Mayor`s Office - City of White Rock
Transcription
Mayor`s Office - City of White Rock
City Clerk's Office E-mail Fax (604) 541-2212 [email protected] 604-541-9348 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF WHITE ROCK 15322 BUENA VISTA AVENUE, WHITE ROCK, B.C. V4B 1Y6 February 20, 2014 A REGULAR MEETING of CITY COUNCIL will be held at the WHITE ROCK COMMUNITY CENTRE located at 15154 Russell Avenue, White Rock, BC on MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2014 following conclusion/adjournment of the Public Hearing scheduled to begin at 7:00 p.m. for the transaction of business as listed below. T. Arthur, City Clerk ______________________________________________________________________________ AGENDA 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER 2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA RECOMMENDATION THAT the Corporation of the City of White Rock Council adopt the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for February 24, 2014 as circulated. 3. ADOPTION OF MINUTES a) Public Hearing / Bylaw No. 2045– February 3 and 4, 2014 b) Regular Council Meeting – February 4, 2014 Page 8 Page 31 RECOMMENDATION THAT the Corporation of the City of White Rock Council adopt the following meeting minutes as circulated: a) Public Hearing / Bylaw No. 2045– February 3 and 4, 2014; and b) Regular Council Meeting – February 4, 2014. 4. DELEGATIONS AND PETITIONS 4.1 DELEGATIONS 4.1.1 WHITE ROCK FARMERS’ MARKET REGARDING 2013 BUSINESS IMPACT RESULTS Tina Landert, Past President and Sandy VanDeKinder, President, White Rock Farmers’ Market will be in attendance to provide a presentation regarding the White Rock Farmers’ Market 2013 Business Impact Results and to introduce the 2013 / 2014 Board Members. AGENDA Page 1 City of White Rock Regular Council Meeting Agenda – February 24, 2014 Page No. 2 4.2 PETITIONS None 5. PRESENTATIONS AND CORPORATE REPORTS 5.1 PRESENTATIONS 5.1.1 EPCOR WHITE ROCK 2014 - 2017 WATER RATES APPLICATION Page 37 Betty Icharia, Utility Manager, EPCOR White Rock, Vince Corkery, Director, Municipal Operations, Darrell Manning, Director, Regulatory Affairs, and Carmen Piercey, Senior Manager, Regulatory Affairs, EPCOR Water Services will be in attendance to provide a presentation regarding the 2014 - 2017 Water Rates Application. 5.1.2 FRASER BASIN COUNCIL REGARDING THE REGIONAL FLOOD MANAGEMENT STRATEGY Steve Litke, Senior Program Manager, Fraser Basin Council will be in attendance to provide a presentation regarding the Regional Flood Management Strategy for the Lower Mainland including a summary of progress over the past year, scope of work proposed for 2014 - 2015 and opportunities for the City of White Rock’s participation in this initiative. 5.2 CORPORATE REPORTS 5.2.1 FRASER BASIN COUNCIL – REGIONAL FLOOD MANAGEMENT STRATEGY Report dated February 24, 2014 from the Director of Engineering and Municipal Operations titled “Fraser Basin Council - Regional Flood Management Strategy.” Page 39 RECOMMENDATION THAT Council: 1. Receive for information the February 24, 2014 corporate report from the Director of Engineering and Municipal Operations titled “Fraser Basin Council - Regional Flood Management Strategy;” and 2. Authorize contributing $1,000 per year in 2014 and 2015 to Fraser Basin Council, towards implementation of Phase 1 of their Business Plan, funded from the Drainage Utility Operating Budget. 5.2.2 REQUEST FOR REFUND - SEWER CONNECTION FEE AT Page 49 14559 MARINE DRIVE Report dated February 24, 2014 from the Director of Engineering and Municipal Operations titled “Request for Refund - Sewer Connection Fee at 14559 Marine Drive.” RECOMMENDATION THAT Council receive for information the February 24, 2014 corporate report from the Director of Engineering and Municipal Operations titled “Request for Refund - Sewer Connection Fee at 14559 Marine Drive.” AGENDA Page 2 City of White Rock Regular Council Meeting Agenda – February 24, 2014 Page No. 3 5.2.3 WHITE ROCK CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE PROPERTY BYLAW, 2014, NO. 2041 Report dated February 24, 2014 from the Fire Chief titled “White Rock Controlled Substance Property Bylaw, 2014, No. 2041.” Page 64 RECOMMENDATION THAT Council receive for information the corporate report dated February 24, 2014 from the Fire Chief titled “White Rock Controlled Substance Property Bylaw, 2014, No. 2041.” Clerk’s Note: The subject bylaw is included under Bylaws – Item 7.1.1. 5.2.4 65TH WHITE ROCK SEA FEST – REQUEST FOR FUNDING FOR A Page 66 PARADE AND PARADE FLOAT Report dated February 24, 2014 from the Director of Leisure Services and the Director of Financial Services titled “65th White Rock Sea Fest – Request for Funding for a Parade and Parade Float.” RECOMMENDATION THAT Council: 1. Receive for information the corporate report dated February 24, 2014 from the Director of Leisure Services and the Director of Financial Services titled “65th White Rock Sea Fest – Request for Funding for a Parade and Parade Float;” 2. Approve funding in the amount of $15,000 from the City’s contingency budget to assist the White Rock Events Society 2013 with event hosting costs including a parade; and 3. Deny funding in the amount of $50,000 for purchase of a parade float. 5.2.5 REVISED ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 2045 – CD-19 1550 OXFORD STREET (ZON 13-030) Report dated February 24, 2014 from the Acting Director of Planning and Development Services titled “Revised Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 2045 – CD-19 1550 Oxford Street (ZON 13-030).” Page 71 RECOMMENDATION THAT Council receive for information the corporate report dated February 24, 2014 from the Acting Director of Planning and Development Services titled “Revised Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 2045 – CD-19 1550 Oxford Street (ZON 13-030).” Clerk’s Note: The subject bylaw is included under Bylaws – Item 7.1.3. 6. MINUTES AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF COMMITTEES 6.1 MINUTES 6.1.1 STANDING COMMITTEE MEETINGS Land Use and Planning Committee Meeting – February 3, 2014 Page 74 AGENDA Page 3 City of White Rock Regular Council Meeting Agenda – February 24, 2014 Page No. 4 6.1.1 a)LAND USE AND PLANNING COMMITTEE HELD ON FEBRUARY 3, 2014 RECOMMENDATION THAT Council receive for information the February 3, 2014 Land Use and Planning Committee meeting minutes as circulated. 6.1.2 SELECT COMMITTEE MEETINGS a) Johnston Road Reconstruction and Beautification Task Force – January 29, 2014 b) Cultural Activity Task Force – January 29, 2014 c) Environmental Advisory Committee – February 4, 2014 d) Centre Street Road Allowance Improvements Task Force – February 5, 2014 e) East Beach Waterfronts Improvement Task Force – February 5, 2014 Page 76 Page 79 Page 83 Page 88 Page 89 RECOMMENDATION THAT Council receive for information following Select Committee meeting minutes as circulated: a) Johnston Road Reconstruction and Beautification Task Force – January 29, 2014; b) Cultural Activity Task Force – January 29, 2014; c) Environmental Advisory Committee – February 4, 2014; d) Centre Street Road Allowance Improvements Task Force – February 5, 2014; and e) East Beach Waterfronts Improvement Task Force – February 5, 2014. 6.1.2 a)SELECT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations 1 - 3 from meetings of the select committees listed below are presented for Council consideration: - Cultural Activity Task Force – January 29, 2014; Johnston Road Reconstruction and Beautification Task Force – January 29, 2014; and Centre Street Road Allowance Improvements Task Force – February 5, 2014. RECOMMENDATION #1 THAT a Cultural Activity Task Force Working Group be struck to develop a centralized list of arts and cultural events for White Rock consisting of Kate Stadel, Ryan Mooney, Kelly Breaks and Mary Brunet. RECOMMENDATION #2 THAT the Johnston Road Task Force requests that Council direct staff to prepare a report/plan containing: a) A continuous fence on the median between the traffic signal and crosswalks; b) Move mid-block crosswalk south to 1549 Johnston Road; c) Put safety/refuge median at the cross walk and reduce or eliminate curb bulges; d) Put street lighting in the new median where possible; e) No trees on sidewalks; and AGENDA Page 4 City of White Rock Regular Council Meeting Agenda – February 24, 2014 Page No. 5 f) Extend median from the current cross walk location on Johnston Road south of North Bluff Road to the new crosswalk location at 1549 Johnston Road. RECOMMENDATION #3 THAT the Centre Street Road Allowance Improvements Task Force recommends to Council that a meeting be established with residents three to four homes adjacent to the road allowances for public input. 7. BYLAWS AND PERMITS 7.1 BYLAWS 7.1.1 BYLAW 2041 – WHITE ROCK CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE PROPERTY BYLAW, 2014, NO. 2041 Bylaw No. 2041 proposes to regulate, prohibit or impose requirements respecting Controlled Substance Properties. Page 91 RECOMMENDATION THAT Council give first, second, and third readings to “White Rock Controlled Substance Property Bylaw, 2014, No. 2041.” 7.1.2 BYLAW 2042 - WHITE ROCK ZONING BYLAW, 2012, NO. 2000, Page 103 AMENDMENT BYLAW, 2013, NO. 2042 Bylaw No. 2042 proposes to amend “White Rock Zoning Bylaw, 2012, No. 2000” to allow the City to prepare for the new Federal Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations. The other amendments are considered “housekeeping” amendments to the zoning bylaw to improve and better clarify those provisions that have been found ambiguous or difficult to administer. RECOMMENDATION THAT Council give third and final readings to “White Rock Zoning Bylaw, 2012, No. 2000, Amendment Bylaw, 2013, No. 2042.” Clerk’s Note: Bylaw No. 2042 received first and second readings on February 3, 2014 and was the subject of a Public Hearing held on February 24, 2014. The subject bylaw is presented for Council’s consideration of third and final reading or Council may defer consideration of the bylaw readings until the next regular Council meeting. 7.1.3 BYLAW 2045 - WHITE ROCK ZONING BYLAW, 2012, NO. 2000, AMENDMENT (CD-19 – 1550 OXFORD STREET) BYLAW, 2013, NO. 2045 Bylaw No. 2045 proposes an amendment to “White Rock Zoning Bylaw 2012, No. 2000” to allow for an eight (8) storey, 199 bed complex care facility with underground parking to be constructed on the existing Evergreen Baptist Campus of Care property. The Evergreen Baptist Care Society has been awarded a contract with the Fraser Health Authority to redevelop 107 currently funded beds in conjunction with adding 92 newly funded beds to the site. After completion of the project, Evergreen Baptist intends to demolish the current B Wing and C Wing buildings as these buildings are outdated and no longer meet the needs of residential care clients today. AGENDA Page 5 City of White Rock Regular Council Meeting Agenda – February 24, 2014 Page No. 6 Clerk’s Note: Bylaw No. 2045 received first and second readings on January 13, 2014 and was the subject of a Public Hearing held on February 3 and 4, 2014. In accordance with the Corporate Report titled “Revised Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 2045 – CD-19 1550 Oxford Street (ZON 13-030). There are two options for Bylaw No. 2045 presented at this time for Council’s consideration of third and final reading. OPTION #1 – RECOMMENDATION THAT Council give third and final readings to “White Rock Zoning Bylaw, 2012, No. 2000, Amendment (CD-19 – 1550 Oxford Street) Bylaw, 2013, No. 2045” as presented at the Public Hearing on February 3 and 4, 2014. Page 113 OPTION #2 – RECOMMENDATION Page 124 THAT Council give third and final readings to “White Rock Zoning Bylaw, 2012, No. 2000, Amendment (CD-19 – 1550 Oxford Street) Bylaw, 2013, No. 2045” as amended to reflect the following amendments as outlined in the corporate report dated February 24, 2014 from the Acting Director of Planning and Development Services titled “Revised Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 2045 – CD-19 1550 Oxford Street (ZON 13-030):” 1. Shift of the proposed building by ten (10) feet closer to the existing C-Wing 2. Replaced “minimum” for “maximum” for the parking and loading space requirements. 3. Height reduced from 125.38 metres geodetic to 122.8 metres geodetic; and 4. Setback from (west) front property line increased from 8.44 metres to 12.4 metres. 7.2 PERMITS None 8. CORRESPONDENCE 8.1 CORRESPONDENCE - RECEIVED FOR INFORMATION RECOMMENDATION THAT Council receive for information the following correspondence items numbered 8.1.1 to 8.1.3 as listed and circulated in the February 24, 2014 regular Council agenda. Clerk’s Note: Further action on the following correspondence items may be considered separately. Council may request that any item be brought forward for discussion, and may propose a motion of action on the matter. 8.1.1 HOUSEHOLD FOOD INSECURITY IN CANADA REPORT – 2012 Page 136 Report by Valerie Tarasuk, Andy Mitchell, and Naomi Dachner titled “Household Food Insecurity in Canada, 2012.” The report highlights the social and public health problem of food insecurity across the country. The data presented serves to provide a basis for discussion that is critical to the development of programs and policies by all sectors aimed at tackling food insecurity in Canada. AGENDA Page 6 City of White Rock Regular Council Meeting Agenda – February 24, 2014 Page No. 7 Page 167 8.1.2 COMMUNITIES IN BLOOM - INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE Letter and registration form outlining role of participants and community benefits. Deadline for registration is March 31, 2014. 8.1.3 LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF BC REGARDING “SING ME A SONG” Page 170 MUSIC PROGRAM Letter dated February 17, 2014 from the Private Secretary to the Lieutenant Governor regarding “Sing Me A Song” music program and Award Opportunity leading up to Canada’s 150th Birthday Celebration in 2017. Clerk’s Note: More information on the program is available at www.ltgov.bc.ca. 9. MAYOR AND COUNCILLOR REPORTS 9.1 MAYOR’S REPORT 9.2 COUNCILLORS’ REPORTS 10. MOTIONS AND NOTICES OF MOTION 10.1 MOTIONS None 10.2 NOTICES OF MOTION None 11. RELEASE OF ITEMS FROM CLOSED COUNCIL MEETINGS 12. OTHER BUSINESS 13. CONCLUSION OF THE FEBRUARY 24, 2014 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING QUESTION PERIOD (following the conclusion of the Regular Council Meeting) Clerk’s Note: Pursuant to amendments adopted by City Council to the Council and Committee Procedure Bylaw, 2009, No. 1860 an opportunity is provided following the conclusion of the regular Council meeting for the public to ask questions (two (2) minute maximum time limit) regarding matters considered during this evening’s regular Council meeting. AGENDA Page 7 Minutes of a Public Hearing of City of White Rock Council held at the White Rock Community Centre February 3, 2014 (Public Hearing was reconvened on February 4, 2014) PRESENT: Mayor Baldwin Councillor Fathers Councillor Hutchinson Councillor Lawrence Councillor Meyer Councillor Robinson ABSENT: Councillor Campbell STAFF: D. Bottrill, Chief Administrative Officer R. Wilson, Acting Director of Planning and Development Services C. Halbert, Planner C. McBeath, Planning Technician T. Arthur, City Clerk 23 Press: 2 Public: 140 ______________________________________________________________________________ The Public Hearing for Bylaw No. 2045 was called to order at 7:00 p.m. BYLAW 2045 Bylaw No. 2045 proposes an amendment to “White Rock Zoning Bylaw 2012, No. 2000” to allow for an eight (8) storey, 199 bed complex care facility with underground parking to be constructed on the existing Evergreen Baptist Campus of Care property. The Evergreen Baptist Care Society has been awarded a contract with the Fraser Health Authority to redevelop 107 currently funded beds in conjunction with adding 92 newly funded beds to the site. After completion of the project, Evergreen Baptist intends to demolish the current B Wing and C Wing buildings as these buildings are outdated and no longer meet the needs of residential care clients today. The City Clerk read a statement including the purpose of the application and the procedure to be followed for the Public Hearing and noted the Hearing was publicized in the following manner: a) notice was given in the January 28th and 30th, 2014 editions of the Peace Arch News; b) 428 notices were mailed on January 22, 2014 to property owners within the required area for notice; and c) a copy of the notice was placed on the public notice posting board at City Hall on January 14, 2014. The Acting Director of Planning and Development Services provided a brief outline of the development proposal. The City Clerk informed of the following regarding submissions received: There were 41 submissions, regarding Bylaw No. 2045, received prior to the end of business day on January 29, 2014; copies of the noted submissions were included in the public hearing agenda package: AGENDA Page 8 Minutes of a Public Hearing of City of White Rock Council held at the White Rock Community Centre February 3, 2014 (Public Hearing was reconvened on February 4, 2014) 24 The submissions were summarized as follows: 31 in support of the proposal and 10 not in support. - Wendy Mumford, 942 Keil Street, White Rock, BC, (please note this is amended from the agenda which counted this as a letter of support of the proposal. The correspondence was in fact received by Mayor and Council prior to the Bylaw receiving 1st and 2nd reading and therefore has been removed from the final count); - Keith McBain, Executive Director, Residential Care, Assisted Living, Specialized Populations, Fraser Canyon Hospital and Hope Community, Fraser Health, forwarded a letter of clarification regarding the proposal (please note this is amended from the agenda which noted this was a letter of support); - Bruce Fraser (3 submissions), 402-14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support; - Patricia Patton, President/Coordinator, Meals-on-Wheels, PO Box 39587, Surrey, BC, in support; - Dennis Lypka (11 submissions), President, Belaire Strata Corporation BCS 2206, 1101-14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support; - Val Drever, 302-14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support; - Linda Ingham, 205-1341 Foster Street, White Rock, BC, in support; - Keith G. Anderson, Board and Executive Development and Leadership Consultant, White Rock, BC, in support; - Wendy Hampton, 101-14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support; - Annie Kennedy, 106-1531 Everall Street, White Rock, BC, in support; - Heather Whiteford, 101-15010 Roper Avenue, White Rock, BC, in support; - Vesna Novakovic, 608-1551 Foster Street, White Rock, BC, in support; - Robert and Adrienne Bowie, 172 Will Green Road, Marshall, North Carolina, USA, in support; - Norma McGuire, 6-1501 Everall Street, White Rock, BC, in support; - Blake Bowie, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, USA, in support; - Katy Daigle, 17011 Friesian Drive, Surrey, BC, in support; - Lily Gogel, 508-1531 Everall Street, White Rock, BC, in support; - Anne, 309-1501 Everall Street, White Rock, BC, in support; - Jessie Klassen, Resident, Evergreen Baptist Campus of Care, in support; - Eileen Mumford, 205-15466 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, in support; - Miles Mumford, in support; - Stephanie Mumford, 311-2025 Stephens Street, Vancouver, BC, in support; AGENDA Page 9 Minutes of a Public Hearing of City of White Rock Council held at the White Rock Community Centre February 3, 2014 (Public Hearing was reconvened on February 4, 2014) - Frederic M. Bellsmith, 402-1531 Everall Street, White Rock, BC, in support; - Beryl Lackman, 1222 King George Boulevard, Surrey, BC, not in support; - Louisa Bomben, 502-14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support; - Tim Hayden, 501-14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support; - Cathie Macaulay, 101-1531 Everall Street, White Rock, BC, in support; - Dr. Paul Hawkes, 1214-16275 15th Avenue, Surrey, BC, in support; - Stan and Nancy Thompson, 801-14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support; - Carman Adair, 14500 Sunset Lane, White Rock, BC, not in support; - Gordon and Melanie Redgrave, 289 Fitzpatrick Road, Kelowna, BC, in support; - J. Bailey, 4746 Sunnybrae Canoe Point Road, Tappen, BC, in support; - Lois Holmlund, 603-9303 Salish Court, Burnaby, BC, in support; - Deb and Stu Mitchell, 13782 Malabar Avenue, White Rock, BC, in support; - Dale B. Pope, Counsel/Strategic Advisor, 1577 126A Street, Surrey, BC, in support; - Lydia Bertha Holmlund, 304-1531 Everall Street, White Rock, BC, in support; - Dennis Seifriet, 2008-63 Keefer Place, Vancouver, BC, in support; - James Whiteford, 109-1531 Everall Street, White Rock, BC, in support; and - Massimo Sabatini, 10557 Suncrest Drive North, Delta, BC, in support. 25 The following 137 submissions were received by the City Clerk’s office, regarding Bylaw No. 2045, from January 30th up until 4:00 p.m. February 3, 2014; copies were made in full and placed on table for Council’s consideration. The submissions were summarized as follows: 95 in support of the proposal and 42 not in support. - Frank and Lynn Driscoll, 502-14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support; - Ra and Debbie McGuire, White Rock, BC, (Mother resides at Evergreen Care Home) in support; - John Chang, 1001-14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support; - Dr. Wayne Tunis and Cathy Tunis, 1102-14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support; - Jacquie Darmanin, Realtor, Sutton Group West Coast Realty, 15595-24 Avenue, Surrey, BC, not in support noting concerns regarding the impact of the proposal on ‘Belaire’ residents; AGENDA Page 10 Minutes of a Public Hearing of City of White Rock Council held at the White Rock Community Centre February 3, 2014 (Public Hearing was reconvened on February 4, 2014) 26 - Rick Buckle, 701-14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support; - Kathryn and Douglas Hutton, 303-14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support; - G.W. (Bill) Holmes, 803-14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support; - Michael S. Cantor, 903-14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support; - Pauline Chang, 1001-14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support; - Kelly Breaks, 15050 Prospect Avenue, White Rock, BC, in support; - Lorraine Adair, 1101-14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support; - Diana Lo, 1004-14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support; - Terri Buckle, 701-14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support; - Roger Smith, 704-14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support; - Stuart Libby, 14182 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, in support; - Juanita Popoff, 14182 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, (Mother is currently a resident of Evergreen Care Home) in support; - W. Maureen Smyth, 1569 Everall Street, White Rock, BC, not in support noting concerns with the proposed application; - Brian Lauder, 2528 Bayview Street, Surrey, BC, in support; - Cyndie Richards, 14788 Russell Avenue, White Rock, BC, not in support; - Alison Volken, 702-14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support; - Maria Schweighofer, 604-14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support; - Ed and Carol Gobin, 1464-161B Street, Surrey, BC, in support; - Paul Rust, 19579 -5th Avenue, Surrey, BC, in support; - Marjorie Thorne, 37-1725 Southmere Crescent, Surrey, BC, (James Thorne resides at Evergreen Care Home), in support; - Daljit Vic and Ravjit Sidhu, 304-14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support; - Sharon Sommer, 13640 Blackburn Avenue, White Rock, BC, (Mother resides at Evergreen Care Home), in support; - Eleanor Mortimer, in support; - Lillian Bailey, 408-1501 Everall Street, White Rock, BC, in support; - Noreen Weber, 47-2600 Beaverbrook Crescent, Burnaby, BC (Father Michael Corcoran resides at Evergreen Care Home) in support; - Ewald and Ruth Konrad, 13107 Crescent Road, Surrey, BC, in support; - Teri Vigfusson, 204-14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support; AGENDA Page 11 Minutes of a Public Hearing of City of White Rock Council held at the White Rock Community Centre February 3, 2014 (Public Hearing was reconvened on February 4, 2014) 27 - John Morrison, 301-1319 Martin Street, White Rock, BC, in support; - Annwen Loverin, 115-560 Raven Woods Drive, North Vancouver, BC, (Stepdaughter and Power of Attorney for Evergreen Resident, Andrew Lyall), in support; - Dale Mumford, 942 Keil Street, White Rock, BC, (Mother resides at Evergreen Care Home), in support; - Elaine Bell, 1497 Merklin Street, White Rock, BC, (Mother resides at Evergreen Care Home), in support; - Anne Marie Bourne, 1673 144 Street, Surrey, BC (Mother Betty Lorraine Blackmore resides at Evergreen Care Facility), in support; - Karm Badyal, 401-14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support; - Pam Postle, 12820-26 Avenue, Surrey, BC (Mother Bernice Moore resides at Evergreen Care Home), in support; - Ruth Buchholz, 203- 6866 Nicholson Road , Delta, BC (Mother Elise Buchholz resides at Evergreen Care Home), in support; - Leslie Ford, 3725-155 Street, Surrey, BC (Mother Bernice Moore resides at Evergreen Care Home), in support; - Carol Taylor, Kamloops, BC (Mother resides at Evergreen Care Home), in support; - Yasmin Wadia, 2003-15152 Russell Avenue, White Rock, BC, not in support; - Stephen Bennett, Executive Director Evergreen Care Facility, in support; - Jim Dufour, 1531 Everall Street, White Rock, BC, in support; - Jean Tang, 202-1531 Everall Street, White Rock, BC, in support; - Anna Bailey, Resident, Evergreen Heights, White Rock, BC, in support; - Jack Wilson, 301-1501 Everall Street, White Rock, BC, (Wife is a Resident of Evergreen Care Home), in support; - Marie Claire Letnick, 706-1501 Everall Street, White Rock, BC, in support; - May Hutcheson, 503-1501 Everall Street, White Rock, BC, in support; - Adriana H. Koller, 510- 1501 Everall Street, White Rock, BC, in support; - Ellen Keating, 618-1531 Everall Street, White Rock, BC, in support; - J.G. Dehner, 607-1531 Everall Street, White Rock, BC, in support; - Cyde Bingham, 509-1501 Everall Street, White Rock, BC, in support; - Audrey Holderness, 507-1501 Everall Street, White Rock, BC, in support; - Anne Whitby and Gwynne Whitby-Thomas, (Mother Anne Whitby resides at Evergreen Manor), in support; - Marilyn Perry, 601-1501 Everall Street, White Rock, BC, in support; AGENDA Page 12 Minutes of a Public Hearing of City of White Rock Council held at the White Rock Community Centre February 3, 2014 (Public Hearing was reconvened on February 4, 2014) - Katharina Neufeld, 303-1501 Everall Street, White Rock, BC, in support; - Bess Rivett, 208-1501 Everall Street, White Rock, BC, in support; - Mary Kobzey, in support; - Maria Firmino, Resident of Evergreen Heights, White Rock, BC, in support; - Ken Louden, 608-1531 Everall Street, White Rock, BC, in support; - G. Ken Souter and Monique Souter, 616-1531 Everall Street, White Rock, BC, in support; - Norma McGuire, 6, 1501 Everall Street, White Rock, BC, in support; - Gladys Murdock, 412-1531 Everall Street, White Rock, BC, in support; - Linda Moneta, (Parents Nick and Dolores Diachak reside at Evergreen Manor), in support; - Molly Rapske, resides at Evergreen Manor, White Rock, BC, in support; - Anne Kennedy, 106-1531 Everall Street, White Rock, BC, in support; - Lorene Murlak, 210-1531 Everall Street, White Rock, BC, in support; - Lorraine Job, 13888-72 Avenue, Surrey, BC, (81 years of age and has submitted an application to reside at Evergreen Campus of Care) in support; - Braden Adair, 50-16222 23A Avenue, Surrey, BC (Mother resides at Belaire 28 14824 North Bluff Road), not in support; - Charles Kelly, 703-14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support; - Gayle Moss, 703-14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support; - Sheila Begg, 701-1551 Foster Street, White Rock, BC, not in support; - Lynne Sinclair, 15490 Columbia Avenue, White Rock, BC, in support; - Amanda Harby, (Mother resides at Evergreen Baptist Care Home), in support; - Jal C Wadia, 2003-15152 Russell Avenue, White Rock, BC, not in support; - Will and Maria Filion, 102 and 605 14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support; - Beverley Scott, Surrey, BC, (Mother and Stepfather reside at Evergreen Manor), in support; - Mary Gale Smith, 704-14842 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support; - Blanche Breaks, 202-15080 Prospect Avenue, White Rock, BC, in support; - Esmond Preus (3 submissions), 203, 14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support; - Sirje Rumberg, 404, 14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support; AGENDA Page 13 Minutes of a Public Hearing of City of White Rock Council held at the White Rock Community Centre February 3, 2014 (Public Hearing was reconvened on February 4, 2014) 29 - Betty Graham, President of the Shearwater Residences, White Rock, BC, not in support; - Ellen Kennett, 2068-148 Street, Surrey, BC, in support; - Robert Samson, 14788 Russell Avenue, White Rock, BC, not in support; - Debbie MacKay, 303, 1389 Winter Street, White Rock, BC, in support; - Marilyn Shore, 207, 1368 Foster Street, White Rock, BC, in support; - Barry Miller, 1002, 14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support; - Ruth Miller, 1002, 14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support; - Leona Magnuson, 111, 1531 Everall Street, White Rock, BC, in support; - Marilyn Shaw, Resident, Evergreen Baptist Campus of Care, White Rock, BC, in support; - Nick and Dolores Diachak, 115, 1531 Everall Street, White Rock, BC, in support; - Claire Safriet, 602, 1531 Everall Street, White Rock, BC, in support; - Emma Altermum, 506, 1531 Everall Street, White Rock, BC, in support; - Egou and Dorthea Fuhrunum, 406, 1531 Everall Street, White Rock, BC, in support; - Peter Huebert, 1531 Everall Street, White Rock, BC, in support; - Doreen Thatcher, (resides at Evergreen Manor), White Rock, BC, in support; - Marjorie Hockley, 204-1531 Everall Street, White Rock, BC, in support - Margaret Ney, 27 Kings Road, Lethbridge, AB, (mother Christina Stewart resides at Evergreen Baptist Home), in support; - Muriel Endersby, 14352 Magdalen Avenue, White Rock, BC, in support; - Doris Engelmann, 806, 1045 Quayside Drive, New Westminster, BC (father Herold Baum resides at Evergreen Care Campus), in support; - Lucia Taschuk, 1588 Stevens Street, White Rock, BC, in support; - Rita Lowen, 15377 Victoria Avenue, White Rock, BC, in support; - Denise Barden, White Rock, BC, in support; - Robert and Karlene Burns, 232, 14990 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, in support; - Gail Duffey, 14446 Mann Park Crescent, White Rock, BC, in support; - Steve Ussyk, Thrift Avenue, White Rock, BC, in support; - Chris Daigle, 17011 Friesian Drive, Surrey, BC, (mother in law and father reside Evergreen), in support; - Larry Borody, 20252-93A Avenue, Langley, BC, (father Paul Borody resides at Evergreen Care Home), in support; AGENDA Page 14 Minutes of a Public Hearing of City of White Rock Council held at the White Rock Community Centre February 3, 2014 (Public Hearing was reconvened on February 4, 2014) 30 - Lynda Obodiak, 1846-148A Street, Surrey, BC (mother Anne Murray resides at Evergreen Care Home), in support; - John Kyle Blackmore, 134-43995 Chilliwack Mountain Road, Chilliwack, BC (mother Betty Lorraine Blackmore resides at 123-1550 Oxford Street), in support; - Allan Patterson, 3040 Boucherie Road, West Kelowna, BC, (mother Betty Lorraine Blackmore resides at 123-1550 Oxford Street), in support; - Bernadette and John Doucette, 301-14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support; - Faye Lamont, 602-1442 Foster Street, White Rock, BC, in support - Rick Schunter, Chair, Evergreen Board of Directors, in support; - Barbara Hill, 952 Lee Street, White Rock, BC, in support; - George Reinzuch, 15090 Beachview Avenue, White Rock, BC, not in support; - T. O. Nrondin, in support; - Anita Sabowski, in support; - Lorraine Hand, 15789 Cliff Avenue, White Rock, BC, in support; - Ian and Carol Managhan, 1237 Maple Street, White Rock, BC, (mother/mother in law resides at Evergreen), in support; 1st Petition Noting: The application of Evergreen Baptist Campus of Care to construct a new care facility at 1550 Oxford Street, White Rock. We, the undersigned, acknowledging the extreme shortage of care beds and recognizing Evergreen’s outstanding record of providing excellent care, strongly support said application: The petition included 148 signatures. 2nd Petition Noting: Public Hearing – February 2, 2014 – Proposed Bylaw 2045. We the undersigned White Rock residents, all living at Evergreen Manor – 1531 Everall Street, White Rock, BC V4B 3T2, wish to inform White Rock Council of our support for the proposed development by Evergreen Baptist Care Society. Due to the health challenges of many of us, we are unable to attend the Public Hearing on February 3, 2012, and are physically unable to write a letter ourselves so we are signing our names in agreement to this letter. The reasons for our support are as follows: 1. More and more seniors are looking for places to live that provide services that they need. Evergreen’s rebuild will provide the care that they need. 2. Having more care beds will help to alleviate the overcrowding at Peace Arch Hospital. 3. Couples requiring different levels of care would be able to live in close proximity to each other. 4. A new facility would provide nicer rooms than our old wings, so residents could spend their last days in comfort. 5. A new facility would provide greater safety and security for all. AGENDA Page 15 Minutes of a Public Hearing of City of White Rock Council held at the White Rock Community Centre February 3, 2014 (Public Hearing was reconvened on February 4, 2014) 31 We the undersigned citizens of White Rock, living at Evergreen Manor, 1531 Everall Street, agree with the attached letter dated January 28, 2014 and would request that White Rock City Council approve the rezoning of the Evergreen Baptist Campus of Care Property. The petition included 59 signatures. 