September 29, 2008

AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE TWENTY-THIRD COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NANAIMO, TO BE HELD IN THE SHAW AUDITORIUM, 80 COMMERCIAL STREET, NANAIMO, BC, ON MONDAY, 2008-SEP-29, COMMENCING AT 7100 P.M.

1. CALL THE REGULAR MEETING OF COUNCIL TO ORDER:

2. INTRODUCTION OF LATE ITEMS:

3. ADOPTION OF AGENDA:

4. ADOPTION OF MINUTES:

(a) Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Twenty-Third Council of the City Pg. 14-22 of Nanaimo held in the Shaw Auditorium, 80 Commercial Street, Nanaimo, BC, on Monday, 2008-SEP-08 at 7:00 p.m.

5. PRESENTATIONS:

(a) Mayor Korpan to present Freedom of the City honours to the following members of the 1975 Nanaimo City Council for their outstanding contribution to the City of Nanaimo: Mr. Frank Ney, Ms. Gertrude Hall, Mr. Ray Brookbank, Mr. Ted Kelly, Mr. Ken Medland, Mr. Gino Sedola, Mr. Alex Virostko, Mr. Jim Moffat, and Mr. Alex Ferguson.

(b) Mr. P. Kristensen, Director of lnformation Technology, and Mr. G. Ferrero, Manager of Business Applications, lnformation Technology Department, to unveil the City of Nanaimo's new website.

6. DELEGATIONS PERTAINING TO AGENDA ITEMS: (10 MINUTES)

(a) Mr. Brian Pettit and Ms. Jacqui Kaese, 280 Calder Road, Nanaimo, BC, Pg. 23 V9R 6J1, in support of the proclamation request for Diabetes Month and Diabetes Day, and further request approval to shine a blue light on an iconic landmark in the City of Nanaimo on 2008-NOV-14 in recognition of "DIABETES DAY [See ltem 8 (0 - Proclamations.]

(b) Mr. Nelson Allen, Ms. Christina Knighton and Ms. Kathryn Jane Hazel of Pg. 24-27 Pacific Gardens Cohousing, requesting that Council consider a reduction in the overall costs of the Pacific Gardens Cohousing community project at 347 Seventh Street in the amount of $200,000. [See ltem II (c) - Staff Reports.]

(c) Ms. Sharon Kofoed, 2322 Panorama View Drive, Nanaimo, BC, Pg. 28 V9R 6T1, regarding the proclamation of 2008-NOV-02 to 2008-NOV-09 as "NATIONAL PAIN AWARENESS WEEK in the City of Nanaimo. [See ltem 8 (g) - Proclamations.] COUNCIL 2008-SEP-29 PAGE 2

7. MAYOR'S REPORT:

8. PROCLAMATIONS:

(a) That 2008-SEP-20 to 2008-SEP-27 is "NATIONAL RESPONSIBLE Pg. 29-30 DOG OWNERSHIP WEEK and that 2008-SEP-27 is "RDOG DAY in the City of Nanaimo.

(b) That the month of October is "FOSTER FAMILY MONTH" in the City of Pg. 31-33 Nanaimo.

(d) That 2008-OCT-05 to 2008-OCT-11 is "FIRE PREVENTION WEEK: Pg. 35 PREVENT HOME FIRES" in the City of Nanaimo.

(e) That 2008-OCT-19 to 2008-OCT-25 is "WASTE REDUCTION WEEK in Pg. 36-37 the City of Nanaimo.

(f) That the month of November is "DIABETES MONTH" and that Pg. 38 2008-NOV-14 is "DIABETES DAY in the City of Nanaimo.

(g) That 2008-NOV-02 to 2008-NOV-09 is "NATIONAL PAIN Pg. 39 AWARENESS WEEK" in the City of Nanaimo.

9. COMMISSION REPORTS:

10. COMMITTEE REPORTS:

(a) Advisory Committee on the Environment - Cosmetic Pesticide Pg. 40-44 Reduction Strategy

Committee's Recommendations: That Council direct Staff to:

I. establish a homeowner education program on the alternatives to pesticides beginning in March 2009 and refer the request for $25,000 for the implementation of the program to the 2009 budget deliberations for consideration;

AND:

2. participate in the Plant Health BC Accreditation Program and contribute funding (up to $2,000) plus in-kind support toward the development of a horticultural industry outreach/education program coordinated through the Institute of Sustainable Horticulture at Kwantlen Polytechnic University; COUNCIL 2008-SEP-29 PAGE 3

AND:

3. draft a bylaw to restrict the use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes on residential properties and present to Council by April 2009. The bylaw would not come into force until one year after adoption (April 2010). The bylaw would be reviewed by representatives of the lawn and garden industry and interested community members as part of the research process;

AND:

4. review both the public education program and bylaw in three years at the conclusion of the Plant Health BC accreditation pilot program. Assess the success of the program and make adjustments depending on its success in lowering cosmetic pesticide use and on whether the Federal or Provincial government has banned or restricted the sale of domestic pesticides.

(b) Grants Advisory Committee - 2008 Recommendations

Committee's Recommendations: That Council:

I. award an Other Grant to assist with symposium costs to Nanaimo Citizens on Patrol (OG-02) - $2,000.;

AND:

2. award a Security Check Grant to Nanaimo Arts Alive Summer School for the Fine Arts Society (SC-01) - $300.;

AND:

3. award Permissive Tax Exemptions as follows: Central Vancouver Island Centre for the Arts (PTE-06) be placed on the 2009 Permissive Tax Exemption Bylaw for property it leases at 25 Victoria Road (82336.000). Nanaimo Affordable Housing (PTE-07) be placed on the 2009 Permissive Tax Exemption Bylaw for property it leases at 350 Prideaux Street (86080.100). BC Cancer Foundation (PTE-08) be placed on the 2009 Permissive Tax Exemption Bylaw for property it leases at 203 - 4750 Rutherford Road (P=07003.205). Nanaimo Telephone Visiting Society (PTE-09) be placed on the 2009 Permissive Tax Exemption Bylaw for property it leases at 2080 -2520 Bowen Road (P=05447.100);

AND: COUNCIL 2008-SEP-29 PAGE 4

4. denV cash in lieu of 2008 Permissive Tax Exemptions to the following applicants: BC Cancer Foundation (PTE-08) for property at 203 - 4750 Rutherford Rd. BC Old Age Pensioners Branch #4 (PTE-04) for property at 2465 Labieux Road;

AND:

5. & a Permissive Tax Exemption to the BC Old Age Pensioners Branch # (PTE-04): 2465 Labieux Road (05426.150);

AND:

6. deny a Permissive Tax Exemption to the Park Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses (PTE-05): 1064 Old Victoria Road (162 16.000).

Committee's Recommendation: That Council endorse the revised Terms of Reference for the Plan Nanaimo Advisory Committee.

11. STAFF REPORTS: (blue)

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES:

(a) Amendments to Citv of Nanaimo Sign Bvlaw Pg. 54-55

Staff's Recommendation: That Council consider giving first, second and third readings to "SIGN BYLAW AMENDMENT BYLAW 2008 NO. 70817', which appears under the bylaw section of this evening's agenda.

(b) Housekeeping Amendments to City of Nanaimo Zoning Bylaw Pg. 56-67

Staff's Recommendation: That Council consider giving first and second readings to "ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT BYLAW 2008 NO. 4000.441", which appears under the bylaw section of this evening's agenda.

Staff's Recommendations: That Council:

I. consider giving first, second, and third readings to "BYLAW TO REDUCE DEVELOPMENT COST CHARGES (NOT-FOR- PROFIT RENTAL HOUSING) BYLAW 2008 NO. 7082'; which appears under the bylaw section of this evening's agenda. COUNCIL 2008-SEP-29 PAGE 5

AND:

2. consider giving first, second, and third readings to "HOUSING AGREEMENT BYLAW NO. 7083': which appears under the bylaw section of this evening's agenda.

(d) RA206 - 2124 & 2126 Northfield Road Pg. 71-77

Staff's Recommendations: That Council:

1. consider giving first and second readings to "ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT BYLAW 2008 NO. 4000.444'; which appears under the bylaw section of this evening's agenda;

AND:

2. direct Staff to secure road dedication, lot consolidation, trail right-of-way, and register a covenant to secure pre-development storm levels, erosion control plan, and the community contribution.

(e) RA210 - 4750 Rutherford Road Pg. 78-85

Staff's Recommendations: That Council:

1. provide direction regarding the proposed rezoning of the subject property;

AND:

2. if Council is prepared to support first and second reading of "ZONING BYLA W AMENDMENT BYLAW 2008 NO. 4000.443': direct Staff to secure the proposed community contribution. This bylaw appears under the bylaw section of this evening's agenda.

(f) DP567 - 4889 Wills Road Pg. 86-101

Staff's Recommendation: That Council issue Development Permit No. DP567 at 4889 Wills Road in order to permit construction of a mixed-use development on the subject property.

The application has three proposed variances:

Required Yard Setbacks The required yard setback on Rutherford Road is 7.5 metres (24.6 feet). The proposed building siting is 0.9 metres (3 feet), a proposed variance of 6.6 metres (21.7 feet). Buildinq Height Building I - The maximum building height is 14 metres (46 feet). The proposed building height is 15 metres (49.2 feet), a proposed variance of 1 metre (3.2 feet). COUNCIL 2008-SEP-29 PAGE 6

Building 2 - The maximum building height is 14 metres (46 feet). The proposed building is 14.25 metres (46.75 feet), a proposed variance of 0.25 metres (0.75 feet).

(g) DVP134 - 699 Western Acres Road Pg. 102-105

It is requested that Council hear anyone wishing to speak with respect to DVPI 34.

Staff's Recommendation: That Council issue Development Variance Permit No. DVP134 at 699 Western Acres Road to vary the servicing requirement that each new lot created be serviced by a connection to a community sanitary sewer system in order to allow an application for subdivision of the parent parcel to reinstate previously existing lot lines and recreate three original lots.

(h) Report of the Public Hearing Held Thursday, 2008-SEP-04 for Bylaw Pg. 106-120 No. 6500.001

[Note: Due to the volume of material, the Schedules have not been included in the agenda but a copy is available for viewing in the Legislative Services Department, the Councillor's Office, and at the meeting.]

Staff's Recommendation: That Council receive this Report and the Minutes of the Public Hearing held on Thursday, 2008-SEP-04 for Bylaw No. 6500.001.

(i) Urban Clean-up Initiative Pg. 121-122

Staff's Recommendation: That Council direct Staff to refer the request for $15,500. funding for the Urban Clean-up Initiative to the 2009 budget deliberations.

(j) Amendment to Citv of Nanaimo Green Buildinn Policv Pg. 123-125

Staff's Recommendation: That Council direct Staff to amend the Green Building Council Policy for the City of Nanaimo to require all new municipal buildings, 500 square metres or greater, to be built to the Gold standard for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), including full registration and certification under the Canada Green Building Council (CaGBC).

(k) Structure Removal Order - 1583 Bartlett Street (Attached Carport) Pg. 126-127

It is requested that Council hear anyone wishing to speak with respect to the Structure Removal Order for 1583 Bartlett Street.

Staffs Recommendations: That Council, pursuant to Division 12 of Part 3 of the Community Charter, hereby resolves that: COUNCIL 2008-SEP-29 PAGE 7

I. construction has taken place to reconstruct an attached carport to the single family dwelling located at 1583 Bartlett Street, legally described as Lot 3, Suburban Lot 4, Newcastle Townsite, Section I, Nanaimo District, Plan 483, P. I. D.: 009-007-784 and is considered to be in contravention of the BC Building Code, "BUILDING BYLAW 2003 NO. 5693" and "ZONING BYLAW 1993 NO. 4000" under section 8(3)(1) or Division 8 of Part 3 of the Community Charter;

AND:

2. the owner/agent/lessee and occupier of the dwelling is hereby ordered to take the following remedial action within 30 days of the receipt of notice of this Order:

"Remove the attached carport from the side of the single family dwelling located at 1583 Bartlett StreetJJ.

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Manager of the Bylaw Services Section BE AND IS HEREBY AUTHORIZED in default of such remedial measures being undertaken by the owners or occupiers, to carry out or have such work carried out and the expense charged to the owner or occupier, If unpaid on December 31 in the year in which the work is done, the expense shall be added to and form part of the taxes to be paid on the real property as taxes in arrears or be collected as a debt.

Structure Removal Order - 6153 Brickyard Road Street (Duplex Pg. 128-129 Converted to Fourplex)

It is requested that Council hear anyone wishing to speak with respect to Structure Removal Order for 61 53 Brickyard Road.

Staff's Recommendations: That Council, pursuant to Division 12 of Part 3 of the Community Charter, hereby resolves that:

construction has taken place to alter the basements within each side of the duplex to include an additional dwelling unit located at 6153 Brickyard Road, British Columbia, legally described as Lot I, District Lot 25G, Wellington District, Plan VIP68948, P. I. D.: 024-506-371 is considered to be in contravention of the BC Building Code, "BUILDING BYLAW 2003 NO. 5693" and "ZONING BYLAW 1993 NO. 4000" under section 8(3)(1) or Division 8 of Part 3 of the Community Charter;

AND:

2. the owner/agent/lessee and occupier of the dwelling is hereby ordered to take the following remedial action within 30 days of the receipt of notice of this Order: COUNCIL 2008-SEP-29 PAGE 8

"Remove the cooking facilities; and, wiring for the stoves, includes outlets and wiring back to the electrical panels, and; plumbing for the kitchen sinks, and upper cupboards, and locking doors between the two additional dwelling units from within both basements of the duplex".

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Manager of the Bylaw Services Section BE AND IS HEREBY AUTHORIZED in default of such remedial measures being undertaken by the owners or occupiers, to carry out or have such work carried out and the expense charged to the owner or occupier. If unpaid on December 31 in the year in which the work is done, the expense shall be added to and form part of the taxes to be paid on the real property as taxes in arrears or be collected as a debt.

(m) Unresolved Building Deficiencies - Notice on Title (Section 57) Pg. 130-131

It is requested that Council hear anyone wishing to speak with respect to unresolved building deficiencieslillegal suites for the properties listed below.

Staffs Recommendation: That Council, by resolution, instruct the Director of Legislative Services to file a Bylaw Contravention Notice respecting the properties listed below at the Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia under Section 57 of the Community Charter:

(1) 5430 Arnhem Terrace - Illegal Construction 1 Finished Basement to include a Secondary Suite. (2) 3983 Gulfview Drive - Building Deficiencies 1 Incomplete Building Permit for Building Envelope Repair.

(n) Unresolved Building Deficiencies - Remedial Action Requirements Pg. 132 (Section 72/73) - 1746 Meredith Road

It is requested that Council hear anyone wishing to speak with respect to the unresolved grow operation at 1746 Meredith Road.

Staffs Recommendation: That Council, by resolution, pursuant to Sections 72(2) and 73(1) of the Community Charter, order the owner($ of 1746 Meredith Road to remove the structure or bring it up to standard within thirty (30) days and that any cost incurred by the Municipality be recovered pursuant to the Community Charter. COUNCIL 2008-SEP-29 PAGE 9

(0) Unsightly Premises - 730 Bruce Avenue Pg. 133

It is requested that Council hear anyone wishing to speak with respect to unsightly premises at 730 Bruce Avenue.

Staffs Recommendation: That Council, pursuant to "PROPERTY MAINTENANCE BYLAW 1990 NO. 3704" and amendments thereto, direct the owner(s) of 730 Bruce Avenue to remove three derelict vans, discarded household items, a toilet, mattress, wood, window frames and miscellaneous debris from the premises within fourteen (14) days, or the work will be undertaken by the City's agents at the owner(s) cost.

(p) Unsightlv Premises - 370 Geornia Avenue Pg. 134

It is requested that Council hear anyone wishing to speak with respect to unsightly premises at 370 Georgia Avenue.

Staffs Recommendation: That Council, pursuant to "PROPERTY MAINTENANCE BYLAW 1990 NO. 3704" and amendments thereto, direct the owner(s) of 370 Georgia Avenue to remove tree limbs, brush cuttings, garbage, and miscellaneous debris from the premises within fourteen (14) days, or the work will be undertaken by the City's agents at the owner(s) cost.

(q) Unsightlv Premises - 31 I Wallace Street Pg. 135

It is requested that Council hear anyone wishing to speak with respect to unsightly premises at 31 1 Wallace Street.

Staffs Recommendation: That Council, pursuant to "PROPERTY MAINTENANCE BYLAW 1990 NO. 3704" and amendments thereto, direct the owner(s) of 31 1 Wallace Street to remove noxious weeds, discarded bedding, garbage, and miscellaneous debris from the premises within fourteen (14) days, or the work will be undertaken by the City's agents at the owner(s) cost.

CORPORATE SERVICES:

(r) Regional District of Nanaimo Pump and Haul Local Service Area Pg. 136-141 Amendment Bylaw No. 975.49, 2008

Staff's Recommendation: That Council waive the consent requirements under Section 801.4 of the Local Government Act by consenting to the adoption of "REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NANAIMO PUMP AND HAUL LOCAL SERVICE AREA AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 975.49, 2008", and that the Regional District of Nanaimo be notified accordingly. COUNCIL 2008-SEP-29 PAGE 10

(s) 2009 AVlCC Resolution Pg. 142-143

Staff's Recommendations: That Council:

1 review the attached resolution and adopt as amended or as presented;

AND:

2. direct Staff to submit the adopted resolution to the Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities for consideration at their 2009 Annual General Meeting.

(t) A Bylaw to Exempt Certain Lands and Buildings from Taxation Pg. 144-145

Staff's Recommendation: That Council consider giving first, second, and third readings to "PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION BYLAW 2008 NO. 7080': which appears under the bylaw section of this evening's agenda.

12. INFORMATION ONLY ITEMS:

(a) Report from Mr. B. Anderson, Manager of Community Services, Pg. 146 re: Active Communities Funding.

13. RECONSIDERATION OF BYLAWS:

(a) That "OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN BYLAW AMENDMENT BYLAW Pg. 147-156 2008 NO. 6500.001" (To redesignate lands to Resort Centre, and add site-specific policy to permit a mixed use comprehensive development within the new Resort Centre designation) pass third reading.

That "OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN BYLAW AMENDMENT BYLAW 2008 NO. 6500.001" (To redesignate lands to Resort Centre, and add site-specific policy to permit a mixed use comprehensive development within the new Resort Centre designation) be adopted.

(b) That "HIGHWAY CLOSURE AND DEDICATION REMOVAL (PORTION Pg. 157-159 OF LABIEUX ROAD) BYLAW 2008 NO. 7077" (LD1794 - partial road closure of Labieux Road to facilitate its conveyance to the buyer, Ceco Properties Ltd.) pass third reading. COUNCIL 2008-SEP-29 PAGE 11

14. INTRODUCTION OF BYLAWS:

(a) That "PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION BYLAW 2008 NO. 7080" Pg. 160-204 (to exempt certain land and buildings from taxation) pass first reading.

That "PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION BYLAW 2008 NO. 7080" (to exempt certain land and buildings from taxation) pass second reading.

That "PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION BYLAW 2008 NO. 7080" (to exempt certain land and buildings from taxation) pass third reading.

(b) That "SIGN BYLAW AMENDMENT BYLAW 2008 NO. 7081" (to prohibit Pg. 205 animated, revolving and electronic changeable copy signage) pass first reading.

That "SIGN BYLAW AMENDMENT BYLAW 2008 NO. 7081" (to prohibit animated, revolving and electronic changeable copy signage) pass second reading.

That "SIGN BYLAW AMENDMENT BYLAW 2008 NO. 7081" (to prohibit animated, revolving and electronic changeable copy signage) pass third reading.

(c) That "BYLAW TO REDUCE DEVELOPMENT COST CHARGES (NOT- Pg. 206-207 FOR-PROFIT RENTAL HOUSING) BYLAW 2008 NO. 7082" (to provide a waiver or reduction of Development Cost Charges) pass first reading.

That "BYLAW TO REDUCE DEVELOPMENT COST CHARGES (NOT- FOR-PROFIT RENTAL HOUSING) BYLAW 2008 NO. 7082" (to provide a waiver or reduction of Development Cost Charges) pass second reading.

That "BYLAW TO REDUCE DEVELOPMENT COST CHARGES (NOT- FOR-PROFIT RENTAL HOUSING) BYLAW 2008 NO. 7082" (to provide a waiver or reduction of Development Cost Charges) pass third reading.

(d) That "HOUSING AGREEMENT BYLAW 2008 NO. 7083" (to Pg. 208-212 allow Council to enter into a housing agreement between the City of Nanaimo and the Nanaimo District Senior Citizens' Housing Development Society (#4750) for property located at 1237 Kiwanis Crescent) pass first reading.

That "HOUSING AGREEMENT BYLAW 2008 NO. 7083" (to allow Council to enter into a housing agreement between the City of Nanaimo and the Nanaimo District Senior Citizens' Housing Development Society (#4750) for property located at 1237 Kiwanis Crescent) pass second reading. COUNCIL 2008-SEP-29 PAGE 12

15. INTRODUCTION OF DEVELOPMENT BYLAWS:

(a) That "ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT BYLAW 22008 NO. 4000.441" Pg. 213-226 (ZAI-79 - housekeeping amendments that will result in 30 separate text and mapping revisions) pass first reading.

That "ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT BYLAW 22008 NO. 4000.441" (ZAI-79 - housekeeping amendments that will result in 30 separate text and mapping revisions) pass second reading

(b) That "ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT BYLAW 2008 NO. 4000.443" Pg. 227-228 (RA210 - to permit a site specific use of 'liquor store' within the Community Shopping Centre Commercial Zone (C-7) at 4750 Rutherford Road) pass first reading.

That "ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT BYLAW 2008 NO. 4000.443" (RA210 - to permit a site specific use of 'liquor store' within the Community Shopping Centre Commercial Zone (C-7) at 4750 Rutherford Road) pass second reading.

(c) That "ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT BYLAW 2008 NO. 4000.444" Pg. 229-232 (RA206 - to rezone property from Transition Industrial Zone (1-1) to Comprehensive Development District Zone (CD-6) in order to facilitate the construction of a mixed use commercial and residential development at 2124 and 2126 Northfield Road) pass first reading.

That "ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT BYLAW 2008 NO. 4000.444" (RA206 - to rezone property from Transition Industrial Zone (1-1) to Comprehensive Development District Zone (CD-6) in order to facilitate the construction of a mixed use commercial and residential development at 2124 and 2126 Northfield Road) pass second reading.

BYLAW STATUS SHEET Pg. 233-235

16. CORRESPONDENCE:

(a) Letter dated 2008-SEP-16 from Mr. Garry H. Smith of A.C. Taxi and Pg. 236-239 Mr. Anup Kang of Swiftsure Taxi, requesting that Council forward an opinion to the Passenger Transportation Board on the joint application for tariff increase. COUNCIL 2008-SEP-29 PAGE 13

COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS:

NOTICE OF MOTION:

OTHER BUSINESS:

DELEGATIONS PERTAINING TO ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: (10 MINUTES)

(a) Mr. Michael Henricksen, Ms. Shanae McGladrey, Mr. Josh Hauca, and Pg. 240 Ms. Brittany Dorman to request financial support from the City of Nanaimo for the upcoming BC Student Leadership Conference to be held at the Vancouver Island Conference Centre.

QUESTION PERIOD: (Agenda Items Only)

PROCEDURAL MOTION:

It is moved and seconded that the following meeting be closed in order to deal with the following matters under the Community Charter Section 90(1):

(b) personal information about an identifiable individual who is being considered for a municipal award or honour, or who has offered to provide a gift to the municipality on condition of anonymity; (c) labour relations or employee negotiations; (f) law enforcement, if the Council considers that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the conduct of an investigation under or enforcement of an enactment; (j) information that is prohibited, or information that if it were presented in a document would be prohibited, from disclosure under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act; (k) negotiations and related discussions respecting the proposed provision of a municipal service that are at their preliminary stages and that, in the view of the council, could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality if they were held in public;

ADJOURNMENT:

ACTING MAYOR: COUNCILLOR CAMERON MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE TWENTY-THIRD COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NANAIMO HELD IN THE SHAW AUDITORIUM, 80 COMMERCIAL STREET, NANAIMO, BC, ON MONDAY, 2008-SEP-08 COMMENCING AT 7:00 P.M.

PRESENT: His Worship Mayor G. R. Korpan, Chair

Members: Councillor W. L. Bestwick Councillor M. D. Brennan Councillor J. D. Cameron Councillor W. J. Holdom Councillor L. D. McNabb Councillor C. S. Manhas Councillor L. J. Sherry Councillor M. W. Unger

Staff: G. D. Berry, City Manager A. C. Kenning, Deputy City Manager A. W. Laidlaw, General Manager of Community Services D. W. Holmes, General Manager of Corporate Services E. C. Swabey, General Manager of Development Services 1. Howat, Director of Legislative Services T. P. Seward, Director of Permits and Properties Chief R. Lambert, Nanaimo Fire Rescue A. J. Tucker, Director of Planning and Development P. Kristensen, Director of Information Technology S. Graham, Manager of Financial Planning and Payroll L. Murray, Manager of Regulation and Risk Management J. E. Harrison, Manager of Legislative Services K. King, Recording Secretary

1. CALL THE OPEN MEETING TO ORDER:

The Regular Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.

2. INTRODUCTION OF LATE ITEMS:

(a) Replace Pages 73 and 74 - Agenda ltem 11 (f) - Staff Reports - Unresolved Building Deficiencies - Notice on Title (Section 57) - 141 Summit Drive.

(b) Delete Agenda ltem 11 (k) - Staff Reports - Unsightly Premises - 144 Victoria Road.

(d) Delete Agenda ltem 11 (p) - Staff Reports - Unsightly Premises - 159 and 163 Captain Morgan's Boulevard. 14 COUNCIL 2008-SEP-08 PAGE 2

(e) Replace Pages 91 to 95 - Agenda ltem 12 (a) - lnformation Only ltems - Report from Mr. R. J. Reimer, Manager of Revenue Services and Financial Systems, re: Permissive Tax Exemption Bylaw.

(f) Add Agenda ltem 12 (c) - lnformation Only ltems - Report from Mr. M. Mauch, Project Manager, re: Multiplex - Site Selection Consultant Selection.

(g) Delete Agenda ltem 19 (a) - Motion from regarding LED signs.

3. ADOPTION OF AGENDA:

47908 It was moved and seconded that the Agenda be adopted as amended. The motion carried unanimously.

4. ADOPTION OF MINUTES:

48008 It was moved and seconded that the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Twenty-Third Council of the City of Nanaimo held in the Shaw Auditorium, 80 Commercial Street, Nanaimo, BC on Monday, 2008-AUG-11 at 7:00 p.m. be adopted as circulated. The motion carried unanimously.

5. DELEGATIONS PERTAINING TO AGENDA ITEMS:

481 08 It was moved and seconded that the Delegations be permitted to address Council. The motion carried unanimously.

(a) Mr. Mats Bergman, 6432 Nidri Place, Nanaimo, BC, V9V 1N6, provided a presentation regarding Development Permit Application DP565 for 1237 Kiwanis Crescent and requested that Council consider waiving fifty percent of the Development Cost Charges for the project.

6. PROCLAMATIONS:

(a) That 2008-SEP-14 to 2008-SEP-21 is "PORT THEATRE loth ANNIVERSARY WEEK" in the City of Nanaimo.

(b) That 2008-SEP-22 to 2008-SEP-26 is "LEARN @ WORK WEEK in the City of Nanaimo.

(d) That 2008-SEP-21 to 2008-SEP-27 is "SEA OTTER AWARENESS WEEK" in the City of Nanaimo. COUNCIL 2008-SEP-08 PAGE 3

7. COMMITTEE REPORTS:

(a) Councillor Unger advised of the Induction Dinner for the new Nanaimo Sports Hall of Fame to be held 2008-SEP-20. He further advised that there will be ten teams and individuals inducted and tickets for this event can be obtained from the Nanaimo Museum.

8. STAFF REPORTS:

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES:

(a) OCP Bylaw 6500 - Resional Context Statement Content

48208 It was moved and seconded that Council add the following to the Regional Context Statement contained in and forming part of the "OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN 2008 BYLAW NO. 6500":

Efficient Services Due to the change to the location of the UCB noted above, four areas (south Nanaimo, Jingle Pot, Linley Valley, and Cable Bay) have been identified as areas which may support additional development not identified on 2003-JUN-10. In addition, consideration will be given to extend water servicing to the District of Lantzville and the Snuneymuxw First Nation within the term of this plan. Prior to the extension of services and development occurring in any of these areas, the policies of this plan require the preparation of detailed engineering studies and 1 or Master Plans to ensure that servicing can occur in an efficient and cost effective manner.

The motion carried unanimously.

9. RECONSIDERATION OF BYLAWS:

(a) "OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN BYLAW 2008 NO. 6500" (to adopt a new Official Community Plan for the City of Nanaimo).

48308 It was moved and seconded that "OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN BYLAW 2008 NO. 6500" pass third reading as amended. The motion carried. Opposed: Councillor Sherry

48408 It was moved and seconded that "OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN BYLAW 2008 NO. 6500" be adopted. The motion carried. Opposed: Councillor Sherry COUNCIL 2008-SEP-08 PAGE 4

8. STAFF REPORTS: Continued:

(b) DP565 - 1237 Kiwanis Crescent

48508 It was moved and seconded that Council authorize the issuance of Development Permit No. DP565 for 1237 Kiwanis Crescent. The application has two proposed variances:

Required Side Yard Setback The required side yard is four metres (13.12 feet). In order to accommodate the connection to the abutting facility, the proposed setback is zero metres, a proposed variance of four metres (13.12 feet).

Required Rear Yard Setback The required rear yard is 7.5 metres (24.6 feet). The building is sited four metres (13.2 feet) from the west property line, a proposed setback variance of 3.5 metres (1 1.5 feet)

The motion carried unanimously.

48608 It was moved and seconded that Council direct Staff to proceed with the required Statutory Notification for Development Variance Permit No. DVP00134 at 699 Western Acres Road to vary the servicing requirement that each new lot created be serviced by a connection to a community sanitary sewer system in order to allow an application for subdivision of the parent parcel to reinstate previously existing lot lines and recreate three original lots. The motion carried unanimously.

(d) RA209 - 221 7 Northfield Road

48708 It was moved and seconded that Council:

1. consider giving first two readings to "ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT BYLAW 2008 NO. 4000.442"; and,

2. direct Staff to secure a covenant to restrict the permitted use to 'Personal Care Facility' and secure the Storm Water Management Plan and Landscape Plan.

The motion carried unanimously.

(e) Partial Road Closinq Labieux Road (Sale of Property to Ceco Properties Ltd.)

It was moved and seconded that Council:

1. consider giving first two readings to "HIGHWAY CLOSURE AND DEDICATION REMOVAL (PORTION OF LABIEUX ROAD) BYLAW 2008 NO. 7077"; and, COUNCIL 2008-SEP-08 PAGE 5

2. direct Staff to proceed with public notice for the partial road closure of Labieux Road and subsequent sale to Ceco Properties Ltd.

The motion carried unanimously.

(f) Unresolved Buildinq Deficiencies - Notice on Title (Section 57) - 141 Summit Drive

Mayor Korpan inquired if there was anyone in attendance who wished to speak to the report pertaining to Unresolved Building Deficiencies - Notice on Title (Section 57).

No one in attendance wished to make representation with respect to this matter.

Councillor Bestwick vacated the Shaw Auditorium at 7:38 p.m.

48808 It was moved and seconded that Council, by resolution, instruct the Director of Legislative Services to file a Bylaw Contravention Notice for 141 Summit Drive at the Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia under Section 57 of the Community Charter. The motion carried unanimously.

(g) Unresolved Buildinq Deficiencies - Notice on Title (Section 57)

Mayor Korpan inquired if there was anyone in attendance who wished to speak to the report pertaining to Unresolved Building Deficiencies - Notice on Title (Section 57).

Mr. Jock Forster requested permission to address Council respecting the property at 3300 Hammond Bay Road. He advised that he is not opposed to the Section 57 Notice being registered on title for 3300 Hammond Bay Road but was concerned that the City did not take this action prior to his ownership of the property.

Mr. Bill Hedges, 103 Berkley Place, requested permission to address Council respecting the property at 3300 Hammond Bay Road. He advised that he owns the property adjacent to 3300 Hammond Bay Road and that the access to 3300 Hammond Bay Road is via his property. He is concerned that more than one family will be using the access through his property and requested assurance from Council that this would not happen.

Councillor Bestwick returned to the Shaw Auditorium at 7:42 p.m.

Mr. Dave Pettit and Ms. Mindy Pettit, requested permission to address Council respecting the property at 3205 Uplands Drive. Mr. Pettit advised that they own 3205 Uplands Drive but do not live there and are renting it out as a duplex. They have only performed upgrades to the existing suites. There has been no new construction. COUNCIL 2008-SEP-08 PAGE 6

48908 It was moved and seconded that Council, by resolution, instruct the Director of Legislative Services to file a Bylaw Contravention Notice respecting the properties listed below at the Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia under Section 57 of the Community Charter:

(1) 3300 Hammond Bay Road - Illegal Construction / Workshop Converted to Single Family Dwelling (2) 3205 Uplands Drive - Illegal Construction / Finished Basement to lnclude a Secondary Suite and Convert Carport to Living Space (3) 421 Hillcrest Avenue - lllegal Construction / Finished Basement to lnclude a Secondary Suite (4) 6153 Brickyard Road - illegal Construction / Alterations to lnclude Additional Dwelling Units (5) 210 Milton Street - Illegal Construction I Finished Basement to lnclude a Dwelling Unit

The motion carried unanimously.

(h) Unresolved Building Deficiencies - Remedial Action Requirements (Section 72/73) - 141 Summit Drive

Mayor Korpan inquired if there was anyone in attendance who wished to speak to the report pertaining to 141 Summit Drive.

No one in attendance wished to make representation with respect to this matter.

49008 It was moved and seconded that Council, by resolution, pursuant to Section 73 of the Community Charter, order the owner(s) of 141 Summit Drive to bring the building up to standard or to demolish it within thirty (30) days and that any cost incurred by the Municipality be recovered pursuant to the Community Charter. The motion carried unanimously.

(i) Unsiqhtl~Premises - 1814 Richardson Road

Mayor Korpan inquired if there was anyone in attendance who wished to speak to the report pertaining to 1814 Richardson Road.

No one in attendance wished to make representation with respect to this matter.

491 08 It was moved and seconded that Council, pursuant to "PROPERTY MAINTENANCE BYLAW 1990 NO. 3704" and amendments thereto, direct the owner(s) of 1814 Richardson Road to remove the derelict vehicle, engine block, and miscellaneous debris from the premises within fourteen (14) days, or the work will be undertaken by the City's agents at the owner(s) cost. The motion carried unanimously. COUNCIL 2008-SEP-08 PAGE 7

(j) Unsightly Premises - 627 Stirlinq Avenue

Mayor Korpan inquired if there was anyone in attendance who wished to speak to the report pertaining to 627 Stirling Avenue.

No one in attendance wished to make representation with respect to this matter.

49208 It was moved and seconded that Council, pursuant to "PROPERTY MAINTENANCE BYLAW 1990 NO. 3704" and amendments thereto, direct the owner(s) of 627 Stirling Avenue to remove household garbage, wood, and miscellaneous debris from the premises within fourteen (14) days, or the work will be undertaken by the City's agents at the owner(s) cost. The motion carried unanimously.

(k) Unsightly Premises - 450 Comox Road

Mayor Korpan inquired if there was anyone in attendance who wished to speak to the report pertaining to 450 Comox Road.

No one in attendance wished to make representation with respect to this matter

49308 It was moved and seconded that Council, pursuant to "PROPERTY MAINTENANCE BYLAW 1990 NO. 3704" and amendments thereto, direct the owner(s) of 450 Comox Road to remove discarded couches, carpet, a graffiti covered garbage bin, and miscellaneous debris from the premises within fourteen (14) days, or the work will be undertaken by the City's agents at the owner(s) cost. The motion carried unanimously.

(I) Unsightly Premises - 500 Comox Road

Mayor Korpan inquired if there was anyone in attendance who wished to speak to the report pertaining to 500 Comox Road.

No one in attendance wished to make representation with respect to this matter.

49408 It was moved and seconded that Council, pursuant to "PROPERTY MAINTENANCE BYLAW 1990 NO. 3704" and amendments thereto, direct the owner(s) of 500 Comox Road to remove the graffiti from the premises within fourteen (14) days, or the work will be undertaken by the City's agents at the owner(s) cost. The motion carried unanimously.

(m) Unsiqhtly Premises - 2142 Bowen Road

Mayor Korpan inquired if there was anyone in attendance who wished to speak to the report pertaining to 2142 Bowen Road.

No one in attendance wished to make representation with respect to this matter.

49508 It was moved and seconded that Council, pursuant to "PROPERTY MAINTENANCE BYLAW 1990 NO. 3704" and amendments thereto, direct the owner(s) of 2142 Bowen Road to remove the accumulation of garbage from the premises within fourteen (14) days, or the work will be undertaken by the City's agents at the owner(s) cost. The motion carried unanimously. 20 COUNCIL 2008-SEP-08 PAGE 8

CORPORATE SERVICES:

(n) Desiqnation of Collector

49608 It was moved and seconded that Council designate Mr. Raymond Reimer as the Collector for the City of Nanaimo. The motion carried unanimously.

10. INFORMATION ONLY ITEMS:

Councillor Bestwick vacated the Shaw Auditorium on an apprehension of bias regarding Item 10 (c), as he is a part owner and employee of the Nanaimo Clippers.

(a) Report from Mr. R. J. Reimer, Manager of Revenue Services and Financial Systems, re: Permissive Tax Exemption Bylaw.

(b) Report from Mr. S. Ricketts, Manager of Engineering Construction, re: Alta Vista Watermain.

Councillor Bestwick returned to the Shaw Auditorium.

1 1. INTRODUCTION OF BYLAWS:

(a) "HIGHWAY CLOSURE AND DEDICATION REMOVAL (PORTION OF LABIEUX ROAD) BYLAW 2008 NO. 7077" (LDI 794 - partial road closure of Labieux Road to facilitate its conveyance to the buyer, Ceco Properties Ltd.).

49708 It was moved and seconded that "HIGHWAY CLOSURE AND DEDICATION REMOVAL (PORTION OF LABIEUX ROAD) BYLAW 2008 NO. 7077" pass first reading. The motion carried unanimously.

49808 It was moved and seconded that "HIGHWAY CLOSURE AND DEDICATION REMOVAL (PORTION OF LABIEUX ROAD) BYLAW 2008 NO. 7077" pass second reading. The motion carried unanimously.

12. INTRODUCTION OF DEVELOPMENT BYLAWS:

(a) "ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT BYLAW 2008 NO. 4000.442" (RA209 - to rezone subject property from Single Family Residential Zone (RS-1) to Public Institution Zone (P-2) in order to permit the use of a daycare for physically and mentally challenged adults at 221 7 Northfield Road).

49908 It was moved and seconded that "ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT BYLAW 2008 NO. 4000.442" pass first reading. The motion carried unanimously. COUNCIL 2008-SEP-08 PAGE 9

50008 It was moved and seconded that "ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT BYLAW 2008 NO. 4000.442" pass second reading. The motion carried unanimously.

13. CORRESPONDENCE:

(a) Letter dated 2008-AUG-18 from Mr. Joseph A. Fernandez, Chief Administrative Officer, Town of Lake Cowichan, 39 South Shore Road, PO Box 860, Lake Cowichan, BC, VOR 2G0, requesting that Council participate in a challenge and in the process to become "scotch broom free".

(b) Letter dated 2008-AUG-22 from Mr. Thomas H. Grauman, Executive Director, Columbian Centre Society, 2356 Rosstown Road, Nanaimo, BC, V9T 3R7, thanking the City of Nanaimo for its donation of 12 Board Room chairs.

14. ADJOURNMENT:

50108 It was moved and seconded at 8:00 p.m. that the meeting terminate, with the next Meeting of Council to be held Monday, 2008-SEP-29, commencing at 7:00 p.m. in the Shaw Auditorium. The motion carried unanimously.

MAYOR

CERTIFIED CORRECT:

DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE SERVICES CITY OF NANAIMO

LEGISLATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT REQUEST TO APPEAR AS A DELEGATION ON door- 0q d9 year month day

0 COUNCIL (at 7:00 p.m. in the Shaw Auditorium, 80 Commercial Street)

0 FINANCE I POLICY COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (at 4:30 p.m. in the City Hall Board Room, 455 Wallace Street)

NAME OF PERSON MAKING PRESENTATION: 81PE TT, 7 4 4&1/; 5e ) Punt ADDRESS: 230 0L~E6 RD -, /49/+4/fl D . l3.C . Vqp1-671 street address clb' Province Postal Code PHONE: &SO) 75Lf-Gg76 FAX: 250 - 7~~4-~P76 home business NAME OF APPLICANT IF OTHER THAN ABOVE:

D&A&~.*oF ~$&ENTATIW . c-. >, ,, *"< F < ",

- ~~eeLimA 4e PPSS~AI~ D/oe/amdl;~~ /i/ove"?L a$ 7-71 - is C( //\h"* LCT 4 1 Q/46&2c7 Bfi Y * / - 10 hmf mvnb7/ qp/o~e4e coacepf d ,f/ovr,.khc; e dhc 04 - lmdyak UV/~X;~/dLa,i-fim,

PLEASE NOTE Electronic presentations must be provided on a CD or by e-mail no later than 9:00 a.m. the day of the Meeting. Please submit a written copy of your presentation to the Recording Secretary either at, or prior to, the Meeting. Multiple speakers on a single issue or topic shall be given 5 minutes each to make their presentations as per Section 18 of the Council Procedure Bylaw.

Legislative Services Department 455 Wallace Street, Nanaimo BC V9R 5J6 23 legislative - CITY OF NANAIMO I SEP 2 2 2008 I

LEGISLATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT REQUEST TO APPEAR AS A DELEGATION

ON 2008 -9 ,29 year month day

COUNCIL (at 7:00 p.m. in the Shaw Auditorium, 80 Commercial Street)

FINANCE I POLICY COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (at 4:30 p.m. in the City Hall Board Room, 455 Wallace Street)

NAME OF PERSON MAKING PRESENTATION: PACIFC GARDENS CoHoUSING print ADDRESS: BOX 207 STN.A street address City Province Postal Code PHONE: 250-753-3836 250-754-3060 FA,: 250-754-3034 home business NAME OF APPLICANT IF OTHER THAN ABOVE: Allen

Presenters: Nelson Allen. Christina Knighton, Board Chair. Kathryn Jane Hazel, Shareholder. An application to the Council for monetary relief for the construction of a "not for profit" housing development in Harewood. The project will be of immense value to the City and the Harewood

d Phone: (250) 755-4405 Legislative Services Department Fax: (250) 755-4435 455 Wallace Street, Nanaimo BC V9R 5J6 , Presentation to Nanaimo City Council Monday, Sept. 29, 2008

Pacific Gardens Cohousing Community

Cohousing

Is the return to the best of small-town community Residents own their own homes, and share in the common areas Community connections are created through architectural design and shared facilities.

History Began in Denmark 40 years ago Originally designed to provide multi-generational housing for people seeking a safe and supportive living environment In North America over 80 communities completed since 1991, with more than 130 currently in development.

Pacific Gardens Cohousing Community

Nanaimo's first cohousing project The site is on 4.37 acres of land at 347 -7th Street The extensive green space includes natural flora and fauna, a seasonal pond, and heritage apple trees The property is close to a park along the salmon-bearing Chase River with wonderful views of Mount Benson Has 25 strata title units with one, two, and three bedrooms The project will be completed in December of this year.

Common facilities

A Common House with an atrium and pedestrian walkway leading to all the units A large kitchen next to the dining/activity hall where residents may attend community meals Craft rooms, teens and children's playrooms, a workshop and guest rooms Built Green

Pacific Gardens has been officially designated as a Built Green Canada project, only the second one of its size in B.C.

This designation is given to buildings whose construction supports energy efficiency, healthy indoor air, reduced water usage, and the preservation of natural resources

Green features of the project include:

1. kitchen cabinets made of wheat-board, with low VOC finishes 2. skylights which maximize daylight and help heat the project's inner atrium 3. thermally efficient roofs, walls and windows to preserve heat and cut down on moisture 4. heat pumps in the common areas 5. participation in the Cooperative Auto Network 6. plenty of space for bicycle storage 7. energy-efficient appliances 8. landscaping that requires little or no irrigation 9. maximizing of green space

Benefits to the community

Pacific Gardens is a unique and valuable project for Nanaimo as the first cohousing development in the city, and only the second building of its size in B.C. to receive the Built Green designation

This $8.24 million development will act as a catalyst for more development in Harewood

It will bring an annual projected tax revenue of $65,000

We have paid $492,116.04 in Development Cost Charges, Works and Services, Building Permit Fees and other fees We have designated portions of our site as parkland and future trail development as part of our contribution to the community, at an estimated value of $100,000

In addition, we have contributed $6,754 towards the development of the trail to the parkland

Pacific Gardens Cohousing Community is not intended to provide profit to the owners, as it is being built at cost

The shareholders are the developers, providing the initial financing from their own pockets

Relief was given to Bosa Properties Inc. for the costs of Works and Services in the amount of $420,000 for the development of University Village Mall.

As a multifamily residential complex in Harewood that has been developed by the residents themselves and which is a model for environmentally sustainable housing, we respectfully ask that Council consider giving Pacific Gardens Cohousing Community similar relief.

We believe that our development will serve as a flagship in this community and Canada for environmentally responsible development. Therefore, we urge Council to make an investment in the future development of this community by supporting our cohousing development, for all the reasons cited tonight.

Specifically, we respectfully request that Council consider a reduction in our overall costs in the amount of $200,000.

Thank you for permitting us to appear as a delegation, and we welcome any questions you might have. LEGISLATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT REQUEST TO APPEAR AS A DELEGATION

year month day

d COUNCIL (at 7:00 p.m. in the Shaw Auditorium, 80 Commercial Street)

FINANCE 1 POLICY COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (at 4:30 p.m. in the City Hall Board Room, 455 Wallace Street)

ADDRESS: &Jd- street address

business NAME OF APPLICANT IF OTHER THAN ABOVE:

Legislative Services Department

455 Wallace Street, Nanaimo BC V9R 5J6 a 28 Meeting Date: SEP 0 9 2008

Good Day Mayor, Thank you for your consideration with regards to recognizing the Canadian Kennel Club RDOG (Responsible Dog Ownership Week) initiative within your community and further to my earlier email please find below a sample proclamation. I am providing this in order to maintain consistency across the country where possible and encourage your community to provide recognition of this important initiative by proclaiming September 20-27, 2008, National Responsible Dog Ownership week and Saturday September 27,2008 as RDOG DAY. Regards, Sonny Allinson Manager Communications Division The Canadian Kennel Club (41 6)674-3678 PROCLAMATION ------Responsible Dog Ownership Week Page 2 of 2 September 20-27,2008 - WHEREAS, the Canadian Kennel Club, the primary registry for purebred dogs in Canada is a national non-profit organization which promotes the benefits that dogs bring to our society; and

WHEREAS, the Canadian Kennel Club is committed to the furthering of responsible dog ownership in Canada; and

WHEREAS, the Canadian Kennel Club is proud of its initiative, "National Responsible Dog Ownership Week" which brings together likeminded organizations that provide support, advice, guidance and education in the responsibilities of owning a dog;

THEREFORE, I, (insert Mayors' name) Mayor of the (insert City), do hereby proclaim September 20- 27,2008 as Responsible Dog Ownership Week in the City of (insert City) and encourage all citizens to practice responsible dog ownership for a safer community for all.

Semaine de la propriCtC responsable de chien Du 20 au 27 septembre 2008

ATTENDU QUE le Club canin canadien, principal centre d'enregistrement des chiens de race du Canada, est un organisme sans but lucratif qui sensibilise la population sur les avantages d'avoir des chiens dans notre societk; et

ATTENDU QUE, le Club canin canadien s'engage a encourager les comportements responsables des propriktaires de chien au Canada; et

ATTENDU QUE, le Club canin canadien est fier de son initiative t( Semaine nationale pour la propriktk responsable de chiens >> qui rassemble les organismes ayant la m2me vision qui offrent un soutien, des conseils, un encadrement et de la formation sur les responsabilitks des propriktaires de chien;

PAR CONSEQUENT, je, (norn), maire d' (ville), proclame par la prksente la semaine du 20 au 27 septembre 2008 Semaine de la propriCtC responsable de chien 2i la Ville d' (ville), et j'encourage tous les citoyens qui sont propriktaires de chien a adopter des pratiques responsables pour le bien de la communautk dans son ensemble. * September 16,2008 Ref: 176426

His Worship Mayor Gary R. Korpan and Council City of Nanaimo 455 Wallace St Nanaimo BC V9R 556

Dear Mayor Korpan and Council:

Once again, October has been proclaimed as Foster Family Month in British Columbia. During the month, there will be a variety of events throughout the province to recognize foster parents and show appreciation for the contributions they have made to children and families in our communities. I encourage you to join the province in showing foster parents that you appreciate their efforts by supporting local businesses and community centres to sponsor appreciation and public awareness events.

