1
Regular Meeting of Council Agenda November 7, 2016 A Regular Meeting of Council will be held in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Hall at 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, B.C. Commencing at 1:00 p.m. for Committee of the Whole Immediately followed by a Closed Council meeting Reconvening at 7:00 p.m. for Regular Council proceedings
1. CALL TO ORDER (1:00 P.M.)
2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
3. RESOLUTION TO RESOLVE INTO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
4. CORPORATE ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE (a) Investment Holdings Quarterly Report – September 30, 2016 Page 6 This report will bring Council and the public up-to-date on the District’s cash and portfolio investment holdings. This report is provided for information purposes only. No staff recommendation accompanies this report and Council action is not required. (b) Safety Management System Page 8 This report is provided for information purposes only and no action is required by Council. (c) Changes to TrainBus Service Page 14 The purpose of this report is to provide information about upcoming changes to the TrainBus service component of the West Coast Express. A resolution from Council is required to provide direction to staff as to the level of service desired to connect Mission with Maple Ridge and beyond.
5. ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC WORKS (a) Water Meter Pilot Study Update Page 21 This report summarizes the results of the Water Meter Pilot Study. No staff recommendation accompanies this report and Council action is not required.
2 Regular Council Agenda November 7, 2016
The consultant, Karl Filiatrault, will attend the meeting to present the water meter pilot study summary (b) 1st Avenue Streetscape Improvements Page 33 RECOMMENDATIONS: Council consider and resolve: 1. That the 1st Avenue Streetscape Improvements Project Plan, as summarized in the report from the Manager of Development Engineering & Projects dated November 7, 2016, be endorsed; 2. That staff be authorized to engage the market for qualified consulting services for the purpose of procuring a for tender engineered design package in 2017; and 3. That staff be authorized to commence of sub-surface municipal utility repairs, as necessary, starting in 2017. (c) 2017 Asset Management Planning Program Grant Application Page 73 RECOMMENDATIONS: Council consider and resolve: 1. That the Level of Service Framework Project be supported for the 2017 Asset Management Planning Program grant application, as outlined in the Engineering Technologist II – Asset Management report dated November 7, 2016; 2. That, if the grant application is successful, the 2017 capital budget for the Asset Management System be increased from $30,000 to $40,000 to include the $10,000 grant funding; and 3. The District’s financial plan be amended accordingly.
6. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (a) Submission of Context Study to Council from Mission Community Page 75 Heritage Commission RECOMMENDATION: Council consider and resolve: That District of Mission Context Study 2016, as appended to the Senior Planner’s report dated November 7, 2016 be received. (b) Liquor Licensing Page 149 This report is provided in response to Council’s recent request of October 17, 2016 to amend the Zoning Bylaw by prohibiting the sale of liquor in grocery stores that are located within one kilometer of an existing liquor store. Staff have prepared a Zoning Amending Bylaw that amends the definition of Supermarket to specifically exclude the sale of liquor. This bylaw is listed under the “Bylaws for Consideration” of the agenda for first two readings.
3 Regular Council Agenda November 7, 2016
Subject to Council’s approval, a Public Hearing will be scheduled for December 5, 2016. (c) Development applications to facilitate a four (4) urban residential Page 156 subdivision located at 7765 Horne Street This report details the rezoning, and development permit applications to facilitate a four (4) lot subdivision and identifies the necessary amendments to Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009. Staff support the proposed Zoning Amending Bylaw and as such have listed the Bylaw 5595-2016-5050(220) under the “Bylaws for Consideration” section of the Council agenda. Subject to Council’s approval, a Public Hearing will be scheduled for November 21, 2016.
7. PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURE (a) Developer’s Request to Waive 5% Cash in Lieu for Parkland for Page 166 S13-008 at 8973 Manzer Street RECOMMENDATIONS: Council consider and resolve: 1. That the July 18th, 2016 resolution of Council (R16.408) requiring the payment of 5% of the value of the land as cash in lieu of parkland for subdivision S08-13 located at 8973 Manzer be maintained; and 2. That the District of Mission not accept any additional portion of lands or rights-of-way for trails beyond what was identified for dedication in the Preliminary Layout Approval letter dated June 6, 2014 for subdivision S13-008.
8. RESOLUTION TO RISE FROM COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE RECOMMENDATION: Council consider and resolve to rise from Committee of the Whole
9. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE PUBLIC, RECESS THE PUBLIC MEETING UNTIL 7:00 P.M. AND IMMEDIATELY CONVENE INTO CLOSED SESSION RECOMMENDATIONS: Council consider and resolve: 1. That pursuant to Section 90 of the Community Charter, the public be excluded from this portion of the meeting as the subject matter being considered relates to the following: • Section 90(1)(e) of the Community Charter – the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements, if the council considers that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality; and • Section 90(2)(b) of the Community Charter – the consideration of information received and held in confidence relating to 4 Regular Council Agenda November 7, 2016
negotiations between the municipality and a provincial government or the federal government or both, or between a provincial government or the federal government or both and a third party; 2. That the public portion of the meeting be recessed until 7:00 p.m.; and 3. That Council immediately resolve into the closed portion of their meeting.
10. RECONVENE (7:00 P.M.)
11. RESOLUTION TO ADOPT RECOMMENDATIONS OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (a) Freestanding Committee of the Whole (Corporate Administration Page 175 and Finance – Budget) report dated October 20, 2016 RECOMMENDATION: That the recommendations listed in the Freestanding Committee of the Whole (Corporate Administration and Finance – Budget) report dated October 20, 2016 be adopted (b) Committee of the Whole report dated November 7, 2016 -- Report of recommendations to be circulated at the 7:00 p.m. reconvened public meeting
12. PUBLIC BUDGET CONSULTATION Presentation of proposed budget followed by public input session Page 176
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS (a) Public Hearing Notice for November 7, 2016 Page 184 For reference (b) Zoning Amending Bylaw 5586-2016-5050(213) Page 185 A bylaw to permit and prohibit certain uses in the Core Commercial Downtown 1 (CCD1) Zone Previous staff report included as background information
14. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS AND MINUTES (a) Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee Meeting – September 13, Page 195 2016 (b) Cultural Resources Commission Meeting – October 14, 2016 Page 199
15. BYLAWS FOR CONSIDERATION (a) Zoning Amending Bylaw 5595-2016-5050(220) First and Second R16-017 (Analytical Consulting) – a bylaw to rezone a portion of Readings the property at 7765 Horne Street from Urban Residential 558 5 Regular Council Agenda November 7, 2016
(R558) Zone to Compact Residential 465 (RC465) Zone. Page 202 See “Development Services” in Section 6(c) (b) Zoning Amending Bylaw 5609-2016-5050(224) First and Second A bylaw to amend the definition of ‘Supermarket’ to specifically Readings exclude the sale of liquor. Page 204 See “Development Services” in Section 6(b) (c) Zoning Amending Bylaw 5586-2016-5050(213) Third Reading A bylaw to permit and prohibit certain uses in the Core Page 205 Commercial Downtown 1 (CCD1) Zone See “Public Hearings” in Section 13(b) (d) Zoning Amending Bylaw 5592-2016-5050(218) Adoption R16-035 (Woods) – a bylaw to rezone the property at 12411 Carr Page 207 Street from Rural Residential 7 (RR7) Zone to Rural Residential 7 Secondary Dwelling (RR7s) Zone Excerpt from public hearing minutes and previous staff report included as background information
16. DEVELOPMENT PERMITS FOR CONSIDERATION None
17. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR APPROVAL RECOMMENDATION: That the following minutes be adopted:
(a) Special Council Meeting (Administrative Hearing) – March 14 and Page 215 September 12, 2016 (b) Regular Council Meeting – October 17, 2016 Page 219
(c) Freestanding Committee of the Whole (Corporate Services and Page 229 Finance – Budget) Meeting – October 20, 2016 (d) Special Council Meeting (Economic Development Select Page 232 Committee) – October 24, 2016 (e) Special Council Meeting (for the purpose of going into a closed Page 235 meeting) – October 26, 2016
18. NEW/OTHER BUSINESS
19. NOTICES OF MOTION
20. QUESTION PERIOD
21. ADJOURNMENT
6
Finance Department Staff Report to Council
File: 05-1860-01
DATE: November 7, 2016 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Scott Ross, Manager of Accounting Services SUBJECT: Investment Holdings Quarterly Report – September 30, 2016
This report will bring Council and the public up-to-date on the District’s cash and portfolio investment holdings. This report is provided for information purposes only. No staff recommendation accompanies this report and Council action is not required.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to provide Council with a quarterly update of the District’s cash and portfolio investment holdings.
BACKGROUND: In accordance with the District’s Investment Policy FIN.20, staff report to Council on the District’s investment holdings on a quarterly basis.
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS: The following table summarizes the District’s cash and portfolio investment holdings as at September 30, 2016:
Amount Return A General Bank Account $ 8,730,632 1.20% Cashable Term Deposits 38,207,896 1.75% to 2.25% Non-cashable Term Deposits 45,941,708 1.75% to 2.80% MFA Bond Fund 3,078,490 1.95% Total Cash and Portfolio Investments $ 95,958,726 Note A - returns for the MFA Bond Fund are based on actual performance over the immediately preceding 12 month period.
Excluding general bank interest earnings, the District’s investment portfolio has yielded an average annualized return of approximately 2.03% for the nine months ended September 30, 2016.
All investment decisions made are in compliance with Section 183 of the Community Charter and ensuring the primary objective is the preservation of capital as per the District’s Investment Policy FIN.20.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no financial implications directly associated with this report.
Page 1 of 2 7
COMMUNICATION: No communication action is required.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION: The District’s total cash and portfolio investment balance is $95,958,726 as at September 30, 2016.
SIGN-OFFS:
Reviewed by: Scott Ross, Manager of Accounting Services Kris Boland, Director of Finance
Comments from the Chief Administrative Officer: Reviewed.
g:\finance\cow\2016\1107 nov 07\investment holding quarterly report - september 30 2016.docx
STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 2 of 2 8
Corporate Administration Staff Report to Council
File: 2660-Health & Safety / SMS Project
DATE: November 7, 2016 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Mike Younie, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer SUBJECT: Safety Management System
This report is provided for information purposes only and no action is required by Council.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to update Council with respect to the development and rollout of the District’s new Safety Management System (SMS).
BACKGROUND: The District has not updated its worker safety program for many years. Over the last two years, Coast Eagle Consulting Inc. (CEC) has been working with District staff to develop a new SMS. A SMS is a requirement of the Workers Compensation Act and Regulations and is a systematic way to identify hazards and effectively control risks. The benefits of a SMS are numerous and include: • Reduced injuries and incidents; • Reduced premiums and worker compensation claims; • Reduced absenteeism; • Reduced workload for supervisors and managers; • Improved employee satisfaction with their workplace; and • Savings in WCB premiums.
The SMS includes 13 sections: Section Section Title Section Section Title Number Number 100 Organizational Commitment 800 Inspections 200 Hazard Assessment and Risk Control 900 Emergency Preparedness / First Aid 300 Safe Work Practices 1000 Records & Statistics 400 Safe Operating Procedures Safety Job 1100 Joint Occupational Health and Safety Practices Committee (JOHS) 500 Personal Protective Equipment 1200 Injury Management / Return to Work 600 Preventative Maintenance 1300 Forms 700 Training Instruction and Certification
STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 1 of 6 9
A series of documents within each section will be developed to provide the detailed information required to address each section. At this time, the 100 series documents have been developed, reviewed and are ready to be rolled out to staff. This is an opportunity to renew staff’s and the District’s commitment to a healthy and safe workplace.
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS: The SMS 100 series consists of the following policies: Number Title Number Title 101 Occupational Health & Safety Statement 110 WorkSafe BC Relations 102 Safety Management System 111 Firefighting Operations Administration 103 Definitions 112 Forestry Operations 104 Rights, Roles & Responsibilities 113 Impairment 105 Accident Investigation Management 114 New/Young Worker Orientation 106 Contractor Coordination 115 Refusal of Unsafe Work 107 Due Diligence and Safety Audit Process 116 Workplace Annual Safety Plan (WASP) 108 Legislation 117 Human Resources Policy / Procedure 109 Medical Examinations and Health Monitoring
These are considered live documents in the sense that changes will likely be required as they are used over the course of the next few years. These changes will reflect the way the District carries out its business related to safety but also in response to changes made by WorkSafeBC. Similarly, the SMS as it is proposed now, has a considerable number of reporting and planning requirements. These will also be reviewed over the next few years to make sure the legislative requirements are met but also being mindful of the workload involved. The development of the SMS to date has been a joint effort between the union and management. A steering committee was developed to assist with providing advice to CEC and consisted of union supervisors, managers and front line staff. A significant amount of training, particularly with supervisors and managers, will be required over the coming months. A representative from CEC will be available to make a short presentation to Council at the November 7, 2016 Committee of the Whole meeting.
COUNCIL GOALS/OBJECTIVES: A safe and healthy workplace is a critical component to Council’s goal of organizational excellence.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The District’s WorkSafeBC costs take two forms: (i) direct premiums to WorkSafeBC and (ii) top ups in salary between what an employee earns and what he or she is paid when on a WorkSafeBC claim as required by the Collective Agreement. The District pays two types of premiums: (i) municipal operations and (ii) forestry. The Forestry Department has had a comprehensive and successful safety program for many years and receives a discount on WorkSafeBC premiums as a result. The remainder of the District pays significant surcharges on its premiums because the District’s claim rating is well above those of other insured parties within the same industry class as the District.
STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 2 of 6 10
The following table provides a summary of WorkSafeBC costs to the District over the last several years. 2014 2015 Component Adj.* Premiums Top Up Total Adj.* Premiums Top Up Total Forestry -26.2% $25,780 $13,869 $39,649 -30.6% $24,515 $7,260 $31,775
Municipal +44.4% $382,359 $53,754 $436,113 +39.6 $406,884 $35,587 $442,471 * Adjustment: Surcharge to industry average (+), Reduction from industry average (-)
The SMS program is expected to qualify the District for the BC Municipal Safety Association’s Certificate of Recognition (COR) certification within a year. The Forestry Department already qualifies for the COR savings. COR for the municipal operations would see the District save 10% on WorkSafeBC premiums but over the longer term, together with a fully implemented SMS, the District can expect to return to industry average premiums and hopefully lower. The District has also retained a claims management company to assist with managing WorkSafeBC claims, which will help to get employees back to work sooner and is expected to save additional funds including potentially an additional 5% in WorkSafeBC premiums. Managing occupational health and safety is becoming more and more onerous as WorkSafeBC continues to set higher expectations and requirements. At some point as the District grows, the requirement for a dedicated occupational health and safety staff member may become a reality.
COMMUNICATION: A Communication Plan (Appendix 1) has been developed and has begun to be implemented.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION: A new Safety Management System has been developed by Coast Eagle Consulting Ltd. and is a much needed update to the District’s occupational health and safety program. This program will help to reduce the District’s premiums and salary top ups both of which have been on a steady rise over the last several years. Roll out of the program to all staff is scheduled to occur over the month of November.
SIGN-OFFS:
Mike Younie, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer Reviewed by: Heather Gherman, Manager of Human Resources
Comment from Chief Administrative Officer: Reviewed
STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 3 of 6 11
APPENDIX 1
Safety Management System Communication Plan October-December, 2016
Communication Goals
To ensure all District of Mission employees are aware of the new Safety Management System (SMS) in order to implement and act in compliance with the program.
Background
In 2015, Council committed to elevating the health & safety program. This included a review and overhaul of our occupational health and safety policy, procedures, safe work practices, and other relevant documents.
An active health and safety management program is an essential step toward improving the organization's health and safety culture. It includes managing an effective health and safety program and then developing and implementing initiatives for improving health and safety in our workplace. It outlines the principles and processes to follow for continual health and safety improvement and includes the following components: • Training for new employees • Comprehensive site risk assessments • Compliance evaluations • Workplace inspections • Incident investigations • Legal requirement reviews • Worker consultation processes
It also contains the elements of: leadership and commitment, robust annual health and safety planning, measurement and tracking of goals and objectives, and, ongoing organization-wide self evaluations.
Key Messages
• To enhance the awareness of safety • To improve the District’s health and safety culture • To promote Council’s commitment to ensuring a safe and healthy workplace
STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 4 of 6 12
APPENDIX 1 Communication Plan Audience Audience Objective Key Message Strategies Who When Information SMS Team Responsible for Accurately Finalize the Presentation Ilona Oct. 25th at updates to SMS; communicate presentation; key reviewed at Ron 9:00 am responsible for program to all aspects include: meeting communications staff • Orientation to staff • Accident investigations • PPE’s Union Concerned for Communicate How the program Presentation at Ilona/ Nov. 9th; Executive safety and health program to will work CUPE Exec Ron/Mike/ Union of membership them; ensure Benefits to meeting Heather office union is employees/ Respond to cooperative & CUPE questions supportive; membership address any concerns they may have Exempt Staff Responsible for Provide training Overview of SMS Presentation Ilona Date to be & Union implementing / on new SMS so How to use Handouts, e.g. Mike set Supervisors adhering to SMS they are administer/ apply crew talk Heather MLC comfortable the new program forms, tailgate Margo Curling utilizing it and Schedule 1 crew forms; Poster Rink enforcing it talk per month to Respond to Lounge review an SMS questions practice Self-learning Combined Supports the Educate the Overview of the Meeting Ilona Date to be JOHS employer's duty JOHSC on the SMS Regular email Mike set Committees to ensure a new SMS What is the updates Heather Council (all locations) healthy and safe committee’s role Margo chambers workplace; in regards to the Comprised of SMS representatives of the employer and the workers; identify and help resolve health and safety issues All staff Concerned about Present the SMS What the new Site meetings: Ilona/Margo/ Dates to their own safety safe work policy/procedures • PW Mike/Heather be set and well being practices /safe work • RCMP Responsible to practices are; • MLC follow procedures Where they are • MH stored; • Firehall How to follow Intranet them; updates Schedule for Posters discussing in Binders for depth at safety each location crew talks
STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 5 of 6 13
APPENDIX 1 Audience Audience Objective Key Message Strategies Who When Information Council Took lead in Status update Cost savings; Memo; Ilona Nov. 7th arranging for the Safer work place Presentation to SMS to be Council? implemented SMS Invested in SMS Charged with Status update; Presentation, Ilona, Mike, Nov. 17th, Steering as the original updating & what needs to handouts Margo, 3:00 pm – Committee steering implementing happen next; Heather 4:30 pm committee SMS how to roll out CAO Overall Inform and Important for Individual Heather, 9AM Oct. responsibility for ensure his organization, meeting prior Ilona, Margo 25th staff support Council objective, to rollout Mike reduce costs
STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 6 of 6 14
Corporate Administration Staff Report to Council
File: 16-8500-03
DATE: November 7, 2016 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Mike Younie, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer SUBJECT: Changes to TrainBus Service ATTACHMENTS: Appendix 1 – Map of SkyTrain Service Including New Evergreen Extension Appendix 2 – Translink Bus #701 Route Map
The purpose of this report is to provide information about upcoming changes to the TrainBus service component of the West Coast Express. A resolution from Council is required to provide direction to staff as to the level of service desired to connect Mission with Maple Ridge and beyond.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to inform Council of upcoming changes to the TrainBus (TB) service component of the West Coast Express (WCE) and to request direction as to the level of bus service connecting Mission with Maple Ridge and beyond.
BACKGROUND: The current WCE service consists of five trains leaving Mission for Vancouver on weekday mornings and returning each evening. In addition, there is one TB leaving Mission for Vancouver in the morning and three TBs leaving Vancouver for Mission each afternoon / evening. Approximately 11,500 TB riders load in Mission per year. There is no WCE or TB service on weekends or holidays other than one-off events such as the Vancouver Sun Run and the holiday shopper train at Christmas. The complete WCE schedule is provided in the following table.
Westbound Eastbound (Leave Mission / Arrive Vancouver) (Leave Vancouver / Arrive Mission) Train 1 5:25AM / 6:40AM 3:50PM / 5:05PM Train 2 5:55AM / 7:10AM 4:20PM / 5:35PM Train 3 6:25AM / 7:40AM 4:50PM / 6:05PM Train 4 6:55AM / 8:10AM 5:30PM / 6:45PM Train 5 7:25AM / 8:40AM 6:20PM / 7:35PM TrainBus 1 10:27AM / 12:22PM 1:25PM / 3:15PM TrainBus 2 NA 7:00PM / 8:42PM TrainBus 3 NA 8:00PM / 9:42PM
STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 1 of 7 15
WCE and TB fares are the same and allow ticket holders to travel anywhere on Translink’s service once they reach a destination within Metro Vancouver.
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS: Translink’s SkyTrain Millennium Line Evergreen extension is scheduled to be in service before Christmas 2016 (Appendix 1). This extension will allow people to travel by SkyTrain from the Coquitlam Centre area to Lougheed Town Centre and beyond. While the Millennium Line does not allow direct travel to Waterfront Station in Vancouver, Millennium Line riders can transfer to the Expo Line at Lougheed Town Centre, Commercial-Broadway and Production Way – University which will allow travel to downtown Vancouver. As a result of this improved transit within Metro Vancouver, Translink will no longer be offering the TB service. Translink proposes to replace the TB to and from Mission with an extension of the #701 Bus from Haney to Mission. Residents of Maple Ridge are currently able to reach Coquitlam Centre on the #701 bus route (Appendix 2). The #701 bus starts at either 248th Avenue and Dewdney Trunk Road or Haney Place Mall and ends at Coquitlam Centre near the Millennium Line (new Evergreen Extension). The following table is an approximation of the #701’s in service times going westbound from Maple Ridge (eastbound times are basically the same with slightly later start and later end times): Day Start / End Frequency (Westbound) Weekday 4:09AM / 12:30AM - every 15 minutes from 5:30AM to 8:30PM - every 30 minutes before 5:30AM and after 8:30PM Saturday 6:10AM / 12:45AM - every 15 minutes from 7:00AM to 8:30PM - every 30 minutes before 7:00AM and after 8:30PM Sunday 6:20AM / 12:48AM - every 15 minutes from 8:00AM to 8:30PM - every 30 minutes before 8:00AM and after 8:30PM
Although not confirmed yet, the #701 extension to Mission is expected to leave Haney Place, travel south to Lougheed Highway and east along Lougheed where it will end its route at the WCE station in Mission. The WCE takes approximately 70 minutes from Mission to Vancouver. The TB takes about 100 to 120 minutes depending on the time of day. The travel time from Mission to Haney on the #701 bus is expected to be about 30 minutes. The travel time from Haney Place to the Coquitlam Centre SkyTrain station is about 45 minutes. The travel time from Coquitlam Centre to Vancouver Waterfront is about 50 minutes on the SkyTrain.
Time One Way Adult Time (Minutes) Fare* WCE Mission to Vancouver 75 $12.25/$10.20 TrainBus Mission to Vancouver 110 $12.25/$10.20 #701 Mission to Haney Place 30 $2.75/$2.10 #701 Haney Place to Coq. Ctr. 45 #701 & SkyTrain $5.50/$4.20 SkyTrain Coq. Ctr. to Vancouver Waterfront 50 Total Mission to Waterfront via #701 & SkyTrain 125 $8.25/$6.30 *one day – one way adult fare / one day – one way adult fare with stored value on compass card
STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 2 of 7 16
The one way trip using the #701 / SkyTrain combination is expected to take 15 minutes longer than the TB that is currently in place and the fare will be $3.90 less when a Compass Card with stored value is used. The #701 will permit increased connection possibilities over the WCE or TB as the bus stops at transit exchanges as opposed to single WCE stations. The implementation of a local bus service between Maple Ridge and Mission is something that has been requested by many over the years. There will be some demand for bus stops along the Lougheed Highway and staff will work with Translink staff to determine whether additional stops (e.g: Walmart, Ruskin, Nelson Street & Lougheed Highway) can be added. At this point, it is likely that Mission would be asked to contribute towards the capital cost of any new stop. The 2017 budget has the District paying $805,000 for the WCE service and an additional $195,000 for the TB service. Replacing the current TB in-service hours with a local bus service is expected to cost the District $125,000 as Translink’s bus service will cost the District $125 per in-service hour and each trip is one hour return. That would leave $70,000 in budget savings that can be used to invest in additional service hours. Given this opportunity, Translink is asking Mission if expanded #701 service hours are desired and, if so, by how much? Any increase in service beyond the current TB service hours is expected to take about three months to arrange. Until several years ago, weekend TB service was offered in Mission with three and two trips on Saturdays and Sundays, respectively, morning and afternoon. A number of additional service options are included in the Financial Implications section of this report, as well as the current service levels and cost. Staff is requesting direction as to what levels of service above the current service the District would like to have delivered by Translink.
COUNCIL GOALS/OBJECTIVES: This report is consistent with Council’s objective for enhanced lifestyle opportunities and community health in which one of the actions is to advocate for WCE and transit connections to Maple Ridge as part of regional service enhancement.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The District currently pays $195,000 for the existing TB service. Replacing this service with the #701 will cost $125,000 leaving $70,000 for additional service hours if desired. Staff have produced several scenarios for expanded service for Council’s consideration and identify the associated costs. These are provided for discussion purposes and will help to cost any additional service levels that Council may want to consider.
STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 3 of 7 17
Service* Annual Hours Cost** Existing TB: 4 trips*** (hours) per weekday 1,000 $125,000
Past weekend service with 3 trips Saturday, 2 trips Sunday 1,150 $143,750 mornings and afternoons Hourly weekday service between 7AM and 7PM 3,250 $406,250 Hourly weekend/holiday service between 7AM and 7PM 1,495 $186,875 Bi-hourly weekday and weekend service between 7AM and 2,190 $273,750 7PM 2 trips morning, 2 trips afternoon on weekdays and 1 trip 1,230 $153,750 morning and 1 trip afternoon on weekend and holidays 2 trips morning, 2 trips afternoon, 365 days per year 1,460 $182,500 1 trip morning, 1 trip afternoon, 365 days per year 730 $91,250 2 trips morning, 2 trips afternoon, weekends and holidays 460 $57,500 1 trip morning, 1 trip afternoon, weekdays 500 $62,500 * Based on 250 weekdays per year, 115 days of weekends and holidays ** $125 per hour ***A trip is Haney Place to Mission and return and takes 1 hour
Given the high frequency and long daily operating times of the existing #701 service to Maple Ridge, there are many options for Council to consider.
COMMUNICATION: The District will work with Translink and BC Transit to ensure that the changes are properly announced to the ridership.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION: With the opening of Translink’s SkyTrain Millennium Line Evergreen Extension, the TrainBus component of the West Coast Express will be replaced with regular Translink bus service (#701) between Mission and Haney Place, Maple Ridge. Riders will be able to remain on the #701 from Haney Place to Coquitlam Centre where they can transfer and access the SkyTrain network. The trip from Mission to Vancouver will take slightly longer than the TrainBus but cost for the service will be significantly less for the rider. Similarly, a net budget savings of $70,000 to the District is also expected with this change. While these savings can be re-invested in additional #701 bus service between Mission and Maple Ridge, further incremental service increases will result in proportionate cost increases to the District. Council direction is requested in terms of keeping the savings or expanding the #701 bus service beyond the existing TrainBus schedule.
STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 4 of 7 18
SIGN-OFFS:
Mike Younie, deputy Chief Administrative Officer Reviewed by: Dan Sommer, Director of Development Services
Reviewed by: Kris Boland, Director of Finance
Comment from Chief Administrative Officer: Reviewed.
STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 5 of 7 19 APPENDIX 1
STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 6 of 7 20 APPENDIX 2
STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 7 of 7 21
Engineering & Public Works Staff Report to Council
File: 11-5600-13
DATE: November 7, 2016 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Brent Schmitt, Manager of Business Services SUBJECT: Water Meter Pilot Study Update ATTACHMENT: Appendix A - District of Mission Water Meter Pilot Project (October 11, 2016)
RECOMMENDATION: This report summarizes the results of the Water Meter Pilot Study. No staff recommendation accompanies this report and Council action is not required.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to provide an update and summary of the Water Meter Pilot Study.
BACKGROUND: Between 2012 and 2014, a series of reports were presented to Council regarding water meters. At the December 18, 2013 Special Council Meeting, Council approved a water meter pilot study in the West Heights area and in water main replacement project areas. Installation of meters for the study occurred in 2015, consisting of approximately 500 new water meters. Including the water meters that have been installed with new residential construction since 2009, plus several other developments since the 1990’s, there are now over 1,000 residential water meters within the system. Monthly meter data for the pilot study area was collected over a 12-month period, from September 2015 through August 2016, and compared to data for the existing residential metered areas over the same intervals. Mission’s water usage is estimated at 335 liters per capita per day (l/c/d) for all residential land uses. This is significantly higher than Abbotsford’s residential water consumption rate that is estimated at 185 l/c/d.
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS: A consultant was retained in September 2016 to compile the pilot study data, provide an analysis, and comment on potential impacts of metering. A report was submitted to the District in October 2016 (see Appendix A), and is summarized below. Data Analysis The pilot study report compared the two groups of data: Group Construction Period Number Billing Type Land Use Type of Homes A 1970’s 502 Annual Flat Charge Single Family Residential B 1990’s to present 515 Annual Volumetric Charge Single Family Residential
STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 1 of 4 22
Monthly data was collected for both study groups. The results indicate that Group A customers used more water per household on average throughout the year compared to Group B. The slight difference in usage patterns is attributed to: • Improved awareness of leaks and consumption habits inherent to volumetric billing within Group B; • Higher probability of service line leaks for older homes; and • Updated building code requirements for more efficient fixtures, such as low-flow toilets, in newer homes. The difference in average usage between Group A (flat rate customers) and Group B (volumetric rate customers) varied by about 9%, and is not as significant as might be expected. However, a key factor in reducing customer usage is frequent notification of water use, so that users can become more aware of their own consumption habits. As volumetric-rate customers are currently billed annually, they do not receive regular feedback on water use, and are unable to monitor their seasonal usage habits. It is expected that more regular billing, such as on monthly or bi-monthly basis, would increase customer awareness and significantly reduce water usage. The 1,017 meters included in this study are for single-family land-use parcels. Commercial properties were excluded from the analysis. For the 12-month study period, Group A had an average usage of 347 l/c/d, while Group B’s average was 319 l/c/d. These numbers are comparable to the overall estimated residential average for Mission of 335 l/c/d. The two groups were refined into low, medium, and high-use categories to determine the distribution of customers within each group. In both Group A and Group B, over 20% of the customers fell within the ‘high-use’ range. However, users in this range account for over half of the water consumption: Group A: the ‘high-use’ category accounts for 21% of the customers, and consumed 58% of the water within the group. Group B: the ‘high-use’ category accounts for 23% of the customers, and consumed 55% of the water within the group Potential Water Reductions The summary report further broke the ‘high-use’ category into two sections: those marginally above the study area usage average, and those substantially above the average. The purpose of this step was to identify those users that have the most potential to reduce water usage. While those users below or close to the study average could still further reduce water use through leak awareness or conservation efforts, the largest gains would be from the highest users reducing their consumption. The study considered two scenarios for potential water savings: 1. Reducing all high-users to a marginally high level of use; and 2. Reducing all high-users to the current study area average usage. The results of this exercise indicate potential reductions in residential sector water usage of 27%-35% if high-users reduced usage to a marginally-high level, or 31%-38% water savings if all high-users consumed at the current average amount. The potential water savings by reduced usage in the high- user group would equate to the supply of water for approximately 315 to 350 homes. As the study area represents approximately 9% of the residential accounts in the water service area, and assuming similar savings could be achieved throughout the entire system, the water savings would equate to an equivalent supply for over 3500 homes.
STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 2 of 4 23
Benefits of Water Conservation Water conservation can lead to both financial and environmental benefits. From a financial perspective, reduced water system usage will result in a reduction of the District’s contribution to the regional water system annual operating and maintenance costs. Based on the current usage ratio between Mission and Abbotsford, a 30% decrease in Mission’s water usage would result in a reduction in the District’s contribution to the regional system in the order of $250,000 per year. From a capital funding perspective, reduction in system demand could defer the immediate need for a new water source. Again, a 30% reduction in Mission’s demand could defer Mission’s requirement for a new water supply by over 15 years. While the data did not have enough resolution to assess potential maximum day demand reductions, the same 30% water savings could possibly be achieved for the maximum day demand in Mission. A water savings of this amount would increase the available capacity of the existing system for new development, thus deferring the immediate need for a new source, and would equate to a reduction in long-term capital costs of $15-$20 million. A focus on water conservation demonstrates the District’s interest in system sustainability and environmental awareness. Currently, grant opportunities often require that a municipality demonstrate that projects and practices reflect a protection of environmental health and sustainable use of resources. The updated Water Sustainability Act requires that water users display an efficient use of water sources. Inefficient use of supply, or a lack of water conservation efforts, could result in an amendment of an existing license or could negatively affect a water license application for a new source of supply. Next Steps Staff are currently investigating application requirements for the recently announced Clean Water and Wastewater Fund. A report is forthcoming at the November 21, 2016 Committee of the Whole to obtain approval from Council to proceed with the application for a universal water metering project. In Spring 2017, a follow-up council report will provide details of the outcome of the grant application, and will outline potential options and costs for moving forward with metering of water system customers.
COUNCIL GOALS/OBJECTIVES: Water metering is one of the most effective tools for a water conservation program, and would support several of Council’s Values, as outlined in the Strategic Plan. Most specifically, metering would demonstrate that the District is: • Future Focused: committed to planning for future generations; • Committed to Sustainability: through a balance of environmental, financial, and operational sustainability; and • Looking to provide quality Service to its residents: through continual system improvements.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no immediate financial implications associated with this report; however the benefits of water conservation that are discussed in this report could result in financial benefits to the District and its water users. In order to fully realize these financial benefits, all of the water users in the District need to be metered, and be regularly made aware of their usage patterns through volumetric billing.
I have reviewed the financial implications Kris Boland, Director of Finance
STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 3 of 4 24
COMMUNICATION: No communication action is required.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION: The water meter pilot study looked at monthly water use patterns over a 12-month period for 1,017 customers. The study confirmed previous assumptions for typical water usage which were estimated to be in the order of 335 l/c/d, with the older homes in the study group averaging 347 l/c/d and the newer homes averaging 319 l/c/d. While the high-users in the study accounted for just over 20% of the customers, this category accounted for over half of the water usage, indicating significant potential for water savings. Water use reductions of 30% could result in annual savings of $250,000 for the District’s contribution to the regional system operations, could defer the requirement for a new supply source by over 15 years while providing supply for approximately 3,500 new homes, and could reduce Mission’s long-term capital cost for a new supply source by $15-$20 million. Improved water efficiency throughout the system would support several Values identified in the District’s Strategic Plan, including planning for future generations, committing to sustainable practices, and providing quality service to residents. Staff will seek Council’s approval for submission of a grant application for implementation of a universal water metering program, and will provide a follow up report on the outcome of the grant application plus details of metering options and costs.
SIGN-OFFS:
Brent Schmitt, Manager of Business Services Reviewed by: Tracy Kyle, Director of Engineering & Public Works
Comment from Chief Administrative Officer: Reviewed.
STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 4 of 4 25
Appendix A
District of Mission Water Meter Pilot Project
Analysis of data collected from the water meter pilot study group over a one year period.
Karl Filiatrault, A.Sc.T, Eng.L.
10/11/2016 26
Table of Contents BACKGROUND ...... 2 ANALYSIS ...... 2 Interpretation of the results ...... 4 Redefining usage ranges ...... 4 Summary ...... 6
1
27
Water meter data analysis for the District of Mission
BACKGROUND The District of Mission and City of Abbotsford jointly own the water treatment and transmission infrastructure supplying potable water to the two municipalities. The cost of operating the system is shared based on the percentage of water used by each partner. In recent years, Mission’s share of the water use seems to be increasing disproportionally. In an effort to better understand water consumption patterns of its residential customers, the District of Mission initiated a water meter pilot project in 2015.
A total of 1017 homes are included in the study and are separated into two groups based on age of home and billing type. Group A consists of 502 homes that were constructed in the 1970’s. These homes had new meters installed in pits at the property line but were billed a flat rate (not related to amount of water used). Group B contains 515 homes constructed between 1990 and the present. These homes had existing meters and were billed annually based on amount of water consumed (volumetric billing). This is summarized in the table below.
Group Construction Period No. of homes Billing type A 1970’s 502 Annual flat charge B 1990 to present 515 Annual volumetric charge
Readings for all meters were collected on a monthly basis for a period of one year. Consumption was calculated and the data was analyzed to determine if there appears to be a significant amount of excessive consumption.
ANALYSIS Calculating consumption
The readings collected from the meters were downloaded as a data file and converted to an Excel spreadsheet. Meters in Group A read to the nearest litre (0.001 of a cubic metre) while the ones in Group B read to the nearest cubic metre. For this study, the readings were all converted to litres for ease of comparison. Where gaps in the data existed, such as where the readings were not retrieved for one or more months, the monthly consumption was estimated using the last and most current reads.
When analyzing residential water consumption, per capita demand is a common measurement used for planning purposes. This is expressed as litres per person per day (l/ca/d). Both per capita consumption and daily consumption per dwelling (l/d) were used in this study. For the first part of the analysis, the average consumption for each home during the one year reading period was calculated and overall averages and median values were determined. These are shown in the tables below.
2
28
Daily water use per dwelling in litres Group A (1970's homes) Sept 2015 Oct 2015 Nov 2015 Dec 2015 Jan 2016 Feb 2016 March 2016 April 2016 May 2016 June 2016 July 2016 Aug 2016 Annual Average Average 1072 1044 990 951 925 961 960 1052 1155 1086 1191 1354 1075 Median 559 549 537 532 543 525 543 583 667 668 688 739 637 Daily water use per person based on an estimated 3.1 persons per dwelling (litres per capita per day). Sept 2015 Oct 2015 Nov 2015 Dec 2015 Jan 2016 Feb 2016 March 2016 April 2016 May 2016 June 2016 July 2016 Aug 2016 Annual Average Average 346 337 319 307 298 310 310 339 373 350 384 437 347 Median 180 177 173 172 175 169 175 188 215 215 222 238 205 Daily water use per dwelling in litres Group B (1990 and newer homes) Sept 2015 Oct 2015 Nov 2015 Dec 2015 Jan 2016 Feb 2016 March 2016 April 2016 May 2016 June 2016 July 2016 Aug 2016 Annual Average Average 795 721 777 736 705 691 700 894 1137 1028 1127 1292 988 Median 607 621 559 571 567 563 586 655 727 655 690 771 654 Daily water use per person based on an estimated 3.1 persons per dwelling (litres per capita per day). Sept 2015 Oct 2015 Nov 2015 Dec 2015 Jan 2016 Feb 2016 March 2016 April 2016 May 2016 June 2016 July 2016 Aug 2016 Annual Average Average 256 233 251 237 227 223 226 289 367 332 363 417 319 Median 196 200 180 184 183 181 189 211 235 211 222 249 211 Annual daily average per home (litres per day) Group A Group B Combined l/ca/d Average 1075 988 1031 333 Median 637 654 645 208
From the tables it can be seen that the annual average use and the gap between average and median values in Group A is significantly higher than in Group B. The median use in Group B is, with the exception of June 2016, higher than the median use in Group A. However the average use in Group A is always higher than in Group B. This is likely attributable to a higher rate of leakage in Group A and that Group B is billed for water based on the amount they consume. Volume based billing encourages reduced usage and provides awareness of leak situations.
