.mapleridge.ca
Councillor Robson was not in attendance at the start of the meeting.
1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
The agenda was adopted as circulated.
2. MINUTES
2.1 Minutes of the October 19, 2015 and the November 2, 2015 Council
Workshop Meeting
R/2015-493
It was moved and seconded
That the minutes of the October 19, 2015 and the November 2, 2015
Council Workshop Meetings be adopted.
CARRIED
Council Workshop Minutes
November 16, 2015
Page 2 of 7
2.2 Minutes of Meetings of Committees and Commissions of Council
• Maple Ridge Community Heritage Commission – October 6, 2015
• Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows Parks & Leisure Services Commission –
September 10, 2015
• Maple Ridge Social Planning Advisory Committee – October 7, 2015
R/2015-494
It was moved and seconded
That the minutes of the October 6, 2015 Maple Ridge Community Heritage
Commission, the September 10, 2015 Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows Parks &
Leisure Services Commission and the October 7, 2015 Maple Ridge Social
Planning Advisory Committee be received.
CARRIED
3. PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL – Nil
4 MAYOR’S AND COUNCILLORS’ REPORTS
Note: Councillor Robson arrived at 9:05 a.m.
Councillor Speirs
Councillor Speirs reported on his attendance at the LIFTS Canada Forum in
Vancouver.
Councillor Masse
Councillor Masse provided an explanation of why he missed recent Council
Workshop meetings. He mentioned the good work done by the GP for Me
Initiative campaign to attract family doctors to Maple Ridge. Councillor Masse
met with the Information Tech Network at WorkHere, advised on an upcoming
meeting with the University of the Fraser Valley and attended a presentation
on creating resilience in kids
Councillor Bell
Councillor Bell attended an Arts Council meeting. She reported that concern
was expressed pertaining to the decision to terminate the Joint Parks
Agreement between Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows. She also attended a
meeting of the Seniors Society and reported on the seniors’ concerns
pertaining to funding. Councillor Bell provided information on the upcoming
CivX 2015 seminar. She advised that she will be attending upcoming UBCM
meetings and encouraged attendance at Christmas Haven fundraising event.
She attended a Help Portrait fundraiser.
Council Workshop Minutes
November 16, 2015
Page 3 of 7
Councillor Robson
Councillor Robson advised that he has been hearing concerns from groups
about the termination of the Joint Parks Agreement. He expressed concern
that the public was not given notice of the presentation by Metro Vancouver.
Councillor Shymkiw
Councillor Shymkiw attended a GP for Me meeting, a regional Fraser Health
meeting and a meeting of the Parks and Leisure Services Commission and.
He had an opportunity to speak at the Dawali Festival of Lights event.
Councillor Duncan
Councillor Duncan attended a Council of Councils meeting and a Creative
Cities Network Conference in Kelowna with members of the Public Art Steering
Committee. She toured the Katzie Slough and participated in the Ghost Ridge
Haunted House. Councillor Duncan provided an update on the Strong Kids
Team forum.
Councillor Masse provided an update on Metro Vancouver’s Climate Action
Plan
Mayor Read
Mayor Read had a meeting with the Home Show organizer to discuss
concerns over parking. She also met with Carol Todd, Amanda Todd’s mother,
to speak about the Strong Kids Team. She provided details of items she is
working on for the Strong Kids Team. Mayor Read reported that she will be
speaking at the Meadow Ridge Rotary on the topic of residential schools and
will be presenting at the BC Affordable Housing Conference. She advised that
the City of Maple Ridge received awards of excellence from NAIOP. The
Mayor met with ICC, a company which delivers Microsoft certification through
Maple Ridge secondary schools, and with Parks user groups.
5. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
5.1 Transportation Plan
Presentation by the Municipal Engineer
The Municipal Engineer gave a power point presentation covering the
following topics:
• Strategic Transportation Plan Implementation including the background,
components, strategies, implementation and funding for the plan
• Key Initiatives Requiring Federal/Provincial Support
• Pedestrian Crossings
• Town Centre Initiatives
• Traffic Calming Update
Council Workshop Minutes
November 16, 2015
Page 4 of 7
R/2015-495
It was moved and seconded
That the agenda be revised to deal with Item 5.2 following Item 5.3.
CARRIED
Discussion of the different aspects of the Transportation Plan will take place
at Council Workshop meetings in early 2016.
Note: Item 5.2 was dealt with following Item 5.3
5.2 Remedial Action for the Removal of the Large Shipping Container located at
21504 121 Avenue, Maple Ridge
Staff report dated November 16, 2015 recommending that the large shipping
container located at 21504 121 Avenue be declared a nuisance and the
owner of the property be required to remove the container within 30 days.
R/2015-496
It was moved and seconded
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved:
That the large shipping container located on the property at 21504 121
Avenue, and legally described as PID 000-467-201, Lot 228, District Lot
245, Group 1, New Westminster Plan 63237 (the “Property”) is declared a
Nuisance as defined within Section 74(1)(d) of the Community Charter.
Council therefore resolves that within thirty (30) days of receiving a copy of
this resolution, the Owner of the Property is required to perform the following
Remedial Action requirements:
• Remove the unauthorized large shipping container from the subject
property.
CARRIED
Note: Item 5.3 was dealt with following Item 5.1
5.3 Update on Proposed Tree Protection and Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015
Staff report dated November 16, 2015 providing an update on the recent
consultation with citizens on the proposed Tree Protection and Management
Bylaw and an overview of key issues and next steps.
The Environmental Plan gave a Power Point presentation that provided an
overview of the consultation process and the next steps towards adoption of
the bylaw.
Council Workshop Minutes
November 16, 2015
Page 5 of 7
R/2015-497
It was moved and seconded
That the report entitled “Update on Proposed Tree Protection and
Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015”, dated November 16, 2015 be received
for information.
CARRIED
Council requested the bylaw be referred to the Maple Ridge Community
Heritage Commission and the Environmental Committee.
Note: The meeting was recessed at 12:37 p.m., and reconvened at 3:23 p.m.
Councillor Speirs was not in attendance when the meeting reconvened.
5.4 Recommendations re: Council Advisory Committees
Report from the Advisory Committee Task Force dated November 16, 2015
providing information on the recommendations of the Task Force.
The Mayor reviewed the report
R/2015-498
It was moved and seconded
That the report from the Advisory Committee Task Force dated November
16, 2015 be received for information.
CARRIED
Note: The meeting recessed at 3:40 p.m. and reconvened on November 17, 2015
at 4:00 p.m.
5.5 Crime Free Multi-Housing Program
Staff report dated November 16, 2015 recommending an amendment to
Business Licencing and Regulation Bylaw No. 6815-2011 to charge a higher
business fee for buildings not enrolled in the Crime Free Multi-Housing
(“CMFH”) program and that buildings with CMFH designation get a 75%
discount on the base business licence fee.
The Manager of Bylaw and Licencing Services distributed a cost comparison
for Crime Free Multi-Housing status and provided an overview of the proposed
amendment. Staff was requested to provide more detailed information on the
Crime Free Multi-Housing program
Council Workshop Minutes
November 16, 2015
Page 6 of 7
R/2015-499
It was moved and seconded
That the Crime Free Multi-Housing Program staff report and
recommendation be deferred to the December 7, 2015 Council Workshop
Meeting.
CARRIED
5.6 2016 Council Meeting Schedule
Staff report dated November 16, 2015 recommending that the 2016 Council
Meeting scheduled be adopted.
R/2015-500
It was moved and seconded
That the Council Meeting schedule attached to the staff report dated
November 16, 2016 be amended as follows and be adopted as amended.
1. The January 4, 2016 meetings will be rescheduled to January 11, 2015
2. Three Council Workshop and Closed Council meetings will be scheduled
each month and will commence at 10:00 a.m.
3. The March 15, 2016 Council Meeting will be rescheduled to March 8,
2016 and the March 22, 2016 Public Hearing will be rescheduled to
March 15, 2016.
CARRIED
6. CORRESPONDENCE
6.1 Provision of Emergency Medical Services
6.1.1 Ambulance Paramedics of BC – Downloading of Ambulance Service
Letter dated September 14, 2015 from Bronwyn Barter, Provincial President,
Ambulance Paramedics of BC, CUPE Local 873 providing information as a
response to the training and use of firefighters as emergency medical
responders by the Municipality of Delta.
6.1.2 British Columbia Professional Fire Fighters’ Association – Provision of
Emergency Medical Services
Letter dated October 19, 2015 from Michael Hurley, President, British
Columbia Professional Fire Fighters’ Association providing addressing
concerns of the Ambulance Paramedics of BC over the provision of emergency
medical services by the City of Delta Fire Department.
Council Workshop Minutes
November 16, 2015
Page 7 of 7
Council requested that BC Ambulance be invited to attend a meeting of
Council of provide information on ambulance services in Maple Ridge.
6.2 Upcoming Events
November 24, 2015
8:30 a.m.
CivX 2015, Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue
Organizer: LMLGA and CivicInfo BC
November 27, 2015
8:30 p.m.
Operation Red Nose Launch, Maple Ridge Towing
Organizer: PacificSport Fraser Valley
November 29, 2015
11:00 a.m.
Whonnock Weavers & Spinners Guild 35th Annual Exhibit and
Sale, Whonnock Lake Centre
Organizer: Whonnock Weavers & Spinners Guild
December 2, 2015
6:00 p.m.
Friends in Need Food Bank Volunteer Christmas Dinner, Grace
Community Church
December 3, 2015
5:30 p.m.
2015 Labour Appreciation Night, Hilton Vancouver, Metrotown
Organizer: United Way of the Lower Mainland
7. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL – Nil
8. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT
Councillor Robson requested information on bringing forward a notice of
motion pertaining to liquor sales in grocery stores.
9. ADJOURNMENT – 4:53 p.m.
_______________________________
N. Read, Mayor
Certified Correct
___________________________________
C. Marlo, Corporate Officer
2.2 Committee and Commission Meetings Minutes
2.2
City of Maple Ridge
AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
REGULAR MEETING
The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Agricultural Advisory Committee, held in the Blaney Room,
at Maple Ridge Municipal Hall on Thursday,October 22,2015 at 7:00 pm.
____________________________________________________________________________________
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT
Margaret Daskis, Chair Community at Large
Stephanie James Equestrian Agricultural Sector
Al Kozak Agricultural Sector
Ian Brooks Member at Large
Chris Zabek Regional Agrologist, Ministry of Agriculture & Lands
Kimberley Lauzon, Vice Chair Member at Large
Councillor Speirs City of Maple Ridge
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT
Siobhan Murphy Staff Liaison / Planner 2
Sunny Schiller Committee Clerk
REGRETS/ABSENTS
Bill Hardy Member at Large
Lorraine Bates Agricultural Fair Board
Jennifer Zickerman Agricultural Sector
Candace Gordon Haney Farmers Market
Councillor Duncan City of Maple Ridge
Tony Pellet Agricultural Land Commission
As quorum was not achieved it was decided to begin with Item 5.1 Raising funds for
agricultural Initiatives. Al Kozak made a presentation entitled “Vision to Grow Agriculture in
Maple Ridge”.The existing markets for farmers were explained. Mr. Kozak presented a
vision to increase markets and initiated a discussion on how funds could be raised to
advance the vision. Members discussed the ideas presented and agreed to revisit the item
at the next meeting.
Councillor Speirs entered at 7:45 pm. Quorum was achieved at this time.
1.CALL TO ORDER
There being a quorum present,the Chair called the meeting to order at 7:52 pm.
2.AGENDA ADOPTION
R15-016
It was moved and seconded
That the Agenda be adopted.
CARRIED
AAC Minutes
October 22, 2015
Page 2 of 3
3.MINUTE ADOPTION
R15-017
It was moved and seconded
That the Minutes of September 24, 2015 be approved.
CARRIED
4.DELEGATIONS -Nil
5.NEW BUSINESS
5.1 Raising Funds for Agricultural Initiatives
Previously dealt with prior to Item 1.
6.UNFINISHED BUSINESS
6.1 Business Plan
The Staff Liaison presented the draft 2016 business plan.Many items were carried
over from the 2015 plan as a result of the lack of AAC meetings during this year.
Accomplishments from 2015 include member recruitment, the awarding of financial
grants, the review of the agricultural plan, Golden Harvest,and the food garden
contest.Planning for next year was discussed.
6.2 Backyard Chickens
The Staff Liaison shared the information gathered from local municipalities regarding
their backyard chicken programs.
R15-018
It was moved and seconded
That the development of a program and/or bylaw in regards to the keeping of backyard
chickens be recommended to Council.
CARRIED
7.SUB-COMMITTEE REPORTS
7.1 Food Garden Contest
Stephanie James reported on the Food Garden awards presentation at a recent
Council meeting. The presentation was well attended by the contest winners. The
contest was well received by the community and will be continued on in future years.
7.2 Golden Harvest
Kim Lauzon reported on another successful Golden Harvest event.The contributions
of the volunteers were commended. Positive feedback has been received from
attendees and participating restaurants and schools. Ms. Lauzon shared
recommendations for next year.The final accounting will be presented at the next
meeting.
AAC Minutes
October 22, 2015
Page 3 of 3
7.3 Agricultural Plan –Table and Letter update
The information prepared will go to Council Workshop October 27, 2015.
7.4 Metro Vancouver Water Supply Forum Update
The Chair provided an update from Metro Vancouver. An agenda for a Water Supply
Forum is being developed for next year.The Chair reported that Dr.Kent Mullinix,
Director, Institute for Sustainable Food Systems with Kwantlen Polytechnic University
will provide a full update report by the end of the calendar year. It was suggested
that he be invited to the January AAC meeting.
