REGULAR MEETING OF COUNCIL AGENDA
Monday, January 25, 2021 at 7:00 pm Council Chambers (via video conference) 325 Wallace Street, Hope, British Columbia
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
THAT the January 25, 2021 Regular Council Meeting Agenda be adopted, as presented.
3. ADOPTION OF MINUTES
(a) Regular Meeting of Council – January 11, 2021 (1) THAT the Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting held January 11, 2021 be adopted, as presented.
4. DELEGATIONS
(a) Presentation from Mr. Brian LaCas, President, LaCas Consultants Inc. (7) Re: Coquihalla River Flood Risk, Flood Mapping and Flood Mitigation Planning Study
5. STAFF REPORTS
(a) Report dated January 19, 2021 from the Chief Administrative Officer (44) Re: Coquihalla River Flood Risk, Flood Mapping and Flood Mitigation Planning Study THAT Council receives and endorses the Coquihalla River Flood Risk, Flood Mapping and Flood Mitigation Planning Study; AND THAT Council direct staff to prepare a grant submission for the selected project; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to Council any costs and conditions related to the project for final authority to submit the grant application.
6. COMMITTEE REPORTS
There are no Committee reports.
7. MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS
(a) Mayor Robb to address For Information Correspondence item # 14 (119) Re: Request for Support of Private Member’s Bill: Bill C-213: An Act to Enact the Canada Pharmacare Act
File No. 0550-02 Page 2 of 3 Regular Council Meeting Agenda – January 25, 2021
8. PERMITS AND BYLAWS
(a) District of Hope Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 1494, 2020 (130) Re: 546 Yale Street THAT District of Hope Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 1494, 2020 be read a third time, in order to rezone the property legally described as Lot A District Lot 14 YDYD Plan 27518 PID 004-827-431; 546 Yale Street from Single Family Residential (RS-1) to Single Family Residential with a Secondary Suite (RS-1T). (b) Report dated January 18, 2021 from the Director of Community Development (132) Re: Temporary Use Permit – 21415 Trans Canada Highway
Mayor Robb to read Summary of Public Submissions. (143) Council has two options: Option #1 to approve the issuance of a Temporary Use Permit or Option #2 to not approve the issuance of a Temporary Use Permit. Option #1 THAT Council approve the issuance of a Temporary Use Permit for the placement of up to a maximum twenty (20) recreational vehicle and park model sites on the property legally described as Lot A Section 17 TWP 5 RGE 26 W6M YDYD Plan KAP47823; PID 017-871-719, 21415 Trans Canada Highway for a three-year period. Option #2 THAT Council not approve the issuance of a Temporary Use Permit for the placement of up to twenty (20) recreational vehicle and park model sites on the property legally described as Lot A Section 17 TWP 5 RGE 26 W6M YDYD Plan KAP47823; PID 017-871-719, 21415 Trans Canada Highway. (c) Municipal Ticket Information Amendment Bylaw No. 1496, 2021 (197) THAT Municipal Ticket Information Amendment Bylaw No. 1496, 2021 be adopted this 25th day of January, 2021. (d) Bylaw Notice Enforcement Amendment Bylaw No. 1497, 2021 (199) THAT Bylaw Notice Enforcement Amendment Bylaw No. 1497, 2021 be adopted this 25th day of January, 2021.
9. FOR INFORMATION CORRESPONDENCE
(a) For Information Correspondence (201) THAT the For Information Correspondence List dated January 25, 2021 be received.
10. OTHER PERTINENT BUSINESS
(a) BC Housing Existing Temporary Shelter at 650 Old Hope Princeton Way Re: Extension for Decommissioning Resolution passed at the November 23, 2020 Regular Council Meeting: “THAT Council authorizes BC Housing to temporarily occupy the property at 650 Old Hope Princeton Way for the purpose of continuing to provide the existing 15-bed temporary shelter, until April 1, 2021, at which time the shelter must be decommissioned.”
