City of Maple Ridge

COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA December 7, 2015 9:00 a.m. Blaney Room, 1st Floor, City Hall

The purpose of the Council Workshop is to review and discuss policies and other items of interest to Council. Although resolutions may be passed at this meeting, the intent is to make a consensus decision to send an item to Council for debate and vote or refer the item back to staff for more information or clarification. The meeting is live streamed and recorded by the City of Maple Ridge.

REMINDERS

December 7, 2015 Closed Council following Workshop Committee of the Whole Meeting 1:00 p.m.

December 8, 2015 Public Hearing 6:00 p.m. Council Meeting following Public Hearing

1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

2. MINUTES

2.1 Minutes of the November 16, 2015 Council Workshop Meeting

2.2 Minutes of Meetings of Committees and Commissions of Council • Agricultural Advisory Committee – October 22, 2015 • Community Heritage Commission – November 3, 2015 • Public Art Steering Committee – September 29, 2015

2.3 Business Arising from Committee and Commission Minutes

3. PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL

3.1

Council Workshop December 7, 2015 Page 2 of 4

4. MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS’ REPORTS

5. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS

5.1 Maple Ridge Community Amenity Program 9:15 – 10:00 a.m.

Staff report dated December 7, 2015 recommending that feedback be obtained on Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7188-2015, a Council policy be drafted and a summary of input be provided in a future report.

5.2 Crime Free Multi-Housing Program 10:00 – 10:30 a.m.

Staff report dated December 7, 2015 recommending that Maple Ridge Business Licencing and Regulation Bylaw No. 6815-2011 be amended to revise base licence fees for buildings certified under the Crime Free Multi-Housing Program.

5.3 Medical Marihuana Dispensaries 10:30 – 11:30 a.m.

Staff report dated December 7, 2015 providing information on the medical marihuana legislation, the legal history of dispensaries and implications for bylaw enforcement and presenting options for consideration.

5.4 Trail Infrastructure 11:30 – 12:00 p.m.

Presentation by the Director of Parks and Facilities

5.5 Hospital Parking

Discussion by Council

Legal opinion dated June 5, 2013 from Young Anderson providing information on the City’s authority to regulation parking fees at the Ridge Meadows Hospital attached for reference.

6. CORRESPONDENCE

The following correspondence has been received and requires a response. Staff is seeking direction from Council on each item. Options that Council may consider include:

a) Acknowledge receipt of correspondence and advise that no further action will be taken. b) Direct staff to prepare a report and recommendation regarding the subject matter. c) Forward the correspondence to a regular Council meeting for further discussion. d) Other.

Once direction is given the appropriate response will be sent. Council Workshop December 7, 2015 Page 3 of 4

6.1 Upcoming Events

December 10, 2015 Parks & Leisure Services and Vancouver Foundation 6:30 pm Partnership Launch – Maple Ridge Arts Centre Theatre Organizer: Vancouver Foundation and MRPM Parks and Leisure Services December 12, 2015 Bright Nights – Stanley Park 3:00 pm Organizer: International Association of Fire Fighters December 18, 2015 Holiday Train – Haney Station 6:00 pm Canadian Pacific

7. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL

8. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT

9. ADJOURNMENT

Checked by: ______Date: ______

Council Workshop December 7, 2015 Page 4 of 4

Rules for Holding a Closed Meeting

A part of a council meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to one or more of the following:

(a) personal information about an identifiable individual who holds or is being considered for a position as an officer, employee or agent of the municipality or another position appointed by the municipality; (b) personal information about an identifiable individual who is being considered for a municipal award or honour, or who has offered to provide a gift to the municipality on condition of anonymity; (c) labour relations or employee negotiations; (d) the security of property of the municipality; (e) the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements, if the council considers that disclosure might reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality; (f) law enforcement, if the council considers that disclosure might reasonably be expected to harm the conduct of an investigation under or enforcement of an enactment; (g) litigation or potential litigation affecting the municipality; (h) an administrative tribunal hearing or potential administrative tribunal hearing affecting the municipality, other than a hearing to be conducted by the council or a delegate of council (i) the receiving of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose; (j) information that is prohibited or information that if it were presented in a document would be prohibited from disclosure under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act; (k) negotiations and related discussions respecting the proposed provision of a municipal service that are at their preliminary stages and that, in the view of the council, could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality if they were held in public; (l) discussions with municipal officers and employees respecting municipal objectives, measures and progress reports for the purposes of preparing an annual report under section 98 [annual municipal report] (m) a matter that, under another enactment, is such that the public may be excluded from the meeting; (n) the consideration of whether a council meeting should be closed under a provision of this subsection of subsection (2) (o) the consideration of whether the authority under section 91 (other persons attending closed meetings) should be exercised in relation to a council meeting. (p) information relating to local government participation in provincial negotiations with First Nations, where an agreement provides that the information is to be kept confidential.

2.1 Council Workshop Meeting Minutes

2.1 City of Maple Ridge

COUNCIL WORKSHOP MINUTES

November 16, 2015

The Minutes of the City Council Workshop held on November 16, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. in the Blaney Room of City Hall, 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, British Columbia for the purpose of transacting regular City business.

PRESENT

Elected Officials Appointed Staff Mayor N. Read P. Gill, Acting Chief Administration Officer/General Councillor C. Bell Manager Corporate and Financial Services Councillor K. Duncan K. Swift, General Manager of Community Development, Councillor B. Masse Parks and Recreation Services Councillor G Robson F. Quinn, General Manager Public Works and Development Councillor T. Shymkiw Services Councillor C. Speirs C. Marlo, Manager of Legislative Services Other Staff as Required D. Pollock, Municipal Engineer R. McNair, Manager of Bylaw and LIcencing Services R. Stott, Environmental Planner C. Goddard, Manager of Development and Environmental Services C. Carter, Director of Planning

Note: These Minutes are posted on the City Web Site at www.mapleridge.ca Councillor Robson was not in attendance at the start of the meeting.

1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

The agenda was adopted as circulated.

2. MINUTES

2.1 Minutes of the October 19, 2015 and the November 2, 2015 Council Workshop Meeting

R/2015-493 It was moved and seconded That the minutes of the October 19, 2015 and the November 2, 2015 Council Workshop Meetings be adopted.

CARRIED

Council Workshop Minutes November 16, 2015 Page 2 of 7

2.2 Minutes of Meetings of Committees and Commissions of Council • Maple Ridge Community Heritage Commission – October 6, 2015 • Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows Parks & Leisure Services Commission – September 10, 2015 • Maple Ridge Social Planning Advisory Committee – October 7, 2015

R/2015-494 It was moved and seconded That the minutes of the October 6, 2015 Maple Ridge Community Heritage Commission, the September 10, 2015 Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows Parks & Leisure Services Commission and the October 7, 2015 Maple Ridge Social Planning Advisory Committee be received.

CARRIED

3. PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL – Nil

4 MAYOR’S AND COUNCILLORS’ REPORTS

Note: Councillor Robson arrived at 9:05 a.m.

Councillor Speirs Councillor Speirs reported on his attendance at the LIFTS Canada Forum in Vancouver.

Councillor Masse Councillor Masse provided an explanation of why he missed recent Council Workshop meetings. He mentioned the good work done by the GP for Me Initiative campaign to attract family doctors to Maple Ridge. Councillor Masse met with the Information Tech Network at WorkHere, advised on an upcoming meeting with the University of the Fraser Valley and attended a presentation on creating resilience in kids

Councillor Bell Councillor Bell attended an Arts Council meeting. She reported that concern was expressed pertaining to the decision to terminate the Joint Parks Agreement between Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows. She also attended a meeting of the Seniors Society and reported on the seniors’ concerns pertaining to funding. Councillor Bell provided information on the upcoming CivX 2015 seminar. She advised that she will be attending upcoming UBCM meetings and encouraged attendance at Christmas Haven fundraising event. She attended a Help Portrait fundraiser.

Council Workshop Minutes November 16, 2015 Page 3 of 7

Councillor Robson Councillor Robson advised that he has been hearing concerns from groups about the termination of the Joint Parks Agreement. He expressed concern that the public was not given notice of the presentation by Metro Vancouver.

Councillor Shymkiw Councillor Shymkiw attended a GP for Me meeting, a regional Fraser Health meeting and a meeting of the Parks and Leisure Services Commission and. He had an opportunity to speak at the Dawali Festival of Lights event.

Councillor Duncan Councillor Duncan attended a Council of Councils meeting and a Creative Cities Network Conference in Kelowna with members of the Public Art Steering Committee. She toured the Katzie Slough and participated in the Ghost Ridge Haunted House. Councillor Duncan provided an update on the Strong Kids Team forum.

Councillor Masse provided an update on Metro Vancouver’s Climate Action Plan

Mayor Read Mayor Read had a meeting with the Home Show organizer to discuss concerns over parking. She also met with Carol Todd, Amanda Todd’s mother, to speak about the Strong Kids Team. She provided details of items she is working on for the Strong Kids Team. Mayor Read reported that she will be speaking at the Meadow Ridge Rotary on the topic of residential schools and will be presenting at the BC Affordable Housing Conference. She advised that the City of Maple Ridge received awards of excellence from NAIOP. The Mayor met with ICC, a company which delivers Microsoft certification through Maple Ridge secondary schools, and with Parks user groups.

5. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS

5.1 Transportation Plan

Presentation by the Municipal Engineer

The Municipal Engineer gave a power point presentation covering the following topics: • Strategic Transportation Plan Implementation including the background, components, strategies, implementation and funding for the plan • Key Initiatives Requiring Federal/Provincial Support • Pedestrian Crossings • Town Centre Initiatives • Traffic Calming Update Council Workshop Minutes November 16, 2015 Page 4 of 7

R/2015-495 It was moved and seconded That the agenda be revised to deal with Item 5.2 following Item 5.3.

CARRIED

Discussion of the different aspects of the Transportation Plan will take place at Council Workshop meetings in early 2016.

Note: Item 5.2 was dealt with following Item 5.3

5.2 Remedial Action for the Removal of the Large Shipping Container located at 21504 121 Avenue, Maple Ridge

Staff report dated November 16, 2015 recommending that the large shipping container located at 21504 121 Avenue be declared a nuisance and the owner of the property be required to remove the container within 30 days.

R/2015-496 It was moved and seconded NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved:

That the large shipping container located on the property at 21504 121 Avenue, and legally described as PID 000-467-201, Lot 228, District Lot 245, Group 1, New Westminster Plan 63237 (the “Property”) is declared a Nuisance as defined within Section 74(1)(d) of the Community Charter.

Council therefore resolves that within thirty (30) days of receiving a copy of this resolution, the Owner of the Property is required to perform the following Remedial Action requirements:

• Remove the unauthorized large shipping container from the subject property.

CARRIED

Note: Item 5.3 was dealt with following Item 5.1

5.3 Update on Proposed Tree Protection and Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015

Staff report dated November 16, 2015 providing an update on the recent consultation with citizens on the proposed Tree Protection and Management Bylaw and an overview of key issues and next steps.

The Environmental Plan gave a Power Point presentation that provided an overview of the consultation process and the next steps towards adoption of the bylaw. Council Workshop Minutes November 16, 2015 Page 5 of 7

R/2015-497 It was moved and seconded That the report entitled “Update on Proposed Tree Protection and Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015”, dated November 16, 2015 be received for information. CARRIED

Council requested the bylaw be referred to the Maple Ridge Community Heritage Commission and the Environmental Committee.

Note: The meeting was recessed at 12:37 p.m., and reconvened at 3:23 p.m. Councillor Speirs was not in attendance when the meeting reconvened.

5.4 Recommendations re: Council Advisory Committees

Report from the Advisory Committee Task Force dated November 16, 2015 providing information on the recommendations of the Task Force.

The Mayor reviewed the report

R/2015-498 It was moved and seconded That the report from the Advisory Committee Task Force dated November 16, 2015 be received for information.

CARRIED

Note: The meeting recessed at 3:40 p.m. and reconvened on November 17, 2015 at 4:00 p.m.

5.5 Crime Free Multi-Housing Program

Staff report dated November 16, 2015 recommending an amendment to Business Licencing and Regulation Bylaw No. 6815-2011 to charge a higher business fee for buildings not enrolled in the Crime Free Multi-Housing (“CMFH”) program and that buildings with CMFH designation get a 75% discount on the base business licence fee.

The Manager of Bylaw and Licencing Services distributed a cost comparison for Crime Free Multi-Housing status and provided an overview of the proposed amendment. Staff was requested to provide more detailed information on the Crime Free Multi-Housing program

Council Workshop Minutes November 16, 2015 Page 6 of 7

R/2015-499 It was moved and seconded That the Crime Free Multi-Housing Program staff report and recommendation be deferred to the December 7, 2015 Council Workshop Meeting.

CARRIED

5.6 2016 Council Meeting Schedule

Staff report dated November 16, 2015 recommending that the 2016 Council Meeting scheduled be adopted.

R/2015-500 It was moved and seconded That the Council Meeting schedule attached to the staff report dated November 16, 2016 be amended as follows and be adopted as amended.

1. The January 4, 2016 meetings will be rescheduled to January 11, 2015 2. Three Council Workshop and Closed Council meetings will be scheduled each month and will commence at 10:00 a.m. 3. The March 15, 2016 Council Meeting will be rescheduled to March 8, 2016 and the March 22, 2016 Public Hearing will be rescheduled to March 15, 2016.

CARRIED

6. CORRESPONDENCE

6.1 Provision of Emergency Medical Services

6.1.1 Ambulance Paramedics of BC – Downloading of Ambulance Service

Letter dated September 14, 2015 from Bronwyn Barter, Provincial President, Ambulance Paramedics of BC, CUPE Local 873 providing information as a response to the training and use of firefighters as emergency medical responders by the Municipality of Delta.