The Chair shared a proposal for a lecture series for next year. Suggestions can be
forwarded to Candace Gordon.
Councillor Speirs left the meeting at 9:00 pm.
8.CORRESPONDENCE
9.ROUNDTABLE
Al Kozak reported that the “young farmers”, Katie Robinson and Josh Baker,who presented
to AAC earlier this year have found a property in Maple Ridge. It was suggested that they be
invited back to share their experience locating a piece of agricultural land.
Chris Zabek left the meeting at 9:03 pm.
Ian Brooks requested that water availability and pricing be added to the November AAC
agenda.
The salination of fresh water was discussed.
10.QUESTION PERIOD
11.ADJOURNMENT
It was moved and seconded
That the meeting be adjourned at 9:07 pm.
Chair
/ss
The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Community Heritage Commission, held in the Blaney
Room, at Maple Ridge Municipal Hall, 11995 Haney Place Road, Maple Ridge, British Columbia, on
Tuesday,November 3, 2015 at 7:00 p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT
Len Pettit Community at Large
Eric Phillips Community at Large
Sandra Ayres Community at Large
Brenda Smith, Chair Maple Ridge Historical Society
Faye Isaac, Vice-chair Maple Ridge Historical Society
Councillor Speirs Council Liaison
Steven Ranta Community at Large
STAFF PRESENT
Lisa Zosiak Staff Liaison, Community Planner
Sunny Schiller Committee Clerk
REGRETS/ABSENT
Cyndy Johnson-McCormick Community at Large
1.CALL TO ORDER
There being a quorum present, the Chair called the meeting to order at 7:0 4 pm.
2.AGENDA ADOPTION
R15-031
It was moved and seconded
That the Agenda be amended to add “Item 7.1.3 –January meeting”and be adopted as
amended.
CARRIED
3.MINUTE ADOPTION
R15-032
It was moved and seconded
That the Minutes of October 6, 2015 be approved.
CARRIED
CHC Minutes
November 3, 2015
Page 2 of 5
4.DELEGATIONS -Nil
5.FINANCE
5.1 Heritage BC Membership
The Chair provided an update on the Heritage BC membership issue.
R15-033
It was moved and seconded
That the Community Heritage Commission purchase a Heritage BC membership.
CARRIED
5.2 Financial Report
The Chair provided an updated budget. The adjustments made provide funding to
begin the updating of the Heritage Inventory.
R15-034
It was moved and seconded
That the November 3, 2015 financial report be accepted.
CARRIED
6.CORRESPONDENCE -Nil
7.NEW & UNFINISHED BUSINESS
7.1 Membership
7.1.1 Calendar of Events
The proposed CHC 2016 schedule was accepted.The Chair provided an
updated CHC Calendar of Events to the end of the year. Events for early
2016 were discussed.
7.1.2 CHC Binder Review
The Committee Clerk reviewed the Heritage Plan and Meeting Minutes
sections of the CHC flash drive.
7.1.3 January Meeting
After discussion
R15-035
It was moved and seconded
That the January meeting be held on Monday, January 11th 2016.
CARRIED
7.2 MRHS Collection Storage Space
The Chair reported that the issue of the lack of storage for the Maple Ridge Historical
Society has been raised with Council.Best practices for storage were discussed.The
numbers of the existing MRHS collection were reviewed (including items, negatives
and newspaper archives).Ways to best communicate the current storage situation
were discussed.
CHC Minutes
November 3, 2015
Page 3 of 5
8.SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
8.1 Communications Subcommittee
8.1.1 Heritage Here Newsletter
The Chair reported that the Fall edition of the newsletter will be completed
within the next two weeks.
8.1.2 Local Voices
Guest speakers for the November 5th Local Voices event are Eileen Dwillies,
Peggy Lambert and Shirley Lecker. Future sessions are planned for Spring
2016.The process for submitting speaker suggestions was shared.
8.2 Recognitions Subcommittee
8.2.1 Heritage Marker Inventory Project
The Chair reported that the Heritage Marker Inventory database will be
delivered soon. Plans for launching the database were discussed.
8.2.2 Heritage Awards
Faye Isaac reported that the next Heritage Awards will be held February 18th.
All CHC members are invited to attend a Heritage Awards subcommittee
meeting at 6:00 pm on January 11th, 2016 to finalize details.
8.2.3 10th Anniversary Plaque Book Project
The Staff Liaison provided an update on the plans to upgrade the files used
for the book. Once upgraded and unlocked the pages will be shared on the
city website.
8.3 Education Subcommittee
8.3.1 CHC Field Trip Update
Sandra Ayres reported that the previously planned field trip to North
Vancouver was cancelled due to transportation issues.Ms.Ayres plans to
revive the project in 2016.
8.4 Digitization Project Subcommittee
Authorization to hire a consultant to carry out the digitization project has been
obtained from Ceri Marlo, Manager of Legislative Services and Emergency Program.
A potential candidate has been identified and will be invited to view the archives.
8.5 Heritage Inventory Project Update
The Staff Liaison reported that the Heritage Inventory update project is moving
forward. Terms of reference are being developed and once finalized a tender
document will be issued to heritage consultants. A Heritage Inventory Update sub-
committee will be created to work with the consultant on this project.Members who
wish to serve on the sub-committee were asked to contact the Chair within the next
two weeks.A time commitment of at least 1 ½ years will be required to serve on this
group.
8.6 Robertson Family Cemetery Project Subcommittee
The Staff Liaison reported that she and the Chair have met with various City staff to
discuss the Robertson Family Cemetery project.Steps to obtain the property and
have it properly registered were explained.
CHC Minutes
November 3, 2015
Page 4 of 5
9.LIAISON UPDATES
9.1 BC Historical Federation
The BC Historical Federation annual conference will be held May 26-28,2016 in
Revelstoke. The Chair reported she is serving on the BC Historical Foundation
advocacy committee.
9.2 Heritage BC
The Chair reported the theme for Heritage Week 2016 is Distinctive Destinations.
Heritage BC is holding a photo contest to find images for their 2016 Heritage Week
poster. See www.heritagebc.ca for more details.
9.3 Maple Ridge Historical Society
The October 31 event at Haney House was well attended.Over the summer work on
the storage container was carried out by MRHS and summer students.A Christmas
Decorating party at will be held on November 26th at St.Andrews Heritage Hall.
Contact Allison at mrmcurator@gmail.com if you have any questions.
9.4 Council Liaison
Councillor Speirs reported on the Katzie Restoration Dinner he attended on October
23rd. This event celebrates the work of the Katzie to bring back to life old traditional
agriculture traditions.The Katzie have been cultivating and harvesting the traditional
food wapato (a starchy tuber) since 2009. They are working on cultural and
ecosystem restoration and building cultural awareness.
Councillor Speirs reported that the Advisory Committee Review Task Force has held
their final meeting.Their recommendations will now go to the committees for
feedback and then to Council in Spring 2016.
The definition of a “heritage tree”was discussed.
10.QUESTION PERIOD -Nil
11.ROUNDTABLE
Eric Phillips asked about a house on 124th Avenue that recently burned.
12.ADJOURNMENT
It was moved and seconded that the meeting be adjourned at 9:05 pm.
/ss
City of Maple Ridge
PUBLIC ART STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Public Art Steering Committee, held in the Coho
Room, at Maple Ridge City Hall, 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, British Columbia, on Tuesday,
September 29, 2015 at 3:00 p.m.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT
Susan Hayes, Chair Artist
Barbara Duncan Curator, Maple Ridge Art Gallery
Councillor Duncan City of Maple Ridge
Leanne Koehn Community at Large Member
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT
Sunny Schiller Committee Clerk
Yvonne Chui Manager, Arts and Community Connections
REGRETS/ABSENTS
Wayne Bissky Architect
Kristin Krimmel Artist
1.CALL TO ORDER AND INTRODUCTIONS
There being a quorum present, the Chair called the meeting to order at 3:09 p.m.
2.AGENDA ADOPTION
R15-019
It was moved and seconded
That the Agenda be adopted.
CARRIED
3.MINUTE ADOPTION
R15-020
It was moved and seconded
That the Minutes of July 22, 2015 be adopted.
CARRIED
PASC Minutes
September 29, 2015
Page 2 of 3
4.QUESTION PERIOD -Nil
5.UNFINISHED BUSINESS
5.1 Business Plan 2016 Draft
The PASC 2016 Business Plan was reviewed.It was suggested that the importance
of celebrating the local character of neighbourhoods be highlighted in the business
plan.
Accomplishments during 2015 included the establishment of guidelines for
donations and new public art, meetings with external and internal partners to
identify opportunities for public art,the creation of a template for commissioning
calls,and the introduction of the artist in residence program.
5.2 New member recruitment for 2017
Plans for committee recruitment were discussed.
5.3 Meeting Date Selection
It was confirmed that the regular meetings of PASC will be held on the final Tuesday
of each month from 3:00 –5:00 pm.
6.NEW BUSINESS
6.1 Community Public Art Grant
The Staff Liaison provided an update on the Community Public Art Grant program.
Feedback regarding the application process has been positive.
6.2 Artist Agreement Template Review and Revision
The Staff Liaison provided an update on the Artist Agreement template. The first
agreement using this template is currently awaiting artist acceptance.
Councillor Duncan entered the meeting at 3:40 pm.
6.3 Sidewalk Poetry Phase 2
The Staff Liaison has gathered useful feedback from Cambridge, MA that has used
the sidewalk stamping process and is working to find a local supplier of the materials
required to carry out Phase 2, permanent installation of the project.To begin,two
poems will be done as a test at a proposed downtown street slated for renovation.
Staff are working with the Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility Issues and
Engineering in regards to the installation.The installation timeline will be adjusted
based on availability of the contractors and other project requirements.
PASC Minutes
September 29, 2015
Page 3 of 3
7.ROUNDTABLE
The Staff Liaison provided updates on a number of public art projects including the public
launch for the Collobor8 project at Whonnock Lake (planned to coincide with the re-opening
of the park area during October 2015) and starting work on the call for the Hammond Public
Art project (October 2015).
Councillor Duncan reported that Lino Siracusa has been hired as the Economic Development
Manager.
Barbara Duncan asked about the Collabor8 project. The Staff Liaison reported that with the
assistance of Sylvia Pendl, Park Planning Technician,an arborist has been found to work with
Collabor8 and a stand of three trees has been identified for the installation. Finalized
drawings are expected in November and a production timeline will be developed once the
drawings are received.
The Staff Liaison shared a video with the committee of project Green Bloc in Vancouver.This
project involved a street mural. The Staff Liaison suggested the committee consider doing a
similar project for a local neighbourhood in the future.
Leanne Koehn reported that Culture Days went well.The goal of this event is to bring
partners together to talk about culture and opportunities. The Staff Liaison will be gathering
feedback from the participants. Plans for the next Culture Days were discussed.
8.ADJOURNMENT
Chair
/ss
1
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: December 7, 2015
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop
SUBJECT: Maple Ridge Community Amenity Contribution Program Policies -
Proposed OCP Amending Bylaw No. 7188-2015
Proposed CAC Council Policy
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This report provides a summary of the components of the Community Amenity Contribution Program,
based on the Resolutions passed by Council on October 19 and 27, 2015. At the October 27, 2015
meeting staff were directed to bring back further information on contribution calculations and were
also directed to bring back an Official Community Plan amending bylaw that established the CAC
program for the community utilizing a percentage of lift approach. At the October 13, 2015 Council
meeting, a brief discussion on changing the contribution approach for the CAC program occurred,
however no decisions were made on the matter.
In order to advance the CAC discussion further, this report includes a two pronged approach for
establishing a Community Amenity Contribution Program which includes:
An Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw that will establish the general components to be
included in the CAC program, noting that the specific details regarding the contribution
approach, values and application would be housed outside of the OCP in a Council Policy;
and
Two draft Council Policies have been prepared for Council’s consideration – one based on a
percentage of lift approach and the other based on a flat rate approach. The expectation is
that Council will chose the draft policy that best reflects their desired approach for
calculating contributions.
The Greater Vancouver Home Builders Association and the Urban Development Institute provided
comments to Council on the proposed components of the city-wide CAC Program prior to the October
19, 2015 Workshop meeting. In their correspondence, they have requested an opportunity for
consultation and dialogue on the Program. Given this request, the report recommends that the
proposed Official Community Plan amending Bylaw and Council policies be referred to the UDI
Liaison Committee for review. It is also recommended that the draft CAC policies be posted on the
website, along with an invitation to the public to submit comments. A summary of comments
received will then be provided to Council in a follow-up summary report. The Official Community Plan
amending bylaw will also be referred to a future public hearing.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1.That staff be directed to obtain feedback on the Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No.
7188-2015 and draft Council Policy and provide a summary of input to Council in a future
report.
5.1
2
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Council has been provided with reports on June 15 and October 19, 2015 outlining the various
aspects and potential for establishing a city-wide community amenity contribution program. The
October 19, 2015 report included a set of legal principles regarding amenity contributions derived
from prior legal advice the City has received on establishing a community amenity contribution
program. These principles include:
i. A municipality has the authority to adopt density bonus bylaws and establish conditions
under which the density bonus is to be applied, including the payment of cash contributions;
ii. Density bonuses are the most defensible approach, should the required amenity contribution
be challenged on it’s legal basis;
iii. A community amenity contributions should be clearly tied to the impacts that are expected to
result from a zoning change;
iv. A community amenity program should be based on a ‘robust’ policy basis, rather than on a
simple decision of Council;
v. Establishing a contribution that is based on the amount of the increase in lot value could
provide a more equitable basis for the amenity program; and
vi. A site-by-site negotiated approach does not provide the clarity and consistency of application
of the program that the development industry needs, as well as potentially adding a
significant amount of time to the development approvals process.
