HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-06-22 Council Meeting Agenda and Reports9o4-co u-eIi4d
o eAxck"- o6 2.
b 4J ±i e o r uopn oJ
01 - o7
Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge
CUNCIL MEETING A GENDA
June 22, 2004
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.rnapleridae.org
The purpose of a Council meeting is to enact powers given to Council by using bylaws or
resolutions. This is the final venue for debate of issues before voting on a bylaw or
resolution.
100 CALL TO ORDER
200 OPENING PRA YERS
Pastor Les Warriner
300 PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL
301 Neighbourhood Traffic Management Policy and Practices
Presentation by the Municipal Engineer and consideration of Item 911
302 Downtown Core Alternate Approval Process
400 ADOPTIONAND RECEIPT OF MINUTES
401 Regular Council Meeting of June 8, 2004 and the Special Council Meeting of
June 14, 2004
Page 1
Council Meeting Agenda
June 22, 2004
Council Chamber
Page 2 of 7
500 DELEGATIONS
501 Maple Ridge Pitt Meadows Bicycle Advisory Committee, Dr. Lorne Walton
502 Patient Bill of Rights, Helen Greenaway, Kathleen Wilding, Maxine
Thompson
503 136 Avenue Rate Payers Association, Jay Mackenzie
600 UNFINISHED BUSINESS
601 Downtown Core Use and Occupancy Payment, July 2004
602 DVP/095/03, 11821 and 11789 232 Street
Reduction in the building envelope width from 12 metres to 10.5 metres for
proposed Lot 1
603 Federation of Canadian Municipalities, "A New Deal"
700 CORRESPONDENCE
701 City of Burnaby, Privatization of Personal Medical Records
Letter dated May 11, 2004 from Mayor Derek Corrigan requesting support of a
resolution opposing the agreement between the Province and Maximus Inc.
702 District of Mission, Highway 7
Letter dated May 25, 2004 from Abe Neufeld, Mayor, supporting the efforts of
Maple Ridge to four-lane the remaining section of Highway 7 between the
Mission border and 240th Street in Maple Ridge.
800 BY-LAWS
801 Maple Ridge Regulation of Untidy and Unsightly Premises Bylaw No. 6239-
2004
To ensure that occupiers of property remove unsightly accumulations of filth,
mbbish or discarded mateals within a reasonable amount of time
Final reading
Council Meeting Agenda
June 22, 2004
Council Chamber
Page 3 of 7
802 Maple Ridge Ticket Information System Utilization Amending Bylaw No.
6234-2004
To reduce ticket amounts for certain offences if payment is received within seven
days and to include fines for inadequate garbage containers
Final reading
803 Maple Ridge Highway and Traffic Amending Bylaw No. 6235-2004
To delete the section dealing with speeding tickets, to add a section dealing with
the display of valid license plates and insurance and to update fees charged for
towing and storing of vehicles)
Final reading
804 RZ/112/02, 12450 264 Street
Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6155-2003
Staff report dated June 1, 2004 recommending that Maple Ridge Zone Amending
Bylaw No. 6 155-2004 to permit subdivision into seven lots be reconsidered and
adopted.
COMMITTEE REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
900 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
901 Minutes - June 7 and 14, 2004
The following issues were presented 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 1:00 p.m. on the Monday the week prior to this meeting.
Public Works and Development Services
902 Development Permit - 12450 264 Street
Staff report dated June 1, 2004 recommending Municipal Clerk be authorized to
sign and seal DP/112/02 respecting property located at 12450 264 Street.
Council Meeting Agenda
June 22, 2004
Council Chamber
Page 4 of 7
903 CP/062/04, Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No.
6245-2004
Staff report dated June 8, 2004 recommending that Maple Ridge Official
Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6245-2004 be given first reading and be
forwarded to Public Hearing; and that the use of the Watercourse Integrity
Classification Map and the Streamside Setback Classification Map as updated to
reflect Phase 4 inclusions, be endorsed as a guide during the land use planning
and development approval process.
904 AL/043/04, Application to Exclude Land from the Agricultural Land
Reserve, 11748 240 Street and one lot directly south
Staff report dated June 9, 2004 recommending that application AL/043/04 be
authorized to proceed to the Agricultural Land Commission and that the applicant
and the Commission are provided with an understanding of the current Official
Community Plan policy and servicing constraints.
905 AL/044/04, Application to Exclude Land from the Agricultural Land
Reserve, 23613 124 Avenue & 12349 237 Street
Staff report dated June 9, 2004 recommending that application AL/044/04 be
authorized to proceed to the Agricultural Land Commission and that the applicant
and the Commission are provided with an understanding of the current Official
Community Plan policy and servicing constraints.
906 AL/045/04, Application to Exclude Land from the Agricultural Land
Reserve, 12146 237 Street
Staff report dated June 9, 2004 recommending that application AL/045/04 be
authorized to proceed to the Agricultural Land Commission and that the applicant
and the Commission are provided with an understanding of the current Official
Community Plan policy and servicing constraints.
907 AL/046/04, Application to Exclude Land from the Agricultural Land
Reserve, 12212, 12230, 12296 248 Street, 12225, 12245, 12265 250 Street
Staff report dated June 9, 2004 recommending that application AL/046/04 be
authorized to proceed to the Agricultural Land Commission and that the applicant
and the Commission are provided with an understanding of the current Official
- - - CommunityPIanpolieyandseveiiiiistrviiits.
Council Meeting Agenda
June 22, 2004
Council Chamber
Page 5 of 7
908 AL/042/04, Application to Exclude Land from the Agricultural Land
Reserve, 21743 128 Avenue
Staff report dated June 9, 2004 recommending that application AL/042/04 be
authorized to proceed to the Agricultural Land Commission and that the applicant
and the Commission are provided with an understanding of the current Official
Community Plan policy and servicing constraints.
909 AL/050/04, Application to Exclude Land from the Agricultural Land
Reserve, 21803 128 Avenue
Staff report dated June 9, 2004 recommending that application AL/050/04 be
authorized to proceed to the Agricultural Land Commission and that the applicant
and the Commission are provided with an understanding of the current Official
Community Plan policy and servicing constraints.
910 AL1053/04, Application to Exclude Land from the Agricultural Land
Reserve, 12987 210 Street, 12696 & 12766 203 Street; 21515, 21567, 21349,
21237, 21281, 21617, 21771 & 21903 128 Avenue
Staff report dated June 9, 2004 recommending that application AL/053/04 be
authorized to proceed to the Agricultural Land Commission and that the applicant
and the Commission are provided with an understanding of the current Official
Community Plan policy and servicing constraints.
911 Neighbourhood Traffic Management Policy and Practices
Staff report dated May 12, 2004 submitting information on a proposed
Neighbourhood Traffic Management Policy.
Financial and Corporate Services c'ilzcludinR Fire and Police)
931 Special Occasion License, Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows Agricultural
Association
Staff report dated June 2, 2004 recommending that the application from the Maple
Ridge-Pitt Meadows Agricultural Association for a Special Occasion License to
hold a Beer Garden as part of the 2004 Maple Ridge Fair be approved.
Council Meeting Agenda
June 22, 2004
Council Chamber
Page 6 of 7
932 License Renewal for the Maple Ridge Recycling Property
Staff report dated June 10, 2004 recommending that the license agreement with
the GVRD for the premises situated at 10092 236th1 Street be renewed for a five
year term.
Comn:unitv Development and Recreation Service
951 Fraser Valley Regional Library Operating and Services Agreement
Staff report dated June 9, 2004 recommending that the Mayor and Municipal
Clerk be authorized to sign the Agreement for 2004.
Correspondence - Nil
Other Committee Issues- Nil
1000 STAFF REPORTS
1001 VP/033104, 12020 207A Street
Staff report dated June 11, 2004 recommending that qualifying property owners
be advised that VP/033/04 to permit construction of a four storey frame apartment
building will be considered at the July 13, 2004 Council meeting.
1002 North Avenue Reconstruction (224 Street to 223 Street)
Staff report dated June 16, 2004 recommending that Contract No. E02-010-079 to
repave North Avenue, construct safety improvements and improve road drainage
be awarded to Jack Cewe Ltd.
/
1098 MAYOR'SREPORT
Council Meeting Agenda
June 22, 2004
Council Chamber
Page 7 of 7
1099 COUNCILLORS' REPORTS
1100 OTHER MA TTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT
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 anchor 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 by: -
Date. ') £ 02 L:'4-
•1
C
British Columbia Nurses' Union L0 H
Patient's Bill of Rights
As Registered Nurses and Registered Psychiatric Nurses, we are
committed to giving the best possible health care service and
advocating for British Columbians when we see their health care
needs not being met.
We believe that residents of British Columbia have the right to an
effective publicly funded and publicly administered health care
system consistent with the Canada Health Act.
We believe residents of British Columbia have the right to timely
access to care appropriate to their needs from appropriately qualified
health care professionals. We also believe residents both in the
hospital and the community setting, have the right to choose their
own physician.
We recognize the health care system does not currently have the
capacity to meet patients' needs in all cases, and that funding needs
to be increased at both the Federal and Provincial level in order to
provide better health care. We believe the provincial government
should meet with providers and develop an implementation plan to
improve the health care system over the next five years.
This document describes the improvements Registered Nurses and
Registered Psychiatric Nurses believe are needed in the system, and
some of the health care rights the provincial government should be
ensuring British Columbians receive.
5000,z.
Patient's Bill of Rights
Access to Hospital Services
Residents of urban and rural communities have a right to access an
emergency department within a maximum of half an hour's travel, and
98% of residents in remote communities must be able to access
emergency care Within 1 hour's travel.
Patients who access an emergency department have a right to be
immediately assessed (triaged) and, consistent with national standards,
assessed/treated immediately if requiring resuscitation, within 15 minutes
for emergent cases, and within 30 minutes for urgent cases. Patients
requiring hospital admission must not be held in emergency departments
for more than six hours, and must be discharged, transferred to another
hospital, or admitted to a hospital bed within that time frame.
Patients have the right to agreed upon maximum wait times for
diagnostic, therapeutic, surgical and rehabilitative treatment, based on
whether their condition is life-threatening, urgent or non-urgent.
Residents of British Columbia have the right to an open and transparent
public process to establish maximum wait times, which includes input
from the public and health care providers.
Patients who cannot be provided with emergent hospital treatment in
their community have a right to subsidized travel to and from their
community, including when their surgery or treatment is cancelled.
Patients whose operations are cancelled on the day of their surgery have
the right to be re-booked for their operations within one month of
cancellation.
Patients who are being discharged from hospital have the right to have
arrangements made to provide them with continuing nursing or
rehabilitation care, including the provision of medications and
equipment, prior to discharge, and their caregiver(s) have the right to be
informed of these arrangements prior to discharge.
Him
BCNU Page 2
Patient's Bill of Rights
Palliative patients have the right to decide whether they want to die at
home, in a hospice, or in a hospital palliative care bed.
Patients who require mental health care in a hospital or mental health
institution have the right to access a psychiatric bed within sx hours of
referral.
Patients in hospitals and residents in long term care facilities, have the
right to an environment which is clean and safe, and the right to a choice
of meals suitable for their dietary needs with a choice of portion sizes.
Access to Community Services
Residents of rural and remote communities have a right to first care in
their community by a physician, or where a doctor is not available, a
nurse who is authorized to initiate medical evacuation.
Parents have a right to subsidized pre-natal teaching. In addition, they
have a right to pre-natal care and the right to post-natal nursing follow-up
in their homes.
Children have a right to fully funded, comprehensive health screening
and education programs in their schools. These programs should include
immunizations, dental, scoliosis, eye and hearing screening as well as
reproductive, nutrition, and preventative health education from a school
nurse.
Addicted patients have a right to detox and addiction treatment in a
treatment centre where they can receive physical and psychological
support within 48 hours of them making a decision to detox.
Patients who require mental health care in the community have a right to
a visit from a mental health nurse within 4 hours in the daytime if
referred as an urgent patient, and within 2 days if non-urgent.
C'
,su,uuilsus,,lIuI.uuI.suhu,uss.suu•uuuIuIu•IIu•uuusI uuuuusiuuuuuii.....iu,s.uuIuuuIu.uIIIulIsuIuIIu•uuIuI
BCNU Page 3
Patient's Bill of Rights
Patients with persistent, serious mental ifiness who live outside an
institution, have the right to a subsidized group home or supportive
housing, and fully funded medication and psychotherapy services as
required.
Access to Seniors' Care
Seniors have the right to Home Care services, including home support,
occupational and physical therapy, and nursing care, to enable them to
remain as independent as possible and reside in their home and in their
community as long as possible.
Seniors have the right to subsidized combination programs which allow
older people to remain at home but link them with programs in the
community, such as day health centres several times a week, where they
receive meals, exercise and social contact.
Seniors who need residential care have the right to access Long term
Care in their community within 90 days of referral. They have the right
to a residential facility with 24 hour registered nursing care, medical
coverage and recreational opportunities.
Seniors who need supportive housing (assisted living), have the right to
access supportive housing in their community within 6 months of referral.
They have the right to personal living spaces that allow for independence
and privacy within a safe setting with adequate services as well as regular
assessment by health care professionals. These forms of housing and care
must be publicly regulated to ensure care standards.
Seniors in assisted living or long term care facilities, have the right to
security of tenure so they are only moved after appropriate plans, services
and accommodation have been put in place, and the family and resident
have agreed to the plan.
Married seniors have the right to live together in the same long term care
- osistedliving=fiity if they bothcquirc—eare.
BCNU Page 4
Patient's Bill of Rights
Access to Information
Patients have a right to information about their patient records, their
medical condition and their care. They also have theright to have their
personal health information protected from inappropriate use and/or
disclosure.
Residents of British Columbia have the right to a health care system
which is accountable and reports regularly on its performance through
various mechanisms such as report cards. Patients have the right to know
how well the health authority responsible for their treatment meets its
performance contract with the Ministry of Health and how patient
outcomes at the hospital to which they are referred, compare with those
of other hospitals.
Patients in hospitals and residents in long term care and their families
have the right to know the registered nurse to patient ratio in the facility,
the ratio of other health care professionals to patients and any proven
contravention of care standards, which have been reported to regulators.
26 Patients must be provided with complete information about the services
available to them and how to access those services.
To endorse the Patient's Bill of Rights,
please sign the attached endorsement form and fax it to:
Sharon Costello
Toll Free Fax # 1-888-284-2222
Lower Mainland Fax #604-433-7945
To keep informed about the BC Nurses' efforts to improve patient care,
check out our website regularly www.bcnu.org .
IuIuIIIlsuuI.IIuuuIuIsusauII•suIIu•IuIII,uuuuIIlluuIIuuusIIs••• ,iuuiuuiiuiiuuuiis.ii..uuuuiiuusIuIaIuIuI
1001 BEffill
BCNU Page 5
Patient's Bill of Rights
Endorsement Form
To endorse B.C. Nurses' Patient's Bill of Riahts, please sign below and fax back your
signed endorsement to Sharon Costello at:
Toll Free Fax # 1-888-284-2222
Lower Mainland Fax # 604-433-7945
Yes! I want to endorse the Patient's Bill of Rights.
As a leader in my community/organization who believes in public health care,
I endorse the Patient's Bill of Rights.
Date:
x
signature
Name (please print):
Title:
Your Support Is Appreciated!
0 Please keep me informed on nurses' efforts to improve patient care.
My email address is (please print clearly):____________________________
0 Call me if you need me to speak out about why I support the Patient's Bill of Rights.
Phone:
SC/Is opew 15 G:useTsCOMMUNIC/8iI1 of RightS_endorsabon copy.pd
BCNU Page 6
Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge
ZOOM
11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, B.C. V2X 6A9
Telephone: (604) 463-5221 Fax: (604) 467-7329
.A.pLE jp-çE E-mail: enquiries@mapieridge.org
www.mapleridge.org lrxxrporated 12 Sepmb. 1874
Office of the Mayor
June 15. 2004
File No: 6700-01
Mr. Jay Mackenzie
22589 - 136 Avenue
Maple Ridge, B.C. V4R 2P7
Dear Mr. Mackenzie:
In response to your request dated June 11. 2004, the following an -angements are confirmed for
the 136th Avenue Rate Payers Association to appear before Council regarding the impact of future
development in your area:
Council Meeting
June 22, 2004
Council Chambers
7:00 p.m.
Due to time constraints, it is necessary to limit delegation appearances to a maximum of ten (10)
minutes. and we would ask that prior to the meeting. you ensure that your presentation will be
completed within this allotted time.
If we can be of any further assistance. please do not hesitate to call.
Yours truly.
G_"~
Ceri Mario
Confidential Secretary
/dd
cc Genera! Manager: Public Works & Development Services
50$ "Promoting a Safe and Livable Community for our Present and Future Citizens"
100% Recyded Papeq
June 11,2004
Mayor and Council members;
The 136 ave Rate Payers Association request the opportunity to present the
following requests to Council and City staff, as well as give a brief visual
presentation at the next available council meeting.
Thank you
Jay Mackenzie
22589 136 ave
Maple Ridge BC
V4R 2P7
Dear Mayor and Council members
The 136 Ave. Rate Payers Association which represents those residents who live on 136 Ave.
east of 224 Street wish to bring forth concerns about future development at the east end of our
street.
The residents here are already concerned about the heavy traffic that is already a daily
occurrence on our street. It is not safe for our children to ride their bikes or play on the streets
anymore. It is not even safe to walk to the mailboxes at the corner of 224th and 136th Ave.
Those who live on the north side of the street can no longer park on the street due to the
increase in traffic.
Residents at the east end of 136 ave have experienced more flooding than usual during heavy
rain since the construction has began and we fear even more flooding should any more
development take place. The ditch on the north side of the street is always full of water now due
to extra run off from development and pumps from the new pump station which pump water into
the ditch 24 hours a day. Even when it's not raining, in many places the water in the ditch is quite
deep. This now is also becoming a danger for our kids and any driver who may accidentally
drive into the ditch.
Any future development aside from the Portrait Home development would drastically increase
the danger in all of these things. Traffic, flooding and the danger of an open ditches are
examples of all of these things.
Should any future applications for development of any property at the east end of 136 street
come to council, we would ask council to consider the problems and danger we already must
now try to live with, and make sure it is not amplified any more. We are not asking council to
turn, away development but rather have any new developer pay for improvements to the street
that would make it safer for all rather than even more dangerous.
We suggest:
A culvert to replace the ditch, so no children end up falling into the ditch while playing, or while
trying to avoid traffic where there are no sidewalks.
Side walks so that all residents on the street can walk safely to the mailboxes. So our children
can walk to their friend's homes without fear of being run over and so the parents can do the
same.
More streetlights so no one is run over at night.
A stop sign at the end of 136 Ave where the Si4ver Valley Development begins for westbound
traffic. This would discourage speeding westbound cars from racing down our street.
We ask that any future developer pay for all of this since the increased traffic from their
developments would be the factor that changed our Street from "already a little dangerous" to
outright deadly".
Thank you
136 Ave Rate Payers Association
Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge
11995 Haney Place, Xtaple Rge, B.C. V2X6A9
1 if A PLE R.DCE E-mail: enquinesmapieridge.org
.LVLEL www.mapleridge.org
Incorporated 12 Se her, 1874
June 9. 2004
File No: 3090-20.DVP095103
Dear Sir.'Madam:
PLEASE TAKE NOTE that the Municipal Council will be considering a Development Variance Permit
at the regular meeting to be held on Tuesday, June 22, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber.
Municipal Hall. 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge.
The particulars of the Development Variance Permit are as follows:
APPLICATION NO.: DVP/095/03
LEGAL: Lot 36, Plan 24972 and Lot 1, Plan 3532; both of Section 17, Township
12, NWD
LOCATION: 11821 and 11789 232 Street --
PRESENT ZONPG: RS-lb (One Family Urban (medium density) Residential)
PURPOSE: The applicant is requesting the following variance prior to subdivision:
• Reduction in the building envelope width from 12 metres to 10.5
metres for proposed Lot 1
AD FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that a copy of the Development Variance Permit and the Planning
Department report dated May 25. 2004 relative to this application will be available for inspection at the
Municipal Hall, Planning Department counter during office hours. 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. from June 9 to
June 22. 2004.
ALL PERSONS who deem themselves affected hereby shall be afforded an opportunity to make their
comments known to Municipal Council by making a written submission (or e-mail) to the attention of the
Municipal Clerk by 4:00 p.m.. Tuesday. June 22, 2004.
Yours truly,
Termry FP.Eng
Municipal Clerk tfrver:map1eridge.org
An.
cc: Confidential Secretary
"Promoting a Safe and Livable Community for our Present and Future Citizens"
?
L 10
Occ. Re:vced Paoe'
RP 15155
A
11892
37 38
LMP 17226
11870
1 P10448 11834
A I
Subject Properties
b
11812 /18
11804
19
P 70234
EP 10811
A
11776
11756
= ¶179: 1
71-2 , 3 e4 ¶1793
1L2532 2
- 11787
LMP 3749 5
164 11783
P46322
155
5 11757
11 166
U,
1 5 1611
L1.11345
r21 11696
32 11688
3
11682
4
11675 /
/ 11676
1667 //116706
30 7
— 11529 cli
29 8 a-
11011 11914 1 2 3
4
28 47 P1'1098
11902 1910 11865 i
27 P70911
46 1 11990 1992
26 1l875
•1955 1892
25 12
1187€ - t11666 m
24
Cl)
Ct) 13
11965 2 uJ 1850
14 11865
23 a- 14 CL S 83 1 of 11925 i&3
C/) 11839
22 15
11823 1824
35
21 16 11831
11519 11818 IT clj
36 Rem.
11811 1810
17
F
36
18
11803 1804 11821
118 AVE.
p
Rem.1
11789
213
P 54676
r27
26 ZZ
11895 Cl) 11
8
1186 11$7C
24
23 —
1 1851
22
El _
11837 11835 cv
20 13
- 11925 11932
19 14
18
11825.
15
___________________ ¶1655 1909
22
P 75454
¶1755/59
19 l74 20
21
1711729
L3. 22
BCP 327 8CP6321
16, 1 2 3 6
15
117AVE. 117AVE.
11697 -
12 26 The Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge
11689
27 makes no guarantee regarding the accuracy 17
11 11681 11682 or present status of the nformaton shown on
28 this map. 6
10 11672 __________
LMP 26440
LMS 2612
E F
a-
Rem,
S 1981
11789 -11821 232 Street
N
SCALE 1:2.500
CORPORATION OF
THE DISTRICT OF
MAPLE RIDGE MAPLE RIDGE
ncorporated 12. Seoternber, 1874 PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE: May 12. 2004 VP/0951103 BY: JV
N 2004
rd . Nw flhiI
A New Deal
A Partnership for
Quality of Life
Fdin
.fC-.di. n
Mothipi
a
Executive Summary
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) calls on all federal parties to commit to a
New Deal for Canada's communities.
The federal election gives political leaders an opportunity to articulate and debate their
vision for Canada. Partnerships among all orders of government will be critical to achieving
their goals.
A New Deal must deliver:
I A new intergovernmental partnership
Revenue sharing
Targeted investments
Capacity building for sustainable community planning
S. Research
A New Deal must also be based on principles of sustainable development to build
communities that balance economic opportunity, social well-being and environmental
conservation; that use resources efficiently: and that encourage participation in decision-
making and long-term planning.
Recommendations
THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA SHOULD:
Intergovernmental Partnership
• Commit to real consultation with municipal governments before decisions are made on
issues affecting municipal responsibilities and finances and community quality of life.
Establish a mechanism for formal pre-budget consultations and presentations to
intergovernmental forums.
• Ensure local priorities are considered fully in decisions involving investment in programs
such as the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund (CSIF) and the Municipal Rural
Infrastructure Fund (MRIF).
• Establish a municipal lens for federal decision-making.
• Build on existing bipartite and tripartite program coordination and community capacity
building models to achieve national objectives.
• Elaborate this new federal, provincial/territorial, municipal relationship in a formal
resolution of Parliament.
Revenue Sharing
• Commit to a New Deal revenue-sharing agreement for a minimum of 10 years to
support investments in municipal infrastructure, primarily transportation and transit.
Other investments could include water and wastewater. The revenue-sharing agreement
would provide municipal governments with five cents per litre of the federal fuel excise
tax by the end of 2004.
Targeted Investments
Commit to new, targeted investments in five priority areas: municipal infrastructure not
covered by revenue sharing; affordable housing; community and children's infrastructure;
security, emergency preparedness and public health; and downtown revitalization. This
funding will provide municipal governments with an initial ongoing commitment of
$100 million per year in the 2005/06 federal budget, with $250 million of this amount
dedicated to housing.
Capacity Building for Sustainable Community Planning
• Allocate $25 million in the 2005/06 federal budget to invest in development of
a Sustainable Community Toolbox that supports training, capacity building, pilots,
demonstration projects, and best practices.
Quality of Life Collaborative Research Agenda
• Allocate $25 million in the 2005/06 federal budget to develop a collaborative
research agenda involving all orders of government, universities, and non-governmental
organizations.
hYA
A New Deal: A Partnership for Quality of Life
In this federal election Canadians will hear that cities and communities are the engines of
economic growth. They will hear that attracting and retaining human and financial capital
is key to international competitiveness, and that this requires our cities and communities to
become more desirable places in which to live and work. On these points, there will be
little debate among federal parties.
But there will be debate and it will centre on partnership. To what degree, given our
Constitution, should the Government of Canada partner with municipal governments to
achieve national objectives? To what degree does the federal government need to partner
with municipal governments to achieve national objectives?
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) welcomes and encourages this debate.
We believe it is time for a New Deal for Canada's municipal governments. We believe it is
time to put aside 19th century thinking and come together to give Canadians what they
demand: responsible governments working together in partnership.
Our vision: a new deal that supports a high
quality of life for all Canadians
Canadians want clean, healthy, well-run communities: cities with less congestion: towns,
villages, and rural municipalities where young people don't have to leave home to find
work: and remote communities that are connected to the rest of the country.
We want communities with vibrant, local economies where people can realize their full
potential. We want communities where streets, buses, bridges and water systems work and
meet demands, where children have clean, safe, well-maintained parks and places to play,
and young people have access to recreation centres and programs.
We want communities that support those in need and that promote a fair and equitable
sharing of common resources: communities that preserve and protect the natural and built
environment and support arts and culture.
In short, we want sustainable communities where quality of life is not a luxury. We need
to invest where we live, because short-changing our communities comes at a price: damage
to our quality of life and to our ability to compete in the global marketplace.
Realizing the Vision
Quality of life depends on the long-term sustainability of our communities, and that
depends on our economic, social, environmental, and cultural well-being.
AA
All four are interconnected and interdependent:
• Economic well-being requires dynamic communities that are productive, competitive,
innovative, diverse, and adaptive;
• Social well-being requires inclusive commuhities that encourage everyone's participation
and support the realization of personal potential and well-being;
• Environmental well-being requires healthy communities with clean air, water and soil
and a safe climate;
• Cultural well-being requires creative communities that support diversity, heritage, and
the arts.
A New Deal: What's it all about?
A New Deal will recognize the essential contribution of all orders of government in meeting
national priorities.
If we are flexible enough to accommodate the financial capacity of all partners to
contribute, we have the opportunity to change the way governments do business for the
benefit of all Canadians.
The New Deal will need to respect jurisdiction and focus on cooperation, collaboration and
consultation to achieve results for Canadians. It will require accountability and transparency,
and ensure that municipal governments have adequate revenues and authorities to meet
their growing responsibilities. It will support the development and implementation of long-
term, integrated, sustainable community plans that have been supported by community-
based decision-making. And it will encourage the efficient, effective, and equitable allocation
of resources among communities.
A New Deal must deliver:
I. A new intergovernmental partnership
Revenue sharing
Targeted investments
Capacity building for sustainable community planning
S. Research
VA
The Context
Growing Needs, Static Resources
Our infrastructure deficit now stands at some $60 billion and grows by about $2 billion
a year.
The root of this deficit is embedded in outdated institutional arrangements and inadequate
fiscal resources to match the growing municipal responsibility for services and programs.
The numbers speak for themselves: out of every tax dollar collected in Canada, only eight
cents goes to municipal governments, while provincial governments receive 42 cents and
the Government of Canada, 50 cents. And, transfers to municipal governments from federal,
provincial and territorial governments, as a percentage of municipal revenues, have been
cut by 44 per cent over the last 10 years. At the same time, from 1999 to 2003,
provincial/territorial revenues increased by 21 per cent, federal revenues by 16 per cent,
and municipal revenues by only four per cent.
Compared with other orders of government, municipal governments also have far fewer
tools available to them to raise revenue. No municipal government in Canada levies an
income tax, sales tax, or gas tax. They are also restricted in their ability to borrow for
capital expenditures and they cannot borrow to cover operating costs.
A More Equitable Sharing of the Fiscal Pie
Property taxes remain the backbone of municipal finance—a backbone no longer
flexible enough to support the growing responsibilities and infrastructure deficits faced by
municipal governments.
In the last decade, property taxes did not grow as fast as the economy. In addition, they
are regressive, because all property owners—regardless of their income—must pay them.
Families with an income of less than $20,000 paid more than twice as much in property
taxes as they did in income tax. Families with an income of $100,000 or more paid just
1.8 per cent of their income toward property taxes and 29 per cent on income tax. And,
by favouring sprawl, property taxes act as a disincentive to smart, sustainable growth.
A 2002 report on Canada by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD) concludes that Canadian municipal governments' high reliance on property tax lies
at the root of their growing fiscal difficulties. Among OECD federations, Canadian municipal
governments are the second most dependent on property taxes (after Australia). They also
have limited ability to raise and spend money and suffer from a "fiscal imbalance" relative
to provinces and territories. The report also states that Canadian cities have "relatively
weak powers and resources" and should be given "some limited access to other types of
taxes" to meet their increasing responsibilities.
The current situation leaves municipal governments with no option but to seek additional
revenues through ad hoc arrangements with provincial and territorial governments. It robs
them of their ability to plan with confidence and develop long-term plans for sustainable
community development.
What is needed is not higher taxes but a more equitable sharing of the current fiscal
pie among all orders of governments. This will help to reduce municipal dependence on
property taxes and diversify municipal sources of income. In partnership with provincial/
territorial governments, this can best be achieved through a share of sales and income
taxes, in addition to a share of fuel taxes and powers to levy user fees and hotel taxes.
In partnership with the federal government, this can best be achieved through a new
revenue-sharing agreement that ensures a sustainable, adequate and predictable source of
revenue for investment in municipal infrastructure, primarily transportation and transit, but
also water and wastewater. Also critical is a continued commitment to targeted investments
in five priority areas: infrastructure not covered by revenue sharing (including broadband);
affordable housing, community and children's infrastructure; security, emergency preparedness
and public health; and downtown revitalization.
Forging a New Partnership
A New Deal is about more than finding sources of revenue for municipal governments.
It is about re-imagining and re-inventing how governments serve Canadians to ensure
sustainable, dynamic and competitive communities that support a high quality of life.
At the heart of this new approach to government is partnership. While quality of life in
our communities depends on each order of government fulfilling its jurisdictional responsi-
bilities, it also depends on all orders of government recognizing the complex connections
among themselves and the work that they do so that they can identify areas of shared
interest and work together to achieve common goals.
Municipal, provincial!territorial, and federal jurisdictions intersect every day. We share
national interests when we work to ensure that Canadians have access to clean water;
that greenhouse gases are reduced to protect the climate; that newcomers can find safe,
affordable, and adequate housing and that children have access to the programs they
need to realize their full potential.
VA
Elements of a New Deal
I) A New Intergovernmental Partnership
A core element of a New Deal must be recognition by the Government of Canada that
municipal governments are essential partners in implementing the national agenda. This
recognition must be complemented by new mechanisms and approaches aimed at ensuring
enhanced consultation, collaboration, and coordination among all orders of government.
The Government of Canada can send a powerful signal by spelling out the details of
this new federal, provincial/territorial and municipal relationship in a formal resolution of
Parliament. Without altering in any way the existing constitutional balance, a formal
statement to this effect would provide a firm political grounding for a New Deal and a
blueprint for a new relationship.
To increase consultation among orders of government, the federal government should
formalize consultations with municipal governments on policies, programs, and initiatives
that affect municipal responsibilities and finances, and quality of life in their communities.
Formalizing pre-budget consultations and presentations to intergovernmental forums would
be a start. A commitment to full consultation on—and consideration of—local priorities
in decisions involving investment in programs such as Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund
(MRIF) and Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund (CSIF) is also essential.
The Government of Canada currently spends billions of dollars directly and indirectly in
communities across Canada. However, programs are not always well coordinated. Better
strategic and horizontal coordination of federal policies, programs and services could result
in more effective and resource-efficient results on the ground. Using a "municipal lens" to
assess the affects of federal policies and programs on municipal governments and
communities would be a welcome practice in federal decision-making.
Improved coordination among federal programs and services in our communities is
important, but more will be required. The federal government must also develop strategies
to improve collaboration and coordination of programs and policies among all orders of
government to ensure the most effective and efficient interventions. Municipal participation
in First Ministers meetings and sectoral federal-provincial/territorial meetings would provide
an excellent venue for improving intergovernmental coordination.
Another option for enhancing intergovernmental collaboration and coordination is through
bipartite and tripartite agreements; a number of models exist. Development Agreements in
Winnipeg and Vancouver have been particularly successful in bringing all three orders of
government to the same table to focus on commonly identified priorities. The federal
Al
Supporting Communities Partnership Initiative also offers an excellent community-based
partnership model for increasing collaboration and coordination among governments and
community-based organizations.
Recommendations
• Commit to real consultation with municipal governments before decisions are made on issues
affecting municipal responsibilities and finances and community quality of life. Formal pre-
budget consultations and presentations to intergovernmental forums must be included.
• Ensure local priorities are considered fully in decisions involving MRIF and CSIF.
• Establish a municipal lens for federal decision-making.
• Build on existing bipartite and tripartite program coordination and community capacity-
building models to achieve national objectives.
• Elaborate this new federal, provincial/territorial, municipal relationship in a formal resolution
of Parliament
2) Revenue Sharing
A revenue-sharing agreement is needed to provide a new, net revenue source that is stable
and predictable enough to address the large and growing infrastructure deficit faced by
municipal governments. Revenue sharing is distinct from program spending, which tends to
be more transitory, subject to review, modification and even cancellation. This jeopardizes
municipal budgets, planning cycles, service delivery and, ultimately, local capacity to implement
sustainable strategies. Revenue sharing is about putting municipal finances on the road to
sustainability, so that municipal governments can do their share to improve infrastructure,
primarily transportation and transit, but also water and wastewater.
Any new intergovernmental agreements with provinces and territories will have to be
protected from clawback. Maximum flexibility with respect to provincial/territorial and
municipal matching contributions will also be essential.
At a minimum, a revenue-sharing agreement should provide municipal governments with a net,
new revenue source of five cents per litre from the federal fuel excise tax ($2.5 billion per year).
Recommendations
• Commit to a New Deal revenue-sharing agreement for a minimum of 10 years to support
investments in municipal infrastructure, primarily transportation and transit Other investments could
include water and wastewater. The revenue-sharing agreement would provide municipal govemrnents
with five cents per litre of the federal fuel excise tax by the end of 2004.
LVA
3) Targeted Investments
Municipal governments are about more than just roads and sewers, although this is a critical
aspect of their work. They are engines of economic growth, recreational services and public
health-care providers, cultural and social institution builders, and community planners. They
also provide the front-line workers and the first line of response in a crisis.
The areas of shared federal/municipal interest are many. FCM has identified five priority
areas for targeted investments in the 2005/06 federal budget: infrastructure not covered
by revenue sharing; affordable housing; community and children's infrastructure; security,
emergency preparedness and public health; and downtown revitalization.
Infrastructure Not Covered by Revenue Sharing: Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund
(CSIF), Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund (MRIF), Green Municipal Funds
Revenue sharing does not displace the need for ongoing capital grants to support
large-scale strategic projects and to cover infrastructure investments not included in the
revenue-sharing agreement. Investment in existing infrastructure programs must continue.
CSIF and MRIF provide bipartite and tripartite funding to provincial/territorial and
municipal infrastructure projects. The $4 billion currently allocated to (SIF is expected to
be fully committed in 2004-2005. The $1 billion in MRIF will likely be committed fully in
the next few years. The outcome of the revenue-sharing agreement will obviously affect
these programs with respect to scope, funding levels and perhaps funding mechanisms.
The Green Municipal Funds provide grants, low-interest loans, and innovative financing
structures to accelerate investment in environmental technologies that deliver cleaner air,
water, and soil, and climate protection. Established in 2000, the Funds have leveraged more
than $1 billion in projects with $118 million in loans to communities investing in
sustainable community development. The Green Municipal Investment Fund is on track to
commit its entire $200 million endowment to projects in 2005/06. A New Deal focused on
investments in sustainable communities inevitably must consider increased investment in the
Green Municipal Funds as a mechanism for demonstrating municipal leadership and best
practices.
Two areas stand out as needing more integrated and expanded approaches to infrastructure
investment: Kyoto implementation and brownfield redevelopment.
Investment in distributed energy systems and renewable energy, landfill-gas capture, building
retrofits and waste management can all help reduce greenhouse gas pollution, contributing
to targets under the Kyoto Accord while increasing community security and resilience.
Al
Brownfields are vacant sites or orphan properties where past actions have caused real or
suspected environmental contamination. These sites are in established urban areas or along
transportation corridors where municipal services and infrastructure are readily available.
Redeveloping brownfields reduces infrastructure costs and discourages urban sprawl. In
addition to removing contaminants, redeveloping abandoned and contaminated sites can
also revitalize rundown neighbourhoods.
Brownfield redevelopment is essential to sustainable community development and is large
enough in terms of potential that it should be considered for support through a range of
programs and incentives, including the Green Municipal Funds, CSIF/MRIF, targeted programs
or revenue-sharing agreements, brownfield-specific mortgage insurance, deductible
remediation expenses, tax credits, and federal lien forgiveness.
Affordable Housing
Affordable housing is important because shelter is a basic human need, and it is the
foundation upon which healthy, secure, socially inclusive communities are built. Secure
housing also fosters stability in all aspects of life, particularly in school and work
performance. It is critical to the successful settlement of new Canadians and to ensuring
supportive environments for urban Aboriginal people.
Despite its importance to the health and well-being of Canadians, some alarming trends
in housing affordability and production have been identified by the FCM Quality of Life
Reporting System. The data showed that between 1991 and 2001, the proportion of renter
households spending over 30 per cent of their income on shelter in the 20 major
municipal governments studied had increased from 35 to 41 per cent. On average, in
these same communities, low-end rents had increased over 20 per cent more than low-end
individual incomes, with a difference of 45 and 60 per cent in Vancouver and Toronto
respectively. At the same time, the production of rental housing in these communities fell
from 31 per cent of housing starts in 1991 to eight per cent in 2001.
In 2001, a Federal-Provincial/Territorial Affordable Housing Framework Agreement was signed.
This agreement has been slow to produce investment in affordable housing units. It also
focuses solely on the creation of market-rent units that are still beyond the reach of many
working-poor households.
For example, using 2002 data, a single parent making minimum wage in Toronto earned
$1,010 per month, while the average market rent for a bachelor or one bedroom
apartment was $100 per month. This leaves $310 for all other household expenses,
including food, clothes, and transportation. Market-rent units are not the answer for
working-poor households.
kAdA
In addition, by focusing on market-rent units, the current program does not address the
need for transitional and supportive housing for those who are moving from the streets
into more stable housing or for those who require supportive housing environments, such
as persons with disabilities.
FCM calls for a balanced approach on housing—one that recognizes the need for solutions
that address both supply (new housing units) and demand (financial support). In the short
term, this means new money for a dedicated funding stream that will both deepen current
funding commitments under the existing Affordable Housing Agreements and expand the
range of investments to include units that will meet the needs of working-poor households
and those requiring transitional and supportive housing. This new money should not be tied
to matching provincial dollars. Over the long term, this means developing a National
Housing Strategy that will include new capital investment, income support, regulatory change
and environmentally sound planning.
Community and Children's Infrastructure
FCM recognizes the benefits of recreation, culture, and family community engagement as
a means of improving the quality of life for at-risk children and youth. It is equally
important to increase the participation of children and youth who are under-represented in
traditional, structured recreation, such as persons with disabilities, urban Aboriginal people,
newcomers and visible minorities.
We propose a National Community Children's Infrastructure and Community Engagement
Fund to provide long-term funding for non-exclusive recreation and cultural facilities, such
as green spaces, playing fields, multi-use indoor facilities, universal play structures,
skateboard parks, family community centres, and, where appropriate, community childcare
facilities. Priority for the development of facilities and open spaces should be given to at-
risk communities.
This fund will be different from previous infrastructure investments in that resources will be
provided not only for capital, but also for engaging the community in the planning, imple-
mentation, and ongoing management of facilities and programming. This component of the
program is designed to support a process that allows communities to identify needs, define
priorities, and develop community-driven solutions. Engagement will be most effective where
all parts of the community participate, including citizens, business, the voluntary sector,
and government.
kVA
Security, Emergency Preparedness, Public Health
The ice storm of 1998; September II, 2001; and the blackout and forest tires of 2003
demonstrated that emergency management systems must be appropriately funded and
coordinated across jurisdictions. Recent disease outbreaks, such as Severe Acute Respiratory
Syndrome, Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, West Nile Virus and Avian Influenza, have
demonstrated that local public health authorities must be included in strategies to protect
Canadian communities.
As first responders, municipal governments must participate fully in the planning and
implementation of security and emergency preparedness initiatives, including the
development of a comprehensive national security strategy. We also support cooperative
co-location of emergency coordination services and suggest that the tripartite agreement
among the governments of Nova Scotia, Canada, and the Halifax Regional Municipality is a
good model to follow on emergency preparedness.
This is the only agreement of its kind in Canada. A central office is maintained with staff
from all three orders of government, which ensures daily communication and encourages
the sharing of resources.
Enhanced security and emergency preparedness can also be supported through investments
in distributed energy systems. The Green Municipal Funds has assessed the opportunity for
municipal governments and their partners to invest in landfill-gas capture and utilization,
municipal operations, wind power, community energy systems and low-impact hydro. There is
potential for up to 680 million watts (MW) of electric power production with 3.1 million
MWh of output per year from these municipal investments (enough electricity to supply the
needs of about 100,000 homes or emergency backup power for municipal services). The
figure does not include the potential from energy conservation.
Downtown Revitalization
Thriving downtown cores are key to the economic, social and cultural sustainability of
Canada's urban and rural communities. Many communities have properties of significant
heritage value. Preservation and redevelopment of these sites can act as a powerful catalyst
to downtown revitalization. Adaptive re-use, such as property conversion for business,
residential, and cultural usage, is critical to the success of this approach. Granville Island in
Vancouver and the Gooderham and Worts complex in Toronto provide excellent examples of
neighbourhood revitalization efforts.
We propose that the Commercial Properties Heritage Incentive Fund (CPHIF) be converted
to a tax credit and that funding for the cost-shared program for non-commercial, non-
federal sites be expanded using the funds currently allocated to the CPHIF. We support
creating a special class of heritage properties for which there would be a flat deduction
for capital investment. In addition, we urge the federal government to expedite work on
federal investment in federal properties and on legislation directing federal departments to
rehabilitate and use federal properties rather than selling or demolishing them.
Recommendations
• Commit to new, targeted investments in five priority areas: municipal infrastructure not
covered by revenue sharing: affordable housing: community and children's infrastructure:
security, emergency preparedness and public health: and downtown revitalization. This funding
will provide municipal governments with an initial ongoing commitment of $700 million per
year in the 2005/06 federal budget, with $250 million of this amount dedicated to housing.
4) Capacity Building for Sustainable Community Planning
Stronger partnerships, enhanced collaboration, revenue sharing and targeted investments
represent important steps forward, but they are not enough to ensure the sustainability of
Canada's communities. Investment in capacity building for sustainable community planning
will be essential to the success of any New Deal. New tools, training and development of
best practices and pilots are needed to move toward more cost-effective and environmen-
tally sustainable infrastructure decisions and to create the capacity to undertake long-term
and integrated community and regional planning. Investment in a Sustainable Community
Toolbox would support efficient allocation of resources and the development of indicators
and targets to support New Deal outcomes. Tools, training, best practices, pilots and demon-
strations are needed to support:
i. Awareness and knowledge-building
ii. Long-term, integrated sustainable community planning: integrated into official
planning process -
iii. Municipal decision-making
I. Lifecycle assessment
Full-cost recovery
Asset management
Public/private partnership assessment
Alternative financing assessment
Pollution prevention
Environmental Management Systems
iv. Demand management
v. Regional coordination
Community development pilots
Innovation
The Green Municipal Funds and InfraGuide currently support activity in these areas through
feasibility studies, pilots, projects and best practices, but do not yet have a mandate to
provide the training and capacity building needed to support municipal governments
moving to the implementation stages.
Recommendations
• Allocate $25 million in the 2005/06 federal budget to invest in the development of a
Sustainable Community Toolbox that supports training, capacity building, pilots, demonstration
projects. and best practices.
5) Quality of Life Collaborative Research Agenda
We are only beginning to understand the complex interactions and interdependence among
jurisdictions that play out at the community level. FCM proposes a partnership to develop a
collaborative research agenda with a particular focus on identifying the determinants of
success in achieving a high quality of life through sustainable community development,
including indicators for tracking progress toward outcomes.
