DISTRICT OF SECHELT REGULAR MEETING OF COUNCIL Community Meeting Room, 5797 Cowrie Street, Sechelt, BC Wednesday, May 2 nd, :00 pm AGENDA

Transcription

1 DISTRICT OF SECHELT REGULAR MEETING OF COUNCIL Community Meeting Room, 5797 Cowrie Street, Sechelt, BC Wednesday, May 2 nd, :00 pm AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER AND DECLARATION OF CONFLICT 2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA 3. APPOINTMENTS AND DELEGATIONS 3.1 Mike Lightbody, representative for the Strongbody Group - Oceanview Villas Development Permit Application 3.2 Mike Lightbody, representative for the Strongbody Group - Seaview Villas Development Variance Permit Application 3.3 Bob Sangster, representative for the West Sechelt Community Association - Oceanview Villas Development Permit Application Pg 4 15 Pg 16 Pg PROCLAMATIONS None. 5. ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL MEETINGS 5.1 Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of April 18, 2018 Pg BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES 7. COMMITTEE / COMMISSION MINUTES AND REPORTS 7.1 Minutes of the Planning and Community Development Committee Meeting of April 25, 2018 Pg BYLAWS For First Reading 8.1 Murmac Construction Ltd. Rezoning application (a) Report from the Community Planner dated April 20, 2018 Pg 57 58

2 (b) Bylaw No , 2018 (Murmac Construction Ltd.) Pg Mobius Architecture and BC Housing Supportive Housing Development Hightide Avenue (a) Report from the Municipal Planner dated April 25, 2018 Pg (b) (c) Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No , 2018 (BC Housing) Zoning Bylaw No. 25, 1987, Amendment Bylaw No , 2018 (BC Housing) Pg Pg For Adoption 8.3 Bylaw No. 564, 2018 (Road Naming) (a) Report from the Corporate Officer dated April 25, 2018 Pg (b) Bylaw No. 564, 2018 (Road Naming) Pg Parks, Lands and Roads Temporary Rental Amendment Bylaw 480-2, 2018 (a) Report from the Corporate Officer dated April 24, 2018 Pg (b) Parks, Lands and Roads Temporary Rental Amendment Bylaw 480-2, 2018 Pg Financial Plan Bylaw No. 563, 2018 (a) Report from the Corporate Officer dated April 24, 2018 Pg (b) Financial Plan Bylaw No. 563, 2018 Pg Tax Rates Bylaw No. 565, 2018 (a) Report from the Corporate Officer dated April 24, 2018 Pg (b) 2018 Tax Rates Bylaw No. 565, 2018 Pg NEW BUSINESS None. 10. BUSINESS ITEMS 10.1 Seaview Villas Development Variance Permit Application Report from the Community Planner dated March 26, 2018 Pg

3 10.2 Oceanview Villas Development Permit Application Report from the Community Planner dated April 10, Seasonal Mobile Vending Application for the Davis Bay Small Display Area Report from the Manager of Financial Services dated April 24, 2018 Pg Pg REPORTS FROM COUNCILLORS 11.1 Councillors Reports Verbal 11.2 SCRD Board Council Representatives Reports Verbal 12. ITEMS FOR INFORMATION/RELEASE OF CLOSED MEETING ITEMS 12.1 Council Correspondence for receipt Pg MAYOR, COUNCIL AND STAFF EMERGENCY ITEMS 14. ADJOURNMENT Public Question and Answer Period

4 Item McCourt Ave - Ocean View Villas April Summary of items to be spoken to on behalf of the DP application for 5520 McCourt Rd: 1. Easements: - Perception that the project proposes buildings encroaching on easements. The West Sechelt Community Association (WSCA) has been strongly opposed to this proposal in that it "has buildings being erected over easements"... but there are no easements on the property that the owner is aware of. We have surveys to this effect. See Figure Grade: - Perception that there has been grade manipulation to increase building height. During the initial design stages of this project 3 years ago, topographic info was requested of Sechelt from us. They provided us with CADD files of historic geodetic data. For our grading, road design and building height calculations we have relied on this specifically. Subsequent topographic survey work on site has illuminated piles of dirt and boulders. Since we have designed to historic grading... in keeping with the existing adjacent strata, these "piles" are a hindrance and will have to be removed in order for our lower grades and roads to function properly. This is completely contrary to the current understanding of the WSCA. See Figure Height: - Perception that the building heights are beyond permitted maximum. The max building height in the R4 zone is 10.5m (34.45 ft.). Our proposed building heights as measured from average natural grade (historic) to average roof line are as follows: B ft. (under height max by ft.) B ft. (under height max by ft.) B ft. (under height max by ft.) B ft. (under height max by ft.) B ft. (under height max by 9.30 ft.) B ft. (under height max by ft.) B ft. (under height max by 8.80 ft.) B ft. (under height max by 5.20 ft.) See Figure 3. Page 4

5 4. Open space: - Perception that we are beyond max permitted and straying from 2005 DP. Buildings, parking areas and driveways must not cover greater than 75% of the lot in zone R4. In our proposal we are covering 38.6 % of the property with buildings, parking and driveways. (approximately half the max). Roads comprise approx % of the property. See Figure Building proximity: - Perception that the buildings are too tight and straying from 2005 DP The WSCA (likely speaking on behalf of the neighborhood) have requested that we maintain a scale for our buildings that reflects the intent of the 2005 original DP for this site. We have matched roof pitch, siting wherever possible and height within a few feet... and managed to create more room between buildings than is evident in the Seaview Villas original DP phase 1 (now built). See Figure Retaining systems: - Perception that they are for increasing height beyond max permitted. The retaining necessary along the southeast corner of the property is unfortunately required in order for the split level rear garage access to work with existing services that are already installed on the property for storm and sanitary. The road grades for garage entries almost identically match that proposed for the 2005 Seaview Villas. Dropping the access road grade behind buildings B7 and B8 would permit a slightly lower road but would force the garage to no longer be split level (due to resulting driveway grade) and raising the buildings by a half storey - entirely negating the intent of lowering the road. See Figure Stormwater/services: - Perception proposal strays from original 2005 DP intent. As per note #6 above, the site planning for the proposed Oceanview Villas is based largely on the original 2005 Seaview Villas approved DP layout. There have been slight adjustments to accommodate a "through-road" (a requirement of the phase 1 strata owners) including access off Jasper Rd. The existing storm, sanitary, hydro and water are primarily under open space and proposed roads in order to minimize disruption to what has already installed - resulting in reduced trucking, dust and noise. See Figure Eave size: - Perception that they are too large (code? bylaw?) In the early stages of design we had images and elevations showing 36" eaves surrounding each home. Due to costing constraints and opposition from the WSCA we have reduced eaves around the homes to 24". Only over the entry porches do the eaves increase to 42". Larger eaves are usually perceived as being more aesthetically positive along with their inherent ability to reduce degradation of building siding and windows and thus this opposition is not understood. Regardless... the changes have been made. Our code consultant had analyzed the 42" eaves and confirmed that they conform and thus the 24" eaves certainly do. See Figure 8. Page 5

6 9. Exterior stairs: - Perception that exterior stairs are the only means of dwelling access and exterior stairs are "not permitted". There are 2 means of entry to these units; 1 through the garage (primary use) and 1 along the sides of the units acting as the "front door". The intent of the front door design was to mimic the adjacent sideyard front doors of the Seaview Villas. Knowing that we had 2 sets of stairs to the units permitted us to add an exterior stair in an unenclosed manner to create greater architectural appeal to the longer sides of the buildings. We never imagined anyone would oppose this aesthetic. The stairs could certainly be enclosed with glass but we see this as a step backward for both aesthetic appeal and view intrusion. See Figure 9. Page 6

7 These are the only easements that appear on our surveys to date and they are not on the subject property 1.0 Easements Page 7

8 Darker topo lines refer to new survey work performed in 2015, and again in 2017 Faint topo lines refer to historic geodetic info provided by Sechelt 2.0 Grade Areas that may have seen some earth Page 8

9 Permitted max height (ghosted lines above proposed roof heights) Toned area shows additional massing if built to permitted maximum height Jasper elevation McCourt elevation Proposed roof heights 3.0 Height Page 9

10 Double cross hatch area shows building footprint (buildings + driveways + parking amounts to 38.6% of the property. Max is 75% 4.0 Open space Page 10

11 Existing Seaview 11'-7" apart Oceanview Villas closest 12'-8" 5.0 Building proximity Page 11

12 Worst case retaining system (2 walls approx. 48" tall each with planting top, middle and bottom). This scenario only exists for the southeast corner of building B Retaining systems Page 12

13 Existing storm, sanitary, water and electrical services under proposed roads. These services are already installed from 2006 Seaview development 7.0 Stormwater Page 13

14 Ambient eave size is 24" (85% of building) 42" Eaves only over entries and stairs (15% of building) 8.0 Eave size Page 14

15 Exterior stair Interior stair Lower unit entry Upper unit entry 9.0 Exterior stairs Page 15

16 Item McCourt Ave - Seaview Villas April Summary of items to be spoken to on behalf of the Variance application for 5520 McCourt Rd: 1. Variance application particulars: - A request for relaxation of sideyard setback is being sought to permit an existing non-conformity that will result from subdivision of the strata at 5520 McCourt into 2 properties. These buildings are already constructed and inhabited. The non-conformity along the sideyard will exist for this property regardless of what takes place on the adjacent lot. It should be viewed as such. There has been confusion in this regard. Thank you for permitting us to speak on behalf of the Seaview Villas Strata Group. Mike Lightbody B.Arch., B.Sc. Page 16

17 Item 3.3 Ocean View Development Proposal Concerns of the West Sechelt Community Association (WSCA) and Neighbourhood Submitted concerns are base on the referral submitted September 26, 2017 by M. Lightbody & A. Waugh (for Strongman Group) Presentation May 2, 2018 by Bob Sangster I Jfi djl1 enshot Page 17

18 Official Community Plan Site Coverage This development proposal is not in line with the s Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 492, 2010, (OCP) Conservation Design/Design With Nature (Page 19). Specifically, this development proposal cannot comply with:...retain significant open space areas....reduces paved surfaces and storm water discharge....in a manner that protects open space (typically 50% of the land area), reduces infrastructure costs, reduces paved surfaces and stormwater discharges, and provides for more diverse housing types. LJ / / -/ / I Roadway El I Parking Green Space VILLAS] OCEANVIEW VILLAS / * SIGNIFICANTLY MORE GREEN SPACE IN THE SEAVIEW VILLAS APPROVED PLAN (MORE ON THIS TO FOLLOW) Or Page 18

19 30.8%; Density The original approved plan for Seaview Villas permitted 11 duplex buildings for a total of 22 units. The four already constructed duplexes account for 8 units. What remained on the previously approved plan was a further 7 buildings, an additional 14 units. The lot coverage for this approved plan was 52% (buildings - parking/driveways 21.2%). The Ocean View development proposal indicates an additional eight four-plex buildings, for a total of 32 more units. This is a 128% increase in density over the original approved plan of 14 more units. The same, approved plan, that the surrounding neighbourhood accepted when they all purchased and built their homes. Seaview Villas parking required 44 spaces (22 x 2), but 60 spaces were provided which would have allowed for 16 guest parking spaces. The Ocean View development proposal indicates a total of 64 parking spaces for 32 units and an additional 2 spaces for guests. Ocean View 32 Units Seaview Villa 22 Units Page 19

20 Density The proposed number of buildings (8 building; 32 units) is excessive for the site. In 2016, the WSCA could not support the Calabasas proposal of 3 story buildings. Strongman Group agreed to reduce the buildings to 2 stories. We were very surprised to see the density increase from 22 units to 32 units, the maximum density allowed under the current bylaws. The buildings are too close together and there is little room for green space or any landscaping. The entire site appears to consist of either buildings or pavement for parking and roadways. The proposal drawings account for approximately 12 8 between most of the building units, it does not account for the rooflines. According to the submitted drawings, each building has 3 6 roof overhang. This then leaves about 5 8 between each roof edge. The OCP DPA 7 - Multiple Family Residential, states, Multi building developments shall provide adequate spacing between buildings to provide privacy, views and natural light to all buildings. Openings of 5 8 cannot provide this, and therefore the development proposal does not meet the OCP Bylaw. Page 20

21 - BUILDING LAND GRADE, AND BUILDING HEIGHT AND PLACEMENT The development proposal indicates the approximate height of the buildings will be ft. However, the proposal also indicates raising the grade of the land for some proposed building sites. During construction of the Seaview Villa Estates buildings (neighbouring Strata property to the west), the foundation excavation material was placed at the current proposed building sites of Units 83, B4, and B5 (and to some extent Units 81 and B2). Ocean View construction should not occur on existing fill. Out of respect and consideration for the current neighbourhood, the fill should be removed and the buildings should be placed lower than the current proposal. The WSCA insist that the buildings should be built upon the original grade of the land, not on fill nor raise up on, existing land grades. BUILDING 58 B7 (BEHIND) r5uilding B8 (BEHIND) 0 0- SCt.ID JE pid:crr!s cpos,i) G0o:o rofm..,c ccr GX CJtc133Z 1sL<tLqr. FtJM 0 i to 0TVP fly 1Q:I - J :0-. Fill north east corner Page 21

22 Fill north east corner Fill north west corner (picture taken from McCourt Rd facing east) Page 22

23 - LAND GRADE, AND BUILDING HEIGHT AND PLACEMENT The roadway on Jasper, from McCourt to Piccadilly Park, is slanted downhill (west to east). The development drawings indicate a progressive build up from the McCourt side to the last building to the east (buildings B6 to B8). All the development s buildings, along Jasper Rd, should have reduced elevation and be stepped down in accordance with the topographical contour/road grade and be consistent with neighbouring properties. Currently, proposed building, unit B8 roofline will be m (44.8 ft.) above the grade of Jasper Road, according to the plans. This is 9.45 feet higher that the previous proposed Calabasas three story buildings at ft. BUUD*4G 81 FBtmD*G 82 fl114n 87 I-.-r IIIIIZIIEITJflII I itr -1 BUILDING B8 A 94.p1 gi.n:i lom ( 33ft) 4m ( l3ft) 1:111 [fltflfl 1I4JI ]rjjrprnn gil L_1 88.O1!aQrM 8D.DZIM Page 23

24 Oceanview Villas Proposal. Versus Seaview Villas Approval I- I Ii ifl 1 i :? k v43v. - -,P.. :.. I I. - :.1 z. Attractive terracing Page 24

25 Oceanview Villas Proposal. Same curb appeal (when built on grade and integrated with the slope) Versus Seaview Villas Approval Page 25

26 Inappropriate Land Use The need for roadway and secondary parking on this development has the developer utilizing Easements /Set Backs to resolve the issue. The community objects to this solution. The easement/setbacks are for utilities storm water management and to provide adequate spacing between adjoining properties, not for additional parking and roadways for this proposed development. Additionally, some proposed parking placements have the design abutting adjoining properties and setbacks. The community takes exception to this, as the developer is not considering the intended uses for these portions of the development property, nor, their actual ability to place these structures in some areas due to land contours and existing slopes. If density were to be reduced, the required number of parking spaces would be reduced. As a result, more land would be available for green space and there would be no need to place parking spaces in the 7.5 m setback area. What is the plan to mitigate headlight and noise disturbance to neighbours? Proposed parking spaces are in close proximity to neighbouring residences. The exceptional parking densities will increase light, noise, and exhaust impacts to neighbours and the proposed units in the development. Further, the proposed drawings indicate placing the post and recycling building onto the 7.5m setback, contrary to the Sechelt Bylaw (Sec b). The community objects to this proposal, as that is not the intended use of the easement/setbacks. The approved Seaview Villa plan did not utilize these areas for the development. Instead, the easement/setbacks were appropriately used for green space. Page 26

27 Multiple Drainage There are significant ground water seeps in the development area. Additionally, the current proposal indicates very little green space, and therefore, insufficient water infiltration options. OCP DPA 7 - Family Residential Guideline excerpts: Manage stormwater flows to ensure no net increase in flow volume and velocity from predevelopment conditions. Use natural filtration of rainwater into the site through techniques such as raingardens, rainwater collection systems, bioswales, landscape detention areas or other methods suitable to the urban environment. Seepage SE corner on Jasper Seepage east side &.t.. Seepage east side Seepage east side The WSCA strongly encourages the to require more green space and natural infiltration options. Further, should this development reach ground breaking, that the DOS require the developer to provide a Storm Water Management Plan, a plan to address property seepages, and a Sediment And Erosion Control Plan. It should be noted that during construction of Seaview Villas, water management issues and property flooding were encountered. Finally, the DOS must ensure these plans are followed during all phases of development. The DOS counsel and staff do not have to be reminded about developments with water seepages and their disastrous results. The Land Development Guidelines are standards that the District Staff and the Proponent should implement to help mitigate issues during the development of the site ( Page 27

28 Multiple Form Form and Character The proposal drawings indicate outside stairways to second storey dwellings. According to the OCP DPA 7 - Family Residential - and Character, the guidelines advise developers to, Enclose all stairways to upper storey residential units. Sustainability Criteria and the SSC Screening Tool Currently, the District s ICSP advisory committee is reviewing, for Council, the sustainability screening tool that has been used for the proposed SSC development. Should this screening tool be accepted by Council as the screening tool for all developments, over a yet to be determined size, it will help guide future projects towards greater consistency with the District s adopted community sustainability goals, and other leading sustainable community guidelines. Since the Strongman project is also a large development, it would seem to be appropriate to be subject to this screening tool and, as a decision about this screening tool is likely in the near future, it would be appropriate to postpone any decision about this development until a decision is made about its use. To do otherwise will cause neighbours to ask why the screening tool is not being used for the Strongman development, but still applied for developments coming before and immediately after it. Whether intentional or not, to proceed before a decision on tool s use is determined will be seen as disrespectful to the residents of the neighbourhood. Page 28

29 Advisory Planning Commission (APC) At the November 9, 2017 APC Meeting, M. Lightbody of MP Lightbody Ltd., Architect for the Ocean View Villas, provided information to the APC. Meeting minutes indicate that in discussion It was noted that the previously approved development (2004) allowed for more site coverage, and The new proposed building footprints are smaller than what was previously approved (2004). This information is incorrect. Unfortunately, information provided to the APC, during their review of the Oceanview Villas proposal, was erroneous. Likewise, the recommendation by the APC to approve the Development Permit, is based on falsehoods. As a result, the APC s approval recommendation to Counsel should be revisited, or dismissed. The Seaview Villas approved development plan drawings (2004) indicate a 52% site coverage. The site coverage for Ocean View Villas proposal was not on the development drawings and was not provided at the APC meeting (November 9, 2017), other than a comment from the developer about less coverage. On January the 4, 2018 on request by the WSCA, the DOS planning department advised that the site coverage of Oceanview Villas proposal was 63%. When asked by the WSCA for the development site coverage break down, it was increased to 65%. This is a 13% increase over the approved plan of the Seaview Villas (2004) 52% site coverage. The Strongman Calabasas proposal in 2016 had a site coverage of 52.5%. These site coverage percentages are more in line with the DOS s OCP bylaw of 50%. In addition Seaview Villas Approved Plan (2004), provided 44 parking spaces for 22 units, plus 16 guest parking spaces, for a total of 60 parking spaces. This was provided while still within the 52% site coverage. Oceanview Villa s proposal allows for 64 parking spaces for 32 units, plus 2 guest spaces, for a total of 66 parking spaces. As most dwellings will likely have two vehicles, there is little availability for additional parking in the current proposal. Where will visitors park? This is a concern for residents on Jasper and McCourt Rd, when street parking will be the only alternative. When the WSCA asked about the lack of guest parking, the DOS planning department advised that the DOS did not want to require too much guest parking, as that would encourage visitors to bring their cars rather than take transit. Page 29

30 Conclusion The current proposal is considerably different than the previously approved Seaview Villas (2004) and the completed 8 Seaview Villa units. The neighbourhood understands that previous development proposals for this site are, in a sense, less relevant to this planning committee. Still, Counselors have to keep in mind that the Oceanview development is not being considered here as the first construction project in a new neighbourhood. That time has passed. Thirteen years later, this development is the final piece to complete an existing established neighbourhood. All the adjoining homes and property values should not have to be so seriously impacted, as a result of the final piece. The neighbours of the Ocean View development are not opposed to the development of this property, and surely all have purchased, built, and lived in the area with the understanding that a development would be built. We would welcome the opportunity to work with the developer to help create a project that addresses the community s concerns. Page 30

31 Item 5.1 DISTRICT OF SECHELT MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING held at 5797 Cowrie Street, Sechelt, BC Wednesday, April 18 th, :00pm PRESENT Mayor B. Milne; Councillors A. Lutes; D. Inkster; M. Shanks; D. Wright; N. Muller and D. Siegers STAFF Chief Administrative Office A. Yeates; Director of Corporate and Financial Services D. Stewart; Director of Planning and Development Services, T. Corbett; Corporate Officer J. Frank; Manager of Financial Services B. Currie; Community Planner A. Thompson; and Recording Secretary M. Sugars 1. CALL TO ORDER AND DECLARATION OF CONFLICT The Mayor called the Regular Council Meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. and asked for any declarations of Conflict of Interest. Councillor Muller announced a potential personal conflict of interest with Item 8.1 (Parks, Lands and Roads Temporary Rental Amendment Bylaw 480-2, 2018) and noted he would recuse himself from the meeting while it was being dealt with. 2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Res. No D-1 Moved/Seconded That the Agenda for the Regular Council Meeting of April 18, 2018 be amended to consider Item 10.1(2017 Draft Audited Consolidated Financial Statements) in conjunction with Item 3.1(MNP Consulting Financial Audit); and That the Agenda be adopted as amended. CARRIED 3. APPOINTMENTS AND DELEGATIONS 3.1 MNP Consulting Financial Audit Mr. Vanderhorst presented the 2017 Financial Audit to Council, including reviewing the financial statement highlights, the draft audit report, the audit findings report, auditor independence and a financial analysis. A brief question and answer period followed. The Mayor thanked Mr. Vanderhorst for his presentation. Page 31

32 Minutes Regular Council Meeting Page 2 of 20 April 18, Draft Audited Consolidated Financial Statements Res. No D-2 Moved/Seconded That the MNP Audit Findings Report and the District s 2017 Consolidated Financial Statements be received. CARRIED Res. No D-3 Moved/Seconded That the District s 2017 Consolidated Financial Statements be approved. 4. PROCLAMATIONS CARRIED None. 5. ADOPTION OF PREVIOUS MINUTES OF COUNCIL 5.1 Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of April 4 th, 2018 Res. No D-4 Moved/Seconded That the Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of April 4 th, 2018 be amended to delete defeated Recommendation No. 6 (2018 General Fund Operating Budget Deliberation Continuation) from Item 7.1(Minutes of the Finance, Culture and Economic Development Committee Meeting of March 21st, 2018); and That the Minutes be adopted as amended. CARRIED 6. BUSINESS ARISING None. Page 32

33 Minutes Regular Council Meeting Page 3 of 20 April 18, COMMITTEE / COMMISSION MINUTES AND REPORTS 7.1 Minutes of the Planning and Community Development Committee Meeting of March 28, 2018 Res. No D-5 Moved/Seconded That the Minutes of the Planning and Community Development Committee Meeting of March 28 th, 2018 be received. CARRIED Res. No D-6 Moved/Seconded That Recommendation No. 13 and Recommendation No.14 from the Minutes of the Planning and Community Development Committee Meeting of March 28 th, 2018 be removed and dealt with separately; and That the following recommendations be endorsed: Recommendation No. 2- Minutes of the Planning and Community Development Committee Meeting of February 28, 2018 for receipt That the Minutes of the Planning and Community Development Committee Meeting of February 28th, 2018 be received. Recommendation No. 3- Minutes of the Advisory Planning Commission Meeting of January 11th, 2018 for receipt That the Minutes of the Advisory Planning Commission Meeting of March 8th, 2018 be received. Recommendation No. 4- Resland Development Co. Development Variance Permit and Development Permit Application That the report from the Municipal Planner, dated March 19, 2018 regarding the Resland Development Co. s Development Variance Permit and Development Permit applications be received. Recommendation No. 5 Resland Development Co. Development Variance Permit and Development Permit Application That Council agrees in principle with the Resland Development Co. s Development Variance Permit application and that the official notification to neighbouring property owners and residents be completed, prior to Council s final consideration of Development Variance Permit , for the proposed Resland subdivision Page 33

34 Minutes Regular Council Meeting Page 4 of 20 April 18, 2018 development, for the existing two properties: Blocks K and L, Plan 7331, DL 4293, PID and PID ; and, That Development Variance Permit (Resland), for the proposed subdivision development be prepared by staff: a) That includes a variance to Bylaw 430 Part 4 - Application Requirements and Approval Process Section 17. Parcel Standards - 17(5) that the minimum width of a dedicated panhandle access strip is reduced from 6.0 metres to 4.5 metres, for proposed new Lot 29; b) And includes the conditions that: i. A cast-in-place concrete walkway and stairwell of a minimum 1.2 metres wide be provided from McCourt Road s future sidewalk to the upper level of new Lot 29 as indicated on Binnie Engineering s drawing No SK29 dated March 14, 2018; and, ii. A restrictive covenant be registered requiring fire sprinklering of any new home on Lot 29. Recommendation No. 6 Resland Development Co. Development Variance Permit and Development Permit Application That Development Permit (Resland) be approved as follows: i. For the proposed Resland subdivision development consisting of the existing properties: Lot 1, Block P, Plan 16343, DL 4293, PID ; Lot 1, Blocks P, Q, & R, Plan except Plans 18429, 19428, LMP31892, BCP7972, BCP26633, and EPP23354, DL 4293, PID ; Block K, Plan 7331, DL 4293, PID ; Block L, Plan 7331, DL 4293, PID ; ii. And that Development Permit (Resland) require that the subdivision development of the above properties must be in accordance with the analysis and recommendations of the Geotechnical Assessment Report and Appendix D: Landslide Assessment Assurance Statement, both dated March 19, 2018 and prepared by William J. Cedzich, P.Eng. of Western Geotechnical Consultants Limited. Recommendation No. 7 Rona Development Permit and Development Variance Permit Application That the report from the Community Planner dated March 9, 2018 regarding applications for Development Permit and Development Variance Permit (Jones Rona) at 5644 Wharf Avenue be received. Page 34

35 Minutes Regular Council Meeting Page 5 of 20 April 18, 2018 Recommendation No. 8 Rona Development Permit and Development Variance Permit Application That Development Variance Permit be approved for the properties, LOT 5, BLOCK 9, DISTRICT LOTS 303 AND 304, PLAN 7483 (PID ) and LOT B, DISTRICT LOT 304, GROUP 1 NEW WESTMINSTER DISTRICT PLAN LMP43376, (PID ) to vary: a) Zoning Bylaw 25, 1987 Section (b), to reduce the rear lot line setbacks in the C-4 Zone from 3.0 m to 0.0 m, to accommodate two new storage warehouses, and b) Subdivision and Development Control Servicing Standards Bylaw 430, 2003, Part 7 Levels of Service Guidelines pertaining to sidewalks, streetlights, and undergrounding of Hydro and telephone services as follows: i. Sidewalk reduce from 2.0 m to 1.5 m width ii. Waive the requirements for undergrounding of Hydro and telephone services and installation of decorative street lighting by registering a restrictive covenant which would require these services to be undertaken at the time of a subsequent development application for buildings. Recommendation No. 9 Rona Development Permit and Development Variance Permit Application That subject to the issuance of Development Variance Permit , Development Permit be approved for LOT 5, BLOCK 9, DISTRICT LOTS 303 AND 304, PLAN 7483 (PID ) and LOT B, DISTRICT LOT 304, GROUP 1 NEW WESTMINSTER DISTRICT PLAN LMP43376, (PID ) with the following conditions: a. That the property is developed in accordance with: i. Architect drawings prepared by Edge Architecture Ltd. titled A1.1 BCBC Site Plan and dated March 14, 2018; ii. Design Drawings a) Titled ASC-1862-B1 Proposed Auto-Stak System, Building-B and dated Nov. 7, 2017 b) Titled ASC-1862-C1 Proposed Auto-Stak System, Building-C and dated Nov. 7, 2017 c) Titled ASC-1862-C2 Proposed Auto-Stak System, Building-C and dated Nov. 7, 2017 d) Aerial image with overlayed drawings showing proposed construction, recycling area and Fire Dept. Access man doors and file dated Mar. 19, 2018; iii. Landscaping Plan prepared by PMG Landscape Architects titled L1- Landscape Plan and dated Dec. 12, 2017; b. That a landscaping bond be provided in the amount of $7,424.00, to be held for a period of two years, post installation, to ensure timely planting and maintenance which optimizes chances of plant survival; Page 35

36 Minutes Regular Council Meeting Page 6 of 20 April 18, 2018 c. That the exterior materials consist of siding and roof colours to match existing structures; d. That all onsite exterior lighting be downcast and energy efficient; e. Provision of a stormwater management plan and erosion and sediment control plan that meets the requirements of Subdivision and Development Control Servicing Standards Bylaw No. 430, 2003; Recommendation No. 10 Murmac Construction Ltd Rezoning That the report from the Community Planner dated March 12, 2018 regarding Zoning Bylaw No. 25, 1987, Amendment Bylaw No , 2017 (Murmac Construction Ltd.) be received. Recommendation No. 11 Murmac Construction Ltd Rezoning That staff be authorized to draft Zoning Bylaw No. 25, 1987, Amendment Bylaw No , 2017 (Murmac Construction Ltd.) to rezone Block 12 District Lot 1471 Plan 3660 from RR-1, Rural Residential 1 Zone to R-1, Residential 1 Zone. Recommendation No. 12 Van Ke Development - Development Permit and Development Variance Permit Application That the report from the Community Planner dated March 20, 2018 regarding the applications for a development permit and development variance permit from Van Ke Developments Inc. be received. Recommendation No. 15 Wade Official Community Plan Amendment Application That the report from the Community Planner dated March 15, 2018 regarding the application for Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No , 2018 (Wade) & Zoning Bylaw No. 25, 1987, Amendment Bylaw No , 018 (CD-42, Wade) be received. Recommendation No. 16 Wade Official Community Plan Amendment Application That Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No , 2018 (Wade) be given first reading. Recommendation No. 17 Wade Official Community Plan Amendment Application That zoning Bylaw No. 25, 1986, Amendment Bylaw No , 2018 (CD-42, Wade) be given first reading. Page 36

37 Minutes Regular Council Meeting Page 7 of 20 April 18, 2018 Recommendation No. 18 Wade Official Community Plan Amendment Application That Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No , 2018 (Wade) be considered in conjunction with: a. s current Financial Plan; b. Sunshine Coast Regional District s Solid Waste Management Plan; c. s 2000 Liquid Waste Management Plan; and d. The registration of the District s Waste Water Treatment Plan under the Municipal Waste Water Regulation. Recommendation No. 19 Wade Official Community Plan Amendment Application That staff be authorized to schedule a Public Hearing for Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No , 2018 (Wade) & Zoning Bylaw No. 25, 1987, Amendment Bylaw No , 2018 (CD-42, Wade). Recommendation No. 20 Development Action Chart for receipt Moved/Seconded That the Development Action Chart be received. CARRIED Res. No D-7 Moved/Seconded Recommendation No. 13 Van Ke Development - Development Permit and Development Variance Permit Application That Development Permit be approved for BLOCK A EXCEPT: FIRSTLY; PART IN PLAN 6972 SECONDLY; PART DEDICATED ROAD ON PLAN LMP5428 DISTRICT LOT 1379 PLAN 1938 with the following conditions: a) The property shall be developed in accordance with the Geotechnical Assessment prepared by Western Geotechnical Consultants Ltd. Dated October 4, Recommendation No. 14 Van Ke Development - Development Permit and Development Variance Permit Application That Development Variance Permit be approved for BLOCK A EXCEPT: FIRSTLY; PART IN PLAN 6972 SECONDLY; PART DEDICATED ROAD ON PLAN LMP5428 DISTRICT LOT 1379 PLAN 1938 to vary Subdivision and Development Control Servicing Standards Bylaw No. 430, 2003 as follows: a) Modifying the Urban Collector Road, SR-7, for Laurel Road and Nestman Road within the development area and from the western property line to the intersection of Highway 101 to a 7.3 m wide travel lane (3.65 m in each Page 37

38 Minutes Regular Council Meeting Page 8 of 20 April 18, 2018 direction), 3.5 m wide paved, multiuse pathway on each side except for the north side of Nestman Road, which shall have a 1.8 m wide concrete sidewalk, and a 1.0 m wide boulevard; b) Modifying the Urban Half Road, SR-3, for Nestman Road east of the intersection with Laurel Road to a 2.0 m wide paved pathway connecting to the existing Chapman Creek trail network, with one ornamental street light, a bench, and a minimum of three parking stalls at the western end of the pathway; and c) Modifying the Urban Half Road, SR-3, for the extension of Betty Road to 5.5 m wide pavement. CARRIED 7.2 Minutes of the Public Works, Parks and Environment Committee Meeting of March 28, 2018 Res. No D-8 Moved/Seconded That the Minutes of the Public Works, Parks and Environment Committee Meeting of March 28, 2018 be received. CARRIED Res. No D-9 Moved/Seconded That the following recommendations from the Minutes of the Public Works, Parks and Environment Committee Meeting of March 28, 2018 be endorsed: Recommendation No. 2 Apollo Road bollards That the letter dated March 20, 2018 from Vivian Woodhouse, President of Strata Plan BCS3393, regarding the Apollo Road bollards be received. Recommendation No. 3 Minutes of the Public Works, Parks and Environment Committee Meeting of February 28, 2018 That the Minutes of the Public Works, Parks and Environment Committee Meeting of February 28, 2018 be received. Recommendation No. 4 Engineering and Operations Services Overview & Activity Report That the report from the Director of Engineering and Operations dated March 14, 2018 entitled Engineering and Operations Services Overview & Activity Report be received for information. Page 38

39 Minutes Regular Council Meeting Page 9 of 20 April 18, 2018 Recommendation No. 5 Sunshine Coast Regional District Groundwater Task Force That the report from the Development & Project Engineer and Engineering Technologist dated March 12, 2018 regarding the Sunshine Coast Regional District s Groundwater Task Force be received for information. CARRIED Res. No D-10 Moved/Seconded That a staff report outlining the initial budgeted operating costs of the Water Resource Centre in comparison to the current operating costs be brought forward to Council. 7.3 Minutes of the Finance Culture and Economic Development Committee Meeting of April 11, 2018 Res. No D-11 Moved/Seconded CARRIED That the Minutes of the Finance Culture and Economic Development Committee Meeting of April 11, 2018 be received. CARRIED Res. No D-12 Moved/Seconded That Recommendation No. 11 from the Minutes of the Finance, Culture and Economic Development Committee Meeting of April 11, 2018 be amended as follows:: The words it is in in the first line be replaced by the word our ; and the words to work be inserted between the words agreement and with in the first line; and That the following recommendations be endorsed: Recommendation No. 2 Minutes of the Finance, Culture and Economic Development Committee Meeting of March 7th, 2018 That the Minutes of the Finance, Culture and Economic Development Committee Meeting of March 7th, 2018 be received. Page 39

40 Minutes Regular Council Meeting Page 10 of 20 April 18, 2018 Recommendation No. 3 Minutes of the Finance, Culture and Economic Development Committee Meeting of March 14th, 2018 That the Minutes of the Finance, Culture and Economic Development Committee Meeting of March 14th, 2018 be received. Recommendation No. 4 Minutes of the Finance, Culture and Economic Development Committee Meeting of March 21st, 2018 That the Minutes of the Finance, Culture and Economic Development Committee Meeting of March 21st, 2018 be received. Recommendation No. 5 Minutes of the Finance, Culture and Economic Development Committee Meeting of March 28th, 2018 That the Minutes of the Finance, Culture and Economic Development Committee Meeting of March 28th, 2018 be received. Recommendation No. 6 Parks, Lands and Roads Temporary Rental Amendment Bylaw 480-1, 2018 That the report from the Manager of Financial Services dated April 3, 2018 regarding the Seasonal Mobile Vending be received. Recommendation No. 7 Parks, Lands and Roads Temporary Rental Amendment Bylaw 480-1, 2018 That staff amend the current bylaw to restrict the Seasonal Mobile Vending Permit to food vendors only. Recommendation No. 8 Parks, Lands and Roads Temporary Rental Amendment Bylaw 480-1, 2018 That the Finance Committee recommends for Council s consideration, the Parks, Lands and Roads Temporary Rental Bylaw 480-1, 2018 as amended and with recommended amendments to add the Trail Bay location and permit seasonal mobile vendors the ability to rotate between the established locations. Recommendation No. 9 Parks, Lands and Roads Temporary Rental Amendment Bylaw 480-1, 2018 That staff bring forward a report to Council with a recommendation regarding issuing a permit for a non-food vendor to operate in Davis Bay. Page 40

