Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-06-14 Council Workshop Agenda and Reports.pdfCity of Maple Ridge COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA June 14, 2022 9:00 a.m. Virtual Online Meeting including Council Chambers 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. 1. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA 2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES 2.1 Minutes -May 24, 2022 3. PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL 4. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS 4.1 Cannabis Evaluation Criteria Policy 6.33 Staff report dated June 14, 2022, recommending that staff prepare amendments to the relevant documents that regulate the processing of cannabis retail store applications in accordance with the option to be selected by Council. 4.2 Scoping Report for Review of RS-1 Single Detached Residential Zone and Proposed Public Consultation on RS-1 Infill Compatibility Framework Staff report dated June 14, 2022, recommending that a review of the RS-1 Single Detached Residential zone and public consultation process be endorsed and that staff prepare amendments to establish a density bonus rate in the RS-1 Single Detached Residential zone to permit duplex and small lot subdivision. 4.3 2022 UBCM Reslutions Staff report dated June 14, 2022, recommending that Council as a group consider if they wish to submit one or more resolutions to the UBCM and direct staff to submit same by the June 30, 2022 submission deadline. 5. CORRESPONDENCE City of Maple Ridge COUNCIL WORKSHOP MINUTES May 24, 2022 The Minutes of the City Council Meeting held on May 24, 2022 at 9:02 a.m. held virtually and hosted in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, British Columbia for the purpose of transacting regular City business. PRESENT Elected Officials Mayor M. Morden Councillor J. Dueck Councillor C. Meadus Councillor G. Robson Councillor R. Svendsen Councillor A. Yousef ABSENT Councillor K. Duncan Appointed Staff S. Hartman, Chief Administrative Officer C. Carter, General Manager Planning & Development Services C. Crabtree, General Manager Corporate Services D. Pollock, General Manager Engineering Services P. Hlavac-Winsor, General Counsel and Executive Director, Legislative Services, Acting Corporate Officer A. Nurvo, Deputy Corporate Officer Other Staff as Required F. Smith, Director of Engineering T. Thompson, Director of Finance K. Stewart, Chief Information Officer D. Pope, Director of Recreation & Community Engagement H. Singh, Computer Support Specialist These Minutes are posted on the City Web Site at www.mapleridge.ca Note: Councillor G. Robson participated virtually. 1.APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA R/2022-WS-024 It was moved and seconded That the agenda of the May 24, 2022 Council Workshop Meeting be approved as circulated. CARRIED 2.ADOPTION OF MINUTES 2.1 Minutes of the April 26, 2022 and May 10, 2022 Council Workshop Meeting R/2022-WS-025 It was moved and seconded 2.1 Council Workshop Minutes May 24, 2022 Page 2 of 5 That the Minutes of the Council Workshop Meeting of May 10, 2022 be adopted as circulated. That the Minutes of the Council Workshop Meeting of April 26, 2022 be adopted as circulated with resolution R/2022-WS-018 stating: • That the current bylaw enforcement related to the issue of unregistered secondary suites be held in abeyance during the review of the bylaw unless there is an obvious nuisance situation that staff ae to enforce. And further, with the following summary and table included in discussion of Item 4.2 Market Update and Secondary Suites Regulatory Options: Council discussed the various recommendations from the Staff report: Secondary Suite Recommendations: Support Opposed Outcome 1.That staff prepare amendments to the Zoning Bylaw to remove the maximum and minimum gross floor area requirement for secondary suites; Dueck, Meadus, Mayor, Svendsen, Yousef (would support no minimum but wants maximum) Robson General support 2.That staff develop ‘Alternate Compliance Methods for Alterations to Existing Buildings to Add a Secondary Suite’ in the BC Building Code; (discussion between members – will require more details and have not seen building recommendations) Meadus, Robson, Dueck, Yousef, Svendsen, Mayor General support 3.That staff prepare amendments to the Zoning Bylaw to permit secondary suites in all single-detached residential zones– Amended by Dueck: That staff bring back options looking at potentially allowing secondary suites in R2 and R3 and bring a report back to Council Dueck (should have conversation with neighbors), Meadus, Mayor, Yousef (wants to look at area plans not all single detached residential zones and based on size of property), Robson (has issue with saying it is for all neighborhoods – needs to be selective – did not oppose Dueck’s amended language), Svendsen General support on amended wording 4.That staff prepare options for amendments to the Zoning Bylaw to permit secondary suites in ground- orientated duplexes and townhouses Meadus, Mayor, Dueck (duplex ok – townhouse depends on size depends on , Yousef, Robson General Support Council Workshop Minutes May 24, 2022 Page 3 of 5 (discussion between members and staff - work best with walkout basement units and reach out to other municipalities – staff would put it on the bottom of the priority list) neighborhood and size of townhouse), Svendsen (change requirements for apron and parking requirements for units, may be most suited in complete communities) 5.That staff prepare amendments to the Zoning Bylaw permit lock-off suites in apartments and stacked townhouses Meadus Yousef, Dueck, Svendsen, Robson (if it was accompanied by owner occupier), Mayor General opposition Detached Garden Suite Recommendations: Support Opposed Outcome 6.That staff prepare amendments to the Zoning Bylaw to permit secondary suites and detached garden suites on the same lot in the Agricultural Land Reserve (discussion between members and staff - – look to do what the ALC allows) Dueck (in order to support agricultural use of property), Mayor, Svendsen (it is being allowed by ALC), Yousef (if consistent with ALR), Robson did not oppose Meadus (does not see this going much to farm use) General support 7.That staff prepare amendments to the Zoning Bylaw to allow flexible siting of a detached garden suite on a lot Mayor, Yousef, Dueck, Meadus Svendsen, Robson General support 8.That staff prepare amendments to the Zoning Bylaw to remove the minimum size requirement for detached garden suites Yousef, Dueck, Meadus, Mayor Svendsen, Robson General support 9.That staff prepare amendments to the Zoning Bylaw to permit larger detached garden suites in specific residential zones (discussion between members and staff – staff would envision this on larger properties) Dueck, Meadus, Mayor (with clear efforts to avoid subdivision), Yousef (with a maximum up to 140m2) Robson, Svendsen General support 10.That staff prepare amendments to the Zoning Bylaw to permit secondary suites and detached garden suites on the same lot in all residential zones Meadus, Dueck, Mayor, Svendsen Robson, Yousef (lot size and area plan should be considered) General support 11.That staff develop a program, for council consideration, that would create “pre-approved” building plan templates for detached garden suites Svendsen, Meadus, Dueck, Mayor Robson, Yousef General support CARRIED 3. PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL - Nil 4. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS 4.1 Connected Community Strategy Council Workshop Minutes May 24, 2022 Page 4 of 5 General Manager Corporate Services provided background information. R. McCann of Clearcable Networks and E. Rothschild of Rothchild & Co. presented their project findings and key recommendations of the Report. Note: Councillor Robson left the meeting at 10:03 a.m. and returned at 10:05 a.m. Note: Councillor Robson left the meeting at 10:35 a.m. and returned at 10:37 a.m. Note: Councillor Yousef left the meeting at 10:37 a.m. and returned at 10:43 a.m. Note: Councillor Robson left the meeting at 10:45 a.m. and returned at 10:46 a.m. R/2022-WS-026 It was moved and seconded That Council receive the Clearcable and Rothchild & Co. Connected Community Strategy - Findings and Recommendations Report dated May 2, 2022 for information; and That staff review and develop an implementation plan to address the recommendations proposed in the Clearcable and Rothschild & Co. Connected Community Strategy - Findings and Recommendations Report dated May 2, 2022. It was moved and seconded That the Motion be amended to add “with consideration of the comments by Council members at the Council Workshop Meeting on May 24, 2022.” CARRIED The Vote was then called on the Main Motion as Amended and Declared: CARRIED 4.2 Single-Use Item Reduction Bylaw Director of Engineering summarized the staff report and answered questions from Council. R/2022-WS-027 It was moved and seconded That staff prepare a Single-Use Item Reduction Bylaw consistent with the regionally harmonized approach for consideration. It was moved and seconded That the Motion be amended to add “and that staff will incorporate Council feedback from the Council Workshop Meeting of May 24, 2022.” CARRIED Council Workshop Minutes May 24, 2022 Page 5 of 5 The Vote was then called on the Main Motion as Amended and Declared: CARRIED 5. CORRESPONDENCE - Nil 6. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL Councillor Robson requested clarification of the amount of CAC’s collected depending on the date of implementation. Mayor Morden advised that staff will include this information into the pending staff report. 7. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT - Nil 8. ADJOURNMENT – 11:36 a.m. _______________________________ M. Morden, Mayor Certified Correct ___________________________________ P. Hlavac-Winsor, Acting Corporate Officer 4.1......---··-··---·· 1.~ MAPLE RIDGE llrll111h Columbia City of Maple Ridge TO: FROM: mapleridge.ca His Worship Mayor Michael Morden and Members of Council Chief Administrative Officer MEETING DATE: June 14, 2022 FILE NO: 09-4560-20 MEETING: Workshop SUBJECT: Options for regulating Retail Cannabis Stores EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On November 27, 2018, Council adopted Council policy 6.33 Cannabis Retail Store Processing and Evaluation Criteria (see APPENDIX I). This policy determines how approvals for cannabis retail are to be processed at the municipal level. In this initial policy, preference was given to Government retail stores because the Province has a strong record of the handling of controlled substances and also it would create stable and well-paying jobs. The 2018 policy was reviewed, updated and approved by Council at the May 12, 2020 Workshop (see APPENDIX II). On March 29, 2022, Council passed a Notice of Motion that directed staff to prepare a report and draft policy amendment to the Cannabis Retail Store Processing Evaluation Criteria Policy 6.33 which would reflect Council's intent to refrain from accepting new applications at this time. RECOMMENDATION: That staff prepare amendments to the relevant documents that regulate the processing of cannabis retail store applications in accordance with Option number [insert] contained in the staff report "Options for regulating Retail Cannabis Stores" dated June 14, 2022. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: On November 27, 2018, Council adopted Council policy 6.33 Cannabis Retail Store Processing and Evaluation Criteria. The Policy determines how approvals for cannabis retail are to be processed at the municipal level. In the initial policy, preference was given to Government cannabis stores because of the Province's experience in dealing with controlled substances and also because these stores would provide stable and well-paying jobs. The Province provided their signal of intent by applying for a business licence. This Policy was amended on May 12, 2020 to reflect current updates. Subsequently, at the request of Council, a report was presented to Council on July 7, 2020 (see APPENDIX Ill) with the intent to amend the Zoning Bylaw to eliminate the 1000 metre restriction regarding the distance between stores and leave it only in the Policy. Council chose not to proceed with this option. On March 29, 2022 Council passed the following Notice of Motion: That staff prepare a report and draft policy amendments to the Cannabis Retail Store Processing Evaluation Criteria Policy 6.33; and further, Page 1 of 3 ~~lU.H: !ll'l(U: --------British Columbia Title: Cannabis Retail Store Processing & Evaluation Criteria Authority: ~ Legislative D Operational Approval: ~ Council D CMT D General Manager Policy Statement: APPENDIX I Original Policy on date of adoption POLICY MANUAL Policy No: 6.33 Supersedes: New Effective Date: November 27, 2018 This policy applies to all referrals from the Liquor and Cannabis Regulation Branch (LCRB) regarding applications for Private Cannabis Retail Stores. A. That the location of Government Operated Cannabis Store(s) be confirmed by receipt of a Letter of Intent from the LCRB before commencing a review of Private Cannabis Retail Stores. B. All applications for Private Cannabis Retail Stores referred from the LCRB will be reviewed as a group. The Initial Intake of application referrals will be held until Section A is satisfied; and for a period of 90 days following receipt of the first complete application from the LCRB. Referrals received after the initial intake period may be held if the LCRB advises there are other applications under review that will be referred to the City. If no other applications are being reviewed by the Province, the applications may be reviewed, on a case by case basis, at the discretion of Council. C. In the event of a Government Cannabis Retail Store and Private Cannabis Retail Store being proposed within 1000 metres of each other, preference will be given to the Provincial store in recognition of Provincial immunity to local land use regulation; a strong track record of handling a controlled substance and checking identification to ensure that cannabis does not fall into the hands of minors; and support for the creation of stable, well paying jobs in the community. D. Regardless of compliance with City Zoning Bylaw regulations, Council is not obligated to support an application for a Private Cannabis Retail Store. Procedure Overview: 1. The review of applications for Private Cannabis Retail Stores will commence upon receipt of a Letter of Intent from the LCRB confirming their intention to operate a Government Cannabis Retail Store at a specific civic address/location. 