______
TOWN OF SIDNEY
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 23, 2017 Council Chambers 7:00 p.m.
** This meeting will be videotaped and posted on the Town’s website. ** ______
A G E N D A
1. CALL TO ORDER / PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PERIOD (maximum 20 minutes) / INTRODUCTIONS / PRESENTATIONS / PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PERIOD
B. PRESENTATIONS
i. Development Variance Permit Application No. DV100213 (9633 Sixth St) (To increase lot coverage to allow a single-family dwelling). - presentation by John Hestnes, Applicant. (see Staff Report – item 11a)
ii. Development Variance Permit Application No. DV100214 (2238 Malaview) (To increase percentage of front yard occupied by parking area to allow a single-family dwelling). - presentation by Sheng Ma, Applicant. (see Staff Report – item 11b)
iii. Development Variance Permit Application No. DV100215 (10426 Eden Pl) (To increase percentage of front yard occupied by parking area to allow two single-family dwellings). - presentation by Dallas Ruud, Applicant. (see Staff Report – item 11c)
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
3. ADOPTION OF MINUTES
a. Regular Council Meeting – January 9, 2017
4. BUSINESS NOT COMPLETED AT A PREVIOUS REGULAR MEETING
5. BUSINESS ARISING FROM MINUTES
a. Council In-Camera Meeting – January 9, 2017 i. Appointment – Peninsula & Area Agricultural Commission Resolution: that Mr. Satnam Dheenshaw of Gobind Farms be appointed to the Commission for a 3-year term.
6. DELEGATIONS 7. PETITIONS
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 23, 2017 Page 2
8. MAYOR’S REPORT
9. COUNCILLORS’ REPORTS
a. Councillors P. Wainwright & C. McLennan - RE: Segways Report dated January 14, 2017.
10. COMMITTEE REPORTS
a. Economic Development Commission – December 2 & December 16, 2016
b. Committee of the Whole – January 16, 2017 Minutes contain recommendation(s) regarding: R.1-R.6 Density Review – Downtown Mixed Use & Multi-Family
c. Advisory Planning Commission – January 17, 2017 Minutes contain recommendation(s) regarding: R.1 Official Community Plan Amendment Application No. OP100031; Zoning Amendment Application No. RZ100094; Development Permit Application No. DP100689 and Development Variance Permit Application No. DV100212 (2447 Henry Avenue) (To amend the OCP to allow for 15 additional units and to reduce the rear and exterior setbacks in order to construct a 4 storey residential development consisting of 24 strata dwelling units).
11. STAFF REPORTS
a. Development Variance Permit Application No. DV100213 (9633 Sixth Street) (To increase lot coverage to allow construction of a single-family dwelling). Report dated January 17, 2017.
b. Development Variance Permit Application No. DV100214 (2238 Malaview Avenue) (To increase percentage of front yard occupied by parking area to allow construction of a single-family dwelling). Report dated January 17, 2017.
c. Development Variance Permit Application No. DV100215 (10426 Eden Place) (To increase percentage of front yard occupied by parking area to allow construction of two single-family dwellings). Report dated January 16, 2017.
d. Amenity Contribution – Development Proposal for 2447 Henry Avenue Report dated January 17, 2017.
e. CRD Regional Growth Strategy Referral Report dated January 17, 2017.
f. Agreement – New Municipal Connection to CRD Sewer Trunk (Ocean Avenue) Report dated January 16, 2017.
g. Peninsula & Area Agricultural Commission Report dated January 17, 2017.
h. Monthly Building Permit Report – December 2016 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 23, 2017 Page 3
12. OTHER REPORTS 13. CORRESPONDENCE 14. BYLAWS / DEVELOPMENT PERMITS / VARIANCES / SUBDIVISION
15. NEW BUSINESS
16. CORRESPONDENCE FOR INFORMATION
1. Email from M. Savage, Bowerbank Road, regarding bonus density, dated January 16, 2017. Reply dated January 17, 2017.
17. NOTICES OF MOTION
18. MOTION TO GO “IN-CAMERA” (CLOSED MEETING)
Motion: That it is in the opinion of Council that the public interest requires that persons other than members of Council and Officers be excluded from the meeting to consider confidential matters related to a personnel issue, pursuant to section 90.1 (a) of the Community Charter and that Council continue the meeting in closed session.
19. ADJOURNMENT
*** IN-CAMERA MEETING TO IMMEDIATELY FOLLOW ***
~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~
Rules for Governing the Public Participation Period at Regular Council Meetings
1. A maximum of 20 minutes is allocated prior to Regular Council Meetings.
2. Those wishing to address Council must specify their name and address for identification and the topic involved before being granted permission to speak.
3. Issues must relate strictly to municipal matters on community concerns. Individuals may speak to an agenda item or pose a question to Council.
4. Questions shall be on topics which will not normally be dealt with by municipal staff as a matter of routine.
5. Questions shall be addressed through the Chair and if the questions can be answered either by the Chair or through the Chair, Council will endeavour to do so. Otherwise, the questions will be referred to staff for research and report.
6. Presentations shall be brief and to the point, with a time of approximately 3 minutes being allowed to each speaker.
TOWN OF SIDNEY
MINUTES OF REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 9,2017 GouncilChambers 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Mayor S. Price Councillors: E. Bremner-Mitchell, T. Chad, B. Fallot, M. Lougher-Goodey, C. McLennan and P. Wainwright
Staff: R. Humble, Chief Administrative Officer A. Hicik, Director of Corporate Services T. Tanton, Director of Development Services, Engineering, Parks & Public Works B. Mikkelsen, Fire Ghief A. Verhagen, Manager of Planning S. Nelson, Corporate Officer
1 CALL TO ORDER / PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PERIOD (maximum 20 minutes) I INTRODUCTIONS / PRESENTATIONS / PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mayor S. Price called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
A. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PERIOD
1 D. Gelinas, 9635 Second Street - respecting item 13a, urged Council to join Colwood in the CRD service review initiative, noting the CRD's expected 2017 budget increase and that it's a good first step in regional fiscal responsibility and transparency. 2. S. Garnett,9583 Ghristine Place - respecting the December 19th Council Meeting, expressed concerns regarding the proposed development of 2447 Henry Avenue, in particular, the lack of clarification of the process.
Public Participation Period closed at 7:06 p.m
B. PRESENTATION
i. Update on EDC & Budget Request
Mr. David Calveley, member on the Town's Economic Development Commission, gave a PowerPoint presentation on the Commission's activities during 2016 and their 2017 work plan. He advised that 2016 was spent interpreting the vision of Council and researching economic development strategies and that 2017-2018 will include the following: - developing a Business Registry for all of Sidney (also business analysis tool); - establishing an innovative communication presence for economic development; - formulating and implementing business retention and attraction strategies; and - preparing a formal Economic Development Plan.
Mr. Calveley requested Council's continued leadership, commitment and funding for
econom ic development in 2017 .
Councillor E. Bremner-Mitchell noted that the Commission is working on addressing the recommendations from the Mayor's Downtown Revitalization Task Force.
2017.01.00'l Moved by Councillor E. Bremner-Mitchell, seconded by Councillor M. Lougher-Goodey, that the current level of funding allocated to Economic Development be referred to budget deliberations. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING Mo 2017 2
2. APPROVALOFAGENDA
2017.01.002 Moved by Councillor C. Mclennan, seconded by Councillor M. Lougher-Goodey, that the agenda be approved with the following additions to item 14(c): 1. Letter from A. Mclauchland, 9903 Seventh Street, dated January 4,2017; and 2. Email from R. Bergen, 9877 Seventh Street, dated January 6,2017. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
3. ADOPTION OF MINUTES
a. Regular Council Meeting - Decembe¡ 19,2016
2017.01.003 Moved by Councillor C. McLennan, seconded by Councillor M. Lougher-Goodey, that Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of December 19,2016, be adopted as presented. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
4. BUSINESS NOT COMPLETED AT A PREVIOUS REGULAR MEETING 5. BUSINESS ARISING FROM MINUTES 6. DELEGATIONS 7. PETITIONS 8. MAYOR'S REPORT 9. COUNCILLORS' REPORTS
IO. COMMITTEE REPORTS a. Audit & Finance Committee - Decembe¡ 20,2016
2017.01.004 Moved by Councillor M. Lougher-Goodey, seconded by Councillor C. Mclennan, that the Minutes of the Audit & Finance Committee Meeting of December 20,2016, be received for information. MOT¡ON CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Minutes contain recommendation(s) regarding:
R.l Trolley Service Approach Report 2017.01.005 Moved by Councillor M. Lougher-Goodey, seconded by Councillor P. Wainwright, that the Trolley Service initiative be tabled until 2018. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
R.2 Grant Funding for Church Soup Kitchens 2017.01.006 Moved by Councillor M. Lougher-Goodey, seconded by Councillor C. McLennan, that a member of Council (Councillor C. Mclennan) approach the church organizations in Sidney advising them of the Town's grant application program and that if they apply Gouncil could consider making it an annual contribution. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
R.3 Extension of Operating Agreement - Sidney Street Market 2017.01.007 Moved by Councillor M. Lougher-Goodey, seconded by Councillor E. Bremner- Mitchell, that, subject to minor housekeeping, the Mayor and the Chief Administrative Officer be authorized to execute an extension of the Operating Agreement for the Sidney Street Market with Westcoast lmpressions for a further three years (2017 ,2018 and 2019). MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
R.4 2017 Trucking & Excavating Services 2017.01.008 Moved by Councillor M. Lougher-Goodey, seconded by Councillor B. Fallot, that the Trucking and Excavator service contracts for 2017 be maintained with the current provider, W.A. Jones, at the same unit prices as in 2016. MOTION GARRIED UNANIMOUSLY REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 9,2017 Page 3
R.5 Modified Work Week (Flex Time) 2017.01.009 Moved by Councillor M. Lougher-Goodey, seconded by Councillor B. Fallot, that the staff report dated December 13, 2016, advising of a proposed modified work week (flex time) pilot project, be received for information. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
11. STAFF REPORTS
a. Bazan Bay 5km Road Race
2017.01.010 Moved by Councillor B. Fallot, seconded by Councillor C. Mclennan, that Team West Coast Running and Triathlon Society be granted permission to close roads (as per approved traffic plan) between the hours of 1l:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon, on Sunday, March 5, 2017, for the purpose of hosting the 2017 Synergy Bazan Bay 5KM Running Road Race in Sidney, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Society provides the Town with proof of $3,000,000 minimum liability insurance indemnifying the Town of Sidney of any liability; 2. That the Society receives written permission from the Ministry of Transportation and lnfrastructure to use the routes within the Ministry's jurisdiction, and provides a copy of the approval to the Town; 3. That the Society notifies two weeks in advance all residents and businesses situated along the race route, and provides a copy of the notification and confirmation of delivery one week prior to the event to the Town; 4. That BC Transit, the Fire Department and the Ambulance Service be made aware of the event and the Society comply with any requirements they may have; 5. That the Society receives written permission from the RCMP including approval of the traffic management plan (a copy of approval to be submitted to the Town) and the Society to pay any fees/costs levied by the RCMP; 6. That no costs are to be incurred, either directly or indirectly, by the Town for this event. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
12. OTHERREPORTS
I3. CORRESPONDENCE
a. CRD Service Review
2017.O1.011 Moved by Councillor B. Fallot, seconded by Councillor T. Chad, that the letter from City of Colwood, dated December 15, 2016, be received; that the Town request further information regarding the initiative for a CRD service review; and that a meeting of Council representatives be arranged to discuss the matter. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
b. Request for Funding to "ArtSea"
2017.0',t.012 Moved by Councillor T. Chad, seconded by Councillor M. Lougher-Goodey, that the letter from the Community Arts Council of the Saanich Peninsula, dated December 22,2016, be received; that their request for increased funding (to $10,000) be tabled; and that a letter be sent requesting the Arts Council's budgets for 2015, 2016 and 2017. MOTION CARRIED UNAN¡MOUSLY REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING M Janua o 2017 4
14. BYLAWS / DEVELOPMENT PERMITS / VARIANCES / SUBDIVISION
a. Bylaw No. 2130 - Business lmprovement Area (2018 - 20221 (A bylaw to renew the downtown Business lmprovement Area).
2017.01.013 Moved by Councillor C. Mclennan, seconded by Councillor M. Lougher-Goodey, that staff be authorized to undertake the required notification to initiate the counter-petition process for Bylaw No. 2130- Business lmprovement Area (2018 - 2022). MOT¡ON CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
2017.01.014 Moved by Gouncillor C. McLennan, seconded by Councillor M. Lougher-Goodey, that Bylaw No. 2130 - Business lmprovement Area be introduced and given first reading. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
2017.01.015 Moved by Councillor C. Mclennan, seconded by Councillor M. Lougher-Goodey, that Bylaw No. 2100 - Business lmprovement Area be given second reading. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
2017.01.016 Moved by Councillor C. Mclennan, seconded by Councillor M. Lougher-Goodey, that Bylaw No. 2100 - Business lmprovement Area be given third reading. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
b. Bylaw No. 2133 - Miscellaneous Fees & Gharges, Amendment No. 16
2017.01.017 Moved by Councillor M. Lougher-Goodey, seconded by Councillor B. Fallot, that Bylaw No. 2133 - Miscellaneous Fees & Charges, Amendment No. l6 be adopted. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
c. Development Variance Permit Application No. DV100207 and Development Permit Application No. DP100678 (9870 A 9880 Resthaven Drive and 9883 & 9889 Seventh Street) (To vary interior side lot line setback and location of parking spaces in order to construct a mixed 2 and 3 storey, 14-unit multi-family townhouse development).
Public Submission(s): 1. Emailfrom T. Burns, 9866 Resthaven Drive, dated December 1,2016. 2. Letter from A. Mclauchland, 9903 Seventh Street, dated January 4,2017 3. Email from R. Bergen, 9877 Seventh Street, dated January 6,2017.
2017.01.018 Moved by Councillor M. Lougher-Goodey, seconded by Councillor C. McLennan, that Development Variance Permit Application No. DV100207 (9870 & 9880 Resthaven Drive and 9883 & 9889 Seventh Street) be approved and that Development Permit Application No. DP100678 be approved, subject to conditions as per Council Resolution No. 2016.42.663. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
d. Development Variance Permit Application No. DV100210 and Development Permit Application No. DP100686 (2311 Oakville Avenue) (To relax requirements for front lot line setback, lot coverage and vehicle parking in order to construct two single-family, small lot dwellings).
(There were no written public submissions,)
2017.01.019 Moved by Councillor M. Lougher-Goodey, seconded by Councillor B. Fallot, that Development Variance Permit Application No. DV100210 (2311 Oakville Avenue) be approved and that Development Permit Application No. DP100686 be approved, subject to conditions as per Council Resolution No. 2016.42.664. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING Mondav, January 9.2017 Paqe 5
e. Development Variance Permit Application No. DV1002ll and Development Permit Application No. DP100684 (9626 Sixth Street) (To vary height requirement in order to construct a single family dwelling).
Public Submission(s): 1. Email from P. McAllister,9617 Sixth Street, dated December 23,2016. 2. Email from S. Anderson ,2370 Orchard Avenue, dated January 3,2017
2017.01.020 Moved by Councillor M. Lougher-Goodey, seconded by Councillor C. Mclennan, that Development Variance Permit Application No. DV100211 (9626 Sixth Street) be approved and that Development Permit Application No. DP100684 be approved, subject to conditions as per Council Resolution No. 2016.42.665. MOTION GARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
I5. NEW BUSINESS
I6. CORRESPONDENCEFOR¡NFORMATION
2017.01.021 Moved by Councillor C. Mclennan, seconded by Councillor B. Fallot, that the following correspondence be received for information: Letter from Deputy Minister of Community, Sport & Cultural Development, advising of their undertaking a review of rural education practices and funding, dated December 21, 2016. 2 Email from Acting S/Sgt. W. Conley, regarding tiered RCMP Auxiliary Program, dated December 21,2016. 3 Letter from City of Cairns, advising of their appointed Sister Cities Ambassador to the Town, dated December 22, 2016. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
17. NOTTCES OF MOTTON
18. MOTION TO GO "|N-CAMERA" (CLOSED MEETTNG)
2017.01.022 Moved by Councillor B. Fallot, seconded by Councillor C. Mclennan, that it is in the opinion of Council that the public interest requires that persons other than members of Council and Officers be excluded from the meeting to consider confidential matters related to personnel and legal issues, pursuant to section 90.1 (a) and (g) of the Community Charter and that Council continue the meeting in closed session. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
19. ADJOURNMENT
2017.01.023 Moved by Councillor M. Lougher-Goodey, seconded by Councillor B. Fallot, that the meeting be adjourned at 8:00 p.m. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
MAYOR CORPORATE OFFICER Gouncillors' Report: 1G Segways
14 January 2017
Prepared by Cam Mclennan and Peter Wainwright
This report is pursuant to motion 2016.31.424 "Moved by Councillor P. Wainwright, seconded by Councillor C. McLennan, that this item be tabled to allow Councillor C. McLennan and Councillor P. Wainwright to look into this further and bring a report back to a future Council meeting."
1. Ride The Glide's insurers have confirmed that their insurance will not provide coverage if they are engaged in activities considered illegal under the Motor Vehicle Act (MVA). 2. lnternet research identified only 4 locations in BC where Segway tours were available to the public: o Ride the Glide, Nanaimo, tours in Bowen Park o Shuswap Unique Adventure Tours, North Shuswap, off-road tours in Shuswap Lake Provincial Park and Roderick Haig Brown Provincial Park o Wild BC Glide, Vancouver, tours of UBC Botanical Garden, off-road tours of Pitt Meadows dikes and Roberts Bank Wildlife Management Area . Sun Peaks Resort, off-road tours of the Resort ln all four locations the routes for tours did not involve sidewalks. However, tours were able to cross public roads if people dismounted and as pedestrians pushed the Segways across the road and then remounted. 3. lt was suggested that the Town could use section 124 of the MVA to permit the legal operation of Segways on sidewalks. At Ride The Glide's suggestion, in September 3026 we contacted Kirk Rockerbie, Manager, Road/Rail Policy & Rail Registrar, MOTI for information regarding whether this was possible. Despite several follow up attempts we have been unable to get any response from MOTI.
Our research indicates that (1) there are no jurisdictions in BC which have approved Segways to operate on public sidewalks; (2) operating a Segway on public sidewalks contravenes the Motor Vehicle Act; and (3) that the operator's insurance will not cover any liability resulting from operating a Segway on public sidewalks. Therefore, we recommend that the application by Ride The Glide for Segway tours be denied. \00
50 Years 1967 -20L7
Town of Sidney
MINUTES Economic Development Commission Meeting Friday, December 2"d,20!6- 9:00 am, Arbutus Room, Sidney Town Hall
Present: GeriByrne-Chair, Councillor Erin Bremner-Mitchell, David Calveley, David Dukes, Susan Norman, Donna Petrie, Jane Powell, Julie Sneddon Staff: Randy Humble = CAO, Paula Kully - Recording Clerk Regrets: Chris Cowland, Robin Richardson, Andrew Hicik- Director of Corporate Services, Guests: John Juricic, Sidney North Saanich lndustrial Group
1. Presentation by John Juricic, Sidney North Saanich lndustrial Group
John provided an overview of the Labour Market Partnership Program which has been designed to help industry and employers understand and respond to changing labour market demands, and the work that is being done on the lsland. This includes the development of a Manufacturing Company Database focused on companies with 10+ employees. John noted that Sidney / North Saanich has some of the largest, long-standing manufacturing companies on the lsland who are world leaders and the economic engine for the region.
2. Review and approval ofagenda
Moved by D. Dukes, seconded by E. Bremner-Mitchell, that the Agendo be opproved os distributed. CARRIED
3. Review and approval of Minutes of previous meeting
Moved by E. Bremner-Mitchell, seconded by S. Normon, that the Minutes of the November 78, 2076 meeting be opproved as distributed. CARRIED 4. Working Group reports
Spreadsheet and Project Plan (J. Sneddon, D. Calveley, D. Dukes, C. Cowland, A. Hicik) David's report - Julie is working on the database of NAICS codes which is about L/3 complete. - lt was agreed that the project should be renamed Business Register rather than business vacancy registry. EDC Meeting - December 2,2016
David C. provided an update from Firm Management: The in-house staff at Firm have taken the spreadsheet from the Town and merged it with another sheet they already had on hand. The purpose of this is to gather and update additional information for Firm's proprietary use. Work is going well and they see no reason not to meet the January deadline for completion. All the work so far is being completed without the need for additional resources, therefore there is no current demand for funding support. This may change in mid- December and if so Dennis will contact us. lt is not possible to have an interim review of the data collected as some of it is considered confidential. We will have access only when the Town specific data is again separated out.
b. Community Profile (J. Sneddon, E. Bremner-Mitchell) - Erin reported that she has begun the outline for the project and developed a spreadsheet of website headings and pages. She has concluded that the project will be a huge undertaking. - Erín wíll send the completed spreodsheet to Pøula for dístribution.
c West Sidney LAP workshop report - D. Calveley - See attached
5. Work Plan - determine projects, project managers and teams
Chris & Robin will be consulted on which teams they would like to take part in when they return
a. Year-end summary: Project manager: Geri Byrne Team: David Calveley and any others interested
b. Business Register: Project Manager: Julie Sneddon Team: David Dukes, David Calveley, Susan Norman This will include phase L & 2
c. DevelopCommunicat¡ons: Project Manager: Erin Bremner-Mitchell Team: Julie Sneddon, Jane Powell, Susan Norman, Donna Petrie (consulting), David Dukes (attend Sidney Breakfast Club Meetings)
d. Economic Development Strategy: Project Manager: Geri Byrne Team: David Dukes - lt was agreed that this project is a high priority as council makes decisions that should be based on the greater economic picture.
Each project manager will be responsible to move their project along and establish timelines to be included in a presentation and report to Council, at the January 9th Council meeting. Reports need to be prepared by January 3'd. The EDC will include a recommendation that the current EDC funding be carried over - collaborate with Andrew on this item when he returns.
2 EDC Meeting - December 2,2Ot6
Councillor Report to EDC
Councillor Bremner-Mitchell noted that at the last Council meeting, Brian Losie, who was a member of the Mayor/s Taskforce, questioned why the BHAGS were removed from the EDC's new Terms of Reference. Erin talked to him after meeting and assured him that the ToR are an overview and that the EDC is working in same direction as established by the Taskforce. Council approved the new Terms of Reference. Councillor Bremner-Mitchell attended the Chamber meeting on behalf of Councillor Mervyn Lougher-Goodey. The Chamber has launched a new website and their focus has changed now that they no longer have the contract with the Town of Sidney for visitor services. Donna pointed out that there is some general confusion around the Chamber and Visitor Services; it needs to be clarified that the Chamber did not apply to the Town's RFP for visitor services. Jane Powell, who is the Chamber representative on the EDC will provide an update on the Chamber's future plans at the next EDC meeting.
6. Next meeting date and t¡me
Next meeting: December 16th at 9:00 am - Geri is away, therefore Julie or David will Chair Meeting of Friday, January 6th will be a mock presentation of the presentation to Council. Meeting Adjourned 10:40 am
Januarv 6,2OL7 tr Date
3 EDC Meeting - December 2,2016
West Sidnev LAP Workshop Attendee Report - David Calvelev November 23, 2016
This workshop had been rescheduled twice in order that a broad cross-section of attendees could provide input. Representatives of the heavy industry, RV sales, storage, residentialand commercial sectors were all in attendance as well as from the airport and the planning department of North Saanich. Though having a broad range of representation meant that there was a corresponding different set of opinions as to priorities there were some common themes as to what was needed in the area. ln the first charrette transportation stood out as a major issue. Proposals for improved truck access from the Pat Bay Highway heading southbound from the ferry to McDonald Park Road received a lot of support. This would also aid traffic feeding to the upcoming Sandown project. The concepts would then have commercial traffic collected from the industrial area exiting back to the Pat Bay Highway at the intersection with Beacon Avenue. Requests for better transit in the area also received broad support. Parking, as always, was a hot topic particularly along Galaran Road. More than one pedestrian overpass connecting the area with the central part of Sidney was proposed.
There was actually a focus on the development of Galaran road as this is obviously a contentious area. Requests for sidewalks and lighting competed with requirements for truck turning space and lines of sight. Fortunately there seem to be consensus that all could be accommodated.
Major differences of opinion became apparent when the overall visions of the area as it is being developed in the next years were shared. Most agreed that the first development would be most likely of the area from the corner of the Pat Bay Highway [currently a marshy area owned by Petro Canada] to Galaran road. This was seen as being mixed use commercial/residential facing the upcoming Gateway project. At this point opinions divided. One group favoured continued use of the residential lands providing family and workforce housing. This would develop along the lines of a "village" concept bordered by four story [even five if permitted by the airport restrictionsl commercial/residential along Galaran Road and Henry Avenue. The second group foresaw the complete area being rezoned as industrial. A demand for more heavy industry land was predicted. There was overall agreement that some areas of the lighter industry area should be targeted for attracting more technology businesses, building around the existing core which includes companies in the marine and similar sectors.
From an economic development perspective my personal opinion is that our upcoming inventory of the existing businesses in the area would be of significant value to Council as they make their decision on zoning. Knowing precisely the breakdown of land use by area as well as the number and type of businesses in the area is important. Some recommendations as to the type of business that could be attracted could also be made.
David Calveley
4 5O Years
Town of Sidney
MINUTES Economic Development Commission Meeting Friday, December 16th, 2016 - 9:00 am, Arbutus Room, Sidney Town Hall
Present: Julie Sneddon - Chair, David Calveley, Chris Cowland, David Dukes, Councillor Erin Bremner- Mitchell, Susan Norman, Robin Richardson Staff: Randy Humble - CAO, Andrew Hicik- Director of Corporate Services, Paula Kully - Recording Clerk Regrets: Geri Byrne, Donna Petrie, Jane Powell
Meeting called to order at 9:00 am by Julie Sneddon, Chair in Geri Byrne's absence.
J. Sneddon provided an overview of the projects and project teams established at the previous meeting for members who were not in attendance. R. Richardson and C. Cowland are interested in working with the Busíness Registry program.
L. Review and approval ofagenda:
Moved by E. Bremner-Mitchell, seconded by D. Dukes, that the Agenda be approved as distributed. CARR¡ED 2. Review and approval of Minutes of previous meeting:
Moved by E. Bremner-Mitchell, seconded by D. Dukes, thot the minutes of the December 2nd meeting be approved with the foltowing omendment: item 5.d - remove J. Sneddon from the economic development strotegy team. The teom will consist of Geri Byrne ond David Dukes. CARRIED 3. Update on Saanich Peninsula Chamber of Commerce future plans and direction (J. Powell): o Jane was not in attendance; item deferred to next meeting.
4. Working Group reports
a. Year-end summary (PM: G. Byrne, D. Calveley) i. Draft presentation to Council - D. Calveley reviewed the draft PowerPoint presentation to Council which outlines the EDC's activities during its first year. M em bers provided feed back and recom mendations. EDC Meeting: December L6,2OL6
b. Business Registry (PM: J. Sneddon, D. Calveley, D. Dukes, C. Cowland, A. Hicik, S Norman, R. Richardson): i. J. Sneddon provided a brief update.
c Develop Communications (PM E. Bremner-Mitchell, J. Sneddon, J. Powell, S. Norman, D. Petrie, D. Dukes): Deferred to next meeting.
d. Economic Development Strategy (PM: G. Byrne, J. Sneddon, D. Dukes): deferred
5. Councilor Report to EDC:
Councillor Bremner-Mitchell advised that the recommendation on the eco counters will go before Council on Monday, December L9.
6. Next meet¡ng date and time:
a January 6th at 9:00 am
a Adjourned L0:00 am
Janqary 6,20L7 Chair Date
2 TOWN OF SIDNEY MINUTES OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEET¡NG l0\o Monday, January 16,2017 Gouncil Ghambers
PRESENT: Chair: Councillor P. Wainwright Mayor S. Price & Councillors: T. Chad, B. Fallot, M. Lougher-Goodey and C. Mclennan
ABSENT: Councillor E. Bremner-Mitchell
Staff: R. Humble, Chief Administrative Officer A. Hicik, Director of Corporate Services T. Tanton, Director of Development Services, Engineering, Parks & Works B. Mikkelsen, Fire Chief M. Harman, Deputy Fire Chief B. Robinson, Manager of Public Works & Parks A. Verhagen, Manager of Planning T. Restell, Manager of Finance S. Nelson, Corporate Officer
1 CALL TO ORDER The Chair called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m
2 APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Moved by Mayor S. Price, seconded by Councillor M. Lougher-Goodey, that the agenda be approved as presented. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
3. PRESENTATION,
4. ADMINISTRATION & FINANCE a. Drall2017-202l Financial Plan
Mr. Andrew Hicik, Director of Corporate Services, presented the draft 2017-2021 Financial Plan which includes a general tax increase of 1.5o/ofor2017. He noted thatthe increase started at 0.95% and that 0.56% was added to increase the funding for infrastructure reserves. He noted the budget was prepared to support the Town's Strategic Plan and Council's key priorities. Mr. Hicik advised the draft budget, along with a copy of this evening's PowerPoint presentation, will be made available on the Town's website tomorrow.
5. PARKS & INFRASTRUCTURE
6. PROTECTIVE SERVICES
7. DEVELOPMENT & PLANNING a. Density Review - Downtown Mixed Use & Multi-Family
Mr. Evan Peterson, Barefoot Planning, gave a PowerPoint presentation noting that Council has reconsidered its original direction of establishing a single FAR with no Bonus Density and are now considering Bonus Density and Community Amenity Contributions. Subsequently, he provided the following recommendations for bonus density and ameníty contributions: 1. Adopt an Amenity Program that addresses increase in density in 3 key scenarios: a. Bonus Density (no rezoning); b. Rezoning (type I - beyond Bonus FAR); and c. Rezoning (type ll - differentzone). Committee of the Whole January 16,2017 Page 2
2. Adopt a fixed-rate amenity contribution (cash-in-lieu or in-kind of equal/greater value) and consider negotiated amenity (for long-term or large-scale redevelopment). 3. Employ a fixed-rate contribution rate of $150/m2. 4. Adopt a separate Amenity Policy. 5. Use amenity funds directed towards housing to fund programs that facilitate and incentivize affordable/attainable housing (not to build units). 6. Establish a second amenity fund with a focus on facilitating attainable and affordable housing. 7. Direct cash-in-lieu contributions to both a general Amenity Fund and a Housing Fund - balance between social benefit and community amenities. L Undertake an annual reporting and monitoring of the Amenity Program.