6.1.2 British Columbia Professional Fire Fighters’ Association – Provision of Emergency Medical Services

Letter dated October 19, 2015 from Michael Hurley, President, British Columbia Professional Fire Fighters’ Association providing addressing concerns of the Ambulance Paramedics of BC over the provision of emergency medical services by the City of Delta Fire Department.

Council Workshop Minutes November 16, 2015 Page 7 of 7

Council requested that BC Ambulance be invited to attend a meeting of Council of provide information on ambulance services in Maple Ridge.

6.2 Upcoming Events

November 24, 2015 CivX 2015, Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue 8:30 a.m. Organizer: LMLGA and CivicInfo BC November 27, 2015 Operation Red Nose Launch, Maple Ridge Towing 8:30 p.m. Organizer: PacificSport Fraser Valley November 29, 2015 Whonnock Weavers & Spinners Guild 35th Annual Exhibit and 11:00 a.m. Sale, Whonnock Lake Centre Organizer: Whonnock Weavers & Spinners Guild December 2, 2015 Friends in Need Food Bank Volunteer Christmas Dinner, Grace 6:00 p.m. Community Church December 3, 2015 2015 Labour Appreciation Night, Hilton Vancouver, Metrotown 5:30 p.m. Organizer: United Way of the Lower Mainland

7. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL – Nil

8. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT

Councillor Robson requested information on bringing forward a notice of motion pertaining to liquor sales in grocery stores.

9. ADJOURNMENT – 4:53 p.m.

______N. Read, Mayor

Certified Correct

______C. Marlo, Corporate Officer 2.2 Committee and Commission Meetings Minutes

2.2 City of Maple Ridge AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING

The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Agricultural Advisory Committee, held in the Blaney Room, at Maple Ridge Municipal Hall on Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 7:00 pm. ______

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT Margaret Daskis, Chair Community at Large Stephanie James Equestrian Agricultural Sector Al Kozak Agricultural Sector Ian Brooks Member at Large Chris Zabek Regional Agrologist, Ministry of Agriculture & Lands Kimberley Lauzon, Vice Chair Member at Large Councillor Speirs City of Maple Ridge

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT Siobhan Murphy Staff Liaison / Planner 2 Sunny Schiller Committee Clerk

REGRETS/ABSENTS Bill Hardy Member at Large Lorraine Bates Agricultural Fair Board Jennifer Zickerman Agricultural Sector Candace Gordon Haney Farmers Market Councillor Duncan City of Maple Ridge Tony Pellet Agricultural Land Commission

As quorum was not achieved it was decided to begin with Item 5.1 Raising funds for agricultural Initiatives. Al Kozak made a presentation entitled “Vision to Grow Agriculture in Maple Ridge”. The existing markets for farmers were explained. Mr. Kozak presented a vision to increase markets and initiated a discussion on how funds could be raised to advance the vision. Members discussed the ideas presented and agreed to revisit the item at the next meeting.

Councillor Speirs entered at 7:45 pm. Quorum was achieved at this time.

1. CALL TO ORDER

There being a quorum present, the Chair called the meeting to order at 7:52 pm.

2. AGENDA ADOPTION

R15-016 It was moved and seconded That the Agenda be adopted.

CARRIED AAC Minutes October 22, 2015 Page 2 of 3

3. MINUTE ADOPTION

R15-017 It was moved and seconded That the Minutes of September 24, 2015 be approved.

CARRIED 4. DELEGATIONS - Nil

5. NEW BUSINESS

5.1 Raising Funds for Agricultural Initiatives Previously dealt with prior to Item 1.

6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

6.1 Business Plan

The Staff Liaison presented the draft 2016 business plan. Many items were carried over from the 2015 plan as a result of the lack of AAC meetings during this year. Accomplishments from 2015 include member recruitment, the awarding of financial grants, the review of the agricultural plan, Golden Harvest, and the food garden contest. Planning for next year was discussed.

6.2 Backyard Chickens

The Staff Liaison shared the information gathered from local municipalities regarding their backyard chicken programs.

R15-018 It was moved and seconded That the development of a program and/or bylaw in regards to the keeping of backyard chickens be recommended to Council.

CARRIED 7. SUB-COMMITTEE REPORTS

7.1 Food Garden Contest

Stephanie James reported on the Food Garden awards presentation at a recent Council meeting. The presentation was well attended by the contest winners. The contest was well received by the community and will be continued on in future years.

7.2 Golden Harvest

Kim Lauzon reported on another successful Golden Harvest event. The contributions of the volunteers were commended. Positive feedback has been received from attendees and participating restaurants and schools. Ms. Lauzon shared recommendations for next year. The final accounting will be presented at the next meeting. AAC Minutes October 22, 2015 Page 3 of 3

7.3 Agricultural Plan – Table and Letter update

The information prepared will go to Council Workshop October 27, 2015.

7.4 Metro Vancouver Water Supply Forum Update

The Chair provided an update from Metro Vancouver. An agenda for a Water Supply Forum is being developed for next year. The Chair reported that Dr. Kent Mullinix, Director, Institute for Sustainable Food Systems with Kwantlen Polytechnic University will provide a full update report by the end of the calendar year. It was suggested that he be invited to the January AAC meeting.

The Chair shared a proposal for a lecture series for next year. Suggestions can be forwarded to Candace Gordon.

Councillor Speirs left the meeting at 9:00 pm.

8. CORRESPONDENCE

9. ROUNDTABLE

Al Kozak reported that the “young farmers”, Katie Robinson and Josh Baker, who presented to AAC earlier this year have found a property in Maple Ridge. It was suggested that they be invited back to share their experience locating a piece of agricultural land.

Chris Zabek left the meeting at 9:03 pm.

Ian Brooks requested that water availability and pricing be added to the November AAC agenda.

The salination of fresh water was discussed.

10. QUESTION PERIOD

11. ADJOURNMENT

It was moved and seconded That the meeting be adjourned at 9:07 pm.

Chair

/ss The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Community Heritage Commission, held in the Blaney Room, at Maple Ridge Municipal Hall, 11995 Haney Place Road, Maple Ridge, British Columbia, on Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. ______

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT

Len Pettit Community at Large Eric Phillips Community at Large Sandra Ayres Community at Large Brenda Smith, Chair Maple Ridge Historical Society Faye Isaac, Vice-chair Maple Ridge Historical Society Councillor Speirs Council Liaison Steven Ranta Community at Large

STAFF PRESENT

Lisa Zosiak Staff Liaison, Community Planner Sunny Schiller Committee Clerk

REGRETS/ABSENT

Cyndy Johnson-McCormick Community at Large

1. CALL TO ORDER

There being a quorum present, the Chair called the meeting to order at 7:04 pm.

2. AGENDA ADOPTION

R15-031 It was moved and seconded That the Agenda be amended to add “Item 7.1.3 – January meeting” and be adopted as amended.

CARRIED 3. MINUTE ADOPTION

R15-032 It was moved and seconded That the Minutes of October 6, 2015 be approved.

CARRIED CHC Minutes November 3, 2015 Page 2 of 5

4. DELEGATIONS - Nil

5. FINANCE

5.1 Heritage BC Membership The Chair provided an update on the Heritage BC membership issue. R15-033 It was moved and seconded That the Community Heritage Commission purchase a Heritage BC membership. CARRIED

5.2 Financial Report The Chair provided an updated budget. The adjustments made provide funding to begin the updating of the Heritage Inventory.

R15-034 It was moved and seconded That the November 3, 2015 financial report be accepted. CARRIED

6. CORRESPONDENCE - Nil

7. NEW & UNFINISHED BUSINESS

7.1 Membership 7.1.1 Calendar of Events The proposed CHC 2016 schedule was accepted. The Chair provided an updated CHC Calendar of Events to the end of the year. Events for early 2016 were discussed. 7.1.2 CHC Binder Review The Committee Clerk reviewed the Heritage Plan and Meeting Minutes sections of the CHC flash drive. 7.1.3 January Meeting After discussion

R15-035 It was moved and seconded That the January meeting be held on Monday, January 11th 2016. CARRIED

7.2 MRHS Collection Storage Space The Chair reported that the issue of the lack of storage for the Maple Ridge Historical Society has been raised with Council. Best practices for storage were discussed. The numbers of the existing MRHS collection were reviewed (including items, negatives and newspaper archives). Ways to best communicate the current storage situation were discussed. CHC Minutes November 3, 2015 Page 3 of 5

8. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS

8.1 Communications Subcommittee 8.1.1 Heritage Here Newsletter The Chair reported that the Fall edition of the newsletter will be completed within the next two weeks. 8.1.2 Local Voices Guest speakers for the November 5th Local Voices event are Eileen Dwillies, Peggy Lambert and Shirley Lecker. Future sessions are planned for Spring 2016. The process for submitting speaker suggestions was shared.

8.2 Recognitions Subcommittee 8.2.1 Heritage Marker Inventory Project The Chair reported that the Heritage Marker Inventory database will be delivered soon. Plans for launching the database were discussed. 8.2.2 Heritage Awards Faye Isaac reported that the next Heritage Awards will be held February 18th. All CHC members are invited to attend a Heritage Awards subcommittee meeting at 6:00 pm on January 11th, 2016 to finalize details. 8.2.3 10th Anniversary Plaque Book Project The Staff Liaison provided an update on the plans to upgrade the files used for the book. Once upgraded and unlocked the pages will be shared on the city website.

8.3 Education Subcommittee 8.3.1 CHC Field Trip Update Sandra Ayres reported that the previously planned field trip to North Vancouver was cancelled due to transportation issues. Ms. Ayres plans to revive the project in 2016.

8.4 Digitization Project Subcommittee Authorization to hire a consultant to carry out the digitization project has been obtained from Ceri Marlo, Manager of Legislative Services and Emergency Program. A potential candidate has been identified and will be invited to view the archives.

8.5 Heritage Inventory Project Update The Staff Liaison reported that the Heritage Inventory update project is moving forward. Terms of reference are being developed and once finalized a tender document will be issued to heritage consultants. A Heritage Inventory Update sub- committee will be created to work with the consultant on this project. Members who wish to serve on the sub-committee were asked to contact the Chair within the next two weeks. A time commitment of at least 1 ½ years will be required to serve on this group.

8.6 Robertson Family Cemetery Project Subcommittee The Staff Liaison reported that she and the Chair have met with various City staff to discuss the Robertson Family Cemetery project. Steps to obtain the property and have it properly registered were explained. CHC Minutes November 3, 2015 Page 4 of 5

9. LIAISON UPDATES

9.1 BC Historical Federation The BC Historical Federation annual conference will be held May 26-28, 2016 in Revelstoke. The Chair reported she is serving on the BC Historical Foundation advocacy committee. 9.2 Heritage BC The Chair reported the theme for Heritage Week 2016 is Distinctive Destinations. Heritage BC is holding a photo contest to find images for their 2016 Heritage Week poster. See www.heritagebc.ca for more details. 9.3 Maple Ridge Historical Society The October 31 event at Haney House was well attended. Over the summer work on the storage container was carried out by MRHS and summer students. A Christmas Decorating party at will be held on November 26th at St. Andrews Heritage Hall. Contact Allison at [email protected] if you have any questions. 9.4 Council Liaison Councillor Speirs reported on the Katzie Restoration Dinner he attended on October 23rd. This event celebrates the work of the Katzie to bring back to life old traditional agriculture traditions. The Katzie have been cultivating and harvesting the traditional food wapato (a starchy tuber) since 2009. They are working on cultural and ecosystem restoration and building cultural awareness. Councillor Speirs reported that the Advisory Committee Review Task Force has held their final meeting. Their recommendations will now go to the committees for feedback and then to Council in Spring 2016. The definition of a “heritage tree” was discussed.

10. QUESTION PERIOD - Nil

11. ROUNDTABLE

Eric Phillips asked about a house on 124th Avenue that recently burned.

12. ADJOURNMENT

It was moved and seconded that the meeting be adjourned at 9:05 pm.

/ss City of Maple Ridge

PUBLIC ART STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES

The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Public Art Steering Committee, held in the Coho Room, at Maple Ridge City Hall, 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, British Columbia, on Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 3:00 p.m.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT

Susan Hayes, Chair Artist Barbara Duncan Curator, Maple Ridge Art Gallery Councillor Duncan City of Maple Ridge Leanne Koehn Community at Large Member

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT

Sunny Schiller Committee Clerk Yvonne Chui Manager, Arts and Community Connections

REGRETS/ABSENTS

Wayne Bissky Architect Kristin Krimmel Artist

1. CALL TO ORDER AND INTRODUCTIONS

There being a quorum present, the Chair called the meeting to order at 3:09 p.m.

2. AGENDA ADOPTION

R15-019 It was moved and seconded That the Agenda be adopted.

CARRIED 3. MINUTE ADOPTION

R15-020 It was moved and seconded That the Minutes of July 22, 2015 be adopted.

CARRIED PASC Minutes September 29, 2015 Page 2 of 3

4. QUESTION PERIOD - Nil

5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

5.1 Business Plan 2016 Draft

The PASC 2016 Business Plan was reviewed. It was suggested that the importance of celebrating the local character of neighbourhoods be highlighted in the business plan.

Accomplishments during 2015 included the establishment of guidelines for donations and new public art, meetings with external and internal partners to identify opportunities for public art, the creation of a template for commissioning calls, and the introduction of the artist in residence program.

5.2 New member recruitment for 2017

Plans for committee recruitment were discussed.

5.3 Meeting Date Selection

It was confirmed that the regular meetings of PASC will be held on the final Tuesday of each month from 3:00 – 5:00 pm.