Recommendations
• Allocate $25 million in the 2005/06 federal budget to develop a Quality of Life collabora-
tive research agenda involving all orders of government, universities and non-governmental
organizations.
VA
For more in formation on FCM and a New Deal for Canada's
communities, contact:
Massimo Bergamini
Director, Communications
Federation of Canadian Municipalities
24 Clarence Street
Ottawa, Ontario
KIN 5P3
(613) 241-5221 ext.241
infonewdeal fcm.ca
or visit our Web site at: www.fcm.ca
Al
Page 1 of 2
Canadian MzJnICipaIit/s FCM Home Page I Francais I
Commum*que, FC1
l-'.-orauc.'s of Canadia'
Mayors want leaders' debate to clarify parties' cities agenda
Letter to Party Leaders
Letter to Consortium
MONTREAL, june 10 - If the mayors of Canadas largest cities have their
way, next weeks leaders' debate should give Canadians the answer to the
question: what kind of city do we want to live in.
The mayors, in Montreal for the Forum on Economic Growth in the Big Cities in
Canada, are asking the broadcasters consortium organizing next weeks
leaders debate that questions on the cities agenda be put on the roster.
"Elections are about choosing. This election should be about choosing what
kind of city Canadians want to live in," said Regina mayor Pat Fiacco, chair of
the FCM Big City Mayors' Caucus. "But to make that choice, Canadians need to
know exactly where the parties stand. The leaders debate provides the perfect
opportunity to clarify their positions."
Ottawa mayor Bob Chiarelli said: "Canadians need to know where each party
leader stands on the urban agenda. The future economic health of our country
and our quality of life depend on their choices."
FCM president, New Glasgow Mayor Ann MacLean said she will be writing to
the consortium and to the party leaders to get cities' and communities issues
debated next Monday and Tuesday. "1 would expect the party leaders to
welcome this opportunity. Addressing the state of our cities and outlining a
vision for our communities would go to the heart of their vision for Canada."
"When we talk about traffic gridlock, public transit or homelessness or clean
water, these are not abstractions. They are real and their cost is measured in
opportunities lost and reduction in the well-being of our citizens" said Montreal
mayor Gerald Tremblay who is hosting the conference. "When Canadians head
to the ballot boxes in two weeks, they have the right to know exactly how their
federal government plans to work with its other partners to build prosperity
and quality of life."
Mayor Fiacco said the mayors were proposing five questions to the leaders:
- What is your party's position with respect to the New Deal for Canada's
cities?
- Will your party as a priority allocate 5 cents/litre of the federal fuel excise tax
to support urgently needed investment in municipal infrastructure, primarily
for transportation and public transit by the end of 2004?
- Will your party enter into agreements with cities and the provinces/territories
to create financial sustainability that would include sharing revenues that grow
with the economy by the end of 2005?
- How will your party involve cities as partners in federal and provincial policy,
program and budget deliberations on issues that have a direct impact on urban
centres?
- What other actions will your party take to strengthen the competitiveness
and quality of life of Canada's cities?
The questions were adopted at an earlier meeting of the big city mayors'
FCM - Campaign
FM FderaUon of
Home
FCM New Deal Platform
Media Room
Members Toolkit
http://www.fcm.ca/elections/pjunel02OO4.html 6/11/2004
FCM - Campaign Page 2 of 2
caucus and are being used to suey local candidates in the election.
I
For further information:
Massimo Bergamini, Director, Communications,
(613) 295-3678
http://www.fcm.ca/elections/pjune102004.html 6/11/2004
RIMEDWED
I,iIrIL
MAYORAND COUNCIL
4 &c
CITY OF BURNABY
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 2004 May 11
DEREK R. CORRIGAN
MAYOR
District of Maple Ridge
11995 Haney Place
Maple Ridge, B.C. V2X 6A9
Dear Mayor and Councillors:
Burnaby City Council, at the open Council meeting held on 2004 May 10 received a report from our
Director Finance prepared in response to the City of North Vancouver's resolution requesting the
Provincial Government not privatize the personal medical records of B. C. Citizens through
agreements with American companies.
Following consideration of the staff report Council adopted the following resolution:
"THAT the Provincial Government be requested to abandon the execution
of a contract with Maximus Inc. until certainty over the privacy of the
Medical Services Plan and PharrnaCare personal information is obtained."
This letter and a copy of our staff report are being sent to the Union of B. C. Municipalities and its
membership with the request that you join the City of North Vancouver and City of Burnaby in
opposing the agreement between the Province and Maximus Inc.
The pervasiveness of the U. S. Patriot Act and the uncertainty surrounding the release of inlormation
about private individuals, without their knowledge and consent, affects all citizens of B. C. I believe it
is extremely important for us to advise the Provincial Government we do not support this course of
action.
Very truly yours,
Derek R. Comgan
MAYOR
4949 Canada Way, Burnabv, British Columbia, \15G 1M2 Phone 604-294-7340 Fax 604-294-7724 mavor.corrigan@ cftyburnabv.bc.ca
70 ./
Item • 01
Manager's Report No . 14
Council Meeting ..........O4iO/IO
TO: CITY MANAGER 2004 May 05
FROM: DIRECTOR FINANCE
SUBJECT: PRIVATIZATION OF THE MEDICAL SERVICES PLAN
ADillNISTRATION
PLTRPOSE: To provide Council with background information on the provincial government's
decision to use Maximus. Inc. for the administration of the Medical Services Plan
and PharmaCare.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT the Provincial government be requested to abandon the execution of
a contract with Maximus Inc. until certainty over the privacy of the Medical
Services Plan and PharmaCare personal inThrmation is obtained.
1$S)1
At its meeting of 2004 April 19 Council endorsed the City of North Vancouver's resolution that,
based on the implications of the U.S. "Patriot Act", requested:
the Provincial Government to not privati:e our personal medical records to any
American company or any affiliate of an American company;.."
In July 2003 Health Services Minister Cohn Hansen announced that the government was in the
process of identifying a suitable parmer to run the existing MSP system while building a new system
that will improve customer services. The intent of the change was stated to be the need to provide
timelier and more efficient MSP services and update the technology that supports the 1.4 million
people covered by the plan.
At the time of the announcement the province identified that the protection of personal health care
information needed to be addressed. They stated that "under the new innovative service delivery
model, government will continue to own all information, be accountable for services and ensure that
British Columbians' personal privacy is protected." Also that, "Patient privacy will be the critical
focus of any solution considered and compliance with all privacy requirements will be mandatory"
and that "Proposed solutions will meet or exceed the requirements of the Freedom of Information
and Protection of Privacy Act and the successftil vendor will manage health-care information in
accordance with the act."
On March 31. 2004 the !\Iinistry of Health Services announced that they were entering into contract
negotiations with Maxirnus, Inc. for the development of a new service delivery model for the medical
101
Services Plan and PharmaCare. Maximus is a government services company that provides program
management, consulting and information technolo2y services. It is incorporated in the United States
and employs 5.500 people in 280 offices in the U.S., Canada and Australial. It is expected that the
contract will be finalized by the end of August this year.
The B.C. Government Employe&s Union (BCGEU) is asking the provincial government to halt its
privatization plans until legal concerns about privacy issues surrounding the MSP and PhaniiaCare
patient information are answered. BCGEU is investigating the potential, under the U.S. Patriot Act,
for the required release (to the Federal Bureau of Investigation) of the MSP and PharmaCare patient
information that will be held under contract by Maximus Inc.
The BCGEU have hired Mr. Jameel Jaffer, a staff attorney for the National Legal Department of the
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to provide his expert opinion on the potential impact of the
U.S. Patriot Act on the B.C. Government's agreement with Maximus Inc. Mr. Jaffer's practice, at
the ACLU is focused principally on the implications of new surveillance powers for privacy and
other rights protected by the U.S. Constitution. He has litigated several cases concerning
government surveillance and individual privacy rights and is counsel to the plaintiffs in the first
constitutional challenge to the U.S. Patriot Act.
The BCGEU have asked Mr. Jaffer's opinion on two questions:
How does the USA Patriot Act affect the confidentiality of personal information,
including personal health information, held by in possession of, or which can be
accessed by a corporation which is subject to the Act?
If a subsidiary of a United States company has possession of, or access to, health or
other personal information of Canadian residents, will that information be subject to
disclosure under the USA Patriot Act?
The conclusion of Mr. Jaffer' s analysis provides a good overall impression of his opinion on the
above questions:
"The USA Patriot Act seriously compromises the privacy of sensitive records, including
records containing personal health information. Section 215 of the Act is of particular
concern because (i) it can be invóked against any person, business or organization in the
United States; (ii) it does not include an individualized suspicion requirement; and (iii) those
served with Section 215 orders are not afforded any opportunity to challenge the order before
complyins with it. While a Section 215 order would not be served directly on a Canadian
corporation. a Canadian affiliate of a United States corporation could be forced to disclose
its records if a Section 215 order were served on the United States corporation. Whether a
United States corporation would be required to produce the records of its Canadian affiliate
in any particular case would likely turn on the specific legal relationship between the two
corporations and on whether the United States corporation could access and obtain the
records at issue."
It appears that Maximus Inc. would, likely, not be exempt from the Patriot Act on the basis of its
102
Council also enquired into the provisions of the Sunset clause of the Patriot Act (section 224), other
than specific exceptions, the provisions of the Act cease to have effect on December 31, 2005.
However there is a bill, S. 1695 Extension and Clarficarion ofPatrior Sunset Provision, before the
U.S. Committee of the Judiciary and several other initiatives at various federal government levels,
actively working to extend the provisions of the Patriot Act.
Many of the questions regarding the privacy of the information proposed to be in the hands of
Maximus Inc. will only be answered in a court of law. The pervasive nature of the USA Patriot Act
may preclude even knowing when or if information has ever been provided to the FBI. Also, the
supremacy of federal law over contract law will make ensuring privacy through negotiated contract
provisions difficult, at best, and likely impossible.
Launching a court challenge, or enforcing privacy provisions in the legislated absence of information
regarding the release of personal information virtually eliminates the ability to enforce or monitor
contract provisions regarding information privacy. Therefore, it is recommended that the Provincial
government be requested to abandon the execution of a contract with Maximus Inc. until certainty
over the privacy of the personal information is obtained.
Rick Earle
Director Finance
103
~--)-00 '07
DISTRICT OF MISSION
-- -
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
May 25, 2004
R(g@[99T1910 - _ her
MAY 2 B 2004 Action:
Ms. Kathy Morse
Mayor
District of Maple Ridge
11995 Haney Place
Maple Ridge, B.C.
V2X 6A9
MAYOR AND COUNCIL
Dear Mayor Morse:
Re: Highway 7
I'm writing to offer the full support of the District of Mission in the efforts to four-lane the
remaining section of Highway 7 between the Mission border and 240 Street in Maple Ridge.
This project has been a priority from the District of Mission's view for over 25 years, and while
the changes made to-date have been an improvement, it is critical that the project reach 100%
completion as soon as possible.
The District of Mission supports all the efforts of Maple Ridge Council to ensure the completion
of the project to provide for safe, convenient access between the communities.
C;!2 ~
Abe Neufeld
MAYOR
FILE: INF.ROA.CON
Lougheed Highway, Silverdale Section
G:\CLERKDeLaetmayor 4-Iane.doc
/ ..i:.f
I ;70a
8645 STAVE LAKE STREET BOX 20 MISSION, B.C. V2V41_9 604-820-3703 FAX 604-826-1363 and 604-820-3715
WEB SITE: www.mission.ca EMAIL: info@mission.ca
THE CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW NO. 6239 - 2004
A bylaw to regulate Untidy and Unsightly Premises in the District of Maple Ridge
The Council of the District of Maple Ridge, in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows:
Name of Bylaw - This bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Regulation of Untidy and Unsightly
Premises Bylaw No. 6239 - 2004."
2. Definitions - In this Bylaw, unless the context otherwise requires, the following words and
phrases shall have the meaning hereinafter designated to them:
"Bylaw Enforcement Officer" means a person appointed by the Council as a bylaw
enforcement officer, building inspector, or a peace officer;
"Council" means the Council of the District;
"Discarded Materials" means derelict, discarded, or unused materials whether or not used for
commercial purposes or as part of a trade or calling, including but not limited to paper
products, crockery, glass, metal, plastics, plastic containers, wire, ropes, lumber, machinery,
tires, inoperable vehicles, vehicle parts, appliances, and any other scrap or salvage;
"District" means the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge;
"Noxious Weeds" includes weeds designated as such under the Weed Control Regulation
pursuant to the Weed ConfrolAct (British Columbia);
"Occupier" means a person occupying a property within the District and includes the
registered owner of the Property where the owner is the person occupying or if the Property is
unoccupied, but does not include a person who is a boarder, roomer or lodger;
"Order" means an order issued pursuant to section 7 of this Bylaw;
"Owner" includes the registered owner in fee simple of a Property and those persons defined
as "owner" in the Community Charter (British Columbia);
"Property" means a parcel of land in the District upon which any building or group of
buildings is located and includes strata lots and separately occupied or leased premises or
dwelling units within a building;
"Special Container" means a specially designed garbage receptacle fitted with equipment that
enables it to be dumped mechanically by a garbage truck; and
"Standard Container" means a metal or plastic container or plastic bag weighing no more
than 751bs when full and not exceeding 3.5 cubic feet in volume.
00
2
3. Prohibition - No Occupier of Property shall allow property they own or occupy to become or
remain untidy or unsightly.
4. Unsightly Real Property - Every Occupier of Property must remove, or cause to be removed,
from the Property any unsightly accumulations of filth, rubbish, or Discarded Materials.
5. Adequate Containers -
Every Occupier shall acquire and maintain in good order and repair a sufficient number of
Standard Containers or Special Containers in which to store all rubbish generated on the
Property.
No Occupier may permit rubbish to overflow the Standard Containers or Special Containers
on the Property.
All Standard Containers and Special Containers must be kept lidded or closed and at all times
secured against disturbance by animals.
If a Special Container is used, the Occupier must ensure that the lid on the Special Container
is locked at all times.
Every Occupier shall keep the area on the Property used for the storage of Standard
Containers and Special Containers clean, sanitary and free from ponding water and loose
rubbish.
6. Overgrowth - No Occupier of Property may allow the Property to become overgrown with any
brushwood or Noxious Weeds, or grasses in excess of 30 centimetres in height.
7. Removal Orders - A Bylaw Enforcement Officer may, by notice in writing sent by express mail
or posted on the Property, order the Occupier of Property, at his or her expense and within
fourteen days of the mailing or posting of the Order, to:
remove any accumulation of filth. Discarded Materials, or rubbish described in the
Order from the Property;
clear any brushwood, Noxious Weeds, or other growths described in the Order from
the Property; or,
take any other measures described in the Order to remedy unsightliness on the
Property.
Upon any failure by the Occupier of the Property to comply with an Order under this section, and
after the Occupier of the Property has been given an opportunity to be heard by the Council in
respect of such failure, the District may, by its own forces or those of a contractor, enter on the
Property and carry out the work described in the Order at the expense of the Occupier and,
whether the Order was directed at the Owner or the Occupier of the Property, recover the costs in -- -
the Cotnrn unity Charter.
Should the Occupier wish to contest the Order, that person must give 5 day's notice to the
District's Clerk that he or she will appear before the Council to contest the Order. Upon hearing
the Occupier, staff and any other affected persons, the Council may affirm, vary or revoke the
Order.
Offence and Penalty - Every person who offends against any of the provisions of this Bylaw, or
who suffers or permits any act or thing to be done in contravention or refrains from doing
anything required to be done by any of the provisions of this Bylaw, or who does any act or thing
which violates any of the provisions of this Bylaw shall be liable on summary convection to a
penalty not exceeding the maximum penalty specified in the Offence Act (British Columbia) from
time to time. Each day that a violation continues to exist is a separate offence against this Bylaw.
Inspection - The Bylaw Enforcement Officer may enter on any Property at any reasonable time
to ascertain whether the requirements of this bylaw, or any Order issued pursuant to this bylaw,
are being observed.
Severability - If any section or phrase of this Bylaw is for any reason held to be invalid by a
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, the decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this Bylaw.
IL Repeal of Existing Bylaw - Bylaw No. 952-1970 is hereby repealed.
READ A FIRST TIME this 8th day of June, 2004.
READ A SECOND TIME this 8th day of June, 2004.
READ A THIRD TIME this 8th day of June, 2004.
ADOPTED this - day of .2004.
MAYOR CLERK
MAPLE RILXJ
THE CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
BY-LAW NO. 6234-2004
A By-law to further amend Maple Ridge Ticket Information System Utilization
By-law No. 4432 - 1990 and amendments thereto.
WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to further amend Maple Ridge Ticket Information System
Utilization By-law No. 4432- 1990 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 shall be cited for all purposes as "Maple Ridge Ticket Information System Utilization
Amending By-law No. 6234 - 2004".
WHEREAS, Section 264 of the Community Charter empowers the Corporation to, by by-law,
designate those by-laws for which Municipal Ticket Information may be used as means of by-law
enforcement.
"Maple Ridge Ticket Information System Utilization By-law No. 4432 - 1990" as amended is further
amended by as follows:
(a) All references to the Local Government Act are hereby referred to the relevant section(s) of
the Community Charter as follows:
Where Section 272 (1) (a) is stated, it is now replaced with Section 264 (1) of the
Community Charter.
Where Section 272 (1) (b) is referenced, it is now replaced with Section 264 (1) of
the Community Charter.
Where Section 272 (1) (c) is stated, it is now replaced with Section 264 (1) of the
Community Charter.
Where Section 272 (5) of the Local Government Act is referenced, it is now
replaced by Section 265 (1) of the Community Charter.
Where Section 274 (1) of the Local Government Act is referenced, it is now
replaced with Section 267 of the Community Charter.
(b) By amending Schedule 1 by changing or deleting the following titles:
From Director of Community and Business Relations to Director Business Licences,
Permits and Bylaws;
Deleting Deputy Director of Community & Business Relations
From Director of Inspection Services to Manager Inspection Services
(c) Deleting Schedule 5 in its entirety and replacing it with the following:
Highway & Traffic By-law No. 3 136-1982 Section Fine PayWithin
7 Calendar Days
Upon Receipt of
Municipal Ticket
Information
Material on highway(s) 7 (a) $50.00 $50.00
Fail to remove snow from sidewalk 9.1 $50.00 $50.00
1302'..
Fail to remove debris from sidewalk 9.1 $50.00 $50.00
Drive on horse trail 9.2 $100.00 $100.00
Park within 5m of hydrant 19(1) (d) $75.00 $50.00
Park contrary to prohibition 19 (1) (v) $50.00 S20.00
Overtime parking 19 (1) (w) $50.00 S20.00
Park contrary to restriction 19 (1)(x) $50.00 $20.00
Large vehicle parking prohibition 19 (1) (aa) $50.00 $20.00
Stopped on sidewalk 19 (1) (a) $50.00 S20.00
Stopped within 3m of driveway 19 (1) (b) $50.00 S20.00
Stopped within 6m of crosswalk 19 (1) (e) $75.00 S50.00
Selling on Highway 19 (1) (i), (i), (ii), (iii), (iv)
$100.00 $100.00
Double parked 19 (1) (k) $50.00 $20.00
Stopped in bus zone 19 (1) (n) $50.00 $20.00
Obstructing alley 19 (1) (p) $50.00 $20.00
Obstructing driveway to alley 19 (1) (q) $50.00 $20.00
Stopped with left wheels to curb 19 (1) (r) $50.00 $20.00
Stopped over 30cm from curb 19 (1) (s) $50.00 $20.00
Stopped outside marked area 19 (1) (t) $50.00 $20.00
Parked over 48 hours 19 (1) (y) $50.00 $20.00
Parked in loading zone 21(a) $50.00 $20.00
Park in disabled zone 20 (2) $75.00 S50.00
Unattached trailer 26 $50.00 $50.00
Occupying trailer as living quarters 27 $75.00 $75.00
Skateboard on highway 7 (b) $50.00 S20.00
Obstruct vehicles on highway 7 (e) $75.00 $50.00
Damage to boulevard plantings and objects 12 (1) $250.00 $250.00
6234-2004
Place any fuel, lumber, merchandise, chattel or ware
of any nature, which is in transit to or from the
adjoining property, on any highway
Deposit, throw, or leave any earth, refuse, debris
or any other thing ona highway
Obstruction
Without proof of proper and valid number plates
Without proof of proper and valid insurance
Without proof of proper and valid insurance.
12 (a) $50.00 $50.00
12 (b) $50.00 $50.00
19(1)0) $75.00 S50.00
20 (4) (1) $50.00 S50.00
20 (4) (m) $50.00 S50.00
22 (1) (d) $50.00 S50.00
(d) Replace Schedule 20 with the following:
1 2
Regulation of Untidy and Unsightly Premises Bylaw No. 6239 —2004 Section
Untidy/Unsightly Premises 3
Inadequate Containers 5 (a) (b) (c) (d)
-I
Fine
$100.00
$100.00
READ a first time the 8th day of June, 2004.
READ a second time the 8th day of June, 2004.
READ a third time the 8th day of June, 2004.
RECONSIDERED AND ADOPTED the day of 2004.
MAYOR CLERK
i1
MAPLE RIIXE l..cr':.,nsc.l I2:,cu.a,I,c. lN?4
THE CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
BY-LAW NO. 6235 — 2004
A By-law to further amend Maple Ridge Highway and Traffic By-law
No. 3136- 1982 as amended.
WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to further amend Maple Ridge Highway and Traffic By-law No.
3136- 1982.
NOW THEREFORE the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge in open
meeting assembled, ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
I. This By-law shall be cited for all purposes as "Maple Ridge Highway and Traffic Amending By-law
No. 6235 — 2004".
2. Maple Ridge Highway and Traffic By-law No. 3136 — 1982 as amended is further amended by:
Deleting Speeding Tickets Section 18.3 in its entirety.
Adding Section 20 (4)1 and m:
(4) No person shall park a vehicle:
(I) on any municipal property or highway without proper or valid insurance displayed;
(m)
on any municipal property or highway without proper or valid number plates
displayed.
Re-lettering Section 22 (1)(d) to read Section 22 (1)(e) and inserting the following as Section 22
(1 )(d)
without proof of valid insurance
(d) Deleting Section 22 (3) in its entirety and replacing it with the following:
The following fees, costs and expenses shall be paid by the owner of the vehicle removed,
detained or impounded:
Distance and Amounts Size and Weight Categories
upto6.Okm
6.1 to 16.0 km
Add per km
16.1 km and beyond,
Add per km up to 32.0 km
drop fee
Autos, Vans, Medium Heavy
P/Ups, Motorcycles Trucks & Trailers
$61.70 $72.00 $120.05
$2.32 $2.68 $3.40
$1.96 $2.47 $2.88
$61.70 $72.00 $120.05
v) Storage of vehicle in contractor's $8.76 $8.76 $17.52
Compound rate per calendar day,
or any part thereof.
(e) Deleting Section 34 in its entirety and re-numbering Section 35 as Section 34.
READ A FIRST TIME the 8th day of June, 2004.
READ A SECOND TIME the 8th day of June, 2004.
READ A TI-HRD TIME the 8th day of June, 2004.
RECONSIDERED AND ADOPTED the day of , 2004.
MAYOR
CLERK
CORPORATION OF THE MAPLE RIDGE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE incorporated 12 September, 1874
TO: Her Worship Mayor Kathy Morse DATE: June 1, 2004
and Members of Council FILE NO: RZ/112/02
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Final Reading:
Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6155-2003
12450 264 Street
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Bylaw 6155-2003 has been considered by Council and at Public Hearing and subsequently granted 2 nd
and 3rd reading. The applicant has requested that final reading be granted. The purpose of the
rezoning is to permit the subdivision into seven lots not less than 0.4 hectares (one acre) each.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6155-2003 be reconsidered and adopted.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Council considered this rezoning application at a Public Hearing held on November 18, 2003. On
November 25, 2003 Council granted 2nd and 3rd reading to Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No.
6155-2003 with the stipulation that the following conditions be addressed:
Preliminary approval from the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Water Management
Branch;
Road dedication as required;
Preliminary approval from the appropriate authorities for septic disposal;
Park dedication as required.
The following applies to the above:
Preliminary approval from the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Water Management
Branch has been received;
Road dedication will be achieved at the subdivision stage;
The Fraser Health Authority have stated that the subdivision meets with the criteria for on site
sewage disposal.
The park dedication plan has been filed at the Land Title Office.
CONCLUSION:
As the applicant has met Council's conditions, it is recommended that final reading be given to the
bylaw.
Prepared by:
App rovç(by: Frank Quinn
I GM: PubJ orks & Development Services
9,
Concurrence: /J. L. (Jim) Rule
/ Chief Administrative Officer
Dc
-2-
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
BY-LAW NO. 6155 - 2003
A By-law to amend 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. 6155-2003."
That parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as:
South West Quarter of the North West Quarter, Sectionl9, Township 15, New
Westminster
and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1309 a copy of vvhich is attached hereto and
forms part of this by-law, is hereby rezoned to RS-2 (One Family Suburban 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 141h day of October, A.D. 2003.
PUBLIC HEARING held the 18th day of November, A.D. 2003.
READ a second time the 25th day of November, A.D. 2003.
READ a third time the 25th day of November, A.D. 2003.
RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of , A.D.
200.
MAYOR CLERK
CO1U'ORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
TO: Her Worship Mayor Kathy Morse DATE: August 27, 2003
and Members of Council FILE NO: RZ/112/02
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W
SUBJECT: First Reading
Bylaw No. 6155-2003
12450 264 Street
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This application requests to rezone the property located at 12450 2641h Street from A-2 (Upland
Agricultural) to RS-2 (Suburban Residential). This will permit the subsequent subdivision of the Site into
9 residential lots with a minimum parcel size of 0.4 hectares (1 acre).
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6155-2003 be read a first time and be forwarded
to Public Hearing; and
That the following terms and conditions be met prior to final reading:
Preliminary approval.from the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protétion, Water
Management Branch;
Road dedication as required;
Preliminary approval from the appropriate authorities for septic disposal;
Park dedication as required.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Applicant: -
Owner:
Legal Description:
OCP:
Existing:
Proposed:
Zoning:
Existing:
Proposed:
Surrounding Uses:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Fraser Excavation Ltd. Ben Tuck
John Bakker and Eileen J McLeod
SW V4 of the NW ¼, Section 19, Township 15, NWD
Suburban Residential
Suburban Residential
A-2 (Upland Agricultural)
RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential)
Suburban Residential
Rural Residential
Rural Residential
Suburban Residential
Existing Use of Property: Rural Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Suburban Residential
Access: 264th Street
Servicing: Municipal Water/On site septic disposal
Project Description:
The subject property, comprising of approximately 16.21 hectares (40 acres) is located directly south east
of the Whispering Falls neighborhood. There is a watercourse which divides the property into two distinct
development modules. This application requests to rezone the entire property from A-2 (Upland
Agricultural) to RS-2 (Suburban Residential). The owners plan to phase the project, subdividing the north
west portion of the site in Phase 1 into 9 residential parcels. The south east portion of the property will be
developed in the future. Access to Phase 1 will be from the extension 0f264th Street south of 126 th
Avenue.
Planning Analysis:
Official Community Plan:
The subject property is currently designated Suburban Residential as illustrated on Schedule "B" of the
Official Community Plan. Accordingly, an amendment to the Official Community Plan will not be
required as a consequence of this application.
Interdepartmental Implications:
Engineering Department:
Engineering has reviewed this proposed rezoning and concludes that a number of issues will be dealt with
through the subdivision process.
The area is served by a water distribution system, but not a sewage collection system. The District has
received preliminary information from the Fraser Health Authority stating that the lots on the west side of
264th Street appear to have good capability for septic disposal. The lots proposed for the east side of 264th
Street will be monitored through the winter to determine the suitability for septic disposal.
Intergovernmental Issues:
Respecting the watercourse bisecting the property, this development application was referred to the
Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Water Management Branch for their review.
1) Environmental Implications:
There is a watercourse with associated tributaries identified for special treatment on Schedule "E" of the
Official Community Plan on this site. The watercourse flows from the subject property, west, through the
Whispering Falls neighborhood and then into the north arm of Kanaka Creek. As a consequence of the
environmental significance of this watercourse and its associated habitat, a watercourse protection area
averaging approximately 30 meters from the top of bank, will be dedicated as Park for conservation
purposes.
-2-
7 g) Geotechnical Considerations:
Respecting the watercourse on the property, a geotechnical review was conducted to determine if there are
any concerns with bank stability or location of buildings. The geotechnical report submitted concludes
that construction within the lot boundaries is feasible. No additional geotechnical setbacks are required for
development of single family residential lots on this site.
CONCLUSION:
It is recommended that Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6 155-2003 be read a first time and
that application RZ/1 '1 2/02 be forwarded to Public Hearing.
aredby: Stevenson
PIangJechrcian
Approved bji Frank Quinn, P.Eng., PMP
GM: Public Works & Development Services
Concurrence: J. L. (urn) Rule
Chief/Administrative Officer . . .
DS/bjc /
3.
35
37
_______ -
/ J I HT/ (J
0.599 h
VA
I2s95
(0 /
i•__ t------------------/
PROPOSED LOT CONFIGIJRA1ION
- - CONCEPTUAL LOT CONFIGURATION
EXISTING LEGAL LINES
EXISTING PARCEl. BOUNDARY
27
29
0.05
0.400
124 AVE.
ITOP
-, UCKflO9 \ 7
I
<'
Li /
,1
/
( I/I NW I/N S(C IN. 1P. IX
r
os ___________
0-0
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDCE LNSN(tRfll( OCPNI1I1/ENI
SW 1/4 NW 1/4 SEC. 19 '15
PROPOSED / COINCEP1UAI.. LOT CONFI iN 0_
4
•
CORPORATION OF THE
MAPLE RIDGE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
Incorporated 12 September, 1874
TO: Her Worship Mayor K. Morse DATE: June 01, 2004
and Members of Council FILE NO: DP/112/02
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W
SUBJECT: Development Permit - 12450 264 Street
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
A Development Permit XXX application has been received for the above noted property in support of
a development plan for subdivision adjacent to a tributary to North Kanaka Creek. As required under
Development Permit XXX a permit must be approved by Council and the required environmental
security deposited with the District, prior to any on-site works being undertaken within 50 meters of
the top of bank of the watercourse.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Municipal Clerk be authorized to sign and seal DP/112/02 respecting property located
at 12450 264 Street.
DISCUSSION:
Background Context:
Applicant:
Owner:
Legal Description:
OCP:
Zoning:
Existing:
Proposed:
Surrounding Uses:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Existing Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Access:
Previous Applications:
Project Description:
628977 BC Ltd., Mark Monkman
John Bakker And Eileen J McLeod
S/W 1/4 Of the N/W '/4, Sec. 19, Tp. 15, NWD
Suburban Residential
A-2 (Upland Agricultural)
RS-2 (Suburban Residential)
Suburban Residential
Rural Residential
Rural Residential
Suburban Residential
Rural Residential
Suburban Residential 2640' Street
RZ/1 12/02, SD/I 12/02
A development permit application has been made in support of a development plan for subdivision
application (SD/112/02). Five of the proposed lots are located within 50 meters of the tributary to
North Kanaka Creek.
qo;L
c) Environmental Implications:
The site has a watercourse identified on Schedule 'E' of the Official Community Plan and is included
into Development Permit Area XXX that was established for the preservation and protection of the
natural environment. A Development Permit is required under Development Permit Area XXX for all
alterations of land, subdivision activity or building permits as applies to residential commercial,
institutional and industrial development within 50 metres of a watercourse.
Security must be posted in accordance with Council Policy for Performance Security for
Environmental Protection to ensure that the Development Permit Area Guidelines are met.
Staff have reviewed the Guidelines for development established for Development Permit Area XX)(
and feel that these have been satisfied by the applicant as follows:
Watercourse Protection Area Establishment
Watercourse protection areas are to be established in accordance with their habitat value and the
potential impacts proposed by adjacent development. The District of Maple Ridge, the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Ministry of Water, Air and Land Protection must
endorse the proposed watercourse protection boundaries.
The water course protection areas are to be dedicated where possible into public ownership for
conservation purposes.
The boundaries of the watercourse protection areas are to be physically located on the ground by
a B. C.Land Surveyor prior to site disturbance.
Temporary barrier fencing is to be installed adjacent to watercourse protection areas prior to any
construction activity and shall be replaced with permanent post and railfence upon development
completion.
All lots must provide the required minimum lot dimensions as set out in the Zoning Bylaw
exclusive of the watercourse protection boundaries.
• The setbacks from North Kanaka Creek have already been established at 30 meters from
top of bank and will be dedicated as Parkiand in conjunction with the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans and the Municipality as part of the rezoning application for this site.
• A temporary barrier fence will be installed adjacent to the watercourse
protectioll area prior to any construction activity. This will be replaced with a
post and rail fence upon completion of the development.
• All the lots meet the minimum lot dimensions as set out in the Zoning Bylaw.
Erosion Control
6 All work is to be undertaken and completed in such a manner as to prevent the release of
sediment to any ravine, watercourse or storm sewer. An erosion and sediment control plan that
involves implementation prior to land clearing and site preparation and the careful timing of
construction is to be provided.
- Z. Siltene ud.-be erected to reveut-thoo mapomont ofsiLLiito the prote
prior to any disturbance to the soil on the site.
I
, I
-2-
Cutting and filling adjacent to watercourse protection areas is to be kept to a minimum
incorporating appropriate structuralfill material and blending graded areas with natural slope,
as supported by the Hillside Policies of the Official Community Plan.
. A Plan has been provided for the entire site that:
- Includes a temporary siltation fence along the Park boundary; and
- Provides for the grading and direction of overland drainage.
Vegetation Management
Natural vegetation is to be retained wherever possible to ensure minimal disruption to the
environment and to protect against slope failure. Land clearing adjacent to the watercourse
protection areas is to be restricted to a phased construction schedule.
Habitat restoration landscaping of all bare or sparse riparian areas within the watercourse
protection area may be required. Vegetation species shall be native of the area and be selected
for erosion control and fish and wildlife habitat values.
• A significant amount of vegetation will be protected within the watercourse protection
area that will be dedicated as park.
Storm water Management
Stormwater outflows to the stream or leave area shall have water quality and erosion control
features so as to minimize their impacts on fish habitat and in compliance with the District's
storm water management plans. -
The applicant has proposed a storm water management plan that addresses the
District's storm water management requirements.
Ground conditions identified in the Valley Geotechnical report identify soil
characteristics that will accommodate ground infiltration ofoverlandflows.
In order to midigate additional runoff volume, detention was introduced in an oversized
storm sewer system upstream of the existing 126M Avenue system. The control structure
will mitigate the peak 10 year and 100 year flows topre development conditions.
Monitoring
The implementation of required environmental mitigative measures as designed and their
maintenance is to be monitored by a qualified environmental monitor.
Environmental monitoring will be a key element of the development of this site. Envirowest
Consultants Ltd. will be the environmental monitors for the project and will ensure
performance meets with the standards established by the Watercourse Protection Bylaw.
Monitoring will be conducted by Eric Beaubien and will occur daily during construction in
rainfall events, and weekly at all other times during the construction period to ensure
compliance with the permit. A record of all monitoring data shall be made available to the
District upon request.
-3-
Performance Securiti'.
13. As required under the District's Performance Security for Environmental Protection Policy, an
environmental performance security will be collected prior to the issuance of the perm it to ensure
compliance with terms and conditions described above.
• A security totaling $7500.00 will be required for five lots which back on to the tributary
to North Kanaka Creek.
Interdepartmental Implications:
Department of Fisheries and Oceans
The setbacks for this watercourse have already been established and will dedicated as Parkiand in
conjunction with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the District as a condition of rezoning
these lands.
CitizenlCustomer Implications:
Until Council has authorized a development permit the applicant will be unable to begin site
preparation for subdivision SD/i 12/02.
1) Financial Implications:
A refundable security totaling $7500.00 will be required for five lots which back on to the
watercourse.
CONCLUSION:
The applicant has provided the information as set out in the Council Policy for Environmental
Protection. It is recommend that DP/i12/02 be approved.
Prepared by: DavidStevenson
CIP
Approved by: (Frank Quinn, P.Eng., PMP
GM: Public)'orks & Development Services
.4 '-
Concurrence: J. (Jim) Rule
Officer
1.
-4-
CID
126 AVE.
37
04
)
10
Co
Pitt A 12450 264 STREET
\ 1!M':1 ock CORPOSRATOTNF OF
N mJmh Ucorporated12 September, 1874 PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE: May 4, 2004 FILE: DP/112102 BY: PC SCALE 1:3,531
I \
V
EXS1D5cORTIRJRTlP\
\
IOn, WIN PEDEORAICU INLOT
VV RIDER PIPE SURROUNDED %MIH
\
l9n,In MINJS aVEAR EDUIN
-
/
- / O4Oho 197 ha
20
V
\ r V 7 V V \V\
\ PROP. 2OU PVC DRVJN C
GRAVEL
PROP IO.
\ \ SEaIMENT IRM c aio ENUS CRAW
99ha
26
/ 264\STREET
V
0.400ho
V
V / : 0 4oho 0400ho \\ \
\
F\ ORAL \
—
I. INSTALL ALL AELOODARY NFl 4C OOIMINT ORNFS VHS OOPINMT
DITCHING PRIOR TO CONSITUL.110N
PROVIDE TEMPORARY DITCHING, CCL1 LUTZ MITh (001104 I'RTVEN1TON V VVVVVVV...V V ,
MERSUREC AS REQUIRED ID DIREC SURFASE DRAINADE FROM WORK VVVVVV.VVV V' __V •-_ I '" ,V'
MIENS DID 5(000(01 TRIP UI ALL DUES 000140 CORSTRUC11ONV -
IRE CONTRACTOR INALL INSPECT A D DAINTAIN THE EOCUION MOD SEDIMENT
CON1RD. WORKS MOD PERTOTU REM MIAL WOOLS AS RECUIITER.
C..52 ho
FEVEIIWIII.NI PEAMITVi'19A'Ei4i°1 .-. ' '. '' /. . 36 /9 V
PROVIDE INSPECTiON MOO PREVENT MAINTETOARCE OURIIIC P00000 ,,V7V.V 391,V,LB0V9h.LV.5915C9,YRTEJ "\ .• 'V \
"-_. ..'
. 1' OF WEVIPI RAINFALL. ". N. - -_ .. . -•, 0,404 ho
ALL STOCIIPTVOO MATERIAL. ROMIE RE POI.Y COVERED DIJRINS PERIODS V V V I IRI.I101IUCIUIU SYRIOIDR LIP.
OF RAIN TO PREVENT SEDIMENT FR EMITTING 0410 TOTE SITE LIRAINADE I - SYSTEM, . I 1301. 20330 OlIN AORnoe
t010'YS B.C. All 203
CORPORATION OF THE DIS1RICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
I T
SILTATION CONTRO ,O IE- MA DUll 000MM CIII 00 _______ M' 264 STREET 10
MINOR II RO0RVI0O0 Al 1101
r' I 500 ,(fVVV_VV SOUTH OF 126 AVE. TO 126 AVE.
I!
NEUA
eq, Lopm CORPORATION OF THE
MAPLE RIDGE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
TO: Her Worship Mayor K. Morse DATE: June 08, 2004
and Members of Council FILE NO: CP/062/04
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W
SUBJECT: First Reading
Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6245 - 2004
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The District of Maple Ridge, in partnership with the Alouette River Management Society
(ARMS) and the Kanaka Creek Education and Environmental Partnership Society (KEEPS) has
recently completed the final phase of its GPS and GIS mapping and inventory project. The study
areas included the watersheds of the Alouette River, Kanaka Creek, and Whonnock. This
project, initiated in 2000, is intended to provide more up to date and accurate information on the
location and characteristics of streams in the District to assist in the land-use decision making
process. The attached Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw is designed to incorporate the
stream mapping information collected in Phase 4 of this project into Official Community Plan
Schedule E: Watercourses Designated for Special Treatment (Development Permit Area XXX).
RECOMMENDATION:
That, acknowledging that Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw 6245
- 2004 has been considered in conjunction with the Capital Expenditure Plan and Waste
Management Plan, Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6245 -
2004 be read a first time and forwarded to Public Hearing; and
That the use of the Watercourse Integrity Classification Map and the Streamside
Setback Classification Map as updated to reflect Phase 4 inclusions, be endorsed as a
guide during the land use planning and development approval process.
BACKGROUND:
In anticipation of the need for better stream mapping information the District of Maple Ridge
initiated an evaluation of existing stream mapping and inventory data in 1998 to determine the
adequacy of the information available for watercourse classification. This review, under taken by
Scott Resources Inc., identified that much of the stream inventory information available to the
District was incomplete and that a number of discrepancies existed in District watercourse base
mapping.
T03
At the time, the District's stream mapping was based on the interpretation of 1995 aerial ortho
photo coverage. The method used - interpretation and mapping of streams using aerial
photography - is difficult and rarely accurate without the benefit of ground-truthing because of
complex terrain or topography, dense vegetation, bad weather conditions, and natural and man-
made channel modifications.
In order to verify the location and condition of the estimated 450 kilometres of stream needed to
address the inadequacies in the available stream inventory, a phased mapping project involving
the use of high end GPS (Global Positioning Systems) was adopted by Council in the fall of
1999.
Using the current development patterns within the community as a guide the following phased
approach to stream mapping was endorsed by Council:
Phase 1: (2000) the inventory and mapping of the new emerging urban areas (Silver Valley,
Albion and Cottonwood);
Phase 2: (2001) the inventory and mapping of the Thornhill Urban Reserve and associated
Kanaka Creek tributaries;
Phase 3: (2002) the inventory and mapping of the existing Urban Area and the northern arm of
Kanaka Creek, and the classification of all of the mapping data compiled from 2000 to
2002; and
Phase 4: (2004) the inventory, mapping and classification of the eastern Whonnock tributaries,
the tributaries along the Fraser River and the remaining rural areas of the community.
The objectives of the project were identified as follows:
to provide accurate geographic locations for known fish bearing or supporting streams
within Maple Ridge in order to upgrade District watercourse base mapping;
to design a data dictionary that will standardize data items collected in the field and to
provide collection protocol for future inventory projects;
to develop a database on stream features and characteristics that will aid in the future
sensitivity classification of watercourses and the establishment of protection setbacks;
to upgrade Schedule "B" of the Official Community Plan;
to make available information on watercourse/environmental quality in more user-
friendly format to customers and the public; and
to produce a watercourse classification map that will assist in the development
application review process.
For the purposes of this project a stream has been defined as a watercourse which flows on a
perennial or seasonal basis having a continuous channel bed, if the channel bed is (i) scoured by
water; or (ii) contains observable deposits of mineral alluvium. Artificial channels or ditches
have been defined as watercourses if they are known to contain fish, flow directly into fish
bearing streams and are consistent with the characteristics of a stream as described above. These
definitions are consistent with both federal and provincial legislation.
-2-
If either or both of these definitions applied to a waterbody encountered during the GPS stream
mapping project, the watercourse was automatically included into the mapping and inventory
project as a part of Schedule "E".
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The full length of streams (originally estimated to have been about 450 kilometers) have now
been mapped in Maple Ridge:
Phase 1: 110 kilometres (2000)
Phase 2: 120 kilometres (2001)
Phase 3: 90 kilometres (2002)
Phase 4 105 kilometers (2003)
The following stream information has been collected for the above mentioned stream lengths and
is now available in a newly designed stream information system where it can be viewed, queried
andlor analyzed using automated cartographic tools, GIS database systems or digital photo
images:
• Location of streams and associated waterbodies (e.g. springs, ponds, wetlands, etc.);
• Stream characteristics e.g. morphology, substrate, size, complexity, bank material,
etc.;
• Natural obstructions to fish passage;
• Man-made obstructions to fish passage;
• Culvert location and condition;
• Erosion, pollution, and problem areas;
• Vegetation buffer characteristics;
• Fish, wildlife and wildlife tree observations; and
• Information collected by stewardship groups, including water quality test sites,
aquatic invertebrate sampling sites, fish enumeration and release sites, and creek
signage.
This information has been previously presented for first reading to Council September 30, 2003
and May 28, 2002, and has been provided to the District's project partners (ARMS and KEEPS)
on CD-ROM for their own project purposes.
At their September 30, 2003 meeting, Council also passed a recommendation to endorse the use
of the Watercourse Integrity Classification Map and Streamside Setback Classification Map as a
guide during the land use planning and development approval process.
-3-
The project deliverables are as follows:
Deliverable Start End
Incorporation of Phase I & 2 stream location data into Aug 2001 June 2002
Schedule "E" of the Official Community Plan
The collection of Phase 3 stream feature spatial data Feb 2002 Dec. 2002
The transfer of Phase 3 data from Trimble GPS database to Feb 2002 Dec. 2002
the District's GIS software program
The interpretation, cleanup and creation of GIS map layers for Feb 2002 Dec. 2002
Phase 3 stream location and feature data
Incorporation of Phase 3 stream location data into the March 2002 Dec. 2002
District's watercourse base maps
Incorporation of Phase 3 stream location data into Schedule Sept. 2002 Sept. 2003
"E" of the Official Community Plan
To make the information collected through entire project Dec. 2001 Feb. 2003
available in the user-friendly way to customers and the public
To produce a watercourse classification map that will assist in Jan. 2002 Feb. 2003
the development application review process
The collection of Phase 4 stream feature spatial data into the Feb 2003 Dec. 2003
District's watercourse base maps.
