Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-02-26 Council Meeting Agenda and ReportsCorporation of the District of Maple Ridge CUNCIL MEETING A GENDA February 26, 2002 7:00p.m. Council Chamber MEETING DECORUM Council would like to remind 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 Meeting 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 www.rnapleridge.org 100 CALL TO ORDER 200 OPENING PRA YERS Rev. Oliver Jolmson 300 PRESENTATIONS A T THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL 400 ADOPTION OF MINUTES 401 Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of February 12, 2002 402 Minutes of the Public Hearing of February 19, 2002 403 Minutes of the Development Agreements Committee Meetings of February 7, 8, and 20, 2002 500 DELEGA TIONS 501 Community Heritage Commission, Presentation of Heritage Awards Page 1 Council Meeting Agenda February 26, 2002 Council Chamber Page2 of 7 600 UNFINISHED BUSINESS 700 CORRESPONDENCE Request for Resolution 701 British Columbia Aviation Council, Security Surcharge Letter dated January 31, 2002 from Jerry Lloyd, President and Chief Executive Officer, requesting support to exempt small coastal air operators and those who serve the northern communities in B.C. from the $24.00 security surcharge. Deferred from the Februaiy 12, 2002 Council Meeting. 702 Canadian Union of Public Employees, Recommendations of the Drinking Water Review Panel Letter dated February 7, 2002 from Barry O'Neill recommending that a resolution be passed urging the provincial government to accept the recommendations of the Panel. 703 Western Canada Wilderness Committee, Stoltmann Wilderness Letter dated February 6, 2002 from Joe Foy, Director, requesting support of the Squamish Nation's conservation proposal. 704 Ridge Meadows Bingo Operators Society, Electronic Screens Letter dated February 18, 2001 requesting endorsement of the introduction of electronic screens for Bingo. 800 BY-LAWS 801 RZ/001102, 22188 Lougheed Highway Amendment to Restrictive Covenant X133412 from the Public Hearing of February 19, 2002 (to include a Church institutional use including accessory temporary accommodation and kitchen facility) Council Meeting Agenda February 26, 2002 Council Chamber Page 3 of 7 802 Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 5990-2001 Notice of Motion from February 12, 2002 Council Meeting 802.1 Final reading of Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 5990-2001 (text amendments incorporating regulations controlling the height and mass of residential dwellings) 802.2 Direction to staff to monitor and report any application problems 802.3 Review of Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 5990-2001 six months after adoption COMMITTEE REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 900 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 901 Minutes - February 18, 2002 The following issues were considered at an earlier 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 RZ-063-00, 28348961h Avenue, Heritage Designation Bylaw No. 6006-2001 and Heritage Tax Exemption Bylaw No. 6022-2002 Staff report dated February 6, 2002 recommending that the subject bylaws to designate the former Ruskin Elementary School be given first reading. 903 RZ-063-00, 28348961h Avenue, Maple Ridge Zone Amending By-law No. 6005-2001, First Reading Staff report dated February 6, 2002 recommending that Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 5980-2001 be rescinded and that Zone Amending Bylaw Council Meeting Agenda February 26, 2002 Council Chamber Page 4 of 7 No. 6005-2001 be given first reading to permit conversion of the former Ruskin Elementary School to a single-family dwelling. 904 RZ/065/01, 11940 228 Street, Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6001-2001, Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6000-2001, First Reading, DVP/065/01 Staff report dated February 12, 2002 recommending that the subject bylaws to rezone from RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) to C-3 (Town Centre Commercial) be given first reading and that qualifying property owners be advised that DVP/065/01 will be considered at the April 9, 2002 meeting. 905 RZ/031/99, 11969 - 200th Street, Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6010-2002, Zone Amending Bylaw No. 5985-2001, First Reading Staff report dated February 8, 2002 recommending that the subject bylaws to designate Development Permit Area III (8) and to rezone from RS-3 to CS-1 to increase parking capacity for Staples/Business Depot be given first reading. 906 RZ/052/00, 24079 & 24111 Dewdney Trunk Road, Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6020-2002 and Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6019-2002, First Reading Staff report dated January 30, 2002 recommending that the subject bylaws to permit the development of a schools site on existing agricultural land be given first reading. 907 RZ/072/01, 13600 Block of 2561h Street, Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6017-2002 and Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6016-2002, First Reading Staff report dated February 14, 2002 recommending that the subject bylaws to permit the processing of gravel be given first reading 908 DP/048/99, 23315 Dewdney Trunk Road Staff report dated February 8, 2002 recommending that the subject application to permit construction of commercial space with a residential unit on the second floor be approved. - Council Meeting Agenda February 26, 2002 Council Chamber Page 5 of 7 909 DVP/09/01, 23343 Kanaka Way Staff report dated February 7, 2002 recommending that qualifying property owners be notified that the subject application to waive the requirement to convert existing overhead wires to underground facilities on the north side of Kanaka Way will be considered on March 12, 2002. 910 Initiatives for the Downtown Area Staff report dated February 12, 2002 recommending that staff be directed to bring forward a review of the items noted in the report in the 2002/2003 work plans. Financial and corporate Services ('includin.' Fire and Police) 931 Corporate & Financial Services Divisional Annual Report Staff report dated February 6, 2002 providing the 2001 Divisional Armual Report. 932 Train Whistle Cessation Application Update Staff report dated February 11, 2002 providing information on the application to CPR and Transport Canada for a whistle ban at selected crossings in Maple Ridge. The recommendation was that the staff report entitled "Train Whistle Cessation Application Update" dated February 11, 2002 be received for information; and further That a letter be sent to CP Rail stating that it is the desire of the District to maintain communication on the application for a whistle ban at designated crossings during specified hours and requesting a copy of the draft regulations proposed for inclusion in the Railway Safety Act with the changes to the Act marked and a copy of the safety report prepared on the Maple Ridge crossings. Council Meetmg Agenda February 26, 2002 Council Chamber Page 6 of 7 Community Development and Recreation Service 951 Maple Ridge Parks Amending By-law No. 602 1-2002 Staff report dated February 12, 2002 recommending that the subject by-law to adjust the park closure hours be given three readings. The recommendation from staff was defeated. A further recommendation that, for a one-year trial period, closure hours for Maple Ridge parks be designated as 8:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. during Fall and Winter months and to ask the District of Pitt Meadows to give consideration to amending their hours to be consistent with Maple Ridge was defeated. Other coin mittee Issues - Nil Correspondence - Nil 1000 STAFFREPORTS 11001 Appointment of Director of Development Engineering as Approving Officer Resolution to appoint the Director of Development Engineering as Approving Officer effective February 28, 2002. 1098 MA YOR 'S REPORT 1099 COUNCILLORS' REPORTS Council Meeting Agenda February 26, 2002 Council Chamber Page 7 of 7 1100 OTHER MA TTEPS DEEMED EXPEDIENT 1101 Resolution re Adult Novelty Stores Consideration of a resolution regarding the issuing of business licenses for Adult Novelty Stores. 1200 NOTICES OF MOTION 1300 ADJOURNMENT 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 (604) 463-5221. Checked bj'._________ Date: 7 I, CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS COMMITTEE MINUTES February 7, 2002 Mayor's Office PRESENT: Acting Mayor Linda King Chairman R. Robertson, Chief Administrative Officer Member K. Kirk, Recording Secretary 1. GILL, HARDEEP & 517121 BC LTD. LEGAL: Lots 221, 266, 269; District Lots 279 & 281, Plan 114, Group 1, NWD LOCATION: 20230, 20205 & 20215 Ditton Street OWNER: Hardeep Gill & 517121 B.C. Ltd. REQUIRED AGREEMENTS: Restrictive Covenant- Floodplain THAT THE MAYOR AND CLERK BE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN AND SEAL THE PRECEDING DOCUMENTS AS THEY RELATE TO HARIEEP GILL & 517121 B.C. LTD. CARRIE 0 Acting Mayor Linda King R. Robertson, Chief Administrative Officer Chairman Member t_ V V V IQ 'p A AZ ) \'! o7 1 5 DL. 279, -651 10 0. \'- fr bkl bk -, - all , 9 \- \ S 2A AO .9 NARAL BOUNDARY ACCORDING •\•— i I .99 TO PLAN 114 00, k) \ 37 ORDING \ \_- '* \ CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS COMMITTEE MINUTES February 8, 2002 Mayor's Office PRESENT: Acting Mayor Linda King Chairman R. Robertson, Chief Administrative Officer Member K. Kirk, Recording Secretary 1. SD145/01 LEGAL: Lots 1,2, 3 & 4 Group 1, NWD and Lot 1, District Lot 402, Group 1, Plan LMP49706, NWD LOCATION: 22821 116 Avenue & 11553 Burnett Street OWNER: Russell & Deborah Jansen REQUIRED AGREEMENTS: Discharge of Statutory Right-of-Way Covenant BR 104866 THAT THE MAYOR AND CLERK BE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN AND SEAL THE PRECEDING DOCUMENT AS IT RELATES TO SD/45/01. CARRIED Acting Mayor Linda King R. Robertson, Chief Administrative Officer Chairman Member 11703 2 2 E62EijMS 1873 LMS H J_j1669 11678 11671 11680 172 173 8 5 9::- 238 171 i LMS 1172 11662 11661 P 11 12197 8 239 7 63 G GILLEY AVE GILLEY AVE 9 10 P 12197 240 N 116 116 55 1165 NJ N 241 184J 183 P21553 11632 2 11644 ' H H N N P12316 6 -- 20 J 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 EP12951 11633 P 16011 B Rem. 11621 c) 0) - 2292 1 5 L P5 11 12 P 12316 3 10 P14406c C- 2 8 7 13 0) A 11607 RP 13279 1 - 2 22908/10 229/06 22790 D. 6 ' 22782 14 10 11597 / 10 5 16 15 A / 9 I NWS 3378 RP 17 P16473 ' 11585 C/)/ Cl- SUBJECT PROPERTIES 8 P831?61 19 1 1575 I 20 11567 /1 21 22 B LMP48047 2 LMP 4970 11 1 553 / /LMP 3040// H N H \ \ 11534 11513 Co I (1 11495 0 1491 0)I_ oLi 11 487[ —J Ii NR ITT 61E 0 0 E- DO-- CORE THORNHI SCALE 1 2500 KEY MAP LMP 43731 -•1 11580 116 AVE LMS 2114 LMP 2118 11526 PcI.A / P12274 A 11519 / 11518 2 LMP 12 216 3 LANE 4 7 ( P8311 6 U L 11471/14 11502 L,1. i2f 5 MP F54 Co 123 I 4 I 56 7/, H N N H H00 N N! PcLA TELOSKYAVE P71276 Rem P30008 - P7104 15 k IN I 114 11553 Burnett Street & 22821 116Avenue CQRI2O.RATIONOF J THE DISTRICT OF LAcE MAPLE RIDGE MAPLE RIDGE Incoorated 12, Septemr, 1874 PNNING DEPARTMENT DATE: Feb 8 2002 FILE: SD-45-01 BY: RS CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS COMMITTEE MINUTES February 20, 2002 Mayor's Office PRESENT: Mayor Al Hogarth Chairman R. Robertson, Chief Administrative Officer Member 1. WIENS, TONY LEGAL: LOCATION: OWNER: REQUIRED AGREEMENTS K. Kirk, Recording Secretary Lot 10, Section 28, Plan 1105, Township 12, NWD 23359 Dogwood Avenue Tony Wiens Watercourse Preservation Agreement THAT THE MAYOR AND CLERK BE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN AND SEAL THE PRECEDING DOCUMENT AS IT RELATES TO TONY WIENS. CARRIEQ L Robertson, Chief Administrative Officer Member 20 PARK P-i 19 PARK / I (N C" em A C" (N CN (N C H 2 3 W1/24 E1/24 I H IA 1 P 6337 P 6337 Uj H LI DOGWOOD AVE The Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge makes no guarantee regarding the accuracy or present status of the information shown on this map. C I ) Wiens Property N 23359 Dogwood Avenue /I\ CORE THE DISTRICT OF CCERC(OE ' R A ii r-' MAPLE RIDGE GE •.(8OC4 IVI1-\r L I XI NT 1" Incorporated 12, September, 1874 PLANNING DE A SCALE 1.2,500 KEY MAP DATE: Feb 182002 FILE: BY: JS BRITISH COLUMBIA AVIATION COUNCIL 4360 - Agar Drive, Richmond, BC V7B 1A3 Tel (604) 278-9330 Fax (604) 278-8210 Web www.bcaviation.org Email bcac@dowco.com I[I Jill January 31, 2002 Mayor Al Hogarth 11995 Haney Place Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 RFCflr IN C. T. FEB 042002 Dear Mayor Hogarth; AVIATION IN BRITISH COLUMBIA NEEDS YOUR SUPPORT! Please send a letter or memo to Minister Collenette and Minister Martin re the $24.00 security surcharge about to be introduced. The small coastal air operators and those who serve the northern communities in this province will lose their customers with the introduction of the fee. These additional charges will divert passengers to the ferry system in coastal communities. Flying in a Beaver Aircrafi from Nanaimo Harbour to Vancouver Harbour caters to the low risk passenger. Those who live in northern communities will not fly. The members of the British Columbia Aviation Council would like some assurances that these fees will only be assessed on International, cross-border and travel across Canada. All the small air carriers seek your support to exempt them from the new fee. Many of the Mayors have already sent letters and we thank you for your support. Yours truly, GN. (Jerry) Lloyd President and Chief Executive Officer r;k.Suni AgandE torn o Stiaft to Propor o Stoff to RcCon 0 701 1999 Recipient - Belt of Orion - Canada's Aviation Hall of Fame Pitt Meadows Airport Society 11 -11465 Baynes Rd S Pitt Meadows BC V3Y 2134 February 15, 2002 PITT MEADOWS AIRPORT District of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place Maple Ridge, BC Attention: Bob Robertson SECURITY SURCHARGE BCAC LETTER, 31 JAN 2002, G.N. LLOYD Dear Bob: I'm writing to request Council's support as requested in Mr. Lloyd's letter, and also to elaborate on the letter. There is agreement in the aviation industry that there must be increased security measures undertaken; however aviation industry oppose the inequitable $12 flat rate ($24 return). For example, a passenger flying from Cranbrook to Calgary on a $50 ticket pays the same surcharge as a passenger flying to Hong Kong on a $1,300 ticket. It is a four hour drive from Cranbrook to Calgary. A family of four who may well have considered the convenience of flying for $200 air fare, would likely , opt to drive the distance rather than pay an additional $100 security tax surcharge on the ticket price. BCAC would, ideally, wish to achieve complete exemption for small carriers who do not cross borders, or require access to International Airports 'secured areas; however a reasonable compromise would be surcharge as small percentage of airfare. The BCAC is iobbying for three things: That passengers should pay 3% of their airfare as the security surcharge. This will allow airfare for shorter flights to remain affordable. 2. The Federal Government is creating a new body, CATSA, (Canadian Air Transport Security Authority) responsible for the provision of air security services. This federal entity reports to the Minister of Transport. The BCAC is lobbying to ensure that the monies collected by CATSA, are retained by CATSA, rather than being dispersed to general revenue. Airport Operators wish to have the option of managing the CATSA airport employees, without assuming any liability. The rationale being that at an airport where there may be only two or four flights a day, these federal employees could be multi-tasked to perform other duties at the airport. Pitt Meadows Airport is not one of the twenty B.C. airports immediately and directly affected by the security surcharge, other than in the sense that this additional cost of business looming over the smaller carriers will make it more difficult for us to attract them to expand their services to Pitt Meadows Airport. All carriers and airports have already faced significant increases in insurance costs. For your interest, I'm attaching a copy of the Minister of Transport's letter of response to Terrace Airport ( Hon. D. Collenette to Frank Hamilton, Terrace Airport) and WestJet's request for affected parties to respond to the Hon. Paul Martin. Sincerely I. Sandy Hunter Property Management cc Councillor Kathy Morse Mayor Don McLean Jake Rudolph Chamber Cheryl Johnson, Tourism Tom Meler, Airport Society 604-467-7329 604-465-2404 604-465-2404 604-463-3201 604-4651106 604-467-9711 Phone: (604) 465-8977 Fax: (604) 465-4512 - E-Mail: cypk@direct.ca Web Page: www.pittmeadowsairport.com Minister of Transport Ministre d&s Transports L AN 28 U Ottawa, Canada K1A 0N5 111/11 1/0 2- Mr. Frank Hamilton President Northwest Regional Airport R.R. #4 Terrace, British Columbia VSG 4V2 Dear Mr Hamilton: Tht,k you for your letter ofDecerriber 18, 2001, in which you conveyed your views regarding the Air Travellers Security Charge announced by my colleague, the Honourable Paul Martin, Minister of Finance, in the Budget of December 10, 2001. I have noted your views on this matter and appreciate your taking the time to share them with mc. I should explain, however, that the estabR'thrnenl, application and collection of the charge fail within the purview of the )Deparient of Finance. I am therefore forwarding a copy of you: letter to Minister Martin for his consideration. Thpnk you again for writing. I trust that this action is satisfactoiy. Yours sincerely, Hon. David M. Collenette, P.C., M.P. c.c. The Honourable Paul Martin, P.C., M.P. Canaaa 1344 WJ £UR11Y A FIlIAL 1/30/02 409 P9 P-ps it D. As s air sr..d r - 1d I1e to 4 y go,a* hs1 sbe air s.ruy into • Hnn—r. in rcgo.d to yor p..ptoad $1211.1 r.1t soriyfrr. I .tr you to cou • diffrwrt p.oucI. I ,railrr thU oaurUy , 4 caJlccting it. , bsd OR partor I b.w thIt .to.id be tbe fairt.c to&oO Jo. rwro.ue. D.00 I CANADIAN UNION OF PUBUC EMPLOYEES BRSH COLUMBIA DMSION 510- 4940 Canada Way, Burnaby, British Columbia V5G 4T3 www.cupe.bc.ca Tel: 604-291-9119 Fax: 604-291-9043 T. February 7, 2002 His Worship Mayor Al Hogarth & Council District of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney P1 Maple Ridge BC V2X 6A9 Dear Mayor & Council: Ak L. M:iI D EmuU LJ 2002 ::lhiilo D Stafft Ac.-'::.r wlthoc.c.towi & C - El Othtr: In the next few months, the provincial government will be making critical decisions that will affect drinking water in every community in British Columbia. Liberal legislation will directly affect your ability to deliver safe and affordable water to your constituents. On September 25, 2001, the Liberal government appointed an independent panel to review drinking water legislation. The Panel submitted an Interim Report on December 15, and will table its final report before the end of February. I enclose a copy of CUPE BC's submission to the panel, the Panel's Interim Report, and our response to the Interim Report. Despite the very short timeline, the Panel delivered a thoughtful and comprehensive Interim Report that recommends a strong legislative framework to protect drinking water in British Columbia. However, we are very concerned that the Provincial government intends to ignore the recommendations of its own Panel. The Recommendations The Drinking Water Review Panel made nineteen recommendations. Some of the most important recommendations are: > That the Drinking Water Protection Act be retained, with some amendments. The Panel believes, and we agree, that this Act gives drinking water the high level of priority and focus it deserves. > That a separate Drinking Water Protection Agency be created to integrate the skills, resources and authority of all provincial ministries with responsibility for drinking water protection. This was also a recommendation of the Auditor General's Report of 1999. Barry O'Neill, President Colleen Jordan, Secretary-Treasurer 702, Letter to Mayors & Councils, and Chairs & Boards Page 2 > That source protection measures be strengthened, to ensure that water is protected from source to tap, and to give drinking water priority over other resource uses in sensitive water supply areas. There are also recommendations to provide support for small water systems, enable tap water standards and water treatment standards, encourage water use conservation, protect groundwater, ensure drinking water quality protection for First Nations and incorporate community right to know principles. Why are we concerned? We suspect that the provincial government wants to ignore the recommendations of the Panel because they are inconsistent with the commitment to cut regulations by one third 1 and to cut Ministry staff responsible for environmental protection (Water, Land and Air Protection) by 31%2. Most importantly, this government is reluctant to implement any legislation that jeopardizes resource development, even at the expense of a community's ability to provide safe drinking water for its citizens. When the Panel released its report, Minister Murray said that creation of a separate water protection agency "may run contrary to the government's efforts to reduce the B.C. public service by as much as 50 percent".3 She also predicted that "making the Forest Practices Code and other Acts governing many of B.C.'s largest private sector employers subordinate to water protection goals would likely be controversial."4 CUPE is not opposed to responsible development of resources - the well-being of our communities depends on a diversified and vibrant economy. However, the health and well-being of those communities should not, and does not need to be, sacrificed in order to get there. Nor should the ability of local councils to make decisions they believe are right for their citizens be compromised. Joyce Murray has said that despite the cuts, drinking water will be protected. That is exactly what Mike Harris claimed during the Walkerton tragedy. He said: "When it came to drinking water we made no changes. I know she (the Environment Commissioner) commented that there had been reductions in some of the staff in "B.C's Liberal Government has promised to reduce provincial regulations by a third to make the province more competitive. Premier Gordon Campbell has also demanded that his ministers kill two old regulations for every new one they introduce." Vancouver Sun, October 18, 2001. 2 The Ministry budget will be reduced by 24%, staff reduced by 31%. Ministry of Water, Land andAir Protection, Joyce Murray, Minister - Service Plan Summary 2002103 - 2004105. Vancouver Sun, December 15, 2001. Vancouver Sun, December 15, 2001. Letter to Mayors & Councils, and Chairs & Boards Page 3 the ministry. That's true. But not in the area of drinking water, not in the area of investigative staff, and certainly not in the area of procedures."5 Two weeks ago the Report of Justice O'Connor, who chaired the Walkerton Inquiry, found that "the Ontario government's obsession with cuffing costs and slashing red tape (partially) caused Walkerton's contaminated-water tragedy." The Report "criticizes specific decisions made by the cabinet, questions Tory orthodoxy that government should be downsized and singles out Mr. Harris and former environment minister Norm Sterling as two cabinet ministers responsible for the failure to heed warnings that the government's actions could endanger public safety."6 We have the warnings in British Columbia. The Provincial Auditor General's Report of 1999 and the Provincial Medical Health Officer's Report of December, 2001 both said that we are not doing a good job protecting drinking water. There are more gastro-intestinal illnesses in British Columbia than in any other province, and consuming contaminated water or food has caused most of them.7 There are serious organizational and infrastructure deficits that need to be corrected. This will not be done by downsizing, deregulating and ignoring the recommendations of the Drinking Water Review Panel. We have another concern. Although we are very supportive of what is in the Review Panel's report, we are disappointed about what is not there. The Report is silent on the issue of privatization of water infrastructure and services. It is possible that the Panel will address this issue in its final report in February, but there will be no opportunity for response. Water systems and services must be publicly owned and operated in order to best ensure safe, accessible and affordable drinking water for all British Columbians. Privatization of water services means less accountability, loss of community control, and higher costs. An increasing number of multinational corporations are using NAFTA provisions as a way to wrest control of resources and services from local governments. Finally, poll after poll have found that British Columbians overwhelmingly do not want their water services in private hands. Proposals to privatize water services have met with public indignation. We believe that any attempt to encourage private delivery of water services, for example through a requirement that infrastructure grant applicants consider a public-private partnership, would contravene the wishes of the voters of this province. Mike Harris's media scrum in Walkerton, Ontario, May 26, 2000. Globe and Mail, January 19, 2002. Provincial Health Officer's Annual Report: Drinking Water Quality in British Columbia, October 2001. Letter to Mayors & Councils, and Chairs & Boards Page 4 I bring these matters to your attention because I believe this Province is at a pivotal moment. We have a choice - do we want to protect our drinking water, or do we not? I urge you to make your wishes known. As representatives of the government that is closest and most accessible to the people, your public opinion carries great weight. I hope you will consider passing a motion urging the provincial government to accept the recommendations of the Drinking Water Review Panel's Interim Report, and to refrain from passing any legislation that could compromise public ownership and control of water. Barry O'Neill President CUPE BC Division BON/LC OPE!U-1 5 F\2002\LetterBanyV,yo,sandconciIsJrm.doc DRINKING WATER PROTECTION A Submission to the Government of British Columbia's Independent Drinking Water Review Panel by The Canadian Union of Public Employees British Columbia Division November 2001 CONTENTS Page PART 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................. 1 PART2: COMMENTSON PROCESS .........................................3 PART 3: PROTECTING DRINKING WATER: CUPE BC SUBMISSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Water as a Fundamental Right...................................................6 A Multi-Barrier Approach to Source Protection........................6 Water Quality Issues ..................................................................9 WaterTesting ...........................................................................11 Training....................................................................................11 Water Services in British Columbia: For the Public, By the Public .................................................12 Infrastructure Issues .................................................................25 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................28 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................29 DRINKING WATER PROTECTION PART 1 PART 1: INTRODUCTION When the well 's thy, we know the worth of water. Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanac (1746) CUPE BC welcomes the opportunity to participate in future plans to protect British Columbia's drinking water. We make this submission on behalf of the 65,000 CUPE members in this province who depend on safe, affordable and accessible water for their families. We also speak on behalf of, and with the assistance of, our members throughout the province who proudly provide sewer and water treatment services to their communities. We are fortunate in British Columbia to enjoy a relative abundance of fresh, clean water. As a result, we have generally taken it for granted. We turn on the tap, and fresh water comes out. Most of us haven't been concerned about the price of water. We are lucky, but our good fortune has bred an unwarranted complacency. Consumption is increasing, while supply decreases. Water quality and water quantity problems continue to grow and new challenges to water protection have emerged. Groundwater supplies are threatened by agriculture, chemical contamination and climate change. Water is unique. Human, animal and plant life depend on it. There is no alternative to water. At the same time, it is an enriching resource that can provide opportunities for community development, business and recreation. Stewardship of water is one of the most complex, important and enduring jobs on earth and policy makers must guide sustainable development of the resource while ensuring that every citizen has access to safe, affordable water. In British Columbia responsibility for water policy development lies largely with the Provincial government: "since all fresh water in British Columbia, both surface water and groundwater, belongs to the Crown. So does most of the land area of the province, and therefore the watersheds supplying most drinking water systems." Office of the Auditor General, Protecting Drinking Water Sources, Victoria, 1999, page 11 DRINKING WATER PROTECTION PART 1 In reviewing Drinking Water Protection, this Panel and the Provincial Government shoulder a great responsibility. This is also a golden opportunity to create a model legislative framework. It is in recognition of the vital importance of that role that CUPE BC is pleased to submit its comments and recommendations to the Drinking Water Review Panel. 2 DRINKING WATER PROTECTION PART 2 PART 2: COMMENTS ON PROCESS While CTIPE BC does welcome the opportunity to make submissions to the Drinking Water Review Panel, we have some fundamental concerns about process. Concern #1: No representation from labour groups on the Panel Panel recommendations with regard to privatization of water services could have a potentially devastating effect on public water workers throughout this province, and yet there is no representation by any labour union or organization on the Panel. This omission seems inconsistent with the Liberal Party of B.C.'s stated vision to provide the "most open, accountable and democratic government in Canada."2 Further, CUPE submits that by omitting the voice of Labour, the Ministers have excluded a valuable source of expertise and information. Concern #2: The time-line for Submissions and Report CUPE BC received an invitation to participate, dated October 5, 2001. We are concerned that the very short time allotted to respond (deadline November 9, 2001) will limit the depth and range of input. Many potential respondents may not even be aware of the Panel's existence. Further, the Panel's Interim Report is due just eleven days after the submission deadline, on November 201h,2001 This is simply not enough time to fully consider and evaluate submissions for inclusion in the Interim Report. The final Panel report is to be submitted by January 15, 2001. Part of openness and democracy is to seek public participation on policy matters in this province. There are groups small and large, peopled by dedicated professionals and volunteers, with much wisdom and energy to offer. Those people need to be included in this and other public processes. If decisions are going to be made that are truly embraced and accepted by the vast number of people who feel passionately about their water and their 2 Liberal Party Platform, www.bcliberals.com 3 DRiNKING WATER PROTECTION PART 2 environment, consultation must be extensive and real. Government must be an enabler. Let's compare this process with the Walkerton Inquiry. That Inquiry was broken into two parts. The first part, the Walkerton part, was to determine what happened in that tragedy, and why. The Inquiry heard from 110 witnesses. The second part was a much broader study of a wide range of issues, overseen by an advisory panel of seven national and international experts. With their assistance, the Inquiry commissioned twenty-five issue papers dealing with protection of water sources, surface and groundwater, water treatment, monitoring and testing of water, and water distribution. With those expert reports prepared, The Honourable Justice Dennis R. O'Connor granted standing to thirty-five groups "representing every conceivable interest that applied for standing".3 All of those parties were invited to make written and public submissions. Then there were more meetings between the experts and, intertwined with the study, a series of nine Town Hall Meetings. Commissioner O'Connor observed: "It's been a thorough process. We've tried to make it as public and as transparent as possible. We've encouraged participation from members of the public. We've received an enormous number of written presentations. We're considering them all. We're responding to them all. We've published on our website all of the papers which we commissioned, all of the papers and the submissions made by the different parties with interest in the issues, minutes of the meetings that have taken place, transcripts of the public hearings."4 CUPE recognizes that British Columbia has not experienced a Walkerton tragedy - yet. We also recognize it is impossible to predict every tragic occurrence in the world. But if Ontarians had known before Walkerton what was in store for them, would they not have happily invested the time and resources twice over in order to prevent those illnesses and deaths? Do we not owe the people of British Columbia the same diligence, particularly with regard to something as critically important as water? Walkerton Inquiry Transcripts, October 9, 2001, page 5, line 24 ' Ibid., page 7, lines 2— 12. ru DRINKING WATER PROTECTION PART 2 Concern #3 Political Independence CUPE urges this Panel to operate within the context of what needs to be done, to create a system that will best serve the needs of all British Columbians not just now, but in the future. Your findings will be referenced for many years to come and may be the basis of a long-standing model for water protection, use and treatment. We are concerned that the Panels recommendations may be tempered by assumptions about political and financial acceptability. We submit that your recommendations should stand independent of the political context of the day. Fiscal policy decisions are not your concern. It is for you to determine how to best serve the interests of all British Columbians. 5 DRINKING WATER PROTECTION PART 3 PART 3: PROTECTING DRINKING WATER: CUPE BC RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUBMISSIONS WATER AS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT Recommendation #1: That all water policy developed by the Provincial Government be consistent with every British Columbian's right to safe, affordable water. This clear delineation of the fundamental and basic right of every person in the province to safe and affordable water is a foundation upon which all other water policy should be based. A MULTIBARRIER APPROACH TO SOURCE PROTECTION Recommendation #2: That a Multi-barrier approach to drinking water protection be taken, as recommended in the 1999 Auditor General's Report, Protecting Drinking Water Sources. The Auditor General's Report observed that "protecting drinking-water sources is one key to supplying safe drinking water reliably and cost-effectively."5 It recommended a multi-barrier approach: "Reliable provision of high-quality drinking water depends on several levels of protection - barriers to contamination - working together: • effective control over land uses that could harm water quality; • appropriate water treatment; • a sound and well-maintained water distribution system operated by well-trained staff; and • water-quality testing."6 Office of the Auditor General of British Columbia, Protecting Drinking Water Sources, 1999, page 10. 6 Ibid. page 10. DRINKING WATER PROTECTION PART 3 CUPE fully supports the Auditor General's call for a multi-barrier approach. We also concur that each of the recommended components are necessary for the ultimate protection of our drinking water. Recommendation #3: Integrated management of both water and land uses as a key condition for successful water protection. A key finding of the Auditor General's Report was that water-source management in British Columbia is not integrated. The report stated that: "Water quality is intimately linked to land use. When rain falls to earth, it can pick up contaminants from the atmosphere, from natural sources, and from a whole range of human land uses before it enters streams and lakes or seeps underground into aquifers. Effective water protection hinges on managing the land uses on the surfaces over or through which water flows. Accordingly, one key condition for successful water protection is integrated management of both water and the land uses that affect it."7 Minister Murray has stated that her government is committed to groundwater protection, although what that protection will look like is not clear.8 Water does not respect borders. It moves from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, irrespective of a variety of ecological and land-use laws and regulations. While there has been some source protection in legislation like the Forest Practices Code, that protection needs to be integrated and over-arching. That can best be provided by implementing another of the Auditor General's recommendations: Recommendation #4: The Province should designate a lead agency with- in government that will represent the interests of drinking-water users and suppliers and co-ordinate action on drinking-water issues. CUPE strongly supports this key recommendation of the Auditor General. This recommendation was not acted on by the previous government, although Bill 20 contemplated that drinking water issues at the local level would be handled by "drinking water officers" who would report to the medical health Ibid. page 13. Honourable Joyce Murray, Minister of Water, Land and Air 2001. 7 DRINKING WATER PROTECTION PART 3 officer. The legislation also provided for two provincial drinking water co- ordinators. According to a recent review These provisions were probably an attempt to reconcile the Morfitt Report recommendation for a super-agency with the long history of dual-ministry regulatory oversight in this realm.9 It is the position of CUPE BC that the creation of drinking water officers and drinking water co-ordinators, while a step in the right direction, is not sufficient in and of itself to protect the interests of all British Columbians with regard to such a vital resource as its drinking water. In our introduction, we spoke about the complexity of water stewardship and the challenges of balancing the development of water resources while th protecting the right of citizens to safe, affordable water. At the October 24, 2001 Open Cabinet Meeting, The Honourable Stan Hagen, Minister of Sustainable Resource Management, said: "In the next six months we propose transferring water to the B.C. Assets and Land Corporation, developing a SWAT team to deal with critical program objectives such as independent power producers and assisting in developing new pricing structures for a range of water licences in conjunction with the lead from the Ministry of Competition, Science and Enterprise."10 He also said: "Many land tenure and water licences have not kept pace with market realities or administrative costs. Water licensing is particularly slow and inefficient. We will streamline the approval process to ensure that it is user-friendly and generates a fair return to the province. As a result of the problems mentioned on the last slide, there's a backlog of 2,000 water applications, which is now increasing with the surge of applications from independent power producers. We will reduce the backlog by 90 percent in two years." I He further stated that "By the end of the fiscal year '03-04 our intent is that there will be no backlog, electronic application and approval processes will be operational and the water function will be generating increased net revenue for the Crown."12 MacPherson, Peter, and Tollefson, Chris, A Fluid Situation: Evolving Drinking Water Law and Policy in British Columbia, The Advocate, Vol.59, Part 4 (July 2001), page 535. '° Open Cabinet Meeting, October 24tl, 2001, 11.25 a.m. Ibid., 11:25 a.m. 2 Ibid. INKING WATER PROTECTION PART 3 CUPE submits that the transfer of water licencing to the B.C. Assets and Land Corporation is inconsistent with the concept of integrated management. It also sets up an inefficient and counter-productive dynamic: one Ministry mandated to make a profit from water, while another is mandated, by its very name (Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection) to protect water. All the more reason, we submit, to create a separate Water Agency. Unlike other resources there is no alternative to water. It is a necessity of life that is in limited supply. It deserves more than a SWAT team looking after it. A properly structured, separate water agency would provide or co-ordinate a multiplicity of services including land-use management, oversight of water testing, research, water system assessment and data management. WATER QUALITY ISSUES Recommendation #5: The provincial government must ensure that water sources are protected from potentially destructive land-uses. The Auditor General's Report stresses that to maintain good drinking water quality, the first line of defence is a protected water source. As pointed out in Waterproof Canada '.s' Drinking Water Report card: "Whether the water source is a well from which groundwater is drawn or a surface water body such as a lake, reservoir, river or stream, protecting water sources from possible contamination is the first and most important aspect of a safe drinking water strategy. Potentially destructive land-uses must be limited or eliminated in those areas where the chance of groundwater or surface water contamination is high. Agriculture, forestry, gravel and mining operations, sewage disposal, urban developments, roads, air pollution and forestry can all contribute to potentially harmful contaminants entering drinking water supplies."13 CUPE BC submits that the provincial government must regulate land-use in order to protect the quality of drinking water, and that protection of drinking water must be paramount in any regulatory scheme. We are encouraged that 13 Christensen, Randy and Parfitt, Ben, Waterproof COMdaDrthking WwerReprCard, Sierra Legal - - Defence Fund, page 18 us DRINKING WATERPROTECTION PART3 the Minister of Water, Land and Air, the Honourable Joyce Murray, has committed to legislation to protect groundwater. This is an important step in the right direction. If the management of water is to be comprehensive and integrated, the regulatory framework must be as well. While we accept there must be some flexibility to reflect local needs and conditions, the Provincial government has a vital responsibility to ensure that all areas of the province continue to have safe water. Therefore, as well as regulating land use, the province must also legislate and regulate water treatment, water distribution and water testing. Small Water Systems Recommendation #6: The provincial government should encourage upgrading of small systems through infrastructure funding and mergers. While watersheds in the Lower Mainland and Victoria are protected, this is not the case for other communities. As a result water providers, particularly in small communities, can face enormous treatment costs. Assessing and monitoring of systems are particularly important, but also particularly challenging. In the past, many small systems have developed where single or multiple large systems could have supplied a large area more economically. The Auditor- General points out that: "In previous years, failed systems were taken over and managed by regional districts, with two-thirds of the costs of upgrades being funded by the provincial government. Approximately 100 private utilities have been transferred to local government ownership since 1972, but as provincial funding for this has shrunk, so has the willingness of local governments to tale on this responsibility."4 As we have said earlier, ensuring that our water is safe is a demanding and complicated role, that must be approached on a comprehensive basis. The Provincial government is the appropriate body to protect and monitor progress. 14 Office of the Auditor General, Protecting Drinking Water Sources, 1999, page 120 '[C DRINKING WATER PROTECTION PART 3 Watershed assessment, hazard evaluation and enforcement are all critical. Water quality objectives must be set. There must be clear responsibility for monitoring whether those objectives are being met. There are a myriad of other issues related to water quality that we will not deal with in this paper. When one considers the complexity of the challenges, it is all the more crucial that water management be integrated, and that a single provincial agency take responsibility. WATER TESTING Recommendation #7: Water testing should take place at accredited, public labs. The provincial government must ensure that consistent, high standards for water quality testing and reporting are in place, monitored and enforced. Water testing is the final piece in an integrated multi-barrier system. As we have seen from the Walkerton tragedy, testing, and the systems of reporting and monitoring those tests, are absolutely key to protecting water quality. We submit that the provincial government must strongly regulate water testing and associated support systems. There is a role for the Provincial government in ensuring good research takes place, with regard to issues like water treatment methods (for example studying the effects of water chlorination). We submit that the best way to ensure quality testing is through support of publicly funded, accredited water testing labs. TRAINING CUPE BC recognizes the need for training and certification of waterworks operators. Hundreds of our members are already OECP certified. We recognize that well qualified workers give the public that we serve a level of confidence that their personal health and that of the environment will not be compromised. Any requirements, however, must recognize the training and expertise of people already doing the work and ensure they are provided whatever upgrading is necessary to meet provincial standards. 