2. Application/referral for a Private Cannabis Retail Store is received from the LCRB. 3. Application is checked for Zoning and Official Community Plan compliance. a. If the application is not compliant with Zoning, the LCRB will be advised the application is denied. The applicant will further be advised that, where compliant with OCP designation, a rezoning application could be made to rezone the property to permit the use. b. If the application is compliant with Zoning: i) the LCRB will be advised the application is compliant with zoning and be requested to proceed with their analysis of the application. The City will do no further review of the Page 1 of 4 Policy application until the LCRB analysis is complete and is referred back to the City; and ii) applicants will be advised that "Private Cannabis Retail Store Business Plan and Community Impact Overview" section of the Policy must be completed by the applicant and received by the City before further review of the application occurs. 4. Letters will be mailed to all property owners within 200 metres of the proposed store. 5. Referral to RCMP for input. 6. Once all information is received, a staff Cannabis Application Review Panel comprising of representatives from various City Departments, will evaluate each application based on Sections 9 and 10 of this Policy. Other pertinent information may also be considered. 7. A Council report will be prepared including an assessment of the applications in regards to the policy, a location map, the location of intended Government Cannabis Retail Store(s), and other pertinent information. 8. Council will make a recommendation to the LCRB for each application 9. Private Cannabis Retail Store Business and Community Impact Overview: In addition to Provincial requirements, applications for Private Cannabis Retail Stores will be evaluated on the viability of the business operation. The City is committed to ensuring each retail store will be an appropriate fit, and a good community partner. Applicants must provide a thorough submission in order for the City to conduct its review. This submission must include: a) Business overview. Please provide a business description, number of staff, how the business will operate and be in compliance with all provincial regulations; how minors will be prevented from purchasing cannabis; and how provincial identification requirements will be met. b) Details of signage to demonstrate compliance with Provincial and Municipal regulations. c) Information regarding availability of parking on the site and adjacent to the store. d) Community benefit. Please provide details of contributions or supports to non-profit organizations or local community groups etc. Demonstrate how your business will be a good community partner. e) Details of mitigation plan to minimize community impact. f) Information regarding staff training. Page 2 of 4 Policy 10. APPLICATION REVIEW CRITERIA: To be completed by Cannabis Review Panel Requirement Zoning Bylaw Requirements*: Check Appropriate Box/ Note Zone Complies D Zoning Map -prepared at a scale of 1:2000 Surrounding Land Use: North: Include the location of any site being considered by the South: LCRB for a Government Store East: West: Public Input #or% Comments .· Number of letters mailed Number of responses received of total number of letters mailed Percentage supportive of total number of letters mailed Percentage non-supportive of total number of letters mailed RCMPlnput Y/N Comments No issues Issues: Comments Parking Details Y/N Details ·. .·. On Site On Street Compliance History Y/N Details Compliant Non-Compliant: Details Business Plan Y/N Details Not Submitted Submitted: Details Community Benefit -applicant has Y/N Details identified contribution to the community No Yes: Details Community Impacts -applicant has Y/N Details identified possible negative impacts and provided a plan to mitigate impacts No Yes: Details Page 3 of 4 Policy Definitions: Private Cannabis Retail Store: means a retail use devoted to sales of non-medical cannabis products in accordance with Federal and Provincial Regulations, which is operated by any individual, partnership, corporation or Indigenous nation that holds a British Columbia cannabis licence. Government Cannabis Retail Store: means a retail use devoted to sales of non-medical cannabis products in accordance with Federal and Provincial Regulations, which is operated by the Province of British Columbia. LCRB Letter of Intent: means correspondence from the Provincial Government advising of the Provincial intent to open and operate a Government Cannabis Retail store at an identified location(s). Exemptions: Government Cannabis Retail Stores are not subject to this policy. Key Areas of Responsibility: Action to Take Staff Cannabis Application Review Panel will review all applications to determine compliance with the Cannabis Retail Store Processing and Evaluation Criteria Policy. Page 4 of 4 Responsibility Bylaw & Licencing Services Planning Department Policy APPENDIX II Current Policy tll1~RU\S RIDGE POLICY MANUAL British Columbia Title: Cannabis Retail Store Processing & Evaluation Criteria Authority: ~ Legislative D Operational Approval: ~ Council D CMT D General Manager Policy Statement: Policy No: 6.33 Supersedes: Nov.27.2018 Effective Date: May 12, 2020 Review Date: May2021 This policy applies to all referrals from the Liquor and Cannabis Regulation Branch (LCRB) regarding applications for Private Cannabis Retail Stores. A. The location of each Private Cannabis Retail Store must be a minimum of 1000 meters from any other Cannabis Retail Store. B. Applications may be reviewed, on a case by case basis, at the discretion of Council. C. Regardless of compliance with City Zoning Bylaw regulations, Council is not obligated to support an application for a Private Cannabis Retail Store. Procedure Overview: 1. Application/referral for a Private Cannabis Retail Store is received from the LCRB. 2. Application is checked for Zoning and Official Community Plan compliance. a) If the application is not compliant with Zoning, the LCRB will be advised the application is denied. The applicant will further be advised that, where compliant with OCP designation, a rezoning application could be made to rezone the property to permit the use. b) If the application is compliant with Zoning: i) the LCRB will be advised the application is compliant with zoning and be requested to proceed with their analysis of the application. The City will do no further review of the application until the LCRB analysis is complete and is referred back to the City; and ii) applicants will be advised that "Private Cannabis Retail Store Business Plan and Community Impact Overview" section of the Policy must be completed by the applicant and received by the City before further review of the application occurs. 3. Letters will be mailed to all property owners within 200 metres of the proposed store location. 4. Referred to RCMP for input. Page 1 of 4 8. APPLICATION REVIEW CRITERIA: To be completed by City staff Requirement . Zoning Bylaw Requirements*: Check Appropriate Box/ Note Zone Complies D Zoning Map -prepared at a scale of 1:2000 Surrounding Land Use: North: Include the location of any site being considered by the South: LCRB for a Government Store East: West: Public Input #or% Comments Number of letters mailed Number of responses received of total number of letters mailed Percentage supportive of total number of letters mailed Percentage non-supportive of total number of letters mailed RCMPlnput ·. Y/N Comments .. · . No issues Issues: Comments Parking Details .· Y/N Details . On Site On Street Compliance.History Y/N Details .· .. Compliant Non-Compliant: Details Business Plan Y/N Details . Not Submitted Submitted: Details Community Benefit -applicant has Y/N Details Identified contribution to the community No Yes: Details Community Impacts -applicant has Y/N Details Identified possible negative impacts and provided a plan to mitigate impacts No Yes: Details Page 3 of 4 M~RUE RIDGE APPENDIX Ill mapleridge.ca City of Maple Ridge TO: FROM: SUBJECT: His Worship Mayor Michael Morden and Members of Council Chief Administrative Officer First and Second Reading Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7650-2020; Cannabis Retail Store Text Amendment EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: MEETING DATE: July 7, 2020 FILE NO: 2020-164-RZ MEETING: CoW On May 12, 2020, a one year review report on Policy 6.33 was brought to Council. The report recommended that a Zone Amending Bylaw be prepared to remove the 1,000 metre minimum distance separation between Cannabis Retail Stores, as the updated Policy included the 1000m distance requirement within the policy. From this meeting Council directed: That staff be directed to prepare an amendment to the Zoning Bylaw to remove the 1,000 metre distance requirement between cannabis retail stores. As per the above resolution, the proposed bylaw is attached. RECOMMENDATION: That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7650-2020 be given first and second reading, and forwarded to Public Hearing. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: On May 12, 2020, Council adopted updated Policy 6.33 'Cannabis Retail Store Processing & Evaluation Criteria". At the same meeting, Council also directed that a Zone Amending Bylaw be prepared to remove the 1,000 metre minimum distance separation between Cannabis Retail Stores, as the updated Policy included the 1000m separation requirement. b) Citizen/Customer Implications: If the proposed Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7650-2020 is given first and second reading, it will be forwarded to Public Hearing, where citizens will have an opportunity to provide comment on removing the 1,000 metre minimum distance separation requirement between Cannabis Retail Stores. Also, it should be noted that Council recently approved a referral from the LCRB for a Cannabis Retail Store at 11696 224th Street. In addition, Council will be considering another referral for a Cannabis Retail Store at 20395 Lougheed Highway at the July 7th COW meeting. Both of these Cannabis Retail Stores are within 1000m of another Cannabis Retail store or proposed government store and are dependant on this Zoning Bylaw text amendment. 2467811 Page 1 of 2 CONCLUSION: Pursuant with Council direction, an amendment to the Zoning Bylaw was prepared to remove the 1000m minimum distance separation between Cannabis Retail stores. It is recommended that Council grant first and second reading to Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7650-2020 and advance to Public Hearing. "Original signed by Krista Gowan" Prepared by: Krista Gowan Planner 1 "Original signed by Chuck Goddard" Reviewed by: Charles R. Goddard, BA, MA Director of Planning "Original signed by Christine Carter" Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP GM Planning & Development Services "Original signed by Al Horsman" Concurrence: Al Horsman Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A -Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7650-2020 Appendix B -Revised Policy 6.33 'Cannabis Retail Store Processing & Evaluation Criteria' 2467811 Page 2 of 2 CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7650-2020 APPENDIX A A Bylaw to amend the text of Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985 as amended WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985 as amended: NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the City of Maple Ridge, enacts as follows: 1. This bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7650-2020. 2. That Part 4 Section 401 (3) (h) ii be deleted: 1000 metres from a cannabis retail use, except for the property legally described as Lot "A" Except: Part within Heavy Black Outline on Highway Statutory Right of Way Plan63822; District Lot 398 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 9388, that is 860 metres from a cannabis retail use. 3. Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985 as amended is hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the 7th day of July, 2020 READ a second time the 7th day of July, 2020 READ a third time the day of ADOPTED the day of ,20 PRESIDING MEMBER , 20 CORPORATE OFFICER 5. A Council report will be prepared including an assessment of the application in regards to the policy, a location map, the location of intended Government Cannabis Retail Store(s), and other pertinent information. 6. Council will make a recommendation to the LCRB for each application. 7. Private Cannabis Retail Store Business and Community Impact Overview: In addition to Provincial requirements, applications for Private Cannabis Retail Stores will be evaluated on the viability of the business operation. The City is committed to ensuring each retail store will be an appropriate fit, and a good community partner. Applicants must provide a thorough submission in order for the City to conduct its review. This submission must include: a) Business overview. Please provide a business description, number of staff, how the business will operate and be in compliance with all provincial regulations; how minors will be prevented from purchasing cannabis; and how provincial identification requirements will be met. b) Details of signage to demonstrate compliance with Provincial and Municipal regulations. c) Information regarding availability of parking on the site and adjacent to the store. d) Community benefit. Please provide details of contributions or supports to non-profit organizations or local community groups etc. Demonstrate how your business will be a good community partner. e) Details of mitigation plan to minimize community impact. f) Information regarding staff training. Page 2 of 4 8. APPLICATION REVIEW CRITERIA: To be completed by City staff Zoning Bylaw Requirements*: Complies Zoning Map -prepared at a scale of 1:2000 Include the location of any site being considered by the LCRB for a Government Store Number of letters mailed Number of responses received of total number of letters mailed Percentage supportive of total number of letters mailed Percentage non-supportive of total number of letters mailed Submitted: Details yc>lllrij4~ity"E.3~tl~fi(fiippl~C#nt.ti~~ ZT;\, , . ., .. ,, ... _.,, ··,~ .. jg~nti(t~g·CJQrrtrit>Y~i<>nt<itne:(}q,hplUpify:i No Yes: Details ... P;QJ)JnJµ)'lfl:YJifll>i:lms•'t::,ilJ)pl_igf][ltijat{• ... L';·. :iflefiJifi.