There are more than 3,200 foster families in British Columbia providing care to over 6,000 children and youth. Still, there is a need for more individuals and families to open their hearts and their homes. The most important qualifications are a desire to provide a supportive and caring environment and make a positive difference in a child's life.

Ongoing support and recognition in the community are vital to help encourage more people to get involved and show existing families that their efforts are appreciated. Foster parents help make our communities stronger by providing the foundation a child needs to develop and grow into a confident adult.

We would be pleased to post any information you send us regarding events in your community on our dedicated web pages. Please send information to mar~ann.anderson@g;ov.bc.ca and visit the Web site at www.stron~safesupported.corn/awarenessfor more information and the most up to date calendar of events. If you would like additional information, we encourage you to contact Chuck Earner, the ministry's Regional Executive Director for your community, at 250 952-4780.

On behalf of the Honourable Gordon Campbell, Premier, and the Government of British Columbia, we thank you for your recognition of the foster families in your community who open their homes and hearts to care for vulnerable children and youth.

Sincerely, c;l%u Agerwhh a Comm&ee ...... Delegation P Wl$en~eetlng Proclamation C;i)/ PMmeraMeetmg CorrespondenceQ hetingoate: am-sw- a7 Tom Christensen Minister

Enclosure

Ministry of Office of the Mailing Address: Location: Children and Family Minister Parliament Buildings Parliament Buildings Development Victoria BC V8V 1x4 Victoria Ihe Best Place on Earth FACTSHEET September 2008 Ministry of Children and Family Development

FOSTER CARE IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

The government of British Columbia has proclaimed October Foster Family Month to recognize foster parents and show appreciation for the contributions they have made to children and families in our communities.

KEY FACTS

Foster family homes are the primary placement resource for children in care. The Province has approximately 9,000 children in its care, and of those, about 6,000 children and youth are placed with approximately 3,200 foster families.

Twenty-four delegated Aboriginal agencies, the Federation of Aboriginal Foster Parents and the ministry are working with Aboriginal communities and groups to increase the number of Aboriginal foster homes, and to build the capacity of Aboriginal communities to provide support for vulnerable children.

Foster families may provide care on an emergency, short or long term basis. They provide children with a safe, nurturing, and supportive home when they need it the most.

Approximately 35 per cent of children in care who are adopted are adopted by their foster family.

The British Columbia Federation of Foster Parent Associations, the Federation of Aboriginal Foster Parents and regional foster parent support agencies provide a range of support, education and advocacy services for foster parents.

There is always a need for more individuals and families to become foster parents. There is an ongoing effort to recruit foster parents of all cultural, social and ethnic backgrounds, so that children in care can maintain their cultural and community connections.

The main qualification a foster parent needs is a desire to provide a supportive and caring environment and to make a positive difference in a child's life. Foster parents must be in good physical and mental health, pass a criminal record check, and supply three character references.

During the application process a ministry or delegated Aboriginal agency social worker conducts a family assessment (home study) at the applicant's home. Applicants also take 18 hours of orientation (pre-service training). On average, the approval process takes three months. Once approved, foster parents participate in the 53-hour BC Foster Parent Education Program. .. .I2 Foster parents receive a payment of $780 to $888 a month, depending on the age of the child. There are three types of foster homes: > Restricted foster homes are usually the homes of relatives or family friends who have a significant relationship with the child. > Regular foster homes provide care for up to six children of varying ages and needs. Usually, the foster family has not previously known these children. > Specialized foster homes provide supervision and three different levels of care for children with physical, mental, behavioural or emotional needs. These foster parents receive an additional monthly service payment between $397 and $2509 per child, depending on the level of care they provide, and the needs of the child.

Every foster child has a care plan that outlines the type of care required to meet his or her circumstances, and a plan to either return the child to the parents or to another permanent home. For many children in continuing care, foster families provide a permanent home right through to adult life, while also supporting the child's ongoing connection to their families and communities.

For more information on foster care, visit the Ministry of Children and Family Development website at www.mcf.gov.bc.ca~fosteror call the Fosterline toll-fi-ee at 1 800 663-9999.

Contact: Communications Ministry of Children and Family Development 250 356-2939 Nanairno Church of the Nazarene (meeting at St. James Anglican Church, 21 50 Departure Bay Road, Nanaimo) Rev. Gary Nawrocki, Pastor Mail: 2435 Nadely Crescent Nanaimo, B.C. V9T 5x5 Phone (250) 585-5553 Email: [email protected] "Growing together in love." City of Nanaimo Attn: Mayor Korpan and City Counsellors 455 Wallace Street Nanaimo, BC V9R 556

August 7,2008

Cordial greetings,

On October 5,2008 our denomination, the Church of the Nazarene, is celebrating its loofi Anniversary. As you can imagine, this is a time of celebration for our membershi that numbers 1.6 million world wide. Our congregation here in Nanaimo, that celebrated its 50E anniversary almost two years ago now, is joining in the world wide celebration.

On behalf of the Nanaimo Church of the Nazarene we would like to invite any or all of you to join with us on Sunday, October 5 at our celebration service. It will be held at 2150 Departure Bay Road, the home of St. James Anglican Church where we currently meet. There will be family oriented activities all day Saturday the 4fi as well which we invite you to.

If someone is able to come and official represent the city at our festivities, we would like to formally introduce that person (or persons) and allow them time to bring greetings. Please inform us of who is able to attend and we will put that person on our program. We will also give more details as to time and length of service. Thank you.

Know that we appreciate the work you do on our behalf as the civic leaders of our wonderfkl city. Thank you. Often you are remembered in our prayers, knowing that leadership requires wisdom beyond our own abilities.

Your response to this letter can be sent to Church of the Nazarene C/O2435 Nadely Crescent Nanaimo, BC V9T 5x5 or church~nanaimonazarene.com

On Behalf of the Nanaimo Church of the Nazarene, Wmil Agerrdab Q' a C m@ee._...... Odegation 0 Rev. Gary Nawrocki, Pastor d~eetlogOkFcamwakthlg ConwpendenceoRodamation 6 hketingk Am- Sf?-034 PROCLAMATION Fire Prevention Week October 5th7 2008 TO October I 1'" 2008

\.%'HEREAS: inaity dedicated citizens have joined with volunteer, protessional and industrial fire safety personnel as "F'artners in Fire Preventioi~"in a relentless effort to niinin~izeloss to life? destruction of property and dat~~ageto the environment;

AND LVHEREi2S: fire losses in Canada remain unacceptable high in comparison with those in other industrialized t-iatioils thereby necessitating improved fire prevention nleasures;

AND WHEREAS: the 2008 fire prevention then~efor this period is

"It's Fire Prevention Week: Prevent Home Fires!''

NOW THEREFORE, I Gary Korpan, Mayor of the City of Nanaitno, do hereby proclainl the week of October 5th, 2008 to October 1 lth,20008 as:

Fire Prevention Week: Prevent Home Fires in the City of Nanaitno.

Gary Korpan MAYOR

5th day of October: 2008 From: Alissa Danilkiewiu [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 4:31 PM Cc: Harvinder Gill; Alissa Raye Subject: Waste Reduction Week in Canada 2008 1 SEP 2 2 2008 I

kmdtte ;*& Waste Reduaiolt caadiedne de F Week in Canada &@-- \ ridattian der didetr Patib~l8-25,2908 r2 gjfra~denst bsl: *%w*8 f9 au 25 acbkwe7 2@8

qg- qg- : September 12,2008

Dear Waste Reduction Week in Canada past participant, & As you may be aware, National Waste Reduction Week (WRW) in Canada is fast ;s-z6- : approaching (October lgth - 2sthI 2008). As a past participant of this national event, you are again requested to log onto the Waste Reduction Week in Canada website www.wrwcanada.co~and register for 2008. As in the past, the Recycling Council of BC (RCBC) will distribute the WRW promotional materials. In an effort to reduce waste, we will only distribute posters and postcards that direct you to the WRW website where you can download and print the 2008 WRW School, Business, or Municipal Kits. These materials generate ideas for events and are a very useful environmental resource. With this in mind, and noting that there are limited supplies, please register online at ~~~.~r~~anada.comat your earliest convenience. Alternatively, feel free to forward me the quantity of posters you need and I can mail the materials to you. Note that the reverse side of the poster can be used year-round as an educational tool. On behalf of RCBC and the national WRW committee, 1 offer my gratitude and appreciation for your assistance and ongoing support of this important event. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Alissa

Alissa Raye Hotline Information Officer Q'icouncil Agendah W Recycling Council of British Columbia CJ Commiftee...... Delegation C1 604-683-6009 ext. 310 Q'@nMng Proclamation Cd wrw@rcbc. bc. ca OkCwnerawftg Co m~me:a-5~ mfpondYP-a From: Harvinder Gill [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 3:34 PM Subject: Mayor and Council - Request for Proclamation

Canada will celebrate its eighth annual National Waste Reduction Week from October 19-25, 2008. The Recycling Council of British Columbia (RCBC) is organizing BC's involvement in observing this week. We would like to ask all Municipal Councils in BC to officially declare October 19-25, 2008 as Waste Reduction Week in their communities.

Waste Reduction Week is intended to raise awareness about waste and its environmental and social impacts. The theme of Waste Reduction Week, Too Good To Waste, is meant to draw attention to the richness and diversity of the natural world and the importance of working towards ecological sustainability through waste avoidance and resource conservation.

RCBC began sponsoring "October Waste Reduction Month" in BC twelve years ago. In 2001 we teamed up with organizations from across the country to create Waste Reduction Week, a national event with participation from every Canadian Province and Territory.

Please join the Recycling Council of British Columbia in proclaiming October 19-25, 2008 as National Waste Reduction Week. For more information or a sample proclamation, please visit www.wrwcanada.com.

Kind regards,

Harvinder Gill

Information Services Manager SEP 0 3 2008

Recycling Council of BC 1 LEGHATWE SERVICES I Phone 604.683.6009 ext. 313 / Fax 604.683.7255

RCBC Mission Statement - Approved June 2006

RCBC is a multi-sectoral non-profit organization promoting the principles of Zero Waste through information services, the exchange of ideas and research

rnk ommirtee ...-...... Delegation P diMeRis Proclamation 280 Calder Road, Nanaimo. B.C. V9R-6Jl. August 18,2008.

City of Nanaimo, 455 Wallace Street, Nanaimo. B.C. V9R-5 J6.

To Mayor Korpan, and Council:

As a parent of one of the one hundred children with Type 1 diabetes who attend schools in Nanaimo I am writing to request a proclamation from our city in support of Diabetes Month (November) and World Diabetes Day (Nov. 14) 2008. World Diabetes Day (November 14 is the date of Sir Frederick Banting's birthday) is an officially observed United Nations day with the 111 support of the World Health Organization. UN Resolution 611225 calls on relevant local, national and international bodies to fight the diabetes epidemic through public awareness, and one suggested observance is to light iconic landmarks andlor buildings in blue (cornrnunications~idf.oral.

Type 1 Diabetes is a non-preventable, autoimmune, chronic, debilitating and costly disease that leaves children and youth dependent on insulin for life with the constant threat of developing complications. Independent research shows that more than 150,000 Canadians live with the disease, while current predictions suggest that the global diabetes total of Type 1 and Type 2 will exceed a staggering 380 million within twenty years.

Vancouver Island families living with'diabetes established a parent support group this year (victoria@irdfca). The work for finding a cure goes on. By proclaiming the support of Nanaimo, Mayor and Council will recognize the need to increase efforts to promote and improve human health while furthering community awareness of the increasing incidence of this disease.

I respectfully ask that you further a message of hope and inspiration by proclaiming the month of November DIABETES MONTH in Nanairno, and to also proclaim November 14 DIABETES DAY. Consideration should be given to projecting a sky blue light on a significant local landmark on November 14th,2008.

Nanaimo citizens living with diabetes are available to address council, if necessary, and to work with whomsoever may assume responsibility for the blue light.

Thank vou.

Brian J. Pettit. Y

' 0 aamen hlierq Mtaing Date: e -29 PROCLAMATION National Pain Awareness Week November 2 to November 9,2008

chronic pain, a distinct entity of its own, occurs in one in three Canadians who live with some moderate to severe pain as a part of their daily lives; and

Whereas pain is considered chronic when it lingers beyond a six month period and it can be from a simple accident or illness; and

Whereas the number of individuals who will experience some form of chronic pain will increase considerably as our population ages; and

Whereas individuals with this type of pain usually have had either a loss of job and/ or a reduction of income or both as well as disruptions within the family units; and

Whereas many Canadians have to endure long wait lists for proper and effective pain management; and

Whereas the idea that chronic pain is a disease of its own will eventually lead to new and highly specific individualized types of treatment aimed at an interdisciplinary level of management; and

Whereas there is no known cure for this yet with the advance of new research, education, understanding and awareness of this condition, British Columbians can learn both to cope with it and eventually win the battle over chronic pain.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GARY KORPAN, Mayor of the City of Nanaimo, do hereby proclaim the week of November 2 to November 9,2008 be known as:

National Pain Awareness Week

In the City of Nanaimo:

G~F~Korpan MAYOR W~ouncil Agendam Q Cs Committee...... DATED THIS Day of NOVEMBER 2008 Delegation P WOPen Mng Proclamation O P In-Camera P Mearq Dg@: REPORT TO: COUNCIL

FROM: CHAIR, ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT

RE: COSMETIC PESTICIDE REDUCTION STRATEGY

COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS:

That Council direct staff to: 1. Establish a homeowner education program on the alternatives to pesticides beginning in March 2009 and refer the request for $25,000 for the implementation of the program to the next round of the Financial Plan for consideration. 2. Participate in the Plant Health BC Accreditation Program and contribute funding (up to $2,000) plus in-kind support toward the development of a horticultural industry outreach/education program coordinated through the Institute of Sustainable Horticulture at Kwantlen Polytechnic University. 3. Draft a bylaw to restrict the use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes on residential properties and present to Council by April 2009. The bylaw would not come into force until one year after adoption (April 2010). The bylaw would be reviewed by representatives of the lawn and garden industry and interested community members as part of the research process. 4. Review both the public education program and bylaw in three years at the conclusion of the Plant Health BC accreditation pilot program. Assess the success of the program and make adjustments depending on its success in lowering cosmetic pesticide use and on whether the Federal or Provincial government has banned or restricted the sale of domestic pesticides.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The 2008 workplan for the Advisory Committee on the Environment was approved by Council on 2008-Feb-11. The workplan identified cosmetic use of pesticides as an issue of public concern and the Committee was asked to report back with information on current management practice in B.C. and provide recommendations on whether or not to restrict use, through bylaw, to individuals andlor companies that are trained and certified in Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practice. The work will be completed in collaboration with staff from Community Planning, Bylaw Services and Parks, Recreation and Culture.

BACKGROUND:

There has been concern over the years regarding the excessive use of chemical pesticides on gardens and lawns and the environmental harm to local streams, rivers and wetlands that can occur if used excessively and without taking appropriate precautions. This concern is especially true with residential homeowners who may use pesticides inappropriately for cosmetic purposes. The term "Cosmetic Pesticide" refers to chemicals that are used for controlling plants and insects in lawns and gardens to enhance their appearance for non-essential reasons. All herbicides, insecticides and fungicides are included in the definition of pesticides.

Within British Columbia, the Community Charter (B.C. Reg. 144 / 2004, 2.1. (b) (ii)) specifically expresses the ability of local governments to regulate, prohibit, or impose requirements in relation to the application of pesticides. Currently across Canada, 140 municipalities have cosmetic pesticide bylaws in place. In British Columbia, there are 14 municipalities with cosmetic pesticide bylaws, many of which include an educational element in addition to some form of restriction. Generally speaking, "the municipality is able to regulate the "when", "where" Council Report - 2 -

and "why" of pesticide application, filling in the gap of provincial (how it can be applied and by whom) and federal regulation (what can be applied)"'.

Since 1994, the City of Nanaimo has followed an lntegrated Pest Management (IPM) approach when managing its public lands. There is also a Council Policy on Pesticide Use that states any pesticide application on City property must be justified within an IPM framework and that chemical pesticides are "generally considered to be the last or most drastic measure to control any pest pr~blem"~.

lntegrated Pest Management is an ecologically-based pest control strategy that relies on:

1. Biological controls - natural mortality factors, such as using natural enemies. 2. Environmental control - such as ensuring the foliage of plants are properly watered, thereby reducing fungal disease. 3. Cultural control methods - keeping the planting area free of natural plant litter. 4. Physical control - such as manually weeding planting areas. Using pest-resistant plant species and heavily planting the areas therefore preventing room for weeds to thrive. 5. Mechanical control - using a rototiller to cultivate a bed just after weed germination. 6. If pre-determined thresholds are exceeded and there is no other method effective, chemical control will be used to deal with the pest with emphasis on products that are least harmful to the environment and human health.

The IPM approach complies with all requirements set out and regulated by the British Columbia Pesticide Control Act. As required, the City has a Pest Management Plan (PMP) for City lands, which is used when dealing with plant health care issues. As a result of following IPM practice, chemical pesticide use is rarely considered.

While the City has practiced IPM for some time, a number of local landscapers, arborists, and nurseries are not necessarily promoting or using an IPM approach while dealing with their clients. To further promote the City as a role model and leader in the practice of IPM, staff recommends the City become a municipal partner in the Plant Health BC accreditation program.

Plant Health BC Accreditation Program

Plant Health BC is an industry-driven program delivered through the Institute of Sustainable Horticulture at Kwantlen Polytechnic University (KPU) along with Agriculture Canada and the BC Landscape and Nursery Association. The program trains commercial landscape care and grounds maintenance companies in the practice of lntegrated Pest Management (IPM) techniques. These companies work on commercial, industrial and residential property and include: lawn care, landscape maintenance, arborist services, ground maintenance for golf courses and municipal parks. There is an annual reporting requirement with an annual desk-top audit of pesticide use and an on-site visit and full audit every three years that is geared toward managing gardens and lawns without resorting to pesticide use.

The Plant Health BC Accreditation Program has the following objectives: To encourage widespread responsible pest management in British Columbia by holding lawn care, arboriculture and landscape maintenance companies, golf courses and parks accountable to a high standard of practice for weed, disease and insect control and by facilitating industry access to IPMIPlant Health training.

1 Sierra Legal, 2007, "The Municipal Powers Report - Municipal Bylaws and Best Practices for Community Health and Environment Protection in Canada" City of Nanaimo. 2003. Department of Parks Recreation and Culture Policy on Pesticide Use. Council Policy Manual Council Report -3-

To create a program which is open and transparent, self-sustaining and built on strong partnerships with key stakeholder groups. To provide the public with a simple, reliable method for identifying companies and organizations that use responsible pest management practices.

Municipalities interested in participating in the Plant Health BC accreditation program are asked to contact Kwantlen Polytechnic University and provide a $2,000 "partner contribution". Partner contributions are matched by the provincial government and will be used exclusively for industry focused outreach/education in the community.

As this program becomes more established, and local contractors have an opportunity to receive training and become accredited, the City should look into its subcontracting requirements for landscaping services by January 2010 and require firms that choose to bid for City projects become Plant Health BC accredited operations.

The Canadian Cancer Society: Campaign to ban Cosmetic Pesticide Use

The City has been approached by the Canadian Cancer Society (CCS), who has been contacting municipalities throughout British Columbia, promoting the banning of cosmetic pesticides through municipal bylaw. As part of their campaign, they have been presenting polling results for communities throughout BC (including Nanaimo) on public attitudes toward cosmetic pesticide use. The results for Nanaimo, produced by lspos Reid, indicate that while 24% of respondents in Nanaimo have used pesticides on their home lawn or garden at some point in the last year; 43% strongly support and 75% somewhat support a restriction to the use and sale of cosmetic pesticides used in an air no.^

The CCS has requested that the City recognize that the cosmetic use of pesticides has no countervailing health benefit and has the potential to cause harm; therefore, a ban on the cosmetic use of pesticides on private and public lands should be established through bylaw. The CCS also points out that there are many non-toxic alternatives to pesticides that could be used and can be available to the public through better public awareness of these alternatives.

Analysis: Developing a Strategy for Nanaimo

When reviewing cosmetic pesticides programs conducted across Canada, the combination of an education program along with a bylaw has been found to be the most successful in reducing the use of pesticides4. By first phasing in an education program and following up at a later date with the phasing in of a bylaw, the public awareness for the program and pesticide alternatives are much greater, leading to few bylaw infractions. With this in mind, it is recommended that an education component proceed first and that funding be provided to the Department of Parks, Recreation and Culture for up to three years to allow for a part-time staff position to be filled to focus on designing and delivering an alternative pesticide education program, under the direction of the Manager of Parks Operations. It is also recommended that staff be asked to research and draft a bylaw for consideration in the new year (no later than April 2009). The draft bylaw should be reviewed by members of the local lawn and garden industry, Canadian Cancer Society and other interested organizations as part of the research process, to ensure it has some level of acceptance in the community.

ISPOSReid Public Affairs, 2008, "2008 Advocacy Public Opinion Research (British Columbia)". Canadian Cancer Society. 4 Canadian Centre for Pollution Prevention. 2004. "The Impact of Bylaws and Public Education Programs on Reducing the Cosmetic Residential Use of Pesticides". Cullbridge Marketing and Communications Council Report

New Prosram Costs

Research from eastern Canada on the cost of administering pesticide bylaws suggest that additional resources will be required to administer a bylaw at a cost of $0.50 to $1 .OO per capita. Other municipalities in the Lower Mainland with bylaws indicate that it requires the equivalent of a 0.25 FTE (Full Time Equivalent) to administer the bylaw. It is anticipated, that a qualified, temporary employee or contractor may be needed from March through September, particularly in the first year (2009), at an estimated annual cost of $25,000 to provide information, respond to complaints, educate residents during follow-up, conduct inspections and audit performance and work with the Plant Health BC and Residential Education Programs. The cost and level of effort to administer this bylaw would be monitored over the first year and reported to Council.

Timing 1 Approval Process

It is proposed that a bylaw be drafted over the falllwinter, and be presented to Council for adoption by April 2009; but not come into force until April 2010. The bylaw will allow time for staff to raise public awareness over the summer and fall through a residential pesticide education program. During this time, staff will also continue to participate and promote the Plant Health Care program as it develops and raise awareness with the garden and lawn care industry to the bylaw.

Finally, it is also proposed that the bylaw be reviewed in three years at the conclusion of the Plant Health BC accreditation pilot program to assess the success of that program to reduce pesticide use by its participants and also to confirm the success of the public education program, as well as whether the Federal or Provincial governments have banned from sale or restricted the sale of domestic pesticides that are commonly used.

Environmental Impact

The reduction and elimination of pesticide use for aesthetic purposes is desirable and would help protect the environment and human health from the adverse effects of continued pesticide use in unwarranted circumstances. This requires a fundamental shift to the general attitude and behavior towards the use of pesticides. A bylaw in conjunction with an on-going education program (such as a City residential pesticide education program and the new Plant Health BC Accreditation program) is desirable to encourage change.

Conclusion

A three-year education program that targets both residents and lawn and garden care businesses is recommended to provide the public with more information on choices they can make in managing their lawns and gardens, without using pesticides. Supporting the Plant Health BC accreditation program will promote the Integrated Pest Management approach in the local lawn and garden care industry.

A bylaw that restricts cosmetic pesticide use to Plant Health BC certified companies will ensure "do-it-yourself' applications of pesticides are banned on residential property which lowers the risk of exposure to pesticides in the environment which can have human and environmental health impacts. Council Report

Respectfully submitted,

- Joy Cameron, Chair Advisory Committee on the Environment

Council Date: 2008-Sep-29 g:cornplan\adrnin\2008MCEECosmeticPesticides RLlch REPORT TO COUNCIL

FROM: COUNCILLOR MERV UNGER, CHAIRPERSON, GRANTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

RE: 2008 GRANTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. That Council award an Other Grant to assist with symposium costs to the following applicant:

Nanaimo Citizens on Patrol (OG-02) $2,000.00

2. That Council award a Security Check Grant to the following applicant:

Nanaimo Arts Alive Summer School for the Fine Arts Society (SC-01) $ 300.00

3. That Council award Permissive Tax Exemptions as follows:

That Central Vancouver Island Centre for the Arts (PTE-06) be placed on the 2009 Permissive Tax Exemption Bylaw for property it leases at 25 Victoria Road (82336.000).

That Nanaimo Affordable Housing (PTE-07) be placed on the 2009 Permissive Tax Exemption Bylaw for property it leases at 350 Prideaux Street (86080.100).

That BC Cancer Foundation (PTE-08) be placed on the 2009 Permissive Tax Exemption Bylaw for property it leases at 203 - 4750 Rutherford Road (P=07003.205).

That Nanaimo Telephone Visiting Society (PTE-09) be placed on the 2009 Permissive Tax Exemption Bylaw for property it leases at 208D - 2520 Bowen Road (P=05447.100).

4. That Council deny cash in lieu of 2008 Permissive Tax Exemptions to the following applicants:

BC Cancer Foundation (PTE-08) for property at 203 - 4750 Rutherford Rd. BC Old Age Pensioners Branch #4 (PTE-04) for property at 2465 Labieux Road.

5. That Council deny a Permissive Tax Exemption to the BC Old Age Pensioners Branch #4 (PTE-04): 2465 Labieux Road (05426.150) 2008 Grants Advisory Committee Recommendations Page 2

6. That Council deny a Permissive Tax Exemption to the Park Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses (PTE-05): 1064 Old Victoria Road (1621 6.000)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The Grants Advisory Committee met on 2008-Sep-09. Included in this report are the Committee's recommendations.

BACKGROUND:

The Grants Advisory Committee has reviewed in detail the financial data and background information provided by the applicants. Recommendations are made in accordance with the Grants Policy and Guidelines adopted by Council.

The Committee recognizes both the limited funding that the City has available and the excellent community services provided by the various organizations. We are hopeful that the funds allocated by Council will allow the organizations in need of assistance to continue to provide their valuable services.

Grant funding is divided into the following categories: security grants, other grants and permissive tax exemptions.

Other grants are awarded to registered non-profit societies that demonstrate financial need and have a large number of volunteers. These organizations must be accessible to a large portion of the community and have a broad base of support. Sound financial and administrative management must also be demonstrated.

Council is permitted to (but not required to) exempt certain organizations from property taxation. Sections 224, 225, 226 of the Community Charter identify situations in which Council may exercise discretion in granting full or partial exemptions from taxation. These exemptions must be adopted by bylaw, by the 31 of October of the year preceding exemptions.

Respectfully submitted

Councillor Merv Unger Chair, Grants Advisory Committee

G:MDMINISTRATION\Committees\GrantsAdvisory Committee\2008 Grants\Sep 9\Council Report.doc COUNCIL: 2008-SEP-29 Files: 0570-40 and 1850-01 2008-SEP-19 REPORT TO COUNCIL

FROM: CHAIR, PLAN NANAIMO ADVISORY COMMITTEE

RE: REVISED TERMS OF REFERENCE - PLAN NANAIMO ADVISORY COMMITTEE

COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION:

That Council endorse the revised Terms of Reference for the Plan Nanaimo Advisory Committee.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The Plan Nanaimo Advisory Committee (PNAC) was established in order to provide Council with a community-based, comprehensive review of amendments and initiatives related to the Official Community Plan. The Rezoning Advisory Committee (RAC) was created as a sub-committee of PNAC to provide for review of zoning amendments to the City's Zoning Bylaw. The Plan Nanaimo Advisory Committee recommends that RAC be collapsed back into PNAC, where both OCP and zoning amendment proposals can be reviewed separately or concurrently at PNAC meetings.

Currently, PNAC membership includes 16 representatives as well as a representative from the Nanaimo Port Authority when a matter comes before PNAC that relates to lands affecting their interests. While a representative from both the Nanaimo Port Authority and Vancouver lsland University were invited to sit on PNAC during the OCP 10-year review, the Plan Nanaimo Advisory Committee recommends that the Terms of Reference be amended to include representation from both the Nanaimo Port Authority and Vancouver lsland University as permanent representatives, bringing total membership to 18.

BACKGROUND:

The Plan Nanaimo Advisory Committee (PNAC) was established in order to make recommendations to Council on proposed amendments and initiatives related to the Official Community Plan (OCP). The committee is to bring a broad community based perspective to monitoring and protecting the integrity of the Official Community Plan, which represents the community vision. The Committee currently consists of 16 members, including representatives from Council, neighbourhood associations, the development community, real estate industry, local business community, environment community, youth, Social Planning Advisory Committee, Nanaimo Community Heritage Commission, Advisory Committee on the Environment, Parks, Recreation and Culture Commission, and the community at large.

The Terms of Reference currently include a representative from the Nanaimo Port Authority when a matter is before PNAC that may affect the Port's interest. For example, the recent completion of the OCP 10-year review included interim representation both from the Nanaimo Port Authority and from Vancouver lsland University. However, there is no permanent representation for the Port, nor for the educational community. As such, PNAC has considered expanding its membership and proposed amendments to the Terms of Reference to include adding one representative from the Nanaimo Port Authority and one representative from Vancouver lsland University, increasing PNAC membership from 16 to 18 representatives. PNAC is also proposing to clarify how membership is advertised for individual positions and nominations received.

In addition to the regular PNAC meetings, the Rezoning Advisory Committee was created as a sub-committee of PNAC to provide for review of proposed zoning amendments to the City's Zoning Bylaw. However, there has been difficulty in maintaining attendance at the biweekly RAC meetings, and PNAC recommends that RAC be collapsed back into PNAC where both OCP and zoning amendment proposals can be reviewed at PNAC meetings. These proposals may be considered separately or concurrently. 47 Staff Report Page 2 PNAC Terms of Reference

If Council approves these amendments, Staff will proceed with the necessary notifications for vacant positions. All applications and/or nominations received in response to notification will be forwarded to Council for its consideration.

The proposed Terms of Reference are attached as Schedule 'A'.

Respectfully submitted,

Councillor Bill Holdom, Chair Plan Nanaimo Advisory Committee

/dj/ch Council: 2008-SEP-29 g:\commplan\admin\2008\pnac ferms of reference.doc SCHEDULE A PLAN NANAIMO ADVISORY COMMITTEE PROPOSED TERMS OF REFERENCE (Page 1 of 5)

CITY OF NANAIM0 TERMS OF REFERENCE planNANAlM0 ADVISORY COMMITTEE CITY OF NANAIMO

Preamble Page '1 Of the many services provided by a municipality, it is most critical Mandate Page 1 that decisions involving planning and development reflect the Objectives Page 1 values, aspirations and priorities of the community; and while Smpe Of Work Page 2 communities tend to have considerable policy documentation, Membership Page 3 managing the growth and change happens on an incremental Appointment and Ten Page 3 basis as individual applications for development are considered. Chair Page 4 The City of Nanaimo Official Community Plan (OCP) outlines a Quorum Page 4 process for amending and auditing OCP policies and objectives, Meeting Procedures Page 4 and which includes the participation of a planNanaim0 Advisory Reporting to Council Page 4 Committee (PNAC). PNAC also has the opportunity to review Budget Page 4 and consider zoning amendment proposals, reflecting on the Staff Support Page 5 objectives and best interests of the residents, neighbourhoods and city as a whole. Given the varied goals of community members and levels of interest, conflicting objectives are inevitable. The assistance of residents working with Staff and City Council is essential to sift through the many objectives of the city's development. The planNanaim0 Advisory Committee is one way to tap the community's priorities to assist Council in evaluating decisions about the community's development. In this context, these Terms of Reference identify a mandate for the planNanaim0 Advisory Committee. The mandate is an invitation to city residents to become invotved in setting a direction and pace for the city's development.

PNAC has a mandate to promote the community's wellbeing and to assist Council in setting priorities amid competing objectives. It is to to bring a broad community based perspective to monitoring and protecting the integrity of the City's Official Community Plan and Zoning Bylaw, which represent the community vision, and make recommendations to Council on proposed amendments and initiatives related to the OCP and zoning bylaw, including development proposals involving zoning amendments. The OCP and zoning amendments may be submitted separately or jointly.

The mandate of PNAC is supported by a series of objectives. 1. To advocate on behalf of the community on land use issues. 2. To measure the progress towards achieving OCP goals and objectives. 3. To assess and monitor proposed changes to the OCP through an amendment and review process; and to review rezoning applications to ensure proposed developments comply with the policies and objectives of the OCP. 4. To develop and initiate methods of public education as it pertains to land use, OCP policies, and City regulations related to managing growth. 5. To bring the community perspective to the neighbourhood planning process as an active participant in neighbourhood and area planning. 6. To consider and integrate economic, social, land use and environmental impacts through the decision process. 7. To initiate changes to the OCP that reflect changing community circumstances. SCHEDULE A PLAN NANAIMO ADVISORY COMMITTEE PROPOSED TERMS OF REFERENCE (Page 2 of 5) Ter1~1.sof Reference

8. To provide recommendations regarding the City of Nanaimo Zoning Bylaw in order to ensure that it remains an effective and relevant document. 9. To make recommendations that reflect and articulate community opinion, in all its diversity, on matters referred by City Council.

tn order to achieve the objectives, the Committee will meet on a regular basis to: = Review proposed OCP amendments and zoning amendments as per the amendment processes and make recommendations to Council; * Monitor the effectiveness with which the City's OCP and Zoning Bylaws achieve their objectives and recommend changes to Council as necessary; and * in addition to regularly scheduled meetings, members may meet more frequently to: assess proposed OCP amendments in an effort to ensure amendments to the OCP are considered in a timely manner; or to participate with Staff, Council and Council Committees on specific task forces or project Committees.

Specific tasks related to the scope of work include, but e not limited to, the foilowing As Part of the Amendment Process educate and inform the community about the OCP and zoning amendment processes; = receive OCP and zoning amendments from Council, external applicants, staff and other interests as part of the amendment processes; and = consider PNAC initiated proposed OCP amendments; a general, community wide, non-site specific OCP amendment may be initrated by the community through PNAC. As Part of Community Education = encourage neighbourhood planning to ensure the implementation of the OCP policies and commitment to the fundamental principles of the OCP, and * educate and inform the community about OCP policies and zoning regulations. As Part of the OCP Review Every five years. beginning in 20 13, a review of progress to?uards OCP goals ~villbe prepareci and published under the Committee's direction. = PNAC will make recommendations on any changes to OCP goals, objectives and policies in order to reflect changing community circumstances.

Page 2 of 5 SCHEDULE A PLAN NANAIMO ADVISORY COMMITTEE PROPOSED TERMS OF REFERENCE (Page 3 of 5) Terms of Reference

The 18 member committee must reflect a broad representation of community interests and a diversity of opinions in order to fulfill its mandate. While it is difficutt to guarantee a complete cross-section of the community, Council recognizes that certain groups are identifiable. Residents and community interest groups will be invited to submit names for membership within the following categories, as opportunities arise.

Members Membership Area City Council Snuneymmv First Nation Nanaimo Port Authority Vancouver Island University Canadian Homebuilders' Association of Central Vancouver Island Vancouver Island Real Estate Board Nanaimo Chamber of Commerce Neighbourhood Association Environment Community Youth (under 25 years of age) Community At Large Representatives Acting for the Following Council Committees (a committee member reporting on PNAC business related to that committee's mandate, or an at large representative with a specific focus on a committee of Coimcil's interest): Social Planning Advisory Committee Nanaimo Community Heritage Commission Advisory Committee on the Envimnment Parks, Recreation and Culture Commission

As neighbourhoods complete their neighbourhood plans, PNAC will ensure neighbourhood input into proposed amendments is provided. If an application to amend a plan is submitted, or when a new neighbourhood plan is being considered, the neighbourhood association or representative group will be invited to provide up to three temporary representatives under the following conditions: attend the meetings where proposed OCP amendments are being discussed; comment on all aspects of the discussion about the proposed amendment; not participate in determining consensus or voting on the proposed amendment; and must not have a perceived conflict of interest with any amendment proposed for the neighbourhood plan.

With the exception of those members who represent committees of Council, and whose term is concurrent with their appointment to that committee, members of the Committee will be appointed by Council to serve overlapping three year terms. Each three year term is scheduled to expire on the last day of June, three years from the date of appointment. This structure of overlapping three year appointments will provide continuity and consistency in the OCP amendment process by providing a mix of past experience with planNanaim0 and new community representatives. The temporary neighbourhood representative(s) will remain on PNAC only for meetings pertaining to OCP amendments in the neighbourhood plan area.

Page 3 of 5 SCHEDULE A PLAN NANAIMO ADVISORY COMMITTEE PROPOSED TERMS OF REFERENCE (Page 4 of 5) Tertns ofReference

CHAIR -. ! A Chair will be appointed, by Council, to the Committee. In the absence of the Chair, an Alternate Chair will be selected by the Cotnmittee.

QUORUM i A quorum for the meeting shall be a simple majority of the currently active positions on the Committee; however, the Committee may carry out its work at a tneeting in the absence of a quorum. The absence of a quorum will be specifically noted in the minutes. Any member who misses three consecutive meetings, where regrets were not received, shall be asked by the Chair to reconfirm their commitment to serve on the Committee. At the discretion of the Committee and in consultation with the member, a further absence of two consecutive meetings may constitute a report to Council to terminate the appointment and appoint a replacement member.

MEETING PROCEDURES Regular meetings will take place on a monthly basis. Special or ad hoc meetings shall be at the call of the Chair. All meetings will be held in open session and in a location accessible to the public. The order of busrness is to be as set out in an agenda package to be provided to the members in advance of the meeting date. Minutes of the meeting will be prepared and adopted by the Committee at its next regular meeting. Originals of the minutes will be retained by the Development Services Department. Individual applications submitted for review shall be dealt with in an open session. In each case, City Staff will initiate the review with a presentation of background information, including a summary of major policy issues applicable to the proposal. Where OCP andior zoning amendment applications are under review, the applicant and/or agent and the public shall be given the opportunity to address the Committee, following v~liichthe Committee members 'vurilf have an opportunity to address quest~onsto the applicant and Staff. The Committee tvill then formulate its position in relation to the proposal and provide its recommendation. The Committee's recommendation will then be forwarded to Council with a copy of all relevant minutes. If a Committee member has a conflict of interest or a perceived conflict, the member must declare their conflict of interest and leave the room until the discussion on that matter is completed. The identified conflict of interest and the removal and return of the member must be recorded in the minutes.

The Committee Chair or a Committee appointee will report to Council on behalf of the Committee. Any communication on behalf of PNAC by the Chair or appointee will be in accordance with a motion of PNAC on the form and content of the presentation. The Committee may report to Council on an issue within its mandate or other issues as requested by Council.

The budget allocation will be located within the Development Services Department .

Page 4 of 5 SCHEDULE A PLAN NANAIMO ADVISORY COMMITTEE PROPOSED TERMS OF REFERENCE (Page 5 of 5) Terms of Refet-et~ce

STAFF SUPPORT Staff support will be provided by the Development Services Department. Typically, the function includes the following: * organizing and preparing the agenda, in conjunction with the Chair, = distribution of the agenda package to the Committee members; = taking and preparing minutes; = provide information and research required by the Committee for tasks related to their mandate; = managing files of the Committee as necessary; = maintaining a list of outstanding issues for Comniittee action; = budget tracking and reporting; in conjunction with the Chair, drafting Committee reports to Council and an annual report; = provide the position of City staff on issues discussed by the Committee, and = other duties subject to authorization by the Director of Planning and Development.

These Terms of Reference were prepared on 1999-MAY-'18 and approved by Council on 2999JUN-28. These Terms of Reference \yere amended on 2005-MAY-24 and approved by Council on 2005MAY-30 These Terms of Reference were amended on 2006-SEP-19 and approved by Council on 2006-OCT-16. gt'~mmp~an~nac'~eneraI~201)4+\temof reference 2008 revised.doc

Page 5 of 5 STAFF REPORT

TO: A. TUCKER, DIRECTOR, PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, DSD

FROM: D. LINDSAY, MANAGER, PLANNING DIVISION, DSD

RE: AMENDMENTS TO CITY OF NANAIMO SIGN BYLAW

STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION:

That Council consider First, Second and Third Reading to "SIGN BYLAW AMENDMENT BYLAW 2008 NO. 7081".

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Bylaw 7081, if adopted, will prohibit animated, revolving and electronic changeable copy signage in Nanaimo.

BACKGROUND:

On 2008-JUL-14 Council directed Staff to bring forward changes to the Sign Bylaw that would prohibit Light Emitting Diodes (LED) signs on all properties within the City. In addition, Council requested Staff amend "SIGN BYLAW 1987 NO. 2850 to define LED signs and any other required housekeeping amendments to the Sign Bylaw.

Staff has reviewed signage bylaws in 14 other BC municipalities. Within all these municipalities what are often referred to as LED signs (due to use of LED'S to generate an image) are generally defined as animated and 1 or electronic changeable copy signs.

The current Sign Bylaw allows animation on signs where the sign is located in the downtown core. Animation is defined in the bylaw to mean:

"The direction of attention to a sign through the movement of one or more parts or through the impression of movement including colour changes, flashing lights, and illumination which exhibits noticeable changes in light intensity, but excludes digital time and /or temperature information, flags, banners or pennants. "

While this definition includes LED signs which incorporate moving graphics, it does not address electronic changeable text or graphics. In order to better regulate this form of signage, the proposed bylaw will define automated changeable copy as a sign on which copy can be changed electronically. 2008-SEP-24 - 2 - Sign Bylaw

The amendment bylaw, if adopted, will prohibit animated, revolving or electronic changeable copy signage anywhere in the City. Digital time and temperature signs as well as electronic gas price signage will be permitted.

Once adopted, property owners will still have the option of applying for a development variance permit to vary this standard. This will allow Council to consider animated or LED signs on a case-by-case basis giving due consideration to the proposed signs' location, neighbourhood impact, traffic safety issues, visual clutter and aesthetics. It should also be noted that Staff have already met with representatives of the Port Theatre regarding an animated LED sign that is being considered for that site. The new bylaw would not apply to the Port of Nanaimo Centre as Council has already approved the LED signage for that site.

Respectfully submitted,

-3

D. Li s Manager, Planning Division A.Director, Tucker Planning & Development vDEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT

~s/pm TO: CITY MANAGER Council: 2008-SEP-29 G: De~plan/Files/Legis/3900/301Z1/62~2008Sep29Sign Bylaw Cncl Rpt.doc 2008-SEP-23 STAFF REPORT

TO: A. TUCKER, DIRECTOR, PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, DSD

FROM: D. LINDSAY, MANAGER, PLANNING DIVISION, DSD

RE: HOUSEKEEPING AMENDMENTS TO CITY OF NANAIMO ZONING BYLAW

STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION:

That Council consider First and Second Reading to "ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT BYLAW 2008 NO. 4000.441".

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Bylaw 4000.441, if adopted, will result in 30 separate revisions to City of Nanaimo "ZONING BYLAW 1993 NO. 4000". The amendments are presented in two categories: general text amendments and map amendments. These are primarily minor amendments which will contribute to a clearer understanding and more effective enforcement of the City's existing land use regulations.

BACKGROUND:

City of Nanaimo "ZONING BYLAW 1993 NO. 4000" was adopted by Council at its regular meeting of 1993-JUL-26. The last routine amendment bylaw was adopted by Council 2007-MAR-12. In the past, Council has recognized that the Zoning Bylaw is subject to revision brought about by changing circumstances and the need for improved clarity. Periodic amendments are often the only way to maintain the effectiveness and relevancy of the zoning regulations.

Amendment No. 1 (Subsection 4.1.) Proposal: Delete the definition of "Building, Farm" and replace with the following: "FARM BUILDING" - means a structure which projects above the ground and which is used or intended to be used for the support, enclosure andlor shelter of animals, commercial crops, machinery or tools used for agriculture purposes." Rationale: The current definition of farm building does not include the term 'commercial crops'. Amendment No. 2 (Subsection 4.1.) Proposal: Delete definition of "Lot, Panhandle". Rationale: This amendment bylaw will discourage the creation of panhandle lots (see Amendment 17). As such, the definition of 'panhandle lots' is no longer required. 2008-SEP-23 -2- Zoning Bylaw Amendments

Amendment NO. 3 (Section 4.1) Proposal: Amend the definition of "Perimeter Wall Height" to clarify that wall height is measured from finished grade to the top of the wall plate. Rationale: Provides clarity regarding how wall height is measured. Amendment No. 4 (Subsection 4.1) Proposal: Add definition of "Pedestrian Trail", as follows: "PEDESTRIAN TRAIL" - means a place or passageway used only by pedestrian or cycle traffic. Rationale: Amendment 10 reduces the maximum allowable height for a fence along a pedestrian trail; this definition is required to clarify what is considered a pedestrian trail.

Amendment No. 5 (Subsectiori 4.'7) ' " Proposal: Amend definition of "Lot" to clarify phased boundaries are not considered lot boundaries and do not require setbacks. Rationale: Provides clarity in the case of multiple phase development projects. Amendment No. 6 (Subsection 4.7.) Proposal: Amend definition of "Shopping Centre" to include temporary automobile sales as a permitted use. Rationale: Temporary auto sales is a popular use within shopping centres and is currently permitted in Woodgrove Mall through Land Use Contract 1885, but is not permitted within Nanaimo's other Shopping Centres. Amendme~ntNo. 7-(Subsection 4. I) Proposal: Amend definition of "Yard" to clarify that for the purposes of this definition a fence is not considered a structure. Rationale: Provides clarity that fences do not need to meet the required yard setbacks for a lot. Amendment No. 8 (Section 4.1) Proposal: Delete the definition of "Campground" and replace with the following: "CAMPGROUND" - means a site intended for the temporary accommodation of travellers for vacation or recreational purposes in recreation vehicles or tents which are not occupied as principal residences and excludes a mobile home or recreational vehicle park, but may include as an accessory use: a laundry facility, washroom, and shower facilities, convenience store, restaurant, office and recreational facilities, provided such uses are limited to the occupants of the campground. Rationale: Amendment adds restaurant as an accessory use in order to allow campgrounds to provide attendees with an additional on-site amenity. Amendment No. 9 (Subsection 5.1.4) Proposal: Amend Subsection 5.1.4 to correct notwithstanding references. Rationale: The current Zoning Bylaw provides notwithstanding clauses that cover a number of specific building siting requirements. The notwithstanding Subsection refers to Section 5.1.5, which does not exist; the subsection should be referring to 5.1.4. 2008-SEP-23 - 3 - Zoning Bylaw Amendments

t. Amendment No. 10 (~ubsedtioh5.9.1) Proposal: Amend Section 5.9.1 to amend how fence height is measured. Rationale: Currently, fence height is measured from the average natural grade within 1 metre of both sides of the fence. In many cases natural grade is difficult to determine. This bylaw allows a fence to be measured from final lot grading plan, or where no grading plan exists, from natural or finished grade, whichever is lower. The amendment will result in fences being measured in a manner similar to other structures and will make it easier for surveyors, Staff and the general public to measure fence height. Amendment No. II (~ubsettions 3.9.6) Proposal: Amend Section 5.9.6 to reduce the maximum allowable height of a fence abutting a pedestrian trail to 1.8 metres (5.9 feet). Rationale: High fences can reduce the visibility of trailways from neighbouring properties thus reducing the visibility of pedestrians on the trailway. Reducing fence height can therefore positively affect the safety of trailways by increasing the number of 'eyes on the trail'. Amendment No. 12 (Subsection 5.12:2) -

Proposal: Amend Subsection 5.12.2 in order to allow a secondary suite within a Public Institution Zone where a single family dwelling is the only use on the lot. Rationale: On 2006-SEP-25 the Zoning Bylaw was amended to allow suites within multiple family and commercial zones where a single family dwelling exists with no other uses on the lot. This amendment will expand the previous provision to include P-2 lots. ~mendment-NO.13 (Subsection 5.:13.3) Proposal: Amend Subsection 5.1 3.3 to clarify that temporary accommodation is permitted within a recreational vehicle only during the construction of a single family dwelling on the lot, or for an unpaid guest of the owner or occupant of a single family dwelling, provided such use not exceed 42 days within the calendar year. Rationale: To clarify that residential occupancy of a recreational vehicle is only permitted on a vacant lot where a building permit has been issued. Amendment No. 14 (Subsection 5.14.4.4) Proposal: Add Subsection 5.14.4.4 to prohibit pet daycare and boarding kennel as a home based business. Rationale: The noise caused by this type of business has the potential to negatively impact a residential neighbourhood. Due to this concern, these types of businesses have previously been denied. The proposed amendment will provide clarity. Amendment No. 15 (Subsection 5.18.3) Proposal: Amend Subsection 5.18.3 to allow the Subdivision Approving Officer to exempt a parcel from the minimum lot frontage requirements for a corner lot. Rationale: Allows for more flexibility in approving proposed subdivisions and is consistent with the flexibility afforded to lot frontage requirements for interior lots. Amendment No. 16 (Subsection 5.18.4) Proposal: Amend Subsection 5.18.4 to allow the Subdivision Approving Officer to exempt a parcel from the lot depth requirement. Rationale: Allows for more flexibility in approving proposed subdivisions and is consistent with the flexibility afforded to lot frontage reqBQments for interior lots. 2008-SEP-23 - 4 - Zoning Bylaw Amendments

Amendment NO. 17 (subsection 5.18.9) Proposal: Delete Subsection 5.1 8.9. (panhandle lot regulations). Rationale: This amendment bylaw, if adopted, will discourage the development of panhandle lots. The Approving Officer discourages the development of this lot form. The bylaw is being amended to reflect this policy.

