Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2000-09-12 Council Meeting Agenda and Reports
Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge COUNCIL MEETING A GENDA September 12, 2000 7:00p.m. Council Chamber MEETING DECORUM Council would like to remrnd all people present tonight that serious issues are decided at Council meetings which affect many people's lives. Therefore, we ask that you act with the appropriate decorum that a Council Meetmg deserves. Commentary and conversations by the public are distracting. Should anyone disrupt the Council Meeting in any way, the meeting will be stopped and that person's behavior will be reprimanded. Note: This Agenda is also posted on the Municipal Web Site at wwwmapleridge.org 100 CALL TO ORDER 200 OPENING PRA YERS Pastor Ed Bradley 300 PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQ UEST OF COUNCIL 301 Civitas Urban Design and Planning - Presentation re Silver Valley Planning Study 400 ADOPTION OF MINUTES 401 Regular Council Meeting of August 22, 2000 402 Development Agreement Committee Meetings of August 11 and 28, 2000 Page 1 Council Meeting Agenda September 12, 2000 Council Chamber 500 DELEGATIONS 501 Recognition of B. C. Premier Midget Baseball Team - Fourth Straight National Championship The following players to be in attendance - Jordan Holloway, Kyle Schafer and Shawn Miskiman 600 UNFINISHED BUSINESS 601 D VP143100 —21735 Lougheed Highway (an application to permit a reduction in the front yard setback from 9 metres to 7.5 metres to permit the construction of a covered entrance to the motel). ,vekikq fV 700 CORRESPONDENCE 800 BY-LAWS 801 Maple Ridge Watercourse Protection By-law No. 5807-1999 Rescind third reading and amend the By-law. Give 3rd reading to the amended by- law) (to protect watercourses in Maple Ridge). 802 Maple Ridge Parkland Reserve Fund Expenditure By-law No. 59 13-2000 final reading (to appropriate $2.8 million for the acquisition of three parcels of land known as Blaney Bog). 803 Maple Ridge Community Heritage Commission By-law No. 5908-2000 final reading (to establish a Community Heritage Commission pursuant to Part 27 of the Local Government Act). Page 2 Council Meeting Agenda September 12, 2000 Council Chamber 804 Maple Ridge Development Cost Charge Reserve Fund Expenditure By-law No 59 14-2000 final reading (to appropriate $3099.00 to be used for Project LTC #7402 - 201 Street [50m to 1 70m north of Telep Avenue] - sewage works). 805 Maple Ridge Capital Works Reserve Fund Expenditure By-law No. 5918-2000 final reading (to appropriate $3.6 million for the Curling Rink Project). 806 Maple Ridge Capital Works Reserve Fund Expenditure By-law No. 5917-2000 final reading (to appropriate $7 million for the Maple Ridge Town Centre Project). 807 Maple Ridge Tree Protection By-law No. 5896-2000 first, second and third reading (followed by distribution to local stakeholders for comment). 808 Maple Ridge Development Cost Charge By-law No. 5911 - 2000 final reading COMMITTEE REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 900 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 901 Minutes 901.1 August 21,2000 Committee of the Whole Meeting 901.2 August 28, 2000 Committee of the Whole Meeting Page 3 N Council Meeting Agenda September 12, 2000 Council Chamber The following issues were considered at the August 28, 2000 Committee of the Whole meeting with the recommendations being brought to this meeting for Municipal Council consideration and final approval. The Committee of the Whole meeting is open to the public and is held in the Council Chamber at 12:30 p.m. on the Monday the week prior to this meeting. The Committee concurred with the staff recommendations unless otherwise noted below. Public Works and Development Services 902 Application for A Fill Permit in the Agricultural Land Reserve - 26301 Trethewey Crescent Staff report dated August 9, 2000 recommending that a fill permit be issued for the above noted property in accordance with the conditions outlined in the report. 903 ALR/47199 —20515, 20625, 20695 and 20785 Powell Avenue Staff report dated August 14, 2000 recommending that the subject application to exclude the properties from the Agricultural Land Reserve not be authorized to proceed to the Land Reserve Commission. Note: The Committee did not concur with the recommendation and recommended that the application proceed to the Land Reserve Commission. 904 Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) Partners for Climate Protection Program Staff report dated July 20, 2000 recommending that the District participate in the subject program. (I' Page 4 Council Meeting Agenda September 12, 2000 Council Chamber 905 Wireless Communication Tower Guidelines Policy Staff report dated August 18, 2000 - recommendation to receive. Note: The Committee recommended that the report be received and refrrred back to staff to draft a policy for Council's consideration. 906 D VP142100 - 10036, 10028 and 10110-240 Street Staff report dated August 17, 2000 recommending that the subject permit be considered at the September 26, 2000 Council Meeting. 907 908 SD/42100 - Park Exchange By-law No. 5920-2000 Staff report dated August 16, 2000 recommending that the subject by-law to correct a survey error be granted three readings and advertised. Page 5 Council Meeting Agenda September 12, 2000 Council Chamber 909 RZ128197 - North of 130 Avenue in the 24000 Block Staff report dated August 14, 2000 recommending that a one year extension of the above noted application to permit the development of approximately 175 residential lots be granted. 910 Street Design Guidelines Staff report dated August 23, 2000 recommending that the report be received for information and that a Council sub-committee be established to conduct a detailed review of the report and its implications. 911 Application for a Cabaret ("C") Licence - 11935-207 Street Staff report dated August 21, 2000 recommending that Council support the subject application. Note: This report was forwarded to Council without a Committee recommendation. 912 Terry Fox Run - Request to Use Municipal Streets - September 17, 2000 Staff report dated August 23, 2000 recommending that the subject request be approved. Page 6 Council Meeting Agenda September 12, 2000 Council Chamber Financial and Corporate Services (including Fire and Police) 931 Inclusion of Properties into Sewer Area "A" - By-law No. 5922-2000. Staff report dated August 22, 2000 recommending that properties at 13202 Balsam Street, 23291 and 23293 - 132 Avenue; 13396 —233 Street; 23469 and 23451 Larch Avenue; and Lot 3, Larch Avenue be included into Sewer Area "A" and that Maple Ridge Sewer Area "A" Sewerage Works Construction and Loan Authorization Amending By-law No. 5922-2000 be granted three readings. 932 Considerations - A Guide to Lower Mainland Area Local Government Interests in Treaty Negotiations Staff report dated August 22, 2000 recommending that the subject report be reviewed and comments provided to staff for submission to the Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee. 933 Adjustments to 2000 Collector's Roll Three reports dated August 17, 2000 - recommendation to receive for information. Community Development and Recreation Service Nil Other Committee Issues Nil Correspondence Nil S. Page 7 Council Meeting Agenda September 12, 2000 Council Chamber 999 MAYOR'S REPORTS 1000 COUNCILLORS' REPORTS 1100 OTHER MA TTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT 1200 NOTICES OF MOTION 1300 ADJOURNMENT Page 8 Council Meeting Agenda September 12, 2000 Council Chamber 1400 QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC QUESTION PERIOD The purpose of the Question Period is to provide the public with an opportunity to seek clarification about an item on the agenda, with the exception of Public Hearing by-laws which have not yet reached conclusion. Council will not tolerate any derogatory remarks directed at Council or staff members. If a member of the public has a concern related to a Municipal staff member, it should be brought to the attention of the Mayor andlor Chief Administrative Officer in a private meeting. The decision to televise the Question Period is subject to review. Each person will be permitted 2 minutes only to ask their question (a second opportunity is permitted if no one else is sitting in the chairs in front of the podium). The total Question Period is limited to 15 minutes. If a question cannot be answered, it will be responded to at a later date at a subsequent Council Meeting. Other opportunities to address Council may be available through the office of the Municipal Clerk who can be contacted at 463-5221. 1 s .karasz Page 9 CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS COMMITTEE MINUTES August 28, 2000 Mayor's Office PRESENT: Mayor Al Hogarth, Chairman R. Robertson, Chief Administrative Officer Member 1. GILL, HARDEEP LEGAL: LOCATION: OWNER: REQUIRED AGREEMENTS: K. Kirk, Recording Secretary Lot 1103, District Lots 279 & 281, Group 1, Plan 46939, New Westminster District Ditton Street Hardeep Gill Restrictive Covenant - Floodplain Control THAT THE MAYOR AND CLERK BE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN AND SEAL THE PRECEDING AGREEMENT AS IT RELATES TO HARDEEP GILL. CARRIED R. Robertson, Chief Administrative Officer Member ,1 va V% , \_ PAPW \ PcI. A \ 1701 0 ç9 \ d — DL. 27 tk 'i •QQ0 7• \ ); c?.\ tk .) \• _,-y , \, w> ' • Q _< 1p '- 0 o•. •2. 0 • •ç? • o0 •• .,0 2 / 0 NATURAL BOUNDARY ACCORDING TO PLAN 114 -s \ CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS COMMITTEE MINUTES August 11,2000 Mayor's Office PRESENT: Mayor Allen Hogarth Chairman R. Robertson, Administrator Member K. Kirk, Recording Secretary 1. ADRIATICA DEV LTD., ASLAGO DEV LTD., PRIMULA DEV LTD. LEGAL: Strata Lots 2,4,6,7,8 & 10; District Lot 280, Group 1, Strata Plan LMS3846, New Westminster District of Maple Ridge LOCATION: 20119 1 13B Avenue OWNER: Adriatica Dev. Ltd., Asiago Dev. Ltd., Primula Dev. Ltd. REQUIRED AGREEMENTS: Restrictive Covenant - Use (Industrial Park) Discharge of Covenant U8672 THAT THE MAYOR AND CLERK BE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN AND SEAL THE PRECEDING AGREEMENTS AS THEY RELATE TO ADRIATICA/ASIAGO/PRIMULA DEV. LTD. CARRI R. Robertson, Administrator Member 11 ("550 A ( co Go 11545 U) (0 (0 Go (0 F.— 12 LMS2206 1520 B 11517\ 13 14 P 86659 U, C c'J 115A AVE 37 : 0) to 15 to co a. \LMP Rem.38 B \ 115A AVE 01 Q ('4 C 19 18 A P 8649 (P 86659) 20 29 11476 11475 0) U) 21 28 (0 CD a- LMS 2547 11442 11455 22 27 LMS 3029 11410 11435 LMS 3846 I 11405 P186659 LMP 41075 LOT1 0 I 25 26 - '4 I— 113B AVE I ('4 11393 Ci) 0)1 Lo z 35 co /Ii 9 10 co (01 11378 a. P 86659 (9 LMP 25176 PcI A z PcI. 1 Ile LMP 25175 1 P 70496 0) U) (0 (0 3 (0 a- 11491 4 0) U) z co (0 0 (0 11469 a- —I 0 z PARK 5 C/) —1 63221 L 5 41 Ic'4 Ic'4 39 40 P8659 30 (0 C/) (0 a- 31 CN 11450 LMS 2909 1 to c.'J (0 11430 04 LL 8 -J 2 U) C.) C co ('4 C C ('4 C.., C) LMS 2889 1 2 LMP 31249 LMP4C H P 15901F - 'O\ 71 ~ 0 AcLpie- CAtAV!L 0.1 cuker 4L0 (\ : C- JOCAPIO Z, 0 1 2000 Fcx'j 4ç739 00? a o - 070 ? \ t (L v\ c.o e v 2 c,Cc ojer . M Sç' W 4&- c - ..c. ? U ' \x \ otc 'cc d v\-r cUOV c"ç jQve. zo .z944 Ic \C~,rckav\ \'cowc1 IS Ke, ce , t;i4t- /cL/6' 60\ SERVING MAPLE RII)GE AND Pitt MEADOWS ______________________________________________ 26 The Times. iocal 1pio heles BmC. cl81m gold Three local players led the B.C. Premier Midget baseball team to Its fourth consecutive gold medal at the Canadian Nationals In Red Deer, Alberta on the weekend. The B.C. team went unde- feated in the tournament, with outstanding pitching by Kyle Schafer, 17, and Jordan Holloway, 18, and the MVP play of Shawn Mlsldman, 18. In game one against Ontario, Miskisnan went two for three, with two walks, scoring four runs, and win- ning the game MVP title. The team then defeated Red Deer and Saskatchewan to move into the medal round. In the semifinal against Alberta, Schafer pitched seven innings, allowing only three bits, one run, with seven strikeouts In the win. Holloway pitched five in gold only with seven strikeouts. Mlakhnan scored the tying run on a sacrifice fly by Okanagan player Gus Prest. The team went on to win 3-2, with Miskiman leading all out- fielders, hitting.560. In addi- tion to MVP, he was selected W Utt ,im&&uuw "B.C. hasn't lost since 1996 In that tournament, so we went in there pretty con- fident," said Schafer. "The last two games were really close and excitln&" Schafer Is entering Grade 12 at Maple Ridge Secondary this fall, while Holloway is a 2000 PItt Meadows Secondary grad, and Miskiman, a 1999 MESS grad whose father Don was an assistant coach for the B.C. team, will be playing base- ball for Douglas College this fall. All three played their regular season with the North Delta Blue Jays Premier Midget team. Six players In total from the North Delta actuad made it to the provincial team. OoIdSee Page 27 GOLD: Best MendS COfltlfluedfrom Page 26 "We all became best friends in a matter of five days. It was pretty fun, said Holloway of mixing the North Delta players with players from around B.C. on the provincial team. Misklrnan, who played right field for the B.C. team, described winning the Canadian gold as an unbelievable experience, especially because the team caine from behind to do It. "In the final we were down 2-0 going into the last inning, and ended up scoring three runs," he said. "We didn't give up through the whole thing." Ridge players win national baseball title A mo of Maple Ridge players led the B.C. midget baseball team to its fourth straight national championship title last week. Shawn Miskiman, an outheldei was se lected the tournament's most valuable player after leading the B.C. team with a .560 batting average in five games, while Jordan Holloway and Kyle Schaefer played key roles on the mound. Miskiman, also picked a Canadian all- stax scored the tying run in the final game on a sacrifice fly as B.C. defeated Manitoba 3-2. Holloway started that game for B.C. and went five innings, allowing four hits and two runs while striking out seven. B.C. advanced to the final with a 3-2 win over Alberta in extra innings. Miskiman had a key sacrifice bunt in the eighth inning, moving the eventual winning run from first base to second. Schaefer tossed the first seven innings, giving up just one run on three hits while striking out seven. B.C. downed Red Deer, Saskatchewan and Ontario in its first three national cham- pionship games. Miskiman collected two hits, a pair of walks and scored four runs against Ontario to earn a game star award. Schaefer and Holloway will now return to their club ream, the North Delta Blue Jays of the premier midget division, while Miskiman has agreed to join of the Douglas College Royals of the B.C. College Baseball League. I. 4 -r Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, B.C. V2X 6A9 N'IA..iPLE ir_•x Telephone: (604) 463-5221 Fax: (604) 467-7329 Incorporated 12 Septemr, 1874 E-mail: enquiries@mapleridge.org August 23, 2000 File No: 3090-20IDVP/43/00 Dear Sir/Madam: PLEASE TAKE NOTE that the Municipal Council will be considering a Development Variance Permit at the regular meeting to be held on Tuesday, September 12, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Municipal Hall, 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge. The particulars of the Development Variance Permit are as follows: APPLICATION NO.: DVP/43/00 LEGAL: Parcel 319, District Lot 247, Group 1, Reference Plan 61812, NWD LOCATION: 21735 Lougheed Highway ZONING: CS-I (Service Commercial) PURPOSE: The applicant is requesting a reduction in the front yard setback from 9 metres to 7.5 metres to permit the construction of a Porte Cochere at the entrance to the Quality Inn. AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that a copy of the Development Variance Permit and the Planning Department report dated August 3, 2000 relative to this application will be available for inspection at the Municipal Hall, Planning Department counter during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. from August 23 to September 12, 2000. ALL PERSONS who deem themselves affected hereby shall be afforded an opportunity to make their comments known to Municipal Council by making a written submission to the attention of the Municipal Clerk by 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, September 12, 2000. t Yours truly, ,P.En ' Municipal Clerk FAM cc Confidential Secretary 601 "Promoting a Safe and Livable Community for our Present and Future Citizens" 100%Recyclecf Paper CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor A. Hogarth DATE: August 3, 2000 and Members of Council FILE NO:DVP/43/00 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Committee of the Whole SUBJECT: DYPI43/00 21735 Lougheed Highway EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A Development Variance Permit has been received in which the applicant is requesting a reduction in the front yard setback requirement for the CS-i Zone, from 9 m to 7.5 m to permit the construction of a Porte Cochere. The proposed renovation provides identity for the motel entrance. Staff recommend that DVP/43/00 be given favourable consideration. II RECOMMENDATION: That the Municipal Clerk be authorized to notify qualifying property owners that approval of DVP/43/00 respecting property located at 21735 Lougheed Highway will be considered by Council at the September 12, 2000 meeting. III BACKGROUND: Applicant: Mr. D. Craveiro Owner: 406326 B.C. Ltd. Legal Description: Parcel 319, D.L. 247, Gp. 1, RP 61812, NWD OCP: Existing: Tourist Commercial Zoning: Existing: CS-i (Service Commercial) Proposed: Surrounding Uses N: Single Family Residential S: Tourist Commercial E: Single Family Residential W: Commercial (Palliotti' s Restaurant) Existing Use of Property: Motel and Restaurant Access: Lougheed Highway IV PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Quality Inn is located on the Lougheed Highway, east of 216" Street. The building has undergone extensive renovations during the past year. Part of the renovation includes the desire to construct a recognizable entrance for the motel. A porte cochere is proposed that extends over the existing driveway fronting the property. The porte cochere provides weather protection for patrons arriving at the motel as well as a focal point to the entry. V PLANNING ANALYSIS The CS-i Zone requires a front yard setback of 9 metres. The setback is premised on the need to provide traffic movement and parking at the front of the building, as is the case with the existing motel. The porte cochere does not alter this configuration; it simply provides an entry feature and affords some protection from the weather for patrons. An added benefit is the fact that it also screens parking and projects the building façade towards the street frontage, providing a superior streetscape to that afforded by the parking lot. The materials proposed for the porte cochere are consistent with those used for the motel. VI CONCLUSION: The requested variance accommodates improvements to the existing Quality Inn without compromising traffic circulation or parking. Staff recommend that the application be supported. Prepared by: Moreno Rossi, MCI Registered Planne'?'—_------ Ctzzii. Approved by: Christine Carter, M.C.I.P. Director of Planning F1 pproved by: Jake J. Rudolph, AICP, MCIP r GM: Public Works & Development Services (. ----. Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, AICP, MCIP Chief Administrative Officer -2- 88 P13421 140 / gi 9O :,___ J P28262 1194f\ 1194-4 127 11939 Rem 37 I 11935 C)) 15 P 27224 I 126 11938 I 11929 P28262 I 1328262 16 47 48 LLJ 132 co C) N 60 N 11936 11939 133 59 -P29839 P 28917 tR N 134 N 58 N __________ 87 \1U ,/1194Z N- 141 -I LI!!? 65 •' 11939 I 11938 p... 11936 P33 12 103 Cl) 66 142 / co P31180 105 04 P28917 P31180 I 67 - 143 / 144 N DONOVAN AVE NIC OIN I,? I l l cli IN C. I o\\0 \ 0 2 I 0)1 NIN C. IN I I N - N293 IC) N U'29 0) N I NI 194 195 I 196 1197 I 198 I 199 j 200 I 201 I 202 203 204 H C.-) 208j209 1 P3592 294 0- 0-296 P3592 116 115 11897 H 11898 I I 11895 11888 A 11887 C/) I Pb609 I 36099 P 15205 - F882 215 11866 212 117 11885 (N 223 222 221 2 20 219 218217 2161 11884 211210 11881 .pW IN N )0 3 IN I IN IN IN l IN N 214F s—I 213 u NI 11873 DOVE 116 2 I __________________________________ I ______ ________ 118 - 11875 1 - 11868 P1Q HOWISON AVE 11863 co N 11861 119 150 15 IN I N.f1 324 P-4 "-'CD 1 I IN I I IN I IN IN I I N I IN ! IN N N N 11851 U'120 c'.j 149 14 I 224 N225 238 T 226 227 228 229 1 230 231 I 232 233 1 234 I 235 236 237 P 64655 _________ P36(f199 11841 CD CD GTC'N A E 11858 121 RML - I Rem SUBJECT PROPERTY 192 P 120 4 - 11829 - LMP 22030 319 122 "A" 6 P61812 ('4 1 B .- em A J P1007 (S i LP7 7304 - U' c" ('4 17122 - NIl)) 123 124 125 CD 0 C) CO. N 0 0) a. LU LOUGHEED HWY N 8 (DO CD 'ON H 2 10 CD Rem N N CS— I N IC') k co Cl) Rem B c.O LP 59245 B 275 J ) 2 0.. 840 C%j CS-3 P-4 * /j/_189 N- 1 (P 84920) C "B" 1 2 3 _____ 11762 11767 11762 276 188 11754 P 11112 P 8950 P6664 P6664 11753 11750 8 11759 11754 157 N50'of3 277 187'- 9 11748 11748 U) 11741 11738 iim' 31651 P5046 H _ 11731 Rem3 278 1860- 10 11738 5 11742 11729 co 11726 11737 H 11723 P32876 I P 3876 279 04 185 ii 6 I 159 co P3 510 11713 11712 11721 • 158 I 160 161 76 77 78 t 85 I 11707 <11720 11703 11722 I 243 244 240 12 0 7 117 AVE ________ ______ LL P3974 11706 0) U) C.) 11717 ID co C.) 11708 11691 _________ 241 Q. J 13 6 I I© 8 I , N N 0) N. - 117-AVE .11696 11709 11702 P300391 ________ ____ _____ 11685 124 I 162 I 163 164 - N70 *73 N N IN- lCD IN 11670 14 9 3690 P 32510 I N IN 11699 11690 11688 75 79 84 I 83 87 90 242 ir 15 4 11677 P1 112 1 P3510 11691 ________________ N- 11662 10 H 11680 ____ _____ 16 3 __ Cl) U' - ___ __ __ 11683 11663 11 A 11666 P13L9 W1/2 E1/2 71 N- ________ ______ P132510 P1584 P1t205 11652/54 D D N- B I C Pi 11653 I 80 81 L 82 88 89 .-. 17 18 2 273 I 6 '' ('4 2 - N N I ('4 N - N N U' tB~l C') 274 C it=o Pn prSj mwm.m - ' COOPS II. I_C '$1 — IN II!$j LU WIN EAST ELEVA11ON I I WW"MANCOF INOMFORM I. R41 1I4 I lIT I ITI lI I, $4111 —. N PI. JUl 111 lIT -_ mwp I. 4l 35,0 IL IT MI$T Ut Ill. *1 m. am I_ I (' 41413 N — — 4-I 12.141 IC2L III I.. • I p 122.1$ 121$. Ul I—. — 1$ I. I__SI I_ 41 .IL il $ I ft U — 77.11124 . A. 14 ft .0 11142 74.11 1111$ 14 ft fllHld Ill If. q lilt , p4 — I (1113 A.) I ,• — (11 •) POSCM no P1 SECrIONA-A I $CALUc-l'.r C C- C- 0 LI N C C- C .1 L r I-i I- C C C a. (1' C C 4- C C 0 E c L*MAI CRATWO 77711 MI1IIII porn coaiwu PLAN, mVA11(S * SCnO)$S — Al sotmi ELEVM1ON . £ - .-..-- PROPRIY LINt 40 EXISTING LANDSCAPING J J T 1 [1:[ [ fra TFI-L'iii: 1 - 24 DRIVE AISLE EXISTING LANDSCAPING TO BE REMCNED. RELOCATE PLANTING. H/Cu fl i II H C 2 PARKING PARKING EXISTING EXISTING RESTAURANT LOUNGE EXISTING EXISTING LOBBY PARKING I T] 0 Ij i"__ IPA1 NEW PARKING SPACI FROM LJr, I . RThOCHERE 1TEPLAN LjL;t _ SCALE: 1" = 32-0" LOUGHEED HIGHWAY CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor A. Hogarth DATE: September 6, 2000 and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Council SUBJECT: 3 Reading - Maple Ridge Watercourse Protection Bylaw No. 5807-1999 SUMMARY: On August 22, 2000 Watercourse Protection Bylaw No. 5807-1999 received 3rd reading from Council following a review of the Bylaw by the development and stewardship community. Since that time staff have had discussions with the chief judge of the Provincial Court and District bylaw enforcement staff that now makes amendment to the Watercourse Protection Bylaw necessary. In order to amend Watercourse Protection Bylaw No. 5807-1999, 3rd reading granted to the Bylaw on August 22, 2000 must first be rescinded and the newly amended version of the Bylaw brought forward for 3rd reading consideration. The amendments to Watercourse Protection Bylaw No. 5807-1999 being suggested by staff include: (1) ensuring that the old Watercourse Regulation Bylaw No. 3092-1982 is not rescinded as part of the adoption process for Watercourse Protection Bylaw No. 5807-1999; and (2) the removal of any reference to the amount of the fine that a court judge could award upon conviction of an offense. RECOMMENDATION: That Council rescind 3fh reading granted to Maple Ridge Watercourse Protection Bylaw No. 5807-1999 on August 22, 2000; That Maple Ridge Watercourse Protection Bylaw No. 5807-1999 as recommended in the report dated July 18, 2000 entitled "2"' and 3" Reading - Maple Ridge Watercourse Protection Bylaw No. 5807- 1999" be amended; and That Maple Ridge Watercourse Protection Bylaw No. 5807-1999 as amended be read a third time. BACKGROUND: When staff were developing the new Watercourse Protection Bylaw (No. 5807-1999) it was decided that the existing Watercourse Regulation Bylaw (No. 3092-1982) should be repealed upon final adoption of Watercourse Protection Bylaw No. 5807-1999. This decision was based on: (1) the apparent shortfalls in the level of protection provided to local watercourses by Bylaw No. 3092-1982; and (2) the fact that since its inception in .1982 the Bylawhad, not. been.used by the District. Within the last few weeks, however, District environment and bylaw enforcement staff have come across a situation where enforcement under the current Watercourse Regulation Bylaw No. 3092-1982 can be more readily achieved than under the newly proposed Watercourse Protection Bylaw No. 5807-1999. The current Watercourse Regulation Bylaw would allow the District to recover the cost of correcting damage that blocks flow to a drainage system resulting from the actions of a private property owner, should the property owner fail to take the appropriate action themselves. It is for this reason that staff are recommending that the reference to repealing Watercourse Regulation Bylaw No. 3092-1982 under the "Citation" Section of Watercourse Protection Bylaw No. 5807-1999 be removed. In recent discussions with the chief judge of the Provincial Court it has been suggested that the "Penalty" Section of Watercourse Protection Bylaw No. 5807-1999 should not contain any specific reference to the kind of fine that may be set upon summary conviction by a court judge. When reviewing the Bylaw for inclusion in the Maple Ridge Ticketing Information Systems Bylaw the chief judge suggested that removing the reference to an actual dollar figure for fines from the Bylaw would afford a court judge more flexibility when awarding fines. It is for this reason that staff are recommending that the "Penalty" Section of Watercourse Protection Bylaw No. 5087-1999 be amended to remove the phrase "not less than $500 and not more than $2000". CONCLUSION: Staff are recommending that Council consider rescinding the 3' reading granted the Watercourse Protection Bylaw No. 5807-1999 on August 22, 2000, to allow staff to amend the bylaw to improve the District's enforcement authority. Staff ask that Council endorse the proposed amendments to Watercourse Protection Bylaw No. 5 807-1999 and again consider granting the Bylaw 3r d reading. (Kim Grout,)P.Ag. and Enviromnental Services k ( Approved by: Christine Carter, MCIP Director of P1anmng Approved 4: JJa'ke J. Rudoj1h, AtCP, MCIP I tGM: Public Works & Development Services .. Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, AICP, MCIP Chief Administrative Officer CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 5807-1999 A bylaw to protect watercourses in Maple Ridge. WHEREAS, Section 725.1 of the Local Government Act enables Council by bylaw to prohibit a person from polluting, obstructing or impeding the flow of a stream, creek, waterway, watercourse, waterworks, ditch, drain, or sewer; NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge in open meeting assembled enacts as follows: CITATION This Bylaw may be cited for purposes as the "Maple Ridge Watercourse Protection Bylaw No. 5807-1999". "DEFINITIONS InthisBylaw: "Construction Works" means the activity which might cause or permit sediment or construction related waste to be discharged into the Drainage System, including land clearing, site grading, excavation, and filling. "Drainage System" means the system and network of streams, creeks, waterways, watercourses, waterworks, ditches, drains or sewers located in the District on private or public property. "Prohibited Material" means: any sediment, earth, construction or excavation wastes, cement, concrete, or other substances which when mixed with water, will result in Excessive Suspended Solids Discharge; or any "Deleterious Substance" which would foul it; or any sediment laden water with "Excessive Suspended Solids Discharge. "Deleterious Substance" means any substance that, if added to any water, would degrade or alter.or form part of a processof degradation.or.alteration of the quality of that water so that it is rendered or is likely to be rendered harmful to fish or fish habitat. "Excessive Suspended Solids Discharge" means a fluid discharge containing suspended solids that exceed 75 mg/litre above background levels of suspended solids in the stream, creek, waterway, or watercourse. Maple Ridge Watercourse Protection Bylaw No. 5807-1999 2 Background levels of suspended solids are the natural suspended solids measured upstream of any anthropogenic activity (i.e. development, road building or mining activity) in the watershed that has the potential to add sediment to a stream, creek, waterway, or watercourse. The Excessive Suspended Solids Discharge is to be measured at the immediate outlet point of the discharge, not downstream of the outlet or introduction point. "Sediment Control Plan" means the specifications, drawings, plans, and design calculations of a professional engineer for works to control and monitor the discharge of any sediment or construction waste into the Drainage System. "Manager of Development and Environmental Services" means the Manager of Development and Environmental Services for the District of Maple Ridge and/or designate. PROHIBITION OF DISCHARGE No person shall cause or permit any Prohibited Material, or water containing Prohibited Material to be released, directly or indirectly into the Drainage System. No person shall obstruct or impede the flow of any Drainage System whether or not the same is situated on private property. EXEMPTIONS Emergency maintenance work on the Drainage System undertaken by the District of Maple Ridge in accordance with accepted Best Management Practices is exempt from the provisions of this bylaw. CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT Any person undertaking any Construction Works requiring the approval of the Director of Development Engineering or the District Approving Officer shall submit a Sediment Control Plan for the proposed Construction Works as part of the servicing design drawings submitted for review to the Engineering Department. The Sediment Control Plan must be implemented prior to Construction Works and must be carried out for the duration of the Construction Works. Any modification/revision in the Sediment Control Plan to suit field conditions for the purpose of achieving more effective suspended solids control and treatment must be submitted to the District Engineering Department within 2 days of making a modification/revision. Maple Ridge Watercourse Protection Bylaw No. 5807-1999 3 SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN 9. A Sediment Control Plan shall set out works and measures required during Construction Works to prevent the discharge of Prohibited Material to the Drainage System and shall be signed and sealed by a Professional Engineer. 10. The Sediment Control Plan shall include: detailed plans, specifications, and design calculations necessary to describe any works required to convey, control and treat suspended solids in run-off water from the Construction Works. without limiting any other obligation hereunder the stabilization of all exposed soil areas, resulting from the Construction Works, that will remain dormant for 45 days or more, by either mulching, seeding, or plastic covering. a phased construction schedule that limits the extent of tree clearing and soil disturbance to those areas immediately required for site construction. a monitoring program to measure the suspended solids in the run-off water discharged from the Construction Works. an operation and maintenance program during the Construction Works that contains a maintenance schedule, methodology and maintainer's name and address, and emergency contact telephone number. a letter of undertaking signed by a Professional Engineer who commits to undertake the management of the Sediment Control Plan that includes: the inspection of the Construction Works to certify that they are being constructed in accordance with the approved Sediment Control Plan; the periodic inspection of the Construction Works to certify that the standards of Excessive Suspended Solids Discharge established by this Bylaw are not exceeded; and inspection of the receiving waters of the Drainage System during the Construction Works, to determine whether an Excessive Suspended Sediment Discharge has occurred. 11. The monitoring program is to be conducted by a qualified independent consultant who must have the written authority from the owner to modify and/or halt any construction activity necessary to ensure compliance with this bylaw. 12. The monitoring program shall not be less than daily during construction Works in rainfall events and weekly at all other times during the Construction Works. A record of all monitoring data shall be made available to the District upon request. 13. The sediment control works required by an approved Sediment Control Plan shall be inspected, maintained and operated by the property owner and/or contractor performing the construction work set out in the Sediment Control Plan until a Certificate of Acceptance has been issued by Director of Development Engineering. A record of all inspections and maintenance data shall be made available to the District upon request. Maple Ridge Watercourse Protection Bylaw No. 5807-1999 4 ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT 14. This Bylaw shall be administered by the Manager of Development and Environmental Services or designate(s). 15. The Manager of Development and Environmental Services, Bylaw Enforcement Officer, Director of Inspection Services, Director of Development Engineering, Director of Engineering Operations and all District employees under their direction shall have the right at all reasonable hours and without notice to enter upon and inspect any land or premise in the District to determine if the provisions of the Bylaw are being met. 16. If in the event of a breach of the provisions of this bylaw or works in contravention of an approved Sediment Control Plan the Manager of Development and Environmental Services, Bylaw Enforcement Officer, Building Inspector, Plumbing Inspector, and/or Works Inspector may issue a cease work notice. Any person receiving such notice shall immediately suspend all or any portion of such Construction Works until the contravention has been remedied. OFFENCE 17. Any person who: violates any provision of this bylaw or neglects or fails to do anything required to be done by this Bylaw; or causes or permits any other person to violate any provision of this Bylaw or to neglect or fail to do anything required to be done by this Bylaw with respect to real property of which he or she is the registered owner, occupant, leasee or licensee; commits an offence under this bylaw and is subject to the imposition of any and all penalties or remedies available to the District pursuant to this Bylaw or to other applicable bylaws or legislation. PENALTY 18. Any person who commits an offence under this Bylaw in addition to being subject to any remedies or penalties specifically provided for in this Bylaw is also subject to prosecution and upon summary conviction be subject to a fine for each and every offence. Where the offence is a continuing one, each day that the offence is continued shall constitute a separate offence. SEVERABILITY 19. If any section or lesser portion of this Bylaw is held invalid, it shall be severed and the validity of the remaining provisions of this shall not be affected." Maple Ridge Watercourse Protection Bylaw No. 5807-1999 5 READ a first time the day of • 2000. READ a second time the day of , 2000. READ a third time the day of , 2000. RECONSIDERED AND ADOPTED this day of 2000. MAYOR CLERK CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BY-LAW NO.5913-2000 A By-law authorizing the expenditure of monies in the Maple Ridge Park Land Acquisition Reserve Fund. WHEREAS pursuant to Section 941 of the Local Government Act, R.S.B.C., Chapter 323, funds are collected from owners of land being subdivided; said funds being equal to the market value of the land that may be required for park purposes; AND WHEREAS, the funds collected have been deposited to the Park Land Acquisition Reserve Fund; AND WHEREAS, the Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge now deem it desirable to purchase land for park purposes, using the funds in the Park Land Acquisition Reserve Fund. NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. This by-law may be cited as "Maple Ridge Park Land Reserve Fund Expenditure By-law No. 5913 - 2000." 2. The sum of Two Million, Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2.8 Million) is hereby appropriated from the Park Land Reserve Fund as established by "Maple Ridge Park Land Reserve Fund Establishment By-law No. 4215 - 1989" as amended and it is hereby authorized to be used for the acquisition of: The N.1/2 of the N.W. 14, Section 32, Township 12, N.W.D.; Lot A, Section 32, Township 12, N.W.D., Plan 70093; Lot 1, section 32, Township 12, N.W.D., Plan LMPI4 126. 3. Should any of the above amount remain unexpended after the expenditures hereby authorized have been made, any unexpended balance shall be returned to the credit of the said Reserve Fund. READ a first time the 22nd day of August, 2000. READ a second time the 22nd day of August, 2000. READ a third time the 22nd day of August, 2000. RECONSIDERED and finally adopted the day of , 2000. MAYOR CLERK Council Meeting Minutes August 22.2000 Page 7 909 Community Heritage Commission Bylaw Reference was made to the staff report dated July 17, 2000 in support of the following recommendation contained therein: R!00-447 MOVED by Councillor King BL 5908-2000 SECONDED by Councillor Morse three readings that Maple Ridge Community Heritage Commission By-law No. 5908- 2000 be read a first and second time and that rules of order be waived and Maple Ridge Community Heritage Commission By-law No. 5908-2000 be read a third time. Discussion Councillor Gordon asked for further clarification as to why it is proposed in the by-law that the appointee from the Citizens Advisory Commission be the lone non-voting member. Councillor King suggested that the by-law be granted three readings and in the meantime she will seek further clarification on that issue from the Heritage Advisory Committee and report back to Council. She will also ask the Committee to come and speak to Council on their change in status to a Commission. The motion CARRIED. e03 CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 5908 - 2000 A Bylaw to establish a Community Heritage Commission WHEREAS: The Council is authorized to establish by bylaw a community heritage commission pursuant to Part 27 of the Local Government Act; and The Council considers that it is in the public interest to establish a community heritage commission to advise the Council in respect of heritage conservation and to undertake and support activities that promote and assist in the conservation of the heritage of the District. NOW THEREFORE IN OPEN MEETING ASSEMBLED, THE COUNCIL ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: This bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "Maple Ridge Community Heritage Commission Bylaw. No. 5908-2000'. INTERPRETATION "Commission" means the Community Heritage Commission established under Section 3. ESTABLISHMENT, COMPOSITION AND APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSION 3.1 There is hereby established a Community Heritage Commission known as the Maple Ridge Community Heritage Commission. 3.2 The Commission shall be composed of a minimum of not less than 7 persons. 3.3 Membership on the Commission shall consist of: Voting Members: One member from. Council; Two members from among the persons nominated by Maple Ridge Historical Society; Four members from the Community-at-Large appointed by the Mayor and Council; As many other members from persons selected by Council, nominated by citizens or organizations as Council may choose to appoint. Non-Voting Members: a) One member from among the persons nominated by the Citizens Advisory Committee. BYLAW NO. 5908-2000 PAGE 2 3.4. At the first meeting of the year, voting members will appoint a Chairperson and Vice- Chairperson. The Vice-Chairperson will act in the absence of the Chairperson. 3.5 Community-at-Large Members of the Commission shall be appointed pursuant to Section 3.3 for a two year term, in the month of September to commence their term of office on January 1St of the following year. 3.6 Subject to Section 3.7, all members shall hold office until the later of December 3l or until their successors are appointed. Members shall be eligible for re-appointment to a maximum of three (3) successive terms. 3.7 When the membership of the commission falls below five (5) any vacancy occurring in the membership of the Commission shall be filled forthwith by the Council for the unexpired term of vacancy. Any member appointed in mid-term shall be eligible upon conclusion of the term for reappointment to a maximum of three (3) successive terms. 3.8 The Council may terminate the appointment of any member of the Commission, and Council will provide notice and the reason for such termination in writing. 3.9 The Chairperson shall advise Council immediately in writing of any member who has been absent from meetings of the Commission for three (3) consecutive meetings without prior leave of absence having been granted by the Commission. Leaves of Absence greater than three (3) consecutive meetings may, by a majority vote of the Commission, be granted when the request for the Leave of Absence is received in writing, prior to the said Leave taking place. 3.10 No member of the Commission shall receive any remuneration for services, however, a member shall be reimbursed for any reasonable out of pocket expenses incurred on behalf of and previously approved by the Commission. TERMS OF REFERENCE 4.1 The Commission is appointed for the purpose of advising the Council on heritage conservation matters and undertaking and providing support for such activities as benefit and provide for the advancement of heritage conservation in the District. DUTIES OF COMMISSION 5.1 The Commission will: advise Council on any matter referred to it by the Council; undertake and provide support for such heritage activities as directed by Council; c) present an annual report to Council, setting out its activities and accomplishments for the previous year, and include any financial statements which Council requires; BYLAW NO. 5908-2000 PAGE 3 d) meet not less than once per quarter, each calendar year, unless otherwise directed by Council. 5.2 The Commission may: develop and implement educational and public awareness programs related to heritage conservation in the District; support and raise funds for projects of local heritage significance; make recommendations on heritage policy and advise Council on policy issues relating to heritage property and neighbourhoods; provide information and advice to an individual or community group regarding heritage conservation and policy, upon receipt of a request from the individual or community group; establish and administer a grants in aid and financial assistance application process for organizations, institutions, or other groups requiring financial assistance to engage in activities: to conserve or relating to the conservation of heritage property or heritage resources; to gain knowledge about the community's history and heritage; to increase public awareness, understanding and appreciation of the community's history and heritage; and necessary or desirable with respect to conservation of heritage property or heritage resources. and to evaluate such applications received annually on or before October 31 of each year and recommend to Council grants and financial assistance that the Commission considers ought to be given. 6. OPERATIONS OF COMMISSION 6.1 The Commission may adopt such rules for its procedures consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Act or this Bylaw as it may deem expedient and may alter, amend of vary the same as it may be required provided that copies of such rules and procedure and variations and amendments of the rules shall forthwith be forwarded to the Municipal Clerk. 6.2 The Commission shall hold regular meetings, at such time and place within the District as it may decide, and four (4) members in office shall constitute a quorum. 6.3 The Chairperson, or any two (2) members may summon a special meeting of the Commission by giving at least four (4) days notice in writing to each member stating the purpose for which the meeting is called. BYLAW NO. 5908-2000 PAGE 4 6.4 The Chairperson may appoint such committees from within the Commission as he or she may deem necessary. 6.5 All members of the Commission, including the presiding member, may vote on questions before it, and in all cases where the votes of the members present are equal for and against the question, the question shall be negatived. Any member then present who abstains from voting shall be deemed to have voted in the affirmative. 6.6 The Chairperson shall preserve order and decide all points of order which may arise, subject to an appeal to the other members present. All such appeals shall be decided without debate. 6.7 All questions before the Commission shall be decided by a majority of the members present at the meeting. 6.8 No act or other proceedings of the Commission shall be valid, unless it is authorized by resolution at a meeting of the Commission. 6.9 The minutes of the proceedings of all meetings of the Commission shall be maintained in a Minute Book and when signed by the Chairperson or member presiding shall be forwarded forthwith to the Municipal Clerk. 6.10 All meetings of the Commission shall be open to the public except that a part of a meeting may be closed to the public where in accordance with the Municipal Act the subject matter considered falls within those classes of matters that may be considered in-camera. Before a meeting or part of a meeting is to be closed the Commission must state, by resolution, the fact that the meeting is to be closed, and the basis for such closure. 6.11 The Council may by resolution authorize the Commission to consider any specific matter in- camera and hereby authorizes the Commission to consider all of the following general matters in-camera: acquisition or disposition of real or personal property or any interest in them; personnel matters; or legal advice, opinions and litigation matters 6.12 A member of the Planning Department shall serve the Commission as technical advisor. 6.13 The Council shall provide the Commission with a secretary to perform such secretarial duties as are required in the conduct of the meetings of the Commission. 6.14 The Council may include in its annual budget such sums as are necessary to defray the expenses of the Commission. The Commission shall provide a detailed budget proposal to Council on or before October of the year preceding the budget. 