Categories of Users
To compare consumption in the two study groups, three levels of users were assigned. These would equate to low, medium and high water users. The low use group (< 645 litres per day) is based on the median combined annual daily average. A daily usage figure of 1030 litres is used for the maximum value in the medium use range. This is the annual average combined daily water use of the study groups (see chart above). The charts below show a comparison of the number of homes in each category.
Total number in group A 502 Total number in group B 515 Sub Groups for Group A Sub Groups for Group B User class Range of use No. of homes % of total User class Range of use No. of homes % of total Low <645 l/d 257 51% Low <645 l/d 251 49% Medium 645-1030 l/d 140 28% Medium 645-1030 l/d 145 28% High >1030 l/d 105 21% High >1030 l/d 119 23%
3
29
Interpretation of the results
Redefining usage ranges
The consumption data for each of the study groups was further analyzed in finer detail to determine if there is an opportunity for reduction in water use. Each group was looked at individually to assess how much usage occurred in the high consumption ranges. To evaluate the results, ranges were established which differed from the first part of this study. Since this part of the study is focused on determining the possibility and quantity of reduction in water usage, higher thresholds were set so that any reduction targets identified are conservative and achievable. The groups in this case were broken into:
• Customers using less than 1030 litres per day, • Customers using between 1030and 1,220 litres per day, and • Customers using over 1,220 litres per day.
A per capita rate of approximately 400 l/ca/ day was used to derive the 1,220 l/d threshold. This is a per capita consumption that is quite high but is often used in planning studies. Since this represents a high value, it is assumed any consumption above this is due to leakage or unnecessary water use. The 1030 l/d threshold is the same combined average daily consumption number used in the first part of this study. Though the 1030 l/d threshold is a number specific to the Mission study group, it also aligns closely with the threshold Abbotsford used when they implemented tiered rates. Their data indicated about 75% of single family residential homes used less than 1,000 l/d and set it as the threshold for the 1st tier.
Rationale for new thresholds
There is a correlation between the three thresholds and the level of effort required to reduce the consumption in each of the categories. For customers in the highest usage group (>1220 l/d), it is likely there is substantial leakage or non-essential water use. Reducing the average consumption in this group should be easily achievable since it would have the highest non-essential water use. The middle category is still likely using a significant amount of water that is non-essential but there would be less or smaller leaks and it would take more diligence to reduce the usage in this group, though it is still very achievable. The lowest consumption category is at or below the average observed combined usage rate in the study groups. There is still a possibility of some leakage and reduction in use but more of the water being used in this group is for essential uses such as food preparation, laundering and hygiene.
Usage in the various ranges
Though the majority of homes are within the lowest daily consumption group, data shows that a disproportionate amount of water is being consumed in the two higher use groups. For Group A the homes using more than 1030 litres per day (1030-1220 l/d and >1120 l/d usage ranges), which represent 21% of the total customer accounts in this group, account for 58% of the total water use. For Group B,
4
30
23% of the customers are using more than 1030 litres per day and account for 55% of the total water use. This is demonstrated in the tables and charts below.
Group A (1970's homes) % of total daily Usage range No. of homes % of total Daily Usage (litres) water use < 1030l/d 396 79% 225,128 42% 1030-1220 l/d 21 4% 23,308 4% > 1220 l/d 85 17% 291,322 54% No. of homes per usage range % of total daily water use per usage range 21% of the homes Use 58% of the water
Usage Range 17% Usage Range < 1030l/d 4% < 1030l/d 1030-1220 l/d 42% 1030-1220 l/d > 1220 l/d 54% > 1220 l/d 79%
4%
Group B (1990 and newer homes with annual volumetric charge) % of total daily Usage range No. of homes % of total Daily Usage (litres) water use < 1030l/d 396 77% 230,458 45% 1030-1220 l/d 36 7% 39,657 8% > 1220 l/d 83 16% 238,528 47% No. of homes per usage range % of total daily water use per usage range 23% of the homes Use 55% of the water
Usage Range Usage Range 16% < 1030l/d < 1030l/d 1030-1220 l/d 7% 1030-1220 l/d > 1220 l/d 47% 45% > 1220 l/d 77%
8%
5
31
Potential for use reduction
To evaluate how much of a reduction in water consumption is achievable in the higher use categories, the individual accounts were reviewed. For the first scenario, a maximum consumption level of 1220 l/d was assigned to all accounts in the highest use group (> 1220l/d). The remainder of the consumption figures were left as they were. The table below shows the potential reduction in water use if the highest users can be brought down to an average usage rate of 1220 l/d. The table also shows the number of additional homes this would equate to at the current average household consumption of 1030 l/d.
Reduce High User Group to an average of 1220 l/day Group A Group B Amount of water saved per day (litres) 187,622 137,268 Reduction expressed in % of total use 35% 27% Equivalent number of Single Family homes (@1030l/home /day) 182 133
As mentioned previously, the majority of current usage above the 1220 l/d level is likely due to leakage or non-essential water use so this should be a very achievable goal. If the threshold for water use is lowered to 1030 l/d, the following results would be achieved.
Reduce High User Group to an average of 1030 l/day Group A Group B Amount of water saved per day (litres) 205,450 155,616 Reduction expressed in % of total use 38% 31% Equivalent number of Single Family homes (@1030 l/home /day) 199 151
Though this may seem like a more difficult target to achieve, the per capita demand at 1030 l/d is equivalent to about 332 l/ca/d. In Group A the current average per capita demand is 347 l/ca/d and the median is 205 l/ca/d. For Group B the average is 319 l/ca/d and the median is 211 l/ca/d. The median value in Group A and both the average and median values on Group B are below the per capita demand necessary to achieve the target of 1030 l/d per home. Based on these observations even the more aggressive target of 1030 l/d should be achievable with a more intense conservation program using metered consumption data and volumetric billing.
Summary Analysis of the water meter data shows that a high percentage of the water use is due to a relatively small percentage of the total customers in this study group. Employing conservation initiatives and education programs should reduce consumption by at least 30% in this study group. Recommended actions to achieve these significant reductions in the study group are:
• Issue water or combined utility bills (water and sewer at a minimum) on a more frequent cycle (bi-monthly or quarterly) so residents are more aware of their consumption patterns. • Monitor consumption patterns and contact individuals that have high or sudden increases in usage.
6
32
• Identify users that have automated lawn irrigation systems and perform irrigation audits to optimize efficiency. Existing Joint Services staff have the expertise and are already providing this service in Abbotsford. Some audits have also been performed in Mission but meters are necessary to perform an audit.
Results obtained from this study group are likely representative of the entire residential inventory in the District of Mission. It is reasonable to assume that similar reduction levels can be achieved District wide if metering is installed on all services. Metering is the only way to effectively monitor usage, find customers with leaks or unusually high consumption, set reduction targets and monitor the success of conservation programs. Comparing service meter data to the consumption recorded on bulk supply meters can also determine how much water is being lost to other issues such as municipal distribution main leaks, firefighting etc. This is helpful in determining the overall condition of the distribution infrastructure.
The cost of installing the metering and billing infrastructure is significant (estimated to be approximately $1,500 per meter if installed in a pit). Though installing meters inside homes is less costly, this type of installation is not able to detect leaking service lines or water used by irrigation systems tapped in upstream of the meter. It can also be very difficult to arrange with a homeowner to gain access to a meter if a problem occurs.
Implementing an effective metering and billing program has the potential to accommodate an increase in the number of single family homes in Mission by about 30% without adding more capacity to the water supply system. According to studies done for the Abbotsford Mission Water and Sewer Commission, adding capacity to the system has a cost of approximately $2 million per MLD (million litres per day). The average total combined daily water use of Groups A and B is over 1,000,000 litres per day. Reducing the consumption by 30% would free up about 300,000 litres per day (0.3 MLD) of water for new development. Based on the cost of $2M/MLD this has an equivalent dollar value of $300,000. This amount is just for the approximately 1,000 homes in the study group. To determine payback period and impact on Municipal budgets of installing a universal metering and billing program, a cost benefits analysis would need to be performed by Municipal Finance staff.
7
33
Engineering & Public Works Staff Report to Council
File: 13-6950-20
DATE: November 7, 2016 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Jay Jackman, Manager of Development Engineering & Projects SUBJECT: 1st Avenue Streetscape Improvements ATTACHMENTS: Appendix A – Preliminary Project Schedule Appendix B – Modus Conceptual Plan
RECOMMENDATIONS: Council consider and resolve: 1. That the 1st Avenue Streetscape Improvements Project Plan, as summarized in the report from the Manager of Development Engineering & Projects dated November 7, 2016, be endorsed; 2. That staff be authorized to engage the market for qualified consulting services for the purpose of procuring a for tender engineered design package in 2017; and 3. That staff be authorized to commence of sub-surface municipal utility repairs, as necessary, starting in 2017.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to summarize the Project Plan for the 1st Avenue Improvements Project for Council’s consideration.
BACKGROUND: Through recent discussions with Council during the Official Community Plan (OCP) visioning session and recent Committee of the Whole meetings, it is clear that Council wishes to proceed with making improvements to the Downtown area. Three options were considered, and it was Council’s wish to proceed with Option A at an estimated cost of $3.5 million.
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS: Project Plan Summarized in this report is a preliminary Project Plan detailing how and when the project’s objectives are to be achieved. The plan will serve as a guide for project execution and project control. It documents assumptions and decisions, facilitates communication and documents many of the processes involved in successful project management. The plan will also baseline the project scope, cost and schedule. The Project Plan is a living document so staff are only looking for an endorsement at this time. The plan will continue to evolve as the project moves from concept through to completion. The following is a summary of the plan to date: Scope Option A will involve the construction of a new streetscape on both sides of 1st Avenue, from Grand Street to Horne Street. This new streetscape will include:
STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 1 of 4 34
• wider sidewalks with banding and texture; • bump outs at street corners for enhanced pedestrian safety; • parking line painting; • new street trees; • new litter bins, bike racks, benches, and bollards; and • new lighting with banner brackets and banners, basket brackets and baskets, irrigation and power.
Milestones The project will span the course of two years with design and sub-surface repair work being completed in 2017 and construction being completed in 2018. The following are some high level milestones: • procure consulting services for detailed design in 1Q 2017; • identify all sub-surface deficiencies in 1Q 2017; • complete detailed design and project specifications for tender package in 3Q 2017; • Public Works to complete all sub-surface deficiency repairs in 4Q 2017; • procure construction services in 1Q 2018; • commence construction in 2Q 2018; • demolish and reconstruct 1st block in April 2018; • demolish and reconstruct 2nd block in May 2018; • demolish and reconstruct 3rd block in June 2018; • complete all furnishing in July 2018; • wrap up construction in August 2018; and • demobilize by September 2018.
Change Management Changes to the plan, scope, schedule or budget will follow an industry standard change control process. All change requests will be presented to the Project Manager for consideration, and to the Project Sponsor for approval. The Project Sponsor and or the Project Manager will consult with the Mayor and Council through the District’s CAO or Committee of the Whole as required.
Communication Management All communication will flow through the Project Manager. Stakeholder engagement will be planned and key contacts will be identified. The nature and frequency of engagement is detailed in the Project Plan. The Project Sponsor and or the Project Manager will consult with the Mayor and Council through the District’s CAO or Committee of the Whole as required.
Cost Management Costs will be managed using both District resources such as Work Orders, Object Codes and Purchase Orders. Careful tracking of costs combined with regular reporting will ensure the project stays on budget. All budget authority and decisions, including budget changes, will reside with the Project Sponsor who will consult with the Mayor and Council through the District’s CAO or Committee of the Whole as required.
STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 2 of 4 35
Procurement Management Procurement of goods and services will follow the District’s Purchasing Policy and will be managed by the District’s Purchasing Department. Scope Management The project scope will be managed by the Project Manager. Any changes to scope will follow the change management process. Changes to the scope will require the approval of the Project Sponsor. The Project Sponsor will also be responsible for the formal acceptance of the project deliverables. Though the formal structure of the project plan gives the Project Sponsor the authority to amend the scope and accept the deliverables, the Project Sponsor will consult with the Mayor and Council through the District’s CAO or Committee of the Whole as required when exercising this authority.
Quality Management All members of the team will contribute to a successful quality management program. The project plan details the roles and responsibilities of the team with respect to quality management.
Risk Management Risks will be identified, rated, and mitigation strategies will be documented. Every effort will be made to identify risks ahead of time and mitigate them in a proactive way.
Staffing Management The Project Plan identifies the stakeholders and project team members complete with their respective roles and responsibilities.
COUNCIL GOALS/OBJECTIVES: This project furthers three of Council’s Goals and four of their Objectives. Through this project, we will be effectively managing our existing assets and infrastructure, building our community, and improving service levels to the public. This project will enhance lifestyle opportunities and community health, improve public safety, optimize the management of our assets and infrastructure, and promote economic development.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: On September 7, 2016 Council approved a budget of $3.5 million for the design and construction of the 1st Avenue Streetscape Improvements. These improvements will be predicated by some asset condition assessments related to underground services, which will likely result in some required utility repairs and replacement. Funding for the 2017 streetscape design works, and utility inspections and repairs will be sourced as follows: • Streetscape design works will be funded out of the $3.5 million budget. • Underground utility asset condition and assessment, repairs and replacement will be funded out of existing utility budgets as appropriate. Should replacement constitute a separate capital project or if replacement costs exceed amounts available in existing budgets then a report will be brought forward for council’s consideration. Funding for the 2018 streetscape construction will be sourced as follows: • All works associated with the construction of the 1st Avenue Streetscape Improvements will be funded out of the remaining $3.5 million budget.
STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 3 of 4 36
I have reviewed the financial implications Kris Boland, Director of Finance
COMMUNICATION: Staff will communicate project progress quarterly and will seek Council’s approval to move the project forward once the “For Tender” design package and associated project budget are available for discussion in late 2017. Staff will communicate with all stakeholders as detailed in the project plan.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION: This report has summarized the 1st Avenue Improvements Project Plan for Council. Staff are recommending that Council endorse the project plan, authorize the procurement of engineering design services, and authorize the repair of any sub-surface municipal utility deficiencies identified within the project boundary commencing in the fiscal year 2017.
SIGN-OFFS:
Jay Jackman, Manager of Development Reviewed by: Engineering & Projects Gina MacKay, Manager of Long Range Planning
Reviewed by: Tracy Kyle, Director of Engineering & Public Works
Comment from Chief Administrative Officer: Reviewed.
STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 4 of 4 37 Appendix A
Date: October 22, 2016 File: 1st Avenue Streetscape Improvements Project
Project Plan For 1st Avenue Streetscape Improvements Project 2017 - 2018
DISTRICT OF MISSION 38
Project Plan – 1st Avenue Streetscape Improvements Project – 2017/2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ...... 1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT APPROACH ...... 2 PROJECT SCOPE ...... 3 MILESTONE LIST ...... 5 SCHEDULE BASELINE AND WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE ...... 6 CHANGE MANAGEMENT PLAN ...... 6 COMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT PLAN ...... 7 COMMUNICATION MATRIX ...... 8 COMMUNICATIONS CONDUCT: ...... 11 COST MANAGEMENT PLAN ...... 11 PROCUREMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN ...... 12 PROJECT SCOPE MANAGEMENT PLAN ...... 12 QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN ...... 13 RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN ...... 14 STAFFING MANAGEMENT PLAN ...... 15 SPONSOR ACCEPTANCE ...... 16 WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - TBD ...... 17 PROJECT SCHEDULE - TBD ...... 18 PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION CONSTRUCTION PROCESS AND DELIVERABLES ...... 19 ENGINEERING DIVISION QUALITY ASSURANCE DELIVERABLES ...... 20 CONSULTANT CONSTRUCTION DELIVERABLES ...... 21
39
Project Plan – 1st Avenue Streetscape Improvements Project – 2017/2018
INTRODUCTION The District of Mission engaged the services of Modus Planning, Design and Engagement Incorporated to develop streetscape conceptual plans, sections, details and a Class D cost estimate for the 1st Avenue street improvements. On September 6, 2016 these plans and cost estimates were presented to Council with three options; Option A being a complete street, Option B being sidewalks, light, trees and bollards, and Option C being sidewalks, lights and bollards only. Council directed staff to proceed with Option A, the complete street with a budget of $3.5M.
Option A will include wider sidewalks with a decorative strip and concrete banding detail, bump outs at street corners for pedestrians, complete with textured enhancements and tactile warning strips. The curb alignment will be pushed out; complete with new and relocated catch basins and the removal and replacement of the trees. The parking area will be defined with new paint and the streetscape will be furnished with new litter bins, bike racks, benches, bollards and light fixtures. The new lights will come complete with banner brackets, banners, basket brackets, baskets, irrigation and power.
Following Council’s direction, the Manager of Development Engineering and Projects will initiate the project over a two year period. The first year will be 2017 and will include procurement of engineering and design services as well as repair or replacement of municipal sub-surface infrastructure. The second year will be 2018 and will include procurement of construction and furnishing services.
Integrated Replacement Management The intent of the District’s Integrated Replacement Management is to coordinate the construction works to replace/repair sanitary, storm, and water pipes in a project area at the same time to minimize the project cost and the neighbourhood disruption. This approach may also coordinate the pavement renewal should the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure chose to align their paving program with this project.
As a part of District’s Integrated Replacement Management, The District’s Manager of Business Services will investigate the condition of other utilities (sanitary, storm, and pavement) in the project area and provides a list of upgrade requirements for those utilities.
The Engineering Division will be responsible for overseeing the design and quality control aspects associated with this project. The Project Manager, his advisors, and the Purchasing Department will
Page 1 of 24
40
Project Plan – 1st Avenue Streetscape Improvements Project – 2017/2018
prepare procurement documents for the engineering, construction management and construction services for this project.
Where practical, The Project Manager and his advisors will coordinate the projects to optimize construction with other planned utility projects (e.g., sanitary, storm, or pavement replacement). Where feasible, The Project Manager and his advisors shall avoid excavations in areas where pavement has recently been renewed.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT APPROACH
The Project Manager, Jay Jackman, has the overall authority and responsibility for managing and executing this project according to this Project Plan and its Subsidiary Management Plans. The Project Team will consist of staff from the Engineering & Public Works and Purchasing Departments, consultants and contractors. The Project Team names are provided on page 10 of this project plan.
The Project Manager will work with all resources to perform project planning. All project and subsidiary management plans will be reviewed and approved by the Project Sponsor (Tracy Kyle). All funding decisions will also be made by the Project Sponsor. Any delegation of approval authority to the Project Manager should be done in writing and be signed by both the Project Sponsor and the Project Manager.
The Project Team will be a matrix, in that team members from each Division (Engineering, Public Works, Purchasing, Consultants and Contractors) continue to report to their organizational management throughout the duration of the project. The Project Manager is responsible for communicating with the Public Works and Purchasing managers on the progress and performance of each project resource.
Page 2 of 24
41
Project Plan – 1st Avenue Streetscape Improvements Project – 2017/2018
PROJECT SCOPE Option A includes the improvement of both sides of all three 1st Avenue blocks from the east side of Grand Street to the west side of Horne Street. The new streetscape design includes many elements that will improve the overall pedestrian experience along with increased safety. This includes: 1. increasing the number of street trees (using columnar trees suitable for this application) with new tree grates and irrigation; 2. moderating widening of the sidewalk (inclusive of a decorate strip adjacent to the parking lane); 3. a slight decrease in the width of the travel lane (MoTI approval obtained); 4. removing the bump outs on the south side of the street, creating new parking spaces downtown; 5. adding street furniture, including new benches, litter bins, bike racks, and bollards that are functional, attractive and cohesive; 6. adding new street lights with banner brackets and basket brackets (and irrigation); 7. increasing the bump outs at the intersection to improve pedestrian safety and provide added design elements for the visually impaired; and 8. removing bump outs on the south side of the street – creating six additional parking spaces on 1st Avenue.
The estimated Class D cost of these projects is $3.5M, which will be spread over two fiscal years, 2017 and 2018.
In 2017, the design work will be completed along with an inspection of all sub-surface municipal utilities and repair or replacement of any identified deficiencies.
In 2018, the demolition and construction will take place complete with the supply and installation of furnishings.
Page 3 of 24
42
Project Plan – 1st Avenue Streetscape Improvements Project – 2017/2018
Option A - Complete Street Sidewalks √ Decorative strip to widen sidewalk √ Concreate Banding detail √ Bump outs at street corners for pedestrians √ Paver details at bump outs & intersections √ Tactile warning strips √ New catch basins & adjust others as needed √ Public art in pavement allowance √ Parking line painting √ Paver detailing at bump outs √ Deciduous trees √ (60) Litter bins √ Bike Racks √ Benches √ Bollards √ (18) Lights (Pedestrian & Roadway) √ (39) Lights (Pedestrian) √ (18) Banner brackets √ Basket brackets √ Banners & baskets √ Irrigation for baskets & trees √ Ducting & wiring allowance √ Demolition and site preparation √
Total Cost $3,500,000 Note: As this is a Class D Estimate, both quantities and costs are subject to change.
Page 4 of 24
43
Project Plan – 1st Avenue Streetscape Improvements Project – 2017/2018
MILESTONE LIST The chart below lists the major milestones for the 1st Avenue Streetscape Improvements Project in 2017 and 2018. This chart is comprised only of major project milestones such as completion of design drawings or commencement of construction. There may be smaller milestones which are not included on this chart but are included in the project schedule and Work Breakdown Structure (WBS). If there are any scheduling delays which may impact a milestone or delivery date, the Project Manager must be notified immediately so proactive measures may be taken to mitigate slips in dates. Any approved changes to these milestones or dates will be communicated to the Project Team by the Project Manager.
Milestone Description Completion Date A Request For Proposal will be posted for a full set of design Procurement of Consulting drawings and project specifications compete with detailed Class 2017/02/28 Services - Design B cost estimate. Identify all sub-surface The Asset Technologist and Public Works staff will have a 2017/04/02 deficiencies complete list of spot repairs to complete by year end. Completed design and The district will receive a complete set of design drawings, project specifications project specifications and Class B cost estimate for stakeholders 2017/07/30 package review and consideration. Complete all sub-surface The Public Works division will have all spot repairs and 2017/12/23 deficiency repairs associated surface repairs completed. The Purchasing department will engage the market for Procurement of Construction services including management, quality assurance, 2018/03/21 Construction Services supply and installation, quality control and survey control. Commence Construction – Following the Easter long weekend construction will begin on the 2018/03/05 Phase 1 1st block (Grand to James). st Commence Construction – May 1 construction will begin on the middle block (James to 2018/06/07 Phase 2 Welton). th Commence Construction – June 4 construction will begin on the last block (Welton to 2018/07/15 Phase 3 Horne). Construction Complete All furnishings and fixtures will be installed and functioning 2018/08/31 All deficiencies will be corrected and the warranty will begin (1 Certificate of Completion 2018/09/28 year on hardscape and 2 years on trees).
Page 5 of 24
44
Project Plan – 1st Avenue Streetscape Improvements Project – 2017/2018
SCHEDULE BASELINE AND WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE
The WBS for this Project has not yet been developed.
The WBS defines all work packages for the project. The WBS will include all tasks, resources, and deliverables. Every work package in the WBS will aid in resource planning, task completion, and ensuring deliverables meet project requirements.
A detailed schedule will be completed, reviewed by the Project Sponsor, and approved and base-lined. The schedule will be maintained in the form of a Project Gantt Chart by the Project Consultant. Any proposed change to the schedule has to be submitted to the Project Manager. The Project Manager and team will determine the impact of the change on the schedule, cost, resources, scope, and risks. If it is determined that the impacts will exceed the project budget and/or schedule, then the change will be forwarded to the Project Sponsor for review and approval.
If the change is approved by the Project Sponsor then it will be implemented by the Project Manager who will direct the Consultant to update the schedule and all documentation and communicate the change to all stakeholders in accordance with the Change Control Process.
CHANGE MANAGEMENT PLAN The following steps comprise the project’s change control process: Step #1: Identify the need for a change (Any Stakeholder) Requestor will submit a completed change request report to the Project Manager. Step #2: Conduct an evaluation of the change (Project Manager, Consultant, Project Team and Requestor) The Project Manager will conduct an evaluation of the impact of the change to cost, risk, schedule, and scope. Step #3: Discuss the change request with the Project Sponsor (Project Manager) The Project Manager will discuss the change request and its consequence on the budget and schedule with Project Sponsor, and the Project Sponsor will decide whether or not it will be approved.
Page 6 of 24
45
Project Plan – 1st Avenue Streetscape Improvements Project – 2017/2018
Step #4: Implement change (Project Manager) If a change is approved by the Project Sponsor, the Project Manager and Consultant will update and re-baseline project documentation as necessary as well as ensure any changes are communicated to the team and stakeholders.
Any team member or stakeholder may submit a change request for the 1st Avenue Streetscape Improvements Project. Any changes to project scope, cost, or schedule must meet the Project Sponsor’s approval. All approved change requests shall flow through the Consultant to the Project Manager in writing.
COMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT PLAN
This Communications Management Plan sets the communications framework for this project. It will serve as a guide for communications throughout the life of the project and will be updated as communication requirements change. This plan identifies and defines the roles of the Project Team members as they pertain to communications. It also includes a communications matrix which maps the communication requirements of this project, and communication conduct for meetings and other forms of communication. A Project Team directory is also included to provide contact information for all stakeholders directly involved in the project.
The Project Manager will take the lead role in ensuring effective communications on this project. There will be a regular meeting between the Project Manager and the Project Sponsor to update her of the recent project developments. In turn, the Project Sponsor will update the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO). The frequency of these meetings is expected to be from weekly to bi-weekly, depending on the rate of construction progress at the time. The Project Manager will also report the project status in the quarterly project updates report to council.
Additional communications requirements are documented in the Communications Matrix below. The Communications Matrix will be used as the guide for what information to communicate, who is to do the communicating, when to communicate it, and to whom to communicate. This Matrix includes regular communication with the Downtown Business Association (DBA).
Page 7 of 24
46
Project Plan – 1st Avenue Streetscape Improvements Project – 2017/2018
COMMUNICATION MATRIX
Communication Participants/ Description Frequency Format Deliverable Owner Type Distribution Biweekly Status Summary of project Biweekly In Person Project Sponsor Status Report Project Manager Report status Summary of project Email or in Chief Administrative Project Update As needed Status Report Project Sponsor status person Officer Summary of project Quarterly or Formal Project Update Mayor and Council Status Report Project Manager status as needed Report 2017 - Project Status Report (what has Weekly Status Email summary of Project Manager, & Manager’s Advisor or Weekly Email happened and what to Report project status Project Team designate expect next week) 2018 – Consultant 2017 – Project Present metrics and Project Monthly Project Manager & Status and Metric Manager’s Advisor or status to team and Monthly In Person Status Review Project Team Presentation designate sponsor 2018 – Consultant To inform the Project 2017 – Project Emails or Project Manager & What has happened and Status Report Team of unexpected As needed Manager’s Advisor phone calls Project Team what to expect next week emergencies 2018 – Consultant To consult and inform Email, in Downtown Business What is proposed and Project Update the Downtown Business As needed person or Project Manager Association Rep. what to expect Association phone call Email, in Concerns / Feedback regarding Specific concerns Downtown Business As needed person or Project Manager Feedback project regarding the project Association Rep. phone call
Page 8 of 24
47
Project Plan – 1st Avenue Streetscape Improvements Project – 2017/2018
Chief Mayor and Administrative SPONSOR Council Officer
OPERATIONS & PURCHASING CONSULTANT / CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR PM
Downtown Business Association
CONTRACTORS STAKEHOLDERS
Page 9 of 24
48
Project Plan – 1st Avenue Streetscape Improvements Project – 2017/2018
PROJECT TEAM DIRECTORY for all communications is: Name Title E mail Office Phone Cell Phone
Tracy Kyle Project Sponsor [email protected] 604-820-3739 604-302-4093
Jay Jackman Project Manager (PM) [email protected] 604-820-3745 604-302-7787
Michael Boronowski Project Communications [email protected] 604-820-3732 604-302-4091
Matt Dunham Project Manager’s Advisor (Public Works side) [email protected] 604-820-3765 604-855-2607
Shane Woolliscroft Project Manager’s Advisor (Engineering side) [email protected] 604-820-3754 604-302-4090
Rod Hubler Project Manager’s Advisor (Engineering side) [email protected] 604-820-3743 604-855-6349
TBD Project Consultant
Dale Vinnish Construction Supervisor - DOM [email protected] 604-820-3768 604-302-4036
TBD Site Superintendent - Contractor
TBD Health and Safety Officer - Contractor
Jamie Hayes Downtown Business Association Rep. [email protected] 604-826-7311
Mike Kelly Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure [email protected] 604-795-8201 604-798-0891
Devon Pallmann Survey [email protected] 604-826-9561 604-826-9586
Page 10 of 24
49
Project Plan – 1st Avenue Streetscape Improvements Project – 2017/2018
COMMUNICATIONS CONDUCT: Meetings: The Project Manager or Consultant will distribute a meeting agenda at least one day prior to any scheduled meeting and all participants are expected to review the agenda prior to the meeting. During all project meetings, the timekeeper will ensure that the group adheres to the times stated in the agenda and the recorder will take all notes for distribution to the team upon completion of the meeting. It is imperative that all participants arrive to each meeting on time and all cell phones and should be turned off or set to vibrate mode to minimize distractions. Meeting minutes will be distributed no later than 24 hours after each meeting is completed.
Email: The Project Manager should be included on any email pertaining to the 1st Avenue Streetscape Improvements Project.
Informal Communications: While informal communication is a part of every project and is necessary for successful project completion, any issues, concerns, or updates that arise from informal discussion between team members must be communicated to the Project Manager so the appropriate action may be taken.
COST MANAGEMENT PLAN The Project Manager will be responsible for managing and reporting on the project’s cost throughout the duration of the project. The Project Manager will present and review the project’s cost performance during the monthly project status meeting. Using earned value calculations, the Project Manager is responsible for accounting for cost deviations and presenting the Project Sponsor with options for getting the project back on budget. All budget authority and decisions, to include budget changes, reside with the Project Sponsor.
The Contract Administrator (Consultant) shall prepare a Class “B” cost estimate for the project. The Project Manager has set up an accounting process to keep accurate account of expenditures incurred and to monitor project expenditures and ensure that the project is kept within the budget.
Page 11 of 24
50
Project Plan – 1st Avenue Streetscape Improvements Project – 2017/2018
The following process will be used as a form of accounting control for in-house works but not limited to: 1. The ordering of materials shall only be charged to the appropriate work order number related to this project; 2. All labour and equipment shall be charged to their associated Work Order numbers and their appropriate Object Codes, and; 3. Purchase Orders shall be issued for all contracted out goods and services. For each work order, the following object codes will be used. Object codes are predefined codes in the District’s Financial System (MAIS), which describe the types of works associated with the charges. The following Table, as an example, lists some of the frequently used the object codes for each work order:
Item Charge List Object Code 1 Labour 010 2 Equipment 240 3 Rental 280 4 Contractors 410 5 Materials 440 6 Gravel 460 7 Asphalt 490
For works which have been contracted out, a Purchase Order will be issued and all progress invoices will reference both the associated Purchase Order number and specific line items. With the exception of the consultant’s invoices all progress invoices will go through the Contract Administrator (Consultant) for review and approval. All approved changes will be reflected on revised purchase orders as separate line items. No goods or services will be paid for which a Purchase Order has not been issued.
PROCUREMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN The Project Manager will work with the Project Team to identify all goods or services to be procured for the successful completion of the project. The Project Manager will then ensure these procurements are reviewed by the District’s Purchasing group. The District’s Purchasing group will review the procurement actions, and begin the vendor selection, purchasing and the contracting process. PROJECT SCOPE MANAGEMENT PLAN Scope management for the 1st Avenue Streetscape Improvements Project will be the sole responsibility of the Project Manager. The scope for this project is defined by the Scope Statement, and the pending Work Breakdown Structure (WBS).
Page 12 of 24
51
Project Plan – 1st Avenue Streetscape Improvements Project – 2017/2018
Proposed scope changes may be initiated by the Project Manager, stakeholders or any member of the Project Team. All change requests will be submitted to the Project Manager who will then evaluate the requested scope change. Should the change request be agreeable to the Project Manager, the Project Manager will then submit the scope change request to the Project Sponsor for acceptance. Upon approval of scope changes by the Project Sponsor, the Project Manager will update all project documents and communicate the scope change to all stakeholders. Based on feedback and input from the Project Manager and stakeholders, the Project Sponsor is responsible for the acceptance of the final project deliverables and project scope.
The Project Sponsor is responsible for formally accepting the project’s final deliverables. This acceptance will be based on a review of all project documentation, testing results, and completion of all tasks/work packages and product functionality.
QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN All members of the Project Team will play a role in quality management. It is imperative that the team ensures that work is completed at an acceptable level of quality from individual work packages to the final project deliverables. The following are the quality roles and responsibilities for the project:
The Project Sponsor is responsible for approving all quality standards for the project. The Project Sponsor will review all project tasks and deliverables to ensure compliance with established and approved quality standards. Additionally, the Project Sponsor will sign off on the final acceptance of the project deliverable.
The Project Manager through the Consultant is responsible for quality management throughout the duration of the project. The Project Manager is responsible for implementing the Quality Management Plan and ensuring all tasks, processes, and documentation are compliant with the plan.
The Project Team will be responsible for assisting the Project Manager to ensure that all quality standards are met and communicate any concerns regarding quality to the Project Manager.
Page 13 of 24
52
Project Plan – 1st Avenue Streetscape Improvements Project – 2017/2018
The following Table summarizes the other responsibilities of the project’s quality control team: Name Quality Control Element
Tracy Kyle Project Sponsor, feasibility of the proposed options and solutions.
Jay Jackman Project planning and management, feasibility of the proposed designs. Feasibility of the proposed designs, coordination with the Public Works and the Matt Dunham Project Manager to include storm & sanitary upgrades (if required) in the design drawings. Estimated cost associated with the designs, construction supervision, and Consultant quality control inspections associated with this project. Meeting the District’s relevant Bylaw requirements when purchasing the Purchasing Group required materials or contracting out for services.
RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN The approach for managing risks for the project includes a methodical process by which the Project Team identifies, scores, and ranks the various risks. Every effort will be made to proactively identify risks ahead of time in order to implement a mitigation strategy from the project’s onset.
The expected risks are: 1. May encounter unexpected site conditions during excavation such as, but not limited to, soft soils, old roads, or utility conflicts which may require additional funds to facilitate completion. Every effort will be made to minimize extra costs. A report will be submitted to Council if additional budget funds are needed. 2. PWs project staff may get pulled away to other high emergency tasks, which will halt or slow down the project progress. 3. Construction quotations may come in higher than expected. 4. Bad weather may affect the construction schedule. 5. Special events may interrupt the construction schedule. 6. The contractor may not meet set milestones. 7. Materials may not be available when needed. 8. Required Permitting may be delayed. 9. A worksite accident.
Page 14 of 24
53
Project Plan – 1st Avenue Streetscape Improvements Project – 2017/2018
STAFFING MANAGEMENT PLAN The 1st Avenue Streetscape Improvements Project will consist of a matrix structure with support from various internal departments. Work will be performed both internally and externally. Staffing requirements for the project include the following: Stakeholders: 1. Kris Boland (Manager of Finance) 2. Land Owners (Project Area Residents / Occupants) 3. Business Owners 4. Business Employees 5. Patrons 6. Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure Project Sponsor: Tracy Kyle; Director of Engineering and Public Works District’s Project Manager: Jay Jackman; Manager of Development Engineering and Projects District’s Project Team:
1. Matt Dunham: Manager of Operations • Supervising and coordinating PWs staff daily works • Advisor to the Project Manager –PWS side of the work • Provide estimate for PW’s projects. 2. Shane Woolliscroft & Rod Hubler: Works Inspectors • Advisor to the Project Manager – construction related. • Responsible for site inspections, progress reports, and Quality Assurance. 3. Dale Vinnish: Operation Supervisor • Responsible for the construction supervision • Responsible for the accounting aspects of this project whereby ensuring that all labour, equipment and materials have been accounted for with respect to Public Works completed works. 4. Richard Skelton: GIS Technician/Draftsperson • Responsible for the filing of the As-built drawings and Service Record Cards. 5. Ilsa Foster & Debbie Dales: Buyers • Responsible for the purchasing of materials for this project. • Responsible for updating the project manager of using existing inventory materials towards this project. • Responsible for (soil report, etc.) contract tendering
Page 15 of 24
54
Project Plan – 1st Avenue Streetscape Improvements Project – 2017/2018
6. Michele Fernie: Asset Technologist • Responsible for adding all new assets to the Municipal Asset Repository 7. Other PWs staff • Will be selected by Matt Dunham. • The selected PWs staff will be dedicated to this project. PWs Construction Supervisor shall inform the Project Manager in advance, if there is an operational need to take a previously assigned staff off the job and replace him/her with another staff. • In coordination with the Construction Supervisor, their hourly rates and responsibilities will be sent to the Project Manager. • Responsible for the daily works, as per Dale Vinnish’s direction. Note: In discussion with the Project Manager, the Project Sponsor may approve assigning temporary team members to avoid project delay, when: 1. A key team member is away for more than two weeks and cannot contribute to his/her daily project responsibilities, and 2. The key team member’s absence may negatively affect the project schedule and deadlines.
Staff Responsibilities 1. Engineering: • Shall assist Public Works with assessing the current state of the sub-surface municipal utilities and determining where repair or replacement is required, • Shall assist the Purchasing department with the preparation of all procurement, • Shall review and comment on all design drawings, specifications and construction Class “B” estimates for the Project Manager’s review and approval. • Shall coordinate projects with other planned works within the District and where practical avoid cutting pavements that have recently been renewed, and 2. Public Works: • Shall perform all the required construction tasks associated with the repair or replacement of existing sub-surface municipal utilities. • Shall provide Engineering with as-Built drawings in “red-line markup” format and/or revised service record cards.
See Appendix III, Appendix IV and Appendix V for detailed deliverables procedure.
SPONSOR ACCEPTANCE Approved by the Project Sponsor:
October 27, 2016
Tracy Kyle Date Director of Engineering & Public Works
Page 16 of 24
55
Project Plan – 1st Avenue Streetscape Improvements Project – 2017/2018
Appendix I
WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE - TBD
Page 17 of 24
56
Project Plan – 1st Avenue Streetscape Improvements Project – 2017/2018
Appendix II
PROJECT SCHEDULE
Page 18 of 24
57
Project Plan – 1st Avenue Streetscape Improvements Project – 2017/2018
Appendix III
PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION CONSTRUCTION PROCESS AND DELIVERABLES
1. Identify sub-surface deficiencies affecting municipal infrastructure and develop plans for remediation,
2. Obtain the necessary permits to complete the remediation works,
3. Assign work orders as appropriate to the remediation works,
4. Prepare and distribute correspondence to the affected businesses and residences of the project and notify them of the possible disruption of service,
5. Prepare and coordinate notifications for advertising in the local newspaper on any possible sidewalk or lane closures during construction.
6. Prepare and arrange for a preconstruction meeting with the Project Team (Engineering & PWs).
7. Proceed with remediation works as directed by the Project Manager,
8. All official communication to be addressed only with the Project Manager (either directly or through the Engineering Works Inspectors) with any concerns that lead to a decision and or design changes,
9. Prepare and submit weekly progress reports to the Project Manager. The reporting shall include but not limited to; a. Location of repair, b. Nature of repair, and c. Any comments on general site conditions, i.e. traffic control, safety, etc. and
10. Once the works have been completed to the satisfaction of the Operations Manager and the Project Manager, all as constructed drawings and/or Service Record Cards shall be submitted to the GIS Technician for record keeping.