To complete a watercourse setback and integrity classification Jan. 2003 Dec. 2003
map.
Incorporation of Phase 4 stream location data into Schedule May 2003 July. 2003
"E" of the Official Community Plan
PLANNING ANALYSIS:
Official Community Plan:
At the end of each project year, the stream location information collected by the consultant has been
incorporated into the District's watercourse base mapping and desktop GIS system for internal use. In
order to make this stream location information more widely available to the public, it is recommended
that the mapping data collected in Phase 4 of the project be incorporated into Schedule E:
Watercourses Designated for Special Treatment (Development Permit Area XAT of the Official
Community Plan.
A number of the unverified watercourse sections shown on the draft Schedule "E" have been reviewed
and mapped during Phase 4 of the mapping project. Those areas still unverified at the end of Phase 4
will require the submission of a site specific survey information to verify watercourse location with
any development application, as currently required under Development Procedures Bylaw No 5 879-
1999.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES:
Local Government Act:
An amendment to the Official Community Plan requires the local government to consult with any
affected parties and to adopt related bylaws in compliance with the procedures outlined in Section 882 of
the Act. The amendment required for this application is considered to be minor in nature. It has been
determined that no additional consultation beyond existing procedures is required, including referrals to
the Board of the Regional District, the Council of an adjacent municipality, First Nations, the School
District or agencies of the Federal and Provincial Governments.
The amendment has been reviewed with the Financial Plan/Capital Plan and the Waste Management Plan
of the Greater Vancouver Regional District and determined to have no impact.
Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection/Department of Fisheries and Oceans:
The mapping information compiled to date by the District is far superior to any mapping data currently
available to either the Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection or the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans. Both of these agencies have been very supportive, recognizing the proactive nature of this work
being undertaken by the District, and its planning implications. They have endorsed this stream mapping
and stream setback classification program and also have provided funding to the project partners (ARMS
and KEEPS) who have used those funds in their contribution to the mapping project.
At the end of each project phase these agencies have been provided with hardcopy versions of the
updated watercourse base maps.
Local governments:
Protected watercourses and wetlands as illustrated on Schedule "B" are identified as part of the Green
Zone of the Livable Region Strategic Plan, an initiative of the Greater Vancouver Regional District. The
Greater Vancouver Regional District will be responsible for amending the Green Zone accordingly and
will therefore be notified of this Schedule "E" amendment.
Notification and a copy of the draft Schedule "E" map will be provided for information to the District of
Pitt Meadows and the District of Mission upon approval of this resolution.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS:
The first step in protecting streams is knowing their location. As previously presented to Council, during
the course of this project a number of errors and gaps in the accuracy and coverage of the District's 1995
stream mapping have been identified and rectified as a result of this mapping project, including:
• stream sections mislocated by anywhere from 10 to 90 metres,
• stream sections that were found to be non existent, and
• systems that were found to extend well beyond the existing mapping information.
The inclusion of this new ground-truthed and updated watercourse mapping will assist the District and
the public in their efforts to protect the community's valuable watercourse systems through policy
development and conservation initiatives. This information will also have implications for the review of
the Official Community Plan and the information it will convey in its map schedules.
-5-
CITIZEN/CUSTOMER IMPLICATIONS:
The District will be able to provide citizens and customers with more accurate information on
watercourse location. The endorsement of the setback mapping work by Fisheries and Oceans Canada
(DFO) has helped to expedite the development application process, which can greatly assist the
development community.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
This project has been included in the 2004 budget and has operated within close budget parameters.
CONCLUSION:
In order to make this stream location information more widely available to the public it is
recommended that the mapping data collected in Phase 4 of the District's stream mapping project be
incorporated into Schedule E: Watercourses Designated for Special Treatment (Development Permit
Area XXX) of the Official Community Plan.
The incorporation of this mapping data into the Official Community Plan will:
• Make the data available to a wider audience than just District staff and our project partners;
• Ensure that this information is available for public consideration during the Official Community
Plan review being undertaken this year; and
• Provide the backbone on which to establish or modify the Conservation Areas currently
designated in the Official Community Plan during the course of the Official Community Plan
review.
OD /N~
Prepared by: DiarHall
ane Pikej MCP, MCIP
Approved by/ Frank Quinn, P. Eng, PMP
GM: Public Works & Development Services
Concurrence: Ji ule
C dministrative Officer
DH/bjc
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
BY-LAW NO. 6245 - 2004.
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" 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. 6245 - 2004."
Schedule "E" which forms part of Bylaw 5434-1996 as amended is deleted in its entirety
and replaced with the attached Schedule "E".
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. 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.
RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the dayof 5 A.D.200.
MAYOR CLERK
CORPORATION OF THE MAPLE RIDGE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE Incorporated 12 September, 1874
TO: Her Worship Mayor Kathy Morse DATE: June 9th, 2004
and Members of Council FILE NO: AL/043/04
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W
SUBJECT: Application to Exclude Land from the Agricultural Land Reserve
11748 240 Street and one lot directly south.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
An application has been received under Section 30(1) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act to
exclude approximately 6.3 hectares of land from the Agricultural Land Reserve. The Applicant's
submission conforms with the notice of application requirements of the Agricultural Land Commission.
RECOMMENDATION:
That application AL/043/04 respecting property located at 11748 240tl Street and one lot south
described as Lot 35, Section 15, Township 12, Plan 36606, NWD be authorized to proceed to the
Agricultural Land Commission and that the applicant and the Commission are provided with
an understanding of the current Official Community Plan policy and servicing constraints on
the property as outlined in the report dated June 9, 2004.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Applicant:
Owner:
Legal Description:
OCP Existing:
Zoning Existing:
Surrounding Uses
North:
South:
East:
West:
Existing Use of Property:
Access: 240th Street
Donada Industries Ltd.
Joseph J. Lepore
Lot C, Section 15, Township 12, Plan 23322 & Lot
35, Section 15, Township 12, Plan 36606, NWD
Agricultural
RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
The two properties are located on the east side of 240th Street in the 11700 block.
Application AL/043/04 has been received to exclude the subject properties from the Agricultural Land
Reserve. The Applicant has satisfied all "notice of exclusion" requirements under Section 5 of B.C.
Regulation 313/78 (Agricultural Land Reserve Procedure Regulation). The notice requests written
comments be forwarded to the District of Maple Ridge. To date one letter was received, requesting an
qot(
adjacent property be included in this application. The Planning Department responded to this request
by indicating the process to follow for exclusion applications.
Rural Plan
In October 1997 the Rural Plan Advisory Committee (RPAC) completed their final report. The
subject site is in Sub Area C. There were no recommendations for proposed changes to the
Agricultural Land Reserve in this area.
In Part 7 Area Recommendations of the Rural Plan Report the committee recommends for Sub Area
C, the overall use emphasis for this sub area, beyond the Smith Avenue subdivision, was for hobby
farms/rural life style, with an agriculture emphasis north of 128th Avenue right through the next sub
area. A further unresolved area includes the area noted on the sub area map as the Transition Area,
that area south of 124 th Avenue, west of the Smith Avenue subdivision, and east to 240 01 Street, and
north of 113 Avenue alignment. This is the subject of the following paragraphs.
Sub area C Controversial Area: Transition Area (south of 124th Avenue, west of the Smith
Avenue subdivision, and east to 240 th Street, and north of 113 Avenue alignment)
The controversial area noted was unresolved by the RPAC and it was decided to present the reasonable
options the Committee reviewed for Council consideration.
Option 1: Remove from the ALR and designate for attachment to adjoining urban areas, or as
future urban reserve, with appropriate buffering at the rural/ALR interface. Plan a
comprehensive sewer system for the whole area and address the current septic system
failures within this plan.
Option 2: Remove from the ALR and designate rural residential. Plan a comprehensive sewer
system for the whole area (including Academy Park and any other problem areas) and
address the current septic system failures within this plan. Set a density for the area
which makes a comprehensive sewer system both practical and economic (eg V2 to 1 acre
density is indicated, substantially on a Local Improvement Program-L.I.P. —basis).
Preserve the rural character by clustering residences where possible and utilize a variety
of lot sizes (eg 1/2 to 2 acres). Provide for some retirement oriented residences (eg
clustered, single family) and some compatible businesses. Make the area a model of
transition from the urban to the outlying rural/ALR.
Option 3: Retain in the ALR and adopt the following principles for the area:
Preserve rural character with transition buffering.
Need to establish a density with comprehensive L.I.P. sewer solution which is
practical and economical.
Variety of uses
• Range of density and lot sizes
• Clustering and consolidation
• Retirement living opportunities
• Business opportunities
Emphasis on rural lifestyle and limitations on intensive agricultural possibilities.
It was further resolved that the RPAC would endorse the clustering of dwelling units to
make servicing easier and getting rid of problem areas over time, it will become a net
-
benefit to_agriculture;_use_a_Development_Permit_Area_to_protect_farming_and_enhance_it
while achieving the proposed Area C (western part) principles.
-2-
Option 4: Retain in the ALR. Address the septic system failures by a minimal L.I.P. sewer system.
Adopt a Farm Bylaw to restrict intensive/intrusive agriculture.
The Committee voted and there was a split decision on Option 2 and Option 3.
In January 1998 the Summary of Council Decisions on Implementation of the Rural Plan was issued. In
this document the required action taken was, that Option 3 be endorsed and submitted to the Agricultural
Land Commission for their comments and if they are unfavourable, that Council endorse Option 2.
Upon implementation the Agricultural Land Commission was not in favour of Option 3 and it was
suggested switching to Option 4, which is to retain the area in the ALR, but with emphasis on clustering
and consolidation of properties. In the final action required, Council agreed to accept Option dfor Sub
area C with the inclusion of the clustering/consolidation principle.
Project Description:
The applicant has not stated any redevelopment plans.
Planning Analysis:
On March 11, 2004, a report for processing exclusion applications was received by Council outlining
land use considerations. Council resolved to continue their current practice of referring all
applications to the Agricultural Land Commission with the provision that applicants and the
Commission be advised that land use decisions will continue to be directed by Council.
The following land use implications of the proposed exclusion need to be considered:
The Applicant has not explicitly indicated the owner's redevelopment plans for the subject property,
should it be excluded from the Agricultural Land Reserve. However, once excluded, its permitted
uses will no longer be restricted by the Agricultural Land Commission Act. It is anticipated that the
owner's intention is to use the land for uses other than rural residential or agricultural. Although
adjacent to urban residential development to the west in the Cottonwood neighborhood, this subject
property is currently designated for Agricultural Use. Under the existing Official Community Plan,
the land is not considered available for urban residential use.
• The proposed exclusion of this property from the ALR and its potential residential redevelopment is
inconsistent with the goals of the Livable Region Strategic Plan and the Regional Context Statement
adopted by the District in the Official Community Plan. This application is in an area which lies
outside the urban area boundary and is designated as Green Zone in the Livable Region Strategic
Plan. Maple Ridge must consider the four fundamental strategies of the Livable Region Strategic
Plan (LSRP) when considering future development:
Protection of the Green Zone;
Building of complete communities;
Achievement of a compact metropolitan region, and
Increased transportation choice.
• The Official Community Plan is currently under review. 'While designations may change as a result
of that review there is no guarantee that this property will be designated for urban residential
development upon conclusion of the Official Community Plan.
-3-
• The land use implications and development pressures that will occur for excluded properties that do
not become designated for urban purposes during the process of the Official Community Plan review
may be a consideration. Although disappointed at this outcome, many applicants will still have
expectations for redevelopment in the longer term.
Both properties are eligible for sewer connections under Policy No. 9.02, which was adopted in
November, 1993. This policy grants permission for sewer connection to all property owners within
the Agricultural Land Reserve whose property abuts an existing lateral sewer line. It also makes
provisions for extending services where public health is a concern and Agricultural Land
Commission permission is granted. This policy is intended to provide a single connection to each
existing parcel, and should not be considered a means to facilitate further subdivision. Both
properties would require an application to the Greater Vancouver Sewer and Drainage District Board
for inclusion in the Fraser Sewer Area to allow servicing to an urban standard. Similarly, an
application to the Greater Vancouver Regional District to amend the Green Zone boundaries would
be required for both properties prior to permitting an urban style of development. There is no
guarantee that such applications would be approved.
CONCLUSION:
Based on the recommendation contained within the report titled Processing of Applications for
Exclusion from the Agricultural Land Reserve during the Official Community Plan Review, dated
March 1 1 th, 2004 and the resolution from Council dated March 23 w, 2004, it is recommended the
application AL/043/04 be authorized to proceed to the Agricultural Land Commission.
4v
Prepared by: Bruce McLeod
Technician
by:kne PicJrtn1'cIMCIP
Approved by: / Frank QuinnP.Eng., PMP
/ GM: P blic Wo & Development Services
Concurrence: J. L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Adrbinistrative Officer
-4-
a,
11829
46
11825 A
950 51
11805 .11830
EP 11375 P123165 52 1181
53
11787
8 39
27
I38 I
P1973
11773 11
40
PO4
11765
11793
41
30
P 20411
C
11711
P 23322
B
P13265
Subject Properties
11693
A
D 35
i. .
Iml
K°- 65 (0 (0
P66257 0
F 36
11623
PARK 11630 I
I 1 11596
5 1 I 1i597
11592 C.0 1.011591
Z 6 00 W 2
iisosj 11587
Pt.8 77(
District of .,
Pitt Meadows
/ iIJ saervaHeY
' 11748 — 240 St
— -
CORPORATION OF
/ T/°-1 THE DISTRICT OF
N 9
'° MAPLE RIDGE MAPLE RIDGE
Incorporated 12, September. 1874 PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SCALE 1 2 500 — -
've - - DATE Apr 27 2004 AL1043104 BY JV
ek
MAPLE RIDGE CORPORATION OF THE
Incorporated 12 September, 1874 DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
TO: Her Worship Mayor Kathy Morse DATE: June 9, 2004
and Members of Council FILE NO: AL1044104
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W
SUBJECT: Application to Exclude Land from the Agricultural Land Reserve
23613 124 Avenue & 12349 237 Street
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
An application has been received under Section 30(1) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act to
exclude approximately 15.25 hectares of land from the Agricultural Land Reserve. The Applicant's
submission conforms with the notice of application requirements of the Agricultural Land Commission.
RECOMMENDATION:
That application AL/044/04 respecting property located at 23613 124tI Avenue and 12349 237tl
Street, be authorized to proceed to the Agricultural Land Commission and that the applicant
and the Commission are provided with an understanding of the current Official Community
Plan policy and servicing constraints on the property as outlined in the report dated June 9th,
2004.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Applicant:
Owner:
Legal Description:
OCP Existing:
Zoning Existing:
Surrounding Uses
North:
South:
East:
West:
Existing Use of Property:
Access:
Donada Industries Ltd.
Earl M. Bremner. Rae-Glenn International
Developmentinc, Donada Industries Ltd.
Parcel "D", (RP4863) E V2 Section 21, Township 12,
Except: North 9.32 chains, and Parcel "G" (RP7 168)
of the NEI/4 and of the SEI/4 Section 21, Township
12, both of New Westminster District
Agricultural
RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential)
RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) 124th Avenue, 237th Street
The two properties front different streets, one is accessed off of 124 th Avenue east 0f232nd Street the
other is accessed at the intersection of 23 7th Street and 123rd Avenue.
910,5'
Application AL/044/04 has been received to exclude the subject properties from the Agricultural Land
Reserve. The Applicant has satisfied all "notice of exclusion" requirements under Section 5 of B.C.
Regulation 313/78 (Agricultural Land Reserve Procedure Regulation). The notice requests written
comments be forwarded to the District of Maple Ridge. To date two letters been received by the
Planning Department and are attached to this memo.
Rural Plan
In October 1997 the Rural Plan Advisory Committee '(RPAC) completed their final report. The
subject site is in Sub Area B. Recommendations for proposed changes to the Agricultural Land
Reserve in this area was limited to the exclusion from the ALR and incorporation into the urban area
those lots in Area 2 of the ALR west of 232'" Street from north of the urban boundary to 1281h
Avenue. This formed Recommendation No. 3 in the report.
In Part 7 Area Recommendations of the Rural Plan Report the committee could not resolve the use
emphasis and parcel sizes it would recommend for Sub Area B. The entire Sub Area B was
determined to be a controversial area and as unresolved it was decided to present the reasonable
options the Committee reviewed for Council consideration.
Sub Area B Controversial Area: The Entire Sub Area.
Sub Area B is bisected by 232 Street and will be bisected by Abernethy Way. Thus there are 3
natural sub-areas:
BI West 0f232fld Street
B2 East of 232' Street and North of Abernethy Way (note the subject properties for
application AL/044/04 are located within this sub-area)
B3 East of 232nd Street and South of Abernethy Way
Option 1: Remove Bi, B2 and B3 from the ALR and designate:
B 1 for attachment to adjoining urban residential area with V2 acre transition
buffering along 232nd Street and 132nd Avenue,
B2 for attachment to adjoining rural residential area at existing zoning density,
and
B3 as future Urban Reserve.
As a variation, B2 and B3 designation could be interchanged.
Option 2:
B 1 Remove from the ALR and designate for attachment to adjoining urban area
with V2 acre transition buffering along 232 nd Street and 132nd Avenue.
B2
Retain in ALR and Provide for rural/residential emphasis at a density of 5
acres. Adopt a Farm Bylaw to restrict intensive/intrusive agriculture.
B3
Retain in ALR. Adopt a Farm Bylaw to restrict intensive/intrusive
agriculture and to provide siting/setbacks for view corridors.
Option 3:
BI Remove from the ALR and designate for attachment to adjoining urban area
with V2 acre transition buffering along 232nd Street and 132" Avenue.
B2
Retain in ALR. Adopt a Farm Bylaw to restrict intensive/intrusive
agriculture.
B3 Retain in ALR. Adopt a Farm Bylaw to restrict intensive/intrusive
agricTilture andlo
-2-
The Committee voted and there was a split decision on Option 2 and Option 3.
In January 1998 the Summary of Council Decisions on Implementation of the Rural Plan was issued.
In this document the action taken by Council was to not agree with Recommendation No.3 that is the
exclusion of the lands as described as sub area Bi.
Regarding the action required on the Sub Area recommendations, Council made several
amendments to Option 3 and agreed to amend Option 3 as follows:
Option 3:
Bi Retain in the ALR, no transition zoning
B2 Retain in the ALR. Adopt a Farm By-law to restrict intensive/intrusive
agriculture.
B3
Retain in the ALR. Adopt a Farm By-law to restrict intensive/intrusive
agriculture.
The properties that are the subject of application AL/044/04 are located within the B2 sub-area.
Project Description:
The applicant has not stated any redevelopment plans.
Planning Analysis:
On March 11, 2004, a report for processing exclusion applications was received by Council outlining
land use considerations. Council resolved to continue their current practice of referring all
applications to the Agricultural Land Commission with the provision that applicants and the
Commission be advised that land use decisions will continue to be directed by Council.
The following land use implications of the proposed exclusion need to be considered:
The Applicant has not explicitly indicated the owner's redevelopment plans for the subject property,
should it be excluded from the Agricultural Land Reserve. However, once excluded, its permitted
uses will no longer be restricted by the Agricultural Land Commission Act. It is anticipated that the
owner's intention is to use the land for uses other than rural residential or agricultural. The subject
property is currently designated for Agricultural Use. Under the existing Official Community Plan,
the land is not considered available for urban use.
The proposed exclusion of this property from the ALR and its potential residential redevelopment is
inconsistent with the goals of the Livable Region Strategic Plan and the Regional Context Statement
adopted by the District in the Official Community Plan. This application is in an area which lies
outside the urban area boundary and is designated as Green Zone in the Livable Region Strategic
Plan. Maple Ridge must consider the four fundamental strategies of the Livable Region Strategic
Plan (LSRP) when considering future development:
Protection of the Green Zone;
Building of complete communities;
Achievement of a compact metropolitan region, and
Increased transportation choice.
-3-
• The Official Community Plan is currently under review. While designations may change as a result
of that review there is no guarantee that this property will be designated for urban development upon
conclusion of the Official Community Plan.
• The land use implications and development pressures that will occur for excluded properties that do
not become designated for urban purposes during the process of the Official Community Plan review
may be a consideration. Although disappointed at this outcome, many applicants will still have
expectations for redevelopment in the longer term.
Both properties are eligible for sewer connection under Policy No. 9.02, which was adopted in
November, 1993. This policy grants permission for sewer connection to all property owners within
the Agricultural Land Reserve whose property abuts an existing lateral sewer line. It also makes
provisions for extending services where public health is a concern and Agricultural Land
Commission permission is granted. This policy is intended to provide a single connection to each
existing parcel, and should not be considered a means to facilitate further subdivision. Both
properties would require an application to the Greater Vancouver Sewer and Drainage District Board
for inclusion in the Fraser Sewer Area to allow servicing to an urban standard. Similarly, an
application to the Greater Vancouver Regional District to amend the Green Zone boundaries would
be required for both properties prior to permitting an urban style of development. There is no
guarantee that such applications would be approved.
CONCLUSION:
Based on the recommendation contained within the report titled Processing of Applications for
Exclusion from the Agricultural Land Reserve during the Official Community Plan Review, dated
March 1 1 th, 2004 and the resolution from Council dated March 23rd 2004, it is recommended the
application AL1044104 be authorized to proceed to the Agricultural Land Commission.
Prepared by: Bruce McLeod
Technician
\
by:..4e PickerJ!1g,_M
D)rectpEiiLPlaijillng
/
Approved by./ Frank Quinn, P.Eng., PMP
Public Works & Development Services
Concurrence: J. LI (Jim) Rule
Chikf Administrative Officer
BMclibjc
-4-
Subject Properties
District of -
Pitt Meadows
Jr-
)ock
12349-237 St
712 CORPORATION OF
THE DISTRICT OF
1C MAPLE RIDGE MAPLE RIDGE
Incorporated 12, September, 1874 PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SCALE 1:5000
- District of
Langley
DATE: Apr 27, 2004 AL1044/04 BY: JV
• A A Y ~X;~
v.
/Sf
J -( r 41 4--
April 5, 2004
E. & K. Cleven
12664 - 235th Street
Maple Ridge, B.C. V2X 0R5
RE: NOTICE OF EXCLUSION APPLICATI
LAND IN THE AGRICULTURAL LANE
We, Rae-Glenn International Development
237th Street, Maple Ridge, B.C. & Donadal
Highway, Maple Ridge, B.C. intend on maki
Section 30 (1) of the Agricultural Land Corn,
Agricultural Land Reserve the following pi
as:
PLAN RP4863 LAND DISTRICT 37 SE
PARCEL D, PART E1/2 EXCEPT PLA!
PLAN RP7168 LAND DISTRICT 37 SE
PARCELGPARTE1/2
r..
tc(-4-r ki ftE
40 ni 4z
( -
c-i'1-41-: i,vc
Lr ~( O1
QT? _97
and located at 12349 - 237th Street Maple Ridge, B.C. & 23613 - 124th
Avenue, Maple Ridge, B.C..
Any persons wishing to express an interest in the application may do so by
forwarding their comments in writing to, Planning Department, District of
Maple Ridge, 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, B.C. V2X 6A9 by April 21,
2004.
Agenfbr Regj.tered Owners
Donada lrustries Ltd.
RECE WED
AflF' ' r U rr\
April 14, 2004
MAPLE RIDGE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Planning Department, District of Maple Ridge.
Re: Notice of exclusion application regarding land in the agricultural land reserv
Properties at 12349237th and 23613124th Ave.
Our property located at 23570 124 th Ave. at far east boundary adjoins the
property at 23613124th Ave. We have been on this land since 1975. We would like to go
on record as opposed to the exclusion application for the above stated properties.
We wish to express our concerns first for the environment and to speak on behalf
of the wildlife in this area. The family of deer, we have seen at least five that travel
regularly, the two different families of coyote (6 in one group and 4 in the other) the
pheasants, the mother bear and her cubs, the red tail hawk family that has been around for
many years prior to 1975. Also, there are the barn owls that hunt in these fields and
thousands of birds that come to eat seed and so many insects.
We understand that there is a stream or waterway on the property and ask that you
consider the impact that any development would have on this natural resource.
Further, at one time this area was slated as a corridor for the wildlife to reach the Fraser
River; what ever happened to that plan? Also our neighbor has indicated that part of her
property would be left to the city as park, this area also joins onto the above property.
This area has long been designated for farming and agricultural use. We are well
aware that these farm lands have gone up in value, and also understand the financial
benefit that any development would bring. However, we are strongly opposed to the
destruction that such development would bring to the natural habitat found on these farm
lands, and fUrther the long term destruction of the limited farm land left in this
municipality would cause untold problems for the future of Maple Ridge. it is the beauty
of the rolling hills and farm lands that attracts many to this area. What then will be the
advertised features we will use to attract tourists to come to our city? Will we highlight
our growing new features that such urban development is bringing, inner city ghettos,
pollution, insufficient infrastructure, increased crime rates and children playing in the
streets? Welcome to Maple Ridge the home of historical farm land, and future chaos.
Yours sincerely,
Harry & Josephine Bissky
Hazel Bissky & Tom Bissky
Cathy Hiebert & Wade Hiebert
CORPORATION OF THE
DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
MAPLE RIDGE
TO: Her Worship Mayor Kathy Morse DATE: June 9, 2004
and Members of Council FILE NO: AL/045/04
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W
SUBJECT: Application to Exclude Land from the Agricultural Land Reserve
12146 237 Street
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
An application has been received under Section 30(1) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act
to exclude approximately 1.3 hectares of land from the Agricultural Land Reserve. The
Applicant's submission conforms with the notice of application requirements of the Agricultural
Land Commission.
RECOMMENDATION:
That application AL/045/04 respecting property located at12146 237th Street, be authorized
to proceed to the Agricultural Land Commission and that the applicant and the
Commission are provided with an understanding of the current Official Community Plan
policy and servicing constraints on the property are as outlined in the report dated June 9th,
2004.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Applicant: Donada Industries Ltd.
Owner: Sharon G. Malloy
Legal Description: Lot 1, Section 21, Township 12, Plan 5812,
NWD
OCP Existing: Agricultural
Zoning Existing: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Surrounding Uses
North: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
South: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
East: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
West: A-1 (Small Holding Agricultural)
Existing Use of Property: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Access: 237th Street
This property is located on the east side of 237 th Street north of Dewdney Tmnk Road.
fo
Application AL/045/04 has been received to exclude the subject property from the Agricultural
Land Reserve. The Applicant has satisfied all "notice of exclusion" requirements under Section
5 of B.C. Regulation 313/78 (Agricultural Land Reserve Procedure Regulation). The notice
requests written comments be forwarded to the District of Maple Ridge. To date no letters have
been received by the Planning Department.
Rural Plan
In October 1997 the Rural Plan Advisory Committee (RPAC) completed their final report. The
subject site is in Sub Area B. Recommendations for proposed changes to the Agricultural Land
Reserve in this area was limited to the exclusion from the ALR and incorporation into the urban
area those lots in Area 2 of the ALR west of 232" Street from north of the urban boundary to 128th Avenue. This formed Recommendation No. 3 in the report.
In Part 7 Area Recommendations of the Rural Plan Report the committee could not resolve the
use emphasis and parcel sizes it would recommend for Sub Area B. The entire Sub Area B was
determined to be a controversial area and as unresolved it was decided to present the reasonable
options the Committee reviewed for Council consideration.
Sub Area B Controversial Area: The Entire Sub Area.
Sub Area B is bisected by 232"" Street and will be bisected by Abernethy Way. Thus there are 3
natural sub-areas:
Bi West of 232 fl" Street
B2 East of 232"" Street and North of Abernethy Way
B3 East of 232"" Street and South of Abernethy Way (note the subject site for
AL/045/04 is located within this sub-area)
Option 1: Remove B 1, B2 and B3 from the ALR and designate:
B 1
for attachment to adjoining urban residential area with '/2 acre transition
buffering along 232nd Street and 132nd Avenue,
B2 for attachment to adjoining rural residential area at existing zoning
density, and
B3 as future Urban Reserve.
As a variation, B2 and B3 designation could be interchanged.
Option 2:
B I Remove from the ALR and designate for attachment to adjoining urban
area with '/2 acre transition buffering along 232nd Street and 132""
Avenue.
B2 Retain in ALR and Provide for rural/residential emphasis at a density of
5 acres. Adopt a Farm Bylaw to restrict intensive/intrusive agriculture.
B3 Retain in ALR. Adopt a Farm Bylaw to restrict intensive/intrusive
agriculture and to provide siting/setbacks for view corridors.
Option 3:
B 1 Remove from the ALR and designate for attachment to adjoining urban
area with V2 acre transition buffering along 232"" Street and 132""
Avenue.
B2 Retain in ALR. Adopt a Farm Bylaw to restrict intensive/intrusive
agriculture.
-2-
B3 Retain in ALR. Adopt a Farm Bylaw to restrict intensive/intrusive
agriculture and to provide siting/setbacks for view corridors.
The Committee voted and there was a split decision on Option 2 and Option 3.
In January 1998 the Summary of Council Decisions on Implementation of the Rural Plan was
issued. In this document the action taken by Council was to not agree with Recommendation
No.3 that is the exclusion of the lands as described as sub area ff1.
Regarding the action required on the Sub Area recommendations, Council made several
amendments to Option 3 and agreed to amend Option 3 as follows:
Option 3:
Bi Retain in the ALR, no transition zoning
B2 Retain in the ALR. Adopt a Farm By-law to restrict
intensive/intrusive agriculture.
B3 Retain in the ALR. Adopt a Farm By-law to restrict
intensive/intrusive agriculture.
The subject site for this application AL/045/04 is located within the B3 sub-area.
Project Description:
The applicant has not stated any redevelopment plans.
Planning Analysis:
On March 11, 2004, a report for processing exclusion applications was received by Council
outlining land use considerations. Council resolved to continue their current practice of referring
all applications to the Agricultural Land Commission with the provision that applicants and the
Commission be advised that land use decisions will continue to be directed by Council.
The following land use implications of the proposed exclusion need to be considered:
The Applicant has not explicitly indicated the owner's redevelopment plans for the subject
property, should it be excluded from the Agricultural Land Reserve. However, once excluded,
its permitted uses will no longer be restricted by the Agricultural Land Commission Act. It is
anticipated that the owner's intention is to use the land for uses other than rural residential or
agricultural. The subject property is currently designated for Agricultural Use. Under the
existing Official Community Plan, the land is not considered available for uses other than
agricultural.
The proposed exclusion of this property from the ALR and its potential redevelopment is
inconsistent with the goals of the Livable Region Strategic Plan and the Regional Context
Statement adopted by the District in the Official Community Plan. This application is in an area
which lies outside the urban area boundary and is designated as Green Zone in the Livable
Region Strategic Plan. Maple Ridge must consider the four fundamental strategies of the
Livable Region Strategic Plan (LSRP) when considering future development:
Protection of the Green Zone;
Building Of complete communities;
Achievement of a compact metropolitan region, and
Increased transportation choice.
-3-
• The Official Community Plan is currently under review. While designations may change as a
result of that review there is no guarantee that this property will be designated for urban
development upon conclusion of the Official Community Plan.
• The land use implications and development pressures that will occur for excluded properties that
do not become designated for urban purposes during the process of the Official Community Plan
review may be a consideration. Although disappointed at this outcome, many applicants will
still have expectations for redevelopment in the longer term.
• The property is eligible to have a sewer connection provided under Policy No. 9.02, which was
adopted in November, 1993. This policy grants permission for sewer connection to all property
owners within the Agricultural Land Reserve whose property abuts an existing lateral sewer
line. It also makes provisions for extending services where public health is a concern and
Agricultural Land Commission permission is granted. This policy is intended to provide a
single connection to each existing parcel, and should not be considered a means to facilitate
further subdivision. This property would require an application to the Greater Vancouver Sewer
and Drainage District Board for inclusion in the Fraser Sewer Area to allow servicing to an
urban standard. Similarly, an application to the Greater Vancouver Regional DistTict to amend
the Green Zone boundaries would be required for this property prior to permitting an urban style
of development. There is no guarantee that such applications would be approved.
CONCLUSION:
Based on the recommendation contained within the report titled Processing of Applications for
Exclusion from the Agricultural Land Reserve during the Official Community Plan Review,
dated March 1 1 th, 2004 and the resolution from Council dated March 23'', 2004, it is
recommended the application AL/045/04 be authorized to proceed to the Agricultural Land
Commission.
Prepared by: Bruce McLeod
LandscaveXlannine Technician
ng
Approved bjy' Frank Quinn, P.Eng., PMP
/ GM: Public Works & Development Services
Concurrence: J.
Administrative Officer
-4-
2250
Rem 1 ----- ---.- -
CN
12301
LMP 3162
28 29 30 27 31 34 ,
23801 'V 33
/ 26 ,32 "
23 -
25 'C't SK2613 'C' 'C'24 22 6
12218 20
_1 c,. , 7 4
19 , 8 18
17 " 9 36 P72342
'82 10 2
12 3
15 1.2 2''',
14 13 1
2146
12161
1 LMP 39851
12111 /
Subject Property
co
LMP
2 V ?094 )071 ° 12073
V o 12069
12057 12057 I LMP 3003 1 Co
fl18
765
15
12073
2 12OBAVE
s 7 T22-23 '24 'il 2 5 2 6 -- =9 - 19 2 0 L M P1 MP
LIMP
IL
71 i7ffi0ii2 16[7i81902i
....
ti
Pitt 1
12146 - 237 St
/
o
N 18 7H MAPLE RIDGE MAPLE RIDGE
Incorporated 12. September, 1874 PLANNING DEPARTMENT
N SCALE 12500 DATE: Apr 27, 2004 AL1045/04 BY: JV
Z)a an CORPORATION OF THE
DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
MAPLE RIDGE
TO: Her Worship Mayor Kathy Morse DATE: June 9, 2004
and Members of Council FILE NO: AL/046/04
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W
SUBJECT: Application to Exclude Land from the Agricultural Land Reserve
12212, 12230, 12296 - 248 Street, 12225, 12245, 12265 250 Street
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
An application has been received under Section 30(1) of the Agricultural Land Commission
Act to exclude approximately 8.0 hectares of land from the Agricultural Land Reserve. The
Applicant's submission conforms with the notice of application requirements of the
Agricultural Land Commission.
RECOMMENDATION:
That application AL/046/04 respecting property located at 12212, 12230, 12296 - 248
Street, 12225, 12245, 12265 250 Street, be authorized to proceed to the Agricultural
Land Commission and that the applicant and the Commission are provided with an
understanding of the current Official Community Plan policy and servicing constraints
on the property are as outlined in the report dated June 9th, 2004.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Applicant: Four Corners Urban Design And Town Planning, Ross
Blackwell
Owner: David J. Thordarson, Arleen F. Wagner-Thordarson,
Glen P. Cawthra, Amy Cawthra
Allen T. Kruchowski, Cynthia J. Kruchowski
Jerzy Lesiczka, Elizabeth Lesiczka
Maurice F. Staudt, Dianne M. Staudt
John H. Taylor, Barbara J. Gervais
Legal Description: Lot 102, Plan 64098; Lot 1, Plan 71091; Lot A, Plan
87852; Lot B, Plan 87852; E V2 Parcel 1(RP 10087) of N
V2 of Lot "B" of Lot 7, Plan 7250; Lot 89 & 90, Plan
29630 all of Sec. 23, Tp 12, NWD
OCP Existing: Agricultural
Zoning Existing: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential)
Surrounding Uses
107
North:
South:
East:
West:
Existing Use of Property:
Access:
Previous Applications:
RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) & RS-3 (One
Family Rural Residential)
RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential)
RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential)
RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential)
RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential)
248th Street, 7501h Street
ALR/7/84, ALRJ4/86, ALRJ4/93, ALRI60/99
Four of the seven properties included in this application are located 0ff248th1 Street, with three
properties located 0ff250th Street all north of Dewdney Trunk Road.
Application AL/046/04 has been received to exclude the subject properties from the
Agricultural Land Reserve. The Applicant has satisfied all "notice of exclusion" requirements
under Section 5 of B.C. Regulation 313/78 (Agricultural Land Reserve Procedure Regulation).
The notice requests written comments be forwarded to the District of Maple Ridge. To date
the Planning Department has received five letters, four in opposition, one requesting
additional information and a petition with 98 signatures opposed to the exclusion of the
subject properties from the Agricultural Land Reserve. Copies of the letters and petition are
attached to this memo.
Project Description:
The applicant has not stated any redevelopment plans in their application.
Planning Analysis:
Previous Applications
Four of the seven parcels included in this application were the subject of a previous
application ALRI60/99. Council at that time had authorized this application to proceed to the
Commission with a record of the deliberations of the application and a further
recommendation that the land not be excluded from the Agricultural Land Reserve. On
August 12th 2003 the Commission, after viewing the site and meeting the applicant, decided
to refuse the application by resolution #364/2003. A copy of the report and an addendum
report prepared for Council for this application is attached to this memo.
In three previous applications involving lots in the current application the Commission has
refused exclusion based on:
good agricultural potential subject to improved agricultural capability ratings
exclusion of land would lead to subdivision and infiltration of urban land uses with a
negative effect on agricultural potential, and
exclusion of one property would create substantial pressure for further exclusion of
ALR lands in the surrounding area.
-2-
On March 11, 2004, a report for processing exclusion applications was received by Council
outlining land use considerations. Council resolved to continue their current practice of
referring all applications to the Agricultural Land Commission with the provision that
applicants and the Commission be advised that land use decisions will continue to be directed
by Council.
The following land use implications of the proposed exclusion need to be considered:
The Applicant has not explicitly indicated the owner's redevelopment plans for the subject
property, should it be excluded from the Agricultural Land Reserve. However, once
excluded, its permitted uses will no longer be restricted by the Agricultural Land
Commission Act. It is anticipated that the owner's intention is to use the land for uses other
than rural residential or agricultural. The subject property is currently designated for
Agricultural Use. Under the existing Official Community Plan, the land is not considered
available for uses other than agricultural.
The proposed exclusion of these properties from the ALR and their potential redevelopment
is inconsistent with the goals of the Livable Region Strategic Plan and the Regional Context
Statement adopted by the District in the Official Community Plan. This application is in an
area which lies outside the urban area boundary and is designated as Green Zone in the
Livable Region Strategic Plan. Maple Ridge must consider the four fundamental strategies of
the Livable Region Strategic Plan (LSRP) when considering future development:
Protection of the Green Zone;
Building of complete communities;
Achievement of a compact metropolitan region, and
Increased transportation choice.
• The Official Community Plan is currently under review. While designations may change as a
result of that review there is no guarantee that these properties will be designated for urban
development upon conclusion of the Official Community Plan.
• The land use implications and development pressures that will occur for excluded properties
that do not become designated for urban purposes during the process of the Official
Community Plan review may be a consideration. Although disappointed at this outcome,
many applicants will still have expectations for redevelopment in the longer term.
Five of the properties have a sewer connection and two properties are eligible to receive
sewer connections provided under Policy No. 9.02, which was adopted in November, 1993.
This policy grants permission for sewer connection to all property owners within the
Agricultural Land Reserve whose property abuts an existing lateral sewer line. It also makes
provisions for extending services where public health is a concern and Agricultural Land
Commission permission is granted. This policy is intended to provide a single connection to
each existing parcel, and should not be considered a means to facilitate further subdivision.
This property would require an application to the Greater Vancouver Sewer and Drainage
District Board for inclusion in the Fraser Sewer Area to allow servicing to an urban standard.
Similarly, an application to the Greater Vancouver Regional District to amend the Green
-3-
Zone boundaries would be required for this property prior to permitting an urban style of
development. There is no guarantee that such applications would be approved.
CONCLUSION:
Based on the recommendation contained within the report titled Processing of Applications
for Exclusion from the Agricultural Land Reserve during the Official Community Plan
Review, dated March 11th, 2004 and the resolution from Council dated March 231d1, 2004, it is
recommended the application AL/046/04 be authorized to proceed to the Agricultural Land
Commission.
Prepared by: Bruce
anning Techncian
Apj,roved b-ne Pj-MtP, MCIP
Dire tor of Plannin
Approved by: 'frrank Quinn, P.Eng., PMP
/ GM: Public Works & Development Services
Concurrence: J.L.
Administrative Officer
BMcL/bj c
-4-
District of j t Pitt Meadows
- - - - SIver VIIey —
I!,
SCALE 1.3000
DATE: Apr 27, 2004 AL1046/04 BY: JV
ORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
TO: His Worship Mayor Al Hogarth DATE: April 17, 2001
and Members of Council FILE NO: ALRJ60/99
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Committee of the Whole
SUBJECT: ALR/60/99
(address 12212, 12230248th Street, and 12225, 12245250th Street)
Purpose:
An application has been received under Section 15(1) of the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) Act
for the exclusion of approximately 3.8 ha. of land from the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR).
Authorization by resolution of the local municipal government is required before this application can
proceed to the Land Reserve Commission (LRC).
As the application does not satisfy the current Council policy, and no new and compelling information
has been provided since the previous application was considered, Staff recommend this application not be
authorized to proceed to the LRC.
Recommendation:
That application ALRJ60/99 (for property located at 12212, 12230248t Street and 12225, 12245-
250tI Street) for exclusion from the Agricultural Land Reserve as described in the memorandum
dated April 2001, not be authorized to proceed to the Land Reserve Commission.
Background:
Applicant: David Thordarson
Owner: DJ Thordarson & AF Wagner-Thordarson
JH Taylor & BJ Gervais
GJ Kruchkowski & CA Kruchkowski
Legal Description:
AT Kruchowski
Lot 102 Section 23 TWP 12 NWD Plan 64098
Lot I Section 23 TWP 12 NWD Plan 71091
Lot A Section 23 TWP 12 NWD Plan 87852
Lot B Section 23 TWP 12 NWD Plan 87852
Agriculture
RS-1 One Family Urban Residential
RS- 1 One Family Urban Residential
RS-1 One Family Urban Residential
RS-1 One Family Urban Residential
RS-1 One Family Urban Residential
ALR'7/84, SD/15/85, ALR/4/86, SD/99/89, ALRI4/93
OCP Existing:
Zoning Existing:
Surrounding Uses:
N:
S:
W:
Access: 2481h Street, 250th Street
Previous Applications:
9
An application has been received by the Planning Department to exclude approximately 3.8 ha. of land
from the ALR. The applicant has satisfied all "notice of exclusion" requirements under Section 5 of
B.C. Regulation 313/78(Agricultural Land Reserve Procedure Regulation). As a result of this notice,
the Planning Department has received a letter in opposition to the application. A copy is attached to
this memo.
The 4 properties; range in size from 0.8 to 1.0 ha., are located north of 122' Avenue between 248 th
and 250th Streets. All of the land is designated as agricultural on the OCP. Agricultural use is
permitted on RS-1 zoned parcels greater than 0.4 ha that are within the ALR.
Rural Plan:
In October 1997 the Rural Plan Advisory Committee (RPAC) completed their final report. The
subject site is in Sub-Area C, the density transfer proposal area. RPAC recommended as a solution to
the zoning conflict of RS-1 lands in the ALR that a clustering and consolidation concept could be
offered to those parcels zoned RS-1 in the ALR.
In January 1998 the Summary of Council Decisions on Implementation of the Rural Plan was issued.
Council agreed to Option 3 for Subarea C (l'ransition Area principles, page 46 of the Rural Plan) but the
Agricultural Land Commission was not in agreement. The ALC indicated the Transition Area principles
of Option 3 are in conflict with their position to see property consolidation that would return it to larger
lots and offer greater agricultural potential.
From page 26 of the Summary, Council agreed to accept Option 4 for Subarea C with th inclusion of the
clustering/consolidation principle.
Option 4
Retain in the ALR. Address the septic syst em failures by a minimal Local Improvement Petition
sewer system. Adopt a Farm By-law to restrict intensive/intrusive agriculture.
This application was received in September 1999 after completion of the Rural Plan and Summary of
Council Decisions on Implementation. Early in 2000 Staff began work on drafting Land Reserve Policies
and the next steps in implementing the Rural Plan. During this time period the applicant continued to
discuss his proposal with Staff, who have explained the cluster and consolidation option to the applicant.
District ALR. Policy:
On August 22id 2000 Council adopted Agricultural Land Reserve Planning Policies, referring them on to
the LRC for adoption and directed Staff to process outstanding applications according to the proposed
new policies. From the report to Council:
The applicant would be requested to participate in the Smith Avenue Density Transfer concept
initiative. Outright exclusion of lands in this area was not agreed to during the Rural Plan.
However, in the absence of any agreement on the Smith Avenue Density Transfer concept, this
general location, because of recent ALR application histoty (ie ALR/4193), would not likely receive
staff support unless it is based upon new and compelling information. The previous application was
reviewed by the LRC and not supported for exclusion due to soil condition and the pressure it would
bring on other similar areas.