41 Minutes Regular Council Meeting Page 11 of 20 April 18, 2018 Recommendation No. 10 Reconciliation Project for Sechelt That the report from the Arts, Culture and Communications Coordinator dated March 22, 2018 regarding Reconciliation Project for Sechelt be received. Recommendation No.11 Reconciliation Project for Sechelt That the confirms our agreement to work with the shíshálh Nation and the community reconciliation working group to complete the Reconciliation Project as outlined in the Arts, Culture and Communications Coordinator s report dated March 22, 2018 and the community proposal presented to Council on March 21, 2018 by Hereditary Chief Gary Feschuk and previous Mayor of Sechelt Cam Reid. Recommendation No Property Tax Rates That the report from the Director of Corporate and Financial Services dated April 5, 2018 regarding the 2018 Property Tax Rates be received. Recommendation No Property Tax Rates That the property tax rates be set based on the amounts in Schedule 1 of the Director of Corporate and Financial Services report dated April 5, BYLAWS CARRIED Councillor Muller declared a potential personal conflict of interest and recused himself at 8:01 p.m. 8.1 Parks, Lands and Roads Temporary Rental Amendment Bylaw 480-2, 2018Amendment Bylaw 480-2, 2018 Res. No D-13 Moved/Seconded That the report from the Manager of Financial Services dated April 11, 2018 regarding the Seasonal Mobile Vending be received. CARRIED Res. No D-14 Moved/Seconded That Parks, Lands and Roads Temporary Rental Bylaw 480-2, 2018 be read a first, second and third time. CARRIED Page 41

42 Minutes Regular Council Meeting Page 12 of 20 April 18, 2018 Res. No D-15 Moved/Seconded That Parks, Lands and Roads Temporary Rental Bylaw 480-2, 2018 be read a first time this 18 th day of April, CARRIED Res. No D-16 Moved/Seconded That Parks, Lands and Roads Temporary Rental Bylaw 480-2, 2018 be read a second time this 18 th day of April, CARRIED Res. No D-17 Moved/Seconded That Parks, Lands and Roads Temporary Rental Bylaw 480-2, 2018 be read a third time this 18 th day of April, CARRIED Res. No D-18 Moved/Seconded That Council direct staff to proceed with a review of the District s Parks, Lands and Roads Temporary Rental Bylaw prior to the 2019 season. Councillor Muller returned to the meeting at 8:09 p.m. CARRIED 8.2 Bylaw No. 564, 2018 (Road Naming) Res. No D-19 Moved/Seconded That the report from the Municipal Planner dated August 17, 2015 regarding Bylaw No. 564, 2018 (Road Naming) be received. CARRIED Res. No D-20 Moved/Seconded That Council give first, second and third reading to Bylaw No. 564, 2018 (Road Naming). CARRIED Res. No D-21 Moved/Seconded That Council give first reading to Bylaw No. 564, 2018 (Road Naming) this 18 th day of April, CARRIED Page 42

43 Minutes Regular Council Meeting Page 13 of 20 April 18, 2018 Res. No D-22 Moved/Seconded That Council give second reading to Bylaw No. 564, 2018 (Road Naming) this 18 th day of April, CARRIED Res. No D-23 Moved/Seconded That Council give third reading to Bylaw No. 564, 2018 (Road Naming) this 18 th day of April, CARRIED Res. No D-24 Moved/Seconded That Council rescind Council Policy Road Naming and direct staff to develop a new Council Policy Road Naming, CARRIED Financial Plan, Bylaw No. 563 and 2018 Tax Rates, Bylaw No. 565 Res. No D-25 Moved/Seconded That the report prepared by the Director of Corporate and Financial Services dated April 12, 2018 regarding three readings of the financial plan bylaw and the 2018 tax rate bylaw be received. CARRIED Res. No D-26 Moved/Seconded That Financial Plan Bylaw No. 563, 2018 be read a first, second and third time. CARRIED Res. No D-27 Moved/Seconded That 2018 Tax Rates Bylaw No. 565, 2018 be read a first, second and third time. CARRIED Res. No D-28 Moved/Seconded That Financial Plan Bylaw No. 563, 2018 be read a first time this 18 th day of April, CARRIED Page 43

44 Minutes Regular Council Meeting Page 14 of 20 April 18, 2018 Res. No D-29 Moved/Seconded That Financial Plan Bylaw No. 563, 2018 be read a second time this 18 th day of April, CARRIED Res. No D-30 Moved/Seconded That Financial Plan Bylaw No. 563, 2018 be read a third time this 18 th day of April, CARRIED Res. No D-31 Moved/Seconded That 2018 Tax Rates Bylaw No. 565, 2018 be read a first time this 18 th day of April, Res. No D-32 Moved/Seconded CARRIED That 2018 Tax Rates Bylaw No. 565, 2018 be read a second time this 18 th day of April, Res. No D-33 Moved/Seconded CARRIED That 2018 Tax Rates Bylaw No. 565, 2018 be read a third time this 18 th day of April, CARRIED 8.4 Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No , 2018 (Wade) & Zoning Bylaw No. 25, 1987, Amendment Bylaw No , 2018 (CD-42, Wade) Res. No D-34 Moved/Seconded That the report from the Community Planner dated March 29, 2018 regarding the application for Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No , 2018 (Wade) & Zoning Bylaw No. 25, 1987, Amendment Bylaw No , 2018 (CD-42, Wade) be received. CARRIED Page 44

45 Minutes Regular Council Meeting Page 15 of 20 April 18, 2018 Res. No D-35 Moved/Seconded That Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No , 2018 (Wade) be given 1 st reading. CARRIED Res. No D-36 Moved/Seconded That Zoning Bylaw No. 25, 1986, Amendment Bylaw No , 2018 (CD-42, Wade) be given 1 st reading. CARRIED Res. No D-37 Moved/Seconded That Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No , 2018 (Wade) be given first reading this 18 th day of April, CARRIED Res. No D-38 Moved/Seconded That Zoning Bylaw No. 25, 1986, Amendment Bylaw No , 2018 (CD-42, Wade) be given first reading this 18 th day of April, CARRIED OPPOSED: Councillor Muller Res. No D-39 Moved/Seconded That Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No , 2018 (Wade) be considered in conjunction with: a. s current Financial Plan; b. Sunshine Coast Regional District s Solid Waste Management Plan; c. s 2000 Liquid Waste Management Plan; and d. The registration of the District s Waste Water Treatment Plan under the MunicipalWaste Water Regulation. CARRIED Res. No D-40 Moved/Seconded That staff be authorized to schedule a Public Hearing for Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No , 2018 (Wade) & Zoning Bylaw No. 25, 1987, Amendment Bylaw No , 2018 (CD-42, Wade). Recess: The Mayor recessed the meeting at 8:46 p.m. Reconvene: The Mayor reconvened the meeting at: 8:51 p.m. CARRIED Page 45

46 Minutes Regular Council Meeting Page 16 of 20 April 18, Rezoning Application for Luch and McCarter 5980 Sechelt Inlet Road - Public Hearing, Public Consultation and bylaw consideration Res. No D-41 Moved/Seconded That the report prepared by the Community Planner dated April 6, 2018 regarding public consultation for the rezoning of a property located at 5980 Sechelt Inlet Road from RR-2 Rural 2 Zone to a modified I-6 Industrial 6 Zone be received. CARRIED Res. No D-42 Moved/Seconded That Council give 2nd and 3rd readings to Zoning Amendment Bylaw No , 2018 (Luch and McCarter). CARRIED Res. No D-43 Moved/Seconded That Council adopt the Public Hearing minutes dated March 27, 2018 for Zoning Amendment Bylaw No , 2018 (Luch and McCarter). CARRIED Res. No D-44 Moved/Seconded That Zoning Amendment Bylaw No , 2018 (Luch and McCarter) be read a second time this 18 th day of April, CARRIED Res. No D-45 Moved/Seconded That Zoning Amendment Bylaw No , 2018 (Luch and McCarter) be read a third time this 18 th day of April, CARRIED 9. NEW BUSINESS None. 10. BUSINESS ITEMS 10.2 Development Variance Permit Resland Development Co. - Subdivision Development McCourt Road and Sunshine Coast Highway 101 Page 46

47 Minutes Regular Council Meeting Page 17 of 20 April 18, 2018 Res. No D-46 Moved/Seconded That the report from the Municipal Planner, dated April 9, 2018 regarding the Resland Development Co. s Development Variance Permit application be received. Res. No D-47 Moved/Seconded CARRIED That Development Variance Permit be approved for the properties, Blocks K and L, Plan 7331, DL 4293, PID and PID that varies Bylaw 430 Part 4 - Application Requirements and Approval Process Section 17. Parcel Standards - 17(5) minimum width of a dedicated panhandle access strip from 6.0 metres to 4.5 metres, for proposed new Lot 29, provided that: i. a cast-in-place concrete walkway and stairwell of a minimum 1.2 metres wide is provided from McCourt Road s future sidewalk to the upper level of new Lot 29 as indicated on Binnie Engineering s drawing No SK29 dated March 14, 2018; and; ii. a restrictive covenant is registered requiring fire sprinklering of any home on Lot 29. CARRIED 10.3 Development Variance Permit (Jones- Rona) at 5644 Wharf Avenue Res. No D-48 Moved/Seconded That the report from the Community Planner dated April 9, 2018 regarding application for Development Variance Permit (Jones-Rona) at 5644 Wharf Avenue be received. CARRIED Res. No D-49 Moved/Seconded That Development Variance Permit be approved for the properties, LOT 5, BLOCK 9, DISTRICT LOTS 303 AND 304, PLAN 7483 (PID ) and LOT B, DISTRICT LOT 304, PLAN LMP43376, (PID ) to vary bylaws as presented in the attached permit. CARRIED 11. REPORTS FROM COUNCILLORS Page 47

48 Minutes Regular Council Meeting Page 18 of 20 April 18, Reports from Councillors Reports on Liaison Activities, General Reports Councillor Wright reported on his attendance at the Finance, Culture and Economic Development Committee meeting where budget discussions continued, and a Davis Bay Community Association meeting. Councillor Wright spoke about his attendance of some good sessions at the Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities (AVICC) conference. He also participated in the Community Forrest workshop. Councillor Siegers noted her attendance at a small conference for CEO s, Presidents, Vice Presidents and Chairs of large public and private corporations in Canada and the US. This conference focussed on board relationships, working with external stakeholders and building strategic organizational partnerships. She also attended the well-attended Self-employed Women s Network Annual General Meeting (AGM). Councillor Siegers commented on some of the sessions she attended at AVICC, including: canabis regulation after legislation, affordable housing initiatives, social procurement hub workshop, open space and tools for resilient shorelines. Councillor Siegers noted in particular the information session on technology and innovation, where she learned that 25% of economic development growth is coming from technology and digital services. This information session focussed on how to leverage technology services within our own community. Councillor Muller informed those in attendance that he did not attend AVICC this year due to a full schedule. He noted that he has been doing some extra writing and is heavily involved in this year s Ocean s Day event that will be held June 9 th at Friendship Park. Councillor Muller extended an open invitation to anyone interested in participating in the event to attend the first scheduled meeting on May 1 st at 7:00 p.m. in the Rockwood Centre dining room. Councillor Lutes noted a busy few weeks, including her attendance at various Committee meetings and AVICC, where she attended a session on derelict boats /vessels of concern. She also enjoyed the keynote speaker who s topic focused on happy communities. While at AVICC Councillor Lutes also noted the presence of BC Premier John Horgan, MLA Andrew Weaver and Minister Selina Robinson. Councillor Lutes publicized the upcoming Day of Mourning ceremony that will be held in Spirit Square in Sechelt on April 28 th at 11:00 a.m. and urged everyone to attend. Councillor Shanks commented on his attendance at a Sechelt Downtown Business Association (SDBA) meeting where he had concerns about criticism around Council decisions. He also attended a West Sechlet Community Association meeting where residents were pleased with his responses to questions regarding sewer costs. He expressed that he is thankful to be the Council liaison for this Community Association. Councillor Shanks also attended AVICC where he attended the sessions regarding happy communities, tech and innovation, as well as the session on derelict Page 48

49 Minutes Regular Council Meeting Page 19 of 20 April 18, 2018 boast/vessels of concern. In closing, he noted Minister Selina Robinson s excellent presentation. Councillor Inkster noted his attendance at a meeting with School District 46 regarding solar panels where he expects this information to be forwarded to Committee and Council in the form of a staff report. He also commented on his attendance at AVICC where he noted the presence of Premier John Horgan, the leader of the Green Party and Andrew Weaver. In particular, Councillor Inkster noted his attendance at the happy communities session where he encouraged all Councillors to share the materials of this session with members of the community. While at AVICC Councillor Inkster also attended sessions regarding the protection of our coastline and continuing opioid issues. Mayor Milne detailed a busy few weeks and his attendance at AVICC. He also met with the MP and MLA regarding housing initiatives. Mayor Milne has been keeping in touch with the community as well as the CAO, where he was briefed and de-breifed on the COA s attendance of the East Porpoise Bay Community Association meeting Reports from SCRD Board Council Representatives The SCRD Board representative, Councilor Wright, noted that the following was discussed at the SCRD Planning Committee meeting: OCP Amendments Development variance permits A report on the cemetary bylaw, which includes updated fees He also noted the SCRD Infrastructure meeting scheduled for tomorrow at 9:30 a.m. includes six reports and one delegation regarding water. 12. ITEMS FOR INFORMATION/RELEASE OF CLOSED MEETING ITEMS 12.1 Release of Resolution from Closed Meeting Res. No D-50 Moved/Seconded That the report from the Corporate Officer dated April 10 th, 2018 regarding Release of Resolution from Closed Meeting be received. Res. No D-51 Moved/Seconded CARRIED That Council appoint the Corporate Officer as Chief Election Officer for the 2018 General Elections; and that the District s Human Resources Advisor be appointed Deputy Chief Election Officer. CARRIED Page 49

50 Minutes Regular Council Meeting Page 20 of 20 April 18, Sechelt Visitor Centre March 2018 Statistics Res. No D-52 Moved/Seconded That the Sechelt Visitor Centre March 2018 Statistics be received RCMP March 2018 Monthly Statistics Res. No D-53 Moved/Seconded That the RCMP March 2018 Monthly Statistics be received Council Correspondence Res. No D-54 Moved/Seconded CARRIED CARRIED That Council Correspondence included on the April 18 th, 2018 Regular Council Meeting Agenda be received. 13. MAYOR, COUNCIL AND STAFF EMERGENCY ITEMS No emergency items were brought forward. 14. ADJOURNMENT Res. No D-55 Moved/Seconded That the Regular Council meeting of April 18 th, 2018, be adjourned at 9:32 p.m. Certified Correct: CARRIED CARRIED Bruce Milne, Mayor Jo-Anne Frank, Corporate Officer Page 50

51 Item 7.1 DISTRICT OF SECHELT MINUTES OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Held at 5797 Cowrie Street, Sechelt, BC Wednesday, April 25th, 2018 PRESENT STAFF Councillors N. Muller (Chair); M. Shanks, D. Siegers; and A. Lutes Director of Planning and Development Services, T. Corbett; Municipal Planner A. Letman; Recording Secretary M. Roberts 1. CALL TO ORDER AND DECLARATION OF CONFLICT The Chair called the Planning and Community Development Committee Meeting to order at 2:00pm and asked if there were any declarations of conflict. 2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Recommendation No. 1 Agenda Moved/Seconded That the Agenda be adopted. CARRIED 3. APPOINTMENTS AND DELEGATIONS 4. COMMITTEE / COMMISSION MINUTES AND REPORTS 4.1 Minutes of the Planning and Community Development Committee Meeting of March 28th, 2018 Recommendation No. 2 Moved/Seconded That the Minutes of the Planning and Community Development Committee Meeting of March 28 th, 2018 be received. CARRIED Page 51

52 Minutes Planning and Community Development Committee Meeting Page 2 of 6 April 25, Minutes of the Advisory Planning Commission Meeting of February 15th, 2018 Recommendation No. 3 Moved/Seconded That the Minutes of the Advisory Planning Commission Meeting of February 15th, 2018 be received. CARRIED 4.3 Minutes of the Accessibility Advisory Committee Meeting of April 12th, 2018 Recommendation No. 4 Moved/Seconded That the Minutes of the Planning and Community Development Committee Meeting of April 12th, 2018, 2018 be received. CARRIED 4.4 Minutes of the Advisory Planning Commission Meeting of April 4th, 2018 Recommendation No. 5 Moved/Seconded That the Minutes of the Advisory Planning Commission Meeting of April 4th, 2018 be received. CARRIED 5. NEW BUSINESS 6. BUSINESS ITEMS 6.1 Mobius Architecture for BC Housing Official Community Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application Recommendation No. 6 - Mobius Architecture for BC Housing Official Community Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application Moved/Seconded That the report from the Municipal Planner dated April 10, 2018 regarding the application from Mobius Architecture and BC Housing for an Official Community Plan Amendment and Zoning Bylaw Amendment Bylaw for supportive affordable housing be received. CARRIED Page 52

53 Minutes Planning and Community Development Committee Meeting Page 3 of 6 April 25, 2018 Recommendation No. 7 Mobius Architecture for BC Housing Official Community Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application Moved/Seconded That the Committee recommends to Council that: a) Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No , 2018 (BC Housing) be given first reading and referred to a Public Hearing for the Mobius Architecture- BC Housing supportive housing application the property at 5656 Hightide Avenue Lot 1, Plan BCP36628, DL 304 (PID ); and, b) Zoning Amendment Bylaw No , 2018 (BC Housing) be given first reading and referred to a Public Hearing for the Mobius Architecture - BC Housing supportive housing application for the property at 5656 Hightide Avenue Lot 1, Plan BCP36628, DL 304 (PID ). CARRIED Recommendation No. 8 Mobius Architecture for BC Housing Official Community Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application Moved/Seconded That the Committee recommends to Council that staff and BC Housing be directed to draft and begin a Housing Agreement process for 100% of the apartment units in the affordable supportive housing. CARRIED Recommendation No. 9 Mobius Architecture for BC Housing Official Community Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application Moved/Seconded That the Committee recommends to Council that staff begin a road closure process for a portion of the undeveloped southern end of Hightide Avenue. CARRIED Page 53

54 Minutes Planning and Community Development Committee Meeting Page 4 of 6 April 25, 2018 Recommendation No. 10 Mobius Architecture for BC Housing Official Community Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application Moved/Seconded That the Committee recommends to Council that Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No , 2018 (BC Housing) be considered in conjunction with: a) s current Financial Plan; b) Sunshine Coast Regional District s Solid Waste Management Plan; c) s 2000 Liquid Waste Management Plan; and d) The registration of the District s Waste Water Treatment Plant (Water Resource Centre) under the Municipal Waste Water Regulation. CARRIED Recommendation No. 11 Mobius Architecture for BC Housing Official Community Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application Motion to Amend Moved/Seconded That the Committee recommends, that pursuant to Section 475 of the Local Government Act and in addition to a Public Hearing, that Council considers and confirms that the referral of the Official Community Plan Amendment application for 5656 Hightide Avenue to the following: a) School District 46; b) Downtown Village Neighbourhood Association; c) shíshálh Nation; d) Sunshine Coast Regional District; e) Utility Companies: BC Hydro, Fortis BC Energy, Coast Cable, Telus; f) Sechelt Fire Department; g) Canada Post; h) BC. Min. of Transportation and Infrastructure; i) Vancouver Coastal Health; j) Advisory Planning Commission; and along with the public information meeting held on April 3, 2018, constitutes the appropriate early and ongoing consultation to persons, organizations and authorities pursuant to Section 475 (2) of the Local Government Act. Moved/Seconded That the Committee amend the recommendation by adding k) Accessibility Advisory Committee to the list above. CARRIED Page 54

55 Minutes Planning and Community Development Committee Meeting Page 5 of 6 April 25, 2018 Recommendation No. 12 Mobius Architecture for BC Housing Official Community Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application Amended Motion Moved/Seconded That the Committee recommends, that pursuant to Section 475 of the Local Government Act and in addition to a public hearing, that Council considers and confirms that the referral of the Official Community Plan Amendment application for 5656 Hightide Avenue to the following: a) School District 46; b) Downtown Village Neighbourhood Association; c) shíshálh Nation; d) Sunshine Coast Regional District; e) Utility Companies: BC Hydro, Fortis BC Energy, Coast Cable, Telus; f) Sechelt Fire Department; g) Canada Post; h) BC. Min. of Transportation and Infrastructure; i) Vancouver Coastal Health; j) Advisory Planning Commission; and k) Accessibility Advisory Committee along with the public information meeting held on April 3, 2018, constitutes the appropriate early and ongoing consultation to persons, organizations and authorities pursuant to Section 475 (2) of the Local Government Act. CARRIED Recommendation No. 13 Mobius Architecture for BC Housing Official Community Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application Moved/Seconded That the Committee recommends to Council that final adoption of Zoning Amendment Bylaw No , 2018 (BC Housing) be conditional on provision of the following provisions: a) An application for a Development Permit for Multiple Family Housing be received and given Council s approval-in-principle; b) A Housing Agreement be entered into, to provide 100% affordable rental housing; c) A covenant to secure the ground floor s four accessible and four adaptable apartments; d) An archaeological Preliminary Field Reconnaissance (PFR) of the property; e) Securement of the off-site walkway improvements for portions of Hightide Avenue and Lamprey Lane. CARRIED Page 55

56 Minutes Planning and Community Development Committee Meeting Page 6 of 6 April 25, Development Action Chart Recommendation No. 14 Moved/Seconded That the Development Action Chart be received. CARRIED ADJOURNMENT Recommendation No. 15 Moved/Seconded That the Planning and Community Development Committee Meeting of April 25, 2018 be adjourned at 2:50pm. CARRIED Noel Muller, Chair Jo-Anne Frank, Corporate Officer Page 56

57 Item 8.1(a) REPORT TO COUNCIL TO: Mayor & Council REPORT DATE: April 20, 2018 TARGET DECISION DATE: May 2, 2018 FROM: Aaron Thompson, Community Planner RE: Zoning Bylaw No. 25, 1987, Amendment Bylaw No , 2018 (Murmac Construction Ltd.) FILE NO: RECOMMENDATIONS 1. That the report from the Community Planner dated April 20, 2018 regarding Zoning Bylaw No. 25, 1987, Amendment Bylaw No , 2018 (Murmac Construction Ltd.) be received. 2. That Zoning Bylaw No. 25, 1987, Amendment Bylaw No , 2018 (Murmac Construction Ltd.) be given 1 st reading. 3. That staff be authorized to schedule a public hearing for Zoning Bylaw No. 25, 1987, Amendment Bylaw No , 2018 (Murmac Construction Ltd.). OPTIONS & ALTERNATIVES 1. That Council adopt the recommendations as presented 2. Defer the application pending additional information as directed. 3. Refer the application back to staff to work with the applicant to amend the proposal and/or conditions and bring it back for further consideration. 4. Deny the application. PURPOSE The purpose of the report is to present the Zoning Bylaw No. 25, 1987, Amendment Bylaw No , 2018 (Murmac Construction Ltd.) for first reading. CONTEXT & BACKGROUND At the April 18, 2018 regular Council meeting, Council passed Resolution No D-5(11) authorizing staff to prepare a bylaw to rezone the subject property to the R-1 zone and this report responds to that resolution. Additional information including the analysis of the proposal can be found in the report that was presented to the March 28, 2018 Planning and Community Development Committee. Page 57

58 2 DISCUSSION The Proposal The applicant requested a Zoning Bylaw amendment to decrease the minimum lot size from two-thirds of a hectare (6, m 2 ) under the RR-1 zone to 500 m 2 under the R-1 zone to allow for a single-family detached subdivision of approximately 21 lots. Communication Strategy In accordance with s. 464 of the Local Government Act, a public hearing must be held for the proposed bylaw. Notice of the public hearing will be published in the newspaper and sent to surrounding property owners and tenants prior to the public hearing. Staff would seek to schedule the public hearing to be held immediately before a Council meeting or in conjunction with another Public Hearing. Conclusion In accordance with Resolution No D-5(11), staff have prepared a Zoning Bylaw Amendment. It is recommended that Council give first reading to the bylaw as presented. Respectfully submitted, Aaron Thompson, Community Planner Reviewed and approved by: Page 58

59 DISTRICT OF SECHELT Item 8.1(b) Bylaw No , 2018 (Murmac Construction Ltd.) A bylaw to amend Zoning Bylaw No. 25, 1987 by rezoning a property in the West Porpoise Bay neighbourhood from RR-1 to R-1 WHEREAS the Council of the wishes to amend Zoning Bylaw No. 25, 1987; AND WHEREAS the proposed amendment is consistent with the Official Community Plan Bylaw 492, 2010; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the in open meeting assembled enacts as follows: 1. TITLE This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as Zoning Bylaw No. 25, 1987, Amendment Bylaw No , 2018 (Murmac Construction Ltd.). 2. AMENDMENTS 1) That Block 12 District Lot 1471 Plan 3660 as shown on the plan attached to and forming part of this bylaw as Schedule A be rezoned from RR-1, Rural Residential 1 Zone to R-1, Residential 1 Zone. 2) Schedule "A" of Zoning Bylaw No. 25, 1987 (Official Zoning Maps) shall be amended to reflect the zoning designation and boundaries brought into force by this bylaw. READ A FIRST TIME THIS DAY OF 2016 PUBLIC HEARING HELD THIS DAY OF 2016 READ A SECOND TIME THIS DAY OF 2016 READ A THIRD TIME THIS DAY OF 2016 ADOPTED THIS DAY OF 2016 Mayor Corporate Officer Schedule A Page 59

60 Page 2 Zoning Bylaw No , 2018 (Murmac Construction Ltd.) Page 60

61 Item 8.2(a) REQUEST FOR DECISION TO: Mayor and Council REPORT DATE: April 25, 2018 TARGET DECISION DATE: May 2, 2018 FROM: RE: Angela Letman, Municipal Planner Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No , 2018 (BC Housing) Zoning Bylaw Amendment No , 2018 (BC Housing) Mobius Architecture and BC Housing Supportive Housing Development Hightide Avenue FILE NO: and RECOMMENDATIONS 1. That the report from the Municipal Planner dated April 10, 2018 regarding the application from Mobius Architecture and BC Housing for an Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw and Zoning Bylaw Amendment Bylaw for supportive affordable rental housing be received. 2. That the Committee recommends to Council that: a) Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No , 2018 (BC Housing) be given first reading and referred to a Public Hearing for the Mobius Architecture- BC Housing supportive housing application the property at 5656 Hightide Avenue Lot 1, Plan BCP36628, DL 304 (PID ); and, b) Zoning Amendment Bylaw No , 2018 (BC Housing) be given first reading and referred to a Public Hearing for the Mobius Architecture - BC Housing supportive housing application for the property at 5656 Hightide Avenue Lot 1, Plan BCP36628, DL 304 (PID ). 3. That the Committee recommends to Council that staff and BC Housing be directed to draft and begin a Housing Agreement process for 100% of the apartment units in the affordable supportive housing. 4. That the Committee recommends to Council that staff begin a road closure process for a portion of the undeveloped southern end of Hightide Ave. 5. That the Committee recommends to Council that Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No , 2018 (BC Housing) be considered in conjunction with: a) s current Financial Plan; b) Sunshine Coast Regional District s Solid Waste Management Plan; c) s 2000 Liquid Waste Management Plan; and Page 61

62 d) The registration of the District s Waste Water Treatment Plant (Water Resource Centre) under the Municipal Waste Water Regulation. 6. That the Committee recommends, that pursuant to Section 475 of the Local Government Act and in addition to a public hearing, that Council considers and confirms that the referral of the Official Community Plan Amendment application for 5656 Hightide Avenue to the following: a) School District 46; b) Downtown Village Neighbourhood Association; c) shíshálh Nation; d) Sunshine Coast Regional District; e) Utility Companies: BC Hydro, Fortis BC Energy, Coast Cable, Telus; f) Sechelt Fire Department; g) Canada Post; h) BC. Min. of Transportation and Infrastructure; i) Vancouver Coastal Health, and; j) Advisory Planning Commission; k) Accessibility Advisory Committee; along with the public information meeting held on April 3, 2018, constitutes the appropriate early and ongoing consultation to persons, organizations and authorities pursuant to Section 475 (2) of the Local Government Act. 7. That final adoption of Zoning Amendment Bylaw No , 2018 (BC Housing) be conditional on provision of the following provisions: a) An application for a Development Permit for Multiple Family Housing be received and given Council s approval-in-principle; b) A Housing Agreement be entered into, to provide 100% affordable rental housing; c) A covenant to secure the ground floor s four accessible and four adaptable apartments; d) An archaeological Preliminary Field Reconnaissance (PFR) of the property; e) Securement of the off-site walkway improvements for portions of Hightide Avenue and Lamprey Lane. OPTIONS/ALTERNATIVES 1. That the above Recommendations 1. to 7. be endorsed. 2. That in lieu of a partial road closure that the southern lot line s building sideyard set-back be revised from 3.0 metres to 1.0 metre in the proposed zoning amendment bylaw. This would allow a greater setback to the neighbouring apartment building property to the north. 3. That the application for the proposed affordable supportive housing development be altered and brought back to the Planning and Community Development Committee for reconsideration. 4. That the application for an Official Community Plan Amendment and a Zoning Bylaw Amendment from Mobius Architecture and BC Housing be denied. Page 62

63 PURPOSE At the Planning and Community Development Committee Meeting of April 25, 2018, the Committee reviewed the development application for an affordable rental supportive housing development and recommended the presented motions. The purpose of the report is to present proposed bylaws for amendments to the Official Community Plan (OCP) and Zoning Bylaw, pursuant to the application. CONTEXT/BACKGROUND Table 1: Site and Application Data Applicant Peter Treuheit, Mobius Architecture Owner Provincial Rental Housing Corporation (BC Housing) Civic Address 5656 Hightide Avenue Legal Address Lot 1, Plan BCP36628, DL 304 (PID ) Neighbourhood Sechelt Village, Downtown Size of Property 1,817 square metres DP Areas DPA 7 - Multiple Family Residential Zoning Designation R-4, Residential 4 Zone OCP Designation Multifamily/Mixed Residential The subject property and immediate surrounding area is relatively flat. One mature fir tree is located in the south-west corner of the property. The remainder of the property is covered with scotch broom, an invasive plant species, weeds and grasses. As indicated on Fig. #1 Location Plan, the subject property has road right-of-way frontage on three of its four lot lines. The surrounding neighbourhood to the north and west of the property is a mix of townhouse, apartment and duplex multi-family housing buildings. To the east is a mix of single family homes and small ground oriented multifamily buildings that front Wharf Avenue. The application is for: an amendment of the Official Community Plan, Part Four Land Use Policies, Residential Policies, for this property only, to increase the maximum density from 100 to 221 residential units/ha (40 apartment units for this property); an amendment to the Zoning Bylaw to create a new site-specific multiple family supportive housing CD zone with: 3 storeys; a base density of 50 dwelling units per hectare; and a maximum density of 221 dwelling units per hectare(40 apartment units for this property) and accessory support services for residents; and partial closure of the southern portion of Hightide Avenue, which would permit a greater setback to neighbouring multifamily residential properties. Fig. #1- Location Plan Page 63

64 Table 2: Summary - Surrounding Land Uses of Adjacent Properties Zoning Current Use OCP Designation North R-4 2 and 3 storey, 21 unit rental apartment building East (across Lamprey Lane) South (across undeveloped portion of Hightide Ave.) R-2 Single family rental dwellings fronting Wharf Ave. C-2 Food Bank, Community Gardens, Hydro Transmission Lines West (across Hightide Ave.) R-4 Undeveloped phase of Ebbtide Village townhouse complex COUNCIL POLICY Multifamily/Mixed Residential Downtown Centre Downtown Centre Multifamily/Mixed Residential Strategic Plan - The following goals of the Plan are relevant to the application: 3.1 To have policies, practices, and regulations that promote quality development consistent with the District s Vision and Official Community Plan. 4.1 To increase affordable housing within the. 4.2 To advocate for a range of housing types and services that supports a diverse community. Sustainability Action Plan - The following guiding principles of the Plan are relevant to the application: Long Term Thinking o Recognize the enduring and long-lasting effects of our choices that will affect many generations to come. Balance- Look at the Bigger Picture- Recognizing the interconnectedness and interdependence among the economy, society and the environment is essential to balanced decisions. o Give equal value to social, cultural, environmental and economic considerations in all our decisions. o Balance all voices, goals and interests in our decisions. Living Well Create a caring community that lives well and celebrates together is a primary role of local government: o Develop safe, accessible, and inclusive neighbourhoods to encourage interaction. o Provide programs and services that serve all community members. Age-Friendly Community Plan - The following recommendations of the Plan are relevant to the application: C1 That the develop and implement an affordable housing strategy that takes the following into consideration: o A more proactive role for the District in encouraging the development of affordable housing. o Development of a framework and guiding principles to assist non-profits in accessing funds for new housing initiatives. o Continuing to encourage adherence to the Accessible and Adaptable Housing Design Guidelines, especially inside housing units. o That the continue to play a proactive role in encouraging new purpose built rental developments by: Page 64

65 Relaxing development cost charges; Identifying possible land, e.g. Crown land, and the possibility of leasing rather than buying land; Requiring that all new developments include affordable rental units, with some giving first priority to those in more vulnerable circumstances; Working with property owners to preserve affordable rental housing at risk of being lost when property is put up for sale; and Collaborating with the Sunshine Coast Affordable Housing Society and other local governments to implement an Affordable Housing Strategy coast wide. Official Community Plan The proposal is located within the Urban Containment Boundary. Future Land Use Map Schedule C-1 identifies the property as: Multifamily/Mixed Residential, a designation that provides for a variety of housing forms including apartments. Accessible units are identified as a community amenity. Part Four-Land Use Policies of the OCP, particularly Section 5 - Residential and Special Infill policies identifies Affordable and Special Needs Housing objectives. Groups in Need of Affordable Housing are defined as: Low-income households with household income less than $20,000/year in need of nonmarket rental housing; Households including people with special needs (living with addictions, physical or mental disabilities or youth leaving foster care) in need of supportive housing. Single person households (median incomes are approximately one-half of median incomes for other household types). Homeless people on limited or no income, in need of shelter or supportive housing Seniors with household incomes less than $40,000/year in need of low cost market or rental housing. Fig. 17 of Part FOUR, Section 5. Residential and Special Infill Areas of the OCP (Attachment 2) identifies the base density of apartment developments at 50 dwelling units per hectare and the maximum density at 100 units per hectare. An Apartment Building form is also described with a typical building height of 3 to 4 storeys and building mass of a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.4 in relation to the property size. If the rezoning and OCP amendment proposal proceeds then the development will be subject to the Development Permit Area 7 Multiple Family design guidelines. A more detailed design Development Permit application is expected at a future date. Financial Plan, Liquid Waste Management Plan and SCRD Solid Waste Management Plan The Official Community Plan Amendment must be evaluated with the above plans. DISCUSSION Proposal The application in support of the development proposal is for: an amendment of the Official Community Plan, Part Four Land Use Policies, Residential Policies, to increase the maximum allowable density from 100 residential units/ha to 221 residential units/ha for the subject property; an amendment to the Zoning Bylaw to create a new site-specific zone CD-43, a multiple family supportive housing zone with: 3 storeys; a base density of 50 residential apartment dwelling units per hectare; and provided there is a Housing Agreement, a Page 65

