Regular Council Agenda - Home - District of Mission, BC · DP10-017/DP10-018/ DV10-020 & S11-003 ....

Regular Council Agenda June 4, 2012 – 6:30 p.m.

Council Chambers 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, BC

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA

3. ADOPTION OF INFORMATIONAL ITEMS

(a) Major Development Project Update – Current to May 31, 2012 Page 4

(b) Minutes of the Abbotsford/Mission Water & Sewer Commission Meeting held on April 12, 2012

4

(c) Minutes of the Economic Development Select Committee Meeting held on March 15, 2012

Page 18

(d) Minutes of the Economic Development Select Committee Meeting held on April 19, 2012

Page 21

4. RESOLUTION TO RESOLVE INTO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

5. PLANNING

(a) Tree Policy Update Page 25

(b) Rezoning Application R12-006 (Tupper) – 11079 Wilson Street Page 26

(c) Adoption of Minutes for the April 24, 2012 Committee of the Whole (Planning Committee) Meeting

Page 36

(d) Minutes of the Regular Meeting of Council (Public Hearing) held on April 23, 2012

Page 39

(e) Staff Report for Rezoning Application R12-009 (District of Mission) – Text amendment to Section 108 Environmental Protection Background for consideration of adoption of Zoning Amending Bylaw 5282-2012-5050(74) [Section 11(a)]

Page 49

(f) Staff Report for Rezoning Application R12-011 (VanMar Construction) – Comprehensive Development 26 Zone Background for consideration of adoption of Zoning Amending Bylaw 5285-2012-5050(76) [Section 11(b)]

Page 53

1

Regular Council Agenda June 4, 2012 6. ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC WORKS

(a) 2012 Nuisance Mosquito Program and West Nile Virus Risk Reduction Program

Page 68

(b) 2012 Sprinkling Program Page 70

(c) BC Transit Review Panel Comments Page 72

7. PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURE

(a) 120th Anniversary Grant Requests Page 75

8. ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE

(a) Clarification of Municipal Grants Select Committee Role in 120th Anniversary Grant Process

Page 78

(b) Soapbox Derby Race – June 16, 2012 Page 79

(c) Mission Hospice – Midnight Walk Page 82

(d) Nuisance Bylaw Page 83

(e) 2013 Budget Planning Schedule

Page 90

(f) Letter of Approval in Principle – RCMP 2013/2014 Budget Estimates and Request for Changes to Mission Establishment Letter

Page 94

(g) Core Services Review Update Page 117

9. RESOLUTION TO RISE AND REPORT

10. ADOPTION OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT

11. BYLAWS FOR CONSIDERATION

MOTION: That the readings of all bylaws included in the Bylaws section of the June 4, 2012 regular council agenda be approved as listed.

(a) Zoning Amending Bylaw 5282-2012-5050(74) (R12-009 – District of Mission) – a bylaw to amend the text of Section 108 Environmental Protection

Adoption

(b) Zoning Amending Bylaw 5285-2012-5050(76) (R12-011 – VanMar Construction) – a bylaw to amend Comprehensive Development 26 Zone (CD26) to facilitate building construction

Adoption

(c) Zoning Amending Bylaw 5299-2012-5050(82) (R12-006 – Tupper) – a bylaw to rezone a portion of property at 11079 Wilson Street from Rural 16 Zone (RU16) to Rural Residential 7 Secondary Dwelling Zone (RR7s)

First and Second Readings

2

Regular Council Agenda June 4, 2012 (d) Nuisance Abatement Bylaw 5300-2012

– a bylaw to regulate, abate and prohibit nuisances and provide for the cost of recovery of abatement of nuisances

First, Second and Third Readings

12. MINUTES

(a) Regular Council Meeting (including Public Hearing) – April 16, 2012 Page 120

(b) Regular Council Meeting (Public Hearing) – April 23, 2012 9

(c) Regular Council Meeting – May 7, 2012 Page 152

(d) Regular Meeting (for the purpose of going into a Closed meeting) – May 22, 2012

Page 172

(e) Regular Council Meeting – May 22, 2012 Page 174

(f) Regular Council Meeting (Public Hearing) – May 28, 2012 Page 189

13. OTHER BUSINESS

(a) Development Variance Permit Application DV12-004 (VanMar Construction) – for consideration of approval

Page 53

14. CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’S REPORT

15. MAYOR’S REPORT

16. COUNCILLORS’ REPORTS ON COMMITTEES, BOARDS, AND ACTIVITIES

17. QUESTION PERIOD

18. ADJOURNMENT

3

Planning Department

Memorandum

PAGE 1 OF 1

FILE: ADM.REP.COM Development Projects To: Chief Administrative Officer From: Planning Technician Date: June 4, 2012

Subject: Major Development Project Update – Current to May 31, 2012

Attached is the Major Development Project Update current to May 31, 2012. The information contained in the update includes commercial, industrial, institutional and residential development in the District of Mission.

Additional details regarding any of these development applications may be obtained from the Planning Department.

Donna-Lee Lakes G:\COMDEV\DONNA-LEE\COW Reports\2012 Reports\Major Development Project Update Cover Memo 2012-06-04.docx

4

M a j o r D e v e l o p m e n t P r o j e c t U p d a t e

Current to May 31, 2012

5

Major Development Project Update – current to May 31, 2012

TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT

FILE NUMBER &

APPLICANT'S NAME

CIVIC ADDRESS OR LOCATION

DENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT

PROJECT

FEATURES &

CHARACTERISTICS

STATUS OF

DEVELOPMENT

1. Commercial R10-037/R10-038/ DP10-017/DP10-018/ DV10-020 & S11-003 Urban Design Group Architects Ltd.

32471 Lougheed Highway

Approx. 2,374 square metre (25,550 sq. ft.) commercial shopping centre.

Prominent ‘gateway’ commercial project. 5 buildings ranging in size from 152 square metres (1,636 sq. ft.) to 1,215 square metres (13,082 sq. ft.). Commercial businesses including two drive-thru restaurants.

Rezoning adopted. The Permits were approved on November 21, 2011. Site preparation is underway. A building permit for 3 of the 5 buildings has been applied for and will be issued soon.

2. Commercial R10-012 & DP10-003 Howard Meakin

District Lots 6379 & 7347 of Fraser River

Approx. 929 square metre (10,000 sq.ft.) restaurant – “Sturgeon’s on the Fraser”.

Proposed uses include: restaurant, coffee house, tap bar, eco-tours, fishing charters & associated uses.

Third reading (for the water lot portion) granted January 30, 2012. The application is required to include the uplands property with the proposal.

3. Commercial R10-011/S10-006/ DP10-001 Fraser Valley Shopping Centres Ltd. (formally Smart Centres)

31924, 31940, 31970 & 31980 Lougheed Highway

Approx. 10,916 square metre (117,500 sq. ft.) commercial shopping centre.

Four (4) buildings are proposed with the first building (approx. 97,000 sq. ft.) to be built as part of Phase 1.

Rezoning adopted February 28, 2011. Construction of the Walmart store is 95% complete. The estimated opening date is July 15, 2012.

4. Commercial DP09-003 Urban Design Group Architects

7871 Stave Lake Street

Approx. 3,716 square metre (40,000 sq. ft.) commercial neighbourhood shopping development including an additional 929 square metres (10,000 sq. ft.) of office space.

Acrylic stucco, wood and cultured stone materials are proposed with canopies and awnings over storefronts. Pedestrian friendly with outside sitting areas.

Development permit approved March 22, 2010. Five buildings are complete and several businesses are now open. Foundations are in place for the remaining two buildings.

6

TYPE OF

DEVELOPMENT

FILE NUMBER &

APPLICANT'S NAME



PROJECT

FEATURES &

CHARACTERISTICS

STATUS OF

DEVELOPMENT

5. Commercial R05-005 & DP05-002 Jerry Dhillon

33420 & 33430 Dewdney Trunk Road (ie. northeast corner of Cade Barr St. & Dewdney Trunk Rd.)

194 square metre (2,085 sq. ft.) convenience store and gas pumps. Also 73 square metres (782 sq. ft.) of other commercial space.

Convenience store, gas pumps and commercial space with a residence above the store.

Third reading granted September 6, 2005. The developer has been granted the sixth (and final) 1-year extension to finalize the outstanding requirements related to compliance from MOE regarding contamination.

6. Commercial DP04-012 Ali Shamei

33888 Dewdney Trunk Road (ie. northeast corner of Stave Lake St. & Dewdney Trunk Rd.)

Approx. 131 square metre (1,409 sq. ft.) convenience store, gas pumps & residence.

Convenience store and gas pumps with a residence above the store.

Development Permit approved April 7, 2008. Construction is 95% complete. The business will be open soon.

7. Industrial DP11-018 Solterra Developments

River Place (Lot 5 of subdivision application S11-013)

2.0 acre site New 1,419 square metre (15,270 sq. ft.) BC Hydro building.

The building permit has been issued for the BC Hydro building.

8. Industrial S11-013/DV11-010 Solterra Developments

7233 & 7238 River Place

3.56 acre & 4.5 acres

Subdividing both properties into five (5) industrial building lots.

The subdivision has recently completed.

9. Industrial DP08-007 Krahn Engineering

7266 River Place 0.783 acre site 1,367.4 square metre (14,719 sq. ft.) multi-tenant building.

Development Permit approved June 1, 2009. Construction of the new DFO office is complete. Three units in the second building are available (shell only).

10. Industrial DP08-003 Silvercreek Investments Ltd.

31510 Gill Avenue & Lot 8 Gill Avenue (to be consolidated)

1.41 acre & 1.49 acres

3 tilt-up concrete buildings (total footprint of 4,582.85 square metres (49,331 sq. ft. & an additional 845 square metres (9,100 sq. ft.) of office space on a 2nd mezzanine floor.

Development Permit approved September 29, 2008. Two buildings are complete (tenant improvements underway) and building 3 is nearly complete (shell only).

7

TYPE OF

DEVELOPMENT

FILE NUMBER &

APPLICANT'S NAME



PROJECT

FEATURES &

CHARACTERISTICS

STATUS OF

DEVELOPMENT

11. Industrial D08-001 Teck Construction

31413 Gill Avenue 1.94 acre site 3,492.85 square metre (37,598 sq. ft.) multi-tenant building (approx. 2,885.2 square metres of industrial space & 607.66 square metres of office space).

Development Permit approved June 23, 2008. A building permit has been issued and the shell only portion is complete. Tenant improvements are 95% complete.

12. Industrial R07-022 District of Mission

10100 Shaw Street (Shaw Pit)

Approx. 43 acres Rezone the Shaw Pit to allow the District of Mission to extract and process gravel from the property.

Bylaw adopted October 6, 2008. Council has directed staff to negotiate and enter into an agreement with Pan Pacific Aggregates Ltd. to extract gravel from Shaw Pit over a 10 year period.

13. Industrial DP07-004 Krahn Engineering Ltd.

7252 River Place 0.765 acre site Approx. 1,461 square metres (15,727 sq. ft.) multi-tenant building (7 units).

Development Permit approved February 25, 2008. Shell construction is complete and tenant improvements are complete for 4 units.

14. Institutional R12-001 Valley Christian School

8955 Cedar Street 1.73 acre site Future home of Valley Christian School.

Public hearing held and third reading granted March 26, 2012. The applicant is working to complete the outstanding rezoning requirements.

15.

Institutional R08-005 & DP08-002 Ida Castro

33043 2nd Avenue 0.14 acre site 15-bed specialized care facility.

Rezoning adopted October 4, 2010. Construction is underway.

8

TYPE OF

DEVELOPMENT

FILE NUMBER &

APPLICANT'S NAME



PROJECT

FEATURES &

CHARACTERISTICS

STATUS OF

DEVELOPMENT

16. Multi-unit Residential

R11-009 & DP11-006 Mission Association for Seniors’ Housing

8352 Cedar Street and 32821 & 32835 Janzen Avenue

1 acre site (after consolidation)

42-unit seniors’ apartment.

Bylaws adopted November 28, 2011. A building permit is forthcoming.


R11-007 & DP11-005 Keystone Architecture & Planning Ltd.

32921 14th Avenue 1.48 acre site

23 townhouse units; 16 units per acre.

Second and third readings granted October 24, 2011. The applicant is working to complete the outstanding rezoning requirements.


R08-010 & DP08-006 Perspective Investments Ltd.

7260 & 7290 Maple Street, 32848 & 32852 1st Avenue, 32851, 32853 & 32859 View Avenue

163 units with 836 square metres (9,000 sq. ft.) of commercial space.

Three apartment buildings including amenity space and commercial space on the ground floor of buildings A & C.

Third reading granted July 18, 2011. The applicant is working to complete the outstanding rezoning requirements.

19. Mixed Use Development

DP11-009 Josef Winel

33039 & 33043 1st Avenue (former bowling alley site)

4 residential units with office and retail commercial space.

142.5 square metres (1,534 sq. ft.) of office space and 457.5 square metres (4,925 sq. ft.) of retail and commercial space.

Development Permit approved August 22, 2011. The building permit will be issued soon.

20. Mixed Use Development

R08-016 & R08-017 Jorden Cook Assoc.

Portion of Silverdale Neighbourhood One area owned by Genstar & Madison

365 acres with density clustered around a village.

Country-estate lots, single-family lots, townhouse, apartments, commercial and institutional land uses.

Bylaws adopted March 2, 2009. Off-site service planning is underway.

21. Comprehensive Development

R12-007 & S12-004 Carhoun & Sons Enterprises Ltd.

31802 Hillcrest Avenue, 31831, 31941, 31971 Lougheed Highway, 31896 Raven Avenue & 7233 Wren Street

33.5 acres (total). A “village” concept with mixed uses (commercial and residential) with pedestrian friendly circulation.

28,800 square metres (310,000 sq. ft.) of commercial space with up to 150 residential units.

Public hearing held and third reading granted April 16, 2012. The application is working to complete the outstanding rezoning and subdivision requirements.

9

TYPE OF

DEVELOPMENT

FILE NUMBER &

APPLICANT'S NAME



PROJECT

FEATURES &

CHARACTERISTICS

STATUS OF

DEVELOPMENT


R11-024/DP11-019/ DV11-013/S11-010 0916585 BC Ltd.

8711 Cedar Street 4.98 acre site 3 single-family lots (with coach houses), 18 compact single-family lots (with coach houses) & one 38-unit townhouse complex.

Public hearing and third reading granted May 7, 2012. The applicant is working to complete the outstanding rezoning and subdivision requirements.


R11-014/DP11-008/ DV11-005/S11-009 Fraser Health

7324, 7338, 7348, 7366, 32267, 32299 Hurd Street

Community Health Centre (CHC) and 200 bed residential facility.

A Campus of Care for seniors (200 beds) for people with complex 24/7 care needs and a day program for older adults. The CHC will include programs for primary care, a diabetes and senior clinic, public health, home health, mental health and substance abuse, and lease space for community partners including physicians and retailers.

Bylaws adopted March 19, 2012. A building permit is forthcoming.


R08-007/S08-009/ DP08-005 Darren Hall

7655 Peterson Street & 32477 7th Avenue

15 compact single-family lots

Intensive single–family infill residential development.

Third reading was granted December 8, 2008. The applicant has been granted another 1-year extension to complete the outstanding rezoning and subdivision requirements.


R07-021/S07-019/ DP09-004/DV10-008 Paul Regnier

34059, 34081, 34097 Dewdney Trunk Road; 34051, 34058, 34069, 34085, 34072, 34088, 34112 York Avenue; 8738 Stave Lake Street

94 units combined of free-hold and strata ownership

68 single-family lots, 7 duplex lots (14 units) and 2 multi-family townhomes (12 units).

Third reading granted September 20, 2010. Applicant is working to complete the outstanding rezoning and subdivision requirements.

10

TYPE OF

DEVELOPMENT

FILE NUMBER &

APPLICANT'S NAME



PROJECT

FEATURES &

CHARACTERISTICS

STATUS OF

DEVELOPMENT


R06-023 & S08-001 Lyle Holman

8977 Edwards Street West & 8980 Edwards Street East

109 bare land strata lots (plus one 17.9 acre ALR farm land parcel).

Proposed suburban residential cluster development with overall average density of approx. 1 dwelling per 0.88 acres.

Bylaw adopted March 21, 2012. The applicant has been granted an extension to complete the outstanding subdivision requirements.

27. Single Family Residential

R12-017, DV12-009 & S12-009 Gord Cheema

32802 Hood Street & 8351 Cedar Street

13 lots A combination of 280 square metre (3,014 sq. ft.) compact lots and 372 square metre (4,004 sq. ft.) urban residential lots.

A report to Council is forthcoming.


R12-003, DV12-001 & S12-001 Gary Toor

33835 Knight Avenue & 8135 Stave Lake Street

17 lots Urban residential lots (min. 5,005 sq. ft.).

Public hearing held and third reading granted March 26, 2012. The applicant is working to complete the outstanding rezoning and subdivision requirements.


R11-017, DV11-007 & S11-014 Gary Toor

7768 Taulbut Street 10 lots Urban residential lots (min. 5,005 sq. ft.).

Rezoning adopted April 2, 2012. The subdivision is nearing completion.


R10-023, DP10-011 & S10-010 Gary Toor & KC McPherson

8566 Cedar Street & 32895 & 32911 Sylvia Avenue

43 urban compact lots

Compact lots of a minimum 280 square metres (3,014 sq. ft.) for proposed Lots 1, 2, 3 & 4 and a minimum 372 square metres (4,004 sq. ft.) for the remaining 39 lots.

Subdivision has been completed and 13 building permits have been issued.


R10-020, DV10-013 & S10-009 Darren Hall

33790, 33764 & 33782 Dewdney Trunk Road

15 lots Each of the 15 lots could accommodate a secondary dwelling unit (ie. coach homes, garden cottages or secondary suites).

Third reading granted April 18, 2011. Applicant is working to complete outstanding rezoning and subdivision requirements.

11

TYPE OF

DEVELOPMENT

FILE NUMBER &

APPLICANT'S NAME



PROJECT

FEATURES &

CHARACTERISTICS

STATUS OF

DEVELOPMENT


S08-014 Peter Haffner

32691 Best Avenue 11 lots Urban residential lots (min. 6,006 sq. ft.).

Subdivision has been completed. Six homes are completed and 5 lots are vacant.


R08-031/S08-025 Omega Engineering Ltd.

8414, 8434, 8478 Stave Lake Street & 33940 Cherry Avenue

26 lots Urban residential lots (min. 5,005 sq. ft.)

Second and third readings granted October 18, 2010. Applicant has been granted a 1-year extension to complete the outstanding rezoning requirements.


R06-018 & S06-019 Progressive Construction

8289 Manson Street 10 bare land strata lots

Urban residential lots (min. 7,201.3 sq. ft.).

Subdivision has been completed. One (1) building permit has been applied for.


R06-035 & DP06-014 Robert Ciccozzi Architecture Inc.

34048, 34054 & 34142 Parr Avenue

297 townhouse units & one 36-unit apartment

Multi-family development

Third reading granted March 3, 2008. Applicant has been granted a fourth 1-year extension to complete the outstanding rezoning requirements.


R02-033 & DV09-006 Jorden Cook Associates (for Genstar Development Corp.)

29221 Lougheed Highway & the 2.4 acre portion of property located to the immediate north of 9309 Hayward Street and adjacent on the east to Silvermere Lake (total of approx. 366 acres)

Approximately 130 lots

A comprehensive clustered residential development with most of the lots on the island with additional lots on the peninsula in the northeast corner and two sites long Hayward Street.

1st reading granted March 3, 2003. The applicant may have to close the original file and re-submit a new application due to major changes from the original proposal.

12

TYPE OF

DEVELOPMENT

FILE NUMBER &

APPLICANT'S NAME



PROJECT

FEATURES &

CHARACTERISTICS

STATUS OF

DEVELOPMENT

37. Suburban Residential

R12-015 OTG Development Concepts

33105 Thomas Avenue & 33440 Cardinal Street

68 lots An OCP amendment would be required to accommodate suburban (0.88 acre) size lots.

A report to Council is forthcoming.


R10-008 & S10-004 Gary Toor & KC McPherson

31591 Israel Avenue 8186 & 8228 Nelson Street

9 lots Minimum 0.88 acre lots.

Subdivision has been completed. Six building permits have been issued.


R08-019 & S08-018 Daren Alary

Lot 7 Silverdale Avenue (68.71 acres)

22 lots “Oyama Estates” - minimum 0.88 acre lots. Approximately 47.5 acres of Silvercreek Parkway has been dedicated.

Subdivision has been completed. One building permit has been issued.


S04-038 & R04-031 Mission Contractors

8973 Manzer Street 26 lots 2 fee simple .88 acre lots. 24 bare land strata lots (min. 0.67 acre size).

Rezoning adopted June 5, 2006. Applicant is working to complete subdivision requirements.

41. Rural Residential R10-025 & S10-012 N&J Developments Ltd.

32526, 32540 & 32562 Richards Avenue

10 lots Minimum 1.73 acres lots.

Third reading granted October 24, 2011. The applicant is working to complete the outstanding rezoning and subdivision requirements.

42. Rural Residential R03-024 & S03-037 Elaine Cheung

30932 Dewdney Trunk Road

26 lots Twenty-five 1.98 acre size lots and one 18 acre remainder parcel.

Public Hearing held March 26, 2007. Staff will be providing additional information to Council prior to consideration of Third reading.

G:\COMDEV\DONNA-LEE\COW Reports\2012 Reports\Major Development Project Update 2012-06-04.docx

13

Minutes of the Abbotsford/Mission Water & Sewer Commission meeting held April 12, 2012, at 9:04 a.m. in Room 530 of Abbotsford City Hall

WSC Members Present: Councillor Ross (Abbotsford) (Chair); Mayor Adlem (Mission); Mayor Banman (Abbotsford); Councillor Braun (Abbotsford}; Councillor Jewell (Mission); and Councillor Luck (Mission)

Council Present: Councillor Gill (Abbotsford) (part)

UMC Members Present: General Manager Engineering, Regional Utilities- J. Gordon (Abbotsford); General Manager Finance and Corporate Services- P. Soanes (Abbotsford); Director of Finance- K. Bjorgaard (Mission); and Director of Engineering and Public Works- R. Bomhof (Mission)

Staff Present: Director of Utility Operation- L. Stein (Abbotsford); Director of Water and Solid Waste - T. Kyle (Abbotsford); Director of Wastewater, Drainage & Asset Management- R. Isaac (Abbotsford); Planning Engineer- B. Schmitt (Abbotsford); Manager of Projects- J. Loots (Abbotsford); Director of Finance-S. Azam (Abbotsford); and Recording Secretary - R. Brar (Abbotsford)

Public Present: 2

1. CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 9:04 a.m.

2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES

.1 Minutes of the March 8, 2012 Meeting

Moved by Mayor Adlem, seconded by Mayor Banman, that the minutes of the Abbotsford/Mission Water & Sewer Commission meeting held March 8, 2012, be adopted.

wsc 48-2012 CARRIED.

3. DELEGATIONS

None.

4 . BUSINESS OUT OF MINUTES

.1 Monthly Follow-up Report

Moved by Mayor Adlem, seconded by Councillor Braun, that the monthly follow-up report, be received.


14

Minutes of the Abbotsford/Mission Water & Sewer Commission meeting held April12. 2012, at 9:04a.m. in Room 530 of Abbotsford City Hall Page 2

.2 JAMES Plant Monthly Report- March 2012

Moved by Councillor Braun, seconded by Mayor Banman, that Report No. WSC 46-2012, dated March 27, 2012, from the Director of Utility Operations, regarding JAMES Plant Monthly Report- March 2012, be received.

wsc 50-2012 CARRIED .

. 3 Monthly Water Report- March 2012

Moved by Councillor Luck, seconded by Councillor Braun, that Report No. WSC 48-2012, dated April 3, 2012, from the Director of Utility Operations, regarding Monthly Water Report- March 2012, be received.


5. REPORTS

.1 Cannell Lake Water License

B. Schmitt, Planning Engineer, provided a detailed summary of the Cannell Lake Water License.

Moved by Councillor Braun, seconded by Mayor Adlem, that Report No. WSC 47-2012, dated March 28, 2012, from the Planning Engineer, regarding the Cannell Lake Water License, be received.


.2 Water Source & Water Efficiency Studies-Public Outreach

T. Kyle, Director of Water and Solid Waste, provided a brief overview of Report No. WSC 42-2012 and answered questions.

Councillor Gill joined the meeting at 9:35 a.m. during the discussion of the current item.

Moved by Mayor Adlem, seconded by Councillor Braun, to allow Lynn Perrin, Abbotsford Mission Water Watch to speak regarding public input on water source and the Abbotsford Mission Water and Sewer Commission should engage public input.


15

Minutes of the Abbotsford/Mission Water & Sewer Commission meeting held April 12, 2012, at 9:04 a.m. in Room 530 of Abbotsford City Hall Page 3

Moved by Mayor Adlem, seconded by Councillor Luck, that Report No. WSC 42-2012, dated March 20, 2012, from the Director of Water & Solid Waste, regarding Water Source & Water Efficiency Studies- Public Outreach, be received; and staff be directed to carry out the public outreach program discussed in this report.

wsc 54-2012 CARRIED .

. 3 2012 Studies

T. Kyle, Director of Water and Solid Waste, provided a brief overview of Report No. WSC 50-2012 and answered questions.

Moved by Councillor Braun, seconded by Mayor Banman, that Report No. WSC 50-2012, dated March 20, 2012, from the Director of Water & Solid Waste, regarding the Water Source & Water Efficiency Studies-Public Input, be received; (1) the Demand Projection, Water Efficiency and Water Source Studies be completed by staff as outlined in Option 1; and (2) staff report back to the AMWSC at the completion of the studies to assess the need for an independent review of the work completed.


.4 Agreement with Telus for their Infrastructure on the Mt. Mary Ann Reservoir

Moved by Mayor Adlem, seconded by Mayor Banman, that Report No. WSC 29-2012, dated April 5, 2012, from the Project Engineer, regarding the Agreement with Telus for their Infrastructure on the Mt. Mary Ann Reservoir, be received; (1) the Abbotsford Mission Water and Sewer Commission enter into a contract with TM Mobile Inc. for $13,500 per annum; and {2) the Mayor and Corporate Officer be authorized to execute all documents related to this matter.

Moved by Mayor Banman, seconded by Councillor Luck, that further consideration of Report No. WSC 29-2012, dated April 5, 2012, from the Project Engineer, regarding the Agreement with Telus for their Infrastructure on the Mt. Mary Ann Reservoir, be deferred to the May 17, 2012 Abbotsford Mission Water and Sewer Commission meeting.


16

Minutes of the Abbotsford/Mission Water & Sewer Commission meeting held April12, 2012. at 9:04a.m. in Room 530 of Abbotsford City Hall Page 4

.5 Year End (2011) Water and Sewer Flow Percentage Split

Moved by Councillor Braun, seconded by Councillor Luck, that Report No. WSC 44-2012, dated March 21, 2012, from the Director of Utility Operations, regarding Year End (2011) Water and Sewer Flow Percentage Split, be received; and the following flow percentages: Sewer Abbotsford - 80.49%; Mission - 19.51 %; and Water: Abbotsford- 73.53%; Mission- 26.47% be approved and used for the allocation of revenues and water and sewer operational and non-DCC related capital expenditures for 2012, in accordance with the Water Supply and Distribution and Sewage Treatment Systems Ownership and Governance Agreement and Operation and Maintenance Agreement.


6. NEW BUSINESS

None.

7. ADJOURNMENT

Patricia Ross

Moved by Mayor Banman, seconded by Councillor Braun, that the April 12, 2012, WSC meeting, be adjourned (10:17 a.m.).


Certified Correct:

17

DISTRICT OF MISSION MINUTES The Minutes of the ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SELECT COMMITTEE Meeting held at the Mission Regional Chamber of Commerce Boardroom, 34033 Lougheed Hwy, Mission, BC on Thursday March 15, 2012 commencing at 8:00 a.m. Committee Members Present: Rex Blane, Chair EDC Steve Sharpe, S. Sharpe Timber Carlo Billinger, Rex Cox Men’s Wear

Remco Bergman, Specto Civil Technology Cory Padula, Cimtex Industries Raymond Szabada, SRCTec Grace Saris, Vancity Credit Union Dr. Lyndon Balisky, Mission Downtown Business Assoc. Sean Melia, Mission Chamber of Commerce Jason Roessle, Mission City Record Allan Main, Community Futures

Ted Adlem, Mayor – District of Mission Committee Members Absent: Dr. Eric Davis, University of the Fraser Valley Anne Senae, CGA Vicki Gould, Canadian Tire Dave Hensman, Councillor – District of Mission Staff Members Present: Glen Robertson, Chief Administrative Officer Sharon Fletcher, Director of Planning Stacey Crawford, Economic Development Officer Allison Jack, EDO Assistant 1. MINUTES a) Moved by C. Billinger and seconded by G. Saris

RECOMMENDED: That the minutes of the Economic Development Select Committee meeting held January 19, 2012 be adopted. Carried b) Moved by J. Roessle and seconded by R. Bergman RECOMMENDED: That the information provided at the Economic Development Select Committee meeting held February 16, 2012 be adopted. Carried Guest Presentations:

i. Heather Stewart, Communities in Bloom ii. John Laing, Biz E Newsletter

2. STRATEGIC BUSINESS

18

Economic Development Committee Minutes MARCH 15, 2012

a) 2012 Budget/Work Plan Update S. Crawford reported that the work plan is being updated to realign with the objectives and priorities of the council and the 2012 budget.

3. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES

a) Planning Department Update i) Summary of Applications/Major Project Update/Downtown

At the end of February 2012, 18 applications had been received. Over the previous 5 years, the average number of applications received by the end of February is 13 applications. If inquiry application numbers are included, the average number of applications received over the previous five years by the end of February is 23 applications, with 25 applications having been received by the end of February this year.

Applications received in 2012 Total for the year 2012 to-date rural residential 2 lots urban residential 65 lots multi-family 63 multi-family units commercial (1st Avenue) 310,00 square feet industrial (Silverdale Industrial Park) 0 square feet Building Permits issued in 2012

Total number of building permits to-date in 2012 (estimated number of square feet of new space)

Cumulative Estimated Value of Construction based on the building permit (2011 totals are in brackets for comparison)

single family residential 5 dwellings (16 dwellings in 2011) $812,817 ($3,240,390) multi-family including duplexes

0 projects or 0 units $0($0)

commercial 4 permits that added new square footage of approximately 9,181 square feet of tenant improvements

$500,100 ($25,000)

industrial 0 permits that added new square footage of approximately 0 square feet

$0 ($1,129)

institutional 3 permits with approximately 43,799square foot office

$12,024,340($1,210,920)

There were two large project submitted in February:

19

Economic Development Committee Minutes MARCH 15, 2012 The first one is the Campus of Care project on the hospital site, which includes a 28,000 square foot building for offices, commercial and community services space, as well as a building for a 200 bed long-term care facility. The second project is located on the northwest corner of Wren and Lougheed Highway. The proposal includes 310,000 square feet of commercial, which will likely be phased with the first phase being approximately 60,000 square feet. There is also a residential component planned, which could include both single and multi-family units. While the residential component is in a preliminary planning stage with the number and mix of density still being evaluated to determine the market and fit within the landscape, the number of units being considered is approximately 100 units.

b) Downtown Business Association L. Balisky reported that DBA focus is on security and the merchants are working closely with the RCMP. The second Saturday of every month is Downtown Days to promote shopping in the downtown core and merchants will offer specials for that day. MissionFest has been scheduled for August 11. The Mission DBA hosted a Downtown Merchant meeting on March 14 at Dakota Joes with 50 merchants in attendance. c) Chamber of Commerce S. Melia reported that membership has been stable for the past few years. The Chamber’s focus for the next year is the agricultural industry. Two of the four leadership series has taken place with high attendance at both of the seminars. The AGM is today at the Best Western.

4. NEW BUSINESS a) Correspondence: no report b) Managers’ Report S. Crawford reported that the BC Jobs Plan process is complete. Invest North Fraser has received provincial funds for consulting work. The Mission Interpretive Forest will be receiving provincial funding support for the user-group survey to assist in the land use planning. c) Roundtable Discussion on the number of logging trucks through the downtown core, with an understanding that the speed limit being changed to 30km/h in downtown Mission.

5. OLD BUSINESS No report

6. Next Meeting

Thursday April 19, 2012 at 8:00am at the Chamber of Commerce Boardroom 7. ADJOURNMENT

Meeting Adjourned at 9:35am.

20

DISTRICT OF MISSION MINUTES The Minutes of the ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SELECT COMMITTEE Meeting held at the Mission Regional Chamber of Commerce Boardroom, 34033 Lougheed Hwy, Mission, BC on Thursday April 19, 2012 commencing at 8:00 a.m. Committee Members Present: Rex Blane, Chair EDC Steve Sharpe, S. Sharpe Timber Carlo Billinger, Rex Cox Men’s Wear

Remco Bergman, Specto Civil Technology Anne Senae, CGA Raymond Szabada, SRCTec Grace Saris, Vancity Credit Union Vicki Gould, Canadian Tire Jason Roessle, Mission City Record Allan Main, Community Futures

Ted Adlem, Mayor – District of Mission Dave Hensman, Councillor – District of Mission

Committee Members Absent: Dr. Eric Davis, University of the Fraser Valley Dr. Lyndon Balisky, Mission Downtown Business Assoc. Cory Padula, Cimtex Industries Sean Melia, Mission Chamber of Commerce Staff Members Present: Glen Robertson, Chief Administrative Officer Ken Bjorgaard Sharon Fletcher, Director of Planning Stacey Crawford, Economic Development Officer Allison Jack, EDO Assistant

1. MINUTES a) Introduction of guests:

i. Mayor Adlem introduced Ken Bjorgaard as the new Chief Administrative Officer

b) Guest Presentations:

ii. Allan Main, Community Futures Development Corporation

c) Moved by J. Roessle and seconded by C. Billinger RECOMMENDED: That the agenda of the Economic Development Select Committee be adopted. Carried d) Moved by J. Roessle and seconded by C. Billinger

21

Economic Development Committee Minutes

RECOMMENDED: That the minutes of the Economic Development Select Committee meeting held March 15, 2012 be adopted. Carried

2. STRATEGIC BUSINESS

a) 2012 Annual Service Plan Update S. Crawford reported that the Annual Service Plan is complete. The annual work plan outlined the main project areas to focus on from April to December 2012. Moved by C. Billinger and seconded by V. Gould RECOMMENDED: That the Economic Development Select Committee utilize the $35,000 budget increase to hire a contract position to December 31, 2012. b) Sector Initiative Update: Manufacturing/High Tec R. Szabada presented the High Tec initiative update Moved by R. Bergman and seconded by J. Roessle RECOMMENDED: That the Economic Development Select Committee form a technology subcommittee c) EDC Membership Terms and Elections A number of EDC members terms expire in June. Communicate to R. Blane or S. Crawford if you are interested in continuing on with the EDC and if you are interested in the Chair or Vice-Chair position.

3. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES

a) Planning Department Update i) Summary of Applications/Major Project Update/Downtown

At the end of the first quarter of 2012, 23 applications had been received. Over the previous five years, the average number of applications received by the end of March was 19.6 applications. If inquiry application numbers are included, the average number of applications received over the previous five years by the end of March was 36.6 applications, with 33 applications having been received by the end of February this year.

These numbers indicate that the number of applications is on track with other years (see 5 year trend above); however the number of inquiries is lower than the previous 5 years in all three months in 2012. Applications received in 2012 Total for the year 2012 to-

date rural residential 4 lots urban residential 67 lots multi-family 63 multi-family units

22

Economic Development Committee Minutes commercial (1st Avenue) 310,000 square feet industrial (Silverdale Industrial Park) 0 square feet

Building Permits issued in 2012

Total number of building permits to-date in 2012 with the

estimated number of square feet of new space

Cumulative Estimated Value of Construction based on the

building permit (2011 totals are in brackets for

comparison) single family residential 11 dwellings (21 dwellings in

2011) $2,099,502 ($4,179,581)

multi-family including duplexes

0 projects or 0 units $0($0)

commercial March permit is for tenant improvements on London Avenue

5 permits that added new square footage of approximately

9,734 square feet of tenant improvements

$590,100 ($1,428,450)

industrial March permits are for the BC Hydro building on River Place and tenant improvements on Gill Avenue

2 permits that added new square footage of approximately

17,156 square feet

$2,112,000 ($16,219)

institutional March permit is for a building at the Zajac Ranch

4 permits with approximately 46,199 square feet

$12,136,180($1,210,920)

There were also two text amendments of note in March to:

• Amend the Campus of Care project zone to reflect the needs of the chosen developer; and

• Amend section 108 of the zoning bylaw to enable the detailed assessment methodology in the Riparian Areas Regulation to be applied everywhere in Mission, with the exception of Cedar Valley.

b) Downtown Business Association C. Billinger reported that the hanging baskets have been ordered and will be going up in May. New spring banners have been ordered and the plans for MissionFest have started. The DBA is working closely with MLA Randy Hawes office and the Ministry to look at having First Avenue repaved. A number of new stores have opened in the downtown core including Industrial work wear. The Sweet Spot Café has added a secret garden to the back. c) Chamber of Commerce No report

4. NEW BUSINESS a) Correspondence No report b) Managers’ Report

23

Economic Development Committee Minutes

S. Crawford reported that the BC Jobs Plan discussion is still ongoing. Invest North Fraser has a meeting with Minister Bell on April 18 to see how next to proceed. Carhoun and Sons project goes to public hearing on April 16. S. Crawford has entered into a shared radio marketing opportunity with Parks and Recreation to promote the Bizenews and economic development website. S. Crawford entered the District of Mission for consideration in the Alberta Venture Magazine’s Top 25 Communities for Business in Western Canada. The District of Mission has been selected for the list. S. Crawford reported that the Bizenews was sent to 881 recipients; the newsletter has received positive feedback. c) Roundtable The Mayor and Council have a meeting with Joe Hall to discuss Xa:ytem Longhouse & Interpretive Centre. The EDC discussed the pros and cons of drive throughs.

5. OLD BUSINESS

6. Next Meeting Thursday May 17, 2012 at 8:00am at the Chamber of Commerce Boardroom

7. ADJOURNMENT

Meeting Adjourned at 9:35am.

24

Planning Department Memorandum FILE: PRO.DEV.VAG.

Tree Policy Modifications

PAGE 1 OF 1

Date:

June 4, 2012

To:

Chief Administrative Officer

Department:

Planning

Proposal:

Tree Policy Update

Recommendation: That Council receive this report as information.

Background The tree retention and replanting policy (LAN. 32) was initially implemented in 1997 to “preserve, protect and replace significant trees as part of the development process”. The policy has been modified a number of times since its inception and has been applied to all applicable rezoning and subdivision applications considered by the District. As the current ‘tree policy’ may not entirely reflect Council’s goal to facilitate and streamline development in Mission, amendments to the existing policy may be warranted. Next Steps Possible modifications to the tree policy are currently being explored by staff. Accordingly, a subsequent report will be forwarded to Council on June 18, 2012 outlining options to improve the tree policy to better reflect Council’s goal to streamline development within Mission.