11 DRINKING WATER PROTECTION PART 3 WATER SERVICES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA: FOR THE PUBLIC, BY THE PUBLIC Recommendation #8: Water systems and services should be publicly owned and operated, in order to best ensure safe, accessible and affordable drinking water for all British Columbians. Background It is the unequivocal position of CUPE BC that water services and supplies should be financed, managed, maintained, operated and owned by the public sector. Throughout British Columbia we chose public ownership and control of our water because we trusted public ownership.. . and it worked. Government officials were accountable and their motives were ultimately to serve the public. We all saw the public ownership of resources as crucial to our well-being. We saw it as intelligent, as progressive and as civilized. Most of us still do. In the wake of the Walkerton tragedy, Canadians are asking many questions about how to protect and improve our water systems. The Drinking Water Review Panel is a positive part of that very healthy process. However, it appears that the Provincial government is already ideologically committed to privatization of water services, whether or not that is a popular, or even defensible, course of action. On October 16th1, the Honourable Joyce Murray, Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection, addressed the C51 ­120 Conference in Kelowna. When a representative of Epcor Water Services Incorporated stated that his company was willing and able to finance water infrastructure projects, Minister Murray replied: "We are very interested in having companies like yours coming in and helping solve problems and making investments, particularly in water structure." The Minister also stated that the purpose of the Core Review is to determine "what is core and has to be done by government rather than the private sector." The obvious assumption is that the Ministry and government have 12 DRINKING WATER PROTECTION PART 3 already determined that water services will be privatized, despite a further statement by the Minister that "safe drinking water is at the core of what we do." We think that an ideological bias towards privatization of water services is unacceptable, does not serve the public well, and is contrary to the will of the public. CUPE BC objects to such an unfounded and ideologically based attitude. We proudly and unabashedly support our members and other members of public sector unions who provide public services across this province. If public service jobs are cut and private companies replace the services there will be no savings to the taxpayer. The taxpayer will still have to pay for the water. There are no savings to be gained, and in fact research shows private water services are more expensive than public services. We can only conclude that such a policy is ideologically based, or that government is seeking to provide profit for companies, to be subsidized by the taxpayer. Recommendation #9 : That the Drinking Water Review Panel in its report recognize and celebrate the valuable contribution of public sector water workers, and that its recommendations be consistent with protecting public sector workers from privatization of water services. In the next few pages we would like to provide some context, then explain why CUPE BC thinks water privatization is wrong for British Columbia. The Global Context "The greatest thing we need in our civilization, in our time, is not oil, not gas, but fresh water. There 's too little of it in the world. We 're heading into a period of droughts. I am not prophesying doom, but we should be preparing. We should be storing as much water as we can." W.A.C. Beimett, 1980' We are at a crossroads in how we deal with water.16 We'd like to believe there's an infinite supply of water on the planet. That assumption is false. "Keen, Roger, Humphreys, David, Conversations with W.A.C. Bennett, Methuen Publications, 1980, page 107. 16 CUPE BC would like to thank the Council of Canadians for pertions ofT inforrnation presented in this section. 13 DRINKING WATER PROTECTION PART 3 Available freshwater amounts to less than one-half of one percent of all the water on earth. Due to intensive urbanization, deforestation, water diversion and industrial farming, even this small finite source of fresh water is disappearing with the drying of the earth's surface. If present trends persist, the water in all river basins on every continent could steadily be depleted. Global consumption of water is doubling every 20 years, more than twice the rate of human population growth. As the water crisis intensifies, governments around the world - under pressure from transnational corporations - are allowing the privatization, coinmodification and mass diversion of water. The push to commodif,' water comes at a time when the social, political and economic impacts of water scarcity are rapidly becoming a destabilizing force, with water-related conflicts springing up around the globe. Ismail Serageldin, Vice President of the World Bank, has said "The wars of the next century will be about water".'7 Meanwhile, the future of one of the earth's most vital resources is being determined by those who profit from it. Transnational corporations, backed by the World Bank, have a clear agenda: water should be treated like any other tradable good, with its use determined by market principles. At the same time, governments are endangering their control over domestic water supplies by participating in trade agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA); its successor, the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA); and the World Trade Organization (WTO). These global trade institutions effectively give transnational corporations unprecedented access to the water of signatory countries. Already, corporations have started to sue governments in order to gain access to domestic water sources. For example, Sun Belt, a California company, is suing the government of Canada under NAFTA because British Columbia (B.C.) banned water exports several years ago. The company claims that B.C.'s law violates several NAFTA-based investor rights and therefore is claiming US$10 billion in compensation for lost profits. The mere fact that 7 Barlow, Maude, Blue Gold: The Global Water Crisis and the Comrnodflcation of the World's Water Supply, page 2. 14 DRINKING WATER PROTECTION PART 3 this suit has not been summarily dismissed illustrates the far-reaching effects of NAFTA. CUPE BC recognizes and appreciates that the Provincial Government opposes bulk water exports, and we support every policy and political initiative that is required to further this most worthy and important commitment. As governments back away from their regulatory responsibilities, giant transnational water, food, energy and shipping corporations are lining up to take advantage of the world's water shortage. Privatization of municipal and regional water services, including sewage and water delivery, are included in the list of services that transnationals are rushing into. "Water is the last infrastructure frontier for private investors," says Johan Basti&8 of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The Globe and Mail of Canada states that the privatization of water looms as the national mega-industry of the next decade, with potential investment in the tens of billions of dollars. "Water is fast becoming a globalized corporate industry."19 A May 2000, edition of Fortune magazine says that water is the best investment sector for the century. The World Bank places the value of the current water market at close to $1 trillion. Moreover, with only 5 percent of the world's population currently getting its water from corporations, the profit potential is unlimited. The world of privatized water is overwhelmingly dominated by two French transnationals, Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux and Vivendi. They are referred to as the General Motors and Ford Motor Company of the water world. Suez, whose CEO, Gerard Mestrallet, says that he wants to take a page from his country's past and develop in his company the philosophy of "conquest" as Suez moves into new markets around the world. It is more than just a water company, though. Says Fortune, "it's a fresh invention ... a diversified utility that offers cities a full range of infrastructure services, from water and sewer to trash collection, cable TV, and electric power." Ibid., page 15 ' Ibid. 15 DRINKING WATER PROTECTION PART 3 Both Suez and Vivendi are vying for the lucrative U.S. market, estimated to be the world's largest at annual revenues of $90 billion, and are dabbing their toes in the Canadian water market as well. These companies are poised to promote the massive privatization of the North American water market. They are buying up North American companies at a significant rate. West Coast Energy was recently purchased by Duke. Companies like BC Gas (or their subsidiaries), which is trying to get into the water business, are ripe for the picking. This is not fantasy, it is the reality of water politics in the 21St century. We mention the above, because it already has started to impact communities in British Columbia. The advertising is slick, the money available to soften the markets is considerable and the stakes are high. We have no doubt that British Columbia is considered both a potential market, and even more, a source of water and the power it can generate. There are many reasons why privatization of water services is not in the best interest of British Columbians. Lack Of Accountability Private companies are not as open and transparent as government bodies are. They are not subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. Their owners are accountable to their shareholders, not the electorate. Once a private corporation takes hold of a long-term P3 contract, that service contract can become an obstacle to addressing problems such as inferior work, damage to property or accessibility. Unexpected problems are dragged out as a municipality and the corporation negotiate over who is responsible. In some cases the process completely shuts down. Loss Of Community Control With any public/private partnership, a community is giving up some control over community resources. Obviously, that loss of control would be even greater if part or all of a water system was fully privatized. Ultimately a private company is answerable to its shareholders, not to local residents. For smaller municipalities, a private contractor may not even have a branch office in the community. 16 DRINKING WATER PROTECTION PART 3 Further, there are no guarantees that a company will not be sold or the headquarters moved to another province. Recently the headquarters of Transmountain Pipeline, a subsidiary of BC Gas, moved to Alberta after decades in British Columbia. The alienation can be even greater. Hamilton, Ontario's experience with privatization has been disastrous. In December, 1995 the Region of Hamilton- Wentworth signed a 10 year, $180 million contract, with a one year old company, Philip Utilities Management Corporation, that turned over the operation and maintenance of the Region's waste water system to PUMC. Since the deal has been signed, there has been a devastating sewage spill, continued problems with waste water quality, and no financial benefits. The number of employees was cut by half in the first four years. The original owner, Philip Services was near bankruptcy when the contract was purchased by Azurix North America in 1999. Now, Enron Corporation, the parent company of Azurix North America, is divesting all of its non-core businesses and has sold Azurix to American Water Works, another multinational water company, for $141.5 million U.S. The Higher Cost Of Doing Business With A Private Company In British Columbia, municipal and regional governments can borrow money through the Municipal Finance Authority (MFA) more cheaply than the private sector can. With the pooled borrowing power of the MFA, communities can borrow money for capital projects between 1.0 and 1.5 per cent less expensively than it would cost a private company. This is a premium taxpayers would pay to a private company or order to allow them to build and operate a water facility. Whether the debt is on or off the books, ultimately the Municipality will have to pay for the project, and the cost to taxpayers will be higher if financed privately. 17 DRINKING WATER PROTECTION PART 3 The Money Flows Strai2ht Out Of Town A profit that is made by private companies is money that is lost to local communities. Built into contracts is an expectation that investments will return a profit of 10% or more. This is effectively a premium paid by communities. From a cost-benefit perspective, paying such a premium would be a wasteful inefficiency for a local government. Risk Municipalities cannot claim to maintain control while at the same time absolving themselves of responsibility. What happened in Walkerton, Ontario is a dreadful example of what can go wrong with a water system. It has made municipalities all over Canada sit up and take notice. That is a good thing. In some cases however, these municipalities are looking to public/private partnerships (P3's) to try to avoid the responsibility for water. Municipalities cannot and should not avoid this responsibility. In the first place, there is some doubt this responsibility can be legally avoided in any event. For example, in the Supreme Court of Canada case of Lewis v. BC [1997]3 S.C.R. 1145, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways argued that it was not responsible for a rock that had fallen on a highway because it had discharged its duty by hiring an independent contractor. The court ruled that the Crown's duty of care could not be delegated. Of particular relevance is the test applied by Justice McLachlan (now Chief Justice McLachlan), in her concurring reasons. She said: "The fact that road maintenance is entirely within the power of the Ministry is an important element to consider. So is the correlative fact that this renders the public, who often have no choice but to use the highway, totally vulnerable as to how, and by whom, road maintenance is performed. Finally, the fact that safety and lives are at issue is of critical importance. Cory J. correctly stresses these factors in concluding that the Ministry cannot discharge its duty in this case merely by proving that it exercised reasonable care in hiring and supervising the contractor. The Ministry must go further and ensure that the contractor's work was carried out without negligence."'0 20 Lewis v. British Columbia, [1997]3S.C.R. 1145. DRINKING WATER PROTECTION PART 3 If liability for road maintenance is non-delegable by the above test, certainly an employer of an independent contractor providing water services could not escape liability for the negligence of the contractor. This Supreme Court of Canada case confirms what most people would expect - the municipality or regional district providing water cannot escape ultimate responsibility for its safety. Secondly, if the municipality attempts to contract out this risk, they are going to pay a very heavy price. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs (as it then was) Public Private Partnership guide notes: "The degree of risk to be transferred to the private partner will determine the extent of the return or reward required by the private partner. The more risk, the higher the expected return. The private sector will not be interested in opportunities in which the local government is unable or unwilling to offer rewards that are commensurate with the risks the private sector may be required to accept."2' Municipal Insurance It is advantageous for local governments to keep water and other services in the public sector in order to access insurance provided by the Municipal Insurance Association of British Columbia. The MIA is to insurance as the Municipal Finance Authority is to the financing of public projects. There are efficiencies to be gained in both areas because of the stability of belonging to large financially secure umbrella organizations. The MIA provides municipal insurance to member municipalities and regional districts across the province. It is essentially an insurance co-operative whose sole purpose is to provide the most cost-effective and stable insurance for its members. It manages to maintain stable and generally low rates because: > it invests for the benefit of the members. (In 2000 its investments were about $48 million.) > it does not have to produce a profit for the shareholders. In fact, the MIA invests heavily in the Municipal Finance Authority, providing another advantage for public ownership. 21 Public Private Partnership: A Guide for Local Government, Section 5.4 19 DRINKING WATER PROTECTION PART 3 Further, the MIA also ensures safe worksites and high quality projects because its directors are committed to high quality risk assessment through their association with the Insurers' Advisory Organization. These advantages are not available to contracted out projects or facilities.22 Deregulation And Privatization Recommendation #10: CUPE BC strongly recommends that the Panel reject any combination of deregulation and privatization initiatives, as such a combination of measures may seriously endanger the health and safety of British Columbians. As outlined above, CUPE BC rejects privatization of water services for a number of reasons. We have also recommended a strong regulatory framework for water protection. To fail to strongly regulate, and enforce, while at the same time losing control of water services to organizations that are motivated by profit, is a recipe for disaster. When England deregulated its water services the country was faced with skyrocketing prices. When Ofwat, the British water regulator, finally stepped in to stabilize prices, capital investment declined. Said Philip Fletcher, director general of Ofwat, "I am concerned that capital expenditure is so far below expectations and plans have not been fully delivered... a certain amount of gaming takes place." The article goes on: "Ofwat said it had questioned Anglian over interruptions to supply and had asked Severn Trent, Southern and Thames Water to explain their poor performance on flooding from sewers. United Utilities, Severn Trent and Thames are to be investigated over reports of poor service on telephone help lines."23 Beyond the issues of poor service and/or skyrocketing water prices, we submit there would be a very real danger of significant health emergencies in a deregulated, privatized regime. 22 Keith Gibson, Risk Manager, Municipal Insurance Association 23 "Water Industry Investment Falls Short by 700 million pounds", The Independent, July 31, 2001 20 DRINKING WATER PROTECTION PART 3 International Trade And Investments Raise The Stakes Recommendation #11: That the Panel make no recommendations that could expose local governments and communities across Canada to impacts from the provisions of international trade agreements. The impacts of trade agreements such as the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) raise questions about the ability of government to place restrictions on the trading and movement of water. In addition, these agreements raise questions about the possible effects of entering into a public-private partnership. For example, in a recent legal opinion commissioned by CUPE, Steven Shrybman, an expert on trade law, concluded that P3s such as the planned Seymour Water Treatment plant for the GVRD might be affected by NAFTA. Specifically, he stated: "If concluded, the interest of a private partner in a contract to design, build and operate the Seymour project would be an investment according to the NAFTA definition. Conversely, a law, regulation, procedure, requirement or practice of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) or another Canadian government that might affect that contract would be a measure under NAFTA and accordingly subject to the broad disciplines of that regime." He also stated that whatever claim to exemption from trade rules water services might now enjoy under the GATS negotiations would be compromised by entering into a private sector partnership to deliver services. "In this regard", he concluded, "The risks are substantially greater for a contract that involves the operation, rather than simply the design and construction, of a water treatment plant" (Shrybman, 2001). There have been attempts to rebut the Shrybman opinion. CUPE BC has closely read those materials, and we conclude that there is no credible opinion that calls into question any part of the Shrybman opinion. Mr. Shrybman has also responded to rebuttals, and, in our opinion, entirely refuted them. It is quite clear from the Greater Vancouver Water District Report of June 291h, 2001, that recommended the abandonment of the privatization option, that the District also had grave concerns ahouttradeimp1icaiion. Weareqiiite - 21 RINKING WATER PROTECTION PART confident that, after the Shrybman opinion was released, the GVRD received advice from its own trade lawyers that confirmed Mr. Shrybman's analysis. In the June 291h Report, the GVWD also commented that: "What might help would be for the Canadian Government to go clearly on record with a position that assured the community and local authorities that they would absolutely protect public water supply systems from the kind of threats to their authority that have been raised by the public, by explicit exclusions in treaties if necessary." In fact, the Greater Vancouver Water District looked for such an assurance at a September 71h meeting with Paul Robertson and other members of the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. That assurance was not forthcoming, nor would we expect that the federal government has any intention of trying to renegotiate its international agreements. CUPE also commissioned a second Shrybman legal opinion on the trade implications when the partner to a DBO contract concerning water supply facilities was Canadian, rather than a foreign based corporation. In that opinion, Mr. Shrybman indicated that there are several factors that moderate the significance of the distinction between Canadian and foreign corporations. For example, certain NAFTA investment rules apply equally to Canadian and US investors. Further, transformation of a Canadian company into one controlled by foreign investors may be accomplished quite readily. Foreign subcontractors might invoke NAFTA enforcement procedures even where the primary contractor is Canadian. Finally, for the purposes of creating a new benchmark for National Treatment obligations, or removing water supply services from the protective umbrella or NAFTA and GATS reservations and exceptions, the nationality of the partner corporation or those with an interest in it, is irrelevant. We refer to these agreements in some detail because the implications for Canada, the provinces and particularly for local governments are potentially devastating, in terms of losing control over our own resources and how to best manage them. CUPE BC strongly urges the Panel to carefully consider the Shrybman opinion, a copy of which is appended to this submission, and to assess the implications for local governments. 22 DRINKING WATER PROTECTION PART 3 Public Opinion Recommendation #12: That the Panel recommend full consultation with the public on the issue of privatization of water services. Perhaps most important of all the reasons not to privatize water services is that the people of British Columbia do not want their water services handed over to for-profit companies. CUPE has commissioned two Ipsos Reid Polls in British Columbia in the last 7 months dealing specifically with whether people wanted their water services to be provided by public or private means. In both cases the answer was overwhelmingly "Public". The first poll assessed public attitudes towards private operation of the proposed GVRD Seymour water treatment plant. It also assessed public attitudes towards the privatization of water and sewer services in general. 800 British Columbian adults were surveyed. Questions addressing the building of the plant were asked only of 500 Lower Mainland residents. Some of the significant findings are: > Only 16% of British Columbians would pick a private company as the most trusted source for either safe of affordable drinking water. > 72% of British Columbians say that they oppose the privatization of water services, including drinking water. In fact 49% say they strongly oppose privatization of water services. Interestingly, older people, and those who have completed a university education, are the most likely to oppose privatization of water services. (80% and 78% respectively). > 64% of those surveyed from the Lower Mainland said they were opposed to a private company operating the water treatment plant. That included 43% who were strongly opposed. A second survey in Kamloops, which was considering a similar DBO proposal for its water treatment plant, yielded similar responses. 23 DRINKING WATER PROTECTION PART 3 CUPE BC attended every public meeting hosted by the GVRD when it was considering the privatization of the Seymour water treatment plant. Hundreds and hundreds of people turned out, from every age group, from every walk of life, and made it very clear that they were adamantly opposed to privatization of their water services. It was also clear that their concerns were twofold. They were concerned about the implications of the free trade agreements. They also clearly sent the message that they wanted their water to be kept in public hands. Most recently, in September, 2001, Barry O'Neill, President of CUPE BC, made a presentation to Ladysmith Town Council regarding a proposal to have bcgUtilities, a subsidiary of BC Gas, install water meters. There were also discussions about whether the company would later read and maintain the meters, and handle billing. Again, several hundred people packed the Town Hall. Again the message was clear. "Keep our water public." We submit that the same sentiment would be found in communities all over this province. CUPE BC also reminds the panel that despite the great hoopla about private public partnerships, promoted by the advertising departments of water companies, municipalities across Canada and the United States have largely rejected privatization of their water facilities, probably because it just doesn't make fiscal or public policy sense. The market share for private contract operation of municipal utility systems in the U.S. is still less than 5 percent. Clearly, municipalities are not rushing to turn over their water and wastewater facilities to private water corporations.24 The figures for Canada are not readily available, but it is probable that the water companies are further behind in terms of their penetration of the Canadian market. So while water companies like to create the impression that water privatization is a wave of the future that we all must ride, the reality is that local governments aren't jumping on board. On the other hand, the cities of Reno, Sparks and Washoe county in Nevada recently jointly purchased the local privately owned water system, because other American cities have good records of efficiently providing high quality public services. 24 Public Workc Financing,Fifth Annual survey of U.S. Water and Wastewater Outsourcing, March, 2001. 24 INKING WATER PROTECTI PART 3 INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES "Sustainable communities require a backbone of sound physical infrastructure. A commitment to a permanent national municipal infrastructure program with increased funding is needed to strengthen that backbone." That insightful quote came from a publication of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, in its Ten Point Action Plan for Sustainable Communities, published last October. We couldn't agree more. It goes on to say that "The collection of buildings, systems and technologies that comprise municipal infrastructure is essential to the health and economic growth of urban and rural communities, and, ultimately, to the quality of life of all Canadians. The deterioration of municipal infrastructure in many of Canada's communities reveals a compelling need for investment." CUPE wholeheartedly supports the Federation's initiatives in this regard. We agree that the most recent federal infrastructure program committing $2.65 billion over 6 years is a first step, but that more funding is needed. The FCM's own research indicates that tens of billions of dollars will be needed in the near future to halt deterioration, let alone bring Canada's infrastructure to standard. Earlier in this report, when we were discussing the challenges facing small system operators, we recommended that the provincial government support infrastructure upgrades for small systems. Certainly the same recommendation applies to large systems. It is absolutely essential that senior levels of government work with local governments across this country to ensure that we halt and reverse the deterioration of water infrastructure. Water Conservation CUPE BC supports water conservation strategies. We recognize that in order to ensure sufficient water for all our needs, it is imperative that British Columbians mover towards a more sustainable and strategic approach to water use. However, we have concerns about the use of water meters. 25 DRINKING WATER PROTECTION PART Water metering can have some effect on water usage. However, research and experience in other communities indicates that water metering is only effective when used in tandem with a strong public education campaign. For example, in Kelowna, which has a very high water usage, there is a program and a full-time employee dedicated to public education about water conservation. The GVRD Region - Wide Metering Study (1996 -1999) states: "An integrated strategy involving universal metering, a user pays rate structure, and public education is considered the key to achieving long-term policy objectives for making the most efficient use of the region's water supply resources ...Given the considerable capital cost of a universal metering program, there has to be an offsetting payback that justifies the initial investment."25 In Kelowna, with a full water metering program for two years, the per capita decrease in water has only been 18% outdoors and 8% 26 indoors. It will be interesting to see if these numbers hold, because there is a tendency for water consumption to initially decrease, then increase again after water users get over the initial metering "price shock". By comparison, the water demand in the GVRD was reduced by about 10%, since 1993 in terms of average daily demand, and about 20% in terms of peak day demand, just by implementation of twice weekly lawn sprinkling regulations and consciousness-raising through an education program.27 The same study concluded that, even in a best case scenario, assuming a very optimistic 30% reduction in peak day demand, and a 25% reduction in average daily demand, the program would, over the long run, be more expensive than any savings in growth related capital projects, upgrades or maintenance. A companion report concluded that "the information presented in this report suggests that a basic residential water metering program, region- 25 GVRD Residential Water Metering Study: Cost Implications of a Region-Wide Metering Program, August, 1996, page 3-1 26 Source: Neal Kiassen, Kelowna Water Smart Program 27 GVRD Residential Water Metering Seasonal Pricing and An Enhanced water Conservation Program: Cost and Feasibility Study, November, 1999, page 1. pill DRINKING WATER PROTECTION PART 3 wide, is not the least cost solution to the region's future water supply needs." 28 Further, water metering only leads to conservation if there are significant increases in price for higher usage. We are also concerned about the potential future implications of water meter installation. While the primary reason for installation may be for conservation, the reality is that meters are a precursor to the commodification of water. According to David Santangeli, Managing Director, Head of Infrastructure, Power and Privatization for Scotia Capital, meters encourage investment in water systems because they eliminate cross-subsidization. They enable a price structure that is flexible and therefore can be crafted to maximize revenues.29 Equitable distribution and ability to pay require careful consideration. Water cannot become a commodity to be sold to the highest bidder. To the international water companies that are increasingly controlling water resources of this planet, water meters are like cash registers. CUPE BC understands the need to support infrastructure improvements and maintenance, and recognizes that water pricing may have to more closely reflect the true cost of providing water services. However, this discussion about water meters and who will control and benefit from pricing structures, again reminds us how important it is to keep water firmly in public hands. When it remains public, it has value, but associated with public goals. Whether we export it, how we price it: these questions become matters of public debate. If it becomes a commodity in private hands, those discussions are gone forever. 28 GVRD Region-Wide Residential Water Metering:Cost 29 MFA Financial Forum, March 29, 2001 27 DRINKING WATER PROTECTION PART 3 CONCLUSION The Panel and Provincial Government have a monumental responsibility and opportunity to create a strong legislative framework to protect drinking water in British Columbia. CUPE BC submits that only a comprehensive and integrated management plan will ensure safe, affordable drinking water for all our citizens. CUPE BC and the people of this province agree that we will be best served if water systems and services are kept firmly in public hands. CUPE BC thanks the panel for this opportunity to present our comments and recommendations. We look forward to your report. DRINKING WATER PROTECTION SU1MARY OF RECOMMENIJATIONS SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation #1: That all water policy developed by the Provincial Government be consistent with every British Columbian's right to safe, affordable water. Recommendation #2: That a Multi-barrier approach to drinking water protection be taken, as recommended in the 1999 Auditor General's Report, Protecting Drinking Water Sources. Recommendation #3: Integrated management of both water and land uses as a key condition for successful water protection. Recommendation #4: The Province should designate a lead agency with-in government that will represent the interests of drinking-water users and suppliers and co-ordinate action on drinking-water issues. Recommendation #5: The provincial government must ensure that water sources are protected from potentially destructive land-uses. Recommendation #6: The provincial government should encourage upgrading of small systems through infrastructure funding and mergers. Recommendation #7: Water testing should take place at accredited, public labs. The provincial government must ensure that consistent, high standards for water quality testing and reporting are in place, monitored and enforced. 29 DRINKING WATER PROTECTION SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation #8: Water systems and services should be publicly owned and operated, in order to best ensure safe, accessible and affordable drinking water for all British Columbians. Recommendation #9: That the Drinking Water Review Panel in its report recognize and celebrate the valuable contribution of public sector water workers, and that its recommendations be consistent with protecting public sector workers from privatization of water services. Recommendation #10: CUPE BC strongly recommends that the Panel reject any combination of deregulation and privatization initiatives, as such a combination of measures may seriously endanger the health and safety of British Columbians. Recommendation #11: That the Panel make no recommendations that could expose local governments and communities across Canada to impacts from the provisions of international trade agreements. Recommendation #12: That the Panel recommend full consultation with the public on the issue of privatization of water services. KCIdf OTEU#15 ,vAN-FPDIV.USERS LCAlRNS'F:.200 I\Subnhissions\Drtnking Water Protection-November 2001 .doc CII] RESPONSE TO THE INTERIM REPORT OF THE DRINKING WATER REVIEW PANEL C CO Submitted by: The Canadian Union of Public Employees BC Division January 2002 CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION .............................................3 COMMENTS ON PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS... 4 OTHER COMMENTS .............. . ......................... 10 2 INTRODUCTION CUPE BC welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Interim Report of the Drinking Water Review Panel. We congratulate the members of the Panel for recommending a legislative framework that will protect drinking water, and thus the health and safety of all British Columbians, into the 21st Century. In our November Submission to the Panel, we expressed concern that your recommendations might be tempered by assumptions about political and financial acceptability. They were not. Your findings and recommendations are bold. They unreservedly recognize the paramount importance of drinking water protection. In this, we submit, your recommendations reflect the values of all British Columbians, regardless of political stripe. The citizens of this province do not want to compromise their access to safe drinking water. Communities want to protect water sources and ensure delivery of clean water. Your report is a report for the people and communities of British Columbia. On behalf of the 65,000 members of CUPE we thank you. 3 COMMENTS ON PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS WATER AS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT CUPE BC's first recommendation to the Drinking Water Review Panel was: Recommendation #1: That all water policy developed by the Provincial Government be consistent with every British Columbian's right to safe, affordable water. In our comments, we will not go through all of our recommendations, but we did want to reiterate this central principle against which we measured all other recommendations. Subject to a few cautionary provisos that will be mentioned below, we believe that the recommendations of the Panel, to date, are consistent with this principle. PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation #1: Retain and amend the Drinking Water Protection Act Retain the DWPA as a stand-alone Act, amend the Act by incorporating the recommendations of the Drinking Water Review Panel, and introduce the amended Act in the 2002 spring session of the BC legislature. CUPE BC's response: We strongly support this recommendation. Recommendation #2: Create a Drinking Water Protection Agency CUPE BC's response: We agree it is essential that a single lead Drinking Water Protection Agency be created to integrate the skills, resources and authority of all provincial ministries with responsibility for drinking water protection. Bringing all responsibility under one agency will result in clear authority and accountability for drinking water from source to tap. CUPE BC understands that we were one of many organizations 4 that recommended a lead agency, as originally envisioned by the Auditor General's Report (1999). We commend the Panel for the clear and extensive delineation of the functions and mandate of the proposed Drinking Water Protection Agency. We also commend the Panel for its recognition that a single Agency would eliminate inter-ministry turf wars, confusion and conflicts. We strongly support the recommendation that the CEO of the Agency report to a Board of Directors comprising non-government independent appointments representing various drinking water interests and Deputy Ministers responsible for health protection, resource management, environmental protection, and community development. CUPE BC submits that inclusion of a variety of interests will ensure accountability. We also submit that the interests of workers must be represented on that Board. Protection of drinking water is of primary importance. To reflect the importance of this vital resource, and to protect the independence of the Agency, we submit that the Agency should report directly to the Legislature. This will ensure freedom from the inter-ministerial turf wars referred to above and provide an important level of political independence. Recommendation #3: Strengthen Source Protection Measures CUPE BC's response: CUPE BC strongly supports this recommendation. It is important that a clear statement be included in the Drinking Water Protection Act, that the provisions of the Act prevail over any other Acts, and that decision makers under certain specified Acts (eg. Forest Practices Code, Range Act, Waste Management Act) must comply with the Drinking Water Protection Act when making authorizations or issuing approvals. CUPE BC also strongly supports recommendations 3 (c) - 3 (g), which lend authority and clarity to the provisions of the Act. As long as rules governing the resource are clear, consistent and reasonable, the public, business interests and all levels of government can work with and within them. We particularly support recommendation 3 (f), which places the onus on resource users to prove that their activities have no significant impact on source water quality. 5 Recommendation #4: Provincial Responsibility for Assessments CUPE BC's response: CUPE BC agrees that assessments are a vital component of the Act and that placing responsibility for assessments solely on the purveyor is unreasonable. The province, possibly through the Drinking Water Officers, must assume responsibility for co-ordination and funding of the assessment processes. Recommendation #5: Strengthen Role of the Drinking Water Officer CUPE BC's response: CUPE BC supports the recommendation, but we suggest that more than two Drinking Water Officers will be needed to fulfill the roles and responsibilities properly envisioned by this and other recommendations. Recommendation #6: Recognize Limitations of Small Systems and Recommendation #7: Provide Support to Small Systems CUPE BC's response: CUPE BC supports the recommendations, but had hoped that the Panel would more specifically recommend the upgrading of small systems through infrastructure funding that encouraged mergers with larger systems. Recommendation #8: Enable Tap Water Standards CUPE BC's response: CUPE BC supports the recommendation enabling creation of province-wide tap standards including physical, chemical and biological parameters. It is prudent to appoint a technical advisory committee of experts to develop an appropriate set of science-based minimum standards for British Columbia. Recommendation #9: Redefine "Potable Water" CUPE BC's response: We support the Walkerton Inquiry Research Advisory Panel definition of potable water: "water that is free from micro-organisms and parasites and any other substances at a concentration sufficient to present a potential danger to human health." Recommendation #10: Enable Water Treatment Standards CUPE BC's response: We support the recommendation. A technical advisory committee is an appropriate body to develop treatment standards. In the longer term, the Drinking Water Agency could undertake or oversee research into water treatment issues. Recommendation #11: Clarify When a Drinking Water Protection Plan is Required and Recommendation #12: Change the Authority to Develop a Drinking Water Protection Plan and Recommendation #13: Clarify the Relationship to Other Planning Processes CUPE BC's response: CUPE BC supports the recommendations. We agree that it is of vital importance that other planning processes comply with the Drinking Water Protection Plans. Recommendation #14: Encourage Water Use Conservation CUPE BC's response: CUPE BC supports water conservation strategies. We recognize that in order to ensure sufficient water for all our needs, it is imperative that British Columbians move towards a more sustainable and strategic approach to water use. However, as we stated in our Submission to the Panel, we have concerns about the use of water meters. - 7 We are particularly concerned about recommendation 14 (b) which provides that: "For those systems that apply for financial or operational assistance in managing their water systems, make it a condition of assistance that they meet the provincial water use conservation objectives." We recognize that the Panel did not specifically recommend that water meters be a prerequisite for assistance. However, read together with recommendation 14e) which envisions water metering as a part of incentive programs for conservation, we are concerned that the outcome could be a requirement that water meters be installed as a condition of assistance. In response to this possible outcome, we remind the Panel that the GVRD studies have concluded that a metering program would, in the long run, be more expensive than any savings in growth related capital projects, upgrades or maintenance. Water meters are very expensive. Further, water metering only leads to conservation if there are significant price increases associated with higher usage. This concerns CUPE BC, as does the potential for commodification of water once meters are installed. As we pointed out in our November Submission to the Panel, CUPE BC supports a strong public education campaign in order to encourage conservation. We also support installation of water saving devices as a means to conserve water. Recommendation #15: Improve Groundwater Measures CUPE BC's response: CUPE BC strongly supports this recommendation. We particularly applaud recommendation 15 (a): "Add the ability to create standards that prohibit or limit specific activities that are known to have negative affects on surface and groundwater drinking water sources, "and recommendation 15 (d) allowing for licensing of groundwater through regulation. Recommendation #16: Streamline the Act CUPE BC'S response: The Legislation needs to be corrected to avoid confusion and duplication of provisions in the Drinking Water Protection Act and the Safe Drinking Water Regulations. However, Regulations are amended in Cabinet, and Statutes are EI amended in the Legislature. The Panel needs to be very cautious about relegating provisions to Regulation. We submit that the test should be whether a provision should be subject to debate and scrutiny. For example, Section 6(a)(b) of the Drinking Water Protection Act corresponds to Section 5(1) of the Safe Drinking Water Regulations. Both stipuiate that water supply systems must provide potable water. We submit that a provision of this importance should stay in the Act, rather than being subject to amendment by Order in Council. The division of provisions between Act and Regulation should not be based on political considerations. However, the importance of the distinction is highlighted by the present government's promise to reduce provincial regulations by a third. And Premier Gordon Campbell "has also demanded that his ministers kill two old regulations for every new one they introduce."1 Recommendation #17: Allow for Use of The Environmental Appeal Board CUPE BC's response: We support this recommendation. Recommendation #18: Ensure Drinking Water Quality Protection for First Nations CUPE BC's response: We support this recommendation. Recommendation #19: Incorporate Community Right to Know Legislation CUPE BC's response: CUPE BC supports this recommendation. 