3rd Petition Noting: We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens, who are opposed to the Evergreen Project as currently conceived. We urge White Rock City Council to reject the Rezoning Application submitted by the Developer (Evergreen) and reject Bylaw No. 2045. We believe that it is the responsibility of the City to preserve and protect the interests and rights of existing home owners over the interests of Developers who are seeking aggressive rezoning to better enable them to achieve their revenue growth and financial goals. The petition included 192 signatures. In addition to the 192 signatures there were 12 e-mailed notations regarding support of the petition. Totalling 204 notations of support (two of these e-mails were from Presidents of the Strata for Sussex House and the Shearwater). The Chair invited those in attendance who deemed their interest in property affected by proposed Bylaw No. 2045 to present their comments. - Brigitte Knoepfel, 308-1354 Winter Street, White Rock, BC, spoke in support of the Proposal as both her mother and father reside at Evergreen Care Home. The current facilities and conditions are in need of updating to meet the needs of both of her parents. - Karen Shaw, 205-14950 Thrift Avenue, White Rock, BC, spoke in support of the proposal noting she has lived in White Rock most of her life and it is coming to a time where she will need to reside in a facility with these services, it is important for her to stay in White Rock, Evergreen Care Home is where she would like to go, the updates and additional beds are needed. - Gordon Ferguson, 1695-145 Street, Surrey, BC, spoke in support of the application on behalf of his parents Norman and June Ferguson, both reside on the Evergreen Care grounds. The facility has insufficient space; the rooms are small and dated. In its current state it is difficult to meet the needs of those who reside there. Updates to the facility would be welcomed. - A submission was read on behalf of Louisa Bomben, 502, 14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support of the proposal noting concerns with the loss of trees, loss of view, blockage of sunlight and in the evening the additional lighting the new building will bring and the impact of the construction on the environment / trees. - Savannah Mumford, 942 Keil Street, White Rock, BC, spoke in favour of the proposal noting her grandmother lives at Evergreen Care Home. AGENDA Page 16 Minutes of a Public Hearing of City of White Rock Council held at the White Rock Community Centre February 3, 2014 (Public Hearing was reconvened on February 4, 2014) 32 - Charles Kelly, 703, 14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support of the current proposal noting concern with the process of the application including what was offered in regard to collecting public input. The City should consider implementing “Good Neighbour Guidelines” to help address the special needs of care facilities in order to ensure an equal process is consistently followed. - -Beryl Lackman, 904, 14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support of the proposal noting concerns with the size of the development / height, removal of trees and the further effect on traffic and parking nearby. - Wendy Mumford, 942 Keil Street, White Rock, BC, in support of the proposal (MotherIn-Law resides there), the current facility is small and is in need of updates, it does not accommodate newer sized wheel chairs and use of a walker. - Barry Miller read a submission on behalf of Terri Vigfusson, 204-14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support of the proposal noting concerns with the changes in development plans over the past few years and further concerns were noted regarding the building height, removal of trees, the visual impact for his property both during the day (view) and evening (additional lights at the building) and the financial impact on his property value. - Pauline Chang, 1001-14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support of the proposal noting concerns with the removal of trees, increase in traffic and insufficient parking that will be required, possible loss of view and devaluation of her property. - Pauline Chang read a submission on behalf of Dianna Lo, 1004, 14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support of the proposal noting the following concerns with the potential impact it could bring the surrounding area, shade (loss of sunlight), obscure view, reduction of property values, increase of traffic, removal of trees and increase of pollution (light, noise and air). - George Reinzuch, 15090 Beachview Avenue, White Rock, BC, not in support of the current proposal (father resided at Evergreen Care) noting that Evergreen Baptist Campus of Care Society is not a ”not for profit organization” and that the additional beds are not necessarily for White Rock Residents. - Terry Buckle read a submission on behalf of Maria Schweighafer, 604-14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support of the proposal, noting concern that it is difficult for an ambulance to get to the site due to the area topography as well as it impedes enjoyable walking areas without difficulty, additional traffic, building height, building design (institutional look), removal of trees, proximity to the property line and potential impact to her property value. AGENDA Page 17 Minutes of a Public Hearing of City of White Rock Council held at the White Rock Community Centre February 3, 2014 (Public Hearing was reconvened on February 4, 2014) 33 - Barry Miller read a submission on behalf of Ruth Miller, 1002-14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support of the proposal noting concern with the care of the residents at Evergreen having to live within a construction site (noise, dust and confusion) for two (2) years, including the loss of ability to walk around the site due to sidewalk closures. - A submission was read on behalf of Alison Volken, 702-14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support of the proposal noting concern with potential loss of views, the disruption in the area as two (2) years of construction takes place, the shape of the building resulting in loss of natural light, the removal of trees and the potential impact on her property value. - Gayle Smith read a submission on behalf of Sirje Rumberg, 404, 14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support of the proposal noting concern of the potential impact on the surrounding area properties due to its height, location on the site, removal of trees, increase of traffic in the area, the construction for a two (2) year time frame, and pollution (light). - Wayne Tunis, 1102, 14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support of the proposal noting concern with the choice of keeping the Evergreen facility up and running during the two (2) year construction period (safety concerns with an active construction site) and the impact of the proposal on the nearby residential buildings including loss of views, light diminished, removal of trees, increase of traffic, ambulance calls could increase, visitor traffic to increase and parking could pose a problem. - Carolyn Leslie, 508-1442 Foster Street, White Rock, BC, in support of the proposal noting that the current buildings at Evergreen are old, outdated and do not meet the needs of those that reside there today. - Barry Miller, 1002, 14824, North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support of the current proposal, noting concern with the building height, impact on the view, loss of sunlight, outdoor light pollution at night, ongoing traffic, further need of emergency vehicles, the impact of ongoing construction for two (2) years, and removal of trees. Asked that other options be looked at for the site to accommodate the surrounding area. - Pauline Chang read a submission on behalf of Bernadette and John Doucette, 301,14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support of the proposal noting concern with possible loss of views and the impact the project will have on the surrounding properties, removal of trees, building height, the location of the proposal at twenty (20) feet from the property line and potential light pollution, - John Chang, 1001, 14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support of the proposal noting concern with the way the application process was conducted and the proximity to the property line at twenty (20) feet, air quality, environmental impact, additional traffic, loss of views, strains on parking and potential loss of property value. AGENDA Page 18 Minutes of a Public Hearing of City of White Rock Council held at the White Rock Community Centre February 3, 2014 (Public Hearing was reconvened on February 4, 2014) 34 - Dennis Lypka read a submission on behalf of Val Dreuer, 302, 14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support of the proposal due to the closeness of the development to the property line. - Charles Kelly read a submission on behalf of Roger Smith, 704, 14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC not in support of the proposal noting concerns with the resulting quality of air and sound, removal of trees, height of the development and change of the zoning bylaw to accommodate the development. - Terry Buckle, 701, 14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC not in support of the proposal stating that having a hospital like building of the proposed size is not the same as having a home close with the same closeness to the property line and noted concern regarding the facility having their lights on through the evening, additional traffic, too close to a residential building, removal of trees, development will devalue nearby properties, loss of daylight and the view. - Mary Gale Smith,704, 14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support of the proposal noting concerns with the application process (including the development sign not giving enough information and mail out of notice for the information meeting), health and welfare of the current residents while living in an area of construction for two (2) years, organization of the construction of the project, placement of the building could be more conducive to the residents and nearby property owners, traffic during the construction, parking, building height (safety during a fire or natural disaster for those with mobility issues) and removal of trees. - Doreen Tadros, 104- 1371 Foster Street, White Rock, BC, not in support of the proposal, would like to preserve and enhance White Rock’s uniqueness, residents must be able to trust bylaws can stand as adopted and cannot be changed to meet the need of the developer. - Rick Buckle, 701, 14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support of the proposal, noting concerns with the look of an institutional building, height, location to the nearby property line, removal of trees and the impact of loss of sunlight. - Wayne Tunis read a submission on behalf of Stan and Nancy Thompson, 801, 14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support of the proposal, noting concerns noted regarding the impact the proposal would have on their home, parking in the area, and increased traffic. - Maria Tejers, 207, Evergreen Care Facility, White Rock, BC, spoke in support of the proposal stating that people need the Evergreen facility. The Chairperson called a ten (10) minute recess at 8:59 p.m. The Chairperson reconvened the public hearing at 9:11 p.m. AGENDA Page 19 Minutes of a Public Hearing of City of White Rock Council held at the White Rock Community Centre February 3, 2014 (Public Hearing was reconvened on February 4, 2014) 35 - Lorraine Adair, 1101, 14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support of the proposal noting that the current views and the evergreen trees in her area are appreciated and stated that the proposal will impact her enjoyment of her home. Concerns were also noted regarding the removal of trees and the proximity of the new building to the property line. - Wendy Hampton, 101-14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support of the proposal noting concern with the potential impact it will have on the neighbourhood including increased congestion of traffic. - Dawn Turner, 15374 88 Avenue, Surrey, BC, spoke in support of the application stating this is something that is needed (more beds for care for seniors.) The current buildings have small rooms and are aging; they are in need of updating. - Michelle Lapensee, 19676 48 Avenue, Langley, BC, spoke in support of the proposal (Great Grandmother and Grandmother have lived at Evergreen) and stated there is a need for further care beds, Evergreen Care Facility planted most of the trees on their site and they plan to replant more trees. - Dr. Paul Hawkes, 124-16275 15 Avenue (wife lives at Evergreen) they need the extra space, there is not a vast number of places such as this and it is needed in White Rock. - Lorraine Adair read a submission on behalf of Karm Badyal, 1101, 14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support of the proposal noting concerns with the potential impact on her property value, loss of privacy, loss of natural light and requested smart city development where the neighbhours are considered. - Braden Adair, 16222 23A Avenue, Surrey, BC, not in support of the application noting that it will spoil the atmosphere of the homes for the residents of the Belaire, and concerns of the close proximity of the proposal to the property line. - Mike Cantor, 903, 14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support of the proposal noting concerns with the location of the new facility to the property line, that the residents of the Evergreen Care facility will be living in an area of construction and stated that when a major facility is planned the nearby residents should be consulted and given equal consideration. - Karen Bouillet, 15476 Thrift Avenue, White Rock, BC, in support of the proposal (Mother-In-Law lives there). - Rosemary Purvis, 13025 24 Avenue, Surrey, BC, in support of the proposal stating that change is inevitable and that Evergreen Care Facility is in need of updating, it cannot expand out it needs to expand up. AGENDA Page 20 Minutes of a Public Hearing of City of White Rock Council held at the White Rock Community Centre February 3, 2014 (Public Hearing was reconvened on February 4, 2014) 36 - Carolyn Murdock, 16997-105 A Avenue, Surrey, BC, in support of the proposal. - Eileen Mumford, 205, 15466 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, in support, (Mother resides at Evergreen Care facility) stated that Evergreen is in need of rebuilding, the extra care beds are required. - Wayne Tunis read a submission on behalf of Frank and Lynn Driscoll, 505, 14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support of the proposal noting concerns with traffic and noise (now excessive with the proposal it will increase), potential impact to diminish value of their home, removal of trees. - Dennis Lypka read a submission on behalf of Daljit Siduu, 302, 14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support of the proposal noting concerns with the impact on his lifestyle, the construction process will be noisy and lengthy, increase of traffic, parking, loss of trees, air/light/noise pollution and the proximity of the new development and stated that visually it will have a negative impact on his property/outlook. - Mike Cantor read a submission on behalf of Katherine and Doug Hutton, 303- 14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support of the proposal noting concerns with the height, and the proximity of the building to the property line, impact on the trees on the Evergreen site, increase to traffic, noise and exhaust. - Margaret Woods, 14170 Wheatley Avenue, White Rock, BC, not in support of the proposal, noting concerns with proposed density, the proximity of the building to the property line and the application process and that it will be two (2) years of construction and asked who will benefit from the project. - Ken Cunningham, 30-1740 Southmere Cresent, Surrey, BC, spoke in support of the proposal. - Will Filion, 15791 Collingwood Crescent, Surrey, BC, not in support of the proposal, noting concerns with the building height, proximity to the property line, removal of trees, loss of view, loss of natural light, potential building damage during a two (2) year construction period, loss of parking spaces and safety of those with mobility issues residing at Evergreen Care Facility during the construction as well later living in an eight (8) storey building and stated that his investment will be compromised. - John Chipperfield, 14741 Goggs Avenue, White Rock, BC, not in support of the proposal, noting concerns with traffic on Oxford Street (stating it is already congested) when shifts are changing at Evergreen Care Facility the traffic can come to a standstill. During construction and later due to a larger facility this will be of further concern, suggested the City review the neighbourhood and the other potential future developments prior to making a decision on this proposal. AGENDA Page 21 Minutes of a Public Hearing of City of White Rock Council held at the White Rock Community Centre February 3, 2014 (Public Hearing was reconvened on February 4, 2014) 37 - Rosemary Hudson, 103-1461 Foster Street, White Rock, BC, in support of the proposal, (Mother resides at the Evergreen Baptist Home) this expansion needs to go ahead the residents are cramped as there is not enough room. - Kathy Brown, 21509 46A Avenue, Langley, BC, in support of the proposal, (Parents live in Evergreen) stated the need for additional beds is real, there is no-where to go to relocate the current residents during construction and that B wing is in need of an update to accommodate the residents of today. - Cliff Annabel, 1502 and 1512 Russell Avenue, White Rock, BC, in support of the proposal, the community needs this facility. - Stephen Bennett, 34182 Glenmill Street, Abbotsford, BC, (Executive Director of Evergreen Care Facility), in support of the proposal, outlined the need for additional beds and upgrades to the facility and gave a general outline of how the application developed. - Jacquie Damanin, 216-2501 161 Street, Surrey, BC, not in support of the proposal noting concern regarding the process and as a local realtor spoke regarding the potential impacts and why (compromise of quality of life, bright lights, additional traffic and noise) that the development could have on the neighbhours. - Cyndie Richards, 14788 Russell Avenue, White Rock, BC, not in support of the proposal, noting concern with the City amending the Official Community Plan and not considering the neighbours when this is done. - Will Filion read a submission on behalf of Bill Homes, 803-14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support of the proposal, noting concerns regarding the potential impact on views and the negative impact that will have on property resale, removal of trees and possibility of having to lose further trees following construction. At 10:33 p.m. the Chairperson adjourned the Public Hearing for Bylaw No. 2045 until 6:00 p.m., Tuesday, February 4, 2014 to be held at White Rock City Hall, 15322 Buena Vista Avenue, White Rock, BC. AGENDA Page 22 Minutes of a Public Hearing of City of White Rock Council held at the White Rock Community Centre February 3, 2014 (Public Hearing was reconvened on February 4, 2014) 38 RECONVENED PUBLIC HEARING The Chairperson reconvened the Public Hearing for Bylaw No. 2045 at 6:00 p.m., February 4, 2014. PRESENT: Mayor Baldwin Councillor Fathers Councillor Lawrence Councillor Meyer Councillor Robinson ABSENT: Councillor Campbell Councillor Hutchinson STAFF: D. Bottrill, Chief Administrative Officer R. Wilson, Acting Director of Planning and Development Services C. McBeath, Planning Technician T. Arthur, City Clerk Press: 2 Public: 81 The City Clerk informed that the following five (5) submissions regarding Bylaw No. 2045 were received after 4:00 p.m. on Monday, February 3, 2014: The submissions were summarized as follows: four (4) in support of the proposal and one (1) not in support. - Teira Mackie, 403-14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support; - Leslie Ford, 3725-155 Street, Surrey, BC, on behalf of Bernice Moore, Evergreen Care Home, in support; - Darlene Sedgwick, 1081 Kent Street, White Rock, BC, on behalf of Barbara Domijan, Evergreen Resident, in support; - Heather Pattern, Music Therapist for Evergreen Baptist Campus of Care, 1501 Everall Street, White Rock, BC, in support; and - Patricia Hartzell, 13970 Coldicutt Avenue, White Rock, BC, in support. AGENDA Page 23 Minutes of a Public Hearing of City of White Rock Council held at the White Rock Community Centre February 3, 2014 (Public Hearing was reconvened on February 4, 2014) 39 The Chairperson continued to call names from the Speakers’ List from February 3, 2014: - Esmond Preus, 203, 14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support of the proposal noting concern with the proximity to the property line and stated that Evergreen will enhance their property but the neighbouring properties would be devalued. - Dennis Lypka, 101, 14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support of the proposal noting concerns with the application process, building height, building siting, loss of trees, loss of view, impacts on livability, and the potential impact on sale and property value. - Janice Kurlick read a submission on behalf of Kimberly Thomas, 933 Maple Street, White Rock, BC, in support of the proposal, stating that is helpful that this upgrade that can be made without displacing the residents, staff at Evergreen are to be praised for being able to bring these needed upgrades. - Jal Wadia, 15152 Russell Avenue, White Rock, BC, not in support of the proposal, stated that care beds are not getting lost, the same number of beds will go elsewhere, the proposed beds at Evergreen are not earmarked for White Rock residents, if the proposal does not go through, the proposal will be given to the next facility that was considered. The Official Community Plan is in place, Council should not consider spot rezoning. Concerns were noted regarding the proposed footprint of the building/proximity to the property line and building height. Would like to see the opportunity for the applicant and the nearby residents review the application together. - Jane Ecalne, 1338 Merklin Street, White Rock, BC, in support of the proposal, the building is old, and designed for the needs of the seniors is the right timing, additional 92 beds will help our seniors. - Lori Shushant read out a submission on behalf of Linda Kapalka, 14139 Marine Drive, White Rock, BC in support of the proposal, very important for seniors to have somewhere to go, the present model is the best model for the seniors and their families. - Judy Higginbotham, 45, 1725 Southmere Cresent, Surrey, BC, in support of the proposal, stating it is a local, accessible community facility. The facility is 50 years old and is in need of upgrading and modernization. Evergreen is developing within the guidelines of the Official Community Plan at 30% lot coverage the majority of the trees and particularly the mature trees will remain, setbacks are within the guidelines, no variances are requested. The roof top and amenities will be screened and the parking lot will be half underground and the remaining parking will be sheltered from the neighbors. AGENDA Page 24 Minutes of a Public Hearing of City of White Rock Council held at the White Rock Community Centre February 3, 2014 (Public Hearing was reconvened on February 4, 2014) 40 - Yasmin Wadia, 15152 Russell Avenue, White Rock, BC, not in support of the proposal, stating that new development should not negatively impact existing development. Concerns were noted about the loss of sunshine and the view, building height, noise air, traffic pollution, removal of trees and traffic congestion. The topography of the site needs to be considered in terms of traffic and city planning (including upkeep of sidewalks). - Dr. Ken Klassen read a submission on behalf of Egon and Dorthea Fuhrman, 406, 1541 Everall Street, White Rock, BC spoke in support of the proposal. - Dr. Ken Klassen read a submission on behalf of Ewald Siperro, 1550 Oxford Street, White Rock, BC, spoke in support of the proposal, stating it is practical for the residents to be able to remain on site as the improvements are being made, He is looking forward to a new home, and the construction will not be bothersome. His friends are there and he enjoys the staff at Evergreen. - Dr. Ken Klassen read a submission on behalf of Nick and Dolares Diachok, 115-1531 Everall Street, White Rock, BC, in support of the proposal, stating there is a need of replacement and upgrades to the facility. - Dr. Ken Klassen on behalf of Audrey Holderness, in support of the proposal, have lived there seven (7) years, the beds, building and the equipment are in need of upgrades and expansion. - Barry Miller read a submission on behalf of Bruce Fraser, 402, 14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support of the proposal, stated that vested interests should not be involved in this process. Evergreen is not an acute care hospital, and it does not serve the population of White Rock specifically. Residents of Belaire are open to an alternate proposal that can permit the replacement of the existing buildings, and still preserve the esthetics and quality life of the surrounding community, one with minimum disruption to present residents and prevent the effects of construction period. - Pam Postle, 12820-26A Street, Surrey, BC (mother Bernice Moore resides at Evergreen), in support of the proposal, stating the need is great for an update and the increase of beds this will offer, the residents do not want to be displaced during construction. - Janice Paren read a submission on behalf of Larry Borody, 20252-93A Avenue, Langley, BC, (Paul Brody’s father lives at Evergreen) in support of the proposal. - Janice Paren read a submission on behalf of Marilyn Shaw, 315, 1531 Everall Street, White Rock, BC, in support of the proposal, stating it will be beneficial to all concerned. AGENDA Page 25 Minutes of a Public Hearing of City of White Rock Council held at the White Rock Community Centre February 3, 2014 (Public Hearing was reconvened on February 4, 2014) 41 - Janice Paren read a submission on behalf of Dorreen Thatcher, 114, 1531 Everall Street, White Rock, BC, in support of the proposal, there is a need for additional beds. - Colleen Jobb, 6316 124 Street, Surrey, BC, in support of the proposal, (Mother and Father have lived at Evergreen), there are many seniors who will want and need to call Evergreen home. - Lori Shushant read a submission on behalf of Linda Ingham, 205-1341 Foster Street, White Rock, BC, in support of the proposal, (past Administrator of Evergreen) there is a need for this facility, it is a key part of the community, residents want to remain on site their friends and family are close by. - Janice Kurlick read a submission on behalf of Marjorie Hockley, 204-1531 Everall Street, White Rock, BC, in support of the proposal, stating this is a necessary facility, it helps those with lower means. Ms. Hockley wants to stay on site during construction; she does not want to leave her home at Evergreen. - Janice Kurlic read a submission on behalf of Margaret Ney, 27 Kings Road, Lethbridge Alberta, (Mother Christina Steward lives at Evergreen) in support of the proposal, the facility is in need to be updated. The residents deserve the benefits of a modern facility, moving the seniors (even for the time only to accommodate construction) is difficult as it takes a long time to settle in somewhere else. - Colleen Jobb on behalf of Leona Magnuson, 111, 1531 Everall Street, White Rock, BC, in support of the proposal, she has a number of friends that live at Evergreen, there is a great need for more homes like this one. - Lori Shushant read a submission on behalf of Claire Seifriet 602-1531 Everall Street, White Rock, BC, in support of the proposal. - Colleen Jobb read a submission on behalf of Emma Hamm, 506 1531 Everall Street, White Rock, BC, in support of the proposal, there are many in need of care, the additional beds are needed. - Lori Shushant read a submission on behalf of Annwen Loverin, 115-560 Ravenwood Drive, North Vancouver, BC, (Stepfather Andrew Lyal resides at Evergreen) in support of the proposal, stated that this rebuild of the facility is important. - Juanitta Popoff, 14182 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, (Father did reside and Mother resides there), in support of the proposal, stated the upgrades are needed, residents and families need the opportunity to remain to live nearby. Moving the residents is difficult, they don’t understand, their routine and rooms are theirs and what they are use to, a move could have a negative impact on their health. AGENDA Page 26 Minutes of a Public Hearing of City of White Rock Council held at the White Rock Community Centre February 3, 2014 (Public Hearing was reconvened on February 4, 2014) 42 - Patty Wheelden read a submission on behalf of Shirley Hudon, 1576-161 Street, Surrey, BC, in support of the proposal. - Eric Chew read a submission on behalf of Dale B. Pope, 1577 126A Street, Surrey, BC, (Father did reside and Mother resides at Evergreen) in support of the proposal stating there is a need to upgrade the facility to allow for comfort for the residents and staff. Modern standards and increased of capacity of residential care is needed. - Eric Chew read a submission on behalf of Jack Wilson, 301 1501 Everall Street White Rock, BC, in support of the proposal, appreciates that various levels of care, the current facility is in need of repair and modernization. - Eric Chew read a submission on behalf of Steve Ussyk, 15743 Thrift Avenue, White Rock, BC, in support of the proposal, not all care homes offer what Evergreen does, an upgrade will open more beds and enable Evergreen to provide a needed service. - Yvonne Chaulk, 12650-21A Avenue, Surrey, BC, (Father resides at Evergreen), in support of the proposal noting more care beds are needed. - Teira Mackie, 403, 14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support of the proposal, believes there are other options that will not have a negative impact on the Belair building. Suggestion was made that construction can be done in phases or on other areas on their property. Concerns were noted regarding building height and the proximity to the property line, public safety and noise population. - Randy Marks, 403, 14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support of the proposal, believes the building can be located further from the Belair building (construction to the east/south), noting that the lot coverage is 30% thus leaving other options to locate on the property and would like to see the construction phased. - Janice Kurlic read a submission on behalf of Lynne Sinclair, 15490 Columbia Avenue, White Rock, BC, in support of the proposal, stating that the building height is less than the building(s) already on the property. Moving residents from their home during construction could be difficult on them. Additional beds are needed; this is an opportunity for the community. - Maria Schweighofer, 14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, not in support of the proposal as it is presented, noting concern for the residents due to noise from construction, dust etc. - Ken Jones, 15761 Goggs Avenue, White Rock, BC, noted this has been divisive for the community; flexibility is required from both sides. Supportive of the Mayor meeting with both parties, in coming to a solution that can work for all. The City’s tree policy includes a component for view protection. Stability in the Zoning Bylaw and the Official Community Plan are needed. AGENDA Page 27 Minutes of a Public Hearing of City of White Rock Council held at the White Rock Community Centre February 3, 2014 (Public Hearing was reconvened on February 4, 2014) 43 - Rick Schunter, 15346-62B Avenue, Surrey, BC, Chairman of the Board of Evergreen, stated that Evergreen is a not for profit society and surplus funds collected are put back into the operations at Evergreen, it is a volunteer Board of Directors. The option to build in the current footprint is no longer open to them, it is not in the best interest to move the residents during construction, they would be taken from what they know, what they are use to. - Stephan Bennett read a submission on behalf of Keith Anderson, 1428 128 Street, Surrey, BC, in support of the proposal stating it will meet the growing needs of care, there is a need for this proposal, it is an opportunity for White Rock, more residential care beds are needed. - Stephan Bennett read a submission on behalf of Dale Mumford, 942 Keil Street White Rock, BC, (Mother resides at Evergreen) in support of the proposal stated that relocating the residents is not a good idea, it requires a great deal of adjustment, moving could be devastating to the residents and keeping families together is important. Councillor Lawrence departed the public hearing at 7:46 p.m. - George Rinzuick, 15090 Beachview Avenue, White Rock, BC, not in support of the proposal, noted that those in favour of the proposal either have a family member, or live at the facility or are affiliated with the facility and those who are not in support in summary have noted concern with loss of privacy, loss of views, impact on their lifestyle and enjoyment of their lifestyle and the financial impact. Gave a review of the makeup of values for the units within the Belair and the impact that would occur should views be removed from those units. Stated our homes are our investment. - Bruce Kennett, 12850- 26 Avenue, Surrey, BC, in support of the proposal. - Debbie Mitchell, 13782 Malabar Avenue, White Rock, BC, in support of the proposal, stated there is excellent care provided by Evergreen and a community connection for their preschool, moving the residents could be devastating, loss of trees and view should not come before care of seniors. - Randy Marx, 403-14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, stated that the proposal as presented is not the only option, there can be tweaks made without impact to the neighbours, adjustment is the key. AGENDA Page 28 Minutes of a Public Hearing of City of White Rock Council held at the White Rock Community Centre February 3, 2014 (Public Hearing was reconvened on February 4, 2014) 44 - Barry Miller 1002-14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, regarding having residents remain on site during major construction: there are examples where moving the residents has occurred. Planning could have been put in place sooner by Evergreen to not place further residents in the buildings that would result in less persons having to be moved / placed at other facilities at a later date. - Dennis Lypka, noted two (2) documents available in the submissions of this public hearing titled “The Guide to Special Care Facilities for Applicant and Communities – City of Calgary Land Use Planning and Policy” and “City of Vancouver Land Use and Development Policies and Guidelines – Community Care Facility – Class B and Group Residence Guidelines.” - Stephan Bennett, Executive Director of the Evergreen Baptist Care Facility, stated regarding space to move the residents as of today there is not the space to move the residents in this community, there is very little space available at this time. The two noted developments where residents were moved during the construction phase there was space available in their communities for them to move them. If Fraser Health approved the plan (they did not) to relocate Evergreen residents, they would be moved to Chilliwack, Burnaby, New Westminster and Langley with a few remaining to able to go South Surrey and White Rock. - Mark Ankenman, Architect for the proposal, after discussion at the Feb. 3, 2014 public hearing a new drawing was displayed which showed the footprint of the B and C wings moved 15’ North/East which is 17’6” East. The Health Authority guidelines for complex care facilities are strict; each wing has fourteen (14) beds and must include specific items (outdoor space, a loop, bathing facilities, kitchen and lounge) the footprint proposed is required. The two wings have to be combined to create a neighbourhood and the negibhour has to be within 28 to 30 units. It can’t be done in two (phased) it would require twice the staff. Trees, prior to the shift just noted there were twenty (22) to be removed, with this new layout there will be sixteen (16) to be removed. Building heights were explained, the proposal is not going to the maximum of the zoning bylaw. This building is 122.35 meters to the top of the mechanical penthouse or staircase penthouses. - Charles Kelly, 703, 14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, stated when you give trust you get trust back, lack of trust is a poor situation. The heart of this is a failure to consult and it is the responsibility of the developer to consult. The developer chose the not come forward until November. The process is of concern and lack of engagement of the citizens. - Margaret Woods, 14170 Wheatley Avenue, White Rock, BC, stated she wanted to clarify what she meant by a “for profit organization”. The beds at Evergreen are not guaranteed to go to White Rock residents. There are other areas in the City for additional beds to be placed. AGENDA Page 29 Minutes of a Public Hearing of City of White Rock Council held at the White Rock Community Centre February 3, 2014 (Public Hearing was reconvened on February 4, 2014) 45 - Dennis Lypka, 101-14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, there has been reference to when the Belair building was constructed (trees were removed etc,), stated that no one now living at the Belair built it. - Stephan Bennett, Executive Director Evergreen Care Facility in response to it being stated that there is an appearance that there was no consultation with the public / neighbours, wanted to let the public know that they were under a confidentiality order by Fraser Health from May 2013 until October 2013. - Mr. Lypka, 101, 14824 North Bluff Road, White Rock, BC, I respect the position Stephan Bennett was in regarding confidentiality, I will say you work on it for six months, and you get to May. - Margaret 14170 Wheatley Avenue, White Rock, BC, CD Zones are site specific, at this time, the developer notes they do not plan to build as high as the zone permits, but they are permitted to build higher. It is important to put trust back into the issue, good planning makes for good development which is critical for all of us. Everyone is encourages to contact our MLA and MP about the lack of beds, they are the persons who can make a change. PUBLIC HEARING CONCLUDED The Chairperson declared the Public Hearing for proposed Bylaw No. 2045 concluded at 8:38 p.m. __________________________ Mayor Baldwin __________________________ T. Arthur, City Clerk AGENDA Page 30 Minutes of a Regular Meeting of City of White Rock Council held in the City Hall Council Chambers February 3, 2014 (Meeting held February 4, 2014 due to an extended Public Hearing) PRESENT: Mayor Baldwin Councillor Fathers Councillor Hutchinson Councillor Lawrence Councillor Meyer Councillor Robinson ABSENT: Councillor Campbell STAFF: D. Bottrill, Chief Administrative Officer T. Arthur, City Clerk 23 Press: 2 Public: 15 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 8:45 p.m. February 4, 2014. 2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA It was MOVED and SECONDED THAT the Corporation of the City of White Rock Council adopts the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for February 3, 2014 and held, due to an extended public hearing, February 4, 2014 as circulated. CARRIED 2014-039 3. ADOPTION OF MINUTES Regular Council Meeting – January 27, 2014 It was MOVED and SECONDED THAT the Corporation of the City of White Rock Council adopts the following meeting minutes as circulated: 2014-040 Regular Council Meeting – January 27, 2014. CARRIED 4. DELEGATIONS AND PETITIONS 4.1 DELEGATIONS None AGENDA Page 31 Minutes of a Regular Meeting of City of White Rock Council held in the City Hall Council Chambers February 3, 2014 (Meeting held February 4, 2014 due to an extended Public Hearing) 24 4.2 PETITIONS None 5. PRESENTATIONS AND CORPORATE REPORTS 5.1 PRESENTATIONS None 5.2 CORPORATE REPORTS 5.2.1 LAND BASED MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Report dated February 3, 2014 from the Manager of Information Technology titled “Land Based Management System.” It was MOVED and SECONDED THAT Council: 2014-041 1. Receives for information the corporate report dated February 3, 2014 from the Manager of Information Technology titled “Land Based Management System;” 2. Approves a contract in the amount of $295,000 (excluding taxes) be awarded to Tempest Development Group Inc., based on their proposal as outlined in this report; and 3. Authorizes the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the necessary documents. CARRIED 2014-042 6. MINUTES AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF COMMITTEES 6.1 MINUTES 6.1.1 STANDING COMMITTEE MEETINGS Land Use and Planning Committee Meeting – January 27, 2014 It was MOVED and SECONDED THAT Council receives for information the January 27, 2014 Land Use and Planning Committee meeting minutes as circulated. CARRIED AGENDA Page 32 Minutes of a Regular Meeting of City of White Rock Council held in the City Hall Council Chambers February 3, 2014 (Meeting held February 4, 2014 due to an extended Public Hearing) 25 6.1.1 a)LAND USE AND PLANNING COMMITTEE HELD ON JANUARY 27, 2014 Clerk’s Note: The items that were considered by the Land Use and Planning Committee at their meeting held on January 27, 2014 were placed on the agenda under Bylaws – Item 7.1.1 and Permits – Item 7.2.1 for consideration by Council. 