Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-01-12 Workshop Agenda and ReportsCorporation of the District of Maple Ridge COUNCIL WORKSHOP A GENDA January 12, 2004 9:00 a.m. Blaney Room, i' Floor, Munic:pal Hall The purpose of the Council Workshop is to review and debate policies and other items of interest to Council. Although resolutions may be passed at this meeting, the intent is to make a consensus decision to send an item to Council for debate and vote or refer the item back to stafffor more information or clarfi cation. REMINDERS January 12 Closed Council 11:00 a.m. January 13 Council Meeting 7:00 p.m. ADOPTION OF THEAGENDA MINUTES - January 5, 2004 DELEGATIONS UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS 4.1 Update on Snow Removal, Director of Engineering Operations 4.2 Ministry of Children and Family Development Update, Sue Wheeler 4.3 Discussion of Town Hall Meeting re Transportation 4.4 OCP Work Plan Item Update, Director of Planning I CORRESPONDENCE 5.1 City of North Vancouver, Film Industry and Provincial Sales Tax E-mail from Bruce Hawkshaw, City Clerk, dated December 17, 2003 containing a resolution requesting that the Provincial Government remove the Provincial Sales Tax on films produced for export. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL MA TTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT ADJOURNMENT Checked by' 4- Date: ____________ WID -: Council Workshop January 12, 2004 Page 3 of 3 Rules for Holding a Closed Meeting A part of a council meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to one or more of the following: (a) personal information about an identifiable individual who holds or is being considered for a position as an officer, employee or agent of the municipality or another position appointed by the municipality; (b) personal information about an identifiable individual who is being considered for a municipal award or honour, or who has offered to provide a gift to the municipality on condition of anonymity; (c) labour relations or employee negotiations; (d) the security of property of the municipality; (e) the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements, if the council considers that disclosure might reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality; (f) law enforcement, if the council considers that disclosure might reasonably be expected to harm the conduct of an investigation under or enforcement of an Act, regulation or bylaw; (g) consideration of whether paragraph (e) or (f) applies in relation to a matter; (h) litjgation or potential litigation affecting the municipality; (i) an administrative tribunal hearing or potential administrative tribunal hearing affecting the municipality, other than a hearing to be conducted by the council or a delegate of council (i) the receiving of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose; (j) information that is prohibited from disclosure under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act; Negotiations and related discussions respecting the proposed provision of a municipal service that are at their preliminary stages and that, in the view of the council, could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality if they were held in public; (k)Discussions with municipal officers and employees respecting municipal objectives, measures and progress reports for the purposes of preparing an annual report under section 98 [annual municipal report] a matter that, under another enactment, is such that the public may be excluded from the meeting; (1) a matter prescribed by regulation under section 242.8. (m) information relating to local government participation in provincial negotiations with First Nations, where an agreement provides that the information is to be kept confidential. -- The Corporation of THE CITY OF NORTH VANCOUVER CITY CLERK'S DEPARTMENT V1i74V E-MAIL CORRESPONDENCE To: - All Union of British Columbia Municipalities - From: B.A. Hawkshaw, City Clerk SUBJECT: Film Industry and Provincial Sales Tax File No: 3510-01 Date: December 17, 2003 The City Council at its regular meeting of Monday, December 15, 2003 unanimously endorsed the following resolutions: "WHEREAS The British Columbia Film Industry is facing serious declines in business in 2004 as a result of the increasing value of the Canadian dollar relative to the U.S. dollar and aggressive competition from other provinces and globally; AND WHEREAS one of the most pressing issues is the application of Provincial Sales Tax on films produced for export; AND WHEREAS this tax structure places the British Columbia industry at a competitive disadvantage with other provinces; AND WHEREAS immediate action is required to level the playing field for this industry that employs 50,000 British Columbians; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT a letter be forwarded to the Honourable Gary Collins, Minister of Finance, from