Once the Land Reserve Policies were adopted in August 2000, and it was evident there were two options
for the applicant to pursue. Either revise the current application to demonstrate a clustering plan to
provide a net benefit to agriculture, or proceed with the submission on the understanding that staff would
bring it forward with a negative recommendation. The applicant advised staff in March 2001 that he did
not want to pursue clustering and consolidation to achieve the concept of density transfer with a possible
net benefit to agriculture.
Previous Application:
The most recent exclusion application, ALRJ4/93 was for Lot B, approximately 0.9 hectare of the 3.8
hectares under consideration in the current application.
The LRC stated the following in their refusal of the application:
The Commission noted that the subject property possesses good agricultural potential based on its
improved agricultural capability ratings. Since the exclusion of this land would inevitably lead to its
subdivision, and thus the infiltration of urban land uses, the agricultural potential ofyour property
would be negatively affected. In addition, it is the Commission 's view that the exclusion ofyour
property would create substantial pressure forfurther exclusion ofALR lands in the surrounding
area.
This rationale is consistent with Commission decisions to deny approval for exclusion on two earlier
applications.
Intergovernmental Issues:
If authorized by Council this application will be referred to the Land Reserve Commission.
Environmental Implications:
N/A
Citizen/Customer Implications:
Should the application be authorized to proceed to the Land Reserve Commission, a precedent will be set
that may raise the expectation of others who wish to seek exclusion from the ALR.
Interdepartmental Implications:
N/A
Financial Implications:
N/A
Alternatives:
The alternative is to resubmit the application, achieve the density transfer discussed during the Rural Plan,
and demonstrate a net benefit to agriculture through clustering and consolidation.
Summary:
Based on current Council policy, the refusal to pursue the concept of density transfer, and there being no
reference to new or compelling information to question previous LRC decisions, it is recommended that
application ALRJ60/99 not be authorized to proceed to the Land Reserve Commission.
Prepared by: Bruce McLeod, ISA Certified Arborist
Landscape/Planning Technician
:fe
Approved by:
A
m
ctin0 ectOr of P ing
Approved by: Frank Quinn, P.Eng., PMP
GM: Public Works & Development Services
Concurrence: Robert W. Robertson, AICP, MCIP
Chief Administrative Officer
S
24883- 122 Avenue
Maple Ridge, BC
V4R 1Z8
July 25, 1999
District of Maple Ridge Council and Planning Department
11995 Haney Place
Maple Ridge
V2X 6A9
Dear Sir or Madam:
I am writing with respect to the application by David Thoradarson of 12212- 248 Street for an
exemption from the Agricultural Land Reserve for his property. Briefly, for environmental and
health reasons I do not support this application.
As you are well aware, the amount of green space is very limited in Maple Ridge. My spouse
and I purchased property abutting the property owned by Mr. Thoradaarson because we have a
high respect for the environment. This aforementioned property is a natural habitat for wildlife
and plant species and, as such, it is an unassuming area that contributes to the peace and
tranquility of the community. To remove this property from the ALR is contradictory to the
concern for biodiVersity, a concern that all Canadians should bear in mind. In a very insidious
way this is a threat to human health.
Additionally, to remove with ease any land that was designated a part of the ALR would minimize
the serious intent of government to demonstrate concern for ecology. In short, it is a mockery.
In closing, I urge you to place the ecological determinant of health first, not be short-sighted in
degradation of our environment and to rethink the attempt to support profit at the expense of
ecology since green space is a very special commodity.
Sincerely,
,.
Rose Marie
-.....
4 ... r
JU1271999
MAPLE RIDGE
PLANNING DEPARTMENLJ
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
TO: His Worship Mayor Al Hogarth DATE: July 3, 2001
and Members of Council FILE NO: ALR/60/99
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Committee of the Whole
SUBJECT: ALRJ60/99 (address 12212, 122302481h St., and 12225, 12245250th St.)
Addendum report
Purpose:
An application has been received under Section 15(1) of the Agricultural Land Commission
(ALC) Act for the exclusion of approximately 3.8 ha. of land from the Agricultural Land
Reserve (ALR). The subject site is in Rural Plan Sub-Area C, the density transfer proposal area,
where a cluster and consolidation development concept might be considered by the Commission
if a net benefit to agriculture could be demonstrated.
On June 4, 2001 Council deferred application ALR/60/99 pending the receipt of additional
information on the density transfer option.
Recommendation:
That this report be received for information; and
That application ALR160199 (for property located at 12212, 12230_248th Street and
12225, 122452501h Street) for exclusion from the Agricultural Land Reserve as
described in the memorandum dated July 3, 2001, not be authorized to proceed to the
Land Reserve Commission.
Background:
Applicant:
Owner:
Legal Description:
OCP Existing:
Zoning Existing:
Surrounding Uses:
N:
S:
W:
Access: 248 0 Street, 250th Street
David Thordarson
DJ Thordarson & AF Wagner-Thordarson
JR Taylor & BJ Gervais
GJ Kruchkowski & CA Kruchkowski
AT Kruchowski
Lot 102 Section 23 TWP 12 NWD Plan 64098
Lot 1 Section 23 TWP 12 NWD Plan 71091
Lot A Section 23 TWP 12 NWD Plan 87852
Lot B Section 23 TWP 12 NWD Plan 87852
Agriculture
RS-1 One Family Urban Residential
RS- 1 One Family Urban Residential
RS- 1 One Family Urban Residential
RS-1 One Family Urban Residential
RS-1 One Family Urban Residential
Previous Applications: ALRJ7/84, SD/15185, ALR/4/86, SD/99/89, ALRJ4/93
Background:
The subject application involves 4 properties (2.0 - 2.5 acres in size) located in Sub-Area C of
the Rural Plan where it was recommended by the Rural Plan Advisoiy Committee (RPAC)
that a clustering and consolidation concept be considered for this area of the Agricultural
Land Reserve (ALR).
In 1998 the Land Reserve Commission (LRC) indicated they might consider density transfer in
this area of the ALR. Their position was that they wanted to see property consolidation that
would return the area to larger lots providing greater agricultural potential and a "net benefit to
agriculture".
In August of 2000 Council directed staff to invite the applicant to participate in the Smith
Avenue Density Transfer Concept initiative since outright exclusion of lands in this area was not
agreed to during the Rural Plan.
In February 2001 the applicant was informed that he would need to provide a clustered plan of
development or the application would go forward to Council with a negative recommendation.
In March 2001 the applicant advised staff that he did not want to pursue clustering and
consolidation.
Intergovernmental Issues:
If authorized by Council this application will be referred to the Land Reserve Commission
(LRC) for their approval. Given the Commission's consideration of previous applications in this
area staff expect that the LRC will want to see some benefit to agriculture demonstrated as part
of this application.
The following are a list of benefits to agriculture that the Commission works to try and achieve:
Consolidation of small legal parcels in the ALR to create appropriately sized farm units.
Inclusion into the ALR of areas that warrant inclusion (based on agricultural capability
and/or farm use) either onsite or in close proximity (e.g. rationalization of ALR boundary)
Increased productive capability by a number of means including:
- farm infrastructure development such as drainage and irrigation works
- rationalization of parcel boundaries
- improved farm access
Enhanced farm management by the creation of more rational farm parcels and units.
Increased land utilization through the cancellation of excess rights-of-ways, roads,
transmission lines and other utility corridors and the preclusion of additional homesites
which would otherwise be allowed on individual legal parcels.
Installation and maintenance of buffers to protect farmland from adjacent non-farm uses.
Actual farm development through the sale or long term lease of a farm parcel to a bona fide
farmer at a competitive farmland price or lease rate.
Elimination of possible negative impacts to agriculture from an adjacent use through
careful design and siting.
D
In talking with the LRC about what a density transfer concept (or cluster and consolidation)
might look like the Commission provided the following hypothetical examples.
Small Scale Example: (See attached map)
PROPOSAL: To exclude 1 ha. of land from the ALR to construct a community centre.
EXISTING USE: Pasture for grazing of sheep. Existing house and barn.
EXISTING PARCEL SIZE: 8 ha.
AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY: Approximately 60% Class 4 and 40% Class 5
LRC DECISION: To allow exclusion of 1 ha. subject to:
Re-design of parking area to orient away from land used for grazing.
Installation offence and vegetative screen to buffer use from farm
Inclusion of 2 ha. of land currently forming part of the farm unit into the ALR
NET BENEFIT: Area allowed for exclusion represents a minimal loss to agriculture because of
its location in a corner of the legal parcel and some previous site disturbance. Area included in
the ALR has limited capability however it is currently used for agriculture (grazing) and forms
part of the farm unit and also part of the legal parcel of which the remainder is in the ALR.
Large Scale Example: (See attached map)
PROPOSAL: To exclude 10 ha. of land from the ALR for a mixed use residential development
EXISTING USE: Vacant land. Land was previously in a mixed farm use 15 years ago.
EXISTING PARCEL SIZES: Total of 40 ha. comprising two 10 ha. parcels and ten 2 ha. parcels
AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY: Approx. 40% Class 2-3; 50% Class 4 and 10% Class 5
LRC DECISION:
To refuse exclusion of 10 ha. as proposed.
To allow exclusion of 8 ha. of poorer capability land (Class 4 & 5) adjacent to the ALR
boundary and a designated urban development area subject to buffering (fence and
vegetative screen); lower density development abutting the buffer and the ALR
boundary; design of roads internal to the development to not lead into agricultural land or
impede the movement of farm traffic; designation of a Development Permit Area
adjacent to the ALR (in the area to be excluded from the ALR) to implement the buffer,
and
Exclusion of land to be subject to legal consolidation of remainders of twelve legal
parcels into one legal parcel of approximately 32 ha.
Exclusion of land to be subject to the development of a drainage scheme for the
developed area including the installation of retention ponds to direct water away from
low-lying farmland.
NET BENEFIT: Area allowed for exclusion is a ridge which is physically separated from the
remainder of the land and has generally lower capability. It is also located next to a developing
urban area where it may be difficult to achieve an appropriate buffer on lands outside the ALR.
The loss of land from the ALR is off-set by the consolidation of the twelve remaining parcels in
the ALR to create one large parcel which is better suited to a range of farm crops.
The creation of a buffer and lower density uses adjacent to the ALR will reduce the potential for
negative conflict between urban and farm uses and will create a visible urban boundary. The
development of a drainage scheme will reduce storm water management problems for low-lying
farmland within the ALR.
Given that the Commission's refusal to support the exclusion of 0.9 hectares of the 3.8 hectares
currently under application (ALR/4/93) for the following reasons:
The Commission noted that the subject property possesses good agricultural potential based on its
improved agricultural capability ratings. Since the exclusion of this land would inevitably lead to its
subdivision, and thus the infiltration of urban land uses, the agricultural potential ofyour property
would be negatively affected. In addition, it is the Commission 's view that the exclusion ofyour
property would create substantial pressure for further exclusion ofALR lands in the surrounding
area.
Staff expect that any application forwarded to the Commission without a development concept
that considers some sort of density transfer would be refused by the Commission.
Alternatives:
The alternative is to resubmit the application, achieve the density transfer discussed during the
Rural Plan, and demonstrate a net benefit to agriculture through clustering and consolidation.
Summary:
Based on current Council policy, the applicant's refusal to pursue the concept of density transfer,
and the absence of any new or compelling information to question previous LRC decisions, it is
recommended that application ALRJ60/99 not be authorized to proceed to the Land Reserve
Commission.
Prepared
Acting Direefor of Pla g
Approved by: Brock McDonald
Acting GM: Public Works & Development Services
Concurrence. Robert W. Robertson, AICP, MCIP
Chief Administrative Officer
Net Benefit to Agriculture Policy
Small Scale
Before Decision
House
Proposed
Community Centre
i'Non'-ALR
I Land
Proposed Parking
Area Excluded L,UHUIIUI liLy
From ALR (1 ha) Centre
Net Benei t to Agriculture Policy
Large Scale
Non-ALR
Urban
'-,
After Decision
-. H
'f••"•••
ALF
32ha
Parcel
- - -
Non-ALR
Urban
Fence and Vegetative
Screen (buffer within
1deveprnent permit area)
V -
- Area Excluded
from ALR (8 ha)
oad
Low Density
00
U,
S 1/2 of N1I2C
12356
12377
RS-3
SK 1589 S 1/2 C
12323
12304
12295
.1
t
98
90
RP10087
12296
E 1/2 1 CV
12275
10 _
L12248
89
00
J2(L
P71091 RS-11 B P87852
12245 NJ
Lri
12230
P64098 P87852
102 A r1,1 2 12225 12212
P179 4 P 17924 P1792
59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78
LILI_ILJLJLI 01
i i
I 12136
58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 4746 45 44 43 42 41 40
12153 12178 F1792 12169 - - - - - - - - - -__J
P1792 12129 z - 9' 17944
21 22 23 24 25 Cn 26 27 28 29. 30 31 The Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge
makes no guarantee regarding the accuracy o
T5t5tatus.ohe information shown on
N SUBJECT PROPERTIES
A SeB9BPLANMNG DEPARTMENT
SCALE 1 2 500 KEY MAP _____ DATE: Jul 3 2001 FILE ALR 60 99 BY RS
• ••' -:-.- - '- ) -4., {5
- :. •.
- ---
-1 -_--'--. r -
--'--• -• - ------ :>_- - _..
-' 4> *_ .- - _•-', - ''- - *
- '•' C - 1 •.
- - -C• - "
e- L zi
5-'•_-c- ,—c
-
-!5•: --J :::'-J-:- ;j-•-'
- i ;, -'-•--
RIM
'- -.
- - -
Feb. 2, 2004 E JAN 29 2004 Mike Stefiuk
23820 120 B Ave.
Maple Ridge, B.C.
V4R 4X4
District Of Maple Ridge, Council & Planning Dept.,
Re: Notice of Exclusion Application Regarding Land in the Agricultural Land Reserve
for the following addresses 12296, 12266, 12230, & 12212 248th Street and 12225,
12245 & 12265 250th Street
Portions of this latest application were under application in the past, namely the 4 properties to
the south under ALRJ60/99. The number of attempts ALRJ7/84, ALRJ4/86, ALR/4/93,
ALRJ60/99, all being unsuccessful, must have some bearing on the feasibility of the properties
having some agricultural potential, as stated in the staff report to C.O.W. (April 17, 2001) that
ALRI60/99 not proceed to the ALC and the comments from the Agricultural Land Commission.
Even though Council decided to forward that application to the ALC , the issue of the intention
to apply again at this date, (meaning ALRJ60/99 failed) with the addition of neighbouring land
oers only confirms the ALC refusal of ALR/4/93 stating that,
"It is the Commissions view that the exclusion of
the property would create substantial pressure for
future exclusions of ALR lands in the surrounding
area."
In the staff report for ALRJ60/99 dated April 17, 2001, the mention of the OCP designation of
the properties in question, are Designated Agricultural. In the OCP the definition of designation
as on Page 14, 1.5.1 Discussion of Land Use Designations;
A "designation" of land on an OCP map characterizes what use can be
made of the land in the future. Municipal Council "designates" the types
of activity that are appropriate for different areas.
An OCP "designates" land for future use. It is the land use the Municipality
would like to see over the next twenty years or more to assure orderly
growth.
If the properties are under the existing zoning of RS- I One Family Urban Residential but yet
outside the urban boundaries of the OCP and the OCP designation (keep in mind the excerpts of
the OCP (Pg. 14) noted above) of Agricultural (as stated in staff report of Apr. 17, 2001 for
ALRJ60/99) than the District should inform the ALC that the land being "Desiiñated
Agricultural" is the land use appropriate for the area and is the land use the Municipality
would like to see over the next twenty years.
In the staff report for ALRJ60/99 dated July 3, 2001 the examples of, clustering or consolidation,
predict some form of development, yet retaining potential agricultural qualities for the larger
portions of the properties , which if the applicant refused to pursue that option, what is the
difference this time around? More land owners added to the application only expands the
problem.
The inclusion into the sewage system for the potentially large sub- division(of which there are no
plans produced yet) and the other infrastructure to be installed to facilitate that development, the
expansion of the urban footprint, the impact of the local watertable of the area, the impact of the
storm sewer system in the local watercourses to the north and south, and the pressures on the
neighbouring landowners only spells "Urban Sprawl", when on Page 1 of the OCP in Pt 1 -
Background 1.1 Purpose of an OCP a statement, "In this way it helps to guide development
away from inappropriate areas" and Page 26, "Issues - Settlement Patterns" being sidelined, the
notion of existing urban areas in-fill will disappear,jeopardizing the rural lifestyle that makes
Maple Ridge a special place to live.
Copies to ; Agricultural Land Commission
Planning Dept. District of Maple Ridge
,f/fqe J7 $i/
Mike Stefiuk
)(ITPC
77D
- Co&'c4 /2z2er Lmo 4Pe'i 17
er , 2 /
i i) M Th y kZ AiTX41 fl-if e
17) (occ
0 h110 JU
f ICE OF EXCLUSION APPLICATION
NDiN 1] THE AGRICULTURAL LAN
g properties owners:
REGARDING
RESERVE
I----
- 3 I
9 I
I
ODE rrtri
L?is1ri'c± F/pdjt'
iiq'q Ha, p/w.
111
2)1
3)1
4)1
5)L
6)L ___
7) LorT. Z3TWpTZNWIJPlãn 71091T .. 12230 - 248th Street
Any person wishing to express an interest in the application may do so by forwarding their
comments in writing to the District of Maple Ridge, 11995 Haney Place,; Maple Ridge, BC
V2X 6A9, by February 4 2004.
Al
1' 14
M
In
wh
1)l
In
;i€
cit 1\7-
;L o t h5t . -
N •• S - - \' \ '
I • •. .. Z1?a,Ift?? .3 is
122 AVENUE
, ; ?: ; !k! I
23. TP
P... ç. I
—;
1
"
RECEIVED
February 2,2004
District of Maple Ridge
11995 Haney Place
Maple Ridge, B.C. V2X 6A9
To whom it may concern;
FEB 0 5 2004
e /41 4t5
MAPLE RIDGE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
This is in regard to the Notice of Exclusion Application regarding land in the Agricultural Land Reserve.
Legal descriptions are as follows:
E 1/2 of Parcel 1 (RP 10087) ofN 1/2 of Lot "B" of Lot 7, S.23, Twp. 12, NWD Plan 7250-12265 -
250th St.
Lot "A", S.23, Twp. 12 NWD Plan NWP87852-12225-250th St.
Lot "B", S.23, Twp. 12 NWD Plan NWP87852-12245-250th St.
Lot 102, S.23, Twp. 12 NWD Plan 64098-12212-248th St.
Lot 90, S.23, Twp. 12, NWD Plan 29630-12296-248th St.
Lot 89, S.23, Twp. 12NWD Plan 29630-12266-248th St.
Lot 1, S.23, Twp. 12, NWD Plan 7109 1-12230-248th St.
We would like to express our concerns about taking this land out of the A.L.R. The area is bordered by
248th St. and 250th St. and the backside of properties on 122nd Ave. It involvel9.5 acres. We reside at
12240 248th St. We purchased our property in July, 1999, mainly because of the green space behind and
on one side of us, knowing it was in the A.L.R. and Maple Ridge Planning Dept. assured us that it would
likely never be excluded.
There are plans to change this to a single family subdivision for 18 homes. 248th St. was looked on as a
quiet country road with horses, a great place to walk the dog and enjoy the beautiful scenery. With the
development of Ailco Estates and once the prison re-opens, the already steady stream of traffic will
increase. There are far too many speeders, (I have been passed in the school zone on several occasions).
There are also dirt bikes illegally operated on this street at speeds in excess of 100 K.P.H.
When walking the dog early in the morning you can presently see deer, bald eagles and other wildlife.
With more and more housing this will become a thing of the past. There is less and less land left in the
A.L.R. in Maple Ridge and nothing but housing developments everywhere you look. Having been on the
wrong side of the Pitt River Bridge more than once on the commute to or from work, with the increase in
housing it won't get better anytime soon. The peace and quiet of home used to make it tolerable. With wall
to wall houses I don't see it improving anytime soon.
Exclusion of more A.L.R. land and increasing the population will only deteriorate the beauty and
tranquility of this bedroom community. Where will it stop? Mission?
Yours truly,
Concerned Citizens S4-t fyi-'A)
2
Susan Pynn
1) i 1 /
Paul Pynn
24883-122 Ave
Maple Ridge
British Columbia
V4R 1Z8
February 8, 2004
The District of Maple Ridge
11995 Haney Place
Maple Ridge, B.0
V2X 6A9
Dear Sir or Madam,
This letter is written in response to the exclusion application regarding land in the Agricultural
Land Reserve. The land in question is divided into the following lots:
1. E 1/2 of Parcel I (RP 10087) of N 1/2 of Lot "B" of Lot 7
S. 23, Twp. 12, NWD Plan 7250 12265250th Street
Lot "A", S. 23, Twp. 12, NWD Plan NWP87852
Lot "B", S. 23, Twp. 12, NWD Plan NWP87852
Lot 102, S. 23, Twp. 12, NWD Plan 64098
Lot 90, S. 23, Twp. 12, NWD Plan 29630
Lot 89, S. 23, Twp. 12, NWD Plan 29630
Lot 1, S. 23, Twp.12, NWD Plan 71091
12225250th Street
12245250th Street
12212248th Street
12296248th Street
12266248th Street
12230248th Street
F E B 1 0 2004
We would not like to see this land excluded form the Agricultural Land Reserve. We think it
crucial to preserve land in the A.L.R. The A.L.R was implemented for very important
reasons, two of them being to help contain urban sprawl and to protect farmland from
encroachment. The iandcwners state in their application that the basis for their request for
exclusion of the properties from the AL.R is "extremely limited agricultural capability and
lack of suitability for soil bound or non-soil bound forms of agriculture". We think the basis
for this request is ludicrous and goes against the findings of the A.L.0 in a previous
application. The property owners have obliviously made no attempt to do any in depth study
as to the benefits their property has to agriculture. It is our understanding that there needs to
be compelling evidence to warrant exclusion from the A.L.R.
We would like our neighborhood to remain balanced and healthy thus we subscribe to
sustainability. We, and others in our neighborhood, settled in this area for the quality Of
life it provides. My wife and I attended the Study Circles held in 2003. Our study circle
members agreed that some of the fundamental reasons for making this neighborhood our
home are the silence, trees, terrain, wildlife, absence of rubber stamp housing subdivisions,
and industry. We value these qualities very much as they enrich our lives every day and
make our neighborhood very livable.
Sincerely,
Garth Phillips and Rose Doyle
lye'&
District of Maple Ridge
11995 Haney Place
Maple Ridge BC
V2X 6A9
The following pages contain signatures of the residents in the surrounding neighbourhood
of the following properties and are aRainsi the following properties being excluded from
the ALR.
1) E 1/2 OF Parcel I (RP 10087) of N 1/2 of Lot "B" of Lot 7, S. 23, Twp. 12, NWD Plan 7250 .....12265-250th Street
Lot "A", S. 23, Twp. 12, NWD Plan NWP87852................................................................ 12225-250th Street
Lot "B", S. 23, Twp. 12. NWD Plan NWP87852................................................................ 12245-250th Street
Lot 102, S. 23, Twp. 12, NWD Plan 64098....................................................................... 12212-248th Street
Lot 90, S. 23, Twp. 12, NWD Plan 29630......................................................................... 12296-248th Street
Lot 89, S. 23, Twp. 12, NWD Plan 29630......................................................................... 12266-248th Street
Lot 1, S. 23, Twp. 12, NWD Plan 71091........................................................................... 12230-248th Street
We the undersigned believe that there are other areas which can be built upon which are
not in the ALR and should be looked at for consideration prior to the above being
excluded. We the undersigned live in this neighbourhood because it is rural but still close
to all amenities. If these properties are allowed exclusion from the ALR the above
properties will then put in for rezoning and based upon the existing neighbourhood we
estimate another sixty to eighty homes can be built. This would cause our roads to
become extremely busy with two schools in the area. Blue Mountain Elementary, which
consists of Kindergarten to Grade 7, has 208 students. This number will increase
significantly in September of 2004 since it will be accepting the overflow of students
from Alexander Robinson. Garibaldi Senior Secondary School has a student body of
1355 with a capacity of 895, so as you can see is already well over it's capacity.
We appreciate your consideration to oppose the exclusion of the above properties from
the ALR.
D ko
FEB10 2DO4
WE THE UNDERSIGNED OPPOSE THE NOTICE OF EXCLUSION
APPLICATION REGARDING LAND IN THE AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE
OF THE FOLLOWING PROPERTIES:
E 1/2 OF Parcel 1 (RP 10087) of N 112 of Lot "B" of Lot 7, S. 23, Twp. 12, NWD Plan 7250 ...... 12265-250th Street
Lot "A", S. 23, Twp. 12, NWD Plan NWP87852 ................................................................ 12225-250th Street
Lot "B", S. 23, Twp. 12. NWD Plan NWP87852................................................................12245-250th Street
Lot 102, S. 23, Twp. 12, NWD Plan 64098.......................................................................12212-248th Street
Lot 90, S. 23, Twp. 12, NWD Plan 29630.........................................................................12296-248th Street
Lot 89, S. 23, Twp. 12, NWD Plan 29630.........................................................................12266-248th Street
Lot 1, S. 23, Twp. 12, NWD Plan 71091...........................................................................12230-248th Street
NAME: ADDRESS SIGNATUR
%L4 /i7 4t i' 9 —)-ñi1i3CjN "-
Li,vi* ICTt,i 'i' / .z.. pig ,g
/)t /// '171 /22 4-z--I /..
he(Ird 'q /qi .
i) '-jr..; lLf 17? .ii
4OL 4f-)rAY.
ff - qg
Aoe
k c 7 —1/2,0 4 4'• '. - -ç
.(r -iLi,;. p-) . .'1
?AT-V (PL 2.z1dI -22.4 J'12. V'is2 128
eflhTALcpfr1pEL Z'1Ctfl -122 Au Li.'. V4k 120 p.
,4L Ir/c,,v'-' 2 q2e q -/zZ 11cA
9-4At4h) I1Ik I2117_
M cuL i 2L m,L
'L4c / / -iJ (' '
171.c
egg -'
zIcc'. - AAt2. 2C4
lit oA -. VV 4k3eM-
J/J/&ThcV t-
A1or,niJCIc6b' IJC16 210,'- ,,4.
_____ I2)') 2O,-
i6clt vul-A -FrI-s4e ;'7
D - I; S - - P1/? .4.'
(
-1
WE THE UNDERSIGNED OPPOSE THE NOTICE OF EXCLUSION
APPLICATION REGARDING LAND IN THE AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE
OF THE FOLLOWING PROPERTIES:
E 112 OF Parcel 1 (RP 10087) of N 1/2 of Lot "B" of Lot 7, S. 23, Twp. 12, NWD Plan 7250......12265-250th Street
Lot "A", S. 23, Twp. 12, NWD Plan NWP87852................................................................12225-250th Street
Lot "B", S. 23, Twp. 12. NWD Plan NWP87852 ................................................................ 12245-250th Street
Lot 102, S. 23, Twp. 12, NWD Plan 64098.......................................................................12212-248th Street
Lot 90, S. 23, Twp. 12, NWD Plan 29630 ......................................................................... 12296-248th Street
Lot 89, S. 23, Twp. 12, NWD Plan 29630 ......................................................................... 12266-248th Street
Lot 1, S. 23, Twp. 12, NWD Plan 71091...........................................................................12230-248th Street
M. r1T - '•] s]
Al
fA
-
I7rjwAIu..1'VE _________________
rtr' 1zvr LUN -97 Mm- P.M, 1 M AIIIIIIIIIIt
___
- AII
LlJ1
'.7r1Jzu
In - ic_
j.
WE THE UNDERSIGNED OPPOSE THE NOTICE OF EXCLUSION
APPLICATION REGARDING LAND IN THE AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE
OF THE FOLLOWING PROPERTIES:
E 1/2 OF Parcel I (RP 10087) of N 1/2 of Lot '8" of Lot 7, S. 23, Twp, 12, NWD Plan 7250...... 12265-250th Street
Lot "A", S. 23, Twp. 12, NWD Plan NWP87852................................................................12225-250th Street
Lot "B", S. 23, Twp. 12. NWD Plan NWP87852................................................................12245-250th Street
Lot 102, S. 23, Twp. 12, NWD Plan 64098.......................................................................12212-248th Street
Lot 90, S. 23, Twp. 12, NWD Plan 29630.........................................................................12296-248th Street
Lot 89, S. 23, Twp. 12, NWD Plan 29630 ........................... .............................................. 12266-248th Street
Lot 1, S. 23, Twp. 12, NWD Plan 71091 ............................................................ . .............. 12230-248th Street
I ---- -
I 2a'
Me% a I FA ? Z,
1 _______________
MA
I -
I
I
I 1L!!1i)WJ VM70VA r
I I I iW
I JLii
I
I iIDflff'jri1q] L1 Kj L
I F
I
_a -
WE THE UNDERSIGNED OPPOSE THE NOTICE OF EXCLUSION
APPLICATION REGARDING LAND IN THE AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE
OF THE FOLLOWING PROPERTIES:
E 1/2 OF Parcel I (RP 10087) of N 1/2 of Lot "B" of Lot 7, S. 23, Twp. 12, NWD Plan 7250... 12265-250th Street
Lot "A", S. 23, Twp. 12, NWD Plan NWP87852............................................................. 12225-250th Street
Lot "B", S. 23, Twp. 12. NWD Plan NWP87852............................................................ 12245-250th Street
Lot 102, S. 23, Twp. 12, NWD Plan 64098................................................................... 12212-248th Street
Lot 90, S. 23, Twp. 12, NWD Plan 29630.................................................................... ..12296-248th Street
Lot 89, S. 23, Twp. 12, NWD Plan 29630.................................................................... • . . .12266-248th Street
Lot 1, S. 23, Twp. 12, NWD Plan 71091...................................................................... • ... 12230-248th Street
- --
IP7W
nlI
i1r!P' r2rDJvi:
rai
LOOM, t CORPORATION OF THE MAPLE RIDGE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE Incorporated 12 September, 1874
TO: Her Worship Mayor Kathy Morse DATE: June 9, 2004
and Members of Council FILE NO: AL/042104
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W
SUBJECT: Application to Exclude Land from the Agricultural Land Reserve
21743 128 Avenue
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
An application has been received under Section 30(1) of the Agricultural Land Commission
Act to exclude approximately 6.2 hectares of land from the Agricultural Land Reserve. The
Applicant's submission conforms with the notice of application requirements of the
Agricultural Land Commission.
RECOMMENDATION:
That application AL/042/04 respecting property located at 21743 128 " Avenue, be
authorized to proceed to the Agricultural Land Commission and that the applicant and
the Commission are provided with an understanding of the current Official Community
Plan policy and servicing constraints on the property are as outlined in the report dated
June 91h 2004.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Applicant:
Owner:
Legal Description:
OCP Existing:
Zoning Existing:
Surrounding Uses
North:
South:
East:
West:
Existing Use of Property:
Access:
Donada Industries Ltd
Lisa M. Telep & John A. Barnett
Lot 2, Section 30, Township 12, Plan 3663,
NWD
Agricultural
A-2 (Upland Agricultural)
A-1 (Small Holding Agricultural)
RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
A-2 (Upland Agricultural)
A-2 (Upland Agricultural)
A-2 (Upland Agricultural)
128th Avenue
This property fronts on the north side of 128 th Avenue east 0f2161h Street.
Application AL/042/04 has been received to exclude the subject properties from the
Agricultural Land Reserve. The Applicant has satisfied all "notice of exclusion" requirements
under Section 5 of B.C. Regulation 3 13/78 (Agricultural Land Reserve Procedure Regulation).
The notice requests written comments be forwarded to the District of Maple Ridge. To date
no letters have been received by the Planning Department.
Rural Plan
In October 1997 the Rural Plan Advisory Committee (RPAC) completed their final report. The
subject site is in Sub Area A. Recommendations for proposed changes to the Agricultural Land
Reserve in this area was limited to the exclusion of two small parcels west of 210 " Street north of
1 26th Avenue that were in the urban area and developed to this standard. Recommendation No. I was
to exclude these two parcels to correct a previous over site.
In Part 7 Area Recommendations of the Rural Plan Report the committee recommends for Sub Area
A, that agriculture be the use emphasis in this sub area and that subdivision be discouraged beyond the
controversial area (South of 128 Avenue to the urban boundary). The controversial area noted was
unresolved by the RPAC and it was decided to present the reasonable options the Committee reviewed
for Council consideration.
Subarea A Controversial Area: South of 1281h Avenue to the urban boundary
Option 1: Remove from the ALR and designate for attachment to the Haney urban area.
Option 2: Remove from the ALR and designate for transitionlrural residential from a density of
'/2 acre along and near the urban edge to I acre along and near 128 0, Avenue, all
subject to city water and sewer and flood plain restrictions.
Option 3: Retain in the ALR, provide for transitionlrural residential from a density of 1 acre
along and near the urban edge to 2 acres along and near 128th Avenue, with I acre
subject to city water and sewer and all subject to flood plain restrictions. Adopt a
Farm Bylaw to restrict intensive/intrusive agriculture.
A variant of this option saw only those lands zoned RS-3 as being included into the
area wherein subdivision was to be allowed to create the transition area. This variant
also included only 1 acre subdivision to the flood plain boundary and not to 128th
Avenue.
Option 4: Retain in the ALR with provision for buffering between the urban residential and the
ALR. Adopt a Farm Bylaw to restrict intensive/intrusive agriculture.
The Committee voted and there was a split decision on Option 3 and Option 4, that recommended the
area remain in the ALR.
In January 1998 the Summary of Council decisions on Implementation of the Rural Plan was issued.
In this document the required action taken was, Council agreed with ALR Recommendation 1. and
Council agreed with Option 4for the Controversial Area.
b) Project Description:
The applicant has not stated any redevelopment plans.
-2-
c) Planning Analysis:
On March 11, 2004, a report for processing exclusion applications was received by Council
outlining land use considerations. Council resolved to continue their current practice of
referring all applications to the Agricultural Land Commission with the provision that
applicants and the Commission be advised that land use decisions will continue to be directed
by Council.
The following land use implications of the proposed exclusion need to be considered:
• The Applicant has not explicitly indicated the owner's redevelopment plans for the subject
property, should it be excluded from the Agricultural Land Reserve. However, once
excluded, its permitted uses will no longer be restricted by the Agricultural Land
Commission Act. It is anticipated that the owner's intention is to use the land for uses other
than rural residential or agricultural. The subject property is currently designated for
Agricultural Use. Under the existing Official Community Plan, the land is not considered
available for uses other than agricultural.
• The proposed exclusion of this property from the ALR and its potential redevelopment is
inconsistent with the goals of the Livable Region Strategic Plan and the Regional Context
Statement adopted by the District in the Official Community Plan. This application is in an
area which lies outside the urban area boundary and is designated as Green Zone in the
Livable Region Strategic Plan. Maple Ridge must consider the four fundamental strategies. of
the Livable Region Strategic Plan (LSRP) when considering future development:
Protection of the Green Zone;
Building of complete communities;
• iii) Achievement of a compact metropolitan region, and
iv) Increased transportation choice.
• The Official Community Plan is currently under review. While designations may change as a
result of that review there is no guarantee that this property will be designated for urban
development upon conclusion of the Official Community Plan.
• The land use implications and development pressures that will occur for excluded properties
that do not become designated for urban purposes during the process of the Official
Community Plan review may be a consideration. Although disappointed at this outcome,
many applicants will still have expectations for redevelopment in the longer term.
• The property does have a sewer connection provided under Policy No. 9.02, which was
adopted in November, 1993. This policy grants permission for sewer connection to all
property owners within the Agricultural Land Reserve whose property abuts an existing
lateral sewer line. It also makes provisions for extending services where public health is a
concern and Agricultural Land Commission permission is granted. This policy is intended to
provide a single connection to each existing parcel, and should not be considered a means to
facilitate further subdivision. This property would require an application to the Greater
Vancouver Sewer and Drainage District Board for inclusion in the Fraser Sewer Area to
-3-
allow servicing to an urban standard. Similarly, an application to the Greater Vancouver
Regional District to amend the Green Zone boundaries would be required for this property
prior to permitting an urban style of development. There is no guarantee that such
applications would be approved.
CONCLUSION:
Based on the recommendation contained within the report titled Processing of Applications
for Exclusion from the Agricultural Land Reserve during the Official Community Plan
Review, dated March 1 1 th, 2004 and the resolution from Council dated March 23rd 2004, it is
recommended the application AL/042/04 be authorized to proceed to the Agricultural Land
Commission.
Prepared by: Bruce McLeod
LanJscapefPlajining Technician
, MCIP
Approved by: /Frank Quinn, P.Eng., PMP
7 GM: Public Works & Development Services
Concurrence: J. L.' (JIm) Rule
Clief Administrative Officer
BMcLibjc
Subject Property
I- Cl)
CD
1.
District of I
/ \
Pitt MeadowsjT r LI
21743-128 Ave
— .-
/ A CORPORATION OF
000 THE DISTRICT OF
N ang ey
strictof \ AIbon-- 4 MAPLE RIDGE MAP
.
ThornhiI
Incorporated 12, September, 1874 PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SCALE 1.4000 \.__ DATE: Apr26, 2004 AL1042104 BY. JV River
CORPORATION OF THE
DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
MAPLE RIDGE
TO: Her Worship Mayor Kathy Morse DATE: June 9th, 2004
and Members of Council FILE NO: AL/050/04
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W
SUBJECT: Application to Exclude Land from the Agricultural Land Reserve
21803 128 Avenue
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
An application has been received under Section 30(1) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act to
exclude approximately 11.7 hectares of land from the Agricultural Land Reserve. The Applicant's
submission conforms with the notice of application requirements of the Agricultural Land
Commission.
RECOMMENDATION:
That application AL/050/04 respecting property located at 21803 128tI Avenue, be authorized to ft
proceed to the Agricultural Land Commission and that the applicant and the Commission are
provided with an understanding of the current Official Community Plan policy and servicing
constraints on the property are as outlined in the report dated June 91h, 2004.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Applicant: Donada Industries Ltd.
Owner: Evane Enterprises Ltd, K A S Holdings Ltd.
Legal Description: Lot 3, Section 30, Township 12, Plan 3663, NWD
OCP Existing: Agricultural
Zoning Existing: A-2 (Upland Agricultural)
Surrounding Uses
North: A-2 (Upland Agricultural)
South: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
East: A-2 (Upland Agricultural)
West: A-2 (Upland Agricultural)
Existing Use of Property: A-2 (Upland Agricultural)
Access: 178th Avenue
The subject site is located on the north side of 128 th Avenue opposite Blackstock Street.
Application AL/050/04 has been received to exclude the subject property from the Agricultural Land
Reserve. The Applicant has satisfied all "notice of exclusion" requirements under Section 5 of B.C.
Regulation 313/78 (Agricultural Land Reserve Procedure Regulation). The notice requests written
comments be forwarded to the District of Maple Ridge. To date one letter has been received by the
Planning Department and is attached to this memo.
Rural Plan
In October 1997 the Rural Plan Advisory Committee (RPAC) completed their final report. The
subject site is in Sub Area A. Recommendations for proposed changes to the Agricultural Land
Reserve in this area was limited to the exclusion of two small parcels west of 216 th Street north of
126th Avenue that were in the urban area and developed to this standard. Recommendation No. 1 was
to exclude these two parcels to correct a previous over site.
In Part 7 Area Recommendations of the Rural Plan Report the committee recommends for Sub Area
A, that agriculture be the use emhasis in this sub area and that subdivision be discouraged beyond the
controversial area (South of 128 Avenue to the urban boundary). The controversial area noted was
unresolved by the RPAC and it was decided to present the reasonable options the Committee reviewed
for Council consideration.
Subarea A Controversial Area: South of 128th Avenue to the urban boundary
Option 1: Remove from the ALR and designate for attachment to the Haney urban area.
Option 2: Remove from the ALR and designate for transitionlrural residential from a density of
V2 acre along and near the urban edge to I acre along and near 128 " Avenue, all
subject to city water and sewer and flood plain restrictions.
Option 3: Retain in the ALR, provide for transitionlrural residential from a density of I acre
along and near the urban edge to 2 acres along and near 128th Avenue, with I acre
subject to city water and sewer and all subject to flood plain restrictions. Adopt a
Farm Bylaw to restrict intensive/intrusive agriculture.
A variant of this option saw only those lands zoned RS-3 as being included into the
area wherein subdivision was to be allowed to create the transition area. This variant
also included only 1 acre subdivision to the flood plain boundary and not to 128th
Avenue.
Option 4: Retain in the ALR with provision for buffering between the urban residential and the
ALR. Adopt a Farm Bylaw to restrict intensive/intrusive agriculture.
The Committee voted and there was a split decision on Option 3 and Option 4, that recommended the
area remain in the ALR.
In January 1998 the Summary of Council decisions on Implementation of the Rural Plan was issued.
In this document the required action taken was, Council agreed with ALR Recommendation 1. and
Council agreed with Option 4for the Controversial Area.
b) Project Description:
The applicant has not stated any redevelopment plans.
-2-
c) Planning Analysis:
On March 11, 2004, a report for processing exclusion applications was received by Council outlining
land use considerations. Council resolved to continue their current practice of referring all
applications to the Agricultural Land Commission with the provision that applicants and the
Commission be advised that land use decisions will continue to be directed by Council.
The following land use implications of the proposed exclusion need to be considered:
The Applicant has not explicitly indicated the owner's redevelopment plans for the subject property,
should it be excluded from the Agricultural Land Reserve. However, once excluded, its permitted
uses will no longer be restricted by the Agricultural Land Commission Act. It is anticipated that the
owner's intention is to use the land for uses other than rural residential or agricultural. The subject
property is currently designated for Agricultural Use. Under the existing Official Community Plan,
the land is not considered available for uses other than agricultural.
The proposed exclusion of this property from the ALR and its potential redevelopment is inconsistent
with the goals of the Livable Region Strategic Plan and the Regional Context Statement adopted by
the District in the Official Community Plan. This application is in an area which lies outside the
urban area boundary and is designated as Green Zone in the Livable Region Strategic Plan. Maple
Ridge must consider the four fundamental strategies of the Livable Region Strategic Plan (LSRP)
when considering future development:
Protection of the Green Zone;
Building of complete communities;
Achievement of a compact metropolitan region, and
Increased transportation choice.
• The Official Community Plan is currently under review. While designations may change as a result
of that review there is no guarantee that this property will be designated for urban development upon
conclusion of the Official Community Plan.
• The land use implications and development pressures that will occur for excluded properties that do
not become designated for urban purposes during the process of the Official Community Plan review
may be a consideration. Although disappointed at this outcome, many applicants will still have
expectations for redevelopment in the longer term.
The property is eligible to have a sewer connection provided under Policy No. 9.02, which was
adopted in November, 1993. This policy grants permission for sewer connection to all property
owners within the Agricultural Land Reserve whose property abuts an existing lateral sewer line. It
also makes provisions for extending services where public health is a concern and Agricultural Land
Commission permission is granted. This policy is intended to provide a single connection to each
existing parcel, and should not be considered a means to facilitate further subdivision. This property
would require an application to the Greater Vancouver Sewer and Drainage District Board for
inclusion in the Fraser Sewer Area to allow servicing to an urban standard. Similarly, an application
to the Greater Vancouver Regional District to amend the Green Zone boundaries would be required
for this property prior to permitting an urban style of development. There is no guarantee that such
applications would be approved.
-3-
CONCLUSION:
Based on the recommendation contained within the report titled Processing of Applications for
Exclusion from the Agricultural Land Reserve during the Official Community Plan Review, dated
March 1 1 th, 2004 and the resolution from Council dated March 23rd 2004, it is recommended the
application AL/050/04 be authorized to proceed to the Agricultural Land Commission.
, wk~l
Prepared by: Bruce McLeod
Iadscape/lanning Technician
MCIP
ng
/~u Ul~'
Approved by: F/rank Quinn, P.Eng., PMP
M: Public Works & Development Services
0
Concurrence: J. L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
BMcL/bjc
1'2 AVF
F- Cl)
(0
District of
PlffMeadowsf
21803 - 128 Ave
N SCALE 1.5000 DATE: May 05, 2004 AL/050/04 BY: JV
. ,):3!.--'--
MAPLE EDGE
PLANNiNG DEPARTMENT
APR 2 J 2004
April 20, 2004
12768 Blackstock Street
Maple Ridge, B.C., V2X 4P5
P -
Planning Department
District of Maple Ridge
11995 Haney Place,
Maple Ridge, B.C., V2X 6A9
Re: Notice of Exclusion Application regarding land in the Agricultural Land Reserve
Lot 3 except: Part Subdivided by Plan 21088: Section 30 Township 12 New Westminster District
Plan 3663 made by KAS Holdings Ltd & Evane Enterprises Ltd of 20277 Telep Avenue. Maple
Ridge, B.C..
Please keep us advised on the progess of this application.
Yours truly,
Paul Dwillies
Eileen Dwillies
Janet Dwillies
6ilw CORPORATION OF THE
DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
MAPLE RIDGE
TO: Her Worship Mayor Kathy Morse DATE: June 9th, 2004
and Members of Council FILE NO: AL/053/04
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W
SUBJECT: Application to Exclude Land from the Agricultural Land Reserve
12987 210 Street; 12696 & 12766 203 Street; 21515, 21567, 21349, 21237,
21281, 21617, 21771 & 21903 - 128 Avenue
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
An application has been received under Section 30(1) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act to
exclude approximately 110.3 hectares of land from the Agricultural Land Reserve. The Applicant's
submission conforms with the notice of application requirements of the Agricultural Land
Commission.