6.1.2 SELECT COMMITTEE MEETINGS a) Rail Safety Task Force – January 23, 2014 b) East Beach Waterfront Improvements Task Force – January 24, 2014 It was MOVED and SECONDED THAT Council receives for information the following select committee minutes: 2014-043 a) Rail Safety Task Force – January 23, 2014; and b) East Beach Waterfront Improvements Task Force – January 24, 2014. CARRIED 6.1.2 a)SELECT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations were adopted by the Rail Safety Task Force on January 23, 2014 and are presented for Council consideration: It was MOVED and SECONDED THAT Council directs: 2014-044 a) The topic of rail car safety be added to the agenda of the meeting with Member of Parliament, Russ Hiebert; and b) staff to determine priorities, timing and straight forward signage with respect to railway pedestrian crossings in White Rock, in particular Finlay Street and Bay Street; and a report regarding priorities be presented to the Rail Safety Task Force at the next meeting. CARRIED 7. BYLAWS AND PERMITS 7.1 BYLAWS 7.1.1 BYLAW 2042 - WHITE ROCK ZONING BYLAW, 2012, NO. 2000, AMENDMENT BYLAW, 2013, NO. 2042 Bylaw No. 2042 proposes to amend “White Rock Zoning Bylaw, 2012, No. 2000” to allow the City to prepare for the new Federal Marihuana AGENDA Page 33 Minutes of a Regular Meeting of City of White Rock Council held in the City Hall Council Chambers February 3, 2014 (Meeting held February 4, 2014 due to an extended Public Hearing) 26 for Medical Purposes Regulations. The other amendments are considered “housekeeping” amendments to the zoning bylaw to improve and better clarify those provisions that have been found ambiguous or difficult to administer. It was MOVED and SECONDED THAT Council: 2014-045 1. Gives first and second readings to “White Rock Zoning Bylaw, 2012, No. 2000, Amendment Bylaw, 2013, No. 2042” as amended to include the following: Section 6.9 RI-2 One Unit (Infill 2) Residential Zone, Part 6.9.5 Building Heights 1) principal buildings shall not exceed a height of 7.7 metres (25.26ft); and 2. Directs staff to schedule the required Public Hearing for “White Rock Zoning Bylaw, 2012, No. 2000, Amendment Bylaw, 2013, No. 2042” as amended. CARRIED 7.2 PERMITS 7.2.1 DEVELOPMENT PERMIT / DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PERMIT NO. 358 FOR 1488 FIR STREET 8. It was MOVED and SECONDED THAT Council rejects Development Permit / Development Variance Permit No. 358 for 1488 Fir Street and not proceed with a public meeting. CARRIED CORRESPONDENCE 8.1 CORRESPONDENCE - RECEIVED FOR INFORMATION 2014-046 2014-047 It was MOVED and SECONDED THAT Council receives for information the following correspondence items numbered 8.1.1 and 8.1.2 as listed and circulated in the February 3, 2014 regular Council agenda. CARRIED AGENDA Page 34 Minutes of a Regular Meeting of City of White Rock Council held in the City Hall Council Chambers February 3, 2014 (Meeting held February 4, 2014 due to an extended Public Hearing) 8.1.1 27 CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY REGARDING ANNUAL DAFFODIL CAMPAIGN AND CANVASSING Letters dated January 24 and 27, 2014 from the Canadian Cancer Society, Fraser Valley Region and Canadian Cancer Society, White Rock/South Surrey Community Office regarding request for approval of Annual Daffodil Campaign activities. It was MOVED and SECONDED THAT Council authorizes the sale of daffodils on Saturday, April 5, 2014 and door-to-door canvassing during the month of April 2014 in the City of White Rock. CARRIED 2014-048 8.1.2 NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD REVIEW OF KINDER MORGAN’S PROPOSED TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE AND TANKERS PROPOSAL Bulletin regarding participation as a “commenter” or “intervenor” in the National Energy Board review of Kinder Morgan’s Proposed Trans Mountain Pipeline and Tankers Expansion proposal. The deadline for applications for public participation is Wednesday, February 12, 2014. It was MOVED and SECONDED THAT Council directs staff to apply for the City of White Rock to participate as an intervener in the in the National Energy Board review of Kinder Morgan’s Proposed Trans Mountain Pipeline and Tankers Expansion proposal. CARRIED 2014-049 9. MAYOR AND COUNCILLOR REPORTS 9.1 MAYOR’S REPORT Mayor Baldwin noted attendance and information regarding the following community events: January 30 - 15th Annual Business Excellence Awards hosted by the South Surrey White Rock Chamber of Commerce January 31 - New Year Greetings at the Chinese New Year Celebration February 2 - First concert of four (4) in the Encore Peninsula Concert Series and expressed appreciation to Peninsula Productions and Music Encore Concert Society for this successful collaboration. AGENDA Page 35 Minutes of a Regular Meeting of City of White Rock Council held in the City Hall Council Chambers February 3, 2014 (Meeting held February 4, 2014 due to an extended Public Hearing) 28 Upcoming Events in the City: February 10 - BC Family Day holiday and encourage the community to participate in Family Day Skate taking place at the Centennial Arena February 22 - The City of White Rock in partnership with Sources Community Resources Society are hosting the “Coldest Night of the Year” fundraising walk through the streets of White Rock to create awareness and assist those who are homeless and hungry. 9.2 COUNCILLORS’ REPORTS None 9.2.1 METRO VANCOUVER BOARD IN BRIEF – JANUARY 24, 2014 The Metro Vancouver Board in Brief for January 24, 2014. It was MOVED and SECONDED THAT Council receives for information the Metro Vancouver Board in Brief for meetings held on January 24, 2014. CARRIED 2014-050 10. MOTIONS AND NOTICES OF MOTION 10.1 MOTIONS None 10.2 NOTICES OF MOTION None 11. RELEASE OF ITEMS FROM CLOSED COUNCIL MEETINGS Mayor Baldwin noted the City of White Rock have completed negotiations and have signed a lease for the City owned property located at 1174 Fir Street. The new tenant, Brabeia Incorporated is welcomed by the City. 12. OTHER BUSINESS 13. CONCLUSION OF THE FEBRUARY 3, 2014 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING The Chairperson declared the regular meeting concluded at 8:58 p.m. _______________________________ Mayor Baldwin ________________________ T. Arthur, City Clerk AGENDA Page 36 AGENDA Page 37 AGENDA Page 38 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF WHITE ROCK CORPORATE REPORT DATE: February 24, 2014 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Greg St. Louis, Director of Engineering and Municipal Operations SUBJECT: Fraser Basin Council - Regional Flood Management Strategy ______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION THAT Council: 1. Receive for information the corporate report dated February 24, 2014 from the Director of Engineering and Municipal Operations titled “Fraser Basin Council - Regional Flood Management Strategy;” and 2. Authorize contributing $1,000 per year in 2014 and 2015 to Fraser Basin Council, towards implementation of Phase 1 of their Business Plan, funded from the Drainage Utility Operating Budget. ________________________________________________________________________ INTRODUCTION The Fraser Basin Council (FBC) is a charitable non-profit organization that brings people together to advance sustainability in the Fraser River Basin and across British Columbia. Established in 1997, FBC is a collaboration of four orders of government (federal, provincial, local and First Nations) along with those from the private sector and civil society. They work with people in multiple sectors, helping them find collaborative solutions to today’s issues through a commitment to the social, economic and environmental dimensions of sustainability. Their focus is on healthy water and watersheds, action on climate change and air quality and strong, resilient communities and regions. The Fraser Basin Council has undertaken significant work over the past 15 years to strengthen an integrated approach to flood hazard management in BC with a focus in the Lower Mainland. This work has been advanced primarily through the Joint Program Committee for Flood Hazard Management (JPC), which was established in 1998 and includes more than thirty-five member organizations including local, provincial and federal governments as well as other organizations with flood management roles and responsibilities. Recent flooding events in both Calgary and Toronto clearly demonstrate the existing risk of social, economic and environmental costs associated with flood events including those associated with sea level rise. They also illustrate the complexity of planning, addressing uncertainty associated with weather variability and the need for planning for natural disasters, such as flood events and sea level rise, and the importance of ensuring a coordinated, region-wide response. It has been estimated (October 2012) that the cost to prepare for this expected sea level rise and associated increase in flood risk in coastal areas of the Metro Vancouver region was in the order AGENDA Page 39 Fraser Basin Council- Regional Flood Management Strategy Page No. 2 of $9.5 billion. White Rock was identified as having a low lying area requiring a dike to protect against increased sea level by the year 2100. PAST PRACTICE / POLICY / LEGISLATION One of the objectives of the City of White Rock’s Integrated Storm Water Management Plan is to reduce the threat of flood risks. ANALYSIS Between January and September 2013 the Fraser Basin Council and the JPC with financial support from Metro Vancouver, the BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, and Natural Resources Canada developed a Business Plan to strengthen an integrated and long-term approach to address flood risks and sea level rise in the Lower Mainland region. The Business Plan was broken into two phases; Phase 1 – Near Term Actions, Outputs and Deliverables. Phase 1 would focus on proposed short-term technical studies that have been identified as priorities by multiple communities and have significant potential to improve regional-scale information to support flood management practices and policies on the ground, and build support toward a regional approach to flood management. Phase 1 would be implemented from January 2014 to December 2015. Phase 2 – Big Picture/Long-Term Vision would include a more substantive and comprehensive four-year program following the implementation and evaluation of Phase 1. The Business Plan calls for approximately $250,000 per year over two years to complete the Phase 1 actions. It is proposed that this would be costshared among local, provincial, and federal governments as well as regional entities such as Port Metro Vancouver, YVR and others. The Fraser Basin Council has approached a number of JPC partners and others to make a modest contribution over the next two years (2014 and 2015) to commence with Phase 1 in January 2014. They are asking the larger municipalities from Hope to Richmond to contribute $5,000 per year for the next two years to implement Phase 1. BUDGET IMPLICATIONS FCB is requesting larger municipalities to contribute $5,000. Recognizing that the City of White Rock does not have the same financial resources as larger municipalities, a contribution in the order of $1,000 per year for 2014 and 2015 would be appropriate. FCB have raised approximately $200,000 so far and are very confident they will soon reach their target of $250,000. Squamish and most municipalities from Hope to Delta, with the exception of Richmond, Pitt Meadows, Hope and North Vancouver District, have confirmed financial contributions. FCB are expecting to hear positive news from each of those municipalities. It is recommended that the $1,000 be funded by a re-allocation of this amount from the Drainage Utility consulting budget to a contribution for this purpose. The Director of Financial Services has reviewed this report and concurs that this funding source is available and appropriate for this purpose. CONCLUSION The City of White Rock has an unprotected shoreline which will be impacted by sea level rise. As this is a regional problem it is important to participate with the larger community on a collaborative approach. It is recommended that $1,000 be provided to Fraser Basin Council in 2014 and 2015 to assist financially with Phase 1 of their Business Plan. AGENDA Page 40 Fraser Basin Council- Regional Flood Management Strategy Page No. 3 Respectfully submitted, Greg St. Louis, P. Eng. Director, Engineering & Municipal Operations Comments from the Chief Administrative Officer: I concur with the recommendations of this report. Dan Bottrill Chief Administrative Officer Appendix A: Final Draft: A Business Plan-Advancing a Collaborative, Regional Approach to Flood Management in BC’s Lower Mainland prepared by Fraser Basin Council (August 2013) AGENDA Page 41 APPENDIX A Final Draft: A Business Plan – Advancing a Collaborative, Regional Approach to Flood Management in British Columbia’s Lower Mainland Prepared by: the Fraser Basin Council August 2013 AGENDA Page 42 Note to readers This document was compiled by the Fraser Basin Council. The content reflects feedback from a variety of stakeholders that was gathered through a lengthy collaborative process. The collaborative process to develop this document was initiated at a workshop of key provincial and local government officials actively involved in flood hazard management throughout the Lower Mainland region of British Columbia. This exploratory dialogue was followed up with numerous one-on-one meetings, presentations, opportunities to provide feedback and a survey of local governments and other organizations over the last five months. Most recently, a draft version of this document was presented to members of the Joint Program Committee for Integrated Flood Hazard Management, and the content was discussed in detail during a workshop in May 2013. In response to feedback from stakeholders, we have organized the substance of the Business Plan (Section 3.3 – Technical Program) into two phases: Phase 1 – Proposed Near-Term Priority Projects Phase 2 – Longer-Term Framework These two phases reflect short term and longer term objectives, and should be considered together to advance common objectives. Throughout this document there are ongoing references to a regional approach. This refers to a proposed direction for addressing the need for a long-term regional and collaborative approach to flood hazard management. For the purposes of this paper, the Lower Mainland is defined as Hope to Richmond and the US border to Squamish. AGENDA Page 43 Acknowledgements The Fraser Basin Council would like to acknowledge the following organizations for contributing funding to develop the business plan: Metro Vancouver Natural Resources Canada BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations The Council would also like to thank the various people, organizations, networks and associations that participated in and supported the development of this draft business plan and/or the final version of the business plan. This process of outreach, engagement and collaboration included the following: The Joint Program Committee for Integrated Flood Hazard Management (38+ organizations throughout the Lower Mainland). Metro Vancouver staff as well as Metro Vancouver’s Regional Engineers’ Advisory Committee, Regional Planners’ Advisory Committee, and Regional Administrators’ Advisory Committee. The Lower Mainland Local Government Association’s Flood Control and River Management Committee. The Sea Level Rise Collaborative co-hosted by SFU’s Adapting to Climate Change Team (ACT) and West Coast Environmental Law. Individual municipalities, regional districts, First Nations and others that participated in the study. Contacts David Marshall Executive Director, Fraser Basin Council 1st Floor - 470 Granville St. Vancouver, BC, Canada V6C 1V5 Email: [email protected] Tel: (604) 488-5350 Steve Litke Senior Manager, Fraser Basin Council 1st Floor - 470 Granville St. Vancouver, BC, Canada V6C 1V5 Email: [email protected] Tel: (604) 488-5358 Ian Picketts Consultant 456 Melville Ave Prince George, BC, Canada, V2M 1Y2 Email: [email protected] Tel: (250) 960-6700 AGENDA Page 44 Draft – August 2013 Executive Summary This report: A Business Plan – Advancing a Collaborative, Regional Approach to Flood Management in British Columbia’s Lower Mainland, was prepared with input, feedback and advice from the perspectives of many different individuals and organizations involved in flood hazard management in the Lower Mainland1. Meetings, presentations, dialogue sessions and workshops were held in an exploratory process to identify if there was value in advancing a regional response to flooding (i.e., sea level rise, storm surge, and river flooding) across the Lower Mainland and if so, what steps would need to be taken to initiate a regional response. This collaborative and consultative process has explored a wide range of interests, challenges, and opportunities to advance a regional approach to flood management in the Lower Mainland. Stakeholders have identified the need to begin this initiative by working on clearly defined projects to increase knowledge and support, and to build on these successes through a phased approach. Therefore this Business Plan begins by clearly identifying early actions that should be taken to increase capacity and fill important information gaps, and also provides a rationale and a general outline of a long-term regional approach to flood management. This report reflects what was heard from stakeholders. It provides a framework of near-term priorities, actions and deliverables (phase 1) as well as a longer-term vision and framework (phase 2) to advance a regional approach to flood management in the Lower Mainland. These two phases reflect short term and longer term objectives, and should be considered together to advance common goals. Purpose of Business Plan (Phase 1 and Phase 2) 1. To outline key information gaps and a proposed program of technical studies and projects to fill these gaps 2. To propose a collaborative process to design, refine and implement a regional approach to flood management in the Lower Mainland of BC 3. To articulate the added value of a comprehensive, integrated and regional approach 4. To build and galvanize support for a regional approach from all affected parties to ensure their full involvement in the development and implementation of a regional approach 5. To support the acquisition of the necessary financial resources to advance the development and implementation of a regional approach 1 For the purposes of this paper, the Lower Mainland is defined as Hope to Richmond and the US border to Squamish. 1 AGENDA Page 45 Draft – August 2013 Phase 1 – Near-Term Actions, Outputs and Deliverables Phase 1 would focus on proposed short-term technical studies that have been identified as priorities by multiple communities and have significant potential to improve regional-scale information to support flood management practices and policies on the ground, and build support toward a regional approach to flood management. A collaborative approach is proposed for planning, delivery and completion of projects to improve information for agencies and organizations with flood management roles and responsibilities: For consideration in informing flood management policies and practices To support additional priority studies (e.g. more comprehensive analyses, community or site-specific analyses, etc.) Examples of potential phase 1 priorities based on preliminary reconnaissance include: Region-wide assessment of current conditions of flood protection works and effectiveness of floodproofing, bylaws, and floodplain management. Estimating projected water levels for multiple flood scenarios (i.e. different peak flows / return frequencies, sea level rise, storm surge events) (using the existing or an enhanced Lower Fraser River Hydraulic Model or other tools). Region-wide analysis of current and future risk and vulnerability to flood hazards (i.e. what is vulnerable and what are the impacts, consequences and costs of a catastrophic flood in the Lower Mainland – at a coarse resolution). Additional outputs of the regional, collaborative process could include the facilitation of costsavings, continued dialogue, enhanced knowledge-sharing, capacity building, strengthened working relations, and development of consensus-based recommendations. Phase 2 – Big-Picture / Long-Term Vision Phase 2 would include a high-level, longer-term regional approach to flood management, including a more comprehensive program of technical studies and projects, which would be delivered through a collaborative and iterative process. The longer-term vision aims to: 1. Enhance the effectiveness of flood management on a regional basis. 2. Inform flood management policies and practices in the region through a program of technical studies and projects to improve information and knowledge about flood hazards, risks and management options. 3. Facilitate a process to secure adequate, sustained, funding to strengthen flood management policies and practices in the region. 4. Support flood management agencies and organizations by facilitating a regional, collaborative, comprehensive and integrated approach to flood management in the Lower Mainland region. For example, work with local governments to advance infrastructure flood protection projects and funding, 2 AGENDA Page 46 Draft – August 2013 The substance of the proposed approach is to strategically and incrementally improve our knowledge and understanding about flood hazards, risks and management options to inform flood management policies and practices. This would be designed, overseen, delivered, and refined through a collaborative process involving numerous agencies and organizations (public and private) throughout the Lower Mainland region. Section 1 of the Final Draft Business Plan explains some of the recent history of flood management considerations and the origin of this initiative. Some additional background follows, outlining some of the considerations of how flood hazards and vulnerability are changing in the Lower Mainland, with references to relevant recent studies. Section 2 explores the rationale and opportunity for a proactive, integrated and regional approach to flood management in response to evolving flood hazards, risks and vulnerabilities. Potential challenges and benefits of a regional approach are also considered as well as principles that could guide a regional approach. Section 3 provides an overview of the proposed regional approach. The purpose and objectives are profiled, along with the scope, including a proposed technical program to fill knowledge gaps and inform the development of a regional strategy. The proposed approach and strategy would cover a geographic scope of approximately 30 municipalities and also unincorporated areas spanning from Richmond to Hope, and Squamish to the US border. The study area encompasses about 2.6 million people. The approach would include flood risks associated with sea level rise, storm surge and river flooding. The approach would consider flood management responses including land use changes, development practices, flood proofing buildings (and other infrastructure), and the construction / rehabilitation of dikes and other flood protection works. Section 3.3 outlines a proposed program of technical studies to inform local and regional approaches to flood management by assessing and evaluating current management conditions, current and future flood hazards and risks, as well as best practices and management options. Section 4 outlines activities, timelines and estimated budgets for the work outlined in the business plan (phases one and two). Phase one is estimated to be undertaken between January 2014 and December 2015, would include one to three technical projects and would cost approximately $200,000 - $500,000. The results of phase 1 would be evaluated to inform priorities to be undertaken in phase 2. Phase 2 is estimated to require a timeline of about four years, would include more comprehensive and detailed technical analyses and would include the development of a regional strategy based upon the technical information gathered in phases 1 and 2. Section 5 describes a proposed approach for organizing and facilitating a collaborative process to oversee the development and implementation of a regional approach and strategy. A collaborative, integrated, strategic, long-term and regional approach to flood management is proposed and promoted. The Business Plan also proposes an open and 3 AGENDA Page 47 Draft – August 2013 transparent funding and governance structure, involving representation from four orders of government and private entities. Next steps are also outlined in section 5. 4 AGENDA Page 48 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF WHITE ROCK CORPORATE REPORT DATE: February 24, 2014 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Greg St. Louis, Director of Engineering and Municipal Operations SUBJECT: Request for Refund - Sewer Connection Fee at 14559 Marine Drive ______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION THAT Council receive for information the corporate report dated February 24, 2014 from the Director of Engineering and Municipal Operations titled “Request for Refund - Sewer Connection Fee at 14559 Marine Drive.” ________________________________________________________________________ INTRODUCTION This corporate report is in response to a letter addressed to Mayor and Council on February 13, 2014 by Raiman and Grace Howlett (the applicant) regarding servicing their lot at 14559 Marine Drive (see Appendix A). The applicants are requesting the City reallocate City funds to subsidize the amount they have paid to service their property. The applicants purchased the lot located at 14559 Marine Drive. The existing house on the property that was demolished was only serviced for the sanitary sewer and not the storm sewer. There is an existing sanitary sewer in front of the property. The applicant and the applicant’s builder were advised from the initial discussions with City staff that the closest storm sewer was approximately 60 feet away and they would be required to pay the actual cost to service the lot plus 10%, which is in accordance with Bylaw 396. The City received three quotes for the cost to connect the storm and sanitary sewer and provided the lowest cost to the applicant of $25,980. In an effort to reduce the cost, staff redesigned the storm service; decreasing the pipe diameter and removing a manhole and replacing it with an inspection chamber to reduce the cost of the sanitary and storm sewer connection to $19,980. The applicant has paid to the City $21,978, which is the estimated cost plus 10%, which is consistent with Bylaw 396. PAST PRACTICE / POLICY / LEGISLATION Staff has followed City of White Rock Bylaw 396, (attached as Appendix B) Sewer Connection and Rental Charges Bylaw to arrive at the conclusion that the applicant is required to pay the actual cost to service the lot plus 10%. The Bylaw has been consistently applied in the same manner for many years. Specifically, Section 5 of Bylaw 396 states, “The owner shall tender with his application a connection fee of $2,500 and inspection fee of $100 for each connection. Following such payment, the applicant shall receive a sewer connection from the appropriate sewer to the street line or boundary of the applicant’s property; except that where the distance from the nearest sewer, from which the service AGENDA Page 49 Request for Refund - Sewer Connection Fee at 14559 Marine Drive Page No. 2 can be given, to the boundary line of the applicant’s property exceeds 50 ft. The sum payable for such connection shall be the actual cost of the work plus 10% thereof.” Section 6 of Bylaw 396 states, “The connection fee specified in Section 5 aforesaid shall entitle the owner to one ordinary sewer connection, of size as shall be approved by the Superintendent, for the service of any single house or premise.” Section 7 states, “All applications for the installation of drain connections, other than an ordinary house sewer connection, to a storm-drain shall be made to the Collector by the owner, who shall at the time of application deposit with the Collector a sum estimated to be the cost of providing such services as determined by the Superintendent”. All of the points mentioned above, indicate the property owner must pay for the actual cost to connect to the sewers where the distance exceeds 50 feet. ANALYSIS As redevelopment occurs, old houses are demolished and new houses are being built. Some of the older properties are not connected to the storm sewer. They are typically smaller houses that do not cover the entire lot. These properties drain storm water from roof leaders onto the grass or have a rock pit to contain the storm water onsite and allow it to slowly drain back into the ground. In contrast, new house construction is larger and covers the lots with more hard surfaces. As a result the draining of storm water is becoming a bigger issue. Staff review the cost of providing sanitary and storm services on a yearly basis and set the flat fee for the following year. The estimates are based on an ordinary connection, less than 50 feet in length. An ordinary connection is based on MMCD standard drawings, which involves a tie into the mainline sewer at 90 degrees. The City has to set a limit on the length in order to come up with an annual flat fee, otherwise the City would have no method of determining the fee for the year. As properties are being redeveloped staff is coming across properties, such as the one located at 14559 Marine Drive, that there is not a storm sewer located within 50 feet of the property. In this case all the neighbouring properties have paid individually and are already connected to the storm sewer. This is the last remaining property on the block, so there are no other benefiting properties owners. Staff has met with the applicant and his builder on many occasions, drafting emails and letters, providing and explaining the Bylaws. City staff has listened to the applicants concerns and have consistently told the applicant and his builder, that the property owner is responsible for the cost of providing the services as specified in Bylaw 396. The Bylaw is clear that for any service over 50 feet in length, the owner must pay the actual cost plus 10%. This has been applied consistently throughout the years by staff. Bylaw 396 is similar in other municipalities where the owner is responsible for the cost to bring the services to their lot. This is fair and equitable as the builder/developer/property owner is the benefiting party and will gain the benefits of having their property serviced. Guiding Principles Municipalities use guiding principles such as benefiter pays with respect to determining the basis for financing development in their communities. Benefiter pays means that direct costs associated with a development such as installation of infrastructure such as connection lines AGENDA Page 50 Request for Refund - Sewer Connection Fee at 14559 Marine Drive Page No. 3 should be paid by those who will use and benefit from the installation of such systems. In this particular case, the sole benefit of the connection line will be to the applicant. In other words, no other property owner would be connecting to the storm drainage line that was paid by the applicant. BUDGET IMPLICATIONS In 2013 the connection fee for an ordinary connection of less than 50 feet was a flat rate of $2,500 for sanitary sewer and $2,500 for storm sewer; totaling $5,000. In 2014 the connection fee was increased to $3,000 per service, totaling $6,000. The applicant has paid $21,978 for the costs of connecting to the storm drainage system as the current infrastructure was in excess of 50 feet. This payment represents the cost of the installation of both the storm and sanitary sewer, as the Contractor will be installing both services at the same time. This was the most cost effective solution. This connection fee was based on obtaining competitive quotes from three contractors with the lowest cost to install to the sanitary and storm service of $19,980 plus 10% for a total of $21,978. At the time of drafting the report the installation of the services are in progress, but not completed. If Council wishes to deviate from the Bylaw 396, then it should do so by amending the bylaw. The implication would be that other property owners with development in excess of 50 feet from existing infrastructure would also enjoy a benefit. In other words, it would expose the City to pay for significant additional development in the future. Development costs would be shifted from the developer to the general tax payer. It would be difficult to budget for providing services of any length as, in some instances, the estimated price to extend the services has been $100,000. CONCLUSION City staff has applied Bylaw 396 consistently over the years. It is recommended by staff to continue the same practice as outlined in Bylaw 396, that require the property owner pay for the actual costs of the service plus 10%, when the length of service to the storm or sanitary sewer exceeds 50 feet. The applicant was advised of this from the beginning with regards to their utility connection costs and is in keeping with the City bylaw and guiding principles for financing development. Respectfully submitted, Greg St. Louis, P. Eng. Director, Engineering & Municipal Operations AGENDA Page 51 Request for Refund - Sewer Connection Fee at 14559 Marine Drive Page No. 4 Comments from the Chief Administrative Officer: I concur with the recommendations of this report. Dan Bottrill Chief Administrative Officer Appendix A: Letter to Council dated February 13, 2014 from Raiman and Grace Howlett Appendix B: Consolidated - Sewer Connection and Rental Charges Bylaw, 1970, No. 396 AGENDA Page 52 APPENDIX A AGENDA Page 53 APPENDIX B THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF WHITE ROCK BYLAW 396 A Bylaw to regulate connections to sewers and drains and to impose sewer connection and rental charges. CONSOLIDATED FOR CONVENIENCE ONLY DISCLAIMER: THIS BYLAW IS A CONSOLIDATION OF THE BYLAWS AMENDING CITY OF WHITE ROCK ZONING BYLAW NO. 1591. EFFORTS ARE MADE TO ENSURE THAT THIS CONSOLIDATION IS CURRENT AND ACCURATE HOWEVER ACCURACY AND COMPLETENESS CANNOT BE GUARANTEED. ORIGINAL BYLAWS SHOULD BE CONSULTED FOR ALL INTERPRETATIONS AND APPLICATIONS OF THE BYLAW REGARDING THIS SUBJECT. Consolidated as of January 2014 TABLE OF CONSOLIDATION Bylaw No. Date of Adoption Amendment No. Purpose of Amendment Amends Schedule B Amends Sections 1, 3, 17, 18 and Schedule B Amends Schedule B Amends Schedule B Amends Sections 1, 5, 15, 17, and 18-23 Section 5 replaced Amends Schedule B Amends Schedule B Amends Schedule B Section 5 replaced Amends Schedule B Amends Schedule B Amends Schedule B Amends Schedule B Amends Schedule B Amends Schedule B Amends Schedule B Amends Schedule B Amends Schedule B Amends Schedule B Amends Schedule B Amends Schedule B Amends Schedule B Amends Section 5 and Schedule B Section 5 and Schedule and Schedule B 505 579 December 28, 1972 1975 1 2 645 787 922 1976 February 9, 1981 April 11, 1984 3 4 5 1193 1307 1356 1389 1424 1439 1490 1520 1559 1588 1742 1786 1811 1840 1868 1885 1939 1972 2011 November 27, 1989 1992 1993 1994 March 27, 1995 May 8, 1995 May 13, 1996 May 12, 1997 May 11, 1998 May 3, 1999 May 10, 2004 April 24, 2006 May 7, 2007 May 5, 2008 May 4, 2009 May 3, 2010 May 9, 2011 May 14, 2012 February 4, 2013 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2047 January 13, 2014 25 AGENDA Page 54 Consolidated Bylaw - Sewer Connection and Rental Charges Bylaw, 1970, No. 396 Page 2 WHEREAS it is expedient that all land or real property within the City, which is capable of being drained into a sewer or drain, should be so connected as soon as possible. AND WHEREAS it is necessary to impose a sewer connection charge to defray the cost of laying connecting pipes from sewers to land on which buildings or structures are situate, and also to charge a sewer rental where a sewer connection has been installed to the property. AND WHEREAS the Council is empowered in that regard by sections 531 and 532 of the “Municipal Act”. NOW THEREFORE the Council ENACTS as follows: 1. In this By-law, unless the context otherwise requires: “City” means the City of White Rock. “Collector” means the Collector duly appointed by the Council under section 366A of the “Municipal Act”. “Council” means the City Council of the Corporation of the City of White Rock. “Flush” shall include “urinal”. “Owner” shall include an agent duly authorized in writing by the owner to act on his behalf. “Sanitary services” shall include bath tubs, laundry tubs, kitchen sinks, hand sinks, toilets, water closets, shower baths and foot baths. “Sewer” includes any sanitary sewer installed for the collection, conveyance and disposal of sewage or storm sewer installed where the impounding, conveying and discharging of surface and other waters upon, or under, any public street, lane, right-of-way, or easement, which sewer is owned or maintained by the City whether laid by it or any other person. (Amended by Bylaw No. 922) “Sewer connection” means the sewer connecting pipe from the property line along any street, lane, right-of-way, or easement, to the sewer, which connection is owned or maintained by the Council whether laid by it or any other person whomsoever. “Superintendent” means the Superintendent of Public Works duly appointed by the Council. 2. For the purposes of this By-law, the Collector shall have charge of the rating of all buildings and premises served by the sewerage system, and the Superintendent shall have charge and control of all properties and works in connection with the aforesaid system, and of all engineering and mechanical work in connection therewith. AGENDA Page 55 Consolidated Bylaw - Sewer Connection and Rental Charges Bylaw, 1970, No. 396 Page 3 1 3. The owner of every parcel of real property on which a building or structure is situate shall connect his building or structure to the appropriate sewer in the manner prescribed in this By-law. 4.