Mayor Sharp and Councillors, requesting immediate removal of Provincial Sales Tax on films produced for export. AND FURTHER THAT this resolution be circulated to all UBCM member municipalities, local MLA's Dan Jarvis, Katherine Whittred and Ralph Sultan as well as to Premier Gordon Campbell." a Yours truly, - Original Signed by: Bruce A. Hawkshaw CMC City Clerk City of North VancoUver 141 West 14th Street North Vancouver BC V7M 1 H9 Phone: 604-990-4234 Fax: 604-990-4202 Email: bhawkshawcnv.org . Web: www.cnv.org cc T. Christie, Director of Fihance F. Caouette, Manager - Special Projects C~~v / Using Scenariosto Explore Possibilities for Population and Housing Growth in Maple Ridge -Background Handout for January 26, 2004, Scenarios Workshop- -Prepared by The Shettair Group- "Predictions are difficult, especially about the future." - Neils Bohr, the father of quantum mechanics Background The District of Maple Ridge has retained The Shettair Group to conduct a demographic analysis and to prepare a population and housing projection for Maple Ridge. This work will help the District understand the rate and magnitude of change in the popuLation and associated housing demand that can be anticipated to occur over the next 25-year period. The results from this project can be used by the municipality to provide the context for its OCP update process, Land use planning activities, and other service delivery areas. To date, theconsultant team has prepared a "base case" population and housing piojection to 2031. This projection is based on a suite of plausible assumptions about the external context that affects Maple Ridge and the current policies in the existing OCP regarding available residential land supply. The "accuracy" of our projections rest on the validity of these assumptions. A population and housing scenarios workshop is to be held in January 2004 to explore various popuLation and housing scenarios and different assumptions. Scenarios are "what if" explorations that help participants think through and understand the implications of choices, uncertainties, and external factors on population and housing changes. Conducting the population and housing projection is an important opportunity to stop and think about what might happen to Maple Ridge, and discuss what the district wants to happen. Part of that thinking will be to question the assumptions about what drives population and housing change in Maple Ridge over this period. Objectives The key objective of the workshop is to discuss, explore, and define three believable but different scenarios for population and housing growth in Maple Ridge. A supporting objective is to build up understanding and intuition about why and how Maple Ridge's population and housing demand are growing and changing, and the internaL choices and external factors that shape this growth. To do this we will be asking questions, such as: What if we change some of our assumptions? What wouLd the effect be if we changed some assumptions to equally credible but different values? Here we are thinking about the effect of the new Fraser River Crossing, growth in Greater Vancouver, net migration to Maple Ridge, and how peopLe behave. What if the OCP capacities or residential zoning were changed? A key policy choice within the sphere of influence of Maple Ridge is the amount of residential land supply that it makes available for certain types of housing. We can use our model to understand the factors that limit population and housing in Maple Ridge and constrain growth. How are the assumptions about the population and housing projection related to each other? Imagine a plausible future with strong economic growth - lots of jobs, lots of immigration, a boom in housing demand, and strong housing starts. Many factors change, and all together these affect the population and housing growth in Maple Ridge. There is a complete story behind the assumptions and results. The base case projection is just one story of many possible stories. This workshop is about thinking through these kinds of stories. What would have to happen for various possible futures to actually occur? This is called backcasting. It is important to distinguish between effects that Maple Ridge residents have control over and effects that arise from outside Maple Ridge. Some futures are unattainable; others are too expensive in terms of financial, social, and/or ecological costs. Some attainable futures require immediate strong actions before "the window of opportunity closes." The Art of the Long View In his book, The Art of the Long View, Peter Schwartz argues for the modern relevance of the ancient wisdom of telling stories to each other, specifically, stories about how the future might turn out. His suggestion is profound. If we create three or so well-thought-out, internally consistent stories about the future, and figure out contingency plans for each story, then we will