In the interim, ahead of forthcoming policy amendments, Council has the option to waive tree policy requirements for any ‘in-stream’ and future development applications.

_________________________ for ____________________________ (Author) (Department Head) Erik Wilhelm Sharon Fletcher, Planner Director of Planning G:\COMDEV\ERIK\Policy Items\Tree Policy Modifications - June 4, 2012.docx

25

Planning Department Memorandum FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON.

R12-006

PAGE 1 OF 10

Date:

June 4, 2012

To:


Department:

Planning

Proposal:

Rezone a portion of the property at 11079 Wilson Street from Rural 16 Zone (RU16) to Rural Residential 7 Secondary Dwelling Zone (RR7s).

File: • R12-006

Owner: • Jeff & Corrina Tupper and Larry & Ingrid Tupper

Applicant:

• Jeff Tupper

Current OCP Designation:

• Rural Residential

Current Zoning:

• Rural 16

Application Complete:

• April 20, 2012

Key Map Location Map

26

FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON PAGE 2 OF 10 R12-006

Recommendation: 1. That a bylaw be prepared to amend District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009 by rezoning

a portion of the property located at 11079 Wilson Road labelled proposed Lot B (Appendix 2) from Rural 16 (RU16) zone to Rural Residential 7 Secondary Dwelling (RR7s) zone;

2. That the bylaw be considered for 1st and 2nd Readings at the Regular Council meeting on June 4, 2012; and

3. That following such readings, the bylaw be forwarded to Public Hearing on June 25, 2012.

Proposal Overview

• The proposal is to rezone proposed Lot B, comprising 1.22 hectares of the property at 11079 Wilson Street to the Rural Residential 7 Secondary Dwelling (RR7s) zone to facilitate a two lot subdivision (Appendix 2). Proposed Lot A will be 2.44 hectares and will remain zoned Rural 16.

• There are two dwellings on the property, a single family dwelling located on proposed Lot A and a mobile home on proposed Lot B. Although the mobile home is not permitted under the Rural Residential 7 Secondary Dwelling zone, the owners wish to live in the mobile home while a new dwelling is being constructed. A letter of credit will be required to ensure the mobile home is removed within a 2 year period of approval of the subdivision.

Site Characteristics Existing Land Use:

• The site is currently a residential property. No change in principal use is being proposed.

• All of the existing buildings on proposed Lot B meet the required setbacks under the Rural Residential 7 Secondary Dwelling zone. There are no buildings on proposed Lot A affected by setbacks to lot lines.

• The property slopes moderately from the north to the south. The applicants have submitted a landslide hazard report which states the land is safe for the use intended.

• The area behind the mobile home and the dwelling are heavily treed, none of these trees require removal as part of the subdivision.

• No watercourses have been identified on the property.

Neighbourhood Context

• The subject site is surrounded by large rural properties.

• The property directly to the north underwent a rezoning and subdivision application, completed in 2012.

Adjacent Area: Direction Existing Use OCP Designation Existing Zoning

North Residential Rural Residential Rural Residential 7

East Vacant Parks Recreation and Natural Open Space

Rural 36 (property is owned by BC Hydro)

South Residential Rural Residential Rural 16

West Vacant Rural Residential Rural 80

27


Context Statement

• This application is being considered by Council in accordance with the District of Mission Zoning Bylaw and Official Community Plan Bylaw. Specifically, the proposed density is consistent with the Rural Residential designation in the Official Community Plan and fits within the context of the surrounding neighbourhood.

• The application is consistent with Official Community Plan policies to allow secondary dwellings:

• Policy 2.3.3 Secondary Dwellings Units in Rural Areas Consider site specific rezoning to provide for a secondary dwelling unit on properties that are designated Rural or Rural Residential;

• Policy 2.5.1 Housing Choice for Different Lifestyles and Income Levels Encourage the development of a variety of housing types, tenure, accessibility and cost to provide for a diversity of lifestyles and income levels; and

• Policy 2.5.3 Affordable Housing through Innovative Housing Forms Facilitate the development of affordable, rental and special needs housing through supporting multi-family housing developments, small house/small lot housing projects, secondary suites, duplexes in appropriate locations, mixed/non market housing projects, coach houses, granny flats and other innovative housing forms.

Site History

• There have been no previous development applications submitted on the property. Zoning Amendment (Bylaw 5050-2009)

• The proposal is to rezone proposed Lot B from Rural 16 (RU16) to Rural Residential 7 Secondary Dwelling zone (RR7s).

• The RR7s zone allows for a single family dwelling and a secondary dwelling on proposed Lot B. The secondary dwelling can be in the form of a coach house, garden cottage or secondary suite. The zoning on proposed Lot A will remain as Rural 16 (RU16).

Planning Analysis

• The properties along the west side of Wilson Street were re-designated from Rural to Rural Residential (Appendix 3) as part of the Official Community Plan in 2008. Re-designating properties to the Rural Residential designation in the Official Community Plan guides development patterns for the area. Proposed Lot B will be 1.22 hectares and therefore is ‘oversized’ for the RR7s zone. However, there is no further subdivision potential on proposed Lot B.

• Proposed Lot A will be 2.44 hectares and will also be oversized for the Rural 16 (RU16) zone and will thus has future development potential.

Community Amenity Contribution

• In accordance with Council Policy LAN. 40, the applicant has volunteered to contribute $2,815.00 per new lot to offset the unique financial burden that residential development incurs on the District to fund new facilities and/or amenities.

Environmental Considerations

• District of Mission mapping indicates that there is a stream that flows from the northern reaches of the property towards Wilson Street; however, the draft plan of subdivision completed by a professional surveyor does not indicate a stream or drainage on the property. A site visit confirmed that there is no stream on the property.

28


Tree Retention and Replanting (LAN 32 – Tree Retention Replanting)

• Each proposed lot maintains suitable access, building envelope and septic system location; therefore the Approving Officer has waived the requirement for a tree inventory at this time.

• LAN 32 Tree Retention and Replanting Policy requires all trees removed be replanted in addition to planting two trees per lot. Thus, the minimum tree planting requirement is 4 trees.

• Tree Retention and Replanting Plan will be finalized at the subdivision stage along with the collection of any securities if required.

Communication Strategy Notice of Public Hearing

• As the development proposes to amend the Zoning Bylaw, a Public Hearing is required. Once a Public Hearing date is determined by Council, a notice shall be mailed to the owners as shown on the assessment roll at the date of the application and to the occupiers of all properties within a distance of 500 metres (1640 ft.) of the development site.

Development Notification Signs

• The developer has posted a development notification sign on the property. The sign summarizes the proposed development and once a public hearing date is determined by Council, the sign will be modified to advertise the public hearing details (i.e. time and place)

Public Hearing Packages (LAN. 50)

• The planning department compiles pre-public hearing information packages which includes copies of any development application and related documents and reports, as well as copies of all documents that have been provided to council in respect of the application and public hearing.

Referrals Engineering:

• The Engineering Department has no objection to the proposal and the rezoning may proceed to adoption from an engineering perspective (Appendix 5).

Fire Department:

• The Fire Department’s comments are attached as Appendix 4.

Requirements Prior to Adoption of the Zone Amending Bylaw

• Receipt of the Community Amenity Contribution in the amount of $2,815.00; and

• Any other items that Council may require resulting from the Public Hearing or Council consideration of the application.

_________________________ ____________________________ (Author) (Department Head) Marcy Bond Barclay Pitkethly, Planner Deputy Director of Planning

29


Information Attached to This Report Appendix 1 - Information for Corporate Officer Appendix 2 - Draft Plan of Subdivision Appendix 3 - Official Community Plan Designation Appendix 4 - Fire Department Comments Appendix 5 - Engineering Department Comments G:\COMDEV\MARCY\APPLICATIONS\REZONING\2012 Application\R12-006 Tupper\CoW.docx

30


Appendix 1 Information for Corporate Officer

Civic Address:

11079 Wilson Street

PID: 018-767-486

Legal: Lot 2, Section 10, Township 15, New Westminster District, Plan LMP16694

31


Appendix 2 Draft Plan of Subdivision for

11079 Wilson Street

Lot A 2.44 ha

Lot B 1.22 ha

Dwelling

Mobile Home

182.56 m.

63.3

5 m

.

12.3 m.

12.99 m.

32


Appendix 3 Official Community Plan Designation

Orange shows Rural Residential Designated properties along Wilson Road

33


Appendix 4 Comments from Fire Department

34


Appendix 5 Comments from Engineering Department

35

Corporate Administration

Memorandum

Page 1 of 1

To: Chief Administrative Officer From: Administrative Clerk Date: June 4, 2012

Subject: Adoption of Minutes for the April 24, 2012 Committee of the Whole (Planning Committee) Meeting

Recommendation That the minutes of the Committee of the Whole (Planning Committee) meeting held on April 24, 2012, be adopted. Background All recommendations made at “Committee of the Whole” meetings must be formally adopted by Council when they are convened as the formal decision-making body. This is usually done during “Regular” Council meetings when Council resolves to adopt the Committee of the Whole report. When separate Committee meetings are held, such as the Planning meeting referenced above, this formal adoption of any recommendations made, if applicable, has to be done during a Regular Council meeting when the committee minutes are presented for adoption. It is a two-step process: any recommendations contained in the minutes must be adopted and the minutes themselves must be adopted. Referrals No other referral is required. Communication No external communication action is required. Tracey Takahashi

36

Minutes of the Committee of the Whole (Planning Committee – Secondary Suites) meeting of the DISTRICT OF MISSION held in the Conference Room of the Municipal Hall, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, British Columbia, on Tuesday, April 24, 2012 commencing at 9:30 a.m. Council Members Present: Councillor Jeff Jewell (Chair) Mayor Ted Adlem Councillor Tony Luck Councillor Larry Nundal Councillor Dave Hensman Councillor Nelson Tilbury Council Members Absent: Councillor Jenny Stevens Staff Members Present: Glen Robertson, Chief Administrative Officer Paul Gipps, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer Ken Bjorgaard, Director of Finance Pat Northup, Senior Bylaw Officer Mike Rhode, Senior Building Inspector Rick Bomhof, Director of Engineering Sharon Fletcher, Director of Planning Barclay Pitkethly, Deputy Director of Planning Erik Wilhelm, Planner Tracey Takahashi, Administrative Clerk

1. CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order.


COW12/015 APR 24/12

Moved by Mayor Adlem , seconded by Councillor Tilbury, and RESOLVED: That the April 24, 2012 Committee of the Whole (Planning Committee) agenda be adopted. CARRIED

3. PLANNING

COW 12/019 APR 24/12

Secondary Suites Councillor Jewell assumed the Chair as the alternate for Councillor Hensman.

Mr. Wilhelm provided an overview of the report dated April 24, 2012 regarding current secondary suites policy and outlined potential changes.

Councillor Hensman entered the meeting at 9:34 a.m.

Discussion ensued with regard to the definition of a secondary suite for the purposes of implementation of a new policy, which will be prepared to address issues arising from the current array of five dis-jointed policies related to secondary suites. It was

37

Committee of the Whole (Planning Committee) Meeting April 24, 2012 Page 2 of 2

agreed that more study needs to be done, including consultation with the public, before a new policy can be drafted and implemented.

Council directed Planning staff to prepare a report addressing the following points:

• Secondary suites as a permitted accessory use in all residential zones;

• Removal of procedures into procedural bylaw;

• Utility billing options – need option for people to save money;

• If living as family unit should not be double billed – definition of suite;

• Implementation deadline; and

• Penalties as part of the policy.

Staff were directed to hold consultations with the public prior to coming back to Council with the report.

4. ADJOURNMENT

COW12/020 APR 24/12

Moved by Councillor Tilbury, seconded by Councillor Luck, and RESOLVED: That the meeting be adjourned. CARRIED

The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 a.m.

_________________________ ______________________________________ WALTER (TED) ADLEM PAUL GIPPS MAYOR DEPUTY CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

38

MINUTES of the REGULAR MEETING of the COUNCIL of the DISTRICT OF MISSION held in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Hall, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, British Columbia on Monday, April 23, 2012 commencing at 6:30 p.m. Council Members Present: Mayor Ted Adlem Councillor Larry Nundal Councillor Dave Hensman Councillor Tony Luck Councillor Jeff Jewell Councillor Nelson Tilbury Council Members Absent: Councillor Jenny Stevens Staff Members Present: Glen Robertson, Chief Administrative Officer Paul Gipps, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer Tracey Takahashi, Administrative Clerk 1. RESOLUTION TO ADD AGENDA ITEMS

PH12/050 APRIL 23/12

Moved by Councillor Hensman, seconded by Councillor Jewell, and

RESOLVED: That the following items be added to the agenda for the April 23, 2012 regular meeting of Council:

• 5. Proclamations; • 6.(e) Public Hearing Policy; and • 9. Bylaws for Consideration.

CARRIED 2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA

PH12/051 APRIL 23/12

Moved by Councillor Hensman, seconded by Councillor Jewell, and

RESOLVED: That the agenda for the April 23, 2012 regular meeting of Council be adopted as amended.

CARRIED

3. DELEGATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS

PH12/052 APRIL 23/12

Amanda Tesluck / Krista De Sousa (Parks, Recreation and Culture) Re: Youth Week Krista De Sousa and Nicole Bliss appeared before Council to outline events planned for Youth Week during the week of May 1-7, 2012 at the Leisure Centre. Ms. De Sousa and Ms. Bliss stated the following with regard to Youth Week:

• Youth Week is an internationally recognized celebration of youth that has been celebrated locally for over 15 years;

• The aim of planned activities is to help develop existing connections between young people and their communities, helping them to grow;

• Youth Week is intended to profile the issues, accomplishments and diversity of youth across British Columbia;

• Young people are important and need to be recognized in a positive and constructive manner;

39

Regular Council Meeting Page 2 of 10 April 23, 2012

• Contributions of youth to the community need to be acknowledged and celebrated;

• Promotion of youth activities that are sponsored by all segments of the community will encourage youth to act in positive ways, therefore, strengthening our community;

• Engaging youth in the planning and implementation of Youth Week activities gives them valuable life skills as well as a sense of accomplishment;

• Youth can be successful with the support, supervision and encouragement from staff and the entire community;

• Events and activities will include Graffiti Art, Live Band at Youth Unlimited, Ping Pong Tournament, Movie & Pizza event, Skate Board Competition, Bands, Free Lunch, Free Hair & Nail Design, Sports Obstacle Course, Garbage Can Painting, free prizes for the youth;

• Youth Week relies 100% on donations, including monetary, prize donations, grants, and in-kind donations of time; and

• Sponsors include the District of Mission, the Rotary Club, Fraser House, Mission RCMP, WorkSafeBC, Mission Early Childhood Education, Mission Library, Mission Public Schools, Youth Unlimited, Riverside College, Vesper’s Skate & Snow, Replay Board Shop, Mission Literacy in Motion, SOGO Active, Time Bomb Trading, Mission Restorative Resolutions, and the District of Mission Social Development Commission.

Ms. De Sousa and Ms. Bliss invited Council to participate in some of the Youth Week events and requested that Council proclaim May 1-7, 2012 as Youth Week in the District of Mission.

The Mayor thanked Ms. De Sousa and Ms. Bliss for their presentation.

PH12/053 APRIL 23/12

Larry Harron Re: Inviting RV travellers from across Canada to Mission Larry Harron appeared before Council to discuss inviting Recreational Vehicle (RV) travellers to come to Mission during their travels. He showed a PowerPoint presentation and noted the following:

• Mission has beautiful scenery, sights and attractions for tourists to enjoy, as well as ample locations that could potentially be used for RV parking;

• RV travellers would bring in a significant source of revenue for the community; and

• Mission has a sani-dump station available, but there is no signage to direct RV travellers to the location.

Mr. Harron asked for Council’s support in establishing an initiative to promote Mission to RV travellers from across Canada and the United States, including the provision of signage to direct travellers to the Mission sani-dump station.

The Mayor thanked Mr. Harron for his presentation.

Moved by Councillor Nundal, seconded by Councillor Luck; and

RESOLVED: That Council, with Councillor Luck as the point of contact, provide necessary support, be it financial or moral support, and signage for an initiative to

40


attract Recreational Vehicle travellers to Mission.

CARRIED

3. PROCLAMATIONS

PH12/054 APRIL 23/12

Moved by Councillor Nundal, seconded by Councillor Hensman; and RESOLVED: That May 1-7, 2012 be proclaimed as “Youth Week” within the District of Mission; the District to assume no costs related thereto.

CARRIED

4. NEW BUSINESS

PH12/055 APRIL 23/12

2011 Audit Results and Communications A report dated April 23, 2012 from the Deputy Director of Finance and a report dated December 31, 2011 from BDO Canada LLP regarding 2011 Audit Results and Communications were provided for Council’s information.

Mr. Bill Cox, the District’s auditor from BDO Canada LLP, provided an overview of his report, noting the following key points:

• The scope of the audit of the consolidated financial statements of the District of Mission for the year ended December 31, 2011 included an audit opinion on the consolidated financial statements of the District of Mission, an audit opinion on the financial statements of the District of Mission Development Corporation, and a management letter regarding audit recommendations of significance;

• The audit testing has shown that any differences from the audit work are immaterial;

• The auditors are completely independent from the District of Mission;

• All concerns noted from the previous year’s audit have been acted upon and improved;

• The current year recommendation is to consider a more detailed analysis of future requirements, which may include funding all, or part, of annual amortization charges; consider alternative revenue sources for such items through comparison with the best practices of other municipalities.

In response to questions from Council, Mr. Cox stated that Council must approve the auditor’s report prior to the auditors signing it as stipulated in national accounting governance. This change, which was implemented in 2011, was made to bring Canadian auditing standards in line with international auditing standards.

Moved by Councillor Nundal, seconded by Councillor Jewell, and

RESOLVED: That the report dated April 23, 2012 from the Deputy Director of Finance regarding 2011 Audit Results and Communications, and the attached report from the District’s auditors, BDO Canada LLP be received as information. CARRIED

41


PH12/056 APRIL 23/12

2011 Financial Results A report dated April 23, 2012 from the Deputy Director of Finance regarding 2011 Financial Results was provided for Council’s approval.

Kris Boland, Deputy Director of Finance, provided an overview of the District of Mission’s 2011 financial statements, noting the following points:

• Portfolio investments increased from $40.6 million to $43.5 million;

• Long-term debt decreased from $19.4 million to $17.3 million;

• Net financial assets increased from $12.5 million to $14.1 million;

• Reserve funds increased by $1 million to a total of $26 million;

• Total revenues were $61.1 million, while total expenses were $55.3 million;

• Internal debt is $7.3 million,;

• Policy FIN.42 Reserves and Surplus recommends a minimum balance of $3.6 million; thus, no transfers to other reserves are being recommended;

• The District’s financial position is stable and improving; and

• Upcoming financial challenges include: funding major regional water and sewer infrastructure, funding Development Cost Charges programs, and funding infrastructure replacement.

In response to questions, Mr. Boland stated the following:

• The reserve fund balance is good at approximately $3.45 million, so staff is not recommending any transfers at this time.

• Internal loans did increase significantly in 2011, at approximately $1.7 million, with $266,000 in payback. This is not necessarily reflective of a typical year. Development Cost Charges need to be coming in to make repayments possible and a balance between paybacks and keeping development moving is necessary.


RESOLVED: That the District of Mission’s 2011 financial statements be approved.

CARRIED

PH12/057 APRIL 23/12

Methodology for Setting Tax Rates and Format of 2012 Tax Notice A report dated April 19, 2012 from the Deputy Treasurer/Collector and the Director of Finance regarding Methodology for Setting Tax Rates and Format of 2012 Tax Notice was provided for Council’s information.

The Deputy Treasurer/Collector provided an overview of how tax rates are set based on the assessed value, and the format of the 2012 tax notice.

PH12/058 APRIL 23/12

2012 Beer Garden Requests A report dated April 23, 2012 from the Director of Parks, Recreation and Culture

42


regarding 2012 Beer Garden Requests was provided for Council’s information.

Moved by Councillor Nundal, seconded by Councillor Hensman, and

RESOLVED:

1. That Council support applications received by the Committee to Approve Public Events (CAPE), and declare the events included within the report dated April 23, 2012 from the Director of Parks, Recreation and Culture regarding 2012 Beer Garden Requests community special events for the purposes of securing a Special Occasion License from the BC Liquor Control and Licensing Branch; and

2. That the recommendations are approved with the provision that the groups must provide financial statements from their 2011 activities, as is required by provincial legislation.

CARRIED

PH12/059 APRIL 23/12

Public Hearing Policy Moved by Councillor Nundal, seconded by Councillor Hensman, and

RESOLVED: That staff bring forward the necessary amendments to the policy pertaining to Public Hearings to reflect how Public Hearings are currently being conducted.

CARRIED

6. QUESTION PERIOD (ON NEW BUSINESS ONLY)

There were no questions from the public.

7. PUBLIC HEARING Mayor Ted Adlem called the public hearing to order and outlined the procedures to be followed.

PH12/060 APRIL 23/12

i. OCP Amending Bylaw 5283-2012-4052(22) (R10-024 – District of Mission Development Corporation

ii. Zoning Amending Bylaw 5284-2012-5050(75) (R10-024 – District of Mission Development Corporation)

iii. Development Variance Permit Application DV12-006

Erik Wilhelm, Planner, provided information regarding District of Mission OCP Amending Bylaw 5283-2012-4052(22), in the name of District of Mission Development Corporation, which proposes to amend District of Mission Official Community Plan 4052-2008 for the following legally described property: Parcel Identifier: 025-742-221, Lot 103, Section 28, Township 17, New Westminster District Plan BCP7108 from (1) Urban Residential to Parks, Recreation and Open Space; and (2) from Urban Residential to Townhouse.

43


The planner noted that the subject property is 8742 Cedar Street and the location and portions being re-designated are shown on the following maps:

The planner also provided information on District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5284-2012-5050(75), in the name of District of Mission Development Corporation, which proposes to amend District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009 by amending the zoning on a portion of the following legally described property:

Parcel Identifier: 025-742-221, Lot 103, Section 28, Township 17, New Westminster District Plan BCP7108

from Suburban 36 (S36) zone to Institutional Parks, Recreation and Civic (IPRC) zone

Mr. Wilhelm explained that the location of the subject property is 8742 Cedar Street and the portion being rezoned is shown on the following map.

Mr. Wilhelm explained that the purpose of the proposed amendments is to facilitate

44


the subdivision of the property into two parcels (i.e. one municipally owned retention pond and one developable parcel). The planner stated that the following requirements would need to be met prior to adoption of the bylaw: • Comments from School District #75 with respect to the Development

Variance Permit; and

• Any other items Council may require resulting from the Public Hearing or Council consideration of the application.

The Deputy Chief Administrative Officer stated that the following written submissions were received:

• A letter dated April 2, 2012 and an email dated April 23, 2012 from Diane McCulloch expressing opposition to the proposed amendments; and

• A letter dated April 17, 2012 from Roy Kittles expressing concern about the aesthetics of and wildlife in the area.

There were no comments or questions from the public.

Council directed staff to prepare a report on beautification options for the retention pond.

Hearing no further questions or comments, the Mayor declared the public hearing on District of Mission OCP Amending Bylaw 5283-2012-4052(22) (R10-24 – District of Mission Development Corporation), District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5284-2012-5050(75) (R10-024 - District of Mission Development Corporation), and Development Variance Permit Application DV12-006 closed.

PH11/061 APRIL 23/12

Zoning Amending Bylaw 5282-2012-5050(74) (R12-009 – District of Mission)

Sharon Fletcher, Director of Planning, provided information regarding District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5282-2012-5050(74), in the name of District of Mission, which proposes to amend the text of District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009 by:

(a) deleting Section 108 Environmental Protection in its entirety and replacing it with the new Section 108 Environmental Protection that directs the provincially legislated Riparian Areas Regulation to be applied to all development properties with the exception of development properties in Cedar Valley; and

(b) deleting schedule C, which is the map that identifies the Silverdale Urban Reserve Area, in its entirety.

The Director of Planning stated that the purpose of the proposed amendment is to implement Riparian Areas Regulation (RAR) within District of Mission, with the exception of Cedar Valley. The Deputy Chief Administrative Officer stated that no written submissions were received.

Jim Hinds asked how the price of purchase for sensitive lands will be determined. The Director of Planning replied that appraisals were done on four different environmentally sensitive areas to determine the fair price of the land would be and the value of the Development Cost Charges Bylaw was determined from that

45


amount, which came out at approximately $25,000 per acre. Terry Mortimer commented that he would like to see the Qualified Environmental Professional be hired by and accountable to the District of Mission rather than the developer to ensure non-biased assessments. The Mayor replied that the provincial government legislation does not allow for this to happen. Rod Shead asked why this issue was initially brought to Council, whether it was to speed up the process or increase the developable area in the District. Councillor Nundal replied that there was a policy in place requiring Council approval, but neither Council nor staff are qualified to make necessary assessments. The Director of Planning explained that the provincial legislation had been adopted and the guidelines were under review, so a simple assessment of Riparian Areas Regulation (RAR) was initially incorporated in the Zoning Bylaw rather than the detailed assessment. Councillor Hensman commented that this was brought forward to make the system fairer, as well as to increase the area of developable land in Mission. Mr. Shead asked Council to be mindful that the science behind the Riparian Areas Regulation (RAR) is very limited in scope, looking only at fish habitat, and there are many other things to be considered such as storm water management, erosion, and slope stability. Hearing no further questions or comments, the Mayor declared the public hearing on District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5282-2012-5050(74) (R12-009 – District of Mission) closed.

PH11/062 APRIL 23/12

i. Zoning Amending Bylaw 5285-2012-5050(76) (R12-011 – VanMar Constructors) – a bylaw to amend Comprehensive Development 26 Zone (CD26) to facilitate building construction

ii. Development Variance Permit Application DV12-004 Marcy Bond, Planner, provided information regarding District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5285-2012-5050(76), in the name of Van Mar Constructors, which proposes to amend the text of Comprehensive Development 26 (CD26) zone in District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009 by:

• amending Section 1266, Part G. Floor Space (1) by increasing the floor space ratio from 0.5 to 0.7;

• deleting “Section 1226, Part C. Lot Area (2), Notwithstanding Section 1266, Part C.1 where a Lot contains an Undevelopable Area, that area shall not be included in the calculation of minimum Lot Area” in its entirety;

• deleting “Section 1226, Part C Lot (3) Notwithstanding Section 1226, Part C.1 and C2, where a Lot contains natural slopes greater than or equal to 33%, that sloped area shall not be included in the calculation of minimum Lot Area” in its entirety; and

46


• deleting “Section 1226, Part E. Setbacks (2). Notwithstanding Section 1226 Part E. 1 all Buildings shall be sited a minimum of 6.0 metres (19.7 ft.) from all Undevelopable Areas as defined in the Bylaw” in its entirety.

The Planner also provided information about Development Variance Permit application DV12-004 in the name of VanMar Constructors, which proposes to reduce the setback to the interior side lot line for the proposed Complex Care Building located at 7424 Hurd Street on proposed Lot REM A of Plan BCP49768 from 6.0 metres (19.7 feet) to 3.4 metres (11.15 ft.).

The planner explained that the purpose of the proposed amendments is to increase the floor space ratio and to remove those sections of the bylaw that are no longer relevant following geotechnical consultation and to facilitate the construction of the Seniors Complex Care Building.

The Deputy Chief Administrative Officer stated that no written submissions were received.


Hearing no further questions or comments, the mayor declared the public hearing on District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5285-2012-5050(76) (R12-011 – Van Mar Constructors) and Development Variance Permit Application DV12-004 closed.

8. BYLAWS PH12/063 APRIL 23/12


RESOLVED: That the readings of the following bylaws included in the Bylaws section of the April 23, 2012 regular Council agenda be approved as listed. (a) Sewer Amending Bylaw 5261-2012-5033(2) – a bylaw to make

several housekeeping amendments to harmonize with the City of Abbotsford’s Sewer Bylaw to reflect the joint management of the JAMES Plant

Adoption

(b) Sewer User Rates and Charges Amending Bylaw 5289-2012-1922(18) – a bylaw to increase sewer user rates by 2% in 2012

Adoption

(c) Water Rates Amending Bylaw 5290-2012-2197(20) – a bylaw to increase water consumption rates by 2% in 2012

Adoption

(d) Ticket Information Amending Bylaw 5262-2012-2646(24) – a bylaw to make housekeeping amendments to Schedule 1 and add new Section 19

First, Second and Third Reading

(e) Zoning Amending Bylaw 5282-2012-5050(74) (R12-009 – District of Mission) – a bylaw to amend the text of Section 108 Environmental Protection

Second and Third Reading

(f) Zoning Amending Bylaw 5285-2012-5050(76) (R12-011 – VanMar Construction) – a bylaw to amend Comprehensive Development 26 Zone (CD26) to facilitate building construction

Third Reading

CARRIED

47


PH12/064 APRIL 23/12


RESOLVED: That the readings of the following bylaws included in the Bylaws section of the April 23, 2012 regular Council agenda be approved as listed. (g) OCP Amending Bylaw 5283-2012-4052(22) (R10-024 – District of

Mission Development Corporation) – a bylaw to redesignate portions of property at 8742 Cedar Street from Urban Residential to Townhouse and Parks, Recreation and Open Space


(h) Zoning Amending Bylaw 5284-2012-5050(75) (R10-024 – District of Mission Development Corporation) – a bylaw to rezone a portion of property at 8742 Cedar Street from Suburban 36 Zone (S36) to Institutional Parks, Recreation and Civic Zone (IPRC)


CARRIED

9. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Councillor Nundal, seconded by Councillor Hensman, and

RESOLVED: That the meeting be adjourned. CARRIED

The meeting was adjourned at 8:22 p.m. MAYOR WALTER (TED) ADLEM PAUL GIPPS, DEPUTY CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

48

Planning Department Memorandum FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON

R12-009

PAGE 1 OF 4

Date:

March 19, 2012

To:


Department:

Planning Department

Proposal:

Implement Riparian Areas Regulation fully

File: R12-009

• Rezoning text amendment to Section 108 Environmental Protection

Recommendation: Option 1 1. That Council resolve to continue using the current approach in Cedar Valley under the

Environmental Management Plan and the Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

2. That a bylaw be prepared to amend District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009 by:

a. Deleting Section 108 Environmental Protection in its entirety;

b. Inserting a new Section 108 Environmental Protection as attached as Appendix 1; and

c. Deleting Schedule C Silverdale Urban Reserve Area.

3. That Land Use Policy LAN 54 Streamside Protection and Enhancement Area Variance Process be deleted.

4. That the bylaw be considered for 1st and 2nd readings at the Regular Council meeting on March 19, 2012.

5. That following such a reading, the bylaw be forwarded to a Public Hearing on April 23, 2012.

OR

Option 2 That staff be directed to bring back a report outlining the legal and financial implications of applying the Riparian Areas Regulation fully within the Cedar Valley area.

Proposal Overview

• At the February 9th, 2012 Regular Meeting of Council, Council resolved that the District of Mission fully implement the Riparian Areas Regulation (RAR) pursuant to the Fish Protection Act.

• Additional consideration should be given to how the Riparian Areas Regulation should be implemented within Cedar Valley, since the Cedar Valley Comprehensive Development Plan was adopted in 1996 prior to the Streamside Protection Regulation being introduced. The Streamside Protection Regulation pre-dates the Riparian Areas Regulation. The current

49


approach under the Cedar Valley Environmental Management Plan and the Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is a hybrid between Streamside Protection and the Detailed Assessment of the Riparian Areas Regulation. The Environmental Management Plan results in more developable land and a simpler process for developers with Department of Fisheries and Oceans than would be possible under the Riparian Areas Regulation.

• Currently, in all areas of Mission except Cedar Valley and the Silverdale area, Section 108 Environmental Protection of the Zoning Bylaw implements the Simple Assessment of the Riparian Areas Regulation with the Detailed Assessment of the Riparian Areas Regulation requiring a resolution of Council for exceptional circumstances as outlined in LAN 54 Streamside Protection and Enhancement Area Variance Process; a Council policy document.

• Riparian Areas Regulation was applied to the Silverdale Neighbourhood One planning process.

• In order to implement the Riparian Areas Regulation under Option 1, the following is required:

o Amend Section 108 Environmental Protection to remove references to Schedule C, which identifies the Silverdale Urban Reserve Area as a specific geographic area; and

o Remove the text outlining the Simple Assessment of Riparian Areas Regulation, which is in the Riparian Areas Regulation and is only provided in the Zoning Bylaw for clarity; and

o Delete LAN 54 Streamside Protection and Enhancement Area Variance Process.

• In-stream applications could continue with the Simple Assessment or the applicant could choose to undertake a Detailed Assessment of the Riparian Areas Regulation as both are acceptable under Option 1.

Options for Cedar Valley The Cedar Valley Comprehensive Development Plan (adopted in 1996), along with the Cedar Valley Environmental Management Plan and the Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (adopted in 2005), was in place prior to the Streamside Protection Regulation being fully implemented.

A public process as part of the development of the Cedar Valley Comprehensive Development Plan and the Environmental Management Plan occurred during the planning phase for the plan. As a result, there is an expectation by some landowners that when they develop their property, they will receive $25,000 per acre for the environmentally sensitive areas on their property. A Development Cost Change bylaw was developed to acquire the money needed to purchase these environmentally sensitive areas as natural parkland.

The Environmental Management Plan also enables less valuable environmentally sensitive areas to be developed under the conditions of the Environmental Management Plan and the Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Department of Fisheries and Oceans agreed to a simple process for reviewing all development applications within the Cedar Valley planning area, which included removing less sensitive areas, since the District of Mission is going to own, and therefore, provide stronger protection for the more valuable sensitive areas purchased under the Development Cost Charge bylaw as natural parkland.

Also the Environmental Management Plan provides for a much simpler process for developing less valuable environmentally sensitive areas where authorizations from Department of

50


Fisheries and Oceans are required. Under the Environmental Management Plan, the developer pays $25/square metre for removable environmentally sensitive area to the District and the District carries out compensation work using the funds. Without the Environmental Management Plan, developable land would decrease and the developer will have the onerous responsibility of procuring the Department of Fisheries and Oceans authorization themselves. The Cedar Valley Environmental Management Plan in its current rendition, is a benefit to the development community, and therefore, should remain. Environmentally sensitive areas under the plan now are a hybrid between Streamside Protection and the Detailed Assessment of the Riparian Areas Regulation.

Additionally, Development Cost Charges are being collected for the purpose of purchasing environmentally sensitive area lands. The amount of the Development Cost Charge is based on an identified area of environmentally sensitive land. Under the Riparian Areas Regulation, the amount of land that is identified as environmentally sensitive will vary depending on the assessment method used. A re-calculation of Development Cost Charges will be necessary, although it will be difficult to do as there will be no certainty with respect to the amount of land to be protected.

Option 1 – retain the current approach, which deals with streamside protection and enhancement areas using a hybrid between Streamside Protection and the Detailed Assessment of the Riparian Areas Regulation under the Environmental Management Plan and the Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans; or

Option 2 – direct staff to bring back a report outlining the legal and financial implications of applying the Riparian Areas Regulation fully with the Cedar Valley area.

_________________________ ____________________________ Sharon Fletcher Mike Younie Director of Planning Manager of Environmental Services Information Attached to This Report Appendix 1 – Proposed Section 108 of the Zoning Bylaw G:\COMDEV\SHARON\COW Reports\Amend section 108 of the zoning bylaw to implement RAR fully.docx

51


Appendix 1 Proposed Section 108 of the Zoning Bylaw under Option 1

SECTION 108 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

A. Intent

1. The intent of this section is to determine the width of the Streamside Protection and Enhancement Areas, which includes the Stream and Riparian area adjacent to the stream. This section applies to all Streams within Mission.

B. Applying Streamside Protection by Geographic Area

1. Streamside Protection and Enhancement Areas are applied within Mission as shown on the following schedules:

a. Schedule B: Cedar Valley; b. Schedule D: all other areas of Mission, except for that portion included in Section

108 Part C.1 C. Width of Streamside Protection and Enhancement Areas

1. In Cedar Valley, as shown on Schedule B, the Streamside Protection and Enhancement Areas are those areas determined by the Environmentally Sensitive Area shown on Schedule B.

2. In all other areas of Mission, except for those areas on Schedules B, the Streamside

Protection and Enhancement Areas are those areas determined by the Assessment Methods in the Riparian Areas Regulation legislation.

D. Uses Permitted in Streamside Protection and Enhancement Areas

1. Low Impact Public Pedestrian Trail only when no Harmful Alteration, Disruption or Destruction of habitat will occur.

2. Activities with respect to an existing building or structure described in section 911(8) of

the Local Government Act, if a building permit is issued only for the purpose of enabling reconstruction or repair of a permanent structure on its existing foundation or a minor addition to an existing structure where the addition is on the opposite side of the Permanent Structure away from the Stream.

E. Uses Prohibited in Streamside Protection and Enhancement Areas

1. No disturbance shall occur on any land within a Streamside Protection and Enhancement Area except as determined by the report submitted by the Qualified Environmental Professional or uses identified under Section 108, Part D.

52

Planning Department Memorandum FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON/PRO.DEV.DEV

R12-011/DV12-004

Page 1 of 15

Date:

April 2, 2012

To:


Department:

Planning

Proposal:

Text amendment to Comprehensive Development (CD26) 26 zone and a Development Variance permit to reduce the setback to the interior side lot line for the property located at 7324 Hurd Street.

File: R12-011 DV12-004

• Amending Comprehensive Development 26 zone • Development Variance Permit

Owner: Applicant:

• Fraser Health

• VanMar Constructors

Current OCP Designation:

• Institutional

Current Zoning:

• Comprehensive Development zone 26 (CD 26)

Application Complete:

• March 26, 2012

Key Map Location Map

53


R12-011/DV12-004

Page 2 of 15

Recommendation: 1. That a bylaw be prepared to amend Comprehensive Development 26 zone in District of

Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009 by:

i) Amending Section 1266 Part G. Floor Space (1) by increasing the floor space ratio from 0.5 to 0.7.

ii) deleting “Section 1226 Part C. Lot Area (2), Notwithstanding Section 1266, Part C.1 where a Lot contains an Undevelopable Area, that area shall not be included in the calculation of minimum Lot Area” in its entirety

iii) deleting “Section 1226 Part C Lot (3) Notwithstanding Section 1226, Part C.1 and C2, where a Lot contains natural slopes greater than or equal to 33%, that sloped area shall not be included in the calculation of minimum Lot Area” in its entirety and;

iv) deleting “Section 1226 Part E. Setbacks (2). Notwithstanding Section 1226 Part E. 1 all Buildings shall be sited a minimum of 6.0 metres (19.7 ft.) from all Undevelopable Areas as defined in the Bylaw” in its entirety.

2. That the bylaw be considered for 1st and 2nd readings at the Regular Council meeting on April 2, 2012;

3. That following such readings, the bylaw be forwarded to Public Hearing on April 23, 2012;

4. That Development Variance Permit Application DV12-004 (Appendix 3) to vary District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009 Section 1266 Part E. Setbacks (1) by:

a. Reducing the setback to the interior side lot line for the proposed Complex Care Building located at 7424 Hurd Street on proposed Lot REM A of Plan BCP49768 from 6.0 metres (19.7 feet) to 3.4 metres (11.15 ft.).

be forwarded to public input on April 23, 2012. Proposal Overview

• To amend the Comprehensive Development 26 zone by increasing the Floor Space Ratio from 0.5 to 0.65 and by deleting Section 1226 Part C. Lot Area (2) and(3) and Part E. Setbacks (2).