66 maximum density of 221 residential apartment dwelling units per hectare (40 units for this property) and accessory support services for residents; and partial closure of the southern portion of Hightide Avenue, which would permit a greater setback to neighbouring multifamily residential properties. The property s legal plan notes the area of the property at hectares or 1,820 square metres when in fact it measures 1, square metres (m2). Hence the calculated increased density request has been revised from 220 units to 221 units per hectare based on the area of the property. Massing and preliminary design drawings of the proposed development, prepared by Mobius Architecture, are attached in Attachment 1. The proposed development is a 3-storey, 40-unit, independent supportive housing building, with affordable studio rental apartments of approximately 32 square metres (344 sq. ft.) each. Accessory support spaces and services such as partial meal services, counselling, staff offices, laundry room, etc. will be provided in common areas located on the ground floor. Four wheelchair accessible units and four other units will be located on the ground floor. The 2nd and 3rd floors will have sixteen dwelling units each and will be accessed via two internal stairwells. The site plan (Drawing 5 of Attachment 1) indicates five parking spaces are proposed, along with a common outdoor area, vegetable garden and fenced dog run. Detailed design drawings will be provided at the Development Permit stage. The operation of the building will see staff supervision provided on site, 24 hours each day, 7 days a week. Rents will be no more than 30% of an individual s income. RainCity Housing and Support Society is proposed as the operator of the building and service provider. BC Housing has stated that the building will meet the new BC Energy Step 3 Code energyefficiency performance standards with enhanced features such as heat recovery units. At staff s suggestion, a partial road closure of the southern undeveloped Hightide Avenue is proposed to the south of the site. This will enable the proposed building to have a greater sideyard setback to the north and neighbouring building. The existing road right of way at this location is approximately 24.0 metres wide much wider than required for a road and underground servicing. A partial 2.0 metre road closure would permit a building setback from the north property line of 5.0 metres. OCP Alignment The proposal aligns with the future land-use designation, the Affordable Housing polices and much of the Residential Polices of the OCP. The proposal will provide affordable non-market, special needs, rental housing to persons who meet the definition of Groups in Need identified in the OCP. The OCP speaks to increased density through the provision of Community Amenities and typically applies to private sector housing developments. Affordable Housing is defined as housing that is provided so that no more than 30% of a gross household income is spent on housing. 100% of the proposed apartment units will be affordable, non-market rentals, provided by the not for profit provincial housing corporation. The housing can be guaranteed as such by the registration of a Housing Agreement on title. Building Form- The proposed building will be 3 storeys in height and the FAR has been calculated at 1.1. This meets the Apartment typical building form description of 1.4 FAR found in Fig. 17 of the OCP. As indicated on Attachment 1, the building mass will be no larger than an apartment building that could be developed on that site. The proposed 40 small apartments and the building s interior common areas will take up no more room (building mass) than a Page 66

67 conventional multifamily apartment building that could be developed on the property. Density Amendment- Fig. 17 of the OCP defines the maximum density for an apartment development as 100 units per hectare. Despite meeting the OCP s Apartment Building Form descriptors the proposed 40-unit studio apartment building is equivalent to a density of 221 units per hectare. This is due to the small 33 square meter size of each unit. Thus to support the proposal, a site-specific OCP amendment is needed to change the allowable maximum density of 100 units per hectare to 221 units per hectare. Zoning Considerations The proposed development will require rezoning from R-4, a multifamily zone that supports apartment and townhouse development, to a new site-specific CD zone that allows an increased maximum density of 40 units provided a Housing Agreement is entered into that ensures the apartment dwelling units remain not-for-profit and affordable rental units. A new CD zone may also accommodate the site-specific accessory support services for the residents of the building. Parking- Five parking spaces are proposed including one accessible space. BC Housing has stated that the parking spaces are for staff, support services, and visitors and that in their experience (in other communities) that none of the residents will have the income to afford a vehicle. BC Housing has stated that the residents will be on limited assisted income and 30% of their income will go towards their rent. Staff have researched BCAA s online Driving Costs Calculator that estimates the operating costs for an inexpensive small, 10 year old vehicle as $1,600 per year (includes fuel, maintenance and insurance, but no purchase cost or depreciation). This would be out of reach for persons on very low income. The applicant has stated a covered bicycle storage area will be provided in the detailed DP design drawings. One block away Route 3 bus transit is available on Wharf Avenue, with the major transit routes available at the corner of Wharf Ave. and Highway 101, approximately an 8-minute walk (500 metres) away. Table 3: Zoning Analysis- Comparison Permitted by R-4 CD Proposed (without Road Closure) Difference Maximum 9 dwelling units (15 units 9 dwelling units (40 units at 25 dwelling units Density at maximum density) maximum density) Maximum Height 10.5 metres 10.5 metres unchanged Maximum Site Coverage Minimum Front Yard Setback Min. Side yard setback (1) Min. Side Yard Setback (1) Minimum Rear Yard Setback Minimum Parking 75% buildings, parking areas and driveways 75% buildings, parking areas and driveways unchanged 7.5 metres 7.5 metres unchanged 6.0 metres 3.0 metres 3.0 metres 3.0 metres 3.0 metres unchanged 7.5 metres 7.5 metres unchanged 1.5 spaces per apartment incl. 1 accessible (22.5 spaces for 15 units) spaces per apartment incl. 1 accessible (5 spaces for 40 units) spaces per apartment unit (55 spaces) As indicated in Table 3, except for the density and parking requirements, much of the existing R-4 requirements will be duplicated in the new zone. Page 67

68 The existing zoning is R-4, a multi-family zone. The proposal is in keeping with the size, mass and building height of an R-4 zoned building. At 33 sq. metres, (344 sq. ft.) the studio apartment units are small, thus a greater number of them can be accommodated within in the same building form. The physical impact of the building and site development should be no more than the current zoning permits. Traffic is predicted at a minimum with none generated by the residents themselves. Strategic Plan Alignment The proposal meets the goals of the Strategic Plan to increase the amount of affordable housing in the community and to provide a range of housing types and housing services that support a diverse community. With regards to goal 3.1, the OCP amendment will allow the policies, practices and regulations to promote a quality development at this location through a Development Permit process. Sustainability Plan Alignment The proposal meets the goals of the Sustainability Plan to provide Balance- giving equal value, voices, goals and interests by giving consideration to the population at the lowest income bracket. In the long term, the proposal will meet the Living Well goal by meeting the needs for affordable housing, programs and services for an identified Group in Need. By having a home to call their own and with a place to provide tailored services, the target citizens will become better integrated into the community and may foster better neighbourhood interaction. Age-Friendly Community Plan and Accessibility Alignment The proposal meets the goals of the Age-Friendly Community Plan to develop and implement an affordable housing strategy by providing a 100% affordable housing, purpose built non-profit rental development. In addition, the enactment of the 2016 Development Cost Charge (DCC) Bylaw allows the relaxation of DCC s for guaranteed non-market rental housing. The proposal includes four fully accessible apartments with an accessible path of travel on the ground floor and site. Mobility challenges come in many forms. As no elevator is proposed to access the 2nd and 3rd floors of the building, staff recommend that the remaining four ground floor apartments be constructed to an adaptable accessibility standard to allow for ease of future conversion and grab bar installation. The provision of the accessible outdoor and indoor common areas, the provision of four wheelchair accessible studio apartments, and as recommended by staff, the provision of four additional adaptable studio apartments will deliver a measure of accessibility proportionate to the target Group In Need, both now and in the future. This can be considered a Community Amenity under the OCP policies. Liquid Waste Management Plan (LWMP) The subject property is within Sewer Area 1 as defined by the OCP and is readily serviced by sewer. The LWMP guides long term planning for sewage collection and treatment in the District of Sechelt and Sechelt Indian Government District. The LWMP focuses on residential waste water. More recently, the Water Resource Centre was approved by the Ministry of Environment. The Revised Water Resource Centre Expansion Capacity Analysis & Cost Estimate prepared by Urban Systems found that 534 additional single-family equivalent units can be added to the District s sanitary sewer treatment system before the next planned expansion needs to take place. The proposed 40 studio unit apartment building is equivalent to approximately 20 singlefamily residential household units and will have minimal impact on the overall capacity of the Water Resource Centre. Solid Waste Management Plan The Plan supports the provision of adequate storage and pick-up for separate garbage, Page 68

69 recycling, and organics for residents and staff. Much of the building will be modular construction thus there will be limited amount of construction waste generated on the Sunshine Coast. Additionally an on-site construction waste management plan can streamline and recycle any waste construction materials. The proposed 40 apartments should generate no more refuse and recycling than the current OCP land-use designation permits since the apartments will be less than 34 sq. metres in size. Archeological The property is within 50 metres of a recorded BC archaeological site. The application was referred to the shíshálh Nation for comment who have stated: Due to the high concentration of recorded and unrecorded archaeological sites in the area, the shíshálh Nation requires an archaeological Preliminary Field Reconnaissance (PFR) prior to ground disturbance. Staff recommend that the provision of a PFR become a condition of final adoption of the bylaw. Environmental and Geotechnical A Stage 1 Preliminary Site Investigation Report, dated May 5, 2017 and prepared by NEXT Enviromental Inc. has been submitted that indicates there are no Areas of Potential Enviromental Concern from any past uses of the site (pollution) and no further site investigation is required. A copy of the report is available for viewing in the pubic information binder. The undeveloped portion of the Hightide Ave. road right-of-way has a mix of trees, predominantly cedar and fir, with some arbutus, dogwood, hemlock and pine. Many trees are healthy and mature, while some are dead or leaning. Concerns from neighbouring residents to retain the trees as a buffer has been expressed. Staff have assessed and determined their location, size, type, and health. Staff believe that many of the trees may be retained through careful planning of a reduced width roadway connection from the developed portion of Hightide Avenue to Lamprey Lane. Since the trees are located in the middle section of the undeveloped road right of way, any partial road closure should not require tree removal. Although not in any Development Permit Area for geotechnical hazard, a Geotechnical Investigation Report, dated December 22, 2017 prepared by GEOPACIFIC Consulting Geotechnical Engineers has been prepared for the purpose of providing geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed development. The report indicates that the underlying soils are a mix of sand and gravel. The report makes recommendations on: site preparation; foundations; seimisc design; slab on grade floors; foundation drainage; on-site pavement; temporary excavations; utility installations; design review; and construction inspections. In summary, the report states that provided the recommendations are followed that the proposed development is feasible. Infrastructure Servicing, On-Street Parking and Extended Works Sanitary sewer, storm sewer, water and utility services are all available to the property. The Hightide Avenue road right of way that is developed is metres wide. The undeveloped portion of Hightide Avenue road right of way is approximately 24.0 metres wide. Lamprey Lane road right-of-way is 6.0 metres wide. Engineering Staff have commented on the application. In addition to Bylaw 430 requirements staff recommend pedestrian walkway improvements to portions of Lamprey Lane and Hightide Avenue. This will improve pedestrian connectivity to the Downtown and public transit for the residents, staff and the entire neighbourhood. Final road design of the subject property frontage on to Hightide Ave. could include an extension of the perpendicular parking found in front of the neighbouring apartment building. Page 69

70 This would increase the available on-street parking for the neighbourhood. Road Closure The existing road right of way to the south of the property is approximately 24.0 metres wide. Typical road right of way width is 20 metres. While not essential for the proposal, a partial 2.0 metre road closure would allow the proposed building to shift and have a greater side-yard (northern) building setback of approximately 5.0 metres, from the proposed 3.0 metres. This would be more in keeping with the existing R-4 zoning sideyard setbacks and provide increased separation to the neighbouring apartment building. A road closure process requires public notification, a separate bylaw and legal survey. Alternatively, a reduced building set-back from 3.0 metres to 1.0 metre to the southern sideyard lot line would achieve much of the same affect without any road closure. This could be accommodated in the proposed zoning amendment bylaw. Financial Implications, Financial Plan Consideration, DCC s The proposed method of construction is prefabricated modular units. Construction jobs and some construction supplies will provide short-term economic benefits to the community. Longterm economic benefits will include increased employment, and increased supplies and services that will be contracted/purchased from local suppliers. Council policies support financial strategies and partnerships in support of affordable housing. The application does not affect the 5 year Financial Plan. As a not-for-profit housing facility, the development can be considered for an annual property tax exemption by Council. Council reviews property tax exemptions on an annual basis thus Council will have the opportunity to review the constructed development each year. Nevertheless, BC Housing will remain responsible for their municipal and SCRD user fees- parcel taxes and utility charges- such as sewer and water. They will also need to contract for their own garbage and recycling pick-up. Provided a Housing Agreement is in place, the Development Cost Charges may be reduced or waived at the time of building permit issuance, in accordance with the Bylaw No. 554, 2016, Section 2. Definitions and Section 3. Development Cost Charges- paragraphs (5) and (6). COMMUNICATION STRATEGY Consultation Requirement Pursuant to s. 475 of the Local Government Act, during the amendment of an OCP, the District must provide one or more opportunities it considers appropriate, early and on-going, for consultation with persons, organizations and authorities it considers will be affected by the OCP amendment. The District must: (a) Consider whether the opportunities for consultation with one or more of the persons, organizations and authorities should be early and ongoing, and (b) Specifically consider whether consultation is required with: (i) The board of the regional district in which the area covered by the plan is located, (ii) The board of any regional district that is adjacent to the area covered by the plan, (iii) The council of any municipality that is adjacent to the area covered by the plan, (iv) First nations, (v) School district boards, greater boards and improvement district boards, and (vi) The Provincial and federal governments and their agencies. Consultation under S. 475 is in addition to the public hearing requirement. Page 70

71 Referrals The application was referred to a number of agencies including shíshálh Nation, SD46, SCRD, the Downtown Village Neighbourhood Assoc., utility companies, the BC. Min. of Transportation and Infrastructure, Vancouver Coastal Health, and the Advisory Planning Commission (APC). The Planning and Community Development Committee has recommended the addition of the Accessibility Advisory Committee to the list of consultation bodies. Staff will bring the proposal for comment to their next meeting. Note, staff recently received comments from the Downtown Village Neighbourhood Association. The comments received thus far are included in Attachment 3 and are summarized as follows: APC: The APC recommends to Council: the approval of the OCP Amendment application to increase the allowable density on the property to allow a maximum of 40 residential units in a three storey building for non-profit, independent supported, rental housing with the condition that a housing agreement be registered. the approval of the Zoning Amendment application to create a zone for a 40 unit support housing, 3-storey building conditional upon a housing agreement for 100% of the units. the partial road closure of Hightide Avenue as proposed by the applicant, provided that the building footprint and number of units does not increase in size. that the applicant add exterior lighting and address safety concerns at the Development Permit stage. shíshálh Nation: an archaeological Preliminary Field Reconnaissance (PFR) is required. Telus: no comments. BC Hydro: no comments. Applicant to contact the local design office when ready to obtain service. FortisBC Energy: no objections to this proposal. BC. Min. of Transportation and Infrastructure: no comments, interests are unaffected. Canada Post: additional information needed before mail receiving facilities can be determined. Vancouver Coastal Health: The meal services kitchen will need to meet the requirements of the BC Food Premise Regulation. Review of the plans of the kitchen before the approval for construction is given, is required. The kitchen service once in operation would subject to a permit fee and routine inspections. Sechelt Fire Department: Site access to conform to BCBC Including the connection of Lamprey Lane and the southern portion of Hightide Avenue. SCRD - No comments have yet been received regarding the OCP amendment and zoning amendment application. District staff have confirmed with SCRD Planning staff that the Board will be reviewing the amendments application in early May. SCRD Utilities Division (water) have no comments at this time and request deferment of their development servicing comments until the Development Permit application at which time the required size of water service (fire protection) will be identified. SD46- Their interests are unaffected. Building Department: The application was reviewed by the Building Department who have stated that the department supports this project and has no other comments at this time. Downtown Village Neighbourhood Association: Recommend the project. Board members like the project, especially the way it is being built. It means it will get completed quicker, a much Page 71

72 better design structure. Public Information Meeting and Sign Notification BC Housing hosted a Public Information Meeting held on April 3, 2018 at which there were 75 attendees. A comprehensive report on the meeting regarding the information presented, the facilitated discussion, and the comments received (Attachment 4) has been provided. A development notification sign has been erected on site since early March. Public Hearing Should the bylaws receive 1st readings, the general public will be notified of the Public Hearing through the municipal website and through advertisement in two newspaper editions. Neighbouring property owners and residents within 50 metres of the subject property will also be notified of the Public Hearing. Conclusion BC Housing is the provincial housing corporation and owns four other housing developments in Sechelt. A fifth housing development is funded by them. Two of the five developments successfully provide supportive housing to Groups in Need. All five developments involve community partnerships and are well integrated into the community. Staff strongly recommend the approval of the application. The proposed development is much needed to address current housing shortages for very low income citizens and it will thus provide great community benefit. The proposal largely fits within Council s established policies and plans. The physical impact of the building and site development will be no more than the current zoning permits. Traffic will be at a minimum with none generated by the residents themselves. In lieu of the increased density, staff recommend that the following community amenities to be accepted and secured including provision of: 100% of the dwelling units being not-for-profit, non-market rental supportive housing; four accessible units and four adaptable units; and, pedestrian walkway improvement works to off-site portions of Hightide Avenue and Lamprey Lane. Next Steps - Should the proposed bylaws receive first reading then legal notices will be placed in the newspaper and neighbouring property owners and residents will be notified. All referral comments need to be received by the date of notification of the Public Hearing. Should the partial road closure be endorsed, then an official road closure bylaw and process will be commenced. Legal notices will be placed in the newspaper for notification to the public. To secure the recommendations for affordable rental housing, accessibility, off-site walkway improvements, satisfy the shishalh Nation PFR requirement, and to review a detailed building and landscaping design, the following is needed: A Housing Agreement be entered into, to provide 100% affordable rental housing; A Covenant to secure the ground floor s four accessible and four adaptable apartments; Securement of the off-site walkway infrastructure works required for portions of Hightide Avenue and Lamprey Lane. An archaeological Preliminary Field Reconnaissance (PFR) of the property; and An application for a Development Permit for Multiple Family Housing be received and given Council s approval-in-principle (subject to the rezoning completion). These are the recommended conditions of final adoption of the zoning bylaw. Page 72

73 Respectfully submitted, Angela Letman, MCIP, RPP Attachments 1. Application Drawings 2. OCP - Fig. 17 HOUSING FORMS AND DENSITY table of Part FOUR, Section 5. Residential and Special Infill Areas 3. Referral Comments (note- includes Downtown Village Neighbourhood Assoc.) 4. April 3, 2018 Public Information Meeting Report Page 73

74 Sechelt Supported Housing OCP Amendment/ Rezoning Application ATTACHMENT 1 February 6th, 2018 Page 74

75 Sechelt Supported Housing OCP Amendment/ Rezoning Application February 6th, 2018 Lamprey Lane Site Description Address Hightide Avenue Lot 1 SUBJECT PROPERTY Legal Description Lot 1, Plan BCP36628, DL 304, Land District 1 Hightide Avenue Date: February 6, 2018 Scale: 1/32" = 1'-0" Page 75

76 126.61' Sechelt Supported Housing OCP Amendment/ Rezoning Application February 6th, ' ' Proposed Road Closure: 209 square meters ' Date: February 6, 2018 Scale: 1/32" = 1'-0" Page 76

77 PA-1 R2 Sechelt Supported Housing OCP Amendment/ Rezoning Application February 6th, 2018 R2 R1 R4 C2 PA-1 R4 R4 SITE R2 C4 C4 C4 C2 C4 PA-1 CD 18 Date: February 6, 2018 Scale: NTS Page 77

78 Parks and Open Space Sechelt Supported Housing OCP Amendment/ Rezoning Application February 6th, 2018 Multi-family Residential Multi-family Residential SITE Downtown Centre Downtown Centre Civic, Institutional Use Date: February 6, 2018 Scale: NTS Page 78

79 Proposed 1.5 meter Rear Yard Setback for auxiliary building Site Area: square meters Equip. shed Stor. shed Dog Run Heat treat. G R Landscaping Proposed 7.5 meter Rear Yard Setback for principle building Vegetable garden Gazebo Patio Proposed 3.0 meter Side Yard Setback Stor. Mech. Unit 1 Hc Unit 2 Hc Unit 3 Hc Unit 4 Hc Pantry Laundry Staff Kitchen Medical Office Dining and Lounge Ramp 5 Hc Proposed 3.0 meter Side Yard Setback Unit 5 Unit 6 Unit 7 Unit 8 Office Reception Proposed 7.5 meter Front Yard Setback Entry Proposed Road Closure: 209 square meters Landscaping Building Summary: Sidewalk Ground Floor: 650 sm 8 units Second Floor 650 sm 16 units Third Floor: 650 sm 16 units Total Area: 1,950 sm 40 units Date: February 6, 2018 Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0" Page 79

80 Date: February 6, 2018 Scale: NTS Page 80

81 Date: February 6, 2018 Scale: NTS Page 81

82 Page 82

83 Page 83 R-4 Building form

84 Page 84

85 Page 85 R-4 Building Form in Red

86 Figure 17 Housing Forms and Density ATTACHMENT 2 Density Land Use Typical Housing Forms Typical Lot Sizes Base Density Maximum Density (with Typical Heights Level Designation (with typical FAR*) (gross yield) density bonus) 1 Rural Residential Single family on small 0.6 ha - 2 ha n/a n/a 1-2 storeys (Outside UCB) acreages ( acres) 2 Low Density Single family detached ( sq.m. on septic 4 units/ha 10 units/ha 1-2 storeys Residential FAR) (21,530 sq.ft.) (1.6/acre) (4 units/acre) 3 Residential (Note: See housing forms listed in Special Infill Areas for parcels.4 ha (1 acre) or larger 4 Special Infill Areas (Note: These intensive residential forms may also be permitted within Residential or Village Infill designations, subject to OCP policies) 900 sq.m. with community sewer Note: sewer required (9,690 sq.ft.) for maximum density Single-family detached ( sq.m. 10 units/ha 20 units/ha 1-2 storeys FAR) (6,460 8,080 sq.ft.) (4/acre) (8 units/acre) Large lot/estate lots ( sq.m. 8 units/ha 14 units/ha 1-2 storeys FAR) (8,080 9,690 sq.ft.) (3/acre) (6 units/acre) Two- family (duplex) ( sq.m. 22 units/ha 35 units/ha 2-2 ½ storeys FAR) (7,535 sq.ft.) (9/acre) (14/acre) Laneway cottage or 700 sq.m. 20 units/ha 30 units/ha 2 storeys carriage house (.6 FAR) (7,535 sq.ft.) (8 units/acre) (12 units/acre) Low density, ground-oriented.4 ha (1 acre) 20 units/ha 35 units/ha 2-3 storeys townhouse, triplex or fourplex minimum (8/acre) (16 units/acre) (.6 to.75 FAR) Small lot residential (.6 FAR) sq.m. 15 units/ha 24 units/ha 2 storeys (3,770-6,460 sq.ft.) (6 units/acre) (10 units/acre) 6 Neighbourhood Duplex, townhouse or Varies 25 units/ha 60 units/ha 2-4 storeys Centres apartment, may be (10/acre) (24units/acre) combined with commercial use (.8 FAR) 7 Multifamily/Mixed Residential and Downtown Centre Apartments( FAR up to 1.4) Varies 50 units/ha 100 units/ha 3-4 storeys (up to 6 (20 units/acre) (40 units/acre) storeys in some locations) Townhouse or other ground Varies 30 units/ha 45 units/ha 3-4 storeys oriented (1.0 FAR) (12/acre) (18/acre) * FAR means Floor Area Ratio (the gross floor area of a building divided by the area of the lot). Bylaw 492, Residential and Special Infill Areas 46 Official Community Plan Page 86

87 DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS GENERAL COMMUNICATION edas File #: Date: Feb/26/2018 PO Box 129 Sechelt, British Columbia V0N 3A0 Canada Attention: Megan Roberts, Planning and Development Assistant Re: Proposed Municipal Referral Approval Application for: Hightide Avenue, Sechelt Lot 1, District lot 304, Plan BCP36628, New Westminster Land District Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on the above noted referral. The Ministry has no comment to provide, as our interests are unaffected by this proposal. If you have any questions please feel free to call Kattia Woloshyniuk at (604) Yours truly, Kattia Woloshyniuk Area Development and Operations Technician Local District Address H1160-eDAS (2009/02) Sechelt Area Office Box 950 Sechelt, BC V0N 3A0 Canada Phone: (604) Fax: (604) Page 1 of 1 Page 87

88 From: To: Subject: Date: McFadyen, Brian [SC] Megan Roberts RE: - Official Community Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application - Referral Package - BC Housing Transitional/Supportive Housing Thursday, February 22, :49:55 PM Re: Official Community Plan Amendment Vancouver Coastal Health (VCH) has no objection to this OCP amendment and rezoning application subject to the following condition. As presented this supportive housing project will provide meal services to their clients. The kitchen for this meal services will have meet the requirements of the BC Food Premise Regulation. VCH would be required to review the plans of the kitchen before the approval for construction is given. The kitchen service once in operation would subject to a permit fee and routine inspections. When more detailed building plans are forwarded to the Building Dept VCH would appreciate a copy of the kitchen area design for our review. Please contact this office if you require any further clarification of this referral response. Brian McFadyen Vancouver Coastal Health Environmental Health Officer Page 88

89 From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Properties, Help Desk Megan Roberts RE: - Official Community Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application - Referral Package - BC Housing Transitional/Supportive Housing Thursday, February 22, :45:39 AM image001.png Good Morning Megan, No comments. The applicant should contact our local design office when they are ready to obtain service. Jack Pajak Property Coordinator, Property Rights Services BC Hydro th Street Surrey, BC V3W 0G1 P E Jack.Pajak@bchydro.com bchydro.com Smart about power in all we do. From: Megan Roberts [mailto:mroberts@sechelt.ca] Sent: 2018, February 21 4:07 PM To: Sanath Bandara; Darwyn Kutney; Perry Schmitt; John Hardt; Andrew Sheedy; Andrew Sheedy; jpaul@secheltnation.net; kwilkinson@secheltnation.net; McFadyen, Brian [SC]; darren.molder@vch.ca; don.legault@gov.bc.ca; Midgley, Colin TRAN:EX; Trevor Pike; Matt Gilroy Sechelt Fire Department; referrals@fortisbc.com; surinder.hoonjan@telus.com; michael.mah@telus.com; catalin.dobre@telus.com; McCharles, Kevin; Properties, Help Desk; chad.sergerie@corp.eastlink.ca; nadia.lalla@canadapost.ca; nweswick@sd46.bc.ca; ereimer@sd46.bc.ca Subject: - Official Community Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application - Referral Package - BC Housing Transitional/Supportive Housing Please find attached a Development Application Referral for the property located at Lot 1 on Hightide Avenue. We would appreciate your comments, if any, by March 22 nd, Thank you, Megan Megan Roberts PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT PLANNING ASSISTANT Main Tel: Mail: PO Box 129, Sechelt, BC V0N 3A0 Location: 2nd Floor, 5797 Cowrie Street Page 89

90 From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Favaro, Shannon Megan Roberts - Official Community Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application - Referral Package - BC Housing Transitional/Supportive Housing Wednesday, February 28, :43:21 AM image002.png image003.png Hello: Please be advised that FortisBC Energy Inc. has no objections to his proposal. Thank you, Shannon Favaro, SR/WA FORTISBC Energy Inc. Land Representative Property Services Fraser Highway Surrey, BC V4N 0E8 Phone: (604) Facsimile: (604) shannon.favaro@fortisbc.com From: Megan Roberts [mailto:mroberts@sechelt.ca] Sent: Wednesday, 4:07 PM To: Sanath Bandara <SBandara@sechelt.ca>; Darwyn Kutney <DKutney@sechelt.ca>; Perry Schmitt <PSchmitt@sechelt.ca>; John Hardt <JHardt@sechelt.ca>; Andrew Sheedy <ASheedy@sechelt.ca>; Andrew Sheedy <ASheedy@sechelt.ca>; jpaul@secheltnation.net; kwilkinson@secheltnation.net; McFadyen, Brian [SC] <Brian.McFadyen@vch.ca>; darren.molder@vch.ca; don.legault@gov.bc.ca; Midgley, Colin TRAN:EX <Colin.Midgley@gov.bc.ca>; Trevor Pike <Chief@secheltfire.ca>; Matt Gilroy Sechelt Fire Department <prevention@secheltfire.ca>; Referrals <Referrals@fortisbc.com>; surinder.hoonjan@telus.com; michael.mah@telus.com; catalin.dobre@telus.com; kevin.mccharles@bchydro.com; properties.helpdesk@bchydro.com; chad.sergerie@corp.eastlink.ca; nadia.lalla@canadapost.ca; nweswick@sd46.bc.ca; ereimer@sd46.bc.ca Subject: [External ] - - Official Community Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application - Referral Package - BC Housing Transitional/Supportive Housing ** THIS IS AN EXTERNAL ** Use caution before opening links / attachments. Please find attached a Development Application Referral for the property located at Lot 1 on Hightide Avenue. We would appreciate your comments, if any, by March 22 nd, Thank you, Megan Page 90

91 From: To: Subject: Date: John Hardt Angela Letman RE: Comments re supportive housing project Thursday, March 15, :01:18 AM Building department supports this project and has no other comments at this time, From: Angela Letman Sent: Wednesday, March 14, :34 PM To: Sanath Bandara; John Hardt Cc: Darwyn Kutney; Tracy Corbett Subject: Comments re supportive housing project Hello. The BC Housing/Mobius project application is I believe a high priority for the District. I am attempting to get a report completed this week for the next PCDC agenda. Can you review the referral sent to you (attached) and get back to me as soon as possible? Thank you. Sincerely, Angela Letman, MCIP, RPP Municipal Planner, PO. Box nd floor, 5797 Cowrie St., Sechelt, BC, V0N 3A0 tel front desk: Page 91

92 From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: LALLA, Nadia Megan Roberts RE: - Official Community Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application - Referral Package - BC Housing Transitional/Supportive Housing Thursday, March 15, :16:55 PM image001.png Mobius Architecture for BC Housing - OCP and Rezoning.pdf Hi Megan, Please advise the developer that additional information is required before applicable mail receiving facilities can be determined. The applicant is to contact me to review the details of this development. Nadia Lalla Delivery Services Officer Canada Post nadia.lalla@canadapost.ca ext FAX: # Ferguson Rd. Richmond, B.C. V7B 0B1 canadapost.ca DELIVERY STANDARDS MANUAL From: Megan Roberts [mailto:mroberts@sechelt.ca] Sent: February :07 PM To: Sanath Bandara <SBandara@sechelt.ca>; Darwyn Kutney <DKutney@sechelt.ca>; Perry Schmitt <PSchmitt@sechelt.ca>; John Hardt <JHardt@sechelt.ca>; Andrew Sheedy <ASheedy@sechelt.ca>; Andrew Sheedy <ASheedy@sechelt.ca>; jpaul@secheltnation.net; kwilkinson@secheltnation.net; McFadyen, Brian [SC] <Brian.McFadyen@vch.ca>; darren.molder@vch.ca; don.legault@gov.bc.ca; Midgley, Colin TRAN:EX <Colin.Midgley@gov.bc.ca>; Trevor Pike <Chief@secheltfire.ca>; Matt Gilroy Sechelt Fire Department <prevention@secheltfire.ca>; referrals@fortisbc.com; surinder.hoonjan@telus.com; michael.mah@telus.com; catalin.dobre@telus.com; kevin.mccharles@bchydro.com; properties.helpdesk@bchydro.com; chad.sergerie@corp.eastlink.ca; LALLA, Nadia <Nadia.Lalla@canadapost.postescanada.ca>; nweswick@sd46.bc.ca; ereimer@sd46.bc.ca Subject: - Official Community Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application - Referral Package - BC Housing Transitional/Supportive Housing Please find attached a Development Application Referral for the property located at Lot 1 on Hightide Avenue. We would appreciate your comments, if any, by March 22 nd, Thank you, Megan Megan Roberts PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT PLANNING ASSISTANT Page 92

93 The Sechelt Fire Department has reviewed the following OCP and Zoning application. APPLICATION N0: APPLICANT: Mobius Architecture (for BC Housing) SITE ADDRESS: Lot 1 Hightide Ave. DATE: April 3, 2018 PURPOSE OF APPLICATION: The Proposal is a 3-storey, 40-unit independent supportive housing building, with rental residential units of approx. 32 square metres (350 sq.ft.) each. Accessory support services (example- meal services) are included. The application, in support of the proposal, is for: (a) an amendment of the Official Community Plan Part Four Land Use Policies (residential policies), to increase the maximum allowable density from 100 residential units/ha to 220 residential units/ha; and (b) an amendment to the Zoning Bylaw to create a new zone; (c) partial closure of the southern portion of Hightide Ave. will permit a greater setback to neighbouring residential properties. COMMENTS: The Sechelt Fire Department approves this application with the following recommendations: 1. Site access conforms with BCBC including the connection of Lamprey Lane and the southern portion of Hightide Avenue. If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free contact me anytime. Sincerely, Matt Gilroy, LAFC Fire Prevention Officer Sechelt Fire Department Tel Fax PO Box 944, Sechelt BC V0N 3A Trail Avenue, Sechelt BC prevention@secheltfire.ca Web Page 93

94 Minutes Advisory Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 8 February 15 th, 2018 Recommendation No. 14 Rona Development Variance Permit Moved/Seconded The Advisory Planning Commission recommends to Council the approval of a variance to not require the undergrounding of services; provided that a development agreement covenant is registered on all of the properties to ensure that the owner completes the reconstruction of the landscaping, sidewalk, street lights, and undergrounding of the services or cash in lieu, in accordance with the s standards, based on any future redevelopment, on a consolidated site, within the next 5 to 10 years. CARRIED Recommendation No. 15 Rona Development Permit Moved/Seconded The Advisory Planning Commission recommends to Council that as proposed, a landscaped buffer be provided on neighbouring residential Lot 9 and that the area be protected and covenanted. CARRIED Recommendation No. 16 Rona Development Permit Moved/Seconded The Advisory Planning Commission recommends to Council to follow the OCP guidelines and so as to be in keeping with the existing structures and paint colours of the existing building and structures. CARRIED 6.4 Murmac Rezoning The Community Planner presented the application to increase the density by 5 lots with a change to the proposed rezoning of the property. Previous application was to rezone to R-1A (from the RR-1 Rural-1 zone). R-1A has a minimum lot area of 700 sq. metres. This application is to rezone to R-1 (from the RR-1 Rural-1 zone). R-1 has a minimum lot area of 500 sq. metres. The proposed layout has 21 lots ranging in size from 570m 2 to 715m 2 lots. Recommendation No. 17 Murmac Rezoning Moved/Seconded That the Advisory Planning Commission recommends to Council the approval of the rezoning application based on the proposed layout. CARRIED 6.5 Mobius Architecture BC Housing OCP Amendment, Zoning Amendment and Road Closure The Municipal Planner described the application. The current site is undeveloped. The Page 94

95 Minutes Advisory Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 8 February 15 th, 2018 proposed use is consistent with the Official Community Plan which designates the property as multifamily. The site is currently zoned R-4 which supports apartments and townhouses. An Official Community Plan amendment has been requested to support the creation of a custom zone, to increase the allowable maximum density. The aim of the project is to provide affordable housing in partnership with BC Housing. The proposal is to build 40 units of independent supportive affordable housing. Each unit will be approximately 35 sq. metres in size. On the ground floor of the building will be 4 accessible units and shared amenities and services including a kitchen, dining area and lounge, counselling room, laundry, offices, reception, etc. The building will be a 3-storey walk-up building. The idea of the project is to create homes for individuals moving from temporary shelter to their own residence, whereby those residents will have access to support systems. The units will be rented only and can be protected by a Housing Agreement. The applicant has also requested to reduce the width of the undeveloped portion of the Hightide Ave. road right of way from 24 meters to 20 meters which is the standard road right of way width. Reducing the right of way width will allow an increased setback/buffer to a neighbouring residential property from the proposed 3 metres to approximately 7 metres. This would need a road closure process. In discussion it was noted that: A development permit process will follow, before final adoption of the bylaws; There will most likely be improvements to Lamprey Lane, and extension of, and improvements to, Hightide Ave.; Concern was raised about adequate lighting and safety in the area; Concern for the density number of units proposed for the site is too great; The units are generally designed to house 1 person per unit; Could there be a maximum occupant load for the building? Staff to research. This type of housing is needed in the community; Limited parking will be provided as individuals in this type of housing do not drive; How long would a person be expected to rent or live in one of these units? Staff to research. The Arrowhead Centre s 8-unit development is a similar use and there have been no negative impacts from that housing which is located at Dolphin St. and Inlet Ave. Recommendation No. 18 Mobius Architecture-BC Housing OCP Amendment Moved, but not seconded The APC recommends to Council to deny the Official Community Plan Amendment application. MOTION FAILED Page 95