Page 3 of 3 Regular Council Meeting Agenda – January 25, 2021
11. QUESTION PERIOD
Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, Council Meetings are closed to the public; however, the public can email questions and/or comments to the Director of Corporate Services, [email protected]
12. NOTICE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING
Monday, February 8, 2021 at 7:00 p.m.
13. RESOLUTION TO PROCEED TO CLOSED MEETING
THAT the meeting be closed to the public to consider matters pursuant to the Community Charter Section 90(1)(c) [labour relations or other employee relations], Section 90(1)(e) [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(1)(g) [litigation or potential litigation affecting the municipality] and for the purpose of receiving and adopting closed meeting minutes.
14. RETURN TO OPEN MEETING
15. ADJOURN REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, January 11, 2021 Council Chambers (via Zoom video conference) District of Hope Municipal Office 325 Wallace Street, Hope, B.C.
Council Members Present: Mayor Peter Robb Via Zoom Conference: Councillor Bob Erickson Councillor Scott Medlock Councillor Dusty Smith Councillor Victor Smith Councillor Heather Stewin Councillor Craig Traun Staff Present: John Fortoloczky, Chief Administrative Officer Via Zoom Conference: Donna Bellingham, Director of Corporate Services Tammy McLaren, Confidential Executive Assistant Tom DeSorcy, Fire Chief (Zoom Operator)
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Robb called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Moved / Seconded THAT the January 11, 2021 Regular Council Meeting Agenda be adopted, as presented. CARRIED.
3. ADOPTION OF MINUTES (a) Regular Meeting of Council - December 14, 2020 Moved / Seconded THAT the Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting held December 14, 2020 be adopted, as presented. CARRIED. 4. DELEGATIONS There were no Delegations. 5. STAFF REPORTS (a) Report dated January 4, 2021 from the Chief Administrative Officer Re: Economic Development Strategy 2021—2026 Update The Chief Administrative Officer provided an overview of the Economic Development Strategy Update for the years 2021—2026 noting that the document is updated every 5 years and reflects year-over-year work plans. Public consultation on the draft plan closed at 4pm on December 18, 2020 and no comments were received from the public.
1 1 District of Hope Regular Meeting Minutes – January 11, 2021
The Chief Administrative Officer noted that this update includes two important changes: 1) incorporation of the Municipal, Regional District Tax (hotel tax) and recognizes AdvantageHOPE as the destination marketing organization for the Hope, Cascades & Canyons tourism region, and 2) takes into account the hiring of a dedicated Economic Development Officer.
Along with some additions and updates to the existing strategy focuses the draft 2021—2026 update has three newly identified focus areas, namely real estate, neighbourhood development, and disaster recovery.
Council discussion related to savings from unspent wages for the position of Economic Development Officer that was vacant for much of last year. It was suggested to put some of those savings towards directional signage highlighting the downtown core. It was noted that AdvantageHOPE had already identified the extra wages unspent and is holding those monies in reserve. The Chief Administrative Officer added that the District is currently working on phase 1 of the District Signage Plan and will keep Council apprised when moving to phase 2 for any additional updates or decisions from Council.
Moved / Seconded THAT Council endorse and adopt the 2021—2026 Economic Development Strategy Update. CARRIED.
6. COMMITTEE REPORTS There were no Committee reports. 7. MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS
Mayor Robb reported: • He had a meeting with Minister Eby regarding ideas on moving forward with the emergency shelter and what happens after it closes April 1, 2021. As well, all of Council was invited to the Community Advisory Committee (CAC) joint meeting with stakeholders and Minister Eby to discuss the next steps after April 1st. • He attended the December FVRD Board and Hospital Board meetings. • He attended the FVRD Budget Meeting. The Mayor noted that the average residential property assessment went from $402,896.00 in 2020 to $422,804.00 adding that the property values were as of July 31, 2020 and locally there were a great deal of sales after that date. • Fraser Health would like to remind everyone again to remain diligent and wear a mask, social distance, and wash hands. • Front-line health care workers at Fraser Canyon Hospital, Fraser Hope Lodge and Riverside Manor have all been vaccinated in the first round of the COVID-19 vaccines. More rollout information will be coming from Fraser Health and Public Health on those next in line to be vaccinated. Councillor Erickson reported: • He participated in a one-on-one phone conversation with Minister Eby regarding the homeless shelter adding that it was a good opportunity to share perspectives.