(a) In the event of any owner failing to connect his building or structure to the appropriate sewer within thirty days of being called upon in writing by the Superintendent to do so, the Superintendent may have the work done at the expense of any such owner and the City may recover the expense thereof with interest at the rate of six per centum per annum, with costs in like manner as municipal taxes. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any owner failing to connect his building or structure to the appropriate sewer within the aforesaid period of thirty days shall be liable to the penalties provided by this By-law. 4.(b) The notice required to be given in this section shall be sufficiently given if sent by double registered mail to the owner at the address shown as the owners on the last revised Assessment Roll of the City. 5. "All applications for the installation of a sewer connection shall be made by the owner to the City in the form contained in Schedule "A" to and forming a part of this Bylaw. The owner shall tender with his or her application a connection fee of $3,000.00 and an inspection fee of $150.00 for each connection. Following such payment, the applicant shall receive a sewer connection from the appropriate sewer to the street line or boundary of the applicant's property; except that where the distance from the nearest sewer, from which service can be given, to the boundary line of the applicant's property exceeds 50 feet, the sum payable for such connection shall be the actual cost of the work plus 10% thereof; and the difference between the actual cost of the work plus 10% thereof and the $3,000.00 connection fee paid with the application shall be paid forthwith by the owner and before connection is made at the property line." 1 6. The connection fee specified in section 5 aforesaid shall entitle the owner to one ordinary sewer connection, of such size as shall be approved by the Superintendent, for the service of any single house or premises. If more than one connection is required the cost of such additional connections shall be paid by the owner on the basis of the actual cost of the work plus ten per cent (10%). 7. All applications for the installation of a drain connection, other than an ordinary house sewer connection, to a storm-drain shall be made to the Collector by the owner, who shall at the time of application deposit with the Collector a sum estimated to be the cost of providing such services as determined by the Superintendent, and as soon as convenient after the receipt of such sum, the Superintendent shall provide and lay such drain connection. If the cost of providing and laying such drain connection be less than the amount so deposited, the Collector shall repay to the owner the difference between such amount and the amount so deposited, and, if such cost shall exceed the amount so deposited, the owner shall pay such excess forthwith and before the connection is made. Amendment Bylaw, 2013, No. 2047 AGENDA Page 56 Consolidated Bylaw - Sewer Connection and Rental Charges Bylaw, 1970, No. 396 Page 4 8. No work of any kind connected with the sewerage or drainage systems, either for laying new or repairing of old services shall be done upon or under any streets or lanes in the City by any other than the employees or agents of the Council. 9.(a) No person shall make any connection or communication whatsoever to any public or private sewer main or storm drain in the City without first obtaining the consent of the Superintendent. 9. (b) No connection shall be made to any public or private sewer unless the existing plumbing intended to be connected is vented in accordance with the City’s Plumbing By-law. 10. All sewers from houses or other buildings and from private property shall be constructed by and at the expense of the owner or applicant in accordance with the Council’s specification as set out in Schedule “C” to this By-law. For an ordinary dwelling house having one bath, one toilet, and kitchen services, or any of them, the internal diameter of the sewer shall be not less than four (4) inches. Where any house or other building or private property contains a greater number of sanitary services than aforesaid, the sewer shall be of such greater internal diameter as may be specified by the Superintendent. 11. The owner shall notify the Superintendent when any sewer connection or other work carried out under the provisions of this By-Law is ready for inspection and no sewer connection or such other work shall be covered until it has been inspected and approved by the Superintendent. If any such sewer connection or other work has been covered without first having been inspected and approved by the Superintendent, the owner shall when requested by the Superintendent, have such sewer connection or other work uncovered forthwith so that it may be inspected. If such connection or other work is found to be defective or not ready for inspection at the time of the aforesaid notification to the Superintendent, a further notice for inspection must be made to the Superintendent by the owner together with payment of a fee of Five Dollars ($5.00) to cover the costs of extra inspection. 12. (a) All properties which are connected to the sewer shall be classified in accordance with Schedule “B” to this By-law. 12. (b) The annual rental set out in Schedule “B” is hereby imposed and levied for such connections supplied by the Council and such annual rental shall be payable at the office of the Collector on the second day of January in each year, and shall form a charge on the real property to or upon which the sewer connection is supplied and may be recovered in the same manner as overdue taxes. Any building or property which contains more than one of the classifications enumerated in Schedule “B” shall be charged for each such classification contained within the building or property. 13. In the case of any property which is connected to the sewer after January 1st in any year, the rental to be charged for that year in accordance with Schedule “B” to this By-law shall be a proportionate amount of the full annual rental based on the number of full months remaining in that year. AGENDA Page 57 Consolidated Bylaw - Sewer Connection and Rental Charges Bylaw, 1970, No. 396 Page 5 14. No charge or addition shall be made by any person in the number or description of sanitary services on any premises until notice thereof has been given in writing to, and permission for such change or addition has been obtained from the Superintendent; and, if such change or addition shall occasion a higher rate or rent to be payable, the same shall be paid forthwith, and, if such change shall occasion a lesser rate or rent to be payable, a refund shall be made for a proportionate part of the rate or rent, if previously paid. 15. (a) When any sewer connection has become stopped, application to have it unstopped shall be made by the owner to the Superintendent and the owner shall forthwith deposit with the Collector the sum of Fifteen Dollars ($15.00) which shall be deemed to be not a contract price but merely a provisional charge. The charge for unstopping shall be the actual cost of the work, plus ten percent (10%) thereof and if such charge is less than the sum deposited the Collector shall refund the balance, but if such charge is more than the sum deposited the owner shall pay the additional amount forthwith. 15. (b) In cases where on examination it is estimated that the charge for unstopping and repairing will be in excess of Fifteen Dollars ($15.00) the Superintendent may, before proceeding with the work, demand a deposit of such additional amount as he considers necessary to cover the estimated charge. 15. (c) The Superintendent may direct the return of the deposit to the owner and charge the cost of the work to the Corporation if it is found that the stoppage is due solely to roots originating from trees on City property, or in cases of municipally installed house sewer extensions, or for any other cause for which, in the opinion of the Superintendent, the Corporation may be responsible. 16. When any sewer connection or house sewer extension has become stopped and the Medical Health Officer states that a menace to public health exists by reason thereof, and the owner of the premises served is unable to furnish the deposit required under Section 15(a) of this By-law, or to meet the consequent charges for unstopping and repairing, the owner may sign a statement to that effect and agree to have the said cost of unstopping and repairing charged against the property and collected as ordinary taxes; and thereupon the Superintendent may carry out such unstopping and repairing, the cost thereof, together with the description of the lot, shall be certified by the Superintendent who shall file such certificate with the Collector, and the amount of such cost shall be added to the taxes of such premises on the Collector’s Roll, and shall be collected in the same manner as overdue taxes. 17. (a) No person shall connect any roof drains, property drains or rainwater run-off in any way to the sewerage system, or drain or permit to be drained into the sewerage system, any storm water or surface water. 17. (b) No person shall permit sludge or deposit contained in existing septic tanks to enter the sewer system of the Corporation. Whenever sewer connection is made to premises where a septic tank exists the owner must forthwith discontinue using the septic tank and either (a) remove and dispose of all sludge or deposit and dismantle and remove the said tank; or (b) fill the tank with fresh earth, gravel or sand or coal ashes. AGENDA Page 58 Consolidated Bylaw - Sewer Connection and Rental Charges Bylaw, 1970, No. 396 Page 6 18. The Superintendent or any employee in the Public Works Department may enter at all reasonable times, upon any property for the purpose of inspecting the premises and the sewer and drain pipes, connections, sanitary services and any other apparatus used in connection with such sewerage or drainage systems. 19. No rebate, refund or credit whatsoever of any moneys paid or payable for service shall be made save as hereinbefore provided. 20. No owner of any property shall connect or drain, or attempt to connect or drain, or allow to be connected or drained such property with or into the sewer connection, sewer systems or drainage system otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this By-law. 21. Any person who violates any of the provisions of this By-law shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the sum of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) and costs for each offence. 22. The “Sewer Connection and Rental Charge By-law, 1959, No. 60”; the “Sewer Connection and Rental Charges Amendment By-law, 1959, No. 71”; and the “Sewer Connection and Rental Charges By-law, 1959, No. 60, Amendment Bylaw, 1961, No. 111” are hereby repealed. 23. This By-law may be cited for all purposes as the “Sewer Connection and Rental Charges By-law, 1970, No. 396”. 13th day of June, RECEIVED FIRST READING on the th 1970 RECEIVED SECOND READING on the 13 day of June, 1970 RECEIVED THIRD READING on the 13th day of June, 1970 27th day of June, 1970 RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED on the ___________________________________ MAYOR ___________________________________ CITY CLERK AGENDA Page 59 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF WHITE ROCK BYLAW 396 SCHEDULE “A” AGENDA Page 60 Consolidated Bylaw - Sewer Connection and Rental Charges Bylaw, 1970, No. 396 Page 8 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF WHITE ROCK BYLAW 396 SCHEDULE “B”2 (1) Each Single-Family Home ANNUAL RENTAL $ 253.00 (2) Each Self-contained Suite $ 253.00 (3) Motel (for each unit) $ 266.00 (4) Hotels, Rest Homes and Lodging Houses (for each two sleeping rooms or fraction thereof) $ 266.00 (5) Liquor outlets (for each flush) $ 266.00 (6) Public Recreational Centres and Public Halls (for each flush) $ 266.00 (7) Commercial and business establishments (for each flush) $ 266.00 (8) Peace Arch District Hospital (per available bed) $ 253.00 (9) Schools (for each flush) $ 266.00 (10) Coin-Operated Laundries (for each machine) 2 $ 163.00 Amendment Bylaw, 2013, No. 2047 AGENDA Page 61 Consolidated Bylaw - Sewer Connection and Rental Charges Bylaw, 1970, No. 396 Page 9 BYLAW 396 SCHEDULE “C” AGENDA Page 62 Consolidated Bylaw - Sewer Connection and Rental Charges Bylaw, 1970, No. 396 Page 10 BYLAW 396 SCHEDULE “C” AGENDA Page 63 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF WHITE ROCK CORPORATE REPORT DATE: February 24, 2014 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Phil Lemire, Fire Chief SUBJECT: White Rock Controlled Substance Property Bylaw, 2014, No. 2041 ______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION THAT Council receive for information the corporate report dated February 24, 2014 from the Fire Chief titled “White Rock Controlled Substance Property Bylaw, 2014, No. 2041.” ______________________________________________________________________________ INTRODUCTION A new bylaw is introduced to provide the City a means to prohibit, right of entry to inspect, require remediation and recoup cost associated with properties where a controlled substance is or has been present. PAST PRACTICE / POLICY / LEGISLATION The City does not currently have a bylaw that covers these issues. ANALYSIS This new bylaw would provide the City the ability to inspect, require remediation and recoup the cost associated with a property where a controlled substance use has been discovered. Quite often, when a controlled substance is being produced alterations are made to the electrical, heating, gas and other utilities that can potentially pose a risk to the health and safety of the resident, neighbours and first responders. As well, the production of some products can result in mold being produced that requires proper remediation to eliminate an ongoing hazard. This bylaw would also allow for the cost incurred by the City in dealing with these properties to be recovered. Currently, the City has minimal ability to recoup cost, which has the potential to be substantial. This bylaw will provide further ability regarding right of entry for inspection. The area of remediation can be a concern and has been addressed as well. Further to this, the ability to post notice on title is included to advise a potential purchaser should the property be listed prior to remediation being completed. AGENDA Page 64 White Rock Controlled Substance Property Bylaw, 2014, No. 2041 Page No. 2 BUDGET IMPLICATIONS There are no negative budget implications anticipated as a result of adopting a “Controlled Substance Property Bylaw,” as a recovery of cost associated with dealing with these properties is included in the bylaw. RISK MANAGEMENT This bylaw is recommended to enhance the ability to provide for the general health, safety and quality of life for White Rock residents and first responders. CONCLUSION Adoption of “White Rock Controlled Substance Property Bylaw, 2014, No. 2041” will provide the City with the means to recoup cost associated with properties where this type of activity has taken place and be proactive so remedial action occurs for the health and safety of residents. Respectfully submitted, Phil Lemire, CFO Fire Chief Comments from the Chief Administrative Officer: I concur with the recommendations of this report. Dan Bottrill Chief Administrative Officer AGENDA Page 65 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF WHITE ROCK CORPORATE REPORT DATE: February 24, 2014 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Eric Stepura, Director of Leisure Services and Sandra Kurylo, Director of Financial Services 65th White Rock Sea Fest – Request for Funding for a Parade and Parade Float ______________________________________________________________________________ SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATIONS THAT Council: 1. Receive for information the corporate report dated February 24, 2014 from the Director of Leisure Services and Director of Financial Services titled “65th White Rock Sea Fest – Request for Funding for a Parade and Parade Float”; 2. Approve funding in the amount of $15,000 from the City’s contingency budget to assist the White Rock Events Society 2013 with event hosting costs including a parade; and 3. Deny funding in the amount of $50,000 for purchase of a parade float. ______________________________________________________________________________ INTRODUCTION At the regular Council meeting held January 13, 2014, Michelle Pederson (Chair) and Brian Hagerman (Vice-Chair) of the White Rock Events Society 2013 (the Society) did a presentation to Council about their plans for celebrating the 65th White Rock Sea Fest. The Society has been meeting to plan the event since August 2013, and would like to bring back some of the popular festival attractions from past years, including firework and a torch light parade. The Society requested that Council consider funding an additional $70,000 towards festival expenses including $50,000 to purchase a parade float, and $20,000 for parade hosting expenses. See budget attached (Appendix A). This report is in response to Council’s motion for a staff report with regards to the request for additional funding. In addition, this report outlines the financial and value-in-kind support that the City of White Rock has historically given to the Sea Festival, the anticipated costs to the City for hosting the 2014 Sea Fest. PAST PRACTICE / POLICY / LEGISLATION The White Rock Sea Fest is in keeping with the Leisure Services Master Plan and meets the following: Goal #1: To foster a healthy community through activities that create a sense of community identity, belonging, pride and spirit. AGENDA Page 66 65th White Rock Sea Fest – Request for Funding for a Parade and Parade Float Page No. 2 Special Events for the City of White Rock are supported by the Special Event Policy #404. This policy ensures that quality planning and implementation methods are followed for the delivery of special events in the community. ANALYSIS The City of White Rock has a long history of supporting large community festivals held the August long weekend on the White Rock waterfront. The 2012 Spirit of the Sea Festival organized by the Community of Lights Society was the last large scale sea festival held in White Rock which included activities on both East and West Beach, complete with a torch light parade and fireworks. The City’s contribution of cash and value-in-kind support services for the 2012 festival is estimated as follows: Grant in Aid ................................................................................$ 4,000 Leisure Services (staffing, setup/takedown of tents, power, stage, buses, portable washrooms etc.) ........................................$ 7,600 Parks & Operations (staffing, waste removal, washroom and park maintenance, loan of City vehicles, barricades etc.)............$ 9,000 Estimated loss of pay parking revenue ........................................$ 7,100 RCMP policing and traffic control ..............................................$ 35,000 City’s 2012 estimated total cash and in-kind contribution ................$ 62,700 In 2013, the Community of Lights Events Society, decided to reduce the size and scope of the festival in response to declining sponsorship funding, and in an attempt to reduce costs and make better use of limited volunteer resources. The festival site was reduced to only include activities at East Beach, and some popular attractions including fireworks and the torch light parade were not held. This change of program format and scope of the event resulted in a negative response from many local residents and Marine Drive merchants. As public perception is that the Spirit of the Sea Festival is a City organized event, many complaints about the program format changes were directed at City Council. Due to the downsizing of last year’s festival, the City’s total financial support required to host the event decreased from $62,700 in 2012 to approximately $50,000 in 2013, a savings of $12,700 over the previous year. Cost savings to the City last year were due to decreased demand for policing, park maintenance, equipment setup and takedown and a reduced grant-in-aid. In response to the negative feedback from residents and merchants, a new volunteer group has stepped forward to organize the 2014 White Rock Sea Fest. The new group, many of which were involved in organizing previous Sea Festivals, began meeting last summer, and have formed a new society to run the event called the White Rock Events Society 2013. The Society has indicated that they would like to increase the size and scope of this year’s “Sea Fest” to once again include activities at both East and West Beach, a torchlight parade and a fireworks show. Based on the City’s past history in hosting this event, it is anticipated that these changes to the festival program will increase the City’s cash and value-in-kind financial support, to a minimum estimate of $65,000. Given that 2014 is a milestone 65th Anniversary of the White Rock Sea Festival, staff recommend a one- time contribution of $15,000 in additional seed money to the White Rock Events Society 2013 to be used to support 2014 Sea Fest expenses such as the parade. AGENDA Page 67 65th White Rock Sea Fest – Request for Funding for a Parade and Parade Float Page No. 3 It is assumed that the Society will also apply for another grant-in-aid from the City, which if approved, may provide additional funding to be used to host the 2014 Sea Fest. Staff recommend against contributing $50,000 for purchasing a parade float as it is felt that the City already contributes a considerable amount of funding for hosting the Sea Fest. Research has shown that parade floats are expensive to buy, costly to maintain, store, transport, insure, and require considerable effort to coordinate their travel arrangements and appearances at various out-of-town parades. BUDGET IMPLICATIONS It is recommended that a $15,000 one-time contribution to the White Rock Events Society 2013 be funded from the City’s contingency budget. OPTIONS Options presented are as follows: 1. That Council support staff recommendation of a one- time $15,000 contribution to the White Rock Events Society 2013 to be used to support 2014 Sea Fest expenses such as a parade. 2. That Council not support staff recommendation of a one- time $15,000 contribution to the White Rock Events Society 2013 to be used to support 2014 Sea Fest expenses such as a parade. 3. That Council support staff recommendation to deny funding in the amount of $50,000 for purchase of a parade float. 4. That Council not support staff recommendation to deny funding in the amount of $50,000 for purchase of a parade float. Staff recommend Options 1 and 3, which are reflected in the recommendation(s) of this report. CONCLUSION The White Rock Sea Festival is an important community event with a 64 year history. Residents and visitors have come to enjoy the live music, family entertainment, fireworks and Torch Light Parade. Community festivals such as this create a sense of community identity, belonging, pride and spirit; promote arts, culture and heritage; foster volunteerism and attract visitors to the community. Given that 2014 is a milestone 65th Anniversary of the White Rock Sea Festival, staff recommend a one- time contribution of $15,000 in seed money to the White Rock Events Society 2013 to be used to support 2014 Sea Fest expenses such as the parade. Respectfully submitted, Eric Stepura Director Leisure Services Sandra Kurylo Director Financial Services AGENDA Page 68 65th White Rock Sea Fest – Request for Funding for a Parade and Parade Float Page No. 4 Comments from the Chief Administrative Officer: I concur with the recommendations of this report. Dan Bottrill Chief Administrative Officer Appendix A: White Rock Events Society 2013 Parade and Float Budget Estimate AGENDA Page 69 AGENDA Page 70 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF WHITE ROCK CORPORATE REPORT DATE: February 24, 2014 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Richard Wilson, Acting Director of Planning and Development Services Revised Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 2045 – CD-19 1550 Oxford Street (ZON 13-030) ______________________________________________________________________________ SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION THAT Council receive for information the corporate report dated February 24, 2014 from the Acting Director of Planning and Development Services titled “Revised Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 2045 – CD-19 1550 Oxford Street (ZON 13-030).” ______________________________________________________________________________ INTRODUCTION The City of White Rock held a Public Hearing for Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 2045 on February 3 and 4, 2014. At the Public Hearing, the applicant offered to move the proposed complex care building 10 feet (ft) closer to the existing C-Wing. The applicant has since amended the site plans to reflect the new position of the building. The revised “White Rock Zoning Bylaw, 2012, No. 2000, Amendment (CD-19 – 1550 Oxford Street) Bylaw, 2013, No. 2045” is included under the Bylaw section of the regular Council agenda as an option for Council’s consideration. POLICY / LEGISLATION Section 894 (1) of the Local Government Act gives Council the authority to amend a bylaw after the Public Hearing without further notice or hearing, as follows: Procedure after a public hearing 894. (1) After a public hearing, the Council or board may, without further notice or hearing, a) adopt or defeat the bylaw, or b) alter and then adopt the bylaw, provided that the alteration does not (i) alter the use, (ii) increase the density, or (iii) without the owner’s consent, decrease the density of any area from that originally specified in the bylaw. AGENDA Page 71 Revised Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 2045 – CD-19 1550 Oxford Street (ZON 13-030) Page 2 ANALYSIS At the February 3 and 4, 2014 Public Hearing, in response to concerns raised by residents in the surrounding area, the applicant came forward with an offer to move the proposed building 10 ft closer to the existing C-Wing. This brought about the following changes to the site plan: 1. the proposed complex care facility moved north and east to 10 ft from the existing C-Wing; 2. the proposed complex care facility setback from north or interior property line increased to 7.8 m (25.6 ft). This increase is the result of the removal of the balcony on the north side of the building in order not to comprise the protected tree. Note that the setback in the bylaw does not change because the existing building D-Wing is 6.69 m from the north property line; and 3. the proposed complex care facility setback from the west or front property line increased to 12.4 m (40.7 ft). In addition to the above, a review of the bylaw noted an incorrect reference to the number of parking spaces and loading spaces. The bylaw also has been revised to reduce the height of the proposed complex care facility from 125.38 m geodetic to 122.8 m geodetic. These changes resulted in the following revisions that are incorporated in the Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 2045. 1. Replaced “minimum” for “maximum” for the parking and loading space requirements. 2. Height reduced from 125.38 m geodetic to 122.8 m geodetic; and 3. Setback from (west) front property line increased from 8.44 m to 12.4 m. CONCLUSION As noted above, Council has the right to amend the bylaw after the Public Hearing to reduce the heights and densities with the owner’s consent, which was offered by the applicant at the Public Hearing and therefore on the public record. The shift of the facility by 10 feet has been incorporated in the bylaw as an option for Council’s consideration. Respectfully submitted, Richard Wilson Acting Director of Planning and Development Services AGENDA Page 72 Revised Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 2045 – CD-19 1550 Oxford Street (ZON 13-030) Page 3 Comments from the Chief Administrative Officer: This corporate report is provided as information advising that all requirements necessary for third and final adoption of the zoning amendment bylaw related to the option to shift the siting of the complex care facility as offered by the applicant have been satisfied should Council wish to consider this option. Dan Bottrill Chief Administrative Officer AGENDA Page 73 6 Minutes of a City of White Rock Land Use and Planning Committee Meeting held at the White Rock Community Centre February 3, 2014 PRESENT: Mayor Baldwin Councillor Fathers Councillor Hutchinson Councillor Lawrence Councillor Meyer Councillor Robinson ABSENT: Councillor Campbell STAFF: D. Bottrill, Chief Administrative Officer R. Wilson, Building Official/Acting Director of Planning and Development Services C. Halbert, Planner C. McBeath, Planning Technician T. Arthur, City Clerk 2 Press: Public: 120 ______________________________________________________________________________ The meeting was called to order at 6:45 p.m. 1. 2014-LU/P-009 AGENDA APPROVAL It was MOVED and SECONDED THAT the Land Use and Planning Committee adopts the agenda for the meeting scheduled for February 3, 2014 as circulated. CARRIED 2. PREVIOUS MINUTES Land Use and Planning Committee Meeting – January 27, 2014 It was MOVED and SECONDED THAT the Land Use and Planning Committee adopts the minutes of the January 27, 2014 meeting as circulated. CARRIED 2014-LU/P-010 3. REPORTS 3.1. DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PERMIT NO. 361 FOR 15521 RUSSELL AVENUE (DVP 14-002) Report dated February 3, 2014 from the Acting Director of Planning and Development Services titled “Development Variance Permit No. 361 for 15521 Russell Avenue (DVP 14-002).” AGENDA Page 74 7 Minutes of a City of White Rock Land Use and Planning Committee Meeting held at the White Rock Community Centre February 3, 2014 It was MOVED and SECONDED THAT the Land Use and Planning Committee: 2014-LU/P-011 1. Receives for information the corporate report dated February 3, 2014 from the Acting Director of Planning and Development Services titled “Development Variance Permit No. 361 for 15521 Russell Avenue (DVP 14-002);” and 2. Refers the application back to staff for review of the proposal with the applicant to explore other options to locate the emergency generator. CARRIED 4. CONCLUSION OF THE FEBRUARY 3, 2014 LAND USE AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING The Chairperson declared the February 3, 2014 Land Use and Planning Committee meeting concluded at 6:55 p.m. _______________________________ Mayor Baldwin __________________________ T. Arthur, City Clerk AGENDA Page 75 Minutes of a Meeting of the Johnston Road Reconstruction and Beautification Task Force held in the City Hall Boardroom on January 29, 2014 PRESENT: Councillor Campbell, Chairperson Councillor Hutchinson Councillor Lawrence STAFF: B. Ambardar, Manager, Engineering D. Bottrill, CAO L. Sym, Committee and FOI Clerk 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:10 p.m. 2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Page 1 It was MOVED and SECONDED THAT the Johnston Road Reconstruction and Beautification Task Force adopts the agenda for the January 29, 2014 meeting as circulated. CARRIED 3. OVERVIEW a) North Bluff Road to Russell Avenue b) Russell Avenue to Thrift Avenue Staff distributed an aerial picture showing Johnston Road from North Bluff Road to Russell Avenue, and from Russell Avenue to Thrift Avenue, displaying the current configuration of lanes and cross-walks. The aerial photo included the preliminary design of new sidewalks which is being completed by Associated Engineering. Staff outlined current issues with the Johnston Road sidewalk, including raised and uneven pavers, an abundance of street amenities making access via the sidewalk difficult, including trees with roots growing. The Saltaire developers at Thrift Avenue on the east side of Johnston Road rebuilt their sidewalk to match the sidewalk on the west side built by Bosa, leaving the rest of the east side of Johnston Road still to be done. Johnston Road is an arterial road in Surrey to the north with large truck traffic. The road narrows heading south at North Bluff Road and the traffic light sequencing is slow, causing congestion. The crosswalk south of North Bluff Road was also identified as an issue, as when it is in use it forces cars heading south to back up into the intersection at Johnston Road. Staff also advised that the left turn lane on Johnston Road heading into Central Plaza will be removed as it is dangerous, it causes northbound back-ups and is not required to access the mall. Concern was expressed regarding the amount of people who j-walk across Johnston Street. It was discussed to move the current crosswalk in front of the Medical building to the south, extend the current southern median north of Russell Avenue to the current median south of AGENDA Page 76 Minutes of a Meeting of the Johnston Road Reconstruction and Beautification Task Force held in the City Hall Boardroom on January 29, 2014 Page 2 Johnston Road, thereby closing the mid-block left turn lane and installing a rail fence with foliage on this new median. It was discussed whether to discontinue the northbound left turn lane on Johnston Road to North Bluff, as the entrance to Semiahmoo Mall is accessed from Martin Street. Staff advised that North Bluff is a TransLink Major Road and should have maximum connectivity from Johnston Road, including a north bound left turn lane. 4. SIDEWALK REVIEW – LEVELTON CONSULTANTS LTD. The current sidewalks on Johnston Road from North Bluff Road to Thrift Avenue are uneven pavers, and contain many different styles and types of features. The sidewalk will need to be made level, with a 2% slope away from buildings. Pavers will need to be removed, and concrete installed. Typically sidewalks are 5’ wide, and members agreed on the importance of maintaining an unobstructed walkway. Staff noted that the proposed design does not anticipate any change in elevation of the road, which will result in linear drains in the sidewalk to collect surface water. Staff noted that the sidewalk could be regraded to drain to the road if the road was lowered at the curb by approximately 150mm, however road works on Johnston are currently not in the five year capital plan. Members noted that this location is the town centre, the gateway into White Rock, and agreed that the re-design of Johnston Road would need to provide infrastructure to support the local businesses and create a positive experience for visitors to the area. The 2014 capital budget for sidewalks is $340,000 for the east side from Russell Avenue to North Bluff Road. It was suggested that other funding be sought to complete the west side at the same time and possibly some road works. It was noted that the properties on the east side of Johnston Road from Russell Avenue to North Bluff Road all extend to George Street. It was suggested that future building on that side of the street be set back further than it is currently. Staff will provide cost estimates at the next meeting to enable the Task Force to establish construction phases. 5. RELOCATION OF CROSSWALK – JOHNSTON ROAD IN BETWEEN NORTH BLUFF ROAD AND RUSSELL AVENUE It was noted that the current crosswalk in between North Bluff Road and Russell Avenue is too close to North Bluff Road, causing vehicles to back into the intersection on a green light to await the crossing of pedestrians. This crosswalk will be moved south to approximately 1549 Johnston Road. Members requested that bulges still be used, and that a crossing light and median for refuge be installed for pedestrians unable to cross in a timely manner. The median may also have a control button for the pedestrian light. Businesses on the west side of Johnston Road have their own parking, so it was suggested to remove the street parking on the west side of Johnston Road and remove existing curb bulges to create a through lane to Russell. AGENDA Page 77 Minutes of a Meeting of the Johnston Road Reconstruction and Beautification Task Force held in the City Hall Boardroom on January 29, 2014 Page 3 There was some discussion around removing the mid-block crosswalk between Russell Avenue and Thrift Avenue. Members decided to focus the meeting on the Russell Avenue to North Bluff Road section of Johnston Road, with the Thrift Avenue to Russell Avenue section to be discussed at a future meeting. 6. INGRESS/EGRESS OF CENTRAL PLAZA Currently there is a left turn lane from Johnston Road into Central Plaza that has been identified as a hazard by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. This turning lane will be removed and the median extended to meet up with the next median to the south. Discussion was held regarding street lights, could feature a banner bar for hanging banners, hanging baskets in summer and possibly a sprinkler system. Medians will have a fence down the middle and can be planted with pampas grasses and other low plants. It was requested that Associated Engineering prepare a plan for street lights in the median where possible, and on the sidewalk where not possible, staggering them appropriately. It was MOVED and SECONDED THAT the Johnston Road Task Force request that Council direct staff to prepare a report/plan containing: A continuous fence on the median between the traffic signal and crosswalks; Move mid-block crosswalk south to 1549 Johnston Road; Put Safety/refuge median at the cross walk and reduce or eliminate curb bulges; Put street lighting in the new median where possible; No trees on sidewalks; Extend median from the current cross walk location on Johnston Road south of North Bluff Road to the new crosswalk location at 1549 Johnston Road. CARRIED 7. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. 