be well prepared for the future. Moreover, we will know what to watch for to see which story is coming true. In this spirit, and from a shared, common base of information, we can talk about "how things really work" such as the interactions of job opportunities, affordable housing, residential and industrial developments, evolving demographics, migration into and within the region, and the effect of planned and potential new bridges. This is an opportunity for involved and concerned people to share their knowledge and wisdom, and to add to everyone's understanding of what the technical population and housing projections really mean. Three Scenarios We propose to work with participants to develop three stories, each looking at how various assumptions and interactions play out in Maple Ridge over the next 25 years. These stories will be focused on population and housing growth and changes in Maple Ridge. The point is to think about Maple Ridge's population and housing trends in the context of the larger system, and create a few meaningful scenarios that capture a lot of thinking and experience. What is the difference between a "Vision" and a "Scenario"? In the planning world, a vision is a desired future that represents the values, hopes, and aspirations for a community. A vision does not deaL with real-world constraints and trade-offs. In contrast, a scenario is more analytical and explicitly addresses constraints and trade-offs. For example, you just cannot get 100% of the available economic growth, environmental protection, and societal development at the same time in a realistic scenario. But a well thought out scenario can begin framing the policy choices that the district will need to face about its future with respect to population and housing growth. Analysis The results from the scenarios workshop require an analysis of the three stories, resulting in a projection to 2031 for the population and housing results for each story. The workshop will have a form that identifies the important assumptions in the model, and provides choices for these that workshop participants can relate to specific aspects of each story. This guides the story development, makes the fullest use of the spreadsheet model, and allows us to translate the qualitative stories into quantitative results following the workshop. The spreadsheet will let us summarize the assumptions and results for each story, and contrast those to the base case projection. Desired Outcomes At the end of the workshop, everyone involved should have a much better understanding of the external forces and internal choices that will shape Maple Ridge's population and housing growth. In particular, it will help participants think about the future and the planning choices that affect population growth and the amount and type of housing growth in the district. The three scenarios that participants develop will begin framing policy choices that the District may be interested in exploring Later in the OCP process. is Maple Ridge Population and Housing Scenarios Workshop WORKSHOP AGENDA Monday, January 26, 2004 I o son. - ejrm 4: (Time and Location to be Confirmed) 11995 Haney Place Maple Ridge Agenda (Jane Pickering, District of Maple Ridge) 9:00 - 9:10 a.m. Welcome and Introductions Context Overview and Relationship to OCP Update Process 9:10 - 9:45 a.m. Presentation and Q&A: • Demographics and Housing Profile • Population and Housing Drivers and Constraints • Base Case Population and Housing Projection 9:45 - 9:55 a.m. Scenarios and Q&A Background Presentation • Instructions for Small Group Breakouts (The Sheltair Group) (The Sheltair Group) 9:55 - 10:30 a.m. Small Group Breakout Sessions (up to Facilitated by The 3 groups) Sheltair Group 10:30 - 10:45 a.m. BREAK 10:45 - 11:15 a.m. Small Group Breakout Sessions (continued) 11:15 - 11:35 a.m. Small Group Summary Reporting 11:35 - 11:55 p.m. Discussion and Workshop Wrap Up 11:55 - 12:00 p.m. Closing Remarks Facilitated by The Sheltair Group (Representative from each small group) Facilitated by The Sheltair Group (Jane Pickering, District of Maple Ridge) 1 Ministry of Children and Family Development Service Redesign MCFD providers many services in our community through contracted services 2002 - MCFD announces core service review and philosophical changes - moving towards Community Governance Model - forming an interim Authority > Regional Authority (11 communities - Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows are one community) > Responsibility was to be transferred to new authorities by spring 2003. A volunteer was selected to represent MR/PM on regional authority - Service Redesign will also require significant budget reductions Mid -December,02 - District of Maple Ridge, community agencies and groups - invited to Community Consultation Table Jan to March (short timelines) - Consultation Table Role: - Ensure community consultation - To compile