96 Minutes Advisory Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 8 February 15 th, 2018 Recommendation No. 19 Mobius Architecture-BC Housing OCP Amendment Moved/Seconded The APC recommends to Council to approve the OCP Amendment application to increase the allowable density on the property to allow a maximum of 40 residential units in a three storey building for non-profit, independent supported, rental housing with the condition that a housing agreement be registered. CARRIED Recommendation No. 20 Mobius Architecture-BC Housing Zoning Amendment Moved/Seconded The APC recommends to Council the approval of the Zoning Amendment application to create a zone for a 40 unit transitional housing, 3-storey building conditional upon a housing agreement for 100% of the units. CARRIED Recommendation No. 21 Mobius Architecture-BC Housing Road Closure Moved/Seconded The APC recommends to Council the partial road closure of Hightide Avenue as proposed by the applicant, provided that the building footprint and number of units does not increase in size. CARRIED Recommendation No. 22 Mobius Architecture-BC Housing DP Stage Moved/Seconded The APC recommends that the applicant add exterior lighting and address safety concerns at the Development Permit stage. CARRIED 7. ADJOURNMENT The Advisory Planning Commission meeting of February 15 th, 2018 was adjourned at 7:52pm. CARRIED Michael Hoole, Chair Jo-Anne Frank, Corporate Officer Page 96

97 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Michael Mah Megan Roberts Catalin Dobre; Surinder Hoonjan RE: Referral Package - BC Housing Supportive Housing - OCP Amendment and Rezoning Thursday, April 12, :11:04 PM image001.png Hi Megan, There shouldn t be any issues from a TELUS point of view. Thanks, Michael Mah Network Planning Manager II Access Planning TELUS Falcon New Growth Markets Team Michael.Mah@telus.com Cellphone: Work Phone: TELUS the future is friendly This message and any accompanying attachments are intended only for the person(s) to whom this message is addressed and may contain privileged, proprietary and/or confidential information. Any unauthorized use, disclosure, reproduction or distribution of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete or destroy this message, including any attachments. Thank you. From: Megan Roberts [mailto:mroberts@sechelt.ca] Sent: April 12, :29 PM To: jpaul@secheltnation.net; kwilkinson@secheltnation.net; Surinder Hoonjan; Michael Mah; Catalin Dobre; chad.sergerie@corp.eastlink.ca; Weswick, Nicholas; Erica Reimer; kdouglass@dccnet.com Subject: Referral Package - BC Housing Supportive Housing - OCP Amendment and Rezoning Hello, The has not received any referral comments from your organization. We would appreciate your comments, if any, as soon as possible. Thank you, Megan Megan Roberts PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT PLANNING ASSISTANT Main Tel: Mail: PO Box 129, Sechelt, BC V0N 3A0 Location: 2nd Floor, 5797 Cowrie Street Page 97

98 From: To: Subject: Attachments: Erica Reimer Megan Roberts Re: Referral Package - BC Housing Supportive Housing - OCP Amendment and Rezoning image001.png Hi Megan, The board discussed the application at their Operations Committee meeting taking place on March 16, It was determined that the district's interests are unaffected by the application. Thanks for following up! Erica Reimer Executive Assistant to the Secretary-Treasurer School District No. 46 (Sunshine Coast) Lifelong Learning Educational Excellence p: f: ereimer@sd46.bc.ca The information contained in this is intended only for the individual or entity to which it was addressed. Its contents (including any attachments) are confidential and may contain privileged information. If you are not an intended recipient you must not use, disclose, disseminate, copy or print its contents. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender by reply and delete and destroy the message. From: Megan Roberts <mroberts@sechelt.ca> Sent: Thursday, April 12, :29 PM To: jpaul@secheltnation.net; kwilkinson@secheltnation.net; surinder.hoonjan@telus.com; michael.mah@telus.com; catalin.dobre@telus.com; chad.sergerie@corp.eastlink.ca; Weswick, Nicholas; Erica Reimer; kdouglass@dccnet.com Subject: Referral Package - BC Housing Supportive Housing - OCP Amendment and Rezoning Hello, The has not received any referral comments from your organization. We would appreciate your comments, if any, as soon as possible. Thank you, Megan Megan Roberts PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT PLANNING ASSISTANT Main Tel: Mail: PO Box 129, Sechelt, BC V0N 3A0 Page 98

99 From: To: Subject: Date: Douglas Smith Megan Roberts Re: Referral Package - BC Housing Supportive Housing - OCP Amendment and Rezoning Monday, April 16, :16:40 PM Greetings Megan, Please check to ensure our Association is on your list now. The Board members reported back and like the project, especially the way it is being built. It means it will get completed quicker, a much better design structure. We recommend the referral project, Douglas Smith, President Sechelt Village Community Association Page 99

100 ATTACHMENT 4 MEETING REPORT APRIL 3, 2018 PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING FOR PROPOSED SUPPORTIVE HOUSING at HIGHTIDE AVENUE & LAMPREY LANE SECHELT BC 10 April 2018 Prepared by Michael Mortensen, MCIP RPP Liveable City Planning Ltd. 1 Page 100

101 Contents 1 PURPOSE BACKGROUND NOTIFICATION MEETING SUMMARY SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED STANCE COMMENTS OVERVIEW MOST FREQUENTLY MENTIONED COMMENTS DISCUSSION OF HOW ANY ISSUES/CONCERNS IDENTIFIED ARE ADDRESSED IN THE PROJECT... 6 Appendices A Meeting Invitation B Public Information Boards C Meeting Comment Forms D Meeting Record E s 2 Page 101

102 1 PURPOSE In fulfillment of the requirements outlined in the s Guide to Holding a Public Information Meeting (PIM), this report provides a record of BC Housing s PIM held on April 3, 2017 to inform citizens and explore community interests on a proposal to develop supportive housing at Hightide Avenue and Lamprey Lane. The meeting was held from 5:30pm to 7:30pm at the Royal Canadian Legion, Sechelt Branch 140 located at 5591 Wharf Avenue, Sechelt, BC. The record includes: A summary of the meeting; An analysis of the comments sheets including copies of comment sheets; and A written discussion on how issues and concerns, identified at the meeting, are addressed in the project or will be addressed through changes to the proposal. It is anticipated that District staff will review this PIM report and it will become background information included in the application file and will be made available to Council and the general public. The report may also be included in staff's report regarding the proposal. 2 BACKGROUND The Proposal: BC Housing invited members of the public to review and provide comment on the proposal for a 3-storey, 40-unit independent supportive housing building, with residential rental apartment units of approx. 32 square metres (350 sq.ft.) each. The proposed development also includes accessory support services. The need: BC Housing, Vancouver Coastal Health, Sunshine Coast Homelessness Advisory Committee, and other community agencies and members, recognize the urgent need for more affordable housing in Sechelt. In response, BC Housing purchased property at Hightide Avenue and Lamprey Lane and proposes to develop the site for permanent modular housing with supports. The housing would be operated by RainCity Housing and would provide 40 homes for individuals who are experiencing, or most at risk of experiencing, homelessness. Supports for residents include daily meal services and staff on-site 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Proposed Zoning Amendment: The application is for an Amendment of OCP Bylaw 492, 2010 to change the policies, for this property only, to allow for an increase in the maximum allowable density from 100 residential apartment dwelling units per hectare to 220 residential apartment dwelling units per hectare; and an Amendment of Zoning Bylaw No. 25, 1987 to rezone the property from R-4, Residential 4 zone, a multiple family zone that supports apartments and townhomes, to a new zone, CD-43, a multiple family independent supportive housing zone with a base density of 50 residential apartment dwelling units per hectare and provided there is a Housing Agreement, a maximum density of 220 residential apartment dwelling units per hectare (40 units for this property) and accessory support services for residents. Meeting Goal: BC Housing invited the community to an open house to gain a shared understanding about the project and the community s interests. Attendees had the opportunity to review updated poster boards, to listen to a presentation on the proposal, and to share 3 Page 102

103 questions and interests in a question and answer session with a panel of representatives from BC Housing, Coastal Health, and the selected operator RainCity Housing. 3 NOTIFICATION A site sign advertising the proposed zoning changes was erected on the Subject Property pursuant to District requirements. On March 14, 2018, letters were mailed to neighbours within a 1KM radius of the Subject Property, with information about the proposal and an invitation to the April 3 rd, 2018 public meeting (Appendix A). RainCity Housing also did a walkabout between March to talk about the proposal with nearby community services, businesses, the seniors centre, two neighbouring apartments and townhouses, plus the businesses neighbouring the shelter operating at the Upper Deck. Half-page newspaper advertisements (below) appeared in both The Local (March 22 and 29, 2018) and in the Coast Reporter (March 23 and 30, 2018). BC Housing also launched a web page to share information about the project. See: 4 Page 103

104 4 MEETING SUMMARY On April 3, 2018, BC Housing hosted a public information meeting at the Sechelt Legion Hall, 5591 Wharf Avenue, in Sechelt in partnership with RainCity Housing from 5:30 pm to 7:30 pm. The meeting started with an open house to view poster boards and the opportunity to talk with members of the project team. This was followed by a short presentation by BC Housing (BCH), and a facilitated dialogue with representatives from BCH,RainCity Housing, Vancouver Coastal Health, the Sunshine Coast Homelessness Advisory Committee and the. The presentation and open house boards are illustrated in Appendix B. 75 attendees were manually counted; 28 questions / comments were recorded from speakers at the meeting who participated in the facilitated discussion; 20 comment forms (Appendix C) were submitted at the meeting; and 3 submissions were also received on the proposal Appendix D presents a summary report of the facilitated dialogue. 5 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED In total, 51 comments have been received to date by form, verbal comments and by mail/ . The breakdown of stance by method of submission is noted, with the caveat that some individuals have submitted feedback through more than one source. Event Pro Con Neutral Totals Speakers 10 (36%) 0 18 (64%) 28 (100%) Comment Forms 15 (75%) 2 (10%) 3 (15%) 20 (100%) s 2 (67%) 1 (33%) 0 3 (100%) TOTALS 27 (53%) 3 (6%) 21 (41%) 51 (100%) 6 / STANCE As documented in Section 5 above, 27 (53% %) comments, s and letters received indicated support for the proposed development. 3 (6%) comments indicated express opposition to the proposal. 21 neutral questions and comments (41%) sought additional information or offered input on subjects beyond the scope of the subject application. 7 / COMMENTS OVERVIEW The majority of comments were in support of the subject application. Of the remaining feedback and comments, most people asked for and received additional information about the proposed project design and plans for its operation and management. 5 Page 104

105 Meeting attendees were interested in the proposed design of the facility including possibilities for some additional architectural detail and interest as well as design that would preserve as many trees as possible on and around the site. The proposal for four parking spaces to service the 40-unit development drew some attention. Some neighbours were concerned that the four staff parking stalls proposed would not be sufficient. However, the advice from the Non-Profit Operator Rain City Housing was that homeless residents for whom this facility is designed would not have the resources to operate vehicles. BC Housing also confirmed that it will be extending and paving Hightide Avenue, which will increase the amount of street parking available. Consistent with previous meetings, some people expressed interest in the management of the development and the nature of the 24-hour on-site staff that RainCity Housing will employ. 8 / MOST FREQUENTLY MENTIONED COMMENTS The top comments received to date are summarized below with the frequency of the same. MOST FREQUENTLY MENTIONED COMMENTS # Support for the project 27 Design / aesthetic of the buildings 8 Limit tree removal as much as possible 8 Adequacy of Parking 5 Interests in Tenant Selection and Drug/Alcohol Policies 5 Adequacy of On Site Management 4 9 / DISCUSSION OF HOW INTERESTS IDENTIFIED ARE ADDRESSED IN THE PROJECT The following questions were received through the public information meeting, both verbally and through meeting comment forms, and s to communityrelations@bchousing.org The answers below were provided by representatives of BC Housing, RainCity Housing, Vancouver and Coastal Health. Design and aesthetic of the buildings Some people suggested that the proposed building design could be improved to provide interest and variation. Others felt the design was efficient and adequate for affordable housing. The will provide feedback on design through the review of the application. BC Housing would like the building to fit with the local community character and be a building of pride for neighbours, residents, BC Housing and RainCity Housing. BC Housing is amenable to design changes that address community interests while respecting the viability of the development. 6 Page 105

106 Limit removal of trees as much as possible Neighbours value the trees adjacent to the property in the right of way that will be used for road access. Some questioned the need for road access, and five comments were received asking that efforts be made to preserve as many as trees as possible. Adequacy of parking Some neighbours questioned the supply of parking and suggested that residents would generate a higher demand than the four stalls dedicated for staff use. Tenant Selection and Drug/Alcohol policies People wanted more information on tenant selection, and they wanted to know more about Rain City Housing s drug and alcohol policies that will apply to residents in the development. The District requires road access for Fire and Parking for the development. BC Housing will work with the District to minimize the number of trees that need to be removed. BC Housing will be extending and paving Hightide Avenue, which will increase the amount of street parking available. However, RainCity Housing indicated that residents will not have vehicles. The homeless population does not typically have the resources to operate and maintain vehicles. The development site was chosen in part because it is walking distance to local shops and services. RainCity Housing will work with BC Housing, Vancouver Coastal Health and local partners to select appropriate residents. RainCity and its partners will use the Vulnerability Assessment Tool (VAT) to assess applicants housing and support needs. The VAT consists of a one-hour interview to assess the length of time people have been homeless and to understand their individual situations. People will live here voluntarily, referred by a variety of organizations. This is supportive housing, not just affordable housing. Residents will have the same freedoms and rights as any other tenant. Experienced on-site managers will not control what residents do within the privacy of their units, but they will respond to people s behavior if there are any problems. Adequacy of On-Site Management There was some community interest in the nature and adequacy of on-site management. RainCity Housing is an experienced non-profit operator that hires and develops qualified staff to manage supported housing developments. RainCity managers will live on the Coast so they won t be commuting. They will not reside on-site. RainCity Housing clarified that while there will be 24/7 7 Page 106

107 on-site management, the people working will not be performing security roles (i.e. their core work is supporting residents, managing the property and ensuring its neighbourly operation they won t be patrolling the neighborhood) however they will have some employment opportunities for residents which may include neighborhood garbage cleanups. RainCity Housing will provide a 24 hour contact number in case of comments or complaints about the operations of the supportive housing or its residents. Potential impact on neighbours Some neighbours questioned the impact the new building and residents would have on noise and property values in the neighborhood. Residents will sign a Program Agreement and will be expected to abide by it. The Program Agreement will address expectations about appropriate and respectful behavior especially as it relates to the health and safety of themselves and others. Staff will work with residents and the neighbours to foster good neighbourhood relations. Residents are expected to: Treat neighbours and community with consideration; Not make excessive noise or cause unnecessary disturbances; Ensuring security doors are closed properly and not letting any unknown persons into building; Put garbage in the appropriate bins; Clean up after pets; Not smoke in the common areas, including the front entrance. A study undertaken by the Centre for Applied Research in Mental Health and Addiction at SFU indicates property values have not declined with supportive housing. The report looked at 18 different studies and found there was no significant effect on either the sales price of homes in the neighbourhood or on the number of sales. A 1996 study by the Housing Ministry in BC looked at the impacts of seven social housing projects on neighbouring property values. The study demonstrated that social housing projects have not had a negative impact on the sale prices of nearby homes based on a comparison with a control area. 8 Page 107

108 Appendix A: Meeting Invitation Letter Page 108

109 Hello Neighbours, March 12, 2018 We are writing to let you know that BC Housing is proposing to build 40 units of housing with supports on the Provincial Rental Housing Corporation land owned at Hightide Avenue and Lamprey Lane. An application for Official Community Plan and Zoning Bylaw Amendment has been submitted to the. We understand it is important for you to be informed about this project and have an opportunity to ask questions and provide feedback. Please join us on April 3. DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION MEETING BC Housing will be holding a meeting to share information about the proposal. A presentation will start at 6:00pm, followed by a facilitated dialogue until 7:30pm. DATE: Tuesday, April 3, 2018 TIME: 5:30 pm through 7:30 pm PLACE: 5591 Wharf Avenue, Legion What is happening at Hightide Avenue and Lamprey Lane? BC Housing, Vancouver Coastal Health, Sunshine Coast Homelessness Advisory Committee, community agencies and local residents recognize the urgent need for more affordable housing in Sechelt. In response, BC Housing purchased property at Hightide Avenue and Lamprey Lane, and proposes to develop the site for permanent modular housing with supports. The housing would be operated by RainCity Housing and would provide 40 homes for individuals who have been homeless or who are at risk of homelessness. It is hoped that people will begin moving in by early Who will live there? People who apply will need to meet eligibility requirements around income, homelessness and required supports and programming. A Vulnerability Assessment Tool (VAT) will be used to determine eligibility and help match the available supports to a person s needs. Residents will be provided support to assist with their successful tenancy, including daily meal services. There will be staff on-site 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to ensure the residents are supported and the property is well maintained. What are the next steps? BC Housing has submitted the zoning application to the. The next step is to hold the information meeting on April 3, and provide a summary report of meeting feedback to the District in advance of the public hearing for the project. If the application is successful, BC Housing will need time to prepare the site, obtain building permit approvals and undertake construction. The goal is to have the housing open in early Page 109

110 Who will operate the housing? The new housing will be operated by an experienced local non-profit partner and housing provider, RainCity Housing. The responsibilities of RainCity will include property management, operations management and tenant selection. Once residents move in, staff will remain onsite to support residents. What security measures will be put into place? The safety of our future residents, staff and the surrounding community is a priority for RainCity Housing and all of the partners. The housing will have staff available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to ensure residents are supported and any concerns are addressed in a timely manner. RainCity is an experienced local non-profit housing operator and is committed to being a good neighbour. What will the modular housing look like? The building will be designed to fit with the architectural styles in the neighbourhood. Conceptual renderings will be available at the open house on April 3, and are subject to review and approval by the through the municipal approvals process. How can I get more information? You can attend the meeting on April 3 or communityrelations@bchousing.org. Page 110

111 Appendix B: Public Information Boards & BCH Presentation Page 111

112 Welcome Public Information Meeting for Proposed Supportive Housing at Hightide Avenue & Lamprey Lane Public Information Meeting 5:30 pm - 7:30 pm Tuesday, April 3 5:30 pm Doors open 6:00 pm Presentation 6:15-7:30 pm Facilitated dialogue with BC Housing, RainCity Housing, Vancouver Coastal Health and the Sunshine Coast Homeless Advisory Committee We respectfully ask you to: Ensure comments and discussions are respectful; Help us ensure that everyone is able to speak and be heard; Recognize that the issues are complex and we need thoughtful discussion about how to meet community needs; Share your thoughts fill out a comment form, join the conversation tonight or communityrelations@bchousing.org. Please note that this session will be recorded for the purposes of preparing a summary report. Your comments and questions may be made public. bchousing.org Page 112

113 bchousing.org SECHELT Housing Need in Sechelt Homelessness is usually the result of many factors including a lack of adequate income, access to affordable housing and medical services, experiences of discrimination, traumatic events and personal crisis, physical health problems or disabilities and mental health concerns. According to the 2009 Homeless Count, there were 54 people experiencing homeless More than 80 % have lived Outreach workers have contact on the Sunshine Coast for more with over 90 individuals in need of than three years (50% of those for housing across the Sunshine Coast more than 10 years) People who are homeless in Sechelt currently have access to: Outreach workers 10 Rent supplements Page temporary shelter beds

114 bchousing.org SECHELT New Supportive Housing proposed for Sechelt Ensuring everyone has a place to call home. Proposed Project: 3 Location Plan SL1 SL2 SL3 40 self-contained supportive housing studios (includes bathroom and kitchenette) with a shared amenity space and 24/7 staff support. Daily breakfast and hot meal; life-skills training and access to health services. A B 19 2 SL SL5 SL6 SL7 SL13 SL14 SL8 C 21 SL15 SL16 CP B SL17 SL18 SL11 SL12 SL10 SL1 CP A SL2 Proposed Location: SL9 SL18 SL8 SL13 SL23 SL5 SL2 SL16 SL6 SL24 SL19 SL29 SL SL14 SL12 SL11 COMMON SL25 SL7 SL26 2 SL10 SL4 SL15 SL17 SL21 SL22 SL20 5 SL33 SL36 SL37 SL34 SL38 SL39 SL27 SL35 SL40 SL29 SL26 SL2 SL4 SL5 SL3 SL Hightide Avenue. 8 B B SL25 SL28 Operated by: CP SL24 _ ^ SL23 Lot 1 12 SL22 SL21 SL30 RainCity Housing with 24/7 staffing working closely with residents to connect them to support services. SL20 SL32 SL31 SL19 C A B 36 Who is it for: CP 13 People experiencing or at risk of homelessness. ± Page D 11 Official Community Plan Amendment and Rezoning Mobius Architecture for BC Housing Meters

115 bchousing.org SECHELT The Hightide supportive housing project is subject to municipal approvals. The following outlines the next steps in the development process. February Official Community Plan and Zoning Amendment Application submitted to We Are Here April 3 Public Information Meeting April 25 Planning and Community Development Committee May 2 1 Reading May Public Hearing June 2 and 3 Reading st nd rd Development Permit application process Fall 2018 Consideration of the Housing Agreement 4 Reading th Spring 2019 Building Permit application process (if Development Permit approved) If approved, housing opens Page 115

116 bchousing.org SECHELT Support Services 24/7 professional support staff Safe and secure place to sleep Breakfast and one hot meal a day Private Washrooms Social Connection Laundry Accessible for a diverse group Referral to health care, mental health and addiction services Connection to local community services Peer employment opportunities Trauma-informed support and care Outreach worker assists to assist people in stabilizing and creating plans to move from homelessness to successfully housed. with income issues, apartment viewings, securing housing and liaising with landlords to support stable tenancies. Page 116

117 bchousing.org SECHELT Renderings Lamprey Lane Site Plan Proposed 1.5 meter Rear Yard Setback for auxiliary building 1 G Equip. shed Stor. shed R Heat treat. Dog Run Site Area: square meters Landscaping Gazebo Vegetable garden Proposed 7.5 meter Rear Yard Setback for principle building Patio Pantry Stor. Mech. Unit 1 Hc Unit 2 Hc Unit 4 Hc Unit 3 Hc 5 Hc Kitchen Dining and Lounge Ramp Office Reception 3.0 Office ed Medical pos Staff Pro.0 meter S Proposed 3 ide Yard Se me tback ter S ide Yar ds etb a ck Laundry Unit 5 Unit 6 Unit 7 Unit 8 Entry Proposed Road Closure: 209 square meters Proposed 7.5 meter Front Yard Setback Landscaping Sidewalk Hightide Avenue Interior Layout Typical Unit Plan Layout Common Area Layout Disclaimer: These technical drawings are subject to change during the municipal approvals process. Page 117

118 bchousing.org SECHELT Renderings Building Concept Disclaimer: These technical drawings are subject to change during the municipal approvals process. Page 118

119 bchousing.org SECHELT Spectrum of Housing Options Open Open Proposed Upper Deck Hostel Gibson s Shelter 5656 Hightide Avenue Temporary shelter, Winter Response shelter, Supportive housing, 40 units 15 beds 19 beds Emergency Shelter & Housing for the Homeless Transitional, Supported & Assisted Living Independent Social Housing Student Housing Rent Assistance in the Private Market / Affordable Rental Housing Private Market Rentals Homeownership Partnership Initiatives & Consumer Protections Government-Assisted Housing Highlights Creation of 40 new supportive housing units in the community Allows people to move from shelter beds into stable housing with support services Page 119

120 bchousing.org SECHELT For questions or concerns about issues in your community today, please contact: For questions, comments or complaints about the operations of the shelter or supportive housing (future) or its residents, or to report someone in need of housing. Call RainCity Housing 24-hour line at For issues related to loitering and encampment. Call District Bylaw staff at For non-emergency issues related to personal safety or property, or if you see someone in an unsafe situation. Call the RCMP non-emergency at If you believe someone is in immediate danger or in distress. Call If you have any questions regarding the Hightide modular supportive project: Page 120

121 bchousing.org SECHELT How Can I Provide Input? Fill out a comment form* communityrelations@bchousing.org Attend the public hearing in May (TBD) Learn more about a neighbourhood advisory committee * all comment forms submitted tonight and all s submitted by April 4 will form part of a summary report submitted to the as requested by April 11. Page 121

122 Public Information Meeting for Proposed Supportive Housing in April 3, 2018 Sechelt Page 122

123 Public Information Meeting: Proposed Supportive Housing Presentation Facilitated discussion Page 123

124 Page 124

125 Proposed New Supportive Housing at 5656 Hightide Avenue Proposed Project: 40 self-contained supportive housing studios (includes bathroom & kitchenette) with a shared amenity space and 24/7 staff support. Operated By: RainCity Housing Who Is It For: People experiencing or at risk of homelessness Page 125

126 Site Plan Page 126

127 Proposed Supportive Housing for Hightide & Lamprey Page 127

128 Proposed Supportive Housing for Hightide & Lamprey Page 128

129 Self-Contained Studios Page 129

130 Roles and Responsibilities Sunshine Coast Homeless Advisory Committee Page 130

131 Public Information Meeting for Proposed Supportive Housing Facilitated Dialogue Page 131

132 Appendix C: Meeting Comment Forms Page 132

133 Page 133

134 Page 134

135 Page 135

136 Page 136

137 Page 137

138 Page 138

139 Page 139

140 Page 140

141 Page 141

142 Page 142

143 Page 143

144 Page 144

145 Page 145

146 Page 146

147 Page 147

148 Page 148

149 Page 149

150 Page 150

151 Page 151

152 Page 152

153 Appendix D: Meeting Record of the Public Information Meeting: Page 153

154 ROCKANDEL&ASSOCIATES Building Success Through Process Facilitation, Community & Organizational Engagement PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING SUMMARY To: Roberta Randall, Senior Manager, Community Relations, BC Housing E: From: Catherine Rockandel, IAF Certified Professional Facilitator, Rockandel & Associates Tel: E: Re: PIM Summary for Hightide/Lamprey Lane Supportive Housing Sechelt Date: April 6, 2018 Event Date: Tuesday, April 3, 2018 Time: 5:30 PM 8:00 PM Location: Sechelt Legion, 5591 Wharf Avenue, Sechelt Attendees: Seventy-five (75) citizens attended the meeting Notification An invitation letter was delivered to addresses within a one (1) km radius Hightide Avenue and Lamprey Lane on March 14, 2018 Half-page newspaper advertisements appeared in both The Local (March 22 and 29, 2018) and in the Coast Reporter (March 23 and 30, 2018) The BC Housing web page shared information about the project. See: Comment Forms: Twenty (20) comment forms were submitted at the meeting and three (3) with comments were received by the April 4, 2018 deadline. Presentation and Panel Team Craig Crawford, Vice President Operations, BC Housing Aaron Munro, Associate Director, RainCity Housing and Support Society Susann Richter, Manager Mental Health & Addiction Services, Vancouver Coastal Health Matt Thomson, Sunshine Coast Homelessness Advisory Committee Angela Letman, Municipal Planner, Elected Officials and Representatives Elected officials and representatives in attendance included: Mayor, Bruce Milne, Councillor, Darnelda Seigers, Councillor, Doug Wright, Lucie McKiernan, Constituency Assistant on behalf of MP Pam Goldsmith Jones Facilitator Catherine Rockandel, Certified Professional Facilitator, Rockandel & Associates 1 Page 154

155 BC Housing, Supportive Housing, Sechelt Public Information Meeting Summary April 3, 2018 PROJECT OVERVIEW BC Housing purchased property at Hightide Avenue and Lamprey Lane and proposes to develop the site for permanent modular housing with supports. An application for Official Community Plan and Zoning Bylaw Amendment has been submitted to the. The housing would be operated by RainCity Housing and would provide 40 homes for individuals who are experiencing, or most at risk of experiencing, homelessness. Supports for residents include daily meal services and staff on-site 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. PUBLIC COMMENT: Q & A (Index: Q: Questions C: Comment A: Answers) Q1 I don t understand the relationships among the Federal Government, the Provincial Government, BC Housing and Rain City Housing. A1 Q2 A2 Q3 A3 BC Housing is a Crown agency affiliated with the Provincial Government. CMHC is the federal agency that provides affordable housing funding. In B.C we typically partner with Canada Mortgage and Housing and the funding they make available, flows through BC Housing. There have been recent Federal announcements about funding coming back into homelessness. The Provincial government have also announced a significant contribution towards affordable housing. The Federal government will typically make their funding available through the province and the province delivers their Affordable Housing mandate through BC Housing. BC Housing is primarily a funder and funds local community non-profit societies to actually deliver the housing. Rain City is an example of that and they would operate the housing. Do they have a builder in mind for this building? What is the construction of the building? It will be modular construction that is built off site and then brought to the site, stacked up and assembled. We have a representative here from Metric Modular, the company that was chosen after a competitive tender across the province. Onsite construction from start to finish will be about three months. This is not temporary construction, it is indented to be permanent long-term housing. (Metric Modular representative) We have hired a local designer, Mobius Architecture, who will be the architecture and construction manager for the project. They will also be responsible for the site prep civil work. They will move through the tendering process for the other pieces. The exterior of the building will be Hardie plank or that sort of thing. They will work with the District in regards to the design panel review. I think the idea is wonderful but to me it looks like a bunch of little boxes built into a big box that looks like a cell block. I kind of question how much thought is going into the design. Is there opportunity to be a little more creative and create something a little more visually pleasing? The renderings are a bit blank right now so the building does not have a lot of architectural articulation right now. BC Housing and the Society would like the project to fit into the community and we would like the building to be something we could be proud 2 Page 155

156 BC Housing, Supportive Housing, Sechelt Public Information Meeting Summary April 3, 2018 C4 Q5 A5 Q6 A6 Q7 A7 Q8 A8 Q9 A9 of. Your municipality will ultimately have a say in what the building looks like. This is why the images are block like at this time. When I look at the design I see housing and I am thrilled. It looks like it is efficiently laid out in a way that is not wasting space. Are these only for single people or are there provisions for couples and families? This housing is not meant for families and will not meet a family s needs. The purpose is to provide housing stock for people who are experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness on the Coast. RainCity Housing does work with couples. Is the idea here that a person would be there permanently or are they maybe only there for a certain period of time and move onto some other kind of housing? We typically look at the needs of each individual. Some people may only need it short term and possibly be able to afford something different. It is meant to be permanent housing so people can move in and there is no expectation to move out after a time frame. What is the vulnerability assessment test you have listed in the flyer you passed out on March 23 rd and what other tools will you be using to screen potential tenants? The vulnerability index is a tool that we have started using to determine need. It looks at a number of different areas that might make people more vulnerable if they are living outside. Things like health or mental health conditions, or how long they have been outside. It provides us with an assessment of those people s needs for the housing provider. Hypothetically, if I were to apply for one of these units what type of testing would I have to go through? It is a short one hour interview with the housing provider. It is not a test. There isn t unlimited housing stock so the interview is to make sure that the people who need it are provided it. What other tools will you use to screen your potential tenants? An interview and determining the person s need and length of time homelessness and the vulnerability to live outside would be standard. Q10 Is this kind of segregating the homeless? Is this not streaming lining people to live in a specific place? Are you looking for long term tenants or for short term tenants? A10 People will be living there voluntarily and referrals will come from lots of different sources and areas. If a person who really doesn t need any support and doesn t need to live in a 24/7 supportive housing building, then they likely would not be accepted to live in that building. It is not just affordable housing it is supported housing. 3 Page 156

157 BC Housing, Supportive Housing, Sechelt Public Information Meeting Summary April 3, 2018 (RainCity Housing) It is one piece of the strategy for the coast. We also have rent supplements and outreach workers so if people don t want to live in a supported housing building and want to find market apartments we will assist them to do that as well. C11 We really need this on the coast and especially in Sechelt. The list doesn t include all of the people who are living in really dangerous sub-standard housing. The supports that are offered are a lot less expensive than emergency room care and police intervention. The lack of services is really bad. This is a place where people who need services can get it and improve their lives and become much better neighbours to all of us. Q12 Kudos to you! Thank you for listening to feedback you received at previous meetings. When we look at a capital investment of 6 million dollars, into infrastructure this is a very important piece for the development of the community. I think it is important, in terms of ongoing effort, to maintain the landscaping, to have a building that people living there would be proud of. I am unclear as to what the forward-looking funding and rent situation is and who is setting the rent and why. What is the funding on an ongoing basis? A12 For rents, tenants would not have to pay more than 30% of their income. The population we are targeting typically is either working at a very low-income job, or on income assistance. Rent would be $375 a month if you are on income assistance. Q13 Is that going to be automatically deducted from their assistance? A13 The tenants have a choice to have their rent sent directly to RainCity Housing or receive it and then remit it to RainCity themselves. C14 I commend all parties in the fact that they are aware that we want to know what is going on, as it is going on. It really feels like the community is involved in the dialogue. I hope that environmental considerations will be considered when designing the building. Things such as green roofs, energy sources and so forth. A14 This building will be designed to the new building code standards. It is step code process and focuses on building enclosure and beefing up the building envelope so it doesn t lose all of its heat. It is the operation of it that will be much more efficient. We are targeting a step code three which is higher than would be required of a normal building for residential space and a step code two for the commercial kitchen. The commercial kitchen has a higher mechanical system and requirement. BC Housing has a sustainability goal and this building fits into our goals. Q15 I have concerns around parking. You indicated that a majority of people who will live there will not have vehicles. There will be some who have vehicles to get to work. We don t see any parking and wondering how that is going to be addressed? A15 There are four parking spaces and they are designed for staff only. This design and approach to the amount of parking we are providing in this project is consistent province wide. It is our experience that there is very low demand for parking for residents. That is one of the reasons we like the location because it is within walking distance of downtown. We have found that typical supportive housing residents don t have a need for parking. 4 Page 157

158 BC Housing, Supportive Housing, Sechelt Public Information Meeting Summary April 3, 2018 C16 In more urban areas perhaps that is the issue but we don t have the transportation hub and the link for people in the community. For some people it is a requirement that they have a car. You might want to look at some of the people that you are looking at bringing into this and see if there are vehicles and if we have to manage parking. A16 In RainCity s experience of operating in more areas outside of Vancouver than in Vancouver, the typical person who applies and gets accepted for supportive housing is on welfare rates and simply could not afford to run a car. We don t expect it to be an issue. Q17 You say that some meals are provided. Why is that, if they have kitchens? If they are going to eat their meals that are given, are they charged for those? A17 Typically what we see in social housing is people who are on welfare rates and simply can t afford to feed themselves three meals a day. We know when people move inside and are supplied proper food and proper sleep, they are able to make more changes in their lives. Some people will choose to cook for themselves and others will benefit from a free hot dinner and a light breakfast. Q18 Has any thought been given to helping these people learn how to cook? There may be pride in the home if you are able to learn to cook and provide for yourself and maybe provide some of the cleaning of the building. A18 We do that in most of our buildings and plan to do that here as well. We will, and do, work with tenants to learn life skills and how to cook. Some folks who have disabilities may be limited in their ability to participate. Most of our programs that we are operating have peer opportunities for people. There are initiatives like going out and cleaning in the community, helping in community gardens and a number of different initiatives. We did have some people that stayed at Sechelt this year come and work with us in Gibsons. We have built off some low barrier employment opportunities as well. We do work with people to try to get them engaged to the best of their ability. The opportunity to sit down with people for a meal can also address loneliness that can be experienced. One of our very successful programs with Vancouver Coastal Health is a vocational rehab program. That program employs people to do all kinds of things including yard work and maintenance and helping people to move. We will be linked with the residents in this building and so our programming will be linked. Having something productive to do is really important to people s health. Q19 Is there any sort of drug testing done? If someone is using drugs are they allowed to be there? A19 We don t do any drug testing. What people do in their own rooms is up to them. We won t be in the rooms and won t be searching people. We respond to people s behaviours and if people s drug use is causing them to behave in ways that are problematic to the neighbourhood, or other people in the building, we will respond to that. 5 Page 158