6. NEW BUSINESS

6.1 Community Public Art Grant

The Staff Liaison provided an update on the Community Public Art Grant program. Feedback regarding the application process has been positive.

6.2 Artist Agreement Template Review and Revision

The Staff Liaison provided an update on the Artist Agreement template. The first agreement using this template is currently awaiting artist acceptance.

Councillor Duncan entered the meeting at 3:40 pm.

6.3 Sidewalk Poetry Phase 2

The Staff Liaison has gathered useful feedback from Cambridge, MA that has used the sidewalk stamping process and is working to find a local supplier of the materials required to carry out Phase 2, permanent installation of the project. To begin, two poems will be done as a test at a proposed downtown street slated for renovation. Staff are working with the Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility Issues and Engineering in regards to the installation. The installation timeline will be adjusted based on availability of the contractors and other project requirements. PASC Minutes September 29, 2015 Page 3 of 3

7. ROUNDTABLE

The Staff Liaison provided updates on a number of public art projects including the public launch for the Collobor8 project at Whonnock Lake (planned to coincide with the re-opening of the park area during October 2015) and starting work on the call for the Hammond Public Art project (October 2015).

Councillor Duncan reported that Lino Siracusa has been hired as the Economic Development Manager.

Barbara Duncan asked about the Collabor8 project. The Staff Liaison reported that with the assistance of Sylvia Pendl, Park Planning Technician, an arborist has been found to work with Collabor8 and a stand of three trees has been identified for the installation. Finalized drawings are expected in November and a production timeline will be developed once the drawings are received.

The Staff Liaison shared a video with the committee of project Green Bloc in Vancouver. This project involved a street mural. The Staff Liaison suggested the committee consider doing a similar project for a local neighbourhood in the future.

Leanne Koehn reported that Culture Days went well. The goal of this event is to bring partners together to talk about culture and opportunities. The Staff Liaison will be gathering feedback from the participants. Plans for the next Culture Days were discussed.

8. ADJOURNMENT

Chair

/ss City of Maple Ridge

TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: December 7, 2015 and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop

SUBJECT: Maple Ridge Community Amenity Contribution Program Policies - Proposed OCP Amending Bylaw No. 7188-2015 Proposed CAC Council Policy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

This report provides a summary of the components of the Community Amenity Contribution Program, based on the Resolutions passed by Council on October 19 and 27, 2015. At the October 27, 2015 meeting staff were directed to bring back further information on contribution calculations and were also directed to bring back an Official Community Plan amending bylaw that established the CAC program for the community utilizing a percentage of lift approach. At the October 13, 2015 Council meeting, a brief discussion on changing the contribution approach for the CAC program occurred, however no decisions were made on the matter.

In order to advance the CAC discussion further, this report includes a two pronged approach for establishing a Community Amenity Contribution Program which includes:  An Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw that will establish the general components to be included in the CAC program, noting that the specific details regarding the contribution approach, values and application would be housed outside of the OCP in a Council Policy; and  Two draft Council Policies have been prepared for Council’s consideration – one based on a percentage of lift approach and the other based on a flat rate approach. The expectation is that Council will chose the draft policy that best reflects their desired approach for calculating contributions.

The Greater Vancouver Home Builders Association and the Urban Development Institute provided comments to Council on the proposed components of the city-wide CAC Program prior to the October 19, 2015 Workshop meeting. In their correspondence, they have requested an opportunity for consultation and dialogue on the Program. Given this request, the report recommends that the proposed Official Community Plan amending Bylaw and Council policies be referred to the UDI Liaison Committee for review. It is also recommended that the draft CAC policies be posted on the website, along with an invitation to the public to submit comments. A summary of comments received will then be provided to Council in a follow-up summary report. The Official Community Plan amending bylaw will also be referred to a future public hearing.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. That staff be directed to obtain feedback on the Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7188-2015 and draft Council Policy and provide a summary of input to Council in a future report.

5.11 DISCUSSION:

a) Background Context:

Council has been provided with reports on June 15 and October 19, 2015 outlining the various aspects and potential for establishing a city-wide community amenity contribution program. The October 19, 2015 report included a set of legal principles regarding amenity contributions derived from prior legal advice the City has received on establishing a community amenity contribution program. These principles include:

i. A municipality has the authority to adopt density bonus bylaws and establish conditions under which the density bonus is to be applied, including the payment of cash contributions; ii. Density bonuses are the most defensible approach, should the required amenity contribution be challenged on it’s legal basis; iii. A community amenity contributions should be clearly tied to the impacts that are expected to result from a zoning change; iv. A community amenity program should be based on a ‘robust’ policy basis, rather than on a simple decision of Council; v. Establishing a contribution that is based on the amount of the increase in lot value could provide a more equitable basis for the amenity program; and vi. A site-by-site negotiated approach does not provide the clarity and consistency of application of the program that the development industry needs, as well as potentially adding a significant amount of time to the development approvals process.

With these principles in mind, Council was presented with a series of options for each component of the City-wide Community Amenity Contribution Program.

At the October 19 and 27 Council Workshop meetings, the components of the CAC Program were discussed and a Resolution passed for each. The following is a summary of the framework of the CAC Program based on the content of the Resolutions:

1. Each CAC will be based on a percentage value of lift. [Note: A percentage value was not included in the discussion] 2. The CAC Program will apply city-wide. a. Those properties within the Town Centre Area Plan boundaries are exempt from the CAC Program. 3. The Density Bonus Framework established in the Albion Area Plan will continue to apply, in addition to the city-wide CAC Program. For developments that take advantage of the density bonus provisions included in the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw for the Albion Area Plan, the amenity contribution rate will be $3100 per lot or dwelling unit. 4. The CAC Program applies to the development of all residential dwellings1, including those that are included in a mixed-use development (such as commercial and residential) with the following exceptions: a. Affordable and special needs housing that are secured through a Housing Agreement as established in Section 905 of the Local Government Act;

1 Note: Additional exemptions from the CAC Program include:  single family residential subdivisions proposing fewer than 3 lots;  duplex dwelling units where only one building is being constructed; and  triplex dwelling units where only one building is being constructed.

2

b. Rental housing units that are secured through a Housing Agreement established under Section 905 of the Local Government Act will also be subject to a covenant enacted under Section 219 of the Land Titles Act. 5. An Official Community Plan amending bylaw was to be prepared that includes the components of the Community Amenity Contribution Program. Development applications that are in process (in-stream) at the time of enactment of this Council Policy will be subject to the provisions of the Policy unless the applicable Official Community Plan and/or Zoning Bylaw amending bylaw has/have received Third Reading. 6. Council will establish one or more Reserve Funds and identify those amenities that may benefit from the community amenity contributions. b) CAC Program Examples

There are a wide variety of approaches for community amenity contribution programs in place throughout the region. Council was provided a summary table, taken from the Amenity Zoning Report prepared during the Albion Area Plan review in 2012. That table shows the variety of approaches in use at that time, including density bonuses, site specific and area-wide amenity contribution programs. In essence, the table shows that there is no one single approach in use throughout the region. The following examples are intended to provide Council with options to consider with respect to the components and implementation aspects of a CAC Program.

District of North Vancouver The District of North Vancouver has implemented a CAC program that consists of a variety of approaches for securing amenity contributions within:  Four defined OCP growth centres;  Residential developments outside of the growth centres; and  For sites where increased density is not contemplated in the OCP.

The details of the program are found within an administrative policy, which outlines the technical aspects of when and how CAC’s will be considered as part of the development review process. The Program incorporates three ways of collecting community amenity contributions: 1. For sites within the defined OCP growth centres, 75% of the value of the increase in land (the lift) after rezoning. 2. For sites outside of the growth centres, CAC’s are calculated at $5 per square foot for duplex, triplex, townhouses or similar developments and at $15 per square foot for apartment developments. 3. For sites where an increase in residential density is not contemplated in the OCP, the CAC is negotiated on a case by case basis, with the value of the amenity contribution to be equivalent to 50% to 75% of the estimated increase in market value of the land after rezoning.

The following table outlines the District of North Vancouver’s approach for calculating ‘lift’.

3

A

B

C

D

E

Source: District of North Vancouver, Community Amenity Contributions in OCP Growth Centres

For information, the District of North Vancouver’s brochure outlining their CAC Program is attached as Appendix C.

Coquitlam The City of Coquitlam has introduced an area-wide contribution approach within the Burquitlam- Lougheed Neighbourhood. The program is part of the implementation of the transit-oriented development (TOD) strategy for the area, and applies to new residential density that is associated with a rezoning application at a rate of $3.00 per square foot ($32.29 per square metre) of new residential floor area, up to a maximum floor area of 2.5 times the lot area.

For information, the City of Coquitlam’s brochure on the CAC Program for the Burquitlam-Lougheed area is attached as Appendix D.

Pitt Meadows The City of Pitt Meadows has implemented a CAC approach based on a voluntary contribution flat rate of $2400 per unit for single family dwellings, $1200 per unit for townhouses and $600 per dwelling unit for Apartments.

City of North Vancouver The City of North Vancouver endorsed their Density Bonus and Community Benefits Policy in May 2015. It contains aspects that may be of interest to Council, as it is applied within the context of

4

OCP policies related to density bonusing, rather than a specific area as in the example from Coquitlam. The purpose is “…to provide a greater degree of certainty regarding the purpose and value of community benefit contributions that may occur in conjunction with development applications.”

The framework of the program incorporates two categories: 1. Category A: Increases in density that do not exceed the density established in the OCP (on Schedule ‘A’). The rate for these types of density increases is set at $20 per square foot of residential floor area or a negotiated contribution; and 2. Category B: Increases in density that exceed the density established in the OCP, up to a maximum bonus amount set out in the OCP. The rate for these bonus densities in the Lonsdale Regional City Centre is set at $140 per square foot of residential floor area beyond the existing zoning OR $110 per square foot of residential floor area outside of the Regional City Centre. Category B amenity contributions can be negotiated only in unique circumstances.

The City of North Vancouver’s Density Bonus and Community Benefits Policy has been attached as Appendix E.

Provincial Guide for Community Amenity Contributions In March 2014, the Provincial Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development released a guide to provided assistance for municipalities when considering the establishment of a CAC program. It provides an overview on the legal aspects, recommended practices for CAC’s, the link between CAC’s and affordable housing and discussion on selecting an approach for a municipality to obtain amenities.

A summary of its contents is also included in the Guide and provides a helpful ‘snapshot’ of the recommended practices for local governments: 1. Avoid legal risk and maintain public confidence 2. Plan ahead 3. Seek modest contributions and follow an approach that balances amenities and housing affordability 4. Apply DCC principles to CAC’s 5. Engage the development community 6. Choose an approach to obtaining amenities that considers a variety of factors.

The lessons that can be taken from the Provincial Guide mirror the prior legal advice the City has received with respect to:  align the impacts of increased residential density to the amount of contribution;  use density bonuses, as permitted under Section 904 of the Local Government Act as the primary tool for securing CAC’s; and  establish a program that is consistently applied.

For information, The Short Guide – Community Amenity Contributions: Balancing Community Planning, Public Benefits and Housing Affordability, released in March 2014 is attached to this report as Appendix F.

5

c) Amenity Zoning Analysis Information

The following is an excerpt from the Maple Ridge Amenity Strategy Case Study Analysis, part of the Amenity Zoning: Analysis and Options report prepared by CitySpaces Consulting in November 2012. Council was provided with a copy of that report as an attachment to the June 15, 2015 Amenity Zoning Overview and Options report. This information is intended to be helpful for Council to see within the context of a percentage value of lift approach and in comparison to the examples from across the region.

Implications for Community Amenity Contributions

As noted above, the total lift identified through either a general set of analyses such as these or through a separate analysis for a specific rezoning is typically shared between the municipality or district and the proponent. In areas where development demand is high a higher share of the lift would usually be sought by the municipality or district (75% or higher in some cases), but in areas where development is slower a more equitable split is usually made (50/50 for example).

GPRA has applied a 50/50 split to the lift identified through the case studies and illustrates the resulting charges that could be introduced on a per unit/lot basis to collect the District’s share:

These charges can also be converted to a fee per square foot or square metre of GBA using estimates of average sizes of unit types in the District:

Charge Sq. Ft. @ 50% Current RS-3 RS-1 RS-1b R-1 R-3 RM-1 RM-2 RM-6 (base) A-2 $14.92 $4.59 $4.78 $7.65 $10.66 $7.24 $12.72 $6.13 RS-3 $0.00 $1.61 $2.30 $5.17 $8.53 $4.76 $11.89 $5.20 RS-1 $0.00 $0.00 $0.96 $3.83 $7.38 $3.42 $11.45 $4.69 RS-1b $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2.87 $6.56 $2.46 $11.13 $4.34 R-1 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4.10 -$0.41 $10.17 $3.26 R-3 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 -$5.19 $8.58 $1.47

Typically, however, a municipality or district would not have so many discreet charges, but will instead create a flat fee for each major rezoning type. In order to recognize the varied results from the lift analysis and to avoid being punitive to developers GPRA would typically recommend the fee be set at the lowest level indicated from the analyses.

Charging out fees in a manner such as this, or by GBA, or a combination thereof allows for developers to clearly understand the expected costs for CACs when preparing to purchase land and when determining project viability. GPRA must note, however, that additional analysis is recommended before the District proceeds with codifying any fees into Bylaws and implementing a CAC policy.

While the above information was prepared in 2012 as part of the Albion Area Plan Review, the principles and results provide Council with an additional layer of information with respect to the selection of a contribution approach for the city-wide CAC Program.