all consultation materials and recommend a conceptual plan for service delivery by beginning of April Consultation Table Work: - Table is concerned about low participation in consultation process, ask for more consultation with specific groups and more public consultation (more public consultation doesn't take place due to timelines) - Timelines too short, request extension, denied - Consultation Table completes conceptual design and submits to region April, 03 - Transfer to Regional Authorities put on hold June, 03 - Regional Authority compiles all 11 communities conceptual plans and publish Regional Conceptual Plan Sept - Dec, 03 - MCFD Community Services Manager (MR/PM) decides to continue to work towards achieving the community's conceptual plan (although it has not been approved) - invites to MCFD Community Table although no official status (working on Mission statements etc). Mid-Dee, 03 - MCFD holds a number of information meetings to share plans for service redesign. Three priorities for ministry through 2004/05: Service Transformation, Fiscal Responsibility, and new forms of Governance. Community Service Managers have prepared Service Redesign Plans (no community input - based on conceptual plan) for each of their communities. These Plans have been approved by the Minister and will be shared with service providers before Christmas Some service providers may be asked to collaborate or partner with other service providers. Where service providers are informed of the need to move in this direction - an agreement to work towards collaboration must be signed by January 23rd If not signed the service contract will go to RFP. (RFP processes are not decided by a community and service providers from outside the service area are eligible). Although they recognize that this timeline is unreasonable, the timeline is driven by the RFP timelines needed to meet an April deadline for the new service delivery redesign to be complete. It was clearly shared that one of the objectives of the service redesign is budget reductions. Some dollars taken from discontinued services will be reassigned to new services but there will be budget reductions. Service Redesign Plans in effect April 1st , 2004. MCFD moving towards a Community Governance model to be in place 2005 (10 authorities in province). MR/PM community is told at this meeting that the delivery of "Youth Contracts" will go to RFP process and that the Ministry is only interested in entering into a contract with one service provider for all the contracts. The goal is to - - - - - community. Sept - Dec, 03 - MCFD Community Services Manager (MR/PM) decides to continue to work towards achieving the community's conceptual plan (although it has not been approved) - invites to MCFD Community Table although no official status (working on Mission statements etc). Mid-Dec, 03 - MCFD holds a number of information meetings to share plans for service redesign. Three priorities for ministry through 2004/05: Service Transformation, Fiscal Responsibility, and new forms of Governance. Community Service Managers have prepared Service Redesign Plans (no community input - based on conceptual plan) for each of their communities. These Plans have been approved by the Minister and will be shared with service providers before Christmas Some service providers may be asked to collaborate or partner with other service providers. Where service providers are informed of the need to move in this direction - an agreement to work towards collaboration must be signed by January 23rd If not signed the service contract will go to RFP. (RFP processes are not decided by a community and service providers from outside the service area are eligible). Although they recognize that this timeline is unreasonable, the timeline is driven by the RFP timelines needed to meet an April 1St deadline for the new service delivery redesign to be complete. It was clearly shared that one of the objectives of the service redesign is budget reductions. Some dollars taken from discontinued services will be reassigned to new services but there will be budget reductions, . . .. Service Redesign Plans in effect April 1st 2004. MCFD moving towards a Community Governance model to be in place 2005 (10 authorities in province). MR/PM community is told at this meeting that the delivery of "Youth Contracts" will go to RFP process and that the Ministry is only interested in entering into a contract with one service provider for all the contracts. The goal is to have a local provider within the community. What happened in our community? - We have not received any official word, other than talking to some service providers that have had significant changes in their service delivery mandates and some contracts have received notice that they will not continue (Youth) - Although, some service providers in our community had been informed last fall that they would be required to