• To reduce the setback to the interior side lot line from 6.0 metres to 3.4 metres to allow for the encroachment of 2.6 m (8.5 ft.) for approximately 5.64 sq.metres of building area for the proposed Complex Care building.

Site Characteristics Existing Land Use:

• The site currently consists of the Mission Memorial Hospital, a 76 bed care facility, an ambulance station, parking and open space.

• The area where the existing buildings are located and where the new buildings will be located has a gentle slope ranging from 5% to 9% as per the geotechnical hazard assessment from Golder and Associates. There is a large ravine and watercourse on the eastern edge of the property requiring a setback from the crest of the slope and from the Environmentally Sensitive Area.

54


R12-011/DV12-004

Page 3 of 15

Neighbourhood Context

• The area is surrounded by single family residential areas to the north, single family and medical building to the west, multi-family areas to the east and a variety of commercial areas to the south.

Adjacent Area:

Direction Existing Use OCP Designation Existing Zoning North Residential Compact/multi-family Urban 558

East Multi-family residential Compact Multi family Multifamily 52

South Commercial/residential Commercial Commercial zones

West Single family residential

Single family residential

Urban 558 & Commercial Medical

Context Statement This application is being considered by Council in accordance with:

• Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009

• Official Community Plan Bylaw 4052-2008.

o The proposed rezoning is consistent with the Institutional designation in Official Community Plan.

Site History

• The Comprehensive Development 26 zone (CD26 zone) was created in the fall of 2011 to accommodate the new Campus of Care for seniors and the Community Health Centre.

• Since the adoption of the Comprehensive Development 26 zone, the preferred proponent for the construction of the Fraser Health project has been selected. With the finer construction details of the project being completed, amendments to the CD 26 zone are required to facilitate construction of the buildings.

Official Community Plan Amendment (Bylaw 4052-2008)

• Not applicable. Zoning Amendment (Bylaw 5050-2009)

• The proposal is to amend the Comprehensive Development 26 zone to facilitate the construction of the 200 bed Complex Care building for seniors and the Community Health Care centre.

• Specifically, the amendments to the Comprehensive Development 26 zone and variance are required to facilitate the construction of the two buildings proposed for the site. The amendment and variance required include: o An increase the floor space ratio from .5 to .7 to facilitate the construction of the

Community Health Care building. o Variance to the interior side lot line for the Seniors Complex Care building.

55


R12-011/DV12-004

Page 4 of 15

• The three sections listed below are being deleted from the CD 26 zone include:

o to delete Section 1226 Part C. Lot Area (2), which states: “Notwithstanding Section 1266, Part C.1 where a Lot contains an Undevelopable Area, that area shall not be included in the calculation of minimum Lot Area”, and

o to delete Section 1226 Part C Lot (3) which states: “Notwithstanding Section 1226, Part C.1 and C2, where a Lot contains natural slopes greater than or equal to 33%, that sloped area shall not be included in the calculation of minimum Lot Area”, and .

o to delete Section 1226 Part E. Setbacks (2). which states “Notwithstanding Section 1226 Part E. 1 all Buildings shall be sited a minimum of 6.0 metres (19.7 ft.) from all Undevelopable Areas as defined in the Bylaw”.

Geotechnical consultation has been concluded as part of rezoning application R11-014 and Development Permit DP11-008 and therefore the above clauses are no longer relevant to the zone.

Planning Analysis

• This community health project is a major achievement for the Community Health Plan that was developed in 2008 between Fraser Health Authority, Fraser Valley Regional District and the District of Mission and is a realization of two of the 15 Recommended Options for Implementation of the Plan.

• The proposal is a combination of Option 7 (Multi-Purpose Interdisciplinary Health Centre) and Option 8 (Campus of Care for Seniors Living) identified in the Community Health Plan. The goal of these projects is to improve access to health care services in the Fraser Valley by locating a range of services in one geographic area adjacent to Fraser Health’s Mission Memorial Hospital.

Development Variance Permit (Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009) Requested Variance:

• To reduce the minimum required setback to the interior side lot line from 6.0 metres to 3.4 metres as shown on Appendix 3 to allow for the construction of a 200 bed seniors residential complex care building on proposed REM A of BCP 49768.

Applicant’s Rationale:

• The Comprehensive Development 26 zone was created to enable Fraser Health Authority to move forward with their bid tender and the general guidelines for the Community Health project. Once the design details had been determined the proposed 200 Bed Residential Complex Care Building was not able to meet the 6.0 metre setback to the interior side lot line due to the siting constraints on the property which include the steep ravine to the east and the siting of the existing hospital to the south.

Staff Comments:

• Overall, the site has been well designed and the building sited in accordance with the topography and required setbacks for geotechnical and Environmentally Sensitive Areas.

• The requested variance is supportable.

56


R12-011/DV12-004

Page 5 of 15

Community Amenity Contribution (LAN. 40 – Financial Contribution for Community Amenities)

• Community Amenity Contributions are not requested for applications for Institutional zoning.

Environmental Considerations

• Section 108 of Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009 was met as part of the original rezoning application with the registration of a Section 219 covenant to protect the environmentally sensitive areas identified in the Scott Resources report dated July 8, 2011.

Tree Retention and Replanting (LAN 32 – Tree Retention Replanting)

• Tree planting will be address as part of the landscape plan that will be submitted as part of the building permit requirements.

Financial Implications

• As this application is consistent with the Official Community Plan there are no financial implications.

Communication Strategy

• Bylaw 3612-2003 Land Use Application Procedures and Fees Notice of Public Hearing

Where notice of a Public Hearing is required, the notice shall be to the owners as shown on the assessment roll as at the date of the application, and to the occupiers of all parcels any part of which is within a distance of 152 metres for urban areas and 500 metres for rural areas from any part of the parcel that is subject to the bylaw alteration. The notification area may be expanded to a distance determined by the Director of Planning or designate when development proposals are deemed to have a significant impact. Notification to the owners and occupiers does not apply if 10 or more parcels owned by 10 or more persons are the subject of the bylaw alteration

Notification of Development Permits and Development Variance Permits

A notice of Development Permit or Development Variance Permit shall be mailed or otherwise delivered prior to consideration by Council, or delegate:

a) to all owners and tenants in occupation of the land that is the subject of the application;

b) to all owners and tenants in occupation of the land that is within 10 metres (30 feet) of the land that is subject of the application, including those properties across dedicated rights-of-way and highways. When the Development Permit and/or Development Variance Permit is part of a rezoning application, the Permit notifications be included on the Notice of Public Hearing for the rezoning application;

c) all owners and tenants may provide comment regarding the application via mail, email or by telephone to the planning department which will be considered by either Council or their delegate

57


R12-011/DV12-004

Page 6 of 15

d) where applicable, and after Council introduction, Council may require an increased notification area and/or require a Public Information Meeting to be held for a specific Development Permit and/or Development Variance Permit that may affect the public interest.

• LAN. 50 Pre-Public hearing Information Packages

The planning department compiles pre-public hearing information packages for all public hearings and includes copies of any development application and related documents and reports, as well as copies of all documents that have been provided to council in respect of the application and public hearing.

Referrals

• No referrals are required as part of a text amendment. Requirements Prior to Adoption of the Zone Amending Bylaw

• Approval of Development Variance Permit DV12-005 will be considered as part of the same Council agenda as the Zone Amending Bylaw is considered


_________________________ ____________________________ (author) (department head) Marcy Bond Sharon Fletcher, Planner Director of Planning

58


R12-011/DV12-004

Page 7 of 15

Information Attached to This Report Appendix 1 – Information for Corporate Officer Appendix 2 – Proposed Comprehensive Development 26 (CD 26) zone Appendix 3 - Variance Setback Site Plan Appendix 4 – Existing Comprehensive Development 26 (CD 26 zone) G:\COMDEV\MARCY\APPLICATIONS\REZONING\2012 Application\R12-011 Van Maar\CoW.docx

59


R12-011/DV12-004

Page 8 of 15

Appendix 1 Information for Corporate Officer

Location:

7324 Hurd Street

PID: 028-741-731

Legal: Lot A Section 20, Township 17, New Westminster District Plan BCP 49768

60


R12-011/DV12-004

Page 9 of 15

A. Zone Intent

a. This zone is based on the Institutional Care (IC) zone. The intent of the zone is to accommodate care facilities for people requiring specialized healthcare and allow for complementary uses to the health care facilities, including residential and commercial uses.

B. Permitted Uses

1. The following Principal Uses and not others shall be permitted in the CD26 zone:

a. Institutional limited to:

i. Care Facility, ii. Congregate Care, and iii. Hospital. iv. Residential Apartment

b. Food and Beverage limited to:

i. Café ii. Coffee Shop, and iii. Restaurant

c. Office limited to:

i. Government Services, ii. General Office Use iii. Administrative Office Use

d. Personal Service limited to:

i. Barber Shop ii. Cleaning and Repair of Clothing iii. Hair and Body Salon iv. Medical Clinic v. Medical Offices and vi. Spa

e. Retail limited to

i. Convenience Store ii. Medical Related Retail Store iii. Pharmacy iv. Retail Store v. Specialty Food Store vi. Video Rental

f. Service limited to:

i. Community Service ii. Financial, Insurance and Real Estate iii. General Service Use

61


R12-011/DV12-004

Page 10 of 15

g. Storage limited to: i. Enclosed Storage.

h. Recreation limited to:

ii. Indoor Recreation Facility

i. Residential limited to: iii. Apartments provided they:

a. Forms an integral part of a commercial Building on the lot, b. Are not located on the 1st storey, and c. Are the only use in a storey and in all other storeys above the Residential

Use.

C. Lot Area

1. The minimum Lot Area created through subdivision be a minimum of 0.2 ha (0.5 ac)

D. Density

1. N/A

E. Setbacks 1. All Buildings and Structures shall be sited in accordance with the following minimum Setbacks:

Front Rear Interior Side Exterior Side Principal Building 3.0m

(9.8 ft.) 6.0 m

(19.7 ft.) 6.0 m

(19.7 ft.) 6.0 m

(19.7 ft.) Accessory Building/ Structure

7.5m (24.6 ft.)

4.5 m ( 14.8 ft.)

4.5m ( 14.8 ft.)

4.5 m (14.8 ft.)

F. Lot Coverage 1.. Buildings shall together cover not more than the Lot Area as noted in the following table:

Zone: Lot Coverage CD26 40%

G. Floor Space

1.The floor space shall not exceed the ratio as listed in the follow table:

Zone: Floor Space Ratio CD26 0.7

62


R12-011/DV12-004

PAGE 11 OF 15

H. Height of Buildings 1. The Height of the Principal Building and Accessory Buildings shall not exceed the

heights outlined in the following table:

Zone

Principal Building Accessory Building/ Structure

CD26 20.0 m (65.6 ft.)

4.5 m (14.8)

2. A Principal Building having more than 2 floors for residential purposes shall have a firefighter

elevator installed. I. Indoor Amenity Space

1. Developments that contain 15 units or more shall provide Indoor Amenity Space at a rate of at least 1.39 sq. m (15 sq. ft.) per unit.

J. Outdoor Amenity Space

1. N/A

K. Off Street Parking Off Street Parking shall be in accordance with the provisions of Section 109

63


R12-011/DV12-004

PAGE 12 OF 15

Appendix 3 Variance Setback Site Plan

6.0 metre setback

Vary interior side setback from 6.0m to 3.4m.

64

FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON/PRO.DEV.DEV PAGE 13 OF 15 R12-011/DV12-004

Appendix 4 Existing Comprehensive Development 26 (CD 26) zone

65


66


67

Engineering and Public Works

Staff Report to Council

Page 1 of 2

File Category: GOV.REG.FRA File Folder: Mosquito Control

To: Chief Administrative Officer From: A/Deputy Director of Engineering and Public Works Date: May 22, 2012

Subject: 2012 Nuisance Mosquito Program and West Nile Virus Risk Reduction Program Recommendation This report is provided for information purposes only. No staff recommendation accompanies this report and Council action is not required. Purpose The purpose of this report is to update Council with respect mosquito control activities in 2012.

Background The FVRD’s Engineering Department has operated two region-wide mosquito control programs: the annual tax-requisition-funded Nuisance Mosquito Program and the West Nile Virus Risk Reduction Program, which is funded by the Ministry of Healthy Living & Sport and Fraser Health Authority through an annual grant.

Nuisance Mosquito Program The mosquito species targeted by this program are commonly known as floodwater mosquitoes. These species are active in the summer throughout the spring freshet and successive high water events, as water moves into low-lying areas along river corridors, initiating the development of eggs laid in previous years.

The goal of this program is to reduce both the quantity of mosquitoes and the duration of their infestations to bring about tolerable and shortened nuisance conditions. The program includes public education, physical site modifications and biological control, including the judicious use of a non-residual bacterial larvicide. The FVRD follows a Pest Management Plan, in accordance with the Integrated Pest Management Act, which grants provincial permission to carry out required activities in an effective, yet environmentally sensitive manner. It is worth noting that mosquitoes can fly upwards of 5 km which means that the perceived local breeding sites may not be responsible for the presence of large number of mosquitoes in a particular neighbourhood.

68

of 2

West Nile Virus Risk Reduction Program The mosquito species targeted by this program are potential carriers of West Nile virus (WNv), a disease that cycles between mosquitoes and birds and can infect people through mosquito bites. Although the risk is low, in rare cases severe complications can occur. WNv was detected in a horse within the Fraser Valley in 2009 but has not been detected in humans, crows or mosquitoes.

Control efforts for WNv focus on controlling larval mosquitoes with an environmentally sensitive bacterial larvicide. These mosquitoes prefer to lay their eggs in warm, nutrient rich water, predominantly found in catch basins (storm water drains), backyard containers (such as abandoned tires) and some surface water sites.

2012 Programs The Nuisance Mosquito Program will continue as usual this year. The standard ground and aerial application of larvicide will also occur, in addition to the continued effort to seek out new, or previously undetected, breeding sites that can be incorporated into the program. Particular attention will be paid to Matsqui Island as it produced a great deal of mosquitoes in 2011 during the Fraser River freshet period.

Given the lack of WNv occurrences in the lower mainland since concerns were first highlighted, the Fraser Health Authority is not funding the WNv Risk Reduction Program in 2012 and no treatments are planned by the FVRD. Financial Implications The $264,000 per year cost of the nuisance program is funded entirely by the FVRD.

Communication The information contained in this report has been forwarded to front line staff in the District for responding to mosquito complaints from the public. The FVRD maintains an excellent website with links to many different pieces of information regarding WNv and general mosquito control (http://www.fvrd.bc.ca/Services/Mosquitoes/Pages/default.aspx). The District’s website has also been updated and includes the FVRD press release.

Michael Younie Reviewed by: Rick Bomhof A/Deputy Director of Engineering and Public Works Director of Engineering and Public Works F:\ENGINEER\ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES\MYOUNIE\MEMOS\WEST NILE VIRUS\2012 MOSQUITO CONTROL PROGRAM.DOCX

69

http://www.fvrd.bc.ca/Services/Mosquitoes/Pages/default.aspx

Engineering and Public Works Staff Report to Council

Page 1 of 2

File Category: INF.WAT.WAT File Folder: Water Conservation Program DATE: May 29, 2012 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Mike Younie, A/Deputy Director of Engineering and Public Works SUBJECT: 2012 Sprinkling Program

RECOMMENDATION(S): This report is provided for information purposes only. No staff recommendation accompanies this report and Council action is not required. PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to provide Council with information regarding the planned 2012 sprinkling patrol program. BACKGROUND: At their March 19, 2012 regular meeting, Council resolved for staff to write a report regarding the planned sprinkling patrol program for 2012 and options to raise awareness regarding water conservation. Section 5.1 of the District's Water Bylaw lists the four stages of sprinkling restrictions:

1. Conservation Advisory: Oct 1-April 30 2. Twice weekly sprinkling of lawns, shrubs, flower gardens and vegetable gardens: May 1-Sept 30 3. Sprinkling ban by Engineer’s Order 4. Engineer's Order specifying further restrictions

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS: For the last 3 - 4 years, sprinkling patrols have been completed by Public Works staff. Prior to that, staff from several departments were involved. Typically, patrols are staffed on an overtime basis but also on straight time when the weather forecast allows for a shift change. Shift changes are generally only considered when bans are in place and the weather forecast is for hot dry weather for an extended period of time. The patrols often start in June with staff determining if the weather conditions are prompting residents to begin to sprinkle and whether the sprinkling rules are being followed. These initial patrols may be done every few days. If the numbers warrant, dedicated patrols will be initiated. Significantly more resources are allocated to patrols if sprinkling bans are in place. For example, two separate staff will patrol from 3:30PM to 1AM and two more from 10:30PM to 8AM. Typically, staff have been issuing 2 warnings followed by a ticket, although no tickets have been issued in the last 3 years. Warnings are issued in each stage to repeat violators to ensure they realize new rules are in effect. The number of warning tickets issued in 2009, 2010 and 2011 were 266, 101 and 0, respectively. Given that the maximum day demand for water is approaching the capacity of the supply

70

STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 2 of 2

system, staff is recommending that the sprinkling patrol program be used as a tool to raise awareness of the importance of conserving water. Rather than issuing two warning tickets, staff will issue one warning ticket in 2012 followed by a ticket with the $100 fine. At this time, staff believes there may be value in amending the Municipal Ticket Information bylaw to include higher fines for repeat offences. However, this recommendation will be made in the Water Supply Study currently being developed to allow the recommendation to be considered in the context of an overview approach to water conservation. Bylaw Enforcement staff will work with Public Works staff to review the warning and ticket procedures although Bylaw Enforcement staff may be required to issue the tickets. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The District spent $28,000, $23,000 and $1,000 on sprinkling patrol in 2009, 2010 and 2011, respectively. Seventeen thousand dollars is budgeted for 2012 and funds from underspent areas in the Public Works budget would be used to cover overruns. Sprinkling bans were in place for 3 weeks in 2009 and from July 1 to August 30 in 2010. The weather was wet and cold through July of last year with minimal need for sprinkling or patrols. COMMUNICATION: The sprinkling regulations were included in the tax notices that were recently sent to property owners and advertisements have appeared in local newspapers. The District’s website and the regional water program’s website (ourwatermatters.ca) also contains all of the information. There is a small difference between Abbotsford and Mission in that Mission residents can only sprinkle lawns, shrubs, flower gardens and vegetable gardens twice weekly whereas the twice weekly requirement in Abbotsford only applies to lawns. This difference has been in place for several years and makes sense given the fact that Abbotsford residents have meters and are more cautious with their sprinkling. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION: Twice weekly sprinkling regulations are currently in effect in Mission. The need to go to the stage 3 restrictions will be monitored and recommended to the Water and Sewer Commission and then to Council if warranted. Staff will only be issuing one warning in each stage followed by a ticket with a $100 fine to repeat violators. Recommendations to increase the fine will be made as part of the Water Supply Study that is being developed. SIGN-OFFS:

__ Mike Younie Reviewed by: Rick Bomhof A/Deputy Director of Engineering and Public Works Director of Engineering and Public Works F:\ENGINEER\ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES\MYOUNIE\Memos\Sprinkling Program 2012.docx

71

Engineering and Public Works Staff Report to Council

Page 1 of 3

File Category: INF.PUB.BCT File Folder: General DATE: May 30, 2012 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Mike Younie, A/Deputy Director of Engineering and Public Works SUBJECT: BC Transit Review Panel Comments

RECOMMENDATION(S): This report is provided for information purposes only. No staff recommendation accompanies this report and Council action is not required. PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to provide Council with the comments that staff will be sending to the BC Transit Review Panel as directed by Council at their regular meeting on April 16, 2012. BACKGROUND: The Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure has appointed a 3 member panel to conduct the independent review of BC Transit. Local governments identified representatives of the Regional District of Nanaimo and the Union of BC Municipalities to work with the Ministry to develop the terms of reference and identify potential panel members. The panel will work with local governments and BC Transit to gather information. Once they complete their work, the panel will submit a report with recommendations to the Minister by the end of August 2012. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS: The review panel’s mandate was discussed at a recent Mission Abbotsford Transit Committee meeting. Abbotsford presented their comments and concerns in person to the review panel. Mission was unable to present in person and will provide written comments. Staff has developed the following comments that will be forwarded to the panel for their consideration.

The District of Mission appreciates the opportunity to participate in the BC Transit review. To be clear, the District is not interested in taking transit over on its own as it does not possess adequate resources. The relationship between BC Transit and the District has been positive but can be improved by addressing or discussing the following in more detail: General Comments

• Improved recognition of local government's budget cycle by BC Transit. Given that the local government's budget is on a calendar year while BC Transit follows the provincial government's year end of March 31, it is important for BC Transit to provide budgetary information to local governments by August 1 of every year in a calendar year format.

• Communication between both sides can always be improved. Best communication practices from around the province could be shared and appropriate emphasis could be placed on communication in any agreements.

72


• Annual Operating Agreements (AOA) tend to be general in nature and can be expanded or MoU's created to include additional requirements regarding budget reporting, cost sharing details, etc.

• BC Transit representatives working with local governments should possess the requisite knowledge of the entire system and have the authority to answer questions and make decisions required by local government representatives. Having one contact that can answer questions on a timely basis will improve efficiency and lead to improved implementation of new initiatives. Operational Comments

• In Mission's case where the system is shared with Abbotsford, Mission would like to see greater information on all reports showing Mission's service hours as these drive the cost sharing between the two communities.

• Right sizing of buses is desired. • Request quicker turn-around time when requests are made for local transit changes. • When a new service is implemented, it is unclear what the costs cover. For example, is Mission

paying for expansion that is based on the cost of new buses but receiving used buses? Do used buses cost us more than new buses as a result of increased maintenance costs?

• We need greater allocation of BC Transit staff dedicated to the Abbotsford/Mission system. As a small community, it is challenging to find the resources necessary to deal effectively with transit issues. It would help if we had someone at BC Transit that could allocate more time to deal with our issues, someone who takes a lead role and dedicates the necessary resources to having the best system possible in Mission but recognizing that we are part of a partnership with Abbotsford which must be respected.

• We need an opportunity to meet individually and annually with BC Transit to discuss general issues like how we are working together and what improvements should be made. To this end, it would be helpful to have a survey form created that examined operational and transit management issues which BC Transit and Mission could fill out and compare answers.

• There is a need to share the farebox data as soon as it becomes available as it will be used to compare against service hours between Mission and Abbotsford. As this comparison will likely end up affecting the budget, we will need to know in the next 2-3 months to allow us to prepare next year’s budget.

• Given that certain aspects of our shared system are paid entirely by Mission and some are cost shared, it is critical that the budget reflect the different cost and revenue sharing elements. Similarly, the service hour split between Mission and Abbotsford needs to be shown on the budget sheets as well as annual operating agreements.

• We request better clarity how costs are shared between Mission and Abbotsford for various components of the system. As an example, the Aldergrove connector route is paid 100% by Abbotsford, and the revenue for that line is also going solely to Abbotsford. We are unclear however, how the costs and revenues are identified and separated out in the AOA? Clarity is also requested how the service hours for the Aldergrove connector are separated out in the Mission/Abbotsford service hour split calculation? Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments to the panel. We look forward to a continued positive relationship with BC Transit but one that can continuously improve and adapt to our changing needs as our community grows.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: While there are significant financial implications associated with the relationship between BC Transit and the District, there are no direct implications associated with providing these comments to the panel.

73


COMMUNICATION: No additional communication is required. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION: An independent review panel for BC Transit has been initiated by the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure. District staff has prepared a series of comments and concerns that will be forwarded to the panel for their consideration. SIGN-OFFS:

__ Mike Younie Reviewed by: Rick Bomhof A/Deputy Director of Engineering and Public Works Director of Engineering and Public Works F:\ENGINEER\ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES\MYOUNIE\Memos\BC Transit Review 2012.docx

74

Parks, Recreation & Culture

Memorandum

To: Chief Administrative Officer From: Director, Parks, Recreation & Culture Date: June 4, 2012

Subject: 120th Anniversary Grant Requests

Recommendation 1. That Council accept the recommendations related to distribution of the 120th Anniversary Grant

as recommended below-

1. Lifetime Learning Centre Society $ 4,950.00 (collected stories of our community pioneers) 2. The Mission Arts Council $3,000.00 (Raven and Sun art installation) 3. Mission and District Soap Box Derby $5,000.00 (replace Soap Box mural) 4. Mission Regional Chamber of Commerce $4,500.00 (“Explore our Potential” map project) 5. Mission Library $750.00 (historical photos and display at the Mission Library) 6. Mission District Historical Society $5,000.00 (accessible database of historical information) 7. Mission Youth Unlimited $5,000.00 (mural) Sub Total $28,200.00

Promoting 120th anniversary event $1,800.00

Total $30,000.00

Background The BC provincial government recently provided a grant to the District of Mission to offset costs related to the celebration of the 120th Anniversary of the District’s incorporation in 1892. A report was forwarded to Council on April 16th which recommended how the funds were to be distributed within the community. One of the approved approaches was to publicly request submissions from various community organizations that would assist in marking the 120th anniversary and complement the special event to be held at the Clarke Theatre on September 29th. The total funding to be allocated is $30,000.00.

75

The 18 applications were reviewed on Friday May 25th and selected based on the following criteria-

i) Organizations must be non-profit based organizations recognized by the District

ii) The amount of the grant cannot exceed 80% of the project’s total cost, up to $5,000.00 and of that 20% can be considered in-kind

iii) The funds cannot cover administrative costs

iv) The organization will develop a tangible benefit to the community

v) The project must be started by September 29, 2012 and completed by the end of 2012

vi) Each organization will be required to submit a detailed financial report upon completion of their project.

Those projects that were not recommended did provide a number of interesting submissions, with limited funds available the selection group believe that the seven projects recommended best fit the selection criteria and the spirit of the 120th anniversary theme.

Organization Amount Requested Recommended Award

Lifetime Learning Centre Society 5,000.00 4,950.00

Mission Fest 2012 5,000.00 0

Mission Harbour Authority 5,000.00 0

Mission Community Foundation 2,400.00 0

Rotary Club of Mission / Communities in Bloom 5,000.00 0

Mission Downtown Residents Association 5,000.00 0

Mission Youth Unlimited 5,000.00 5,000.00

Mission District Historical Society 5,000.00 5,000.00

Mission Literacy in Motion 3,968.00 0

Fraser House Society 3,000.00 0

Mission and District Soap Box Derby 5,000.00 5,000.00

Fraser Valley Regional Library / Mission Library/ Wordkeepers

2,500.00 0

Mission Regional Chamber of Commerce 5,000.00 4,500.00

Mission Library 5,000.00 0

Cyrus Centre and Can Dance Kids 5,000.00 0

76

The Mission Arts Council 3,000.00 3,000.00

Mission Library 750.00 750.00

Total 48,218.00 28,200.00 Referrals

This review was undertaken by a panel of three who were asked to complete the review of the applications by Mayor Adlem (Danny Plecas, Debbie Trenholm and Maureen Sinclair). The submissions were received as a result of public notifications that were published in the local newspaper as well as on the District website. The District’s Cultural Commission also shared this funding opportunity with their associated community groups.

Financial Implications The total amount available to be distributed to community organizations is $30,000.00. If Council approves the grant amounts as recommended ($28,200.00) there would be $1,800.00 remaining which should be used to support and promote the 120th Anniversary event on September 12th at the Clarke Theatre.

Communication

Once Council has made its decision the successful applicants should be notified and the unsuccessful applicants thanked. The funds should be provided to the various organizations as soon as possible so that they may commence their projects as they deadlines are tight.

Conclusion

That Council approve the allocation of $28,200.00 to Lifetime Learning, The Mission Arts Council, Soap Box Derby, Chamber of Commerce, Library, Historical Society and Youth Unlimited to allow them to celebrate the Districts 120th anniversary; And that additional funds be used to promote the anniversary event on September 29th.

Maureen Sinclair Director of Parks, Recreation and Culture Copy to- Danny Plecas and Debbie Trenholm

77


Memorandum

File Category: FIN.GRA.MUN/12 File Folder: General To: Mayor and Council From: Jennifer Russell, Legislative Assistant Date: June 4, 2012

Subject: Clarification of Municipal Grants Select Committee Role in 120th Anniversary Grant Process

Recommendation That the following portion of Council Resolution RC12/331 be rescinded:

3. That the 120th Anniversary Grant applications be considered by the Municipal Grants Select Committee;

Purpose To clarify Council’s direction as to how the 120th Anniversary Grant process will be managed.

Background At the regular meeting of May 22, 2012, Council adopted several recommendations of the Municipal Grants Select Committee, including one regarding the 120th Anniversary Grant process.

This resolution needs to be rescinded because a committee to adjudicate the 120th Anniversary Grant process had already been appointed by the Mayor. The Municipal Grants Select Committee had no knowledge of this.

Referrals No referrals are required.

Financial Implications There are no financial implications.

Communication The Municipal Grants Select Committee will be advised of Council’s decision.

Jennifer Russell Legislative Assistant

78


Memorandum

PAGE 1 OF 1

File Category: ADM.PER.VAG. File Folder: Soapbox Derby TO: Chief Administrative Officer FROM: Deputy Director of Corporate Administration DATE: June 4, 2012 SUBJECT: Soapbox Derby Race – June 16, 2012 RECOMMENDATION: That Council endorse the Mission and District Soapbox Derby race taking place on June 16, 2012 between the hours of 6:00 am to 4:00 pm; and that The District approve closing Stave Lake Street from 7th Ave up to Best Avenue during the above noted hours. BACKGROUND: Attached is a letter from the Mission and District Soapbox Derby Association requesting approval for the closure of Stave Lake Street on June 16, 2012 between the hours of 6:00 am to 4:00 pm. This event has been taking place for several years and is a very popular family event. As noted The organizer has already addressed the following issues: 1. Traffic control with professional flaggers to regulate traffic during the day; 2. Portable toilets being delivered and retrieved on the day of the event; 3. First aid is being provided by St. Johns Ambulance; 4. Notification of the public through ads in the Mission City Record as well as distribution of

flyers with road closure information to all homes directed affected by the race; 5. Providing the District of Mission with insurance naming us as an additional insured; and 6. The Engineering Department endorsing their traffic plan. Staff are requesting that the above recommendation be endorsed by Council.

Kelly Ridley Attachment

79

© 2001 - Mission & District Soapbox Derby Association. All Rights Reserved. Pages 2

District of Mission 8645 Stave Lake St Box 20 Mission, BC V2V 4L9 Mission, May 25, 2012 Concerning: Soapbox Derby Road Closure June 16th, 2012 Dear Kelly Ridley, On behalf of the Mission and District Soapbox Derby Association, I would like request the following road closure due to our annual Soapbox Derby Race. Date: Saturday, June 16th 2012 Time closure: 6:00 till 18:00 Location: Stave Lake Street from 7th Avenue up to Best Avenue. There will be limited

traffic access allowed from Prentis Avenue and 11th Avenue. All through traffic will be diverted according to enclosed road closure map.

Exception: First Canada bus route will only be slightly affected, but no diversion will take place

Safety measures: Mission & District Soapbox Derby will hire professional flaggers to regulate traffic and the District of Mission will provide proper road signs and traffic barriers.

We will also work closely together with Roy Nicholson and Ibrahim Ghafoor Heritage Mall: We will inform all tenants of our race and the proposed Road closure. We will

have flaggers keep the access to the mall open via the 11th Avenue entrance. The Stave Lake entrances will be closed for the duration of the race.

Affected home owners: We will inform local home owners via a door-to-door letter of the road closure. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us. Thank you for your kind consideration and support of the Mission Soapbox Derby Kind regards, Remco Bergman Mission & District Soapbox Derby Association T: +1 604 287-4327 C: +1 604 615-6151 E: [email protected]

80

mailto:[email protected]

© 2001 - Mission & District Soapbox Derby Association. All Rights Reserved. Pages 2

Saturday June 16, 2012

Stave Lake Street will be closed to all through traffic between 7th Avenue and Best Avenue from:

6:00 am to 6:00 pm

Mission & District Soapbox Derby Association apologizes for any inconvenience and thanks you for your patience and cooperation during this special day for the community and the Children who will be racing their Soapboxes.

81


Memorandum

PAGE 1 OF 1

File Category: ADM.PER.VAG. File Folder: Mission Hospice – Midnight Walk TO: Chief Administrative Officer FROM: Deputy Director of Corporate Administration DATE: June 4, 2012 SUBJECT: Mission Hospice – Midnight Walk RECOMMENDATION: That Council authorize the playing of music during the following hours at Heritage Park Secondary School during the Mission Hospice Midnight Walk scheduled for the following date and time: Saturday, June 23, 2012 from 7:00 pm to midnight. BACKGROUND: This event takes place outside the hours of the noise bylaw and they wish to play taped music. Steps have been taken to minimize any noise concerns such as setting up the music away from the residential area. Lighting for the event is also minimal so not to disturb the neighbourhood. The event coordinators have also notified the neighbourhood. Clean up of the area and first aid on sight has also been addressed. The school is being left open for washroom facilities. Insurance coverage has also been addressed. Staff feels that this would be a worthwhile event and is requesting that Council allow for a variance to the noise bylaw.

Kelly Ridley g:\cow\2012\0604 june 4\mission hospice society - midnight walk 2012.docx

82

Inspection Services

Memorandum File Category: ADMBYL.PRO File Folder: Nuisance Bylaw

To: Chief Administrative Officer From: Senior Building Inspector Date: June 4, 2012

Subject: Nuisance Bylaw

Recommendation That the proposed Nuisance Bylaw be considered and read 3 times. Background The District has been dealing with a number of properties that are exhausting our enforcement resources with less than satisfactory results. There are several properties within the District that have reoccurring problems that require the attendance or resources of RCMP and municipal staff. The proposed Nuisance Bylaw brings in a process whereby Council can deem a property a nuisance property and can recover some costs associated with dealing with the issues at hand. It is to be understood that Council deeming a property a “Nuisance Property” is a process which will involve the property owners appearing before Council. Council is aware of this challenge and requested that staff seek out extenuative solutions. In discussions with other communities & legal counsel staff is pleased to propose this bylaw as key tool in managing the challenging properties. Referrals The RCMP and our legal counsel have been involved in the process. Financial Implications The Nuisance Bylaw should help reduce our costs as it has a fee structure attached to it. The fees charged are to help cover some costs associated with dealing with properties that have gone through the process and have been declared a nuisance property. Communication The adoption of the Nuisance Bylaw could be put in the Mission City Record under the City Page section.

83

Inspection Services

Memorandum Conclusion The District has properties that for many reasons are chronic complaint generators. As such they are constantly using municipal resources such as the RCMP, Mission Fire Rescue, etc. The proposed Nuisance Bylaw creates a process which the District can use as a tool to deal with some of the property issues. Additionally it also allows the District to recover some of the costs incurred by the municipal forces including RCMP attendance when dealing with noncriminal issues.

Michael Rohde Senior Building Inspector Paul Gipps Deputy Chief Administrative Officer

84

DISTRICT OF MISSION BYLAW NO. 5300-2012

A BYLAW TO REGULATE, ABATE AND PROHIBIT NUISANCES

AND PROVIDE FOR THE COST RECOVERY OF ABATEMENT OF NUISANCES

____________________________________________________________________________________

WHEREAS under sections 8 and 64 of the Community Charter, Council may, by

bylaw, regulate, prohibit and impose requirements in relation to nuisances;

AND WHEREAS under sections 17 and 194 of the Community Charter Council may impose costs and recover the costs of taking action in the event of a default by a person who fails to take action as Council directs.

NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the District of Mission, in open Meeting assembled, enacts as follows:

Title

1. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as the “District of Mission Nuisance Abatement Bylaw No. 5300-2012”. Interpretation 2. In this Bylaw, unless the context otherwise requires:

“District” means the District of Mission;

“Nuisance” means an activity which substantially and unreasonably interferes with a person’s use and enjoyment of a public area or of land he or she occupies or which causes injury to the health, comfort or convenience of an occupier of land and, if it does so, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, may include, an activity such as a noisy party, a group of people making noise, loud music, car racing, revving engines, yelling, shouting, screaming, fighting, littering and trespassing.

Prohibition

3. No person shall cause a nuisance or permit the land he or she owns or occupies to be used so as to cause a nuisance.

85

- 2 -

Nuisance Abatement 4.(1) A person who causes a nuisance or permits the land he or she owns or occupies to be used so as to cause a nuisance, shall abate or cause to be abated an activity which causes a nuisance. 4. (2) The District may, by its employees, contractors and agents, abate or cause to be abated an activity which causes a nuisance if the person who caused the nuisance or permitted the land that he or she owned or occupied to be used so as to cause a nuisance failed to comply with a direction from Council to abate the nuisance. Cost Imposition 5. The District may impose the costs of abating a nuisance on one or more of the following:

(1) a person causing the nuisance; (2) the occupier of land from which the nuisance emanates; and (3) the owner of land from which the nuisance emanates.

Collection 6. The District may recover the costs imposed under section 5 in accordance with:

(a) section 231 of the Community Charter as a debt due and recoverable in a court of competent jurisdiction; or

(b) section 258 of the Community Charter as property taxes.

Costs 7. The costs recoverable for nuisance abatement shall be those set out in Schedules “A” and “B” to this Bylaw. Schedules “A” and “B” form a part of this Bylaw and are enforceable in the same manner as this Bylaw. Offences 8. A person who contravenes, violates or fails to comply with any provision of this Bylaw, or who suffers or permits any act or thing to be done in contravention or violation of this Bylaw, or who fails to do anything required by this Bylaw, commits an offence and shall be liable, upon conviction, to a fine of not more than $10,000.00 and not less than $200.00, the cost of prosecution and any other penalty or order imposed pursuant to the Community Charter or the Offence Act (British Columbia). Each day that an offence against this Bylaw continues or exists shall be deemed to be a separate and distinct offence.

86

- 3 -

Severability 9. Each section of this Bylaw shall be severable. If any provision of this Bylaw is held to be illegal or invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the provision may be severed and the illegality or invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this Bylaw. READ A FIRST TIME THIS day of 2012. READ A SECOND TIME THIS day of 2012. READ A THIRD TIME THIS day of 2012. ADOPTED THIS day of 2012. Mayor Corporate Officer

87

- 4 -

SCHEDULE “A”

The costs referred to in section 7 of this Bylaw are to be determined in part by multiplying the following hourly rates for any of the following individuals involved in the abatement of a nuisance by the time spent by those individuals in the abatement of the nuisance and if there is more than one individual the amounts for each individual are added together to determine the cost imposed under this Schedule “A”. The following hourly rates apply for every hour or 1/4 hour portion thereof which any of the following District employees, RCMP or Fire/Rescue Personnel use to deal with the abatement of a nuisance and depending upon the day of the week, the time of day or the holiday status of when such services are required, the hourly rate may be increased by one and a half or two times.