Amendment No. 18 (~ub~e~tio~s6.1.7.4, . 6.2:7.4, ,. 6.3.6.~ 6.4.7.2, 6.5.6.2, 6.6.8.3, 6.7.8.4.'\2nd 6.8.8.4) Proposal: Increase the allowable height of an accessory building with a steep roof pitch

Rationale: On lots with a single family dwelling with a steeply pitched roof the proposed amendment will allow the accessory building roof pitch to match. This amendment is consistent with the height requirements for single family dwellings which allow for greater heights for steep roofs. This amendment will increase the maximum height of an accessory building from 4.5 metres (14.76 feet) to 5.0 metres (16.4 feet) where the roof pitch is 6:12 or greater or to 5.5 metres (18.04 feet) where the roof pitch is greater than or equal to 8:12.

Proposal: Amend Section 6.3 to include regulations limiting the maximum allowable gross floor area and floor area ratio for a single family home. Rationale: House size restrictions already exist in all other residential zones other than RS-3. This amendment will provide greater consistency through out the community.

. . , . Amendment No. 20 (~ecion6.7.7.1) , - -- Proposal: Amend Section 6.7.7.1, which regulates the siting of buildings, to include accessory buildings. Rationale: The current wording in the Zoning Bylaw refers to accessory buildings used for parking but does not comment on accessory buildings used for other purposes. The proposed amendment will provide greater clarity. Amendment No. 21 (Section 7.3.6.4) Proposal: Amend Subsection 7.3.6.4 to reduce the required rear yard setback in the RM-3 (Townhouse) Zone from 10.5 metres (34.45 feet) to 7.5 metres (24.6 feet). Rationale: The proposed amendment will allow townhouse setbacks to be the same as the rear yard setbacks in single family zones. The 10.5m setback is excessive compared with other setbacks within the City. RM-3 supports townhouse form housing whose setbacks should match that of the single family zones. Amendment No. 22 (Subsection 7.8.8.2) Proposal: Amend Subsection 7.8.8.2 to reduce the maximum allowable height of a fence around a mobile home lot to 1.2 metres (3.94 feet). Rationale: The proposed 1.2 metre height requirement conforms to the fence height requirement for a mobile home lot within the Mobile Home Parks Bylaw. Amendment No. 23 (Subsection 9.4.2.5) Proposal: Delete Subsection 9.4.2.5, 9.5.3.2, and 9.7.2.3 which restrict the total floor area used for financial institutions and offices to 1,500 m2 (16,146 ft2). Rationale: Regulation was originally established when the OCP directed 'office' to downtown only. Current OCP encourages 'office' i? gl1 nodes. As such, this regulation is no longer required. 2008-SEP-23 -5- Zoning Bylaw Amendrnenfs

Proposal: Amend the Fine Schedule to include a fine for a "use not permitted" and a "leave strip encroachment". Rationale: Will allow Bylaw Officers to ticket for offences where the use is not permitted in a specific zone and for illegal construction within a watercourse leave strip.

Map Amendments

Proposal: Rezone 271 Pine Street (LOT 1, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN VIP71 136) from Single Family Residential (RS-la) to Public lnstitution (P-2), attached as Appendix '1' Rationale: To legalize the existing non-conforming Social Service Resource Centre (Nanaimo Foodshare) use on the property.

Proposal: Rezone 576115763 Hammond Bay Road (LOT I,DISTRICT LOT 38, WELLINGTON DISTRICT, PLAN 46620) from Single Family Residential (RS-1) to Residential Duplex (RM-1), attached as Appendix '2' Rationale: To legalize an existing legal non-conforming duplex use.

Proposal: Rezone a portion of the properties known as 1008 Thunderbird Drive (LOT 49, SECTION 16, RANGE 8, MOUNTAIN DISTRICT, PLAN 14680) and 1609 Meredith Road (LOT A, SECTION 16, RANGE 8. MOUNTAIN DISTRICT, PLAN VIP64036) from Public lnstitution (P-2) to Single Family Residential (RS-I), as shown on Appendix '3', attached. Rationale: Property is currently split-zoned. Rezoning the P-2 portion of the property to RS-1 corrects the split-zoning and will recognize the residential use of the property at 1008 Thunderbird Road. Map Amendment No. 4 Proposal: Rezone portion of the road bordering the property known as 2560 Bowen Road (LOT B, SECTION 20, RANGES 6 AND 7, MOUNTAIN DISTRICT, PLAN 43870) from Single Family Residential (RS-1) to the General Industrial Zone (1-3), as shown on Appendix '4', attached. Rationale: As part of proposed road realignment, the City's Land and Engineering Departments wish to close a portion of Labieux Road and consolidate a portion of the road with the property located at 2560 Bowen Road. The proposed rezoning will correct split- zoning, which would result from lot consolidation. Map Amendment No. 5 Proposal: Rezone 6021 Nelson Road (LOT 1, DISTRICT LOT 30, WELLINGTON DISTRICT, PLAN VIP56260) from Single Family Residential (RS-1) to Public lnstitution (P-2), attached as Appendix '5' Rationale: Property is used as Randerson Ridge Elementary School. P-2 zoning is needed in order to recognize the school use. 2008-SEP-23 -6- Zoning Bylaw Amendments

Proposal: Rezone part of 5186 Dunster Road (LOT 6, SECTION 4, RANGE 4, DISTRICT PLAN VIP80527) from Residential Duplex (RM-1) to Mixed Use Commercial (C-4), attached as appendix '6' Rationale: Property is to be consolidated with 5170 Dunster Road in order to permit a commercial/residential building. Rezoning will correct the split-zoning of the newly consolidated lot and allow the property currently known as 5186 Dunster to be included in the calculation of lot coverage and floor area ratio. The subject property area will be used for parking and landscaping.

Respectfully submitted,

0. ~iv A. Tucker Manager, Planning Division Director, Planning & Development DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT

Council: 2008-AUG-I I G: Devplan/Files/Legis/3900/30~2A1/79/2008Augl1Cncl Rpf Housekeeping Amendments.doc

To: CITY MANAGER FOR CITY MANAGERS APPENDIX 2

LOCATION PLAN SUBJECT Civic: 271 Pine Street mPROPERTY Rezone from RS-1 to P-2 NORTH APPENDIX 2

LOCATION PLAN SUBJECT mPROPERTY Civic: 576115763 Hammond Bay Road Rezone from RS-1 to RM-1 NORTH APPENDIX 3 w a N 00 a aH a0 4 4 4

Meredith Rd

UJ 0s a3 -5 D < (D 00 Or N A

Nelson St

- Civic: 1609 Meredith Road and 1008 Thunderbird Drive

LOCATION PLAN Rezone portion from P-2 to RS-1 Civic: La bieux Road Right-of-way wA Rezone portion from LOCATION PLAN RS-1 to 1-3 APPENDIX 5

LOCATION PLAN Civic: 6021 Nelson Road SUBJECT Rezone from RS-I to P-2 PROPERTY

NORTH APPENDIX 6

SUBJECT LOCATION PLAN PROPERTY Civic: 5186 Dunster Road Rezone from RM-I to C-4 NORTH STAFF REPORT

TO: A. TUCKER, DIRECTOR, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, DSD

FROM: D. LINDSAY, MANAGER, PLANNING DIVISION, DSD

RE: REDUCTIONS IN DEVELOPMENT COST CHARGES

STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION:

That Council: 1. consider First, Second and Third Reading to "BYLAW TO REDUCE DEVELOPMENT COST CHARGES (NOT-FOR-PROFIT RENTAL HOUSING) BYLAW 2008 NO. 7082"; and 2. consider First, Second and Third Reading to "HOUSING AGREEMENT BYLAW NO. 7083".

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Council, at its regular meeting of 2008-SEP-08, received a delegation from Kiwanis requesting Development Cost Charge (DCC) reductions for a not-for-profit seniors' development on Nelson Street. The purpose of this report is to outline Council's existing policy with respect to DCC reductions and to introduce a bylaw to formalize these criteria. The requirement for DCC

, reductions to be specified in a bylaw is in response to recent amendments to the Local Government Act.

In order to qualify for the recommended 50% reduction in DCC's the proposed Kiwanis development must register a Housing Agreement on the title. The agreement must be established by bylaw.

BACKGROUND:

Council, in January of 2000, established guidelines to be used when evaluating projects eligible for DCC reductions. The guidelines complied with the applicable legislation of the day and limited potential exemptions to not-for-profit rental housing (including supported living housing). The guidelines authorized a 50% reduction for those projects which met the criteria. The criteria outlined within this Council policy are as follows:

1. The housing development must be owned in whole or in part by federal government, provincial government, municipal government or a non-profit organization (including non- profit cooperative~). Page 2

2. The project must be eligible for a housing subsidy (either rent or capital) from a senior level of government.

3. At least 30% of the tenants must have a total income that falls within the Core Needs Income Threshold (CNIT) established for the City of Nanaimo and must receive subsidized rent.

4. A covenant or Housing Agreement restricting use of such housing must also be registered on title.

Since 2000 a number of projects have taken advantage of this policy and by meeting the established criteria have reduced DCC's by 50%. These include previous phases of the Kiwanis Development on Nelson Street, the recently constructed seniors' development on Tenth Street and the affordable housing project now underway on Bowen Road.

Bill 27 Amendments As part of their response to the issue of climate change, the provincial government recently gave assent to Bill 27, the Local Government (Green Communities) Statutes Amendment Act. The amendment act made changes to a variety of sections in both the Community Charter and the Local Government Act, including "development for which charges may be waived or reduced".

Previously the Local Government Act permitted municipalities to waive or reduce DCC's only for not-for-profit rental housing, including supportive living housing. Through Bill 27 the province has expanded this list to include:

for profit affordable rental housing; a subdivision of small lots that is designed to result in low greenhouse gas emissions; and development that is designed to result in a low environmental impact.

The amendment also states that a local government must, by bvlaw, establish:

what constitutes an eligible development; the amount or rates of reduction; and the requirements that must be met in order to obtain a waiver or reduction.

The specific requirement for a bylaw to establish the conditions and reduction rates is new under the amended Act. As such, if Council wishes to continue with the current practice of DCC reductions it must formalize its existing policy through the adoption of a bylaw.

Bylaw This bylaw, if adopted, will formalize Council's existing policy and grant 50% DCC reductions for non-profit rental housing including supportive housing and will include the criteria established in 2000. This bylaw formalizes the policy which has been in place since 2000; it does not expand the policy to include DCC reductions for other types of development at this time, although other DCC reductions now may be considered under the revised Act. Staff will be reviewing the other types of development that may be eligible for DCC reductions and will bring forward a report for Council consideration in 2009. 69 Page 3

Kiwanis Council, at its meeting of 2008-SEP-08, authorized a development permit for a 31-unit seniors' complex at 1237 Kiwanis Crescent. At the same meeting Council received a delegation from a representative of the Nanaimo District Senior Citizens' Housing Development Society requesting a reduction in the DCC's for this development. Under Council's existing policy, which is proposed to be formalized through Bylaw 7082, the development is eligible for a 50% reduction subject to the registration of a Housing Agreement. The associated Housing Agreement Bylaw is on this evening's agenda for Council's consideration of First, Second and Third Readings.

Respectfully submitted,

Director, Planning & Development Development Services Depattment Development Services Deparfment

DUpm/hd Council: 2008-SEP-29 G:DevPlan/Files/Land/3080-01/2008Sep29 Cncl Rpt DCC Reductions.doc STAFF REPORT

TO: A. TUCKER, DIRECTOR, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, DSD

FROM: D. LINDSAY, MANAGER, PLANNING DIVISION, DSD

RE: RA206 - 2124 & 2126 NORTHFIELD ROAD

STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION:

That Council: 1. consider First and Second Reading to "ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT BYLAW 2008 NO. 4000.444"; and 2. direct Staff to secure road dedication, lot consolidation, trail right-of-way, and register a covenant to secure pre-development storm levels, erosion control plan, and the community contribution.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City of Nanaimo has received an application from Art Crape, on behalf of H & J Welding & Machine Ltd., to rezone the subject properties from Transition Industrial Zone (1-1) to Corridor Zone (C-31) in order to facilitate the construction of a mixed use commercial and multi-family development. Staff support the application and recommend that Council approve the proposed rezoning.

BACKGROUND:

Subject Property and Surrounding Area The subject properties are located on the north side of Northfield Road approximately 80 metres east of the Bowen Road and Northfield Road intersection (Schedule 'A'). The total area of the two properties is approximately 6,319 m2 (68,016 ft2). The sites are currently occupied by a welding business, as well as a single family dwelling.

Abutting the subject properties to the north is Beban Park. To the east and west of the subject properties are 1-1 zoned sites. A portion of the subject property, 2124 Northfield Road, abuts the local shopping centre at the corner of Bowen Road and Northfield Road. Across the street to the south are RS-1 zoned lots.

Official Community Plan (OCP) The property falls within the Corridor designation according to Map '1' of the Official Community Plan (OCP). The relevant policies of the OCP are as follows: Development in the Corridors will be characterized by a mix of residential, commercial, professional, and service uses, with residential developed at medium to high densities. Residential densities of 50 to 150 units per hectare in two to six storey building forms shall be supported for Corridors. Page 2

Commercial services within mixed use development shall be supported in the Corridor designation. In mixed use developments, ground floor uses will be retail, office, or community uses that invite public activity. Residential andlor professional uses will be encouraged in upper storeys. Public parks and open spaces in the form of urban plazas, community gardens, and landscaped boulevards and open spaces are encouraged in Corridors. The development of primary parking areas between the front face of the buildings and the Corridor is not permitted. Energy efficient building design and practice will be promoted. Green Building strategies will be encouraged for all commercial, professional, or institutional facilities to reduce the use and waste of water and energy resources and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Future social and community services appropriate to the mix of land uses and demographics both within and surrounding the node shall be encouraged to locate within Corridors. This Plan supports the development of Corridors with a broad social mix and access to adequate housing at all income levels.

Staff is of the opinion that the proposed rezoning complies with the intent of the OCP. An amendment to the 1996 OCP was adopted by Council on 2007-SEP-10.

Proposed Development The applicant proposes to rezone the subject properties from Transition Industrial Zone (1-1) to Corridor Zone (C-31) in order to facilitate the construction of a mixed use commercial and multi- family development (Schedule 'B'). The development contains two main buildings: one building fronts Northfield Road with commercial on the ground floor and two stories of residential above; and a separate residential building is proposed at the rear of the site, overlooking Beban Park.

The mixed use building, fronting Northfield Road, is setback 3.0 metres from the street. The ground floor contains approximately 316 m2 (3400 ft2) of commercial area, and a total of 6 dwelling units are situated above within the second and third floors. The total gross floor area of the building is 1 109 m2 (1 1 934 ft2).

The proposed residential building, abutting Beban Park, contains 6 storeys, approximately 17.4 metres in height, with a total of 71 dwelling units. The gross floor area of the building is 8 622 m2(92 802 ft2).

A combination of surface and underground parking is proposed in order to accommodate 149 parking stalls, which exceeds the required number of onsite parking spaces.

Concept elevations are attached as Schedule 'C'.

Corridor Zone The 'Corridor' designation, which applies to the subject properties, is a new land use designation with the Official Community Plan, which was recently adopted (2008-SEP-08). As there is currently no zone that coincides with the OCP, Staff recommend the-creation of a 'Corridor Zone'. The Corridor Zone reflects the 'Corridor' designation and the policies of the OCP that encourage a broader approach with new multiple uses. The proposed zone characteristics are as follows: Page 3

-- I j Permitted Uses ! Day Care Facility !i

i 8 Dry Cleaners , ; , Financial Institutions 1 j 1 Laundromats ,i i Multiple Family Dwellings ! j i ! I Offices : / Restaurant I , 1 Retail Stores I Condition of Use I Parking not permitted between the street and the front 1 fa~adeof the building. i - -. -- r3m-eet res-.-- q j Front Yard Setback -l-._-l_-_l_.ll_ _ -l-._-l_-_l_.ll_ __-._____------lllI-----.~.l..--__--. - -. ". - i j Side Yard Setbacks i 0 metres !I .... _..__"I._.___.^",".^^..l^l.^ ,~.__I.___....^__.-_I_ _ ^ ___ .. _._^ _ / I Rear Yard Setback i 3 metres " ------I Height of Buildings 1 Maximum 6 storeys (19.8 metres / 65 feet) ,I i ! / Minimum 2 storeys , "." ". . ".. " " "

Trail Right of Way As a condition of rezoning, Staff recommend securing a 3 metre trail right-of-way in order to provide a mid-block pedestrian connection located along the east edge of 2124 Northfield Road connecting through to Beban Park.

Road Dedication In order to accommodate the ultimate road cross-section right-of-way along Northfield Road, dedication will be required. Staff recommend that the required dedication be secured as a condition of rezoning.

Lot Consolidation The proposed development is contemplated within two existing lots, therefore, Staff recommend that lot consolidation be a condition of rezoning.

Storm Drainage As a condition of rezoning Staff recommend registering a covenant to secure the retention and detention of onsite storm drainage to pre-development volumes and discharge characteristics.

Erosion & Sediment Control Staff recommend that a covenant be registered as a condition of rezoning which would restrict any regrading, vegetation removal or development of the site until such time as an erosion and sediment control program and grading plan has been submitted and approved.

Community Contribution As outlined in Section 7.3 of the OCP, in exchange for value conferred on land through a rezoning, the applicant should provide a community contribution. In response to Council's policy, the applicant is proposing $1000/dwelling unit, less the value for the trail right-of-way and trail construction, which is recognized as being -$50,000. The remainder of the community contribution will go towards the City's Housing Legacy Fund.

Staff support this proposal and recommend that Council direct Staff to secure the community contribution. Page 4

Rezoning Advisory Committee (RAC) At its meeting of 2008-MAY-01, RAC recommended that the application be approved as presented. Staff concur with this recommendation and recommend that Council support the proposed rezoning.

Respectfully submitted,

Director, Planning & Development Development Services Department

Council: 2008-SEP-29 To: CljY MANAGER Prospero: RA000206 OED FOR CITY MANAGER'S Rezoning Application No. RA000206 2124 and 2126 Norihfield Road

2220 Shopping /? J- - Centre I

a d- cU hl hl hl 7 T- T- hl hl c'l Northfield Rd

T- T-

File: RA000206 Civic: 2124 and 2126 Northfield Road LOCATION PLAN Subject 0 Property

Rezoning Application No. R~oo0206 Schedule C 2124 and 2126 Northfield Road ~evations I 2008-SEP-23 STAFF REPORT

TO: A. TUCKER, DIRECTOR, PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, DSD

FROM: D. LINDSAY, MANAGER, PLANNING DIVISION, DSD

RE: RA210 - 4750 RUTHERFORD ROAD

STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION:

That Council: 1. provide direction with regards to the proposed rezoning of the subject property; and 2. if Council is prepared to support First and Second Reading of "BYLAW AMENDMENT BYLAW 2008 NO. 4000.443", direct Staff to secure the proposed community contribution.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City has received an application from Brandon Crema, on behalf of Shape Property Management Corp (1854 Holdings Ltd. Inc.), for a site-specific rezoning to add 'liquor store' as a permitted use to the North Town Centre (formerly Rutherford Mall). The proposed zoning, if approved, will permit the relocation of the Foundry Pub liquor store to the North Town Centre. The application has been reviewed by Staff, the Rezoning Advisory and Social Planning Advisory Committees and is now ready for Council's consideration.

BACKGROUND:

Following a decade-long Provincial moratorium on the addition of new liquor stores the Province allowed new applications for a brief period of time from 2002-AUG-12 until 2002-NOV-29. Within that timeframe 17 applications were made to the Province for new liquor stores within Nanaimo. Of the 17 applications, 6 had zoning in place. The remaining 11 required rezoning.

Council, at its regular meeting of 2003-AUG-18, adopted rezoning criteria for Licensed Retail Stores (LRS's) and subsequently directed Staff to receive and process rezoning applications.

Since the adoption of Council's Liquor Control Strategy (2003-FEB-lo), the City has received 10 rezoning applications to permit 'liquor store'. The status of previous applications for 'liquor store' is outlined in the following table:

PUB/HOTEL LRS LOCATION STATUS

The Foundry Pub 125 Comox Road Rezoning application approved (2005-JUL-12). 4750 Rutherford Road Subject Application Page 2

PUB/HO TEL LRS LOCATION STATUS

Northgate Motor 6404 Metral Drive Rezoning application approved (2005-JUL-12). Inn

Piper's Pub 4700 Hammond Bay Road Rezoning application approved (2005-MAR-07).

Occidental Hotel 278 Selby Street Rezoning application approved (2005-AUG-15).

The Balmoral 6950 Island Highway Rezoning application approved (2005-AUG-29). Hotel North

Dizzy's 2980 Island Highway Rezoning application denied at First and Second North Reading (2004-JUN-21).

530 Fifth Street Application to rezone 530 Fifth Street transferred location to 1275 lsland Highway South, prior to application proceeding to Council (2005-NOV-21).

Rezoning application approved (2006-SEP-11). 1275 lsland Highway South

The Cambie 63 Victoria Street Rezoning application denied at First and Second Hotel Reading (2004-FEB-09).

3200 Island Highway Rezoning application approved (2006-SEP-11).

Chase River Pub ----- Application terminated by LCLB March 2003.

Coast Bastion Inn ---- Application terminated by LCLB April 2003.

Dorchester Hotel ---- Application terminated by LCLB November 2005.

Old Flag Inn ---- Application terminated by LCLB March 2003.

Subject Property The subject property is located on the northwest corner of the lsland Highway and Rutherford Road intersection (Schedule 'A'). The site is occupied by 'North Town Centre', previously known as 'Rutherford Mall'. The proposed LRS will be located to the rear of the property along Uplands Drive. The subject property is zoned Community Shopping Centre Commercial Zone (C-7).

Proposed LRS The applicant proposes to transfer the existing LRS from the Foundry Pub (125 Comox Road) to the proposed site at North Town Centre. A text amendment to the existing C-7 Zone is required in order to allow a 'liquor store' at the subject pr~gerty. Page 3

The existing LRS at the Foundry Pub is approximately 360 m2 (3,875 ft2) in area. The area of new LRS location within the North Town Centre is proposed to be 353 m2 (3,800 ft2), which is approximately the same size as the existing location (Schedule 'B'). The proposed hours of operation are daily from 9:00 a.m. to 11:OO p.m.

Official Community Plan The subject property is designated City Commercial Centre under the Official Community Plan (OCP). Staff is of the opinion that the application complies with the intent of the OCP.

Rezoning Criteria Council, at its regular meeting of 2003-AUG-18, adopted Rezoning Criteria for LRS's. The following chart attempts to summarize the criteria as they are applied to this application: I CRITERIA I RESPONSE The LRS should be on or in close Island Highway, Rutherford Road, and Uplands proximity to a major road. Drive are designated as major roads under the OCP. I yes I The LRS shall not be within 150 There are no schools within 150 metres of the metres of a school. subject site. Yes The LRS shall not be located There is not currently a nightclub in the vicinity adjacent to a nightclub. of the proposed LRS. I Yes The size of the LRS shall be 1 The applicant is proposin to construct an LRS consistent with the nature of the 1 of approximately 353 mP (3800 ft2) within an immediate area and the size of the existing shopping centre. existing retail stores. 1 Yes The design of the LRS should The location is part of an existing shopping enhance or improve the aesthetics centre. Yes of the surrounding area, not detract from them. Consideration shall be given to a Adequate on-site parking is provided for the requirement for on-site parking and shopping centre as a whole. Parking loading for each LRS within the requirements for the 'liquor store' are in keeping downtown core and mandatory with requirements for the centre. Yes outside the downtown core: 1 space 1 20 m2 of gross floor area must be provided. The applicant must outline his Applicant's response, attached as Schedule C. awareness of potential negative 1 impacts and include proposed limits For Council's on the hours of operation, the Consideration product range, target markets, property maintenance and beautification programs. Consideration of impact of LRS, The proposed LRS is approximately 200 metres when within close proximity of from a place of worship (Mennonite Church) on libraries, public recreation centres, the corner of Rutherford Road and Uplands FO~COU~C~I~S community centres, parks, places of Drive. The Oliver Community Centre is Consideration worship and other family-oriented approximately 460 metres from the proposed facilities. LRS. The projected traffic volumes and The proposed LRS is to be located within an on-street parking associated with existing commercial centre and will not generate the LRS should not negatively on-street parking. impact nearby residential and commercial areas. 80 Page 4

The support of local community, There is currently no neighbourhood association neighbourhood property owners in the area. and the local neighbourhood Undetermined association for the proposed LRS is important to Council's decision. The application shall be reviewed SPAC reviewed the application at its regular by the Social Planning Advisory meeting of 2008-SEP-10 and recommended Committee (SPAC). that the application be approved as presented. Yes The application shall be reviewed The RCMP reviewed the application and had no by the RCMP. concerns. Yes The application shall be reviewed WC reviewed the application at its regular by the Rezoning Advisory meeting of 2008-AUG-21 and recommended Committee (WC). that the application be approved as presented. Yes A copy of LCLB letter of approval The applicant has submitted a preliminary for the proposed LRS. approval letter for 4750 Rutherford Road. Yes

Community Contribution Section 7.3 of the OCP recommends that in exchange for value conferred on land through a rezoning the applicant should provide a community contribution. The applicant is proposing a community contribution of $10,000 towards a substance abuse program.

Summary The criteria established by Council to evaluate new LRS's is not a black and white exercise. There is some subjectivity as to each application's compliance or noncompliance. As well, there is no priority given to each criterion and there is no direction as to whether an application must meet one or all of the criteria. From Staff's perspective, it appears that the majority of the criteria have been met with this application.

Respectfully submitted,

A. Tucker Director, Planning & Development Development services Department Development Services Department

SS/pm To: CWMANAGER Council: 2008-SEP-29 Prospero attachment: RA210 ED FOR CITY MANAGER'S Rezoning Application No. ~~000210 Schedule A 4750 Rutherford Road Location Plan

File: RA000210 Civic: 4750 Rutherford Road LOCATION PLAN Subject 0 Property Rezoning Application No. RA000210 4750 Rutherford Road Rezoning Application No. RA000210 4750 Ruthetford Road

-+ EASEMENT PROPOSED LIQUOR STORE a 3,774 sf

I!-_ - -. - -. .- -.---L-- L......

-...... - .. -,

LIQUOR STORE-,> Communitv Impact Statement

Positive Impacts:

Conveniently located by drug store and proposed food store for one-stop shopping. Easy access from Island Highway. More conveniently located for residences living further from the downtown core. Draw in potential tenants for surrounding vacant retail spots to add to the "Marketplace" feel. Given the concentration of liquor licensed establishments in the downtown area, we feel the City of Nanaimo is better served by "spreading out" and relocating existing licenses in convenient, community oriented areas.

Potential Negative Impacts:

Possible neighborhood concerns of increased loitering and safety issues. Possible neighborhood concerns for the negative impact on children in the area.

Measures to be taken to prevent and/or address any negative impacts:

9 Location is an appropriate distance from family-oriented institutions, such as schools, Community centers, churches and parks. 3 Product mix will be designed to target older population i.e. large and higher end wine and spirits selection. 3 Store design will be to a high aesthetic standard. 3 Implementing store hours and security measures that will deter loitering.

Rezoning Application No. RA000210 Schedule C 4750 Rutherford Road 85 I Community impact Statement I STAFF REPORT

TO: A. TUCKER, DIRECTOR, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, DSD

FROM: D. LINDSAY, MANAGER, PLANNING DIVISION, DSD

RE: DP567 - 4989 WILLS ROAD

STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION:

That Council authorize the issuance of DP567 in order to permit construction of a mixed-use development on the subject property.

The application has three proposed variances:

Required Yard Setbacks The required yard setback on Rutherford Road is 7.5 metres (24.6 feet). The proposed building siting is 0.9 metres (3 feet), a proposed variance of 6.6 metres (21.7 feet).

Building Heiqht Building I The maximum building height is 14 metres (46 feet). The proposed building height is 15 metres (49.2 feet), a proposed variance of 1 metre (3.2 feet). Building 2 The maximum building height is 14 metres (46 feet). The proposed building is 14.25 metres (46.75 feet), a proposed variance of 0.25 metres (0.75 feet).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City has received an application for a development permit from the Avenir Group of Companies, on behalf of Edgewater Retirement Inc., to permit the construction of a mixed-use development with 183 units and two commercial retail units. The proposed development is in two buildings joined by an open air causeway.

Staff supports the proposed development plan, including the three proposed variances, and recommends that Council authorize the development permit.

BACKGROUND:

Subject Property The subject property is 1.69 hectares (4.2 acres) and is split-zoned; Mixed-Use Commercial Zone (C-4) and Multi-Family Zone (RM-5). Building I,a senior's congregate care facility, is located in the RM-5 zoned portion of the site and Building 2, a mixed-use building (commercial and multi-family) is located in the C-4 zoned portion of the site. - Page 2 -

The subject property is on the south-east corner of the Wills RoadIRutherford Road intersection. The south-west corner of the intersection is occupied by an office building, McDonald's and its parking lot occupies the north-west corner, and the north-east corner is currently vacant.

There was a previous development permit issued on the subject property (2006-FEB-13) which was to be completed in two phases. The development permit for Phase 1, which has elapsed, was for a mixed-use building with an urban plaza at the south-east corner of Wills Road and Rutherford Road.

According to Map 1 (Future Land Use Plan) of the Official Community Plan (OCP 2008), the subject property is designated Urban Node. According to Map 3 (Development Permit and Heritage Conservation Areas) of the OCP, the subject property is within Development Permit Area No. 5 (Steep Slopes Development) and No. 9 (Form and Character) and, as such, a development permit is required before a building permit can be issued.

Proposed Development

The proposed development consists of two buildings connected by an open causeway.

Buildinq 1 Building 1 is a four-storey senior's congregate care complex abutting Long Lake with a total floor area of 11,422.9 square metres (126,959 square feet) and includes 133 units. This building overlooks Long Lake, houses the senior congregate care facility, including recreational areas and communal dinning facilities for the campus.

Buildinq 2 Building 2 is a four-storey mixed-use building abutting Wills Road and Rutherford Road with a total floor area of 4,948.9 square metres (53,270 square feet) and includes 50 units. This building will be mixed-use building with two commercial rental spaces on the ground floor that relate to the overall development. The upper floors will have independent senior's housing. The proposed building fronts on an urban plaza. The urban plaza is designed to create a seamless transition from the public to the private realm.

The proposed concept landscape plan proposes a water feature at the entrance to Building 1. This aesthetic feature is used as part of the alternative storm water management system. The concept landscape plant palette is native and is in character with the existing plant material on site.

This development will construct a trailway in the riparian area abutting Long Lake and the Lakeview trailway to meet covenants established through the past rezoning.

Both buildings are well articulated. The two buildings are grounded to the site by two storeys of ledge stone detailing. The upper two floors exterior finishes are stucco; as well the cornice is a stucco feature.

Required Variances

Required Yard Setback The required yard setback on Rutherford Road is 7.5 metres (24.6 feet). The property line goes diagonally across the corner rather than up to the corner so the proposed building siting is 0.9 metres (3 feet), a proposed variance of 6.6 metres (21.7 feet). - Page 3 -

The geometry of the corner property line allows for the proposed building siting without impacting site lines. The corner in the right-of-way is being used as an extension of the urban plaza, which creates a good pedestrian refuge at the busy intersection. The proposed urban plaza was an approved feature of the previous mentioned development permit.

Buildinq Heiqhts Building 1 (Fronting Long Lake) The maximum allowed height is 14 metres (46 feet). Building 1 steps down the grade and is in a draw that runs through the site. The building height does not impact neighbouring views.

Building 2 (Fronting Rutherford Road) Building 2 is at the corner of Wills Road and Rutherford Road with a height of 14.25 metres (46.75 feet). The proposed design requires a height variance of 0.25 metres (0.75 feet). There is no impact on neighbouring views.

Desiqn Advisow Panel Recommendation:

The Design Advisory Panel, at its meeting held on, 2008-AUG-14, recommended that DP567 be approved, including the requested yard setbacks. The Panel felt that there was insufficient information available at the time of their meeting to assess the requested height variance.

The applicants have since clarified the extent of the height variances (maximum 1 metre). This variance is a direct result of the applicant attempting to design a building which responds to the natural topography.

Staff supports the application, including the variance, and recommend that Council authorize the development permit.

Respectfully Submitted,

Manager, ~~ivision Director, Planning and Development DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT

GNIhd COUNCIL: 2008-SEP-29 Prospero Attachment: DP000567 Development Permif No. ~~000567 Schedule A 4989 W~llsRoad Location Plan

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. DP000567 Subject LOCATION PLAN EBI property Civic: 4989 Wills Road Lot A, District Lot 17 and Section 5, Wellington District, Plan VIP65196

'PIa

Development Permit No. DP000567 Schedule I 4989 Wills Road Building I & 2 Height Calculations

LEGEND AU MEASUREMENTS ARE IN MERES

ELEVATIONS ARE GEODETIC BASE0 ON CONTROL MONUMENT 78H5443 - 115.922 SUBJECT TO CHAROES SHOW (P.I.o.ON nn~023-932-131)NO. FBIBIJOS

DIMENSIONS ARE OERlMO FROM LANO nnE OFFICE RECORDS MIS PLAN HAS BEEN PREPARE0 IN ACCGROANCE HM ME MUIUAL OF STANDARD PRAcncE

N- DENOTES NANRAL GRADE PLAN VIP64055 F- DENOTES FINISHED GRADE AS PER 8UllDING PUNS

BUILDING #1 BUILDING #2 Amrape noturn1 Amraga nolurol groda - 112.31 groda - 11497 Amrqa finished gwde - 112.39 Amragegmda - Rnlshad115.54 Mo#lmum pal of roof -126.31 Moximumroo1 -128.97 park 01

PlW.**d mdn Propoaad moln noor - 1in.o~ Rw- 115.75 Plqossd peak of Proporedroof - 129.15 psd of ?.-of - 127.18 DD EE138759 Varl~nca1.0 m raquoslod Vodoncs roquosted 0.25 m

scale 1: 500

SURVEYORS ENGINEERS PRESENT EU\NR*LBOUNOAW VICTORIA PARKSVILLE NANAIMO f SITEPLAN LONG LAKE

LOT 4 DISTRICT LOT i7 AND SECTION 5, WEWNGTON LXSTFET, PLAN VIP65196 EXCEPT PAAT IN PLAN W66194

OFAWN BI : EA PRWECT SUKVEYOR : OGW SCALE : AS SHOW I OAT€ : MAR I7 2005 Cartlfled Cones1 this dmy of Mat,2008. EDQEWATER REllREMEKT CORP.

B.C.LS.

4989 Wills Road Landscape Plan

3uggestcd Plant L~et

DINING TERWlCC @ @ 5EATING AWA + Par#oLlbles STREAMWny 0 5p:orl psvtnq @ @ PK0P05ED Kx!U&m% 05hldearbour3 0 canrfcrc~. :ree. for xrcco,ng oV'cwng 0 Shrub, lu Va3onsl ~nterrst @ PAIWNG A44 a- o Rrall~cnrpdnnq 0 Permerblc pwnq drive a,,~; 0 Cnn8lrr tree, tor 3crcenmg @ WALKING LOOP 0 Oppoif,a#ty gzrden, 0 A5phslt parhnq atrlla * 5nwb.l for 5ca~oml(nrercc @ STONE 5TP.l- @ LONG WAE 1RAIL @ RAMP 10IJNDCRG- @ .%%%AD @ VlEWNG PAVIUON 0 5pcc8al panng @ DECIDUOI?~5HOE TeL @ Wl5TlNG "€Gem 0 Interpretive bo2~4 eencnes 8 PUVATE PATlO @ RIPI\R\ANrNHANCCMeNT AREA RflAlN I PROTeCT EXl511NG b 5pcc8al pr#nq @ GARDCN OKY 'IBCBhi 0 Rr-uegctat. tn15 4 WorM~raded NATURAL ROCK OVTCkOPPING HABITAT @ ' xu5 along Iale,horc sprcie, >TOKMWKEm@ ACTlVlTi PSDM TCWC @ WATER AATURC 8 nlllve lo Lns Immcdlzte arc,

EDGEWATER NANAIMO REVISED SEPTEMBER 22,2008 REVfSED JULY 9. 2008 phme IZ~IIan. 61717 LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN SCALE: 1 /32"=1'-oW JUNE 9,2008 .I, ".lhlrnl "4"- uc tml* YiYlXl Development Permit No. DP000567 4989 Wills Road

rHeA1SIDUW GALVANIZED STEEL WIFE PWTE ANCHORS - I PER POST - BOLT

EDGEWATER - NANAIMO FORTH PLANNING TRAILHEAD DETAIL PLAN SCALE: 1 /4"=1'-ofl SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 Development Permit No. DP000567 Schedule M 4989 Wills Road Trailhead Detail Plan

EDGEWATER - NANAIMO TRAILHEAD SECTION DETAIL 2008-SEP-22 STAFF REPORT

TO: A. TUCKER, DIRECTOR, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, DSD

FROM: R. GRANT, DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS MANAGAER, DSD

RE: DVPI34 - 699 WESTERN ACRES ROAD

STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION:

That Council issue development variance permit No. DVP134 at 699 Western Acres Road to vary the servicing requirement that each new lot created be serviced by a connection to a community sanitary sewer system in order to allow an application for subdivision of the parent parcel to reinstate previously existing lot lines and recreate three original lots. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City of Nanaimo has received a development variance permit application from Terry and Linda Morrison to vary the servicing requirement to allow an application for subdivision of the parent parcel to reinstate previously existing lot lines and recreate three original lots.

Council, at its regular meeting of 2008-SEP-08, directed Staff to proceed with the statutory notification process for DVP134 at 699 Western Acres Road. The notification process is now complete and, as such, this application is returning for Council's consideration.

BACKGROUND:

Subject Property The subject property is the site of an existing single family dwelling. The site is zoned RS-3 and has a total lot area of 17,280 square meters (4.27 acres). The existing single family dwelling has a septic sewage disposal system, an existing community water service connection and storm drainage from the site currently goes to an existing ditch system in the City street.

Proposed Development The original subdivision was approved by the Department of Highways Approving Officer on 1969-OCT-31 and registered in the Land Titles Office on 1970-JAN-15 creating Lots 1 to 50, Plan 22763 (aka Western Acres). Under the standards of the day the lots were created with community water services and sanitary sewer was to be dealt with by way of septic sewage disposal systems.

A Mr. Gutteridge purchased three of these lots (Lots 18, 21 and 22) and consolidated them to create Lot A (DDC82124) Plan 22763 on 1974-AUG-12. The City of Nanaimo underwent amalgamation in 1976 and the lot and surrounding area became part of the amalgamated City. This property is within the Urban Containment Boundary (UCB) and designated Suburban Neighbourhood under the current "Official Community Plan" (OCP) adopted in 1996 and will remain inside the UCB under the revised OCP in 2008.

The applicants, Mr. & Mrs. Morrison purchased this property on 2003-MAY-23 and now wish to subdivide the lot to re-establish the previously existing lot lines and recreate the original 3 lots. - Page 2 -

There are two additional community water services to the lot in addition to the water service to the existing house (the three water connections serviced the three original lots). Storm drainage from the existing lot is accommodated by the existing ditch system and the storm drainage from the two additional lots could be handled in the same manner.

The applicants have provided a Site Assessment Information Report dated 2008-AUG-20 prepared by Mr. Bob Sovereign of Lewkowich Geotechnical Engineering Ltd., which indicates that sanitary sewer disposal by way of septic sewage systems on each of the two additional lots is possible to today's standards.

Under existing bylaws in the RS-3 zone, lots of the size proposed require sanitary sewer connections from a community sanitary sewer system. Individual sanitary sewer service connections to each of the lots from a community sanitary sewer system cannot be provided due to the fact that the closest City of Nanaimo sanitary sewer system is approximately 1 km distant from the parent parcel.

Council would have to approve a variance to the servicing standards to allow the subdivision to proceed with sanitary sewer disposal by way of a septic sewage disposal system for each of the lots.

This would mean varying Section 5.18.1 and Section 6.3.3.1 of Bylaw 4000 the "Zoning Bylaw" and Section 18.7 of Bylaw 3260 the "Subdivision Control Bylaw" to exempt the subdivision from this servicing requirement.

Staff believe that the variance is only necessary due to the actions of the previous owner who consolidated the three lots. In Staff's experience this is a unique set of circumstances and is not likely to be encountered again and that granting the variance will in no way set a precedent for any future decisions.

Respectfully Submitted,

A. ucke Development ~hrovalsManager Director, Planning and Development DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT

RGIlr COUNCIL: 2008-SEP-29 Prospero: DVPI 33

jO: ClTY MANAGER FOR ClTY MANAGERS

T TO COUNCIL 1 i-' GE/'I*-- fl L MANAGE DEVELCPMEHI xmca SCHEDULE A

DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PERMIT NO. DVP00134 LOCATION PLAN Civic: 699 Western Acres

Subject Property

2008-SEP-19 STAFF REPORT

TO: A. TUCKER, DIRECTOR, PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, DSD

FROM: B. ANDERSON, MANAGER OF COMMUNITY PLANNING, DSD

RE: REPORT OF THE PUBLIC HEARING HELD THURSDAY, 2008-SEP-04 FOR BYLAW NO. 6500.001

STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION:

That Council receive this report and the minutes of the Public Hearing held on Thursday, 2008-SEP-04.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

A Public Hearing was held on 2008-SEP-04, the subject of which was one item. Approximately 345 members of the public were in attendance. Minutes of the Public Hearing are attached.

BACKGROUND:

1. BYLAW NO. 6500.001:

OCP37 - 950, 960, 1170, 1260, 1270 Phoenix Way

This bylaw, if adopted, will make text amendments to the City of Nanaimo "OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN BYLAW 2008 NO. 6500" to provide for a comprehensive mixed use resort development of recreational, commercial and residential uses.

The proposed amendments will provide for development of a golf course, and residential and commercial uses within the area known as the Cable Bay lands. The new 'Resort Centre' designation is intended to provide for a mixed use district designed around a core of recreational and commercial uses. A primary recreational facility (the golf course) will be supported by a parks and open space network, and residential neighbourhoods and accommodations in close proximity to small-scale commercial activity. The residential neighbourhood areas are intended to provide a mix of housing types, ranging in densities from 10 to 50 units per hectare, at a maximum height of four storeys.

This bylaw, if adopted, will also add Schedule G to include the Cable Bay Plan as part of the Official Community Plan. Objectives of the Cable Bay Plan address the requirement to prepare a comprehensive Master Plan and Phased Development Agreement prior to development of the site, with specific policies related to land use, transportation and mobility, utilities and public services, and future planning. Page 2

This bylaw, if adopted, will also amend Map 1 (Future Land Use Plan) of the "OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN BYLAW 2008 NO. 6500" by redesignating the subject properties from 'Urban Reserve' to 'Resort Centre'.

The subject properties are legally described as a portion of Lot 4, Sections 21, 22 and 23, Range 2, and Section 21, Range 3, Cedar District, Plan VIP65621; Section 21, Range 3, Cedar District, Except the Westerly 10 Chains Except Those Parts in Plans VIP59192 and VlP65621; Section 20, Range 3, Cedar District, Except That Part in Plan VIP59192; Section 21, Range 4, Cedar District; and Section 20, Range 4, Cedar District.

This application appears before Council this evening for consideration of Third Reading and Adoption.

51 verbal submissions and 41 written submissions were received for this bylaw.

Respectfully submitted,

Manager of Community Planning Director, Planning & Development Development Services Department Development Services Department

/@ Council: 2008-SEP-29 g:\devplan\files\admin\0575\20\2008\repos\2008sep29ph rpf. doc

FOR CITY MAW\GEffS MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC HEARING HELD PURSUANT TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, VANCOUVER ISLAND CONFERENCE CENTRE, MOUNT BENSON BALLROOM, 101 GORDON STREET, NANAIMO, BC, ON THURSDAY, 2008-SEP-04, TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF NANAIMO "OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN 2008 NO. 6500"

PRESENT: His Worship Mayor G.R. Korpan, Chair Councillor W.L. Bestwick Councillor M.D. Brennan Councillor J.D. Cameron Councillor W.J. Holdom Councillor L.D. McNabb Councillor C.S. Manhas Councillor L.J. Sherry Councillor M.W. Unger

STAFF: E.C. Swabey, General Manager, DSD B. Anderson, Manager, Community Planning, DSD D. Lindsay, Manager, Planning Division, DSD C. Hall, Steno, Community Planning, DSD P. Masse, Planning Clerk, Planning Division, DSD

PUBLIC: There were approximately 345 members of the public present.

CALL TO ORDER:

Mayor Korpan called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm. Mr. Swabey explained the required procedure in conducting a Public Hearing and the regulations contained within Section 892 of the Local Government Act. Mr. Swabey read the item as it appeared on the Agenda, adding that this is the final opportunity to provide input to Council before consideration of Third and Final Reading on "OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN BYLAW 2008 NO. 6500" at the Council meeting of 2008-SEP-29.

1. BYLAW NO. 6500.01:

OCP37- 950, 960, 1170, 1260, 1270 Phoenix Way

This bylaw, .if adopted, will make text amendments to the City of Nanaimo "OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN BYLAW 2008 NO. 6500 to provide for a comprehensive mixed use resort development of recreational, commercial and residential uses.

The proposed amendments will provide for development of a golf course, and residential and commercial uses within the area known as the Cable Bay lands. The new 'Resort Centre' designation is intended to provide for a mixed use district designed around a core of recreational and commercial uses. A primary recreational facility (the golf course) will be supported by a parks and open space network, residential neighbourhoods and accommodations in close proximity to small-scale commercial activity. Public Hearing Minutes -2- 2008-SEP-04

The residential neighbourhood areas are intended to provide a mix of housing types, ranging in densities from 10 to 50 units per hectare, at a maximum height of four storeys.

The subject properties are legally described as a portion of Lot 4, Sections 21, 22 and 23, Range 2, and Section 21, Range 3, Cedar District, Plan VIP65621; Section 21, Range 3, Cedar District, Except the Westerly 10 Chains Except Those Parts in Plans VIP59192 and VIP65621; Section 20, Range 3, Cedar District, Except That Part in Plan VIP59192; Section 21, Range 4, Cedar District; and Section 20, Range 4, Cedar District.

Mr. Swabey gave a brief overview of the proposal (attached as a part of "Schedule 'A', Submissions for Bylaw No. 6500.01 ").

Mr. Glenn Brower, Cable Bav Lands Inc. - Applicant Representative, Project Manager

Mr. Brower's presentation is attached as a part of "Schedule 'A', Submissions for Bylaw No. 6500.01 ".

Ms. Jennifer O'Rourke, 6108 Parkwood Drive - Opposed

Ms. O'Rourkels presentation is attached as a part of "Schedule 'A', Submissions for Bylaw No. 6500.01 ".

Mr. Jordan Ellis, 5314 Williamson Road - Opposed

Mr. Ellis' presentation is attached as a part of "Schedule 'A', Submissions for Bylaw No. 6500.01".

Ms. Barbara McPherson, 2768 Nicola Road - Opposed

Ms. McPherson's presentation is attached as a part of "Schedule 'A', Submissions for Bylaw No. 6500.01 ".

Mr. James Younqer. 282 Victoria Road - Opposed

Not enough information available. Concerned about the infrastructure and the higher costs for water and sewer. A new fire station would be needed for a development of this size. Roads are not adequate and need upgrading. Increas26 Qaffic will make it even more dangerous. Public Hearing Minutes -3-

Mr. Bill Yokum, 1717 White Blossom Way - In Favour

Acting Chief for Snuneymuxw First Nation, Viola Wyse sends regrets. This project will be good for Snuneymuxw territory and the city. Developer has treated Snuneymuxw and the land with respect.