~ pQ§$U:>letj~i~~M~ci;[lRij~ u· .. · .. ,x(· an& prcMcJ~Yi.a·pta,r, _t9foitlg9~~ ifup~ot.s, ;: No Yes: Details Check Appropriate Box/ Note Zone D Surrounding Land Use: North: South: East: West: Page3 of 4 Definitions: Private Cannabis Retail Store: means a retail use devoted to sales of non-medical cannabis products in accordance with Federal and Provincial Regulations, which is operated by any individual, partnership, corporation or Indigenous nation that holds a British Columbia cannabis licence. Government Cannabis Retail Store: means a retail use devoted to sales of non-medical cannabis products in accordance with Federal and Provincial Regulations, which is operated by the Province of British Columbia. Exemptions: Government Cannabis Retail Stores are not subject to this policy. Key Areas of Responsibility: Action to Take Staff will review all applications to determine compliance with the Cannabis Retail Store Processing and Evaluation Criteria Policy. Page4of4 Responsibility Bylaw & Licencing Services > >< -0 z UJ a.. a.. <( Trade Name(s) The Office Beer and Wine Store Caps & Corks Haney Motor Hotel Liquor Store BC Liquor Store -Valley Fair Mall Maple Ridge Liquor Store The Outpost Liquor Store Dartfords Liquor Store Black Sheep Liquor Store Ridgeway Beer Wine Spirits Westgate Liquor Store Maple Meadows Brewing Company Ltd Save On Foods Limited Partnership Silver Valley Brewing Co. Ltd. Cassidy Inn Licensed Liquor Store Ridge Brewing Company Madison Hospitality Corp Civic Address Comments 21525 Dewdney Trunk Rd 22644 Dewdney Trunk Rd This is the liquor store@ The Witch 100 -22222 Lougheed Hwy 300 -22709 Lougheed Hwy 100 -20690 Lougheed Hwy 23988 Dewdney Trunk Rd 11232 Dartford St 12968 232 St 21280 Lougheed Hwy 160 -20398 Dewdney Trunk Rd They have a manufacturing licence but have an 22775 Dewdney Trunk Rd additional retail licence for the sale of take out growlers 22703 Lougheed Hwy Within grocery store They have a manufacturing licence but have an 104 -11952 224 St additional retail licence for the sale of take out growlers 103 -24133 102 Ave They have a manufacturing licence but have an 2 -22826 Dewdney Trunk Rd additional retail licence for the sale of take out growlers 103 -11225 240 St 4.2TO: City of Maple Ridge His Worship Mayor Michael Morden and Members of Council MEETING DATE: June 14, 2022 FILE NO: n/a FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop SUBJECT: Scoping Report for Review of RS-1 Single Detached Residential Zone and Proposed Public Consultation on RS-1 Infill Compatibility Framework EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City of Maple Ridge is one of the fastest growing municipalities in the Metro Vancouver region. While Maple Ridge still offers relatively lower housing prices than many other communities in the region, rapid increases in housing prices are systematically creating financial barriers for existing and potential residents to live, work, and play here. To help maintain a vibrant and thriving community, the City must attract and retain working households and enable residents to grow and age in place. In addition to the issue of rising housing prices, established neighbourhoods (created in the 1950s through the 1990s) are experiencing renewal of the existing housing stock. How to mitigate these two issues is discussed in this report through creating greater flexibility within the RS-1 Single Detached Residential zone (RS-1 zone), which is the most prevalent zone that was applied when the now established neighbourhoods were originally being developed. Within current RS-1 regulations, new construction, through site redevelopment, often takes advantage of the full area permitted for the building envelope and this can result in a large box style home with minimal articulation that is incompatible with the existing neighbourhood character of more modest older homes. Building on the Market Update and Secondary Suites Regulatory Options staff report, this report outlines a review process for the RS-1 Single Detached Residential zone, to both regulate the construction of new homes and permit a broader range of uses that contribute to housing choice. The aim of this zoning review includes the following desired outcomes: • Create improved compatibility with new construction and existing housing stock; • Allow for modest density increase and expanded range of housing forms within existing single-detached neighbourhoods; • Locate new housing units in proximity to existing under capacity schools and transit service; • Reduce and streamline infill development approval time; and • Provide an additional funding stream for neighbourhood amenities. Staff have identified several initiatives to achieve the above noted desired outcomes and are seeking direction from Council on incorporating flexibility in housing form and options within the RS-1 zone through the creation of an RS-1 Infill Compatibility Framework. This report outlines potential components of an RS-1 Infill Compatibility Framework and includes a proposed public engagement strategy. Doc#3091234 Page 1 of 15 RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. That a review of the RS-1 Single Detached Residential zone and public consultation process be endorsed, as outlined in Sections 2.3 and 5.0 of the staff report titled 'Scoping Report for Review of RS-1 Single Detached Residential Zone and Proposed Public Consultation on RS-1 Infill Compatibility Framework' dated June 14, 2022; and 2. That staff prepare amendments to establish a density bonus rate in the RS-1 Single Detached Residential zone to permit duplex and small lot subdivision (371m2). 1.0 BACKGROUND: Housing policy and regulatory work has been ongoing in Maple Ridge for some time and this section highlights the existing Official Community Plan (OCP) policies, Housing Action Plan implementation items, and Housing Needs Assessment outcomes that support the recommendation in this report. Additionally, this section provides some history on the RS-1 Single Detached Residential zone and why incorporating greater flexibility and options into the zone could help alleviate concerns with infill development and achieve some of the City's housing choice goals. 1.1 Official Community Plan The Official Community Plan provides the policy framework for housing in Maple Ridge. The Urban Residential Neighbourhood Residential Infill policies 3-18(1),3-19, 3-20, and 3-21 guide re-development on Local Roads. 3 -18 Maple Ridge will support a range of densities within the Urban Area Boundary. Urban Residential consists of two residential categories with the following characteristics: 1) Neighbourhood Residential -General Characteristics: a) a maximum of one principal dwelling unit per Jot and an additional dwelling unit such as a secondary suite or garden suite; b) density that is based on the current zoning of the property, or surrounding neighbourhood context; c)sing/e detached dwellings will remain the predominant housing form within neighbourhoods. Other housing forms are possible, subject to compliance with the Neighbourhood Residential Infill policies; d) is not within a neighbourhood with an Area Plan, a Community Commercial Node, or located on a Major Corridor as illustrated on Figure 4. 2) Major Corridor Residential -General Characteristics: a) Major Corridor Residential is characterized by the following: i. has frontage on an existing Major Road Corridor as identified on Figure 4 Proposed Major Corridor Network Plan, or has frontage on a road built in whole or part to a collector, arterial, TransLink Major Road, or Provincial Highway standard; ii. may be adjacent to Community Commercial Node, or designated commercial centre. b) includes ground oriented housing forms such as single detached dwellings, garden suites, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, courtyard residential developments, townhouses, apartments, or small lot intensive residential, subject to compliance with Major Corridor Residential Infill policies. Doc#3091234 Page 2 of 15 3 -19 Neighbourhood Residential Infill is permitted subject to compliance with the following criteria: 1) Infill development on a property that is larger than the prevailing Jot size of the surrounding neighbourhood or existing zoning of the lot may include the following: a) a possible change in lot size and configuration providing that: i. the proposed Jot area and widths should be not Jess than 80% of the Jot area and width prescribed under the predominate or adjacent zoning in the surrounding neighbourhood; ii. notwithstanding item i above, RS-1 (Single Detached Residential) zoned parent parcels that are unable to satisfy the 80% requirement may be eligible for R-4 (Single Detached (Infill) Urban Residential) zoning subject to satisfying Policy 3-21 iii. the proposed Jot configuration is similar to the prevailing Jot pattern that exists within the neighbourhood; and iv. the proposed housing form is consistent in scale and massing to that of the surrounding neighbourhood. b) a change in unit type -unit types such as single detached dwellings, secondary suites, garden suites, duplexes and triplexes that resemble a single detached dwelling, with an emphasis on orientation to the street. 2) Neighbourhood Residential infill must be designed to be compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood and will be evaluated against Policy 3-21. 3 -21 All Neighbourhood and Major Corridor Residential infill developments will respect and reinforce the physical patterns and characteristics of established neighbourhoods, with particular attention to: a) the ability of the existing infrastructure to support the new development; b) the compatibility of the site design, setbacks, and lot configuration with the existing pattern of development in the area; c) the compatibility between building massing and the type of dwelling units in the proposed development and the surrounding residential properties; d) the location, orientation, and visual impact of vehicle access/egress in relation to: i. adjacent developments ii. the street iii. the pedestrian environment e) minimizing adverse parking and traffic impacts on the existing neighbourhood; f) a gradual transition of scale and density through the design of building mass and form, such as: i. reduction in building heights at the edges of a development; ii. location of lower density components towards the perimeters of a site; and iii. concentration of density to the centre of a development or towards a non-residential boundary; g) retention and preservation of significant trees, other natural vegetation, and environmental features; h) maintaining adequate light, view and privacy for residents on adjacent properties or in adjacent neighbourhoods; i) conservation of special landscapes such as gardens, or built-form features, including heritage buildings, that contribute to the unique character of a neighbourhood. Together, these policies provide clear guidance on compatibility for infill development, including maintaining prevailing lot pattern and the location and orientation of vehicle access. The intent of Neighbourhood Residential Infill policies is to allow re-development to occur while maintaining the overall feeling of a single-detached neighbourhood. Doc#3091234 Page 3 of 15 1.2 Housing Action Plan Council endorsed the Housing Action Plan on September 30, 2014 and the Implementation Framework on September 14, 2015. The development and endorsement of the Housing Action Plan provides the opportunity to implement the strategies and actions to enhance the Official Community Plan policy direction for affordable, rental and special needs housing. In implementing the Housing Action Plan, Council passed a resolution in August 2016 directing staff to prepare a report and amending bylaws to facilitate further infill in residential areas. Since that time, staff have brought forward a series of reports in response to the August 2016 resolution, to further housing choice in the community and implement the recommendations of the Housing Action Plan. More recently, Council considered a staff report on April 26, 2022 titled 'Market Update and Accessory Dwelling Unit Regulatory Options', which included a set of eleven recommendations to expand Secondary Suites and Detached Garden Suites regulations to helping increase housing choice and address the housing affordability crisis. Expanded regulations for secondary suites and detached garden suites helps to create new housing units for those seeking rental housing, while providing income revenue to home buyers dealing with higher sale prices. Other work on implementation of the Housing Action Plan includes: • Removal of the owner occupancy provision for Secondary Suites and Detached Garden Suites; • Creation of a new R-4 Single Detached (Infill) Urban Residential zone; • Reduction in the RT-1 Two-Unit Urban Residential minimum lot size; and • Adoption of Ground Oriented Residential Infill Guidelines for triplexes, fourplexes and courtyard units. In addition to the Housing Action Plan, the City completed a Housing Needs Report, as required by Part 14, Division 22 of the Local Government Act, to better understand our current and future housing needs. The Housing Needs Report was endorsed by Council in February 2021 and is intended to support planning and decision-making for housing over a five-year time period. 2.0 REVIEW OF RS-1 ZONE FOR INFILL DEVELOPMENT Established single-detached neighbourhoods in Maple Ridge (created in the 1950s through the 1990s) have been experiencing renewal in housing stock on RS-1 zoned lots. While older home sizes are generally smaller in floor space and were not typically designed to maximize the zoning regulations, new homes on existing lots are often designed to optimize regulations by building to the maximum allowable size and height to reflect current market demand. The result of the modern home trend is that infill homes are generally taller and cover the entire permitted buildable area, with less building articulation. The result of optimized RS-1 zone regulations is that new infill design is often not compatible with the existing neighbourhood character of more modest older homes and these residents are unhappy with the incongruent form. The aim of this report is to propose greater flexibility within the RS-1 zone to provide the following benefits through infill development: • Create improved compatibility with new construction and existing housing stock; • Allow for modest density increase and expanded range of housing forms within existing single-detached neighbourhoods; Doc#3091234 Page 4 of 15 • Locate new housing units in proximity to existing under capacity schools and transit service; • Reduce and streamline infill development approval time; and • Provide an additional funding stream for neighbourhood amenities. In order to achieve the benefits listed above, much of the planning discussion has centered around making infill development easier for developers to build their product, while contributing amenities (i.e. cash contribution) to the community through a density bonus program. Research and analysis for potentially creating a density bonus program for RS-1 infill development was undertaken, along with a review of the current RS-1 regulations to consider potential amendments. The outcomes of this RS-1 zone internal review are discussed in the sub-sections below. 