District Employees Hourly Rate in Dollars

Bylaw-Manager $ 52.42 Bylaw Enforcement Officer $ 36.97 Building Supervisor $ 43.57 Building Inspector III $ 36.97 Superintendent of Public Works $ 57.70 Foreman – Public Works III $ 37.38 Tradesperson – Public Works $ 35.11 Labourer – Public Works III $ 26.60

RCMP Hourly Rate in Dollars

Inspector $ 58.34 Staff Sergeant $ 49.44 Sergeant $ 45.36 Corporal $ 41.61 Constable $ 38.00

Fire/Rescue Hourly Rate

Fire Chief $ 65.45 Assistant Fire Chief $ 56.18 Captain - Inspection $ 41.14 Lieutenant - Inspection $ 36.44 Captain - Suppression $ 42.54 Lieutenant - Suppression $ 34.19 Fire Fighter $ 27.35

88

- 5 -

SCHEDULE “B”

The costs referred to in section 7 of this Bylaw are to be determined in part by multiplying the following hourly rates for any equipment or vehicles used by the District in abating a nuisance by the time spent using the equipment or vehicles. If there is more than one piece of equipment or vehicle used in the nuisance abatement then the amounts for each are added together to determine the cost imposed under this Schedule “B”. The following hourly rates apply for every hour or 1/4 hour portion thereof where any of the following equipment and vehicles are used by District employees, RCMP or Fire/Rescue personnel to deal with the abatement of a nuisance and depending upon the day of the week, the time of day or the holiday status of when such services are required, the hourly rate may be increased by one and a half or two times.

Equipment and Vehicles Hourly Rate in Dollars

District Car $ 3.97 District Truck - Light $ 7.10 District Truck - Service $ 7.10 District Vehicle - Other $ 6.19 Fire Truck - Rescue $242.10 Fire Truck - Pumper $225.00 Fire Truck - Arial $414.88 Fire Truck – Tanker $241.38 Fire Vehicle, Inspector $ 7.50 RCMP Vehicles $ 20.00

For any work carried out by a contractor of the District to abate a nuisance on behalf of the District the costs imposed will be the actual cost of the contract plus 10% of the contract value.

89

Finance Department

Memorandum

Page 1 of 2

File Category: FIN.BUD.DOM File Folder: 2013 Budget

To: Chief Administrative Officer From: Deputy Treasurer/Collector Date: June 4, 2012

Subject: 2013 Budget Planning Schedule

Attachment(s): Appendix “A” 2013 Budget Schedule

Recommendation That Council approves the 2013 budget schedule, in order to adopt the District’s 2013-2017 financial plan/budget before December 31, 2012, with the actual budget meeting dates to be finalized in the near future. Background One of Council’s goals expressed earlier this year was to pass the 2013 budget before December 31, 2012. The attached schedule (Appendix “A”) outlines the events and approximate dates in order to achieve this goal. Revisions to the Budget Process

1. To kick off the budget process, staff are proposing an initial meeting be held with Council to set the strategic direction for the upcoming budget. This meeting will help to provide staff with the required context to form the budget to meet Council’s goals.

2. Staff have increased the involvement of departments in the form of presenting their budgets to Council, and having departments represented at budget meetings to respond to any detailed questions Council may have.

Budget Schedule Highlights (note that dates are tentative, and at this point are included to illustrate the general time-line of the budget process)

• June 21: strategic direction setting meeting with Council for the 2013 budget • August 8 & 9: departments present the budget to Council • August 16 through September 18: various meetings for Council to discuss and refine the

budget • October 18: Community Report/Financial Plan released, including the provisional 2013

budget • November 5: public budget consultation meeting • December 17: first three readings of financial plan bylaw • December 19: final adoption of financial plan bylaw

90

of 2

In terms of the Core Services Review that is currently underway, the outcomes of the Review will have to be factored into the budget as soon as they are known. Financial Implications There are no financial implications associated with this report. Communication The Community Report/Financial Plan will be available two weeks prior to the public budget consultation meeting, in order to inform stakeholders about the proposed budget in advance of the public consultation process. Conclusion The 2013 budget can be passed by December 31, 2012 by following the attached budget schedule. Kerri Onken Ken Bjorgaard Deputy Treasurer/Collector Director of Finance G:\FINANCE\BUDGET\Budget 2013\Memo - 2013 - 2017 Financial Plan Budget Schedule.docx

91

G:\FINANCE\BUDGET\Budget 2013\2013 Budget schedule ver 3.docx 1

Appendix “A” DISTRICT OF MISSION - 2013 BUDGET SCHEDULE

EVENT/TASK DATES EXPECTED OUTCOMES COMMENTS

2013 budget is open for departments to begin work First week of June, 2012 Departments begin work on their 2013 budgets.

Instructions will be provided in the first week of June.

Strategic direction setting meeting with Council for the 2013 budget. Committee of the Whole

Council Meeting (A&F) June 21, 2012 (1 to 2 hours)

Determine priorities for Council’s strategic goals & objectives. Determine Council’s desired target for 2013 tax increase.

Present to Council the latest version of the existing tax increase required to maintain service levels. Include budget assumptions for 2013, high-light what information is still pending.

Department head discussion on Council’s strategic direction for 2013 budget.

Special Dept. Head Meeting June 27, 2012

Provide clarity for departments to move forward with 2013 budgeting

Due date for departmental budgeting: Operating Budget: - submit “core budget increase requests” required to maintain service levels. - submit “spending packages” for new initiatives and/or increased service levels. - submit work plans to achieve Council’s strategic goals and objectives. Capital Budget: - review and update long-term capital budget - submit capital spending packages

Due: July 18, 2012

Departments have submitted all information required to proceed with compiling the budget.

Workshop to review provisional operating budget. Special Dept. Head Meeting July 24, 2012

Department heads agree with forwarding the operating financial plan and spending package list to Council for discussion.

Workshop to review provisional capital budget. Special Dept. Head Meeting July 25, 2012

Department heads agree with forwarding the capital plan and spending package list to Council for discussion.

Formal presentation of operating and capital budgets to Council by Departments (1 of 2).

Committee of the Whole Council Meeting (A&F)

August 8, 2012

Council is informed and ready to begin discussing the budget.

92

G:\FINANCE\BUDGET\Budget 2013\2013 Budget schedule ver 3.docx 2

EVENT/TASK DATES EXPECTED OUTCOMES COMMENTS

Formal presentation of operating and capital budgets to Council by Departments (2 of 2).


August 9, 2012

Council is informed and ready to begin discussing the budget.

Council discussion of provisional budget (1 of 3). Committee of the Whole Council Meeting (A&F)

August 16, 2012

Refine the budget to meet Council’s goals.


September 6, 2012

Refine the budget to meet Council’s goals.


September 18, 2012

Final revisions to the budget to meet Council’s goals.

Community Report released to the public. October 18, 2012

To inform the public about the District’s provisional budget, well in advance of the public consultation meeting.

Public budget consultation meeting. Regular Council Meeting November 5, 2012

Public feedback received on the provisional budget.

Council discussion of public budget consultation outcomes.


November 20, 2012

Update budget for any changes resulting from public consultation.

First three readings of 2013 – 2017 Financial Plan Bylaw.

Regular Council Meeting December 17, 2012

First three readings given to Financial Plan Bylaw.

Adoption of 2013 – 2017 Financial Plan Bylaw. Special Council Meeting December 19, 2012

Financial Plan Bylaw adopted.

93

Finance Department

Staff Report to Council

Page 1 of 6

File Category: FIN.BUD.DEP File Folder: RCMP 2013/2014 Date: June 4, 2012

To: Chief Administrative Officer

From: Deputy Director of Finance and Deputy Treasurer/Collector

Subject: Letter of Approval in Principle – RCMP 2013/2014 Budget Estimates and Request for Changes to Mission Establishment letter.

Attachment(s): Appendix “A” Letter of Approval in Principle – 2013/2014 Budget Estimates for Mission. Appendix “B” Request for Changes to Mission Establishment letter. Letter from RCMP dated May 4 Municipal Contract Policing Resource Requests –

2013/2014 including five schedules attached with financial information. Recommendation(s)

1. That the “Letter of Approval in Principle” letter for the RCMP 2012/2013 budget estimates be approved for forwarding to the Ministry of Justice and the RCMP; and

2. That staff be authorized to sign the “Request for Changes to the Mission Establishment” letter, lowering the authorized strength from 52 members to 50 members, and forward it to the Ministry of Justice and the RCMP.

Purpose This report outlines the financial information from the RCMP and the impact of the 2013/2014 contract budget on the 2013 District’s budget. The RCMP is requesting a “Letter of Approval in Principle” be sent to them by June 15, 2012 for planning purposes. Along with this letter, a letter to reduce the contract authorized strength from 52 to 50 is also recommended. Background The District is required to provide a “letter of approval in principle” (see Appendix “A”) annually for the RCMP budget estimates and a letter for any changes to the authorized strength (see Appendix “B”) anticipated in the following fiscal year as outlined in the attached letter from the RCMP dated May 4, 2012. This allows the RCMP enough time to make requests through to the Federal Treasury Board, particularly in regard to additional police officers, and to secure the 10% Federal funding share. The “letter of approval in principle” does not commit the District to any additional resources or members at this time.

94

of 6

Staffing Levels The following table shows the authorized and budgeted number of RCMP members for 2011/2012 and 2012/2013 (per the Federal Government’s fiscal year of April 1st to March 31st), as well as the proposed members for 2013/2014:

2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014 Proposed

Budgeted Strength

Authorized Strength

Budgeted Strength

Authorized Strength

Budgeted Strength

Authorized Strength

Municipal RCMP Members 48.25 52 47 52 47 52

Integrated Teams (full-time equivalents) 4.95 4.95 5.48 5.48 5.66 5.66

Totals 53.2 56.95 52.48 57.48 52.66 57.66

Provincial RCMP Members (funded by the Province) 6 6 6 6 6 6

The budgeted strength represents the number of RCMP members Mission is funding during the contract period. The authorized strength represents the number of members the Mission detachment can staff up to without going through the official process of an Annual Reference Level Update (ARLU). The ARLU process can take up to 18 months consisting of a formal request made through the Provincial Solicitor General who then makes an official request to the Treasury Board of Canada. The advantage of having authorized strength greater than the budgeted strength is the amount of time between Council authorizing an increase to RCMP staffing levels and the member arriving at the detachment. It is substantially quicker as the process consists of a letter to the E-Division requesting a new member and can be implemented within a few months. Currently there is a variation of five members between the authorized strength and the budgeted strength. Staff are recommending that this variance be reduced to three as some costs are based on authorized strength rather than actual strength (e.g. the Province charges the RCMP $1,000 per authorized contract strength for “PRIME” communications). Consideration as to whether the District should increase the staffing levels of the RCMP member from the current level of 47 can occur as part of the larger budget deliberations occurring this fall, wherein all departmental requests/needs are reviewed together. Highlights of 2013/2014 Budget Estimates (see attached) The 2013/2014 budget estimates included the impact of the recent member compensation package negotiated earlier this year and include a 1.75% wage increase effective January 2012, 1.50% effective January 2013, 2.0% increase effective January 2014 and 3.5% estimate for 2015 and beyond. The 2013/2014 contract is the first year of implementing the purchase of the Patrol Carbines (long rifles) required for officer safety. This program is phased in over two years at an estimated cost of $43,128 per year and is based on one carbine per five RCMP members. There are some national programs and consolidated service costs that are currently flowing through the Division Administration portion of the RCMP budget. These programs and services are under review with the expectation of separating them into their own category and evaluating the delivery method including contracting out of these programs and services. The final outcome of this review from a cost perspective, either positive or negative, is not fully known at this time.

95

of 6

During budget discussions staff informed Council that the negotiating team for the new RCMP contract was also looking at a new funding formula for the integrated teams by reducing the municipal share from 90% down to 70%. This change was estimated to save the District of Mission $220,000 starting with the 2012/2013 contract. However, since the funding formula for the integrated teams is between the municipalities and the Province and not between the Federal Government and the Provincial Government, this savings may not be realized. Current information suggests that of the six integrated teams, only the Integrated Homicide Investigation Team would have the 70% formula applied. This savings is estimated at $102,000 for 2012/2013 contract year, which is $118,000 less than the $220,000 estimate provided during budget discussions. Until the negotiation with the Province is completed, the final budget impact for 2012 and onwards will not be known. The following summarizes the integrated teams:

• Integrated Homicide Investigation Team

• Lower Mainland Emergency Response Team

• Lower Mainland Forensic Identification

• Lower Mainland Police Dog

• Lower Mainland Reconstructionist/Analyst

• Integrated Internal Investigator The District accrued $323,628 in 2011 to fund the estimated potential liability resulting from the negotiated wage rollback in 2010. At this time, the judgment from the appeal heard on January 17, 2012 has not been released and the impact on the RCMP budget is not fully known. As of March 31, 2012, severance costs of one week per year of service for a RCMP member will cease to accrue. While this will produce savings in the future, current members have the option of receiving their severance balance paid out now. The impact on municipalities is currently under review and will be communicated once the information is available. The RCMP budget estimate for 2013/2014 totals $8,329,669 (including the integrated teams at the 90% level), an increase of approximately $340,000 over the 2012/2013 contract to provide the same level of service. This increase represents approximately 1.28% increase in property taxes. The five year forecast from the RCMP shows an increase in each of the five years of approximately $347,000 or 4.17% to maintain existing levels of services, which translates to average annual property tax increases of approximately 1.30%. As a reminder, Council has asked that the RCMP vacancy be managed by delaying replacement staff in an effort to produce a budget savings of $150,000 in 2012. There is a risk that staffing levels could become stable and the budget savings may not be realized in 2013. This $150,000 is not included in the $340,000 amount above. Consideration as to whether the District should maintain risking the staffing vacancy levels or adjusting the 2013/2014 contract by $150,000 can occur as part of the larger budget deliberations occurring this fall. Financial Implications The budget impact considering the three main issues currently known at this time are summarized in the following chart.

96

of 6

Description Amount Estimated Impact on Taxes

To maintain existing services of 47 RCMP members for 2013/2014 contract $340,000 1.28%

Projected change to the funding formula for integrated teams $118,000 0.44%

Should the vacancy pattern not be realized in 2013 and the 2013/2014 contract not be adjusted to compensate

$150,000 0.57%

Totals $608,000 2.29%

Communication The “letter of approval in principle” is required to be signed and forwarded to Assistant Deputy Minister and Director of Police Services by June 15, 2012. The “request for changes to Mission establishment” letter is required to be signed and forwarded to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General. Summary and Conclusion The District is required to provide a letter of approval in principle for the 2013/2014 RCMP budget estimates and a letter for any changes to the authorized strength anticipated in the following fiscal year. The letter of approval in principle does not commit the District to any additional resources or members at this time. Currently there is a variation of five members between the authorized strength and the budgeted strength. Staff are recommending that this variance be reduced to three as some costs are based on authorized strength rather than actual strength. Consideration to increase the staffing levels from the current level of 47 members can occur as part of the larger budget deliberations occurring this fall. To maintain existing service levels, the 2013/2014 budget forecast is estimated to increase by $340,000 from the prior year. There is also the possibility that the savings from the change in the funding formula for the integrated teams will not be realized adding an additional estimated $118,000. Should the vacancy pattern stabilize an additional $150,000 will be required or an adjustment to the 2013/2014 contract will be required. Kris Boland Kerri Onken Ken Bjorgaard Deputy Director of Finance Deputy Treasurer/Collector Director of Finance G:\FINANCE\RCMP\2013-2014 Contract\approval in principle 2013-2014.docx

97

of 6

F I N A N C E D E P A R T M E N T FILE: FIN.BUD.DEP RCMP 2013/2014 May 23, 2012 Mr. Clayton Pecknold Assistant Deputy Minister and Director of Police Services Ministry of Justice P.O. Box 9285 Stn Prov Govt Victoria, B.C. V8W 9J7 Dear Mr. Pecknold:

Re: Letter of Approval in Principle – 2013/2014 Budget Estimates for Mission

This letter of approval in principle is issued to conform to the Federal Treasury Board requirements to enable the Federal Government to set aside sufficient financial resources to cover their share of the Municipal RCMP contract costs.

The District of Mission anticipates that it will fund a total of 47 members at the Mission detachment for the 2013/2014 fiscal year. Please note that the contract strength should be reduced from 52 to 50. The District understands that the following capital related expenditures are included in the budget estimates:

$43,128 for firearms carbines (included in CEG 480)

$41,696 for replacement computers (CEG 841)

$99,000 for replacement vehicles (CEG 890)

$38,410 for replacement of small capital (CEG 900 & 910)

$222,234 total capital expenditures

The budget estimate that is approved in principle is $7,881,368 at 100% (our municipality is responsible at the 90% level which equates to $7,093,231), which does not include the cost of the integrated teams. The budget estimate approved in principle for the integrated teams at the 90% level is $1,236,438; therefore the total budget estimate approved in principle at the 90% level is $8,329,669 ($7,093,231 + $1,236,438).

As outlined above, this letter provides “approval in principle” only and is solely issued for planning purposes. Council will make its final budget decisions in late 2012 or early 2013, and will advise you at that time of the approved spending cap for the RCMP contract for 2013/2014.

Council also wishes to clarify that no substantive reallocation of funding should occur within the RCMP contract budget, without prior written consent of the District.

If you have any questions, please give me a call at 604-820-3722.

Yours truly,

Ken Bjorgaard DIRECTOR OF FINANCE cc: Mr. Max Xiao, Regional Director, Financial Management & Accounting Operations Mission RCMP Detachment Inspector Richard Konarski G:\FINANCE\RCMP\2013-2014 Contract\approval in principle 2013-2014.docx

APPENDIX “A” 98

of 6

F I N A N C E D E P A R T M E N T FILE: FIN.BUD.DEP RCMP 2013/2014 May 23, 2012

The Honourable Shirley Bond Minister of Justice and Attorney General Ministry of Justice P.O. Box 9044 Stn Prov Govt Victoria, B.C. V8W 9J7 Dear Minister Bond: Re: Request for Changes to Mission Establishment The Council of the Municipality of Mission, BC is requesting a decrease of two members to their municipal policing establishment effective April 1, 2012. The current Mission municipal establishment is 52 members. With the decrease of two positions, the authorized establishment will be 50. Since establishment decreases require amendments to Annex "A" of the Federal/Provincial Agreement, please take the necessary steps to amend the Annex "A" by contacting the Solicitor General of Canada. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely yours, Ken Bjorgaard DIRECTOR OF FINANCE G:\FINANCE\RCMP\2013-2014 Contract\approval in principle 2013-2014.docx

cc: Mr. Max Xiao, Regional Director, Financial Management & Accounting Operations A/Commr. Norm Lipinski, District Commander, Lower Mainland District Inspector Richard Konarski, Mission RCMP Detachment

Charles Tang, Establishment Unit, RCMP “E” Division Headquarters

APPENDIX “B”

99

1

May 04, 2012

Ken Bjorgaard Your File Votre Chief Administrative Officer District of Mission Box 20 Our File Notre Mission, BC V2V 4L9 E753-6-3

Dear Mr. Bjorgaard: Re: Municipal Contract Policing Resource Requests - 2013/2014 In keeping with the Municipal Police Service Agreement of 2012, we are communicating with our Municipal Partners to establish projections of our human and financial resource needs in 2013/2014. The 2012/2013 budget (including accommodation where applicable) has been revised to reflect the impact of the new contract and the member compensation package announced on March 29, 2012. As the original budget assumed a 1.5% salary rate increase, the revised budget is adjusted for the 1.75% increase. Additional details are being provided in the 2012/2013 Revised Notes & Assumptions in schedule 2.b. Municipalities are requested to provide a revised “Final Confirmation Letter” for the 2012/2013 budget. We are asking that you meet with your Detachment Commander to discuss the police service needs of the community and the related human and financial resource requirements. Attached for your information are:

a. Our five year budget for your RCMP Municipal Policing costs. This is a detailed listing of actual costs for fiscal year 2010/2011, pre-final costs for 2011/2012, a revised budget for the current year (2012/2013) and for 2014 – 2018 inclusive (see schedules 1, 2 and 3 for 2013/2014 and an amended schedule 2.b for 2012/2013).

b. Five year budget for Division Administration Costs (schedule 4); and c. Sample Response Letter (schedule 5).

Security Classification/Designation Classification/désignation sécuritaire

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Gendarmerie royale du Canada

Unclassified

100

2

There are still some projected costs and savings under review in the 2012/2013 and future forecast updates. These will be communicated as soon as the information becomes available. New Contract and Relocation to Green Timbers: Currently we are projecting an estimated cost of $1,200 impact per Member on division administration costs. This cost increase is a combination of the new facilities (60%) and the terms of the new contract (40%). (The estimated cost is already included in the division administration projection). Severance Payout: In the past, the annual payout amounted to approximately $1,000 per Member billed through division administration costs. As of March 31, 2012, severance for members ceases to accrue. Members have the option for full or partial payout immediately or deferment until retirement. The financial impact and billing options will be determined as soon as we obtain further information. (The estimated cost of this has not been included in the division administration projection). Cost savings announced in the Federal Budget on March 29, 2012 will be implemented over the next three years. We will be providing updates as soon as they become available. The elements of the Federal Deficit Reduction Program will achieve savings in corporate administration, pension and health service modernization, civilianization, consolidation of common services, discretionary spending, and Kit Upkeep/Plain Clothes allowance policy review. We recognize that your calendar year Budget Cycles are not synchronized with the Government of Canada’s fiscal year, however, we are requesting that you provide information sooner than the Municipal Budget Cycle normally requires. This is to ensure that the Federal Treasury Board can identify sufficient resources to cover their share of the Municipal Contract costs within their time lines. Please submit a “Letter of Approval in Principle” by June 15th, 2012. The letter should address all increases for fiscal year 2013/2014, including:

- Proposed establishment increases in regular and/or civilian members;

- Estimated Municipal Policing Budget at 100% costs; - If applicable, estimates for Integrated Units and Accommodation at

100% costs; and - If applicable, approval in principle and basis of payment for any

equipment costing $150,000 or more per item.

We would like to emphasize that this “Letter of Approval in Principle” is for planning purposes only to address the Federal Government’s Annual Reference Level Update (ARLU) process. It is not a final commitment on your part for the additional personnel or for the increased financial budget indicated. A copy of a sample response is provided for your reference (schedule 5).

101

3

First Reply Letter: Approval in Principle Letter for 2013/2014 and Revised Final Confirmation Letter for 2012/2013 Due: June 15th, 2012 A) Please address the letter to:

Mr. Clayton Pecknold Assistant Deputy Minister and Director of Police Services

Ministry of Justice P.O. Box 9285 Stn Prov Govt. Victoria, BC V8W 9J7 B) Please forward a copy to the RCMP addressed to: Mr. Max Xiao

Regional Director, Financial Management, RCMP “E” Division 5255 Heather Street Vancouver, BC V5Z 1K6 Second Reply Letter: Final Confirmation Letter for 2013/2014 Due: May 6th, 2013 By May 6th, 2013, please forward a second letter to confirm the 2013/2014 budget to: A) Assistant Deputy Minister and Director of Police Services

B) Regional Director, Financial Management, RCMP “E” Division Third Reply Letter: Annex A Letter Due on: Establishment Change When you decide to change human resources (establishment changes) to your detachment strength, please be advised that a third letter is required that outlines your request. A) Please address the letter to:

The Honourable Shirley Bond Minister of Justice and Attorney General

Ministry of Justice P.O. Box 9044 Stn Prov Gov’t. Victoria, BC V8W 9J7 B) Please forward a copy of the letter to:

a) Regional Director, Financial Management, RCMP “E” Division

b) A/Commr. Norm Lipinski, District Commander, Lower Mainland District

102

4

If you have any questions regarding your municipal budget or your contractual obligations, please contact Karen Hall, A/Financial Manager at 604-264-2460. Yours truly,

Robert H. Jorssen Executive Director, Corporate Management & Comptrollership Branch Pacific Region Royal Canadian Mounted Police 5255 Heather Street Vancouver, BC V5Z 1K6 cc: Mayor Ted Adlem, District of Mission A/Commr. Norm Lipinski, District Commander, Lower Mainland District OIC Mission Detachment

Max Xiao, Regional Director, Financial Management & Accounting Operations

5255 Heather Street Vancouver, BC V5Z 1K6

103

RCMP Municipal Policing Cost - Five Year Forecast Schedule 1

MISSION MISSION MISSION MISSION MISSION MISSION MISSION MISSION MISSION2013-14 to 2017-18 Fiscal Estimates 10/11 Final 11/12 Pre-Final 12/13 Estimates 13/14 Estimates 14/15 Estimates 15/16 Estimates 16/17 Estimates 17/18 Estimates

CONTRACT STRENGTH 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52ACTUAL / FUNDED STRENGTH 48.61 47.27 47.25 47.25 47.25 47.25 47.25 47.25

COST ELEMENT GROUP (CEG)CEG 20 - TEMP. CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES & CASUALS 5,860 6,021 6,216 6,220 6,224 6,227 6,230 6,234CEG 21 - GUARDS & MATRONSCEG 22 - INTELLIGENCE MONITORS 2,809RCMP PAY - MEMBERS CEG 30 CE 500110 - REGULAR PAY 3,655,383 3,728,207 3,851,881 3,981,246 4,067,844 4,213,700 4,384,779 4,539,056 CE 500114 - SERVICE PAY 61,562 63,703 81,381 95,170 111,795 127,695 144,193 164,400 CE 500121 - PLAINCLOTHES 22,576 20,696 29,871 29,876 29,876 29,876 29,876 29,876 CE 500122 - KIT UPKEEP 4,138 4,600 5,118 5,118 5,118 5,118 5,118 5,118 CE 500163 - MARKET ADJUSTMENT CE 500164 - SENIOR CST ALLOWANCE 13,214 15,022 20,142 25,178 30,213 34,745 39,957 45,950 CE 501198 - BILINGUAL BONUS - Current -386 800 800 800 800 800 800

ALL OTHER CE's CEG 30 6,592 486 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000CEG 30 - TOTAL RCMP PAY 3,763,078 3,832,714 3,994,194 4,142,388 4,250,646 4,416,935 4,609,724 4,790,201CEG 31 - OVERTIME - MEMBERS 380,555 286,431 295,024 303,875 312,991 322,381 332,052 342,013CEG 32 - PAY - MEMBERS (POLICY CENTRE) Credit Item 155,066 159,718 164,509 169,445 174,528 179,764 185,157CEG 33 - RCMP PAY - OTHER CE 500112 - RETROACTIVE PAY 1,688 18,400 CE 500117 - SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL 52,901 38,624 41,792 55,584 56,629 57,478 58,340 59,215 CE 500119 - PERFORMANCE AWARD CE 501127 - RETRO PAY - PRIOR YEAR 27,131 16,577 ALL OTHER CE's CEG 33 30,732 12,059 31,661 32,177 32,782 33,274 33,773 34,279CEG 33 - PAY RCMP OTHER 112,452 85,660 83,348 87,761 89,411 90,752 92,113 93,495CEG 40 - ALLOWANCES - INTRA MEMBERS 5,131 11,121 6,593 6,700 6,826 6,929 7,033 7,138CEG 41 - ALLOWANCES - INTER MEMBERS 6,801 7,141 7,498 7,873 8,266 8,680CEG 45 - PERSONNEL - OPERATIONAL CONTINGENCY BUDGETTOTAL STANDARD OBJ. 01 - PERSONNEL 4,267,075 4,379,821 4,551,893 4,718,593 4,843,040 5,025,623 5,235,182 5,432,918CEG 50 - TRAVEL 17,808 19,050 27,493 28,318 29,167 30,042 30,943 31,872CEG 51 - TRAVEL ADVANCESCEG 52 - TRAINING TRAVEL (DCCEG) 8,537 10,448 11,615 10,869 11,032 11,197 11,365 11,933CEG 53 - TRAINING TRAVEL (POST) 3,585 8,156 1,638 1,687 1,738 1,790 1,843 1,899CEG 54 - IPA & FSD TRAVELCEG 55 - CENTRALIZED TRAINING TRAVELCEG's 60-66 - TRANSFER COSTS (Credit Item) 18,344 67,023 69,474 72,948 76,595 80,425 84,446 88,669CEG 70 - FREIGHT, POSTAGE, ETC. 6,804 12,568 6,720 6,922 7,130 7,344 7,564 7,791CEG 100 - TELEPHONE SERVICES (DCCEG) 34,654 35,366 35,741 37,544 38,670 39,830 41,025 42,256CEG 101 - TELEPHONE SERVICES (POST) 26,039 22,535 32,206 33,172 34,167 35,192 36,248 37,335CEG 140 - COMPUTER COMM SERVICESTOTAL STANDARD OBJ. 02 – TRANSPORT & TELECOM 115,771 175,146 184,887 191,459 198,499 205,820 213,435 221,755CEG 120 - ADVERTISING 2,070 175 500 515 530 546 563 580CEG 130 - PUBLICATIONS SERVICES 97TOTAL STANDARD OBJ. 03 - INFORMATION 2,167 175 500 515 530 546 563 580CEG 160 - LEGAL SERVICES (Credit Item) 25,915 31,993 25,921 27,217 28,578 30,007 31,507 33,083CEG 170 - CONTRACTED SERVICES (DCCEG)CEG 171 - CONTRACTED SERVICES (Post)CEG 190 - TRAINING & SEMINARS (DCCEG) 62,898 70,611 65,284 67,132 68,139 69,161 70,199 73,709CEG 191 - TRAINING & SEMINARS (POST) 4,138 7,373 3,155 3,250 3,347 3,448 3,551 3,658CEG 192 - OFFICIAL LANGUAGE TRAININGCEG 200 - HEALTH SERVICES MEMBERS (Credit Item) 242,073 252,863 290,687 334,290 351,004 368,554 386,982 406,331CEG 201 - HEALTH SERVICES - OTHERS (Credit Item) 1,633 1,768 1,649 1,897 1,992 2,091 2,196 2,305CEG 202 - HEALTH SERVICES - PENSIONERS (Credit Item) 15,693 18,122 15,023 15,474 15,938 16,416 16,909 17,416CEG 210 - PROTECTION SERVICESCEG 213 - CORPS OF COMMISSIONAIRESCEG 218 - CONTAMINATED SITESCEG 219 - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 47,378 58,263 45,000 46,350 47,741 49,173 50,648 52,167CEG 220 - OTHER SERVICES 12,556 8,168 8,332 8,582 8,840 9,105 9,378 9,660CEG 221 - OTHER SERVICES IM/IT 25,295 29,884 32,451 33,425 33,572 34,579 35,617 36,685CEG 223 - RADIO COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS 63,275 63,330 63,594 63,923 64,262 64,611 64,971 65,341CEG 228 - CADC SPENDING OF PROCEEDSCEG 229 - CADC ALLOCATED (Credit Item) -572 -7,153CEG 230 - DIV FUND TRANSFERCEG 231 - DCM FUND TRANSFERCEG 232 - O&M OPERATIONAL CONTINGENCY 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000CEG 233 - CORPORATE CONTINGENCYTOTAL STANDARD OBJ. 04 - PROFESSIONAL & SPEC SVCS 500,281 535,221 591,097 641,540 663,413 687,146 711,957 740,355CEG 240 - RENTAL-LAND,BLDG & WORKS (DCCEG)CEG 241 - RENTAL-LAND,BLDG & WORKS (POST)CEG 250 - RENTAL COMNS EQUIP (DCCEG) 42,043 42,518 42,750 44,033 45,353 46,714 48,116 49,559CEG 251 - RENTAL COMNS. EQUIP (POST) 760 745 1,587 1,634 1,683 1,734 1,786 1,840CEG 258 - RENTAL MOTORIZED VEHICLESCEG 260 - RENTAL OF CONVEYANCE CEG 261 - LEASING OF AIRCRAFTCEG 265 - LEASED VEHICLESCEG 280 - RENTAL COMPUTER EQUIPCEG 290 - RENTAL - OTHERS 708 1,559 5,305 5,464 5,628 5,796 5,970 6,149TOTAL STANDARD OBJ. 05 - RENTALS 43,511 44,822 49,641 51,131 52,664 54,244 55,872 57,548CEG 310 - REPAIR OF BUILDINGS & WORKSCEG 311 - REPAIR OF BUILDINGS & WORKS CEG 350 - REPAIR SHIPS & BOATSCEG 360 - REPAIR OF AIRCRAFTCEG 370 - REPAIR OF VEHICLES 103,174 96,255 78,687 81,048 83,479 85,984 88,563 91,220CEG 380 - REPAIR OF OFFICE & LAB EQUIP 140CEG 390 - REPAIR OF MISC. EQUIP 738 1,035 167 172 177 183 188 194CEG 392 - REPAIR OF AFIS EQUIPCEG 393 - REPAIR OF EDP EQUIPMENT TOTAL STANDARD OBJ. 06 - PURCHASE, REPAIR AND MAINT 103,912 97,430 78,855 81,220 83,657 86,166 88,751 91,414CEG 400 - UTILITIESCEG 430 - FUEL 133,345 156,299 103,000 106,090 109,273 112,551 115,927 119,405CEG 470 - PHOTOGRAPHIC GOODS 1,593 225 558 575 592 610 628 647CEG 500 - STATIONERY 36,586 36,480 30,836 31,762 32,714 33,696 34,707 35,748CEG 510 - CLOTHING & KIT 19,913 16,948 16,287 16,776 17,279 17,797 18,331 18,881CEG 530 - LAB SUPPLIESCEG 540 - POST BUDGET EXPENDITURES 47,066 37,705 40,000 41,200 42,436 43,709 45,020 46,371CEG 541 - ACQUISITION CREDIT CARDSCEG 550 - HOUSE FURNISHINGSCEG 630 - MESS PURCHASESCEG 640 - MESS CREDITSTOTAL STANDARD OBJ. 07 - UTIL, MATERIAL AND SUPP 238,501 247,656 190,682 196,402 202,294 208,363 214,614 221,052

Page 1 of 3

104




COST ELEMENT GROUP (CEG)CEG 440 - TRANSPORT SUPPLIES 4,808 13,824 2,781 2,865 2,951 3,039 3,131 3,225CEG 441 - VEHICLE CHANGEOVERS 15,124 26,325 16,202 16,769 17,356 17,963 18,592 19,242CEG 450 - COMNS PARTS & CONSUMABLES 4,920 5,256 5,068 5,220 5,377 5,538 5,704 5,875CEG 480 - FIREARMS & AMMUNITION 1,963 1,215 8,195 51,568 53,115 8,954 9,223 9,499CEG 770 - COMMS. SYSTEMS (CAPITAL) 23,214 25,227 26,037 26,818 27,623 28,451 29,305 30,184CEG 771 - COMMS. EQUIPMENT 599 563 635 654 674 694 715 736CEG 810 - LABORATORY EQUIP.CEG 811 - SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT - NON SALARYCEG 812 - SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT - SALARYCEG 820 - PHOTOGRAPHIC EQUIP 47CEG 821 - AFIS EQUIPCEG 822 - IDENT EQUIP. 40,000CEG 830 - FURNITURE & FIXTURES 1,335CEG 840 - COMPUTER EQUIPMENT (CAPITAL) 1,800CEG 841 - COMPUTER EQUIP. 109,585 7,004 41,460 41,696 97,939 52,189 42,447 42,712CEG 842 - COMPUTER S/WARE - INFORMATICSCEG 845 - SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENTCEG 850 - AUDIO VISUAL AIDS 30CEG 860 - INVESTIGATIONAL EQUIP. 9,135 162 2,453 2,527 2,602 2,602 2,602 2,602CEG 870 - SHIPS AND BOATS (CAPITAL)CEG 871 - MISC. BOATSCEG 880 - AIRCRAFT (CAPITAL)CEG 890 - VEHICLES (CAPITAL) -4,500 119,637 132,000 132,000 132,000 132,000 132,000 132,000CEG 891 - MISC. VEHICLESCEG 900 - OTHER EQUIP. 725 50,907 80,000 20,600 21,218 21,855 22,510 23,185CEG 910 - OFFICE MACHINES 4,002 2,565 17,291 17,810 18,344 18,894 19,461 20,045CEG 920 - SECURITY EQUIP. 6,022 10,000 160,000 1,030 1,061 1,093 1,126 1,159TOTAL STANDARD OBJ. 09 - MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT 175,598 265,898 532,122 319,557 380,259 293,273 286,815 290,466CEG 570 - PRISONER EXPENSESCEG 580 - SECRET EXPENSES 4,072 6,402 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000CEG 581 - SPECIAL "I" EXPENDITURESCEG 590 - MISC EXPEND 5,075 667 1,000 1,030 1,061 1,093 1,126 1,159CEG 591 - DISCOUNT FOR EARLY PAYMENTCEG 592 - PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES (Credit Item)CEG 600 - FOREIGN SERVICECEG 620 - CLAIMS and COMP.SETTLEMENTS (Credit Item) 616,704 27,817 262,616 275,747 289,534 304,011 319,211 335,172CEG 650 - WRITE-OFFTOTAL STANDARD OBJ. 12 - OTHER SUBSIDIES & PMTS 625,852 34,885 273,616 286,777 300,595 315,103 330,337 346,331

TOTAL 6,072,667 5,781,055 6,453,293 6,487,193 6,724,952 6,876,286 7,137,526 7,402,418

CREDITS(i) CEG's 40 & 41 -Transfer Allowances 5,131 11,121 13,394 13,841 14,324 14,802 15,299 15,818(ii) CEG's 60-66 Transfer Cost 18,344 67,023 69,474 72,948 76,595 80,425 84,446 88,669(iii) CEG 160 - Legal Services 25,915 31,993 25,921 27,217 28,578 30,007 31,507 33,083(iv) Health Services - CEG 200, CEG 201, CEG 202 259,399 272,753 307,359 351,660 368,934 387,062 406,086 426,053(v) CEG 592 Payment in Lieu of Taxes (vi) ICBC Repairs to Police Vehicles Credit(vii) Refund of Credits under CE 1691(viii) CEG 620 - Compensation Claims/Ex-Gratia 616,704 27,817 262,616 275,747 289,534 304,011 319,211 335,172(ix) CEG 32 - Pay Members (Mat/Pat/Severance) 155,066 159,718 164,509 169,445 174,528 179,764 185,157

TOTAL CREDITS 925,493 565,772 838,482 905,922 947,410 990,834 1,036,314 1,083,950

TOTAL DIRECT COST 5,147,174 5,215,283 5,614,811 5,581,271 5,777,542 5,885,452 6,101,212 6,318,468

INDIRECT COST1) Cost of RM Pensions 450,655 656,198 616,065 639,153 656,020 681,927 711,964 740,0822) Cost of RM CPP 109,715 112,455 115,290 118,172 118,172 118,1723) Cost of Employer's Contr. to E.I. for R/M's 43,042 44,648 45,745 46,889 46,889 46,889 46,889 46,8894) Cost of Division Administration (per cap x avg.# RM's) 1,013,421 1,107,867 1,200,150 1,351,343 1,457,685 1,573,412 1,701,000 1,840,3895) Cost of Recruitment & Training 170,135 165,445 165,375 165,375 165,375 189,000 189,000 189,0006) Cost of National Programs 32,366 32,366 32,366 32,366 32,366 32,3667) Cost of Police Dog Service Training8) Amortization of Equipment > $150,000 @ 10%9) Cost of TCE & IM for Pension, EI & Div Admin 3,436 3,492 3,558 3,611 3,665 3,72010) Cost of ERC/PCC (per cap x avg. # RM's) 19,541 21,272

TOTAL INDIRECT COST 1,696,795 1,995,430 2,172,852 2,351,073 2,477,182 2,645,377 2,803,056 2,970,619

TOTAL MUNICIPAL POLICING COSTS 90% 7,090,072 7,522,635 8,127,149 8,375,548 8,708,204 9,009,897 9,396,222 9,779,1047,497,687 7,822,357 8,183,877

INTEGRATED TEAMS IHIT 375,735 407,297 433,297 466,436 481,699 507,612 526,637 531,427 LMD ERT 129,537 143,814 161,595 190,303 198,618 199,626 206,742 214,175 LMD FIS 210,136 240,406 251,357 289,171 301,500 315,821 328,505 340,874 LMD PDS 152,783 174,602 195,090 197,906 202,677 211,736 219,801 228,247 LMD ICARS 60,980 63,563 76,914 92,622 94,457 97,355 100,697 104,203 LMD III 1,330 3,311

TOTAL INTEGRATED TEAMS 930,500 1,032,994 1,118,253 1,236,438 1,278,952 1,332,151 1,382,381 1,418,926

** Estimated net billing reduction if IHIT is billed under the Provincial Contract @ 70% 97,229 102,256 110,618 116,367 120,584 121,636

Colour LegendRed = Post Budget CEG controlled by OICBlack = Division Controlled CEG (DCCEG)Blue lettering = Standard Object (SO)Blue background = CEG credited to Direct Costs

Page 2 of 3

105




COST ELEMENT GROUP (CEG)INDIRECT COSTDETAIL WORKSHEET

1) Cost of RM Pensions (Pensionable Items) 3,758,591 3,841,910 3,954,205 4,102,393 4,210,652 4,376,940 4,569,729 4,750,206 Pension Rate 11.99% 17.08% 15.58% 15.58% 15.58% 15.58% 15.58% 15.58% Pension Cost 450,655 656,198 616,065 639,153 656,020 681,927 711,964 740,082

2) Cost of RM CPP (Pensionable items) for R/M's as a Per Capita Cost of... 2,322 2,380 2,440 2,501 2,501 2,501

times the Avg. # of R/M's in F.Y... 47.27 47.25 47.25 47.25 47.25 47.25 47.25 Total Cost of R/M CPP........... 109,715 112,455 115,290 118,172 118,172 118,172

3) Cost of Employer's Contr. to E.I... for R/M's as a Per Capita Cost of... 885.46 944.53 968.14 992.35 992.35 992.35 992.35 992.35 times the Avg. # of R/M's in F.Y... 48.61 47.27 47.25 47.25 47.25 47.25 47.25 47.25 Total Cost of R/M E.I. Contributions........ 43,042 44,648 45,745 46,889 46,889 46,889 46,889 46,889

4) Cost of Division Administration.. Per Capita Cost of DivAdmin... 20,848 23,437 25,400 28,600 30,850 33,300 36,000 38,950 times the Avg. # of R/M's in F.Y... 48.61 47.27 47.25 47.25 47.25 47.25 47.25 47.25 Total Cost of Div. Administration............. 1,013,421 1,107,867 1,200,150 1,351,343 1,457,685 1,573,412 1,701,000 1,840,389

5) Cost of Recruitment & Training Per Capita Cost of Recruitment.... 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 Per Capita Cost of Training.... 500 500 500 Total Per Capita Cost of Recruitment & Training................. 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 4,000 4,000 4,000 times the Avg. # of R/M's in F.Y... 48.61 47.27 47.25 47.25 47.25 47.25 47.25 47.25 Total Cost of Recruitment & Training................. 170,135 165,445 165,375 165,375 165,375 189,000 189,000 189,000

6) Cost of National Programs (See Addendum 'A') 685 685 685 685 685 685 times the Avg. # of R/M's in F.Y... 47.25 47.25 47.25 47.25 47.25 47.25 Total Cost of National Programs 32,366 32,366 32,366 32,366 32,366 32,366

7) Cost of Police Dog Service Training times the Avg. # of Police Dog Teams in F.Y... Total Cost of Police Dog Service Training.................