Page 19 of 24
58
Project Plan – 1st Avenue Streetscape Improvements Project – 2017/2018
Appendix IV
ENGINEERING DIVISION QUALITY ASSURANCE DELIVERABLES
1. Work closely with the Public Works Division to assess the current condition of the sub- surface assets.
2. Review the Consultant’s Class “B” estimate for the proposed Streetscape Improvements,
3. Submit the Class “B” estimates to the Project Manager for his review and approval,
4. Provide inspection of the projects (performed by the Engineering Work Inspector) for compliance with the approved design drawings and the standards and specifications of the current Subdivision Control Bylaw 1500-1985,
5. Inspect works for compliance with all contract documents and communicate concerns directly to the Project Manager as they arise,
6. Review as constructed information for accuracy
Page 20 of 24
59
Project Plan – 1st Avenue Streetscape Improvements Project – 2017/2018
Appendix V
CONSULTANT CONSTRUCTION DELIVERABLES
Consulting Engineer Services Terms of Reference
Purchasing with the assistance of Engineering shall prepare a Request for Proposal (RFP) that includes a description and scope of the project.
1. The scope of works shall include; a. Detailed engineered drawings for the following: i. New Sidewalks ii. Decorative strip to widen sidewalk iii. Concreate Banding detail iv. Bump outs at street corners for pedestrians v. Paver details at bump outs & intersections vi. Tactile warning strips vii. New catch basins & adjust others as needed viii. Parking line painting ix. Paver detailing at bump outs x. Deciduous trees complete with tree grates xi. Litter bins xii. Bike Racks xiii. Benches xiv. Bollards xv. Lights (Pedestrian & Roadway) b. Construction Management and Contract Administration services c. Quality Assurance Services d. As-built drawing submission
2. Quotation shall include: a. Detailed engineered drawings signed and sealed by a professional engineer registered in British Columbia; b. All costs for construction management services including but not limited to: i. Inspections ii. Quality Assurance iii. Contract Administration iv. As-built drawing submission; c. Insurance naming the District of Mission additionally insured for $5,000,000.00;
Page 21 of 24
60
Project Plan – 1st Avenue Streetscape Improvements Project – 2017/2018
d. Business licence to work within the District of Mission; e. All applicable pre and post construction reporting, and reports; and f. An upset limit of completing the reporting and monitoring including all office and field work. A breakdown of cost shall be shown the District of Mission Project WBS Cost & Project Progress Excel spreadsheet. All Issued for Construction (IFC) drawings shall be made available to the District and their contractors in electronic formats (CAD and PDF). Surveying Services (for As-built drawing preparation) The Contractor is responsible for survey control and construction layout. The scope of works shall include: 1. A detailed survey layout performed by qualified Construction Surveyors (or BCLS) for construction of all works; and 2. Survey data collection for the purpose of as-constructed information a. The field survey data collected during construction shall compile as-constructed information in an electronic format and submit that electronic file to the Consulting Engineer.
Traffic Management Plan The Contractor shall hire a qualified Traffic Control Company and prepare the required Engineered Traffic Management Plans (TMP). TMP is required in cases where construction activities will impact the public safety and activities on municipal and provincial roads and highways, particularly pedestrians, cyclists, transit buses and motor vehicles. As these works will impact a provincial highway, the TMP will have to be engineered and be accompanied by a Highway Use Permit issued by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. When a professional engineer is required to develop the TMP, a Request for Quotation (RFQ) needs to be prepared by PWs. The required RFQ shall include a description and scope of the project.
Page 22 of 24
Appendix B 61
District of Mission | 1st Avenue update 3 Blocks: Horne St. to Grand St.
Streetscape Plans, Section, Details and Precedent Images
March 30, 2016 62
Project Boundary I Existing Condition District of Mission March 2016 63
1st Avenue Update - Welton St. District of Mission SCALE 1:200 March 2016 when printed on 11”x 17” paper 64
1st Avenue Update - Typical Mid-Block Mini Plaza March 2016 SCALE 1:200 when printed on 11”x 17” paper 65
1st Avenue Update - James St. District of Mission SCALE 1:200 February 2016 when printed on 11”x 17” paper 66
1st Avenue Update - Grand St. District of Mission SCALE 1:200 March 2016 when printed on 11”x 17” paper 67
1st Avenue Update - Horne St. District of Mission SCALE 1:200 March 2016 when printed on 11”x 17” paper 68
1st Avenue Update - Section District of Mission SCALE 1:200 March 2016 when printed on 11”x 17” paper 69
Structural soil trench L: 8m x W: 1m x D: 1m - underneath the furnishing strip
1st Avenue Update - Paving Details District of MIssion SCALE 1:25 March 2016 when printed on 11”x 17” paper 70
Simple Stainless Steel Bike Racks
Maglin Bench and Litter Bin (MLWR700-32 and MLB700) Coloured Concrete Banding on Carall St. at Pacific Boulevard in Vancouver
Dobney Foundry Tree Grate Abbotsford Concrete Unit Paver, Standard Size - Bollard: Maglin MTB650 Series Philips Lumec: Domus series. Shown here Colour: “Indian Summer Blend” with ornamental pole and banner
1st Avenue Update - Furnishings & Materials District of Mission March 2016 71 To diversify and maintain the health of the urban forest, the use of three different spe- cies of trees within each block are recom- mended:
Paperbark Maples at the intersections, Columnar Hornbeams at the mid-block plazas, Persian Ironwood trees in-between.
Tree spacing is forseen to be a generous 15m (+/-) to focus efforts by providing best practice growing conditions as well as re- duce the overall maintenance budget.
A structural soil trench of 1m width by 1m depth and 8m lenght for each tree under- neath the paved furnishing strip is essential to secure long-term growth and health of the street trees.
Columnar Hornbeam in Fall Mature Columnar Hornbeam in Summer Columnar Persian Ironwood Tree Paperbark Maple Carpinus betulus ‘Frans Fontaine’ Carpinus betulus ‘Frans Fontaine’ Parrotia persica ‘Vanessa’ Acer griseum
Bark Detail of Paperbark Maple
Paperbark Maple Persian Ironwood Columnar Hornbeam Persian Ironwood Paperbark Maple
1st Avenue Update - Proposed Street Trees District of Mission March 2016 72
Peachtree street Atlanta, GA - simple furnishings of good quality create a solid and timeless Even a narrow sidewalk can offer plenty of space for the enjoyment of urban life Paved strip contains furnishings streetscape
Cambie Street, Vancouver: Maximising the use of minimal space Bulb out, San Francisco
1st Avenue Update - Precedent Images District of Mission March 2016 73
Engineering & Public Works Staff Report to Council
File: 05-1855-20-11
DATE: November 7, 2016 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Michele Fernie, Engineering Technologist II – Asset Management SUBJECT: 2017 Asset Management Planning Program Grant Application
RECOMMENDATIONS: Council consider and resolve: 1. That the Level of Service Framework Project be supported for the 2017 Asset Management Planning Program grant application, as outlined in the Engineering Technologist II – Asset Management report dated November 7, 2016; 2. That, if the grant application is successful, the 2017 capital budget for the Asset Management System be increased from $30,000 to $40,000 to include the $10,000 grant funding; and 3. The District’s financial plan be amended accordingly.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to obtain Council’s support for the submission of a grant application for the Level of Service Framework Project under the 2017 Asset Management Planning Program.
BACKGROUND: The Asset Management Planning Program was created in 2014 through a $1.5 million grant from the Ministry of Community, Sport & Cultural Development. The intent of the program is to assist local governments in delivering sustainable services by extending and deepening asset management practices within their organizations. The District of Mission was successful with our application for the Asset Management Planning Program Grant in 2015 for our Corporate Asset Management System. The District did not submit an application for this grant in 2016. For 2017, matching grants of up to $10,000 are available to support activities that advance local government’s asset management planning or practices, and facilitate better integration of asset management planning with long term financial planning.
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS: At the core of asset management is the delivery of defined levels of service at lowest lifecycle cost. Levels of service are measurable indicators which reflect the community’s social and economic goals, such as affordability, and safety. They can be used to illustrate service-cost trade-offs and should be established in a flexible, rational, and transparent manner. When considering levels of service, it is important to first document the current level of service being provided. As asset management becomes more established within the District, levels of service will be set through consultation with the community. However, it is critical that prior to consulting with the public, the current levels of service, along with associated costs to provide the specified level of service, are known.
STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 1 of 2 74
The Level of Service Framework Project will address multiple action items that were identified in the Strategic Asset Management Planning document produced during Phase 1 of the Corporate Asset Management System Project. The project will define the District’s current levels of service for all asset classes, determine the costs of providing this level of service, and provide a working level of service framework. This project meets the eligibility requirements for the $10,000 Asset Management Planning Program grant. The deadline for submitting the grant application is November 18, 2016 and the status of applications will be communicated by December 16, 2016.
COUNCIL GOALS/OBJECTIVES: This report supports Council’s goal from the Strategic Plan to Secure our Finances, Assets and Core Infrastructure, directly addressing the “optimized planning and management of assets and infrastructure” objective.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The District has committed to advancing our asset management practices and offsetting the associated costs using all available grant funding. If approved, the grant will match costs up to $10,000 for the Level of Service Framework Project. On September 16, 2015 Council approved for inclusion in the 2016 – 2020 Financial Plan an Asset Management System project, with $30,000 annual funding provided from the Gas Tax Reserve Fund. The intent of this project is to provide consulting services related to developing the District’s Asset Management System. Matching funds for the Level of Service Framework Project will come from the Asset Management System project. It is anticipated that the Level of Service project will cost approximately $30,000, utilizing $10,000 grant funding and $20,000 from the Asset Management System project. If the District is successful with the grant application, staff request that the 2017 Asset Management System capital budget be increased from $30,000 to $40,000, to include the $10,000 grant funding.
I have reviewed the financial implications Kris Boland, Director of Finance COMMUNICATION: Council will be updated on the status of the Level of Service Framework Project, as well as the grant application results and any required commitments.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION: Staff recommend that Council support the Level of Service Framework Project grant submission to the Asset Management Planning Program, and that if successful, the capital plan be adjusted accordingly.
SIGN-OFFS:
Michele Fernie, Engineering Technologist II - Reviewed by: Assets Tracy Kyle, Director of Engineering & Public Works Comment from Chief Administrative Officer: Reviewed.
STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 2 of 2 75
Development Services Staff Report to Council
File Category: 0540-30 File Folder: 02 Mission Community Heritage Commission
DATE: November 7, 2016 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Marcy Bond, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Submission of Context Study to Council from Mission Community Heritage Commission ATTACHMENT: Appendix 1 – Memo from Mission Community Heritage Commission Chair Appendix 2 - District of Mission Heritage Context Study 2016
RECOMMENDATION: Council consider and resolve: That District of Mission Context Study 2016, as appended to the Senior Planner’s report dated November 7, 2016 be received.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to present to Council the Mission Community Heritage Commission’s Context Study. The Commission’s submission for the Context Plan is attached as Appendix 1. The Context Plan is attached as Appendix 2.
BACKGROUND: Over the past few years the Mission Community Heritage Commission has been worked with the community and consultants to develop and finalize the Commission’s Heritage Context Study. The purpose of the Context Study is to identify, map, and detail key themes related to heritage planning within the District. The Context Study provides an inventory of key heritage sites identified by community participants as having significant heritage value. Thus, the Plan will serve as a foundation for the inclusion of heritage sites in Mission on the District of Mission’s Community Heritage Register.
COMMUNICATION:
No communication action is required.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The consultants have been paid for the work they undertook for the Context Study. There are no other financial obligations required as for Council to receive this document.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION: The Context Study which provides an inventory of key heritage sites in mission is complete and is ready to be received and reviewed by Council.
STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 1 of 2 76
SIGN-OFFS:
Marcy Bond, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Gina McKay, Manager of Long Range Planning Comment from Chief Administrative Officer Reviewed.
STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 2 of 2 Appendix 1 77
To: Marcy Bond, Senior Planner, District of Mission From: Michelle Rhodes, Chair, Mission Community Heritage Commission Date: September 10, 2016 Re: District of Mission Heritage Context Study ______In June 2016, the Mission Community Heritage Commission (MCHC) approved the District of Mission Heritage Context Study (herein, “Context Plan”). We are recommending that this document be received and reviewed by Mission Council. The Context Plan is one of two foundational documents that will guide the MCHC’s work, the other being the Heritage Strategic Plan. The purpose of the Context Plan is to identify, map, and detail key themes related to heritage planning within the district. The Context Plan also provides an inventory of those sites identified by community participants as having significant heritage value. The development of the Context Plan took place only after first consulting with community members in a February 2011 workshop. The process of developing the Context Plan has taken several years, as the MCHC is a volunteer body. The MCHC recognizes the need to update the plan and inventory through additional engagement with the community. It is the intention of the MCHC to do so in the coming year. In the coming months, the MCHC will align their strategic priorities and the Strategic Plan with the Context Plan, and will identify 1-2 places of heritage value to be considered for heritage designation. The candidate locations will be drawn from the inventory generated by the Context Plan. We welcome any questions and comments from Council on the Context Plan. Appendix 2 78
DISTRICT OF MISSION HERITAGE CONTEXT STUDY
JUNE 2016
A Report to Guide the Development of Mission’s Heritage Planning Program
79 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Figures ...... iii Acknowledgements ...... iv Executive Summary ...... 1 Introduction...... 3 Heritage Context Plan Study ...... 3 About District of Mission ...... 3 Study Purpose ...... 5 A Values-Based Approach ...... 5 Heritage Context Study Workshop ...... 6 Heritage Context Study ...... 9 Thematic Framework ...... 9 Heritage Theme Statements ...... 10 Theme A: Peopling the Land ...... 12 Theme B: Developing Economies ...... 19 Resource-Based Economies ...... 19 Changing Economies ...... 21 Theme C: Governing the Region ...... 26 Theme D: Building Social and Community Life ...... 31 Theme E: Expressing Intellectual and Cultural Life ...... 39 Historic Places in the District of Mission ...... 44 Identification of Historic Places ...... 44 Historic Places in Mission ...... 46 Conclusion ...... 48 Next Steps ...... 49 Appendices ...... 50 References ...... 67
80 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | iii
TABLE OF FIGURES, MAPS, AND TABLES
Figures Figure 1: Values-Based Management Process ...... iv
Maps Map 1: District of Mission Street Map...... 4 Map 1.1: District of Mission Heritage Assets Map (Peopling the Land) ...... 17 Map 1.2: District of Mission Townsite Heritage Assets Map (Peopling the Land) ...... 18 Map 2.1: District of Mission Heritage Assets Map (Developing Economies) ...... 24 Map 2.2: District of Mission Townsite Heritage Assets Map (Developing Economies) ...... 25 Map 3.1: District of Mission Heritage Assets Map (Governing the Region) ...... 29 Map 3.2: District of Mission Townsite Heritage Assets Map (Peopling the Land) ...... 30 Map 4.1: District of Mission Heritage Assets Map (Building Social & Community Life) ...... 36 Map 4.2: District of Mission Townsite Heritage Assets Map (Building Social & Community Life) .... 37 Map 5.1: District of Mission Heritage Assets Map (Expressing Intellectual and Cultural Life) ...... 42 Map 5.2: District of Mission Townsite Heritage Assets Map (Expressing Intellectual and Cultural Life) ...... 43
Tables Table 1: District of Mission Townsite Heritage Assets Table (Peopling the Land) ...... 16 Table 2: District of Mission Heritage Assets Table (Developing Economies) ...... 23 Table 3: District of Mission Heritage Assets Table (Governing the Region) ...... 28 Table 4: District of Mission Heritage Access Map (Building Social & Community Life) ...... 35 Table 5: District of Mission Heritage Assets Table (Expressing Intellectual and Cultural Life) ...... 41 Table 6: District of Mission Heritage Assets Table (Cumulative) ...... 44
81 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Community Members A special thanks to all of the community of Mission who attended our workshop and filled out the questionnaires that were handed out. Without your input we would never have been able to complete this Context Planning Study.
Heritage BC For its support and help with information and community training.
BC Heritage Branch For allowing us to use the Prince George context study as a base for this report.
Fraser Valley Regional District Yale and Fraser Canyon Community Heritage Context Study
District of Mission: Sharon Fletcher, Director of Planning Marcy Bond, Planner
Mission Community Heritage Commission (present & past)
Mission Community Archives
Leslie Gilbert, Heritage consultant 82 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
About the District of Mission
The District of Mission, located on the north banks of the Fraser River approximately 70 minutes east of Vancouver, is one of British Columbia’s oldest communities. The District is in traditional Sto:lo and Kwantlen First Nations territory, and the first non-Native settlements were established in the area in the 1860s. Today, the District is 250 square kilometres in size, most of it forested, and is part of the Fraser Valley Regional District. As of 2016, the District was home to more than 38,000 people (District of Mission 2016).
The District of Mission enjoys a rich and diverse history. A range of factors have been in play for over a century and a half that contribute to its distinctive character and unique sense of community. Many remnants of Mission’s past are still evident in place and street names, some early homesteads, commercial buildings, artifacts, institutions and local celebrations.
Mission Community Heritage Commission’s (MCHC) Mandate
The District of Mission established a Community Heritage Commission in 2006 to advise Mayor and Council on heritage matters and to provide leadership in the stewardship of valued heritage resources. The MCHC is comprised of community members and municipal representatives who meet regularly to plan and make recommendations with regards to heritage concerns within the community.
Purpose of the Heritage Context Study
The purpose of the Mission Heritage Context Study is to identify the major themes and historical processes that have influenced the development of a community. This process entails soliciting community input on places and process of historical significance to the District.
A community Heritage Context Study informs local heritage conservation and management initiatives and may be used to:
Develop heritage policies in an Official Community Plan (OCP) or OCP amendment; Prepare or update a Heritage Strategic Plan; Identify and evaluate properties for inclusion in a Community Heritage Register; Establish a commemorative or interpretive heritage program; Identify cultural tourism opportunities; Develop an ongoing vision for heritage conservation based on stated community heritage values. 83 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 2
Process of Heritage Context Study Development
Using a framework and process developed by Parks Canada, the Mission Community Heritage Commission (MCHC) initiated a community consultation process in 2011. The MCHC organized a workshop where Mission residents were given an opportunity to discuss community-held heritage values and to identify historic places that make Mission unique. The workshop was facilitated by members of the MCHC and members of District staff. The community’s input then informed the development of the Heritage Context Plan.
Mission Heritage Context Plan Themes
The findings of the heritage consultation process were organized into five themes, identified by Parks Canada in their framework for heritage planning. These themes are:
Peopling the Land, including: Sto:lo and Kwantlen First Nations inhabitancy; connections to the Fraser River, the influence of the transcontinental railroad, the historic relationship between community and the St. Mary’s Mission, and post-WWII development. Developing Economies, including precolonial aboriginal fishing and trading communities; the historical legacies of early fishing and trading-based indigenous economies; commercial pursuits in fishing, farming, and forestry; the growth of service industries and evolution of manufacturing processes; and most importantly, the enterprising spirit of Mission residents. Governing the Region, including local administration and indigenous governance; security and defense; and residents’ push for jurisdictional change. Building Social and Community Life, including the great variety of social groups, clubs and organizations; religious and educational institutions; and multiculturalism in building Mission’s social and community life. Expressing Intellectual and Cultural Life, including Mission’s intellectual and cultural wealth and includes commemorations of intellectual pursuits; artistic expressions and athletic achievements; music and the arts; architecture and design; sports and leisure; and technological innovation.
Next Steps
The Heritage Context Plan has been approved by the Mission Community Heritage Commission, and has been forwarded to Council for review, recommendations, and approval.
References
Parks Canada. 2013. Cultural Resources Management Policy. Available on-line at: http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/docs/pc/poli/grc-crm/index.aspx. Accessed April 23, 2016.
District of Mission. 2016. About Us. www.mission.ca. Accessed April 23, 2016.
84 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 3
INTRODUCTION
Context studies are designed to honour how a community evolved over time, and how distinctive events and eras of history have shaped what the community is today. By undertaking a context study, the community recognizes that the significant elements of its past (as seen in its historic places) need not be sacrificed in order for development and change to continue.
BC Heritage Branch, Guidelines for Implementing Context Studies and Values-Based Management of Historic Places
Heritage Context Study Background
The District of Mission enjoys a rich and diverse history. A range of factors have been in play for over a century and a half that contribute to its distinctive character and unique sense of community. Many remnants of Mission’s past are still evident in place and street names, some early homesteads, commercial buildings, artifacts, institutions and local celebrations. Mission residents are proud of their past and their historic connections to the land, water and rail – elements that have shaped their community over time.
Residents believe that heritage preservation can contribute to long-term community sustainability and improved quality of life, and they have expressed a desire to retain valued heritage resources in the face of growth and change. To that end, the District established a Community Heritage Commission in 2006 to advise Mayor and Council on heritage matters and provide leadership in the stewardship of valued heritage resources. The District of Mission has developed a substantial heritage program, including a Community Heritage Register, several designated properties, an annual heritage awards program and the preparation of a Heritage Strategic Plan. A recent recommendation of the MCHC was to embark on a Community Heritage Context planning process that could be used to identify community heritage values and potential historic places in Mission.
About the District of Mission
The District of Mission is 250 square kilometres in size and is located on the north banks of the Fraser River approximately 32 kilometers upstream from the Pacific Ocean. The Mission Heritage Context Study includes all lands within the boundaries of the District of Mission (Figure 1). 85 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 4
Map 1: District of Mission Street Map. Maple Ridge lies to the west of Mission, the rural communities of Dewdney and Deroche to the city’s east, and Abbotsford across the Fraser River to the south. The community is 70kms east of Vancouver.
86 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 5
Study Purpose
The purpose of a Heritage Context Study is to identify the major themes, events and historical processes that have influenced the development of a community. Significant heritage resources are identified in order to sustain what people value about their community into the future (see Appendix A). Understanding the historical context of a place or site ensures that its significance can be clearly assessed and managed. The Context Study relies on the participation and input from the community as a whole.
A community Heritage Context Study informs local heritage conservation and management initiatives and may be used to: Develop heritage policies in an Official Community Plan (OCP) or OCP amendment; Prepare or update a Heritage Strategic Plan; Identify and evaluate properties for inclusion in a Community Heritage Register; Establish a commemorative or interpretive heritage program; Identify cultural tourism opportunities; Develop an ongoing vision for heritage conservation based on stated community heritage values.
This Heritage Context Study documents the heritage values articulated by Mission residents and how those stated values can be realized to help shape the future of the community. The impetus for preparing a community Heritage Context Study for Mission is to inform several forthcoming planning initiatives, in particular redevelopment of Mission’s waterfront areas, a Downtown Plan and future Official Community Plan updates, all of which would benefit from incorporating community heritage values. The Heritage Context Study would also be used to identify and prioritize heritage properties to be added to Mission’s Community Heritage Register.
A Heritage Context Study identifies and explains the underlying historical influences through a public consultation process. A series of themes and potential sub-themes were developed by the community through a workshop facilitated by the Heritage Commission. Heritage values are identified by the workshop participants, who then identify historic places in the community that represent those community heritage values in each theme area. The study process thereby allows a community to understand its broader heritage values before identifying specific sites that could be identified for inclusion on a municipal heritage register.
A Values-Based Approach
Over the past ten years or so, there has been a shift in best practises in Canada towards a values-based approach in heritage conservation planning. Definitions of what constitutes “heritage” vary between people and from community to community and are therefore values-based. There are no accepted standards, for example, relating to age criterion; each community has the ability to identify which resources have heritage significance and why. In the traditional and former approach to heritage conservation planning, heritage “experts” would judge a narrower range of values according only to their architectural or historic merits.
87 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 6
Heritage values are used by a community to guide decision making. Heritage value means the historic, aesthetic, spiritual, social, cultural and aesthetic significance of a place of relevance to past, present and future generations (Parks Canada 2013). A values-based heritage conservation approach requires having an understanding of the community’s heritage values as a whole before attempting to define the significance of an historic place. This is achieved by means of an extensive consultation process with community members and preparation of a Heritage Context Study.
Values-based heritage conservation planning and management follows the steps outlined in Figure 2:
Identifying Values The community undertakes a context study to identify elements of history that contribute to current chracter and identity
Identifying Historical Places
The community identifies historic places that embody identified heritage values.
Values-Based Land Use Planning & Conservation Activities The community undertakes land use planning that ensures that the heritage values of identified historic places are not lost as development occurs.
Figure 1: Values Based Management Process. Source: BC Heritage Branch
A Heritage Context Study typically covers the first two steps of the values-based management process. Heritage Context Study reports usually also address the third step in the process by providing recommendations or actions and conservation tools that the community can implement to ensure that historic places are a viable part of the community’s growth and development.
A heritage study process provides an opportunity for community members and stakeholders to provide input into the final Heritage Context Study report. Community consultation sessions are typically held as an intensive one-day workshop. The primary purpose of the workshop is to give participants an opportunity to identify community heritage values they believe to be significant. This is achieved by asking participants a series of questions regarding the significant qualities of the community’s evolution that contribute to making the community what it is today. This input is then compiled and utilized in the building of a draft Heritage Context Study.
Heritage Context Study Workshop
The MCHC held a workshop on February 23, 2011, at the Mission Community Leisure Centre. The purpose of the workshop was to give Mission residents an opportunity to discuss community-held heritage values and identify historic places that make Mission unique. The workshop was facilitated by members of the MCHC and members of District staff. 88 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 7
Heritage Commission members used a thematic framework that allowed all elements of the community’s evolution to be explored and considered by participants. This was developed by reviewing other heritage context plans already in place throughout British Columbia.
Specifically, the Context Plan will:
describe how identified heritage resources have played a role in shaping Mission; identify those heritage resources that reflect stated heritage values and the historic evolution of Mission; assist in the prioritization of heritage properties to be included on the District’s Community Heritage Register.
The format of the workshop included a presentation explaining the reasons for a Heritage Context Study and how community input was to inform development of the study. Participants were organized randomly into groups of four and asked a series of questions relating to Mission’s heritage values and historic places. These questions were developed by MCHC members. These were developed after reviewing other heritage context plans already in place throughout British Columbia. The questions provided a framework that allowed all elements of the community’s evolution to be considered by participants. Poster used to advertise the planning event, 2011.
The six discussion questions were: 1. Why did or do people move to Mission? 2. How and why is Mission’s historic and current economic development important to its heritage? 3. How and why is Mission’s heritage and role as an administration centre significant? 4. What is and has been special about the social, cultural and community life of Mission? 5. What is unique about Mission’s expression of intellectual and cultural life over time? 6. Why is heritage conservation important to Mission?
Participants were divided into small groups in order to discuss each question and then presented their responses.
The outcome of the exercise was a series of statements relating to each question. These statements together built an understanding of what it is about Mission’s history and its heritage resources that people value and which have shaped the community today. The statements were organized into five themes as identified by Parks Canada. These five themes are:
A. Peopling the Land B. Developing Economies 89 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 8
C. Governing the Region D. Building Social and Community Life E. Expressing Intellectual and Cultural Life
For each theme, related statements were identified, listed, and then ranked in their relative importance. This was done by asking participants to place a number beside the ones that they believed best captured the essence of the theme in terms of District of Mission heritage.
The next part of the workshop involved asking participants to identify the physical location of historic places significant to each theme area. A large map was prepared for each theme, and participants marked specific places, transportation routes or corridors, or views on each map with the following notations:
Use to identify areas Use to identify of heritage value. transportation routes relevant to heritage values.
Use to identify Use to identify views which are specific places of important for heritage value. retaining and understanding heritage values.
The use of five maps (one for each theme) allowed organizers and the community to identify historic places that were reflected in the themes. Rather than simply declaring that a place is important because it is old, or because it has specific historic associations, the community was able to identify a place as being historically significant because it represented aesthetic, historic, scientific, educational, spiritual, social or cultural community values.
90 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 9
HERITAGE CONTEXT STUDY
Thematic Framework
A Heritage Context Study of Mission’s development and evolution provides an important foundation for future heritage work and long-term planning by the District of Mission. By understanding the qualities of life, events, people and periods of development, growth, and change that make the District what it is today, decision makers will have a better understanding of what the community values and why those places should be significant. A contextual understanding of the District involves more than simply identifying a list of historic places. A thematic framework must be identified first to create a basis for understanding the significant aspects of the District’s history that are valued by the community.
A thematic framework is used to organize history, and to identify place sites, persons and events meaningful to a community. The thematic framework used to guide the Heritage Context Study process for the District of Mission was developed from the Parks Canada model established in 1981. Parks Canada identifies five key areas of relevance into which all places of historic significant can be categorized. These five themes are:
A: Peopling the Land B: Developing Economies C: Governing Canada D: Building Social and Community Life E: Expressing Intellectual and Cultural Life
The above thematic areas were adapted to create a framework that would guide the community consultation component of the Mission Heritage Context Study.
It is important to understand that the identified themes must relate to all people, places, and times in a community’s evolution. For example, fishing may be a sub-theme related to developing economies for the District of Mission area. While different groups may value fishing for different reasons, and have fished in different ways at different times, this activity is a common thread of significance to the people who live (and have lived) in this place. A theme should, therefore, resonate with all periods of a community’s history and with all of the inhabitants of this community over time.
The themes used to guide the Heritage Context Study process is as follows:
Theme A: Peopling the Land The land now home to the District of Mission has an extensive history of human inhabitancy. First, the Sto:lo and Kwantlen lived on the land, utilized and traded in fish and other natural resources, and adapted to its geography. By the mid-19th century, Indigenous communities and economies were disrupted and transformed, as settlers from eastern Canada, the US, Europe, and China moved in. By the turn of the last century, the modern town form began to take shape. This theme acknowledges the imprints made by these people as they shaped the Mission community. Important sub-themes to consider under this theme are connections to the Fraser River, the influence of the transcontinental railroad, the historic relationship between community and the St. Mary’s Mission, and post-WWII development. 91 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 10
Theme B: Developing Economies From the precolonial aboriginal fishing and trading communities to today's post-industrial workers, residents of this area have developed economies around a wide range of resources and a variety of industries. This theme looks at the historical legacies of early fishing and trading-based indigenous economies; commercial pursuits in fishing, farming, and forestry; the growth of service industries and evolution of manufacturing processes. This theme also considers how the District of Mission’s economy is growing today. Sub-themes for this subject area include fishing and gathering, resource- based activities, changing economies and most importantly, the enterprising spirit of Mission residents.
Theme C: Governing the Region At all stages of regional development, systems of government played an important part of Mission’s evolution. Consideration of sub-themes such as the role of local administration and indigenous governance, security, and defense as well as residents’ push for jurisdictional change are integral to the development of heritage values associated with this theme.
Theme D: Building Social and Community Life Mission residents have established a variety of social groups, clubs and organizations to enrich community life and assist those in need. This theme focuses on the great variety of these social organizations -- temporary and long-lasting, formal and informal, independent of and allied with the government. Subthemes include community organizations, religious and educational institutions, and multiculturalism in building Mission’s social and community life.
Theme E: Expressing Intellectual and Cultural Life This theme addresses Mission’s intellectual and cultural wealth and includes commemorations of Mission residence intellectual pursuits, artistic expressions and athletic achievements. These qualities are also found in the sub-themes of music and the arts, architecture and design, sports and leisure, and technological innovation. A brief chronology of Mission’s historic development is included in this report as Appendix B.
Heritage Theme Statements
During a one-day workshop in February 2011, Mission residents worked in small discussion groups to identify community-held heritage values and to identify historic places that make the community unique. Participants responded to a series of questions developed by the Parks Canada. Responses to these questions were analyzed to develop statements that were subsequently organized into the five themes noted above. These statements were then ranked by participants. Specific workshop responses – and their ranking – for each theme are found in Appendix D.
The purpose of these statements was to create general understanding about what the community values in terms of the community’s traditions and history for each theme. As a whole, these statements reflect the overarching heritage values of the District of Mission’s residents. They illustrate that this is a 92 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 11 community with a strong sense of social consciousness and leadership, built on hard work and a strong sense of connection to the land and water. These qualities were seen as being common among all groups of people who contributed to the growth and development of the community today.
Each statement presented by participants is listed in Appendix D under its corresponding theme. Responses were ranked, and statements were presented in descending order, with the highest ranked statements shown first. These statements are not intended to be a survey of Mission’s history they are reflective of the key points in history that shaped the community, and were generated in response to the question of “why does the community value its history in each of these five theme areas?” The information provides a strong framework for the process of identifying historic places, and allows the MCHC and the District of Mission to understand why individual historic places are valued by the community. From this information the District of Mission will be able to move towards implementing a heritage conservation planning program that reflects stated community values.
93 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 12
THEME A: PEOPLING THE LAND
“Quality of life- reasonable housing prices, amenities, and schools.” -- Workshop Participant
The District of Mission has emerged out of a long history of growth, challenges and change. Workshop participants stated that they valued Mission’s distinctive character as being an outcome of its unique geography, location on the banks of the Fraser River, relative isolation, significant agricultural and industrial economies and rich cultural diversity. The main factors that influenced the settlement pattern of Mission are its connections with the Sto:lo, the Fraser River, the St. Mary’s Mission, from which it derives its name, the CPR railway, and post-WWII development.
Early Connections to Land and Water The central and eastern Fraser Valley is the traditional—and unceded—territory of the Sto:lo First Nations. Prior to contact with Europeans, the Sto:lo were intimately connected to the land, developing complex economies, cultural practices, and arts and crafts that utilized salmon, cedar, berries, and other natural resources. These systems were disrupted and transformed through contact with Europeans and their diseases, and later by Euro-Canadian settlement. Evidence of long-term Sto:lo histories in the area include the Xay:tem transforming rock and remnant forest trails.
Between the late 18th century and mid-19th century, the Fraser Valley experienced limited contact with non-native fur traders and explorers. The fur traders found an area with extensive, fertile alluvial Xa:ytem Rock, which has federal recognition as a National Historic Site, is evidence of long-term Sto:lo soils, sunny benchlands, and plenty of fish, game occupation and spiritual connections with the Fraser and fowl to sustain new non-native settlements. Valley. Sto:lo history and archaeological evidence The discovery of gold further up the Fraser River demonstrate the uses and significance of this site and later in Yukon enticed thousands of dating back at least 5000 years. Image source: prospectors and entrepreneurs to the valley, and Parks Canada 1997. some settled permanently, establishing farms and supplying forest products to miners and other travelers headed upriver. Thus began the widespread non-native settlement of the Fraser Valley.
This also sparked the massive transformation of the Mission area from mature forests and Indigenous settlements to larger scale agricultural and forest cultivation and the growth of a small city. The hillsides were heavily forested and difficult to clear. Early settlers worked hard to convert forests to homesteads and build roads connecting settlement areas. 94 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 13
As non-native settlers arrived to establish homesteads and businesses, the Sto:lo and Kwantlen were removed from much of their traditional territory and moved onto reserves. Agriculturally-productive reserve lands were sought after by settlers, with little to stop them. Initially provided with approximately 27,000 acres in the Mission and Matsqui area in 1864, the Sto:lo saw their reserve lands reduced to less than 1/5th of this amount just a year later by the federal government. The Sto:lo were themselves prohibited from owning land.
In the 1860’s, the federal government offered free land to farmers, and a few families subsequently homesteaded in the Hatzic area and higher prairie. Names of early non-native settler families in the Mission area are found today as place and street names (e.g. DeRoche, Wren and Hurd). The continuing presence of large rural properties and hobby farms in the upper reaches of the District reflects these early non-native settlement patterns.
Mission’s dependence on the Fraser River is evident through all stages of Mission’s development. The river influenced the eventual location, and later relocation, of the town centre, shaping its character and sustaining communities and economies. Early settlement was organized along the riverfront. After the devastating flood of 1894, the business area of town relocated to the upper bench, or present-day Railway Avenue. Property by the river became devalued, and the riverside flats evolved into Mission’s Chinatown and later an industrial area. A number of historic industrial buildings remain on Mission’s riverfront as reminders of early uses.
The Influence of St. Mary’s Mission In 1863, Roman Catholic missionaries with the Oblates of Mary Immaculate (OMI) established St. Mary’s Mission and Residential School on the north side of the Fraser River. For more than a century, the residential school would house and educate more than 2000 aboriginal children, mainly Sto:lo and other Fraser Valley indigenous peoples. The school functioned as part of a broader system of residential schools across Canada in which children were forcibly separated from their families, and the school continued to operate until 1985, well after most residential schoos closed. In addition to religious instruction, students were taught academics, farming, and industrial methods.
The presence of the school had a direct impact on the initial location and ongoing development of Mission. The initial school was located close to the river. The OMI established a small water powered flour mill and sawmill on their property. They produced sawn lumber to construct buildings and sold The Grotto of Our Lady Lourdes at Heritage Park. the excess timber to new settlers. The flour mill operated on a percentage basis; farmers would bring their grain to St. Mary’s Mission to be ground, giving the school a portion of their flour. The OMI moved the school grounds and facilities uphill 95 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 14
to the present-day Heritage Park in the 1880s so as to accommodate the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR). These grounds would house the school, dorms, and other buildings until their closure in the 1960s. The site was also home to the OMI cemetery and the Grotto of Our Lady Lourdes, built in 1892.
A third residential school was built on an adjacent property to the east in 1961, and was government-run. It continued to operate as a dormitory in the 1970s and 1980s, even as aboriginal students began attending Mission Secondary. Following the movement of students over to the new residential school, the OMI- owned school closed, and the school buildings, dormitories, and grotto were demolished in 1965. By the late 1960s, the OMI and the federal government announced plans to sell the land for a major new suburban development defined by single-family housing and strip commercial development. Mission residents rallied to save the grounds from development, and Fraser River Heritage Park was created in the early 1970s. Today, the grounds of the school endure as Fraser River Heritage Park, Mission’s cultural centrepiece. Foundations of the school, the reconstructed shrine, historic cemetery and orchard with spectacular views overlooking the Fraser River have been retained as a testament to the importance of St. Mary’s Mission to Mission residents.
Importance of the Railway on Mission’s Development Rugged wilderness and the bounty of the land was the initial allure of settlement to the Mission area; later it was land speculation and potential growth of the town as a rail junction. Mission was strategically situated at the junction of the transcontinental Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) and southern spur line, completed in 1891, meaning that all freight and passenger rail traffic bound for the United States passed through Mission. Connections by land, rail, and water stimulated settlement of the area and contributed to Mission’s ability to serve as an administrative and transportation node for the central Fraser Valley.
By the 1880s, sawmills had sprung up along the Fraser River to provide ties for the new railroad. The presence of the CPR advanced the economic development of Mission, drove settlement. provided employment and efficiently transported goods to market. It was the lifeline connecting Mission to points west and south.
Early Townsite Development Mission’s location approximately 55 kilometres east by river from New Westminster, is historically significant as the area was home to one of the first large settlements inland from the Pacific coast. With the presence of American prospectors during the 1848 gold rush, Royal Engineers were employed to survey roads and planning settlements, effectively establishing Canadian authority over the Fraser Valley. The The rail yards and active freight train traffic Township and Range survey imposed a grid system of large in downtown Mission. This same route is used rectangular lots interspersed with small lot subdivisions today by the West Coast Express, the commuter train to Vancouver. 96 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 15 adjacent to the Fraser River. Subsequent development of the Mission townsite was based on the Royal Engineer’s early survey pattern, which survives today.
Early townsite development resulted from land speculation following the arrival of the CPR. In 1891, the Mission townsite was established and parcelled out almost overnight by land developers as part of “the Great Land Sale”. Speculators including notably James Welton Horne (after whom three major streets in Mission are named), recognized the wealth potential of a town built at the junction of the Fraser River and the railway. Due to its proximity to the residential school, an earlier location of the townsite called the town of St. Mary’s Mission was proposed.