1 The Vancouver Sun, "Tread with care in deregu'ation swamp", October 18, 2001, page A 18. OTHER COMMENTS CUPE BC is very supportive of the recommendations of the Interim Report. However, we are highly disappointed that the document is silent on the issue of privatization of water infrastructure and services. It is possible that the Panel will address this issue in its final report in February, under item four of the mandate. (Item 4 - specific implementation issues identified by the Ministers of Water, Land and Air Protection and Health Services, e.g. strategic alternatives to funding infrastructure). If the Panel does address the issue of privatization of water infrastructure and services in the final report, there will be no opportunity for CUPE and others to respond to the recommendations. Again, we remind the Panel of our unequivocal position that water systems and services should be publicly owned and operated in order to best ensure safe, accessible and affordable drinking water for all British Columbians. We also remind the Panel that privatization of water services means less accountability, loss of community control, and higher costs. International trade and investments, and trade agreements that Canada has entered into, raise the stakes and expose us to further loss of control of our water. Finally, the people of British Columbia clearly do not want their water services privatized. Privatization is not in their economic best interests, and could jeopardize their health and safety. We ask the Panel to carefully review our extensive submission on this issue as contained in pages 12 to 25 of our November Submission to the Drinking Water Review Panel. We submit that the Panel's model for Drinking Water Protection can only be effectively implemented if public water remains firmly in public hands. Colleen Jordan Secretary-Treasurer Barry O'Neill President KC/LC OPEIU-1 5 F:\2002\Submissions\02-01-0g.Water response.doc 10 r it 0 9 Walet Revi& Panel,l Interim Report Submitted to: The Honourable Joyce Murray, Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection and The Honourable Cohn Hansen, Minister of Health Services December 14, 2001 DA vie'Pane1 kin Water Re do Fraser Basin Council V Floor, 470 Granville Street Vancouver, BC, Canada V6C 1V5 Tel: (Toll Free) 1-877-882-1284 Tel: (Van) 604-488-5352 Fax:604-488-5351 Email:dwrpfraserbasin.bc.ca December 14, 2001 Honourable Joyce Murray Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection Room 124, Parliament Buildings Victoria, BC V8V lX4 Honourable Cohn Hansen Ministry of Health Services Room 337, Parliament Buildings P0 Box 9050, Stn Prov Govt Victoria, BC V8W 9E2 Dear Ministers Murray and Hansen, In accordance with the Terms of Reference for the Drinking Water Review Panel, the Panel is pleased to submit its Interim Report. Consistent with the Terms of Reference, this Intenm Report provides recommendations on the completeness, effectiveness and efficiency of the Drinking Water Protection Act legislation and amendments to the Water Act passed in April 2001. The Panel benefited significantly from the many public and institutional submissions received during the course of reviewing the Act. We will now focus our efforts on developing recommendations relating to implementation of the Act including the identification of principles for developing and revising regulations. We plan to submit our Final Report to you in early February 2002. Thank you for the opportunity to carry out this task. We look forward to receiving your comments on the Interim Report. Yours Sincerely, David Marshall Chair Drinking Water Review Panel Drinking Water Review Panel Interim Report Executive Summary An independent review panel was established in September 2001 by the Ministers of Water, Land and Air Protection, and Health Services to review the Drinking Water Protection Act (DWPA), passed in April 2001. The Drinking Water Review Panel has completed the first part of its mandate, to review the new Drinking Water Protection Act and amendments to the Water Act and make recommendations on the completeness, effectiveness and efficiency of this legislation. In conducting the review, the Panel reviewed 73 written submissions and the results of 117 surveys providing opinions and advice on the legislation. This Interim Report provides findings and recommendations on the legislation. A Final Report of the Panel, expected in February 2002, will also address issues related to regulations and implementation of the Act. The Panel concludes that Bill 20, the Drinking Water Protection Act, has a number of strong elements and provides a useful framework for bringing together a range of legislative measures related to drinking water. It also gives drinking water the high level of priority and focus it deserves. The Panel is confident that with some specific amendments, identified in this report and in the Final Report to come, the legislation will prove to be an effective tool for safeguarding drinking water in British Columbia. Recommendation 1: Retain and amend the Drinking Water Protection Act Retain the DWPA as a stand-alone Act, amend the Act by incorporating the recommendations of the Drinking Water Review Panel, and introduce the amended Act in the 2002 spring session of the BC legislature. The two highest priority sets of amendments the Panel is recommending relate to authority and source protection. The Panel believes that a single lead agency is required to manage drinking water from source to tap and that stronger measures are needed to protect drinking water sources. Recommendation 2: Create a Drinking Water Protection Agency Create a single lead Drinking Water Protection Agency to integrate the skills, resources and authority of all provincial ministries with responsibility for drinking water protection. Establish the Drinking Water Protection Agency through legislation as a special operating agency led by a deputy minister level Chief Executive Officer. Appoint a Chief Executive Officer of the Drinking Water Protection Agency that reports to a Board of Directors comprising non-government Page / Drinking Water Review Panel • Interim Report independent appointments representing various drinking water interests and Deputy Ministers responsible for health protection, resource management, environmental protection, and community development. Recommendation 3: Strengthen Source Protection Measures Create a "Purposes" section in the Act and include as purposes, "to protect water from source to tap" and "to give drinking water priority over other resource uses in sensitive water supply areas". Add a clear statement that the provisions of this Act prevail over any other Acts, and that decision makers under certain specified Acts (e.g., Forest Practices Code, Range Act, Waste Management Act) must comply with the Drinking Water Protection Act when making authorizations or issuing approvals. Add the ability to create standards that prohibit or limit specific activities that are known to have negative affects on surface and groundwater drinking water sources. Improve local government's influence and authority in relation to drinking watersheds and groundwater supply areas. Give purveyors more authority and the means to reduce risks to water sources. Place the onus on resource users to prove that their activities have no significant impact on source water quality. Establish clear liability rules for diminishment of drinking water quality or quantity. In this Interim Report, the Panel makes 19 recommendations. In addition to the three referenced above, there are recommendations for amendments that will: Specify Provincial Responsibility for Assessments Strengthen the Role of the Drinking Water Officer Recognize Limitations of Small Systems Provide Support to Small Systems Enable Tap Water Standards Redefine "Potable Water" Enable Water Treatment Standards Clarify When a Drinking Water Protection Plan is Required Change the Authority to Develop a Drinking Water Protection Plan (DWPP) Clarify the Relationship of DWPPs to Other Planning Processes Encourage Water Use Conservation Improve Groundwater Measures Streamline the Act Allow for Use of The Environmental Appeal Board Ensure Drinking Water Quality Protection for First Nations Incorporate Community Right To Know Principles Page ii Drinking Water Review Panel • Interim Report Table of Contents Executive Summary Table of Contents Many Voices, One Call Mandate and Process Overall Conclusion and Recommendation 3 Interim Recommendations 3 Authority 3 Source Protection 5 Assessment Process 7 Drinking Water Officers Small Systems Tap Water Standards Water Treatment Standards Drinking Water Protection Plans Water Use Conservation and Efficiency Groundwater Scope of the Act Opportunity For Appeal Drinking Water Quality Protection for First Nations Community Right To Know List of Appendices Appendix A: Panel Terms of Reference Appendix B: Panel Members Appendix C: Letter of Invitation to Participate Appendix D: Reference Material - Comparision of Standards Page iii Drinking Water Review Panel • Interim Report Many Voices, One Call Drinking Water is on the minds of all British Columbians today, as they turn on the tap, read the morning newspaper, hear of new boil-water advisories and buy bottled water in ever-increasing numbers. This heightened awareness has come about, in part, from the tragic events in Walkerton, Ontario and North Battleford, Saskatchewan, where people died or suffered illness from their drinking water. But even before these events sprang into the national consciousness, British Columbians voiced concerns about drinking water and called for better legislation. The provincial government initiated public discussion of water policies and legislation in 1993 in a program called Stewardship of the Water. This province-wide public consultation process addressed issues of water quality, but also water pricing, allocation, licensing, conservation, export, and planning. Since that time, many non- government organizations and local governments have engaged the public in multi- stakeholder processes to identify and resolve water quality issues. At the beginning of this year, the provincial government held a series of 11 workshops and public meetings throughout the province to listen to public views on a Drinking Water Protection Plan. This Plan and the results of the corresponding consultation formed the basis of the Drinking Water Protection Act (DWPA) passed in April 2001 The Drinking Water Review Panel is part of the continuum of dialogue with British Columbians about drinking water. The Panel process was initiated following the development of the DWPA and has the benefit of knowledge gained in these earlier consultation processes. Taken together, the voices of British Columbians, channelled through various pur open houses, workshops, meetings, surveys, and letters, called for a better system legislated safeguards for drinking water. Factors such as high rates of waterborne disease, global warming, increased population, expansion of resource and commurt development into water source areas, and reduced availability of new drinking water sources have resulted in demands to take action now, before matters get worse. Mandate and Process An independent Drinking Water Review Panel was appointed September 25, 2001 by the Ministers of Water, Land and Air Protection (WLAP), and Health Services (HS). to review the Drinking Water Protection Act (DWP) and make recommendations to government on the completeness, effectiveness and efficiency of the Act, which was passed in April 2001 (see Appendix A for Panel Terms of Reference). These recommendations will be used to confirm, amend or repeal the legislation and gusde implementation. The Panel was asked to address the following four matters: Page 1 Drinking Water Review Panel Interim Report The core Drinking Water Protection Act (Sections 1-49 of Bill 20) that will be administered by Health Services. The amendments to the Water Act for groundwater protection (i.e., Section 98 of Bill 20) that will be administered by the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. The principles for developing, revising regulations (including the Safe Drinking Water Regulation - SDWR) and implementing new regulatory requirements Specific implementation issues identified by the Ministers of WLAP and HS, e.g., strategic alternatives to funding infrastructure, safeguarding small systems and the best framework to protect groundwater resources. This Interim Report fulfils the Panel's mandate to report on items 1 and 2 above, the Drinking Water Protection Act (DWPA) and groundwater legislation, including draft recommendations for the spring legislation session. A final report will be prepared by February 2002 and will include final recommendations regarding the DWPA and groundwater legislation, plus address items 3 and 4 above, a process for making changes to regulations and implementation issues. Some of the key issues to be addressed in the final report are the cost of and approach to implementing the Act, revenue generation options, funding and other support for small system purveyors, public education and involvement in managing drinking water, regulations, standards, monitoring and enforcement. David Marshall, Executive Director of the Fraser Basin Council chairs the nine-member Panel that has representation from public health, environmental, industry and local government interests (see Appendix B for information on Panel members). To assist it with the review of Bill 20, the Panel invited input by sending 1,934 letters (Appendix C) on October 5, 2001 to all those who participated in the public consultation process used to develop the DWPA in January through March, 2001. Press releases were issued on September 25 and November 6, 2001 and material was posted on the Panel web-site (htt://www.env.Qov.bc.ca/watiwp/dw/). The invitation outlined three ways to participate: • Obtain and review the legislation (made available on the web-page or by calling the Panel's toll-free number); • Complete a five-page survey on paper or on-line by November 9, 2001; and/or • Provide written submissions by November 9, 2001. The Panel received 73 written submissions and 117 completed surveys. The input from these sources will be summarized in a report appended to the Panel's final report in February 2002. All written submissions are being placed in a public file for the duration of the Panel review. The Panel will consider written submissions received up until January 15, 2002. Page 2 Drinking Water Review Panel • Interim Report Due to the time constraints on the panel review, the Panel has not been able to fully explore two matters in detail; the relationship between the DWPA and other legislation that may affect implementation of the DWPA; and cost-benefit analysis of the Act. Further analysis of these topics by experts in those fields is suggested prior to implementation. Overall Conclusion and Recommendation The Panel believes that Bill 20, the Drinking Water Protection Act, has a number of strong elements and provides a useful framework for bringing together a range of legislative measures related to drinking water. It also gives drinking water the high level of priority and focus it deserves. The Panel is confident that with some specific amendments, identified below and in the Final Report to come, the legislation will prove to be an effective tool for safeguarding drinking water in British Columbia. Recommendation 1: Retain and amend the Drinking Water Protection Act Retain the DWPA as a stand-alone Act, amend the Act by incorporating the recommendations of the Drinking Water Review Panel, and introduce the amended Act in the 2002 spring session of the BC legislature. Interim Recommendations The recommendations in this report focus on those subject areas requiring the most significant changes to the legislation. They are placed in sequence, beginning with the highest priority issues and recommendations. The Panel's final report will contain a summary of many additional detailed suggestions made by participants in the review. It is suggested that the detailed comments are also reviewed and considered by government in refining the Act. Authority Responsibility for drinking water is currently shared between ten provincial ministries, with the Ministries of Health Services; Water, Air and Land Protection; and Sustainable Resource Management having the primary roles. The Ministry of Health Services is responsible for broad health matters. Local public health officials deal with specific public health issues and report to regional health boards. The Ministry of Water, Air and Land Protection is responsible for protection of water sources and the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management is responsible for water allocation (including licences for domestic water supplies). Management of drinking water in British Columbia has been criticised for having a history of inter-ministry turf wars, confusion and conflicts. There have been calls from the Auditor General (1999), the Provincial Health Officer (2001), participants in the Drinking Water Protection Plan consultations (Jan. —Mar. 2001) and participants in this Page 3 Drinking Water Review Panel Interim Report legislative review process for better coordination amongst all players, clear responsibilities and accountability, and a single point of contact for the public. Many of these voices have suggested the creation of a single lead agency to take on this role. The current DWPA retains the split responsibilities and creates two Provincial Drinking Water Coordinators, who would report to two different ministers, one to the Minister of Health Services, and the other to the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection. The Panel believes that this framework will perpetuate the lack of coordination and confusion regarding responsibility and accountability. A single lead agency with a clear mandate and functions is required. This agency must be created at the highest level of government with the highest level of power to give safe drinking water the priority it deserves. Recommendation 2: Create a Drinking Water Protection Agency Create a single lead Drinking Water Protection Agency to integrate the skills, resources and authority of all provincial ministries with responsibility for drinking water protection. The purpose of this agency would be to administer and implement the Drinking Water Protection Act. Bringing all responsibility under one agency would result in clear authority and accountability for drinking water, from source to tap. A single agency would act as "one window" for provincial ministries and the public when they have questions or concerns regarding drinking water issues or implementation of the Drinking Water Protection Act. This agency would be multi- disciplinary, recognizing that expertise in protecting water sources and water systems are both complementary and vital to implementation of the Act. Establish the Drinking Water Protection Agency through legislation as a special operating agency led by a deputy minister level Chief Executive Officer. Appoint a Chief Executive Officer of the Drinking Water Protection Agency that reports to a Board of Directors comprising non-government independent appointments representing various drinking water interests and Deputy Ministers responsible for health protection, resource management, environmental protection, and community development. The structure and form of this agency, and choice of the Minister to whom the Agency would report, is a complex matter that deserves further thought, including consideration of models used in this and other jurisdictions. The Panel will consider the shape, size and cost of the new agency (with an aim to keeping it modest and cost-effective), approaches to balancing roles between regions and headquarters, and revenue generation options to offset costs of implementing the Page 4 Drinking Water Review Panel • Interim Report Act. The Panel will make further recommendations on these matters in the Final Report d) Include the following functions in the mandate of the Drinking Water Protection Agency: • develop and oversee an overall strategy for drinking water protection; • oversee the implementation of provincial drinking water protection legislation; • oversee the preparation of assessments and assessment response plans; • develop standards respecting surface water protection, groundwater protection and water system performance; • oversee and direct the development of drinking water-related policy guidelines, policies and directives from source to tap; • develop ar oversee a strategy for water purveyor certification, public education and outreach; • carry out coordination/communications between agencies and other provincial and intergovernmental initiatives; • monitor and report to the legislature on progress/state of drinking water protection; • design an integrated data management system, including water use, supply, public health information, source protection, standards and monitoring, and ensure ongoing maintenance; • administer conservation, financial and technical assistance programs for local governments and small water service agencies; • develop a research and development (R&D) strategy, fund and co-ordinate implementation; • coordinate the review of sub-division applications with respect to drinking water matters, including non-point-source pollution of water sources and availability of drinking water supply; • manage water allocation and licensing; • manage a provincial water conservation program; • review all the provincial laws that affect the quality and quantity of drinking water, and how those laws contribute to or detract from protection of drinking water; and • carry out a cross-Canada comparison on how each province manages and legislates for drinking water protection. Source Protection British Columbian's receive their supply of drinking water primarily from surface sources (75%), including reservoirs, lakes, rivers, streams and creeks and also from groundwater sources (25%). The safety of drinking supply watersheds and aquifers is threatened by multiple uses in the surrounding area, particularly forestry activity (including logging, road building and chemical application), agriculture (including cattle grazing and manure and chemical application), urban and subdivision development, septic systems, road transportation, recreation (including swimming and motorized Page 5 Drinking Water Review Panel • Interim Report activities), and mining. Non-point-sources, including stormwater runoff, septic system leakages, and drainage systems are increasingly recognized as important contributors to water quality degradation. In his 1999 report, the Auditor General concluded that "...the Province is not adequately protecting drinking-water sources from human-related impacts". The report goes on to suggest that it is more cost effective to protect water sources, than to treat contaminated water. The Provincial Health Officer's Report (2001) goes further to suggest that, "If companies or groups degrade the source water quality, they must bear the responsibility and cost of returning water to original state." The DWPA has introduced new measures to assist with source protection e.g., assessments, assessment response plans (Part 3), drinking water protection measures (Part 4) and drinking water protection plans (Part 5). Many of the submissions to the Panel indicated that source protection is not strong enough in the Act, particularly in relation to multiple uses. Some suggested that drinking water should have primacy over other uses, and others thought that some watersheds should be designated exclusively for drinking water use (e.g., watershed reserves). The Panel supports all four components of the multi-barrier approach advocated by the Auditor General and set out in the Drinking Water Protection Plan: • There must be management and protection of the water source through effective controls over land uses and pollution sources to prevent contamination; • There must be appropriate water treatment; • There must be sound, well-maintained and safe water distribution systems, so that water does not become contaminated in its delivery; and • There must be effective monitoring of water quality and enforcement of standards The Panel believes that drinking water must be afforded the highest priority in order to successfully protect drinking water sources from human impacts. Stronger safeguards are required to hold resource users responsible for impacts of their activities on source water quality. This includes a responsibility of the polluter to repair and mitigate damage, stop the harmful activity or pay for additional water treatment costs. Recommendation 3: Strengthen Source Protection Measures Create a "Purposes" section in the Act and include as purposes "to protect water from source to tap" and "to give drinking water priority over other resource uses in sensitive water supply areas". Add a clear statement that the provisions of this Act prevail over any other Acts, and that decision makers under certain specified Acts (e.g., Forest Practices Code, Range Act, Waste Management Act) must comply with the Drinking Water Protection Act when making authorizations or issuing approvals. Page 6 Drinking Water Review Panel • Interim Report Add the ability to create standards that prohibit or limit specific activities that are known to have negative affects on surface and groundwater drinking water sources. These standards will become useful tools in planning activities such as the assessment response plans and Drinking Water Protection Plans. Improve local government's influence and authority in relation to drinking watersheds and groundwater supply areas. This may include issues related to public access, recreational activities, and land use decisions that affect water quality in source areas. Give water purveyors more authority and the means to reduce risks to water sources. This may take the form of enforcing Drinking Water Officer Orders through delegation of authority or deputization of purveyors. For example, if the Drinking Water Officer issues an order prohibiting camping and recreation in a specified source area, the purveyor could be given authority to issue tickets to those not complying with the order. Place the onus on resource users to prove that their activities have no significant impact on source water quality. Establish clear liability rules for diminishment of drinking water quality or quantity. The rules should follow the principle that resource users are responsible for impacts of their activities on source water quality and quantity and that if diminishment occurs, the resource user must repair and mitigate the damage, stop the harmful activity and/or pay for additional water treatment costs. Assessment Process The Act includes provisions requiring purveyors to assess existing and potential problems and risks with the water source and treatment and distributions systems. These assessments would give the purveyor and the users of the system a better understanding of their level of protection and point to actions that may need to be taken to safeguard their water supply. The need for assessments was supported in many submissions to the Panel; however, there was concern by some over the requirement that the purveyor complete the assessment. The main concerns were lack of funding and capacity to conduct the assessments (particularly small systems) but also a conflict of interest. It was suggested Page 7 Drinking Water Review Panel • Interim Report that this activity could be done at the provincial or regional level to avoid duplication of effort. The Panel believes that assessments are a vital component of the Act and that placing responsibility for assessments solely on the purveyor is unreasonable because they usually lack control over land use in the watershed (this is most often controlled by the provincial government which is responsible for Crown Land, water, lakes and streams). Purveyors will have an important role in providing information for assessments, but the responsibility for coordination and completion of the assessments should be a provincial responsibility. This is similar to the approach taken by the US Environmental Protection Agency. The Panel will consider opportunities to generate revenue to offset the costs of assessments in its Final Report. Recommendation 4: Provincial Responsibility for Assessments Assign Drinking Water Officers responsibility for coordination of the assessment processes and fund the assessments through the Drinking Water Protection Agency. Direct the Drinking Water Protection Agency to look for opportunities to minimize duplication by conducting assessments at local and regional scales. Drinking Water Officers The DWPA introduces a new position of the Drinking Water Officer (DWO), giving them investigative, preventative and remedial powers in relation to drinking water. This new position was one of the key strengths identified by many of those making submissions to the Panel. The Panel believes that the introduction of Dnnking Water Officers is a positive step; however, there are concerns about the OWO's roles and qualifications, and about how they would fit into the existing organizational structure. It is recognized that there are currently Medical Health Officers and Environmental Health Officers in the health regions and that they administer the HeaItt'i Act components related to drinking water. The Panel believes it is important to avoid duplication and to ensure that the full range of skills is represented among those responsible in the field for drinking water. Recommendation 5: Strengthen Role of the Drinking Water Officer a) Ensure that the Drinking Water Officers are part of the new Drinking Water Protection Agency. The structure and form of the Drinking Water Protection Agency is a complex matter that requires further discussion. Models for this agency need to be evaluated and considered. The Panel will make further recommendations on the Page 8 Drinking Water Review Panel • Interim Report agency, and the reporting structure of the Drinking Water Officers, in the final report. Include in the role and responsibility of the Drinking Water Officer responsibility for implementation of the DWPA in their region and coordination of a multidisciplinary, integrated team to assist with drinking water matters. Clarify the specific functions of the Drinking Water Officer first and then develop appropriate job qualifications. On the health side, clarification of the Medical Health Officer and Environmental Health Officer roles and how they relate to the Drinking Water Officer will be required. Authority to issue orders must be clarified, to avoid duplication or conflict. On the environment side, clarification of those who are responsible for overseeing surface and ground water quality monitoring, source protection, land use planning, water conservation and allocation will be required. These and other related positions should be seen as an integrated team with complementary expertise to manage all aspects of drinking water protection, from source to tap. Small Systems It is estimated that half a million people in British Columbia get their drinking water from small systems; these include systems that supply a single household and small community systems that supply two or more connections (e.g., camp grounds, trailer parks, motels and resorts, small communities). Approximately 60 per cent of small systems have surface sources and the remainder use groundwater. Some of the problems with small systems are lack of awareness and training about proper operation and monitoring and lack of financial resources to safeguard drinking water. In some cases, systems are abandoned or there is no designated purveyor. The DWPA does not apply to single-family systems but does apply to small systems with two or more connections. The Panel heard from some single-family operators that there is nothing in the Act to help them, particularly when their drinking water quality is affected by surrounding land uses. The Panel also heard from some small system operators with two or more connections that the Act is not feasible or affordable for them, especially the requirements for assessment, monitoring and reporting. Some suggested that the definition of a water supply system should be changed to include only those with more connections (e.g., 15 or more). The Panel recognizes that the Act will be difficult for small system operators and at the same time wants to ensure that there are adequate safeguards in place for British Columbians, whether they are served by a large municipal system or a small neighbourhood system. Page 9 Drinking Water Review Panel Interim Report Recommendation 6: Recognize Limitations of Small Systems a) Retain the current definition of a water supply system (i.e., two or more connections) in the Act. b) Allow Drinking Water Officers to exempt small systems from certain parts of this Act through their operating permits. c) Establish a technical advisory committee of drinking water experts to determine the process for issuing exemptions (e.g., timeframe of exemptions, what sections of the Act can be exempt and under what conditions) and define the upper limit to the size of small systems that can apply for exemptions. Recommendation 7: Provide Support to Small Systems The Panel recommends a number of non-legislative (policy) approaches to providing support for small systems. Develop an education and training program for single-family water system operators. Include information about how to protect the source and how to access a Drinking Water Officer regarding source protection concerns. Create and maintain a database of small systems, including unlicensed systems. This would include the identification of the responsible purveyor. C) Develop a program to support small systems with two or more connections. This would include support for the administrative, financial and operational aspects of managing water supply systems. d) Give priority to drinking water treatment proposals over other proposals when granting funds under federal-provincial infrastructure programs. Tap Water Standards The DWPA, as passed in April 2001, included amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Regulations (SDWR), which are pursuant to the Health Act. The SDWR included three schedules (A, B and C) that set the Guidelines For Canadian Drinking Water as standards for drinking water in BC. On Sept.5, 2001, the provincial government rescinded Schedules B and C, which contain health-related chemical standards and additional chemical and physical standards (respectively), leaving in place Schedule A. which contains microbiological standards (fecal coliform, E. coli, and total coliforrn) The DWPA contemplates the creation of tap water standards for water supply systems through an operating permit; it does not enable province-wide tap water standards The Page 10 Drinking Water Review Panel • Interim Report Safe Drinking Water Regulation already allows the Ministry of Health Services to set site-specific standards but this power is rarely used. Province-wide tap water standards are used in other provinces in Canada (i.e., Alberta, Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia) and internationally (e.g., USA, UK, European Union and the World Health Organization). In comparison to these other jurisdictions, the standards included in Schedules A, B and C of the April 2001 version of the SDWR are generally less stringent (see Appendix D). The Panel believes that a set of minimum province-wide standards is required to give British Columbians confidence that drinking water has the same safeguards throughout the province. The definition of potable water must also be changed to provide a clearer objective for drinking water in the province. Recommendation 8: Enable Tap Water Standards Allow the legislation to enable creation of province-wide tap-water standards and that these include physical, chemical and biological parameters. The Act should be amended to allow for the establishment of provincially applicable tap water standards. Appoint a technical advisory committee of experts to consider the Canadian guidelines and standards used in other jurisdictions, and develop an appropriate set of science-based minimum standards for British Columbia. This committee should decide which of the Canadian Drinking Water Quality Guidelines should be mandated as legally binding standards in BC. Allow for a transition period for implementation of the standards to give purveyors time to change any operations or equipment that may be needed to meet the new standards. Allow for local standards to supplement or add to province wide standards. Recommendation 9: Redefine "Potable Water" Define potable water in the Act as, "water that is free from micro-organisms and parasites and any other substances at a concentration sufficient to present a potential danger to human health" (definition from the Research Advisory Panel, The Walkerton Inquiry, Issue Paper No. 8 - Production and Distribution of Drinking Water.). Standards set through regulation must be consistent with this definition. Page 11 Drinking Water Review Panel Interim Report Water Treatment Standards Some of the biggest risks to safe drinking water in British Columbia come from microbiological organisms such as bacteria, viruses, and protozoa (particularly Giardia and Ciyptosporidium). Protozoa, which pose the greatest risk to human health from waterborne contamination in BC, are very difficult to measure or monitor in water, making tap-water standards ineffective as a shield against these parasites. The Provincial Health Officer (2001) concluded ".. setting and implementing treatment standards would minimize the health risks that British Columbians face from waterborne contaminants." Treatment standards set a minimum level of treatment by specifying required reductions (i.e., number of logarithmic reductions) in the concentration of pathogens found in BC. The Drinking Water Protection Act provides an option for water treatment standards through the use of terms and conditions on operating permits, but not province-wide standards. Some submissions to the Panel stressed that source protection alone is not enough and that more attention to treatment options and the need for minimum, province-wide treatment standards is required in the Act. The Panel believes that province-wide treatment standards are a vital component of the multi-barrier approach to safequarding drinking water. Treatment standards are particularly essential given the risk of illness due to the presence of Giardia and Ciyptosporidium in BC drinking water sources. Recommendation 10: Enable Water Treatment Standards Enable the creation of drinking water treatment standards to protect the public from health hazards associated with drinking water. Appoint a technical advisory commiftee of experts to develop appropriate treatment standards for microbiological, chemical and physical characteristics. Drinking Water Protection Plans Part 5 of the Act allows for development of Drinking Water Protection P!ans and the ability to restrict land uses that may compromise water quality. While the ability to create a Plan was generally supported in submissions to the Panel, there was much confusion and also concerns regarding the circumstances under which a Plan would be developed, and why the Minister and Cabinet must be involved. Some assumed that this provision would be used rarely and under specific conditions and others were concerned that the number of requests to develop plans would be overwhelming. Page 12 Drinking Water Review Panel Interim Report The Panel believes that the link between Drinking Water Protection Plans and the assessment process and the assessment response plans is not clear in the Act, nor is the relationship to other ongoing planning processes. Recommendation 11: Clarify When a Drinking Water Protection Plan is Required Demonstrate in the Act, the relationship between the assessment process, the assessment response plans and the Drinking Water Protection Plans. Allow for a phased approach that begins with an assessment (or an equivalent understanding of the threats to drinking water) and an assessment response plan. Then, only if there are outstanding threats to drinking water and specific criteria are met, should a Drinking Water Protection Plan process be carried out. Develop a clear set of triggers or criteria to clarify the conditions under which a Drinking Water Protection Plan is to be considered. Recommendation 12: Change the Authority to Develop a Drinking Water Protection Plan Give the Drinking Water Officer the authority to coordinate and develop the plan and then report to the Chief Executive Officer of the Drinking Water Protection Agency. Refer issues related to province-wide policy to Cabinet or a Provincial Advisory Committee, not matters related to the management of individual systems. Recommendation 13: Clarify Relationship to Other Planning Processes Clarify in the Act that other planning processes (e.g., Land and Resource Management Plans, Water Use Plans, Five-Year Forest Plans, Official Community Plans) must comply with the Drinking Water Protection Plans. Water Use Conservation and Efficiency The protection of drinking water quality is closely tied to the issue of water use, or water quantity. Per capita water consumption rates in BC are among the highest in the world (e.g., in the GVRD per capita rates for domestic use are 323 litres/day, whereas 81 countries in the world have per capita rates of less than 100 litres/day. Only the US has a higher rate of water consumption than Canada). Many submissions to the Pane' pointed out the need to encourage water use conservation and efficiency. In particular. it was suggested that by reducing water use, the costs of water treatment could be reduced, perhaps enough to offset new costs to upgrade systems. Some suggested water rate increases and water metering to reduce demand for water. Page 13 Drinking Water Review Panel • Interim Report The Panel believes that new measures to encourage water use conservation should be incorporated into the Act. Recommendation 14: Encourage Water Use Conservation Develop a "Water-Smart" conservation program that sets provincial water conservation objectives and specific targets to encourage more efficient use of water and lower water treatment costs. This objective should be added to the Purposes section of the Act. For those systems that apply for financial or operational assistance in managing their water systems, make it a condition of assistance that they meet the provincial water use conservation objectives. Include drinking water conservation and achievement of the provincial water conservation objective in the Drinking Water Protection Officer's responsibilities. Develop additional demand management tools and policies similar to the requirement to review water use as a condition of granting a water licence Develop public education and incentive programs for conservation efforts such as water metering, leak detection, line pressure reduction, and xeroscape (drought-resistant) landscaping. Conduct a full inventory of water licences, including those that are not presently used. Introduce requirements that new developments use water efficient materials and technology (e.g., low flow toilets, shower heads and appliances). Groundwater It is estimated that 750,000 people in British Columbia rely on groundwater as their drinking water source. Protection of this drinking water source has become a major issue in areas such as the Fraser Valley and Osoyoos where the aquifers (underground reservoirs) have elevated levels of nitrate from agricultural activities and septic systems. Salt-water intrusion is also an issue in the Gulf Islands and bacteriological contamination of private domestic wells is an issue across the province. The Auditor General's 1999 report said, "we found disturbing signs that groundwater in British Columbia is at risk and believe there is a need to protect it. If not addressed now, groundwater degradation could necessitate costly treatment and heavy investment in Page 14 Drinking Water Review Panel. Interim Report alternative drinking water sources". The report highlights the vulnerability of unconfined aquifers, where water levels are close to ground surface. The DWPA introduces new groundwater protection requirements such as well-head protection, construction, testing and reporting standards, in addition to certification for well drillers and well technicians (i.e., pump installers). There was a great deal of support in the submissions to the Panel for the introduction of new groundwater measures and recognition that this is a step in the right direction. There were also many suggestions for improvements and additional measures. The Panel recognizes the need for licensing of large capacity wells that serve users of water systems other than those wells that supply the domestic requirements of single- family dwellings. Regulating groundwater withdrawals from large capacity wells is necessary to ensure that other nearby groundwater users whose wells are constructed in the same aquifer are not significantly affected by the demand of the new groundwater user. The Panel also recognizes the significant per household costs associated with constructing a residential well and supplying drinking water to an individual single-family dwelling. Therefore, any licensing requirements for wells that supply single-family dwellings should take these costs into account in the determination of any licensing fees applied. The Panel believes that the amendments to the Water Act aimed at protecting groundwater will be beneficial and that additional new measures are also required. Recommendation 15: Improve Groundwater Measures Add the ability to create standards that prohibit or limit specific activities that are known to have negative affects on surface and groundwater drinking water sources (repeated from 3c). Specific land uses that may need regulation include septic system density, fertilizer and nutrient applications, stormwater detention ponds, use of chemicals (pesticides, caustic industrial chemicals, petroleum products) and use of stormwater to recharge aquifers. Amend the current DWPA to require proper abandonment and sealing for all geotechnical boreholes that penetrate the water table, other than those used for monitoring/observation purposes. Remove the DWPA clause that excludes groundwater wells less than 15 metres in depth from being subject to construction standards. Allow for licensing of groundwater through regulation. Page 15 Drinking Water Review Panel Interim Report Modify the requirements for minimum distances of septic systems from groundwater wells by considering an outcome-based approach (a fixed distance is inappropriate because it is highly dependent on the geology and soil formation) Include regulations regarding the use of groundwater for bottling water. (Bottled water is under the Food Regulation, but the source is not). A better definition is needed to address withdrawals of large quantities and their effect on the regional groundwater table, including how to measure and regulate this activity. Scope of the Act The Act contains a number of provisions that duplicate or correspond to similar sections in the Safe Drinking Water Regulations. This generates confusion and questions about whether or not the Safe Drinking Water Regulations would be eliminated. As well, many submissions to the Panel expressed the view that the Act was overly complex and needed streamlining. Recommendation 16: Streamline the Act Streamline the Drinking Water Protection Act, moving some specific sections into regulation. The wording of the DWPA should be retained, as in some cases the language is stronger. The sections to be included as regulations to the Drinking Water Protection Act are shown in the following