159 BC Housing, Supportive Housing, Sechelt Public Information Meeting Summary April 3, 2018 Q20 Will the shelter that exists right now at the Upper Deck continue in its same sort of scope? I am assuming that it is kind of an emergency shelter not as structured as this proposed development or is this replacing that and then come cold weather time are we back in the same boat of emergency shelters for the most vulnerable members of society? Is there a progression that we look for as a group to move people from very dysfunctional to productive members of society? Or are you operating independently in these things? A20 The Upper Deck shelter was a great opportunity that was identified by the community in one of the earlier public meetings. It is an interim solution. The lease expires in 2020 and then this project will be up and running and running parallel with the Upper Deck. We haven t made any decisions on what we are going to do with the Upper Deck other than it is serving the community right now. Hopefully we will get the project built and then reassess what the community needs are as it comes closer to the expiry of the lease. It is not an orderly transition, you can take people right from the street and put them into what we are proposing. You don t need to go into a shelter and then into housing necessarily. Ultimately the solution is to get homeless people housed. Shelters are a stop gap and not great. The objective is always getting people housed. RainCity s staffing model, interaction with tenants, dealing with behaviours, all those things are as structured in the Upper Deck as they would be in the housing project. It will be the same level of professionalism and compassion. C21 It would be nice to think that if we get someone housed that all their other problems like drug and alcohol addiction all go away. We know that is not true. I applaud you for what you have brought here, it is really great. The real problem is how do we make people not fall through the cracks and become functioning members of society because that is the important thing. A21 There will be people, who once their basis needs are met, will start to progress and will start to work with some of the services. We have had some great success stories in our rehab programs where people ended up developing their own businesses. That is the goal for people who are able to do that. The start though is to have a safe place to live. People s progression is a hard question to answer because it is so relational. There is no one solution for two people who I have met. We often think of housing as an economic issue, so yes, we need this housing because we don t have enough housing on the Sunshine Coast. It is also a relational issue. We need to start building community for people so it is a long-term solution. C22 There will be 40 units here but there are 90 people known to outreach workers as having housing issues. Please keep us up to date with the progression of what will be happening with the Upper Deck. 6 Page 159

160 BC Housing, Supportive Housing, Sechelt Public Information Meeting Summary April 3, 2018 Q23 Can you please tell me a little bit more about the staffing? Who would be on staff 24/7 and what are their qualifications and will they live on site or will they be people from the Coast? A23 We do have a manager living on the Coast who also lived here previously and an assistant manager who lived previously on the Coast. They have done all the hiring up here and we don t have anyone commuting back and forth. We have provided training to local people. We look for people who have experience working with this population and maybe have some schooling or a social services degree. We then provide additional training. They will be people on the coast and will not be living on site. Q24 I am wondering that since the Green Court are going to be taking down the cottages, will the people that won t be able to be relocated have the opportunity to apply for this housing? C25 I am with the Sunshine Coast Lions Housing Society and as of the end of March we have 12 of the 29 units still to be emptied. We are hoping that by the time we commence construction that there won t be an issue. We are looking at what needs to be done. Possibly putting two or three people into a motel until a unit becomes available in Green Court if that is what we need to do. We had four people that we were able to relocate in March. If we had one or two people that we needed to re-locate and there was room in the new building, we would be liaising with them. C26 I think we are very lucky that BC Housing saw the need and came in a major way to fill it. This is a very volunteer oriented place and there are many clubs so I will be encouraging those volunteer organizations to keep in close touch with the supported housing so that we can establish relationships. A26 This has been a different experience for RainCity coming to work on the Coast and this is a very special community. The amount of people who want to donate and volunteer is really remarkable. Q27 When are you considering construction starting? A27 There are a number of steps we need to take before we can start construction. Our anticipation is to be operational by spring of I wanted to mention again that this is not a typical building construction. There will be some site prep and clearing and then the boxes will be delivered and it will be about a three-month period so maybe late December or early January. Q28 When you start the construction or delivering the boxes, will you be tying up Lamprey Lane and or Hightide Avenue? A28 We haven t determined which way it is going to work in regards to installation of the modules. Hightide is going to be extended and finished off so therefore there will be some extra room that is not there now. There is kind of a cul-de-sac and that will be extended and that will be the construction zone. 7 Page 160

161 BC Housing, Supportive Housing, Sechelt Public Information Meeting Summary April 3, 2018 Q29 Does that mean that the trees at the end of Hightide Avenue will go? A29 I am with Metric Modular and there are some trees on the proposed right of way on the road so some of those trees will have to go. Q30 When you had the first meeting at the seniors centre, one of the RainCity people said that there would be 24/7 security in and outside of the building and on the property. This was so that there would be no problems with the people that you have in your buildings and the people that live around it. I called the Upper Deck about a problem I was having and asked if the security could check it out. I was told that they don t have security and that they don t have people that go outside. So we were told one thing at a meeting and another thing on the phone. In this project that you are working on, are you going to have some sort of security so that if there are any problems it can be handled? A30 I think there may be a language issue that has caused the issue. We have 24 hour, seven days a week staff on site and security cameras to deal with issues. I am happy to take a complaint from you afterwards if you have one. They are not called security workers, they are called support workers and they are trained to deal with issues that arise in a very different way than a security guard would. They are trained to be more empathic and understanding but also to respond to issues. Q31 I don t understand why you would say that you would give a person a free place to live, free food that we cook for you so you don t have to do it but you do not address if they have alcohol or drugs in their room. I don t understand the logic to that and where the give and take comes in. You are giving and giving and giving and you are not getting anything back. Where is your logic in that? A31 Traditionally, in the past, social services would have these requirements on people that they abstain from drugs or alcohol and I think that is part of what has landed us in the mess we are in right now. It is well researched and documented that providing a person with a home and then working with them on the secondary issues is way more successful. This is what we have experienced at RainCity and we have been around for the last 32 years so did the tough love approach. We now know that people are way more successful if they come inside and begin to build relationships, start to have different hopes and dreams and then you start to see a reduction in alcohol and drugs. When they are outside they are not connected and not being relational with other people and are suffering, tired and we don t see a reduction in drug and alcohol use. We have found that being tougher to people that have already had very tough lives creates more alcoholism and more addiction. I read a recent study that 80% of people with mental health and addiction issues developed those post homelessness not pre. C32 I live beside the building you are considering constructing, I sure hope you are right. A32 I can tell you we have been operating for over a year and we have met over 90 individuals. We don t see a rampant drug problem in this population. If you have an idea 8 Page 161

162 BC Housing, Supportive Housing, Sechelt Public Information Meeting Summary April 3, 2018 in your head that there are going to be 40 people moving in next door with rampant drug and alcohol issues, that is not the picture that we are seeing in this specific community. C33 12 years ago when I moved into my building it was nothing to see needles all in the back in Lamprey Lane. There was a drug problem and they deal drugs on Lamprey Lane, it is known. We see it out of our apartment building. I am not saying it is the homeless, I am saying that there is a small if not big drug problem in that area already. C34 I am concerned about the trees that are going to be taken down as they are probably the only really mature trees in that whole area. I am a volunteer gardener and we were told at Community Services that we are not allowed to dig and plant trees so if you take those trees out we can t plant any more. The boundary between the food bank and your property, the road right away, has a gas line so you can t plant trees on there. If you just put a road in there and look at this big wall of buildings and have no trees around there that would be heartbreaking. It is a really nice green space that people walk along the trail all the time. Please try to keep this a green space and save as many trees as possible because we need trees. Q35 Can you tell me more about the requirements of the lane extension from Hightide Avenue to Lamprey Lane? A35 This is a conceptual design of the development, there will be detailed design coming forward through a development process for the look of the building and site development. The initial comments that we have received back from the engineering department is that they would like to see a through road and connection through there. We are going to determine exactly where the trees are and if we can save them because we have heard from many people that they would like to see them saved. C36 I live close by and have attended all the meetings that resulted in the Upper Deck shelter. The residents in my development were not happy with the Ebbtide location but I haven t heard a single complaint about where it is now. We back on to the Ebbtide Marsh which has its people leaving paraphernalia around and personally in two years I have only found one needle so I am not worried about it at all. I am all for this and looking forward to it. Q37 I am in the community gardens for six hours every couple of days in the summer and I see almost no cars ever coming to the end of that road. You said that you don t expect any of your residents to have cars so why do you need a road? Who is going to use that road? A37 Engineering requirements are for fire truck and emergency access through there. Let the try to determine where the trees are and I stress perhaps we may be able to save them within the boulevard, which is the area between the property line and the actual road way. We can look at that. C38 I live in the area and walk through there all the time. The biggest trees are well off the area of where the road will go. The road will get rid of some bushes but that is about it, most of the trees should be ok. 9 Page 162

163 BC Housing, Supportive Housing, Sechelt Public Information Meeting Summary April 3, 2018 Q39 I would like to know more about the community garden. Will it be onsite and do you need volunteers? A39 Nick Gaskin is the manager of the homeless shelter in Sechelt and he is in negotiations with the owner of the property and the location of that garden. Rona has agreed to donate all the materials, tools, seeds and soil for the site. We are hoping to start building the community garden within the next month and having the folks inside the shelter access that space and help us maintain it. On the Upper Deck site there is some green space and we are in negotiations with the owners to use part of that green space to create a little community garden for the shelter to maintain and grow their own produce for the shelter. When we move to the new site, there may be an opportunity for a new garden there. We would then explore options for materials and volunteers and how that program would look if and when the site gets developed. Q40 How will the present location of the food bank and the community garden be affected? A40 I don t think it will be affected. C41 You should all be proud of yourselves because you have come a long way. C42 I want to express my gratitude and appreciation for all the organizations that have been involved in bringing this development forward. It is so needed and I would also like to advocate for similar kind of housing to be offered in Pender Harbour and possibly Gibsons. Is it possible to do some low cost sustainable building design like passive solar orientation, the way that we orient the buildings, gray water diversion for gardening uses, LED lights to lower our foot print as we go forward? Maybe things that don t cost as much as a green roof because I know they cost a lot of money. If we could do small things it adds up to a lot, especially with our water situation on the Coast. A42 Next steps in terms of the District process are that we will be bringing forward a staff report to the committee at the end of this month. If that goes forward into Council we will be looking at a Public Hearing perhaps at the end of May. Moving forward from there, there will be an additional three readings after that. After second and third reading if it goes ahead there will mostly likely be a number of conditions. There will be a housing agreement to make sure the housing is affordable and rental. There will be a development permit for the detailed design of the development and that is a process as well. It will be up to the applicant to get the drawings into us to start the process. There are lots of opportunities for public input about the zoning process. You can take a comment sheet or me directly at the District. I have left my business cards by the comment sheets. 10 Page 163

164 Appendix E: s Page 164

165 Page 165

166 Item 8.2(b) DISTRICT OF SECHELT Bylaw No , 2018 (BC Housing) A bylaw to amend Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 492, 2010 in support of an affordable supportive housing development. WHEREAS the wishes to further amend the Official Community Plan in respect of the lands located at 5656 Hightide Avenue, pursuant to an application submitted by Mobius Architecture on behalf of the Provincial Rental Housing Corporation (BC Housing); NOW THEREFORE the Council of the in open meeting assembled enacts as follows: TITLE 1. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No , 2018 (BC Housing). AMENDMENTS 2. The Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 492, 2010 is amended by adding the following paragraph to Part Four Land Use Policies, Section 5. Residential and Special Infill Areas, after Policy 5.28: Affordable Supportive Living Housing Development BC Housing- Hightide Avenue 5.30 Notwithstanding any other provisions of the Official Community Plan, the property legally known as Lot 1, Plan BCP36628, District Lot 304, PID (addressed as 5656 Hightide Avenue): a) has a Base Density of 50 apartment dwelling units per hectare of lot area; b) which may be increased to a Maximum Density of 221 rental apartment dwelling units per hectare of lot area OR 40 rental apartment dwelling units on the lot, whichever is less, subject to the following conditions: Page 166

167 Page 2 of 2 Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No , 2018 (BC Housing) i. Providing four of the dwelling units are constructed to an adaptable accessibility standard and four of the dwelling units are built to a wheelchair accessible standard with wheelchair roll-in showers and wheelchair accessible sinks, counters and kitchenettes; ii. Providing 100% of the dwelling units on the lot are guaranteed as Affordable Housing where the and the owner have entered into a Housing Agreement under Section 483 of the Local Government Act to provide not-for profit rental housing; iii. Providing the building is no more than three (3) storeys in height with a maximum 1.1 FAR. READ A FIRST TIME THIS DAY OF 2018 PUBLIC HEARING HELD THIS DAY OF 2018 READ A SECOND TIME THIS DAY OF 2018 READ A THIRD TIME THIS DAY OF 2018 ADOPTED THIS DAY OF 2018 Mayor Corporate Officer Page 167

168 Item 8.2(c) DISTRICT OF SECHELT Bylaw No , 2018 (BC Housing) A bylaw to amend Zoning Bylaw No. 25, 1987 by rezoning a property at 5656 Hightide Avenue from R-4 - Residential 4 Zone to Comprehensive Development Zone 43 (CD-43 BC Housing). WHEREAS the wishes to further amend Zoning Bylaw No. 25, 1987 in respect of lands located at 5656 Hightide Avenue, pursuant to an application submitted by Mobius Architecture on behalf of the Provincial Rental Housing Corporation (BC Housing); AND WHEREAS the proposed amendment is consistent with the Official Community Plan as amended; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the in open meeting assembled enacts as follows: Title 1. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as Zoning Bylaw No. 25, 1987, Amendment Bylaw No , 2018 (BC Housing). Provisions 2. That the following definitions are added to PART ONE - INTERPRETATION Section 102. DEFINITIONS of Zoning Bylaw 25, 1987: FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) means the figure obtained when the total gross Floor Area of all buildings on a lot, is divided by the area of the lot. SUPPORTIVE LIVING HOUSING means a residential rental housing facility which provides Apartment Dwelling Units or Sleeping Units, and Support and Amenity Services. SUPPORT AND AMENITY SERVICES means meal preparation, meal service, administration services, and may include any of the following: counselling, medical services, social and recreation uses, house cleaning, and laundry service; provided to residents in conjunction with their Supportive Living Housing or Assisted Living Housing. SLEEPING UNIT means a suite of rooms used for residential accommodation, or temporary medical respite accommodation, of one or two persons, that includes sleeping, Page 168

169 Page 2 of 6 Zoning Amendment Bylaw No , 2018 (BC Housing) toilet and bathing facilities, but does not include cooking facilities such as ranges, cooktops or hotplates. 3. That the new zone, Comprehensive Development Zone 43 (CD-43 BC Housing), as attached to and forming part of this bylaw as Schedule B, is added to Zoning Bylaw No. 25, 1987, PART 10A-COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT ZONES, in numerical order. 4. That Lot 1, Plan BCP36628, District Lot 304 (PID ), addressed as at 5656 Hightide Avenue, as shown on the plan attached to and forming part of this bylaw as Schedule A be rezoned from R-4 - Residential 4 Zone to Comprehensive Development Zone 43 (CD-43 BC Housing). 5. That Schedule A of Zoning Bylaw No. 25, 1987 (Official Zoning Maps) be amended to reflect the zoning designation and boundaries brought into force by this bylaw. READ A FIRST TIME THIS DAY OF 2018 PUBLIC HEARING HELD THIS DAY OF 2018 READ A SECOND TIME THIS DAY OF 2018 READ A THIRD TIME THIS DAY OF 2018 APPROVED BY THE BC MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE THIS DAY OF 2018 ADOPTED THIS DAY OF 2018 Mayor Corporate Officer Page 169

170 Page 3 of 6 Zoning Amendment Bylaw No , 2018 (BC Housing) SCHEDULE A TO BYLAW NO , 2018 (BC Housing) Page 170

171 Page 4 of 6 Zoning Amendment Bylaw No , 2018 (BC Housing) SCHEDULE B TO BYLAW NO , 2018 (BC Housing) 10ZCD43.01 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT ZONE 43 (CD-43 BC Housing) 10ZCD43.02 INTENT The intent of the CD-43 zone is to facilitate the development of a site-specific affordable Supportive Living Housing development. 10ZCD43.03 INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF CD-43 ZONE REGULATIONS Except as otherwise provided in Part 3, Section 303 of this bylaw, the uses listed under the headings principal uses and accessory uses in the CD-43 zone, and no other uses, are permitted. 10ZCD43.04 SUPPORTIVE LIVING HOUSING 1. Permitted Uses 1.1. Principal Uses: a) Supportive Living Housing apartment dwelling units; 1.2. Accessory uses, spaces, structures and buildings: a) Support and Amenity Services; b) Accessory buildings and structures, subject to the regulations in Part 3, Section 305 of this Bylaw. 2. Density 2.1. The number of Supportive Living Housing apartment dwelling units shall not exceed the base density of one (1) unit for each two hundred (200) square metres (50 units/hectare) of Lot Area Notwithstanding subsection 10ZCD , the number of Supportive Living Housing apartment dwelling units may be increased to a maximum of one (1) unit for each square metres (221 units/ha) of Lot Area OR 40 Supportive Living Housing apartment dwelling units on the lot, whichever is less, subject to the following conditions: Page 171

172 Page 5 of 6 Zoning Amendment Bylaw No , 2018 (BC Housing) a) Provision of four of the Supportive Living Housing apartment units are constructed to an adaptable accessibility standard and four of the Supportive Living Housing apartment units are built to a wheelchair accessible standard with roll-in showers, and wheelchair sinks, counters and kitchenettes; b) Provision of 100% of the Supportive Living Housing apartment dwelling units on the lot are guaranteed as affordable rental housing where the and the owner have entered into a Housing Agreement under Section 483 of the Local Government Act; and c) Provision of a no-subdivision covenant, registered on the lot. 3. Lot Area and Lot Width 3.1. The minimum lot area required is one thousand eight hundred (1,800) square metres The minimum lot width required is thirty-six (36) metres. 4. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 4.1. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the building shall not exceed Lot Coverage 5.1. Buildings, parking areas and driveways shall not cover more than seventy-five (75%) percent of the lot area. 6. Building Height 6.1. No building shall exceed 3 storeys and 10.5 metres in height No accessory building shall exceed six (6.0) metres in height. 7. Siting of Buildings and Structures 7.1. No principle building shall be located within: a) 7.5 m of the lot line facing west (Hightide Ave.); b) 7.5 m of the lot line facing east (Lamprey Lane); Page 172

173 Page 6 of 6 Zoning Amendment Bylaw No , 2018 (BC Housing) c) 5.0 m of the lot line facing north; and d) 3.0 m of the lot line facing south Accessory buildings shall not be located within the front yard facing Hightide Avenue nor within 1.5 metres of any lot line. 8. Exterior Lighting 8.1. All open spaces, pathways, building exits, and building entrances shall be lit with exterior, downcast, energy efficient, lighting fixtures. 9. Off Street Parking and Loading 9.1. The size and design of parking aisles, spaces, and loading spaces shall be in accordance with Part Eleven of this Bylaw The number of parking spaces and loading spaces provided shall be in accordance with Part Eleven of this Bylaw for apartment dwellings Notwithstanding subsection 10ZCD above, the number of parking spaces and loading spaces provided on the lot, may be decreased to 5 vehicle parking spaces, of which at least one vehicle parking space shall be designed as accessible parking, and no loading space is required, subject to the following conditions: a) Provision of 100% of the Supportive Living Housing apartment dwelling units are guaranteed as affordable rental housing where the and the owner have entered into a Housing Agreement under Section 483 of the Local Government Act; b) Provision of a no-subdivision covenant, registered on the lot; and, c) Provision of a covered bicycle parking area for at least 15 bicycles. Page 173

174 Item 8.3(a) REQUEST FOR DECISION TO: Council REPORT DATE: April 25, 2018 TARGET DECISION DATE: May 2, 2018 FROM: Corporate Officer RE: Road Naming Bylaw No. 564, 2018 FILE NO: , 2018 RECOMMENDATIONS 1. That the report from the Corporate Officer dated April 25, 2018 regarding Road Naming Bylaw No. 564, 2018, be received. 2. That Council proceed with adoption of Bylaw No. 564, 2018 (Road Naming). PURPOSE To bring forward Bylaw No. 564, 2018 (Road Naming) for consideration of adoption. OPTIONS 1. Endorse the above recommendations. 2. Direct that amendments be made to the Bylaw prior to adoption. DISCUSSION Context/Background At its April 18, 2018 Regular Meeting, Council gave three readings to Bylaw No. 564, 2018 (Road Naming). It would now be in order to consider adoption of the Bylaw. Strategic Plan Goal #1 Effective Governance Policy Implications The Community Charter provides that Council may, by bylaw, assign a name to a highway, also referred to as a street or road. Financial Implications None Page 174

175 2 Communications Once adopted, staff will assign roads to a specific location as needed and will advise developers, Canada Post, the SCRD and Emergency Services including Ambulance, Fire and RCMP. Respectfully submitted, Jo-Anne Frank Corporate Officer Page 175

176 Item 8.3(b) DISTRICT OF SECHELT Bylaw No. 564, 2018 (Road Naming) A bylaw to name several new streets WHEREAS the Community Charter provides that Council may, by bylaw, assign a name to a highway, also referred to as a street or road ; AND WHEREAS new roads created by subdivision, and roads that will be created by subdivision in the near future, throughout the District require naming; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the in open meeting assembled hereby enacts as follows: Title 1. This bylaw may be cited as Bylaw No 564, 2018 (Road Naming). Road Names 2. That the following names be applied to new roads in the West Porpoise Bay neighbourhood: a. Vista b. Plumtree c. Heartwood d. Rosewood e. Cottonwood 3. That the following names be applied to new roads in West Sechelt Neighbourhood: a. Scoter b. Goldeneye c. Rockdove 4. That the following names be applied to new roads in the East Porpoise Bay Neighbourhood a. Snowberry b. Salmonberry Page 176

177 Page 2 of 2 Bylaw No. 564, 2018 (Road Naming) 5. That the following names be applied to new roads in the Selma Park- Davis Bay- Wilson Creek Neighbourhood: a. Whiteside b. Dalls 6. That the following names be applied to new roads in the Downtown- Sechelt Village Neighbourhood: a. Dungeness b. Redrock 7. That the above road names will end with: a. Avenues when the new road runs in a north-south directions; b. Streets when the new road runs in an east-west direction; c. Way when the road terminates on the same road it commences on, or where the road changes direction; and, d. Place when the road is short and dead-ends. READ A FIRST TIME THIS 18 th DAY OF April, 2018 READ A SECOND TIME THIS 18 th DAY OF April, 2018 READ A THIRD TIME THIS 18 th DAY OF April, 2018 ADOPTED THIS DAY OF 2018 Mayor Corporate Officer Page 177

178 Item 8.4(a) REQUEST FOR DECISION TO: Council REPORT DATE: April 24, 2018 TARGET DECISION DATE: May 2, 2018 FROM: RE: Corporate Officer Parks, Lands and Roads Temporary Rental Amendment Bylaw No , 2018 FILE NO: , 2018 RECOMMENDATIONS 1. That the report from the Corporate Officer dated April 24, 2018 regarding Parks, Lands and Roads Temporary Rental Amendment Bylaw No , 2018, be received. 2. That Council proceed with adoption of Parks, Lands and Roads Temporary Rental Amendment Bylaw No , PURPOSE To bring forward Parks, Lands and Roads Temporary Rental Amendment Bylaw No , 2018 for consideration of adoption. OPTIONS 1. Endorse the above recommendations. 2. Direct that other amendments be added to Bylaw No , Receive and take no further action. 4. Defer pending some other action. DISCUSSION Context/Background At its April 18, 2018 Regular Meeting, Council gave three readings to Amendment Bylaw No , It would now be in order to consider adoption of the Bylaw. Strategic Plan n/a Page 178

179 2 Policy Implications Adoption of Amendment Bylaw No , 2018 will add a third seasonal mobile vending site in Trail Bay and allow for issuing vendor permits on a rotational basis between locations. Financial Implications If Amendment Bylaw 480-2, 2018 is adopted, it will generate $1600 in pad rental fees for an 8 month period. Communications Upon adoption, the Bylaw amendment will be communicated to seasonal mobile vendor applicants directly, and to the general public through the District s website. Respectfully submitted, Jo-Anne Frank Corporate Officer Page 179

180 Item 8.4(b) DISTRICT OF SECHELT Bylaw No , 2018 A bylaw to amend Parks, Lands and Roads Temporary Rental Bylaw No. 480, 2008 WHEREAS the Council of the has adopted Parks, Lands and Roads Temporary Rental Bylaw No. 480, 2008 ; AND WHEREAS Council wishes to amend Bylaw No. 480, 2008 to increase permit fees, modify the permit selection process and add a vending location; NOW THEREFORE Council of the in open meeting enacts as follows: TITLE 1. This bylaw may be cited for all purposes as Parks, Lands and Roads Temporary Rental Amendment Bylaw No , AMENDMENTS 2. Section 2(b) Display Area of Bylaw No. 480, 2008 is hereby deleted and replaced with the following: Display Area" means an area of land available for use under this Bylaw as identified in Schedules A-1, A-2 and A-3 attached to and forming part of this Bylaw. 3. Section 2(ii) Display Area of Bylaw No. 480, 2008 is hereby deleted and replaced with the following: Small Display Area - area of up to 3 meters (approximately 9.8 feet) in overall width and up to 3 meters (approximately 9.8 feet) in length that is being used or intended to be used by a Seasonal Mobile Vendor. 4. Section 3(b) of Parks, Lands and Roads Temporary Rental Bylaw No. 480, 2008 is hereby deleted and replaced with the following: Seasonal Mobile Vendors Permits may be issued for one of the specific locations identified in Schedules A-1, A-2 and A-3 attached to and forming part of this Bylaw and labelled Display Area. 5. Section 4(a)(ii) of Bylaw No. 480, 2008 is hereby deleted and replaced with the following: Page 180

181 Page 2 Parks, Lands and Roads Temporary Rental Bylaw No , 2018 A Seasonal Mobile Vendors Permit application must be submitted for review by February 1st in the year of commencement of the intended use. Applications received by the February 1st deadline will be reviewed against the evaluation criteria outlined in Part 4(d). When two or more equally suitable vendors apply for the same Display Area, selections may be made so as to schedule and rotate vendors between each of the established seasonal mobile vending locations. Applications received after February 1st will be considered in the order that they are received if there are any location vacancies. All applications received will be assessed against the evaluation criteria outlined in Part 4(d). 6. Section 4(d) (v) of Bylaw No. 480, 2008 is hereby deleted and replaced with the following: 4(d)(v). Where two or more applicants applying for the same Display Area are considered generally to be equally suitable, a permit will be granted to each vendor on a rotational basis between the established Display Areas as assigned by the District of Sechelt. 7. Section 6(a)(i) and (ii) of Bylaw No. 480, 2008 is hereby deleted and replaced with the following: (i) in the Downtown Core; except when operating under a Special Event Permit. (ii) on any park, beach or school grounds or on municipal-owned property other than roads except when operating under a Special Event Permit. 8. Section 7(b) of Bylaw No. 480, 2008 is hereby deleted and replaced with the following: A limit of four Seasonal Mobile Vending Permits may be granted and approved on a rotational basis between all of the District s Display Areas and only one vendor is permitted to operate per Display Area at any given time. 9. The following Section 7(g) is hereby added to Bylaw No. 480, 2008: (g) The reserves the right to fill vacant Display Areas throughout the mobile season based on the issuance of a Special Event Permit. 10. The following Section 7(h) is hereby added to Bylaw No. 480, 2008: (h)seasonal mobile vending permits are limited to food and beverage services only and not allowable for fresh fruit or vegetables vending. Other forms of mobile vending services applications may be accepted and permits granted upon Council resolution. Page 181

182 Page 3 Parks, Lands and Roads Temporary Rental Bylaw No , Section 8(b) of Bylaw No. 480, 2008 is hereby deleted and replaced with the following: Any vending within the Special Event area must not infringe on any adjacent Seasonal Mobile Vendor Display Areas as identified in Schedules A-1, A-2 and A-3 attached to and forming part of this Bylaw. READ A FIRST TIME THIS 18 th DAY OF April, 2018 READ A SECOND TIME THIS 18 th DAY OF April, 2018 READ A FIRST THIRD THIS 18 th DAY OF April, 2018 ADOPTED THIS DAY OF 2018 Mayor Corporate Officer I hereby certify this to be a true and accurate copy of Parks, Lands and Roads Temporary Amendment Bylaw No Corporate Officer Page 182

183 UPPER FIELD W E U LARGE DISPLAY AREA 2.2 M x 9.2 M PAD PLAYGROUND U LARGE DISPLAY AREA 2.2Mx9.2M PAD WASHROOM UTILITY SHED LOWER FIELD Vendor Locations Parks Lands ft Roads Temporary Rental Bylaw DISTRICT OF SECHELT Bylaw 480-1, 2018 Schedule A-i Kinnikinnck Park Meters Page 183

184 PARKING LOT Large Display Area 9.2 Mx 2.2 M max. Steps to beach WASH ROOM Small Display Area 3Mx3M max. Vendor Locations Parks Lands & Roads Temporary Rental ByLaw DISTRICT OF SECHELT Bylaw 480-1, 2018 ScheduleA-2 Davis Bay Beach Meters Page 184

185 Large Display Area Maximum 9.2 M a 2.2 M Vendor Locations Parks Lands a Roads Temporary Renta ByLaw DISTRICT OF SECI-iELT Bylaw 4804, 2018 Schedule A Page 185

186 W*E 300 Meters Parks Lands ft Roads Temporary RentaL ByLaw DISTRICT OF SEQ-fELT Bylaw 480-1, 2018 Schedule B Dawntown Core Page 186

187 Item 8.5(a) REQUEST FOR DECISION TO: Council REPORT DATE: April 24, 2018 TARGET DECISION DATE: May 2, 2018 FROM: Corporate Officer RE: Financial Plan Bylaw No. 563, 2018 FILE NO: , 2018 RECOMMENDATIONS 1. That the report from the Corporate Officer dated April 24, 2018 regarding Financial Plan Bylaw No. 563, 2018, be received. 2. That Council proceed with adoption of Financial Plan Bylaw No. 563, PURPOSE To bring forward Financial Plan Bylaw No. 563, 2018 for consideration of adoption. OPTIONS 1. Endorse the above recommendations. 2. Direct that amendments be made to the Bylaw. Any amendments must be adopted prior to May 15, DISCUSSION Context/Background At its April 18, 2018 Regular Meeting, Council gave three readings to Financial Plan Bylaw No. 563, It would now be in order to consider adoption of the Bylaw. Strategic Plan Goal #1 Effective Governance Policy Implications The Community Charter prescribes that a municipality must annually adopt, by bylaw, a financial plan with a five year planning period before a property tax bylaw is adopted. Page 187

188 2 Financial Implications Once adopted, Financial Plan Bylaw No. 563, 2018 will establish the District s five year financial plan. Communications The Bylaw will be forwarded to Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing before the May 16, 2018 deadline as required. It will also be included on the District s web page. Respectfully submitted, Jo-Anne Frank Corporate Officer Page 188

189 Item 8.5(b) DISTRICT OF SECHELT Bylaw No. 563, 2018 A bylaw to adopt the Financial Plan for the years 2018 to 2022 WHEREAS Section 165 of the Community Charter, SBC Chapter 26, 2003 requires that Council adopt an annual Financial Plan; NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the in open meeting assembled hereby enacts as follows: Title 1. This bylaw may be cited as " Financial Plan Bylaw No. 563, 2018". Provisions 2. Schedule A, Schedule B and Schedule C attached to and forming part of this bylaw is hereby adopted as the Financial Plan of the for the five (5) year period from Pursuant to Section 165 of the Community Charter the Council of the District of Sechelt has prepared a Statement of Revenue and Tax Policy as shown in Schedule D attached hereto and forming part of this bylaw. READ A FIRST TIME THIS 18 th DAY OF April, 2018 READ A SECOND TIME THIS 18 th DAY OF April, 2018 READ A THIRD TIME THIS 18 th DAY OF April, 2018 ADOPTED THIS DAY OF 2018 Mayor Corporate Officer I hereby certify this to be a true and accurate copy of Financial Plan Bylaw No. 563, Corporate Officer Page 189

190 General Fund Operating Plan SCHEDULE A Revenue: Property tax 8,358,123 9,012,916 9,511,379 10,071,025 10,536,256 Property tax from growth 154, , , , ,299 Fees, rates and sale of services 3,090,810 3,082,650 3,101,867 3,121,468 3,141,461 Investment income 360, , , , ,220 Grants and donations 1,066,084 1,028,884 1,028,884 1,028,884 1,028,884 Other revenue 24,015 24,495 24,985 25,485 25,995 Total revenue 13,054,285 13,698,101 14,248,500 14,858,239 15,376,115 Expenses: General government 2,791,057 2,848,715 2,900,337 3,027,874 3,044,723 Planning and development 1,276,161 1,299,085 1,322,465 1,327,271 1,332,173 Community services 1,782,726 1,822,976 1,864,349 1,890,123 1,916,757 Public works 2,312,840 2,074,353 2,115,841 2,134,418 2,153,367 Facilities 645, , , , ,287 Police services 2,112,436 2,186,643 2,262,416 2,335,427 2,412,537 Solid waste 942, , , ,658 1,019,651 Total expenses 11,862,236 11,830,989 12,073,647 12,350,925 12,523,495 Net operating activity 1,192,049 1,867,112 2,174,853 2,507,314 2,852,620 Amortization 2,730,405 2,730,405 2,730,405 2,730,405 2,730,405 Principle on debenture debt 485, , , , ,373 Transfer to (from) reserves 125, , , , ,156 Transfer to (from) capital 457, ,513 1,007,060 1,302,685 1,613,091 Reduction of capital equity (2,730,405) (2,730,405) (2,730,405) (2,730,405) (2,730,405) Transfer to (from) surplus 123, , , , ,000 Estimated surplus balance 294, , , , ,145 Property Tax increase 5.78% 8.19% 5.53% 5.88% 4.62% Page 190

191 Sewer Fund Operating Plan SCHEDULE B Revenue Sewer user fee 1,458,093 1,530,998 1,530,998 1,530,998 1,561,618 Parcel tax 904, ,200 1,024,200 1,084,200 1,144,200 Fees, rates and sale of services 180, , , , ,500 Grants 100, , , , ,000 Total revenue 2,642,793 2,775,698 2,835,698 2,895,698 2,986,318 Expenses Wages and benefits 451, , , , ,074 Contract services 116, , , , ,104 Professional development 16,420 16,748 17,083 17,425 17,774 Supplies 399, , , , ,324 Debenture interest 120, , , , ,838 Other expenses 205, , , , ,331 Reallocation of admin. costs 374, , , , ,222 Total expenses 1,684,741 1,716,018 1,747,922 1,771,063 1,794,667 Net operating activity 958,052 1,059,680 1,087,776 1,124,635 1,191,651 Amortization 1,156,200 1,156,200 1,156,200 1,156,200 1,156,200 Principle on debenture debt 740, , , , ,770 Transfer to (from) capital 1,222, , , , ,000 Reduction of capital equity (1,156,200) (1,156,200) (1,156,200) (1,156,200) (1,156,200) Transfer to (from) surplus (1,005,694) (66,527) 127, , ,881 Estimated surplus (deficit) balance 274, , , , ,332 Levy increase 0% 5% 0% 0% 2% Page 191

192 Capital Plan SCHEDULE C Project Funding Source 2018 Budget 2019 Budget 2020 Budget 2021 Budget 2022 Budget Vehicles / Equipment Public Works Excavator (Unit #17 Replacement) Engineering Vehicle (New) Truck Replacement Vehicle Replacement (Unit #5 Replacement) Equipment Replace 25,000 Reserve MFA Financing 110,000 Equipment Replace Reserve Equipment Replace Reserve Equipment Replace Reserve 40,000 85,000 30,000 Parks / Community Infrastructure Chapman Trails - Section 56 Gas Tax Reserve 17,000 Eagle View Rd. - Chapman Rd. Pedestrian Access Way Gas Tax Reserve 15,000 Nestman Beach Access - Phase II Gas Tax Reserve 10,000 Selma Park Beach Lookout Gas Tax Reserve 9,500 Wildlife Resistant Garbage Cans (Davis Bay) Gas Tax Reserve 15,000 Derby Beach Lookout Gas Tax Reserve 9,500 Landscaping - Civic Square Gas Tax Reserve 15,000 Kinnikinnick Dug-Out Roofs Gas Tax Reserve 10,000 Cowrie Street Trees Electrical Outlets Capital Reserve 14,000 Acacia Park Hydro Connection Capital Reserve 10,000 Cowrie Street Electrical Outlets Capital Reserve 9,000 Development Cost Dog Park Charges 99,000 Capital Reserve 1,000 Trail Bay Waterfront - Development Cost Trail to Ocean Ave Charges 172,260 Community Park Capital Reserve 1,740 Suncoaster Trail Development Cost (Roberts Creek - Charges 123,750 Airport) Capital Reserve 126,250 Development Cost Ebbtide Park Charges 424,710 Capital Reserve 4,290 Page 192