collaborate, it appears that that did not happen. - Community Table meets January 13th• Expecting the Service Redesign Plan will be shared - to understand the changes in our community. How is our community responding? - Child, Youth and Family network is hosting a workshop on collaboration Friday January 16th for service providers and boards - At this point Child, Youth and Family network is waiting to see all the changes for the community (Service Redesign Plan) r Page 1 of 8 Kathy Morse From: Geoff Clayton [gcrclayton@shaw.ca ] Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 1:52 PM To: Kathy Morse Cc: Lisa Flatla; ARMS office; 'Gerry Miller' Subject: FW: Copy of Dist. Maple Ridge Letter Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear Mayor Morse Acting as Co-Chair of ARMS I feel that this letter of David Goodwin attached should be circulated to the full Council as there are some very disturbing issues surround the methods to arrive at appropriate set-backs on the North Alouette in this instance referred to. We also request that further approvals for this subdivision be held in abeyance until a full public investigation takes place at the District of Maple Ridge to answer the public concern for environmental protection for the North Alouette. At the onset of the Silver Valley Neighbourhood Association meeting, on Nov.19, 2003, your position was that the DFO and MWLAP were the agencies responsible for setting set-backs recommendations and it appears they verbally did at 30 metres. The DFO are now acting surprised to find that this didn't happen and so are we. We look forward to some explanation as to what took place here and we do hope this is not another case of minutes not be kept of verbal agreements, or statements made, that will hamper finding the answers. Thanks for your attention to this matter. Geoff Clayton Co- Chair, ARMS Original Message----- From: Baumgartel Gould [mailto: info@lawbg.com] Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 11:41 AM To: ARMS (Clayton) Subject: Copy of Dist. Maple Ridge Letter January 8, 2004 District of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place Maple Ridge, B.C. Attention: Jeff Scherban, Approving Officer Dear Sirs: Re: Preliminary Approval of Balsam Creek Subdivision adjacent to the North Alouette River including Development Permit Area XXX (DP/028/03) 13300 Block West side of 233 Street and 13396 233 Street I am writing as agent for Ms. Lorraine Lefebvre, the owner of the property at 13366 - 233 w Street, Maple Ridge, B.C. Ms. Lefebvre resides on the west side of the North Alouette River and directly faces the Development Permit Area referred to above part of which is included in the proposed subdivision. 1/11/2004 Page 2 of 8 Ms. Lefebvre has serious concerns with respect to the set back requirements and the proposed location of the 6 metre gravel road / horse trail adjacent to the North Alouette River at the above location. Objection to Subdivision Application I am writing on Ms. Lefebvre's behalf to voice her concerns to you in your capacity as Approving Officer. I understand that the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge By-Law No. 4800-1993 ("Subdivision By-Law") at 111.5 states: "5. In considering a subdivision application, the approving officer may hear objections from any interested persons and shall refuse to approve the subdivision if, in his opinion, the anticipated development of the subdivision would injuriously affect the established amenities, including existing trees, adjoining or adjacent properties, the cost to the Municipality of providing public utilities or other municipal works or services would excess, or the subdivision would otherwise be against the public interests." Ms. Lefebvre's concerns include that the proposed subdivision has and continues to injuriously affect the established amenities including existing trees and slopes in the park area adjacent to the North Alouette River and further, is of the view that this subdivision as presently proposed would otherwise not be in the public interest. As Approving Officer your authority is pursuant to the Land Title Act and is independent of the District of Maple Ridge. As I am sure you appreciate, your role Approving Officer is to exercise your discretion in accordance with the Public Interest. Summary of Objections to the Subdivision Application Ms. Lefebvre is formally objecting to approval of the proposed subdivision as presently submitted and has the following serious concerns in addition to the concerns set out in her letters of October 10, 2003 and October 14, 2003 previously submitted to the Mayor and Council of the District of Maple Ridge as follows: The difficulty in obtaining clarification about the set back requirements from the North Alouette River, the location of the 6 metre gravel road / horse trail adjacent to the park area and the proposed replanting of the development permit