With these principles in mind, Council was presented with a series of options for each component of
the City-wide Community Amenity Contribution Program.
At the October 19 and 27 Council Workshop meetings, the components of the CAC Program were
discussed and a Resolution passed for each. The following is a summary of the framework of the
CAC Program based on the content of the Resolutions:
1. Each CAC will be based on a percentage value of lift. [Note: A percentage value was not
included in the discussion]
2. The CAC Program will apply city-wide.
a. Those properties within the Town Centre Area Plan boundaries are exempt from the
CAC Program.
3. The Density Bonus Framework established in the Albion Area Plan will continue to apply, in
addition to the city-wide CAC Program. For developments that take advantage of the density
bonus provisions included in the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw for the Albion Area Plan, the
amenity contribution rate will be $3100 per lot or dwelling unit.
4. The CAC Program applies to the development of all residential dwellings1, including those
that are included in a mixed-use development (such as commercial and residential) with the
following exceptions:
a. Affordable and special needs housing that are secured through a Housing Agreement
as established in Section 905 of the Local Government Act;
1 Note: Additional exemptions from the CAC Program include:
single family residential subdivisions proposing fewer than 3 lots;
duplex dwelling units where only one building is being constructed; and
triplex dwelling units where only one building is being constructed.
3
b. Rental housing units that are secured through a Housing Agreement established
under Section 905 of the Local Government Act will also be subject to a covenant
enacted under Section 219 of the Land Titles Act.
5. An Official Community Plan amending bylaw was to be prepared that includes the
components of the Community Amenity Contribution Program. Development applications that
are in process (in-stream) at the time of enactment of this Council Policy will be subject to
the provisions of the Policy unless the applicable Official Community Plan and/or Zoning
Bylaw amending bylaw has/have received Third Reading.
6. Council will establish one or more Reserve Funds and identify those amenities that may
benefit from the community amenity contributions.
b) CAC Program Examples
There are a wide variety of approaches for community amenity contribution programs in place
throughout the region. Council was provided a summary table, taken from the Amenity Zoning
Report prepared during the Albion Area Plan review in 2012. That table shows the variety of
approaches in use at that time, including density bonuses, site specific and area-wide amenity
contribution programs. In essence, the table shows that there is no one single approach in use
throughout the region. The following examples are intended to provide Council with options to
consider with respect to the components and implementation aspects of a CAC Program.
District of North Vancouver
The District of North Vancouver has implemented a CAC program that consists of a variety of
approaches for securing amenity contributions within:
Four defined OCP growth centres;
Residential developments outside of the growth centres; and
For sites where increased density is not contemplated in the OCP.
The details of the program are found within an administrative policy, which outlines the technical
aspects of when and how CAC’s will be considered as part of the development review process. The
Program incorporates three ways of collecting community amenity contributions:
1. For sites within the defined OCP growth centres, 75% of the value of the increase in land
(the lift) after rezoning.
2. For sites outside of the growth centres, CAC’s are calculated at $5 per square foot for
duplex, triplex, townhouses or similar developments and at $15 per square foot for
apartment developments.
3. For sites where an increase in residential density is not contemplated in the OCP, the CAC is
negotiated on a case by case basis, with the value of the amenity contribution to be
equivalent to 50% to 75% of the estimated increase in market value of the land after
rezoning.
The following table outlines the District of North Vancouver’s approach for calculating ‘lift’.
4
Source: District of North Vancouver, Community Amenity Contributions in OCP Growth Centres
For information, the District of North Vancouver’s brochure outlining their CAC Program is attached
as Appendix C.
Coquitlam
The City of Coquitlam has introduced an area-wide contribution approach within the Burquitlam-
Lougheed Neighbourhood. The program is part of the implementation of the transit-oriented
development (TOD) strategy for the area, and applies to new residential density that is associated
with a rezoning application at a rate of $3.00 per square foot ($32.29 per square metre) of new
residential floor area, up to a maximum floor area of 2.5 times the lot area.
For information, the City of Coquitlam’s brochure on the CAC Program for the Burquitlam-Lougheed
area is attached as Appendix D.
Pitt Meadows
The City of Pitt Meadows has implemented a CAC approach based on a voluntary contribution flat
rate of $2400 per unit for single family dwellings, $1200 per unit for townhouses and $600 per
dwelling unit for Apartments.
City of North Vancouver
The City of North Vancouver endorsed their Density Bonus and Community Benefits Policy in May
2015. It contains aspects that may be of interest to Council, as it is applied within the context of
A
B
C
D
E
5
OCP policies related to density bonusing, rather than a specific area as in the example from
Coquitlam. The purpose is “…to provide a greater degree of certainty regarding the purpose and
value of community benefit contributions that may occur in conjunction with development
applications.”
The framework of the program incorporates two categories:
1. Category A: Increases in density that do not exceed the density established in the OCP (on
Schedule ‘A’). The rate for these types of density increases is set at $20 per square foot of
residential floor area or a negotiated contribution; and
2. Category B: Increases in density that exceed the density established in the OCP, up to a
maximum bonus amount set out in the OCP. The rate for these bonus densities in the
Lonsdale Regional City Centre is set at $140 per square foot of residential floor area beyond
the existing zoning OR $110 per square foot of residential floor area outside of the Regional
City Centre. Category B amenity contributions can be negotiated only in unique
circumstances.
The City of North Vancouver’s Density Bonus and Community Benefits Policy has been attached as
Appendix E.
Provincial Guide for Community Amenity Contributions
In March 2014, the Provincial Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development released a
guide to provided assistance for municipalities when considering the establishment of a CAC
program. It provides an overview on the legal aspects, recommended practices for CAC’s, the link
between CAC’s and affordable housing and discussion on selecting an approach for a municipal ity to
obtain amenities.
A summary of its contents is also included in the Guide and provides a helpful ‘snapshot’ of the
recommended practices for local governments:
1. Avoid legal risk and maintain public confidence
2. Plan ahead
3. Seek modest contributions and follow an approach that balances amenities and housing
affordability
4. Apply DCC principles to CAC’s
5. Engage the development community
6. Choose an approach to obtaining amenities that considers a variety of factors.
The lessons that can be taken from the Provincial Guide mirror the prior legal advice the City has
received with respect to:
align the impacts of increased residential density to the amount of contribution;
use density bonuses, as permitted under Section 904 of the Local Government Act as the
primary tool for securing CAC’s; and
establish a program that is consistently applied.
For information, The Short Guide – Community Amenity Contributions: Balancing Community
Planning, Public Benefits and Housing Affordability, released in March 2014 is attached to this report
as Appendix F.
6
c) Amenity Zoning Analysis Information
The following is an excerpt from the Maple Ridge Amenity Strategy Case Study Analysis, part of the
Amenity Zoning: Analysis and Options report prepared by CitySpaces Consulting in November 2012.
Council was provided with a copy of that report as an attachment to the June 15, 2015 Amenity
Zoning Overview and Options report. This information is intended to be helpful for Council to see
within the context of a percentage value of lift approach and in comparison to the examples from
across the region.
Implications for Community Amenity Contributions
As noted above, the total lift identified through either a general set of analyses such as these
or through a separate analysis for a specific rezoning is typically shared between the
municipality or district and the proponent. In areas where development demand is high a
higher share of the lift would usually be sought by the municipality or district (75% or higher
in some cases), but in areas where development is slower a more equitable split is usually
made (50/50 for example).
GPRA has applied a 50/50 split to the lift identified through the case studies and illustrates
the resulting charges that could be introduced on a per unit/lot basis to collect the District’s
share:
These charges can also be converted to a fee per square foot or square metre of GBA using
estimates of average sizes of unit types in the District:
Charge Sq. Ft. @ 50%
Current RS-3 RS-1 RS-1b R-1 R-3 RM-1 RM-2 RM-6 (base)
A-2 $14.92 $4.59 $4.78 $7.65 $10.66 $7.24 $12.72 $6.13
RS-3 $0.00 $1.61 $2.30 $5.17 $8.53 $4.76 $11.89 $5.20
RS-1 $0.00 $0.00 $0.96 $3.83 $7.38 $3.42 $11.45 $4.69
RS-1b $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2.87 $6.56 $2.46 $11.13 $4.34
R-1 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4.10 -$0.41 $10.17 $3.26
R-3 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 -$5.19 $8.58 $1.47
Typically, however, a municipality or district would not have so many discreet charges, but
will instead create a flat fee for each major rezoning type. In order to recognize the varied
results from the lift analysis and to avoid being punitive to developers GPRA would typically
recommend the fee be set at the lowest level indicated from the analyses.
Charging out fees in a manner such as this, or by GBA, or a combination thereof allows for
developers to clearly understand the expected costs for CACs when preparing to purchase
land and when determining project viability. GPRA must note, however, that additional
analysis is recommended before the District proceeds with codifying any fees into Bylaws
and implementing a CAC policy.
While the above information was prepared in 2012 as part of the Albion Area Plan Review, the
principles and results provide Council with an additional layer of information with respect to the
selection of a contribution approach for the city-wide CAC Program.
7
d) Maple Ridge CAC Estimate Examples
The 2012 Albion Area Plan review included the discussion regarding amenity zoning and density
bonuses. GP Rollo and Associates partnered with CitySpaces Consulting, to undertake the financial
analysis of the Maple Ridge housing market to help determine what an appropriate contribution
amount would be for the density bonus framework. As part of that process, GP Rollo and Associates
developed a series of ‘sample’ pro formas to assist in the financial analysis.
To assist Council with an understanding of the estimated amount of contributions that could be
collected by utilizing the percentage value of lift, based on the District of North Vancouver approach
for calculating the value of lift. The following examples have been calculated using the sample pro
forma analysis prepared by GP Rollo and Associates in 2012. It is important to keep the following in
mind when reviewing this information:
The values are based on example pro formas prepared in 2012;
The estimated values contained in the example pro formas may no longer give an accurate
reflection of the local real estate market;
The estimated values are based on five case study examples from 2012; and
The analysis includes a number of assumptions that are clearly outlined in the report by GP
Rollo and Associates. Include in these are a 12% profit on total project costs for single
family projects and 15% profit on all multi-family projects. These are typical profit margins
utilized.
The estimated values based on percentage value of lift have been compared to the three flat
rate charges of $3100 (selected by Council), $5100 (proposed by the consultant) and
$7500 (additional option) discussed with Council in 2012.
The information contained in Table 1 is helpful in understanding the range in potential contribution
amounts that could be achieved for different housing forms, based on a percentage value of lift
contribution versus a flat rate.
Table 1: Maple Ridge CAC Estimated Values
Single Family Townhouse Low Rise Apt
Number of Units 82 15 80
Pro forma A) Project Revenue $51,828,000 $5,749,920 $19,782,338
B) Development Costs $43,719,391 $4,849,933 $16,685,972
C) Value After Rezoning $8,108,609 $899,987 $3,096,366
D) Value Before Rezoning $5,164,640 $740,213 $2,389,208
E) Lift Value $2,943,969 $159,774 $707,158
% Lift CAC % Rate Options
25% $735,992 $39,944 $176,790
50% $1,471,985 $79,887 $353,579
75% $2,207,977 $119,831 $530,369
Flat Rate Flat Rate $3100 $254,200 $46,500 $248,000
Flat Rate $5100 $418,200 $76,500 $408,000
Flat Rate $7500 $615,000 $112,500 $600,000
8
In considering the GP Rollo noted earlier in the report, and in looking at the above table, the following
observations can be made:
Different amenity rates per unit type are justifiable;
Areas where development demand is high may support a higher lift value of 75%, while
areas with lesser demand would support a lesser lift value of 50%.
Single Family example:
The single family housing form has a far greater lift value than the townhouse or low rise
apartment forms.
The % of lift approach results in an amenity contribution that is significantly larger than a
flat rate approach.
A flat rate of $7500 per unit would be closest in value to the 25% lift value.
Townhouse example:
The townhouse form of development has a significantly lower lift value compared to the
low rise apartment or single family form.
The flat rate and % of lift approaches result in fairly similar numbers, for example 75% of
lift is $119,831 verses a $7500 flat rate which results in a contribution of $112,500.
Given that townhouse has the lowest lift value of the 3 housing forms, a more modest
value of 50% lift or $5100 flat rate could be appropriate.
Low Rise Apartment example:
The low rise apartment form of development has a modest lift value, when compared to
the single family form, but is considerably larger than the townhouse form.
The flat rate approach results in a larger contribution that the % of lift approach.
A flat rate of $5100 may be appropriate.
e) Recent Development Activity
During the Planning Department business planning presentation, Council requested that information
on recent development activity be included in this report for their information. The following table
includes information on single family lots created and housing starts for townhouse and apartment
projects, from 2011 through to the end of October 2015, excluding development in the Town
Centre2, Commercial and Industrial permits. Note the table does not include lots that are pending
approvals.
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 to Oct Average
Single Family new lots created 225 291 250 201 255 244
Townhouse BP’s 128 23 144 195 180 134
Apartment BP’s 158 307 180 49 6 140
Based on the above averages, and using a flat rate of $7500 for Single Family, and $5100 for
townhouse and low rise apartment, the annual CAC revenues could be in the order of $3.2 million.
f) Policy Implications:
A two pronged policy approach is being proposed to establish a citywide CAC program which includes
OCP Policy amendments and an adopted Council Policy.