Mr. Gord Fuller, 604 Nicol Street - Opposed

Has no association with Cable Bay properties. Questioned whether this process is redesignating the property to a Resort Centre designation or creating a Resort Centre designation.

Mr. Swabey stated that this is a proposed amendment to create a new designation within the new OCP, adding that the new OCP is scheduled to go before Council on 2008-SEP-08 for adoption. If the new OCP were adopted, this would become a proposed amendment to the new OCP.

Mr. Fuller asked how a property could be redesignated to a designation that does not exist.

Mr. Swabey noted that nothing is being adopted tonight. The proposed Cable Bay amendment is at First and Second readings. This is a proposed amendment until it is adopted by Council. There will be a new OCP in place before this is adopted.

Mayor Korpan stated that many varied applications are filed throughout the course of the year, and they may or may not correspond to a timeframe that relates to other activities. The new OCP is anticipated to be adopted 2008-SEP-08 and Council has the ability to work in concurrent and parallel processes for applications, such as this proposal. Emphasized that this amendment application will not get adopted or even considered for adoption until after the new OCP is adopted.

Mr. Fuller noted that he is still unclear if we are here to create the designation, or redesignate the property to a non-existent designation.

Mr. Swabey stated that we are here for input to do both those things. The bylaw before Council creates the definition for 'Resort Centre', and proposes to apply it to the property.

Mr. Fuller noted that a Public Hearing has already been held on revisions to the OCP, and the public is not allowed to communicate to Council regarding the OCP after a public hearing. Cannot support redesignating a property to a non-existent designation.

Mr. Swabey noted the draft OCP, which went to public hearing, and does not include redesignating the Cable Bay lands to Resort Centre, cannot be discussed, -as its public hearing is complete. However, the proposed bylaw affecting Cable Bay can be discussed, as it is not yet part of the new OCP.

Mr. Richard Johnston, 3802 Sundown Drive - In Favour

Urges Council to support the Cable B~-Q~velopment. Public Hearing Minutes - 4 - 2008-SEP-04

Nanaimo needs a diversified and vibrant economy, which can lead to opportunities for growth from increased business and trade to enhanced educational, social and community amenities. Fairwinds and Morningside golf course developments were catalysts for Nanoose and Parksville/Qualicum to build quality housing worth millions of dollars and the related community facilities and services. Golf course projects lead to sustainable growth and must be supported for the wellbeing of future generations. Cable Bay will provide hundreds of start-up construction and subsequent ongoing jobs well into the future.

Mr. Russ Burke, 6061 Parkway Drive - In Favour

No affiliation to the developer. If we are to remain a viable, sustaining economy, we need quality infrastructure. This project will provide quality infrastructure and attract quality clients to the area, who will then stay and invest in our community.

Mr. John Lund, 220 Townsite Road - In Favour

Mr. Lund's presentation is attached as a part of "Schedule 'A', Submissions for Bylaw No. 6500.01".

Mr. Mark McDonald, 51 18 Broadmore Avenue - In Favour

Supports the Cable Bay project as it will provide tax dollars and benefit the City. If Cable Bay is developed as projected, Nanaimo could have its own Bear Mountain (Langford, BC). That community has benefitted, including the tax base. It is within the rights of the developer, as private landowners, to utilize their property for other uses that may not be as beneficial to the community.

Mr. Jason Ranks, 1589 Latimer Road - In Favour

Has no connection with the developer. He and his company LPL are in full support of this project. Questioned whether the developer would use local, eco-friendly contractors.

Mr. Bill McKay, 1844 Evergreen Wav - In Favour

This development intended to be an economic stimulator. $7 million per year in taxes and $51 million to build-out is "nothing to sneeze at". He, and the company he manages, is very much in favour of this project.

Mr. Frank Mazze, 522 Vancouver Avenue - In Favour

Sees the Cable Bay project as a positive for Nanaimo's growth overall and for his 34 employees and their families. This is ~~~itivething for Nanaimo. Public Hearing Minutes -5-

Mr. Lawrence Rieper, 990 Campbell Street - Opposed

Mr. Rieper's presentation is attached as a part of "Schedule 'A', Submissions for Bylaw No. 6500.01 ".

Mr. John Carver, I16 Prideaux Street - Opposed

Mr. Carver's presentation is attached as a part of "Schedule 'A', Submissions for Bylaw No. 6500.01 ".

Mr. Swabey stated there would be a requirement for a development permit prior to a subdivision or development occurring. The permit would seek to evaluate the environmental study along with the proposed plan, and it may constrain or require areas of the property not to be, or the areas that are sensitive be protected.

Ms. Marianne Erb, 2690 Elk Street - In Favour

Has no affiliation with the developer. When people consider a large project, they automatically become afraid. One concern revolves around the idea that a sufficient amount of people would not move here to support a project of this scale. Since 1990 a large number of people have moved to Vancouver Island and to Nanaimo, we need housing to accommodate people relocating here from all over the world.

Mr. Bruce Partridqe, 1689 Woobank Road - Opposed

No affiliation with Cable Bay. Puzzled by the apparent rush to move this project ahead and amend the OCP before it is adopted. Questioned abandoning the referendum process to hold this public hearing when 8000 citizens said no to the project. Questioned the rush to approve a development when financial, environmental and servicing information has only been provided by the developer and not independent sources. Some people have previously stated that it is because of campaign fund contributions or Council making money from real estate commissions or contracts.

Mayor Korpan stated that if there was a conflict of interest, or if there was any member of Council that had any financial relationship with any proponent, they would be subject to the Criminal Code of Canada. We are here to talk about the proposed amendment to the new OCP.

Ms. Rhonda Kelly, 2382 Hemer Road - In Favour

Part-time bookkeeper for the Cable Bay site supervisor. Job creation inevitable and positive for the community. Cable Bay project played a pivotal role in saving the near-closure of a community elementary school due to the projected growth of the area associated with the project. The community needs the amenities associated with this project. Applicants have been sensitive to community concerns. 112 Public Hearing Minutes -6-

Mr. Alec McPherson, 2678 Nicola Road - Opposed

Mr. McPherson's presentation is attached as a part of "Schedule 'A', Submissions for Bylaw No. 6500.01".

Ms. Kelly McClure, 1499 Townsite Road - In Favour

As a mother, VIU graduate and hospitality / tourism employee, she supports the proposal. Extension of Cable Bay Trail will be beneficial to community. Safety and functionality will be greatly increased. This project will contribute 500+ jobs into the community during the build-out, and 500+ permanent and part time opportunities in the future.

Ms. May Partridqe, 1689 Woobank Road - Opposed

Ms. Partridge's presentation is attached as a part of "Schedule 'A', Submissions for Bylaw No. 6500.01".

Ms. Christel Martin, 641 Stirling Avenue - Opposed

Concerned about toxins discharged into the community due to Harmac operations. Cable Bay lands are directly downstream from Harmac and at risk to these toxins. Golf courses use chloride, which is unsafe for children and the community at large.

Mr. Ryan Brown, 740 Starling Place - Opposed

Believes that containing urban growth, developing infill sites and densification needs to be priorities for Nanaimo's growth and economic sustainability. Believes there is enough existing developable land for the next 20+ years; unreasonable to assume there is a need for the potential housing capacity generated by this project. Residential densities should be increased within existing urban areas in Nanaimo and not in isolated, rural areas. Sandstone will also substantially increase residential densities. Environmental issues require more careful consideration in determining the real sustainability of a residential golf course resort and spa. The inner city needs densification in order to increase its economic resiliency in the face of global warming and to increase the viability of transit.

Mr. Chris Erb, 2690 Elk Street - In Favour

Current president of the Canadian Home Builders of BC (CHBC). Has discussed environmental and employment concerns with the applicant and they have made a commitment to the CHBC to ensure every home within the development is at a minimum level of Built Green Gold. Local employment will be dramatically increased due to this project. Public Hearing Minutes - 7-

Ms. Marvie Leshtrek, 502 Bluegirl Way - In Favour

The Cable Bay project is a first-class resort, an immense asset for Nanaimo as a whole and will have a positive impact on the City's ability to attract tourists. Guests at high-end resorts tend to stay longer and spend more money; given that downtown Nanaimo is becoming a vibrant creative arts and culture district, Cable Bay will attract visitors who will most likely want to come to our downtown and explore our creative shops and restaurants. Fully supports a decision to change the OCP designation to Resort Centre.

Mr. Chris Shark, 3520 Monterey Drive - In Favour

There is a downturn in the forest industry right now, which is negative for the City. Development is good for the community; people depend on this to feed their families. This developer has shown respect for the environment and native interests, and has utilized local engineers and contractors. Community should feel comfortable supporting the development as it is positive for the City and for the future of Nanaimo.

Ms. Christina Nicol, 80 Pirates Lane - Opposed

1900 residential units could accommodate as many as 4000 people. Questioned if the developer has included a school in the plans or if it will end up being the responsibility of the taxpayers. $600 per unit for sewer connection previously quoted by a speaker is low.

Mr. Swabey noted that the cost of bringing sewer service into the property would be considerable and it will be borne by the developer. The actual hook-up fees will be paid as each lot develops. It will be far in excess of $600 per lot.

Ms. Nicol noted her concern about water and questioned if the water would come from the supply that the pulp mill is currently using or from the Duke Point pipeline.

Mayor Korpan stated that the Harmac water system is completely separate from the Duke Point pipeline, adding that the developer referred to accessing the existing City (southwest Extension) and Snuneymuxw facility.

Ms. Nicol stated that she is concerned whether there is enough water. Questioned if the reservoir expansion would be paid for by all taxpayers, including Cable Bay.

Mayor Korpan noted the current study, with regard to water supply, envisions what is needed over a 50-60 year period; it is a matter of timing and who will contribute to that overall cost.

Ms. Nicol noted that the water supply is not infinite. Worried once this is approved the developer could request changes or the project could be flipped to a new developer. Does not believe the project should be approved prior to having complete plans. Do not have enough information about the proposed development, including its uses, ownership and demographics. 114 Public Hearing Minutes -8-

Mr. Stu Kraus, 5316 Katsura Lane - In Favour

His wife works for Cable Bay and he is a friend of Roger McKinnon. Strongly supports the development. Living in the north end of Nanaimo does not preclude residents from going downtown; he and his family spend most of their disposable income in the downtown. The Cable Bay development, done properly, and scrutinized by City Council through City processes, will give the City the ability to set a very high standard for future developments. Nanaimo is in need of additional golf courses.

Mr. David Dunaway. 1638 Morden Road - Opposed

Not affiliated with the Cable Bay developer. The proposed definition for mixed-use resort in this amendment is inconsistent with Goal 6 of the Regional Growth Strategy; it appears that we need an amendment to the Regional Growth Strategy before we can have an OCP amendment.

Mr. Jeff Thomas, 1493 Sywatt Street - In Favour

Supports the amendment and welcomes the 500-600 jobs this project will create. For the last 40 years Harmac was Cedar's largest employer. This is something to look forward to for the children. Naysayers opposed the beautiful conference centre as well.

Mr. Frank Garnish, 2512 Barnes Road - Opposed

Sat with City Council members when producing the Regional Growth Strategy, which was commended throughout BC as precedent setting. Feels that it is being decimated. Worries what the effect will be on downtown revitalization by two large developments at opposite ends of the city and if developments continue outside of the downtown. Believes there would be no incentive to go downtown. Sustainability is very important and believes we are not sustainable. Leadership requires due diligence; believes City staff and experts not affiliated with the developer need to check information for accuracy. Attach a referendum to the upcoming election, at minimal cost. This will allow the citizens of Nanaimo to decide.

Mayor Korpan noted there is no issue to put to a referendum.

Mr. Gunnar Rasmussen, 53 Howard Avenue - In Favour

No affiliation with Cable Bay. Questioned what other developments are under consideration, including Sandstone.

Mr. Swabey noted that the Sandstone development was previously known as the lnucan ~ands, and described its general location. 115 Public Hearing Minutes -9- 2008-SEP-04

Mr. Rasmussen asked if there has been any allowance made for rights-of-way for potential highways going over to Gabriola Island and who owned lands between Joan Point Park and the Harmac lands.

Mayor Korpan stated that would be a process the City have to confirm with various provincial agencies and departments as to what their approvals are and if there were aspects with respect to road rights-of-way, then the Ministry of Transportation would set their parameters and incorporate it.

Mr. Swabey noted that Island Timberlands, not Harmac, owns the lands.

Supports the development but noted that Council must consider the effect this development will have on surrounding lands.

Mayor Korpan noted that all of the factors mentioned tonight would be considered along with various reports from Staff, consultants and public opinion to try to come to a balanced and reasoned decision.

Mr. Fred McDonald, 137 Stewart Avenue - Opposed

Has no affiliation with the Cable Bay developers. This amendment is not positive, is not sustainable or environmentally viable. This project is a lobby about money. Remember the OCP that you worked so hard on, it should be about sustaining the City so that we can live, walk, and raise our families in a healthy, sustainable environment. Finish current incomplete projects and in 30-40 years look at Cable Bay.

Mr. Graham Johnstone, 1932 Bostrom Road, Cedar - Opposed

Has no affiliation with the Cable Bay developers. Electoral Area A OCP has strong emphasis on rural values, home-based businesses, and low impact on neighbourhoods. How does a 4-star hotel and spa fit in to that vision? There is not enough information for Council to decide at this point. Developer said it was just a vision, with no detailed plan as of yet. Electoral Area A OCP states that there should be a clear separation between rural and higher density residential and commercial land uses. How will that occur with Cable Bay coming in to the area? Electoral Area A OCP comments on enhancing rural lifestyles and avoiding urban sprawl by directing higher density uses within the UCB7s. How will this development enhance a rural lifestyle and avoid urban sprawl within Electoral Area A? Need to take global issues and concerns into consideration; developing land exasperates climate change effects. How will you preserve water when golf courses use over one million litres per day? This will destroy local water habitats due to the fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides that would be used to maintain the golf course. How will a development like this reduce the municipality's carbon footprint or meet LEED Silver certification standard?

Mayor Korpan responded by noting that the City's position with respect to LEED Silver relates to City-funded facilities. 116 Public Hearing Minufes - 10- 2008-SEP-04

The City does not have the authority to force the private sector to conform to LEED standards; however, environmentally sound standards are always encouraged. If Council adopts this proposal, it would expect this project to abide by all municipal, provincial and federal laws.

Ms. Amber Harris, 4884 Fillinner Crescent - In Favour

Questioned if this is a temporary plan, and if all detailed plans still need to be finalized. The project amenities would be a great benefit to the community. There are solutions to environmental concerns that could be implemented.

Mr. Swabey confirmed that a considerable amount of detail would need to be provided in order to develop a Master Plan.

Ms. June Ross, 3400 Rock City Road - Opposed

Opposed to redesignating the lands, the movement of the UCB and creation of additional urban sprawl. Environmental concerns include water usage, pesticide / herbicide usage, aquifer depletion and loss of habitat. This proposal is not economically or environmentally sustainable.

Ms. Ann Fiddick, 1431 lvor Road - Opposed

Ms. Fiddick's presentation is attached as a part of "Schedule 'A', Submissions for Bylaw No. 6500.01".

Mr. Phil Boname, 355 Burrard Street, Vancouver - In Favour

President of Urbanics Consultants Ltd., retained by applicant to undertake market and economic analysis. Nanaimo will continue to grow as a destination location, and this project is one that will be specifically in demand given North American demographics. Natural assets need to be leveraged in a responsible and environmentally sensitive way. This proposal would generate significant, incremental tax revenue. This type of project is a net-benefit source of capital to the community.

Mr. Jeurgen Goring, 351 Machleary Street - Opposed

Vancouver Island is recognized worldwide as a tourist destination due to its natural beauty and we need to preserve that. The people working at the golf course and spa will not be able to afford to live there, so it is not a sustainable community.

Ms. Anne Kerr, 1369 Rose Ann Drive - Opposed

Ms. Kerr's presentation is attached as a part of "Schedule 'A', Submissions for Bylaw No. 6500.01 ". 117 Public Hearing Minutes -11-

Mr. Bernard White, 138 Rhymes Place, Cedar - In Favour

Supports the development; it achieves the densities the City is trying to achieve. With the infrastructure that is already in place, Nanaimo will see tremendous benefits.

Ms. Beverley Ert, 2094 Gould Road West - Opposed

Opposed to the amendment because it threatens rural farming. At the public meeting in Cedar, not one person spoke in favour of this development. Worked hard on the electoral response process, believes the City is now rushing approval. With 10 of the 17 directors representing urban areas, the RDN does not adequately represent those outside the City. People in rural areas and their RDN representatives are being forced to work together to stand up to the urban pressure. If urban sprawl is not checked, it will consume our farmland.

Mayor Korpan noted that the municipal representatives at the RDN have no vote in electoral area planning, adding that comments with respect to the City rushing anything through with respect to electoral planning are patently false.

Mr. Mark Sadra, 4320 Uplands Drive - In Favour

Many people opposed to this development have noted concerns regarding who will pay for water, schools, hospitals, transit, etc. I have to ask them: who paid for the roads, sewage, and water when they moved here? When their children went to school here, who paid for their schools? 1900 homes will be added to Nanaimo, providing homes for Canadians who will raise families in Nanaimo and provide economic growth for our City. This development will help provide opportunities for young people in Nanaimo encouraging them to stay and raise their families here.

Mr. Ian Complett, 286 Pine Street - Opposed

Has a concern with the Archaeological Assessment. Appears to be some overlap of archaeological sites and development sites. Also concerned with the degree of protection for the area and who will be responsible for that. The site may contain ancestral remains.

Mayor Korpan noted that in addition to the provincial legislation to protect archaeological sites the City has become much more sensitive, particularly with regard to First Nation sites. There are examples of roads and private developments that have not proceeded because of sensitivity to that issue. It is an important issue and will be amongst the many factors that Council weighs in this project.

Ms. Dawn Dunphy, 1615 Venlaw Road -Opposed

Believes proposal would result in urban sprawl. 118 Public Hearing Minufes - 12- 2008-SEP-04

Will have a detrimental impact on the downtown core and air quality, Nanaimo needs to be proactive in reducing emissions. Densification should occur within the existing UCB.

Mr. Tristan Womat, 3971 Gibbons Road, Duncan - In Favour

Works with Madrone Environmental Studies and completed the environmental impact assessment for the proposal. The applicant has been proactive and implemented all recommendations, including protecting the eagle nests, the outgrowth forests and the open meadow ecosystem. Developer is providing more natural protection than required by legislation.

Ms. Jillian Butler, 1819 Morden Road- Opposed

OCP has been determined, opposed to amending it.

Ms. Sharon Kofoed, 2322 Panorama View Drive - Opposed

Ms. Kofoed's presentation is attached as a part of "Schedule 'A', Submissions for Bylaw

No. 6500.01 'I.

MOVED by Councillor Manhas, SECONDED by Councillor Sherry, that the meeting proceed past 11:OO pm. CARRIED

Ms. lnqa Bolin, 3165 King Richard Drive - Opposed

Has researched global climate change, melting glaciers and water scarcity in different countries for many years; the situation is devastating. Not enough water to accommodate a golf course and luxury hotel.

Mr. Keith Brown, 5102 Somerset Drive - In Favour

This proposal would allow the city to develop a large parcel of land through a comprehensive plan. A wonderful opportunity for the city to develop Cable Bay and Sandstone, including servicing and transportation improvements, in a detailed and comprehensive manner.

Ms. Lorelei Andrew, 138 Rhymes Place, Cedar - Opposed

Ms. Kerr's presentation is attached as a part of "Schedule 'A', Submissions for Bylaw No. 6500.01".

No further verbal or written submissions were received for this bylaw. 119 Public Hearing Minutes - 13-

Mr. Swabey stated that the bylaw will be going to Council on 2008-SEP-08.

Mayor Korpan thanked everyone for attending.

MOVED by Councillor Sherry, SECONDED by Councillor McNabb, that the meeting be adjourned at 11 :I 0 pm.

CARRIED

Certified Correct:

B. Anderson Manager of Community Planning Development Services Department

/pm Council: 2008-SEP-29 Prospero: OCP37 Schedule "A"

Submissions

For

Bylaw No. 6500.001

(Cable Bay) -

CITY OF NANAIMO

PUBLIC HEARING 2008-SEP-04

CABLE BAY OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT BYLAW 6500.007

Application History

2006-NOV-01 As part of 10-Year OCP Review: Application made along with several other "site specific" applications. One of two large comprehensive development proposals.

2008-Jan-28

Application given 1St & 2" reading by Council as Bylaw 6000.81 under City's existing OCP. 2008-Jun-I 9 Application given lSt& 2" reading by Council as Bylaw 6000.81 under City's existing OCP.

Bylaw held pending outcome of boundary extension.

Bylaw 6000.81

Abandoned by Council 2008-May-26. Boundary extension application fails. Draft OCP moves forward with "Urban Reserve" designation for Cable Bay lands. - Given ISt& 2nd reading - Undergoes Public Hearing - Receives 3rdreading - Pending adoption Monday, Sep.08 * Includes separate decision to move UCB to municipal boundary for majority of city lands. Bylaw 6500.001

Revised application includes lands that are completely within the City. Amendment to the land use designation within the "new OCP" which is going before Council for adoption on Monday, 2008-Sep-08.

Site Plan - August 2008

,.. .- ...... Bylaw 6500.001

Application to change the designation of the subject lands from "Urban Reserve" to "Resort Centre".

Objectives: Provided a comprehensively planned resort. Provide for a complete "walkable" community. Create opportunities for economic development for city and region.

Resort Centre

"A primary recreational facility with supporting residential neighbourhoods and accommodations in close proximity to small-scale commercial uses." Resort Centre Policies

Anchored by a recreational use i.e.: a golf course or marina. Master Planned. Maximum residential densities of 50 units per hectare. Cluster housing encouraged to protect ESA and open space.

Sustainable development principles encouraged. ESA protection, enhancement or mitigation identified through development permit process. Mobility plans to encourage pedestrian interoonnections. Process (if Cable Bay proceeds) Conceptual I OCP Amendment I I I Master Plan 1 I [ Zoning I I Development Permit I I 1 [ Subdivision 1 I [ Budding Permits 1

*Note: processes can run concurrently Detail Planning

The Vision

A premier resortlretirement oriented community on 424 acres in south Nanaimo with pockets of urban density in a park-like, semi-rural setting.

18-Hole Signature Championship Golf Course Pro Shop Club House Boutique Hotel - 80 rooms

Cable Bay Lands

424 Acres 100% Private Property No public paths anywhere on property Public accessing the site are trespassing No protection for ESA areas under current A2 zoning Cable Bay Trail is 1900 m City Park Trail Permitted Uses Rural Resource Bylaw 4000 (8.2.1)- A2 zoning

Agriculture Riding and Boarding Animal Shelter Stables Animal Training Mobile Home Bed & Breakfast Peat and Topsoil Boarding Kennels Processing - max. 65 dogs per lot ' Secondary Suite Boarding and Lodging Single Family Dwellings Campgrounds Turf Farms Golf Courses Wharves, Floats, and Similar Structures

Farm Practices Protection Act preserves right to engage in farming on the property including clearing VlHA has strict regulations for residential septic fields to prevent groundwater contamination. None for livestock.

Managed Forest Act preserves the right to engage in forestry activities on the property.

Animal shelters, boarding kennels permitted under existing zoning - as many as 65 dogs on 5-acre parcel

Golf courses are already permitted under existing zoning

Reasons not to develop as 5-acre rural parcels, 66 lots, 2 homes each = 132 residences

1. Acreage development in urban area without City services not sustainable & contrary to accepted planning practices - urban sprawl. 2. 5-acre subdivision demands city services and maintenance but the land base only contributes a fraction of the tax revenues. 3. Building 132 septic fields and drilling 132 wells has unnecessary degree of risk for aquifer depletion and groundwater contamination. 4. Services and highways to the area are underutilized

5. Higher density yields greater contribution to capital works and recapture costs for services already in the area through DCCS. 6. 5-Acre parcels in an area destined for higher density in the future makes it awkward to create viable community plans later. 7. Large contiguous land base of the property and willingness of the owner to build an amenity that will bolster tourism, hugely benefit the local economy, and complement the convention center, airport expansion and cruise ship terminal.

Modification to Concept Plans due to Removal of 97 Acres

January Concept Plans 517 acres

August Concept Plans 424 Acres Comparison of Concept Plan Acreages

January August

*Park dedication 51.15 56.92 *Trail Dedication Inc. above 3.63 *Urban Reserve (Open space) 70.82 49.10 -Riparian Buffer (Open Space) Inc. above 12.83 *Total 121.97 122.48

-Golf Course Development 143.49 144.92 -Total Open Green Areas 265.46 267.40 .

*Hotel/clubhouse 4.47 .88 Commercial Inc. above 1.15 *Medium Density Multi-family 31.90 33.30 *Low to Medium Density Multi-family 35.52 26.67 -Low Density Single Family 58.75 62.06 .Roadways 24.22 28.15 -Public Parking .89 .36 *Fire hall site 1.06 1.06 *Maintenance/Publicworks site 2.14 2.14 Unallocated 1.23 TOTAL 424.41 424.41 Comparison of Concept Plan Housing and Commercial

January August Single Detached Homes: 350 335 Multi-Family, Low Density: 246 168 in 1- to 3-storey buildings Multi-Family, Medium Density: 1,200 1,293 in 2- to 4-storey buildings includes Seniors Housing Hotel: 80 80 Total Density: 1,876 1,876

Commercial: 50,000 sq. ft. 50,000 sq. ft.

Road Access

Primary access via Duke Point Highway, Maughan and Lindsey Roads, as per consultant and BC Dept. of Highways - Lindsey Road to be upgraded Secondary access from Nicola Road, as per BC Dept. of Highways - Nicola Road to be upgraded Environmental Assessment Protect or Mitigate n Archeological sites Riparian areas Large herbaceous meadow Forested buffer zones Watershed protection areas n Existing watercourses on site Older forest on Stuart Channel Bald eagle nests and eagle perch tree Catalogued 'significant trees' Geotechnical hazards identified lmpact Assessment lmpact Analysis shows significant and positive benefit for Nanaimo and surrounding area 9 No hard infrastructure cost to the city 9 Net Zero soft services cost to city 9 $ 7-Million per year in property tax revenues at completion $51-Million paid to city 9 $1.3-Million per year in DCCs paid to City during build out $19 Million at completion. 9 $23-Million per year in wages for 465 new, local jobs 9 Additional high-income consumer base 9 Less impact on city services 9 Balance urban growth pattern 9 Direct and positive impact on tourism

Source: "Cable Bay MarketabilityStudy and lmpact Analysis"

Difference in Economic lmpact Resort vs 5 Acre Lots Resort 5 Acres Property Tax $51 million $8 million DCC Revenue $19 million $1million Job Creation 9,500 pers-yrs 924 pers-yrs (During Construction) Job Creation 465 0 (Ongoing)

Detailed Masterplan

Will be subject to the policies and provisions of Section 7 (Work Towards A Sustainable Community) and will address:

Unit count and square footages Parks and open space Environmental areas Infrastructure and phasing plans Transportation access and development plans Archaeological impacts Urban design standards and design guidelines Landscaping Final development phasing.

Introducing Diamond Crossing @ Black Diamond Alberta Canada

C @

A Cornmercial Land Development Investment Opportunity

Diamond Crossing - The Property

11.1 acre site in the Calgary satellite town of Black Diamond Alberta Canada Located on the Cowboy trail, highway 22, 30 minutes south of Calgary. Development permit approved For 96,000 sq. ft. of commercial space. Magnificent mountain views, located right next to a major residential development.

Diamond Crossing - The Property

11.1 acre site in the Calgary satellite town of Black Diamond Alberta Canada Locatcd on the Cowboy trail, highway 22, 30 minutes south of Calgary. Development permit approved for 96,000 sq. ft. of commercial space. Magnificent mountain vicws, located right next to a major residential development.

Site CQ

Cable Bay Development comments Jordan Ellis 53 14 Williamson Rd. Nanaimo

- 2 related "global issues": - Climate Change / global warming - Trust; Accountability; Due diligence

Climate Change I Global Warming

Affects us ALL, daily. . . Science not in dispute. . . - UN IPCC - 4th report: Spring 2007 (Noble Prize) - Aug. 2008: "New Economics Foundation" + 25 ngo's in U.K. "We have 700 months to save the planet. When the clock stops ticking we could be beyond the climate's 'tipping point', the point of no return. " - The beginnings of runaway climate change where correction will likely no longer be possible. Global warming will accelerate potentially beyond control" - www.onehundredmonths.org

Our "Carbon Footprint" - consumption

Would take 4 112 'worlds' to sustain present level of use of planet's resources that produce the green house gases, pollution, etc. Global consumption is going UP, not down. No government is acting effectively Q? How will Cable Bay's proposed development impact our community & our world re: "Carbon Footprint"?

Simply.. . Is this development a 'MUST HAVE'? DO WE NEED IT?

Are 33 golf courses nearby not enough?

Trust; Accountability; Due diligence

Do we trust our civic 'leaders'? Those that come to us promising all "good things"? (developers?)

"Not only must justice be done, it must appear to be done. )? Perception is more important than truth; today it's all about 'spin'. Civic election voting: 30% , Polls re: trust: Politicians at bottom Unfair? Maybe. . .

PERCEPTION: - "Us" against "them".

- Cable Bay is "done deal"

- Fact: 7800 signatures because PERCEIVED UNFAIRNESS of process.

Examples of 'spin' & perceptions: Cable Bay: - Big $$$ on ads; even internet & phone campaign - Nanaimo citizens for 'alternative approval process' are "anti-progressive, negative people" but they are "positive, visionary." - 'misinformation'? Mayor 1 Council? used same term. To your credit you have responded to citizen's input on occasion in the past. Examples: - S. end /Balmoral hotel issue - N. end: Harnmond Bay Rd. gas bar / store How many protestors? A few hundred? - 7800 petitions against this development!

Due diligence

Who or what is "Cable Bay"?

One of a number of projects by: 'Canadian Property Investments' Canadian Property Investments

"a leader in developing and marketing of investment opportunities in land banks, allowing the small investor to participate

and profit in real estate development. "

Sounds good .... What kind ofprojects?

Canadian Property Investments Completed Projects

Birchwood Village Golf Estates - located 1 hour west of Edmonton Alta. "Developed 1 75 residential/recreational lots - 1 72 sold.. . " similar to Cable Bay proposal?

- 'realty.ca' - Canada wide real estate website

Canadian Property Investments Is Birchwood Village Golf Estates a fair representation of their work? - I don't know ... Is this what Cable Bay will become? - I don't know ... But COULD it? - You be the judge ... - Have any projects undertaken in Nanaimo turned out differently than the original plan proposed by the developer?

Trust; Accountability; Due Diligence

"men lookingforward, trying to assess possible future performance, past history is a much more reliable indicator that piously JJ stated f~t~reintentions. - Judge ~rthu~Kelly This is opportunity to build your trust account with Nanaimo citizens; voters. To demonstrate accountability & good judgment on our behalf. Mistakes, Omissions, Misdirections Mayor and Counsellors, my name is Barbara McPherson. I live at 2768 Nicola Road, Cedar by the Sea. I will be addressing some items this evening that may seem like trifles, however a quote from A. Maclaren, D.D., "The mass of trifles makes magnitude" seems apt. The public, both in the City and the Regional District of Nanaimo need more information before rezoning what is now referred to as Cable Bay Lands.

1. Public info on latest proposal is based on old proposal. Only the developers' material in the one copy available at City Hall. No letters, criticisms, photos that should still be on file presented to public. 2. City staff seem to be relying on reports produced by agents of the developer. a) Engineering at public misinformation mtg. denied logging was taking place but twice a portable sawmill was brought in to saw dimensional lumber not just trees blown down. b) Road report references a fictitious road, says no roads in Cedar by the Sea will be used. Cedar by the Sea was not invented by real estate developer, Frank Ney, it is a historical area that is east of White Road and continues to the salt water. It encompasses all of what is now referred to as the Cable Bay Lands. Most of the CBL are administered by the City of Nanaimo, but the area is Cedar by the Sea. c) Environmental couldn't find the big swamp, fourth Garry oak meadow, Baker or Lantern Creeks for examples. At least they couldn't find the big swamp until the road building machine sunk into it. d) Dollar amounts presented by developer are based on what? No supporting documents. It is ridiculous to believe that service workers will be earning $60 000 per year. e) Interface fires are not addressed. Developers' own consultants rate fire rating as extreme. f) Point is, you cannot rely on reports generated on behalf of developer to be fair, accurate and unbiased. You must vet these reports thoroughly by using a neutral expert. There does not seem to be any evidence that the City has done due diligence by undertaking this.

3. Ad in Nanaimo New Bulletin September 2,2008 asserts number of wells to be drilled and septic fields to be laid if City does not grant rezoning and amendment of the not yet passed OCP. Developer has consistently refused to release data regarding potability of water in wells already drilled. If City does not supply water and drilled wells fail to provide drinkable water, or sufficient quantity of it, development will slow or stop. Area has reputation for poor water quality. As far as septic fields go, modem standards are high. If a proposed area is unsatisfactory no septic field can be installed. 4. Why should residents of Cedar and Area A participate in decision to rezone this area? a) Area is completely surrounded by Area A, Cedar.

There is currently no land access to this parcel of land

contiguous with the City.

b) Questions have not been addressed as to how the developer has committed to road alterations of Holden Corso, Barnes, Nicola and Lindsay Roads which lie entirely within Cedar. c) No information has been given as to how the proposed supply of water and sewer facilities will be routed. They will have to traverse Area A land. d) An interface fire in the CBL will surely spread to Cedar. 5. Many questions remain unanswered. I was told that after rezoning then the details would be worked out. The devil is in the details. After rezoning and amending the OCP before it is passed, it will be too late. We need to know a) Financial capability of the developer to develop a first class resort if rezoning goes through. One of this company's projects is a golf course with "recreational land around it" read trailers. Another remains vacant land. b) How will taxes in City increase to provide support for this proposed community disconnected from the City. How much will a firehall, equipped and staffed cost? What will ambulance services cost? Public transit? c) How will taxes in RDN which includes City increase to pay for changes to cope with massive increases in road traffic. 6 000 residents plus workers, plus golfers, plus shoppers, plus, plus, etc. d) How many people are projected to die on the narrow, rural roads if millions of dollars in road renovations do not take place. Can road widening take place without further compromising farmland. e) What is the effect on the wildlife in the area, not just the endangered but the large mammals as well. f) What will be the effect on the vulnerable aquifers if a golf course is built. We know that Dr. Earle's report shows the vulnerability of aquifers in this area. g) What would be the emergency evacuation route if and when a forest fire breaks out. h) What would be the effect on normal operations at Harmac by siting a large, resort and residential development next to it. 6. The City of Nanaimo and the Regional District of Nanaimo are interwoven. City Counsellors vote on matters within the RDN but outside the City limits. The City Mayor and Counsellors have an obligation to uphold the bylaws of the RDN. This proposed rezoning fits neither the Regional Growth Management Strategy nor the city's new Official Community Plan. 7. Finally, I would ask those that havezandbenefits fiom the developer or his agents to excuse themselves from voting on this matter. Mayor.. ..Councillors

My name is John Lund. I was born and raised on Vancouver Island and live at 220 Townsite Road, Nanaimo.

For the past 30 years I have been a freelance writer and photographer. I was a Director for Tourism Nanaimo from 1987 to 1989.

As a travel writer-photographer specializing in the Northwest, my assignments take me throughout BC, Washington and Oregon to photograph and research articles for boating, travel and golf magazines.

During my travels I have witnessed the transformation of many west coast communities from their historical resource-based industries to that of travel and tourism. The communities most successful in reshaping themselves as a tourist destination have several things in common.

Thel~J have s ~.7ibrzr,tdow~tcwn corei a variety of transpoitatioii options, a proud history on display, a strong theme like Nanaimo's "Harbour City" moniker, a diversity of community-sponsored events plus a broad range of attractive places to stay.

In other words, they have a balance of venues to attract tourists to come and visit but, most importantly, to come and stay awhile.

While Nanaimo is blessed with many attractions to come and visit, we lack higher-end venues where people can stay for longer periods of time ...namely destination golf resorts. Here, Nanaimo is missing the boat.

I would like to see Nanaimo take its place as a successful tourist destination and, therefore, I support Cable Bay Resort & Spa and the change to the OCP.

Thank you. Thursday, September 4th, 2008

City of Nanaimo, Mayor and Council.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

My name is Lawrence Rieper. I live in Nanaimo at 990 Campbell Street.

I have been walking the "Cable Bay Lands" since it was still owned by McMillan Bloedel and before the Cable Bay Trail existed. It was a tranquil forest with mossy glades and a habitat for wildlife. The main access was by way of White Road. When the Cable Bay Trail was proposed, I wondered if eventually it would run through an urban area (how prescient I was). I have wondered why it was never connected to Dodd Narrows and Joan Point Park. I have observed the subsequent changes wrought by logging and road building.

Now, a company calling itself Cable Bay Lands wants to develop this area. They don't want to do so within the existing zoning framework, where their 170 hectares would seem to only yield about 85 households. But they want 1876 residential units (theoretically, over 22 times the current density) as well as an 18- hole golf course, 80-room hotel and spa. They have already shown interest in the adjoining 200-hectare mill site lands to the north, so we may yet see this project grow bigger still. Anyone who knows this area can foresee the major problems that access to this development will impose on Holden Corso/ Barnes Road.

It is intriguing that Cable Bay Lands are spending obscene amounts of money on I11-page advertisements in the local newspapers and mass mail-outs to Nanaimo householders, promoting their resort. They quote figures for potential tax revenues, development cost charges, jobs and wages as though they were concrete facts. In reality they are as ephemeral as politicians promises. It compares the existing zoning as allowing 132 wells and septic fields added to the rural landscape. I presume this figure to take into account some acreage lost to road building, and every purchaser building two houses per lot. But what will be the environmental footprint of this huge development and a golf course? The beautifbl photograph of Dodd Narrows will not be how the rest of this area will look in fbture.

This hearing is about listening to public opinion on this rezoning matter. Nearly 8000 voters in Nanaimo nixed an extension of the City into the Regional District on behalf of the developers. It seems a travesty of justice that the people who chose to live in Cedar because it was rural were not invited to participate in the process of annexation. Some local newspaper editorials and others wondered what this opposition meant. I suggest the following explanation.

For the past four years, this council has alienated a huge part of the electorate with its bull-headed approach to redeveloping the downtown core. We now have an empty conference centre without its avowed essential hotel component, which cost taxpayers at least 50% (and probably over twice as much) more than proposed. The ice surfaces have vastly insufficient seating, and we have prematurely lost both the Civic Arena and Nanaimo Foundry. I could go on.

It is public knowledge that at least two-thirds of council members have accepted election donations fiom developers. It is not surprising therefore if they are overly familiar with developers and their philosophies. Generally, people don't like drastic change. Much of population feels alienated and angered by your very apparent pro development attitude. You may be starting to witness a strong adverse reaction to your past decisions - time will tell. We are told that the City water supply cannot support more than 100,000 people. We are already at 84,000, so why this eagerness for rapid major expansion. One wonders for whom the quiet attempt by the City to obtain Harmac's water supply was - the citizens or the developers.

This development is out of proportion to the O.C.P., and a betrayal of all the rhetoric spouted by the City about recreating a vibrant downtown. You will be repeating the mistakes of the north end expansion. The Earth is finite - there is no such thing as sustainable development - a forest is the only entity that is self-sustaining. I would point out too, that in the long run, development never does pay for all the costs involved. And, at the end of the day, with the housing market showing sign of change, will this development simply be flipped, for a large profit, once the appropriate zoning is in place (as has happened often before)?

We need low-density housing areas surrounding our city for our peace of mind. The rural areas already face development threats, without the city upping the ante on their doorstep. Actually, in the future, we are likely to need more agricultural land for crops, not resorts. In the 12'~Century, Gerald of Wales said the following. It is even more particularly germane today. (The warning is taken from a quote in Isaiah 5.8 & 5.9, about grasping landlords evicting small- holders, probably by seizing their lands in payment of debt. Their punishment will be failure of crops and desolation.) "Woe unto them, that join house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no place, that they may be placed in the midst of the earth".

Thank You. Submission to Public Hearing 2008-SEP-04 Submitter: John Carver #201 - 116 Prideaux Street Nanaimo, BC, V9R 2M7

Regarding Bylaw No. 6500.001

I find that the proposed amendments to the Official Community Plan is not in keeping with the spirit or the goals of the plan. It is clear that the amendments have been proposed explicitly to facilitate a proposed development application for Cable Bay Lands, therefore the amendments must be viewed in context with the proposed development.

Let me outline the ways I see that the proposal is contrary to the goals of the OCP:

1. (OPC Goal 1) - "The UCB shall provide a clear separation between urban and rural land uses." While the land in question is within the UCB it is clearly not within an urban land use area. It is not accessible by land except through rural district A, and is separated from the rest of Nanaimo by wetlands, First Nations reserve lands, industrial lands and environmentally sensitive areas.

2. OPC Goal 2) - The OCP stresses development focussed around urban nodes and corridors. The proposal is far from any existing node or corridor, and could not be considered a node itself as it does not fit the description of what an urban node is. Residents would be disconnected from the rest of Nanaimo but would be travelling into the city to access work, shopping, events and other amenities.

Note Urban Reserve Policy 3: Urban Reserve areas will not be rezoned for higher density residential development other than that permitted by zoning existing at the time of the Plan's adoption.

3. (OPC Goal 5) - "Protect and enhance our environment". Most of the land described in the application is designated Environmentally sensitive area, to be protected as Development Permit Area 2.1 cannot see how a golf course and massive housing and road development can protect the environment.

4. (OPC Goal 6) - "Improve mobility and servicing efficiency". Indeed, the need to improve access to transit, encourage alternate travel and slow vehicle traffic growth are principles stressed throughout the OPC document. The proposed development will do just the opposite. The design dictates that residents will be very dependent on automobiles. A usable transit service to the area would be expensive and therefore unlikely. And despite the accomodation of bicycle lanes and pathways, the layout and distance to amenities will make automobiles the choice of convenience.

Conclusion I urge the city of Nanaimo not to make these changes to the OPC for the sake of this development. The growth of the city should be steered by the community plan's guiding principals, not the dictates of outside interests.

John Carver Good Evening Mayor & Council September 4,2008

My name is Alec McPherson and I reside at 2768 Nicola Road within the RDN. In fact, my residential property is situated on the road to the Cable Bay parking lot and only some 300 metres from the extended City limits. At this time, I am opposed to re- designation of the Cable Bay lands for the development as presented. The detail-type reasons are numerous. I do want to make it clear that I'm not opposed to development per se; however, I am opposed to development that is not thoroughly scrutinized or does not appear to be thoroughly scrutinized. It is possible that at some time in the future a development with higher density could occur within the lands described as Cable Bay. For reasons that I will explain later, a golf course is not a suitable project to place over the Cable Bay aquifer. So, the golf course component would have to go. My reading of various published articles and works indicates that a golf course residential development is something that reached its peak in the early 1950's and had a slight resurgence in the late 1980's. This conclusion is supported by the fact that the average number of rounds played has been in decline for at least a decade. Tiger Woods or not, the lifestyles of younger people today makes them inclined to spend time with their families and not devote an entire day to a round of golf. Those that still like to do this are doing it less frequently. If one thinks that a golf course will make Cable Bay a resort destination, they ought to give their head a shake. There are many current examples of so-called Signature golf courses having financial problems. The financial problems only come to light when the golf course owners appeal to local governments to permit them to convert them to residential housing. We have several examples right here on Vancouver Island. I read a recent OPINION in the local newspaper giving kudos to the City for taking steps to protect water aquifers. Why not start with the Cable Bay aquifer? The provincial government, City of Nanaimo, the RDN and other municipalities on Vancouver Island commissioned Malaspina University - the new Vancouver Island University - to prepare a study on aquifers and water quality on Vancouver Island. In May of this year, I attended a public forum at which the consultant was speaking. The Cable Bay aquifer was identified as "extremely vulnerable to contamination." It is my understanding that the final report is to be submitted prior to Why the apparent rush to approve a golf course yearenddevelopmen g? over these lands? A development that will place a multitude of chemicals into the groundwater. Still another reason to support my contention that this Public Hearing is premature! One of the hallmark requirements of a destination resort is that it has superior accommodations. In the Amended Site Servicing Assessment Plan prepared by Newcastle Engineering and attached to the November 14, 2007 letter from legal counsel for Cable Bay Lands, it states that "an accompanying Five Star Hotel ....will greatly augment the economic strategies of the City of Nanaimo." This letter was included in the January 3 1, 2008 Staff Report to Council and was no doubt pivotal in the subsequent advancement of the development permit application. Many people still believe that a 5-Star hotel is going to be built. A 5-Star hotel would be a benefit BUT it's not realistic to think that it will actually be developed. I attended one of the developer's promotional events intended for a group of realtors. It only took a couple of questions to have the promoter retreat to a probable hotel rating in the 3-Star range. Given the problems that the City has experienced in getting a 3-Star hotel underway next to the Conference Centre, it is highly unlikely that the financial gurus in the East will approve financing for a 5-Star hotel in the mid-Island region. If any hotel is constructed on this site, it will be of a variety referred to as "boutique". In such a development, each of many investors pre- purchase one or more of the rooms in order to provide the financing. I'm unaware of any 'boutique' hotel that has achieved anything close to a 5-Star rating.

The developer, of course, can make all the claims that it wants to. As the developer stated at a public information meeting held at the Cedar Community Hall in early 2008, Cable Bay Lands, Inc. is not in the business of driving nails and constructing things. Their sole interest is in rezoning the land subsequently selling the lots to people who will pay the price. As one of the developer's representatives stated, "This is only a concept. It is not written in stone." Given this, it behooves municipal government to ensure that there are no hidden detrimental aspects to this development and that all identifiable costs and impacts are known prior to the re-designation of the lands. In order to meet this requirement, one needs to have some reasonable assurance that any reports or studies commissioned by the developer are comprehensive and accurate. I do not get the warm fuzzies feeling from the reports appended to the Cable Bay project that, apparently, have been accepted as adequate by Staff.

The OPTICS associated with the advancement of this development application is of concern. In my opinion, it is not acceptable to move projects forward by methods that are technically 'legal' or on the basis of 'technicalities'. Any worthwhile project should be able to withstand close scrutiny and seek approval on its merits in an open and fair process.

I am somewhat surprised that this proposal has continued to be advanced despite genuine concerns raised by the public. At the public information meetings, more than 200 people representing themselves and/or groups of electors have raised concerns and objections over this project. Many others have submitted written critiques on or raised relevant questions about the developer's submissions and the consultants' reports. Questions which have gone largely unanswered! It's like the Starship Enterprise reporting that they've encountered a black hole and something or someone has taken control of the ship.

As a professional and a person who spent a career in operations with one of the largest companies in Canada I'm finding the process somewhat baffling. In stead of trying to determine exactly what will result if this project moves forward, the process seems to be trying to withhold information with a type of 'we know what's best for the community' attitude. Just the other day I was into the City Planning Department to view the drawing that is supposed to give people - including you as elected officials - sufficient knowledge on which to base a decision. I found one copy of selected documents in a binder. Since there was an individual looking at the binder, I was forced to wait. I was advised that few people had made the trip into City Hall to view it and, if there was a rush, people would simply have to share. Given that the document binder was only available during normal office hours for six (6) or seven (7) business days prior to this Public Hearing it was not a surprise to find that few had made the trip. People do have to work and it is usually fairly difficult for most to get time off work on such short notice. I asked a couple of questions and the individual assigned could not answer them. He attempted to find a senior staffer to answer some of my questions. After about 15 minutes he decided that it might be best if I made an appointment to see someone later in the week. Finally, a senior staff person did attend. One of the questions posed to this individual was, "How can you accept a Traffic Study that makes projections based on a total of 18 hours of data collection in the Cedar area over a three day period?" In addition, I noted that the traffic volume data was collected during the week of Easter Monday 2007, a period in which children were out of school and the weather was unsettled. Of course, I had already detailed this to Staff, Mayor & Council in an August 2007 critique of the consultant's report. The answer received was surprising. The answer, "Staff is not able to challenge a professional consultant's methodology or conclusions." If Staff had detailed to the developer the Scope and Purpose of the study required and the professional consultant had detailed this in their report - including any limitations on their ability to meet these requirements - I could understand them accepting the report. It appears that consultant's reports are simply another item in a checklist of items and whether or not they are accurate or comprehensive is not a relevant requirement.