2 2 District of Hope Regular Meeting Minutes – January 11, 2021
• He participated in the CAC joint meeting along with the rest of Council. The Committee is looking to find a solution for the shelter. Councillor Medlock reported: • He also participated in a phone conversation with Minister Eby and expressed appreciation that the Minister reached out to Council members individually, in trying to find a solution. • He also participated in the CAC joint meeting regarding next steps in finding a location for the shelter. Councillor V. Smith reported: • The Christmas light challenge was a great success with 110 homes and 12 streets entered. • He extended congratulations to the winners in the Passport to Christmas program and thanked the Chamber of Commerce, AdvantageHOPE, Hope Communities in Bloom (CiB) and all local businesses for taking part. • The Hope Rotary Club has started to take out danger trees along the Rotary Trail. The trees are down and clean up has started. A layer of crush will be put down to spruce up the trail and provide better footing. He extended thanks to all of the volunteers on this project with special thanks to Wayne Furness, Bud Prest and Ken Hayes for donating their expertise, time and equipment. • The CiB used vehicle clean-up program raised $1,000 for the Food Bank and helped clean-up the District. The Fraser Valley Cash for Cars Program helped with a large cash donation to make this happen. The Hope CiB would like to thank Mayor and Council for their continued support for this program. • He participated in the CAC joint meeting with stakeholders. • He also participated in a telephone conversation with Minister Eby and thanked him for taking the time to reach out to speak with members of Council.
Councillor Stewin reported: • She too spoke with Minister Eby in her half-hour timeslot. • She also attended the joint CAC meeting. • The January 7th Purple Lights meeting was postponed. Update will be provided later. • The Canyon Golden Agers continue to follow the public health orders and not gather at this time. • She was contacted by a community member mentioning that the laneway between the hospital and the new 7-11 is being used to access the Fraser Hope Lodge, and is becoming increasingly busy. They have asked if a stop sign could be installed at this location. Staff has made a note and will follow-up. Councillor Traun reported: • He attended the joint meeting with the CAC to discuss how to move forward with the supportive housing initiative and thanked them for including Council in their meeting.
3 3 District of Hope Regular Meeting Minutes – January 11, 2021
• He also spoke with Minister Eby and thanked him for reaching out. • He extended thanks to GoFishBC, DFO and the Province, and Ogilvie Mountain Holdings for their work in giving the Rupert Street boat launch a much-needed facelift. Councillor Dusty Smith reported: • He attended the joint meeting with the CAC. • He has not yet spoken with Minister Eby but is looking forward to the call and the opportunity to share his perspective. • He continues to get concerns from community members regarding accidents at the junction of Old Hope Princeton Way and Water Avenue. • He is looking forward to the AdvantageHOPE meeting on January 21, 2021 with the new Economic Development Officer.
8. PERMITS AND BYLAWS
(a) Report dated December 30, 2020 from the Director of Corporate Services Re: Municipal Ticketing Information Bylaw and Bylaw Notice Enforcement Bylaw Updates The Director of Corporate Services noted that over time as the Zoning Bylaw has been updated and amended, some of the section numbering has changed, and it was recently discovered that the section numbering in the Municipal Ticketing Bylaw no longer corresponds with the applicable sections in the Zoning Bylaw.
The Director of Corporate Services added that bylaw staff is prioritizing unsightly properties this year and staff is recommending that section 8.8 Outdoor Storage be added as a ticketable offence that can be used when voluntary compliance cannot be obtained.