6.15 The Commission may hire staff and consultants based on its approved budget to assist in implementing the duties specified in Part 5.0. BYLAW NO. 5908-2000 PAGE 5 7. CONFLICT OF INTEREST 7.1 If a Commission member attending a meeting of the Commission considers that he or she is not entitled to participate in the discussion of a matter or to vote on a question in respect of a matter because the member has a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in the matter or for any other reason, the member must declare this and state the general nature of why the member considers this to be the case. 7.2 After making the declaration, the Commission member: must not take part in the discussion of the matter and is not entitled to vote on any question in respect of the matter; must immediately leave the meeting or that part of the meeting during which the matter is under consideration; and must not attempt in any way, whether before, during or after the meeting, to influence the voting on any question in respect of the matter. 7.3 When the member's declaration is made: the person recording the minutes of the meeting must record the member's declaration, the reasons given for it, and times of the member's departure from the meeting room, and if applicable, the member's return; and the person presiding at the meeting must ensure that the member is not present at the meeting at the time of any vote on the matter. 8. CONDUCT OF MEMBERS Members should be careful when speaking in public or to the media and should always regard themselves as being regarded by the public as members of the Commission. 9. INTERPRETATION Wherever the singular or the masculine are used in the Bylaw, the same shall be construed as meaning the plural or the feminine or the body politic or corporate where the context or the parties hereto so require. 10. TRANSITION 10.1 Despite Section 3.5 the members of the Heritage Advisory Committee appointed pursuant to Bylaw No. 42 17-1989, with terms in force at the time of the adoption of the Community Heritage Commission Bylaw No. 5908-2000, may continue to serve out the balance of their terms as Commissioners on the Community Heritage Commission. The term shall be considered a term for the purpose of any limitation on the maximum number of successive terms permitted by this Bylaw. 2 10.2 By-law No. 4217-1989, A Bylaw to Establish a Heritage Advisory Committee, and all amendments thereto are hereby repealed in their entirety. BYLAW NO. 5908-2000 PAGE 6 READ A FIRST TIME this READ A SECOND TIME this READ A THIRD TIME this dayof ,2000. dayof ,2000. dayof ,2000. RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED (on the affirmative vote of two-thirds of all the members of Council) this day of , 2000. Mayor Clerk CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BY-LAWNO. 5914 -2000 A By-law authorizing the expenditure of monies in the Maple Ridge Development Cost Charge Reserve Fund WHEREAS development cost charges are collected for the purpose of assisting in the cost of providing services necessary to support new development; AND WHEREAS, the service deemed necessary for new development has previously been established: AND WHEREAS, the Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge deems it desirable to complete a portion of the projects previously established as Development Cost Charge items. NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge in open meeting assembled. ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: This By-law may be cited as "Maple Ridge Development Cost Charge Reserve Fund Expenditure By- law No. 5914 - 2000". The sum of Three Thousand and Ninety-nine Dollars ($3,099.00) is hereby appropriated from the Development Cost Charge Reserve Fund By-law No. 2718 - 1979 as amended, and it is hereby authorized to be used as follows: LTC# 7402 - 201 Street (50m to 170m north of Telep Avenue) - Sewage $3,099.00 Should any of the above amount remain unexpended after the expenditures hereby authorized have been made, any unexpended balance shall be returned to the credit of the said Reserve Fund. READ a first time the day of 2000 READ a second time the day of 2000 READ a third time the day of 2000 - - 'RECONSIDERED and finally adopted the - day of .2000 MAYOR CLERK CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BY-LAW NO. 5918 -2000 A By-law authorizing the expenditure of monies in the Maple Ridge Capital Works Reserve Fund WHEREAS, there is an unappropriated balance in the Capital Works Reserve Fund, established pursuant to By-law No. 3 155-1982; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: This By-law may be cited for all purposes as "Maple Ridge Capital Works Reserve Fund Expenditure By-law No. 59 18-2000. The sum of Three Million, Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($3,600,000), is hereby appropriated from the Capital Works Reserve Fund to be expended and it is hereby authorized to be used for the construction of a Curling Rink. Should any of the above remain unexpended after the expenditure hereby authorized has been made, any unexpended balances shall be returned to the credit of the said Reserve Fund. READ a first time this _____ day of _________, 2000. READ a second time this _____ day of _________, 2000. READ a third time this _ day of , 2000. RECONSIDERED and adopted the _____ day of _______, 2000. MAYOR CLERK KO( CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BY-LAWNO. 5917-2000 A By-law authorizing the expenditure of monies in the Maple Ridge Capital Works Reserve Fund WHEREAS, there is an unappropriated balance in the Capital Works Reserve Fund, established pursuant to By-law No. 3 155-1982; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: This By-law may be cited for all purposes as "Maple Ridge Capital Works Reserve Fund Expenditure By-law No. 59 17-2000. The sum of Seven Million Dollars ($7,000,000), is hereby appropriated from the Capital Works Reserve Fund to be expended and it is hereby authorized to be used for the Maple Ridge Town Centre Redevelopment to cover development agreement payments to Maple Ridge Town Centre Developments Ltd. Should any of the above remain unexpended after the expenditure hereby authorized has been made, any unexpended balances shall be returned to the credit of the said Reserve Fund. READ a first time this _____ day of , 2000. READ a second time this _____ day of , 2000. READ a third time this _____ day of , 2000. RECONSIDERED and adopted the _____ day of _______, 2000. YOR CLERK CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor A. Hogarth DATE: August 29, 2000 and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Council SUBJECT: 3rd Reading - Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000 SUMMARY: A Tree Protection Bylaw (No. 5896-2000), has been drafted for Council's consideration based on consultation with our legal counsel and various staff members of the Public Works and Development Services Division and the Parks and Leisure Services Division. This bylaw has been drafted in response to a need to reduce and mitigate the environmental impacts associated with tree removal activities in the community. Past experience has shown that unregulated tree removal in a community known for its poor soils and high precipitation has had drainage and siltation implications for local streams, municipal drainage systems, and neighboring properties. It has also limited the District's ability to assess and protect forested habitat. The proposed Tree Protection Bylaw (No. 5 896-2000) would allow for the protection of environmentally sensitive areas (i.e., watercourse areas and steep slopes) throughout the community, and would allow the District to place some additional controls over the removal of trees from developable lands within the Urban Area Boundary. Thus, ensuring that the protection of significant tree stands and the mitigation of environmental impacts associated with tree removal activities is given appropriate consideration in the tree removal process. Staff are proposing that Tree Protection Bylaw (No. 4903-1993) and Tree Removal Bylaw (No. 887- 1968) be repealed and replaced with the proposed Tree Protection Bylaw (No. 5896-2000). Should Council support the adoption of a new Tree Protection Bylaw staff also suggest that amendments be made to the Maple Ridge Ticketing Information System Bylaw (No. 4432-1990) to allow ticketing of Tree Protection Bylaw violations. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1, That Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000 be read a first and second time and that the rules of order be waived and the Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000 be read a third time; That following 3 reading, Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-20D0 be considered by Council for distribution to local stakeholders for comment. That staff be further directed to explore the feasibility of developing tree retention policies that would apply specifically to the development process. BACKGROUND: Over the last few years it has become apparent that the current Tree Protection Bylaw (No. 4903-1993) does not allow for the sufficient protection of sensitive riparian habitat or address the need for mitigating the erosion and drainage impacts associated with land clearing. At present, property owners are not required to consult with the District when removing trees from private property outside of the 9 metre riparian protection corridor established under Tree Protection Bylaw No. 4903-1993. Current provincial riparian protection standards require that a minimum 15 metre riparian corridor be protected along all watercourses, out-dating the 9 metre protection standard found in the District's current Tree Protection Bylaw (No. 4903-1993). Staff are also finding themselves increasingly questioned about the District's lack of involvement in the regulation of tree removal on private property and are finding themselves having to respond to an increasing number of complaints regarding sediment loading and drainage impacts to streams and neighboring properties from tree removal sites. In an effort to improve the protection of sensitive forested lands, and the mitigation of environmental impacts associated with tree removal, staff are suggesting that the application of the current bylaw be expanded to: (a) more adequately address riparian corridor protection; (b) include lands in the Urban Area with development potential; and (c) include sediment control planning as part of the application process. DISCUSSION: The proposed Tree Protection Bylaw (No. 5896-2000) has been drafted taking into consideration tree protection bylaws that have been developed in several other municipalities - the Resort Municipality of Whistler, the District of North Vancouver; the District of Saanich; the City of Port Moody and the City of Abbotsford. Enabling Legislation Up until 1999, the Municipal Act limited a Council's powers to regulating tree removal to only those areas considered hazardous due to landslip or erosion. Recent amendment to the Municipal Act now provides municipalities with the authority, under Sections 708 and 709, to regulate or prohibit the cutting and removal of trees on any land within the municipality. Council may also require the holding of a permit that establishes the conditions for the cutting or removal of trees and impose fees for such a permit. Bylaw Application The application of the new Tree Protection Bylaw will still be restricted to trees of at least 10 centimeters in diameter, as in the current Tree Protection Bylaw, but staff are proposing that the Bylaw be expanded to include: • lands owned or in the possession of the District; • any parcel of land in the Urban Area that has sufficient lot area to create two or more new lots within the requirements of the existing zoning pursuant to the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985; • any parcel of land in the Urban Area that is 1 acre (0.4 hectares) or greater in size; and • the area within 15 meters of the top-of-bank of all watercourses (the Watercourse Protection Area). This suggested application strategy would allow the District to place some controls on the tree removal process on lands that have the potential for development based on current zoning and/or parcel size within 2 the Urban Area, while ensuring the protection of environmentally sensitive areas (i.e., streams and steep slopes) throughout the District. There is an increasing public expectation that the rural and forested character of our community will be kept intact and will be considered in the development process. Past experience has shown that unregulated tree removal in the developable areas of the community, prior to development application. has limited the District's ability to assess and protect forested habitat during the development process and has had drainage and sediment discharge implications for nearby streams and adjacent properties. The application of the newly drafted Tree Protection Bylaw to developable lands in the urban area provides the District with the opportunity to influence and place some controls on the tree removal process. The protection of trees adjacent to streams has been expanded from 9 metres to 15 metres from top-of- bank of a stream in order to better align the Tree Protection Bylaw with Maple Ridge Official Community Plan policies and the Land Development Guidelines (DFO & MELP, 1992). Table 1 provides an overview of the bylaw applications used for the protection of trees in other municipalities in the Lower Mainland. Table 1 helps illustrate the alignment of the newly proposed bylaw with the approach being taken for tree protection in other municipalities. Table 1. Bylaw application comparisons Municipality Bylaw applies to........ Old Maple Ridge Bylaw No. 4903-1993 • trees within 9 metres of the top-of-bank of a watercourse • trees along Shady Lane (124th Ave.) New Maple Ridge Bylaw No. 5896-2000 • District owned land • trees within 15 metres of the top-of-bank of a watercourse • parcels of land with sufficient lot area to create two or more new lots under existing zoning in the Urban Area • parcels of land 1 acre (0.4 hectares) or greater in the Urban Area • trees along Shady Lane (124th Ave.) District of North Vancouver • District owned land • trees within 30 metres of the top-of-bank of a watercourse • all conifers greater than 75 centimeters in diameter Resort Municipality of Whistler • entire municipality, with exception of already developed urban areas District of Saanich • entire municipality, with the exception of ALR City of Abbotsford - e trees within 5 metres ofthe-top-of-bankof -a-watercourSe - • lots greater than 0.5 hectares in the urban development area City of Port Moody • trees on public lands • trees within 12 metres of tbeiop-of-bank of a watercourse ravine • trees on private land that have development potential 3 3. Exemptions With the exception of tree removal from the 15 metre riparian protection corridor, steep slopes or within the Shady Lane Heritage Tree Protection Area, the following activities are exempt under the draft Tree Protection Bylaw (No. 5896-2000): • the removal of 1-3 trees per acre (0.4 hectares) per year; • tree removal approved by a building permit, development permit or subdivision approval; • tree removal on municipal property conducted under the authority of the municipality; • the removal of trees for survey lines no more than 2 meters wide; • the removal of trees for public utility repair; and • the emergency removal of trees severely damaged by natural causes. Due to the sensitivity of the area, permits and/or approvals from the District will still be required for the removal of any tree from within 15 meters of top-of-bank of a watercourse (the Watercourse Protection Area), steep slopes, or along Shady Lane (the Heritage Protection Area). In order to provide some flexibility to the private property owner who wishes to remove trees for landscaping, safety or access purposes staff are suggesting that no permit be required for the removal of trees severely damaged by natural causes or for the removal of 1- 3 trees/acre/year. Allowing 1-3 trees/acre/year to be removed from a property without a permit affords the property owner some flexibility while still allowing the District to establish some checks and controls over the impacts of the large tree removal activities. From discussions with District staff, and those involved in the enforcement of tree protection bylaws in other communities, it is also recommended that actual numbers, not percentages, be used to identify exemption criteria. Actual numbers like 1-3 trees per acre will make it easier for the property owner to assess whether or not they fit the exemption criteria and will make violation determination and enforcement more straight-forward and less time consuming. To eliminate the need for multiple permits, properties where tree protection and removal areas have been identified as part of an approved development application or permit a tree removal permit will not be required. Table 2 identifies some of the tree removal exemptions that are used in other municipal tree protection bylaws. .19 Table 2. Bylaw exemption comparisons Municipality Exemption Old Maple Ridge Bylaw No. 4903-1993 • construction or engineering works authorized by the District; • emergency removal of hazard trees; New Maple Ridge Bylaw No. 5896-2000 • 1 to 3 trees per acre per year • works approved by building permit, development permit or subdivision approval • works on municipal land undertaken by or on behalf of the Municipality • works required to repair public utilities • survey lines & the emergency removal of trees damaged by natural causes. District of North Vancouver • 1 to 3 trees per hectare (2.5 acres) per year Resort Municipality of Whistler • lots 5 hectares (12.5 acres) or less - not more than 10 % of the total lot area; • lots greater than 5 hectares - not more than 5 % of the total lot area. • works approved by building permit or subdivision approval District of Saanich • 1-3 trees per acre per year • trees on ALR • works approved by building permit or subdivision approval City of Abbotsford • 2% or less of all trees on a property over 0.5 hectares in size in the urban area City of Port Moody • less than 5% of the trees on a lot are removed leaving a 5- metre perimeter around the lot or 1 tree per lot per year. • works approved by building permit 4. Removal The draft Tree Protection Bylaw prohibits not only the cutting or removal of trees without a permit, but the damaging of the trees sensitive root zone and the release of sediment during the removaL/clearing process. In order to address the impacts of sediment discharge from tree removal sites the draft bylaw requires that some thought be given to drainage and erosion control in the application process. Staff are proposing that on properties greater than 2.5 acres (1- hectare), tree removal be testricted to between April 15th and October 15th, of any given year, unless an erosion control plan is prepared by a qualified professional. With the heavy rainfall events that occur through the fall and winter months (Figure 1.) in Maple Ridge, and the poor soil conditions found in many areas of the community, staff felt that additional erosion control measures were required for large-scale tree removal between October 15th and April 15th October 15th to April 15 th is also the time frame recommended for site disturbance restrictions by many of the erosion and sediment control best management guides that have been developed for the Pacific Northwest. p 5 350 300 250 100- 50- 5 0) 0 • > ( q) C 0 c -, o w -, U- -, <U) 0 z Months Figure 1. Average monthly rainfall in Maple Ridge (1990-1999) 5. Permit Fees The recommended permit fee structure for the proposed bylaw is as follows: No charge Hazard trees* $150 more than 3 trees per acre on a parcel of 2.5 acres (1 hectare) or less $300 more than 3 trees per acre on a parcel greater than 2.5 acres (1 hectare) *For the purposes of this bylaw a tree must have a diameter of at least 10 centimeters (4 inches) measured from a height of 150 centimeters (5 feet) above the natural grade in order for the bylaw to have effect. The fees are justified based on the estimated amount of staff time that should be required to process permit applications and to conduct site inspections. The charge out rate in the current Tree Protection Bylaw (No. 4903-1993) is one of the most expensive charge out rates in the Lower Mainland (Table 4.) with a non-refundable permit fee of $50 for the first tree and $20 for each tree thereafter to be collected prior to permit issuance. Charging out on a per tree basis requires that District staff conduct a very thorough tree inventory in order to confirm that the number of trees used in the permit fee calculation are exact prior to permit issuance. Given current staff resources it is recommended that a flat permit fee be used, as outlined above, in the proposed Tree Protection Bylaw. Table 3 identifies some of the permit fee charge out rates used in other municipal tree protection bylaws and Table 4 provides some permit fee cost comparisons. As illustrated by Table 4, the permit fee structure proposed in the new Tree Protection Bylaw (No. 5896-2000) falls in the mid range for charge out rates. Table 3. Permit Fee Comparisons Municipality Permit Fees Old Maple Ridge Bylaw No. 4903-1993 $50 for first tree plus $20 per tree New Maple Ridge Bylaw No. 5896-2000 No charge for Hazard trees $150 for 1 hectare or less $300 for more than 1 hectare District of North Vancouver $130 more than 3 trees on a parcel less than 1 hectare $250 more than 3 trees on a parcel greater than 1 hectare with an approved subdivision plan $1600 more than 3 trees on a parcel greater than 1 hectare with_no_subdivision_approval Resort Municipality of Whistler $300 District of Saanich $25 plus $5 per tree City of Abbotsford $25 plus $2 per tree City of Port Moody $250 Table 4. Example Permit Calculations (4 trees per acre) Parcel size Municipality Permit Costs 10 acre parcel = 40 trees District of N. Vancouver $1600 Municipality of Whistler $300 District of Maple Ridge $300 (old fee $830) City of Port Moody $250 District of Saanich $225 City of Abbotsford $105 5 acre parcel = 20 trees District of N. Vancouver $1600 Municipality of Whistler $300 District of Maple Ridge $300 (old fee $430) City of Port Moody $250 District of Saanich $125 City of Abbotsford $75 2.5 acre parcel = 10 trees Municipality of Whistler $300 City of Port Moody $250 District of Maple Ridge $150 (old fee $230) District of N. Vancouver $130 District of Saanich $75 1 City of Abbotsford $45 6. Enforcement and Staffing Implications The administration and enforcement of the bylaw will be the responsibility of the Planning Department Development and Environmental Services staff. Implementation of the bylaw will rely on current staffing resources and will involve a review and inspection mechanism similar to the one already used by the Planning Department for the soil deposit permit process. The Environmental Technician, in consultation with the staff arborist will review and critique permit applications, and conduct site visits to confirm bylaw compliance. As presented, the staffing implications of the proposed Tree Protection Bylaw are expected to be minimal. Staff does suggest, however, that tree removal activity be monitored for 6 months following the adoption of the proposed bylaw and that staff then report back to Council on the effectiveness and impact of the implementation of the bylaw. 1 To support the enforcement of the bylaw staff are also recommending that Maple Ridge Ticketing Information System Utilization Bylaw No. 4432-1990 be amended to include a system of fines for the removal of trees without a permit and the discharging of excessive sediment loads to a watercourse or drainage system during the removal process. It is estimated that the fines will range between $100 and $250 per offense (per tree), pending the approval of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Protection of Trees in the Development Process It should be clearly understood that once a property enters into the development approval process (building permit, development permit or subdivision approval) tree retention would be governed by development policy, not the tree protection bylaw. The Municipal Act specifically states that a tree protection bylaw must not effect use or the development of density on a parcel and that it would have no effect if it did so. It is for this reason that staff are recommending that additional policy work be undertaken to address tree retention during the development process. Bylaw Adoption Process Options Community support is vital to the successful implementation of any regulation. With no legal requirement, under the Municipal Act, for public input in the adoption of a Tree Protection Bylaw staff suggest that the bylaw be distributed for stakeholder review following third reading. Due to concerns that widespread tree removal by property owners who fear the implications of the new tree protection bylaw may occur during the public consultation staff is recommending that the bylaw be given 3rd readings by Council before being distributed for stakeholder comment. By granting 3 readings to the bylaw prior to distribution will ensure that should there appear to be an escalation in tree removal activity during the review process that the bylaw could be adopted immediately without any further consultation. All un-permitted tree removal activity could be halted until compliance with the new bylaw could be achieved. Bylaw Implementation To ensure that the public is adequately informed about the bylaw and its implications, staff suggest that: - immediately following the adoption of the bylaw that an information bulletin be placed on the website that outlines the application and permitting structure for the new tree removal process; and an information package that outlines the bylaw and its permitting process be sent to all tree removal contractors in the area. CONCLUSION: In an effort to ensure that the protection of significant stands of trees is given appropriate consideration in the developable areas of the community, and that tree removal activities are mitigated for, staff are recommending that Council consider the adoption of a more comprehensive tree protection bylaw. Staff are suggesting that this new bylaw approach needs to: (a) more adequately address riparian corridor protection; (b) apply to lands with development potential in the Urban Area; and (c) include sediment control planning as part of the application process. Staff also recommend that additional policy work be undertaken to address tree retention during the development process and suggest that the Silver Valley Land Use Study be used as a vehicle for exploring this kind of policy issue with the community. Prepared by:' Gro4t,1.Ag. / naaer of Devebrnment and EnvirOnmental Services Approved by: Christine Carter, MCIP Director of Planning (12t7a'j' ~' r Appn44y: Jake J. Kudolph, AICP, MCIP GM: Pu Works &1Development Services Concurrerne: Robert W. Robertson, AICP, MCIP Chief Administrative Officer CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 5896-2000 A bylaw to regulate and prohibit tree cutting and removal in Maple Ridge. WHEREAS, it is expedient to amend Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000. AND WHEREAS, Section 708 of the Municipal Act enables Council by bylaw to regulate and prohibit the cutting and removal of trees; AND WHEREAS, Section 709 of the Municipal Act enables Council to permit and establish conditions and fees for permit issuance; AND WHEREAS, Section 725.1 of the Municipal Act enables Council by bylaw to prohibit a person from polluting, obstructing or impeding the flow of a stream, creek, waterway, watercourse, waterworks, ditch, drain, or sewer NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: Citation This bylaw may be cited for all purposes as the "Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000" Repeal The "Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 4903-1993" and the "Maple Ridge Tree Removal Bylaw No. 887-1968" are hereby repealed. "Definitions "Certified Arborist" means a person certified by the International Society of Arboriculture (iSA) "Cut" and "Cutting" means the removal, knocking down or cutting into, any or all parts, of any tree in such a manner that damages or is detrimental to the health of any tree. "Development Permit Area" means the areas so described within the Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 5434-1996 as Development Permit Area No. XVII, XIX, XX, XXVI, XXX. Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000 2 "Drainage System" means the system and network of streams, creeks, waterways, watercourses, waterworks, ditches, drains or sewers located in the District on private or public property, by which water is conveyed or travels from lands. "Drip Line" means the vertical line extending down from the outer most branches of the tree to the natural grade of the land. "Excessive Suspended Solids Discharge" means a fluid discharge containing suspended solids that exceed 75 mg/litre above background levels of suspended solids in the Drainage System to be determined by measuring the natural or existing suspended solids upstream of the point of discharge in the Drainage System and the excessive suspended solids discharge at the immediate outlet point of the discharge. "Forest Reserve" means the area so described in the Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 5434- 1996. "Hazard tree" means a tree that is determined to be in a condition dangerous to people or property by a Certified Arborist. "Heritage Protection Area" means the area of land designated for tree protection as shown in Schedule "A". "Large Woody Debris" means fallen, dead trees and snags, eroded root structures and logs within the Watercourse Protection Area. "Manager of Development and Environmental Services" means the Manager of Development and Environmental Services for the District of Maple Ridge and/or designate. "Owner" means the registered owner or owners of a fee simple parcel of land and the trees growing on it. "Removed or Removal" in relation to a tree means to remove in whole or in part. "Replacement tree" means a tree planted pursuant to Section 10. "Rural Area" means the area of land designated as Rural in Schedule "B". "Topping" means the removal of the dominant leader or crown of a tree. "Urban Area" means the area of land designated as Urban in Schedule "B". "Watercourse Protection Area" means the area of land within 15 meters of the top-of-bank on either side of a watercourse described on Schedule E of the Maple Ridge Official Community Plan. Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000 "Wildlife tree" means a Tree that provides present or future habitat for the maintenance or, enhancement of wildlife as defined in the British Columbia's Wildlife Tree Classification System published in "Wildlife Tree Management in British Columbia". 4. Application This bylaw applies to Trees having a diameter of at least 10 centimeters measured from a height of 150 centimeters above the natural grade and which are: on any parcel of land in the Urban Area that has sufficient lot area to create two or more new lots within the requirements of the existing zoning pursuant to Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 35 10-1985; on any parcel of land in the Urban Area that is 1 acre (0.4 hectares) or greater in size; C. within a Development Permit Area; d. on land owned by the District or in the possession of the District; identified for retention as part of a subdivision approval, development permit or building permit; within a Forest Reserve; Wildlife trees; on slopes of 1:5 (rise over run) or greater; within a Watercourse Protection Area; within a Heritage Tree Protection Area; 5. Prohibitions No person may cut or remove a tree without a valid permit issued pursuant to this bylaw. Without limiting Section 5 (a), no person shall damage a tree by soil compacting, deposition or removal of soil or constructing a hard or impervious surface within the Drip Line. No personis to failto comply with the terms andconditions of a permit issued pursuant to this bylaw. d. No person will cause or permit any Excessive Suspend Solids Discharge to be released, directly or indirectly into the Drainage System as a result of works pursuant to this bylaw. Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000 4 6. Exemptions Except in respect to trees referred to in S.4 (h), (i), and (j) no permit shall be required to cut or remove a tree where: no more than 3 trees are cut or removed for every acre or part thereof (0.4 hectares) for any reason in any 12 month period; a subdivision plan has been approved that identifies tree removal and protection areas; C. a development permit has already been issued that identifies tree removal and protection areas; the Cutting down of trees as is required to site a building, driveway, septic field, roadway, or utility corridor as approved by a building permit; emergency Removal of trees that are severely damaged by a natural cause, which as a result pose an imminent danger of falling and injuring persons or property; trees are on parks or municipally owned lands and the Cutting or Removal is conducted by or on behalf of the District of Maple Ridge; Cutting or Removal of trees by standard aboricultural practices for the maintenance of above ground utility conductors by a public utility or its contractors; surveyors are Cutting trees for survey lines less that 2 meters wide; tree Cutting or Removal is required for construction, improvement, repair or maintenance of public works or services undertaken by a governmental authority 7. Permits When a tree is permitted to be Cut or Removed, such activity shall be undertaken in compliance with the conditions imposed by this Bylaw and all special conditions specified in the Permit. An application for a permit will: i) include a fully completed and signed form as set out in Schedule "D"; and • ii) be accompanied by the applicable permit fee calculated in accordance with Section 11. C. A permit issued under this bylaw will be valid for a period of 12 months from the date of issuance and is non-transferable. Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000 8. Plans and Specifications Where an application for a permit pursuant to this bylaw is required, application will be made in writing to the Manager of Development and Environmental Services and must contain the following information: a statement of purpose and rationale for the proposed tree Cutting; a site plan indicating the location of the trees to be Cut, trees to be protected, topographic and hydrographic features, structures, roads and other pertinent information useful in the determination of location. C. a proposed planting plan for any necessary replacement trees; d. method for appropriate disposal of any woodwaste/clearing debris; method for control of drainage and erosion impacts from the tree removal site; a copy of any applicable federal or provincial approvals; Parcels that are adjacent to or contain a watercourse: Every application for tree Removal on a property that is adjacent to or contains any part of a watercourse must provide along with the application a survey that identifies top-of-bank prepared by a B.C. Land Surveyor. Parcels greater than 2.5 acres (1 hectare): Every application for tree Removal on parcels greater than 2.5 acres (1 hectare) between October 15 th to April 15th of any given year will require an erosion and sediment control plan prepared by a qualified professional, at the applicant's expense, to deal with bare and exposed soil. Steep slopes: Every application for tree Removal on a steep slope, 1:5 (rise over run) or greater, must be accompanied by a report prepared by a qualified geotechnical engineer that certifies that the proposed tree Removal will not create increased flooding, erosion, or landslip caused by stormwater runoff directed from the tree removal site. - - A statement signed by the applicant ensuring that the applicant will be responsible for undertaking and completing all works required by the geotechnical engineer in -accordance with the report describedin subsection (i). Hazard Tree k. Every application for the Removal of a Hazard Tree shall be accompanied by a report prepared by a certified arbonst. Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000 6 9. Tree Removal Where Cutting or Removal of trees has been authorized by the District, and a valid and subsisting permit exists, the person undertaking the cutting or removal must: dispose of the tree parts by chipping or burning in accordance with provincialand District regulations; keep the Drainage System free of Excessive Suspended Solids Discharge originating from the tree removal area; C. stabilize all bare and exposed soil by Oct. 15th of any given year in order to reduce potential erosion impacts; restrict all tree Removal work to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. everyday of the week except Sunday, when work is prohibited; Parcels greater than 2.5 acres (1 hectare): conduct tree Removal on parcels greater than 2.5 acres (1 hectare) from April 15th to October 15th of any given year, unless an erosion control plan prepared by a qualified professional has been approved by the District and implemented prior to site disturbance; and Watercourse Protection Area: when Cutting Hazard Trees, within the Watercourse Protection Area, leave such trees as Large Woody Debris in order to retain fish and wildlife habitat or alternatively replace such tree in accordance with the provisions of Schedule "C". 10. Replacement Trees Where compliance is required with Sections 9(f) and 13(e) the owner shall replace the trees Cut and Removed with new trees planted on the same parcel in accordance with the requirements set out and determined in Schedule "C". An Owner of Replacement trees shall maintain the same in accordance with standard arboncultural practice. C. Prior to the issuance of a permit the Owner shall provide the District with a security deposit in the amount of $400.00 per Replacement tree in cash or irrevocable letter of credit. d. The amount of security held by the District shall be reduced in stages over a period of two years as provided in Section 10 (e) below. It shall be a condition precedent to each reduction of the security that the Manager of Development and Environmental Services be satisfied that the Owner has complied with the tree replacement criteria. Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000 7 e. Subject to Section 10 (d), a deposit shall be reduced as follows: by 25% of the original amount after the planting of all Replacement trees required to be provided; by 25% of the original amount after one year from the date of the first reduction in 10 (e) (i); by the balance of the deposit after one year from the date of the second reduction provided for in 10 (e) (ii). 11. Fees An application for a permit must pay the following fees prior to the issuance of a permit: No charge Hazard Trees $150 more than 3 trees per acre on a parcel of 2.5 acres (1 hectare) or less $300 more than 3 trees per acre on a parcel greater than 2.5 acres (1 hectare) 12. Administration and Enforcement This bylaw will be administered by the Manager of Development and Environmental Services or designate(s). The Manager of Development and Environmental Services, the Bylaw Enforcement Officer and all District employees under their direction will have the right at all reasonable hours to enter upon and inspect any land or premises in the District to determine if the provision of the Bylaw are being met. 13. Offense Every person who violates any provision of this Bylaw or who suffers or permits any act or thing to be done in contravention of this Bylaw is guilty of an offence against this Bylaw and is liable to the penalties hereby imposed. Every person who committee an offence against this Bylaw is liable to a fine and penalty of not more than $ 1-0,00000 for each offence. C. Where more than one tree is Cut down, Removed or damaged in violation of this bylaw a separate offense is committed with respect to each tree. Each day that a violation exists or continues shall constitute a separate offense. In addition, any owner who cuts, removes or damages, or suffers or permits any tree to be cut, removed or damaged in contravention of this bylaw or in violation of any terms and conditions of the permit will be required to replace trees on the same parcel in accordance with Schedule "C" for each tree impacted within the Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000 8 Watercourse Protection Area, or in all other areas at a ratio of 2 replacement trees of the same species for each tree impacted provided that no replacement tree is less than 1.5 metres in height. If any section or lesser portion of this Bylaw is held invalid, it will be severed and the validity of the remaining provisions of this will not be affected. Schedules "A", "B", "C", "D" and "E" attached to this Bylaw are incorporated herein and form part of the bylaw. READ a first time this day of 2000. READ a second time this day of 2000. READ a third time this day of 2000. RECONSIDERED AND ADOPTED this day of 2000. MAYOR Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5 896-2000 Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000 SCHEDULE "C" Tree Replacement Criteria The criteria below applies to the replacement of trees required under Section 10 of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000. Diameter* of trees cut or removed Replacement Criteria 100 mm to 151 mm. 2 replacement trees (mm. of 1.5 m ). or, 4 native shrubsA (for up to 50% of trees being replaced in this range) 152 mm to 304 mm 3 replacement trees (mm. height of 1.5 m.) 305 mm to 456 mm. 4 replacement trees (mm. height of 1.5 m.) 457 mm to 609 mm 6 replacement trees (mm. height > 2.0 m.)., 610 mm or greater 8 replacement trees (mm. height > 2.0 m.) *diameter measured from a height of 150 centimeters above the natural grade > greater than shrub species to be approved by the Manager of Environmental Affairs Species of native trees cut or removed Grand Fir Abies grandis Bigleaf Maple Acer macrophyllum Red Alder Alnus runbra Western Paper Birch Betula papyrifera Sitka Spruce Picea sitchensis Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides Black Cottonwood Populus trichocarpa Shore Pine Pinus contorta Douglas Fir Pseudotusga menziesi Western Red Cedar Thuja plicara Western Hemlock Tsuga heterophylla Alternative replacement species Douglas Fir or Western Hemlock Western Paper Birch or Trembling Aspen Big leaf Maple or Western Paper Birch Big leaf Maple or Trembling Aspen Shore Pine or Douglas Fir Black Cottonwood Red Alder or Western Paper Birch Douglas Fir Western Red Cedar Grand Fir or Douglas Fir Grand Fir or Douglas Fir or Western Red Cedar Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000 10 Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000 SCHEDULE "D" Application for Tree Removal Full name(s) and address of applicant: Postal Code: Telephone: or________________ Full name(s) and address of owner: Postal Code: Telephone: or Full name(s) and address of tree cutting company: Telephone: or Property proposed for tree removal: Street Address: Legal Description: Purpose of proposed tree removal: Please see attached arborist report as required under Section 8 (k) of the bylaw Species of trees to be cut:_________________________________________________________ Methods proposed to control drainage and erosion impacts to adjacent lands or nearby watercourses from the tree removal site: Please see attached erosion control plan as required under Section 8 (h) of the bylaw Please see attached geotechnical report as required under Section 8 (i) of the bylaw U Methods proposed to restore the site to a suitable condition, including appropriate disposal of wood waste and stabilization of bare and exposed soil: Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000 11 9. Attached as part of this application is a dimensional sketch of the property which shows the location of the trees to be cut or removed, the location of the trees to be protected, the location of barrier fencing, the location and species of any required replacement trees, topographic and hydrological features, structures, roads and other information useful in determining location. Please see attached survey report as required under Section 8 (g) of the bylaw Note: Applications for a permit shall be accompanied by the prescribed fee as follows: No charge for removal of hazard trees $150 dollars for the removal of more than 3 trees on a parcel of 2.5 acres (1 hectare) or less. $300 for the removal of more than 3 trees on a parcel greater than 2.5 acres (1 hectare). I HEREBY DECLARE that the above information is correct, and that I have read a copy of the District of Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000 and that I will abide by all the applicable provisions of the said bylaw and such terms and conditions as may form part of any Tree Removal Permit issued pursuant to this application. I understand that I will be required to provide a security deposit as required by this bylaw to guarantee the provision and maintenance of all Replacement trees in accordance with Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000. Name of Applicant(s): Signature of Applicant(s): Date: FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Received from: this day of 20_ the sum of $ for.Tree Removal Permit Application fee. Date issued: Permit No. Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000 12 Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000 SCHEDULE "E" I Tree Cutting Permit 1 1. This permit is issued pursuant to Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000. 2. This permit applies only to those lands legally described as: (the "Lands") 3. This permit is issued to: (the "Permittee") 4. This permit authorizes the Permittee to cut and remove only the trees in those areas on the Lands shown and described on Schedule 1 of this Permit subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter set out. 5. This permit is issued subject to the following conditions: any tree authorized to be cut or removed by the Permit shall only be cut or removed in strict compliance with the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000. no tree shall be cut or removed in those areas described on Schedule 1 of this Permit until: such areas have first been demarcated on the Lands by tape, ribbon or stakes and a barrier has been placed around those trees to be retained; such area or areas have been inspected by the Manager of Environmental Affairs or their designate to ascertain whether they comply with the permission herein; and the Manager of Development and Environmental Services or designate has signed this Permit in the space provided below. 