I keep wondering whether or not this is normal practice to move such proposals forward with little or no apparent regard to public input received. I was most intrigued when the developer indicated that they had been working at this for three years. The first indication that we have of this proposal is an OCP Amendment Application filed November 1, 2006 or 21 months ago. I took the opportunity to ask the senior staff person of I could see the documentation on the Cable Bay property prior to November 1, 2006. Apparently this information has been archived and I would need to file a Freedom of Information request to obtain this. Based on memory, the senior staff person advised that the Cable Bay folks had submitted a subdivision application in mid-2005. This application had been made in accordance with the 5-acre zoning in place on the property. I'm advised that several months later - give or take a month or so - the City Approving Officer had advised the developer that the City would not support the subdivision application. It occurred to me that at the first PNAC information meeting held on January 16, 2007, a member of the audience had posed a question to the developer. The question asked was, "What prompted you to change from considering 5-acre lots to this massive development?" The answer: "We were encouraged by several City Councillors and staff to provide development with greater density than two residential units on each 5 acre lot." In doing so, it appears that the City has placed itself in a position where they have some legal liability if the project it encouraged does not go forward. I expect that if Staff were to have subsequently recommended against a much larger development that the City would find itself on the hook for the monies expended by the developer to date. But in advancing this development, the City has gambled the fbture of Harmac and the $500 Million of Economic Activity that its payroll and other expenditures provide to the local economy. In the Spring of 2007, the owner of Harmac wrote to the City of Nanaimo expressing their opposition to the proposed project. In the letter, they stated that the natural conflict between a residential development situated against industrial property would lead to their early demise. The reply from the City was to the effect that the City recognized the conflict but that they wanted a residential development with greater density on that site. Harmac is the largest single contributor of property tax and the largest single contributor to economic activity in the mid-Island region and their objections are simply noted? Clearly, with the employees, managers and a number of investors trying to resurrect the Harmac mill, they do not need the additional complications that this development will bring.

Outstanding matters include environmental, traffic and financial concerns. I believe others have spoken sufficiently to the environmental concern and I'll keep my comments to the two other areas. I'm surprised that the City has not performed their own financial analysis of this project. It is continually stressed by the developer that they will pay all of the costs and that the financial impact will be approximately $18 Million in DCC over the life of the project. Because the build out is over a number of years, this is like receiving less than $10 Million today. In truth, the developer will only fund those costs recognized by the City. The developer will not pay for unidentified costs arising in the surrounding communities including upgrades to the highways and lighting. These costs will be borne by the taxpayer through increased provincial taxes. Many communities within North America have already concluded that DCC's do not cover their costs in the long run. They may give some initial short-term boost to tax revenues but in the long-term supply of services and maintenance of the infrastructure is not sustainable. Parksville is a nearby example of a community that has realized that development at any price is not sustainable. This proposal needs an independent financial review before Council makes any further decisions on the matter.

It is reasonable to conclude that with nearly 1900 residential units this development will generate at least 6,000 vehicular movements per day. Not only that, but because of its distance fiom the City core, some 17 kilometres, this vehicular traffic will generate significant greenhouse emissions. The provincial government's recent climate change legislation has placed the onus on municipalities to develop plans to reduce such greenhouse gas emissions. Development such as this Cable Bay proposal, if approved, will make a mockery of the government's stated goals. Besides the greenhouse effect, it will result in thousands of vehicles moving daily through Cedar. The route that they will follow to reach this site is over narrow, winding roads with little or no shoulders. Street lighting is minimal with 500 to 700 metres between lights. I'll make a prediction. If this project is approved as submitted, the Traffic Study conclusions will be found to have serious shortcomings. People will die and others will suffer serious injuries. 1'11 go further. If accidents are predictable then they are preventable. Other jurisdictions have already found that, in such situations, someone is held ultimately found liable for the results. In more recent cases, it is the local government entity that has been held responsible.

As elected officials, you have all taken an oath of office to uphold the laws of Canada. While the OCP appears to be merely a guideline or policy document, the Regional Growth Strategy is in the form of a Bylaw. The City - in concert with the adjoining Areas of the RDN - agreed through this Bylaw to maintain the rural nature and integrity of Area "A". Vehicular traffic in the volumes projected moving through this adjoining community will destroy its rural nature and integrity. When voting I ask that you vote for upholding this Bylaw and against encouraging urban sprawl. citL"i I think that iffland the developer have not already discovered it, it appears that there is a gap in the so-called "primary access" route touted by the developer. There are other problems associated with the routing that will be discovered in the near future. In a November 14" 2007 letter to the City, the legal counsel for Cable Bay Lands, Inc. advised, "Cable Bay has also secured the land required to complete construction of Lindsey Road at its east end from the neighbouring property owner, which lands are legally described as Lot 1, Section 19, Range 2, Cedar District, Plan VIP67 150." Surely, Mr. Senini misspoke. In order to accomplish what Mr. Senini states they have "secured", the matter would have to go through the Electoral Area Planning Committee and then to the RDN Board. If approved, it would create a dangerous precedent in that it would reduce the minimum allowable lot size for residential dev opment on the lot. I've searched a number of sources and ca& ind NIL evidence of any such matters being advanced at theb~.When the developer made the bid to purchase Harmac, it appeared to me that they did not want the mill property for the purposes stated by Mr. Senini, that is, to protect against other less desirable uses of the property. Events since the day their bid through a numbered company was brought to light by a local reporter I have not changed my opinion. In the fullness of time I expect that the real reason for the bid will come to light and it will involve obtaining access to the Cable Bay lands.

Finally, this leads me to the $10 Million bid that the City placed on Harmac. It's only small change but represents $125 for every man, woman and child within the City. I'm certain that all those folks would like to have that amount of cash back in their wallets. The City's stated aim in making the bid was to protect the Harmac water supply. The thinking probably went along the lines that this additional water supply would obviate the need to spend a hundred or so million dollars to increase the height of the damn to supply water to developments like that proposed for the Cable Bay lands. Anyone who has taken a walk through the mill has probably noticed that there are multiple water stands with 5 gallon jugs of bottled water scattered throughout the site. I believe that Friday has been the regular delivery day for replenishing these supplies. The water that comes from the mills two wells on the Nanaimo River is not potable and cannot be utilized as such. If a private corporation made such a bid for the reasons stated, anyone associated with developing and advancing the bid would be looking for other jobs. I suppose one can conclude that if there are no repercussions to this revelation, the actual reason for the bid was other than the stated one. Unfortunately, the decision to make the bid seems to suffer from the same malady identified in the handling of this proposed Cable Bay project - lack of due diligence.

Again, with all of the outstanding questions, concerns and omissions, I urge you to vote against re-designation and ultimately rezoning of these lands. Submission to Cable Bay Hearing, September 4,2008

I believe that there are only two questions that need to be asked about the re-designation of Cable Bay's zoning as a "mixed-use resort":

1. What should individual citizens and taxpayers think about the hijack of the OCP process this re- designation presents? And,

2. If such a re-designation is successful and a resort development is done along the lines of the one newly planned, is this type of development sustainable? That is, can it be maintained in this environment as climate change overtakes us? Or does it not just add to the carbon load already taking us down the road to disaster?

I think the answers to these questions are simple and clear. First, no citizen of the Nanaimo Regional District can now trust that his or her participation in the Regional Growth Strategy or OCP processes means anything. If hours, weeks and years of public consultation can be junked in the few minutes they were in the council meeting that sent this new Cable Bay plan forward, then my or anyone else's participation in an OCP process becomes worthless. If this truly is the message the Nanaimo Council wants sent, then I would suggest they should hold onto their seats hard for now, because they may not have them long. There's an election in November, and just possibly Nanaimo voters will be reminded of this travesty.

Second, no travesty of democracy can change the science that is now telling us that resort developments as planned here again for Cable Bay are unsustainable. To name but one aspect of its unsustainablity, we have only to consider our water supply - which Mr. Stanhope now tells us we really don't know anything about for sure and which may be even more finite than we realize. But perhaps worst of all, this fly-in resort will contribute substantially to carbon emissions, those same emissions that produce the higher temperatures th~tare melting glaciers off the local mountains. It does not take a mind for rocket science then to figure out that this project is zero-sum-game - for the profits of a few, who will take them elsewhere, you can bet, we in Nanaimo and neighbourhood will get left with less water, more minimum-wage and transient jobs, and our very own,special contribution to global warming. To say the least.

May S. Partridge 1689 Woobank Road Cedar (Nanaimo), BC V9X 1M8 250-722-308 1 This is a letter to Nanaimo City Council Members Regarding the Official Community Plan amendments as it affects the Cable Bay Development Area

From Anne Fiddick September 2, 2008 1431 lvor Road Nanaimo BC V9X 1P7

Yes, our interests are directly affected by the OCP and zoning of the area referred to as Cable Bay. We live within a few hundred metres. This area was originally tree farm and surrounded the Harmac Pulp Mill as a buffer zone for the adjacent rural properties. When the mill was built it was promised to my husband's father and other farmers adjacent that this property would always be forested as part of the Provincial Government reforestation program "Forests Forever". The motto printed on every box of young trees planted was "Trees for Tomorrow". "Forever" got changed by our Provincial Government and large forest companies because the land holdings became more valuable for residential purposes than for growing trees forever. The promise was broken. Seeing a tax generator, Nanaimo annexed the mill and the surrounding area and it became part of the City of Nanaimo. Rural residents were placated by an OCP with 5acre lot minimums. Not ideal but the lands could be kept as small farms and treed holdings and still remain as a buffer around the industrial zone. Now a developer with grandiose residential and commercial plans wishes city council to consider whittling away at the promise again and within sight and smell of a pulp mill!!. Are you kidding? Nobody can think that this is good planning for the future of Nanaimo. What a future council will get is mega complaints from the "genteel folks" who will buy the million dollar lots or homes in this "Bear Mountain" type development. We can hear the mill and see the lights and we are 2km away. This is an industrial zone with Duke Point Ferries and other industries. These will still be there even if Harmac does not operate in the future. There are many negative indications for resort zoning juxtaposed to an industrial zone. Departure Bay Ferry Terminal being a current case in point.

Zoning is a rational process that allows public input on the plans for an area. The public has said over and over again that it is not in favour of the Urban Containment Boundary being expanded. The inclusion of resort and /or residential zoning in the area surrounding Duke Point and Harmac is not rational or good planning. Please think of the future and reject this revision to the OCP. a

Sincerely t Anne Fiddick A Submission to Public Hearing September 04,2008

Good evening Your Worship, Councillors, my name is Anne Kerr. I live at 1369 Rose Ann Drive, Nanaimo.

My husband and I are opposed to this proposed amendment.

> Your Worship and Councillors, took part in some of the community consultations during the OCP 10-year review process.

The message from participants was clear: Keep the existing Urban Containment Boundary; Concentrate urban growth near existing urban nodes; Avoid further urban sprawl.

The Cable Bay lands, located in the very southeast part of the City, were designated Rural resource lands in the 2006 QCP and were outside the Urban Containment Boundary.

In the draft 2008 QCP, the land-use designation for these Cable Bay lands changed from Rural Resource to Urban Reserve, and the Urban Containment Boundary was extended. This in itself is an uncomfortable compromise.

Now, the proposed Bylaw before us would change the Urban Reserve land-use designation to Resort Centre.

A Resort centre land-use designation is a significant addition to the OCP. This change and the accompanying development plans for Cable Bay lands require much more examination.

The proposed changes have important consequences for the future growth of Nanaimo.

They should be subject to the same in-depth consultation, debate and refinement as occurred for all other parts of the draft 2008 OCP. Submission to Public Hearing September 04,2008

>Your Worship and Councillors, I submit that the proposals in Bylaw 6500.001 run counter to a number of the goals and objectives in the draft 2008 OCP.

In particular, the proposed changes have serious implications for the future growth patterns of Nanaimo.

Cable Bay lands are located in the middle of rural resource lands, near rural residential areas. They are NOT adjacent to the nearest urban node, South Nanaimo, and they are miles away from the Downtown Centre urban node, into which huge investments are being made to help its revitalization.

The development of Cable Bay lands will, in my view, lead to the very urban sprawl that the new 2008 OCP is trying to avoid. And ,it will put added strain on our transportation networks and infrastructure services.

An 1800+ unit-, 6000 residents -development, complete with an 80-room hotel, located far from any of our urban nodes is NOT consistent with the draft 2008 OCP's goal of Managing Urban Growth.

Your Worship, Councillors, I submit that this Bylaw should NOT be approved in a last-minute attempt to get the development of Cable Bay lands into the system, under the wire.

The implications of the proposed changes to our Official Community Plan and the future of Nanaimo, at the very least, deserve more fulsome consideration than a one-evening public hearing.

To adopt Bylaw 6500.001 at this time would serve to diminish all the community efforts that went into reviewing, debating and crafting the current 2008 draft OCP.

I respectfully urge you to reject this proposed amendment.

Thank you. Mayor and Council My name is Sharon Kofoed and I reside at 2322 Panorama View Drive. Good evening We are living on the edge of a vicious business cycle which threatens the destruction of rural areas such as Cable Bay. Why are we even entertaining this when there are inherent costs and risks to these types of scatter development? The answer is because the City believes rural lots are sprawl and they are not sustainable. If we follow that directive then one day all the countryside will be gone and swallowed up by mega cities. This is not sustainable.

The City is operating under the view that density is cheaper, more efficient and more sustainable than lower rural residential densities permitted in these areas. The City is also under the belief that very low density in these areas will pose risks to public health so much so that Staff recommends leap fiogging developments over infilling existing lands. While the City appears to be overtly concerned about these health issues with minimal density in the area, it apparently isn't the least concerned about the negative effects of the increased population and pollution with increased density. Could someone please then tell me how sparsely populated agrarian areas are less sustainable than highly densified residential ones? Isn't it the other way around? What is the real issue? Sustainability or Engineering?

The City is operating under the directive "If we build it, taxes will go down." Yet this mentality encourages the cycle of building everywhere and anywhere. This type of traditional market force is diminishing and slaughtering farmlands, forest, and wilderness. It continues with pervasive advertising and marketing which is aimed at elevating our consumptive patterns. The legacy of this type of development is increased traffic, pollution, and still higher taxes as we all know new developments never pay their own way. Society does not pay or assign a value to having rural areas yet we should. Sprawl is really ad hoc planning which destroys rural and wilderness areas and creates isolated communities, strip malls, and more vehicular traffic polluting our environment even more so. Sprawl is rural lots but it is leap frog developments which are simply unsustainable creatures of the past. Sprawl, particularly urban sprawl cuts down trees and then names streets after them. Can we truly maintain continually pushing developments to the edges of the community? What are the costs and consequences of such a policy? Isn't it our responsibility to provide future generations with the same ambience that presently exists? Or is it the City's view that we have only one type of large massive kind of development within our boundaries? Infill apparently is a secondary issue to be addressed on tomorrow's landscape. How is this sustainable?

The City of Nanaimo is consuming limited supplies of rural land in order to satisfy the selfish cry "It's our turn!" These rural areas are disappearing faster than they can be renewed, if in fact they can be ever renewed. Are we really enhancing the social and human capital well being which our community depends on when we do this? Over seven thousand people said no the annexation for this kind of development, yet here we are, now in the hands of only a few. Over seven thousand said 'No."

However, it is now our turn. Yes, it is our turn to bring S~rawlto a crawl and infill and effectively reduce, reuse and recycle our land rather than continually grabbing more on the peripheral edges in order to satisfy the lustfbl development industry who always wants more. Yes, it is our turn to expect more. More Imagineerine, rather than engineering.

Finally, it is our turn to demand that Council listen to the many and not the few.

The City can not afford to advocate this kind of urban sprawl pattern. It is still hasn't even llfilled its obligations laid out in the 1975 amalgamation which brought in immense tracts of land within City limits.

.Is this really your vision of Nanaimo - pods of development scattered over the terrain, wiping out calm oases?

We are living on the edge. Is this really sustainable?

Like a good parent, we need to set firm limits and say "No." to bring an end to this cycle. 010 Lambert Avenue Nanaimo, BC. V9R 3N8

September 4,2008

Submission to Public Hearing, City of Nansimo Mayor and Council

Re: Public Hearing on Bylaw No. 6500.001

I believe that my interest in property is affected by the proposed Bylaw No. 6500.001 in that the rezoning of the area in question from "Urban Reserve" to "Resort Centre" is not in keeping with the OCP's stated objective of sustainability, an objective which I support. The resort's golf course will vie with other users for water from the City. Although we live in an area historically considered to be water-abundant, we already experience shortages.

Climate change projections predict hotter, drier summers and more extreme weather events in winter here, meaning that it will become more difficult in future to retain the water that does fall as precipitation.

As a supporter of local farmers and Island food security, I support the use of local water for agriculture. I am aware that in many jurisdictions the supply of water for agriculture has become an issue of grave concern and much conflict. In Nanaimo, we have an opportunity to prevent such conflict by investing City resources not in developments such as Cable Bay which will use large amounts of water to benefit a relatively small number of citizens for recreational use, but to instead reserve water for more sustainable and necessary purposes such as agriculture, which cgn benefit all citizens of Nanaimo by ensuring a greater measure of food security.

Yours sincerely, I

d Lorelei Andrew Dear Mayor and Council members,

I am a resident of South Nanaimo and support positive development in the area. Well thought out development plans such as the proposed Cable Bay Golf Resort & Spa will bring much needed services to the south end residents and will allow the area to develop into a tourist Mecca.

It seems that many residents of Nanaimo and the Regional District don't understand that sprawling infrastructure results in higher taxation as it costs money to install and maintain. Increasing the density in South Nanaimo will allow the city to provide public transit services to its full effect. In contrast, by catering to residents who wish nothing to happen, we will end up with no master plan for the area, ill planned individual projects that lack foresight and end up a poor use of tax payers' monies.

I encourage you to approve zoning changes to Nanaimo's Official Community Plan to allow development of the Cable Bay Golf Resort & Spa.

Regards,

Devon Wyatt, C.Tech

2230 Ara Avenue Nanaimo, BC V9XlH4 Penny Masse

From: Mary Madson [[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 3:28 PM To: Public Hearing Subject: Cable Bay Development

To Nanaimo City Council

This letter to you is to express my position against the Cable Bay Development. I lived in Cedar -By-The-Sea for five years and loved the zoning in place - 112 acre lots; 5 acres required to have 2 houses. This is a very rural area and I do not want to see that changed. Ihave environmental concerns and do not want to see urban sprawl occur. I am concerned about the development of a golf course and 200 units.

Please do not go ahead with this development.

Sincerely, Mary Madsen 921 Wentworth Street, Nanaimo, B.C. V9R 3G2 Pennv Masse

From: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, September 04,2008 2:37 PM To : Public Hearing Subject: Public Hearing Submission

A Online Public Hearing Submission has been made:

Name: Frank Murphy Address: 203-360 Selby St Subject: 6500.001

Comments: My comments in regard to the Cable Bay Lands application to amend the Official Community Plan concern primarily the public process itself - both as it relates to this application and to the concurrent 10 year review of the OCP itself.

Let's get this out of the way first: Please don't ask me to accept that having decided to link the UCB amendment applications to the OCP review and having now closed discussion and input on the OCP review, you now find yourself in an Alice in Wonderland legal bind. At this public hearing you cannot discuss this application within the context of the OCP review.

Iactually think the Cable Bay concept has considerable merit but Ithink you have to agree this is a bit of a mess.

Planner Andrew Tucker was quoted in the paper last week as candidly admitting that it may have been a mistake to link the UCB amendments to the OCP review. The UCB review of course should have been allowed to run it's course first.

Iand a couple of hundred other people first became aware of these projects - Cable Bay Lands and South Nanaimo Lands - at the opening conference of the 10 year OCP review. When did Council and Senior City Staff first discuss them and work with the proponents to develop them in the form they were presented at the OCP review conference? Who made the decision to link them to the OCP review and why?

There were a number of opportunities for Councillors to engage the citizenry and build support for these projects based on the vision and goals of Council and Planning Staff. At the opening conference and subsequent workshops City Councillors were either not in attendance or if in attendance made little or no contribution to the process.

When former co-head of the Planning Dept of the City of Vancouver, Anne McAfee, while demonstrating with slides how effective the City of Vancouver had been in showing neighbourhood residents throughout the city how increased infill densification would benefit their neighbourhoods and winning their support - primarily by the efforts of sitting Mayor and Councillors (Gordon Campbell and George Puil among them) - she asked if anyone from our City Council was present. As you know, there wasn't.

The only face to face lively engaged discussion I witnessed in this process happened at meeting in the tiny Kin Hut at Departure Bay Beach. It was presented by the much feared and dreaded Friends of Plan Nanaimo. Head 1 planners Ted Swabey and Andrew Tucker accepted their invitation to a free-wheeling discussion of the OCP review and the UCB amendment applications. Questions were asked and answered. Positions shifted slightly. New ideas were considered. Both sides of the table learned something Ithink and it was a worthwhile part of the process. This is something like what a proactive public process should look like and it was missing entirely from the official process.

Richard Florida says that one of the characteristics of the successful city in a knowledge based economy isn't just that it is an inclusive place, but that it is a proactively inclusive place. Please don't tell me you are making 21st century city building decisions without having studied Jane Jacobs and the folks developing her work like Richard Florida. Penny Masse

From: bill juby [[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 04,2008 3:37 PM To: Public Hearing Subject: Cable Bay Development Public Hearing

Mayor and Council:

Because I won't be able to attend the public hearing tonight, I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed project and the proposal to redesignate those rural lands under a "resort" zoning. There are many reasons to reject this proposal. First, it would provide a textbook case of "urban sprawl". Rural land use does not create "sprawl"; the lesser population density allows for more green space and fewer devastating effects upon wildlife. Creating a little mini-city with nearly 2000 homes well outside the planned urban containment boundary (and miles from almost all required resources) ensures a backfilling of retail jungle and strip mall development as has occurred in the past on the North End. It would also forstall beneficial downtown development, much like the north-end malls did in the past. Can we not learn from past mistakes?

Second, the proposed development is environmentally unsound. Golf courses, by nature, are environmentally unfriendly, and 2000 cars commuting daily will unnecessarily add to unwanted green house gases. By stalling desired population growth in the downtown, such development also limits a beneficial improvement in public transportation.

Third are the obvious expenses taxpayers will inevitably be asked to absorb: the widening of rural roads and necessary expansion and creation of intersections, etc., as well as the creation of new public amenities, which the new community will demand: expenses which will definitely not be met by the developer.

Based on council's past performance, Ido not expect that my concerns, or the concerns of a large segment of the community, to be given much weight. However, I would like my objections to be part of the public record.

Bill Juby 115 Machleary Street Nanaimo Page 1 of 1

Penny Masse

From: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, September 04,2008 3:48 PM To: Public Hearing Subject: Cable Bay Land OCP Amendment Bylaw 6500.001

Dear Mayor, Council and City Staff,

This letter is to register my opposition to proposed bylaw 6500.001 to amend the new OCP to designate Cable Bay properties as Resort Center. I oppose this for the following reasons:

1. The OCP has not even been formally adopted and to consider amendments at this time is procedurally premature.

2. This development (and others such as Wolf Developments) will distract from the focus on downtown, which still needs a lot of attention.

3. The Harmac pulp mill is going to run and it should be the City's priority to avoid doing anything that would take away from their efforts (like putting more residents close to the plant), at least for the next 5 years. Harmac has contributed millions of dollars to the economy of this town over the years and that must be recognized. Frankly, it is shameful how the City has happily accepted the benefits of the Harrnac Operation for all these years but when the chips are down, the City lines up with the other vultures, ready to scavenge what they can.

In the long term, this proposed development may make good sense; when Harmac dies a natural death and it's water supply and effluent treatment infrastructure becomes available to provide for the needs of that community without increasing costs for the rest of Nanaimo. For the immediate future, however, this project is premature for Nanaimo and to proceed at this time is wrong.

This community needs to return to the time when planning was done before development (ie. Plan Nanaimo), instead of developers driving the planning, which is what has been going on for the last five years.

Regards,

Scot Merriam

Nanaimo

758-5352 Page 1 of 1

Penny Masse

From: Mark Warbrick [[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 356 PM To: Public Hearing Subject: Bylaw No. 6500.001

Mayor Korpan and Council:

On behalf of my wife Darlene Warbrick and myself I would like to express our support for the above noted bylaw and for the proposed Cable Bay Development.

Yours truly, Mark Warbrick, P.Eng., Newcastle Engineering Ltd., #4-3179 Barons Road, Nanaimo, B.C., V9T-5W5 Phone: (250) 756-9553 (Ext. 23) Fax: (250) 756-9503 '09/04b2008 THU 16:05 FAX 250 755 4436 CITY OF NANAIMO --- LEGISLATIVE SERV [i;lOOl/004 09/04/2005 14:40 F+AX 2502484894 HANCON HOLDING + NAN ADAfIN @I001

Sound Contracting Ltd. 1 080 Industrial Way ParksviUe, B.C. V9P 2W8 Phone: 250-248-8 155 Fax: 250-248-4894 hancon@shawcable. corn

To: Mayor and Council Date: Sept.04/08 Page 1 of -4-

El URGmENT m FOR REVIEW PLEASE COMMENT PLEASE REPLY

Re: Cable Bay Golf 8t Resort Spa Proposed OCP and/or UCl3 Amendment

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please do not approve this proposed amendment and project.

1. It's very unjust to those property owners that presently own land in the Linley Valley - where our lands have been previously downzoned and devalued by you. Council. This downzoning was particularly harsh for our Company and 4451 and 4471 Burma Road, because the Downzoning and Linley Valley Freeze occurred after we dedicated 30 rn for Burma Road and after we (a related company, Lost Lake Properties) built Burma Road, and after we granted the GNWD another SRW for a watermain, and after we had a PLA for -8 Ha lots but were still waiting for sanitary sewer (rather than to install septic fields). It makes no sense and it's hypocritical to expand the UCB when there is already other land within the UCB, waiting to be developed by patient landowners. 2. This project detracts from downtown revitalization. 3. This project can't be good for the environment. 4. This project and proposed land use, conflicts with Harmac and the nearby industrial use. 5. This project will leave the taxpayers paying the cost for significant offsite roads and traffic signals, etc. (other upgrades).

Did you know that: 1. The $30 million per year wages for 500 new jobs would and could otherwise be created in downtown Nanaimo or within the Linley Valley instead of at Cable Bay? Downtown and Linley Valley desewe development rights in priority to a new recent Alberta Developer. 09/04r/2008 THU 16:06 FAX 250 755 4436 CITY OF NANAIMO +-+ LEGISLATIVE SERV m]002/004

09/04/2008 1.4:46 F-U 25024S4S94 HANCON HOLDING + NAN ADMIN !a 002 I

2. The Developer (not the Taxpayer) pays 100% to install services infrastructure regardless whether this development is at Cable Bay, downtown, or in the Linley Valley. The new future development should probably be in downtown Nanaimo and/or in the Linley Valley, and not at Cable Bay.

3. See the attached inane advertisements. The taxpayers really don't need Cable Bay at this time when local lands deserve to be developed first. We deserve good local government.

Thanks for listening. Thanks for a good decision. . . . . Regards,

. .

cc.- Chris $fllern - City Planning Assistant 09/04/2008 THU 16:06 FAX 250 755 4436 CITY OF NANAIMO --- LEGISLATIVE SERV 09/04/2005 14:46 FAX 2502484894 H.ASCl:lX H1:lLD IS(; - 5.15 \.I)\fI\ Q9/04/2008 THU 16: 06 FAX 250 755 4436 CITY OF NANAIMO --- LEGISLATIVE SERV

09/04/2005 14:47 FAX 2502484804 Hi\( [I\ 1i111-1)I.\(, \ i\ i1)\11\ Page 1 of 1

Penny Masse "" "-"-" ' From: Kathie [[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 04,2008 253 AM To: Public Hearing Subject: Public Hearing

My name is Kathie Oud of 1088 St. David Cres. Nanaimo, B.C. V9S2J2. As a long time resident of Nanaimo I would like to add my comments regarding the Cable Development. I would prefer that the land retain the present zoning of 5 acre properties with 2 houses per acre , ths is more in character to the surrounding area. Please do not change this property to resort designation as this greatly increases the density and I feel that the citizens of Nanaimo will eventually be footing the bill in order to maintain the services. I spoke with Mr. Anderson of the City of Nanaimo and he advised me that the developer is responsible for supplying all the services, but what will happen down the road .I see no benefit for the citizens of Nanaimo. I am on a fixed pension and do not want to see another tax increase in the future in order to maintain services to this development. I am also very concerned about the environmentally sensitive Gany Oak area. It will not be protected once the trees are cut order to accommodate this development. I do not understand why this City Council has no regard for the wishes of the people of Nanaimo and seems to want to push through this development 1 will not be voting for anyone on this council in November except for Loyd Sherry as he is the only one who listens to the people of Nanaimo. . The Cab le Bay Trail may still be there because it is Parks Property but it will not be the same with development on either side. I thought city council was trying to draw people to the downtown area. This resort development will do nothing for Nanaimo. It will only put money into the pockets of the out of province developer at our expense. We do not need another bear mountain here. Please listen to the citizens of Nanaimo who do not want this development. Regards Kathie

From the Desk of Catharina Oud Page 1 of 1

Penny Masse

From: barbara johnston [[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 04,2008 9:42 AM To: Public Hearing Subject: Public hearing 2008 Sep 4

Re: Bylaw to amend City of Nanaimo Official Community Plan 2008 No. 6500

I believe all residents on Vancouver Island are concerned with water. Abundant scientific evidence is available and constantly published and broadcast by all media to inform citizens on the issues of this valuable resource. Many initiatives have been taken by governing bodies in Canada to conserve our water supply. As an example I notice on the same page as the official announcement of this public hearing in the Nanaimo News Bulletin (Saturday, August 30,2008 p.8) is a City of Nanaimo water use regulations notice .

In my opinion it is unconscionable at this time for any political jurisdiction to support the building of a golf course, a facility that is known to be a large consumer of water.

My sincere hope is that you will consider this factor in your deliberations about the acceptability of the notion of rezoning the Cable Bay property to a 'Resort Centre' designation and thereby amending the Official Community Plan.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Barbara Johnston 301 30 Cavan St Nanaimo BC V9R 6K3 250-753-1259

Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail Penny Masse

From: Marilyn Smith Sent: Thursday, September 04,2008 9:48 AM To: Ted Swabey; Toby Seward; Dale Lindsay; Andrew Tucker; Penny Masse Subject: FW: September 4 public hearing

Marilyn Smith Administrative Assistant to Mayor and Council Phone: 250-755-4400 Fax: 250-754-8263

-----Original Message----- From: Turley's Florist [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 9:14 AM To: Mayor Gary Korpan Cc: Bill Bestwick; Diane Brennan; Joy Cameron; Bill Holdom; Larry McNabb; Jeet Manhas; Merv Unger; Loyd Sherry Subject: September 4 public hearing

Dear Mayor and Council;

Iam writing in support of the redesignation of the Cable Bay property to allow for a comprehensive, mixed use resort development of recreational, commercial and residential use. Two of our staff members in the last three weeks had occasion to visit Port Alberni on separate occasions. They both came to work expressing how lucky we are in Nanaimo to have civic leaders with forsight. The examples they gave for this enthusiasm were the new Conference Center, the re-juvenation of our city center and the proposed development at Cable Bay. They both said the appeal of Nanaimo to visitors will only continue to grow if we encourage quality, unique development to continue.

Two of the concerns that have been mentioned in the media debate over this project are worth commenting on. First is the concern of increased traffic in a rural area. Iuse the Duke Point highway twice a month and my impression is that this is probably the most under utilized highway on the Island. As there are two existing exitslentrances to this highway close to Phoenix Way, Iquestion the concern that Cedar will be overrun with increased traffic. The second concern is that of a larger development being placed at our southern border leading to urban sprawl. I would argue that this development has some unique advantages over others regarding the sprawl concern. In addition to the proximity to the Duke Point Highway, this development improves the viability of a transit service to the Duke Point Industrial park and the Duke Point Ferry Terminal.

When you are making your decision, please keep in mind the positive impression the City of Nanaimo is making on people beyond our borders.

Sincerely

Jim Turley 3527 Fairview Drive Penny Masse

From: Marilyn Smith Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 9:10 AM To: Penny Masse Subject: FW: Cable Bay

Re: Cable Bay

Marilyn Smith Administrative Assistant to Mayor and Council Phone: 250-755-4400 Fax: 250-754-8263

-----Original Message----- From: Mayor Gary Korpan Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 9:05 AM To: Mayor&Council Cc: Andrew Tucker Subject: FW: Cable Bay

FYI

-----Original Message----- From: Bob Bennie [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thu 04/09/2008 8:20 AM To: Gary Korpan; Mayor Gary Korpan Subject: Cable Bay

Hi Gary, I am Iknow that I have expressed my support for Cable Bay before, but probably not in writing. As you know, being an avid golfer I have traveled most of the Province and may other locations as well to pursue my hobby. What I have found are many communities, not unlike ours, doing the things that make themius first class destinations and first class communities for the citizens. Places like Kelowna, Kamloops, Penticton, Kimberley, Salmon Arm, and the list goes on, have developed themselves as destinations with resorts and golf courses that cater and draw people to the community, both as tourists and future citizens. From my experience these developments once they are completed add significant value and experience to the community and the residence. I hope the council continues its support for this project and allows for the development to get underway as soon as possible, and lets keep building our beautiful city.

Please share this with the other Council members.

Thanks,

Bob

Bob Bennie

3342 Edgewood Dr

Nanaimo BC Page 1 of 1

Penny Masse "- ".-- From: Maureen O'Toole [motoolel @shaw.ca] Sent: Wednesday, September 03,2008 10:21 PM To: Public Hearing Subject: Support for Cable Bay

To Mayor and Council

As a committed Nanaimo business person and resident, I support the proposed Cable Bay Golf Resort & Spa development.

Nanaimo has taken a leadership role in co-operative development with such projects as the conference centre, airport expansion, and cruise ship terminal, all of which have received government support and financial contributions. The proposed Cable Bay Golf Resort & Spa will complement these projects and will provide our city with the opportunity to move to another level as a tourism destination. A resort of this caliber will greatly enhance Nanaimo's appeal for visitors, and the 18-hole signature championship golf course will complement the Nanaimo Golf Club course.

I encourage you to approve Cable Bay's application to change the designation of their 421 acres in the OCP.

Maureen O'Toole 3342 Edgewood Drive Nanaimo, B.C. V9T 5V2 Page 1 of 1

Penny Masse

From: Robert Jeacock [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 03,2008 8:27 PM To: Public Hearing Subject: Cable Bay Development

Mayor and Council:

I fully support Cable Bay Lands Inc.'s application for a designation change of the OCP from 'rural resource lands' to 'resort centre' to accommodate the proposed Cable Bay Golf & Spa Resort and residential development planned for south Nanaimo.

As a retired economics professor at Vancouver Island University who has prepared economic impact studies for similar projects, I am fully aware of the direct and indirect impact that such a development can have on the local economy in terms of the many full- and part-time employment opportunities created during and after construction as well as the additional new sources of tax revenue for the City of Nanaimo.

In addition, the proposed destination resort development with its championship golf course will greatly serve the City's 'Destination Nanaimo' tourism strategy and complement the new Nanaimo conference centre in creating a broader mix of amenities to draw visitors to our region which will add to the economic impact. The Cable Bay project will appeal to local, national and international clients interested in living a resort lifestyle where residents can stay active in a variety of outdoor activities.

For these reasons I have come to the conclusion that the proposed destinationlresidential resort will be good for Nanaimo.

Robert L. Jeacock 5938 Ralston Drive Nanaimo, BC V9T 5x2 Penny Masse

From: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, September 03,2008 7:30 PM To : Public Hearing Subject: Public Hearing Submission

A Online Public Hearing Submission has been made:

Name: christine borton Address: 4937 clematis pl. nanaimo Subject: bylaw # 6500.001

Comments: Please do not allow a resort zoning for cable bay lands. We already have too many golf courses in the region that use way too much water. Water resources need more protection from wasteful users such as golf courses and should be preserved diligently for the future public good. We need more shopping options and affordable housing in the south end. Penny Masse

From: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, September 03,2008 9:21 AM To: Public Hearing Subject: Public Hearing Submission

A Online Public Hearing Submission has been made:

Name: mike lengyell Address: 4937 clematis pl, nanaimo Subject: bylaw # 6500.001

Comments: Ido not want cable bay lands approved for resort. We already have too many golf courses draining our limited water resources that benefit the few while the general populace is constantly reminded to conserve water such as taking shorter showers etc; because our water is finite and must be used wisely, Another wasteful use of resources such as the cable bay lands development is not in the public interest of today or for the future of long-term citizens of Nanaimo. Cable Bay Trail should be expanded not diminished. Page 1 of 1

Penny Masse

From: sj-thomson [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 03,2008 9:15 AM To: Public Hearing Subject: Sept. 4 Cable Bay project

I am opposed to the project being approved as presented.

S. Thomson 115 Machleary Street Penny Masse

From: Joan Harrison Sent: Thursday, September 04,2008 12:14 PM To: Penny Masse Cc: Marilyn Smith Subject: FW: Cable Bay development

-----Original Message----- From: Hodgkin [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 8:52 PM To: Mayor&Council Subject: Cable Bay development

We are residents who live on Cedar Heights Cres., and our properties abut the Cable Bay Lands development. We are in favour of this development, and feel that it is good for Nanaimo and area residents. We urge council to allow this development, and to realise that the boisterous "No" faction does not speak for all. We believe that the majority of people in our area support this development, and are aware of only one neighbour who is against it.

Brian and Barb Hodgkin, 2742 Cedar Heights Cres. Minnie Baigent, 2742 Cedar Heights Cres. Ted and Barb Forbister, 2730 B Cedar Heights Cres. Wayne and Diane Baxter, 2730 Cedar Heights Cres. Page 1 of 2

Penny Masse

From: Marilyn Smith . Sent: Thursday, September 04,2008 9:13 AM To : Penny Masse Subject: FW: Cable Bay Development

Hi Penny. Don't know if you saw this one.

Marilyn Smith Administrative Assistant to Mayor and Council Phone: 250-755-4400 Fax: 250-754-8263

" "-" .. From: Peter Rombough [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 01, 2008 2:42 PM To: Mayor Gary Korpan; Bill Bestwick; Diane Brennan; Joy Cameron; Bill Holdom; Larry McNabb; Jeet Manhas; Loyd Sherry; Merv Unger Subject: Cable Bay Development

Your Worship:

Before you approve the Cable Bay Development, you should be aware of the type of individuals you could be associating yourself with. If what has been reported about Wilf Richard the principle behind the development is true, you run the risk of associating yourself with what appear to be some rather dubious characters.

"The Alberta Securities Conm~issionhas twice disciplined Calgaria~lWilf Richard for illegal trading. One of those cases involved improperly sclling mortgages to finance Birchwood Village Greens, a golf coursc, resort and housing development near Drayton Valley Alta...... Riclrardfs most recent run-in wit11 the Albel-ta Securities Com~nissionwas in 2004 for selling $1,269,000 worth of mortgages through mutual funds salespeople. Mortgage buyers were promised annual retu~~lsof 11.75 per cent but the mortgage holders - ~nostlyretirees - suffered "worry, anxiety and financial hardships," when the development failed to materialize, according to Alberta Securities Co~nmissiondocuments. Richard had to pay $1 0,000 to cover the security comnsission's investigation costs and another $10,000 in settlemelst f'ees. He was also ordered not to trade publicly for the next 10 years...... Previously, in February 2000 the con~missionfound Richard acted improperly in trading in sharcs of Renco Energy Colp., a private company in which he was one of several directors."

Source: Nanaimo Daily News (http://www.bc~olfnews.com/index.php? option=com~content&task=view&id=15 12&Itemid=2)

It would be ~mfol-tunatein the extreme to have your reputation sullied by association with such an individual if such press reports are true. Your "political enemies" will have a field-day linking you to Page 2 of 2 such an unsavioury character should the proposal be approved and you will hardly be able to claim ignorance given the widespread reporting of the alleged past transgressions.

In the end, who you choose to be associated with is a personal decision. However, there is another issue that needs to be considered, especially given the plateauing and projected decline of real estate values over the next few years (see recent report by BC Credit Union Cental reported in the Globe & Mail). There are a lot of other developments already approved that need to be completed (e.g. several on the Nanaimo Harbour Front) before such a speculative proposal as Cable Bay is allowed to proceed. The 1.ast thing Nanai~noneeds is another series of unfinished developments like th.e "Malaspina Hotel" eye- sore that has blighted Nanairno Harbour for the past decade. I have had friends visit from elsewhere and say that the old Malaspi.na Hotel condo developm.ent reminds them of what th.ey have seen in the Third World- they're not quite sure if som.ething is being build or is being torn down! Let's finish the projects already underway before considering Cable Bay. If Cable Bay is a good idea, it will surface again under less conteiltious leadership and when economic circu~nstancesare right.

Yours sincerely

Peter Rombough, 10 Treasure Trail, Protection Island, Nanain~o Page 1 of 1

Penny Masse ".." " -... "." - From: Brian and Denise [[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 01,2008 10:ll PM To : Public Hearing Subject: Cable Bay

I'm writing to voice my support for the Cable Bay project. This is, in my opinion, a very good opportunity for Nanaimo.

Brian Van Herk 6642 Everest Drive Nanaimo, B.C. Page 1 of 1

Penny Masse

" From: Linda Hensel [[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 01,2008 4:39 PM To: Public Hearing Subject: Bylaw no. 6500.001 - Cable Bay Lands Development

This recent submission to amend the "Official Community Plan" will have a strong negative impact on our family.

Our home borders what was to be Lot #I of Phase 1 of the original planned Cable Bay Land development. This change to the bylaw would place three (3) buildings consisting of 204 units directly beside our property line. This new proposed development will change our existing lifestyle from the small rural community that we have enjoyed for the last 23 years. Having multi-family units built directly beside our home will increase not only population, but traffic, noise and everything else that goes along with high density urban development. This is not in keeping with the surrounding community made up of single family homes most on acreage.

We were not completely happy about the original development plans but felt these would have had lesser impact as they called for 5 acre single family parcels. We carefully selected the area we built our home based on "Official Community Plan". This recently submitted proposed change is totally unacceptable.

Linda and Norm Hensel [email protected] 1303 lvor Road Nanaimo (250)722-3661 Page 1 of 1

Penny Masse ---- " -- - From: S WALSH [[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 01,2008 1:04 PM To : Public Hearing Subject: Bylaw 6500.001 (Rezoning for Cable Bay)

To whom it may concern

I own property adjacent to the Cable Bay Land currently under development. When I bought this property I did my research and was very happy with the zoning of the surrounding properties. The first Cable Bay development plan with 5 acre parcels touching my property was acceptable. However, it is my understanding the plan is changed and the zoning may be changed so that multiple family dwellings and low density attached units can be built on these properties touching mine. I am not anti- development, I just feel that the zoning in place when I did due diligence when purchasing my property to ensure maximum privacy and quiet should be upheld. With the original proposal, none of the proposed more densely populated housing units would be adjacent to any existing housing, and would therefore not greatly impact any current residents. This is CERTAINLY not the case with the amended proposal. The traffic alone for this kind of development will be disruptive to the quiet life I have sought. It is not as though I built beside an airport and am now complaining about the noise. I bought beside an acreage that had the zoning I felt I could live with. Please take my concerns into consideration. My quiet lifestyle and privacy are very important to me. Sincerely Sharon Brenner Penny Masse

From: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, August 31,2008 5:07 PM To: Public Hearing Subject: Public Hearing Submission

A Online Public Hearing Submission has been made:

Name: M.E. Stephens Address: 15 Captain Morgan Blvd. Subject: Cable Bay re-zoning

Comments: I am totally opposed to re-zoning to increase population density. Penny Masse

From: Sent: To: Public Hearing Subject: Bylaw No 6500.001 (resort use and Cable Bay)

Iwish to express my concerns regarding Bylaw No 6500.001 (change of use for "Cable Bay Lands")

A lot of effort (by staff, council and citizens) has been done recently on reviewing and revising the OCP. Passage of this bylaw would seem like a slap in the face to those that worked so hard on the OCP. If a developer's wishes can trump the OCP so soon, what is the point of having the OCP in the first place?

As "urban reserve" land, my hope is that this area would not be "built out" until the "corridors and nodes" have reached their target density. Nanaimo might benefit from a tourist oriented resort, but the "Resort Centre" designation appears to be simply a green light for high density housing and reduced green space - in an area that will contribute to urban sprawl. (Note that Ido not accept "golf course" as a valid type of "green space".)

The RDN is looking closely at sustainability issues. In an atmosphere of deep concern for reducing sprawl and preserving green (wild/agricultural) space, Iam stunned that this Bylaw is even being considered. Please do not let developers drive us in the wrong direction.

To sum up - this appears to be a bylaw driven by the developer, and it contradicts the established priorities of the city/region. Ifeel that Nanaimo has "grown up" enough that we shouldn't have to accommodate developers - they should accommodate us.

Thank you for considering my thoughts on this matter.

Shannon Welsh Nanaimo BC Page 1 of 1

Penny Masse

.-l-....----....-..--- ~------~----.,.-..^-----l-_I_-_I "^- .I^_II--- From: RAY FINNER [[email protected]] Sent: Friday, August 29,2008 9:28 AM To: Public Hearing Cc: Tyler Carson; Todd Finner (work); Rod Smith; Pat Geiger; [email protected]; Jim Miller; Brian Senini; Brian Sabourin Subject: Cable Bay support

To Whom This Concerns:

It is time that we as tax payers and business people in the city of Nanaimo wake up and support good projects that will bring outside revenue and taxes to our city. It is fine for the naysayers to put a negative spin on very project that will benefit our local economy. We must wake up and support the type of projects, such as Cable Bay and others that bring a very clean revenue stream to our city, as our industrial base is declining rapidly. As a city it is imperative that we encourage controlled development within the city that provides a tax base that supports our community needs and lessens the tax burden on our homeowners, so we can grow and sustain an infrastructure that makes our city one of the most desirable spots to live in Canada.

Regards Ray Finner

R&L Finner Consulting Ltd. Page 1 of 1

Penny Masse __.____I__._.l_l______d_I_, ".__.l._l^ ". From: Tyler & Elizabeth Carson [[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, August 28,2008 6:41 PM To: Public Hearing Subject: Cable Bay Support

To all concerned: It is too often the minority of Nanaimo make all the noise while the majority stay silent. Imagine Nanaimo today without the Nanaimo Bypass, the 3rd street connector, the ball fields on 3rd street, the Nanaimo Conference Center and the list goes on for things people were against. With the present climate of the Forestry and Fishing industry Nanaimo needs more opportunities to attract Tourism. A resort style development on the south side of Nanaimo is a great idea and these developers have gone the extra mile to ensure the environment and the Cable Bay trail are still an important part of our future. Look at any community of our size, Kelowna and Kamloops have many of these kind of resort developments in and around their communities. I can not think of one thing that is negative that these developers are proposing from the environement to traffic they have a well thought out plan. Hope you see the merits of this project and let them move forward to ensure a better future for Nanaimo. Regards Tyler Carson 5909 Breonna Drive Nanaimo Page 1 of 1

Penny Masse

From: Spence Walsh [[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, August 28,2008 2:54 PM To: Public Hearing Subject: Bylaw 6500.001 (Rezoning for Cable Bay)

My name is Spencer Walsh and my address is 2905 Glynneath Road, Nanaimo BC, V9X 1P7. My property has a common boundary with the Cable Bay Lands. I am adjacent (touching) what WAS to be Lot # 1 (5 acres) of Phase 1 of this development. The developer has cleared the trees and roughed in a road right along my property line which unfortunately has caused me to have roads on both sides of my lot. The purpose of this road was to provide access to 19 five acre parcels (Phase 1). I wasn't happy about this, but didn't complain because the Cable Bay Lands were zoned for 5 acre parcels and that's what they were proposing to develop next to our property. Now it seems that the project has totally changed, and they want to build 3 multi family buildings containing 208 units, plus 22 "low density attached" units adjacent to my property. In addition to that, the road that they built alongside (and touching) my property line is now intended to access 469 living units. I am not anti-development, but before purchasing our property, we did "due diligence" to find out what could be built on the properties surrounding us, before we started to build our dream home. A 5 acre parcel next to us was acceptable, but not 230 units and a road accessing 469 units. I think an Official Community Plan is something that shouldn't be tampered with unless there is a very important need to do so. I don't believe that profits for a developer is a good enough reason. I have no objection to this or any other developer buying property next to mine, then proceeding to develop it according to the zoning that was in place when he bought it, and to the limitations of the current Official Community Plan. If this development goes ahead as NOW proposed, it will be the absolute end of the lifestyle, we've sought out, and was NOT allowed under the existing rules when we searched out and acquired our property. Spencer Walsh Nanaimo, August 23,2008

Mayor and Council City of Nanaimo 455 Wallace Street Nanaimo, BC V9R 5J6

RE: Cable Bay Golf Resort & Spa Public Hearing, September 4

Dear Mayor and Council

As a Nanaimo businessman and resident of Cedar-by-the-Sea, I am fully in favour of the proposed Cable Bay Golf Resort & Spa development planned for south Nanaimo.