table. Page 16 Drinking Water Review Panel • Interim Report Section of Contents Corresponding Section DWPA of SDWR 6 (a)(b) iVater supply systems must provide potable 5(1) water 7 (1) —(6) Construction permits and requirements for 2 (1)— (5) water supply systems 8 (1)— (6) Operating permits and requirements for (1) —(6) water supply systems 9 Qualification standards for persons No corresponding section )perating water supply systems 10 (1)(2) Emergency response and contingency 7 (1)— (3) plans 11 (1) - (3) Nater monitoring requirements 5 (3) 12 (1)— (3) Notice if immediate reporting standard not 5 (4) met 13 and 14 Nater supplier must report threats to 3 (1)(2) Irinking water and public notice of threats to drinking water 15 Public notification of other information No corresponding section 23 and 24 Prohibition against contaminating drinking No corresponding section vater or tampering with system and requirement to report threats to drinking vater 25 and 26 Hazard abatement and prevention orders 3(3) and 5(1) —(3) and orders respecting contraventions 27, 28 and 29 \ction in default, direct action by drinking No corresponding section vater officer and request for investigations Note: Section 45 of the DWPA (prohibition against providing false information or obstructing officials) corresponds to Section 8 of the SDWR and should remain in the DWPA because the fines are higher in the latter. Opportunity For Appeal The legislation introduces a number of new powers and gives the Drinking Water Officer a great deal of authority to issue orders. Several submissions to the Panel pointed out the lack of an appeal process to the provisions in the Act. The appeal would benefit water suppliers, water users, and members of the general public concerned with drinking water quality protection. Appeals to specialized administrative tribunals are commonly provided with health and environmental protection laws. Page 17 Drinking Water Review Panel • Interim Report An existing appeal process in BC is the Environmental Appeal Board, established in 1981 under the Environment Management Act. It is an independent agency that hears appeals from administrative decisions related to environmental issues. The Environmental Appeal Board plays a role in ensuring the protection of the environment by providing a final quasi-judicial access point for public and industry to appeal environmental administrative decisions. The Board ensures that administrative decisions relating to the environment are fair and objective. The EAB hears appeals from administrative decisions made under the Pesticide Control Act, the Waste Management Act, the Water Act, the Wildlife Act, the Commercial River Rafting Safety Act and the Health Act. The Panel believes that an appeal process is essential and that the existing Environmental Appeal Board is an effective tool for this purpose. Recommendation 17: Allow for Use of The Environmental Appeal Board Allow for use of the Environmental Appeal Board by an individual affected by a decision of the Drinking Water Officer or the Drinking Water Protection Agency to appeal that decision. Drinking Water Quality Protection for First Nations Constitutional responsibility for First Nations land rests with the federal government. The question of which provincial laws apply to First Nations is a complicated legal question. The Panel believes that drinking water should be safe to drink for all British Columbians, whether it is consumed on or off First Nations lands. Recommendation 18: Ensure Drinking Water Quality Protection for First Nations Work with First Nations and the federal government to ensure that the protections of the DWPA are enacted on First Nations land, through whichever legal and fiscal mechanisms are most appropriate. Community Right To Know Many submissions to the Panel spoke about the publics' basic right to information about the quality of drinking water. Some spoke of frustrating experiences trying to get information, particularly from small system purveyors. The Annual Report of the Provincial Health Officer (2001) concluded that "the public has a right to know the results of monitoring their water supply" and goes on to say that this is required for public accountability and that it is common in other jurisdictions (e.g., the Page 18 Drinking Water Review Panel • Interim Report US Safe Drinking Water Act requires mandatory annual reports by water suppliers to the consumers about the water they provide.) Large water purveyors and health regions (e.g., in Greater Vancouver, Greater Victoria, and the Fraser Valley) are now making information available on the internet, but this is not done consistently around the province and by smaller purveyors. The Panel believes the public has the right to know about the state of their water, and the ability to compel authorities to act to protect water quality. The Panel believes that water purveyors should provide local authorities and the public with free access to information about water quality. Recommendation 19: Incorporate Community Right To Know Principles Include community right to know provisions in the Drinking Water Protection ActS Information to be made accessible to the public should include: • the results of chemical, physical, and microbiological monitoring of their drinking water supply • an interpretation of the health significance of the results • an explanation of the cause and efforts to rectify the situation if the results demonstrate problems, • source and system assessments, • protection plans, • orders issued by the Drinking Water Officers • information on water sources and water flows • regional information on water quality and water information on what to do during boil-water advisories Ensure that information about the quality of drinking water is freely accessible from each water system purveyor and also from a central database with province-wide data. Page 19 Appendix A: Panel Terms of Reference TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE DRINKING WA TER REVIEW PANEL PURPOSE The Panel will undertake a focussed review of the Drinking Water Protection Act (DWPA) and provide recommendations on its completeness, effectiveness and efficiency to the Ministers of Water, Land and Air Protection (WLAP) and Health Services (HS). These recommendations will be used to confirm, amend or repeal the legislation and guide implementation. The Ministers want to: • Verify if the DWPA provides an effective risk management framework for the provision of safe drinking water in a cost effective manner; • Make sure the Act is streamlined and results-based; and • Make certain that there are measurable goals, defined responsibilities and clear accountability for implementation SCOPE • The core Drinking Water Protection Act (Sections 1-49 of Bill 20) which will be administered by Health Services. • The amendments to the Water Act for groundwater protection i e Section 98 of Bill 20) which will be administered by WLAP • The principles for developing, revising regulations (including be Safe Drinking Water Regulation) and implementing new regulatory requirements • Specific implementation issues identified by the Ministers of LAP and HS, e.g., strategic alternatives to funding infrastructure safeguarding small system and the best framework to protect groundwater resources. PROCESS The review process will include: • Review of submissions, background material and previous public/stakeholder input; and • Involvement of interested parties through a survey seeking comments on the legislation. MEMBERSHIP • An independent chair will be appointed by the Ministers of Water. Land and Air Protection and Health Services; • The following organizations representing a wide range of interests will be invited to designate a panel member: - Medical Health Officers Council - Chief Environmental Health Officers/Public Health Engineers Council Appendix A: Panel Terms of Reference - Union of BC Municipalities - BC Water Supply Association - BC Environmental Network - BC Ground Water Association - BC Medical Association • The Ministers will appoint one watershed management expert to provide panel expertise on source water protection and community involvement in land use choices. DELIVERABLES The following two reports will be submitted to the Ministers and made available to the public. By November 30, 2001 - A review the Drinking Water Protection Act (DWPA) and groundwater legislation including draft recommendations for the spring legislation session. By January 15, 2002 - Recommendations regarding the DWPA and groundwater legislation including a process for making changes to regulations and specific implementation issues identified by the Ministers. The Panel will cease to exist at the conclusion of these tasks. ROLES AND Chair RESPONSIBILITIES • reports to the Ministers of Water, Land and Air Protection and Health Services; • acts as the spokesperson for the Panel; • convenes the Panel meetings and sets the meeting agendas; • ensures balanced input from all interested parties; • ensures reports reflect consensus where possible and the full range of views on issues where there is not consensus; and • ensures reports are delivered on time. Panel Members • communicates with Panel members and represents the interests of their respective organizations and sectors; and • reviews background material, participates in meetings and conveys written input for Panel deliberations. Appendix B: Panel Members Jim Fyfe, President of the B.C. Groundwater Association and part owner and manager of a well drilling and water services company near Qualicum Beach on Vancouver Island. Robert Hobson, Chair of the Okanagan Basin Water Board and director at large of the Union of B.C. Municipalities. He is a professional planner and public administrator. Dr. Andrew Larder, Medical Health Officer and manager of the health protection program for the Fraser Valley region. Also trained and worked as a family doctor in Alberta. David Marshall, Chair, Executive Dir-'tor of the Fraser Basin Council and a professional engineer. In 1998, he reccved the National River Conservation Award of Merit from the Canadian Heritage Rivers System for his outstanding contribution to river conservation in Canada. Dr. William Meekison, Study Investigator and Medical Consultant for Westcoast Clinical Research in Port Coquitlam, clinical professor in the faculty of medicine at the University of British Columbia and a member of the environmental health committee of the B.C. Medical Association. Linda Nowlan, Executive Director of West Coast Environmental Law. She has practised environmental law since 1984; interests include legal protection of biodiversity, water and ocean law, public participation and international environmental law. Dr. Hans Schreier, Professor at West Water Research, Institute for Resources and Environment at the University of British Columbia. Specializations include watershed analysis, land-water interactions, water and soil pollution, and geographic information systems. Bruce Wilson, Chair of the Water Supply Association of BC since 1998 and was Vice- Chair from 1995 to 1998. He is the General Manager of Rutland Waterworks District and an instructor for the water operations certification program run by the BC Water and Waste AssociationS. Serge Zibin, Chief Environmental Health Officer for the Kootenay Boundary Health Region. He chairs the Chief Environmental Health Officers Council and is a member of its Water Issues Committee and Environmental Advisory Committee. Appendix C: Letter of Invitation to Participate gWate Revi& Panel do Fraser Basin Council V floor, 470 Granville Street Vancouver, BC V6C I V5 Tel. (toll free) 1-877-882-1284 Tel. (Van.) 604-488-5352 Fax 604-488-5351 E-mail: dwrpfraserbasin be ca October 5, 2001 Dear Sir or Madam; On September 25, 2001, Joyce Murray, Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection and Cohn Hansen, Minister of Health Services, appointed an independent review panel to provide recommendations on the completeness, effectiveness and efficiency of the Drinking Water Protection Act (DWPA). These recommendations will be used to confirm, amend or repeal the legislation and guide implementation. David Marshall, Executive Director of the Fraser Basin Council, will chair the Panel Other panel members represent public health, environmental, industry and local govern ment interests. The Panel will report to the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection and the Minister of Health Services. The Ministers want to: • Verify if the DWPA provides an effective risk management frame work for safe drinking water in a cost-effective manner; • Make sure the Act is streamlined and results-based; and • Make certain that there are measurable goals, defined responsibilities and clear accountability for implementation. The Drinking Water Protection Act and amendments to the Water Act and Health Act were passed as part of Bill 20 in April 2001. Many British Columbians participated in the consultation process that preceded the passing of this legislation. This process is a continuation of that dialogue and seeks to involve interested citizens in a review of the new and amended legislation. The Panel will: • Review the Drinking water Protection Act (Sections 1 - 49 of Bill 20), • Review amendments to the Water Act for groundwater protection (Section 98 of Bill 20), • Recommend principles for developing and revising regulations (including the Safe Drinking Water Regulation) and implementing new regulatory requirements, and Appendix C: Letter of Invitation to Participate Page 2 • Provide advice on specific implementation issues (e.g. infrastructure funding, small system regulation, groundwater protection) In the Panel's first meeting, September 28, 2001, all members agreed on the importance of reaching out to a wide range of British Columbians who are interested in drinking water protection. If you would like to participate, please follow these steps: Immediately - obtain and review the legislation currently available at httrx//www.env.ciov.bc.ca/wat'wci/dw/ - or call 604-488-5352 to receive a copy by mail. After October 19, 2001 - provide your comments on the legislation directly at http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/wa/dw (where an interactive survey will invite your views on the Panel's priority issues) - or call 604-488-5352 to receive the survey by mail or fax. The deadline for receiDt of comments is November 9, 2001. If you also wish to provide a written submission, please e-mail an electronic version (as pdf or MS Word attachments) to dwrDäfraserbasin.bc.ca by November 9, 2001. Panel members will consider your comments as they prepare an interim report on findings and recommendations related to the Drinking Water Protection Act and groundwater legislation (Interim Report due November 30, 2001). This will allow for Panel recommendations to be considered in preparing materials for the spring legislative session. A final Panel report will be submitted by January 15, 2002 with additional material on regulations and implementation issues. Both reports will be made public. On behalf of the Panel, I encourage you to review the legislation and let us know whether you believe it provides British Columbians with safe drinking water in an effective and affordable way. We look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, [or inaI letter signed] David Marshall, Chair Drinking Water Review Panel Appendix D: Reference Material - Comparison of Standards This comparative analysis was prepared on behalf of West Coast Environmental Law by researcher Gemma Dunn, a water quality expert from the UK and was submitted to the Drinking Water Review Panel as reference material. The Panel has not verified the accuracy or completeness of this reference material, and is concerned that some of the international standards are politically derived rather than science-based. However, the Panel found it to be an interesting and useful comparison. Comparative Approach The table compares the drinking water quality standards set out in: • British Columbia's Health Act Safe Drinking Water Regulation - October 1992 • Ontario' Water Resources Act Drinking Water Protection - Aug 2000 • United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Drinking Water • Standards and Health Advisories - Summer 2000 • European Union (EU) Council Directive on the Quality of Water Intended for • Human Consumption (98/83/EC) - 1998 • World Health Organization (WHO) Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality • United Kingdom (UK) Drinking Water Quality Standards Using the parameters listed in the BC Health Act, plus some additional parameters listed in the WHO guidelines, these parameters were divided into three basic categories; bacteria, chemical and pesticides. Where applicable the relative standard from each region was then listed in the table. All figures used are in mg/I. Interpretation BC and Ontario's standards virtually mirror one other throughout each of the three categories. Likewise, there are many similarities between the standards set by the US and those used in BC and Ontario. When comparing BC's standards with those recommended by the WHO, it is evident that on the whole BC's standards are less stringent. Generally speaking, these softer standards occur across the board in each of the three categories listed in the table. Furthermore, WHO lists standards for significantly more parameters than are included in the BC Health Act. Since European (including the UK) standards for drinking water quality closely follow those set by the World Health Organization, the findings were similar, in that European drinking water quality standards are more stringent than those used in British Columbia. With the exception of British Columbia and the WHO guidelines, the standards listed from all the jurisdictions (i.e. Europe, UK, United States and Ontario) are enforced. Aside from total coliforms and E.coli standards, all the BC standards listed in the Health Act, are guideline values only and not enforceable. ALthough Ontario's standards virtually mirror those of British Columbia, Ontario's standards are enforced. Appendix D: Reference Material - Comparison of Standards 1 Appendix D: Reference Material - Comparison of Standards Notes: IMAC: Interim Maximum Allowable Concentration IT = Treatment Technique (a required process intended to reduce the level of a contaminant in drinking water) mg/I = milligrams per litre NAD = No adequate data (see comment) NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Unit TCU = True Color Unit U = Unecessary (see comment) WESTERN CANADA WILDERNESS COMMITTEE (WCWC) 227 Abbott Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6B 2K7 Tel: 604-683-8220 Fax: 604-683-8229 E-Mail: info@wildernesscommittee.org Home Page: www.wildernesscommitteeorg Toll Free: 1 -800-661 -9453 February 6, 2002 Mayor and Councilors of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6G2 Dear Mayor and Councilors: RECEW" _fiBJ 1 2002 :. Fro Agonda U Staff to Proparo Pa-onrt 0 Staff toRrr:7T- with ac.c. to M & C Western Canada Wilderness Committee is Canada's largest membership-based citizen-funded wilderness conservation organization. We have about 40,000 members and supporters across Canada, with about 6,000 right here on BC's southwestern mainland. From time to time we produce educational reports about western Canada's top conservation issues. I've enclosed several copies of our Winter 200 1-2002 Education Report entitled Saving the Stoltmann Wilderness - Valley by Valley. As you may know, the Stoitmarm Wilderness is southwestern BC's largest remaining wild area and is also largely unprotected. We've sent copies of this educational report to every mayor and council on the southwestern BC mainland, as well as to our many supporters and members of the general public. I'd like to draw your attention to the section in the enclosed report about the Squarnish Nation's proposed Wild Spirit Places. The Nation's conservation proposals for their traditional territory is truly innovative and - we believe - worthy of consideration by all levels of government, as well as by conservation groups and private enterprise. Western Canada Wilderness Committee fully supports the Squamish Nation's conservation proposal and we hope that after considering it, you will too. You can read full details of the Nation's proposed landuse plan on their web site at www.sguarnish.net . 703 The community governments of the southwestern BC mainland now have a tremendous opportunity to work with First Nations' governments to help resolve the long-standing environmental conflict over the forests west of Whistler that has festered into a "war in the woods" between conservationists and timber companies for well over six years. Successfully resolving this issue would help to protect our local environment for all to enjoy as well as safeguard local First Nations' cultural resources. The proposed Squamish Nation Wild Spirit Places are a unique form of protected area that could be a shining example of our region's outstanding natural environment and First Nation cultures to the many thousands of visitors expected to come here from around the World for the 2010 Winter Olympics. I look forward to hearing from you regarding what your council is able to do to help see that the valleys of the Stoltmann Wilderness are given the protection they deserve. lee SENT BY:DISTRICT OF SQUAMISH 2-14- 2 ; 12:33 ;DISTRICT OF SQIJAM1SH - oJY6 4aP 374.2Nfl £VFNUE P.O. bOc aio SQUAAI5H. D.C. CANADA TELr'IION: COO 9?-C7 vosi 300 rA* ogq O92-1Oa February 12, 2002 File: 301025 Union of British Columbia Municipalitis Members Dear Members; Re; Proposed Squamish Nation Wild Spirit Places " This letter is written in reference to correspondence dated February 6. 7002 which you have received or will shorty receive from Joe Foy. Director. Western Canada Wilderness Committee regrding Squamish Nation's proposed Wild Spirit Places. The Lower Mainland Protected A9ea stratcgy has been determined and established by the previous Provincisl Government. Additionally, tho See to Sky Land and Resource Management Plaii is in progress and the SquamIsh Nation is vetting its' Land Use Plan. I he area i4'1 question 1 afthough geographically west of Whistler. Is not accessible from Wlistler. In tact, the only road in is from Squarnish. It is a Forest Service Rod and the entire "Wild Spirit Places falls within Tree Farm Licence No. 38, oprated by Interfor who directly employ more than 250 people in Squamish. The Western Canada Wilderness Committee and Mr. Foy have long been trying to have the area set aside. it appears they will now uapitalize on the Squamish Nations Land Use Plan. We request that you do not support M. Foy's request. Thank you for consithrirug our position on this issue, and if you have any questions please contact me at (604) 815-5005. Yours truly, FaX 0 Miii D Email Corinne Lonadale, Mayor 'I it D Futur3 Agondo torn Stoti torn:1J Roport LI Stof Jirootly wttnac.cto&C - 071 /O-,D -c1/e)e/v:;- Ridge Meadows Bingo Operators Society 11887 - 224th Street, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6131 Phone (64) 467-1723 • Fax (604) 467-0417 IN FEB2 02002 February 18, 2001 Mayor Hogarth and Council : Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place Maple Ridge, B.C. V2X 6A9 Dear Mayor Hogarth and Council: In March of 2000 with the assistance of Maple Ridge Council, the charities conducting bingo at the Haney Bingo Plex were able to successfully take the first step into the new century with the addition of hand held cardminders into our facility. Our charities are now in the position to take the second step in our endeavour to remain competitive in the bingo and casino marketplace, give our players choice of play and have the entertainment monies remain in our own community. We can accomplish this with the addition of fixed based bingo units into the hall. Fixed base or electronic units are stationary touch screen monitors displaying bingo cards. This is not a 'new' game but rather an improvement to traditional play. Its fun, exciting, makes the game easier to play, creates interest and is attracting younger players, male and female from all walks of life. This is the new wave. With the hand held cardminders, players push the buttons to enter numbers called, with fixed base they touch the screen, on paper they use a dabber. All three versions of bingo, (hand held, fixed base and paper) require player participation, play the same games, are the same purchase price and pay the same dollar value for a win. Fixed base units are currently in thirteen halls in the lower mainland and interior with a fourteenth scheduled for March installation. On the south side of the river, there are fixed base units in Newton, Abbotsford, and Langley with Chilliwack currently under install. Our players are travelling to these other communities to play these units. We need to keep our players in our own community. We currently have the opportunity to be the only hail on the north side of the river 7 1, f 0 T prepared to make Maple Ridge the fifteenth 'Starship' location and would like to proceed approximately March 20th The introduction of fixed base units will make our hall more exciting for the players and more profitable for the charities that bingo supports. In order to qualify for fixed base units, we require a letter of endorsement from Maple Ridge Council that we can submit to the B.C. Lottery Corporation. Our charities greatly appreciate the support and assistance given to us by Maple Ridge Council in the past and look forward to your continued support in this endorsement. If any additional information is required, please call me at the above number. Sincerely, Lynda Bernstein Executive Director Attachments: picture of fixed base units letter of approval for hand helds date March 15, 2000 Ak I ABBOTSFORD BI.A.GO * ;5&~ ifip 0--palla The 21st Century Way to Play Hurtest Spot! In Partnership with •00 4 .1 PLAY TENEfS1A6IT. AND WELL GflIE YOU $25 WOPTH OF SLOT TKKETS FOP JUST $20USD We think that once you visit The Skagit youlI be back again. After all, IS we offer the greatest variety of slots and table games in the region ... a p GET $ beautiful hotel ... and three restaurants. Plus as a special incentive to try The Skagit, we're offering $25 worth of slot machine tickets when FOR $ you buy in for $20*. Just bring this ad to our Club Card desk to sY redeem. Offer good until 02/28/02. The Skagit is just 25 minutes • - Wfli-tREDENIPTIONOF T1BSAD. south of the Blaine border crossing, of f Interstate 5 at exit 236. THE • SKAC, IT. SKAGIT VALLEY GAS INO RESORT _I Gq t 0 IN D IR fEx ftxfi©cjij --- Nanaimo, BC Abbotsford, BC '250) 754-30V7 (604) 854-652'2 * * * d1sa snuthe Gverg Surrey, BC (604) 590-3•280 • Langley, BC . (604) 53'3-4'2.24 * I enterprise tita Kamloops, BC Q.50) 554-1 030 Kelowna, BC (2:5W 860-95q7 * I neptune C.ampbell River, BC, 250) 2861 442 • PLANET BlNC® Van€ouver, BC * pianeer (604) 8'79-8930 Williams Lake, BC (2.50) 398-5885 0 0 -r 0 (. • • Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, B.C. V2X 6A9 Telephone: (604) 463-5221 Fax: (604) 467-7331 IN'IA.PLE IRIIJCE e-mail: enquiries@district.maple-ridge.bc.ca Jncoiporated 12 September, 1874 March 15, 2000 File No.: 0410-20-I0IBCAG Sent Via Fax: 467-0417 Ms. Lynda Bernstein, Executive Director Ridge Meadows Bingo Operators Society 11887— 224 Street Maple Ridge, B.C. V2X 6B1 Dear Ms. Bernstein: Re: Approval of Hand-held Cardminders Thank you for your correspondence dated 2000 March 10 and the information provided in our subsequent discussion on that date. Please be advised that the following resolution was adopted by Municipal Council at the meeting held 2000 March 14: "That Municipal Council approve the use of hand-held cardminders at the Haney Bingo-Flex." Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Please contact the writer at 467-7351 should you have any further questions or comments and best of luck with the future endeavours of your Society. Yours truly, 1revor WingrovL) Municipal Clerk TW/jh "Promoting a Safe and Livable Community for our Present and Future Citizens" 4' 100% Recycled Paper Not Secondartly Bleached or De-Inked CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor Al Hogarth DATE: January 9, 2002 and Members of Council FILE NO: RZI01/02 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer AflN: C of W - PW & Dev SUBJECT: 22188 Lougheed Highway - Amendment to Restrictive Covenant PURPOSE: The Salvation Army have purchased the above noted property and acquired federal funding to relocate their existing church facility. A part of the proposed facility will be accessory temporary shelter for the homeless with counseling services and kitchen facilities. The property is currently zoned C-3 Town Centre Commercial but the regulations are constrained by a restrictive covenant that defines permitted and prohibited land uses. In order to permit the proposed facility, the land use covenant must be either amended or discharged and, as the covenant originated from a public hearing held in 1984, a public hearing process is required to facilitate either option. RECOMMENDATION: That Restrictive Covenant X133412 be forwarded to Public Hearing with "Church institutional including accessory temporary accommodation and kitchen facility" added to Section 1(a) of that covenant. BACKGROUND: The Salvation Army has recently acquired significant funding through a federal program to purchase the property located at 22188 Lougheed Highway (on the southwest corner of the Lougheed Highway and the Haney Bypass). The building has an area of approximately 14,000 ft 2 on two floors and parking provision of 35 parking stalls on site. The current parking requirement for a Church Institutional use within the C-3 zone, in a building of this size, is 28 stalls. The proposed bachelor and family units require 1.0 concealed parking space per dwelling unit. While the number of spaces can be provided on site the requirement for concealed parking is currently not achieved. When the proponent implements the residential phase of the development. this requirement must either be met or application made for a development variance permit. The Salvation Army is proposing to relocate their existing church facility to this building as well as to provide the following uses: • temporary emergency beds for the homeless. To date, the maximum number of beds is 14; • drop in meal program; • 5 self contained bachelor units and 1 family unit to be located on the second floor. These are intended for temporary-accommodation by -a person who isin counseiing'and seeking permanent housing; • counseling services. All but the temporary residential units are currently ongoing in the existing facility located at 22777 Dewdney Trunk Road and will be transferred to the location on Lougheed Highway. The property is currently zoned as C-3 Town Centre Commercial but there is a restrictive covenant registered on the title which permits specific uses and restricts others. The list of permitted uses is as follows: oI The property is currently zoned as C-3 Town Centre Commercial but there is a restrictive covenant registered on the title which permits specific uses and restricts others. The list of permitted uses is as follows: • The retail sale of personal and office supplies including clothing, jewelry, toys, cameras. sporting goods, books, stationary and office goods; • The retail sale of goods and services in a hardware store, department store, variety store, home furnishing store, appliance store or office furnishing store; • Offices including business outlets, insurance, real estate and professional; • Personal services including barbering, hair dressing, tailoring, shoemaking, dry-cleaning, printing and appliance repairing; • Newspaper publishing and the printing and publishing of art editions by lithography, etching and letterpress; • Apartment uses; • Education facilities including a college, trade school, business school, dance studio and music studio; • Animal beauty parlours; • Financial institutions including trust companies and mortgage companies. The list of uses that the land cannot be used for is: • Public banking facilities including banks and credit unions; • The retail sale of goods and services in a drug store; • The retail sale of groceries including meat, fish and bakery products; • Medical and dental offices; • Recreation facilities including a theater, night club, social club, fraternal lodge, billiard hail, bowling alley or recreation club; • Newspaper and related printing; • Restaurants and licensed premises including neighbourhood public houses. The covenant was originally registered on the title in 1984 as the result of issues raised at the public hearing held May 17, 1984. The Ministry of Transportation and Highways (MoTH) is also noted on the covenant, as it was their goal to restrict the uses on the property to commercial uses which would potentially generate lower traffic volumes. As such, they will need to consider the traffic impacts associated with the proposed uses and will also be required to agree to any proposed covenant amendment. The legal firm acting on behalf of the Salvation Army have indicated that they will be contacting the MoTH in this regard. There are two methods in which the covenant can be addressed - discharged in its entirety or amended to include the proposed use. It is being recommended that the covenant be amended in order to recognize the original concerns about this property and to afford adjacent residents some assurance about the continued limited use of the property. The following use is proposed to be added to Section 1(a) of the existing restrictive covenant: • Church institutional inciuding..accessory temporary accommodation and kitchen facility. The church use would be subject to the existing definition of church institutional contained in the Zoning Bylaw which is: Church Institutional Use means a use providing for the assembly of persons for religious purposes and includes churches, accessory nursery schools, accessory daycare and anaccessory dwelling unit 2 INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES: As the Ministry of Transportation and Highways is also a party to the covenant, they will be required to agree to the amendment. The proponent's legal advisors have advised that they will be responsible for ensuring MoTH review. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A CITIZEN/CUSTOMER IMPLICATIONS: The adjacent property owners may have concerns about the proposed facility and the potential impacts on the neighbourhood. The proponents have been meeting with adjacent property owners to discuss issues and address concerns. Additionally, reference to the public hearing will allow the public an opportunity to present concerns, issues and discuss impacts. INTERDEPARTMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A ALTERNATIVES: There are two alternatives re garding the covenant - discharge it and allow the property uses to be governed by the C-3 Town Centre Commercial zone, or do not amend or discharge. Either of these two alternatives could preclude use of the facility in the manner proposed. SUMMARY: The Salvation Army has acquired the building on the southwest corner of Lougheed Highway and the Haney Bypass in order to relocate their existing facility and expand services to the community. The existing zoning on the property is superceded by a restrictive covenant registered on title that restricts allowable land uses. It is recommended that the restrictive covenant be amended in order to accommodate the uses proposed by the Salvation Army as opposed to being discharged and that the proposed amendment be referred to public hearing. 114. Approved by:1 Frank Quinn, P.Eng., PMP GM: Public Works &-Development Services Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, AICP, MCIP Chief Administrative Officer JP/jvt cm 11bV 1 1 P 71 &BRRIL .11 AE 3 11887 A SPNW2948 PTZ08 2 11869 ii& 76 A SP NW2762 SP 15 2611 (P6808) I 11857 P76483 ,! - 16 11841 ) C•d _______ ThLtsjp N MVt (0 22 1 17 CC) I21 20 19 ' I 1P648 18 , • NE CL 32 I 42 _I c.i 5 783 — L C-3 E: RernA P9388 1 I P9388 g I I 57 C I 17& LSubpject erty 1I749 _ 44 LLMP 4142 43 (1) 111746 1 P1155 c'J cli I I \Rerr I Rem Cv 'I 33 \IRerr t4 0 fl 1 35 fl__ 3029 28 Rem 155 iN .!i 27 Rem 5 \Rem Rem 8 NP'155 11683 LMP 1722 P11521 PcI. 1 - T: The Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge makes no guarantee regarding the accuracy or I present status of the information shown on [ this map. 11887 CsJ I [11888 --T I •— r 01 LANE S-OF 119 AVE 18!17!l25 P 11251 26 27 2829I30 31 32 F (. 11875I ( 11868 c c. CY CY c'I S_I SELKIF . Cy Reni Ren Rerr c I cJ 15 16 40 39 P11251I 38 37 _Iiieso 11851 ! H (P 11251) B P6782 F-4 11 6., I — LOUGHEED HWY CF)1 c' C'd 6.J 11783 ey 6d I k 12 11 109 8 7 6 P68759 P8614 I jtkNE _.. ED 11763 117 1 P92I8 I J J) 35 1 36 37 38139140141 Rem 46 84 b. — 1 b t99 ;s 45 48 P P9218 9218 190 191 192 193 1 94 p697 \2f p9427 \179 195 188 59 11727 000 178 lz~ 180 187 p6 - -a i172 99 - 1 98 19 - 17 204 205n27 ' 206 177 • 11717 181 186 11715 17611 11741 p 942 p 942 202 20 \201 ,207 421 C • C/) 182 183 185 200 11707 I1787\ \ 175 .\11705 rn 11747 208 a 29 210 231 230 223 221 211 Park CL 69 Rtlkr 11841 P 9427 S. 4;v MAP Subject Property 22188 Lougheed Hwy. MAPLE RIDGE Incwped 12. Spi•nr, 1874 PLANNING DEPARTMENT j DATE: Jan 8 2002 FILE: BY: TM CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BY-LAW NO. 5990 - 2001 A By-law to further amend Maple Ridge Zoning By-law No. 3510 - 1985 and amendments thereto. 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: This by-law may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending By-law No. 5990 - 20010. Part 2, Interpretation, is amended by: deleting the definition of Height and replacing it with the following: HEIGHT - means the greatest vertical distance from the Building Height Base Line to the topmost part of the building. adding the following definitions in correct alphabetical order: AVERAGE CURB ELELVATION- means the average of the front lot line elevation projected to the edge of road pavement minus 0.1 metres (4"). BUILDING HEIGHT BASE LINE - means: averaging the two front Datum Determination Points on the lot; and averaging the two rear Datum Determination Points on the lot; and longitudinally extending a line joining (i) and (ii); illustrated by way of the following diagram Maximum Building Height Line Front DDPs - - BuiIngHght B DATUM DETERMINATION POINTS - means the two points on a lot created where the frontmost or rearmost wall face or the principal buildings or projections thereof intersect with the outermost sidewall faces or projections thereof measured as the lesser of Natural or Finished Grade. FiNiSHED GRADE - means the topography on the property after construction, including the addition of fill or removal of soil, but excludes Localized Depressions. 1 LOCALIZED DEPRESSION - means: i) an existing depression in Natural Grade not exceeding 3 metres (9.8ft.) in width, or the lesser of 3 metres or 20% of the wall length along any building wall that it intersects; ii) a depression below Finished Grade created for the purposes of providing vehicles or pedestrian entrance to a building subject to the following conditions: only one vehicle entrance and one pedestrian entrance are permitted as Localized Depressions on a single family residential building. on any side of the building in a single family residential zone, the Localized Depression width shall not exceed the lesser of 50% of the corresponding building width or: • 6.Om (20 ft.) width for vehicle access. • 2.44m (8 ft.) wide 3.0 m2 in area for a pedestrian access. • 7.3m (24 ft.) wide for a combined vehicle and pedestrian access. iii) any combination of vehicle or pedestrian entrances and existing depressions remaining after finish grading shall not exceed 50% of the corresponding building width or length along any side of a building. NATURAL GRADE — normally existing topography or the topography established as a component of subdivision servicing on the property prior to any construction, but excludes Localized Depressions. RETAINING WALL GRADE LINE - means the line used to determine the maximum height of a retaining wall or soil deposit anywhere on the property calculated as follows: Rear or side property line: Determined by drawing a line 1 .2m (4') vertically from natural grade at the rear or side property line and then in towards the property at 1.1 slope, as illustrated by Diagram A. Front or Flanking (Exterior) Side property line: Determined by drawing a line 1:2m (4') vertically from natural grade at the front or side property line and then in towards the property at 3:4 slope as illustrated by Diagram B. Rear or side Adjacent property -••••'• fine property Wall Envelope ,:; I.... fatGde Front or flanking side property Adjaceni line Property /-Wall Envelope or road •.::::J PROPERTY I 1 4 I NaturalGde Diagram B 3 Part IV General Regulations, Section 403 is amended by adding the following as Subsection (8): Maximum Retaining Wall Height The entire height of all retaining walls must be below the Retaining Wall Grade Line. The maximum exposed height of a retaining wall at a property line is 1.2m (4'). As illustrated by Diagram A. 14 operty Line ... Grade Line exposed Finished height Fill 4ft.ULr1. Fill line II SCtiOfl Site Natural Grade Diagram A The maximum exposed height of an excavated wall (a shoring wall below natural grade is 1 .2m (4'). As illustrated by Diagram B. Former jNaturali. Grade 4ft. Site Section Finished Grade Diagram B Part IV General Regulations, Section 403 is amended by adding the following as Subsection (9): a) All single family and two family residential buildings shall not exceed the Highest Building Face height of 7.0 metres. The Highest Building Face: applies to only one building elevation, the elevation which has the greatest height between the top plate and the average of the lesser of Natural or Finished Grade at its base. Attached garage/carport Dwelling (plan view) LJ Highest Building Face The regulation applies to all portions of the face shown in heavy line is established by drawing a series of lines 7metres (23) up from the lesser of Natural or Finished Grade along each point on the exterior building face, and then in towards the building at a 45 degree angle. A series of vertical lines at each change of ground level elevation will be required to determine the envelope over the entire elevation. The top plate of the wall must be within the measured envelope. Cross SonA,'_ Exemption for up to 1/3 of the Length of the building face Cross Section B 7mj[4 Compliance with step Cross Section C Exemption for garage parapet N flat building Soffit conformmg noo.conforming non-conforming b) Highest Building Face Exemptions: 40% of the length of the building face can be exempt from this regulation. Different parts of the building face can be exempted, provided that the sum of their lengths does not exceed 40% of the total length of the elevation. Roof eaves, decks, decorative features, and the pitched roof portion of either gable ends or dormers are exempt. Any portion of the roof structure above the top plate is exempt from this calculation. dormer / Highest building face Pitched roof portion of a dormer "elope is exempt "W/ Upper floor 7m. Main floor Basement Ground level (lower of natural or finished grade) 5. Part IV General Regulations, Section 403 is amended by adding the following as Subsection (10): All single family and two family residential buildings shall not exceed either the maximum Height stipulated by the zone or the Highest Building Face regulation in Section 403(9)a except where the average elevation of the front Datum Determination Points is below the average curb elevation so that a line joining the two average elevations inclines at a slope of 10% or greater below the horizontal, then - the allowable height of the principal building is bonused with an increase in height of 0.5 metres for a slope of 10% or greater; or 1.0 metres for a slope of 15% or greater; and - the allowable Highest Building Face is bonused with an increase in height of 0.5 metres for a slope of 15% or greater to the extent that the height of the Highest Building Face does not exceed 7.0 metres from Finished Grade; as illustrated by the following diagram. Elevation Front DDPs slope or greater 6.66 1:6.66 height bonus 0.5m. eg. : Ratio 1:6.66 15% slope or greater height bonus 1 .Om. READ afirst time the day of , A.D. 200. PUBLIC HEARING held the day of , A.D. 200. READ a second time the day of . A.D. 200. READ a third time the day of , A.D. 200. APPROVED by the Minister of Transportation and Highways this day of , A.D.. 200. RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of , A.D. 200. MAYOR CLERK CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor A. Hogarth DATE: February 6, 2002 and Members of Council FILE NO: RZ-63-00 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W - PW & Dev SUBJECT: First Reading Heritage Designation Bylaw No.6006 - 2001 and Heritage Tax Exemption Bylaw No. 6022 - 2002 (28348-96Avenue) PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to outline the process and issues regarding the proposed heritage designation and tax exemption for the former Ruskin Elementary School. An application has been made to amend the Official Community Plan designation from Park and School to Rural Residential and to rezone the property from P-i (Park and School) to RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential). It is intended that Council will review the Heritage Designation Bylaw in advance of the Zone Amending Bylaw. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that: Heritage Designation Bylaw No. 6006 - 2001 be given 1st Reading; Heritage Designation Bylaw No. 6006 - 2001 be referred to Public Hearing; Heritage Tax Exemption Bylaw No. 6022 - 2002 be given 1" Reading; and Heritage Tax Exemption Bylaw No. 6022 - 2002 be referred to Public Hearing. BACKGROUND: Applicant: Owner: Legal Description: OCP: Existing: Proposed: Zoning: Existing: Proposed: Surrounding Uses: N: 5: E: W: Andrew Thul M. Manno & M. Calla Lot ii, District Lot 439, Group 1, NWD Plan 54720 Park and School Rural Residential P-i (Park and School) RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) RS-3 RS-3 RS-3 RS-3 ;M Existing Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property Access: Servicing: Previous Applications: Ruskin Elementary School Single Family residence 96th Avenue Septic/Well None. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project is to convert the former Ruskin Elementary School into a single-family residence. The school has been unused since the opening of the Whonnock Elementary School. PLANNING ANALYSIS: Official Community Plan: On December 11, 2001, Council gave second and third reading to Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 5981 - 2001. The proposed change is from "Park and School" to "Rural Residential". Zoning Bylaw: The proposed Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6005 - 2001 to RS-3, One Family Rural Residential will require a Public Hearing as part of the normal process of review. It is anticipated that the progress of that application will proceed in conjunction with the Heritage Designation Bylaw. Heritage Issues: Heritage Designation At the request of Council, the Community Heritage Commission reviewed the heritage status of the property and recommended that Council consider municipal designation as a condition of final approval of the zoning bylaw amendment. A copy of that recommendation is attached for information. Prior to the Public Hearing, the Planning Department contacted the applicant to discuss the implications Of the Heritage Commission's recommendation. At the December 11, 2001 Public Hearing, the applicant (Mr. Andrew Thul), indicated that the owners are willing to proceed with the heritage designation process and that they are aware of the implications of this decision. The RUkifl Elenentary School is listed in the Heritage Resources of Maple Ridge, the District's heritage inventory. As part of the process of creating the Inventory, the building's architectural, historic and cultural attributes were evaluated and it was recommended for inclusion in the Heritage Register. The school is a predominant local landmark, built by the Province in the typical architectural style of the early 1920's. It has been well maintained over the years and is substantially intact. -2- The Local Government Act requires that a Public Hearing be held for the Heritage Designation Bylaw. Once the bylaw has received final approval from Council, any proposed work that would alter the reason for designation (such as an alteration to the exterior appearance of the building) will require a Heritage Alteration Permit. Exceptions to the requirement for a Heritage Alteration Permit requirement are outlined in the Designation Bylaw. For designated heritage properties the Heritage Alteration Permit will replace the building permit but will follow a similar Building Code review and inspection process. Staff from the Planning and Building departments are working together to clarify the Heritage Alteration Permit process. Heritage Tax Exemption Council Policy 5.23 Tax Exemptions for Heritage Sites indicates that Council will consider requests for tax exemptions from municipal property taxes for eligible heritage properties. In this particular instance, it is recommended that Council grant an exemption of 100% of themunicipal property taxes for the subject property for the following calendar year (2003). The tax exemption will provide the owners with assistance for the restoration and renovation of the building on a one time basis and provide a benefit to the owners for the property being municipally designated as a heritage property. The Local Government Act requires that an exemption be approved through a bylaw of Council on or before October 31 of any year and have the support of at least 2/3 votes cast. The bylaw may provide an exemption of the municipal property taxes for: the next calendar year; or for a period of time up to a maximum of 10 years provided that a counter-petition opportunity has been provided. The counter petition process requires public notification of the proposed tax exemption in at least two (2) consecutive issues of a local newspaper with a statement outlining the details of the exemption. At least 5% of the eligible electorate of the municipality must object to the exemption and be given at least 30 days after the second formal notice to respond. It is intended that the new Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6005 - 2001, Heritage Designation Bylaw No. 6006 - 2001 and Heritage Tax Exemption Bylaw No.6022 - 2002 will proceed concurrently, thereby ensuring that the application is not unduly delayed. INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES: N/A ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A CITIZEN/CUSTOMER IMPLICATIONS: The proposed heritage designation will require that the property owners maintain the heritage character and attributes of the building. Any alterations that effect the heritage value of the building will require a Heritage Alteration Permit as outlined in the HeritageDesignation Bylaw. The recommended tax exemption would aid the owners in the renovation of the building into a single family residence and would indicate Council's support of maintaining the District's heritage resources. -3- INTERDEPARTMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: The Planning Department will be working with the Building Department to develop a process for the review and issuance of a Heritage Alteration Permit. All designated heritage buildings require a Heritage Alteration Permit for any proposed changes to the heritage elements of the property or building, except for those circumstances that have been identified in the heritage designation bylaw as not requiring a permit. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The recOmmended tax exemption is 100% of the municipal portion of the residential property tax. This recommendation meets Council's existing policy (5.23) regarding tax exemptions for heritage sites. The Finance Department has reviewed the proposed tax exemption and are of the opinion that the financial implications to the District are negligible. The exact tax exemption value cannot be fully determined until the municipal tax rate for 2003 is established as part of the overall financial plan of the District. In 2001 the municipal portion of the subject property's taxes was valued at $1175.07. ALTERNATIVES: Heritage Designation: • Approve the recommendation for heritage designation as outlined in this report; • Decline the recommendation for heritage designation. Tax Exemption: • Approve the tax exemption recommendation as outlined in this report; • Approve a tax exemption at a rate and for a period other than that outlined in this report; • Refuse the recommendation for a tax exemption as outlined in this report. SUMMARY: The proposed rezoning and heritage designation will help to ensure that this important local landmark will remain. The conversion to a single-family residence will have less of an impact on the surrounding neighbourhood than the previous school use. Staff recommends that an exemption in the amount of 100% of the municipal property taxes be granted for this property. An exemption will aid the owners with the renovation of an important heritage building, thereby ensuring its ongoing preservation. A The Local Government Act requires that a Public Hearing be held for a proposed heritage designation bylaw. In order to ensure that the project is not unnecessarily delayed, it is recommended that the Heritage Designation Bylaw No. 6006 - 2001 be given First Reading and forwarded to the same Public Hearing as Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6005 - 2001. i ared by: Jim Charleboi Plahjrr I \ , MCIP Approved by: / Frank Quinn'P.Eng., PMP lie Works V GM:}7 1opnt Services Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, AICP, MCIP Chief Administrative Officer JC/jvt Atta -5- TO: His Worship Mayor Al Hogarth and Members of Council FROM: Community Heritage Commission DATE: December 6, 2001 SUBJECT: RZ/63/00 - Ruskin Elementary School, 28348 - 96th Avenue, Maple Ridge, BC Purpose: The Community Heritae Commission has been asked by Naple Ridge Council to review the heritage qualities of the Ruskin Elenntary School, located at 28348 - 96th Avenue. RECOMMENDATION: That Maple Ridge Council consider designation of the Ruskin Elementary building as a condition of rezoning. Background: The owners have applied to rezone the property to P5-3, One Family Rural sidential in order to permit the conversion of the school into a siwle family residence. Summary: The Community Heritage Commission is of the opihnion that the on-going preservation of the Ruskin Elerrentary School is essential to the history of the Ruskin community. (1 C6k Amber Kostuchenko, Chair Community Heritage Commission MAPLE RIDGE Incorporated 12 September, 1874 CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TITLE: TAX EXEMPTION - HERITAGE SITES AUTHORITY: . EFFECTIVE DATE: IMMEDIATELY NO. . SUPERSEDES: POLICY PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED MARCH 25,199 APPROVAL: SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 STATEMENT: Council will consider requests for exemption from taxation under Section 359(1)(a) of the Local Government Act [municipal property taxes]f or: eligible heritage property under Section 342 of the Local Government Act; or a historical building which has previously received an exemption from taxation under Section 400 (2)(a), now repealed, of the Municipal Act. PURPOSE: The Local Government Act provides authority to municipalities to undertake certain activities relating to heritage conservation. Section 342(1) of the Local Government Act allows for permissive tax exemption for eligible heritage properties. The purpose of this pOlicy is to confirm that requests for tax exemption for eligible heritage properties will be considered by Council. Properties which are not eligible heritage properties but which were granted a tax exemption under section 400(2)(a), now repealed, continue to be eligible for permissive tax exemption under the transitional provisions of the Heritage Conservation Statutes Amendment Act, 1994. DEFINITIONS: Eligible heritage properties include protected heritage properties under Section 967 of the Local Government Act, properties subject to a heritage revitalization agreement under Section 966 of the Local Government Act or properties subject to a covenant under Section 219 of the Land Title Act that relates to the conservation of heritage property. Printed on November 9, 2001 Page 1 of 1 Policy 5.23 I I CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BY-LAW NO. 6006 - 2001 A By-law to designate a heritage property WHEREAS, the Council considers that the property described in this Bylaw has heritage value and heritage character and that its designation is desirable for the conservation of protected heritage property; 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 Heritage Designation By-law No. 6006 - 2001 ." That parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as: 28348 - 96 Avenue (Ruskin Elementary School) All that portion of: Lot 11, District Lot 439, Group 1, New Westminster District, Plan 54720 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No.1262 a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this by-law, is hereby designated as protected under Section 967 of the Local Government Act. Interpretation In this Bylaw, any grammatical form of the term "alter" has the meaning corresponding to the meaning given to that term in Section 947 of the Local Government Act. Designation The primary reason for designation of the property is based on its position as a predominant local landmark. Built by the Province in the typical architectural style of the early 1920's, the building remains substantially intact. The following physical features of the building outlined in section 4 above are included in the designation: building envelope including height, shape, size, floor area and exterior materials; location and architectural treatment of the primary access to the building. Maple Ridge Heritage Designation Bylaw No. 6006 - 2001 Exemptions from Heritage Alteration Permit Requirement 6. The following types of alterations may be made to the property without the owner obtaining a heritage alteration permit: normal repair and maintenance; interior alterations that do not alter the exterior appearance of the building; interior alterations that do not alter any of the items outlined in section 4 above. 7. For the purposes Of section 5 above, "normal repair and.maintenance" is that repair and maintenance occasioned by the ordinary wear and tear and is limited to the replacement of elements of the structure or finishing materials of a building with components that are equivalent to those being replaced in material composition, dimensions, colour and quality. READ a first time the day of , A.D. 2002. PUBLIC HEARING held the day of , A.D. 2002. READ a second time the day of , A.D. 2002. READ a third time the day of , A.D. 2002. RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of , A.D. 2002. MAYOR CLERK 20.1 9678 9571 P 9646 Rem2 P 7537 r 9658 2 00 Rem2 C P 9646 9648 c'J P6473 1 1 S1/2B 0.947 ho. 0.429 ha. cx) / / LMV 16 1 / Rem 1 / /Pc. 0.1 1.596 ha. / ' / / 0.903 1. P85827 c1 96 AVE. P 46269 P 10195 / P 2 931/ 9596 10 Rem 2 3 P 54720 Ci / A 11 15 / 16 (P. 0.782 ha. 0.405 ha. / 0.522 ha. / __ / P 33032 / 0972 / / 22 • / 1.468 ho. / 13 .-.-- P41258 J 9553 1.918 ho. / 9 4.047 ha. P7537 - I MAPLE RIDGE HERITAGE DESIGNATION Bylaw No. 6006-2001 Map No. 1262 AMAPLE RIDGE Incorporated 12 September, 1874 1:2500 CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BY-LAW NO. 6022 - 2002 A By-law to exempt from taxation, an eligible heritage property within the Municipality of Maple Ridge WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section 342 of the Local Government Act, R.S.B.C, 1996, a Municipal Council may exempt eligible heritage properties from taxation; 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 Heritage Tax Exemption By-law No.6022 - 2002." That in accordance with Sections 342, 343 and 344 of the Local Government Act, the following designated heritage property shall be exempt from taxation: Owned by Manno Manuele and Calla Maria Roll Number: 94806-0100-X - 28348 96 Avenue and all that portion of: Lot 11, District Lot 439, Group 1, New Westminster District, Plan 54720 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1270 a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this by-law; The exemption from taxation as herein before noted applies only to taxation levied under Section 359(1) (a) of the Local Government Act. The exemption from taxation as herein before noted applies for the year 2003. The exemptions granted by this bylaw are without prejudice to any claim for compensation to exemption based on any other provisions of the Local Government Act or any other iegisiation READ a first time the day of , A.D. 2002. PUBLIC HEARING held the day of READ a second time the day of READ a third time the day of RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the 2002. MAYOR A.D. 2002. A.D. 2002. A.D. 2002. dayof A.D. CLERK 20.1 9671 9678 P9646 Rem2 tc.i p 7537 ta' 9658 / 2 00 Rem2 0 P 9646 9648 P6473 Co 1 1 _ s1/28 zj- 0.947 ho. 0.429 ho. 0 cc D / LMV 16 1 Rem 1 / /PcI. 0.1 1.596 ha. / / / 0.903 • / __..! P85827 Co - 96 AVE. P 46269 P 10195 / P 2 931/ 9596 10 Rem 2 3• P 54720 / A 11 / 15 / 16 0.782 ha. 0.405 ho: / 0.522 ho. / I_i / / P 33032 / 955J P 60972 / / 22 / 1.468 ho. / 13 P41258 1.918 ha. / 9 4.047 ho. P7537- __x_ •1 MAPLE RIDGE HERITAGE TAX EXEMPTION Bylaw No. 6022-2002 Map No. 1270 AMAPLE RIDGE Incorporated 12 September, 1874 1:2500 CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor A. Hogarth and Members of Council FROM: Chief Administrative Officer SUBJECT: First Reading Bylaw No. 6005 - 2001 (28348 - 96th Avenue) DATE: February 6, 2002 FILE NO: RZ-63-00 ATTN:CofW-PW&Dev PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to address an error made in the original Land Use report and Zone Amending Bylaw in order to permit the conversion of the former Ruskin Elementary School to a single- family dwelling. Specifically, the First Reading report referred to the RS-3, One Family Rural Residential zone, however the attached bylaw inappropriately identified RS-2, One Family Suburban Residential zoning. Subsequently, the Public Hearing notice and First, Second and Third Reading to the Zone Amending Bylaw indicated the RS-2 zone and not the intended RS-3 zone. Therefore, staff is recommending that First, Second and Third readings of Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 5980 - 2001 be rescinded in order to bring the zoning into compliance with the proposed Official Community Plan designation change to Rural Residential. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that: First, Second and Third Readings of Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 5980 - 2001 be rescinded; Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6005 - 2001 be given l' reading; and Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No.(s) 6005 - 2001 be referred to Public Hearing. BACKGROUND: Applicant: Andrew Thul Owner: M. Manno & M. Calla Legal Description: Lot 11, District Lot 439, Group 1, NWD Plan 54720 OCP: Existing: Park and School Proposed: Rural Residential Zoning: Existing: P-i (Park and School) Proposed: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) q03 Surrounding Uses: N: RS-3 S: RS-3 E: RS-3 W: RS-3 Existing Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Access: Servicing: Previous Applications: Ruskin Elementary School Single Family residence 96th Avenue Septic/Well None. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project is to convert the former Ruskin Elementary School into a single-family residence. The school has been unused since the opening of the Whonnock Elementary School. PLANMNG ANALYSIS: Official Conununity Plan: On December 11, 2001, Council gave second and third readings to Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 5981 —2001. The proposed change is from "Park and School" to "Rural Residential". Zoning Bylaw: The revised zoning amendment is from P-i (Park and School) to RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) While the property does not meet a number of requirements of the proposed zone, staff are of the opinion that variances for these items (lot size, lot depth and front yard setback) are not necessary. If Council gives final approval to the zone-amending bylaw, the above items will become non-conforming under the RS-3 zone, but will not detract from the proposed use of the building. They may, however, affect future development plans. Zone Amending Bylaw No 6005 - 2001 will require a Public Hearing as part of the normal process of review. However, the progress of the zoning application will not be unnecessarily delayed by a second Public Hearing as the heritage designation process will also require a Public Hearing. Heritage Issues: At the request of Council, the Community Heritage Commission reviewed the heritage status of the property and recommended that Council consider municipal designation as a condition of final approval of the zoning bylaw amendment. A copy of that recommendation is attached for information. Prior to the Public Hearing, the agent for the property owners was made aware of the Heritage Commission's recommendation in order to discuss the willingness of the owners to proceed with the designation process. The agent indicated that the owners are willing to designate the property as a municipal heritage site at the December 11, 2001 Public Hearing. -2- The Ruskin Elementary School is listed in the Heritage Resources of Maple Ridge, the District's heritage inventbry. As part of the process of creating the Inventory, the building's architectural, historic and cultural attributes were evaluated and it was recommended for inclusion in the Inventory. The school is a predominant local landmark, built by the Province in the typical architectural style of the early 1920's. It has been well-maintained over the years and is substantially intact. It is intended that the new Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6005 - 2001 and Heritage Designation Bylaw No. 6006 - 2001 will proceed concurrently, thereby ensuring that the applicant is not unduly delayed. The heritage issues have been addressed in a separate report. Conditions to be met prior to final reading: Approval from the Ministry of Transportation; Approval of Maple Ridge Heritage Designation Bylaw No.6006 - 2001; Amendment to Schedule "B' of the Official Community Plan; Approval from the Simon Fraser Health Region for septic disposal. INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES: Approval from the Ministry of Transportation is required as the site is within 800 metres of the Lougheed Highway. Approval from the Simon Fraser Health Region is required for septic disposal. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A CITIZEN/CUSTOMER IMPLICATIONS: The proposed use will generate substantially less traffic than the school did while it was operating. Therefore the impact to the surrounding rural residential community will be negligible. Since the majority of the surrounding area is large lot residential, the conversion of the school site to single family residential will complement the area. INTERDEPARTMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A 1?INANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A ALTERNATIVES: There are no other alternatives that would make use of this historic building.. The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood and the owners have agreed to designate the building as a municipal heritage site. -3- SUMMARY: The proposed rezoning and heritage designation will help to ensure that this important local landmark is recognized. The conversion to a single-family residence will have less of an impact on the surrounding neighbourhood than the previous school use. The original Zone Amending Bylaw No. 5980 - 2001 (RS-2) was not consistent with the proposed Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 5981 - 2001 to Rural Residential. Therefore, it is recommended that First, Second and Third readings of Zone Amending Bylaw No. 5980 - 2001 be rescinded in order to bring the zoning into compliance with the proposed Official Community Plan designation change to Rural Residential. In order to ensure that the project is not unnecessarily delayed, it is recommended that Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6005 - 2001 be given First Reading and forwarded to Public Hearing in conjunction with Heritage Designation Bylaw No. 6006 - 2001 and Heritage Tax Exemption Bylaw No. 6022 - 2002. Prepared by; Approv( by/ Frank Quinn, P.Eng., PMP GM: P 1elopment Services Concil.'rrence: Robert W. Robertson, AICP, MCIP Chief Administrative Officer JC/jvt Attach. A TO: His Worship Mayor Al Hogarth and Members of Council FROM: Community Heritage Commission DATE: December 6, 2001 SUBJECT: RZ163/00 - Ruskin Elementary School, 28348 - 96th Avenue, Maple Ridge, BC Purpose: The Community Heritage Commission has been asked by Maple Ridge Council to review the heritage qualities of the Ruskin Elementary School, located at 28348 - 96th Avenue. RECOMMENDATION: That Maple Ridge Council consider designation of the Ruskin Elementary building as a condition of rezoning. Background: The owners have applied to rezone the propefty to RS-3, One Family Rural Residential in order to permit the conversion of the school into a sincrle family residence. Summary: The Community Heritage Commission is of the op±nion that the on-going preservation of the Ruskin Elementary School is essential to the history of the Ruskin community. (1 ç t) Amber Kostuchenko, Chair Community Heritage Commission 71 - CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BY-LAW NO. 6005 - 2001 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: This by-law may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending By-law No. 6005 - 2001." That parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as: All that portion of: Lot 11, District Lot 439, Group 1, New Westminster District, Plan 54720 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1261 a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this by-law, is hereby rezoned to RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Maple Ridge Zoning By-law No. 3510 - 1985 as amended and Map "A" attached thereto are hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the day of , A.D. 2002. PUBLIC HEARING held the day of , A.D. 2002. READ a second time the day of , A.D. 2002. READ a third time the day of , A.D. 2002. APPROVED by the Minister of Transportation and Highways this day of , A.D. 2002. RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of , A.D. 2002. MAYOR CLERK r. -. 20.1 9671 .9678 P 9646 Rerii2 P 7537 .9658 0/ r 2 00 Rem2 0 P9646 9648 csJ P6473 CL 1 o S1/2B 1 / CO 7537 / LM/16 0.947 ha. 0.429 ha. 1 / Rem 1 0.1 el 1.596 ha. / / " / 0.903 P85827 - 96 AVE. P 46269 P 10195 / P 2 931' 9596 10 Rem 2 3 P 54720 CP A 11 / 15 16 01 0.782 ha. 0.405 ha. / 0.522 ha. / / • I_I ______ / __________ / P33032 / P 60972 22 / 1.468 ha. / 13 P 41258 1.918 ha. / / 9 4.047 ha. — - P 7537-.- 'I MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDING Bylaw No. 6005-2001 Map No. 1261 From: P-1(Park and School) To: RS-3(One Family Rural Residential) AMAPLE RIDGE Incorporated 12 September, 1874 1:2500 CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor A. Hogarth DATE: February 12, 2002, and Members of Council FILE NO: RZ1065/01 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W - PW & Dev SUBJECT: First Reading Bylaw No.'s 6001-2001 and 6000-2001 11940 228 ST PURPOSE: Property located at 11940— 228 Street is the subject of an application to rezone from RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) to C-3 (Town Centre Commercial). The proposed uses include three commercial units on the main floor and two residential units on the second floor. There are existing commercial uses on three sides of the property. The physical size of the property limits the type of development and the location promotes the proposed street oriented commercial development with residential use on the second floor. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that: That Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6001-2001 be given First Reading and be forwarded to Public Hearing; That Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6000-2001 be given First Reading and be forwarded to Public Hearing; and That the Municipal Clerk be authorized to. notify qualifying property owners that approval of DVP/065/01 respecting the property located at 11940228th St. will be considered by Council at the April 9, 2002 meeting. BACKGROUND: Applicant: Owner: Legal Description: OCP: Existing: -Proposed: Zoning: Existing: Proposed: Surrounding Uses: N: S: E: W: Frank Law Bong Ha Yong and Kevin Ja Yong Lot: 50, Plan: 32322 Service Commercial Town Centre Commercial RS-1 One Family Urban Residential C-3 Town Centre Commercial Commercial building with residential use on 2 nd floor Vacant site zoned RM-3 (High Density Apartment) Commercial building with multiple tenants Haney Builders and Dewdney Animal Hospital qo'f Existing Use of Property: Residential Proposed Use of Property: Commercial on the floor with residential units on the 2n1 floor Access: 228 Street Servicing: Full urban Conditions to be met prior to first reading: Comments from the Advisory Design Panel. At a meeting held February 7, 2002 this development proposal was reviewed by the Advisory Design Panel. The panel expressed overall support for the project with the following comment: That consideration be given to having dual access (at the rear and front) to the residential portion of the building. The design team is assessing this issue. A Development Information Meeting must be held. On January 25, 2002 a Development Information Meeting was held. Only one person attended and no concerns were expressed. Fully dimensioned development plan including: Neighbourhood context plan; Site plan; Building elevations; Landscape concept. And that prior to final approval the following must be completed: Approval from the Ministry of Transportation; Registration of a Rezoning Development Agreement including the deposit of security as outlined in the Agreement; Amendment to Schedule 'B' of the Official Community Plan; Amendment to Schedules "A" & "H" of the Official Community Plan; Road dedication as required; Removal of the existing building. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This development proposal requests the rezoning of the subject property from RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) to C-3 (Town Centre Commercial) to permit construction of a commercial residential building. The proposed uses include three commercial units ranging in size from approximately 448 m 2 to 800 m2 on the main floor and two residential units on the second floor. The two residential units are approximately 83.3 m 2 (897square feet), and would include a kitchen/dining room, living room, two bedrooms and two bathrooms. -2- The building will be sited 3 in from the front lot line. The driveway access to a rear lot parking area is to be located adjacent to the south side of the building. PLANNING ANALYSIS: Official Community Plan The subject property is currently designated "Service Commercial" on Schedule "B" of the Official Community Plan (OCP). Service Commercial uses are typically oriented to an automobile commercial context with less of a focus on pedestrian considerations. The property is currently located outside of the area identified as the Downtown Core in the Official Community Plan. However, the subject site has all the functionality of a Town Centre Commercial property given the size of the parcel, its locational context on the periphery of the Downtown Core area and its proximity to the residential development on its southern boundary. Consequently, development in this location should reflect the downtown core context versus a more automobile orientated commercial context. An appropriate set of objectives that would reflect this significance include the provision of a suitable mix of uses, careful attention to architectural aesthetics, appropriate connection to the street edge, and careful consideration of pedestrian activity. Policy 48 of the Official Community Plan supports the mixed use proposed in the subject application. Specifically, the Policy states that "Maple Ridge will encourage the enhancement of the Town Centre area through emphasis in development policy and capital works to provide the primary district focus for business, specialty retail, office, cultural and entertainment facilities, government services and high density residential uses." The proposed development responds to the locational significance of the site by providing a mix of land uses and it is therefore recommended that the property be redesignated to Town Center Commercial. Development Permit Area Designation The subject property is currently included within Development Permit Area XXXVII. The purpose of this Development Permit Area designation is to address the form and character of Service Commercial development adjacent to lands designated for residential use. However, as the property is functionally located within the downtown core as discussed above, and is proposed for rezoning to C-3 (Town Centre Commercial), the objectives of Development Permit Area XXXVII are not considered to be adequate in view of the application to a service commercial context. -3- Therefore, it is recommended that the subject property be designated as Development Permit Area XVI. The purpose of this Development Permit Area is to address the form and character of mixed commercial/residential development which is the nexus of the subject application. There are a number of "objectives" and "guidelines" associated with this Development Permit Area designation (see attachment for reference). Central to the objectives of the Development Permit Area are the concepts of: • Creating a diversity of uses throughout the downtown core; • Achieving a full range and mixture of housing types and tenures above street level commercial development; and • Lining pedestrian streets with shops and other pedestrian generating activities. iii) Accessory Off Street Parking (Apartment Use) A requirement of the C-3 (Town Centre Commercial) zone is to provide concealed parking for the residential use. The ratio is one space per unit. The plans submitted in support of this project illustrates all the accessory off-street parking required for the uses, however, the two parking spaces required for the residential use are not concealed. The District's Zoning Bylaw defines concealed parking as the following: "an off-street parking use or an accessory off-street parking use wholly within a building or structure or underground." In order to permit the project to proceed as submitted a Development Variance Permit must be approved to waive the requirement to conceal the residential parking spaces. Due to the location of the building and the number of required parking spaces, the off-street parking is located adjacent to the rear lot line. Accordingly any structure to conceal the residential parking would be a detached structure. Staff have reviewed and discussed this issue and conclude that a garage or carport would not serve to enhance this project. The land use directly north of the subject property has a commercial residential mix. However all of the off- street parking is in front of the building providing no concealment from 228th Street. Staff concluded that by simply locating the parking to the rear of the building, conceals the use from the fronting street. In an effort to streamline the development application process, notice of the Development Variance Permit will occur in tandem with the Public Hearing notification for this application. Following the adoption of the Zone Amending Bylaw Council will be asked to pass a resolution approving the Development Variance Permit to waive the requirement to conceal the residential parking. INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES: Pursuant to Sec. 54(2) ofthe Highway Act approval from the Ministry of Transportation is required prior to final reading. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A CITIZEN/CUSTOMER IMPLICATIONS: N/A 12053 QIQ.. 12064 Q 12055 U) I I N70N130of2 - I PURDEY 320 317 12041 12050 P 41804 12041 co - Rem.N130'of2. 319 8' 261N 26 Rem. 2 12037 P5 2750 327 CD CD P7789 I) DEWDNEY TRK RD 1 q CD 1212057 C, S 1/27 r- 307 2042 a. 12049 N1/26 Il) S 1/26 °2041 -I, PJ2253 r 17 - 3 12031 ITI 2032 1 1!8 Im < 310 P51311 m N N 4 . 0 cm 2026 .__i 010 N 0 0 0 0 -N 4 C4P- N N 313 N C N N I• iN 2N3 P 2891 LMP 1505 Rem. 1 N N U, 0 ci S 7 N N N P46839 Cl) N . N N N N LMP 42856 (I) N U, N U LO N N a) F- 0, 1 11969 8 1 LU P 68237 Rem. 220 229 0 r) la) Z PcIl 71 ' t15-8 ________ 0, 49 (•1 C51 0 RW 15258 158 _______ _______ 157 156 T' 155 4788i 154 Ii -. . . - ' ____ IF S (F D1 _ '° - C'1 "SI ..,r. F 11953 SPNW1556 rruuc' SUBJEW IKU1EKIY EP 63907 I I .2 AI 'S I 119071 P. Rem N B IN "" tM 13461 P 34914 N I N (P 21553) C., 43 NI LP 59674 1 LMP 26960 RK LMP 46901 LP 76344 ,. LMP 34065 (LEASE) LMP 25642 (LEASE) --I-' A —- J ¼. I 'I ""I CIO ZIGQ FULLERVE FULl 940 3 11943 102 69 11920 Rem 66 11940 4 65 70 11935 NI 5 11930 11931 11932101 64 71 11929 100 R ui120 11921 11922 6 11917 7 99 11912 63 11910 72 11911 11900 62 73 11903 98 11902 8 11900 11901 ) 61" ' 11885 97 11898 9 11890 11891 60° 0.75 NW 1739 1187 96 11888 10 C%j .11865 11880 11881 11878 59 76 1183RM..3 11 11670 11869 94 11851 11868 58 77 I- 167 11868 11857 Cl) Rem.9 P 43930 a , 11858 11843 57 11856 78 11845 j EP 4448 " 214 56 79 1 - 01 I The Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge P 58813 I makes no guarantee regarding the accuracy or present status of the information shown on this map. Law j Frank 11940228 Street UL)(I'UI"UP I ION L)I- THE DISTRICTOF MAPLE DGE MAPLE RIDGE - -- -- DI AkIkIlKirl rIDADT,.AcMT SCALE: 1:2,500 KEY MAP DATE: Sep 132001 FILE: RZ-65-01 BY: RS INTERDEPARTMENTAL ISSUES: The Engineering Department confirms that this development proposal can be serviced. The applicant must enter into a Rezoning Development Agreement and submit the respective security prior to final reading. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A ALTERNATIVES: N/A SUMMARY: Respecting the existing commercial development of the neighbourhood it is recommended that application RZ165/0 1 be supported. It is also recommended that respecting the form and character of the proposed development that a Development Variance Permit be supported to waive the requirement for concealed parking. P')b y: Dave Stevenson Planning Techpician J ane Picking, MC?, MCIP App rovid . Frank Quinn, P.Eng., PMP ) GM: Public, orks8yDevlopment Services J 7 Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, AICP, MCIP Chief Administrative Officer DS/jvt -5- CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BY-LAW NO. 6001 - 2001. A By-law to amend the Official Community Plan WHEREAS the Local Government Act empowers a local government to adopt or amend an Official Community Plan; AND WHEREAS it is deemed desirable to amend Schedule "A", "B" & "H" 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 Amending By-law No. 6001- 2001." Schedule "B" is hereby amended for that parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as: Lot 50, Section 17, Township 12, New Westminster District, Plan 32322 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. , a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this by-law, is hereby redesignated to Town Centre Commercial Schedule "A" is hereby amended by adding the following in correct numerical order to Subsection (B) of Development Permit Area XVI in the Appendix: Lot 50, Section 17, Township 12, New Westminster District, Plan 32322 Those parcels or tracts of land and premises known and described as: Lot 50, Section 17, Township 12, New Westminster District, Plan 32322 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 612, a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this bylaw, are hereby designated as Development Permit Area XVI (1) on Schedule "H". 5. Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Designation By-law No. 5434-1996 as amended is hereby amended accordingly. I READ A FIRST TIME the day of PUBLIC HEARING HELD the day of READ A SECOND TIME the day of READ A THIRD TIME the day of RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED the A.D. 200. ,A.D.200 ,A.D.200 A.D. 200 ,A.D.200 . day of MAYOR CLERK TYV OL)I WV co N LMP 42856 15.2 1 It) I o.j 1 P 68237 Rem. 220 229 0.621 he - - _=_-:L==_ z P4b788 1 RW 15258 - 1581157 1156 1155 11541 16.71,950 j J LMP 2449 LMP 2409 FULLER AVE. CN 1/943 4 1/935 0 04 C.4 5 /7929 0- 6 /1917 7 17903 8 1/885 9 1/873 0 c'.i 10 04 11855 0 11 1/85/ 15.2 167 P 43930 1154 16.7 69 Rem 66 65 70 71930 11931 64 71 71920 71921 63 72 17910 11977 62 73 1/900 /1901 LI) 61 s74 77890 ;,ggy 600- 0-75 11880 71881 59 76 11870 11859 58 77 11858 11857 57 78 71856 11845 102 15.2 _______ 1,93.1,01 101 1/922 99 7/912 98 11902 97 1/898 95 1/878 94 11868 Rem 9 1/858 EP 44 ,ad I) - I3Z0f 317 I o oJ I 15.2 Rem' 307 12042 7204,1 112050 P 47804 72041 12040 I 1 l 00 • 30 S 1/2 6 Rem. 2 12037j I P 8 /2049 N 1/2 6 Rem. N 130' of 2 319 318 260J_2.1 126 2 3 12038 Rlh P 12253 ____________ 1 _____________ 44292 17 N 3 1203 12032 LMP 1505 P 2891 310 /J0I I P 52750 327 P 51311 18.3 16 18.3 P 61650 P 77 P 842 jLIJW Rem.1 - 1.5 I- ? _____________ 1 I . _________________ DEWDNEY TRUNK ROAD — N 0 " N N N flhA OP%4 nt /I 1 o1 I 57 N 0I P 46839 o- 61 1 V /7969 48 EL It) of ,- 1.19ho 8 20.1 0) ,.,1 0 171 I P 67142 LMP 13759 .7 0) It) U4P' 35147 ____ RPI61086 "9 (..J 449c" LMP I 13758 SP NW1556 L_t. EPI 63907 I / - 0.610 he I2 I I — I / 2 /1920 H II A 119 AVE. P 86981 P 76459 RW 18394 7,9071 Rem. 54 C4 23.71 P 34914 (P 21553) J 11900 - LANE N 0) It N) I.() 236 LMP 31454 (EASEMENT) HE P 61527 -- N N NW 1739 45 &L4P-53-16 LMP 46902 Go 1/830 o I 0-I CL LP 59674 0) LMP 26960 N' 4.121 he LMP 46901 LMP 18896 r_tan_,pgn• MAPLE RIDGE OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDING Bylaw No. 6001-2001 Map No. 611 From: Service Commercial To: Town Centre Commercial AMAPLE RIDGE Incorporated 12 September, 1874 1:2500 I EPI 63907 I I 'I I O.6lOha 1 79431 I ' ii ------- ] 2 7/920 I Ii I I II I II I 119 AVE. IP P 86981 cli '929 76459 I 18394 ...4-RW I 7/9071 I Rem. 54 I237± P 34914 J (P 21553) ,19 LANE - - - 7 .' 79031 1 1 8 77885 236 1 LMP 31454 (EASEMENT)' P61527. I I - - I = = = = = = I I NW 1739 I I = = - = = = = = 10 I 71- LMP 46902 71855j co 0 a. I a. a.. 11 * I LP 59674 11851 I I LMP 26960 I 167 I15. I 4.121 ho P 43930 I / ,84M I LMP 46901 18 69 Rem 66 11940 65 70 17930 11937 64 71 77920 /1921 63 72 17910 11917 62 73 17900 11901 a) t) 61 a - N74 17890 1/897 600- a.75 77850 - 1188.7 59 76 17870 7786 58 77 77868 11857 57 78 11856 17845 102 15.2 1 10 / 1922 99 /79/2 97 7/898 96 11888 95 11878 94 7/868 Rem.9 / 18.58 :P 44 1 /848' 307 I 12049j 1/2042 - IN 1/2 I Rem. I .320 47804 I .317 7.204/ 15.2 :x.o Rem l I I I I N 130' of 2 P (72038 a. I 3I9 318 260 2611262 I 1 i 2'l 3 .204 P 122=1 Is 1/26 J 720371 ______________ W2i2I - I P1 8 Rem.2 I— I 17 I .,P44212 J ci3 3 20 1/2032 1< l<l I a. P 2891 P 52750 I Ir LKIP 1505 r15 310 P 513111 327 I 1 18.3 Rem. 1 18.3 C'4 IL - j72026j I_J _____________________ P 61650 P 842 DEWDNEY TRUNK ROAD I., - 0 c. I') C4 c' L I RW80199 I57 I I RlnI 'I ClI II k4 to r" N CO °'I 46839' . 152 I IU)I 0 0),, 48 1 I a. 0)11 a.. ' II 1 1.19 ho 11969 N 8 P 68237 I Rem 12201229 ci P , a.1 1 20.1 1 0.621 ho E LECLU_i_ 71 ' PI67142 l 7 I "II _______ 49 I ,.-RW 152 58 I 158 157 1 1561,55 I P 4t5788 1 11541 'I LMP1 35147 r __________________ ________ IL I I l6.7LSO Il) ' r.j l RP161086 7195 ...i _i I ' I l II SPINW1556I I LMP I 13758 1 50 LMP 2449 '4 FULLER AVE. 2 LMP 2409 MAPLE RIDGE OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDING Bylaw No. 6001-2001 Map No. 612 PURPOSE: TO DESIGNATE AS DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AREA XVI(2) MAPLE RIDGE K Incorporated 12 September, 1874 1:2500 CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BY-LAW NO. 6000 - 2001 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: This by-law may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending By-law No. 6000 - 2001." That parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as: All that portion of: Lot 50, Section 17, Township 12, New Westminster District, Plan 32322' and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1260 a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this by-law, is/are hereby rezoned to C-3 (Town Centre Commercial) Maple Ridge Zoning By-law No. 3510 - 1985 as amended and Map "A" attached thereto are hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the day of , A.D. 200. PUBLIC HEARING held the day of A.D. 200. READ a second time the day of , A.D. 200. READ a third time the day of , A.D. 200. APPROVED by the Minister of Transportation and Highways this day of , A.D. 200. RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of , A.D. 200. MAYOR CLERK I EPI 63907 I I i I I 10 ho 1940 I I 0.6 119.20 2 1I H II II II A P 76459 119 A. Pi I I II P 86981 18394 I I P 34914 1553) Rem. 54 I (P 2 "8" 23.7± __________ I /1900 LANE I aI 236 LMP 31454 (EASEMENT)t P 61527 NW 1739 Go "LMP 46902 / 1830 ci ci I 0. .1 a, 00 1 LP59674 LMP 26960 I-) I 4.121 he LMP 46901 LMP 18896 * pen ., 3 I 1943 4 11935 0 c..1 04 5 /1929 6 11917 7 1/903 8 11885 9 71873 0 c•'i 10 04 11855 0.. 11 11851 167 P 43930 1184 16.1 69 Rem 66 11940 65 70 71930 1193/ 64 71 11920 11921 63 72 71910 11911 62 73 11900 17901 Q) 0) jj) . 61 co N74 11890 11891 60° °75 11850 11887 59 76 11870 1186 58 77 11868 11857 57 78 11856 11845 102 15.2 ________ 10 11922 99 179/2 98 11902 97 /1898 96 94 /1868 Rem.9 / 1858 : I /848 - - I 320 I 317 I 12042 p 47804 1.204,1 1 12047 11.2050 to 307 L 120491 1/2 cL Rem. N 130 of 2 1.2040 I 'I 115.2 Rem 319 318 2I I-I Q 3°204,l I Is 1/26 I 120J7 20 21262 I P8 Rem. 2 I I P 12253 I h 17 I __________________ _________ 2 28911 I I 3 112032 I I P 52750 LMP 1505 r15 310 51311 327 1 18.3 I Rem. 1 18.3l16I2kiLI.iI uj Li- _ j15ol-" EL j V' I _ 77489 12026! P 61650 __________________ _______ DEWDNEY TRUNK ROAD Ci r.. 0 c.d c,I 842 RW 80199 I k. I I I a,! I f I P 46839 I It I I I oj pI ll9hc a, 1 I P 68237 I Rem. 1220 I 229 1 P 1 67142 I LMP 137 20.1 48 1 0.621 hø L - - - _IcL 1J I 59 0_ In ,-RW 15258 I 1581157 156 1155 115411 z 1 I P41378811 LMP1 35147 RPI61086 J l6.7 SP1 NW1556J J 50 I======II LMP 2449 [y95o I I 1 C oI i'I I LMP 'I l i iI A I MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDING Bylaw No. 6000 -2001 Map No. 1260 From: RS-1(One Family Urban Residential) To: C -3(Town Centre Commercial) MAPLE RIDGE V incorporated 12 September, 1874 1:2500 CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor A. Hogarth DATE: February 8, 2002 and Members of Council FILE NO: RZ/031/99 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W - PW & Dev SUBJECT: First Reading Bylaw No's 6010-2002 and 5985-2001 - 11969 - 200 Street PURPOSE: Staples/Business Depot has obtained a lease over a small portion of land east of 200th Street and immediately adjacent to the Staples site. This piece of land was an undeveloped residual portion of the Canadian Tire store development on the west side of 200th Street. The purpose of the application is to increase customer parking capacity for the Staples store in excess of that which is required under the Parking Bylaw. A further benefit of the proposal is that the Official Community Plan Designation and Zoning Bylaw regulations will be consistent over the entire Canadian Tire property. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that: That Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6010-2002 be given First Reading; That Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 5985-2001 be given First Reading; and That application RZ1031199 and Official Community Plan and Zone Amending Bylaw No's 6010-2002 and 5985-2001 be referred to Public Hearing. BACKGROUND: Applicant: Paul Hayes Owner: Canadian Tire Real Estate Ltd. Legal Description: Lot 1, Except: Firstly: Part subdivided by Plan LMP40247; Secondly:Part dedicated as road on Plan LMP40250; District Lot 222, Group 1, New Westminster District, Plan LMP3 1913 OCP: Existing: 3%-Community Commercial - subject area (under application) 97%-Service Commercial - main property area (store site) Proposed: 100%-Service Commercial Development Permit Area: Existing: There are two designations west of 200 th St.