Mr. Peterson recommended FAR maximums for RM5, RM6, RM7 and C1 on Beacon Avenue and Cl off Beacon Avenue; and that the Zoning Bylaw contain the base and Bonus Density FAR for each zone and the Amenity Policy contain details of contributions and calculations.
Councillor P. Wainwright expressed concerns regarding the proposed FAR numbers and requested clarification on how they were determined. Mr. Peterson advised that the FARs reflect the current Zoning Bylaw regulations (i.e. setbacks, height, parking, etc.) and that the base FARs are set at what is viable and what has been built in Sidney to-date and the maximum FARs are set to maximize what can be built within the current regulations.
Councillor Wainwright also expressed concerns regarding the Town's public consultation process as the new direction of establishing bonus density was not part of that original Density Review consultation process.
Mayor S. Price noted that Council is reconsidering their original direction responsibly and upon further review by the consultant and staff, and that establishing bonus density and an amenity program would in fact be a great benefit to the Town.
Moved by Mayor S. Price, seconded by Councillor M. Lougher-Goodey: 1. That staff be directed to create an overarching Amenity Program that includes a bonus density structure within the Zoning Bylaw, as well as an Amenity Policy fhaf addresses the calculations and contributions for Bonus Density and Community Amenity g\ Contributions; OPPOSED: Councillor P. Wainwright MOTION CARRIED 5:1
Moved by Mayor S. Price, seconded by Councillor M. Lougher-Goodey: 2. That base and bonus Floor Area Rafios be included in each of the subject zones with reference to an Amenity policy, as recommended in the Phase 4: Amenity Program report from Barefoot Planning, as follows: a. RMí: base FAR maximum of .75, bonus FAR maximum of 1.30; b. RM6: base FAR maximum of .90, bonus FAR maximum of 1.75; c. RM7: base FAR maximum of 1.30, bonus FAR maximum of 2.00; (" d. C1 on Beacon: base FAR maximum of 2.30, bonus FAR maximum of 2.70; e. C1 off Beacon: base FAR maximum of 2.40, bonus FAR maximum of 3.00; as part of the Zoning Bylaw amendment including recommendations from the Phase ll Final Report on the Density Review, for consideration by Council; OPPOSED: Councillor P. Wainwríght MOTION CARRIED 5:1 t Committee ofthe Whole January 16,2017 Page 3
Moved by Mayor S. Price, seconded by Councillor M. Lougher-Goodey: 3. That another category be added to the existing General Amenity Reserye Fund to separately track amenity contributions fouvards facilitating the creation of attainable and ß3 affordable housing; MOTION CARRIED U NANIMOUSLY Moved by Mayor S. Price, seconded by Councillor M. Lougher-Goodey: 4. That amenity funds directed toward housing should be used to fund programs that facilitate and incentivize affordable and attainable housing, rather than to directly produce a limited number of actual units; ß'l MOTION CARRIED UN ANIMOUSLY Moved by Mayor S. Price, seconded by Councillor M. Lougher-Goodey: 5. That staff draft an Amenity Policy for consideration by Council that includes the details (e.9. calculations and contributions) of the bonus density and rezoning-based CACs, including the following : a. A fixed-rate amenity contribution of $150 per square metre of additional floor 36 area above the base FAR maximum; b. Allowance for the provision of Council-approved in-kind amenities of equal or greater value allowing in-kind contributions of an equal or greater value to the fixed rate amount; c. 1/3 of cash in lieu contributions be directed towards general amenities and 2/3 towards housing; and d. That Council give future consideration to a negotiated amenity approach for large scale redevelopmenf slfes. OPPOSED: Councillor P. Waínwright MOTION CARRIED 5:1
Moved by Mayor S. Price, seconded by Councillor M. Lougher-Goodey: 6. That staff monitor the Amenity Program and repoft annually to Council on its outcomes. ßt, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 8. OTHER BUSINESS 9. NEW BUSINESS 10. MOTION TO GO "IN-CAMERA" (closed meeting) - Not required
11. ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Mayor S. Price, seconded by Councillor M. Lougher-Goodey, that the meeting be adjourned at 7:35 p'm' MotoN .ARRTED uNANrMousLy
CHAIR CORPORATE OFFICER 'l
TOWN OF SIDNEY lo, ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
January 17,2017
PRESENT:
Chairperson Kelly Bull-Tomer
Members: Art Finlayson, Brian Losie, Debbie Gray, Denny Gelinas, Don Carscadden, Greg Flanagan, , Jane Hall, Jason Rodd, Susan Tinker and Terry Johnston
Council Liaison: Mervyn Lougher-Goodey
Staff: Alison Verhagen, Manager of Planning Alissa McCrea, Administrative Assistant
Absent:
Councillor Lougher-Goodey chaired the meeting untilthe election of a Chairperson.
1 INTROÐUCTIONS AND ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON AND VIGE CHAIRPERSON: Kelly Bull-Tomer was elected, by acclamation, Ghairperson of the Advisory Planning Gommission.
Councillor Lougher-Goodey turned the meeting over to the Chairperson. Brian Losie was elected, by acclamation, Vice Chairperson of the Advisory Planning Commission.
MOTION CARRIED:
2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA:
Moved by Art Finlayson, seconded by Brian Losie, thatthe Agenda be adopted as circulated.
IIIOTION CARRIED:
3. ADOPTION OF MINUTES:
Moved by Jane Hall, seconded by Don Carscadden, that the Minutes of December 6, 2016 be adopted as circulated.
MOTION CARRIED:
4. REVIEW OF APC BINDER: Staff gave a brief overview of what should be contained in the member's APC binders. Members can contact Alissa if they have any questions. ì
Advisory Planninq Commission Meetinq I January 17,2017 I Paqe 2 5. REVIEW OF APG MANDATE: Staff provided a PowerPoint overview of the APC meeting format, the types of applications that can be referred by Council and the overall Commission mandate. Members can contact staff if they have any questions.
6 OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN AMMENDMENT APPLIGAT¡ON NO. OPIOOO3I. ZONING AMMENDMENT APPLIGATION NO. RZIOOO94. DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION NO. DPI00689 & DEVELOPMENT VARIANGE PERMIT APPLICATION NO. DVlOO2I2: 2447 Henry Avenue
PROPOSAL:
a The proposal is for a 4 storey residential development consisting of 24 strata apartment (condominium) dwelling units. The development includes a range of unit sizes from studio to three bedroom units. o The proposal requires an amendment to the Official Community Plan (OCP) to allow for 15 additional residential units over the currently permitted 9 units. o The applicant is requesting two variances as part of the development proposal: to reduce the rear and exterior side setbacks of the building. o The proposal is consistent with the broader objectives and policies contained within the Official Community Plan that relate to increased residential development in and around Sidney's downtown area.
Alison Verhagen gave a brief overview on the proposed development.
Presenter: Alan Lowe, Alan Lowe Architect lnc. (Project Architect)
Mr. Alan Lowe gave a PowerPoint presentation on the proposal, highlighting on the following: . Existing 8 unit strata building would be demolished; o New residential building with 24 units (size: from studio to 3 bedroom units); o Underground parking (including 5 spaces above the Parking Bylaw requirement) with electric charging station capability, and bike and scooter storage facility; . Proposed amenity contribution for 15 additional units; and o Covenant registered on title that would not restrict resident age or unit rentals.
Mr. Lowe noted the current RM7 zoning permits a development containing a maximum of 9 units (and up to maximum of 5 bonus density units) which would allow for large units of approximately 2,000 sq.ft. He noted this proposalwould provide for a variety of housing types/sizes and therefore the smaller units would be more attainable. Mr. Lowe advised that variances are being requested to reduce the rear setback to create a 3 bedroom unit on the ground floor and also to reduce the exterior side setback for the covered lobby entrance to create a bedroom on the second and third floors.
There was discussion by the Commission around utilities for the development. The Developer advised that each unit is proposed to have a gas fireplace but is not yet certain if the appliances will also be connected to gas. A member of the Commission suggested the Developer look into the installation of hot water on demand systems instead of installing a hot water tank in each unit. Another member of the Commission inquired as to the proposed location of the hydro kiosk and Mr. Lowe advised that it would likely be located on the south-east corner of the lot. Advisorv Planninq Commission Meetinq I Januarv 17.2017 I Paqe 3 The Commission had a conversation around the use of space in the basement/underground parking area of the proposed development. Several suggestions were made by Commission members regarding the storage of bicycles. One member suggested installing bike racks to the back wall of each parking stall. Another member inquired as to whether there would be places in the proposed bike storage room to plug in electric bicycles or scooters, Mr. Lowe advised that there would. Several members of the Commission requested consideration of a second door being added to the bicycle and storage rooms, both for ease of access from the stainray and elevator and to provide an alternate point of egress for safety and security of the residents. Additionally, several members of the Commission noted that while there is storage in the basement, there was very little in the units themselves.
The Commission had a brief discussion regarding the proposed use of cedar siding on various areas of the building. One member expressed concerns regarding long{erm maintenance of the material asked whether other materials could be considered. The Developer advised that they are looking at alternative materials, such as wood-look aluminum siding or Hardie plank which would have the same look of wood but has lower maintenance requirements. Another member asked whether the balconies would be able to support larger trees in planters and Mr. Lowe advised that they would.
A member of the Commission inquired as to whether the proposed building would be rental units or stratified into condominiums. Mr. Lowe advised that the building would be stratified but that rental units would be permitted with no restrictions. Mr. Lowe also advised that there would be no age restrictions on the building.
Brian Losie abstained from voting.
Moved by Art Finlayson, seconded by Jane Hall, that the Advisory Planning Gommission recommends to Council: l. That staff prepare Official Community Plan and Zoning amendment bylaws in relation to Official Community Plan Amendment Application No. OPí00031 and Zoning Amendment Application No. R2100094, and that the bylaws be brought before Council for consideration of first and second readings and whether to schedule a public hearing on the bylaws; 2. That owners and tenants in occupation of property within 75m (246ft) of the property that is the subject of Development Variance Permit Application No. DV100212 (to relax the rear and side exterior setbacks) be notified regarding the proposed variance and that any written correspondence received be forwarded to Council at the time of consideration of approval of the variance; 3. That Development Permit Application No. DP100689 (to permit the construction oi a 4 storey residential development with 24 multi-family dwelling units) be brought before Gouncil for consideration of approval if Gouncil authorizes the issuance of the development variance permit; and 4. That as a condition of approval of Development Permit Application No. DP100689, the propefi owner: a. Address Design Guidelines No. 20.3.11 (façade materials), 20.3.21 (pedestrian walkway materials), 20.3.23 (hard-surfaced driveway materials), 20.3.29 (utility kiosk screening), and 20,3.31(hard landscaping elements) to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services, Engineering, Parks and Works. b. Pay to the Town a deposit in the amount ol 115o/o of the estimated cost to complete the hard and soft landscaping for the development prior to the issuance of Building Permit; and Advisory Planning Commission Meeting I January 17,2017 | Page 4 5. That as a cond¡tion of Zoning Amendment Application No. R2100094, the property owner register a restrictive covenant on the title of the property prior to the issuance of Building Permit, prohibiting the future strata council from passing any bylaws that may restrict occupancy of the building based on age.
MOTION CARRIED:
6. ITEMS DISPOS¡TION BY COUNGIL:
Councillor Mervyn Lougher-Goodey gave an update on Council's decisions with regard to recent Development Applications.
ADJOURNMENT:
Moved by Debbie Gray, seconded by Jane Hall, that the meeting be adjourned.
MOTION GARRIED:
Meeting adjourned at 4:23 p.m.
CHAIRPERSON \\o- TOWN OF S¡DNEY
Report to Council
TO: Mayor and Gouncil FROM: Corey Newcomb, Municipal Planner DATE: January 17,2017 Folder: 9633 Sixth Street (Land) SUBJECÏ Development Variance Permit Application No. DVí00213 9633 Sixth Street
PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to address Development Variance Permit Application No. DVl00213; to vary the lot coverage requirements in Zoning Bylaw No. 2015 for the proposed single-family dwelling on the subject property. (See aerial photo attached as Appendix A.)
OVERVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL:
The property owner is proposing to demolish the existing single-family dwelling and accessory building on the subject property and replace it with a new single-family dwelling with a secondary suite. (See drawings attached as Appendix C.) The applicant is requesting a relaxation for the lot coverage for the new single-family dwelling at both the first and second storey levels. (See letter from applicant attached as Appendix B.) As noted by the applicant, a large amount of outdoor space (i.e. carport, sundeck and porch) significantly contributes to the additional lot coverage. Specifically, the requested variances are as follows:
Zoning Bylaw Zoning Bylaw Section Proposed Requirement
First Storey 35o/o 51o/o 5.2.1 Maximum lot coverage requirement for single- family dwelling in the R1.3 zone Second Storey 30o/o 34o/o
OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN BYLAW 1920: The subject property is designated under the Official Community Plan (OCP) as lntensive Single- Family Residential (RES-2). Upon reviewing the Objectives and Policies outlined in the OCP, staff would like to note the following policy from Section 5: Residential Lands that is relevant to this application: 5.3.4 Proposed infill development in existing residential neighbourhoods, including applications for duplexes and duplex strata conversions, shall respect the character of the surrounding neighbourhood in terms of minimum lot size, building massing, height, sefbacks, and building form and character. Page 2 Development Variance PermitApplication No. DV100213 | 9633 Sixth Street I January 17,2017 |
Despite the above policy, which provides guidance regarding the general character of the proposal, staff note that the proposed single-family dwelling is on a lot greater than 400 m2 in area (i.e. not small lot development) so a Development Permit is not required and the Town would not undertake a detailed review of the design guidelines for architectural form and character for this application.
ZONING BYLAW 20152 The subject property is zoned Single-Family High Density Residential - Orchard Area (R1.3), the intent of which is to provide for small-lot single-family housing and low density single-family housing with the potential for a secondary suite or detached secondary dwelling. Staff have reviewed the proposed single-family dwelling and determined that the proposal is in full conformance with Zoning Bylaw No. 2015, with the exception of the proposed variance. DISGUSSION:
Staff have reviewed the development proposal for this property and note that the requested level of lot coverage is both significantly above what the Zoning Bylaw permits, and also significantly above the level of lot coverage that has been granted to other properties in this neighbourhood recently through Development Variance Permits, which typically has been in the vicinity oî 40o/o. While the applicant's goal to provide a living situation that can accommodate his entire family is certainly a commendable one, staff also believe that the level of lot coverage being requested in this instance is substantial and would put the scale of the proposed single-family dwelling out of character with the surrounding neighbourhood, which is a mix of older single-family homes and recently developed small lot single-family homes. Furthermore, in reviewing the plans for the proposal staff note that the exterior of the proposed dwelling is attractive architecturally, but significant in terms of its overall size and massing. On the interior, staff is of the opinion that there is a certain amount of "extra" floor area; in other words, a dwelling with the same feel and functionality could be constructed on the property, but with a lower level of lot coverage. Staff believe that a design revision process would be beneficial in this case to identify efficiencies in the floor plan of the proposed dwelling and in doing so reduce the lot coverage to a more reasonable level.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the property owner revise the design of the proposed single-family dwelling to reduce the lot coverage and be more in keeping with the established scale of the neighbourhood.
Respectful ly submitted, I concur, I concur,
b MCrq RPP Tim Tanton, MPA, P.Eng. v umble, P, RPP Mun I Planner Director of Development Services, hief Administrative Officer Engineering, Parks & Works
Attachments: Appendix A: Aerial photo of subject property Appendix B: Letter of rationale from applicant Appendix C: Architectural drawings
F:\_Town\DEVELOPMENT SERV|CES\Planning\DevelopmentApplications\2016\DV213 - 9633 Sixth Street\2O17 01 17 - REPORT TO COUNCIL - 9633 SIXTH STREET (DV'|00213).doc Development Variance Permit Application No. DV100213 | 9633 Sixth Street I January 17, 2017 | Page 3
Appendix A: 2015 aerial photo of the subject property (9633 S¡xth Street), showing the OCP (red) and zon¡ng (black) designations. The subject property is outlined in blue.
\\PC-110\Common\_Town\DEVELOPMENT SERVICES\Planning\Development Applications\2O16\DV213 - 9633 Silth Street\2O17 01 17 - REPORT TO COUNCIL - 9633 SIXTH STREET (DV100213).doc Appendix B
RtrGtr[VË D tEC 1 6 2016
TOWN OF SIÐNEY John Hestnes 9633 6th Street Sidney, BC v8L2W1
Dec. 16th 2016
Town of Sidney 2440 Sidney Avenue Sidney, BC V8L1Y7
APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PERMIT
Dear Mayor and Council.
I would like to apply for a variance for an increase of allowable lot coverage to build a home for my family at 9633 6th Street. My current R1.3 zoning allows only 30 percent lot coverage. I would like to be allowed 51 percent.
My existing two bedroom house was built in 1940 and it is only 850 sq. ft. I am getting married in March 2017 and I will need a much larger house because we have three children living at home. In addition to this I would like to have a self-contained suite for my widowed father who will be living with us as well. The house also includes a single car garage and doublewide carport/sundeck. As the decks, carports and garages are considered foot print this has caused my overages. I would appreciate a carport vice an unsightly temporary storage tent for our vehicles I am abiding by all setback bylaws and height restrictions.
Please consider my application. I have been a resident of the town of Sidney since 1990. I am not a developer building to make money. I am a father trying to build a home for his family.
Sincerely, A\"L,^' Spff"t^^ John Hestnes Appendix C
r I Þ q
CAPPORl þ4ø4
EI E tr I OÊCK I
I
^
EêDPOOY
LIVIN@/DININ6 Ø
M w.r.c. ñ LIVINO IlAêlEPSEDROOI1
M
ENSUITE .ï LAUNDRY g-7é4 R KITCHEN êULfN N æ1
ti li t: BAlt{ROOn g WALL LE6ENÞ il 10æ4 i-l5r::.5 ñM2 t697UOWM<ë frW)
FA*I.']-YROOY, túa@32 | 6 gtuA wNlS vZ fr8}1 B\AçN3þ o gAlâPOO¡1 rNlÉ@Ê 2 x ¿ 9ruO WU rU ûrCK) 104é4 w.r.c. {3 æ üi H zó M 2@ d M $
7 13Ã2Á6 hêudFê? á Cdqryvørioñ.è 6 2êñ^ aÁaw lol Clidr Paiæ KITCHEN 5 ß^À6 toBæ kt C¡d Ê^i* DEN 02/Í^6 Ptáñiñøry EWÁñ lêt Cli.ñ Paie àEDROOY èEDROOY' 25nOÃ6 tudiñiÂaù A@t ?'oñ Chøñs6 for Clìd Revi* 2 24^OÃ6 tudiñory âæ. Aar Chaîg6 fo. AiãJ Ue BEDROOI.'I 1 20^o ô Prdidnêry e'æ. øoñs for Cl6r Raie
ENTRY /l PActFrc ^21 HOMES
P.O. BOX 70, covÊRÉo P)RCH t. TRANS CANADA HWY. TË1. (250) 7436s84
UPPÉR FLOOR PLAN THIS PUN IS PROPERryOF POPOVE DESIGN AND MAYNOT BE @14DÆfter REPROOUCEOORRE-USE9WITHOUTlHÊWRIÍENCONSENT
\l HE91 NÊ9/ LUCARÊV SCHI REgIDENCÉ
MAIN FLOOR PL.AN 9ø33 øth 91?Ee1 gIDNEY, BC êNê -9tuÆ6 @aaÍ '@&uÆ@ Ww@ 1A1N 27ê7M|6 ¡,IAIN FLOOR PLAN ø1æ@-27è7/5@-5% UPPER FLOOR PLAN a.N4* DP t*31*"' j 9633 ãtXlH SIREET, PROPERTY NO . 100e7A, FO|O 1202ê4.OOO ô PtÐ oo7-2?+o5a Y.AP ?ÉF. 2É2 , PLAN 1552, LOl ?, øLOCK A
m
G s þ z vt 1 f DÉCK/CARPOR1 È I Ér BÊLO\AI P E o F R a 'l $t o Ë cowRÊo
5 h n $ Æ+HÐAWRÆ6æÉ mOMgUFw ROq09ÉO fO BE @EFIãÞ FR,ONT ELEVATION REgIDENCE
9633
5 ã a
WALL LEaEND
dftÉ@2 x697!OwÐ16 tuW) COVEPED PAÎIO I -:::ñffi M@Ê2¡6gruÞWM(5øßCl9 L
rl(.lE@Ê 2x ¿ gruo we (9Ø ffrc4
*@NÞÆ s (t õ o n n 7 13 %ø ls.ß¿ Éot à Cdãêgè vatur¿è 6 2ê^Ã6 (Àøryê' 1o1 Cid Êai* ilililil il1il ililt 5 þM6 Chø ætforCr6+ÊdN t33-: a't..* ?"e1t o2 ffi6 P t.liñiløry Éld Åffi hr Ai2ù Rd* PtáñhõryAû P'û Chagæ çü Oie %N gITE PLAN 2 MO^^onó Ptáñâry P'ñ øøt ChêNæ îd Cl¡d Púü NVg-1ô' 1 20A0A6 ?rdiñAad Éø ?'ons h? Clid Fâiil ME: gE PA fO ÞEERMINEø@CEWfl !@*f w @ur€@f9 ôNLY - Mf a E6Æ g!ffi PActFtc ^t^ HoMEs
P.O. BOX 70, AeGÆ (à êtq>@tu.ñ) TRANS CANADA HWY. 4A¿Æ) Pe< 9e&49 TEL. (250) 743-5584 REAR ELEVATION ffi THIS PUN ¡S PROPERry OF POPOVE DES¡GN AND MAY NOI BE REPROOUCEDORRE-USEDWTHOUIIHEWRINENCONSENT øgtoE (ær14 OFTHE MANAGEMËNT
I,Eàf NÉ9 / IU CARÉVSCIII REgIDENCE
9633 61t 9'tRÊÉ1 gIDNEY, BC
VÆACE gAUEglæ Fæ: gITE -ø@wew,þ%1454 PLAN AND ELEVATIONg ø ææeNtñar t(æ9 ea. / 511þ 41.)\1æ =5i% o.Mêy Ð? ffil ililililililt ililililil|t
LEFÎ ÉLÉVATION
WALL LEøENÞ
ffi@2r69tuOwM(6 Þ.w) ì- É1êØA2t66tuAwN6'A È6
rMÉ@Ê 2 ¡ ¿ gruÞ WU (3 1¿ flE<)
7 13Ã2Á6 6uA Fot à Cæãqe Votun¿e 6 2eñ^ Aoreeê lþ( Ctid Rdd ÊñÀ6 AaWÊ lþr Aid Adæ 024^6 hliñin øry Ed dñ fü Aieñ Rd* 25ÃOÃ6 ?.eliñinary Êtffi ñ ø. Ch øryê fd Aid %e 2 24ÃOA6 Prêtiñiñary â6 øû Cha6# for A¡d P^iN 1 20ÃoÃ6 Prdiñiñøry â6 Aoß fü aïe l2a¡4 ilililtilililililt ililfiil1ilililil PActFtc tæt ^t\ HOMES
P.O. BOX 70, TRANS CANADA HWY. TEL. (250) 743-5584
THIS PUN IS PROPERñ OF POPOVE DESIGN AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCEDORRE-USÊDWIHOUITHEWRIfrENCONSENI ôFIHE MANAGEMËM
11E'91 LUCA?EV 9CH I RE9IDENCE RI6HÍ ELEVATION NÉ9/
3? 6rh 9'lREÊ1 gIDNEY, BC
ELEVAÍIONE
3d3 l\b TOWN OF SIDNEY
Report to Council
TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Matt Blakely, Planning Têchnician DATE: January 17,2017 Folder: 2238 Malaview Avenue (Land) SUBJECT: Development Variance Permit Application No. DVí00214 2238 Malaview Avenue
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this report is to address Development Variance Permit Application No. DVl00214; to vary the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 1661 requirement pertaining to percentage of front yard used for parking areas on the subject property.
OVERVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL:
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing dwelling and construct a single-family dwelling with a secondary suite on the subject property, which is zoned Single- and Two-Family Residential (R2). (See aerial photo attached as Appendix A.)
The applicant is proposing to construct the house with a 4.87 metre (16 foot) wide garage door. A driveway sufficiently dimensioned to match the garage's width and the required number of parking spaces to accommodate the primary dwelling and secondary suite will be larger than permitted by the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw, in part due to the front yard size (See Appendix C -site plan). The Bylaw restricts "parking areas" (i.e. driveways) in a front yard to no more than 30% of the overall front yard area. The proposed driveway would comprise 45"/o ol the front yard. (See Appendix B - Ietter of rationale).
The requested variance to the Bylaw is as follows:
Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 1661 Section 4.8: Bylaw Requirement Proposed Amendment Location and Siting Parking areas in a front yard shall not occupy Proposed: 45% of front 4.8.2.i.(a) Lot area occupied by more than 30% of the area or the minimum yard occupied by parking areas area for the provision of two parking spaces parking areas in tandem, whichever is greater
OFF¡CIAL COMMUNITY PLAN BYLAW 1920: The subject property is designated under the Official Community Plan (OCP) as Neighbourhood Residential (RES-1). Upon reviewing the Objectives and Policies outlined in the OCP, staff is of the opinion that the proposal is in full conformance. Development Variance Permit Application No. DV1 00214 | 2238 Malaview Avenue I January 17, 2017 | Page 2
ZONING BYLAW 2015: The subject property is zoned Single- and Two-Family Residential (R2), the intent of which is to provide for a mixture of low density single-family housing with the potential for a secondary suite and two{amily housing. Staff have reviewed the proposal and have determined that it is in full conformance with the Zoning Bylaw. A more detailed review will be conducted for the single-family dwelling upon approval of this Development Variance Permit and the submission of a Building Permit application for the dwelling.
DISCUSSION:
ln order to further improve the aesthetics of the larger driveway, staff recommend that the driveway be completed with a minimum of two finishes (i.e. stamped or coloured concrete, interlocking pavers, exposed aggregate, etc.).
Staff have discussed the above recommendation with the applicant and they have agreed to incorporate multiple finishes into the driveway design (see Appendix D - proposed driveway design). The applicant has proposed that the main driveway be finished with either brushed or exposed aggregate and the border to be finished in coloured and/or stamped concrete or permeable pavers.
Staff are of the opinion that the proposed border around the main driveway and secondary suite parking space will improve the aesthetics of the driveway and therefore support the proposed design.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That owners and tenants in occupation of property within 75 metres (246 feet) ol 2238 Malaview Avenue be notified regarding Development Variance Permit Application No. DVl00214 (to increase the percentage of vehicle parking area in the front yard lo 45o/o) and that any written correspondence received be forwarded to Council at the time of consideration of approval of the variance, subject to the following condition: 1. That the driveway be completed with a minimum of two finishes.
Respectf u lly subm itted, lconcur, lconcur, g Matt Bla Tim Tanton, MPA, P.Eng. Humble, IP, RPP Planning nician Director of Development Services, Chief Adm in istrative Off icer Engineering, Parks & Works
Attachments: Appendix A: Aerial photo of subject property Appendix B: Letter of Rationale Appendix C: Site Plan Appendix D: Proposed driveway design
Presenter: Sheng Ma, Applicant
\\PC-110\Common\-Town\DEVELOPMENT SERV|CES\Planning\DevelopmentApplications\2O17\DV214 - 2238 MalaviewAvenue\2O17 01 17 - REPORT TO COUNCIL - 2238 MalaviewAvenue.docx Development Variance Permit Application No. DV1 0021412238 Malaview Avenue I January 17,2017 | Page 3
Appendix A: 2015 aer¡al photo of the subject property (2238 Malaview Avenue), showing the OCP (red) and zoning (black) designations. The sub¡ect property is outlined in red.
\\PC-1'l 0\Common\_Town\DEVELOPMENT SERV|CES\Planning\Development Applications\2O1 - 2238 Malaview Avenue\2O1 7 01 1 7 - REPORT TO COUNCIL - 2238 Malaview Avenue.docx ^DV214 Appendix B
Dear Mayor & Council,
RE: Rationale for propose parking variance for property located 2238 Malaview Ave, Sidney, BC
Total Front yard is 1650.8 sq.ft. Current Parking By-Law indicates max 30% coverage = 495.23 sq.ft.
Proposed Driveway Coverage =742.L sq.ft. or -44.95% - 1ft border (coloured and/ or stamped concrete) around the perimeter of the driveway and between the driveway and the secondary suites parking space (as indicated above). - Concrete with brushed/ exposed aggregate fìnish for main part of driveway.
The proposed variance of approximately 247 sq- ft. (15%) provides for the most efficient way for us to access the garage and also accommodate for 1off-street parking spot for the proposed 1 bedroom suite. As noted above, we are planning in use different finishes in efforts to enhance the appearance of the driveway. The proposed appears to be consistent with neighbouring properties on the street and surrounding neighbourhood.