RECOMMENDATION:
That application AL/053/04 respecting property located at 12987 210 Street; 12696 & 12766 203
Street; 21515, 21567, 21349, 21237, 21281, 21617, 21771 & 21903 - 128 Avenue, be authorized to
proceed to the Agricultural Land Commission and that the applicant and the Commission are
provided with an understanding of the current Official Community Plan policy and servicing
constraints on the property are as outlined in the report dated June 91h, 2004.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Applicant: Donada Industries Ltd.
Owner: Pelton Reforestation Ltd (1NC#88400), Thomas S. Corsie, Kathleen
A. Roy Nachhatter Singh Gill, Rajinder Kaur Gill, Nadia Kubas,
Fred Kubas,
Fung-San Macinnis, Ikbal Kassamali Virji, Ikbal Virji, Bhachu
Holdings Ltd., William Wee Ngen Lai
SKP Enterprises Inc.
Legal Description: Parcel "B" (R.P. 6065) SE1/4, Sec. 25, Tp. 9; Parcel "A" (R.P.
6065) Sec. 25, Tp. 9; Parcel "C" (E.P. 8233) 5 E 1/4, Sec. 25, Tp. 9;
Parcel "One" (H28861E) of Parcel "D" (R.P. 1896) of the SEI/4,
Sec. 25, Tp. 9; E V2 Parcel "D" (R.P. 1896) of the SE '/4, Sec. 25, Tp.
9, Except Firstly Parcel "B" (R.P. 13579) Secondly: North 299 Feet;
Lot I Except: part subdivided by Plan 36410, Sec. 30, Tp. 12, Plan
3663; Lot 9, Sec. 30, Tp. 12, Plan 41139; Lot 4, Except: Parcel "A"
(R.P. 16831), Sec. 30, Tp. 12, Plan 3663; Lot 30, D.L.'s 262 & 267,
Gp. 1, Plan 67108; Lot 10, D.L.'s 262 & 267, Plan 35743; Lot 6,
Except: Part subdivided by Plan 69580, D.L. 262, Gp. 1, Plan
28648; all of New Westminster District
q10
OCP Existing:
Zoning Existing:
Surrounding Uses
North:
South:
East:
West:
Existing Use of Property:
Access:
Agricultural
A-2 (Upland Agricultural)
A-2 (Upland Agricultural)
A-2 (Upland Agricultural) &
RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
A-2 (Upland Agricultural)
District of Pitt Meadows &
A-2 (Upland Agricultural)
A-2 (Upland Agricultural)
203 Street, 128th Avenue, 21 0th Street
The eleven properties included in this application are located within the western portion of the District
on or about the 128th Avenue right of way. Two properties front on 203rd Street, one property fronts
on 21 0th Street with the remaining eight properties fronting on the north side of 128th Avenue east of
Laity Street.
Application AL/053/04 has been received to exclude the subject properties from the Agricultural Land
Reserve. The Applicant has satisfied all "notice of exclusion" requirements under Section 5 of B.C.
Regulation 313/78 (Agricultural Land Reserve Procedure Regulation). The notice requests written
comments be forwarded to the District of Maple Ridge. To date two letters have been received by the
Planning Department.
Rural Plan
In October 1997 the Rural Plan Advisory Committee (RPAC) completed their final report. The
subject site is in Sub Area A. Recommendations for proposed changes to the Agricultural Land
Reserve in this area was limited to the exclusion of two small parcels west 0f216th Street north of
126th Avenue that were in the urban area and developed to this standard. Recommendation No. 1 was
to exclude these two parcels to correct a previous over site.
In Part 7 Area Recommendations of the Rural Plan Report the committee recommends for Sub Area
A, that agriculture be the use emhasis in this sub area and that subdivision be discouraged beyond the
controversial area (South of 128 Avenue to the urban boundary). The controversial area noted was
unresolved by the RPAC and it was decided to present the reasonable options the Committee reviewed
for Council consideration.
Subarea A Controversial Area: South of 128th Avenue to the urban boundary
Option 1: Remove from the ALR and designate for attachment to the Haney urban area.
Option 2: Remove from the ALR and designate for transitionlrural residential from a density of
/ 2 acre along and near the urban edge to 1 acre along and near 1281h Avenue, all
subject to city water and sewer and flood plain restrictions.
Option 3: Retain in the ALR, provide for transition/rural residential from a density of 1 acre
along and near the urban edge to 2 acres along and near 128th Avenue, with I acre
subject to city water and sewer and all subject to flood plain restrictions. Adopt a
Farm Bylaw to restrict intensive/intrusive agriculture.
A variant of this option saw only those lands zoned RS-3 as being included into the
area wh iñUbdiiion was töbã1löWëd to creatthe transition area. T1iiVãfiãitt
-2-
also included only I acre subdivision to the flood plain boundary and not to 128th
Avenue.
Option 4: Retain in the ALR with provision for buffering between the urban residential and the
ALR. Adopt a Farm Bylaw to restrict intensive/intrusive agriculture.
The Committee voted and there was a split decision on Option 3 and Option 4, that recommended the
area remain in the ALR.
In January 1998 the Summary of Council decisions on Implementation of the Rural Plan was issued.
In this document the required action taken was, Council agreed with ALR Recommendation 1. and
Council agreed with Option 4for the Controversial Area.
Project Description:
The applicant has not stated any specific redevelopment plans.
Planning Analysis:
On March 11, 2004, a report for processing exclusion applications was received by Council outlining
land use considerations. Council resolved to continue their current practice of referring all
applications to the Agricultural Land Commission with the provision that applicants and the
Commission be advised that land use decisions will continue to be directed by Council.
The following land use implications of the proposed exclusion need to be considered:
The Applicant has not explicitly indicated the owner's redevelopment plans for the subject
properties, should they be excluded from the Agricultural Land Reserve. However, once excluded,
the permitted uses will no longer be restricted by the Agricultural Land Commission Act. It is
anticipated that the owner's intention is to use the land for uses other than rural residential or
agricultural. The subject properties are currently designated for Agricultural Use. Under the existing
Official Community Plan, the land is not considered available for uses other than agricultural.
The proposed exclusion of these properties from the ALR and their potential redevelopment is
inconsistent with the goals of the Livable Region Strategic Plan and the Regional Context Statement
adopted by the District in the Official Community Plan. This application is in an area which lies
outside the urban area boundary and is designated as Green Zone in the Livable Region Strategic
Plan. Maple Ridge must consider the four fundamental strategies of the Livable Region Strategic
Plan (LSRP) when considering future development:
Protection of the Green Zone;
Building of complete communities;
Achievement of a compact metropolitan region, and
Increased transportation choice.
• The Official Community Plan is currently under review. While designations may change as a result
of that review there is no guarantee that these properties will be designated for urban development
upon conclusion of the Official Community Plan.
• The land use implications and development pressures that will occur for excluded properties that do
not become designated for urban purposes during the process of the Official Community Plan review
may be a consideration. Although disappointed at this outcome, many applicants will still have
expectations for redevelopment in the longer term.
-3-
The properties are eligible to have a sewer connection provided under Policy No. 9.02, which was
adopted in November, 1993. This policy grants permission for sewer connection to all property
owners within the Agricultural Land Reserve whose property abuts an existing lateral sewer line. It
also makes provisions for extending services where public health is a concern and Agricultural Land
Commission permission is granted. This policy is intended to provide a single connection to each
existing parcel, and should not be considered a means to facilitate further subdivision. These
properties would require an application to the Greater Vancouver Sewer and Drainage District Board
for inclusion in the Fraser Sewer Area to allow servicing to an urban standard. Similarly, an
application to the Greater Vancouver Regional District to amend the Green Zone boundaries would
be required for these properties prior to permitting an urban style of development. There is no
guarantee that such applications would be approved.
CONCLUSION:
Based on the recommendation contained within the report titled Processing of Applications for
Exclusion from the Agricultural Land Reserve during the Official Community Plan Review, dated
March 11 th, 2004 and the resolution from Council dated March 23 w, 2004, it is recommended the
application AL/053/04 be authorized to proceed to the Agricultural Land Commission.
/
Prepared by: Bruce McLeod
Landseiw/Plai Technician
Approved by: ik Quinn,P.Eng., PMP
Public Works & Development Services
Concurrence: J. L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
BMcL/bjc
-4-
P- I
12768 Blackstock Street
Maple Ridge, B.C.. V2X 4P5
May 12,2004
Plaiming Department
District of Maple Ridge
11995 Haney Place MAY 14 2004
Maple Ridge, B.C., V2X 6A9
RE: NOTiCE OF EXCLUSION APPLICATION REGARDIN
LAND IN THE AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE
Parcel "A" (Reference Plan 6065) Section 25 Township 9 New Westminster District,
Parcel "One" (H28861 E) of Parcel "D" (Reference Plan 1896) of the South East Quarter
Section 25 Township 9 New Westminster District, East Half Parcel "D" (Reference Plan
1896) of the South East Quarter Section 25 Township 9 Except: Firstly: Parcel B
(Reference Plan 13579) Secondly: North 299 Feet, New Westminster District, Lot 30
District Lots 262 and 267 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 67108, Lot 10 District
Lots 26+2 & 267 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 35743, Lot 6 Except: Part
Subdivided by Plan 69580, District Lot 262 Group 1 New Westminer District Plan 28648,
Parcel "B" (Reference Plan 6065) South East Quarter Section 25 Township 9 New
Westminster District, Lot 4 Except: Parcel "A" (Reference Plan 16831); Section 30
Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 3663 Parcel "C" (Explanatory Plan 8233)
South East Quarter Section 25 Township 9 New Westminster District, Lot 9 Section 30
Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 41139, Lot 1 Except: Part Subdivided by
Plan 36410 Section 30 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 3663 and located at
21281.21515,21567,21237,21903,21349,21771&21617128thAvenue, 12987-
210th Street, 12696 and 12766- 203rd Street, Maple Ridge, B.C.
Please keep us advised on the progress of this application.
Yours truly,
Paul Dwillies
Eileen Dwillies
000—
C7Y7 -)7
1%c3b
21435 Thornton Ave.,
Maple Ridge, B.C., V4R 2G6
May 27, 2004
Planning Department,
District of Maple Ridge,
11995 Haney Place,
Maple Ridge, B.C., V2X 6A9
To Whom it may Concern;
Re: Exclusion Application Regarding land in the Agricultural Land Reserve
at: 21281, 21515, 21567, 21237, 21903, 21349, 21771, 21617- 128th Avenue;
And 12987_210th Street;
And 12696 and 12766-203 Street:
The ALR was established in the mid 1970's, ostensibly to restrict the
serious loss of agricultural land, throughout British Columbia, to urban
development and other uses.
One of the first things that happened in Maple Ridge was the
exclusion of a viable dairy farm (Wilburn Hampton's) at 208Ih Street and
123rd Avenue, on the north slope. Within a relatively short time, most of the
north slope dairy farms (19 in total) between 203rd Ave., and 224 Avenue
had been sacrificed to housing development. Only two (2) remain. This was
probably the best, most productive land in the municipality.
Maple Ridge is a very small municipality crammed between the
Fraser River and the Mountains, and has very little agriculture-class land to
sacrifice to housing development; unlike Surrey, Langley, Abbotsford and
Chilliwack, which run from the Fraser River to the United States Border.
Council after council over the past thirty (30) years have approved
development, regardless of recommendations made by the Planning
Department, or just common sense.
The land in question in this application has been, in the past,
productive farm land, and could be again if people wanted to make the
effort.
If our present council forwards this application for exclusion, it will
be perpetuating the errors of the past.
This present council with its refusal to make recommendations to the
Commission are failing the voters who will be most affected by land-use
changes, and these are the people they are supposedly representing!
Respectfully submitted,
Douglas E. Noble
b
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
TO: Her Worship Mayor Kathy Morse DATE: May 12, 2004
and Members of Council FILE NO: E02-008-015
&E02-011-007
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Council Staff
SUBJECT: Neighbourhood Traffic Management Policy and Practices
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
In recent years, residents in Maple Ridge have expressed concern over neighbourhood traffic issues such
as speeding. In anticipation of a growing desire to address the issues on a pro-active consistent and
effective manner, the District has, through the Safer Cities Program and partners, developed a
Neighbourhood Traffic Management Policy and Practices as attached for submission to Council. A draft
strategy was presented to Council on November 10, 2003.
The Policy and Practices has been developed using a best-practices approach and includes consultation
with agencies such as Fire and Rescue Services, Ambulance Services and the RCMP. It is based on
identifying key traffic management issues: developing multiple approaches to best and appropriately
address issues, identifying an education process to assist neighbourhoods, and developing a suite of
measures that may be considered if and when physical measures are required.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the following Policy titled Neighbourhood Traffic Management Policy be adopted.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background:
Over the years, there have been requests by residents to investigate and address neighbourhood traffic
safety concerns on local and collector streets. Traditionally, these requests have been dealt with on a case
by case basis. However, as Maple Ridge grows, these requests are expected to rise and the impacts of
these requests are expected to expand.
Concurrently in 2003, the District embarked on a new integrated traffic (roads) safety program titled
"Safer City" to develop programs and projects in a coordinated fashion with education, enforcement and
other agencies to make Maple Ridge roads safer so that residents can safely move around to live, work
and play.
In November 2003, a draft strategy was presented to Council for input and direction. At that Council
Workshop, staff and the consultant were requested to give special consideration to emergency services
and to include efficiency as a goal.
The policy and practices were developed in consultation with District departments and other agencies
such as the Fire and Rescue, RCMP and Ambulance services over the period of the last six months of
2003.
Why now?
Neighbourhood traffic issues in some more urbanized communities have become significant community
issues. While Maple Ridge is urbanizing to a greater degree and currently, there is a limited number of
requests, the Policy and Practices will assist staff to best address the issues and position the District to be
in keeping with Council's direction that appropriate plans, where possible, be developed in advance of
needs.
Approach of Policy and Practices
The proposed policy and practices that has been prepared is based on a systematic approach and process
to dealing with neighbourhood traffic calming requests on non-arterial streets. This approach is based on
the following:
• Identifying key traffic management issues;
• Involving the neighbourhood to develop solutions;
• Developing multiple approaches to best and appropriately address issues;
• Identifying an education process to assist neighbourhoods; and
• Developing a suite of measures that may be considered if and when physical measures are
required.
The approach of the policy is based on a process that is shown in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1: Ad,ninisteriizg Public Requests for Traffic Management
Respond to
Receive &. Traffic Yes
/Managemen
Request & Consider
Record Provide Other
Request Informational Approaches
Materials
Identify those responsi6le I res 1 I
Operations
• Planning Re quest I L............. • Other
To assist with the developing and prioritizing study areas, the requests will be ranked using criteria as
listed below:
• Measured traffic speed;
• Volume of traffic;
• Number of vehicle collisions;
• Proximity to schools;
• Scheduled road improvement projects;
• Proximity of pedestrian generation sources (such as parks, community centres, etc.);
• Designation as a safe route to school;
• Designation as bicycle, transit;
• Absence of pedestrian facilities (e.g. sidewalks); and
• Impact of roadway geometry.
Finally, the process also includes gauging neighbourhood interest and agency support in the development
of any plan and requires that plans will be submitted to Council for final review and approval prior to
implementation. It is also expected that the review and approval will be integrated as part of the annual
Business Planning process.
It should be noted that as this policy and practices deals with neighbourhood streets, a program to
maximize the capacity and manage traffic on arterial and major streets is a key part of the overall District
traffic management.
Desired Outcome:
The purpose of this report is to obtain Council approval for a policy and practices to address
neighbourhood safety issues that balances the need for mobility, efficiency, emergency access and
neighbourhood interests.
Strategic Alignment:
The District's strategic plan directs that the District will maintain and enhance a multi-modal
transportation system within Maple Ridge to provide citizens with safe, efficient alternatives for the
movement of individuals and goods. In addition, the strategic plan also directs that the District will
encourage citizen participation in local government and local government decision-making.
This policy and practices established processes for responding to requests, provides a suite of alternatives
for solutions and encourages neighbourhood participation in addressing issues.
Citizen/Customer Implications - Conununications:
The policy and practices will be included in the District's website and responses to traffic requests will
include an information package where appropriate.
Business Plan/Financial Implications:
As the District does not currently have a traffic management program for traffic calming, there may be
additional resource requests that will be addressed through the annual Business Planning process.
However, in recognition of the uncertainty of demand, but anticipating the need in 2004, Council
approved seed funding for projects and it is expected that this will be reviewed annually.
0 Policy Implications:
The approach of a systematic and consistent approach that is balanced and will be reviewed annually as
part of the business Planning process is consistent with the development of policies.
g) Alternatives:
An alternative is to operate without a District policy. While this is an option, it will be likely that requests
will be handled in an ad-hoc manner and plans and measures will not be consistent within the District. In
add ition, this approach will not be efficient, effective nor provide good customer service.
While this may not be readily evident at this time, as Maple Ridge develops, this will become more
pronounced.
CONCLUSION:
As part of the Safer Cities program, a neighbourhood traffic management policy and practices has been
developed to provide a safety conscious, efficient, and cost effective customer responsive approach to
neighbourhood traffic issues on local and collector streets.
Prepared by: L2Cndr ew*ood, MEng., PEng.
Municipal Engineer
Approved by: Fpnk Quinn, MBA, PMP, PEng.
Gen ral Ma er, Public Works and Development Services
Concurrence: J/L. (Jim) Rule
thief Administrative Officer
AW/mi
POLICY STATEMENT
District of Maple Ridge
Policy No:
Title: Neighbourhood Traffic Management Practices
Supersedes:
Authority: Effective Date:
Municipal Council
Approval:
Resolution Dated:
Policy Statement:
Requests for neighbourhood traffic management will be addressed in accordance with the
strategies, practices and measures as contained in the document titled "District of Maple Ridge
Neighbourhood Traffic Management Practices, dated May 2004".
Purpose:
Neighbourhood traffic issues are a concern of both the District and its residents. The application
of consistent practices ensures that neighbourhood traffic issues will be addressed in a balanced,
efficient and cost effective manner that respects the needs for mobility and safety of all road
users.
Definitions:
See attached report titled "District of Maple Ridge Neighbourhood Traffic Management Practices
dated May 2004".
PROCEDURE (OPERATING REGULATION)
District of Maple Ridge
Policy Title: Neighbourhood Traffic Management Practices Policy Number:
Supersedes No.
Authority: Effective Date:
Municipal Council
Approval:
Resolution Dated: May 2004
1.0 POLICY STATEMENT (adopted):
Requests for Neighbourhood traffic management shall be addressed as outlined in the document
Neighbourhood Traffic Management Practices dated May 2004.
.UN :1 •
1 w_
District of Maple Ridge
NEIGHBOURHOOD
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
/ May 2004 URB'NSYSTEMS
#2353 13353 Commerce Parkway
Richmond, BC, V6V 3A1
Phone: (604) 273-8700
Fax: (604) 273-8752
District of Maple Ridge
MAPLE RIDGE ( Neighbourhood
tIemIxrThV4 Traffic Management Practice
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SIJMI'IARY................................1Pt .......................II
jQ INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
2.0 WHY CONSIDER NEIGHBOURHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT' .................4
3.0 SCOPE OF NEIGHBOURHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT ............. 7
40 ADMINISTRATION OF NEIGHBOURHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT ........11
4.1 MANAGING REQUESTS......................................................................................11
4.2 DEFINING AND PRI0RrnzING AREAS .................................................................... 13
43 FUNDING ....................................................................................................... 15
4 STAFF RESOURCES ..........................................................................................16
5.0 DEVELOPING TRAFFIC CALMING PLANS ............................18
5.1 PRINCIPLES OF TRAFFIC CALMING .......................................................................18
5.2 THE PROCESS ................................................................................................20
5 AGENCY CONSULTATION IN THE TRAFFIC CALMING PROCESS ......................................25
5 .4 SCHEDULE ....................................................................................................26
6.0 IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................................... 28
6.1 DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION & MONITORING .............................................................28
7.0 TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES ................................................................. 30
7.1 MEASURES CONSIDERED FOR USE IN MAPLE RIDGE .................................................30
7 MEASURES NOT RECOMMENDED FOR USE IN MAPLE RIDGE ........................................36
7 DESIGN NOTES ..............................................................................................37
APPENDICES
Appendix A Expanded Traffic Calming Process
AppendixB Data Collection Guidelines
This report is prepared for the sole use of the District of Maple Ridge. No representations of any
kind are made by Urban Systems Ltd. or its employees to any party with whom Urban Systems
Ltd. does not have a contract.
Page i
1880.00 10.1G / May 2004
\\Oak\Operatlons\Engineering\Admln\2004\Other\040120 Draft Traffic Management Practices.doc URBAN SYSTEN4S
kPLE RIDGE U.
incorporated 12 September 1874
District of Maple Ridge
Neighbourhood
Traffic Management Practice
SUMMARY
Neighbourhood traffic issues - such as high traffic volumes, short-cutting, and speeding -
are a growing concern for many residents in the District of Maple Ridge. To demonstrate
its commitment to providing effective and successful traffic management plans for its
neighbourhoods, and as part of the ICBC Safer City initiative, the District chose to
develop a comprehensive strategy to address neighbourhood traffic management through
a Neighbourhood Traffic Management Practice. The Practice provides the District with a
"made-in-Maple Ridge" approach to developing and implementing traffic management
plans that are requested and initiated by the community. These plans generally include a
range of initiatives and physical measures, such as awareness, education, enforcement,
and traffic calming. The Practice is tailored to meet the community's needs and reflects
the current scope of issues within the municipality. It is anticipated that this approach
may evolve over time as residents' experience with traffic management grows.
The Neighbourhood Traffic Management Practice describes the District's approach to:
• Administration of traffic management to ensure a fair and equitable approach to
managing this issue that also reflects the available resources of the District. The
Practice outlines the District's approach to dealing with key issues, such as resident
requests for traffic management, defining and prioritizing neighbourhoods in which to
prepare plans, and funding the development and implementation of traffic
management. The Practice also outlines several approaches to traffic management
that could be used within the District, such as awareness, education, and enforcement.
In most cases, these approaches emphasize the involvement of community members
as key players in the traffic management process.
• Development and implementation of successful traffic management plans,
based on the experiences of other communities and what will work best for Maple
Ridge. The Practice outlines the District's approach to the preparation and
implementation of traffic management plans, and describes what devices will and will
not be considered in the District.
Administration
The following discussion highlights the District's approach to administering the process
of traffic management.
• Responding to public requests. Even with a commitment to developing
neighbourhood traffic management plans, the District has chosen to define a
customer-friendly process for informing the community on how neighbourhood
traffic issues are to be dealt with and on the process of traffic management. In
general, the recommended process provides residents with a clear means of defining
Page ii
1880.0010.1G / May 2004
\\Oak\Operations\Englneering\AdrOfl\2004\Other\040120 Draft Traffic Management PractIc.doc
URB?SYSTEviS
MAPLE RIDGE Fnort'orated 12 SepteinL'er,1874
District of Maple Ridge
Neighbourhood
Traffic Management Practice
neighbourhood traffic issues and monitoring how and when these concerns may be
addressed. Figure 1 below illustrates this process.
Figure 1: Administering Public Requests for Traffic Management
Respondto
tim
if H • Other
• Defining and prioritizing study areas. Upon consideration of all identified
traffic-related concerns and requests, the District will define neighbourhood study
areas, as necessary, in which to undertake full traffic management studies. Study
boundaries will be carefully defined to include those identified neighbourhood traffic
issues and any corresponding areas that will also be impacted by a potential traffic
management plan. As the number of requests grows, the District will want to
objectively prioritize neighbourhoods on an annual basis according to the evaluation
system outlined in Table 1 below. Those neighbourhoods with the highest overall
points will be considered highest priority for traffic management projects.
Table 1: Ranking of Neighbourhood Traffic Management Projects
Criterion Points Basis for Point Assignment
Speed 0 to 50 85thpercentile speed of traffic on the primary road. Two points
will be allocated for every kilometre per hour that the 85th
percentile speed is over the posted speed limit, based on speed
reader board information supplied by applicant and/or police, up
to 50 points.
Volume 0 to 50 Average daily traffic volume on the primary road. One point will
be allocated for every 100 daily vehicles, based on traffic count
data from the speed reader program or municipal collection, up to
50 points. -
Vehicle Collisions 0 to 25 Average number of vehicle collisions per year over the past three
years, based on police reports. Five points will be allocated for
each collision in an average year, up to 25 points.
Elementary Schools 0 to 10 Five points assigned for each school zone along the primary
street, up to 10 points.
Road rehabilitation 0 to 10 Ten points assigned if rehabilitation project is planned for the
projects primary street, during which traffic management measures could
be implemented.
Pedestrian Generators 0 to 15 Five points assigned for each public facility (such as parks,
community centres, libraries, and high schools) that generates a
significant number of pedestrians on the primary street, up to 15
points.
Page iii
1880.0010.1G / May 2004
\\Qak\Operatons\Englneering\Admln\2004\Other\040120 Draft Traffic Management Practices.doc URBAN SYSTEMSffi
District of Maple Ridge
PLE
( "7 1
Neighbourhood L Traffic Management Practice
Criterion Points Basis for Point Assignment
Safe Route to School 0 to 5 Five points assigned for a designated safe route to school on the
primary street.
Bicycle Routes 0 to 5 Five points assigned if the primary street is a designated bicycle
route.
Transit Routes 0 to 5 Five points assigned if the primary street accommodates transit
service.
Pedestrian Facilities 0 to 5 Five points assigned if there is no continuous sidewalk (wide
shoulder in rural areas) on at least one side of the primary street.
Roadway Geometry 0 to 5 Five points assigned if locations of poor road geometry are known
to exist on the primary street.
Total Points Possible 185 1
• Funding. As the District does not currently have a Traffic Management Program,
additional staff and financial resources will be needed for:
- Plan development using internal and/or external resources that will involve the
community in addressing neighbourhood traffic concerns.
- Implementation of approved measures, which includes design and construction of
neighbourhood traffic calming measures.
- Monitoring programs to measure the effectiveness of the traffic management
solutions that are implemented, and to make adjustments as necessary.
- Operations and maintenance requirements that may increase slightly as a result of
traffic calming measures.
The District of Maple Ridge does not currently fund traffic calming projects. Based
on experiences in other communities, personnel and funding requirements can be
extensive, and the District's commitments need to be managed in this regard. The
additional costs to develop, implement, monitor, and maintain neighbourhood traffic
management in the Maple Ridge will be supported through the appropriation of
general tax revenues, which will be reviewed on an annual basis. Consistent with the
Community Charter, there may be opportunities to use the local improvement
program and the specified area approach in the event that neighbourhood groups
come forward willing to partially fund the implementation of traffic management
measures within their communities.
Development and Implementation
The recommended approach to developing and implementing traffic calming in the
District of Maple Ridge is briefly described below.
• Study process. Recognizing the extent of neighbourhood traffic issues today and
the resources of the municipality, the District will use a streamlined process with
community involvement for developing plans. This three-phase process is illustrated
in Figure 2 and briefly highlighted below.
Page iv
1880.0010.1G/ May 2004 TT Ci ) 'LT-r..AC
m
'
\\Oak\OperatIons\EngineerIng\Admn\2O\Other\0120 Draft Traffic Management Pices.d L
District of Maple Ridge
Neu"hbourhood IrA T)T t' DTr'rT Traffic Management Practice
Figure 2: Neighbourhood Traffic Calming Process
STAGE 1 - Gauging I STAGE 2— Developing I STAGE 3— Plan
Community Interest I the Plan l Approval
..'. ,jttic I Collect I Submit Plan to .
;ir;, Pln1 I I Data I I Council Refine Plan
Community I . Potential I l
Letter! I I Solutions J I
Questionnaire I i I
Council __________
Approval? No Collect
o:n,nun,ty Preliminary Letter Data
Yes
I I
I Kplemon,
Yes Community : I : Community Yes <c>-j Interest? I E Support?
Major Minod
No I Changes No Changes.
I ...............
Refine Plan[
...............
- Gauging community interest - This phase of the process involves preparatory
activities and initiatives to increase awareness of the study, as well as gauging
community interest in developing a plan.
- Developing the plan - This phase of the process involves a thorough review of all
identified neighbourhood traffic concerns, data collection, and plan development
with input and feedback from the community.
- Plan approval - The final plan is presented to Maple Ridge District Council for
approval and funding. Additional revisions may be necessary to address
outstanding concerns.
• Traffic calming measures that may be considered for Maple Ridge are
identified based on experience in other communities and the desires of staff and
Council. Table 2 below summarizes the potential applicability of desired traffic
calming measures, as well as other considerations, such as transit and emergency
response routes. As shown in the table, some measures may be suitable for local
and/or collector roads, but may not be suitable for use if those roads are designated as
emergency response routes and/or transit routes.
Page v
1880.0010.1G / May 2004 URBANSYSTLMSm
\\Oak\Operatlons\Englneeilng\Admln\2004\Other\040120 Draft Traffic Management Practices.doc
District of Maple Ridge
—r Neighbourhood
Traffic Management Practice
Table 2: Applicability of Traffic Calming Measures in Maple Ridge
Road Classification Other Considerations
Local Collector Emergency
Roads Roads Response Transit Routes
Routes
Vertical Deflection
• Sidewalk Extension X X V
• Textured Crosswalk V V V V
Horizontal Deflection
• Chicane (one-lane) V X X X
• Curb Extension V V V V
• Curb Radius Reduction V V V1 X
• On-Street Parking V V V V
• Raised Median Island V V V V
• Traffic Circle V X X
• Road Diets V V V V
Obstruction
• Directional Closure V V X X
• Raised Median Through Intersection V x X X
• Right-In/Right-Out Island V X X X
Signage
• Right-/Left-Turn Prohibition V V V V
• Traffic Calmed Neighbourhood V V V V
• Information Signage V V V V
Key
V - suitable X - not suitable
Only where traffic volumes are low.
• Implementation of the approved plan involves the phasing and design of traffic
calming measures, as well as defining a monitoring program subsequent to the
installation of measures. It is recommended that temporary measures be considered
where possible to confirm their effectiveness and that monitoring programs be put in
place to examine the performance and impact of the measures.
Page vi
1880.0010.1G / May 2004 TTP P(AT VC'T" /0 itO
\\Oak\Operatinns\Englneerlflg\Admffi\2004\Other\040120 Draft Traffic Management Practicesdoc i 'V L
Distnct of Maple Ridge
L L .
MAPLE RTDGE XLi Neighbourhood
n )Ipc'r4teci 12 Septeiiib,,r,Traffic Management Practice
1.0 INTRODUCTION
As the population of the Maple Ridge continues to grow, resident concerns regarding
neighbourhood traffic issues are increasing. In particular, residents in some areas of the
District have become concerned about the impacts of frequent occurrences of speeding
and short-cutting traffic on the quality of life within the community.
In an effort to discourage undesirable traffic patterns andlor unsafe travel behaviour,
many municipalities have responded by implementing traffic management strategies, one
component of which is typically traffic calming. Other components that form an overall
neighbourhood traffic management strategy include community awareness, education,
and/or enforcement programs. Consideration of these other components is an important
aspect of an overall traffic management strategy for the municipality.
Although traffic calming is viewed as a favourable and effective strategy to manage
neighbourhood traffic issues in most communities, some municipalities have only created
more problems for themselves in the process of trying to apply traffic calming on their
streets. These problems may stem from not verifying or fully understanding the nature of
the problems or implementing traffic calming measures on a street-by-street basis, which
can have negative impacts on adjacent streets due to spillover effects.
In conjunction with the Safer City initiative being undertaken by the District and ICBC,
Maple Ridge has chosen to develop a Neighbourhood Traffic Management Practice as a
proactive means of administering, preparing, implementing, and maintaining
neighbourhood traffic management. Other communities have found that the Practice lays
the framework that may evolve as the District's experience with (and potentially the
community's demand for) neighbourhood traffic management grows. Without a clear
Practice, fundamental issues are difficult to manage, ranging from which neighbourhoods
are considered for traffic management to dealing with issues of liability through standard
design of traffic calming measures. It is important to emphasize, however, that the traffic
management program will generally be driven by the community through the
identification of issues and potential solutions.
This document is separated into seven sections, as follows: . . .
• Section 1.0 - Introduction. This section identifies the primary rationale for the
preparation of the Neighbourhood Traffic Management Practice and highlights the
contents of the document.
• Section 20 - Why Consider Neighbourhood Traffic Management?
This section of the Practice describes the common reasons why most municipalities
choose to implement neighbourhood traffic management, as well as some of the
specific objectives of such a program.
Pagel
1880.0010.1G / May 2004 TTP1 .il: 7Jfl\ 'C2TE
\\Oak\Orations\EngInring\Admin\20 \her\040120 Draft Traffic Management Pradic.d Li U U V Um
MAPLE RIDGE nwivorated 12 September, 1874
District of Maple Ridge
Neighbourhood
Traffic Management Practice
• Section 3.0 - Scope of Neighbourhood Traffic Management. The third
section of this Practice outlines the range of approaches to traffic management that
could be used within the District. In some cases, traffic calming devices may not be
the preferred or most appropriate solution to traffic-related concerns within a given
neighbourhood. This section identifies three "alternative" approaches to
neighbourhood traffic management.
• Section 4.0 - Administration of Neighbourhood Traffic Management.
This section provides the administrative framework for the management of the traffic
management process in the District of Maple Ridge. It identifies an approach for
dealing with residents' requests for traffic management, presents a framework for the
identification and prioritization of areas for traffic management, and suggests how
traffic management planning and implementation should be funded within the
District.
• Section 5.0 - Developing Traffic Calming Plans. This section outlines a
three-stage process for the preparation of neighbourhood traffic calming plans in the
District of Maple Ridge, based on a number of guiding principles set out in Section
5.1.
• Section 6.0 - Implementation. This section describes the activities involved
in the implementation and monitoring of traffic calming measures.
• Section 7.0 - Traffic Calming Measures. This section of the Practice
discusses the applicability of various traffic calming measures to meet the needs and
conditions of the District of Maple Ridge. The section also includes a discussion of
those traffic calming measures not recommended for use in Maple Ridge.
The Canadian Guide to Neighbourhood Traffic Calming was prepared for the
Transportation Association of Canada and the Canadian Institute of Transportation
Engineers in 1998, and provides consistent guidelines for the implementation of traffic
calming measures throughout Canada. Rather than replicate the information contained in
the Guide, the Neighbourhood Traffic Management Practice provides additional
information specific to conditions in Maple Ridge, such as objectives for traffic
management, the applicability of various traffic calming devices to conditions in Maple
Ridge, approaches to implementing traffic calming measures, and a means of soliciting
community input regarding traffic management. The Neighbourhood Traffic
Management Practice is also intended to update some of the iriformatiorifrom the Guide
pertaining to recent innovations and the latest treatments.
Although the Practice contained within this document has been developed for the
successful planning and implementation of traffic management solutions specifically
Page 2
1880.0010.1G / May 2004
\\Oak\Operations\Englneering\.Admln\2004\Other\040120 Draft Traffic Mana9ement Practices.doc
URBANSYSTIMS
District of Maple Ridge
Neighbourhood
Traffic Management Practice
within Maple Ridge, it waS developed based on a review of similar traffic management
policies and programs in the following BC and US communities:
• Kamloops • Seattle, WA
• Whistler • Bellevue, WA
• Vancouver • Portland, OR
• North Vancouver City • Berkeley, CA
• North Vancouver District • Ventura, CA
• Delta • Boulder, CO
• Coquitlam • Fairfax, VA
• Saanich
• Kelowna
The emergency service providers in Maple Ridge (police, fire, ambulance) were fully
involved in the development of this Practice and provided important input to the final
document. With fire services in particular, Maple Ridge is in a unique position in that
many of its fire fighters are volunteers. The current Practice reflects the fact that response
times for Maple Ridge fire fighters include time for volunteers to get to the fire stations
and time to drive to an alarm, and that overall response distances are generally higher
than in other municipalities. As such, specific measures that would significantly effect
response times for fire services are excluded at this time.
The Practice also reflects the difficulties in educating a broad range of volunteers on the
location of traffic management devices throughout the municipality, particularly
considering that different people may be driving the District's fire trucks from day to day.
To address this in future and to allow a broader range of traffic calming devices to be
considered for local streets, the District may wish to develop a network of designated fire
response routes along which certain physical traffic management devices that would
significantly affect response times would not be considered.
'1
Page3
1880.0010.1G/ May 2004 TTPPA 'LTII\ AC
\\Oak\OperatIons\EngIneerIflg\Admifl\20\Other\0120 Draft Traffic Managent Praic.doc L) IL.)
District of Maple Ridge
MAI'LE RIDGE c Neighbourhood
Traffic Management Practice
2.0 WHY CONSIDER NEIGHBOURHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT?
Before undertaking neighbourhood traffic management, the District should consider the
reasons that it is being considered. As well, the District will need to set out where traffic
management strategies will be considered. This section describes the primary reasons that
neighbourhood traffic management is undertaken in many communities, and describes
several specific objectives of it. This discussion provides the basis for other components
of the Neighbourhood Traffic Management Practice, described in subsequent sections.
In many communities, neighbourhood traffic management is undertaken for two primary
reasons that are of concern to residents, District staff, and other community members:
• Safety. Traffic management can make the streets safer for everyone, including all
road users - pedestrians, cyclists, motorists and others. Many neighbourhood
conflicts are the result of excessive speeds and motorist inattention - the very
problems that traffic management can correct. For example, research has shown that
specific traffic calming devices can reduce collision rates significantly.
• Livability. Neighbourhood traffic management can help to preserve and enhance the
livability of the community by minimizing the negative impacts of traffic - noise,
pollution and visual intrusion. Attractively designed and landscaped traffic calming
devices can also enhance the streetscape, enhancing livability as a result.
It is intended that these broad goals be pursued in a manner that is consistent with the
new Transportation Plan. This means that neighbourhood traffic management would be
applied to improve safety and livability, while maintaining the effectiveness of the road
network - particularly arterial and collector roads - for transporting people and goods.
To address the above community issues, the specific objectives of neighbourhood traffic
management include:
• Minimize conflicts. Reducing conflicts between road users reduces the likelihood
of a collision occurring, thereby improving safety, particularly for pedestrians,
cyclists and other vulnerable road users ... .. . - . . . .. .........
• Reduce vehicle speeds. Speeds that are suitable for one type of road - a major
arterial road, for example - may be considered excessive on a residential collector
road or local street. Measures that decrease vehicle speeds help to reduce the
likelihood of a collision occurring, as well as the severity of collisibns. Reducing
vehicle speeds also helps to improve the livability of a community by reducing noise
and other negative impacts of traffic.
Page4
1880 0010 1G/ May2004 TTPD A 4ICvLT'' ia-
\\Oak\Operations\Englneering\Admln\204\Other\040120 DraftTrac Management Practices.doc L. L..) .V kim 0 ff
District of Maple Ridge
Neucihbourhood
Jniporited 12 eFternLx 174 Traffic Management Practice
• Discourage through traffic on local residential streets. Local streets are
primarily intended for access to properties, rather than for accommodating through
traffic. Reducing through traffic helps to improve safety by reducing the potential for
conflicts, and helps to improve livability by reducing noise and other negative
impacts of traffic.
• Establish an ongoing process to address problems. New roads, additional
development and other changes may result in changes in traffic patterns and may
contribute to new traffic problems in the future. Establishing municipal policies and
procedures to monitor and review conditions will help to ensure that problems are
corrected as they occur. The Neighbourhood Traffic Management Practice also
provides an opportunity to address neighbourhood aesthetic needs through a
community-driven process.
• Allocate funds cost-effectively. Ensuring that the costs of neighbourhood
traffic management are minimized and that the most cost-effective solutions are
implemented will mean that initiatives can be pursued as quickly as possible
throughout the community and that other transportation improvements will not be
unnecessarily deferred as a result of neighbourhood traffic management plans.
In general, there are two levels at which traffic management can be undertaken to
enhance safety and livability. First, as described above, traffic management may be
implemented within defined neighbourhoods. This generally involves programs and
measures to discourage speeding and short-cutting on local streets. In many cases, this
involves the installation of physical devices that force motorists to slow down. Secondly,
traffic management may be undertaken on major roads on the periphery of
neighbourhoods. This approach is usually designed to address different issues than those
found within neighbourhoods, but typically involves the implementation of corridor
management techniques to preserve or enhance mobility along the arterial and collector
road network. Although the ultimate goal may be slightly different, corridor management
on the major roads often discourages motorists from using the local road network for
short-cutting, which is one of the specific objectives of neighbourhood traffic
management.
To date, neighbourhood concerns with safety and livability are a more pressing issue in
Maple Ridge, although there is some interest in traffic management on a few arterial
roadways. The Neighbourhood Traffic Management Practice for Maple Ridge provides a
process for undertaking traffic management programs within local neighbourhoods of the
District, but does not provide a process with regard to major roadways (i.e., Major Road
Network and municipal arterials).
Maple Ridge is a growing community. As the municipality grows, there will be
opportunities to incorporate traffic management features into the design of new
Page5
1880.001O.1G / May 2004 UP(A ' AO
\\Oak\Operations\Englneering\Admin\2004\Other\040120 Draft Traffic Management Practic.doc £ Li Li -. \' Lift
District of Maple Ridge
— - Neighbourhood
Traffic Management Practice
neighbourhoods from the outset. In this regard, this Practice focuses on traffic
management within existing neighbourhoods, rather than within new developments. In
terms of traffic calming, this will generally involve retrofitting existing local streets with
calming devices. This Practice does not preclude the provision of traffic management in
new neighbourhoods. Instead, there will be opportunities to incorporate features at the
outset in new areas subject to the development of appropriate roadway design standards.
Page 6
1880.0010.1G / May 2004
\\Oak\OperatIons\Engineerng\Admifl\2OO4\Other\040120 Draft Traffic Management Practices.doc URBAMSYSTEM
District of Maple Ridge
MAPLE RIDGE C Neighbourhood
rr,td I2Si 1874 Traffic Management Practice
3.0 SCOPE OF NEIGHBOURHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
Neighbourhood traffic management encompasses a range of initiatives and measures that
may be implemented to enhance the safety and livability of neighbourhood streets. Only
one component involves the installation of physical measures to slow vehicles and
discourage through travel.
As illustrated below in Figure 3.1, the first stage of traffic management involves a range
of measures intended to make motorists more aware of their speed and the impacts of
short-cutting on the community - awareness, education, and enforcement. This stage is
typically undertaken before physical devices are considered and is often initiated and led
by the community itself in cooperation with municipal staff and police.
In addition, although not necessarily a component of traffic management in and of itself,
a preliminary evaluation of existing traffic conditions should be conducted to confirm the
issues being raised through the community. This evaluation will typically be undertaken
by District staff in cooperation with local residents.
Undertaking non-engineering measures first offers an opportunity for the community and
District to better understand the traffic issues within local neighbourhoods and to address
them in other ways before the District undertakes the preparation of a traffic calming
strategy. The following discussion highlights the primary components of neighbourhood
traffic management in more detail.
Figure 3.1: Stages of Neighbourhood Traffic Management
-
I L
• ••• - --
Stage 2 I i
L
Stage 1
• Awareness. In combination with educating the cqwmupity, awareness can he a
significant factor to mitigating some neighbourhood traffic concerns. In particular,
where neighbourhood traffic issues are known to be associated with local residents
(e.g., speeding on local streets and cul-de-sacs), increasing awareness of the broader
community's concerns can help to discourage undesirable driving behaviour.
Page 7
1880.0010.1G / May 2004
\\Oak\Qperations\Engineerina\Admin\2004\Other\040120 Draft Traffic Management Piactices.doc URB;N S'TE'iS
MAPLE RIDGE ncomôrated 12 September, 11174
Neighbourhood
Traffic Management Practice
District of Maple Ridge
In some areas, local residents have developed lawn signs that encourage drivers to
slow down to protect children playing within the neighbourhood. As well, community
groups or volunteers have worked together with the local police force to implement
temporary neighbourhood speed display ("speedwatch") stations where volunteers
help monitor and display passing drivers' speeds.
Although there are currently few organized neighbourhood associations in Maple
Ridge, the District could encourage the formation of neighbourhood traffic advisory
groups as more complaints about traffic issues are brought forward. These groups
would be formed to monitor traffic-related concerns at a local level and to undertake
activities to increase awareness within the community. Although such groups would
be initiated and led by community members, the District could assist these groups in
undertaking awareness campaigns by preparing samples of informational material
that could be distributed through the community to raise awareness of residents'
concerns.
• Education. For some neighbourhood traffic concerns, embarking upon a
community education campaign may prove to be an effective means of control.
There are already many public education initiatives through the RCMP and ICBC's
Safer City Program related to traffic and road safety that may prove to be effective for
some neighbourhood concerns. For some areas, targeted educational campaigns may
be undertaken to educate drivers on certain traffic rules. For example, in areas where
crosswalk safety is a concern, the police, District, and/or ICBC may embark on a
campaign to educate motorists about priority rules for crosswalks.