This kind of destination resort development will' greatly enhance our region, provide many full and part-time jobs for years to come, diversify ow economy, and generate millions in tax revenues for the City of Nanaimo. The signature championship golf course, boutique hotel and spa facilities will boost tourism and put our Central Vancouver Island region on the map.

Some residents in Cedar have expressed opposition to the project; however, many of us are excited about the prospect of having such a high quality development in our neighbourhood. I had planned to speak at the Public Hearing but will, unfortunately, be out of town that week and, instead, have decided to express my support for the project in a letter.

I encourage you to put your full support behind the Cable Bay project.

Sincerely yours,

Don Hubbard 1679 Janes Road Cedar, BC V9X 1P3 STAFF REPORT

REPORT TO: ANDREW TUCKER, DIRECTOR, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

FROM: BRUCE ANDERSON, MANAGER, COMMUNITY PLANNING

RE: URBAN CLEAN-UP INITIATIVE

STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION:

That Council direct staff to refer the request for $15,500 funding for the Urban Clean-Up lnitiative to the 2009 budget deliberations.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The Community Planning Division and Bylaw Services Division are seeking to ensure continued financial support for the Urban Clean-Up Initiative, a downtown clean-up service provided by the non-profit John Howard Society for a fixed fee contract. The service arises from the work of the SAFER Nanaimo Committee, and is intended to ameliorate the impact of social service provision in the city centre.

The request is to provide funding for the Urban Clean-Up lnitiative in 2009 through the Community Planning Division budget in the amount of $1 5,500 (based on a one day a week service) to ensure a continuation of the service. The funding source for this annual service is intended to be drawn from gaming revenue.

The purpose of this report is to both provide information respecting the Urban Clean-Up lnitiative and to request a 2009 funding allocation.

BACKGROUND:

The Urban Clean-Up lnitiative began in 2006 as a response to the Good Neighbour Agreement process between the Salvation Army New Hope Centre and the surrounding residents 1 businesses. That process identified concerns with respect to litter originating with service users and the general homeless population; litter that extended throughout the downtown core. In support of these concerns, the SAFER Nanaimo Committee recommended the provision of a clean-up service above and beyond that provided by the municipality.

Subsequently, an agreement was reached in 2007 with the Nanaimo John Howard Society to provide that service on a contract basis, utilizing clients and staff from the "Forensics" program which helps those with a psychiatric illness integrate back into society. Initial funding of $10,000 was provided by the City of Nanaimo by way of a community contribution arising from a liquor primary rezoning. When that funding was depleted, VlHA (Vancouver Island Health Authority) Mental Health a'nd Addictions Services provided six months further funding to the Initiative. Considerable support for this program has been articulated by residents and businesses in the downtown, as well as Urban Clean-Up participants. As such, both Community Planning and Bylaw Services feel that a continuation of the program is warranted. Council Report -2-

Currently, a shortfall in the 2008 funding of $3,750 is being addressed through internal budgets of the Community Planning and Bylaw Services Divisions. However, as of January, 2009, there is no committed funding support for the Urban Clean-Up Initiative. While there may be possible funding sources from VlHA and from liquor primary rezoning (as mentioned above) in future, there is an interest in providing certainty respecting the funding of this valued initiative. Based on a one day a week service, a total of $15,500 is required for 2009.

Respectfully submitted,

- - \ Bruce Anderson, Manager Andrew Kcker, Director Community Planning ~'vision Planning and Development Development Services Department Development Services Department

JHIch g:\commplan\admin\2008\JohnHoward~UrbanCleanup Council Date: 2008-Sep-29 FOR CITY MANAGERS 2008-Sep-22 STAFF REPORT

REPORT TO: ANDREW TUCKER, DIRECTOR, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

FROM: BRUCE ANDERSON, MANAGER, COMMUNITY PLANNING

RE: AMENDMENT TO CITY OF NANAIMO GREEN BUILDING POLICY

STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION:

That Council direct staff to amend the Green Building Council Policy for the City of Nanaimo to require all new municipal buildings, 500 square metres or greater, to be built to the Gold standard for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), including full registration and certification under the Canada Green Building Council (CaGBC).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Currently, the City has a Council Policy stating that the City will use the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) building rating system and will meet the requirements for the Silver standard or better for all new City building construction larger than 500 square metres. The Council Policy also adds that a review will be conducted either in six years or after the next three City construction projects using the LEED approach are completed, to determine its effectiveness and to make adjustments.

Given recent changes in Provincial legislation on the issue of Climate Change and water conservation, adjustments are needed to be made in the City's Green Building Council Policy ahead of the above schedule in order to continue to demonstrate local leadership and to be better positioned to meet future requirements.

BACKGROUND:

"Green Buildings" refer to an integrated framework of design, construction, and operations practices that encompass the environmental, economic, and social impacts of building. Green building practices recognize the interdependence of the natural and built environments and seek to minimize the use of energy, water, and other natural resources in order to provide a healthy, productive indoor environment.

There are a number of green building best practices that have been developed to incorporate "sustainability" into the design, construction and maintenance of buildings. Some examples of these green building or sustainability check-lists include the Built Green program, Green Globes 1 Green Leaf, the UBC Environmental Assessment Program (EAP) for Housing, Go Green and the LEED program.

Defining LEED

The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) is a voluntary, consensus-based rating system for high-performance, sustainable buildings. The system is overseen by the Canada Green Building Council (CaGBC) and is made up of various professionals from the design and building industry. The CaGBC was formed in 2004 and modeled its LEED criteria from the United States Green Building Council.

LEED certification starts with registration with the CaGBC. Once a building project is registered, the project design team begins to collect information and develop documentation to satisfy the LEED credit requirements to reach a specific level of certification. The project design team also receives 123 Council Report - 2 - input and support from CaGBC as needed through the process. Credits are applied to a project using six categories: sustainable sites water efficiency energy and atmosphere materials and resources indoor environmental quality innovation and design process

To earn LEED certification, the applicant must satisfy all of the prerequisites and gain a minimum number of points from the credits attained. The following table identifies the LEED certification levels:

Certification Level Points Certified 26 to32 Silver 33 to 38 39 to 51 Platinum 52 or more

The provincial government has made significant strides to require all new provincial buildings meet the LEED Gold standards, as part of its commitments to lower greenhouse gas emissions, become more water efficient and improve energy efficiency of all provincial public buildings. Existing B.C. government buildings will be retrofitted to make them more water and energy efficient, climate- friendly, and healthier places. The province has argued that a LEEDTMGold building can cost 2- 15% more than a non certified building, but quantifiable and significant productivity and conservation benefits will provide better value to the taxpayer over the life of the building.

Existing City of Nanaimo LEED Projects

To date, the City has completed two projects under Council's current direction to achieve LEED Silver; according to staff; both projects appear to have met and potentially exceeded that goal.

The project architect for Oliver Woods Community Centre (OWCC) is preparing a resubmission of the LEED information; this should be completed by the end of September. The project architect for Fire Station #4 is preparing the initial submission. When all the documentation has been submitted, reviewed credits audited, and questions answered, we will officially know what level they have achieved.

In the case of the Oliver Woods Community Centre, LEED related Architectural, Electrical, Structural and Mechanical Consulting engineers, project registration, best practices commissioning and project management costs are in the range of $145,275. Staff estimates that LEED documentation and design work adds about 20% onto the design and project management cost, or about 2% on the project cost. This is in keeping with the Provincial estimates for meeting the LEED Gold standards. Regarding construction costs, the 2 to 4% premium for LEED Silver many industry sources estimate is considered accurate by staff when looking at the experience with the OWCC and the Fire Station #4.

Prioritizing Points while meeting the LEED Standard

Since the Green Building Council Policy was established, the City has also adopted a Corporate Climate Change Plan and signed onto the Climate Action Charter with the provincial government. In addition, new requirements for local government to take greater action on conserving and protecting water (Living Water Smart Plan) has meant that adjustments need to be considered in how the City collects its LEED points. Council Report - 3 - The "Sustainable Sites" category focuses on addressing stormwater management, reducing site disturbance, and site selection. Depending on how the building is sited and the level of disturbance of surrounding natural vegetation, some significant gains can be achieved in energy efficiency and in addressing water conservation, once the building project is completed. The "Energy & Atmosphere" category focuses on optimizing the energy efficiency of the building and ways to reduce Greenhouse gas emissions both during construction, and during building operation. The "In-door Air Quality1'category awards points on building projects that use materials that minimize chemical "off gassing" and give priority to ventilation and general air quality for anyone occupying the building.

By giving priority to these LEED categories, as part of achieving LEED Gold for municipal buildings, the City can more effectively implement its Climate Change commitments and be better positioned to meet the Province's "Living Water Smart Plan".

Respectfully submitted,

Bruce Anderson, Manager AnWev\ Community Planning hisi ion Planning and Development Development Services Department Development Services Department

RLIch g:\commplan\admin\2008\greenbldg~councilpolicy~update Council Date: 2008-Sep-29 STAFF REPORT

REPORT TO: T. P. SEWARD, DIRECTOR, PERMITS AND PROPERTIES

FROM: J. D. KINCH, MANAGER, BUILDING INSPECTION DIVISION

RE: STRUCTURE REMOVAL ORDER - 1583 BARTLElT STREET

ATTACHED CARPORT

STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION:

That Council, pursuant to Division 12 of Part 3 of the Community Charter, hereby resolves that:

1. construction has taken place to reconstruct an attached carport to the single family dwelling located at 1583 Bartlett Street, legally described as Lot 3, Suburban Lot 4, Newcastle Townsite, Section 1, Nanaimo District, Plan 483, P. I. D.: 009-007-784 and is considered to be in contravention of the BC Building Code, "BUILDING BYLAW 2003 NO. 5693 and "ZONING BYLAW 1993 NO. 4000 under section 8(3)(1) or Division 8 of Part 3 of the Community Charter; and

2. the owner/agent/lessee and occupier of the dwelling is hereby ordered to take the following remedial action within 30 days of the receipt of notice of this Order:

"Remove the attached carport from the side of the single family dwelling located at 1583 Bartlett Street".

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Manager of the Bylaw Services Section BE AND IS HEREBY AUTHORIZED in default of such remedial measures being undertaken by the owners or occupiers, to carry out or have such work carried out and the expense charged to the owner or occupier. If unpaid on December 31 in the year in which the work is done, the expense shall be added to and form part of the taxes to be paid on the real property as taxes in arrears or be collected as a debt.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The property located at 1583 Bartlett Street was inspected on 2007-JUN-11 as the result of a complaint. At the time of the inspection it was found that construction had been undertaken to build an attached carport to the single family dwelling with no side yard setback provided in contravention of "ZONING BYLAW 2003 NO. 5693". No building permits were obtained for the construction in contravention of "BUILDING BYLAW 2003 NO. 5693". The required application to vary Section 5.4 of "ZONING BYLAW 2003 NO. 5693 to allow for the carport to remain without the side yard setback was denied by the Board of Variance at their meeting held 2007-OCT-29 and as such a building permit is unable to be issued. Staff Report 2008-SEP-29 Council Page 2 1583 Bartlett Street

BACKGROUND:

At the Regular Meeting of Council held 2007-DEC-03, Council passed a resolution respecting the contravention of certain bylaws pursuant to Section 57 of the Community Charter and as such Bylaw Contravention Notice FBI27883 was registered with the Land title and Survey Authority of British Columbia on 2007-DEC-11 to reflect the nonconforming setback and illegal construction. At that same meeting the property owner appeared before Council requested that any further action regarding this property be postponed for a six-month period. This was to facilitate the property owner being out of the country until May of this year, allowing enough time to remove the carport. To date, the removal of the carport has not taken place. Given these circumstances, Staff recommend that Council consider an order to remove / upgrade at this time pursuant to the Community Charter. Correspondence was sent to the property owners by registered mail advising that Council, at its Regular Meeting to be held 2008-SEP-29, will give consideration to ordering that the carport be removed as well as requesting that the property owner contact the Building Inspector to work towards resolving the issue prior to the meeting.

File summary:

Received complaint lnspection completed / 'Stop Work' notice issued Letter requesting building permit application Received building permit application Board of Variance denied application to vary side yard setback Letter advising of Council date for Section 57 Notice lnspection completed Letter advising of continued contravention Registered letter advising of Council date and time for Removal Order

Respectfully submitted, /- &, J. D. Kinch, Manag I T. P. &ward( Director Building Inspection Division Permits and Properties DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT

p:\calls\attachments\228572\cfs228572 council report removal order.doc To: CFMANAGER ED FOR CrrY MANAGER3 ~~GE RA MANA R OF DEVELOPMENT GEFMGEQ 2008-SEP-22 STAFF REPORT

REPORT TO: T. P. SEWARD, DIRECTOR, PERMITS AND PROPERTIES

FROM: J. D. KINCH, MANAGER, BUILDING INSPECTION DIVISION

RE: STRUCTURE REMOVAL ORDER - 6153 BRICKYARD ROAD

DUPLEX CONVERTED TO FOURPLEX

STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION:

That Council, pursuant to Division 12 of Part 3 of the Community Charter, hereby resolves that:

1. construction has taken place to alter the basements within each side of the duplex to include an additional dwelling unit located at 6153 Brickyard Road, British Columbia, legally described as Lot 1, District Lot 25G, Wellington District, Plan VIP68948, P. I. D.: 024-506-371 is considered to be in contravention of the BC Building Code, "BUILDING BYLAW 2003 NO. 5693" and "ZONING BYLAW 1993 NO. 4000" under section 8(3)(1) or Division 8 of Part 3 of the Community Charter; and

2. the owner/agent/lessee and occupier of the dwelling is hereby ordered to take the following remedial action within 30 days of the receipt of notice of this Order:

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Manager of the Bylaw Services Section BE AND IS HEREBY AUTHORIZED in default of such remedial measures being undertaken by the owners or occupiers, to carry out or have such work carried out and the expense charged to the owner or occupier. If unpaid on December 31 in the year in which the work is done, the expense shall be added to and form part of the taxes to be paid on the real property as taxes in arrears or be collected as a debt.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The duplex located at 6153 Brickyard Road was inspected on 2008-MAR-28 as the result of City of Nanaimo, Revenue Services Section review of properties where additional billing of services is requested. It was found that construction had taken place to alter the basements within each side of the duplex to include an additional dwelling unit in contravention of "ZONING BYLAW 1993 NO. 4000" and without the required building permit in contravention of "BUILDING BYLAW 2003 NO. 5693". Correspondence was sent to the property owners advising of the illegal use and requesting that the units be removed and the basement floor layouts returned to reflect the approved basement floor plan of the building permit completed in June of 2003. The owner was advised that the illegally constructed units had to be removed and that an inspection was scheduled for 2008-JUL-18 to confirm compliance. At the time of the inspmwas noted that no change had occurred and both units were occupied. B c- -Meerlng 128 ca h-cwrcrarn fkkmgk me?- Staff Report 2008-SEP-29 Council Page 2 6153 Brickyard Road

The property is located in an area that consists predominantly of single family dwellings. The zoning of the subject property (RM1) allows for a duplex and is the only property zoned RM1 on Brickyard Road.

BACKGROUND:

At the Regular Meeting of Council held 2008-SEP-08, Council passed a resolution respecting the contravention of certain bylaws pursuant to Section 57 of the Community Charter and as such Bylaw Contravention Notice FB0210545 was registered with the Land title and Survey Authority of British Columbia on 2008-SEP-12 to reflect the nonconforming use and the illegal construction.

To date, the Building lnspector has not received confirmation that removal of the additional dwelling units has taken place. Given these circumstances, Staff recommend that Council consider an order to remove / upgrade at this time pursuant to the Community Charter. Correspondence was sent to the property owners by registered mail advising that Council, at its Regular Meeting to be held 2008-SEP-29, will give consideration to ordering that the dwelling units be removed as well as requesting that the property owner contact the Building lnspector to work towards resolving the issue prior to the Meeting.

File summarv:

lnspection completed Letter requesting removal lnspection completed Letter advising of failure to comply Letter advising of Council date for Section 57 Notice Registered letter advising of Council date for Structure Removal Order

Respectfully submitted,

A- d4 & J. D. Kinch, ~&hacl& T. P. seward: ~irebor Building lnkpection Division Permits and Properties DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT

p:\calls\attachments\237700\cfs237700 council report removal order.doc MANAGER OED FOR CITY MANAGEm STAFF REPORT

TO: T. P. SEWARD, DIRECTOR, PERMITS AND PROPERTIES

FROM: J. D. KINCH, MANAGER, BUILDING INSPECTION DIVISION

RE: UNRESOLVED BUILDING DEFICIENCIES / BYLAW CONTRAVENTION NOTICES

STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION:

That Council, by resolution, instruct the Director of Legislative Services to file a Bylaw Contravention Notice respecting the properties listed below at the Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia under Section 57 of the Community Charter:

(1) 5430 Arnhem Terrace - Illegal Construction / Finished Basement to include a Secondary Suite (2) 3983 Gulfview Drive - Building Deficiencies / Incomplete Building Permit for Building Envelope Repair

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Construction has been undertaken at the following property(ies) that is not in compliance with "BUILDING BYLAW 2003 NO. 5693", "ZONING BYLAW 1993 NO. 4000 or the applicable edition of the BC Building Code.

BACKGROUND:

(1) 5430 Arnhem Terrace - lllesal Construction / Finished Basement to include a Secondary Suite

Owner(s): Fiona L. Maclnnes 5430 Arnhem Terrace Nanaimo BC V9T 2M3

Legal: Lot 21, District Lot 23G, Wellington District, Plan 15154 P. I. D.: 004-192-079

Building Permit No.: 113042 was issued 2008-JUL-16 to undertake the required safety upgrades of the existing secondary suite previously constructed without a building permit in the basement of the singlefamilydwelling at 5430 Arnhem Terrace. As the suite was constructed prior to Council's adoption of the Secondary Suite Policy (2005-FEB-07), the Policy allows it to be upgraded under a building permit to meet the basic safety provisions identified in the BC Building Code. A condition of the building permit is that a Bylaw Contravention Notice be registered on the property title in compliance with Council's Secondary Suite Policy to advise individuals with future interest in the property of the nonconformity. Staff Report Page 2

The Notice provides disclosure to future owners to protect taxpayers of potential claims against the unpermitted work. As per Council's Policy, the owner may retain the suite in the basement if a building permit is completed to undertake the required safety upgrades.

File summary:

Received Building Permit application Building Permit Issued Letter advising of Council date for Section 57 Notice

(2) 3983 Gulfview Drive - Building Deficiencies 1 Incomplete Buildinq Permit for Building Envelope Repair

Owner(s): Balvir Joshi Catherine Joshi 6373 lcarus Drive Nanaimo BC V9V 1N4

Legal: Lot 22, District Lot 41, Wellington District, Plan VIP55191 P. I. D.: 017-979-650

Building Permit No.: 110409 was issued 2006-JUN-29 to undertake a building envelope repair to the single family dwelling located at 3983 Gulfview Drive. The work was undertaken and completed without any of the required inspections in contravention of "BUILDING BYLAW 2003 NO. 5693. A Bylaw Contravention Notice is recommended to be registered on the property title to advise individuals with future interest in the property of the nonconformity. The Notice provides disclosure to future owners to protect taxpayers of potential claims against the uninspected work.

File summary:

Building permit issued Building permit expired Letter advising of nonconformity Letter advising of Council date for Section 57 Notice

Respectfully submitted,

v~uilding inspection Division Permits and Properties DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT

NR To: CITY ANAGER Fo& FOR CITY MANAGERS g:\devbldg\councilDOO8 reports\neldaQ008sep29 section 57 report.doc R ORT 0 CQU&IL STAFF REPORT

REPORT TO: TOBY SEWARD, DIRECTOR OF PERMITS AND PROPERTIES

FROM: RANDY CHURCHILL, MANAGER OF BYLAW, REGULATION AND SECURITY

RE: ILLEGAL GROW OPERATION

PROPERTY: 1746 Meredith Road LEGAL: Lot A, Section 17, Range 8, Mountain District, Plan 14987 OWNER: Archibald Gordon Murray Janet Louise Murray 1025 Delestre Avenue Coquitlam, BC V3K 2G9

STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION:

That Council, pursuant to Sections 72 and 73 of the Community Charter, order the owner of 1746 Meredith Road to remove the structure or bring it up to standard within thirty (30) days and that any cost incurred by the Municipality be recovered pursuant to the Community Chatter.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The above property contains an illegal grow operation in contravention of City of Nanaimo "BUILDING BYLAW 2003 NO. 5693". Photographs were taken and are available for viewing.

BACKGROUND:

An inspection revealed a single family dwelling was converted to contain a grow operation. The water supply to the building has been disconnected and the owner has been advised of the remediation process required to reoccupy the building. Registered mail was sent to the owner advising that Council, at its meeting of 2008-Sep-29, will give consideration to ordering the structure removed or brought up to standard pursuant to Sections 72 and 73 of the Community Charter. Respectfully submitted, X

Toby ~ehard ~anager ~irector Bylaw, Regulation and Security Permits and Properties

Council: 2008-Sep-29 2008-Sep-19 STAFF REPORT

TO: TOBY SEWARD, DIRECTOR, PERMITS AND PROPERTIES

FROM: RANDY CHURCHILL, MANAGER OF BYLAW, REGULATION AND SECURITY

RE: PROPERTY MAINTENANCE BYLAW 1990 NO. 3704

PROPERTY: 730 Bruce Avenue LEGAL: Lot 1, Section 1, Nanaimo District, Plan 10850 OWNER: Ha Thi Vu 730 Bruce Avenue Nanaimo, BC V9R 329

STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION:

That Council, pursuant to "PROPERTY MAINTENANCE BYLAW 1990 NO. 3704, direct the owner of 730 Bruce Avenue to remove three derelict vans, discarded household items, a toilet, mattress, wood, window frames, and miscellaneous debris from the premises within fourteen (14) days or the work will be done by the City or its agents at the owner's cost.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

A complaint was received about this property on 2008-Sep-08. A bylaw enforcement officer inspected the property and found three derelict vans, discarded household items, a toilet, mattress, wood, window frames, and miscellaneous debris. Photographs were taken and are available for viewing.

BACKGROUND:

This is the first property maintenance complaint about this address since it was sold to the present owner. The owner was advised by registered mail that Council, at its meeting of 2008-Sep-29, will give consideration to ordering the property cleaned up pursuant to City of Nanaimo "PROPERTY MAINTENANCE BYLAW 1990 NO. 3704.

To date, the property has not been cleaned up.

Respectfully submitted, B1

1 - Randy Churchill Toby ~ew&d Manager ~irector Bylaw, Regulation and Security Permits and Properties

Council: 2008-Sep-29 STAFF REPORT

TO: TOBY SEWARD, DIRECTOR, PERMITS AND PROPERTIES

FROM: RANDY CHURCHILL, MANAGER OF BYLAW, REGULATION AND SECURITY

RE: PROPERTY MAINTENANCE BYLAW 1990 NO. 3704

PROPERTY: 370 Georgia Avenue LEGAL: Lot 8, Section 1, Plan 1432 OWNER: David G. Braithwaite PO Box 434 Nanaimo, BC V9r 5L3

STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION:

That Council, pursuant to "PROPERTY MAINTENANCE BYLAW 1990 NO. 3704, direct the owner of 370 Georgia Avenue to remove tree limbs, brush cuttings, garbage, and miscellaneous debris from the premises within fourteen (14) days or the work will be done by the City or its agents at the owner's cost.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

A complaint was received about this property on 2008-Sep-16. A bylaw enforcement officer inspected the property and found tree limbs, brush cuttings, garbage, and miscellaneous debris. Photographs were taken and are available for viewing.

BACKGROUND:

This is the second property maintenance complaint about this address. The first complaint was unfounded. The owner was advised by registered mail that Council, at its meeting of 2008-Sep-29, will give consideration to ordering the property cleaned up pursuant to City of Nanaimo "PROPERTY MAINTENANCE BYLAW 1990 NO. 3704.

To date, the property has not been cleaned up.

Randy Churchill Tob $4Seward Manager ~irector Bylaw, Regulation and Security Permits and Properties 2008-Sep-19 STAFF REPORT

TO: TOBY SEWARD, DIRECTOR, PERMITS AND PROPERTIES

FROM: RANDY CHURCHILL, MANAGER OF BYLAW, REGULATION AND SECURITY

RE: PROPERTY MAINTENANCE BYLAW 1990 NO. 3704

PROPERTY: 31 1 Wallace Street LEGAL: Lot 1, Section 1, Nanaimo District, Plan VIP82672 OWNER: Akal Development Ltd. 1325 Ivy Lane Nanaimo, BC V9T 5T2

STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION:

That Council, pursuant to "PROPERTY MAINTENANCE BYLAW 1990 NO. 3704, direct the owner of 31 1 Wallace Street to remove noxious weeds, discarded bedding, garbage, and miscellaneous debris from the premises within fourteen (14) days or the work will be done by the City or its agents at the owner's cost.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

A complaint was received about this property on 2008-Aug-08. A bylaw enforcement officer inspected the property and found noxious weeds, discarded bedding, garbage, and miscellaneous debris. Photographs were taken and are available for viewing.

BACKGROUND:

This is the fourth property maintenance complaint about this address. This is a vacant property that has been used by indigent people who leave debris on the property. The debris has been removed from the property in the past. The owner was advised by registered mail that Council, at its meeting of 2008-Sep-29, will give consideration to ordering the property cleaned up pursuant to City of Nanaimo "PROPERTY MAINTENANCE BYLAW 1990 NO. 3704.

To date, the property has not been cleaned up. nctfully submitted,

Randy Churchill Toby Seward ~anager Director Bylaw, Regulation and Security Permits and Properties

Council: 2008-Sep-29 To: CITY MANAGER FOQVf"ED FOR CITY MANAGERS STAFF REPORT

REPORT TO: D. W. HOLMES, GENERAL MANAGER OF CORPORATE SERVICES

FROM: I. HOWAT, DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES

RE: REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NANAIMO PUMP AND HAUL LOCAL SERVICE AREA AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 975.49, 2008

STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION:

That Council waive the consent requirements under Section 801.4 of the Local Government Act by consenting to the adoption of "REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NANAIMO PUMP AND HAUL LOCAL SERVICE AREA AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 975.49, 2008" and that the Regional District of Nanaimo be notified accordingly.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Staff have received correspondence from the Regional District of Nanaimo advising that they have introduced and read three times "REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NANAIMO PUMP AND HAUL LOCAL SERVICE AREA AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 975.49, 2008". The bylaw proposes to remove one property within Electoral Area 'F' from the pump and haul program. As part of the approval process, the Regional District of Nanaimo requires the City's consent to this bylaw.

Respectfully submitted, c&@b Ian Howa Douglas Holmes DIRECTOR GENERAL MANAGER LEGISLATIVE SERVICES CORPORATE SERVICES

Ikk

Council: 2008-SEP-29 September 9,2008

City of Nanaimo 455 Wallace Street Nanaimo, BC V9R 556

Attention:. Ian Howat Director of Legislative Services

Re: RDN Pump and Haul Local Service Area Amendment Bylaw No. 975.49

The Board, at its regular meeting held August 268, 2008, introduced and read three times the above noted amendment bylaw. (copy attached) This bylaw proposes to include one property within Electoral Area 'By and one property within Electoral Area 'H' in the pump and haul program. As part of the approval process, the Regional District of Nanaimo requires the City's consent to this bylaw.

It would be appreciated if your Council would endorse the following resolution:

MOVED , SECONDED , that the Council of the City of Nanaimo waive the consent requirements under Section 801.4 of the Local Government Act by consenting to the adoption of "Regional District of Nanaimo Pump and Haul Local Service Area Amendment Bylaw No. 975.49, 2008" and FURTHER that the Regional District be notified accordingly.

As the District requires this consent to complete the approval process, it would be appreciated if you would consider this request at your next Council meeting.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office.

Sincerely,

Maureen Pearse 6300 Hammond Boy Rd. Sr. Mgr. of Corporate Administration Nanaimo, B.C. V9T 6N2

Ph: (250)390-4111 Attachment Toll Free: 1-877-607-4111 Fax: (2501390-41 63

RDN Website: www.rdn.bc.cn

10975-49 nanaimo approval letter - Azrg 2008.303 7 REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NANAIMO

BYLAW NO. 975.49

A BYLAW TO AMEND THE REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NANAIMO PUMP AND HAUL LOCAL SERVICE AREA ESTABLISHMENT BYLAW NO. 975

WHEREAS Regional District of Nanaimo Pump and Haul Local Service Area Establishment Bylaw No. 975, as amended, established the pump and haul local service area;

AND WHEREAS the Directors of Electoral Areas 'By, 'C', 'E', 'F', 'G' and 'H' have consented, in writing, to the adoption of this bylaw;

AND WHEREAS the Councils of the City of Nanaimo and the District of Lantzville have consented, by resolution, to the adoption of Bylaw No. 975.49;

AND WHEREAS the Board has been requested to amend the boundaries of the local service area to include the following properties:

Lot 27, Plan 16121, District Lot 40, Newcastle Land District (Electoral Area 'H')

Lot 72, Section 13, VIP2 153 1, Nanaimo Land District (Gabriola Island, Electoral Area 'B')

NOW THEREFORE the Regional District of Nanaimo, in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows:

1. Schedule 'A' of Bylaw No. 975 is hereby repealed and replaced with Schedule 'A' attached hereto and forming part of this bylaw.

2. This bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "Regional District of Nanaimo Pump and Haul Local Service Area Amendment Bylaw No. 975.49,2008".

Introduced and read three times this 26th day of August, 2008.

Adopted this day of ,2008.

CHAIRPERSON SR. MGR., CORPORATE ADMINISTRATION Schedule 'A' to accompany "Regional District of Nanaimo Pump and Haul Local Service Area Amendment Bylaw No. 975.49,200Sn

Chairperson

Sr. Mgr., Corporate Administration

BYLAW NO. 975.49

SCHEDULE 'A'

Electoral Area 'B'

1. Lot 108, Section 3 1, Plan 17658, Nanaimo Land District.

2. Lot 6, Section 18, Plan 17698, Nanaimo Land District.

3. Lot 73, Section 3 1, Plan 17658, Nanaimo Land District.

4. Lot 24, Section 5, Plan 19972, Nanaimo Land District.

5. Lot 26, Section 12, Plan 23619, Nanaimo Land District.

6. Lot 185, Section 3 1, Plan 17658, Nanaimo Land District.

7. Lot 177, Section 3 1, Plan 17658, Nanaimo Land District.

8. Lot 120, Section 3 1, Plan 17658, Nanaimo Land District.

9. Lot 7, Section 18, Plan 17698, Nanaimo Land District.

10. Lot 108, Section 12, Plan 23435, Nanaimo Land District.

11. Lot 75, Section 13, Plan 2153 1, Nanaimo Land District.

12. Lot 85, Section 18, Plan 21586, Nanaimo Land District.

13. Lot 14, Section 21, Plan 5958, Nanaimo Land District.

14. Lot 108, Section 13, Plan 21 53 1, Nanaimo Land District.

15. Lot 84, Sections 12 & 13, Plan 2 153 1, Nanaimo Land District.

16. Lot 72, Section 13, VIP2153 1, Nanaimo Land District. 139 Schedule 'A' Page 2

Electoral Area 'C' (Defined portion)

Electoral Area 'E'

1. Lot 69, District Lot 68, Plan 30341, Nanoose Land District.

2. Lot 1, District Lot 72, Plan 1768 1, Nanoose Land District.

3. Lot 17, District Lot 78, Plan 14212, Nanoose Land District.

4. Lot 32, District Lot 68, Plan 26680, Nanoose Land District.

5. Lot 13, Block E, District Lot 38, Plan 13054, Nanoose Land District.

6. Lot 5, District Lot 78, Plan 25366, Nanoose Land District.

7. Lot 13, District Lot 78, Plan 25828, Nanoose Land District.

8. Lot 58, District Lot 78, Plan 14275, Nanoose Land District.

9. Lot 28, District Lot 78, Plan 15983, Nanoose Land District.

10. Lot 23, District Lot 78, Plan 142 12, Nanoose Land District.

11. Lot 23, District Lot 78, Plan 28595, Nanoose Land District.

12. Lot 53, District Lot 78, Plan 14275, Nanoose Land District.

13. Lot 12, District Lot 8, Plan 20762, Nanoose Land District.

Electoral Area 'F'

1. Lot 2, District Lot 74, Plan 36425, Cameron Land District.

2. Lot A, Salvation Army Lots, Plan 1 11 5, Except part in Plan 734 RW, Nanoose Land District.

3. Strata Lot 179, Block 526, Strata Plan VIS4673, Cameron Land District.

4. Strata Lot 180, Block 526, Strata Plan VIS4673, Cameron Land District.

5. Strata Lot 18 1, Block 526, Strata Plan VIS4673, Cameron Land District.

140 Schedule 'A' Page 3

Strata Lot 182, Block 526, Strata Plan VIS4673, Cameron Land District.

Strata Lot 183, Block 526, Strata Plan VIS4673, Cameron Land District.

Electoral Area 'G'

1. Lot 28, District Lot 28, Plan 26472, Nanoose Land District.

2. Lot 1, District Lot 80, Plan 49865, Newcastle Land District.

Electoral Area 'H'

1. Lot 22, District Lot 16, Plan 133 12, Newcastle Land District.

2. Lot 29, District Lot 81, Plan 27238, Newcastle Land District.

3. Lot 46, District Lot 8 I, Plan 27238, Newcastle Land District.

4. Lot 9, District Lot 28, Plan 24584, Newcastle Land District.

5. Lot 4 1, District Lot 8 1, Plan 27238, Newcastle Land District.

6. Lot 20, District Lot 16, Plan 133 12, Newcastle Land District.

7. District Lot 200 1, Nanaimo Land District.

8. Lot 1, District Lot 40, Plan 16 121, Newcastle District.

9. Lot 27, Plan 16 12 1, District Lot 40, Newcastle Land District.

City of Nanaimo

1. Lot 43, Section 8, Plan 24916, Wellington Land District.

District of Lantzville

1. Lot 24, District Lot 44, Plan 27557, Wellington Land District.

2. Lot A, District Lot 27G, Plan 29942, Wellington Land District.

3. Lot 1, District Lot 85, Plan 15245, Wellington Land District. REPORT TO COUNCIL

TO: 1. Howat, Director, Legislative Services

FROM: J.E. Harrison, Manager, Legislative Services

RE: 2009 AVICC Resolution

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council:

1. review the attached resolution and adopt as amended or as presented;

AND

2. direct staff to submit the adopted resolution to the Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities for consideration at their 2009 Annual General Meeting.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

As per a request made by Councillor Cameron, staff have prepared a draft resolution for consideration at the 2009 Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities (AVICC) Annual General Meeting on expanded mail ballot voting. The draft resolution is attached for Council's consideration.

BACKGROUND:

At the Special Council Meeting held 2008-JUL-03, Councillor Cameron requested that staff draft a resolution for consideration at UBCM regarding expanded mail ballot voting. As the deadline for receipt of resolutions for UBCM had passed and the topic of this resolution was not an emergency item, Councillor Cameron agreed that the resolution should be forwarded to the 2009 Annual General Meeting of AVICC instead.

The draft resolution is attached. Staff request that Council review this resolution to ensure that it reflects the views of Council and amend if necessary prior to adoption. Following adoption staff will submit the resolution to AVICC for consideration at the 2009 Annual General Meeting.

Respectfully submitted, - r-CT? hbk J@ E. Harrison &Ian Howat Douglas bw4 Holmes Manager, Legislative Services Director, Legislative Services GM, Corporate Services

Council: 2008-Sep-29 L:\DocumentSearch\Reports\Administration\2008\RPTO80929AVCCResolution - mail ballot v0ting.d Wcouncil MAIL BALLOT VOTING City of Nanaimo

WHEREAS recent changes to the Local Government Act provide for mail ballots to be available for electors who expect to be absent from the municipality on voting day, in addition to earlier provisions that allow for mail ballots for those electors who are unable to attend a voting opportunity due to a physical disability, illness or injury;

AND WHEREAS it is an ongoing concern that voter turnout for local government elections is often low;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Provincial Government be urged to further amend the Local Government Act to allow local governments to use mail ballots for all electors who may wish to take advantage of this option. STAFF REPORT

TO: BRIAN E. CLEMENS, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE

FROM: RAYMOND J. REIMER, MANAGER, REVENUE SERVICES & FINANCIAL SYSTEMS

RE: A BYLAW TO EXEMPT CERTAIN LANDS AND BUILDINGS FROM TAXATION

STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION:

That Council consider giving first three readings to "PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION BYLAW 2008 NO. 7080n,which appears under the bylaw section of this evening's agenda.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The bylaw to exempt certain lands and buildings from taxation is being brought forward this evening for Council's consideration. Section 224 of the Community Charter requires Council to adopt the tax exemption bylaw before October 31 of each year.

The Grants Advisory Committee reviewed, in detail, all of the necessary background and financial information pertinent to each PTE category. Recommendations are made in accordance with the Grants Policy and Guidelines adopted by Council. There are currently 161 properties receiving permissive tax exemptions grouped into the following categories:

-No. City Portion Only

Church properties 38 Senior citizens' housing facilities 2 Community care facilities 3 Parks 15 Port Theatre 1 City-owned 27 Miscellaneous non-profit organizations 74 Museum 1 Total 161

This report makes recommendations on all of the properties currently on the PTE roll, along with recommendations on the following six new property tax exemption applications included in the totals above:

Island Crisis Centre (2 properties) Central Vancouver Island Centre for the Arts Nanaimo Affordable Housing BC Cancer Foundation Nanaimo Telephone Visiting Society The Grants Advisory Committee reviewed the above-noted organizations and recommend that these properties be added to the Permissive Tax Exemption Bylaw. Council dealt with these additional permissive tax exemptions earlier this evening. If any were not approved, the Permissive Tax Exemption Bylaw must be amended during the first three readings.

No properties have been removed from the bylaw.

.\ /, B.E. Clemens ~au~er,Revenue Services Director of Finance & Financial Systems

r- General Manager, Corporate Services

RJRIsf Council: 2008-Sep-29 G:Adrninistration/Comrnittees/Grants Advisory ComrnitteelPTE12008/Council Rept-PTE 2009 FOR INFORMATION ONLY

REPORT TO: ANDREW TUCKER, DIRECTOR, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

FROM: BRUCE ANDERSON, MANAGER, COMMUNITY PLANNING

RE: ACTIVE COMMUNITIES FUNDING

STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION:

That Council receive this report for information only.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

In June of 2008, British Columbia Recreation and Parks Association made funding available for initiatives aimed at increasing the level of physical activity for inactive adults, aged 35-54, from disadvantaged socio-economic circumstances. Nanaimo applied and received two branches of funding: one to conduct a survey assessing physical activity levels in Nanaimo, (the "Active Communities Measurement Tool") and another to develop an "Active Communities" initiative for the identified group.

BACKGROUND:

For people living in poverty an active lifestyle is not easy. By developing policies and programs that remove barriers to participation, this initiative aims to increase physical activity among inactive individuals who live with lower income and face multiple challenges. When it comes to physical activity, income shouldn't determine who participates.

Many initiatives focus on increasing access for children, youth and seniors, but there tends to be a gap in accessible opportunities for economically disadvantaged adults. "Everybody Active" funding focuses on adults 35-54 years because they are the largest age segment in BC. Through funding from the BC Healthy Living Alliance and support from Act Now BC, "Everybody Active" provides $10,000 to Nanaimo to mobilize and pilot an initiative, and $5,000 to conduct a telephone survey of activity levels. The initiative, to be implemented in fall 2008, will be a joint effort by City of Nanaimo Community Planning and Parks Recreation and Culture staff. The telephone survey is being conducted by Discovery Research, a private firm recommended by the BC Recreation and Parks Association.

Respectfully submitted,

Bruce Anderson, Manager Community Planning Division Planning and Development Development Services Department Development Services Department

TO: CITY MANAGER JHIch g:\commplan\admin\2008\active~communities~funding D FOR CITY MANAGERS Council Date: 2008-Sep-29 146 ClNOF NANAIMO

BYLAW NO. 6500.001

A BYLAW TO AMEND THE CITY OF NANAIMO "OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN BYLAW 2008 NO. 6500"

WHEREAS the Council of the City of Nanaimo wishes to amend City of Nanaimo "OFFICIAL COMMUNIN PLAN BYLAW 2008 NO. 6500";

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Municipal Council of the City of Nanaimo, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

1. This Bylaw may be cited as the "OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN BYLAW AMENDMENT BYLAW 2008 NO. 6500.001".

2. The City of Nanaimo "OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN BYLAW 2008 NO. 6500" is hereby amended as set out in Schedules A, B and C to this Bylaw.

PASSED FIRST READING 2008-AUG-11. PASSED SECOND READING 2008-AUG-11. PUBLIC HEARING HELD 2008-SEP-04. PASSED THIRD READING ADOPTED

MAYOR

DlRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE SERVICES

File: OCP00037 Address: 950, 960, 1170, 1260, 1270 Phoenix Way Applicant: Vining Senini Bylaw 6500.001

SCHEDULE A

1. Section 1, Table 1, is amended by adding 'Resort Centre' as the following:

Resort Centre A primary recreational facility with supporting residential neighbourhoods and accommodations in close proximity to small-scale commercial uses.

2. Section 2.3, Neighbourhood, is amended by adding:

- Cable Bay Plan

after

- Nanaimo Downtown Plan.

3. Section 2.1 0 Resort Centre is added as the following:

2.10 Resort Centre

The Resort Centre is proposed as a destination resort comprising a mixed use district designed around a "core" of recreational and commercial uses. The vision for the Resort Centre is a primary recreational facility with supporting residential neighbourhoods and accommodations in close proximity to small-scale commercial activity. Uses should be pedestrian oriented, with buildings located along the street and sidewalk, and primary parking lots located behind or under buildings (with a limited amount of street parking similar to a traditional mainstreet). The vision for this area should include residential uses that can support the commercial areas and encourage activities that animate the area.

Residential areas will encompass a variety of housing types, and be designed to create a series of attractive, walkable, and livable neighbourhoods. Higher density residential types will be incorporated into the development in order to encourage efficient and varied development patterns distinct from traditional homogeneous suburban development. As a comprehensively planned and developed area, a Resort Centre is expected to provide a coordinated parks and open space network.

Objectives

To provide for a comprehensively planned resort community. Include a full mix of land uses including residential, commercial, open space, and public and recreational uses.

To provide for 'complete' walkable communities. Provide a range of housing options, from traditional single-family detached housing to higher density townhouses and multi-family housing.

To create opportunities for important economic links. Resort Centres provide for a diversity of employment and economic development opportunities for the city and region, including connections to Nanaimo's airport and marine port. Bylaw 6500.001

Policies

1. The predominant use in Resort Centres will be recreational facilities such as golf courses or marinas, supported by ancillary uses including the following:

= Hotels and restaurants; Small-scale commercial and office uses; Community services and facilities; and Mixed residential forms and seniors' housing.

2. Completion of a Master Plan and Phased Development Agreement is required prior to any development. This Master Plan and Phased Development Agreement will detail: the final development concept; unit count and square footages to be developed; parks and open space location and dedication mechanisms; required infrastructure and phasing plans; transportation access and development plans; urban design standards; landscaping requirements; and final development phasing.

3. Residential densities from 10 to 50 units per hectare will be supported in Resort Centres. Housing will be a mix of traditional single family detached houses, multiple residential developments, and seniors' housing. Higher density residential clusters around a 'core' will provide convenient and walkable access to open space and local amenities. Gated communities are not permitted. Maximum height within the Resort Centre shall not exceed four storeys.

4. In an effort to achieve additional onsite open space and/or protect environmentally sensitive areas, cluster housing and cluster subdivisions are strongly encouraged.

5. Sustainable development principles, such as the LEED and LEED for Neighbourhood programs, shall be incorporated into the design of the Resort Centre, and detailed in the Master Plan process.

6. Development of a Resort Centre will address goals for protection, enhancement, or mitigation of disturbance of environmentally sensitive areas (including wetlands, watercourses and associated drainages), through the development permit approvals process.

7. Transportation and mobility systems in a Resort Centre will encourage walkability through an interconnected sidewalk and pathway network, allowing for transportation choice through provision of a cycling route system and planning for transit facilities, and ensuring convenient vehicle connections through the planning area and to surrounding areas.

4. Section 7.1 (9) Neighbourhood and Area Planning, is amended by adding:

- Cable Bay Plan

after

- Nanaimo Downtown Plan. Bylaw 6500.001

SCHEDULE B

Map 1 (Future Land Use Plan) of the "OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN BYLAW 2008 NO. 6500" is amended as follows:

Add 'Resort Centre' to Map 1; and

Redesignate the subject properties known as a portion of lands at 950 Phoenix Way (Lot 4, Sections 21, 22 and 23, Range 2, and Section 21, Range 3, Cedar District, Plan VIP65621), 960 Phoenix Way (Section 21, Range 3, Cedar District, Except the Westerly 10 Chains Except Those Parts in Plans VIP59192 and VIP65621), 1170 Phoenix Way (Section 21, Range 4, Cedar District), 1260 Phoenix Way (Section 20, Range 3, Cedar District, Except That Part in Plan VIP59192), and 1270 Phoenix Way (Section 20, Range 4, Cedar District) from "Urban Reserve" to "Resort Centre."

Regional District of Nanaimo Bylaw 6500.001

SCHEDULE C

The Cable Bay Plan is attached as Schedule G and made a part of the Official Community Plan (planNanairno). Bylaw 6500.001

Cable Bav Plan

Cable Bay Lands

The Cable Bay Lands Planning Area is located in the most southeastern section of the City of Nanaimo, and is envisioned for a comprehensively planned resort community designed in balance with the area's varied topography, environmentally sensitive areas, and adjacent land uses. It is the intention of this Plan that these lands provide a new focus for the City of Nanaimo, providing not only new housing choices, but also a new resort community serving City residents and visitors, and providing new employment options and new open space and recreational amenities.

1.0 Objectives

= To provide for a comprehensively planned 'complete' resort community in the Cable Bay Lands. To provide for an integrated plan with a full mix of land uses including residential, commercial, open space, and public and recreational uses. To create opportunities for important links between the development, City, region, and Nanaimo's airport and marine port. To provide for walkable communities with a range of housing options, from traditional single-family detached housing to higher density townhouses and multi-family housing. To provide for a diversity of employment and economic development opportunities in the Nanaimo area.

2.0 Land Use

To achieve the broad policy objectives for the Cable Bay Lands, the area has been designated a new Resort Centre land use designation (see Subsection 2.10)

2.1 Resort Centre

The Resort Centre is proposed as a destination resort comprising a mixed use district designed around a "core" of recreational and commercial uses. The vision for the Resort Centre locates a primary recreational facility, the golf course, with supporting residential neighbourhoods and accommodations in close proximity to small-scale commercial activity. Uses should be pedestrian oriented, with buildings located along the street and sidewalk, and primary parking lots located behind or under buildings (with a limited amount of street parking similar to a traditional mainstreet). The vision for this area should include residential uses that can support the commercial areas and encourage activities that animate the area.

As a comprehensively planned and developed area, the Cable Bay Lands are expected to provide a coordinated parks and open space network. This network will provide valuable public amenities and focal points to make this area and its neighbourhoods attractive and livable places, and provide for the preservation of sensitive environmental resources. A specific focus of the parks and open space plan for the Cable Bay Lands will be a coordinated trails and pathways network providing a regional recreational amenity, and allowing for pedestrian and bicycle access throughout the area.

Planning of parks and open spaces within the Cable Bay Lands will be consistent with the policies and provisions of Section 2.8 (Parks and Open Space), with the following policies specific to the Cable Bay Lands.

1. Completion of a Master Plan and Phased Development Agreement is required prior to any development.

2. The following land uses are permitted in the Cable Bay Lands: Accommodation and small-scale commercial and office uses; Recreational facilities; Public facilities; Seniors' housing and congregate care facilities; and Single-family residential and multiple-family residential uses.

3. Overall residential density within the Resort Centre shall be 10 to 50 units per hectare. Housing will be a mix of traditional single family detached houses, multiple residential developments, and seniors' housing. Higher density clusters will be located at the centre of the development, with convenient and walkable access to open space and local amenities. Gated communities are not permitted. Maximum height within the Resort Centre shall not exceed four storeys.

4. Notwithstanding Subsection 2.1 (3), development of the portion of Cable Bay lands at 1170 and 1270 Phoenix Way may proceed as provided for under existing zoning regulations, subdivision approvals (PLA), and development permit approvals (DP).

5. In an effort to achieve additional onsite open space and/or protect environmentally sensitive areas, cluster housing and cluster subdivisions are strongly encouraged.