Over one thousand construction workers were brought in to build roads and houses as a way to “jump start” development and attract investment. The main street was a then impressive 20 meters wide (including sidewalks), and thoroughfares were given place names of prominent cities elsewhere; the main street, now 1st Avenue, was called Washington Avenue. Hotels, offices and businesses were built on spec and offered rent-free for six months. The theme of arriving in Mission to capitalize on new opportunities and potential has been consistent over the city’s history.
One of the earliest streets developed in Mission—2nd Avenue, pictured here between Grand and Alder. Mission’s core is a mix of housing from the early 1900s, post-WWII lot subdivision and housing, and new infill construction. Today, the neighbourhood is a mix of single and double lots, and it is zoned for increasing density. Balancing heritage needs with the need for more housing in the central city in order to accommodate the growing population will be a challenge in years to come.
Post-WWII Development Large-scale suburban development occurred after WWII, and most housing in Mission was built after 1950. Post-war victory housing was constructed in central Mission near Mission Secondary School. This was followed by rapid suburban growth further uphill from Mission’s urban core, and by the late 1960s, 97 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 16 this expansion moved into West Heights (west of Wren) and east into the Hatzic area. New development featured large rectangular lots, views of the Fraser River, and the development of small parks and schools. Housing was at a premium, as the baby boom and rapid population growth in the Fraser Valley resulted in high demand for larger and larger single-family homes. New houses were constructed quickly by builders and in factories. By the early 1970s, new apartment buildings, townhomes, and cooperatives were being built in Mission, including housing for seniors. This pattern has continued into the Cedar Valley over the past decade.
In the post-war years, property costs were considered relatively reasonable and there were opportunities to raise a family and live a good life. Mission remains more affordable than other Fraser Valley communities. Workshop participants describe Mission as being a good place to call home and a place to which one could return. Residents also described Mission as still having a “small town” feel but that they were still able to access major urban centres and amenities.
Table 1 District of Mission Heritage Asset Table Theme A: Peopling the Land
Map Map Place Place Reference Reference A1 Southern Exposure A20 Large Retailers-Eaton’s Stave Falls Power A2 Lots of Water A21 Development A3 Logging A22 Ruskin Power Development A4 Trails A23 Alouette Power Development A5 Framing A25 River Transportation A6 Quiet A26 Railroads A7 Artist Community A27 West Coast Express A8 Employment Opportunities A28 Compact Town Centre A9 Prisons A25 River Transportation A10 Affordable Housing A30 Fishing A11 Connections to Family A31 Gold Rush A12 University of Fraser Valley A32 Community Amenities A13 St. Mary's A33 Schools A14 OMI lands A34 Country Lifestyle A15 Fraser River Heritage Park A35 Lumber Mills A16 Westminster Abby A36 Shake & Shingle Mills A17 Hospital A37 Mission Raceway A18 Close to Vancouver A19 Provincial Centre
98 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 17
Map 1-1 District of Mission Heritage Asset Map Theme A: Peopling the Land
I I I
\ I ___ _I I-, I I I
! I
I I I I I
99 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 18
Map 1-2 District of Mission Townsite Heritage Asset Map Theme A: Peopling the Land
100 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 19
THEME B: DEVELOPING ECONOMIES “Resource based economies brought labouring jobs and with that variety of cultural groups.” --Workshop Participant
The CPR bridge served as Mission’s artery across the Fraser River for nearly 80 years. The original components of the bridge were installed in 1891. With the growth of vehicle ownership, the bridge was opened to cars in the 1920s. By the time a 23-metre span fell into the river in 1955, the community knew that a dedicated, permanent link was needed for vehicle traffic. The Mission Bridge (background, beyond rail bridge) opened in 1973. However, the opening of the Mission Bridge also hastened the migration of business to locations closer to Highway 1 in Abbotsford. The CPR bridge is still heavily used by freight trains, and both bridges remain vital commercial and symbolic linkages to the communities south of the river and points further west and east.
RESOURCE-BASED ACTIVITIES
Agriculture Early economic activities in the Mission area were closely tied to land and water resources, beginning with the hunting, fishing and gathering practices of the Sto:lo. Mission was regarded as having ideal conditions for agriculture with its temperate climate, relatively flat land and fertile soil. Because of its southern exposure, Mission’s fruit growing season started two weeks earlier than surrounding areas and farmers often had a second crop later in the season. By the 1920s, berry farms, fruit orchards, flower farms, and dairy farms dotted the fertile hillsides and Hatzic Prairie. Several large jam processing plants were established in Mission, and a number of berry farms continue to operate. 101 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 20
Mission’s berry industry, which reached its peak between 1910 and the 1940s, also benefited from scientific innovation. As berries grown in the vicinity often needed to be shipped great distances, a method was devised using sulphur dioxide to preserve shelf life. Other inventions included the introduction of continuous belt line systems for quicker fruit handling and the use of refrigerated rail cars. Mass production methods were also introduced in the dairy industry, resulting in the ability of dairy farms to sustain larger herds.
Due to the sloping topography, mechanization was difficult and big industry was unable to expand in Mission – this has shaped the self-image of the community as well as its pattern of Ferncliff Gardens on the Hatzic Prairie, once Mission’s oldest family-run business, produced flowers and bulbs starting in development. The characterization of 1920. They specialized in dahlia bulb production, shipping Mission as being a small-scale, natural globally, until the land was sold in recent years. Image source: resource-based economy is an important Mission Community Archives, Mission District Historical Society. aspect of the town’s heritage.
Mission’s Forest Industry Early logging activities were small-scale hand logging operations using horses and oxen to haul timber. Steam-powered mills were introduced within a few years to increase efficiencies. As smaller mills in the Mission vicinity had been “logged out”, new mechanized systems allowed larger logging companies to go farther afield. Advances in the design of logging trucks and yarding systems resulted in greater efficiencies and companies were able to harvest trees in formerly inaccessible areas.
With immense tracts of crown timber located in the upper reaches of the municipality going to the larger forest companies, smaller logging operators were being forced out. By the early 1940s, the community of Mission proposed that it run its own forest operations, using a combination of municipal-owned land and crown lands. In 1945, the provincial Sloane commission advocated more municipal control of forests, and Mission was able to secure tenure as a municipal forest—the first in BC. In 1958, the newly designated Mission Municipal Forest was granted a tree farm license. Community control over the forest has ensured that revenues generated from the forest are reinvested into the community, and that forest operations are managed on a sustained yield basis in order to support smaller operators and the forest base.
Local forests also supplied the raw materials for manufacturing activities in Mission. The Stave River shingle mill employed 100 men and earned the reputation as the largest shingle mill in BC at the end of the 1930s. Other manufacturers included the EB Eddy Match Company Ltd., which opened in 1947, and at peak, was producing matches at a rate of 2 to 3 million matches per hour. Sawmills, shake and shingle mills, window framing and truss building factories, and similar operations located along the Fraser River and Highway 7.
Enterprising Spirit A diversity of natural resources attracted waves of non-native settlers to the area and influenced the type of people that arrived in Mission. Included were farmers, entrepreneurs, loggers, and those hoping to 102 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 21 secure jobs in with the railway. By the early 1900s, the community attracted growing Sikh, Chinese, and Japanese settlers, many of whom started farms and worked in the sawmills.
Mission residents demonstrated their enterprising spirit, especially in the face of adversity. When the Oblates first set to work to construct St. Mary’s Mission, people in the community pitched in to assist. People were also thrifty and found creative solutions to new challenges. Buildings were re-purposed; for example, empty buildings on the original St. Mary’s school site were used as temporary housing for railway workers in the 1880s. Many of Mission’s early pioneers were quick to realise opportunities for pioneer industry and contributed their skills and enterprise to the betterment of Mission.
Due to this enterprising spirit and the productivity of local farms, Mission residents fared comparably well throughout the Depression. Locals kept livestock or chickens on their property, maintained vegetable and fruit gardens, kept beehives, hunted wild game, fished, and foraged for wood. Bartering and sharing with friends and relatives was common practise and in some ways the depressed economy brought people together.
CHANGING ECONOMIES
Mission’s role as the commercial centre of the Fraser Valley depended on the railway to move goods and people. By the early 1900s, a new rail line crossing to the south of the Fraser River was completed. This linked towns south of the river with Vancouver and removed Mission’s monopoly on rail transport. The dairy processing industry shifted to the south side of the Fraser and away from Mission and local milk processing plummeted. Mission enjoyed years of economic prosperity between 1910 and 1930, and again after the end of WWII. It was a time when both berry farming and logging industries were at their peak. Until the mid-1950’s Mission was the main shopping area serving the Fraser Valley. The first department store in the central Fraser Valley was located in Mission and people came from all parts of the Fraser Valley to shop in Mission. The David Spencer (later Eaton’s) Department Store opened in 1947 on the corner of James and 1st Avenue in downtown Mission. Other small businesses and retail shops served the downtown core, including barber shops and beauty salons, apparel stores, drug stores, décor centres and restaurants.
For many decades, the five block commercial main street served as one of the principal commercial centres of the Fraser Valley with a lively retail trade and social life. In the summer of 1955, a 23-metre section of the rail bridge fell into the Fraser River and, the bridge—which was also the central Fraser Valley’s only vehicle crossing across the river--did not reopen for over one year. By that time, shopping had been established south of the Fraser River in Abbotsford, and the construction of Highway 1 through the Fraser Valley in 1964 further ensured the growth of Abbotsford. In 1973, a four-lane highway overpass spanning the Fraser River was opened but by that time economic hub of the Fraser Valley had shifted away from Mission to Abbotsford.
103 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 22
Looking east down 1st Avenue near Welton (top), and looking west (bottom), downtown Mission. Once a thriving shopping area that drew in shoppers from the community and beyond, the downtown experienced increasing competition from nearby communities after the opening of the Mission Bridge in 1973, and, by the 1990s, from new shopping malls further south and west of downtown. Today, 1st Avenue is part of Lougheed Highway, a busy thoroughfare with an interesting mix of architectural styles and buildings from nearly every decade of the past century, but with at times high commercial vacancy. Despite this, the municipality, community members, and area businesses have worked hard to beautify the street with hanging baskets and planters, festivals and events, and versatile spaces for new business ventures. 104 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 23
Table 2 District of Mission Heritage Asset Table Theme B: Developing Economies
Map Map Place Place Reference Reference B1 Berry Framing-Japanese B17 Prisons B2 Logging in Silverhill—Swedish B18 Westminster Abbey B3 Power Development—Ruskin B19 Schools B4 Power Development--Stave Falls B20 St. Mary’s School B5 CPR B21 Commercial Hub B6 Lougheed Highway B22 Home-Based Businesses B7 Shake and Shingle Mills B23 Junction Shopping Centre B8 Tourism B25 Railway Bridge B9 Soapbox Derby B26 Fraser River Bridge B10 Tree Farm B27 River Transportation National historic Site— B11 Fishing—Commercial B28 Xay:tem National Historic Site- B12 Farming—Nicomen Island B29 Powerhouse at Stave Falls B13 Working Boats on the River B30 Mission Memorial Hospital B14 Fishing—Sport B31 Care Homes B15 Fishing—Native B16 Mission Raceway
105 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 24
Map 2-1 District of Mission Heritage Asset Map Theme B: Developing Economies
i 1 \ l \ ! I \1 'I I \ L-, ~---- i () I I \ I I I I I i ! I ! i I i I i I i I ! I I I I I l
106 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 25
Map 2-2 District of Mission Townsite Heritage Asset Map Theme B: Developing Economies
107 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 26
THEME C: GOVERNING THE REGION
“…centre for all East-West connections with rest of Canada” -Workshop Participant
The Mission Post Office, built in 1935, has served as a centre of government services in the community, but is also an iconic feature of the downtown core. The building has been used as a film set or backdrop in a large number of films and television shows, including multiple productions with storylines set in the 1940s-1970s. The Mission Museum (green building) is located directly up the hill from the post office, across from Welton Tower, a seniors’ housing complex.
Primarily due to its strategic location as a railway junction, Mission historically enjoyed an important role as an administrative centre for the upper Fraser Valley. A number of government offices and services at all levels have been located in Mission to serve the region. These have included a courthouse, post office, armoury, BC police office (now RCMP station) and memorial hospital. In addition, administrative offices for the Sto:lo Nation are situated on the third site of the St. Mary’s Residential School (1961-1985), now included as part of the Peckquaylis Indian Reserve.
Mission’s role as a centre of government influenced the development of the area and region. With the presence of government, military and regulatory institutions, Mission was in a better position to lobby the provincial government for additional funding in support of needed health, education and social services.
Changing Status to Increase Local Independence Over the years, Mission officially changed its governing status several times in order to increase local decision-making and obtain funding from the provincial government for infrastructure improvements. 108 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 27
Early pioneers complained that the greatest obstacle to progress was the lack of graded roads linking the scattered homesteads to market, school and church. Developer James Welton Horne promoted Mission as a city, even before the area was populated. With only a few hundred residents, Mission City was formally incorporated as a municipality in 1892, the second to do so in BC after New Westminster. Incorporation meant the establishment of a local municipal council and means to lobby the province for road improvements.
Interestingly, the townsite of Mission was not included in the Mission City’s incorporation, and the townsite of Mission continued to be controlled directly by provincial authority. Following steady population growth, in 1923 Mission townsite was eligible to request a formal designation as the Village of Mission City, giving residents more control over local decision-making.
In 1958, Mission became the first in BC to request a change in governing status to become the Town of Mission City, requiring a new town council with a mayor and six aldermen. As both Mission City and the Town of Mission grew, the benefits of sharing common facilities such as fire services, parks and recreation facilities, library, ambulance were becoming increasingly evident. On November 1, 1969, the two jurisdictions were amalgamated by plebiscite into one municipality called the District of Mission. A modern town hall was constructed in 1974 outside of the downtown core to serve both areas.
Defenders of the Land Over the years, law enforcement presence has increased in the community. In 1900, only one BC Provincial police constable served the area between Port Moody and Yale. By the 1930s, Mission’s police force consisted of two constables to patrol the townsite and outlying area. With the influx of transients and berry pickers, the constables dealt primarily with petty thieving and disorderly conduct. In the early 1970s, a large tract of land in Ferndale was purchased by the federal government and developed into a minimum and medium security penal facility.
The spread of fire was a constant concern due to the lack of manpower, equipment and limited road access. Early firefighting services were provided through the volunteer efforts of local residents. Over the years, fire claimed several important wooden buildings in Mission, including the Matsqui Hotel, several sawmills, the curling rink and Chinese rooming houses by the Fraser River.
Early Government Functions Initiated by Enterprising Residents Many community services were initially supplied by enterprising local individuals or companies such as the supply of water, electricity, health and education. Most of these responsibilities were later assumed by government agencies. In 1911, electric power was supplied to Mission by the Western Canada Power Company from their dams and power plant at Stave Falls. This function was taken over by the BC Electric Railway Company and in the 1930’s by the provincial government. Water was supplied from nearby Cannel Lake by the Mission Service Company Ltd., which was later taken over by BC Hydro.
The post office played an important communication function for Mission residents, serving as an important social gathering place and means of connecting to family and friends abroad. In early years, the post office was temporarily located in a general store or hotel. In 1935, a purpose built brick post office 109 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 28 was formally opened to serve Mission; the building also provided office space in the basement for government services.
The earliest hospital in Mission was run out of the home of a local nurse, while another resident operated a maternity home consisting of one ward and two private rooms. In 1927, a ten bed community hospital was constructed in memory of soldiers killed in WWI and a health clinic funded by the local Rotary Club opened in 1956. A provincially funded 67 bed hospital, the Mission Memorial Hospital, opened in 1965 to serve the community.
Table 3 District of Mission Heritage Asset Table Theme C: Governing the Region
Map Map Place Place Reference Reference Railway Connection to Rest of C1 C15 Post Office Canada First Railway Connection to C2 C16 Hospital—First in Valley US Main Shopping Area in Central C3 Telegraph Connection to US C17 Fraser Valley Mission Railway Bridge Out for C4 Fruit Shipping & Processing C18 Year Caused Decline in Regional Business Major Land Sale 1891, Horne C5 Federal Fisheries C19 Family C6 Shake & Shingle Association C20 Prisons C7 Soapbox Derby C21 Eddy Match Company Agricultural Fair Regional C8 C22 School Board Office Fair C9 Cooperatives (Farmers) C23 Royal Canadian Legion Br. 57 C10 Courthouse C24 OMI Lands C11 Legion C25 CIBC Bank—First in Valley C12 Military Centre C26 Regional Hospital Mission (Indian) Friendship C13 C27 RCMP Centre C14 St. Mary’s School
110 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 29
Map 3-1 District of Mission Heritage Asset Map Theme C: Governing the Region
. ..\N
I I_, ! l l I I ! I I j
Ii i I I I
l! I
111 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 30
Map 3-2 District of Mission Townsite Heritage Asset Map Theme C: Governing the Region
112 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 31
THEME D: BUILDING SOCIAL AND COMMUNITY LIFE
“It is busy and active, and there is always lots to do” --Workshop Participant
Spirit of Community Cooperation In Mission’s early years, local women were usually the main organizers of community service clubs, and these were integral to providing entertainment, religious guidance and community welfare for families. These organizations were important as a means to helping others in need, especially in early years when government assistance was scarce. Many of these organizations continue to provide important social networks today. Silverhill Hall in west Mission, was an important gathering space for Entertainment was usually a simple the Swedish settlers of the Silverdale area when it was constructed in 1919. A simple building, the hall is a symbol of the value of immigrant family-oriented affair with many communities to the heritage of Mission, as well as to the strong role options and planned events from played by community institutions and gathering spaces. The hall is on which to choose. In summer, the Mission Community Heritage Register. Image source: District of families could board a steamboat for Mission 2009. Sunday picnic excursions to Harrison Hot Springs; baseball games, fishing and swimming were readily available. It was a tradition for families to venture into Mission City on Saturday night for shopping, visiting friends, attending a dance or picture show. The Royal Canadian Legion became an important social centre. Organized annual events included Christmas and Easter Passion Plays, Queen Victoria’s birthday, May Day, the popular Fall Fair, Strawberry Festival and the Pow Wow organized by the Mission Indian Friendship Centre.
Social rituals were also tied to place; locals would bump into friends at such places at the Post Office or while in a line of cars on Horne Street waiting for the CPR bridge swing bridge to close. Events and celebrations carry on traditions such as Loggers Sports Day and the Raft Race on the Fraser River. Mission residents have a reputation for being independent “go-getters”, relying on their own initiative in the provision of community amenities. In the 1940’s, for example, a group of Mission teens pooled their resources to form the Teen Canteen in an old hall allowing youth a place of their own to play table tennis, put on plays, hold dances and debating matches. The Mission Youth Centre likely evolved out of this initiative. 113 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 32
Mission residents are known for assisting others in time of need, but there were periods in Mission’s history, for example during the devastating floods of 1894 and 1948, smallpox outbreaks, and the Great Depression when Mission residents sought government assistance.
Educational Institutions St. Mary’s Mission and Residential School was the first school of many to be established in Mission. However, it was a segregated school, established only for aboriginal children who in turn, did not attend Mission’s public schools until the 1970s. The first school to serve non-native students in the early days of Mission was a small two room cabin. Men with good standing in the community served as early schoolmasters. Municipal residents, recognizing the value in education, requested funding from the province for additional schools and small school houses were later built to serve the needs of Hatzic Lake, Nicomen Island and Silverdale. The Western Power Company also constructed a school house for children of its employees in Stave Falls. With rapid increases in population and growing number of children, the school system had to expand in order to meet community needs. Mission public schools are today part of School District (SD) 75.
Diverse Religions Regular church service was an important part of pioneer life in Mission, and it served as a way of connecting with others with similar beliefs and of strengthening circles of support.
St. Mary’s Mission and Residential School was the first non-native religious institution established in what is today Mission. Founded by Roman Catholic missionaries, it operated both a residential school for aboriginal children and provided religious services to the community. The Oblate fathers at St. Mary’s Mission constructed the Grotto of Our Lady of Lourdes in 1892 as a ceremonial shrine and landmark overlooking the Fraser Valley. The Grotto was the site of the enactment of the Easter Passion Play and it attracted thousands of Indians annually on pilgrimages from around the province. The building was vacated and eventually demolished in 1965. A replica shrine was constructed on the school site, now Fraser River Heritage Park, and opened in 1997.
In Mission’s early days, services for other denominations were held in people’s homes, later moving to available halls and schools when a congregation grew in number. A travelling preacher served the scattered communities along the north bank of the Fraser River. The first single purpose church, constructed in 1893, held alternating Presbyterian and Methodist services. Other denominational churches were constructed in the Mission area to serve community needs.
Mission is home to regionally and nationally significant religious landmarks. In 1953, a monastic Catholic order of St. Benedictine relocated their priory and seminary from Burnaby to Mission. The same year, the Holy See elevated the priory to that of an abbey, and construction began on Westminster Abbey, its seminary, church, and farm, located on a bluff overlooking the Hatzic area and the Fraser River. The distinctive design of the church of Westminster Abbey has made it a Mission landmark; the church and the grounds are a significant tourism attraction for the community. In 1989, the Mission GurSikh Gurdwara (Sikh Temple) was constructed along Lougheed Highway. This prominent institution plays an important role in local Sikh culture and life, and the temple attracts attendees from around the province for holding weddings and other events. 114 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 33
A Meeting of Cultures From its early days, Mission attracted settlers from a wide range of cultural backgrounds. Most early settlers arrived from eastern Canada, the British Isles, and the United States. Chinese workers who had found employment during the Gold Rush were hired in the 1880s to work on the transcontinental railway; some chose to stay in or return to the Fraser Valley. The local fruit economy relied on Doukhobor, Japanese and Sikh berry pickers who arrived by train and camped for several months to provide casual labour. Many of them settled permanently in Mission, establishing farms and other businesses and contributing to the growth of community institutions.
Prior to WWII, about 60% of Mission’s strawberry farms were owned by Japanese-Canadians. In 1942, all Japanese-Canadians living within 160 kilometres of the coast were sent to internment camps; this included Mission. The internees’ homes, farms, and businesses were sold without their consent, and properties would subsequently be subdivided into new residential developments. Following the end of WWII and internment, few Japanese-Canadians returned to the Fraser Valley. Mission’s once lucrative berry farming industry never recovered to its pre-war strength.
Many Indo-Canadians found employment in sawmills in the Mission area. Italians and later Swedes settled in Silverhill, and a French-Canadian presence, with strong ties with the Oblates of St. Mary’s, developed north of Hatzic at Durieu. Ukrainian-Canadian settlers established the Ukrainian Orthodox Hall off of Dewdney Trunk Road.
The lands immediately to the east of Heritage Park are part of the Peckquaylis Reserve. The reserve is shared by 21 bands of the Sto:lo. Further to the east, the Leq’a:mel First Nation (Sto:lo) community is located near Deroche and along the Nicomen Slough. Mission is home to Indigenous peoples from across BC and Canada. Indigenous institutions, housing societies, businesses, artists, and elders play central roles in Mission and outlying communities.
Many cultural enclaves and institutions are evident on the landscape. Places of worship, community halls and centres, murals, street names, and ethnic retail stores reflect Mission’s historic cultural diversity. Furthermore, there is a resurgence within cultural groups to preserve cultural norms and traditions for future generations. Multiculturalism is a valued aspect of life in Mission and its residents recognize the value in being inclusive, embracing ethnic and cultural groups into the community in order to grow and diversify.
Volunteerism and Pioneer Spirit In the first decades of the community’s development, Mission area residents made their own entertainment by organizing house parties, dances, sharing meals and party games to offset the hard work accomplished by day. Locals generously helped their neighbours get started in the community through barn or house raising bees and even offering to share accommodation until a new house could be built. The land was bountiful, with plenty of wild game, salmon and berries – food was plain but plentiful enough to be shared.
Mission residents are known to rally to help each other in times of adversity. During the devastating floods of the Fraser River in 1894 and 1948, volunteers rescued livestock and offered food and shelter. Over 30,000 Fraser Valley volunteers in addition to members of the armed forces spent a month 115 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 34 sandbagging the riverfront and rescuing stranded citizens and livestock. Damage from the flood was estimated to be in the millions of dollars and more than 3,000 homes were ruined.
Many community groups in Mission were first started in the 1930s during the Great Depression when a shared sense of mutual need brought residents closer together. Mission branches of Boys and Girls Scouts, Lions Club and the Rotary Club were strongly supported; many of these organizations continue their good works to this day. Women’s and church groups organized bazaars, whist drives and church socials to raise money for soldiers overseas and also to socialize. In 1940, Mission was the first community in BC to reach its goal in the drive for victory war bonds.
Today, newcomers to Mission find it easy to volunteer in the community and feel as though their contributions make a difference. Volunteerism is essential in ensuring the continuance of local institutions, such as the Mission Soapbox Derby, the Mission Folk Music Festival, the Mission Candlelight Parade, the newly-constructed foodbank, as well as community, youth, and seniors services, animal welfare organizations, religious programs, and environmental efforts.
116 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 35
Table 4 District of Mission Heritage Asset Table Theme D: Building Social & Community Life
Map Map Place Place Reference Reference D1 Friendly –Small Town Feel, Welcoming D32 Pioneer Social D2 Festivals D33-34 Museum/ Archives D3 Ethnic Mix in Built Communities D35 Powerhouse Halloween Show D5 Grotto D36 Raft Race D6 Community Leisure Centre D37 Mission Raceway D7 4-H Clubs D38 Food Drives D8 Comet Club D39 Parades D9 Women’s Institutes D40 Military Service D10 Social Networks D42 Parks D11 Charities D43 Lawn Bowling Club D12 Childhood Development D44 First Swimming Pool in Valley D13 Family Support Systems D45 Sport Park D14 Leisure Centre Property D46 Public Library D15 Fair grounds D47 Clark Theater D16 Soapbox Derby D48 Strawberry Festival D17 Ice Arena D49 Mission Fest D18 Curling D50 Candlelight Parade D19 Native Pow Wow D51 Passion Plays D20 Logging Show D52 Tree farm D21 Folk Festival D53 Artistic community-painting, glass, D22 May Day Pottery, Authors, Musicians at Fraser D54 D23 Agricultural Fair River Heritage Park D24 Schools D55 Cedarbrooke Chateau D25 St. Mary’s D56 Mission Memorial Hospital (First) D26 Lifetime Learning D57 Mission City Record D27 Westminster Abbey D58 Community Flag & Tartan D28 Sturgeon Fishing D59 Written History of Region D29 Development of Steelhead D60 Concerts in the Park D30 Old Car Sunday D61 Sports Excellence- Pakenham Cup, Strong D31 Legion Dances D61 Olympic Heritage
117 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 36
Map 4 -1 District of Mission Heritage Asset Map Theme D: Building Social & Community Life
\ \ .~ \ N ) I )fil 6-) ll I i ! ! ! ! i I
l !
118 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 37
Map 4-2 District of Mission Townsite Heritage Asset Map Theme D: Building Social & Community Life
119 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 38
Map 4-3 District of Mission Townsite Heritage Asset Map Theme D: Building Social & Community Life
120 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 39
THEME E: EXPRESSING INTELLECTUAL AND CULTURAL LIFE
“…a helping attitude towards those in need” --Workshop Participant
Opportunities for lifetime learning enrich the quality of life for Mission residents. In fact, Mission’s position as a centre of education was rooted in its early days when settlers located near the St. Mary’s Mission residential school. Educating its youth and being able to transport children to school in all weather was a main reason permanent roads were of vital importance to early settlers. Today, Mission enjoys a reputation for being a centre of high learning, with Riverside College and a campus of the University of the Fraser Valley in the vicinity offering a range of programs. Mission residents are also passionate about its arts and culture community as well as local organizations that support the arts. The presence of these local institutions make an invaluable contribution to sustaining Mission`s intellectual, cultural and social quality of life.
The Mission Museum, one of six locations already recognized for its heritage value on the Mission Community Heritage Register. Built in 1907, the building stood on 1st Avenue, where it served as the Canadian Bank of Commerce. It was moved to its current location on 2nd Avenue in 1947, where it transitioned into the community’s library. It was turned into the Mission Museum and Mission Historical Society in 1972. Above: the museum before its restoration in 1992. Source: Mission Archives.
Music and the Arts Music, arts and culture were, and continue to be, an important expression of life in Mission. In the community’s first few decades, annual highlights included the religious plays mounted by the aboriginal 121 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 40 students at Christmas and Easter, which were usually weeklong events popular throughout the Fraser Valley and attended by thousands. The St. Mary’s Mission boys and girls bands entertained at various local events and were invited to play at venues around the province. Following the closure of St. Mary’s school, the site evolved into the Fraser River Heritage Park where musical events, such as the Mission Folk Festival and summer evening concert series, are held.
Due to its inspirational setting, Mission has attracted a high number of artists, writers, singers and actors to locate in the area. In 1972, the Mission Arts Council was founded and a few years later an arts co- operative was established to support local artists. The Music Festival of the Fraser Valley, a successful and well attended 3 to 5-day event launched after WWII, attracted contestants from all over the Lower Mainland and was held annually until the mid-1960s.
Mission also boasts a number of historically significant buildings, several of which are listed on the Mission Community Heritage Register. These identified heritage buildings include the Mission Post Office, Stave Falls Power House, Mission Memorial Centre, Silverhill Hall, and the Mission Museum. Heritage sites contained on the Register include Xa:ytem Longhouse, Fraser River Heritage Park and the Old Fairgrounds site. Other buildings of international architectural stature include the more recently constructed Sikh Temple and Westminster Abbey.
Sports, Recreation and Leisure
Mission residents are known for the importance placed on athletic heritage and their high regard for sports and outdoor life. Sporting activities and athletic competitions have been held since the early days of settlement, and these were often organized as part of family-oriented community events. Early Mission residents seized opportunities for sports and leisure, although initial forms of recreation were not formalized.
Between 1894 and 1956, the annual Agricultural Fair and later the Strawberry Festival was ever popular and offered a variety of opportunities for recreation and leisure, including competitions (tug-o-war, foot races, hammer throwing) and ball games. Elaborate parades with marching bands and floats marked holidays such as Victoria Day, May Day and Labour Day. In 1912, a roller skating rink was built later enlarged by the Athletic Association with a rifle range, badminton courts and a dance hall with small kitchen and stage. The building was purchased by the government during the war years and used as an armoury with lodging for soldiers. It was later purchased by the town for use as a youth centre, an example of re-purposing a facility over time to meet changing community needs.
The Mission Leisure Centre now occupies the Old Fairgrounds site offering residents sporting opportunities such as hockey, skating, curling, swimming, tennis, soccer and other organized activities. Another legacy of the Strawberry Festival was the popular soapbox derby, which was first run in 1946 and continued until 1974. The success of the derby likely provided the impetus for locating a racetrack in Mission, the Mission Raceway, which opened in 1965. The soapbox derby was resurrected in 1999.
Mission’s success in athletics has been recognized at the highest levels. At last count, eight Olympians originally hailed from Mission.
122 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 41
Scientific and Technological Innovations Mission residents welcomed a number of innovations introduced across North America, such as telephones, radio and later television, electricity, moving picture shows, street lighting and automobiles. Innovations in the logging, dairy and berry industries also helped to increase the scope of production and provide much needed employment.
Table 5 District of Mission Heritage Asset Table Theme E: Expressing Intellectual & Cultural Life
Map Map Place Place Reference Reference E1 University of Fraser Valley E 26 Soapbox Derry E2 Lifetime Learning E 27 Crematorium E3 St. Mary’s School & OMI lands E 28 Ukrainian Hall E4 Xay:tem E 29 Clarke Theatre E5 Powerhouse at Stave Falls E 30 McConnell Creek E6 Westminster Abbey E31 Mission Raceway E7 District Tree Farm E32 Museum Building E8 Sturgeon Fishery E33 Tartan & Flag First Hospital in Valley, Paid for E9 E34 Written History of Mission by Community E10 Ferncliffe Gardens E35 Multicultural Population E11 Canneries E36 Poor Clare’s Monastery E12 Fruit Growers E37 Grotto E13 Artist Colony E38 Warm and Welcoming E14 Authors/ Writers E39 Small town feel E15 Musicians E40 Helping Attitude to Those in Need E16 Sports Heroes E41 Volunteerism E17 Fraser River Heritage Park E42 Concerts in the Park Access to Remote Areas by E18 E43 First Nations Bands Water E 23 First Public Library E44 Socially Friendly E 24 Folk Festival E45 Fraser River Rail Bridge E 25 Pow Wow E 46 Hayward Lake Trail
123 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 42
Map 5.1 District of Mission Heritage Asset Map Theme E: Expressing Intellectual & Cultural Life
124 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 43
Map 5.2 District of Mission Townsite Heritage Asset Map Theme E: Expressing Intellectual & Cultural Life
125 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 44
HISTORIC PLACES IN THE DISTRICT OF MISSION
Identification of Historic Places Participants in the February 2011 Heritage Context Plan workshop were asked to identify places in the District of Mission that they believed had heritage value and which contributed to community life in Mission. The following table illustrates the places identified in the workshop, by using information supplied by the Mission District Historic Society, cross-referenced with the theme area to which the historic place relates.
The Mission Arts Centre, one of dozens of unique places in Mission identified by workshop participants as having heritage significance. The MAC is located in one of the oldest remaining residential buildings in Mission on 1st Avenue, adjacent to a 1930s-era mansion (grey house to left), and part of a row of well-preserved early 20th century homes.
126 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 45
Table 6 District of Mission Heritage Asset Table (Cumulative)
THEMES Theme D: Theme E: Theme A: Theme B: Theme C: Historic Building Social Expressing Peopling the Developing Governing & Community Intellectual and Places Land Economies the Region Life Cultural Life St. Mary’s Residential School Westminster Abbey Mission Memorial Hospital Railways Logging Fraser River Courthouse Stave Falls Powerhouse Japanese School Cedar Industry Xay:tem Silverhill Hall Fishing Tow Boats Odd Fellows Hall Silverdale Hall Ruskin Powerhouse Mission Raceway Fraser Rail Bridge First Legion Building Fairgrounds OMI Lands Mission (Indian) Friendship Centre First City Hall Windebank Block Bowie’s Bakery building Fraser Valley Record Eddy Match Company BC Police Office Kootenay Cannery Prisons Grotto 127 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 46
THEMES Theme D: Theme E: Theme A: Theme B: Theme C: Historic Building Social Expressing Peopling the Developing Governing & Community Intellectual and Places Land Economies the Region Life Cultural Life St. Mary’s Ukrainian Church Mission Sikh Temple Soapbox Derby Track Bannisters Theatre Mission Museum, First CIBC Bank St. Andrews United Church Silvermere Wetlands Bellevue Hotel Hougen Block CIBC Building Crist Block Allanson Hardware Masonic Temple James Plumridge House Routledge House Abbot Farm House Nurses Residence Silverdale School Anglican Church Vicarage Butter-Inman Farm Clarke’s Estate General Store Heptonstall Farm McRae Residences Mission Arts Centre The Olde Stove Works St. Anthony’s Church Mission Waterfront Fraser River Heritage Park All Saints Anglican St. Andrews United Church Hatzic Elementary School Centennial Park 128 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 47
Heritage Register Nominations Mission Council established a Community Heritage Register in March 2009, which currently consists of eight properties. The MCHC intends to use the Heritage Context Plan as a tool to identify and prioritize additional heritage places for nomination to Mission’s Community Heritage Register.
A Community Heritage Register is an official list of historic places identified by a local government as having heritage value or heritage merit. A Register is in place to serve as a planning tool, giving notice to property owners and potential buyers of the heritage factors that may affect development options for a site, and enabling monitoring of proposed changes through local government processes. A Statement of Significance (SOS) is typically prepared for a potential Register listing explaining why the property is considered to have heritage value and/or heritage merit. An SOS includes a brief description of the historic site, an analysis of its core heritage values and a list of its character defining elements. Properties are added to a Register by means of a Council resolution.
The MCHC may consider seeking Council approval to review the list of historic places contained in the Heritage Context Study on an annual basis to identify potential heritage register additions. Commission members could start by reviewing the list of historic places in one of the five thematic areas against the heritage values it represents, by determining if the resource represents aesthetic, historic, social, cultural, scientific, spiritual or educational heritage significance. Those resources identified as having significance in more than thematic category could be prioritized and nominated for further investigation. Owners could be contacted early in the process to gauge their interest in adding their property to the Community Heritage Register. Should the owners agree to the listing, an SOS could be prepared for the property and forwarded to Council for a resolution adding the property to the Register.
129 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 48
CONCLUSION
Heritage protection represents more than just preservation of the past. It includes a consideration of the values that a community ascribes to significant places and events that help to shape and define what a community is. Heritage planning involves the acknowledgement that these values and histories are themselves evolving, as a population grows, becomes more diverse, and embraces new ideas about shared community goals.
The commitment of Mission residents to heritage is strong, and is evidenced by the continued efforts over the years to preserve the community’s history and sites of significance. This has included the development of entities and organizations such as the Mission Archives, the Mission Museum, the Mission District Historical Society, and the Mission Community Heritage Commission (MCHC), and in the countless volunteer hours spent organizing, researching, and fundraising for heritage events, building restoration, and historic preservation.
The development of the Mission Community Heritage Register represents a small but critical piece of these efforts, as the Register is the municipality’s way of providing formal, local government recognition of the heritage value of individual sites. Six locations already exist on the register, but the possibility exists for many more to be added as time and resources allow.
The process for preparing the District of Mission Heritage Context Study included guiding residents in the identification of heritage themes based on community values, and then to identify heritage resources in each of the thematic areas. Five themes were developed, and collectively, they point to a community whose history and identity pre-dates that of settlers, following from thousands of years of occupation by the Sto:lo and Kwantlen peoples in this region. The themes speak to an identity tied to the Fraser River, the railroad, and surrounding forests. The themes reflect the importance of increasing cultural and economic diversity in Mission’s past, and the significant contributions of generations of immigrants. Finally, they demonstrate the role of the arts, cultural events, and social institutions in defining the meanings of community.
The District of Mission Heritage Context Plan is instrumental in informing the broader planning context. The Heritage Context Plan provides a framework from which to guide more strategic planning of municipal heritage resources, as well as assisting the community to make decisions about the conservation of valued historic places. 130 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 49
NEXT STEPS
The Heritage Context Study provides a starting point for further investigation by the Commission and the District regarding places which best represent the community’s identified heritage values. The Heritage Context Study will also assist the MCHC and the District to utilize the most appropriate implementation tool(s) to identify and protect the community heritage resources. The District of Mission Heritage Context Plan will also inform future updates to the Heritage Strategic Plan.
Following from Council’s approval of the Heritage Context Plan, the next steps include:
Determination, by the Mission Community Heritage Commission, of candidate sites identified in the Heritage Context Study that may be added to the Mission Community Heritage Register. Research and preparation of a Statement of Significance for each site recommended to Council for inclusion in the Register.
In addition, while the Heritage Context Plan is being formalized in 2016, the community consultation piece was conducted in 2011. The Mission Community Heritage Commission recognizes the need for additional consultation in the coming year, in order to provide the following updates to the Heritage Context Plan:
Additions to the list of historic places included in the Heritage Context Plan; Identification of values or concerns that are not well-identified within the Heritage Context Plan; Further definition of ways in which community members would like to see candidate sites (for inclusion into the Heritage Register) prioritized. o For example, should more focus be placed on recommending sites that reflect a diversity of heritage experiences (e.g. related to Indigenous and settler groups, or to different types of land use, such as commercial and residential)? Should individual sites that align well with multiple areas of heritage (e.g. cultural, economic) be given higher priority? Or is it a higher priority to focus on sites at risk of decay or other forms of loss?