area. 1/1 1/2004 Page 3 of 8 2. The process by which the development permit (DP/028/03) was issued allegedly permitting encroachment with removal of trees and a hillside within the area designated parkiand adjacent to the North Alouette River, contrary to objective number 4 of the Official Community Plan ("OFC") development permit area XXX which states: "4. To ensure that adjacent development activity does not encroach upon or alter the protected area." (p. 126 of OFC) The apparent absence of any formal "endorsement" in writing by the Department of Fisheries & Oceans ("D.F.O.") and the Ministry of Environment, Lands, & Parks ("MELP") of the proposed water course protection boundaries. The OFC Guidelines state: "The District of Maple Ridge, the Department of Fisheries & Oceans, and the Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks must endorse the proposed water course protection boundaries." (at p. 127) I understand from Mark Adams of ECL Envirowest Consulting Ltd. ("Envirowest") that the proposed set back from the North Alouette River is 15 metres plus 6 metres for the gravel road / horse trail. Jim Sheehan of the Planning Department / Environmental Section expressed his understanding to me that the proposed set back was 30 metres including the gravel road / horse trail. Mark Engelsjord of D.F.O. has expressed his understanding to me that the set back was 30 metres and, accordingly, D.F.O. did not require a formal application and hence no formal "Authorization" was issued pursuant to Section 35 of the Fisheries Act. There is a serious question as to whether a formal application and an Authorization pursuant to the Fisheries Act from the D.F.O. is required given the apparent "harmful alternation, disruption or destruction of fish habitat". 4. The Development Permit (DP/028/03) clearly conflicts with the Guidelines of the OFC Development Permit Area - XXX which states: "cutting and filling adjacent to the water course protection area is to be kept to a minimum incorporating appropriate structural fill material and blending grading areas with natural slope as supported by the Hillside Policies of the OCP." (emphasis added). The OCP Guidelines do not permit a development permit authorizing cutting and filling within the protected area as has occurred. The Local Government Act, Section 920(2) states that the 1/11/2004 Page 4 of 8 authority of the local Government to issue a development permit under the OFC "must be exercised only in accordance with the applicable guidelines specified under 919.1 in an official community plan or zoning bylaw." 5. The removal of trees and partial removal of the hillside adjacent to the North Alouette River in the Development Permit area occurred on September 25, 2003 prior to a Development Permit being signed and sealed on October 28, 2003 and the required security being deposited by the Developers. This work was undertaken in contravention of Section 920(1)(d) of The Local Government Act which stipulates that unless the owner first obtains a development permit that: "Land within an area designated under Section 919(1)(a) or (b) must not be altered." Development Permit area XXX under the OFC are lands designated pursuant to Section 919(1) (a) of The Local Government Act for "(a) protection of the natural environment, its ecosystems and biological diversity." Ms. Lefebvre is seeking your assurance in writing that the proposed subdivision will not be approved pending clarification of the issues set out herein and pending determination of the validity of the Development Permit. With respect to the validity of the Development Permit which is a pre-requisite to your issuing subdivision approval in your capacity as the Approving Officer, you may wish to obtain an independent legal opinion. There have been significant difficulties in obtaining all of the necessary documentation from the District of Maple Ridge which process is on going. You may expect that I will be writing you further with respect to this matter as more documentation becomes available. I further detail the concerns about the proposed subdivision application as set out below. Review of the Files at the District of Maple Ridge Efforts to review files at the District of Maple Ridge have met with substantial delays. The initial request to review the Development Permit file on October 9, 2003 was met with the response that an application must be made pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. Ms. Lefebvfre made an application in writing on October 14, 2003 to the District of Maple Ridge. After six weeks passed with no response, my inquiries revealed the request had not been forwarded to the Freedom of Information Officer of the District of Maple Ridge. Upon Mr. Terry Fryer being apprised of the application, he immediately reviewed the matter and advised that the files would be available for public inspection and that the matter need not proceed