Sincerely,
Sheng Ma (homeowner) Appendix G
BDY 1es'-, r! t BOY. PROJECT SUMMARY MW&tuæNfOftÆfreãWf wwf6ñ æwù*l@l.@@Ei@Þæ- DESCRIPÏON FLOOR AREA Æræffi fÆl@Æ# ÑfAfOæW LDMG æffiPÑæTN FLOOR 1725.8 SQ. FT. UPPER &wwñ4f¿ M&ffif6GñMmÆ ñ ø @MúRLW -ô+ MAIN FLOOR 1500.1 SQ. FT. æÍtæwAf rc@êreruæ@@Þa rc nBERGTASS SHTNG|.'ES (OWNER TO SPECIFY). M/ñlANMüWtu ÉftR@Æ@ñ s BUILDINC PAPER (2 LAYERS AT EDGES) 7,/16' 0SB SHF^THING w,/ SUPPORIEo EoGES N re w wr ñMRæætu@w3v æ& TOTAL LMNG ARFA 3225.9 SQ. FT. 2'x12' RÂFTERS 16' o.c, OR ENGINEERED ROOF IRUSS (OESIGNED BI SUPPLIER) foæRW,^ê]ru]n-R *!.@úYÉl@ÞYÆ ltutuÍ n00F Pfcfl o Æ R4O BAÍI F]BER GTASS INSUTAÎON (MIN). 12 (DESIGNEO BY TRUSS SUPPUER) g^ CEILING JOISTS - 6 MIL. POLY VAPOUR BARRIER FT. l¡ BOARD 4^ ^dP SECONDARY SUITE/IBED 503.5 SO. 12 1,/2. DRYIUAI FÍN|SH (PANr, $UCCo, EfC. / oIVNER 10 SPECIFY). srrqAcK "4" J- GARAGE 443.6 S0. FT, ì
I ROOF AND SOFFÌI AR VENTS --- 2.lJm -ì:-- .- PATIO AREA ¡ SPECIFIED FI BC BUILDING = ,o 2'x10' UNTEL TYP, O 16 o.c. SMOKË AI.ARMS REQ,D. ñ fYPICAL EÀCH LEVEL y' rNs. BEDROOM #3
j ? SUlrE BEDROOM SUfTE f ¡ BATH
ROOF VENIS PER BCBC 2'x'10' UNTE! TYP. @ FINISH 1s{tî PROPOSED RESIDENCE fYPICAL LEVEL. ÐCERIOR WALL ANO FINISH (REFER fO EITVAT¡ONS) þ'-Ð o 6' 10ññ MlN. CAPII,I RY BRËÁK (V€MÌE0,/0RAINED) IMFE=r.r6ml @ VERNCåL IRÂPPING ON EUILOINC PARER (AIR BARRIER) MINIMUM 3/E'OSB 0R PL\r1/{000 SHEAIHING - PROOFING BÂR 2rx6" STUD lvÂtl 16' o.c. )ßidfi: -t CLEARANCE. OFFICE HALI,/ENTRY GARAGE o - I BOARD R20 BA'rT rNS. (FTBER G|-ASS) -l Erc.) 6 MIL POLY VAPOUR BARRIER DRYWAI BOARD t tNstDE HousE I/2. E ríxsl letur, |vAIPAPER, Erc.) OMIT BUILDINC PÂFER AND USE T Ê R2O BAÍT INS- IN MÁIN FLOOR AREA E CoNCREIE FOUNDAÎON W,ùI c/r I ì t/2'I ANCHoR BOLTS O,t'-0" o.c. I AND DAMPROONNG TO FINISHEO GMDE F.C. I F.G. I MIru AROUND BUILDING PERIMEIER. zo I o CRAWL I 2. RIG¡D INSUIA'IION ON FOUNM'NON SPACE WOOD COLUMN Gil- */ DAMP PROORNG (TO FlNISHEO ,+'oRÂtN RAiN [rÆ)ER COLLECIOR A-f I ô ENSURT EVEN BEARING 2'r,{A' RIGID INSUIAÎON UNDER FLOOR ÎltE & 3" AROUND PERIMErtR EXCL. GARAOE DOOR WAIT BoTToM 0F FOoÎNG w,/ MINIMUM E SURRoUND t0ilsütTårrs tïL I 1: èo -t- CLEAN DRAJN ROC(. TYPICAL AROUND BUII¡ING I o PERIMEIER 'II{ÉN 1lT 10 Ð(ISNNG STORM DRÁIN. -J É t? - Oñc€: suûe æl - S42 8loñord Stut, vlcldb, Mfrrh Cdumbio f-- À l*phore: 2972.m Emlrhfoopbddêlgn.com I .18' RNISH (CÁRPET, UNOL, ETC.) 24.¡E. (MIN.) CONCREIE SIRIP FOOTINGS 1.50rn I 5/8'T&c PLYWOoD SHEAIH|No (ALL Jo|NTS SFÁIID) UNDER A. THK. FOUNOA'TION WAI.L C/T GFE=9.38m 2'x12'1Jl-21O FLOOR JOISTS O 16" 2-#4 BARS CONnNUOUS (RE[ÀN|NG rYAr.l.S Br OTHERS). 2. 13m R28 BATT INS. (FIBERGLASS) <ù (AIR (MIN.) BUIT¡ING PAPER EARRIER) 4. CONCRETE'GARAGE, SLAB C/W Mflre HIffi: ù' 1/A rHK. x 6' SQ. wRE MESH REINFoRCING BUILDING SECÎON NOTES: t2' coNc. cAP ï/ BUr.l-FLoAtED RNISH ON 6 MIL POLY V.8. AND 4" GRANULAR NIL Is MIL POLY V.B, AND L BLOCKING OR SNFFENERS BEn{EEN JOISÍS DIRECTLY EELOI l+' COMPACIED CLEAN/GRANULAR R[ (MIN) .\ BEARINC S¡AI¡5 AND EXTERIOR WAT¡s. Ft¡sHtNG ABoVE D00RS, |VTNDOWS Æ.rD Atl ÐíERIoR BUILDING SECTON WÂLL IN'IERSECTIONS AND OPENINôS.
Ð(TERIOR WAU-S CONSIRUCTED WÍTH RAIN SCREEN P1 P2 PRoTECÍTON (DRA|NEo & VE|fTED CAV¡TÍ BEHTND CrÂDDTNG). f a INSTAI ALL ÐfiERIOR CLADDING MA'IERIÁI- E. ABOVE -fs- FtNtsHEo GRÁDE AND P|ER SUPPORTS 6" CL!ÂR orP). -l COMINUOUS CALV. MEÍAL FTÂSHING d É UNOER SOTTfT, OVER TOP PLA'TE. CAPILLARY z BREAX ÁND SIDING WfI}1 DRIP EDGE. LOT 14 o ,5 eI I f2238 ô BUILDING SITE PIAN NOTES: z I ROUGH CARPENTRY MEMBRANE OVER o AND d EXTERIOR WAI.! SHEATHING o SrrE P¡-AN DIMENSIONS AND SPOI EL-FYAÍIONS SHOIVN IN MEÍRIC. EEHINO GALV. METAL FI-ÁSHING. FI ISSIIFD FOR BTIIOING PFRMIT I 1 CDÊC1 f BTM FRÁI4ING LUMBER SHAI BE NUMBER TWO (2) OR SENER DOUGI.ÁS FIR è UNtrSS O'I}IERWISE SPECIFIED ON PTÂN. FOR OTHER COMMON SPECIES, AI ISSUED FOR CLIENT RryIEW I 1 6DECl 6 LOI EI..Fr'ATONS SUPPUED BY WEY MAYENBURG TAND SURI/EYING INC. REFER TO SPAN ÍAAI.ES OF T}IE CURRENT EOMON OF IHE NATIONAL {o,l DæRMON I ME DilM UNTEL BEAI| GALV. METAL FTASHING 15.23m BUIL¡¡NG CODE. ALL BEAM AI.¡D UNTEL SIZES SHOWN ON]HE DRAWNGS REMOVE BUIL¡¡NGS, FOUNOATIONS ANO SERVICES WTTHIN BEHIND SlDlNG, C,APILIARY BRFTAK Ð(lsNNG ARE BASED ON NUMEER rWO (2) DOUGI S FIR AND ARE TO BE 2xr0'3 REVISIONS BDY. NE:IV SUIT-DING ETÍVELOPE. COORDINA'TE WÍT}I GOVERNING AUIHORMES. AND OVER FRÂME WÍTTI ORIP EOGE. I UNLESS O'IIIERUSE INOICÂ'TEO. -1 OWNER AND CONIRACTOR SI"IATI CONFIRM FIMI- GRADES ON SÍTE I .ÌIIEN JOISIS ARE TO BE OOUBL.E UNDER PARÁIIEL PARIIÎIONS, FX. SIDEWALK I REPORT ANY CMNGES OR CONFUCTS TO DESIGNER PRIOR I ¡ ,ruEø -l fO CONSIRUCIION. CHECK SERVICE PIPE INVERTS AND GRADES, JOISTS SHAII BE PTACED TO ACCOMIOAIE HEÀTING AND PLUMBING ETC. ND ru ¡ .IRIMMERS I I Â[T HEADERS ANO TO COMPLY WÍH SECÍION 9.2J OF IHE I I MTOML EUIL-DING CODE, CURRENT EDMON.
I I BOULEUARD GENERAL NOÏES oWNER/BUIJER'lO oSTATN CERnFTCAIES FROM MANUFACTURER OF FLOOR 2238 MALAVIEW AVE I I .IRUSSES, ROOF ÍRUSSES ANO BEAMS. SHENG &SIEPHANIE MA I I AL! WORK SHALT CONFORM TO THE BRMSH COLUMBIA BUII..DINC CODE AND e I I BEST TRÁDE AND THESE FLOOR AND ROOF JOISI SPANS OF MORE THAN 7 FÎ. SHÁIj. BE BRIDOED AT LOCAT BYLAW. I}IE RUI,ES ANO CUSIOMS OF PRACÎCE I PROPOSED RESIDENCE I I SPECIFICATIONS TO BE EXECUÌEO 8Y SKIU.EO ÌRADESPERSONS, II'EI.I EOUIPPEO MIDSPAN OR Ar 7 FT. o.c. MÐ(IMUM UNLESS SHEAIIIED OR SIRAFPEo e AND ADEOUA'IELY SUPERMSEO. SIDES WTtl W00D. BRIDGINo SHÁn BE A DI GoNÁL ÎYPE SITE BUILDING SECTION, EX. MouNTAaLE cuR7-----t- BoTH 2r2 ÐcÊRroR FtNtsH PLAN, - -J------WHEREVER POSSIEI-E. z lomm MlN. vENlEo oRAINED CAPILIARY DETAILS AND GENERAL NOTES AlI MAIERIÂLS TO BE OF BEST QUALITY, COMPLYING WTAI ÌHE APPUCABLE ull t rpPS R00R & MALAVIE:W AVENUE VERT. STRAPPING 0N BUltÐlNG PAPER (ÀR B,CRRIER) SECÎoNS OF fHE LAlESl C.SÂ C.C.S.B. ANo B.C.B.C. INSTALIATIoN ANo UsE Vi¡OOD tN CONÍACI WtH CONCRETE SHÁME DAT4PROOrID tvnH 45 La. 1/2. OSB OR PLYWOOD SHEAI}IING SHAII BE ACCORDING T0 MÁNUFACTURERS DIRECÎoNS AND SPECIFICAIIoNS. FELT OR A St[r P|JqIE GASKEI AND PRESSURE TREATED trtft A STUD WALL 16" o.c. YIAfERBOURNE PRESERVAIIVE OR OTHER APPROVED METHOD. 2fx6' O OIMENSIONS SHOWN ON DRAWNG SHÁLL TAKE PREFERENCE OVER SCALE. R2O BA'TT INS. (RBERGIASS) CONFIRM DIMENSIONS DESIGNER AND Âl'lY .fO 6 MIL POLY VAPOUR BÀRRIER BUILDING SITE PI-AN CoNIRACIOR TO Al.! 0F CONSULTAI'¡1 ¡NTER¡OR tR ¡¡tNG BE 4, C¡.EAR oF BA6K AND stÐEs oF pRroR ÌHEN REPoRT ANY DTSCREPAT'¡C|ES oRYìVAI-L ro coNsrRuclloN FouND. ËiRiäõi/iñää'ciF¡R--OË eñ¡õX CHlvlNErs. FRÁI,|E EX|ER|OR t,/2' 1/8' 1'-O' (1:100 APPRoX. MEÍRIC SCALE) NNISH PAINT, WATPAPER, ETC. = WAIIS 1. CI'-F¡R FROM EXTERIOR ÊIREPLACES. - AI.IY VARIÂNCE FROM S'ÍRUCIURÁL DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS OR FROM fL00R CONDMONS ENCOUNTEREO AT THE JOB SllE, SHÁI.! BE RESOL\EO gY THE ms]tl) õäiËäZiò-Mñiciõñ Àñõ subÉ s-olñoxs SHAL¡ BE IHRR soLE REspoNstBI * DlMENsloNs ARE FRoM rHE ourslDE FACE oF EXTERIoR sruo wAus 1o '" " CENTRE oF PARTmoN tvAtls. ,AIR SEAL AI.! JOINIS ÎGHÎ. LOT I4, SECTION I3, RANGE 3 EAST, IN fHE EVENT'IHAI EXISTING OR PROPOSEO STRUCfURES OO NOT CONFORM R28 BATT INS. (FIBERGTASS) To coDE oR ByLAvl, A srRUcrURÂL ENG|ÑEER MAi BÊ REoutREo BY lHE owNER. Frulll E{Uqq !v.9.9q,!.rE!,!!3q!s.. SHALL BE ANCHoRÊD vrrTH 2000 1-B. iYiYl¿?s-,,. BUII-OINO PAPER (AR BARRIER) PLAN I I97E. NORTH SA,ANICH DISTRICT JOISI HÁNGERS UNI.TSS O'HERWISE SPECIREO. t/IAt MEÎAL SOFTÌT (WôOD IF OU'NER SPSCIRED) LEGAL DESCRIPTION CAULÍ OVER AND AROUND ALL EXIERIOR OPENINCS USINO NON-HÁROENING CåULXING COMPOUND. LOT 14, SECfION 13, RANGE 3 EAST, PLAN 11978, NORIH SAANICH DISTRICI FT¡SH AtI CHANGES OF MA'IERIALS ON E}IERIOR WAII-S. STRUCTURAL CONTINUOUS OÂLV METAL T1,ASHING LOT COVERAGE FIÂSH OVER AÑO AROUND AI"I EXIERIOR OPENINGS. SIRUC'IURAL IS BÁSED ON CRÍTERIA SIA1ED IN PART 3 AND PART 9 EEHINO SIDING, CAPILIÂRY BREÁK EtctÐ ø PW2OBIGil PMEfr No. OF THE NAfIOMI- BUIL-DING CODE ANO OTHER APPUCABLE SECÎ|ONS, AND PAST SOFÎN WTH DR¡P EDGE. 01264 LOI AREA s58.6 SO.M. (6013.r SO. FT.) ALL CLÂDDING MA'IERIAL TO BE A MINIMUM OF E" ABOVE FINISHED GRADE. p.8.f. CHECKÐ BUILDING AREA = 195.51 SQ.M. (2104.6 Sa. FT.) DEslcN LlvE LoAD FoR R00F AND FLOoRS SHA¡I EoUrú s2 Atr BALCO¡IY R IUNGS T0 BE 5'6" (t070mm) tN HE|GHT. MÂX|MUM FOR HEAVIER SNOW LOÂDING DRAIVINGS MUSI BE REV¡SED. RA[{ SRftrt A{D Ctltn[Vm fEtÂtt VÉ WNÓ SPACING BflEEN VERNCAL MEMEÊRS IS 4.. MINIMUM DISTANCE LOT COVER/AGE = 35.02 (SECOND FL00R = 29.9t) B,i. BETWEEN HORIZONIAL RAILS 10 BE 32.. TOP RAIL fO SUSTAIN JOIST AND BEAM FRÁ¡'ING 10 BE DESIGNEO BI OTHERS. COOROINA'TE W. i5 OUIIÍARD LOAD 0F u+0 POUNDS PER LINEAL FooT. POST. HANEER, ANCHOR AND FOOTINC RÊOUIREMEÑTS IITTH DESICNER. SN Hoz. ol 2óa-ol Appendix D
I <) I
¿ I E ---t E T I I 1.50m I ¡ GFEr9.J8m ¿lLr -sP s- I I L
7.5m .1ETÐACK
PI P2 ô F ó LOT 14 a() ; /223a a d p c) ÀÉ ls2Jm (à9'-l l SDY. BDY. --* + EX. SÍE'EWALK } I l_ __ -ïI I
AOULEUARO
-- t- Fx. MazNTAELE cufaEì------r- - ¡IAIåVET AVENUE
BUILDING SITE PI¡N 1/A- - r'-O' (r:1OO AppROX. 5CûLE) 'at*'ç
LEGAL DESCRIPT|ON
LOT 14. SECTTON 13. RANCE 5 EAf¡Î, PI.AN ITS7E, NORTH SAAIIICH DISTRICT LOT COVERAGE LoT ARÊÀ A58.6 SA.M. (ooît,l SQ. FT.) ËurLDtNc ÀRË¡r - r9s.5l se.M- (zro+.6 so. FT.) LoT COìÆRAGE - 55.oi (sEcoNo Fu)oR - 29.9t)
Front yard is 1650.8 sq.ft. Parking By-Law indicates maxJAo/o = 495.23 sq.ft. Proposed Driveway Coverage =742.L sq.ft. or -44.95o/o - 1 ft border (coloured and/ or stamped concrete) around the perimeter of the driveway and between the drivewey and the secondary su¡tes park¡ng space (as indicated above). - Concrete w¡th brushed/ exposed aggregate finish for ma¡n part of driveway
ID tr G E I V E r.rù D JAN - 3 2017
TOU'N OF SIDNEY f t¿- TOWN OF SIDNEY
Report to Council
TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Matt Blakely, Planning Technician DATE: January 16,2017 Folder: 10426 Eden Place (Land) SUBJECT: Development Variance Permit Application No. DV100215 10426 Eden Place
PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to address Development Variance Permit Application No. DVl00215; to vary the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 1661 requirement pertaining to percentage of front yard used for parking areas on the subject property.
OVERVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: The subject property is zoned Single- and Two-Family Residential (R2). The subject property is proposed to be subdivided into two lots, with one single-family dwelling currently under construction on one of the lots. A Building Permit cannot be issued for the second single-family dwelling until the subdivision has been approved. Due to the irregular shape of the parent parcel and the property's relatively narrow frontage onto a cul-de-sac, the proposed subject properties are pie-shaped, with smaller and narrower front yards than would be typical on lots of this size. (See aerial photo attached as Appendix A.)
The applicant is proposing to build both of the dwellings with a 4.9 metre (16 foot) wide garage door, and due to the smaller front yard, a driveway sufficiently dimensioned to match the garage's width is larger than permitted by the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw. Furthermore, the applicant has indicated that both of the single-family dwellings will contain secondary suites, which will require an additional parking space on each property. The Parking Bylaw restricts "parking areas" (i.e. driveways) in a front yard to no more than 30% of the overall front yard area. Due to the shape of the lots and the required additional parking space to allow the secondary suites, the proposed driveways would comprise 83.2% of the front yard on Lot A and 60.3% of the front yard on Lot B. (See Appendix B - letter of rationale)
The requested variance to the Bylaw is as follows:
Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 1661 Section 4.8: Location and Siting
Front yard occupied Section Bylaw Requirement by parking areas
4.8.2.i.a) Lot area Parking areas in a front yard shall not occupy more than Lot A 83.2% occupied by parking 30o/o of the area or the minimum area for the provision of areas two parking spaces in tandem, whichever is greater Lot B 60.3% Development Variance Permit Application No. DV100215 | 10426 Eden Place I January 16, 2017 | Page 2
OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN BYLAW 1920: The subject property is designated under the Official Community Plan (OCP) as Neighbourhood Residential (RES-1). Upon reviewing the Objectives and Policies outlined in the OCP, staff is of the opinion that the proposal is in full conformance.
ZONING BYLAW 2015:
The subject property is zoned Single- and Two-Family Residential (R2), the intent of which is to provide for a mixture of low density single-family housing with the potentialfor a secondary suite and two-family housing. Staff have reviewed the proposal and have determined that it is in full conformance with the Zoning Bylaw.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The proposed driveway on Lot A covers 83.2% of the front yard area, substantially more than permitted in the Off-street Parking and Loading Bylaw 1661 . The applicant's letter of rationale suggests that the intent of such a large driveway is to accommodate the required parking as well as spaces for potential guests as there is no parking within the cul-de-sac. Additionally, a portion of the driveway would be used as a 'hammerhead'turning space so vehicles do not have to back out into the cul-de-sac. Staff are of the opinion that providing options for guest parking would be beneficial in a neighbourhood with limited on-street parking locations. It should also be noted that the applicant has made attempts to locate the secondary suite parking spaces on both lots outside of the front yard area, which is ideal. ln addition to being more aesthetically pleasing, having the parking spaces in the interior side yard exempts those parking areas from being included in the front yard parking area calculation. However, while the parking spaces themselves are outside of the front yard, the driveway is still required to be larger in order to allow for unimpeded access to and from the suites'parking spaces.
The 30% requirement in the Parking Bylaw is based on the size of a front yard for a "typical" rectangular shaped lot and front setback requirement, and the likely dimensions of a driveway resulting from those two factors. For properties with smaller front yards, like pie-shaped cul-de-sac lots, the 30% requirement relative to the front yard area is often insufficient to provide a sufficiently sized driveway. As this is the case with both of the proposed properties, staff have no concerns with this application. ln order to further improve the aesthetics of the larger driveway and reduce its environmental impact, staff include a recommendation that the driveway be finished in permeable interlocking pavers.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That owners and tenants in occupation of property within 75 metres (246 feet) of 10426 Eden Place be notified regarding Development Variance Permit Application No. DVl00215 (to relax the maximum percentage of vehicle parking area in the front yard from 30% to 83.2"/o on Lot A and 60.3% on Lot B) and that any written correspondence received be forwarded to Council at the time of consideration of approval of the variance, with the following condition: 1. That the driveway be finished entirely in interlocking permeable paving stones.
Respectf u lly subm itted, I concur, I concur, L*g Matt Blake Tim Tânton, rr¡ÞRFEng. umble, CIP, RPP Planning qan Director of Development Services, Chief Administrative Off icer Engineering, Parks & Works
\\PC-110\Common\_Town\DEVELOPMENT SERV|CES\Planning\DevelopmentApplications\2017\DV215 - 10426 Eden Place\2017 01 16 - REPORT TO COUNCIL - 10426 Eden Place.docx Development Variance Permit Application No. DV100215 | 10426 Eden Place I January 16, 2017 | Page 3
Attachments: Appendix A: Aerial photo of subject property Appendix B: Letter from applicant Appendix C: Drawings of proposed driveway
Presenter: Mr. Dallas Ruud, Applicant
Appendix A: 2015 aerial photo of the subject property (10426 Eden Place), showing the OCP (red) and zoning (black) designations. The subject property is outlined in red.
\\PC-110\Common\_Town\DEVELOPMENTSERVICES\Planning\DevelopmentApplications\2017\DV215-10426 EdenPlace\201701 16- REPORT TO COUNCIL - 10426 Eden Place.docx Appendix B
Tim Tanton Director of Development Services Town of Sidney 2440 Sidney Avenue Sidney BC VBL 1Y7
Dear Mayor and Council,
Re: Variance request for drivewaywidth atlD425 andlD426 Eden Place
I would like to submit my application to Council for a Development Variance Permit to relax the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw regulation that requires a driveway comprise no more than 30% of the front yard on a property.
In order to subdivide thÍs property, which is well within the requirements, but due to the lot being at the top of a cul-de-sack with very limited access, we had to get a waiver of the frontage requirement. With the now limited frontage, this has made it impossible to meet the 300/o maximum for parking area in the front yard of both proposed homes.
Due to the now compressed shape of the lots, the 30% allowed leaves only enough for a single-wide driveway. As I have proposed a two-car garage to accommodate the needs of the family, I would like a driveway that matches the garage door's width and also allows them to parktwo cars side by side when required. The proposed driveway will also allows them to turn their vehicle around so their driving out and not backing out on to the road which can create danger to pedestrians and children playing in the cul-de-sac. We also need a spot for guest parking since there is no street parking in the cul-de-sack.
As my submission shows, I intend to finish the driveway in paving stones to provide a high quality finish to improve the look of the homes from the street and also provide for water permeability.
Thankyou for considering my application.
Sincerely,
Dallas Ruud 10436 Allbay Road, Sidney BC Appendix C
Rev¡s¡on Numbsr Rêvis¡on Date
g ,O. ó g ,{.- c
17',- 0' )./ tg
I ç \s s \Ì ò Æ Lot A. Area=553 m +f
,Þ 4-øm suB ø GRAoE U 6 rì¡IPOLY M.B. tmin @ru. ganubrFILL 17-0' q
P, h ^- 3D View 2 4' om SLABonGRADÊ (.) 6r il POLY M.B. "ò/ Í in6mp. grarulår FILL f 'o â V) 8" -L' IYP x;Ð: C) 16:¡81 glltg.llc,rtyp, 99q ______ç O å -) cg W" O) i -) Êi GMDE o srÍn æm. øârubr FILL t rË oF U) Eden J d rIl f cmSuBøGRADE t-{ à¡l 6 mil POLY M.B. Place ; jo Sml¡ @mp. g[aùhr FILL ,9 r-{ ìò o d t'1 I o EP 'o ^ls o â O 8'- { 14'- 8' & o -?¿ ,, Eo $-'r '-!!". '--_ r' i,- ___ .; 3D V¡êw'l PROJECT DATA: Õ. ¿- 6, 'oùr' F '--t------ZONING: R2 d f#".j m. FTG - lyp I SITE ABEA: 5948.6 sf (553 sm) ol¿, ,- SITE COVEBAGE: max 30% -../ , 1654.99 sf =27.4% ;"""..+.;
8 ? 4'6nc SLAB on GRÆE PIER DHIVEWAY COVEBAGE: McNEIL a 6 mil POLY M.g. 1668 = 90 % smln @mp.granular FILL BUILDIN( E E FLOOR AREAS: DESIGNS å MAIN 1249 sl ì ì SS¿N9----ÍZC-çÍ LIMITED P TOTAL: 2725 sf P Ror McNeil. ED.ÆC.AS]
GARAGE 4OO sf 2272 MihlHmRoâd. vicrodo. Rc v9BóH2 Phüftar: 2504?4.23m AVG GRADE: hto@mnei¡desiss.b.câ 10.994+1 1.052+11.427+10.7/1 = 11.061 m 4 -++\
BUILDING HEIGHT: max p€rmitted to p€ak 9.0m (29.5') tYI FROM AV'G FIN GFADE 8.74m(28.7'\
;.3DView3 SEAL MUST APPEAR REd TO 20' 3'- 0" BE VALID
BCBC 2012 requlrcs w¡ndows,skyl¡ghts, DrrE NOV.2016 -0" and doors to meet NAFS 08 IR^TN 8w
Æ Using 'V¡clorla', < 10m, 'Rough' Terra¡n : JOF
PG 25, +DP 1200 Pa, -DP 1200 Pa, H20 260 Pa, At lnl¡|. A2
à Foundal¡on Y'1l4"=1r0" A1 sÆT A1 oF A1 v (t (t g ts a ó \* g q
o? m r'9 "o/ >-,t1
I s^ -o
i
À 60' tf tl m Lot Area=553 m
a9'7"1 o (o I ,I
771 '(t
\,1 oi¡ '6)
À ç tlt,a q ë o
NttO NgNta o Edens- Place Rev¡s¡on Schodule
General Specil¡cat¡ons -Bullder's Drawlng S€l tudhd3drùthb#bb@ ddsErrñú4ed F.'ry t d *úFd d'ú d
.rúûdås'æl:@ ^rdhrbûd4¡l(øs#d.qqd!@dddb'ore*'@ hñ¡búhsdù hd4r.. ,@oh.pq@túi d.lr@Éù.d¿,d.o¡hH dbqEdÍñtuddtad¡h**r i b@drEddddMMd hBCææt2bùMb
ñbtr&¡bdry¡hb¡.F¡orclrqdùçdz@kqa dL ¡Md.ffikd roÞha*b.¡dr¡h Proposed Subdivision Plan Of: Elgb(l@dbÈdâre#ð@úhrmb'r*MÚF@. d.ude¡6ffi bbrdrd f& ñ6thretffi bd6rüa!ry@tud4 Lot 5. Section 1 . Ranoe 3 East. 1 1165. Àd¡ræ¡b3urúnrorhqutud ùa,Púodh North Saanich District. Plan ffiffiã&dãl hdúdffi NMdtffi,rb*, ddl* dBdrybldrhdmæ drbd tuddd3dFd,qud ed@dhd*. dffi, re,'çE&. * Exceot Paft ln Plan 16864. ddtud¡rübqp!¡bó4þtud rorh@hdÉmdffiÙrø ddy#ildMhh6d@rbffudhd su@dffi d€ry¡tuæ&bml@hú wddffibsdesffi 6 *dú ryd.dq*dh¡dfdbrhß@rdffi b ßdq*d'&dtu rbf@rydibffi 10 l5 qK2*wd,&(db øtostu¡ìll¡s *åffi E@5lÑr$hñ@b@rd4 rdédâM
4 ffi !dÞ Éb@der.@ld rdffi . de, n@d lb]l@,e,63hùdr4 q E¡dh t @db dbd. uútu d dþ@ qhb&rdffi q* ô) &@ d bHdf-dhd@bffid rdrßddddctu 4 This document is prspared for mun¡c¡pal purposes only.
{mdbdffi bdbrûd& n#d hhryth hmtur *boh b)M¡dbãtFrod(|@rô F.ffi,qÔlwú, lrdb@d4rMrbMhdr@ Dat€d th¡s 21st day of June, 2016.
