Mayor`s Office - City of White Rock

Transcription

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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-
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
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
-
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
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
-
Leslie Ford, 3725-155 Street, Surrey, BC (Mother Bernice Moore resides at Evergreen
-
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
-
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
-
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
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
AGENDA
Page 14
30
-
Lynda Obodiak, 1846-148A Street, Surrey, BC (mother Anne Murray resides at
-
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
STAFF:
R. Wilson, Acting Director of Planning and Development Services
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
__________________________
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 Lawrence
Councillor Meyer
Councillor Robinson
ABSENT:
Councillor Campbell
STAFF:
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
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
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.”
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
THAT Council receives for information the January 27, 2014
Land Use and Planning Committee meeting minutes as circulated.
CARRIED
AGENDA
Page 32
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
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:
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
________________________
AGENDA
Page 36
AGENDA
Page 37
AGENDA
Page 38
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:
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
Tel: (604) 488-5358
Ian Picketts
Consultant
456 Melville Ave
Prince George, BC, Canada, V2M 1Y2
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
Greg St. Louis, P. Eng.
Director, Engineering & Municipal Operations
AGENDA
Page 51
Page No. 4
Dan Bottrill
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
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
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
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
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
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
CITY OF WHITE ROCK
BYLAW 396
SCHEDULE “A”
AGENDA
Page 60
Page 8
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
Page 9
BYLAW 396
SCHEDULE “C”
AGENDA
Page 62
Page 10
BYLAW 396
SCHEDULE “C”
AGENDA
Page 63
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
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.
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.
Phil Lemire, CFO
Fire Chief
Dan Bottrill
AGENDA
Page 65
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:
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 $20,000 for parade hosting expenses. See
budget attached (Appendix A).
This report is in response to Council’s motion for a staff report with regards to the request for
additional funding. In addition, this report outlines the financial and value-in-kind support that
the City of White Rock has historically given to the Sea Festival, the anticipated costs to the City
for hosting the 2014 Sea Fest.
The White Rock Sea Fest is in keeping with the Leisure Services Master Plan and meets the
following:

Goal #1: To foster a healthy community through activities that create a sense of
community identity, belonging, pride and spirit.
AGENDA
Page 66
65th White Rock Sea Fest – Request for Funding for a Parade and Parade Float
Page No. 2
Special Events for the City of White Rock are supported by the Special Event Policy #404. This
policy ensures that quality planning and implementation methods are followed for the delivery of
special events in the community.
ANALYSIS
The City of White Rock has a long history of supporting large community festivals held the
August long weekend on the White Rock waterfront. The 2012 Spirit of the Sea Festival
organized by the Community of Lights Society was the last large scale sea festival held in White
Rock which included activities on both East and West Beach, complete with a torch light parade
and fireworks. The City’s contribution of cash and value-in-kind support services for the 2012
festival is estimated as follows:





Grant in Aid ................................................................................$ 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
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.
Eric Stepura
Director Leisure Services
Sandra Kurylo
Director Financial Services
AGENDA
Page 68
Page No. 4
Dan Bottrill
Appendix A: White Rock Events Society 2013 Parade and Float Budget Estimate
AGENDA
Page 69
AGENDA
Page 70
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
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.
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
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
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 Lawrence
Councillor Meyer
Councillor Robinson
ABSENT:
Councillor Campbell
STAFF:
R. Wilson, Building Official/Acting Director of Planning and
Development Services
C. Halbert, Planner
2
Press:
Public: 120
______________________________________________________________________________
The meeting was called to order at 6:45 p.m.
1.
2014-LU/P-009
AGENDA APPROVAL
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
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
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
__________________________
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 Lawrence
STAFF:
B. Ambardar, Manager, Engineering
D. Bottrill, CAO
L. Sym, Committee and FOI Clerk
1.
CALL TO ORDER
2.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Page 1
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
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
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.
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
1.
CALL TO ORDER
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
_____________________________
Councillor Hutchinson, Chairperson
_______________________________
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
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
THAT the Environmental Advisory Committee adopts the minutes from the
November 19, 2013 meeting as circulated.
CARRIED
4.
NOMINATION AND ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON
THAT the Environmental Advisory Committee nominate Wilma Boyd to the position of
Chairperson.
CARRIED
AGENDA
Page 83
February 4, 2014
Page 2
THAT the Environmental Advisory Committee elect Wilma Boyd to the position of
Chairperson.
CARRIED
5.
NOMINATION AND ELECTION OF VICE CHAIRPERSON
THAT the Environmental Advisory Committee nominate Gary Saunders to the position
of Vice-Chairperson.
CARRIED
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
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.
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
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.
_____________________________
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.
The Chairperson declared the meeting concluded at 11:00 a.m.
_____________________________
Councillor Fathers, Chairperson
_________________________________
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
1.
CALL TO ORDER
2.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Page 1
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
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.
_____________________________
Councillor Lawrence, Chairperson
_______________________________
AGENDA
Page 90
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
day of
day of
day of
day of
___________________________________
MAYOR
___________________________________
CITY CLERK
AGENDA
Page 101
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
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
Page 3 of 10
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.
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.
(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).
as follows:
6.4.7(3) ancillary buildings and structures not shall be sited less than 3.0m from a
(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
Page 4 of 10
(20) By amending Section 6.5 for the RE-1 zone by deleting sub-section 6.5.5(2) and
Section 5.8.
Section 5.8.
(25) By amending Section 6.8 for the RI-1 zone by including a new sub-section
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
6.9.3(1) maximum lot coverage in the RI-2 zone is 50%.
6.9.4(1) maximum residential gross floor area for all buildings shall not exceed
0.65.
AGENDA
Page 106
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.
6.9.5(1) principal buildings shall not exceed a height of 7.7m.
(32) By amending Section 6.10 for the RT-1 zone by deleting sub-section 6.10.1(4) and
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.
(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
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
Page 6 of 10
6.15.7(2) structures shall not be located in any required front yard or exterior side
yard area.
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
(41) By amending Section 6.16 for the CR-1 zone by deleting sub-section 6.16.7(2) and
the same lot.
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:
(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.
the same lot.
AGENDA
Page 108
Page 7 of 10
Bylaw requirements.
the same lot.
Bylaw requirements.
6.19.5(2) structures shall not exceed a height of 4.0m.
(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.
the same lot.
AGENDA
Page 109
Page 8 of 10
Bylaw requirements.
structures” with “ancillary buildings and structures” in sub-section 6.20.6(1).
6.20.7(1) ancillary buildings and structures shall not be sited less than 3.0m from a
(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
(63) By amending Section 6.22 for the P-1 zone by replacing the term “ancillary
(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
Page 9 of 10
(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).
the same lot.
6.25.7(1) ancillary buildings shall not be permitted.
AGENDA
Page 111
Page 10 of 10
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
day of
day of
___________________________________
MAYOR
___________________________________
CITY CLERK
AGENDA
Page 112
CITY OF WHITE ROCK
BYLAW 2045
_____________________________________________
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
13
day of
January, 2014
13th day of
January, 2014
3rd and 4th day of
day of
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
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
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
Page 5 of 11
The Plans
AGENDA
Page 117
Page 6 of 11
AGENDA
Page 118
Page 7 of 11
AGENDA
Page 119
Page 8 of 11
AGENDA
Page 120
Page 9 of 11
AGENDA
Page 121
Page 10 of 11
Interim Plan
AGENDA
Page 122
Page 11 of 11
AGENDA
Page 123
CITY OF WHITE ROCK
BYLAW 2045
__________________________________________________
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
Page 2 of 12
PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING on the
5th
day of
November, 2013
13th
day of
January, 2014
13th
day of
January, 2014
3rd and 4th
day of
February, 2014
day of
day of
___________________________________
MAYOR
___________________________________
CITY CLERK
AGENDA
Page 125
Page 3 of 12
SCHEDULE “1”
AGENDA
Page 126
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
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
Page 6 of 12
The Plans
AGENDA
Page 129
Page 7 of 12
AGENDA
Page 130
Page 8 of 12
AGENDA
Page 131
Page 9 of 12
AGENDA
Page 132
Page 10 of 12
AGENDA
Page 133
Page 11 of 12
AGENDA
Page 134
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
AGENDA
Page 139
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
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
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
Canada, CCHS, 2007,
2008, 2011 and 2012.
PROOF
AGENDA
Page 141
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
AGENDA
Page 143
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
Canada, Canadian
Community Health
(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)
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
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.
Canada, CCHS, 2007,
2008, 2011 and 2012.
AGENDA
Page 145
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
Canada, Canadian
Community Health
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
Canada, Canadian
Community Health
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%
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
AGENDA
Page 147
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%
Canada, Canadian
Community Health
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
Canada, Canadian
Community Health
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
AGENDA
Page 149
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
Canada, Canadian
Community Health
Proportion of
children who lived in
food insecure households
19.7%
31.6%
Canada, Canadian
Community Health
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
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
Canada, Canadian
Community Health
• 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
AGENDA
Page 151
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
AGENDA
Page 153
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
AGENDA
Page 155
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
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
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
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
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
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)
Q8b. How often did this happen?
1. Almost every month
3. Only 1 or 2 months
2. Some months but not every month
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
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
Q11. In the past 12 months, did you (personally) lose weight because you didn’t have enough money for food?
1. Yes
2. No
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
AGENDA
Page 157
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)
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
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
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
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
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
AGENDA
Page 159
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
AGENDA
Page 161
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
AGENDA
Page 163
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
AGENDA
Page 165
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
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
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
Registration Form
~
Fee dependant upon
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

Mayor`s Office - City of White Rock

Transcription

Similar documents

How Women ROCKED THE VOTE in Little Rock

Song List - Gator James Band

Sell Sheet - Rock Sake

social raquet - ALEXANDER PARK TENNIS CLUB

evolocity one sheet

Nanaimo Regional District Letter to the Honorable Mary Polak Re

rock walkathon along the river song writing contest rock this way

CHAOTICA One Sheet - Cold Fusion Records

ALABAMA

http://www.annsom.com http://www.myspace.com/annsommusic