Education campaigns may also be undertaken in cooperation with neighbourhood
groups. These neighbourhood groups could be used as an avenue for disseminating
educational materials. Volunteers from the neighbourhood could work with
authorities to design and implement educational programs.
The District may want to work with the RCMP and ICBC on the development of
educational materials and programs that could be used as part of Maple Ridge's
neighbourhood traffic management program. The District could then distribute these
materials as needed to neighbourhood groups that wish to undertake an educational
campaign to encourage motorists to drive responsibly.
• Enforcement. In some areas where neighbourhood traffic issues are associated
with external traffic (e.g speeding through neighbourhoods), enforcement may be a
positive first step in traffic management. Although enforcement may have a positive
effect on speeding, it has two primary challenges. First, it is costly to implement and
resources may not be available to commit the level of enforcement desired by the
community. Secondly, it is not a permanent solution. Enforcement campaigns may
Page8
1880.0010.1G / May 2004 AC'
\\Oak\Operatlons\Engineering\Admifl\2004\Other\040120 Draft Traffic Management Practices.doc ..t t1 Li Li L V k.Je
District of Maple Ridge
— I
Nei hbourhood MAP, IJIX L Traffic Management Practice Inowponted
deter motorists from speeding for a short time during and after the program, but
problems will likely persist. In such cases, traffic calming devices are a permanent
solution and are also self-enforcing.
If enforcement is going to be undertaken as a first step, neighbourhood groups may
want to work with District staff and the RCMP to identify those locations where
speeding is perceived to be a problem and to develop an enforcement strategy to
discourage undesirable driver behaviour. The District may facilitate discussions
among the interested parties.
• Preliminary evaluation. An important component of the overall traffic
management process is to develop a preliminary understanding of the issues raised by
the community. In this regard, a preliminary evaluation should be prepared before
planning for any engineering measures is undertaken. This will ensure that traffic
management is justified before significant effort is invested in the process.
The following quantitative measures may be considered during the preliminary
evaluation. This following discussion is provided as general information on when
traffic management measures may be justified based on experiences in other
communities. It is important to note, however, that the values provided are not
intended to be prescriptive and should not be considered as guidelines or standards
for the evaluation of traffic management issues.
Speeding. Vehicle speeds should be collected over several days to determine
the 85thpercentile speeds within the neighbourhood. If the 85th percentile
speeds are at least 5 kmlh over the posted speed limit, then traffic
management may be justified. In rural areas of the District, higher thresholds
may be considered more appropriate.
Traffic volumes. Traffic volumes may be counted at the same time as speeds
are collected. Again, volumes should be collected over several days
(preferably at least a week) to ensure sufficient data are available. Generally,
traffic management may be considered if volumes are greater than 1,500-
2,000 vehicles per day on local streets and greater than 5,000-6,000 vehicles
per day on neighbourhood collectors.
Through traffic. Through traffic volumes may also be used to evaluate the
need for traffic management. The proportion of traffic travelling through a
neighbourhood is typically determined through license plate surveys at key
locations within a community. Generally, traffic management may be justified
if greater than 30% of traffic on- local streets and 50% of traffic on collector
roadways is identified as through traffic (origin and destination outside
neighbourhood).
Page9
1880.0010.1G / May 2004 TTP A. ItT CVc'T..Th IC.?
\\Oak\Operatlons\Engineering\Admifl\2O 4\Other\O4O12O DraftTraffic Management Praaic.doc L. U V LJm
District of Maple Ridge
-
MAILE RIDGE Neighbourhood
w12StLr,174 Traffic Management Practice
• Traffic calming measures are the most permanent form of neighbourhood traffic
management because it involves the installation of physical devices on the road
network to discourage speeding and short-cutting through communities. Once all
other avenues of education and awareness have been undertaken by the community
and the problems identified could potentially be addressed by traffic calming, the
District will begin the process of developing a traffic calming plan with the
community.
Traffic calming can be highly effective at reducing speeds, discouraging short-
cutting, and improving safety within neighbourhoods. With some devices, it also
represents an opportunity to enhance neighbourhood aesthetics through landscaping.
Although this form of traffic management is the most requested by the public, it is not
without its challenges. In particular, traffic calming measures may not be the most
appropriate solution for all perceived traffic concerns. For this reason, a detailed
analysis of speed and volume data needs to be undertaken prior to implementing a
traffic calming plan. This analysis will give District staff the opportunity to evaluate
the potential effectiveness of traffic calming measures at addressing the real problems
that are occurring within the neighbourhoods. Much of this Practice outlines a
strategy for undertaking traffic calming in a fair and equitable manner that is
understandable to the residents of Maple Ridge.
Page 10
1880.0010.1G / May 2004
\\Oak\Operations\Engineering\Admin\2004\Other\040120 Draft Traffic Management PracDces.doc URB-NSYTEiV1Sm
District of Maple Ridge
L -.
Neighbourhood
12 SeptemUer, 1874
Traffic Management Practice
4.0 ADMINISTRATION OF NEIGHBOURHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
Prior to the preparation of any neighbourhood traffic management strategies, the District
will want to establish a clear administrative process that provides guidance on:
• Managing requests. How the District deals with requests for traffic management
from residents has an important effect on the success of the overall program. The
District will want to have a process for managing requests that is clear and fair, and
ensures that requests are handled promptly and objectively.
• Defining and prioritizing areas. The municipality will not be able to
implement traffic management strategies District-wide all at once. Over time, the
District will receive requests for traffic management from residents around the
community and will need to allocate funds to implement plans within specific areas
of the community based on priorities that are equitable and objective.
• Funding. The District will need to establish clear policies on how traffic
management strategies and measures will be funded as the program is undertaken.
As one of the important ingredients in the overall Neighbourhood Traffic Management
Practice, a clear and consistent administrative process that addresses all of the above
topics will contribute to the long-term success of the traffic management program in
Maple Ridge. This section addresses each of the above issues in more detail.
The administration of a Neighbourhood Traffic Management Program requires a
commitment of staff resources by the municipality. Section 4.4 briefly highlights those
aspects of the program in which staff will be involved.
4.1 Managing Requests
One of the biggest frustrations for residents can arise after they submit a request for
improvements, and the District does not acknowledge that request. Because not all
residents will be familiar with the traffic management process, the District needs to
establish a process for dealing with public requests for traffic management, that is fair,
prompt, and objective. This will ensure that the process is:
• Oriented to customer service
• Clear on the status of residents' requests
• Designed to ensure that the issue(s) being raised can be addressed through traffic
management, or that the issue can be dealt with through other programs
Figure 4.1 outlines the recommended process for the District to follow when handling
incoming neighbourhood concerns that are traffic-related.
Page 11
1880.0010.1G/ May 2004 UPAW1L 'L'Ti....\ IC'
\\Oak\OperatIons\EngineerInQ\Admifl\20 \her\0120 Dft Traffic Management Pradic.doc L) U v
District of Maple Ridge
MAPLE RIDGE Neighbourhood
Jntporated 12 eplernLz 1874 Traffic Management Practice
Figure 4.1: Administering Public Requests for Traffic Management
Respond to
Receive & Yes Request & Consider
Management Procecso er Re quest ;ssue informational Approaches
Materials
!dtiseresponse ss
0
The first step in the process involves the identification of traffic problems or issues within
the District. In all cases, this action will be initiated by one or more concerned residents
requesting that a specific traffic problem be addressed by the District, potentially through
the installation of traffic calming devices. Although residents may make their concerns
known in a number of ways, the District should encourage residents to document them in
a written letter or a standard request form that would ensure all issues are clearly
described.
For each request, the following information should be collected:
• Resident's name
• Resident's address
• Contact information (phone, fax, e-mail)
• As accurately as possible, the location of the problem (street(s) name, nearest street
address, intersection, etc.)
• Detailed description of the issue
• Typical time(s) of occurrence of the issue(s) (peak period(s), night, all day, specific
season, weekendlweekday, etc.)
As well, any related information regarding the conditions or potential solutions may be
identified by the individual(s) and should also be documented.
District staff should maintain a database or spreadsheet of traffic-related concerns that
would allow the issues to be sorted by geographic location (e.g., street, neighbourhood,
school catchment, etc.), type of issue, or date of request.
As requests are received, the District will need to evaluate each cbncerñ to determine
whether the issue(s) is best addressed through the traffic management program or through
other programs or agencies (e.g., Operations, Planning, TransLink, Police, etc.). It is
important that each concern be considered carefully so that only problems that can
actually be addressed through traffic management solutions are referred to the program.
Pagel2
1880.0010.1G / May 2004 URBANSYSTEMS
\\ak\Oprauons\Englneering\Admlfl\2004\Other\040120 Draft Traffic Management Practices.doc
District of Maple Ridge
MAPLE RIDGE L Neighbourhood
Jn Jp(emIer1S'4 Traffic Management Practice or
For example, residents often identify the lack of sidewalks or transit operations as traffic-
related issues. However, both of these concerns may be able to be addressed through
other programs or agencies. Table 4.1 below summarizes some of the common issues
raised by residents during previous traffic management reviews in other municipalities
and categorizes them according to whether they should be considered as traffic
management issues. The task of distinguishing traffic management issues from other
concerns will not always be easy. Some issues may require discussions with other
agencies or departments to determine the appropriate course of action.
Table 4.1: Examples of Issues Raised Through Traffic Management Studies
Traffic Management Issues Non-Traffic Management Issues
• Speeding on neighbourhood streets • Lack of sidewalks or crosswalks
• Short-cutting on local streets • Roadway geometry
• Intersection safety for pedestrians and • Intersection safety
cyclists • Incompatible land uses
• Transit operational issues
Once an issue has been identified and the appropriate course of action has been
determined, the next step in the process is to:
• forward the concern to the appropriate department or outside agency and respond to
the request, or
• respond to the request and add the concern to the traffic issues database, and
potentially move forward with a traffic management plan.
In either case, it is important that the District respond to each submission and inform the
resident of the process and the status of their concern. This will reassure residents that
their concerns are being taken seriously and will be addressed in some form. Maintaining
open lines of communication with residents will contribute to the long-term success of
the traffic management program.
4.2 Defining and Prioritizing Areas
Over time, traffic issues will be identified by residents of the District on a given street or
in a given area. In some cases, several streets within a given neighbourhood may be
problematic. Alternatively, the solutions for a given location may affect conditions on
adjacent streets and the people living within the immediate area. In simple terms,
neighbourhood traffic issues can rarely be treated in isolation.
In this rregard, the District will want to collect, monitor, and combine traffic issues as
appropriate at a neighbourhood level. The definition of these neighbourhood areas should
be based on the issues identified, as well as the potential streets and residents that would
be affected by addressing those neighbourhood issues. In some cases, traffic management
may be considered throughout the defined area. In others, it may be simply a matter of
Page 13
1880.0010.1G / May 2004 TTPPAIC U V /C
\\Oak\Operations\Engineeringdmifl\2004\her\0120 Draft Traffic Management Praic.doc
Y
Q) opmmmkla Wi MAPLE RIDGE
District of Maple Ridge
Neighbourhood
Traffic Management Practice
identifying a smaller area of residents that could be affected by the solutions to involve
them in a traffic management process.
Although the number of neighbourhoods/streets where traffic management exists in
Maple Ridge today is small, the District should be prepared for increased demand for
measures through greater awareness of traffic management and after the implementation
of additional measures in some neighbourhoods.
Rather than dealing with the "squeaky wheel" in terms of prioritizing neighbourhood
concerns, the District will want a means of selecting priorities - i.e., which
neighbourhood gets traffic management first - through objective evaluation criteria.
Accordingly, the District should consider the following criteria and evaluation system
(Table 4.2) for ranking neighbourhood traffic management projects. The information
required by these criteria should be collected for the primary road being considered for
traffic management within a given neighbourhood.
Table 4.2: Ranking of Neighbourhood Traffic Management Projects
Criterion Points Basis for Point Assignment
Speed 0 to 50 85thpercentile speed of traffic on the primary road. Two points
will be allocated for every kilometre per hour that the 85 th
percentile speed is over the posted speed limit, based on speed
reader board information supplied by applicant and/or police, up
to 50 points.
Volume 0 to 50 Average daily traffic volume on the primary road. One point will
be allocated for every 100 daily vehicles, based on traffic count
data from the speed reader program or municipal collection, up to
50 points.
Vehicle Collisions 0 to 25 Average number of vehicle collisions per year over the past three
years, based on police reports. Five points will be allocated for
each collision in an average year, up to 25 points.
Elementary Schools 0 to 10 Five points assigned for each school zone along the primary
street, up to 10 points.
Road rehabilitation 0 to 10 Ten points assigned if rehabilitation project is planned for the
projects primary street, during which traffic management measures could
be implemented.
Pedestrian Generators 0 to 15 Five points assigned for each public facility (such as parks,
community centres, libraries, and high schools) that generates a
significant number of pedestrians on the primary street, up to 15
points.
Safe Route to School 0 to 5 Five points assigned for a designated safe route to school on the
primary street.
Bicycle Routes 0 to 5 Five points assigned if the primary street is a designated bicycle
route.
Transit Routes 0 to 5 Five, points assigned if the primary street accommodates transit
service.
Pedestrian Facilities 0 to 5 Five points assigned if there is no continuous sidewalk (wide
shoulder in rural areas) on at least one side of the primary street.
Roadway Geometry 0 to 5 Five points assigned if locations of poor road geometry are known
to exist on the primary street.
Total Points Possible 185 1
Page 14
1880.0010.1G/ May2004 .... \ IC
\\Oak\Operations\EngIneerng\AdmIn\2OO4\Other\O4O12O Draft Traffic Management Practices.doc £'% JiI ' L.) .J ....... V Lie
MAPLE RIDGE juy
Ijexmoiated 12 September, 1674
Neighbourhood
Traffic Management Practice
District of Maple Ridge
The street with the highest score among those eligible for traffic management will be
considered the highest priority for implementation.
4.3 Funding
There are four main funding strategies that the District of Maple Ridge could consider for
planning and implementation of traffic management. There are however, significant
advantages and disadvantages to each of these options, some of which are described
below. The following funding strategies were considered in the development of this
Practice:
Appropriation of funds from General Revenues. This strategy would
require Council's vote to allocate funds from general tax revenues to fund traffic
management in a particular area as part of the District's annual budget. The clear
advantage of this Practice is that the traffic management plan is funded in a way that
is similar to other road and transportation improvements throughout the District.
However, the District should be prepared to move forward with implementation of
measures shortly after approval of a traffic management strategy so that the
community's expectations are addressed promptly. This approach is generally
accepted by most communities as a fair and equitable method for funding
neighbourhood traffic management improvements.
Dedicated Reserve Fund. Council members would vote to establish a traffic
management program extending through their mandate to which they would allocate
reserve funds. This strategy still makes use of general tax revenue to fund the
improvements, yet involves the allocation of monies towards a special reserve fund
that is available only to fund traffic management priorities.
Specified Area (Initiative Plan). Adopting a specified area initiative plan,
Council would vote on a bylaw that would establish an annual specified area tax on
properties deemed to benefit from the implementation of a traffic management plan.
Under this approach, only if more than 50% of property owners in the area oppose the
tax is the bylaw to adopt a traffic management plan defeated. This approach is similar
to the concept of "negative billing", where residents will pay for something unless a
majority oppose the plan.
Specified. Area-(Petition Plan). The petition.plan would see Council implement
a project based on a petition that is organized and presented by property owners. If a
majority of the property owners, representing more than half of the assessed value,
were in favour of paying for the traffic management plan, then the petition would
succeed. In this funding strategy, benefiting property owners are still bearing the cost
Page 15
1880.0010.1G/ May 2004 URB'-NSYSTEMSe
\\Oak\Qperations\EngifleeflflQ\EflgIu1eeiflQ Corr\Matthew\040120 Draft Traffic Marra9ement Practices.doc
District of Maple Ridge
-'.- Nei hbourhood
Traffic Management Practice
the cost of the improvements. However, the difference in this case is the clear support
of the community that is needed in order for the project to be approved.
Although the method of funding may vary between communities, most municipalities
that have District-wide traffic management policies fund their programs through the
appropriation of general revenues, as described in #1 above. The basic rationale for this
practice is that most other road and transportation improvements are typically funded in
this way and, often, the traffic problems experienced in a neighbourhood are the result of
District- or region-wide traffic issues and are not necessarily specifically tied to a
particular community alone. It should be recognized that a specified area approach for
large-scale neighbourhood traffic management has not been successful in those
communities that have attempted this funding approach, but is more commonly used for
street-specific strategies.
To best meet the needs of the Maple Ridge community, it is recommended that the
development of neighbourhood traffic management plans and the implementation of
measures be funded through the District's general tax revenues. The allocation of funding
for neighbourhood traffic management strategies should accommodate both planning and
implementation so that measures can be installed within a relatively short timeframe
following Council approval of the final strategies.
The District should note, however, that funding through the specified area approach is
always available under the Community Charter as part of a local improvement program.
This approach could be used in the event that a neighbourhood group comes forward
willing to partially fund neighbourhood traffic management in the community. In such a
case, the implementation of traffic management measures could be accelerated.
Based on the history of requests received in Maple Ridge, it is not anticipated that the
demands for the development of neighbourhood traffic management strategies will be
significant in the short term. It should be noted, however, that the implementation of a
District-wide Neighbourhood Traffic Management Practice in other municipalities has
raised the community's awareness and, as a result, requests for improvements have
increased substantially.
4.4 StáffRésources
Undertaking a Neighbourhood Traffic Management Program requires a commitment of
staff resources to administer the program and to oversee the preparation of plans.
Although the preparation ofplans can be undertaken by outside agencies, District staff
will still be involved throughout the process. The following table summarizes key aspects
of the Neighbourhood Traffic Management Program in which District staff will be
involved.
Page 16
1880.0010.1G I May 2004 A?
\\Oak\Operatlons\Englneering\Admlfl\2004\Other\040120 Draft Trac Management Practic.doc
V IUm
District of Maple Ridge
MAPLE RiDGE Neighbourhood
Traffic Management Practice
Table 4.3: Staff Involvement in Traffic Management
Pre-Study During Studies • Respond to requests • Manage process
• Screen requests • Collect data
• Initial review • Public consultation
• Confirm issues • Review and approve plans
• Respond to requests • Present plans to Council
• Initiate plan process
Implementation Monitoring • Review and approve designs • Collect data
• Secure funding • Identify issues/problems
• Monitor construction • Correspond with public/stakeholders
• Ensure and approve completion • Address issues if necessary
Page 17
1880.0010.1G / May 2004
\\Oak\Operations\Engineering\Adnhin\2004\Other\040120 Draft Traffic Management Practices.doc
District of Maple Ridge
[APLE RIDGE Neighbourhood
rporated 12 114 Traffic Management Practice
5.0 DEVELOPING TRAFFIC CALMING PLANS
As described in previous sections, neighbourhood traffic management typically involves
a range of strategies to discourage speeding along and short-cutting through local streets.
In many cases, awareness, education, and enforcement campaigns are a precursor to the
installation of traffic calming measures, which are a more permanent and self-enforcing
solution. Once it has been decided by the District that traffic calming is a desirable
solution, a neighbourhood traffic calming plan must be prepared.
The process of developing neighbourhood traffic calming plans is typically dependent on
the size of the neighbourhood, as well as the scope of traffic-related issues. In general,
however, the principles that guide the development of those plans should remain
consistent. As well, most of the activities involved in preparing a plan will remain
consistent regardless of the scale of the study. The scope of the tasks, as well as the scope
of community involvement, will be tailored to suit the neighbourhood being reviewed.
This section describes the principles that should guide the traffic calming process, as well
as the key activities that would be undertaken in the preparation of a "typical" traffic
calming plan, whether the plan is prepared by District staff or consultants.
5.1 Principles of Traffic Calming
This section of the Practice outlines the overall principles that the District of Maple Ridge
should follow when undertaking the traffic calming process for its neighbourhoods and
streets. The approach that is outlined below does not attempt to define any 'rules' or
'thresholds' that can be used to establish when speeds, traffic volumes and other
conditions are no longer acceptable and become a problem that must be addressed. The
problem with this type of approach is that it is difficult to define thresholds that would be
applicable to all conditions within the community. Inevitably a problem would arise that
may not exceed the specified thresholds, but that would genuinely be a problem or be
perceived to be a problem by residents and members of the community.
There are several general principles that the District should follow when developing a
traffic calming plan for, any of its neighbourhoods. The application of these principles
will help to ensure that a thorough and objective process is followed, and that appropriate
traffic calming measures are selected to meet the needs of the community and minimize
the negative impacts of traffic in the area.
• Involve the community. Residents, business operators, and others who live and
work in a community must have input in the identification of traffic problems and the
selection of traffic calming measures. Involving the community builds support for
traffic management, and enhances the credibility of the resulting recommended
measures. It also minimizes the potential influence of special interest groups who
Page 18
1880.0010.1G / May 2004 I(VCTJ\ C
\\Oak\Operations\Engineering\Admin\2004\Other\040120 Draft Traffic Management Practices.doc
JLt L. '
,1 U
MAPLE RIDGE iU
1ncorojitd 12 S,pte,nIer, 1874
District of Maple Ridge
Neighbourhood
Traffic Management Practice
might otherwise unduly influence the outcome. If the community is not adequately
involved, residents and others in the conMnunity might oppose the traffic calming
measures - regardless of their technical merit - because they feel that they were not
properly consulted, or that the recommended measures do not recognize the unique
circumstances of their neighbourhood.
• Identify the real problem. Frequently, the perceived nature of a traffic problem is
substantially different from the real problem. In some cases, the difference is so great
that a solution intended to eliminate the perceived problem might make the real problem
worse. For example, residents often mention 'traffic volume' and 'speeding' as
problems on their streets, but in many cases the problem is one or the other. It is
important to identify the real problem, so as to select the appropriate measure. if the real
problem is speeding, for example, a measure that significantly reduces the traffic volume
on a street might inadvertently encourage speeding if fewer cars remain on the street to
slow traffic.
• Quantify the problem. Some problems are more significant than other problems.
Some problems are all-day problems, whereas other problems occur only at certain
times, in certain seasons, or in certain directions. Some reported problems are not really
problems that can be addressed by traffic calming. For example, two or three speeders a
day would not be addressed through traffic calming. In order to ensure that appropriate
traffic calming measures are implemented, it is essential that the extent of each problem
be quantified. This means collecting data, including traffic volumes, accident data,
counts of pedestrians and cyclists, measures of delay and other data as appropriate.
• Use self-enforcing measures. Unless police enforcement is a feasible and
preferred solution for traffic management, measures that maintain a 24-hour presence
and that do not require police enforcement to be effective should be used. For example,
traffic circles should generally be used instead of four-way stops, and directional
closures should be used instead of turn prohibitions. Measures that can be circumvented
- such as a turn prohibition or a directional closure - should be used only at
intersections with major roads, where visibility and the presence of traffic discourage
motorists from circumventing these measures.
• Minimize access restrictions. Generally, residents and other members of the
community will be more supportive of traffic calming measures that do not restrict their
access into and out of a neighbourhood. Diverters, barriers, and closures restrict access
for people who live or work on a particular street, and support for such measures is
directly related to the severity of traffic problems: Where problems can be addressed
with other traffic calming measures that are not as restrictive to access, these should be
considered instead, or residents should at least be given a choice of measures.
Page 19
1880.0010.1G / May 2004 TIP P(A V0T0 /0.
\\Oak\Operans\Engineeng\Admn\2004\Other\040120 Draft Traffic Management Pracces.doc Li I U 'i U
District of Maple Ridge
Neighbourhood
12
Traffic Management Practice
• Consider effects on other streets. In considering measures to resolve a traffic
problem in one location, the District should also consider any potential effects on
adjacent streets. These effects might be caused by traffic diverted to other streets,
motorists who speed up further down a street from a traffic calming measure, or changes
in turning movements that increase delays at an intersection. If these effects are not
considered in advance, a traffic calming measure might fail to solve a problem and at the
same time create new problems or exacerbate existing problems elsewhere in the
neighbourhood.
• Target automobiles and trucks only. The purpose of implementing traffic
calming measures is to affect automobiles and trucks, not other modes. Consequently,
traffic calming devices should be designed to permit transit buses, cyclists, and
pedestrians to pass through, while obstructing automobiles and trucks. Similarly, traffic
calming devices should be located and designed to minimize impacts on emergency and
service vehicles.
5.2 The Process
This section lays out a general process for undertaking traffic calming plans within the
District of Maple Ridge. As stated in the introduction, the process partly depends on the
size of the neighbourhood under consideration, the scope of the traffic problems, and the
resources available to develop and implement traffic calming plans.
In the District of Maple Ridge, the current scale of issues, neighbourhoods, and resources
available are modest compared to some other communities. Consequently, a more
streanilined process for developing traffic calming plans in the community is outlined in
this section. A similar streamlined approach is successfully used in several other
communities in BC. It is important to recognize that this Practice will likely evolve as the
District gains experience in traffic calming and that the process used to develop traffic
calming plans may change to meet the needs of the community.
Figure 5.1 below illustrates the various activities involved in developing a traffic calming
plan from study initiation through to approval. The public involvement activities that are
shown are typical for a more streamlined approach. A larger-scale plan would generally
involve more extensive public consultation. A process involving additional consultation
is presented in Appendix A.
Page 20
1880.0010.1G / May 2004 P ($TEN /12
\\Oak\Operations\Englneeilrig\Admin\2004\Other\040120 Draft Traffic Management Practices.doc
.& (A T C
L) Li ' L)C
District of Maple Ridge
MAPLE RIDGE Neighbourhood
in ted 12 Septernher,1874 Traffic Management Practice
Figure 5.1: Undertaking the Plan
STAGE 1 - Gauging I STAGE 2— Developing I STAGE 3— Plan
Community Interest I the Plan l Approval
Fnitiate Tfaffic Collect
______
Refine Plan
Council
Community
nnafre I 0
T,'Yes
Collect No
Prehm:nary Community
Data Letter
I ImpTht
I Plan Yes Community I Community I Yes
Interest? Support?
i
I Major
I
Minofl
No Changes No Changes!
Respond to Refine Plan Request(s) I
Stage 1— Gauging Community Interest
Upon initiation of a traffic calming plan for a neighbourhood, the District will want to
canvass the broader community early in the process to determine whether there is interest
in the preparation of a plan. This is a critical stage in the traffic calming process, as it
determines early on whether others in the community have similar concerns and whether
they want to consider traffic calming measures. In some communities, this early gauging
of community support was not undertaken and significant effort and resources were
invested in plans that were ultimately defeated because the majority of residents in the
neighbourhood were not supportive of traffic calming in the first place.
To determine the community's opinions early in the process, it is reconmiended that the
District develop a newsletter/questionnaire to be distributed to all residents in the
neighbourhood that describes:
• The study area for the plan
• The traffic-related issues that have been identified by members of the community or
District staff
Page 21
/ May 2004 URB1ANSYSTEMS \\Oak\Operauons\Englneering\Admin\2004\Qther\040120 Draft Traffic Management Practlem.doc
District of Maple Ridge
Neighbourhood IL Traffic Management Practice
• The purpose of traffic calming and some potential measures that could be
implemented
• The process to be undertaken to develop a plan, if the community chooses to proceed
The questionnaire should ask residents to respond to a direct question, such as "Do you
want the District to consider traffic calming for your neighbourhood?" As well, residents
should be given an opportunity to identify additional traffic-related issues that are of
concern to them. In addition, residents should be requested to provide their name and
address for confirmation that they live within the study area.
If two-thirds of the respondents wish to proceed with a traffic calming plan, then the
preparation of the plan can move forward to Stage 2. If this level of support is not
achieved, the District will want to respond by sending a letter to all residents outlining the
results of the survey and confirming that a traffic calming plan will not be undertaken
without community support.
Stage 2— Developing the Plan
With community support established early in the process, preparation of the traffic
calming plan can be undertaken. Once a study has begun, it is essential that all traffic and
transportation issues in the area be identified and quantified. The list of issues will
include those already identified through the District's recorded concerns and requests, but
also any additional issues identified during Stage 1 of the process. The objective at this
stage is to ensure that the most comprehensive list of issues has been compiled to
minimize the potential for significant concerns to arise late in they study process.
As discussed in Section 4.1, many issues will be identified during Stage 1 that do not
necessarily fall within the scope of a traffic calming plan. Regardless, all of the issues
should be documented as part of the traffic calming process, and the appropriate ones
forwarded to other agencies as necessary for further action.
Specific activities to be undertaken during this stage of the process include:
• Collect data. To verify the nature and magnitude of reported problems, and to
ensure that the real problems are addressed, data must be collected. These data
include reported collisions, vehicle speeds, traffic volumes, pedestrian volumes and
other data relevant to the reported problem. Where possible, traffic data should be
collected using automatic counters, for a minimum of 168 hours (seven complete
days), and should be collected during times when problems are reported to occur.
Similarly, manual data collection efforts (such as traffic counts and licence plate
traces) should be undertaken at times when problems are reported to occur.
Page 22
1880.0010.1G I May 2004 TPA JC2TT..\ IC$
\\Oak\Operations\EngIneean\Admin\2OO4\Other\O4O12O Draft Traffic Management Practices.doc L.) Li I V
District of Maple Ridge
- Nei hbourhood
Incorponted 12 mber,1S74 Traffic Management Practice
Existing data may be available from a variety of sources for many locations
throughout the municipality. Additional information will need to be collected at
locations for which municipal data are not available (such as speed data and vehicle
classification counts). Detailed information regarding the level of data collection that
may be required for traffic calming studies is included in Appendix B.
• Develop potential solutions. Potential traffic calming measures that would
address the neighbourhood's concerns should be identified and incorporated into a
preliminary plan. It is recommended that only a single preliminary traffic calming
plan be developed, with optional measures for specific locations as required. Options
should only be considered where two or more measures would be equally effective.
Neighbourhood preference would then determine the preferred option, based on the
relative advantages and disadvantages of each (unless cost differences are of such
magnitude that District staff should also have input). Optional measures should also
be considered where a specific measure might be controversial - this permits
residents and others who might oppose the specific measure to indicate support for
the entire plan without supporting the specific measure.
• Community letter/survey. The purpose of the community letter/survey is to
determine the level of support for the proposed plan, and to select optional measures.
Words such as 'ballot' and 'vote' should be avoided when describing the community
survey. It is important that residents and other community members understand that it is
a survey intended to measure community support for the proposed pian, and is not a
binding referendum. Consequently, it is important to explain that, following the survey,
there will still be an opportunity to refine and improve the plan if there are any
significant outstanding concerns.
The proposed neighbourhood traffic calming plan and any optional measures should
be explained clearly, in non-technical language and with as much visual material as
possible. The letter should include a map of the neighbourhood, illustrating the plan
and options, and sketches of various traffic calming measures. Where appropriate,
background information should be included describing the nature of specific
problems (such as observed traffic volumes or speeds on specific streets).
Respondents should be given three choices for each question. They should be asked
to indicate whether they support the plan, do not support the plan, or are neutral. The
'neutral' choice is important. Some people might hesitate to actively support a plan,
but might not want to condemn it either with a vote of no support. A third option
allows them to say, in effect, "I do not care strongly one way or another." Without the
'neutral' option, the number of persons who do not support a plan might appear to be
significantly higher than the actual number, and might make it difficult to identify
those who have legitimate concerns with the plan.
Page23
1880.0010.1G I May 2004
Draft Traffic Management Praices.d L.) L.) v ILim
District of Maple Ridge
Ne,ahbourhood
In orated ptemLcr1874 Traffic Management Practice
The letter should be distributed to every residence (property owners and tenants) and
business in the neighbourhood. One response is permitted per address. To maximize
response rates, convenient locations in the neighbourhood should be designated for
people to drop off their completed questionnaires. These can include community
centres, schools, and stores. Although response rates will typically vary with the size
of community, it is recommended that the District expect response rates that are in
line with the typical voter turnout for municipal elections.
The key consideration for the Practice is to set a minimum level of support for
finalizing the traffic calming plan and seeking Council support during Stage 3.
Although this minimum level could be as low as 50% plus one, it is recommended
that a higher level of support be required to ensure solid support for - and minimum
opposition to - the plan. A minimum of 67% support is recommended. As well, it is
recommended that an upper limit be established for 'do not support' responses.
Ideally, fewer than 20% of respondents would not support the plan. Typically, many
respondents who do not support a plan do so because of a single concern, and it is
often possible to make minor changes to the plan to address these outstanding
concerns, thereby reducing the proportion of opposition within a neighbourhood.
if the required level of support is not achieved, the plan should be revised in an attempt
to address the concerns of residents. if the public's concerns and the resulting changes
are significant, a second community letter/survey should be distributed to canvass the
public for the opinions on the revised plan. If the changes are less significant, a revised
plan can be submitted to Council for approval in Stage 3.
Stage 3— Plan Approval
The third stage of the planning process is intended to get District Council's approval of
the final traffic calming plan. The following activities are included in Stage 3:
• Present the plan to District Council. The refined plan should be presented to
Maple Ridge District Council for approval and allocation of funding. It may also be
desirable to invite members of the public to attend the presentation to speak on behalf
of the plan. In general, the plan will be approved by Council based on the support
received from the community through the survey process in Stage 2.
• Revise the plan if necessary. In some cases, Council may request minor
revisions to the plan. Typically these revisions can be made without returning to the
community for support by way of a letter/survey.
Upon approval of the traffic calming plan, the District can move forward with
implementation, which is described in Section 6.0.
Page 24
1880.0010.1G / May 2004 TTA: TCv'(2Ti.....'\ AC'
\\Oak\Operaaons\Engineering\Admin\2004\Other\040120 Draft Traffic Management Practices.doc Li I L.) V L.)nn
District of Maple Ridge
Neighbourhood
Traffic Management Practice
I
E RIDGE
12 Sep(ember, 1874
5.3 Agency Consultation in the Traffic Calming Process
A successful Neighbourhood Traffic Management Practice is not only dependent on the
support of local residents, but also on the support of agencies and other stakeholders that
may be impacted by the installation of traffic calming measures. These agencies are
primarily emergency service providers such as police, fire, and ambulance services, but
also transit and school bus operators, and municipal operations staff. Although it may be
challenging to generate support from all stakeholders, the best way to achieve support is
to be aware of the respective goals of all parties. Not all agencies may be interested in
participating; however, it is important to provide an opportunity for them to do so. Figure
5.2 summarizes the opportunities for engaging external agencies in the consultation
process. Each opportunity is further detailed below.
Figure 5.2: Opportunities for Agency Consultation
of Development Implementation
NTM and Approval
for
Notification of
Intent
Draft P/an
Circulation
Approved P/an
Circulation
Confirm Design
Vehicles
field Visit
Review Design
Drawings
field Test
Temp. Devices
field Test finai
Devices
Plan Development and Approval
Notfi cation of Intent: The earlier that stakeholders are informed of the traffic calming
planning process, the more opportunity those agencies have to participate and provide
input. Although notification at this stage may not be intended to engage discussion
with regard to planning and design, any response may flag potential issues of
concern. In cities such as Portland and Seattle, this consultation typically occurs prior
to any commitment being made to neighbourhood residents.
Draft Plan Circulation: At the planning stage, various agencies' goals must be heard
and incorporated as much as possible into the plan to increase the chances of reaching
a successful outcome. Circulating the draft plan allows the agencies to comment and
provide further information. In Boulder, Colorado, emergency services maintain an
active role in developing the draft plan and, in conjunction with all other parties, must
accept the plan before it can proceed.
Page 25
/ May 2004 URBANSYSTEMSm
\\Oak\Operath,ns\EngIneeJingAdmIn\2OO4\Other\040120 Draft Traffic Management Practices.doc
0,.~ n!nn na
District of Maple Ridge
Neig hbourhood
Traffic Management Practice
Approved Plan Circulation: Once the plan is approved it is necessary to inform all
agencies and operators who may be impacted that the traffic calming plan will be
proceeding. This will prepare operators for any new devices that will be constructed.
Design
Confirm Design Vehicles: When designing traffic calming devices, it must be ensured
that all vehicles, namely emergency vehicles, buses, and garbage trucks, can be safely
accommodated. The designers will want to ensure that these measures support a
design vehicle that would commonly use the specific neighbourhood streets.
Field Visit: If requested, or if there is any doubt about accommodating particular
vehicles, municipal staff should meet with concerned agencies on-site and conduct a
drive-through with traffic cones. For example, agencies may request additional
parking restrictions to ensure sufficient manoeuvring space in the vicinity of traffic
calming devices.
Review Design Drawings: Once designs have been completed, agencies should have
the opportunity to review those designs prior to construction. In Boulder, all parties
must accept the terms of the design before the project can proceed.
Implementation
Field Test Temporary Devices: Temporary traffic calming devices may be
constructed to determine whether or not they are appropriate for achieving the desired
result of calming traffic. Field tests may be conducted to ensure that vehicles such as
fire trucks can adequately manoeuvre through the devices. The size and shape of
devices can be modified to achieve the best compromise between the goals of
concerned agencies and the needs to manage traffic.
Field Test Final Device: Once the trial period for temporary devices has ended and
any necessary modifications have been incorporated into the design, construction of
permanent traffic calming devices may proceed. Although agencies will have had
several opportunities to confirm that the traffic calming devices are acceptable, they
should be invited to field test the permanent devices upon completion to ensure that
the final design is also successful.
5.4 Schedule
The preparation of a traffic calming plan using this process will likely require a period of
four to five months. A longer time period may be necessary where the work occurs
around Christmas or the summer months, as public consultation is not advisable when a
Page 26
1880.0010.1G / May 2004 TTPA IC\ 'LTT /fl
\\Oak\Opemtions\Engineerngdmifl\2O\Other\Q4O12O Dmft Traffic Management Praces.d
Li Y Li ILl®
District of Maple Ridge
Neighbourhood
Traffic Management Practice
large number of residents may be on vacation. For this reason, it is generally best to
initiate a traffic calming plan in September or January, as it can then be concluded and
approved before Christmas or the summer.
The more extensive process outlined in Appendix A would require a time period of six to
eight months.
Following this schedule, design and construction of traffic calming devices can be
undertaken in the spring and summer, respectively, when schools are not in session and
traffic volumes on neighbourhood streets are often lower. If temporary devices are used,
construction of permanent devices can occur the following spring or summer.
Page27 .
1880.0010.1G / May 2004 TTP P(A PeT C" 'CTE\ AC'
\\Oak\OperatIons\Engineeringdmin\2004\her\0120 DraftTm m fflc Management Pic.doc Y U U V Uc
aa 02 a *-1 !'
MAPLE RIDGE Inwmorated 12 Se,'tembe, 1874
District of Maple Ridge
Neighbourhood
Traffic Management Practice
6.0 IMPLEMENTATION
This section of the Practice outlines the recommended approach to the implementation of
traffic calming plans after they are approved by Council.
6.1 Design, Construction & Monitoring
Once approved, traffic calming measures can typically be implemented immediately
following design, but may be phased over time. As well, temporary measures may be
installed to test their effectiveness and to identify potential adjustments to the plan or the
measures themselves to reflect actual conditions. Implementation activities are illustrated
in Figure 6.1 and are discussed below.
Figure 6.1: Implementation Process
Install
Tern porary
vices
Implement
Plan
Monitor I Effect! veness
Phasing if Consider Construct
EDesign Temporary >No[ Permanent I inecessary Devices? Devices
'I,
Monitor
Effectiveness
• Design. To ensure that traffic calming measures are constructed properly, designs
should be prepared for most devices based on accurate survey information. However,
it is usually not necessary to prepare designs for individual speed humps and raised
crosswalks - instead, a standard design can be used and a map prepared illustrating
the exact location. Designs should be implemented based on information in the
Canadian Guide to Neighbourhood Traffic Calming, and supplementary design
information contained in Section 7.3 of the Practice.
• Phasing. Desirably, traffic calming measures should be implemented all at once.
However, in some cases it may not be possible or desirable to implement all traffic
calming measures at the same time. Instead implementation might be phased over a
Page 28
/ May 2004 URB1NSYSTEMS \\ak\Opeons\Engineer1fl9\Admfl\2004\Other\040120 Draft Traffic Management Practices.doc
District of Maple Ridge
b; Neighbourhood
2ptern1r1874 Traffic Management Practice
period of two or more years. If implementation is to be phased, priorities for
implementation should be determined using the following criteria:
- Safety improvements should be given priority. These might include traffic
calming measures to reduce vehicle speeds and reduce conflicts at intersections,
as well as pedestrian and bicycle facility improvements.
- Low-cost measures should be given priority. Generally, it is preferable to
implement several low-cost measures rather than one higher-cost measure. Low-
cost measures might include signage, pavement markings, speed humps and
crosswalks, for example.
- Measures should be implemented in groups. For example, measures on two
parallel local streets should be implemented at the same time, so as to avoid
diverting traffic from the street with a measure to the street without a measure.
- Measures incorporated as part of a neighbourhood beautification strategy should
be given priority. In some cases, traffic management devices incorporate
plantings that are identified as part of a broader strategy to beautify
neighbourhoods.
• Temporary devices. Where possible, traffic calming devices should be first
implemented on a temporary basis. After a period of six months to a year, if it has
been determined that a device has achieved the intended results, it should then be
constructed on a permanent basis. This avoids the risk of removing or modifying a
permanent installation that was constructed at a much higher cost than a temporary
installation. It also provides an opportunity to alter the geometrics of a device or
make other changes prior to permanent installation. Guidelines for temporary devices
are included in Section 7.3.3 of the Practice.
• Monitoring. Data collected during the preparation of the traffic calming plan
represents 'before' data. Following implementation of temporary measures, 'after' data
should be collected at the same locations and in the same conditions to determine
whether desired results have been achieved and to confirm that permanent devices
should be installed.
• Construction. Guidelines for the construction of traffic calming devices are also
included in Section 7.3.
• Monitoring. Following implementation of permanent devices, monitoring of the
traffic mariagement strategy should contInue to ensure that the plan is meeting its
objectives and whether additions and/or modifications should be considered.
Page 29
1880.0010.1G I May 2004 ........ IC
\\Oak\Opeons\EngIneerifl9\AdmIn\20\her\0120 Draft Traffic Management Praces.d
L.) I Li _..
C District of Maple Ridge
- Neighbourhood MAPLE .IJçTX L Traffic Management Practice
7.0 TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES
This section of the Practice identifies which traffic calming measures are appropriate for
use within the District of Maple Ridge, and also identifies which measures should not be
used. Information regarding the applicability of traffic calming measures is also provided
to supplement existing published information.
7.1 Measures Considered for Use in Maple Ridge
The Canadian Guide to Neighbourhood Traffic Calming identifies a total of 25 measures
that are commonly used in Canada for traffic calming, as listed in Table 3.1 of the Guide.
However, the Guide notes that not all of these 25 measures are appropriate as traffic
calming measures. Some measures - such as stop signs and maximum speed signs, for
example - should not be used for traffic calming purposes. Although effective for other
purposes, these measures have proven to be less effective for traffic calming purposes.
This section of the Practice identifies those measures that are appropriate for the District
of Maple Ridge based on input from staff and experience in other municipalities.
The traffic calming measures identified in Table 7.1 below are recommended for use in
Maple Ridge. Based on discussions with District staff, some traffic calming measures
may be considered for both locals and collectors, whereas others should be used only on
one type of roadway.
Other factors affecting the applicability of traffic calming measures in Maple Ridge
include access for emergency vehicles, transit service, and ongoing maintenance of
roadways. Measures that should are not suitable for primary emergency response and
transit routes are identified in the table.
Page 30
1880.0010.1G/ May 2004 I%IC' 'L'JTN AC m
\\Oak\Operations\EngInengAdmIn\20 4\her\40120 Draft Traffic Management Praces.d
Li Y u -. v U
MAPLE RIDGE LL Neighbourhood
Traffic Management Practice
District of Maple Ridge
Table 7.1: Applicability of Traffic Calming Measures in Maple Ridge
Road Classification Other Considerations
Local Collector Emergency
Roads Roads Response Transit Routes
Routes
Vertical Deflection
• Sidewalk Extension X X • Textured Crosswalk
Horizontal Deflection
• Chicane (one-lane) X X X
• Curb Extension V V V
• Curb Radius Reduction V V x
• On-Street Parking V V V V
• Raised Median Island V V V V
• Traffic Circle X X
• RoadDiets
Obstruction
• Directional Closure V V X X
• Raised Median Through Intersection V X X X
• Right-In/Right-Out Island X X X
Signage
• Right-/Left-Turn Prohibition V V V V
• Traffic Calmed Neighbourhood V V
• Information Signage V V V V
Key
V - suitable X - not suitable
1 Only where tratfic volumes are low.
Those traffic calming measures recommended for use in Maple Ridge are briefly
summarized as follows:
7.1.1 Vertical Deflection
This section describes traffic calming measures that cause a vertical deflection of the
vehicle. The following measures are recommended for use within the District of Maple
Ridge as summarized in Table 7.1.
• Sidewalk extensions are intended for use on
local streets. The primary purpose of a sidewalk
extension is to indicate that pedestrians on the
sidewalk have priority over vehicles approaching
on the roadway. Sidewalk extensions are only
considered alongor crossing a local road.
'.