2.1 RS-1 Single Detached Residential Zone Property Distribution The RS-1 zone was created decades ago for urban single-detached development, when developable land was more plentiful and values were significantly lower than present day. As developable land started to become scarce and land values increased, smaller single-detached zones were created and the RS-1 zone has been utilized far less in urban growth areas, such as Albion and Silver Valley. Table 1 below shows the breakdown of how many properties in Maple Ridge are zoned RS-1 within OCP land use designations, as follows: • Urban Residential (lands located within the Urban Area Boundary); • Area Plan (lands are located within the Urban Area Boundary and land use designations are specific to each Area Plan, being Hammond, Silver Valley, Albion, and Town Centre); and • Estate Suburban Residential (lands located outside of the Urban Area Boundary). Within the OCP's Urban Residential designation, RS-1 zoned properties may be classified as 'Neighbourhood Residential Infill' (i.e. local roads) or 'Major Corridor' properties. In many cases, more intensive densities than those permitted in the RS-1 zone are supportable through land use policies within the Major Corridor category and in these cases a higher density use may be achieved through a rezoning application. Similarly, many RS-1 zoned properties within an Area Plan may also be designated for a higher density than single-detached residential use and rezoning for such would be supportable. Table 1: RS-1 Single Detached Residential Zoned Properties and Corresponding Land Use Designation Local Road Urban Residential 2,766 Area Plan 1,452 Estate Suburban Residential 313 Total 4,531 Table 1, above, shows a total of 4,531 properties in Maple Ridge zoned RS-1 (see corresponding map in Appendix A). Most of the Urban Residential designated properties are generally found north of Dewdney Trunk Road and south of Lougheed Highway, west of 227 Street, as shown in Figure 1 below. Additionally, 1,452 RS-1 zoned properties are found within Area Plan boundaries, mainly in the Town Centre, Hammond, and the Lougheed Transit Corridor, with only a small amount located in Albion or Silver Valley. It is noted that while the highest concentration of RS-1 zoning is within the Urban Area Boundary, the neighbourhood at 248 Street and Dewdney Trunk is also zoned RS-1 and accounts for the majority of the 313 properties shown in Table 1 under the Estate Suburban Residential designation category. Doc#3091234 Page 5 of 15 In concluding the study, G.P. Rollo provided a recommended contribution rate of $45,000 per additional unit added through duplex development to a RS-1 zoned lot. G.P Rollo reports that the recommended $45,000 density bonus contribution represents, at most, 50% of the increase in supported land value from the bonus density, which would leave at least 50% of the incremental value to the developer. Said differently, the density bonus is low enough to provide an incentive for developers to build duplexes, but high enough to capture up to half of the value gained from duplex units. A. Rezoning Cost Comparison: In comparison to the density bonus rate, the current option to develop a duplex is through a rezoning process. A rough cost comparison is provided below between the density bonus and rezoning options for a duplex. Table 3: Rezoning and Density Bonus Price Comparison C>ensity"Bonds $45,000 $0 $0 $3,162 $0 $1,224 $0 $1,581 $0 $408 Equal Equal Equal Equal $45,000 + $6,375+ Table 3 outlines the application costs for a rezoning application in comparison to a density bonus contribution. As shown, the density bonus rate is roughly seven times the cost of a rezoning application, anticipating that the consulting fees and servicing upgrades are consistent for both options. The primary difference between the two options is time and certainty of approval. As the rezoning process requires four readings from Council and a Public Hearing, generally applicants can expect a processing time of 12 months. Applications are also reviewed in the same queue as larger multi-family and commercial applications, which also contributes to the processing time. Additionally, each rezoning application is reviewed on a case-by-case basis and Council has the discretion to either approve or deny. Staff have received feedback from developers regarding the benefits of reduced processing time and greater certainty of approval being two factors that provide value to a density bonus program. Generally speaking, longer approval periods are more susceptible to market fluctuations and may have indirect higher costs, such as mortgage carrying costs. However, in light of growth management goals to create compatibility with new construction and existing housing stock; densify existing neighbourhoods; and support under capacity schools and transit service, staff suggest that the lower land lift value of $22,500 would likely provide more of a property owners' incentive for this form of housing. It is noted that the lift values could be increased at a later date. Alternatively, Council can support a different rate. At a land lift value of $45,000, staff suspect that most property owners may prefer to go through the rezoning process, or replace the modest home with a larger single detached dwelling. Doc#3091234 Page 8 of 15 B. Proposed Development Permit for Duplex Because neighbourhood compatibility is one of the key objectives of the RS-1 Infill Compatibility Framework, the duplex density bonus is proposed to include a requirement for a development permit. A development permit is permitted under the Local Government Act for intensive residential development, defined as density of 30 units per hectare or greater. While a development permit is not currently required for duplexes, this additional requirement will ensure a sufficient level of design review to address neighbourhood fit. While a new development permit is being proposed for a density bonus to duplex, through the RS-1 zone, this tool may also be considered outright for all duplex forms of development (i.e. those developed under the RT-1 Two-Unit Urban Residential zone). 2.3.2 Density Bonus for Single-Detached Infill Subdivision In 2018, an infill policy review was undertaken regarding Neighbourhood Residential Infill OCP policy, 3-19(1)(a), which states: Infill development on a property that is larger than the prevailing lot size of the surrounding neighbourhood or existing zoning of the Jot may include the following: a) A possible change in Jot size and configuration providing that: i. the proposed Jot area and widths should be not Jess than 80% of the lot area and width prescribed under the predominate or adjacent zoning in the surrounding neighbourhood; ii. the proposed Jot configuration is similar to the prevailing Jot pattern that exists within the neighbourhood area. Through the review of policy 3-19(1)(a), an analysis was conducted to determine the potential for R-1 lot subdivisions on local roads, which represented new lot areas of 55% of the RS-1 lot area. The analysis concluded that there is a total of 314 eligible properties, or 5%, of all Urban Residential -Neighbourhood Residential designated lots that appeared to be sized and configured to support a subdivision into two R-1 (Residential District) zoned lots. The outcome of that policy review culminated in an update to Policy 3-19, to permit a new R-4 zone that has a larger lot size and lower building height that the R-1 zone. The new R-4 provides an additional transition in lot size between the RS-1 and R-1 zones; however, given the limited eligibility potential, permitting R-1 subdivisions would provide additional infill options for approximately 200 properties. In addition to the duplex density bonus option, a second option would be the ability to create two single-detached lots no less than 371m2 (3,995 ft2) in lot area without requiring a rezoning application. The subdivision option is subject to the same density bonus scale outlined in Table 2, with the consultant's recommendation of 50% value capture, or $45,000. However, more analysis is intended after reviewing Council's comments, to ensure the most appropriate rate is identified for infill subdivision. As such, it is anticipated that the $45,000 value, currently under consideration may be refined. Also note that while a subdivision application would still be required, a density bonus for a two lot subdivision would have the benefits of not going through a rezoning process, thereby reducing time and increasing certainty for a development. 2.3.3 Floor Space Ratio In addition to the density bonus options, a third aspect of the RS-1 Infill Compatibility Framework is to introduce a floor space ratio into the RS-1 zone. Two different floor space ratios are envisioned in the Doc#3091234 Page 9 of 15 zone for: 1) new single detached home construction (0.5 FSR); and 2) new duplex units (0.75 FSR). These proposed floor space ratios reflect work completed through the update to the Zoning Bylaw. The intent of introducing a floor space ratio into the RS-1 zone is to help address compatibility concerns by limiting massing size for new single detached construction in established neighbourhoods. Additionally, through the Zoning Bylaw review and update process, the maximum building height for the RS-1 zone was reduced to 8 m (26 ft). This lower height of two storeys combined with a proposed floor space ratio, is aimed at improving the compatibility of new housing with the existing house stock. The intent of introducing a floor space ratio to the RS-1 zone is to still enable new housing to be constructed larger than homes typical of previous generations, while helping reduce a significant size discrepancy between the two. It is also intended that floor space ratios would apply to all of the existing 6,300 RS-1 zoned properties, regardless of location in the City. Similarly, the duplex housing form would also include a floor space ratio to assist with appropriate building massing in existing neighbourhoods. 2.3.4 Servicing Upgrade Requirements Similar to the building permit process for a new single-detached dwelling, builders pursuing construction of either a new single-detached house, or a duplex, will be required to provide servicing upgrades along the property frontage. Given that many of the established neighbourhoods were constructed prior to the1990s, in some cases such as Hammond dating back to the early 20th Century, most streets with eligible properties currently do not have sidewalks, curb and gutter, street trees and street lights. For new infill development (either single-detached or duplex), these servicing improvements would be required through the building permit process instead of a cash-in-lieu contribution for more extensive upgrades in the future. In addition to frontage improvements, it is also anticipated that most property owners may need to dedicate a portion of their property for road, as existing road widths are often not sufficiently wide enough to accommodate the current road standards. The City is authorized through the Local Government Act to require road dedication, when warranted, at the Building Permit process. 2.4 Regulatory Change Rationale Implementation of the proposed duplex density bonus provisions and floor space ratios, that together form the proposed RS-1 Infill Compatibility Framework, would offer several benefits to complement the existing range of housing choices across Maple Ridge, including each of the benefits discussed in the sub-sections below. 2.4.1 Infill development approvals may be faster and more efficient Without the need for a rezoning application, the approval processing time for complete applications would be reduced. An exemption from the rezoning process, through the density bonus option, also reduces risk, uncertainty and the regulatory complexity that is often challenging for inexperienced developers unfamiliar with the rezoning process. Under the Local Government Act, Intensive Residential Development Permit approvals can be delegated to the Director of Planning to create additional efficiencies and this approach is proposed for the RS-1 Infill Framework. 2.4.2 Provides an additional funding stream for neighbourhood amenities Similar to the density bonus program in the Albion Area Plan, funds collected under the duplex density bonus program could be allocated to amenities within the neighbourhood in which it was collected. Feedback on the types of desired amenities will form part of the survey in the public consultation strategy. Doc#3091234 Page 10 of 15 4.0 MUNICIPAL SCAN In creating the RS-1 Infill Compatibility Framework, a municipal scan of surrounding municipalities was conducted to compare the proposed density bonus approach to similar infill incentive programs and to understand the zoning regulations for duplexes outside of the City of Maple Ridge. 4.1 Metro Vancouver Duplex Regulations A comparison of the zoning regulations for duplexes between Maple Ridge and surrounding municipalities is presented in Table 4 below. Table 4: Comparable Duplex Requirements T~~11~9ip .. of Langley ~9~, Mpody 660 m2 557m2 744m2 745m2 465m2 20m n/a 15m n/a 10m 7.5m 7.5m 7.5m 7.5m 6m 7.4m 7.5m 9.5m 9m 9m 9m 10.5m 9m 11m n/a 0.52 FSR n/a n/a 0.5 FSR n/a 0.65 FSR 40% n/a 40% 35% 40% 33% 50% 2 per unit 2 per unit 2 per unit 2 per unit 2 per unit 2 per 2 per unit unit no yes yes no yes no yes *Lot area of 557m2 permitted for lots within the Town Centre Area Plan which are either a corner lot or provided with lane access Table 4 $hows that regulations such as front yard setbacks, lot coverage, height and parking requirements are comparable across neighbouring municipalities. In terms of minimum lot area and width, Maple Ridge is on the higher end of requirements. Neighbouring municipalities are permitting duplexes on smaller, narrower lots, providingjustification for considering allowing a duplex form within Maple Ridge's RS-1 zoned neighbourhoods. Of the municipalities reviewed, four used the development permit guideline requirement to set form and character expectations on new development. Generally, municipalities with more permissible duplex regulations also have development permit guideline requirements. 4.2 Infill Program Examples in Other Jurisdictions City of Coquitlam The City of Coquitlam's Housing Choices Program targets the Neighbourhood Attached Residential land use designation in southwest Coquitlam. Through this infill initiative, approximately 700 parcels were rezoned to the RT-1 Infill Residential zone to allow re-development to occur without a rezoning application for each property. The RT-1 Infill Residential zone permits a range of housing options ranging from single-detached home with a carriage house up to an attached fourplex. The form and character of the new construction requires a Development Permit to ensure compatible design. Doc#3091234 Page 12 of 15 5.2 Web-Based Community Engagement Through Step 2, communications materials including interactive materials, a video, recorded visual presentations, and webpage will present the initiative, inform the public, and solicit feedback on proposed regulation changes. The video is intended to be short in length and attract public attention on social media and the City's website. The process will also be advertised through the City's social media channels, local newspaper, postcards distributed in public places, and newsletter distribution lists. Public consultation information will also be shared with Council committees to encourage their participation. Members of the public will be directed to a 24/7 on line website content in-lieu of a public open house, where they can access information and provide feedback. A pre-recorded power point presentation will be available for viewing, with the opportunity to complete a brief survey on regulatory considerations including parking configuration, building siting, building massing, and landscaping. The survey will be available for a four week period. To compliment the on-demand virtual open house presentation, staff will also offer virtual 'Question & Answer' sessions with required pre-registration. The intent of emphasizing on-demand and virtual events is to connect with a greater share of residents. Following public input, staff will compile the feedback received and engage with developers and builders, including those with previous applications for duplex rezoning and RS-1 zoned construction. The purpose of the focus groups is to better understand re-development pinch points and design solutions. Step 2 will complete with an engagement summary report to Council in November 2022. 