8. NEXT MEETING The next meeting will be held on February 19, 2014 at 1:00 p.m. 9. CONCLUSION OF THE MEETING The Chairperson declared the meeting concluded at 2:05 p.m. _____________________________ Councillor Campbell, Chairperson _________________________________ Lorraine Sym, Committee and FOI Clerk AGENDA Page 78 Minutes of a Meeting of the Cultural Activity Task Force held in the City Hall Boardroom on January 29, 2014 Page 1 PRESENT: Councillor Hutchinson, Chairperson K. Breaks M. Brunet F. Fagen K. Stadel ABSENT: L. Cai R. Charles S. Fairbairn GUEST: Ryan Mooney, Artistic Director and Director at Large of the White Rock Players’ Club STAFF: E. Stepura, Director, Leisure Services C. Halpern, Manager, Cultural Development L. Sym, Committee and FOI Clerk 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 4:08 p.m. The Chairperson advised that the Task Force was set up to continue work from 2013. Task Force members representing Semiahmoo Arts, White Rock Elementary and White Rock Players’ Club are now transferrable, so if a member is unable to attend a meeting, they can send a representative from their organization on their behalf. 2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA It was MOVED and SECONDED THAT the Cultural Activity Task Force adopts the agenda for the January 29, 2014 meeting as circulated. CARRIED 3. ADOPTION OF MINUTES a) November 19, 2013 It was MOVED and SECONDED THAT the Cultural Activity Task Force adopts the November 19, 2013 minutes as circulated. CARRIED 4. INTRODUCTION AND ROUNDTABLE There was a roundtable introduction of staff and Task Force members. AGENDA Page 79 Minutes of a Meeting of the Cultural Activity Task Force held in the City Hall Boardroom on January 29, 2014 5. Page 2 CULTURAL ACTIVITY TASK FORCE 2013 YEAR END REPORT Staff advised that in 2013 a recommendation was made to create a Cultural Strategic Plan for the City of White Rock. An Arts Economic Task Force Strategic Plan contains a SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats), followed by goals. In 2013 collaborations were made with Semiahmoo Arts and the Business Improvement Association to present the following events: Paint the Town and Christmas on the Drive. One of the goals set in 2013 was to host a business appreciation event for those businesses who promote the arts through their businesses. The City of White Rock has set aside funds for this event to occur in 2014. Members noted a lack of coordination of arts events, and how visitors to White Rock can find out what is happening in town when they visit. The City of White Rock set up an Arts Tab on their website which contains a link to the Cultural Mapping project as well as to In White Rock.Com. Members suggested that this page could also feature links to more arts organizations, as well as event listings. It was suggested that a task force/sub-committee be established to gather and list arts events in the community with other arts organizations and Tourism White Rock. It was agreed to invite the Executive Director of White Rock Tourism to the next meeting. 6. CULTURAL STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL SETTING One of Council’s goals was to create a Cultural Strategic Plan. A report should be presented to Council prior to the August break. At the next meeting, the Cultural Activity Task Force will begin to develop a vision for the Cultural Strategy using visions from other communities. Then one overall vision will be selected and presented for the Cultural Strategy. At the following meeting top goals for the Strategy will be determined. It was MOVED and SECONDED THAT a Cultural Activity Task Force Working Group be struck to develop a centralized list of arts and cultural events for White Rock consisting of Kate Stadel, Ryan Mooney, Kelly Breaks and Mary Brunet. CARRIED The working group will work with the Cultural Manager, City of White Rock and the Executive Director, Tourism White Rock, and the White Rock Sun. 7. REVIEW OF ARTS ECONOMIC TASK FORCE SWOT (Strengths/Weaknesses/Opportunities/Threats) http://bit.ly/14mkc2M Staff distributed the Arts Economic Task Force SWOT analysis and requested members to review the document. If members want to add more information, it was suggested that they submit their suggestions to the Cultural Manager. AGENDA Page 80 Minutes of a Meeting of the Cultural Activity Task Force held in the City Hall Boardroom on January 29, 2014 Page 3 An article was distributed from the National Endowment for the Arts (USA) showing that arts and culture contribute greatly to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). 8. 2014 PLANNED EVENTS Task Force members listed the following events for 2014: White Rock Players’ Club 2014/15 (September to August) A Funny Thing Happened on the way to the Forum (February) Moonlight and Magnolias Season Launch (April 6) Neil Simon’s Barefoot in the Park (June) Musical, three plays and a panto Theatresport 70th Anniversary of the White Rock Players Club (2015) White Rock Elementary School School District – choral, band and dance festivals Art Show accompanied by music (February 19) Blue Frog Studios Celtic events (March) Gary Comeau, fiddler (March) Dueling Pianos, dinner and show Semiahmoo Arts Film series (three in the spring and three in the fall) Irish poetry night Arts on display Rent space for art shows (one in February) Irish Festival (March) Tribute concert to music of Van Morrison (March) Visual Arts Show 40th anniversary Semiahmoo Arts, exhibit Celebrating 40 years of arts on the Peninsula (September) 40th anniversary party, Pier 100th year, co-partnership with City, party on the pier (end of August) “I Grew Up in White Rock South Surrey” Facebook page City of White Rock Cultural Manager The City of White Rock partnered with a talented pianist, holding four classical concerts on Sundays at First United Church. AGENDA Page 81 Minutes of a Meeting of the Cultural Activity Task Force held in the City Hall Boardroom on January 29, 2014 Page 4 9. NEXT MEETING The next meeting will be held on February 17, from 4:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m. at White Rock Players Club, Coast Capital Theatre. 10. CONCLUSION OF THE MEETING The Chairperson declared the meeting concluded at 5:55 p.m. _____________________________ Councillor Hutchinson, Chairperson _______________________________ Lorraine Sym, Committee and FOI Clerk AGENDA Page 82 Minutes of a Meeting of the Environmental Advisory Committee held in the City Hall Boardroom on February 4, 2014 PRESENT: NON VOTING MEMBERS: STAFF: 1. Page 1 W. Boyd, Chairperson G. Saunders, Vice Chairperson B. Bélec S. Hamm J. Stone Cllr. Meyers G. St. Louis, Director, Engineering and Municipal Operations L. Sym, Committee and FOI Clerk CALL TO ORDER The Committee Clerk called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. There was a roundtable introduction of members, including a welcome to new members. 2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA IT WAS MOVED AND SECONDED THAT the Environmental Advisory Committee adopts the February 4, 2014 agenda with the addition of Kinder Morgan Intervenor Status as item 10, Eelgrass and Dredging as item 11, and Railway Safety as item 12. CARRIED 3. ADOPTION OF MINUTES a) November 19, 2013 It was MOVED and SECONDED THAT the Environmental Advisory Committee adopts the minutes from the November 19, 2013 meeting as circulated. CARRIED 4. NOMINATION AND ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON It was MOVED and SECONDED THAT the Environmental Advisory Committee nominate Wilma Boyd to the position of Chairperson. CARRIED AGENDA Page 83 Minutes of a Meeting of the Environmental Advisory Committee held in the City Hall Boardroom on February 4, 2014 Page 2 It was MOVED and SECONDED THAT the Environmental Advisory Committee elect Wilma Boyd to the position of Chairperson. CARRIED 5. NOMINATION AND ELECTION OF VICE CHAIRPERSON It was MOVED and SECONDED THAT the Environmental Advisory Committee nominate Gary Saunders to the position of Vice-Chairperson. CARRIED It was MOVED and SECONDED THAT the Environmental Advisory Committee elect Gary Saunders to the position of Vice-Chairperson. CARRIED 6. COMMITTEE CODE OF CONDUCT Members were requested to sign the Committee Code of Conduct and return to the Committee Clerk. 7. RESOLUTIONS FROM COUNCIL Note: The following recommendations were made by Council on December 2, 2013: 2013-427 THAT Council refers the following recommendation to staff: WHEREAS three City of White Rock plans, the Environmental Strategic Plan, Integrated Stormwater Management Plan and the Community Climate Action Plan support increased total tree canopy; WHEREAS the Environmental Advisory Committee supports increased total tree bio-mass; WHEREAS tree replacement compensation applies to only a portion of the City; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED a separate budget line item be created for the planting of new or replacement trees in the City of White Rock. 2013-443 THAT Council receives for information the corporate report dated December 16, 2013 from the Director of Engineering and Municipal Operations titled “Environmental Advisory Committee’s 2013 Year End Report. AGENDA Page 84 Minutes of a Meeting of the Environmental Advisory Committee held in the City Hall Boardroom on February 4, 2014 8. Page 3 PARKS AND RAVINE TREE MANAGEMENT The Planning and Development Services Policy 611, Tree Management on City Lands does not permit the public to apply to have a tree pruned or removed in the ravine. Residents bordering the ravine have expressed an interest in removing, pruning and cleaning up trees that were topped in the past. Presently, ravines are left in a natural state, unless a slide occurs. There are no inspections of trail systems, however issues will be addressed upon receipt of complaint. Committee members discussed restoring trees to their original condition, removing secondary and additional leaders, and retaining the duff layer. The City arborist agreed that cutting off leaders was a good idea that will enable ground vegetation to grow. It was also suggested that new trees be planted to replace aging and damaged trees. Members recommended getting an outside report on the suggested works in ravine lands, in addition to the City Arborist’s opinion. The City would need to develop strong guidelines for consistency and to avoid resident conflict. There will be a review of Policy 611, Tree Management on City Lands, which will be done by the new Director of Planning and Development Services. 9. WALKWAY AT PROSPECT AVENUE AND BLACKWOOD STREET Staff advised that the home owner of 15050 Prospect Avenue approached Council to request that a tree to the west in the walkway at Prospect Avenue and Blackwood Street be pruned in order to restore the view the home owner had twenty years prior. Members suggested that the policy allowing previous views was not in place when the home was built, so the homeowner had no reasonable expectation of maintaining their view. Policy 611 states that trees on City Parkland will not be pruned or removed, and members suggested that the policy be followed in this instance. 10. KINDER MORGAN INTERVENOR STATUS An article was distributed regarding the opportunity for the public to register as intevenors to obtain further information from Kinder Morgan. It was MOVED and SECONDED THAT the Environmental Advisory Committee supports the City of White Rock Council applying for intervenor status in the Kinder Morgan’s proposed Trans Mountain Pipeline and Tankers proposal. CARRIED AGENDA Page 85 Minutes of a Meeting of the Environmental Advisory Committee held in the City Hall Boardroom on February 4, 2014 Page 4 11. EELGRASS AND DREDGING Staff advised that now that the dredging of the harbour is complete, a dive survey will be scheduled for early 2014. 12. RAILWAY SAFETY Committee members expressed concern regarding dangerous loads being transported through White Rock by rail, and suggested that a letter be written to the Minister of Parliament suggesting that information on dangerous loads be provided for use by the Fire Department in case of an accident or derailment. Staff advised that the information on dangerous loads is received quarterly, and that a meeting is scheduled with Russ Hiebert, Minister of Parliament to discuss. Information will be provided back to the committee regarding this meeting. 13. NEXT MEETING Members agreed to hold the next meeting on March 25, 2014, and the third Tuesday of each month in 2014, with no meeting held in August. A Select Committee Meeting Schedule will be forwarded to members. 14. CONCLUSION OF THE MEETING The Chairperson declared the meeting concluded at 5:25 p.m. _____________________________ Wilma Boyd, Chairperson __________________________________ L. Sym, Committee and Freedom of Information Clerk AGENDA Page 86 Minutes of a Meeting of the Centre Street Road Allowance Improvements Task Force held in the City Hall Boardroom on February 5, 2014 Page 1 PRESENT: Councillor Fathers, Chairperson Councillor Lawrence ABSENT: Councillor Campbell STAFF: A. Otto, Arboricultural/Horticultural Technician L. Sym, FOI and Committee Clerk GUESTS: 6 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 10:44 a.m. The Chairperson explained the purpose and mandate to the members. There was a roundtable introduction of members and guests at the meeting. 2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA RECOMMENDATION THAT the Centre Street Road Allowance Task Force adopts the agenda for the February 5, 2014 meeting as circulated. CARRIED 3. CENTRE STREET ROAD ALLOWANCE MAP Staff explained that the subject road allowances are at Ash Street, Balsam Street, Centre Street, Cypress Street, Dolphin Street and Foster Street, and the ravine lands (which are done for infrastructure for water movement). Some of the road allowances are undeveloped by the City, but were developed by residents. 4. IDENTIFICATION OF HOMEOWNER IMPROVEMENTS ON CITY PROPERTY Staff distributed aerial photos of road allowances to the west of 15304 Columbia, south of 15264 Victoria, and 15259 Marine Drive showing where residents have been involved in developing the road allowances. It was noted that permits exist in the community with regard to road allowances, and staff agreed to report on these permits at the next meeting. 5. DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS FOR ROAD ALLOWANCE Members discussed various amenities and upgrades possible for the road allowance green spaces, including all ability levels and limited mobility access. Uses will need to be identified, including whether bicycle riders will be accommodated, or creating seating areas or a habitat for bird species. It was suggested that upgrades to road allowances should be picturesque, esthetically pleasing and appealing to residents. AGENDA Page 87 Minutes of a Meeting of the Centre Street Road Allowance Improvements Task Force held in the City Hall Boardroom on February 5, 2014 Page 2 Staff also stated that any developments on the road allowances initiated by the City will need to be maintained by staff. IT WAS MOVED AND SECONDED THAT the Centre Street Road Allowance Improvements Task Force recommends to Council that a meeting be established with residents three to four homes adjacent to the road allowances for public input. CARRIED 6. OTHER BUSINESS Staff will provide a report regarding specific addresses with an itemized list of improvements on the road allowances, and whether permits exist for these improvements. 7. NEXT MEETING The next meeting will be held on March 4, 2014 at 10:30 a.m. 8. CONCLUSION OF THE MEETING The Chairperson declared the meeting concluded at 11:00 a.m. _____________________________ Councillor Fathers, Chairperson _________________________________ Lorraine Sym, Committee and FOI Clerk AGENDA Page 88 Minutes of a Meeting of the East Beach Waterfront Improvements Task Force held in the City Hall Boardroom on February 5, 2014 PRESENT: Councillor Lawrence, Chairperson Councillor Fathers Councillor Meyer STAFF: P. Slack, Manager, Operations E. Stepura, Director, Leisure Services L. Sym, Committee and FOI Clerk 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 3:07 p.m. 2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Page 1 It was MOVED and SECONDED THAT the East Beach Waterfront Improvements Task Force adopts the agenda for the February 5, 2014 meeting as circulated. CARRIED 3. ADOPTION OF MINUTES a) January 24, 2014 It was MOVED and SECONDED THAT the East Beach Waterfront Improvements Task Force adopts the January 24, 2014 minutes as circulated. CARRIED 4. PRESENTATION OF OTHER WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENTS Staff advised that PWL Partnership (a landscape architectural firm specializing in waterfront upgrades) is willing to provide a tour of Pier Park in New Westminster, and the south east waterfront (Athletes Village area) in False Creek to the Public Art Advisory Committee. A sample of PWL’s waterfront design projects will be forwarded to members of this committee. 5. STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES, THREATS (SWOT) It was suggested that a SWOT analysis may be premature at the current time. Such an analysis should include community committee members and give an opportunity for dialogue. New members will be attending the next meeting, including a member involved with tourism in White Rock. It was also agreed to seek a member of the Business Improvement Association, preferably an owner of a business on East Beach. Discussion of timelines ensued, with the suggestion that a concept design be ready by summer 2014. AGENDA Page 89 Minutes of a Meeting of the East Beach Waterfront Improvements Task Force held in the City Hall Boardroom on February 5, 2014 6. Page 2 DATE AND TIME FOR SITE VISIT Staff will arrange a tour of Pier Park in New Westminster and the South East waterfront area of False Creek. PWL Partnership will conduct the tour. Staff will arrange transportation from the White Rock Community Centre and will advise of the date and time. Scheduled Tour Date: Thursday February 20, 2014. Depart the White Rock Community Centre (15154 Russell Avenue) on Thursday February 20, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. The group will meet with Jason Wegman and Derrick Lees of PWL Partnership at Pier Park, New Westminster at 9:30 a.m., return around 2:00 p.m. It was suggested that another tour be arranged with the inclusion of Port Moody’s waterfront. 7. OTHER BUSINESS Members discussed a proposed rendering of the improved waterfront, and requested that staff determine the price for this project. Staff report that the price of this work is estimated at $6,000,000. Members also inquired as to whether there are any grant funds available for rising tide levels. It was noted that East Beach is lower compared to the railway and may be eligible for such funding. It was suggested that the Ministry of Fisheries, Environment Canada and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway may be involved in future planning for this area. 8. NEXT MEETING The Chairperson will call a meeting at the end of February/early March. 9. CONCLUSION OF THE MEETING The Chairperson declared the meeting concluded at 3:45 p.m. _____________________________ Councillor Lawrence, Chairperson _______________________________ Lorraine Sym, Committee and FOI Clerk AGENDA Page 90 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF WHITE ROCK BYLAW 2041 _________________________________________ A Bylaw to regulate, prohibit or impose requirements respecting Controlled Substance Properties. WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the City of White Rock deems it expedient to enact a bylaw to regulate, prohibit or impose requirements respecting Controlled Substance Properties; AND WHEREAS the alteration of plumbing, heating, air conditioning, electrical wiring and equipment, gas piping and fittings, appliances and accessories in or on Controlled Substance Properties creates danger to occupiers and neighbours of Controlled Substance Properties and risks to the health and safety of the occupiers, neighbours and first responders; and AND WHEREAS Controlled Substance Properties that contravene applicable standards under the Provincial Code, British Columbia Fire Code or other applicable enactments, including bylaw requirements of the City, create risks to the health and safety of occupiers, and reduce the value of neighbouring properties. NOW, THEREFORE, under the statutory powers, including Sections 8(3) (g), (h) and (l) of the Community Charter, the Council of the Corporation of the City of White Rock in open meeting assembled hereby enacts as follows: 1. This Bylaw may be cited as “White Rock Controlled Substance Property Bylaw, 2014, No. 2041.” 2. DEFINITIONS: In this Bylaw: “Alteration” means any change made to the structural, mechanical or electrical components of a Controlled Substance Property. “Building” means any structure or construction for any use or occupancy. “Building Inspector” means a person or persons employed by or under contract to the City to administer the City’s Building Bylaw and the Provincial Code. “Bylaw Enforcement Officer” means a person or persons employed or under contract to the City to administer and regulate City bylaws. “Chief Constable” means the Officer-in-Charge of the Police and his or her designate. “City” means the Corporation of the City of White Rock. “Community Charter” means the Community Charter, R.S.B.C., 2003, c. 26, as amended from time to time. “Contaminant” means an unwholesome or undesirable element which makes a Property unfit for habitation. AGENDA Page 91 White Rock Controlled Substance Property Bylaw, 2014, No. 2041 Page 2 of 12 “Controlled Substance” means a controlled substance as defined and described in Schedules I, II, III, IV, V or VI of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, R.S.C. 1996, c.19, as amended, but does not include the trade or manufacture of a controlled substance that is permitted under that Act. “Controlled Substance Property” means a) a Property on which a Hazardous Condition exists; b) a Property contaminated by or containing trace amounts of chemical or biological materials used in or produced by the trade or manufacture of a Controlled Substance; c) a Property altered to manufacture, grow, store, sell, trade or barter a Controlled Substance; or d) a Property which has been or is being used for the manufacture, growing, storage, sale, trade or barter of a Controlled Substance, including a Property on which a person is authorized by the Health Canada to produce marijuana pursuant the Medical Marijuana Access Regulation, SOR 2001-227, or the Marijuana for Medical Purposes Regulation, SOR 2013-119. “Dangerous Goods” means those products or substances regulated by the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, S.C. 1992, c. 34 and its Regulations, both as amended from time to time. “Fire Chief “ means the person appointed to that position for White Rock Fire Rescue or designate. “Hazardous Condition” means any real or potential risk to health and safety of persons or property that arises from the use of a Property for the manufacture of a Controlled Substance or for the trade, use, sharing, storage, sale or barter of a Controlled Substance and includes without limitation: a) any real or potential risk of fire; b) any unapproved Building Alteration or other modifications made to a Property; or, c) any repairs needed to a Property. “Inspector” means a) the Fire Chief or designate; b) a Building Inspector; c) a Bylaw Enforcement Officer; d) a member of the RCMP; e) a safety officer under the Safety Standards Act, S.B.C. 2003, c. 39; or f) a health inspector appointed by the local health authority. “Noxious or Offensive Trade” includes the activities undertaken on a Controlled Substance Property. AGENDA Page 92 White Rock Controlled Substance Property Bylaw, 2014, No. 2041 Page 3 of 12 “Owner” means a person who is the fee simple owner of the Property or has a life estate or registered leasehold interest in the Property and includes the agent of that person. “Professional Cleaner” means a person experienced in removing Contaminants from a Property who possesses a Building Services Worker Certificate and is trained in the Work Place Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS). “Property” means a parcel of land, and includes, without limitation, any permanent or portable building or structure located on the parcel. “Provincial Code” means the British Columbia Building Code as amended from time to time. “Qualified Professional” means an individual or corporation who a) is a certified industrial hygienist (CIH), a registered occupational hygienist (ROH), a registered professional biologist (R.P.Bio.), or a PhD. mycologist, and b) carries environmental liability insurance in the minimum amount of $1,000,000. “RCMP” means the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. “Restoration Inspection” means an inspection of a Controlled Substance Property by one or more Inspectors to determine whether the Hazardous Conditions or Building Alterations identified during a Safety Inspection have been corrected. “Safety Inspection” means an inspection of a Property carried out by one or more Inspectors after the Property has been used for the manufacture, trade, use, sharing, storage, sale or barter of a Controlled Substance contrary to this Bylaw. “Service Costs” means all direct and indirect costs incurred by the City for the dismantling and removal of materials, equipment and by-products from a Controlled Substance Property, and includes the following: a) all costs, including wages and other related personnel costs, including standby costs, incurred for dismantling, disassembly, removal, clean-up, transportation, storage and disposal of equipment, substances, materials and other paraphernalia associated with such use, trade, business or manufacture; b) costs incurred to replace consumables, or to replace equipment following exposure to contaminants; c) costs incurred as the result of the analysis of the materials found at the Property and the health and safety conditions at the Property; d) costs incurred in respect of the Property under a contract for services for an independent contractor or agent, including without limitation, a professional engineer, a consultant, a person retained to carry out construction or demolition, a health professional, an electrical inspector, or a hazardous materials professional; AGENDA Page 93 White Rock Controlled Substance Property Bylaw, 2014, No. 2041 Page 4 of 12 e) costs incurred by all peace officers acting on behalf of the City in the forensic investigation and inspection of the Property, securing of the Property, accompanying inspectors on or in the Property, or otherwise lawfully attending the Property; and f) actual costs incurred for legal fees incurred in connection with the Controlled Substance Property. “Ticket” means a ticket in the form prescribed by Regulation in the Community Charter Regulation, B.C. Reg. 425/2003. “Ticketing for Bylaw Offenses Bylaw” means the Ticketing for Bylaw Offenses Bylaw, 2011, No. 1929, as amended from time to time. “Utility” means a lawful provider of an electrical, water or natural gas service from a distribution system to consumers. 3. PROHIBITIONSAND REGULATIONS 3.1 No person shall cause, permit or allow any Property or part thereof to become or remain a place for the manufacture, trade, use, sharing, storage, sale or barter of a Controlled Substance. 3.2 No person shall: 3.3 a) cause, permit or allow water, rubbish or noxious or offensive material to collect or accumulate around any Property in connection with the manufacture, trade, use, sharing, storage, sale or barter of a Controlled Substance; or b) store or use, or cause, suffer or permit the use or storage of Dangerous Goods in any Property in quantities greater than permitted under the British Columbia Fire Code. No person other than a Utility or a person a u t h o r i z e d b y t h e U t i l i t y s h a l l : a) disconnect, tamper with or bypass a meter installed for the purpose of ascertaining consumption of electricity, water or natural gas from an electrical, water or natural gas distribution system; or b) divert, or cause, suffer or permit the diversion of an electrical, water or natural gas distribution system so that the consumption is not registered by a meter. 3.4 No person shall use or alter, or cause, suffer or permit the use or alteration of the water distribution system for the purpose of cultivating or the manufacturing of a Controlled Substance. 3.5 Every person who removes, interferes with, alters or tampers with a water service that was discontinued under Section 4.4 and sealed by the water utility, commits an offence under this Bylaw. AGENDA Page 94 White Rock Controlled Substance Property Bylaw, 2014, No. 2041 Page 5 of 12 3.6 No person shall alter a structure or building in a way that facilitates the manufacture or growth of a Controlled Substance or for the purpose of establishing or operating a grow operation or clandestine drug lab. 3.7 No person shall construct or install, or cause, suffer or permit the construction or installation of a trap or other device which could cause death or bodily harm to a person entering in or on a Property. 3.8 No person shall construct or install, or cause, suffer or permit the construction or installation of any obstruction of an exit or an access to an exit required under the Provincial Code or other enactment. 3.9 No person shall remove or cause, suffer or permit the removal of fire stopping that is provided or required under an enactment to contain the spread of fire within a Building. 3.10 No person shall divert or install exhaust vents for hot water tanks or furnaces to exhaust into or within a Building except by way of an exhaust vent constructed or installed in compliance with applicable provincial enactments and City bylaws. 3.11 No person shall cause or permit a Building to become subject to the growth of mould or fungus arising from or in relation to a Controlled Substance. 3.12 No person shall cause, allow or permit in a Building the manufacture, growing, storage, transfer or disposal of a substance that emits odours, fumes or particulate matter that disturbs the enjoyment, health, comfort or convenience of individuals. 3.13 No person shall cause or permit: a) a nuisance as a result of the use or occupancy of any Controlled Substance Property; b) water, rubbish or unsightly, noxious, offensive or unwholesome matter to collect or accumulate in, on, under or around a Controlled Substance Property owned, used or occupied by the person; or c) the carrying on of a Noxious or Offensive Trade in or on any Controlled Substance Property, including but not limited to the production, storage, transfer or disposal of substances that emit offensive odours, fumes or particulate matter. 3.14 Every Owner of a Property which is occupied or used by persons other than the Owner who has knowledge of contravention of this Bylaw in relation to the Property, shall within 24 hours of the discovery of the contravention, deliver written notice to the City of the particulars of the contravention. 4. RIGHT OF ENTRY 4.1 An Inspector has the right to enter upon any Property in accordance with the provisions of the Community Charter for the following purposes: AGENDA Page 95 White Rock Controlled Substance Property Bylaw, 2014, No. 2041 Page 6 of 12 a) to inspect and determine whether all regulations, prohibitions and requirements under this Bylaw or other enactments are met in relation to any matter for which the Council, a municipal officer or employee or a person authorized by the Council exercised authority under this or another bylaw to regulate, prohibit or impose requirements; b) to execute any remedial action authorized by Council under this Bylaw; c) to inspect, disconnect or remove a water service under the provisions of this Bylaw; or d) to carry out a Safety Inspection where an Inspector or the Fire Chief considers that a Hazardous Condition may exist on the Property. 4.2 No person shall interfere with or obstruct the entry of an Inspector into or onto any Property. 4.3 The Fire Chief may: a) enter on Property and inspect premises for conditions that may cause a fire, increase the danger of a fire or increase the danger to persons or property from a fire; b) take measures to prevent and suppress fires, including the demolition of buildings and other structures to prevent the spreading of fires; c) order the Owner of P roperty to undertake any actions directed by the Fire Chief for the purpose of removing or reducing any thing or condition that the Fire Chief considers is a fire hazard or increases the danger of fire; d) order every Occupier of a Controlled Substance Property to vacate the Property until the “Do not occupy” notice posted by the Fire Chief under the authority of this Bylaw has been removed by the Building Inspector or the Fire Chief; and e) without limiting paragraphs (a) to (d), exercise the powers of the Fire Commissioner under Section 25 of the Fire Services Act, and for these purposes that Section applies. 4.4 The City may, on 24 hours written notice, or such other period of time as may be reasonable in the circumstances, request the water Utility to discontinue water service to a Property if the water was, or is, used for the purposes of a Controlled Substance Property. The Owner of such Property and any other person affected by the discontinuance of the water service will, upon written request, be provided with an opportunity to make representations to Council regarding such discontinuance. 5. WRITTEN NOTICE OF HAZARDOUS CONDITION 5.1 An Inspector may issue a written notice to an Owner and, where applicable, an Occupant, to remedy any Hazardous Condition or anything or condition that is not in compliance with this Bylaw that exists on the Property. AGENDA Page 96 White Rock Controlled Substance Property Bylaw, 2014, No. 2041 Page 7 of 12 5.2 6. Where an Owner or Occupant, or both as the case may be, receives a written notice to remedy any Hazardous Condition or anything or condition that is not in compliance with this Bylaw pursuant to section 3, he or she must comply with the notice within the time frame specified therein, and failure to do so shall constitute an offence under this Bylaw. NOTICE ON TITLE 6.0 Where a Building Inspector acquires knowledge that a Hazardous Condition or other thing or condition that is not in compliance with this Bylaw or the Provincial Code exists on a Property, he or she may initiate the filing of notice against the title of the Property as provided by section 57 of the Community Charter. 6.1 The filing of notice against the title of a Controlled Substance Property is subject to the payment of fees prescribed in Schedule A. 6.2 When the conditions that gave rise to the filing of notice against the title of a Controlled Substance Property have been remedied, the Building Inspector shall cause the notice so filed to be removed from the title. 7. POSTING OF NOTICE ON PROPERTY 7.1 An Inspector may post a notice on any Property that has been used for the manufacture, trade, use, sharing, sale or barter of a Controlled Substance or that contains a Hazardous Condition or anything or condition that is not in compliance with this Bylaw, advising of the requirements of this Bylaw. 7.2 After a notice referred to in section 7.1 is posted, no person shall thereafter enter or occupy such Property, except as follows: a) an Inspector, while exercising authority under this Bylaw; b) a Professional Cleaner, while cleaning and disinfecting the Property; c) a Qualified Professional, during an inspection under this Bylaw; and d) a person who has applied for and received written permission from an Inspector. 7.3 No person shall: a) interfere with or obstruct an Inspector from posting a notice referred to in Section 7.1; or b) remove, alter, cover or mutilate a notice posted under section 7.1. 8. REMEDIATION REQUIREMENTS 8.1 Where a Safety Inspection confirms that a Property was used as a Controlled Substance Property, the Owner of the Property must, within 30 days of receiving a written notice from the Inspector: AGENDA Page 97 White Rock Controlled Substance Property Bylaw, 2014, No. 2041 Page 8 of 12 a) engage a Professional Cleaner to clean and disinfect the Property, including, but not limited to: b) 8.2 i) removing and disposing of all carpets and curtains in the Building; ii) if the Building is heated by forced air heating, having the furnace, all air ducts, main distribution ducts, venting, and filtering cleaned by a professional cleaner or by a duct cleaning company; and iii) having all walls, floors, ceilings, countertops and cabinets in the Building replaced or cleaned and disinfected by a professional cleaner. provide written certification to the City from a Qualified Professional, confirming that, upon inspection: i) the requirements of Section 8.1(a) have been satisfied; and ii) the Property is substantially free of any Contaminants, mould or fungi. If a Property is used as a Controlled Substance Property and: a) the supply of electricity, water or natural gas to the Property is disconnected by the City or any other lawful authority; b) unauthorized Alterations or repairs are made to structural, electrical, water or gas systems, equipment, appliances or other accessories of any kind; or c) a Hazardous Condition exists on the Property, then the supply of electricity, water or natural gas must not be permanently reconnected and the Property must not be occupied or used until: i) the Owner applies to an Inspector for a Restoration Inspection and pays the Restoration Inspection fee prescribed in Schedule "A"; ii) the Property is inspected by one or more Inspectors and all other lawful authorities with jurisdiction over the supply of electricity, water or natural gas, for compliance with all health and safety requirements of the City's bylaws and any provincial statutes or regulations relating to Building, electrical, water, health, gas or fire safety; iii) the Owner has obtained all permits, approvals or authorizations required to carry out, and has carried out or caused to be carried out, the work necessary to bring the Property into compliance with the City's bylaws and all applicable provincial statutes and regulations; iv) if so required under any enactment, the Owner has retained a professional engineer holding a valid licence under the Engineers and Geoscientists Act and the professional engineer has certified in writing that the building safety requirements required under applicable enactments have been complied with; v) all of the work referred to in this section is completed and inspected by one or more Inspectors and all other lawful authorities with jurisdiction, and the Property complies with the City's bylaws and all AGENDA Page 98 White Rock Controlled Substance Property Bylaw, 2014, No. 2041 Page 9 of 12 applicable provincial statutes and regulations; vi) vii) the Owner pays all fees imposed under this Bylaw and all other relevant City Bylaws relating to the inspection of the Property and the issuance of permits; and an Inspector rescinds a Do Not Occupy notice issued to the Property. 