Question was raised regarding the process for issuing tickets for ongoing bylaw infractions. The Director of Corporate Services responded that depending on how the bylaw is written, subsequent bylaw offence notices in the same amount can be issued for each day the offence continues until the contravention is corrected. The Director of Corporate Services added that bylaw enforcement officers work with the individual to seek voluntary compliance first before ticketing. Moved / Seconded THAT Municipal Ticket Information Amendment Bylaw No. 1496, 2021 be read a first, second and third time this 11th day of January, 2021. CARRIED. With regard to the definition of Outdoor Storage (Zoning Bylaw), a concern was raised that it does not provide clarity respecting residential or commercial properties yet specifically references residential properties later in the Bylaw. The Director of Corporate Services made note of the concern and will work with the Director of Community Development on further defining the definition when the Zoning Bylaw is next amended.
4 4 District of Hope Regular Meeting Minutes – January 11, 2021
Moved / Seconded THAT Bylaw Notice Enforcement Amendment Bylaw No. 1497, 2021 be read a first, second and third time this 11th day of January, 2021. CARRIED. 9. FOR INFORMATION CORRESPONDENCE
(a) For Information Correspondence
Moved / Seconded THAT the For Information Correspondence List dated January 11, 2021, be received. CARRIED. (b) Accounts Payable Cheque Listing
Moved / Seconded THAT the Accounts Payable Cheque Listing for the period of December 1 – 31, 2020 be received. CARRIED.
Regarding clean-up of unsightly premises, a question was raised with respect to recovery of associated costs. The Director of Corporate Services confirmed that if bylaw enforcement has to go on-site to clean up a property an invoice is sent to the property owner for the works conducted. If the invoice remains unpaid at the end of the year, the amount owing is rolled to property taxes. 10. OTHER PERTINENT BUSINESS
There was no other pertinent business.
11. QUESTION PERIOD
Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, Council Meetings are closed to the public; however, the public can email questions and/or comments to the Director of Corporate Services, [email protected]
12. NOTICE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING
Monday, January 25, 2021 at 7:00 p.m.
13. RESOLUTION TO PROCEED TO CLOSED MEETING
Moved / Seconded THAT the meeting be closed to the public to consider matters pursuant to Section 90(1)(e) [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] of the Community Charter, and for the purpose of receiving and adopting closed meeting minutes. CARRIED. The meeting moved to In Camera meeting at 7:31 p.m.
5 5 District of Hope Regular Meeting Minutes – January 11, 2021
14. RETURN TO OPEN MEETING
The Regular meeting reconvened at 8:51 p.m.
15. ADJOURN REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
Moved / Seconded THAT the Regular Council Meeting be adjourned at 8:51 p.m. CARRIED.
Certified a true and correct copy of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of Council held January 11, 2021 in Council Chambers, via Zoom video conference, District of Hope, British Columbia.
Mayor Director of Corporate Services
6 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
REPORT/RECOMMENDATION
TO COUNCIL
REPORT DATE: 19 January 2021 FILE: 5225-07
SUBMITTED BY: Chief Administrative Officer
MEETING DATE: 25 January 2021
SUBJECT: COQUIHALLA RIVER FLOOD RISK, FLOOD MAPPING AND FLOOD MITIGATION PLANNING STUDY
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this report is to provide Council with the above study, and seek endorsement for a first flood mitigation project as a result.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT Council receives and endorses the Coquihalla River Flood Risk, Flood Mapping and Flood Mitigation Planning Study;
AND THAT Council direct staff to prepare a grant submission for the selected project;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to Council any costs and conditions related to the project for final authority to submit the Grant Application.
OCP PUBLIC CONSULTATION:
Not applicable.
ALTERNATIVES & IMPLICATIONS:
Despite the significant work undertaken to prepare the report and proposed project analysis, Council could decide the following:
Council could decide to accept and endorse the Study and not select one (or more) of the proposed ten projects to consider moving forward. This would still retain the data produced by the study but would not then operationalize it and undertake an action step to address flooding concerns. Such a decision would likely save the District some money depending on whether or not appropriate granting opportunities require municipalities to share cost. It would also likely save money in conducting background engineering and other works to prepare a grant application as Shovel Ready. Not selecting a project(s) may well also miss a significant window of opportunity regarding anticipated Federal COVID recovery related funding of up to 100 billion dollars, over the next three years, along with new Provincial funding.