- DP Area ifi and XXXVII— there is no DP Area designation on the subject portion of the property east of 200th Street. Proposed: Development Permit Area ffi .0 05- Zoning: Existing: 3%-RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) - east of 200th St. 97%-CS-1 (Service Commercial) - west of 200th St. Proposed: 100%-CS-1 (Service Commercial) Surrounding Uses: N: Single Family Residential S&E: Commercial W: Rural Residential (Pitt Meadows) Existing Use of Property: The Canadian Tire store site property is situated on the larger portion of the property west of 200w Street. The small portion of the property is not used by the Canadian Tire store other than for signage purposes. Proposed Use of Property: No changes are proposed for the Canadian Tire store site property. However, Staples has entered into a lease agreement over the residual portion of property under application to obtain additional customer parking (in excess of the required amount). The parking area and driveway are now constructed. Access: Direct access to 200 th Street is provided. Servicing: There are no municipal servicing requirements associated with this application. The subject property was serviced by the development of the Canadian Tire site and the Staple site. Previous Applications: DP/17/01, DP/2/97, DP/1 1/85, RZ/31/99, RZ/37/95, RZ137/94 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Staples has entered into a lease agreement over the portion of property under application to obtain additional customer parking (in excess of the required amount). The parking and a driveway access are now constructed. No changes are proposed for the Canadian Tire store site property. PLANNING ANALYSIS: Official Community Plan & Zomng Bylaw The Canadian Tire property has two Official Community Plan designations that correspond to two separate parts of the same parcel: • Service Commercial with associated CS-i (Service Commercial) zoning over that portion of the property currently utilized as the Canadian Tire store, west of 2001h Street; and, • Community Commercial with RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) zoning over the residual piece of the property east of 200 th Street. In order to achieve a consistency over the entire Canadian Tire property, the residual portion of property, which is zoned RS-3, must be rezoned to CS-i (Service Commercial). Schedule "B" of the Official Community Plan must also be amended to Service Commercial, as the CS-i (Service Commercial) zone does not conform to the Community Commercial designation in the Official Community Plan. -2- In respect to zoning, the RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential), is an inappropriate zone in view of the commercial uses in the area. Furthermore, the zone does not permit commercial parking as a principle use. Development Permit: The Canadian Tire store site, west of 200th Street, is designated as Development Permit Area ifi (established to address the form and character of commercial development) on Schedule "H" and XXXVII (established to address the form and character of service commercial development adjacent to properties designated in the Official Community Plan for residential use) on Schedule "H-2" of the Official Community Plan. The residual portion of the property under application is not designated as a Development Permit Area. This is the only portion of land in the area that is not designated as a Development Permit Area. Development Permit Area ifi is the appropriate designation of the two on the property. The reason is that Section "B" of Development Permit Area XXX VII states that "a Development Permit is not required for any service commercial development where the lot or parcel in question does not abut a lot or parcel designated for residential use." As there is no residential designation on lands adjacent to this property, Development Permit Area XXX VII would have no force or effect over the subject site. In view of the foregoing, and in the interests of consistency, the subject portion of property should be designated Development Permit Area ifi as a condition of rezoning. Conditions to be met prior to final reading: Approval from the Ministry of Transportation; Amendment to Schedule "B" of the Official Community Plan; Amendment to Schedules "A" & "H" of the Official Community Plan; INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES: As the property is situated within 800 metres of the Lougheed Highway, the by-law must be referred to the Ministry of Transportation for review and approval. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A CITIZEN/CUSTOMER IMPLICATIONS: The proposed rezoning will facilitate and increase in the number of parking stalls for the use by customers of the Staples store. INTERDEPARTMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A ALTERNATIVES: N/A -3- SUMMARY: The applicant is proposing to use a residual piece of the Canadian Tire store property that is separated from the main portion of the property by 200th Street for additional Staples customer parking. While the main portion of the Canadian Tire property is zoned CS-i (Service Commercial), the area under application is zoned RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential), which does not permit off-street parking as a principle use. In the interests of consistency and in order to accommodate commercial parking, it is proposed that the subject area be rezoned to CS-i (Service Commercial). A concurrent amendment of the Official Community Plan from Community Commercial to Service Commercial and designation as Development Permit Area III is required to provide conformity over the entire property. 1igTvICP, MCIP Planning Frank Quinn, P.Eng., PMP GM: Public Works & Development Services Co currence: Robert W. Robertson, AICP, MCIP Chief Administrative Officer RB/jvt 4 CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BY-LAW NO. 6010 - 2002. A By-law to amend the Official Community Plan WHEREAS the Local Government Act empowers a local government to adopt or amend an Official Community Plan; AND WHEREAS it is deemed desirable to amend Schedule "A", "B" & "H" 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 Amending By-law No. 6010 - 2002." Schedule " B "is hereby amended for that parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as: Lot 1, Except: Firstly: Part subdivided by Plan LMP 40247; Secondly: Part dedicated road on Plan LMP 40250; District Lot 222, Group 1, New Westminster District Plan LMP 31913 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 613, a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this by-law, is hereby redesignated to Service Commercial Schedule "A" is hereby amended by adding the following in correct numerical order to Subsection (B) of Development Permit Area JJJ in the Appendix: Lot 1, Except: Firstly: Part subdivided by Plan LMP40247; Secondly: Part dedicated road on Plan LMP 40250; District Lot 222, Group 1, New Westminster District Plan LMP 31913 Those parcels or tracts of land and premises known and described as: Lot 1, Except: Firstly: Part subdivided by Plan LMP 40247; Secondly: Part dedicated road on Plan LMP 40250; District Lot 222, Group 1, New Westminster District Plan LMP 31913 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 614, a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this bylaw, are hereby designated as Development Permit Area ifi (8) on Schedule "H". 5. 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. 2002. PUBLIC HEARING HELD the day of , A.D. 2002. READ A SECOND TIME the day of , A.D. 2002. READ A THIRD TIME the day of , A.D. 2002. RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED the day of A.D. 2002. MAYOR CLERK 2058 1 r "I 20/321 120 B AVE. 39 /2062 20 I 12056 I oi30 'p41 19 L 42 /2050 LMP 18 FW 94 17 16 15 46 45Io444 -1i i i k I I 120 A AVE. 1%(.)/ 12 11 12, 110 1201% 10 16 12074, 117 /2070 0 LO - - 00 /2062 4 c'I E 12058 . 0.) 0) 12052 ,) o_ c•'I N 0- 12046 1 II: 1 8 0 0 DISTRICT OF PITT MEADOWS — - .'IkAP ,kLMP3lgl4 I / Ii /'RW 68897 3286 P 3936 II a. I II l j53 I II Tl 1 I 0 LMP26048 1 0 11969 i) 0.803 ha. I c..J. 4f / 9121 RW 73403 LMP 24612 RW DEWDNEy TRUNK RD. RW 57176 2815 LMTh RW 8303 Rem H. LMP 48642 (I —I RP 73369 31913l Ii rcr- Io'l'i-'4 L- ) -- -- 3-7 LRP 80930 21/ I n 100 911? LMP 20902 101 7 PW 75208 MAPLE NE /AV 725w - - - Total = 1.78 ha t tn I"95O0)J 81 91 10 1 1 12 L 1 6 'ONE' PcI. I I LMP 37906 2a.I I 1 ______ I I N 119A AVE. )I/9J4 1 P 72912 / U,1911911 / - 0- l 2 4 5 _____ 11926 N i __ ____ 18,/92 17 LU / P1 733 3 P 68232 d I 3 P 8667 G - P 6232 Lj I 1.55 ho '1m 0)1 1 2 1m1 1 , 22 21 20 1514 If/goo. lN lN _______________________ (.•() I4 - MAPLE RIDCE OPF1CAL COMMUNTY PLAN Bylaw No. 6010-2002 Map No. 613 From: Community Commercial To: Service Commercial AMAPLE RIDGE Incorporated 12 September, 1874 1:2500 ZUOd 21 120 8 AVE. /2062 20 I_i /2056 I 40 19 L 41 42 12050 - F- Rw 94 17 45 l 44 I 4 161546 k I i 120 A AVE. 120Z rC 0116 12074 117 /2070 6 0 -_ L2Q65_ 00 12062 4 c. E 12058 . w /2052 ,)CML -j t\CL 12046 1 RW 73403 LMP 24612 RW DEWONEY TRUNK RD. RW 57176 RW 8303 Rm I-I f \,, LMP 41674 RP 73369 RP 76444 L..RP 100 80930-- 101 P 87727 LMP 48642 (I —J P84469 MAPIc I ANF Ti)l l I I EFI 72b131 E119440r- I 8 g 11' 121 61 5 1 11 [71303l I I I I W~~3 11 ~ II: 8 12 I 10 17) f> I DISTRICT OF PITT MEADOWS 9 121 2 .IAP 1Q1'Y' p 39136 I 'I MP 11 /'RW 68897 A II II I 364 / LMP 31914 P 70753 I 0 fl 1 I o LMP26048 11969[,) 0.803 ha____. I , I rJ.I 319131 ' I o\$S NI r)I 0)1 Q I I -- : 10 17 / HI..-, /11 72519 I ,\ Total = 1.78 ha ui I, A NE .'•:i 3 1.55 ha N 119A AVE. j-I)9J4 1 I P 72912 —I 17 11.926 I 18 o 2 3I 4 5c /f92 . I- 191191. U) I I 71 - P 68232 119 P 8 1 1 667 I° ° 1 r 2221 I 20 z - P 6232 1514 Im MAPLE RIDGE OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDING Bylaw No. 6010-2002 Map No. 614 PURPOSE: TO DESIGNATE AS DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AREA 111(8) AMAPLE RIDGE Incorporated 12 September, 1874 1:2500 CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BY-LAW NO. 5985 - 2001 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: This by-law may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending By-law No. 5985 - 2001." That parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as: All that portion of: Lot 1, Except: Firstly: Part subdivided by Plan LMP 40247; Secondly: Part dedicated road on Plan LMP 40250; District Lot 222, Group 1, New Westminster District Plan LMP 31913 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1257 a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this by-law, is hereby rezoned to CS-i (Service Commercial) Maple Ridge Zoning By-law No. 3510 - 1985 as amended and Map "A" attached thereto are hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the day of , A.D. 2002. PUBLIC HEARING held the day of , A.D. 2002. READ a second time the day of , A.D. 2002. READ a third time the day of , A.D. 2002. APPROVED by the Minister of Transportation and Highways this day of , A.D. 2002. RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of , A.D. 2002. MAYOR CLERK 2058 ; ' 21 2o7 120 8 AVE. 12062 t 20 ii 12056 40 41 H42 19L /2050 I I I RW94I 17 1u i k )16k15I246I45l44I4 120 A AVE. "iv, 12 11 12, a- o H ri. rr 17 1 6 47 270 117 0 u) 0-- 00 -- /2062 4 c'J 12058 E •1 (1) /2052 - ') 0.. 12046 1 2 RW LMP 41674 LMP 48642 (I P84469 100 —F- 0.986 ho. I LMP 20902 I 101 P 87727 IM.Jc Ti iol I EFI 72131 f/95 8 9 101 iii 121 6 I 5 1 11940NI I k I I I 2cL I 4IlL 3'7-.J' I / h 11940 i- DISTRICT OF PuT MEADOWS .'IKAP 1Q1' 40 400 14 LMP 402 //L.LMP 31914 IcI / RW 68897 A p 3936 I l P70753 I II I 0 u 1 I I o LMP26048 04 I 119691)1 0.803 04 I *1 Q>19 9121 319131 0 -I qI) 'A cjOO' NI O)I I .jI 11 cay)I n j It _. o10 PO , / —i i ' f ly cc - 7_ - Total = 1.78 ha 'ONE' PcI. /! I lAID 1ID( L1IVI1T± 3 1.55 ha MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDING Bylaw No. 5985-2001 Map No. 1257 From: RS-3(One Family Rural Residential) To: CS-1(Service Commercial) RW 73403 LMP 2461 DEWDNEY TRUNK RD. RW 57176 00 RW8303 RemH, J*PP065 RP 73369 4ou0 11 RP 76444 N 119A AVE. I P 72912 r934 1 - /192 11926 NI I 18 17 a.. iI 2 3I 4 5 ..J //9/6 LA.I N1 7333 - P 68232 _____ IL) Z P 8 667 6232 1 - I1I 11, 22 21 l 20 15I14 LP')IOD o3 - i/9oo I I - AMAPLE RIDGE Incorporated 12 September, 1874 1:2500 CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor A. Hogarth DATE: September 25, 2001 and Members of Council FILE NO: RZ131/99 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W - PW & Dev SUBJECT: RZ13 1/99 (11969 - 200' Street) PURPOSE: Staples! Business Depot has obtained a lease over a small portion of land east of 200 th Street and immediately adjacent to the Staples site. This piece of land is a residual portion of the Canadian Tire store development that is located on the west side of 200th Street. The purpose of the application is to increase customer parking capacity for the Staples store in excess of that which is required under the Parking Bylaw, and through rezoning, a desired single cornniercial zoning designation will apply to the entire Canadian Tire property. RECOMMENDATION: That application RZ/31/99 (for property located at 11969 - 200th Street) to rezone a portion of property described in the memorandum dated September 25, 2001 from RS-3 to CS-i be forwarded to Public Hearing noting that the conditions to be met prior to Public Hearing and prior to final consideration of the Zone Amending Bylaw are detailed in that memorandum and that the accompanying Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw be forwarded to the same Public Hearing. Conditions to be met prior to first reading: 1) Fully dimensioned development plan including: Site plan; Landscape concept. And that prior to final approval the following must be completed: '1) Approval from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways; 2) Amendment to Schedule "B" of the Official Community Plan; 3) Amendment to Schedules "A" & "H" of the Official Community Plan. BACKGROUND: Applicant: Ron Jones! Paul Hayes -1- Owner: Canadian Tire Real Estate Ltd. Legal Description: Lot 1, Except: Firstly: Part subdivided by Plan LMP440247; Secondly: Part dedicated as road on Plan LMP40250; DL 222, Gp. 1, NWD Plan LMP3 1913 OCP: Existing: 3% - Community Commercial - subject area (under application) 97% - Service Commercial - main property area (store site) Proposed: 3% - Service Commercial - subject area (under application) 97% - Service Commercial - main property area (store site) Development Permit Area: Existing: DP Area 111(3) on Schedule H and XXXVII on Schedule H-2 of the OCP on that portion of the Canadian Tire site on the west side of 200th Street - there is no Development Permit Area designation on that portion of the property lying to the east of 200th Street (and currently under application). Proposed: staff is recommending that the subject portion of the property under application be designated as Development Permit Area III as a condition of rezoning so as to achieve consistency with the main area of the property. Zoning: Existing: 3% - RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) - subject area (under application) 97% - CS-i (Service Commercial) - main property area (store site) Proposed: 3% - CS-i (Service Commercial) - subject area (under application) 97% - CS-i (Service Commercial) - main property area (store site) Surrounding Uses: N: Single Family Residential S & E: Commercial W: Rural Residential (Pitt Meadows) Existing Use of Property: The Canadian Tire store site proper is situated on the larger portion of the property west of 200th Street. The small portion of the property is not used by the Canadian Tire store other than for signage purposes. Proposed Use of the Property: No changes are proposed for the Canadian Tire store site proper. However, Staples has entered into a lease agreement over the portion of property under application to obtain additional customer parking (in excess of the required amount). -2- Access: direct access to 200th Street will be provided Servicing: there are no municipal servicing requirements associated with this application. The subject property was serviced by the development of the Canadian Tire site and the Staples site. Previous Applications: DP/17/0i, DP/2/97, DP/! 1/85, RZ/31/99, RZ/37/95, RZ/37/94, PLANNING ANALYSIS: Official Community Plan & Zoning The Canadian Tire property has two Official Community Plan designations that correspond to two separate parts of the same parcel: Service Commercial with associated CS-i (Service Commercial) zoning over that portion of the property currently utilized as the Canadian Tire store; and, Community Commercial with RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) zoning over the residual piece of the property lying east of 200th Street. In order to achieve a desired consistency over the entire Canadian Tire property, the residual portion of property, zoned RS-3, must be rezoned to CS-i (Service Commercial). Schedule "B" of the Official Community Plan must also be amended to Service Commercial, as the CS-i zone does not conform to Community Commercial OCP designation. Development Permit Area: The Canadian Tire store site, west of 200th Street, is designated as DP Area 111(3) on Schedule "H" and XXXVII on Schedule "H-2" of the OCP. The residual portion of the property under application is not designated as a DP Area. This is the only portion of land in the area that is not designated as a Development Permit Area. DP Area III (established to address the form and character of commercial development) is the appropriate designation of the two on the property. The reason is that section "E" of DP Area XXXVII states that "a Development per/nit is not required for any service commercial development where the lot or parcel in question does not abut a lot or parcel designated for residential use." Consequently, DP Area XXXVII would have no force or effect over the subject site. In view of the foregoing, and in the interests of consistency, the subject portion of property should be designated Development Permit Area 111(3) as a condition of rezoning. INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES: As the property is situated within 800 metres of the Lougheed Highway, the by-law must be referred to the Ministry of Transportation and Highways for review and approval. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A CITIZEN/CUSTOMER IMPLICATIONS: The proposed rezoning will facilitate an increase in the number of parking stalls for the use by customers of the Staples store. INTERDEPARTMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A -3- ALTERNATIVES: none - the subject area of the property is essentially unusable to the Canadian Tire store, does not lend itself to subdivision, and has extremely limited development potential on its own due to lot geometry and area, thus use as additional off- street parking in association with an adjacent business is appropriate. SUMMARY: The applicant is proposing to use a residual piece of the Canadian Tire store property that is separated from the main portion of the property by Maple Meadows Way for additional Staples customer parking. While the main portion of the property is zoned CS-i (Service Commercial), the area under application is zoned RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) which does not permit off-street parking as a principle use. In the interests of consistency and in order to accommodate commercial parking, it is proposed that the subject area be rezoned to CS-i (Service Commercial). A concurrent amendment of Official Community Plan from Community Commercial to a Service Commercial is required to provide conformity. Finally, staff is recommending that the subject portion of the property under application be designated as Development Permit Area ifi as a condition of rezoning in order to achieve consistency with that portion of the property currently designated as a Development Permit Area. Approved by: Frank Quinn, P.Eng., PMP GM: Public Works & Development Services Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, AICP, MCIP Chief Administrative Officer (10) A /207A 13 \ \ 22 \I 36 I 38s---- /207/' 12 \ 21 -'--I I 20/j 120 B AVE. 39 1112064 12056 42 12059 1 I7\*PPOILMP I Ill I1 'I 2649 I 18.0 171615l46l45444 I7'l2°A AVE. - 49x 2 1 471 48 LIMP 7649 ! DEWDNEY TRUNK ROAD '1 c3 2815 Re m H, SUBJECT PROPERTY AREA TO BE REZONED v). 0• \ iI A P 70753 8 LMP 26048 1969 0.803 ha. Rem Rem W 1/2 E 1/2 Rem 16 Rem 17 Rem 18 of 15 of 15 In P11194 - / u_ - 0 I LMP 31913 I—' N r.) 0 (I) • 0 1 or P 84469 100 - 0.986 LMP 43275 LOT A 0.909 ha 36.6 10 1 P. ONE' I 2 a I LMP 37906 I l I I I I I 0 119A AVE. Total 1.78 ha 7195 81 1 iol 121 61 1 2 I 4 5 1 Pi 73313 - P 68 Li 3 P 8667 !1!1; 22 21 1I2.. '- - 1.55 ho 11900 - - LMP 31913 -li BRUCE AVE. 11911 sIT3TS '0 '0 JJ 1I234 56 7 8 PO I R 6832 2 17) 1/890 LMP47486 LMP 1 iw 1 i 211 2l3 2 LMP 3877 ' 11871 F- DUNAVE. SUBJECT PROPERTY SILVER PITT MEADOWS VALLEY A H )D CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE SCALE: AI.BION THORNHILL MAPLE RIDGE PLANNING DEPARTMENT Incorporated 12 September, 1874 NTS FRASER R1VER DRAWN BY: T.M. I DATE: NOV. 6, 2001 FILE: RZ-31 —99 I. SUBJECT PROPERT \1UZ C) 11065 1 20 12056 - CL 10 192 12059 1205 12055 18 17L16L, 3/ 2cs1 H! A I 04 120211 Rem 1 11969 LMP 31913 cs1 bs-i LMP 43275 LOT A 11901 1.78 ha Ti\J [0 89 1-940-1 / RS-1 b i / cs-i 1 2 — iI / 3 - co LMP31913 11900 CL 11911 WESTST. BF I (0 1(0 F- F- (0 1 0' 0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD F-1 F-I F-I F-I Rem Rem 2 1 W 1/2 E 1/2 Rem 16 The Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge of 15 of 15 makes no guarantee regarding the accuracy or P 111 present status of the information shown on this map.• izubz C) , 1112065 20 12056 - - 10 I 19 2050 2055 18y CD Els 5 Cb 3/ 2I I I .. -- — 11--49 C') C Iva " ~~ CCOMMc.'J P 70753 Rem 1 11969 LMP 31913 SCOMM a- -j TRAN NE —4 I 11950 I 8 9 SF 18 111940 r-.. 2 QI5 L N- LMP 37906 00 c', c'J I I NI I 151 I Nil m 1 E I 251 3 Nil 733-1 LMP 43275 3 m 1 P8367 l I Icol LOTA 1 11900 2 LMP 31913 (1) 11911WESTST. — B I lCO 77 1 1 m Rem Rem W 1/2 E 1/2 Rem 16 The Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge Q of 15 of 15 makes no guarantee regarding the accuracy or P 111 present status of the information shown on this map. SUBJECT PROPERTY (11969 200 St.) N i SHOWING OCP DESIGNATIONS CORPORATION OF / t\ o - ON THELAKE GSTRICTOF "\ I rflADI IIflC'E MAPLE RIDGE / LANGLEY ALEIO iv i,- L.. I t I I.# _. TEIOANHILL Incorporated 12, September, 1874 PLANNING DEPARTMENT SCALE 1 2500 KEY MAP - DATE Nov 14 2001 FILE RZ 31 99 BY TM 1190 CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor A. Hogarth DATE: January 30, 2002 and Members of Council FILE NO: RZ/052/00 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W - PW & Dev SUBJECT: First Reading Bylaw No.'s 6020-2002 and 6019-2002 24079 DEWDNIEY TRUNK RD & 24111 DEWDNEY TRUNK RD PURPOSE: An application has been received which if approved will permit the development of a school site on existing agricultural land. The Applicant is proposing to construct a playfield and related athletic facilities, on a 0.8 ha portion from each of the subject properties. The total 1.6 ha. is to be subdivided and consolidated with the existing school site to the north on completion of the rezoning application. The application was reviewed by the Land Reserve Commission (LRC), in August 2001. The LRC resolved to allow this subdivision and use within the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) With conditions identified in their resolution. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that: That Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6020-2002 be given First Reading; That Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6019-2002 be given First Reading; and That Official Community Plan and Zone Amending Bylaw No's 6020-2002 and 6019-2002 be referred to Public Hearing. BACKGROUND: Applicant: Owner: Legal Description: OCP: Existing: Proposed: Zoning: Existing: Proposed: Surrounding Uses: N: S: E: W: Existing Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Access: Servicing: Previous Applications: MEADOWRIDGE SCHOOL SOCIETY Lot 2 C. & D. Bell, V. Nieson, Lot 3 V. Nieson Lot: 2, Plan: 3118, Lot: 3, Plan: 3118 Agricultural School RS-3 One Family Rural Residential P- 1 Park and School P-1 School RS-3 One Family Rural Residential RS-3 One Family Rural Residential RS-3 One Family Rural Residential RS-3 One Family Rural Residential P-i School 240th Street N/A ALRIO52/00 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to develop the approximately 1.6 ha area with a playfield, a cinder surfaced sprint track, 2 asphalt sport courts, 2 asphalt tennis courts, 64 car paved parking lot and a small storage building. The playfield will have a synthetic turf surface and includes lights on 4 lamp standards to extend its use as a practice facility. The field is intended to provide a practice facility for users without the provision of seating typical of spectator type events. As a result, the lower lighting levels will be sufficient for practice only and are not designed for television broadcast. PLANNING ANALYSIS: Official Community Plan: The land is designated on the Official Community Plan (OCP) as Agricultural. For this rezoning application to proceed it will be necessary to amend Schedule B of the Official Community Plan to re-designate the site as School. Zoning Bylaw: The subject site is currently zoned RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) and is proposed to be rezoned to P-i (Park and School). The subject site will be subdivided from the larger parcels and consolidated with the existing school site. Development Information Meeting: A Development Information Meeting was held on January 23', 2002, with 20 persons in attendance. Concerns raised pertained to current traffic congestion on 240 ' Street during the school day, current land use designation of the adjacent properties fronting on 240th, and buffering requirements of the LRC's conditional approval of the subdivision. Traffic congestion near school sites is a common concern of residents adjacent to schools. The peak periods at the start and end of school days cause higher traffic volumes on adjacent access roads that often result in blocked driveways and increased waiting at intersections and traffic lights. The applicant recognizes the need to improve traffic flow on site, in particular during the morning drop off and afternoon pick up. Part of the plans for this development proposal is to redirect the movement of vehicles on site to allow for better flow of traffic entering and exiting the school site. The School has also worked in the past with the District of Maple Ridge to better coordinate the traffic light sequence at 240th and Dewdney Trunk Road. It was also pointed out that development of the playfield would generate new traffic volumes for the area outside the peak periods and not necessarily cause an increase in traffic during the morning or afternoon rush. Two adjacent property owners who front onto the eastside of 240th street requested information on what the District of Maple Ridge was considering for the future land use of their property. As this was not directly related to the land being rezoned the applicant offered to forward OCP information to these two property owners. A discussion ensued about what impact the proposed development would have on the value of adjacent properties. The applicant indicated that there would be a landscape buffer between the proposed uses and the rear lot lines of adjacent properties. Further, the aspect of limiting access to the fields to certain times and specific field users, offered a form of security for the neighbourhood, in addition to the presence of a school caretaker on site. -2- The Land Reserve Commission requires a 15 metre buffer of specified planting on the development side of the parcel boundary. This is a standard requirement of the Land Reserve Commission where a change in land use is to occur adjacent to land in agricultural use. The goal of the buffer is to minimize the impact of non-farm use on the farm operations, prevent trespass concerns, and provide space to reduce conflicts between farm operations and what are often urban land uses. With this goal in mind, and proposed use of the site, the applicant may enter into discussions with the Land Reserve Commission to see if the objectives of buffering the playfieldlsportcourt can be achieved with a reduced buffer strip. This is a Land Reserve Commission requirement for subdivision and will need to be satisfied prior to completion of the subdivision application. Conditions to be met prior to final reading: Amendment to Schedule "B" of the Official Community Plan; Road dedication as required; A landscape plan prepared by a Landscape Architect must be submitted, including the security to do the works. INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES: In August 2001 the Land Reserve Commission resolved to allow the subdivision and use described in application ALRI052/00 with conditions. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A CITIZEN/CUSTOMER IMPLICATIONS: N/A INTERDEPARTMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: The Parks and Leisure Services Department has expressed an interest in further discussions with the applicant as there appears to be a significant demand for access to practice fields by the various field user groups currently using Municipal facilities. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A ALTERNATIVES: N/A -3- SUMMARY: Based on the discussion at the Development Information Meeting, and recognizing a development proposal that attempts to address the anticipated impacts on the adjacent neighbourhood, it is recommended that the bylaws be read a first time and RZ/52/00 be authorized to proceed to public hearing. red by: Bruce McLeod Planning Technician prove y:Janek g,11€P, MCIP D1tor of Planning /~Z ApproveØy: Frank Quinn, P.Eng., PMP GM: Public Works & Development Services Concurrence: Rob t W. Robertson, AICP, MCIP Chief Administrative Officer A V/U Rem 13 18 I234 1 P51480 19 13 P3118 16 40 Rem 17 39756 11 P3118 g 2b 2 1r1 N 1/2 8 - 7 V V \ J1 '1 C) I', 33 CL S 1/2 8 SUBJECT P1 OPERTIES R -3 P2512 6 P3118 P3118 Rem N 12 LO P82308 2 3 4 5 6 7 T3042 Remi CD3 2 4 LL Re 1 P-6 3 LM P 5774 14 20 0) LO P-I Rem 21 P880 cs-i ________ ________ LMP 30401 LO DEWDNEYTRKRD DEWDNEYTR L_ ~1416 i! LM !:: Re 10 P 197: 9 8 1 1_i P3°751 119A AVE iLJ_. 8 - The Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge AVE ii ) M 1 makes no guarantee regarding the accuracy or I,7B1/ 3 present status of the information shown on A 5 2 6 thismap. N FITT MEA D SILV R 24079 & 241 11 DEWDNEY TRUNK ROAD CORPORATION OF A I THE DTCT OF MAPLE RIDGE ThORHILL incorporated 12, September, 1874 PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE Oct 3 2001 FILE RZ/52/00 & SD152/00 BY JV SCALE 1 5000 KEY MAP w I AL I Ilk p 0 CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RII)GE BY-LAW NO. 6020 - 2002. A By-law to amend the Official Community Plan WHEREAS the Local Government Act empowers a local government to adopt or amend an 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 Amending By-law No.6020 - 2002." That parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as: Lot 2, Section 22, Township 12, New Westminster District, Plan 3118 And Lot 3, Section 22, Township 12, New Westminster District, Plan 3118 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No.618, a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this by-law, is hereby redesignated to: School Maple Ridge Official Community Plan By-law No. 5434-1996 as amended is hereby amended accordingly. READ A FIRST TI1\'IE the day of , A.D. 2002. PUBLIC HEARING HELD the day of READ A SECOND TIME the day of READ A THIRD TIME the day of RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the MAYOR ,A.D. 2002. A.D. 2002. A.D. 2002. day of , A.D. 2002. CLERK 'd I 23T42 19 a. 0400 he PP133 1.972 he. P 51480 13 P 3118 4.281 he. 16 23.2 t225l, l.22U A RP 8440 EP 1418 J Rem 17 7V D '.r. I 01 I.2951,e. 3.812 he. 'LMP 23612 P 3118 P39756 /2124 J 2P' , 26 N 1/2 8 1&0! 0403 ho. 26.1 f 24 a. 112, 33 8 51/28 L—? 30" 0.487 he 35 31 " 21 12I 890 I ,J, .PP098 /21031 F /2/9 /212 N 1/2 7 r4 i IMP 3217 /2/4? S 1/2 7 2IA Fl/U P2512 a P 3118 Rem N 1/2 6 0563 he. ,,,,, a. I7/721IS I— 5 P 62308 Zn o.eoe he. 2 3 4 5 6 0 3 ,VVl ,-t /1064 4047 he. 4.047 he. 4.047 he. 4.047 he. 4.047 he Reml 8 2 4 O.406he. a. N -. I a. F7 3 0406 l P 57747 /2440 20 14 0.eOlho. 0.848 he. N _. RW 2 RW30273 . Rem 21 P8803 L..RW86310 - - RP 85321 P 86310 DEWDNEY TRUNK RD. P 84994 20jI LJb 'I ' L ________L 2 [ Rem _________________ I 168 t 48 - MAPLE RIDGE OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDING Bylaw No. 6020-2002 Map No. 618 From: Agricultural To: School AMAPLE RIDGE Incorporated 12 September, 1874 1:4000 CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor A. Hogarth DATE: February 14, 2002 and Members of Council FILE NO: RZ/072/01 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W - PW & Dev SUBJECT: First Reading Bylaw No.'s 6017-2002 and 6016-2002 (13600 Bik of 256 Street) PURPOSE: An application has been received to rezone 8.2 hectares of a 60.6 hectare site to permit the processing of gravel. This application will require an amendment to both the Official Community Plan to designate the site from Industrial Reserve to Industrial and the Zoning Bylaw. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that: That Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 60 17-2002 be given First Reading and forwarded to Public Hearing; That Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6016-2002 be given First Reading and be forwarded to Public Hearing; and That all the conditions noted in the RZ/072/01 memo dated February 14, 2002 must be completed prior to final reading. BACKGROUND: Applicant: Owner: Legal Description: OCP: Zoning: Surrounding Uses: N: S: E: W: Existing Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Access: Servicing: Previous Applications: Jonathan R. Huggett District of Maple Ridge Lot: 1, District Lot 5326, Group 1, Plan LMP 13975 Existing: Industrial Reserve Proposed: Industrial Existing: A-2 (Upland Agricultural) Proposed: M-5 (Heavy Industrial) Industrial Fire Training Centre Crown Land Fraser River Correctional Institute Vacant Gravel processing 256 Street N/A N/A q07 ifiSTORY: In 1993 the Provincial Government transferred ownership of the subject site (approximately 60.6 hectares) to the District of Maple Ridge. At the time of the transfer, a restrictive covenant was registered at the Land Title Office restricting the property from being used for a landfill site or a repository for waste. In November of 2000, after Public Consultation and public presentations, Council adopted its Gravel Strategy, an Integrated Gravel Management Plan. That Plan established six principles as a guide to managing new sources of gravel. The strategy reaffirmed and established a plan to implement existing OCP Policies. The six principles are listed below: Gravel or aggregate is a highly valued non-renewable resource and its extraction should be strongly considered and evaluated prior to development. Restricting gravel extraction to historical annual levels in the area designated for industrial lands north of 256 Street offers the best integration among industiy, the Municipality and local residents interests. Gravel extraction proponents must comply with all Federal, Provincial, Regional• and Municipal Acts, Policies and Bylaws. Prior to any new gravel source being approved for extraction all environmental and storm water management requirements nust be satisfactorily addressed. Congruent with new gravel extraction operations, identifiable traffic safety improvements related to gravel extraction and transportation will continuously be investigated, reviewed and considered in the District's capital programs. The District will seek to optimize its revenues from gravel extraction, within extraction levels stated in Principle 2, to offset current and future operating and capital costs. To maintain its currency, this Gravel Strategy will be revisited, reviewed and modified where appropriate and formally reviewed every 3 years. While gravel extraction is not a land use, processing of gravel can only be undertaken in certain zones. An application in support of the Gravel Strategy, which will permit the processing of gravel as a permitted use on the southwest portion of the site has been received. This report will deal with the land use issues related to the application to amend both the Official Community Plan and Zoning Bylaw. The District is currently in the process of reviewing proposals from potential operators of the proposed gravel operation. Should the Zoning Application be advanced to third reading, it is understood that the selected operator would be required to complete any outstanding conditions and requirements.. The site is 8.2 hectares in size and located on the north east corner of 256 Street and the unconstructed 136 Avenue right of way. This represents only 12% of the total property. A BC Hydro transmission line right- of-way exists across its northern boundary, which also includes the access road to the Municipal reservoir and an equestrian trail, which carries on beyond this site into The Blue Mountain Provincial Forest area. Zirk Brook is located on the south portion of the site. To the south is the unconstructed 136 Avenue right of way and the Fire Training Centre for the Justice Institute of B.C. The property is currently zoned A-2 (Upland Agricultural) and is designated as Industrial Reserve. -2- In 2001 Golder and Associates were retained to complete an environmental assessment, and a geotechnical and hydrogeological analysis of the portion of the site under consideration. These will be discussed in detail later in the report. The major components of the proposed gravel pit will include: • Clearing, grubbing, stripping and stockpiling of topsoil or overburden; • Excavation of the gravel pit in accordance with the mine plan, including processing; • Implementation of sediment and erosion control measures including development of exfiltration areas; as appropriate for the progression of the gravel pit; • Installation of temporary trailers which may require septic and water services; and • Reclamation of the site. In addition to the above, the development of a concrete andlor asphalt plant is a possible future consideration. PLANNING ANALYSIS: Official Community Plan: Schedule "A" Schedule "A" Section II - Policies regarding Environment and Natural Resources recognizes the importance of gravel extraction in the community and states: Gravel is an important commodity to the building industry and to Municipal operation, particular for constructing and maintaining roads, sewers and water systems. The Local Government Act requires that the Official Community Plan identmfy gravel resources. Part II - Policies regarding Economy and Employment encourages local work opportunities and investment leading to a more sustainable and self-reliant community. This section also recognizes the opportunities for economic growth in the primary resource sector. Specifically, Policy 53 states: Policy 53: The gravel reserves in the Industrial Reserve area at the north end of 256 Street will be considered for use prior to development of the industrial potentiaL However, before any additional gravel extraction traffic occurs, beyond historic levels, alternative access needs to be developed to prevent increased impacts on the residential character of the neighbourhood. Principles 1 and 2 of the adopted Gravel Strategy echo and reaffirm these policies. In recognition of the impact a gravel mining operation can have, the Official Community Plan established Policy 16 which states: Policy 16: Maple Ridge will require an Environmental Impact Assessment to be undertaken for areas to be rezoned for high impact uses. The purpose of the assessment is to review impacts on the environment of proposed uses and to identify or recommend any necessary development monitoring and mitigation measures. -3- Principle 3 of the Gravel Strategy builds on this policy. An Environmental Impact Assessment has been prepared in support of the development proposal. It will be discussed later in this report. The historic level for gravel extraction in this area is 300,000 m 3 . The 100,000 m3 of gravel proposed for extraction from this site is within the limits available. Adding this to the level of material currently being extracted under the Soil Removal Bylaw amounts to less than 200,000 m 3 per annum. Schedule B: The site is presently designated Industrial Reserve, Community Forest and Utilities on Schedule "B" of the Official Community Plan. The portion of the site subject to this rezoning application is designated Industrial Reserve and Utilities. The Official Community Plan amendment will be for the entire Industrial Reserve designation on the site to Industrial as a condition of zoning. The Community Forest designation and Utility designation will remain as shown. The Conmiunity Forest designation is an extension of the Crown Land to the east of this site and recognizes the forest reserve area of Blue Mountain. The Utility designation recognizes the B.C. Hydro transmission line and is an overlay layer on Schedule B. Schedule D: This schedule of the Official Community Plan identifies Major Public Utilities and Gravel Resources in the District. The subject site is identified on this schedule as a potential gravel resource. Schedule E: This site is identified on Schedule E of the Official Community Plan as having a watercourse designated for special treatment (Zirk Brook) on the south eastern portion and is included in Development Permit Area XXX. It will be necessary for the applicant to have a Development Permit approved by Council which addresses the guidelines and objectives of Development Permit Area XXX prior to any site clearing within 50 meter of the top of bank of Zirk Brook. Schedule F: Schedule F of the Official Community Plan indicates that part of the Equestrian Trail Network is located within thatportion of.the site which alsohouses the.B.C. Hydro right-of-way. Currently the trail follows the existing road used by B.C. Hydro to access their transmission line and by the District to access their water reservoir. This access road will be relocated as a condition of the gravel pit development and relocated to the north boundary of the site. It will be reconstructed and include provision for the equestrian trail as well as reconnecting it to the existing trail further east of the working pit area. This will be secured within the Operating Agreement. The Equestrian Trails Council is aware of this development proposaland the District is working with them to ensure that the trail network is protected. The District is also working with the Equestrian Trails Council to achieve other trail connections in this area on land other than that owned by the District. A Zoning Bylaw: The applicant has proposed to rezone the site to M-5 (High Impact Industrial) zoning in order to accommodate the proposed uses. This is a high impact zone and will require management of environmental impacts. The uses are widely varied and include some which have potentially high impacts on surrounding uses. However, as the land is owned by the District, the actual use of the property will be affected by that ownership. The principal uses permitted in the zone are: Extraction industrial; Industrial uses limited to: • concrete and cement plants and product manufacturing; • asphalt, rubber and tar production and products manufacturing; • wrecking and salvaging of goods, material or things; • sawmills, shakemills and pulp mills; • hydrocarbon refining and storage; • chemical plants; • stockyard and abattoirs; • septic tank services; • waste reduction plants; • waste transfer site and (the existing restrictive covenant on the site does not permit this use); and . unenclosed storage processing of gravel. The Accessory Uses permit: primary processing; office use; industrial repair services; off-street parking and loading; one family residential use; retail use provided that: in any building or structure the total gross floor area devoted to such accessory retail use does not exceed 25 % of the total gross floor area of the principal use to which is accessory and • on any unenclosed outdoor area of a lot the maximum site coverage of al accessory retail uses. on-the .iot..shalL.iittheaggregatebeiimited.toa. maximum. of.l000M2of the.. areaof the lot; wholesale use provided that: • in any building or structure the total gross floor area devoted to such accessory wholesale use does not exceed 25% of the total gross floor . area of the principal use to which it is accessory; and .- .- on. .any, unenclosed outdoor area of a lot the maximum site coverage of all accessory wholesale uses on the lot shall in the aggregate be limited to a maximum of 1000m2 of the area of the lot. -5- Development Permit Area XXX: The site is subject to Development Permit Area XXX with respect to Habitat Protection. Approval of a Development Permit will be required prior to any work being undertaken within 50 metres of the top of bank of Zirk Book and the wetland area. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: An environmental assessment has been prepared for the site by Golder Associates. The report outlines the project environmental mitigation measures to be implemented through the detailed design, construction, operation and reclamation of the gravel pit. That report identifies potential environmental effects and provides mitigation strategies including an Environmental Protection Plan to minimize the potential adverse environmental effects that the mining operation may have. These will include: • A Surface Water Management and Sediment Control Plan; • A Waste Management Plan; • A Spill Prevention and Emergency Response Plan; • A Monitoring Plan; and • A Reclamation Plan. The environmental assessment identifies the need for a 30-metre habitat protection buffer to be established on both Zirk Creek and the wetland area on the southwest portion of the site. In addition specific mitigation measures were outlined to minimize potential impacts to aquatic and terrestrial resources, including rare and endangered species. The Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection has developed a vegetation and wildlife species evaluation list for species indigenous to B.C. They are the Red-listed species, which are considered endangered or threatened and the Blue-listed species, which are considered to be vulnerable. No Red-listed species has been observed, there was, however a Blue-listed species found in the wetland area (a red-legged frog). The Environmental Assessment identifies that the habitat of this species needs to be protected by maintaining the undisturbed 30-metre riparian setback area adjacent to Zirk Brook and the wetland area. Comments were solicited from the Alouette River Management Society (ARMS) and from the 'Kanaka Education-Environmental Partnership Society (KEEPS). Both these groups were concerned that the assessment did not cover the, entire 60.6 hectare site and that it was only over one season. Since their initial review, Golder has undertaken additional site assessments through the fall and winter seasons. There were no raptors' nests found nor any additional red or blue species. Should any work be contemplated beyond the current 8.2 hëctäres, similar Environmental Asse"ssments wi'll'be required. 