8.3 Where the City carries out a Safety Inspection or provides a service to Property under this Bylaw, the Owner of such Property shall pay the applicable fees prescribed by Schedule “A” of this Bylaw. 8.4 An Owner of a Controlled Substance Property shall pay to the City, in addition to all other fees payable under Schedule "A" all Service Costs incurred by or on behalf of the City, except that an Owner may, within 30 days of receipt of an invoice demanding payment of the Service Costs, require that Council reconsider the requirement to pay, or the amount of the Service Costs, at which time the Owner shall be given an opportunity to be heard by Council. 8.5 Despite Section 8.4, if any Owner or their agent reports a contravention under Section 3.14 of this Bylaw, the Safety Inspection Fee arising in respect of the contravention is waived in respect of that incident 8.6 Section 8.5 does not apply if the Owner or their agent discovers the contravention after the RCMP or an Inspector first discovers the contravention. 8.7. Should the Owner or their agent fail to attend at the Property to provide access to an Inspector on the date and at the time of that inspection, the Safety Inspection Fee remains payable and is non-refundable. 8.8 Any remediation required to be done on the Property pursuant to Section 8.2 of this Bylaw must be completed within 60 days of the date of occurrence of the latest of the events described in sections (i) through (vii), provided, however, that where an Inspector is satisfied that an Owner is diligently proceeding with the work required pursuant to section 8.2 of this Bylaw, the Inspector may grant an extension of time that is, in the Inspector's opinion, acting reasonably, sufficient to complete the remediation work required. 8.9 All requirements of Section 8.2 must be completed within 60 days of the receipt by the City of the certification referred to in Section 8.1(b). 8.10 Where, within the time periods specified in this Bylaw: a) the certification required under Section 8.1(b) is not received; or b) the work required in Section 8.2 is not completed to the satisfaction of the City, and where, having regard to the particular nature and scope of the work to be carried out, the Building Inspector considers that additional time is required to properly complete such work, the Building Inspector may authorize an extension of 30 days to complete the work, upon payment of the fee prescribed in Schedule "A". AGENDA Page 99 White Rock Controlled Substance Property Bylaw, 2014, No. 2041 Page 10 of 12 9. 9.1 CITY RELIANCE Neither the issuance of a Building Permit nor a removal of a “Do Not Occupy” notice posted under the authority of this Bylaw nor the acceptance or review of plans, drawings or specifications or supporting documents nor any inspections made by or on behalf of the City constitute in any way a representation, warranty, assurance or statement that the Building Code, this Bylaw or any other applicable codes standards or enactments have been complied with. 10. FAILURE TO COMPLY 10.1 Pursuant to the authority granted to the City by the Community Charter, if an Owner of Property: a) is required to remedy any Hazardous Condition or anything or condition that is not in compliance with this Bylaw or the Provincial Code that exists on the Property pursuant to a notice given under section 5.1 or section 5.2 of this Bylaw and fails to comply within the time specified in such notice; b) is required to carry out remedial work on the Property pursuant to section 8.2 of this Bylaw and fails to comply within the time specified in section 8.8 of this Bylaw; or c) violates any part of sections 3.1 to 3.14 of this Bylaw, then the City may, but is not obligated to, by its employees, agents or other persons with whom it contracts or by members of the RCMP, enter onto the Property for purposes of fulfilling the Owner's or Occupant's requirements under this Bylaw at the Owner's or Occupant's expense and may recover all Service Costs incurred as a debt, including, without limitation, all costs incurred by the RCMP in the disassembly, removal, transportation, storage and disposal of equipment, substances, materials and other paraphernalia associated with the manufacture, trade, use, sharing, storage, sale or barter of a Controlled Substance on the Property. 10.2 If the City exercises its right to enter and effect compliance pursuant to section 10.1, it will invoice the Owner for all Service Costs and the Owner must, upon receipt of that invoice from the City, pay the same immediately. 10.3 In the event that an Owner fails to pay the costs for which he or she is responsible under this Bylaw before the 31st day of December in the year in which the compliance was effected and the invoice issued, the Community Charter provides that such costs will be then be deemed to be taxes in arrears on the Property. 11. OFFENCES AND PENALTIES 11.1 Every person who contravenes any provision of this Bylaw or who suffers or permits any act or thing to be done in contravention or in violation of any provision of this Bylaw, or who neglects to do or refrains from doing anything required to be done by any AGENDA Page 100 White Rock Controlled Substance Property Bylaw, 2014, No. 2041 Page 11 of 12 provision of this Bylaw, commits an offence punishable upon in a prosecution under the Offence Act and is liable to a maximum fine of up to $10,000.00 and imprisonment for not more than six months. 11.2 If an offence is a continuing offence, each day that the offence is continued constitutes a separate and distinct offence. 11.3 The City may enforce the provisions of this Bylaw through the issuance of a ticket under the Ticketing for Bylaw Offenses Bylaw. 12. SEVERABILITY: 12.1 If any portion of this Bylaw is held invalid by a Court of competent jurisdiction, then the invalid portion must be severed and the remainder of this Bylaw is deemed to have been adopted without the severed portion. RECEIVED FIRST READING on the day of RECEIVED SECOND READING on the day of RECEIVED THIRD READING on the day of RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED on the day of ___________________________________ MAYOR ___________________________________ CITY CLERK AGENDA Page 101 White Rock Controlled Substance Property Bylaw, 2014, No. 2041 Page 12 of 12 SCHEDULE A “White Rock Controlled Substance Property Bylaw, 2014, No. 2041.” Service Fees The following fees are associated and may be payable under this Bylaw: 1. Inspection a. b. c. d. e. Safety Inspection: $1300.00 Reposting a Do Not Occupy notice: $180.00 Restoration Inspection, which includes not more than one follow-up inspection to be paid prior to inspection: $600.00 Each additional Restoration Inspection before removal of a Do Not Occupy notice: $250.00 Registering a Land Title Notice under section 57 of the Community Charter: actual cost incurred including staff wages 2. Fire Services a. b. c. d. Engines - $550.00 per hour, per engine Aerial Devices - $1200.00 per hour, per device Squad - $450.00 per hour, per vehicle MoCom - $250.00 per hour 3. Police (RCMP) Fees in relation to police are the actual cost on an hourly basis as set out in the applicable service contract. 4. Other Service Fees The actual cost of any other service fees incurred. 5. Administration and Overhead Fee An additional administration and overhead fee of 15% on all fees assessed under this Bylaw. 6. Payment Fees within this bylaw are due and payable within 30 days of receiving invoice from the City An invoice that is overdue as of the 31st day of December will, as provided by the Community Charter, be deemed to be taxes in arrears on the Property. AGENDA Page 102 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF WHITE ROCK BYLAW 2042 __________________________________________________ A Bylaw to amend the "White Rock Zoning Bylaw, 2012, No. 2000" as amended WHEREAS pursuant to Part 26, Division 7 of the Local Government Act in relation to Zoning and Other Development Regulation, the Council of the City of White Rock is empowered to divide the municipality into zones and regulate land use within these zones; AND WHEREAS a Public Hearing was held in accordance with the Local Government Act, and notice of such Hearing has been given as required; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the City of White Rock, in an open meeting assembled, enacts as follows: 1. That Schedule A – Text of "White Rock Zoning Bylaw, 2012, No. 2000" be amended: (1) By amending Section 3.3 for Definitions to include new definitions for “balcony”, “deck/elevated patio”, and “porch” as follows and in their appropriate alphabetic order: “balcony” means an unenclosed platform projecting from a building. “deck/elevated patio” means an uncovered and unenclosed raised platform area constructed out of wood, metal, plastic or concrete greater than 0.6m above finished grade around the raised platform. “porch” means a covered but unenclosed entrance to a principal building. (2) By amending Section 3.3 Definitions by deleting the definitions for “ancillary structure”, “retaining wall” and “structure” and replacing “retaining wall” and “structure” as follows: “retaining wall” means a wall or similar works constructed to hold back, stabilize, support or retain soil, rock or a bank of earth. “structure” means any construction fixed to, supported by or sunk into land or water which is greater than 0.6m above natural grade, excluding buildings, retaining walls, landscape trellises or arbors, in-ground swimming pools, and other similar works. (3) By amending Section 4 General Provisions & Regulations by including the following sentence to the end of sub-section 4.1.6: “Notwithstanding, shipping containers may be used for storage purposes on P-1 zoned lands owned by the City of White Rock.” AGENDA Page 103 White Rock Zoning Bylaw, 2012, No. 2000, Amendment Bylaw, 2013, No. 2042 Page 2 of 10 (4) By amending Section 4 General Provisions & Regulations by renumbering subsection 4.1.4 to 4.1.8 as sub-sections 4.1.6 to 4.1.10. (5) By amending Section 4 General Provisions & Regulations by inserting a new subsection 4.1.4 as follows: 4.1.4 (6) Decks/elevated patios and similar structures must be attached to a principal building. By amending Section 4 General Provisions & Regulations by inserting a new subsection 4.1.5 as follows: 4.1.5 The commercial cultivation, growth, production, storage, or sale medical marihuana is not permitted in any zone, whether or not carried out for medical purposes by a licensed producer under the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations of Canada. (7) By amending Section 4 General Provisions & Regulations by deleting the reference to “or fully glassed solariums” in the last sentence in sub-section 4.9. (8) By amending Section 4 by deleting sub-section 4.13.1 and replacing it as follows: 4.13.1 No retaining wall shall be erected in any zone without first obtaining the approval of the Director of Planning and Development Services as to the proposed building grade. The proposed building grade shall to the extent possible retain the natural contour of the land. Exceptions may be considered where retaining walls are necessary to ensure proper and safe driveway and/or pedestrian access, servicing, or where required to ensure proper slope stability. (9) By amending Section 4 General Provisions & Regulations by deleting sub-section 4.14.3(a) and replacing it as follows: 4.14.3(a) balconies, decks/elevated patios, porches or steps may project beyond the face of the principal building to a maximum of 1.5m into an exterior side yard setback, and/or 2.1m into a front or rear yard setback where the setback being encroached into is a minimum of 5.65m. (10) By amending Section 4.15.1 to include the requirement for two (2) parking spaces per unit for a Three-unit residential use. (11) By amending Section 6.1 for the RS-1 zone by deleting sub-section 6.1.5(2) and replacing it as follows: 6.1.5(2) ancillary buildings containing an accessory coach house shall not exceed a height of 7.0m for a building with a minimum roof slope of 6:12, and shall not exceed a height of 6.0m for a building with any lesser roof slope. AGENDA Page 104 White Rock Zoning Bylaw, 2012, No. 2000, Amendment Bylaw, 2013, No. 2042 Page 3 of 10 (12) By amending Section 6.1 for the RS-1 zone by deleting sub-section 6.1.5(3) and replacing it as follows: 6.1.5(3) ancillary buildings and structures shall not exceed a height of 5.0m. (13) By amending Section 6.1 for the RS-1 zone by including a new sub-section 6.1.7(3) as follows: 6.1.7(3) ancillary buildings and structures shall not be sited less than 3.0m from a principal building on the same lot. (14) By amending Section 6.3 for the RS-3 zone by including a new sub-section 6.3.6(4) as follows: 6.3.6(4) Notwithstanding 6.3.6(1) above, for those properties located at 14579, 14585, 14591 and 14597 Marine Drive (Lots 1 and 2 of Plan 4509, and Lots A and B of Plan 4529) the minimum front yard setback shall be 7.5m and the minimum rear yard setback shall be 4.5m. (15) By amending Section 6.4 for the RS-4 zone by deleting sub-section 6.4.5(2) and replacing it as follows: 6.4.5(2) ancillary buildings containing an accessory coach house shall not exceed a height of 7.0m for a building with a minimum roof slope of 6:12, and shall not exceed a height of 6.0m for a building with any lesser roof slope. (16) By amending Section 6.4 for the RS-4 zone by deleting sub-section 6.4.5(3) and replacing it as follows: 6.4.5(3) ancillary buildings and structures shall not exceed a height of 5.0m. (17) By amending Section 6.4 for the RS-4 zone by amending sub-section 6.4.6(1) for the minimum “Rear lot line on a lot with an exterior side yard requirement of 5.65m, where the rear lot line abuts the interior side lot line of an adjacent residential lot” for a “Principal Building” to minimum 3.8m (12.47ft). (18) By amending Section 6.4 for the RS-4 zone by including a new sub-section 6.4.7(3) as follows: 6.4.7(3) ancillary buildings and structures not shall be sited less than 3.0m from a principal building on the same lot. (19) By amending Section 6.5 for the RE-1 zone by including a new sub-section 6.5.1(1)(e) as follows: 6.5.1(1)(e) an accessory vacation rental in accordance with the provisions of Section 5.8. AGENDA Page 105 White Rock Zoning Bylaw, 2012, No. 2000, Amendment Bylaw, 2013, No. 2042 Page 4 of 10 (20) By amending Section 6.5 for the RE-1 zone by deleting sub-section 6.5.5(2) and replacing it as follows: 6.5.5(2) ancillary buildings and structures shall not exceed a height of 5.0m. (21) By amending Section 6.6 for the RE-2 zone by including a new sub-section 6.6.1(1)(e) as follows: 6.6.1(1)(e) an accessory vacation rental in accordance with the provisions of Section 5.8. (22) By amending Section 6.6 for the RE-2 zone by deleting sub-section 6.6.5(2) and replacing it as follows: 6.6.5(2) ancillary buildings and structures shall not exceed a height of 5.0m. (23) By amending Section 6.7 for the RE-3 zone by including a new sub-section 6.7.1(1)(e) as follows: 6.7.1(1)(e) an accessory vacation rental in accordance with the provisions of Section 5.8. (24) By amending Section 6.7 for the RE-3 zone by deleting sub-section 6.7.5(2) and replacing it as follows: 6.7.5(2) ancillary buildings and structures shall not exceed a height of 5.0m. (25) By amending Section 6.8 for the RI-1 zone by including a new sub-section 6.8.1(1)(e) as follows: 6.8.1(1)(e) an accessory vacation rental in accordance with the provisions of Section 5.8. (26) By amending Section 6.9 for the RI-2 zone by including a new sub-section 6.9.1(1)(f) as follows: 6.9.1(1)(f) an accessory vacation rental in accordance with the provisions of Section 5.8. (27) By amending Section 6.9 for the RI-2 zone by deleting sub-section 6.9.3(1) and replacing it as follows: 6.9.3(1) maximum lot coverage in the RI-2 zone is 50%. (28) By amending Section 6.9 for the RI-2 zone by deleting sub-section 6.9.4(1) and replacing it as follows: 6.9.4(1) maximum residential gross floor area for all buildings shall not exceed 0.65. AGENDA Page 106 White Rock Zoning Bylaw, 2012, No. 2000, Amendment Bylaw, 2013, No. 2042 Page 5 of 10 (29) By amending Section 6.9 for the RI-2 zone by adding a new sub-section 6.9.4(3) as follows: 6.9.4(3) basement floor area shall be included in the calculation of maximum permitted residential gross floor area. (30) By amending Section 6.9 for the RI-2 zone by deleting sub-section 6.9.5(1) and replacing it as follows: 6.9.5(1) principal buildings shall not exceed a height of 7.7m. (31) By amending Section 6.9 for the RI-2 zone by deleting sub-section 6.9.5(2) and replacing it as follows: 6.9.5(2) ancillary buildings containing an accessory coach house shall not exceed a height of 7.0m for a building with a minimum roof slope of 6:12, and shall not exceed a height of 6.0m for a building with any lesser roof slope. (32) By amending Section 6.10 for the RT-1 zone by deleting sub-section 6.10.1(4) and replacing it as follows: 6.10.1(4) notwithstanding the above, on lots with less than the minimum required lot area or lot width, a one-unit residential use only is permitted in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.1. (33) By amending Section 6.10 for the RT-1 zone by deleting sub-section 6.10.5(2) and replacing it as follows: 6.10.5(2) ancillary buildings and structures shall not exceed a height of 5.0m. (34) By amending Section 6.11 for the RT-2 zone by deleting sub-section 6.11.5(2) and replacing it as follows: 6.11.5(2) ancillary buildings and structures shall not exceed a height of 5.0m. (35) By amending Section 6.13 for the RM-2 zone by amending sub-section 6.13.6 for the minimum “Exterior side lot line (rear lot line abutting interior side lot line of adjacent lot)” for the “Principal Building” and for “Ancillary Buildings and Structures” to a minimum 6.0m (19.68ft). (36) By amending Section 6.15 for the RM-4 zone by deleting sub-section 6.15.5(2) and replacing it as follows: 6.15.5(2) Structures shall not exceed a height of 4.0m. (37) By amending Section 6.15 for the RM-4 zone by replacing the term “ancillary structures” with “structures” in sub-section 6.15.6(1). AGENDA Page 107 White Rock Zoning Bylaw, 2012, No. 2000, Amendment Bylaw, 2013, No. 2042 Page 6 of 10 (38) By amending Section 6.15 for the RM-4 zone by deleting sub-section 6.15.7(2) and replacing it as follows: 6.15.7(2) structures shall not be located in any required front yard or exterior side yard area. (39) By amending Section 6.15 for the RM-4 zone by deleting sub-section 6.15.7(3) and replacing it as follows: 6.15.7(3) structures shall not be sited less than 3.0m from a principal building on the same lot. (40) By amending Section 6.16 for the CR-1 zone by replacing the term “ancillary structures” with “structures” in sub-section 6.16.6(1). (41) By amending Section 6.16 for the CR-1 zone by deleting sub-section 6.16.7(2) and replacing it as follows: 6.16.7(2) structures shall not be sited less than 3.0m from a principal building on the same lot. (42) By amending Section 6.16 for the CR-1 zone by deleting sub-section 6.16.7(3) and replacing it as follows: 6.16.7(3) *notwithstanding sub-sections 6.16.6 and 6.16.7(2), patios and awnings are permitted in the front and exterior side yard areas in accordance with White Rock License Agreement (Sidewalk Café / Business License) Bylaw requirements. (43) By amending Section 6.17 for the CR-2 zone by adding sub-section 6.17.5(2), after sub-section 6.17.5(1), as follows: 6.17.5(2) Structures shall not exceed a height of 4.0m. (44) By amending Section 6.17 for the CR-2 zone by replacing the term “ancillary structures” with “structures” in sub-section 6.17.6(1). (45) By amending Section 6.17 for the CR-2 zone by replacing “6.17.6” with “6.17.5” in sub-section 6.17.7. (46) By amending Section 6.17 for the CR-2 zone by deleting sub-section 6.17.7(2) and replacing it as follows: 6.17.7(2) structures shall not be sited less than 3.0m from a principal building on the same lot. AGENDA Page 108 White Rock Zoning Bylaw, 2012, No. 2000, Amendment Bylaw, 2013, No. 2042 Page 7 of 10 (47) By amending Section 6.17 for the CR-2 zone by deleting sub-section 6.17.7(3) and replacing it as follows: 6.17.7(3) *notwithstanding sub-sections 6.17.6 and 6.17.7(2), patios and awnings are permitted in the front and exterior side yard areas in accordance with White Rock License Agreement (Sidewalk Café / Business License) Bylaw requirements. (48) By amending Section 6.18 for the CR-3 zone by deleting sub-section 6.18.5(2) and replacing it as follows: 6.18.5(2) Structures shall not exceed a height of 4.0m. (49) By amending Section 6.18 for the CR-3 zone by replacing the term “ancillary structures” with “structures” in sub-section 6.18.6(1). (50) By amending Section 6.18 for the CR-3 zone by deleting sub-section 6.18.7(2) and replacing it as follows: 6.18.7(2) structures shall not be sited less than 3.0m from a principal building on the same lot. (51) By amending Section 6.18 for the CR-3 zone by deleting sub-section 6.18.7(3) and replacing it as follows: 6.18.7(3) *notwithstanding sub-sections 6.18.6 and 6.18.7(2), patios and awnings are permitted in the front and exterior side yard areas in accordance with White Rock License Agreement (Sidewalk Café / Business License) Bylaw requirements. (52) By amending Section 6.19 for the CR-4 zone by deleting sub-section 6.19.5(2) and replacing it as follows: 6.19.5(2) structures shall not exceed a height of 4.0m. (53) By amending Section 6.19 for the CR-4 zone by replacing the term “ancillary structures” with “structures” in sub-section 6.19.6(1). (54) By amending Section 6.19 for the CR-4 zone by replacing “6.18.5” with “6.19.5” and replacing “6.18.6” with “6.19.6” in sub-section 6.19.7. (55) By amending Section 6.19 for the CR-4 zone by deleting sub-section 6.19.7(2) and replacing it as follows: 6.19.7(2) structures shall not be sited less than 3.0m from a principal building on the same lot. AGENDA Page 109 White Rock Zoning Bylaw, 2012, No. 2000, Amendment Bylaw, 2013, No. 2042 Page 8 of 10 (56) By amending Section 6.19 for the CR-4 zone by deleting sub-section 6.19.7(3) and replacing it as follows: 6.19.7(3) *notwithstanding sub-sections 6.19.6 and 6.19.7(2), patios and awnings are permitted in the front and exterior side yard areas in accordance with White Rock License Agreement (Sidewalk Café / Business License) Bylaw requirements. (57) By amending Section 6.20 for the CR-5 zone by replacing the term “ancillary structures” with “ancillary buildings and structures” in sub-section 6.20.6(1). (58) By amending Section 6.20 for the CR-5 zone by deleting sub-section 6.20.7(1) and replacing it as follows: 6.20.7(1) ancillary buildings and structures shall not be sited less than 3.0m from a principal building on the same lot. (59) By amending Section 6.21 for the CR-6 zone by deleting sub-section 6.21.5(1) and replacing it as follows: 6.21.5(1) principal buildings shall not exceed a height of 7.7m. (60) By amending Section 6.21 for the CR-6 zone by deleting sub-sections 6.21.5(3) and 6.21.5(4) and replacing sub-section 6.21.5(3) as follows: 6.21.5(3) the canopy over a gas bar pump island and a separate building containing an accessory car wash are deemed to be principal buildings for the purpose of determining height. (61) By amending Section 6.21 for the CR-6 zone by replacing “ancillary structures” with “ancillary buildings and structures” and “Principal Buildings and Structures” with “Principal Buildings” in sub-section 6.21.6(1). (62) By amending Section 6.22 for the P-1 zone by deleting sub-section 6.22.4(1) and replacing it as follows: 6.22.4(1) principal buildings shall not exceed a height of 10.7m. (63) By amending Section 6.22 for the P-1 zone by replacing the term “ancillary structures” with “ancillary buildings and structures” in sub-section 6.22.5(1). (64) By amending Section 6.22 for the P-1 zone by replacing the term “Principal Buildings and Structures” with “Principal Buildings” in sub-section 6.22.5(1). (65) By amending Section 6.22 for the P-1 zone by replacing “6.21.4” with “6.22.4” and replacing “6.21.5” with “6.22.5” in sub-section 6.22.6. AGENDA Page 110 White Rock Zoning Bylaw, 2012, No. 2000, Amendment Bylaw, 2013, No. 2042 Page 9 of 10 (66) By amending Section 6.23 for the P-2 zone by deleting sub-section 6.23.4(1) and replacing it as follows: 6.23.4(1) principal buildings shall not exceed a height of 10.7m. (67) By amending Section 6.23 for the P-2 zone by replacing the term “ancillary structures” with “ancillary buildings and structures” in sub-section 6.23.5(1). (68) By amending Section 6.23 for the P-2 zone by replacing the term “Principal Buildings and Structures” with “Principal Buildings” in sub-section 6.23.5(1). (69) By amending Section 6.24 for the P-3 zone by deleting sub-section 6.24.5(1) and replacing it as follows: 6.24.5(1) principal buildings shall not exceed a height of 7.7m. (70) By amending Section 6.24 for the P-3 zone by deleting sub-section 6.24.5(2) and replacing it as follows: 6.24.5(2) structures shall not exceed a height of 4.0m. (71) By amending Section 6.24 for the P-3 zone by replacing the term “ancillary structures” with “structures” in sub-section 6.24.6(1). (72) By amending Section 6.24 for the P-3 zone by deleting sub-section 6.24.7(2) and replacing it as follows: 6.24.7(2) structures shall not be sited less than 3.0m from a principal building on the same lot. (73) By amending Section 6.25 for the P-4 zone by deleting sub-section 6.25.5(1) and replacing it as follows: 6.25.5(1) principal buildings shall not exceed a height of 10.7m. (74) By amending Section 6.25 for the P-4 zone by deleting sub-section 6.25.5(2) and replacing it as follows: 6.25.5(2) structures shall not exceed a height of 4.0m. (75) By amending Section 6.25 for the P-4 zone by replacing the term “ancillary structures” with “structures” in sub-section 6.25.6(1). (76) By amending Section 6.25 for the P-4 zone by deleting sub-section 6.25.7(3) and replacing it as follows: 6.25.7(1) ancillary buildings shall not be permitted. AGENDA Page 111 White Rock Zoning Bylaw, 2012, No. 2000, Amendment Bylaw, 2013, No. 2042 Page 10 of 10 (77) By amending Section 6.25 for the P-4 zone by deleting sub-section 6.25.7(4) and replacing it as follows: 6.25.7(2) structures shall not be sited less than 3.0m from a principal building on the same lot. 2. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as the "White Rock Zoning Bylaw, 2012, No. 2000, Amendment Bylaw, 2013, No. 2042.” PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING held on the 10th day of December, 2013 RECEIVED FIRST READING as amended on the 3rd day of February, 2014 RECEIVED SECOND READING as amended on the 3rd day of February, 2014 PUBLIC HEARING held on the day of RECEIVED THIRD READING on the day of RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED on the day of ___________________________________ MAYOR ___________________________________ CITY CLERK AGENDA Page 112 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF WHITE ROCK BYLAW 2045 _____________________________________________ A Bylaw to amend the "White Rock Zoning Bylaw, 2012, No. 2000" as amended WHEREAS pursuant to Part 26, Division 7 of the Local Government Act in relation to Zoning and Other Development Regulation, the Council of the City of White Rock is empowered to divide the municipality into zones and regulate land use within these zones; AND WHEREAS a Public Hearing was held in accordance with the Local Government Act, and notice of such Hearing has been given as required; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the City of White Rock, in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows: 1. Schedule “C” of the “White Rock Zoning Bylaw, 2012, No. 2000” as amended is further amended by rezoning the following lands: (1) Lot A Section 10 Township 1 New Westminster District Plan BCP15602 (1550 Oxford Street) PID: 026-169-959 as outlined in bold on Schedule “1” attached hereto from “P-4 Civic / Institutional Zone” to “CD-19 Comprehensive Development Zone 19. 2. The “White Rock Zoning Bylaw, 2012, No. 2000”, as amended, is further amended: by adding to the Table of Contents for “Schedule B – Comprehensive Development Zones”, Section “7.19 CD-19 Comprehensive Development Zone (1550 Oxford Street)”. (2) by adding to “Schedule B – Comprehensive Development Zones” after Section “7.18 CD 18 Comprehensive Development Zone (1115 Stayte Road)” the attached Schedule “2” to this amending bylaw, as Section “7.19 “CD-19 Comprehensive Development Zone (1550 Oxford Street)”. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as the "White Rock Zoning Bylaw, 2012, No. 2000, Amendment (CD-19 – 1550 Oxford Street) Bylaw, 2013, No. 2045". (1) 3. PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING held on the 5th day of th November, 2013 RECEIVED FIRST READING on the 13 day of January, 2014 RECEIVED SECOND READING on the 13th day of January, 2014 3rd and 4th day of PUBLIC HEARING held on the RECEIVED THIRD READING on the day of RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED on the day of February, 2014 ___________________________________ MAYOR ___________________________________ CITY CLERK AGENDA Page 113 White Rock Zoning Bylaw, 2012, No. 2000, Amendment (CD-44 – 1550 Oxford Street) Bylaw, 2013, No. 2045 Page 2 of 11 SCHEDULE “1” AGENDA Page 114 White Rock Zoning Bylaw, 2012, No. 2000, Amendment (CD-44 – 1550 Oxford Street) Bylaw, 2013, No. 2045 Page 3 of 11 SCHEDULE “2” 7.19 CD-19 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT ZONE INTENT The intent of this zone is to accommodate five (5) community care facilities comprising the Evergreen Baptist Campus of Care. 1. Permitted Uses: In the CD-44 Zone the following uses are permitted and all other uses are prohibited in more than one principle building: (a) A care facility use. (b) An independent living use. (c) An assisted living use. (d) An assembly use. (e) A hospitality service use. (f) An accessory off street parking use. (g) An accessory off-street loading use. 2. Regulations for Permitted Uses: The location of permitted use shall be in accordance with the Plans and as follows: (a) An independent living care facility is permitted in one or more principal buildings on the lot; (b) An assisted living care facility is permitted in one or more principal buildings on the lot; and (c) A complex care facility is permitted in one or more principle buildings on the lot. 3. Number of Dwelling Units / Lot Coverage: The maximum number of living units, bed units and lot coverage of buildings shall be in accordance with the following: (a) Maximum number of independent living units = 110 (b) Maximum number of assisted living units = 84 (c) Maximum number of complex care bed units = 249 (d) Maximum Number of visitor accommodation =2 (e) Maximum lot coverage all buildings = 29.4% 4. Regulations for Size, Shape and Siting of Buildings and Structures: Reference to a Building refers to the building labelled that on the Plans: (a) Maximum Height of buildings from parapets are as follows: (i) Maximum height of Evergreen Manor = 114.35m geodetic (ii) Maximum height of Evergreen Heights = 127.08m geodetic (iii) Maximum height of “D” Wing = 108.62m geodetic (iv) Maximum height of New Complex Care Building = 125.38m geodetic AGENDA Page 115 White Rock Zoning Bylaw, 2012, No. 2000, Amendment (CD-44 – 1550 Oxford Street) Bylaw, 2013, No. 2045 Page 4 of 11 (b) (c) (d) Maximum setbacks to all property lines are as follows: (i) Setback from (west) front property line = 8.44 m (27.7 ft) (ii) Setback from (east) rear property line = 7.32 m (24.0 ft) (iii) Setback from (north) interior lot line = 6.69 m (21.9 ft) (iv) Setback from (south) interior lot line = 6.43 m (21.1 ft) Maximum projections into the above property line setback requirements shall be as outlined in Section 4.14.1. Roof top mechanical equipment required to be screened to the acceptance of the Director of Planning and Development Services. 5. Parking and Loading: Parking and Loading shall be provided in accordance with Section 4.15 and 4.16 and additionally as follows: (a) Minimum parking requirements is 173 stalls for tenants, visitors and staff parking; and (b) Minimum number of loading requirements is two (2) loading spaces for the facility. 6. Interim Provisions: Notwithstanding the above, for the period of the construction of the New Complex Care Building and the nine (9) months following the provision of ‘final occupancy’ by the Senior Building Inspector, the following provisions shall apply: (a) Four complex care buildings (“B” Wing, “C” Wing, “D” Wing, and the New Complex Care Building) with a total of 356 beds are permitted; and (b) The provision of 173 parking stalls required once the New Complex Care Building is completed can be provided both on and off site, to the acceptance of the Director of Engineering and Operations and the Director of Planning and Development Services. 7. General: Drawing attached hereto prepared by Ankenman Architect and Associates, and on file with the City of White Rock as shown on the attached plans; and for the purposes of this zone are referred to as “the Plans” and “the Interim Plan”. Development in this zone shall general conform to the Plans and the Interim Plan. AGENDA Page 116 White Rock Zoning Bylaw, 2012, No. 2000, Amendment (CD-44 – 1550 Oxford Street) Bylaw, 2013, No. 2045 Page 5 of 11 The Plans AGENDA Page 117 White Rock Zoning Bylaw, 2012, No. 2000, Amendment (CD-44 – 1550 Oxford Street) Bylaw, 2013, No. 2045 Page 6 of 11 AGENDA Page 118 White Rock Zoning Bylaw, 2012, No. 2000, Amendment (CD-44 – 1550 Oxford Street) Bylaw, 2013, No. 2045 Page 7 of 11 AGENDA Page 119 White Rock Zoning Bylaw, 2012, No. 2000, Amendment (CD-44 – 1550 Oxford Street) Bylaw, 2013, No. 2045 Page 8 of 11 AGENDA Page 120 White Rock Zoning Bylaw, 2012, No. 2000, Amendment (CD-44 – 1550 Oxford Street) Bylaw, 2013, No. 2045 Page 9 of 11 AGENDA Page 121 White Rock Zoning Bylaw, 2012, No. 2000, Amendment (CD-44 – 1550 Oxford Street) Bylaw, 2013, No. 2045 Page 10 of 11 Interim Plan AGENDA Page 122 White Rock Zoning Bylaw, 2012, No. 2000, Amendment (CD-44 – 1550 Oxford Street) Bylaw, 2013, No. 2045 Page 11 of 11 AGENDA Page 123 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF WHITE ROCK BYLAW 2045 __________________________________________________ A Bylaw to amend the "White Rock Zoning Bylaw, 2012, No. 2000" as amended WHEREAS pursuant to Part 26, Division 7 of the Local Government Act in relation to Zoning and Other Development Regulation, the Council of the City of White Rock is empowered to divide the municipality into zones and regulate land use within these zones; AND WHEREAS a Public Hearing was held in accordance with the Local Government Act, and notice of such Hearing has been given as required; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the City of White Rock, in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows: 1. Schedule “C” of the “White Rock Zoning Bylaw, 2012, No. 2000” as amended is further amended by rezoning the following lands: (1) Lot A Section 10 Township 1 New Westminster District Plan BCP15602 (1550 Oxford Street) PID: 026-169-959 as outlined in bold on Schedule “1” attached hereto from “P-4 Civic / Institutional Zone” to “CD-19 Comprehensive Development Zone 19. 2. The “White Rock Zoning Bylaw, 2012, No. 2000”, as amended, is further amended: (1) (2) 3. by adding to the Table of Contents for “Schedule B – Comprehensive Development Zones”, Section “7.19 CD-19 Comprehensive Development Zone (1550 Oxford Street)”. by adding to “Schedule B – Comprehensive Development Zones” after Section “7.18 CD -18 Comprehensive Development Zone (1115 Stayte Road)” the attached Schedule “2” to this amending bylaw, as Section “7.19 “CD-19 Comprehensive Development Zone (1550 Oxford Street)”. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as the "White Rock Zoning Bylaw, 2012, No. 2000, Amendment (CD-19 – 1550 Oxford Street) Bylaw, 2013, No. 2045". AGENDA Page 124 White Rock Zoning Bylaw, 2012, No. 2000, Amendment (CD-19 – 1550 Oxford Street) Bylaw, 2013, No. 2045 Page 2 of 12 PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING on the 5th day of November, 2013 RECEIVED FIRST READING on the 13th day of January, 2014 RECEIVED SECOND READING on the 13th day of January, 2014 3rd and 4th day of February, 2014 PUBLIC HEARING held on the RECEIVED THIRD READING on the day of RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED on the day of ___________________________________ MAYOR ___________________________________ CITY CLERK AGENDA Page 125 White Rock Zoning Bylaw, 2012, No. 2000, Amendment (CD-19 – 1550 Oxford Street) Bylaw, 2013, No. 2045 Page 3 of 12 SCHEDULE “1” AGENDA Page 126 White Rock Zoning Bylaw, 2012, No. 2000, Amendment (CD-19 – 1550 Oxford Street) Bylaw, 2013, No. 2045 Page 4 of 12 SCHEDULE “2” 7.19 CD-19 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT ZONE INTENT The intent of this zone is to accommodate five (5) community care facilities comprising the Evergreen Baptist Campus of Care. 1. Permitted Uses: In the CD-44 Zone the following uses are permitted and all other uses are prohibited in more than one principle building: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) 2. 