193 Capital Plan SCHEDULE C Project Funding Source 2018 Budget 2019 Budget 2020 Budget 2021 Budget 2022 Budget Kinnikinnick Forest - Development Cost 151,223 Accessible Trail Charges Upgrades Capital Reserve 459,777 Chapman Creek Trail Development Cost 174,735 Expansion - Brookman Charges to Selma Park Capital Reserve 178,265 Quarry Park - Development Cost 346,500 Silverstone Charges Development Capital Reserve 3,500 Esplanade Waterfront Trail - Burnett to Allan West Sechelt All Weather Soccer Field Development Cost 431,640 Charges Capital Reserve 4,360 Development Cost Charges 1,979,010 Capital Reserve 19,990 Facilities Public Works/Parks Building Roof Replacement at Municipal Office RCMP Facility Reception Area Rockwood Drainage Issues Mechanical Refit Design Report - Hall/Library MFA Financing 1,736,871 Public Works Yard reserve 927,536 MFA Financing 93,973 Public Safety reserve Grants & Contributions Grants & Contributions 98, ,610 11,257 Capital Reserve 6,000 Information Technology ERP - Enterprise Resource Planning Computer Hardware Replacements/Upgrade s IT Infrastructure Maintenance/Enhance ment New Council Technology Drainage Trail Bay Outfall Upgrades Trail Ave Storm Trunk Line - Ebbtide to Pebble Cres Capital reserve 79,614 52,000 60,000 Capital reserve 15,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 Equipment Replace Reserve Capital reserve 8,000 Capital reserve 46,737 Development Cost Charges 15,372 Capital reserve 2,500 Development Cost Charges 247,500 80,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 Page 193

194 Capital Plan SCHEDULE C Project Funding Source 2018 Budget 2019 Budget 2020 Budget 2021 Budget 2022 Budget Sandy Hook Drainage Capital Reserve 200,000 Trail Ave Storm Upgrades - Anchor to Turnstone Gale Ave (BG C1) Medusa (MED L9:12) Fairway Duck Pond (BG C2) Wakefield (WAK C5) Roads Marine Way Retaining Wall Trail Avenue Alignment & Safety Improvements (Design) Wakefield Road Culvert Replacement Trail Avenue Construction P1: Teredo St to Anchor Paving program per Mcelhenney Upgrade Trail to Arterial - Anchor to Turnstone Wharf St Cul-De-Sac - Teredo to Boulevard Inlet Ave Rd Upgrades - Cowrie to Dolphin Development Cost Charges 99,000 Capital reserve 1,000 Development Cost Charges 48,015 Capital reserve 48,985 Development Cost Charges 49,005 Capital reserve 49,995 Development Cost Charges 99,000 Capital reserve 101,000 Development Cost Charges 175,230 Capital reserve 178,770 Public Safety Reserve 173,442 Gas Tax Reserve 1,256 Development Cost Charges 124,327 Capital Reserve 500,000 Development Cost Charges 2,475,000 Capital Reserve 25,000 MFA Financing 250, , ,000 Capital Reserve 250,000 Development Cost Charges 1,485,000 Capital Reserve 15,000 Gas Tax Reserve 100,000 Capital Reserve 400,000 Winward Lane - Trail Ave to Ocean Ave Capital Reserve 100,000 Sechelt Inlet Rd Development Cost Sidewalk & Streetlights - Charges 141,075 Saltgrass Lane to Dusty Capital Reserve 48,925 Medusa St Sidewalk and Streetlights Gas Tax Reserve 150,000 Upgrade 1/2 of Development Cost Nickerson Rd to Charges 408,375 Collector - Oracle Rd to Capital Reserve 4,125 Page 194

195 Capital Plan SCHEDULE C Project Funding Source 2018 Budget 2019 Budget 2020 Budget 2021 Budget 2022 Budget Norwest Bay Road Streetlights (Emerson to Mason Rd) Dolphin Ave Streetlights (Trail Ave to Ocean Ave) Gas Tax Reserve 125,000 Gas Tax Reserve 75,000 Sidewalks & Walkways Ballie Road Sidewalk Gas Tax Reserve 35,000 Gas Tax Reserve 250,000 Hwy 101 Sidewalk - Bay Grants & Road to Pier ,000 Contributions Wharf Ave Sidewalk - Cowrie & Dolphin (Design) Gas Tax Reserve 50,000 Capital Reserve 35,000 RRFB at Ocean and Grants & Cowrie 35,000 Contributions RRFB at Derby and Norwest Bay Capital Reserve 35,000 Grants & Contributions 35,000 Dolphin Ave Sidewalk - Cowrie & Dolphin Gas Tax Reserve 50,000 (Design) Pedestrian Access Way - Wilson Rd. - Gun Club Capital Reserve 4,000 Rd. Wharf Ave Sidewalk - Cowrie & Dolphin Gas Tax Reserve 350,000 (Construction) Bay Rd Sidewalk Gas Tax Reserve 150,000 Anchor Road Sidewalk Gas Tax Reserve 175,000 Mason Rd Walkway/Bicycle Lane - Norvan Rd to Hwy 101 Jasper Rd Sidewalk - Mills Rd to Norwest Bay Rd Trail Ave Sidewalks - Turnstone to Binnacle Mason Rd Sidewalk - Norwest Bay Rd to Norvan Dolphin St Sidewalk - Trail Ave to Ocean Ave Gas Tax Reserve 70,000 Gas Tax Reserve 120,000 Gas Tax Reserve 50,000 Gas Tax Reserve 200,000 Gas Tax Reserve 100,000 Page 195

196 Capital Plan SCHEDULE C Project Funding Source 2018 Budget 2019 Budget 2020 Budget 2021 Budget 2022 Budget Bay Road Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter, Streetlights from Hwy 101 to Eagleview Road Gas Tax Reserve 225,000 Sewer Collection & Treatment Sewer reserve 910,348 Wakefield Road Sewer Grants & Expansion - Area A06 1,219,938 Contributions Harbour Way to Sewer reserve 346,634 Lookout Sewer Grants & Expansion - Area A02 Contributions 1,681,711 Trail Ave Sewer Relocation - Cowrie to Sewer reserve 25,000 Teredo Scada Equipment Purchase Sewer reserve 30,000 Additional Membrane Filters Sewer Reserve 80,000 16,000 16,000 3/4 Ton Truck (Unit #33 Replacement) Sewer Reserve 35,000 Chemical Storage Area (Design) Sewer Reserve 35,000 Shelter for Septage Receiver at Dusty Rd Sewer reserve 15,000 Spare PLC Components (Inventory) Upsize Main - MH Wakefield Lift Station Wakefield Lift Station Cabinet Repairs Chemical Storage Area (Construction) Wakefield Lift Station Upgrades Roof Replacement - Dusty Rd Building Upsize main - MH 4720 to MH 4710 Marine Way Siphon Upgrades - MH 4745 to MH 4540 Gravity Sewer Main Upgrades - MH 4745 to MH 4765 Sewer Reserve 12,000 Sewer Reserve 32,187 Development Cost Charges 92,813 Sewer reserve 10,000 Sewer reserve 100,000 Sewer Reserve 227,250 Development Cost Charges 222,750 Sewer Reserve 12,000 Sewer Reserve 2,250 Development Cost Charges 222,750 Sewer Reserve 1,000 Development Cost Charges 99,000 Sewer Reserve 1,750 Page 196

197 Capital Plan SCHEDULE C Project Funding Source 2018 Budget 2019 Budget 2020 Budget 2021 Budget 2022 Budget Development Cost Charges 173,250 Development Cost Upsize Main - MH ,750 Charges to MH 4720 Sewer reserve 1,250 Replace Pumps - Development Cost Mackenzie Marina Lift Charges 153,450 Station Sewer Reserve 156,550 Development Cost Replace Norwest Bay 334,125 Charges Rd Lift Station Sewer Reserve 115,875 Development Cost Upsize Shoreline 108,900 Charges Siphon Sewer Reserve 1,100 Development Cost Trunk Expansion Charges 544,500 Sanitary Sewer Upgrade - Dolphin St to Inlet Ave, Inlet Ave to Sechelt Inlet Rd Sanitary Sewer Extension - Saltgrass to Dusty Sanitary Sewer Upgrade Teredo St - Ambulance Station to Reclaimed Water Treatment and Distribution Sewer Reserve 5,500 Development Cost Charges 198,000 Sewer Reserve 2,000 Sewer Reserve 200,000 Development Cost Charges 297,000 Sewer Reserve 3,000 Grants & Contributions 1,500,000 Total funding Capital reserve 682, ,990 1,044, , ,115 Equipment Replace Reserve 105, ,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 MFA Financing 1,940, , , ,000 - Gas Tax Reserve 402, , , , ,000 Public Safety reserve 272, Development Cost Charges 2,862,199 2,294,573 1,070,933 2,076,525 3,535,785 Public Works Yard reserve 927, Grants & Contributions 3,314,516 70, ,500,000 Sewer Reserve 1,488, ,437 33, , ,600 Grand Total 11,996,783 4,263,500 2,893,000 3,664,000 6,096,500 Page 197

198 Financial Plan Statement for 2018 In accordance with Community Charter Section 165(3.1) SCHEDULE D Revenue distribution The proportion of total operating revenue proposed to come from each revenue source: Property tax 8,512, % Parcel tax 904, % Fees, rates and sale of services 4,729, % Investment income 360, % Grants and donations 1,166, % Other revenue 24, % 15,697, % Property tax The distribution of property taxes among property classes: Residential 85.44% Utilities 1.26% Industrial 0.67% Business 12.27% Managed forest 0.05% Seasonal/recreational 0.29% Farm 0.02% % Page 198

199 Financial Plan Statement for 2018 In accordance with Community Charter Section 165(3.1) SCHEDULE D Permissive tax exemptions In accordance with Section 224 of the Community Charter the District Council exercises discretion in granting partial or full exemptions from taxation for specific properties. The 2017 permissive property tax exemptions have been categorized into four areas: Place of Worship - defined as land that is considered reasonably necessary in connection with the public worship or for land or improvements used or occupied by a religious organization, as tenant or licensee, for the purpose of public worship or for the purposes of a hall that council considers is necessary to land or improvements so used or occupied or a residence (Manse) and ancillary buildings located on the same property as the church, and the land upon which they stand. Community Services defined as land and improvements that are owned or held by charitable, philanthropic or other not for profit corporation, and that Council considers are used for a purpose that is directly related to the needs of the residents of the, or the Sunshine Coast, where such services are regional in nature. Recreational Facilities - defined this as land and improvements owned or held by an athletic or service club or association. This property may be used as a public park, recreation ground, or for public athletic or recreational purposes. Municipal Property - defined this as land and improvements that are owned or held by a municipality, regional district or other local authority, and that Council considers are used for a purpose of the local authority and would be statutorily exempt if not for another use. User fees Parcel taxes are assessed to fund expenses more appropriately funded by parcel taxes rather than assessment based taxes. User Fees and Charges are used to recover costs from those who specifically benefit from the service provided. The District regularly reviews its user fees and charges to ensure a correlation with actual costs. Page 199

200 Item 8.6(a) REQUEST FOR DECISION TO: Council REPORT DATE: April 24, 2018 TARGET DECISION DATE: May 2, 2018 FROM: Corporate Officer RE: 2018 Tax Rates Bylaw No. 565, 2018 FILE NO: , 2018 RECOMMENDATIONS 1. That the report from the Corporate Officer dated April 24, 2018 regarding 2018 Tax Rates Bylaw No. 565, 2018, be received. 2. That Council proceed with adoption of 2018 Tax Rates Bylaw No. 565, PURPOSE To bring forward 2018 Tax Rates Bylaw No. 565, 2018 for consideration of adoption. OPTIONS 1. Endorse the above recommendations. DISCUSSION Context/Background At its April 18, 2018 Regular Meeting, Council gave three readings to 2018 Tax Rates Bylaw No. 565, It would now be in order to consider adoption of the Bylaw. Strategic Plan Goal #1 Effective Governance Policy Implications The Community Charter prescribes that a municipality must annually, but before May 15, by bylaw, impose property value taxes for the year by establishing tax rates. Financial Implications Once adopted, 2018 Tax Rates Bylaw No. 565, 2018 will establish the District s 2018 property tax rates. Page 200

201 2 Communications The Bylaw will be forwarded to Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing before the May 16, 2018 deadline as required. It will also be included on the District s web page. Respectfully submitted, Jo-Anne Frank Corporate Officer Page 201

202 DISTRICT OF SECHELT Item 8.6(b) 2018 Tax Rates Bylaw No. 565, 2018 A bylaw for establishing Tax Rates for Municipal, Hospital, Sunshine Coast Regional District, and Sunshine Coast Regional Recreation purposes for the year 2018 WHEREAS Section 197(1) the Community Charter provides that Council shall, before May 15 in each year, adopt a bylaw to impose various rates on all taxable land and improvements according to their assessed value; AND WHEREAS the Community Charter further provides, that Council may by bylaw designate two or more dates after which percentages totaling 10% (ten percent) shall be added to the amount of taxes unpaid; NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the in open meeting enacts as follows: Title 1. This Bylaw may be cited as 2018 Tax Rates Bylaw No.565, Provisions RATES (1) The following rates are hereby imposed and levied for the year 2018: (a) (b) (c) (d) For all lawful general purposes of the municipality on the value of land and improvements taxable for general municipal purposes, rates appearing in Column A of Schedule A attached to and forming part of this bylaw. For hospital purposes on the value of land and improvements taxable for regional hospital district purposes, rates appearing in Column B of Schedule A attached to and forming part of this bylaw. For the purposes of the Sunshine Coast Regional District on the value of land and improvements taxable for regional hospital district purposes, rates appearing in Column C of Schedule A attached to and forming part of this bylaw. For the purposes of the Sunshine Coast Regional Recreation on the value of improvements only taxable for the regional hospital district purposes, rates appearing in Column "D" of Schedule A attached to and forming part of this bylaw. (2) The minimum amount of taxation upon a parcel of real property shall be ONE DOLLAR ($1.00). Page 202

203 Page Tax Rates Bylaw No. 565, PERCENTAGE ADDITION TO UNPAID TAXES Instead of the 2 nd day of July, as set out in Section 234(1) of the Community Charter as the day on or after which the percentage mentioned may be added to the unpaid taxes of the current year, the following other dates and percentage additions are determined as permitted by the Act: (1) The Collector shall, as soon as practicable after July 3 rd, 2018 add to the unpaid taxes of the current year, in respect of each parcel of land and the improvements thereon upon the real property tax roll, five percent (5%) of the amount of taxes remaining unpaid on the 4 th day of July, 2018; and (2) The Collector shall, as soon as practicable on or after August 31 st, 2018 add to the unpaid taxes of the current year, in respect of each parcel of land and the improvements thereon upon the real property tax roll, five percent (5%) of the amount of taxes remaining unpaid on September 4, READ A FIRST TIME THIS 18 th DAY OF April, 2018 READ A SECOND TIME THIS 18 th DAY OF April, 2018 READ A THIRD TIME THIS 18 th DAY OF April, 2018 ADOPTED THIS DAY OF 2018 Mayor Corporate Officer I hereby certify this to be a true and accurate copy of 2018 Tax Rate Bylaw No. 565, Corporate Officer Page 203

204 Property Tax Rates for 2018 Schedule "A" to Bylaw 565, 2018 Dollars of Tax Per $1,000 of Taxable Assessed Value Property Classification A B C D General Municipal Regional Hospital District Regional District Regional Recreation 1 Residential Utilities Major Industrial Light Industrial Business/Other Managed Forest Land Recreation/Non Profit Farm Page 204

205 Item 10.1 REPORT TO COUNCIL TO: Mayor & Council REPORT DATE: March 26, 2018 TARGET DECISION DATE: May 2, 2018 FROM: RE: Aaron Thompson, Community Planner BCS2275 Application for Development Variance Permit FILE NO: RECOMMENDATIONS 1. That the report from the Community Planner dated March 26, 2018 regarding the application for Development Variance Permit from BCS2275 be received. 2. That Development Variance Permit be approved for Strata Plan BCS2275, District Lot 4292, Group 1 New Westminster District with the following conditions: a. Zoning Bylaw No. 25, 1987 is varied as follows: OPTIONS & ALTERNATIVES i. Section 531(1)(d) under the R-4 Residential 4 Zone is varied by reducing the setback from side lot lines for Buildings B and D as shown on Strata Plan BC2275 from 3.0 metres to 1.5 metres; and ii. Section 531(2) under the R-4 Residential 4 Zone is varied by reducing the setback from any lot line for accessory buildings from 1.0 metre to 0.4 metres. 1. Approve the permit application as presented. 2. Defer consideration pending receipt of further information to be identified or defer the application and direct staff to work with the applicant to amend the proposal and/or conditions and bring it back for further consideration. 3. Refuse the permit application, citing the variance elements that Council is not willing to grant. PURPOSE The purpose of the report is to evaluate and present recommendations regarding an application for a Development Variance Permit (DVP) for two variances to the setback requirements of Zoning Bylaw No. 25, Page 205

206 2 CONTEXT & BACKGROUND Site Context Table 1: Site Data Applicant Mike Lightbody Owner BCS2275 Civic Address 5520 McCourt Road Legal Address BCS2275 District Lot 4292 Group 1 New Westminster District Size of Properties 12,311 m 2 DP Areas DPA 7 Multiple Family Residential Zoning Designation R-4 OCP Designation Mulitfamily/Mixed Residential Location & Site Characteristics The property is located in the West Sechelt neighbourhood at the intersection of Jasper Road and McCourt Road. The property gently slopes north to south down to Trail Bay. The surrounding area is dominated by single detached homes and undeveloped properties that could be developed into single detached homes. In 2004, Council issued Development Permit , permitting the development of eleven duplexes; however, only four were constructed. Table 2: Surrounding Land Uses Zoning Use North R-1 Residential East R-1 Residential South R-1 Residential West R-1 Undeveloped South-West R-3 Residential/Undeveloped COUNCIL POLICY Strategic Plan To have policies, practices, and regulations that promote quality development. Official Community Plan The property is within the Multifamily/Mixed Residential land use designation. Development Permit Area The property is within DPA 7 Multiple Family Residential DISCUSSION The Proposal The variance is required to subdivide the existing strata, Seaview Villas, from the undeveloped remainder property. Without a variance the subdivision along the current phase boundary lines would be non-conforming. The strata and the owner of the remainder property have come to an agreement for an amicable separation. The agreement can be found in Attachment 1. This variance would only be for buildings B and D as shown on Strata Plan BCS2275 as well as the accessory building shown as a utility shed, which can be seen circled in red in Attachment 2. Page 206

207 3 OCP Considerations The application is consistent with the land use designation. Zoning Considerations The application is seeking variances to the side yard setback from 3.0 metres to 1.5 metres and accessory building setback from 1.0 metre to 0.4 metres. Table 3: Zoning Analysis Existing Proposed Difference Density 40 units/ha N/A N/A Height 10.5 m N/A N/A Site Coverage 75% N/A N/A Front Yard Setback 7.5 m N/A N/A Side Yard Setback 3.0 m 1.5 m 1.5 m smaller Accessory Building Setback 1.0 m 0.4 m 0.6 m smaller Rear Yard Setback 7.5 m N/A N/A Parking 2.0 per unit N/A N/A DVP Evaluation Notwithstanding the proposed variances, the application meets all the provisions of the Zoning Bylaw. The visual impacts of the proposed variance would be minimal. Viewed from the street, it would appear that the entire property was developed as a single strata as was originally intended. There would be no impact to the existing buildings; the owner of the undeveloped remainder would need to ensure that there is enough separation from the existing buildings or provide the appropriate amount of fire protection to meet the BC Building Code. At a minimum, there would be 4.5 metres of separation between any in the existing strata and any building built on the undeveloped remainder as the owner of the remainder property would need to comply with the setbacks of the R-4 zone. The owner of the remainder property is aware of the implications of this variance and supports the variance. Infrastructure and Servicing Considerations The property is fully serviced. No variances to Subdivision and Development Control Servicing Standards Bylaw No. 430, 2003 are proposed. Financial Implications N/A Communication Strategy A referral for this application was issued on September 22, 2017 with the closing date for responses being October 22, Advisory Planning Commission: Recommended approval of the Development Variance Permit. Building Department: The accessory building shall have no unprotected openings, no doors or windows are permitted along that lot line. The dwelling units shall require noncombustible cladding as well as solid soffits and a minimum of 7% unprotected openings. Sechelt Fire Department: No comment. Notices to the surrounding property owners within 50 metres were mailed and delievered in accordance with s. 499 of the Local Government Act. Page 207

208 4 Conclusion The proposed variance would allow for the amicable separation of the existing strata and the remainder property and enables the existing strata to exist as a conforming use. The visual impacts would be minimal, there are no insurmountable safety concerns, and the property owners most greatly affected by the variance support the variance. Accordingly, staff recommends approval of the Development Variance Permit (Attachment 3). Respectfully submitted, Aaron Thompson, Community Planner Reviewed and approved by: Attachments 1. Agreement between BCS2275 & B.C. Ltd. 2. Strata Plan BCS2275 with variances circled 3. Draft Development Variance Permit Page 208

209 Item 10.2 REPORT TO COUNCIL TO: Mayor & Council REPORT DATE: April 10, 2018 TARGET DECISION DATE: May 2, 2018 FROM: RE: Aaron Thompson, Community Planner B.C. Ltd. Oceanview Villas Development Permit Application FILE NO: RECOMMENDATIONS 1. That the report from the Community Planner, dated April 10, 2018 regarding the Development Permit application from B.C. Ltd. be received. 2. That Development Permit be approved for Lot 63, Except Firstly: Phase One, Strata Plan BCS2275, Block B, District Lot 4297, Group 1, New Westminster District, Plan BCP14163 with the following conditions: a. The property will be developed in accordance with plans, elevations, and information contained in Schedules A & B, attached to and herein forming part of this permit. b. All onsite exterior lighting must be downcast and energy efficient. c. That a landscape bond in the amount of $95, be held to ensure that the proposed landscaping is installed and maintained for a period of two years after installation. 3. That prior to issuance of Development Permit that an easement for the sharing of access and services is registered on the affected titles of Lot 63, Except Firstly: Phase One Strata Plan BCS2275, Block B, District Lot 4297, Group 1, New Westminster District, Plan BCP14163, and Strata Plan BCS2275, District Lot 4297, Group 1, New Westminster District. OPTIONS & ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve the development permit application as presented. 2. Defer consideration pending receipt of further information to be identified or defer the application and direct staff to work with the applicant to amend the proposal and/or conditions and bring it back for further consideration. 3. Refuse the development permit application, citing development permit guidelines with which the proposal does not conform to. Page 209

210 2 PURPOSE The purpose of the report is to evaluate and present recommendations regarding the development permit application from B.C. Ltd. for the construction of a 32 unit, two-storey townhouse development. The development is evaluated against the form and character guidelines of Development Permit Area (DPA) 7 Multiple Family Residential. CONTEXT & BACKGROUND Site Context Table 1: Site Data Applicant Mike Lightbody Owner B.C. Ltd. Civic Address N/A Legal Description LOT 63 EXCEPT FIRSTLY: PHASE ONE STRATA PLAN BCS2275 BLOCK B DISTRICT LOT 4297 GROUP 1 NEW WESTMINSTER DISTRICT PLAN BCP14163 Size of Properties m 2 DP Areas DPA 7 Multiple Family Residential Zoning Designation R-4 OCP Designation Multifamily/Mixed Residential Location & Site Characteristics The property is located in the West Sechelt neighbourhood at the intersection of Jasper Road and McCourt Road. The property gently slopes north to south down to Trail Bay. The surrounding area is dominated by single detached homes and undeveloped properties that could be developed into single detached homes. The property is undeveloped and has been cleared of substantive vegetation in the past. In 2004, Council approved Development Permit for this property. Development Permit allowed for the construction of eleven duplexes, containing 22 units. Development Permit featured 9.2 metre tall buildings (measured from the lowest point to the highest point), 54.9% lot coverage, 7.5 metre rear and front setbacks, 3.0 metre side setbacks, 6.8 metre setback between buildings, and 60 parking stalls. Only Phase 1 of Development Permit was ever constructed; four buildings containing eight units. Table 2: Surrounding Land Uses Zoning Use North R-1 Residential East R-1 Residential South R-1 Residential West R-1 Undeveloped South-West R-3 Undeveloped/Residential Page 210

211 3 COUNCIL POLICY Strategic Plan To have policies, practices, and regulations that promote quality development. Official Community Plan Considerations The application is consistent with the land use designation. Zoning Considerations The proposal is consistent with the R-4 zoning as shown in Table 3: Table 3: Zoning Analysis Permitted by R-4 Zone Proposed Difference Maximum Density 32 units 32 units 0 units Height 10.5 m 8.92 m 1.58 m lower Site Coverage 75% 64.9 % 10.1% less Front Yard Setback 7.5 m 7.5 m 0 m Side Yard setback 3.0 m 3.0 m 0 m Rear Yard Setback 7.5 m 7.5 m 0 m Minimum Parking 64 stalls 64 stalls 0 stalls DISCUSSION The Proposal The proposal consists of eight stacked townhouses with four units in each of the buildings. The buildings are all two storeys and range in height from 6.66 metres to 8.92 metres above average natural grade. Access to the development comes from both Jasper Road and McCourt Road. The drawings for the buildings and landscaping can be found in the draft development permit as found in Attachment 1. Development Permit Assessment This proposal was evaluated based on the guidelines of Development Permit Area (DPA) 7 Multiple Family Residential. The intent of these Development Permit Guidelines are to ensure a sensitive integration of multi-unit developments with the surrounding urban context. It is also intended to support a variety of housing types and ensure an appropriate quality of design and livability. The proposal was evaluated against the following considerations: Site planning Form and character Building materials Relationship to adjacent uses Landscaping and screening Outdoor spaces Parking Site Planning considers such things as placement of buildings on the site; working with natural features; incorporating view corridors and respecting archeological resources. The development site was previously zoned, cleared, and serviced which limited the ability to retain any natural features on site. The proposal includes a series of four-unit stacked townhomes which allow for more spacing and view corridors between buildings compared to more conventional apartment style Page 211

212 4 development allowed under R-4 zoning. The development will be built to the natural grade which will involve removing some of the fill piles left from the initial development phase. Form and Character considers such things as building massing, orientation, articulation and roof configuration to reduce the overall bulk of the building and to enhance design. The proposal has been modified since the original application (Attachment 2) to lower the building profile by sinking portions of the building below grade and lowering overall height to below the maximum allowed through the zoning provisions to better match the adjacent strata buildings. The roof type and pitch largely matches the adjacent strata and is in keeping with the form and character of the existing neighbourhood buildings. The form and character guidelines suggest that all stairways to upper units be enclosed. This is in place to enhance the visual quality of the development. In this proposal, the applicant has proposed a stairway treatment on the sides of the units that is unclosed in order to provide architectural interest and provide a secondary means of access to the upper units. Staff considered the enclosing of these stairwells as inappropriate in this particular context as it would increase building massing and coverage, which would work against the objective of the guideline. Building Materials: In response to feedback received from the Advisory Planning Commission, the applicants modified the colour palette for the buildings to better integrate with the adjacent strata buildings. The predominant building material is cement composite panel siding. The buildings now have a similar height and form as the existing strata, albeit a bit more modern in design. The materials and colours have also been updated to reflect the current Development Permit Area guidelines. Relationship to Adjacent Uses: These development permit guidelines consider the orientation of the building to the street face, connectivity to the surrounding neighbourhood, and height and massing so that the higher density residential development does not overwhelm the surrounding community. The orientation of the buildings largely reflects the existing strata developments and the orientation to Jasper Road and the internal strata roads. Landscaping and Screening: The landscaping treatment is keeping with the surrounding and adjacent context and provides unhindered views onto the streets and of Trail Bay. Internal landscaping is more intensive and provides a break between the buildings. Landscaping around the rear and side of the property provides screening to the adjacent properties, and includes a 1.8 metre high solid cedar fence, which should mitigate any lights from vehicles shining onto neighbouring properties while also providing some sound attenuation. Outdoor Spaces: Under the R-4 zoning, the maximum site coverage is 75% inclusive of all buildings, structures and parking. The site coverage for the proposed development falls below the zone maximum; lot coverage for buildings, parking and driveways is 38.6% and coverage attributed to the internal road system is 26.5%. Since there was not a provision to share internal road access with the existing strata, the site design includes additional access roadway (particularly at the north end of the site) which reduces opportunity for additional landscaping and outdoor amenity space. There is a limited shared outdoor space within the proposal as much of the site is being used for parking, driveway access, and the building footprints. This results from the provisions of the R-4 Zone. The R-4 Zone allows for high density (1 unit per 250 m 2 ), high site coverage (75%), and high parking requirements (2 per unit), but a fairly low height maximum (10.5 m), which tends to create developments that are low rise, but bulky, leaving only 25% of the area available as open space. The applicant has tried to address concerns from neighbouring property owners with regards to the height. By keeping to a two-storey building form, the trade-off is typically less open space and higher lot coverage. The difference can be seen by looking at the original proposal, found in Attachment 2, which featured three story buildings. Page 212

213 5 The three storey proposal featured more open space while achieving the same density. To better address the lack of open space, a major revision to the proposal would be required by either increasing the height of the buildings to reduce the lot coverage of the buildings or reducing the parking requirements to reduce the number of required stalls. However, neither of these options are recommended as the building height would be inconsistent with the neighbourhood and reducing the parking requirements in this area could cause increased on-street parking conflicts. Parking: These development permit guidelines are designed to ensure that parking areas are sensitively integrated into the site and are appropriately located and lighted. Parking for townhomes is usually provided as part of the unit design as opposed to apartment style developments with shared parking lots. In this application the parking for units is located within garages located at the rear of the buildings and exterior parking is located adjacent to the units. Visitor parking is located central to the development. Infrastructure and Servicing Considerations The proposal relies on receiving an easement for the sharing of service and access from the neighbouring strata, Phase 1 of Seaview Villas. There would need to be shared access over a portion of the existing strata road, access to the existing utility shed, and shared use of some of the installed services. This proposal would not be functional without the easement; therefore it is recommended that prior to issuance of Development Permit that the easement to secure the access and sharing of services be registered on the titles of all the affected properties. There was a concern that there was an existing easement or covenant on the property that would affect this proposal and that was being used to accommodate parking and structures. The only non-financial encumbrances on the title of the property are statutory rights-of-way related to the servicing of the property by BC Hydro, Telus, and Terasen Gas, giving those organizations the ability to enter onto property to maintain and install their respective works and services. No other covenants, statutory rights-of-way, or easements currently exist on the property. Financial Implications There will be no impact to the financial plan. Development Cost Charges (DCCs) are estimated at $587, for this project including the water DCC collected on behalf of the SCRD. Communication Strategy A referral was sent to internal and external agencies on September 26, 2017 with a response date of October 26, The responses to the referral can be found in Attachment 3. The Advisory Planning Commission (APC) recommended approval of the Development Permit subject to the developer considering some revisions to the colour schemes, column details, the addition of permeable pavers for parking spaces, and Allan blocks for the retaining walls. The applicant has since revised the proposal to include these suggestions. The West Sechelt Community Association (WSCA) opposes the proposed development. They would prefer to see a development consistent with the plans approved in The detail of their concerns can be found in the attached comments. The Engineering Department provided a list of the servicing requirements that must be met prior to issuance of the Building Permit. They also identified the need for an easement to share services between the existing strata and the proposed development. Page 213

214 6 The Sechelt Fire Department recommended approving the application subject to the proposal meeting the BC Building Code for access, sprinklering, and fire hydrants. The SCRD provided comments regarding the DCC calculation and water servicing for the proposal. Comments from the general public were also received for this application. All of the comments received are in opposition to the proposal. The received comments can be found in Attachment 4. Conclusion The proposal is consistent with the majority of the DPA guidelines and meets the requirements of the R- 4 zone. The proposal seeks to balance the DPA guidelines, the R-4 Zoning, and the desire of the neighbours for a development with heights consistent with the surrounding buildings. The proposal provides a sensitive integration of a higher density development within the surrounding neighbourhood context. While the R-4 zone could accommodate an apartment-style development, the applicant has designed a lower-profile townhouse development that better reflects the existing residential context. Through the appropriate use of materials, building design, massing, and building articulation, the application meets the objects and design principles of DPA 7. Therefore, it is recommended that Council approve Development Permit , with issuance of the permit subject to registration of an easement for access and services on the affected properties. Respectfully submitted, Aaron Thompson Community Planner Reviewed and approved by: Attachments 1 Draft Development Permit Original Proposal 3 Referral Responses 4 Public Comments Plans attached in Schedules to Development Permit Schedule Plan Number Plan Name/Description Date/Version A A 1.0 A 7.3 Oceanview Villas February 2, 2018 B L-1 L-2 Oceanview Villas Townhouse Development January 2018 Page 214

215 Attachment Development Permit No (1) This Development Variance Permit is issued to: (a) B.C. Ltd Marine Drive North Vancouver, BC V7P 1V5 (2) This Development Permit applies to, and only to, the property described below, including any or all existing buildings, structures and/or other development thereon: (a) LOT 63 EXCEPT FIRSTLY: PHASE ONE STRATA PLAN BCS2275, BLOCK B DISTRICT LOT 4297 GROUP 1 NEW WESTMINSTER DISTRICT PLAN BCP14163 (3) This Development Permit is issued subject to compliance with all the applicable bylaws of the applicable thereto, except as specifically varied by this Permit. (4) The property shall be developed strictly in accordance with the following terms, conditions, and provisions of this Development Permit and any plans and specifications attached to this Development Permit shall form part thereof including the following: (a) (b) (c) Schedule A, which contains the drawings titled Oceanview Villas and labeled as sheets A 1.0 to A 7.3 prepared by M.P. Lightbody of Formline Architecture, dated February 2, 2018; Schedule B, which contains the drawings titled Landscape Plan Oceanview Villas Townhouse Development and numbered L-1 to L-2 prepared by C. Kavolinas & Associates Inc., dated January 2018; and That all onsite exterior lighting must be downcast and energy efficient. (5) As a condition of issuance of this permit the has required that the applicant for this permit provide security in the amount of $95, in the form of a irrevocable letter of credit to guarantee performance of the terms of this permit in respect to landscaping. (6) If construction for this development has not substantially commenced within two (2) years after the date this permit is issued, the permit shall lapse. (7) This Development Permit is not a Building Permit. The owner is responsible for obtaining all necessary permits from other authorities. (8) Notice of this permit shall be filed at the Land Titles Office under section 503 of the Local Government Act and upon such filing, the terms of this permit or any amendment hereto shall be binding on all persons who acquire an interest in the lands affected by this permit. (9) The Director of Planning & Development Services may authorize minor amendments to this Development Permit, provided such amendments are consistent with the spirit and intent of the s Official Community Plan and the relevant Development Permit Area guidelines. Authorizing resolution of Council: Second Floor, 5797 Cowrie Street, PO Box 129, Sechelt, BC, V0N 3A0 T: (604) , F: (604) , Page 215

216 Page 2 of 2 Resolution No.: Date of Resolution: Date of Issue: Authorizing Signature: Tracy Corbett Director of Planning & Development Services Second Floor, 5797 Cowrie Street, PO Box 129, Sechelt, BC, V0N 3A0 T: (604) , F: (604) , Page 216