under the Freedom of Information Act. 2003 and on January 2, 2004 and tagged documents and plans, requesting that copies be provided forthwith. To date I have not received copies of the documents requested. I returned to the District of 1/11/2004 Page 5 of 8 Maple Ridge on January 6, 2004 and offered to copy the documents on their machines, but was advised that this was not permitted. On January 8,2004 I was contacted by Terry Fryer who advised that the documents requested had been copied but that on further consideration it was necessary to review the documents and to release the same pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. I provide this background by way of explanation for not supporting all statements below with the actual documents. Further submissions may be made to you once I have received all of the relevant documents. Preliminary Findings From Investigations The District of Maple Ridge Council received a staff report dated July 3, 2003 and on July 22, 2003 resolved "that the Municipal Clerk be authorized to sign and seal DP/028/03 respecting property located in the 13300 block west side 0f233rd Street and the southwest portion of 13396 - 233rd Street. The Development permit was not signed and sealed by the Municipal Clerk until October 28, 2003. Shortly thereafter the Developer posted the required security. The Developer or his agents commenced the removal of trees and removal of the hillside adjacent to the North Alouette River on September 25, 2003. Ms. Lefebvre raised concerns with the District of Maple Ridge and with B.C. Envirowest Consulting Ltd. and received assurances that all permits were in order from both the District of Maple Ridge and the Department of Fisheries & Oceans ("DFO"). A review of the District of Maple Ridge's files does not disclose any written authorization by the DFO or MELP with respect to removal of trees on the hillside and the alteration and removal of lands within 30 metres of the North Alouette River. My review of the Development Permit file, rezoning file and subdivision file on January 2, 2004 disclosed a substantial absence of documentation to support the selection of a 15 metre set back from the North Alouette River followed by a 6 metre gravel road/horse trail immediately adjacent to the proposed subdivision. In particular, the notable absences of documentation included the following: There is no tree survey of the lands proposed for the subdivision or the Development Permit (DP/028/03) identifying trees proposed to be removed and those proposed to be retained. Similarly there was no arborist report as one would expect when large Western Red Cedars and Douglas Firs are being removed from the Development Permit area immediately adjacent to the North Alouette River. The lot grading plan submitted by Envirowest drawing number 689-04-0 1 provides insufficient detail to assess the impact on the lands immediately adjacent to the North Alouette River. 1/11/2004 Page 6 of 8 There is no environmental impact study detailing the rationale for limiting the set back to 15 metres from the North Alouette River with the gravel road/horse trail a further 6 metres to the boundary of the proposed subdivision. Given the close proximity of the proposed subdivision to the North Alouette River, one would expect that there would be written evidence with respect to the environmental impact and the justification for limiting the set back to 15 metres plus the 6 metre gravel road / horse trail. There is no documentation in the files with respect to the DFO providing authorizations for tree removal and removal of a hillside immediately adjacent to the North Alouette River. I have spoken with Mr. Engelsj org at the DFO who advises that the issue of development adjacent to the North Alouette River was reviewed at an environmental review committee meeting several months ago with the Municipality of Maple Ridge. Mr. Engelsj org believed that the set back was 30 metres from the River. He confirmed that no application for a permit had been received pursuant to Section 35(2) of the Federal Fisheries Act. Based on his understanding of the project he believed that no application had been necessary. I have requested that he review this matter given my understanding that the set back being proposed is 15 metres with a further 6 metre gravel road I horse trail. The Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks ("MELP") corresponded with the District of Maple Ridge by letters dated March 6, 2000 and March 13, 2000. The position of MELP in its letter dated March 6, 2000 was that "the entire river plus 30 horizontal metres inland from the top of the bank is to be left in a totally undisturbed, naturally vegetated state. No dumping, landfill or vegetation removal is to be permitted." Subsequently, the MELP letter of March 13, 2000, further clarified its position. In particular this letter indicates with respect to the removal