Finally, the Heritage Context Plan will help guide discussions regarding community planning more generally. Heritage values should be considered alongside other planning goals, such as greater density to accommodate a growing population, improved mobility, economic development, and environmental and social sustainability.
Heritage can and does play an important role in developing economic opportunities (e.g. tourism, film, etc.) and in enhancing overall community quality of life and pride in place. In a community as rapidly growing and yet as rich in heritage as the District of Mission is, the time for more proactive planning around heritage is now.
131 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 50
APPENDIX A: Actions and Tools for Recognizing and Protecting Resources within the Heritage Context Plan
This section provides an overview of the available tools for the identification and protection of the community heritage values that have been presented in the Context Study. All of these activities and tools are part of a comprehensive approach to heritage conservation planning at the community and local government level. The activities and tools identified in this section range from passive (such as interpretation and promotion) to active (such as legal protection and regulation) for implementation by the District of Mission through the MCHC. This section also includes information on how to proceed with the implementation of the activities and tools described below.
Identification The places identified in the Heritage Context Study are not all automatically deemed historic places. The study provides a starting point for further investigation about which places best represent the community’s identified heritage values. The first step in the conservation planning process is to identify places that should be either formally recognized or legally protected as part of the District’s land use and planning initiatives. The collection of potential historic places listed in the Heritage Context Study can now be prioritized to create a short list of historic places which may be considered candidates for formal recognition or protection.
Prioritize List of Potential Historic Places To prioritize the historic places in the report, it is recommended that historic places are assessed based on the level of intervention that they require.
For formal recognition: Is the place an important touchstone for the community, and under little risk of being altered, damaged, or destroyed? Is the place a good candidate for being honoured for its heritage values, but will not require regulation by the district.
For legal protection: Is the place under threat of damage or loss? Would community heritage values be lost if this place is allowed to deteriorate or be destroyed? Is the place unique within the community? Is it the only remaining place of its type, and must be retained as a touchstone to a certain aspect of the community’s development or history? Is the place an integral part of the greater area, or community character? This may relate to the physical characteristics, or its associative characteristics (that is: how does the community relate to or perceive this place?)
132 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 51
Recommendations and Considerations Related to Identification
Members of the MCHC and other stakeholders may be requested to prioritize the list of places contained in the Heritage Context Study to determine which may be formally recognized, legally protected, or simply interpreted. The prioritization process would involve an analysis of listed places as to whether they have heritage value in one or more of the categories of heritage value: aesthetic, historic, spiritual, scientific, social or cultural. Those places having significance in multiple categories would be ranked higher in terms of being a priority for inclusion on the Mission Community Heritage Register. The prioritization process may also include photographic recording of those places, as well as historical research to begin to create record files for places that may be included on the Community Heritage Register, or subject to a designation bylaw.
Research/Documentation Research and documentation of historic places is an important part of effective heritage conservation planning. Mission’s Community Heritage Commission may be directed to undertake research on the historic places identified during the short listing and prioritizing process. Some useful actions to facilitate the research and documentation process are:
Create a Historic Place File/Record Keeping System
Create a file for each historic place that will be formally recognized or legally protected. These files should be held in the local government planning department when formal recognition or protection takes places to enable monitoring and regulation of those places. Files for historic places should include historic research materials, a complete community heritage register record (for places on the Community Heritage Register) and a Statement of Significance.
Recommendations and Considerations Related to Research and Documentation:
The Commission can utilize existing resources to create historic place files. Extensive research exists in places such as the Community Archives and Museum. Community volunteers and members of the Heritage Commission may be willing to undertake research for historic places on the short list. There may be opportunities for local students to undertake research on historic places that can be used to populate historic place files. This type of partnership approach with schools (of all levels) can work to build support for and appreciation of community heritage values and historic places.
Evaluation and Characterization
While the Heritage Context Study process has begun to evaluate the heritage values and historic places of the District of Mission, the evaluation process can build a better understanding of how historic places can guide land-use planning and development. Characterization of historic areas is a practice that is growing in use and popularity as part of good heritage conservation/community planning. 133 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 52
Characterization brings the context study process to the next level, and applies it to specific areas of a community that have been identified as potential historic precincts or districts.
When the Commission is reviewing the heritage character of an area, members will adhere to the following three step process:
1. Define the area – what are the physical boundaries of the area? What types of resources (buildings, transportation infrastructure, vegetation, landscape elements etc.) does it include? 2. Identify the heritage values of the area – what are the historic, aesthetic, spiritual, social, cultural, and scientific qualities of this area that have significance or importance for past, present, or future generations? 3. Identify the character-defining elements of the area – What are the physical characteristics of this area that embody the heritage values? Are there special physical traits of this area that distinguish it as an historic area?
Defining heritage character and creating heritage character statements for historic areas is a good early step in developing a conservation planning process because they:
Further the understanding of what community heritage values are. Allow decision makers to understand how places that have been identified as part of the community’s heritage reflect identified heritage values. Allow land-use planners to know which physical parts of specific districts of a community need to be retained in order for the heritage values and character of those areas to remain intact when development occurs.
Recommendations and Considerations Related to Characterization:
The Heritage Commission may be directed to undertake characterization for the potential historic areas identified on maps through the preparation of Statements of Significance for those areas. The District has already undertaken the creation of Statements of Significance for some of its historic resources. This type of work can be done by a heritage consultant, or it can be completed by citizens.
Promotional Tools and Displays
Interpretive wraps on utility cabinets and other public facilities. Interpretive wraps that can be installed on utility cabinets and other public facilities can improve the community’s awareness of historic values in the community by improving the civic landscape through the display of photography and art work. Commission members could work with local schools and organizations to develop displays that would promote and display the community’s heritage values which intern can help to foster civic identity and community pride. 134 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 53
Walking tours. Information identified in the research and documentation process for historic places in the community could also be used to develop interpretive material for heritage walking tours. In particular, a historic place’s Statement of Significance provides details about heritage values and character defining elements which can be used to inform tours and interpretive signs.
Content on website. Posting the District of Mission’s Community Heritage Register online is an easily accessed resource that can be updated and changed by staff with minimal cost and effort.
Publications. Compilations of archived photographs, maps, journal entries and other records about historic places or areas become marketable resources that help to document a community’s development and paint a picture of its broader identity. Such compilations are appealing to local heritage advocates, new residents and the cultural tourism sector and become a source of local pride and engagement.
Ceremonial Naming of Historic Places. Undertaking ceremonial naming of places of aboriginal heritage significance is an important part of strengthening community identity and honouring the continuum of history that makes Mission the city that it is today. Traditional place names are an important part of the contextual understanding of the District of Mission, and projects and ceremonies to identify and mark places with those names can be undertaken as a significant heritage activity.
Recognition through Community Heritage Register.
A good starting step for building capacity for heritage conservation planning is to formally recognize historic places. The most common form of formal recognition is to list places on a community heritage register (CHR), which is an official listing of properties identified by a local government as having heritage value or heritage character. Inclusion on a community heritage register does not constitute heritage designation or any other form of permanent heritage protection. It is, however, a useful tool for a number of reasons.
A community heritage register is intended to:
officially list the heritage resources in the community; give notice to property owners, and potential buyers, of heritage factors (historical, architectural, aesthetic, etc.) which may affect development options for a listed property; and enable monitoring of proposed changes to properties through the local government licensing and permit application processes. Inclusion of a property on a community heritage register does not in itself constitute permanent heritage protection and does not create any financial liability for the local government. The register may, however, be used to "flag" properties for possible future protection.
Properties on a community heritage register are eligible for special provisions in the BC Building Code Heritage Building Supplement. 135 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 54
If council has delegated authority to staff to do so, inclusion of a property on a community heritage register enables a local government to: . withhold an approval . withhold a demolition permit . require an impact assessment
The process for adding historic places to the CHR is as follows: 1. Local government consults with property owners and anticipates the continuing need to provide information and to raise awareness, by such means as: preparing clear and simple information packages (communities may wish to explain that registration status is not the same as designation status); preparing a map to place individual heritage property in the context of the street, neighbourhood, or area; assembling available information (such as before and after restoration photos, maps, archival material, inventories, etc.); holding review meetings or workshops; explaining eligibility criteria for financial assistance for conservation; and/or offering technical assistance (e.g., design advice or rehabilitation standards).
2. Local government reviews, and, if necessary, revises the proposed community heritage register. 3. By resolution, a council or regional district board creates a community heritage register that lists selected properties. The CHR must include register records (including Statements of Significance) to the Standards of the BC Register of Historic Places to explain, why a property is considered to have heritage value or heritage character. 4. Within 30 days of a property being added to, or deleted from, a register, local government must notify the property owner and the minister responsible for the Heritage Conservation Act. 5. Properties may be added to, or deleted from, the community heritage register by resolution of the council or regional district board.
Recommendations and Considerations Related to the Community Heritage Register:
The District of Mission may consider including – through council resolution – the historic places that are included in the shortlist of prioritized places resulting from this context study on its Community Heritage Register.
Protection of Historic Places
Local governments have the ability to choose to legally protect historic places in order ensure that heritage values are conserved and to regulate how changes happens in those places. There several legal options to protect historic places: 136 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 55
Local Government Heritage Designation. Heritage designation is a form of local government land use regulation that protects private heritage property. Designation is intended to give long- term protection to heritage property. It is the only form of long-term local government regulation that can prohibit demolition.
Heritage Conservation Area. A heritage conservation area is a distinct district with special heritage value and/or heritage character, identified for heritage conservation purposes in an official community plan. A heritage conservation area is intended to provide long-term protection to a distinctive area which contains resources with special heritage value and/or heritage character. A heritage conservation area can provide protection to all or some of the properties in a heritage conservation area. Properties that are to be protected must be specifically identified in the bylaw.
Heritage Revitalization Agreement. A heritage revitalization agreement is a formal voluntary written agreement negotiated by the District and an owner of heritage property. A heritage revitalization agreement outlines the duties, obligations, and benefits negotiated by both parties to the agreement.
Heritage revitalization agreements are intended to provide a powerful and flexible tool that enable agreements to be specifically written to suit unique properties and situations. They may be used to set out the conditions which apply to a particular property. The terms of the agreement supersede local government zoning regulations, and may vary use, density, and siting regulations.
A heritage revitalization agreement is suited to unique conservation situations that demand creative solutions, such as complex and unique sites requiring exceptions and relaxations to zoning regulations
Covenants. A heritage conservation covenant is a contractual agreement between a property owner and a local government or heritage organization. Conservation covenants are registered on the title of the property. The covenant outlines the responsibilities of the covenant parties with respect to the conservation of a heritage property. Conservation covenants can apply to natural or man-made heritage resources.
Heritage conservation covenants are intended to enable a local government or a heritage organization to negotiate an agreement with a property owner to protect and/or conserve a site or building. Such agreements may not vary local government regulations such as siting, use, or density.
A conservation covenant may be used to conserve property when planning and research identifies a need for conservation, or when the parties are interested in formalizing the terms of conservation in a contract. A conservation covenant may “run with the land,” meaning that when the property is sold the conservation covenant remains in effect and may be binding on the new owner. 137 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 56
Other Planning Tools that Recognize Heritage Values
Planning tools that can assist with community development and heritage conservation include:
Adoption of the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. The document provides sound, practical guidance to achieve good conservation practice, from individual projects up to community-wide development. This document provides results- oriented guidance for sound decision making when planning for, intervening and using a historic place.
Heritage Conservation Area Design Guidelines. A comprehensive neighbourhood planning exercise identifies an area that is valued for its distinctive character. A heritage conservation area (HCA) enables the local government to regulate the form and character of the land-use within that area. The creation of an HCA not only permits, but requires the creation of design guidelines that specify the objectives of that designation in respect of the special form and character of that area.
There are two types of Heritage Conservation Design Guidelines: guidelines for New Construction and Additions to Existing Buildings and guidelines for Historic Places and Additions to Historic Places.
Precinct / Neighbourhood Planning. Undertake comprehensive precinct neighbourhood planning for existing neighbourhoods, or (even better) for the distinct character areas identified during the mapping exercise. Determine the defining uses, density, form and character of these areas.
Identify a suite of land-use planning overlays including zoning, development permit areas, and heritage conservation areas.
Zoning (Use and Density). Zoning provides a primary tool for heritage conservation. Carefully described zones can be used to maintain a history of use that is a characteristic of a place, or they may be used to zone an area ‘for what it is,’ thus deflecting interest in significant change to other areas that have been identified through a comprehensive planning process as ‘pressure relief valves’ for development.
Signage and Awning bylaws. The quality of signs and awnings in urban areas can make a real impact on drawing people to an area to visit, shop, or conduct business. In particular, when related to historic places, signs and awnings can help to articulate and reinforce the spirit of place and sense of community identity.
Heritage Site Maintenance Standards. Heritage site maintenance standards establish minimum requirements for the care and maintenance of real property, both land and improvements, that are designated or located within a heritage conservation area. Different maintenance standards may be established for different types of protected properties within a community. 138 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 57
Maintenance standards may also be used in cases where property owners receive significant financial assistance for the conservation of their property. In this case, maintenance of a conserved property would be a condition of receipt of a grant.
Urban Design Guidelines. Design guidelines should be developed that provide policy on maintenance and improvement of the hard and soft landscape and streetscape. Paving, street furniture, colour and texture can all be used to amplify and enhance the distinctiveness of a place.
Parks Management Plans. The District of Mission Parks, Trails and Bicycle Master Plan guides the development and management of Parks in the community.
Education and Awareness. Increasing training and education for staff is one of the best forms of increasing the awareness and importance of heritage conservation to the community. Another area for staff training purposes may be in the use of regulatory tools, such as building code requirements. With the building of awareness of heritage values and significance, District staff can take into consideration these important aspects when faced with field projects which may affect heritage resources.
Financial and Non-Monetary Incentives. In addition to tax incentives, local government may provide financial and non-monetary support to owners of heritage properties. Direct financial support may be given in the form of monetary grants to property owners. Non-monetary support may be provided in the form of regulatory relaxations, additional density, and support services such as: program coordination, assistance to a non-profit society, technical advice, public works projects, commemoration, and/or priority routing of heritage applications.
Tax Incentives / Exemptions. Tax incentives are a mechanism that allows Council to give property owners a partial or total exemption, or deferment, of their property taxes for approved heritage purposes. Tax exemptions are intended to enable the District to provide financial support to private property owners to conserve their heritage properties.
139 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 58
APPENDIX B: HISTORICAL CHRONOLOGY OF MISSION
A brief chronological history of Mission describes some of the main events that shaped its development.
Area inhabited by the Skayuk tribe (now extinct) of the Sto:lo Nation 1808 Explorer Simon Fraser discovers and names the Fraser River, passing near Mission 1820s Europeans arrive in the Fraser Valley 1841 First arrival of Catholic priest in the area 1858 Fraser River area becomes a staging post for the Caribou Gold Rush 1860 250 homesteading families settle in the Fraser Valley 1861 Oblates of Mary Immaculate (OMI) establish residential school for native boys 1868 Sisters of St. Anne start a residential school for native girls in conjunction with above 1870s French Canadian Catholics are encouraged by the Oblates to settle at Durieu 1871 British Columbia joins the Confederation of Canada, telegraph service comes to Mission 1884 Oblates register a map of the townsite of St. Mary’s Mission in New Westminster 1885 Canadian Pacific Railway mainline opens for local traffic 1887 Transcontinental service begins with regularly scheduled passenger service A railway station is built at St. Mary’s landing 1891 The townsite of Mission is laid out and construction underway in advance of the auction of lots on May 19, 1891 by Horne The CPR Station is relocated to the west side of Mission City 1892 Grotto of Our Lady of Lourdes shrine is built Corporation of the Municipality of Mission is established 1893 Board of Trade founded to promote Mission; first of its kind in BC 1894 First annual Agricultural Fair is held in Mission, hosted by the Board of Trade and touted as the longest running fair in BC Fraser River floods, devastating the town; the town relocates up hill Washington Street, the main street, is first serviced with electric street lighting 1900 Road west connects Mission to Stave Lake, a logging camp and saw mill are constructed 1890s Commune founded at Ruskin on the Stave River, only lasts three years. E. J. Heaps & Sons purchase the sawmill and commence operations 1900 Growth of the dairy farming industry in the northern Fraser Valley 1907 Telephone service arrives in Mission The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce is built on First Avenue 140 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 59
1908 Fraser Valley Record newspaper is established bringing news to Mission 1909 Drinking water is piped downhill using a basic waterworks system 1910 CPR rail bridge is converted from wood to steel construction BCER electric line is completed on the south side of the Fraser River 1913 Western Power Company Stave Falls dam is completed bringing electric power to the area, touted as the largest power plant west of Niagara Falls Stave River shingle mill later becomes the largest shingle in BC First movie theatre opens on Main Street 1917 Fraser Valley Milk Producers Association formed 1921 3,025 permanent residents live in the Mission municipality 1922 Mission settlement area exceeds 1,000 and it is granted the status of “Village” Downtown street names are changed to reflect local character 1924 CPR introduces refrigerated railway to preserve produce during shipping Chinatown in the Mission flats is razed by fire; the Matsqui Hotel burns down 1925 Construction of Mission’s first purpose-built hospital on 5th Avenue Mission Golf and Country Club and Mission Court House are founded 1927 The CPR planks the rail bridge connecting vehicles to points south 1929 The Municipal Hall opens on First Avenue, shared with the Village of Mission 1931 Completion of the Ruskin Dam 1935 Mission Post Office is constructed at the corner of Second and Welton Swimming Pool is constructed; mercury vapour street lights are introduced 1942 Federal government orders the evacuation of 550 Japanese-Canadians living in Mission to internment camps, impacting the local berry growing industry 1945 Canadian Bank of Commerce donates its bank building for use as a lending library, later to become the Mission Museum on Second Avenue 1946 The first Strawberry Festival is held in Mission 1947 Soap Box Derby event is first held in Mission and enjoys widespread success 1948 Banks of the Fraser River flood, a state of emergency is declared 1951 Mission’s population is 8,000; Abbotsford’s population is 14,000 1952 Eaton’s Department Store arrives in Mission 1953 Benedictine monks construct Westminster Abbey and Seminary Christ the King (opens in 1957) 1955 A span of the CPR rail bridge collapses and takes 13 months to be repaired Farmers Union of BC founded to represent Mission berry and dairy farmers 1957 Mission applies for status of Town, to be governed by a Mayor and Council 141 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 60
1958 BC’s first municipal tree farm is created in Mission 1959 Mission Plaza Shopping Centre opens 1961 St. Mary’s Mission native residential school closes and buildings demolished The E.B. Eddy Match Company, largest match manufacturer in the world, shuts down; Mission’s population is 10,000; Abbotsford’s population is 20,000 1962 The Mission and Ferndale Correctional Institute opens 1965 Mission Memorial Hospital opens on Hurd Street Grotto of Our Lady of Lourdes is destroyed 1968 Mission Roller Rink opens 1969 Mission Town and District amalgamate into the District of Mission 1972 Mission Arts Council is formed and Museum opens in CIBC building 1973 A four lane highway connector and vehicular bridge is constructed over the Fraser River 1974 Mission Municipal Hall opens on Stave Lake Street Cancellation of Mission’s Soap Box Derby 1975 Eatons Department store relocates to Abbotsford’s Seven Oaks Mall 1977 Construction of the Mission Leisure Centre is underway on the Old Fairgrounds site 1979 Mission Loggers Days are cancelled 1986 Fraser River Heritage Park created on the St. Mary’s Indian Residential School site 1992 New Mission Raceway Park opens 1996 Reconstruction of the Grotto of Our Lady of Lourdes shrine
142 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 61
APPENDIX C: WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS
The District of Mission Community Heritage Commission would like to thank the following people for their time and contributions to the Context Study workshop.
Former Mayor James Atebe District of Mission Former Councillor Mike Scudder District of Mission Councillor Danny Plecas District of Mission Councillor Heather Stewart District of Mission Marcy Bond District of Mission Teresa MacLeod Mission Community Library Joe Samorodin Mission resident Val Billesberger Mission Community Archives Jill Holgate Mission District Historical Society Ron Anderton Silverdale resident Russ Pattison Silverdale resident Sharon Syrette Heritage Places Branch Shelly Clarkson (ret.) Mission Community Library Kim Allen Mission Museum Janis Schultz Community Heritage Commission Kim Kokoszka Community Heritage Commission Barbara Metz Community Heritage Commission Andre Wolfe Community Heritage Commission
Presenter: Sharon Fletcher (ret.) District of Mission
Facilitator: Jim Hinds Community Heritage Commission 143 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 62
APPENDIX D: WORKSHOP RESPONSES
The following information reflects the input that was provided by participants at the context study workshop on February 21, 2011, plus from questionnaires that were filled out from members of the community. The lists provided are in ranked order, with the statements having received the most comments listed first. All information is grouped by theme/question asked.
Why is heritage conservation important for the District of Mission?
Community Pride (4) Draws tourists and visitors Heritage defines us as unique (4) Respect for the old valued If we, as a community, don’t take the Sets atone for quality time to stop and look at the past & Unifying – ties community together recognize what has brought Mission to this point it could be lost for the future People move here for unique generations, both for their knowledge community which reflect family values and appreciation of the work done by We have the ability to do things pioneers (4) differently Building blocks for planning (3) Sustainability Civic pride (3) Central district- heritage district Preserves Family history (3) Historic building still standing Makes you feel good in your Early communities in the province community (2) Mission is rich in history and if it is not Essence of community (2) preserved, it will be lost forever. First & largest commercial centre in Circumstances & history that has made Fraser Valley (2) us what we are today Heritage conservation is important to Old heritage building kept up for Mission because as Mission grows we maintaining community history need to preserve our heritage so it is History of a community not lost and so that Mission has an identity, especially for the people that Knowing why things happened as they come after us (2) did can bring a sense of peace and understanding, and help inform future Quality of life (2) decisions. Whether the steps taken are Brings lot of memories to be the same or different from those Identity past Past connects to today Roots are important
144 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 63
Peopling the Land Why did or do people live in Mission?
Employment (9) Spiritual connections (2) Affordability lots of low income housing (8) Artist centre (2) Transportation to & from market railways & Connections to family river (4) Unique shopping experience Natural beauty (4) Hospital Logging & Cedar industry (4) Special events Cultural diversity (3) Heritage sites Friendly small town feel (3) Volunteers Farming (3) “We can” Entrepreneur mind set Schooling (2) Shopping area Quiet community (2) Gold rush
Developing Economies How and why is Mission’s historic and current economic development important to its heritage?
Logging and Cedar industry- Silverhill Prisons, lots of employment, families move area, tree farm, riverfront (5) here, Social Services Power generation, dams, early hydro Education- Seminary, UFV, public school, electricity production made possible for post-secondary, residential school other development (4) Hospital Tourism, natural experience, outdoor It brings/brought money and jobs into the mountain biking, community events (4) community which brings people into the Recognized historical sites, national, community. There are a lot of different provincial, and local (4) nationalities here and they each have their Junction of railways (3) own culture. Mission Raceway (2) We need to remember the historic farms and logging operations that were so Farming developed economy- Japanese important to the community – for example berry farmers (2) the Japanese farmers and their strawberry Fishing commercial & sport (2) farms that were lost as a result of WWII. Road development & infrastructure, Heritage can be an incredible source of Riverboat stop (2) economic wealth if nurtured. A prosperous Close to US community is in a better position to nurture their heritage. Communities that do not Indigenous people, ethnic mix worry about basic needs being met, usually 145 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 64
have more to offer to economic and cultural Economic development has the capacity to sectors. liaison with planning for purpose build, Shorter commutes give people time to take development maintaining heritage culture an interest in Mission as their “Hometown” feel To support preservation Economic development of city reflects heritage richness Jobs support a community Affordable living & quality lifestyles
Governing the Region How and why is Mission’s heritage and role as an administration centre significant?
Railway connection to the US (3) Hydro generation Logging, Shake & Shingle industry (3) Federal Fisheries Farmers cooperatives (2) Regional Soapbox derby track Lots of East West connections, railways, Agricultural fair from 1894 drew entries river, roads. All communities shopped here from all over region (2) Loggers Sports day Legal system – Courthouse, policing for Telegraph line to coast and rest of Canada North Fraser and Matsqui (2) Friendship Centre one of first in Canada Legion, military, number of people in military (2) OMI lands St. Mary’s Retail business centre (2) Post Office Shipping and processing point for central Prisons valley (2) Hospital Two different councils running area It brings people, work and business into the community
Building Social and Community Life What is and has been special about the social, cultural and community life of Mission?
People are very supportive of each other in community together and is used to bring Mission, warm and welcoming. The people into the community (8) inclusion of everyone in the community for Good ethnic mix (2) events in Mission is one of Mission’s Social service network (2) greatest assets (9) I also really love all the beautiful natural Many people appreciate that it is not a big places as well, such as prospector’s trail. city. People create their own entertainment Although less modified these places could as opposed to travelling large distances to also be deemed historic find it. Always lots to do and it brings the 146 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 65
It is active and busy & there are always lots Religious variety & tolerance to do Sports excellence Large families Organized & casual Artistic community
Expressing Intellectual and Cultural Life What is unique about Mission’s expression of intellectual and cultural life over time?
Westminster Abby (4) Authors / Writers Xay:tem – Original Sto:lo culture : trade Musicians centre, appropriate technology (4) Sport heroes Fraser River Heritage Park – Meeting Intellectuals – Len Christianson, Vic place, Last Residential school (3) Hollister University of Fraser Valley continuing We can laugh at our mistakes, have fun education programs (3) Access to remote areas by water Visionary business men, self made – Windebank, Catherwood, Lockley, Streeter, First Hydro development in Valley – Horne (3) Mission Power Company, Windebank Passion plays brought thousands, Grotto Hospital built – funds raised by community (2) groups Multicultural population, very diverse People aware of what is happening in the community (2) world/Canada Ferncliffe Gardens (2) Mission First public library Artisans – Pottery, Glass Blowing, Susuki Folk Festival florist (2) Pow Wow Powerhouse – from mill to a historic site (2) Soapbox Derby Tree farm – Cultural expression. Not just Crematorium logging, but sustainability, environmental Ukrainian Hall Sturgeon fishery – hatchery & habitant Clarke Theatre studied by experts, stewardship McConnell Creek Horticulture developers – tree fruits, Gladiolas, Dahlias, international awards Museum Building & Archives Henry Jacobsen roses Tartan & Flag Dr. J Marcellus Rhododendrons Written history of Mission Canneries – Growers coops – Solving Poor Clare’s Monastery problems, fruit in Summer & Chocolates in the Winter 147
Identifying Places of Heritage Value in the District of Mission All Saints Anglican Fraser River Railway Museum Building Church Bridge Nurses Residents Anglican Church Friendship Centre Ogle Park Vicarage G. A. Abbott Plumridge’s General Abbott Block Building Store Abbot Farm House Grotto Plumridge House Allanson Hardware Hayward Lake Trail Post Office Building Bannister’s Theatre Hepstonstall Farm Powerhouse at Stave Bellevue Hotel Historic downtown Falls Bowie’s Bakery Hougen Block Prospector’s Trail Building Indian friendship Routledge House Butter-Inman Farm Centre Ruskin Powerhouse Centennial Park Japanese School St. Andrews United CIBC building (First Lane House (33026 Church Avenue) Second Ave.) St. Anthony’s City Hall (First Lawn Bowling Club Church Avenue) Leisure Centre St. Joseph’s Catholic Clarke’s Estate Grounds – Church (First General Store Fairgrounds, Building 3295 Strawberry Festival, Courthouse Second Ave.) Soapbox Derby, St. Mary’s Crist block Logging Show, Boat Residential School Eddy Match building Festival, Track & Field, Military St. Mary’s Ukrainian Elks Hall Training Grounds, Church Ferncliffe Gardens May Day, Sporting Silverdale Ferndale School Events elementary school (First) McRae House Silverdale Hall First Hospital Masonic Hall Silverhill Hall First Legion Mission Arts Centre Silvermere Wetlands Building, Mission City Record Community Events, Soapbox Derby Office Dairy farmers’ Track conventions Mission Memorial The Olde Stove Hospital (Present) Fraser River Works Mission Museum Tree farm Fraser River (Bank of Commerce Heritage Park, OMI Building, First West Coast Express lands, St. Mary’s, Library) Westminster Abby Pow Wow, Folk Festival, Old Car Mission Raceway Windebank Building Sunday, Henry Mission Sikh temple Xay:tem Jacobsen Rose Garden Mission Waterfront 148 District of Mission Heritage Context Plan | 67
REFERENCES
Atkinson, K., Barnes, C., Boer, B., Buker, N., Eggerstone, C., Irwin, T., Weins, C. As it Was: Mission City and District - OFY Project, Simple Thoughts Press (1973).
Cherrington, John. Mission on the Fraser Mitchell Press (1974).
District of Mission, Planning Department
Heritage Branch of BC
Mission Community Archives
Mission District Historical Society
Mission Heritage Places Branch
Prince George Heritage Context Study
Schroeder, Andreas. Carved from Wood: Mission, B.C. 1861-1992 The Mission Foundation (1991).
149
Development Services Staff Report to Council
File: 3900-02
DATE: November 7, 2016 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Gina MacKay, Manager of Long Range Planning SUBJECT: Liquor Licensing ATTACHMENT: Appendix A – District of Mission Existing Liquor Stores
This report is provided in response to Council’s recent request of October 17, 2016 to amend the Zoning Bylaw by prohibiting the sale of liquor in grocery stores that are located within one kilometre of an existing liquor store. Staff have prepared a Zoning Amending Bylaw that amends the definition of Supermarket to specifically exclude the sale of liquor. This bylaw is listed under the “Bylaws for Consideration” of the agenda for first two readings. Subject to Council’s approval, a Public Hearing will be scheduled for December 5, 2016.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Recent and pending changes to the provincial regulations in respect of liquor licensing and control have the potential to result in the sale of liquor (specifically wine) in local grocery stores. At their October 17th 2016 meeting, Council passed a resolution directing staff to bring forward an amending bylaw implementing a minimum 1.0 kilometre distance between all retailers of beverage alcohol. The proposed changes to the provincial liquor and licensing program include a number of regulations related the type and format of liquor sales in the province. Synopses of the new and proposed regulations are outlined in this report. PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to provide information to Council on recent and pending changes to the Provincial Liquor Control and Licensing Regulations and to present a Zoning Amending Bylaw.
BACKGROUND: At the October 17, 2016 meeting of Council, Mr. Bert Hick, a representative from Rising Tide Consultants, appeared before Council to discuss various issues related to the provincial government’s initiative to permit the sale of wine on grocery store shelves. The representative’s position was that allowing grocery retailers to sell wine will increase the social costs to the municipality, as well as drive away business from small and medium size wineries and liquor stores. Mr. Hick further noted that the City of Maple Ridge, City of Pitt Meadows and City of North Vancouver gave consideration to the proposal to sell wine in grocery stores and after their respective public hearings voted not to permit it. After some consideration Council resolved: THAT staff be direct to bring forward a zoning bylaw amendment implementing a minimum 1.0 km distance between all retailers of beverage alcohol.
STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 1 of 6 150
DISCUSSION There are essentially two key points around which much of this report revolves. The first key point is that there are two different legislative changes: (a) the changes to the Liquor Control and Licensing Regulation made by BC Reg 42/2015 on April 1, 2015; and (b) the changes that will be made by the new Act, the Special Wine Store Licence Auction Act, once that Act is brought into force. Both of these legislative changes will allow for liquor sales in grocery stores. The amendments to the Regulation do this by allowing existing wine store licences or licensee retail licences to be changed and to be relocated to within a grocery store. The Special Wine Store Licence Auction Act will also allow wine sales in grocery stores (once it is enacted) by providing for the issuance of a number of new special wine store licences to sell wine in grocery stores. The second key point is that neither of the legislative changes alters the 1 kilometre rule which was, and will continue to be, applicable to licensee retail stores but which was not, and will continue not to be, applicable to wine stores. In summary, under the new legislation each the existing grocery stores (as mapped in Appendix) would be eligible for either a Wine Store (WS) licence or a Special Wine Store licence as defined below. The following terms are included and are described for convenience as follows:
• Liquor (Licensee) Retail Store (LRS) otherwise known as a Private Liquor Store. At this time, no more of these licences are being issued.
• BC Liquor Store (BCLS) otherwise known as a Government Liquor Store.
• Wine Store (WS) licences are for wine stores including winery-operated stores, independent wine stores (IWS), VQA stores and tourist wine stores. At this time, no more of these licences are being issued.
• VQA Store is a wine store owned and operated by the BC Wine Institute.
• Special Wine Store licences will be issued through an auction process once Bill 22 Special Wine Store Licence Auction Act is enacted. The following provides further explanation of the regulatory changes that have been made as of April 1, 2015 and of the changes that will be effected by the new Special Wine Store Licence Auction Act once it is brought into force.
(a) Old Provincial Regulations Prior to April 1, 2015, the following rules were in place under the Liquor Control and Licensing: 1. No new licences could be issued for wine stores or licensee retail stores, but existing licences could be amended including for the purpose of allowing the licensee to operate from a different location. 2. Wine store licences could be amended (with approval of the General Manager) to allow relocation of the store to a new location, no matter what distance the new wine store was from another wine store or from a licensee retail store or a government liquor store. 3. Licensee retail store licences could be amended (with approval of the General Manager) to allow relocation of the store to a new location so long as (a) the new location was not within 1 km of another licensee retail store and (b) the new location was not less than 5 km from the location of the old store (if the old store was in another local government’s territorial jurisdiction). 4. Wine stores and licensee retail stores could not be located within a building containing another
STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 2 of 6 151
business unless the wine store or licensee retail store had a separate entrance and was separated from other businesses within the building by floor to ceiling walls. 5. Wine stores and licensee retail stores could not appear to be associated with another business.
Under the old provincial regulations, existing wine stores could be relocated to any location (no distance separations rules), including locations next to grocery stores or next to licensee retail stores, but could not be located within a grocery store (or within any other store for that matter). Rules 4 and 5 effectively prevented any liquor outlet (whether a wine store or licensee retail store) from locating within another store. Existing licensee retail stores could also be relocated to any location, including locations next to grocery stores or wine stores, subject to the requirement (not applicable to wine store relocations) that the new location was not within 1 kilometre of an existing licensee retail store. Under the old provincial regulations, licensee retail stores (like wine stores) were prevented from being relocated to within any other store, including a grocery store.
(b) New Provincial Regulations
(i) BC Reg 42/2015 (April 1, 2015)
On April 1, 2015, the Province amended the Liquor Control and Licensing Regulation to relax the rules regarding the relocation of existing wine stores and licensee retail stores to allow relocation to within grocery stores. The amendments accomplish this by changing rules 4 and 5 above for grocery stores only. As of April 1, 2015, a wine store licence or a licensee retail store licence can be amended to allow wine stores or licensee retail stores to be located within grocery stores as “stores in stores” or, in the case of certain types of wine store licences, to a “wine on shelf” model. Grocery stores are the only type of store in relation to which the structural and associational rules (rules 4 and 5) of the old provincial regulations have been relaxed by the April 1 amendments. A licensee retail store or a wine store still cannot be located within any other type of store. The relaxation (in relation to grocery stores) of the structural separation rule and the rule prohibiting licensee retail stores or wine stores from appearing to be associated with another store is the main change made by the April 1, 2015 amendments. The April 1, 2015 amendments do not allow the issuance of any new licences: they deal only with licence amendments to allow existing licences to be relocated to new establishments, except to extend the rule so that licensee retail stores are now unable to relocate to within 1 kilometre of another licensee retail store or a government liquor store. The April 1, 2015 amendments also did not change the 1 kilometre distance separation rule. It remains the case that licensee retail store licences cannot be amended to allow relocation to a new location that is within 1 kilometre of another licensee retail store. That remains the case even if the new location is a grocery store. It also remains the case that wine store licences can be amended to allow the wine store to relocate to a new location whether or not that location is within 1 kilometre of another wine store or a licensee retail store.
Following the 2014 Liquor Policy Review undertaken by the Province, the Province published Policy Directive 15-01 to explain the (then pending) April 1, 2015 regulatory amendments. The Policy Directive describes in the introduction the general key policies reflected in the amendments:
The implementation of the Liquor Policy Review (LPR) report recommendations will permit the Implementation of liquor sales in grocery stores, effective April 1, 2015. This directive describes the following key policies that will allow liquor and wine sales in grocery stores effective April 1, 2015: • Grocery store eligibility has been defined
STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 3 of 6 152
• Grocery stores may sell liquor either in a store-within-a-store or 100% BC wine on the shelf, but not both at the same location • Licensee Retail Stores (LRS) and BC Liquor Stores (BCLS) may relocate to a store within a- store grocery store, subject to distance restrictions • The 1 km distance criteria separating LRS’s has been retained and extended to include BCLS’s the regulation restricting LRS relocation outside its local government/First Nation jurisdiction (i.e. the 5 km rule) has been repealed • The LRS moratorium has been maintained • Wine stores, other than winery-owned and sacramental wine stores, may relocate to grocery stores in either a store-within-a-store model or for the sale of 100% BC wine off store shelves • LRS’s and wine stores owned by or located within eligible grocery stores may cobrand.
The Policy Directive describes eligible grocery stores as follows:
To be eligible for liquor sales, a grocery store must have a minimum of 10,000 square feet of space, including storage space, and must be primarily engaged in retailing a general line of foods including canned, dry and frozen food, fresh fruits and vegetables, fresh and prepared meats, fish and poultry, dairy products, baked products and snack foods, and non-liquor beverages. To maintain eligibility, these conditions must continue to be met, along with the following additional requirements: that the sales revenue from food and non-liquor beverages:
• totals at least 70% of non-liquor sales, and • totals at least 50% of all sales, including liquor sales from a retailer located in the grocery store.
Convenience stores and multipurpose stores are not eligible.
Separate sections are included in the Policy Directive explaining the rules applicable to licensee retail store licensees wishing to relocate to a grocery store and to wine store licensees wishing relocate to a grocery store, in the latter case with an outline of the rules for both the “store in store” model and the “wine on shelf” model.
PLANNING ANALYSIS
Liquor stores in grocery stores
The Liquor Control and Licensing Regulation would prevent any licensee retail liquor store from outside Mission from relocating to any existing grocery store in Mission, because the eligible grocery stores are all within 1 km of an existing licensee retail liquor store. See the map provided in Appendix A – District of Mission Existing Liquor Stores.
Wine in Store
Effective April 1, 2015, wine store licences, other than winery-owned or sacramental wine stores, may be relocated to a grocery store.
A wine store licence can relocate within a grocery store, either in a separate store or on shelf.
There is no distance restriction between other liquor retail or wine store outlets that prohibits the relocation of a wine store.
Wine stores within grocery stores must be physically separated from the rest of the grocery store in the same manner as a liquor store within a grocery store, as described above.
STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 4 of 6 153
The wine store-within-a-store may sell any type of wine that is permitted under the terms and conditions of their licence. For example, an independent wine store can sell any imported or domestic product. A BC VQA store can only sell BC VQA wine.
Based on the definition of “eligible grocery store” in the Liquor Control and Licensing Regulation and of “grocery store” in the Special Wine Store Licence Auction Act, all the existing grocery stores in Mission would be eligible to have a wine store licence relocated to the store under the Liquor Control and Licensing Regulation as of April 1, 2015 or to have a wine, cider and sake sold in the store pursuant to a special wine store licence issued in respect of its location once the Special Wine Store Licence Auction Act is in force.