5.3 Industry Professional Workshop Following the public opportunity to learn about the proposed regulatory changes and provide comment, staff will compile the feedback received and host up to two Industry Professional Workshops to gain targeted insight and understanding into infill development. Invited participants would include developers that have active or completed rezoning applications, as well as home builders who are currently or recently working on new home construction for RS-1 zoned lots. 5.4 Step 3: Consultation Outcomes Report In step 3 of the process, staff will report back to Council on the outcomes of the public consultation program and will provide recommendations on how to move forward. These recommendations may include to proceed with bylaw amendments and draft development permit guidelines. Doc#3091234 Page 14 of 15 7 .0 CONCLUSION To maintain a vibrant and thriving community, the City of Maple Ridge must attract and retain working households and enable them to grow and ultimately age in place. The RS-1 Infill Compatibility Framework builds on current work underway to expand the Secondary Suites and Detached Garden Suites regulations and offers several benefits to complement the existing range of housing choices, that includes: • Enabling infill development approvals to be faster and more efficient. • Providing an additional funding stream for neighbourhood amenities. • Providing an opportunity for greater design controls in established neighbourhoods for new construction. • Locating new housing units in proximity to existing under capacity schools as well as transit service. In tandem, expanded infill regulations support the objectives of the Housing Action Plan. This report has outlined a proposed RS-1 Infill Compatibility Framework and public consultation process for community input for Council's endorsement. "Original signed by Amelia Bowden" Prepared by: Amelia Bowden, M.Urb, MCIP, RPP Planner 2 "Original signed by Charles Goddard" Reviewed by: Charles R. Goddard, BA, MA Director of Planning "Original signed by Christine Carter" Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP GM: Public Works & Development Services "Original signed by Scott Hartman" Concurrence: Scott Hartman Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A: RS-1 Single Detached Residential Zoned Properties Map Doc#3091234 Page 15 of 15 4.3 Attachment A (c) Provide factual background information. Even a carefully written resolution may not be able to convey the full scope of the problem or the action being requested. Provide factual background information to ensure that the resolution is understood fully. Submit background information in one of the following two formats: i. Supplementary Memo A brief, one-page memo from the sponsor local government, which outlines the background that led to the adoption of the resolution by the council or board. ii. Council/Board Report A report on the subject matter, presented to council or board in conjunction with the resolution. If it is not possible to send the entire report, then extract the essential information and submit it with the resolution. Resolutions submitted without background information will not be considered until the sponsor has provided adequate background information. ( d) Construct a brief, descriptive title. A title identifies the intent of the resolution and is usually drawn from the 11enactment clause". For ease of printing in the Resolutions Book and for clarity, the title should be no more than three or four words. ( e) Check legislative references for accuracy. Where necessary, identify: the correct legislation, including the title of the act or regulation the correct jurisdictional responsibility (responsible ministry or department, and whether it is provincial or federal) (f) Focus on issues that are province-wide. The issue identified in the resolution should be relevant to other local governments across the province. This will support productive debate and assist UBCM to represent your concern effectively to the provincial or federal government on behalf of all BC regional districts and municipalities. xx70/00/0l/Ol/Writing Guidelines for Resolutions Attachment B Resolutions to be Considered at the 2021 UBCM Virtual Convention Broadcast from the Vancouver Convention Centre Vancouver, BC The resolutions session is presently scheduled for: Wednesday, September 15 Thursday, September 16 9:00am to 12:00pm Special Resolutions Policy Paper Consideration: Ensuring Local Government Finance Resiliency Paper [Policy Book 1 Blue cover] Endorse Block of Resolutions Not Endorse Block of Resolutions 2020 No Recommendation Resolutions No Recommendation Resolutions (time permitting) 9:00am to 12:00pm Policy Paper Consideration: Primer on Climate Action and the Municipal Pension Plan [Policy Book 1 Blue cover] No Recommendation Resolutions (cont'd) All times are subject to change-please check the Convention Program to confirm date and times. UBCM 2021 Resolutions Book Report of the 2021 Resolutions Committee One hundred and seventy resolutions were received by the June 30 deadline and have been printed in the Resolutions Book. They are indexed by both resolution number and sponsor. Format and Rules for 202i Due to the on-going COVID-19 pandemic, the 2021 UBCM Convention will be held virtually. The UBCM Conference Rules and Procedures for Handling Resolutions have been updated for 2021, based on our experiences during the first virtual convention in 2020. The Resolutions Committee is pleased to note that two three-hour sessions for resolutions have been scheduled for the 2021 Convention. In order to maximize the number of resolutions to be considered by the membership during the resolutions sessions, the Resolutions Committee re-examined the No Recommendation resolutions. They sought those resolutions that could reasonably be reassigned from No Recommendation into either the Endorse or Not Endorse Block, for the membership to consider. The Committee identified six resolutions where the issue raised and the request made in the resolution is sufficiently close, or sufficiently contrary, to current UBCM policy to justify reassigning the resolution from No Recommendation to either the Endorse or Not Endorse Block, respectively. These six are noted with a special notation, where they appear in either the Endorse Block or Not Endorse Block of resolutions. Advance Preparation The Resolutions Committee is committed to facilitating efficient and effective policy debate in the six hours allotted to resolutions. Resolution sponsors should be ready to speak to their resolution and provide information that clarifies the request made by the resolution. Delegates are also respectfully requested to limit repetitive debate, in order to make it possible to debate as many resolutions as time permits. Order of Debate Debate will begin with the individual consideration of three Special Resolutions (SR). That will be followed by the consideration of an Endorse Block (EB) of resolutions and a Not Endorse Block (NEB) of resolutions. 2 Next, individual consideration of resolutions from 2020 with the recommendation of No Recommendation (2020-NR). 2020-NR resolutions consist of a small number of resolutions from 2020 which were referred to the UBCM Executive due to a lack of time at Convention. The Executive declined to make a decision and decided that the topic raised by these resolutions deserved consideration by the full UBCM membership. These resolutions were referred back to the sponsors, who were asked to consider re-submitting them in 2021. Those that were re-submitted have been placed into Section 2020-NR. In the time that remains, debate will continue with the individual consideration of the No Recommendation (NR) resolutions submitted in 2021. All resolutions will be considered in the order in which they appear in the book. Motions to vary the agenda will not be considered in 2021. If time constraints prevent all resolutions from being considered, policies ensure that resolutions not considered by the Convention will be referred to the UBCM Executive for appropriate action, and the sponsors advised of the Executive action. Please refer to the Conference Rules and Procedures for Handling Resolutions for the details of these policies. Resolutions in Section C will not be considered during Convention. They refer to similar resolutions in other sections in this book, or will be referred back to the relevant Area Association. Resolutions received after the deadline are considered late resolutions and will be referred to the UBCM Executive for consideration following Convention. Late resolutions will not be considered during Convention. Any resolution not included in this book is considered an off-the-floor resolution. Off-the-floor resolutions are not permitted in 2021. 2021 UBCM Resolutions Committee Mayor Maja Tait, Chair Councillor Gord Klassen Vice-Chair Councillor Laurey-Anne Roodenburg Councillor Pete Fry UBCM 2021 Resolutions Book Organization of Resolutions in the Resolutions Book Section Description Handling EXTRAORDINARY Extraordinary resolutions-to amend the UBCM Considered RESOLUTIONS (ER) Bylaws or to ask the Province to amend the UBCM individually Act SPECIAL UBCM Executive resolutions on priority issues Considered RESOLUTIONS (SR) individually ENDORSE BLOCK • Resolutions that support established UBCM Considered as a (EB) policy block • Recommendation: Endorse or Endorse with Proposed Amendment NOT ENDORSE • Resolutions that are contrary to established Considered as a BLOCK (NEB) UBCM policy block • Recommendation: Not Endorse 2020 NO • Resolutions that were referred back to Considered RECOMMENDATION sponsors by the UBCM Executive in 2020. individually (2020-NR) • New issues • Recommendation: No Recommendation or No Action Required NO • New issues Considered RECOMMENDATION • Recommendation: No Recommendation, or individually (NR) No Action Required or Refer to UBCM Executive C • Resolutions referred to similar resolutions Not admitted for found elsewhere in the Resolutions Book debate • Resolutions to be referred back to the sponsor or Area Association UBCM 2021 Resolutions Book 3 Classification in the Resolutions Book Outlined below are the subject area classifications used in the Resolutions Book. Legislative Resolutions that focus on the Community Charter, the Local Government Act, or other legislation that sets out iocal government jurisdictions and authorities. Community Safety Resolutions focused on legal matters; provision of court services; police services and associated costs; as well as the general administration of justice, protective and emergency services. Elections Resolutions that request changes in the election process, dates, voting, or procedures outlined in the Local Government Act or related statutes. Transportation Resolutions that request changes to issues related to transportation (e.g. trucking, highways, roads, off road vehicles, bicycles). Taxation Resolutions focused on charges and taxes levied by local governments, revenue from which supports their operations. Finance Resolutions of broad financial impact to local government. These may include federal grants-in-lieu, federal sales tax, fuel tax, infrastructure funding, or provincial funding (e.g. health care, tourism). Assessment Resolutions that relate to property assessment, market value, and changes to the current assessment system. The Assessment Act, BC Assessment, or assessment appeal boards may be referenced. 4 Environment Resolutions on environmental issues of direct interest to local government, that impact local government operations. These may include product stewardship, recycling, solid waste management, water and air quality, and streamside protection. Land Use Resolutions regarding planning issues such as parkland, development cost charges, siting, Agricultural Land Reserve, Crown lands, and matters falling under Part 14 of the Local Government Act. Community Economic Development Resolutions regarding regional sustainability and economic development opportunities for local governments, including concerns of resource-focused communities. Regional Districts Resolutions that raise issues or propose changes to the statutory authorities and jurisdictions of regional districts. Health and Social Development Resolutions that relate to health policy and health services (e.g. capital projects, access and level of service, home support, ambulance service, hospitals, internationally trained doctors). Housing Resolutions that address housing legislation and regulation such as Residential Tenancy Act, Strata Property Act and BC Building Code. These resolutions also address housing issues, such as renters rights, secondary suites, homelessness and BC Housing. Selected Issues Resolutions of a general nature that are not easily classified in the above sections, or that are of interest to local governments, but might not affect them directly. Resolutions addressing Indigenous issues are also found here. UBCM 2021 Resolutions Book Conference Rules and Procedures for Handling Resolutions General Rules 1. Two three-hour session will be held to consider resolutions in 2021. The sessions will begin and end promptly at the scheduled hours. 2. All elected officials of member municipalities, regional districts and First Nations attending the Annual Convention of the Union shall be delegates, entitled to participate in debates and to vote on any matter before the Convention. Non-elected officials of member municipalities, regional districts and First Nations may attend a Convention as guest delegates and shall not be entitled to the privilege of the floor unless authorized by the Convention and in any case shall not be entitled to vote. Guest speakers may be permitted at the discretion of the Executive. Voting Rules 3. Only elected officials from member municipalities, regional districts and First Nations are entitled to vote. 4. Voting on resolutions shall be conducted through the online system provided in 2021. Registered delegates must be online during the resolutions session in order to vote. No vote by proxy is allowed. 5. The results of an online vote are final. 