of the hillside in the Development Permit area that: "Proposed removal of "gravel knoll" at north end of subject 6 lots within the riparian corridor of the North Alouette River. The impacts and necessity of these works must be investigated further." The Provincial Fish Protection Act and the Streamside Protection Regulation which was brought into force on January 19, 2001 clearly sets out the policy of providing a minimum of a 30 metre set back from the top of the bank for all fish bearing streams. I refer you specifically to Section 6(2) of the Streamside Protection Regulation. Section 7 of the Streamside Protection Regulation provides that: "When exercising its powers with respect to residential, commercial, and industrial development, a local government must protect streamside protection and enhancement areas." Regardless of whether or not the District of Maple Ridge has formally designated the North 1/11/2004 Page 7 of 8 Alouette River as a "streainside protection and enhancement area", the legislation was enacted to serve the public interest and sets a clear policy. g. If approval of the proposed subdivision with a 15 metre set back from the North Alouette River is granted, it will set a precedent for all future development along the North Alouette River. Surely before any such precedent can be set, there ought to be a scientific basis for determining appropriate set backs to ensure the preservation of the North Alouette River. I understand that there is a significant body of evidence with respect to the requirements for riparian corridors along fish bearing rivers. I further understand that there was substantial research and a scientific basis for the Streamside Protection Regulation which provided for a minimum 30 metre set back. In order for you to properly consider the public interest, I would expect as a minimum that you would demand that there be environmental assessments performed and a scientific basis for considering the necessary set back. For you to approve a subdivision in the absence of a full examination of the fish habitat issues clearly would not be in the public interest. It is apparent that the DFO has not reviewed this matter in detail and was under the misapprehension that the set back was, in fact, 30 metres. I am requesting that the DFO conduct a detailed review of the set back requirements necessary to be in compliance of Section 35 of the Fisheries Act. I suggest that as the Approving Officer you ought to require the Developer to apply to the DFO formally for authorization pursuant to Section 35(2) of the Fisheries Act. Only if this matter has been properly studied are you able to determine that it is in the public interest to permit the subdivision application as proposed. Please understand that Ms. Lefebvre is not opposed to land development generally. She does, however, strongly oppose development which common sense indicates will have serious permanent impact on the future of the North Alouette River. The devastation, which has occurred immediately across from her property, is not something, which can ever be properly ameliorated. She wishes to ensure that such devastation never occurs in such close proximity to the North Alouette River in future subdivisions. Further, she is seeking that the set back requirements be returned to a minimum of 30 metres or more with the additional 6 metres for the gravel road/horse trail in accordance with the Streamside Protection Regulation. May I please have your assurance that the proposed subdivision will not receive final approval pending further investigation and formal authorization by the DFO. Further, I would suggest that groups such as Alouette River Management Society ("A.R.M.S.") and Silver Valley Neighborhood Association be consulted in considering the public interest. May I please hear from you within 7 days with respect to the matters contained herein. Yours truly, DAVID H. GOODWIN, Agent for LORRAINE M. LEFEBVRE 13366— 233rd Street Maple Ridge, BC V4R 2R6 Phone: (604) 466-9893 Mr. Goodwin - Cellular: (604) 209-0177 e-mail: dgoodwin@dccnet.com Fax : (604) 501-3069 1/11/2004 Page8of8 DHG/hl End. cc: Mayor and Council - District of Maple Ridge cc: Geoff Clayton - A.R.M.S. cc: Gavin Roache Silver Valley Neighborhood Association cc: Mike Engelsjord - D.F.O. cc: Lisa Christensen - D.F.O. cc: Maurice Coulter Boisbert - D.F.O. cc: Dale Paterson - D.F.O. cc: Scott Barrett - Ministry of Water, Land & Air Protection cc: Glen Carlson - Ministry of Water, Land & Air Protection cc: Brian Clark - Ministry of Water, Land & Air Protection cc: Mark Adams - Envirowest cc: Jim Sheehan - District of Maple Ridge cc: Terry Fryer - District of Maple Ridge cc: Jane Pickering - District of Maple Ridge cc: Paul Lawson - Malcolm Knapp Research Forest - UBC Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ). Version: 6.0.559 I Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 1/7/2004 1/11/2004