D¡stances and êlsvations shown are ¡n mêtres. 7'-4' 7'-4' mrdb@tu,ñ@kr'4EFacæ0xr ô Elevalions shown arô based upon goodstlc datum. Fm!dbtry,5dtud.tue. kñ!ubø!rñbh rhdffih.b o@ ffiùb@dbnl*tùdq@ Mk.æ@ryùù*, dHddù,8, @ U Wey Mayenburg Land Surveying lnc. [email protected], ffi b@ ed dh rì@.'dsdbÞ ó.Md d4 q hùb@|'@bd æh ffi drd tu åü ilbûd btd www.weysurveys.com bâdd dd'il Mû€€¡drE tutu rtu d ¡É.tulb d@ A5 #4-2227 James White Boulevard 46'- 0' S¡dney, BC V8L 125 ffiafrkrymeæ T€lephone (250) 656-5155 16 -0' stuffiæd BCBC 201 2 requ¡res wlndows,skylights, and doors lo meet NAFS 08 Fil€: 160115\SlncH affidr@bffibffi9æ2t bIFsúd@ Using 'Sidney', < 10m, Open' Terrain : d¡i.qdff btudFddb&*.'ffdhérMm@ æ R læûer!úE blhËdbhtu hddred&d 16rSd. PG 30, +DP 144O Pa, -DP 1440 Pa, H2O 330 Pa, Ait lnîil. A2 o ú@ubffiúù@ o c) xd db-:dtü. ed !ñ nr.E¡uG Þo æ É b Lot2 g 4únll¡&,Ê.È,*'dbl*il.ryddÐfr rú -) C€ Ls¡qd.ì.q-dhhiûd!æ*,ffi.G -, 1 0i 4'cæ suB mGRAOE -) Æ@¡ûd@fbdqPE€ 6 mll POLY M.B. .9t É s'min@W. gramhr FILL .o to o () 8o .-i- ' ú ^/ F 'd {bardætuhúdd.4 ÐffikrùddmbtulfrÉ¡e: V) rIl f sFJdú ó 3 b.hE rærú -o @l&q 4-:', o d M¡¡a -dd+ è9 typ w.ffi 8' t-{ c)trNþE turùq.ÞtffircrdæærEvbùffi-dú4 qld @nc. FTG - b : ;i frrqtubÈ frdÉdt,úr*È@@@ i8 t-{ drffiGdffiþ@br.e2 Lot B € I dqffidb!¡Ëdúa@ ¡qtß s-,Ê.*, þ@, ú. m Lot A o ÈctrrF@¡@*¡rdù *oãsl =ã Área=553 I d C.ì .ã* I o 4[|tùdffibE¡É \ E $ ò)adffi ÐbrÉbtuøûthffi dnl¡oryF3&cæ23 ¡D € c) $ÈfbdÞffi*ùåtÔb¡.+ôâ \ 4' c h R O oMb*þrû*.w¡tud@ o .)tu*Ðbd.cøÉddkdeMcq¡@ tuddñüdú.r 6mll M.B. greflbr FILL 09 ¿t ú a !Él&h*dk¡tu.*,w,rc to dú.Ftu@b@ür@dt@ \ o Li \ o I GNADE ô. dlb¡úbùúd@ 1 o ò)ldrhdffißddatæ m¡l 20',0 C€
d Cft*dñdbrcryÊad*d-úd6d4 \ ô) ffidtud.sdbrc¡*ñrdüd. .) btu, 4. db. dacù¡ûrñ.UbxD ¡)@ ft € û :{ 'è \ \ {eG@drqdb*¡Mh*¡6 b)tutrrdEúüÈqñúk3 å; \ Ei PROJECT DATA: dilffiþselcra à s" @l@dsdb re06 GÊADE RonMcN€il. Ei POLY M.B. d Pl#rdhdùddffiorbd4dddÉtu J ZONING: R2 o'ruruu brEl@b@ÈÈbb.¡#Ðtu t*4dre çr ænp. gråru|år FILL 424 Mèr.hôsir Rod- a vicrodâ. v9c4Â4 = Bc d [ ffi kù .ffi@ildmb'Þ * 6^d æ sffi õ ¡u b hi SITE AREA: 5963 sf (554 sm) Phmfrâx: 250474.230 f wd& 10 5'- 10' PI bl þbft ùbæl*G I lodd-qd €dF¡oblBddt.û [email protected] c) bf,rffiüffiroææ9æ r€.2 ffidrodd*d@ qd*hl¡úfb¡¡|¡ffiry¡# SITE COVEBAGE: max 30% .)hdhûh¿db s@xqtu*mvf ¡N 1615.O8 sl 27.11" "ffiêqtucM WALL- lyp = 4tud6dÞhhabqhddffi |m, dtd*urylmdb.úùtdbrb cod. ærc. FTG Mqfu DRIVEWAY COVEHAGE: 728sí Site Plaq 4tucdrdr3Bgffirdhd.hddiú.ñdhFrne l¡ó.@bdtr =60.3"/. , dìd k.dú@ayd¿d*@ffi hrhvrMdrb!Þ(h : 1 '.200 FLOOR AREAS: SilL MUST ææoã22 GROUND 1220 sl k*trdmb APPEAR REd IO UPPER 1547 SI BE VALID r€MhrhbGu€D'@d@ææùddtrÞhùb 24x24 @È. PAÐ FlG. TOTAL: 2767 sf omtrV@rh ææ €ã. 10x10 @rc. PIER ¡r$ NOV.2016 GARAGE 411 sf Dturñ Bw AVG GRADE: 10.572+'10.631+10.997+'10.783 = 10.746 m 4 3'- 0' 20'- 0" 0' 0" BUILDING HEIGHI: mã pêrm¡tted to p€ak 9.0m (29.5') 46'- 0' FROM AV'G FIN GRADE 8.87 m (29.2') A1 1t4" = 1'-0', slß81 A1 0r A1 i4. þt 9r o J q1 1 0 (¡ ûr 2.A ô r0 I \ \- 2¿ 550 \ tO u \ \ 9¿. 2 E -_-\ 7.5 \ f.- O) \* \ o) À)-\ E C (o ,oru C (¡ 1 TI (o C E &^ o c :I C) È , (ú lu 3 0 a ()O] \, E ros o_ \\'0 /+4 t 3 \ ¿ m (f) c \ lf) t0 c c È t.r) n) Þt il c.l -.j (d o t o o ( 1 fft E c s5 a4 0 \ J tU .ç 9 s ( g3 c .rg" u t0 I c a\+ o( t \05 10 o Ê c oo. Ê-c o'eo c) Z4 .gB i( TJ \ u( ( C c u c o i-,. ' , ål' ItÀ TOWN OF SIDNEY
Report to Council
TO: Mayor and Councillors FROM: Alison Verhagen, Manager of Planning DATE: January 17,2017 File No. 2447 Henry Avenue (Land) SUBJEGT: Official Community Plan Amendment Application No. OPl00031 Zoning Amendment Application No. R2100094 Development Variance Permit Application No. DVl00212 Development Permit Application No. DP100689 2447 Avenue - Amen Contribution
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this report is to provide Council with an update on the proposed amenity contribution related to the Official Community Plan and Zoning Amendment Applications and Development Variance Permit and Development Permit Applications for the property located at 2447 Henry Avenue.
BACKGROUND: This proposal for a 4 storey residential development consisting of 24 strata apartment (condominium) dwelling units was presented to the Committee of the Whole (CoW) on December 12,2016. The following resolution regarding the application was made by Council on December 19, 2016: 1. That staff investigate the possibility of directing the proposed amenity contribution of funds toward an attainable housing reserue fund; 2. That the offered amenity be calculated on a floor area basis rather than a per unit basis; 3. That staff revisit the draft Zoning Bylaw amendment regarding density and report back to Council with options for incorporating a bonus density and amenity structure within the Town's bylaws, with a specific focus on attainable housing; and 4. That the application be forwarded to the Advisory Planning Commission for review and comment. CARRIED 5:2
DISCUSSION:
At the CoW meeting of December 12, the applicant presented a proposed amenity contribution of underground parking for the development and $50,000 ($SOOO per 10 residential units above the Official Community Plan (OCP) bonus density maximum of 100 units per hectare) towards streetscape improvements as the amenity to the community in exchange for the additional density as per the Local Government Act. Subsequent to the December 19 Council resolution above, the applicant indicated to staff that they would provide an increased amenity contribution of $75,000 as well as the previously proposed underground parking. The applicant is requesting amendment of the OCP and the Zoning Bylaw to allow 24 units in the proposed development. As the OCP currently only permits a maximum of 9 units (65 units per hectare) with the potential to increase density to 14 units (100 units per hectare) in exchange for community amenities, an OCP amendment is required to allow for the additional units. OP100031, R2100094,DV100212 and DP100689 2447Henry Avenue I January 17,2017 | Page2of 3
Speaking to item 2 of Council's resolution of December 19, 2016, regarding the calculation of the proposed amenities: Council has recently been considering changing the regulation of density from a "units per hectare" calculation to a "Floor Area Ratio" (FAR) calculation, as part of the Downtown Mixed- Use and Multi-Family Density Review study. At the CoW meeting of January 16, a recommendation was made by the Committee to establish a base maximum FAR of 1.30 and a bonus maximum FAR of 2.00 for the RM7 zone. Density calculated by the two methods is shown in Table 2 below: Table 1 - Density Calculations "Units per Current RM7 zone Amenity rezoning (OCP Proposed Development (1 68 Hectare" (65 units per hectare) allows up to 100 units per units per hectare) = 24 units regulation = up to 9 units hectare) = uP to 14 units
"Floor Area Base FAR Maximum Bonus FAR Maximum Proposed Developmenl = (FAR Ratio" under consideration under consideration (2.00 of 1.89) 2,713.23 m2 floor area regulation (1.30 x property area x 1429.85 m2) = up to of 1429.85m') = up to 2,859.70 m2 of allowable 1858.81 m2 of f loor area allowable floor area
Zoning Bylaw regulations regarding minimum building setback from property lines, maximum lot coverage of buildings, maximum building height, and maximum number of storeys are not proposed to be altered by the recommendations of the Density Study. Therefore, a building in the RM7 zone could have the same appearance under either density calculation scenario (UPH vs FAR); the difference is in how the interior of the buildíng is divided into separate residential dwelling units. Switching from UPH to FAR regulation changes the fundamental question of development of a property from "how many units can be built" to "how much floor space can be built". ln most circumstances, FAR regulation would allow a property owner to divide the available floor area within a proposed development into a greater number of units, at smaller sizes, than are permitted by the existing UPH regulation. The proposed development at 2447 Henry Avenue illustrates this point well: a building of the proposed dimensions and height could hold 9 large dwelling units (under current RM7 maximum density regulations) or 24 units of varying sizes. The Town's Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 1661 regulates parking for a development and would continue to ensure that parking is provided (i.e. additional spaces for additional dwelling units) or payment in lieu is made as per the regulations of that bylaw.
The proposed amenity contribution of $75,000 equates approximately to a value of $87.721m2 ot additional floor area above the base FAR maximum of 1.30. This is less than the fixed rate amenity contribution of $15Olm2 of additional floor area that was considered and recommended by CoW at the January 16 meeting. However, the applicant is also proposing underground parking as part of the proposed amenity which is one of the options contained in Section 5.3.19 of the OCP (see below) which sets out the framework for increasing the number of units on a property, as well as identifies options that an applicant has in providing an amenity to the Town in consideration of the additional units.
5.3.19 MulthFamily Residential developments may be permitted up to a maximum density of 65 units per hectare. Density may, however, be increased up to 100 units per hectare for multi-family, subject to the provision of special social and/or public amenities (i.e. senior's care housing, child care facilities, handicap suites, low-cost rental housing, underground parking, green space), in accordance with the Zoning Bylaw and Section 904 of the Local Government Act.
Staff are of the opinion that the proposed amenity contribution of underground parking plus $75,000 towards streetscape improvements is in keeping with the current OCP policy regarding bonus density, and Council may wish to consider it as an appropriate amenity in exchange for the requested additional density. Further, staff note that the proposed FAR is within the range of the base and bonus FAR maximums for the RM7 zone and would comply with the regulations being considered.
F:\_Town\DEVELOPMENT SERV|CES\Planning\Development Applications\2016\OP31 , R294, DV212 & DP689 - 2447 Henry Avenue\2017 01 16 - Report to CoW 2447 Henry Ave amenity contribution.docx OP1 00031 , RZ1 00094, DV1OO212 and DP1 00689 2447 Henry Avenue I January 17, 2017 | Page 3 of 3
Under the existing Zoning Bylaw and OCP regulations, the proposed development requires an OCP Amendment, Zoning Amendment, Development Permit Application, and Development Variance Application. lf the changes recommended by Committee of the Whole on January 16, 2017 as a result of the Density Review study, are made to the Zoning Bylaw and OCP and an Amenity Policy adopted, then the proposed development would not require a Zoning Amendment or OCP Amendment. The proposed development would still require a Development Permit Application because it is within the Multi-Family Residential Development Permit Area, and would still require a Development Variance Application because of the requested setback regulations. These would go before Council for consideration as per the usual process for those applications. The amenity contribution related to the requested bonus density in the proposed development would be guided by the Amenity Policy that was discussed and recommended by CoW on January 16,2017. RECOMMENDATION:
That Council accept the proposed amenity contribution of underground parking and $75,000 towards streetscape improvements and underground parking for the proposed development associated with Official Community Plan Amendment Application No. OPl00031, Zoning Amendment Application No. R2100094, Development Variance Permit Application No. DV100212, and Development Permit Application No. DPl00689 (2447 Henry Avenue).
Respectf ully subm itted, I concur, I concur,
Alison Verhagen, P, RPP Tim Tanton, MPA, Eng Hum e, MCIP, RPP Manager of Plan g Director of Development Services, hief Administrative Officer Engineering, Parks & Works AV:mb
F:\-Town\DEVELOPMENT SERV|CES\Planning\DevelopmentApplications\2O16\OP31 , R294,DV212 & DP689 -2447 Henry Avenue\2O17 01 16 - Report to CoW 2447 Henry Ave amenity contribution.docx \\e- TOWN OF SIDNEY
Report to Council
TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Alison Verhagen, Manager of Planning DATE: January 17,2017 File No. 0400-50 SUBJECT: Capital Regional District - Regional Growth Strategy Referral
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this report is to provide Council with information on the referral of Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw No. 4017 from the Capital Regional District (CRD).
BACKGROUND: ln April 2016 the Committee of the Whole reviewed the draft RGS which was sent out by the CRD through an informal referral process. Council made the following resolution on May 9, 2016: That staff be directed to respond to the Capital Regional District with a statement of no significant concerns with the draft Regional Growth Strategy at this stage of informal referral. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
DISCUSSION: The Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) is a CRD planning document that sets a vision for the region. The CRD has been reviewing the RGS for several years and is now conducting the formal referral of the proposed new RGS to the member municipalities, one of which is the Town of Sidney. At its November 23,2016, meeting the CRD Board gave first and second reading to a revised RGS document (Bylaw 4017). The Board then referred the RGS to municipal councils for approval, as per provincial requirements. The referral period is 60 days, ending on February 1,2Q17. Appendix B to this report contains excerpts from the Local Government Act regulations on acceptance and settlement of a Regional Growth Strategy. Appendix C contains a list of frequently asked questions and responses regarding the RGS, provided in April 2016 by the CRD. The full RGS is contained in Appendix D.
The Regional Growth Strategy contains strategic objectives and policies for the CRD in seven priority areas: 1. Managing and Balancing Growth 2. Environment and lnfrastructure 3. Housing and Community 4. Transportation 5. EconomicDevelopment 6. Food Systems 7. Climate Action Since the draft RGS was reviewed by Council in 2016, the CRD has made several revisions to the document to address input received at the public hearing, including edits to the transportation section (Section 4.1 - lmprove Multi-Modal Connectivity) and renaming of the economic development section CRD Regional Growth Strategy Referral I January 17,2017 | Page 2
(Section 5.1 - Realize the Region's Economic Potential), as well as minor copy edits. Wording has also been added to Section 1.1 - Keep Urban Settlement Compact, to include the municipal boundary adjustment between the City of Langford, District of Metchosin, and Beecher Bay First Nation which was the subject of a previous referral that was considered by Council in November 2016. ln November 2016 when the RGS was referred to member municipalities, CRD staff indicated that there was general acceptance of the draft RGS with the exception of growth management and its relationship to water servicing.
Staff have participated in the review of the RGS since the process began in 2008 and have no significant concerns with the contents of the draft RGS document. The intent of the majority of policies, goals and objectives in the RGS is echoed by existing policies and objectives in the Town's Official Community Plan (OCP). The majority of the Town of Sidney is identified as a Growth Area (see Map 3, page 12 of RGS), and the municipality is almost entirely within the Growth Boundary (previously called the Regional Urban Containment and Servicing Policy Area boundary), with the exception of the Victoria Airport Authority lands, as it was in the original RGS adopted in 2003. Community Profiles of all municipalities in the CRD are contained in Appendix A of the RGS.
NEXT STEPS:
The CRD would consider giving RGS Bylaw No. 4017 third reading and final adoption once all municipalities have accepted the RGS. However, staff have been informed that the Councils of two other CRD municipalities have already passed resolutions to not accept the 2016 RGS. Therefore, dispute resolution will be required in order to reach acceptance. Within two years of the RGS bylaw being adopted by the CRD, each municipality must submit a Regional Context Statement to the CRD Board for approval, outlining how the municipality's OCP aligns with the RGS. Once the Regional Context Statement has been accepted, the Town must then amend its OCP to incorporate the Regional Context Statement into the bylaw document and make any other necessary changes.
RECOMMENDATION: That staff be directed to respond to the Capital Regional District with a statement of acceptance for Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw No.4017.
Respectfully submitted, I concur, I concur, 2? Alison'A-u*/aZ' Verhagefi, MctP RPP Tim Tanton, wÉl,Eñg. Humb , MCIP RPP Manager of Plánning Director of Development Services, Chief Administrative Officer Engineering, Parks & Works
Attachments: Appendix A: Letter from CRD re RGS Bylaw No. 4017 Dec 2,2016 Appendix B: Local Government Act Provisions for Acceptance and Settlement of a RGS Appendix C: Draft RGS (2016) Frequently Asked Questions (from April 2016) Appendix D: CRD Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw No. 4017
\\PC-1 10\Common\_Town\DEVELOPMENT SERVICES\Planning\Projects\Regional lssues\CRD Regional Growth Strategy\2016 RGS draft\2017 0'l 17 - Report to Council- RGS refenal.docx Appendix A
Capital Regional District T 250.3ô0 300û \lrll z. l-,i " ô25 Fisgard St¡"eei, PO Box 1ûC0 F: 250.36C.3234 l^::-. \;. ..{: \ ./ /t). .i\t:" venr. m . r-d Mal l,r:nci!i0 S December 2,2016 'li'J i.lilminisir'¿i.ion File: 0400-50 Mayor Steve Price Sidney Municipal Hall - !rcineeiit-t.rJ 2440 Sidney Avenue ,r:-l¡ks Sidney, BC V8L 1Y7 , ,.;i:lic !''fr;¡: I t, ;ii1¡1P Dear Mayor Price: ¡ RE: 2016 RGS Bylaw 4017 - Referral ce ...] l At its November 23,2016 meeting, the Capital Regional District (CRD) Board gave first aÀdi second reading to a revised Bylaw 4017 "Capital Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw No.1, 2016". The Board directed that the Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) bylaw (Bylaw 4017) be referred to municipal councils for acceptance or rejection. This letter is to refer RGS Bylaw 4017 to municipal counc¡ls. RGS Bylaw 4017 will replace the 2003 RGS. This updated RGS bylaw includes: populatlon projections to the year 2038, new content to address the changing global climate, a new section on food systems and a new criteria-based water servic¡ng policy. Urban containment remains a key growth management policy, updated with refined land use designations. New principles now guide compact growth in urban communities and protection of rural character in rural communities. The RGS also includes objectives and policies on environment and infrastructure, safe and complete communities, transportation and economic development. The RGS reflects input from municipalities and the Juan de Fuca Land Use Committee submitted as part of an informal referral in the spring of 2016. All municipalities must accept the RGS bylaw before it can be adopted. The Local Government Acf (section 436) sets out requirements for municipal acceptance. Municipalities" have a 00.day &eriod beginning upon receipt of this lelter to either accept or reject the RGS b¡¿law by r:esolution qf council. Municipalities who reject the RGS bylaw must specify which provísion(s) they reject and the reason(s) for the rejection. Should any municipality reject the RGS bylaw, the Minster of Community, Sport and Cultural Development must direct a process to reach acceptance. The legislative provisions forthe acceptance and settlement processes are included as an attachment. The CRD is currently processing an amendment to the 2003 RGS (Bylaw 4124), at the request of District of Metchosin, the City of Langford and the Beecher Bay First Nation (Sc'ianew). The concurrent process was requested to ensure that the amendment - an extension to the Regional Urban Containment and Servicing Policy Area - would be effective in the event that adoption of the 2016 RGS is delayed. Therefore, there is some overlap in the timing of the referrals. A separate letter, dated November 10,2016, provides information about the referral relating to the 2003 RGS amendment. Two resolutions of council, one for each bylaw, are needed from your municipality. 96891 4 December 2,2016 2016 RGS Bylaw 40tr7 - Referral fon Municipal Acceptance 2 On behalf of the CRD Board, thank you for your municipality's ongoing participation in the RGS update. I look fonruard to receiving your letters of acceptance for RGS Bylaw 4A17 by February 2, 2017. Yours truly, Barbara Desjardins Chair, Capital Regional District Board Attachment(s) Local Governmenf Acf provisions for Acceptance and Settlement of a Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw 4Q17 "Capital Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw No.1, 2016" cc: Bob Lapham, MCIP, RPP, Chief Administrative Officer, Capital Regional District Randy Humble, Chief Administrative Officer, Sidney Appendix B ATTACHMENT 1= LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT PROVISIONS FOR ACCEPTANGE AND SETTLEMENT OF A REGIONAL GROWTH STRATEGY Facilitation of agreement during development of regional growth strategy 435 (1) The minister may appoint facilitators for the purposes of this Part, whose responsibilities are (a) to monitor and assist local governments in reaching agreement on the acceptance of regionalgrowth strategies during their development by (i) facilitating negotiations between the local governments, (ii) facilitating the resolution of anticipated objections, (iii) assisting localgovernments in setting up and using non-binding resolution processes, and (iv) facilitating the involvement of the Provincial and federal governments and their agencies, first nations, boards of education, greater boards and improvement district boards, and (b) to assist localgovernments in entering into implementation agreements under section 451. (2) On being notified that a regional growth strategy has been initiated, the minister may designate a person appointed under subsection (1) as the facilitator responsible in relation to the regionalgrowth strategy. (3) At any time until the end of the period for acceptance or refusal of the proposed regional growth strategy under section 436 (4) (b), the facilitator is to provide assistance referred to in subsection (1) (a) of this section if requested to do so (a) by the proposing board or an affected local government, or (b) by an electoral area director of the proposing board, if the request is supported by at least 2 other directors. (4) Once a facilitator becomes involved under subsection (3), the proposing board and affected local governments must provide information as requested by the facilitator and must otherwise cooperate with the facilitator in fulfilling his or her responsibilities. Acceptance by affected local governments 436 (1) Before it is adopted, a regionalgrov'rth strategy must be accepted by the affected local governments or, failing acceptance, become binding on the affected local governments under section 440 (6) [settlement of regionalgrowth strategy in acceptance not otheruvise reachedl. (2) Acceptance of a regional growth strategy by an affected local government must be done by resolution of the localgovernment. (3) For the purposes of this section, before third reading of the bylaw to adopt a regional growth strategy, the board must submit the regional growth strategy to the following: (a) the council of each municipality all or part of which is covered by the regional growth strategy; (b) the board of directors of the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority if the regional growth strategy is for the Greater Vancouver Regional District; (c) the board of each regional district that is adjoining an area to which the regional growth strategy is to apply; (d) the facilitator or, if no facilitator for the regional growth strategy has been designated, the minister. (4) After receiving a proposed regional growth strategy under subsection (3), each affected local government must (a) review the regional growth strategy in the context of any official community plans and regional growth strategies for its jurisdiction, both those that are current and those that are in preparation, and in the context of any other matters that affect its jurisdiction, and (b) subject to an extension by the facilitator under section 438 (3), within 60 days of receipt either (i) accept the regional growth strategy, or (ii) respond, by resolution, to the proposing board indicating that the local government refuses to accept the regionalgrowth strategy. (5) An acceptance under subsection (4) (b) becomes effective (a) when all affected localgovernments have accepted the regionalgrovuth strategy, or (b) at the end of the period for acceptance or refusal under that subsection if, at the end of that period, all affected local governments have not accepted the regional growth strategy. (6) lf an affected local government fails to act under subsection (4) (b) within the period for acceptance or refusal, the local government is deemed to have accepted the regional growth strategy. (7) ln the resolution under subsection (4) (b) (ii), the affected local government must indicate (a) each provision to which it objects, (b) the reasons for its objection, and (c) whether it is willing that a provision to which it objects be included in the regional growth strategy on the basis that the provision will not apply to its jurisdiction, as referred to in section 432 (2). (8) An affected local government is deemed to have accepted any provision of the regional growth strategy to which it does not indicate an objection under subsection (7). (9) All affected local governments are entitled to participate in any non-binding resolution processes used to resolve an objection or anticipated objection by an affected local government. (10) lf an area in a regional district is incorporated as a new municipality and the regional district has adopted a regional growth strategy for all or part of the area of the new municipality, the regionalgrowth strategy is binding on that new municipality. Resolution of anticipated objections 438 (1) Before the end of the 60 days referred to in section 436 (4) (b) [time for acceptance or refusall, the facilitator may require the proposing board and the affected local governments to identify any issues on which they anticipate that acceptance may not be reached. (2) lf an issue is identified under subsection (1), (a) the facilitator may require the proposing board and the affected local governments to send representatives to a meeting convened by the facilitator for the purpose of clarifying the issues involved and encouraging their resolution, and (b) the proposing board and the affected localgovernments must provide information as requested by the facilitator and must otherwise cooperate with the facilitator in fulfilling his or her responsibilities. (3) For the purposes of this section, the facilitator may extend the period for acceptance or refusal under section 436 (4) (b) before or after the end of that period. Resolution of refusal to accept 439 (1) The proposing board must notify the minister in writing if an affected local government refuses to accept a proposed regional growth strategy. (2) After being notified under subsection (1), the minister must (a) require a non-binding resolution process to attempt to reach acceptance on the regionalgrowth strategy, or (b) if satisfied that resolution using a non-binding resolution process under paragraph (a) is unlikely, direct that the regionalgrowth strategy is to be settled under section 440. (3) lf requiring a non-binding resolution process under subsection (2) (a), the minister (a) must, at the time of requiring the non-binding resolution process, specify a time period within which the parties must begin the resolution process, and (b) may, before or after the resolution process has begun, specifu a time period within which the parties must conclude the resolution process. (4) The choice of non-binding resolution process under subsection (2) (a) is to be determined by agreement between the proposing board and the affected local government or governments that refused to accept the regional growth strategy but, if the minister considers that these parties will not be able to reach agreement, the minister must direct which process is to be used. (5) Any affected localgovernment may participate in a non-binding resolution process under this section. (6) Unless othenruise agreed by these parties, the fees of any neutral person participating in the non-binding resolution process and the administrative costs of the process, other than the costs incurred by the parties participating in the process, are to be shared proportionally between the proposing board and the affected local governments that participate in the process on the basis of the converted value of land and improvements in their jurisdictions. (7) An affected local government is deemed to have accepted the provisions of the regional growth strategy that were not changed as a result of a resolution process under subsection (2) (a), (8) The following apply if changes to a regional growth strategy are proposed as a result of a resolution process under subsection (2) (a): (a) the regionalgrowth strategy must be submitted again to the affected local governments for acceptance, subject to paragraph (b) of this subsection, in accordance with section 436; (b) an affected localgovernment may not indicate an objection to a provision it is deemed to have accepted under section 436 (8) [no previous objection to provisionl or subsection (7) of this section. (9) lf acceptance is not reached within 60 days after a non-binding resolution process under this section is concluded, the regional growth strategy must be settled in accordance with section 440 unless the proposing board and the affected local governments can reach agreement on the provisions of the regional growth strategy before the settlement process is completed. Settlement of regional growth strategy if acceptance not othen¡vise reached 440 (1) lf acceptance by affected local governments cannot othenruise be reached under this Part, the regional growth strategy is to be settled by one of the following: (a) peer panel settlement in accordance with section aa1 (); (b) final proposal arbitration in accordance with section Aa1 Q); (c) full arbitration in accordance with section 441 (3). (2) lf more than one affected local government has refused to accept a regionalgrourth strategy, whether the refusals are in relation to the same or different issues, the regional growth strategy is to be settled for all affected local governments in the same settlement proceedings. (3) The choice of process for settlement is to be determined by agreement between the proposing board and the affected local government or governments that refused to accept the regional growth strategy but, if the minister considers that these parties will not be able to reach agreement, the minister must direct which process is to be used. (a) Any affected local government may participate in a seülement process under section 441. (5) During the 60 days after the provisions of a regional growth strategy are settled under section 441,lhe proposing board and the affected local governments may agree on the acceptance of a regional growth strategy that differs from the one settled. (6) At the end of the period under subsection (5), unless agreement is reached as referred to in that subsection, the provisions of a regional growth strategy as settled under section 441 become binding on the proposing board and all affected local governments, whether or not they participated in the settlement process. Options for settlement process 441 (1) As one option, the provisions of a regional growth strategy may be settled by a peer panel as follows: (a) the panel is to be composed of 3 persons selected from the applicable list prepared under section aa2 (); (b) the selection of the panel is to be done by agreement between the proposing board and the affected local government or governments that refused to accept the regional growth strategy or, if the minister considers that these parties will not be able to reach agreement, by the minister; (c) subject to the regulations, the panel may conduct the proceedings in the manner it determines; (d) the panel must settle the disputed issues of the regional growth strategy and may make any changes to the provisions of the regional growth strategy that it considers necessary to resolve those issues; (e) the panel must give written reasons for its decision if this is requested by the proposing board or an affected local government before the panel retires to make its decision. (2) As a second option, the provisions of a regional growth strategy may be settled by final proposal arbitration by a single arbitrator as follows: (a) the arbitrator is to be selected from the applicable list prepared under section 442 (1); (b) the selection of the arbitrator is to be done by agreement between the proposing board and the affected localgovernment or governments that refused to accept the regional growth strategy or, if the minister considers that these parties will not be able to reach agreement, by the minister; (c) subject to the regulations, the arbitrator must conduct the proceedings on the basis of a review of written documents and written submissions only, and must determine each disputed issue by selecting one of the final written proposals for resolving that issue submitted by one of the participating parties; (d) the provisions of the regional growth strategy will be as settled by the arbitrator after incorporation of the final proposals selected by the arbitrator under paragraph (c); (e) no written reasons are to be provided by the arbitrator. (3) As a third option, the provisions of a regional growth strategy may be settled by full arbitration by a single arbitrator as follows: (a) the arbitrator is to be selected from the applicable list prepared under section 442 (1); (b) the selection of the arbitrator is to be done by agreement between the proposing board and the affected local government or governments that refused to accept the regional growth strategy or, if the minister considers that these parties will not be able to reach agreement, by the minister; (c) subject to the regulations, the arbitrator may conduct the proceedings in the manner he or she determines; (d) the provisions of the regional growth strategy will be as settled by the arbitrator, who is not restricted in his or her decision to submissions made by the parties on the disputed issues; (e) the arbitrator must give written reasons for the decision. General provisions regard in g settlement process 442 (1) Lists of persons who may act on a panel under section 441 (1), as an arbitrator under section 441 (2) or as an arbitrator under section 441 (3) are to be prepared by the minister in consultation with representatives of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. (2) Persons who may be included on a list for a panel under section 441 (1) are persons who are or have been elected officials of a local government or who, in the opinion of the minister, have appropriate experience in relation to localgovernment matters. (3) ln the case of a specific regional growth strategy, a person may not be appointed to a panel or as an arbitrator if the person is, or was at any time since the regional growth strategy was initiated, an elected official of the proposing board or of an affected local government for the regional growth strategy. (4) Subject to a direction by the panel or arbitrator or to an agreement between the parties, the fees and reasonable and necessary expenses of the members of a peer panel or arbitrator and the administrative costs of the process, other than the costs incurred by the parties participating in the process, are to be shared proportionally between the proposing board and the affected local governments that participate in the process on the basis of the converted value of land and improvements in their jurisdictions. (5) The directors of the electoral areas to which the regional growth strategy is proposed to apply and the Provincialgovernment may make representations in the settlement process, subject to any conditions set by the panel or arbitrator. (6) The time limit for bringing any judicial review of a decision of a panel or arbitrator under section 441 is the end of the period for agreement under section 440 (5) [60 days after provisions settled by panelor arbitratorl. (7) The minister may make regulations regarding settlement processes under section 441, which may be different for different settlement processes, including regulations (a) respecting matters that a panel or arbitrator may or must consider, (b) respecting the authority of a panel or arbitrator to settle a regional growth strategy, and (c) respecting the authority of a panel or arbitrator to require the cooperation of local governments in relation to the settlement processes. m Appendix C Regional Growth Strategy DraÍt 201 6 Regional Growth Strategy Frequently Asked Questions What is the Draft 2016 Regional Growth Strategy? The Draft 2016 Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) is a strategic planning document that sets out a vision for the future of the region. This document would, if adopted by the CRD Board, update the 2003 RGS (Bylaw No. 2952). The draft 2016 RGS is currently a working draft document. Why does the CRD want input on the draft Regional Growth Strategy from municipalities and the Juan de Fuca land Use Commission? The desired outcome is to prepare an RGS document with broad municipal support before initiating the bylaw adoption process. The purpose of obtaining input on the draft 2016 RGS is to identify and potentially address any objections to the document. Once the document is in bylaw format, the referral must follow legislated requirements including dispute resolution if municipalities do not all accept the RGS. The CRD Board is seeking input on matters that may affect your municipality's acceptance of the RGS now, rather than waiting until the formal referral process. When did the Regional Growth Strategy update process start? When will it be complete? The \ocalGovernment,4rf requires a review of a regionalgrowth strategy five years after it is adopted. ln 2008, the CRD began a review of the 2003 RGS. The review has focused on how to best address additional content areas and required legislative changes within the context of a statutory growth management document. The RGS process will be complete once all affected local governments accept the document and it is adopted as a bylaw by the CRD Board. Why is the Regional Growth Strategy important? The updated RGS would guide regional decision-making to 2038 and provide a common policy framework to address matters that are regional in nature. All CRD services and bylaws are required to be aligned with the RGS bylaw. Through a Regional Context Statement, municipalities identify how their official community plans align to the RGS bylaw. How was the Draft Regional Growth Strategy developed, and what happened to the Regional Sustainability Strategy? As part of the five-year review of the 2003 RGS, the CRD Board directed that the content of the RGS be expanded to a Regional Sustainability Strategy (RSS). The RSS was intended to provide a climate action lens to regional planning and growth management considerations and broaden RGS content as shown in the table below. ln addition to the climate action lens and expanded content, the RSS was structured to identify specific actions which the CRD agreed to implement as well as separate but related actions for municipalities, provincial and federal agencies. RGS and RSS Content Areas 2003 Regional Growth Strategy Regional Sustainability Strategy All the 2003 RGS content areas plus o Managing and balancing growth + Climate action o Environment and fesources + Community health and wellbeing o Housing and community + Emergency management and natural disasters . Transportation + Energy systems . Economic development + Food and agriculture systems A draft RSS document was presented to the Board on October 22,2014 and staff were directed to obtain public input on the draft document. Through 2015, the CRD Board deliberated how a statutory growth management document could address the expanded RSS content areas in light of input on the draft RSS.0n May 27,2015 the Board directed that the document be approached as a Regional Growth Strategy rather than a Regional Sustainability Strategy. 0n October 23,2015 the CRD Board directed staff to update the 2003 RGS document and report on options for addressing R55 content in subsidiary CRD documents. 0n February 24, 2016 the Planning Transportation and Protective Services Committee received the draft 2016 RGS for information.0n March 9,2016 the CRD Board resolved to invite municipal Councils and the Juan de Fuca Land Use Committee to provide comment on the draft 2016 Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) document, through an informal referral, by May 18,2016. Following input from municipal councils, the draft will be presented to the CRD Board for further direction. What will happen to the expanded Regional Sustainability Strategy content areas that would not be included in the Regional Growth Strategy? The Regional Sustainability Strategy expanded content beyond that in the 2003 RGS and identified act¡ons for the CRD ¿ndlocal municipalities. Since then, court rulings have identified that a municipality's relationship to an RGS is through policies, not actions. As such, the current draft does not identify actions for municipalities. Content relating to CRD actions not included in the draft 2016 RGS, as a result of the Board's direction for narrower content focus, can be addressed in related CRD strategies or management plans. The draft 2016 RGS proposes/ as an implementation activity, that the CRD prepare a framework that shows how the various strategies/management plans relate to RGS objectives. What are the updates to the 2003 Regional crowth Strategy? CRD staff have updated the 2003 RGS based on Board direction. The updates maintain the overall direction of the 2003 RGS, preserving the policy approach that provides a high level of municipal flexibility in RGS interpretation and subsequent alignment through a Regional Context Statement. The updates include: . removal of water servicing as a growth management tool . new content (RGS Section 6) to address legislative requirements in s. 429(2)(d) of the Local Government Actfor greenhouse gas emissions reductions . updates to outdated content (e.9., completed plans, outdated time horizons and maps) DRAFT 2016 RGS FAQs 2 a refinements to address issues identified through legal review changes to clarify that municipalities, through a Regional Context Statement, align to policies rather than actions Has there been public input on the draft zOl6 Regional Growth Strategy? From October 2014 to March 2015, the CRD consulted with the public and stakeholders to receive input on the policy direction and targets in the draft Regional Sustainability Strategy document. Public consultation results indicated strong support for the proposed targets and for advancing regional coordination on topics related to: o transportation o rurðl character and agriculture o compact, complete communities o climate action o ecosystem protection The draft 2016 RGS addresses the above topics. The public hearing during the bylaw adoption process would provide the final opportunity for public input. How does the Draft Regional Growth Strategy become a bylaw? Once the CRD Board receives municipal Council input on the draft 2016 RGS, it willdecide if the document is ready for bylaw adoption. The bylaw adoption process would then proceed as follows: . introduce the bylaw at first and second reading . hold a public hearing . refer the bylaw to affected local governments for acceptance . adopt the bylaw at third reading if the bylaw is accepted by all affected local governments What is the relationship between the Regional Growth Strategy and municipal Official Community Plans? Within two years of the RGS becoming a bylaw, municipalities must submit a Regional Context Statement to the CRD Board for approval. The Regional Context Statements describe how each municipality's Official Community Plan aligns to the RGS. Where would the bylaw apply? Central Saanich, Colwood, CRD (including Juan de Fuca), Esquimalt, Highlands, Langford, Metchosin, North Saanich, Oak Bay, Saanich, Sidney, 5ooke, Victoria, View Royal. The RGS does not apply to Salt Spring lsland and the Southern Gulf lsland which fall under the jurisdiction of the lslands Trust land management area. Will the Regional Growth Strategy apply to First Nations? DRAFT 2016 RGS FAQs 3 The RGS does not apply to land held as reserve or land owned by a Band. Ten First Nations have reserve lands adjacent to the RGS Growth Management Planning Area and a further ten have traditional territories within the region. The CRD recognizes that the regional district lies within traditional territories of First Nations. The CRD further recognizes that First Nations Councils are neighbouring governments in the Capital Region, with a shared interest in managing long term development to enhance regional quality of life. The RGS is to be implemented without prejudice to any aboriginal rights or title that may currently exist, or be defined further through treaty or other processes. What happens if not all affected local goveÍnments accept the Regional Growth Strategy? A facilitation process is established inthe localGovernmentlrlto resolve disputes amongst those involved, as outlined below: Legislative Process for the Adoption of the Draft Regional Sustainability as a Bylaw kefer for Rev¡sion Ar (ep t¿ n cr IO RG5 Non-Binding /\(tr'trI Not Mrnister Resolution Agreement er ts A(cept 0il Process I I I I I t I No t No Rev¡sron Aqreement to RGs Remaining Lor.ll Govts A(cept Binding Resolution Process . Panel of Peers Arbitrator/ Panel Revises . frnal Proposed Arbítration . Full Arbilration Slr.rt{rgy . lrrl Rcadrnq . ArIr¡rt .lrrr¡rk'rnlrrl DRAFT 2016 RGS FAQS 4 How is the Draft 2016 Regional Growth Strategy structured? The draft 2016 RGS offers a vision, objectives, and policies and targets to guide decision-making to 2038. The draft document updates the 2003 RGS. Vision ln 2038, Capital Regional District residents enjoy a healthy and rewarding quality of life within a region that is economically vital, where communities are livable and where the environment and natural resources are stewarded with care. 0bjectives The RGS includes nine integrated strategic objectives organized around six priority areas. Together with policies, targets, maps and guidelines, the objectives express a program of joint action by the CRD and local municipalities to achieve the regional vision. Managing and Balancing 1. Keep urban settlement compact Growth 2. Protect the integrity of rural communities 3. Protect regional green and blue spaces Environment and Resources 4. Manage natural resources and the environment sustainably 5. Build complete communities Housing and Community 6. lmprove housing affordability Transportation 7. lncrease transportation choice Economic Development 8. Strengthen the regional economy Reduce Greenhouse Gas 9. Significantly reduce community-based greenhouse gas Emissions emissions 0n March 9, 2016 the Board directed staff to consider integrating a regional food systems section in the draft document, to be prepared concurrently with the informal municipal referral that will take place in March/April/May 2016. DRAFT 2016 RGS FAQs 5 Targets Priorities tell us what we will work on. Targets tell us how HARD we need to work. Targets reflect a community's ambitions. Measuring progress (through annual reporting on related indicators) will provide essential feedback. lf progress is too slow, there may be a need/desire to strengthen related actions. By 2038, we will: Locate 300/o of new growth (dwelling units) in walkable, bikeable, transit serviced c0mm unities that provide a variety of housing types and tenures close to places of Urban Settlement work, shopping, learning, recreation, parks and green space. Accommodate a minimum of 950/o of the region's cumulative new dwelling units within the Regional Urban Containment and Servicing Policy Area. : Do not exceed the subdivision and density limits in designated official community Rural Communities plans at the date of adoption of the RGS in rural and rural residential areas. Regional Green and Acggi¡e 1000/o o[ the Sea;to-Sea creen/B!qe ,Bg!!, Blue Space Complete a minimum of 1000/o of the Regional Trail Network. Sustainable Natural ldentify long-term capital plans for Capital Regional District utilities and major Resources and infrastructure improvements necessary to address the impacts of climate change Environment and natural hazards. Municipal targets to be established through desired development guidelines for Complete Communities individual official community plans through Regional Context Statements, within , two years of the adoption of the RGS. lncrease the supplv of more affordable hous tng Housing Affordability Reduce the number of people in core housing need. Reduce the number of le who are homeless. Achieve a transportation system that sees 42010 oÍ all trips made by walking, Transportation Choice , cyclinq, transit. Achieve a jobs/population ratio of: o 0.60 in Core Area Regional Economy o 0.53 in Saanich Peninsula o 0.36 in West Shore Greenhouse Gas Reduce community greenhouse gas emissions by 330/0 (from 2007 levels) by Emissions 2020, and by Ot olo by 2038. Maps A regional growth management concept plan and a regional green / blue spaces system are the foundation for managing and balancing growth. The RGS establishes corresponding land use policy designations and the general identification for a Metropolitan Core and eight Major Centres as policy tools for implementing the RGS. DRAFT 2016 RGS FAQs 6 What are the next steps? Below is a tentative timeline of next steps leading to the bylaw adoption process. The timeline is subject to change depending on input received through the informal municipal referral and subsequent Committee of the Whole direction. March - May 18 lnformal municipal referral June 2016 Report to Committee of the Whole with results of informal municipal referral Summer 2016 Prepare final draft RGS Fall 2016 Prepare RGS bylaw and initiate bylaw adoption process Early 2017 Public hearing and formal referral for RGS acceptance Spring 2017 Third reading and adoption of the RGS bylaw DRAFT 2016 RGS FAQs 7 Appendix D Reg¡onal Growth Strategy Capital Regional District November 20.16 CT¿T] rvldkrnq d ditleren(€ lùqether CAPITAL REGIONAL DISTRICT BYLAW NO. 4OI7 A BYLAW TO ADOPT A REGIONAL GROWTH STRATEGY FOR THE CAPITAL REGIONAL D¡STRICT WHEREAS Part 13 of the Local Governmenf Acú provides for a regional district to undertake the development, adoption, implementation, monitoring and review of a regional growth strategy; AND WHEREAS the Board of the Capital Regional District by resolution dated July 13,2011 initiated the review of "Capital Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw No. 1, 2002", pursuant to Section 433 of the Local Government Act; AND WHEREAS the Board of the Capital Regional District has given notice to each affected local government; and has obtained the acceptance of each affected local government to the proposed amendment, pursuant to Section 436(3) and Section 437(3) of the Local Government Act; NOW THEREFORE the Board of the Capital Regional District, in open meeting enacts as follows: 1. Bylaw No. 2952 "Capital Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw No. 1, 2002" is hereby repealed. 2. Schedule "A" attached to and forming part of this Bylaw is hereby designated as the "Regional Growth Strategy for the Capital Regional District." 3. This Bylaw, Bylaw No. 4017, may be cited as the "Capital Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw No.1, 2016" and takes effect on the date adopted. READ THE FIRST TIME this 13th day of September, 2016 READ THE SECOND TME this 13th day of September, 2016 FIRST AND SECOND READING RESCINDED this 12th day of October, 2016 READ THE FIRST TIME this 12th day of October, 2016 READ THE SECOND TME this 12tn day of October, 2016 PUBLIC HEARING CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO PART 13, SECTION 434 of the LOCAL GOVERNMENf ACf this 19th day of October, 2016 FIRST AND SECOND READING RESCINDED this 23'd day of November, 2016 READ THE FIRST TIME this 23'd day of November, 2016 READ THE SECOND TME this 23'd day of November, 2016 READ THE THIRD TIME this day of ADOPTED this day of Chair Corporate Officer The Capita I Reg iona I District Regional Growth Strategy tt (Schedule Att to Bylaw No. 4017) Prepared by Regional and Strategic Planning Capital Regional District Contents Vision ...... 1 Context...... '...''''',''2 0bjectives ,...... 8 1. Managing and Balancing Growth '...... ,.9 1 ..1 Keep Urban Settlement C0mpact...... ,...... 9 .1.2 Protect the lntegrity of Rural Communities...... 1 5 2. Environmentand lnfrastructure...... 16 2.1 Protect, Conserve and Manage Ecosystem Health ...... 16 2.2 Manage Regional lnfrastructure Services Sustainably ...... 18 3. HousingandCommunity...... 21 3.1 Create Safe and Complete C0mmunities...... ,,,,',,.,.21 3.2 lmprove Housing Affordability ...... 23 4. Transportation...... 25 4.1 lmprove Multi-Modal Connectivity and Mobility ,,...,.,25 5 Economic Development...... ',,,,,..'.27 5.1 Realize the Region's Economic Potential...... ,,,,,,,..27 6. Food Systems...... ,.,,...... 29 6.1 Foster a Resilient Food and Agriculture System...... ,,...... 29 7. ClimateAction...... 31 7.1 Significantly Reduce Community-Based Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...J I lmplementation Measules ...... 33 Appendix A: Community Profiles ,,.37 Appendix B: Framework for 0ur Future Guiding Principles...... 41 Appendix C: The Regional Green/Blue Spaces Vision ...... 43 Appendix D: Glossary. ...45 Maps Map 1: Regional Growth Management Planning Atea 3 Map 2: Salish Sea...... ,.5 Map 3: Growth Management Concept P|an...... 12 Map 4: Renewable Resource Lands - Detail...... 13 Map 5: Municipal Boundary Adjustment - Detail 14 Tables Tab le 1: Population, Dwelling Unit and Employment Forecast. ...4 Tab le 2: 2038 Targets by Priority Area and Objective 35 Figures Figure 1: Regional Growth Strategy lnterconnections 7 Vision ln 2038, Capital Regional District residents enjoy a healthy and rewarding quality of life. We have a vital economy, livable communities and steward our environment and natural resources with care. 0ur choices reflect our commitment to collective action on climate change. Fundamental to this vision is a commitment to work toward regional sustainability. Simply defined, sustainability means that actions taken to meet needs today do not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their needs, ensure the ongoing health of the natural plocesses that sustain life, and suppolt the social and economic arrangements that create prosperity and wellbeing. Further, sustainability is critical to addressing head-on the myriad effects of a changing global climate. Whether in the context of compact growth, multi-modal transportation, greenhouse gas emissions reductions, environmental conservation, protection of human and ecosystem health or safe and complete communities, decisions at the local and regional level play an important role in addressing climate change. The purpose of the Regional Growth Strategy is t0 help realize the region's vision, through the commitment of the Capital Regional District, the Juan de Fuca Electoral Area and local municipalities to guide growth and change toward common objectives. 0bjectives: . Keep urban settlement compact; . Protect the integrity of rural communities; . Protect, conserve and manage ecosystem health; o Deliver services consistent with RGS objectives; . Create safe and complete communities; . lmprove housing affordability; . lncrease transpoltation choice; . Strengthen the regional econom!; . Foster a resilient food and agriculture system; and . Significantly reduce community-based greenhouse gas emissions CRD Regionol Growth Strotegy 1 Context A regional growth strategy is a framework, developed by municipalities and the regional district in partnership, for identifying social, economic and environmental objectives. lts purp0se, undei Part 13 of the Locol Government Act, is 10 "... promote human settlement that is socially, economically, and environmentally healthy and that makes efficient use of public facilities and services, land and other resources." A regional growth strategy expresses how communities will work together to enhance regional quality of life and social well- being. As of 2008, regional growth strategies must also include policies, actions and targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The Capital Regional District adopted a Regional Growth Strategy bylaw in 2003. ln 20.11, the Capital Regional District Board in partnership with local municipalities initlated the requited five year review of the Regional Growth Strategy (2003). The 2016 update to the Regional Growth Strategy follows considerable public and intergovernmental discussion and consultation. Map 1 shows the Regional Growth Management Planning Area. At the present time, the Capital Region's ten First Nations are not paftners in the regional growth strategy, nor does it apply to the Salt Spring lsland and the Southern Gulf lslands Electoral Areas which fall under the planning jurisdiction of the lslands Trust (see Map 1). Citizens, local governments, First Nations, school district boards, stakeholders, and provincial and federal agencies have been involved in the Strategy's update through a regional sustainability planning process. This process determined that many of the policies of the Regional Growth Strategy (2003) are achieving desired objectives, notably, increasing compact and complete communities, acquiring green space, and substantially completing the regional trail network. Further, key complementary planning documents identified as actions to implement the Regional Growth Strategy (2003) are complete, including: . 2007 Regional Housing Affordability Strategy; and . Regional Transportation Strategy (completed as the 2014 Regional Tiansportation Plan and the 20.1.1 Pedestrian and Cycling Master Plan). lnput and feedback have affirmed the desire for a strong growth management framework rooted in the 2003 Regional Growth Stiategy objectives and emphasized the importance of mitigating and adapting to the effects of climate change. Updates integrate recommendations from completed planning documents and address the requirements for policies, actions and targets for greenhouse gas reductions. 2 CRD Regionol Growth Strotegy MAP 1: REGIONAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING AREA ,oan de foca flectûrôl Âreâ tpw'il r I ! 5ookr I pidney 4:r'À 1:60Q000 ¡ Nollh Saa¡kh N0I[¡ lf.sl I'lallmt üÊ nol pffl 0l tia 6r0nül t only In (enkðl sa¿nlcal Juôî de f l(a flectonlArea--ll'.ì..: i t t.. i i I Highlånds r"" ,uðn d€ fuca ne(lûral Afeâ l\t'\ r¡ I _f i li f¡ Oak 8ay t{ ''i ** I I Sooke I 'rr- Vlclorlð '\ t']. 1.. Melchosh 6towh lìÁ¡mo€mmt Plömlfi g Æeð 1 ä tll3l Nrtlönr ßë3€,veJ -* i f ¡runlctp6l Eo(lûdãdes iuan de fuca €lectoral Are¿ "+ Scale 1:200,000 CRD Regionol Growth Strotegy 3 The Capital Region is located at the southern-most end of Vancouver lsland, in the Cascadia/Salish,Sea bio-region (see Map 2). Ihe bio-region runs north-south along a coastal corridor stretching from Campbell River south to 0lympia, Washington and east to Hope. The Capital Region's present settlement pattern is characterized by a diverse mix of urban and rural communities, with a concentration of population in the Core Area located along key transportation corridors. The West Shore and Saanich Peninsula feature smaller urban centres, with forestry lands to the west throughout the Juan de Fuca Electoral Area. Agricultural lands are concentrated on the Saanich Peninsula, with some slightly more dlspersed lands on the West Shore. ln this context, modest population growth is forecast for the Capital Region. Table I highlights existing and forecasted population, dwelling units and employment. TABLE 1: POPULATION, DWELLING UNIT AND EMPLOYMENT FORECASï 201 1 2038 Population Share Popu lation Dwellings Employment Population Dwellings Employment 2011 2038 Core o Esquimalt . Oak Bay 238,900 111,400 141,900 276,700 137,400 164,900 68.9V0 62.60lo o Saanich o Victoria . View Royal Saanich Peninsula o Central Saanich 38,400 1 6,1 00 20,300 47,300 20,900 74,900 11.1olo 10.70/o o North Saanich o Sidney West Shore . Colwood . Highlands o Juan de Fuca 69,600 26,700 21,500 1 i 7,800 46,600 42,700 20.00/o )6.70/o Electoral Area . Langford . Metchosin . Sooke Total 346,900 154,200 1 83,700 441,800 204,900 232,500 1000/o 1000/o Source: Urban Futures, 2014 Please note that First Nations populations are n0t included in Table 1, as First Nations Reserves fall outside the GMPA. 4 CRD Regionol Growth Strotegy MAP 2: SALISH SEA , + Pocific Aceon !Y w H s f] Growlh I'lanagçmefir Planning Ârea - --' CRo Boundðry s{ôler t l.}5Q000 UIM ZûliE l0r'l NÂ0 83 CRD Regionol Growth Strotegy 5 From a 201.1 base of approximately 346,900, the region's population is forecast to inclease by approximately 94,900 people to 44'1,800 in 2038, an approximate 1olo average annual population increase. The slow aging of the region's population continues as a significant trend, with the proportion of residents 65 years and older expected to rise from 180/o in 2011 to 26oloby 2038. Further, although the workforce (ages 15 to 64) is projected to grow by 31,900, the proportion of workforce to total population is projected to decline from 690/o t0 610/0 by 2038. Serving the needs of an aging population in the context of a proportionately smaller workforce will affect all aspects of the region's social, economic and physical development. It continues to be clear, however, that even modest populatlon growth would undermine the regional vision if it were accommodated as it has been since the 1950s, through further urban expansion into farms, forests and countryside. Further, an expanded regional footprint would significantly contribute to increased greenhouse gas emissions. Achieving the regional vision requires a concerted effort to largely shift to policies that encourage investment and development in complete communities within the designated growth area. Paramount to success is coordinated and consistent decision-making that focuses on how people, land use, transportation, infrastructure and technology can mitigate and adapt to a changing climate. The Regional Growth Strategy supports the regional vision by making this policy shift, through objectives that aim t0: keep urban settlement compact; protect the integrity of rural communities; protect, conserve and manage ecosystem health; deliver services consistent with RGS objectives; build safe and complete communities; improve housing affordability; increase transportation choice; strengthen the regional econom!; and, foster a resilient food and agriculture system. Realising these objectives is critically important for successfully reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Figure 1 illustrates the interconnections among the Regional Growth Strategy objectives and between these objectives and climate change. The objectives are colour-coded to reflect how different elements of sustainability are represented in the Reglonal Growth Strategy and how together, these elements provide for a climate action lens. Keeping urbon settlement compoct and increostng trlnsplrtotion choice have a high degree of interdependence with other objectives. These strong links illustrate that achieving these two objectives will be particularly important for the realization of the regional vision. Further, the graphic illustrates that the Regional Growth Strategy objectives will support climate action and that taking action on climate change will, in turn, impact each objective. 6 CRD Regionol Growth Strotegy FIGURE 1: REGIONAL GROWTH STRATEGY INTERCONNECTIONS LTGEND Built / Social Elements Financial / 0ther Elements T Climate Action tens Transportation Elements Natural Environment Elements CRD Regionol Growth Strotegy 7 0bjectives The Regional Growth Strategy includes integrated objectives, incorporating policies, targets, maps and guidelines that together express a program of joint action by the Capital Regional District and local municipalities to achieve the regional vision. . Objectives define a desired future on matters of regional interest. . Policies are provided under the "policy" heading for each objective. The Capital Reqional District will implement policies and undertake actions for regionally- delivered services and programs. Local municipalities will identify how their Official Community Plan aligns to each policy in a Regional Context Statement. . Maps showing the Growth Management Concept Plan (Map 3) and details of the Renewable Resource Lands (Map 4) provide spatial definition for policy. . Targets for each objective are provided in Table 2 at the end of the document. Targets are aspirational in nature. lt is unlikely that they will be achieved by the CRD and municipalities alone. Achieving the targets will require concerted effort on the part of the CRD and municipalities as well as senior governments, local residents and businesses, utilities, community groups and others. o Actions for the Capital Regional District to implement the Regional Growth Strategy are provided in the lmplementation Measures sect¡on. Subject to the localGovernmentActand the articulation of policies in the Regional Growth Strategy document, the CRD and local municipalities recognize that the Regional Growth Strategy is intended as a planning policy document to serve as a guide for future decision making. I CRD Regionol Growth Strotegy 1. Managing and Balancing Growth 1"1 Keep {.irhan Settlernent eornpact A designated Growth Policy Area aims to keep urban areas compact and to keep growth largely contained within its boundaries. Fundamental to growth management are four related approaches that aim to increase the capacity of urban areas, particularly in the Core Municipalities and the urban West Shore, t0 accommodate new qrowth.t Approaches Establish a strong mix of uses focused around Victoria's downtown core area as the primary regional employment, business and cultural centre; il Focus employment and population growth primarily in complete communities, located in areas that meet criieria described in 0bjective 3.1, that will encourage the development of walkable, bikeable and transit-focused areas with a dense mix of housing, employment, services and public open space; lncrease the proportion of apartments, row houses and other attached housing types within the Growth Policy Area, especially within complete communities; ôrìd, IV Locate a minimum of 95olo of the region's new dwelling units to 2038 within the Growth Policy Area. The aim of keeping urban settlement compact is to concentrate growth within a firm Giowth Policy Area Boundary that will over time result in the creation of centres and connecting corridors that can be effectively served by express-bus translt. This lays the foundation to achieve a longer term objective of connecting the downtown Victoria-Douglas Street- Uptown corridor with Colwood and Langford by high- capacity public transit running in a ded icated rig ht-of-way. To support quality of life and community character in rural areas, urban containment directs growth into complete communities to reduce development pressures in the Saanich Peninsula, rural West Shore, Sooke and the Juan de Fuca Electoral Area. Growth outside the growth boundary is to be kept to 5o/o or less of the regional total. A Growth Management Concept Plan and four land use policy designations will help keep urban settlement compact. Map 3 sets out the Growth Management Concept Plan and Map 4 provides additional detail for the Renewable Resource Lands Policy Area. 1 Table 1 provides a general forecast, for information only, of population, dwellrng units and employment in 2038 by sub-region that could be expected under the Regional Growth Strategy. CRD Regionol Growth Strotegy 9 Land Use Designations Capital Green Lands Policy Area: lncludes Ecological Reserves, Capital Regional District Water lands, and Parks. The Regional Growth Strategy sets out in policy 2.1(1)the continued long-term use of these lands for these purposes. Renewable Resource Lands Policy Area: lncludes lands within the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR), the Private Managed Forest Lands and Crown Forest Lands. The Regional Growth Strategy sets out in policy 5.1(4) the continued long-term use of these lands as renewable resource working landscapes. Growth Policy Area: lncludes residential, general employment, commercial and industrial lands, as well as other associated land uses. The Growth Policy Area is intended to accommodate 950/o of the region's new dwelling units, and is where major new transportation infrastructure investments will be directed. The Regional Growth Strategy restricts extension of urban-standard sanitary sewerage services beyond the Growth Policy Area Boundaiy as set out under policy 2.2(5) Within the Growth Policy Area, employment and population growth is to be directed to areas that meet criteria set out in Objective 3.1, for complete communities. Complete communities are intended to accommodate housing, jobs and services at densities that will support transit. Focusing growth in complete communities ls central to reducing communlty-based greenhouse gas emissions, reducing development pressure on rural and resource lands and keeping inf rastructure affordable. Where Capital Green Lands and Renewable Resource Lands Policy Areas overlap with the Growth Policy Area, the land use policy for the Capital Green Lands and Renewable Resource Lands Policy Areas shall take precedence. Liquid waste service may be provided to such lands within the Growth Policy Area provided it is for a purpose consistent with the land use designations for the Capital Green Lands and Renewable Resource Lands Policy Areas. Rural/Rural Residential Policy Area: lncludes lands to be used for rural and rural residential purposes and the Victoria lnternational Airpoft (with development potential as established through approved Memorandum of Understanding). The Regional Growth Strategy sets out in policy 1.1(1)and 1.2(1)that Rural/Rural Residential lands are not intended to become future urban areas requiring extensive services. Residential uses are of a form, density and character that support rural working landscapes. Commercial uses are local serving and such uses and other employment opportunities result in minimal impact to the surrounding community and to the environment. Low-impact tourism uses complement rural character. The policy area also includes lands with ecosystem benefits to be identified and protected through means such as development permit areas, conservation covenants, or acquisition and designation as a park or ecological reselve. 