6. Sustainable development principles, such as the LEED and LEED for Neighbourhood programs, shall be incorporated into the design of the Resort Centre, and detailed in the Master Plan process.

7. Detailed planning for the Cable Bay Lands should be coordinated with the City of Nanaimo Development Services Department and the Department of Parks, Recreation and Culture. Bylaw 6500.001

8. Development of the Cable Bay Lands will address goals for protection, enhancement, or mitigation of disturbance of environmentally sensitive areas (including wetlands, watercourses and associated drainages), through the development permit approvals process.

9. Development of the Cable Bay Lands should be coordinated with a parks and trails plan. Trails and pathways in the Cable Bay Lands will be designed to accommodate multiple users (for example, biking and walking), and should create an internal network connected with the regional trails system on adjoining lands, including the Cable Bay Trail.

10. Additional park dedication of lands adjacent to the Cable Bay Trail should be considered in the Master Plan process.

3.0 Transportation and Mobility

Development of a new resort centre in the Cable Bay lands will require improvements to the local and regional road network to manage new trips generated by development of the planning area, and to ensure efficient travel within and for access to and from the area. Of particular concern is access to and from the Duke Point Highway, and an acceptable public road network, which will need to be addressed as part of the detailed Master Plan development process.

Key concepts for transportation and mobility in the Cable Bay lands include encouraging walkability through an interconnected sidewalk and pathway network, allowing for transportation choice through provision of a cycling route system and planning for transit facilities, and ensuring convenient vehicle connections through the planning area and to surrounding areas.

1. Development of the Cable Bay lands will require approval of the Ministry of Transportation and the City of Nanaimo to provide access to the Duke Point Highway, and facilitate traffic movement to and from the planning area.

2. The future road network will be determined through the Master Plan process, and include a series of public roads to access and interconnect the development, and to provide adequate access into the development itself.

3. Local roads within the Cable Bay Lands will be dedicated as public roadways, and be consistent with the City of Nanaimo public road standards.

4. An interconnected system of sidewalks and pathways will be provided to enable convenient, safe, efficient, and comfortable pedestrian travel within and between residential neighbourhoods, recreational areas and commercial districts.

5. Transportation plans will detail improvements to accommodate bicycling as commuting and recreational travel options. These improvements can include dedicated pathways, bicycle lanes, wider curb lanes, parking facilities, and signage. Bylaw 6500.001

6. Detailed planning for the Cable Bay lands will be coordinated with BC Transit, the Regional District of Nanaimo, and other service agencies to identify key transit facilities to be provided or accommodated for in the development of the area.

4.0 Utilities and Public Services

Expansion of public services will be necessary to accommodate the projected levels of development. Water supply is available by connection to the existing Duke Point water main at Maughan Road, and through siting of a water reservoir within the development lands. Sewage disposal can be provided by connection to the Regional District of Nanaimo sewer system, but will require upgrades andlor construction of new infrastructure.

1. Detailed planning for the Cable Bay lands will be required to provide detailed utility service plans and implementation programs, including the provision of garbage and recycling services.

2. Approval of the City of Nanaimo Public Works is required in the development of utility service plans.

3. Design of development areas within the Cable Bay lands should incorporate water conservation design techniques in all aspects of the development, and particularly in the design of the golf course and public landscaping.

4. Sewer facilities will be required to serve all future residents, commercial and recreational developments through the upgrade of the Regional District of Nanaimo sewer system.

5. All utilities and public service improvements identified in the Master Plan and Phased Development Agreement will be the responsibility of the developer to provide.

5.0 Future Planning

Prior to development and rezoning of the Cable Bay lands, a detailed Master Plan and Phased Development Agreement will be required for individual subareas, subject to the policies and provisions of Section 7 (Work Towards A Sustainable Community). This Master Plan and Phased Development Agreement will detail:

Final development concept; Unit count and square footages to be developed; Parks and open space location, and dedication mechanisms; Environmental assessment and protection, enhancement or mitigation of environmentally sensitive areas and watercourse locations; Required infrastructure and phasing plans; Transportation access and development plans; Archaeological impacts; Urban design standards and design guidelines; Landscaping requirements; and Final development phasing. 1. An updated environmental assessment will be completed to provide a complete inventory of environmental features of the site (including an assessment of wetlands and their drainage patterns), and to ensure protection, enhancement or mitigation of disturbance of significant identified environmentally sensitive areas, subject to the applicable development permit areas.

2. A set of design guidelines will be developed to address design criteria for a resort complex. CITY OF NANAIMO

BYLAW NO. 7077

A BYLAW FOR HIGHWAY CLOSURE AND DEDICATION REMOVAL

WHEREAS the soil and freehold of every highway in the City of Nanaimo is vested in the City of Nanaimo; and

WHEREAS the Council may, by bylaw pursuant to Section 40 of the Community Charter, both stop up and close to traffic a highway or a portion of it, and remove highway dedication; and

WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to stop up and close to traffic and remove highway dedication to a portion of Labieux Road for the purpose of disposing of the land to the adjacent landowner for consolidation with the adjacent landowner's lands; and

WHEREAS all lands and premises immediately adjoining, and in the vicinity of the portion of highway that is stopped up and closed and highway dedication removed, are adequately serviced by well-established highways giving convenient access to all such premises; and

WHEREAS public notice pursuant to Section 94 of the Community Charter has been published in a newspaper circulating in the City of Nanaimo;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Nanaimo, in open meeting assembled, HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

1. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "HIGHWAY CLOSURE AND DEDICATION REMOVAL (PORTION OF LABIEUX ROAD) BYLAW 2008 NO. 7077".

2. Labieux Road in Section 20, Range 7, Mountain District shown as Closed Road comprising of 304.4 m2 on a plan to accompany City of Nanaimo Bylaw No. 7077, pre ared by McElhanny Consulting Services Ltd., B.C. Land Surveyor and dated the 25 /? day of August 2008, a print of which is attached as Schedule A to "HIGHWAY CLOSURE AND DEDICATION REMOVAL (PORTION OF LABIEUX ROAD) BYLAW 2008 NO. 7077", is hereby closed to all traffic.

3. The highway dedication of that part of Labieux Road referred to in section 2 is hereby removed. Bylaw 7077 Page 2

4. His Worship the Mayor and the Director of Legislative Services are hereby authorized to execute all the necessary documents as may be required for the due completion of the aforesaid highway closure and dedication removal and affix the Seal of the Corporation thereto.

PASSED FIRST READING 2008-SEP-08. PASSED SECOND READING 2008-SEP-08.

Notice of intention to proceed with this bylaw was published on the 12thday of September, 2008 and the lgthday of September, 2008 in the Nanaimo Daily News newspaper, circulating in the City of Nanaimo, pursuant to Section 94 of the Community Charter.

PASSED THIRD READING APPROVED BY MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION ADOPTED

MAYOR

DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE SERVICES

File: LD001794 Address: Labieux Road Bylaw 7077 CITY OF NANAIMO

BYLAW NO. 7080

A BYLAW TO EXEMPT CERTAIN LANDS AND BUILDINGS FROM TAXATION

WHEREAS Section 224 of the Community Charter provides general regulations for the exemption of property from taxation;

AND WHEREAS Section 224 of the Community Charter provides specific exemptions for certain types or uses of property.

AND WHEREAS Council deems it expedient to exempt property enumerated herein:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Nanaimo in open meeting assembled, hereby ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

1. This Bylaw may be cited as the "PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION BYLAW 2008 NO. 7080".

2. Subject to Section 4 of this Bylaw, the following Church lands, together with the buildings thereon, shall be exempt from taxation:

(1) LOT 1, DISTRICT LOT 54, WELLINGTON DISTRICT, PLAN VIP62729 (Folio: 08323.360)

Civic: 4900 Hammond Bay Road Organization: Nanaimo Full Gospel Assembly

(2) LOT A, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 3459 EXCLUDING PLAN 13272 AND LOT A, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN VIP53855, EXEMPTION FOR ALL BUT 6.7% OF THE LAND, REPRESENTATIVE OF THE USE OF SOME OF THE LAND AS A PARKING LOT (Folio: 84331.000)

Civic: 100 Chapel Street Organization: Anglican Synod Diocese of BC

(3) LOT A, SECTION 16, RANGE 8, MOUNTAIN DISTRICT, PLAN VIP64036 (Folio: 05949.190)

Civic: 1609 Meredith Road Organization: Christian & Missionary Alliance Canadian Pacific District PARCEL D (DD5353N) OF SECTION 4, WELLINGTON DISTRICT (Folio: 07357.000)

Civic: 4334 Jingle Pot Road Organization: Priestly Society of St. Pius

LOT A (DD EK39556) OF SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 6350 (Folio: 16531.002)

Civic: 394 Shepherd Avenue Organization: St. Paul's Lutheran Church of Nanaimo

LOT 1, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 7109 (Folio: 16276.025)

Civic: 170 Wakesiah Avenue Organization: Wakesiah Gospel Chapel

LOT 1, SECTION 1, PLAN 22739, NANAIMO DISTRICT (Folio: 86042.000)

Civic: 1300 Princess Royal Avenue Organization: Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada

LOT A (ED110296) OF LOT 4, BLOCK B, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 584 (Folio: 81643.010)

Civic: 260 Needham Street Organization: Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada

LOT A (DD EL108574), SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 18900 (Folio: 16039.665)

Civic: 2174 Departure Bay Road Organization: Hope Lutheran Church

LOT A, DISTRICT LOT 12, NEWCASTLE RESERVE, SECTION 1, NANAIMO

DISTRICT, VIP58878, EXEMPT PORTION AS SHOWN ON SCHEDULE "A ' ATTACHED HERETO (Folio: 84302.100)

Civic: 1650 Waddington Road Organization: First Baptist Church, Nanaimo, BC

SECTION 12, RANGE 8, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 1747, EXEMPT PORTION AS SHOWN ON SCHEDULE "8" ATTACHED HERETO (Folio: 17357.000)

Civic: 505 Eighth Street Organization: The Governing Council of the Salvation Army, Canada West LOT B, (DD EM34637), BLOCK 12, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 584 (Folio: 80776.000)

Civic: 19 Nicol Street Organization: The Governing Council of the Salvation Army

LOT 1, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN VIP52501 (Folio: 81971.100)

Civic: 905 Hecate Street Organization: The BC Muslim Association

LOT A, SECTION 5, WELLINGTON DISTRICT, PLAN VIP58451 (Folio: 07458.202)

Civic: 4235 Departure Bay Road Organization: Trustees of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Nanaimo

LOT A, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN VIP65271 (Folio: 81095.000)

Civic: 315 Fitzwilliam Street Organization: Trustees of the Congregation of St. Andrew's United Church

LOT 2, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 18757 (Folio: 16001.002)

Civic: 2150 Departure Bay Road Organization: Anglican Synod of the Diocese of BC

LOT E, SECTION 17, RANGE 8, MOUNTAIN DISTRICT, PLAN 14987 (Folio: 05965.241)

Civic: 1720 Meredith Road Organization: Nanaimo Church of Christ

LOT I, SECTION 5, WELLINGTON DISTRICT, PLAN 9339, EXEMPT PORTION AS SHOWN ON SCHEDULE "C" ATTACHED HERETO (Folio: 07618.001)

Civic: 3510 Departure Bay Road Organization: Cook, Neil & MacRobbie, Don & Ohs, Darrell & Pankratz, Peter & Soles, William & Wall, Larry, & Ward, Peter, Trustees of the Congregation of Departure Bay Baptist Church

LOT 4, BLOCK Q, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 584 EXCEPT THAT PART IN PLAN VIP67460 (Folio: 82071.000)

Civic: 301 Machleary Street Organization: Bishop of Victoria (20) LOT 2, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN VIP71 136 (Folio: 17545.010); LOT 1, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN VIP76304, EXEMPT PORTION AS SHOWN ON SCHEDULE "D ATTACHED HERETO (Folio: 16536.100)

Civic: 275 Pine Street1328 Third Street Organization: Vancouver Island Khalsa Diwan Society

(21) LOT 4, SECTION 12, WELLINGTON DISTRICT, PLAN 17325 (Folio: 07704.200)

Civic: 6234 Spartan Road Organization: Bishop of Victoria; Trustees Trinity United Pastoral

(22) LOT 52, DISTRICT LOTS 14 & 19, WELLINGTON DISTRICT, PLAN VIP56051, EXCEPT PART IN PLAN VIP58432 (Folio: 07708.570)

Civic: 4951 Rutherford Road Organization: The BC Conference of the Mennonite Brethren Churches

(23) THE NORTHERLY 112 OF LOT 9, BLOCK 55, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 584, EXCEPT THE EASTERLY 60 FEET (Folio: 81468.000)

Civic: 20 Chapel Street Organization: Christian Science Society of Nanaimo

(24) LOT 1, SECTION 5, WELLINGTON DISTRICT, PLAN 28663, EXEMPT PORTION AS SHOWN ON SCHEDULE "E" ATACHED HERETO (Folio: 07657.100)

Civic: 2424 Glen Eagle Crescent Organization: President of the Lethbridge Stake

(25) THAT PART OF LOT 2, BLOCK 10, SECTION 17, RANGE 7, MOUNTAIN DISTRICT, PLAN 526, LYING TO THE EAST OF A BOUNDARY PARALLEL TO AND PERPENDICULARLY DISTANT 128 FEET FROM THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT EXCEPT PLAN VIP56132 (Folio: 05680.000)

Civic: 21 14 Meredith Road Organization: The Trustees of the Departure Bay Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses

(26) LOT 1, DISTRICT LOT 23G, WELLINGTON DISTRICT, PLAN 42114 (Folio: 07864.065)

Civic: 601 1 Doumont Road Organization: Oceanside Jehovah's Witnesses Etc. LOT A (DD EK62091), BLOCK 22, DISTRICT LOT 97G, NEWCASTLE RESERVE, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 1712 (Folio: 83626.002)

Civic: 1085 Moyse Crescent Organization: The Kings Temple Missionary Society

LOT A (DD EK99968), BLOCK 11, SECTION 5, WELLINGTON DISTRICT, PLAN 318 (Folio: 07205.002)

Civic: 4017 Victoria Avenue Organization: Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of New Westminster

LOT 1, SECTION 18, RANGE 8, MOUNTAIN DISTRICT, PLAN 46005 (Foli0:06006.305)

Civic: 2400 Highland Boulevard Organization: The BC Corporation of the Seventh Day Adventist Church

COT A, SECTION 18, RANGE 7, MOUNTAIN DISTRICT, PLAN 41417 (Folio: 05536.300)

Civic: 2221 Bowen Road Organization: Christ Community Church

LOT A, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN VIP63929 (Folio: 85524.100)

Civic: 2020 Estevan Road Organization: Trustees of the Congregation of Brechin United Church

PARCEL B (DD 29290N) OF LOTS 15 AND 16, BLOCK 25, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 584 (Folio: 81059.000)

Civic: 305 Prideaux Street Organization: G S M P D Sikh Temple Inc.

LOT 8, BLOCK 8, SECTION 1, WELLINGTON DISTRICT, PLAN 414 (Folio: 07090.001)

Civic: 2875 Elk Street Organization: Alexander, Thomas; Rosenau, Joal; Daniel, Kevin Trustees of the Nanaimo Christadelphians

LOT 1, DISTRICT LOT 28, WELLINGTON DISTRICT, PLAN VIP72820 EXCEPT PART IN PLAN VIP73022, EXEMPT PORTION AS SHOWN OUTLINED ON SCHEDULE "FATTACHED HERETO (Folio: 08055.151)

Civic: 6553 Portsmouth Road Organization: Foursquare Gospel Church of Canada (35) LOT A, SECTIONS 3 & 5, WELLINGTON DISTRICT, PLAN VIP64342 (Folio: 07270.100)

Civic: 2992 104'~Street Organization: Bishop of Victoria

(36) LOT A, DISTRICT LOT 54, PLAN 40992, WELLINGTON DISTRICT, EXEMPT PORTION AS SHOWN OUTLINED ON SCHEDULE "G" ATTACHED HERETO (Folio: 08323.405)

Civic: 4960 Hammond Bay Road Organization: Hammond Bay Baptist Church

(37) LOT 2, SECTION 10, RANGE 6, MOUNTAIN DISTRICT, PLAN 18793, EXEMPT PORTION AS SHOWN ON SCHEDULE "H" ATTACHED HERETO (Folio: 05342.200)

Civic: 2371 Arbot Road Organization: The Benedictines of Nanaimo

3. Church halls situated upon lands described in Section 2 of this Bylaw, whether such halls are within church buildings or apart therefrom, are deemed to be necessary to their respective church operations.

4. The maximum area of land to be exempted from taxation shall be 2.0 acres (87,120 sq. ft.) of the land upon which the buildings for public worship stand plus the footprint of the building(s) used for public worship. This exempted area will not exceed the land area of the legal parcel(s) upon which these buildings stand.

5. The following Senior Citizens Housing Facility lands and buildings shall be exempt from taxation:

(1) LOT 13, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 23432 (Folio: 16006.275), LOT 11, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 23432 (Folio: 16006.051) AND LOT 12, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 23432 (Folio: 16006.252)

Civic: 1011 111 5 Buttertubs Drive Organization: General George R. Pearkes Senior Citizens' Housing Society (2) LOT B - D, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 3421 (Folio: 84328.000), LOT 6 AND THE SOUTHERLY 14 FEET 9 INCHES OF LOT 7, BLOCK 45, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 584 (Folio: 81301.000), LOT 13, BLOCK 46, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 584 (Folio: 81315.000), LOT 8 AND 9, BLOCK 46, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 584 (Folio: 8131 2.000)

Civic: 55166169 Prideaux Street1619 Comox Road Organization: Mt Benson Senior Citizens Housing Society

6. The following Community Care Facility lands and buildings shall be exempt from taxation:

(1) LOT A, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN VIP68990 (Folio: 86160.000)

Civic: 1298 Nelson Street Organization: Nanaimo Travellers Lodge Society

(2) STRATA LOT 1, DISTRICT LOT 97G, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, STRATA PLAN VIS5226 TOGETHER WlTH AN INTEREST IN THE COMMON PROPERTY IN PROPORTION TO THE UNlT ENTITLEMENT OF THE STRATA LOT AS SHOWN ON FORM V (Folio: 85047.100); STRATA LOT 3, DISTRICT LOT 97G, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, STRATA PLAN VIS5226 TOGETHER WlTH AN INTEREST IN THE COMMON PROPERTY IN PROPORTION TO THE UNlT ENTITLEMENT OF STRATA LOT AS SHOWN ON FORM V (Folio: 85047.201); STRATA LOT 6, DISTRICT LOT 97G, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, STRATA PLAN VIS5226 TOGETHER WlTH AN INTEREST IN THE COMMON PROPERTY IN PROPORTION TO THE UNlT ENTITLEMENT OF THE STRATA LOT AS SHOWN ON FORM V (Folio: 85047.305); STRATA LOT 4, DISTRICT LOT 97G, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, STRATA PLAN VIS5226 TOGETHER WlTH AN INTEREST IN THE COMMON PROPERTY IN PROPORTION TO THE UNlT ENTITLEMENT OF STRATA LOT AS SHOWN ON FORM V (Folio: 85047.310)

Civic: 12211123311 23411 237 Kiwanis Crescent Organization: Nanaimo District Senior Citizens Housing Development Society

(3) LOT A, RANGE 17, SECTION 7, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN VIP82571 (Folio: 16795.550)

Civic: 80 Tenth Street Organization: Good Samaritan Canada 7. The following Land or improvements used or occupied by a church as a tenant or licensee, shall be exempt from taxation:

(1) PARCEL A (DD F34209), SECTION I,NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 1505 MORE OR LESS AS SHOWN OUTLINED IN BLACK ON SCHEDULE "I" ATTACHED HERETO (PRORATED SHARE IS 31.37%) (Folio: 83042.000)

Civic: 595 Townsite Road Organization: Mid Island Unity ChurchlUnitarian Foundation of Nanaimo

8. The following Miscellaneous Non-Profit lands and buildings, unless otherwise specified, shall be exempt from taxation:

(1) LOT 1, SECTION 19, RANGE 6, MOUNTAIN DISTRICT, PLAN 24020 (Folio: 05431.100)

Civic: 2373 Rosstown Road Organization: Nanaimo Theatre Group

(2) LOT 1, BLOCK 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 28980 (Folio: 16007.500)

Civic: 1780 Jingle Pot Road Organization: Nature Trust of British Columbia

(3) LOT A, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN VIP63268 (Folio: 16021.300)

Civic: 200 Buttertubs Drive Organization: Nature Trust of British Columbia

(4) PARCEL A (DD 35952-1) OF SECTION 1, RANGE 6, NANAIMO DISTRICT (Folio: 16170.000)

Civic: 1141 Frew Road Organization: Nature Trust of British Columbia

(5) THAT PART OF SECTION 2, RANGE 6, NANAIMO DISTRICT, LYING TO THE EAST OF THE EAST BRANCH OF THE NANAIMO RIVER, EXCEPT PARCEL A THEREOF (Folio: 16171.000)

Civic: 1050 Raines Road Organization: Nature Trust of British Columbia

(6) THAT PART OF SECTION 2 AND THAT PART OF SECTION 3, RANGE 6, NANAIMO DISTRICT, LYING WEST OF THE EAST BRANCH OF THE NANAIMO RIVER (Folio: 16172.000)

Civic: 901 Raines Road Organization: Nature Trust of British Columbia (7) SECTION 2, RANGE 7, NANAIMO DISTRICT, EXCEPT PARCEL A THEREOF, AND EXCEPT PART IN PLAN 37922 (Folio: 16173.000)

Civic: 1145 Maughan Road Organization: Nature Trust of British Columbia

(8) THE SOUTH PART OF SECTION 3, RANGE 7, NANAIMO DISTRICT, CONTAINING 21 ACRES MORE OR LESS, AS SHOWN ON A PLAN DEPOSITED UNDER DD 22536 (Folio: 16174.000)

Civic: 900 Raines Road Organization: Nature Trust of British Columbia

(9) SECTION 1, RANGE 8, NANAIMO DISTRICT, EXCEPT PARCEL A (DD 391611), EXCEPT THE PART IN PLAN 32333, AND EXCEPT PART IN PLAN VIP62603 (Folio: 16176.000)

Civic: 1201 Maughan Road Organization: Nature Trust of British Columbia

(10) THE WEST 112 OF SECTION 2, RANGE 8, NANAIMO DISTRICT, EXCEPT PARTS IN PLANS 32333 AND 37922 (Folio: 16178.000)

Civic: 1125 Maughan Road Organization: Nature Trust of British Columbia

(11) PARCEL A (391611), SECTION 1, RANGE 8, NANAIMO DISTRICT, CONTAINING 9 ACRES MORE OR LESS (Folio: 16175.000)

Civic: 1141 Maughan Road Organization: Nature Trust of British Columbia

(12) SECTION 7, RANGE 8, EXCEPT THE EASTERLY 500 FT AND EXCEPT PART IN NO. 4 RESERVOIR AS SAID RESERVOIR IS SHOWN ON PLAN DEPOSITED UNDER NUMBER 766-8562-C, MOUNTAIN DISTRICT (Folio: 05765.003)

Civic: 941 College Drive Organization: Nature Trust of British Columbia

(13) LOT 4, SECTION 6, RANGE 8, MOUNTAIN DISTRICT, PLAN 16149, EXCEPT PARTS IN PLANS 18489, 19566 AND 24715 (Folio: 05762.1 01)

Civic: 731 Dogwood Road Organization: Nature Trust of British Columbia (14) LOT PARCEL A (49323N), SECTION 5, RANGE 8, EXCEPT PLANS 8707, 18489,2471 5 AND 281 35, MOUNTAIN DISTRICT (Folio: 05761.005)

Civic: 787 Nanaimo Lakes Road Organization: Nature Trust of British Columbia

(15) SECTION 7&8, RANGE 7, MOUNTAIN DISTRICT, PRTS PORTION AND PTS OF SECTION 7, RANGE 8, #4 RESERVOIR AS SHOWN ON PLN UNDER 766- 8562C (Folio: 05457.006)

Civic: 250 Dogwood Road Organization: Nature Trust of British Columbia

(16) WILDLIFE SANCTUARY, SECTION 7, RANGE 7, MOUNTAIN DISTRICT, EXCLUDING PLANS 535R AND NO. 4 RESERVOIR (Folio: 05457.004)

Civic: 201 Dogwood Road Organization: Nature Trust of British Columbia

(17) LOT 3 AND 4, BLOCK 16, SECTIONS 3 AND 5, WELLINGTON DISTRICT, PLAN 318A (Folio: 07234.001) and LOT 2, BLOCK 16, SECTIONS 3 AND 5, WELLINGTON DISTRICT, PLAN 318A INCLUDING THAT PART OF SECTION 5, WELLINGTON DISTRICT, BEING PART OF THE OLD COMOX ROAD SHOWN ON PLAN 318A NOW CLOSED BY ORDER-IN-COUNCIL 1052 DATED THE gTH OF OCTOBER, 1928 AND LYING IN SAlD LOT 2 (Folio: 07233.001)

Civic: 3922 Corunna Avenue13976 Corunna Avenue Organization: Wellington Community Association

(18) PLAN 14111, NANAIMO LAND DISTRICT, PARCEL ADJACENT TO LOT 140 AND WITHIN DEDICATED PARK ON SAlD PLAN PORTION OF PIRATES PARK, NANAIMO PORT AUTHORITY LEASE FL255 FOR PRIVATE DOCK, (Folio: 13553.701)

Civic: A 7 Pirates Lane Organization: Protection Island Ratepayers AssociationlCity of Nanaimo

(19) LOT 1, SECTIONS 18, 19 AND 20, RANGE 7, MOUNTAIN DISTRICT, PLAN 27441 EXCEPT THOSE PARTS IN PLANS 40622 AND 44255 AS SHOWN ON SCHEDULE "J" ATTACHED HERETO, LEASE TO NANAIMO MINOR HOCKEY ASSOCIATION (Folio: 05549.004)

Civic: 4 2300 Bowen Road Organization: Nanaimo Minor Hockey AssociationlCity of Nanaimo (20) LOT 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 14550, DOUGLAS ISLAND LIGHT STATION OIC 1518 (Folio: 13552.001)

Civic: 208 Colvilleton Trail Organization: Protection Island Lions ClublCity of Nanaimo

(21) LOT A, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT AND OF THE BED OF THE PUBLIC HARBOUR OF NANAIMO, PLAN VIP79754 EXCEPT THAT PART IN PLAN VIP85148, EXEMPT PORTION OPERATING AS THE CENTENNIAL MUSEUM 100 MUSEUM WAY (Folio: 84792.100)

Civic: 101 Gordon Street Organization: Centennial MuseumlCity of Nanaimo

(22) LOT 1, SECTIONS 18, 19 AND 20, RANGE 7, MOUNTAIN DISTRICT, PLAN 27441 EXCEPT THOSE PARTS IN PLANS 40622 AND 44255 LEASE FOR VANCOUVER ISLAND EXHIBITION ASSOCIATION AS OUTLINED IN A HEAVY DASHED LINE ON SCHEDULE "K ATTACHED HERETO (Folio: 05549.008)

Civic: 3 2300 Bowen Road Organization: Nanaimo & District Equestrian AssociationNancouver Island Exhibition AssociationICity of Nanaimo

(23) LOT 1, SECTION 12, RANGE 7, MOUNTAIN DISTRICT, PLAN 49025 (Folio: 05492.201)

Civic: 198 Holland Road Organization: Nanaimo Christian School (1988) Society

(24) LOT A, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 50077, PORTION OF LOT A- FORMERLY LOT A PLAN 2124R LEASED FOR 25 YEARS FROM JULY 1976 FROM NANAIMO REGIONAL HOSPITAL (Folio: 85047.002)

Civic: 1 135 Nelson Street Organization: Nanaimo Neurological & Cerebral Palsey Association

(25) LOT A, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 47726 (Folio: 85901.001)

Civic: 945 Waddington Road Organization: Nanaimo Child Self Society

(26) LOT 6, SECTION 19, RANGE 6, MOUNTAIN DISTRICT, PLAN 6733, EXCEPT PART IN PLAN VIP63918 (Folio: 05438.000)

Civic: 2368 Rosstown Road Organization: Nanaimo & District Surfside Society LOT 23, BLOCK D, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 584 EXCEPT THAT PART IN PLAN VIP52239 (Folio: 81676.000)

Civic: 602 Haliburton Street Organization: Tillicum Haus Society

THAT PART OF SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, SHOWN OUTLINED IN RED ON PLAN 1006R EXCEPT PART IN PLAN VIP60488 (Folio: 17364.000)

Civic: 477 Tenth Street Organization: Tillicum Haus Society

LOT A, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN VIP66687 (Folio: 16905.000)

Civic: 927 Haliburton Street Organization: Tillicum telum Aboriginal Society

LOT 2, BLOCK 2, DISTRICT LOT 97G, NEWCASTLE RESERVE, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 1712 (Folio: 83252.000)

Civic: 1070 Townsite Road Organization: Nanaimo Family Life Association

THAT PART OF BOWEN PARK (14817N) LYING TO THE EAST OF WALL STREET CONTAINING 1.46 ACRES MORE OR LESS AS SHOWN OUTLINED IN RED, LEASE FOR 'NANAIMO CURLING CLUB', EXCEPT THAT PART SHOWN ON SCHEDULE "L ATTACHED HERETO (LOUNGE AREA) (Folio: 89095.000)

Civic: 100 Wall Street Organization: Nanaimo Curling ClublCity of Nanaimo

LOT 1, SECTIONS 18, 19 AND 20, RANGE 7, MOUNTAIN DISTRICT, PLAN 27441 EXCEPT THOSE PARTS IN PLANS 40622 AND 44255, LEASE FOR 'NANAIMO BMX ASSOCIATION' (Folio: 05549.007)

Civic: 2 2300 Bowen Road Organization: Nanaimo BMX AssociationlCity of Nanaimo

LOT 3, SECTION I,NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 9450, EXEMPT PORTION AS SHOWN ON SCHEDULE "M"ATTACHED HERETO (Folio: 16019.000)

Civic: 20 Fifth Street Organization: Boys and Girls Club of Nanaimo

LOT 1, SECTION 2, PLAN 23032, NANAIMO DISTRICT, THAT PART INCLUDED IN LEASE (Folio: 16822.102)

Civic: 1400 Cranberry Avenue Organization: Boys and Girls Club of NanaimolCity of Nanaimo LOT 1, SECTION 19, RANGE 7, MOUNTAIN DISTRICT, PLAN 27484 (Folio: 05536.100)

Civic: 2352 Rosstown Road Organization: Columbian Centre Society

THE NORTH 112 OF LOT 8, BLOCK A, SECTION I,NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 584 (Folio: 81613.000)

Civic: 1009 Farquhar Street Organization: Loaves and Fishes Food Bank Foundation

ST JOHN LEASEHOLD AREA, PLN VIP72802, BYLAW 5512 (Folio: 19805.301)

Civic: 2250 Labieux Road Organization: St. John AmbulancelCity of Nanaimo

NANAIMO LAND DISTRICT, PORTION LEASE, COMMUNITY SERVICES BUILDING ROOMS 202, 203, 204, 205, 206,207,208, 209, 210, 211, 214, 215, 209A, 214A - OPTIONS FOR SEXUAL HEALTH, AS OUTLINED BY A HEAVY DARK LINE ON SCHEDULE "N" ATTACHED HERETO (Folio: 8161 1.007)

Civic: 206 285 Prideaux Street Organization: Options for Sexual Health, NanaimolCity of Nanaimo

LOT 1, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 25254 (Folio: 86055.000)

Civic: 290 Bastion Street Organization: Nanaimo Youth Services Association

THAT PART OF LOT 23G, WELLINGTON DISTRICT, LYING NORTH OF DOUMONT ROAD AND WEST OF THE ISLAND HIGHWAY AS SHOWN ON PLAN DEPOSITED UNDER DD 16913N (Folio: 07860.001); LOT 2, SECTION 10, WELLINGTON DISTRICT, PLAN 32084 (Folio: 07674.020)

Civic: 6006161 00 Doumont Road Organization: Pleasant Valley Social Centre

LOT 1, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN VIP69992, LEASED AREA AT MILITARY CAMP (Folio: 16000.114)

Civic: 901 Fifth Street Organization: Royal Canadian Airforce Assoc. 808 (Thunderbird) Wing I Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada

LOT A, DISTRICT LOT 48, PLAN 42751, WELLINGTON DISTRICT-LEASED TO MCGIRR SPORTS SOCIETY, BYLAW 5145 (Folio: 08283.925)

Civic: 6175 McGirr Road Organization: The McGirr Sports SocietylCity of Nanaimo (43) LOT 7, SECTION 16, RANGE 8, MOUNTAIN DISTRICT, PLAN 17752 (Folio: 05949.692)

Civic: 1729 Boundary Avenue Organization: Nanaimo Community Hospice Society

(44) PART OF LOT 1, PLAN VIP63076 - LICENCE FOR NANAIMO AND DISTRICT HARBOURFRONT CENTRE SOCIETY (Folio: 85997.002)

Civic: 125 Front Street Organization: Port Theatre SocietyICity of Nanaimo

(45) LD 32, PORTION LEASE, COMMUNITY SERVICES BLDG. ROOMS 101, 102, 112, 108, 109, 110, 111, 113, 114, 115, 116, 219 - AS OUTLINED BY A HEAW DARK LlNE ON SCHEDULE "On ATTACHED HERETO (Folio: 8161 1.004)

Civic: 114 285 Prideaux Street Organization: C.V.I. Multicultural SocietyICity of Nanaimo

(46) SECTION 5, WELLINGTON DISTRICT, ROADWAY AND PUBLIC PARK BETWEEN LOTS 1 & 8 AND LONG LAKE (LBF0138849) THAT PART INCLUDED IN LICENSE FOR THE PURPOSE OF A STORAGE AND TRAINING FACILITY FOR FLATWATER CANOE & KAYAK RACING ON LONG LAKE-SEE 07151.000-LEASE LEA0108, AS OUTLlNED IN A HEAW BLACK LlNE ON SCHEDULE "Pn ATTACHED HERETO (Folio: 07151.002)

Civic: 4295 Victoria Avenue Organization: Nanaimo Canoe & Kayak ClublNanaimo Rowing Club1 City of Nanaimo

(47) LOT 1, SECTION 18, 19 AND 20, RANGE 7, MOUNTAIN DISTRICT, PLAN 27441, AS SHOWN ON SCHEDULE "Q" ATTACHED HERETO (Folio: 05549.100)

Civic: 2290 Bowen Road Organization: Nanaimo Tourism and Convention BureauICity of Nanaimo

(48) NANAIMO LAND DISTRICT, PORTION LEASE, COMMUNITY SERVICES BUILDING - ROOMS 217, 218 - MID-ISLAND METlS NATION ASSOCIATION, AS OUTLINED BY A HEAVY DARK LlNE ON SCHEDULE "R ATTACHED HERETO (Folio: 8161 1.014)

Civic: 21 8 285 Prideaux Street Organization: Mid Island Metis Nation AssociationICity of Nanaimo (49) LOT 2, BLOCK 14, SECTION 18, RANGE 8, MOUNTAIN DISTRICT, PLAN 526, EXCEPT THE EAST 396 FEET OF THE SOUTH 165 FEET THEREOF AND EXCEPT PARCEL "A" (DD 346841) THEREOF (Folio: 05695.000)

Civic: 2227 McGarrigle Road Organization: Nanaimo Region John Howard Society

(50) LOT 24, BLOCK BULLOCK, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 584 (FOLIO: 82387.000); LOT 25, BLOCK BULLOCK, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 584 (FOLIO: 82388.000); LOT 26, BLOCK BULLOCK, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 584 (FOLIO: 82389.000)

Civic: 437, 441 & 445 Wesley Street Organization: Nanaimo Region John Howard SocietyICity of Nanaimo

(51) LEASE PLAN 1823R, EXCEPT 43195 LIONS MANOR

Civic: Organization: Vancouver Island Haven SocietylCity of Nanaimo

(52) THT PART SHOWN ON PLN 41636 INCLUDED IN LEASE (N69016), SPCA LEASEHOLD AREA, BYLAW 2709 (Folio: 19805.300)

Civic: 2200 Labieux Road Organization: BC SPCAlCity of Nanaimo

(53) LOT 4, BLOCK AA, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 584, EXCEPT PARCELS A (DD 94054) & PARCEL B (DD 1 1647N) (Folio: 82336.000)

Civic: 25 Victoria Road Organization: Central Vancouver Island Centre for the Arts SocietylCity of Nanaimo

(54) LOT A, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 12390, THAT PART INCLUDED IN UNlT 2 LEASE (Folio: 85616.002)

Civic: 2 150 Commercial Street Organization: Nanaimo Art GallerylCity of Nanaimo

(55) LOT A, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 12390, THAT PART INCLUDED IN UNlT 3 LEASE (Folio: 85616.003)

Civic: 3 150 Commercial Street Organization: Downtown Nanaimo Partnership SocietylCity of Nanaimo LOT A, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 12390, THAT PART INCLUDED IN UNIT 4 LEASE (Folio: 85616.004)

Civic: 4 150 Commercial Street Organization: BC Drama Association/Theatre BClCity of Nanaimo

LOT A, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 12390, THAT PART INCLUDED IN UNlT 7 LEASE (Folio: 85616.007); LOT A, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 12390, THAT PART INCLUDED IN UNlT 6 LEASE (Folio: 85616.01 2)

Civic: 6 & 7 150 Commercial Street Organization: Vancouver Island SymphonylCity of Nanaimo

LOT A, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 12390, THAT PART INCLUDED IN UNlT 5 LEASE (Folio: 85616.013)

Civic: 5 150 Commercial Street Organization: Assembly of British Columbia Arts CouncilslCity of Nanaimo

LOT A, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 12390, THAT PART INCLUDED IN UNlT 9 LEASE (Folio: 85616.009)

Civic: 9 150 Commercial Street Organization: Nanaimo Community ArchivesICity of Nanaimo

LOT A, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 12390, THAT PART INCLUDED IN UNlT 10 LEASE (Folio: 85616.010)

Civic: 10 150 Commercial Street Organization: Crimson Coast Dance SocietylCity of Nanaimo

LOT 6, SECTION 15, RANGE 8, MOUNTAIN DISTRICT, PLAN 7272, EXEMPT PORTION AS SHOWN OUTLINED IN BLACK ON SCHEDULE 'S' ATTACHED HERETO (Folio: 05910.000)

Civic: 1717 Kerrisdale Road Organization: Crisis Pregnancy Centre of Nanaimo Society

LOT A, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 23380 EXCEPT PART IN PLAN 3655 RW (Folio: 16000.010)

Civic: 750 Fifth Street Organization: Navy League of Canada Nanaimo Branch

LOT 1, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 28924 (Folio: 86099.000)

Civic: 375 Selby Street Organization: Nanaimo Conservatory of Music (64) LOT A, DISTRICT LOT 97G, NEWCASTLE RESERVE, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 19919 (Folio: 85998.000)

Civic: 1191 Seafield Crescent Organization: Nanaimo F.O.S. Non-Profit Housing Society

(65) LOT 1, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN VIP71 136 (Folio: 17545.005)

Civic: 271 Pine Street Organization: Nanaimo Foodshare Network Society

(66) LOT 1, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 35056 (Folio: 86175.000)

Civic: 83 Victoria Crescent Organization: Nanaimo Association for Community Living

(67) THAT PART OF LOT 1, SECTION 1, AND OF LOT 96B, NEWCASTLE RESERVE, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 17684, EXEMPT PORTION AS SHOWN ON SCHEDULE "T ATTACHED HERETO (Folio: 85840.000)

Civic: 1045 Terminal Avenue North Organization: Canadian Mental Health Association1448708 BC Ltd. & Cheung, John K, Grand Eagle Investments Ltd.

(68) STRATA LOT B, SECTION 19, RANGE 6, MOUNTAIN DISTRICT, STRATA PLAN VIS5043, TOGETHER WlTH INTEREST IN THE COMMON PROPERTY IN PROPORTION TO THE UNlT ENTITLEMENT OF THE STRATA LOT AS SHOWN ON FORM V (Folio: 05438.020)

Civic: 2330 Brackenwood Place Organization: Columbian Centre Society

(69) STRATA LOT A, SECTION 19, RANGE 6, MOUNTAIN DISTRICT, STRATA PLAN VIS5043, TOGETHER WlTH INTEREST IN THE COMMON PROPERTY IN PROPORTION TO THE UNlT ENTITLEMENT OF THE STRATA LOT AS SHOWN ON FORM V (Folio: 05438.015)

Civic: 2332 Brackenwood Place Organization: Columbian Centre Society

(70) LOT 12, BLOCK 22, SECTION 5, WELLINGTON DISTRICT, PLAN 318A (Folio: 07281.OOO)

Civic: 3793 Nowell Drive Organization: Columbian Centre Society (71) LOT: A, SECTION: 19 RANGE: 6 PLAN: 39084 (Folio: 05437.060)

Civic: 2360 Rosstown Road Organization: Knights Mid Island Charitable Society1 Columbian Centre Society

(72) LOT: B, SECTION 20, RANGE 6, MOUNTAIN DISTRICT, PLAN 48960 (Folio: 05446.014)

Civic: 2477 Kenworth Road Organization: Nanaimo Recycling Exchange

(73) THAT PART OF SECTION 5, WELLINGTON DISTRICT, CONTAINING 5.6 ACRES, AS SHOWN ON PLAN 38 RW (Folio: 19457.000)

Civic: NIA Organization: Island Corridor Foundation

(74) LOT A, SECTION 10, WELLINGTON DISTRICT, PLAN VIP66247 (Folio: 19457.003)

Civic: 6620 Jenkins Road Organization: Island Corridor Foundation

(75) LOT A, DISTRICT LOT 23G, WELLINGTON DISTRICT, PLAN VIP66260 (Folio: 19457.005)

Civic: 5755 Malpass Road Organization: Island Corridor Foundation

(76) LOT 1, SECTION 10, WELLINGTON DISTRICT, PLAN VIP59327 (Folio: 19457.006)

Civic: 6179 Doumont Road Organization: Island Corridor Foundation

(77) LOT A, DISTRICT LOT 24G, WELLINGTON DISTRICT, PLAN VIP59328 (Folio: 19457.007)

Civic: Doreen Place Organization: Island Corridor Foundation

(78) LOT A, SECTION 1, DISTRICT LOT 96B & 96G, NEWCASTLE RESERVE, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN VIP66986 (Folio: 19457.060)

Civic: 320 Townsite Road Organization: Island Corridor Foundation (79) LOT A, SECTION 18, RANGE 8, MOUNTAIN DISTRICT AND SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN VIP66690 (Folio: 19457.070)

Civic: 1601 Northfield Road Organization: Island Corridor Foundation

(80) LAND AND IMPROVEMENTS MlLE 74.93 TO MlLE 76.32 VICTORIA SUBDIVISION, MOUNTAIN DISTRICT (Folio: 19457.076)

Civic: 1655 Island Highway N Organization: Island Corridor Foundation

(81) THAT PART OF SECTION 10, WELLINGTON DISTRICT, ON THE WESTERLY SIDE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY OF THE ESQUIMALT AND NANAIMO RAILWAY, CONTAINING 0.55 OF AN ACRE MORE OR LESS AS SHOWN IN RED ON PLAN 68 RW (Folio: 19457.082)

Civic: NIA Organization: Island Corridor Foundation

(82) THAT PART OF SECTION 10, WELLINGTON DISTRICT SHOWN OUTLINED IN RED ON PLAN 68 RW (Folio: 19457.083)

Civic: NIA Organization: Island Corridor Foundation

(83) THAT PART OF DISTRICT LOT 24G, WELLINGTON DISTRICT SHOWN IN RED ON PLAN 68 RW (Folio: 19457.084)

Civic: NIA Organization: Island Corridor Foundation

(84) LOT RLY RNV LAND & IMPROVEMENTS IN S DlST 68 & REG DlST 18F, ETC (Folio: 19459.01 0)

Civic: NIA Organization: Island Corridor Foundation

(85) TRACKAGE-STOCKETT WELLCOX SPUR, VICTORIA SUBDIVISION, NANAIMO DISTRICT (Folio: 19460.048)

Civic: 1663 Island Highway N Organization: Island Corridor Foundation THAT PART OF SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, LYING EASTERLY OF THE VICTORIA ROAD (AS SAlD ROAD IS SHOWN ON PLANS 630 & 1748) AND SOUTH OF THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF THE INDIAN RESERVE AND SAlD SOUTH BOUNDARY PRODUCED WESTERLY TO INTERSECTION WITH SAlD ROAD, EXCEPT LOTS F, M, & N, PLAN 630 AND EXCEPT THOSE PARTS IN PLANS 31845, 2163R AND VIP71009, AND THAT PART OF SECTION 2, NANAIMO DISTRICT, SHOWN OUTLINED IN RED ON PLAN 507RW, RAILWAY RNV LAND & IMPROVEMENTS STOCKETT-WELLCOX SPUR IN SCH DlST 68 (Folio: 19460.050)

Civic: 1150 Island Highway S Organization: Island Corridor Foundation

THAT PART OF THE NANAIMO TOWN INDIAN RESERVE #I OF SECTION I, NANAIMO DISTRICT, SHOWN OUTLINED IN RED ON PLAN 566RW (Folio: 19460.051)

Civic: Island Highway N Organization: Island Corridor Foundation

LOT A, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN VIP66258 (Folio: 19460.135)

Civic: 565 Milton Street Organization: Island Corridor Foundation

LOT A, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN VIP66695 (Folio: 19460.140)

Civic: 645 Pine Street Organization: Island Corridor Foundation

LOT A, SECTIONS 2, 3, & 7, NANAIMO DISTRICT AND SECTIONS 18, 19 & 20, RANGE 4, CRANBERRY DISTRICT, PLAN VIP66607 (Folio: 19460.141)

Civic: A 635 Pine Street Organization: Island Corridor Foundation

LOT A, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN VIP66261 (Folio: 19460.145)

Civic: 412 Prideaux Street Organization: Island Corridor Foundation

LOT A, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN VIP66639 (Folio: 19460.155)

Civic: 700 Comox Road Organization: Island Corridor Foundation

LOT A, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN VIP66637 (Folio: 19460.160)

Civic: 700 Dufferin Street Organization: Island Corridor Foundation (94) LOT A, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN VIP66246 (Folio: 19460.165)

Civic: 150 Prideaux Street Organization: Island Corridor Foundation

(95) LOT A, SECTION 1, NANAlMO DISTRICT, PLAN VIP66252 (Folio: 19460.170)

Civic: 885 Hecate Street Organization: Island Corridor Foundation

(96) LOT A, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN VIP66249 (Folio: 19460.171)

Civic: 635 Farquhar Street Organization: Island Corridor Foundation

(97) LOTA, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN VIP66251 (Folio: 19460.172)

Civic: 11 1 Prideaux Street Organization: Island Corridor Foundation

(98) LOT A, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN VIP66254 (Folio: 19460.173)

Civic: 530 Milton Street Organization: Island Corridor Foundation

(99) LOT A, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN VIP66318 (Folio: 19460.174)

Civic: 630 Campbell Street Organization: Island Corridor Foundation

(100) LOT A, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN VIP66253 EXCEPT PART IN PLAN VIP77663 (Folio: 19460.175)

Civic: 435 Prideaux Street Organization: Island Corridor Foundation

(101) LOT A, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN VIP66985 (Folio: 19460.176)

Civic: 533 Wentworth Street Organization: Island Corridor Foundation

(102) LOT 1, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN VIP69483 (Folio: 19460.200)

Civic: 281 Selby Street Organization: Island Corridor Foundation (103) NANAIMO LAND DISTRICT, THAT PART OF SECTION 1, (DD302241) AND REMAINDER OF SECTION 1 (Folio: 19460.201)

Civic: 220 Ninth Street Organization: Island Corridor Foundation

(104) THAT PART OF SECTION 8, WELLINGTON DISTRICT SHOWN COLOURED IN RED ON PLAN ATTACHED TO DD 275971 (Folio: 19460.202)

Civic: 6679 Aulds Road Organization: Island Corridor Foundation

(105) LOT 6 & PART OF LOT 7, BLOCK 89, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 366 (Folio: 80116.000)

Civic: 535 St. George Street Organization: Island Corridor Foundation

(106) LOT 4, BLOCK 26, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 27926, EXCEPT PT LEASED TO VIA RAIL SEE 86083.001 (Folio: 86083.000)

Civic: 321 Selby Street Organization: Island Corridor Foundation

(107) LOT A, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 28965 EXCEPT PART IN PLAN VIP70273, PORTION OF LAND UNDER TRACKAGE (Folio: 86101.005)

Civic: 525 Fitzilliam Street Organization: Island Corridor Foundation

(108) LOT A, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN VIP691 11 (Folio: 8961 1.020)

Civic: 704 Comox Road Organization: Island Corridor Foundation

(109) LOT 4, BLOCK 1, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 2009 (Folio: 16930.000)

Civic: 880 Victoria Road Organization: Island Crisis Care Society

(110) LOT 1, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 6091, EXCEPT PART IN PLAN VIP57495 ROAD PURPOSES (Folio: 84680.000)

Civic: 355 Nicol Street Organization: Island Crisis Care Society (1 11) THAT PORTION OF LOT 1, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN 27926 SHOWN OUTLINED IN HEAW OUTLINE AND IDENTIFIED AS THE "LEASE AREA ON THE REFERENCE PLAN DEPOSITED UNDER PLAN VIP63746 (Folio: 86080.100)

Civic: 350 Prideaux Street Organization: Nanaimo Affordable Housing Society1 City of Nanaimo

(112) LOT A, SECTION 14 & 4, RANGE 4, DISTRICT LOT 14 & 17, WELLINGTON DISTRICT, PLAN VIP66202, EXEMPT PORTION AS SHOWN ON SCHEDULE "U" ATTACHED HERETO (Folio: P=07003.205)

Civic: 203 4750 Rutherford Road Organization: BC Cancer Foundation

(113) LOT 3, SECTION 20, RANGE 6, MOUNTAIN DISTRICT, PLAN 16051 EXCEPT PLAN 43195, EXEMPT PORTION AS SHOWN ON SCHEDULE "V ATTACHED HERETO (Folio: P=05447.100)

Civic: 2080 2520 Bowen Road Organization: The Nanaimo Telephone Visiting Society

9. "PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION BYLAW 2007 NO. 7057" is hereby repealed.