Page 31
1880.00 biG / May 2004
\\Oak\Operatlons\Englneering\Admln\2004\Other\040120 Draft Traffic Management Practices.doc URBJ.N SYSTEN'S5
District of Maple Ridge
________ L. Neighbourhood MAPLE L Traffic Management Practice
• Textured crosswalks are appropriate for use
on all roadways. A textured crosswalk
incorporates a textured and/or patterned surface
that contrasts with the adjacent roadway surface.
The primary benefit of textured crosswalks is that
they better define the crossing location and can
further enhance other measures such as raised
crosswalks and/or curb extensions.
7.12 Horizontal Deflection
This section describes traffic calming measures that cause a horizontal deflection of
vehicles. These types of measures discourage short-cutting or through traffic to varying
degrees and may also reduce vehicle speeds, reduce conflicts and enhance the
neighbourhood environment.
• One-lane chicanes discourage speeding by
requiring motorists to weave around two offset
extensions of the curbs and to yield to oncoming 4 .
traffic. One-lane chicanes have proven to he •
somewhat effective at reducing vehicle volumes. •., Chicanes are used in limited applications, . !
primarily on local streets where driveway spacing
and on-street parking allow for the installation of
the chicane. They cannot typically be used where
on-street parking is heavily used. They are generally designed to accommodate
surface drainage along the gutter, and can incorporate landscaping. In the District of
Maple Ridge, one-lane chicanes will only be considered for local streets.
Curb extensions improve pedestrian safety by
reducing the distance that pedestrians must cross t. .
a roadway, and by improving the visibility of
pedestrians for approaching motorists, and the
visibility of approaching vehicles for pedestrians. •. '
Curb extensiOns can be used at intersections and
at midblock locations, and can be used alone or in . -.
combination with a raised crosswalk and/or a .
median island. In addition to their pedestrian
safety benefits, curb extensions on one, or both sides of the roadway also help to
reduce vehicle speeds. For this purpose, curb extensions may be built on either urban
or rural roadway cross sections. In the District of Maple Ridge, curb extensions may
be considered along all road classes including transit and emergency response routes.
Page 32
1880.0010.1G / May 2004
\\Oak\Operations\Englneering\Adnhln\2004\Other\040120 Draft TraffiC Management Practices.doc
URBNSYSTD'1'1S®
i
-H
I,
L- - -- -
S --
5-
URB'ANSYST;IMS,
E RIDGE _-
-
District of Maple Ridge
Neighbourhood
Traffic Management Practice
• Curb radius reduction is the reconstruction 31,
of an intersection corner to a smaller radius. This
measure effectively slows down right-turning t\
vehicle speeds by making the corner 'tighter'
with a smaller radius. A corner radius reduction
may also improve pedestrian safety to a certain
degree by shortening the crossing distance. This
type of measure is acceptable on most classes of
roadway, but its use is often limited to specific
situations where the existing intersection geometry would allow the reconstruction. In
addition, curb radius reductions should not be used on transit routes.
r . On-street parking is a practical way of
decreasing the effective road width by allowing r vehicles to park adjacent and parallel to the road
edge. This type of measure is applicable on most - - -
classes of road, but may not be that effective on -
rural cross-sections, unless obstructions are
placed at the roadside to prevent vehicles from
parking too far off of the roadway. In addition,
continuous on-street parking along longer streets without intermediate passing
opportunities may be inappropriate. The primary benefit of allowing on-street parking
as a traffic calming measure is the reduction in vehicle speeds due to the narrowed
travel space.
• Raised median islands are installed in the
r- -
centre of an arterial or collector road to slow, L traffic without affecting the capacity of the road. -1-
Raised median islands are particularly useful at t unsignalized crosswalks on higher-volume roads,
S as they increase motorists' awareness of the S
S crosswalk and permit pedestrians to cross half
the road at a time. Raised median islands can be - L
combined with curb extensions and/or raised crosswalks to further improve pedestrian
safety. These measures may be considered on all classes of roadway.
• Traffic circles should only be used at
intersections of local residential streets, and
intersections, of local streets and minor collector
roads where traffic volumes are balanced. They
should not be used on industrial collector or
arterial roads, even where these roads intersect
local residential streets. Experience in other
Page 33
1880.0010.1G / May 2004
\\Oak\01)erations\Engineering'Admin\2004\Other\040120 Draft Traffic Management Practices.doc
District of Maple Ridge
LJ EF
TAPLE RIDGE Neighbourhood
Traffic Management Practice
communities has shown that, where traffic circles are located on major roads, traffic
entering the traffic circle from the major road often fails to yield to traffic that has
already entered from the local street, creating a safety concern. Traffic circles should
not be confused with a similar traffic control device - the modem roundabout
• Road diets are a new technique used to better -
define roadspace for various users and to
encourage motorists to slow down In many
cases, wide local and collector streets do not - -
have pavement markings (other than a centre -
line in the case of collectors) to clearly indicate Z1
where motorists should drive Road diets involve
the addition of pavement markings to define
driving space, parking space, and, in some cases,
bicycle facilities. More clear definition of
driving space can induce drivers to reduce their I Parking I Two Marked
speed. Road diets also refer to the technique of Lane Travel Lanes
reducing four-lane arterial roads to two- or three-lane arterials with bicycle facilities
and/or on-street parking. Road diets can apply to any type of road in Maple Ridge.
7.1.3 Obstruction
This section describes those traffic calming measures that obstruct specific vehicle
movements. These types of measures are typically implemented at intersections, but may
also be applied at some mid-block locations. The primary benefit of obstruction measures
for traffic management is that they effectively calm traffic behaviour without
compromising bicycle or pedestrian movements. Although these types of measures are
effective at discouraging short-cutting and through traffic to varying extents, they are
only recommended for use when horizontal or vertical deflection measures would not be
effective or appropriate. The following obstructions are appropriate for use in Maple
Ridge, as per Table 7.1.
Directional closures are applicable for use
only on local residential streets, but at
intersections with other road classes such as 4~1
collectors and arterials. A directional closure is a
j$b
curb extension or other barrier that extends into - -
the roadway, approximately as far as the
centreline.. This device obstructs one side of the
roadway and effectively prohibits vehicles travelling in that direction from entering.
Directional closures are especially useful for controlling non-compliance of one-way
road sections and are compatible with other modes such as bicycles. At all directional
Page 34
1880.0010.1G / May 2004
\\Oak\Operatlons\Engineering\Admifl\2004\Other\040120 Draft Traffic Management Practices.doc URB-iNSYSTLMS
(.47
District of Maple Ridge
MAERIL L Neighbourhood
JnrtedJ2Serternhr1S74 Traffic Management Practice
closures, bicycles are permitted to travel in both directions through the unobstructed
side of the road, however, some directional closures have a pathway built through the
device specifically for bicycles.
• Raised median through intersection.
ho These devices are used on the centrelines of two- :.
and four-lane roadways to prevent left-turn and ..
through movements to and from intersecting
streets. This type of device is appropriate for use
on all classes of road in Maple Ridge and is
especially effective at preventing short-cutting
and through traffic while providing some
secondary pedestrian safety benefits. In the
District of Maple Ridge, raised medians through
intersections are appropriate where local roads intersect higher classes of road.
• Right-in/right-out islands are raised
triangular islands located on an intersection
approach to limit the side street to right turn in
and out movements. Similar to a raised median
through an intersection, this device is used
primarily to restrict movements to and from an
intersection roadway. In Maple Ridge, right-
inlright-out islands may be considered only for
use in locations where local residential streets
intersect another roadway of any class.
7.14 Signage
Signage prohibiting turns and through movements should only be used as an alternative
in situations where appropriate traffic calming measures cannot be used. The use of
signage without accompanying physical traffic calming devices should be avoided where
possible, as this can create an enforcement problem and, as a result, can be costly in
terms of police resources. There is, however, one type of signage that can be used to
complement the physical devices installed through a traffic calming plan.
• Traffic-calmed neighbourhood signage
is used to notify motorists and other road users
that they are about to enter a neighbourhood that .
has been 'calmed' by the installation of various
traffic calming measures. Although this signage 1
alone does not have any significant impacts on
driver behaviour, it aims to make the motorist •..
Page35
1880.0010.1G/May 2004 _r_ YuT i®
\\Oak\Operations\Eflgifleering\Admifl\2004\OtherW40120 Draft Traffic Management Practices.doc
District of Maple Ridge
Neighbourhood
12
Traffic Management Practice
aware of the conditions they are about to enter and could potentially act as a
'deterrent' for motorists looking for a short-cut.
• Information signage may be used to raise awareness about neighbourhood
traffic issues. Although signage may help to increase the awareness of motorists to
undesirable driving behaviour, it will not generally have any significant impacts on
speeding or short-cutting.
7.2 Measures Not Recommended for Use in Maple Ridge
Through discussions with District staff and the emergency service providers in Maple
Ridge (RCMP, ambulance service, fire service), the following traffic calming measures
are not recommended for use:
• Speed humps. Speed humps are not the same as speed bumps used in parking lots
and designed in many communities. Speed humps are used throughout the Lower
Mainland for traffic calming purposes, but create delays and inconvenience for
emergency services in particular. District staff and the emergency services do not
recommend speed humps for use within Maple Ridge because of potential delays to
emergency vehicles, as well as safety concerns for passengers/patients in fire vehicles
and ambulances. As well, because there is a large contingent of volunteer fire fighters
in Maple Ridge, there is also an issue with educating drivers on the location of speed
humps and preferred response routes throughout the District.
• Raised crosswalks. A raised crosswalk is essentially a speed hump combined
with a crosswalk. For reasons similar to those for speed humps, the District and
emergency services prefer not to consider raised crosswalks for use in Maple Ridge.
• Raised intersections are not readily visible to motorists and other roadway users.
Consequently, their effects on vehicle speeds and traffic volumes are minor, at best.
Given the high cost of retrofitting raised intersections on existing roadways, it is
recommended that raised intersections not be used in Maple Ridge as a traffic
calming measure.
• Rumble strips are typically used on high-speed rural roadways at approaches to
unsignalized intersections. Because this situation does not exist within the District,
and because rumble strips create concerns for maintenance, snow clearing, and
particularly cyclists, they are not recommended for use in the District of Maple
Ridge.
• .Diverters are only used where significant short-cutting problems exist and should
only be considered in extreme circumstances, as they severely restrict access for
residents and transit and emergency vehicles, unless pass-through facilities are
Page36
1880.00 biG I May 2004 TTP A?tT C\/CTE!\ AC'
\\Oak\Operadons\Englneering\Admln\2004\Other\040120 Draft Traffic Management practices.doc __
MAPLE RIDGE
District of Maple Ridge
Neighbourhood
Traffic Management Practice
provided. Given the existing scope of traffic management issues being raised within
the District, diverters are not recommended for use at this time.
• Intersection channelization is used to delineate specific movements at or
(through an intersection. They typically restrict access to and from cross-streets and
therefore impact access to neighbourhoods for residents and emergency vehicles. In
addition, they are costly to implement. For these reasons, intersection channelization
is not recommended as a traffic calming technique at this time.
• Full closures are typically only considered as a last resort, as they completely
restrict access for residents and others travelling to and from locations within a
neighbourhood. They also restrict emergency and transit access. Less restrictive
measures should be considered first, as in most cases these can achieve the same
results, without the severe impacts associated with a full closure.
• Signage. As mentioned in the previous section, signage that prohibits turning and
through movements should only be considered when other methods of traffic calming
are not effective or appropriate. Experience in other communities has shown that
signage alone - to prevent vehicle movements, control traffic, or restrict speeds - is
generally not effective. For example, the addition of unwarranted stop signs may in
fact lead to reduced compliance by some drivers, which in turn affects safety for other
motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians. In this regard, signage must generally be
combined with significant enforcement activities or other physical traffic calming
measures to meet the objectives of neighbourhood traffic management. In the District
of Maple Ridge, it is not recommended that speed limit, stop signs, and prohibition
signage alone be considered as an appropriate traffic calming device.
7.3 Design Notes
The following information regarding the design of traffic calming devices is intended to
supplement or replace information presented in Section 4 of the Canadian Guide to
Neighbourhood Traffic Calming. These guidelines reflect experience and new techniques
developed since the Guide was published.
7.3.1 Design Guidelines
This section presents improved and modified designs for several traffic calming
measures. These changes address deficiencies of the designs presented in the Guide, and
reflect proven practices in BC.
• Curb extensions. The minimum dimensions indicated in the Guide for curb
extensions (Section 4.3.2 of the Guide) are excessive, and might unnecessarily reduce
opportunities for on-street parking. Figure 7.1 indicates minimum dimensions
Page 37
1880.0010.1G/ May2004 N
\\Oak\Operations\Engineering\Admifl\2004\Other\040120 DraftTraffic Management Practices.doc L.' U -. v
District of Maple Ridge
Nei hbourhood
Traffic Management Practice
appropriate for conditions in Maple Ridge - these dimensions are used for curb
extensions in Vancouver and other municipalities in BC.
Figure 7.1: Minimum Dimensions For Curb Extensions in Urban Areas
60 degrees
16.0
mm. 1~n.
max. I R=1.2 m mm.
• Traffic circle. Landscaping should be included in the centre of a traffic circle to
enhance visibility and aesthetics, rather than a hard surface or a planter. Specific
guidelines regarding landscaping include:
- Asphalt should be removed from the centre of the traffic circle prior to
landscaping. 150mm of pavement should be left along the inside edge of the
traffic circle curb, so as to provide stability for the concrete curb.
- The traffic circle should be filled with clean fill material. This should be covered
by 75mm of topsoil, which should in turn be covered with 50mm of planting
mulch.
- A maximum slope of 3:1 should be used for material within the traffic circle. --
- Plant material should be selected which requires minimum irrigation during
summer months, and minimum maintenance.
- Trees may be placed within the centre of traffic circles. Circles less than 5m in
diameter should inc1ude.one tree placed in the centre of the circle. -Circles larger
than 5m in diameter can incorporate up to three trees, each of which is located at
least 1 .25m back from the curb face of the circle. Trees must be watered weekly
for one hour during the first two years after planting.
Page 38 c ' r' 1880 0010 1G/May 2004 URB1TJ L'Y- m
\\Oak\Operaaons\Engineerin9VdmIn\2004\Other\040120 Draft Traffic Management Practices.doc
District of Maple Ridge
MAPLE RIDGE Neighbourhood
Traffic Management Practice
• Raised median islands. The minimum dimensions indicated in the Guide for
raised median islands and raised median islands through intersections (Sections 4.3.5
and 4.4.5 of the Guide, respectively) are excessive, and might unduly impact traffic
operations and on-street parking on some streets. Figure 7.2 and Figure 7.3 indicate
minimum dimensions appropriate for conditions in the District - these dimensions
are used for raised median islands in Vancouver and other Lower Mainland
municipalities.
Figure 7.2: Minimum Dimensions For Raised Median Islands
5 m mm.
Page 39
1880.0010.1G I May 2004
\\Oak\Operations\Engineering\Admtn\2004\Other\040120 Draft Traffic Management Practices.doc
URBANSYSTL\ASm
District of Maple Ridge
Neighbourhood
Traffic Management Practice
Figure 7.3: Dimensions for Raised Median Islands Through
Intersections
Signed
Bicycle Route
Major Street Rolled Curbs Distance
Varies I
1.5m
Median Refuge Taper
Varies with Road Width
Curb Ramps RB-25
• Directional closure. The designs for directional closures illustrated in the Guide
(Section 4.4.1) can cause problems for cyclists where vehicles are parked against the
back side of the closure, and can increase maintenance efforts as a result of debris
accumulated in the bicycle channel. An alternative design of directional closure was
developed in Vancouver to address these problems, as illustrated in Figure 7.4 and
Figure 7.5, and is recommended for use in Maple Ridge.
Page 40
1880.0010.1G/ May 2004 TT1(AT 'C'Ti.... /c
\\Oak\Operaons\Engineering\Admln\2004\Other\040120 Draft Traffic Management Practic.doc £ ' J 'v U
District of Maple Ridge
PLE RIDGE L Neighbourhood
ated 12 14 Traffic Management Practice
Figure 7.4: Directional Closure (No Entry)
040
Figure 7.5: Directional Closure (No Exit)
• Right-in/right-out island. The desigr of a right-inlright-out island should be
based on two design vehicles - a passenger car and an SU-9 single-unit truck. As
illustrated in Figure 7.6, the width of the roadway through the device should only be
sufficient to accommodate the design passenger car. A sloping concrete apron
(similar to that used on traffic circles) should be incorporated at .a width sufficient to
accommodate the design truck. This approach to the design of right-inlright-out
islands helps to discourage motorists in passenger cars from attempting to circumvent
the device by turning left or travelling straight through the intersection. If the width of
the roadway through a right-in/right-out island is constructed so as to accommodate a
Page 41
1880.0010.1G I May 2004 TIP P(AT(V(2T1Th /C'
\\Oak\OpetIons\Englnrin\Admifl\2004\Other\&O12O Draft Traffic Management Practicen.doc
Li I .3 1 -. 'V L..)C
- . uistrict or mapie, Kiage
Neighbourhood
Traffic Management Practice
single-unit truck, it is very easy for a motorist in a passenger car - particularly a
compact car - to circumvent the device. This'reduces the effectiveness of the device
and creates an enforcement problem.
Figure 7.6: Right-In/Right-Out Island
Section A-A
I..
Passenger Car
Single Unit Truck
• Roads without curbs. In most cases, all traffic calming measures can be
implemented along roads with rural cross-sections without special provisions -
• recognizing that site. specific provisions for drainage, grade and other factors are
always required. Traffic circles, however, do require special provisions along roads,
without curbs. Constructing traffic circles on roads without curbs requires
constructing short sections of curb on all four corners, of the intersection, to force.
motorists to slow down as, they. travel around the traffic circle through the •. '. .'.. . "" ......ihtèFsëtiôhAs'i1lüsttatèd in on the 'bckidë'bf the'tirh" .
should be at the same elevation as the surface of the road, and should not be
backfilled to the height of the curb. This discourages motorists from driving over the
curbs.
Page42
1880.0010.1G/ May 2004 . . . .. . TD(kTCVOTEN AC
\Oak\Operons\Eoglneering\AdmIn\2004\Other\040120 DraftTraffic Management Prawces.doc . .
iti I U I LJVIU
District of Maple Ridge
Neighbourhood
Traffic Management Practice
Figure 7.7: Traffic Circle Construction on Roads Without Curbs
.................. .................. Section A-A
Curb pinned to road
Asphalt Gravel
7.3.2 Signage and Pavement Markings
This section describes additional or modified signage for traffic calming devices, to
supplement information contained in the Guide.
• Object markers with curb extensions. The Guide indicates that object
markers (WA-36R) should be used with curb extensions. Although appropriate and
necessary on arterial and collector roads, the use of object markers is optional on
local streets. Residents often consider object markers to be 'visual pollution' and
consequently their use on local streets should be minimized or avoided altogether.
Traffic circle signage. Yield signs should not be used with traffic circles. Rather,
traffic circles should be identified in advance with a 'Traffic Circle' warning sign, as
illustrated in Figure 7.8. This sign not only alerts motorists and other road users to the
presence of a traffic circle, but also illustrates how persons should travel through the
intersection. If desired, the Traffic Circle sign can be modified as shown in Figure 7.8
for installations at three-way intersections.
onc
Page 43
1880.0010.1G I May 2004 LiP Pi U TC\,'LTT...\ ,4C'
\\Oak\Operations\Englneering\Admin\2004\Other\040120 Draft Traffc Management practices.doc Li I U ®
District of Maple Ridge
Neighbourhood
Traffic Management Practice
Figure 7.8: Traffic Circle Sign
(with modifications for three-way intersections)
73.3 Construction and Temporary Measures
The Guide does not provide information regarding construction techniques or the use of
temporary measures. Consequently, key guidelines are provided in this section.
Where possible, traffic calming devices should initially be constructed on a temporary
basis. For a period of at least six months, the performance of the device should be
monitored to ensure that the desired effects are achieved. Once the device has proven
successful, it can be constructed on a permanent basis. This avoids the risk of removing
or modifying a permanent installation that was constructed at a much higher cost than a
temporary installation. If changes to the configuration of the device are necessary, these
can be incorporated prior to permañeñt construction.
Page 44
1880.0010.1G I May 2004 TTPAMC' 'CTT\ A(?
\\Dak\Orations\EngIneering\AdmIn\20 \Other\040120 Draft Traffic Management Pmic.d U Y U v k.J®
District of Maple Ridge
Neighbourhood
12
Traffic Management Practice
APPENDIX A
Expanded Traffic Calming Process
1880.00 biG / May 2004
\\Oak\Operations\Englneering\Admin\2004\Other\040120 Draft Traffic Management Practices.doc URBN SYSIFIV1S.m
District of Maple Ridge
MAPLE DGE eig bourhood
porated 12 SepternLr,1874 Traffic Management Practice
A EXPANDED TRAFFIC CALMING PROCESS
This Appendix presents a process for undertaking a traffic calming plan when additional
consultation with residents is considered necessary. An expanded process may be
desirable when:
• The whole system of streets within the larger area needs to be considered.
• Potential spillover effects from the application of traffic calming measures on one
street may occur.
• Broader community involvement is needed.
• Significant economies of scale can be achieved by considering traffic calming on a
broader scale.
The expanded process is illustrated below in Figure A.O. 1.
Figure A.0.1: Process with More Extensive Consultation
STAGE 1 - Gauging I STAGE 2— Developing I STAGE 3 - Council
Community Interest I the Plan l Approval
I ' Walkabout - Submit Plan to Refine Plan Council I
I Information
4 I Meeting
Community
Letter! Collect
Questionnaire Additional Data Council
4 I Approval? No Potential
Collect Solutions
Preliminary Data 4
Open House Yes
Yes
tRespond
:Y5
Major Minor!
Changes No Changes
I ...............Refine Plan I........... F
I
I.....
I
This process incorporates the same three stages as for the more streamlined process
outlined in Section 5.2. As for any traffic calming plan, it is important to gauge
community interest in traffic calming early in the process to determine whether there is
1880.0010.1G I May 2004
\\ak\Operations\Englneering\Admin\2004\Other\040120 Draft Traffic Management Practices.doc TJ R B1N SYSTEFViSe
District of Maple Ridge
MAPLE RIDGE Neighbourhood
Jncoporated 12 Septeniber,14 Traffic Management Practice
justification for proceeding with the preparation of a plan during Stage 2. The approach
to gauging that interest is similar to that outlined in Section 5.2.
The primary differences between this process and the streamlined process occur during
Stage 2. In particular, the following consultation activities are unique to this expanded
process:
Walkabout. In larger neighbourhoods or where the number of traffic issues is more
significant, the community involvement process may be initiated with a public event
known as a Walkabout. A Walkabout is typically a two- to four-hour walk led
through the study neighbourhood by District staff andlor consultants, where members
of the community are invited to attend and point out or discuss traffic issues firsthand.
It should be noted that, at this event, it is advisable not to discuss potential solutions -
this discussion is best left until after the data has been collected and more information
is known about specific problems. It is generally advisable to hold Walkabouts on
weekends, when attendance is likely to be higher. Notice about the Walkabout and
the intended route (including intermediate meeting locations) should be distributed to
residents more than a week in advance of the event.
• Information Meeting. A public meeting is often held around the same time as
the Walkabout to give the community a chance to learn about traffic calming, its
potential outcomes, the plan development process, and to meet and discuss
neighbourhood traffic issues and opportunities. It is often useful to have a
questionnaire or comments sheet at this meeting that attendees can use to provide
feedback.
• Community Open House. After potential traffic calming solutions for a
neighbourhood are developed, and after distribution of the community survey occurs
(see Section 5.2), a community open house should be held to provide residents and
other members of the community the chance to speak with members of the planning
team about the proposed plan. This open house is a good opportunity for residents to
ask questions about the plan and review applicable background information.
Residents can also be encouraged to return their completed surveys at this event.
Once community support for the traffic calming plan is established, the process continues
as described for the streamlined process.
1880.0010.1G / May 2004
Draft Traffic Management Practices.dnc J R B?1 SYSTEt'VSm
District of Maple Ridge
MAPLE RIDGE Neighbourhood — —_-..
APPENDIX B
Data Collection Guidelines
1880.0010.1G / May 2004
\\Oak\Operations\Englneering\Admin\2004\0ther\040120 Draft Traffic Management Practices.doc URBNS''STEMSft
District of Maple Ridge
MAPLE RIDGE ncornorated 12 September1874
L_. Neighbourhood
Traffic Management Practice
B DATA COLLECTION GUIDELINES
This section provides an overview of data collection and monitoring needs, as part of the
Maple Ridge Traffic Management Program.
B.1 Data Collection Activities
Data are needed at three different stages of neighbourhood traffic management, as
described below:
• Determining priorities. In order to determine neighbourhood priorities for
developing traffic calming plans, data needs include traffic management requests,
collision data, sidewalk inventories, roadway geometry (topographic mapping) as
well as scheduling for other District programs. These data should be collected on an
annual basis for the purpose of updating priorities.
• Preparing plans. During the preparation of a neighbourhood plan, data are
collected to verify reported problems, and to determine the extent and nature of a
problem. These data may include (but are not be limited to) traffic volumes, speeds
and classifications, intersection counts, parking utilization, licence plate traces and
pedestrian and bicycle volumes. New data are typically collected only in locations
where problems are reported and where data are not already available.
• Monitoring. Following the implementation of a neighbourhood traffic calming
plan, data may be collected to monitor the performance of the measures, and to
identify any new problems. Data collected during the preparation of a traffic calming
plan represents 'before data. Following implementation of the plan, 'after' data
should be collected at the same locations and in the same conditions as 'before' data.
Data should also be collected at other locations where new problems are identified,
and data collected through the municipality's annual data collection program should
be reviewed to identify potential problems which might arise as a result of changes in
travel patterns.
B.2 Types of Data
As part of the development of neighbourhood traffic calming plans, three principal types
of data are typically collected as follows:
• Traffic volumes. Traffic volume data provide an indication of the total traffic
travelling along the neighbourhood streets during a given period (e.g., 24-hour or peak
period). The primary purpose of collecting traffic volume data is, not only to provide an
indication of the overall number of vehicles or mixture of traffic during a given period,
1880.0010.1G / May 2004
\\Oak\Operatlons\Englneering\Admln\2004\Other\040120 Draft Traffic Management Practices.doc URBN S'STEMS
Ei
MAPLE RIDGE
incorporated 12 ieptember,1874
Neighbourhood
Traffic Management Practice
District of Maple Ridge
but also to identify the extent of non-local traffic (which may be supported with through
traffic surveys). While the District's desired level of traffic along a local roadway may
be on the order of 1,500 vehicles per day, for example, experience suggests that the
expected volumes should be more related to the area land uses and network
characteristics. For example, a neighbourhood with mixed-use developments on the
fringe may generate almost 2,000 vehicles per day along the street system. Similarly, a
long cul-de-sac supporting significant residential development may carry well over
1,000 vehicles per day. In both cases, very little could or should be done to address
traffic volumes if generated by uses within the community. Conversely, roadway
volumes of 1,000 vehicles or more per day along a roadway with 50 homes may be
considered high for the land use characteristics and road network, and indicative of a
short-cutting problem. In this regard, specific actions may be taken to address volumes
and / or through traffic problems.
• Travel speeds. The travel speed data provide the means of assessing the degree to
which speeding is a problem along a particular street. Speed studies are ideally
conducted over a 24-hour period using automatic traffic recorders. The primary
measure of interest with respect to speed is referred to as the 85thpercentile. In other
words, if 85% of the drivers along a particular street are driving at or below the
posted speed, this is generally within an acceptable range. In this circumstance, one
would conclude that the identified problem might be attributed to a few speeding
drivers in which traffic calming would not be the appropriate solution. However, if
the 85thpercentile speed is greater than the posted speed, traffic calming measures
could be very effective in reducing speeds.
• Through traffic. The proportion of through traffic simply refers to the amount of
traffic along a neighbourhood street that is not generated by the community. Through
traffic patterns can be determined through various sources such as intersection counts
and licence plate surveys. Once again, there is no threshold of through traffic that is
acceptable. Similar to the traffic volume issues, the lack of an adequate road
hierarchy or land use patterns can result in short-cutting traffic. In these
circumstances, traffic calming may not redirect traffic to more desirable roads, but to
neighbouring community streets. Since through traffic can often be the source of
speeding vehiáles within a community, and in the absence of alternative roads to
divert non-local traffic, traffic calming solutions may be concentrated on addressing
driver behaviour within the neighbourhood.
B.3 Methods of Collection
This section provides guidance for conducting specific data collection activities. These
guidelines are intended to ensure that data are appropriate for traffic calming study purposes,
are meaningful, and are collected in the most cost-effective manner.
1880.0010.1G/ May 2004 ?T fTrTh\ 'C'Tn Icr \\Oak\Operatlons\Engineerhig\Admifl\2004\Other\040120 Draft Traffic Management Practices.doc L
District of Maple Ridge
PEGE Neighbourhood
,rated 12 pIemr1874 Traffic Management Practice
• Traffic volume and speed data should be collected for a minimum 24-hour period, and
desirably for 48 or 72 hours. This ensures that no time periods are overlooked when
problems might occur, and avoids the need to repeat data collection activities if residents
indicate that data were not collected at the time that problems occur.
• Traffic volume and speed data are best recorded through the use of automatic counters,
ideally one that can also record speeds. Radar guns are not an effective tool for
collecting speed data, as observers are often visible to motorists, and can bias results by
selecting only lead vehicles in platoons. Speeds should be recorded in mid-block
locations, as far from intersections as possible.
• Intersection movements can only be recorded manually - automatic counters are not
useful for this purpose. Intersection counts should be undertaken during time periods
when problems are reported to occur, and for a minimum of two hours at a time. If
problem time periods are not known, intersection counts should be undertaken for a total
of six hours - two hours during the a.m. peak period (typically 7:00 to 9:00 a.m.), two
hours in the midday (typically 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.), and three hours in the evening
(typically 4:00 to 6:00 p.m.). Observers should also record pedestrian and cyclist
volumes.
• Licence plate traces should only be conducted in areas with a small number of access
points, so that through traffic can be conclusively identified. A minimum 90-minute
time period is required, which results in one hour's worth of useful data. The cost of
conducting licence plate traces can be reduced by using volunteers from the community.
1880.0010.1G / May 2004
\\Oak\Operatlons\Engineering\Admin\2004\Other\040120 Draft Traffic Management Practices.doc U RBAN SYSIFIV1.Sm
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
TO: Her Worship Mayor Kathy Morse DATE: June 2, 2004
and Members of Council FILE NO: 0410-20-06/BCPS
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W - Fin & Corp
SUBJECT: Special Occasion License
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
A request has been received from the Maple Ridge - Pitt Meadows Agricultural Association for a Special
Occasion License (i.e. Beer Garden) for the 2004 Maple Ridge Fair scheduled for July 23rj - 25th, 2004.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the application from the Maple Ridge - Pitt Meadows Agricultural Association by way of a
letter dated May 23, 2004 for a Special Occasion License to hold a Beer Garden at the Albion
Fairgrounds as part of the 2004 Maple Ridge Fair be approved as follows:
Friday July 23, 2004
Saturday July 24, 2004
Sunday July 25, 2004
5:00 p.m. - 12:00 Midnight
12:00 Noon - 12:00 Midnight
12:00 Noon - 6:00 p.m.
And further, that the use of the Albion Fairgrounds (Municipal property) for this Special Occasion
License be authorized.
DISCUSSION:
Background Context:
The Agricultural Association has applied for and been granted approval for Beer Garden Licenses in
previous years as part of the annual Maple Ridge Fair events. The Beer Garden has operated in a
satisfactory manner with no known problems or complaints.
CONCLUSION:
The request for 2004 is consistent with previous applications and approval is recommended. A copy of
the letter dated May 23, 2004 from the Maple Ridge - Pitt Meadows Agricultural Association requesting
approval is attached.
Prepared by: Diana Dalton rrk's Department
Approved by: Aul 011, B.A, C.G.A, F.R.M
Corporate & Financial Services
Concurrence: 4. (Jim) Rule
(Thief Administrative Officer
Attachment
?31
AGRICUIIURAL ASSOCIATION
oqic- 2o -006PS
Maple Ridge—Pitt Meadows Agricultural Association
P.O. Box 403, Maple Ridge, B.C. V2X 8K9
Ph: 604-463-6922 Fax: 604-463-6940
email: lorrainemapleridgefair.com
May 23rd, 2004
Terry Fryer
Municipal Clerk
Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge
11995 Haney Place
Maple Ridge, B.C.
V2X 6A9
PW RECEIVED AT
RECEPTION DESK
MAY 2 7 2004
Re: Special Occasion License - Maple Ridge Fair
Maple Ridge & Pitt Meadows Agricultural Association would like to make
application to the Maple Ridge Council for a Special Occasion License for the 2004
Maple Ridge Fair, which is scheduled for July 23rd - 251h 2004. We request that the
following hours of operation for a Beer Garden be approved.
Friday 5:00pm - midnight
Saturday noon - midnight
Sunday noon - 6:00pm
Sincerely,
Lorraine Bates
Manager
I
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
TO: Her Worship Mayor Kathy Morse DATE: June 10, 2004
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C.O.W.
SUBJECT: License Renewal for the Maple Ridge Recycling Property
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On April 1, 1999, the District entered into a five year License agreement with the Greater Vancouver
Regional District (GVRD) for the use of approximately 4170 square metres of their property at 10092
236th Street. A sub-license was then granted to the Ridge Meadows Recycling Society for the purpose of
operating the Recycling Depot.
The license agreement with the GVRD included an option to renew for a further five year term under the
same terms and conditions except for further options to renew and the license fee. Staff have negotiated
an acceptable licence fee and recommend renewing the license for a further five year term.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
That the Municipality renew the license agreement with the Greater Vancouver Regional District
for approximately 4,170 square metres of the premises situated at 10092 2361h Street for a five year
term beginning April 1, 2004.
DISCUSSION:
a) Business Plan/Financial Implications:
The annual license fee for the previous five year term was $5,000. The annual license fee for the
renewal term will be $10,000 and is based on current market rates.
by Ron Riach
\ Property & Risk Manager
Reviewed by. '1Andrew Wood
Municipal Engineer
Approved by:
General Manager: Corporate & Financial Services
J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
-1-
SCHEDULE A
UCENCE AREA OF RECYCLING FACILITY
ON LOT r_PLAN 7587
AREA 2 = 0.023 ho.
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
/
$
• •• A'___ _ _ I!
• ui. *i
J I C-J I
/ \. •
•
ABOW GROWAD TO
7RANSILT BU/LOA'G 44.4
$
* • ___
•
• • • • .-
• -•--• •
••
SI
• • • •
• • • 0 • In 20m 40m • • ,p. • • •
• • • • • • • • • •
CORPORATION OF THE
MAPLE RIDGE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
TO: Her Worship Mayor Kathy Morse DATE: June 9, 2004
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C.O.W.
SUBJECT: Fraser Valley Regional Library Operating and Services Agreement
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The attached agreement is forwarded to Council for consideration. The agreement is a duplicate
of the previous agreement entered into with the Regional Library system with the exception of an
adjustment in the staffing complement and Sunday hours of operation.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to sign the Fraser Valley Regional Library Operating and
Services Agreement for 2004.
DISCUSSION:
Background Context:
2002 was the first year an agreement was signed between the Municipality and the FVRL.
The agreement reflected the prior unwritten agreement between the District and FVRL. The
2004 agreement has not changed significantly over 2003 and we note the following changes:
- An adjustment to the staffing with Librarians at 4.40 FTE (3.40 FTE in 2003) and
Assistants at 14.63 FTE (15.63 FTE in 2003).
- The Sunday hours changed: opening from 1:00-5:00 p.m. between Thanksgiving and
Easter in 2003 to 1:00-5:00 p.m. during the School Year in 2004.
These changes were previously discussed with Council and agreed to during the annual
budget review.
Desired Outcome(s):
The desired outcome of the agreement and our relationship with FVRL is the provision of
excellent Library services in as cost effective a fashion as possible. The required efficiencies
have been achieved through regional collaboration.
Strategic Alignment:
Part of ensuring a safe and livable community is ensuring basic services are available for
citizens. Maple Ridge residents make excellent use of the Library (over 60% of Maple Ridge
households make use of the resource).
Citizen/Customer Implications:
Use of the Library has increased significantly (by approximately 40%) since the new facility
opened and the hours were increased to include Mondays and Sunday afternoons through
much of the year.
Interdepartmental Implications: N/A
~5/
1) Business Plan/Financial Implications:
The Library levy has been established for 2004 and reflects the service levels described in the
agreement. Council discussed and endorsed the Library budget previously.
Policy Implications: N/A
Alternatives:
Council could request adjustments to the agreement or decline to sign the agreement.
Declining to sign would result in considerable uncertainty with respect to our relationship
with the FVRL Since the Library has provided excellent services to Maple Ridge residents
neither of these options is recommended.
CONCLUSIONS:
The Library Services Agreement with the Fraser Valley Regional Library has been very positive
in terms of providing valuable services to Maple Ridge residents in a cost-effective manner. The
new agreement is the same as an agreement negotiated late in 2001 with a few minor exceptions
to continue to meet the needs. It is felt to be appropriate to continue the current relationship as
described in the agreement.
/
Mike
Community Development, Parks and Recreation
Approved bj) P)M Gi11 B Comm, CGA
ACJPWA. Manager: Financial and Corporate Services
J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
MWM:ik
Fraser Valley Regional Library
2004 LIBRARY
OPERATING AND SERVICES
AGREEMENT
Between
FRASER VALLEY REGIONAL LIBRARY
And
DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
ADMINISTRATIVE CENTRE: 34589 Delair Road, Abbotsford, BC Canada V2S 5Y1
Tel: 604-859-7141 or 1-888-668-4141 Confidential Fax: 604-859-4788 Web Site: w.fvrl.bc.ca
LIBRARY OPERATING AND SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made the day of , 2004
BETWEEN:
FRASER VALLEY REGIONAL LIBRARY DISTRICT, a district library pursuant
to the Library Act and having its administrative offices at 34589 Delair Road,
Abbotsford, British Columbia, V2S 5Y1
(the "Library")
IIJ
DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE, having its offices at 11995 Haney Place, Maple
Ridge, British Columbia, V2X 6A9
(the "Municipality")
WHEREAS:
The Municipality is a member municipality of the Library and is represented on the
Board of Directors of the Library;
The residents of the Municipality receive library services from the Library through
the branch library or libraries situated within the Municipality boundaries in those locations
as set out in Schedule A;
The residents of all member municipalities provide funding to the Library for the
operation and administration of the Library, and nothing in this Agreement affects the
provision of that funding or the applicable funding formula;
The Municipality provides the Library with certain facilities and services to enable
library services to be delivered to the Municipality;
The Municipality and the Library wish to set out their respective obligations to each
other by way of this Agreement;
EI
As an exception to paragraph 4.2(a), each library in the Municipality will be closed to the
public on the following statutory holidays:
New Years Day
Good Friday
Easter Monday
Victoria Day
Canada Day
British Columbia Day
Labour Day
Thanksgiving Day
Remembrance Day
Christmas Day
Boxing Day
PROGRAMS
5.1 Library Programs
The Library will offer its regular programs based on the staffing complement as set out
in paragraph 4.1 to each library in the Municipality. Such programs include but will not
be limited to
Internet Training
Children's Programs
Adult Programs
5.2 Special Programs
The Library will offer the following special programs, based on the staffing complement
as set out in paragraph 4.1, to each library as set out below:
Maple Ridge Public Library
DISPUTE RESOLUTION
6.1 Negotiation
Summer Reading Club
Children's Specials
Author Readings
If the parties to this Agreement are unable to agree on the interpretation or application
of any provision herein, or are unable to resolve any other issue in dispute pertaining to
this Agreement, the parties agree to promptly, diligently and in good faith take all
reasonable measures to negotiate an acceptable resolution to the disagreement or
dispute.
6.2 Referral to Committee
If the parties have negotiated in good faith pursuant to paragraph 6.1 and
have been unable to resolve their disagreement or dispute within 30 days
of the disagreement or dispute arising, either party may give notice to the
other party and to the Library Board of Directors requesting the matter
under disagreement or dispute be referred to a committee of the Board of
Directors, to be selected by resolution of the Board.
The committee selected by the Board will meet as necessary with
representatives of each party and use all reasonable efforts to mediate a
resolution acceptable to both parties.
(C) If the committee is unable to mediate a resolution acceptable to both
parties within 60 days of its selection by the Board, the committee will
forward its recommendations on the appropriate resolution of the
disagreement or dispute to the Board.
6.3 Board Decision Final
The Board will, following receipt of the recommendations of the committee pursuant to
paragraph 6.2, consider the matter under disagreement or dispute for decision, and
both parties agree that the decision of the Board of Directors will be final and binding.
7. GENERAL PROVISIONS
7.1 Further Assurances
The Municipality and the Library acknowledge and agree that this Agreement is not, nor
is it intended to be, exhaustive of the various responsibilities of each party to the
effective operation of the Library and the delivery of its services within the Municipality.
Each party hereby agrees to take all further steps, and give such further assurances
including the execution of any further documents, which may be reasonably necessary
to carry out the spirit and intent of this Agreement.
7.2 Other Matters
In respect of any matter, which this Agreement does not address, the Municipality
agrees to be bound by any decision of the Library Board of Directors where the matter
is within the jurisdiction of the Library and the decision is adopted in accordance with
the applicable provisions of the Librai'y Act.
7.3 Provisions Severable
Except as provided in this Agreement, if any provision of this Agreement is
unenforceable or invalid for any reason whatsoever, such unenforceability or invalidity
will not affect the enforceability or validity of the remaining provisions of this Agreement,
10
and such unenforceable or invalid provisions will be severed or deemed to be severed
from the remainder of this Agreement.
7.4 Applicable Law
This Agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of
British Columbia and the laws of Canada applicable thereto, which will be deemed to be
the proper law hereof and the parties hereto attorn to the jurisdiction of the courts of
British Columbia for all purposes.
7.5 Notice
Any notice required to be given hereunder by a party hereto will be deemed to have
been well and sufficiently given if mailed by prepaid registered mail or sent by electronic
transfer to, or delivered to, the attention of the person at the address set out below:
If to the Municipality:
District of Maple Ridge, 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, British
Columbia, V2X 6A9
If to the Library
Fraser Valley Regional Library, 34589 Delair Road, Abbotsford, British
Columbia, V2S 5Y1
11
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the
date first above written:
MUNICIPALITY
Mayor
by its authorized signatories
FRASER VALLEY REGIONAL LIBRARY
Board Chair-
by its authorized signatories
12
SCHEDULE A
LIBRARY LOCATIONS
Maple Ridge Public Library
130-22470 Dewdney Trunk Road
Maple Ridge, British Columbia
V2X 5Z6
NOW THEREFORE the parties to this Agreement, in consideration of the promises and
contributions made by each to the other, agree as follows:
1. TERMS AND RENEWALS
1.1 Term
The term of this Agreement will be one (I) year, commencing on the 1St day of January
2004 and expiring on the 31St day of December 2004.
1.2 RenewalTerms
The parties agree that this Agreement, whether or not amended pursuant to paragraph
1.4, will automatically renew upon expiry for a further one (1) year term, to a maximum
period of five (5) years in aggregate, unless either party exercises the right to withdraw
in accordance with paragraph 1.3
1.3 Withdrawal
Either party may withdraw from this Agreement by delivering notice of its
intention to withdraw to the other party prior to July 1 in any calendar year
in which this Agreement is in effect.
If notice of intention to withdraw is delivered by either party to the other
prior to July 1, this Agreement will terminate as of December 31 in the
calendar year in which notice is delivered.
For certainty, notice of an intention to withdraw delivered by either party
after July 1 and before December 31 in any calendar year will be
ineffective.
Nothing in this paragraph affects the responsibilities of the Municipality as
a continuing member of the Library pursuant to the Libraiy Act or
constitutes withdrawal of the Municipality from the Library pursuant to the
Librarj Act.
For certainty, this Agreement will. automatically expire as provided in
paragraph 1.1, and no notice of withdrawal from or to either party is
required.
1.4 Amendments to Agreement
(a) Either party may request amendments to the operating and service
provisions of this Agreement by delivering six (6) months' notice of its
request to the other party.
(b) Once a request for amendment in accordance with this paragraph has
been delivered, both parties will promptly, diligently and in good faith make
3
all reasonable efforts to amend this Agreement in a manner reasonably
acceptable to both parties.
If the parties are unable to reach agreement on proposed amendments
within three (3) months of the notice in this paragraph being delivered,
either party may remit the disputed matter or matters to the Library Board
of Directors and both parties agree that the decision of the Library Board
of Directors will be final and binding.
Any amendments to this Agreement agreed upon by the parties, or finally
determined in accordance with paragraph 1.4(c), will take effect three (3)
months after the agreement or determination, or such other date as the
parties may agree.
For certainty, in no event will a notice requesting amendments to this
Agreement be deemed by either party to constitute a notice of withdrawal,
and any notice of intention to withdraw may only be delivered in
accordance with paragraph 1.3 of this Agreement.
Any agreed amendments to this Agreement may be executed by separate
agreement, and be attached as an addendum to this Agreement.
2. FACILITIES
2.1 Premises
The Municipality will secure and provide, at its sole cost, all premises and
facilities within the Municipality's boundaries required for Library purposes,
and will consult with the Library regarding current and future requirements,
prior to any acquisition or disposition of land and improvements necessary
or desirable for Library purposes.