6. In all cases, where the votes of delegates, including the vote of the Chair, are equal for and against a question, the question shall be negatived, and it shall be the duty of the Chair to so declare. Rules of Procedure 7. The fundamental principles of Roberts Rules of Order shall govern the proceedings of the Union so far as they may be applicable without coming into conflict with the rules and procedures set out for 2021. 8. The Chair shall enforce order and strict observance of the rules and procedures for 2021. The Chair shall have the right to decide all questions of order and the Chair's rulings in this regard shall be final. 9. A delegate wishing to speak to a motion shall enter a phone queue and shall wait until they are recognized by the Chair before speaking. The delegate must announce their name, elected position, municipal, regional district or First Nation office, or other qualifications each time they speak. 10. Delegates must confine their remarks to a maximum speaking period of two minutes. The introducer of a motion is permitted three minutes. 11 . No delegate may speak more than once on any one question unless and until all other delegates UBCM 2021 Resolutions Book desiring to speak have been heard. 12. Should discussion continue on any resolution for an undue length of time without reasonable agreement being reached, the resolution may be cleared from the floor by the Chair to refer the resolution to the UBCM Executive for further consideration and report. 13. Motions to vary the agenda will not be considered in 2021. Resolutions by Section 14. EXTRAORDINARY RESOLUTIONS: Those which will be placed before the Convention for Plenary debate. These are prefixed "ER" and are printed in the first section of the Resolutions Book. Extraordinary Resolutions will be considered individually by the membership. Extraordinary Resolutions are seeking membership approval to amend UBCM Bylaws or to ask the Province to amend the UBCM Act. Proposed amendments for Extraordinary resolutions will not be permitted in 2021. 15. SPECIAL RESOLUTIONS: Those which will be placed before the Convention for Plenary debate. These are prefixed "SR" and are printed in the second section of the Resolutions Book. Special Resolutions will be considered individually by the membership. Special Resolutions are sponsored by the UBCM Executive. Special Resolutions can also be sponsored by a member municipality, regional district and First Nation, and are selected by the UBCM Executive to be assigned as an SR. Special Resolutions address priority issues of the membership. Any member municipality, regional district and First Nation may, in advance of Convention, submit a proposed amendment for an SR Resolution. Proposed amendments must be received by 4:00pm on Tuesday, September 14, 2021. All proposed amendments received will be reviewed by the Parliamentarian to ensure they are in order. Those deemed in order will be announced during the resolutions session, at the time of consideration of each SR resolution. A discussion and then a vote on the amendment can take place. If the proposed amendment is endorsed by a simple majority, then the SR as amended will be considered. If the amendment is not endorsed, then the original, unamended SR will be considered. 16. ENDORSE BLOCK OF RESOLUTIONS: Those resolutions that include: 5 • previously considered and endorsed resolutions; or • resolutions in keeping with the UBCM policy, including previously approved policy papers or other documents. These resolutions are in-line with existing policy positions and are all recommended as Endorse or Endorse with Proposed Amendment. These are prefixed "EB" and are printed in the third section of the Resolutions Book. They will be placed before the Convention for Plenary debate as a block. A block is comprised of a group of resolutions to be considered together. The Endorse Block of Resolutions will be considered in one vote by the membership, following consideration of all Special Resolutions. 17. NOT ENDORSE BLOCK OF RESOLUTIONS: Those resolutions that include: • resolutions with proposed policy positions that contradict current policy positions; or • previously considered but not endorsed resolutions. These resolutions are contrary to existing policy positions and are all recommended as Not Endorse. These are prefixed "NEB" and are printed in the fourth section of the Resolutions Book. They will be placed before the Convention for Plenary debate as a block. A block is comprised of a group of resolutions to be considered together. The Not Endorse Block of Resolutions will be considered in one vote by the membership, following consideration of the Endorse Block. Both the Endorse Block of Resolutions and the Not Endorse Block of Resolutions will be shared with the membership prior to Convention. Any member municipality, regional district and First Nation may, in advance of Convention, attempt to pull a resolution from either block for individual consideration, by following these steps: 6 • Endorse a motion at a Council or Board meeting requesting removal from the block; • Send the motion, along with the reason(s) for wanting to pull a resolution from a block, to the UBCM Executive by noon on Friday, September 10, 2021 ; • Executive will consider and determine which requests are approved; • Executive approval to pull a resolution will result in an amended block being presented at Convention; and • Any amendments will be announced during the resolutions session, prior to the amended block being considered. Any resolutions pulled from either block for individual consideration will be referred to the UBCM Executive for consideration following the Convention. Resolutions pulled from either block will not be considered during Convention. 18. 2020 NO RECOMMENDATION RESOLUTIONS: Those resolutions that were referred to the UBCM Executive following Convention 2020. The Executive chose to refer those resolutions back to their sponsors citing the need for membership consideration and debate, rather than a decision from Executive. Sponsors were encouraged to re-submit those resolutions for the 2021 cycle. Those resolutions that include: • resolutions on topics not previously considered; • resolutions with proposed policy positions that do not align with current UBCM policy position. These resolutions are neither in exact alignment with existing policy, nor contrary to existing policy positions and are all recommended as No Recommendation. These are prefixed "2020 NR" and are printed in the fifth section of the Resolutions Book. The 2020 No Recommendation resolutions will be considered individually in the order in which they are printed in the Resolutions Book. Member motions to proposed amendments for 2020 No Recommendation resolutions will not be permitted. Any 2020 NR resolutions that are not considered during Convention will be referred to the UBCM Executive for consideration following Convention. Sponsors will be notified of the decision made by Executive regarding their resolution. 19. NO RECOMMENDATION RESOLUTIONS: Those resolutions that include: • resolutions on topics not previously considered; • resolutions where there is no action required; or • resolutions with proposed policy positions that do not align with current UBCM policy position. These resolutions are neither in exact alignment with existing policy, nor contrary to existing policy positions and are all recommended as No Recommendation. These are prefixed "NR" and are printed in the sixth section of the Resolutions Book. The No Recommendation resolutions will be considered individually in the order in which they are UBCM 2021 Resolutions Book printed in the Resolutions Book. Member motions to proposed amendments for No Recommendation resolutions will not be permitted. Any NR resolutions that are not considered during Convention will be referred to the UBCM Executive for consideration following Convention. Sponsors will be notified of the decision made by Executive regarding their resolution. 20. C RESOLUTIONS: Those resolutions which have been: • consolidated or grouped and referred to a similar resolution in an Endorse Block or Not Endorse Block; • . consolidated or grouped and referred to a similar No Recommendation resolution; • referred to a Special Resolution to be put forward at Convention; or • deemed too regional in nature and will be referred back to either the sponsor or the Area Association. These are prefixed "C" and are printed in the seventh section of the Resolutions Book and cross-referenced for delegates' information. Sponsors will be notified of the action taken regarding the resolution with which their resolution was consolidated and cross-referenced. C resolutions will not be considered individually, nor as a block during Convention.-Requests and motions to bring a C resolution forward for debate at Convention will not be accepted. Handling of Resolutions: Step-by-Step Rules for Extraordinary Resolutions 21. The Chair will cause the title and enactment clause of the Extraordinary Resolution to be dealt with by the Convention to be read. 22. A spokesperson for the Resolutions Committee will then give the Resolutions Committee's recommendation. 23. The resolution, after reading, will require a mover and a seconder. 24. The Chair shall then call on a representative of the UBCM Executive, as sponsor, to introduce the resolution. 25. The sponsor is permitted three minutes to introduce the resolution. 26. The Chair will then call for discussion from the elected officials from member municipalities, regional districts and First Nations who are entitled to vote. UBCM 2021 Resolutions Book Delegates must confine their remarks to a maximum speaking period of two minutes. 27. If there are no speakers opposed to the motion, the Chair may call the question. Voting shall be conducted through the online system provided in 2021. Voting is on the resolution, NOT on the recommendation of the Resolutions Committee. A super or three-fifths majority is required to endorse an Extraordinary Resolution. Step-by-Step Rules for Special Resolutions 28. The Chair will cause the title and enactment clause of the Special Resolution to be dealt with by the Convention to be read. 29. A spokesperson for the Resolutions Committee will then give the Resolutions Committee's recommendation. 30. The Chair shall then call on the sponsor, to introduce the resolution. 31. The sponsor is permitted three minutes to introduce the resolution. 32. The Chair will then call for discussion from the elected officials from member municipalities, regional districts and First Nations who are entitled to vote. Delegates must confine their remarks to a maximum speaking period of two minutes. 33. If there are no speakers opposed to the motion, the Chair may call the question. Voting shall be conducted through the online system provided in 2021. Voting is on the resolution, NOT on the recommendation of the Resolutions Committee. A simple majority is required to endorse a Special Resolution. Step-by-Step Rules for both the Endorse and Not Endorse Blocks of Resolutions 34. The Chair will introduce a motion to adopt: • as an Endorse Block (EB), all resolutions recommended Endorse and Endorse with Proposed Amendment; or • as a Not Endorse Block (NEB), all resolutions recommended Not Endorse. 35. If there was no motion made by a member prior to Convention to pull a resolution from either block, or if the Executive rejected a motion made by a member to pull a resolution from either block, then the blocks as 7 originally presented in the Resolutions Book will be considered. There will be no further debate on either block. The Chair will call the question and each block will be voted on. 36. If there was a motion made by a member prior to Convention, to pull a resolution from either block, and the motion was approved by the Executive, then the Chair will introduce a motion to adopt the block as amended. The Chair will detail which resolution(s) was pulled from the block for individual consideration by the Executive following Convention. There will be no further debate on either amended block. The Chair will call the question and each block will be voted on. 37. Voting shall be conducted through the online system provided in 2021. A simple majority is required to endorse either block. Step-by-Step Rules for 2020 No Recommendation Resolutions 38. Time permitting, individual consideration of the 2020 No Recommendation resolutions will begin, in the order in which they appear in the Resolutions Book. Those 2020 NR resolutions not considered individually will be referred to the UBCM Executive for consideration following Convention. 39. The Chair will cause the title and enactment clause of the 2020 No Recommendation resolutions to be dealt with by the Convention to be read. 40. A spokesperson for the Resolutions Committee will then give the Resolutions Committee's recommendation. 41. The resolution, after reading, will require a mover and a seconder. 42. The Chair shall then call on the sponsor, to introduce the resolution. 43. The sponsor is permitted three minutes to introduce the resolution. 44. The Chair will then call for discussion from the elected officials from member municipalities, regional districts and First Nations who are entitled to vote. Delegates must confine their remarks to a maximum speaking period of two minutes. 45. If there are no speakers opposed to the motion, the Chair may call the question. Voting shall be conducted through the online system 8 provided in 2021. Voting is on the resolution, NOT on the recommendation of the Resolutions Committee. A simple majority is required to endorse a 2020 No Recommendation resolution. Step-by-Step Rules for No Recommendation Resolutions 46. Time permitting, following the consideration of the 2020 NR resolutions, individual consideration of the No Recommendation resolutions will begin, in the order in which they appear in the Resolutions Book. The NR resolutions will be debated until the final session for resolutions has concluded. Those NR resolutions not considered individually will be referred to the UBCM Executive for consideration following Convention. 47. The Chair will cause the title and enactment clause of the No Recommendation resolutions to be dealt with by the Convention to be read. 48. A spokesperson for the Resolutions Committee will then give the Resolutions Committee's recommendation. 49. The resolution, after reading, will require a mover and a seconder. 50. The Chair shall then call on the sponsor, to introduce the resolution. 51. The sponsor is permitted three minutes to introduce the resolution. 52. The Chair will then call for discussion from the elected officials from member municipalities, regional districts and First Nations who are entitled to vote. Delegates must confine their remarks to a maximum speaking period of two minutes. 