6. The authorization herein to cut or remove trees expires and is of no further force or effect one year after the date of the issuance of this Permit. FOR OFFICE USE ONLY I, , the Manager of Environmental Affairs or designate have inspected the land to which this permit applies for the purposes of Section 5 (b) of this Permit. Manager of Development and Environmental Services CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor A. Hogarth DATE: August 31, 2000 and Members of Council FILE NO: E08-008-001.2000 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Council SUBJECT: Maple Ridge Development Cost Charge Bylaw No. 5911-2000 (Final Reading/Adoption) SUMMARY: Regarding Maple Ridge Development Cost Charge Bylaw No. 5911-2000, the Inspector of Municipalities granted statutoly approval of the bylaw on August 23rd, 2000 under the provisions of Section 937 (Division 10 of Part 26) of the Local Government Act. The approval is a mandatory requirement that sets the stage for Council reconsideration and adoption of the bylaw. RECOMMENDATION: That Maple Ridge Development Cost Charge Bylaw No. 5911-2000 be reconsidered and adopted. BACKGROUND: Purpose: Maple Ridge Development Cost Charge Bylaw No. 5911-2000 updates and replaces Maple Ridge Development Cost Charge Bylaw No. 5615-1997. Policy Implications: Sections 933 - 937 of the Local Government Act addresses the topic of Development Cost Charges including bylaw preparation and approval issues. Notably, Maple Ridge Development Cost Charge Bylaw No. 5911-2000 estbiishes an expanded "Downtown Core Area", introduces of a low-density residential townhouse levy in the Urban Area, and provides for levy amendments for the various land use categories in the Urban, Downtown Core andRural Areas. Regarding the effeotive implementation dateof the 'bylaw, Section 259 of-the Local Government Act reads; 259 that a municipal bylaw comes into force on the later of the date it is adopted by Council, and a date set by the bylaw. 1 90 81 With respect to bylaws adopted after application for subdivision is submitted, Section 943 of the Local Government Act applies. The section reads; 943 If, after an application for a subdivision of land located outside a municipality has been submitted to a district highway manager in a form satisfactory to that official, or an application for a subdivision of land within a municipality has been submitted to an approving officer and the applicable subdivision fee has been paid, a local government adopts a bylaw under this Part that would otherwise be applicable to that subdivision, the bylaw has no effect with respect to that subdivision for a period of 12 months after it was adopted unless the applicant agrees in writing that it should have effect. - Prepared Jtj7: Jeff Scherban, , DirectoriDevelopment Engineering ,1 L'4''. Reviewell by: Frank Quinn, P.Eng., J. Rud,Ølph, AICP, MCIP Pib1ic Works & Development Services Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, AICP, MCIP Chief Administrative Officer M282O68 CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BY-LAW NO. 5911 - 2000 A By-law to Impose Development Cost Charges Whereas: A. Pursuant to Division 10 of Part 26 of the Municipal Act R.S.B.C. 1996 c. 323, the Council may impose Development Cost Charges for various purposes; B. The Council has considered future land use patterns and development, the phasing of works and services and the provision of parkiand described in the Official Community Plan; C. The Council does not consider the charges imposed by this bylaw: are excessive in relation to the capital cost of prevailing standards of service; will deter development, or will discourage the construction of reasonably priced housing or the provision of reasonably priced serviced land in the District; D. The Council deems it necessary to impose the Development Cost Charges set out herein. Now Therefore The Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge in open meeting assembled Enacts as Follows: This Bylaw shall be cited for all purposes as Maple Ridge Development Cost Charge Bylaw No. 5911 - 2000. Subject to statutory exemptions and deductions, every person who obtains approval of a subdivision, or who obtains a building permit authorizing the construction, alteration or extension of a building or structure shall pay to the District at the time of the approval of the subdivision or the issue of the building permit, as the case may be, the Development Cost Charges set out on Schedule "A" hereto. Schedule "A" attached h&reto forms part of this Bylaw. Maple Ridge Development Cost Charge Bylaw No. 5615 - 1997 is hereby repealed. READ a first time the 13th day of June, AD. 2000. READ a second time the 13th day of June, A.D. 2000. READ a third time the 25th day of July, A.D. 2000. Page 2 Bylaw No. 5911-2000 APPROVED by the Inspector of Municipalities the day of , A.D. 2000. RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of , A.D. 2000. MAYOR CLERK HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGO%NO BE A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF BY-LAW AS READ A THIRD TIME. $6OO -2- SCHEDULE "A" TO MAPLE RIDGE DEVELOPMENT COST CHARGE BY-LAW NO. 5911-2000 In this Schedule "A" any reference to: 'Urban Area" means the Urban Area as shown on map attached hereto marked as Map "1" and forming part of this by-law; "Rural Area" means the Rural Area as shown on map attached hereto marked as Map "1" and forming part of this by-law; "Downtown Area" means the Downtown Core Area as shown on map attached hereto marked as Map "2" and forming part of this bylaw; "zones" by name or letter and numerical description means those zones as defined and delineated in Maple Ridge Zoning By-law No. 3510 - 1985 as amended; "dwelling unit" means one dwelling unit as defined in Maple Ridge Zoning By-law No. 3510 - 1985 as amended; "site" means that the whole or a portion, as the case may be of the parcel or parcels to be improved as part of the development authorized by a building permit and includes without limiting the generality of the foregoing all vehicular and pedestrian circulation areas, loading, parking, storage, works, decorative and landscaped areas appurtenant to the development authorized by the building permit. "non-residential floor area" includes all floor area authorized by a building permit to be constructed within or appurtenant to a building, including decks, balconies and similar appurtenances, but specifically excludes: all floor area contained within a dwelling unit; all floor area exclusively devoted to access to a dwelling unit; and all floor area access to which is solely through a dwelling unit, through floor area exclusively devoted to access to a dwelling unit, or both." In this Schedule "A" where a Development Cost Charge is determined by reference to the area of the site in respect of which the building or structure authorized by a building permit is being constructed, altered or extended, the Development Cost Charge shall be. calculated .by. -mult-iplying the Development-Cost Charge pèi ãeiial unit by the entire area of the subject site expressed in the same unit of aerial measurement rounded up to the nearest 1/100th. Where land situate in the Rural Area is, pursuant to Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as amended, situate within a zone that is not a-zone-listed in the-Rural Area pursuant to this Schedule "A", the development cost charges applicable shall be those imposed for the zone in the Urban Area. Similarly, where land situate in the Urban Area is situate within a zone that is not listed in the Urban Area pursuant to this Schedule "A", the development cost charge applicable shall be those imposed for that zone as listed in the Rural Area. -3- 4. Where land situate in the Downtown Core Area is, pursuant to Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510- 1985 as amended, situate within a zone that is not a zone listed in the Downtown Core Area pursuant to this Schedule "A", the development cost charges applicable shall be those imposed for that zone as listed in the Urban Area. DEVELOPMENT COST CHARGES A. URBAN AREA UPON ISSUE OF UPON SUBDIVISION BUILDING PERMIT 1. Sewage Facilities Residential (R-1, R-2, R-3, R-ia, $283 per dwelling $283 per additional RS-1, RS-la, RS-lb, SRS, RS-lc, unit being built lot being created RS-ld, RS-2, RS-3, RMH, RG, by the subdivision RE, RM-1, RM-4, CD-1-93 zones) Residential (RT-1 zone) $283 per dwelling $566 per additional unit being built lot being created by the subdivision High Density $142 per dwelling Residential (RM-2, RM-3, unit being built RM-5, C-i, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-S, CS-i, CS-2, CS-3, CS-4, CRM, M-1, M-2, M-3, H-I zones) Commercial $6,227 per hectare (C-I, C-2, C-3, CRM, C-4, of the site C-S. H-I, CS-I, M-1, CS-2, CS-3, CS-4, P-2, P-3, P-4, P-4a, P-5, P-6 zones) Industrial $6,227 per hectare (M-1, M-2, M-3, M-4, of the site M-5 zones) (1) Institutional $2,548 per hectare (P-i (School only)) of the site (g) Comprehensive Development The sum of (1) and (ii) $142 per dwelling unit $6,227 per hectam of site WE 2. Storm Sewer Facilities Residential (R-1, R-2,R-3. R-la, $715 per dwelling $715 per additional RS-1, RS-la, RS-lb, SRS, RS-lc, unit being built lot being created RS- ld, RS-2, RS-3, RMH, RG, by the subdivision RE, RM-1, RM-4, CD-1-93 zones) Residential (RT-1 zone) $715 per dwelling $1,430 per additional unit being built lot being created by the subdivision High Density $530 per dwelling Residential (RM-2, RM-3, unit being built RM-5, C-i, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, CS-i, CS-2, CS-3, CS-4, CRM, M-1, M-2, M-3, H-i zones) Commercial $11,680 per hectare (C-i, C-2, C-3, CRM, C-4, of the site C-5, H-I, CS-I, M-1, CS-2, CS-3, CS-4, P-2, P-3, P-4, P-4a, P-5, P-6 zones) Industrial $12,439 per hectare (M-i, M-2. M-3, M-4, of the site M-5 zones) Institutional $8,239 per hectare (P-I (School only)) of the site Comprehensive Development The sum of (i) and (ii) $530 per dwelling unit $11,680 per hectare of site. 3. Water Facilities Residential (R-1, R-2, R-3, R-la, $820 per dwelling $820 per additional RS-1, RS-la, RS-lb, SRS, RS-lc, unit being built lot being created RS-id, RS-2, RS-3, RMH, RG, by the subdivision RE, RM-1, RM-4, CD-i-93 zones) Residntiãl (RT-I zone) $820 per dwelling $1,640 per unit being built additional lot being created by the subdivision -5- (t) (g) High Density Residential (RM-2, RM-3, RM-5, C-i, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, CS-i, CS-2, CS-3, CS-4, CRM, M-1, M-2, M-3, H-i zones) Commercial (C-i, C-2, C-3, CRM, C-4, C-5, H-1, CS-i, M-1, CS-2, CS-3, CS-4, P-2, P-3, P-4, P-4a, P-5, P-6 zones) Industrial (M-i, M-2, M-3, M-4, M-5 zones) Institutional (P-i (School only)) Comprehensive Development $410 per dwelling unit being built $18,032 per hectare of the site $18,032 per hectare of the site $7,377 per hectare of the site The sum of (i) and (ii) $410 per dwelling unit $18,032 per hectare of site 4. Highway Facilities Residential (R-1, R-2, R-3 R-la, RS-i, RS-la, RS-ib, SRS, RS-lc, RS-ld, RS-2, RS-3, RMH, RG, RE, CD-1-93 zones) $7,159 per dwelling unit being built $7,159 per additional lot being created by the subdivision Residential (RT-1 zone) $7,159 per dwelling $14,318 per unit being built additional lot being created by the subdivision Residential (RM- 1, RM-4 zones) High Density Residential (RM-2, RM-3, RM-5, C-i, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, CS-i, CS-2, CS-3, CS-4, CRM, M-i, M-2, M-3, H-i zones) $5,011 per dwelling unit being built $3,222 per dwelling unit being built Commercial (C-i, C-2, C-3, CRM, C-4, C-5, H-i, CS-i, M-1, CS-2, CS-3, CS-4, P-2, P-3, P-4, P-4a, P-5, P-6 zones) $86,646 per hectare of the site I Industrial (M-i, M-2, M-3, M-4, M-5 zones) Institutional (P-i (School only)) Comprehensive Development $7,867 per hectare of the site $25,251 per hectare of the site The sum of (i) and (ii) $3,222 per dwelling unit $86,646 per hectare of site. 5. Public Open Space Residential (R-1, R-2, R-3, R-la, RS-1, RS-Ia, RS-Ib, SRS, RS-lc, RS-ld, RS-2, RS-3, RMH, RG, RE, RM-1, RM-4, CD-1-93 zones) Residential (RT-I zone) High Density Residential (RlvI-2, RM-3, RM-5, C-i, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-S, CS-i, CS-2, CS-3, CS-4, CRM, M-1, M-2, M-3, H-i zones) Comprehensive Development B. DOWNTOWN CORE AREA $3,943 per dwelling unit being built $3,943 per dwelling unit being built $2,563 per dwelling unit being built $3,943 per additional lot being created by the subdivision $7,886 per additional lot being created by the subdivision $2,563 per dwelling unit being built UPON ISSUE OF UPON SUBDIVISION BUILDING PERMIT 1. Sewage Facilities High Density Residentiai(C:2; C3, cs_i, - RM-2, RM-3 zones) Commercial (CS-1, -C-2,C-3, P-6zones) Comprehensive Development $156 per dwIIing unit being built $6,879 per hectare ofthe site The sum of (i) and (ii) $156 per dwelling unit $6,879 per hectare of site -7- 2. Storm Sewer Facilities High Density $10 per dwelling Residential (C-2, C-3, CS-i, unit being built RM-2, RM-3 zones) Commercial $921 per hectare (CS-I, C-2, C-3, P-6 zones) of the site Comprehensive Development The sum of (i) and (ii) $10 per dwelling unit $921 per hectare of site 3. Water Facilities High Density $131 per dwelling Residential (C-2, C-3, CS-i, unit being built RM-2, RM-3 zones) Commercial $5,774 per hectare (CS-1, C-2, C-3, P-6 zones) of the site Comprehensive Development The sum of (i) and (ii) $131 per dwelling unit $5,774 per hectare of site 4. Highway Facilities High Density $2,755 per dwelling Residential (C-2, C-3, CS-i, unit being built RM-2, RM-3 zones) Commercial $51,057 per hectare (CS-I, C-2, C-3, P-6 zones) of the site Comprehensive Development The sum of (i) and (ii) $2,755 per dwelling unit $51,057 per hectare of site 5. Public Open Space High Density $2,563 per dwelling Residential (C-2, C-3, CS-i unit being built RM-2, RM-3 zones) Comprehensive Development $2;563 per dwelling uiiit being built. -8- C. RURAL AREA UPON ISSUE OF UPON SUBDIVISION BUILDING PERMIT 1. Sewage Facilities Residential (RS-2, $170 per dwelling $170 per additional RMH, RG-2, Cs-i, CS-4, unit being built lot being created C-4 zones) by the subdivision Commercial $3,745 per hectare (CS-I, CS-4, C-4, P-2, P-6 zones) of the site 2. Drainage (a) Residential $349 per dwelling $349 per additional (RS-2, RS-3, RMH, unit being built lot being created by RG-2, RG-3, RE, A-I, the subdivision A-2, A-3, A-4 zones) 3. Water Facilities (a) Residential $2,635 per dwelling $2,635 per additional (R5-2, RS-3, RMH, unit being built lot being created by RG-2, RE, A-1, the subdivision A-2, A-3, A-4 zones) 4. Highway Facilities (a) Residential $3,083 per dwelling $3,083 per additional (RS-2, RS-3, RMH, RG-2, unit being built lot being created by RG-3, RE, A-i, A-2, A-3, the subdivision A-4, C-i, C-2, C-4, CS-i, M-i, CS-2a, CS-3, CS-4, H-i, M-2, M-4, M-5 zones) (b) Commercial (C-I, C-2, $46,240 per hectare CS-i, M-i, C5-2a, CS-3, of the site C5-4, H-I, P-2, P-3, P-4, P-4a, P-5, P-6 zones) (c) Industrial $32,610 per hectare (M-i, M-2, M-3, M-4, of the site M=5 zones) - 5. Public Open Space (a) Residential $957 per dwelling $957 per additional (RS-2, RS-3, RMH, RG-2, unit being built lot being created by RG-3, RE, A-I, A-2, A-3, the subdivision A-4, C-i, C-2, C-4, CS-I, M-i, CS-2a, CS-3, CS-4, H-i, M-2, M-4, M-5 zones) —J N \FUND4NG\ITC-5552-1997\MA02.owc ' -\ CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor A. Hogarth DATE: August 9. 2000 and Members of Council FILE NO: SDP-44-00 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W - PW & Dev SUBJECT: Application for fill in the Agricultural Land Reserve 26301 Trethewey Crescent, Maple Ridge SUMMARY: An application was made to the Agricultural Land Commission by the agent, Mr. Brent Saniger, to place fill at 26301 Trethewey Crescent in order to improve the agricultural potential of the property by eliminating topographic limitations and providing additional soil for forage production. RECOMMENDATION: That with respect to the application for a fill permit under Section 3 of the Soil Conservation Act submitted for the property at 26301 Trethewey Crescent, be it resolved that a permit be issued in accordance with the conditions outlined in the report dated August 9, 2000 entitled "Applications for fill in the Agricultural Land Reserve 26301 Trethewey Crescent, Maple Ridge." BACKGROUND: In September of 1998 the owners of the above mentioned property made application to the Agricultural Land Commission in order to enhance the properties capability to produce and sustain forage material for the rearing of horses. The Commission reviewed the application and advised the District in writing on October 29, 1998 that they would support the issuance of a fill permit for 26301 Trethewey Crescent. At the time the applicants were unable to secure the necessary fill material required to complete the project within the required 1 year time frame and asked that the District hold off on issuing the permit until they were ready. In June of this year it came to the attention of the District that fill was being placed on the property without a permit from the municipality and the site was closed pending review of the application by Council. Under Section 5 of the Soil Conservation Act, soil can not be deposited on lands within the Agricultural Land Reserve until: (a) an approval to grant a permit has been given by the Land Reserve Commission in writing; and (b) the local authority, where the land is located, has issued a permit. In..reviewingtheapplicationandthe cotiditlOns Of appróvàl placed on the site by the Commission in their letter dated October 29, 1998 (see attached), staff recommend that the fill permit be issued for 26301 Trethewey Crescent provided that the following District conditions are adhered to: - that the fill depth be restricted to a '1 metre maximum as stated in the application and that the material already placed on the site conform to this depth restriction; - that the fill volume approved by the Commission be scaled back to 4,200 m 3 respecting the area under application and a maximum fill depth of 1 metre; - that no filling occurs within 5 metres of the well head and that no sediment laden water be allowed to make its way passed the south access road to the well head; - that no sediment be allowed to make its way to any off-site watercourses; 901oo` - that no roadside vegetation is disturbed; - that no refueling or servicing of machinery goes on within 15 meters of any watercourse or surface drain; - the removal of any construction debris from the site prior to the placement of any additional fill; and - that a $1,000 security deposit be placed with the District to ensure that the temporary culvert crossing installed in the roadside ditch to provide access to the fill site is removed and the ditch is restored upon completion of the fill project. A copy of the proposed soil deposit permit and the letter from the Land Reserve Commission dated October 28, 1998 granting approval for the placement of fill on the above referenced property have been attached for information. CONCLUSION: Staff have reviewed the application to place fill at 26301 Trethewey Crescent and recommend the issuance of a soil deposit permit subject to the above noted conditions. Prepared by: Gro , P.Ag. 4entalana of Envir Affairs A pp roved by: Christine Carter, MCIP Director of Planning Approved'j Jake J. Rufrfph, AICP, MCIP GM: Public Works & Development Services )L Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, AICP, MCIP Chief Administrative Officer -, I - Lij Of : 12 40 1 6 26301 - - t. 2.034 ho. - 41 S pp LIt InO oo 1 lfl , P P0434 12 13 —3 ": • h , II I p ,0, SUBJECT PROPERTY SILVER VALLEY A R7*wH DISTRICT IUDGE Egfta&ng PLANNING DEPARTMENT MAPLE RIDGE SCALE: \\\LJ[oRNHL— 123 tber, 1:6000 _____ 10, 2000 FILE: SDP-44-00 CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE LOCAL AUTHORITY - FILL PERMIT (Pursuant to Section 3, Soil Conservation Act) SOIL DEPOSIT PERMIT NO. SDP-44-00 Pursuant to the Provincial Soil Conservation Act, the District of Maple Ridge (as designated Local Authority) hereby grants permission to: Brent Saniger of 29585 Hudson Avenue, Mission 604-462-9545 (address) (telephone) to deposit 4200 cubic metres of soil upon the following property 26301 Trethewey Crescent, Maple Ridge 604-462-9700 (address of property) Lot 16, LD 37, Section 13, Twp 12, Plan 63096, (legal description of property) in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of the Soil Conservation Act, Resolution #727/98 of the Land Reserve Commission (Commission) and the plans, specifications and any other supporting documents which form a part of Permit SDP#44-00 and constitute the terms and conditions of this Permit. This permit is issued on the condition that the permit holders fully comply with all terms and conditions herein of this Permit. - Conditions - Commission Resolution #727/98 Conditions (attached): • All Conditions of Approval defined by Land Reserve Commission Resolution #727/98 apply (Note: the maximum fill volume has been adjqstedt reflectsi.te .dimensions) including: • No concrete, asphalt, construction debris, petroleum products, toxic wastes, contaminated materials or any other non-soil material shall be brought onto the Property. Local Authority Conditions: • Maximum fill depth of 1.0 m for all fill areas as specified in the Soil Conservation Act Application (fill quantity has been calculated to be approximately 4,200m 3); • No filling within 3m of property lines; • Side slopes shall not exceed a uniform and stable slope of 2:1 (H:V); • No filling within the onsite Easement (Plan 63098) (Attached) or within 5m of the well head, and no release of sediment south of the access road towards the well head; • No release of sediment into the adjacent roadside ditch or offsite watercourses, to be accomplished by: - Use of gravel check dams with silt fencing (keyed into ground); - Handseeding of new surface areas upon completion of filling; • No disturbance of the vegetation within the roadside ditch; • Regular road cleaning (not flushing) - as required; • Flag Person and road signs - as required; • No refueling/service of machinery within 15m of any watercourse or surface drainage; • A perimeter drain will be installed along the north Property Line to prevent off-site runoff to the north; • Removal of all construction debris from fill area prior to further filling; • The location and general design of the filling are to be consistent with the information supplied in the application package. The District is to be informed of any modifications to the site plan; and • Security Deposit of $1000 (as required by Engineering Department) for temporary ditch culvert, to be returned following confirmation of culvert removal and restoration of ditch. This Soil Deposit Permit is issued this 22nd day of August, 2000 and shall expire 12 months after the date of issuance or whenever permitted fill dimensions are achieved, whichever occurs first. Manager, Environmental Affairs (_d1o) fl \i' cAL Rj c-ee 26229.. / 1 / - s / - - * I / OrUoiu L - -_ Açroc "e 16 I / \ I' 2\ '\ ( e 1 4rh &r4bd 'IA)QM\ / / \ ------ - - - - £ 36301 Trethewey FlU Site 5A PkDGE NT KEY MAP DATE: Jul 24 2000 FILE: BY: JS / 10, 1 N 11 LXF'LANATORY PLAN OF EMPEMENT OVER A.PORTION OF THE NORTH EAST QUARTER AND PLAN OF THE SOUTHAS I QUARTER SECTIOt13 TOWNSHIP 12,: . ... ,. . . .. NEW WESTMINSTER DISTRICT (PtUt TO StcTION 99l(.) t ? — . 250 . .':. S DMV.s I40* • . . 'Fi; •0 .... .......... -1 / 400 '4 / - / • / •1' tS 1 t•___ — _y/ — __________•_; •,*..D I r . - ____•\ %\_Sc.. •• ? / 5 ..-• . •: • "• ' 9 ,1 .' •, •oe,., -- Ii - .•,oS. 'Ti / IZM 5*114 • 8 8 ccsttM. _.__/ •• • tCC.13.TPIZ — I .......... / 15 F4M3 : • I)202' 22'-. . 'I2 AVENUE T - Provincial Agricultural Land Commission I .& 133 - 4940 Canada Way. Burnaby. B.C. V5G 4K6 Telephone: (604) 660-7000 Fax: (604) 660-7033 October 29, 1998 Reply to the attention,9f Andrew Upper EirE1,vp District of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place NOV ç 199 Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6G2 -. Attention: George Ridgewell Re: Soil Conservation Act Application #0-32362 Applicant: Dr. K. P. Dugdale _.t ....... This is to advise that the Provincial Agricultural Land Commission (the "Commissio&34as considered the above noted application submitted pursuant to Section 3 of the Soil Conservation Act-the "SCA") involving the property legally described as Lot 16, Section 13, Township 12, New Westminster District, Plan 63096 (the "Property"). The Commission believes that the placement of approximatel3,7000m3 fill and reclamation would improve the agricultural potential of the Property by eliminating topographic limitations and providing additional soil for forage production. Therefore, the Commission, by Resolution #727198, approved the project subject to the conditions outlined herein. This letter represents the Commission's written approval for the project as required by Section 2(l)(a) of the SCA; THIS IS NOTA PERMIT. Pursuant to Section 5 of the SCA, the District of Maple Ridge (the "District") may now issue a soil placement permit (the "Permit") if it wishes to do so. Please note that the Commission's approval in no way compels the District to issue a Permit. However, if a Permit is issued it must contain the Commission's conditions of approval. The District may impose additional terms and conditions it considers necessary. Furthermore, this decision in no way relieves the owner or occupier of the responsibility of adhering to all other legislation and decisions of responsible authorities including, but not limited to, the District and the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. If a Permit is issued, please forward a copy to this office. -.... C0NDITIONS0FAPPROVAL I 1.0. LOCATION . -. - ----- All filling and associated activities shall be restricted to the area shown as hatched on the attached map. 2.0. TERM This approval shall be valid for a term of 1 year from the date of the issuance of the Permit or until completion of the project, whichever occurs first. /2 Preserving Our Poodlands District of Maple Ridge October 29, 1998 Page 2 3.0. BONDING A security in the form of an Irrevocable Letter of Credit (the "ILOC") in the amount of $5,000 shall be posted with the Commission. The beneficiaiy of the ILOC is the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations, do #1334940 Canada Way, Burnaby, B.C. V5G 4K6. The security is required to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of this approval and to provide funds to reclaim the land in event the owner/operator does not fulfill his/her obligations as set forth herein. An example ILOC is attached. Note: A Permit shall not be issued until the Commission provides written confirmation of receipt of the ILOC. 4.0. QUALITY OF FILL/SOIL MATERIAL The texture of the fill/soil material shall be of good agricultural quality and be relatively stone free. 5.0. SITE PREPARATION AND FILLING All topoiLshall be removed and stockpiled in a berm adjacent to the fill area. The sideslope of each berm shall not exceed a uniform and stable slope of 2:1. As a method erosion and weed control, each completed berm shall be seeded with an appropriate cereal/forage mix and fertilized. The soil surface of the berm shall not remain bare for more than 30 days without providing either a vegetative or mulch cover of straw or shavings. Drainage from, onto and around the berms shall be controlled by ditches, drains or intercepts as required. Filling shall not occur within 3.0 meters of any legal boundary of the Property. 6.0. RECLAMATION Upon completion of filling, the filled area shall be sloped to conform to the relative contours of the area with fmal slopes flowing uniformly into the adjacent landscapes. Upon completion of sloping and prior to replacing any of the stockpiled soil material, the subgrade of the filled area shall be ripped or subsoiled to maintain good internal drainage. Upon completion of sloping and subsoiling, all stockpiled topsoil material shall be uniformly spread in a single lift over the filled area. Note: The Commission encourages the backhauling of good agricultural soil for reclamation purposes. /3 District of Maple Ridge October 29, 1998 Page 3 4) A suitable organic matter shall be applied to the fill area. This organic matter may be added in the form of animal manures or as a cereallforage cover crop and turned into the soil. Sawdust and other wood waste materials are not considered suitable organic matter. 6) Upon completion of all works, a seed bed shall be prepared and the area seeded to an appropriate cereal/forage mix and fertilized. Supplementary irrigation may be required in order to establish and maintain a complete cover. 7.0. GENERAL OPERATING CONDITIONS I) No soil shall be stripped, moved, stockpiled or replaced during conditions of adverse soil moisture content. The movement or manipulation of the soil shall be conducted only when the soil is below field capacity. There shall be no movement or manipulation of soil when the soil is frozen or powdery dry. Surface drainage from the working area, reclaimed and undisturbed areas shall be maintained at all times in order to prevent soil erosion, flooding, siltation or other degradation of the Property, adjacent lands or waterways. Any run-off shall be diverted into catchinent ponds or silt traps prior to discharge into natural watercourses or road ditches. Weed control shall be practised at all times. Weeds must be controlled before seed set and Canada Thistle before flowering. Mechanical and/or approved chemical control are acceptable. No soil material shall be removed from the Property. No concrete, asphalt, construction debris, petroleum products, toxic wastes, contaminated materials or any other non-soil material shall be brought onto the Property. Under no circumstances shall any cedar hog fuel or any other form of cedar wood waste be brought onto the Property. The Permit shall be posted at a prominent location and be clearly visible. The Property shall be secured to prevent unauthorized filling. An unobstructed sign shall be posted on the Property at a prominent location prohibiting unauthorized filling. 8.0) REPORTING AND MONITORING A report shall be submitted to the Commission on an annual basis and upon the completion of the fill operation. It is to include photographs and .a written descripti*m ofihe operation to date. The report is required to ensure that the operation is complying with the conditions of the approval. If the applicant has not completed the project within the specified time period, an extension may be granted provided the operation remains in compliance with local by-laws and the Commission's conditions. The land is still subject to the provisions of the SCA, the Agricultural Land Commission Act, and applicable regulations except as provided by this decision. /4 District of Maple Ridge October 29, 1998 Page 4 Please quote application #0-32362, in all future correspondence. Yours truly, PROVINCIAJtAGRCULTrRAL LAND COMMISSION per: K. B. Enclosure cc: Dr. K. P. Dugdale 26301 Tretheway Crescent Maple Ridge, B.C. V2W 1Z6 Ministry of Enviromnent, Lands and Parks, Planning and Assessment Branch - Surrey B.C. Assessment Authority - Pitt Meadows AU/js I 1 — I Ih 4.I o f A1 I&II 11W Ill b- - 20 6 II V g PI1Q PL* Sla., / s-sacI... •S4 •9N S .20 10 A or 2 ... ¶ Pt.AW PI•Si . ckr oLptrwqA Co,izoi R4,Moh . 'L •. :: / UI4'I' 'T ioiy A / 1 - P'•M b• . %.. - 04p S1 I.... : • 'loop 10411.. 0 SW.. -. . sa,.l_• k / IC.3,TPJ2 • . •: •I•4• / $12 AVE, RE.4. $.W, 114 3CC. I, .TP• I CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: FROM: SUBJECT His Worship Mayor A. Hogarth and Members of Council Chief Administrative Officer DATE: August 14. 2000 FILE NO: ALRI47/99 ATTN: CofW - PW&Dev ALR/47/99 (address 20515,20625,20695,20785 Powell Ave.) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: An application has been received under Section 12(1) of the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) Act to exclude approximately 8 hectares of land from the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) to allow for future urban development. The two west properties were involved in previous separate applications for exclusion. ALR/14/81 was denied exclusion by the Land Reserve Commission (LRC) on the basis that the proposed exclusion would prove to be an intrusion into the ALR and further erode the remaining ALR land in the area. The second application, ALRJ1 1/91 was not authorized to proceed to the LRC based on Council Policy and the good agricultural capability of soils on the site. Council Policy for this area suggests any application for exclusion should be reviewed for the merit of the proposal. Staff have reviewed the applicants information package and did not find a compelling argument or new information to suggest the application should be forwarded to the LRC for resolution. As a result, staff are recommending that the application not be authorized to proceed to the LRC. II RECOMMENDATION: That application ALRJ47199 (for property located at 20515,20625,20695,& 20785 Powell Ave.) to exclude the property described in the memorandum dated August 14, 2000 from the Agricultural Land Reserve, not be authorized to proceed to the Land Reserve Commission. III BACKGROUND: Apticãin: - Bill Kok and Randy Cooke Owners: Tall Trees Developments Ltd; Thomas and Patricia Dinsley; Virinder and Surinder Bhatti; Gary and Joanne Storteboom Legal Description: Parcel B (EP8621) Lot 4, Plan 3359; Lot 4 Except : Firstly Parcel B (EP 8621) Secondly: Parcel A (RP16438) Plan 3359; Parcel A (EP7 1277); & Parcel A (RP 16438) Plan 3359, Subsidy Lot 4, Plan 3359 all of DL 276 Gpi NWD OCP Existing: Agricultural Zoning Existing: RS-3 One Family Rural Residential &A-2 Upland Agricultural 10.5 Surrounding Uses: N: RS-3 One Family Rural Residential! A-2 Upland Agricultural S: RS-1 One Family Urban Residential! RS-3 One Family Rural Residential! SRS Special Urban Residential E: A-2 Upland Agricultural W: RS-3 One Family Rural Residential Previous Applications: ALRI14!81, ALRI1I!91 An application has been received by the Planning Department to exclude approximately 8 ha. of land from the ALR. The applicant has satisfied all "notice of exclusion" requirements under Section 5 of B.C. Regulation 3 13!78 (Agricultural Land Reserve Procedure Regulation). As a result of this notice, the Planning Department has received a letter disagreeing with the application. A copy is attached to this memo. District Context: The properties are located north of Powell Avenue and east of 203id Street. McKinney Creek is on the northern boundary of the three west lots and bisects the fourth or furthest east parcel. All of the land is designated as agricultural on the Official Community Plan (OCP), and is zoned to permit this use. Rural Plan: In October1997 the Rural Plan Advisory Committee (RPAC) completed their final report. The subject site is in an "unresolved area" of Sub Area A. Recommendation No.8 stated this area bounded by Brooks Avenue and McKinney Creek to the west and north and to the Knous Street alignment in the east be reviewed for either keeping the parcels in the ALR or excluding them and incorporating them as transitional land uses. In January 1998 the Summary of Council Decisions on Implementation of the Rural Plan was issued. In this document the required action with respect to Recommendation No.8, the area bounded by Brooks Avenue and McKinney Creek to the west and north, and to the Knorts Street alignment in the east be retained in the ALR. ALR Policy: From the policies adopted by Council on March 2 nd 1992, the subject site is located in Area 1. The policy states "That Area 1 be retained in the Agricultural Land Reserve". From the ALR policies adopted by Council on August 22', 2000, policy No. 5, "Exclusion of lands from the ALR are under the authorityof the LRC. Applications for exclusion from the ALR are made to the Municipality and, based on the merit of the proposal, may be forwarded to the Land Reserve Commission for a decision." -2- IV PLANNING ANALYSIS The current policy with respect to applications for exclusion from the ALR is to consider the merit of the proposal as justification for forwarding the application. The intent of considering merit is to provide some flexibility for Council and staff in reviewing applications for exclusion, some of which maybe based upon a compelling argument or new information to qualify the application to be sent onto the LRC for resolution. Soil Capability: According to the Canada Land Inventory, the area under consideration is predominately an unimproved class 3, with potential to be improved to class 2. Land in capability class 3 has limitations that require moderately intensive management practices or moderately restrict the range of crops or both. The capability class is a grouping of lands that have the same relative degree of limitation for agricultural use. The intensity of the limitation becomes progressively greater from class 1 to class 7. The class indicates the general suitability of the land for agricultural use. The Applicant has not submitted a specific on site agrologist study to question the accuracy of the Canada Land Inventory mapping for this area. Information provided by the Applicant's Development Consultant suggests that should the application be forwarded to the LRC an agrologist report should be undertaken to substantiate anecdotal comments that the soil is "relatively poor." Development Proposal: The Applicant has submitted a land use report in support of their application to exclude this land from the ALR (copy is attached). The report focuses on the location of the site adjacent to urban residential development to the south, and developing the subject site would create an opportunity to provide a buffer adjacent to the ALR. The set back area along McKinney Creek would provide a natural buffer to separate agricultural uses from urban residential development. The report includes information on the location of urban amenities for shopping, schools, transportation and suggests the site is adjacent to storm water and sanitary sewer services. As this is not a rezoning application where the land use is proposed to change, the Municipality has yet to consider the suitability of any services shown in this report to be acceptable for the proposed use. A previous application ALR/14/8 1 for exclusion of Lot B, of the subject site, to develop urban lots was refused by the LRC on the grounds that the proposed exclusion would prove to be an intrusion into the ALR and further erode the remaining agricultural land in the area. "It is the Commission's experience that applications of this nature, if allowed tend to precipitate similar requests from adjacent property owners and in time, this development would become dethmental to the entire agricultural community." Application ALRJ5/98 for three properties (totaling 5.1 ha) to the west of the subject site on Powell and Brooks Avenues was refused by the LRC in March 1998. The Commission in its decision believes there is a community need in providing a range of property sizes to the small scale farmer who does not need an extensive acreage but wants to maintain a small acreage for hobby -3- farm purposes. From the decision the following was also indicated "In the Commission 's opinion the best buffer between the high density residential development to the south already exists in the form of Brooks Avenue and Powell Road and it is unwilling to encourage that same level of development north of the road." The Land Use Report provided by the applicant raises questions on land use rather than provide justification for excluding land from the ALR, which is the intent of this application. Further the suggestion that a new buffer created as a result of urban development on the north side of Powell Avenue would benefit the community is contrary to the Commission's opinion that the best buffer exists today as they are unwilling to encourage development north of Powell Avenue Based on the above staff cannot support sending this application to the LRC based on merit. VI CONCLUSION: In consideration of the Council Policies, the Summary of Council Decisions on Implementation of the Rural Plan, the decisions of previous applications for this site, and review of documents provided, it is recommended that this application not be authorized to proceed to the. Land Reserve Commission. / Prepared by: Bruce McLeod, ISA Certified Arborist ,-LandscapelPlanning Tnician Approved by: Christine Carter, M.C.I.P Director of Planning / f 'ake JRudolph,,kICPMCiP \\ GM: Public Works & Development Services Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, AICP, MCIP Chief Administrative Officer Ibmcl I p II II 10 JEW II -J • -Ic: )f/ / p P21110 ING 2 _ _ 00 V POWELL AVE. 1 10 . 1 L0 '7 , (1) s' I ' L._.' ____ J ' 3 to £' I'—.. •'k i ii r i I 7 I-- A..iu s 33 as is I — ' It 2 IF 1/2 3 12 ' I FT- — 3' 30 ........r ' • I tS • 20 2It' 3, • III S g 30 jS 41 "9/tz t / ,.# 10 0 30 LSO' 30310 —Leo 0, 2 ' hF , _p 3— 7 30 • 2 ç 230 at 21 _ •1.s 22$ 2I3 302 zz 2 2 , / I I • 25 7j '7' _;_ I •t' r' 238 SI ' __L SUBJECT PROPERTIES LV PROPOSED A.L.R. EXCLUSION A DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE ALSM PLANNING DEPARTMENT SCALE: MORNHILL MAPLE RIDGE L b corporated 12 September. 1874 1 5000 ______________________ P05S 5P4 FiLE/BYLAW: ALR-47-99 DATE: AUGUST 4. 1999 George Goodall and Kirk Grayson 20810 Powell Avenue Maple Ridge, BC V2X 4A4 Tuesday, June 29, 1999 District of Maple Ridge Council & Planning Department 11995 Haney Place Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Re: 20785 Powell Avenue 20695 Powell Avenue 20515 Powell Avenue 20625 Powell Avenue /4i IP / 'ft/I, 3/999 Pv!4i1p, - To the District of Maple Ridge Council & Pltming Department: As residents living in the immediate neighbourhood of the above-named properties, we wish to register our concern over the application for their removal from the Agricultural Land Reserve (AIR). We fully support the need for preservation of agricultural land throughout the urban areas of the lower mainland, and we are concerned that the referenced land not be removed from ALR for development or any other purposes. It is our understanding that property can only be removed from AIR if it can be shown to be no longer viable for agricultural purposes. It is difficult to understand how these properties could be represented as such. One property is cunently the site of a small- scale poultry and mixed livestock operation. It is adjacent to a thriving dairy farm. Several of the properties are bordered (across McKinney Creek) by a major greenhouse operation. The farthest property to the west has a horse-breeding farm as its immediate neighbour. Apart from our concern for the retention of AIR land, we also have concerns as property owners in the neighbourhood. Removal of the above-named properties from the AIR would substantially affect the character of the neighbourhood. We do not thiiilt it is cynical to expect development to be the next step after successful removal from AIR; the only real question would be how soon. We anticipate that traffic would increase significantly and that our property values, based in part on the semi-rural flavour of this area of Maple Ridge, would be reduced. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this application. Yours truly, Kirk Grayson & George Go CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor A. Hogarth DATE: July 20. 2000 and Members of Council FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: CoW- PW &DS SUBJECT: Federation of Canadian Municipalities' Partners for Climate Protection Program SUMMARY: This report is to provide Council with an overview of the issue of atmospheric greenhouse gases and the resources available to local governments to actively work towards reducing local greenhouse gas emissions. Staff are requesting that Council voluntarily commit to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and recommend that Council endorse the municipalities' membership in the Federation of Canadian Municipalities' (FCM) Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) program and direct staff to begin work towards PCP program milestones. Staff resources are available from the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) to complete milestone work and therefore, staff are also asking Council to endorse the municipalities participation in the GVRD Regional and Local Government Working Group on Climate Change (WGCC). RECOMMENDATIONS: That Council endorse membership in the Federation of Canadian Municipalities' Partners for Climate Protection program making a commitment to work to reduce local greenhouse gas emissions; That Council endorse the Manager of Environmental Affairs' participation with the GVRD Regional and Local Government Working Group on Climate Change; and That staff be directed to work towards meeting the objectives of milestone 1 and 2 of the PCP program as outlined in the report with the support of Federation of Canadian Municipalities and GVRD staff resources. BACKGROUND: The Greenhouse Effect and Climate Change The natural greenhouse effeet is vital to life s weknowit. Naturally.oec-urring-greenhouse gases -suchas water viipour, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide trap the suns heat energy as it is reflected from the surface of the earth. Trapping the sun's heat energy helps warm the surface of the earth, keeping it warmer than it would otherwise be. Although there are many natural sources of greenhouse gas, human activities are contributing to the increase in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gas, intensifying the natural greenhouse effect. It is the heightening of this natural greenhouse effect that is believed to be causing an unnatural increase in global temperatures that is affecting precipitation, wind patterns, and ocean circulation. It is believed that these effects will alter the world's climatic regions and, consequently, their ecosystems. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have increased nearly 30%, methane concentrations have more than doubled, and nitrous oxide concentrations 1 11) have risen by about 15%. Energy burned to run cars and trucks, heat homes and businesses, and power factories is responsible for about 80% of today's carbon dioxide emissions, about 25% of methane emissions, and about 20% of global nitrous oxide emissions. Canada currently emits only about 2% of the global emissions of greenhouse gases, but the country is one of the highest per capita emitters in the world. Greenhouse gas emissions in British Columbia alone have increased by 2 1 % since 1990. In an effort to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions the federal government, in December 1997, signed the Kyoto Protocol under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. In doing so. Canada agreed to reduce its national greenhouse gas emissions by six percent from 1990 levels, during the period 2008 to 2012. Why is Climate Change an Issue for Local Government? The management of greenhouse gases has wide reaching implications for the lifestyle of residents, economic activity and ecosystem health in the Greater Vancouver Regional District. Most greenhouse gas emissions in the region are the result of the burning of fossil fuels. In 1990, 40% of emissions were attributed to the transportation sector, (including road, rail, air and marine), 27% to the industrial sector. 13% to the residential sector, 9% to the commercial sector, 9% to waste management, and 2% to the agricultural sector (GVRD, 1998). Given current trends, emissions from the transportation sector are expected to increase with growth in population, industry and motor vehicle use. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities indicates that Canadian municipal governments have jurisdiction over the policy levers that influence 20 to 25 percent of Canada's total emissions, including emissions from transportation and buildings. Municipal decisions about transportation planning, subdivision location and design, zoning, development permits and growth management strategies all influence transportation energy use. These and other instruments also have a major influence on energy consumption (and consequently greenhouse gas emissions) from buildings. Fortunately, many of the strategies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions also support other local priorities such as reducing infrastructure operating costs, improving local air quality, improving transportation choice, preserving greenspace, and enhancing local economic development. There are several opportunities available to local governments who want to become involved in greenhouse gas management initiatives, including the Federation of Canadian Municipalities' Partners for Climate Protection program and the GVRD Regional and Local Working Group on Climate Change. Partners for Climate Change Program (PCP) The Federation of Canadian Municipalities' Partners for Climate Change program is a group of municipal and regional governments across Canada working together to reduce the production of local greenhouse gas emissions; assisting Canada in its efforts to meet international climate change commitments. The primary objective of the program is to encourage municipalities to undertake a sustained effort to reduce emissions. The program "encourages" members to meet the following five milestones: Milestone 1(a) Prepare an emission inventory for municipal operations; Milestone 1(b) Prepare an emission inventory for the community as a whole; An emission inventory is an accounting of all sources of air emissions within a defined region, and is an essential tool for air quality management planning and airshed modeling. Such an inventory would provide baseline information from which progress could be measured. Milestone 2 Forecast energy use and emissions for 10 or 20 years in the future Milestone 3 Establish a target for emissions reduction from 1995 base year levels Preferred targets: a 20010 reduction in emissions from municipal operations; and a 6% or greater reduction in community emissions, within 10 years of joining Milestone 4 Develop and adopt a local action plan to reduce emissions from municipal operations and from the community, involving public awareness and education campaigns Milestone 5 Begin implementation of the local action plan and the monitoring of greenhouse gas reduction achievements over time. It is important to note that PCP members are "encouraged" to complete all five milestones, they are not "required" to complete all five milestones. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) has hired a project consultant for the region that is available to assist PCP program members with program milestones. The GVRD Regional and Local Government Working Group on Climate Change (WGCC) The GVRD Working Group on Climate Change (WGCC) was established in 1997 to provide a forum for communication and cooperation among those municipal and regional governments that were interested in addressing climate change issues and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It was intended to foster new interest and eventual commitment from those municipalities who had not yet made any formal commitment to greenhouse gas management. By working together and sharing technical expertise, municipalities could conserve resources while improving their effectiveness in addressing climate change. The involvement of the District of Maple Ridge in the WGCC has until very recently been peripheral. The Planning Department has been receiving the minutes of the WGCC meetings for information purposes only. Table 1 summarizes the participation of municipalities in the WGCC. The WGCC, whose terms of reference is attached in Appendix 1, is also working to facilitate the efforts of municipalities that are working towards the completion of milestones specified through their membership in the Partners for Climate Protection program (PCP). Table 1 shows municipal PCP membership status in the GVRD and the progress being made on the completion of Milestone 1 by those municipalities. The City of Coquitlam, the Corporation of Delta and the GVRD are the only governments to date who have completed their corporate emission inventories. The City of Vancouver, the City of Port Moody and the City of Richmond are close to completing Milestone 1 and have set September 2000 as their target completion date. Each year, the WGCC develops a work plan and adopts strategies to implement work plan action items. In 1999, the effort of the WGCC work plan led to the GVRD agreeing to develop the data required to complete PCP program Milestone 1(b) (as referenced below). As a result, all 11 PCP program members in the GVRD have completed their community greenhouse gas emission inventories. The current work plan includes completing PCP Milestone 1(a) (as referenced below). To assist with this task, the GVRD has allocated staff resources to develop the required data for PCP member municipalities. All that is required on the part of municipal staff is to provide logistical support to the data collection process. 3 Table 1. Municipal Participation in the WGCC and PCP Program Municipality WGCC PCP Member Milestone 1 Abbotsford, City of* "j y Anmore, Village of N y Belcarra, Village of N N Burnaby, City of Y y Cog uitlam, City of y y y Delta, Corporation of Y Y y GVRD Y Y Y Langley, City of N N Langley, Township of I N Lions Bay, Village of N N Maple Ridge, District of I N Mission, District of N N New Westminster, City of I Y North Vancouver, City of Y Y North Vancouver, District of Y Y Pitt Meadows, District of N N Port Coguitlam, City of N N Port Moody, City of Y Y Richmond, City of I N Surrey, City of Y Y Vancouver. City of Y Y West Vancouver, City of N N White Rock, City of N N *FVRD Representation I = Interested Current District Energy Management Initiatives Over the past six years, the District has implemented a number of energy saving projects, including BC Hydro's Power Smart Building Performance Program and most recently BC Hydro's "Smart Bill" Program. These two programs have and will be facilitating the reduction of energy consumption in municipal facilities. The Planning Department, Parks and Facilities, and Engineering Operations are working to initiate a number of initiatives through the BC Housing Corporation, the GVRD Air 2000 Program, Natural Resources Canada Commercial Building Incentive Program and the Government of Canada's new "Green Funds" that encourage investment in innovative environmental projects. The District is currently in the process of making application under the municipal "Green Funds" program for energy saving upgrades to the Operations Centre, the three firehalls, the expanded Leisure Centre, and the possible conversion of one of our outdoor pools to solar heating. DISCUSSION: The District's 2000 work program identified the need for a "municipal audit" that would assess the District's current level of environmental performance and would establish a framework to monitor that progress over time. While working to develop the terms of reference for such a project staff identified community energy planning, or energy use and emissions profiling, as an excellent tool for assessing or "auditing" the performance of municipal operations. Municipal decisions regarding facilities, transportation planning, land use planning and growth management have a major influence on community energy use. El Staff recommend that Council consider the District for membership in the Federation of Canadian Municipalities' Partners for Climate Protection program and the GVRD Working Group on Climate Change. As a member of the PCP program and the WGCC, Maple Ridge would have access to resources that would help facilitate the development of a baseline emissions inventory that could be used to move forward with subsequent program milestones and also be used for community energy planning. The membership would provide an opportunity for the District to take advantage of the multiple co-benefits of energy efficiency and improved air quality and would help formalize the District's continued commitment to reducing energy consumption in municipal operations. Benefits of the PCP Program Municipal governments already active in climate protection are benefiting from local job creation and reduced energy costs. Measures for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (e.g. energy efficiency projects) create up to four times more employment than energy supply investments. This employment is created locally. Moreover, the cost savings associated with energy-efficient operations are significant. Retrofitting municipal buildings, improving Street lighting, and using efficient vehicles for municipal fleets, for example, can save municipal governments thousands of dollars every year. The payback period on capital investments to improve energy efficiency is often short, and the savings can be reinvested in the community. To assist municipalities with the preparation of greenhouse emission inventories and community energy plans the FCM provides PCP members with a computer software package that will convert both corporate and community energy use data to greenhouse gas emissions. The software is free of charge to. PCP program members and converts energy inputs (e.g. electricity use such as kilowatt-hours) to a unit of equivalent carbon dioxide (CO 2) or eCO2, which is the common unit used to report greenhouse gas emissions. The FCM software is able to separate the operations of a typical Canadian municipal government into categories or sectors, such as buildings, vehicle fleets, streetlights, solid waste, and direct emissions making it possible to conduct a fairly detailed assessment of the eCO2 emissions of municipal operations. With the signing of two agreements on March 31, 2000, between FCM and the federal government, two multi-million dollar funding programs are now available for innovative municipal environmental projects. The creation of the $100-million Green Municipal Investment Fund and the $25-million Green Municipal Enabling fund now recognizes the critical role that municipal governments play in sustainable development. The funds will help municipal governments target initiatives that improve the eco- efficiency of their operations. Although any FCM member can apply to the funds, Council's commitment to the PCP program may aid the FCM with their selection of successful projects. Proposed Action. items for PCP Program Staff are proposing a number of tentative action items for Council to consider should PCP membership be actively pursued by the District of Maple Ridge. The following action items are proposed for consideration: Milestone 1: Profile energy use for the base year 1995 for municipal operations and community wide emissions. Action items: • FCM staff to use data provided by GVRD to complete community wide emissions inventory • District staff to provide logistical support to GVRD staff to compile emissions data for municipal operations 5 • FCM staff to formalize the results of the inventory into a brief emissions report for presentations to Council, and District staff. Milestone 2: Forecast energy use for 10 to 20 years into the future for municipal operations and then community wide energy use. Action items: • District staff to use FCM software to forecast emission rates • District staff to establish an inter-departmental committee to review forecasts and to work on developing a process for moving the District towards the development of a greenhouse gas management action plan. CONCLUSION: In an effort to help ensure the long-term environmental health of the region and to formalize the District's commitment to energy consumption reductions staff are recommending that Council consider pursuing membership with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities' Partners for Climate Protection program. As Partners for Climate Protection Members, Canadian municipal governments exercise a leadership role in responding to global environmental concerns while contributing to Canada's effort to meet its international commitment as a signatory to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Partners for Climate Protection program can help members sort through various initiatives, promote partnerships with others concerned with climate change, and help create a tailored greenhouse gas emissions reduction strategy which addresses local needs and resources while building on the success of others. The GVRD has allocated staff resources to develop the required emissions inventory data for PCP member municipalities, therefore, District staffing implications are minimal. Staff are seeking Council's support to complete the emissions inventory necessary for the development of future greenhouse gas reduction action plans and are looking for Council's to support the development of an inter-departmental commjxtee to help coordinate the District's greenhouse gas reduction efforts. —J .- I \i.i Prepared by: Kim Grout, P.(g. & Environmental Services / I Approved by: Christine Carter, MCIP Director of Planning Approved'kvj \[ 'Jake J. Rudjifph, AIMCIP /N\ G,IJyl: Public Works & Development Services r _ Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, AICP, MCIP Chief Administrative Officer GVRD Regional and Local Government Working Group on Climate Change Terms of Reference: The GVRD Regional and Local Government Working Group on Climate Change (WGCC) consists of the Greater Vancouver Regional District and its member municipalities, and neighbouring regional and local governments, who are interested in climate change issues. Participation may vary from simply keeping informed of issues and initiatives addressing climate change to direct participation in greenhouse gas emission reductions through various strategies and municipal actions. Participation may range from receiving and exchanging information, through attending meetings of the Working Group, to joining initiatives such as the Partners for Climate Protection program sponsored by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. Working Relationship The working group is a cooperative effort of the GVRD, its member municipalities and neighbouring regional and local governments. Municipal representatives of the working group are staff appointed by their respective municipality. However, additional and/or alternate representation by non- appointed staff is also welcome. Working group representatives are expected to work cooperatively to share information and expertise related to climate change and the implementation of greenhouse gas emission reduction initiatives. The GVRD facilitates the working group's activities through the provision of human and financial resources, and receives the Working Group's recommendations regarding any assistance that may be required to achieve their work plan objectives. Annually, the working group shall elect a chair from among the municipal representatives to facilitate meetings and conduct business as required. The position of chair shall be rotated so that a different municipal representative may assume the responsibilities of chair each year. The position of coordinator shall be held by a GVRD representative and this position need not be rotated on an annual basis. Further information may be obtained from: Ms. Jennie Moore Coordinator, GVRD Regional and Local Government Working Group on Climate Change Greater Vancouver Regional District Air Quality Department Telephone: (604) 451-6683 Fax: (604) 436-6707 email: jennie.moore@gvrd.bc.ca August 17, 2000 CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor A. Hogarth DATE: August 23, 2000 and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: CW, PW & DS SUBJECT: Wireless Cormnunication Towers SUMMARY The attached report entitled "Wireless Communication Towers" provides an overview of some of the issues related to wireless communication towers and recommends a set of guidelines to be adopted by the District. RECOMMENDATION That: The report "Wireless Communication Towers" be received as information. BACKGROUND The booming telecommunications industry has created an increased demand for wireless communication facilities such as antennas and communications towers. The greatest surges in demand are in dense urban areas, but the District has also experienced an increase in the last 2 years. There are currently 22 communications towers located throughout the District. It is likely that the number will increase as the industry grows. At present, the District has no policy specific to communication towers. DISCUSSION The attached report reviews some of the issues associated with communication towers and to determine appropriate ways to regulate them within the District. Towers are regulated federally through Industry Canada, which requires, however, that municipalities be consulted before it will approve a tower application. The main public concerns associated with tawers. are. appearance, safety and. health. The report recommends the adoption of guidelines as the most appropriate means of regulation. The guidelines establish safety setbacks, encourage landscaping and screening to minimize visual impacts, and encourage siting in zones that are not residential, park or open space. CONCLUSION As the demand for wireless communication facilities grow, a set of guidelines will be a useful regulatory tool for the District. lee N Prepared by: Carol Nicolls Student Planner Approved by: Christine Carter, MCIP J1istrict Planner - ddolph, AICP, MCIP blic Worjq & Development Services Concurrence: Robert W. Rolèrtson, AICP, MCIP Chief Administrative Officer CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor A. Hogarth DATE: August 23. 2000 and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: CW, PW & DS SUBJECT: Wireless Communication Towers SUMMARY In the last 2 years, the District has experienced an increase in the number of applications for the location of communication towers. There is currently no policy specific to communication towers, and given recent applications staff are of the opinion there is a need for a comprehensive set of policies and regulations which address the siting of communication towers. Research suggests that a policy would be useful to address issues of safety, aesthetics and health that are specific to communication towers. The following report provides an inventory of existing communication towers within the District of Maple Ridge and an overview of the pertinent Federal and Municipal regulations. The report recommends the adoption of a set of guidelines that would encourage the location of towers in areas that are not zoned or designated for residential, open space and park use. The proposed guidelines also encourage the co-location of towers and establish setbacks from property lines. BACKGROUND The rapid growth of the wireless communications industry has increased the number of requests for wireless facilities, namely antennas and communications towers. Canadians use an average of 6 million wireless devices daily, and it is estimated that by 2005, 50% of all calls in the world will be wireless. In response to this increasing demand, most municipal governments in the Lower Mainland have mandated policies specific to wireless communication equipment. While the most dramatic surges in demand are in dense urban areas, the District of Maple Ridge has also experienced a small rise in the number of applications for wireless facilities. The District has received 6 applications in the last two years, and Inspection Services staff estimate that they previously processed 1-2 applications each year. Currently, the District of Maple Ridge has no policies specific to communications towers. What are "wireless communications"? The term "wireless con-imunications" refers to types of communication devices that can send and receive messages instantly. Cellular telephones, personal communications services (PCS) and pagers are common forms of wireless communication. This technology relies on antennas that must be unobstructed and at specific heights in relation to one another in order to transmit and receive signals. An antenna signal has a finite range, and communication companies often require additional antennas to provide coverage when new areas are developed. There is no major difference between the antennas used for different media; antennas employed for wireless television, pager services or internet services, for instance, are similar in appearance and function. Although antennas do not always need to be situated on the absolute highest point in a given area, they do need to rise above their immediate surroundings. In order to gain this height, they are often attached to existing buildings, specially designed lattice towers, or tall poles called "monopoles" which are held in place by guy lines. More creative locations have included church steeples, water towers, and lampposts. MONOPOLE WHIP NTNAS WLNELAN1W4AS LATIKE TOWERS ISH PNTUINA uIPMEWr ULOItG HIPPNTS4NAS NL ANTENNAS SN ANTE W4AS uIPMaIT SULDt1G Towers can be as high as 243 m, but 12 m to 76 m is the common range. Equipment buildings or cabinets frequently accompany antenna structures. Cabinets and buildings can be as small as vending machines or as large as 3.5 m x 7.0 m. Both towers and monopoles are commonly referred to as communication towers, telecommunication towers, cellular towers, or radio towers. 2 Communication Tower Inventory The following section offers a basic profile of the communication towers currently located in the District. The listing is compiled from data obtained from Transport Canada and the BC Assessment Office. The District does not track towers internally, and there may be some discrepancies in the information obtained from outside sources. There are 19 communication towers in the District of Maple Ridge, ranging in height from 8.5 m to 71 m. The locations, heights and zones of these towers are listed in the table below and two maps are appended. Map # Height Zone OCP Designation 1 24.4 m One Family Rural Residential (RS-3) Compact housing 2 18 m Park and School (P-i) Institutional 3 51.8 m Upland Agricultural (A-2) Utilities 4 17.7 m One Family Urban Residential (RS-1) Single /family Residential 5 20.7 m High Density Apartment (RM-3) Commercial/apartment 6 18 m Church Institutional (P-4) Institutional 7 17.7 m Multiple Family Residential (RM-4) Compact housing 8 43.9 m Medium Density Apartment (RM-2) Apartment district 9 35.1 m Corrections and Rehabilitation (P-5) Institutional 10 8.5 m Business Park (M-3) Business park 11 32.9 m High Density Apartment (RM-3) Apartment district 12 45.1 m Business Park (M-3) Business park 13 45.1 m One Family Rural Residential (RS-3) Agricultural 14 43.0 m One Family Rural Residential (RS-3) Rural residential 15 45.1 m Upland Agricultural (A-2) Urban reserve 16 36.6 m General Industrial (M-2) Business park 17 48.8 m Business Park (M-3) Business park 18 36.6 m General Industrial (M-2) Business park 19 71.0 m Upland Agricultural (A-2) Park 2035.1 nf PáikThndSthoól (P1) - Park 21 36.6 m General Industrial (M-2) Business park 22 39.6 One Family Suburban Residential (RS2) Suburban Residential Seven of the towers are located in industrial/business park areas and five in urban residential areas. The rest are fairly evenly distributed between the rural residential, agricultural and institutional zones. There is no dominant pattern of distribution. With the exception of three towers located on District owned land, most towers are located on private property. Although telecommunication companies own the majority of the towers, just under half of the towers are registered to various private companies that are not affiliated with the communications industry. Tower ownership is generally spread out among many individual companies. There are two telecommunications firms, which each own three towers, but otherwise there are no companies owning more than one tower. Financial Implications While telecommunication companies may own the land on which their towers are located, they typically lease it from private or public landowners. The leasing terms of private landowners are not available for comparison, but the three towers on District land are leased for annual rates that range from approximately $12,000419,000. The District could attempt to encourage the siting of towers on public lands, however leasing rates and the number of annual tower applications suggest that the financial returns are likely to be quite modest. III. DISCUSSION Many aspects of communication towers are regulated at the federal level. However, a provision requiring consultation with the municipality in which the tower is to be located has allowed for greater local input into the siting of communication towers. In preparing this report, staff conducted a survey of the policies and zoning requirements of other Lower Mainland municipalities in order to establish a framework for the District. The following section looks at the Federal and Municipal approval processes. Federal Regulation Communication towers are federally regulated by Industry Canada under the Radio Communication Act and by Transport Canada under the Aeronautics Act. Transport Canada is mandated to evaluate the hazard of an antenna supporting structure to air traffic, and to establish the painting and lighting requirements for the structure. Industry Canada is responsible for the issuing of broadcast licenses and considers the following factors in its approval process: • Transport Canada approval • compliance with Canadian Environmental Assessment Act • compliance with Safety Code 6 (addresses health concerns) • potential interference and distortion fromlto other broadcasting stations • the opinion of the municipal land use authority 4 Industry Canada recognizes two types of facilities, "Type 1" and "Type 2." Type 1 stations are land, coast or earth stations that require a site-specific radio station authorization. Type 2 stations do not require site-specific authorization and do not have to obtain approval from Industry Canada. Type 2 facilities are typically smaller installations such as amateur radio stations or satellite receiving stations. This report focuses on the larger Type 1 facilities. In order to obtain a license from Industry Canada, an applicant must demonstrate that they have consulted with the municipal land use authority. All applicants for Type 1 stations must complete and submit a signed Municipal/Land-Use Consultation Attestation. Type 2 stations do not have to obtain an Industry Canada license, but must still consult with municipal land use authorities and adhere to the same safety standards. Industry Canada will process a license application when they receive proof that the municipal land use authority has no objection to the proposed antenna or when they receive an attestation that the proposed antenna is inconsequential. In the event of disagreement between the applicant and the municipal land use authority, Industry Canada will delay the processing of the application while the applicant and the municipality negotiate to reach a mutually acceptable agreement. Municipal Approval Currently the District approves proposed towers through the Inspection Services Department, which requires an engineer's verification for structural integrity. The following sections examine other Lower Mainland zoning requirements and possible regulatory options for the District. Zoning In the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw 3510-1985, communication towers are considered a "Public Service" and are currently permitted in all zones. Tower height is exempted in Section 403(6) of the Zoning Bylaw which states: "The height of buildings and structures permitted elsewhere in this Bylaw may be exceeded for industrial cranes, grain elevators, silos and windmills, towers, tanks and bunkers..." Section 403(4)(d) notes that "Freestanding lighting poles, warning devices, antennas, masts... except as otherwise limited by other Bylaws, may be sited on any portion of a lot." In considering the question of appropriate zoning and approval process, staff surveyed Lower Mainland municipalities to determine what zones permitted communication towers and how they were approved. Most of the surveyed municipalities located communication towers in non-residential zones, with the exception of three municipalities that permit them in all zones. 5 Much of the public opposition to communication towers has occurred when towers locate in residential and highly public areas. As there is often a degree of flexibility in regard to the choice of a tower's location, and given the regulations of most other municipalities. staff recommend that communication towers be encouraged to locate in areas other than those which are zoned or designated for residential, park and open space use. Open space areas are defined in the OCP as areas designated for preservation due to their unique character or visual qualities. In restricting towers from open space and park areas the intention is to locate them in areas where they are more compatible with surrounding land uses. The consideration of the OCP designation will allow staff to determine whether a proposed location is compatible with the future land use of the area. For example, a tower in an undeveloped future residential area may only be suitable until a residential area is developed around it. Regulatory Options A survey of Lower Mainland municipalities indicates that there is no one standard process in use to approve communication towers. The regulatory options identified include a requirement to rezone to institutional (Mission and Pitt Meadows), obtain a development permit (Port Coquitlam) or comply with a comprehensive set of guidelines (Coquitlam). It is important to remember that although Industry Canada is sensitive to municipal concerns, they do have the authority to override any municipal decision in regard to communication towers. Moreover, there are many variables that effect the suitability of a tower's location, such as height, type of tower and the ability to integrate it into local surroundings. Staff feel that the ideal regulatory choice should offer flexibility in approving tower locations and respond to the applicant's need for expedient processing, while at the same time complying with stated District land use policies. The following are potential options for the District's consideration: • Status quo—This option would maintain the existing process for communication towers, which requires that the applicant obtain a building permit. Although the District has not faced significant problems with communication towers so far, the number of towers is likely to increase as the District's population grows, increasing the potential for land use conflict. • Development Permit—This option would require that an applicant be required to obtain a Development Permit. prior to the issuance of a building..permit... Given that the District does not have the ultimate authority in this matter, the public consultation portion of this process may establish a sense of false expectation. Rezoning—This option would require that all communication towers be located in a specified zone. The stipulations of zoning do not allow for much flexibility and the process can be lengthy, though it does require a public hearing (same potential problem as above). • Guidelines—Some municipalities have created a comprehensive set of guidelines that encourage the location of communication towers in a manner that is safe, minimizes aesthetic impacts and addresses community concerns. Conditions of the guidelines could be modified depending on the individual circumstance, and can require the applicant to notify the surrounding community. Of the above options, staff recommend the use of guidelines as most appropriate. Because Industry Canada expects the municipality and the applicant to reach an agreement on tower siting before it will grant approval, guidelines can still offer the District some leverage and guidance in its dealings with wireless communication companies. Informing the Public Many surveyed municipalities incorporate some form of public notification in their approval process, usually a component ofa rezoning or development permit process. In some cases requirements varied if the land was publicly or privately owned. Recognizing that the District may not always be in a position to substantially affect where a tower will be located and given that the Federal Government has the authority to issue a permit without municipal consent, staff are concerned that public notification may create false expectations. For these reasons, staff do not recommend public notification as part of the approval process. ISSUES The following section of the report provides information on the issues that staff feel should be taken into account in establishing guidelines and approving applications for communication towers. The draft "Wireless Communication Tower Guidelines is attached to this report. Where possible, staff have included examples from other municipalities for reference. Appearance Aesthetics remain the primary public concern with wireless communication equipment. Wireless communications technologies require numerous antennas to be mounted at various heights throughout a given area. The location of these antennas can be a challenge for governments concerned with the preservation of the visual landscape. 7 Although to date the District has received very few complaints in regard to communication towers, all surveyed municipalities have policies that seek to minimize the visual impacts of towers on the surrounding area. The following section of the report outlines the main responses to aesthetic considerations. Siting and Landscaping Antennas can often be integrated into existing structures such as rooftops, the sides of buildings or other more creative locations. Where these are unavailable or of insufficient height, antennas must be mounted on tall support structures or elevated natural land forms, making them more visible and obtrusive. Most of the complaints received by the District in regard to tower visibility concerned a tower (#14 on attached map) in a business park that is visible from a nearby residential area. Almost all municipalities attempt to site towers in areas that minimize what is often considered an unattractive view. The main guidelines used are: • Screen or landscape site to minimize visual impact of location • Select locations that will not detrimentally impact views from surrounding properties (Pitt Meadows, North Vancouver, Mission) Port Moody requires a minimum setback of 200m from residential zones for lattice towers and 1 OOm for monopoles. It should be noted that in some instances siting options may be more restricted due to technical considerations, as antennas may require specific elevations and locations in order to successfully relay their signals to other antennas. Depending on the surrounding land uses and location of other antennas, there may be a narrow range in which the antenna may be sited. These cases are not common, and staff feel that where possible, thoughtful siting, screening and setbacks can create a buffer for neighbouring areas. Staff recommend that the guidelines require applicants to make every effort to minimize the aesthetic impacts of communication towers (and any attached equipment sheds) through the use of landscaping or fencing, and by siting them in a manner that will not detrimentally impact views from surrounding properties. Co-location In order to minimize thetotal number ofrequired towers, it -is possible fordifferent companies to share the same tower facility. Pitt Meadows, Vancouver and North Vancouver address this by requiring that every effort be made to locate new antennas on existing structures. Bumaby requires that cellular companies wishing to erect towers provide written proof that they have asked the other 3 Lower Mainland companies to co- locate on the structure and that the structure is designed to accommodate co-location. Given that one of the simplest ways to reduce the visual impact of communications facilities is to limit their number, staff reconmiend that the guidelines encourage the co- location of antennas on existing towers and other suitable structures. Safety Setbacks Setbacks are intended to protect adjacent property from damage in the event of tower collapse. Falling ice is also a consideration, but of less concern here given the climate of the Lower Mainland. The determination of this setback varies among municipalities: • Mission, Burnaby and North Vancouver—follow the setbacks established for the zone in which the tower is located. These are typically 6m from the lot line. • Port Moody requires a 50m setback for lattice towers and 6 m setback for monopoles. In the U.S., the setback requirement is often a percentage of the tower height. Other Canadian municipalities use this formula, including the city of Fredericton which requires a setback of 30% of the tower height for collapsible towers (towers that are designed to collapse inwardly) and 60% of the tower height for regular towers. Although staff recognize that local municipalities favour a pre-established setback, a fixed setback may be inadequate protection for tall towers or excessive protection for shorter ones. Staff therefore recommend that the District adopt a setback formula similar to that of Fredericton, which responds more directly to the actual height of the tower. Staff recommend that the District require a setback of 30% of the tower height for collapsible towers and 60% for regular towers. The minimum required setback will be as specified for the particular zone. Maintenance The primary maintenance requirement concerns the removal of an obsolete tower or equipment-that4s-no ionger-inuse in-regard -to ti isisste,lhe poiities ofbthMiin and Pitt Meadows state: "The applicant must pay all costs of documentation, improvements, occupancy and eventual termination and removal." None of the surveyed municipalities established a time period for removal, but in the U.S. companies are given a grace period ranging from 90 days to one year. Staff recornmendthat the guidelines include a regulation similar to that of Pitt Meadows and Mission, and that a grace period of 90 days be adopted. Lighting In approving an application for a Type 1 communications facility, Transport Canada will assess its potential as a hazard to air traffic and will regulate what form of painting and lighting is required. If the tower is not considered a potential air traffic hazard, the District can regulate the colour it is painted. Where this is the case, staff recommend that communication towers be painted be painted with a colour that generally matches the surroundings or background, and that minimizes tower visibility. Fencing Fencing is required to prevent unauthorized access to equipment and to prevent towers from being climbed. This is not a contentious issue as most companies recognize the potential hazard and liability. The Building Code stipulates a fence height of 2 m, and staff feel that this is an appropriate minimum height. OTHER ISSUES The following section discusses issues related to the potential health and ecological impacts of communication towers. In each case, staff feel that there are no actions that need to be taken at this time, but do feel that Council should be aware of these concerns. Ecological As communication towers begin to spread throughout our landscape, there is increasing concern for their potential impact on bird populations. Under certain conditions birds appear to be drawn to towers, leading to an increase in fatal bird-tower collisions. Scientists do not fully understand this phenomena, which may include such factors as tower height, location, and certain types of lighting which may attract birds. As Maple Ridge is part of a major Pacific flyway, staff feel that the District should be aware of this potential issue, but note that there is insufficient data to make a recommendation at this time. As research presents more specific information, the District may wish to revisit this issue to assess whether any regulatory measures are required. Health The potential effects of exposure to the electro-magnetic radiation emitted by wireless communication equipment remains a public concern. Like televisions and computers, telecommunications equipment emits electro-magnetic radiation. The proliferation of 10 these and other new technological devices in our home and workplace means that we are all exposed to electromagnetic radiation on a daily basis. Some members of the public are worried that they may experience negative health effects due to low levels of exposure to electromagnetic fields at home. However, to date, scientific evidence does not support a link between health problems and exposure to electromagnetic fields. All telecommunications equipment is regulated by Health Canada's Safety Code 6, which stipulates the maximum allowable exposure to electro-magnetic fields (EMF). Provided that exposure falls within the guidelines established by Safety Code 6, there is no accepted proof that exposure to EMF contributes to adverse health effects. An expert medical panel for the Royal Society of Canada recently reviewed Safety Code 6 and concluded that the code provided adequate protection to both workers and the general public. The guidelines of the code meet or exceed those of many other countries, and none of the surveyed municipalities treated communication towers as a potential health risk. The Royal Society does note that current research is not sufficient to completely rule out the possibility of adverse health effects and recommends additional study. The issue is still a subject of international debate and research is ongoing. V. CONCLUSION As the District grows it will likely receive more requests for wireless communication towers as companies attempt to service new areas and new clients. The adoption of the Wireless Communication Tower Guidelines will provide for the siting of towers in a way that minimizes visual impacts, addresses safety issues, and causes the least disruption to the surrounding community. 11 0 aw ~t:::; MAPLE RIDGE hcorporated 12Scpe. 1 R74 CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TITLE: Wireless Communication Tower Guidelines AUTHORITY: . EFFECTIVE DATE: POLICY NO. . SUPERSEDES: APPROVAL: POLICY STATEMENT: All applications for towers must be accompanied by a geotechnical report, as well as structural engineered design drawings. Both schedules Bi and B2 are required to be submitted by the geotechnical structural engineer at the time of the application. The permit fee will be based on the value of the tower and foundations. Every tower and the immediate surrounding premises shall be maintained in a safe condition by the owner at all times. Communication towers are encouraged to locate in areas that are not zoned or designated for residential, open space or park use. Communication towers shall be set back from abutting Residential and Park zones at a distance of 30% of the tower height for collapsible towers or 60% of the tower height for towers that are not designed to collapse. The minimum required setback from any property line shall respect the established setback of the zone for the property. Antennas will be encouraged to co-locate on existing towers or other existing structures except where this would render the antenna non-functional or when the District feels that co-location creates a negative visual impact. All new communication towers should be designed to accommodate co-location of antennas. When considering locations, every effort should be made to locate communication towers where they will not detrimentally impact views from surrounding properties. 8.. Communication-towers-and-any -attached-equipment-cabinets -shou1d-be-sereene-d nditd in a manner which minimizes their visual impacts. The owner of the communication tower shall be responsible for meeting any paint and lighting standards required by Transportation Canada. Where there are no requirements, the tower shall be painted with a colour that - generally matches the surroundings or background and minimizes its visibility. All communication towers shall be enclosed by fences of a minimum height of 2 m. Any tower lawfully in existence at the time of the adoption of these guidelines shall not be rebuilt, reconstructed, altered or moved unless in conformity with the provisions of the guidelines, or upon receipt of a building permit from the District of Maple Ridge. Printed on August 24, 2000 Page 1-of 2 12. The applicant is responsible for all costs of documentation, improvements, occupancy and eventual termination and removal of a communication tower. The applicant shall remove equipment that is no longer in use within 90 days. PURPOSE: To encourage the location of communication towers in a manner that is safe, minimizes aesthetic impacts, and addresses community concerns. DEFINITIONS: Communication tower: A structure designed to support communications equipment, particularly antennas, that is classified by Industry Canada as a "Type 1" broadcasting station. Type 1 broadcasting station: Any land, coast or earth broadcasting installation that requires a site-specific radio station authorization from Industry Canada. Type 1 stations do not include: amateur radio, general radio service (GRS) and satellite receiving stations such as residential satellite dishes. Antenna: A device used in communications that transmits or receives radio signals. Co-location: The location of wireless communication equipment from more than one provider on a single site or structure. Note: Wireless communication facilities are federally regulated by Industry Canada. Industry Canada has the final power of authorization, but requires - that - all -applicants consult with the municipality in question before granting approval. Printed on August 24, 2000 Page 2 of 2 ID Zonfrig Category Height(m) Height (ft) Communication Towers and 1 One and Two Family Residential 24.4 80 Consolidated Zoning Categories 4 One and Two Family Residential 17.7 58 5 Multifamily Residential 20.7 68 6 Institutional 18.0 59 7 Multifamily Residential 17.7 58 8 Multifamily Residential 43.9 144 9 Institutional 35.1 115 _.._.. .1 10 Industrial 8.5 28 I— 9 / N 11 Multifamily Residential 32.9 108 12 Industrial 45.1 148 / 13 One and Two Family Residential 45.1 148 14 One and Two Family Residential 43.0 141 I 15 Agricultural 45.1 148 I --i 16 Industrial 36.6 120 32AvE:\132AvE 17 Industrial 48.8 160 1•• 130 AVE \ 18 Industrial 36.6 120 19 Agricultural 71.0 233 AVE _ 128/E 20 One and Two Family Residential 35.1 115 126 t\/ c, 21 Industrial 36.6 120 -"- - LO 22 One and Two Family Residential 39.6 130 I23AVE —.f4AVE L FWD Y RD . 13 .IBI .WDNEY IRK RD I Q 6 I I 2 iE' . 116 AVE 0? 20• 16 Towers ii Urban Area Boundaries ii 100 CN AVE Cn Agricultural One and Two Family Residential Multifamily Residential Other Commercial Industrial Institutional I 00I I- Appendix A - Communication Towers and Consolidated Zoning Categories ID OCP Category Heht(m) Height (ft)i Communication Towers and 1 Fesidential Housing 24.4 80 Consolidated OCP Categories 2 Institutional 18.0 59 4 ResKienflalHousing 177 58 5 Commercial 20.7 68 6 Institutional 18.0 59 7 Residential Housing 17.7 58 ) J A :7vati0n 10 Industrial 8.5 28 I 11 12 Residential Housing Industrial 32.9 45.1 108 148 N 13 Agricultural 45.1 148 15 eeIopment 132AVE 132AV ) ._ - 130_AVE 18 lndustnal 366 120 - I 12AVE '\ 128 AVE 19 Other 71.0 233 -- j JJ 20 Park/Conservation 35.1 115 21 Industrial 36.6 120 U) 22 Rural Residential 39.6 130 I 1124 AVE 114 12 AVE 04 8 jL 1 r •- Wb.EY_TD . 40 U. 1AVE 0? 20. 