2 Town Centre, Commercial and Industrial building permits have been excluded based on Council Resolutions
passed at the Oct 19 and 27, 2015 Council Workshop.
9
OCP Policy Amendments
The proposed Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7188-2015 (Appendix A) outlines the
general components of the city-wide CAC Program, noting that the specific details would be housed
in the Council Policy. In addition, it aligns the current policy framework within the Albion Area Plan
with the expanded scope of the program in the upper-level OCP policies.
Draft Council Policy
i. Percentage Value of Lift Approach
Pursuant with Council direction, a draft Council Policy has been prepared to reflect the percentage
value of lift approach (Appendix B1). It outlines the technical aspects of how the city-wide CAC
Program will be administered. In concert with the OCP policy amendments, this approach provides
Council with the flexibility of fine-tuning the technical aspects of the CAC Program in the future
without the need for an OCP amending process. In addition, the level of detail contained in the draft
Council Policy is not found in the OCP policies.
This approach and the method for calculating the amount of increase in land value as the result of a
rezoning (the ‘lift value’) is more detailed then the option of using a land appraisal as discussed at
the October 19, 2015 Council Workshop. By requiring more information from the developer as part
of each development application, it is felt that a more accurate lift value can be established, thereby
determining a community amenity contribution amount that is more reflective of the impacts of the
development and equitable for all developments.
ii. Flat Rate Approach
At the November 10, 2015 Regular Council meeting, a brief discussion occurred regarding
reconsidering the contribution approach Resolution passed at the October 19, 2015 Council
Workshop meeting. While Council did not make any decisions on this item, there seemed to be
some interest to continue the discussion on this item.
This option could incorporate more than one rate, based on the housing form, in keeping with the
principle that an amenity contribution should be reflective of the impacts of the additional density.
This could mean individual rates for single family, townhouses and apartment buildings. Based on
Council’s selection for the contribution approach, further analysis may be required prior to preparing
a final CAC Program Council Policy back for Council’s approval.
Alternatively, the Amenity Zoning report prepared by CitySpaces and GP Rollo & Associates included
an economic analysis for the Albion Area. At that time their recommended rate per dwelling unit was
$5100. The CAC Estimated Value Table in this report includes information on the contributions that
would result from $3100, $5100 and $7500 values.
The attached Appendix B2 is a draft Council Policy based on a flat rate approach as outlined below:
1. Each CAC will be based on a contribution rate for single family, townhouse and
apartment dwelling units as follows:
a. Single Family Residential development $_____ per dwelling unit or lot
created;
b. Townhouse development $______ per dwelling unit created.
c. Apartment development $______ per dwelling unit created.
10
The value of contribution for each of the above housing forms could be established at one of
the following rates, or at a rate determined by Council:
$3100 per dwelling unit (current rate used in the Albion Area Plan area)
$5100 per dwelling unit (rate proposed by GP Rollo and Associates in 2012)
$7500 per dwelling unit (alternative rate for Council consideration in 2012)
It is noted that some municipalities have established a program based on applying a standard rate
per square foot of new residential floor area. Should Council be interested in exploring this as an
option, the table of page 6 of this report prepared by GP Rollo and Associates would provide a good
starting point for that discussion. It is recommended that if Council supports this approach, further
analysis on the current real estate/development market within the City be completed, prior to
establishing the final rate or rates.
g) Citizen/Customer Implications:
The Greater Vancouver Home Builders Association (GVHBA) and the Urban Development Institute
(UDI) provided comments to Council via email, on the proposed contents of the Maple Ridge
Community Amenity Contribution Program. They have requested that Council refer the policy back to
staff for further consultation and dialogue based on the following comments:
The GVHBA and UDI feel that it is important that development-based fees and charges be
predictable, transparent, proportional to the market in the community, and do not adversely
impact housing affordability;
There are concerns related to the quick establishment of a CAC program;
The UDI Liaison Committee feel Council has an opportunity to utilize ‘best practices’ in
establishing a city-wide CAC program.
The technical components of the CAC Program have been included in the attached draft Council
Policy (Appendix B). While not generally the subject of consultation activities, it is recommended that
the proposed policies be reviewed with the UDI Liaison Committee. It is also recognized that many
citizens will have an interest in the subject of CAC’s so it is further recommended that the draft
policies be posted on the City webpage along with an invitation for residents to provide comments.
The Communications Department have also offered to share this information via social media. All
comments received will then be provided in a follow-up report to Council. The OCP amending bylaw
will be referred to Public Hearing and the public will be provided with an opportunity to comment at
the Hearing.
When considering a change in Official Community Plan policy or Zoning Bylaw Regulations, the
generally accepted practice for in-stream development applications is that those applications that
have been presented at Public Hearing and received Third Reading would be exempt from complying
with the new policies or regulations.
h) Interdepartmental Implications:
Based on Council direction on the content and approach for the CAC Program, assistance from a
variety of City departments may be required to review the technical aspects of the Program. In
particular, assistance from the Finance Department will be required to prepare the Reserve Fund
bylaw(s), including any potential amendments to the Albion Area Plan Reserve Fund Bylaw.
11
i) Business Plan/Financial Implications:
If Council prefers to establish the CAC contribution approach as a flat rate to apply for all included
developments, it is recommended that the amount/rate be reflective of the land lift value. An
economic financial analysis is the most robust and defensible approach to calculate that rate. Such
analysis would require a budget allocation not to exceed $20,000. Alternatively Council may be
comfortable in selecting a rate based on the information contained in the staff report.
CONCLUSIONS:
The lessons learned through the establishment of the Albion Area Plan Density Bonus Framework
and from recent legal advice provide a number of general principles that the components of an
amenity program should incorporate. The components of the CAC Program determined by Council on
October 19 and 27, 2015 by Resolutions, achieve the principles of a consistent and equitable
framework.
The regional examples show a variety of approaches and tools in use for securing community
amenity contributions as part of the development process. The Provincial Community Amenity
Contributions Guide provides a list of recommended practices for municipalities to consider when
establishing a CAC Program. These examples show that each municipality has the flexibility to
establish a program that is best suited to the needs of their community.
The proposed OCP policy amendment will provide greater clarity for Council and the community with
respect to why and when CAC’s will be part of the development review process. The proposed CAC
Council Policies contain the technical aspects of the program that are of a greater level of detail than
in found in the OCP. As such, any future minor adjustments to the structure of the Program will not
be subject to OCP amendments or a Public Hearing.
In keeping with the principles of an open and transparent government, it is recommended that
feedback be obtained on the Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7188-2015 and draft
Community Amenity Contributions Program Council Policies. The draft policies will be referred to the
UDI Liaison Committee and information will also be posted on the City webpage, along with an
invitation to provide comments. The results of these consultation activities would then be
summarized in a report for Council’s review and consideration prior presentation of the OCP
Amending Bylaw for first and second reading, and referral to Public Hearing.
“Original signed by Christine Carter” for
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Jim Charlebois, MURP, MCIP, RPP
Manager of Community Planning
“Original signed by Christine Carter”
_______________________________________________
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
12
Appendix A: OCP Amending Bylaw No. 7188-2015
Appendix B1: Draft Community Amenity Contribution Program Council Policy (Percentage Value of
Lift Approach)
Appendix B2 Draft Community Amenity Contribution Program Council Policy (Contribution Rate per
Housing Type)
Appendix C: District of North Vancouver, Community Amenity Contributions brochure
Appendix D: City of Coquitlam CAC Program for the Burquitlam-Lougheed Neighbourhood
brochure
Appendix E: City of North Vancouver Density Bonus and Community Benefit Policy
Appendix F: Province of BC, Short Guide – Community Amenity Contributions, March 2014
CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW NO. 7188-2015
A Bylaw to amend Schedule “A” of the Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014
_______________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS Section 882 of the Local Government Act provides that the Council may revise the Official
Community Plan;
AND WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to amend Schedule "A" to the Official Community Plan;
NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the City of Maple Ridge enacts as follows:
1.This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending
Bylaw No. 7188-2015
2.That Section 2.1.2 Compact and Unique Community be amended by repealing policies 2-7
through 2-9 and replacing them with the following:
2-7 Maple Ridge will establish a city-wide Community Amenity Program with the following
components, to provide amenities, including the provision of affordable and special
needs housing, in a sustainable and economically viable manner:
a)Contribution approach
b)Geographic area, including any portions of the City that may be excluded;
c)Approach for addressing existing density bonus policies and regulations in the
Albion Area Plan area;
d)Application of the program with respect to land uses and density;
e)Establishment of one or more Reserve Fund Bylaws, including the identification
of those potential community amenities to which the reserve funds can be
allocated;
2-8 The Community Amenity Program may also include areas within the City where
density bonus provisions apply. Where provisions apply, the density bonus will be in
addition to the city-wide program and will be integrated into the Maple Ridge Zoning
Bylaw.
2-9 A Community Amenity Contributions and density bonuses may also be considered at
Council’s discretion for all Official Community Plan and Zoning Bylaw amending
applications that are seeking a higher density than is envisioned in Schedule “A”, to
help provide a variety of amenities and facilities throughout the municipality.
3.That Section 2.1.2 Compact and Unique Community be amended by adding the following
policies in numeric order after policy 2-9:
2-10 Community Amenity Contributions which are specific for those portions of the City
where an Area Plan has been adopted, and as outlined in the subject Area Plan, may
be established at Council’s discretion.
2-11 Maple Ridge Council will establish one or more Reserve Funds for the Community
Amenity Program that will identify the type of community amenities to which the
amenity contributions will apply.
APPENDIX A
4. That Section 10.2.2 Residential Development and Community Amenity Program, Albion
Area Plan Community Amenity Program policy amended by changing the heading of the
policy section to “Albion Area Community Amenity Program and Density Bonus
Framework”.
5. That Section 10.2.2 Residential Development and Community Amenity Program, be
amended by repealing policy 10-4 and replacing it with the following:
10-4 The city-wide Community Amenity Program established in Section 2.1.2 Compact
and Unique Community will apply to the Albion Area Plan. A Density Bonus
Framework will also be permitted on lands designated Low Density Residential,
Low-Medium Density Residential and Medium Density Residential in the Albion
Area Plan.
6. That Section 10.2.2 Residential Development and Community Amenity Program policy
10- 5 be repealed and replaced with the following:
10-5 Where the density bonus option is utilized in a single-family subdivision, the
density bonus framework provisions established in the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw
will apply to all lots that exceed the base density permitted in the zone, in addition
to the city-wide Community Amenity Program established in Official Community
Plan Section 2.1.2 Compact and Unique Community.
7. That Section 10.2.2 Residential Development and Community Amenity Program policy
10-6 be repealed and replaced with the following:
10-6 Where the density bonus option is utilized in a multi-family development, the
density bonus framework provisions established in the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw
will apply to all dwelling units that exceed the base density permitted in the zone,
in addition to the city-wide Community Amenity Program established in Official
Community Plan Section 2.1.2 Compact and Unique Community.
8. That Section 10.2.4 Albion Zoning Matrix be amended by deleting the words “and Amenity
Contribution” from the notation section.
9. Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No.7060-2014 as amended is hereby amended
accordingly.
READ A FIRST TIME the day of , 20 .
READ A SECOND TIME the day of , 20 .
PUBLIC HEARING HELD the day of , 20 .
READ A THIRD TIME the day of , 20 .
ADOPTED, the day of , 20 .
___________________________________ _____________________________
PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER
Page 1 of 3 Policy
POLICY MANUAL
Title: Community Amenity Contribution Program
Policy No :
Supersedes:
Authority: Legislative Operational
Approval: Council CMT
General Manager
Effective Date:
Review Date:
Policy Statement:
The City of Maple Ridge is committed to providing a variety of amenities throughout the
municipality, including the provision of affordable and special needs housing, in a financially
sustainable manner.
The Community Amenity Contribution Program (CAC Program) is comprised of the following
components:
1.Each CAC will be based on a percentage value of lift, to be determined through a review of
each development pro forma. The value of lift will be determined in the following manner:
A. Projected development revenues – determined from the developer’s pro forma
following a review by an economic development consultant to be selected by the
City of Maple Ridge.
B. Development costs – by adding together the soft costs (such as design fees),
offsite costs (such as servicing), construction costs, developer’s profit (industry
standard of 15%).
C. Value of land after rezoning approval - is determined by subtracting the
development costs (B) (not including the land acquisition costs) from the projected
development revenues (A). This increase in value is the “lift” in the value of the
land.
D. Value of land before rezoning – the market value of the land based on the current
zoning. This is not necessarily the price the developer paid for the land.
E. Community Amenity Contribution – is determined by subtracting the lift value (C)
from the value of land before rezoning (D) and multiplied by the pre-determined
contribution percentage.
2.The contribution percentage for all CAC’s will be negotiated between 50-75% of the value
of lift.
3.The CAC Program will apply city-wide.
4.Those properties within the Town Centre Area Plan boundaries are exempt from the CAC
Program.
5.The CAC Program applies to the development of all residential dwellings, including those
that are included in a mixed-use development (such as commercial and residential) with
the following exceptions:
a.Affordable and special needs housing that are secured through a Housing
Agreement as established in Section 905 of the Local Government Act;
APPENDIX B1
Page 2 of 3 Policy
b. Rental housing units that are secured through a Housing Agreement established
under Section 905 of the Local Government Act will also be subject to a covenant
enacted under Section 219 of the Land Titles Act.
c. single family residential subdivisions proposing fewer than 3 lots;
d. duplex dwelling units where only one building is being constructed; and
e. triplex dwelling units where only one building is being constructed.