1 44
Council could also decide to accept and endorse the Study and, as recommended, select one (or more) project to prepare for grant application and ultimately construction. This alternative would provide for the intended purpose of the Study, which was to provide the baseline data and modelling so as to clearly indicate the need for such projects. It would also provide for the quickest concrete action to address flooding and erosion concerns. Conversely, preparing and undertaking projects will involve staff time and costs. These cannot by quantified exactly yet, however one aspect of the report is to identify funding sources that provide the best value for money for the District.
ANALYSIS:
A. Rationale:
The rationale for this Report, and the decisions it recommends reflect Council’s previous concerns regarding potential flooding and erosion along the Coquihalla River within the District’s boundaries. Council previously directed staff to submit a grant application in order to get the Report, and associated studies, completed so as to best meet the Provincial and Federal requirements when assessing grant applications. The Report provides for a detailed statement of risks, flood modelling and mapping, and flood mitigation planning project options.
In collaborating with the Province as part of the grant application process to undertake this work, the Province will now accept and acknowledge the risks we face. This in turn will allow the District to best submit project application for financial assistance as the risks are already established and accepted.
Further, the Report (and provided present modelling assumptions) will also be shared with the Province to add to the current flooding body of knowledge. This will also best provide for a strong relationship between the Province and the District when considering future works and information requests.
The Report itself consists of eleven sections that are as follows:
1. Introduction 2. Scope of Work 3. Documents Reviewed or Referenced 4. Flood Risk and Flood Mapping 5. Fisheries Values 6. Riparian Values 7. Flood Mitigation Planning 8. Environmental Permitting 9. Funding Opportunities 10. Conclusions and Recommendations 11. Closure and Report Limitations
2 45
It is also worth noting that the work of this report will provide documented assumptions pertaining to the present conditions for flood control modelling on the lower Coquihalla River, which could be utilized by a Qualified Professional Engineer, if and when further review or analysis is conducted. This is a substantial piece of work that has provided the basis for much of the Report.
B. Attachments:
Presentation as prepared by the LCI Engineering Group. Formal Report – District of Hope, Flood Risk, Flood Mapping and Flood Mitigation Planning
C. Strategic Plan Objectives:
The work involved in producing the Report and providing a list of prioritized projects seeks to further the District’s goals of providing for public safety and economic development.
D. Policy (Existing/Relevance/None):
Not applicable.
E. For OCP Amendments only
Not applicable.
F. Relevant History:
The issue surrounding floodplain flooding, riverbed raising by aggradation, and overall risk has existed for some time. Flood plain issues have been dealt with in the past via development permits for flood prone areas adjacent the Coquihalla River which were halted and/or required significant supplementary flood control engineering and works to meet Provincial standards for development.
On 26 August 2020, the Director of Community Development submitted a report regarding the Lower Coquihalla River Flood Hazard Assessment and Gravel Deposition, during a Committee of the Whole. Council received this report and presentation from Mr. Brian LaCas, FEC, P.Eng., Sr. Hydrotechnical Engineer (LCI, LaCas Consultants Inc.) and Council officially received this report as a prelude to further flood mitigation efforts. As a result, and in an effort to share costs, the District presented this topic to the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General during the 2019 Union of BC Municipalities Convention.
Subsequently, and in accordance with the Minister’s recommendations, applying for the Community Emergency Preparedness Fund for a study. This in turn will further support our future applications to this fund for structural flood mitigation (i.e., works).
3 46
On 13 January 2020, as a result of a Chief Administrative Officer Staff Report, moved the following resolution;
THAT The District of Hope flood mitigation planning funding application proposal is intended to secure essential funding needed strengthen and enhance flood mitigation works across the District of Hope and asso ciated communities; at risk from flood related events.
AND THAT Council directs staff to pr epare and submit t he District of Hope Community Emergency Preparedness Fund (CEPF) 2020 flood mi tigation planning proposal and Grant Application.