217 Page 217

218 Page 218

219 Page 219

220 Page 220

221 Page 221

222 Page 222

223 Page 223

224 Page 224

225 Page 225

226 Page 226

227 Page 227

228 Page 228

229 Page 229

230 Page 230

231 Page 231

232 Page 232

233 Page 233

234 Page 234

235 Page 235

236 Page 236

237 Page 237

238 Page 238

239 Page 239

240 91 89 A 1/8"=1'-0" ROOF 1/4"=1'-0" &SECTIONS 3.3 PLAN (11 (22 by 17) 34) 3.00M EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING COLLAPSABLE BOLLARDS (UNLESS ACCESS REQUIRED BY FIRE DEPARTMENT) EXISTING POST& RECYCLE PROPOSED ADD'L POST & RECYCLE 3.00M Attachment HYDRO KIOSK B B2 91 MCCOURT ROAD B1 B2 B8 7.50M B3 B4 90 B7 B6 B5 HYDRO KIOSK 7.50M JASPER AVENUE 7.50M 89 ELEC BOX EXISTING POST& RECYCLE 89 PROPOSED ADD'L POST & RECYCLE 88 UTILITY BOX B3 MCCOURT ROAD ELEC. KIOSK EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING B COLLAPSABLE BOLLARDS (UNLESS ACCESS REQUIRED BY FIRE DEPARTMENT) 88 HYDRO KIOSK 88 UTILITY BOX MH ELEC B4 3.00M INFORMATION LEGAL ADDRESS CIVIC ADDRESS PID ZONING GENERAL NOTES SURVEY SURVEY INFORMATION TAKEN FROM STRAIGHT LAND SURVEYING, LAND SURVEYORS - APRIL CODE & BYLAWS ALL WORK AND MATERIAL TO BE USED SHALL BE CSA APPROVED AND/OR MEET OR EXCEED ALL APPLICABLE B.C.B.C. REQUIREMENTS AND LOCAL BYLAWS EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING B7 B6 B DIMENSIONING CLARIFICATION ALL DIMENSIONS ARE FROM OUTSIDE FACE OF WALL SHEATHING TO OUTSIDE FACE OF FRAMING MEMBER FOR EXTERIOR WOOD FRAMED WALLS AND FROM OUTSIDE FACE OF FRAMING MEMBER TO OUTSIDE FACE OF FRAMING MEMBER FOR INTERIOR WOOD FRAMED WALLS (U.N.O.) CONCRETE WALLS DIMENSIONED TO FACE OF CONCRETE ANY QUESTIONS OR DISCREPENCIES ARISING DURING THE COURSE OF THE WORK SHALL BE FORWARDED TO THE DESIGNER PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK 3.00M CIVIL LANDSCAPE SEE CIVIL DRWGS "SUNCO CIVIL CONSULTING LTD" FOR ROAD AND SITE WORKS SEE LANDSCAPE DRWGS "C. KAVOLINAS & ASSOCIATES INC." FOR PLANTING PLAN AND DETAILS STATISTICS 84 1 SITE AREA 134,312.4 SQ. FT. (112, SQ.M.) 2 B B2 B3 B4 B5 7.50M 82 B6 B7 B8 TOT: 80 3 DENSITY JASPER AVENUE 4 HEIGHT (SEE ELEVATIONS) MAX PERMITTED: 10.5M (34.45') MAX PROPSED 10.4M (34.12') Page 240

241 Attachment Advisory Planning Commission November 9, 2017 Recommendation No. 4 Lightbody Oceanview Villas Development Permit Moved/Seconded That the Commission recommend that Council approve the Development Permit for Oceanview Villas subject to the following: developer considers varying the colour schemes, the column details and roof colours developer considers using alternative porous permeable pavers for parking spaces developer considers Allan blocks for stacked rock walls. CARRIED Two opposed. Page 241

242 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Matt Gilroy Sechelt Fire Department Jane Whittleton Application No (revised) Applicant: M. Lightbody & A, Waugh Thursday, October 26, :23:31 PM Hi Jane, APPLICATION N0: (Revised) APPLICANT: M. Lightbody & A, Waugh SITE ADDRESS: 5520 McCourt Road DATE: October 26, 2017 PURPOSE OF APPLICATION: To meet the guidelines of DPA 7 Multifamily Residential for form and character for 8 new two-storey buildings. COMMENTS: The Sechelt Fire Department approves this application with the following recommendations: 1. Fire hydrants are installed in accordance with BCBC Automatic Sprinkler Systems are installed in accordance with D.O.S. Building Bylaw No. 409,2003 Part 14 and BCBC Road design is in accordance with B.C.B.C Additionally, the Sechelt Fire Department requests road widths to be a minimum of 7 meters. 4. Access Routes and Access Route locations are in accordance with BCBC and If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free contact me anytime. Sincerely, Matt Gilroy, LAFC Fire Prevention Officer Sechelt Fire Department Tel Fax PO Box 944, Sechelt BC V0N 3A Trail Avenue, Sechelt BC prevention@secheltfire.ca Web Page 242

243 SCRD RESPONSE TO REFERRAL OCEANVIEW VILLAS PO Box 129 Sechelt BC V0N 3A Application NO M. Lightbody & A. Waugh 5520 McCourt Road Please be advised that Regional Water is available to the subject property for the proposed development application. As per the Local Government Act and Bylaw 693, a Development Cost Charge (DCC) in the amount of $101, is required to be paid in full by certified cheque, to the District of Sechelt on behalf of the Sunshine Coast Regional District prior to issuance of final development approval. Please note that the sum of the area of the eight proposed buildings (54,558.6 sq.ft) is not consistent with the total area listed on Sheet A 2.0 of the application drawings (58,940.8 sq.ft). The above DCC was calculated based on the calculated area of 54,558.6 sq.ft. The total area of the proposed units must be confirmed prior to payment of DCCs. Should the proposed development layout change, the SCRD will need to comment again. The existing units on this property are currently serviced by a private watermain from a connection off of the SCRD water main on Jasper Road. This watermain would need to be connected to a new watermain on McCourt Road if one is constructed fronting the subject property. Each proposed unit will require a separate water service with meter infrastructure. If the applicant has any questions related to water servicing they should contact the undersigned. If you have any questions please contact the undersigned. Thank you, SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT Trevor Rutley Engineering Technician, Infrastructure Services Page 243

244 West Sechelt Community Association Hand delivered October 25, 2017 Planning Department P.O. Box 129, Sechelt Re: Referral September 26, 2017 Application for Development Permit (Application # Revised) Oceanview Villas, 5520 Mc Court Rd, Sechelt Ms Jane Whittleton Thank you for providing West Sechelt Community Association with the opportunity to respond to the above development permit application. While our association is not opposed to a suitable multi-family development of the above property, in consultation with and on behalf of the neighbours who will be affected by this proposal and consistent with the wishes expressed in the petition presented to Council in November 2, 2016, we are unable to support this revised application. Attached please find the details of our concerns about this development s plans shown in the above referral. As previously recommended in the petition mentioned above, we continue to recommend that the developer bring forward an application consistent with the 2005 development site plan approved by the for this property, then called Seaview Villa Estates. Martyn Wilson Chair, West Sechelt Community Association 6201 Mika Ad, Sechelt, VON 3A7 Page 244

245 Upon review of the above stated revised development proposal, the West Sechelt Community Association (WSCA) have the following comments and concerns: Buildings - Height, Building Placement, and Land Grade The proposed number of buildings is excessive for the site. The buildings are too close together and there is little room for green space or any Landscaping. The entire site appears to consist of either buildings or pavement for parking and roadway. This development proposal is not in tine with the District of Sechett s Official Community Plan ByLaw No. 492, 2010, (OCP) Conservation Design/Design With Nature (Page 19) - Specifically, this development proposal cannot comply with:...retain open spaces and areas. and...retain significant open space areas....reduces paved surfaces and storm water discharge....in a manner that protects open space (typically 50% of the Land area), reduces infrastructure costs, reduces paved surfaces and stormwater discharges, and provides for more diverse housing types. The proposal drawings account for approximately 12 8 feet between most of the building units, it does not account for the rooflines. According to the submitted drawings, each building has 3 6 roof overhang. This then leaves about 5 8 between each roof edge. T he OCP DPA 7 - Multiple Family Residential, states, Multi building developments shalt provide adequate spacing between buildings to provide privacy, views and natural tight to all buildings. Openings of 5 8 cannot provide this, and therefore the development proposal does not meet the OCP Bylaw. The development proposal indicates the height of the buildings wilt be ft. However, the proposal also indicates raising the grade of the land for some proposed building sites. During construction of the Seaview Villa Estates buildings (neighbouring property to the west), the foundation excavation fill was placed into current proposed building sites (proposed Units B3, 84, and B5). Out of respect and consideration for the current neighbourhood, we believe the grade of the land should be dug out and the buildings should be placed Lower than the current proposal. The WSCA insist that the buildings should be built upon the original grade of the Land. The roadway on Jasper, from McCourt to Piccadilly Park, is slanted downhill (west to east). The development drawings indicate a progressive build up from the McCourt side to the Last building (B6 to B8). All the development buildings along Jasper Rd should have reduced elevation and be stepped down in accordance with Page 245

246 the topographical contour! road grade. Currently, proposed building, unit B8, roofline Will be m (44.8 ft.) above the road grade, according to the plans. This is 9.45 feet higher that the previous proposed Calabasas three story buildings at ft. i.e. BuiLding B8 Road grade to base of building = 4m (13.1 ft.) B8 building height = 9.66 m (31.71 ft) 13.1 ft+31.7ft=44.81 ft (13.66 m) ALL proposed buildings should be at, or near, road grade like all existing homes in the area (including neighbouring strata to the west) Building up, only increases the sightline impact to the existing neighbourhood, and to future development units to the north. Easements, Set Backs, and Secondary Parking The need for secondary parking on this development has the developer resort to utilizing Easements and Set Backs to resolve the issue. The WSCA objects to this solution. The easement is for utilities such as ground water and storm water management, not for additional parking for this proposed development. Additionally, some proposed parking placements have the design abutting adjoining properties and setbacks. The WSCA takes exception to this, as the developer is not considering the intended uses for these portions of the development property, nor, their actual ability to place these structures in some areas due to Land contours and slopes. What is the plan to mitigate headlight and noise disturbance to neighbours? Proposed parking stalls are in close proximity to neighbouring residences. The exceptional parking densities will increase light, noise, and exhaust impacts to neighbours and the proposed units. The proposal drawings relocate the post and recycling building onto the property Easement. The WSCA objects to this proposal, as that is not the intended use of the easement. The proposal drawings indicate outside stairways to second storey dwellings. Page 246

247 According to the OCP DPA 7 - Multiple Family Residential - Form and Character, the guidelines advise developers to, Enclose all stairways to upper storey residential units. Drainage There are significant ground water seeps in the development area. AdditionalLy, the current proposal indicates very Little green space, and therefore, insufficient water infiltration options. OCP DPA 7 - Multiple Family Residential GuideLine excerpts: Manage stormwater flows to ensure no net increase in flow volume and velocity from predevelopment conditions. Use natural filtration of rainwater into the site through techniques such as raingardens, rainwater collection systems, bioswales, Landscape detention areas or other methods suitable to the urban environment. The WSCA strongly encourages the District of SecheLt to require more green space and natural infiltration options. Further, should this development reach ground breaking, that the DOS require the developer to provide a Storm Water Management Plan and a Sediment And Erosion Control Plan. FinalLy, that the DOS ensure these plans are followed during alt phases of development. The current proposal does not appear to provide adequate storage for the tenants. There are concerns that tenants wilt use outside space to store belongings. This could potentially create unsightly surroundings. In November 2016 a petition was presented to the (DOS) CounciL. The petition was to oppose the building of three storey, multi-family apartments with elevators. The petition also indicated that the undersigned names requested that the (DOS) follow through with the original approved development plan for 5520 McCourt Rd. The original plan was for eleven duplex buildings for a total of 22 units. The four already constructed duplexes total 8 units, which leaves room for a further seven duplexes or an additional 14 units. The revised development proposal shows an additional eight four-plex buildings, for a total of 32 more units. This is an increase of 128% over the original approved plan of 14 more units. Page 247

248 From: Roney, Patty To: Jane Whittleton Subject: RE: RESPONSE Development Application - Revised Referral - Oceanview Villas Date: Wednesday, October 11, :47:41 AM Attachments: image002.png image004.png image005.png PROPERTY REFERRAL FortisBC has no objections or concerns with this proposal Thank you Patty Patty Roney, SR/WA Land Representative Property Services Fraser Highway Surrey BC V4N 0E8 P: F: toll free patty.roney@fortisbc.com From: Jane Whittleton [mailto:jwhittleton@sechelt.ca] Sent: Tuesday, September 26, :28 AM To: Darwyn Kutney <DKutney@sechelt.ca>; Sanath Bandara <SBandara@sechelt.ca>; Perry Schmitt <PSchmitt@sechelt.ca>; John Hardt <JHardt@sechelt.ca>; 'andrew.allen@scrd.ca' <andrew.allen@scrd.ca>; 'colin.midgley@gov.bc.ca' <colin.midgley@gov.bc.ca>; Sechelt Fire Department Chief (chief@secheltfire.ca) <chief@secheltfire.ca>; Sechelt Fire Department Safety (prevention@secheltfire.ca) <prevention@secheltfire.ca>; Referrals <Referrals@fortisbc.com>; 'surinder.hoonjan@telus.com' <surinder.hoonjan@telus.com>; 'michael.mah@telus.net' <michael.mah@telus.net>; 'catalin.dobre@telus.net' <catalin.dobre@telus.net>; kevin.mccharles@bchydro.com; 'properties.helpdesk@bchydro.com' <properties.helpdesk@bchydro.com>; 'chad.sergerie@corp.eastlink.ca' <chad.sergerie@corp.eastlink.ca>; 'nadia.lalla@canadapost.ca' <nadia.lalla@canadapost.ca>; Martyn Wilson <mwsechelt@yahoo.ca>; candice_sayre@yahoo.com Cc: Michaela Sugars <MSugars@sechelt.ca> Subject: RESPONSE Development Application - Revised Referral - Oceanview Villas ** THIS IS AN EXTERNAL ** Use caution before opening links / attachments. Please find attached a Development Application Referral for a Development Permit for Oceanview Villas (formerly Calabasas). This is a revised referral as the proposed development has been amended. We would appreciate your comments, if any, by October 26, Page 248

249 DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS GENERAL COMMUNICATION Your File #: Revised edas File #: Date: Sep/29/2017 PO Box 129 Sechelt, British Columbia V0N 3A0 Canada Attention: Re: Proposed Municipal Referral Approval Application for the development of 8 new two-storey multifamily residential buildings at 5520 McCourt Road, Sechelt. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on the development application at 5520 McCourt Road, Sechelt. After reviewing the submitted documentation, it has been determined that the Ministry s interests are not affected. If you have any questions please feel free to call Kattia Woloshyniuk at (604) Yours truly, Kattia Woloshyniuk Area Development and Operations Technician Attachment: Local District Address H1160-eDAS (2009/02) Sechelt Area Office Box 950 Sechelt, BC V0N 3A0 Canada Phone: (604) Fax: (604) Page 1 of 1 Page 249

250 Attachment Mayor and Council 5797 Cowrie Street P.O. Box 129 Sechelt, B.C. V0N 3A0 Attention: Reference: Mayor Milne and Council 5520 McCourt Avenue, West Sechelt Ocean View Villas - Development Proposal Submission I am writing this letter to express my opposition to the Ocean View development proposal. I recently purchased my home on Samron Road with the expectation that the development at 5520 McCourt Ave. is to follow the Sea View Villa concept (2004). I would not have purchased my home here, next to a Zone 4, high density, 5 acre parking lot. The proposed building/population density is completely out of line for a single family dwelling neighbourhood. There is no continuity to the previous concept as the road alignments do not even match up. It would appear additional roadways are proposed to address the increased parking requirements and access for the increased traffic. Can McCourt Road even handle this additional traffic load in its current condition? The building heights proposed do not conform to anything natural in the area. The proposed grading plan does not consider the existing community development (roads) or existing home owners view. The outside stairways for access to the upper apartments will be an eyesore to all. This development will not be an asset to the West Sechelt Community but will only draw down property values accordingly. I trust the mayor and council will consider the view of the community first before a developer who s only interested is making money by constructing the highest density Zone 4 possible in this area. Thank you Eric Corrigan 6387 Samron Road Sechelt, BC, V0N 3A ericcor@telus.net Page 250

251 February 22, 2018 To: Mayor and Council We are writing to voice our concern over the proposed development by the Strongman Group at the property surrounded by Jasper, McCourt and Samron Roads. We live on Samron Road in a single-story rancher that backs on to this development. When we bought our home, we were told that the development would sets of duplexes, and 4 sets of these duplexes (8 units) are already built. These duplexes fit in to the neighbourhood and natural grade of the property and are not obtrusive at all. 14 more units (which was the original approved plan) is reasonable. We would be happy if the originally approved plan were built. 32 more units (which is the new proposal) with less green space, higher height and density and less parking is not reasonable in a single-family dwelling neighbourhood. The Strongman Group also wants to build the two- story buildings on a raised grade rather than the natural grade. That will directly impact the entire neighbourhood by wiping out the views of the residents on Samron Road and shadowing the adjacent properties such as ours. On a personal level, our rancher is built so that our master bedroom, living room, dining room and kitchen all look onto this property. This means that if built, a minimum of 4 residences will be looking down right into our interior living space. My concern is that this development will greatly affect our quality of life and enjoyment inside our home. Who wants to live with their blinds drawn all the time? It could also affect our investment and our ability for re sale in the future. Approving an increase to the height of this development by allowing to build above grade and not on the natural grade would only magnify the concerns that we have. Parking is also a concern. There are not enough parking spaces for this development which means that people will be forced to park on Jasper and Samron. McCourt Rd is already too narrow, barely more than a single lane, so parking on that street will be nothing short of dangerous. Page 251

252 The West Sechelt Elementary school is already over capacity by 40 students. How will the school accommodate any extra children? And, of course there is the ongoing concern over water. I understand that no one on council lives in West Sechelt so I urge council to do a walkabout of the property to envision what this development could look like. We also invite you to tour our back yard to understand how a 4- plex towering over our property could feel. We feel that this type of development does not fit in the middle of an established, higher end neighbourhood such as ours, and we are asking you to seriously consider our neighbourhood concerns over this development. Sincerely, Brian & Theresa Burns 6383 Samron Rd. Sechelt (604) Page 252

253 From: To: Subject: Date: Bonnie Olive Council Proposed development of Ocenview Villas by Strongman Group - property in vicinity of McCourt Rd and Jasper Ave. Saturday, February 24, :17:41 PM LETTER TO MAYOR BRUCE MILNE AND COUNCILLORS INKSTER, MULLER, LUTES, WRIGHT, SHANKS and SIEGERS FROM: Bonnie & Jim Olive, Unit 5, 5520 McCourt Rd, Sechelt, B.C. V3B 4A3 Tel: We understand that the proposed development of the property known as "Oceanview Villas" which is owned by the Strongman Group and located in the vicinity of McCourt Road and Jasper Avenue in Sechelt, will be on the Agenda for the February 28, 2018, meeting of the Planning and Community Development Committee. We have reservations regarding this development as follows: 1. The density is far too high to blend in with the rest of the neighbourhood; 2. There is very little green space; 3. There is very little space for parking, leaving residents and visitors opting to park on the street. McCourt Road is presently a half road, with no parking available and Jasper Avenue is already utilized to the maximum for parking; 4. An additional 32 units will cause a lot more traffic and noise in the area; 5. We understand that the buildings will not be built into the side of the hill, but rather will be built on top of the land, in order to allow for windows at the back of the bottom units. This will make the buildings look like towers compared to the buildings in Phase One; 6. The person initially representing the Strongman Group (Ken Tiderington) arranged to have soil moved around on the property by machinery and also brought many very large boulders onto the property. The bylaw officer had to be called in on numerous occasions. The elevation of the land is therefore not in its original state; 7. The people that bought property in the area were told that the rest of the development would be the same as Phase One and they bought their lot or house upon this understanding. The original approved strata plan (including Phase One) was for 22 units. Phase One is in the process of being severed off to a separate strata. The proposed buildings (32 units) and parking on the Strongman development make a significant footprint on the remaining property. This will bring property values down in the surrounding area. We ask that you do not approve of this development in its present form. Please consider the neighbours and the influence this development will have on their enjoyment of their home as well as their property values. Page 253

254 The residents of West Sechelt we have spoken to agree that the Phase One Buildings are attractive AND fit in with the neighbourhood. The proposed "apartment" style buildings will be completely out of place <!--[if!supportlists]--> Page 254

255 Page 255

256 a. i-i4 ij I L)[ \V 7jr February 22, MayorandCouncil,, - P.O. Box 129 T Qi j Sechelt, BC VON 3A0 RE: Strongman Property Development Proposal McCourt Rd., Sechelt Dear Mayor Milne & Councillors: The above development proposal is of great concern to the immediately adjacent neighbours and the West Sechelt community as a whole. We think the number of units (32) the developer is proposing is not reasonable for this neighbourhood and community. This is nothing less than an apartment complex squished into a family neighbourhood. We are also very concerned about building on the land fill. We have been dealing with development concerns since this property was purchased by the Strongman Group in In 2016 neighbours in the community signed a petition expressing their concern which was delivered to the Mayor s office. Today, we still feel the development proposal is unsuitable and inappropriate for our neighbourhood community. Specifically, our concerns are: Density Although this property is zoned R4, the proposed number of buildings (8) and total number of units (32) is illogical. The size of the property is too small for 32 units, to the point that the developer is now requesting by-law variances in order to build closer to the property lines of neighbours. The developer also wants to place roadways and parking spaces on the easements/setbacks, as they do not have sufficient land space for necessary roadways and parking due to the size and number of the proposed buildings. There will be little area (if any) left for green space. What are we doing? Paving paradise! This is ridiculous. This is Sechelt - family neighbourhood consisting of single family dwellings, along with 4 duplexes. It is not a downtown urban city. We also questioned the Sechelt Planning Department about the lack of guest parking for this development. 32 units with only 2 guest parking spaces. Where will guests park? Jasper Rd and McCourt Rd (which is 3/2 a road) cannot accommodate parking for 32 individual units. The Planning Department informed us that the District of Seche?t is okay with the number of guest parking spaces as they do not want to encourage people to bring their cars. They want guests to use transit. Really? Do you think family and friends coming from the mainland are going to take transit here? Do you think it is reasonable to expect people coming to visit friends for dinner with a bottle of wine and an apple pie, are going to take transit? This does not make sense. Page 256

257 Land Grade & Building Height We feel it is critical that the require the developer to dig down to the original topography of the land and not build on any fill. When the 4 original duplex strata complexes were built, the developer had to dig down to the original grade of the land. The excavation earth was then placed in the area of the current proposed development. In addition, when Strongman Group bought the land in 2015, they immediately began excavation and built up the areas where proposed buildings are to be placed. They also delivered many boulders to the site and as a result, the ground is much higher than it was initially. This land currently has extreme drainage issues. If the land is not cleared and dug down to hard ground before any proposed buildings are placed on it, these buildings and the ground they sit on, could be unstable and wash away. This is extremely concerning to those of us with immediately neighbouring homes. We ask that the be extremely disciplined of this piece of evidence when reviewing this development proposal. We do not want to be dealing with catastrophic events. Conclusion We would like to have this final phase of our neighbourhood completed and hope that it will be done respectfully and with keeping the current neighbourhood in mind. We wish the Strongman Group would have made an attempt to work with the neighbours to come up with a development plan that works for everyone, but to date they have not requested a consultation with the neighbours. This is unfortunate as we were optimistic we could have come up with a plan that pleases everyone. Once Strongman Group complete their development, they will be leaving town and the rest of us will be living with the mess they will have created. This is why it is imperative that the development be done tastefully, enhancing the neighbourhood right from the start. We hope our District and Planning Department care as much about our neighbourhood and the community as the people do. We hope you know the detrimental impact this type of density and building will have on our community. This is nothing less than an apartment complex in a family neighbourhood. We are not sure what type of market the developer is trying to attract here, but it is not what we and the people of Sechelt want in our community. Sincerely, June angster 6367 Samron Rd., Sechelt, BC Page 257

258 Page 258

259 Page 259

260 From: To: Subject: Date: Kerianne Poulsen Megan Roberts FW:...PENDING HUGE DEVELOPMENT ON McCOURT!!! Thursday, February 15, :18:27 PM Hi Megan, Can you add this to the file for public input on the Oceanview Villas development please? I will be forwarding another piece of correspondence for this one as well. Thanks, Kerianne -----Original Message----- From: Kerianne Poulsen Sent: Friday, February 09, :39 AM To: 'Debbie Crump'; Council Subject: RE:...PENDING HUGE DEVELOPMENT ON McCOURT!!! Dear Ms. Crump, Thank you for your message. As the was directed to the Council@Sechelt.ca address, it has been delivered to the accounts of all Council members. Your message has also been referred to the Planning and Development Services department and will become a part of the public record for the Oceanview Villas development application (Lot 68 Bl B DL 4297 Pl 14163) at 5520 McCourt Road. The received a development application for an 8-building townhouse complex on McCourt Road in The referral process has completed and staff are planning to bring this application before Council at the Planning and Community Development Committee meeting on February 28th. No decisions have been made at this time. The Committee will review the application, including all comments from the public. The Committee may make a recommendation for Council at that time. The property has been zoned as R4 multi-family/mixed residential uses, including townhouses, for more than 10 years. Please note that the proposed height of the buildings for the Oceanview Villas application are the same as they would be for single family homes on this lot. If you have any additional questions please let me know. Best regards, Kerianne Poulsen EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT PO Box 129, Sechelt, BC V0N 3A0 2nd Floor, 5797 Cowrie Street Original Message----- From: Debbie Crump [mailto:dcrump008@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 07, :51 PM To: Council Subject:...PENDING HUGE DEVELOPMENT ON McCOURT!!!...WHEN I PURCHASED MY RETIREMENT HOME ON SAMRON ROAD, TEN YEATS AGO I WAS THRILLED...NOW THIS MEG PENDING COMPLEX HAS INVOKED FEAR...MORE ROAD TRAFFIC ON SAMRON, DURING BUILDING & COMPLETION, LOSS OF A VIEW, LOSS OF A NEIGHBORHOOD WITH HOMES...I WAS INFORMED TEN YEARS AGO THE...DISTRICT OF SECHELT WOULD NOT APROVE ANYTHING BUT A FEW TOWNHOUSES ON THE McCOURT LAND...WHY ARE THESE DEVELOPERS PERMITTED & APPROVED BY THE DISTRICT OF SECHELT?...PLEASE CONSIDER, REZONING THIS LAND. THANK YOU, DEBBIE CRUMP 6354 SAMRON ROAD, SECHELT Page 260

261 TEL: (604) I LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR RESPONSE. Sent from my ipad Page 261

262 Date: February 15, 2018 Mayor and Council P.0. Box 129 Sechelt, B.C. V0N 3A0 Dear Mayor and Council: I am writing this letter to voice my concerns with the proposed development in my neighborhood of West Sechelt. I have lived in my current home on Samron road since 2010 with my two young children and husband. We fell in love with the area, the beauty, the house and the neighborhood. I love that my children can ride their bikes to West Sechelt Elementary and walk a few blocks up or down to see friends. When we bought our home, we questioned what would be built in the lot in front between Jasper and McCourt. We had our realtor do research into the matter. What we were told then and were always made to assume was that the continuation of the current townhomes would be built, an additional 14 units. We knew at that time we would eventually lose some views and some privacy once building of these units begun. We also realized that the mixture of single-family homes and multi-family homes was important for a balanced neighborhood. However, I m deeply concerned with the newest proposal for 32 units instead of the originally approved 14 units. This will create a huge impact of density to our neighborhood that will ultimately change the neighborhood for the worse. The proposal shows buildings sandwiched together with parking lots lining up against our back fence. This will create noise and light pollution, as well as completely obliterate our views. I feel that the developer, who I have learned does not live in our beautiful neighborhood nor the Sunshine Coast for that matter, does not have our best interests or any regard for the concerns of the West Sechelt residences. My other concern with this proposal, related to safety, would be the increased traffic along Jasper and the single-lane McCourt as well as congestion of parking along Jasper due to lack of visitor parking. I wonder if these 32 units were to fill up with families, where these children would all fit into the already strained West Sechelt Elementary. My son had to spend the first part of the school year in the library until another portable could be brought onto the property. I realize these latter concerns are not shared by all, but they are by myself and other parents in the neighborhood. I would ask that you please consider approving the original plan of 14 units. It is the right thing for our neighborhood and community as a whole. Thank you for taking the time to read my letter and your consideration. Sincerely, Heather Damsgaard 6375 Samron Rd. Sechelt, BC Page 262

263 Item 10.3 REQUEST FOR DECISION TO: Mayor and Council REPORT DATE: April 24, 2018 TARGET DECISION DATE: May 2, 2018 FROM: RE: Ben Currie, Manager of Financial Services Seasonal Mobile Vending Application for the Davis Bay Small Display Area FILE NO: PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to bring forward for Council s consideration the application of a paddle board and kayak rental seasonal mobile vendor for the small display area at Davis Bay. RECOMMENDATION(S) 1. That the report from the Manager of Financial Services dated April 24, 2018 regarding the Seasonal Mobile Vending Application for the Davis Bay Small Display Area be received. 2. That Council approve the issuance of a Seasonal Mobile Vendors Permit for the 2018 operational season to Halfmoon Sea Kayaks. OPTIONS/ALTERNATIVES 1. Endorse the above recommendations. 2. Decline the application for a Seasonal Mobile Vendors Permit. 3. Refer the issue to the Finance, Culture and Economic Development Committee. 4. Defer consideration of the permit to some other time DISCUSSION Context/Background On February 2, 2018, District staff issued a request for proposal for 2018 seasonal mobile vending sites. A local company, Halfmoon Sea Kayaks, submitted a proposal for paddle board and kayak rental mobile vending business at the Davis Bay beach pad for the 2018 season. The proposal included the use of a 16 x 8 trailer at the Large Display Area located at Davis Bay. Staff reviewed the proposal and determined that the Sea Page 263

264 2 Kayak and Paddle Board Rental Vendor would be more suitable for the Small Display Area at the Davis Bay location. On March 23, 2018, the District s Manager of Financial Services and a Bylaw Officer met at Davis Bay with the applicant to review the Small Display Area and all parties agreed that the location would be suitable for a 10 x10 popup canopy tent and paddle board rack. In addition, it was acknowledged that applicant s 16 x 8 trailer would not be permitted to park in the existing beach parking spots or on the roadside near the vending location. Due to the proposed and pending changes to the Parks, Lands and Roads Temporary Rental Amendment Bylaw No. 480 staff have withheld issuing a Seasonal Mobile Vending Permit to Halfmoon Sea Kayaks for the 2018 operating season until the recent bylaw changes are reviewed and adopted by Council. Strategic Plan The proposed Parks, Lands and Roads Temporary Rental Amendment Bylaw 480, 2008 align with the following goal from the Strategic Plan: Goal # 2 - To have a vibrant local and sustainable economy that provides a full range of goods, services and opportunities. Financial Implications Providing a Seasonal Mobile Vending Permit to Halfmoon Sea Kayaks will generate approximately $800 in pad rental fees for a 4 month term. Analysis/Application of Recommended Course of Action District staff recommends issuing a Seasonal Mobile Vending Permit to Halfmoon Sea Kayaks for the 2018 season based on the following: The applicant has submitted interest for a seasonal mobile vending opportunity through the request for proposal process that was advertised locally on the Sunshine Coast. District staff and the applicant visited the site on March 23, 2018 and agreed that the Small Display Area at Davis Bay was suitable for the vendor. The applicant has hired a seasonal summer employee in anticipation of operating at the Davis Bay seasonal mobile location. The addition of a kayak and paddle board rental vender at Davis Bay will fit well with the beach environment that will create vibrancy and encourage nonmotorized activity on the Davis Bay Waterfront. Page 264

265 3 Respectfully submitted, Ben Currie Attachments 1. Halfmoon Sea Kayaks Seasonal Mobile Vending Application By Doug Stewart at 10:33 am, Apr 25, 2018 By Andrew Yeates at 1:09 pm, Apr 25, 2018 Page 265

266 1 HALFMOON SEA KAYAKS Seasonal Mobile Vending Proposal # Davis Bay Page 266

267 February 19,2018 Re: Proposal for mobile vending, Davis Bay # Thank you for the opportunity to apply for the use of the Davis Bay beach pad for the 2018 season. My name is Cameron Reid and we are Halfmoon Sea Kayaks -Rentals, Lessons and Guided Tours. We have been operating on the Sunshine Coast since We currently lease a water front piece at the head of Sechelt Inlet renting kayaks, canoes and stand up paddle boards. Proposal It is our interest to explore the potential of a mobile SUP board rental model, using a fleet of 14 boards and the trailer shown below. The dimensions of the trailer are approximately 16 x8 including fenders and tongue. The length connected to our truck is long for the space and would have us disconnecting upon arrival. Our intention is to re-decal 3 exterior sides and operate with the rear doors open. Signage regarding safety, environmental guidelines and rental requirements (age, waiver, p.f.d. requirement etc.) would be installed on the interior side of the doors. The trailer is also kitted with paddles, under board lights, paddle leashes and a p.f.d rack (accesssed thru side door in front of boards). Safety equipment includes two first aid kits, fire extinguisher and waterproof vhf radio. Below are pictures of some boards pulled out of the trailer. All beginner friendly and super cool looking. We are fortunate to be able to test the market in Davis Bay while still having a home location to minimize our investment risk. We are hoping to introduce our mobile service foriune, July and August of this season at the Davis Bay pad, weather dependant, between the hours of loam and 6pm. We anticipate potential to adjust hours up to 9pm, as we believe the calmer evening water may be an attractive option for locals and tourists (a great sunset activity). SUP board rentals typically start around $25 for the first hour and discount for longer periods up to a full day rental. Transactions will be processed with Square payments and a tablet with a paper cc swiper carried as a Page 267

268 back up. Reservations and operating hours would also be set up on our website at wwvhaniooiiseakayakscom Staffing numbers for the activity would fluctuate between one and two, with staff holding first aid certification in addition to life guard credentials, SKGABC/ACSKG guide and/or Paddle Canada instructor certification. (Certificates vary between candidates year to year with these being most common) Environmental Impact The production of waste would be mostly limited to our staff s personal stuff, our paddler s empty water bottles upon their return and of course the trucks carbon output getting to and from the site from Sechelt. Garbage and recycling would be managed with rubber maid containers and taken away from the site daily. Social Impact Giving access to a low impact, healthy, carbon free water activity will bring people outward from the seawall to view Davis Bay from the water side, offering a different experience for locals and tourists to share. Intro lessons, group yoga sessions and guided tours could also be organized and scheduled to encourage participation. Closing Although the pad location would be ideal for our pilot season we are open to discussing any other options if this location is unavailable or may have sharing opportunities. Please find attached our application, WCB standing, insurance coverage, business licence and layout diagram as required. Thanks for your consideration, Cameron Reid cell (604) Halfmoon Sea Kayaks 7877 Lohn Road Halfmoon Bay, B.C. VON 1Y1 (604) Trip Advisor reviews Page 268

269 \ \. \ \ / I I /1 / I Page 269

270 Item 12.1 COUNCIL CORRESPONDENCE April 10, 2018 April 23, 2018 CORRESPONDENCE ACTION OUTCOME Page , , Mayor W Rowe, Board Decision Regarding Proposed Mahan Road Exploratory Well , , J Bagnall Corporate Officer of Houston, Human Trafficking Task Force Forwarded to Mayor and Council Forwarded to Mayor and Council Response attached Pg Acknowledged Pg , , J Mani, Permitting for Davis Bay Mobile Pad Forwarded to Mayor and Council Response attached Pg , Letter, Mayor Wayne Rowe, Draft Watershed Management & Governance for the Sunshine Coast Forwarded to Mayor and Council Pg Page 270

271 From: Kerianne Poulsen Sent: Tuesday, April 17, :01 PM To: Tracy Forster Cc: Council Subject: RE: Mayor Wayne Rowe re Pending Board Decision Regarding Proposed Mahan Road Exploratory Well Hi Tracy, Thank you for your message. This is to confirm your has been delivered to the accounts of all Council members. Please note that all correspondence sent to these addresses is subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and is considered a part of the public record for the District of Sechelt. Best regards, Kerianne Poulsen EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT PO Box 129, Sechelt, BC V0N 3A0 2nd Floor, 5797 Cowrie Street From: Tracy Forster Sent: Tuesday, April 17, :23 PM To: Bruce Milne <Milne@sechelt.ca>; Darren Inkster <Inkster@sechelt.ca>; Mike Shanks <shanks@sechelt.ca>; Doug Wright <Wright@sechelt.ca>; Darnelda Siegers <Siegers@sechelt.ca>; Noel Muller <Muller@sechelt.ca>; Alice Lutes <Lutes@sechelt.ca> Cc: CAO <CAO@sechelt.ca> Subject: Mayor Wayne Rowe re Pending Board Decision Regarding Proposed Mahan Road Exploratory Well Good afternoon, Please see the attached letter from the Town of Gibsons Mayor Wayne Rowe. Have a great day, Tracy Forster Administrative Assistant I Town of Gibsons ext 202 Website: Page 271