8) Amortization of Equipment costing > $150,000 10% of Original Acquisition Cost ........ b. Interest on Unpaid Equipment Balance Interest @ 10%

9) Cost of TCE, IM & Reservist for Pensions, EI, and Division Administration. the Avg. # of TCE/IM/Reservist in F.Y... 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.10 Total Cost of TCE, IM & Reservist 3,436 3,492 3,558 3,611 3,665 3,720

10) Cost of ERC/PCC as a Per Capita of...... 402.00 450.00 times the Avg. # of R/M's in F.Y.. 48.61 47.27 Total Cost of E.R.C./P.C.C..................… 19,541 21,272

TOTAL INDIRECT COST...................... 1,696,795 1,995,430 2,172,852 2,351,073 2,477,182 2,645,377 2,803,056 2,970,619

ADDENDUM 'A' - National Programs & Consolidated ServicesNATIONAL PROGRAMS & CONSOLIDATED SERVICES:Public Complaints Committee (PCC) 425 425 425 425 425 425Legal Advisory Services 150 150 150 150 150 150Enhanced Reporting & Accountability 110 110 110 110 110 110

Total Cost of National Programs 685 685 685 685 685 685

Note: Shared Services Canada, Accounting Operations and Compensation will be added to the National Program once rates are known. Until then, these programs will be charged locally through Div. Admin.

ADDENDUM 'B' - Fiscal Year to Calendar Year Conversion TableFISCAL YEAR TO CALENDAR YEAR CONVERSION TABLE:Fiscal Year Total Current 7,090,072 7,522,635 8,127,149 8,375,548 8,708,204 9,009,897 9,396,222 9,779,104 Fiscal per Qtr Current 1,772,518 1,880,659 2,031,787 2,093,887 2,177,051 2,252,474 2,349,056 2,444,776 Fiscal Year Total Prior Year 6,273,711 7,090,072 7,522,635 8,127,149 8,375,548 8,708,204 9,009,897 9,396,222 Fiscal per Qtr Prior Year 1,568,428 1,772,518 1,880,659 2,031,787 2,093,887 2,177,051 2,252,474 2,349,056

CalendarJan - Mar 1,568,428 1,772,518 1,880,659 2,031,787 2,093,887 2,177,051 2,252,474 2,349,056 Apr - June 1,772,518 1,880,659 2,031,787 2,093,887 2,177,051 2,252,474 2,349,056 2,444,776 July - Sept 1,772,518 1,880,659 2,031,787 2,093,887 2,177,051 2,252,474 2,349,056 2,444,776 Oct - Dec 1,772,518 1,880,659 2,031,787 2,093,887 2,177,051 2,252,474 2,349,056 2,444,776

Calendar Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017City Calendar Year Total 6,885,982 7,414,494 7,976,021 8,313,448 8,625,040 8,934,474 9,299,641 9,683,383City Budget Cap per Approval Letter

ADDENDUM 'C' - Cost Drivers Pay PackageCOST DRIVERS PAY PACKAGE:RCMP PAY - MEMBERS CEG 30 CE 500114 - SERVICE PAY 61,562 63,703 81,381 95,170 111,795 127,695 144,193 164,400 CE 500164 - SENIOR CST ALLOWANCE 13,214 15,022 20,142 25,178 30,213 34,745 39,957 45,950 CEG 33 - RCMP PAY - OTHER CE 500117 - SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL 52,901 38,624 41,792 55,584 56,629 57,478 58,340 59,215 CEG 441 - VEHICLE CHANGEOVERS 15,124 26,325 16,202 16,769 17,356 17,963 18,592 19,242 CEG 480 - FIREARMS: CARBINES - ($9,584 per unit) 43,128 43,128 Ratio of 1:5 FTEs, to a max. of 10 units over 2 fiscal years

Page 3 of 3

106

SCHEDULE 2

2012-05-29 Page 1 of 5

2013 - 2014 Notes & Assumptions – Municipal Contracts

Our terminology for the grouping of General Accounts:

- Cost Element Group (CEG) - Cost Element (CE)

SALARY

CEG 30 - RCMP Members Pay CE 110 - Regular Pay

- Includes the impact of the recent member compensation package. The incremental rates are listed below:

-1.75% effective January 2012 -1.50% effective January 2013 -2.00% effective January 2014 -3.50% estimated for each future year.

CE 114 - Service Pay - Effective January 2013, members will be eligible to receive service pay at the

beginning of their 4th year of service instead of their 5th. The rate remains unchanged at 1.5% of their salary earnings for the first 6 years and an increase of 1.5% for every additional 5 years of service to a maximum of 10.5%.

CE 121 – Plain Clothes Allowance - Applies to Regular Members working in specified groups that are performing full-

time operational duties which preclude them from wearing a uniform. This entitlement is under review – current rates as of May 2012 are:

- $2,042 per year for male officers - $2,134 per year for female officers.

CE 164 - Senior Cst. Allowance - Effective January 2014, this allowance will increase from 4% to 5%.

CE 117 - Shift Differential

- Effective April 2013, the premium will increase from $1.50 per hour to $2.00 per hour. Members are entitled to shift premium for scheduled duty worked between 16:00 and 08:00.

CEG 031 - Overtime - This includes immediate operational readiness and operational availability costs.

107

SCHEDULE 2

2012-05-29 Page 2 of 5

TRAINING & TRAVEL

CEG 52 - Training Travel - Regular and mandatory Operational Skills Training. Travel mainly at the Pacific

Region Training Centre in Chilliwack. CEG 190 - Training & Seminars

- Regular and Operational Skills Training and Seminars. INFORMATICS

These costs may be moved to Indirect Costs – See Notes under Additional Notes on Changes Section.

CEG 100 - Telephone Services (Division Controlled) - Ongoing costs for telephone lines, video conferencing line, voice over IP, leases

and installations. CEG 101 – Telephone Services

-Cost for cell phones and pagers. CEG 221 - Other Services IM/IT

- Software Licenses and Maintenance - Ross & CIIDS. - Centralized Transcription Unit.

CEG 223 - Radio Communication Systems - Ongoing costs for ECOMM, MWS wireless data service, Radio Licenses, MWS implementation, Radio Communications, and PRIME Levy. - Real Time identification (RTID) fee.

CEG 450 - Communications Parts - Various parts and supplies, service contracts. - Service contracts for radios, generators, CIIDS processors. - Work performed on towers/systems. - Expenses to ensure radio towers meet specifications.

CEG 770 – Voice and Data Mobile Communication Equipment - Radio towers and radio replacements.

CEG 771 - Communication and Maintenance Equipment - Radio/tower equipment and parts.

CEG 822 - Ident. Equipment - includes Real Time Identification (RTID) equipment.

CEG 841 - Computer Equipment -This is for new and the ongoing evergreening strategy for workstations & laptops and servers.

- Computers are only replaced on a needs basis and no longer on a 3 year cycle.

108

SCHEDULE 2

2012-05-29 Page 3 of 5

VEHICLES

CEG 890 - Vehicles - Addition and replacement of marked and unmarked vehicles.

CEG 441 -Vehicle Changeovers (Fit up)

- Labour, parts, and overhead related to the fit up costs of vehicles. - The labour recovery rate at post garage will increase from $59 (last revised

2006) to $74. The increased labour cost is approximately $600 per police cruiser.

OTHER

CEG 480 – Firearms/Ammunition and Weapons

- Incorporates the new Patrol Carbines (Long Rifles), which are required for officer safety. This was initially communicated in May, 2010 to be estimated as $1,000 to $1,500 per rifle. The new costs are estimated to be $9,584 per rifle.

- Municipalities can choose to take delivery of the Carbines over two fiscal years. This item will be budgeted for 2013/2014 and 2014/2015 using a 1:5 Carbine to RM ratio (to a maximum of ten per detachment), pending the final policy and risk assessment for your detachment. Purchases in 2012/2013 will be an option. The Colt Canada C8 Carbine is $5,200, training costs per member for these are budgeted at $1,605 per participant for the initial rollout, train the trainer ammunition is $2,250 per member (user and instructor) and operational ammunition is $529 per weapon. Training and ammunition costs for this new weapon are included under CEG 480.

CEG 540 - Post Budget Expenditures - Includes Protective Gear, Hard Body Armor, Miscellaneous fabricated materials, Household and personal equipment.

CEG 860 – Investigational Equipment - Investigational aids, breathalyzers and radar units.

CEG 900 – Other Equipment - Other Machinery and Equipment, includes DNA Drying locker.

CEG 920 – Security Equipment - Includes Security Shells & Manufactured Exhibit Lockers, Alarm Systems, C/Circuit T.V equipment, including: cameras, consoles, control systems, heaters, monitors, motion detectors and shredders.

109

SCHEDULE 2

2012-05-29 Page 4 of 5

CREDITS

The following items are included in the budget as funding from Treasury Board. These are deducted from the Total Direct Cost for each municipality. The following are non-billable costs:

- CEGs 40 & 41 - Transfer Allowances. - CEGs 60-66 – Relocation Costs. - CEG 160 - Legal Services. - CEG 620 - Claims and Compensation Settlements.

The following are included in the Division Administration Costs:

- CEG 32 – Pay Members (Severance, Maternity and Parental allow.). - CEGs 200-202 - Health Services.

INDIRECT COSTS

With the exception of member company pension, all costs listed below are charged on a per FTE basis to Members, TCEs and Reservists (certain exclusions apply):

- Pension costs will be charged as follows: - Member Company Pension – 15.58% of pensionable cost element items. - Member Canada Pension Plan - $2,380.

- Cost of Employment Insurance - $992.35. - Cost of Division Administration - $28,600 Includes Green Timbers estimate @ $1,200 per FTE. HR Modernization will reduce division administration in future years.

- Cost of Recruitment & Training - $3,500. - Cost of Public Complaints Commission (PCC) - $425. - Cost of Legal Advisory Services - $150. - Cost of Enhanced Reporting & Accountability - $110. - A separate calculation is listed for Pensions, EI and Division Administration with

respect to Temporary Civilian Employees (TCEs), Intelligence Monitors (IMs) and Reservists (if used).

- Costs for Shared Services Canada may be charged as an indirect charge. The estimated costs are listed under Informatics.

COSTS BILLABLE AT 100% The following are some of the items that are billable at 100% per the policing contract:

- Accommodation costs (including occupancy charge) for municipal units in federally owned buildings (see section below on Municipalities in Federally Owned Buildings).

- Support staff costs (including backfills, overtime, severance, pension, CPP, etc.). - Furniture and fixtures (CEG 830).

110

SCHEDULE 2

2012-05-29 Page 5 of 5

- Prisoner costs (including mattresses and blankets for cells). - Kit and Clothing for auxiliaries.

MUNICIPALITIES IN FEDERALLY OWNED BUILDINGS The following changes are as a result of the new policing contract:

- Occupancy charge is set at $213.90 per square meter. This would cover all minor and major capital repairs of the building. The rate is determined by the Province and will be reviewed every 5 years. This was previously charged out at $107.64 per square meter.

- Credit for projects over $30,000 is no longer applicable. Instead, projects are now categorized as regular ongoing repairs and maintenance (charged to CEG 310 and billable) versus minor capital and lifecycle (covered under the occupancy charge and not billable).

- PILT costs (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) are billable at 100%. PILT was non-billable before.

ADDITIONAL ITEMS OUTSTANDING

As of the date of this document, there are still pending information, changes, and decisions that may impact on the 2013/2014 budget. These will be promptly communicated once the information is available. − Division Administration costs:

- Possible exclusion of TCEs from calculation. The decision is pending Contract Management Committee review.

- Liquidation of Members Severance Pay. As of March 31, 2012, severance for members ceases to accrue. Members have the option for full or partial payout or deferment until retirement. The impact on municipalities is currently under review.

− Cost of National Programs (now listed as Indirect Costs): - Future inclusions in this category will include Compensation & Accounting

Operations (currently part of Div Admin) and Shared Services Canada (see note below). These programs are being consolidated and centralized to reduce costs.

- The management of IT related costs (i.e. telephony, radio systems, etc) will be gradually transferred to Shared Services Canada. Although these costs are currently forecasted under the Direct Cost section, they may be eventually charged under Indirect Costs.

− Changes from decisions made at the Contract Management Committee (CMC)

- Clarification to the contract per the contract companion document.

111

SCHEDULE 2.b

2012-05-29 Page 1 of 2

REVISED 2012 – 2013

Impact of New Contract Terms & Member Compensation Package Notes & Assumptions – CITY

This document highlights the impact to the 2012/2013 budget (previously sent in May 2011) as a result of the new contract and the recent compensation package. MEMBERS’ SALARY

− Members’ pay was originally budgeted with a 1.5% salary rate increase in each of the current and next two years. It has now been re-calculated based on a 1.75% salary rate increase for January 1, 2012. The calculations are based on the most current detachment complements.

− All costs related to members’ pay have also been adjusted accordingly. These include Senior Constable Allowance, Overtime, Service Pay, etc

INDIRECT COSTS

− Cost of CPP (Canada Pension Plan) is now $2,322 per FTE which is applicable to all Members, PSEs, TCEs, etc. This cost is in addition to the company pension that is currently being charged (i.e. 15.58% on pensionable cost elements for members).

− Revised cost of Division Administration at $25,400 per FTE − New National Programs:

- Cost of Public Complaints Commission (PCC) - $425 per FTE. Costs for External Review Committee will no longer be charged.

- Cost of Legal Advisory Services - $150 per FTE. - Cost of Enhanced Reporting & Accountability - $110 per FTE. - Costs for Shared Services Canada may be charged as an indirect charge. The

estimated costs are listed under Informatics. MUNICIPALITIES IN FEDERALLY OWNED BUILDINGS

− Occupancy charge is set at $213.90 per square meter. This would cover all minor and major capital repairs of the building. The rate is determined by the Province and will be reviewed every 5 years. This was previously charged out at $107.64 per square meter.

− Credit for projects over $30,000 no longer applies. Instead, projects are now categorized as regular ongoing repairs and maintenance (charged to CEG 310 and billable), versus minor capital and lifecycle (covered under the occupancy charge and not billable).

112

SCHEDULE 2.b

2012-05-29 Page 2 of 2

− PILT costs (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) are billable at 100%. PILT was not billed in the past.

Since communication of the changes noted above did not occur until early April of this year, the Province has agreed to provide a one-time subsidy in 2012-2013 for the following:

− 50% of the rate increase in occupancy charge; − 50% of the PILT costs.

ADDITIONAL ITEMS OUTSTANDING

As of the date of this document, there are still pending information, changes, and decisions that may have an impact on the 2012/2013 budget. These will be promptly communicated once the information is available.

− Division Administration costs:

- Possible exclusion of TCEs from calculation. This decision is pending Contract Management Committee review.

- Liquidation of Members Severance Pay. As of March 31, 2012 severance for members ceases to accrue. Members have the option for full or partial payout or deferment until retirement. The terms of the payout are under review.

− Cost of National Programs (now listed as Indirect Costs): - Future inclusions in this category will include Compensation & Accounting

Operations (currently part of Div Admin) and Shared Services Canada (see note below). These programs are being consolidated and centralized to reduce costs.

- The management of IT related costs (i.e. telephony, radio systems, etc.) will be gradually transferred to Shared Services Canada. Although these costs are currently budgeted under the Direct Cost section, they may be charged under the Indirect Costs section.

− Changes from decisions made at the Contract Management Committee (CMC)

- Clarification to the contract per the contract companion document.

113

Mission

Salary Forecast 2013/2014

2 9 4 5 6 7 8Salary Service Pay Senior Cst. Allow. Billingual Bonus PCA Kit Upkeep

Rank Utilization 0110 0114 0164 1198 0121 0122C/Supt 0.00 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Supt 0.00 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Insp 1.00 124,879$ 13,047$ -$ -$ -$ 142$ S/Sgt 1.00 105,829$ 7,802$ -$ -$ 2,134$ -$ Sgt 2.00 194,173$ 13,041$ -$ -$ 2,134$ 142$ Cpl 7.00 623,523$ 27,918$ -$ -$ 6,402$ 569$ Cst 35.25 2,850,214$ 32,128$ 25,178$ 800$ 19,206$ 4,123$ CMs 1.00 82,628$ 1,233$ -$ -$ 142$ Grand Total 47.25 3,981,246$ 95,170$ 25,178$ 800$ 29,876$ 5,118$

Less than 1 year 1.00 - 1.00 From 1 to 2 years 2.00 1.00 2.00 From 2 to 5 years 19.00 2.00 5.00 From 5 to 10 years 16.00 5.00 10.00 From 10 to 20 years - 10.00 20.00 Greater than 20 years - 20.00

Total Constables 38.00

Schedule 3

Constables Years of Service*

* Note: Constables Years of Service is based on headcount, as a result, if a postion was filled with 2 different members, both are included in this calculation.

114

Schedule 4

Actuals Pre-final Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18

DIV ADMIN APPROVED EST FTE BUDGET 519 519 519 519 519 519 519 519 DIV ADMIN FUNDED EST FTE BUDGET 493 493 493 493 493 493 493 493 DIV ADMIN ACTUAL 11/12 FTE (P13) 465 468

Division ComponentAdministrative: Pay 33,552,262 35,823,784 35,476,171 36,570,695 37,513,108 38,368,371 39,320,738 40,197,153 O&M 6,583,601 8,117,061 8,718,164 9,214,393 9,490,825 9,775,550 10,068,817 10,370,881 Total Pay and O&M (Note 3) 40,135,862 43,940,845 44,194,335 45,785,088 47,003,934 48,143,921 49,389,555 50,568,034 Vehicles&Other Capital 197,552 147,805 160,000 55,060 56,712 58,413 60,166 61,971 Severance, Pay in Lieu of Leave, Maternity, Paternity (Note 1) 18,134,085 22,053,140 24,258,454 26,684,300 29,352,730 32,288,003 35,516,803 39,068,483 Leave with Pay, Suspended, Medical Leave 40,340,466 44,012,176 48,413,393 53,254,733 58,580,206 64,438,227 70,882,049 77,970,254 Health Services Costs 28,282,692 29,572,840 32,512,124 35,776,336 39,353,970 43,289,367 47,618,304 52,380,134 Members Pensions (including Mat/Meds, CPP (12/13+)) (Note 2) 6,349,098 9,511,962 10,599,592 11,386,767 11,728,370 12,080,221 12,442,628 12,815,907 Public Servants Pensions (including CPP (12/13+)) (Note 2) 2,348,516 2,425,183 3,314,592 3,541,314 3,647,554 3,756,981 3,869,690 3,985,781 Members EI Contribution 555,033 589,897 601,692 619,743 638,335 657,485 677,210 697,526 Public Servants EI Contribution 341,118 357,706 364,861 375,807 387,081 398,694 410,655 422,974 Total Administrative Costs 136,684,423 152,611,553 164,419,045 177,479,149 190,748,892 205,111,311 220,867,058 237,971,064 Less: Corp of Commissionaires (Note 3) (423,505) (419,541) - - - - - - Legal Fees & Claims and Compensation Settlements (41,562) (86,365) (86,365) (86,365) (88,956) (93,404) (98,074) (102,978) Inter Divisional Transfers (193,596) (248,063) (200,000) (200,000) (206,000) (216,300) (227,115) (238,471) Total Non-Billable Items (658,663) (753,969) (286,365) (286,365) (294,956) (309,704) (325,189) (341,448)

Custody Transfer (O&M, PILT (12/13+)) (Note 3) 991,156 1,139,829 1,675,790 9,509,390 10,935,798 12,576,168 14,462,593 16,631,982

Total Divisional Component Costs 137,016,916 152,997,414 165,808,469 186,702,174 201,389,734 217,377,775 235,004,463 254,261,598

Divisional Component FTEs 6,572 6,528 6,528 6,528 6,528 6,528 6,528 6,528

Divisional Component of Per Capita Div Admin Rate 20,848 23,437 25,400 28,600 30,850 33,300 36,000 38,950

Controllable Costs 48,187,360 53,578,537 58,948,708 61,477,415 63,167,030 64,786,011 66,524,714 68,210,744 Non-Controllable Costs 88,829,556 99,418,876 106,859,761 125,224,759 138,222,704 152,591,764 168,479,749 186,050,854 Total Costs 137,016,916 152,997,414 165,808,469 186,702,174 201,389,734 217,377,775 235,004,463 254,261,598

- - - - - - - - Controllable Per Capita Rate 7,332 8,208 9,030 9,418 9,676 9,924 10,191 10,449 Non-Controllable Per Capita Rate 13,516 15,230 16,370 19,183 21,174 23,375 25,809 28,501 Total Per Capita Rate 20,848 23,437 25,400 28,600 30,850 33,300 36,000 38,950 Change from Prior Year 2,589 1,962 3,201 2,250 2,449 2,700 2,950

NOTE: (1) Severance payout has NOT been included in this 5 year projection.(2) 12/13 - Cost of CPP is now $2322 per FTE which is applicable to all members, PSEs, TCEs, etc.(3) 12/13 onwards - Per new contract, Point of Entry and PILT is billable, Staff Relations Representatives no longer billable.

RCMP - E DivisionDivision Administration

"E" Division

05-04-2012 2:34 PM

115

Schedule 5

City of:XXXXXX XXXXX:Ave :XXXXXX, BC

Municipality Over 15,000 Sample Response

June 15, 2012

Mr. Clayton Pecknold Assistant Deputy Minister and Director of Police Services Ministry of Justice P.O. Box 9285 Stn Prov Govt, Victoria, British Columbia V8W9J7

Dear Sir:

Re: Municipal Contract Policing Resource Request- 2013 I 2014

This Letter of Approval in Principle is issued to conform to the Federal Treasury Board requirements to enable the Federal Government to set aside sufficient financial resources to cover their share of the Municipal RCMP contract costs.

The City of:XXXXXX anticipates that we will require the addition of###(#) members to our detachment strength of## to bring the total detachment strength to## for the 2013/2014 fiscal year. The budget estimate that is approved in principle is $XX.X million at 100% (that our municipality is responsible for the 90% ). It includes $XXX of capital equipment costing (>$lOOK).

As outlined above, this letter provides an "approval in principle" and is issued for planning purposes only. It should not be taken as approval to add the anticipated ## of members to the detachment. City Council will be meeting on XXX, 2012 to confirm the 2013/2014 ·budget and the number of additional human resources. We will inform you of that decision once it is made.

If you have any questions, please give me a call at 604-XXX-:XX:XX.

Sincerely,

John Doe Treasurer/Deputy Administrator

cc: X:X::XXXXX RCMP Detachment Max Xiao, Regional Director, Financial Management & Accounting Operations

116

Finance Department

Memorandum

Page 1 of 1

File Category: ADM.COM.TAS File Folder: Core Services Review Task Force

To: Mayor and Council From: Director of Finance Date: June 4, 2012

Subject: Core Services Review Update

Recommendation That the minutes of the Core Services Review Task Force meeting held on May 17, 2012, be adopted. Background The last Core Services Review Task Force meeting was held on May 17, 2012. The minutes from that meeting are attached for Council’s approval. The department workout sessions were held May 16 and 17, 2012, and were well received. Referrals There are no referrals required. Financial Implications There are no financial implications at this time. Communication Staff continue to keep District of Mission employees up-to-date on the status of the Core Services Review. Ken Bjorgaard Director of Finance G:\FINANCE\ORGANIZATIONAL INFORMATION\Memos To Council\CSR Update 120604.Docx

117

District Of Mission Minutes

Page 1

The minutes of the Core Services Review Task Force Meeting held in the Municipal Hall Council Chambers, Mission, British Columbia, on Thursday, May 17, 2012, commencing at 3:30 p.m.

Members Present: Jeff Jewell, Councillor Larry Nundal, Councillor Ted Adlem, Mayor Members Absent: Nelson Tilbury, Councillor Staff Present: Glen Robertson, Chief Administrative Officer Ken Bjorgaard, Director of Finance Tracey Takahashi, Administrative Clerk Others Present: Bruce Acton, Consultant Paul Edgington, Consultant 1. CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 3:35 p.m.

2. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE PUBLIC

Moved by Councillor Nundal, and

RECOMMENDED: That pursuant to Section 90 of the Community Charter, this Core Services Review Task Force meeting be closed to the public as the subject matter being considered related to the following:

• Section 90(1)(c) of the Community Charter – labour relations or other employee relations.

• Section 90(1)(j) of the Community Charter – information that is prohibited, or information that if it were presented in a document would be prohibited, from disclosure under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

CARRIED

3. RECESS TO CLOSED TASK FORCE MEETING Moved by Councillor Nundal, and

RECOMMENDED: That the Core Services Review Task Force meeting be recessed.

CARRIED

The meeting recessed at 3:37 pm.

118

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Core Services Review Task Force Page 2 May 17, 2012

4. RECONVENE TO OPEN TASK FORCE MEETING Moved by Councillor Nundal, and

RECOMMENDED: That the Core Services Review Task Force meeting be reconvened.

CARRIED The meeting reconvened at 4:25 pm.

5. AGENDA

The agenda was approved as circulated.

6. MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING

The minutes from the May 3, 2012, Core Services Review Task Force meeting were approved as presented.

7. NEW BUSINESS a) Project Status Report – May 2012

The following dates were noted:

May 10, 2012 – Public Input Session held May 10-11, 2012 – Meetings held with stakeholder groups May 16-17, 2012 – Department workout sessions conducted May 25, 2012 – Diagnostic Report to be developed by consultant

b) Communication Action Items The Director of Finance confirmed that communication between the consultants and District staff is ongoing, with weekly update meetings scheduled each Monday.

The Project Status Reports are communicated to staff on a regular basis.

c) Next Meeting Date – Thursday, May 31, 2012, in the Council Chambers, time to be

confirmed.

8. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Councillor Nundal, and

RECOMMENDED: That the Core Services Review Task Force meeting be adjourned.

CARRIED

The meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m.

119

MINUTES of the REGULAR MEETING of the COUNCIL of the DISTRICT OF MISSION held in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Hall, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, British Columbia, on April 16, 2012 commencing at 6:30 p.m. Council Members Present: Mayor Ted Adlem Councillor Dave Hensman Councillor Jeff Jewell Councillor Tony Luck Councillor Larry Nundal Councillor Jenny Stevens Councillor Nelson Tilbury Staff Members Present: Glen Robertson, Chief Administrative Officer Paul Gipps, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer Jennifer Russell, Legislative Assistant Tina Mooney, Administrative Clerk

1. CALL TO ORDER

RC12/241 APR. 16/12

Moved by Councillor Luck, seconded by Councillor Hensman, and RESOLVED: That the business contained in Item 9 – Parks Recreation and Culture, be considered after Item 4 – Delegations and Presentations, on the agenda for April 16, 2012.

CARRIED

2. RESOLUTION TO ADD PUBLIC HEARING

RC12/242 APR. 16/12

Moved by Councillor Tilbury, seconded by Councillor Hensman, and RESOLVED: That the following section be added to the agenda for April 16, 2012:

5. PUBLIC HEARING

CARRIED


RC12/243 APR. 16/12

Moved by Councillor Hensman, seconded by Councillor Jewell, and RESOLVED: That the agenda for the regular Council meeting of April 16, 2012 be adopted, as amended.

CARRIED

120



RC12/244 APR. 16/12

Greg Glaim, Director, Harvest Discovery Homes Re: Addiction Issues, Logan Avenue Shelter and Rivendale Second Stage Housing Greg Glaim appeared before Council to express thanks to the former Council for approving the Logan Avenue recovery home five years ago, and to express concern about how addiction issues are currently handled in Mission. Mr. Glaim stated:

• A full 12 step program has been running in the recovery home, which has been full for the majority of the past 5 years.

• He was part of the working group that developed the bylaw for housing projects, which resulted in the first supportive recovery home model in Mission.

• That model included criminal record checks, urinalysis testing and monitoring of medications for the clients.

• He is concerned that although Mission has 74 beds available for people with addiction and mental health issues, there is not one addictions counsellor on the front lines.

• He is concerned that criminal records checks are not being completed for incoming clients, even though there is a system in place to do it for free.

• The shelter has is 15 men, 10 women and a family of 5 with children all in the same building, and there are no criminal records checks being done.

• He is concerned that the shelter is not “locked down” during the day – most other shelters close for the day so the clients are forced to go out, bear the weather, and look for employment.

• There is ongoing medication at every site that is not monitored, and ongoing police and ambulance activity at the Logan Centre.

• Consideration should be given to moving the shelter from the downtown core to a location near the new hospital complex.

• As Mission grows and develops, addiction issues need to be looked at differently and proper programs put in place, or else we will end up having the same kind of problems as Abbotsford and Surrey.

• We need to create a system so we do not get bombarded with addictions; if we have proper programs in place, the downtown will start to clean up.

The Mayor thanked Mr. Glaim for the information.

RC12/245 APR. 16/12

Robert Keys, Executive Director, Mission Association for Community Living Re: Annual Illuminaria Celebration Robert Keys, Executive Director of the Mission Association for Community Living (MACL), appeared before Council to provide information about the annual Illuminaria celebration. Mr. Keys stated:

121


• For over 50 years MACL has provided services to people with developmental disabilities and their families.

• The Illuminaria event was started 14 years ago to celebrate the closing of BC’s last institution for people with developmental disabilities, and has grown into a wider celebration of inclusion and diversity in Mission.

• The event is free, fully accessible and family friendly; It runs on volunteer support and contributions from the community at large.

• Illuminaria has always been held with the daytime Celebrate Mission event, however the daytime event has been discontinued.

• MACL intends to continue hosting and organizing the event, however will need continued financial support from the District to do so.

The Mayor thanked Mr. Keys for the information.


RC12/246 APR. 16/12

District of Mission 120th Anniversary Grant

Moved by Councillor Nundal, Seconded by Councillor Hensman, and

RESOLVED:

1. That the Parks, Recreation & Culture Department submit to the Province of BC the plans for the 120th Anniversary funding as follows:

• A community celebration September 29 at the Heritage Park Centre • Sound and lighting equipment for the Clarke Theatre • An arts and culture granting program for local organizations; and

2. That the budget breakdown be listed as follows:

Community Celebration $10,000 Clarke Theatre Equipment $35,000 Arts and Culture Grants $30,000 Total: $75,000

CARRIED

6. PUBLIC HEARING

The Mayor introduced the Public Hearing and outlined the procedures to be followed.

RC12/247 APR. 16/12

Zoning Amending Bylaw 5281-2012-5050(73) (R12-007 – Carhoun & Sons Enterprises Ltd.) – a bylaw to add a Comprehensive Development 28 Zone and to rezone portions of properties located at 31802 Hillcrest Avenue, 7233 Wren Street, 31896 Raven Avenue and 31831, 31941 and 31971 Lougheed Highway to CD28 The Deputy Chief Administrative Officer stated that the following written submissions were received:

1. Email dated April 11, 2012 from Sharen Parkinson in support of the application;

122


2. Email dated April 10, 2012 from Randy Hawes in support of the application; 3. Email dated April 9, 2012 from Angela Harris expressing concern with increased

traffic, noise, slope stability, and the risk to the environment and habitat; 4. Two emails dated April 10, 2012 from Lawrence Lehman opposed to the

application due to the impact on the sensitive ecosystem; 5. Letter dated April 12, 2012 from Mr. and Mrs. D. Davis opposed to the application

due to the impact on the endangered species habitat; 6. Letter dated April 2, 2012 from Diane McCullough expressing environmental

concerns; 7. Email dated April 10, 2012 from E. Vivian opposed to the application; 8. Undated letter from Carlo Billinger in support of the application; 9. Letter dated April 10, 2012 from Chris Wix in support of the application; 10. Letter dated April 10, 2012 from Bryan Kohare in support of the application; 11. Letter dated April 10, 2012 from Allison Gleadle in support of the application; 12. Letter dated April 10, 2012 from K. Gill in support of the application; 13. Letter dated April 13, 2012 from Chester Huan in support of the application; 14. Email dated April 16, 2012 from Tamy Kelly opposed to the application; 15. Letter dated April 10, 2012 from unknown individual from the ABC Country

Restaurant in support of the application; 16. Email dated April 15, 2012 from Michael Gildersleeve opposed to the application

due to environmental concerns; 17. A 14 person petition opposed to the application; 18. Letter dated April 11, 2012 from Donna Grubel in support of the application; 19. Letter dated April 10, 2012 from Jordan Williams in support of the application; 20. Letter dated April 11, 2012 from Rebecca Gafer in support of the application; 21. Letter dated April 10, 2012 from Andrea Gamache in support of the application; 22. Letter dated April 10, 2012 from Jerrod Miller in support of the application; 23. Letter dated April 10, 2012 from Ernie Williams in support of the application; 24. Letter dated April 15, 2012 from Jeret Chervenka in support of the application; 25. Undated letter from Rob Chetner in support of the application; 26. Undated letter from Dawnya Harder in support of the application; 27. Undated letter from Dave Royan in support of the application; 28. Undated letter from Theresa Steiger in support of the application; 29. Letter dated April 11, 2012 from Nathan in support of the application; 30. Letter dated April 9, 2012 from Mitchell Calder in support of the application; 31. Undated letter from Donavin Watts in support of the application; 32. Undated letter from Alex Leckie in support of the application; 33. Letter dated April 15, 2012 from Heather Herrera in support of the application; 34. Letter dated April 16, 2012 from Debbie Green in support of the application; 35. Letter dated April 16, 2012 from Kim Cole in support of the application; 36. Letter dated April 15, 2012 from Steve Middleton in support of the application; 37. Letter dated April 12, 2012 from Toni Murray in support of the application; 38. Letter dated April 12, 2012 from Mr. Petty in support of the application; 39. Undated letter from Tom Croll in support of the application; 40. Undated letter from Debbie Scudder in support of the application; 41. Letter dated April 9, 2012 from Attila Davalovsky in support of the application;

123


42. Undated letter from Miles Brookes in support of the application; 43. Undated letter from Brian Brookes in support of the application; 44. Undated letter from Ken Brookes in support of the application; 45. Letter dated April 10, 2012 from Elyssa Lockhart, President of the Mission

Regional Chamber of Commerce, in support of the application; 46. Email dated April 16, 2012 from Phyllis Young opposed to the application and

expressing concern with the environmental issues; 47. Letter dated April 10, 2012 from Gordon Ruley in support of the application; 48. Letter dated April 10, 2012 from Jennifer Phillips in support of the application; 49. Undated letter from Crystal Orchison in support of the application; and 50. Email dated April 16, 2012 from Ryan Anderson, OTG Development Concepts, in

support of the application;

Barclay Pitkethly, Deputy Director of Planning, provided the following information regarding District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5281-2012-5050(73) (R12-007 – Carhoun and Sons Enterprises Ltd.). This application proposes to amend District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009 by:

1. inserting the CD28 (Comprehensive Development 28 zone) into Section 1201 “CD Zones” as Section 1228; and

2. amending the zoning of the following legally described properties:

Parcel Identifier: 010-989-951 Lot “N” Section 19 Township 17 New Westminster District Plan 3472, Except Firstly; Parcel A (Reference Plan 7996) Secondly; Part on Plan 4897 Thirdly; Part Dedicated Road on Plan BCP36914;

Parcel Identifier: 013-373-480 Part Parcel “D” (Reference Plan 4896) South Half of the South Half of the South East Quarter of Section 19 Township 17 Lying North East of Highway Shown on Plan 4897 New Westminster District Except: Firstly; Part Subdivided by Plan 12676 Secondly; Part Subdivided by Plan 20304 Thirdly; Part Dedicated Road on Plan LMP26095;

Parcel Identifier: 004-265-289 Lot “A” Except, Firstly: Part Dedicated as Road on Plan 12676, Secondly: Part on SRW Plan LMP24285 Section 19 Township 17 New Westminster District Plan 8426;

Parcel Identifier: 004-265-432 Parcel “One” (Reference Plan 11910) of Lot “C”, Except: Part on SRW Plan LMP24285 Section 19 Township 17 New Westminster District Plan 8426;

Parcel Identifier: 007-910-801 Lot 5 Section 19 Township 17 New Westminster District Plan 20304; and Parcel Identifier: 011-327-898 Lot “C” Except: Firstly, Part on Reference Plan 11910, Secondly, Part on SRW Plan LMP24285 Section 19 Township 17 New Westminster District Plan 8426; shown as Areas A to I as follows:

a. Area A from the RU16 zone (Rural 16 zone) to the CD28 zone (Comprehensive Development 28 zone);

b. Area B from the RR7 zone (Rural Residential 7 zone) to the CD28 zone (Comprehensive Development 28 zone);

124


c. Area C from the R558 zone (Urban Residential 558 zone) to the CD28 zone (Comprehensive Development 28 zone);

d. Area D from the MMP zone (Multiple Family Mobile Home Park zone) to the CD28 zone (Comprehensive Development 28 zone);

e. Area E from the CH1 zone (Commercial Highway One zone) to the CD-28 zone (Comprehensive Development 28 zone);

f. Area F from the R558 zone (Urban Residential 558 zone) to the CD28 zone (Comprehensive Development 28 zone);

g. Area G from the CT zone (Commercial Tourist Recreation zone) to the CD28 zone (Comprehensive Development 28 zone);

h. Area H from the CH1 zone (Commercial Highway One zone) to the CD-28 zone (Comprehensive Development 28 zone);

i. Area I from the R558 zone (Urban Residential 558 zone) to the CD28 zone (Comprehensive Development 28 zone).