6

d) Maple Ridge CAC Estimate Examples

The 2012 Albion Area Plan review included the discussion regarding amenity zoning and density bonuses. GP Rollo and Associates partnered with CitySpaces Consulting, to undertake the financial analysis of the Maple Ridge housing market to help determine what an appropriate contribution amount would be for the density bonus framework. As part of that process, GP Rollo and Associates developed a series of ‘sample’ pro formas to assist in the financial analysis.

To assist Council with an understanding of the estimated amount of contributions that could be collected by utilizing the percentage value of lift, based on the District of North Vancouver approach for calculating the value of lift. The following examples have been calculated using the sample pro forma analysis prepared by GP Rollo and Associates in 2012. It is important to keep the following in mind when reviewing this information:  The values are based on example pro formas prepared in 2012;  The estimated values contained in the example pro formas may no longer give an accurate reflection of the local real estate market;  The estimated values are based on five case study examples from 2012; and  The analysis includes a number of assumptions that are clearly outlined in the report by GP Rollo and Associates. Include in these are a 12% profit on total project costs for single family projects and 15% profit on all multi-family projects. These are typical profit margins utilized.  The estimated values based on percentage value of lift have been compared to the three flat rate charges of $3100 (selected by Council), $5100 (proposed by the consultant) and $7500 (additional option) discussed with Council in 2012.

The information contained in Table 1 is helpful in understanding the range in potential contribution amounts that could be achieved for different housing forms, based on a percentage value of lift contribution versus a flat rate.

Table 1: Maple Ridge CAC Estimated Values Single Family Townhouse Low Rise Apt Number of Units 82 15 80 Pro forma A) Project Revenue $51,828,000 $5,749,920 $19,782,338 B) Development Costs $43,719,391 $4,849,933 $16,685,972 C) Value After Rezoning $8,108,609 $899,987 $3,096,366 D) Value Before Rezoning $5,164,640 $740,213 $2,389,208 E) Lift Value $2,943,969 $159,774 $707,158

% Lift CAC % Rate Options 25% $735,992 $39,944 $176,790 50% $1,471,985 $79,887 $353,579 75% $2,207,977 $119,831 $530,369

Flat Rate Flat Rate $3100 $254,200 $46,500 $248,000 Flat Rate $5100 $418,200 $76,500 $408,000 Flat Rate $7500 $615,000 $112,500 $600,000

7

In considering the GP Rollo noted earlier in the report, and in looking at the above table, the following observations can be made:  Different amenity rates per unit type are justifiable;  Areas where development demand is high may support a higher lift value of 75%, while areas with lesser demand would support a lesser lift value of 50%. Single Family example:  The single family housing form has a far greater lift value than the townhouse or low rise apartment forms.  The % of lift approach results in an amenity contribution that is significantly larger than a flat rate approach.  A flat rate of $7500 per unit would be closest in value to the 25% lift value. Townhouse example:  The townhouse form of development has a significantly lower lift value compared to the low rise apartment or single family form.  The flat rate and % of lift approaches result in fairly similar numbers, for example 75% of lift is $119,831 verses a $7500 flat rate which results in a contribution of $112,500.  Given that townhouse has the lowest lift value of the 3 housing forms, a more modest value of 50% lift or $5100 flat rate could be appropriate. Low Rise Apartment example:  The low rise apartment form of development has a modest lift value, when compared to the single family form, but is considerably larger than the townhouse form.  The flat rate approach results in a larger contribution that the % of lift approach.  A flat rate of $5100 may be appropriate.

e) Recent Development Activity

During the Planning Department business planning presentation, Council requested that information on recent development activity be included in this report for their information. The following table includes information on single family lots created and housing starts for townhouse and apartment projects, from 2011 through to the end of October 2015, excluding development in the Town Centre2, Commercial and Industrial permits. Note the table does not include lots that are pending approvals.

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 to Oct Average Single Family new lots created 225 291 250 201 255 244 Townhouse BP’s 128 23 144 195 180 134 Apartment BP’s 158 307 180 49 6 140

Based on the above averages, and using a flat rate of $7500 for Single Family, and $5100 for townhouse and low rise apartment, the annual CAC revenues could be in the order of $3.2 million.

f) Policy Implications:

A two pronged policy approach is being proposed to establish a citywide CAC program which includes OCP Policy amendments and an adopted Council Policy.

2 Town Centre, Commercial and Industrial building permits have been excluded based on Council Resolutions passed at the Oct 19 and 27, 2015 Council Workshop. 8

OCP Policy Amendments The proposed Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7188-2015 (Appendix A) outlines the general components of the city-wide CAC Program, noting that the specific details would be housed in the Council Policy. In addition, it aligns the current policy framework within the Albion Area Plan with the expanded scope of the program in the upper-level OCP policies.

Draft Council Policy

i. Percentage Value of Lift Approach

Pursuant with Council direction, a draft Council Policy has been prepared to reflect the percentage value of lift approach (Appendix B1). It outlines the technical aspects of how the city-wide CAC Program will be administered. In concert with the OCP policy amendments, this approach provides Council with the flexibility of fine-tuning the technical aspects of the CAC Program in the future without the need for an OCP amending process. In addition, the level of detail contained in the draft Council Policy is not found in the OCP policies.

This approach and the method for calculating the amount of increase in land value as the result of a rezoning (the ‘lift value’) is more detailed then the option of using a land appraisal as discussed at the October 19, 2015 Council Workshop. By requiring more information from the developer as part of each development application, it is felt that a more accurate lift value can be established, thereby determining a community amenity contribution amount that is more reflective of the impacts of the development and equitable for all developments.

ii. Flat Rate Approach

At the November 10, 2015 Regular Council meeting, a brief discussion occurred regarding reconsidering the contribution approach Resolution passed at the October 19, 2015 Council Workshop meeting. While Council did not make any decisions on this item, there seemed to be some interest to continue the discussion on this item.

This option could incorporate more than one rate, based on the housing form, in keeping with the principle that an amenity contribution should be reflective of the impacts of the additional density. This could mean individual rates for single family, townhouses and apartment buildings. Based on Council’s selection for the contribution approach, further analysis may be required prior to preparing a final CAC Program Council Policy back for Council’s approval.

Alternatively, the Amenity Zoning report prepared by CitySpaces and GP Rollo & Associates included an economic analysis for the Albion Area. At that time their recommended rate per dwelling unit was $5100. The CAC Estimated Value Table in this report includes information on the contributions that would result from $3100, $5100 and $7500 values.

The attached Appendix B2 is a draft Council Policy based on a flat rate approach as outlined below:

1. Each CAC will be based on a contribution rate for single family, townhouse and apartment dwelling units as follows: a. Single Family Residential development $_____ per dwelling unit or lot created; b. Townhouse development $______per dwelling unit created. c. Apartment development $______per dwelling unit created.

9

The value of contribution for each of the above housing forms could be established at one of the following rates, or at a rate determined by Council:  $3100 per dwelling unit (current rate used in the Albion Area Plan area)  $5100 per dwelling unit (rate proposed by GP Rollo and Associates in 2012)  $7500 per dwelling unit (alternative rate for Council consideration in 2012)

It is noted that some municipalities have established a program based on applying a standard rate per square foot of new residential floor area. Should Council be interested in exploring this as an option, the table of page 6 of this report prepared by GP Rollo and Associates would provide a good starting point for that discussion. It is recommended that if Council supports this approach, further analysis on the current real estate/development market within the City be completed, prior to establishing the final rate or rates.

g) Citizen/Customer Implications:

The Greater Vancouver Home Builders Association (GVHBA) and the Urban Development Institute (UDI) provided comments to Council via email, on the proposed contents of the Maple Ridge Community Amenity Contribution Program. They have requested that Council refer the policy back to staff for further consultation and dialogue based on the following comments:

 The GVHBA and UDI feel that it is important that development-based fees and charges be predictable, transparent, proportional to the market in the community, and do not adversely impact housing affordability;  There are concerns related to the quick establishment of a CAC program;  The UDI Liaison Committee feel Council has an opportunity to utilize ‘best practices’ in establishing a city-wide CAC program.

The technical components of the CAC Program have been included in the attached draft Council Policy (Appendix B). While not generally the subject of consultation activities, it is recommended that the proposed policies be reviewed with the UDI Liaison Committee. It is also recognized that many citizens will have an interest in the subject of CAC’s so it is further recommended that the draft policies be posted on the City webpage along with an invitation for residents to provide comments. The Communications Department have also offered to share this information via social media. All comments received will then be provided in a follow-up report to Council. The OCP amending bylaw will be referred to Public Hearing and the public will be provided with an opportunity to comment at the Hearing.

When considering a change in Official Community Plan policy or Zoning Bylaw Regulations, the generally accepted practice for in-stream development applications is that those applications that have been presented at Public Hearing and received Third Reading would be exempt from complying with the new policies or regulations.

h) Interdepartmental Implications:

Based on Council direction on the content and approach for the CAC Program, assistance from a variety of City departments may be required to review the technical aspects of the Program. In particular, assistance from the Finance Department will be required to prepare the Reserve Fund bylaw(s), including any potential amendments to the Albion Area Plan Reserve Fund Bylaw.

10

i) Business Plan/Financial Implications:

If Council prefers to establish the CAC contribution approach as a flat rate to apply for all included developments, it is recommended that the amount/rate be reflective of the land lift value. An economic financial analysis is the most robust and defensible approach to calculate that rate. Such analysis would require a budget allocation not to exceed $20,000. Alternatively Council may be comfortable in selecting a rate based on the information contained in the staff report.

CONCLUSIONS:

The lessons learned through the establishment of the Albion Area Plan Density Bonus Framework and from recent legal advice provide a number of general principles that the components of an amenity program should incorporate. The components of the CAC Program determined by Council on October 19 and 27, 2015 by Resolutions, achieve the principles of a consistent and equitable framework.

The regional examples show a variety of approaches and tools in use for securing community amenity contributions as part of the development process. The Provincial Community Amenity Contributions Guide provides a list of recommended practices for municipalities to consider when establishing a CAC Program. These examples show that each municipality has the flexibility to establish a program that is best suited to the needs of their community.

The proposed OCP policy amendment will provide greater clarity for Council and the community with respect to why and when CAC’s will be part of the development review process. The proposed CAC Council Policies contain the technical aspects of the program that are of a greater level of detail than in found in the OCP. As such, any future minor adjustments to the structure of the Program will not be subject to OCP amendments or a Public Hearing.

In keeping with the principles of an open and transparent government, it is recommended that feedback be obtained on the Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7188-2015 and draft Community Amenity Contributions Program Council Policies. The draft policies will be referred to the UDI Liaison Committee and information will also be posted on the City webpage, along with an invitation to provide comments. The results of these consultation activities would then be summarized in a report for Council’s review and consideration prior presentation of the OCP Amending Bylaw for first and second reading, and referral to Public Hearing.

“Original signed by Christine Carter” for ______Prepared by: Jim Charlebois, MURP, MCIP, RPP Manager of Community Planning

“Original signed by Christine Carter” ______Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL., MCIP, RPP Director of Planning

“Original signed by Frank Quinn” ______Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng GM: Public Works & Development Services

11

Appendix A: OCP Amending Bylaw No. 7188-2015 Appendix B1: Draft Community Amenity Contribution Program Council Policy (Percentage Value of Lift Approach) Appendix B2 Draft Community Amenity Contribution Program Council Policy (Contribution Rate per Housing Type) Appendix C: District of North Vancouver, Community Amenity Contributions brochure Appendix D: City of Coquitlam CAC Program for the Burquitlam-Lougheed Neighbourhood brochure Appendix E: City of North Vancouver Density Bonus and Community Benefit Policy Appendix F: Province of BC, Short Guide – Community Amenity Contributions, March 2014

12

APPENDIX A

CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7188-2015

A Bylaw to amend Schedule “A” of the Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014 ______

WHEREAS Section 882 of the Local Government Act provides that the Council may revise the Official Community Plan;

AND WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to amend Schedule "A" to the Official Community Plan;

NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the City of Maple Ridge enacts as follows:

1. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7188-2015

2. That Section 2.1.2 Compact and Unique Community be amended by repealing policies 2-7 through 2-9 and replacing them with the following:

2-7 Maple Ridge will establish a city-wide Community Amenity Program with the following components, to provide amenities, including the provision of affordable and special needs housing, in a sustainable and economically viable manner: a) Contribution approach b) Geographic area, including any portions of the City that may be excluded; c) Approach for addressing existing density bonus policies and regulations in the Albion Area Plan area; d) Application of the program with respect to land uses and density; e) Establishment of one or more Reserve Fund Bylaws, including the identification of those potential community amenities to which the reserve funds can be allocated;

2-8 The Community Amenity Program may also include areas within the City where density bonus provisions apply. Where provisions apply, the density bonus will be in addition to the city-wide program and will be integrated into the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw.

2-9 A Community Amenity Contributions and density bonuses may also be considered at Council’s discretion for all Official Community Plan and Zoning Bylaw amending applications that are seeking a higher density than is envisioned in Schedule “A”, to help provide a variety of amenities and facilities throughout the municipality.

3. That Section 2.1.2 Compact and Unique Community be amended by adding the following policies in numeric order after policy 2-9:

2-10 Community Amenity Contributions which are specific for those portions of the City where an Area Plan has been adopted, and as outlined in the subject Area Plan, may be established at Council’s discretion.

2-11 Maple Ridge Council will establish one or more Reserve Funds for the Community Amenity Program that will identify the type of community amenities to which the amenity contributions will apply. 4. That Section 10.2.2 Residential Development and Community Amenity Program, Albion Area Plan Community Amenity Program policy amended by changing the heading of the policy section to “Albion Area Community Amenity Program and Density Bonus Framework”.