1HNING PLAN: Soil removal is governed by the Maple Ridge Soil Removal Bylaw and by Provincial Legislation under the Mines Act. The site is identified in the Official Community Plan as having potential gravel resources and is designated in the District Soils Removal Bylaw 4109-1988 for soil removal. A geotechnical study has identified that suitable sand and gravel materials of significant thickness are present in the area subject of this application for the purpose of mining. The assessment concluded that the useable material in this area is approximately 400,000 m 3, which equates to a four- to five-year time line for operation of the facility. Based on the geotechnical information provided and working with in the Gravel Strategy Principles it is the intention to mine 100,000 m3 of material a year from the pit area. It is also the intention to process the mined material prior to transporting it. A Mine Plan and Reclamation Plan Permit has been applied for and is under review by the Ministry of Energy and Mines. If approved, conditions will be placed on the permit by the Ministry which will cover the health and safety of workers on site and the public at large during the operation of the pit, and will also address environmental, fisheries and hydrological issues. It will be necessary to relocate the existing access road, currently used by the District, B.C. Hydro and equestrian users to the north of the subject pit area to along the existing water main right-of-way. This will also include reconnecting it to the existing trail. The cost of these works will be borne by the successful operator. It will be necessary to ensure that B.C. Hydro have access rights along the new portion if this area is outside their existing right-of-way. This work should take place prior to any gravel operation occurring so as not to interrupt the current access. Finished grade for the mine is to remain above the seasonal high water table. Once the high groundwater elevation has been established, the design grade in the northeast corner of the pit can be recommended. Until this final design grade elevation is established, gravel mining will be limited to material above elevation 190 meters (this will be regulated by the soil removal permit). A copy of the proposed Mine Plan is attached showing the approximate location of the actual mine area, as well as the proposed location of the processing/wash plant and material stockpiles. Site development aspects will therefore include: • a 5 meter buffer setback from 256 Street; • relocation of the existing access road, presently used by B.C. Hydro, the District and as a horse trail; • a 5 meter setback from the water reservoir access road/ underground water main; • a 30 meter habitat buffer from Zirk Brook and associated wetland in the south west portion of the site; • perimeter ditching to collect and re-direct surface run-off within the working gravel pit footprint; and the establishment of a monitoring plan of the existing standpipe piezometers. The Reclamation: The Mines Act of B.C. will regulate the reclamation of the site and reclamation conditions will form part of the Mining Permit. After completion of the gravel extraction all exposed ground will be shaped and graded to provide stable long-term slopes and suitable surface run-off patterns. These areas will be spread with topsoil and seeded and planted with indigenous species. The permanent cut slope geometry is expected to be suitable for long-term stability. A copy of the proposed Reclamation Plan is attached. INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES: The Ministry of Energy and Mines is currently reviewing the District application for a mining permit. They have provided a letter to the District that states that they supported the application and that they are in the final stages of their review. -7- The Simon Fraser Health Region has reviewed the application to ensure that a septic system can be achieved at the time of an application for a Building Permit. They have no objection to the proposal but require that the area needed to support the proposed temporary office and maintenance facilities be protected from damage. B.C. Hydro have commented and have no objections to the rezoning of the site. They do however have some preconditions regarding their plant which will have to be respected. These are: Pit slopes must not exceed 2H: 1V; The crest (top) of any cut slope must not be within 15 meters of a tower base or haul road; and No blasting on the right-of-way unless pre-approved on site by them. The Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection has commented that under the Water Act the following must be complied with: If changes were made in and about a stream on the subject property, approval under a Section 9 would be required; and If water were to be withdrawn from a streamlspring for gravel washing purposes a water license would be required. None of these are anticipated for this site. The Fish and Wildlife Branch of the Ministry of Water Land and Air Protection has also commented that a habitat protection area of 30 meters be established from the top of bank for Zirk Brook and the wetland area at the south west portion of the site. This will be achieved through a restrictive covenant for habitat protection and registered at the Land Title Office prior to final reading. CITIZEN / CUSTOMER IMPLICATIONS: Development Information Meeting: A Development Information Meeting was held on February 4, 2002. The sign-in sheet had 38 names. The comments from the meeting are attached. The majority of concerns raised were: 1. Traffic • truck traffic; • speed control; • the intersection at Dewdney Trunk Road; and • a separated pathway system on 256 Street for pedestrians and equestrian traffic. At the meeting the Engineering Department provided the public with some options that are currently being considered by the District for future capital plans. They include: • Construct barrier curb line to define road width and appearance of a narrower road carriage way to affect speed reduction; • -Install an automated radar speed sign; • Install smart solar power raised pavement markers for centerline; • Paint sequential perpendicular paint -line across pavement to heighten speed awareness to reduce speeding; • Install traffic circles at key intersections; • Install additional stop controls for cross streets; • Improve street lighting levels; • Culvert west side ditch and construct a paved separated multi-use walkway with a suitable surface for horse use; • Culvert eastside ditch and construct a paved separated multi-use walkway with a suitable surface for horse use; • Install rumple strip on shoulder as a warning system for vehicles; • Install railing for sidewalk adjacent to road; • Improve the intersection alignment of Dewdney at 256 Street; and • Install median dividers. Consistent with Principle 5 of the Gravel Strategy, at the information meeting it was stated that these options will be considered over a period of time. Some options will be recommended for implementation in the immediate future; others will require further feasibility analysis and the augmentation of the soil removal reserve fund in order to finance them. INTERDEPARTMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: The Engineering Department has identified that all the services required in support of the rezoning application are available to the site. The required services are road, water and a drainage system. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Should this application be successful it is the District's intention to lease the gravel operation to an independent operator under Principle 5 of Council's adopted Gravel Strategy. The District will seek to optimize its revenues from gravel extraction and to offset current and future operating and capital costs. The current District budget includes gravel revenues of $1.3 million over five years. ALTERNATIVES: Gravel extraction is a resource and not a land use and is, therefore, permitted in any zone. If this application is not successful the gravel pit could proceed; but without processing or storing of the extracted material on site. As a result the marketability of the resource would be significantly diminished and the financial returns significantly lessened. CONDITIONS TO BE MET: Should this project be advanced, a number of conditions will have to be met both prior to final reading of the Zoning Bylaw; and, issuance of a Soil Removal Permit. Zoning: Amendment to Schedule "B" of the Official Community Plan; Approval of a Septic System by the Environmental Health Officer; A Sediment Control & Stormwater Management Plan must be prepared, submitted, and reviewed; Environmental Monitoring Plan; A restrictive covenant must be registered at the Land Title Office with respect to habitat protection for. Zirk Brook and the wetland area; and SOil Removal Permit Mining Permit from the Ministry of Mines Approved Reclamation Plan Water Table Monitoring Plan Ailconditions of Soil Removal Bylaw SUMMARY: The application supports the District Gravel Strategy and recognizes the gravel resources as identified in the Official Community Plan and on site. It is recommended that the Zone Amending Bylaw and the Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw be given first reading and be forwarded to Public Hearing. ,L Prepared by: Gay McMillan Planning Technician / MCIP Director of Planning by: Frank Quinn, P.Eng., PMP GM: Public Works & Development Services ( ) - Co Z urrence: Robert W. Robertson, AICP, MCIP Chief Administrative Officer -10- CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BY-LAW NO. 6017 - 2002 A By-law to amend the Official Community Plan WHEREAS the Local Government Act empowers a local government to adopt or amend an 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 maybe cited for all purposes as "Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending By-law No. 6017 - 2002." That parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as: Lot 1, District Lot 5326, Group 1, New Westminster District, Plan LMP13975 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 617, a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this by-law, is hereby redesignated to: Industrial (Urban/Rural) Maple Ridge Official Community Plan By-law No. 5434-1996 as amended is hereby amended accordingly. READ A FIRST TIME the day of , A.D. 2002. PUBLIC HEARING HELD the day of A.D. 2002. SECOND 2002. READ A THIRD TIME the day of , A.D. 2002. RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of , A.D. 2002. MAYOR CLERK 'I; ---- - / / 41 LW 41030 2 LW 41020 330- i/I LW 27433 2 20 I I LW 27433 Leu1 FRASER REGIONAL CORRECTIONAL CENTRE 2 17.9 ha co/ 1 LMP 13975 / / 60.6 ha / LMP 13975 73790 73777 \ / /B.C.H. & p.A. RIAI vv 48496 - \\ 136 Ave. /1) \\\13500 MAPLE RIDGE OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDING Bylaw No. 6017-2002 Map No. 617 From: Industrial Reserve To: lndustrial(Urban/Rural) 0401m Sam A MAPLE RIDGE Incorporated 12 September, 1874 1:6000 CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BY-LAW NO. 6016 - 2002 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: This by-law may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending By-law No. 6016 - 2002." That parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as: All that portion of: Lot 1, District Lot 5326, Group 1, New Westminster District, Plan LMP13975 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No.1268 a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this by-law, is hereby rezoned to M-5 (High Impact Industrial) Maple Ridge Zoning By-law No. 3510 - 1985 as amended and Map "A" attached thereto are hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the day of , A.D. 2002. PUBLIC HEARING held the day of , A.D. 2002. READ a second time the day of , A.D. 2002. READ a third time the day of , A.D. 2002. RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of , A.D. 2002. MAYOR CLERK _j W ow / FRft.SER REGIONAL CORRECTiONAL CENTRE 2 co 17.9 ho 1 CO LMP 13975 I I 60.6 ha LMP 13975 ((13790 13777 \ \ I. B.C.H.B.C.H & p RW 96 ( \%\ 136 Ave. / \\ /3500 / MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDING Bylaw No. 6016-2002 Map No. 1268 From: A-2(Upland Agricultural) To: M-5(High Impact Industrial) 6im M00111t. A MAPLE RIDGE Incorporated 12 September, 1874 1:6000 LMP 41830 LMP 3 2 LMP 1830 LMP 27462 2 1 LMP4 0 LMP 27462 SUBJECT I p -5 PROPERTY GO A-2 17.9ha - LMP 13975 FRASER REGIONAL CORR ONAL CENTRE 60.6 ha AREA UNDER APPLICATION / FOR REZONING I 4 _ 136 AVE of Maple Ridge The Corporation of the District makes no guarantee regarding the accuracy or shown on \\ present status of the information this map. I \ - is rTIL1 SUBJECT PROPERTY N OISTRICTOF fl A L(___________ DISTRICT (I Incorporated 12, September, 1874 PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: Feb 1 2002 FILE: RZ-72-01 BY: TM SCALE: 1:6000 KEY MAP i . ..—..--.--.- ..:. / •/ ,,.... ,/. I.... I •1 c\\\.\'\ /11/11,jiH' -.Topsoil Existing Ex Water ReseoIr jApproximate "I Wa.h[ 1(1~Qitntanan a Material Stockpile., CL Fence party DItch \ ( / ! • west and south boundaes ,Proposed !ntJrcetr \ \\ • I \.\\'\.'\ / / I P FutuPond& ( f Collect iorn N\\ - -•'. :. -__, , . - Vegetated Top of an of 1 '\ // / Striam 1 -- /•• 36 (RI I ( 5m Wide Buffer t \\\ REFERENCE 0 1001 ! DISTRICT of MAPLE RIDGE, CAD File: BLU, sII-e, T55, T56, 165, T66. T75, T76.dwg., - Dated: August 2001. . . . SCALE (m) DISTRICT of MAPLE RIDGE GRAVEL PIT MAPLE RIDGE, BC, CANADA MINE PLAN I 0. 250-5002 flit N,. 0000-0.2. L0S02 P.O. S(P-lS-0I SNAiL :02001 000. 1 .r J.S.O. SOP-IS-el c.otco FIGURE 4 13Dm Setback _iilIl_I1r ) - 15111 Setack ram /Tp of/Bank of / jStrèam \ \ \ \ \• \ \ \ \ \ \ • 10 SCALE (rn) I f I I I II DISTRICT of MAPLE RIDGE GRAVEL PIT MAPLE RIDGE, BC, CANADA RECLAMATION PLAN 1= Wetted Area / Ill / •' / Existing 2Cll,ft (i \, \ \\ '\ \\•\ \ \ \ / •"., / \ Final Grading and Surface Water Management to be / / I Addressed During Design of Proposed Industrlall Commerclal.DevelopmentAfterMineClosure\ /-.*-- Minimum5msetback / I from property line along -. west and south boundaries All Slopes to be, revegetated Including: 11 - mn. 0.3m Topsoil Cover - hydroseeding f / - tre/ shrub plaits •) 0 C> \\ • .' 16 r. N. [ D EFERENCE F ISTRICT of MAPLE RIDGE, CAD File: BLU, sil-e, 155,156,165,166,175, 176.dwg., ated: August 2001. Report on Public Open House held to discuss Gravel Extraction Proposal Introduction The open house was held on Monday 4th February 2001 to inform local residents of the issues regarding the gravel extraction proposal on the District property at 256 street and 132nd Avenue in Maple Ridge. The meeting was held at Webster's corner elementary school at the intersection of 256 Street and Dewdney Trunk Road. A total of 38 local residents signed the signing sheet at the front door which is attached to this report as Appendix A. A total of six residents submitted comment sheets which are attached to this report as Appendix B. Disulay Material Various display boards were set up around the room in the school and each display board was staffed by key staff members or consultants. The following is a list of the display board material prepared by Golder Associates as follows • A general board describing the background, detailed investigation, mine design and reclamation proposals & 2T ISYMrtEE1 KhZQH1C4?pLlCATW I - • A board dealing with water and hydrology and specifically describing surface water and groundwater, hydrology and hydro- geology, and proposed water management. • A board dealing with wildlife and vegetation issues and specifically describing existing fish and wildlife resources, potential wildlife resources, environmental considerations and proposed mitigation strategies These three boards were staffed by a total of four technical specialists from Golder Associates. The following boards were prepared by District staff and staffed by District engineering staff and a consultant: • Two large aerial photographs showing the site and the surrounding property • Two boards showing the outline of the property for which the rezoning application has been made • A board listing the six principles the District has adopted as its policy on gravel extraction. • Two identical boards outlining possible traffic mitigation measures and safety provisions that will be made to 256 Street :i r. , t1II Discussion of issues raised by the public The main area of concern expressed by the public was the increased traffic on 256 Street. One comment sheet asked for equestrian trails to be protected on 256 Street while another signed by the owner of the convenience store at 256 street and Dewdney Trunk Road was concerned about right turn lanes on to 256 Street. Little comment was made about the environmental impact issues and it is fair to say that the traffic and truck issues dominated the comments received verbally. Appendix A - Sign In Sheets GRAVEL PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING/OPEN HOUSE NAME ADDRESS 1 2j4 i14*t?~ 9?2 6 ,i I /1 L / / 9 9 ~ • ,• GRAVEL PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING/OPEN HOUSE NAME ADDRESS V'W?/ C C 2?- • ___________________ // 2''Z -2S /,y,'/e [' • /2 P 3 y j5A) k' 49 80 - A/k. pJ ' GRAVEL PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING/OPEN HOUSE - , GRAVEL EXTRACTION • . PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING/OPEN HOUSE FEB 36 2002 COMMENT SHEET I rL L NT Thank you for coming to our Open House. Please send us your suggestions and comments on our gravel extraction plans: a oc ---- _tv Cc- oM1 c çct .Q(-*S rCiJ Aa - _ccs ovsc_ - cc_4, € cavrc Cc tLbLtc. o\-oCcct.. i1'A4\&\E v\eic- Can be filled out and put in comment box or returned to District of Maple Ridge at 11995 Haney Place -'4 '1 GRAVEL EXTRACTION PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING/OPEN HOUSE COMMENT SHEET Thank you for coming to our Open House. Please send us your suggestions and comments on our gravel extraction plans: (A) LL. k. LtJ - r Can be filled out and put in comment box or returned to District of Maple Ridge at 11995 Haney Place a. GRAVEL EXTRACTION PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING/OPEN HOUSE COMMENT SHEET Thank you for coming to our Open House. Please send us your suggestions and comments on our gravel extraction plans: _,f ...• J/9 r '..4-4/ Vc t • r f~S -7.;_ Can be filled out and put in comment box or returned to District of Maple Ridge at 11995 Haney Place GRAVEL EXTRACTION PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING/OPEN HOUSE COMMENT SHEET Thank you for coming to our Open House. Please send us your suggestions and comments on our gravel extraction plans: Can be tilled out and put in comment box or returned to District of Maple Ridge at 11995 Haney P1ace, GRAVEL EXTRACTION PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING/OPEN HOUSE COMMENT SHEET Thank you for coming to our Open House. Please send us your suggestions and comments on our gravel extraction plans: - A'M/ '/D 57, Can be filled out and put in comment box or returned to District of Maple Ridge at 11995 Haney Place I. A GRAVEL EXTRACTION PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING/OPEN HOUSE COMMENT SHEET Thank you for coming to our Open House. Please send us your suggestions and comments on our gravel extraction plans: Can be filled out and put in comment box or returned to District of Maple Ridge at 11995 Haney Place 3 0 60- 3/ 1110po~ CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor A. Hogarth DATE: February 08,2002 and Members of Council FILE NO: DP1048199 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Committee of the Whole SUBJECT: DP/048/99 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A Development Permit application has been submitted for the above described property, apprcval of which will permit construction of commercial space with a residential unit above. After reviewing the plans, the Planning Department recommends that DP/048/99 be given favourable consideration. RECOMMENDATION: That the Municipal Clerk be authorized to sign and seal DP/048/99 respecting property located at 23315 DEWDNEY TRUNK RD. BACKGROUND: Applicant: Owner: Legal Description: OCP: Existing: Proposed: TAHA ENTERPRISES INC TAHA ENTERPRISES INC Lot: 1, Plan: LMP38174 Neighbourhood Commercial No Change Zoning: Existing: C-i (Local Commercial) Proposed: No Change Surrounding Uses N: S: E: W: Existing Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property Access: Servicing: Previous Applications: Residential Residential Residential Residential Vacant Neighbourhood Store and Residential Dewdney Trunk Road Full Urban RZ/005/97 90 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Development Permit application has been submitted for the above described property which would allow the construction of a mixed use building with approximately 400m 2 of commercial space on the ground floor and 124m2 of residential space on the second floor. The subject property is in Development Permit Area XXXII and prior to issuance of a Building Permit, a Development Permit is required. PLANNING ANALYSIS: The property is zoned C-i (Local Commercial), which does permit the proposed uses, and is designated Development Permit Area XXXII, on Schedules "A & H" of the Official Community Plan. The Development Permit Area guidelines state that: • Building siting must ensure adequate site circulation and safe access to public streets; • Attention should be paid to street front image; • Site design to give precedence to pedestrian use over vehicular use; • Building design to mimic recent residential construction in the neighbourhood; • Street-front landscaping to incorporate street trees for to define site boundaries and enhance public space; and • Parking areas may be limited to the requirements of the accessory residential use. The building is sited to the south east portion of the property. This promotes pedestrian access from the public sidewalks and restricts vehicle use to the side and rear of the building. Stucco siding, brick veneer and asphalt shingle materials will be used to assimilate the building with the neighbourhood. Trees, shrubs and ground cover will be used on all areas not covered by the building and hard surfaces. The parking area requirements for the accessory residential use were removed from the C-i zone as part of the commercial zone study. However, the parking areas have been reviewed and those for the residential use are located adjacent to the residential entry on the north side of the building. The continuous landscape strip will screen the parking from the adjacent street. Respecting the aforementioned, the guidelines for the development proposal have been satisfactorily addressed. ADVISORY DESIGN PANEL: The application was reviewed by the Advisory Design Panel on December 6, 2001. The Panel expressed overall support for the project subject to the following conditions: • That the applicant consider a different solution for the garbage facility in relation to the adjacent doors for reasons of natural surveillance and safety; • That the applicant provide a pedestrian walkway with appropriate surface treatment to the residential unit off Glenhurst Street, and to the residential and commercial component from the west side off Dewdney Trunk Road. The applicant has accommodated these changes on revised drawings. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit a security based on 2 ½ % of the construction value will be required to ensure that construction occurs in compliance with the Development Permit. MR INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES: N/A ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A CITIZEN/CUSTOMER IMPLICATIONS: N/A INTERDEPARTMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A ALTERNATIVES: N/A SUMMARY: As the proposed mixed use development complies with the objectives and guidelines of Development Permit Area XXXII, it is recommended that DP/048/99 be given favourable consideration. Approd by:prank Quinn ' GM: blic Wor & Development Services Concurrence: Robert W. Roberts n, AICP, MCIP Chief Administrative Officer DS/jvt -3- 12093 2092 j 12085 2100 2076 12079 12073 t2058 2090 (1) 12067 •___ 2066 12061 2080 (1) 12059 12051 12071 2058 12046 2070 12041 12051 z 12036 12060 LIi 12050 12033 0 2032 2028 12050 12023 1201 12040 12035 Property ,bject co _____________ 12005 ___ 12 Im 12036 12021 2004 12003 I C\J 1030 C'\J 5T <N <N Cl) 12010 0S <N F- <N -I DEWDNEYTRKRD F-- 11987 11998 (N <N (0 0 (N (0 <N <N 0 <N (0 <N _ <N <N <N <N <N (N <N <N <N <N <N <N <N <N <N 991 11983 11975 - - 11980 11997 11991 11963 11971 11970 11987 11953 /11952 11961 1 11964 1981 11949 The Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge I 11943 makes no guarantee regarding the accuracy or 11948 present status of the information shown on 35 this map. N DISTRICT OF F- TIME DO&.... 23315 Dewdney Trunk Road CORPORATION OF A o THE DISTRICTOF LAKE DI F MAPLE RIDGE MAPLE RIDGE Incorporated 12, September, 1874 PLANNING DEPARTMENT SCALE: 1:1,500 KEY MAP DATE: Feb 5 2002 FILE: DP1048199 BY: DS - ..........0 DIN - A - -- COMMERCIAL. pV2r150 / L_J COMMERCIAL REACt •3D0 '•.. / RIO RCL.EV ,xijY 3LCOND FLOOR PLAN :ll;ll .. REA PROJECT OATA 4520 T008 TOO DEWDIREr TRUNE ROAD. 1OCIACADISAT 5/5 L-EGAL DESCRIPTION 3 1 TE FLAW '/8 - 0 430 OVETT5/.L.C(000 DT0R*O) *0030310 A Al N FLO OP PLAN 5/DIE 55/003% 05311 CR3 IN 5/WORRY 0001K 0030 75135 CROSS 030505Cr 40.03 4410 4 DES, SITW.J0000IAATIOS 1L200A LOCAL SUP.OL'T IIV.z0ACAP.A3IArES BEES.: WI Y0P00003s*,c ILIFOR*3C-TI001 t' 40cK:CLCJ_ .30001IO:CEO.:O015. 530., - DEC. 'VERtICAL ILEJATIOCS SIOWN ARE MOlOIC - - - LEaLND RIO c Lw' CDZ o C.w -oI 2 r -5/rn--- LCECRRAL'UfrIL'TRCt0OD"10" CITECAoL'AOV 103001*0': - REVISIONS JO! - COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT for ENTERPRISES LTD. MAPLE RIDGE B.C. DRAWING SITE PLAN FLOOR PLANS PROJECT DATA JOB 30:2001-5 SCALE ''I/N' - l , 0 DR. JR CII. .10 DATE SE-S DO, 0001, OWE NO. 1 CIV. NO Lw • (Z .nI .o B. c . ttHEDU.L 7.nJI.,Ie. 1002.. REVISIONS 'Os COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT for TA H A ENTERPRISES LTD. MAPLE RIDGE B.C. - DRAWING BUILDING ELEVATIONS 108 NO. .200.17.5 SCALE DR. 50 CM. IC DATE GOVT 20.1001 DWG. NC REV. NO. 2-H IJL)tTI1 LE.VAIIL)I'J PLANT LIST SYMBOL STY. BOTANICAL 140MB COMMON HAMS BIOS I S i 0MTOIBO JOIMSI Mat CANIaJOSita 1.15W. TOW. DiS.SM Wit BlisS ITS sn:n.atat 0 ST Wat.JO S15OISIIASJOS 0 St%IStdSI5W itsM!StS15WI 0 L*aSIXINI5WWI WSNMT%.I 21 PIUSLNWL&nt ONIOOCAOWS IBSBOOTt IS BOIisre IWWTFIIMI 5555 252p55 0 Th4.55N15(SW.OY CtrW.CatiCsT., BIAS Tot MT 515.55152. tWvl*Ste ISOTTS2TSS NAT S iNOSTSt 155100 15005511 5515515 Oi01155. 25.1002.100 I. STeWl55O5.SpisissOi.SSSDcSAatITAMOTUISSIVOSWSSS - 0.011 Sit S 'UflOTSS0tSOflATbyL2.OS.55kOflW.IiSoSUi Street Trees per city spec - typ 1ew Sidewalk I- w w CO) CO) I z w —J Swale 2 HIgh Concrete Retaining Wall TiNtinO PIntinn S. DEWDNEY TRUNK ROAD CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor A. Hogarth DATE: February 7, 2002 and Members of Council FILE NO: DVP/09/01 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Committee of the Whole SUBJECT: DVP/09/01 23343 Kanaka Way PURPOSE: A Development Variance Permit application has been received in which the applicant is requesting that the requirement to convert existing overhead wires, to underground facilities, on the north side of Kanaka Way be waived. After reviewing the application, staff recommend that DVP/09/0 1 be given favourable consideration. RECOMMENDATION: That the Municipal Clerk be authorized to notify qualifying property owners that approval of DVP/09/01 respecting property located at 23343 Kanaka Way will be considered by Council at the March 12th 2002 meeting. That the Clerk be authorized to sign and seal the DVP/09/01 if it receives favourable consideration. BACKGROUND: Applicant: Aimrite Investments Ltd. Owner: Aimrite Investments Ltd. Legal Description: Lot A, DL 404, Gp. 1, NWD, Plan LMP 36954 OCP: Existing: 74% Compact Housing 40 (units per net hectare) 26% Conservation Area Zoning: Existing: RM-1 Surrounding Uses N: Park/Rural Residential S: GVRD ParklKanaka Creek/ Residential E: Rural ResidentialfKanaka Creek School W: Cottonwood CreeklPark/Townhouse Residential Existing Use of Property: Undeveloped Proposed Use of Property: 44 unit townhouse development Access: Kanaka Way Previous Applications: DP/09/0 1, RZ/68/94 q0 A building permit application is currently under review in which the applicant is proposing a 44 unit townhouse development. Before issuance of the building permit, one of the conditions to be satisfied is the District of Maple Ridge Subdivision and Development Services Bylaw, Schedule "B", which states: "that parcels within a proposed subdivision or development shall be provided with services in accordance with Schedule "A " and all highways within, or immediately adjacent to a proposed subdivision or development shall be constructed in accordance with Schedule "A ". Schedule "A" requires full urban services in the RM- 1 zone, including curb, gutter, sidewalks and underground wiring. The applicant is requesting that the requirements to convert existing overhead wiring to underground on the Kanaka Way frontage be waived. PLANNING ANALYSIS: The subject property is located on the north side of Kanaka Way east of Cottonwood Drive and west of 234A Street and Kanaka Creek Elementary School. The overhead wires on Kanaka Way at this location appear on a reference map attached to policy 9.05 Conversion of Existing Overhead Utility Wiring to Underground Wiring, indicating lines which will not be converted to underground facilities. An adjacent RM-1 site at 23281 Kanaka Way was granted a Development Variance Permit (DVP/80/99) by Council on February 1 5th, 2000, which waived the requirements to convert existing overhead wiring to underground on the Kanaka Way frontage. INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES: N/A ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A CITIZEN/CUSTOMER IMPLICATIONS: The Applicant will have a significant increase in servicing costs, if required to convert the trunk facilities. INTERDEPARTMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: The Engineering Department prepared Policy 9.05 and reference plan in July 1996 when it was determined that it was not feasible to convert specific overhead utility wiring facilities, i.e. existing trunk lines, to underground wiring. - - - FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A ALTERNATIVES: There are no alternatives for the conversion of trunk facilities indicated in Policy 9.05. -2- SUMMARY: Based on policy 9.05 Conversion of Existing Overhead Utility Wiring to Underground Wiring, support for this application içcommended. Prepared/fy: ,jjoss 4pprove}PFIy.N. Jane PjJ(etg, MCP, MCIP DTor of Planning Approved by:/ Frank Quinn, P.Eng., PMP GM: Public Works & Development Services Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, AICP, MCIP Chief Administrative Officer BM/jvt -3- • P 27689 1/52 PARK PARK 2 'I REM.29 LMP 36190 "N LMS 4224 PARK SUBJECTPROPERF1 P 47210 "N LMP 36190 N N 00 A N N a. LM 36954 -J 1 LMP 36190 11 L1201 RP4208 Rem 28 P 46383 PLAN 2158 18 PLAN 2158 19 17 16 15 14 13 Rem 21 20 LM 10 Aimrite Investments Ltd. N j 23343 Kanaka Way A LAKE ALBION TBOBNALL SCALE 1 2 500 KEY MAP - - DATE Feb 8 2002 FILE DVP 09 01 BY RS Q~ =2*4~ Incorporated CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TITLE: CONVERSION OF EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITY WIRING TO UNDERGROUND WIRING AUTHORITY: EFFECTIVE DATE: IMMEDIATELY POLICY NO. SUPERSEDES: APPROVAL: 1IJLY 23, 1996 POLICY STATEMENT: 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 be upgraded to an urban standard, on the following conditions: The existing overhead utility system is shown on the attached plan, or There is less than a total of 250 metres of contiguous redevelopment potential fronting both sides of the highway right of way designated on the Official Community Plan. Further, in those cases where andergrounding of existing overhead utility lines is required, and a development has less than 250 metres of frontage on the highway right of way, the developer will service his development with underground dips off the overhead line and deposit with the Municipality sufficient funds to achieve the required undergrounding in the future. PURPOSE: DEFINITIONS: Printed on February 14, 2002 Page 1 of 1 Policy 9.05 CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor Al Hogarth DATE: February 12, 2002 and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: SUBJECT: Downtown Purpose: The District of Maple Ridge Official Community Plan identifies the downtown area as important from a functional and land use perspective. The District has supported and encouraged development and investment in the core over a number of years including most recently a fifty million dollar public/private investment. This report identifies other initiatives Council may wish to pursue to strengthen the downtown. Recommendation(s): Direct staff to bring forward a review of these items in the 2002/2003 work plans. Background: As noted, Maple Ridge has adopted an Official Community Plan which identifies the downtown as an important area for the provision of public and business services to the community. This downtown area is also identified as a "Regional Town Centre" in the Greater Vancouver Livable Region Strategy. In support of the foregoing policy documents the District proceeded with the development and adoption of a Downtown Plan. This Plan included the valuable input of business and public interests in the core area including the Chamber of Commerce. It remains an important tool to assist in promoting the downtown and encouraging investment in this area. In addition to these policy documents, Council supported a significant investment in downtown redevelopment which provides a series of new services. These include an office/library building; an expandedlrenovated leisure centre; a new arts centre; underground parking; expanded park; and hotel. All of these elements are important in advancing the objectives of a people friendly, vibrant downtown. As this project is largely completed, it is timely to revisit the Downtown Plan with a view to identification of initiatives that could be undertaken to stimulate further development in this area. In that regard, there are a number of issues that should be discussed within the community. These include: Zoning Some areas of the downtown are designated "Commercial" and zoned something else (i.e. "Residential"). It might be appropriate to pre.zone all downtown land to reflect the ultimate commercial use anticipated by the Plan. The current system of rezoning takes time which delays potential activity. Pre-zoning is an important step to facilitate development. Zoning Bylaw A review of all zones in the Zoning Bylaw would be very timely. In particular, downtown zone(s) should be undertaken quickly. This includes a review of the parking standards and cash- in-lieu of parking requirements. DCC Bylaw 1/0 The DCC Bylaw has been adopted to ensure new development pays a reasonable share of costs associated with growth. In the downtown, the DCC's were reduced by 25% to reflect the fact that infrastructure (water sewer, roads protective services) was largely available. A further review of the DCC Bylaw should be undertaken including consideration of a further reduction to support investment. Business Improvement Area From time to time, there has been discussion about a Business Improvement Area for the downtown. This would involve a group of property and business owners established to "promote" the downtown. This promotion could include consistency of signage; street furniture; lighting; marketing and similar initiatives. This type of system has worked well in other jurisdictions but needs leadership and support from key stakeholders. Capital Plan The District should establish a capital plan for more regular clean-up/maintenance in the core. Public Works and Development Services have started to do this but it likely needs more commitment. Special Events The ability to host a wider range of special events in the core with the new downtown project will bring attention and people to this area. A focus on special events to attract visitors with the guidance of the Tourism Society would be beneficial. Citizen/Customer Implications: Input from stakeholders including the Chamber of Commerce is important for many of these initiatives notably zoning and DCC reviews. Financial Implications: For the most part, the costs of these initiatives are in existing work plans but it may need external assistance (also budgeted) to facilitate this work. Summary: In summary, there are currently a number of opportunities available to promote the core to achieve the policy direction of Council. It would be useful to discuss these initiatives, prioritize them and start a process of review. () Prepared by: Robert W. Robertson, Ph.D. AICP, MCIP Chief Administrative Officer R'WR: fc CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor A. Hogarth DATE: February 6, 2002 and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: COW SUBJECT: Corporate & Financial Services Divisional Annual Report Purpose/Problem The Business Plans contain key goals, objectives and performance measures for each division/ departmentlservice area. The Corporate & Financial Services division has compiled an overview of their performance into a divisional annual report, which is attached. Recommendation(s) That the Corporate & Financial Services Divisional Annual Report be received for information and that a full presentation be made at a regular Council meeting. History/Background Corporate & Financial Services is essentially an internal service area that supports those departments that provide services to our citizens. 2001 was a very successful year and the intent of this document is to report on our major accomplishments. I Prepared by:cindy Dale, Executive Assistant 1! Appo, by: Paul Gill, B.B.A., C.G.A. Genera nager: Corporate & Financial Services a Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, AICP, MCIP Chief Administrative Officer PG:cd II -1- 13/ Corporate e'i' FinancialServices 2001 AnnuafQeport r Vistrict of 9'1ap1e Qitige Organization Cfiart Citizens of Maple Ridge Mayor * and Council Chief Administrative Officer Bob Robertson LFinancial Community \* LD 1 c Works & R.C.M.P. I porate & De'elopment, Parks elopment Service) & Recreaturn ervices ervices O.I.0. L General ( General ( General Manager Manager Manager p Bill Dingwa5j Paul Gill J Mike Murray 1FranA Quinn Fire ServicesJ. Managjof ( Fire Chief '\ tSta Fire Chief '\Police S Mgr. Community J r~eG Operations& Fire Safety Services Development Maureen fane Spence_J rootendors9 Coqiorate c zz15e,zc - 2001tzi7&a1qo# enera(9k1anager's Qeport I have the privilege of leading a dedicated group of people whose accomplishments often go unnoticed because the work that they do is "behind the scenes." For instance, 2001 saw the opening of some magnificent new and expanded civic facilities. Our division worked hard to make sure that the technological needs were met and to make sure that the various legal, financial and administrative arrangements were attended to. We do our best to anticipate our customers' needs and to provide them with solutions that assist in their work. On behalf of the people I work with, I am submitting this report as a summary of our key achievements in 2001. The achievements reflect our ongoing commitment to customer service. Respectfully submitted, Taut Gill Paul Gill, B.B.A., C.G.A., F.R.M. General Manager: Corporate & Financial Services Tbk of Contents GeneralManager's Report ................................................................................................... I Administration...................................................................................................................... Clerks' Department .............................................................................................................. 4 FinanceDepartment ............................................................................................................. 6 InformationServices ............................................................................................................ 10 PersonnelDepartment .......................................................................................................... 12 WebSite ............................................................................................................................... 14 Tage 1 Co?orate iicz15eic - 2W1ftJxfl&/?eJ,onL v[ission Statement To the Corporation - (Deliver effective centralizeif support service.s. To the Communitij - YLet on our Cornmunitzj's behalf in afitucianj capacity. To our Customers - (Provite courteous atul effective services as corporate representatives. To Ourselves - Strive for ece1[ence in all that we to. Ytimiiiistration The Corporate & Financial Services Division consists of four departments - Information Services, Finance, Personnel, and Clerks. We also provide support to the RCMP, Police Services and the Fire Department. The Division is responsible for making recommendations to merge and align strategic planning, best practices, performance measures and budget priorities that guide decision-making in our organization. In addition, we are responsible for carrying out corporate initiatives as directed by Council and the Corporate Management Team. General Manager Corporate & Financial Services Paul 'Gill Executive Assistant Cindy Dale ( FireChief Mgr. Operations & Staff Chief Director of Director of Municipal Manager of I Development Information Finance Corporate Clerk . I Police Services I Peter Grootendorct Officer ' Support i Fire Chief John Bastaja fake Sorba John Leeburn Terry Fryer .41 Maureen Jones I Mgr. Community Fire Safety Services Dane Spence Page 2 Coporate c zz/5eiyzc - 26U-1 jj,7ua13ejoTt cfministration Qepert • Worked with the RCMPIPoIice Services to develop a 5-year Financial Plan. • Appointed Chair of B.C. Policing Study Financial Group. • Worked with the Fire Chiefs to implement a new Service Delivery Plan. Produced 5th Edition of Citizens First and Writings Supplement. Produced and distributed divisional 2000 Annual Report. • Completed coordination of move to new building, organized April 27 open house, and continued with ongoing support. Cindy Dale and Dee Sharma received GEM awards. • Produced and distributed to the public four quarterly Municipal Reports. • Planned and coordinated if/Capital Training session for June 13, 2001. • Worked with BC Policing Study group to establish a structure that will see a senior RCMP officer responsible for issues of importance to local governments. • Negotiated the lease for additional space required by the RCMP; funding is being provided from existing envelopes. • Directors did an assessment of the General Manager, the summary of which was shared with the Directors and Chief Administrative Officer. • Presented the Maple Ridge 5-year financial plan to the Lower Mainland Mayor's Committee on Policing Issues. Other Lower Mainland municipalities have adopted the model. • Analysis and monitoring of financial commitments with respect to the Core. • Reviewed and updated Fast Facts. • Worked with E-COMM Senior staff, our Police Chief, and RCMP Headquarters on a transition plan for centralizing dispatch services. • Coordinated preparation of Divisional Business Plans. • Assisted in the preparation and presentation of the 2002/2006 financial plans. • Mayor Hogarth was appointed Chair of the RCMPIMayors' Consultative Forum, the support for which will be provided by us. • Prepared and presented an analysis of RCMP Contract costs to the Consultative Forum. • Established the Animal Services Review Committee and started to prepare a Business Plan for our Animal Services needs. • Assumed production of the staff newsletter "The Ridge Revealer." • Completed quarterly reviews and updates of "Fast Facts." Page .3 Co?orate ixiz15eiziies - 2W] J1YuhiZTeort C1erIcs' lJeparti'nent Municipal Clerk Terry Fryer Property & Risk Assistant Municipal I Manager Clerk Ron RiachJ jo-Anne HertzfJ Confident Secre Ceri KariaKrk j Information C70,J Committee Lsaa"Zyj f Conveyancing ' Clerk (contract)l argartBe1i) (Records Managei (contract) I Va! Bzilesberger I —77 Stathtics FOl Requests Received Bylaws Prepared Correspondence Distributed Boxes to the Records Centre New Insurance Claims 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 29 19 20 15 23 129 102 124 62 63 1,417 1,274 1,055 1,848 1,729 146 159 108 158 163 19 13 16 28 26 Page 4 Coi1orate & - 2001J?nrnIi7/eJ7Ort Clerks" Department [unicipa1C[erIs Qepart • Correspondence addressed to the Mayor & Council, the District of Maple Ridge or the Clerk's Department was distributed within 24 hours to the appropriate authority for action or response. • All Freedom of Information applicants received a preliminary response within 30 days, 14 were completed within 30 days, 2 were granted extensions and completed within 90 days, 3 were abandoned by the applicant and 4 are in progress. • Assisted various departments to ensure the prompt transfer of documents to the Records Centre and/or Archives; 163 boxes were sent to the Records Centre; 4 boxes and 69 sets of Engineering plans were transported to the Archives. • Prepared agendas and minutes for 59 Council meetings (Open & Closed) and 22 Committee of the Whole meetings. All agendas were available on time and minutes were circulated within 3 days after meeting. • Prepared agendas and minutes for 98 Advisory Committee meetings. • Administered the Clerk's Department web site. This has resulted in enhanced content and faster posting of agendas, minutes and schedules to the site. • Completed the Agenda Process Review and provided a summary of the results to all staff. Recommendations in the review that could not be resolved at this time will be considered in future years. • Began the process of achieving ISO 9001 certification for the Clerk's Department. • Distributed CouncilVIEWS to all Departments and provided access to approximately 50 users who attended training sessions in March and November 2001. • Participated as the Public Information Officer in two Emergency Operations Centre activations in Feb. • Completed the Council Chamber media upgrade by the end of September 2001. • Assisted in 'the implementation of a side tab filing system for the Engineering Department. • Assisted in the implementation of a new filing system for Personnel and Parks & Recreation. • Electronically indexed all 1993 and 1994 Bylaws. • Completed a review of the Exotic Animal Bylaw. • Continued discussions leading to approval of an agreement with Canadian Pacific Railway to limit train whistling at selected crossings. • Moved the Clerk's Department to a new area in the Municipal Hall with no disruption to service. • Completed a review of liability insurance requirements and recommended continued coverage with MIA. • Researched, evaluated and hired a new insurance Broker • Prepared an incident report for a Council Advisory committee • Moved legal files to a central location in the Clerk's Department • Prepared a "year-to-date" litigation report beginning in the 3Id quarter of 2001 • Presented a report to Council summarizing the status of all surplus municipal property • Sold 12 municipal properties that are surplus to our needs (including 4 lots at AlIco Estates and 2 suites at Panorama by ECRA) - value of $ 1.582,550 • Acquired property fronting on Whonnock Lake for future park development Page Co?orate ncid5e17ic - 21Jiz7a/epoi 5Inance Director of L Finance iv lake Sorba ___ Manager of Revenue & CollectionsfBusiness Systems Analyst j(athleen Gorinley Manager of Procurement Earl Oddstad Senior Finance Manager Laura Benson Accountant ID Tax Supervisor Trevor Thompson Accounting Clerk 1I (Utilities/Taxation) I Cindi Nawyn Accounting Ci' Cashier (2) Sandy Fournier Sari Stanley Clerk/Buyer Agnes Montecillo Storekeeper II Paul Henry Accountant I Catherine Nolan wliting Clerk II Steve Wyke Municipal Accountant Dennis Sartorius Accountant III (CDPR) Silvia Rutledge Clerk 11(2) Arlene Oosten.Wells Ashley Hilleren Accountant Ill (PWD) Reata Nowak Statistics Actual 1997 Actual 1998 Actual 1999 Actual 2000 Actual 2001 Accounts Payable Cheques 6650 6650 4940 5490 4984 Credit Card Payments -- -- -- 159 1071 Credit Card Payments Value -- -- -- $19K $180K Dog Licences Issued 6580 7241 7248 7218 7318 Interac Payments Received -- -- 2261 2729 3009 Interac Payments Value -- -- $965K $1.00 I M $1 .286M Investment Return vs Index (% avg) -- -- 4.9 vs 4.4 5.6 vs 5.46 6.36 vs 6.27 Procurement Card Total $ Transactions -- -- $902K $1.08M $1.4397M Procurement Card Transactions 1989 2600 5182 6834 8567 Procurement Card Value Per Use(avg) -- -- $174 $158 168 Tax Sale Properties Redeemed 11 30 28 36 33 Tax Sale Properties Redemption Value -- -- $200K $250K $2 17K TIPS Program Participants 1121 1200 1022 1323 14 IS TIPS Value Collected -- -- $2.19M $2.30M $2.54M Page 6 CoqJorate aziczz/5rn,zec - 21.irnuafqioit 5inance 9epartment Director's Qeport The mission statement of the Finance Department is "Upholding the public trust through