The location of the subject properties is 31802 Hillcrest Avenue, 31831, 31941, 31971 Lougheed Highway, 31896 Raven Avenue and 7233 Wren Street and is shown on the following map.

125


The purpose of the proposed amendment is to accommodate a future mixed commercial and residential development. The property is designated Commercial and Urban Compact Multi-Family within the Official Community Plan, and accordingly an OCP amendment is not required.

The development proposal includes:

• estimated tax revenue of $1.3 million from the commercial portion and $250,000 from the residential portion,

• strong transportation linkages, transit facilities and pedestrian connectivity to the SmartCentre and Silverdale Wetlands,

• Oliver Intersection upgrades with a traffic light or traffic circle,

• two ravines with marginal fisheries habitat value are scheduled to be filled in, and

• significant improvements to the trout farm in the Silverdale wetlands area.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) report has concluded that “…the project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects.”, which allows the proponent to seek approvals from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (Fisheries Act), and Ministry of Environment (Water Act). A draft/conceptual site plan has been developed to indicate the scope of the development, which includes 310,000 square feet of retail floor space, opportunities for other non-retail commercial uses, and mixed-use buildings that may include residential above commercial, and a range of housing options including single family, townhouse and potential for apartment housing. Highlights of the new Comprehensive Development (CD28) Zone include:

• a range of commercial uses including two drive through restaurants,

• an option to consider mixed-use development – including apartments above the

126


commercial retail space,

• minimum lot coverage of 30% for the commercial portion of the site – meeting the Employment Lands Strategy recently adopted by Council,

• flexibility on height requirements to encourage mixed use developments,

• a parking ratio cap of 4 per 1000 sq. ft. of surface parking – more if in a structure, underground or on the rooftop, and

• integration of Development Permit Guidelines into the zone, including:

- encouragement of a “village” concept

- LEED or comparable site planning

- form and character promoting “Mission”

- landscaping criteria to promote storm water management best practices

- universal access criteria

- environmental sustainability principles

- design criteria for drive-through restaurants

Further development permit applications for both the commercial and residential portions would be required before any construction can begin on the site. In conclusion, Mr. Pitkethly stated that the following requirements would need to be met prior to adoption of the bylaw: (a) receipt of the Community Amenity contribution in the amount of $422,250 (based on

150 units);

(b) engineering requirements to the satisfaction of the District of Mission Engineer, which may include a development agreement and securing the required engineering works and services;

(c) satisfaction of Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MoTI) requirements and the signing of the zone amending bylaw by MoTI;

(d) applicant possession of an Authorization under the federal Fisheries Act and an Approval under the provincial Water Act as required for this development;

(e) applicant possession of a letter (or issuance of one of several instruments) from the Director, Ministry of Environment to confirm that the rezoning can proceed (pertaining to the site contamination).

(f) a tree inventory from the applicant’s surveyor or arborist prior to the consideration of adoption; and

(g) any other items that Council may require resulting from the Public Hearing or Council consideration of the application.

Mayor Adlem opened the floor for public comment, and stated that all speakers will have five minutes for their initial comments, and once everyone has had an opportunity to speak, the floor will be open for those who wish to speak again to do so. Cory Cassel, Mission, stated he is in favour of the proposal for the following reasons:

- it keeps with the OCP’s intended use for the site,

127


- the site marks the beginning of Mission’s urban core and the development is consistent with the existing and developing neighbourhood,

- the proposal allows for a mix of commercial and residential uses, and promotes density,

- density is key to allow for the expansion of transit services within Mission as well as maximize taxation revenue,

- the proposal will be an economic generator both in terms of employment and taxation revenue,

- it has been reported that this proposal will create over 1,000 jobs and millions of dollars in annual property taxes,

- the developer will be required to pay nearly $1.5 million in development cost charges, plus community amenity contributions of over $400,000,

- the developer has offered significant improvements to the adjacent trout farm, and has promised to protect the lands as parkland and to enhance and restore fish habitat,

- the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act report of March 2012 concludes this proposal is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects,

- the developer has worked with DFO for over two years and has demonstrated care and attention with regard to environmental concerns, and

- the site is obvious for this kind of development, and it is time for the site to be developed to its full potential.

Angela Elias, Mission, stated she is in favour of the proposal, however is concerned about pedestrian safety as it is already challenging to cross Wren Street near the Hillcrest store. Ms. Elize asked Council to consider asking the developer to add a crosswalk at Hillcrest and Wren to the traffic plan. Elyssa Lockhart, Mission, stated she is personally in support of the application, and also read the supporting letter from the Chamber of Commerce into the record. Heather Stewart, Mission, stated she is in favour of the development, however is not in support of the drive-through portion. She stated:

- nearly 800 people have already spoken against additional drive-throughs in Mission,

- she is not in favour of development that does not look to the future,

- drive-throughs are not necessary, and will eventually be a thing of the past, like drive-ins,

- drive-throughs do not attract retail dollars, as they are one-purpose trips,

- there are other social issues to consider, such as exposure to carbon monoxide, and

- we should be keeping with the policies already set out in the Environmental Charter, Official Community Plan and Zoning bylaw.

Bruce Klassen, Mission, stated:

- there has been a great deal of work done already by talented, passionate citizens to preserve the Silverdale wetlands,

128


- we were told that the wetlands would be preserved as a public place, and would be a barrier to the ravines on the east side of the wetland because there were many niche species areas there, and

- he opposes this development because it puts another vice-like grip on very fragile wetlands, jeopardizing blue listed and endangered species.

Jeanette Smith, Mission, stated:

- Mission will be repeating the pattern set by Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows, where there is nothing but ugly, endless strip malls leading into the municipality,

- those commercial developments are a snub to the environment and leave a big carbon footprint,

- the “gateway” to Mission will be very ugly if developed as proposed, and will look like every other anonymous town,

- she challenges the figure of 1030 jobs created, since anchor stores like Safeway and Home Depot typically employ about 200 people,

- studies have shown that when a place such as a Walmart comes in, other jobs are lost, so it is really just a redistribution of employment, not new jobs created,

- this development, like others in Mission, shows excessive use of pavement for parking stalls rather than utilizing underground space, and

- it would be a tragedy to allow this development to cut this acreage in half, and they should leave the ravine areas intact which would compliment the borders of the wetland.

Ed Betterton, Mission, expressed concern about whether the plans accurately show where the entrances and exits will be, and about the extra traffic that will be turning off Trembath Avenue. In response to a question about how many individual properties are north of the development, the Deputy Director of Planning stated that the map presented at the public hearing shows elevation, not property lines, and is just a draft conceptual plan showing what the site might look like if it is developed in terms of grading, etc. The Deputy Director further stated that a traffic analysis is underway and the developer has proposed a right-in, right-out of Marsh for traffic safety, with a dedicated right turn lane onto the Lougheed Highway. He also stated that the main access to the site will be off Lougheed, with either a traffic light or a traffic circle, and that they are also looking at a cement barricade down the middle of Wren.

Paulette Betterton, Mission, stated that she is not opposed to the development, however is very concerned about pedestrian safety with all the extra traffic the mall will bring. She stated there is no pedestrian allowance on the east side of Wren, and is concerned that a plan for pedestrian safety may be forgotten because that component is not part of the immediate application. Dr. Tracy Lyster, on behalf of the Citizens Against Urban Sprawl Society, stated:

- CAUSS is opposed to the plan in its current form,

129


- at the public input session in August of 2009, the public was not allowed to speak to anything about the application except the streamside protection variance issue, so this is the first time the public has been able to voice any concerns,

- they have read the full Canadian Environmental Assessment Act report and have obtained additional docs from Environment Canada, Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans,

- for over a decade, DFO has recommended that ravines and wetlands be protected in perpetuity,

- DFO responded first in October 2009 and secondly in March 2010 and recommended both times that this project be redesigned or relocated to avoid impacts to fish habitat,

- Environment Canada had no decision making authority in the CEAA report, however they did recommend avoidance of this habitat, meaning non-disturbance, and that advice was, in her opinion, not heeded,

- Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources also recommended avoidance as the preferred approach, therefore it is incorrect to state that the environmental ministries have approved this development,

- CAUSS is not absolutely opposed to the development; there are some aspects they think are quite positive, however they are completely opposed to the permanent loss of endangered species habitat,

- considerable public money has already been spent on enhancing the wetlands and on the lower reaches of the development site to promote fish habitat,

- DFO was clear in the CEAA assessment that buffering and filtering functions of the ravine vegetation to clean the water entering the wetlands will be lost or diminished by this development,

- the proposed compensation plan was deemed insufficient by Environment Canada, as the intended salvages of endangered species are not proven to work,

- federal and provincial experts have advised that the practice of habitat restoration techniques have not been tested or evaluated, and should not be considered a viable option for mitigating harm to endangered species,

- they are not only concerned about the Oregon forest snail, the site is also supportive of red-legged frog, green heron, western screech owl, Pacific side-band, Pacific water shrew, Torbridge’s shrew, northern water meal, dungskipper, and the snowshoe hare.

Barb Strachan, Mission, stated:

- she is in agreement with Ms. Stewart about the drive-thoughs, with Mr. Klassen about the wetlands, and with Dr. Lyster about the environmental concerns,

- she is also in support of this development and thinks there are many advantages for Mission,

- we can have a development like this and collaborate to work through the environmental, economic and social issues, but need to have true collaboration with all interested members of the public, not just those with academic degrees, and

- she would like to see something stronger than the word “encouraging” in the development permit guidelines, to promote the village concept throughout Mission.

130


In response to Ms. Strachan’s question about whether improvements to the trout farm were one of the requirements prior to adoption of the bylaw, the Deputy Director of Planning stated that requirement is built into part of the approvals under the Fisheries Act and Water Act.

Val Pack, Mission, stated she had submitted a letter by email on the weekend that had not been read into the record, and that she is opposed to the development on environmental grounds. Ms. Pack also expressed concern about species becoming extinct or endangered around the world, and Mission should not knowingly contribute to this.

Remco Bergman, Mission, stated:

- he is in favour of proposed development,

- he also sits on the Economic Development Committee and sees the need for jobs in the area and for the diversity of the tax base,

- the developer is very interested in using sustainable technology that is being used all over Europe to create greener environments,

- this location is ideal as a gateway to Mission if it is developed correctly, and

- this concept should work nicely in that area.

Jim Taylor, Mission, is opposed to the development and stated:

- he is concerned that the development pushes too far to the west, as the plans show that the footprint extends right through to the freshet inundated wetlands, the area that floods each year,

- it also appears to eliminate the natural ridgeline that isolates the wildlife habitat from the urban areas of Mission,

- this wetland is prime fish and amphibian habitat, and you cannot remove one part of that environment without impacting the whole thing,

- it is possible to develop a majority of the site without extending all the way to this sensitive part of the habitat – it would not allow the developer to maximize profit, but it would respect the $2 million approximately that was invested in wildlife habitat protection in the Silverdale Creek wetlands area,

- using “green” terminology will do little to protect the natural habitat,

- the Silverdale Creek wetlands should not be used as a storm water filtration site,

- a parking lot should not be built across the flight path of waterfowl that come into the site,

- retaining walls that would impede the migration of amphibians should not be built there, and

- this proposal will have a negative impact on the community – it does not find the appropriate balance between development and environmental protection, and Council should turn it down.

Bill Mackintosh, Mission, stated:

- he has lived at his present address on Raven Avenue since 1981,

131


- he is concerned about how much of the property the developer can dig away before obtaining the necessary permits,

- he is not necessarily opposed to the development as long as his property directly above it is properly protected with a retaining wall, and

- he is very concerned that if any property has to be taken to reconstruct Marsh Avenue, that it be taken from the developer’s portion, not from any other individual property owner.

Mike Diener, Mission, stated:

- the development should be restricted to the disturbed portion of the site and the western portion with the creeks and ravines should be saved,

- this Council has made jokes about the Oregon forest snail, so at what animal does it draw the line?

- in 2002 the DFO said it had no problems with the Official Community Plan being changed as long as the creeks and ravines were protected, and

- Riparian Area Regulations is a political tool to get around the science.

Mayor Adlem responded that Council draws the line with what has been reported by the environmental experts.

Joan Koop, Mission, stated:

- she and her husband are not against the development, however are concerned about the roadway onto Hillcrest out of the proposed development,

- Hillcrest is quite narrow and can already get very crowded with just current residents and the regular traffic, let alone another 100 cars per day, and

- if there is a traffic circle at Raven, what are the trucks going to do?

The Deputy Director of Planning responded that Hillcrest is basically a glorified driveway that services the properties to the north. Hillcrest would have to be widened to be a full road, which would all be taken from the developer’s property. He further stated that the traffic management measures will really depend on the kind of residential development that ends up there. As is contemplated right now, there is a road that would come all the way into the site and exit onto Lougheed Highway. They will be looking at a smaller traffic circle at Raven Avenue more as a traffic calming measure, and it would be designed so that fire trucks, etc. can move through it.

Georgina Morrison, Mission, stated:

- she is concerned that she is not hearing enough people speaking out about the environmental problems we will be having if that development goes through,

- Mission still has humanity, and a very strong sense of community,

- she is not opposed to development, but is in favour of planned development that is in partnership with good environmental protection,

- if it were not for the federal and provincial environmental agencies, developers would likely not do anything to preserve the environment,

132


- if the developer really means that they would work for the betterment of the community, she would like to see them work with local environmental groups as collaborators, not as opposition,

- she would like Council to consider developments that look to the future, and

- she is opposed to going ahead without heeding what has been said by the local environmental protection groups.

Virginia Mackintosh, Mission, stated:

- she does not oppose this development, but also agrees with the environmentalists,

- she enjoys seeing all the wildlife on and surrounding her property, including salamanders and bears,

- she wants the south part of her property guaranteed to have proper support, grading, and a chain link fence,

- she has submitted photos to the District showing the degradation of the property in 2009,

- she is concerned about possible lead poisoning on the property from the old gun club, and

- no one has come out to speak to the Raven Avenue residents directly about this development.

Catherine MacDonald, Mission, stated:

- she is opposed to plan as it is now because of environmental concerns,

- she agrees with the comments made by Dr. Lyster,

- why are we inviting more retail development into Mission as we have so many empty stores already?

- when we destroy wetlands and ravine habitat, we never have it again, and

- she hopes that Council really thinks about the decisions they make now and how those decisions will affect future generations.

Allan Cook, Mission, stated:

- he is new to the area and his property includes part of the ravine on the other side of Turner Street,

- he shares the environmental concerns expressed by the other speakers,

- he is very concerned about traffic safety on Turner because the street is very narrow and there is no barrier to prevent cars or people from falling into the ravine,

- the bank is already eroding and cracking the road, and

- there should be some method of limiting or diverting any extra traffic away from Turner street.

Don Mair, Mission, stated:

- he is opposed to this development, but not to all of it,

133


- Phase 1 is reasonable as the area has already been disturbed,

- there has been so much money spent on rehabilitating the wetlands in Phase 2, that he cannot believe we would consider picking away at the edges of it to try to make money,

- the wildlife established there is unique and diverse, and what is Council prepared to let go now or in the future?

- there are a lot of things wrong with the plan, such as having 1000 parking spots with only one way in and out, and

- in his opinion, Phase 2 is being used to leverage Phase 1 for economic reasons.

Ann Harper, Mission, stated that she is in support of this development because of the increase of jobs, the diversity of the tax base, and the decrease of economic leakage. She also looks forward to hearing more about the details about the plan.

Kevin Francis, Mission, stated:

- he is hearing that people are saying they are not generally opposed to development, just that we can do it better,

- Council should be wary of “green washing” because although there is plenty of it in the industry and it makes us feel better, it will not save us from the angry looks from future generations when the treasures all around this ravine are lost forever, and

- please remember that we do not inherit the earth from our fathers, we borrow it from our kids.

Mike Scudder, Mission, stated:

- he is in favour of this proposal,

- he is impressed with the balance and demeanor of all participants in the Public Hearing this evening, and with how everyone’s thoughts have been expressed,

- we cannot continue to provide the present amenities and quality of life for all Mission residents without increasing and diversifying the tax base,

- this property represents possibly the largest piece of commercial, highway access property that Mission has, therefore it represents the next if not the last largest opportunity for economic taxation on a commercial basis,

- the development permit guidelines allows us to exercise some control over what the final product may look like,

- the opportunities of scale will provide the District the opportunity to address many of the issues heard at the podium tonight about traffic, pedestrian safety, egress and ingress,

- the interface with the wetland is the key issue, and this will address whether the outfall of District water into the ravines may create a liability for the District,

- Mission really is a place where people can live, work and play,

- the flow of retail money out of our community is a serious issue, and we do have retail businesses that offer people what big box stores cannot, and

134


- the wetlands are spectacular and do deserve protection, and this developer wants to do what needs to be done to make this work.

Larry McLeod, Mission, stated that he and his wife, Ivy, are in support of this development and cannot say no to more employment and increased taxation. Rex Blane, Mission, stated:

- he would have preferred to see more planning before the public hearing process, however does strongly support the overall concept,

- he is in agreement with the comments of Mr. Cassel and Ms. Lockhart,

- the development will create an overall benefit to the community,

- although there is some disparity between the development and environmental issues, those have largely been addressed and there will likely be a great deal of care taken by staff and the developer and various other governmental departments to ensure that interface is adequately protected, and

- as with most developments, it is a matter of weighing up the pros and cons, and on that basis he strongly supports the overall concept of this development.

Dirk Weymann, Mission, stated:

- he is in favour of the development,

- Mission needs more jobs for the people who live here,

- it is a good location for this type of project, and

- he has spoken to the developer and watched the project progress over the years and believes this is the right type of development at the right time.

Heather Stewart asked how this development will impact traffic flow on Wren Street. The Deputy Director of Planning responded that there would be a right-in/right-out on Wren Street, as well as dual left turn lanes onto the Lougheed Highway. There will also be a concrete barrier all the way up the hill on Wren Street to prevent dangerous left turns. Ms. Stewart also stated:

- carbon emissions are also environmental concerns, and it is up to local government to address those issues locally,

- 70% of the carbons in Mission are created by our vehicles, and adding more drive-throughs adds to this problem,

- the current zoning bylaw does not allow them, although exceptions have been given to some projects,

- the removal of drive-throughs from the subject development would help address some of the environmental issues,

- communities are changing and do not need drive-throughs, and

- the drive-throughs bring their own issues, such as litter, traffic, noise and light pollution, reduction of air quality, odour, and pedestrian/vehicle conflicts.

135


Barb Strachan stated that her greatest concern with the project is that it reaches too far to the west and encroaches too far into the wetlands. She also believes that this is something that can be mediated and worked out to a satisfactory result for everyone. Tracy Lyster continued with the list of the concerns of CAUSS:

- permanent loss of species habitat,

- the loss of environmental capital,

- most of the site plan is actually parking and residential development, not commercial development, which will reduce the net benefit of more commercial activity in our community,

- there is no storm water management plan or geotechnical report, so how can the public comment on an incomplete plan?

- there are no finalized plans for the residential portion of this development, therefore it is not possible for the public to comment specifically on many issues that would be of concern to them,

- paving over of endangered species habitat may be completely unnecessary, as you have an Employment Lands Strategy report, and it emphasizes the idea of high density, underground parking and making efficient use of the lands that we have,

- that report also states that we have sufficient designated and undesignated lands within the District to supply sufficient commercial and retail space until 2057,

- of the 16 acres targeted for highway commercial development, 10 are already under construction at the nearby SmartCentre, so if we restrict this plan to the 10 acre disturbed portion of the site, we would exceed the District’s target by 4 acres without destroying the ravines,

- other options that respect endangered species habitat need to be further investigated and the public should be able to speak to that,

- CAUSS supports well planned development, including provision of commercial development and brownfield or grayfield sites,

- it is the position of CAUSS that this site is the wrong location for Mission’s commercial growth, as we should be focusing our development activity on the waterfront, and

- CAUSS is in favour of redesigning Phase 1 to create higher density commercial development on the 10 acre disturbed brownfield portion of the site, and relocating Phase 2 to the waterfront where the District is eager to encourage growth.

Dave Adlem, Mission, stated that he supports this development, and believes that processes are in place to ensure it gets done correctly.

Bernd Lehmann, Mission, stated:

- he is the owner of Sun Valley Trout Park, and is in support of this development,

- Mission needs more jobs and a more diversified tax base,

- the developer will improve the wetlands and the Silverdale corridor,

136


- the trout park property is not park land, it is private property that the developer has purchased and accordingly has a right to do what he wants with it, and

- the developer has taken steps to mitigate the loss of the two ravines, and the project will be a benefit to Mission overall.

Jeanette Smith stated she agreed with the comments made by Dr. Lyster and Mr. Taylor, and asked who will be paying for the traffic circle at the end of Oliver Street. The Deputy Director of Planning responded that the developer will be paying for that. Tracy Lyster asked if Council had received a petition from Judy Addey with over 100 names on it in opposition to the development. She stated it was submitted at the first meeting, but it applies to this plan and Ms. Addey wanted to make sure it was on the record. The Deputy Chief Administrative Officer responded that the petition was for a different application, and that the District has kept it on record. Jan Voss, the proponent’s traffic engineer, clarified that the traffic impact reports completely meet the provincial requirements for a traffic impact study, however they did not have the District’s input at the time, which is why the word “preliminary” appears on the reports. He stated that they had not yet developed a traffic plan for Wren Street because they did not know until this evening what the “showstoppers” were for the community, and now they have information to draw up a plan. Mr. Voss noted that a traffic circle is used as a traffic calming device and is typically a small landscaped median, whereas the roundabout envisioned by the province for Oliver Street and the Lougheed Highway would be similar to the one at Mt. Lehman and Highway 1 in Abbotsford. He further noted that the traffic study assumed that all the housing that fronts on the south side of Hillcrest would have their own access onto Hillcrest. All the commercial and retail traffic would access Highway 7 and Wren Street; they would have no access to Hillcrest. Theo Bate, the proponent’s civil consultant, stated that all potential impacts to fish habitat and wetlands will be mitigated by implementation of storm water management that will satisfy DFO and the District’s requirements, and that they will be retaining hydrology and geotechnical consultants. Jim Scott, the proponent’s environmental consultant, stated that a significant amount of work has been done on this project, going back several years, including an extensive environmental inventory. He noted that several years ago the DFO did recommended against rezoning of the site, and it has become possible now because they were able to come up with a great compensation opportunity with Mr. Lehman’s trout farm and the rehabilitation of that whole area. He further stated that there has been a great amount of due diligence done on the environmental side of this project, and they are continuing to work through the outstanding requirements. Hearing no further questions or comments, the Mayor declared the public hearing on District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5281-2012-5050(73) (R12-007 – Carhoun) closed.

137


RC12/248 APR. 16/12

Moved by Councillor Luck, seconded by Councillor Nundal, and

RESOLVED: That the meeting be recessed at 9:04 p.m.

CARRIED The meeting reconvened at 9:14 p.m.


RC12/249 APR. 16/12

Moved by Councillor Tilbury, seconded by Councillor Nundal, and

RESOLVED: That the following items be received as information:

(a) minutes of the Mission Community Heritage Commission meeting held on February 1, 2012;

(b) minutes of the Cultural Resources Commission meeting held on February 16, 2012; and

(c) minutes of the Emergency Planning Committee meeting held on March 29, 2012.

CARRIED


RC12/250 APR. 16/12

Moved by Councillor Luck, seconded by Councillor Jewell, and

RESOLVED: That Council now resolve itself into Committee of the Whole. CARRIED

9. PLANNING

Councillor Hensman assumed the Chair.

RC12/251 APR. 16/12

Community Amenity Contribution Policy Review Update

Moved by Mayor Adlem, and

RECOMMENDED: That a workshop be scheduled to update Council on the Community Amenity Contribution Policy and initiate a discussion about next steps.

CARRIED

RC12/252 APR. 16/12

Development Variance Application DV12-003 (N&J Developments) – 32526, 32540 and 32562 Richards Avenue Moved by Councillor Tilbury, and

138


RECOMMENDED: That the requirements of Subdivision Control Bylaw 1500-1985 be varied for Development Variance Permit DV12-003, for the properties located at 32526, 32540 and 32562 Richards Avenue, by reducing the required road dedication width from 20 metres (65.6 feet) to 18 metres (59.0 feet) and that the road be constructed in accordance with the cross-section attached as Appendix 2 to the report from the Planning Department dated April 16, 2012.

CARRIED

RC12/253 APR. 16/12

Amend the Official Community Plan to include new policies on Flex Housing and adopt a new Land Use Policy to address design elements for Flex Housing Moved by Councillor Nundal, and

RECOMMENDED: That consideration of an amendment to the Official Community Plan to include new policies on flex housing be deferred.

CARRIED

10. ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC WORKS

Councillor Jewell assumed the Chair.

RC12/254 APR. 16/12

Amendments to Sewer Bylaw 5033-2009


RECOMMENDED: That District of Mission Sewer Bylaw 5033-2009 be amended as follows:

SECTION AMENDMENT

Section 20 - Vehicle Wash Operations (Page 10)

Delete Section 20 in its entirety

Schedule A – Definitions (Page 20)

Add definition for “Activated Carbon”: “Activated Carbon” means treated or prepared granular carbon capable of removing organic compounds and other Substances from Waste or Wastewater through the processes of adsorption and absorption.


Add definition for “Automotive Operation”: “Automotive Operation” means any commercial, industrial, or institutional operation or public authority that carries out the repair or maintenance of vehicles, engines, transmissions or other mechanical devices that use any oil or grease for lubricating purposes including, but not limited to: collision repair shops, mechanical repair shops, service stations, fuelling stations, oil change operations, vehicle dealerships, vehicle maintenance facilities, vehicle recycling operations, radiator repair shops, towing businesses, but not including Vehicle Wash Operations.

139


SECTION AMENDMENT Schedule A – Definitions (Page 22)

Add definition for “Dry Cleaning Operation”: “Dry Cleaning Operation” means any commercial, industrial, or institutional operation that carries out the cleaning of textile and apparel goods, rugs, furs, leathers and other similar articles using Tetrachloroethylene.


Add definition for “Dry Shop”: “Dry Shop” means an Automotive Operation that has disconnected all Non-Domestic Waste drains from the Sanitary Sewer system and does not Discharge any Non-Domestic Waste to the Sanitary Sewer.


Add definition for “Grease Trap”: “Grease Trap” means a device designed and installed to separate and retain Oil and Grease from Wastewater for physical removal, while permitting Wastewater to Discharge to the Sanitary Sewer.


Add definition for “Groundwater”: “Groundwater” means Water in a saturated zone or stratum beneath the surface of land or below a surface Water body and includes, but not limited to, Water supplied to wells and springs.


Add definition for “Groundwater Remediation”: “Groundwater Remediation” means the process by which contaminated groundwater is removed and treated through technologies including, but not limited to, biological, chemical and physical treatment.


Add definition for “Oil-Water Separator”: “Oil-Water Separator” means a three-stage oil-water separator that meets the Standard for Oil-Water Separators (ULC-S656-00) prepared by Underwriters’ Laboratories of Canada or equivalent oil-water separation technology able to achieve an effluent quality of 50 mg/L of Oil and Grease (Hydrocarbons) or less.


Add definition for “Peak Flow Rate”: “Peak Flow Rate” means the rate at which Wastewater is discharged to the Sanitary Sewer during the single highest 5-minute Discharge period as reported in L/s.


Add definition for “Tetrachloroethylene”: “Tetrachloroethylene” means an aliphatic hydrocarbon having the chemical formula CCl2=CCl2 also referred to as ethylene tetrachloride, PCE, perc, perchlor, perchlorethylene, perchloroethylene, perk, tetrachloroethene and 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethylene.


Add definition for “Tetrachloroethylene-Contaminated Residue”: “Tetrachloroethylene-Contaminated Residue” means any solid, liquid or Sludge containing Tetrachloroethylene, other than Wastewater, that is produced by a Dry Cleaning Operation.


Add definition for “Tetrachloroethylene-Water Separator”: “Tetrachloroethylene-Water Separator” means equipment used to separate Tetrachloroethylene and Water by gravity.


Delete the definition of Engineer in its entirety and Replace it with the following: “Engineer” means the Director of Engineering and Public Works of the District of Mission or any person designated to act in his or

140


SECTION AMENDMENT her stead to administer or enforce the provisions of this Bylaw;


Delete the definition of “Trucked Liquid Waste” in its entirety and Replace it with the following: “Trucked Liquid Waste” means any Waste that is collected and transported off-site by means other than Discharge to a Sanitary Sewer, including, but not limited to, septic tank Waste, Oil and Grease from Grease Traps, and other Sludges of organic origin.


Delete the definition of “Wastewater” in its entirety and Replace it with the following: “Wastewater” means the composite of Water and water-carried Wastes from residential, commercial, industrial or institutional premises or any other source.

Schedule E – Prohibited Waste, Section 5 (Page 36)

Delete the word “blood” from the definition for Obstructive Waste. Capitalize all cases of “Waste”. Add the words “garbage, and paper and brewery Waste” to the end of the definition.

Schedule E – Prohibited Waste, Section 9 (Page 37)

Delete Section 9 in its entirety and Replace it with the following: Any Waste that, at the point of discharge into a sewer, contains Biomedical Waste as defined in the Hazardous Waste Regulation under the Environmental Management Act.

Schedule G – Wastewater Discharge Permit Application (Pages 43 - 56)

Delete Schedule “G” and Replace with attached Schedule “G”.

Schedule H – Wastewater Discharge Permit Application for Groundwater Remediation Sites (Pages 57 - 68)

Delete Schedule “H” and Replace with attached Schedule “H”.

Schedule J – Code of Practice for Dental Operations, Section 2 (2) (Page 73)

Delete Section 2(2) in its entirety and Replace it with the following: The Engineer may require a Wastewater Discharge Permit from the Operator of a Dental Operation to authorize the Discharge of Non-Domestic Waste.

Schedule J – Code of Practice for Dental Operations, Section 3 (1)(a) (Page 73)

Delete Section 3(1)(a) in its entirety and Replace it with the following: Prohibited Waste or Storm Water; or

Schedule J – Code of Practice for Dental Operations, Section 3 (7) (Page 74)

Delete Section 3(7) in its entirety and Replace it with the following: If the Monitoring Point referred to under subsection (6)(b) is not required by the Engineer, then subsections (6)(b), (c) and (d) do not apply to that Dental Operation.

Schedule K – Code of Practice for Photo Imaging Operations, Section 3 (1)(a) (Page 77)

Delete Section 3(1)(a) in its entirety and Replace it with the following: Prohibited Waste or Storm Water; or

141


SECTION AMENDMENT Schedule K – Code of Practice for Photo Imaging Operations, Section 4 (Page 80)

Deleting Section 4(4) in its entirety and Replace it with the following and renumber subsequent sections as required: (4) An Operator of a Photo Imaging Operation that collects and transports the Waste from the Photo Imaging Operation for Off-site Waste Management must keep a record book, available for inspection on request, at the Photo Imaging Operation site that includes the following:

(a) name, address and telephone number of any person or company who performs any disposal services related to the Photo Imaging Operation Waste; and

(b) dates of pick-up of the Waste for off-site disposal, volume of Waste disposed and the location of disposal.

Schedule L – Code of Practice for Automotive Operations

Add attached Schedule “L” (see Appendix 3 for a copy of the proposed Code of Practice).

Schedule M – Code of Practice for Vehicle Wash Operations

Add attached Schedule “M” (see Appendix 4 for a copy of the proposed Code of Practice).

Schedule N – Code of Practice for Dry Cleaning Operations

Add attached Schedule “N” (see Appendix 5 for a copy of the proposed Code of Practice).

5(1): The owner of every… (Page 5)

Delete Section 5(1) in its entirety and Replace with the following: The owner of every parcel of real property to which a Service Connection is made shall pay the applicable Sewer User Rate prescribed in the District’s Consolidated Sewer User Rates and Charges Bylaw and the Sewer Bylaw.

12(3): No Person other than the District… (Page 7)

Delete Section 12(3) in its entirety and Replace with the following: No person shall do any work connected with the service pipe, including the laying of new services and the repair of old services, upon or under any street, lane or Statutory Right-of-Way without the consent of the Engineer and supervision of the appropriate officers and employees of the Municipality.

Schedule C: 1(a) Sanitary Sewer Connection Fees (Page 31)

Replace existing table with the following table:

Depth of Main First meter or less Per meter beyond 1 meter 2012 Effective

2013 2012 Effective

2013 0 to 1 meter $577.00 $594.31 $168.50 $173.60 1.01 to 2 meters $811.50 $835.85 $202.75 $208.80 2.01 to 3 meters $1043.50 $1074.81 $318.75 $328.30 3.01 to 4 meters $1275.00 $1313.25 $574.00 $591.20 More than 4 meters or larger than 150mm

Actual cost of materials and District of Mission staff time for installation

SECTION AMENDMENT Schedule C: 1(b) Sanitary Sewer Connection Fees

Delete Section 1(b) in its entirety and Replace it with following: The administration fee for a connection, irrespective of diameter,

142


(Page 31) shall be as per the following table:

2012 Effective 2013& Beyond Initial Application Fee $50.00 $50.00

Application Completion Fee $140.25 $144.50 Total $190.25 $194.50

SECTION AMENDMENT Schedule C: 1(c) Sanitary Sewer Connection Inspection Fees (Page 31)

Delete Section 1(c) in its entirety and Replace it with following: Sanitary sewer connection inspection fee 2012: $75.75 Effective 2013 & Beyond: $78.00

Schedule C: 2(a) Storm Sewer Connection Fees

Delete the table in Section 2(a) and Replace it with the following table:

Depth of Main First meter or less Per meter beyond 1 meter 2012 Effective

2013 2012 Effective

2013 0 to 1 meter $577.00 $594.31 $168.50 $173.60 1.01 to 2 meters $811.50 $835.85 $202.75 $208.80 2.01 to 3 meters $1043.50 $1074.81 $318.75 $328.30 3.01 to 4 meters $1275.00 $1313.25 $574.00 $591.20 More than 4 meters or larger than 150mm

Actual cost of materials and District of Mission staff time for installation

SECTION AMENDMENT

Schedule C: 2(b) Storm Sewer Connection Fees (Page 31)

Delete Section 2(b) in its entirety and Replace it with following: The administration fee for a connection, irrespective of diameter, shall be as per the following table:

2012 Effective 2013& Beyond

Initial Application Fee $50.00 $50.00 Application Completion Fee $140.25 $144.50

Total $190.25 $194.50

SECTION AMENDMENT Schedule C: 2(c) Storm Sewer Connection Inspection Fees (Page 32)

Delete Section 2(c) in its entirety and Replace it with following: Storm sewer connection inspection fee 2012: $75.75 Effective 2013 & Beyond: $78.00

Schedule C: 4 Disconnection of the Service (Page 32)

Delete the table in Section 4 and Replace it with the following table:

2012 Effective 2013 Sanitary Sewer Disconnection (at the main by municipal crews)

$579.25 $596.60

Capping the service at the property line by municipal crews

$486.25 $500.80

Capping the service at property line by municipal crews in conjunction with capping of either a storm sewer or water service

$547.75 $564.20

143


Capping the service at property line by municipal crews in conjunction with capping of both storm sewer and water services

$609.25 $627.50

Capping the service at property line by owner under direct municipal inspection – each service

$77.25 $79.80

Storm Sewer Disconnection (at the main by municipal crews)

$579.25 $596.60

Capping the service at the property line by municipal crews

$486.25 $500.80

Capping the service at property line by municipal crews in conjunction with capping of either a storm sewer or water service

$547.75 $564.20

Capping the service at property line by municipal crews in conjunction with capping of both storm sewer and water services

$609.25 $627.50

Capping the service at property line by owner under direct municipal inspection – each service

$77.25 $79.80

SECTION AMENDMENT Schedule D, Volume Calculation (Page 34)

Delete Sections 1, 2 and 3 in their entirety and Replace with the following: 1. For holders of Wastewater Discharge Permits with a

Sanitary Sewer meter, volume calculations shall be determined based upon 100% of the volume measured by the Sanitary Sewer meter.

2. For holders of Wastewater Discharge Permits without a Sanitary Sewer meter, but with a Water meter on District supplied Water, volume calculations shall be determined as per the Consolidated Sewer User Rates and Charges Bylaw.

3. Volume calculations for holders of Wastewater Discharge Permits, with Sanitary Sewer meters or Water meters on private wells, shall be calculated as above and invoiced on a quarterly basis.

Schedule D, Sanitary Use Rates: All sanitary sewer use rates… (Page 34)

Delete the “Sanitary Sewer User Rates” section in its entirety and Replace it with the following: Sanitary Sewer User Rates All sanitary sewer user rates shall be paid by the User in accordance with the Consolidated Sewer User Rates and Charges Bylaw and this bylaw, where applicable. The following table specifies sewer user rates for those discharges authorized by a Wastewater Discharge Permit and where a Sanitary Sewer meter is in place. Charges will be invoiced on a quarterly basis.