These grocery stores are as follows:
1. Safeway, Lougheed Highway 2. Real Canadian Superstore #1559, Lougheed Highway 3. Save-On Foods, Junction Mall
Current status in Mission
The Save-on Foods Store located at the Junction Mall applied for a change to their business license to incorporate the sale of VQA wines on their shelves on August 9th, 2016. This change was approved by the District. To date, the Save-On Foods Store has not yet implemented their license and wine is not currently available on their shelves in store.
A recent discussion with a consultant representing Loblaws indicates that the local Real Canadian Superstore (Loblaws) is in the process of researching their options with respect to the sale of wine in the Mission based store. Note that based on general information received from a representative of the Mission branch of the Real Canadian Superstore. This store would meet the criteria for selling wine within the store.
A recent discussion with a representative at the local Safeway store indicates that they have not yet received any direction or information from corporate headquarters (Sobeys) with respect to the sale of wine in the local Safeway store.
COUNCIL GOALS/OBJECTIVES: This report does not address any specific Council goal or objective.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no financial implications associated with this report.
COMMUNICATION: Should Council wish to proceed with the proposed amending Bylaw a notice of Public Hearing will be prepared in accordance with District of Mission Bylaw 3612-2003 and the Local Government Act. It is noted, that individual property notification of a public hearing does not apply where 10 or more parcels owned by 10 or more persons are the subject of the proposed bylaw. As the proposed amendment would apply to all properties within the District of Mission, the only required notification is to publish the notice in at least two (2) consecutive issues of a newspaper.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION: Recent and proposed changes to the provincial regulations with respect to liquor licensing and control may result in the sale of wine in grocery stores in Mission. At Council’s request staff have prepared a
STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 5 of 6 154 report outlining details around the new and proposed provincial regulations. A bylaw restricting the sale of any type of liquor within 1 kilometer of an existing liquor outlet has been prepared for Council’s consideration. As previously discussed the Liquor Control and Licensing Regulation would prevent any licensee retail store (from outside Mission) from relocating to any existing grocery store in Mission, because the eligible grocery stores are all within 1 km of an existing licensee retail store. The only sale of liquor that would be permitted within an existing grocery store would be through the relocation of a Wine in Store license from another jurisdiction or a new VQA licence. At the time of writing this report the Save-on Foods store located at the Junction is not currently selling wine on the shelf but has been given approval to do so by the District.
With the adoption of the proposed amending bylaw the sale of wine in grocery stores would not be permitted in Mission. The exception would the Save-on store located at the Junction Mall which has received an approved business license.
SIGN-OFFS:
Gina MacKay, Manager of Long Range Planning Reviewed by: Dan Sommer Director of Development Services
Comment from Chief Administrative Officer: "Once approved by CAO, type 'Reviewed' here"
STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 6 of 6 District of Mission Existing Liquor Stores 155
Sisto's Neighbourhood Pub !
14th Avenue Pub ! City Hall Liquor Store Ltd !
Sisto's River City Liquor Store ! Mission Springs Pub BC Liquor Store ! Safeway ! # # Save On Foods ! # Real Canadian Superstore The Junction LRS Liquor Store
Legend # Qualified Grocery Stores (limited to wine stores or wine on shelf) ! Existing Liquor Stores Existing Liquor Stores 1km Buffer
0 250 500 1,000 meters ² 156
Development Services Staff Report to Council
File Category: 3310-16 P2016-027 R16-017 S16-017 DP16-009
DATE: November 7, 2016 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Robert Publow, Planner SUBJECT: Development applications to facilitate a four (4) urban residential subdivision located at 7765 Horne Street. ATTACHMENT(S): Appendix 1 – Information for Corporate Officer Appendix 2 – Location Map Appendix 3 –Draft Plan of Subdivision Appendix 4 - Zoning Amending Bylaw Reference Plan Appendix 5 – Engineering Department Comments CIVIC ADDRESS: 7765 Horne Street APPLICANT: Analytical Consulting OCP: This application is in conformance with the current Urban Compact – Multiple Family OCP designation. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETE: September 29, 2016 LOCATION: Mission Core
STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 1 of 10 157
OVERVIEW AND STAFF COMMENTS
This report details the rezoning, and development permit applications to facilitate a four (4) lot subdivision and identifies the necessary amendments to Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009. Staff support the proposed Zoning Amending Bylaw and as such have listed the Bylaw 5595-2016- 5050(220) under the “Bylaws for Consideration” section of the Council agenda. Subject to Council’s approval, a Public Hearing will be scheduled for November 21, 2016.
SUMMARY
An application has been received from Analytical Consulting to subdivide the property located at 7765 Horne Street (Appendix 2). Analytical Consulting is the agent acting on behalf of Douglas Carter, the property owner seeking to rezone the subject property to facilitate a subdivision of the lands into four (4) lots, as shown in draft plan of subdivision attached as Appendix 3. The subdivision would create four (4) lots, of which three (3) are single-family residential lots and one (1) larger remainder lot having further development potential.
PLANNING ANALYSIS
Neighbourhood Characteristics The proposed development is located in the Mission Core area and is in compliance with the property’s Urban Compact – Multiple Family Official Community Plan (OCP) land use designation. The subject property is also situated within the Urban Infill Area of Mission and is surrounded predominantly by single-family residential properties. The properties located to the west have been developed to achieve the density envisioned by the OCP, while the properties to the north, south and east currently have potential for redevelopment which could result in a further increase in density in the area. The existing home on the property would be retained on the large remainder lot (as shown on Appendix 3) fronting Horne Street, while the proposed three new lots would front onto Deerfield Street. In general, the lot configuration fronting Deerfield Street mirrors the development directly west which completed in 2012. A temporary vehicular access from the Deerfield Street cul-de-sac to the home on the larger remainder lot will ultimately be decommissioned and relegated to a utility and service corridor and possibly for a pedestrian connection when this larger lot develops. The existing shed shown on Appendix 3 will be removed prior to completion of the subdivision.
Zoning (Bylaw 5050-2009) The site is currently zoned Urban Residential 558 (R558) Zone. Consistent with the Urban Compact – Multiple Family Residential designation of the property, the applicant proposes to rezone the western portion of the property Residential Compact 465 (RC465) Zone as shown on Appendix 4 - Zoning Amending Bylaw Reference Plan, to facilitate the creation of three (3) new residential lots. While one of the proposed lots is at the minimum area requirement of the Zone (465 square metres or 5005 square feet), the two adjacent lots are slightly above the minimum area requirements of the Zone and therefore offer better building envelopes. The remaining eastern portion of the lot is not part of the rezoning and would retain its current R558 Zone. Future development of this area would consider appropriate zoning at that time.
STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 2 of 10 158
Access Paved road access is available to the site from the east at Horne Street and from the west at Deerfield Street. As part of this subdivision, the developer is required to construct the remaining portion of the ½ road and cul-de-sac bulb on Deerfield Street as detailed by the Engineering Department comments in Appendix 5. As the existing half cul-de-sac would simply complete the existing road network, a street naming bylaw is not required with this application.
LAN.10 – Panhandle Lot Policy - Urban As noted, access to the three new residential lots will be off Deerfield Street, a temporary secondary access to the larger remainder lot will be maintained until such time this property develops. While the existing home on the larger lot would maintain primary access from Horne Street, the secondary access from Deerfield Street will be allowed for access to an existing shop/garage on the property. While panhandle access from Deerfield Street to this larger remainder would not comply with the criteria established within the District’s pan-handle policy (LAN.10), it has been determined that the topography and future servicing needs of the remainder portion of the subject property could result in a situation where future servicing of the remainder lot would be most practical through this corridor. Therefore, vehicle access over the utility corridor/panhandle will be restricted by way covenant at time of subdivision to facilitate secondary access to the garage on the large remained lot only. With any development beyond one single family dwelling on this remainder parcel, all vehicle access over the utility corridor/panhandle will be terminated with the exception of emergency access. Servicing Municipal sanitary service, municipal storm services and municipal water are available at Horne Street and Deerfield Street. Engineered designs of the proposed servicing and road design will be required at time of subdivision. Environmental Protection There are no watercourses or environmentally sensitive areas on the subject property. The property is moderately sloped and therefore, at this time, no geotechnical issues are expected to arise. Tree Retention In accordance with Council Policy LAN.32 – Tree Retention and Replanting, the applicant will be required to plant a total of eight (8) trees; 2 trees for each of the four (4) lots created. This provision will be met as part of the subdivision approval process. In addition to this requirement, the applicant is required to replace any significant tree (trees having a caliper of 0.2 metres or greater) that will be removed except within the proposed municipal infrastructure necessary to complete the development. Parks and Trails As no parkland has been identified within this site and in accordance with Section 510 of the Local Government Act, the Parks, Recreation and Culture Department is recommending cash-in-lieu for parkland for this development proposal up to 5% of the market value of the land.
Development Permit – Intensive Residential Development Permit Area A Development Permit for building form and character is required for all intensive residential developments within the urban area. The OCP establishes guidelines for the form and character of intensive residential development by facilitating a higher standard of building design, housing
STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 3 of 10 159
alternative, site compatibility and site aesthetics that promote a vibrant residential neighbourhood. The applicant is required to register a restrictive covenant stipulating design guidelines as outlined in the OCP that the proposed residential buildings would need to meet. Approval of Intensive Residential Development Permits are delegated to the Director of Development Services, thus, no approval from Council is required. While the target zoning for these future compact residential lots would not allow for secondary dwellings, the developer will be requested to register a restrictive covenant on title further prohibiting such uses as secondary dwelling uses on cul-de-sacs lots have proven problematic with respect to limited to no on-street parking. The encumbrance registered on title would inform any prospective purchaser of this restriction and thereby address the notion of a guarantee to construct an unauthorized suite.
COMMUNITY AMENITY CONTRIBUTION (LAN.40 – Financial Contribution for Community Amenities) In accordance with Council Policy LAN.40, the applicant has volunteered to contribute $8,445 ($2,815 per new lot) to offset the unique financial burden that residential development imposes on the District to fund new or expand facilities and/or amenities, such as park improvements, libraries, and police and fire protection.
COMMUNICATION
The developer has posted a development notification sign on the site summarizing the proposed development. Provided a public hearing date is determined by Council, the sign will be modified to advertise the public hearing details (i.e., date, time and place). In addition, a notice will be mailed to the owners and to the occupiers of all properties within a distance of 152 metres (500 ft.) of the development site notifying them of the public hearing details.
Policy LAN.50 - Pre-Public Hearing Information Packages
A pre-public hearing information package will be prepared to include copies of all applicable documents and will be made available online or at municipal hall for public viewing.
Bylaw 3612-2003 Land Use Application Procedures and Fees
A Notice of Public Hearing will be prepared in accordance with Bylaw 3612-2003 and the Local Government Act.
REFERRALS
Engineering The Engineering Department has no objection to the project subject to the completion of roadworks requirements as outlined in Appendix 5. Parks, Recreation and Culture The Parks, Recreation and Culture Department has no objection to the project and recommends that parkland dedication of five per cent (5%) is applied as cash in lieu at time of subdivision.
REQUIREMENT(S) PRIOR TO FINAL READING The Final Reading of the amending bylaw(s) will be held until the following have been satisfied:
STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 4 of 10 160
1. The community amenity contribution that has been volunteered in the amount of $8,445 ($2,815 per new unit or lot) is received; 2. Registration or an undertaking to register any applicable encumbrances related to restrictions on access and secondary dwellings; 3. Completion of roadworks as required by the Engineering Department; and 4. Any other requirements resulting from Council’s consideration of the Bylaw including Public Hearing.
INFORMATIONAL NOTES In accordance with Section 510 of the Local Government Act and Council Policy LAN. 26, parkland dedication of five per cent (5%) is applied as cash in lieu to subdivision file S16-016.
SIGN-OFFS
Robert Publow, Reviewed by: Planner Dan Sommer, Director of Development Services
Comment from Chief Administrative Officer
Reviewed
STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 5 of 10 161
Appendix 1
Information for Corporate Officer
Civic Address: 7765 Horne Street
PID: 004-531-795
Legal: Lot 14 Section 21 Township 17 New Westminster District Plan 12578
STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 6 of 10 162
Appendix 2
Location Map
STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 7 of 10 163 164
Appendix 4
Zoning Amending Bylaw Reference Plan
Legend
Cross Hatched area to be rezoned from Urban Residential 558 (R558) Zone to Residential Compact 465 (RC465) Zone
Shaded area to remain Urban Residential 558 (R558) Zone
STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 9 of 10 165 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT REZONING COMMENTS
October 21, 2016
CIVIC ADDRESS: 7765 Horne Street
CURRENT ZONE: R558 PROPOSED ZONE: a portion RC465 and a portion R558
DOMESTIC WATER REQUIREMENTS: Municipal water is available on Horne Street and Deerfield Street. No upgrades are required.
SANITARY SEWER REQUIREMENTS: Municipal sanitary sewer is available on Horne Street and Deerfield Street. No upgrades are required.
STORM SEWER REQUIREMENTS: Municipal storm sewer is available on Horne Street and Deerfield Street. No upgrades are required.
ROAD WORK REQUIREMENTS: Horne Street provides paved access to the parent property with R558 zoning. No upgrades are required. Deerfield Street provides paved access to the proposed RC465 portion of the site. No upgrades are required. The developer shall construct the remaining portion of the ½ road and cul-de-sac bulb on Deerfield Street at the time of subdivision.
RECOMMENDATION: From an engineering point of view, the rezoning application may proceed to adoption once the roadwork requirements have been met.
Prepared by: Reviewed by: Jason Anthony, Engineering Technologist Jay Jackman, Manager of Development Engineering and Projects
FILE: 3310-16-27 R16-017 166
Parks, Recreation & Culture Staff Report to Council
DATE: November 7, 2016 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Maureen Sinclair, Director Parks, and Recreation & Culture SUBJECT: Developer’s Request to Waive 5% Cash in Lieu for Parkland for S13-008 at 8973 Manzer Street ATTACHMENTS: Appendix 1 - Information for Corporate Officer Appendix 2 - July 18, 2016 Council Resolution Appendix 3 - Location Map Appendix 4- Trail Plan Appendix 5 - Relevant Excerpts of PLA issued June 6, 2014 Appendix 6 - Southwest Mission Landuse Concept Plan
RECOMMENDATIONS: Council consider and resolve: 1. That the July 18th, 2016 resolution of Council (R16.408) (Appendix 2) requiring the payment of 5% of the value of the land as cash in lieu of parkland for subdivision S08-13 located at 8973 Manzer be maintained; and 2. That the District of Mission not accept any additional portion of lands or rights-of-way for trails beyond what was identified for dedication in the Preliminary Layout Approval letter dated June 6, 2014 for subdivision S13-008.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to respond to the delegation from Robert & Shelia Demers, (the developers) requesting District of Mission Council to waive the requirement for cash in lieu contribution for parkland in relation to subdivision application S13-008 at 8973 Manzer Street (Appendix 3). The delegation also requested that Council in return accept the developer’s private trail system as a form of parkland contribution thus satisfying this provision of the Local Government Act.
BACKGROUND: On October 3, 2016 Mr. and Mrs. Demers appeared before Council as a delegation regarding their trail construction and their request to have the 5% requirement for cash-in-lieu of parkland waived. The presentation focused on their request to have the cash-in-lieu contribution waived by Council in lieu of the significant costs they incurred to build a connecting trail connecting Manzer and Anderson off the newly built cul-de-sac. The trail system is shown on Appendix 4. The Preliminary Layout Approval (PLA) issued for the 14 lot subdivision development detailed the steps for completing the subdivision including the requirements for trail construction and parkland contribution. The PLA noted three specific items that related to the District’s requirements for the trail construction and the requirement to pay cash in lieu of Parkland. The requirements for these two provisions are
STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 1 of 4 167 detailed in excerpts attached as Appendix 5 . Following the issuance of the PLA in June 2014, the developer had been working on completing the requirements of the subdivision. On June 22, 2016 staff met with Mr. Demers to discuss the amount of parkland contribution and his question whether staff (i.e., the Director of Parks Recreation and Culture) would be willing to support the waiving of the entire 5% ($108,200) cash-in-lieu of parkland. This request to waive the cash-in-lieu fee was presented to Council in a previous report from the Director of Parks, Recreation & Culture dated July 18, 2016. The July report was discussed by Council and the following motion passed: “That the 5% cash in lieu of parkland owing on the preliminary layout approval (PLA) for subdivision application S13-008, 8973 Manzer not be waived.”
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS: There are a number of issues raised during the Demers’ submission to Council and each is noted and discussed below:
Parkland Dedication Use to Construct Trails:
The dedication of parkland is a requirement of all those developing subdivisions which include 3 or more additional residential lots. The requirement to remit cash-in-lieu of parkland on this development was clearly articulated in the PLA letter that was issued in June of 2014
With respect to past practice, while the Approving Officer of the day did allow a previous developer to construct a similar trail between Kenney and Bench in 2014 with the expenses being offset by the assessed value of the cash in lieu of parkland monies owing on the development, this type of exchange is not a common practice and appears to be the only time that such an arrangement was agreed upon.
Current staff do not support this practice for a number of reasons, walkways and trails like roads, laneways and streets are all part of the larger transportation infrastructure that is required to service new development. Like streets and roads trails and walkways are defined as highways for the purpose of the development by-law and as such should be developed at the expense of the developer. Pedestrian and cycle routes should not be singled out and should be developed at the sole expense of the developer.
Public Trails versus Private Trails:
The public trail owned and maintained by the District as shown on Appendix 5 has been constructed to the trail standards as set out in the 2009 Parks, Trails and Bicycle Master Plan. This section of trail is to be maintained by the municipality as a public right of way.
The private trail (easement) is a private trail system, as shown on Appendix 5, constructed by Mr. Demers and secured by way of a private easement agreement. This portion of the trail allows some additional walking opportunities that primarily benefit the residents in the new subdivision. The private trail terminates in a dead-end at the western property boundary. There is no plan by the District of Mission to extend the trail or provide connectivity further to the west. While the best option for an internal neighbourhood trail system, from a pedestrian perspective, would have been the development of a public trail along the creek corridor on public land, this option was reviewed early on in the planning stage but deemed to take up too much land and was ultimately rejected.
Previous planning efforts undertaken when the Southwest Mission development concept was being planned identified a trail connection along the unopened Farrington Street right of way that was sold in part to the Demers’ to increase the lot yield of their overall development. The Southwest Mission report
STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 2 of 4 168 clearly identifies a single trail along Farrington to Manzer as per Appendix 6. This connection can still be achieved by way of the District owned and maintained trail constructed as part of the requirements set out in the 2014 PLA making the private trail section redundant. It is far too costly to maintain a trail system that has connections that are only a block apart.
Lastly, the best case scenario is often outright ownership of the trail corridor as this allows clear title and clear responsibility for the trail and any required maintenance. Any other configuration requires that staff enter onto private land to do work and are subject to the constraints around access imposed by the owners. In the case of the private trail (by easement) there are five adjacent owners covered by way of a private access agreement.
Trail Naming:
Council have previously approved a naming practice for parks and recreation facilities. To name a section of the new public trail as requested by the developer does not fall in line with the current policy. It is therefore staff’s recommendation that the private trail (by easement) remain a private trail as it is not required for public access and this leaves decision regarding naming in the hands of the current developer / owner.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The waiving of the cash in lieu contribution for this development would be in excess of $100,000 which reduces future opportunities for the acquisition of parkland within the community. Despite the current $3.8 million balance in the account there are significant shortfalls in the parks system currently associated with the provision of community and district level parks. There is also a need to provide a neighbourhood park south of 7th Avenue and west of Cedar. The waiving of cash in lieu on this development is not advised. In addition, the dedication of the developer’s private trail system to the District by way of statutory right of way, will require ongoing maintenance that was not considered as part of any trail planning.
COMMUNICATION: There is no additional communication plan required as result of the recommendations included in this report.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION: Staff continue to support the developer requirements as set out in the June 2014 PLA agreed to between the developer and the District
SIGN-OFFS:
M. Sinclair, Director of Parks, Recreation & Culture Reviewed by:
Comment from Chief Administrative Officer Reviewed.
G:\COMDEV\MARCY\APPLICATIONS\PLA's\S13-008 Demers\CoW Nov 7, 2016 Cash in lieu of Parkland.docx
STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 3 of 4 169
Appendix 1
Information for Corporate Officer
Civic Address: 8973 Manzer Street
PID: 006-604-285
Legal: Lot 8, District Lot 457, Group 1, New Westminster District, Plan 31178
STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 4 of 4 Appendix 2 170 Appendix 3 171
Appendix 4 172
LEGEND Public trail owned and maintained by DoM Trail over private property with Right of Way for public access: maintained by DoM Panhandle Access to Lot 13 Private trail with easement; no public access; trail; owned & maintained by developer, 4 metre; 2 metre gravel Appendix 5 173
Relevant Excerpts of PLA issues June 6, 2014
Section A – General Requirements
2. The applicant is required to revise the plan of subdivision by removing any reference to a “PROPOSED TRAIL SRW” from the plan as this si not a requirement of subdivision nor will this internal private trail system be maintained by the District.
Section B Servicing Requirements
32. Pedestrian Trail Requirements: The applicant is required to construct a 4 metr (13.1 ft) wide multi-use trail connecting the eastern cul-de sac to Manzer Street as shon on Attachment 1. The proposed trail should be constructed in accordance with the trail standards of the District of Mission Parks, Trails and Bicycle Master Plan (Attachment 4). Drawing should be submitted for approval by Parks, Recreation and Culture Department prior to the commencement of the construction.
Section E – Fees and Charges
Pursuant to Section 941 of the Local Government Act and Council’s resolution to require cash in lieu for parkland, the applicant is to pay cash in lieu of parkland contribution. The Parkland Cash Contribution may be calculated by one of the following methods:
o A value for the land as agreed to by the property owner and the District of Mission, or
o 5% of the Market Value of all the land in the proposed subdivision calculated as the value on the date of thid Preliminary Layout approval Letter and under the proposed target zone, not including developer profit and real estate commissions. The value is calculated on the basis of an appraisal obtained from a professional appraiser achieved according to the methods outlined in the Local Government Act Section 941 Subsection(6)(a).
Please be advised that parkland value contributions are subject to departmental review and approval and are to have regard to recent market values and may be subject to an independent 3rd party appraisal review.
Appendix 6 174 175
Committee of the Whole Report October 20, 2016 A Freestanding Committee of the Whole (Corporate Services – Budget) meeting took place on October 20, 2016 at 1:00 p.m. The following presents the Committee’s recommendations to Council for consideration:
Debt Servicing Cost Savings RECOMMENDED: That $230,400 of debt servicing cost savings that will be realized in 2017 and annually thereafter, resulting from the Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia refinancing the District’s existing debt issues #95 and #99, be redirected to the Financial Stabilization Reserve Fund. This recommendation was carried unanimously.
Page 1 of 1
IT’S YOUR BUSINESS 176 District of Mission 2017 Municipal Budget
2017 Budget Highlights Budget Summary Moving Mission Forward Council has given preliminary It’s important to Council that our budget process is open and approval of the draft 2017 financial transparent, and that our citizens have the opportunity to have their plan and is looking for input from the say. Council has established a set of ambitious goals and objectives public prior to finalizing the budget. aimed at improving the quality of life for residences, developing The draft 2017 financial plan includes: sustainable growth in business and industry, and creating Property tax increase of 3.7% meaningful long-term plans to guide the future growth of our municipality. Water user fees increase of 1% Each year’s budget determines how your tax dollars will be spent on Sewer user fees increase of 4% a wide range of municipal functions from garbage, recycling/ Drainage levy increase of 4.9% compost curbside collections and recreation programs to planning No increase of garbage, recycling for future development. and compost curbside collection. We encourage you to read the information provided and fill out the Take part in the budgeting process survey on the back of this document or at mission.ca by by sharing your thoughts through the November 8th. Your budget feedback helps guide our decision- survey on the back page or online at making throughout the year. mission.ca.
Budget Priorities Public Safety One new RCMP member Administrative support to policing services 24/7 career firefighter coverage Development Services Restructuring department to increase efficiencies Modeling for future utility impacts Administration and Finance Administrative and financial support We hope that as you read through this document you will share your input with us.
Council values and celebrates our diversity as a municipality and community
177 Consolidated Operating Fund Budgets Consolidated Expenditures Consolidated Operating Funds Mission offers a broad range of services over six operating funds: The municipal budget of approximately $69.2 million, funds a variety of services for a safe and healthy community. Each year, Council aims to find a General Operating Fund, $46.6 million balance between affordable taxes and user fees while continuing to maintain the services Mission residents have come to expect. Water Utility Fund, $6.6 million, Sewer Utility Fund, $4.8 million, Consolidated Operating Expenditures Waste Management Fund, $4.9 $69.2 million million, Drainage Utility Fund, $1.8 million, General Government 3% Forestry Enterprise, $4.5 million. Engineering & Library Public Works 8% 2% The blue sections of the Water Utility consolidated operating expenditure 10% Development Services graph represents the services 8% provided by the General Operating Sewer Utility Fund at $46.6 million. Property Transfer to Reserves 7% taxes are the major revenue source 8% Waste Management for these services. 7% Administration 7% Drainage Utility 3% Recreation Protective Services Consolidated Revenue 9% Forestry Enterprise 22% 6% Funding the expenditures for these services comes from three main sources: Property Taxes, $33.8 million, User Fees and Charges, $20.1 The largest component of the operating budget is Protective Services at million, 22%. This represents Police Services at $11.6 million, or 17% of the Utility Fees, $15.3 million. budget, and Fire Rescue Services at $3.8 million, or 5% of the budget. The District proactively reviews and adjusts user fees and charges each Consolidated Operating Revenue year. The goal is to lessen the $69.2 million reliance on property taxes and to offset the cost of doing business. Utility Government transfers (grants from Fees other levels of government) for 2017 22% are projected at $2.78 million. Of this User Fees Property amount, $1.6 million will be used for & Taxes capital projects, the balance $1.18 Other 49% million will be used to offset operating Revenue costs for services such as: Policing, 29% Council’s grant program, Social Development and Restorative Justice.
2 Council’s Strategic Objective: Excellence in Financial Management and Planning
178 General Operating Budget Maintaining Existing Services Stave West Forest & Recreation Area The increase to the District’s budget to maintain existing service levels is We are looking forward to another big estimated at $408,105 which represents an increase of $25.74 for Mission’s year for the Stave West Forest & average assessed value home of $414,500. Recreation Area. Together with our Budget Potential partners we are pursuing funding to Maintain Existing Service Levels Dollars Tax Impact develop new campgrounds, working Investment Revenue 78,700 0.28% with educational partners on bringing Development Revenue 1.76% 504,700 more student projects to the area, Cost Recovery 157,100 0.55% and undertaking a market driven Fees and charges 185,378 0.65% recreation development study to Revenue Total 925,878 3.24% guide what activities and amenities
Policing contract 1.10% 311,000 we pursue for the forest and lakes. Transit Costs 189,000 0.66% Facilities Operations 112,000 0.39% Contractual Obligations 535,000 1.87% Various Inflationary Impacts 186,983 0.65% Forestry Enterprise
Expenditure Total 1,333,983 4.67% The Mission Forestry Enterprise Maintaining Existing Services $ 408,105 1.43% $25.74 * harvests and sells approximately 45,000 cubic meters of wood * Impact on property tax notice for average assessed home of $414,500. annually into the Vancouver Log Market. The business is self Service Enhancements sustaining and funds its operations from the sale of logs. Along with maintaining existing service levels, a portion of the proposed property tax increase is for service enhancements totaling $647,932. Since inception, the Forestry Enterprise has generated over $11 Budget Potential million in profits which have been Increased Service Levels Dollars Tax Impact used to fund non-forestry projects New RCMP Officer 135,000 0.47% such as a fire hall and fire truck, Police services administrative support 79,000 0.28% library improvements, and local arts Provide 24 hr/7 day fire protection 172,532 0.60% and culture. Development Services Restructuring 202,000 0.71% Administration and Finance support 59,400 0.21% * Increased Service Levels $ 647,932 2.27% $40.87 One-time Spending
* Impact on property tax notice for average assessed home of $414,500. Initiatives
For the majority of the service enhancements, 1.35% is for protective services These proposed projects can be to, hire one new RCMP officer, hire support staff for the RCMP, and moving to funded from accumulated surplus: 24/7 career firefighter coverage. A portion of the increase is for restructuring Special Events/Celebrations the Development Services department to reduce file processing time, and an budget - $42,000 for: increase for corporate administrative and financial support. Canada’s 150th birthday
Mission’s 125th birthday Summary of Proposed Budget Increases Fire/Rescue Training Software Maintaining Existing Services $ 408,105 1.43% Upgrade - $5,000 Increased Service Levels 647,932 2.27% No impact on 2017 property taxes $1,056,037 3.70% $66.61
Council’s Strategic Objective: Improved Public Safety 3
179 Property Taxes Property taxation is the major source of revenue for the District. The typical Estimated Impact property tax notice, mailed out each May, also includes taxes collected on The estimated impact of a 3.7% behalf of various other taxing authorities. Depending on where you live, your increase on various assessed value tax notice may also include charges for municipal utilities. homes.
Assessed Value Estimated Annual Impact on 2017 Property Taxes of Home Increase in Taxes The proposed net increase in the 2017 general operating budget of $1,056,037 represents a 3.7% increase in the District’s total budget. This means, if $300,000 $48.21 3.70% $414,500 $66.61 3.70% approved, the average value home will see an estimated increase of 3.7% for $500,000 $80.35 3.70% the municipal portion only on the property tax notice. The average home in Mission paid $2,972 in property taxes in 2016, with $1,800 of that amount for municipal services. With the proposed 3.7% increase Building our Community in the budget, the estimated 2017 municipal property taxes will be $1,866, a $66.61 increase. Mission is growing and we must continue to develop new infrastructure, Municipal Services Annual Monthly amenities, and partnerships to Protective Services 640 53 continually enhance the quality of life Parks, Recreation & Culture 258 22 within our community. Development Services 230 19 Engineering & Public Works 226 19 Transfers to Reserves 217 18 Municipal Services - Cost Administration 204 17 per Month General Government* 91 8
The municipal property taxes for the Municipal Taxes on Average Home $1,866 $156 average home in Mission are estimated * includes debt servicing, insurance, post employment costs, etc. at $1,866 for 2017. That is 2016 Property taxes on an average assessed home value in each municipality. approximately $156 per month for municipal services. West Vancouver ‐ Metro 8,192 Vancouver ‐ Metro 5,817 White Rock ‐ Metro 5,406 N Vancouver District ‐ Metro 4,876 Comparing with our Port Moody ‐ Metro 4,835 Burnaby ‐ Metro 4,612 Neighbours North Vancouver ‐ Metro 4,605 New Westminster ‐ Metro 4,549 The annual tax notice includes Richmond ‐ Metro 4,503 amounts for municipal property taxes, Coquitlam ‐ Metro 4,164 taxes levied by other authorities (e.g. Delta ‐ Metro 3,734 Port Coquitlam ‐ Metro 3,513 provincial school taxes) and flat rate Maple Ridge ‐ Metro 3,357 municipal utilities (water, sewer, Surrey‐ Metro 3,260 Mission ranks 4th out garbage, recycling/compost). Abbotsford ‐ FVRD 3,243 Langley Township ‐ Metro 3,219 of 22 neighbouring Mission ranks 4th lowest out of 22 Langley City ‐ Metro 3,136 communities in terms neighbouring communities in terms of Pitt Meadows ‐ Metro 3,097 of property taxes on an the cost of property taxes (excluding Mission ‐ FVRD 2,972 Chilliwack ‐ FVRD 2,779 average assessed home. utilities) on an average assessed home. Hope ‐ FVRD 2,437 In 2016, the average assessed home Kent ‐ FVRD 2,147 paid $2,972. Property taxes include levies from local government, regional district, and other taxing authorities such as provincial school taxes.
4 Council’s Strategic Objective: Enhanced Lifestyle Opportunities & Community Health
180 Capital Projects, Reserves and Debt Over the next five years, the District’s General Capital Plan has over $74 million Operating vs Capital worth of capital projects slated as it continues to invest in infrastructure such as transportation, facilities, water and sanitary sewer systems, etc. $10.26 The operating budget is used to pay the million is scheduled for capital projects in 2017. Condition assessments on day-to-day expenses for the various infrastructure, as part of the asset management program, helps the District community programs and services, such as life guards at the Leisure Centre prioritize replacement capital projects within the long-term financial plan. and the cost to heat the pool. The District has identified and included $5.76 million of new capital projects in The capital budget is for investment in the General Capital Plan over the next five years . This includes: infrastructure, such as road construc on, Streetscape improvements on 1st Avenue - $3.5 million facility upgrades, replacing aging water Leisure Centre facility repairs and equipment replacements - $820,000 and sewer pipes, or replacing a fire truck. Playground equipment and resurfacing - $530,000 Keystone Avenue bridge replacement - $400,000 Savings on Home Owner HVAC and carbon monoxide systems - $240,000 Fire Insurance Premiums Leisure Centre program equipment - $220,000 Mission Fire/Rescue Service has been Council also approved, for the next five years, utilizing $227,000 of budget granted Superior Tanker Shuttle Service savings from the Pavement Management program to the Sidewalk and Accreditation, meaning we can provide a Walkway program. water supply equivalent to that of a In order for the District of Mission to receive Superior Tanker Shuttle Service hydrant for some rural areas. What this Accreditation, the Fire/Rescue tankers will now be replaced every 20 years means is that provided you live within the instead of every 25 years. areas serviced by our tanker trucks, you could qualify for reduced fire insurance Reserves premium for your home, as our tankers provide the required fire flow equivalent. Each year the District transfers a portion of the budget into reserves to fund For more information visit mission.ca future capital and operating expenditures. The District has, in its budget, to transfer $12.9 million into reserves in 2017. Transfers to Reserves - Budget The District strives to build all of its reserves to a healthy level. Operating $7,100,000 Water Utility 3,300,000 Debt Sewer Utility 1,635,000 The District of Mission has a “pay as you go” philosophy in terms of funding Waste Management 297,000 infrastructure and other capital projects. Saving ahead for capital projects is Forestry Enterprise 328,000 preferable to debt financing (borrowing), particularly external debt financing, as Drainage Utility 232,000 interest costs can add tremendously to the overall cost of the project. Total Transfers $12,892,000 Internal borrowing, if available, is preferable to “taking out a loan”. Money is “borrowed” from one reserve account to finance infrastructure in order for Debt growth/development to occur. The borrowing reserve repays the lending reserve with interest, avoiding interest payments to external sources. The District’s external borrowing limit is $219.4 million, based on legislated limits In 2017, $230,000 of debt servicing cost savings will be realized resulting and current estimated interest rates. from refinancing two current debt issues. This budget savings is proposed to The District’s outstanding long-term be redirected into reserves intended for future capital projects. debt will be $5.7 million as at December Water, sewer, waste management, and drainage utilities are currently debt 31, 2016. free. Keeping debt low allows flexibility for future large capital projects.
Council’s Strategic Objective: Effective Economic Development 5
181 Municipal Utilities
Proposed Rate Increases Water Utility
Rate increases are to fund future In addition to the regional water system, Mission owns and operates its capital projects and to maintain the own water distribution system. To keep pace with inflation and maintain long-term health of the regional and healthy reserves for both the regional and local water systems, Council local utility operations. proposes a 1% increase in Water User Fees. This will increase the annual The 2017 proposed budget includes flat rate fee by $4.80 for a total of $493.80. a 1% increase to water rates. Flat Highlights of the water utility budget: rate water fees will increase by $4.80. Residential water meter rate Transfer to Water Capital Reserve - $2.9 million, is proposed at $1.25 per cubic Previously unidentified secondary dwelling units is projected to meter, increased from $1.24. generate $100,000 of additional fees, a 4% increase to sewer rates. Flat Capital budget includes $1.2 million each year for water main rate sewer fees will increase by replacements and upgrades, $15.24. Water model update added at $110,000 recurring every five years there are no increases proposed to starting in 2020, and the curbside collection rates for garbage, recycling/compost. Water master plan update added at $150,000 recurring every five years starting in 2021. a 4.9% increase to the drainage levy. This will increase the average As of December 31, 2015, the water capital reserve has loaned $331,000 assessed home ‘s drainage levy by to various water utility Development Cost Charge (DCC) reserves. approximately $4.70. Repayment of these loans occurs when development happens and DCCs are collected.
Regional Utilities The District of Mission and the City of Sewer Utility Abbotsford are joint partners in the major regional water supply and In addition to the regional water system, Mission owns and operates its own sewage treatment systems, which sewer conveyance system. To keep pace with inflation for both the regional benefit residents in both communities. and local sewer systems and to build-up our reserves to support the JAMES These services are cost shared based Wastewater Treatment Plant, Council proposes a 4% increase in Sewer on each community’s usage. User Fees. This will increase the annual flat rate fee by $15.24 for a total of $398.16. Mission’s estimated share of the regional utilities for 2017 is: Highlights of sewer utility budget: Water 24.28% Transfer to Sewer Capital Reserve - $1.3 million, Sewer 23.36% Previously unidentified secondary dwelling units is projected to generate $60,000 of additional fees, Mission’s share of the 2017 Regional Capital budget includes $300,000 each year for sewer condition capital budget is: assessment and replacements, Water $616,955 Sewer model update added at $110,000 recurring every five years Sewer $329,376 starting in 2020, Included in the 2023 regional water Sewer master plan update added at $150,000 recurring every five years capital budget is $20 million for starting in 2021, and construction of a new water source. Construction of a new sanitary sewer river crossing pipe to JAMES Although preliminary planning is just Treatment Plant - $5.35 million during 2017 to 2020. getting underway, the timing and cost As of December 31, 2015, the sewer capital reserve has loaned $1,988,000 estimates could very likely change. to various sewer utility DCC reserves. Repayment of these loans occurs when development happens and DCCs are collected.
6 Council’s Strategic Objective: Optimized Planning and Management of Assets and Infrastructure
182 Municipal Utilities Waste Management Curbside Collection
The District of Mission owns the Landfill site, Minnie’s Pit, and shares the There are no increases being Abbotsford Mission Recycling Sorting and Processing facility, which has its proposed for 2017 to the current main location on Valley Road in Abbotsford and a satellite drop-off depot, curbside collection fees. Mission Recycling Depot on Mershon Street in Mission. Recyclables and compostables are Highlights of the waste management budget: collected curbside every week and the curbside collection of garbage occurs Transfer to Refuse Reserve - $188,960, bi-weekly. This bi-weekly schedule 2017 capital projects total $286,785, has increased the curbside garbage Previously unidentified secondary dwelling units is projected to generate diversion rate from 54% to 70%. $56,000 of additional fees which is net of additional curbside collection costs, and Additional information on waste Increased revenue from contaminated soil at landfill, and tipping fee rate management is available by visiting increases. mission.ca/waste. Flat Rate Utility Fees Spring Cleanup is scheduled for May 1 - 12, 2017 on residents’ garbage collection day. $1,167 $1,187 $1,109 $1,131 $1,148 No rate increase Household Hazardous Waste Day is proposed planned for Saturday, May 13, 2017 from 9am to 1pm at the Mission Includes a proposed 4% rate increase Recycling Depot. Increases proposed to various landfill Includes a proposed fees including 2% for garbage tipping 1% rate increase fees. 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Mission’s current share of the Proposed recycling depot’s costs is 18.08%. Water Sewer Garbage Recycling / Compost
The total 2017 increase for flat rate utility fees is approximately $20. This includes 1% for water, 4% for sewer, and no increase for curbside Drainage Utility collection of garbage and recycling/compost. In 2016, Council approved the establishment of the District’s Drainage Utility Drainage System as a user-funded utility. The District’s drainage program has significant challenges in terms of providing adequate funding for maintenance, replacement and upgrading of The Drainage Utility levy is based on the District’s drainage systems. Council proposes a 4.90% increase to the each property’s assessment value. drainage levy resulting in an average increase of $4.70. The 2017 proposed budget includes a Highlights of the drainage utility budget: 4.90% increase to the drainage levy, or Increase the annual transfer to drainage capital reserve by $30,000, a $4.70 increase for the average assessed home, 2.93% to maintain 2017 capital projects total $105,000, existing services plus 1.97% to Drainage model update added at $110,000 recurring every five years increase the annual transfer to the starting in 2021, and Drainage Capital Reserve Fund by Drainage utility master plan update added at $150,000 recurring every five $30,000 . years starting in 2022.