53. If there are no speakers opposed to the motion, the Chair may call the question. Voting shall be conducted through the online system provided in 2021 . Voting is on the resolution, NOT on the recommendation of the Resolutions Committee. A simple majority is required to endorse a No Recommendation resolution. Resolutions Not Printed in the Resolutions Book 54. LATE RESOLUTIONS: Those resolutions received after the submission deadline of June 30. Late Resolutions will not be considered at Convention in 2021. Rather these Late Resolutions will be referred to the UBCM Executive for consideration UBCM 2021 Resolutions Book following Convention. Sponsors will be notified of the decision made by Executive regarding their resolution. UBCM 2021 Resolutions Book 55. OFF-THE-FLOOR RESOLUTIONS: Those resolutions that would be brought off-the-floor during Convention will not be permitted at Convention in 2021. 9 Table of Contents Section SR Finance SR1 CARIP Replacement Funding Community Economic Development SR2 Forest Management in BC Selected Issues SR3 Strengthening Responsible Conduct Section EB Legislative EB1 Electronic Permit and Public Hearing Notification EB2 WorkSafe BC Coverage for Local Elected Officials EB3 Enabling Legislation for Green Roofs EB4 Local Government Act -Section 7 44 -Most Extreme Climate Change Risk Community Safety EB5 Timely Information to Local Governments During Local/Provincial States of Emergencies EB6 Flood Mitigation Response EB7 911 Call Answer Levy EB8 Extending the Life of Fire Apparatus EB9 Fire Apparatus Maintenance for Small Geographic Fire Departments EB1 O Increased Capacity at the National Forensic Lab Services EB11 Increasing Capacity in Provincial Court Systems through Alternative Coordinated Initiatives EB12 Civil Forfeiture Proceeds EB13 Medical Cannabis Production Sites Transportation EB14 Consultation by Ministry Prior to Undertaking Works on Highways EB 15 Provincial Maintenance of Arterial Roads Within Municipalities EB16 Safe Passing Distance for All Road Users EB17 Abandoned Vehicles on Crown Land EB18 Strengthening Rail Safety in BC Taxation EB19 Vacant Land Property Tax EB20 Provincial Tax Sharing and Local Fuel Tax 10 U BCM Executive 20 UBCM Executive 21 UBCM Executive 24 Islands Trust 27 NCLGA Executive 27 North Vancouver District, 28 Port Moody 28 Lake Country, 28 Powell River NCLGA Executive 29 Okanagan Similkameen RD 30 Bulkley-Nechako RD 31 Port Alberni 31 Chase 32 Prince George 32 Prince George 33 Chilliwack 34 Cowichan Valley RD 34 Gibsons 35 Merritt 35 North Vancouver City 36 Okanagan Similkameen RD 37 NCLGA Executive 37 Lillooet 38 Courtenay 38 UBCM 2021 Resolutions Book Finance EB21 Flexibility of Grant Programs Cowichan Valley RD 39 EB22 COVID-19 Funding Allocation Deadline Okanagan Similkameen RD 39 EB23 Funding Support to Manage Post COVID-19 Pandemic Tourism Pemberton 40 EB24 Income Tax Credit/Deduction for Workers in Isolated Areas Port Hardy 41 EB25 Development Cost Charges for Local Government Facilities Lantzville 41 Environment EB26 Protection of Waterways from Aquatic Invasive Species Sicamous 42 EB27 Invasive Asian Clams Sicamous 43 EB28 Watershed Stewardship in British Columbia Vanderhoof 43 EB29 Drinking Water Protection and Private Managed Forest Land Cumberland 44 EB30 Illegal Dumping Chilliwack 44 EB31 Illegal Dumping in Rural Areas Fraser Valley RD 45 EB32 Illegal Dumping in Electoral Areas Nanaimo RD 45 EB33 Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Sector Recyclables East Kootenay RD 46 EB34 Agricultural Plastics Recycling Program in BC Kent 46 EB35 Help Cities Lead LMLGA Executive 47 EB36 Property Tax Assisted Clean Energy (PACE) Fernie 47 EB37 Developing a Vision to End Energy Poverty Powell River 48 EB38 BC Circular Economy Strategy Nanaimo City, 49 Victoria EB39 Community Climate Action Plans Comox Valley RD 49 EB40 CleanBC Support for Northern and Rural Communities Kitimat 50 Land Use EB41 New Provincial Trails Strategy Revelstoke 51 EB42 Protection for Outdoor Recreation Opportunities in BC Sicamous 51 EB43 Local Control of Land Use Practices Kootenay Boundary RD 52 EB44 Risk Assessments of Potential Threats to Natural Assets Gibsons 53 Community Economic Development EB45 Watershed Security LMLGA Executive 53 EB46 Amendments to the Aquaculture Act Campbell River 54 EB47 Ensuring Access to Broadband and Cellular Services in BC Cariboo RD 55 EB48 Rural Broadband Connectivity Fraser Valley RD 55 EB49 BCUC Regulatory Regime and Inquiry into the Regulation Vancouver 56 of Municipal Energy Utilities EB50 BC Hydro Pole Rental Sales East Kootenay RD 57 EB51 Wood Fiber Availability for Value Added Manufacturing Facilities Spallumcheen 58 Regional Districts EB52 Tree Management in Electoral Areas Nanaimo RD 58 EB53 Multi-Jurisdictional Cooperation Okanagan Similkameen RD 59 UBCM 2021 Resolutions Book 11 Health and Social Development EB61 Mental Health and Addictions Support During the Kootenay Boundary RD 60 Pandemic EB55 Additional Resources for Mental Health Grand Forks 60 EB56 Opioid Crisis Capital RD 60 EB57 Streamlined Funding -Overdose Prevention Chetwynd 61 EB58 Improved Access to Detox and Treatment Centres Port Alberni 61 EB59 Detox and Treatment Beds, and Sobering Centres Kamloops 62 EB60 Regional Model for Mobile Crisis Response Car Program White Rock 63 EB61 Emergency Health Services -Adequate Staffing Bulkley-Nechako RD 63 in Communities EB62 BC Ambulance Rural Service East Kootenay RD 64 EB63 Primary Care Network Funding Oliver 65 EB64 Cost-Sharing Model for Funding Hospital Capital Projects Nanaimo RD 65 EB65 Aging in Place Kaslo 65 EB66 Increased Seats for Medical Students in BC Williams Lake 66 EB67 Implement Early Childhood Education Provincial Wage Grid Saanich 66 EB68 Increase Supported Child Development Funding Saanich 67 EB69 Dental Health Squamish-Lillooet RD 67 EB70 Farmers' Markets as Essential Services During Local Cumberland 68 Emergencies Housing EB71 Long-term Strategy to Address Homelessness Terrace 69 EB72 Enhanced Communications to Address Homelessness Courtenay 69 Related Issues EB73 Extreme Weather Response Shelters Oliver 70 EB74 Unauthorized Camping Crisis Alberni-Clayoquot RD 70 EB75 Housing in Rural British Columbia Vanderhoof 71 Selected Issues EB76 Black Lives Matter Saanich 72 EB77 Provincial Support for TRC, MMIWG2S and UN DRIP Victoria 72 Section NEB Legislative NEB1 Support for a Provincial Code of Conduct for Local Government Port Moody 75 Elected Officials NEB2 Acceptance of Regional Growth Strategy Cowichan Valley RD 76 Community Safety NEB3 Provincial Changes in Emergency Management Vernon 77 12 UBCM 2021 Resolutions Book Assessment NEB4 Varied Residential Tax Rates Section 2020-NR Legislative 2020-NR1 Independent Office of Integrity for Local Government Community Safety 2020-NR2 Request to Amend Jury Act Transportation 2020-NR3 Benefits of Public Car Insurance Section NR Legislative NR1 Parental Leave for Elected Officials Community Safety NR2 Improved Efficiencies in the Prosecution of Criminal Offences NR3 Stronger Sentencing/Monitoring for Prolific/Repeat Offenders NR4 Criminal Justice Reform for Repeat, Convicted Offenders NR5 Comprehensive Training Model for RCMP Members NR6 RCMP Costs for Municipalities NR7 Equitable Police Funding Model NR8 Invoicing for Required Officer Attendance at Hospitals NR9 Funding for Independent Fire Services NR10 Agroforest Specific Tenure License NR11 911 Dropped Calls NR12 Updating BC's Wrongful Death Law NR13 Dangerous Dog Legislation in British Columbia NR14 Aftermarket Exhaust Systems NR15 Off-Site Tasting Rooms Elections NR16 Expanding Definitions and Responsibilities of Digital Campaigns Transportation NR17 Partnerships for Fare-Free Public Transit Taxation NR18 BC Provincial Sales Tax on Non-Medical PPE NR19 5.25 Percent Provincial Collection Fee on Rural Area Property Tax NR20 Regional District Requisitions to Municipalities UBCM 2021 Resolutions Book Saanich 77 Maple Ridge 80 Fort St. John 81 Burnaby 82 Squamish-Lillooet RD 84 Prince George 85 Williams Lake 85 Lillooet 86 Prince George 87 Fort St. John 88 Creston 88 White Rock 89 Cariboo RD 90 Nelson 90 Okanagan Similkameen RD 91 Fruitvale, 91 Vancouver Kitimat 92 West Vancouver 93 Penticton 93 Vancouver 94 Victoria 95 Harrison Hot Springs 96 Okanagan Similkameen RD 96 Parksville 97 13 Finance NR21 COVID Safe Restart Grant Inequity for Electoral Areas Capital RD NR22 Audited Financial Statements for Municipally-Owned Corporations Powell River Assessment NR23 Fair Taxation from Railway Operations NR24 Review of the BC Assessment Appeal Framework and Process NR25 Fair Taxation from Industrial Parks NR26 lncentivizing Green Energy Production Environment NR27 Reform of the BC Utilities Commission NR28 Green Energy NR29 Clean and Renewable Energy Regulatory Framework NR30 Issuance of Water Licenses NR31 Contaminants Released from Wastewater Treatment Plants NR32 Renewed Vision for Fraser River Estuary NR33 Funding for Compliance with Landfill Operation and Closure Legislation NR34 Provincial Authorization and Compliance of Landfills in British Columbia NR35 Construction and Demolition Waste Strategy NR36 Single-Use Item Regional Regulation NR37 Right to Repair Legislation NR38 Standard Procedure for Wildlife Rehabilitation NR39 Moratorium on Recreational Wolf Hunting NR40 "Urban Interface Areas" to Address Current Misuse of Toxic Rodenticides NR41 Alternatives to Agricultural Burning Land Use NR42 Protection for Established Snowmobile Recreational Sites or Trails Community Economic Development NR43 BC Hydro Universal Net Metering for Municipalities Health and Social Development NR44 Opioid Crisis NR45 Inclusion of Allied Health Workers to Help Combat the Opioid Crisis NR46 Health Records Sharing for Allied Health Professionals NR47 Long Term Care Homes-COVID-19 NR48 Paid Sick Leave for Workers NR49 Internet Access in Health Care NR50 Clarifying Criteria of MCFD New Spaces Fund for Child Care Pitt Meadows Coquitlam Pitt Meadows Logan Lake Powell River Nakusp Cumberland Central Kootenay RD Powell River LMLGA Executive Central Coast RD Columbia Shuswap RD North Vancouver District New Westminster North Vancouver District Rossland Oak Bay North Vancouver District Chilliwack Sicamous Fort St. John Capital RD New Westminster, Victoria Williams Lake Oliver Victoria qathet RD Pemberton, 97 98 99 99 100 100 101 101 102 102 103 103 104 105 105 106 106 107 108 108 109 109 111 111 112 113 113 114 114 114 14 UBCM 2021 Resolutions Book C16 Old Growth Logging Port Moody 132 C17 Forestry Squamish-Lillooet RD 132 C18 Support for Working Forests in British Columbia Port McNeil! 133 C19 Support Working Forests on Vancouver Island and in Gold River 133 British Columbia Section C3 C20 Accelerated South of the Fraser Transit Service Improvements Langley Township 134 C21 Emergency Medical Response and Better Pre-hospital Port Moody 134 C22 Housing Models for Seniors Terrace 135 16 UBCM 2021 Resolutions Book Sponsor Index of Resolutions Alberni-Claoyquot RD EB74 Langley City NR64 A VICC Executive C6 Langley Township C4,C20 Bulkley-Nechako RD EB?, EB61 Lantzville EB25, C13 Burnaby 2020-NR3, NR53 Lillooet EB19, NR4, NR55 Campbell River EB46 LMLGA Executive EB35, EB45, NR32 Capital RD EB56, NR21 Logan Lake NR26 Cariboo RD EB47, NR9 Lumby NR63 Central Coast RD NR33, NR62 Maple Ridge 2020-NR1 Central Kootenay RD NR30 Merritt EB15 Chase EB9 Nakusp NR28 Chetwynd EB57 Nanaimo City EB38, C11, C12 Chilliwack EB12, EB30, NR41 Nanaimo RD EB32, EB52, EB64,C5 Columbia Shuswap RD NR34 NCLGA Executive EB2, EB5, EB18 Comox C14 Nelson NR10, NR56, C7, C11, C12 Comox Valley RD EB39 New Westminster NR36, NR45 Coquitlam NR24 North Vancouver City EB16 Courtenay EB20, EB72, C10 North Vancouver District EB3, NR35, NR36, NR40, Cowichan Valley RD EB13, EB21, NEB2 CS, C10, C15 Creston NR7 Oak Bay NR39 Cumberland EB29, EB70, NR29 Okanagan Similkameen RD EB6, EB17, EB22, EB53, NR11, NR19, East Kootenay RD EB33,EB50,EB62 NR51, NR57, NR60 Fernie EB36 Oliver EB63, EB73, NR47, NR59 Fort St. John 2020-NR2, NR6, NR43 Parksville NR20 Fraser Valley RD EB31,EB48 Pemberton EB23, NR50 Fruitvale NR12 Penticton NR15 Gibsons EB14, EB44 Pitt Meadows NR23, NR25 Gold River C19 Port Alberni EB8,EB58 Grand Forks EB55 Port Hardy EB24, NR61 Harrison Hot Springs NR18 Port McNeil! C18 Islands Trust EB1 Port Moody EB3, C9, C16, C21 Kamloops EB59, NR58 Powell River EB4, EB37, NR22, NR27, Kaslo EB65 NR31, NR52 Kent EB34 Prince George EB10, EB11, NR2, NR5 Kitimat EB40, NR13 qathet RD NR49 Kootenay Boundary RD EB43,EB54 Revelstoke EB41 Lake Country EB4 Richmond C2 UBCM 2021 Resolutions Book 17 Rossland NR38 UBCM Executive SR1, SR2, SR3 Saanich EB67, EB68, EB76, NEB4, Vancouver EB49, NR12, NR16, C1 NR44, C3 Vanderhoof EB28, EB75 Sicamous EB26, EB27,EB42,NR42 Vernon NEB3 Spallumcheen EB51 Victoria EB77, NR17, NR45, NR48, NR54 Squamish NR50 West Vancouver NR14 Squamish-Lillooet RD EB69, NR1, C17 White Rock EB60, NR8, NR64 Terrace EB71, C22 Williams Lake EB66, NR3, NR46 18 UBCM 2021 Resolutions Book And whereas on June 1, 2021, the Province released its Modernizing Forest Policy in BC Intentions Paper recommending many of the forest policy changes sought by UBCM members; and, subsequent to the Independent Panel's Old Growth Strategic Review, the Province also announced on June 24, 2021 the establishment of an independent Old Growth Technical Advisory Panel to: • improve public information around old growth; • inform government-to government decisions with First Nations on future deferrals; and • provide recommendations and advice on priority areas for development of deferrals that will assist government-to-government engagement: Therefore be it resolved that the Province engage and consult with local governments and Indigenous communities as it moves forward to implement recommendations within the Modernizing Forest Policy in BC Intentions Paper, including matters related to old growth designations and deferrals, recognizing that there will be implications and impacts for workers and communities that will require economic transition support. U8CM Resolutions Committee recommendation: Endorse UBCM Resolutions Committee comments: The Resolutions Committee notes that the UBCM membership has consistently endorsed resolutions calling on the provincial government to improve the community benefits of forest resources through the establishment of community forests, incentives for value-added/build with wood initiatives and strengthening provisions to provide for local processing (2019-8156, 2018-843, 2017-836, 2016-832, 2016-842, 2015-837, 2015-838, 2015-LR2, 2013-879, 2013-8105, 2013-8116, 2012-833, 2012-8109, 2011-850, 2011-857, 2011-8104, 2011-8105, 2011-8167, 2010-840, 2010-8104, 2010-8105, 2009-847, 2009-8128, 2009-8131, 2008-836, 2008-837, 2007-843, 2007-844, 2007-845, 2006-844, 2006-842, 2006-843, 2005-832). Members have also supported protection of old growth (2019-836, 2017-866, 2016-C27); have asked for a proactive provincial approach to address forest health (2017-8103); and members have supported the a/location of funding for training and re-training !transition for workers and communities affected by changes in resource-based activities (2008-846, 2006-846). See also resolutions C13, C14, C15, C16, C17, C18 and C19 UBCM Executive comments: Background The Executive is bringing forward this Special Resolution in an effort to consolidate the seven resolutions that have been submitted this year. These seven resolutions encompass asks related to: support for working forests, sustainable forest management, preservation of old growth, economic transition for affected communities, and ensuring decisions are based on the best scientific information available. As noted in the Resolutions Committee comments, these are all policy positions that have been supported by the UBCM membership. In addition to consolidating the member asks, the purpose of this Special Resolution is to provide some current context since all seven resolutions were written prior to a number of new forest policy developments including the release of the Modernizing Forest Policy in ac1 Intentions Paper and the establishment of the Old Growth Technical Advisory Panel in June 2021. Over the past two years, a series of forest policy consultations and engagements have been undertaken, such as the Coast Forest Sector Revitalization, Interior Forest Sector Renewal, Forest and Range Practices Act Improvement Initiative and the Old Growth Strategic Review. On behalf of the membership UBCM has provided submissions to each of these consultations conveying current member endorsed policy. The release of the June 2021 Intentions Paper and the establishment of the Old Growth Technical Advisory Panel signal the Province's next steps in moving forward with forest policy changes. 