3. Regulations for Permitted Uses: The location of permitted use shall be in accordance with the Plans and as follows: (a) An independent living care facility is permitted in one or more principle buildings on the lot; (b) An assisted living care facility is permitted in one or more principal buildings on the lot; and (c) A complex care facility is permitted in one or more principle buildings on the lot. Number of Dwelling Units / Lot Coverage: The maximum number of living units, bed units and/or lot coverage of buildings shall be in accordance with the following: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) 4. A care facility use. An independent living use. An assisted living use. An assembly use. A hospitality service use. An accessory off street parking use. An accessory off-street loading use. Maximum number of independent living units Maximum number of assisted living units Maximum number of complex care bed units Maximum number of visitor accommodation units Maximum lot coverage of all buildings = 110 = 84 = 249 =2 = 29.4% Regulations for Size, Shape and Siting of Buildings and Structures: Reference to a Building refers to the building labelled that on the Plans: (a) Maximum Height of buildings from parapets are as follows: (i) Maximum height of Evergreen Manor = 114.35 m geodetic (ii) Maximum height of Evergreen Heights = 127.08 m geodetic (iii) Maximum height of “D” Wing = 108.62 m geodetic AGENDA Page 127 White Rock Zoning Bylaw, 2012, No. 2000, Amendment (CD-19 – 1550 Oxford Street) Bylaw, 2013, No. 2045 Page 5 of 12 (iv) (b) = 122.8 m geodetic Maximum setbacks to all property lines are as follows: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) 5. Maximum height of New Complex Care Building Setback from (west) front property line Setback from (east) rear property line Setback from (north) interior lot line Setback from (south) interior lot line = 12.4 m (40.7 ft) = 7.32 m (24.0 ft) = 6.69 m (21.9 ft) = 6.43 m (21.1 ft) (c) Maximum projections into the above property line setback requirements shall be as outlined in Section 4.14.1. (d) Roof top mechanical equipment required to be screened to the acceptance of the Director of Planning and Development Services. Parking and Loading: Parking and Loading shall be provided in accordance with Section 4.15 and 4.16 and additionally as follows: 6. (a) Minimum parking requirements is 173 stalls for tenants, visitors and staff parking; and (b) Minimum number of loading requirements is two (2) loading spaces. Interim Provisions: Notwithstanding the above, for the period of the construction of the New Complex Care Building and the nine (9) months following the provision of ‘final occupancy’ by the Senior Building Inspector, the following provisions shall apply: 7. (a) Four complex care buildings (“B” Wing, “C” Wing, “D” Wing, and the New Complex Care Building) with a total of 356 beds are permitted; and (b) The provision of 173 parking stalls required once the New Complex Care Building is completed can be provided both on and off site, to the acceptance of the Director of Engineering and Operations and the Director of Planning and Development Services. General: Drawing attached hereto prepared by Ankenman Architect and Associates, and on file with the City of White Rock as shown on the attached plans; and for the purposes of this zone are referred to as “the Plans” and “the Interim Plan”. Development in this zone shall generally conform to the Plans and the Interim Plan. AGENDA Page 128 White Rock Zoning Bylaw, 2012, No. 2000, Amendment (CD-19 – 1550 Oxford Street) Bylaw, 2013, No. 2045 Page 6 of 12 The Plans AGENDA Page 129 White Rock Zoning Bylaw, 2012, No. 2000, Amendment (CD-19 – 1550 Oxford Street) Bylaw, 2013, No. 2045 Page 7 of 12 AGENDA Page 130 White Rock Zoning Bylaw, 2012, No. 2000, Amendment (CD-19 – 1550 Oxford Street) Bylaw, 2013, No. 2045 Page 8 of 12 AGENDA Page 131 White Rock Zoning Bylaw, 2012, No. 2000, Amendment (CD-19 – 1550 Oxford Street) Bylaw, 2013, No. 2045 Page 9 of 12 AGENDA Page 132 White Rock Zoning Bylaw, 2012, No. 2000, Amendment (CD-19 – 1550 Oxford Street) Bylaw, 2013, No. 2045 Page 10 of 12 AGENDA Page 133 White Rock Zoning Bylaw, 2012, No. 2000, Amendment (CD-19 – 1550 Oxford Street) Bylaw, 2013, No. 2045 Page 11 of 12 AGENDA Page 134 White Rock Zoning Bylaw, 2012, No. 2000, Amendment (CD-19 – 1550 Oxford Street) Bylaw, 2013, No. 2045 Page 12 of 12 Interim Plan AGENDA Page 135 Maureen Connelly Subject: Household Food Insecurity From: "Deirdre Goudriaan" <[email protected]> To: "Deirdre Goudriaan" <[email protected]> Subject: Household Food Insecurity [Description: tp_header] Hi all, Just sharing this report on household food insecurity with this rather unflattering opening-Ontario, Quebec, Alberta & British Columbia accounted for the largest share of food insecure households in Canada: 84% OF THE FOOD INSECURE POPULATION Happy reading! Deirdre “Go to the people. Learn from them. Live with them. Start with what they know. Build with what they have.” ― Lao Tzu Deirdre Goudriaan, MA Team Play Consulting Inc. P:778.891.8948 235-7184-120 Street Surrey, BC V3W 0M6 http://www.bchealthycommunities.ca<http://www.bchealthycommunities.ca/> [Description: Description: tp_footer] 1 AGENDA Page 136 PROOF Research to identify policy options to reduce food insecurity Valerie Tarasuk Andy Mitchell Naomi Dachner AGENDA Page 137 HOUSEHOLD FOOD INSECURITY IN CANADA, 2012 Household Food Insecurity in Canada, 2012 Valerie Tarasuk Andy Mitchell Naomi Dachner Acknowledgments: This report is a PROOF initiative which is supported by a Programmatic Grant in Health and Health Equity, Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) (FRN 115208). The authors wish to thank Stephanie Vasko for her layout and design work on the report and acknowledge Urshila Sriram for her contributions to the report. PROOF Investigators: Herb Emery (University of Calgary), Craig Gundersen (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign), Paul Kurdyak (Centre for Addition and Mental Health), Catherine Mah (Centre for Addiction and Mental Health), Lynn McIntyre (University of Calgary), Jurgen Rehm (Centre for Addiction and Mental Health), Valerie Tarasuk (University of Toronto). How to cite this document: Tarasuk, V, Mitchell, A, Dachner, N. (2013). Household food insecurity in Canada, 2012. Toronto. Retrieved from http://nutritionalsciences.lamp.utoronto.ca/ PROOF is an international, interdisciplinary team of researchers committed to a program of research to identify effective policy interventions to address household food insecurity. Website: http://nutritionalsciences.lamp.utoronto.ca This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. 1 AGENDA Page 138 Executive Summary Household food insecurity, inadequate or insecure access to food because of financial constraints, is a significant social and health problem in Canada. In 2012, 4 million individuals in Canada, including 1.15 million children, experienced some level of food insecurity. This represents nearly 13% of Canadian households. Food insecurity has only been measured on a consistent basis since 2005, and not all provinces have participated in the monitoring of food insecurity each year since then. Nevertheless, the available data suggest that in most parts of Canada, food insecurity in 2012 remained at or above the levels experienced in prior years. Food insecurity was most prevalent in Canada’s North (especially Nunavut) and the Maritimes in 2012. The rates of food insecurity in half of the country’s provinces (Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia) and two of the territories (Nunavut and Northwest Territories) were the highest rates observed yet in these provinces and territories. The lowest rates of food insecurity were found in Alberta and Ontario, but even in these provinces, the rate of food insecurity was over 11%. Household food insecurity by province & territory 17.1% 20.4% Ontario, Quebec, Alberta & British Columbia accounted for the largest share of food insecure households in Canada: 84% 45.2% 12.7% 11.5% 13.4% 12.5% 12.1% 13.5% 16.2% 11.7% Data Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS), 2012. 2 OF THE FOOD INSECURE POPULATION 17.5% 15.6% PROOF Research to identify policy options to reduce food insecurity AGENDA Page 139 HOUSEHOLD FOOD INSECURITY IN CANADA, 2012 Household food insecurity affected 1 in 6 children in Canada Households with children under the age of 18 were at greater risk Proportion of children who lived in food insecure households for food insecurity than households without children (15.6% versus 11.4%). Food insecure households include 1.15 million children, or 16% of all children under the age of 18. This means that household food insecurity 19.7% 31.6% affected nearly one in every six children Data Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS), 2012. 62.2% in Canada in 2012. Nunavut and the Northwest Territories had the highest prevalence of children living in food- 15.8% 17.2% insecure households at 62.2% and 31.6% 21.6% 15.1% 17.5% respectively. 16.7% 21.9% 15.2% 21.2% Seventy percent of households whose major source of 19.6% income was social assistance were food insecure, as were 38.4% of those reliant on Employment Insurance or Workers’ Compensation. However, the majority of food insecure households (62.2%) were reliant on wages or salaries from employment. Other household characteristics associated with a higher likelihood of food insecurity included being a female lone parent (34.3% were food insecure), having an income below the Low Income Measure (29.0%), being black (27.8%), being Aboriginal (28.2%), and renting rather than owning one’s home (26.1%). Food insecurity was slightly more prevalent in urban areas than in rural Canada, but prevalence rates differed markedly between cities. Among the 33 major census metropolitan areas examined, food insecurity in 2011-12 was highest in Halifax, affecting about 1 in 5 households in this city. The lowest rates of food insecurity were in Sherbrooke, Quebec City, Hamilton and Greater Sudbury, where 1 in 11 households were food insecure. 3 AGENDA Page 140 Food insecurity indicates deprivation in terms of a basic human need: access to nutritious food in sufficient quantities to maintain good health. The 4 million Canadians affected in 2012 are vulnerable to the physical and emotional hardships that underpin the experience of food insecurity, but also to the associated compromises to health and well-being. Although there has been rigorous measurement and monitoring of household food insecurity in Canada since 2005, the problem has not abated. In fact, it has grown or persisted in every province and territory. Food insecurity is a serious social and public health problem in our cities, provinces and territories, and in the country as a whole. The geographic patterning of food insecurity such as the alarming rates in the North and the Maritimes, and the sheer volume of affected households in our largest provinces, as well as the variation in rates that is found among cities, suggest that reducing the prevalence of food insecurity requires attention and action by all levels of government. The data in this report provide an impetus for discussion that is critical to the development of programs and policies by all sectors aimed at tackling food insecurity in Canada. 1.7 million Household food insecurity Canadian households experienced food insecurity 1,800 MARGINAL FOOD INSECURITY Worry about running out of food and/or limit food selection because of lack of money for food. 1,600 This amounts to nearly one in eight households Marginal Marginal Marginal Compromise in quality and/or quantity of food due to a lack of money for food. Miss meals, reduce food intake and at the most extreme go day(s) without food. 0 Moderate Moderate Moderate Severe Severe 400 Severe 600 Moderate 800 200 4 MODERATE FOOD INSECURITY SEVERE FOOD INSECURITY individuals, including 1.15 million children Marginal 1,000 Severe 4 million 1,200 Number of households (000s) ⌂⌂⌂⌂ ⌂⌂⌂⌂ 1,400 2007 2008 2011 2012 Data Source: Statistics Canada, CCHS, 2007, 2008, 2011 and 2012. PROOF Research to identify policy options to reduce food insecurity AGENDA Page 141 HOUSEHOLD FOOD INSECURITY IN CANADA, 2012 Introduction In 2012, the Household Food Security Survey Module was administered in all provinces and territories as a component of Statistics Canada’s annual Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS). Examining the results of this survey provides an opportunity to deepen our understanding of the prevalence, distribution and relative severity of household food insecurity across the country. The Annual Report on Household Food Insecurity is designed to provide a tool, using Statistics Canada data, to monitor trends and identify priorities for interventions to address this major public health issue. It builds on the extensive work of the Office of Nutrition Policy and Promotion at Health Canadai and Statistics Canadaii in monitoring household food insecurity in Canada. The report has been prepared by PROOF, a Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)funded research program initiated to identify effective policy interventions to address household food insecurity. It is the second in a series of annual reports on food insecurity in Canada. What is food insecurity? According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, food security exists when “all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life”iii.This definition was adopted by Canada at the World Food Summit, but the measurement and monitoring of food insecurity in the country focuses on a household`s experience of food insecurity or the inadequate or insecure access to adequate food due to financial constraints. The experience of food insecurity can range from concerns about running out of food before there is more money to buy more, to the inability to afford a balanced diet, to going hungry, missing meals, and in extreme cases, not eating for a whole day because of a lack of food and money for food. Food insecurity is a serious public health problem because individuals’ health and well-being are tightly linked to their household food security. Recent research in Canada has shown that the experience of hunger leaves an indelible mark on children’s physical and mental health, manifesting in greater likelihood of such conditions as depression and asthma in adolescence and early adulthoodiv. Adults in food-insecure households have poorer physical and mental health and higher rates of numerous chronic conditions, including depression, diabetes, and heart diseasev. Once chronic diseases are established, their management is also compromised in the context of food insecurityvi. 5 AGENDA Page 142 How is food insecurity measured in Canada? Responses to items in the Household Food Security Module, Canadian Community Health Survey, Canada 2012 All Households Data on food insecurity are collected through the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS), a cross sectional survey administered by Statistics Canada that collects health related information from about 60,000 Canadians per year. The sample is designed to be representative of the ten provinces and three territories, but it excludes individuals who are full-time members of the Canadian Forces, those living on First Nations reserves or Crown Lands or in prisons or care facilities, and persons living in the Quebec health regions of Région du Nunavik and Région des Terres-Cries-de-la-Baie-James. While nearly half of all First Nations people in Canada live on reserves , this report includes no vii data on their food securityviii. The report also includes no data on food insecurity among homeless populations in Canada, because CCHS is limited to Canadians with domicilesix. Although on-reserve First Nations people and homeless people comprise relatively small proportions of the total population in Canada, their high levels of vulnerability to food insecurity must mean that the true prevalence of food insecurity in Canada is to some extent underestimated because of their omission. Since 2004, the Household Food Security Survey Module has been included in the CCHS to monitor households’ experiences of food insecurity over the previous 12 monthsx. (See Appendix A for the full Household Food Security Survey Module.) This survey module consists of 18 questions asking the respondent whether he/she or other household members experienced the conditions described, which range in 6 Households with children Households without children Adult food security scale: Number (000s) % Number (000s) % Number (000s) % Worried food would run out 1,219.1 9.2% 445.6 11.4% 773.5 8.3% No food, and no money for more 951.9 7.2% 314.7 8.1% 637.2 6.9% Could not afford balanced meals 1,039.5 7.9% 301.8 7.7% 737.7 7.9% Adult ever skip meals because there wasn’t enough money for food 522.6 4.0% 150.1 3.8% 372.5 4.0% Adult cut or skipped meals almost every or some months 381.2 2.9% 96.2 2.5% 285.0 3.1% Ate less than felt should 570.0 4.3% 182.0 4.7% 388.0 4.2% Was hungry but could not afford to eat 313.4 2.4% 81.2 2.1% 232.2 2.5% Lost weight, no money to buy food 201.9 1.5% 43.0 1.1% 158.9 1.7% Adults did not eat for a whole day 119.8 0.9% 30.6 0.8% 89.2 1.0% Adults did not eat for a whole day almost every or some months 88.6 0.7% 22.2 0.6% 66.4 0.7% Child food security scale: Relied on a few kinds of low cost foods to feed children 308.8 2.3% 308.8 7.9% n/a n/a Couldn't afford to feed children a balanced meal 194.7 1.5% 194.7 5.0% n/a n/a Children were not eating enough because couldn't afford food 73.2 0.6% 73.2 1.9% n/a n/a Adults cut the size of children's meals because they couldn't afford food 17.6 0.13% 17.6 0.5% n/a n/a Child ever skip meals because there wasn't enough money for food 10.7 0.08% 10.7 0.3% n/a n/a Child skipped meals almost every, or some months 6.7 0.05% 6.7 0.2% n/a n/a Children were hungry but could afford to buy more food 18.1 0.14% 18.1 0.5% n/a n/a Children did not eat for a whole day 2.1 0.02% 2.1 0.1% n/a n/a PROOF Research to identify policy options to reduce food insecurity AGENDA Page 143 HOUSEHOLD FOOD INSECURITY IN CANADA, 2012 severity from experiences of anxiety that food will run out before household members have money to buy more, to modifying the amount of food consumed, to experiencing hunger, and in the extreme, going a whole day without eating. These questions distinguish the experiences of adults from those of children, recognizing that in households with children, adults may compromise their own food intake as a way to reallocate scarce resources for children. Based on the number of positive responses to the questions posed, for this report and for subsequent issues, households are classified as either food secure or marginally, moderately, or severely food insecure. (See Appendix B for a full description.) Food secure households are those who gave no indication of any incomerelated problem of food access. Those who are marginally food insecure have reported some concern or problem of food access over the past 12 monthsxi. Households classified as moderately food insecure have reported compromises in the quality and/or quantity of food consumed among adults and/or children. Those classed as severely food insecure have reported more extensive compromises, including reduced food intake among adults and/or children because of a lack of money for food. Because we have included marginally food insecure households in our calculations, our estimates of the rate of food insecurity and number of households affected are higher than the estimates reported by Statistics Canada for 2011-2012ii. In this report, we present estimates of the number of adults and children living in food insecure households in Canada and the rate of household food insecurity among children, based on population-weighted totals from CCHS 2012. Our estimates are larger than those released in earlier reports by Health Canadai and Statistics Canadaii because of two important differences in our methods of calculation. We have considered all members of households classified as food insecure, whereas Health Canada and Statistics Canada have only reported on food insecurity among those 12 years of age and older. In addition, we have included marginally food insecure households in our calculations, whereas Statistics Canada’s and Health Canada’s reports have only counted the people living in moderately and severely food insecure households. Thus the prevalence estimates here encompass a more comprehensive spectrum of the population affected by food insecurity. In the United States, food insecurity is monitored using the same questionnaire used in Canada, but the terminology and classification scheme differ. This means that the results in this report are not directly comparable to reports of food insecurity in the United States. A comparison of food insecurity rates in Canada and the United States in 2012, applying United States Department of Agriculture’s coding of the questionnaire, is presented in Appendix C. The food security survey module is not always part of the common content of CCHS, and during cycles of CCHS where it has been optional, some provinces and territories have opted out of participation. However, this report is based on the 2012 CCHS which included the food security questionnaire as part of the core content; therefore, participation from all provinces and territories is assured. Starting in 2015, the survey module will be considered two-year common content. That is, the module will be asked of all respondents and data will be collected for two years (2015 and 2016), and re-introduced every four years (collected again in 2019 and 2020). This report is based on the 2012 CCHS, but in the examination of food insecurity in major metropolitan areas, some which have relatively small sample sizes, data from 2011 and 2012 have been pooled in order to obtain more reliable estimates. 7 AGENDA Page 144 Prevalence of Household Food Insecurity – Canada 2012 In 2012, 12.6% of Canadian householdsxii, Household food insecurity, Canada 2012 or 1.7 million households representing 2.6% 2.8 million adults and 1.15 million children Moderate food insecurity of food insecurity during the previous 12 months. This means that 16.5% of children under 18, or about one in six, lived in households that experienced food insecurity Severe food insecurity 6% under the age of 18, experienced some level 4.1% 87.4% Marginal food insecurity Food secure during 2012. The levels of deprivation documented were substantial, with 6.0% of households Data Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS), 2012. (i.e., 786,100 households) classified as moderately food insecure, indicating compromises in the quality and possibly quantity of food consumed over the past 12 months, and 2.6% (i.e., 336,700 households) Household food insecurity severely food insecure, reporting clear 1,800 indications of food deprivation among household members. Household food insecurity has 1,600 risen significantly since 2008, and since 2011 an 1,200 1,000 400 MODERATE FOOD INSECURITY Moderate 600 MARGINAL FOOD INSECURITY Worry about running out of food and/or limit food selection because of lack of money for food. 800 Moderate Number of households (000s) (4,005,000) and a prevalence of 12.5%. Marginal bringing Marginal households, Moderate insecure Marginal food the national total to over 4 million people Moderate in Marginal 1,400 additional 130,000 Canadians were living Compromise in quality and/or quantity of food due to a lack of money for food. 0 8 PROOF Research to identify policy options to reduce food insecurity Severe Severe Severe 200 Severe SEVERE FOOD INSECURITY 2007 2008 2011 2012 Miss meals, reduce food intake and at the most extreme go day(s) without food. Data Source: Statistics Canada, CCHS, 2007, 2008, 2011 and 2012. AGENDA Page 145 HOUSEHOLD FOOD INSECURITY IN CANADA, 2012 Food insecurity, by province or territory Food insecurity rose from 36.4% to 45.2% in Nunavut from 2011 to 2012, although this difference is not statistically significant. The Northwest Territories, where the second highest prevalence in the country was found, also experienced an increase in food insecurity from 2011 to 2012 (15.2% to 20.4%). Continuing from 2011, food insecurity rates also topped 15% in the Maritimes and the Yukon in 2012. The province with the least food insecurity, in 2011, was Newfoundland and Labrador. In 2012, it was Alberta with a rate of 11.5%. In both of these provinces, the changes from 2011 to 2012 were not statistically significant. Household food insecurity in Canada by province & territory Canada NL 2% PEI 2.9% NS Data Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS), 2012. 6% 2.6% QC 2.3% 6.2% ON 2.7% 5.5% MB 2% 6.5% SK 2.2% 5.9% AB 2% 5.8% NWT 5.7% 5.0% 3.4% 3.7% 4.4% 3.8% 3.8% 4.7% 10.1% 4.4% NU 0% Marginal food insecurity 5.6% 8.8% 3.7% Moderate food insecurity 5.9% 7.2% 3.2% Severe food insecurity 4.8% 8.6% 3% 2.8% YT 5.3% 8.5% NB BC 4.1% 6.1% 5.9% 21.8% 18.5% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 5% 45% 50% Prevalence tells us the proportion of the population or subpopulation experiencing food insecurity. To understand the problem of food insecurity in Canada, it is also instructive to examine the distribution of food insecure households across the country, as this tells us where the greatest numbers of food insecure households are located. In 2012, 84% of the food insecure households in Canada, 1.4 million, were located in Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, and British Columbia, Canada’s most populous provinces. NL Number of food insecure households by province & territory 27,600 PEI 9,200 NS 67,800 NB 47,000 QC 437,700 ON 571,300 MB 55,800 SK 50,700 AB 164,700 BC 225,600 YT 2,500 NWT 3,100 NU 3,200 0 100,000 200,000 Ontario, Quebec, Alberta & British Columbia accounted for the largest share of food insecure households in Canada: 84% 300,000 400,000 Data Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS), 2012. OF THE FOOD INSECURE POPULATION 500,000 600,000 9 AGENDA Page 146 Food insecurity by household characteristics Just as food insecurity rates vary across the provinces and territories, the risks also vary according to household characteristics. (See Appendix D for a detailed breakdown of food insecurity in relation to household characteristics.) Food insecurity was more prevalent among households with children under the age of 18. Most vulnerable were lone parent families headed by women. Among this group, the prevalence of food insecurity was 34.4%. Among households without children under 18 years old, food insecurity rates were 17.3% among unattached individuals and 15.4 % among female lone parents living with adult children. In contrast, the prevalence of food insecurity among couples without children was 5.7% and among elderly individuals living alone, it was 7.0%. Food insecurity by household composition All households with children <18 2.1% Couples Female lone parent Male lone parent 8% 5.7% 6.6% 5.5% Data Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS), 2012. 15.6% 11.7% 4.8% 18.7% 9.3% 6.9% 5.1% 3.5% 11.4% All households without children <18 2.7% 5% 7.4% 4.9% 17.3% Unattached, living alone or with others 3% 2% 5.7% Couple, no children Couples with children ≥ 18 2.8% 2.5% 5.8% Female lone parent with children ≥ 18 4.2% 7.1% 4.6% 15.9% Elderly living alone 2.8% 9% 34.3% 17.2% Severe food insecurity Moderate Marginal 3% 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Because food insecurity results from a household’s inability to access food for financial reasons, it is not surprising that income is closely related to food insecurity. While there is no official measure of poverty in Canada, Statistics Canada’s Low Income Measure (LIM) is commonly used in Canada and for making international comparisons. The LIM is 50% of median household income, adjusted for household size – to take into account that a household’s needs increase with additional membersxiii. The lower household income is in relation to the LIM, the greater the likelihood of severe food insecurity. In 2012, 45.3% of households with incomes under half of the LIM were food insecure. Relationship between income and household food insecurity 14.9% < 0.5 5.5% 11.8% 0.5 - < 1.0 7% 4.9% 14% 1.0 - 1.49 2.1% 4.1% 4.2% 9.3% 1.5 - 1.9 2.0 - 2.99 2.1% 2.7% 5% 3.0+ 2% 0% 10% 9.1% 45.3% 21.2% 6.4% 20% 23.7% 30% 40% Data Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS), 2012. 50% % food insecure 10 PROOF Research to identify policy options to reduce food insecurity AGENDA Page 147 HOUSEHOLD FOOD INSECURITY IN CANADA, 2012 The source of a household’s income is strongly related to food insecurity. Households whose main source of income was either pensions or dividends and interest had the lowest rate of food insecurity (7.4%)xiv. In contrast, food insecurity affected 69.5% of households reliant on social assistance (i.e., welfare and disability support programs). But the percentage varied greatly among provinces, with rates above 75% in the west and Nunavut and Yukon, to a low of 46.2% in Newfoundland and Labrador. No results are shown for the Northwest Territories and Prince Edward Island because the sample sizes in these jurisdictions were too small to derive reliable estimates. Proportion of households reliant on social assistance who were food insecure 100% 77.6% 78.7% 75% 69.3% 66.7% 66.6% 64.5% 76% 75.4% 77% BC YT NU 66.9% 50% 46.2% 25% Data Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS), 2012. 0% NL NS NB QC ON MB SK AB Although the prevalence of food insecurity among households whose main source of income was wages and salaries was 11.2% in 2012, this group made up the majority (62.2%) of food insecure households in Canada. Food insecure households’ main source of income (103,200) 6.4% Other or none (198,100) 12.3% Senior's income, including dividends & interest (258,800) 16.1% Social Assistance 3% (48,000) Employment insurance or workers compensation 62.2% (1,000,600) Wages, salaries or self-employment Data Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS), 2012. 11 AGENDA Page 148 The percentage of food insecure households who were Some other household characteristics were associated reliant on wages and salaries differed by province, with with increased risk of food insecurity: a low of 58.3% in Ontario and high of 79.0% in Prince Edward Island. Proportion of food insecure households reliant on wages and salaries, by province Province Percent Canada 62.2% Newfoundland and Labrador 58.8% Prince Edward Island 79.0% Nova Scotia 64.8% New Brunswick 65.3% Quebec 58.6% Ontario 58.3% Manitoba 72.4% Saskatchewan 63.7% Alberta 76.8% British Columbia 63.2% Yukon 65.4% Northwest Territories 69.6% Nunavut 69.0% • 26.1% of households renting their accommodation experienced food insecurity, versus 6.4% of homeowners. • Households where the respondent was Aboriginal or black had a rate of food insecurity that was almost two and one-half times that of all Canadian households (28.2% and 27.8%, respectively), versus 12.6% in Canada overall. • The prevalence of food insecurity among households where the respondent was a recent immigrant to Canada (less than 5 years) was 19.6%, but the rate for households where the respondent had immigrated to the country five or more years ago was 11.8%, similar to the rate for Canadian-born respondents (12.4%). • Households who lived in rural areas experienced a rate of food insecurity that was slightly lower than that of households in population centres (11.0% versus 13.0%), but this difference was not statistically significant. Data Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS), 2012. 12 PROOF Research to identify policy options to reduce food insecurity AGENDA Page 149 HOUSEHOLD FOOD INSECURITY IN CANADA, 2012 Children in food insecure households Food insecurity is more prevalent among households with children under the age of 18 than households without children. How many children are affected? In 2012, 16.5% of children in Canada (an estimated 1.15 million children) lived in households affected by some level of food insecurity. Nearly two-thirds of these (nearly threequarters of a million children) were in moderately or severely food insecure households. The prevalence of food insecurity for households with children differs dramatically depending on the province or territory of residence. Nunavut and the Northwest Territories had the highest prevalence of children living in food-insecure households at 62.2% and 31.6% respectively. Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Yukon had rates above 20%. The lowest prevalences of children in foodinsecure families were in Ontario and Newfoundland and Labrador (15.2% and 15.1% respectively), but even in these provinces, 1 in 7 children were living in a household that had reported some level of food insecurity in 2012. 2.1% (81,600) Severe food insecurity (311,800) 8% Moderate food insecurity (216,900) 5.5% Marginal food insecurity Households with children by food security status 84.4% (3,299,000) Food secure Data Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS), 2012. Proportion of children who lived in food insecure households 19.7% 31.6% Data Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS), 2012. 62.2% 15.8% 17.2% 21.6% 15.1% 17.5% 16.7% 21.9% 15.2% 21.2% 19.6% 13 AGENDA Page 150 Severe food insecurity What does it mean to be a severely food insecure household in Canada? In 2012, one in five of food insecure households in Canada were severely food insecure. This group, comprising 336,700 households, merits closer examination because severe food insecurity denotes such an extreme level of deprivation. Overall, like food insecurity, the prevalence of severe food insecurity was much higher in Nunavut (18.5%) than elsewhere in Canada. Additionally, the rate of severe food insecurity was above the national prevalence (2.6%) in Northwest Territories (4.4%), Yukon (3.7%), British Columbia (3.2%), Nova Scotia (3.0%), Prince Edward Island (2.9%), and New Brunswick (2.8%), Ontario (2.7%). Severe food insecurity was lowest in Newfoundland and Labrador, Manitoba, and Alberta, each with a prevalence of 2.0%. • 97.1% reported being worried that their food would run out before they got money to buy more; • 95.7% reported that the food bought for the household did not last and there was no money to buy more. • 96.1% reported that they could not afford to eat balanced meals. • 98.1% reported that they had cut the size of meals, or skipped meals entirely because there wasn’t enough money to purchase food; 88.0% reported that this had occurred several times. • 96.3% felt that they had eaten less than they should because there wasn’t enough money to buy food. • 71.6% reported being hungry but not eating because they couldn’t afford enough food. • 50.1% of respondents had lost weight because they didn’t have enough money for food. • 32.8% reported that an adult did not eat for an entire day because there wasn’t enough money for food; 26.2% reported that this happened several times. Among households with children: An examination of the household characteristics associated with severe food insecurity highlights the particular vulnerability of people on social assistance. In 2012, 29.4% of households who reported their main source of income as social assistance were severely food insecure. See Appendix D for a detailed description of the characteristics of severelyfood insecure households. Number of severely food insecure households by province & territory • 69.4% could not afford to feed their children balanced meals • In nearly half (41.2%) of the households, children were not eating enough because there was not enough money for food. • 15.4% cut the size of children’s meals, and in 9.5% of households children missed meals. • 17.0% of children were hungry, and 2.5% went for a whole day without food. 4,100 NL PEI 1,600 NS 11,700 NB Data Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS), 2012. • 83.1% relied on a few kinds of low-cost foods to feed children. 8,400 74,500 QC 131,600 ON MB 9,000 SK 8,900 AB 27,900 56,200 BC YT 500 NWT 700 NU 1,300 0 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 125,000 150,000 Number of severely food insecure households 14 PROOF Research to identify policy options to reduce food insecurity AGENDA Page 151 HOUSEHOLD FOOD INSECURITY IN CANADA, 2012 Food Insecurity since 2005 Food insecurity has only been monitored on a consistent basis since 2005xv, and not all provinces and territories have participated in the monitoring of food insecurity each year since then. Nevertheless, the available data suggest that in most parts of Canada, food insecurity in 2012 remained at or above the levels experienced in prior years. The following table presents the prevalence of total (marginal, moderate and severe) food insecurity in the provinces and territories form 2005 to 2012, with blanks indicating years that provinces and territories opted out of participation. Differences from one year to another may not be statistically significant. The 95% confidence intervals for these estimates and the estimated prevalence of moderate and severe food insecurity in the province and territories from 2005 to 2012 are presented in Appendix E. Household food insecurity – Canada, 2005-2012 2005 Newfoundland & Labrador 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 15.7% 14.3% 11.8% 11.5% 10.6% 13.4% 15.4% 16.2% 17.1% 17.5% 16.5% 15.6% Prince Edward Island 12.9% 14.9% 15.3% Nova Scotia 16.1% 14.4% 13.5% 13.8% 15.1% New Brunswick 15.9% 14.9% Quebec 11.3% 10.9% 9.4% 11.3% 9.7% 12.5% 13.5% Ontario 11.6% 11.8% 12.1% 12.5% 11.3% 11.9% 11.7% Manitoba 12.4% 12.9% 10.8% 10.0% 12.4% 12.1% Saskatchewan 9.5% 9.7% 8.2% 9.2% 11.8% 12.5% Alberta 10.4% 9.1% 10.0% 10.8% 10.9% 12.3% 11.5% British Columbia 11.0% 10.8% 11.5% 11.9% 11.1% 11.0% 12.7% 17.8% 13.0% 13.9% 12.6% 16.7% 17.1% Yukon Northwest Territories 14.2% 16.5% 17.8% 9.8% 12.0% 15.2% 20.4% Nunavut 38.0% 35.4% 34.6% 31.0% 31.0% 36.4% 45.2% Data Source: Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS), 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012. The rates of food insecurity in Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Northwest Territories and Nunavut (i.e. half of the provinces and 2 of the 3 territories in the country) were the highest rates observed yet. Of particular concern as well are the persistently high rates of food insecurity in Nunavut, and the severity of food insecurity documented in this territory. Food insecurity rose from 36.4% to 45.2% in Nunavut from 2011 to 2012, although this difference is not statistically significant. Moderate and severe food insecurity rose from 32.9% in 2011 to 40.3% in 2012. The rise in prevalence of food insecurity in Newfoundland and Labrador from 2011 to 2012 is troubling. Food insecurity had been steadily declining in that province until 2011, and while the increase over the year is not statistically significant, the direction of the shift is worrisome. 