1-1E 112 AVE LJ / 3 \ 16—%, is • Towers ( 104 AV 7 Urban Area Boundary Industrial 100bVE 22 Sorm—TJInstitutional Commercial \ AgcuIrai Land Resee Rural Residential pIanOO23.a Future Urban Development _-_Aiig2OO Other Appendix B - Communication Towers and Consolidated OCP Categories CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor A. Hogarth DATE: August 17, 2000 and Members of Council FILE NO: DVP/42/00 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Committee of the Whole SUBJECT: DVPI42/00 (10036, 10028 & 10110 - 240 St.) I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The application requests a variance to Schedule "A" of the Maple Ridge Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw for undergrounding overhead utilities on 240 Street. II RECOMMENDATION: That the Municipal Clerk be authorized to notify qualifying property owners that approval of DVP/42/00 respecting property located at 10036, 10028 & 10110 - 240 Street will be considered by Council at the September 26, 2000 meeting. III BACKGROUND: Applicant: Ray Bourbonnais Owner: Jayman Master Builder (BC) Ltd. Locatioin: 10036, 10028& 10110-240St. OCP: Existing: Compact Housing/Conservation Zoning: Proposed: R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District) Surrounding Uses N: Residential S: Residential E: Residential W: School Variance Requested: Schedule "A" of Maple Ridge Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw for waiving of the conversion of overhead utilities. - -- T-happlicant ipinto dà 35 lot phased subdivision of the development site. The Engineering Department have identified that the overhead utility services on 240 Street cannot be undergrounded. IV VARIANCE REQUESTED: Conversion of overhead utilities: The overhead wires on 240 Street are B.C. Hydro lines. B.C. Hydro criteria for conversion excludes high voltage wires or lengths with fewer than five spans. Council, based on B.C. Hydro's criteria, adopted the following policy on July 23, 1996: ot0 (P "Council will support development variance permit applications to waive the requirement of Maple Ridge Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw 4800 - 1993 as amended, to provide underground wiring on highway right of ways serviced by existing overhead utility systems, where the abutting road is required to upgrade to an urban standard, on the condition that the existing overhead utility system is shown on the attached plan." The servicing along 240 Street fronting the property is included on the plans attached to this policy. V CONCLUSION: Based on the above, the Planning Department recommends that DVP/42/00 be given favourable consideration. Prepâ red by: Zay Mc juan Planning Technician (I- Approved by: Christine Carter, M.C.I}T Director of Planning Approvelk1fr'\I Jake7. Rudo1pl)(AIC71vte1P ') \ GM: Public Works & Development Services Concurr Ce: Robert W. Robertson, AICP, MCIP Chief Administrative Officer GM/bjc -2- - 2 _____ 2 0) in 6001 a.. Remi _ lu") 1 ,Rem 1 j 2.35 SK P37992 102B AVE TOVE IIIILIHI S 5.25 CHAINS OF J 1 'A I 15283 -s'__ RP9287F HiIHHIJHHHHHI 3) 102AAVE IO2AAVE 0T ___ [ a) 102 AVE - LMR I 41 N~ILCL G 8 A 11 1 1 lJ 1 B A 21 30 31 32 W i/i E21 /2 o 45~~4 RP 2701 19 2 19519 26 Rem 1 1926 4 2 (P SE 198 ADJ PcI. G RP 2701 P 18630 P39 61 39561 P 7126 P 17126 5 H P 22319F SUBJECT PROPERTIES 4 LOT 22 ____________________________________— 'r - 1 101 AVE RP42 RP 8103 LMP 36343 21 E 51 In p57737 I _______________LO PA K- 33 RemPcI L 14 PARK l3P SK 32851F IMP 35728 P 25341 P 253V Rem 5 Rem 1 833 CL' Fm Rem 20/244 LOUGHEEDHW West 60.5 Acres SK 4807 ::26436 P 48367 Rem P 33984 - - 77 Rem P 72047 P 10028/1 0036 240 ST & PROPERTY DISTRICT OF N PITT ME OOjj,,MvEA DIRECTLY NORTH CORPORATION OF - 15 F A - I THE DISTRICTOF Q - "IE I MAPLE RIDGE MAPLE RIDGE SCALE: 1:5000 Incoorated 12, September, 1874 PNNING DEPARTMENT _____ DATE: Aug 17 2000 FILE:DVP-42-00 BY: JB damax consultants lid. I 3862 w. 14th avenue, vancouve v6r 2w9 tel. 224-6827 fax.222-9240 CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor A. Hogarth DATE: August 16. 2000 and Members of Council FILE NO: SD/42/00 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W - PW & Dev SUBJECT: SD/42/00 (Park Exchange Bylaw No. 5920 - 2000) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of the Park Exchange is to correct a survey error which resulted when the parent parcel, known as the Hill House site, was rezoned. The proposed exchange will provide more park land for habitat protection and provide useable area for development. The actual amount of land, currently dedicated as Park, to be included into the development area is 151 m2 and the amount to be dedicated Park is 348 m 2. II RECOMMENDATION: That Maple Ridge Park Exchange Bylaw No. 5920 - 2000 be read a first and second time; and that the Rules of Order be waived and that Maple Ridge Park Exchange Bylaw No. 5920 - 2000 be read a third time; and further That the Municipal Clerk be instructed to advertise the Park Exchange Bylaw. II DISCUSSION: The Park boundary was established when the original rezoning application was approved for the property known as the "Hill House" site. At that time approximately 50% of the land was dedicated as Park for the protection of Jackson Creek and Albion Brook. There are two portions, outside the 15m from top of bank, that were included as dedicated park land that should have been left for development. In order to include these lands into a subdivision, the applicant is requesting that they be allowed to exchange a portion of Lot 51 for the Park. The proposed exchange will not impact the habitat protection boundary and will improve the subdivision geometry. Section 305.2 of the Local Government Act allows Council, by bylaw, to exchange dedicated park lands for other land suitable for park land. A copy of that section-is attached. -1- (D VI CONCLUSION: Staff support the request and recommend that Council support the exchange and give three readings to Maple Ridge Park Exchange Bylaw No. 5920-2000 in order to meet the advertising requirements of the Municipal Act. A Prepared by. GaMcMi1lan Planning Technician i 1L Approved by Christine C er, M.C. .P 7 \.- Director.4f Planning LL '. by/ ak RudoI,iiP, MCIP Publife Works & Development Services Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, AICP, MCIP Chief Administrative Officer GMfbjc lwa A Dislalci or LANGLEY 10028/10036 240 ST & PROPERTY DIRECTLY NORTH CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF I MAPLE RIDGE MAPLE RIDGE b'icorporated 12, September, 1874 PLANNING DEPARTMENT SCALE: 1:5000 KEY MAP DATE: Aug 172000 FILE:DVP-42-00 BY: JB. CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BY-LAW NO. 5920 - 2000 A By-law for the exchange of park land within the Municipality WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 305.2 of the Local Government Act and amendments thereto, the Council may by bylaw dispose of any portion of a park land in exchange for such lands as may be necessary for the improving of a park. NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: This by-law may be cited as "Maple Ridge Park Exchange By-law No. 5920 - 2000." Attached hereto and forming part of this Bylaw is a copy of Reference Plan dated and prepared by B.C. Land Surveyor and marked as Schedule "A". The Municipal Council is hereby authorized to exchange the following lands: Parcel "C" (Bylaw Plan LMP ) dedicated park - (comprising of 78 m 2); and Parcel "E" (Bylaw Plan LMP ) dedicated Park - (comprising of 73 m 2). (parkland to be transferred) For: Parcel "A" (Bylaw Plan LMP ) of Lot 51, Section 3, Township 12, Plan LMP36343, New Westminster District - (comprising of 9 m 2); and Parcel "B" (Bylaw Plan LMP ) of Lot 51, Section 3, Township 12, Plan LMP36343, New Westminster District (comprising of 148 m 2); and Parcel "D" (Bylaw Plan LMP ) of Lot 51, Section 3, Township 12, Plan LMP36343, New Westminster District - (comprising of 191 m 2) (proposed Park) The Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to execute any and all deeds of lndandplans necessarytoeffecttheaforeidtransfèr and exchange of lands. That portion of park land comprised of 151 m 2 and identified as Parcel "C" and Parcel "E" on the aforementioned described Reference Plan is hereby closed as park land. Page 2 Bylaw No. 5920 - 2000 That portion of: Lot 51, Section 3, Township 12, Plan LMP36343, New Westminster District - (comprising of 348 m2) and identified as parcels "A", "B" & "D" on the aforementioned described reference plan to be conveyed by the registered owner to the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge shall be vested in the name of the Crown and is hereby set apart and established as Park Land. That Council shall, before adopting this bylaw, cause Public Notice of its intention to do so to be given by advertisement once each week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper published or circulating in the District of Maple Ridge. READ a first time the day of A.D. 2000. READ a second time the day of A.D. 2000. READ a third time the day of A.D. 2000. RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of 2000. MAYOR CLERK Attachment: Schedule "A" am 41 tAt Dv — ft ft "U - mm •,a • • mpmv mum o • o • • • U • I.. • Np Wft N VAM mmwAmom SCHEDULE "A" REFERENCE PLAN TO ACCOMPALY PARK EXCHANGE BYLAW NO._....___ OVER PORTIONS LOT 51 PLAN LMP36343 AND A PORTION OF PARK DEDICATED ON PLAN 1MP35728 AU OF SECTION 3 TOWNSHIP 12 NEW WESTMINSTER DISTRICT S4Lf—U23O N IL N N PLAN LMP umarom m .— ft CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor A. Hogarth DATE: August 14, 2000 and Members of Council FILE NO: RZ128/97 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W - PW & Dev SUBJECT: Final One Year Extension Application (North of 130th Avenue in the 24000 Block) SUMMARY: On June 13, 2000, Council granted a 30 day deferral to the staff report to rescind all reading to the bylaws and close the above noted file. The applicant has now applied for a one year extension under Maple Ridge Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999. RECOMMENDATION: That pursuant to Maple Ridge Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999, a one year extension be approved for rezoning application RZ128/97 BACKGROUND: Applicant: Gary Lycan Owner: S. Habib - Lot 8, Plan 2637 G & L Shomura - Lot 17, Plan 2637 J & J Wiebe & High Grove Holdings Ltd. - Lot 9, Plan 2622 518434 BC Ltd. -Lot 16, Plan 2637 G & A Knuttila - Lot 18, Plan 2637 First Colonial Investors Ltd. - Parcel B, (RP 781) British Group Construction Ltd. - Lot 9 & 10, Plan 2637 Legal Description: Lot 8, SE ¼, Sec. 28, Tp. 12, Plan 2637; Parcel "B" (RP 781) of the W ½ Sec. 27, Tp. 12; Lot 16, Except: Parcel "A" (Reference Plan 13095), Sec. 28, Tp. 12, Plan 2637; Lot 9 SE ¼, Sec. 28, Tp. 12, Plan 2637; Lot 10, SE ¼, Sec. 28, Tp. 12, Plan 2637; Lot 9, Sec. 27, Tp. 12, Plan 2622; Lot 18 of the NW '/4, Sec. 27, Tp. 12, Plan 2637 and Lot 17 of the NW ¼, Sec. 27, Tp. 12, Plan 2637, all of NWD OCP: Existing: Conservation, SFR (8, 12, 18 upnh), Open Space & Pathway Network Proposed: Conservation, SFR (8, 18 upnh), Open Space & Pathway Network Zoning: Existing: RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) and RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Proposed: RS-lb (One Family Urban (medium density) Residential) -1- c4cl IV DISCUSSION: There are eight properties involved in this application to rezone the subject site to permit development of approximately 175 residential units under the RS-lb zone. This application was presented at Public Hearing May 19, 1998 and the Bylaws received 2nd and 3 d reading on July 28, 1998. A letter was sent out advising the applicant of the impending file closure in May of 1999, but the applicant did not apply to extend the application. The applicant was advised that staff would be taking forward a report to Council to close the file. In June of 2000 a report was presented to Council to close the file and rescind the bylaws readings. This was deferred giving the applicant an opportunity to apply for the extension. On July 17, 2000 the applicant applied for a one year extension to the application. V OUTSTANDING ISSUES: There are a number of outstanding issues which apply to this rezoning application. Two important issues are, the ability to provide services to the site, and access. The site is flanked by Millionaire and North Millionaire Creeks. Access is dependent on a crossing of North Millionaire Creek. Servicing for the site is dependent on a storm water management plan that maintains the environmental integrity of the creeks. The proponent will continue to work with the Ministry of Environment and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to obtain the necessary approval to cross the creek. VI CONCLUSION: Staff recommend that a one year extension be approved. Prepared by: Gay McMiIlan Planning Technician - ( Approved by: Christine Carter, M.C.I.P I .-DiTtor of Piannii—T :e J Services Robert W. Robertson, AIC?, MCIP Chief Administrative Officer GMIbjc -2- _ II- - flu P MIF SUBJECT PROPER11ES — a - — 133AW_- 7 Pt, a I •_, P - P — I —• I F P 7 p aI I - I a I 'a P - a a a a a - ——I- I — - P 'a PIN — I.' • 914 • • ______ ______ 140 AVL. Poll CORPORATION OF THE SUBJECT MAPLERIDGE DISTRICT OF MAPLE R]DGE _ _ _ A PLAN1ING DEPARTMENT PROPERTIES - OATE 1997-07-10 R1SD: 1997-07-10 SCALE: 1:6,000 F1LJBrtAW RZ-34-95 URAWN_BY: CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor A. Hogarth DATE: May 16, 2000 and Members of Council FILE NO: RZ/28/97 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W - PW & Dev SUBJECT: RZ/28/97 - Rescinding Bylaws (North of 130th Ave. in the 24000 block) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This application has bylaws at 3 reading. The applicant has not reapplied for an extension under the Maple Ridge Development Procedures By-law No. 5879 -1999. Staff are recommending that all bylaw readings be rescinded and the file closed. II RECOMMENDATION: That with respect to Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw 5687-1998, that 2' and 3' reading granted July 28, 1998 and 1' reading granted April 28, 1998 be rescinded; and That with respect to Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw 5688-1998, that 2 and 3 reading granted July 28, 1998 and 1' reading granted April 28, 1998 be rescinded. III BACKGROUND: Applicant: Gary Lycan Owner: S. Habib - Lot 8, Plan 2637 G & L Shomura - Lot 17, Plan 2637 J & J Wiebe & High Grove Holdings Ltd. - Lot 9, Plan 2622 518434 BC Ltd. -Lot 16, Plan 2637 0 & A Knuttila - Lot 18, Plan 2637 First Colonial Investors Ltd. - Parcel B, (RP 781) British Group Construction Ltd. - Lot 9 & 10, Plan 2637 Legal Description: Lot 8, SE ¼, Sec. 28, Tp. 12, Plan 2637; Parcel "B" (RP 781) of the W ½ Sec. 27, Tp. 12; Lot 16, Except: Parcel "A" (Reference Plan 13095), Sec. 28, Tp. 12, Plan 2637; Lot9SE ¼, Sec. 28, - -. - - - - -- - - - Tp: 12Pian2637 tótT0SE 1/4 Së.28,Tp. 12, Plan 2637; Lot 9, Sec. 27, Tp. 12, Plan 2622; Lot 18 of the NW ¼, Sec. 27, Tp. 12, Plan 2637 and Lot 17 of the NW ¼, Sec. 27, Tp. 12, Plan 2637, all of NWD OCP: Existing: Conservation, SFR (8, 12, 18 upnh), Open Space & Pathway Network Proposed: Conservation, SFR (8, 18 upnh), Open Space & Pathway Network - 1 - Zoning: Existing: RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) and RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Proposed: RS-lb (One Family Urban (medium density) Residential) IV DISCUSSION: There are eight properties involved in this application to rezone the subject site to permit development of approximately 175 residential units under the RS-lb zone. This application was presented at Public Hearing May 19, 1998 and the Bylaws received 2 and 3'' reading on July 28, 1998. The applicant had been working towards resolving servicing issues for the site. The attached letter outlines the efforts that have been made to resolve these issues. A letter was sent out advising the applicant of the impending file closure in May of 1999, but the applicant did not apply to extend the application. The applicant was advised that staff would be taking forward a report to Council to close the file. V CONCLUSION: There have been no applications for an extension to this application under the Maple Ridge Development Procedures By-law No. 5879 —1999. It is therefore recommended that the bylaws be rescinded and the file closed. -~~ V , N Prepared by: Gay McMillan Planning Technician Approved by: Approved by: Jake J. Rudolph, AICP, MCi? GM: Public Works & Development Services Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, AICP, MCIP Chief Administrative Officer GMIbjc -2- May 16, 2000 Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, B.C. V2X 6A9 Attn: Mr. Terry Fryer Director of Current Planning Dear Sir: Re: RZ/28/97 240 th Street North of 130 th Avenue With regard to your letter of May 11, 2000 informing me of your intention to close the above rezoning file because you assume we are not interested in continuing with the application, please be aware of the following facts. Our group is interested in continuing with the application and has spent in excess of $100,000.00 in engineering and survey costs in furthering this application. The actions of the Municipality have made it impossible to proceed until certain issues are resolved. In order for the area to develop a water reservoir must be provided. This was an item that was proposed in the Municipal budget for 2000 but has now been moved into next years proposed budget. In addition, resolution of a crossing of North Millionaire Creek at Avenue must be decided. This is the route proposed for both extension of services and access to the area under consideration. I understand this item is presently under discussion between the Municipality and other government agencies as it has been for a number of years. Without a guide plan for development from the Municipality that works it is impossible for us to continue moving forward. In addition, for design to continue to complete requirements for fourth and final reading a subdivision plan must be approved to allow for servicing to be located correctly. Although subdivision applications on each parcel were submitted a number of years ago an approval for the layout has never been received, once again prohibiting further work by ourselves in moving this item forward. FL;, PY I I 2OO (2) Uncertainty of Municipal planning intentions and direction of growth, especially in view of the latest studies ordered by Council to review once again the development of Silver Valley prevents further investment at this time. With your policy of two rezoning extensions of one year each then automatic termination of the rezoning application, our chance of achieving fmal requirements for 4 th reading in this time frame are nil. Although we have acted in good faith the lack of direction and action by the Municipality has frustrated and precluded any chance we had to complete this application. Cancellation will involve financial loss to the participants in this application. Yours truly cc. Mr. Bob Robertson All participating applicants CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BY-LAW NO. 5687 - 1998 A By-law to amend zoning on Map "A" forming part of Zoning By-law No. 3510 - 1985 as amended. WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Zoning By-law No. 3510 - 1985 as amended; NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: I. This by-law may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending By-law No. 5687- 1998.' 2. Those parcels or tracts of land and premises known and described as: All that portion of: Lot 8, South East Quarter, Section 28, Township 12, Plan 2637, New Westminster District and Parcel "B" (Reference Plan 781) of the West Half Section 27, Township 12, New Westminster District and Lot 16, Except: Parcel "A" (Reference Plan 13095), Section 28, Township 12, Plan 2637, New Westminster District and Lot 9 South East Quarter, Section 28, Township 12, Plan 2637, New Westminster District and Lot 10, South East Quarter, Section 28, Township 12, Plan 2637, New Westminster District and - Lot-9,Section2-7, Townshipi2:Pian 2622 Nëv Wesiiinster District and Lot 18 of the North West Quarter, Section 27, Township 12, Plan 2637, New Westminster District and Lot 17 of the North West Quarter. Section 27, Township 12, Plan 2637, New Westminster District and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1178 a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this by-law, are hereby rezoned to RS-lb (One Family Urban (medium density) Residential). 3. Maple Ridge Zoning By-law No. 3510- 1985 as amended and Map "A" attached thereto are hereby amended accordingly. Page 2 Bylaw No. 5687-1998 W READ a first time the day of , A.D. 199. PUBLIC HEARING held the day of A.D. 199. READ a second time the day of , A.D. 199. READ a third time the day of , A.D. 199. RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of , A.D. 199. MAYOR CLERK CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BY-LAW NO. 5688 - 1998. A By-law to amend the Official Community Plan WHEREAS Section 997 of the Municipal Act provides that the Council may revise the Official Community Plan; AND WHEREAS it is deemed desirable to amend Schedule "B"to the Official Community Plan; NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: This By-law may be cited for all purposes as "Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amendment By-law No. 5688 - 1998." Schedule "B" is hereby amended for those parcels or tracts of land and premises shown outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 553, a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this bylaw. The parcels or tracts of land outlined are hereby redesignated as shown Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Designation By-law No. 5434-1996 as amended is hereby amended accordingly. READ A FIRST TIME the day of , A.D. 199. PUBLIC HEARING HELD the day of , A.D. 199. READ A SECOND TIME the day of , A.D. 199. - READ A THIRD TIME the - day of - KD199 - RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of A.D. 199. MAYOR CLERK WN 4~420 1 P p637 1 21 PARK 35466\\) 1 413 I IFEW 0 I--I. - P 4r.LkIN 3 — Lj1'L1!1 _ 1i'EIiiIII MAPLE RIDGE OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDING Bylaw No. 5688-1998 Map No. 553 ZL 17500 FROM: Single Family Residential at 8,12 and 18 units per net hectare TO: Single Family Residential(8 units per net hectare) Pfq Single Family Residential(18 units per net hectare) CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor A. Hogarth DATE: August 23, 2000 and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Committee of the Whole SUBJECT: Street Design Guidelines SUMMARY: The enclosed report suggests the use of new criteria for street development in the District. The criteria are developed around objectives that strive to include a broader scope of stakeholders. The report is submitted as a discussion document and as a companion to a number of other related documents. RECOMMENDATION: That Council receive the staff report on Street Design Guidelines dated August 23, 2000 and That a Council subcommittee be established to conduct a detailed review of the report and its implications. BACKGROUND: Early in 1999, staff was requested to examine municipal street standards. This request was initiated by concerns regarding both the aesthetics and functionality of current standards. The attached report represents the work of a group of staff comprised of representatives from the Planning and Engineering Departments and the RCMP Traffic Division. Implicit in the report is the idea that there is a strong relationship between street standards, land use planning, transportation planning and community development policy generally. Initiatives intended to implement findings of this report therefore ultimately include a broader focus than simply the technical aspects of the street standards themselves. - - The report is one part of a number of 'tools' that are intended to implement objectives and policy of the Official Community Plan. No less than fourteen policies of the OCP directly influence the content of the report. As such, the approach suggested for street design is a significant departure from past efforts. The focus has moved away from design that is exclusively concerned with functionality for cars to a more comprehensive approach that includes objectives expressed by the various policies of the OCP. In general, the report attempts to address three broad objectives: 9/0 Use of street space should be a positive experience for all users. A variety of users must be considered and accommodated in Street design. This includes automobiles, transit vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, and land uses immediately adjacent to the Street. Design should encourage alternate modes of transport such as walking, cycling and transit in an effort to reduce vehicle use. Historically, discussion on trip reduction has largely focused on commuter trips. Design that accommodates walking and cycling for local trips can reduce the number of daily trips from the typical Maple Ridge household, from 10 to less than 5. The contents of the report are intended to be read in conjunction with a number of other documents that manage community development in the District. These include; The Official Community Plan The Transportation Plan Maple Ridge Parks, Recreation and Cultural Master Plan Maple Ridge Subdivision and Development Bylaw Application of the general philosophy espoused by the 'Streets' report can vary. Opportunities for implementation of an alternative approach can be categorized into four areas; Urban Growth Development - New street standards could be developed to reflect to objectives stemming from further discussions on the report. Existing Street Redevelopment - A number of guiding principles for reconstruction of many of our older municipal streets can be prepared that adopt the philosophy of the report. Major Routes Beautification - Regional routes through the District provide an image of the community for all passing through. Acknowledging the transportation priority of these routes, elements that contribute to aesthetics and pedestrian safety can be identified. Neighbourhood Traffic Calming - Recently constructed residential streets that accommodate unwanted traffic behaviour may be retrofitted to achieve the desired objectives of the report. -2- As discussion evolves regarding street design issues, recommendations for amendments to a variety of municipal documents are expected. Amendments to the Subdivision and Development Bylaw will facilitate specific changes in design elements. Policy objectives of the other documents such as the OCP must be considered prior to agreement with any change in direction recommended by the street design issues. It is hoped that in total, these changes will represent a move towards a better recognition of our streets as a valuable public resource, and their potential as net contributors towards positive community development. Prepared by: Moreko Rossi, MBA, MCff Regist?ePta1ther Approved by: Christine Carter, M.C.I.P Director of Planning Approved fryi / aIT. Rudolplj/AICP, MCIP / GM: Public'Works & Development Services Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, AICP, MCIP Chief Administrative Officer (10) -3- MAPTFJ RJDGE Incorporated 12 September, 1874 New Streets for Better NeIghbourhoods Street Design Guidelines for the District of Maple Ridge August 2000 Street rn INTRODUCTION - New Streets Current standards for the development of District streets are typical of standards used throughout North America over the past 40 years. They reflect a philosophy that accommodates low-density suburban development with the automobile as the sole means of transportation. As land costs have risen and the availability of easily developed land dwindled, densities have increased, more growth has been accommodated with in-fill development and in many instances construction has been required on steeper, more challenging terrain. Street standards that were intended to accommodate one form of development have not yet been modified to reflect these changes in land use patterns. Ultimately, this has led to conflicts between motorists, pedestrians and cyclists. Review Purpose - Towards Great Neigithourhoods The review of street standards stems from a need to provide guidance in the design of streets within the District, in an environment of changing demands. It is intended that this document will be used by both District staff and consultants working on behalf of the development industry, as a guide to the community's goals in building safe and livable neighbourhoods. The review will strive to address four areas of concern that have been identified in recent years. standards appear to focus on the safety and comfort of vehicle travel with less consideration for the needs of cyclists, pedestrians and neighbourhoods generally. Some integration of other user's needs is necessary if we are to be successful in encouraging other modes of transportation. Resident's willingness to use public transit for example, is directly related to their experience as pedestrians. If the pedestrian part of their journey between home and the bus stop and between work and the bus stop is not a Even parking appears intimidating on a street where design seems to invite speed. (River Rd. W.) 6 iR z - _.- 1 safe and pleasant experience, transit use will decline. (Transit and Land Use Planning, B.C. Transit) Proposed changes to existing standards should therefore identify the more diverse needs of neighbourhoods. Our streets represent the single largest area of public space in the District. The appearance of our streets therefore has the greatest impact on the overall appearance of the community. The quality of street landscaping, the location of appurtenances, the scale of the street relative to its use and adjoining land uses and accessibility to pedestrians, all should be considered in the design process. A greater variety of design solutions are necessary to accommodate a broad mix of land use conditions and terrain constraints encountered for new development. Current standards can result in "over-designed" streets. These streets often appear to be out of scale with the rest of the neighbourhood. Revised standards should attempt to provide a scale to the street that is consistent with pedestrian activity where pedestrian use is desirable. Objectives Towards Neighbourly Streets Addressing the concerns that necessitate the review of our street standards requires that four objectives be met; New standards will need to find a better balance for the demands of the various users of our roads. The demands are derived from ever-increasing vehicle traffic brought on by community and regional growth and Official Community Plan objectives that mandate increased accommodation of alternatives to the automobile including walking, cycling and transit. The impact of addressing the needs of these users must also be considered within the context of the needs of residents that abut these streets. As well, municipal utilities and outside utility providers must be accommodated. The design of the streets will strive to minimize conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists and area residents. Issues of safety and aesthetics will underpin overall design philosophy and be apparent in the detailed design of the street. The quality of the street as a public space is a direct reflection of the community's identity. The design solutions proposed for our streets will therefore strive to make them an attractive and desirable place for our residents. The capital and maintenance costs associated with new design standards will be kept affordable. A Historical Perspective The origins of existing street standards can largely be traced to national standards established for highway design. Few jurisdictions have identified needs or standards as a consequence of detailed research. Rather, communities have cooperated in sharing information influenced by the findings of national research on highway standards. This use of highway design standards for local roads was perfectly congruent with the explosion in use of the private automobile as the primary form of transport. As a consequence however, driver behaviour is also reflected in these standards. As well, constraints on available space and the higher costs of accommodating growth have necessitated the use of higher densities, exacerbating the conflicts between motorists and other users of our roads. .1\TVE 11: Existing Street Design Problems "In conventional networks traffic is expected to begin at local (often cul-de-sac) streets, then flow to collector and then to arterial streets, ultimately into the more regional systems. This type of network collects and focuses traffic, often leaving few choices to drivers. Non-drivers are also conventionally excluded from large portions of the network, either by regulation or by the vehicular orientation of the designed and constructed environment itself." - American institute of Transportation Engineers, Traditional Neighbourhood Development Street Design Guidelines. The philosophy that has guided the design of our Street networks for the past forty years has provided much of the impetus for detailed design attributes of the streets. These attributes have become the standards that are the backbone of street design and construction. A number of these attributes contribute to higher traffic speeds and consequently to increased conflicts between motorists and other users of the streets. In order to recognize the significance of traffic speeds as they impact other users, it is useful to be aware of a few important statistics: Traffic capacity of any street is maximized at a speed of 55 km/h. At faster speeds the increased vehicle spacing required reduces the carrying capacity of the road. Traffic speeds of 30 km/h require 32 metres of travelling distance to react and stop. At 50 km/h the distance increases to 60 metres (approximately 4 residential lots) and at 60 km/h the stopping distance increases to 100 metres, the length of a footbailfield. This is significant if considered within the context of pedestrians and crosswalks. At 60 km/h, a driver loses a substantial amount of ability to yield comfortably and safely to pedestrians. (Burden, Dan. Street Design Guidelines for Healthy Neighbourhoods) • Pedestrians that are hit by a vehicle travelling at 60 kin/h die 83% of the time. At 50 km/h the risk of a fatality is reduced to 50% and at 30 km/h the risk falls to less than 5% of occurrences. (Burden, Dan. Street Design Guidelines for Healthy Neighbourhoods) ZE 4 • During the ten months of February to October, 1999, 31 pedestrians and 20 cyclists have been struck by vehicles in the urban areas of Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge. • Police enforcement is ineffective in correcting speed where 50-80% of the motorists regularly speed. Compliance at 85% or more is necessary for enforcement to be effective on the balance. Compliance at 85% can only be achieved through the design characteristics of the street. With these statistics in mind we can begin to review the role that various street design elements play in influencing the speed of traffic. As previously stated historically the design philosophy for streets focused on the safety and comfort management of vehicle traffic. Many of the details of street design attest to this. •Street design attempts to give drivers greater latitude in their driving habits. This is largely achieved using design standards intended for speeds 10-15 kmlh greater than those posted. •Curb returns at intersections are maintained at excessively large radii. This allows vehicles to corner at relatively high speeds at precisely the area where pedestrians are at the greatest risk. The large radii also result in excessive crossing distances for pedestrians. • Driving lane widths that are comparable to those used in freeway design permit higher speeds with less care than required by narrower travel lanes. • Wide unencumbered street right-of-ways create a perception that travelling speed is in fact less than the actual speed. Conversely, in a more confined environment such as an alley with rear yard fences bounding the limits of the road, at relatively low speeds of 15-20 km/h the driver senses that he/she is travelling at a faster rate. 6 il) -- —.—. 5 1F1\F PIAFE Long, uninterrupted sections of road permit traffic to "accumulate" speed and minimize the need to "check" that speed at control points (intersections). fJ I :a Vehicles and utilities are often accommodated first in current design standards. Pedestrians are relegated to left-over space (124th Ave) The design elements that have permitted greater convenience for vehicles have largely compromised the needs of pedestrians and cyclists by relegating these users to very confined spaces at the very edge of the street. The competition for this space is intensified by the needs a variety of utilities. Coupled with this confined space and its proximity to traffic is the increased speed of the traffic itself. The resulting environment for pedestrians and cyclists becomes intimidating and forbidding. Aesthetically, the limited space at the sides of the streets eliminates any possibility for landscaping resulting in a barren streetscape. New Them es/Pr/nc/pies Achieving the objectives identified earlier will mean adopting new principles in evaluating and preparing design guidelines for our neighbourhoods. Three overriding principles are proposed in addressing issues of safety and aesthetics for all users. The design elements of the streets should clearly reflect the intended speed limit of the street. Through design there should be no ambiguity regarding the behaviour expected from drivers. The street should provide equal priority to pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles. The various street types required should all establish how each of these users is accommodated. The appearance of our streets should create an environment that is conducive to pedestrian use and provide amenity for adjacent land uses. '1 These new principles are supported by a number of design objectives for streets. • Shorter block lengths that vary with the intended function of the street. In general, shorter lengths will provide greater inter-connectivity resulting in shorter and therefore more frequent pedestrian trips as well as providing "checks" to vehicle traffic. They will also have the effect of dispersing traffic more evenly through areas avoiding conflicts created by focusing traffic on a few routes. • Road and driving lane widths should be maintained at widths that limit speeds to those intended for each specific street type. • Sidewalks should be provided on all urban streets on both sides. With the exception of some very limited conditions, sidewalks should be separated from the street by a landscaped boulevard. A minimum width of 1.5 metres is recommended for the walkway. This assumes the walk is unencumbered by adjoining buildings or fences. Where walls or fences do abut, the walkway should be increased in width by 0.5 metres. There may also be instances where a walkway may need to be located immediately adjacent to a roadway. In this instance the width also should be increased by a minimum of 0.5 metres to provide pedestrians with adequate safety and comfort • On-street parking should be provided only where there is certainty that it will be usedlrequired. On-street parking is effective in defining traveling lane width and therefore also in regulating traffic speed. If unused, the effect is to provide excessive travelling lane widths for vehicles, encouraging excessive speeding. • Using street trees to ensure that the width of the street does not exceed twice the height of the "street- wall" can provide a pedestrian scale to the Street. The "street-wall" is the edge of the street that is typically defined by the buildings that line the street or can be created using street trees. Ensuring that the ratio of width to height does not exceed 2:1 creates the effect of a "room" on the street for motorists and similarly, Ql~ 7 between the street trees and the building fronts for pedestrians. The effect is to provide comfort for pedestrians and slow vehicle speeds. Maple Ridge provides an excellent example of the street "room" on 124 Avenue between 216th Street and Laity Street. Here the "room" ratio is actually 1:2 horizontal to vertical, creating a complete sense of enclosure, desirable in maintaining pedestrian comfort and reducing traffic speeds. • Several roadway geometric details should be used to control traffic speed. Aside from the street width option already discussed, centerline radii, stopping site distances and curb return radii at intersections can all be used to restrict speeds. In many instances, a combination of factors must be considered in achieving the desired effect, as any one on its own may not succeed in doing so. • Vehicle access to garages from the rear through the use of alleys should be encouraged. This eliminates conflicts with pedestrians on sidewalks on front access driveways. Where front access is required, lot widths should be maintained at a minimum of 15 metres and driveway aprons at a maximum width of 5 metres. This ensures that a consistent street tree pattern can be maintained and allows for inclusion of on street parking if desired. • Bicycle lanes should be clearly delineated where provided. "Shared" bike lanes that eliminate the need for demarcation of the lanes, are undesirable as they effectively create wider traveling lanes for motorists, resulting in greater traffic speeds, compromising cyclists safety. At intersections or any other constriction that results in elimination of the bike lane, the transition should be facilitated as it is for any other vehicle lane. • Curbs should all be of the barrier variety. Mountable curbs permit parking on sidewalks and allow uncontrolled vehicle access to properties, both leading to conflicts for pedestrians. • Proper street lighting ensures streets are accessible and safe for pedestrians at all hours. More frequent lower level lamps are more desirable than the high, widely spaced lamps. They provide more even lighting for M A F1A A pedestrians and limit the amount of spillover light into windows of neighbouring residences. • Many options are available to modify driver behaviour in existing neighbourhoods. "Bulb-outs" at intersections reduce speeds for cars turning into streets and provide safe- havens for pedestrians crossing the street. Controlled intersections require drivers to assess conditions prior to continuing along a street and provide a greater degree of pedestrian safety. Traffic circles and stop signs are both effective in this regard. Finally, raised asphalt mounds cause cars to check their speed without causing discomfort for drivers or damage to vehicles when safe speeds are maintained. "Bulb-outs" at intersections create safer conditions for pedestrians at intersections implementation The changes in street standards discussed in this document are more analogous to a recipe for successful street and neighbourhood design than a menu of design items. In that sense then, all of the components are important in achieving the desired results. To do otherwise may in fact exacerbate some of the problems that we have set out to address. An important component of the success of this system of street standards is a philosophy of community planning that encourages smaller walkable neighbourhoods with a greater variety of land uses. It is a philosophy that is espoused in Maple Ridge's Official Community Plan and is also consistent with the objectives of the GVRD's Livable Regions Strategy. Adoption of these standards therefore continues the direction established by the strategies of these two documents. It is important to note that the District has benefited substantially from the limitations imposed by the geography of the area. This has resulted in a growth pattern that more closely resembles the objectives of these strategies. Many Maple Ridge neighbourhoods, while exhibiting some of the characteristics of typical suburban development, are nonetheless smaller in overall scale than many in neighbouring communities and have provided a greater degree of mixed uses. A significant amount of street development in the District does not however involve new urban growth areas. In some instances desired elements will already exist and care must be taken to ensure that they are retained. Existing streets in the older urban area of the District are undergoing significant transformation as growth necessitates changes to accommodate ever-increasing needs of vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists. Rigid application of any standards risks overlooking the actual needs of the residents. However, the objectives of the solutions proposed here can be applied in determining the "best fit" for any reconstruction of existing streets. What follows is a proposal for a variety of street types that the District can consider in adopting a new approach to the development of its streets. 10 MAII\E r'L rE Bibliography American Society of Civil Engineers, National Association of Home Builders, Urban Land Institute. Residential Streets. 1990 BC Transit; Transit and Land Use Planning. 1995 Burden, Dan; Street Design Guidelines for Healthy Neighbourhoods. Center for Livable Communities. 1999 Burden, Dan, Walkable Communities - Designing for Pedestrians. Videotape Presentation, Washington State Department of Transportation City of Calgary; Sustainable Suburbs Study. 1995 CMHC, Conventional and Alternative Development Standards, CMHC 1997 Institute of Transportation Engineers, Traditional Neighbourhood Development Street Design Guidelines, 1TE 1997 Reid Crowther; Surrey Local Road Standards Review. Engineering Department. 1997 2- %. MA11\El'JT 11 Proposed Street Cross Sections The street sections that have been developed under the guidelines of this report are applicable only to urban conditions. While many of the principles identified here have validity in a rural context, the impact of reduced densities in rural areas will significantly alter the design needs of each street. Each of the proposed sections identifies identical side boulevard conditions. This is because for the purpose of this report only street standards adjoining a residential use are considered. The two boulevards are not identical in size. It is proposed that on one side of the street the boulevard is larger to accommodate hydro utilities and related appurtenances. As a result, all of the proposed sections identify an offset carriage-way to accommodate the difference. The narrower of the two boulevards, (2 metres) is the minimum width required to accommodate street-trees while ensuring that curbs and sidewalks are not impacted by root growth in the long-term. The 3- metre boulevard assumes that some of the protected corridor that is required by the utility companies is actually within the area of the sidewalk. None of the utility infrastructure is actually located under the sidewalk however. This dimension therefore also represents a minimum width for this side of the street. All in all, the boulevard areas proposed for these cross- sections therefore represent the minimum necessary to accommodate sidewalks that are separated from the roadway and allow street-tree planting. 1. Boulevard Street - (Urban Arterial) with boulevard divide - This street functions to carry regional traffic and provide access to significant commercial districts. Of significance is the fact that the design is intended to accommodate a maximum speed of 50 km/h. The proposed section does not identify parking and this is required within any commercial district. Parking 6 ;)~) 12 MAUVE PJfi[L lanes can be incorporated by increasing the width by 2.2 metres at each side beyond the bike lane. Bike lanes are mandatory as traffic speeds are anticipated to be consistently 50 km/h. They can be eliminated within a commercial district where parking is added, provided there is confidence that Street activity will reduce speeds to less than 50 km/h. A centre median or boulevard accommodates a treed canopy. This divides the wide street into two components that ensures the desirable width to height ratio is present to create the "room" effect. The boulevard also allows left-turn bays to be constructed at critical intersections without impacting boulevard space at the sides of the street. Barrier curbs are required throughout on this street and little to no direct vehicle access to private property is permitted. Few streets in Maple Ridge qualify to require this standard. Dewdney Trunk Road and sections of the Lougheed Highway are streets that do qualify. As well 232 nd Street, 240th Street and Abernethy Way will carry regional traffic that will necessitate use of a comparable standard. It is important however to recognize when two travel lanes are required to accommodate traffic volumes. Until volumes justify the additional lane, parking at the curb should be considered or alternatively a lesser constructed width. Bicycle lanes will be marked accordingly. 