1 Modernizing Forest Policy in BC https:/lwww2.gov.bc.calassets!gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/forestry!competitive-forest-industry/modernizing_forestry_in_bc_report.pdf 22 UBCM 2021 Resolutions Book UBCM Policy Position As noted in the Resolutions Committee comments the membership has consistently endorsed resolutions that have sought greater engagement and consultation with local governments on forest policy, recognizing the significant impact that decisions can have on forest-dependent communities and their residents. Through the advocacy work of UBCM's Community Economic Development Committee, forest policy change has remained at the forefront UBCM's work with the provincial government. The Committee has partnered with the Province on webinars; met with the Forests Minister to share our policy interests; hosted UBCM convention sessions and represented local government interests through a variety of external committee and working group appointments. Current Status In September 2020, the Independent Panel on Old Growth released its report A New Future for Old Forests2• In response to the report, the Province committed to acting on the 14 recommendations to protect old growth forests. The first five recommendations within the report address the conditions required for change: 1. Engage the full involvement of Indigenous leaders and organizations to review this report and any subsequent policy or strategy development and implementation. 2. Declare conservation of ecosystem health and biodiversity of British Columbia's forests as an overarching priority and enact legislation that legally establishes this priority for all sectors. 3. Adopt a three-zone forest management framework to guide forest planning and decision-making. 4. Adopt a more inclusive and stable governance model that gives local communities and stakeholders a greater role in forest management decisions that affect them. 5. Provide the public with timely and objective information about forest conditions and trends. The report's recommendations outline a four-phased process consisting of immediate actions in the first six months, near-term actions over six to 12 months, mid-term actions over six to 18 months and long-term actions over 18 to 36 months. In follow up to the Independent Panel report, the Province announced on June 9th that at the request of the Pacheedaht, Ditidaht and Huu-ay-aht First Nations it was deferring old-growth harvesting in the Fairy Creek watershed and central Walbran areas in their territories while the First Nations have an opportunity to develop an Integrated Resource Stewardship plan that will determine the future of forests in its territory. This deferral is in addition to immediate deferrals announced with the release of the Independent Panel report. Two additional announcements in June 2021, as noted in the Special Resolution, include engagement on the Modernizing Forest Policy in BC Intentions Paper and the establishment of the Old Growth Technical Advisory Panel. With respect to the Intentions Paper, the Province is working with UBCM to host a series of webinars in late July to obtain local government feedback on the 20 recommendations for forest policy changes. This process will also be conducted in a phased approach and Policy Intention #7 within the Paper speaks to a commitment to implementing further deferrals of old growth forests. Parallel consultations are occurring with aboriginal communities on the Intentions Paper. The second announcement relates to the establishment of a five-member Old Growth Technical Advisory Panel. This Panel will build on the technical work already undertaken with respect to mapping, analysis and detailed information related to the status of old growth forests ecosystems to better inform the public, government to government with First Nations on future deferral areas. Panel members will also provide recommendations and advice on priority areas for development of deferrals. Both of these actions by the Panel are consistent with two recommendations from the Independent Panel's Old Growth Strategic Review. The Special Resolution put forward by the Executive reflects the need for continued local government consultation as the Province moves forward to implement forest policy change that will impact BC communities. It acknowledges and supports the Province's commitment to reconciliation with indigenous communities but also seeks to ensure that local governments continue to be engaged, recognizing that transition support will be needed as policy changes are implemented. 2 A Future for Old Forests https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/forestry/stewardship/old-growth-forests/strategic-review-20200430.pdf UBCM 2021 Resolutions Book 23 UBCM Policy Position The Resolutions Committee notes that the membership endorsed a 2017 policy paper that set out a workplan for strengthening the framework that supports responsible conduct by local elected officials in BC. In response to the direction provided by the membership, the Working Group on Responsible Conduct has developed an integrated suite of resources, including: • Identification of foundational principles for responsible conduct; • A model Code of Conduct and Guide; • A database of consultants to advise communities when dealing with conduct issues; and • A guide with procedural considerations for informal and formal approaches to dealing with matters of conduct, including considerations for the development of fair processes to enforce Codes of Conduct. Current Status Delegates will note that there are indications from the membership that further resources are needed to support responsible conduct (as per resolutions NEB1 and 2020-NR1 that have been submitted by members for consideration this year). It is the view of the UBCM Executive that new tools and resources should reflect the core concepts that guide the local government system in BC, so that autonomy, empowerment, accountability and collaboration are upheld. The Executive believes that the incremental steps proposed in this Special Resolution build upon the tools and powers already available to local governments, and if implemented, will deepen the common understanding of the foundational standards that support good governance, and the overall practice of responsible conduct by local elected officials in BC. Conference decision: __________________________ _ UBCM 2021 Resolutions Book 25 of endorsement in collaboration with local Indigenous communities. It also called upon federal, provincial, regional, municipal, and Indigenous governments in partnership with Indigenous Peoples to develop and implement a National Action Plan to address violence against Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLG8TQQIA people. Finally, membership has endorsed several resolutions requesting funding or supports for local governments for reconciliation, relationship building and engagement with First Nations (2018-823, 2012-832, 2009-8143). Conference decision: __________________________ _ UBCM 2021 Resolutions Book 73 the Community Charter outlines that a municipal bylaw to establish the property value taxes each year under section 197 (3) specifies there is a single rate of each property class; And whereas multi-family housing offers a more sustainable building form that is less infrastructure intensive than single-detached dwellings: Therefore be it resolved that UBCM request that the Province of British Columbia amend the BC Assessment Act and the Community Charter to allow the residential class to be split into more flexible residential sub-classes so that a different rates may be applied to each type of residential property to allow for more equitable taxation that better reflects the infrastructure needed to sustain these land uses. Submitted Directly to UBCM UBCM Resolutions Committee recommendation: Not Endorse UBCM Resolutions Committee comments: The Resolutions Committee advises that the UBCM membership considered, but did not endorse, two similar resolutions 2020-NEBl and 2019-835, which sought to have the residential class split. In 2019, the Resolutions Committee had recommended Endorse for 835, given the policy position set in 2018 with 8118. However, the membership chose to Not Endorse 2019-835, thus changing the policy position on this topic. As such, the Resolutions Committee placed the similar resolution 2020-NEBl into the Not Endorse Block. However, the Committee notes that the membership considered and referred resolution 2018-B 118 to the UBCM Executive. The UBCM Executive endorsed 2018-B 118 with an amendment and the final enactment clause read: "Therefore be it resolved that UBCM ask the provincial government to explore the merits of establishing new property tax sub-classes, or amending the existing residential tax class, as a tool to address housing affordability." Conference decision: __________________________ _ 78 UBCM 2021 Resolutions Book And whereas communities and snowmobile clubs care about maintaining existing meaningful Recreation Sites and Trails Partnership Agreements with the Province for respectful stewardship of the lands, and in particular BC Snowmobile Federation member Snowmobile Clubs are the largest partner of established Recreation Sites and Trails in BC; And whereas site level objectives under Section 56 of Forest Range Practices Act (FRPA) have not been established for snowmobile trails in BC resulting in a lack of communication or need to include consideration in Forest Stewardship Plans (FSP); And whereas only a BC government authorized designated decision maker can set Individual Recreation Objectives for an established recreation trail (site): Therefore be it resolved that UBCM ask the BC government to allocate the necessary resources to establish the following site level objectives on all new and existing established snowmobile sites under Section 56 of FRPA: 1. The alpine and coniferous forest features along recreation sites or trails will be retained to preserve the outdoor recreation experience and prevent early season melt on snowmobile trails. 2. Forest planning will include safety considerations for recreational access during the winter months and after harvesting is complete. This will include harvest planning consideration above and below a recreation site or trail to ensure that new exposures and avalanche paths are not created. Or that any new avalanche paths are mitigated by terrain modifications such as deflection berms. 3. This recreation site or trail is part of the working forest, and as such, activities that are likely to impact access or the recreation experience need to be communicated with the Designated Partner on the trail (site) at least six months in advance. And be it further resolved that UBCM ask the BC government to allocate the necessary resources to establish the following site level objective on all new and existing snowmobile sites that are established under Section 56 of FRPA and that are considered to be high value forest recreation sites and trails, by Recreation Sites and Trails BC or identified as an important recreational area by the FLNR Regional Executive Director: 1. Opportunities for snowmobiling, viewing and exploring must be provided on this designated snowmobile trail (site) during the snowmobile operating season of December 1 to March 31. Submitted Directly to UBCM UBCM Resolutions Committee recommendation: No Recommendation UBCM Resolutions Committee comments: The Resolutions Committee advises that the UBCM membership has not previously considered a resolution asking the Province to allocate the necessary resources to establish site level objectives on all new and existing established snowmobile sites under Section 56 of FRPA -objectives listed in the first enactment clause. Nor has the membership considered asking the Province to allocate the necessary resources to establish the following site level objective on all new and existing snowmobile sites that are established under Section 56 of FRPA and that are considered to be high value forest recreation sites and trails, by Recreation Sites and Trails BC or identified as an important recreational area by the FLNR Regional Executive Director -objective noted in the second enactment clause. The Committee also notes that the membership has endorsed resolutions calling on the Province to provide appropriate resources (funding, staffing) to support the continued and sustained operation of provincial parks, recreational sites and trails and backcountry areas (2019-850, 2018-845, 2018-872, 2011-849, 2003-828, 2003-894, 2001-884). However, due to the very specific ask being put forward and in the absence of current policy to support this ask, the Committee is offering no recommendation. See also resolution EB42 which is a broader ask around recreational objectives under FRPA whereas this is specific to the snowmobiling sector. Conference decision: __________________________ _ 110 UBCM 2021 Resolutions Book global elimination of nuclear weapons; and, to sign and ratify the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). However, the Committee notes that the membership endorsed resolution 2005-B 166 that called for UBCM to support a decision by the 2005 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons to commence negotiations on the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons and nuclear-weapon related materials. 'vVhiie the Govemrnent of Canada has ratified the Tmaty on the t'Jon-Proliferation of Nuclear ~'Veapons, it has not signed on to the TPNW. The TPNW came into force in January 2021, and requires signatories to never develop, test, produce, manufacture or acquire nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices. Conference decision:-----------------------------124 UBCM 2021 Resolutions Book