Where any land and premises provided by the Municipality for Library
purposes are leased by the Municipality, the Municipality will be solely
responsible for ensuring the land and premises may be used for Library
purposes as contemplated herein.
2.2 Furnishings
(a) The Municipality will, after consultation with Library staff regarding the
reasonable requirements of the Library, provide and maintain all
furnishings necessary for the effective use of all Library premises within
the Municipality, including furnishings necessary or desirable for use by
Library staff and patrons.
(b) All furnishings provided will be of a quality and standard which meet or
exceed all health and safety requirements that may be applicable.
ru
(c) The Municipality will provide new and replacement furnishings as needed
for Library purposes, as determined by the Municipality after consultation
with Library staff.
(d) Furnishings to be provided and maintained by the Municipality for each
Library premises include
all shelving, racks, carts and display units for the temporary and
permanent storage of Library collections;
computer desks or tables and chairs for use by Library patrons;
desks, chairs, counters, and other work furnishings for use by
Library staff in the performance of their duties;
reading and study tables and chairs, including children's furnishings
for reading areas, as required or desirable; and
flooring, carpeting, lighting and other fixtures and amenities
appropriate and desirable for the comfortable use of Library
premises by patrons and Library staff.
(e) The Library will promptly inform the Municipality of any directives or orders
the Library may receive from the Workers Compensation Board or other
regulatory agency which may affect the type or quality of furnishings which
may or must be used for Library purposes.
2.3 Maintenance
The Municipality will, after periodic consultation with Library staff regarding the
reasonable requirements of the Library, provide all premises maintenance for the safe
and comfortable use of the premises by Library patrons and staff, to the standard of a
careful and prudent owner and in accordance with any legal requirements, including
all premises and improvements repairs, upgrading, renewal, replacement
and maintenance, including roofing, structural, plumbing, electrical,
heating and air conditioning, ventilation, and similar fixtures, appliances or
operational features of the premises;
regular cleaning, repair, replacement and maintenance of flooring,
carpeting, lighting, and similar fixtures and amenities;
all janitorial or cleaning services on a regular basis to maintain a clean,
safe and healthy environment in the Library premises, to a standard
acceptable for the use of the Library premises by the public; and
(d) clearing and maintenance of ingress and egress routes to Library
premises for pedestrian and, where applicable, vehicular traffic, including
cleaning, snow removal, ice removal and precautions such as sanding or
salting, leaf and debris removal, paving and pavement repairs, lighting,
and similar reasonable maintenance to ensure the safe and secure use of
access routes by Library patrons and staff.
2.4 Security
The Municipality, after consultation with Library staff regarding reasonable
requirements, will provide all security measures and arrangements necessary for the
protection of the premises, equipment, and library collections and the safety of Library
patrons and staff, at a level comparable to other Municipality facilities having similar
uses or functions, including any alarm or security systems, locks or locking devices,
motion sensors, safety lighting, safety patrols or similar safety measures which may be
reasonably required.
2.5 Utilities and Taxes
The Municipality will provide, at its sole cost, all utilities, including water, gas, electrical
energy, solid waste removal and similar services as may reasonably be required for the
operation of the Library in the premises. The Municipality will be responsible for the
payment of all taxes, local improvement charges or other levies which may apply in
respect of the land or premises occupied by the Library within the Municipality.
2.6 Indemnity
The Municipality will indemnify the Library and Library staff from any claim, notice of
claim, demand, suit, action, cause of action, damages, losses or costs, including legal
costs, with respect to the injury or death of any person, or damage to any property,
arising from, caused by, resulting from or attributable to the premises, including their
use by Library staff and patrons, the maintenance of the premises, and the furnishings
excepting where and only to the extent to which any such injury, death or damage is
attributable to the negligence of the Library or Library staff.
2.7 Insurance
The Municipality will obtain and maintain on a continuous basis, all insUrance coverage
reasonably required in respect of the premises, improvements, fixtures, appliances,
furnishings and other works which the Municipality pursuant to this Agreement provides
for use by the Library, all such policies to include the Library as an additional named
insured in respect of the collections, computer equipment or other physical assets
provided by the Library, and including replacement cost insurance where prudent.
2.8 Meeting Rooms
The Municipality will operate any meeting rooms available for public use located in any
library, subject to the Library having priority of use for any meeting room for Library
purposes. The Municipality will be responsible for scheduling the meeting rooms for
public use and the Municipality will be entitled to retain any revenues derived from any
rentals of the meeting rooms for such public use.
3. COLLECTIONS AND EQUIPMENT
3.1 Collections
The Library will provide and maintain all library collections, including books, periodicals,
reference materials and similar acquisitions for use in the library or libraries located
within the Municipality, subject to the policies of the Library Board and within budget
limitations, for use by the public in accordance with circulation and use policies of the
Library.
3.2 New Libraries or Relocation of Premises
Where a new library is established in the Municipality, the Library will only
be required to meet the obligation in paragraph 3.1 where the Library has
received a minimum of one (1) year's confirmation from the Municipality
that a new, additional library is to be established within the Municipality.
Where an existing library is to be relocated to new premises within the
Municipality, the Municipality will be responsible for all costs associated
with moving the collection, furniture, equipment and other library contents.
3.3 Equipment
The Library will provide, maintain, repair and replace as necessary all
photocopiers, fax machines and computer equipment (including terminals,
peripherals, drives, printers, modems, and related equipment) and
supplies necessary for the operation of the computer equipment, as may
reasonably be required to provide services at each library within the
Municipality.
The Municipality will provide, maintain, repair and replace as necessary all
telephone equipment reasonably required for each library within the
Municipality, and be responsible for all telephone service charges payable
with respect to the use of such telephone equipment by the Library.
3.4 Indemnity
The Library will indemnify the Municipality, its officers, employees, servants and agents,
from any claim, notice of claim, demand, suit, action, cause of action, damages, losses
or costs, including legal costs, with respect to the 'injury or death of any person, or
damage to any property, arising from, caused by, resulting from or attributable to the
operation and delivery of Library services or the use of any Library equipment excepting
where and only to the extent to which any such injury, death or damage is attributable to
the negligence of the Municipality or its officers, employees, servants and agents.
7
3.5 Insurance
The Library will obtain, and maintain on a continuous basis, all insurance coverage
reasonably required in respect of the collections, computer equipment and supplies
which the Library pursuant to this Agreement provides for use, all such policies to
include the Municipality as an additional named insured in respect of any computer or
other equipment provided by the Municipality for use in the Library.
4. LIBRARY SERVICES
4.1 Staffing
The Library will, following periodic consultation with the Municipality
regarding reasonable requirements, provide all staff and resource
personnel required for the operation of the library or libraries in the
Municipality, having regard to the hours of operation and programs offered
by each library and budget limitations.
Staffing to be provided at each library during the hours in which the library
is open to the public will include as a minimum, but not be limited to,
Manager: I FTE
Librarians: 4.40 FTE
Assistants: 14.63 FTE
Other:
4.2 Hours of Operation
(a) The Library will, following periodic consultation with the Municipality
regarding reasonable requirements, provide library services to the public
during the following hours of operation:
(1) Maple Ridge Public Library:
Monday to Friday:
Saturday:
Sunday:
10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
.(School Year)
zom CORPORATION OF
MAPLE RIDGE THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
TO: Her Worship Mayor Kathy Morse DATE: June 11, 2004
and Members of Council FILE NO: VP/033/04
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Council
SUBJECT: Variance Permit
12020 207A Street
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
An application has been received to vary building set backs, maximum building floor plate and
the minimum number of storeys for a building, to permit the construction of a four storey frame
apartment building on the subject site. Variances are requested to the following requirements of
the Zoning Bylaw:
Reduction of the front yard set back from 7.5 metres to 6.0 metres.
Reduction of the exterior side yard set back from 7.5 metres to 4.98 metres.
Reduction of the interior side yard set back from 7.5 metres to 6.17 metres.
Increase of the maximum building floor plate from 750 square metres to 1528 square
metres and increase of the maximum diagonal floor plate dimension from 38 metres to 66
metres.
Reduction of the minimum number of stories from 5 storeys to 4 storeys.
Increase the maximum eave projection from 0.61 metres to 0.90 metres into the required
setback for an interior side lot line.
In addition the Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw requires multi family residential
developments be constructed on collector roads. The development is located on 207A Street
which is constructed to a collector standard however the total road allowance is less than the 20
metre collector standard. A variance is requested to:
Reduce the total road allowance for a collector road (207A Street) from 20 metres to 18
metres across the frontage of this development site.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Municipal Clerk be authorized to notify qualifying property owners that
approval of VP/033/04 respecting property located at 12020 207A Street will be
considered by Council at the July 131h, 2004 meeting.
/00/
DISCUSSION:
Background Context
Applicant: Focus Architecture And Planning Ltd
Owiier: Ah Eighteen Holdings Ltd
Legal Description: Lot 31, D.L. 241, Plan 73290, NWD
OCP Existing: Apartment
Zoning Existing: R1v1-3 (High Density Apartment)
Surrounding Uses
North: RM-1 (Townhouse Residential)
South: C-2 (Community Commercial) & P-i (Park)
East: RS-1 (One Family Residential)
West: RM-3 (High Density Apartment)
Existing Use of Property: Vacant
Proposed Use of Property: RM-3 (High Density Apartment)
Access: 207A Street
Previous Applications: RZI40/86, DP/004/87, DPI009/86, DP/010/86,
DP/013/90, DP/023/93, VP/024/93
Requested Variance: To reduce the required yard setbacks, minimum
number of storeys, increase the floor plate and
maximum diagonal dimension, increase the
allowable projection for eaves into a side yard set
back, as indicated in the Zoning Bylaw. Reduce the
road allowance for a collector road as indicated in
the Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw.
Project Description:
The subject site was rezoned to RM-3 (High Density Apartment) in 1987. Several subsequent
Development Permit applications have not proceeded on this site since rezoning was completed.
As a condition of rezoning a restrictive covenant for watercourse protection (McKinney Creek)
has been established on this site.
A Development Permit application, (DP/033/04) has now been received for review by the
Planning Department. This application is for a 59 unit, four storey apartment building. The High
Density Apartment zone was designed to suit a high rise building form rather than a 4 storey
structure. As a result the applicant is requesting variances to decrease the minimum number of
building stories and increase the maximum diagonal footprint dimension.
Other variances requested relate to siting of the building to relax the minimum yard setback
requirements, and increases for the projection of eaves into the side yard setback. The fronting
street 207A Street is constructed to a collector pavement width, however the total road allowance
at 18 metres is less than the required 20 metre width for collector roads.
-2-
A report on the Development Permit will be coming forward to Committee of the Whole on July
05 and to Council on July 13. It is proposed that notification be carried out on this variance
permit so it can be considered at the same Council meeting as the Development Permit.
c) Planning Analysis:
The Zoning Bylaw for the RM-3 zone requires minimum setbacks of 7.5 metres from each property
line. The Applicant is requesting the following siting reductions:
Reduction of the front yard set back from 7.5 metres to 6.0 metres
This is along the 207A Street frontage and brings the building out towards the street to
provide a stronger street presence.
Reduction of the exterior yard set back from 7.5 metres to 4.98 metres
This is along the Dewdney Trunk Road frontage. The building face is located at 6.09 metres
with columns supporting balconies located at 4.98 metres. Again, moving the building
towards the street re-enforces its street presence.
Reduction of the interior yard set back from 7.5 metres to 6.17 metres
This is along the north lot line adjacent to the existing RM-1 Townhouse Development. The
building face will maintain the required 7.5 metre setback. The elements that extend into the
setback area at 6.17 metres from the property line are the six columns that support three sets
of balconies on this side. This is a relatively minor variance and the balconies provide
needed relief to this elevation.
Increase in the maximum building floor plate from 750 square metres to 1528 square metres
and the maximum diagonal dimension of 38 metres to 66 metres.
The proposed lower form of building results in a larger floor plate and greater diagonal
dimension than an apartment tower for which the RM-3 zone was intended.
Reduction of the minimum number of storeys from 5 storeys to 4 storeys
The proposed building is to be four storeys. Reducing the building height tofourfrom five or
more storeys will ensure greater compatibility with the surrounding built environment.
Increase in the maximum eave projection for an interior side lot line from 0.61 metres to 0.90
metres.
The roof eave projects 0.9 metres into the setback for the north lot line adjacent to the existing
RM-1 Townhouse Development. The entire building features 0.9 metre overhangs to enhance
the proportion of the roof-to-wall relationship and provide enhanced protection for the exterior
walls.
-3-
The Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw 4800-1993 requires where land is improved for
multi residential development the fronting street must be constructed to a collector street standard as
specified in the bylaw. The minimum width of a collector street road allowance is 20 metres as
specified in the bylaw. The existing 207A Street road allowance is 18 metres in width. The
applicant is requesting to:
6. Reduce the total road allowance for a collector road (207A Street) from 20 metres to 18 metres
across the frontage of this development site.
All of the services and required pavement widths for this collector road have been
accommodated within the existing 18 metre road allowance. It is therefore unnecessary to
require additional land to be dedicated as road.
e) Interdepartmental Implications:
The Engineering Department has recommended support for waiving the requirement to increase the
road allowance to 20 metres to conform with the specifications for collector roads.
CONCLUSIONS:
It is recommended that Council approve Development Variance Permit VP1033104 to vary the
requirements of the Zoning Bylaw and Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw as described
in the memo dated June 11, 2004.
Prepared by: Bruce McLeod
Landsca Technician
Approbj'—Jane Prii9,IP
Direcy 0-iin1ng
Approved by F'rnk Quinn, P.Eng., PMP
:r o~ ,j?.'Pment Services
Concurrence: (Jim) Rule
f Administrative Officer
BMcLkjc
1.0
7
12079
U,
04
a, 12065
9
12053
C,)
00
U 0C'4
12045
11
12037
12 r'-
12025
0
Rem 13
12015
LMS
111
12088 9
12080
10 (C 12072
0
7
12060
6
12050
5
12044
4
12034
a
3
12024
P 18811
Rem 2
12014
NWS 2582 12070
30
P 73290
I- Cr)
0
SUBJECT PROPERTY
12020
31
P 73290
DEWDNEY TRUNK ROAD
P 54395
46
z =
Rem 45
P 54395
I- C/-i
0
C14 1151050/99
P54
SCALE 1:1,500
PiMeadowsi , ( fl
'1 S1ver Valley
:
Downto
Mane
Langley
/ver
12020 207A STREET
CORPORATION OF
THE DISTRICT OF
MAPLE RIDGE MAPLE RIDGE
Incorporated 12, September, 1874 PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE: Mar 31 2004 FILE: VP/033/04 BY: PC
PL HPt HR
tHIJ4 0114T1 MINLAR&A
1141 A - II Ill 44 411125 1,604 .1 1*11.-Il 24144 4(4415 2,114.1 LIII C- 3 I s*q 5(1415 A,44 11110-21 INTl-Il 51444
.l 014411 5(14111 77144 4,21444 LIIIF - Il
(Hill -I 47144 .014 44 LIII 4(4171 47744 1414.1 114TH-Il * l.I Stills Si& LIII M.2 I 101 141.1 4 (1411 304 .1
41 11117$ 44,14* .1 (now 111ACl)
0
-1----
tJUf4• TRN( ROAD
L.AL. C96MIPTION, Dommy, M" WAC9 *AI1O ANKLAERLWAGL
MLAU.441 •LOQ I 41144 SlIt • SI III JI*tD • WI I 41545 It 4.50514 44. 11. LDT II, 0. 241, C I, PUll 74154, P0114 • 14111 44 PT. • 11754 W.M. I0tD • II,212 sk Pt (25443 a.,,)
CMC AMMM. 41R44 44017.p-nlui ur.Gli Aj05uai - * $'riy OM Mi.u.i ii?tAOt HixnoI. Al H.
MW - 37A 454(7. 4 511011 ( (44 M 1PAMMID poopow ITiA 7544- .14 M.
PUPIl hIlL S.
MIALMLAW PIAI1PUI FU= P1*11 SIU IIA.0544111 • 740 44. M.
lIPOA'tit 4/ PAM. 01110111 141411401 1441 M.
PRXVM FLM 11.421 lOt 114,04441.4 .IWI IC II. M. WI W MAX. 01. 01154*544 1414 H. *1.4 01*2111 05*01 H SITS 411* • 175.14 HP. (11541 IC II.) 411* 14 VWCAIOI • .454 4!, (105.44 It Il) II +
All Ill! (ILl • 41,144 4.1. (4311.044. H) PARKM ISl* • II GFACM (*4 /14411)
SO 40114 MWOM • SI IPICU
41104541* • 7$ M. P1141511 (*14, 51014) is ACTIVITY £114. PROPOSED• 005115 (*11 14-4) sj*o • HI 15411 40.11 • 54 II PP. P44.2014 • 1104 .4tt (312 54.11.)
$9 UNIT APARTMENT
DEVELOPMENT
RIOIKOP CAPITAL INC.
441*205
*143*IO7AIT05T 11115114(54.51
SITE PLAN
- ow
OW
SCMI IAn
*310710 MSdII1,2154
Pu IC
0403
DP-01
'I
AflCI-4IT•CtLJWI
11(115* 4/IL 44144 C1005AGA P07772*141440
I
4.
-
a, hal_il. pin
hqTh_iIUflb(Th•) -
b_
ILATVU
As IllS - LIdS
C_islam
59 UNIT APARTMENT
DEWLOPMENE
I RDEP CAPITAL INC
I22AlTWT
MW DM(Z
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
DADW ob_i
ow
ICACA DCII
ADPflD tMd.Ih,24
'U lAO,
0403
DIr IC
DP-05
Ill
MAOL l.M_iA WSC CAO
CAAOGIGA Pfl1 )&T 1
IXIIDWDRMIUD
Malt IDOG
ClAult WAIt DIDGIB
&W*JuAflUlIl.NhSIfl
CIIIIQDI
NSASAADl.I
alsoaluhi I_i
K--
luCiA) OCA_iM h_i
DNUIG3
li_ill OAAZdOiLICUl
OrnDl hlQDlDI(AIIUI_i
)ANfl lafliMi QDAI(Mhl1fl)
•0I
SIlAS IIIDOlCSflAS
WU_il. DUll
MMhSACIUUl.GMlIi
CIADOW DIM
"a
'aw.1rr TFARA ROAD ELEVATION
AL2. I/ •
PAul. MWI ti - b_ Ma,u, Ill,
PAMl. uhfl - -
Ira CAP nabea. -
fl AuDI (PT.)-
fll.AIr4 IDIM DAub
flMOCY hUll I
201A .tRIIt BLEYMION
•
S
•110)0
1001100111
HAIDIFANIL
ThII
lI11MllNM0€
MAMJ1ACIUUI1 10JIUMIACI 1101
111110) SUfljJHOYIMIUIOPI lIllijIll
14010101 Wfl0I 10*7 Mr.I 110011)
I I - 1011400740)
59 UNIT APARTMENT 10001
1011
DEtWPMENT
Fl-W 11 !_(0P CAPITAL INC.
00*101
11011 207A11011T wI*axza
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
11114) 0111111 11(10.) Pills 71.401111 I 4)0111.44*
410*41 IlatU
I
aIM (70.)
0(4*11 OW
Os,
41011.1011111) gy ypiy 11)111
_______ •0* - - 51101111 M..h II. 104
0403
110401111011 lIHIfl _
40104114. 111fl.flas 11111 0*04.1SI lC (IW 44 IE 31 1 4010 fl I 1*10* 40th 1101 0)44* 1 I I 91 40)0)
-
I ------ ---------__--------- I- ________-------- ____--- _------------------------------------
.ancn,t.c.nJft.
1A81_IYAT4
CALSU$ • .41 1404040001400101
lOSE
C50101 GA 101111 MIT WD
a (
( "-. . _~11 ov=** CORPORATION OF THE
MAPLE RIDGE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
TO: Her Worship Mayor Kathy Morse DATE: June 16, 2004
and Members of Council FILE NO: E02-010-079
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Council Workshop
SUBJECT: North Avenue Reconstruction (224 Street to 223 Street)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Council's approved 2004 budget includes the reconstruction of North Avenue between 224 Street to 223
Street. This project has been identified for the District's Long Term Capital Plan since the 1990's.
Tenders have been received to repave North Avenue from 224 Street to 223 Street and construct safety
improvements for pedestrians, road users and improved road drainage during the summer of 2004.
Council approval is required to award the work to the lowest tenderer.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT Contract No. E02-010-079 North Avenue Reconstruction (224 Street to 223 Street) be
awarded to Jack Cewe Ltd. and that the Mayor and Municipal Clerk be authorized to execute the
contract.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
North Avenue, between 224 Street and 223 Street, is part of the municipality's downtown. Its
current condition comprises of an asphalt roadway, gravel shoulders, and no sidewalk facility.
North Avenue has a direct link to the Haney Bypass. The pavement is in a non-desirable
condition and is due for repaving, and over the years owners have been requesting improvements
on their street. Safety improvements have also been recognised as desirable. As such, the project
entails the repaving of North Avenue and improvements for pedestrian safety by installing
sidewalks and storm drainage upgrades.
On May 4, 2004, Contract No. E02-010-079 was tendered and advertised in local newspapers as
well as available for viewing at the Vancouver Regional Construction Association in Vancouver.
Twelve companies purchased a tender package of which four submitted bids. Tenders were
opened in public on May 26, 2004, at 2:00 PM.
The four compliant bids received are as follows:
Tender Price
Jack Cewe Ltd. $239,252
Targa Contracting $254,981
Tag Construction Ltd. $294,678
Impera1 Paving $295,913
An analysis of the documentation from Jack Cewe Ltd., the lowest tenderer, shows that its tender
is complete and complies with the tender requirements.
1002W
Desired Outcome:
North Avenue from 224 Street to 223 Street is being reconstructed to improve safety for all road
usersand improved road drainage. These improvements will benefit the area and District.
Strategic Alignment:
Replacing the poor road surface is in keeping with the District's strategy of maintaining its
infrastructure. The District's strategic plan directs that the street improvements can act as a
catalyst to enhance economic development. The additional sidewalks will provide safer passage
for pedestrians.
Citizen/Customer Implications:
Subsequent to ongoing discussions with a few property owners in developing the concept and
design plans, a public Open House was held on May 27, 2004 to provide details of the project and
receive input. Changes have been made and the project is ready to proceed as the Contractor is
available to mobilize for the first week of July.
Financial Implications:
Of the tenders submitted, the lowest tender price of $ 239,252 including GST and contingencies,
received from Jack Cewe Ltd. is within the allocated budget.
The expected expenditures are as follows:
Components Costs
Engineering $ 25,000
Utilities $ 13,876
Construction admin and inspection $ 17,000
Construction Part 1 $ 239,252
Construction Part 2 $ 35,000
Paving $ 23,000
Watermain $ 3,000
Project contingencies $ 35.000
Total expenditures 391.128
The funding allocated for the project is:
Component Funding Source(s) Allocated Budget
LTC 00783 DCC $ 196,195
General Revenue $ 196,755
Total Available Funds 392.950
0 Schedule:
The construction would be scheduled to commence in July of 2004, with substantial completion
within 12 weeks.
CONCLUSIONS:
The reconstruction of North Avenue from 224 Street to 223 Street will be an improvement for both
vehicle and pedestrian traffic. Council approval is required to award the contract to reconstruct North
Avenue from 224 Street to 223 Street.
Prepared by: Mi ae Hg, A.ScT.
Traf ic & Transportation Technologist
\\ \ \
\\
Reviewed bk' An rew Wood, MEng., PEng.
Municipal Engineer
• / - 17 _...
by: 1/rank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng., PM?
general Manager: Public Works & Development Services
Concurrence:/ J.L. (Jim) Rule
I Chief Administrative Officer
/me
11766/68 95 99 53 \ 57
94
6ZILl 1 L7
_ 00
_
I 11746 22311 22326 22347/51
I
46 47 48 49 50
NORTH AVENUE
CORPORA11ON OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
UWNNG MTMMT
ROAD WORK
NORTHROAD
- 223 SIREET - 224 S1REET 443 001
230 22315 22337 2234723523612236ff75 11811
117 AVE.
/ 11718 /
11710 22318 22328 22334 22356 22366 22374
11715
11697
I I I 11695
11690 11686
11685
11682
ST. ANNE AVE.
I /
11671
11672
11664 J The Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge 22328 22340 22352 22362 22371 makes no guarantee regarding the accuracy
11654 I or present status of the information shown on
this map.
22323 122335 122345 122375 1 223811 11641 I /
/11698
11731
co
9 2319223312233721 2235722373_1195
22286
22256 22246 11830 I 22334
117461
2T2326
11740 I
A, 1 900
22410 P24
11784
22k4
1177
11771
11774
11176:
2242
NORTH
11742
2221
22284
(I)
c) cJ
22230 22270 11749
22345
NORTH AVE. Project Location
I 22347I22349II
11743
22266 122274 111739
\\I\ 11683
N
District of -- - A Pitt Meadows SIlvV&Iy j North Avenue Reconstruction
Dwntown
. __i CORPORATION OF
- OCk
THE DISTRICT OF
- District of 'Aiblon FV1 A P L E R I DO E N Langley I kicorporatedl2, September, 1874 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENTnhill
SCALE 1:1,994 DATE: Jun 2, 2004 FILE: Untitled BY: ME River
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
TO: Her Worship Mayor Kathy Morse DATE: March 11, 2004
and Members of Council FILE NO: CP/010/03
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: COW
SUBJECT: Processing of Applications for Exclusion from the Agricultural Land Reserve
during the Official Community Plan Review
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Agricultural Land Commission has recently been approving exclusion applications from the
Agricultural Land Reserve in greater numbers than has previously been the case. This recent
change has led in some cases to the approvals of exclusion applications that were not supported by
Council. The success of these applications has precipitated an increase in speculative activity,
including front counter inquiries and further exclusion applications. As a result, in December,
2003, Council requested that staff provide options to Council's usual practice of forwarding all
exclusion applications to the Commission for a final decision.
Two options have been presented and discussed in the following report.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the current procedure of referring all applications to the Agricultural Land Commission
be continued and that all applicants and the Conunission are provided with a clear
understanding of the current Official Community Plan policy and servicing constraints on the
property.
BACKGROUND:
Agricultural Land Reserve Act
The pertinent government legislation that applies to exclusion applications by an owner may be
found in Section 30 of the Agricultural Land Commission Act, which states:
(4) An exclusion application may not proceed to a final decision (by the Agricultural Land
Commission) unless authorized by a resolution of the local government if, on the date the
application is made, the application
applies to land that is zoned by bylaw to permit agricultural or farm use, or
requires, in order to proceed, an amendment to an official settlement plan, an
official community plan, an official development plan or a zoning bylaw.
I
Under the Agricultural Land Reserve Act, Council has the authority to deny a request for exclusion
and not refer an application to the Commission. Should a Council decide not to refer an application
for exclusion to the Agricultural Land Commission, the application is deemed to have been denied
and exclusion from the Reserve is not possible.
The current Agricultural Policies were adopted by Council in August 2000 and identified the criteria
under which applications in the Agricultural Land Reserve would be considered. Since that date
Council has identified concern with the policies, in particular. the policy that states that each
application for exclusion should be considered on the merit of the proposal, and may be forwarded
to the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) for a decision.
In April 2002, a report entitled "Discussion Paper of the Agricultural Land Reserve Application
Review Process" was presented to Council. The intent of that report was to clarify the required
process and procedures related to Agricultural Land Reserve applications. It also discussed the
implications of forwarding an exclusion application to the ALC when Council did not support such
an application. The report noted that the act of authorizing an application to proceed to the
Agricultural Land Commission often conveys the message that the local government is willing to
support a required Official Community Plan and/or Zoning Bylaw amendment in the event the ALC
approves the applications.
Agricultural Land Commission
Until recently the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) has generally been supportive of Council's
recommendations on exclusion applications. Over the last year, however, the ALC's approach
appears to have changed. In 2003, three applications not supported by Council have been excluded;
as a result, there has been an increase in applications for exclusion. The ALC has also recently
initiated a review of soil based agriculture in Maple Ridge as a separate project.
The ALC's recent willingness to exclude land and its initiative to review soil based agriculture have
significant impacts on Maple Ridge. Firstly, land previously considered unavailable for
urbanization or densification is now being taken out of the Agricultural Land Reserve. Secondly,
property owners are pursuing urban development in areas where densification and servicing had
previously not been contemplated. Thirdly, while the outcome of the soil based agriculture review
is uncertain, it may be used to justify exclusion applications for properties that are remote from
existing urbanization. . . .
There appears to be a. lack of understanding of the servicing restraints and of current Official
Community Plan policy, zoning and designations, as some owners whose properties have been
recently excluded appear to believe that urbanization of their property will immediately follow. As a
result, the urban boundary and the urban reserves will need to be examined in a new light through
the Official Community Plan Review. It is fortuitous that the ALC's recent approach became clear
prior to the finalization of the Official Community Plan review.
011
-2-
PURPOSE OF EXCLUDING LAND FROM THE AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE:
Permitted non-farm uses within the Agricultural Land Reserve are generally consistent with the
needs of rural residents. Home based businesses, tourist accommodation, and breeding kennels are
some of the permitted uses allowed within the Agricultural Land Reserve. In addition, the financial
savings due to property tax concessions for Agricultural Land Reserve inclusion are considerable.
Most property tax calculations are based on 50% of the assessed land value for land that is within
the Agricultural Land Reserve. Property owners will lose these concessions upon exclusion of their
land from the Agricultural Land Reserve. Calculations provided by the District of Maple Ridge
Finance Department estimate annual tax savings for year 2003 to be approximately $500.00 for a
property with assessed land value of $230,000.00. -
Given the range of permitted uses and the financial concessions involved, one must conclude that
those who apply for exclusion have expectations for rezoning and redevelopment beyond that of
rural residential. For this reason, when considering the merits of an exclusion application, Council
may wish to consider if an urban use would be appropriate at that location, and if the municipality
would be better served by having the property rezoned to permit uses other than agricultural or rural
residential. For long range planning purposes, this consideration may be of a higher priority than
the agricultural capability of the land itself.
REDEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS ON RECENTLY EXCLUDED SITES:
Current Official Community Plan Designations
All of the properties recently excluded from the Agricultural Land Reserve are situated outside of
the District's urban area boundary, and while excluded from the Reserve, are not designated for any
other form of development. To date there has been no discussion. regarding the future land use of
these properties; whether adjusting the urban containment boundary and extending municipal
services is appropriate; or whether adequate services such as parks, schools, and fire protection are
available. Such a discussion is to occur during the residential policy component of the Official
Community Plan that is scheduled to begin in 2004. Until the residential component of the review
is completed, discussion regarding an urban area boundary adjustment or urban form of
development on these properties is premature. However, applications for a rural residential or
suburban residential form of development, that comply with current Official Community Plan
policies and Zoning Bylaw regulations would be considered.
Fraser Sewer Area -
The District of Maple Ridge is further constrained by its ability to extend its sewer services beyond
its designated sewer area boundaries. Recent discussions with the Greater Vancouver Regional
District indicate that extending new services must be consistent with the growth management
process as outlined in the regional context statement of the Official Community Plan. All new
requests for services must be approved by the Greater Vancouver Sewer and Drainage District
Board. This board has recently denied similar applications in other jurisdictions, making it clear
that there is no guarantee new applications will be approved. Due to these constraints, the District
of Maple Ridge may not be able to provide a level of service that is compatible with urban
development on many properties within its jurisdiction. Property owners seeking exclusion must
-3-
therefore be given a clear message that unless they are already within a sewer area as defined by the
Greater Vancouver Regional District, they cannot be assured of being connected with sewer services
in the future.
Policy No. 9.02 Sewer Area "A" -Extension into the Agricultural Land Reserve
In November, 1993, the District of Maple Ridge adopted a policy granting permission for sewer
connection to all property owners within the Agricultural Land Reserve whose property abuts an
existing lateral sewer line. It also made provisions for extending services where public health was a
concern and Agricultural Land Commission permission was granted. This policy will continue to
be honored: however, its intent was to provide a single connection to each existing parcel, and
should not be considered a means to facilitate further subdivision. However, certain affected
properties may be designated for urban development through the Official Community Plan review.
As this process will require collaboration with the GVRD, there may be opportunities to revisit this
policy for those affected properties.
URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND THE OCP PROCESS:
The success of previous exclusion applications in receiving approval is quickly becoming public
knowledge. Neighbouring property owners are now inquiring into the process of excluding
properties, as they are under the impression that the Commission is more supportive of exclusion
than in previous years.
If approached strategically, this more permissive approach taken by the Agricultural Land
Commission in approving exclusion applications could assist in facilitating orderly, compact
development. By collaborating with the Agricultural Land Commission, and the Greater Vancouver
Regional District during the Official Community Plan review, the District of Maple Ridge has an
opportunity to review its urban boundaries and to develop criteria for determining when contiguous
extensions to its urban boundaries are appropriate. Through this process, the District also has an
opportunity to review the costs of servicing new development, and to establish growth management
policies that appropriately consider these costs.
By using a collaborative approach, the District of Maple Ridge may then be able to apply for
exclusions directly to the Agricultural Land Commission once the residential and agricultural
components of the Official Community Plan review are completed. This review could integrate
priority concerns such as protection of productive agricultural land and the Green Zone while
ensuring an adequate land supply for residential development. Such a process, based upon a sound
rationale for redevelopment within rural areas, seems to make more sense than exclusions on a lot
by lot basis, as is presently the case.
OPTIONS:
In December 2003 Council directed staff to provide options to address the increasing number of
exclusion applications. Two options are listed for Council's consideration:
-- Only torwardapplications to heAUC thatCouncil supports.
2) Continue to forward all applications to the ALC, with or without Council support or
comment, but with a message about coHformance to existing policy.
Option 1
In the past, Council has expressed its desire to forward exclusion applications to the Agricultural
Land Commission as they would be able to technically review agricultural capability. However, if
Council preferred to receive technical assistance before it considered the exclusion, Council has an
option to refer all exclusion applications to the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries for
comment. Jncluded in the staff report to Council, these comments could assist Council in
determining whether the application should be forwarded to the Agricultural Land Reserve. Th e
Ministry Agrologist, who is familiar with agriculture in Maple Ridge, has expressed a willingness in
the past to assist in this mariner, and is currently participating in the agricultural policy review. With
little or no budget impact, this option would give the District the opportunity to utilize its power
under the Agricultural Land Reserve Act.
If Council would prefer a more neutral, third party expert opinion, exclusion applications could be
referred to a Consulting Agrologist, rather than a Ministry agrologist. Under this option, the
Agrologist's comments would be included in the staff report to Council, to provide Council with
enough information to determine whether the application should be forwarded to the Agricultural
Land Commission. This option would have budget impacts.
Referring exclusion applications to qualified experts will increase the time required for processing
applications. However, local governments are permitted a sufficient duration (60 days) prior to
forwarding exclusion applications to the Agricultural Land Commission. Along with land use
considerations, this further input would assist Council with in determining whether each application
should be forwarded to the Commission.
ion2 4('1 '7vi) 23 /ZOO
Under Option 2, Council would refer the application to the ALC without technical assistance from
an external agency. Depending on the circumstances, the application would express either Council
support; non-support; or no comnient. This is consistent with Council's practice. In addition a
clear understanding of the current Official Community Plan and servicing constraints would be
provided to the applicant with regard to the property under application.
Applicants require a clear understanding that regardless of the., outcome of their exclusion
application, they are still bound by the current Official Community Plan and Zoning Bylaw with
respect to permitted uses and minimum lot sizes. Land development that leads to higher residential
den sities requires a level of services - schools, parks, and fire protection - that the District of Maple
Ridge has not accommodated under existing policy and plans. Recent discussions with the Greater
Vancouver Regional District and Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District have made it
clear that the District of Maple Ridge is constrained in terms of servicing new development. All
new service applications must be approved by the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage
District Board. Approval for servicing new areas is not supportable at this time. This understanding
needs to be clearly conveyed to the applicant at the same time an application is forwarded through
Council to the ALC.
-5-
CONCLUSION:
This report has been forwarded pursuant to Council's direction in December 2003. Two options for
processing agricultural exclusion applications during the review of the Official Community Plan
have been provided.
Prepared by: Diana Hall
Planner
Approved by: Jane Pickering, MCP, MCIP
Director of Planning
Approved by: Frank Quinn, P.Eng., PMP
GM: Public Works & Development Services
Concurrence: J. L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
DH/bjc
fr
-6-
4 Appendix4
District Of Maple Ridge
Planning Policies Governing The Agricultural Land Reserve
1. Subdivision Of Lands Within The ALR-
For parcels in the ALR, subdivision may be considered where the proposal meets Municipal and
Agricultural Land Commission policy and appropriate buffering from adjacent sensitive areas and non-
compatible uses takes place. Proposals will still need to meet provisions of Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw
and Maple Ridge Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw.
Three tests may be applied to the consi eratjpof support for subdivision, of lands within the ALR:
a) Subdivisions may be considered where the use of the Cluster and Consolidation Concept as noted
below is proposed.
Cluster and Consolidation Concept - The cluster and consolidation concept is a
mechanism to allow the reconfiguration of lots within the ALR to encourage
agriculture and identify appropriate mitigation measures while achieving an
outcome that results in a "net benefit" to agriculture. Issues to be addressed by
the Planning Department include:
• provision of appropriate buffering and fencing;
. lot yield, layout and land use mix;
• existing and proposed zoning for both farm and non-farm area including
proposed restrictions on type of farming or method of operation;
• storm water drainage mañagei lit';"'
• provision of necessary infrastructure services (ie - roads, sewer, water,
Ministry Of Health approvals); and
• measures to enhance agriculture including number and area of parcels to
be consolidated and additional lands to be included.
It can be accomplished through consolidation and resubdivision, or bare land
strata. Generally, lot yield should be consistent with neighbourhood character.
The following criteriaare used by thegricu1tural Land Commission to evauate
a proposal: -
• Proposals involving loss of prime lands and lands which are uniquely
suited to specific commodities will not likely be considered eligible and
would remain protected for long term agricultural use.
• Land uses with a high potential for conflict with adjacent or nearby
agriculture would not likely be considered.
• No alternatives exist to locate the proposed use outside the ALR. -
• Opportunity exists to achieve gains for agriculture, for example, in the
consolidation of small legal parcels, or by the addition of suitable lands to
the ALR.
a1r_drft7.doc - 1 - 20-0700
- . A request forALR exemption or exclusion provides a significant public
benefit which would otherwise not be achieved.
Farm development and land utilization within the ALR can be enhanced.
Not all criteria would have to be met in all cases. The Commission, in
consultation with the proponent and local government would decide when and
where the policy applies. For larger proposals, the Commission may negotiate a
set of objectives and mutually agreed process between the three parties (ALC,
local government and the proponent) and adopt a memorandum of understanding
as agreed.
Subdivision of lands within the ALR may be considered on the merit of the proposal where
topographic constraints warrant consideration.
Subdivision of lands within the ALR may be considered where the proposal achieves a
demonstrable "net benefit to agriculture" as follows:
Net Benefit To Agriculture - Evaluation Criteria:
The Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) weighs the possible benefits to be
gained for agriculture against the potential losses. This is not an acre for acre
trade-off. The ALC will consider a number of factors which are both quantitative
and qualitative. It considers proposals on their own merits but also considers the.
precedent setting effects of its decisions. In the final analysis, the proposal must
demonstrate a "net benefit to agriculture". If a decision is made to make trade-
offs between benefits and losses, the ALC may impose conditions to ensure that
the decision is fully implemented. This may involve an approval in stages to
ensure specific farm development takes place, the registration of covenants
against the title, orother implementation measures.
Potential Agricultural Benefits:
Consolidation of small legal parcels in the ALR to create appropriate sized
farm units.
Inclusion into the ALR of areas that warrant inclusion either on-site or in close
proximity (eg - rationalization of ALR boundary).
Increased productive capability by a number of means including:
• farmjfrastructure development such as drainage and irrigation works..
• rationalisation of parcel boundaries,
• improved farm access.
Enhanced farm management by the creation of more rational farm parcels and
units.
Increased land utilisation through the cancellation of excess rights-of-ways,
roads, transmission lines and other utility corridors and the preclusion of
additional homesites which would otherwise be allowed on individual legal
parcels.
- --- -- 6-li fal-l-at-iwii-and-iiiain-tence-o-fbuffers-toprotect
farm uses. -
alr_drfi7.doc - 2 - 20-07-00
4
7. Actual farm development through the sale or long term lease of a farm parcel to
a bona fide farmer at a competitive farmland price or lease rate.
8. Elimination of possible negative impacts to agriculture from an adjacent use
through careful design and siting.
Potential Agricultural Losses:
Lost agricultural capability of land excluded from the ALR.
Diminished agricultural capability and suitability of land and diminished range
of crop options for farmers within the ALR.
Possible negative impacts from a non-farm use on adjacent or near-by
agriculture.
Possible impact on agriculture infrastructure in the immediate area and the
region. -
Expectations for land use change and possible cumulative negative impacts on
agricultural communities.
Additional demand for roads, services and other urban type infrastructure in
agricultural areas.
2. Special Regulations That May Apply In The ALR
Development Permit Area Schedule "if' of the Official Community Plan identifies lots
abutting the boundary of the ALR that have been designated a Development Permit Area. Upon
development, these lots wilineed to address:
• landscape buffering,
• residential density gradients and building setbacks,
• storm drainage, and
• farm trespass issues.
The objective is to encourage physical separation using buffering, siting controls (eg - enhanced
setbacks for those urban lots with additional subdivision potential) and the use of Restrictive
Covenants on lots to be subdivided identifying farming impacts.
Farm Bylaw - A Farm Bylaw may be used to allow farming to proceed in controversial areas.
A Fariñ ByIaw influences the type of farming practices employed in-the subject area and requires
approval of the Ministry Of. Agriculture.
Non Farm Use - Non-farm uses are generally to be discouraged unless consistent with
Agricultural Land Commission policy (eg - Bed and Breakfast, farm retail, parks, etc.).
Inclusion Into The ALR - Inclusion into the ALR will be considered for parcels on the merits of
the proposal.
alr_thft7doc -3- 20-07-00
5. Exclusion From The ALR - Exclusion of lands from the ALR are under the authority of the
Land Reserve Commission. Applications for exclusion from the ALR are made to the
Municipality and, based on the merit of the proposal, may be forwarded to the Land Reserve
Commission for a decision.
6. Area Specific Issues -
Blaney Bog-
Retain in the ALR, designate Conservation on the OCP and investigate
acquisition.
Greenways -
Greenway corridors are supported along key watercourses as noted below and
will be achieved over time. Acquisition of public access can be achieved using
several mechanisms:
• access agreements
• access/conservation easements
• replotting development (eg - cluster and consolidation)
• outright purchase (eg —5% watercourse protection funds, park
acquisition)
• subdivision return to Crown
• dedication
These primary greenways within the ALR are identified in a Schedule to the OCP
and include:
• North and South Alouette Rivers
• Kanaka Creek
• Whonnock Creek
• Sprott Creek
Recreation trail development requires an application to the ALC with particular attention,
to mitigation measures.
Roads -
Abernethy Way - Heaps Avenue - This route will become a major east-west
arterial linking to 240 Street to the east in the future. Roadway design elements
hould recognize impacts on fa op&ations nd machinè thovement.
232" Street - This route will become a major arterial leading into the Silver
Valley urban area. Special attention is needed to integrating the ALR lands on the
west side of 232 with those on the east side.
Density Transfer -
Smith Avenue - The Smith Avenue Density Transfer proposal is supported where
theobjectiveisto rezone, into an
that are within the ALR in exchange for a "density transfer". The Smith Avenue
Density Transfer Proposal is a separate policy document.
alr_drft7.doc - 4 - 20-07-00
Council Meeting Minutes
August 22,2000
Page8
The motion CARRIED..
911 Proposed Agricultural Land Reserve Policies and Next Steps in the Rural Plan
Implementation
Reference was made. to the staff report dated July 19, 2000 providing several
recommendations in the above noted matter.
RI00-449 MOVED by Councillor. Isaac
ALR Policies SECONDED by Councillor Morse
Rural Plan Imple-
mentation that the staff report entitled Proposed Agricultural Land Reserve Policies
and Next Steps in the Rural Plan Implementation be received, and futther
that the Agricu1tural Land Reserve Planning Policies be adopted and
referred to the Land Reserve Commission for adoption;
that staff be : directed to process outstanding 'Agricultural Land. Reserve
(ALR) applications according to the proposed new policies once they
have been adopted; and
that Council review the next steps in the implementation of the Rural
Plan and advise staff whether there is a need for additional public review
and whether that should occur prior o the next Official Community Plan
review.
CARRIED
912 RZ/10195 - 13300 Block East Side of 236 Street - By-law No. 5455-1996
Reference was made to the staff report dated July 18, 2000 recommending that the
above'noted.by-law be rescinded.
R'00-450 MOVED by Councillor King
rescinding of SECONDED by Councillor Gordon
BL 5455-1996
DEFERRED that second and third reading granted on March 23, 1999 and first reading
granted on August 27, 1996 to Maple Ridge Zone Amending By-law No.
5455-1996 be rescinded.
Discussion