Non-Residential Users

Volume Sewer User Rate (Effective 2012 & Beyond) 1 – 10,000 m3 $0.62/m3

144


10,001 – 100,000 m3 $0.57/m3 Greater than 100,001 m3 $0.49/m3

CARRIED

RC12/255 APR. 16/12

Sewer User Rates and Charges Bylaw (1922-1989) Amendments

Moved by Councillor Luck, and

RECOMMENDED: That District of Mission Sewer User Rates and Charges Bylaw 1922-1989 be amended as follows:

(a) deleting Schedule A in its entirety and replacing it with a new Schedule A as follows: SCHEDULE "A"

SEWER UTILITY FEES

Classes of Consumer Rates Payable

1. One and Two Unit Residential that are not metered for water purposes

(a) Residential Use, One Unit (i) per dwelling unit $28.93 per month $347.16 per annum (ii) per secondary dwelling unit $28.93 per month $347.16 per annum

(b) Residential Use, Two Units (i) per dwelling unit $28.93 per month $347.16 per annum (ii) per secondary dwelling unit $28.93 per month $347.16 per annum

2. Multi-Unit Residential and Commercial/Industrial/Institutional that are not metered for water purposes (a) Mobile Home Park Use - per pad $28.93 per month $347.16 per annum (b) Residential Use, Apartment

(i) 3 dwelling units, per dwelling unit $28.93 per month $347.16 per annum

(ii) 4 dwelling units, per dwelling unit $28.93 per month $347.16 per annum

(iii) more than 4 dwelling units, per dwelling unit $24.81 per month $297.72 per annum

(c) Residential Use, Townhouse (i) per dwelling unit $28.93 per month $347.16 per annum (ii) per secondary dwelling unit $28.93 per month $347.16 per annum

(d) Commercial/Industrial/Institutional $28.93 per month $347.16 per annum

3. Commercial/Industrial/Institutional and Multi-Unit Residential customers that are metered for water purposes shall pay the following quarterly sewer rates: (a) 77.00% of the quarterly water user charges imposed and levied against the owner of real

property for the use of water pursuant to District of Mission Water Rates Bylaw 2197-1990 and amendments thereto.

4. One and Two Unit Residential that are metered for water purposes shall pay the following annual

sewer rates:

145


(a) 77.00% of annual water user charges imposed and levied against the owner of real property for the use of water pursuant to District of Mission Water Rates Bylaw 2197-1990 and amendments thereto.

(b) deleting Section 9 and replacing it with the words “The sewer user charges imposed on Schedule “A” of this Bylaw shall take effect January 1, 2012.”

CARRIED

RC12/256 APR. 16/12

Water Rates Bylaw (2197-1990) Amendments


RECOMMENDED: That District of Mission Water Rates Bylaw 2197-1990 be amended as follows:

(a) deleting Schedule A in its entirety and replacing it with a new Schedule A as follows: SCHEDULE "A"

WATER UTILITY FEES

Classes of Consumer Rates Payable

1. One and Two Unit Residential (Unmetered)

(a) Residential Use, One Unit (i) per dwelling unit $38.03 per month $456.36 per annum (ii) per secondary dwelling unit $38.03 per month $456.36 per annum

(b) Residential Use, Two Units

(i) per dwelling unit $38.03 per month $456.36 per annum (ii) per secondary dwelling unit $38.03 per month $456.36 per annum

2. Multi-Unit Residential (Unmetered)

(a) Mobile Home Park Use - per pad $38.03 per month $456.36 per annum

(b) Residential Use, Apartment

(i) 3 dwelling units, per dwelling unit $38.03 per month $456.36 per annum (ii) 4 dwelling units, per dwelling unit $38.03 per month $456.36 per annum (iii) more than 4 dwelling units, per dwelling unit $32.66 per month $391.92 per annum

(c) Residential Use, Townhouse

(i) per dwelling unit $38.03 per month $456.36 per annum (ii) per dwelling unit $38.03 per month $456.36 per annum

3. Commercial/Industrial/Institutional (Unmetered)

(a) Per account $38.03 per month $456.36 per annum

4. Commercial/Industrial/Institutional and Multi-Unit Residential (Metered)

(a) Quarterly Metered Water User Rates (subject to minimum charge per quarter) Up to 300 cubic meters $ 0.9936 per cubic meter of water consumed On next 300 cubic meters $ 0.8146 per cubic meter of water consumed

146


On next 300 cubic meters $ 0.7382 per cubic meter of water consumed On next 300 cubic meters $ 0.6623 per cubic meter of water consumed On balance $ 0.5090 per cubic meter of water consumed

Meter Size Minimum Charge Per Quarter Up to 19 mm $ 108.31 25 mm $ 108.31 32 mm $ 108.31 38 mm $ 108.31 50 mm $ 120.36 75 mm $ 120.36 100 m $ 391.31 150 mm $ 391.31

(b) Quarterly Meter Rental Rates Meter Size Quarterly Rental Up to 19 mm $ 3.19 25 mm $ 4.31 32 mm $ 5.41 38 mm $ 7.56 50 mm $ 12.69 75 mm $ 37.83 100 mm $ 56.14 150 mm $ 56.14

5. One and Two Unit Residential (Metered)

(a) Annual Water User Rate: $1.17 per cubic meter of water consumed annually (b) Annual Meter Rental Rates

Meter Size Annual Rental Up to 19 mm $ 12.76 25 mm $ 17.24

(b) deleting Schedule B in its entirety and replacing it with a new Schedule B as follows: SCHEDULE 'B'

MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES

2012

For an inaccessible meter as set out in Section 9.1 (per month fee)

$27.25

Deposit for testing a meter as set out in Section 9.4

15 mm water line to 50 mm water line $257.50

200mm water line $1,000.00

All metered one and two family residential annually metered water user rate (per cubic meter of water consumed)

$1.17

(c) adding the words “and is effective January 1, 2012” to the end of the section after the word ‘Bylaw’; and

147


(d) changing the title of Section 4 from “Accounts Residential – Un-non Metered Water (Classes 1 and 2 of Schedule “A”” to “Accounts Residential – Unmetered Water (Classes 1 and 2 of Schedule “A”)”

CARRIED

RC12/257 APR. 16/12

BC Transit Independent Review

A report from the Director of Engineering and Public Works dated April 5, 2012 regarding the BC Transit independent review panel consultation process was provided for the Committee’s information. Staff were directed to provide a draft feedback document for Council review.


Councillor Luck assumed the Chair.

RC12/258 APR. 16/12

Oyama Sister City Delegation – Visit by Students


RECOMMENDED: That $600.00 be transferred from Council Contingency to an account to be used for expenses related to the visit of two students from our Sister City of Oyama, Japan.

CARRIED

RC12/259 APR. 16/12

Voluntary Tax Contributions


RECOMMENDED: That consideration of a Voluntary Tax Contribution policy be deferred pending the identification of a specific project, including a clear definition of the scope of that project.

CARRIED

RC12/260 APR. 16/12


RESOLVED: That the meeting be extended until all items of business on the agenda have been concluded. CARRIED

RC12/261 APR. 16/12

Core Services Review Update


RECOMMENDED: That the minutes of the Core Services Review Task Force meeting held on April 5, 2012 be adopted.

CARRIED

148


The Director of Finance noted that the date for the public feedback portion of the review has not yet been set, and that once set the opportunity will be widely advertised.

RC12/262 APR. 16/12

Veterans’ Way (Verbal – Mayor Adlem)

Mayor Adlem stated that the Royal Canadian Legion has requested that a portion of Logan Avenue be designated as “Veterans’ Way”, like the designation of part of Highway 1 as the “Highway of Heroes”. The Mayor clarified that this request is not a request for the renaming of Logan Avenue. Moved by Councillor Hensman, and

RECOMMENDED: That staff consult with Royal Canadian Legion Branch 57 and provide a report to Council with options to designate a portion of Logan Avenue as “Veterans’ Way”.

CARRIED


Mayor Adlem resumed the Chair.

RC12/263 APR. 16/12

Moved by Councillor Hensman, seconded by Councillor Nundal, and

RESOLVED: That the Committee of the Whole now rise and report. CARRIED


RC12/264 APR. 16/12

Moved by Councillor Stevens, seconded by Councillor Tilbury, and

RESOLVED: That the recommendations of the Committee of the Whole, as contained in items RC12/251 to RC12/262, be adopted. CARRIED

14. BYLAWS

RC12/265 APR. 16/12

Moved by Councillor Nundal, seconded by Councillor Tilbury, and

RESOLVED:

1. That District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5281-2012-5050(73) (R12-007 – Carhoun & Sons Enterprises Ltd.), be read a third time; and

2. That staff bring the matter of Zoning Amending Bylaw 5281-2012-5050(73) back before Council once the following conditions are met:

(a) receipt of the community amenity contribution in the amount of $422,250 (based on 150 units);

149


(b) engineering requirements to the satisfaction of the District of Mission Engineer, which may include a development agreement securing the required engineering works and services;

(c) Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MoTI) requirements and the signing of the zone amendment bylaw by MoTI;

(d) proof of possession of an Authorization under the federal Fisheries Act and an Approval under the provincial Water Act as required for this development;

(e) proof of possession of a letter (or issuance of one of several instruments) from the Director, Ministry of Environment to confirm that the rezoning can proceed (pertaining to the site contamination);

(f) a tree inventory provided by the applicant’s surveyor or arborist prior to the consideration of adoption; and

(g) any other items that Council may require resulting from the Public Hearing or Council consideration of the application.

CARRIED

RC12/266 APR. 16/12

Moved by Councillor Nundal, seconded by Councillor Luck, and

RESOLVED: That the readings of all bylaws included in the Bylaws section of the April 16, 2012 regular Council agenda be approved as follows:

(a) Sewer Amending Bylaw 5261-2012-5033(2) – a bylaw to make several housekeeping amendments to harmonize with the City of Abbotsford’s Sewer Bylaw to reflect the joint management of the JAMES Plant


(b) Repeal Bylaw 5287-2012 – a bylaw to repeal Street Naming (Tarlton Place Extension) Bylaw 4082-2008

Adoption

(c) Collection, Removal and Marketing of Recyclables Amending Bylaw 5286-2012-2639(15) – a bylaw to add a definition and fee for “Compact Housing”

Adoption

(d) OCP Amending Bylaw 5288-2012-4052(23) (R12-013 – District of Mission) – a bylaw to replace policies 2.5.9 and 2.5.11 with new policies “Variety of Housing for Seniors” and “Flex Housing for Seniors”

DEFERRED

(e) In accordance with Section 882 of the Local Government Act, Council has considered District of Mission Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw 5288-2012-4052(23) in conjunction with the District of Mission's Financial Plan and Waste Management Plan

DEFERRED

(f) Sewer User Rates and Charges Amending Bylaw 5289-2012-1922(18) – a bylaw to increase sewer user rates by 2% in 2012


(g) Water Rates Amending Bylaw 5290-2012-2197(20) – a bylaw to increase water consumption rates by 2% in 2012


CARRIED

150


15. MINUTES

RC12/267 APR. 16/12

Moved by Councillor Hensman, seconded by Councillor Stevens, and

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the following meetings of Council be adopted. (a) Special Council meeting (for the purpose of going into a Closed meeting) –

March 26, 2012;

(b) Special Council meeting (for the purpose of going into a Closed meeting) – March 31, 2012; and

(c) Regular Council meeting (for the purpose of going into a Closed meeting) – April 2, 2012.

CARRIED

16. OTHER BUSINESS

There was no other business.

17. CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER'S REPORT

The Chief Administrative Officer congratulated Ken Bjorgaard on his appointment as the new Chief Administrative Officer, effective June 4, 2012.


The Mayor did not report.

19. COUNCILLOR’S REPORTS ON COMMITTEES, BOARDS AND ACTIVITIES

Councillors Jewell and Stevens reported on various activities, meetings and events attended since the last regular Council meeting.

20. QUESTION PERIOD


21. ADJOURNMENT

Moved by Councillor Hensman, seconded by Councillor Stevens, and RESOLVED: That the meeting be adjourned. CARRIED The meeting was adjourned at 10:11 p.m. WALTER (TED) ADLEM, MAYOR PAUL GIPPS, DEPUTY CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER G:\clerk\minutes\rc20120416.doc

151

MINUTES of the REGULAR MEETING of the COUNCIL of the DISTRICT OF MISSION held in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Hall, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, British Columbia, on May 7, 2012 commencing at 6:30 p.m. Council Members Present: Mayor Ted Adlem Councillor Dave Hensman Councillor Jeff Jewell Councillor Tony Luck Councillor Larry Nundal Councillor Nelson Tilbury Council Members Absent: Councillor Jenny Stevens Staff Members Present: Glen Robertson, Chief Administrative Officer Paul Gipps, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer Kelly Ridley, Deputy Director of Corporate Administration Tina Mooney, Administrative Clerk

1. CALL TO ORDER

RC12/268 MAY 7/12

Mayor Adlem called the meeting to order.

2. RESOLUTION TO ADD PUBLIC HEARING

RC12/269 MAY 7/12

Moved by Councillor Hensman seconded by Councillor Nundal, and RESOLVED: That a public hearing section be added to the agenda:

6. PUBLIC HEARING

CARRIED

3. ADOPTION OF AGENDA AS AMENDED

RC12/270 MAY 7/12

Moved by Councillor Luck, seconded by Councillor Nundal, and RESOLVED: That the agenda for the regular council meeting of May 7, 2012 be adopted, as amended.

CARRIED

4. PROCLAMATIONS

RC12/271 MAY.7/12

Mission Senior’s Advisory Committee June 2 through 9, 2012 as “Seniors Week” Moved by Councillor Tilbury, seconded by Councillor Luck, and RESOLVED: That June 2 through 9, 2012 be proclaimed as “Seniors Week” within the District of Mission; the District to assume no costs related thereto. CARRIED

152

Regular Council Meeting Page 2 of 20 May 7, 2012

RC12/272 MAY 7/12

Clinton Shane Ekdahl May 29, 2012 as “Day of the Honey Bee” Moved by Councillor Hensman, seconded by Councillor Jewel, and RESOLVED: That May 29, 2012 be proclaimed as “Day of the Honey Bee” within the District of Mission; the District to assume no costs related thereto. CARRIED

RC12/273 MAY 7/12

Child Find British Columbia May National Missing Children’s Month and May 25, 2012 as Missing Children’s Day Moved by Councillor Hensman, seconded by Councillor Nundal, and RESOLVED: That May 2012 be proclaimed as “National Mission Children’s Month” and May 25, 2012 be proclaimed as “Missing Children’s Day” within the District of Mission; the District to assume no costs related thereto. CARRIED

RC12/274 MAY 7/12

Canadian Tire Jumpstart Mission Chapter, BC May 26, 2012 as “Canadian Tire Jumpstart Day Moved by Councillor Nundal, seconded by Councillor Tilbury, and RESOLVED: That May 26, 2012 be proclaimed as “Canadian Tire Jumpstart Day” within the District of Mission; the District to assume no costs related thereto. CARRIED


RC12/275 MAY 7/12

Mission Chamber of Commerce Recognition of Volunteers that completed Building Community Leadership Program Michelle Favero, Manager of the Mission Chamber of Commerce appeared before Council to recognize the individuals that attended all the workshop series on Building Community Leadership, developed their leadership education and are furthering that with community organizations. Heather Kardal presented a letter to the Mayor that discussed the various ideas her group had as a vision for Mission and thanked the Chamber of Commerce for organizing these workshops. Mayor and Council presented certificates of recognition to the following individuals for their participation at the Mission Chamber of Commerce Building Community Leadership Program:

1. Brenda Benedict 2. Cindy Miller 3. Cindy Waters 4. Elizabeth Thomas

153


5. Jeanne Price 6. Keith Kine 7. Kerm Gill 8. Lisa Sullivan 9. Pam Alexis 10. Roger Dowker 11. Sonia Sharma-Dharari 12. Tony Schmidbauer 13. Riley Weymann

Mayor Adlem thanked the individuals and stated that many organizations in the community are looking for skilled volunteers that could benefit from the training they have acquired.

RC12/276 MAY 7/12

Ryan Anderson, OTG Development Concept Re: Development of 33105 Thomas Avenue Mr. Anderson cancelled his delegation.

RC12/277 MAY 7/12

Senior’s Advisory Committee (Danny Plecas) Re: Senior’s Week events Danny Plecas appeared before Council to provide information on the upcoming Senior’s Week events that will take place June 2 – 9, 2012. There are more Seniors living in our community and they are enjoying a more active lifestyle. Many of these seniors have lived the community for a long time and take pride in their involvement in the community. He reported that a number of activities would be taking place celebrating Seniors’ Week. He asked Council for $500.00 to offset the cost for hanging the banner on Murray Street, the theater rental and print material. Mayor Adlem thanked Mr. Plecas for his presentation. Moved by Councillor Luck, seconded by Councillor Hensman, and

RESOLVED: That the District of Mission fund $500.00 to the Mission Senior’s Advisory Committee from the Council Contingency Fund for Mission Senior’s Week. CARRIED

6. PUBLIC HEARING

The Mayor introduced the Public Hearing and outlined the procedures to be followed.

154


RC12/278 MAY 7/12

i. OCP Amending Bylaw 5278-2012-4052(21) (R11-024 – 0916585 BC Ltd/Redekop) – a bylaw to redesignate the

property at 8711 Cedar Street

ii. Zoning Amending Bylaw 5273-2012-5050(69) (R11-024 – 0916585 BC Ltd/Redekop) – a bylaw to add a Comprehensive Development Zone and to rezone the property at 8711 Cedar Street

iii. Development Permit Application DP11-019

iv. Development Variance Permit Application DV11-013 Erik Wilhelm, Planner, provided information regarding District of Mission Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw 5278-2012-4052(71), which proposes to amend District of Mission Official Community Plan Bylaw 4052-2008 for the following legally described property:

Parcel Identifier: 011-897-023 Lot 4 Except: Parcel “A” (Explanatory Plan 7988); Section 29 Township 17 New Westminster District Plan 665

from Apartments, Townhouse, and Environmental Sensitive Area to Environmental Sensitive Area on that portion of the property labelled as “Area A”; Urban Residential-Compact on that portion of the property labelled as “Area B”; and Townhouse on that portion of the property labelled as “Area C”.

The location of the subject property is 8711 Cedar Street and is shown on the following maps:

The Planner further stated that the purpose of the proposed amendment is to facilitate development of the property into twenty-one (21) urban compact lots with coach houses and thirty-eight (38) unit townhouse complex.

The Planner also provided information regarding rezoning application (R11-024 0916585 BC Ltd./Redekop) which proposes to amend District of Mission zoning Bylaw 5050-2009 from Suburban 36 (S36) zone to Institutional Parks, Recreation & Civic (IPRC) zone – Area 1 and Comprehensive Development 27 (CD27) zone – Area 2; and

155


Residential Compact 465 Secondary Dwelling (RC465s) zone – Area 3 as shown on the following map:

The purpose of the proposed amendment is to create a CD zone to accommodate the subsequent subdivision of the subject property into twenty-one (21) urban residential- compact single family lots, each lot with a coach house and one (1) lot for a 38-unit townhouse site.

Issues identified at March 26th Public Hearing with previous development proposal

• Parking; • Traffic generation/problems; • Roadway and laneway widths; • Possible Secondary Suites within the basements of homes; • Overall Density; • Parkland Provision and Location; and • Neighbourhood Disruptions (Construction)

Revised Proposal – Improvements/Facts

Parking:

• Each coach house property will provide for three (3) parking stalls which is in accordance with the zoning bylaw;

• Given that Machell Street will have no driveways, there will be a significant increase in available street parking stalls on Machell Street.

Traffic generation/problems:

• The proposed new half road will significantly reduce the use of Machell Street;

• The applicant has provided a traffic generation report which outlines an additional 63 vehicular trips could be expected (p.m. peak traffic). (52 trips in a.m. peak hour)

Roadway and laneway widths:

156


• Machell Street will maintain all bylaw requirements for width (8.5 metres – 29 feet) Same as Machell Street to the north;

• All laneways will maintain a 6 metre (19.6 feet) paved width which ensures fire/rescue vehicle access;

• New half road will provide paved width in accordance with the Subdivision Control Bylaw.

Possible Secondary Suites within the basement's of homes:

• Each of the Coach House properties will have a restrictive covenant registered on title which prohibits a secondary suite;

• Basements of each single family home will not be provided exterior access (which will be ensured through the development permit process).

Overall Density:

• The density has remained the same—It should be noted that the original OCP envisioned a density of 67 through to a maximum of 174 units for the development site. The development maintains the character of a traditional single family neighbourhood along Machell Street and buffers the townhouse portion from the existing neighbourhood.

Parkland Provision and Location:

• The Parks, Trails and Master Plan outlines that ‘pocket parks’ should be minimized and that parkland resources for acquisition and maintenance should be put towards larger neighbourhood parks;

• The walkway on the northern portion of the proposal will provide improved pedestrian access westward to Appleby Court and onto Tunbridge Park. (Less than 500 metres)

Neighbourhood Disruptions (Construction):

• The developers site preparation and construction crew will utilize a vacant lot at the south-east corner of Rosetta Avenue and Cedar Street for a turnaround (The vehicles would turnaround on the vacant lot and access the site from the new half road).

The planner stated that the proposed Development Permit Application DP11-019 is to ensure the form and character of the development.

The planner further stated that the proposed Development Permit Application DV11-013 is to vary Subdivision Control Bylaw 1500-1995 by:

a) Reducing the laneway dedication within the development from 9 metres (29.5 feet) to 6 metres (19.6 feet); and

b) Reducing the road dedication on “Burton Place” within the development from 18 metres (59 feet) to 16 metres (52.5 feet).

The senior planner further stated that prior to adoption of the OCP Amending Bylaw and Zoning Amending Bylaw the following requirements would need to be met:

• Receipt of comments from Referrals regarding the proposed OCP amendment; • Receipt of the Community Amenity contribution in the amount of $163,270.00; • Approval of the compensation package (with acceptance of assurances) from the

developer to address all Environmentally Sensitive Areas removed as part of

157


development. • Staff report which outlines all aspects of the development permit (i.e. final landscape

drawings and building elevations); • A letter of credit to ensure the installation and maintenance of all aspects of the

Landscape Plan which form part of Development Permit DP11-019; • Approval of Development Permit DP11-019 which will be considered as part of the

same Council agenda as the Official Community Plan and Zone Amending Bylaws; • Approval of Development Variance Permit DV11-013 which will be considered as

part of the same Council agenda as the Official Community Plan and Zone Amending Bylaws;

• Any other items that Council may require resulting from the Public Hearing or Council consideration of the application

The Deputy Chief Administrative Officer stated that the following written submissions have been received regarding this application: 1. Petition against the Proposal with 22 names expressing concern with the

increased volume of traffic and the homes should blend with the surrounding developments.

2. Letter from Diane Kruger dated February 21, 2012 expressing concern with the proposal. She expressed concern with increased volume of traffic, larger traffic using the roadways and emergency vehicle access.

3. Email from Ben Kruger dated February 12, 2012 in opposition and expressed concern with the increase in traffic, emergency vehicle access and not to approve coach houses in this area.

4. Anonymous letter received on February 21, 2012 expressing numerous concerns with the proposal;

5. Email from Cory Cassel dated May 7, 2012 in support of the application.

6. Letters from Dianne McCulloch dated April 17 and 23, 2012 noting that townhomes or apartments should not front Cedar Street, no basement suites or coach homes should be permitted and encouraged more than 2 trees per lot.

Myron & Lillian Tokarek have lived in the area for 40 years and support the application. Jamie Prevolsek asked if the proposed roadway off Cedar Street will be temporary or permanent. The Planner responded that it will be a permanent road and with development to the south lot it will become a full road which will connect to Egglestone Avenue in the future. The Deputy Chief Administrative Office responded that the roadway will be a right-in and right-out off Cedar Street as there is a median on Cedar Street. Mr. Kruger discussed the comments made by council at the previous Public Hearing on March 26, 2012. He made the following comments:

• Install a left turn entry below the median;

158


• Do not approve basements; and • Put in a large sandbox in that area similar to Heritage Park.

Hearing no further questions or comments the Mayor declared the public hearing on Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw 5278-2012-4052(21), Zoning Amending Bylaw 5273-2012-5050(69), Development Variance Permit Application DP11-019 and Development Variance Permit Application DV11-013 closed.


RC12/279 MAY 7/12

Moved by Councillor Luck, seconded by Councillor Hensman, and


(a) Mission Institution Report – February 2012

(b) Mission Institution Report – March 2012

(c) Inspection Services Department Report – 1st Quarter 2012

(d) Minutes of the Abbotsford/Mission Water & Sewer Commission Meeting held on March 8, 2012

(e) Minutes of the Mission Heritage Commission Meeting held on March 7,

2012 CARRIED


RC12/280 MAY 7/12

Moved by Councillor Hensman, seconded by Councillor Luck, and


9. PLANNING


RC12/281 MAY 7/12

Add “Holman” to Street Naming Bylaw and rename “Chomat Place” to “Holman Place” – 7768 Taulbut Avenue (Subdivision Application S11-014) Moved by Councillor Nundal, and

RECOMMENDED:

1. That Street Naming Policy STR.28 be amended by inserting the surname “Holman” to Table 1 and inserting the biography of Lawson Laurie Holman (see Appendix 4) into Appendix 1 of the Street Naming Policy STR.28;

2. That 3rd reading of Street Naming Bylaw No. 5239-2011 be rescinded, amended, and then re-read as follows:

Replace the street name “Chomat Place” with “Holman Place”.

159


3. That, in recognition of Marie Louise Chomat’s contribution to the community, “Chomat” be given priority consideration when a future street is named.

CARRIED RC12/282 MAY 7/12

Rezoning Application R12-012 (OTG Development Concepts) – 34468 Kirkpatrick Street Moved by Councillor Nundal, and

RECOMMENDED:

1. That a bylaw be prepared to amend District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009 by rezoning the property located at 34468 Kirkpatrick Avenue from Rural 16 (RU16) zone to Rural Residential 7 (RR7) zone;

2. That the bylaw be considered for 1st and 2nd readings at the Regular Council meeting on May 7, 2012;

3. That following such a reading, the bylaw is forwarded to a Public Hearing on May 28, 2012.

4. That Development Variance Permit Application DV12-007 to vary Subdivision Control Bylaw 1500-1985 Section 21. Works on Adjacent Highways:

a. As a condition of subdivision approval, the owner of any lands being subdivided shall be required to provide on a highway adjacent to the land being subdivided: vehicular and pedestrian access systems

by waiving the requirement of constructing a road on the unconstructed portion of Kirkpatrick Avenue to the east of the paved terminus, is forwarded to public input on May 28, 2012.


Rezoning Application R11-032 (Deol) – 8398 and 8390 Cade Barr Street Moved by Councillor Nundal, and

RECOMMENDED:

1. That a bylaw be prepared to amend District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009 by rezoning a 491 m2 portion of the property located at 8390 and 8389 Cade Barr Street from Residential Two Unit Zone (RT465) to Residential Compact 372 Zone (RC372), labelled as Lot B on Appendix “8”;

2. That the bylaw(s) be considered for 1st and 2nd readings at the Regular Council meeting on May 7, 2012;

3. That following such a reading, the bylaw be forwarded to a Public Hearing on May 28, 2012;


Rezoning Application R12-005 (Gill) – 32663 Tunbridge Avenue


RECOMMENDED:

1. That a bylaw be prepared to amend District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009 by:

160


a. Rezoning the property located at 32663 Tunbridge Avenue from Suburban 36 (S36) zone to Urban Residential 465 Secondary Dwelling type I and II zone (R465s);

2. That the bylaws be considered for 1st and 2nd readings at the Regular Council meeting on May 7, 2012.

3. That following such readings, the bylaw be forwarded to a Public Hearing on May 28, 2012;

4. That Development Variance Permit Application DV12-005 to vary the following:

a. Section 502 D. Setbacks (1): Setback to the rear lot line for the existing dwelling on proposed Lot 6 from 7.5 metres (24.6 ft.) to 6.19 metres (20.3 feet).

b. Section 522 C. Lot Area (1): Lot width at the midpoint on proposed Lot 7 from 16 metres (52 feet) to 15.01 metres (49 feet),

of District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009 be forwarded to public input on May 28, 2012;

5. That the Corporate Officer prepare a bylaw to name one new road over a portion of Lot 20 Section 32 Township 17 New Westminster District Plan 61463 as follows:

Road running north from Tunbridge Avenue as Wooler Street;

6. That in accordance with Section 941 of the Local Government Act, five per cent parkland be applied as cash-in-lieu to subdivision file S12-002.


Renewal of Temporary Industrial Permit Application TUP10-001 (DOM/Mission Restorative Resolutions) – 32921 Dewdney Trunk Road Moved by Councillor Nundal, and

RECOMMENDED: That Temporary Commercial Use Permit (TUP10-001) be renewed for a period of two (2) years as follows:

DISTRICT OF MISSION TEMPORARY USE PERMIT TP10-001

Issued to: District of Mission

(Owners as defined in the Local Government Act, hereinafter referred to as the Permittee)

Address: 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, B.C. V2V 4L9 1. This Temporary Use Permit is issued subject to compliance with all of the Bylaws of

the Municipality applicable thereto, except as specifically varied or supplemented by this permit.

Appendix 2

161


2. This Temporary Use Permit applies to and only to those lands within the Municipality legally described below, and any and all buildings, structures and development thereon:

1. Parcel Identifier: 005-824-873 Lot 1 Section 33 Township 17 New Westminster District Plan 59845

3. The said lands are presently zoned S36 - Suburban 36 zone pursuant to “District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009” as amended.

4. The use permitted by this permit is an office use to be exclusively occupied by Mission Restorative Resolutions within an existing single family dwelling.

5. The use shall be permitted to be conducted on the said lands for a maximum of two (2) years from the date of issuance of the Temporary Use Permit and the use of the property for that purpose is subject to the following condition:

(a) That the Good Neighbour Agreement previously signed by Mission Restorative Resolutions continues to be recognized.

6. No other development or use on the land is authorized during the permitted term.

7. This permit shall lapse two (2) years after the date of issuance or upon breach of its terms or conditions. This permit is not a building permit.

CARRIED

RC12/286 MAY 7/12

Council Direction for Follow-ups


RECOMMENDED: That staff be directed to take no further action in regarding to items A (Parking Permit System) and B (Garden Cottage Policy) and that staff proceed with the Delegation of Authority Bylaw under item C. CARRIED

RC12/287 MAY 7/12

Review of Bylaws, Policies and Studies that apply to the Downtown

Moved by Councillor Nundal , and

RECOMMENDED: That this item be discussed at a workshop with Council and the Planning Department.

CARRIED

RC12/288 MAY 7/12

Senior’s Centre Open House and Survey findings as they Related to a Location Moved by Councillor Nundal, and

RECOMMENDED: That Council and Staff undertake a feasibility inspection on the Pleasant View location as part of their due diligence and researching senior’s centre options.

CARRIED

162


RC12/289 MAY 7/12

Zoning Bylaw Drive-thru Provisions (verbal – Councillor Hensman)


RECOMMENDED: That a bylaw be prepared to amend District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009 to repeal the provisions of Section 106C 1(h) which currently prohibits Drive Thru Restaurants in all zones.

CARRIED



RC12/290 MAY 7/12

Food Waste Compost Giveaway Event


RECOMMENDED: That, provided budget exists, the District holds a free compost pick up event to its taxpayers on an annual basis. CARRIED

RC12/291 MAY 7/12

Downtown Business Association Request


RECOMMENDED: That Staff meet with the Mission Downtown Business Association clarifying Snow Plowing STR. 25 Policy and expressing the District’s desire to work closely with the Downtown Business Association on the matter of snow plowing in the downtown area.

CARRIED

RC12/292 MAY. 7/12

Support for Applications to the General Strategic Priorities Fund and Innovations Fund Moved by Councillor Luck, and

RECOMMENDED: That Council resolve to apply for funding under the General Strategic Priorities Fund and Innovations Fund for the following projects:

a) Landfill Gas Collection b) Energy Efficiency Improvements to Municipal Buildings c) Downtown Mission Strategic Revitalization Plan d) District Energy

CARRIED

RC12/293 MAY 7/12

Letter of Intent with Go 2 Zero Waste Inc.


RECOMMENDED:

1. That once $17,500 in grant funding has been secured, the Deputy Chief

163


Administrative Officer sign a letter of intent with Go 2 Zero Waste Inc. committing the District to working with Go 2 Zero Waste Inc. to complete a feasibility study with a cash value of up to $35,000.

2. That up to $17,500 be allocated from the existing Environmental Charter Implementation budget.

3. That staff apply to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities’ Green Municipal Fund and the province’s Infrastructure Planning Grant program for funds to cover 50% of the cash value of the study.

OPPOSED: Councillor Tilbury CARRIED

RC12/294 MAY 7/12

Local Area Plan for Keystone Avenue Aggregate Operations


RECOMMENDED: That Council support staff working with aggregate operation owners in the Keystone Ave corridor to develop a terms of reference for a Local Area Plan that would encourage greater collaboration during aggregate extraction and to guide the long term use of the area once the aggregate supplies are exhausted.

CARRIED


Councillor Luck, assumed the Chair.

RC12/295 MAY 7/12

2012 Tax Rates Bylaw


RECOMMENDED: 1. That the District’s 2012 Tax Rates Bylaw No. 5292-2012 receive first three

readings; and 2. That Council has hereby considered its proposed tax rates for each property

class in conjunction with its objectives and policies regarding the distribution of property taxes among the tax classes, as set out within its 2012-2016 financial plan bylaw [bylaw #5291-2012].

CARRIED

RC12/296 MAY 7/12

2012 – 2016 Financial Plan Bylaw


RECOMMENDED: That the District’s 2012 - 2016 Financial Plan Bylaw #5291-2012 be considered for the first three readings and the May 7, 2012 Council meeting. CARRIED

RC12/297 MAY 7/12



164


RECOMMENDED: 1. That the minutes of the Core Services Review Task Force meeting held on April

19, 2012, be adopted, and 2. That Council re-appoint Mayor Walter (Ted) Adlem to the Core Services Review

Task Force Committee. CARRIED

RC12/298 MAY 7/12

2011 Annual Development Cost Charges Report

The report from the Deputy Director of Finance regarding the 2011 Annual Development Cost Charges Report dated May 7, 2012 was received as information.

RC12/299 MAY 7/12

Investment Holdings Quarterly Report – March 31, 2012

The report from the Deputy Director of Finance regarding the Investment Holdings Quarterly Report – March 31, 2012 was received as information.

RC12/300 MAY 7/12

Guidelines for Public Hearing Presentations


RECOMMENDED: That Council adopts the revised policy for Guidelines for Public Hearing Presentations COU.21 as follows:

Context Public hearings may be required by the Local Government Act to provide an opportunity for those members of the public who may be affected by the bylaws to ask questions and / or provide verbal or written comments on official community plans and zoning bylaws. In order for this process to be conducted in a fair and equitable manner, council may choose to implement reasonable guidelines. Everyone wishing to speak will receive an opportunity to do so. There is no limit on the number of speakers, or on the ability for any one individual to speak, provided that the policy guidelines are adhered to. Guidelines In order that fair and equitable opportunities are provided to those who wish to speak at a public hearing, council adopts the following guidelines. 1. Speakers will be given a speaking time limit for each turn at the beginning of each

Public Hearing.

Speakers who have not completed their presentations within the allotted time will be provided additional opportunities to speak after all those who have not yet been heard.

If a speakers list is in effect (see article 2), a person wishing to speak again must re-register their name at the end of the list, and will be recalled in the order of the list.

2. When it is anticipated that a large number of speakers wish to speak, council may determine that a speakers list will be implemented.

People who wish to speak will place their names on the speakers list provided, and will be called in the order that their names appear on the list.

165


Pre-registration for the speakers list is not permitted. Names will be placed on the list on a “first come, first served” basis.

Yielding a spot on the speakers list to another speaker is not permitted. 3. Speakers should address their comments and questions to the bylaw(s) under

consideration.

While the speaker will be afforded some opportunity to create the context for their comments, the chair may exercise its discretion to determine if the speaker is on topic.

If, after a reasonable warning from the chair, the chair determines that: (a) the speaker is still not on topic, or

(b) is being repetitive

the chair may require the speaker to address the bylaw under consideration raising new points, or yield the microphone to the next speaker.

4. If the chair determines that a speaker is filibustering, the chair will require the speaker to yield the microphone to the next speaker.

5. Providing that speakers are making new points that have not previously been made by that speaker, the public hearing will continue until all those who wish to speak to the bylaw have been heard.

6. All decisions of the chair are final.

CARRIED

RC12/301 MAY 7/12

District Training

The report from the Deputy Chief Administrative Officer regarding the District Training dated May 7, 2012 was received as information.

RC12/302 MAY 7/12

Authorization to Release Community Event Grant Funding – Canada Day Moved by Mayor Adlem, and

RECOMMENDED: That Council approve the release of funding in the amount of $16,000 to Mission Heritage Association for the Canada Day Festival from account number 20498-340.

CARRIED



RC12/2303 MAY 7/12

Moved by Councillor Jewel, seconded by Councillor Tilbury, and


166



RC12/304 MAY 7/12


RESOLVED: That the recommendations of the Committee of the Whole, as contained in items RC12/268 to RC12/303, be adopted. CARRIED

14. BYLAWS

RC12/305 MAY 7/12


RESOLVED: That the readings of all bylaws included in the Bylaws section of the May 7, 2012 regular Council agenda be approved as follows

(c) Street Naming (Deerfield Street Extension/Chomat Place) Bylaw 5239-2011 – a bylaw to name a portion of new road and extension of road

Rescind Third Reading

(d) Street Naming (Deerfield Street Extension/Holman Place) Bylaw 5239-2011 – a bylaw to name a portion of new road and extension of road

Third Reading as Amended

(e) Annual Tax Rates Bylaw 5292-2012 – a bylaw to establish the tax rates for 2012


(f) 2011 – 2015 Financial Plan Bylaw 5291-2012 – a bylaw to establish the Financial Plan for the years 2011 to 2015


(g) Zoning Amending Bylaw 5293-2012-5050(77) (R12-012 – OTG Developments Concepts) – a bylaw to rezone property at 34468 Kirkpatrick Avenue from Rural 16 Zone (RU16) to Rural Residential 7 Zone (RR7)

First and Second Reading

(h) Zoning Amending Bylaw 5294-2012-5050(78) (R11-032 – Deol) – a bylaw to rezone property at 8398 and 8390 Cade Barr Street from Residential Two Unit Zone (RT465) to Residential Two Unit Zone (RT465) and Residential Compact 372 Zone (RC372)

First and Second Reading

(i) Zoning Amending Bylaw 5295-2012-5050(79) (R12-005 – Gill) – a bylaw to rezone property at 32663 Tunbridge Avenue from Suburban 36 Zone (S36) to Urban Residential 465 Secondary Dwelling type I and II Zone (R465s)


(j) Street Naming (Wooler Street) Bylaw 5297-2012 – a bylaw to name a new road


167


(k) Ticket Information Amending Bylaw 5262-2012-2646(24) – a bylaw to include a fine for parking within 1.5m of an intersecting lane


CARRIED RC12/306 MAY 7/12 Moved by Councillor Nundal, seconded by Councillor Hensman, and

RESOLVED:

1. That OCP Amending Bylaw 5278-2012-4052(21) (R11-024 – 0916585 BC Ltd./Redkop) be read a Second and Third Time;

2. That Zoning Amending Bylaw 5273-2012-5050(69) (R11-024 – 0916585 BC Ltd./Redkop) be read a Second and Third Time; and

2. That staff bring the matter of OCP Amending Bylaw 5278-2012-4052(21) and Zoning Amending Bylaw 5273-2012-5050(69) back before Council once the following conditions are met:

(a) Receipt of comments from Referrals regarding the proposed OCP amendment;

(b) Receipt of the Community Amenity contribution in the amount of $163,270.00;

(c) Approval of the compensation package (with acceptance of assurances) from the developer to address all Environmentally Sensitive Areas removed as part of development.