6. The Density Bonus Framework established in the Albion Area Plan will continue to apply, in
addition to the city-wide CAC Program. For developments that take advantage of the
density bonus provisions included in the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw for the Albion Area
Plan, the amenity contribution rate will be $3100 per lot or dwelling unit.
7. The Official Community Plan may also establish additional community amenity contribution
policies and guidelines for each Area Plan.
8. Development applications that are in process (in-stream) at the time of enactment of the
Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No.7188-2015, will be subject to the provisions
of the Policy unless the applicable Official Community Plan and/or Zoning Bylaw amending
bylaw has/have received Third Reading.
9. Council will establish one or more Reserve Funds and identify those amenities that may
benefit from the community amenity contributions.
10. The provision of a specific amenity, rather than a cash-in-lieu contribution may also be
considered by Maple Ridge Council. If Council determines that the provision of an amenity
is more desirable, the following list is to be used as a general guide for determining the
type of community amenity:
Daycare and childcare facilities;
Public art;
Heritage conservation;
Land for the provision of:
o Affordable or special needs housing;
o Parks
o Trails
o Significant ecological features
Affordable or special needs housing units;
Park or trail construction or improvements;
Purpose:
To provide direction on the implementation of a city-wide community amenity contribution (CAC)
program, including the process to determine the contribution amount.
Definitions:
“Community Amenity” means any public amenity that provides a benefit to the residents of
the city or a specific neighbourhood as the result of increased residential density.
“Value of Lift” means the increase in the value of land following rezoning to a zone that
permits greater residential density on the site.
“Development Costs” are those costs that are reasonable project expenses associated
with the submission of an Official Community Plan and/or zone amending application,
including application fees, costs associated with a required Development Permit and
Building Permit, financing, sales and marketing costs, developer profit (established at
15%). Development costs do not include land acquisition costs.
“Land Value” means the assessed value of the land prior to rezoning, based on BC
Assessment information.
Page 3 of 3 Policy
Key Areas of Responsibility
Action to Take
Responsibility
Page 1 of 3 Policy
POLICY MANUAL
Title: Community Amenity Contribution Program
Policy No :
Supersedes:
Authority: Legislative Operational
Approval: Council CMT
General Manager
Effective Date:
Review Date:
Policy Statement:
The City of Maple Ridge is committed to providing a variety of amenities throughout the
municipality, including the provision of affordable and special needs housing, in a financially
sustainable manner.
The Community Amenity Contribution Program (CAC Program) is comprised of the following
components:
1.Each CAC will be based on a contribution rate for single family, townhouse and apartment
dwelling units as follows:
a.Single Family Residential development $_____ per dwelling unit or lot created;
b.Townhouse development $______ per dwelling unit created.
c.Apartment development $______ per dwelling unit created.
2.The CAC Program will apply city-wide.
3.Those properties within the Town Centre Area Plan boundaries are exempt from the CAC
Program.
4.The CAC Program applies to the development of all residential dwellings, including those
that are included in a mixed-use development (such as commercial and residential) with
the following exceptions:
a.Affordable and special needs housing that are secured through a Housing
Agreement as established in Section 905 of the Local Government Act;
b.Rental housing units that are secured through a Housing Agreement established
under Section 905 of the Local Government Act will also be subject to a covenant
enacted under Section 219 of the Land Titles Act.
c.single family residential subdivisions proposing fewer than 3 lots;
d.duplex dwelling units where only one building is being constructed; and
e.triplex dwelling units where only one building is being constructed.
5.The Density Bonus Framework established in the Albion Area Plan will continue to apply, in
addition to the city-wide CAC Program. For developments that take advantage of the
density bonus provisions included in the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw for the Albion Area
Plan, the amenity contribution rate will be $3100 per lot or dwelling unit.
6.The Official Community Plan may also establish additional community amenity contribution
policies and guidelines for each Area Plan.
7.Development applications that are in process (in-stream) at the time of enactment of the
Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No.7188-2015, will be subject to the provisions
APPENDIX B2
Page 2 of 3 Policy
of the Policy unless the applicable Official Community Plan and/or Zoning Bylaw amending
bylaw has/have received Third Reading.
8. Council will establish one or more Reserve Funds and identify those amenities that may
benefit from the community amenity contributions.
9. The provision of a specific amenity, rather than a cash-in-lieu contribution may also be
considered by Maple Ridge Council. If Council determines that the provision of an amenity
is more desirable, the following list is to be used as a general guide for determining the
type of community amenity:
Daycare and childcare facilities;
Public art;
Heritage conservation;
Land for the provision of:
o Affordable or special needs housing;
o Parks
o Trails
o Significant ecological features
Affordable or special needs housing units;
Park or trail construction or improvements;
Purpose:
To provide direction on the implementation of a city-wide community amenity contribution (CAC)
program, including the process to determine the contribution amount.
Definitions:
“Community Amenity” means any public amenity that provides a benefit to the residents of
the city or a specific neighbourhood as the result of increased residential density.
“Value of Lift” means the increase in the value of land following rezoning to a zone that
permits greater residential density on the site.
“Development Costs” are those costs that are reasonable project expenses associated
with the submission of an Official Community Plan and/or zone amending application,
including application fees, costs associated with a required Development Permit and
Building Permit, financing, sales and marketing costs, developer profit (established at
15%). Development costs do not include land acquisition costs.
“Land Value” means the assessed value of the land prior to rezoning, based on BC
Assessment information.
Page 3 of 3 Policy
Key Areas of Responsibility
Action to Take
Responsibility
Development revenues:Development costs include: »Soft costs (e.g. design) »Offsite costs (e.g. servicing) »Construction costs »'HYHORSHUSURÀW Land costs not includedValue of land after rezoning:Development revenues minus development costs (A - B)Value of land before rezoning (current zoning value):Community Amenity Contribution: 75% of the increased market value of the land minus value of land before rezoning i.e.: (C – D) x 75%Contact informationDistrict of North Vancouver :HVW4XHHQV5RDG 1RUWK9DQFRXYHU%&911Web: www.identity.dnv.org Email: identity@dnv.orgPhone: 7+(',675,&72)1257+9$1&289(5COMMUNITY AMENITYCONTRIBUTIONS IN OCP GROWTH CENTRESA Guide to Estimating the CAC&$&VIRUVLWHVLQ2&3JURZWKFHQWUHVDUHGHWHUPLQHGWKURXJKDQHJRWLDWHGDSSURYDOEDVHGRQRIHVWLPDWHGLQFUHDVHLQPDUNHWYDOXHRIWKHODQGDULVLQJIURPUH]RQLQJDIWHUGHYHORSPHQWFRVWVDQGSURÀWPDUJLQDUHIDFWRUHGLQDQGFDQEHHVWLPDWHGYLDWKHIROORZLQJVWHSV ABCDEExplanation of key termsDevelopment revenues:DUHWKHHVWLPDWHGUHWXUQVIURPWKHVDOHRIQHZXQLWVDevelopment costs:LQFOXGHVUHDVRQDEOHSURMHFWFRVWVZKLFKPD\LQFOXGHSURSHUW\WUDQVIHUWD[DVVHPEO\FRVWVGHPROLWLRQFRVWVVRIWFRVWVÀQDQFLQJFRVWVVDOHVDQG PDUNHWLQJ FRVWV FRQVWUXFWLRQFRVWVFRQWLQJHQF\FRVWVGHYHORSPHQWFRVWFKDUJHV '&&V PXQLFLSDOWD[HVLQVXUDQFHGHYHORSPHQWDQGUH]RQLQJapplication fees, servicing fees, and ZDUUDQWLHV'HYHORSPHQWFRVWVDOVRLQFOXGHGHYHORSHUSURÀWValue of land after rezoning: is the PDUNHWYDOXHRIODQGXQGHUWKHSURSRVHGQHZ]RQLQJ7KLVILJXUHLVFDOFXODWHGE\VXEWUDFWLQJDOOHVWLPDWHGSURMHFWVcosts (not including land acquisition) DQGGHYHORSHUSURÀWIURPWKHHVWLPDWHGproject revenue. Value of land before rezoning: is the PDUNHW YDOXH XQGHU H[LVWLQJ ]RQLQJ(without considering any opportunity IRUXS]RQLQJ 1RWHWKDWWKLVGRHVQRWnecessarily reflect what the developer actually paid for the property. APPENDIX C
LVLLLCMWLynn Valley Town CentreLower Lynn Town CentreLower Capilano Marine Village CentreMaplewood Village CentreCommunity art and cultural facilitiesEnhanced public recreation facilities and servicesPublic gathering places e.g. open spaces and plazasParks, greenways, trails, playgrounds and community gardensMulti-purpose community and daycare spaceRestoration of heritage featuresOther amenities DVLGHQWLÀHGthrough community consultationWhat are Community Amenity Contributions?&RPPXQLW\DPHQLW\FRQWULEXWLRQV &$&V LQWKHIRUPRISK\VLFDODPHQLWLHVRUFDVKFRQWULEXWLRQVPD\EHSURYLGHGE\GHYHORSHUVwhen Council approves applications IRULQFUHDVHGGHQVLW\DWUH]RQLQJ&$&VDGGUHVVLQFUHDVHGGHPDQGRQFRPPXQLW\facilities and services due to growth and UHGHYHORSPHQW)RUH[LVWLQJODQGRZQHUVWKLVPHDQVWKDWthe selling price of their property should JHQHUDOO\UHÁHFWWKHFXUUHQWPDUNHWYDOXHXQGHUH[LVWLQJ]RQLQJWRHQDEOHWKHGHYHORSHUWRSURYLGHD&$&7KH'LVWULFWRI1RUWK9DQFRXYHUKDVD'LVWULFWZLGH&$&SROLF\WKDWSURYLGHVRYHUDUFKLQJGLUHFWLRQRQ&$&V7KHSXUSRVHRIWKLVJXLGHis to provide specific policy direction on GHWHUPLQLQJ&$&VLQ2&3JURZWKFHQWUHV &HQWUHV,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ3ODQVZLOORXWOLQHWKHSURSRVHGFRPPXQLW\DPHQLWLHVIRUHDFKJURZWKFHQWUHAffordable and non-market housing%HQHÀWVRI&RPPXQLW\$PHQLW\Contributions&RPPXQLW\DPHQLW\FRQWULEXWLRQVEHQHILWWKHORFDOFRPPXQLW\WKH'LVWULFWDVDZKROHDQGWKHGHYHORSPHQWSURMHFW&RPPXQLW\DPHQLWLHVFRQWULEXWHWRZDUGVFRPPXQLW\OLYHDELOLW\DQGIDFLOLWDWHWKHGHOLYHU\RIDPHQLWLHVWKDWPLJKWRWKHUZLVHQHHGWREHprovided through increased property taxes. &$&VFDQEHXVHGWRZDUGVWKHGHYHORSPHQWRIVLWHVSHFLÀFFRPPXQLW\DPHQLWLHV ZKHUHWKHVHKDYHEHHQLGHQWLÀHGWKURXJKFHQWUHVLPSOHPHQWDWLRQ SODQQLQJ RU SURYLGHGDVDFDVKLQOLHXFRQWULEXWLRQWRGHOLYHURIIVLWHFRPPXQLW\DPHQLWLHV([DPSOHVRIFRPPXQLW\DPHQLWLHVLQFOXGHEXWDUHQRWOLPLWHGWR Factors affecting the Community Amenity Contribution 7KH&$&YDOXHLVGHULYHGIURPWKHFKDQJHLQODQGYDOXHXQGHUKLJKHUGHQVLW\]RQLQJ&$&·VPD\YDU\E\SURMHFWGHSHQGLQJRQDYDULHW\RIIDFWRUVLQFOXGLQJ ORFDWLRQODQGYDOXHORWVL]HGHQVLW\DVVHPEO\FRQVWUDLQWVVHUYLFLQJFRVWRIUH]RQLQJRQVLWHDPHQLW\UHTXLUHPHQWVSDUNLQJQHHGVDQGRWKHUFRPPXQLW\DQGSODQQLQJREMHFWLYHVApproach to Determining CAC in Designated Centres7KHYDOXHRI&$&VLQGHVLJQDWHGFHQWUHVLVGHWHUPLQHGWKURXJKDQHJRWLDWHGDSSURDFKEDVHGRQRIWKHLQFUHDVHLQPDUNHWYDOXHRIWKHODQGDIWHUUH]RQLQJ7KLVDSSURDFKDOORZVIRUVRPHÁH[LELOLW\WRWDNHLQWRDFFRXQWUHOHYDQWVLWHVSHFLÀFFRQVLGHUDWLRQV'HYHORSPHQWSURSRQHQWVDUHDVNHGWRVXEPLWDGHYHORSPHQWSURIRUPDDWWKHSUHOLPLQDU\$SSOLFDWLRQVWDJH7KHSURIRUPDZLOOEHUHYLHZHGE\'LVWULFWVWDIIDQGRUDTXDOLÀHGODQGHFRQRPLVWUHWDLQHGE\WKH'LVWULFWRQDFRVWUHFRYHU\EDVLVThis will allow for an early evaluation RIWKHRYHUDOOSURMHFWDVVXPSWLRQVDQGDELOLW\WRPHHW'LVWULFWSROLFLHVDQGFRPPXQLW\REMHFWLYHVZKLOHconsidering the unique project FRQWH[W7KH&$&ZLOOEHFRQÀUPHGGXULQJWKHGHWDLOHGGHYHORSPHQWapplication stage.
Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) Program
Investing in the Future of the Burquitlam -
Lougheed Neighbourhood
The City of Coquitlam has introduced a Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) program to help fund a new
community recreation facility for the Burquitlam - Lougheed Neighbourhood.
The CAC program is a key policy in the City’s Transit-Oriented Development Strategy (TDS), which is a high-
level vision document that will guide new transit-oriented development around Evergreen Line stations.
How does the CAC Program Work?
CACs are a voluntary contribution made by an applicant at the time of rezoning, typically by a developer of
a property. The CAC program only applies to new residential density (i.e., additional building floor area) that
is associated with a rezoning application.
The CAC amount is a flat rate dollar cost per floor area for all new residential floor area proposed by a
rezoning application in the CAC area. (Area outlined in red on map on the other side.) This flat rate ensures
consistency, transparency and equity in the application of the CAC for each rezoning application.
The amount of the CAC is $32.29 per m² ($3.00 per square foot) for all new residential floor area proposed
up to a maximum floor area of 2.5 times the lot area.
Example of a CAC calculation:
A rezoning application proposes to add 10,000 m² of residential floor area as part of a new development. The
property has 1,000 m² of existing residential floor area. The existing 1,000 m² is deducted from the proposed
10,000 m² of residential floor area and the CACs are only payable on 9,000 m². (Approximately $290,600.)
Doc. # 1591098 - Dec. 2013
APPENDIX D
When do CACs not apply?
CACs will not be applied to an addition, an existing building,
new single-family residential, or for new buildings constructed
under the existing zoning. For example the CAC does not
apply to a homeowner wanting an addition to an existing
single-family residence nor a property owner building a new
single-family residence on a lot under the existing zoning.
What is a Zone?
All land in the City is assigned a zone under the City’s Zoning
Bylaw. The zone on a property determines what uses are
permitted, the dimensional requirements for lots, the height
of buildings and how far they can be setback from a property
boundary. The zone also determines the maximum density of
buildings on a property. Density is typically measured in the
City’s zones as a Floor Area Ratio (FAR).
What is FAR?
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is the maximum amount of floor area
(building space) you are permitted to construct on your lot.
For example, if you have a lot area of 500 m² (5,382 sq. ft.) and
your maximum FAR is 0.45, then the maximum floor area you
can construct is 225 m² (2,422 sq. ft.).
500 m² lot area x 0.45 FAR = 225 m² gross floor area
What is Rezoning?
Changing the existing zone on a property to another zone is
a rezoning. The rezoning process amends the City’s Zoning
Bylaw and requires public notification to property owners
and occupants of property within 100m of the rezoning site, a
public hearing and Council’s approval.
What are Community Amenities?
Community amenities are facilities that improve the livability
of an area, and include things such as a library, community
or recreation centre, arts facility, youth centre, parkland
improvements, or space for community serving non-profit
groups. In this case, CACs collected in Burquitlam and
Lougheed will be used to fund a community recreation facility.
Austin Avenue
Rochester Avenue
Foster Avenue
Como Lake Avenue
North RoadClarke RoadEdgar AvenueGuilby StreetRobinson StreetMiller Avenue
Chapman Avenue
Smith Avenue
Lo
u
g
h
e
e
d
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
Burns
Park
Lo
Baden
Eleme
Vancouver Golf
and Country Club
Roy Stibbs
Elementary
Brookmere
Park
Coquitlam
College
Burquitlam
Park
Mountain View
Elementary
Mountain
View Park
Miller Park
Elementary
Banting
Middle
Burquitlam
Elementary
The program has been
created for the Burquitlam
- Lougheed Neighbourhood
by Coquitlam City Council
as part of implementing
the Transit-Oriented
Development Strategy
(TDS) which was adopted
by Council in July 2012, and
available to view on the City’s
website: coquitlam.ca/tds
Questions?
For further information on the program, please contact:
Planning and Development Department
Coquitlam City Hall
3000 Guilford Way, Coquitlam, BC V3B 7N2
P: 604-927-3430
E: planninganddevelopment@coquitlam.ca
Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) Program
CAC Application Area
(TDS Core and Shoulder Focus Areas)
Density Bonus and Community Benefits Policy
Endorsed: May 25, 2015
APPENDIX E
Page 2 of 7 Document: 1268321-v3
1. Introduction
This document serves as a guide for the consideration
of density bonuses within the framework of the Official
Community Plan (OCP) and Local Government Act. This
document should be read in conjunction with the OCP
and, in particular, Section 2.2 Density Bonusing, Section
2.3 Density Transfer, and the Schedule ‘A’ Land Use Map.
This guide is intended to provide a greater degree of
certainty regarding the purpose and value of community
benefit contributions that may occur in conjunction with
development applications. Contributions of this nature
help ensure that the City is able to provide amenities to
meet the needs of our growing community.
Owners and applicants are reminded that OCP and
rezoning applications are at Council’s absolute
discretion. While these guidelines provide a framework
for determining community benefits related to rezoning
applications, Council may reduce, increase or reject any
application.
2. Bonus Categories
The graphic to the right describes two types of density
bonuses. Community Benefit options applicable to each
of these bonus categories are outlined in Section 3 of
this policy.
Category 'B' Bonus:
Up to OCP Schedule 'A' Max. Bonus
An increase in density that exceeds the OCP
Schedule 'A' Density up to the maximum
bonus amount set out in the OCP. This type
of bonus requires a rezoning, which may
include a Town Hall meeting as well as a
Public Hearing.
Category 'A' Bonus:
Up to OCP Schedule 'A' Density
An increase in density that does not exceed
the OCP Schedule 'A' Density. This can include
lands that are pre-zoned with a density
bonus, as well as lands that are rezoned
through a site specific rezoning process with
a density bonus.
Outright Zoning:
The amount of density permitted on an
outright basis in the Zoning Bylaw.
Outright Zoning
OCP Schedule 'A' Density Limit
OCP Schedule 'A' Max. Bonus
Page 3 of 7 Document: 1268321-v3
3. Community Benefit Categories
Amenity Fund Contribution Secured Rental Housing Employment Generating Use Heritage Conservation
Lonsdale Regional City Centre - $140 A) 100% Rental Housing Additional Commercial Floor Area
Other Locations - $110 Conditions:
See Schedule 1 Conditions:
Conditions:
B) Non-Market Rental Housing
Conditions:
• Must be secured in perpetuity
• Not applicable for existing rental sites
C) Rental Retention
Conditions:
$20 or Negotiated Contribution Additional Commercial Floor Area
($ per sq. ft. of residential floor area
increase beyond existing zoning)Conditions:
OUTRIGHT ZONING
Maintaining Existing Rental Building with
Bonus Density Transfer to Another Site
• A recipient site for the density transfer
must be determined in advance at the
City's discretion
• A business plan must outline how the
existing building on the donor site will
be repaired and upgraded
No Amenity Fund Contribution is
suggested for Secured Rental
Housing projects
Category 'A' BonusUp to Schedule 'A' Density30% of Bonus Amount Provided As Non-
Market Rental Housing
Bonus for Restoration and
Preservation Determined
through Rezoning
• Below market req. to be determined
through Housing Action Plan (HAP)
($ per sq. ft. of residential floor area
increase beyond existing zoning)
• A portion of the rental units must be
rented at below market rates
below market / affordable rates
• Can be combined with a cash
contribution to reach 100% of
Maximum Bonus
1 sq. ft. Bonus for every 1 sq. ft. of
Commercial Floor Area provided
beyond 1.0 FSR Up to Schedule 'A' Max. BonusCategory 'B' BonusBonus for Restoration and
Preservation Determined
through Rezoning
1 sq. ft. Bonus for every 1 sq. ft. of
Commercial Floor Area provided
beyond 1.0 FSR
• Amenity Fund Contributions may be
negotiated only in unique
circumstances
• Sites with existing rental units are
not eligible for a bonus except for
Secured Rental Housing
• Sites with existing rental units are
not eligible for a bonus except for
Secured Rental Housing
Page 4 of 7 Document: 1268321-v3
4. Applying the Guidelines
These guidelines should be read in conjunction with other City policies. Please note that:
The Community Benefit options outlined in Section 3 are intended as guidelines and alternatives may be considered by Council in unique circumstances.
This could include the provision of on-site community amenities rather than a contribution to an amenity fund, for example. On-site community
amenities would be determined based on community needs and must match the value of the bonus density.
Infrastructure upgrades needed to accommodate a development or mitigate development impacts may be required in addition to public benefits or
amenity fund contributions.
All development applications must provide bylaw-required infrastructure upgrades and contributions, Development Cost Charges, and other applicable
fees.
Community Benefits for OCP amendments are negotiated on a case by case basis considering the nature and extent of the change and community
needs.
Any application which involves the displacement of existing tenants must be accompanied by a Tenant Relocation Strategy;
The guidelines are not applicable for properties designated Residential Level 1 or Residential Level 2 in the Official Community Plan.
5. Allocating Cash Community Benefit Contributions
Cash contributions for Community Benefits are to be applied to the Community Amenity Reserve Fund and Affordable Housing Reserve Fund. These funds
are used to ensure a high quality of life as the community grows. These Funds specifically provide for the following Community Benefits:
Community Amenity Reserve Fund
Contributions to this fund will be used to provide City-serving amenities. This includes, but is not limited to:
Harry Jerome Community Recreation Centre;
Waterfront Amenity Spaces;
Park and public open space improvement;
Child Care Facilities;
Museum;
Other Civic Amenities.
Affordable Housing Reserve Fund
Providing new non-market and special needs housing units.
Page 5 of 7 Document: 1268321-v3
Community Benefit Cash Contributions shall generally be allocated as indicated in the table below. These funds shall be spent at Council’s discretion as per
the terms of the Bylaws establishing these funds, as amended from time to time. These funds shall be allocated to future projects based on identified
community needs.
Percentage Public Benefits Fund
80% Civic Facilities /
Community Amenity Space
Community Amenity Reserve Fund
20% Affordable and Rental Housing Affordable Housing Reserve Fund
6. Monitoring
The Amenity Fund Contribution amounts shall be updated periodically to reflect community needs and changing market conditions. The allocation of
Amenity Fund Contribution amounts to individual reserve funds will be reviewed annually in conjunction with the City’s Financ ial Plan in order to ensure
alignment with Council priorities.
A summary of Amenity Fund Contributions received will be prepared and presented annually.
Page 6 of 7 Document: 1268321-v3
Schedule 1: Category B Bonus Area / Lonsdale Regional City Centre Boundary
Page 7 of 7
Document: 1268321-v3
Appendix 1: Definitions
Amenity Fund Contribution means a cash or in-kind contribution toward Community Benefits provided in return for a rezoning or
OCP Amendment.
Community Amenity is a defined physical space that provides direct or indirect Community Benefits to the community and includes,
but is not limited to, recreation facilities, child care facilities, museum, library, offices for non-profit organizations, cultural facilities,
heritage conservation, civic and institutional uses, district heating utility, community meeting space and employment -generating
offices.
Community Benefits are the wide range of benefits achieved in the public interest to support the Goals and Objectives of the OCP and
realized in part through Amenity Fund Contributions and Community Amenities achieved through rezoning or density bonusing.
Density is the Floor Space Ratio that can be achieved on a parcel, as a calculation of Gross Floor Area over site area.
Density Bonus is additional density provided in return for Community Benefits.
Floor Space Ratio (FSR) is a method of calculating density and controlling the size of building that can be built on a property. The FSR
multiplied by the lot area determines the maximum size of building.
Land Use Designation means the permitted uses and densities as outlined in Schedule ‘A’ of the Official Community Plan.
OCP Maximum Bonus means the highest Floor Space Ratio increase that can be achieved on a site through a Category ‘B’ Bonus, as per
the OCP (excludes density transfers). All such density bonuses are subject to a rezoning and enhanced public process.
OCP Schedule ‘A’ Density means the density permitted for a given Land Use Designation in the OCP, under the Schedule A Land Use
Map.
Outright Zoning means the maximum Floor Space Ratio that can be realized on a site under existing zoning through a Building Permit
without any density bonus.
March 2014
The Short Guide - Community Amenity
Contributions: Balancing Community
Planning, Public Benefits and Housing
Affordability
Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development
APPENDIX F
The Short Guide - Community Amenity i Ministry of Community, Sport
Contributions: Balancing Community Planning, and Cultural Development
Public Benefits and Housing Affordability
Acknowledgements
This guide was drafted in consultation with numerous local governments, the development and building
sectors, and the legal and academic communities. The Ministry would like to thank everyone who
contributed to the development of this guide.
Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development
Contact the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development for answers to questions about the
material contained in this guide or other aspects of community amenity contributions.
Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development
Local Government Division
Intergovernmental Relations and Planning
PO Box 9841 Stn. Prov. Govt.
Victoria, B.C. V8W 9T2
Phone: 250 387-4037
Website: www.cscd.gov.bc.ca/lgd/contacts/department.htm
Disclaimer
The information contained in this guide is provided as general reference and, while all attempts have
been made to ensure the accuracy of the material, the guide is not a substitute for provincial legislation
and it does not constitute legal advice.