2. Avenue - (Modified Collector) with bicycle lanes This street provides connections between neighbourhoods, often leading to commercial districts. It 23.30 m road allowance =L o I+0 o 2.20 1.50 3.00 3.00 1.50 2.20 1.50 1 .0 .80 .501 .25.7 .1 X0 4o 3/0 3/0 J4O 2/0 1.1 1.0 .50 .8 5.45 13.40 4.45 may also provide neighbourhood links to regional routes. This street assumes little to no direct vehicle access will be provided to private property. Bicycle lanes are proposed as traffic speeds are anticipated to be closer to 50 km/h. Parking lanes are important in accommodating residents and visitors needs 13 MAfl'\E r'trt as well as a factor in influencing moderated traffic speeds. Where this street bisects a commercial district, bicycle lanes can be eliminated as street activity serves to reduce traffic speed. The space formerly allocated to bike lanes should be allocated to a centre boulevard that can allow construction of left-turn lanes and permits a refuge for pedestrians crossing the street. Streets such as 203rd Street, 210h Street and 224th Street are representative of streets that could be developed under this category. 3. Main Street (1) — (Modified Collector) reduced speed limit, no bicycle lanes This classification of a Main Street differs from the nrPvir11c in thot thw t1pdic'otpd hie'v'1eo lcereewc 9 240 m ood ollowancO '00i.50 1.25.7 LJo[ 2.20 1.17 41 3.00 4,40 3.00 440 2.20 2,40 OLJJ I 1.11.0 1.50 .81 545 t22 4.45 10.40 are eliminated. It is assumed that a lower average traveling speed for vehicles facilitates this. The lower speeds are a function of increased streetlpedestrian activity that is anticipated on this type of street. The increased activity would result from a variety of uses encountered along the street including public parks, schools and neighbourhood shopping areas. An important element in achieving reduced speeds includes the on-street parking which implies a least medium densities for the neighbourhood. 4. Main Street (2) — Modified Collector permitting direct vehicle access to homes 20.70 2,40 m rood allowance 711 LL . 87 1.5Cr IOD 2.20 .25110,5 2,43 3.20 44o 3.20 440 2.20 A'o oUJ 1.1 LO 1.50 .8 5. 5 1Z8 4.45 10.80 This street modifies the traveling lane width to facilitate direct vehicle access to private property. Consideration should be given to the use of "bulb-outs" at mid- block points on driveways and at intersections as means of controlling traffic speed. Direct vehicle access would be typical of lower density residential districts or at least wider lots that facilitated access while maintaining "eyes-on-the-street" criteria for the neighbourhood. As a consequence it can be expected that less on- street parking will be required. The "bulb- 6 DE 2-11__~__ MAflW PIf F 14 outs" therefore become very significant in achieving the desired traffic speed. 5. Main Street (3) - Modified Collector with no parking to accommodate slopes 16.40 n, road cuowance F:O.-c 01 I oW I; 1.501 1.1 3.20 3.20 1.11.0 1501.8 5.55 6.40 4.45 This street design accommodates residential development that can readily provide all parking needs on-site. Densities with lot sizes equal to or greater than RS-1 type lots (668 m 2 - 7200 ft2) are required to ensure this condition. This design will also allow construction on hillsides that will minimize the extent of grading required building the road. 6. Street - (Local) with on-street parking and courtesy-direction traffic This street section is the "backbone" of a neighbourhood. Critical to the functioning of this street as key element of the "healthy" neighbourhood is a traffic speed of less than 30 kin/h. Parking and/or a combination of parking and "bulb-outs" is required to ensure the street is not perceived as an over built roadway that facilitates speed. The design accommodates only one-way traffic, requiring drivers to wait for oncoming traffic to clear. To function properly this design requires a high degree of interconnectivity of streets ensuring traffic is dispersed sufficiently to maintain very low traffic volumes on any street. As well, intersection spacing should be maintained at a maximum of 150 metres ensuring minimal waits on the one-way system. 18.00 rn road oflowor,ce 4D7/T- -77' o LJ 0 o 0 ,. 8d 1.50 1.1 2.20 3.60 2.20 1.1 1.0 1.50 .8 5.55 8.00 4.45 15 MAFI-\E PIrE 6.00m road allowance Hm 5.55 6.00 4.45 7. Street - (Limited Local) eliminated parking A limited number of local residential streets will provide short connections between blocks with no fronting homes or may be very short culs-de-sac (6-8 homes). As parking may not be required on these streets it is eliminated. 8. Residential Alley - (Service Lane) for rear access to parking PL 6.00 lane allowance j;°HL° RESIDENTIAL LANE PL 6.00 lane ollowanceT o.sd 5.00 LO5 —a' The alley is one of the most important parts of any effort to create a pedestrian environment on our streets. The alley allows all service uses to be relegated to the rear of the home and eliminates conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles for driveways at the front. The alley also accommodates significantly greater densities without compromising the appearance of the streetscape. The width proposed accommodates single lane traffic but will allow vehicles to pass one another slowly using the shoulder. No curbs are proposed, as the intensity of use does not justify their inclusion. The cost of alley should be kept to minimum as a means of encouraging their inclusion in development plans. The present standard is equivalent to full road standards with some minor differences in the width of asphalt. 9. Commercial Alley - Rear service lane A slightly enhanced lane standard is proposed for commercial areas, recognizing the increased use by heavier, larger vehicles. Curbs should be considered for more substantial commercial districts such as Community Commercial centres. 16 MAII\E, 'IIE Details 1. Intersection "Bulb-outs" 1.5 4i6.0 R=4.O \-_-, R=6.O SIP AU pedestrian safety. The "bulb-out" provides many benefits to pedestrians and the neighbourhood. It serves to define driving lanes and differentiate them from parking areas. It also provides shorter crossing for pedestrians and ensures that vehicles negotiating to turn into a Street approach at a slower speed. This increases Mid-block bulbs - speed control Ill U.. • u., ----___._ ' a a - - The mid-block bulb serves many of the same functions as the intersection bulb. It can also serve to provide safe driveway entries to the street by limiting the proximity of parking to the driveways. Traffic Circle Traffic circles provide excellent traffic control for • I I I + R=2.6 001 cm 77 I Lq intersections. In the Lower Mainland they have been largely used as traffic "calming" devices within residential neighbourhoods. They are also very effective however, as traffic management systems for important intersections. 17 MAfl\E PI.rE: CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor A. Hogarth. DATE: August 23. 2000 and Members of Council FILE NO: E01-035M01.2 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W - PW & Dev SUBJECT: Tno Cenda Trail ColebratiOH 7 irr2.i4tN' SUMMARY: A request has been received from the Ridge Meadows 2000 Terry Fox Run Committee to use Municipal Streets for the Maple Ridge / Pitt Meadows 2000 Terry Fox Run on Sunday September 17, 2000. It is recommended that the event be approved provided the usual conditions are met. A copy of the request dated August 17, 2000 is attached. RECOMMENDATION: That Ridge Meadows Terry Fox Run Committee be authorized to use Municipal Streets for the Maple Ridge / Pitt Meadows 2000 Terry Fox Run on Sunday September 17, 2000 provided the conditions outlined in schedule 'A', attached to this report are met. BACKGROUND: From time to time the Municipality is requested to allow the use of Municipal Streets for organized events. Unless there is some unusual safety implication, approval is usually given on condition that the Municipality be indemnified against any liability for injury or damage resulting from the event. The conditions of approval of the event are attached as "Schedule A". It should be noted that no road closure is requested and that the relay team will observe all traffic regulations. The Traffic Division of the RCMP has approved their traffic control plan and route selection. A map showing the route is attached to the letter request. Prepared !Py: Frank Quinn, P.Eng., Municipal Engineer A -- -- ov Jake : Concurrence k1udolph, AIP, MCIP Public Works & Development Services - ~ 4--, --~ rt W. Robertson, AICP, MCIP Administrative Officer -1- 11 Schedule 'A' To Council Memorandum Dated August 23, 2000 Maple Ridge / Pitt Meadows 2000 Terry Fox Run Condition of Approval Approval for the event is given on condition that the organizers: provide all necessary traffic controls, parking and emergency access acceptable to the R.C.M.P., and the District of Maple Ridge; notify local Fire Department, Ambulance Services and BC Transit of the event; hold and save harmless the Corporation from and against all claims, and damages arising out of or in any way connected with the event; obtain and maintain during the term of this event a comprehensive general liability insurance policy providing coverage of not less than $5,000,000.00, naming the Corporation as an additional named insured. A copy of such policy shall be delivered to the Corporation prior to the event; obtain any required permits from the District of Maple Ridge Parks and Leisure Services Department and the School Board; obtain any required permits from the District of Pitt Meadow for use of their roads; notify all surrounding businesses of the event (a minimum of one week prior to the event date); refurbish all municipal infrastructure to an equal or better condition than that which existed prior to the event, all within 24 hours of the completed event, to the satisfaction of the District of Maple Ridge; The Corporation of District of Maple Ridge reserves the right to withdraw this permission to use Municipal Streets should the organizers fail to comply with the above requirements. Chief Administrative Officer -2- The Teny Fox Marathon qfHOpeAflniverSa?7 Micheel Eng Engng Dt Diict of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Ptacx, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 AW9 17. 2000 DearMrEng The 20th• Anniversary Terry Fox Run will he held on Sunthy, Sq*om 17. 2000 tai * lLOOam. Tile route starts and finiches at Hammond Community cene as in previous yrs. I am enclosing a map of the route and an appuval of the Traffic Plan from the RCMP. We look forward to approval from Council. • BeUy Leveus Enclosure (2) BETTY LEVENS #403-116O5.227thSThEET ( I. Dunn Ave nw ft® 0 I:l 4- U) I I3: verRd THE MAPLE RIDGE I PITT MEADOWS TERRY FOX RUN ROUTE MAP 18 Ave II ® Icommundy Cenfre I U6A Ave w I______ , . Westfield ( 11 AT HAMMOND COMMUNITY CENTRI & FIELDS han - 206 to Westfield toZ)7 to Rver Rood to Miliar. through ie$d. Sian- 206toWestlie4dto207Io flS Ave to203 to Hammond/Maple Cres.to 207 to River Rood to Miller, through fleld 101Cm - 206 to Westfield to 207 to 118 Ave to 203 to Hammond to West St to Dunn Ave to Maple-Meadows Way to Hammond to Bornon to 11 6A to Wlldwood to Hammond to Mople Meodows Way to Dunn to West to Hammond / Maple 0-es to 207 to River Rood to MIller, through field. 'Al11t%(• ¶ -l# G Cfes C 0 U, RI I U) - - /0 p £/tc) 9 cj, A LJ .c!T OCO TO: Staff SgLL Harris Ridge Meadows RC.M.P. FROM: Maple Ridge/ Pitt Meadows 2000 TERRY FOX RUN Committee RE: Traffic Control Plans. The Maple Ridge / Pitt Meadows 2000 TERRY FOX RUN will be held on Sunday. September 17th• 2000 at I I.00a.m. starting from the Hammond Stadium and Community Centre. Traffic control and participant safety is of utmost importance and we are requesting assistance from your Detachment in this regard It is hoped that a contingent of RCMP. and /cr Auxilimy Members could be made available to provide the necessary tiaflic control to ensure a safe event for all of this year's participants. I am enclosing a map of the run. The red dots indicate where Flag Marshalls will be placed - this info was provided to me by Rob Frazer. We will have enough volunteers to cover these spots except for the ones to be covered by the RC.M.P. Last year's Traffic Control plan suggested that your members will be required at at least five of the busier intersections and that they shouldbeable to "leapfrog" forwardafter the bulk of runners have passed through the first controlled intersection and continue on to the next one. We have not been able to find someone from within your Department or with 'police' knowledge to be the liason between the RC.M.P. and our committee this year. If there is someone who would do this we would be most appreciative. Please would you let me know what else you require to sign off this plan as soon as is possible for you so that we can request Council to approve the run. I can be reached at 467 9387 and my fax is the same number. Sincerely Betty Levens c.c. Cpl. Huntington NCO i/c Traffic Elk \r I. CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor A. Hogarth DATE: August 21, 2000 and Members of Council FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W - PW & Dev SUBJECT: C-License Council Resolution ,!'ic-Qo-1 -4- EXECUTWE SUMMARY: Council has been asked to provide a resolution in order to advance a Stage One application to the General Manager of the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch (LCLB) to facilitate a formal application for a C - License from the LCLB. The applicant is proposing to convert the existing building on the north west corner of 119 Avenue and 207 Street (the old Credit Union Building) to permit a cabaret. Given the location and the zoning staff support this. RECOMMENDATION Be it resolved that the Council supports the licensing of a C-License (Cabaret) proposed by Dominic Francis Merlo at 11935 207 Street, Maple Ridge, B.C. BACKGROUND: Applicant: Owner: Legal Description: OCP: Zoning: Surrounding Uses: Existing Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Access: Dominic Francis Merlo Westminster Savings & Credit Union Lot B, D.L. 278, Gp.l, Plan 76445 NWD Service Commercial CD-3-87 (Comprehensive Development) Commercial Vacant Cabaret 207 Street and 119 Avenue IV. - PROJECT DESCRIPTION:. - - - - - The applicant intends to renovate the existing building in order to pennit a licensed facility that will provide entertainment consisting of live theatre (one act plays) standup comedy, and live music encompassing all genres from jazz to big band. Seating will be in the order of 220-260 persons, limitations determined by parking and LCB guidelines. Hours of operation will be Monday to Saturday 6:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. with possible matinees on Sunday. DISSCUSION: This is the first step in the application process to the LCLB, required for a Class C License. The license is required to operate a Cabaret. While the Council is not the approving authority for liquor licensing their resolution of support will allow the general manager of LCLB to process the applicant through the rest of the approval process. The site is zone CD-3-87 (Comprehensive Development) and permits: - all the uses within the CS-I Zone; - Offices of a bank or credit union; - Accessory off street parking; - Accessory off street loading The Cabaret use proposed for this site falls within the CS-1 zone and is a permitted use. The location in surrounded by commercial uses with the nearest residential area some 100 meters to the north on the north side of Dewdney Trunk Road. CONCULSION: Given the location of the site and the fact that it is zoned to permit the requested use, staff support the application for the Class C - Liquor License and recommend that Council support the resolution in order to advance this application to the General Manager of the LCLB. ((\.• Prepard by: Gay McMillan P1nning Technician -ç--L / /•• I ,'. , by: Christine Carter I-.-' Director of Plannig AICP, MCIP orks & Development Services \/( Concurrence: ' bert W. Robertson, AICP, MCIP Chief Administrative Officer -2- 1000 12070 NW 2582 CN 30 P73290 zo- I ci 2 >1 ("I 12025 112020 31 cn r. RM-3 P 73290 0. 4!, P4 P 5439 N D-92 P 78869 P 10201 N 803N S1 2 1 (LEN) P411 2 - 7N1 P.75414 NW2959 P 75414 NW 2745 r-12026 48 12065 Rem 24 - 4 J 18 15J14 112D68 P 29781 P-12051 oi2 P 7638 _ 0 5 - 12o4817I,J 12045 16 120A AVE 1 12041 co 12058 3 P29781 612037 12040 Rem26 712033 120306 12019 _____ 12024 I P30456 4 N \ I 1 Rem29 9 12025 (1)112020 7 I ______ ___ 12030 ____ IRem4l I I I - I12016 coP7071 — L LQ-41 P3954 2 1 2 2 I 30 31 32 I 33 lo- 12013 I I N N 4aJ _______ DEWDNEY TRK RD N N 1 N p54395 C P 69066 Rem 1 ____________ A P65429 300 1 R$ 1 CD P 9801 P 76445 11973 Rem 45 P 75912 N- 11955 cv CSI P 87086 (P 87086) P76445 C-2 B 11935 CD-3-87 fl SUBJECT PROPERTY NW 2523 P 54395 RM-5 I I P 56403 P 87135 I P 8735 I P 10414 j 48 18 RemI 16 15 1 / j cs I L LOUGHEED HWy I04" N N 0 N 6 1J.N N 35 36 1 (1).. RP,8143----- - P 3 z (P 8735) w 1 11828 RP9591 0.. 'Liii " — I I 24 r" H 11822 _j19 - 11819 11820 13 B (.4 P11 I OSTC f N 0" lYE L.. ______ 11935 - 207 ST A THE DISTRICT OF CORPORATION OF MAPLE RIDGE MAPLE RIDGE Incoped 12, S.pIembe, 1874 PLANNING DEPARTMENT SCALE: 1:2,500 _____ DA: Aug 25 2000 FILE: BY: JB CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor A. Hogarth DATE: August 22, 2000 and Members of Council FILE NO: 5340-20 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C.O.W.-C & F. Services SUBJECT: Inclusion into Sewer Area "A" EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: To introduce a by-law for three readings in response to valid petitions to include six parcels located at 13202 Balsam Street, 23291/93 132 Avenue, 13396 233 Street, 23469 Larch Avenue, 23451 Larch Avenue and Lot 3, Larch Avenue. RECOMMENDATION: That the report dated August 22, 2000 be received, noting that it is reported therein that the petitions to include properties located at 13202 Balsam Street, 23291/93 132 Avenue, 13396 233 Street, 23469 Larch Avenue, 23451 Larch Avenue and Lot 3, Larch Avenue in Sewer Area "A" are sufficient and valid and further, that Maple Ridge Sewer Area "A" Sewerage Works Construction and Loan Authorization Amending By-law No. 5922-2000 be read a first and second time and that the Rules of Order be waived and Maple Ridge Sewer Area "A" Sewerage Works Construction and Loan Authorization Amending By-law No. 5922-2000 be read a third time. BACKGROUND: Petitions have been submitted to the Clerk's Section requesting that the parcels legally and civically described as: Lot 3, Except: Firstly: Parcel "A" (Reference Plan 15218); Secondly: Part Subdivided by Plan 66891; Section 28, Township 12, Plan 3007, N.W.D. (Larch Avenue) Lot 2, Section 28, Township 12, Plan 13167, N.W.D. (13202 Balsam Street) Lot 2, Except: Firstly: Parcel "A" (Explanatory Plan 10151); Secondly: Part Subdivided by Plan 20543; Thirdly: Part Subdivided by Plan 21716; Section 28, Township 12, Plan 6139, N.W.D. (23291/93 132 Avenue) Lot 26, Section 28, Township 12, Plan 20636, N.W.D. (13396 233 Street) Lot 43, Section 28, Township 12, Plan 66891, N.W.D. (23469 Larch Avenue) and Lot "B", Except: Parcel "One" (Reference Plan 8389), Section 28, Township 12, Plan 4962, N.W.D. (23451 Larch Avenue) be included in Sewer Area "A". cr3' Memo re By-law No. 5922-2000 Page (2) The properties in question are the subjects of a rezoning application (RZ/9/98), which required as a condition of rezoning, that application be made for connection to sanitary sewer and inclusion into Sewer Area "A". By way of this report, I hereby certify that the petitions are sufficient and valid, pursuant to the Local Government Act. The Municipal Council may now give the attached by-law three readings. The by-law also requ,jhe approval of t1Minister of Municipal Affairs before final reading consideration. / /t9 Prepared b: Jo-Anne 7 -Acting I\ Approve'd by: Paul Gill, BBA, CGA General Manager, Corporate & Financial Services j k Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, AICP, MCIP Chief Administrative Officer Attachment CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BY-LAW NO. 5922 - 2000 A By-law to extend Sewer Area "A" within the District of Maple Ridge WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge, pursuant to Maple Ridge Sewer Area "A" Sewerage Works Construction and Loan Authorization By-law No. 2486 - 1977, established Sewer Area "A" within the boundaries of the Municipality; AND WHEREAS, the Council has received petitions from six property owners for the extension of Sewer Area "A" and deems it expedient to extend Sewer Area "A". NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: This By-law may be cited for all purposes as "Maple Ridge Sewer Area "A" Sewerage Works Construction and Loan Authorization Amending By-law No. 5922 - 2000". That Maple Ridge Sewer Area "A" Sewerage Works Construction and Loan Authorization By-law No. 2486 - 1977 as amended be further amended by adding to Section 1, the following words: "and also shall include all those portions of: Lot 3, Except: Firstly: Parcel "A" (Reference Plan 15218); Secondly: Part Subdivided by Plan 66891; Section 28, Township 12, Plan 3007, N. W.D. (Larch Avenue) Lot 2, Section 28, Township 12, Plan 13167, N. W.D. (13202 Balsam Street) Lot 2, Except: Firstly: Parcel "A" (Explanatory Plan 10151); Secondly: Part Subdivided by Plan 20543; Thirdly: Part Subdivided by Plan 21716; Section 28, Township 12, Plan 6139, N. W.D. (23291193 132 Avenue) Lot 26, Section 28, Township 12, Plan 20636, N. W.D. (13396 233 Street) Lot 43, Section 28, Township 12, Plan 66891, N. W.D. (23469 Larch Avenue). - and V Lot "B", Except: Parcel "One" (Reference Plan 8389), Section 28, Township 12, Plan 4962, N. W.D. (23451 Larch Avenue) as shown boldly marked on the map attached to the By-law and marked as Schedule "A". That the parcels noted in Paragraph 2 above, of this by-law shall bear the same charges as those properties in the original Sewer Area "A". Bylaw No. 5922-2000 Page 2 READ a first time the day of 2000. READ a second time the day of 2000. READ a third time the day of 2000. APPROVED by the Minister of Municipal Affairs the day of , 2000. APPROVED by the Deputy Inspector of Municipalities the day of , 2000. RECONSIDERED and adopted the day of , 2000. MAYOR CLERK Attachment: Schedule "A" Schedule "A" to Maple Ridge Sewer Area "A" Sewerage Works Construction CORPORATION OF TILE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor Al Hogarth DATE: August 22, 2000 and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Committee of the Whole Corporate & Financial SUBJECT: Considerations - A Guide to Lower Mainland Area Local Government Interests in Treaty Negotiations EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Council recently reviewed a version of "Considerations - A Guide to Lower Mainland Area Local Government Interests in Treaty Negotiations." This document outlines the principles and interests that this group plans to follow when involved in treaty negotiations with First Nations groups. At the time Council provided feedback which was passed along to the LMTAC. This is an opportunity to review the final version and provide comments. RECOMMENDATION: Review the final version of "Considerations - A Guide to Lower Mainland Area Local Government Interests in Treaty Negotiations" and provide Ron Riach with any major comments or concerns for him to forward to the LMTAC. Prepared by: Oy Dale, Executive Assistant 4proved by: Paul Gill, B.B.A., C.G.A. General ger: Cor orate & Financial Services Concurrence Robert W. Robertson, AICP, MCIP ChifAdiiiiiitritive Officer PG:cd -1- Lt 0 CONSIDERATIONS A Guide to Lower Mainland area Local Government Interests in Treaty Negotiations "LMTAC works to coordinate and represent the interests of Local Governments and their constituents in Lower Mainland area treaty negotiations" Version: July 2000 Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee 4th floor, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5H 4G8 Tel (604) 451-6179 Fax (604) 436-6860 E-mail: lmtac.lmtac@gvrd.bc.ca Web: www.lmtac.bc.ca Considerations - A Guide to Lower Mainland area Local Government Interests in Treaty Negotiations Page 2 What is 'LMTAC'? The Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC) works to coordinate and represent the interests of Local Governments and their constituents in Lower Mainland area treaty negotiations. LMTAC is the largest Treaty Advisory Committee (TAC) in British Columbia and the most urban focused, providing input into negotiations with five Lower Mainland area First Nations: Katzie, Musqueam, Squamish, Tsawwassen and Tsleil-Waututh (Burrard). LMTAC is comprised of elected and staff representatives from 23 municipal and 3 regional district Local Governments. While LMTAC is not one of the principles in the BC Treaty Process (Canada, British Columbia and the First Nations), LMTAC representatives are full members of the provincial treaty negotiating team. One of LMTAC's key roles is to provide support services to member local governments dealing with broader Aboriginal issues such as land management, servicing, intergovernmental relations and communications with First Nations. Ongoing LMTAC initiatives include information gathering, education, research and analysis, and various targeted communications activities. LMTAC is the region's most comprehensive resourcing body for Local Governments that do not have in-house capacity to monitor and address emerging Aboriginal issues, particularly in the urban context. LMTAC MEMBERSHIP 2000 Full Voting Members 1. Greater Vancouver Regional District 17. City of Port Moody 2. Village of Anmore 18. City of Richmond 3. Village of Belcarra 19. City of Surrey 4. Municipality of Bowen Island 20. City of Vancouver 5. City of Burnaby 21. District of West Vancouver 6. City of Coquitlam 22. City of White Rock 7. Corporation of Delta 23. Squamish-Lillooet Regional District 8. City of Langley 24. District of Squamish 9. Township of Langley 25. Resort Municipality of Whistler 10. Village of Lions Bay 26. Sunshine Coast Regional District 11. District of Maple Ridge 12. City of New Westminster Observers 13. City of North Vancouver 27. Village of Pemberton 14. District of North Vancouver 28. Fraser Valley TAC 15. District of Pitt Meadows 29. Town of Gibsons 16. City of Port Coquitlam .30..DistrictofSechelt For further information on LMTAC contact: David Didluck, Executive Director, 4th Floor, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC, V5H 4G8. Tel: (604) 451-6179 Fax: (604) 436-6860 E-mail: lmtac.lmtac@gvrd.bc.ca. Or visit LMTAC on the web at: www.lmtac.bc.ca . Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC) July 2000 Considerations - A Guide to Lower Mainland area Local Government Interests in Treaty Negotiations Page 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 4 1.1 What's New in this Version 4 1.2 Background 4 1.3 Objectives 5 1.4 How to Use This Paper 5 1.5 Methodology and Approach 6 2.0 CONTEXT FOR NEGOTATIONS 6 2.1 Role of Local Governments 6 2.2 Intergovernmental Linkages 7 2.3 Urban Treaty Considerations 7 3.0 FIRST PRINCIPLES 8 GENERAL PRINCIPLES 9 LAND PRINCIPLES 10 RESOURCE and ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES 11 GOVERNANCE PRINCIPLES 12 FISCAL PRINCIPLES 13 4.0 UNDERLYING INTERESTS 14 4.1 GENERAL 14 4.1.1 Shared Values 15 4.1.2 Consistency 15 4.1.3 Public Information and Consultation 15 4.1.4 Interim Measures / Treaty Related Measures 15 4.2 LANDS and ASSETS 15 4.2.1 Certainty 16 4.2.2 Land Inventories 16 4.2.3 Land Selection 16 4.2.4 Treaty Settlement Lands 18 4.2.5 Heritage Sites 18 4.2.6 Discovered Rights 18 4.2.7 Access 19 4.2.8 Land Management 19 4.3 RESOURCES and the NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 20 4.3.1 Environmental Management 20 4.3.2 Parks / Green Zones 21 4.3.3 Fisheries 21 4.3.4 Water 21 4.3.5--Forests------ - 21 4.3.6 Energy 21 4.4 GOVERNANCE and JURISDICTION 22 4.4.1 Local Government Powers 22 4.4.2 Structure and Scope of Aboriginal Government 22 4.4.3 Intergovernmental Relations 23 4.4.4 Program and Service Delivery 23 4.5 FISCAL 24 4.5.1 Economic Development 24 4.5.2 Cost Recovery 24 4.5.3 Taxation and Local Government Tax Bases 24 GLOSSARY OF TERMS 26 Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC) July 2000 Considerations - A Guide to Lower Mainland area Local Government Interests in Treaty Negotiations Page 4 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 What's New in This Version The July 2000 version contains revised interest statements arising from the development of LMTAC's First Principles. The First Principles (section 3.0) provide the framework for more detailed exploration of interests found later in this paper (section 4.0) and give fuller expression to the perspectives of Lower Mainland area Local Governments affected by treaty negotiations. LMTAC's First Principles, endorsed in December 1999 and June 2000, are fully integrated into this paper. On June 28, 2000, eight additional or amended First Principles were considered by the Full LMTAC. Five of the eight were adopted and added to Section 3.0 of the paper. One principle was not endorsed. The remaining two were incorporated in a general preamble to Section 3.0.' Definitions for words followed by a asterix (*) may be found in the Glossary of Terms. 1.2 Background This paper outlines the key interests of Local Governments represented on the Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC). Since 1995, members of LMTAC have been actively engaged in identifying Local Government interests as they relate to issues typically discussed in treaty negotiations - issues such as land, resources and governance. Local Government interests in treaty negotiations are communicated to the Provincial government through of the Union of BC Municipalities (which provides a province-wide Local Government perspective) and individual Treaty Advisory Committees like LMTAC (which provide a region-specific Local Government perspective). Although Local Governments are not one of the three principles in the BC Treaty Process, LMTAC is a full member of the Provincial negotiating team and provides advice and guidance to Provincial negotiators and its member Local Governments on treaty and Aboriginal issues from a community perspective. As the voice for Lower Mainland area Local Governments at five separate treaty tables, LMTAC works to identify issues relevant to its membership and to articulate related interests. These interests were cataloged in a series of interest papers produced by LMTAC. Past LMTAC interest papers include: July 1999 Considerations for Lower Mainland Local Governments Involved in Stage 4 AlP Negotiations (July 1999 version) July 1998 Considerations for Lower Mainland Local Governments Involved in Stage 4 AlP Negotiations (July 1998 version) October 1997 Identification of Issues, Interests and Guiding Principles for Achieving Negotiated Treaty Settlements in the Lower Mainland 'As endorsed by the LMTAC Executive on July 12, 2000 on referral from the full LMTAC on June 28, 2000. Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC) July 2000 Considerations - A Guide to Lower Mainland area Local Government Interests in Treaty Negotiations Page 5 The July 2000 version, like previous LMTAC interest papers, is an evolving document that will be updated and revised as new issues arise from treaty negotiations and as feedback and commentary is received from LMTAC's member Local Governments. 1.3 Objectives This paper was developed to assist the membership of LMTAC in: • identifying various social, economic, and policy issues of interest to Lower Mainland area Local Governments involved in treaty negotiations; • linking general Local Government interests to specific substantive issues arising in Stage 4 Agreement-in-Principle (AlP) * negotiations; • expressing principles which LMTAC member Local Governments believe should be integrated into treaties with First Nations; • developing a framework to assist member Local Governments in effectively responding to issue-specific questions arising from Stage 4 AIP* negotiations. 1.4 How to Use This Paper There are four key audiences for this paper: • LMTA C Members - use this paper is a "guide" to help understand and communicate Lower Mainland area Local Government interests in treaty negotiations to senior governments, Councils, Boards and the public. This paper is ofparticular interest to LMTAC representatives at specific treaty tables; use this paper as a summary of Local Government interests as expressed by the full membership of LMTAC (notjust one specificjurisdiction). • Provincial Negotiators - this paper will assist Provincial negotiators in understanding the key interests of Lower Mainland area Local Governments and in communicating these interests to the other parties at the treaty table (Canada and First Nations). Use this paper to also understand the nature and scope ofpublic policy issues with which Local Governments have expertise. Other Parties in the Treaty Process or Involved with Aboriginal Issues - use this paper to help understand the breadth of functions performed by Local Governments in the Lower Mainland area and the nature and scope ofpublic policy issues with which Local Governments have 'expertise LocalGovernments are important public institutions that can play a key role in building lasting intergovernmental relationships and in negotiating and implementing successful treaties in an urban setting. • Public At-large - this paper will be comprehensive summary of Local Government interests in treaty-making as expressed by members of LMTA C. Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC) July 2000 Considerations - A Guide to Lower Mainland area Local Government Interests in Treaty Negotiations Page 6 1.5 Methodology and Approach There are several steps associated with identifying and articulating Local Government interests. This paper follows logically the steps used by LMTAC members. Important Note: Only steps 1 to 3 are presented in this paper. Step 4, the development of additional specific commentary, will be implemented by LMTAC members as treaty negotiations progress and as Local Governments are requested to provide specific commentary on detailed and emerging issues. Such commentary is typically requested during chapter development and land selection discussions in Stage 4 of the Treaty Process. -S Action Implementation Initiate Identify Issues of See Table of Contents. (e.g. lands, resources, governance). 1 Relevance to Local Government Frame Link Issue to See Section 3.0. 2 LMTAC's First Principles Explore Explore Underlying See Section 4.0. 3 Interests Add Additional Specific During treaty chapter development and land selection (Stage 4), 4 Commentary LMTAC will provide additional specific comments based on already established LMTAC principles and interests. 2.0 CONTEXT FOR NEGOTIATIONS 2.1 Role of Local Governments A review of Framework Agreements (Stage 3) across British Columbia reveals that many of the issues of interest to First Nations involved in treaty negotiations are also the responsibility and/or interest of Local Governments. There is a practical necessity for ensuring that Local Governments are an integral part of treaty negotiations and post-treaty implementation. In British Columbia, Local Governments are recognized as an independent, responsible and accountable order of government. Local Governments are also the most accessible level of government, closest to its constituents and often staffed by local citizens. The importance of the role of the public, and of public processes, is a central defining characteristic of Local Government. Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC) July 2000 Considerations - A Guide to Lower Mainland area Local Government Interests in Treaty Negotiations Page 7 Local Governments are also the implementing arm of government, dealing with both hard (e.g. water treatment, transportation infrastructure) and soft (e.g. community centres, planning) service delivery issues. As such, Local Governments tend to be pragmatic and practical organizations that seek to develop and implement "on-the-ground" solutions to important community issues. Members of LMTAC strongly believe that senior levels of government need to recognize that treaties will be implemented at the local level and that day-to-day relationships in the post treaty environment will be between neighbouring Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities. The successful implementation of treaties - particularly in the urban setting where intergovernmental relationships are most important - is therefore inextricably tied to the direct participation of Local Governments in treaty negotiations and to the recognition that Local Governments are an important community-based form of public government, not a private, third-party interest. 2.2 Intergovernmental Linkages There are many misperceptions about the linkages between Local Governments and Aboriginal communities. The variety and breath of these linkages varies from region to region and from province to province. However, Local Governments and First Nations share many important commonalties. Such commonalties include, but are not limited to: • shared broad community objectives, such as to maintain healthy populations, vibrant and dynamic economic systems, and sustainable and productive urban living environments. • shared interests in creating employment and regional economic development opportunities for their constituents. Several case studies in Canada and the United States highlight the ability of Local Governments and First Nation to jointly pursue lucrative commercial or industrial enterprises. • strong community ties and more accessible representational structures. Civic officials and Aboriginal council members are directly responsible to their constituents and often work within well established community-based forms of governance. • shared need to work together in the post-treaty environment. It is at the local or community level at which the day-to-day relationships between First Nations and other levels of government will take shape, particularly in the urban setting. 2.3 Urban Treaty Considerations Treaty negotiations involve a multitude of complex and competing, multi-party public policy issues, many of which are intensified by the interconnections between communities and organizations in the urban setting. Treaty-making in urban settings will need to account for and accommodate these realities. Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC) July 2000 Considerations - A Guide to Lower Mainland area Local Government Interests in Treaty Negotiations Page 8 There are numerous reasons why urban treaties will be distinct from those of rural agreements. The implementation of treaties in urban centres is complicated by several factors including: • complex network of existing government structures and management regimes • numerous competing private interests • unique economic development and land use considerations • limited available Crown land for treaty settlements • higher population densities • an absence of past models to provide insight on how relationships with other governments may develop in the post-treaty urban environment. In Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand - countries where there have been predominant 'Aboriginal rights' movements - there are few existing precedents that can be utilized to assess the socio-economic impacts of comprehensive urban treaty settlements or measure the impacts of Local Government participation in treaty implementation. Unlike in rural areas, the outcome of urban treaty negotiations will be a more visible impact on communities both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal. 3.0 FIRST PRINCIPLES There are several broad principles which help to inform Lower Mainland area Local Government interests in treaty negotiations. These principles were developed in 1999 through a 10 month policy development and consultation exercise that directly involved all 26 municipal and regional district governments represented on LMTAC. Further principles were added in June 2000.' LMTAC's First Principles provide the framework for more detailed exploration of underlying interests found later in this paper (see section 4.0). >> Preamble << Successful treaty negotiations are linked to the ability of Local Governments to effectively respond now and in a post-treaty environment. Members of LMTAC believe that: • The Governments of British Columbia and Canada should support the expeditious amendment of the Constitution of Canada to provide, protect and prescribe the powers of local government. Local Governments also believe in the successful and timely resolution of outstanding Aboriginal rights and title issues. Members of LMTAC believe that: • First Nations should be encouraged to file all Aboriginal claims under the BC Treaty Process within a reasonable timeframe as a means of achieving certainty. 'Eight new or amended First Principles were reviewed by the Full LMTAC in June 2000. Five of the eight were adopted by the LMTAC. One was not endorsed. The remaining two were incorporated as part of a general preamble to Section 3.0 (as endorsed by the Executive on July 12, 2000 on referral from the full LMTAC on June 28, 2000). Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC) July 2000 Considerations - A Guide to Lower Mainland area Local Government Interests in Treaty Negotiations Page 9 GENERAL PRINCIPLES Brief Description: Uniqueness of Urban Treaties Principle: Treaty agreements in other regions of the Province should not be used as a precedent or template for urban treaty settlements. Provisions in Lower Mainland area treaties should reflect the complex realities of the urban environment specific to each treaty. Local Governments are Not Third Party 2. Local Government shall be recognized in the treaty Interests process as an independent, responsible and accountable order of government, not as a secondary level or third party interest. Respect Canadian Constitution 3. Treaties should uphold the principles of the Canadian Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Respect Heritage 4. Treaty settlements must respect the values, heritage, culture and traditions of Aboriginal and non- Aboriginal peoples. Open and Transparent Negotiations 5. Tripartit&' treaty negotiations must be open and Funded By Senior Governments provide for meaningful public input throughout the negotiations. The cost of the public process is to be funded as an essential part of treaty-making by the tripartite negotiating parties. Resolution of Overlaps 6. AgreementsinPrinciple* (Stage 4) shall not be completed until all conflicting land, water and resource issues (of those Aboriginal peoples who qualify under the BC Treaty Process) have been resolved. AgreementsinPrinciple* shall include the -details of the overlap resolution agreement. Need for Certainty 7. Local Governments strongly support the need for certain and final definitions of Traty rights. Treaties should provide a clear and exhaustive definition of powers that First Nations governments may exercise. Role of LMTAC Consistent Application of Principles LMTAC is the voice of Lower Mainland area Local Governments on all issues relating to the treaty process. LMTAC's First Principles will be applied to all Lower Mainland area treaty agreements. Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC) July 2000 Considerations - A Guide to Lower Mainland area Local Government Interests in Treaty Negotiations Page 10 Private & Local Government Lands and Assets Protected Principle: Urban treaty settlements should be composed primarily of cash and other fiscal considerations rather than land, because of scarcity of unencumbered and uncommitted lands in the Lower Mainland area. Privately-owned feesimple* lands, Crown Corporation lands, and Local Government-owned lands and assets, including those acquired through a Local Government process, must not be available for land selection. Lands and assets include, but are not limited to: Local Government facilities, rights-of- way, lands leased from other governments, Crown lands subject to a Local Government license/tenure, municipal and regional parks, conservation and protected areas, greenbelts, school board lands, and Local Government commercial operations (i.e. forest lands, park concessions). LAND PRINCIPLES Brief Description: Cash Settlements in Urban Areas Continuation of Local Government 12. The continuation of Local Government regulatory Authority over Lands Pre and Post Treaty and taxation authority over lands within a municipality or regional district that may be transferred as part of a treaty settlement is paramount. Lands received by a First Nation as part of a treaty settlement should be held in feesimple* and have no new or special status. Lands to be added after the treaty is signed must remain subject to Local Government jurisdiction and taxation unless otherwise agreed to by Local Governments through a community consultation process. Lands Held in Fee-Simple Importance of Access Clarity and consistency in regulatory jurisdiction is paramount in the post-treaty environment. Treaty settlement lands* within municipalities and regional districts are to be treated like all other feesi mple* lands (e.g. be subject to compatible zoning bylaws, be assessed for regional services, and not include ownership of sub-surface resources). There must be continued access (via land, water or air) to Local Government lands and assets on, between or adjacent to treaty settlement lands* as well as to privately-held and leased lands on, between or adjacent to treaty settlement lands* for the purposes of, but not limited to, infrastructure development and maintenance. Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC) July 2000 Considerations - A Guide to Lower Mainland area Local Government Interests in Treaty Negotiations Page 11 RESOURCE and ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES Brief Description: Resource Sustainability Consistent Regulatory Controls Principle: Sustainability* of local economies is a priority in the post-treaty environment. Lower Mainland area renewable, natural resources (including, but not limited to, forests, water and fish) must continue to be managed on a sustainable basis in order not to undermine the economic base of Local Governments and their communities. Clarity and consistency in regulatory jurisdiction with respect to natural and physical resources are paramount in the post-treaty environment. Development of resources can have a significant impact on Local Governments. Conservation / Environmental Protections 17. International agreements and Federal and Provincial legislation with respect to conservation (of wildlife, migratory birds, fish and other species) must be incorporated into all treaties. Present, future and potential refuge and environmentally-sensitive areas, including but not limited to, the Fraser River Basin, Boundary Bay Wildlife Management Area, Maple Wood Flats and Indian Arm, must be identified and protected during the treaty process. Protect Wildlife Habitats 18. Locally, nationally, and globally significant wildlife habitats in the Lower Mainland area must be recognized and protected. Preserve Agricultural Lands 19. Lands in the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) must remain in the ALR and under the jurisdiction of the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC). Respect Local Government Leases and 20. Local Government leases and licenses (including Licenses park tenures and agricultural, mining, forest- and range leases/licenses on Crown lands), and the economic and environmental viability of these agreements, as well as any provisions for their renewal, must be respected and preserved. Access, Usage, Maintenance and 21. Local Government and private interests in water Protection of Water Resources must be preserved. Interests include, but are not limited to: ground water, aquifers, natural drainage systems, watersheds, reservoirs, water licenses, water lots, shoreline and easement access for servicing, historic rights of water use, purity control standards and water use regulations. Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC) July 2000 Considerations - A Guide to Lower Mainland area Local Government Interests in Treaty Negotiations Page 12 Protect Annual Allowable Cut 22. Forest land which may come under Aboriginal control must remain and continue to be managed within the existing timber supply areas and Forest Districts to ensure no loss of Annual Allowable Cut (AAC) on the land base. Protect Fish Stocks 23. The protection of fish stocks is a primary concern, and the rights and responsibilities of all fishers engaged in native, commercial or recreational fishing should be given due consideration. Application of Criminal / Civil Laws Democratic Values Rights of Representation Delivery of Local Programs/Services "Meet or Beat" Standards Principle: Treaties must recognize and respect the authority and jurisdiction of Federal, Provincial and Local Governments. Canadian Criminal Law should continue to apply as well as existing precedents set out in Civil Law in British Columbia. Aboriginal self-government should uphold the principles of democracy and accountability. Treaties must uphold the principle of "no taxation without representation" for all persons residing on treaty settlement lands.* Mechanisms need to be developed to ensure that all persons who are living on treaty settlement lands* and who are paying taxes or levies to the First Nation have access and a voice in First Nation governance systems. Aboriginal self-government provisions must provide for First Nation participation in, or partnerships with, Local Governments for more effective and efficient delivery of programs and services. Standards and regulations (including enforcement provisions) that apply to treaty settlement lands* should meet or exceed established standards set by Federal, Provincial and Local Governments for issues including, but not limited to: environmental protection, public health, labour, safety, fire protection, building codes, noise and licensing. GOVERNANCE PRINCIPLES Brief Description: Respect Government Authorities Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC) July 2000 Considerations - A Guide to Lower Mainland area Local Government Interests in Treaty Negotiations Page 13 Dispute Resolution Accessible to Local Governments 30. Treaties should include an effective dispute resolution mechanism that is accessible to Local Governments, particularly relating to inter- jurisdictional issues such as, but not limited to: planning, land use, natural resources, growth management, stewardship and transportation. Parity Between Local Government and 31. Local Governments must be provided the opportunity First Nations Powers to access Local Government-related powers, as defined by Provincial legislation, also available to First Nations in the post-treaty environment. Address OffReserve,TSL* Issues Participation in and Delivery of Regional Programs/Services Lower Mainland area Local Govermnents have increasing Aboriginal populations that are not from the traditional territories* of Lower Mainland area First Nations as well as Aboriginal populations that will reside off future treaty settlement lands. * Treaties must include mechanisms to ensure that the costs of providing programs and services to these populations do not become the responsibility of Local Government. Treaties must identify regional programs and services (such as, but not limited to, air quality, solid waste management and Regional Growth Strategies) in which First Nations must participate, either through direct involvement in the existing program/service or indirectly through a contract with Local Governments. This principle recognizes that some programs/ services affect all area residents and that regional delivery enhances economies of scale. This principle also emphasizes the importance of the various interconnections between urban communities in the Lower Mainland area. FISCAL PRINCIPLES Brief Description: Recognize Fiscal Capacities Principle: 34. Treaties must recognize the limited fiscal capacity of all levels of government and not impose any cost to Lower Mainland taxpayers, other than their contribution to treaty settlements through the cost- sharing Memorandum of Understanding between the Provincial and Federal Governments. Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC) July 2000 Considerations - A Guide to Lower Mainland area Local Government Interests in Treaty Negotiations Page 14 Respect Service Agreements 35. All existing and future service agreements must be respected to ensure Local Governments receive financial conthbutions from all users of Local Government programs, services and infrastructure. Cost Neutral Agreements for Local Governments Fair sharing of costs Flexible Cost Recovery Post-Treaty No demand must be placed on Local Government tax revenues or revenue sources resulting from treaty settlements, particularly on the ability of Local Government to derive tax revenue from sources such as property taxes, service fees, utility charges and grants-in-lieu from Crown lands. Any revenue loss to Local Governments arising from treaty settlements must be fully compensated. No one Local Government should be disproportionately burdened as a result of treaty negotiations. The Provincial MunicipalAct and Vancouver Charter must enable Local Governments to develop flexible taxation and cost-recovery mechanisms when dealing with Aboriginal governments in the post- treaty environment. Respect Existing Financial Commitments 39. Treaties must respect and recognize existing Provincial fiscal commitments to Local Governments. 4.0 UNDERLYING INTERESTS Underlying the broad principles identified by Lower Mainland area Local Governments represented on LMTAC are more detailed interests that help to further inform local government perspectives on treaty issues. The following section articulates these underlying interests. Important Note: interests are constantly evolving. This section of the paper will be updated and revised as new issues arise from treaty negotiations and as feedback and commentary is received from LMTAC's member Local Governments. 4.1 GENERAL Local Governments strongly believe that treaties should help to facilitate the deconstruction of the Federal Indian Act and the involvement of the Federal Department of Indian and Northern Affairs (INAC) in the lives of Aboriginal peoples in Canada. Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC) July 2000 Considerations - A Guide to Lower Mainland area Local Government Interests in Treaty Negotiations Page 15 4.1.1 Shared Values (Principles 3, 4) • The equality of all Canadians is a commonly held value. Regardless of age, gender, race, place of origin or residency, it is commonly held that all Canadians should be afforded equal rights, privileges, and opportunities. Treaties should seek to uphold these values while recognizing the unique social, cultural and constitutional place of First Nations in Canada. • Negotiated settlements should assist all citizens in British Columbia to live in harmony by understanding and respecting each other's values, race, heritage, culture and traditions. • Treaties should facilitate understanding and respect between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities with the goal of creating inclusive and accessible communities for all. 4.1.2 Consistency (Principles 9, 12, 13, 16, 31, 33) • While treaties will be adapted to the specific needs of differing Aboriginal communities, key elements of the agreements - such as taxation, applicability of laws, land use planning requirements, and environmental regulations - should be consistent across all negotiations in the Province. 4.1.3 Public Information and Consultation (Principle 5) • Members of LMTAC believe that the public should have opportunities to be well informed about the issues, process and expected outcomes of treaty negotiations. • The Provincial and Federal governments must immediately expand the process of public dialogue to ensure that input and direction from local communities is received. • No treaty should be ratified until substantial public review of the Agreement has occurred. 4.1.4 Interim Measures I Treaty Related Measures • In the absence of clear criteria, commonly accepted definitions, and an acceptable consultation process between line ministries and Local Government, interim measures or related agreements outside of the established treaty process should be discontinued until a new process is developed that is linked to treaty negotiations and includes the dIrect involvement of Local Governments. • Interim or related measures are inextricably, iinked.to final, treaty set-t-iementsbecause they set a -baseline of expectations in treaty negotiations. Interim measures are frequently negotiated without the same openness and consultation required under the BCTC process. This creates situations in which stakeholder and public interests can be bypassed. 4.2 LANDS and ASSETS Local Governments have interests in land for a number of reasons. In the Lower Mainland, a significant proportion of Local Government revenue is derived from the land base through Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC) July 2000 Considerations - A Guide to Lower Mainland area Local Government Interests in Treaty Negotiations Page 16 taxation. Local Governments are also responsible for the maintenance of access through their jurisdictions and of public amenities within their boundaries. In keeping with existing growth management strategies, such as Official Community Plans (OCPs) and the Livable Regional Strategic Plan (LRSP), Local Governments wish to ensure that existing planning, land use, growth management, and transportation strategies are not negatively impacted by treaty settlements. 4.2.1 Certainty (Principles 6, 7) • For Local Governments, "certainty" means a desire to settle all First Nation claims without constantly seeking remedies through the courts. • Consistent with the recommendations of the BC Claims Task Force Report (1991), Lower Mainland area Local Governments strongly support the recommendation that First Nations resolve issues related to overlapping traditional territories amongst themselves. • Stage 4 Agreement in Principle's should not be signed until overlap issues are resolved. Early resolution would serve to eliminate uncertainties related to land selection and streamline the negotiation process. • A specific deadline should be established for the filing of all Aboriginal claims under the BC Treaty Process to ensure the timely resolution of outstanding Aboriginal rights and title issues. 4.2.2 Land Inventories (Principle 11) Senior governments should respect Local Government land inventories indicating lands not subject to treaty negotiations or available for land selection. • Senior governments should assist Local Governments in the development of land inventories indicating specific Federal and Provincial properties, Crown lands, and other lands within Local Government boundaries. Values must be attributed to each property using current BC Assessment Authority data. 4.2.3 Land Selection (Principle 10, 11, 36) • Lands selected for treaty settlement should be integrated into one larger land base, not dispersed in an archipelago across the region. An integrated land base helps to realize economies of scale and rationalize hard and soft service delivery. • Valuation processes used during treaty land selection should include the potential for future earning and the value of urban airspace, where appropriate. Local Government Lands • Local Government-owned lands should not be included in treaty settlements and not be made available for land selection. Such lands include, but are not limited to, lands leased or licensed to/by a Local Government, fee-simple lands and encumbered Crown lands subject to Local Government tenures/licenses, and park land dedicated through subdivision. Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC) July 2000 Considerations - A Guide to Lower Mainland area Local Government Interests in Treaty Negotiations Page 17 • Should ownership of these lands not be respected, Local Governments should be compensated for the future value potential of those lands. Local Government Assets • Local Governments wish to continue to own, operate and/or manage the following Local Government facilities including, but not limited to: • Garbage and Disposal Sites • Municipal and Regional Recycling Facilities • Fairgrounds and Exhibition Centres • Water Resources and Watersheds (including drinking water extraction, treatment and distribution systems) • Local Government Administrative Offices and Public Facilities • City Halls (including head offices, satellite offices and operations facilities) • Municipal Court Buildings • Public and Community Halls • Civic Centres • Theatres, Community Theatres, and Cultural Facilities • Economic Development and Business Improvement Area Offices • Sports Centres (e.g. curling rinks, ice skating/hockey arenas, fitness centres, indoor and outdoor swimming pools) • Leisure and Recreation Centres (youth centres and seniors' recreation centres) • Lawn Bowling Facilities • Parks and campgrounds • Lodges • Public Markets • Golf Courses • Tennis Courts • Botanical Gardens and other outdoor displays • Cemeteries • Animal Shelters (i.e. shelters, dog pounds and animal hospitals) • Police stations, Community Police Stations, Crime Prevention Offices, Community Prisons, Firing Ranges, and Other Related Facilities • Fire Halls and Rescue Service Facilities • Hospitals, Health Clinics, Ambulatory Dispatch. Centres, Com.mu.nity•and Cntinu'ingCare Ficilities, Mental Health Facilities and Institutions • Elderly Care, Victim Abuse Shelters and Rehabilitation Centres • Schools, School Playgrounds and School Board-Related Facilities • Playgrounds - other than school playgrounds noted above • Museums and Archives • Libraries and related facilities • Public Housing and Related Development Projects • Marinas and Marina Operations • Airports • Other public facilities Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC) July 2000 Considerations - A Guide to Lower Mainland area Local Government Interests in Treaty Negotiations Page 18 • Should ownership of these assets not be respected, Local Governments should be compensated for the future value potential of those assets. Privately Held Lands Existing privately held lands should not be included in treaty settlements. • Treaties should respect long-term private leases, including but not limited to, park use permit holders in Indian Arm Provincial Park. 4.2.4 Treaty Settlement Lands (Principle 12) • Lands added to treaty settlement lands on a willing seller/willing buyer basis should be treated like all other fee-simple private land holdings. • Treaties should establish a process for dealing with claims by a First Nation to foreshore lands, particularly to those lands that are accreted over time (e.g. river frontages). • For lands transferred to a First Nation that would include self-government authority, a graduated land transfer process and specific land 'Settlement Principles' must be developed to ensure that undue economic strain is not placed on Local Governments and their taxpayers. Local Governments need adequate time to accommodate changes to land status, hence the reason why Local Governments must be directly involved in developing the process to guide land transfers to First Nations. Case studies in Canada and the United States repeatedly indicate that poorly planned, non-graduated lands transfers often create undue social and economic burdens on local communities. 4.2.5 Heritage Sites (Principle 4) • Lower Mainland area Local Governments support and encourage the protection and preservation of cultural and heritage sites of significance. • Local Governments support the B.C. Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs First Nations' Heritage Impact Assessment under the Historical Resources Act. Local Governments believe strongly that the heritage of local communities and regions must not be forgotten during the treaty negotiation process. Lower Mainland area communities each have their own unique history and are differentiated by their historical traditions and community activities. 4.2.6 Discovered Rights • Treaties should set out a process by which First Nations and Lower Mainland area Local Governments can work together to deal with archaeological artifacts that are discovered in areas away from treaty settlement lands in the post treaty environment. • At present, Local Governments have no capacity to deal with "discovered rights" or to resolve disputes with First Nations over these rights, particularly when First Nation interests Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC) July 2000 Considerations - A Guide to Lower Mainland area Local Government Interests in Treaty Negotiations Page 19 in the lands where the archaeological artifacts were found conflict with existing Local Government interests. 4.2.7 Access (Principle 14) • Maintaining access corridors within a municipality or regional district for transportation, communication, public works, service delivery or other purposes is of vital interest to Lower Mainland area Local Governments. Consideration should be given to including a "peaceful enjoyment" clause in the treaty to ensure continued access to Local Government owned lands. • Access to or through reserve land or treaty settlement lands for the purposes of infrastructure and service development, as well as access for emergency and law enforcement services, is critical. Local Governments also have specific interests in accessing beaches, foreshores, and parkland which are important for recreational and development purposes. • Lower Mainland residents should continue to have access to Lower Mainland beaches and parks to engage in recreational opportunities (such as hiking, boating, and camping) and livelihood pursuits (such as farming and fishing). 4.2.8 Land Management (Principles 12, 13, 16, 29, 30, 33) • The principle of reciprocal consultation with respect to planning and land use issues must be contained within treaties. Local Governments and First Nations should be provided an opportunity to comment on the development of community plans, land use bylaws or other such documents when such plans/bylaws affect their respective jurisdictions. • Treaties should include a specific timeframe for consultation. • Clarification is required regarding the linkages between Federal Bill C-49, the First Nations Land Management Act, and treaty agreements signed under the BC Treaty Process. Balanced Urban Growth • Growth on treaty settlement lands must be compatible with the carrying capacity of the landbase and the interests of neighbouring communities to ensure that local infrastructure is not overburdened. • Treaties should include provisions to ensure that, working in coordination with existing Local Governments, First Nation governments develop official land use, transportation, and strategic plans to define the long-term growth potential of their communities. • First Nations should also participate in regional growth managementilivable region strategies. Coordinated Planning • First Nations and Local Governments need to inform each other about their existing planning processes. Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC) July 2000 Considerations - A Guide to Lower Mainland area Local Government Interests in Treaty Negotiations Page 20 • Treaties should provide a mechanism to ensure that planning, land use, growth management, and transportation strategies on Aboriginal settlement lands are compatible with or harmonized with neighbouring Local Government strategies to ensure that the carrying capacity of the land base is not exceeded and that the appropriate infrastructure and level of services are maintained. • First Nation should be full participants in regional planning processes. Dispute Resolution Involving Lands • Treaties must include a specific process for dealing with land use designations that are perceived as incompatible by neighbouring communities, whether for environmental, design, safety, or other reasons. In particular, an effective dispute resolution mechanism is needed to address zoning decisions that have transboundary impacts. • Dispute resolution on planning issues should include a public hearing process than involves more than merely consultation. Such a process must ensure that Local Governments and First Nation governments work cooperatively as community partners. 4.3 RESOURCES and the NATURAL ENVIRONMENT In the post treaty environment, Lower Mainland area natural resources such as forests, water and fish must continue to be managed on a sustainable basis in order to not undermine the economic base of communities and Local Governments. 4.3.1 Environmental Management (Principles 16, 17, 29) • There should be consistency in environmental standards and regulations on treaty settlement lands and neighbouring lands. • First Nations should be subject to the Federal Environmental Assessment Act and Provincial conservation laws. Local Governments acknowledge that specific First Nation cultural practices may be exempt. A central information and communication body is needed to facilitate dialogue between Local Governments and First Nations on stewardship and environment issues. Forums must be created to promote region-wide responsibility on environmental issues (e.g. air quality, watershed management) and to develop common rules of stewardship (e.g. respecting sustainability and biodiversity). Stewardship of public and private lands is increasingly a priority reinforced by local residents, and responsible stewardship will require joint planning amongst all the jurisdictions involved. Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC) July 2000 Considerations - A Guide to Lower Mainland area Local Government Interests in Treaty Negotiations Page 21 4.3.2 Parks / Green Zones (Principles 11, 14, 20) • Treaties should neither restrict public access nor restrict water-based recreational opportunities in the Lower Mainland area parks. Parkiands provide numerous outdoor recreation and educational opportunities for residents. • Local Governments should be compensated for the funds expended on park development and maintenance that does not directly impact the immediate community. • Park land dedicated through subdivision should be respected and not included in treaty settlements. • Local Government interests in maintaining 'green zones' adjacent to Crown lands should be respected. 4.3.3 Fisheries (Principle 23) • Local Governments wish to continue to work to restore and enhance fish bearing streams and waterways and protect stream habitat. 4.3.4 Water (Principle 21) • Treaties must ensure adequate protection for the purity of water sources and aquifers. • Existing Local Government water licenses and existing infrastructure to service Lower Mainland area watersheds should not be subject to treaty negotiations. • Local Governments in the Lower Mainland want reassurance of the continued use of water flowing from Crown Land, and that in the process of dealing with water resource issues, no economic hardship should result to existing property owners. 4.3.5 Forests (Principle 22) • Treaties must recognize that the forest resource is an important component of the local industrial base in some communities impacted by Lower Mainland area treaties. • Treaties must recognize the importance of conservation and preservation of forested areas, including the recognition of mountain backdrops as visual amenities. • Logging or harvesting within community watersheds, community forests, or sensitive mountain areas affecting a watershed or forest, must not be a practice permitted in treaties. 4.3.6 Energy First Nations should receive the same energy rates or incentives as those given in the private sector. • Future development of private power plants or similar facilities on treaty settlement lands should conform to Provincial regulations and local by-laws. • Existing Local Government energy generation facilities should not be subject to treaty negotiations. Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC) July 2000 Considerations - A Guide to Lower Mainland area Local Government Interests in Treaty Negotiations Page 22 4.4 GOVERNANCE and JURISDICTION Consistency between First Nation and Local Government jurisdictions must be a key objective of treaty settlements in urban areas. 4.4.1 Local Government Powers (Principle 24) • Local Governments wish to continue to make laws in the following policy fields, including but not limited to: • Recreation • Public Safety and Nuisance (includes noise and pet controls) • Policing Services • Fire Protection Services • Engineering Services • Economic Development • Property Taxes, Special Assessments, and User Charges • Health Regulations • Social Planning • Housing and Building Regulations • Environment Protection and Waste Management • Land Assembly and Banking • Regional Planning • Land Use, Zoning, and Community Planning (including subdivision controls) • Flood Control, Water Management, and Watersheds • Traffic, Roads and Transportation (including street lighting & sign regulation) • Public Transit • Emergency Programs and Services • Heritage and Conservation 4.4.2 Structure and Scope of Aboriginal Government (Principles 26, 27, 28, 32, 33) Simplify Government • In complex urban regions like the Lower Mainland, there is the potential for multiple overlapping Local Government and Aboriginal authorities. Aboriginal self-government should strive to simplify this structure, not add to its complexity. Democratic Accountability • While the precise structure of Aboriginal self-government is likely to vary by each community, Local Governments believe strongly that self-governing First Nations should uphold the principles of democracy and accountability. • Treaties should include Lower Mainland area-wide mechanisms for dealing with the social and economic well-being of Aboriginal peoples who reside within the traditional territory of another First Nation. Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC) July 2000 Considerations - A Guide to Lower Mainland area Local Government Interests in Treaty Negotiations Page 23 Linkage Between Participation and Responsibilities • Should some Local Government powers be shared with future First Nation governments, First Nations must assume full responsibility for their actions, including coordinating their actions with existing Local Government, Provincial and Federal agencies. • First Nations who become members of a regional district should accept all of the associated responsibilities and costs of membership. 4.4.3 Intergovernmental Relations (Principles 28, 30, 33) • Since Local Governments exercise substantial jurisdiction at the local level, and it is at the local or community level at which the de facto, day-to-day relationships between self- governing First Nations and other governments will take shape, treaties should create mechanisms and processes to open meaningful dialogue between First Nations and Local Governments. • Treaties must recognize and specifically provide for intergovernmental relations between local and First Nation governments, particularly on issues such as education, health, transportation, land use planning, air quality, and zoning which require substantial interaction between various levels of government. - • Self-government arrangements and co-management regimes established in treaties should encourage cross representation. In other words, consideration should be given to non- Aboriginal representatives sitting on First Nation Councils/Boards, and First Nation representatives sitting on Local Governments Councils/Boards. • Local Governments strongly believe that final treaty settlements must include a formalized process of dispute resolution to deal with issues that directly involve Local Government. Such a forum would have access to both traditional and alternative dispute resolution processes and strive to deal with cross-community issues and impacts as well as treaty rights that apply outside of settlement lands. 4.4.4 Program and Service Delivery (Principles 28, 33, 35) • Treaties should acknowledge the importance of economies of scale in program and service delivery. For some policy fields, some consideration should be given to establishing a 'Lower Mainland Coast Salish. region' to.help rationalize program and service delivèiy, rather than have each individual First Nation responsible for its own programs and services. • Lower Mainland area treaties, as well as the reformed Municipal Act, should encourage the development of new partnerships between First Nations and Local Governments to work together on implementing cost-effective community programs and services. • Treaties should stipulate which mandatory programs, services, and infrastructure must be delivered by First Nation governments or purchased from neighboring municipalities. • Treaties should also articulate a specific mechanism or principles for determining the fiscal value of local programs and services and use of existing infrastructure. Numerous case Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC) July 2000 Considerations - A Guide to Lower Mainland area Local Government Interests in Treaty Negotiations Page 24 studies in Canada and the United States indicate that First Nations and Local Government often disagree on appropriate costing formulas and valuation techniques. 4.5 FISCAL Any fiscal impacts on Local Government resulting from treaty settlements should be determined as early as possible in the treaty process. 4.5.1 Economic Development • Treaty settlements should welcome First Nation economic interests into our local, Provincial, and national economies as full participants, and increase the economic self-sufficiency of Aboriginal peoples across the Lower Mainland region. The economic best interests of all local residents, whether Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal, must be considered. • Treaties should acknowledge shared First Nation and Local Government interests in creating strong local economies. • Treaties should include provisions and mechanisms for coordinated Local GovernmentlFirst Nation economic development, including the formation ofjoint Economic Development Councils. 4.5.2 Cost Recovery (Principles 35, 37, 38) • Where programs, services andlor infrastructure are provided by Local Government, and are used by and benefit residents outside the tax base for that Local Government, a mechanism for fair contribution to those services needs to be in place. This is of particular importance to Lower Mainland area Local Governments since First Nations in urban areas are more likely to rely on the hard and soft services of neighbouring municipalities. • Local Governments should be compensated for any loss of infrastructure and investments made on Local Governments lands and assets as a result of treaty settlements. 4.5.3 Taxation and Local Government Tax Bases (Principles 34, 36, 37) • Local Governments are primarily concerned about the potential impacts treaties may have on: property tax revenue; grants-in-lieu of property taxes; and, access of new tax sources. Example 1: Per-capita grants could be impacted if First Nations request the pro-rata portion of the grant related to the First Nations population. Under the current allocation process for the unconditional grant, for instance, the population living on reserve lands within a municipality is counted as part of the municipal population. Smaller municipalities with relatively large reserve populations could experience a drastic loss of revenue as a result of changes to the current system of counting population. Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC) July 2000 Considerations - A Guide to Lower Mainland area Local Government Interests in Treaty Negotiations Page 25 Example 2: The Federal and Provincial governments (including Crown corporations) pay Local Government grants-in-lieu of property taxes. If treaty settlement lands are within municipal and regional district boundaries, then grants-in-lieu will be lost as a source of municipal revenue. Example 3: Under treaty agreements, First Nations may negotiate enhanced access to Provincial grant programs. Unless the Province increases the total grant money available, the Local Government portion will be reduced, thus creating financial strain for many communities. Example 4: If First Nations negotiate tax exemptions for regionally mandated programs and services, it will reduce the tax base of affected municipalities and regional districts, thereby diminishing the local capacity to fund capital and operating expenditures. . Local Governments should be compensated for the loss of any tax revenues. • All parties to treaty negotiations must recognize and respect the strict budgetary process designated by the Provincial MunicipalAct requiring Local Governments to balance their budgets. Ensuring financial stability is critical to the continued ability of Local Governments to provide the services expected by their residents at a reasonable cost. Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC) July 2000 Considerations - A Guide to Lower Mainland area Local Government Interests in Treaty Negotiations Page 26 GLOSSARY OF TERMS Agreement-In-Principle (AlP) in Stage 4 of the BC Treaty Process, the negotiating parties work towards finalizing an "Agreement-in-Principle" (AlP). The AlP outlines topics for negotiation and the related treaty provisions developed by the parties. Fee-Simple an estate of virtually infinite duration in land, conveyed or granted. Sustainability the ability to make development meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Definition adapted from Our Common Future, World Commission on Environment and Development Traditional Territory the geographic area that a First Nation has identified as the land it historically used and occupied. Treaty Settlement Lands (TSL) term used to refer to lands owned bya First Nation post-treaty. It is anticipated that TSL will be held in fee-simple. Tripartite of three (3) parties. In the BC Treaty Process, parties at the negotiating table include the Governments of Canada and British Columbia as well as members of the First Nations Summit. Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC) July 2000 CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Al Hogarth DATE: August 17, 2000 and Members of Council FILE NO: T21-212-003 FROM: Manager of Revenue & Collections ATTN: C of W-Fin & Corp SUBJECT: Adjustments to 2000 Collector's Roll EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The B.C. Assessment Authority has revised the assessed values for the 2000 Collector's Roll through the issuance of Supplementary Roll #05100. The Collector is required to make all the necessary changes to her records and report these adjustments to Council. One folio is affected: 1. A residential property had improvement values added to previously assessed bare land to accurately reflect taxable value for 2000. RECOMMENDATION: The report dated August 17, 2000 be received for information. BACKGROUND: Financial Implications: There will be a net increase of $2,563.79 in taxes receivable of which the municipal share is $1,773.63. Prepared by: Manager of Revenue and Collections Approved bys /Jke Sorba, C.G.A. Director of Finance Approved by: P*l Gill, a.B.A., C.G.A., F.R.M. Gneral Manager: Corporate & Financial Services Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, A.I.C.P., M.C.I.P. Chief Administrative Officer KG/cm 01 5-/ CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Al Hogarth DATE: August 17, 2000 and Members of Council FILE NO: T21-212-003 FROM: Manager of Revenue & Collections ATTN: C of W-Fin & Corp SUBJECT: Adjustments to 2000 Collectofs Roll EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The B.C. Assessment Authority has revised the assessed values for the 2000 Collector's Roll through the issuance of Supplementary Roll 403/00. The Collector is required to make all the necessary changes to her records and report these adjustments to Council. One folio is affected: 1. One residential property on Dewdney Trunk Road has assessed value of land increased to accurately reflect taxable value. This property was previously classed as farm land and the B.C. Assessment Authority did not correct the value when changed to residential. RECOMMENDATION: The report dated August 17, 2000 be received for information. BACKGROUND: Financial Implications: There will be a net increase of $2,563.79 in taxes receivable of which the municipal share is $1,773.63. 1A24 7L, Prepared by: Kaibleen Gormley / Manager of Revenue and Collections Approved Oy. J?ba, C.G.A. Director of Finance Approved by: CG.A., F.R.M. ,,.-.. Genera,Mainager: Corporate & Financial Services ' Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, A.I.C.P., M.C.I.P. Chief Administrative Officer KG/cln CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Al Hogarth DATE: August 17, 2000 and Members of Council FILE NO: T21-212-003 FROM: Manager of Revenue & Collections ATTN: C of W-Fin & Corp SUBJECT: Adjustments to 2000 Collector's Roll EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The B.C. Assessment Authority has revised the assessed values for the 2000 Collector's Roll through the issuance of Supplementary Roll #04/00. The Collector is required to make all the necessary changes to her records and report these adjustments to Council. Three folios are affected: One residential property at 28576 Dewdney Trunk Road, was incorrectly assessed as Business Class on the Authenticated Roll. One residential property was incorrectly assessed for the value of land on the Authenticated Roll. The value was decreased due to a recent sub-division of the existing property. 42 Strata residential units at 22277-122 d Avenue that are dealing with leaking issues had the assessed values lowered to reflect the true market value. RECOMMENDATION: The report dated August 17, 2000 be received for information. BACKGROUND: Financial Implications: There will be a net decrease of $21,016.45 in taxes receivable of which the municipal share is $10,854.53. Prepared by: kathleen Gormley 7 Manager of Revenue and Collections Approved bjç J C.G.A. Director of Finance .1 - Approved by: Pil Gill, p.B.A., C.G.A., F.R.M. Gen9IeiManager: Corporate & Financial Services lLç > Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, A.I.C.P., M.C.I.P. Chief Administrative Officer DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 401 MAPLE RIDGE Council Meeting of: September 12, 2000 MOVED BY COUNCILLOR SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR fl4or That the Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of August 22, 2000 be adopted as circulated. "Al Hogarth" CA DEFEATED DEFERRED YOR ACTION NOTICE TO: - Chief Administrative Officer - Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial RCMP - Fire Chief - Dir - Corporate Support - Dir - Finance Dir - Strategic Projects - Gen Mgr - Public Works & Development - Dir - Planning - Dir - Licenses, Permits & By-laws - Municipal Engineer - Dir - Development Engineering - Dir - Engineering Operations - Dir - Project Engineering - Gen Mgr - Corn. Dev. & Rec. Services - Dir - Parks & Facilities Clerk's Section - Municipal Clerk - Shirley K - Jo-Anne H Karla K Sandra Belley The above decision-wasrnade at ëetiiiof the Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for notation and/or such action as may be required by your Department. 9~ September 13, 2000 Date M DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 402 MAPLE RIDGE Council Meeting of: September 12, 2000 MOVED BY COUNCILLOR SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR .07 That the Minutes of the Development Agreements Committee Meetings of August 11 and 28, 2000 be received. "Al Hogarth" CAyI DEFEATED DEFERRED MAYOR ACTION NOTICE TO: - Chief Administrative Officer - Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial RCMP - Fire Chief - Dir - Corporate Support - Dir - Finance - Dir - Strategic Projects - Gen Mgr - Public Works & Development - Dir - Planning - Dir - Licenses, Permits & By-laws - Municipal Engineer - Dir - Development Engineering - Dir - Engineering Operations - Dir - Project Engineering - Gen Mgr - Corn. Dev. & Rec. Services Dir - Parks & Facilities Clerk's Section - Municipal Clerk - Shirley K - Jo-Anne H Karla K - Sandra Belley The above decision was made at a meeting of the Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for notation and/or such action as may be required by your Department. September 13, 2000 Date Mun DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 601 MAPLE RIDGE Council Meeting of: September 12, 2000 MOVED BY COUNCILLOR SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR That the Municipal Clerk be authorized to sign and seal Development Variance Permit No. DVP/43/00 (property at 21735 Lougheed Highway). (an application to permit a reduction in the front yard setback from 9 metres to 7.5 metres to permit the construction of a covered entrance to the Quality Inn) "Al Hogarth" CAIED DEFEATED DEFERRED MAYOR ACTION NOTICE TO: - Chief Administrative Officer - Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial RCMP - Fire Chief - Dir - Corporate Support - Dir - Finance - Dir - Strategic Projects - Gen Mgr - Public Works & Development Dir - Planning - Dir - Licenses, Permits & By-laws - Municipal Engineer - Dir - Development Engineering - Dir - Engineering Operations - Dir - Project Engineering - Gen Mgr - Com. Dev. & Rec. Services - Dir - Parks & Facilities Clerk's Section ! Municipal Clerk Shirley K - Jo-Anne H Karla K Sandra-Beiley - - -- The above decision was made at a meeting of the Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for notation and/or such action as may be required by your Department. September 13, 2000 Date M DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 602 MAPLE RIDGE Council Meeting of: September 12, 2000 MOVED BY COUNCILLOR SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR That the Municipal Clerk be authorized to sign and seal Development Variance Permit No. DVP/81/99 (property at 20318 Dewdney Trunk Road). (an application to construct a gas bar canopy within 3.0 metres of an exterior side lot line) C.' DEFEATED DEFERRED "Al Hogarth" YOR ACTION NOTICE TO: - Chief Administrative Officer - Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial RCMP - Fire Chief - Dir - Corporate Support - Dir - Finance - Dir - Strategic Projects - Gen Mgr - Public Works & Development Dir - Planning - Dir - Licenses, Permits & By-laws - Municipal Engineer - Dir - Development Engineering - Dir - Engineering Operations - Dir - Project Engineering - Gen Mgr - Corn. Dev. & Rec. Services Dir - Parks & Facilities Clerk's Section Municipal Clerk - Shirley K - Jo-Anne H KarlaK - Sandra Belley The above decision was made at a meeting of the Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for notation and/or such action as may be required by your Department. September 13, 2000 Date DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 801 MAPLE RIDGE Council Meeting of: September 12, 2000 MOVED BY COUNCILLOR ,41orcc. SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR (or€hpi That third reading granted to Maple Ridge Watercourse Protection By-law No. 5807-1999 on August 22, 2000 be rescinded; and That Maple Ridge Watercourse Protection By-law No. 5807-1999 be amended as recommended in the staff report dated September 6, 2000; and further That Maple Ridge Watercourse Protection By-Jaw No. 5807- 1999, as amended, be read a third time. "Al Hogarth" V4RI'9D DEFEATED DEFERRED MAYOR ACTION NOTICE TO: - Chief Administrative Officer - Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial RCMP Fire Chief - Dir - Corporate Support - Dir - Finance Dir - Strategic Projects - 9en Mgr - Public Works & Development Dir - Planning - Dir - Licenses, Permits & By-laws - Municipal Engineer - Dir - Development Engineering Dir - Engineering Operations - Dir - Project Engineering - Gen Mgr - Com. Dev. & Rec. Services - Dir - Parks & Facilities Clerk's Section MunicipalCierk - - - ,JoAnne (1 KarlaK - Sandra Belley The above decision was made at a meeting of the Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for notation and/or such action as may be required by your Department. September 13, 2000 Date DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 802 MAPLE RIDGE Council Meeting of: September 12, 2000 MOVED BY COUNCILLOR iøor . SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR Iicz That Maple Ridge Park Land Reserve Fund Expenditure By-law No. 5913-2000 be reconsidered and adopted. (to appropriate $2.8 Million for the acquisition of three parcels of land known as Blaney Bog) "Al Hogarth" CA TED DEFEATED DEFERRED MAYOR ACTION NOTICE TO: - hief Administrative Officer Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial RCMP - Fire Chief - Dir - Corporate Support Dir - Finance - Dir - Strategic Projects - Gen Mgr - Public Works & Developm - Dir - Planning - Dir - Licenses, Permits & By-laws - Municipal Engineer - Dir - Development Engineering - Dir - Engineering Operations - Dir - Project Engineering ten Mgr - Corn. Dev. & Rec. Services - Dir - Parks & Facilities Clerk's Section - Municipal Clerk - Shirley K _,—Jo-Anne H / Karla K - Sandra Belley The above decision was made at a meeting of the Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for notation and/or such action as may be required by your Department. September 13, 2000 Date DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 803 MAPLE RIDGE Council Meeting of: September 12, 2000 MOVED BY COUNCILLOR SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR pirc That Maple Ridge Community Heritage Commission By-law No. 5908-2000 be reconsidered and adopted. (to establish a Community Heritage Commission pursuant to Part 27 of the Local Government Act) "Al Hogarth" CATED DEFEATED DEFERRED MAYOR ACTION NOTICE TO: - Chief Administrative Officer Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial RCMP Fire Chief - Dir - Corporate Support - Dir - Finance Dir - Strategic Projects - n Mgr - Public Works & Development .L' Dir - Planning - Dir - Licenses, Permits & By-laws Municipal Engineer - Dir - Development Engineering - Dir - Engineering Operations - Dir - Project Engineering - Gen Mgr - Corn. Dev. & Rec. Services Dir - Parks & Facilities Clerk's Section - Municipal Clerk - Shirley K ,46-Anne H KarlaK Sandra Belley -------- The above decision was made at a meeting of the Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for notation and/or such action as may be required by your Department. September 13, 2000 Date DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 804 MAPLE RIDGE Council Meeting of: September 12, 2000 MOVED BY COUNCTLLOR SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR I5h. That Maple Ridge Development Cost Charge Reserve Fund Expenditure By-law No. 5914-2000 be reconsidered and adopted. (to appropriate $3099.00 to be used for Project LTC #7402 - 201 Street [50 metres to 170 metres north of Telep Avenue] - sewage works) "Al Hogarth" CAIED DEFEATED DEFERRED MAYOR ACTION NOTICE TO: - Chief Administrative Officer - Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial RCMP - Fire Chief _,/'Dir - Corporate Support / Dir - Finance - Dir - Strategic Projects - Gen Mgr - Public Works & Development Dir - Planning Dir - Licenses, Permits & By-laws v ._ Municipal Engineer - Dir - Development Engineering - Dir - Engineering Operations - Dir - Project Engineering Gen Mgr - Com. Dev. & Rec. Services Dir - Parks & Facilities Clerk's Section - Municipal Clerk - Shirley K - ,.Ao-Anne H KarlaK - - - —Sandra-Beiley - The above decision was made at a meeting of the Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for notation and/or such action as may be required by your Department. September 13, 2000 Date DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 805 MAPLE RIDGE Council Meeting of: September 12, 2000 MOVED BY COUNCILLOR 15e'4. SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR 601-c1ôri That Maple Ridge Capital Works Reserve Fund Expenditure By-law No. 5918-2000 be reconsidered and adopted. (to appropriate $3.6 million for the Curling Rink Project) "Al Hogarth" CA t'R'ED DEFEATED MAYOR ACTION NOTICE TO: - Chief Administrative Officer - Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial RCMP - Fire Chief Dir - Corporate Support '<Dir - Finance - Dir - Strategic Projects - Gen Mgr - Public Works & Development - Dir - Planning - Dir - Licenses, Permits & By-laws - Municipal Engineer - Dir - Development Engineering - Dir - Engineering Operations - -Dir - Project Engineering /Gen Mgr - Corn. Dev. & Rec. Services Dir - Parks & Facilities Clerk's Section - Municipal Clerk - Shirley K - -Jo-Anne H KarlaK - Sandra Belley The above decision was made at a meeting of the Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for notation and/or such action as may be required by your Department. September 13, 2000 Date Mu DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 806 MAPLE RIDGE Council Meeting of: September 12, 2000 MOVED BY COUNCILLOR SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR That Maple Ridge Capital Works Reserve Fund Expenditure By-law No. 5917-2000 be reconsidered and adopted. (to appropriate $7 million for the Maple Ridge Town Centre Project) "Al Hogarth" CL1ED DEFEATED DEFERRED MAYOR /ACTION NOTICE TO: Chief Administrative Officer ,./'Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial RCMP Fire Chief - Dir - Corporate Support Dir - Finance - DIr - Strategic Projects - Gen Mgr - Public Works & Development - Dir - Planning - Dir - Licenses, Permits & By-laws - Municipal Engineer - Dir - Development Engineering - Dir - Engineering Operations - Dir - Project Engineering - Gen Mgr - Corn. Dev. & Rec. Services - Dir - Parks & Facilities Clerk's Section - Municipal Clerk - Shirley K Jo-Anne H KarlaK - Sandra Belley - The above decision was made at a meeting of the Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for notation and/or such action as may be required by your Department. September 13, 2000 Date 71, CleV DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 807 MAPLE RIDGE Council Meeting of: September 12, 2000 MOVED BY COUNCILLOR ________________________ SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR That Maple Ridge Tree Protection By-law No. 5896-2000 be read a first and second time and that the Rules of Order be waived and Maple Ridge Tree Protection By-law No. 5896-2000 be read a third time; and That prior to final consideration, Maple Ridge Tree Protection By-law No. 5896-2000 be distributed to local stakeholders for comments; and further That staff be directed to explore the feasibility of developing tree retention policies that would apply specifically to the development process. "Al Hogarth" CIED DEFEATED DEFERRED MAYOR ACTION NOTICE TO: - Chief Administrative Officer - Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial RCMP - Fire Chief - Dir - Corporate Support - Dir - Finance - Dir - Strategic Projects - Gen Mgr - Public Works & Development Dir - Planning - Dir - Licenses, Permits & By-laws - Municipal Engineer - Dir - Development Engineering - Dir - Engineering Operations - Dir - Project Engineering - Gen Mgr - Com. Dev. & Rec. Services - Dir - Parks & Facilities Clerk's Section - - Municipal Clerk Shirley K - Jo-Anne H Karla K - Sandra Belley The above decision was made at a meeting of the Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for notation and/or such action as may be required by your Department. September 13, 2000 Date DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 808 MAPLE RIDGE Council Meeting of: September 12, 2000 MOVED BY COUNCILLOR SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR 1*1101- That Maple Ridge Development Cost Charge By-law No. 5911-2000 be reconsidered and adopted. (granted statutory approval on August 23, 2000) "Al Hogarth" CIED DEFEATED DEFERRED MAYOR ACTION NOTICE TO: Chief Administrative Officer - Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial RCMP - Fire Chief - Dir - Corporate Support Dir - Finance - Dir - Strategic Projects - n Mgr - Public Works & Development Dir - Planning - Dir - Licenses, Permits & By-laws - Municipal Engineer - Dir - Development Engineering - Dir - Engineering Operations - Dir - Project Engineering - Gen Mgr - Corn. Dev. & Rec. Services - Dir - Parks & Facilities Clerk's Section - Municipal Clerk - Shirley K - Jo-Anne H " Karla K - Sandra Belley - - - - - - - - - - - The above decision was made at a meeting of the Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for notation and/or such action as may be required by your Department. September 13, 2000 Date M~7 Cler DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 901 MAPLE RIDGE Council Meeting of: September 12, 2000 MOVED BY COUNCILLOR SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR r5 /i401,-5e- I That the Minutes of the Committee of the Whole Meetings of August 21 and 28, 2000 be received. "Al Hogarth" CA 4 D DEFEATED DEFERRED MAYOR ACTION NOTICE TO: - Chief Administrative Officer - Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial RCMP - Fire Chief - Dir - Corporate Support - Dir - Finance - Dir - Strategic Projects - Gen Mgr - Public Works & Development Dir - Planning - Dir - Licenses, Permits & By-laws - Municipal Engineer - Dir - Development Engineering - Dir - Engineering Operations - Dir - Project Engineering - Gen Mgr - Com. Dev. & Rec. Services - Dir - Parks & Facilities Clerk's Section - Municipal Clerk - Shirley K - Jo-Anne H Karla K - Sandra Belley The above decision was made at a meeting of the Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for notation and/or such action as may be required by your Department. September 13. 