(d) Staff report which outlines all aspects of the development permit (i.e. final landscape drawings and building elevations);

(e) A letter of credit to ensure the installation and maintenance of all aspects of the Landscape Plan which form part of Development Permit DP11-019;

(f) Approval of Development Permit DP11-019 which will be considered as part of the same Council agenda as the Official Community Plan and Zone Amending Bylaws;

(g) Approval of Development Variance Permit DV11-013 which will be considered as part of the same Council agenda as the Official Community Plan and Zone Amending Bylaws; and

(h) Any other items that Council may require resulting from the Public Hearing or Council consideration of the application.

CARRIED

15. MINUTES

RC12/307 MAY 7/12

Moved by Councillor Hensman, seconded by Councillor Nundal, and

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the following meetings of Council be adopted: (a) Regular Council Meeting – March 19, 20120 (b) Regular Council Meeting – March 26, 2012

168


(c) Regular Council Meeting – April 2, 2012 (d) Special Council Meeting (for the purpose of going into a Closed

meeting) – April 10, 2012 (e) Regular Council Meeting (for the purpose of going into a Closed

meeting) – April 16, 2012 CARRIED

16. OTHER BUSINESS



The Chief Administrative Officer noted that Council will be touring other communities to view their waterfront areas and the information gathered from these tours will come back from Council.


The Mayor noted that on June 5, 2012 there will be a Community Dialogue Meeting which will be similar to a Town hall meeting and Council will hold three per year. The mayor report on various activities including the Ukraine Festival, Youth Festival and reported on a recent fire on Jacobson.

RC12/308 MAY 7/12 Moved by Councillor Hensman, seconded by Councillor Jewell, and

RESOLVED: That staff report on the cost associated with grow-op fires and if costs can be billed to the owners of the property.

CARRIED


Councillors Jewell, Tilbury reported on various activities, meetings and events attended since the last regular Council meeting. The Director of Parks, Recreation and Culture noted that the Rick Hansen Bike Relay will be in Mission on May 16, 2012.

20. QUESTION PERIOD

Bob Ingram, President of Mission Seniors Centre Association. He discussed the report that was listed as item 9(h) in the Agenda. He asked the following: 1. Why were the other recommendations not even mentioned this evening? 2. When will the recommendations listed in the report be considered by Council?

The Director of Planning responded that the recommendations were put forward to

169


Council as options and it is Council’s decision when to move forward for consideration.

Bob Ingram noted that the Mission Seniors Centre Association wanted to move forward to address two processes within the association which are (a) the current status of the centre on a temporary basis and (b) establish a permanent centre in the District of Mission.

The Chief Administrative Officer responded to questions from Council that the PLAY station costs approximately $29,000.00 per year to operate. Councillor Hensman noted that the revenue loss including the other groups that contribute to the revenue should be investigated before considering transferring the PLAY Station to the Seniors. It was the Council commitment not to do anything until the Core Services review was complete on this issue. The Mayor noted that staff are reviewing options and a report coming forward to Council within 6 weeks would be reasonable.

Mr. Ingram asked:

1. If Council would consider appointing a Seniors Centre Association working group so that a site and planning of a Seniors Centre could begin?

2. What is the time frame to get a Senior’s working group established?

3. He would like to see council appoint the committee.

Councillor Hensman noted that a Mission Seniors Association working group and parameters be established that include two representatives from various legitimate seniors societies in the community that could be included in the task force. Mr. Igram noted that the Mission Seniors Centre Association’s mandate is to work with the District of Mission to establish and operate a permanent Seniors Association and would like to see a task force formed to include various organizations. Mayor Adlem noted a Mission Seniors Centre Association could be formed with 6 weeks.

RC12/309 MAY 7/12 Moved by Councillor Hensman, seconded by Councillor Luck, and

RESOLVED: That Staff bring a report with parameters for Senior representation from legitimate Senior’s groups registered in our community to help facilitate the pre-planning of the Senior’s Centre.

CARRIED

The Director of Planning noted that the report suggested that a Terms of Reference be brought forward to Council outlining the tasks of the group to ensure what is expected from Council is set out.

Mr. Ingram thanked council for their support. Jim Allard noted that he would like to volunteer as a member of the Local Area Plan that would work with aggregate operations owners in the Keystone Avenue corridor. He was previously a member of the Shaw Pit Advisory Committee. He noted that in the report

170


dated April 27, 2012 from the Acting Director of Engineering and Public Works notes in item (f): “Aggregate extraction from the Municipal Forest properties to the south of Shaw Pit is to be explored”. He asked if this item could be moved up on council’s priority. Would Council consider putting out an RFP for the tree farm? He also noted that the Shaw Advisory Committee discussed a residential development being constructed following the extraction of the gravel. Mr. Allard invited council to tour his other gravel pits in Coquitlam and Maple Ridge to get the vision of the land use following the extraction. Mayor stated that Mr. Allard will be invited to join the committee. He noted that Council has not discussed the Tree Farm which prevents both the Shaw and Mr. Allard’s Pit from extracting the full potential of gravel but they will consider this in the future. Mr. Allard noted that the District of Mission has not received any monies from the Shaw Pit as they have not had their permit approved. The proposal for the Shaw Pit does not deal with the common boundaries and this is one of the issues that need to be resolved and once the mine permit is approved the District of Mission would start receiving revenue.

21. ADJOURNMENT

Moved by Councillor Luck, seconded by Councillor Jewell, and RESOLVED: That the meeting be adjourned. CARRIED The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. WALTER (TED) ADLEM, MAYOR PAUL GIPPS, DEPUTY CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

171

Minutes of the REGULAR MEETING of the DISTRICT OF MISSION COUNCIL (for the purpose of going into a closed meeting) held in the Conference Room of the Municipal Hall, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, British Columbia, on Tuesday, May 22, 2012 commencing at 2:00 p.m. Council Members Present: Mayor Ted Adlem Councillor Dave Hensman Councillor Jeff Jewell Councillor Tony Luck Councillor Larry Nundal Councillor Jenny Stevens Councillor Nelson Tilbury Council Members Absent: Staff Members Present: Glen Robertson, Chief Administrative Officer Paul Gipps, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer Kelly Ridley, Deputy Director of Corporate Administration

Tracey Takahashi, Administrative Clerk

1. CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order.

2. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE PUBLIC

RC(C)12/029 MAY22/12

Moved by Councillor Jewell, seconded by Councillor Tilbury, and RESOLVED: That, pursuant to Sections 90 and 92 of the Community Charter, this Regular Meeting of Council be closed to the public as the subject matter being considered relates to the following:

• Section 90(1)(b) of the Community Charter – 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;

• Section 90(1)(c) of the Community Charter – labour relations or other employee relations;

• Section 90(1)(f) of the Community Charter – law enforcement, if the council considers that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the conduct of an investigation under or enforcement of an enactment;

• Section 90(1)(i) of the Community Charter – the receipt of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose; and

• Section 90(1)(k) of the Community Charter – 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.

CARRIED

172

Regular Council Meeting May 22, 2012 Page 2 of 2

3. RECESS TO CLOSED COUNCIL MEETING

RC(C)12/030 MAY22/12

Moved by Councillor Jewell, seconded by Councillor Tilbury, and

RESOLVED: That the Regular Council meeting be recessed.

CARRIED

The meeting recessed at 2:05 p.m.

4. RECONVENE TO REGULAR MEETING OF COUNCIL

RC(C)12/031 MAY22/12

Moved by Councillor Jewell, seconded by Councillor Luck, and

RESOLVED: That the meeting be reconvened.

CARRIED

The meeting reconvened at 3:23 p.m.

5. ADJOURNMENT

RC(C)12/032 MAY22/12

Moved by Councillor Hensman, seconded by Councillor Luck, and RESOLVED: That the meeting be adjourned. CARRIED

The meeting was adjourned at 3:24 p.m.

_________________________ _____________________________________ WALTER (TED) ADLEM PAUL GIPPS MAYOR DEPUTY CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

173

MINUTES of the REGULAR MEETING of the COUNCIL of the DISTRICT OF MISSION held in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Hall, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, British Columbia, on May 22, 2012 commencing at 6:30 p.m. Council Members Present: Mayor Ted Adlem Councillor Dave Hensman Councillor Jeff Jewell Councillor Tony Luck Councillor Jenny Stevens Councillor Nelson Tilbury Council Members Absent: Councillor Larry Nundal Staff Members Present: Glen Robertson, Chief Administrative Officer Paul Gipps, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer Kelly Ridley, Deputy Director of Corporate Administration Jennifer Russell, Legislative Assistant

1. CALL TO ORDER

Mayor Adlem called the meeting to order.

2. RESOLUTION TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL DELEGATION

RC12/310 MAY 22/12

Moved by Councillor Luck, seconded by Councillor Hensman, and RESOLVED: That Janet Chalmers be permitted to appear as an additional delegation at the regular Council meeting of May 22, 2012.

CARRIED

RC12/311 MAY 22/12


RESOLVED: That the Mayor be permitted to add one item of business as Item 7(e) to the agenda for the regular Council meeting of May 22, 2012.

CARRIED


RC12/312 MAY 22/12

Moved by Councillor Luck, seconded by Councillor Hensman, and RESOLVED: That the agenda for the regular Council meeting of May 22, 2012 be adopted, as amended.

CARRIED

174



RC12/313 MAY 22/12

Shelley Clarkson, Mission Heritage Association Re: Fraser River Heritage Park Clayburn Legacy Building Brian Antonson, President of the Mission 2014 Winter Games Board of Directors, appeared before Council to present a proposal for the Clayburn Legacy Maintenance Building in Fraser River Heritage Park. Mr. Antonson stated:

• There are a couple of problems with the park: ugly containers that house most of the maintenance equipment and no restrooms at the east end.

• The Mission Heritage Association (MHA) is proposing construction of a permanent multi-purpose building as the solution.

• The Clayburn Legacy Maintenance Building would be two stories, 6000 square feet, and located where the containers currently sit.

• The lower floor would consist of 600 square feet of public washrooms and 2400 square feet for maintenance and equipment.

• The upper floor would be used as public meeting and educational space (revenue generating), with a greenhouse attached at the west end.

• In addition to providing amenity and aesthetic upgrades to the park, the building would also provide horticultural space for plant propagation, much-needed indoor meeting space, and valuable infrastructure for the 2014 BC Winter Games and other future events.

• The total estimated contracted cost for the building is $1,070,000, and MHA is asking for $250,000 from the District (25%) for the public washroom portion of the building.

• The MHA can deliver the Clayburn Legacy Maintenance Building for 60% of the estimated contracted cost through educational, industry and commercial partnerships.

• The MHA is asking Council for approval in principle of the concept, a donation of 300 m3 of logs from the Mission Tree Farm, and consideration of budget allocations from existing District budget lines.

Mayor Adlem thanked Mr. Antonson for the presentation. Moved by Councillor Stevens, Seconded by Councillor Hensman, and RESOLVED: That the Mission Heritage Association concept for the Clayburn Legacy Maintenance Building in Fraser River Heritage Park be approved in principle.

CARRIED

175


RC12/314 MAY 22/12

Vicki Gould, Owner/Operator, Canadian Tire Mission and Stuart Craig, Vice President of Planning, RioCan Management Inc. Re: Proposal for Freestanding Pylon Display at the Junction Mall Vicki Gould, the owner/operator of Canadian Tire Mission, and Stuart Craig, Vice President of Planning, RioCan Management Inc., appeared before Council to ask permission to install a large freestanding pylon sign at the Junction Mall. Ms. Gould stated:

• Canadian Tire owns the property it sits on, and the rest of the mall is owned by RioCan.

• The two corporations are working together on behalf of the Junction merchants to erect a large pylon sign similar to the one at the Langley Centre.

• When the Junction Mall was built, the municipal bylaws did not allow for this type of sign, and at the time the mall was a very visible landmark in a limited commercial area.

• Since that time, Mission has seen quite an increase in its commercial areas, and the Junction is now considered “off the beaten track” of the downtown area and the new commercial areas along the Lougheed corridor.

Mr. Craig stated:

• The Junction Mall merchants are very concerned about the lack of visibility to this mall, and RioCan has recognized for a while that improved signage would help.

• The mall is still not completed yet near Staples and the theatre, and other tenants RioCan is trying to entice to come in have said there is not adequate signage for them to come.

• Improved signage would help existing tenants, and allow for expansion of the mall, which would help bring in more tax revenue for the District.

The Mayor thanked Ms. Gould and Mr. Craig for the information. He further stated that the request does not require Council approval, and that it would be taken care of at the staff level. The Deputy Director of Planning stated that staff will proceed with the necessary steps and keep Council informed of the progress.

RC12/315 MAY 22/12

Janet Chalmers, President, Mission Downtown Area Residents’ Association Re: MissionFest – August 11, 2012 Janet Chalmers, President of the Mission Downtown Area Residents’ Association, (MDARA) appeared before Council to ask for support of this year’s MissionFest planned for August 11, 2012. Ms. Chalmers stated:

• The MDARA consists of community members from 7th Avenue to the waterfront, and from Heritage Park to the hospital.

176


• Last August 11 approximately 5,000 people attended MissionFest to enjoy all kinds of family-friendly activities.

• Many of the downtown merchants said it was the most prosperous day of the year for them.

• MissionFest is made possible through partnerships, sponsorships, donations and many energetic volunteers

• The MDARA is anticipating an even larger event this year, which is again scheduled to coincide with the Rockin’ on the River music festival.

• They are asking for in-kind support from the District of Mission in the form of equipment and help setting up and taking down traffic barriers.

• The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure requires a resolution of support from Council as soon as possible in order to close the downtown portion of the Lougheed Highway for the day.

Ms. Chalmers also invited Mayor Adlem to open the event on August 11. The Mayor thanked Ms. Chalmers for the information, and confirmed that Council would be considering the request later on the agenda.


RC12/316 MAY 22/12

Moved by Councillor Hensman, seconded by Councillor Tilbury, and


(a) Mission Institution Report – April 2012;

(b) minutes of the Cultural Resources Commission meeting held on March 8, 2012;

(c) minutes of the Emergency Planning Committee meeting held on April 26, 2012; and

(d) minutes of the Mission Abbotsford Transit Committee meeting held on March 22, 2012.

CARRIED


RC12/317 MAY 22/12



7. PLANNING


177


RC12/318 MAY 22/12

Amend the Official Community Plan to include new policies on Flex Housing and adopt a new Land Use Policy to address design elements for Flex Housing Moved by Mayor Adlem, and

RECOMMENDED:

1. That a bylaw be prepared to amend District of Mission Official Community Plan Bylaw 4052-2008 by deleting policies 2.5.9 and 2.5.11 and replacing them with new policies 2.5.9 and 2.5.11 as follows:

Variety of Housing For Seniors Policy 2.5.9 Promote and encourage a wide variety of housing types and price ranges for seniors housing, including:

• new Single Family dwellings and townhouses with Flex Housing design components

• sponsored housing units in condominium and high rise developments • assisted living facilities • co-housing • small lot Single Family developments

Flex Housing for Seniors Policy 2.5.11 Encourage housing that provides for “aging in place” (e.g. housing that provides a range of services, ‘universal housing’ design) that will allow people to stay in their homes longer and that can be easily modified to address accessibility.

2. That a new Land Use Policy entitled “LAN.58 - VOLUNTARY FLEX HOUSING POLICY”, attached as Appendix 2 to the report from the Planning Department dated April 16, 2012 be adopted;

3. That upon due consideration of Sections 879 and 881 of the Local Government Act, and District of Mission Policy LAN.47, no referrals be undertaken;

4. That an information session be undertaken with the development community, realtors and designers to determine the benefits of marketing dwellings as a Flex House;

5. That in accordance with Section 882 of the Local Government Act, Council has considered District of Mission Official Community Plan amending bylaws in conjunction with the District of Mission’s Financial Plan (includes Capital Expenditure Plan and Operating Expenditure Plan) and Waste Management Plan;

6. That the bylaw be considered for first reading at the regular Council meeting on May 22, 2012; and

7. That following such a reading, the bylaw be forwarded to a Public Hearing on June 25, 2012.

CARRIED

178


RC12/319 MAY 22/12

Rezoning Application R11-032 and Development Permit Application DP11-026 (Deol) – 8398 and 8390 Cade Barr Street Moved Councillor Luck, and

RECOMMENDED: That Tree Retention Replanting Policy LAN.32 be waived for Rezoning Application R11-032, 8398 and 8390 Cade Barr Street.

OPPOSED: Councillor Jewell Councillor Stevens

CARRIED

RC12/320 MAY 22/12

Moved by Councillor Jewell, and

RECOMMENDED:

1. That second reading of Zoning Amending Bylaw 5294-2012-5050(78) be rescinded;

2. That Zoning Amending Bylaw 5294-2012-5050(78) be amended by changing the proposed target zone from Residential Compact 372 (RC372) zone to Residential Compact 465 (RC465) zone;

3. That the Bylaw be read a second time, as amended, at the regular Council meeting on May 22, 2012;

4. That following such a reading, the bylaw be forwarded to a Public Hearing on June 25, 2012; and

5. The Development Variance Permit Application DV12-008 to:

• vary Section 601 C. 1. of District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009 by reducing the minimum required lot width for proposed Lot B from 16 metres (52.4 feet) width to 13.0 metres (43.73 feet) width, as shown on Appendix “A” to the report from the Planning Department dated May 22, 2012,

be forwarded for public input on June 25, 2012.

OPPOSED: Councillor Stevens

CARRIED

RC12/321 MAY 22/12

Rezoning Application R12-016 (District of Mission) – Text Amendment to remove “Pharmacy” and “Medical Clinic” from the Core Commercial Downtown One Zone (CCD1) Moved by Mayor Adlem, and

RECOMMENDED:

1. That the Corporate Officer prepare a bylaw to amend District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009 by:

(a) deleting from Section 901, Part B. Permitted Uses, Paragraph 1., Subparagraph k: Retail, the following use:

i. “Pharmacy”

and

179


(b) deleting from Section 901, Part B. Permitted Uses, Paragraph 1., Subparagraph h: Personal Service, the following use:

i. “Medical Clinic”

2. That the Bylaw be considered for first and second readings at the regular Council meeting on May 22, 2012; and

3. That following such a reading, the Bylaw be forwarded to a Public Hearing on June 25, 2012.

CARRIED

RC12/322 MAY 22/12

Reconsideration of Seniors’ Centre Open House and Survey Findings as they Relate to a Location Pursuant to Section 131 of the Community Charter, the Mayor asked for further discussion of the following resolutions: RC12/288 MAY 7/12

That Council and staff undertake a feasibility inspection on the Pleasant View location as part of their due diligence and researching seniors’ centre options. CARRIED

RC12/309 MAY 7/12

That staff bring a report with parameters for Senior representation from legitimate Seniors’ groups registered in our community to help facilitate the pre-planning of the Seniors’ Centre.

CARRIED

Discussion ensued and it was, Moved by Councillor Luck, and

RECOMMENDED: That no further consideration be given to the use of the St. Andrew’s church property as a potential site for a permanent seniors’ centre.

CARRIED

RC12/323 MAY 22/12


RECOMMENDED:

1. That the Mission Seniors’ Centre Association be given authority to use the Mission Community Activity Centre exclusively as a seniors’ centre for one year on a trial basis;

2. That the one year trial period begin after a 90 day transition period which is effective immediately; and

3. That at the end of the one year trial period, the Mission Seniors’ Centre Association provide a business plan showing sustainable management of the facility as a seniors’ centre in the short term.

CARRIED

180


RC12/324 MAY 22/12

LATE ITEM – Mayor Adlem (Verbal)


RECOMMENDED:

1. That the Building Permit Application made on May 22, 2012 by Nandakumar Sambandam on behalf of Al Davies Radio and TV (1974) Ltd. (the “Building Permit Application”) in relation to property located at 33133 First Avenue, Mission, BC (the “Property”) is in conflict with a Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 5298-2012-5050(81), the preparation of which Council resolved to commence on May 2, 2012, to remove the uses of “pharmacy” and “medical clinic” from the list of permitted uses in the Downtown Core Commercial Zone (CCD 1 Zone). The conflict arises as the Property is located in the CCD 1 Zone and the proposed uses listed in the Building Permit Application of “pharmacy” and “medical clinic” are in conflict with these uses being removed as permitted uses from the CCD 1 Zone.

2. That the Building Permit be withheld for a period of 30 days from the date the Building Permit Application was made.

CARRIED


Councillor Tilbury assumed the Chair.

RC12/325 MAY 22/12

Sports Hall of Fame Policy


RECOMMENDED: That the new Sports Hall of Fame Policy, as shown in the report from the Deputy Director of Parks, Recreation and Culture dated April 19, 2012, be adopted.

CARRIED

9. FORESTRY

Councillor Stevens assumed the Chair.

RC12/326 MAY 22/12

Forest Recreation Funding from Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Moved by Councillor Hensman, and

RECOMMENDED: That the District of Mission sign an agreement with the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations for the District to receive $15,000 funding to conduct various forest recreation maintenance and signage activities in Mission Tree Farm Licence 26.

CARRIED

181


RC12/327 MAY 22/12

Forest Recreation Trail Passport Program

A report from the Director of Forest Management dated May 11, 2012 regarding the new Forest Recreation Trail Passport program was provided for the Committee’s information.



RC12/328 MAY 22/12

Three-stream Curbside Collection at Multi-family Complexes

Moved by Councillor Hensman, and

RECOMMENDED: That staff approach low-density multi-family complexes to offer inclusion in full curbside collection.

CARRIED

RC12/329 MAY 22/12

BC Hydro Request for Signing Letter of Understanding regarding the Ruskin Dam Project Moved by Councillor Stevens, and

RECOMMENDED: That staff be authorized to sign the Letter of Understanding from BC Hydro dated April 30, 2012 regarding the proposed works at the Ruskin Dam.

CARRIED


Councillor Luck assumed the Chair.

RC12/330 MAY 22/12

Moved by Councillor Stevens, and

RECOMMENDED: That consideration of the Mission Downtown Area Residents’ Association request be deferred until after Council consideration of the 2012 Municipal Grants in Aid.

CARRIED

RC12/331 MAY 22/12

2012 Municipal Grants in Aid


RECOMMENDED:

1. That Mission Association for Community Living receive the full $5,000 originally allocated in the Community Event account for “Celebrate Mission” for aid in funding the Illuminaria Festival;

2. That Council consider MissionFest under the Community Events budget and not the Community Enhancement budget;

182


3. That the 120th Anniversary Grant applications be considered by the Municipal Grants Select Committee;

4. That grant applicants be required to provide information regarding any reserved funds they have and the purpose of the funds;

5. That the advertisement for the community grants in aid be advertised for the entire month of January;

6. That the grant application form be modified to supply the information on how the Municipality and its contribution be recognized by the groups;

7. That the applicants be asked in the application process to provide the number of clients/audience members or participants involved in their group or activity, and that individuals who receive payment from more than one budget line in an applicant’s budget be named;

8. That 2012 Community Enhancement Grants be awarded as follows:

Big Brothers Big Sisters of the Fraser Valley $ 500.00

Cinema Politica Fraser Valley 250.00

Communitas Supportive Care Society (Centennial Place)

1,500.00

Fraser Valley Marine Society 1,000.00

Fraser Valley Mushroom Club 300.00

Jox Vox Community Choir Society 500.00

Lifetime Learning Centre Society nil

Mission Alano Club 1,500.00

Mission Artists Association 300.00

Mission Association for Community Living 5,000.00

Mission Association for Seniors Housing 2,000.00

Mission Child & Youth Committee nil

Mission City Boxing Association 1,500.00

Mission City Farmers Market Society 1,100.00

Mission Community Services Society (Anything Possible Program)

nil

Mission Community Services Society (Meals On Wheels)

nil

Mission Community Services Society (Seniors' Connection)

nil

Mission Community Services Society (4 Kids Family Place)

1,500.00

Mission Community Services Society (Tree House)

1,500.00

Mission Community Services Society 1,500.00

183


(Seniors Week) Mission District Historical Society nil

Mission Downtown Business Association (MissionFest)

3,500.00

Mission Folk Music Festival Society 5,000.00

Mission Friends of the Library 1,000.00

Mission Genealogy Club 450.00

Mission Heritage Association (Twilight Concert Series)

6,000.00

Mission Hospice Society 2,000.00

Mission Literacy in Motion 2,000.00

Mission Marlins Swim Club 1,000.00

Mission Minor Lacrosse Club 1,000.00

Mission Seniors’ Centre Association 2,000.00

Opening Nite Theatre Society 4,000.00

Optimist Club of Mission 3,000.00

Senior Animals in Need Today Society 1,500.00

Serenata Singers 500.00

Special Olympics B.C. – Mission 2,000.00

Steelhead Community Association 3,000.00

Valley Singers 500.00

Totals: $ 58,400.00

9. That 2012 funding for Community Events from account number 20498-340 be approved as follows:

Royal Canadian Legion (veteran recognition) $ 5,000.00 Mission Association for Community Living (Illuminaria Celebration) 5,000.00 Soapbox Derby 5,000.00 Fraser Valley Bald Eagle Festival 4,100.00 Mission Community Services (Diwali Festival) 2,000.00 Mission District Historical Society (Heritage Week) 3,000.00 Total: $24,100.00

10. That “MissionFest” be added as an annual Community Event in 2013 with funding of $3,500.00 to be transferred permanently from the Community Enhancement Grant Account 20500-340 to Community Event Account 20498-340.

CARRIED

184


Councillor Tilbury commended the Municipal Grants Select Committee on a job well done.

RC12/332 MAY 22/12

August 11, 2012 – Downtown Community Festival


RECOMMENDED:

1. That Council support the closure of 1st Avenue from Grand Street to Horne Street including parts of James Street and Welton Street for the Downtown Community Festival from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm;

2. That Council approve waiving the $600.00 fee for the use of the community stage on August 11, 2012; subject to the Downtown Business Association obtaining the necessary permits and insurance for the event; and

3. That Council authorize the use of Public Works staff’s time to erect and take down barricades for the event and, if available, the use of garbage cans/recycling cans.

CARRIED

RC12/333 MAY 22/12

License for Use Agreement – Taulbut Street

Moved by Councillor Stevens, and

RECOMMENDED: That the District of Mission renew its Licence for Use agreement for a three year term with L.I.N.C. Society (Long-term Inmates Now in the Community) for the operation of the Mission Organic Community Garden located north of the Leisure Centre complex.

CARRIED

RC12/334 MAY 22/12

PER.44 Computer and Technology Acceptable Use Policy

Moved by Councillor Jewell, and

RECOMMENDED:

1. That PER.44 Internet Use Policy (Council Resolution: IC2003/71 – March 3, 2003) be repealed;

2. That PER.44 Computer and Technology Acceptable Use Policy, attached as Appendix “A” to the report from the Manager of Human Resources and the Manager of Information Services dated May 22, 2012, be approved; and

3. That the effective date of PER.44 Computer Technology Acceptable Use Policy be thirty (30) days after Council adoption.

CARRIED

RC12/335 MAY 22/12


Moved by Councillor Hensman, and

RECOMMENDED: That the minutes of the Core Services Review Task Force meeting held on May 3, 2012 be adopted.

185


CARRIED



RC12/336 MAY 22/12

Moved by Councillor Hensman, seconded by Councillor Stevens, and



RC12/337 MAY 22/12


RESOLVED: That the recommendations of the Committee of the Whole, as contained in items RC12/318 to RC12/335, except items RC12/319 (waive Tree Policy for R11-032) and RC12/320 (R11-032 proceeding without Tree Policy), be adopted. CARRIED

RC12/338 MAY 22/12


RESOLVED: That the recommendation of the Committee of the Whole, as contained in item RC12/319 (waive Tree Policy for R11-032), be adopted. OPPOSED: Councillor Stevens CARRIED

RC12/339 MAY 22/12


RESOLVED: That the recommendation of the Committee of the Whole, as contained in item RC12/320 (R11-032 proceeding without Tree Policy), be adopted. CARRIED

14. BYLAWS

RC12/340 MAY 22/12


RESOLVED: That the readings of all bylaws included in the Bylaws section of the May 22, 2012 regular Council agenda be approved as listed: (a) Street Naming (Deerfield Street Extension/Holman Place)

Bylaw 5239-2011 – a bylaw to name a portion of new road and extension of road

Adoption

(b) Ticket Information Amending Bylaw 5262-2012-2646(24) – a bylaw to add offences and fines consistent with Sewer Bylaw 5033-2008

Adoption

186


(c) OCP Amending Bylaw 5288-2012-4052(23) (R12-013 – District of Mission) – a bylaw to replace policies 2.5.9 and 2.5.11 with new policies “Variety of Housing for Seniors” and “Flex Housing for Seniors”

First Reading

(d) In accordance with Section 882 of the Local Government Act, Council has considered District of Mission Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw 5288-2012-4052(23) in conjunction with the District of Mission's Financial Plan and Waste Management Plan

--

(e) Zoning Amending Bylaw 5294-2012-5050(78) (R11-032 – Deol) – a bylaw to rezone a portion of property at 8398 and 8390 Cade Barr Street from Residential Two Unit Zone (RT465) to Residential Compact 372 Zone (RC372)

Rescind Second Reading

(f) Zoning Amending Bylaw 5294-2012-5050(78) (R11-032 – Deol) – a bylaw to rezone a portion of property at 8398 and 8390 Cade Barr Street from Residential Two Unit Zone (RT465) to Residential Compact 465 Zone (RC465)

Second Reading AS AMENDED

(g) Zoning Amending Bylaw 5298-2012-5050(81) (R12-016 – District of Mission) – a bylaw to remove “Pharmacy” and “Medical Clinic” uses from the Core Commercial Downtown One Zone (CCD1)


CARRIED

15. MINUTES

RC12/341 MAY 22/12


RESOLVED: That the following minutes be adopted:

(a) Special Council Meeting (Zoning in the Downtown Core) – May 2, 2012;

(b) Regular Council Meeting (for the purpose of going into a Closed meeting) – May 7, 2012; and

(c) Special Council Meeting (Financial Plan and Tax Rates Bylaw) – May 9, 2012.

CARRIED

16. OTHER BUSINESS



The Chief Administrative Officer recognized that over the long weekend while many people had time off, the Fire and Rescue Department attended three major structural fires in under 48 hours.

187



The Mayor reported on various activities, meetings and events attended since the last regular Council meeting.


Councillors Jewell, Luck, Stevens and Tilbury reported on various activities, meetings and events attended since the last regular Council meeting.

20. QUESTION PERIOD


21. ADJOURNMENT

Moved by Councillor Hensman, seconded by Councillor Tilbury, and RESOLVED: That the meeting be adjourned. CARRIED The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. WALTER (TED) ADLEM, MAYOR PAUL GIPPS, DEPUTY CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER G:\clerk\minutes\rc20120522.doc

188

MINUTES of the REGULAR MEETING of the COUNCIL of the DISTRICT OF MISSION held in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Hall, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, British Columbia on Monday, May 28, 2012 commencing at 6:30 p.m. Council Members Present: Mayor Ted Adlem Councillor Dave Hensman Councillor Tony Luck Councillor Nelson Tilbury Council Members Absent: Councillor Larry Nundal Councillor Jeff Jewell Councillor Jenny Stevens Staff Members Present: Glen Robertson, Chief Administrative Officer Paul Gipps, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer Kelly Ridley, Deputy Director of Corporate Administration Tina Mooney, Administrative Clerk 1. RESOLUTION TO ADD BYLAWS SECTION

PH12/ MAY 28/12


RESOLVED: That item 5. Bylaws for consideration be added to the agenda for the May 28, 2012 regular meeting of Council:

CARRIED


RC12/ MAY 28/12

Moved by Councillor Tilbury, seconded by Councillor Hensman, and RESOLVED: That the agenda for the regular Council meeting of May 28, 2012 be adopted, as amended.

CARRIED

3. PUBLIC HEARING Mayor Ted Adlem called the Public Hearing to order and outlined the procedures to be followed.

PH12/ MAY 28/12

Zoning Amending Bylaw 5293-2012-5050(77) (R12-012 – OTG Developments Concepts) – a bylaw to rezone the property at 34468 Kirkpatrick Avenue Barclay Pitkethly, Deputy Director of Planning, provided information regarding District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5293-2012-5050(77) (R12-012 – OTG Developments Concepts) which proposes to amend District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009 by amending the zoning of the following legally described property:

Parcel Identifier: 008-670-552 Lot 7 Section 35 Township 17 New Westminster District Plan 20186

from Rural 16 (RU16) zone to Rural Residential 7 (RR7) zone.

189


The location of the subject property is 34468 Kirkpatrick Avenue and is shown on the following maps:

The Deputy Director of Planning explained that the purpose of the proposed amendment is to accommodate the subsequent subdivision of the subject property into two (2) lots with a minimum 0.7 hectare (1.73 ac.) lot size.

The Deputy Director of Planning further stated that the proposed Development Variance Permit Application DV12-007 is to vary Subdivision Control Bylaw 1500-1985 Section 21. Works on Adjacent Highways: by waiving the requirement to construct a road on the unconstructed portion of Kirkpatrick Avenue to the east of the paved terminus.

The developer will be required to modify the existing driveway to use as an emergency vehicle turnaround and meet the turn-around requirements of the Mission Fire/Rescue Service. The Engineering Department supports the Development Variance Application Mr. Pitkethly stated that the following requirements would need to be met prior to adoption of the bylaw:

• Receipt of the Community Amenity contribution in the amount of $2,815.


Approval of Development Variance Permit DV12-007 will be considered as part of the rezoning proposal.

The Chief Administrative Officer stated that no written submissions were received.


190


Hearing no questions or comments, the Mayor declared the Public Hearing on District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5293-2012-5050(77) (R12-012-OTG Developments Concepts) closed.

PH12/ MAY 28/12

Zoning Amending Bylaw 5295-2012-5050(79) (R12-005 – Gill) – a bylaw to rezone the property at 32663 Tunbridge Avenue Marcy Bond, Planner, provided information regarding District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5295-2012-5050 (79) (R12-005 Gill) which proposes to amend District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009 by amending the zoning of the following legally described property:

Parcel Identifier: 002-808-196 Lot 20 Section 32 Township 17 New Westminster District Plan 61463

from Suburban 36 (S36) zone to Urban Residential 465 Secondary Dwelling (R465s) zone (Type I and Type II).

The location of the subject property is 32663 Tunbridge Avenue and is shown on the following maps:

The Planner stated that the purpose of the proposed amendment is to accommodate the subsequent subdivision of the subject property into 9 (nine) lots with a combination of 465 square metres (5,005 square feet) and 558 square metres (6.006 square feet) lot sizes.

The Planner further stated that the proposed Development Variance Permit Application DV12-005 is to vary District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009 as follows:

a. Section 502 D. Setbacks (1): Setback to the rear lot line for the existing dwelling on proposed Lot 6 from 7.5 metres (24.6 ft.) to 6.19 metres (20.3 feet).

191


b. Section 522 C. Lot Area (1): Lot width at the midpoint on proposed Lot 7 from 16 metres (52 feet) to 15.01 metres (49 feet),

The Planner stated that the following requirements would need to be met prior to adoption of the bylaw:

• Receipt of the Community Amenity contribution in the amount of $22,000;

• The suite on proposed Lot 6 must receive a final building permit or the suite is decommissioned.

• Approval of Development Variance Permit DV12-005 will be considered when the Zone Amending Bylaw is considered.


The Deputy Chief Administrative Officer stated that the following comments were received:

1. Email dated May 24, 2012 from Artur Gryz expressing concern with the lot size and the high density in the neighbourhood;

2. Email dated May 27, 2012 from Larry Wiens expressing concerns with the road access and asked that the application not be approved without road access to allow for the highest and best use of the property to the neighbouring property as well;

3. Email dated May 25, 2012 from Sara Robertson supporting the proposed development with the exception of the permission of secondary dwellings.

Roger Gill noted that the lots be considered for this application are larger than those that exist in the neighbourhood. He discussed issues that arouse in the last three years with this application, the potential development of neighbouring properties and the costs that have been incurred by the developer.

Hearing no further questions or comments, the Mayor declared the public hearing on District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5295-2012-5050(79) (R12-005-Gill) closed. 4. BYLAWS

PH12/ MAY 28/12


(a) Zoning Amending Bylaw 5293-2012-5050(77) (R12-012 – OTG Developments Concepts) – a bylaw to rezone property at 34468 Kirkpatrick Avenue from Rural 16 Zone (RU16) to Rural Residential 7 Zone (RR7)

Third Reading

(b) Zoning Amending Bylaw 5295-2012-5050(79) (R12-005 – Gill) – a bylaw to rezone property at 32663 Tunbridge Avenue from Suburban 36 Zone (S36) to Urban Residential 465 Secondary Dwelling type I and II Zone (R465s) CARRIED

Third Reading

192


PH12/ MAY 28/12

Moved by Councillor Luck, seconded by Councillor Tilbury, and RESOLVED: That staff be directed to bring Zoning Amending Bylaw 5293-2012-5050(77) back to Council once the following conditions have been met:

• Receipt of the Community Amenity contribution in the amount of $2,815.

PH12/ MAY 28/12

Moved by Councillor Tilbury, seconded by Councillor Hensman, and RESOLVED: That staff be directed to bring Zoning Amending Bylaw 5295-2012-5050(79) back to Council once the following conditions have been met:

• Receipt of the Community Amenity contribution in the amount of $22,000; and

• The suite on proposed Lot 6 receives a final building permit or the suite is decommissioned.

Mr. Robertson stated that it has been an honour to serve the District of Mission and noted that he has served with six of the eight Mayors in the history of Mission.

Mayor Adlem acknowledged the impending retirement of the District of Mission Chief Administrative Officer, Glen Robertson, noting that the May 28, 2012 public hearing would be Mr. Robertson’s last regular meeting of council. Mayor Adlem noted that he has only been on council a short time but thanked Mr. Robertson for his support and direction.

5. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Councillor Hensman, seconded by Councillor Luck, and

RESOLVED: That the meeting be adjourned. CARRIED

The meeting was adjourned at 7:01p.m. MAYOR WALTER (TED) ADLEM PAUL GIPPS, DEPUTY CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

193

Regular Council Agenda - Home - District of Mission, BC · DP10-017/DP10-018/ DV10-020 & S11-003 ....

Documents

Transcript of Regular Council Agenda - Home - District of Mission, BC · DP10-017/DP10-018/ DV10-020 & S11-003 ....