The Short Guide - Community Amenity ii Ministry of Community, Sport
Contributions: Balancing Community Planning, and Cultural Development
Public Benefits and Housing Affordability
Community Amenity Contributions: Balancing Community Planning,
Public Benefits and Housing Affordability
Table of Contents
Purpose of the Short Guide to Community Amenity Contributions 1
CACs Are Both an Opportunity and a Risk 1
CACs Can Impact Housing Affordability 1
Exhibit 1: Impact of CACs on the price developers can pay for the land 2
Exhibit 2: A simplified comparison - impact of CACs on housing prices 2
Summary of Recommended Practices for CACs 3
The Short Guide – Community Amenity 1 Ministry of Community, Sport
Contributions: Balancing Community Planning, and Cultural Development
Public Benefits and Housing Affordability
Purpose of the Short Guide to Community Amenity Contributions
When a local government rezones land, it usually increases the land’s value which provides a
financial benefit to the applicant, usually the owner or a developer. Increasingly, local
governments are seeking to capture part of that financial benefit in order to help fund new
infrastructure or provide other public benefits. While rezoning land presents an opportunity to
obtain these “community amenity contributions” (CACs), there are also some important legal and
public policy risks that need to be considered.
To help local governments appreciate the opportunities and risks of obtaining CACs, the Ministry of
Community, Sport and Cultural Development has produced a guide, “Community Amenity
Contributions: Balancing Community Planning, Public Benefits and Housing Affordability”. The
purpose of this Short Guide is to provide the highlights of the full length guide. Those interested in
more detailed information should view the full length document available on the Ministry’s
website: http://www.cscd.gov.bc.ca/lgd/intergov_relations/library/CAC_Guide_Full.pdf
CACs Are Both an Opportunity and a Risk
Growth creates demands for new or expanded infrastructure and amenities. The cost of meeting
these demands can be substantial. While provincial legislation allows local governments to require
developers to provide infrastructure, such as roads, parks, water, drainage and sewer facilities, not
all impacts of development are fully covered by the legislation. Local governments wanting to
recover the full costs of providing infrastructure and community amenities associated with growth,
such as recreation facilities or fire halls, are increasingly looking for alternative means of funding,
including CACs secured during the rezoning process.
Before deciding if and how to pursue CACs, however, local governments need to ensure that these
CACs are obtained legally, fairly and in a way that maintains public confidence in the local
government and its community plan.
Local governments do not have legal authority to require applicants for rezoning to pay CACs. They
must ensure that any CACs are obtained as part of a negotiation process. Local governments must
also not commit to pass a rezoning bylaw on the condition that CACs are provided. Council and
regional board members are legally required to remain open-minded on a proposed rezoning, until
they have heard the public’s perspectives at the public hearing.
It is important to keep in mind that zoning is intended to implement the community plan and
should not be seen as a revenue source. Being perceived to be “selling zoning” can undermine
public confidence in the community plan and the council/regional board’s commitment to the plan.
CACs Can Impact Housing Affordability
Another important consideration is the relationship between CACs and housing affordability. If not
managed carefully, CACs have the potential to decrease the supply of new housing and increase
housing prices. In a nutshell, a housing developer faced with significant CACs cannot simply
increase the selling price of the units, as the selling price is set by the market.
The Short Guide - Community Amenity 2 Ministry of Community, Sport
Contributions: Balancing Community Planning, and Cultural Development
Public Benefits and Housing Affordability
Labour, materials and other construction costs are also fixed. Choosing to reduce their return on
investment to absorb these additional costs is also not usually an option. To secure financing, a
developer needs to ensure that their pro forma shows a normal financial return. As illustrated in
Exhibit 1, the only practical option for the developer is to try and offset the cost of CACs by
reducing the amount they offer to land owners to buy the site.
Market price = construction costs + return on investment + costs of land + CACs
Exhibit 1: Impact of CACs on the price developers can pay for the land
In land markets where supply is limited, as in many of B.C.’s growing communities, large CACs leave
fewer dollars for developers to purchase land. If land owners are reluctant to sell for a reduced
price, developers do not proceed to develop, resulting in a reduction in the supply of new housing,
which in turn contributes to higher housing prices (as illustrated below in Exhibit 2).
Exhibit 2: A simplified comparison - impact of CACs on housing prices
Without CACs:
With
substantial
CACs: +
The above diagrams show that while CACs cannot directly increase the price of housing for a
particular development, if they are widely used, CACs can push up prices in the overall market.
To ensure that housing affordability is not being compromised, local governments need to ensure
that CACs are kept at a modest level. A policy of trying to maximize the amount of CACs risks
driving up housing prices.
Selling price
is fixed by
the market
Costs of
materials, labour
etc. are fixed
Return on investment
to secure financing
Without CACs, the
remaining $ goes to
buying the land
Added cost of CACs
reduces price
developers bid for land
Initial market
price for land
Developer buys
and builds
Developer
bids for land
Housing supply
meets demand
Market prices
remain stable
CACs
Developer
LOWERS bid
for land
Initial market
price for land
Reduces land
owner incentive/
willingness to sell
Housing supply
does NOT meet
demand
Market prices
INCREASE
Fewer units built
The Short Guide - Community Amenity 3 Ministry of Community, Sport
Contributions: Balancing Community Planning, and Cultural Development
Public Benefits and Housing Affordability
Summary of Recommended Practices for CACs
The following outlines recommended practices for local governments currently, or considering,
using, CACs:
1. Avoid Legal Risk and Maintain Public Confidence
Negotiate, do not impose CACs. A common misperception is that local governments have
authority to impose CACs as a condition of rezoning. In fact, the Local Government Act [s.
931(6)] prohibits this. CACs must be negotiated.
Avoid the perception that zoning is for sale. Elected officials must remain “open-minded”
during the rezoning process, and must not commit to approving a rezoning subject to
CACs. Zoning should not be considered a revenue stream. The perception of “selling
zoning” undermines public confidence in the local government and the community plan.
2. Plan Ahead
Identify potential amenities that could be partly funded through CACs when preparing or
updating the community plan, ideally identifying the priorities at the neighbourhood level.
3. Seek Modest Contributions and Follow an Approach that Balances Community
Amenities and Housing Affordability
The potential impact of CACs on housing affordability is higher where CACs are a significant
portion of the cost of the development.
Since CACs increase the cost of a project, it is important to consider who ultimately pays
for these additional costs, and how they may affect housing supply and housing prices.
This issue is of particular concern in areas where land is in short supply.
Strategies that facilitate an increase in the supply of housing have a positive effect on
affordability.
The impact of CACs will be different in different areas or circumstances, so a flexible
approach is best.
4. Apply Development Cost Charge (DCC) Principles to CACs
Ensure a direct, demonstrable link (‘nexus’) between CACs and the impacts of new
development.
Ensure CACs are proportional to the impact of the development and consistent with the
CACs made by other applicants/developers.
Be transparent about the amount of CACs and how they will be used.
Borrow the principles and practices that apply to DCCs to develop (tables of/schedules of)
estimated CAC amounts.
CACs should only be used for capital costs. Local governments should be sure that they
have the budget capacity to deal with operational and repair costs over time.
5. Engage the Development Community
Be aware of how CACs could impact projects and their viability, to avoid contributing to
higher housing prices.
The Short Guide - Community Amenity 4 Ministry of Community, Sport
Contributions: Balancing Community Planning, and Cultural Development
Public Benefits and Housing Affordability
6. Choosing an Approach to Obtaining Amenities - It is recommended that local
governments consider the following strategies (in order):
Adopt an “affordability by design” approach to writing zoning bylaws – i.e. zones that
allow for design features that reduce the costs of producing housing units and/or
encourage additional units. Examples include reducing or eliminating setbacks and parking
requirements.
Use density bonus zoning – modest levels of density bonus tied to modest contributions,
encourage new development while minimizing the impact on housing affordability.
Set targets for CACs – and be open to negotiation at time of rezoning. These targets should
be modest to minimize impact on housing affordability.
Negotiating CACs based on a “lift” approach is inconsistent with the principles set out in
this Guide, and is the approach most likely to reduce the supply of developable land and
housing, thereby contributing to higher housing costs. The CAC principles set out in this
Guide, including ‘planning ahead’, nexus and proportionality, support an approach that
clearly identifies community needs and the impacts associated with new development, and
links the CAC not to the “lift” in land value, but rather to the cost of providing a package of
amenities that makes sense given the development being proposed.
This Short Guide has outlined for B.C. local governments some of the risks, challenges and
recommended practices related to obtaining CACs. Most of the recommended principles and
practices apply equally to CAC and density bonus approaches. The guide has also described the
relationship between CACs and housing affordability, and encourages practices that do not risk
inadvertently causing housing prices to increase. Since the impact of CACs will vary, it is suggested
that BC local governments be flexible in their approach to obtaining CACs.
The Short Guide - Community Amenity 5 Ministry of Community, Sport
Contributions: Balancing Community Planning, and Cultural Development
Public Benefits and Housing Affordability
Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development
Page 1 of 5
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: December 7, 2015
and Members of Council
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop
SUBJECT: Crime Free Multi-Housing Program
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
At the November 17 Workshop, reconvened from November 16, Council considered a report on
Crime Free Multi-Housing (CFMH). Following discussion, Council deferred the matter pending further
information. This report addresses that information, specifically:
Details on the program
The fees being charged by other municipalities
The percentage uptake in other municipalities
The CFMH is a crime prevention program designed to help property owners, building managers and
residents of multi-housing properties prevent or eliminate criminal and nuisance activity from their
residence. In BC, the program is governed by the BC Crime Prevention Association (BCCPA) and is
implemented independently by each community. Appendix 1 to this report provides details on the
program.
Earlier this year, staff was directed to establish a Sub-Committee comprised of members of the
Bylaw Department and the RCMP to review how the CFMH program can increase subscription among
those not currently using the program.
As a result of this direction, members of each department met several times to discuss this subject
and to determine what information would be needed to achieve this goal. A comparison study of
incentives and discounts used by other Municipalities was produced to determine if there might be a
better method to achieve compliance in the program.
The City of Maple Ridge is currently using a system of a Business Licence discount for those
buildings which have the CFMH designation. This approach has had modest uptake since its
inception. The sub-committee review suggests that a higher business licence fee for non-participants
could act to achieve greater participation.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
That an amendment to the Business Licencing and Regulation Bylaw No. 6815-2011 be made to
charge a base licence fee of $700 dollars plus $40 per unit for buildings that are not certified under
the Crime Free Multi-housing Program and a base licence fee of $110 plus $10 per unit for buildings
that are certified under the Crime Free Multi-housing Program.
5.2
Page 2 of 5
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
The CFMH was introduced into BC in 1994 by New Westminster Police Department. The
CFMH program has been adopted by over twenty communities in BC. There are now over 600
buildings working with the program. Details of the program are attached as Appendix 1 to this
report. The program consists of three phases:
The Phase One component requires the completion of a training workshop. Resident
managers and/or owners attend a one day seminar present in partnership with the
BC Crime Prevention Association.
The Phase Two component consists of a Crime Free Coordinator conducting a
security review of the property. The rental property must meet minimum safety and
security standards.
The Phase Three component is where the owners/managers are asked to host an
annual Safety/Social meeting for their residents to involve them in reducing crime on
the property and to get involved in the community.
One of the benefits of having a CFMH program is that there should be fewer calls for service
from the RCMP and Fire Departments. The rental buildings will be better maintained with
improved security and reduced crime. This should attract a more stable tenant base that are
invested in the well being of the building. The goal is to appeal to rental buildings to join the
program and therefore reduce the number of problem properties that the City has to deal
with.
In Maple Ridge, the current system of a licence discount for those buildings which have
enrolled in the program has had modest uptake as the enrollment is approximately 37%. The
desired outcome is to have more rental buildings enroll in the program.
In discussions with other communities, where the program has been more successful, the
real incentive for enrollment is the benefits of the program. Some of these benefits are: lower
maintenance and repair costs, increased property values, and improved personal safety for
residents, landlords and managers.
Further research of other municipalities involved in the program produced the following
results:
Page 3 of 5
Table One – Business Licence Fees
Municipality Base Licence Fee Unit Fee CFMH
Discount Comments
Abbotsford
$179 for 10 or
less units
0 No discount
$238 for more
than 10
Burnaby none $9.07 No discount
Chilliwack $100 $2 No discount
Free criminal record
checks for active
managers
Coquitlam 0
$22-$66 to a
maximum of
$3300
n/a
Not actively in the
CFMH program at
this time
Langley
$170 for certified
0 No discount
$606 for
non certified
Maple Ridge $110 $40 75%
New Westminster 0
$13.84 for
certified
10%
$15.38 for
non certified
North Vancouver 0 $19 10%
Surrey 0 $51 No discount Covers cost of
phase one training
Page 4 of 5
Table Two – Examples of fees for a 10 unit building
Table Three – CFMH enrollment
Many municipalities use a similar approach for encouraging participation as the CFMH
program was developed to provide a consistent delivery method. Some municipalities have a
full time CFMH coordinator while the coordinator for Maple Ridge has other duties as well
and cannot devote 100% of his time on this program.
The participation in the current program in Maple Ridge is fairly static and enrollment is
increasing marginally. The sub-committee’s review suggests that a better approach will be to
produce an incentive to enrollment by way of a higher licence fee. The buildings that enroll
will benefit as stated above and those who don’t will face higher fees which are
commensurate with the higher calls for service.
Municipality Certified Non-Certified
Abbotsford $179 $179
Burnaby $990.70 $990.70
Chilliwack $120 $120
Coquitlam n/a n/a
Langley $170 $606
Maple Ridge $127.50 $510
New Westminster $138.40 $153.80
North Vancouver $171 $190
Surrey $510 $510
Municipality Reported % of rental buildings
enrolled in CFMH
Full Time
Coordinator
Abbotsford 72% no
Burnaby 2% no
Chilliwack 21.5% yes
Coquitlam No program No
Langley 4% no
Maple Ridge 37% No
New Westminster 28% yes
North Vancouver 1 building enrolled. Percentage
unavailable. no
Surrey 79% yes
Page 5 of 5
Based on the above information there are three options for Council consideration.