10 CRD Regionol Growth Strotegy Municipal Boundary Adjustment Area: lncludes approximately 380 acres of land, as shown in Map 3: Growth Management Concept Plan and Map 5: Municipal Boundary Adjustment - Detail, in the northwest portion of the District of Metchosin. The land within the Municipal Boundary Adjustment Area is designated as Rural/Rural Residential Policy Area, as per the .1.1. land use designation set out in Objective The Municipal Boundary Adjustment Area land is part of a municipal boundary adjustment proposal that, if approved, would result in the land being removed from the District of lvtetchosin and included within the City of Langford. ln the event that the Province of British Columbia amends by Letters Patent the boundaries of the Dlstrict of lvtetchosin and the City of Langford to include all or part of the Municipal Boundary Adjustment Area within the City of Langford, the land within the City of Langford wlll be designated Growth Policy Area, as per the land use designation set out in Objective 1.1, within the Growth Policy Area Boundary. CRD Regionol Growth Strotegy 11 This page intentionally blank MAP 3: GROWTH MANAGEMENT CONCEPT PLAN lr ! þ Ð- 4tÅr ) i*-. CAPITAT RFGIONAL DISTRICT \ * Map 3:6rowÌh Management C0ncept Plôn CI¿T-) 2 -<:- Z \ Policy Arêas Reference Feetures I cap¡talcræn Lands f First Nalions Re*we outside RGs R!rellRurel Residêñf ál \^bler lË GrwthAræ I crøn eounoav I Munic¡pal BoundaryAdlusft ff Area fKilomelres 024812 A 12 CRD Reg¡onol 6rowth Strctegy MAP 4: RINEWABLI RESOURCE LANDS - DETAIL $,, t, T ,:ì {0 CAPITAL REGIONAL DISTRICT -", Tr Map 4: Renewable Resource L¿nds -- Deta¡l lt ' CI¿TJ Àùkhq¿d'tsåi@.,@rb , -t'= f First Nation Reserue ! Agricultural Land Reserue I cap¡tal Green Lãnds I Privately Managed Forest t¡nd I crown & olher Forest Lands Water Non-Reneweble Resource Lands Outside RGS NOTE: bndsshow¡re åsAgÈulùÉl Land Rsæ are emntb -å" EKiloreùg odobs æ15 âd Pdvdev Mangalpd Fof4t knds æ eÍent Y 2 12 to Mârd 2016. CRD Reg¡onol Strctegy 13 'rcwth MAP 5: MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENï - DETAIL CAPITAL REGIONAL DI5TRICT Map 5: Ivlunicipal Boundary Adjustment -- Detail CI¿l_] 2 '--:1 Pollcy Arêas Rêfêrence Feetures I caPìtâ¡ c€en Lânds i cadâsrre Rômwô16 RôsouÞ knds ! Fimt Nations Reserue Rural/RuEl R*id€nùal Outs¡de RGS croünnrea f \4,bter I Growt eounaary l¡¿tufci n ( ìrùufil¿, È àtt i19Ðafì¿ta tnd tn¿y rr{ ù+ r0f55lrl ir l[ ¡dilJ 0rrD$lr ir'.r. À 0 0.25 o5 Policies 1. Provide for land uses consistent with the Growth Management Concept Plan depicted on Map 3 and adopt policies to implement the Growth Management Concept Plan consistent with the land use policy designations described in Objective .1.1. 2. Adopt policies regarding the protection, buffering and long term maintenance of the Growth Policy Area Boundary. 3. Permit amendment to the Growth Policy Area designation genetally, only as an outcome of a comprehensive 5-year review of the negional Growth Strategy, recognizing that municipal councils and the Capital Regional Distrlct Board are free to initiate at any time amendments to official community plans and the regional growth strategy they deem necessary, through statutory processes established in Ihe local Government Act. 4. Maintain Victoria as the primary regional employment, business and cultural centre. 5. Enhance or develop major employment and population centres in areas that meet criteria, as set out in Objective 3.1,for complete communities. CRD Regionol Growth Strotegy 14 1"2 Protect the lntegrity of Rr.rral Communities Keeping urban settlement compact will help protect the character and quality of rural communities, ensure that they remain strongly rooted in the agricultural and resource land base, and allow the rural countryside and natural landscape to remain a durable fact of life in the Capital Region. The protection of rural communities starts with clearly defining and distinguishing between urban and rural areas. The Regional Growth Strategy does this by designating foi long term protection as Capital Green Lands and Renewable Resource Lands those natural assets including parks, ecological reserves, forests, farmland and watersheds that make up the region's green infrastructure and contribute to the regional economy. The designation of a Growth Policy Area reinforces the protection of Capital Green Lands, Renewable Resource Lands and Rural/Rural Residential Policy Areas and has the further benefit of supporting the long-term effort to keep urban settlement compact. Rural and rural-residential communities offer a choice of rural lifestyles and outdoor recreation opportunities that complement the surounding working landscapes and pteserve ecological diversity. New development in the Rural/Rural Residential Policy Area is not intended to exceed 5o/o of the region's new dwelling units. Policy 1.1 protects rural communitles by requiring that local municipalities and theJuan de Fuca Electoral Area provide for land uses consistent with the Growth Management Concept Plan and adopt policies that would prevent lands designated as Rural/Rural Residential from becoming future urban areas. Strengthening the character and quality of rural communities can be achieved by planning for development in accordance with the principles set out below. Principles Maintain working landscapes including agriculture, forestry and outdoor recreation activities that contribute to the region's €c0n0m!; Avoid the creation of future urban areas through development patterns that complement lural form, density and character; Minimize impacts t0 the natural environment and surrounding working landscapes; and IV Accommodate a slow to moderate rate of growth, contributing t0 no more than 5o/o of the region's new residential units. Policies 1. Plan for development in the Rural/Rural Residential Policy Area depicted on Map 3 in a manner that is consistent with the principles set out in 0bjective '1.2. 15 CRD Regionol Growth Strotegy 2. Environment and lnfrastructure 2"1 Frotect, er:nserve anrj l\Äanage fieosystem Health The Capital Region has a rich inheritance of natural lands and waters of great beauty and biophysical diversity. Residents of the Capital Region enjoy a healthy environment where environmental quality is improved and the inhelitance of renewable and non-renewable natural resources is carefully stewarded. Many of the region's terrestrial, fresh water and marine environments - its green and blue spaces - are of provincial, national and international significance.z The system of green and blue spaces that make up the region's natural environment spans a diverse range of ecosystems and land uses and requires integrated, collaborative and co-operative management of land and water resources. The Regional Growth Strategy aims to protect the landscape character, ecological heritage and biodiversity of the Capital Region by protecting, conserving and managing lands according to the principles set out below. Principles Waste discharges of all types should not exceed the assimilative capacity of the natural environment (including land, air and water); Depletion rates for natural resources should not exceed the regenerative capacity of the ecosystems that produce them; Consumption of scarce renewable and non-renewable resources should be minimized through conservation, efficiency and application of technology and reduce, reuse and recycle practices; IV Benefits derived from healthy ecosystems should be recognized and integrated into land use management and service delivety decisions; and, Decision-making should give first priority to options that maintain ecosystem and population health and support the ongoing ability of natural systems to sustain life. Parkland acquisition protects lands for conservation and recreation by establishing a connected system of natural areas. Central to this system is the protection of a sea to sea green/blue belt running f rom Saanich lnlet south to Juan de Fuca Strait, and the development of an integrated system of parks and trails linking urban areas to rural green space areas. By applying these principles, it will be possible to improve human health, 2 The Regional Green/Blue Spaces Strategy was a foundational document for the development of the 2003 Regional Growth Strategy. The Strategy has been superseded by subsequent planning initiatives such as the Regional Parks Strategic Plan, the lntegrated Watershed Management Program Plan, the Regional Parks Land Acquisition Strategy and park management plans for the Sooke Hills Wilderness and Sea to Sea Regional Parks. CRD Regionol Growth Strotegy 16 reduce negative impacts on the natural environment and mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change. Policies '1. Ensure the long-term protection of Capital Green Lands depicted on Map 3. This could include policies for buffering and land use trans¡tion between Capital Green Lands and adjacent settled areas (i.e., lands within the Rural/Rural Residential Land Use Policy Area as well as the Growth Policy Area), as well as policies aimed at enhancing, restoring or naturalizing Capital Green Lands. 2. Prioritize community and regional park land acquisition, public and private land stewardship programs and regional trail network construction that contributes to completion of the sea to sea green/blue belt running from Saanich lnlet south to Juan de Fuca Strait. 3. ldentify, protect, enhance and restore healthy ecosystems using tools that may consist of policies, regulations, development permit area guidelines, incentives, initiatives and education and outreach delivered at the local level consistent with the principles set 0ut in 0bjective 2.1. 4. Protect the ecological integrity of watersheds and marine areas through collaborative initiatives consistent with the principles set out in 0bjective 2.1. 5. Manage surface water, drainage and groundwater in non-catchment watersheds throughout the region using an integrated watershed planning approach consistent with the principles set out in Objective 2.1. 6. Plan for the long term strategic resource needs in the Capital Region - including food (paying specific attention to local food production), energy, water, and aggregate materials consistent with the principles set out in 0bjectives 2.1 and 7.1. Plans will consider long term demand, security of supply and potential impacts of factors such as long term climate change, fossil fuel depletion and water reclamation where feasible, and make policy and program recommendations to ensure that future needs are successfully anticipated and met. 17 CRD Regionol Growth Strotegy 2.2 Manage Regional lnfrastructure Services Sustainably Regional servicing infrastructure includes drinking water, liquid and solid waste. These services must be efficiently and cost-effectively managed for the long-ierm in order to accommodate the anticipated population increase. The Sooke reservoir, managed and operated by the CRD, is the drinking watei supply for the Capital Region. The CRD provides treated bulk water to multiple distribution systems around the region. The distribution systems differ by municipality and require ongoing cooperation for the planning and management of the service. Private wells and community water systems supply water to many residents in rural areas. The Hartland Landfill provides solid waste disposal services for the Capital Region. The CRD sees waste as a commodity and seeks the highest and best use for these resources by applying the 5R hierarchy of Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Resoulce Recovery and Residual Management. This includes a focus towards zero waste in our landfill, recycling programs, organics diversion, landfill gas capture and emerging opp0rtunities. The Saanich Peninsula Wastewater Treatment Plant provides secondary wastewater treatment to residents in the Saanich Peninsula. At the time of writing the Regional Growth Strategy, a planning process is underway to identify wastewater management strategies for the Core Area. Private septic fields treat liquid waste for residents in rural areas. lnfrastructure services may be impacted not only by an increased demand for the service as the population grows, but also by the form, pattern and location of new development. Servicing new development with limited or low density, which adds fewer new useis per unit length of water 0r sewer pipe than the system aveiage, would generally be more expensive than in denser a[eas. The costs of operating and maintaining this infrastructure over its lifecycle require consideration beyond the one-time capital investment. Keeping urban settlement compact will help create the densities needed t0 create efficient servicing infrastructure. lt is also necessary to acknowledge and plan for the effects of a changing climate on regional infrastructure. Managing regional infrastructure services according to the prlnciples below and as outlined in 0bjective 2.1 will help minimize social, environmental and financial costs of providing regional in f rastructure. Principles Promote settlement patte[ns that are cost-effective and efficient to service; Minimize negative financial impacts to those currently serviced (impacts to consider system life cycle costs); and .18 CRD Regionol Growth Strotegy Avoid negatively impacting the l0ng-term availability of the service for existing development and planned growth within the growth boundary, recognizing the impacts of climate change. Policies 1. Manage infrastructure services, including water supply and distribution, in accordance with the principles set out in Objectives 2.1 (Protect, Conserve and Manage Ecosystem Health) and2.2 (Manage Regional lnfrastructure Services Sustainably). 2. Provide new water system services (public or private) only to areas where, a. For a municipality, the areas to be serviced are shown on RGS Map 3 as either Growth Policy Area or Rural/Rural Residential Policy Area and the area to be serviced is consistent with OCP servicing provisions and an accepted Regional Context Statement identifies the population to be serviced and how growth in water demand will be addressed. Before approving a new water service bylaw, the full CRD Board must review the request for the new bylaw as it relates to the Regional Growth Strategy and deem the new bylaw consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy. This review is to include a detailed analysis of costs and cost recovery implications, including implications, related to parcel taxes, fees, charges and grants, and subject to the principles as noted above. b. For the Juan de Fuca Electoral Area, the areas to be serviced are shown on RGS Map 3 as either Growth Policy Area or Rural/Rural Residential Policy Area and the area to be serviced is consistent with OCP servicing provisions and the applicable OCP ldentifies the population to be serviced and how growth in water demand will be addressed. Where new water system services are provided to the community of ShirleyJordan River, areas to be serviced may also include lands shown on RGS Map 3 as Renewable Resource Lands Policy Area and designated in the 0CP as Coastal Uplands subject to limiting development potential of serviced parcels to a density of one parcel per four hectares, as set out in the 0CP. 3. Notwithstanding policy 2.2(2), the CRD may extend water service if required to address a pressing public health, public safety or environmental issue relating to exrstlng units or to service agriculture. 4. Where water service is extended to service agriculture in Policy 2.2(3), water service may be provided to residential units along the serviced line on lands within the Agricultural Land Reserve as long as an OCP is in place that prevents further subdivision or an increase in permitted residential density. 19 CRD Regionol Growth Strotegy 5. Do not further extend urban sewer services outside the Growth Policy Area Boundary depicted on Map 3. 6. Notwithstanding policies 2.2(2) and 2.2(4), evaluate requests for services from jurisdictions outside of Capital Regional District membership with,a view towards supporting mutually beneficial relationships and fostering development consistent with all RGS objectives and policies. CRD Regionol Growth Strotegy 20 3. Housing and Community 3.1 Create Safe and Complete Communities The Regional Growth Strategy supports the development of complete communities within the Growth Policy Area that enable residents to undertake a wider range of daily activities closer to home. lt does this by supporting the development of communities that offer a variety of housing types and tenures in proximity to places of work, schools, shopping, recreation, parks and green space. Complete communities provide a better balance and distribution of jobs and housing, a wider choice of affordable housing types, a better distribution of public services and more opportun¡ty to walk, cycle, and use public transit conveniently. Complete communities, are safe, socially diverse, openly accessible, livable and attract economic investment, thereby enhancing social sustainability and health and well-being. The characteristics of a complete community are highly dependent on context. ln some locations, the addition of employment opportunities or commercial services may be required while in others it may be the provision of a greater mix of housing types. ln still others, the development of a park, footpaths or cycling facilities may help create a complete community. The criteria for a complete community within the Growth Policy Area are listed below. Outside the Growth Policy Area, the notion of what makes a community complete may be yet different and the criteria set out for complete communities does not apply to the Rural/Rural Residential Policy Area. Complete Communities (riteria l. Multiple modes can be used to move to, from and withln the community; ll. Places of work, shopping, learning, recreation and parks and green space can be easily accessed by a ten minute walk or a fifteen minute bike ride; lll. A range of housing types and tenures across the housing spectrum is available for people through all stages of their lives; and lV. Ihe community is demographically diverse, with a mix of people of all ages, incomes and abilities. Lands vulnerable to natural hazards risks may be located throughout the Growth Management Planning Area. Risks may limit or eliminate development. 21 CRD Regionol Growth Strotegy Policies 1. ldentify locations within the Growth Policy Area that support the wellbeing of residents, consistent with the Complete Communities Criteria outlined in 0bjective 3.1, and adopt policies to direct growth to these locations. 2. Create complete communities consistent with the criteria in Objective 3.1 by adopting policies, developing regulations or pursuing strategies focusing on matters such as densificatlon, mix of uses, diverse housing types and tenures and multi- modal transportation. 3. Avoid locating new development in the Growth Management Planning Area in areas with high seismic hazard associated with ground-motion amplification, liquification, slope instability or in areas pr0ne t0 flooding, or incorporate appropriate engineering and planning measures to mitigate risk. 4. Design, manage and construct climate change-adaptive and risk-adaptive infrastructure and utilities in the Growth Management Planning Area. CRD Regionol Growth Strotegy 22 3.2 lmprove Housing Affordability Maintaining a broad range of affordable housing types and forms is necessary for individual quality of life, community health, and economic competitiveness. Central to affordability is the provision of housing along a broad spectrum that acknowledges different ma¡ket and non-market tenu[es, ranging from shelters to social housing, assisted and market rental to home ownership. Growth management may have mixed results for housing affordability. ln urban areas, increased residential densities and an expanded stock of attached housing may enhance affordability by expanding choice and by reducing the need to rely on travel by car to reach services. ln rural areas, mobile homes, secondary suites and detached accessory suites may provide more affordable housing. Growth management measures could have the effect of limiting the supply of new lands for the urban housing market, thereby putting upward pressure on housing prices, particularly for single detached homes. The provision of affordable housing to accommodate the anticipated population increase is the responsibility of many stakeholders including the Capital Regional District, local and senior levels of government, industry and the not-for- profit sector. The Capital Region Housing Corporation will continue to provide affordable housing t0 meet the needs associated with anticipated population growth, recognizing that implementation relies on funding and partnerships with other stakeholders. ln addition to the provision of affordable housing, the Regional Housing Affordability Strategy has been developed to support all residents of the Capital Region - especially low and moderate-income households, the elderly, youth, those with special health and other needs, and the homeless - to have reasonable choice of housing by type, tenure, price and location. Five approaches to housing affordability underlie the Regional Housing Affordability Strategy. 23 CRD Regionol Growth Strotegy Approaches to Housing Affordability Work across the housing spectrum when identifying the current and anticipated future issues concerning market and non-market housing affordability for no, low and middle income and special needs households; il Analyze the extent of present issues and forecast futuie problems; Focus on developing practical policies, and gaining commitments to action to address identified needs and problems in the short, medium and long term across the Capital Region; IV lnvolve the broader community in the development of the strategy and its recommended solutions; and, Act as a catalyst for activities to improve housing affordability in the Capital Region. Policies 1. Provide for an adequate, accessible and diverse supply of affordable housing across the housing spectrum. CRD Regionol Growth Strotegy 24 4. Transportation 4.1 lmprove Multi-Modal Connectivity and Mobility The Regional Growth Strategy supports the development of a balanced and sustainable transportation system providing residents with reasonable and affordable transportation choices that enhance overall regional quality of life. lncreasing congestion and travel delays and deslres for a more effective, connected, sustainable and multi-modal transportation system are of central concern to regional residents. The majority of transportation movements in the region cross municipal boundaries. Although some transportation issues can be addressed at the local level, resolution of most transportation challenges will require collaborative, multi-jurisdictional, region-wide action. To improve multi-modal connectivity and mobility, the Regional Growth Strategy relies on two related inltiatives. First, the coordination of land use and transportation so that the majority of regional residents do not have to rely solely on travel by automobile to meet their daily needs. The Regional Growth Strategy's aim to keep urban settlement compact and build complete communities (0bjectives 1.1 and 3.1)will tend to increase aver-age urban densities and put people and their activities (homes, jobs, services) closer together. Creating communities where housing is close to activities will enhance opportunities for using walklng, cycling, and public transit to meet daily needs. Secondly, transportation choice will be enhanced with the planning, development and implementation of the Regional Multi-Modal Network identified in the Regional Transportation Plan. The Regional Transportation Plan provides actions and outcomes to develop an effective inter-municipal arterial road network that provides travel choices and supports smart growth and livable, complete communities. lmplementing the Regional Multi-Modal Network is the responsibility of many actors, including the Capital Regional District, local and senior levels of government and BC Transit. Seven principles guide the Regional Transportation Plan and support the multi-modal and connected approach to transportation across the region. Principles l. Iake a coordinated and engaged approach to transportation and land use planning; ll. Prioritize strategic investments that serve regional mobility needs; lll. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and prepare for climate change; lV. lntegrate transportation and land use planning; V. Capitalize on the potential for alternatives to driving alone; Vl. Enhance the role for public transit; and Vll. Maximize efficiency of existing transportation corridors for multiple modes. 25 CRD Regionol Growth Strotegy Policies 1. lmplement the Regional Transportation Plan in accordance with the principles outlined in Objective 4.1. 2. Locate growth and major trip-generating uses where such can be efficiently serviced by transit and active transportation. 3. Prioritize transit and active modes in community planning and in the design and implementation of infrastructure, facilities and programs. CRD Regionol Growth Strotegy 26 5. Economic Development 5.1 Realize the Region's Economic Potential For residents of the Capital Region, economic prosperity is a foundation of high regional quality of life. Economic sustainability means the production and distribution of wealth to meet present and future generations' needs for goods and services in ways that ensure the long-term promotion of a satisfying and high quality of life for all residents. A sustainable economy is one that exhibits diverse and viable economic opportunities and is resilient and responsive to changing circumstances. Further characteristics of a sustainable economy are the involvement of a broad range of parties and interests in economic decision-making and contribution to the achievement of environmental and social sustainability. The Capital Region already has a highly diversified economy. Current strengths include the internationally significant tourism industry, agri-tourism, colleges and universities, provincial capital services and functions, major national defense headquatters and facilities, a growing high technology sector, health services, small business, environmental consulting, retirement services, the film industry and a natural environment and livable communities that attract others to live here. These advantages notwithstanding, significant regional growth management and quality of life considerations remain un-addressed. Economic Development Considerations Finding ways to achieve a minimum jobs/population ratio of: i. 0.60 in the Core Area ll. 0.53 in the Saanich Peninsula iii. 0.36 in the West Shore; Finding ways to work collaboratively on regional economic development considerations, including cooperation with First Nations; Finding ways to expand and diversify the economy of formerly resource-dependent communities in Sooke and the Juan de Fuca Electoral Area, such as through low- impact recreation and tourism; IV Finding ways to ensure the long term, affordable supply of strategic economic resources such as watel, aggregate and energy; Finding ways to increase economic activity in forestry and agriculture including high- value and specialized agriculture and value-added forestry; VI Finding ways to address the shortage of designated space-extensive industrial/business land in the region in locations consistent with overall goals regarding community completeness, transportation balance, and a network of major centres within an urban containment boundary; 27 CRD Regionol Growth Strotegy vil Finding ways to enhance established employment centres; vilt Finding ways to integrate high-value, clean industry and business in complete communities; IX Finding ways to attract, develop and maintain a highly skilled workforce; and, X Finding ways to reduce poverty in the Capital Region. Policies 1. Collaboratively build on the region's economic, environmental and quality of life advantages to position the region as a highly desirable location for investing in existing and new businesses, working to address the economic development considerations identified in 0bjective 5.1. 2. Provide for land development patterns that maintain an adequate supply of employment land, industrial land, transportation infrastructure and services to suppoft a diverse regional economy. 3. Prioritize the attraction of new businesses and investment that will support climate action. 4. Ensure the long-term protection of Renewable Resource Lands depicted on Maps 3 and ¿. This could include policies aimed for buffering and land use transition between Renewable Resouice Lands and settled areas (i.e., lands within the Rural/Rural Residential Land Use Policy Area as well as the Growth Policy Area), and policies that support farming within the Agricultural Land Reserve, and forestry, silviculture, forestry-related industrial uses and low-impact tourism within the Private Managed Forest Land and Crown and other forest lands. lo CRD Regionol Growth Strotegy LO 6. Food Systems 6"1 Fcster a Resilleni [-ooct anri Açriculture System Food and agriculture are part of a food system which includes planting, irrigation, harvesting, processing, distribution, preparation and marketing and consumption, in addition to food waste management and soil betterments. A viable and resilient local food and agriculture system is important to the Capital Regional District's health, sustainability, security and vlsual/cultural identity. Changes in climate, energy costs and water availability will impact agricultural production and will draw greater attention to regional food system resiliency. The widespread impact of food and agriculture and the nature of the challenges likely to be faced in coming years make food and agriculture a matter of regional interest. Challenges include loss of farmland, lack of farm profitability and financial sustainability, increasing average age of farmers, increasing food prices, limited (72 hour) supply of fresh food in an emergency, food wastage, need to revitalize indigenous food systems, lack of knowledge of how to grow and plepare healthy food, increasing rates of food insecure people and increasing rates of diet-related chronic disease. Regional alignment will strengthen the food and agricultural sector. The Regional Food and Agriculture Strategy recommends actions to create a viable, healthy and resilient food system. Regional Growth Strategy policies are intended to work in tandem with the Regional Food and Agriculture Strategy to guide future decisions. Achieving a healthy, viable and resilient Iocal food and agriculture system will require adherence to the following related principles: Principles I Support First Nations food interests and rights; lt Protect and enhance the region's food and farmlands; ilt Avoid urban/agricultural land use conflict; mitigate where avoidance is not possible; IV Enhance access to nutritious, safe and culturally-appropriate food; Expand food system economic opportunities; VI Encourage food system education and agri-tourism; and vil Foster resiliency in the face of an unpredictable climate, increased pest resistance, and declining, increasingly expensive water and energy supplies. 