15 AGENDA Page 152 Total Food Insecurity Moderate & Severe Food Insecurity Northern Canada Western Canada Central Canada Eastern Canada Prevalence of household food insecurity, 2005-2012 Data Source: Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS), 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012. 16 PROOF Research to identify policy options to reduce food insecurity AGENDA Page 153 HOUSEHOLD FOOD INSECURITY IN CANADA, 2012 Prevalence of household food insecurity by census metropolitan areas, 2007-2008 and 2011-2012 Food insecurity – major census metropolitan areas St. John's An examination of food insecurity in 33 major Halifax* urban areas revealed considerable variation. The prevalence of food insecurity in 2011-12 Moncton was highest in Halifax (19.9%) where about 1 Saint John in 5 households experienced food insecurity. Saguenay Moncton (17.8%), Guelph (16.4%) and Barrie Quebec City (17.4%) also had relatively high rates. Sherbrooke The lowest rates of food insecurity were Trois-Rivieres found in Sherbrooke (8.6%), Quebec City (9.0%), Hamilton (9.3%) and Greater Sudbury (9.4%) where about 1 in 11 households were Montreal* Ottawa-Gatineau Kingston food insecure. Peterborough* Between 2007-08 and 2011-12, there was Oshawa considerable fluctuation in the prevalence of food insecurity in many census metropolitan Toronto areas, but the estimates from one survey to Hamilton* the next have limited reliability in many areas St. Catharines-Niagara because the sample sizes are relatively small. Kitchener We conducted a statistical test to determine considered Brantford significant. From 2007-08 to 2011-12, the Guelph* prevalence of food insecurity significantly London which changes could be increased in Halifax, Montreal, Peterborough, Windsor Guelph, Calgary and Abbotsford. Hamilton was the only census metropolitan area to Barrie experience a significant decrease in the Greater Sudbury prevalence of food insecurity during that Thunder Bay period. (See Appendix F for the prevalence estimates and confidence intervals for all Winnipeg Regina census metropolitan areas shown here.) Saskatoon Calgary* Edmonton Data Source: Weighted estimates from CCHS 07-08 and CCHS 11-12 combined data files. 2007-2008 2011-2012 Use with caution (coefficient of variation 16.6% to 33.3%) * Statistically significant change over time. Kelowna Abbotsford* Vancouver Victoria 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 17 AGENDA Page 154 Conclusions Food insecurity indicates deprivation in terms of a basic human need: access to nutritious food in sufficient quantities to maintain good health. Although there has been rigorous measurement and monitoring of household food insecurity in Canada since 2005, the problem has not abated. In fact, it has grown or persisted in every province and territory. The 4 million Canadians affected in 2012 are vulnerable to the physical and emotional hardships that underpin the experience of food insecurity, but also to the associated compromises to health and well-being. Food insecurity is a serious social and public health problem in our cities, provinces and territories, and in the country as a whole. The geographic patterning of food insecurity such as the alarming rates in the North and the Maritimes, and the density of affected households in our largest provinces, as well as the variation in rates that is found among cities, suggest that reducing the prevalence of food insecurity requires attention and action by all levels of government. The data in this report provide an impetus for discussion that is critical to the development of programs and policies by all sectors aimed at tackling food insecurity in Canada. 18 PROOF Research to identify policy options to reduce food insecurity AGENDA Page 155 HOUSEHOLD FOOD INSECURITY IN CANADA, 2012 Appendix A - CCHS Household Food Security Survey Modulex The following questions are about the food situation for your household in the past 12 months. Q1. Which of the following statements best describes the food eaten in your household in the past 12 months, that is since [current month] of last year? 1. You and other household members always had enough of the kinds of foods you wanted to eat. 2. You and other household members had enough to eat, but not always the kinds of food you wanted. 3. Sometimes you and other household members did not have enough to eat. 4. Often you and other household members didn’t have enough to eat. - Don’t know / refuse to answer (Go to end of module) Question Q1 is not used directly in determining household food security status. STAGE 1 Questions 2 - 6 — ask all households Now I’m going to read you several statements that may be used to describe the food situation for a household. Please tell me if the statement was often true, sometimes true, or never true for you and other household members in the past 12 months. Q2. The first statement is: you and other household members worried that food would run out before you got money to buy more. Was that often true, sometimes true, or never true in the past 12 months? 1. Often true 3. Never true 2. Sometimes true - Don’t know / refuse to answer Q3. The food that you and other household members bought just didn’t last, and there wasn’t any money to get more. Was that often true, sometimes true, or never true in the past 12 months? 1. Often true 3. Never true 2. Sometimes true - Don’t know / refuse to answer Q4. You and other household members couldn’t afford to eat balanced meals. In the past 12 months was that often true, sometimes true, or never true? 1. Often true 3. Never true 2. Sometimes true - Don’t know / refuse to answer IF CHILDREN UNDER 18 IN HOUSEHOLD, ASK Q5 AND Q6; OTHERWISE, SKIP TO FIRST LEVEL SCREEN Now I’m going to read a few statements that may describe the food situation for households with children. Q5. You or other adults in your household relied on only a few kinds of low-cost food to feed the child(ren) because you were running out of money to buy food. Was that often true, sometimes true, or never true in the past 12 months? 1. Often true 3. Never true 2. Sometimes true - Don’t know / refuse to answer Q6. You or other adults in your household couldn’t feed the child(ren) a balanced meal, because you couldn’t afford it. Was that often true, sometimes true, or never true in the past 12 months? 1. Often true 3. Never true 2. Sometimes true - Don’t know / refuse to answer 19 AGENDA Page 156 FIRST LEVEL SCREEN (screener for Stage 2): If AFFIRMATIVE RESPONSE to ANY ONE of Q2-Q6 (i.e., “often true” or “sometimes true”) OR response [3] or [4] to Q1, then continue to STAGE 2; otherwise, skip to end. STAGE 2 Questions 7 - 11 — ask households passing the First Level Screen IF CHILDREN UNDER 18 IN HOUSEHOLD, ASK Q7; OTHERWISE SKIP TO Q8 Q7. The child(ren) were not eating enough because you and other adult members of the household just couldn’t afford enough food. Was that often, sometimes or never true in the past 12 months? 1. Often true 3. Never true 2. Sometimes true - Don’t know / refuse to answer The following few questions are about the food situation in the past 12 months for you or any other adults in your household. Q8. In the past 12 months, since last [current month] did you or other adults in your household ever cut the size of your meals or skip meals because there wasn’t enough money for food? 1. Yes 2. No (Go to Q9) - Don’t know / refuse to answer Q8b. How often did this happen? 1. Almost every month 3. Only 1 or 2 months 2. Some months but not every month - Don’t know / refuse to answer Q9. In the past 12 months, did you (personally) ever eat less than you felt you should because there wasn’t enough money to buy food? 1. Yes 2. No - Don’t know / refuse to answer Q10. In the past 12 months, were you (personally) ever hungry but didn’t eat because you couldn’t afford enough food? 1. Yes 2. No - Don’t know / refuse to answer Q11. In the past 12 months, did you (personally) lose weight because you didn’t have enough money for food? 1. Yes 2. No - Don’t know / refuse to answer SECOND LEVEL SCREEN (screener for Stage 3): If AFFIRMATIVE RESPONSE to ANY ONE of Q7-Q11, then continue to STAGE 3; otherwise, skip to end. 20 PROOF Research to identify policy options to reduce food insecurity AGENDA Page 157 HOUSEHOLD FOOD INSECURITY IN CANADA, 2012 STAGE 3 Questions 12 - 16 — ask households passing the Second Level Screen Q12. In the past 12 months, did you or other adults in your household ever not eat for a whole day because there wasn’t enough money for food? 1. Yes 2. No (IF CHILDREN UNDER 18 IN HOUSEHOLD, ASK Q13; OTHERWISE SKIP TO END) - Don’t know / refuse to answer Q12b. How often did this happen? 1. Almost every month 3. Only 1 or 2 months 2. Some months but not every month - Don’t know / refuse to answer IF CHILDREN UNDER 18 IN HOUSEHOLD, ASK Q13-16; OTHERWISE SKIP TO END Now, a few questions on the food experiences for children in your household. Q13. In the past 12 months, did you or other adults in your household ever cut the size of any of the children’s meals because there wasn’t enough money for food? 1. Yes 2. No - Don’t know / refuse to answer Q14. In the past 12 months, did any of the children ever skip meals because there wasn’t enough money for food? 1. Yes 2. No - Don’t know / refuse to answer Q14b. How often did this happen? 1. Almost every month 3. Only 1 or 2 months 2. Some months but not every month - Don’t know / refuse to answer Q15. In the past 12 months, were any of the children ever hungry but you just couldn’t afford more food? 1. Yes 2. No - Don’t know / refuse to answer Q16. In the past 12 months, did any of the children ever not eat for a whole day because there wasn’t enough money for food? 1. Yes 2. No - Don’t know / refuse to answer End of module 21 AGENDA Page 158 Appendix B - Food security status, based on 18 item questionnaire Food security status, based on 18 item questionnaire* Status Interpretation 10 item adult food security scale 8 item child food security scale Food secure No report of income-related problems of food access. No items affirmed No items affirmed Marginal food insecurity** Some indication of worry or an income-related barrier to adequate, secure food access. Affirmed no more than 1 item on either scale Moderate food insecurity Compromise in quality and/or 2 to 5 positive quantity of food consumed by responses adults and/or children due to a lack of money for food. 2 to 4 positive responses Severe food insecurity Disrupted eating patterns and reduced food intake among adults and/or children 5 or more positive responses 6 or more positive responses * Adapted from: Canadian Community Health Survey, cycle 2.2, Nutrition (2004): Income related Household Food Security in Canada. ** One item in either scale affirmed. 22 PROOF Research to identify policy options to reduce food insecurity AGENDA Page 159 HOUSEHOLD FOOD INSECURITY IN CANADA, 2012 Appendix C - A comparison of food insecurity rates in Canada and the United States in 2012 In the United States, food insecurity is monitored using the same questionnaire used in Canada, but the terminology and classification scheme differs. In the US, households are classified as food insecure if they report three or more food-insecure conditions. Food-insecure households are further classified as having either low food security or very low food security. Households without children are classified as having very low food security if they report six or more food-insecure conditions. Households with children are classified as having very low food security if they report eight or more food-insecure conditions, including conditions among both adults and children. This means that the results in this report are not directly comparable to reports of food insecurity in the United States.xvi If we use the U.S. approach to measuring food insecurity here, the prevalence of household food insecurity in Canada is 6.8%. Prevalence of Food Insecurity using USDA Measurement Canada, 2012 Households (000s) % US, 2012xvi Households (000s) % Total food insecure 898.5 6.8% 17,632 14.5% Low food security 570.4 4.3% 10,679 8.8% Very low food security 328.1 2.5% 6,953 5.7% 23 AGENDA Page 160 Appendix D - Prevalence of household food security and insecurity, by selected household characteristics Prevalence of household food security and insecurity, by selected household characteristics Food secure Food insecure Marginal food insecurity Moderate food insecurity Severe food insecurity Total households (000s)1 Number (000s) % Number (000s) % Number (000s) % Number (000s) % Number (000s) % 13,201.9 11,535.5 87.4% 1,666.5 12.6% 543.7 4.1% 786.1 6.0% 336.7 2.6% With children under 18 13,201.9 11,535.5 87.4% 1,666.5 12.6% 543.7 4.1% 786.1 6.0% 336.7 2.6% With children under 6 1,676.7 1,389.7 82.9% 286.9 17.1% 101.4 6.0% 144.5 8.6% 41.0 2.4% Couple, with children 3,072.4 2,714.3 88.3% 358.1 11.7% 146.5 4.8% 174.6 5.7% 37.0 1.2% Characteristic All Households Household composition: Female lone parent 618.4 406.3 65.7% 212.1 34.3% 55.5 9.0% 115.6 18.7% 41.1 6.6% Male lone parent 126.5 104.8 82.8% 21.8 17.2% 8.8 6.9% 11.7 9.3% 1.3 1.0% 2.0% 65.7 51.4 78.3% 14.2 21.7% 5.3 8.1% 7.5 11.5% 1.3 With no children < 18 9,292.6 8,236.5 88.6% 1,056.1 11.4% 326.8 3.5% 474.3 5.1% 255.0 2.7% Unattached, living alone or with others 4,141.4 3,425.5 82.7% 715.9 17.3% 202.2 4.9% 306.3 7.4% 207.4 5.0% Couple, no children 3,654.9 3,446.6 94.3% 208.3 5.7% 74.2 2.0% 108.7 3.0% 25.3 0.7% Couple, with children 980.6 923.3 94.2% 57.3 5.8% 24.2 2.5% 27.4 2.8% 5.7 0.6% Female lone parent 351.6 295.7 84.1% 55.9 15.9% 16.2 4.6% 25.1 7.1% 14.6 4.2% Male lone parent 101.3 90.7 89.5% 10.7 10.5% 4.4 4.3% 4.5 4.5% 1.7 1.7% 48.9 42.8 87.5% 6.1 12.5% 5.1 10.5% 1.0 2.0% - 0.0% 1,176.8 1,094.3 93.0% 82.5 7.0% 35.2 3.0% 32.4 2.8% 14.9 1.3% Other 3 Other Elderly living alone Education: 2 Less than secondary 1,127.4 891.2 79.0% 236.2 21.0% 53.2 4.7% 118.6 10.5% 64.4 5.7% Secondary school graduate, no post-secondary 1,531.9 1,278.4 83.5% 253.4 16.5% 64.3 4.2% 132.6 8.7% 56.5 3.7% 533.9 414.7 77.7% 119.1 22.3% 34.9 6.5% 52.1 9.8% 32.1 6.0% Completed postsecondary, below Bachelor's degree 5,157.5 4,450.1 86.3% 707.4 13.7% 239.4 4.6% 325.9 6.3% 142.1 2.8% Completed Bachelor's degree or higher 4,171.0 3,907.3 93.7% 263.7 6.3% 122.0 2.9% 111.9 2.7% 29.8 0.7% Some post-secondary, not completed Main source of household income: 24 Wages, salaries or selfemployment 8,960.7 7,960.1 88.8% 1,000.6 11.2% 382.2 4.3% 482.3 5.4% 136.1 1.5% Senior's income, including dividends & interest 2,685.1 2,487.0 92.6% 198.1 7.4% 69.2 2.6% 85.2 3.2% 43.7 1.6% Employment insurance or workers compensation 125.1 77.1 61.6% 48.0 38.4% 9.4 7.5% 26.8 21.4% 11.8 9.4% Social Assistance 372.2 113.4 30.5% 258.8 69.5% 30.8 8.3% 118.5 31.8% 109.6 29.4% Other or none 344.7 241.4 70.0% 103.2 30.0% 30.1 8.7% 45.7 13.3% 27.5 8.0% PROOF Research to identify policy options to reduce food insecurity AGENDA Page 161 HOUSEHOLD FOOD INSECURITY IN CANADA, 2012 Food secure Food insecure Marginal food insecurity Moderate food insecurity Severe food insecurity Total households (000s)1 Number (000s) % Number (000s) % Number (000s) % Number (000s) % Number (000s) % Dwelling owned by member of household 9,038.4 8,455.9 93.6% 582.5 6.4% 252.6 2.8% 257.7 2.9% 72.2 0.8% Dwelling rented 4,135.2 3,054.8 73.9% 1,080.3 26.1% 290.0 7.0% 527.2 12.7% 263.2 6.4% White 10,344.4 9,199.8 88.9% 1,144.6 11.1% 390.8 3.8% 519.8 5.0% 234.1 2.3% Black 331.9 239.7 72.2% 92.2 27.8% 23.7 7.1% 51.5 15.5% 17.0 5.1% Aboriginal 499.3 358.7 71.8% 140.6 28.2% 25.4 5.1% 73.9 14.8% 41.3 8.3% East and South-East Asian 831.8 743.9 89.4% 87.9 10.6% 37.4 4.5% 45.4 5.5% 5.2 0.6% Arab and West Asian 198.8 155.6 78.3% 43.2 21.7% 15.3 7.7% 14.7 7.4% 13.2 6.6% South Asian 451.9 394.3 87.3% 57.5 12.7% 20.4 4.5% 32.0 7.1% 5.2 1.1% Latin American 148.6 121.7 81.9% 26.9 18.1% 6.0 4.1% 16.1 10.8% 4.9 3.3% Other or multiple origins 304.3 249.1 81.9% 55.1 18.1% 19.2 6.3% 25.5 8.4% 10.4 3.4% Characteristic Housing Tenure: Cultural/racial group:3 Immigrant/Canadian born: Canadian born 10,286.8 9,008.8 87.6% 1,278.0 12.4% 415.7 4.0% 589.0 5.7% 273.3 2.7% Immigrant < 5 years 445.9 358.7 80.4% 87.2 19.6% 37.2 8.3% 35.8 8.0% 14.2 3.2% Immigrant 5+ years 2,364.1 2,084.3 88.2% 279.7 11.8% 84.1 3.6% 149.5 6.3% 46.1 1.9% Urban/rural: Population centre 10,855.7 9,448.1 87.0% 1,407.5 13.0% 443.8 4.1% 662.2 6.1% 301.5 2.8% Rural 2,346.3 2,087.3 89.0% 258.9 11.0% 99.9 4.3% 123.9 5.3% 35.2 1.5% Household income/LIM ratio:4 < 0.5 786.8 430.6 54.7% 356.3 45.3% 71.6 9.1% 167.1 21.2% 117.6 14.9% 0.5 - < 1.0 2,440.3 1,862.1 76.3% 578.2 23.7% 156.5 6.4% 287.1 11.8% 134.6 5.5% 1.0 - 1.49 2,207.0 1,897.5 86.0% 309.5 14.0% 109.0 4.9% 154.0 7.0% 46.5 2.1% 1.5 - 1.9 2,447.4 2,219.7 90.7% 227.8 9.3% 102.3 4.2% 100.8 4.1% 24.6 1.0% 2.0 - 2.99 2,634.7 2,502.7 95.0% 131.9 5.0% 70.0 2.7% 55.1 2.1% 6.9 0.3% 3.0 + 2,648.3 2,594.5 98.0% 53.9 2.0% 32.4 1.2% 17.5 0.7% 4.0 0.1% 1 ‘Total households’ excludes those households with missing values for food security. 2 Education refers to the highest level of education achieved among household members. 3 This refers to the status of the respondent. 4 The LIM is 50% of median household income, adjusted for household size. It excludes the territories because the Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics, the survey from which the LIM is derived, excludes the territories. Source: Canadian Community Health Survey, 2012. 25 AGENDA Page 162 Appendix E - Provincial and territorial rates of household food insecurity, 2005-2012 Provincial and territorial rates of household food insecurity, 2005-2011 20051 2007 Moderate & severe food insecurity (%) Total food insecure (%) Newfoundland and Labrador n/a n/a Prince Edward Island 8.3% 12.9% Nova Scotia 10.8% 16.1% n/a n/a Quebec 7.2% 11.3% Ontario 7.7% 11.6% Manitoba n/a Saskatchewan n/a Alberta 6.6% 10.4% 9.6 - 11.2% 6.0% British Columbia 7.3% 11.0% 10.4 - 11.6% 7.7% Province/ Territory New Brunswick Yukon Moderate & severe food insecurity (%) Total food insecure (%) 10.0% 11.1 - 14.7% 14.8 - 17.4% 2008 95% CI2 Moderate & severe food insecurity (%) Total food insecure (%) 95% CI2 15.7% 13.7 - 17.8% 8.9% 14.3% 12.3 - 16.3% 10.1% 14.9% 12.7 - 17.1% 10.6% 15.3% 12.8 - 17.7% 10.0% 14.4% 12.6 - 16.2% 8.6% 13.5% 11.8 - 15.2% 9.5% 13.8% 12.3 - 15.4% 9.6% 15.1% 13.5 - 16.8% 10.8 - 11.9% 7.5% 10.9% 10.2 - 11.8% 6.2% 9.4% 8.6 - 10.2% 11.26 - 12.0% 8.1% 11.8% 11.1 - 12.5% 8.3% 12.1% 11.3 - 13.0% n/a 9.3% 12.4% 10.5 - 14.4% 8.9% 12.9% 11.0 - 14.7% n/a 6.3% 9.5% 8.2 - 10.9% 6.5% 9.7% 8.4 - 10.9% 9.1% 8.1 - 10.2% 6.8% 10.0% 8.9 - 11.1% 10.8% 9.8 - 11.8% 7.9% 11.5% 10.4 - 12.7% 95% CI2 n/a n/a 14.4% 17.8% 12.3 - 23.2% 9.5% 13.0% 9.7 - 16.3% Northwest Territories 11.2% 14.2% 11.4 - 17.0% 11.6% 16.5% 10.5 - 22.4% 13.7% 17.8% 12.7 - 22.9% Nunavut 33.1% 38.0% 27.0 - 49.0% 30.8% 35.4% 27.5 - 43.3% 32.3% 34.6% 20.1 49.1% 20091 Moderate & severe food insecurity (%) Total food insecure (%) Newfoundland and Labrador 7.2% 11.8% Prince Edward Island n/a Province/ Territory Nova Scotia 95% CI2 Moderate & severe food insecurity (%) Total food insecure (%) 10.0 - 13.6% 6.2% 11.5% n/a n/a 14.9% 2011 95% CI2 Moderate & severe food insecurity (%) Total food insecure (%) 95% CI2 9.4 - 13.6% 7.2% 10.6% 8.7 - 12.4% 9.8% 15.4% 12.4 - 18.4% 12.1% 17.1% 15.0 - 19.2% 15.9% 14.0 - 17.7% 10.1% n/a n/a 10.4% 16.5% 14.6 - 18.4% Quebec 7.2% 11.3% 10.3 - 12.3% 6.5% 9.7% 8.8 - 10.7% 7.6% 12.5% 11.4 - 13.6% Ontario 9.2% 12.5% 11.7 - 13.3% 8.1% 11.3% 10.7 - 12.0% 8.2% 11.9% 11.0 - 12.8% Manitoba 8.1% 10.8% 9.0 - 12.6% 6.1% 10.0% 8.3 - 11.7% 7.4% 12.4% 10.5 - 14.3% Saskatchewan 5.3% 8.2% 6.8 - 9.6% 6.8% 9.2% 7.4 - 11.0% 8.2% 11.8% 9.6 - 13.9% Alberta 7.1% 10.8% 9.4 - 12.1% 7.2% 10.9% 9.8 - 12.1% 8.5% 12.3% 10.8 - 13.8% New Brunswick 10.4% 2010 n/a 12.7 - 17.2% British Columbia 8.2% 11.9% 10.7 - 13.0% 8.2% 11.1% 10.0 - 12.2% 7.6% 11.0% 9.9 - 12.2% Yukon 12.1% 13.9% 9.4 - 18.3% 9.8% 12.6% 8.7 - 16.5% 10.4% 16.7% 13.1 - 20.4% Northwest Territories 7.8% 9.8% 5.7 - 13.8% 10.5% 12.0% 8.2 - 15.8% 13.0% 15.2% 12.0 - 18.4% Nunavut 28.9% 31.0% 26.4 - 35.5% 25.9% 31.0% 22.5 - 39.5% 32.9% 36.4% 29.4 - 43.4% 1 In 2005 (CCHS 3.1), Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Yukon did not elect to measure food insecurity. In 2009-2010, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick did not measure food insecurity. 2 26 95% confidence intervals are provided for the total food insecure. Where confidence intervals do not overlap, observed differences in prevalence estimates can be considered statistically significant. PROOF Research to identify policy options to reduce food insecurity AGENDA Page 163 HOUSEHOLD FOOD INSECURITY IN CANADA, 2012 2012 Moderate & severe food insecurity (%) Total food insecure (%) 95% CI2 Newfoundland and Labrador 8.1% 13.4% 10.6% - 16.1% Prince Edward Island 11.4% 16.2% 12.5% - 20.0% Nova Scotia 11.6% 17.5% 15.0% - 20.0% New Brunswick 10% 15.6% 13.4% - 17.7% Quebec 8.5% 13.5% 12.4% - 14.6% Ontario 8.2% 11.7% 10.9% - 12.5% Manitoba 8.4% 12.1% 10.2% - 14.1% Saskatchewan 8.1% 12.5% 10.4% - 14.5% Alberta 7.8% 11.5% 10.0% - 13.1% British Columbia 8.8% 12.7% 11.3% - 14.1% Yukon 12.4% 17.1% 14.0% - 20.3% Northwest Territories 14.5% 20.4% 15.7% - 25.0% Nunavut 40.3% 45.2% 37.0% - 53.5% Province/Territory 27 AGENDA Page 164 Appendix F - Prevalence of household food insecurity by census metropolitan areas, 2007-2008 and 2011-2012 Prevalence of household food insecurity by census metropolitan areas1 2007-2008 2011-2012 (%) 95% CI (%) 95% CI St John's 13.32% 10.9-16.4% 11.10% 8.6- 14.2% Halifax 13.26% 10.9-16.0% 19.94% 16.9-23.3% CMA Moncton 15.87% 13.1-19.0% 17.81% 14.7-21.5% Saint John 10.24% 7.6-13.8% 14.41% 11.4-18.0% Saguenay 9.24% 7.1-12.0% 12.43% 10.0-15.5% Quebec City 10.78% 8.9-13.0% 9.04% 7.2-11.2% Sherbrooke 8.96% 6.6-12.1% 8.61% 6.4-11.5% Trois-Rivieres 11.42% 9.1-14.3% 11.56% 8.6-15.2% Montreal 10.04% 9.2-11.0% 14.75% 13.5-16.1% Ottawa-Gatineau 10.99% 9.5-12.7% 10.29% 8.8-12.0% Kingston 12.12% 9.4-15.3% 10.73% A 7.5-15.1% Peterborough 10.08% 7.4-13.8% 15.90% 12.1-20.4% Oshawa 11.06% 8.6-14.2% 13.21% 10.3-16.7% Toronto 12.50% 11.4-13.7% 11.96% 10.8-13.2% Hamilton 12.40% 10.5-14.6% 9.32% 7.6-11.4% St. Catharines-Niagara 12.24% 9.9-15.0% 11.12% 9.0-13.7% Kitchener 11.82% 9.6-14.4% 13.93% 11.1-17.3% 14.08% 10.5-18.6% 13.16% 10.4-16.6% Guelph Brantford 10.83% E 7.8-14.9% 16.38% 13.2-20.2% London 11.24% 9.3-13.6% 10.41% 8.3-13.0% Windsor 14.06% 11.5-17.1% 13.15% A 8.5-19.7% Barrie 12.96% 10.1-16.5% 17.37% 13.3-22.3% Greater Sudbury 11.25% 9.1-14.1% 9.38% 6.9-12.7% Thunder Bay 15.01% 12.6-18.1% 13.93% 10.9-17.7% Winnipeg 14.25% 12.3-16.4% 11.51% 9.6-13.8% Regina 11.01% 9.0-13.3% 13.6% A 9.4-19.2% Saskatoon 10.74% 8.6-13.4% 12.71% 9.8-16.3% Calgary 8.09% 6.8-9.6% 12.07% 10.1-14.4% Edmonton 10.58% 9.1-12.2% 13.12% 11.0-15.5% 11.76% E 7.5-17.9% 14.24% A 10.0-20.0% 8.32% 6.0-11.4% 14.85% 11.0-19.7% Kelowna Abbotsford Vancouver 10.51% 9.4-11.7% 10.35% 9.1-11.8% Victoria 11.92% 9.8-14.4% 14.03% 11.1-17.6% Statically significant change over time2 ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ 1. Total households’ excludes those households with missing values for food security. 2. Based on a test of a difference in proportions. A. Use with caution (coefficient of variation 16.6% to 33.3%) 28 PROOF Research to identify policy options to reduce food insecurity AGENDA Page 165 HOUSEHOLD FOOD INSECURITY IN CANADA, 2012 Endnotes i Please see the Office of Nutrition Policy and Promotion (Health Canada) website at http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/surveill/nutrition/commun/ insecurit/index-eng.php. iihttp://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-625-x/2013001/article/11889-eng.htm iii United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (1996), Rome Declaration on World Food Security, World Food Summit Plan of Action, paragraph 1, Rome: November 1996. Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/w3613e/w3613e00.htm, Accessed 3/11/2013. iv McIntyre L, et al. Depression and suicide ideation in late adolescence and early adulthood are an outcome of child hunger. J Affect Disord 2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2012.11.029. Kirkpatrick S, et al. Child hunger and long-term adverse consequences for health. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2010; 164: 754-762. v Che J, Chen J. Food insecurity in Canadian households. Health Rep 2001; 12: 11-22. Galesloot S, et al. Food insecurity in Canadian adults receiving diabetes care. Can J Diet Prac Res 2012; 73: e261-e266. Gucciardi E, et al. Exploration of the relationship between household food insecurity and diabetes care in Canada. Diabetes Care 2009; 32: 2218-2224. Fuller-Thomson E, Nimigon J. Factors associated with depression among individuals with chronic fatigue syndrome: findings from a nationally representative survey. Fam Pract 2008; 25: 414-422. Muirhead V, et al. Oral health disparities and food insecurity in working poor Canadians. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2009; 37: 294-304. Vozoris N, Tarasuk V. Household food insufficiency is associated with poorer health. J Nutr 2003; 133: 120-126. Willows N, et al. Associations between household food insecurity and health outcomes in the Aboriginal population (excluding reserves). Health Rep 2011; 22: 1-6. McLeod L, Veall M. The dynamics of food insecurity and overall health: evidence from the Canadian National Population Health Survey. Applied Economics 2006; 38: 2131-2146. vi Anema A, et al. Food insecurity and HIV/AIDS: current knowledge, gaps, and research priorities. Current HIV/AIDS Reports 2009; 6: 224-231. Gucciardi E, et al. Exploration of the relationship between household food insecurity and diabetes care in Canada. Diabetes Care 2009; 32: 22182224. Marjerrison S, et al. Prevalence and associations of food insecurity in children with diabetes mellitus. J Pediatr 2010. Seligman HK, et al. Food insecurity and glycemic control among low-income patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2012; 35: 233-238. vii For more information about Aboriginal Peoples living in Canada, see http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-011-x/99-011x2011001-eng.cfm. viii There is a growing effort by Health Canada to collect data for First Nations living on Reserve. See for example, the First Nations Food, Nutrition and Environment Study (FNFNES) which include a food security module. http://www.fnfnes.ca/ ix See Gaetz S, et al. The State of Homelessness in Canada 2013. Homeless Hub Paper #4. Toronto, ON: Canadian Homelessness Research Network Press, 2013. x See Income related Household Food Security in Canada, Canadian Community Health Survey, cycle 2.2, Nutrition (2004) Health Canada, 2007, Cat. H164-42/2007E-PDF, ISBN 978-0-662-45455-7, HC Pub. No. 4696. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/surveill/nutrition/commun/income_food_ sec-sec_alim-eng.php. xi Marginal food insecurity is not a category used in Health Canada’s publications on this module. Following their classification system, those with a single response are considered food secure. The marginal category is included in this report because of a growing body of literature indicating that households reporting at least some level of uncertainty over their access to food are more vulnerable than those who have affirmed no items on the 18-item questionnaire. Coleman-Jensen, A J. U.S. food insecurity status: toward a refined definition. Soc Indic Res 2010; 95: 215-230. xii Percentages and numbers provided in this report refer to the total population with complete responses to the food security module. In the 2012 Canadian Community Health Survey, approximately 4 percent of Canadian households did not have complete responses to the food security module, and these households have been excluded. xiii We measure general income adequacy by taking the household income as a ratio of Statistics Canada’s Low Income Measure (LIM). Briefly, to calculate the LIM, household income is adjusted by the equivalent household size (by dividing household income by the square root of the number of household members) and the median over all individuals in the population is taken. The LIM for a single person household is 50% of the median of this adjusted household income. The LIM for households of other sizes are computed by multiplying the single person LIM by the equivalent household size. This figure excludes results for the territories because the Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics, the survey from which the LIM is derived, excludes the territories. xiv The number of households in the sample whose main source of income is dividends and interest is relatively small. Other research has shown that households whose main source of income is dividends and interest demographically resemble those age 65+ so they have been included in with households whose main source of income is pensions. xv Although the Household Food Security Module was included in CCHS 2004, this survey has not been included in our comparison because it is not considered to be comparable to the subsequent annual surveys. See http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/surveill/nutrition/commun/insecurit/ prov-ter-2005-eng.php xvi Coleman-Jensen, Alisha, Mark Nord, Margaret Andrews, and Steven Carlson. Household Food Security in the United States in 2012. ERR-155, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, September 2013. 29 AGENDA Page 166 , I. Enhancing Green Spaces in Communities Mise en valeur des espaces verts au sein des collectivites An Invitation to participate in a program that will showcase, involve and benefit your community Since 1995, communities have recognized numerous benefits from participating in the program: Economic benefits • • • • Best practices and information exchange Valuable information and feedback from the judges Marketing and promotional opportunities Positive benefits for the tourism, hospitality and retail industries Social benefits • • • • • Increased civic pride and community involvement Mobilization of citizens, groups, businesses and municipality working together Participation from all ages and walks of life learning more about their community Information exchanges with provincial, national and international communities Improved quality of life Environmental stewardship through the enhancement of green spaces • • • • Mitigation of heat islands Reducing soil erosion Improving air quality Responsible use of water Please find enclosed registration information for the participation of your community Communities in Bloom is made possible by the support of sponsors and partners British Columbia Sponsors and Partners Provincial Capital Commission Teck Resources Limited - Urban Systems Ltd - Destination British ColumbiaBC Landscape & Nursery Association - BC Recreation & Parks Association Langley Sandman Hotel & Denny's Restaurant National Sponsors Scolts> Home Hardware> CN National Capital Commission Beauti-Tone +Ball Horticultural Company >Natura ~IOZ Miracie-Gro>ScottsEcoSense>RoundUp> Turf Builder Municipal World> Nutrients for Life>Teck Canadian Nursery Landscape Association> VIA Rail Canada 112. Terry Fox Kirkland (Quebec) H9H 4M3 T 514694·8871 F 514694-3725 E~Mail lCourriel : bIQQm@cib~ce(cQm Web Site: www.communitiesinbloom.ciI Site Internet: www .collectivite:-.cnflcurs.ca L. £ I 83::1 I(]31Aij3l03J~ @lwitter,l'om/cJbcef AGENDA www.facebook.comJcommuniliesinbloom Page 167 Are you considering CIB for your community? EXPLANATION OF REGISTRATION CATEGORIES 1. NOVICE PROGRAM - First Year Audit Our Judge's visit is an opportunity to review ali CiB program elements with your local committee. No tour or CPB book to organize, but be prepared to host the judges (2nights max) and have 3 - 10 people ready to workshop and review at least 3 of your best criteria; i.e. Floral, landscape & Tidiness. Judges will supply a Power Point and show a Community Profile Binder sample, with a follow-up summary report of comments and suggestions. 2. PROVINCIAL EDITION - Evaluated Participants are awarded a Bloom Rating Certificate and receive a written report at the Provincial Awards & Conference in the fali. COST Fee dependant upon population size - see 2014 Registration Form (see BC CiB website for form and additional information) Fee dependant upon population size - see 2014 Registration Form THIS IS THE ONLY CATEGORY ELIGIBLE TO WIN A CRITERIA AWARD. Prerequisite to National and International levels of Competition. 3. MENTOR PROGRAM - Evaluated Experienced CiB community mentors a new participant" to the program. Separate form and fee for each. Fee dependant upon population size - see 2014 Registration Form MENTOR RECEIVES SPECIAL RECOGNITION THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. ·or one that has been out of CiS for at least two years. 4. 5-BLOOM WINNER'S CIRCLE (non-evaluated) For communities that have received S-blooms and want to continue CiS initiatives but would like to have a year off from competition. 5. FRIENDS (non-evaluated) For communities that have participated the year before and want to continue CiS initiatives but would like to have a year to regroup and reengage their committee. 6. COMMUNITY SHOWCASE (non-evaluated) Showcases a specific proiect or geographical segment within a community. Open to everyone, submissions also accepted from other levels of CiS in Be. ~ Fee dependant upon population size - see 2014 Registration Form ~ Fee dependant upon population size - see 2014 Registration Form Fee per Project Submission - see 2014 Showcase Registration Form Entries will be featured in our BC CiB newsletter and/or on website. ALL REGISTERED PARTICIPANTS WILL RECEIVE RECOGNITION In press releases, at our fall awards, BC CiB website and will be part of the emerging Garden Tourism Initiativel 7. MEMBERSHIP CATEGORIES Individual, Community or Corporate - Newsletters (10+ issues/year) -Invitation to AGM (voting privileges for individual membership only) - Invitation to fall Awards and Conference - Entry point for judging (upon approved application) As per the 2014 Membership Form (see BC CiB website for form and additional information) AGENDA Page 168 .J 2014 PROVINCIAL EDITION BRITISH COLUMBIA COMMUNITIES IN BLOOM EARLY REGISTRATION CONTEST: Before February 28, 2014 FOR SMALL COMMUNITIES (less than 5000 population) Enter to Win $250 off your Registration Fee (some conditions apply) Total of 4 Chances to Wlnl Provided by: Home Hardware & National CIB FINAL REGISTRATION DEADLINE MARCH 31, 2014 MUNICIPALITY (PLEASE PRINT) MAYOR TOTAL POPULATION I rosmaN I T1TLE NAME OF MUNICIPAL CONTACT I PQSTAlCODE ADORESS ( ) PHONE ANO FAX MUNICIPAL CONTACT EMAIL NAME OF COMMUNITY CONTACT OR LOCAL CIS CHAIR WEBSITE ADORESS FOR COMMUNITY ( ) COMMUNITY CONTACT/CHAIR E-MAIL PHONE PARTICI PATlO(\j CATEGOJ;! l ES R£GISIRAnON FEE 8ASE"O 0 '" POPU l,ATIO'" SLZE o NOVICE Audit program to introduce CiB. workshop presentation by a pair of Judges Eligible for Early Reg COntest: 0 up to 1000 -$475 It::EL:-:I~G:-:IB:::L':."': E F::O~R:-:5::P:::E::C:::IA::L-:C::R::IT=E::R::I-:A-:A:::W:::A:':R:':0:':5:-'-"-----'--"----=-----1 o PROVINCIAL EDmON o MENTOR (Evaluated with Bloom RaUng Award) or with 0 NEW COMMUNITY.,-.,-_.,-,--, (Both Evaluated with Bloom Rating Award, supply form and fee for each please) 0 1001 to 2000 - $575 0 2001 to 5000 - $625 Entry must include why their o 5001 to 10,000 - $750 - $875 o 20,001 to 50,000 - $975 o 50,001 to 100,000- $1150 o 100,000+ - $1450 o 10,001 to 20,000 community deserves the II::NO=N-£V ::-::-:~ :-:7.:::J= E D::_::-::(;o ~R-:egJ-::-st-.::ra-::tI-:i>n-::-Fe-e-:-);:D:-:W::I:::N:::N:::ER::S~C::I:::RC::L-:E:-:(:-:HO:-:ld-:-s-ra-t::-in-g:-:1:--y-r-:-)or --:D::;-:: FR : :I-= EN :":O : :S :-i prize. (250 words max) PARTICIPANTS mvolve their community' • • Create a local action committee: made up of citizens, business. service clubs & a municipal representative (Councillor, Public Works, Administrator, Parks/Recreation) to help the group; • Start with a simple budget to cover registration fee and to create community wide CiS awareness projects: parades. tidy up days; • Develop proposals for sponsors/grants to fund larger projects or plan fundraising projects such as themed event with auction, yard clean-up for fee, planVproduce/bake sales; • Prepares for Judges Evaluation to take place in mid to late July; Creates a Community ProfIle Book (info provided) outlining the community's achievements in the specific evaluation criteria; • Provides for judges during evaluation time (typically 3rd week in July): meals & accommodation, maximum 2 nights, separate rooms, same location (billeting is acceptable); • Sends a Delegate to the BC CiB Provincial Awards & Conference, Hosted by City of Trail, Sept 12-14, 2014 COMMUNITY RECEIVES : • Getting Started Package of Infonnation; • Help from regional representatives if required; • Evaluation by a pair oftrained Be CiS judges; • Bloom Rating Certificate (2 to 5 blooms); • 16+ page Evaluation Report with Comments & Suggestions presented at the Provincial Awards Ceremony in the fall; Information about National Competition in future years. BENEFITS INCLUDE: , - • Ignites Community Energy • Encourages TIdiness & Beautification In all Areas • Networks Va~ous Olganlzatlons with a Common Goal Promotes Excellence In Environmental Initiatives catalyst to Inventol}' Community's Assets F~endly Competition provides Focus & Deadline for Projects • Cost Effective Measurement of Success Payable to: BC COMMUNITIES IN BLOOM Suite 102, 5783 - 176A Street, Surrey, BC V3S 656 Tel: (604) 576-6506 or Fax: (604) 574-7773 AMOUNT ENCLOSED $ Population Fee + 5% GST = $ PLEASE INVOICE US AT: o Above Address or: MORE INFORMATION o Individual Membership o Community Sponsorship o Community Showcase Projects GST # 8446 03670 RTOO01 CANCELLATION POUCY Until March 31 a $50.00 fee may be charged. As of April 15: Registration fees are non-refundable. After May 1, 2014 additional charges may occur. AGENDA Page 169 AGENDA Page 170 AGENDA Page 171