Option One
Certified buildings pay a base licence fee of $110 and a per unit fee of $10 (75% unit
discount). Non-certified buildings pay a base licence fee of $700 and a per unit fee of $40.
Example: a ten unit certified building pays $110 + $100=$210
a ten unit non-certified building pays $110 = $700 = $810
Option Two
Certified buildings pay a base licence fee of $110 and a per unit fee of $10 (75% unit
discount). Non-certified buildings pay a base licence fee of $110 and a per unit fee of $200.
Example: a ten unit certified building pays $110 + $100= $210
a ten unit non-certified building pays $110 + $2000 = $2110
Option Three
Current practice
Example: a ten unit certified building pays $110 + $400 less 75% of total = $127.50
a ten unit non-certified building pays $110 + $400 = $510
b) Desired Outcome(s):
The desired outcome of the CFMH Program is to have a greater percentage of rental
buildings in Maple Ridge enrolled in the program while still providing for some low barrier
housing.
CONCLUSIONS:
The CFMH Program is designed to help owners, property managers and residents keep illegal and
nuisance activity away from rental property. Certified rental properties mean that the building owners
and managers have taken positive steps to promote effective management to improve the health of
the community and the quality of life for residents by developing an environment where crime cannot
flourish. This report recommends that a higher business licence fee for non -participants could act to
achieve greater participation.
“Original signed by R. MacNair”
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: R. MacNair
Manager of Bylaw and Licencing Services
“Original signed by Frank Quinn”
__________________________________________
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng
General Manager: Public Works and Development Services
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read DATE: December 7, 2015
and Members of Council FILE NO: 2015-335-RZ
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Workshop
SUBJECT: Medical Marihuana D ispensaries
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
A recent topic of discussion within the community has been on options for dealing with medical
marihuana dispensaries. As a result of this, Council expressed an interest in receiving more
information on the topic.
Marihuana regulations in Canada seem ambiguous and appear to be on the verge of significant
change towards legalization. Inconsistencies have been noted in municipal practice and federal
legislation. For instance, the recently adopted federal legislation for commercial production
facilities requires that prescriptions be distributed through a mail order service only. However,
the City of Vancouver has recently established licencing procedures for storefront dispensaries,
which seem to be contrary to this federal direction.
The City of Maple Ridge has 3 unlicensed dispensaries within its boundaries. As this use is not
considered legal under Federal legislation, Maple Ridge has not issued business licences
authorizing these businesses to operate. The Maple Ridge Business Licencing Bylaw contains
language outlining the conditions of refusal of a business licence.
This report will provide a brief history of medical marihuana legislation, the legal status of
dispensaries, and its implications for bylaw enforcement. This report also identifies options for
Council consideration.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the report, titled Medical Marihuana Dispensaries, dated December 7, 2015, be received
as information.
Historical Context
A brief summary of medical marihuana legislation is as follows:
In 1997, the use of medical marihuana became an accepted medical treatment for those
with legitimate need, although it remained illegal to distribute marihuana.
5.3
- 2 -
In 2001, the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations were adopted by the Federal
Government, based on the understanding that it could ease symptoms related to terminal
illness or chronic conditions, and provided a means of access for those afflicted.
In 2003, under the authority of Health Canada, dried product or seeds became available to
those authorized to obtain them. In December 2011, there were 3,600 people within British
Columbia authorized to possess medical marihuana, and 1,200 people were licensed to
grow the product for personal use. Many of those licensed to possess medical marihuana
were permitted to grow it within their homes.
In practice, allowing this use in residential areas was associated with numerous issues, including;
Poor communication channels between growers, building officials, and law enforcement
officers.
Fire, electrical and safety code violations leading to health and safety concerns .
Increased risk of electrical fires damaging adjacent properties or businesses sh aring a
common wall.
Combined impacts of home invasions, organized crime infiltrating legal operations, poor
accountability with those licensed to grow, and significant potential for diversion of legal
product to the illegal market.
In amateur indoor growing environments, carbon monoxide was an undetectable but serious
health risk.
Large amounts of improperly handled waste were generated.
Late in 2012, changes were being proposed for Federal legislation regarding medical marihuana:
Health Canada, the licensing authority for medical marihuana, was revising its program for
regulating licensed producers and is introducing additional compliance standards related to
public health, best management practices, and accountability.
Licensed producers would have to demonstrate compliance with requirements for product
quality, personnel, record-keeping, safety and security, disposal and reporting.
The existing system of individual growers and licenses were to be phased out in favour of
new Federal legislation in 2014.
New Federal Legislation
On December 16, 2012, the Federal Minister of Health released a press release proposing a new
program, called Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations (MMPR). The objective of the new
program was to redress problems incurred by the current Marihuana Medical Access Program, and
to establish a regulated commercial market of licensed producers responsible for the production
and distribution of medical marihuana. In time, these regulations should change the way Canadians
access marihuana.
It was initially anticipated that there would be some overlap between the emerging Marihuana for
Medical Purposes Regulations (MMPR) program and the Marihuana Medical Access Program
- 3 -
(MMAP) which was to end on March 31, 2014. Although the MMPR program is now in place, legal
challenges have extended some of the personal use licences for an indefinite period. As a result,
the full effect of the new legislation is yet to be realized. In addition, although Marihuana for
Medical Purposes Regulations are now in effect, there have been few approved producers at this
time due to delays in application processing.
Eventually, these legislative changes and technological advances may assist in alleviating some of
the problems associated with personal use licences. Health Canada regulations will increase the
potential for improved management practices and better regulation of the industry. Technological
advances will favour strategic capital investment to create energy efficient production in secure
buildings that are safe for the use intended.
In June of 2013, the Agricultural Land Commission issued an information bulletin recognizing the
commercial production of medical marihuana as an agricultural use that could no t be prohibited on
lands within the Agricultural Land Reserve. More recently, the BC Ministry of Agriculture has
developed a bylaw standard for commercial production facilities in the Agricultural Land Reserve,
and has issued a letter to all affected municipalities outlining expectations of conformance by the
Fall of 2015. It also appears likely that the legalization of this substance may occur in the short to
medium term horizon, with the recent change in the Federal government.
PLANNING ANALYSIS:
Legal Context
As noted, numerous legislative changes concerning marihuana have occurred in recent Canadian
history. It appears that more changes are coming, with the potential for the eventual legalization of
marihuana for recreational use. In the interim, there is a great deal of confusion about the legal
status of this drug, especially given its ubiquitous presence within the community.
Probably the most visible symptom of this confusion is the medical marihuana dispensary, a
storefront operation that distributes marihuana to prescription holders. Numerous dispensaries
have opened up across British Columbia, and are concentrated in the City of Vancouver, which has
recently began to license them as a municipal process.
Apparently there are about 90 of these retail outlets in Vancouver. The storefront location and the
City of Vancouver’s recent licensing procedures give a sense of legitimacy to this use, adding to the
confusion. But possession and sale of marihuana is contrary to sections 4 and 5 of the Controlled
Drug and Substances Act (CDSA) (link: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-38.8/page-2.html.)
Aside from the residual personal use licences, the only commodity form of legal marihuana is
medical marihuana which is under the jurisdiction of Health Canada and must be distributed by mail
to prescription holders from registered producers licensed under the Marihuana for Medical
Purposes Regulations (MMPR) program.
A list of licensed producers is available on Health Canada’s medical marihuana page:
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/marihuana/info/list-eng.php. Health Canada’s process for
- 4 -
registering and obtaining medical marihuana under the MMPR is as follows: http://www.hc-
sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/marihuana/access-acceder-eng.php.
This federal process is the only legal means to acquire marihuana in Canada. Authorized producers
that supply dispensaries are breaking the law, as they can only provide a mail order service to
individual prescription holders. Retail marihuana sales are not legal, because they do not follow the
required process of mail order sales between authorized producer and the prescription holder.
Even without legal enforcement and criminal charges, there could be implications for those involved
in this business use. Commercial landlords incur risks when renting to tenants who use the
premises for illegal activities. Insurance companies may be unwilling to extend coverage or possibly
pay claims incurred in the presence of an illegal operation. (Some commercial landlords are now
insisting that their tenants intending to retail marihuana obtain a municipal business licence prior to
obtaining a lease).
Municipal Con text
It appears that the City of Vancouver is the only Metro Vancouver municipality that has developed a
business licencing fee for this illegal use. In general, most other municipalities do not recognize
marihuana dispensaries. In response to a telephone poll, most municipal representatives pointed
out that as the use is illegal, there is no need to recognize it through their Zoning Bylaws, as the
legal status alone is sufficient to commence enforcement action against offending uses. The table
below provides a brief overview of how other Metro Vancouver municipalities are handling the store
front marihuana dispensary issue.
Municipality Explicit Prohibition in Zoning Bylaw Presence of
dispensaries
Burnaby no Yes
Coquitlam no no
Delta no No
Langley Yes prohibited uses in all zones include cultivation as well
as dispensing.
No
Port Moody no No
City of
Surrey
Yes, in 2011, a bylaw amendment was prepared that
recognized and directed marihuana dispensaries into a
specific commercial zone. The only property appropriately
zoned is owned by the municipality. (It is important to
note that this bylaw amendment occurred prior to the
current MMPR regulations when the use was limited to
personal use. It may no longer be particularly relevant in
the current context.)
No
- 5 -
Options for Council Consideration
Bylaw Amendments to prohibit medical marihuana dispensaries.
I. Business Licencing and Regulation Bylaw
Legal Counsel advises that the appropriate legal mechanism for prohibiting medical marihuana
dispensaries resides within the Business Licencing and Regulation Bylaw. The existing bylaw
contains the following statements that are pertinent to this use:
6.1.1 Except as otherwise provided in this Bylaw:
(a) no person shall carry on, maintain, own or operate a Business in the District
without holding a valid and subsisting Licence; and
(b) no person shall suffer, permit or allow a person to carry on, maintain or operate a
Business without a valid and subsisting Licence.6.10 Refusal of a Licence
6.10.1 An Application may be refused by the Licence Inspector in any specific case,
provided that:
(a) the Application shall not be unreasonably refused; and
(b) the Licence Inspector shall give written reasons for the refusal.
Legal Counsel advises that the existing language of the Business Licencing and Regulation Bylaw
would probably be interpreted to allow a licensing official to deny a license for a business that
cannot operate without breaching the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. While this wording is
likely sufficient, a more solid position might be achieved if the bylaw contained something like the
following, which has recently been added to some business bylaws in the Okanagan:
A license Inspector may grant a business licence when satisfied that the applicant has
complied with the requirements of the bylaws of the [municipality] and that the proposed
business would not be carried out in contravention of the Criminal Code of Canada or the
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
II. Zoning Bylaw
The Zoning Bylaw could be amended to prohibit medical marihuana dispensaries. However, the
most effective mechanism for prohibiting this use is through the Business Licencing and Regulation
Bylaw, which sets out the conditions to deny issuance of a business licence. Beyond the
constraints of time and more pressing priorities, the RCMP and the Maple Ridge Bylaws department
currently face no obstacles to engaging in enforcement action. Explicit language in the Zoning Bylaw
about marihuana dispensaries would not likely ease the challenges associated with enforcement.
III. Do nothing
Under this option, the Zoning Bylaw remains silent, out of recognition that an illegal business would
be denied the issuance of a business licence, and therefore could not operate within the
municipality. As noted above, there appears to be little benefit to explicitly prohibiting this illegal
activity in the Zoning Bylaw. Depending on Council direction, there may be future benefits to
prohibition as it could set limits when and if this use becomes legal. However, the outcomes and
- 6 -
direction of a Federal decision towards legalization are not clear, and there does not appear to be
any immediate urgency to amend the bylaw in anticipation of impending changes.
Enforcement
The standard practice for commencing bylaw enforcement is after receiving a formal complaint from
within the community. With Council direction, enforcement against existing medical marihuana
dispensaries could be pursued more aggressively. However, this option should be considered
carefully, as the staff time involved would detract from other priority concerns. Consideration should
also be given to whether or not the City would wish to proceed beyond ticketing to the injunction
stage, given the emerging Federal trend towards legalization.
CONCLUSION:
Despite their appearance of legitimacy, medical marihuana dispensaries are illegal operations that
violate Sections 4 and 5 of the Controlled Drug and Substances Act. This report explores the history
of marihuana legislation in Canada, discusses the legal status of marihuana dispensaries, and
provides 3 options for Council’s future consideration. The report concludes that the current
situation allows the opportunity for legal or bylaw enforcement, and a Zoning Bylaw amendment will
not likely improve this situation. Council could direct staff to ticket and fine these illegal uses more
aggressively, but this direction would need to be considered within the context of other priorities and
demands on staff time. Council could also direct that amendments be made in the B usiness
Licencing and Regulation Bylaw to more explicitly prohibit this use, although the currently language
appears sufficient for this purpose. On this basis, the recommendation is that this report be
received as information.
“Original signed by Diana Hall”
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Diana Hall M.A. (Planning), MCIP, RPP
Planner
“Original signed by Christine Carter”
_______________________________________________
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
Link to Globe and Mail Article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/small-
business/sb-money/cash-flow/retail-marihuana-businesses-are-sprouting-across-vancouver-
and-theyre-not-legal/article24821375/