2000 Date Mun DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 902 MAPLE RIDGE Council Meeting of: September 12, 2000 MOVED BY COUNCILLOR SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR That with respect to the application for a fill permit under section 3 of the Soil Conservation Act submitted for the property at 26301 Trethewey Crescent, be it resolved that a permit be issued in accordance with the conditions outlined in the staff report dated August 9, 2000 entitled, Application for fill in the Agricultural Laizd Reserve at 26301 Trethewey Crescent, Maple Ridge. CVdED DEFEATED DEFERRED "Al Hogarth" fflfiLl ACTION NOTICE TO: - Chief Administrative Officer - Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial RCMP - Fire Chief - Dir - Corporate Support - Dir - Finance - Dir - Strategic Projects - Gen Mgr - Public Works & Development ,.Z Dir - Planning - Dir - Licenses, Permits & By-laws Municipal Engineer Dir - Development Engineering - Dir - Engineering Operations - Dir - Project Engineering - Gen Mgr - Corn. Dev. & Rec. Services - Dir - Parks & Facilities Clerk's Section - Municipal Clerk Shirley K - Jo-Anne H Karla K - Sandra Belley The above decision was made at a meeting of the Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for notation and/or such action as may be required by your Department. September 13, 2000 Date Mu DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 903 MAPLE RIDGE Council Meeting of: September 12, 2000 MOVED BY COUNCILLOR SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR That Application ALR147199 (for property located at 20515, 20625, 20695 & 20785 Powell Avenue) to exclude property described in the report dated August 14, 2000 from the Agricultural Land Reserve, be authorized to proceed to the Land Reserve Commission. (an application to exclude approximately 8 hectares of land from the ALR to allow for future urban development) "Al Hogarth" CARRIED DEFEATED DERED MAYOR ACTION NOTICE TO: - Chief Administrative Officer - Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial RCMP - Fire Chief - Dir - Corporate Support - Dir - Finance - Dir - Strategic Projects ,Zen Mgr - Public Works & Development /I Dir - Planning - Dir - Licenses, Permits & By-laws Municipal Engineer - Dir - Development Engineering - Dir - Engineering Operations - Dir - Project Engineering Gen Mgr - Corn. Dev. & Rec. Services - Dir - Parks & Facilities Clerk's Section - Municipal Clerk Shirley K fr/Jo-AnneH KarlaK_ - - - - Sandra Belley The above decision was made at a meeting of the Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for notation and/or such action as may be required by your Department. September 13, 2000 Date DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 904 MAPLE RIDGE Council Meeting of: September 12, 2000 MOVED BY COUNCILLOR SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR 124ok("! That the staff report entitled, Federation of Canadian Municipalities ' Partners for Climate Protection Program, dated July 20, 2000, be received; That membership in the Federation of Canadian Municipalities ' Partners for Climate Protection Program, making a commitment to work to reduce local greenhouse gas emissions, be endorsed; and That the participation of the Manager of Environmental Affairs with the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) and the Local Government Working Group on Climate Change be endorsed; and further That staff be directed to work towards meeting the objectives of Milestones 1 and 2 of the Partners for Climate Protection Program, as outlined in the report, with the support of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and GVRD staff resources. "Al Hogarth" C9gIED DEFEATED DEFERRED MAYOR ACTION NOTICE TO: - Chief Administrative Officer - Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial RCMP - Fire Chief - Dir - Corporate Support - Dir - Finance - Dir - Strategic Projects - Gen Mgr - Public Works & Development Dir - Planning - Dir - Licenses, Permits & By-laws - Municipal Engineer - Dir - Development Engineering - Dir - Engineering Operations - Dir - Project Engineering - GenMgrCom; Dcv: &Rec:Srvies - - - - Dir - Parks & Facilities Section - Shirley K - Jo-Anne H Karla K - Sandra Belley The above decision was made at a meeting of the Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for notation and/or such action as may be required by your Department. September 13, 2000 Date Munici DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 905 MAPLE RIDGE Council Meeting of: September 12, 2000 MOVED BY COUNCILLOR SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR el That the report entitled, Wireless Communication Towers, dated August 23, 2000, be received for information; and further That staff finalize a Wireless Communication Towers Policy for consideration, based on the report. "Al Hogarth" CA14 DEFEATED DEFERRED MAYOR ACTION NOTICE TO: - Chief Administrative Officer - Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial RCMP - Fire Chief Dir - Corporate Support - Dir - Finance - ir - Strategic Projects €n Mgr - Public Works & Development 1 Z Dir - Planning - Dir - Licenses, Permits & By-laws I - Municipal Engineer - Dir - Development Engineering - Dir - Engineering Operations - Dir - Project Engineering Gen Mgr - Com. Dev. & Rec. Services - Dir - Parks & Facilities Clerk's Section - Municipal Clerk - Shirley K - Jo-Anne H - KarlaK - Sa.nd.ra-.Belley --- - - - - The above decision was made at a meeting of the Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for notation and/or such action as may be required by your Department. September13,2000 Date MuKci?kle DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 906 MAPLE RIDGE Council Meeting of: September 12, 2000 MOVED BY COUNCILLOR SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR ,2w That the Municipal Clerk be authorized to notify qualifying property owners that approval of DVP/42/00 respecting property located at 10036, 10028 & 10110 - 240 Street will be considered by Council at the September 26, 2000 meeting. (to waive the requirement for undergrounding overhead utilities on 240 Street for a proposed 35 lot phased subdivision) "Al Hogarth" CA31ED DEFEATED DEFERRED MAYOR ACTION NOTICE TO: - Chief Administrative Officer - Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial RCMP - Fire Chief - Dir - Corporate Support - Dir - Finance - Dir - Strategic Projects 9en Mgr - Public Works & Development .Z Dir - Planning - Dir - Licenses, Permits & By-laws Municipal Engineer - Dir - Development Engineering - Dir - Engineering Operations - Dir - Project Engineering - Gen Mgr - Corn. Dev. & Rec. Services Dir - Parks & Facilities ,Qlerk's Section Municipal Clerk Shirley K }o-Anne H Kãr1iK - Sandra Belley The above decision was made at a meeting of the Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for notation and/or such action as may be required by your Department. September 13, 2000 Date Mu DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 907 MAPLE RIDGE Council Meeting of: September 12, 2000 MOVED BY COUNCILLOR SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR Item No. 907 - Withdrawn - DP/83/99 - 12271, 12273 and 12275 - 224 Street "Al Hogarth" - CARRIED DEFEATED DEFERRED - MAYOR ACTION NOTICE welli - Chief Administrative Officer - Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial RCMP - Fire Chief - Dir - Corporate Support - Dir - Finance - Dir - Strategic Projects - Gn Mgr - Public Works & Development .-' Dir - Planning - Dir - Licenses, Permits & By-laws - Municipal Engineer - Dir - Development Engineering - Dir - Engineering Operations - Dir - Project Engineering - Gen Mgr - Corn. Dev. & Rec. Services - Dir - Parks & Facilities Clerk's Section - Municipal Clerk - Shirley K Jo-Anne H Karla K Sandra Belley The above decisioii was made at a meeting of the Municip.al .Council heldont-he date-noted-above -andis-senttoyoirfor notation and/or such actionas may be required by your Department. September 13, 2000 Date Municipal Clerk DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 908 MAPLE RIDGE Council Meeting of: September 12, 2000 MOVED BY COUNCILLOR SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR 6cc4,i That Maple Ridge Park Exchange By-law No. 5920-2000 be read a first and second time and that the Rules of Order be waived and Maple Ridge Park Exchange By-law No. 5920- 2000 be read a third time; and further That the Municipal Clerk be instructed to advertise the Park Exchange By-law. (to correct a survey error which resulted when the parent parcel, known as the Hill House site, was rezoned) "Al Hogarth" CAR1ED DEFEATED DEFERRED MAYOR ACTION NOTICE TO: - Chief Administrative Officer - Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial RCMP Fire Chief - Dir - Corporate Support - Dir - Finance - Dir - Strategic Projects Gen Mgr - Public Works & Development - Dir - Planning - Dir - Licenses, Permits & By-laws - Municipal Engineer - Dir - Development Engineering - Dir - Engineering Operations - Dir - Project Engineering en Mgr - Corn. Dev. & Rec. Services - Dir - Parks & Facilities - - Shirley K - - - - Jo-Anne H KarlaK - Sandra Belley The above decision was made at a meeting of the Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for notation and/or such action as may be required by your Department. September 13. 2000 Date Mun DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 909 MAPLE RIDGE Council Meeting of: September 12, 2000 MOVED BY COUNCILLOR SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR That pursuant to Maple Ridge Development Procedures By-law No. 5879-1999, a one year extension be approved for Rezoning Application No. RZ/28197 (property North of 130 Avenue in the 24000 Block). (an application to rezone the subject site to permit development of approximately 175 residential units) "Al Hogarth" CARIED DEFEATED DEFERRED MAYOR ACTION NOTICE TO: - Chief Administrative Officer - Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial RCMP Fire Chief - Dir - Corporate Support - Dir - Finance - Dir - Strategic Projects - Gp(Mgr - Public Works & Development Dir - Planning - Dir - Licenses, Permits & By-laws Municipal Engineer - Dir - Development Engineering - Dir - Engineering Operations - Dir - Project Engineering Gen Mgr - Corn. Dev. & Rec. Services - Dir - Parks & Facilities Clerk's Section - Municipal Clerk Shirley K - - - _JioAnne-H--- - - -- Karla K Sandra Belley The above decision was made at a meeting of the Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for notation and/or such action as may be required by your Department. September 13, 2000 Date 771e" DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 910 MAPLE RIDGE Council Meeting of: September 12, 2000 MOVED BY COUNCILLOR SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR That the staff report entitled, Street Design Guidelines, dated August 23, 2000, be received; and further That a Council sub-committee be established to conduct a detailed review of the report and its implications. - "Al Hogarth" CAVtED DEFEATED DEFERRED MAYOR ) ACTION NOTICE TO: - Chief Administrative Officer Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial RCMP - Fire Chief - Dir - Corporate Support / - - Dir - Finance - ir - Strategic Projects n Mgr - Public Works & Development Dir - Planning - Dir - Licenses, Permits & By-laws Municipal Engineer - Dir - Development Engineering - Dir - Engineering Operations Dir - Project Engineering - Gen Mgr - Com. Dev. & Rec. Services - Dir - Parks & Facilities L—c lerk's Section - Municipal Clerk - Shirley K - Jo-Anne H - KarlaK _$apdraBe.11ey. ••-- - - The above decision was made at a meeting of the Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for notation and/or such action as may be required by your Department. September 13, 2000 Date DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 911 MAPLE RIDGE Council Meeting of: September 12, 2000 MOVED BY COUNCILLOR SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR ISAAC Be it resolved, that Council supports the licensing of a C-License (Cabaret) proposed by Dominic Francis Merlo at 11935 - 207 Street, Maple Ridge, B.C. - - "Al-Hogarth" CARRIED DEFEATED DE RED MAYOR ACTION NOTICE TO - Chief Administrative Officer - Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial RCMP - Fire Chief - Dir - Corporate Support - Dir - Finance - Dir - Strategic Projects - Gen Mgr - Public Works & Dir - Planning - Dir - Licenses, Permits & - Municipal Engineer - Dir - Development Engineering - Dir - Engineering Operations - Dir - Project Engineering - Gen Mgr - Com. Dev. & Rec. Services Dir - Parks & Facilities Clerk's Section / Municipal Clerk 1/ Shirley K - Jo-Anne H Karla K - Sandra Belley - - The above decision was made at a meeting of the Municipal Council hld on the date noted above and is sent to you for notation and/or such action as may be required by your Department. September 13, 2000 Date Municipal Clerk DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 912 MAPLE RIDGE Council Meeting of: September 12, 2000 MOVED BY COUNCILLOR /46'r5e_ SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR That Ridge Meadows Terry Fox Run Committee be authorized to use Municipal streets for the Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows 2000 Terry Fox Run on Sunday, September 17, 2000 provided the conditions outlined in Schedule "A", attached to the staff report dated August 23, 2000, are met. "Al Hogarth" CA DEFEATED DEFERRED MAYOR ACTION NOTICE TO: - Chief Administrative Officer - Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial RCMP - Fire Chief - Dir - Corporate Support - Dir - Finance - Dir - Strategic Projects - Gen Mgr - Public Works & Development - Dir - Planning - Dir - Licenses, Permits & By-laws Municipal Engineer Dir - Development Engineering - Dir - Engineering Operations - Dir - Project Engineering - Gen Mgr - Corn. Dev. & Rec. Services - Dir - Parks & Facilities Clerk's Section - Municipal Clerk _,/hirley K Z Jo-Anne H Karla K - Sandra Belley The above decision was made at a meeting of the Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for notation and/or such action as may be required by your Department. September 13, 2000 Date Munic k i~l DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 931 MAPLE RIDGE Council Meeting of: September 12, 2000 MOVED BY COUNCILLOR iknq SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR That the report dated August 22, 2000 be received, noting that it is reported therein that the petitions to include properties located at 13202 Balsam Street, 23291/93 - 132 Avenue, 13396 - 233 Street, 23469 Larch Avenue, 23451 Larch Avenue and Lot 3, Larch Avenue in Sewer Area "A" are sufficient and valid; and further That Maple Ridge Sewer Area "A" Sewerage Works Construction and Loan Authorization Amending By-Jaw No. 5922-2000 be read a first and second time and that the Rules of Order be waived and Maple Ridge Sewer Area "A" Sewerage Works Construction and Loan Authorization Amending By-law No. 5922-2000 be read a third time. "Al Hogarth" CA,R1ED DEFEATED DEFERRED MAYOR ACTION NOTICE TO: - Chief Administrative Officer Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial RCMP Fire Chief - Dir - Corporate Support - Dir - Finance - Dir - Strategic Projects _n Mgr - Public Works & Development_____________________________________________________ Dir - Planning - Dir - Licenses, Permits & By-laws Municipal Engineer - Dir - Development Engineering - Dir - Engineering Operations - Dir - Project Engineering - Gen Mgr - Corn. Dev. & Rec. Services - Dir - Parks & Facilities Clerk's Section W.unic•i.palClerk -Shirley K ,Jo-Anne H .' KarlaK - Sandra Belley The above decision was made at a meeting of the Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for notation and/or such action as may be required by your Department. September 13, 2000 Date DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 932 MAPLE RIDGE Council Meeting of: September 12, 2000 MOVED BY COUNCILLOR SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR ___________________ That the staff report dated August 22, 2000 and attached final version of the document entitled, Considerations — A Guide to Lower Mainland Area Local Government Interests in Treaty Negotiations, be received; and further That any major comments or concerns on the document be provided -to Ron Riach, staff liaison to the Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee, for submission to the LMTAC. "Al Hogarth" CAtED DEFEATED DEFERRED MAYOR ACTION NOTICE TO: - Chief Administrative Officer - Gen Mgr - Corporat Finan all - RCMP -' - Fire Chief - Dir - Corporate S pport - Dir - Finance - Dir - Strategic Projects - Gen Mgr - Public Works & Development - Dir - Planning - Dir - Licenses, Permits & By-laws - Municipal Engineer - Dir - Development Engineering - Dir - Engineering Operations - Dir - Project Engineering - Gen Mgr - Com. Dev. & Rec. Services - Dir - Parks & Facilities 9erk's Section / Municipal Clerk - Shirley K .Jo-A-nne.H Karla K - Sandra Belley The above decision was made at a meeting of the Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for notation and/or such action as may be required by your Department. September 13, 2000 Date DISTRICT OF Agenda Item: 933 MAPLE RIDGE Council Meeting of: September 12, 2000 MOVED BY COUNCILLOR SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR That the three (3) staff reports dated August 17, 2000 advising of adjustments to the 2000 Collector's Roll through the issuance of Supplementary Roll No. 03100, No. 04/00 and No. 05100, be received for information. "Al Hogarth" CA]4UED DEFEATED DEFERRED MAYOR ACTION NOTICE TO: - Chief Administrative Officer Gen Mgr - Corporate & Financial RCMP - Fire Chief - ir - Corporate Support Dir - Finance - Dir - Strategic Projects - Gen Mgr - Public Works & Development_____________________________________________________ - Dir - Planning Dir - Licenses, Permits & By-laws - Municipal Engineer Dir - Development Engineering Dir - Engineering Operations - Dir - Project Engineering - Gen Mgr - Corn. Dev. & Rec. Services - Dir - Parks & Facilities Clerk's Section - Municipal Clerk - Shirley K - Jo-Anne H Karla K - Sandra Belley The above decision was made at ameeting of the Municipal Council held on the date noted above and is sent to you for notation and/or such action as may be required by your Department. September 13, 2000 Date Mu erk/ * MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor & Council FROM: Municipal Clerk DATE: September 12, 2000 SUBJECT: Application for a Cabaret (Class C) License - 11935 207 Street On August 28, 2000 the Committee of the Whole asked for further information regarding the above noted application. Attached are comments from the RCMP and excerpts from the "Liquor Licensing Operating Manual" highlighting selected information regarding the application process. This information is presented to Council to assist in the consideration of the recommended resolution. U5/i/uU 11:16 FAA bU4 4i IO)J TRANSIT FICHE SLIP DE SERVICE To - A XV.4Ur l'j1J(,j MAUU% SecurftycjassonlDe5ignetlofl ClassIfIcation/designation securitaire IPIB.F.R.p. I CMP IGRC From - Do I9 U U h Our File. Noire dossier Your File - Votre dossier Date 009.11 S/SGT. DAWISKIBA SOT. RIDDELL 'A' WATCH N.C.O. Subject - Sujet Diary date - Date d'agenda I Pege "C" Liquor Licence Application - 119 207 Street marks - Remarques Memo from Jo-Anne HERTZOG refers. As the facllltator for "B" Zone, I have circulated a request for concerns to the Detachment at large. I only received this copy of the memo on Friday, Sept. 08, so have not received many replies as yet. The CPT member for "B" zone was contacted and the proposed cabaret was discussed. From the members spoken to and replies received, the general theme is that there is NO support for an additional liquor outlet. Some of the issues: There already too many drinking establishments in Ridge-Meadows. In the immediate area of this proposal are the following; Shooter Pub is right next door. They already have live bands Thurs, Fri 1 Sat. night Maple Ridge Hotel is one block away. Fox's Reach Is at next intersection. Office Pub is 1/2 mile east By Baueys Pub is 7/8 blocks south. There are already two other major hot spots: Roosters Cabaret and Tommy's Bar & Grill that draw patrons from all over the lower mainland. The many problems related to these two establishments could be clarified through the Crime Analysis program in CPT. As first responders, the General Duty members are hard pressed to handle the calls for service with current situation. Another drinking spot will only add to the calls for service. One comment that surfaced was "Why cannot some of these establishments locate to Coquitlam or Mission" and the basic answer is that these areas got rid of their problems by cancelling the license's ( Coquitlam - Steel Monkey, Port Coquitlam - Choices). Another comment was that the Zu Café Is operated by the same person as in this proposal and the Detachment has had various problems with its operation, which again could be clarified via CPT. Another comment was "our Detachment area, must Jiave-thehighest - nurnber-of-iicersed-establishmentsperpoUItidñ" - These are just some primary concerns that have been voiced in respect to this proposal.' If statistics to confirm these concerns are requtred, then CPT can be contacted to complete a review. Sgt. R.E. RIDDLL Continued on Page p Date mit. SuitoâIa A.C. ] A-5 (1998.07) (WP1) Licence Class C Under section 17(3) of the regulations, the emphasis of a C licensed establishment must be providing evening and night time entertainment. Cabarets are licensed under this class. A cabaret must seat at least 100 people and provide a dance floor of licensed area. In addition to the large single room cabaret concept, may be several rooms or divided areas with entertainment in each. C(ck';5 - at least 20 per cent of its these establishments SENIOR UQUOR JNSPECTOR • Reviews file and PSA report • Prepares report for Liquor Licensing Committee UQUOR LiCENSING COMMrrTEE • Applicant provided with heating mateflat package and responds in witting • Applicant notified of heating date • Heating held and applicant notified of results (i.e., approvedf rejected) Preliminary Site andAppticant Approval APPLiCANT: • Posts public notice signs on site and places newspaper advertisements UQUOR INSPECTOR: • Receives copy of newspaper advertisements and takes photograph of signs LIQUOR UCENSING COMMIrTEE • Senior Liquor Inspector receives public input • • Decision to approve/reject Pre.Clearance PClearance Approval APPUCAN1 Completes architectural plans and submits two copies to local authorities for health and fire stamps of approval • • Submits to LCL Headquarters PSA REJECTION: Applicant has right to appeal. If appeal is lost, application is terminated after 30 days. If appeal is successful, the application returns to general manager for reconsideration. PC REJECTION: Applicant has right to appeal. If appeal is lost, application is terminated after 30 days. If appeal is successful, the application returns to general manager for reconsideration. LOCAL HEALTH/FIRE AumoRmEs Stamp plans Approved UCENSING: • Reviews plans for compliance with brancti legislation and policies • Applicant notified whether plans are approved/not approved • It plans approved, applicant notified to start construction and to contact Liquor Inspector when ready for final inspection APPUCANT: • Begins construction • Requests final inspection when ready for operation • Arranges for required persons to complete Serving It Righr training program UQUOR INSPECTOR • Conducts final inspection I&kL LICENSING: • Notifies Headquarters whether construction approved/not approved • Issues hcences to applicant LICENSING PROCESS Liquor Licensing Operating Manual Application for a New Licence Application for a New Licence Policy Rationale Preparing a completed application for a new licence is the first àf five steps in the licensing process.* The documentation provided at this early stage is the foundation upon which the entire licensing process is based. There are few provisions in either the Liquor Control and Licensing Act or the accompanying regulations to guide the application process. Application fees are prescribed in section 1.1 of the regulations. The general content of the application is guided by section 5(1) of the regulations, which provides an outline of the factors relevant in considering an application for a licence. This section states that the general manager should, in particular, have regard for the suitability of the applicant, whether or not the person is qualified under, and has complied with the Act and regulations, and whether it would be in the public interest to issue a licence. In large part, the information the applicant must submit at the time of application is for the purposes of assessing whether these basic criteria for licensing are met.t Other information is acquired in order to meet the administrative needs of processing the licence application. Policies 1. Complete application A liquor inspector will recognize an application as complete only when all required documentation is received4 [Liquor Control and Licensing Act , section 15(1)., Liquor. contioUand Licensing Regulations, section 5(1), Liquor Control and Licensing Branch Policy] * A brief overview of the five steps in the licensing process can be found in the introduction to this chapter. t See detailed discussion of these requirements under Licensing Criteria in the chapter on General Information. See Appendix I for Checklist of Documents in a Complete Application. Issued Revised Page July 1997 1 of 12 fn.i cW LICENSING PROCESS Liquor Licensing Operating Manual Preliminary Site and Applicant Approval 2. Consideration of Community Need and Impact At the preliminary site and applicant stage of all but B and I licence applications, the Liquor Licensing Committee shall give consideration to: • the need of the local commurthy for the proposed licensed establishment, and • the likely impacts on the local community by the proposed licensed establishment including: i Factors Considered at Applicable Licence Classes PSA Approval Stage* A B C D E F C H I J Proposed location of establishment • • • • Proximity of establishment to other social facilities and public buildings Number of licensed establishments within reasonable distance of proposed location, except for establishment with an H licence where the application is from a hotel for a G licence • • • • • In the case of a G licence, the number of liquor stores within a reasonable distance of proposed location Traffic, noise/parking factors, appearance and municipal zoning Population, population density and trends • • • • Other factors general manager considers to be relevant • In the case of D and F licences, municipal zoning • In the case of D licences, whether a neighbourhood pub or hotel exists within one mile of the proposed site S [Liquor Control and Licensing Regulations, section 5.1(5)(b), 5.2(4)(b), 5.2(5) and 5.3(3)] * Although I licence applicants do not go through the PSA approval stage, some of these factors are considered at the pre-clearance (PC) approval stage. Note also, that this policy does not apply to the B licence class as applicants are not granted either PSA approval or PC approval, or to the H licence class as H licence applications are no longer accepted. Issued Revised Page July1997 3of 12 1 Is]iC LICENSING PROCESS Preliminary Site and Applicant Approval Liquor Licensing Operating Manual Local Government Input At the preliminary site and applicant approval stage of A, C, C and J licence applications, consideration shall be given to a local government resolution* indicating support for or objection to the proposed establishment. For E licence applications, consideration shall be given to a local government resolution indicating whether they approve of the licence application. [Liquor Control and Licensing Regulations, section 5.1(5)(b)(viii) and 5.2(3), Liquor Control and Licensing Branch Policy] Hearing of the Liquor Licensing Committee Where appropriate, applicants may be: • provided with a copy of the hearing materials package, including the staff report regarding their application, and • invited to attend the Liquor Licensing Committee hearing to discuss the ments of their application with panel members. [Liquor Control and Licensing Regulations, sections 16.1 and 16.2, Liquor Control and Licensing Branch Policy] * The form and content of local government resolutions vary depending on the type of establishment proposed. See "Role of Local Government in the Provincial Liquor Licensing Process" published by the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch for further information and samples of resolutions suitable for different types of licence applications. Issued Revised Page July1997 4of12 Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, B.C. V2X 6A9 J4ii\.iPLE Telephone: (604) 463-5221 Fax: (604) 467-7329 E-mail: ensuiries@mapleridge.org Incorporated 12 September, 1874 August 23, 2000 File No: 3090-20/DVP/81/99 Dear Sir/Madam: PLEASE TAKE NOTE that the Municipal council will be considering a Development Variance Permit at the regular meeting to be held on Tuesday, September 12, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Municipal Hall, 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge. The particulars of the Development Variance Permit are as follows: APPLICATION NO.: DVP/81/99 LEGAL: Lot 1, District Lot 222, Group 1, Plan 77583, NWD LOCATION: 20318 Dewdney Trunk Rd. ZONING: CS-i (Service Commercial) PURPOSE: The applicant is requesting a reduction in the exterior side lot line setback from 7.5 metres to 3.0 metres to allow the construction of a gas bar canopy. AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that a copy of the Development Variance Permit and the Planning Department report dated August 8, 2000 relative to this application will be available for inspection at the Municipal Hall, Planning Department counter during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. from August 23 to September 12, 2000. ALL PERSONS who deem themselves affected hereby shall be afforded an opportunity to make their comments known to Municipal Council by making a written submission to the attention of the Municipal Clerk by 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, September 12, 2000. Yours truly, Tie rrylry r,P.En ' Municipal Clerk cc: Confidential Secretary - "Promoting a Safe and Livable Community for our Present and Future Citizens" 100% Recycled Paper CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor A. Hogarth DATE: August 81h 2000 and Members of Council FILE NO: DVP/81/99 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W - PW & Dev SUBJECT: DVP/81/99 20318 Dewdney Trunk Road EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A building permit application to construct a canopy structure related to a separate convenience store building permit is anticipated. The applicant proposes to construct a gas bar canopy -within 3.0 metres of - -- anex-teriorsidelot - line. The site was the subject of an earlier DVP considered by Council on February 15th, 2000 to relax the rear yard set back of this corner lot. It is proposed that an amendment be made to the existing DVP to include approval for locating a structure closer to an exterior side lot line than is permitted in the Zoning Bylaw. After reviewing the plans presented to the Advisory Design Panel on January 6th, 2000 which show the gas bar canopy location and structure elevation, staff recommend that the amendment to DVP/8 1/99 be given favourable consideration. II RECOMMENDATION: That the Municipal Clerk be authorized to notify qualifying property owners that approval of DVP/ 81/99 respecting property located at 20318 Dewdney Trunk Road will be considered by Council at the September 121l, 2000 meeting. III BACKGROUND: ApplicantlOwner: 509918 BC Ltd. Legal Description: Lot 1 District Lot 222 Group 1 NWD Plan 77583 Existing Zoning: CS-i Service Commercial A building permit for the construction of a convenience store has been issued. A separate building permit for construction of the gas bar and related canopy structure will be received at a later date. A review of the convenience store plans at the building permit stage has determined that a Development Variance Permit is required to permit construction of a canopy as proposed. The need for this variance should have been identified when the original DVP to relax the rear yard setback was considered. Before issuance of the gas bar building permit, one of the conditions to be satisfied is the District of Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw, which states that "no building or structure shall be sited less than 7.5 metres from an exterior side lot line ". The applicant is requesting that the exterior side lot line set back be reduced from 7.5m to 3.Om to allow for construction of the gas bar canopy. IV PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project remains unchanged from the plans presented in January to Council and the Advisory Design Panel. V PLANNING ANALYSIS The canopy location is adjacent to the exterior side lot line on this corner lot and is set back to the west away from the intersection of 203 and Dewdney Trunk Road. In this location the canopy will not block the vision of motorists in the intersection. There is no specific set back for gas bar canopies in the CS-i zone, however the Zoning Bylaw addresses gas bars, pump islands and canopies with specific minimum 4.5 metre set back from all property lines in the CS-2 zone. If this minimum set back applied to the CS-i zone the variance request would be a 1.5 metre relaxation vs. the requested reduction from 7.5 to 3.0 metres. The canopy will incorporate the roof tiles and roof trim elements of the convenience store building, as indicated to the Advisory Design Panel (ADP). The ADP indicated overall support for the design. VI CONCLUSION: As the plans remain unchanged from the earlier DVP submission, and that the Advisory Design Panel have reviewed the plans, staff recommend support to amend DVP/8 1/99 to reduce the exterior side set back to 3.0 metres. 4 di Prepared by: Bruce Mc eod, ISA Certified Arborist Landscape/Planning Technician (I A'~ - . K X Approved by: Christine Carter, MCIP )irectoPlP( by: - JaeJ. Rudolph, AICP, MCIP 33 4: PujDlic Works & Development Services Concur,ence: Robert W. Robertson, AICP, MCIP Chief Administrative Officer m1 -2- -,V, VV _I I••I -I/ -. ] 21AVE 121 AVE 12142 12140 48 0 12099 47 46 P41572 04 P 72496 P 7249 2 49 2 __________________________ 45 I RP17121 VP'7 12095 LMPI 9825 1 I 50 12096 12 125 12122 2 _12091_ P41572 I 44 N- P -2 CN 12119k 12110 12111 iI ...j 20 12087 12080 - H 19 (I) 12083 12079 33 P 75684 Rb-i 38 I 18 1 092 Rem 12105 P83237 1075 12065 20 (J K 16 P7f062 ;-lb C B CID C-, h E / 0) 13 0 01 C'1 Cl) W I 14 LMF 0 c-I "4 DEWDNEY TRK RD _________ DO I 0 'N A I D773 7FP6 B LMI SUBJECT PROPERTY LMP 4007 - P C LMP 34007 C D -2 -9 P61704 119 1iMP33611319AVE — - M4 1 C- C-2 11961 RP8346 Q Q 11127 19 17947 PcI.1 c? & 68 LMP 34007 P 64 -o - - -- - - D 7 4-3436 0 01 r- L 0 Rem 1 Mp33673 IN RP7774 N PITT ME OO(JL.... SILVER 20318 DEDNEYTRK RD CORPORATION OF A : THE DISTRICTOF - cIs,cImo: MAPLE RIDGE ELBIO MAPLE RIDGE TCORMHILL Incoorated 12, September, 1874 PNNING DEPARTMENT SCALE: 1:2,500 KEY MP _____ DATE: Dec22 1999 FILE:DVP-81-99 BY: JB I 20C?triLW5005 r I 4$ a)rcaaReffisMaw?tst IWIWAIW 50010 I _Pfl5SDPETiL 0054105 __________________ I I 8IGEA 1050000 0125582 NORTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION 0440 81.70 0505.5.7-0 I- w w Z I.. ILl Go o. co-cS o o cd 08 Ui c-Ui >0 0 Ui <a 0 O CC -J Sc 0. cr O Ui 0 51R41M05040T5500 4$ Sat C0010LITUCE WOO!! S NORTH ELEVATION 050 V4$T-0 400 9405 I I H SIGN ELEVATION CANOPY ELEVATION t.w 5555440110)243 040.40115 IS 54 14512411058005 DEUJNEY TRI( RO4P D914Cc55 LL PROJECT DATA SITE 44 • U51 IF. (6 ) 4 WEWM YARD WAMED• 0 1k EKISTM ZONM• NCR SIDE YAFW F4IPEP k j A. 2400 W Fr (22Z% ) FMAR MBW (61) \ /PAFS06 FECIDED I PER 2) •1 OTAU.5 OEM YARD PlvED • 3h86' PAMMMUDMED • 0 $TLLS LE4E7T U / i LOD 2D 44D 1DED • I SPACE I so FRONTYARDPEOPED (203rd SI) • 255' (005) - FAWYAWMADED • 11 133405) DIIESJER6ETh (OSOCIOT 105 ) 240 (14 E!EC0 YARD PlIEED 5? (5005) EXISTM ACCESS SITE PLAN 5CALE I'. IflO' E)dstEvLoe1T 1381 REVATM ilnq CONCRETE FAD, G45 FUM5, CANOFY DEWDNEY TRUNK r UNDERGROUND TI4NKS AN ELECTRIC4L / AND MECI-4ANIC4L CONNECTIONS 5Y OTI-E /DASHED LINE INDICATES EXTENT OF UJORK EXISTING CROSSINGS TO REM4IN EXISTING CRC EXISTING - - - PROM ----------< ASPNALT4vlNG AND BASE/ SUB AS PER $Otb REPORT CATCF1 BASIN I RIM ELEV S2.43' IC 4° WIDE PAINTED LINES (TYPICAL) ('1 ASPWALT PAVING ---I--miii miii wiiii — _\_ — — — — — — — — — I I iHIP I GAS RJMP GAS I 1 1 P1 1 CCRETE APRON L I YER5 2'-ø' 11 1 I (\fl ( (T I I CONCRETE APRON UIG TA BYOTI-1ERS Min 'N CONCRETE APRON T AVIN4'> 114" DP. TOOL SCORED JOINT ( TYPICAL ) I I --tF71 1 AVA engineering ltd. U FOR REVIEW OR PERMIT APPLICATION U FOR APPROVAL 0 FOR CONSTRUCTION U FOR TENDER 0 FOR AS-BUILT JUL 31 2000 CANOPY PLAN vo 7/0 5(0.0 H. TANG KO3 - Ii0ILM4 RIGI-Ir SIDE ELEVA11ON EUJNEY TRUNK R OA D EXI5TINC CRO55INGS TO REMAIN o----- 5 E)<IGTING 4CC65 LINE OF CANOPY 4605 $1c 4 S S EI51!NC3 ACCE55 (0 EXI5TINC3 OEVELOPMENT Landscape Plan SC-4E)L1LE OF IFLANTS NOTES: QUAN. BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE + COMMENTS ALL PLANT MATEBAL AND M IERALS TO COMOR1 TO BC LANDSCAPE STAUDAND (CURRENT EDITION) 4 PENUS & AREBOFIO AKEBONO C+IERRY 6 OR - 21 610. 5.5 ALL PLANTED AREAS TO NAVE MNFTF1 3 COVER OF COARSE BARR MULCI4 THROUGIAOUT. ALL TOPSOIL TO BE ANALYZED BY AN APPROVED SOIL 1ESTING LABORATORY. RECOFTrIENDATIONA OF THE SOIL TESTNG AC.ENCY TO SE FOBU4ROED TO TNE LANDSCAPE ARC+IITECT FOR COSEIRIATION OF REOCRED ALTERATIONS TO TWE SOIL COF1POSTTIOF FERTILIZERS AND APPLICATION RATE. IS FUANDINA DOFIUSTICA NANDINA 5 POT SOIL TO BE BASED OW NATIVE SOILS 5014 SAND CONTENTS CF NNSI.J1 15%, WOW MFITILRI BE ORCANIC CONTENT. 1 46 PIERS JAPONICA ?IOJ4TAIN FIRE PRESS LAUROCER4AUS ZABELIANA PIERIS ZABEL'S LAUREL POT S POT MNFIUM DEPT+IS CF PREPARED SOIL TO SE AN FOLLOWS 6R495 6,, SI-IRJBS IS' CROUNDCOVERU 3" 525 ARCT05TAFI4YLLOS UVA-URSI KSS4IKSINIOL lB 01 POT ALL PLANTSS3 AREAS TO DRAB FREELY PRIOR TO BSTALLATION OF SOIL AND PLANT II4IERIAL CRASS TO BE LOCALLY GREEN TURT, FREE OF WEEDS. COIPOSITION OP TUSE TO BE APPROVED BY TI4E LANDSCAPE ARCI4ITECT ALL PLANT MATER4L SUBJECT TO APPROVAL CS LANDSCAPE AROWITECT. ALL PLANT MATERIAL TO BE GIJARANTEED TO 20 WETIEROCALLIS VARS. DAY LILY -I POT - YELLOW AND RED BE WEALTI4Y AND +IGOROUS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOLLOIING ACCEPTANCE BY TIlE LANDSCAPE ARCI4ITECT. T'T N Judy Brown fl 2000 From: Suzanne Branstrom Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2000 2:51 PM To: Judy Brown Cc: Cindy Dale Subject: FW: gas station This concern was brought forward on the web site. Suzanne Branstrom Aquatic Supervisor Office outside /ine;(604) 467-7302 inside local: 0807 fax: (6049 467-7373 E ma/I: sbransfromdth'r/ct. maple -r/dQe. bc. cc 3 les to Mayor & Ccunci l o Cy to Councit Reading File Information Only o For Response by iesto £cM /c4 OP • -' ..- - Original Message--- From: iI4!.i4iiI1ifii ilu!( it.1,11X'i'] iii ill.! this letter is to voice my opinion on the variance #dvp/81/99 concerning the "convenience" store & gas bar currently under construction on 203rd & dewdney trunk. this is a further encroachment on the residential zoning across the street. i am vehemently opposed to this business directly across from my home. i realize its zoned commercial, but a 24-hour operation is a whole different proposition. this business will bring many undesirables into the neighborhood. no solid citizens patronize these operations after midnite. i will have to put up with crime, panhandlers, litter, noise, odor & loiterers seven days a week, 24 hours a day. these convenience stores do not serve the gainfully employed for the most part. please register my objection to further erosion by adhering to the original set-back that was previously approved. michael karam - V - -• - - - - 20337 dewdney trunk road maple ridge L.,LJUflCII September 4. 2000 to CouncH Reading Fi'e lnformann Only Fi / le No: 3090-2ODVP/81/99 I To Whom It May Concern: SEP07 2300 LJ I Ms. c,•t. (2,/ct. / f/I As one of the owners of the residential lot at the corner of Dewdney Trunk and 203 Street I am opposed to a reduction in the gas be?s side lot line set back from 7.5 m. to 3.0 m. if this is the side along Dewdney Trunk There is enough noise, traffic, and business already impacting this residential corner without having ages bar cenopyfurthervisually intruding. Yours truly. •A/ GloneY