29 CRD Regionol Growth Strotegy Policies 1. lmplement initiatives in accordance with the principles outlined in Objective 6.i. 2. Enable food production, processing and distribution that will foster a place-based food economy that increases access to local, nutritious, safe and culturally appropriate food. 3. Support food waste management that is environmentally sustainable, benefits the regional economy and improves residents' connections to rural and agricultural landscapes. CRD Regionol Growth Strotegy 30 7. Chmate Action 7.1 Significantly Reduce Community-Based Greenhouse Gas Emissions The Regional Growth Strategy supports the reduction of community-based greenhouse gas emissions to address the effects of a changing climate. ln the Capital Region, community greenhouse gas emissions come from the transportation system, the heatlng, cooling and energizing of buildings, waste, energy production, the production of goods and agriculture.: The Capital Regional District and local governments have long-standing commitments to make decisions, target investments and build capacity for reducing the use of fossil fuels and expanding the clean energy economy. Further, the Regional Growth Strategy's aim to keep urban settlement compact, protect, conserve and manage ecosystem health, build safe and complete communities, increase transportation choice, strengthen the regional economy and foster a resilient regional food and agriculture system will support the low-carbon built form that is the foundation for reducing energy demand. Reducing community greenhouse gas emissions requires action on many fronts and is the responsibility of many actors including the Capital Regional District, local and senior levels of government, industry, institutions, businesses and residents. lt requires coordinated, consistently applied action focusing on people, land use, transportation, infrastructure and technology. Achieving community greenhouse gas reduction targets means following four related principles. Principles Create a low-carbon built form to reduce energy demand; lncrease energy efficiency and recovery from retrofits and new development; Promote energy efficiency and the use of renewable, clean energy to reduce reliance on fossil fuels; and IV Protect the carbon sequestration value of natural systems, including forested lands and wetlands. 3 SouTce: Communrty Energy and Emissions lnventory (CEEI). Province of BC. 31 CRD Regionol Growth Strotegy Policies 1. Prioritize investment that will provide for a low-carbon built form that supports efficient energy use, the provision of clean and renewable district energy, active transportation modes, transit service, and low/zero emissions vehicles. 2. Design, manage, fund and operate programs, services and infrastructure t0 reduce greenhouse gas emissions in keeping with the principles outlined in Objective 7.1. 3. Strategically acquire protected areas that contribute to climate change mitigation. CRD Regionol Growth Strotegy 32 lmplementation Measures The Capital Regional District Board, woiking in partnership with local municipalities, the Province, the Federal Government and others, will undertake the following implementation measures to realize the vision, objectives and policies of the Regional Growth Strategy: l-1a. Maintain a collaborative regional strategic planning pr0gram directed to work towards achievement of the long term objectives of the Regional Growth Strategy. t-1b. Rt least once every five years, consider whether the Regional Growth Strategy should be reviewed for possible revision and amendment. t-2. Monitor, evaluate and annually report on trends and progress towards achievement of Regional Growth Strategy vision and objectives. l-3 (a) Prepare a Climate Action Strategy to support the implementation of community- based greenhouse gas reduction initiatives. r-3 (b) Support local governments and the Juan de Fuca Electoral Area through reglonal capacity building, education and projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. r-4(a) Work to reach agreement wlth local municipalities on Regional Context Statements within two years of the adoption of the Regional Growth Strategy. Regional Context Statements, adopted within the applicable Offlcial Community Plan, set out how each municipality will address Regional Growth Strategy objectives and policies. I 4(b) Adopt Off icial Community Plans in the Juan de Fuca Electoral Area that are consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy. The Official Community Plans will identify how they are consistent with the objectives and policies of the Regional Growth Strategy. l-5. Establish a mechanism t0 ensure that the vision, goals and objectives of the Regional Growth Strategy cascade to Capital Regional District plans, bylaws, services, funding applications and spending. 33 CRD Regionol Growth Strotegy t-6 Coordinate the review and update of regional planning documents to inform future updates to the Regional Growth Strategy and guide CRD action on housing, transportation, regional district services, parks and natural areas and economic development. Documents may include, but are not limited to: a Housing Affordability Strategy a Regional Transportation Plan a Pedestrian and Cycling Master Plan a Liquid Waste Management Plan a lntegrated Watershed Management Plan a Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan a Regional Parks Strategic Plan a Food and Agriculture Strategy. a Climate Action Strateqy. t-7 lmplement the Regional Growth Strategy without prejudice to any aboriginal rights or title that may currently exist, or be defined further through treaty or other processes. The Board will do this with the full recognition that Capital Region First Nations have asserted within their traditional teritories, aboriginal rights and title and treaty rights currently undergoing formal definition through the modern treaty and other processes. The Board recognizes that First Nations Councils are neighbouring governments in the Capital Region, with a shared interest in managing long term development to enhance regional quality of life. t-8. Coordinate with the Cowichan Valley Regional District and the lslands Trust to ensure that long term planning and development policies and initiatives in those jurisdictions are compatible with the vision and objectives of the Capital Region's Regional Growth Strategy. l-9 The Capital Regional District will work with the Province, agencies such as the Vancouver lsland Health Authority and BC Transit, and the federal government t0 coordinate implementation of the Regional Growth Strategy while respecting the authority of each jurisdiction. . At the time of writing, the Food and Agriculture Strategy and the Climate Action St¡¿tegy are under development. CRD Regionol Growth Strotegy 34 TABLE 2: 2038 TARGETS BY PR|ORIïY AREA AND OBJECTIVE ' PRIORITY AREA 0BJECTTVE TARGETS BY 2038 1) Managing and 1.1 Keep Urban Settlement a Accommodate a minimum of 950/o of the region's new Balancing Growth Compact dwelling units within the Growth Policy Area. 1.2 Protect the lntegrity of Rural Communities 2) Environment and 2.1 Protect, Conserve and a Acquire 1000/o of the sea-to-sea green/blue belt. a I nfrastructure Manage Ecosystem Complete 1000/o of the Regional Trail Network. He¿lth a Reduce contaminants to fresh and marine water bodies 2.2 Deliver Seryices a Prepare long-term capital plans for Capital Regional District Consistent with RGS utilrties and major infrast¡ucture improvements necessary 0bjectives to ¿ddress the impacts of climate chançe and natu¡al haza rds. 3) Housing and 3.1 Create Safe and a Municipal targets fo¡ the number of people living in Community Complete Communities complete communities to be identified by municipalities in Regional Context Statements. 3.2 lmprove Housing o lncTease the supply of more affordable housinç. Aff ordability o Reduce the number of people in core housinç need . Reduce the number of people who are homeless.a 4) Transportation 4.1 lmprove Multi-Modal a Achieve a transpoûation system that sees 420k of all trips Connectivity and made by walking, cycling, transrt. Mobility 5) Economic 5.1 Realize the Region's a Achieve a jobs/population ratio of Development Economic Potential - 0.60 in Core Area - 0.53 in Saanich Peninsula - 0.36 in West Shore 6) Food Systems 6.1 Foster ¿ Resilient Food a lncre¿se the amount of land in crop production by 5,000 and Agriculture System ha. 7) Climate Action 7.1 Significantly reduce a Reduce communtty greenhouse gas emissions by 330/0 community-based (from 2007 levels) by 2020, and by 610/0 by 2038. 4 Numeric targets will be identified in an updated Regional Housing Affordability Strategy. At the time of writing, the tarçets in the approved Regional Housinç Affordability Strategy are inconsistent with the legislated timeline of the Regional Growth Stiategy. 35 CRD Regionol Growth Sttotegy PRIORITY AREA 0BJECTTVE TARGETS BY 2038 greenhouse gas emissions a/ CRD Regionol Growth Strotegy JO Appendix A: Community Profiles Spanning coastal, forest and agricultural landscapes, communities in the capital region range from seaside towns to rural farms, to suburban and downtown neighbourhoods. This diversity is our strength. Residents can access a variety of lifestyles thanks to the commitments of municipalities and the Juan de Fuca Electoral Area to protect and perpetuate our natural environments and to foster shared regional amenities and resources. This is made possible by our communities working together as a region, creating a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. The Regional Growth Strategy champions a collaborative approach to realizing our vision and objectives. lt supports decision-making that takes a regional perspective while valuing the community characteristics of the 13 local municipalities and theJuan de Fuca Electoral Area. Communlty profiles/vision statements are described below. Central Saanich The community of Central Saanich, including the Tsartlip and Tsawout First Nations, spans the centre of the Peninsula. The municipality includes the greatest concentration of agricultural production in the region, along with light industrial land, residential areas with rural and suburban character, and compact village centres. ln order to maintain rural character and protect the function of natural ecosystems, slow and managed growth is accepted within defined urban settlement areas and outside of rural and agricultural lands. The intensification of high quality knowledge-based and light industrial business and industrial growth is encouraged in the Keating lndustrial area. colwood Colwood will become a more urban community while retaining its exceptional heritage resources and natural areas. Colwood Corners is transformed into an attractive, welcoming town centre. Royal Bay, Olympic View and Colwood Corners have expanded as complete communities. Hatley Park Estate is the home of Royal Roads University and features extensive public open space. Esquimalt Esquimalt exhibits a more sustainable model of urban development where the quality of the natural and built environment passed on to the next generation is healthier than at present. Through infrastructure investment and redevelopment, Esquimalt Road will transition into a vibrant, urban environment. lt is Esquimalt's intention to strengthen its commercial/retail 37 CRD Regionol Growth Strotegy sector to service the expanding needs of the community and to market our central location to businesses and high-tech industries. The Esquimalt graving dock and CFB/BFC Esquimalt are an important contributor to the regional economy. Highlands The Highlands will continue to preserve large areas of natural green space protecting elements of the regional ecosystem and providing outdoor recreational opportunities for CRD residents and visitors. Lands retained in a natural state preserve diversity of plant and animal life. Development remains primarily residential on rural acreages or large lots, with no role as an area for urban development. Juan de Fuca Electoral Area IheJuan de Fuca Electoral Area comprises approximately 151,189 hectares or about 610/o of the CRD land area. lt contains significant provincial, regional and locally controlled parks and trail systems, ecological reserves and the CRD Water Supply area. The Rural Resource Lands comprise approximately 132,000 ha or 830/o of land in theJuan de Fuca Electoral Area and is primarily Crown Forest or Private Managed Forest Land. Ihese lands are preserved for renewable resource working landscapes, and provide for natural green space and outdoor recreational and eco-tourism opportunities for residents and visitors to the Capital Region. Port Renfrew, a tourism and forestry based community provides for small-lot tourism- oriented urban development. Five small community areas, East Sooke, Otter Point, Malahat, Shirley/Jordan River and Willis Point maintain the rural character while providing rural residential choices. langford The City of Langford has a cohesive town centre with pedestrian areas, commercial districts, and convenient vehicle access, providing a central community focus and an enhanced regional role. An 0pen space system made up of treed areas, lakes and streams links and defines neighbourhoods. Metchosin Metchosin is a community of rural character with a choice of rural lifestyles. The vibrant and locally-supported agricultural industry continues to thrive and diversify with a range of products and organic crops. Our natural areas, shorelines, sensitive ecosystems and biodiversity are valued, preserved and protected. There is an expanded system of local and regional parks and natural open spaces linked with multi-use trails, along with improved access to shoreline areas, allowing increased recreational opportunities and fosteiing active healthy lifestyles. Metchosin village continues to be the community hub and primary CRD Regionol Growth Strotegy 3B commercial centre for local businesses and retaileis, with some limited room for expansion Metchosin's rural character is an integral component of, and valued contributor to the broader complete regional community. North Saanich Situated in the northerly tip of the Saanich Peninsula approximately 27 kilometres north of downtown Victoria, the District of North Saanich is a collection of coastal focused neighbourhoods which surround agricultural lands. The community's long term development plans are based on the desire of residents to retain rural charactel and safeguard environmental qualities. The District's policies reflect a strong commitment to preserve the agricultural land base and agricultural activities in the municipality. Oak Bay Oak Bay continues to be a green, landscaped, quiet residential community with a mix of housing types and neighbourhood commercial centres with a special emphasis on heritage preservation. 0ak Bay village is a strong shopping area and the historical, cultuial, community and business core of the municipality. Public access to waterfront amenities including clean safe beaches is maximized. Saanich Environmental integrity is paramount to ensuring social wellbeing and economic vibrancy Saanich remains a series of community focused neighbourhoods, within an urban containment boundary that clearly separates the urban area from the rural portion of the municipality. This growth framework is based on principles of sustainability and livability. Rural Saanich forms part of the peninsula farm lands. Population incteases are managed within the context of the local area planning process, where land use, density and development policies direct growth to "Centres" and "Villages" to build complete communities that encourage diversity of lifestyle, housing, economic and cultural oppoitunities. Sidney Sidney remains the commercial centre for the north Peninsula and the economic competitiveness of Sidney is maintained and enhanced. Commercial/industrial lands are available and there are growing knowledge-based industries. Orientation between the town and the ocean is strong, including enhanced ocean-side amenities. 39 CRD Regionol Growth Strotegy 5ooke Sooke, located on the Sooke Harbour and Basin, will become a complete, vibrant community with a mix of businesses, affordable housing, services and public open spaces. The highest population densities and commercial growth occur in the Town Centre, serving the growing population base and the surounding coastal communities. Residential growth will continue within the designated Community Growth Area. Large parcel sizes will maintain the rural ambiance, and limit the development outside the town's core. Victoria Victoria is an urban sustainability leader inspiring innovation, pride and progÍess towards greater ecological integrity, livability, economic vitality, and community resiliency confronting the changes facing society and the planet today and for generations to come, while building on Victoria's strengths as a harbour-centred, historic, capital city that provides exceptional quality of life through a beautiful natural setting, walkable neighbourhoods of unique character, and a thriving Downtown that is the heart of the region. View Royal View Royal will have a series of economic centres providing expanded retail, professional financial and convenience services. Single family detached housing will remain the predominant housing form with some provision made for other types of housing. A network of foot and cycle paths will provide neighbourhoods with access to shopping, recreation and natural open space. Natural amenities associated with sholelines, streams, estuaries, hillsides and forested areas will be protected. CRD Regionol Growth Strotegy 40 Appendix B: Framework for Our Future Guiding Princ¡ples 0nJuly 15,1998 the Capital Regional Distrlct Board resolved to adopt lhe Fromeworkfor )ur Future Agreement to guide the development of a regional growth strategy for the Capital Region. The Framework Agreement provided general guiding principles for the preparation of the Regional Growth Strategy.Over 15 years later, in 2016, this framework endures as the foundation of the Regional Growth Strategy. 1. The Capital Region's Growth Management Strategy is based on four fundamental principles: Sustainability: actions t0 meet our needs today do not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their needs, and ensure the ongoing healthy functioning of the natural systems that sustain life. Appropriateness: actions are appropriate to the aspirations and local conditions of the Capital Region, and do not simply reflect the uncritical application of ideas developed for other places and situations. Continuity: the strategy will build on workthat has already been undertaken by the Capital Regional District and its member municipalities, and will consider the thoughts and ideas contributed by individual residents and community associations. Cooperation, (ollaboration and Coordination: the Capital Regional District, local municipalities, provincial ministries and agencies, and regional resldents will work together to develop and implement the strategy. First Nations, the lslands Trust, and the Cowichan Valley Regional Distrlct are neighbouring governments and will be invited to participate. 2. ln addition, the development and evaluation of alternative solutions will pay due regard to the following 14 provincial goals set out in the tocol Government Act: a. Avoid urban sprawl; b. Minimize automobile use and encourage walking, cycling and efficient public transit; c. Move goods and people efficiently, making effective use of transportation and utility corridors; d. Protect environmentally sensitive ôreôs; e. Maintain a secure and productive resource base, Including the agricultural land tESEiV€; 41 CRD Regionol Growth Strotegy f. Encourage economic development that supports the unique character of communities; g. Reduce and prevent air, land and water pollution; h. Ensure adequate, affordable and appropriate housing; i. Ensure adequate inventories of suitable land and resources for future settlement; j. Protect the quality and quantity of ground and surface water; k. Minimize the risks to settlement associated with natural hazards; L Preserve, create and link urban and rural open space including parks and recreation ô[e ôs; m. Plan for energy supply and promote efficient use, conservation and alternative sources of energy; and, n. Ensure good stewardship of land, sites and structures with cultural heritage value. CRD Regionol Growth Strotegy 42 Apper¡dix C: The Regional Gre enlBlue Spaces Vision Ihe Green/Blue Spaces Strategy set out a comprehensive, long-term strategy for maintaining, conserving, iehabilitating and restoring green/blue spaces on public and private lands in the region, including areas with ecological, aesthetic, renewable resource, outdoor recreation and greenways values. The Board adopted the Green/Blue Spaces vision on November 26, 1997 as a guide for the preparation of the 2003 Regional Growth Strategy. This vision - Our Essential Nature - formed paft of lhe Fromework for )ur Future Agreement .1998 adopted by the Board onJuly 15, to guide the development of the Regional Growth Strategy. The Regional Green/Blue Spaces Strategy has been superseded by subsequent planning initiatives such as the Regional Parks Strategic Plan, the lntegrated Watershed Management Program Plan, the Regional Parks Land Acquisition Strategy and park management plans for the Sooke Hills Wilderness and Sea to Sea Regional Parks. fhere ore times when we just wont to room the Gowllond Ronge ond listen to the sound of otr sttrred up by eogles' wings. 0r stroll the Swon Loke boordwolk ond wotch o fonily of proud ducklings porode post our feet. Then there ore doys when sploshing about wtth our chÌldren Ìn the coo[ cleon woters of Thetis Loke ts the only thing worth doing. 0r moybe it's kicking up the worm, soft sond of Willows Beoch. Perhops it's wolking olong the Colquitz Creek thot mokes lur world clme olive. 0r toking o second, reflective look of 0 r0re old Douglos-fir on the grounds of Royol Roods. Whether it is the postorol splendour of the Soonich Peninsulo Formlonds, or the stork ond wild beouty of the Juon de Fuco coostltne, our obility to oppreciote noture begins with whotever coptivotes 0ur senses. lt then exponds to volues we feel deeply but rorely copture tn words. All of us who live in the Copitol Regionol Dtstrtct cherish the noturol environment thot is so essentiol to our quolity of life, ond we ore determined thot it never be compromised. So olthough we olreody enjoy o diverse network of protected oreos thot stretches from the southern Gulf tslonds to Port Renfrew, we connot be complocent. As the region's populotion conttnues [o grow, we must ensurc 43 CRD Regionol Growth Strotegy thot the stewordship of the noturol environment remotns integral to all forms of urbon, suburbon ond rurol development. But we don't protect noture just so we cln hike, relox ond contemplote. We mus[ olso sofeguord endongered specres ond sensttive ecosystems such os Gorry )ok meodows ond stonds of old growth Douglos-fir. And we need to give Pocific solmon o fightÌng chonce to return fo urbon streoms. To thot end we enviston the development of o regronol green/blue spoce system thot will protect ond motntoin the full ronge ond diversity of the noturol envtronment thot surrounds us, includtng significont green spoces, the morine environment, wetlonds, fish ond wildlife hobttot, ond unique ecosystems. We ore olso committed to protecttng ond motntotning the lost remnonts of ecosystems thot flouilshed here before the tÌme of Coptoin Cook, ond to restore noturol systems we hove oltered. This is neither o pork plon nor o policy document, but o vtston of cooperotive stewordship thot rntegrotes the contilbuttons of cittzens, londowners, businesses, communtties, ond oll levels of government. lt is o vtsion of sustoining fhe essenttol noture of our region, of continuolly creottng ond protecting o livoble ond heolthy clmmunity * ond possrng on thot legocy to future generoltons. Ihe objectives of the Regional Green/Blue Spaces Strategy were to . Conserve rare, threatened or endangered ecosystems and species in the Capital Regional District; . Maintain biological diversity by protecting and enhancing a variety of habitats; ¡ Conserve ecologically valuable areas in large, diverse, contiguous units and connect them with Çreenwô)rs; . Maintain the character and diversity of green/blue spaces in the Capital Regional District; o Enhance and restore areas that could have green/blue space values; . Develop a comprehensive set of priorities for the conservation of green/blue spaces in the Capital Regional District; o Educate people about the value of protecting green/blue spaces in the Capital Regional District; and, . Foster partnerships for the conservation and stewardship of green/blue spaces. CRD RegÌonol Growth Strotegy 44 Appendix D: Glossary Attached housing Any form of housing where more than two individual dwellings are structurally attached including townhouses, apartments regardless of tenure, stacked townhouses and the like. Climate Change A change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity.s Complete Community tvtultiple-use urban community that contains within its boundaries the full range of facilities and activities necessary to meet typical household needs for employment, shopping, personal services, recreation, housing, education and other goods and services. Complete communities typically are defined by what they are not, that is, single-use residential areas that serve a largely dormitory function to a larger centre, with few local opportunities to meet the broad range of household needs described. Core Municipalities The Capital Region sub-region that includes the municipalities of Victoria, Esquimalt, 0ak Bay, Saanich and View Royal. Density A measure of the intensity of occupancy and use of the land, generally described in terms of persons per hectare, or dwelllng units per hectare, or a ratio of the built floor area of a structure to the area of the lot it occupies. Framework For Our Future Agreement An agreement approved by the Capital Regional District Board on July 15, 1998 that set out the scope, overall vision, priority areas and guiding principles for the preparation of the Regional Growth Strategy. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Gases in the earth's atmosphere that absorb and re-emit infrared radiation. These gases occur through both natural and human-influenced processes. GHG emitted through human activities include carbon dioxide (C02), nitrous oxide (N20), methane (CH4), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6). Growth management lmplementation of government regulations that control the type, location, quality, scale, rate, sequence or timing of development. More generally, the whole range of policies designed to control, guide or mitigate the effects of growth. By attempting to guide growth rather than react to its effects, communities engaged in growth management assume a proactive stance in ensuring that the very qualities that attract growth are not destroyed for existing residents and future generations. s Based on the United Nations Framework convention on Climate Change definition 45 CRD Regionol Growth Strotegy Healthy ecosystems Terrestrial, iiparian and shoreline areas with high ecological value that support habitat and biodiversity, support rare, threatened or endangered plant and animal species and contribute to the continued functioning of natural processes such as groundwater infiltration, water purification, air filtration, carbon sequestration and soil nutrient management. Healthy ecosystems could be on developed, partly developed or undeveloped public and private spaces. Housing affordability Generally describes a condition in which housing costs consume n0 more than 300/o of gross household income (unless by choice); including taxes and insurance (for owners) and utilities (for owners and renters). Applies t0 both market and non-market (subsidized) dwellings. lnfrastructure The physical capital and associated services considered basic and necessary to the functioning of the built environment. These include such things as: sanitary sewers, treatment plants, and water pipelines and distribution/collection systems; roads, signals, sidewalks and other components of the transportation system including transit vehicles, ferries and airports; solid waste management facilities including transfer stations and landfills; and, energy supply and distributi0n systems including hydroelectric and natural gas transmission and distribution systems. More generally, infrastructure can refer to other tangible public and private assets necessary to support the development of a modern urban settlement, such as hospitals, schools and recreation facilities. ln some cases, preserved green space and natural areas including forests, wetlands, and stream corridors have been described as a "green infrastructure", essential to the vitality of healthy human communities. Metropolitan Victoria or Victoria Metropolitan Area (VMA) That portion of the Capital Region from, Otter Point in the west to Swartz Bay in the north, defined by Statistics Canada as the Victoria Census Metropolitan Area. Mixed-use Land use regulations that permit a variety of different uses and activities either 0n one legal parcel or within one defined land use zone. The classic example of a mixed use district is a historical downtown core that contains a wide range of residential, business, service, institutional, cultural, recreational and industrial uses within a relatively small area; in many cases, a wide range of different uses within individual buildings or on single sites. Official Community Plan (OCP) Under Section 471 of lhe Locol Government Act, a general statement of the broad objectives and policies of the local government respecting the form and chatacter of existing and proposed land use and servicing requirements in the area covered by the plan. Peninsula The sub-region of the Capital Regional District including the municipalities of Central Saanich, Sidney, and North Saanich. CRD RegÌonol Growth Strotegy 46 Regional Context Statement Under Section 446 oÍ Ihe Locol 1overnment Act, a statement, accepted by the regional district board, included in a municipal official community plan within two years of the adoption of the Regional Growth Strategy, that explains the relationship between the official community plan and the Regional Growth Strategy. Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) Under Part 13 of the Locol Government Act, a regional agreement (including a vision, goals, policies and actions) that commits affected municipalities and regional districts to a course of action to meet common social, economic and environmental objectives. lt is initiated and adopted by a regional district and referred to all affected local governments for acceptance. Regional Multi-Modal tletwork The interconnected transportation corridors defined in the Regional Transportation Plan. The multi-modal network provides for connectivity across modes (walking, cycling, transit and driving) and describes the backbone of the region's transportation system. The corridors that comprise the network are prioritized based on expected demand for two or more transportation modes. Sea to Sea Green/Blue Belt A band of watersheds running between Saanich lnlet and Sooke Basin that includes major parks and Capital Regional District Water lands. Target A desired level of performance set for a specific situation in a plan or program. The time horizon for all targets is 2038. Growth Policy Area Boundary The area contained within a regulatory boundary (an urban containment boundary) marking the limit between a defined urban growth and servicing area and other areas such as rural and Íes0urce areas, where urban growth is discouraged. Walkable ln urban design, a community is walkable when it is scaled, dimensioned and provided with facilities and a mix of uses and activities that make walking an easy, convenient way to get around. A general rule of thumb is that most people will not walk much more than 10 to 15 minutes to shop or reach services such as libraries and schools. To meet this standard, a walkable community would have a shopping and service centre n0 more than 400-600 metres from most residences, with a sidewalk and street environment scaled to be interesting and inviting to people on foot. West Shore The sub-region of the Capital Regional District that includes the municipalities of Colwood, Langford, Metchosin, Highlands, Sooke, and the Juan de Fuca Electoral Area. 47 CRD Regionol Growth Strotegy TOWN OF SIDNEY ì\s REPORT TO COUNCIL TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Bruce DeMaere, Senior Engineering Technician DATE: January 16,2017 FILE: 2376 Ocean Ave (Land) SUBJECT: CRD AND TOWN AGREEMENT FOR NEW MUN¡CIPAL SEWER CONNECTION PURPOSE: To seek Council approval to enter into an agreement with the Capital Regional District (CRD) for a new municipal connection to the CRD's Sewer Trunk Main on Ocean Avenue. BACKGROUND: The Town received an application and has issued the preliminary approval to subdivide 2376 Ocean Avenue into two fee simple lots. A new municipal sewer connection to the CRD's sanitary sewer trunk main on Ocean Avenue is necessary to service the proposed subdivision as the existing Town infrastructure does not provide a suitable depth of seruice and the CRD will not authorize private service connections to their sewer trunk. DISCUSSION: The CRD has prepared an agreement between the CRD and Town of Sidney outlining conditions for connecting to the CRD sewer trunk. The Town is to undertake the connection, with the CRD taking ownership upon its completion. A copy of the agreement is attached as Schedule A. Approval of this agreement is a condition of the CRD granting the municipal sewer connection. The owner of 2376 Ocean Avenue (the "Developed') has retained a Civil Engineer to design the infrastructure and a contactor to install the subdivision's sewer connection, in accordance with CRD requirements. FI NANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The municipal sewer connection designed and installed under this agreement will be completed by the Developer, at no cost to the Town. RECOMMENDATION: That the agreement between the Capital Regional District and the Town for a new municipal sewer connection to the CRD sewer trunk on Ocean Avenue be approved and that the Mayor and Chief Administrative Officer be authorized to execute the agreement. Report to Council Page 2 CRD and Town Aqreement for New Municipal Sewer Connection January 16,2017 Respectfully submitted: Bruce DeMaere, A.Sc.T. Tim Tanton, MPA, P.Eng. Senior Engineering Technician Director of Engineering, Parks & Works ndy Humble, Chief Administrative Officer Schedule A AGREEMENT - CRD AND TOWN OF SIDNEY THIS AGREEMENT dated for reference the day of January,2017. BETWEEN: CAPITAL REGIONAL DISTRICT 625 Fisgard Street Victoria, British Columbia V8W 1 R7 (the "CRD") AND: TOWN OF SIDNEY 2440 Sidney Avenue Sidney, British Columbia V8L 1Y7 ("Sidney") WHEREAS A. By Supplementary Letters Patent, Division Vll dated December 28, 1967, as amended by further Supplementary Letters Patent, the CRD was granted the function of the acquisition, design, construction, operation, maintenance, renewal and administration of trunk sewers and sewage disposal facilities for the area comprised of the lands within the boundaries of The Corporation of the District of Central Saanich, the District of North Saanich and the Town of Sidney. B. The CRD constructed trunk sewer main within the Town of Sidney as shown on CRD Drawing Number 2-S1 19-3. c. The Town of Sidney agrees to construct at its sole cost one new manhole as shown on drawing 301901 attached to this Agreement as Schedule "4" (the "Works") within the Right of Way and the CRD agrees to permit the Town of Sidney to construcl the Works on the terms and conditions set out herein. NOW THEREFORE in consideration of the premises, the mutual covenants herein set forth and the replacement of the Works, the CRD and Sidney covenant and agree, each with the other, as follows: 1.0 DEFINITIONS For the purposes of this Agreement: 1.1 "CRD Facilities" means the wastewater facilities existing within the Town of Sidney dedicated road allowance lying east and south of the Right of Way up to and including the CRD wastewater sewer main and proposed CRD manhole as more particularly shown on the sketch plan attached to this Agreement as Schedule "8" (the "Plan") which facilities will remain the property of the CRD. 1.2 "Sidney Facilities" means the wastewater facilities commencing immediately north of the proposed CRD manhole and extendíng from said manhole. 