financial excellence." To support this mission, the Department provides services through four functional Z operational units. These include financial planning, the development of the operating budgets and long range plans, financial controllership and internal audit, financial reporting, debt, cash and asset management, purchasing services and inventory control, management of financial and accounting systems, banking, levying of taxes, utilities and licences and various accounting services such as payroll, accounts payable, and general cashiering and collections. During 2001 the Finance Department had many accomplishments: • Bylaws for the 5-year Financial Plan (2001-2005) were passed. • Preparation and audit of the 2000 Financial Statements was completed. • Purchasing policy was adopted by Council • Downtown core redevelopment project financial summary and projections report was updated and reviewed by CMT and Council. • Certain long-term investment securities were sold for a capital gain. • Early payment scheme for Roth say/Gari baldi water area was positively received with a number of residents taking advantage of the program. • Purchase of equipment and furniture for the new library and office. • 2000 Financial Statements were audited, published and presented to Council • A Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for 2000 was published, providing a full set of financial statements, statistical section, information on services provided by the various departments, infrastructure, significant local events, and much more. This document was submitted to the Government Finance Officers' Association for consideration for their Canadian Award for Financial Reporting. • A thorough review of 2001 financial performance, including the Downtown Core project, was performed by accounting staff and presented to Council in June. • Bylaws to set property tax, water, sewer and recycling rates, and an amended 5-year Financial Plan 2001- 2005, were adopted by Council. • Number of tax notices produced 24.899. Busiest day - June 29, number of transactions 1,548 over the counter, an additional 1.198 processed in mailroom. • The RFP for external auditors was issued; 3 firms responded (actual selection made in Oct.) • The RFP for review of Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows Parks and Recreation Agreement was issued (actual selection made in Oct.) • Tax Sale successfully conducted. • Detailed and supportive data & information input into the new Water Utility .Rates Bylaw. • Quarterly operational statements presented in a public meeting. • Town Centre Development Financial Plan updated and reviewed. • Prepared and provided to all departments draft financial plans for 2002 - 2006. • Staffing changes incorporated in Stores at the Operations Centre. The Storekeeper I position was merged with the Yardman position as a cost saving measure. • Appointment of Accountant II to a revenue and collection supervisory, role. cont'd Page 7 Coq,orate cfr9itiarzthz/Seic - 2W1i7ua1.feport cont 'dfro,n page 7 • Department members played key role in reviewing Job Cost System and review of the opportunity to contract out payroll services. • In addition to exceeding the benchmark for investment yield on our portfolio we realized $172,724 in capital gains through sale of investment securities in the 3 rd qtr. and over $200,000 in first 3 qtrs. of 2001. • Successful defense of Tendering and Proposal process (towing contract). • Attendance at Business to Business Night by procurement team; promotion of how to do business with the municipality and with other public sector entities. • Legal review on utilization of funds received from previous debt issues; a potential alternative source for capital financing. • Appointment of BDO Dun woody as external auditor. • BDO Dunwoody undertaking a review for fairness in the cost allocation process of the Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows Parks and Recreation Agreement. • Water Utility Rates Bylaw forwarded for consideration to Council. • Quarterly operational statements presented to Council and the public in an open meeting. • Quarterly consolidated operational statements presented. • Town Centre Development Financial Plan updated and reviewed. • The 2002 - 2006 Consolidated Financial Plan completed, bylaw approved, and published on the Web. • Department members played key role in reviewing Job Cost System. • In addition to exceeding the benchmark for investment yield on our portfolio we realized $172,724 in capital gains through the sale of securities in the 3id qtr. and over $200,000 in first 3 qtrs. of 2001. • All procurement card reconciliations were completed. • GST review of Town Centre Development is well underway with the goal to recover up to $1 M. • The Director of Finance appointed to the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants Canadian Task Force for development of PSAB financial reporting requirements. • Interim utility billings to properties newly connected to the system; this generates revenue as a result of growth for the utility funds. • Successful testing and implementation of the Amanda software that enabled our Cashiering System to receive Amanda generated receipts. • Staff attended presentations on new procurement card providers and are currently conducting evaluation. • An internal review of responsibilities and functions is being conducted for each position with a view to improving efficiency by re-engineering functions and processes. This will continue through the last qtr. Page 8 • I iz - 4 :à Alt * THAI Vow gas ' Coqorate thf5e1z4&c - 2W1iuiJfejort Information Seivice.s Chief Information Officer John Bastaja -- Manager of Info Services L Torn McIntosh r Business Systems Network Support Analyst Specialist Oliver Shurer Duane Birnie Analyst I Programmer (3) I Janet Dickson - Rita Venables Suresh Narayan User Support Specialist Larry Hodson GIS I Technician David Cooke User Support Clerk Staci Otto Hardware Inventory gg StatLctics Units 150- Unit Type Page 10 Coq,orate c zzf5eizes - 2L/rnuaI3ep# Information Seivices Virector's Qeport • Completed network, telephone, server and computer installations in new office tower. • Completed move of Computer Room to new office tower. • Leisure Centre and Youth Centre telecommunications wiring and telephone system and computer set-up completed. • Phase 1 of new AMANDA Property System put into production. • Converted and loaded 80% of the property data from the 20-year-old legacy systems and rewrote the Lookup and Legal Notification programs. • Geographic Information System (GIS) integration of legal notification and property enquiry with the AMANDA property system. • Installed and migrated GIS Mapping Server from the original UNIX computer to a new, larger NT server. • Cleaned up all the Development Application Tracking data. • Tested Cashier software on Windows 95 for Finance. • Developed financial interface for Parks and Leisure Services CLASS system. • Supported the 2001 Tax Production and Processing. • Completed a number of enhancements to year-end processing procedures. • Supported entry and display of Watercourse Classification data for Planning. • Designed the format for distributing digital maps on the Municipal Web Site. • Upgraded the MS Exchange Email Server. • Developed the label printing for new End-File Folders. • Dealt with computer virus infections ('code red' and 'nimda' viruses). • Roll out of new anti-virus protection. • About 20 of 85 new desktop machines deployed in preparation of Windows 2000 roll-out. • Introduced 'hot' backup capability of the ORACLE database. • Enhanced the ORACLE backup routines so the systems are available for all but 6 night hours per week.. • Upgraded staff Windows support skills with two certifications from Microsoft Certified Engineering. • Assisted with design and implementation of Council multi-media upgrade. • Implemented Help Desk extended hours (7:30 to 5:00). • Hired new Business Systems Analyst. • Helped establish Business Analyst positions in Planning, Finance, Engineering and Building departments. • Developed two business plans. • Supported the Information Technology Steering Committee and the Website Committee. • Developed the Community Access Program (CAP) with community assistance (computer labs at three sites). • Hardware replacement policy restructured. Hardware and software standards drafted. • Assisted in drafting website-hosting policy. Page 11 Coq7orate c /Seiy'i~c - 2W1ftJ%rnhaI3feJJort Tersenne1Department Director of Corporate Support John Leeburn Personne ( Personnel Offic ~J ,Officer Heather (Dee Sharma Personnel Assistant Kathy Lamont Payroll Clerk Linda Wilde Clerk II Dee Nagra Statistics erqge5/our$ ofpñyee5iif qime 9'ars of5eize(9Thize t4iye/ 601 — 100 13 19960199701998019990200,22001 90 70 60 ,-T '-7 so 70 — - 50 -- -- 60 40 -7 -- - 'ft 411 30 1 20f - - - 4 - 30 - - - -- - - ft - • •_ • •ILII I) P I Tage 12 Coqorate 7%alzaa15e,z4ce.c - 2001,7ua/3ej,on Personnel IDepartment fDirector's Qeport • Leadership Development Program, Phase 2 is halfway completed. Remaining Modules to take place in 2001 and 2002. School District 42 was awarded the contract for most of the training. • Coordinated GM recruitment. • Paid out Clarica Shares to Exempt staff. • Move to Office Building was coordinated by Cindy Dale & Dee Sharma. • Whispering Falls Investigation. • 15 in-house workshops including: risk management/labour relations/emergency preparedness/stress management/safety/time management/computer (Crystal Reports) • Organized Occupational Health & Safety committee at Leisure Centre. • Assisted with Parks & Leisure Services Re-organization Review • Organized District's Evacuation Team - fully trained individuals. • Safety Training for three volunteer groups - external. • Safety/Due Diligence training for new contract Parks Staff. • Attendance reviews with staff. • Conducted Safety Review at Operations Centre. • Conducted 2 Ergonomic Reviews. • Coordinated annual "end of season" Burger Bash. • Assisted Information Services with Customer Service Survey. • Analyzing options for out-sourcing Payroll. • Conducted review of Merit Pay Program. • Set-up Focus Groups, with external facilitator, to evaluate customer satisfaction with service received from Personnel. • Ran a Successful United Way Campaign raising over $17,000. • 76 recruitments, 14 grievances. 2 retirements, 13 reclassification requests. Page 13 lge salet and lvabie eomrnurnty (or our pteri aria fuWr rtrrt Coq'orateizciiz/Sel742 ec - 2W1fepon Web Site ~zr IuU .t i ourc4rnmLrqr,t rJv.,n raniro TAVl jr.-New. - - GarTh alifi An Club Ani1 Quick Link rffl.Iii1 Jhc. i-!at **t, tcn,&r "710.t; 'f un.,ci "fgu.s bo.o" Chief Information') I Officer John Bastaja__- Web Manager Cindy Dale IDepartmenta7l Web Clerksj £7vfLcsion Statement: To provide all web users wit/I another med?a fonnatfor obtaining current,factual; and interesting information on the !7v[unicipa1ity of Map1e Qidge ancisurroutuling area. Page 14 Co,porate iz/5e,.c - 2W1Jiuzua/ifej'O1? Web Site 2001ccomp1ithments • Designed and developed complete new Parks section for the website. • Developed Community Group Web Hosting Guidelines and released as a policy. Developed Disclaimer and Copyright. Redesigned Frequently Asked Questions page • Designed information on attending a meeting as a delegation, submitting a letter to Council and submitting P01 requests, including a Request For Access form that can be downloaded. Converted CAnFR report from 100+ individual pages to a single document for website. Completed page by page (+800) review of the website, updating, adding, and deleting information as required and changing all clipart to photos. Created Tourism/Heritage section on the Haney family and expanded Heritage section working with Va! Patenaude from the Museum. Stati$tics Summary of Activity by Day 1998 1999 2000 2001 Average Number of Users on Weekdays 94 203 265 500 Average Number of Users on the Weekend is 121 150 160 350 Most Active day of the week is Mon Tues Tues Wed Least Active day of the week is Sat Sat Sun Sat/Sun Average Number of e-mails Through Enquiries 1 2 4 5 Wumfier of 'User '1"isits to Web Site EE 8,000 6,000 4,000 ==::-•-------- -_.... -_.----. 2,000 0 I I I I I I U 4 P 1998 —199 - - 2000 2001 Page 15 CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor Al Hogarth DATE: February 11, 2002 and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C.O.W. SUBJECT: Train Whistle Cessation Application Update Purpose: The District of Maple Ridge has initiated an application with the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) and Transport Canada for a whistle ban for all trains, between the hours of 22:00 and 05:30, at8 crossings in Maple Ridge. The attached letter, dated January 24, 2002, from CP Rail indicates they are unable to process our application any further at this time. Recommendation(s): For Information Only Background: The District has been working with CP Rail and Transport Canada for the past several years in an effort to obtain a train whistle ban at a number of crossings in Maple Ridge. The attached staff report, dated May 3 1, 2001, outlines the status of our application at that time. Since then, CP Rail has completed (in June 2001) the safety inspection of all the crossings but has not provided us with any results/recommendations. Further, District staff made some inquiries of CP Rail staff regarding insurance issues for private crossings and the potential for a 24 hour a day ban on freight train whistles. Unfortunately, CP Rail staff have been unable to provide answers to these questions. The letter from CP Rail indicates that the Regulations supporting the Railway Safety Act are currently under review and the amended Regulations will result in a new framework for the Transport Canada Guidelines for whistle cessation. CP Rail was trying to process our application based on the anticipated amendments to the Regulations. Unfortunately, since the draft Regulations are still subject to significant changes, CP Rail has decided not to approve any whistle cessation applications until the Regulations are finalized in late 2002. Citizen/Customer Implications: We continue to get a number of complaints from residents in the Hammond and Haney By-pass areas regarding the use of train whistles. District staff have provided progress updates as requested and have encouraged residents to call the CP Rail Community Connect line (1-800-766-7912) to register any other concerns or comments. Summary: District staff will continue to follow-up with CP Rail for progress updates and report to Council any significant changes. Prepared by: Ron Riach Property & Risk Manager Approve 4/by7 Terr,fyer M, i paiClerk \.__• ./ Concurrence. Robert W. Robertson, AICP, MCIP Chief Administrative Officer q3 ~L 7C y 2L /7 A CANADIAN zt PACIFIC RAILWAY Communications & Public Affairs Suite 500 Gulf Canada Square 401 - 9th Avenue SW Calgary Alberta T2P 4Z4 Tel (403) 319-7562 Fax (403) 205-9003 January 24, 2002 Ron Riach Property & Risk Manager Corporate & Financial Services District of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place Maple Ridge, B.C. V2X 6A9 Dear Mr. Riach: Re: Whistle Cessation Reauest by the District of Maple Ridge prrv'r TN c. T. rJAN 3 12002 This refers to our previous exchanges concerning the request by the District of Maple Ridge (the Districr) for train whistle cessation at eight crossings in the District. RegreffuHy, I must inform you that at this time we are unable to progress the District's request any further. We have previously discussed the regulatory changes that are affecting current whistle cessation requests. In particular, the Railway Safety Act was amended to incorporate a new section on whistle cessation, which section came into force in June, 2000. However, new Regulations that are referred to in that section remain in draft form only and are not anticipated to be proclaimed in force until at (east the fourth quarter of 2002. The combination of the new section under the Railway Safety Act and the new Regulations are expected to replace the current Transport Canada Guideline for whistle cessation, and will set out the framework for train whistle cessation in Canada. Therefore, it makes sense to us to ensure that any whistle cessation complies not only with the current Guidelines but also with the anticipated new regulatory regime. We have been trying to progress the District's request in the context of what the new Regulations are expected to look like. However, the draft Regulations remain in flux, and given the uncertainty that will exist until they are finalized, we are unable to pursue this course of action any further. For example, at this time we do not know whether the new Regulations will permit night-time whistle cessations, or what the minimum safety standards for a whistle- cessation crossing will be. We anticipate that the new Regulations will address whistle cessatiOns at private crossings such as the one at Mile 102.54 Cascade Subdivision, which crossing was included in your request. While we do not know at this time what criteria may be established under the new Regulations for whistle cessations at private crossings, in our view train whistles should continue to be used at this crossing until appropriate safety upgrades are made. Logging trucks waiting to enter the Lougheed Highway frequently have their trailer and loads overhanging or fouling the track at this crossing. Although the logging operation employs a flagperson from time to time to reduce the risk of collision at this crossing, as recently as November 2nd, 2001, a vehicle struck the crossing gate, resulting in the gate falling across the tracks and being run over by a commuter train. This incident required that we dispatch a crew to repair the gate and special protective 2 measures to be taken. Most significantly, this incident inconvenienced over 300 passengers and created a potential threat to their safety. In summary, we must regreffully advise you that until the new Regulations are finalized, we will be unable to progress the District's request any further. Should you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at (403) 319-7562. Yours truly, Manager, Community Relations e-mail: lyIebergecpr.ca CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor Al Hogarth DATE: May 31, 2001 and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C.O.W. SUBJECT: Train Whistle Cessation Application Update Purpose: To provide an update on negotiations with CP Rail and Transport Canada on the Districts application for a train whistle ban at 8 crossings in Maple Ridge and the effect on that application by potential changes to the Railway Safety Act. Recommendation(s): For Information Only Background: The District of Maple Ridge has initiated a whistle cessation application with the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) and Transport Canada. The application is under consideration for all trains, between the hours of 22:00 and 05:30 at the following locations: - Maple Meadows Way (Crossing #1 at mile 106.20) 203 Street (at mile 105.61) - Lorne Avenue (Crossing #2 at mile 105.32) - Ditton Street (Crossing #3 at mile 105.21) - 224 Street (Crossing #4 at mile 102.80) - private crossing - logging operation (Crossing #4a at mile 102.50) - River Road (Crossing #5 at mile 101.47) - 240 Street (Crossing #6 at mile 99.76) CPR has indicated approval in principle at Maple Meadows Way, Lorne Ave. (subject to the District continuing to trim back brush to allow clear sight lines to crossing signals), 224' St. and River Road. The other crossings will require some negotiations and have included the following considerations: 203rd Street Now that construction of the new crossing is complete, we have initiated a separate application for the cessation of whistles at this crossing. Ditton Street There is a bad curve at this crossing. CPR would prefer to close it and until such time, will continue to whistle here. It is the District staffs' position that closure of this crossing must be evaluated as part of a long term strategy to address at-grade crossings which must be completed in consultation with CPR and Transport Canada outside the whistle cessation application. Private Crossing (Anderson Pacific Forest Products logging operation) The owners of the logging operation have agreed to restrict their hours of operation to 05.00 - 22:00, seven days per week. As a result, CPR will approve whistle cessation at this crossing. 240 Street CPR has expressed concerns with very heavy vehicle use and a tendency to run the gates. The District of Maple Ridge is agreeable to constructing medians at this location to increase safety and CPR would consider whistle cessation upon completion of these improvements. District staff are estimating the work required, costs and timeline for completion.. In addition, appropriate "no whistling" signage will have to be developed and approved. It should also be noted that, despite the whistle ban, the train engineer still has the option to use the whistle if there are unsafe conditions at a crossing. Intergovernmental Issues: UBCM has recently circulated a paper outlining concerns about the proposed changes to the Railway Safety Act. The changes would certainly elevate the standards for grade level railway crossings by requiring detailed, regular safety assessments by qualified inspectors. Mr. Ivan Mann, from Transport Canada, advises that they hope to have the new Act in place by year end. However, he is quick to point out that they have not even done a cost assessment yet. He also advised that areas that have a whistle ban in place before the new Act is passed, can continue with that ban. If upgrades to the new standard are required at grade level crossings, in order to continue to qualify for the ban, then we would have five years to do that work. He recommends proceeding with our application under the current Railway Safety Act and whistle cessation guidelines. Mr. Lyle Berge, from CP Rail, is fairly confident that our crossings will meet the new standard. However, to confirm that, he will arrange for a re-inspection of all the crossings (including 203 St.) on June 13 and 14, 2001. Citizen/Customer Implications: We continue to get a number of complaints from residents regarding the use of train whistles, particularly at night. Most of the complaints have come from the Haney By-pass area but, with the opening of the new crossing at 203 St., complaints from the Hammond area are increasing. Financial Implications: CPR requires that the District of Maple Ridge share the additional liability insurance costs incurred by them as a result of approving whistle cessation. This would amount to $300 per year for each crossing ($2,400 annually). Our insurance provider, MIA, advises that we are covered under our liability policy with them but a significant claim could impact our premium. Additional costs would be incurred to install the meridians at the 240 St. crossing. Alternatives: • any combination of crossings with and without the ban could be accommodated. Therefore, the District could choose, for example, to not complete the upgrades at the 240 St. crossing or to close the Ditton St. crossing. • Pursue an application for an all-day, every day whistle ban (this would be a very difficult process because of the strong stance the commuter train operators have taken against banning whistles). • Withdraw the application entirely and allow the trains to continue using the whistles. Su mmarv: Upon receiving the results of the crossing inspections and the estimates for installation of meridians at the 240 St. crossing, staff will report to Council for direction or formal consideration of a resolution for the conditional ban of train whistles. Prepared by: Ron Riach Property & Risk Manager Approved by. Terry Fryer Municipal Clerk Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, AJCP, MCIP Chief Administrative Officer CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE TO: His Worship Mayor Al Hogarth DATE: February 12, 2002 and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C 4, u.J SUBJECT: Parks Bylaw Amendment Purpose: An amending Bylaw has been created to adjust the park closure hours, in such a manner, to align with the seasonal hours of daylight and to provide the RCMP with an enforcement tool with respect to inappropriate gatherings in public parks after dark. The CAC and the Commission have recommended the bylaw be amended to provide for park closures from dusk to dawn throughout the year, noting that exceptions will be provided for those facility users who have permission to use the park facilities outside these hours and that the park closure hours will be enforced on a discretionary basis by the RCMP. Recommendation(s): That the Maple Ridge Parks Amending Bylaw # 602 1-2002 be read a first and second time and the rules of order be waved and the Maple Ridge Parks Amending Bylaw # 6021- 2002 be read a third time. Background: The present Parks Bylaw identifies the parks are "closed to the public between the hours of 10:00 at night and 6:00 the next morning, except to persons authorized in writing by the Parks and Operations Manager". In his presentation to the CAC and the Commission Const. Maciuk identified that the inconsistency between communities was problematic and that changing the closure hours to include any time after dark would provide the RCMP with an enforcement tool with respect to inappropriate gatherings. He did identify that Municipal Tickets would be issued on a discretionary basis to those people found in parks after dark. He further clarified the point by suggesting that those persons suspected by the police of causing mischief could be fined for simply being in a park after dark whether or not they are in violation of other park use regulations which are more difficult to enforce since they require evidence which is harder to obtain. During the earlier discussion of this subject the Commissioners directed that staff obtain the comments of the Youth Councils. Their comments are attached for consideration along with a more formal indication of support for the change from the RCMP offices. The Municipality's solicitor has advised that a bylaw of this nature can be enforced, on a discretionary basis, providing there is no evidence of discrimination based on age, gender, race, etc. Since our solicitor has indicated that discretionary enforcement by the RCMP is acceptable and since a majority of the Youth Council members were supportive of the change so long as it isn't applied rigidly, the CAC and Commission are of the view that the bylaw change should be enacted. Intergovernmental Issues: qSI The intent is to present a similar amending bylaw to the Pitt Meadows Council to standardize the park closure hours in both communities. The School District has previously adjusted its grounds closure times to reflect the times for the park closures in the community in which their schools are located. Environmental Implications: N/A Citizen/Customer Implications: N/A Interdepartmental Implications: The RCMP have requested the change to aid them in dealing with after dark problems. They feel the change would help them to be more responsive to public complaints they receive from park neighbours Financial Implications: N/A Alternatives: Not to change the park closure time (10:00 PM to 600 AM) or to consider establishing an earlier evening closure time. Summary: The changes to the bylaws are proposed to provide consistency, daylight sensitive closure times, and a tool for the authorities to use in dealing with inappropriate behavior in parks during night hours (dawn to dusk) rather than waiting for the designated-posted time. /repared by. Mike Davies Director, Parks & Facilities Approved by: i-Mike Murray General Manager, Community Development Par Recreation $ervices Con 'urrence: Robert WRobertson, AICP, MCIP Chief Administrative Officer ------.---- \\OAK\Parks & Rec.\2002 Folders\O100-0699 Administration\ 0550 Council-Cominittees\Maple Ridge Council\Parks Closures.doc MAPLE RitxiE CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BY-LAW NO. 6021 - 2002 A By-law to amend the Parks hours in Maple Ridge Parks Regulation By-law No. 3414 - 1984 and amendments thereto. WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Parks Regulation By-law No. 3414 - 1984 and amendments thereto; NOW THEREFORE the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: This By-law shall be cited for all purposes as the "Maple Ridge Parks Regulation Amending By-law No. 6021 - 2002". "Park Hours - Section 10.1" under Part A. General Park Regulations" of Maple Ridge Parks Regulation By-law No. 3414 - 1984 as amended, is amended by deleting the words "between the hours 10:00 at night and 6:00 the next morning" and replacing it with the words "from dusk to dawn ". READ a first time the day of 2002. READ a second time the day of 2002. READ a third time the day of 2002. RECONSIDERED AND ADOPTED the day of 2002. MAYOR CLERK jhertzog/Feb.6/02 Mike Murray From: Lance HARRIS f Lance.HARRlS(rCmP-rc.gc.ca Sent: Monday, December 31, 2001 10:42 AM To: Mmurraymapleridge.org Cc: Bill DINGWALL Subject: After Hours Access to Local Parks Historically the issues we have in the parks are with large gatherings of youths who are brought to our attention through a citizen complaint of noise and vandalism. (fires, drinking, smashing bottles, etc.) Some of the parks are attached to schools and this raises issues of vandalism to the schools which you and I ultimately pay for. Upon attendence we will usually seize the beer, arrest anyone who is drunk and send the youths on their way. We rarely have any issues with groups of youths who meet to talk and use the swings and kibize about. There are issues with groups of youths who have committed vandalism but have not been drinking and think this is all a big joke of some sort. These youths run in packs and tend to give all young people a bad name. When these young people are asked to move along they become beligerent and confroritational in nature not only with us but with the neighbourhood residents who try to calm them down or have them move along. This initiative would give us a way of dealing with type of incident. I wish to stress that due to resourcing levels and policies we cannot enforce this bylaw on a regular basis. Logically it would be a useful tool for any bike patrols or foot patrols when need to target the abovenoted misguided young citizens. We would not be doing any enforcement after hours involving a couple out for a walk, nearby resident using the area for a family/office bar-b-que, etc. or where we did not receive a specific complaint of a bylaw infraction couple with criminal code activity such as vandalism, wilful damage, etc. We support this initiative. THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED FOR CONVENIENCE ONLY and is a consolidation of the following: Maple Ridge Parks Regulation By-law No. 3414-1984 Maple Ridge Parks Regulation Amending By-law No. 4868-1993 Maple Ridge Parks Regulation Amending By-law No. 490 1-1993 3. Maple Ridge Parks Regulation Amending By-law No. 4979-1993 Maple Ridge Parks Regulation Amending By-law No. 5600-1997 Individual copies of any of the above by-laws can be obtained by contacting the Clerk's CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BY-LAW NO. 3414-1984 A By-law to regulate, govern and manage park property and recreational facilities of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge WHEREAS the Council is empowered under Section 679 of the "Municipal Act" R.S.B.C. 1979, Chapter 290 to make rules, and regulations governing the management, maintenance, improvement and operations. control and use of any real or personal property mentioned in the said section: AND WHEREAS is necessary to define the duties and terms of reference for the proper operations of all parks and recreation facilities: NOW THEREFORE the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS; In this By-law, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions shall have the meanings hereinafter assigned to them. that is to say: "Council" shall mean the elected members of the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge. 4979-1993 "Parks" shall mean and include any real or personal property within the Municipality used for public park and recreation purposes and includes all buildings and structures situated thereon and shall include any other parcel of land improved, maintained, developed or administered by the Parks and Recreation Department such as school grounds, pursuant to direction from the Municipal Council. "Vehicle" shall mean all conveyances propelled either by motor or muscular power. "Parks and Operations Manager" shall mean the Parks and Operations Manager of the Municipality or his representative. By-law No. 3414-1984 Page 2 A. GENERAL PARK REGULATKNS Acts Pro- 1. NO PERSON WHILE within the confines of a park shall: hibited in Parks (a) Throw or leave any paper, cardboard, food refuse or ruins, bottles or glass or any matter of any kind likely to prove offensive, injurious, or unsightly; all such matter shall either be placed in receptacles provided in the park for that purpose or shall be carried away from the park for - disposal. Carrying (b) Carry or discharge any firearm, fireworks, air gun, sling shot, catapult. Weapons bows and arrows, or other weapon or dangerous toy. Defacing (c) Cut, break, bend or in any way injure or deface any turf, tree, Growth shrub, hedge, plant, flower or park ornament. Defacing (d) Climb upon, deface or in any way damage any building, wall fence, Property gate, sign, seat, bench, exhibit, cage or any ornament. Touching (e) Plug, tamper with or in any way damage any plumbing, lighting. Wiring, etc. heating, or other fixture. Fires (f) Start any fire or permit any person under his control to start any fire except in fireplaces provided therein for that purpose; and except where written permission is given by the Parks and Operations Manager. Ignoring (g) Walk upon any lawn or garden where signs are posted prohibiting Signs persons from so doing nor ignore any sign or signal lawfully erected for the control of pedestrian or vehicle traffic. Animals (h) Enter a park with a dog unless the dog is on a leash. Horses are not permitted in parks unless they have been so designated for horses or written permission has been received for a special event. Notwithstanding the above, no person being the owner of any dog or other animal shall permit such animal to enter any park or part thereof which is duly signed "restricted" or "partially restricted". Posting (i) Distribute any handbills or circulars nor post, place or display any Notices placard, notice, paper, advertising device, or publicity matter of any Signs kind without the written consent of the Parks and Operations Manager except.such.notices as are erected by Civic Departments dealing with recreation, traffic control, public health or park safety, fishing regulations or fire regulations. By-law No. 34 14-1984 Page 3 Advertising (j) Use or permit the use of any advertising vehicle without the written Vehicles consent of the Parks and Operations Manager. Molesting of (k) Tease, molest, or injure any mammal, bird, or fish, nor throw an substance at or near such creatures in such a way to cause them alarm or possible injury. Licence 2. NO PERSON SHALL offer for sale within any park any article or food, drink, or merchandise or carry on any business unless such person has been licenced to do so by the Municipality and has received proper approval of Council. Disorderly 3. NO PERSON WiTHIN any park shall use any blasphemous, obscene Conduct or vulgar language nor conduct himself in a disorderly or offensive manner or molest or injure any other person or loiter or obstruct for free use and enjoyment of the park by any other person. 5600-1997 Dress 3A. (I) Subject to subsection (3) of this Section 3A, all persons shall be clothed in Parks; "Clothed" means that males and females shall fully cover the genital area with opaque apparel and that females over the age of eight (8) years shall fully cover all portions of their nipples and aureole with opaque apparel. Subsection (I) and (2) shall not apply to changing, dressing and washrooms in Parks or to areas in Parks designated and scheduled by the Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows Parks and Leisure Services Commission for use for art and drawing programs in respect of which models may pose as part of the program offered to the public. Structures 4. NO PERSON SHALL erect, build or locate nor permit the erection. in Parks building, or locating in any park of any trailer tent, shelter, or other building without first obtaining the written permission of council and/or the Parks and Operations Manager. Digging 5. NO PERSON OTHER than an authorized agent of the Municipality shall dig in the earth of any park nor remove any tree or any rock or any other matter that is fixed or growing from within the park. Bylaw No. 3414-1984 Page 4 Permit for 6. NO PROCESSION, march, drill, parade, political or religious gathering Park Meetings or other public meeting except when organized and controlled by the Municipality shall be held in any park unless the written consent of the Parks and Operations Manager has first been obtained. Picnic Areas 7. NO PERSON or persons shall picnic except in parts of the park designated for that purpose. Vehicle 8. NO PERSON SHALL park any vehicle in a park except in those areas Parking designated or regularly used for that purpose, nor drive any vehicle on any part of the park other than the roadway intended for vehicles. Boating 9. NO PERSON SHALL operate a mechanically powered boat on any lake, pond or outdoor water facility within the boundaries or any park unless the written consent of the Parks and Operations Manager has first been obtained. 4979-1993 Park Hours 10.1 THE PARKS SHALL be closed to the public between the hours of 10:00 at night and 6:00 the next morning except to persons authorized in writing by the Parks and Operations Manager. 10.2 Subsection 10.1 does not apply to those areas designated for camping. B. SWIMMING POOL REGULATIONS 11. PERSON WHO swim, bathe or wade in any lake, stream, pool or pond within the limits of a park do so at their own risk. Prohibited 12. IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL for any person: Activities At Swimming to enter any portions of any building set apart for the use of any person of the opposite sex. To interfere with, obstruct, impede, hinder or prevent discharge of any attendant, lifeguard, or other person engaged in superintending, controlling, instructing or overseeing swimming, bathing or aquatic sports or games at or in any swimming pool. C. SPORTS GROUNDS Games 13. NO PERSON SHALL play at any game or engage in any recreation within a park except upon such portion thereof as may be especially allotted or designated for that purpose. By-law No. 3414-1984 Page 5 Controls 14. NO PERSON SHALL play at any game on any tennis court or bowling green unless the person is wearing rubber soled shoes with low heels and is otherwise suitably equipped with the normal appliances for such games and may only plan thereon at such times and during such seasons as the rules and regulations of the Municipality permit..- Skating 15. Any person skating on a park lake, pond or any outdoor skating facility during winter conditions do so at their own risk. D. GENERAL PROVISIONS Planting in 16. NO PERSON SHALL plant trees or shrubs in any park without first Parks obtaining the written permission of the Parks and Operations Manager. Protect 17. NO PERSON SHALL transport goods or chattels over or place or Turf leave chattels upon any boulevard within a park unless the turf of such boulevard is first protected from damage. Vehicles 18. NO PERSON SHALL ride or drive a horse, or other animal or drive or etc. to Keep propel or permit to be driven or propelled, any vehicle or other mode of Off Roads conveyance on any boulevard grass plot or other area within any park other than on the respective driveway made and provided for such purpose, nor drive any animal on any path or other roadway allotted for pedestrian traffic only, provided however, that invalid's chairs and children's carriages may be allowed on the footwaiks to such an extent and in such manner as shall not interfere with the free use of such walks as pedestrians. Speed 19. NO PERSON SHALL ride or drive any horse or other animal or drive or propel any vehicle in, upon or along any driveway at a rate of speed not consistent with safety having due regard to all other traffic, or in excess of any speed limit that may be posted within park boundaries. 20. NO PERSON, firm or corporation shall dump any foreign matter, refuse. or any other material or matter likely in the opinion of the Parks and Operations Manager to interfere with the appearance of the park or .constituting an obstruction of littering thereof within a park or on parkiand. Temporary Park 21. NOTWITHSTANDING the foregoing, the Parks and Operations Closing Manager may at any time deemed necessary temporarily close any park or any portion thereof to the public use. By-law No. 3414-1984 Page 6 Removal of Persons From Parks Any person duly authorized by Council or the Parks and Operations Manager shall exclude any person from any park whose conduct is considered undesirable and may remove any person who is violating any by-law of the Municipality and where any damage has been caused by any person in breach of any regulation herein contained or any other regulation of the Municipality he may, if a police officer, take such person into custody and the penalty in such case be as provided in Municipal, Provincial or Federal Act. The Parks and Operations Manager may at any time cause to be placed a sign restricting the use of those parks which in the opinion of the Parks and Operations Manager may be damaged by active games and after the posting of the sign no person shall play or engage in any active game or games in or on the park upon which the sign has been posted or located. Delegation of 24. Any duties delegated by this By-law to the Parks and Operations Authority Manager may be exercised on instruction of the Parks and Recreation Director or Parks and Operations Manager by other appropriate members of the staff of the Parks and Recreation Department. 25. Wherever the masculine or the singular is used herein, it shall import the feminine or the plurai as the circumstances require. 4901-1993 Penalty 26. EVERY PERSON WHO contravenes or violates any of the provisions of this By-law or any permit issued pursuant hereto, or who suffers or permits any act or things to be done in contravention or in violation of any of the provisions of this By-law or any permit issued pursuant hereto, or who neglects to do or refrains from doing anything required to be done by any of the provisions of this By-law or any permit issued pursuant hereto, commits an offence and, upon summary conviction therefore. shall be liable to a penalty pursuant to the Offence Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, Chp. 305 and, where the offence is a continuing one, each day that the offence is continued shall constitute a separate offence." 27. The following By-laws are hereby repealed: Maple RidgParksRgultion By-law No. 23 13-1975 and Maple Ridge Parks Regulation By-law No. 3094-1982 28. This By-law may be cited for all purposes as 'Maple Ridge Parks ReguiationBy-law'No. 3414-1984". By-law No. 3414-1984 Page 7 READ a first time this 11th day of June A.D. 1984 READ a second time this 11th day of June A.D. 1984 READ a third time this 11th day of June A.D. 1984 RECONSIDERED, finally passed, signed and the seal of the Corporation affixed this 18th day of June A.D. 1984. "D. Griffin MAYOR "F.B. Magee' CLERK PMYC Youth Council Discussion (Jan103/02) Re: Proposed Curfew General Questions: What is the definition of dusk till dawn? • What age group does this affect? • Why don't police enforce this now? • What will happen if you don't pay your fine? • Can there be a place to go if there is a curfew, such as a designated park that is monitored by someone? • What is the dehnffion of discretion as it applies to this situation • If this power is abused how will accountabilily be ensured Positives for having a curfew: • Will provide an opportunity to not paint a negative image of youth • Help prevent negative occurrences such as rape and assault Less crime related incidents (i.e. vandalism, Theft, drinking in public) • Would give the PCMP an additional tool in efforts to control problem areas where there are young adults as well as youth. Negatives to having a curfew: • Can't hang with your friends at night • Takes away fun of being out late - Youth could potentially go to another community where there is nota curfew • Some youth pointed out that discretion is a powerful tool that could be potentially abused • The youth also suggested that this curfew is not a solution for the community so much as it is a stop gap solution to deal with a small amount of youth and young adults that are causing problems. Discussion notes Most of the discussion was based on youth not wanting to be bothered if they were just going from one place to another. They thought that if they were being well behaved that they should be able to be outside. There was concern also regarding the discretion issue and how that would be defined. They commented that it would most likely be difficult for officers to differentiate between behaving youth and youth that were causing problems. This could especially be an issue for new officers who do not have relationships with youth. They also understood the benefits of a curfew. We had discussed how it would be an excellent tool for the RCMP to have. We also said that it would probably not effect youth that were behaving well. It would.however support the RCMP in making our community a safer place to be. The biggest problem for them was trying to understand what Dusk to Dawn would entail. The Youth Centre, Leisure Centre & Library all close after dark during the winter & fall. The majority of youth understood why we might have a curfew & were not totally opposed to it, as long as there was some leeway & discretion. There were 3 young people who were totally against It. All in all it was a productive discussion which could have benefited by having more input from youth who spend a lot of time on the streets Thank you for your time & opportunity to express our views. Kris Bodaly Lee Faurot/ Uz Krieg/ Mb Laity-Mclennan Pitt Meadows Youth Council Representative RMPLS Youth Outreach Initiative Program That Resolution No. RJ01-165 from the Council Meeting of March 27, 2001 be rescinded and that pursuant to the authority contained in Section 77(1) of the Land Title Act, effective February 28, 2002, Jeff Scherban, Director of Development Engineering be appointed as the Approving Officer for the District of Maple Ridge; and that during Mr. Scherban's absence, Frank Quinn, the General Manager Public Works and Development Services be appointed as the Approving Officer for the District of Maple Ridge; and further that during the absence of Mr. Scherban and Mr. Quinn, Jane Pickering, Director of Planning be appointed as the Approving Officer for the District of Maple Ridge; and further that during the absence of Mr. Scherban, Mr. Quinn and Ms. Pickering, Terry Fryer, Municipal Clerk be appointed as the Approving Officer for the District of Maple Ridge.