5. That Section 10.2.2 Residential Development and Community Amenity Program, be amended by repealing policy 10-4 and replacing it with the following:

10-4 The city-wide Community Amenity Program established in Section 2.1.2 Compact and Unique Community will apply to the Albion Area Plan. A Density Bonus Framework will also be permitted on lands designated Low Density Residential, Low-Medium Density Residential and Medium Density Residential in the Albion Area Plan.

6. That Section 10.2.2 Residential Development and Community Amenity Program policy 10- 5 be repealed and replaced with the following:

10-5 Where the density bonus option is utilized in a single-family subdivision, the density bonus framework provisions established in the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw will apply to all lots that exceed the base density permitted in the zone, in addition to the city-wide Community Amenity Program established in Official Community Plan Section 2.1.2 Compact and Unique Community.

7. That Section 10.2.2 Residential Development and Community Amenity Program policy 10-6 be repealed and replaced with the following:

10-6 Where the density bonus option is utilized in a multi-family development, the density bonus framework provisions established in the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw will apply to all dwelling units that exceed the base density permitted in the zone, in addition to the city-wide Community Amenity Program established in Official Community Plan Section 2.1.2 Compact and Unique Community.

8. That Section 10.2.4 Albion Zoning Matrix be amended by deleting the words “and Amenity Contribution” from the notation section.

9. Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No.7060-2014 as amended is hereby amended accordingly.

READ A FIRST TIME the day of , 20 .

READ A SECOND TIME the day of , 20 .

PUBLIC HEARING HELD the day of , 20 .

READ A THIRD TIME the day of , 20 .

ADOPTED, the day of , 20 .

______PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER APPENDIX B1

POLICY MANUAL

Policy No :

Title: Community Amenity Contribution Program Supersedes:

Authority: Legislative Operational Effective Date:

Approval: Council CMT Review Date: General Manager

Policy Statement:

The City of Maple Ridge is committed to providing a variety of amenities throughout the municipality, including the provision of affordable and special needs housing, in a financially sustainable manner.

The Community Amenity Contribution Program (CAC Program) is comprised of the following components: 1. Each CAC will be based on a percentage value of lift, to be determined through a review of each development pro forma. The value of lift will be determined in the following manner: A. Projected development revenues – determined from the developer’s pro forma following a review by an economic development consultant to be selected by the City of Maple Ridge. B. Development costs – by adding together the soft costs (such as design fees), offsite costs (such as servicing), construction costs, developer’s profit (industry standard of 15%). C. Value of land after rezoning approval - is determined by subtracting the development costs (B) (not including the land acquisition costs) from the projected development revenues (A). This increase in value is the “lift” in the value of the land. D. Value of land before rezoning – the market value of the land based on the current zoning. This is not necessarily the price the developer paid for the land. E. Community Amenity Contribution – is determined by subtracting the lift value (C) from the value of land before rezoning (D) and multiplied by the pre-determined contribution percentage. 2. The contribution percentage for all CAC’s will be negotiated between 50-75% of the value of lift. 3. The CAC Program will apply city-wide. 4. Those properties within the Town Centre Area Plan boundaries are exempt from the CAC Program. 5. The CAC Program applies to the development of all residential dwellings, including those that are included in a mixed-use development (such as commercial and residential) with the following exceptions: a. Affordable and special needs housing that are secured through a Housing Agreement as established in Section 905 of the Local Government Act;

Page 1 of 3 Policy

b. Rental housing units that are secured through a Housing Agreement established under Section 905 of the Local Government Act will also be subject to a covenant enacted under Section 219 of the Land Titles Act. c. single family residential subdivisions proposing fewer than 3 lots; d. duplex dwelling units where only one building is being constructed; and e. triplex dwelling units where only one building is being constructed. 6. The Density Bonus Framework established in the Albion Area Plan will continue to apply, in addition to the city-wide CAC Program. For developments that take advantage of the density bonus provisions included in the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw for the Albion Area Plan, the amenity contribution rate will be $3100 per lot or dwelling unit. 7. The Official Community Plan may also establish additional community amenity contribution policies and guidelines for each Area Plan. 8. Development applications that are in process (in-stream) at the time of enactment of the Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No.7188-2015, will be subject to the provisions of the Policy unless the applicable Official Community Plan and/or Zoning Bylaw amending bylaw has/have received Third Reading. 9. Council will establish one or more Reserve Funds and identify those amenities that may benefit from the community amenity contributions. 10. The provision of a specific amenity, rather than a cash-in-lieu contribution may also be considered by Maple Ridge Council. If Council determines that the provision of an amenity is more desirable, the following list is to be used as a general guide for determining the type of community amenity:  Daycare and childcare facilities;  Public art;  Heritage conservation;  Land for the provision of: o Affordable or special needs housing; o Parks o Trails o Significant ecological features  Affordable or special needs housing units;  Park or trail construction or improvements;

Purpose: To provide direction on the implementation of a city-wide community amenity contribution (CAC) program, including the process to determine the contribution amount.

Definitions:  “Community Amenity” means any public amenity that provides a benefit to the residents of the city or a specific neighbourhood as the result of increased residential density.  “Value of Lift” means the increase in the value of land following rezoning to a zone that permits greater residential density on the site.  “Development Costs” are those costs that are reasonable project expenses associated with the submission of an Official Community Plan and/or zone amending application, including application fees, costs associated with a required Development Permit and Building Permit, financing, sales and marketing costs, developer profit (established at 15%). Development costs do not include land acquisition costs.  “Land Value” means the assessed value of the land prior to rezoning, based on BC Assessment information.

Page 2 of 3 Policy

Key Areas of Responsibility

Action to Take Responsibility

Page 3 of 3 Policy

APPENDIX B2

POLICY MANUAL

Policy No :

Title: Community Amenity Contribution Program Supersedes:

Authority: Legislative Operational Effective Date:

Approval: Council CMT Review Date: General Manager

Policy Statement:

The City of Maple Ridge is committed to providing a variety of amenities throughout the municipality, including the provision of affordable and special needs housing, in a financially sustainable manner.

The Community Amenity Contribution Program (CAC Program) is comprised of the following components: 1. Each CAC will be based on a contribution rate for single family, townhouse and apartment dwelling units as follows: a. Single Family Residential development $_____ per dwelling unit or lot created; b. Townhouse development $______per dwelling unit created. c. Apartment development $______per dwelling unit created. 2. The CAC Program will apply city-wide. 3. Those properties within the Town Centre Area Plan boundaries are exempt from the CAC Program. 4. The CAC Program applies to the development of all residential dwellings, including those that are included in a mixed-use development (such as commercial and residential) with the following exceptions: a. Affordable and special needs housing that are secured through a Housing Agreement as established in Section 905 of the Local Government Act; b. Rental housing units that are secured through a Housing Agreement established under Section 905 of the Local Government Act will also be subject to a covenant enacted under Section 219 of the Land Titles Act. c. single family residential subdivisions proposing fewer than 3 lots; d. duplex dwelling units where only one building is being constructed; and e. triplex dwelling units where only one building is being constructed. 5. The Density Bonus Framework established in the Albion Area Plan will continue to apply, in addition to the city-wide CAC Program. For developments that take advantage of the density bonus provisions included in the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw for the Albion Area Plan, the amenity contribution rate will be $3100 per lot or dwelling unit. 6. The Official Community Plan may also establish additional community amenity contribution policies and guidelines for each Area Plan. 7. Development applications that are in process (in-stream) at the time of enactment of the Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No.7188-2015, will be subject to the provisions

Page 1 of 3 Policy

of the Policy unless the applicable Official Community Plan and/or Zoning Bylaw amending bylaw has/have received Third Reading. 8. Council will establish one or more Reserve Funds and identify those amenities that may benefit from the community amenity contributions. 9. The provision of a specific amenity, rather than a cash-in-lieu contribution may also be considered by Maple Ridge Council. If Council determines that the provision of an amenity is more desirable, the following list is to be used as a general guide for determining the type of community amenity:  Daycare and childcare facilities;  Public art;  Heritage conservation;  Land for the provision of: o Affordable or special needs housing; o Parks o Trails o Significant ecological features  Affordable or special needs housing units;  Park or trail construction or improvements;

Purpose: To provide direction on the implementation of a city-wide community amenity contribution (CAC) program, including the process to determine the contribution amount.

Definitions:  “Community Amenity” means any public amenity that provides a benefit to the residents of the city or a specific neighbourhood as the result of increased residential density.  “Value of Lift” means the increase in the value of land following rezoning to a zone that permits greater residential density on the site.  “Development Costs” are those costs that are reasonable project expenses associated with the submission of an Official Community Plan and/or zone amending application, including application fees, costs associated with a required Development Permit and Building Permit, financing, sales and marketing costs, developer profit (established at 15%). Development costs do not include land acquisition costs.  “Land Value” means the assessed value of the land prior to rezoning, based on BC Assessment information.

Page 2 of 3 Policy

Key Areas of Responsibility

Action to Take Responsibility

Page 3 of 3 Policy

APPENDIX C

A Guide to Estimating the CAC &$&VIRUVLWHVLQ2&3JURZWKFHQWUHVDUHGHWHUPLQHGWKURXJKDQHJRWLDWHGDSSURYDOEDVHGRQ RIHVWLPDWHGLQFUHDVHLQPDUNHWYDOXHRIWKHODQGDULVLQJIURPUH]RQLQJDIWHUGHYHORSPHQW FRVWVDQGSURÀWPDUJLQDUHIDFWRUHGLQDQGFDQEHHVWLPDWHGYLDWKHIROORZLQJVWHSV

Development revenues: A Explanation of key terms Development revenues:DUHWKHHVWLPDWHG UHWXUQVIURPWKHVDOHRIQHZXQLWV Development costs include: Development costs:LQFOXGHVUHDVRQDEOH » Soft costs (e.g. design) SURMHFWFRVWVZKLFKPD\LQFOXGHSURSHUW\ » Offsite costs (e.g. servicing) WUDQVIHUWD[DVVHPEO\FRVWVGHPROLWLRQ FRVWVVRIWFRVWVÀQDQFLQJFRVWVVDOHV » Construction costs DQG PDUNHWLQJ FRVWV FRQVWUXFWLRQ » 'HYHORSHUSURÀW  FRVWVFRQWLQJHQF\FRVWVGHYHORSPHQW FRVWFKDUJHV '&&V PXQLFLSDOWD[HV Land costs not included B LQVXUDQFHGHYHORSPHQWDQGUH]RQLQJ application fees, servicing fees, and Value of land after ZDUUDQWLHV 'HYHORSPHQW FRVWV DOVR rezoning: LQFOXGHGHYHORSHUSURÀW Development revenues Value of land after rezoning: is the minus development PDUNHWYDOXHRIODQGXQGHUWKHSURSRVHG costs (A - B) C QHZ ]RQLQJ 7KLV ILJXUH LV FDOFXODWHG 7+(',675,&72) E\ VXEWUDFWLQJ DOO HVWLPDWHG SURMHFWV 1257+9$1&289(5 Value of land before costs (not including land acquisition) Contact information COMMUNITY AMENITY rezoning (current zoning DQGGHYHORSHUSURÀWIURPWKHHVWLPDWHG District of North Vancouver CONTRIBUTIONS IN value): D project revenue. :HVW4XHHQV5RDG 1RUWK9DQFRXYHU%&911 OCP GROWTH CENTRES Value of land before rezoning: is the Web: www.identity.dnv.org Community Amenity PDUNHW YDOXH XQGHU H[LVWLQJ ]RQLQJ Email: [email protected] Contribution: 75% of the (without considering any opportunity Phone: increased market value of IRUXS]RQLQJ 1RWHWKDWWKLVGRHVQRW necessarily reflect what the developer the land minus value of land actually paid for the property. before rezoning i.e.: (C – D) x 75% E What are Community Amenity %HQHÀWVRI&RPPXQLW\$PHQLW\ Factors affecting the Community Contributions? Contributions Amenity Contribution &RPPXQLW\DPHQLW\FRQWULEXWLRQV &$&V  &RPPXQLW\DPHQLW\FRQWULEXWLRQVEHQHILW 7KH&$&YDOXHLVGHULYHGIURPWKHFKDQJHLQ LQWKHIRUPRISK\VLFDODPHQLWLHVRUFDVK WKHORFDOFRPPXQLW\WKH'LVWULFWDVDZKROH ODQGYDOXHXQGHUKLJKHUGHQVLW\]RQLQJ&$&·V FRQWULEXWLRQVPD\EHSURYLGHGE\GHYHORSHUV DQGWKHGHYHORSPHQWSURMHFW&RPPXQLW\ PD\YDU\E\SURMHFWGHSHQGLQJRQDYDULHW\RI when Council approves applications DPHQLWLHVFRQWULEXWHWRZDUGVFRPPXQLW\ IDFWRUVLQFOXGLQJORFDWLRQODQGYDOXHORWVL]H IRU LQFUHDVHG GHQVLW\ DW UH]RQLQJ &$&V OLYHDELOLW\ DQG IDFLOLWDWH WKH GHOLYHU\ RI GHQVLW\DVVHPEO\FRQVWUDLQWVVHUYLFLQJFRVW DGGUHVVLQFUHDVHGGHPDQGRQFRPPXQLW\ DPHQLWLHVWKDWPLJKWRWKHUZLVHQHHGWREH RIUH]RQLQJRQVLWHDPHQLW\UHTXLUHPHQWV facilities and services due to growth and provided through increased property taxes. SDUNLQJQHHGVDQGRWKHUFRPPXQLW\DQG UHGHYHORSPHQW SODQQLQJREMHFWLYHV &$&VFDQEHXVHGWRZDUGVWKHGHYHORSPHQW )RUH[LVWLQJODQGRZQHUVWKLVPHDQVWKDW RIVLWHVSHFLÀFFRPPXQLW\DPHQLWLHV ZKHUH Approach to Determining CAC in the selling price of their property should WKHVHKDYHEHHQLGHQWLÀHGWKURXJKFHQWUHV Designated Centres JHQHUDOO\UHÁ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ÁH[LELOLW\WRWDNHLQWRDFFRXQW is to provide specific policy direction on UHOHYDQWVLWHVSHFLÀFFRQVLGHUDWLRQV GHWHUPLQLQJ&$&VLQ2&3JURZWKFHQWUHV Community art and 'HYHORSPHQWSURSRQHQWVDUHDVNHGWRVXEPLW cultural facilities DGHYHORSPHQWSURIRUPDDWWKHSUHOLPLQDU\ Other amenities LV Lynn Valley Town Centre Enhanced public DVLGHQWLÀHG $SSOLFDWLRQVWDJH7KHSURIRUPDZLOOEH recreation through facilities and UHYLHZHG E\ 'LVWULFW VWDII DQGRU D community LL Lower Lynn Town Centre services consultation TXDOLÀHGODQGHFRQRPLVWUHWDLQHGE\ WKH'LVWULFWRQDFRVWUHFRYHU\EDVLV Lower Capilano Marine LC Village Centre This will allow for an early evaluation Public RIWKHRYHUDOOSURMHFWDVVXPSWLRQV MW Maplewood Village Centre Affordable and gathering DQGDELOLW\WRPHHW'LVWULFWSROLFLHV non-market places e.g. DQG FRPPXQLW\ REMHFWLYHV ZKLOH housing open spaces &HQWUHV,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ3ODQVZLOO and plazas considering the unique project RXWOLQH WKH SURSRVHG FRPPXQLW\ FRQWH[W7KH&$&ZLOOEHFRQÀUPHG DPHQLWLHVIRUHDFKJURZWKFHQWUH GXULQJWKHGHWDLOHGGHYHORSPHQW Parks, application stage. greenways, Restoration trails, of heritage playgrounds features and community gardens Multi-purpose community and daycare space APPENDIX D Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) Program