Council’s Goal: Planning for the Future - Effective planning across finance and operations is essential 7
183 IT’S YOUR BUSINESS - SURVEY District of Mission 2017 Municipal Budget
Council is looking for your input prior to finalizing the 2017 budget. Join Council at Municipal Hall on Monday, November 7th at 7:00 pm at their Regular Council Meeting for a special community budget consultation presentation. Visit mission.ca to complete the survey, or fill in the questions listed below and submit it to: Municipal Hall by 4:30 pm on Tuesday, November 8, 2016.
MAINTAINING EXISTING SERVICES An increase of $408,105 is required to maintain existing services (see page 3). This represents a potential tax impact of 1.43% or $25.74 on the average assessed home ($414,500). To what extent do you support the increase in spending to maintain existing service levels?
Strongly support Support Neutral Oppose Strongly Oppose
INCREASING RCMP COMPLEMENT Council is considering adding one new RCMP officer to the Mission detachment in 2017. Adding one officer has an im- pact of $135,000 on the municipal budget, and a potential tax impact of 0.47%. Council would like your feedback on whether you support adding one additional officer at this time.
Strongly support Support Neutral Oppose Strongly Oppose
OVERALL BUDGET INCREASE Together the proposed changes lead to an increase of $1,056,037 to the 2017 municipal budget. This represents a 3.7% increase to the budget and will increase the municipal tax portion on the property tax notice for the average assessed home by approximately $66.61. To what extent do you support the proposed increase?
Strongly support Support Neutral Oppose Strongly Oppose
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: ______
Name: ______Email Address: ______
604.820.3772 [email protected] mission.ca/budget
NOTICE 184OF PUBLIC HEARING Monday, November 7, 2016 - 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, Mission Municipal Hall
Pursuant to the provisions of Sections 464 and 466 of the Local Government Act, a Public Hearing will take place in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Hall, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, BC at 7:00 p.m.onMonday, November 7th, 2016 to consider the following proposed bylaw: DISTRICT OF MISSION ZONING AMENDING BYLAW 5586-2016-5050(213) (R15-009 – District of Mission) The purpose of the proposed amendment is to amend the Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009 by: x Including the definitions of Tobacconist, Cheque Cashing and Payday Loans, Marihuana Sales, and Craft Brewery into Section 102 x Removing the following uses within the Core Commercial Downtown One (CCD1) Zone: o Vehicle Rental o Arcade o Body Art and Tattoo Parlour o Flea Market x Allowing the following uses within the Commercial Highway One (CH1) Zone and the Commercial Highway Two (CH2) Zone with a special notation that neither of these uses are permitted within 100 metres of a property zoned CCD1: o Tobacconist o Cheque Cashing and Payday Loans
Further amendments include adding Craft Brewery to the permitted uses in the CCD1 Zone and prohibiting the sale of marihuana in the District.
Copies of the proposed bylaws and reports relevant to these bylaws may be inspected at the Municipal Hall, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, BC, Monday to Friday, excluding statutory holidays, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., from October 28, 2016 to November 7, 2016. The information is also available on our website at www.mission.ca by searching “Public Meeting Information”. For further information regarding any of these bylaws, please contact the Development Services Department at (604) 820-3748. At the Public Hearing, persons who believe that their interest in property is affected by these proposed bylaws will have the opportunity to be heard. Should you have any comments or concerns you wish to convey to Council and you cannot attend the meeting, please submit in writing to the Corporate Officer by 4:00 p.m. on Friday, November 4, 2016. You may forward your submission by: x Mailing or delivering to the Corporate Officer’s Office, P.O. Box 20, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, BC, V2V 4L9 x Faxing: 604-826-1363 (Attn: Corporate Officer) x E-mail: [email protected] with PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS as the subject line Please note Submissions that are subject of a public hearing, public meeting or other public processes will be included, in their entirety, in the public information package and will form part of the public record. Council shall not receive further information or submissions after the conclusion of the Public Hearing. Following the Public Hearing portion of the meeting, council may consider advancing bylaws forward for additional readings. Corporate Officer
Dated at Mission, BC this 4th day of October, 2016. www.mission.ca 185
evel Development Services Staff Report to Council
File Category: 3310-15 File Folder: P2015-021 / R15-009
DATE: October 3, 2016 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Gina MacKay, Manager of Long Range Planning and Special Projects SUBJECT: Amendments to the Zoning Bylaw to Regulate Uses in the Downtown Core ATTACHMENT: Appendix A – CCD1 Zone Appendix B – Zoning Map of Downtown Mission
This report is provided in response to Council’s most recent request of September 19th, 2016 to exclude various uses from the Core Commercial Downtown One Zone (CCD1) and stems from the findings of a survey conducted with the Downtown Business Association to assist in the implementation of the objectives of the MissionCity Downtown Action Plan that aims to create a welcoming and friendly downtown. Accordingly the following recommendations are provided for Council’s consideration: 1. That Zoning Bylaw No 5050-2009 be amended by adding the following definitions to Section 102: Tobacconist means the sale of tobacco and tobacco products including e-cigarettes (a device used to simulate the experience of smoking, having a cartridge with a heater that vaporizes liquid nicotine instead of burning tobacco). Cheque Cashing and Payday Loans means an unchartered loaning facility which offers a relatively small amount of money to be lent at a high rate of interest on the agreement that it will be repaid when the borrower receives their next paycheck. Marihuana Sales means the sale of marihuana, medical marihuana, marihuana products and drug paraphernalia such as bongs, hookah pipes, glass pipes, and other smoking aids. Craft Brewery means a brewery that produces small amounts of beer, much smaller than large-scale corporate breweries, and is independently owned typically and characterized by their emphasis on quality, flavour and brewing technique. 2. That the following uses be removed from the list of permitted uses within the Core Commercial Downtown One Zone (CCD1): Vehicle Rental Arcade Body Art and Tattoo Parlour Flea Market
1
186
3. That Tobacconist, and Cheque Cashing and Payday Loans uses be added to the list of permitted uses in both the Commercial Highway One Zone (CH1) and the Commercial Highway Two Zone (CH2) with a special notation that neither of these uses are permitted within 100 metres of a property zoned CCD1. 4. That Craft Brewery use be added to the list of permitted uses within the CCD1 Zone. 5. That Cannabis Sales use be added to Section 106 - Prohibited Uses of Bylaw No 5050-2009.
BACKGROUND: The MissionCity Downtown Action Plan (Plan) was adopted as Policy LAN. 58 on July 2, 2013. This policy provides direction on growth and development within Mission’s downtown core. From this Plan, numerous recommendations emerged, of which, this report addresses two of the recommendations or “Action Items”: Improve the Economics of Downtown Action 4.2: Update the Zoning Bylaw and Official Community Plan Bylaw to focus on commercial uses on 1st Avenue Welcoming and Family-friendly Downtown Action 6.4: Restrict pawn shops and cheque cashing uses downtown On December 2, 2013 a report was brought forward to consider amending the CCD1 Zone by removing some of the permitted uses from those listed in the Zoning Bylaw. Council at that time deferred making a decision on this item. Current Council requested that this item be brought forward for discussion in May of 2016. Subsequently, Council directed staff to undertake an informal poll (along with representatives from the Downtown Business Association), to determine the overall level of support to remove specific uses from the CCD1 Zone and to report back on any other uses that the business owners/operators considered to be problematic in the Plan’s objective of creating a family friendly downtown .
DISCUSSION & ANALYSIS: One of the action items listed within the MissionCity Downtown Action Plan is to create a welcoming and family-friendly downtown by considering the removal of certain uses from the CCD1 Zone that are considered contradictory to meeting this objective. It is important to mention that the removal of certain uses from those permitted outright or implied as permissible in the downtown was a key area of discussion during the downtown planning process. It was suggested that removing certain uses from the downtown could aide in attracting a variety of new uses to the downtown area and thus improve the overall economy and business climate for existing businesses. Businesses uses which are currently operating in the downtown area under a valid business licence but removed as part of this bylaw amendment would be considered ‘grandfathered’ and would therefore be permitted to continue to operate in the CCD1 Zone (or any other zones in the District) unless discontinued pursuant to provisions set out in the Local Government Act. Core Commercial Downtown One (CCD1) zone In accordance with the Mission City Downtown Action Plan’s “10 Big Moves”, move number six is to create a “Welcoming and Family-friendly Downtown” where action item 6.4 states that the District should “Restrict pawn shops and cheque cashing uses downtown”. It should be noted that a pawn shop is currently not a permitted use within the CCD1 Zone, nor is it included as a permitted use within the proposed new Core Commercial Downtown 2 Zone (CCD2 Zone). 187
After evaluating the list of uses currently permitted within the CCD1 Zone and considering their lack of contribution to meeting the objectives of the Downtown Action Plan, the following uses are recommended for removal from those uses permitted: Vehicle Rental Arcade Body Art and Tattoo Parlour Flea Market In addition to the direction previously provided to staff to amend the CCD1 Zone, a subsequent resolution was passed at the September 19th, 2016 meeting of Council to specifically prohibit tobacconists (including e-cigarette sales), cannabis sales (including marihuana and marihuana paraphernalia) and cheque cashing (payday loan establishments) from locating in the downtown area. In order to specifically exclude these uses from the downtown area, it is first necessary to add definitions of these uses to the Zoning Bylaw. The following definitions are therefore being proposed: Tobacconist means the sale of tobacco and tobacco products including e-cigarettes (a device used to simulate the experience of smoking, having a cartridge with a heater that vaporizes liquid nicotine instead of burning tobacco); Cheque Cashing and Payday Loans means an unchartered loaning facility which offers a relatively small amount of money to be lent at a high rate of interest on the agreement that it will be repaid when the borrower receives their next paycheck; and, Marihuana Sales means the sale of medical marihuana, marihuana products and drug paraphernalia such as bongs, hookah pipes, glass pipes, and other smoking aids. It is recommended that Tobacconists and Cheque Cashing and Payday Loans uses be added to the Commercial Highway One Zone (CH1) and the Commercial Highway Two Zone (CH2) and that these uses be prohibited from locating within 100 metres of property zoned CCD1. The rationale for adding the 100 metre spatial use separation is that properties at either end of the downtown area are zoned CH1. Furthermore, tobacconist uses already exist in CH1 and CH2 Zones. Staff recommend that the location of the sale of marihuana and marihuana products (much like the location of Medical Marihuana Grow Operations) requires additional research and analysis prior to determining where or if the District wishes to permit such use within its jurisdiction. It is therefore recommended that Cannabis Sales uses be added to Section 106 Section C of the District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009 – Prohibited Uses. Council may wish to direct staff to conduct further research and analysis on the potential accommodation of these uses in the municipality and bring forward a subsequent report. At this time, staff would like Council to consider adding the use of Craft Brewery use to the list of uses permitted within the CCD1 Zone. The number of craft breweries around the province has increased substantially over the past few years. This use has been seen to improve, not hamper, the economic viability of towns and cities. It is noted that while the use would be accommodated with the CCD1 Zone, the location of such a use would nonetheless require additional approvals through the District’s Liquor Licensing Procedures Policy LIC.15. Approval in this regard would therefore be at Council’s discretion and would also require provincial approvals through the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch (LCLB). As a first step, it is recommended that the following definition be added to the Zoning Bylaw and that Craft Brewery be a permitted use in the CCD1 Zone: Craft Brewery means a brewery that produces small amounts of beer, much smaller than large-scale corporate breweries, and is independently owned. Such breweries are generally characterized by their emphasis on quality, flavor and brewing technique. 188
COUNCIL GOALS/OBJECTIVES: This report addresses Council’s stated objective to: “Revitalize Downtown by Creating an Environment for Private/Other Investment”.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no financial implications associated with this report.
COMMUNICATION: A number of business license applications have been received during the preparation of this Bylaw, these applicants have been advised that their applications are on hold pending Council consideration of this Bylaw. A notice of Public Hearing will be prepared in accordance with District of Mission Bylaw 3612-2003 and the Local Government Act. It is noted, that individual property notification of a public hearing does not apply where 10 or more parcels owned by 10 or more persons are the subject of the proposed bylaw. As the proposed amendment would apply to all properties within the District of Mission, the only required notification is to publish the notice in at least two (2) consecutive issues of a newspaper.
SIGN-OFFS:
Gina MacKay, Manager of Director of Long Reviewed by: Range Planning and Special Projects Dan Sommer, Director of Development Services
Comment from Chief Administrative Officer Reviewed.
189
APPENDIX A – CCD1 Zone (Excerpt from the District of Mission Zoning Bylaw No. 5050-2009)
Core Commercial Downtown One Zone CCD1
A. Zone Intent
1. The intent of this zone is to provide for the general commercial uses typically associated with a downtown area found within the Commercial Core area. The CCD1 zone is intended to accommodate uses within the historical downtown area of Mission and is designed to retain the form and character of this area respecting the rich Heritage of Downtown Mission.
B. Permitted Uses
1. The following Principal Uses and no other shall be permitted in the CCD1 zone:
a. Accommodation limited to:
i. Hotel.
b. Automotive limited to:
i. Parking Lot, and ii. Vehicle Rental.
c. Cultural limited to:
i. Cultural Assembly, ii. Gallery, and iii. Museum.
d. Entertainment limited to:
i. Arcade, ii. Banquet Hall, iii. Cinema, and iv. Pool and Billiard Hall.
e. Food and Beverage limited to:
i. Café, ii. Coffee Shop, and iii. Restaurant.
190
f. Institutional limited to:
i. Adult Educational Institution, ii. Child Care Centre, iii. Civic Assembly, iv. College, v. Educational Facility, vi. Library, and vii. University. g. Office limited to:
i. Government Service, ii. General office Use, and iii. Administrative Office Use. h. Personal Service limited to
i. Barber Shop, ii. Body Art and Tattoo Parlour, iii. Cleaning and Repair of Clothing, iv. Hair and Body Salon, and v. Spa. i. Recreation limited to:
i. Bowling Alley, and ii. Indoor Recreation Facility. j. Residential limited to:
i. Apartments provided they:
i. Form an integral part of a commercial Building on the lot, ii. Are not be located on the 1st storey, and iii. Are the only Use in a storey and in all other storeys above the Residential Use.
191
k. Retail limited to:
i. Auction-Retail, ii. Bakery, iii. Building Supply Store, iv. Butcher, v. Convenience Store, vi. Flea Market, vii. Furniture Store, viii. Garden Supply Store, ix. Household Equipment Rental, x. Liquor Store, xi. Produce Sales, xii. Retail Store, xiii. Second Hand Store, xiv. Specialty Food, xv. Supermarket, and xvi. Video Rental.
l. Service limited to:
i. Community Service, ii. Financial, Insurance and Real Estate, iii. Funeral Parlour and/or Memorial Service Facility, iv. General Service Use, and v. Veterinary Clinic.
3. The following Accessory Uses and no other shall be permitted in the CCD1 zone:
a. Residential limited to:
i. Indoor Amenity Space, and ii. Outdoor Amenity Space.
b. Storage limited to the following:
i. Enclosed Storage.
192
C. Lot Area
1. Except where such Lot existed at the effective date of this Bylaw or Lots created under Section 104, Part D. each Lot shall have a minimum area as shown on the following table:
Zone: Area CCD1 558 sq m (6,006 sq ft)
2. Notwithstanding Section 901, Part C.1, where a Lot contains an Undevelopable Area, that area shall not be included in the calculation of minimum Lot Area.
3. Notwithstanding Section 901, Part C.1 and C.2, where a Lot contains natural slopes greater than or equal to 33%, that sloped area shall not be included in the calculation of minimum Lot Area.
D. Density
1. The maximum density for the residential portion of the development shall be calculated as follows:
Zone: Maximum Density CCD1 272 upha (110upa)
E. Setbacks
1. All Buildings and Structures shall be sited in accordance with the following minimum Setbacks:
Front Rear Interior Exterior Side Side Principal/ Accessory 0.0 m 0.0 m 0.0 m 0.0 m Building or Structure (0.0 ft) (0.0 ft) (0.0 ft) (0.0 ft)
2. Notwithstanding Section 901 Part E.1, all Buildings shall be sited a minimum of 6.0 m (19.6 ft) from all Undevelopable Areas as defined in this Bylaw.
F. Lot Coverage
1. Buildings shall together cover not more than the Lot Area as noted in the following table:
Zone: Lot Coverage CCD1 100%
193
G. Floor Space
1. The floor space should not exceed the following ratio as listed in the following table (indoor amenity space, garage space, detached or attached, or underground parking shall be used in calculating total floor area):
Floor Space Zone: Ratio CCD1 1.50
H. Height of Buildings
1. The Height of the Principal Building and Accessory Buildings shall not exceed 15.0 m (49.2 ft):
I. Indoor Amenity Space
1. Developments that contain 15 units or more shall provide in Indoor Amenity Space at a rate of at least 2.8 sq m (30.0 sq ft) per unit.
2. A Child Care Centre may be housed within an Indoor Amenity Space provided they comply with the following requirements:
a. Have direct access from a highway, independent from the access to the residential uses; and b. Have direct access to an open space and play area within the Lot.
J. Outdoor Amenity Space
1. Outdoor Amenity Space is not a requirement within this zone.
2. If Outdoor Amenity Space is provided it shall have a slope of 5% or less.
K. Off Street Parking
1. Off Street Parking shall be in accordance with the provisions of Section 108.
2. Parking within the required setbacks is not permitted.
3. 75% of the required resident parking spaces must be provided as parking within the building envelope.
4. Off Street Parking shall not have access from a front property line if access is available via a lane or a flanking street.
194
APPENDIX B
195
The Minutes of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee meeting held in the Conference Room at the Mission Leisure Centre on Tuesday, September 13, 2016 commencing at 7:00 p.m.
Members Present: Paul Hockridge, Chair Ed Hodson Bob Ingram Dan Schubert Danica Stene Rich Vigurs Laura Wilson
Members Absent: Manpreet Brar Jim Shaw
Others Present: Hirod Gill, Manager of Engineering Design and Planning Rachel Kleindienst, Booking Clerk Maureen Sinclair, Director of Parks, Recreation and Culture
1. CALL TO ORDER
The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Moved by B. Ingram and seconded by D. Stene, That the agenda of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee meeting of September 13, 2016 be approved. CARRIED
3. MINUTES FOR APPROVAL
Moved by R. Vigurs and seconded by B. Ingram, That the minutes of the June 7, 2016 meeting of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee be approved. CARRIED
4. PRESENTATION
(a) Hirod Gill - Transportation Master Plan and 7th Avenue Bike Lanes H. Gill presented a PowerPoint of the Transportation Master Plan highlighting the plan for bike lanes along 7th Avenue from Stave Lake Street to Wren Avenue. The plan for sustainable transportation puts pedestrians as the top priority followed by cyclists, transit, movement of goods then private cars.
File: 01 Page 1 of 4 0540-20-09 196 Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee Minutes September 13, 2016
The desire of residents polled showed a reverse order of priority; Better roads Improved transit Improved sidewalks Cycling
The Engineering Department has asked Council for $300,000/year over the next 5 years to implement a Pedestrian Plan. This plan includes installing sidewalks on both sides of the street in urban areas, implementing cut-through paths from cul-de-sacs and avoiding curvilinear sidewalks. High priority areas are schools, bus stops, parks and recreation areas. The need to improve safety, connectivity and parking for cyclists was also noted. The transit strategy includes increasing one-way transit routes and improvements to the two-way routes such as; evening, weekend and statutory holiday service.
Five locations are being considered for the installation of round-abouts:
Cedar Street and Dewdney Trunk Road Cedar Street and Tunbridge Avenue Cedar Street and Laminman Avenue Cade Barr Street and Dewdney Trunk Road
Moved by R. Vigurs and seconded by E. Hodson,
WHEREAS the development of bike lanes supports safe cycling routes for Mission residents;
AND WHEREAS the development of bike lanes and cycling routes will encourage the use of cycling in our community as both a transportation mode as well as for recreational purposes;
AND WHEREAS the 7th Avenue corridor makes the most sense as a centrally located route that will eventually link Hatzic and Silverdale;
AND WHEREAS the development of bike lanes and cycling routes will create a healthier environment and healthier residents;
BE IT RESOLVED that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee support the development of bike lanes on 7th Avenue as set out in the 2016 Transportation Master Plan document.
CARRIED
File: 01 Page 2 of 4 0540-20-09 197 Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee Minutes September 13, 2016
5. BUSINESS ARISING
(a) BC Games 2020 and 2022 M. Sinclair suggests the Committee dismiss a bid to host the 2020 or 2022 Games due to the administrative changes at the school district and the subsequent delay in getting a response in support of this large venture. The Committee will look for other, smaller ventures, that are sports or arts related.
(b) Griner Park Shelter
The initial thought to move the shelter at Griner Park to Tunbridge Park and build a replacement at Griner has proved to be very expensive.
The replacement for the Griner Park shelter will be included in the Parks Master Plan discussions.
6. NEW BUSINESS
(a) McTaggart Development and Hatzic Park Cash in lieu of parkland has been received by the developer. The cash donation will be used to extend the trail in Hatzic Park (completed), install a playground and upgrade the Field House. The committee agreed that a resolution was not required but did express their support.
(b) Parks, Recreation, Arts and Culture Master Plan Draft Terms of Reference The Draft Terms of Reference was sent to Committee members for review. Discussion took place around the Advisory Committee being a part of the Steering Committee for the Master Plan. The Advisory Committee already has a non-partisan approach. M. Sinclair to draft a recommendation to Council that the: “Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee be the Steering Committee for the Parks, Recreation, Arts and Culture Master Plan” Moved by B. Ingram and seconded by E. Hodson That the Draft Terms of Reference for the Parks, Recreation, Arts and Culture Master Plan be approved. CARRIED
7. NEXT MEETING
Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 7:00 p.m.
8. ADJOURNMENT Moved by E. Hodson and seconded by B. Ingram
File: 01 Page 3 of 4 0540-20-09 198 Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee Minutes September 13, 2016
That the meeting of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee be adjourned. CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
File: 01 Page 4 of 4 0540-20-09 199
The Minutes of the Cultural Resources Commission meeting held in the Conference Room at the Mission Leisure Centre, 7650 Grand St, Mission BC on Friday, October 14, 2016 commencing at 5:15 p.m.
Members Present: Chair, V. Billesberger Vice Chair, J. Priestley M. Gauthier S. Grass D. Marshall L. Nessim
Members Absent: S. Key, Deputy Director, Parks, Recreation & Culture P. Alexis (Council Liaison) M. Knight C. Lauzé
1. CALL TO ORDER
The Chair called the meeting to order at 5:20 p.m.
2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Moved by J. Priestley and seconded by M. Gauthier, That the agenda of the Cultural Resources Commission meeting held on October 14, 2016 be approved as circulated. CARRIED
3. MINUTES FOR APPROVAL
Moved by S. Grass, seconded by L. Nessim, 1. That the minutes of the September 9, 2016 meeting of the Cultural Resources Commission be approved. CARRIED
Page 1 of 3 200 Cultural Resources Commission Minutes October 14, 2016
4. BUSINESS ARISING FROM MINUTES
(a) Muse Awards • Review of Muse Awards: Event was successful and enjoyed by all. • L. Nessim reviewed expenses, stating that all costs were under budget. Some items were donated or paid for from other budgets (i.e. entertainment costs covered by Clarke Theatre). • Video of event will be shared online and on social media to help promote future Muse Awards. • Group from CRC will meet with Mission Arts Council board to share information about event, including budget and planning requirements, to facilitate the MAC managing future Muse Awards. • The effectiveness of advertising for the event was discussed and will be included in the presentation to the MAC. Action Item: V. Billesberger will send a card of thanks to Chris Lindgren of Spider Broadcasting for donating his services. Action Item: V. Billesberger, S. Key, L. Nessim will plan a presentation for the next MAC board meeting on the Muse Awards with expectation that MAC will manage it in the future. Presenters will report back to the CRC.
(b) Public Art: Update • The raising of the house post at the Mission Chamber of Commerce was postponed.
(c) Culture Days (Sept 30, Oct 1-2nd) • 31 events were registered for Mission on the 2016 Culture Days website. • V. Billesberger and S. Grass emailed short questionnaire to participants for feedback for evaluation. • Those contacted so far are interested in participating in 2017. Goal is to expand on events and promote Culture Days even more in the community for 2017. • Task group will report more on evaluation at the November CRC meeting. • V. Billesberger proposed that next year’s task group for Culture Days (Sept 29, 30 and Oct 1) work in conjunction with 125th Anniversary celebrations. • V. Billesberger proposed that Culture Days be added as a line item in the CRC 2017 budget. Action Item: Task group will compile information and present evaluation at November CRC meeting.
Page 2 of 3
201 Cultural Resources Commission Minutes October 14, 2016
(d) Cultural Resources Management Plan i. Scan of Goals and Objectives • Members reviewed and made suggestions for amendments to Goal 5. The suggested changes will be forwarded to S. Key for her review. • It was decided to postpone review of Goal 6 until November meeting when more members are present. Action Item: V. Billesberger will meet with S. Key regarding proposed changes to Goal 5 as soon as possible. Action Item: CRC members will review Goal 6 to discuss at November meeting.
5. NEW BUSINESS
(a) 2017 CRC Members • S. Key will post call for new members at earliest convenience. • J. Priestley, M. Gauthier, C. Lauzé (and possibly D. Marshall) are ending their first terms this year, and will need to resubmit their nomination for a further term if interested. Members may serve up to 3 consecutive terms.
Action Item: Members who wish to be considered for another term must submit a letter to S. Key as soon as possible.
(b) 2016 CRC Meeting Schedule • It was discussed and decided to schedule the next meeting earlier rather than later than November 11th (Remembrance Day), so the next meeting will be Friday November 4th at 5:15 p.m. • The December meeting will be held on Friday Dec. 9th at 5:15 p.m. at the home of L. Nessim (L. Nessim will email address and particulars to all members). There will be a short meeting of the CRC followed by a potluck celebration.
(c) Next Meeting Friday November 4, 2016 at 5:15 pm in the Conference Room at the Mission Leisure Centre.
6. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 6:25 p.m.
Page 3 of 3
202
DISTRICT OF MISSION
BYLAW 5595-2016-5050(220)
A Bylaw to amend "District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009"
WHEREAS, under the provisions of the Local Government Act, a Council may, by bylaw, divide the municipality into zones and regulate the use of land, buildings and structures within such zones;
AND WHEREAS the Council of the District of Mission has adopted "District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009" and amended same from time to time;
AND WHEREAS the Council of the District of Mission deems it advisable and in the public interest to amend the Zoning Bylaw;
NOW THEREFORE the Council of the District of Mission, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5595-2016-5050(220).”
2. "District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009" as amended, is hereby further amended by:
a) rezoning the western portion of the property located at 7765 Horne Street and legally described as: Parcel Identifier: 004-531-795 Lot 14 Section 21 Township 17 New Westminster District Plan 12578 as shown by the cross-hatched area on the Zoning Amending Bylaw Reference Plan attached to and forming part of this Bylaw, from Urban Residential 558 (R558) Zone to Compact Residential 465 (RC465) Zone; and
b) amending the zoning maps accordingly.
READ A FIRST TIME this __ day of ___, 2016
READ A SECOND TIME this __ day of ___, 2016
PUBLIC HEARING held this __ day of ___, 2016
READ A THIRD TIME this __ day of ___, 2016
ADOPTED this __ day of ___, 2016
RANDY HAWES, MAYOR MIKE YOUNIE, CORPORATE OFFICER
District of Mission Zoning Amending 203 Bylaw 5595-2016-5050(220) Page 2 of 2
Zoning Amending Bylaw Reference Plan
Legend
Cross Hatched area to be rezoned from Urban Residential 558 (R558) Zone to Residential Compact 465 (RC465) Zone
Shaded area to remain Urban Residential 558 (R558) Zone
204
DISTRICT OF MISSION
BYLAW 5609-2016-5050(224)
Bylaw to amend "District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009"
WHEREAS, under the provisions of the Local Government Act, a Council may, by bylaw, divide the municipality into zones and regulate the use of land, buildings and structures within such zones;
AND WHEREAS the Council of the District of Mission has adopted "District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009" and amended same from time to time;
AND WHEREAS the Council of the District of Mission deems it advisable and in the public interest to amend the Zoning Bylaw;
NOW THEREFORE the Council of the District of Mission, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5609-2016-5050(224).”
2. "District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009" as amended, is hereby further amended by: a) deleting the words “and; Liquor Store” under the definition for Supermarket in Section 102 – Definitions; and b) adding the following words under the definition for Supermarket in Section 102 – Definitions: “Excludes: . the sale of liquor”
READ A FIRST TIME this __ day of ___, 2016
READ A SECOND TIME this __ day of ___, 2016
PUBLIC HEARING held this __ day of ___, 2016
READ A THIRD TIME this __ day of ___, 2016
APPROVED by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure this __ day of ___, 2016
ADOPTED this __ day of ___, 2016
RANDY HAWES, MAYOR MIKE YOUNIE, CORPORATE OFFICER 205
DISTRICT OF MISSION
BYLAW 5586-2016-5050(213)
Bylaw to amend "District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009"
WHEREAS, under the provisions of the Local Government Act, a Council may, by bylaw, divide the municipality into zones and regulate the use of land, buildings and structures within such zones;
AND WHEREAS the Council of the District of Mission has adopted "District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009" and amended same from time to time;
AND WHEREAS the Council of the District of Mission deems it advisable and in the public interest to amend the Zoning Bylaw;
NOW THEREFORE the Council of the District of Mission, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5586-2016-5050(213).”
2. "District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009" as amended, is hereby further amended by:
a) Adding the following definitions to Section 102 (Definitions): i. Tobacconist means the sale of tobacco and tobacco products including e- cigarettes (a device used to simulate the experience of smoking, having a cartridge with a heater that vaporizes liquid nicotine instead of burning tobacco). ii. Cheque Cashing and Payday Loans means an unchartered loaning facility which offers a relatively small amount of money to be lent at a high rate of interest on the agreement that it will be repaid when the borrower receives their next paycheck. iii. Marihuana Sales means the sale of marihuana, medical marihuana and marihuana products, and includes the sale of drug paraphernalia such as bongs, hookah pipes, glass pipes, and other smoking aids. iv. Craft Brewery means a brewery that produces small amounts of beer, typically much smaller than large-scale corporate breweries, and is independently owned typically characterized by their emphasis on quality, flavour and brewing technique. b) Removing the following uses from Section 901, Part B (Core Commercial Downtown One (CCD1) Zone, Permitted Uses): i. Vehicle Rental ii. Arcade iii. Body Art and Tattoo Parlour iv. Flea Market
District of Mission Zoning Amending 206 Bylaw 5586-2016-5050(213) Page 2 of 2
c) Adding the following uses to Section 804, Part B (Commercial Highway One (CH1) Zone and Commercial Highway 2 (CH2) Zone, Permitted Uses), with a notation that these uses are not permitted within 100 meters of a property zoned Core Commercial Downtown One (CCD1): i. Tobacconist ii. Cheque Cashing and Payday Loans d) Adding Craft Brewery as a permitted use to Section 901, Part B (Core Commercial Downtown One (CCD1) Zone, Permitted Uses). e) Adding Marihuana Sales as a prohibited use to Section 106, Part C (Use Regulations, Uses Prohibited). f) Amending Section 106, Part D (Use Regulations, Use Categories) accordingly.
READ A FIRST TIME this 3rd day of October, 2016
READ A SECOND TIME this 3rd day of October, 2016
PUBLIC HEARING held this __ day of ___, 2016
READ A THIRD TIME this __ day of ___, 2016
APPROVED by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure this __ day of ___, 2016
ADOPTED this __ day of ___, 2016
RANDY HAWES, MAYOR MIKE YOUNIE, CORPORATE OFFICER 207
DISTRICT OF MISSION
BYLAW 5592-2016-5050(218)
Bylaw to amend "District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009"
WHEREAS, under the provisions of the Local Government Act, a Council may, by bylaw, divide the municipality into zones and regulate the use of land, buildings and structures within such zones;
AND WHEREAS the Council of the District of Mission has adopted "District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009" and amended same from time to time;
AND WHEREAS the Council of the District of Mission deems it advisable and in the public interest to amend the Zoning Bylaw;
NOW THEREFORE the Council of the District of Mission, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5592-2016-5050(218).”
2. "District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009" as amended, is hereby further amended by:
a) rezoning the property located at 12411 Carr Street and legally described as: Parcel Identifier: 029-097-029 Lot 4 Section 22 Township 15 New Westminster District Plan EPP25262 from Rural Residential 7 (RR7) Zone to Rural Residential 7 Secondary Dwelling (RR7s) Zone; and
b) amending the zoning maps accordingly.
READ A FIRST TIME this 19th day of September, 2016
READ A SECOND TIME this 19th day of September, 2016
PUBLIC HEARING held this 3rd day of October, 2016
READ A THIRD TIME this 3rd day of October, 2016
ADOPTED this __ day of ___, 2016
RANDY HAWES, MAYOR MIKE YOUNIE, CORPORATE OFFICER 208
Excerpt from Regular Council Meeting Page 1 of 1 October 3, 2016
PUBLIC HEARINGS
RC16/553 Zoning Amending Bylaw 5591-2016-5050(217) OCT. 03/16 R16-029 (Carr) – a bylaw to rezone the property at 33286 13th Avenue from Urban Residential 558 (R558) Zone to Urban Residential 558 Secondary Dwelling (R558s) Zone The purpose of the proposed Zoning Bylaw amendment is to accommodate a secondary dwelling use in the form of a secondary suite in the existing home. The subject property is legally described as: Parcel Identifier: 005-978-891 Lot 453 Section 21 Township 17 New Westminster District Plan 46107 The Mayor opened the public hearing. Dan Sommer, Director of Development Services, showed a PowerPoint presentation that provided the purpose and outline of the proposal. The Deputy Chief Administrative Officer stated that no written submissions pertaining to the subject application had been received. The Mayor opened the floor to the public for questions and comments. Hearing no questions or comments, the Mayor declared the Public Hearing for District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5591-2016-5050(217) R16-029 (Carr) closed. 209
Development Services Staff Report to Council
File: 3310-16 P2016-061 R16-035
DATE: September 19, 2016 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Wesley Woo, Planner SUBJECT: Rezoning Application to allow a secondary dwelling use in the form of a garden cottage – 12411 Carr Street ATTACHMENTS: Appendix 1 – Information for Corporate Officer Appendix 2 – Location Map Appendix 3 – Engineering Department Comments
CIVIC ADDRESS: 12411 Carr Street APPLICANT: Nolan Woods OCP: This application is in conformance with the current Rural Residential OCP designation. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETE: August 18, 2016 LOCATION:
STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 1 of 6 210
OVERVIEW AND STAFF COMMENTS:
This report details the rezoning application to allow a secondary dwelling unit use at the property located at 12411 Carr Street and identifies the necessary amendment to the Zoning Bylaw. Staff support the application moving forward and as such have listed the Zoning Amending Bylaw under the “Bylaws for Consideration” section of the agenda. Subject to Council’s approval, a Public Hearing will be scheduled for October 3, 2016.
SUMMARY: A rezoning application has been received from Nolan Woods, property owner, seeking to construct a garden cottage on the property at 12411 Carr Street (Appendix 2). To authorize the secondary dwelling use, a rezoning of the property from Rural Residential 7 (RR7) Zone to Rural Residential 7 Secondary Dwelling (RR7s) Zone is required. The applicant has provided a preliminary site plan which shows the garden cottage conforming to the siting requirements of the Zoning Bylaw. A detailed site plan will be required to be submitted as part of a Building Permit application.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The subject property is approximately 0.992 ha (2.45 acres) in size and is located at the northwest corner of Carr Street and Berg Avenue in Stave Falls. The property is within the Rural Residential designation of the Official Community Plan (OCP) and is zoned RR7 Zone. The subject property is currently developed with a single family dwelling. The applicant wishes to construct a garden cottage for a family member. As a secondary dwelling unit is not a permitted use in the RR7 Zone, a rezoning to the RR7s Zone is required.
PLANNING ANALYSIS:
Official Community Plan & Zoning Bylaw Compliance: The maximum allowable floor space for a garden cottage in this area is 50% of the principal residence’s floor space to a maximum of 110 m2 (1184 ft2). The Inspection Services Division will ensure that the proposed garden cottage meets all of the BC Building Code requirements, including fire separation, during the building permit review and plan check process. The proposed rezoning conforms to Policy 2.3.3 of the Official Community Plan, which considers site specific rezoning to provide for a secondary dwelling unit on properties that are designated Rural or Rural Residential.
Neighbourhood Character: The subject property is located within a rural residential neighbourhood comprised mostly of single family dwellings on larger lots. Lands north and east of the subject property are within the RU16 Zone and lands south and west of the subject property are within the RR7 Zone. All lands surrounding the subject property are designated Rural Residential within the OCP. As the subject property is located on a corner and is rural residential, it is believed that the garden cottage will have little to no impact on the surrounding neighbourhood.
STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 2 of 6 211
Servicing: Municipal water, sanitary or storm services are not available to the subject property. The applicant must provide a report from a septic engineer that the existing or proposed septic field can accommodate the additional occupancy.
COMMUNICATION: In accordance with Land Use Application Procedures and Fees Bylaw 3612-2003, the developer has posted one (1) development notification sign on the site summarizing the proposed development. Provided that a public hearing date is determined by Council: 1. The development notification sign will be modified to advertise the public hearing details (i.e., date, time and place) and a notice will be mailed to the owners and occupiers of all properties within a radius of 500 metres (1640 ft.) from the development site notifying them of the public hearing details. 2. A notice of Public Hearing will be prepared in accordance with Bylaw 3612-2003 and the Local Government Act 3. A pre-public hearing information package will be prepared to include copies of all applicable documents and is available online or at municipal hall for public viewing (in accordance with Policy LAN. 50 – Pre-Public Hearing Information Packages).
REFERRALS: Engineering The Engineering Department has no objection to the project subject to the completion of engineering servicing requirements as outlined in Appendix 3. Fire/Rescue Services Mission Fire/Rescue Service has no comments regarding this application.
REQUIREMENT(S) PRIOR TO FINAL READING Final Reading of the Zoning Amending Bylaw will be held until the following have been satisfied: 1. Report from a septic engineer that the existing or proposed septic field can accommodate the additional occupancy. 2. Any requirements resulting from Council’s consideration of the Bylaw including public hearing.
SIGN-OFFS:
Wesley Woo, Planner Reviewed by: Chris Laing, Manager of Planning
Comment from Chief Administrative Officer Reviewed.
STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 3 of 6 212
Appendix 1
Information for Corporate Officer
Civic Address: 12411 Carr Street
PID: 029-097-029
Legal: Lot 4 Section 22 Township 15 New Westminster District Plan EPP25262
STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 4 of 6 213
Appendix 2
Location Map
STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 5 of 6 214
Appendix 3
Engineering Department Rezoning Comments
August 23, 2016
CIVIC ADDRESS: 12411 Carr Street
CURRENT ZONE: RR7 PROPOSED ZONE: RR7s
DOMESTIC WATER REQUIREMENTS: No municipal water is available.
SANITARY SEWER REQUIREMENTS: No municipal sanitary services are available. The applicant must provide a report from a septic engineer that the existing or proposed septic field can accommodate the additional occupancy.
STORM SEWER REQUIREMENTS: No municipal storm services are available.
The following will be required at the building permit stage: The applicant is required to provide storm water management for the new garden cottage meeting the District of Mission’s groundwater recharge guidelines. Engineered design is required. Designs shall be accompanied by a statement from a fully qualified professional engineer which clearly identifies the specific opportunities and constraints for implementing best management practices for the property, demonstrates that groundwater recharge and/or other appropriate best management practices are sustainable, and have been maximized for the particular site and provides examples of similar installations which demonstrate the sustainability, ability to construct and ease of maintenance of the works to be constructed. In particular, when implementing the District of Mission ground water recharge guidelines, the applicant shall be responsible to conduct a hydrological investigation to estimate infiltration rates and soil permeability, determine the location of the water table and its seasonal variations. This information is to be included in any engineering drawing submittals as it is critical to the design of Best Management Practices (BMP’s), building envelopes and minimum building elevations. Proposed measures shall be subject to acceptance by the Director of Engineering and Public Works.
ROAD WORK REQUIREMENTS: Carr Street provides paved access to the site. No upgrades are required.
RECOMMENDATION: From an engineering point of view, the application may proceed to adoption once the sanitary requirements have been met.
Prepared by: Reviewed by: Jason Anthony, Engineering Technologist Tracy Kyle, Director of Engineering & Public Works
STAFF REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 6 of 6 215
Minutes of the SPECIAL MEETING of the DISTRICT OF MISSION COUNCIL (Administrative Hearing) held in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Hall, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, British Columbia, on Monday, March 14, 2016 commencing at 1:00 p.m. and reconvening on Monday, September 12, 2016 at 8:30 a.m.
Council Members Present: Mayor Randy Hawes Councillor Pam Alexis Councillor Carol Hamilton Councillor Jim Hinds Councillor Rhett Nicholson
Council Members Absent: Councillor Danny Plecas Councillor Jenny Stevens
Staff Members Present: Ron Poole, Chief Administrative Officer Mike Younie, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer Jenny Hill, Administrative Assistant
Others Present: Inspector Ted De Jager, Mission RCMP Elton Kennedy
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order.
2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
SC16/009 Moved by Councillor Hamilton, seconded by Councillor Hinds, and MAR 14/16 RESOLVED: That the March 14, 2016 Special Meeting of Council (Administrative Hearing) agenda be adopted. CARRIED
3. NEW BUSINESS
SC16/010 Administrative Hearing Regarding the Denial of a Chauffeur Permit under MAR 14/16 Section 36(5) of the Motor Vehicle Act (MVA) In advance of the meeting, the March 14, 2016 Special Council Agenda was provided to Inspector De Jager, Mr. Kennedy, and Council which included the following supporting documentation: the ‘Hearing Process Procedures’ Appendix A ‘Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness’ Corporate Administration Staff Report to Council Inspector De Jager’s March 7, 2016 memorandum to Mike Younie Inspector De Jager’s February 22, 2016 letter to Elton Kennedy Elton Kennedy’s March 7, 2016 letter of appeal, driving record search and insurance coverage history and claims experience from ICBC. 216 Special Meeting of Council (Administrative Hearing) March 14, 2016 and September 12, 2016 Page 2 of 4
Mayor Hawes explained that the Special Meeting of Council (Administrative Hearing) was being held at the request of Mr. Kennedy who had asked that Council reconsider the decision by RCMP Inspector De Jager to deny his application for a Chauffeur Permit. Mayor Hawes confirmed that both parties were advised of the date and time of the Administrative Hearing. Mayor Hawes also confirmed that a copy of Mr. Kennedy’s disclosure package was provided to Inspector De Jager on March 7, 2016 and a copy of Inspector De Jager’s disclosure package was provided to Mr. Kennedy on March 8, 2016.
Inspector De Jager outlined his reasons for denying Mr. Kennedy’s application for a Chauffeur Permit.
Mr. Kennedy was given the opportunity to ask Inspector De Jager questions in regards to the Inspector’s presentation. Mr. Kennedy presented arguments from his disclosure package and stated that he felt the reasons for the denial are irrelevant and unfair.
Mr. Kennedy responded to several questions from Council.
Mayor and Council asked Mr. Kennedy several questions in regards to his previous and present employment, driving and motor vehicle accident history, vehicle insurance history, family situation, business plan, and medical issues as they pertain to this matter.
The Mayor asked Mr. Kennedy if he had any further statements. Mr. Kennedy advised that he had already made his statement during his questions to Inspector De Jager.
After the presentations were concluded Council discussed recessing the Administrative Hearing to resolve into a closed session to obtain legal advice.
4. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE PUBLIC, RECESS THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING, AND IMMEDIATELY CONVENE INTO CLOSED SESSION
SC16/011 Moved by Councillor Alexis, seconded by Councillor Nicholson, and MAR 14/16 RESOLVED: That, pursuant to Sections 90 and 92 of the Community Charter, this Special Meeting of Council (Administrative Hearing) be closed to the public as the subject matter being considered relates to the following: Section 90(1)(e) of the Community Charter – the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements, if the council considers that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality; Section 90(1)(g) of the Community Charter – litigation or potential litigation affecting the municipality; Section 90(1)(i) of the Community Charter – the receipt of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose; and Section 90(1)(k) of the Community Charter – 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. CARRIED
217 Special Meeting of Council (Administrative Hearing) March 14, 2016 and September 12, 2016 Page 3 of 4
The Special Meeting of Council (Administrative Hearing) was recessed at 1:45 p.m.
SC16/012 Special Meeting of Council (Administrative Hearing) reconvened at 2:40 p.m. MAR 14/16 Mr. Kennedy responded to additional questions from Council. It was noted that, in order to make a fully informed decision, Council would need to review additional documentation, to be provided by Mr. Kennedy.
5. RECESS
SC16/013 Moved by Councillor Alexis, seconded by Councillor Nicholson, and MAR 14/16 RESOLVED: That the Special Meeting of Council (Administrative Hearing) be recessed until such time as Mr. Kennedy provides Council with further documentation, as requested. CARRIED The meeting was recessed at 3:13 p.m.
6. RECONVENE
SC16/031 Mayor Hawes reconvened the meeting on September 12, 2016 at 8:30 a.m. SEP 12/16
Council Members Present: Mayor Randy Hawes Councillor Pam Alexis Councillor Carol Hamilton Councillor Jim Hinds Councillor Danny Plecas Councillor Jenny Stevens
Council Members Absent: Councillor Rhett Nicholson
Staff Members Present: Mike Younie, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer Jenny Hill, Administrative Assistant
7. ADOPTION OF ADDITIONAL ITEMS ON AGENDA
SC16/032 Moved by Councillor Plecas, seconded by Councillor Hinds, and SEP 12/16 RESOLVED: That the September 12, 2016 reconvening of the Special Meeting of Council (Administrative Hearing) additional to the agenda be adopted. CARRIED
8. NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED)
SC16/033 Administrative Hearing Regarding the Denial of a Chauffeur Permit under SEP 12/16 Section 36(5) of the Motor Vehicle Act (MVA)
218 Special Meeting of Council (Administrative Hearing) March 14, 2016 and September 12, 2016 Page 4 of 4
Council reviewed the question as to whether to uphold or overturn Inspector De Jager’s decision to deny Mr. Kennedy a chauffeur permit. It was noted that, although Council had requested further information from the appellant and had recessed the hearing on March 14, 2016 to give him an opportunity to provide this information, none of the documents have been received after three written requests were made.
SC16/034 Moved by Councillor Hinds, seconded by Councillor Alexis, and SEP 12/16 RESOLVED: That Inspector De Jager’s denial of the appellant’s chauffeur permit be upheld. CARRIED
9. ADJOURNMENT
SC16/035 Moved by Councillor Plecas, seconded by Councillor Hamilton, and SEP 12/16 RESOLVED: That the Special Meeting of Council (Administrative Hearing) be adjourned. CARRIED The meeting was adjourned at 8:32 a.m.
RANDY HAWES, MAYOR MIKE YOUNIE, CORPORATE OFFICER
219
MINUTES of the REGULAR MEETING of the COUNCIL of the DISTRICT OF MISSION held in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Hall, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, British Columbia, on October 17, 2016 commenced at 1:00 p.m. for COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, and reconvened at 7:00 p.m. for REGULAR COUNCIL proceedings.
Council Members Present: Mayor Randy Hawes Councillor Carol Hamilton Councillor Jim Hinds Councillor Rhett Nicholson Councillor Danny Plecas
Council Members Absent: Councillor Pam Alexis Councillor Jenny Stevens
Staff Members Present: Ron Poole, Chief Administrative Officer Mike Younie, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer * Barry Azevedo, Manager of Environmental Services Stacey Crawford, Economic Development Officer * Ted De Jager, Officer in Charge, Mission RCMP Detachment * Hirod Gill, Manager of Engineering Design and Planning Haylee Gould, Administrative Assistant Tracy Kyle, Director of Engineering and Public Works Kerri Onken, Deputy Treasurer/Collector Scott Ross, Manager of Accounting Services Jennifer Russell, Deputy Corporate Officer * Brent Schmitt, Manager of Business Services Maureen Sinclair, Director of Parks, Recreation and Culture Dan Sommer, Director of Development Services Dale Unrau, Fire Chief *Present for a portion of the meeting
1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Hawes called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m.
2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA RC16/560 Moved by Councillor Hinds, seconded by Councillor Hamilton, and OCT. 17/16 RESOLVED: 1. That a verbal item, “Fire Underwriters Survey Superior Tanker Shuttle Service Accreditation”, be added to the agenda right before Council resolves into Committee of the Whole; and 2. That the agenda for the regular Council meeting of October 17, 2016 be adopted, as amended. CARRIED
220 Regular Council Meeting Page 2 of 10 October 17, 2016
RC16/561 VERBAL ITEM – Fire Underwriters Survey Superior Tanker Shuttle Service OCT. 17/16 Accreditation The Fire Chief presented a verbal report regarding Superior Tanker Shuttle Service accreditation from the Fire Underwriters Survey. Mission Fire/Rescue Service passed the accreditation after a thorough evaluation which proved that they have the ability to provide a water supply at a specific flow rate for an equivalent length of time to a hydrant supply. This accreditation means that property owners within 5km by road of a recognized alternative water supply point and within 8km of a fire hall will be able to notify their insurance companies that they have fire flow equivalency, and may qualify for lower home fire insurance premiums. Property owners may inquire with Mission Fire/Rescue Service to see if their property is within the boundary.
3. RESOLUTION TO RESOLVE INTO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE RC16/562 Moved by Councillor Plecas, seconded by Councillor Nicholson, and OCT. 17/16 RESOLVED: That Council now resolve itself into Committee of the Whole. CARRIED
4. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Councillor Nicholson assumed the Chair.
RC16/563 Development Variance Permits for properties located at 32977 3rd Avenue OCT. 17/16 (DV16-016) and 32975 3rd Avenue (DV16-017) A report from the Planner dated October 17, 2016 detailing development variance permit applications for two lots located at 32975 and 32977 3rd Avenue was provided for the Committee’s information. Staff support the applications moving forward and as such have listed the development variance permits under the “Development Permits for Consideration” section of the agenda. The Committee discussed the proposed building envelope, tree retention and fire separation requirements for houses built on lots with reduced setbacks.
5. ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC WORKS Councillor Hinds assumed the Chair.
RC16/564 Traffic Safety Improvements at Cade Barr Street and Best Avenue Intersection OCT. 17/16 A report from the Manager of Engineering Planning and Design dated October 17, 2016 which outlined three options for improving road safety at the intersection of Cade Barr Street and Best Avenue was provided for the Committee’s consideration. Moved by Councillor Plecas, and RECOMMENDED: 1. That staff proceed with Option 3, as outlined in the Manager of Engineering Planning and Design’s report dated October 17, 2016, to improve traffic safety at Cade Barr Street and Best Avenue Intersection; 2. That the requested budget of $25,000 be funded from the Pavement Management Program; and 3. That the District’s financial plan be updated accordingly. CARRIED 221 Regular Council Meeting Page 3 of 10 October 17, 2016
RC16/565 7th Avenue Bike Lanes OCT. 17/16 A report from the Manager of Civic Engagement and Corporate Initiatives and the Manager of Engineering Planning and Design dated October 17, 2016 with a summary of public feedback from the 7th Avenue Bike Lane Open House held September 15, 2016 and proposing solutions to implement the high priority bike lane project was provided for the Committee’s consideration. Moved by Mayor Hawes, and RECOMMENDED: That staff be directed to engage with a range of cyclists and citizens to review the proposed bike lanes and develop recommendations for Council. The Committee discussed moving forward with painting the traffic lines and referring the issue of bike lanes on 7th Avenue to the Parks, Recreation and Culture Advisory Committee for consideration with the Parks, Recreation and Culture Master Plan in 2017. The Committee expressed a desire to explore alternate bike routes as well as a bike lane on 7th Avenue, and for staff to seek out grant funding for future bicycle transit infrastructure. The Chair called the question on the main motion and it was CARRIED. RC16/566 Moved by Councillor Plecas, and OCT. 17/16 RECOMMENDED: That painting of traffic line markings along 7th Avenue proceed without consideration of dedicated bike lanes at this time. CARRIED
6. PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURE Councillor Hamilton assumed the Chair.
RC16/567 Parks, Recreation, Arts and Culture Master Plan OCT. 17/16 A report from the Director of Parks, Recreation and Culture dated October 17, 2016 detailing the process to develop a new Parks, Recreation, Arts and Culture Master Plan was provided for the Committee’s information. The Committee discussed the timeline for the Plan, which is anticipated to be complete in 2017.
RC16/568 Heritage Park Administration Building – Furnace Replacement and Hydro OCT. 17/16 Upgrades A report from the Director of Parks, Recreation and Culture dated October 17, 2016 to advise of two funding issues related to Fraser River Heritage Park (FRHP) and to request a budget to replace the furnace and install air conditioning in FRHP’s administration building was provided for the Committee’s consideration. Moved by Councillor Hinds, and RECOMMENDED: 1. That a budget of up to $15,000 be established to replace the boiler and install air conditioning in the Administration Office in Fraser River Heritage Park to be drawn from the General Capital Reserve fund; and 2. That the additional costs of approximately $10,000 to upgrade the electrical service at Fraser River Heritage Park/Norma Kenney House Renovations be drawn from the General Capital Reserve fund; and 222 Regular Council Meeting Page 4 of 10 October 17, 2016
3. That the District’s 2016 Financial Plan be amended accordingly. CARRIED Staff were directed to investigate if any rebates or grants are available from BC Hydro or FortisBC for the installation of the boiler and air conditioning units.
7. CORPORATE ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE Mayor Hawes resumed the Chair.
RC16/569 Council’s 2016-2018 Strategic Plan – Progress Report OCT. 17/16 A report from the Chief Administrative Officer dated October 17, 2016 with a summary of the progress made on the objectives contained within Council’s 2016-2018 Strategic Plan was provided for the Committee’s information. Discussion ensued regarding various priorities, including: the Cedar Valley Comprehensive Development Plan and the projected budget; the Seniors Activity Centre; future plans for transit connections once Train Bus services are discontinued; the habitat for Humanity project on Cedar Valley Connector; parking expansion at Mission Memorial Hospital; waterfront development strategy and budget; engagement of land owners for future waterfront development; improved British Columbia Ambulance Service (BCAS) response times; and expanding the film industry in Mission.
RC16/570 2016 Property Tax Sale OCT. 17/16 A report from the Deputy Treasurer/Collector dated October 17, 2016 regarding the results of the 2016 property tax sale held September 26, 2016 was provided for the Committee’s information.
RC16/571 Crime Prevention Office Lease OCT. 17/16 A report from the Administrative Clerk dated October 17, 2016 seeking approval to enter into a five year lease to continue operating the Crime Prevention Office at 33131 1st Avenue was provided for the Committee’s consideration. Moved by Councillor Hamilton, and RECOMMENDED: That the lease agreement as attached to the Administrative Clerk’s report dated October 17, 2016, between the District of Mission and Canadian Diagnostic Imaging Corp. be approved for up to a five year term commencing September 19, 2016 and executed by the Mayor and the Deputy Chief Administrative Officer. CARRIED
RC16/572 Conference Table and Chairs for Council Chambers OCT. 17/16 A report from the Manager of Civic Engagement and Corporate Initiatives dated October 17, 2016 requesting approval to replace the existing conference table and office chairs in the Council Chambers was provided for the Committee’s consideration.
223 Regular Council Meeting Page 5 of 10 October 17, 2016
Moved by Councillor Plecas, and RECOMMENDED: 1. That staff be directed to replace the existing conference table and office chairs in the Council Chambers at a cost of up to $18,000 with funding from the general capital reserve; and 2. That the 2016 financial plan be amended accordingly. CARRIED
8. RESOLUTION TO RISE FROM COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE RC16/573 Moved by Councillor Plecas, seconded by Councillor Hinds, and OCT. 17/16 RESOLVED: That Council rise from Committee of the Whole. CARRIED
9. RESOLUTION TO RECESS THE MEETING UNTIL 7:00 P.M. RC16/574 Moved by Councillor Plecas, seconded by Councillor Hamilton, and OCT. 17/16 RESOLVED: That the meeting be recessed until 7:00 p.m. CARRIED The meeting recessed at 2:22 p.m.
10. RECONVENE RC16/575 Mayor Hawes reconvened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. OCT. 17/16 Council Members Present: Mayor Randy Hawes Councillor Carol Hamilton Councillor Jim Hinds Councillor Rhett Nicholson Councillor Danny Plecas
Council Members Absent: Councillor Pam Alexis Councillor Jenny Stevens
Staff Members Present: Ron Poole, Chief Administrative Officer Mike Younie, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer Haylee Gould, Administrative Assistant * Jay Jackman, Manager of Assets, Infrastructure and Projects Tracy Kyle, Director of Engineering and Public Works Jennifer Russell, Deputy Corporate Officer Dan Sommer, Director of Development Services *Present for a portion of the meeting
224 Regular Council Meeting Page 6 of 10 October 17, 2016
11. REMEMBRANCE DAY CEREMONY
RC16/576 Royal Canadian Legion Branch 57 OCT. 17/16 Mayor Hawes extended a welcome to members of the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 57. The Mayor stated that the District of Mission will proclaim the week of November 5 to 11, 2016 as “Veteran’s Week”, noting that the Legion’s poppy flag will be raised at Municipal Hall and would be flown during Veterans’ Week. The Mayor conveyed Mission’s gratitude to those who served Canada and for the sacrifices they made to keep our country a safe place for future generations. The Last Post and Reveille were played. The Legion President Pauline Mann recited the Act of Remembrance and presented poppies to Mayor and Council. On behalf of Council, the Mayor thanked the members of Royal Canadian Legion Branch 57 for attending and assisting in the Tribute.
RC16/577 Veterans’ Week Proclamation OCT. 17/16 Moved by Councillor Hamilton, seconded by Councillor Nicholson, and RESOLVED: That November 5 to 11, 2016 be proclaimed “Veterans’ Week” within the District of Mission. CARRIED
12. RESOLUTION TO ADOPT RECOMMENDATIONS OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT RC16/578 Moved by Councillor Hinds, seconded by Councillor Plecas, and OCT. 17/16 RESOLVED: 1. That the recommendations of the October 5, 2016 Freestanding Committee of the Whole (Corporate Administration and Finance – Budget) meeting, as contained in items COW16/048 to COW16/056, be adopted. 2. That the recommendations of the October 17, 2016 Committee of the Whole meeting, as contained in items RC16/563 to RC16/572, be adopted CARRIED
13. DELEGATIONS
RC16/579 Bert Hick, Rising Tide Consultants OCT. 17/16 Bert Hick from Rising Tide Consultants appeared before Council to discuss the provincial government initiative to permit the sale of wine on grocery store shelves. Mr. Hick advised that allowing grocery retailers to sell wine will increase the social costs to the municipality, as well as drive away business from small and medium size wineries and private liquor stores. He further noted that the City of Maple Ridge, City of Pitt Meadows, and City of North Vancouver gave consideration to the proposal to sell wine in grocery stores and after their respective public hearings voted not to permit it. Mr. Hick requested Council not support the initiative to sell wine on grocery store shelves.
225 Regular Council Meeting Page 7 of 10 October 17, 2016
Moved by Councillor Hinds, seconded by Councillor Hamilton, and RESOLVED: That staff be directed to bring forward a zoning bylaw amendment implementing a minimum 1.0 km distance requirement between all retailers of beverage alcohol. CARRIED
RC16/580 Jeff Guignard, The Alliance of Beverage Licensees (ABLE BC) OCT. 17/16 This delegation did not appear.
14. PROCLAMATIONS
RC16/581 Foster Family Month OCT. 17/16 Moved by Councillor Hamilton, seconded by Councillor Nicholson, and RESOLVED: That the month of October, 2016 be proclaimed “Foster Family Month” within the District of Mission. CARRIED
15. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS AND MINUTES RC16/582 Moved by Councillor Hinds, seconded by Councillor Nicholson, and OCT. 17/16 RESOLVED: That the following minutes be received as information: (a) Mission Traffic and Transit Committee meeting – June 2, 2016 (b) Cultural Resource Commission meeting – September 9, 2016 CARRIED
16. BYLAWS FOR CONSIDERATION RC16/583 Moved by Councillor Plecas, seconded by Councillor Hinds, and OCT. 17/16 RESOLVED: 1. That Late Item 16(h), “Zoning Amending Bylaw 5554-2016-5050(193)”, be added to the agenda for consideration of adoption; 2. That Late Item 16(i), “Street Naming Bylaw 5555-2016 (Kennedy Terrace)”, be added to the agenda for consideration of adoption; 3. That Zoning Amending Bylaw 5435-2014-5050(140) (R14-005 – Pavlov) – a bylaw to rezone property at 12699 Cardinal Street from the Rural 36 (RU36) Zone to the Rural 16 Secondary Dwelling (RU16s) Zone, be adopted. 4. That Zoning Amending Bylaw 5591-2016-5050(217) R16-029 (Carr) – a bylaw to rezone the property at 33286 13th Avenue from Urban Residential 558 (R558) Zone to Urban Residential 558 Secondary Dwelling (R558s) Zone, be adopted. 5. That Permissive Tax Exemption Bylaw 5596-2016, a bylaw to provide for permissive exemption from taxation of certain properties for the 2017 tax year, be adopted. 6. That Permissive Tax Exemption Bylaw 5597-2016, a bylaw to provide for permissive exemption from taxation of certain properties for the 2017 to 2020 tax years, be adopted. 7. That Street Naming (Harper Terrace and Gilmour Terrace) Bylaw 5598-2016, a bylaw to name two cul-de-sacs in a new subdivision, be adopted. 226 Regular Council Meeting Page 8 of 10 October 17, 2016
8. That Zoning Amending Bylaw 5554-2016-5050(193) R15-028 (Orca Pacific Developments) – a bylaw to add a new Comprehensive Development Zone (CD38) to the zoning bylaw and to rezone the property at 11445 Wilson Street from Rural 16 (RU16) Zone to Rural Residential 7 Secondary Dwelling (RR7s) Zone and Comprehensive Development 38 (CD38) Zone, be adopted. 9. That Street Naming Bylaw 5555-2016 (Kennedy Terrace), a bylaw to name a street running southwest over a portion of 11445 Wilson Street as “Kennedy Terrace”, be adopted. CARRIED Council discussed the Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw 5547-2016-4052(44) and Zoning Amending Bylaw 5548-2016-5050(190) applications for the property located at 31322 Caswell Avenue and directed staff to provide a third reading report with recommendations and options for requiring conditions as follows: set limits on the hours of operation; require dust and noise mitigation strategies, independent dust and noise studies and installation of a berm between Caswell Road and Shaw Pit; register a covenant on the properties owned by the proponent in Steelhead to restrict gravel operations for a set period of time; apply conditions to the operation of Shaw Pit by amending the Shaw Pit agreement; provide road improvements to Shaw Street south of Caswell Road; reconvene the Shaw Pit Neighbourhood Committee and open a dialogue with Council; provide a hydrogeological report for nearby wells and water sources; limit crushing operations to one mobile crusher for both the Caswell and Shaw pits; ensure contractors and independent truckers are aware of and adhere to all requirements in the agreement; restrict queuing of gravel trucks on Shaw Street; and impose consequences for non-compliance of the conditions.
17. DEVELOPMENT PERMITS FOR CONSIDERATION The Director of Development Services noted that an email dated October 7, 2016 in opposition to the Development Variance Permits for 32977 and 32975 3rd Avenue was received and was previously distributed to Council.
RC16/584 Development Variance Permit Application DV16-016 (32977 3rd Avenue) OCT. 17/16 Moved by Councillor Nicholson, seconded by Councillor Hamilton, and RESOLVED: That Development Variance Permit DV16-016 (32977 3rd Avenue) to vary Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009, Section 603, Part D, Subsection 1 – Interior Side Setback to Principal Building by reducing the total combined interior side setback from 4.5 m (14.76 ft) to 3.0 m (9.8 ft), be approved. OPPOSED: Councillor Hinds CARRIED
227 Regular Council Meeting Page 9 of 10 October 17, 2016
RC16/585 Development Variance Permit DV16-017 (32975 3rd Avenue) OCT. 17/16 Moved by Councillor Nicholson, seconded by Councillor Hamilton, and RESOLVED: That Development Variance Permit DV16-017 (32975 3rd Avenue) to vary Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009, Section 603, Part D, Subsection 1 – Interior Side Setback to Principal Building by reducing the total combined interior side setback from 4.5 m (14.76 ft) to 3.0 m (9.8 ft), be approved. OPPOSED: Councillor Hinds CARRIED
18. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR APPROVAL RC16/586 Moved by Councillor Nicholson, seconded by Councillor Plecas, and OCT. 17/16 RESOLVED: 1. That the following minutes be adopted: (a) Regular Council Meeting – October 3, 2016 (b) Freestanding Committee of the Whole (Corporate Administration and Finance – Budget) Meeting – October 5, 2016 (c) Freestanding Committee of the Whole (Engineering Committee – Urban Local Residential Road Widths) Meeting – October 6, 2016 2. That the minutes of the Public Hearing held on September 20, 2016 be amended on page 3 to include the following correspondence received in opposition to the application: Email dated September 20, 2016 from Tracy Lyster and Don Mair Email dated September 20, 2016 from Val Pack 3. That the minutes of the Public Hearing held on September 20, 2016 be adopted, as amended. CARRIED
19. RESOLUTIONS RELEASED FROM CLOSED
RC16/587 Municipal Grants Select Committee Appointments OCT. 17/16 The following resolution was released from the Closed Council meeting held on October 3, 2016: Municipal Grants Select Committee Appointments The following community members have been appointed to the Municipal Grants Select Committee: a) Ed Betterton; b) Glen Kask; c) Shirley Mitchell; and d) Jo Priestley.
20. NEW/OTHER BUSINESS There was no new/other business.
228 Regular Council Meeting Page 10 of 10 October 17, 2016
21. NOTICES OF MOTION There were no notices of motion.
22. QUESTION PERIOD There were no questions from the public.
23. ADJOURNMENT RC16/588 Moved by Councillor Plecas, seconded by Councillor Nicholson, and OCT. 17/16 RESOLVED: That the meeting be adjourned. CARRIED
The meeting was adjourned at 7:52 p.m.
RANDY HAWES, MAYOR MIKE YOUNIE, CORPORATE OFFICER 229
Minutes of the Freestanding Committee of the Whole (Corporate Administration & Finance Committee - Budget) meeting of the DISTRICT OF MISSION held in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Hall, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, British Columbia, on Thursday, October 20, 2016 commencing at 1:00 p.m.
Committee Members Present: Mayor Randy Hawes Councillor Pam Alexis (Chair) Councillor Carol Hamilton Councillor Jim Hinds Councillor Rhett Nicholson Councillor Danny Plecas
Committee Members Absent: Councillor Jenny Stevens
Staff Members Present: Ron Poole, Chief Administrative Officer Rogine Battel, Manager, RCMP Administration Michael Boronowski, Manager of Civic Engagement and Community Initiatives Stacey Crawford, Economic Development Officer Ted De Jager, Officer in Charge, Mission RCMP Detachment Jason Horton, Manager Parks & Facilities Kerri Onken, Deputy Treasurer/Collector Scott Ross, Manager of Accounting Services Dale Unrau, Fire Chief Mike Younie, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer Debi Decker, Administrative Assistant Haylee Gould, Administrative Assistant
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 1:00 p.m.
2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
COW16/059 Moved by Councillor Plecas, seconded by Councillor Nicholson, and OCT 20/16 RESOLVED: That the October 20, 2016 Corporate Administration and Finance Committee agenda be adopted. CARRIED
3. CORPORATE ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE
COW 16/060 Agenda Overview Presentation OCT 20/16 The Deputy Treasurer/Collector gave a presentation on the 2017 budgeting process, where we are in that process, what to expect at future budget meetings, actions required from Council and what is on today’s agenda. 230 Freestanding Committee of the Whole (Corporate Administration & Finance - Budget) Meeting October 20, 2016 Page 2 of 3
COW 16/061 Municipal Comparisons of Residential Property Taxes and Charges OCT 20/16 A report and presentation from the Deputy Treasurer/Collector dated October 20, 2016 was provided to show how Mission’s 2016 municipal property tax levy on an averaged assessed home compares with the 2016 property tax levy on averaged assessed homes in other Lower Mainland municipalities.
COW 16/062 2017 General Operating Fund Draft Budget Status OCT 20/16 A report dated October 20, 2016 along with a presentation from the Deputy Treasurer/Collector was provided to update the Committee on the latest status of the draft 2017 general operating fund budget. It was announced that the recommendations from the report were being removed. Staff reviewed the draft 2017 budget as follows: • Potential tax impact of 1.43% to maintain existing service levels • Potential tax impact of 2.27% to increase service levels • Additional RCMP member costs $135,000 or 0.47% potential tax impact • Outstanding budget issues to be resolved: o BC Transit 2017-2018 budget o New Construction Revenue
Discussion ensued around the proposed hiring of an additional RCMP officer, and the Committee agreed that a decision on the timing of hiring an RCMP officer would be finalized after public input on this budget item had been received.
COW 16/063 Projected 2017 Property Tax, Drainage Levy and Utility User Fees Impact OCT 20/16 on Average assessed Home in Mission A report from the Deputy Treasurer/Collector dated October 20, 2016 was provided to the Committee to show the approximate dollar impact the various budget recommendations will have on Mission’s average assessed home’s 2017 property tax notice.
COW 16/064 Debt Servicing Cost Savings (deferred from September 14, 2106) OCT 20/16 A report from the Director of Finance entitled “Debt Servicing Cost Savings”, deferred from the September 14, 2016, Freestanding Committee of the Whole Meeting, was provided for the Committee’s discussion and consideration. Discussion ensued around the possibility of redirecting the debt servicing cost savings to another reserve fund instead of the Debt Retirement Reserve Fund. Staff confirmed that the savings could be redirected into the Financial Stabilization and earmarked as debt servicing cost savings and could be moved to the Debt Retirement Reserve Fund at any time. After the issue was discussed, it was:
231 Freestanding Committee of the Whole (Corporate Administration & Finance - Budget) Meeting October 20, 2016 Page 3 of 3
Moved by Councillor Hamilton, RECOMMENDED: That $230,400 of debt servicing cost savings that will be realized in 2017 and annually thereafter, resulting from the Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia refinancing the District’s existing debt issues #95 and #99, be redirected to the Financial Stabilization Reserve Fund. CARRIED
4. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE PUBLIC
COW16/065 Moved by Councillor Alexis, seconded by Councillor Hinds, and OCT 20/16 RESOLVED: That, pursuant to Sections 90 and 92 of the Community Charter, this Corporate Administration and Finance Committee meeting be closed to the public as the subject matter being considered relates to the following: • Section 90(1)(c) of the Community charter – labour relations or other employee relations CARRIED
5. ADJOURNMENT
COW16/066 Moved by Councillor Hinds, seconded by Councillor Plecas, and OCT 20/16 RESOLVED: That the meeting be adjourned. CARRIED The meeting was adjourned at 1:54 p.m.
______RANDY HAWES, MICHAEL YOUNIE, MAYOR CORPORATE OFFICER
232
Minutes of the SPECIAL MEETING of the DISTRICT OF MISSION COUNCIL held in the Conference Room of the Municipal Hall, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, British Columbia, on Monday, October 24, 2016 commencing at 9:00 a.m.
Council Members Present: Mayor Randy Hawes Councillor Pam Alexis Councillor Carol Hamilton Councillor Jim Hinds Councillor Rhett Nicholson Councillor Danny Plecas Councillor Jenny Stevens District of Mission Staff Members Present: Ron Poole, Chief Administrative Officer Mike Younie, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer Stacey Crawford, Economic Development Officer Gina MacKay, Manager of Long Range Planning and Special Projects Clare Seeley, Executive Assistant Economic Development Select Committee Members Present: Paul Adams, Committee Member Rocky Blondin, Committee Chair Cory Padula, Committee Member Wade Peary, Committee Member Pia Ritch, Committee Member Raymond Szabada, Committee Member Beverly Toews, Committee Member Craig Toews, Committee Member
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order.
2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
SC16/040 Moved by Councillor Plecas, seconded by Councillor Alexis and OCT. 24/16 RESOLVED: That the October 24, 2016 Special Council Agenda (with the Economic Development Select Committee) be adopted. CARRIED
3. NEW BUSINESS
SC16/041 Presentation by the Economic Development Select Committee (EDSC) OCT. 24/16 i. Opening Remarks The Economic Development Officer introduced the newly appointed EDSC Chair, Mr. Blondin, and advised that he would be presenting and leading the group discussion. The EDSC have independently determined priority areas of focus which are open for discussion and adjustment. 233 Special Council Meeting October 24, 2016 Page 2 of 3
ii. EDSC Introductions The Chair and committee members were introduced to Council with a focus on their industry background and the areas of expertise they bring to the committee. iii. Background SWOT–L (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats and Limitations Mr. Padula provided an historical perspective of EDSC efforts to establish an economic development vision for the community and how best to harness future change with a long term vision. In the first meeting of the newly formed EDSC, he proposed that a SWOT-L was required to assess the environmental landscape and bring economic development recommendations to Council. A detailed copy of the survey results (including the SWOT-L) undertaken by the EDSC was provided to Council in advance of the meeting: . EDSC Aggregate Survey Responses Council was in agreement with the results, adding further limitations can include working with external parties and federal and provincial governments. The EDSC acknowledged that staff of the District of Mission has created a business friendly environment. A testimonial from Dan Schubert of Schubert Plumbing was shared. Council directed that the testimonial be shared with staff. iv. Process utilized Mr. Blondin explained the EDSC would use Agile Development to move agreed priorities forward, which will be organized into short (year 1), medium (year 2) and long term (year 3 – 10+) goals. It was noted that the actions undertaken in the short term will affect the medium and long term goals and any forward planning must allow for changes and adaptation. P. Adams joined the meeting at 9:38 a.m. R. Szabada left the meeting at 9:50 a.m. v. Findings and Recommendations The top three priorities were identified as industrial land, the waterfront and transportation. It was acknowledged that all three are interlinked and will require alignment now and moving forward. Future considerations include the release of the updated Official Community Plan (OCP) and the Transportation Master Plan. Other identified themes were downtown revitalization, tourism, education/mentorship and the need for an economic development strategy. vi. Feedback and Discussion Industrial Land: Discussion ensued and it was determined that Council will define the areas of focus for EDSC with regard to the industrial land. Considerations must include the capacity of water supply, Silverdale land development, the demand for industrial land in Mission and if there are industry incentives that could be offered as part of the attraction strategy.
234 Special Council Meeting October 24, 2016 Page 3 of 3
The waterfront: Discussion ensued and the following objectives were agreed upon, and correspond to work that is currently underway by District staff. The short term goals are to de-risk development investment, through undertaking further geotechnical and environmental studies and reviewing those already available through the District and cooperating landowners. This will run alongside landowner engagement to manage expectations. The medium term focus will be on landowner alignment and to develop a transition strategy. Transportation: Supporting documentation was provided in the meeting: Transportation Vision. After discussion it was agreed that the short term goal is to identify the current state and constraints on the roads, river, rail, data, power, water and sewer and to select priorities. The EDSC will review the Transportation Master Plan. The EDSC will determine current symptoms and bring recommendations forward to Council. Council requested that transit is included as part of this discussion. C. Toews left the meeting at 11:00 a.m. Mr. Blondin thanked the EDSC members for their time enabling the presentation and recommendations to be bought forward to Council. He noted that action items will be addressed at future EDSC meetings, which are held every two months, and findings will be presented to Council at a future date. Mayor Hawes thanked the committee for their focus and identification of key areas for economic development, advising that Council is impressed with the expertise and commitment of the group.
4. ADJOURNMENT
SC16/042 Moved by Councillor Plecas, seconded by Councillor Hinds, and OCT 24/16 RESOLVED: That the Special Council meeting be adjourned. CARRIED The meeting was adjourned at 11:43 a.m.
______RANDY HAWES MIKE YOUNIE MAYOR CORPORATE OFFICER
235
Minutes of the SPECIAL MEETING of the DISTRICT OF MISSION COUNCIL (for the purpose of going into a closed meeting) held in the Conference Room of the Municipal Hall, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, British Columbia, on Wednesday, October 26, 2016 commencing at 1:01 p.m.
Council Members Present: Councillor Jim Hinds (Acting Mayor) Councillor Pam Alexis Councillor Carol Hamilton Councillor Danny Plecas
Council Members Absent: Mayor Randy Hawes Councillor Rhett Nicholson Councillor Jenny Stevens
Staff Members Present: Ron Poole, Chief Administrative Officer Mike Younie, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer Kris Boland, Director of Finance Gina MacKay, Manager of Long Range Planning and Special Projects Dan Sommer, Director of Development Services Christine Brough, Executive Assistant
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order.
2. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE PUBLIC
SC(C)16/021 Moved by Councillor Alexis, seconded by Councillor Plecas, and OCT. 26/16 RESOLVED: That, pursuant to Sections 90 and 92 of the Community Charter, this Special Meeting of Council be closed to the public as the subject matter being considered relates to the following: • Section 90(2)(b) of the Community Charter – the consideration of information received and held in confidence relating to negotiations between the municipality and a provincial government or the federal government or both, or between a provincial government or the federal government or both and a third party. CARRIED
3. ADJOURN TO CLOSED COUNCIL MEETING
SC(C)16/022 Moved by Councillor Alexis, seconded by Councillor Plecas, and OCT 26/16 RESOLVED: That the Special Council meeting be adjourned. CARRIED
236 Special Council Meeting October 26, 2016 Page 2 of 2
The meeting was adjourned at 1:02 p.m.
______JIM HINDS MIKE YOUNIE ACTING MAYOR/CHAIR CORPORATE OFFICER