PASSED FIRST READING PASSED SECOND READING PASSED THIRD READING ADOPTED

G. R. KORPAN MAYOR

I. HOWAT DlRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE SERVICES SCHEDULE "A

EXEMPT = 0.793 Ha

ST. DAVID SlREET i2lLwEs 1650 WADDINGTON AVENUE NANAIMO, B.C. FOLIO - 84302100 -.

SCHEDULE "C"

PART 18 PUN 8339

. -

DEPARTURE BAY ROAD

REGEERED OWER(S) am AODRES ..$. ..$. 3510 OEPARNRE BAY ROAD, 'wkirsrns BAPnS, NANUUO, B.C. %10 MPARNRE BAY ROAD. NNUdO, RC. FOW 07811L001 MT-la PID: 000-504-816 \ 2 i--- k ...... SCHEDULE "D'

I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 I. -- ......

THIRD STREET

-A DIWAN SOCIZTY TZHPLE CI!t'Y OF -0 CHURCH SITE AND PARKING .

PROJECT DATA w- MGrWtU5LaI(NIDYI LoT%nmm(LaY)wDI aa- mn~LOlO CIIQ(IZDQllr fPLuniT~ CONCEPT 2B

f OURSQUARf COSPf L CHURCH

..uu I L . .-- -. .-,a ...--- FOLIO 08055.1 51 I i

6553 PORTSMOUTH ROAD SCHEDULE "G"

Hammond Bay Baptist Church Civic: 4960 Hammond Bay Road . . FOLIO 08323.405 . .

Entire lot area of 4960 Hammond Bay Road = 6.3 acres SCHEDULE "H"

ARBOT RD

WESTWOOD LAKE

THE BENEDICTINES OF NANAIMO 2371 ARBOT RD FOLIO 0$&!200 SCHEDULE "I"

Td cd 0 0 d ah 0 z Q) z- -zC)s $C a.s 'a fi 2 m m0

Millstone Ave

2 SCHEDULE "J"

Nariaimo ~"linorHockey Association Folio: 05549.004 Civic Address: 1/4 - 2300 Bowen Road Nanaimo, & District Eguestri an Association/ Vancouver Is1 and Exhi biti.on Society

CITY OF NANAIMO SCHEDULE "L'

NANAIMO CURLING CLUB

Folio : 890'9 5 -000 Civic Address: 100 Val1 Street \

SCHEDULE "M"

(DD. iZ865-~)

h L)

V, s

RLGIGTERED OWN@ (9) CIYIC ADDRC:SG BOYG AND G/KS CLUB O/ NANAM0 { 0/9TP/CT. zo //mi6TREcC.T SUITE NO.3 , NANAIMO, B.C. 94. COMMUC/AC GTPET , I?/:& 6W5 - 306 - 981 NANA/MO, 8.C. 'FOLIO. t6Ui9. W Y9R - SCQ L J SCHEDULE "N" . I a COMMUN[TYSERVlCESBUILDlNG ?' 0E S' 2843...... -P~EAUX STMET - .'.a .. . 'h E 5 FOLIO 81611.007 3 2

! I , OPTIONS FOR SEXUAL HEALTH I SCHEDULE "0" . . a: 2 ,. COMMUNITYSBRVICES BUILDING. , % z 285 PWDEAUX STREET ! ' zwa 8 Folio: 81611.004 r: ,.' 'h E - 3 3'2 I-

! CVI MULTICULTURAL SOCIETY ' .-

SCHEDULE."Q" -- .. .. -.- ......

Lot 1. Section la. 19 and 20. Range 7. Mountain Oistrid. Plan 27441. upon which is constructed Beban House (civic address: 2290 lowen Road. ~anaimo.B.C.) The leased an shall indude the main Roar. basement floor and We grounds immediately sumunding the building only as outlined in the plan of the premises below.

Plan of the Premises

Nanaimo Tourisrn and Convention Bureau Folio : 05549.100 Civ'ic Address: 2290 Bowen Road SCHEDULE "R"

COMMUNITY SERVICES BUILIIINC 285 IDRIDEAUXSTREET FOLIO 81611.014 .- -. -- - .- . . . MID ISLAND:

METIS NATION i . .-

ASSOCIATION ' - ' SCHEDULE "S"

1717 KERRISDALE ROAD SCHEDULE "T"

. STGEORGEST

CANADIAN MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION

CIVIC;.. .1045A Terminal Ave. North . .. FOLIO 8584UM ;HEDULE "U"

Folio: - 07003.205 BYK.2 0 3 Civic: 203 4750 Rutherford Road . ,.% Organization: BC Cancer Foundation :EP.19.2008 10:52 2507534993 DTZ BARNICKE NANAIM #I304 P.002 /002

Folio: a 05447.100 Civic: - 208D 2520 Bowen Road Organization: The flgqaimo Telephone Visiting Society ClTY OF NANAIMO

BYLAW NO. 7081

A BYLAW TO AMEND THE CITY OF NANAIMO SIGN BYLAW

WHEREAS the Council of the City of Nanaimo may by bylaw pursuant to Section 908 of the Local Government Act regulate the number, size, type, form, appearance and location of any signs.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Nanaimo, in open meeting assembled, hereby ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

1. Title

This Bylaw may be cited as the "SIGN BYLAW AMENDMENT BYLAW 2008 NO. 7081".

2. Amendments

The City of Nanaimo "SIGN BYLAW 1987 NO. 2850" is hereby amended as follows:

(1) By adding the following definition to Subsection 2:

"Automated changeable copy sign" means a sign on which copy can be changed electronically.

(2) By deleting Section 3 (22) in its entirety and replacing with the following:

"3(22) a sign which is animated, revolving or includes automated changeable copy, other than sign area used exclusively to display digital time, temperature and/or gas price information."

(3) By deleting "Schedule A in its entirety.

PASSED FIRST READING PASSED SECOND READING PASSED THIRD READING ADOPTED

MAYOR

DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE SERVICES

File: 21-62 CITY OF NANAIMO

BYLAW NO. 7082

A BYLAW TO REDUCE DEVELOPMENT COST CHARGES FOR NOT-FOR-PROFIT RENTAL HOUSING

WHEREAS the municipality may by Bylaw provide for a waiver or reduction of Development Cost Charges under Section 933.1 of the Local Government Act for not-for-profit rental housing, including supportive living housing;

AND WHEREAS the City of Nanaimo wishes to establish the criteria for an eligible development for the purposes of this bylaw.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Nanaimo, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

1. This Bylaw may be cited as the City of Nanaimo "BYLAW TO REDUCE DEVELOPMENT COST CHARGES (NOT-FOR-PROFIT RENTAL HOUSING) BYLAW 2008 NO. 7082".

2. In this Bylaw the following words and expressions have the following meanings:

(a) "City" means City of Nanaimo;

(b) "Eligible development" means not-for-profit rental housing, including supportive housing, that meets all of the following:

(i) at least 50 percent of the fair market value of the real property on which the development is situated is owned by an eligible owner;

(ii) the cost to rent a unit in the development to at least 30 percent of the tenants does not exceed the Core Needs Income Threshold established for the City of Nanaimo by the BC Housing Management Commission;

(iii) the land on which the development is to be built is owned by the City and held by the applicant under a lease or the owner has entered into Housing Agreement with the City under Section 905 of the Local Government Act which has been registered against the title to the land on which the development is located; and,

(iv) the applicant has demonstrated to the reasonable satisfaction of the City that the development is eligible for a housing subsidy (either rent or capital) from the government of British Columbia, the government of Canada or a Public Housing Authority. Bylaw 7082 Page 2

(c) "Eligible owner" means the government of British Columbia, the government of Canada, a local government, a Public Housing Authority of a not-for-profit corporation incorporated under the Society Act (British Columbia) or Part I1 of the Canada Corporations Act.

(d) "Public Housing Authorityn means the BC Housing Management Commission or another public authority established by the government of British Columbia or the government of Canada.

Despite a Bylaw of the City of Nanaimo imposing Development Cost Charges of any type, where the proposed development in respect of which Development Cost Charges are payable is an eligible development, the Development Cost Charges imposed by the City and otherwise payable by the developer in respect of the development shall be reduced by 50 percent.

PASSED FIRST READING PASSED SECOND READING -- PASSED THIRD READING ADOPTED

MAYOR

DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE SERVICES

File: 3080-01 CITY OF NANAIMO

BYLAW NO. 7083

A BYLAW TO AUTHORIZE A HOUSING AGREEMENT

WHEREAS Section 905 of the Local Government Act provides that Council may enter into a Housing Agreement, which may include terms and conditions agreed to regarding the occupancy of the housing units identified in the Agreement;

AND WHEREAS the Council wishes to enter into such an Agreement with respect to certain housing units located in the City of Nanaimo;

NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Nanaimo in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

1. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as the City of Nanaimo "HOUSING AGREEMENT BYLAW 2008 NO. 7083".

2. The Council of the City of Nanaimo hereby authorizes the Mayor and Director of Legislative Services to enter into an Agreement, on behalf of the City of Nanaimo, in substantially the form attached hereto as Schedule 'A', which sets out the terms and conditions of the occupancy of the housing units identified in the Agreement. The land identified in the Agreement is legally described as STRATA LOT 5 DISTRICT LOT 97G SECTION 1 NANAIMO DISTRICT STRATA PLAN VIS5226 (PID 027-044-785).

3. Upon execution of the Agreement by the Mayor and Director of Legislative Services and application of the seal of the City of Nanaimo, this Agreement shall be validly entered into as authorized by this Bylaw.

PASSED FIRST READING PASSED SECOND READING PASSED THIRD READING ADOPTED

MAYOR

DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE SERVICES

File: 3080 Address: 1237 Kiwanis Crescent Applicant: Nananimo District Senior Citizens' Housing Development Society, Inc. No. 4750 Bylaw 7083

Schedule 'A'

Housing Agreement - Kiwanis Village

(Page 1 of 4)

THIS AGREEMENT made this day of

BETWEEN: ClNOF NANAIMO

455 Wallace Street Nanaimo, BC V9R 5J6

(the "City")

OF THE FIRST PART AND:

NANAIMO DISTRICT SENIOR CITIZENS' HOUSING DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY (#4750)

1233 Nelson Street Nanaimo, BC V9S 5J4

(the "Owner")

OF THE SECOND PART

WHEREAS:

A. The City may, by agreement under section 905 of the Local Government Act, enter into a housing agreement with an owner regarding the occupancy of the housing units identified in the agreement, including but not limited to terms and conditions referred to in Section 905(2) of the Local Government Act

B. The Owner is the registered owner in fee-simple of the lands described as:

PID: 027-044-785 Strata Lot 5, District Lot 97G, Section 1, Nanaimo District, Strata Plan VIS5226

(the "Lands"),

And wishes to develop a seniors' congregate housing project with thirty one (31) units (dwelling units, sleeping units or combination) intended for occupancy by tenants (the "Housing Units"); Bylaw 7083

Schedule 'A'

Housing Agreement - Kiwanis Village

(Page 2 of 4)

C. The City wishes to enter into this Agreement to establish terms and conditions regarding the occupancy of the Housing Units identified in the Agreement and the Owner has agreed.

NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSES that pursuant to section 905 of the Local Government Act and in consideration of the premises and covenants contained in this Agreement, the parties hereto covenant and agree with the other as follows:

I.O INTERPRETATION

1.I The City and the Owner agree that the definitions in the City of Nanaimo's Zoning Bylaw 1993, No. 4000, as amended from time to time, apply to the interpretation of the terms in this Agreement.

2.0 OCCUPANCY OF HOUSING UNITS

2.1 The Owner covenants and agrees with the City that a minimum of thirty (30%) percent of the persons occupying the Housing Units must have an income that is equal to or less than the Core Need Income Threshold ("CNIT) as established by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation ("CMHC")(or B.C. Housing) from time to time for Nanaimo.

2.2 Should CNIT's no longer be produced by CMHC or B.C. Housing, then the income level applicable to section 2.1 shall be determined by reference to the most recently available CNIT figures for Nanaimo plus an annual adjustment no less than the Cost of Living Allowance ("Cola") prepared by Statistics Canada. If necessary for this calculation, the 2006 CNIT figures for Nanaimo are as follows:

Bachelor 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom

2.3 The Owner covenants and agrees that the Housing Units may only be occupied by tenants aged 65 or older.

3.0 ANNUAL REPORT

3.1 The Owner further covenants and agrees that during the term of this Agreement, it will, commencing on the first anniversary of the date an occupancy permit is issued for the building on the Lands, and on that anniversary date annually thereafter, provide to the City's General Manager of Development Services a report in writing confirming:

(a) that the Housing Units continue to be occupied as required under this Agreement; 210 Bylaw 7083

Schedule 'A'

Housing Agreement - Kiwanis Village

(Page 3 of 4)

(b) identification by suite number of the Housing Units that are being rented to tenants who qualify under Part 2 of this Agreement; and,

(c) the total number of tenants of the Housing Units and the total number of tenants who qualify under Part 2 of this Agreement.

4.0 BINDING EFFECT

4.1 This Agreement shall enure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective heirs, administrators, executors, successors, and permitted assignees.

5.0 NO WAIVER

5.1 The Waiver by a party or any failure on the part of the other party to perform in accordance with any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver of any future or continuing failure, whether similar or dissimilar.

6.0 NOTICE TO BE REGISTERED IN LAND TITLE OFFICE

6.1 Notice of this Agreement shall be registered in the Land Title Act by the City at the cost of the Owner in accordance with section 905 of the Local Government Act, and this Agreement shall be binding on all persons who acquire an interest in the Land after registration of this notice.

7.0 TERMINOLOGY

7.1 Wherever the singular, masculine or neuter are used throughout this Agreement, the same shall be construed as meaning the plural or the feminine or the body corporate or politic as the context requires.

8.0 B.C. LAWS GOVERN

8.1 This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws applicable in the Province of British Columbia. Bylaw 7083

Schedule 'A'

Housing Agreement - Kiwanis Village

(Page 4 of 4)

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have set their hands as of the day and year first above written.

CITY OF NANAIMO by its authorized ) signatories 1 )

Name:

NANAIMO DISTRICT SENIOR CITIZENS' ) HOUSING DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY by its ) authorized signatories 1 )

Name: j

Name: ) CITY OF NANAIMO

BYLAW NO. 4000.441

A BYLAW TO AMEND THE ClTY OF NANAIMO "ZONING BYLAW 1993 NO. 4000"

WHEREAS the Council may zone land, by bylaw, pursuant to Sections 890, 891, 903 and 904 of the Local Government Act;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED the Municipal Council of the City of Nanaimo, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

1. This Bylaw may be cited as the "ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT BYLAW 2008 NO. 4000.441".

2. The City of Nanaimo "ZONING BYLAW 1993 NO. 4000" is hereby amended as follows:

(1) By deleting the definition of "Building, Farm" in Section 4.1 and replacing with the following:

"FARM BUILDING" - means a structure which projects above the ground and which is used or intended to be used for the support, enclosure, storage and/or shelter of animals, commercial crops, machinery or tools used for agriculture purposes."

(2) By deleting the definition of "Lot, Panhandle"

(3) By deleting the definition of "Perimeter Wall Height" and replacing with the following:

"PERIMETER WALL HEIGHT" - means the vertical distance measured at the outermost building face, excluding open decks, from the finished grade to the top of the wall.

(4) By deleting the definition of "Lot" and replacing with the following:

"LOT" - means an area of land identified as a separate parcel on a subdivision plan or bare land strata plan or otherwise registered in the Land Title Office and includes a water lot, but does not include a phased subdivision boundary. Within the RM-8 Zone 'Lot' includes a land area on which a mobile home or park model trailer is located.

(5) By adding the following definition of "Pedestrian Trail":

"PEDESTRIAN TRAIL" - means a place or passageway used only by pedestrian or cycle traffic. Bylaw 4000.441 Page 2

(6) By deleting the definition of "Shopping Centre" and replacing with the following:

"SHOPPING CENTRE- means one or more buildings designed as an integrated unit to be used for retail stores, offices, restaurants, cinemas, exercise studios, personal service establishments, appliance repair shops, auto repair shops (excluding auto body shops or automobile wrecking), and garden centres. A shopping centre may be used, on a temporary basis, for automobile sales, carnivals, flea markets or craft fairs.

(7) By deleting the definition of "Yard" and replacing with the following:

"YARD" - means an open space on a lot unoccupied and unobstructed by any building or structure, except as otherwise provided for in this Bylaw. For the purposes of this definition a fence is not considered a structure.

(8) By deleting the definition of "Campground" and replacing with the following:

"CAMPGROUND" - means a site intended for the temporary accommodation of travellers for vacation or recreational purposes in recreation vehicles or tents which are not occupied as principal residences and excludes a mobile home or recreational vehicle park, but may include an accessory laundry facility, washroom, and shower facilities, convenience store, restaurant, office and recreational facilities, provided such uses are limited to the occupants of the campground.

(9) By deleting Section 5.1.4 and replacing with the following:

The use of land for the placement or use of containers is specifically prohibited in all zones.

5.1.4.1 Notwithstanding Section 5.1.4, containers intended for the use of emergency preparedness kiosks are permitted in all public institution zones, to a maximum size of 18.6 square metres (200 square feet) and limited to one container per parcel. The containers shall be screened in accordance with Part 14 of this Bylaw.

5.1.4.2 Notwithstanding Section 5.1.4, the manufacture of containers is permitted as a 'Light Industry' or 'Industry' use in the Light lndustrial (1-2), General lndustrial (1-3), and Heavy lndustrial (1-4) zones.

5.1.4.3 Notwithstanding Section 5.1.4, the sale of containers is permitted as a 'Heavy Equipment Sale' in the Service Commercial (C-13) and Light lndustrial (1-2) Zones.

5.1.4.4 Notwithstanding Section 5.1.4, the use of containers for shipping, as related to 'Truck and Boat Terminals', 'Docks' and 'Railway Yards', is permitted in the Heavy lndustrial (1-4) Zone.

(10) By deleting Section 5.9.1 and replacing with the following:

"Fence height shall be determined measuring vertically from the grade shown on the final lot grading plan, as approved by the subdivision Approving Officer, to the highest part of the fence. Where no grading plan exists, fence height shall be measured vertically from natural or finished grade, whichever is lower, to the highest part of the fence." 214 Bylaw 4000.441 Page 3

(1 1) By adding Section 5.9.6, as follows:

Notwithstanding Section 5.9.4, where a fence abuts a pedestrian trail the height of the fence shall not exceed 1.8 metres (5.9 feet).

(12) By deleting Subsection 5.12.2 and replacing with the following:

Notwithstanding Subsection 5.12.1., secondary suites are permitted in Part 7 - Multiple Family Residential Zones, Part 9 - Commercial Zones and Part 12 - Public Institution Zones where only one principal building exists and no other uses are sited on a lot.

(13) By deleting Section 5.13.3 and replacing with the following:

"Temporary accommodation within a recreation vehicle is permitted during the construction of a single family dwelling provided a building permit has been issued for the lot or for non-paying guests of the owner or occupier of a single family dwelling on the lot provided such use does not exceed 42 days in the calendar year."

(14) By adding Subsection 5.1 4.4.4, as follows:

"Pet Day Care, Boarding Kennel"

(15) By deleting Section 5.18.3 and replacing with the following:

Notwithstanding Subsection 5.18.2., the minimum parcel frontage shall not be less than 17.5 metres (57.41 feet) for a corner lot; except that the Approving Officer may exempt a parcel from this requirement.

(16) By deleting Section 5.1 8.4 and replacing with the following:

The depth of each parcel of land shall be at least 30 metres (98.4 feet), except that the Approving Officer may exempt a parcel from this requirement.

(17) By deleting Section 5.18.9.

(18) By deleting Subsections 6.1.7.4, 6.2.7.4, 6.3.6.2, 6.4.7.2, 6.5.6.2, 6.6.8.3, 6.7.8.4, and 6.8.8.4 and replacing with the following:

The height of an accessory building shall not exceed the maximum height shown in the following table:

Roof Pitch Maximum Height < 6:12 Pitch 4.5 metres (14.76 feet) 2 6: 12 Pitch 5.0 metres (16.4 feet) 2 8: 12 Pitch 5.5 metres (18.04 feet) Bylaw 4000.441 Page 4

(19) By deleting Section 6.3 and replacing with the following: 6.3. SINGLE FAMILY MOBILE HOME RESIDENTIAL ZONE - (RS-3)

This zone provides for the use and development of mobile homes on individual lots in relationship to surrounding development.

6.3.1. PERMITTED USES

Bed and Breakfast, subject to Part 5 Boarding or Lodging, subject to Part 5 Mobile Homes Secondary Suite Single Family Dwellings, subject to the regulations contained in the Single Family Residential Zone - (RS-1)

6.3.2 CONDITIONS OF USE

6.3.2.1 The gross floor area of a single family dwelling shall exceed a gross floor area of 87 square metres (936.49 square feet).

6.3.2.2. The floor area ratio of a principal dwelling shall not exceed 0.55 or a gross floor area of 390.18 square metres (4,200 square feet).

6.3.2.3. Notwithstanding Subsection 6.3.2.2, where a dwelling consists of three or more storeys entirely above finished grade on the rear elevation, the gross floor area may be increased as follows, provided that the building footprint does not exceed 185.8 square metres (2,000 square feet):

Lot Size Maximum Gross Floor Area < 1,000 square metres 390.18 square metres (< 10,764 square feet) (4,200 square feet) 2 1,000 square metres 464.5 square metres (2 10,764 square feet) (5,000 square feet)

6.3.2.4. Lots equal to or exceeding 1,666.66 square metres (17,940 square feet) in area are exempt from the requirements of Subsections 6.3.2.2 through 6.3.2.3.

For the purposes of this subsection, where a lot abuts a watercourse identified in Schedule "G" or a lot is subject to a geotechnical setback, the required leave strip(s) shall not be included in the calculation of lot area.

6.3.3. DENSITY

6.3.3.1. Not more than one single family dwelling or one mobile home shall be permitted per lot.

6.3.3.2. Notwithstanding Subsection 6.3.3.1, one additional single family dwelling or mobile home shall be permitted on a lot exceeding 0.4 hectares (one acre) in area. Bylaw 4000.441 Page 5

6.3.4. LOT AREA

6.3.4.1. The minimum lot area shall not be less than 600 square metres (6,459 square feet), serviced by a community water system, a community sanitary sewer system, and a storm drainage system.

6.3.4.2. Notwithstanding Subsection 6.3.4.1, where a lot contains or abuts a watercourse identified in Schedule G, the required leave strip shall not be included in the calculation of minimum lot area.

6.3.5. LOT COVERAGE

The maximum lot coverage shall not exceed 30% of the lot area.

6.3.6. YARD REQUIREMENTS

6.3.6.1. A front yard of not less than 6 metres (19.69 feet) shall be provided.

6.3.6.2. Side yards of not less than 1.5 metres (4.92 feet) for each side yard shall be provided. In the case of a corner lot, the side yard adjoining the flanking street shall not be less than 4 metres (13.12 feet).

6.3.6.3. A rear yard of not less than 7.5 metres (24.6 feet) shall be provided for a principal building. A rear yard of not less than 1.5 metres (4.92 feet) shall be provided for an accessory building.

6.3.6.4. Notwithstanding Subsections 6.3.6.1 to 6.3.6.3, general provisions in Part 5 for the siting of buildings on watercourses and major roads will also apply.

6.3.7. HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS

6.3.7.1. The height of a principal building shall not exceed 8.25 metres (27.06 feet).

6.3.7.2. The height of an accessory building shall not exceed the maximum height shown in the following table:

Roof Pitch Maximum Height < 6:12 Pitch 4.5 metres (14.76 feet) 2 6: 12 Pitch 5.0 metres (16.4 feet) 2 8:12 Pitch 5.5 metres (18.04 feet)

6.3.8. HEIGHT OF FENCES

6.3.8.1. The height of a fence shall not exceed 1.2 metres (3.94 feet) in a front yard.

6.3.8.2. The height of a fence shall not exceed 2.4 metres (7.87 feet) in any side or rear yard.

6.3.8.3. In the case of a corner lot, the height of a fence shall not exceed 1.8 metres (5.9 feet) when sited in a flanking side yard. Bylaw 4000.441 Page 6

6.3.8.4. Notwithstanding Subsections 6.3.7.1 to 6.3.7.3, fence heights are general provisions set out in Part 5, "Visibility at Intersections", "Fence Heights", and "Height Exemptions".

(20) By deleting Subsection 6.7.7.1 and replacing with the following:

A front yard of not less than 4.5 metres (14.7 feet) shall be provided for a principal dwelling. A front yard of not less than 6.0 metres (19.6 feet) shall be provided for all accessory buildings, garages and carports.

(21) By deleting Subsection 7.3.6.4 and replacing with the following:

A rear yard of not less than 7.5 metres (24.6 feet) shall be provided for the principal building. A rear yard of not less than 3 metres (9.84 feet) shall be provided for an accessory building.

(22) By deleting Subsection 7.8.8.2 and replacing with the following:

The height of a fence around the perimeter of an individual model home lot shall not exceed 1.2 metres (3.94 feet)

(23) By deleting Subsections 9.4.2.5, 9.5.3.2, and 9.7.2.3

(24) By deleting Schedule "E" (Fine Schedule) in its entirety and substituting the attached Schedule "E.

(25) By rezoning lands legally described as LOT 1, SECTION 1, NANAIMO DISTRICT, PLAN VIP71 136 from Single Family Residential (RS-I a) to Public lnstitution (P-2), as shown on the attached Appendix 1.

(26) By rezoning lands legally described as LOT 1, DISTRICT LOT 38, WELLINGTON DISTRICT, PLAN 46620 from Single Family Residential (RS-1) to Residential Duplex (RM-2). as shown on the attached Appendix 2.

(27) By rezoning a portion of the lands legally described as LOT 49, SECTION 16, RANGE 8, MOUNTAIN DISTRICT, PLAN 14680 and LOT A, SECTION 16, RANGE 8. MOUNTAIN DISTRICT, PLAN VIP64036 from Public lnstitution (P-2) to Single Family Residential (RS-I), as shown on the attached Appendix 3.

(28) By rezoning the closed portion of Labieux Road, as shown on Appendix 4, from Single Family Residential (RS-1) to General Industrial (1-3).

(29) By rezoning the lands legally described as LOT 1, DISTRICT LOT 30, WELLINGTON DISTRICT, PLAN VIP56260 from Single Family Residential (RS-1) to Public lnstitution (P-2), as shown on Appendix 5. Byiaw 4000.441 Page 7

(30) By rezoning the lands legally described as LOT 6 SECTION 4 RANGE 4 WELLINGTON DISTRICT PLAN VIP80527 from Residential Duplex (RM-1) to Mixed Use Commercial (C-4), as shown on Appendix 6.

PASSED FIRST READING PASSED SECOND READING PUBLIC HEARING HELD PASSED THIRD READING MOT APPROVAL ADOPTED

MAYOR

DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE SERVICES

File: 3900-30-ZAI -79 Bylaw 4000.441

SCHEDULE E

"Fine Schedule"

Fines for tickets issued pursuant to this Bylaw, shall be as follows:

Description of Offence Section # Amount of Fine

Watercourse Leavestrip Encroachment 5.3.1 $100.00

Derelict Vehicles on Property 5.1 3.1. $100.00

Exceed 2 Unlicensed Vehicles 5.13.1. $100.00

Prohibited Vehicle on Residential Lot 5.1 3.2. $100.00

Occupy Recreational Vehicle on Lot 5.1 3.3. $100.00

Exceed Four Vehicles for Single Family Dwelling Sited on a Lot 5.1 3.5. $100.00

Exceed Three Vehicles per Dwelling Unit where a Duplex is Sited on a Lot 5.1 3.5 $1 00.00

Home Based Business Exceed I00 Square Metres

Exceed one Non-Resident Employee

Retail Sales from Home Occupation

Emit Noxious Matter 5.14.5. $100.00

Exceed 10 Vehicle Trips 5.14.7.1. $100.00

Prohibited Vehicle Trips 5.14.7.1. $100.00

Exceed 1 Commercial Vehicle on Lot 5.14.8. $100.00

Storage Not Contained 5.14.2.7 $100.00

Use Not Permitted Various $100.00 Bylaw 4000.441

APPENDIX 2

DI 236 273 264 -ah -00g 245 246 m-mcr, m v - 250 -275 268 251 254 277 - -. 288 P 281 co Q 260 290 wQ CRAIG 259 283 ST 278 292 285 265 282 296 293 286 CD 288 '2 297 - 292 3

279 296 8v 51 5 i\~\@

285 q\tz. @$ % -, 302 ?

co w -0,- m, -10 3 ,, _' w 9 ;: ,' 3f ,, , , ,, ,, ,','I, , , b ,, ' '0 T- 0 0, 38 '," ," m cr, -cu 0 00 c3 CY wm 3 ,,' 303 -. - - *'34Q ;," A'I, a 307 w- nntl ' 322, ," LOCATION PLAN SUBJECT Civic: 271 Pine Street mPROPERTY Rezone from RS-1 to P-2 -&&gg$&?A PdO [IT W Bylaw 4000.441

APPENDIX 2 , 386 o 5. 7 cg 5860 ZgCY 120 " "- (r 5857 Anton Rd 5850 0 - - 121 - % v 'a " LO 'a 584 I 5840 261 CY 5860 , Alpha Grcle 5830 251 240 @64 ,,,, - - 241 - 5820 a 582 1 - aJ 230 -a 8 231 2 - 0 w '38 2: 581 I R 2 - 2 V) 10 8 22 I

Ascot Dr - - 0 0 5801 rn c\r 2 5805 b cg a V) 10 Ir) mc010 i? -10 - /

Hamrnond Bay - - v- " " >a 04 0 " k " " Ln2g 2 h m ", 0 Ir) In 2 i? X 210

0" O'i? - (0 04 k i? i? V) LO -- .

'a w 0 mwo c\tO(or\f 0 0 a 8 ~a~~~z~~~X~r) QO _ ~V,",tocoIr).mIr)q

LOCATION PLAN SUBJECT PROPERTY Civic: 576115763 Hammond Bay Road Rezone from RS-1 to RM-1 Bylaw 4000.441

APPENDIX 3

7-l 4 -rl I Meredith Rd

Nelson St I

I 1717 Civic: 1609 Meredith Road and Subject 1008 Thunderbird Drive Properties LOCATION PLAN Rezone portion from P-2 to RS-1 Bylaw 4000.441

Civic: Labieux Road Right-of-way @$J Rezone LOCATION PLAN portion from RS-I to 1-3 Bylaw 4000.441

APPENDIX 5

LOCATION PLAN t Civic: 6021 Nelson Road SUBJECT Rezone from RS-1 to P-2 PROPERTY

&&&&&&&* IY 0 RTH Bylaw 4000.441

APPENDIX 6

SUBJECT LOCATION PLAN mPROPERTY Civic: 5186 Dunster Road Rezone from RM-1 to C-4 ptJ (=J[%T !=!j CITY OF NANAIMO

BYLAW NO. 4000.443

A BYLAW TO AMEND THE ClTY OF NANAIMO "ZONING BYLAW 1993 NO. 4000"

WHEREAS the Council may zone land, by bylaw, pursuant to Sections 890, 891, 903 and 904 of the Local Government Act;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED the Municipal Council of the City of Nanaimo, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

1. This Bylaw may be cited as the "ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT BYLAW 2008 NO. 4000.443".

2. The City of Nanaimo "ZONING BYLAW 1993 NO. 4000" is hereby amended by adding the following to Subsection 9.7.1. - Permitted Uses:

"Liquor Store, on lands legally described as LOT A OF SECTION 14 AND DISTRICT LOTS 14 AND 17 AND SECTION 4 RANGE 4 WELLINGTON DISTRICT PLAN VIP 66202 (4750 Rutherford Road)."

PASSED FIRST READING PASSED SECOND READING PUBLIC HEARING HELD PASSED THIRD READING MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION APPROVAL ADOPTED

MAYOR

DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE SERVICES

File: RA210 Address: 4750 Rutherford Road Applicant: Shape Property Management Corp. (1854 Holdings Ltd. Inc.) Bylaw 4000.443

SCHEDULE A

File: RA000210 Civic: 4750 Rutherford Road LOCATION PLAN Subject e=1 Property ClTY OF NANAIMO

BYLAW NO. 4000.444

A BYLAW TO AMEND THE ClTY OF NANAIMO "ZONING BYLAW 1993 NO. 4000"

WHEREAS the Council may zone land, by bylaw, pursuant to Sections 890, 891, 903 and 904 of the Local Government Act;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED the Municipal Council of the City of Nanaimo, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

1. This Bylaw may be cited as the "ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT BYLAW 2008 NO. 4000.444.

2. The City of Nanaimo "ZONING BYLAW 1993 NO. 4000" is hereby amended as follows:

(1) By adding the following to the Table of Contents after "9.30 Quennell Square Zone - (C- 30)":

9.31 Corridor Zone - (C-31)

(2) By adding the following to Subsection 3.1 after "Part 9 - Commercial Zones, Quennell Square Zone (C-30)":

Corridor Zone - (C-31)

(3) By adding the following after Section 9.30 Quennell Square Zone (C-30):

9.31 CORRIDOR ZONE - (C-31)

The intent of this zone is to provide for mixed use commercial and multi-family development within the Corridor designation.

9.31.1 Permitted Uses

Day Care Facility Dry Cleaners Financial Institutions Laundromats Multiple Family Dwellings Offices Restaurant Retail Stores Bylaw 4000.444 Page 2

9.31.2 Conditions of Use

9.31.2.1 No parking spaces shall be permitted between the front face of a building and a highway. For the purposes of this subsection, a highway does not include a lane.

9.31.3 Yard Requirements

9.31.3.1 A front yard setback of not less than 3 metres (9.84 feet) shall be provided.

9.31.3.2 No side yard setback is required.

(a) In the case of a corner lot, the side yard adjoining the flanking street shall be a minimum of 3 metres (9.84 feet).

9.31.3.3 A rear yard setback of not less than 3 metres (9.84 feet) shall be provided.

9.31.3.4 Notwithstanding Subsections 9.31.3.1. to 9.31.3.3., the regulations of Part 5 pertaining to the location and siting of buildings and structures to watercourses and major roads shall also apply.

9.31.4 Height of Buildings

9.31.4.1 The maximum height of a building shall not exceed 19.8 metres (65 feet) and shall not consist of more than 6 storeys.

9.31.4.2 The minimum height of a building must be at least 2 storeys.

9.31.5 Screening and Landscaping

9.31.5.1 AH mechanical, electrical or other service equipment located outside or on the roof of a building shall be screened from adjacent properties and streets by ornamental structures, landscaping, or other means.

9.31.5.2 All outdoor storage and refuse receptacle areas shall be screened in accordance with Part 14 of this Bylaw.

9.31.5.3 Where a C-31 Zone abuts a highway screening and landscaping shall be provided in accordance with Part 14 of this Bylaw.

9.31.5.4 Where a C-31 Zone abuts, or is across a highway from any other Zone, except a Commercial Zone, screening shall be provided in accordance with Part 14 of this Bylaw. Bylaw 4000.444 Page 3

(4) By adding the following to Subsection 14.12 Minimum Landscape Treatment Levels after C-28, C-29, C-30:

Subject Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard StorageILandfill Property Zoned Refuse Receptacles

C-3 1 1 2 2 2

(5) By rezoning land shown on the attached Schedule 'A' and legally described as LOT A, SECTION 18, RANGE 7, MOUNTAIN DISTRICT, PLAN 28820; and LOT 2, SECTION 18, RANGE 7, MOUNTAIN DISTRICT, PLAN 23309 EXCEPT THAT PART IN PLAN 28820 from Transition Industrial Zone (1-1) to Corridor Zone (C-31).

PASSED FIRST READING PASSED SECOND READING PUBLIC HEARING HELD PASSED THIRD READING MOT APPROVAL ADOPTED

MAYOR

DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE SERVICES

File: RA206 Address: 2124 & 21 26 Northfield Road Applicant: H & J Welding & Machine Ltd. Bylaw 4000.444

SCHEDULE A

2220 Shopping

File: RA000206 Civic: 2124 and 2126 Northfield Road LOCATION PLAN Subject mProperty 2008-SEP-29 STATUS OF BYLAWS PAGE 1

4000.328 "ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT BYLAW 2003 NO. 4000.328 (ZAI-60 - text amendment to incorporate recommendations of the Neighbourly House Committee re: Protection Island Zone.)

Passed first and second readings 2003-JUN-09. Public Hearing held 2003-JUL-03.

4000.387 "ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT BYLAW 2006 NO. 4000.387" (RA130 - to allow "Parking Lots' as a site-specific use at 3054 and 3058 Barons Road.)

Passed first and second readings 2006-FEB-13. Public Hearing held 2006-MAR-02. Passed third reading 2006-MAR-13. Approved by Ministry of Transportation 2006-MAR-22.

4000.399 "ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT BYLAW 2006 NO. 4000.399" (To add additional requirements for the siting of heat pumps and central air conditioning units.)

Passed first and second readings 2006-AUG-14. Public hearing held 2006-SEP-07. Requires third reading and approval from Ministry of Transportation prior to final adoption.

4000.402 "ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT BYLAW 2006 NO. 4000.402 (RA172 - to rezone from Single Family Mobile Home Residential Zone (RS-3) to Public Institution Zone (P-2) in order to allow seniors care facility of up to 75 rooms at 6121 Hammond Bay Road.)

Passed first and second readings 2006-OCT-16. Public Hearing held 2006-NOV-02. Passed third reading 2006-NOV-20. Requires registration of a restrictive covenant prior to final adoption.

4000.407 "ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT BYLAW 2006 NO. 4000.407" (R.180 - to rezone part of property from Single Family Residential Zone (RS-1) to Residential Duplex Zone (RM-1) in order to construct three duplex's at 5640 Hammond Bay Road.)

Passed first and second readings 2006-NOV-20. Public Hearing held 2006-DEC-07. Passed third reading 2006-DEC-18. Requires registration of a restrictive covenant prior to final adoption.

4000.41 0 "ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT BYLAW 2007 NO. 4000.410 (RA184 - to rezone parts of the subject properties from Single Family Residential Zone (RS-I) to Single Family Residential small Lot Zone (RS-6) in order to allow for development of 24 single family smalls lots at 1400 Jingle Pot Road and 75 Wakesiah Avenue.)

Passed first and second readings 2007-FEB-26. Public Hearing held 2007-APR-05. Passed third reading 2007-APR-30. Requires registration of a restrictive covenant prior to final adoption. 2008-SEP-29 STATUS OF BYLAWS PAGE 2

4000.425 "ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT BYLAW 2007 NO. 4000.425" (To ensure the Bylaw does not discriminate between users of the land and instead only regulates the use of the land.)

Passed first and second readings 2007-NOV-19. Requires Public Hearing, third reading, and Ministry of Transportation approval prior to final adoption.

4000.426 "ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT BYLAW 2007 NO. 4000.426" (To create three new zones which are intended to reflect the varying levels of use on city parkland.)

Passed first and second readings 2007-NOV-19. Requires Public Hearing, third reading, and Ministry of Transportation approval prior to final adoption.

4000.430 "ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT BYLAW 2008 NO. 4000.430 (RA193 - to rezone subject property from Single Family Residential Zone (RS-1) to Service Commercial Zone (C-13) in order to facilitate the expansion of the adjacent Kal Tire business at 2834 Notwell Drive.)

Passed first and second readings 2008-MAY-12. Public Hearing 2008-JUN-05. Passed third reading 2008-JUN-23. Requires Ministry of Transportation approval prior to final adoption.

4000.433 "ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT BYLAW 2008 NO. 4000.433 (RA202 - to increase the height from 15 storeys to 20 storeys (for a maximum height of 66 metres) in a High Density Multiple Family Residential (Highrise) Zone (RM-7) at 6340 McRobb Avenue.)

Passed first and second readings 2008-FEB-11. Public Hearing held 2008-MAR-06. Passed third reading 2008-MAR-31. Approved by Ministry of Transportation 2008-APR-07. Requires registration of a restrictive covenant prior to final adoption.

4000.439 "ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT BYLAW 2008 NO. 4000.439 (RA205 - to rezone subject property from Single Family Residential Zone (RS-1) to Public lnstitution Zone (P-2) in order to facilitate the expansion of the Edgewood treatment facility located at 21 13 Boxwood Road.)

Passed first and second readings 2008-JUN-09. Public Hearing held 2008-JUL-03. Passed third reading 2008-JUL-14. Approved by Ministry of Transportation 2008-JUL-22. Requires registration of a restrictive covenant prior to final adoption.

4000.442 "ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT BYLAW 2008 NO. 4000.442" (RA209 - to rezone subject property from Single Family Residential Zone (RS-I) to Public lnstitution Zone (P-2) in order to permit the use of a daycare for physically and mentally challenged adults at 2217 Northfield Road.)

Passed first and second readings 2008-SEP-08. Requires Public Hearing, third reading, Ministry of Transportation approval, and registration of a restrictive covenant prior to final adoption. 2008-SEP-29 STATUS OF BYLAWS PAGE 3

6500.001 "OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN BYLAW AMENDMENT BYLAW 2008 NO. 6500.001" (To redesignate lands to Resort Centre, and add site-specific policy to permit a mixed use comprehensive development within the new Resort Centre designation.)

Passed first and second readings 2008-AUG-11. Public Hearing held 2008-SEP-04. Requires third reading prior to final adoption.

7077 "HIGHWAY CLOSURE AND DEDICATION REMOVAL (PORTION OF LABIEUX ROAD) BYLAW 2008 NO. 7077" (LD1794 - partial road closure of Labieux Road to facilitate its conveyance to the buyer, Ceco Properties Ltd.)

Passed first and second readings 2008-SEP-08. Requires Ministry of Transportation approval and third reading prior to final adoption. SEP 1 0 2008

NANAIMO 835 Old Victoria Rd, Nanaimo, BC V9R 5Z9

September 16,2008

To City Council of Nanaimo

We AC Taxi and Swiftsure Taxi are making joint application for a tariff increase. You will fmd a copy of the application attached.

We are informing you of our intent and asking that you send your opinion to the Passenger Transportation Board.

The address for them is

Passenger Transportation Branch Ministry of Transportation 104-4240 Manor Street Burnaby BC V5G lB2 /7

Garry 6mith AC Taxi

Anup a an; Swiftsure Taxi 835 Old Victoria Rd. Nanaimo V9R 5Z9

To the Registrar, Passenger Transportation Branch

Re: tariff rate increase for AC Taxi and Swiftsure Taxi

September 16, 2008

We are applying to change our tariff to the following

Flag $2.95 with TCI $3.05 fiom $2.95 with TCI included

Kilometer $2.15 with TCI $2.23 fiom $2.00 with TCI included

Hourly $40.00 with TCI $41.55 fiom $35.80 with TCI included

All the above rates include the 5% GST

The reasons we are applying for these increases are as follows,

Inflation and Fuel Costs

The Bank of Canada Core CPI inflation rates for these years are:

The price of propane was $0.5731 per liter in Jan 2006 The current price of propane in Nanaimo is $0.7955 per liter or an increase of 139%.

The price of gas was $0.879 per liter in Jan 2006 The current price of gas in Nanaimo is $1.379 per liter or an increase of 157%.

See attached letter from Dominion Securities New Cars

In 2006 most cars ran on propane and some were on gas, we had no hybrids. A police car with 150,000 Kilometers on it was worth around $3,500.00 plus taxes, it cost another $3,000.00 to install a propane system into it.

Now the price of the police car has not changed much but the newer cars require a propane he1 injection system cost more like $7,000.00.

To buy a hybrid if you can find an x lease they are asking approximately $20,000.00 or $30,000.00 to but a new one. You cannot buy a new Prius in Nanaimo today, they say come and talk to us about getting one delivered in December.

The price of staff both in the office and drivers

Unemployment in Nanaimo is basically nonexistent. We have had an ad running on the local radio station and in the paper almost steady for the last year. We have had a trickle of people apply, keeping them is difficult.

If you are trying to hire a call taker for $10.00 an hour you basically get kids applying. We need good dependable people we can train and this requires paying hirer wages. The problem is, so is everyone else in town increasing their base wage.

Hiring drivers requires finding professional drivers. They must have a class 4 license, a chaueffer's permit and a good drivers abstract. Once they have this they must go through our training program. This involves time and money both by us and the driver.

Once they get into the driver's seat they are paid on a commission basis, 41% (of the , gross meter less GST). On the average day of $260.00 they will earn $101.52 in an 8 to 9 hour day. This works out to $12.00 an hour approximately plus they make tips. The profession of driving is the lowest paid in the world I believe. Society wants the drivers to be good with people and great drivers yet the wage scale is extremely low.

The TCI we had to vote to give a portion to the drivers or we feel they would have revolted. The only way in our system to keep it all for the taxi owner would have been to decrease the % paid to the driver. This would have caused too much unrest.

Installing a digital dispatch system

AC Taxi Ltd. are now into our third year of having a computerized dispatch system. The system has taken a lot of stress of the dispatch staff;but has not come cheap. We now have monthly maintenance fees both locally and with MKC the company we purchased the system eom. In Swiftsures case they deal with Digital dispatch company out of Vancouver area, they began there system this year and have had a large capital outlay.

For your prompt consideration Note: Application # T1065-08 287 Taxi Co Ltd. Campbell River

Granted flag $3.15 Paved road $2.30 Gravel road $2.75 Waiting time $42.90

/ Garry Smith Anup Kang AC Taxi Swiftsure Taxi SEP-23-2008 11:57P FR0M:RPPLEHURST HLDGS 250-756-7745 T0:2507554435

CITY OF NANAIMO

LEGISLATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT REQUEST TO APPEAR AS A DELEGATION ON -2008 - 09 - 29- year month day

COUNCIL (at 7.30 p.m. in the Shaw Auditorium, 80 Commercial Street)

0 FINANCE 1 POLICY COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (at 4:30 p.m. in the City Hall Board Room, 455 Wallace Street)

NAME OF PERSON MAKING PRESENTATION: Michael Henrlcksen, Shanae McGladrey, Josh Hauca, Brittany Dorman Print ADDRESS: 144 Avalon Place Nanaimo BC V9V1G3 - street address City Province ~ostelcode PHONE: 250 756-9263 250 729-8045 FAX: home business NAME OF APPLICANT IF OTHER THAN ABOVE: Laura Harrison and Karen Miller

. .. DETAILS OF PRESENTATION: . . A small group of students would like to present an overview of our upcoming BC Student Leadership

Conference being held for the first time ever in Nanaimo at our beautiful new VICC.

High School students will present the What? Who? Where? When? Why? And How? for this conference

and would like to make a one time special request for financial support from the City Council. Other

community organizations have also been approached to participate as sponsors and we're hoping that

the City of Nanaimo will get involved in being a part of this leadership legacy for our local youth.

PLEASE NOTE Electronic presentations must be provided on a CD or by e-mail no later than 9:00 a.m. the day of the Meeting. Please submit a written copy of your presentation to the Recording Secretary either at, or prior to, the Meeting. Multiple speakers on a single issue or @pic shall be given 5 minutes each to make their presentations as per Section 18 of the Council Procedure Bylaw.

Phone: (250) 7554405 Legislative Services Department Fax: (250) 755-4435