Investing in the Future of the Burquitlam - Lougheed Neighbourhood

The City of Coquitlam has introduced a Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) program to help fund a new community recreation facility for the Burquitlam - Lougheed Neighbourhood. The CAC program is a key policy in the City’s Transit-Oriented Development Strategy (TDS), which is a high- level vision document that will guide new transit-oriented development around Evergreen Line stations. How does the CAC Program Work? CACs are a voluntary contribution made by an applicant at the time of rezoning, typically by a developer of a property. The CAC program only applies to new residential density (i.e., additional building floor area) that is associated with a rezoning application. The CAC amount is a flat rate dollar cost per floor area for all new residential floor area proposed by a rezoning application in the CAC area. (Area outlined in red on map on the other side.) This flat rate ensures consistency, transparency and equity in the application of the CAC for each rezoning application. The amount of the CAC is $32.29 per m² ($3.00 per square foot) for all new residential floor area proposed up to a maximum floor area of 2.5 times the lot area. Example of a CAC calculation: A rezoning application proposes to add 10,000 m² of residential floor area as part of a new development. The property has 1,000 m² of existing residential floor area. The existing 1,000 m² is deducted from the proposed 10,000 m² of residential floor area and the CACs are only payable on 9,000 m². (Approximately $290,600.)

Doc. # 1591098 - Dec. 2013 Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) Program

CAC Application Area When do CACs not apply? CACs will not be applied to an addition, an existing building, (TDS Core and Shoulder Focus Areas) new single-family residential, or for new buildings constructed under the existing zoning. For example the CAC does not apply to a homeowner wanting an addition to an existing Chapman Avenue single-family residence nor a property owner building a new single-family residence on a lot under the existing zoning. Miller Avenue Burquitlam What is a Zone? Elementary Miller Park All land in the City is assigned a zone under the City’s Zoning Elementary Bylaw. The zone on a property determines what uses are permitted, the dimensional requirements for lots, the height Banting of buildings and how far they can be setback from a property Middle boundary. The zone also determines the maximum density of buildings on a property. Density is typically measured in the Como Lake Avenue City’s zones as a Floor Area Ratio (FAR). What is FAR? Burquitlam Mountain Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is the maximum amount of floor area Clarke Road Park View Park (building space) you are permitted to construct on your lot. Smith Avenue For example, if you have a lot area of 500 m² (5,382 sq. ft.) and Mountain View your maximum FAR is 0.45, then the maximum floor area you Elementary can construct is 225 m² (2,422 sq. ft.). 500 m² lot area x 0.45 FAR = 225 m² gross floor area

Foster Avenue What is Rezoning? Changing the existing zone on a property to another zone is a rezoning. The rezoning process amends the City’s Zoning Bylaw and requires public notification to property owners and occupants of property within 100m of the rezoning site, a Roy Stibbs Street Robinson Elementary public hearing and Council’s approval. What are Community Amenities? North Road Community amenities are facilities that improve the livability Vancouver Golf Coquitlam of an area, and include things such as a library, community and Country Club College or recreation centre, arts facility, youth centre, parkland Brookmere improvements, or space for community serving non-profit Park Austin Avenue groups. In this case, CACs collected in Burquitlam and Lougheed will be used to fund a community recreation facility. The program has been Lo created for the Burquitlam Baden Eleme - Lougheed Neighbourhood Questions? by Coquitlam City Council Lougheed Highway as part of implementing For further information on the program, please contact: Rochesterthe Transit-Oriented Avenue Development Strategy Planning and Development Department (TDS) which was adopted Coquitlam City Hall by Council in July 2012, and 3000 Guilford Way, Coquitlam, BC V3B 7N2 available to view on the City’s

Guilby Street P: 604-927-3430 website:Edgar Avenue coquitlam.ca/tdsBurns Park E: [email protected] APPENDIX E

Density Bonus and Community Benefits Policy

Endorsed: May 25, 2015 1. Introduction Category 'B' Bonus: Up to OCP Schedule 'A' Max. Bonus OCP Schedule 'A' Max. Bonus This document serves as a guide for the consideration An increase in density that exceeds the OCP of density bonuses within the framework of the Official Schedule 'A' Density up to the maximum Community Plan (OCP) and Local Government Act. This bonus amount set out in the OCP. This type document should be read in conjunction with the OCP of bonus requires a rezoning, which may and, in particular, Section 2.2 Density Bonusing, Section include a Town Hall meeting as well as a Public Hearing. 2.3 Density Transfer, and the Schedule ‘A’ Land Use Map. OCP Schedule 'A' Density Limit This guide is intended to provide a greater degree of Category 'A' Bonus: Up to OCP Schedule 'A' Density certainty regarding the purpose and value of community An increase in density that does not exceed benefit contributions that may occur in conjunction with the OCP Schedule 'A' Density. This can include development applications. Contributions of this nature lands that are pre-zoned with a density help ensure that the City is able to provide amenities to bonus, as well as lands that are rezoned meet the needs of our growing community. through a site specific rezoning process with a density bonus. Outright Zoning Owners and applicants are reminded that OCP and rezoning applications are at Council’s absolute discretion. While these guidelines provide a framework for determining community benefits related to rezoning Outright Zoning: applications, Council may reduce, increase or reject any The amount of density permitted on an application. outright basis in the Zoning Bylaw.

2. Bonus Categories

The graphic to the right describes two types of density bonuses. Community Benefit options applicable to each of these bonus categories are outlined in Section 3 of this policy.

Page 2 of 7 Document: 1268321-v3 3. Community Benefit Categories Amenity Fund Contribution Secured Rental Housing Employment Generating Use Heritage Conservation

Lonsdale Regional City Centre - $140 A) 100% Rental Housing Additional Commercial Floor Area Bonus for Restoration and Other Locations - $110 Conditions: 1 sq. ft. Bonus for every 1 sq. ft. of Preservation Determined ($ per sq. ft. of residential floor area • A portion of the rental units must be Commercial Floor Area provided through Rezoning increase beyond existing zoning) rented at below market rates beyond 1.0 FSR See Schedule 1 • belowBelow marketmarket /req. affordable to be determined rates Conditions: Conditions: through Housing Action Plan (HAP) • Can be combined with a cash • Sites with existing rental units are B) Non-Market Rental Housing contribution to reach 100% of not eligible for a bonus except for 30% of Bonus Amount Provided As Non- Maximum Bonus Secured Rental Housing Market Rental Housing • Amenity Fund Contributions may be Conditions: negotiated only in unique • Must be secured in perpetuity circumstances • Not applicable for existing rental sites C) Rental Retention Maintaining Existing Rental Building with Bonus Density Transfer to Another Site Conditions: • A recipient site for the density transfer must be determined in advance at the City's discretion • A business plan must outline how the

existing building on the donor site will Category Bonus 'B'

Up to Schedule 'A' Schedule Bonus to Max. Up be repaired and upgraded

$20 or Negotiated Contribution No Amenity Fund Contribution is Additional Commercial Floor Area Bonus for Restoration and ($ per sq. ft. of residential floor area suggested for Secured Rental 1 sq. ft. Bonus for every 1 sq. ft. of Preservation Determined Conditions:increase beyond existing zoning) Housing projects Commercial Floor Area provided through Rezoning • Sites with existing rental units are beyond 1.0 FSR not eligible for a bonus except for

Secured Rental Housing

Category Bonus 'A' Up to Schedule 'A' Schedule to Density Up OUTRIGHT ZONING

Page 3 of 7 Document: 1268321-v3 4. Applying the Guidelines

These guidelines should be read in conjunction with other City policies. Please note that:

 The Community Benefit options outlined in Section 3 are intended as guidelines and alternatives may be considered by Council in unique circumstances. This could include the provision of on-site community amenities rather than a contribution to an amenity fund, for example. On-site community amenities would be determined based on community needs and must match the value of the bonus density.

 Infrastructure upgrades needed to accommodate a development or mitigate development impacts may be required in addition to public benefits or amenity fund contributions.

 All development applications must provide bylaw-required infrastructure upgrades and contributions, Development Cost Charges, and other applicable fees.

 Community Benefits for OCP amendments are negotiated on a case by case basis considering the nature and extent of the change and community needs.

 Any application which involves the displacement of existing tenants must be accompanied by a Tenant Relocation Strategy;

 The guidelines are not applicable for properties designated Residential Level 1 or Residential Level 2 in the Official Community Plan.

5. Allocating Cash Community Benefit Contributions

Cash contributions for Community Benefits are to be applied to the Community Amenity Reserve Fund and Affordable Housing Reserve Fund. These funds are used to ensure a high quality of life as the community grows. These Funds specifically provide for the following Community Benefits:

Community Amenity Reserve Fund Contributions to this fund will be used to provide City-serving amenities. This includes, but is not limited to:  Harry Jerome Community Recreation Centre;  Child Care Facilities;  Waterfront Amenity Spaces;  Museum;  Park and public open space improvement;  Other Civic Amenities.

Affordable Housing Reserve Fund  Providing new non-market and special needs housing units.

Page 4 of 7 Document: 1268321-v3 Community Benefit Cash Contributions shall generally be allocated as indicated in the table below. These funds shall be spent at Council’s discretion as per the terms of the Bylaws establishing these funds, as amended from time to time. These funds shall be allocated to future projects based on identified community needs.

Percentage Public Benefits Fund 80% Civic Facilities / Community Amenity Reserve Fund Community Amenity Space 20% Affordable and Rental Housing Affordable Housing Reserve Fund

6. Monitoring

The Amenity Fund Contribution amounts shall be updated periodically to reflect community needs and changing market conditions. The allocation of Amenity Fund Contribution amounts to individual reserve funds will be reviewed annually in conjunction with the City’s Financial Plan in order to ensure alignment with Council priorities.

A summary of Amenity Fund Contributions received will be prepared and presented annually.

Page 5 of 7 Document: 1268321-v3

Schedule 1: Category B Bonus Area / Lonsdale Regional City Centre Boundary

Page 6 of 7 Document: 1268321-v3 Appendix 1: Definitions

Amenity Fund Contribution means a cash or in-kind contribution toward Community Benefits provided in return for a rezoning or OCP Amendment.

Community Amenity is a defined physical space that provides direct or indirect Community Benefits to the community and includes, but is not limited to, recreation facilities, child care facilities, museum, library, offices for non-profit organizations, cultural facilities, heritage conservation, civic and institutional uses, district heating utility, community meeting space and employment-generating offices.

Community Benefits are the wide range of benefits achieved in the public interest to support the Goals and Objectives of the OCP and realized in part through Amenity Fund Contributions and Community Amenities achieved through rezoning or density bonusing.

Density is the Floor Space Ratio that can be achieved on a parcel, as a calculation of Gross Floor Area over site area.

Density Bonus is additional density provided in return for Community Benefits.

Floor Space Ratio (FSR) is a method of calculating density and controlling the size of building that can be built on a property. The FSR multiplied by the lot area determines the maximum size of building.

Land Use Designation means the permitted uses and densities as outlined in Schedule ‘A’ of the Official Community Plan.

OCP Maximum Bonus means the highest Floor Space Ratio increase that can be achieved on a site through a Category ‘B’ Bonus, as per the OCP (excludes density transfers). All such density bonuses are subject to a rezoning and enhanced public process.

OCP Schedule ‘A’ Density means the density permitted for a given Land Use Designation in the OCP, under the Schedule A Land Use Map.

Outright Zoning means the maximum Floor Space Ratio that can be realized on a site under existing zoning through a Building Permit without any density bonus.

Page 7 of 7 Document: 1268321-v3 APPENDIX F

The Short Guide - Community Amenity Contributions: Balancing Community Planning, Public Benefits and Housing Affordability

Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development

March 2014

Acknowledgements This guide was drafted in consultation with numerous local governments, the development and building sectors, and the legal and academic communities. The Ministry would like to thank everyone who contributed to the development of this guide.

Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development Contact the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development for answers to questions about the material contained in this guide or other aspects of community amenity contributions.

Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development Local Government Division Intergovernmental Relations and Planning PO Box 9841 Stn. Prov. Govt. Victoria, B.C. V8W 9T2 Phone: 250 387-4037 Website: www.cscd.gov.bc.ca/lgd/contacts/department.htm

Disclaimer The information contained in this guide is provided as general reference and, while all attempts have been made to ensure the accuracy of the material, the guide is not a substitute for provincial legislation and it does not constitute legal advice.

The Short Guide - Community Amenity i Ministry of Community, Sport Contributions: Balancing Community Planning, and Cultural Development Public Benefits and Housing Affordability

Community Amenity Contributions: Balancing Community Planning, Public Benefits and Housing Affordability

Table of Contents

Purpose of the Short Guide to Community Amenity Contributions 1

CACs Are Both an Opportunity and a Risk 1

CACs Can Impact Housing Affordability 1 Exhibit 1: Impact of CACs on the price developers can pay for the land 2 Exhibit 2: A simplified comparison - impact of CACs on housing prices 2

Summary of Recommended Practices for CACs 3

The Short Guide - Community Amenity ii Ministry of Community, Sport Contributions: Balancing Community Planning, and Cultural Development Public Benefits and Housing Affordability

Purpose of the Short Guide to Community Amenity Contributions

When a local government rezones land, it usually increases the land’s value which provides a financial benefit to the applicant, usually the owner or a developer. Increasingly, local governments are seeking to capture part of that financial benefit in order to help fund new infrastructure or provide other public benefits. While rezoning land presents an opportunity to obtain these “community amenity contributions” (CACs), there are also some important legal and public policy risks that need to be considered.

To help local governments appreciate the opportunities and risks of obtaining CACs, the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development has produced a guide, “Community Amenity Contributions: Balancing Community Planning, Public Benefits and Housing Affordability”. The purpose of this Short Guide is to provide the highlights of the full length guide. Those interested in more detailed information should view the full length document available on the Ministry’s website: http://www.cscd.gov.bc.ca/lgd/intergov_relations/library/CAC_Guide_Full.pdf

CACs Are Both an Opportunity and a Risk

Growth creates demands for new or expanded infrastructure and amenities. The cost of meeting these demands can be substantial. While provincial legislation allows local governments to require developers to provide infrastructure, such as roads, parks, water, drainage and sewer facilities, not all impacts of development are fully covered by the legislation. Local governments wanting to recover the full costs of providing infrastructure and community amenities associated with growth, such as recreation facilities or fire halls, are increasingly looking for alternative means of funding, including CACs secured during the rezoning process.

Before deciding if and how to pursue CACs, however, local governments need to ensure that these CACs are obtained legally, fairly and in a way that maintains public confidence in the local government and its community plan.

Local governments do not have legal authority to require applicants for rezoning to pay CACs. They must ensure that any CACs are obtained as part of a negotiation process. Local governments must also not commit to pass a rezoning bylaw on the condition that CACs are provided. Council and regional board members are legally required to remain open-minded on a proposed rezoning, until they have heard the public’s perspectives at the public hearing.

It is important to keep in mind that zoning is intended to implement the community plan and should not be seen as a revenue source. Being perceived to be “selling zoning” can undermine public confidence in the community plan and the council/regional board’s commitment to the plan.

CACs Can Impact Housing Affordability

Another important consideration is the relationship between CACs and housing affordability. If not managed carefully, CACs have the potential to decrease the supply of new housing and increase housing prices. In a nutshell, a housing developer faced with significant CACs cannot simply increase the selling price of the units, as the selling price is set by the market.

The Short Guide – Community Amenity 1 Ministry of Community, Sport Contributions: Balancing Community Planning, and Cultural Development Public Benefits and Housing Affordability

Labour, materials and other construction costs are also fixed. Choosing to reduce their return on investment to absorb these additional costs is also not usually an option. To secure financing, a developer needs to ensure that their pro forma shows a normal financial return. As illustrated in Exhibit 1, the only practical option for the developer is to try and offset the cost of CACs by reducing the amount they offer to land owners to buy the site.

Selling price Costs of Return on investment Without CACs, the Added cost of CACs is fixed by materials, labour to secure financing remaining $ goes to reduces price the market etc. are fixed buying the land developers bid for land

Market price = construction costs + return on investment + costs of land + CACs

Exhibit 1: Impact of CACs on the price developers can pay for the land

In land markets where supply is limited, as in many of B.C.’s growing communities, large CACs leave fewer dollars for developers to purchase land. If land owners are reluctant to sell for a reduced price, developers do not proceed to develop, resulting in a reduction in the supply of new housing, which in turn contributes to higher housing prices (as illustrated below in Exhibit 2).

Exhibit 2: A simplified comparison - impact of CACs on housing prices

Initial market Developer Developer buys Housing supply Market prices Without CACs: price for land bids for land and builds meets demand remain stable

With Initial market Developer Reduces land Housing supply Market prices substantial price for land LOWERS bid owner incentive/ does NOT meet INCREASE CACs: + for land willingness to sell demand CACs Fewer units built

The above diagrams show that while CACs cannot directly increase the price of housing for a particular development, if they are widely used, CACs can push up prices in the overall market.

To ensure that housing affordability is not being compromised, local governments need to ensure that CACs are kept at a modest level. A policy of trying to maximize the amount of CACs risks driving up housing prices.

The Short Guide - Community Amenity 2 Ministry of Community, Sport Contributions: Balancing Community Planning, and Cultural Development Public Benefits and Housing Affordability

Summary of Recommended Practices for CACs

The following outlines recommended practices for local governments currently, or considering, using, CACs:

1. Avoid Legal Risk and Maintain Public Confidence  Negotiate, do not impose CACs. A common misperception is that local governments have authority to impose CACs as a condition of rezoning. In fact, the Local Government Act [s. 931(6)] prohibits this. CACs must be negotiated.  Avoid the perception that zoning is for sale. Elected officials must remain “open-minded” during the rezoning process, and must not commit to approving a rezoning subject to CACs. Zoning should not be considered a revenue stream. The perception of “selling zoning” undermines public confidence in the local government and the community plan.

2. Plan Ahead  Identify potential amenities that could be partly funded through CACs when preparing or updating the community plan, ideally identifying the priorities at the neighbourhood level.

3. Seek Modest Contributions and Follow an Approach that Balances Community Amenities and Housing Affordability  The potential impact of CACs on housing affordability is higher where CACs are a significant portion of the cost of the development.  Since CACs increase the cost of a project, it is important to consider who ultimately pays for these additional costs, and how they may affect housing supply and housing prices. This issue is of particular concern in areas where land is in short supply.  Strategies that facilitate an increase in the supply of housing have a positive effect on affordability.  The impact of CACs will be different in different areas or circumstances, so a flexible approach is best.

4. Apply Development Cost Charge (DCC) Principles to CACs  Ensure a direct, demonstrable link (‘nexus’) between CACs and the impacts of new development.  Ensure CACs are proportional to the impact of the development and consistent with the CACs made by other applicants/developers.  Be transparent about the amount of CACs and how they will be used.  Borrow the principles and practices that apply to DCCs to develop (tables of/schedules of) estimated CAC amounts.  CACs should only be used for capital costs. Local governments should be sure that they have the budget capacity to deal with operational and repair costs over time.

5. Engage the Development Community  Be aware of how CACs could impact projects and their viability, to avoid contributing to higher housing prices.

The Short Guide - Community Amenity 3 Ministry of Community, Sport Contributions: Balancing Community Planning, and Cultural Development Public Benefits and Housing Affordability

6. Choosing an Approach to Obtaining Amenities - It is recommended that local governments consider the following strategies (in order):  Adopt an “affordability by design” approach to writing zoning bylaws – i.e. zones that allow for design features that reduce the costs of producing housing units and/or encourage additional units. Examples include reducing or eliminating setbacks and parking requirements.  Use density bonus zoning – modest levels of density bonus tied to modest contributions, encourage new development while minimizing the impact on housing affordability.  Set targets for CACs – and be open to negotiation at time of rezoning. These targets should be modest to minimize impact on housing affordability.  Negotiating CACs based on a “lift” approach is inconsistent with the principles set out in this Guide, and is the approach most likely to reduce the supply of developable land and housing, thereby contributing to higher housing costs. The CAC principles set out in this Guide, including ‘planning ahead’, nexus and proportionality, support an approach that clearly identifies community needs and the impacts associated with new development, and links the CAC not to the “lift” in land value, but rather to the cost of providing a package of amenities that makes sense given the development being proposed.

This Short Guide has outlined for B.C. local governments some of the risks, challenges and recommended practices related to obtaining CACs. Most of the recommended principles and practices apply equally to CAC and density bonus approaches. The guide has also described the relationship between CACs and housing affordability, and encourages practices that do not risk inadvertently causing housing prices to increase. Since the impact of CACs will vary, it is suggested that BC local governments be flexible in their approach to obtaining CACs.

The Short Guide - Community Amenity 4 Ministry of Community, Sport Contributions: Balancing Community Planning, and Cultural Development Public Benefits and Housing Affordability

The Short Guide - Community Amenity 5 Ministry of Community, Sport Contributions: Balancing Community Planning, and Cultural Development Public Benefits and Housing Affordability

Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development City of Maple Ridge

TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: December 7, 2015 and Members of Council FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop

SUBJECT: Crime Free Multi-Housing Program

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

At the November 17 Workshop, reconvened from November 16, Council considered a report on Crime Free Multi-Housing (CFMH). Following discussion, Council deferred the matter pending further information. This report addresses that information, specifically:

 Details on the program  The fees being charged by other municipalities  The percentage uptake in other municipalities

The CFMH is a crime prevention program designed to help property owners, building managers and residents of multi-housing properties prevent or eliminate criminal and nuisance activity from their residence. In BC, the program is governed by the BC Crime Prevention Association (BCCPA) and is implemented independently by each community. Appendix 1 to this report provides details on the program.

Earlier this year, staff was directed to establish a Sub-Committee comprised of members of the Bylaw Department and the RCMP to review how the CFMH program can increase subscription among those not currently using the program.

As a result of this direction, members of each department met several times to discuss this subject and to determine what information would be needed to achieve this goal. A comparison study of incentives and discounts used by other Municipalities was produced to determine if there might be a better method to achieve compliance in the program.

The City of Maple Ridge is currently using a system of a Business Licence discount for those buildings which have the CFMH designation. This approach has had modest uptake since its inception. The sub-committee review suggests that a higher business licence fee for non-participants could act to achieve greater participation.

RECOMMENDATION(S):

That an amendment to the Business Licencing and Regulation Bylaw No. 6815-2011 be made to charge a base licence fee of $700 dollars plus $40 per unit for buildings that are not certified under the Crime Free Multi-housing Program and a base licence fee of $110 plus $10 per unit for buildings that are certified under the Crime Free Multi-housing Program.

Page 1 of 5 5.2

DISCUSSION:

a) Background Context:

The CFMH was introduced into BC in 1994 by New Westminster Police Department. The CFMH program has been adopted by over twenty communities in BC. There are now over 600 buildings working with the program. Details of the program are attached as Appendix 1 to this report. The program consists of three phases:

 The Phase One component requires the completion of a training workshop. Resident managers and/or owners attend a one day seminar present in partnership with the BC Crime Prevention Association.

 The Phase Two component consists of a Crime Free Coordinator conducting a security review of the property. The rental property must meet minimum safety and security standards.

 The Phase Three component is where the owners/managers are asked to host an annual Safety/Social meeting for their residents to involve them in reducing crime on the property and to get involved in the community.

One of the benefits of having a CFMH program is that there should be fewer calls for service from the RCMP and Fire Departments. The rental buildings will be better maintained with improved security and reduced crime. This should attract a more stable tenant base that are invested in the well being of the building. The goal is to appeal to rental buildings to join the program and therefore reduce the number of problem properties that the City has to deal with.

In Maple Ridge, the current system of a licence discount for those buildings which have enrolled in the program has had modest uptake as the enrollment is approximately 37%. The desired outcome is to have more rental buildings enroll in the program.

In discussions with other communities, where the program has been more successful, the real incentive for enrollment is the benefits of the program. Some of these benefits are: lower maintenance and repair costs, increased property values, and improved personal safety for residents, landlords and managers.

Further research of other municipalities involved in the program produced the following results:

Page 2 of 5

Table One – Business Licence Fees

CFMH Municipality Base Licence Fee Unit Fee Comments Discount

$179 for 10 or less units Abbotsford 0 No discount $238 for more than 10

Burnaby none $9.07 No discount

Free criminal record Chilliwack $100 $2 No discount checks for active managers $22-$66 to a Not actively in the Coquitlam 0 maximum of n/a CFMH program at $3300 this time

$170 for certified Langley 0 No discount $606 for non certified

Maple Ridge $110 $40 75%

$13.84 for certified New Westminster 0 10% $15.38 for non certified

North Vancouver 0 $19 10%

Covers cost of Surrey 0 $51 No discount phase one training

Page 3 of 5

Table Two – Examples of fees for a 10 unit building

Municipality Certified Non-Certified Abbotsford $179 $179

Burnaby $990.70 $990.70 Chilliwack $120 $120

Coquitlam n/a n/a Langley $170 $606

Maple Ridge $127.50 $510 New Westminster $138.40 $153.80

North Vancouver $171 $190

Surrey $510 $510

Table Three – CFMH enrollment

Reported % of rental buildings Full Time Municipality enrolled in CFMH Coordinator

Abbotsford 72% no Burnaby 2% no

Chilliwack 21.5% yes Coquitlam No program No

Langley 4% no

Maple Ridge 37% No New Westminster 28% yes

1 building enrolled. Percentage North Vancouver no unavailable. Surrey 79% yes

Many municipalities use a similar approach for encouraging participation as the CFMH program was developed to provide a consistent delivery method. Some municipalities have a full time CFMH coordinator while the coordinator for Maple Ridge has other duties as well and cannot devote 100% of his time on this program.