272 TOWN OF GlBSONS PO Box South Fletcher Road Gibsons BC I VON WO T F Info@gibsons.ca OFFICE OF THE MAYOR I WAYNE ROWE April 17, 2018 SCRD Board 1975 Field Road Sechelt, BC VON 3A1 Attention: Bruce Milne, Board Chair Dear Mr. Milne, Reference: Pending Board Decision Regarding Proposed Mahan Road Exploratory Well At the meeting of elected officials on March 12, 2018 the Town of Gibsons presented information on the Town's water strategy. As a follow up to this meeting and subsequent to the Board's recent deliberations on March 22, I would like to provide more detailed information to assist in your Committee and Board discussions on April 19 and 26 regarding the SCRD's pending groundwater investigation. The Town has carefully tested and studied the Gibsons Aquifer for over 20 years. This long-time data is the basis of the Town's careful stewardship of this resource and of the Town's opposition to our own regional government's proposal to investigate an additional, uncoordinated draw of Gibsons Aquifer water from the Mahan Road site. The current SCRD water crisis has prompted Council to re-examine its own strategies for servicing Zone 3. Due to significant water savings since 2009, largely through water metering, expanding the service area of the aquifer to service Zone 3 has become viable and will result in a projected 2019 draw from the aquifer for all three Town water zones that will be roughly the same as the 2012 demand of Zones 1 and 2 only. The attached information provides a number of key positions why the proposed exploration by the SCRD at the Mahan site would be detrimental to the Town and reflects a disjointed approach to resource management. While Council appreciates the difficult position that the SCRD is in regarding securing additional water for the region, the proposal for pursuing water from the Gibsons Aquifer puts the Town's ability to service its own population in jeopardy; the Town cannot support the SCRD addressing their water crisis by creating a water crisis for the Town. TOWN OF GIBSONS "Nature is our most valuable asset" Page 272

273 The Town is requesting that the SCRD support the following actions to reflect a coordinated, collaborative approach to managing our Sunshine Coast watersheds. 1. That no groundwater exploration of the Gibsons Aquifer be conducted by the SCRD at this time; 2. That initiating a joint SCRD/Gibsons Groundwater Management Zone and Plan be a priority for 2018, including the sharing with the SCRD of all monitoring data collected by the Town from the Gibsons Aquifer; 3. That the SCRD Board support SCRD and Town staff to work together to explore the feasibility of a coordinated effort to complete any planned Town and SCRD drilling projects. I have requested that staff attend your April 19, 2018 Infrastructure Services Committee meeting as a delegation to speak further on this issue and to provide an additional resource should the Committee have any further questions. Staff will also be in attendance at the April 26 meeting should the Board wish to ask any questions of Town staff. Yours truly, cc: SCRD Infrastructure Services Committee TOWN OF GIBSONS "Nature is our most valuable asset" Page 273

274 TOWN OF GIBSONS MEMORANDUM TO FROM Mayor Wayne Rowe Dave Newman, Director of Infrastructure Services DATE April 13, 2018 SUBJECT SCRD Groundwater Exploration Mayor Rowe, As requested, the following are the key points of concern regarding the SCRD's proposal to access groundwater from the Gibsons Aquifer via a well on Mahan Road. 1. Any significant draw on the aquifer by outside parties would threaten the Town's ability to service and manage its own growth. o Based on data used in 2013 there was adequate water supply from the Gibsons Aquifer to supply the Town's buildout of Zones 1 and 2 only, i.e., 7,300 persons. o Since 2008 the Town's overall consumption has been steadily decreasing due to metering and other infrastructure improvements. Using the same assumptions regarding climate change and sea level rise, the same projected draw on the aquifer would now be able to serve a population of approximately 9,400. o It makes it impossible for the Town to effectively plan for any length of time into the future when the SCRD has indicated an intent to draw down our primary water source at a yet-to-be-determined level. This is of immediate concern due to the number of significant development applications that are currently in progress within the Town as well as the Town's intention of supplying water to Zone The Town needs to conduct ongoing long-term monitoring to refine the accuracy of the projections in the Study. o The Town's Aquifer Mapping Study repeatedly emphasizes the need to conduct ongoing long-term monitoring to determine the ultimate yield of the aquifer. o The capacity of the aquifer is based on data collected during the Study as well as conservative assumptions regarding climate change, sea level rise, and draw on the aquifer. o Actual water use, climate change, and sea level rise will all affect the ultimate yield, which may be greater than or less than projected. TOWN OF GIBSONS "Nature is our most valuable asset" Page 274

275 3. The Study recommends the installation of additional monitoring wells within the Town prior to additional significant development. o In order to provide the necessary monitoring data, additional wells are required to monitor saltwater intrusion and to monitor pressure. These wells need to be installed and monitoring data collected prior to imposing significant additional draw on the aquifer. o The Town has budgeted for the installation of monitoring wells in Lower Gibsons in o Although a pump test of the exploratory well would provide some information about the aquifer, there would be little value in monitoring data from the Mahan site as the Town already has a monitoring well within approximately 250 metres of the proposed site. 4. A decision by the SCRD to pursue groundwater exploration and ultimately a production well at the Mahan site would affect the Town's proposal to service Zone 3 from the Gibsons Aquifer. o The proposed 2018 SCRD groundwater investigation only contemplates drilling an investigative well at this point, however, this investigation signals a clear intent to create an SCRD supply well should testing of the investigative well result in a positive outcome. o Until it is known whether the SCRD will be applying for licensing from Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations & Rural Development (FLNRORD) it will be unclear as to the volume of water potentially being available to the Town and consequently would bring into question the length of time that the Town would be able to service Zone 3. o The Town's Zone 3 proposal has the potential to save the SCRD approximately 240 million litres per year. The future demand of Zone 3 is forecast to be more than double that volume. 5. The site rankings in the SCRD Groundwater Investigation regarding stakeholder concerns can significantly skew the relative rankings of the sites. o Waterline assessed and ranked 11 potential sites in their report submitted to the SCRD on October 10, 2017; SCRD staff recommended to the Infrastructure Services Committee that further exploration be conducted at the four sites with the most favourable rankings. o During the Groundwater Task Force meetings Darren David of Waterline admitted that the rankings for stakeholder concerns were subjective and not determined by any clear criteria. o The assessment by Waterline of the potential well sites resulted in the rankings on the following page. These rankings were based on hydrogeological feasibility, infrastructure requirements, water quality, regulatory requirements, and stakeholder concerns. A rating of 1 is low or unfavourable, 2 is moderate, and 3 is high or favourable. Sites 2, 3, 4, and 5 (in bold) were recommended for further exploration. TOWN OF GIBSONS "Nature is our most valuable asset" Page 275

276 WATERLINE RANKINGS Site Ranking Stakeholder concerns 1) Mahan site 1C 108 2* 2) Mahan site 1D 108 2* 3) Gray Creek ) Soames Point ) Sechelt Operations Yard ) Old Chapman Reservoir ) Mahan site 1A ) Mahan site 1B ) Frank West Firehall ) Chapman booster pump site ) Reed Road pump station 12 3 o Despite Gibsons being a stakeholder that conveyed a willingness to provide their input as to their particular concerns, prior to the Task Force meetings, no contact was made by Waterline Resources or SCRD staff to determine what stakeholder concerns the Town might have in order to determine the appropriate stakeholder scoring for the Mahan sites. o All sites with the Town as existing users were identified as "2"; stakeholder concerns ranked "3" included such comments as "Low, few users in the area". No stakeholder concerns were ranked "1" by Waterline Resources. o Mr. David verbally provided the information to the Task Force that, had a value of '1', or unfavourable, been attributed to Mahan sites 1C and 1D (which Town staff feels would have been far more reflective of the Town's concerns), the Mahan sites would have had a calculated ranking of 54 and would have scored fifth and sixth instead of one and two. The other two Mahan sites (1A and 1B) may have also warranted a stakeholder ranking of "1" however, the Task Force did not request Mr. David to provide the change to the overall ranking for these two sites. o The following shows the rankings should a Stakeholder Concern value of '1' be used for Mahan sites 1C and 1D: TOWN OF GIBSONS "Nature is our most valuable asset" ADJUSTED RANKINGS Site Ranking Stakeholder concerns 1) Gray Creek ) Soames Point ) Sechelt Operations Yard ) Old Chapman Reservoir ) Mahan site 1C 54 1* 6) Mahan site 1D 54 1* 7) Mahan site 1A ) Mahan site 1B ) Frank West Firehall ) Chapman booster pump site ) Reed Road pump station 12 3 Page 276

277 6. Additional draw by the SCRD could increase the risk of saltwater intrusion in the Town's existing wells. o The Town's Aquifer Mapping Study acknowledges that, with additional draw on the aquifer, there may be a time where the Town's existing Wells '1 and 4 will need to be relocated further away from the ocean in order to avoid saltwater intrusion into the aquifer. This could occur regardless of SCRD draw on the aquifer. However, should the SCRD increase the draw through a production well at the Mahan site, there is the likelihood that the schedule for well relocation would be advanced, forcing the Town into capital costs sooner than planned. 7. It is understood that the Town will oppose the granting of a water license to the SCRD from FLNRORD based on the reasons above. o The Town's opposition to an SCRD production well at Mahan could delay any issuance of a license to the SCRD which we understand from the SCRD staff would lead to delayed progress on future SCRD water supply plans. o Under the Groundwater Sustainability Act, the SCRD currently has as much right to draw future water from the aquifer as the Town does. However, the Town currently has an application applying for enough water to supply the Town's future population. FLNRORD accepted the Town's application based on our track record of responsible groundwater stewardship and long-range planning. o Although the SCRD's support for the Town's license through the referral process would be appreciated, it is not essential. Likewise, the Town's support of the SCRDs potential future application is not essential. o Should the Town's FLNRORD license be granted, there will be significantly less water potentially available for long-term SCRD use. I trust this meets your needs; please do not hesitate to request any clarification or additional information. Respectfully submitted, Dave Newman Director of Infrastructure Services TOWN OF GIBSONS "Nature is our most valuable asset" Page 277

278 Greetings Honorable John Horgan and Honorable Mike Farnworth, Please find attached a copy of the District of Houston Letter of Support for a Human Trafficking Task force. If you have any questions about this submission please feel free to contact me directly. Sincerely, Jessica Bagnall Corporate Officer District of Houston Phone: Fax: th Street PO Box 370 Houston, BC V0J 1Z0 corporate@houston.ca Page 278

279 Page 279

280 A ' ' Child I " ' Deena Farrell From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: 1" V Cathy Peters 1Monday, February 26,2018 4:36 PM Houston General sex trafficking in BC Municipalitiesand how to stop it. ' WHAT CANI DO AS A PARENTTO STOP MY CHILD FROM BEINGTRAFFICKED.docX; Some Ways to Prevent Your Child from Being Recruited Into Prostitutiondocx; UBCM 81' BillC 36.do<:><; Ontario unveils funds for Human traffickingdocx Importance: High Dear Mayor Shane Brienen and City Councillors, Child Sex trafficking (including child pornography) is the fastest growing crime in the world, Canada and in BC. I have been raising awareness to this issue for the past 5 years. I have included two attachments addressing how to stop this crime and the UBCM 2015 Resolutions on Human trafficking/rape culture. BC needs a properly funded Human Trafficking Task Force (like Ontario) for awareness, education and training for law enforcement. Also, the current Federal Law, "Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act needs to be properly enforced. ASK: Would you please write a letter to the BC Premier John Horgan and the Public Safety Minister/Solicitor General Mike Farnworth that we need a Human Trafficking Task Force AND the Federal Law enforced (it is in the rest of the country), and send me a copy of that letter. #MeToo and #TimesUp are 2 timely anti sexual abuse campaigns. Please write me if you support these campaigns. Sincerely, Mrs. Cathy Peters BC santi-human trafficking educator, speaker, advocate #302 15OW. 15" St., North Vancouver, BC V7M OC4 Mission statement: A Modern Equal Society does not buy and sell women and children. My goal: to traffick proofevery community in BC and insure there is not another Robert Pickton (Port Coquitlam serial killer) situation. Strategy: the 2 E s- Education (of the problem), Enforcement (of the Law, The Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act) Result: to make it known that British Columbia is a bad place (for buyers of sex, traffickers, facilitators) for the business of sexual exploitation. Page 280

281 . iiiiiiiii TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT., WHAT CAN I DO AS A PARENT? Here are?ve things that you can do to help prevent your child from being lured away by a traf?cker: 1. Set a high standard of love within your home. The way you de?ne and express love shapes your children,s self-image, con?dence and opinions of future relationships. Treat them the way you want their future spouses to treat them. Help them to distinguish between real love and empty promises or cheap gifts. 2. Talk to your children about sexual abuse. According to the US Department of Justice, every two minutes someone in the US is sexually assaulted, of which 29% are ages Let your children know that if anyone has or ever does hurt them, they can talk to you. This is the most important thing you can say. Don t assume they have not been hurt by sexual violence before. Leave the door open for your child to talk about past circumstances that they haven t shared with you. 3. Talk to your children about sex trafficking. Discuss ways children and teens are targeted for sex traf?cking. Let them know that traffickers speci?cally try to woo young girls and boys with promises of a better life whether it s promises of love and attention or promises of nice things and trips these pimps look for ways of exploiting dreams. Traf?ckers can be male or female, even classmates. Traf?ckers may even use kids to recruit other kids. 4. Talk to your children about the dangers of social media. It s important to provide practical safety tips like: don t share personal information on the Internet; don t accept Facebook requests from unknown people; NEVER share naked photos of yourself with anyone; and tell a parent or a trusted adult if you feel threatened or uncomfortable online. Also, children need help in de?ning friendships. Social media has distorted our childrens understanding of what friendship means. Teach them that a friend is not someone you met yesterday and that a friend on Facebook is not the same thing as a friendship. 5. Pay attention to your children. Monitor your children s social media accounts, look for ways to meet their friends, their friends parents and those they hang outwith. Be alert to boyfriends who are much older, or friendships that tend to isolate your child from other friends or family. Notice if your child has ll< :Y l_919ti1iil%_it_ _131$.2.. I1a1< 11P.P 9 1l19 $1991iPh9 19_9.9th?K_iP9Q, E@._iR l1% i 9_9l39HEh9Y Il}9X aquired them. Page 281

282 Some Ways to Prevent Your Child from Being Recruited Into Prostitution - Recruiters frequent malls, movie theaters, bowling alleys, parks, typical teen hang out areas, and around school grounds. Make sure your children are supervised and not alone when in these areas. - Recruiters are always looking for girls who are alone or isolated; if your child is with a group, she is much less likely to be targeted. - Make sure your child is not alone when they are going to or from school or other extracurricular activities. - Check your child s s, social media, and internet activities. Many recruiters will build a relationship with children through the internet over time in order to gain their trust. - Screen any boyfriend by checking his age and status in the community. Check with his parents to verify his age, any gang affiliation, or any criminal history. Recruiters are notorious for lying about their age and who they are in order to gain a girl s arzdeven her parent s trust. - Know where your child is all times. lt may be annoying to your child, but it also could mean saving their life. - Adding a GPS tracker to your child s phone is a great form of protection, as it allows you to?nd out exactly where your child is at any time. - Have a code word or phrase. For example, saying l m fine means Not okay./i need helpl. This way, if they are in the hands of an abductor they can text you this code without raising the suspicion of the abductor or recruiter. - Use the percentage sign or some unique symbol that will allow your child to text you one quick symbol to tell you they are in trouble. - Have specific and periodic check in times with your children. Setting a recurring alarm on your child s phone will help them remember to check in. If your child misses a check in time, you can set a response in motion assuming that they are in trouble. - Ethical Modeling agencies do not typically solicit girls who are alone. Thoroughly screen any solicitation for your child to model or to go somewhere with someone who has not been vetted. in Talk to your child about what to do if they get into trouble with someone who is threatening them. The basic rule is to never go to the second location once you realize you are in danger. No matter what the threat, advise them to go to a figure of authority immediately. - It is a difficult discussion to have, especially with junior high age children, but 8 to 14 year oldsare the primary targets of recruiters. Children really need to be coached on how to respond to that type of threat if it happens to them. - If your child is going to a party, make sure that you know it is held at a safe place with the supervision of people you trust. Recruiters for sex traf?cking will often frequent parties that teenagers attend and wait until a child is alone, single them out, and actually take them during the party. Many times the recruiter will take them to a back room where any kind of disturbance would not be heard due to the noise of the party. - Advise your child to never leave any drink, even water, unattended at any party or event. Recruiters will drop what they call a roofie into the drink which causes the victim to become submissive to anyone without bringing attention to the situation. Most importantly, get involved in your child s life and be their parent, not their buddy. They may resist, but it is our job as parents to protect our children from the predators that seek to destroy their lives. Page 282

283 7 g,,,,,, WENDORSEDWBYWTl:IE_NOE{TtLCEL\ITEALLO,CAL,QOVERNMENI,_ASS,QQ,IAII% _, CANADIAN FEDERALLAW: "The Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act 1. Targets the demand by targeting the buyer of sex; the predator, pimp, trafficker, john are criminalized 2. Recognizes the seller of sex is a victim; usually female andis not criminalized 3. Exit strategies put in place to assist the victim out of the sex trade. UBCMRESOLUTIONS September 2015: B53 HUMAN TRAFFICKING; NCLGA Executive WHEREAS human trafficking is a real and devastating issue in British Columbia; AND WHEREAS significant work & research has been done as of late to aid in the prevention and prosecution of human trafficking throughout Canada: THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that UBCM call on the RCMP, local police forces and local governments to work collaboratively in order to implement the recommendations found within the National Task Force on Sex Trafficking of Women and Girls in Canada's recent report (' NO MORE Ending Sex -Trafficking In Canada ) as well as the Province of British Columbia's "Action Plan to Combat Human Trafficking." ENDORSED BY THE NORTH CENTRAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION UBCM RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION B80 RAPE CULTURE IN CANADA; NCLGA Executive WHEREAS sexual assaults continue to be committed across Canada, and victims are of every age, race, income and gender; AND WHEREAS sexual assaults are under reported, and prosecution and conviction rates are low: THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that UBCM advocate for an intergovernmental task force to be convened to determine the steps needed to erase the rape culture that is pervasive in schools, universities, workplaces and elsewhere across Canada; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the task force be mandated to elicit testimony from victims in order to determine the steps needed to improve the reporting, arrest and conviction rates across Canada.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, UBCM RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Page 283

284 """""""" " W Ontario unveils $72-million plan to?ght human trafficking Tavia Grant The Globe and Mail Published Thursday, Jun. 30, :37AM EDT Last updated Thursday, Jun. 30, :28PM EDT The Ontario government will spend up to $72-million over four years in a new anti-trafficking strategy, with support for indigenous-led approaches to tackling the issue as one of its priorities. Government ministers unveiled the strategy on Thursday at Covenant House in Toronto, a shelter for homeless youth. They said the money will be used to bolster support for culturally appropriate services for indigenous survivors of traf?cking, establish a provincial anti-traf?cking coordination centre and create a specialized prosecution team for human-trafficking crimes. Ontario is the third province in Canada to adopt a plan to?ght human trafficking. The province has about 65 per cent of the human trafficking cases reported to police in the country, and the RCMP has identified Ontario as a major hub for trafficking in Canada. Human trafficking is a deplorable crime that robs the safety, livelihood and dignity of those who are being exploited and abused, Attorney GeneralYasir Naqvi said at the announcement. Indigenous women and girls are disproportionately affected, he said in an interview. We know the number is high. A lot of indigenous women, unfortunately, get trafficked, and that is why we wanted to have an indigenous approach as a wraparound for this entire strategy. It is disproportionate, absolutely. A Globe and Mail investigation earlier this year showed that, despite a raft of studies, reports and surveys showing that aboriginal youth and women comprise an outsized share of traf?cking victims, relatively little dedicated federal funding has gone to prevention or protection. Covenant House has provided services to 60 victims of sex trafficking so far this year, which already surpasses last year s numbers. The agency has estimated about a quarter of cases involve indigenous girls and young women. Trafficking charges have resulted in few convictions. The rate, speci?cally for human trafficking, Wt Es Tim?I'(Tpa"@rif6?harmirrfhefmtarmttowtof Just?ei"Mr N?fvi sarcttharre?ectsttre***"" ' complexity of the crime and difficulty in getting victims to testify. Page 284

285 The provincial government did not break down how the $72-million will be spent. It did say it will expand supports for at-risk youth leaving care and bolster services for survivors, such as trauma counselling and job skills training. Barbara Gosse, CEO of the Canadian Centre to End Human Traf?cking, said she would have liked the plan to include education for judges on the issue, and more emphasis on data collection. We need a coordinated and integrated system of collecting data from law-enforcement, frontline service providers and non-profit organizations who provide services and supports to victims, she said, so that governments can develop policies based on evidence. Canada s national action plan on human traf?cking expired in March. Public Safety Canada, which coordinated the federal response to traf?cking, said the government is determining next steps. Human traf?cking is de?nedas recruiting, transporting or exercising control over a person to exploit them, typically through sexual exploitation or forced labour. The majority of trafficking cases in Canada are domestic, rather than internationalor cross-border, and most domestic cases are sex trafficking, the RCMP says. The province s announcement came as a global report said Canada remains a source, transit and destination for sex trafficking. Canada is also a destination country for men and women subjected to forced labour, the U.S. State Department said in its annual global report on traf?cking in persons. Women and girls from Aboriginal communities;migrants, including those newly arrived, atrisk youth; runaway youth; and girls in the child welfare system are especially vulnerable, it said. The report recommended Canada signi?cantly increase specialized services and shelter for victims. Data collection should be improved, while inter agencyco-ordinationbetween the A provinces has been uneven. It said training efforts particularly for prosecutors and judges should be increased. It also said the government did not provide adequate funding for specialized victim services; and the range, quality, and timely delivery of services varied across the provinces. Globally, human trafficking is now a $15 0-billion industry, the report said. Follow Tavia Grant on Twitter: More Related to this Story - The Taken: Five women?ve serial killers and how their paths came to meet - The Traf?cked: Sexual exploitation is costing Canadian women their lives Page 285

286 From: Kerianne Poulsen Sent: Wednesday, April 25, :18 PM To: 'Jamie Mani' Council Subject: RE: Permitting for Davis Bay Mobile Pad Dear Mr. Mani, Thank you for sharing your concerns with Council. The Mayor and all Councillors have received your message and will take it into consideration when they are discussing Bylaw 480. Staff expect the May 2 agenda may include an amendment for Bylaw 480 that would allow the new vending location at Friendship Park, include a rotating schedule for vendors and will only allow food vendors, although exceptions may be permitted at Council s discretion. The May 2 meeting may also include discussion on a request from a paddle board and kayak rental seasonal mobile vendor to use the small display area beside the Davis Bay vending location. The May 2 meeting will take place at 7pm at the Community Meeting Room, downstairs in the Municipal Hall, 5795 Cowrie St. Best regards, Kerianne Poulsen Executive Assistant Direct Cell PO Box nd Floor, 5797 Cowrie St. Sechelt, BC V0N 3A0 From: Sent: Sunday, April 22, :09 PM To: Council <Council@sechelt.ca> Subject: Permitting for Davis Bay Mobile Pad On Behalf Of Jamie Mani Dear Mayor and Councillors: I am writing you to express my concern to possible changes to mobile vending in Davis Bay. In the April 20 edition of the Coast Reporter, the Business Article on page 13 indicates that you will Page 286

287 be seeking a report on whether or not to grant a permit to a kayak / paddleboard rental company looking to operate in Davis Bay. As the co-owner of Alpha Adventures - located in Wilson Creek Plaza I do have obvious concerns about a company operating in an area that we currently work in (it is the closest body of water to launch paddle craft to our store). We have operated on the Sunshine Coast for over 18 years- and in Sechelt directly for the majority of those years. We employ a number of local residents of the Sunshine Coast - year round. Like a food vendor with a store front - that would be impacted by a mobile vendor we are concerned about the effects of this mobile rental business proposal. Unlike the food vendors - that will be rotating through and thus competing "for a somewhat limited time" a mobile rental business would be essentially harming our entire peak season. I respectfully ask that you consider these implications and consider keeping the pads for food vendor usage only. Sincerely, J. Mani Alpha Adventures Wilson Creek Plaza Sechelt Page 287

288 TOWN OF GIBSONS P0 Box South Fletcher Road Gibsons BC I VON 1VO T F n g b Sons c a OFFICE OF THE MAYOR f WAYNE ROWE April Mayor Bruce Mime P0 Box Cowrie Street Sechelt BC VON 3A0 1 Dear Mayor Bruce Milne, Reference: Draft Watershed Manaaement & Governance for the Sunshine Coast Further to, and as discussed at the March 12, 2018 Watershed Information Session for Elected Officials held in Gibsons, attached, for your consideration, is a draft Watershed Management and Governance Proposal. Given significant water management challenges, complexities of land use, interests and rights holders in our region, we think future-proofing the Sunshine Coast s social, ecological and economic prosperity requires closely examining our options for both integrated watershed management planning and watershed governance. The Town of Gibsons respectfully requests that the Sunshine Coast Regional District consider supporting this proposed approach. On behalf of Council, thank you in advance for your consideration of this important issue. Yours truly, W. Mayor ECEEVD APR Cc: Andrew Yeates, Chief Administrative Officer, TOWN OF GIBSONS Nature is our most valuable asset DISTRICT OF SECHELT Page 288

289 Mmcli DRAFT Proposal from ihe To\ n of Gibsons Considering the Future of Watershed Management and Governance for the Sunshine Coast Page 289

290 \larch DRAFT Proposal from ihe To\\ n of Gibsons Introduction Water is a strategic asset to the Sunshine Coast, which has critical ecological, economic, social, and spiritual importance. In recent years, the Sunshine Coast Regional District (SCRD) has experienced increasingly significant water pressures and management issues. On October 3, 2017, the Sunshine Coast Regional District (SCRD) declared Stage 4 water restrictions, the most severe level of restriction, banning all commercial use of water and residential outdoor tap use. To help ease the crisis, it also installed a siphon to extend the draw of water from Chapman Lake. The regional district also declared Stage 4 water restrictions in 2015, while in both 2014 and 2016, areas of the region were under Stage 3 water restrictions. The water challenges the region is experiencing affect the quality of life of all citizens, the local economy and the overall sustainability of the Sunshine Coast. While this is well-recognized by local governments, it is also clear that existing management and planning tools, such as the 2013 Comprehensive Regional Water Plan, are having limited success at addressing this critical issue. Furthermore, these challenges are only expected to worsen, as they are exacerbated by the impacts of climate change, regulatory changes and population growth. Recently, the SCRD administration responded to the water supply issue by proposing groundwater as a water source to supplement the Chapman Creek surface water supply. This option is consistent with the SCRD s Comprehensive Regional Water Plan and four sites were identified for further exploration. These sites included one that would draw water from the Gibsons Aquifer, which would jeopardize the Town of Gibson s ability to provide water for its future buildout. This situation exemplifies the need for a fully integrated approach to water management, to ensure that proposed solutions are coordinated and actively engage all affected rights and stakeholders. Overlapping Jurisdictions The Sunshine Coast is not alone in its water challenges. Regions across the province are addressing similar issues associated with the provision of safe water supplies but also of overall watershed health, management and governance. Ideally, watersheds should be managed as whole systems. Jurisdictional complexity makes this difficult because, generally, several levels of government are involved. Local governments typically oversee drinking water management and source water protection. They also directly influence water through land-use and zoning decisions, as is often articulated in community plans and regional growth initiatives. The provincial government has primary responsibility for making decisions about water and watersheds. It has the most direct constitutional powers related to land use, water management, and control over local government. First Nations have constitutionally protected rights to land and water resources requiring proper consultation to ensure that their interests are accommodated. This situation can be especially challenging in cases of undefined water rights 2 Page 290

291 water March DRAFT Proposal from the Town of Gibsons in advance of formal treaties or claims of aboriginal title. Unresolved aboriginal rights and title influence all aspects of resource decision-making and development in the province. Given the complexity created by these overlapping jurisdictions and the significance of local conditions in both watershed management challenges and solutions, we strongly believe it makes sense to work collaboratively to find effective solutions for our communities. The purpose of this document is to propose a process to consider a modernized watershed management plan and a regional approach to watershed governance. What is Watershed Governance? Governance is a complex concept but it generally refers to who has power, who makes decisions, who has the ability to influence, shape and execute decisions and how accountability is determined. Governance is a product of the context including laws, regulations, and formal institutions and incentives coupled with the norms, values, behaviours, and ethics influencing decisions and how they flow through the social networks of influence and action.2 Watershed governance refers to the full range of watershed issues - resources and delivery of water services, as well as the protection and conservation of water and aquatic ecosystems including their associated riparian area, and land use issues as they impact water at a watershed scale.3 What is Watershed Management? Watershed management is the process of implementing land use and water management practices to protect and improve the quality of the water and other natural resources within a watershed by managing the use of those land and water resources in a comprehensive way. Watershed features that governments manage include water supp y, water quality, drainage, stormwater runoff, water licensing, and the overall planning and utilization of watersheds. Effective watershed management ensures the sustainable distribution of its resources and the process of creating and implementing plans, programs, and projects to sustain and enhance watershed functions. Many different actors play an integral part in watershed management including landowners, government, engineers, environmental specialists, water purveyors and communities. See Tsilhqot in Nation v. British Columbia, 44 (SCC 2014). 2 Oliver Brandes and J. O Riordan POLlS (2014) A Blueprint for Watershed Governance in British Columbia. Linda Nowlan and K. Bakker, (2007) Delegating Water Governance: Issues and Challenges in the BC Context Report for BC Water Governance Project. 3 Page 291

292 DRA H Proposal from the Town of 0 hsons March S What are we proposing? We are proposing that the Sunshine Coast Regional District members undertake the exploration of two key initiatives: 1. The development of an integrated, regional watershed management approach, with supporting management strategies, programs, projects, bylaws, policies and tools. 2. The examination of models for regional watershed governance that would provide an opportunity for collaborative governance by bringing together relevant rights holders and stakeholders. What would be required to undertake this work? The Town of Gibsons would like to work with the SCRD to identify a Convenor of this exploratory process. The Town has demonstrated its leadership in many areas of water management, including water conservation, monitoring, and aquifer mapping. It is leading the country in implementing natural asset management, which formally recognizes natural assets and the civic services they deliver as an essential part of a community s infrastructure. This exploratory process would build on the water management work that has been completed to date, including existing plans, assessments and monitoring data. Below is a discussion of both the rationale and the next steps for the above-mentioned issues. 1. Develop an Integrated Regional Watershed Management Approach Currently, the SCRD deals only with water distribution and land use planning integrated decision making is a challenge. The development of a comprehensive, integrated watershed plan which identifies key regional issues and pressures, and proactively maps out its water resource capacity and data needs, would provide valuable guidance to decision-makers, resource managers, water users and residents regarding land and water resources in the watershed. Developing a modern, forward-thinking regional approach would improve the SCRD s ability to deliver services and effectively partner with senior levels of government and First Nations, while ensuring the social, ecological and economic sustainability of the region. 4 Page 292

293 and Match DRAFT Proposal from ihe 1o n of Gibsons Characteristics of a plan An integrated watershed plan would likely be characterized by objectives such as: Healthy aquatic ecosystems that sustain native biodiversity and aquatic life; Reliable and adequate flows of clean water to support a sustainable economy and food system, and; Safe and secure water to support healthy communities. Suggested guiding principles that could characterize the work include: Adaptive management; Natural asset management; Long-term monitoring, and; Two-eyed seeing (a framework for understanding indigenous and non-indigenous knowledge).4 The initial steps in developing a watershed management approach would include: 1. Convening an Advisory Committee with appropriate representation from all stakeholders to steward the process and to initially assess the capacity and resource requirements to pursue this work. 2. Developing a Terms of Reference and Project Charter that would define the scope and scale of the work to be undertaken. 3. Creating a Technical Advisory Committee with representatives from multiple third-party agencies and organizations. Based on examples of similar work undertaken by other jurisdictions5, we have learned that: the process typically works to identify a driving vision for the plan, guiding principles, key objectives or outcomes, and related activities to achieve the objectives; other jurisdictions have been able to secure external funding to help support this process, and; developing an integrated regional watershed management approach through an inclusive process could take up to two years. Two-Eyed Seeing is a principle created by Mi kmaw Elder Albert Marshall that refers to learning to see from one eye with the strengths of Indigenous knowledges and ways of knowing, and from the other eye with the strengths of Western knowledges and ways of knowing... learning to use both these eyes together, for the benefit of all. integrativescience.ca/principles/twoeyedseeing/ for more information and background Examples include the Kettle River Watershed Management Plan, Comox Valley Regional Water Supply Strategy, Kiskatinaw Watershed Management Strategy (Dawson Creek), Shuswap Lake Integrated Planning Process. 5 Page 293

294 2. Examine Models of Regional Watershed Governance DRAFT Proposal from ihe Tov ii of Gibsons March While examining watershed governance models is complementary to pursuing an integrated watershed management plan, it does require asking different questions. A governance model would need to be compatible with the objectives of a regional integrated watershed plan, as it would influence how the management plan is operationalized and how decisions would be made. In many communities, mounting concern about the sustainability of their water is driving demand to have more local engagement in decision-making with the Province. At the same time, many First Nations want collaborative consent or government-to-government agreements on decisions about water.6 Local governments and First Nation communities around the province are considering watershed governance options given the potential provisions in the Water Sustainabiity Act for alternative governance arrangements. To date, the provincial government has not clearly identified what these arrangements could look like. Collaborating with First Nations The systematic exclusion of First Nations from governing water is no longer socially or legally acceptable under the provincial commitment to the principles of UNDRIP (UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples) or the federal and provincial commitments to governmentgovernment relationships. First Nations strong historical, spiritual, cultural, and economic ties to the land and water make them a unique and important force in BC. First Nations are a level of government that must be properly acknowledged and hold an important place in any efforts to improve the governing of watersheds to ensure more ecologically and socially sustainable outcomes. The Sunshine Coast makes up part of the traditional territory of the shishálh and the Skwxwu7mesh. Examining how local governments work together with First Nations on water is an important step towards reconciliation and meeting the principles of UNDRIP. Existing Watershed Governance Models In BC, there are different arrangements along the spectrum of watershed governance, from the large, formalized entity of the Okanagan Basin Watershed Board (OBWB), to the medium-scale Cowichan Watershed Board to smaller-scale organizations such as the Nechako Watershed Roundtable or the Coquitlam River Watershed Roundtable. Most of these organizations are partnerships that provide a forum for information-sharing and discussing and negotiating management actions, while formal government agencies retain decision-making power. The OBWB is a unique entity in BC as it is an autonomous, formalized body, established for the long 6 Collaborative consent describes an ongoing process of committed engagement between Indigenous and non-indigenous governments acting as equal partners, each with their asserted authority to secure mutual consent on proposed paths forward related to matters of common concern and all aspects of governance. Phare, M-A., Simms, R., Brandes, G.M., Miltenberger, M. (2017). Collaborative Consent and Waterin British Columbia: Towards Watershed Co-Governance. 6 Page 294

295 March DRAFT Proposal horn the To\\ 1 of Gibsons term with a wide range of stakeholders (public and private) that is empowered to implement water management decisions.7 The role that local governments play in these organizations vary from model to model. Currently, the Cowichan Watershed Board and its members are examining their model of co governance with the Cowichan Tribes. At the same time, the Cowichan Valley Regional District is examining how the Cowichan Watershed Board helps to deliver the regional district s watershed management objectives. In the Canadian context, we do not have examples of delegated collaborative water governance where non-state actors (watershed entity, municipality, or region) are directly engaged in decision-making for water management. In the case of the Sunshine Coast, examining potential regional watershed governance models is an opportunity to find the appropriate approach to bring together relevant rights holders and stakeholders to pursue shared regional objectives, specific to our watershed. The initial steps in developing an appropriate watershed governance model would include: 1. Convening an Advisory Committee, including shishálh and Skwxwu7mesh to discuss guiding principles. 2. Reviewing the related work that has been done in other jurisdictions around the province. 3. Developing a proposal for a regional watershed governance model with options specific to the Sunshine Coast context to bring before the respective Councils/Board. We are fortunate that BC has generated significant literature on watershed governance, Indigenous Co-Governance and Collaborative Consent. These resources would provide invaluable assistance in guiding this work, should the relevant parties agree to proceed. Ontario s Conservation Authorities are another example of a formal watershed governance entity. 7 Page 295

296 March DRAFT Proposal from the Town of Gibsons Conclusion Given the significant water management challenges, complexities of land use, interests and rights holders in our region, we think that future proofing the Sunshine Coast s social, ecological and economic prosperity requires closely examining our options for both integrated watershed management planning and watershed governance. The BC Water Sustainability Act and associated enabling regulations are evolving and they will influence watershed management and governance. Positioning the Sunshine Coast as a proactive region on these issues will make it an appealing partner for collaboration with the Province and other levels of government. Prepared for the Town of Gibsons by Zita Botelho, M.A 8 Page 296