It was noted at that time that the grant opportunity applied for was for $150,000 with no contribution required from the District. Initially the District did not make the cut for approval. However, after significant lobbying and influence, extra funding was identified and we were notified of being approved on 17 September 2020. Shortly thereafter work began and producing the Report.
G. Committee/Commission/Board Recommendations:
Not applicable.
H. Resources:
Should one or more projects be chosen for grant application preparation, staff time will be involved and moved off other priorities.
I. Budget Implications
Unknown at this time should projects be chosen to move forward.
Prepared by:
Original Signed by John Fortoloczky Chief Administrative Officer
4 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 THE DISTRICT OF HOPE
BYLAW NO. 1494
A bylaw to amend the District of Hope Zoning Bylaw 1324 WHEREAS pursuant to Section 479 of the Local Government Act, a local government may adopt a Zoning Bylaw; AND WHEREAS the Council of the District of Hope deems it appropriate to amend Zoning Bylaw 1324, 2012 by rezoning a certain parcel of land; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the District of Hope, in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows: CITATION 1. This bylaw may be cited for all purposes as the “District of Hope Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 1494, 2020”. ENACTMENT 2. That a certain parcel of land situated in the District of Hope, Hope, British Columbia, and legally described as: Lot A District Lot 14 Yale Division Yale (Formerly Hope) District Plan 27518; PID 004-827-431 with the civic address of 546 Yale Street as shown on Schedule “A” attached to and forming part of this bylaw is hereby rezoned from Single Family Residential (RS-1) to Single Family Residential with a Secondary Suite (RS-1T) and the Zoning Map Schedule “B” of the District of Hope Zoning Bylaw 1324, 2012 is hereby amended to reflect this rezoning.
Read a first time this 14th day of December, 2020.
Read a second time this 14th day of December, 2020.
Advertised in the Hope Standard Newspaper on the 15th day of January, 2021 and the 22nd day of January, 2021
Public Hearing was held this XX day of XXXXX, 2021.
Read a third time this XX day of XXXXX, 2021.
Adopted this XX day of XXXXX, 2021.
Mayor Corporate Officer
Zoning Amendment Bylaw 1494, 2020 Page 1 of 2
130 DISTRICT OF HOPE BYLAW NO. 1494 SCHEDULE “A” ZONING AMENDMENT MAP
PROPERTY TO BE REZONED: FROM: Single Family Residential (RS-1)
TO: Single Family Residential with a Secondary Suite (RS-1T)
This is Schedule “A” attached to and forming part of the “District of Hope Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 1494, 2020”
______Mayor Director of Corporate Services
Zoning Amendment Bylaw 1494, 2020 Page 2 of 2
131
REPORT/RECOMMENDATION
TO COUNCIL
REPORT DATE: January 18, 2021 FILE: LDP 28/20
SUBMITTED BY: Jas Gill, Director of Community Development
MEETING DATE: January 25, 2021
SUBJECT: Temporary Use Permit for Fraser View Ventures – 21415 Trans Canada Highway
PURPOSE:
To obtain Council’s authorization to approve a request to issue a Temporary Use Permit (TUP) for the property at 21415 Trans Canada Highway in order to permit a temporary campground/holiday park.
RECOMMENDATION:
Council has two options: Option #1 to approve the issuance of a Temporary Use Permit or Option #2 to not approve the issuance of a Temporary Use Permit.
Option #1
THAT Council approve the issuance of a Temporary Use Permit for the placement of up to a maximum twenty (20) recreational vehicle and park model sites on the property legally described as Lot A Section 17 TWP 5 RGE 26 W6M YDYD Plan KAP47823; PID 017-871- 719, 21415 Trans Canada Highway for a three year period.
Option #2
THAT Council not approve the issuance of a Temporary Use Permit for the placement of up to twenty (20) recreational vehicle and park model sites on the property legally described as Lot A Section 17 TWP 5 RGE 26 W6M YDYD Plan KAP47823; PID 017-871-719, 21415 Trans Canada Highway.