1.3 "Transfer Point" means the point at which sole ownership and operational responsibility for the wastewater system transfers from the CRD to the Town of Sidney and which, for the purposes of this Agreement, is the point immediately north of the CRD manhole as shown on the Plan. 2 2.0 TRANSFER 2.1 Sidnev's Covenants ln consideration of the payment of $1.00 from Sidney to the CRD, Sidney agrees to design, construct, install and commission, at Sidney's sole cost and to the satisfaction of the CRD, the Works being 1,500 mm diameter manhole on existing wastewater sewer main with a C-18 cast iron frame and cover within the Road Right of Way as shown on drawing 301901, a copy of which is attached hereto as Schedule "A" (the "Works"). 2.2 CRD's Covenants ln consideration of the payment of $1.00 from the CRD to Sidney, CRD: (a) consents to Sidney acting as its agent and invitee for all purposes associated with accessing and using the Right of Way to construct, install and commission the Works; (b) agrees to take possession and ownership of the Works upon completion of construction, installation and commissioning of the Works by Sidney, with exception of asphalt and future asphalt restoration; and, (c) acknowledges the Transfer Point between the CRD Facilities and the Sidney Facilities as defined herein. 3.0 NO REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES REGARDING CONDITION 3.1 The CRD makes no warranty or representation whatsoever regarding the condition of the Sidney Facilities except as expressly set out in this Agreement. 3.2 Sidney makes no warranty or representation whatsoever regarding the condition of the CRD Facilities except as expressly set out in this Agreement 4.0 REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES 4.1 CRD's Representations and Warranties The CRD represents and warrants to Sidney that: (a) the CRD has the authority to enter into this Agreement under lhe LocalGovernment Act (b) the CRD has taken all steps necessary to authorize this Agreement and this Agreement is binding on the CRD; (c) except as expressly disclosed in writing by the CRD to Sidney, there is no litigation or administrative or governmental proceeding or inquiry pending, or to the knowledge of the CRD threatened against or relating to the CRD in relation to either the CRD Facilities or the Sidney Facilities; (d) to the best of the CRD's knowledge and belief, any use, operation or maintenance of the CRD Facilities are in compliance with allapplicable environmental laws. 3 4.2 Sidney's Representations and Warranties Sidney represents and warrants to the CRD that: (a) Sidney has the authority to enter into this Agreement under the Community Charter; (b) Sidney has taken all steps necessary to authorize this Agreement and this Agreement is binding upon Sidney; (c) except as expressly disclosed in writing by the Sidney to CRD, there is no litigation or administrative or governmental proceeding or inquiry pending, or to the knowledge of Sidney threatened against or relating to Sidney in relation the Sidney Facilities; (d) to the best of Sidney's knowledge and belief, any use, operation or maintenance of the Sidney Facilities are in compliance with allapplicable environmental laws. 5.0 INDEMNITY 5.1 Sidney will indemnify and save harmless the CRD from any liability or claim whatsoever arising out of design, construction, installation and commissioning of the Works, howsoever caused providing however that such indemnification will cease upon acceptance in writing of the commissioned Works by CRD. 5.2 The CRD will indemnify and save harmless Sidney from any liability or claim whatsoever arising out of design, construction, installation, commissioning, use and operation of the Works, howsoever caused following acceptance in writing of the commissioned Works by the CRD. 6.0 GENERAL PROVIS¡ONS 6.1 Assiqnment Neither the CRD nor Sidney may assign this Agreement without the consent of the other first had in writing. 6.2 Further Assurances The parties hereto shall execute such further and other documents and do such further and other things as may be necessary to carry out and give effect to the intent of this Agreement. 6.3 Notice All notices required or permitted to be given hereunder shall be in writing and shall be personally delivered to the attention of: a) ln the case of the CRD, the General Manager, lntegrated Water Services; b) ln the case of Sidney, the Municipal Engineer. 6.4 Entire Aqreement This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties hereto and there are no representations or warranties, express or implied, statutory or otherwise, and no agreement collateral hereto other than as expressly set forth or referred to herein. 4 6.5 Waiver Any waiver, express or implied, of any provisions of this Agreement except for an express written waiver or any failure to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not prevent the party not in default from enforcing such provision thereafter. 6.6 Enurement This Agreement shall enure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. 6.7 Captions The captions or headings appearing in this Agreement are inserted for the convenience of reference only and shall not affect the interpretation of this Agreement. 6.8 Law Applicable This Agreement is to be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws applicable in the Province of British Columbia. ¡N WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Agreement. CAPITAL REGIONAL DISTRICT by its authorized sisnat:i.lT: _day or THE TOWN OF SIDNEY by its authorized signatories this _ day of _,2017: 5 Schedule "A" - The Works "t, È n !;È ¡, !" o Ir L{i ¡ iãls ¡ËE '-li !iiiË,!¡ l{¡i ¡É,å!¡E rI ¡¡iË ,åå¡ ÊE¡E 6: I :iåå,iååiËå ¡t d ¡ ã $åå !!E¡¡i;, 2: I Þ 6 E E !Ei;Ë ! 3 IË:I F i z Ëä IÉ I ?å c itFl I ô ? !Ë!!E Illì qã q iiå¡i!¡å¡iËi I i¡ËiiiåiË :!El: 3 ñ Htr i B Á I :!:!; iËiåËiåËiË q I äfr å ä! Ci; å i¡fiilli¡,ii ¡i I lll¡ li ltill¡ I !EËiË!!å!ii!åË â ãËËtå ãË;ËËËËi¡Ë t ' 'öòö' ¡ Ps ai âtþÈ I I TE ¡l lr åü ãe cc È Ëå l¡ Ê ¡, lË Æ \\ :å ._ _l ã u'äs É \- E" ,.!8' t'\t I g: E, å I gr I \\\\il / 3 t à 9 lcRD 2 å õ + 'TOWN OF SIDNEY t.l ,l'l rlil ã¡ ¡; tã 1T 6zå rIcll \ ti It !; q ¡ ,3 P' 1r r $ I õ å Ët /{ ;!;ã é z :3 Iã ra!. uß iili¡i¡r 6 SCHEDULE r'8" - The "Plan" ¡¡ æ[4elres *Jt-, Ocean Ave Wastewater Manhole 02.55 t0 15 Y UTM Zone loN NAo 1981 s Connection Point 0wnership Transfer 0ts(tat¡ftR fhls map is for general l0lormtlo[ orly and my conlaln l0accüræles. CI¿T] Makirg d¡fferen(e...lo$lber oe(embe¡¿016 | 5idneyoc€¿nÄvew¡rewðlerconned¡on.m¡d f gß@rd.þ((¿ TOWN OF SIDNEY l\s REPORT TO COUNCIL TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Randy Humble, Chief Administrative Officer DATE: January 17,2017 SUBJECT: Withdrawalfrom Peninsula & Area Agricultural Gommission PURPOSE: To consider the Town of Sidney's withdrawal from the Peninsula & Area Agricultural Commission (PAAC). BACKGROUND: As per their mandate, PAAC is an advisory committee whose role is to advise the municipalities of Central Saanich, Metchosin, North Saanich, Saanich, Juan de Fuca Electoral Area and Sidney on matters involving agriculture, and to facilitate the development of programs for implementation of the Saanich Peninsula Agricultural Strategy. This Committee was established in 1997/98 at which time Sidney first became a participant. The Town's annual contribution toward PAAC is $325.00 which is used primarily for committee expenses. A new Terms of Reference was created in 2013114 and is attached as Appendix A. Recently, a letter was received from the Co-Chairs of PAAC, requesting the member municipalities' participation in an "Exploratory Bee/Pollinator Habitat Enhancement lnitiative" (refer to Appendix B). Although this may certainly be a worthy initiative for a rural municipality, for staff, it brought to light the question as to why Sidney, a completely urban community, can provide the same level of support as the other more rural communities. DISGUSSION: It is the perspective of staff that Council may wish to consider withdrawing from PAAC for the following reasons: . Of the six member municipalities, Sidney is the only entirely urban community; . Based upon discussions with Sidney's Council Liaison, there are very few, if any, items discussed at PAAC that have any direct impact on Sidney; . Given that very few of the issues / matters discussed at PAAC directly relate to or impact the Town of Sidney, our level of contribution, advice and support to the Committee is limited; and . There are a total of I PAAC meetings annually that require the attendance of Sidney's Council liaison. Given the high level of Council liaison/committee commitments, the Town may be better served directing our focus on other committee priorities. OPTIONS: 1. That Council give consideration to withdrawing from PAAC for the reasons noted above; or Peninsula & Area Agricultural Commission Page2 2. That Gouncil remain a member of PAAC and select a representative from Sidney to participate in an exploratory meeting on how to best establish and manage a regional and/or district Bee Habitat Group. RECOMMENDATION: That Council select Option 1 (That staff be instructed to advise PAAC that the Town of Sidney is withdrawing its Commission membership in PAAC as a sponsoring municipality). Respectfully submitted, ble Chief Adm inistrative Officer Attachments: Appendix A and B APPENDIX A TERMS OF REFERENCE - Revised 2013114 Peninsula & Area Agricultural Gommission PREAMBLE/OVERVIEW: The Peninsula & Area Agricultural Commission (previously known as the Peninsula Agricultural Commission) was created in 1997/98. The Peninsula & Area Agricultural Commission (PAAC) is an advisory body established and funded by the municipalities of Central Saanich, Saanich, North Saanich, Metchosin and Sidney. MANDATE To the provide advice, information and assistance to the Districts of Saanich, Central Saanich, North Saanich, Metchosin, and the Town of Sidney ("the member municipalities"), upon request or proactively, on matters involving agriculture in the areas served by the member municipalities and the region as a whole, and to facilitate the development of programmes for implementation of the Saanich Peninsula Agricultural Strategic Objectives. GOALS/PURPOSE: PAAC has been established to support member municipalities by: > Providing information, options and recommendations to member Councils on agricultural issues referred by the Councils; > Enhancing public education and awareness of agricultural issues; > Advising on issues that could impact agriculture; > lnitiating, developing, and participating in actions and initiatives to advance farming and ag ricultural sustainability; > Acting as a liaison to further the interests of and promote agriculture, and preserve agricultural capability of the areas served; > Providing a link between the member municipalities, the agricultural community, and other levels of government or organizations with agricultural responsibilities. Any change to the Terms of Reference above must be approved by the member municipalities. ...t2 PAAC Terms of Reference (2014) The following Rules of Conduct may be amended by the majority vote of the members: MEMBERSHIP Voting Members: 1. There shall be 12 voting members, appointed by the member municipalities 2. A quorum shall consist of a majority of the voting members * 3. New appointments shall be for a 3-year term. 4. The Chair shall ensure that a public notice is issued annually (before December) seeking new members to fill vacancies on the Commission. *A nominating committee, lead by the Chait shall recommend proposed new members to the member councils, who will in turn appoint the new members. 5 ln composite, the Commission will have competencies required to represent the range of agricultural concerns within the areas served drawing upon experience and knowledge, representative in the agricultural community, including: a Animal Commodity: a representative defined as a farmer who derives a majority of his/her income from animal farming; ¡ Plant Commodity: a repesentative defined as a farmer who derives a majority of his/her income from plant-based farming; . Specialty and Niche Commodity Group: defined as a person having experience of running a "hobby-farm" and practices farming part{ime and/or a person with the experience of developing a growing "niche" or specialty market; 6 Vacancies in the membership will be filled at the time of the annual appointments, or when required. 7. Members must have access to a computer and an e-mail address in order to receive and respond to communications and information including meeting packages. Non-Voting Members: l. One Council-representative appointed by each member municipality. .13 PAAC Terms of Reference (20141- Rules of Gonduct continued Lraisons.' PAAC may also consist of non-voting liaison members, including: - A representative from the Federal Department of Agriculture - A representative from the Provincial Ministry of Agriculture and Lands; - A representative from the ProvincialAgricultural Land Commission; - A representative from the Regional Water Commission; and - Others, as necessary. PAAC may appoint a representative as a liaison on the Saanich Peninsula Water Commission (past or present PAAC member). ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES: The Commission shall nominate and elect annually, at the first meeting following the appointment of new members, a Chair, Vice-Chair and a Treasurer. 2. The chair or vice chair shall officiate at meetings; and 3 ln the absence of the Chair and Vice Chair, the Committee may elect an Acting Chair from those members present at that meeting. 4 The Chair shall ensure that minutes of each meeting are taken, circulated, and approved. 5 The Treasurer shall ensure that a proper record of all receipts and disbursements on behalf of the Commission is maintained. Any two of the Chair, Vice-Chair and Treasurer shall be signatories for the banking affairs of the Commission. MEETINGS AND PROCEDURES: 1. All meetings will be open to the public. 2. The commission will meet monthly throughout the year, with the exception of July, August and December. 3 The date/time/location of meetings will be determined by the members. A meeting may be held in alternate location. 4. Agenda packages will be emailed and/or mailed to Commission members at least one week prior to the meeting. PAAC Terms of Reference (2014) - Rules of Conduct continued 5 Additional meetings may be arranged at the call of the Chair, provided all members are advised in the usual manner, 48 hours in advance of the meeting. REPORTING TO COUNCIL: 1 Minutes of Commission meetings will be distributed, by email, to all member municipalities. 2. Unless otherwise provided, the Commission will report their recommendations: a) directly to the Councils of each member municipality, or, in response to a specific referral, b) to the respective Municipal Council, and a copy thereof provided to all other member municipalities. 3. The Committee will provide a status report to Council annually. This report should include a record of work conducted and an indication of the associated costs attached to the Commission's work including staff resources, and a projection of the budget requirements for upcoming year. CONFLICT OF INTEREST 1 Commission members must abide by the conflict of interest provisions of the Community Charter. 2 Members who have a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in a matter under discussion are not permitted to participate in the discussion of the matter or to vote on a question in respect of the matter. 3 They must declare their conflict and state the general nature of their conflict, and then leave the meeting or that part of the meeting where the matter is under discussion. 4 The member's declaration must be recorded in the minutes, and the Commission member must not attempt in any way, whether before, during or after the meeting, to influence the voting on any question in respect of the matter. Note: Þ Terms of Reference revised and approved by the Member Council 2014 Þ The Rules of Conduct were reviewed and approved by the Commission Members Reformatted March 2016 APPENDIX B Peninsula & Area Agricultural Contmissiott clo Saanich Munícípal Hall 770 Vernon Avenue, Victoria, B.C. VÛX 2W7 Telephone: (250) 475-1775 Fax: QSQ 475-5440 Secretary: lsobel Hoftmann,jW Co-Chairs: Bob Maxwell & Jack Mar January 16,2A17 TO: PAAC Sponsoring Councils Mayor and Council, District of Central Saanich. PAAC Reps: Christopher Graham and Alicia Holman 1903 Mount Newton Cross Road, Saanichton, BC VBM 2Ag Mayor and Council, District of North Saanich PAAC Rep: MurrayWeisenberger 620 Mills Road, North Saanich, BC V8L 5S9. Mayor and Council of Sidney PAAC Rep: Cam Mclennan 2440 Sidney Avenue, Sidney, BC V8L 1Y7 Mayor and Council, District of Saanich PAAC Rep: Vic Derman 770 Vernon Avenue, Victoria, BC VBX 2W7 Mayor and Council, District of Metchosin- PAAC Fleps: Robin Tunnicliffe and Anne Richmond 4450 Happy Valley Fload, Victoria BC V9C 323 Dear Mayors and Councillors: Request for Participalioún an Exploratorv Bee/Pollinator Habitat Enhancement lnitiative On behalf of the Peninsula & Area Agricultural Commission (PAAC), allthe best of wishes for a sustainable New Year and beyond. We apprec¡ate your on-going support. PAAC s very inlerested in looking into a regional bee habitat enhancement initiative. Our main focus is to increase the beneficial floristics 'habitat'on farms and enhance the habitat for bees. Many honey bees are now going hungry in May, July and August. As well, there is a very worrisome decline in most of the insect pollinators. We are also interested in other ruraland urban habítat programs, We are asking that a representative from your Municipality join us in an initial exploratory meeting. This meeting would focus on how to best establish and manage a regional and/or district'Bee Habitat Group' to study the problems, learn solutions and embark on programs. PAAC cannot run a full program, þut can participate. .../2 Mayors and Councillors January 16,2017 Proposed Bee Habital Group Page 2 A second meeling could involve the many bee interest groups in the region and other stakeholders in a conference-style setting to meet the various bee groups, and to discuss and plan an initiative. ln order to take positive steps to address this critical situation for the 2017 growing season, the first meeting hopefully could take place in February /March 2A17 in Central Saanich, with the venue to be announced at a later date. On behalf of the Commission, we thank you for your anticipated interest. Please respond to our Secretary, lsobel Hoffmann, at [email protected] Sincerely /,ffiTa*"--- Robert Maxwelland Jack Mar tuCo-Chairs Peninsula Agricultural Commission. Cc: DerekMasselink,RegionalAgrologist Member Municipalities: Districts of Saanich, Central Saanich, North Saanich & Town of Sidney TOWN OF SIDNEY , BU¡LDING PERMIT REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF DECEMBER 2016 2016 2016 TOTAL THIS MONTH TOTAL THIS YEAB TO DATE NO. OF NO. OF TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION PERMITS $ VALUE NO. OF UNITS PERMITS $ VALUE NO. OF UNITS COMMERCIAL: Commercial - Accessorv Addition Commercial - Addition/Alterations 1 6,000 Commercial - New Commercial - Tenant lmprovements 2 10.000 nla 1.566.500 nla 14 597,000 nla INDIJSTRIAL: lndustrial - Add¡tion/Alterations lndustr¡al - New 40,000 nla lndustrial - Tenant lmprovements 3 32.900 nla INSTITUTIONAL: lnstitutional - Addition/Alterations lnstitutional - New 1 60,000 nla lnstitutional - Tenant lmorovements 3 142.204 nla 2 20,000 nla (36) (23) )EMOLITION/MOVING: 1 nla t1) 40 nla 26 nla ;ENCE PERMITS: 5 16.200 nla 3 5,200 nla VIULTI.FAMILY Additions/Alterations 7 158.800 nla 5 78.334 nla ;-' New t '13Í:i,r,; . 17.800,400 81 '':6.i,. 9.856.342 59 RESIDENTIAL: ^.-8..!.' 2F - New r,141,. .. 6,393,077 28 ., 3,339,647 16 2F - Additions/Alterat¡ons Accessory - NewiAddition 1 12.000 nla Alterations 1 14.000 nla 29 1,01 1,550 nla 23 595.900 nla ;-ri.:B:: Garaqe 1 40.000 nla 77.O00 nla SF - Addition 4 265,000 nla 7 528.050 nla ' i¡r i;ådl\, ..:.::-;i SF - New :i{år: Iì:' 972,993 4 17.699.519 55 9.716.232 34 : ..":.r,1ft,.¡ :,; SF to 2F 1 75.000 1 I 430,000 I 483.500 7 SIGN PLUMBING: 6 nla îla 155 nla nla 141 nla nla SOLID FUEL APPLIANCE: îla nla 2 nla nla FIRE DEPARTMENT: 10 nla nla 15 nla nla BLASTING '| nla nla 14 1.07f .993 4 360 45.614.1¿t6 136 294 25.357.205 93 Revenue: Estimated Budget for 2016 Building Permits 250,000.00 2015 Building Permits - December 2016 13,64t.00 FTNALTOTAL $2s,3s7,205 J- Plus Defened BP Revenue from 2015 48,000.00 Year to Date 461,285.75 .Jt Estimated Budget tor 2016 Demolition Perm¡ts 15,000.00 Demolition Perm¡ts - December 2016 1,000.00 Year to Date 28,500.00 ,':,:i:':ol:.¡4.; ¡.:. - See attached for permits issued lor Councit approved proiects I Revenue from other permits (i.e. plumbing, fireplace, oil tank) 36,885.00 BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED FOR COUNCIL APPROVED PROJECTS CURBENT MONTH . DECEMBER 2015 Buildino Permit Date lssued Construction Value Civic Address Aoolication Details SINGLE-FAMILY - NEW 1 8P104982 DEC 8, 201 6 $ 434,583.00 10125 BOWEBBANK RD DVP to construct a new single-family dwelling with a secondary su¡te 2 8P105035 DEC 19,2016 $ 269,205.00 9627 EIGHTH ST DP, DVP & SA to construct a new singlejamily dwell¡ng (development was to subdivide an ex¡sting property into two lots) 3 8P105036 DEC 19.2016 $ 2Aq 2ôq OO 9625 EIGHTH ST DP, DVP & SA to construct a new s¡nglejamily dwelling (development was to subdivide an existing property ¡nto two lots) $ 972,993.00 YEAR TO DATE Building Permit Date lssued Construction Value Civic Address Apolication Details COMMERCIAL - TENANT IMPBOVEMENT 1 8P104755 MAR24,2016 $ 16,000.00 9891 SEAPORTPL DP to construct a new entry vestibule for V¡ctoria Spirits $ 16,000.00 INDUSTRIAL - NEW 'I 8P104750 MAR 21,2016 $ 40,000.00 2248 HARBOUR RD DP io construct a prefabricated metal induslr¡al building on the property $ 40,000.00 MULTI-FAMILY - NEW 1 8P104552 FEB 2,2016 $ 4,200,000.00 9667 FIBST ST BZ, DP & DVP to construct a 14 unit multi-family development 2 8P104850 JUL 28, 201 6 $ 3,530,000.00 9710 FOURTH ST RZ, DP & DVP to construct a mixed use development wilh 1 1 residenlial units and ground floor commerc¡al 3 8P104867 AUG 18,2016 $ 10,070,400.00 9830 FOURTH ST OCP, RZ, DP & DVP to construct a 5 storey m¡xed use commercial residential development w¡th 56 rental un¡ts & ground floor commercial $ 17,800,400.00 TWO-FAMILY - NEW 1 8P104702 FEB 3,2016 $ 506,502.00 2233 HENRY AVE DVP to construct a new twojamily dwelling 2 BP104688 FEB 23, 201 6 $ 397,051.00 10296 SPABLING PL DVP to construct a new two-family dwelling 3 8P104779 MAY 20, 201 6 $ 575,477.00 9570 IROOUOIS WAY DVP & SA to construct a new two-fam¡ly dwelling (development was to subdivide an existing property into two lots) 4 8P104857 JUN 28,2016 $ 437,817.OO 2034 SEAWIND WAY BZ, DP & DVP to construct a new two-fam¡ly dwelling (development was to subdivide an exisl¡ng property into 37 lo'ts) 5 8P104870 JUN 29,2016 $ 428,152.OO 2028 SEAWIND WAY RZ, DP & DVP to construct a new two-fam¡ly dwelling (development was to subd¡vide an exisl¡ng property ¡nlo 37 lols) 6 8P104981 ocT 13,2016 $ 516,430.00 2025 WHITE BIRCH RD RZ, DP & DVP to construct a new two-fam¡ly dwell¡ng (development was to subdivide an ex¡sting property into 37 lots) 7 8P10499s NOV 18,2016 $ 491,640.00 2049 SEAWIND WAY RZ, DP & DVP to construct a new two-family dwelling (developmenl was to subdivide an ex¡sting property into 37 lots) $ 2,861,429.00 SINGLE.FAMILY - ADDITION 1 BP104770 MAY 6, 2016 $ 30,000.00 2033 SUNFIELD CRESENT DVP to construct the addition of a sunroom $ 30,000.00 SINGLE-FAMILY - NEW '1 8P104644 JAN 6,2016 $ 423,42A.OO 10305 BESTHAVEN DB DP & DVP to construct a new singlejamily dwelling (development was to subdivide an ex¡st¡ng property ¡nto two lots) 2 8P104581 JAN 7,2016 $ 259,467.00 2346 ORCAHBD AVE DP & DVP to conslruct a new singlejam¡ly dwelling (development was to subdivide an exist¡ng property into two lots) 3 8P104683 JAN 8,2016 $ 378,252.OO 10513 RESTHAVEN DR RZ, DP & DVP to construct a new single-family dwelling (development was to subdivide an exist¡ng property into 37 lots) 4 8P104693 JAN 15,2016 $ 337,675.00 10451 MCDONALD PARK RD RZ, DP & DVP to construct a new single-fam¡ly dwelling (development was to subd¡v¡de an existing property into 37 lots) 5 8P104710 JAN 22,2016 $ 295,040.00 2054 SEAWIND WAY RZ, DP & DVP to construct a new single-fam¡ly dwelling (development was to subdivide an existing property into 37 lots) 6 8P104711 JAN 29,2016 $ 234,059.00 2044 SEAWIND WAY RZ, DP & DVP to construct a new s¡ngle-Tamily dwelling (development was to subdivide an ex¡sting property into 37 lots) 7 8P104712 FEB 5,2016 $ 334,059.00 2O4O SEAWIND WAY RZ, DP & DVP to construct a new singleJamily dwelling (development was to subdiv¡de an existing property into 37 lots) I 8P104716 FEB 5,2016 $ 337,675.00 10507 BESTHAVEN DR RZ, DP & DVP to construct a new s¡ngle-family dwelling (development was to subd¡vide an existing property into 37 lots) I 8P104718 FEB 5,2016 $ 327,692.00 2379 BRETHOUR AVE DVP to construct a new single-fam¡ly dwell¡ng 10 8P104733 FEB 23,2016 $ 298,330.00 10431 MCDONALD PARK RD RZ, DP & DVP to construct a new s¡ngle-fam¡ly dwelling (development was to subdivide an ex¡st¡ng property into 37 lots) 11 8P104734 FEB 23,2016 $ 360,355.00 10461 MCDONALD PARK RD RZ, DP & DVP to construct a new single-family dwell¡ng (development was to subdiv¡de an existing property into 37 lots) 't2 8P104739 FEB 23, 2016 $ 334,059.00 2029 WHITE BIRCH BD RZ, DP & DVP to construct a new single-fam¡ly dwelling (development was io subdivide an ex¡st¡ng property into 37 lots) 13 8P104740 MAR 11,2016 $ 337,675.00 10441 MCDONALD PARK BD RZ, DP & DVP io construct a new s¡ngle-family dwelling (development was to subdiv¡de an existing property ¡nto 37 lots) 14 8P1Q4745 MAR 11,2016 $ 360,355.00 10421 MCDONALD PARK RD BZ, DP & DVP to conslruct a new single-family dwelling (development was to subd¡vide an exisling property into 37 lots) 15 8P104753 MAR 11,2016 $ 310,914.00 2045 SEAWND WAY RZ, DP & DVP to construct a new single-fam¡ly dwelling (development was to subdivide an existing property into 37 lots) '16 8P104756 MAB 30,2016 $ 334,059.00 2033 WHITE BIRCH RD RZ, DP & DVP to construct a new single-family dwelling (developmenl was to subdiv¡de an existing property into 37 lots) 17 8P104723 APR 01, 2016 $ 290,480.00 10420 ALLBAY RD RZ & SA to construct a new single-fam¡ly dwelling (development was to subdivide an ex¡sting property into two lots) 18 8P104769 APR 07,2016 $ 493,646.00 2557 BEAUFORT RD DVP to construci a new single-family dwell¡ng 19 8P104773 APR 12,2016 $ 360,355.00 10471 MCDONALD PARK RD RZ, DP & DVP to construct a new single-family dwelling (development was to subdivide an existing property ¡nto 37 lots) Page 1 of 2 )o BP104778 APR 20, 2016 497,457.00 2529 GODDARD RD RZ & SA to construct a new s¡ngle-family dwelling (development was to subdivide an eisting property into two lots) 21 8P 1 04791 APR 22,2016 245,O40.OO 2045 WHITE BIRCH RD RZ, DP & DVP to construc,t a new s¡ngle-family dwelling (development was to subd¡vide an exist¡ng property into 37 lots) 22 BP1 04798 {PR22,2016 327,O40.OO 2049 WHITE BIRCH RD RZ, DP & DVP to construct a new single-family dwelling (development was to subdivide an existing property into 37 lots) 23 BP1 04799 {PR22,2016 327,040.OO 2041 WHITE BIRCH RD RZ, DP & DVP to construct a new single-family dwelling (development was to subdivide an existing property ¡nto 37 lots) 24 BP104742 MAY 16,2016 621,922.OO 9637 FIRST STREET DVP to construct a new single-family dwell¡ng 25 8P104752 MAY 31 , 201 6 266,724.00 2066 SEAWIND WAY RZ, DP & DVP to construct a new singlejamily dwell¡ng (development was to subdivide an exist¡ng property ¡nto 37 lots) 26 8P104801 JUN 7,2016 286,706.00 10420 ALLBAY RD RZ to construct a new single-family dwelling (development was to subdivide an existing property ¡nto two lots) 27 BP10¿1841 JUN 10,2016 262,307.00 2205 JAMES WHITE BLVD DP & DVP to construct a new single{amily dwelling (development was to subdivide an existing property ¡nto three lots) 28 BP1 04843 JUN 10,2016 248,174.00 2201 JAMES WHITE BLVD DP & DVP to construct a new single-family dwell¡ng (development was 10 subd¡v¡de an existing property ¡nto three lots) 29 BP104842 JUN 15,2016 222,917.00 2203 JAMES WHITE BLVD DP & DVP to construct a new single-family dwell¡ng (development was to subdiv¡de an exist¡ng property ¡nto three lots) 30 BP1 04871 JUN 29, 201 6 316,830.00 2037 WHITE BIRCH BD RZ, DP & DVP to construct a new singleJamily dwell¡ng (development was to subd¡vide an existing property into 37 lols) 31 8P104934 AUG 29,2016 230,1 1 5.00 9620 FOUBTH ST DP & DVP to construct a new singlejamily dwell¡ng (development was to subd¡v¡de two existing properties into four lots) 32 BP1 04938 sEP 6, 20.16 320,509.00 9614 FOUBTH ST DP & DVP to construct a new single-family dwell¡ng (development was to subd¡vide two existing properties into four lots) 33 BP1 04959 sEP 26, 2016 319,655.00 9616 FOURTH ST DP & DVP to construct a new single-family dwelling (development was to subd¡v¡de two existing properties into four lots) 34 BP1 04960 sEP 26, 2016 222,067.00 9618 FOURTH ST DP & DVP to construct a new single-family dwelling (developmerìt was to subd¡vide two existing propert¡es into four lots) 35 8P104982 DEC 8,2016 434,583.00 10125 BOWERBANK RD DVP to conslruct a new s¡nglè-fam¡ly dwelling with a secondary suite 36 8P105035 DEC 19,2016 269,205.00 9627 EIGHTH ST DP, DVP & SA to construct a new singleJamily dwelling (development was to subdivide an ex¡st¡ng property irûo two lots) 37 8P105036 DEC 19,2016 269_205.OO 9625 EIGHTH ST DP, DVP & SA to construct a new s¡ngle-family dwelling (development was to subdiv¡de an exisl¡ng property into two lots) $ 12,09s,071 .00 Lêgend: ocP Otlicial Community Plan Amendm€nt Application Rz RêzoningAmendmêntApplication oP Dêvelopm€nl Perm¡t Appl¡cal¡on ovP Developñ€ñl Va¡iance Pemit Applicat¡on sA SubdivisionAppl¡cat¡on Monthly rcpoils of the Town's Building PeÌmit aØ¡cat¡ons rcce¡ved and Bu¡ld¡ng Perm¡ts ¡ssued arc ava¡lable upon rcquest. Contact the Development SeN¡ces Depaftment at developmentsev¡ces@s¡dney.ca or 25ù656.1725 il you are interested in rece¡v¡ng these repofts monthly. Page 2 of 2 Paula kully o From: Marie Savage To the Mayor and Council Thank you for re-opening the discussion of bonus density. I believe bonus density is an excellent way to achieve amenity goals for the town. That said, I see that there may be a discussion of a housing contribution. W¡th today's increasing housing costs, this may seem like a good idea but the reality is the contribution is unlikely to create enough of a fund to create any housing. There are other ways to increase affordable housing, íncluding offering incentives to homeowners to create secondary suites. My recommendation would be to look at amenity contr¡butions for things of immediate and significant value to the town. Best regards, Marie Savage L0301 Bowerbank Road Sidney, BC VgL 312 D EGEIVE JAN 1 7 2817 TOWI{ OF SIDNEY rile No. 'Åc. iJ Vla or{r,) ¡iuryti¡:i : lf ìaf l,le :-lev Se :-al fS irL_itll!{r vvoi-K5 1 Sandi Nelson From: Sandi Nelson Sent: Tuesday, January 17,2017 2:09 PM To: '[email protected]' Subiect: Correspondence to Council - Regarding Bonus Density To Marie Savage: This response is to confirm that your email, of January L6,2OL7 , regarding bonus density has been received Your comments and suggestions have been acknowledged. Thank you for taking the time to write to the Town SandiNelson Corporate Officer TOWN OF SIDNEY 2440 Sidney Avenue, Sidney, BC V8L 1Y7 250-656-1139 | 250-655-5402 | [email protected] I www.sidneV.ca ,r, 'ii,:.: .,r / Ilgttr -> 1