The participation in the current program in Maple Ridge is fairly static and enrollment is increasing marginally. The sub-committee’s review suggests that a better approach will be to produce an incentive to enrollment by way of a higher licence fee. The buildings that enroll will benefit as stated above and those who don’t will face higher fees which are commensurate with the higher calls for service.

Page 4 of 5

Based on the above information there are three options for Council consideration.

Option One Certified buildings pay a base licence fee of $110 and a per unit fee of $10 (75% unit discount). Non-certified buildings pay a base licence fee of $700 and a per unit fee of $40.

Example: a ten unit certified building pays $110 + $100=$210 a ten unit non-certified building pays $110 = $700 = $810 Option Two Certified buildings pay a base licence fee of $110 and a per unit fee of $10 (75% unit discount). Non-certified buildings pay a base licence fee of $110 and a per unit fee of $200.

Example: a ten unit certified building pays $110 + $100= $210 a ten unit non-certified building pays $110 + $2000 = $2110

Option Three Current practice

Example: a ten unit certified building pays $110 + $400 less 75% of total = $127.50 a ten unit non-certified building pays $110 + $400 = $510

b) Desired Outcome(s): The desired outcome of the CFMH Program is to have a greater percentage of rental buildings in Maple Ridge enrolled in the program while still providing for some low barrier housing.

CONCLUSIONS: The CFMH Program is designed to help owners, property managers and residents keep illegal and nuisance activity away from rental property. Certified rental properties mean that the building owners and managers have taken positive steps to promote effective management to improve the health of the community and the quality of life for residents by developing an environment where crime cannot flourish. This report recommends that a higher business licence fee for non-participants could act to achieve greater participation.

“Original signed by R. MacNair” ______Prepared by: R. MacNair Manager of Bylaw and Licencing Services

“Original signed by Frank Quinn” ______Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng General Manager: Public Works and Development Services

Page 5 of 5

City of Maple Ridge

TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read DATE: December 7, 2015 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2015-335-RZ FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Workshop

SUBJECT: Medical Marihuana Dispensaries

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

A recent topic of discussion within the community has been on options for dealing with medical marihuana dispensaries. As a result of this, Council expressed an interest in receiving more information on the topic.

Marihuana regulations in Canada seem ambiguous and appear to be on the verge of significant change towards legalization. Inconsistencies have been noted in municipal practice and federal legislation. For instance, the recently adopted federal legislation for commercial production facilities requires that prescriptions be distributed through a mail order service only. However, the City of Vancouver has recently established licencing procedures for storefront dispensaries, which seem to be contrary to this federal direction.

The City of Maple Ridge has 3 unlicensed dispensaries within its boundaries. As this use is not considered legal under Federal legislation, Maple Ridge has not issued business licences authorizing these businesses to operate. The Maple Ridge Business Licencing Bylaw contains language outlining the conditions of refusal of a business licence.

This report will provide a brief history of medical marihuana legislation, the legal status of dispensaries, and its implications for bylaw enforcement. This report also identifies options for Council consideration.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the report, titled Medical Marihuana Dispensaries, dated December 7, 2015, be received as information.

Historical Context

A brief summary of medical marihuana legislation is as follows:

 In 1997, the use of medical marihuana became an accepted medical treatment for those with legitimate need, although it remained illegal to distribute marihuana.

5.3  In 2001, the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations were adopted by the Federal Government, based on the understanding that it could ease symptoms related to terminal illness or chronic conditions, and provided a means of access for those afflicted.

 In 2003, under the authority of Health Canada, dried product or seeds became available to those authorized to obtain them. In December 2011, there were 3,600 people within British Columbia authorized to possess medical marihuana, and 1,200 people were licensed to grow the product for personal use. Many of those licensed to possess medical marihuana were permitted to grow it within their homes.

In practice, allowing this use in residential areas was associated with numerous issues, including;

 Poor communication channels between growers, building officials, and law enforcement officers.  Fire, electrical and safety code violations leading to health and safety concerns.  Increased risk of electrical fires damaging adjacent properties or businesses sharing a common wall.  Combined impacts of home invasions, organized crime infiltrating legal operations, poor accountability with those licensed to grow, and significant potential for diversion of legal product to the illegal market.  In amateur indoor growing environments, carbon monoxide was an undetectable but serious health risk.  Large amounts of improperly handled waste were generated.

Late in 2012, changes were being proposed for Federal legislation regarding medical marihuana:

 Health Canada, the licensing authority for medical marihuana, was revising its program for regulating licensed producers and is introducing additional compliance standards related to public health, best management practices, and accountability.  Licensed producers would have to demonstrate compliance with requirements for product quality, personnel, record-keeping, safety and security, disposal and reporting.  The existing system of individual growers and licenses were to be phased out in favour of new Federal legislation in 2014.

New Federal Legislation

On December 16, 2012, the Federal Minister of Health released a press release proposing a new program, called Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations (MMPR). The objective of the new program was to redress problems incurred by the current Marihuana Medical Access Program, and to establish a regulated commercial market of licensed producers responsible for the production and distribution of medical marihuana. In time, these regulations should change the way Canadians access marihuana.

It was initially anticipated that there would be some overlap between the emerging Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations (MMPR) program and the Marihuana Medical Access Program

- 2 -

(MMAP) which was to end on March 31, 2014. Although the MMPR program is now in place, legal challenges have extended some of the personal use licences for an indefinite period. As a result, the full effect of the new legislation is yet to be realized. In addition, although Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations are now in effect, there have been few approved producers at this time due to delays in application processing.

Eventually, these legislative changes and technological advances may assist in alleviating some of the problems associated with personal use licences. Health Canada regulations will increase the potential for improved management practices and better regulation of the industry. Technological advances will favour strategic capital investment to create energy efficient production in secure buildings that are safe for the use intended.

In June of 2013, the Agricultural Land Commission issued an information bulletin recognizing the commercial production of medical marihuana as an agricultural use that could not be prohibited on lands within the Agricultural Land Reserve. More recently, the BC Ministry of Agriculture has developed a bylaw standard for commercial production facilities in the Agricultural Land Reserve, and has issued a letter to all affected municipalities outlining expectations of conformance by the Fall of 2015. It also appears likely that the legalization of this substance may occur in the short to medium term horizon, with the recent change in the Federal government.

PLANNING ANALYSIS: Legal Context As noted, numerous legislative changes concerning marihuana have occurred in recent Canadian history. It appears that more changes are coming, with the potential for the eventual legalization of marihuana for recreational use. In the interim, there is a great deal of confusion about the legal status of this drug, especially given its ubiquitous presence within the community.

Probably the most visible symptom of this confusion is the medical marihuana dispensary, a storefront operation that distributes marihuana to prescription holders. Numerous dispensaries have opened up across British Columbia, and are concentrated in the City of Vancouver, which has recently began to license them as a municipal process.

Apparently there are about 90 of these retail outlets in Vancouver. The storefront location and the City of Vancouver’s recent licensing procedures give a sense of legitimacy to this use, adding to the confusion. But possession and sale of marihuana is contrary to sections 4 and 5 of the Controlled Drug and Substances Act (CDSA) (link: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-38.8/page-2.html.)

Aside from the residual personal use licences, the only commodity form of legal marihuana is medical marihuana which is under the jurisdiction of Health Canada and must be distributed by mail to prescription holders from registered producers licensed under the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations (MMPR) program.

A list of licensed producers is available on Health Canada’s medical marihuana page: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/marihuana/info/list-eng.php. Health Canada’s process for

- 3 - registering and obtaining medical marihuana under the MMPR is as follows: http://www.hc- sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/marihuana/access-acceder-eng.php.

This federal process is the only legal means to acquire marihuana in Canada. Authorized producers that supply dispensaries are breaking the law, as they can only provide a mail order service to individual prescription holders. Retail marihuana sales are not legal, because they do not follow the required process of mail order sales between authorized producer and the prescription holder.

Even without legal enforcement and criminal charges, there could be implications for those involved in this business use. Commercial landlords incur risks when renting to tenants who use the premises for illegal activities. Insurance companies may be unwilling to extend coverage or possibly pay claims incurred in the presence of an illegal operation. (Some commercial landlords are now insisting that their tenants intending to retail marihuana obtain a municipal business licence prior to obtaining a lease).

Municipal Context

It appears that the City of Vancouver is the only Metro Vancouver municipality that has developed a business licencing fee for this illegal use. In general, most other municipalities do not recognize marihuana dispensaries. In response to a telephone poll, most municipal representatives pointed out that as the use is illegal, there is no need to recognize it through their Zoning Bylaws, as the legal status alone is sufficient to commence enforcement action against offending uses. The table below provides a brief overview of how other Metro Vancouver municipalities are handling the store front marihuana dispensary issue.

Municipality Explicit Prohibition in Zoning Bylaw Presence of dispensaries

Burnaby no Yes

Coquitlam no no

Delta no No

Langley Yes prohibited uses in all zones include cultivation as well No as dispensing.

Port Moody no No

City of Yes, in 2011, a bylaw amendment was prepared that No Surrey recognized and directed marihuana dispensaries into a specific commercial zone. The only property appropriately zoned is owned by the municipality. (It is important to note that this bylaw amendment occurred prior to the current MMPR regulations when the use was limited to personal use. It may no longer be particularly relevant in the current context.)

- 4 -

Options for Council Consideration

Bylaw Amendments to prohibit medical marihuana dispensaries.

I. Business Licencing and Regulation Bylaw Legal Counsel advises that the appropriate legal mechanism for prohibiting medical marihuana dispensaries resides within the Business Licencing and Regulation Bylaw. The existing bylaw contains the following statements that are pertinent to this use: 6.1.1 Except as otherwise provided in this Bylaw: (a) no person shall carry on, maintain, own or operate a Business in the District without holding a valid and subsisting Licence; and (b) no person shall suffer, permit or allow a person to carry on, maintain or operate a Business without a valid and subsisting Licence.6.10 Refusal of a Licence

6.10.1 An Application may be refused by the Licence Inspector in any specific case, provided that: (a) the Application shall not be unreasonably refused; and (b) the Licence Inspector shall give written reasons for the refusal.

Legal Counsel advises that the existing language of the Business Licencing and Regulation Bylaw would probably be interpreted to allow a licensing official to deny a license for a business that cannot operate without breaching the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. While this wording is likely sufficient, a more solid position might be achieved if the bylaw contained something like the following, which has recently been added to some business bylaws in the Okanagan:

A license Inspector may grant a business licence when satisfied that the applicant has complied with the requirements of the bylaws of the [municipality] and that the proposed business would not be carried out in contravention of the Criminal Code of Canada or the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

II. Zoning Bylaw The Zoning Bylaw could be amended to prohibit medical marihuana dispensaries. However, the most effective mechanism for prohibiting this use is through the Business Licencing and Regulation Bylaw, which sets out the conditions to deny issuance of a business licence. Beyond the constraints of time and more pressing priorities, the RCMP and the Maple Ridge Bylaws department currently face no obstacles to engaging in enforcement action. Explicit language in the Zoning Bylaw about marihuana dispensaries would not likely ease the challenges associated with enforcement.

III. Do nothing Under this option, the Zoning Bylaw remains silent, out of recognition that an illegal business would be denied the issuance of a business licence, and therefore could not operate within the municipality. As noted above, there appears to be little benefit to explicitly prohibiting this illegal activity in the Zoning Bylaw. Depending on Council direction, there may be future benefits to prohibition as it could set limits when and if this use becomes legal. However, the outcomes and

- 5 - direction of a Federal decision towards legalization are not clear, and there does not appear to be any immediate urgency to amend the bylaw in anticipation of impending changes.

Enforcement

The standard practice for commencing bylaw enforcement is after receiving a formal complaint from within the community. With Council direction, enforcement against existing medical marihuana dispensaries could be pursued more aggressively. However, this option should be considered carefully, as the staff time involved would detract from other priority concerns. Consideration should also be given to whether or not the City would wish to proceed beyond ticketing to the injunction stage, given the emerging Federal trend towards legalization.

CONCLUSION:

Despite their appearance of legitimacy, medical marihuana dispensaries are illegal operations that violate Sections 4 and 5 of the Controlled Drug and Substances Act. This report explores the history of marihuana legislation in Canada, discusses the legal status of marihuana dispensaries, and provides 3 options for Council’s future consideration. The report concludes that the current situation allows the opportunity for legal or bylaw enforcement, and a Zoning Bylaw amendment will not likely improve this situation. Council could direct staff to ticket and fine these illegal uses more aggressively, but this direction would need to be considered within the context of other priorities and demands on staff time. Council could also direct that amendments be made in the Business Licencing and Regulation Bylaw to more explicitly prohibit this use, although the currently language appears sufficient for this purpose. On this basis, the recommendation is that this report be received as information.

“Original signed by Diana Hall” ______Prepared by: Diana Hall M.A. (Planning), MCIP, RPP Planner

“Original signed by Christine Carter” ______Approved by: Christine Carter M.PL., MCIP, RPP Director of Planning

“Original signed by Frank Quinn” ______Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA. P.Eng GM: Public Works & Development Services

Link to Globe and Mail Article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/small- business/sb-money/cash-flow/retail-marihuana-businesses-are-sprouting-across-vancouver- and-theyre-not-legal/article24821375/

- 6 -