ANALYSIS:
A. Rationale:
As introduced to Council at the November 23, 2020 meeting, in anticipation that the existing motels and campgrounds will be at capacity during the Trans Mountain Pipeline extension project, the property owner at 21415 Trans Canada Highway is requesting a Temporary Use Permit (TUP) in order to allow out-of-town workers to live in their recreational vehicle or in a park model unit throughout the year for the next 2-3 years on
1 132
their bare parcel of land. The number of recreation vehicle or park model pads to be placed on the lands is dependent upon the septic system capacity as determined by a qualified professional; however, will not exceed the maximum number of twenty (20) pads or units. There is a municipal water service to the site and staff continues to believe there is sufficient water for this proposal. Notices were mailed out to area residents within a 200 metre radius of the subject property on November 30, 2020 and the required advertisement was placed in the January 15, 2021 edition of the Hope Standard. We have received letters of opposition to this TUP Application and the District Corporate Services Department will be providing a summary of submissions under separate cover.
B. OCP Objectives:
As per the Official Community Plan, the three questions to be consistently asked in all levels and types of decision are: 1. Does the development move Hope toward our vision and goals for success and sustainability? Is it aligned with our OCP objectives and policies? On a micro level, this development mo ves Hope towards our vision and goals for success and sustainability. 2. Is it a flexible platform for future steps towards our vision, goals and objectives? This platform is a legislative requirement and therefore rigid. 3. Will it provide a good return on investment? From a housing perspective, this site will provide temporary accommodations for those pipeline workers which would include a spin-off of the worker contributing to the local economy. C. Attachments:
1. Location & Zoning Map Excerpt 2. OCP Land Use Map Excerpt 3. Applicant’s Temporary Use Permit Campground/Holiday Park Proposal
Prepared by: Approved for submission to Council:
Original Signed by Jas Gill Original Signed by John Fortoloczky Jas. Gill, John Fortoloczky, Director of Community Development Chief Administrative Officer
2 133 134 135 Temporary Use Permit Campground/Holiday Park Proposal
21415 Trans‐Canada Highway Hope, BC
Applicant – John Behrens
Fraser View Ventures LTD.
21415 Trans‐Canada Highway
Hope, BC
(604)750‐0238
136 Intent: It is anticipated that the Hope area will be inundated with out‐of‐town construction workers in the near future. The applicant is a local developer who would like to support our community’s economy by keeping as many of these workers within our community. With this in mind, the intent is to provide a portion of these workers with another option over and above motels and rental homes.
The following is the Developer’s submission for the District of Hope’s consideration.
Development Location:
indicates location of campground
Property Information:
Civic Address: 21415 Trans‐Canada Highway, Hope BC
Legal Description: Lot A, S. 17, Twp5, Rge 24, MW6, YDYD, Plan KAP47823.
PID: 017‐871‐719
Zoning: (L1) Limited Use
OCP Land Use: Limited Use
Property Size: 4.9 Ha (12.11 Ac)
Temporary Use Under Section 5.1.4 of the District of Hope Zoning Bylaw, it is understood that a Permit Guidelines: temporary use permit may be issued by resolution by Council in any rural zone subject to the following provisions:
137 1. Written documentation from the applicant including rationale to support the permit complete with a site plan and illustrative material about the proposed temporary use. 2. Documentation to prove that the proposed land use cannot be accommodated on a parcel suitably zoned or can only be undertaken with considerable hardship. 3. Notification by the applicant to all residents and property owners within 200 meters of the location of the proposed temporary use permit. 4. Removal of the temporary use no later than 3 years from the date the permit was issued. 5. Restoration of the parcel to a condition similar to the date the permit was issued. 6. Residentially zoned lands must be 0.809 hectares (2 acres)
The following attachments form part of the applicant’s submission to support the bylaw requirements in order to have the Temporary Use Permit considered by Council.
Guideline #1 “Rationale”
Legal Plan: (See Layout Drawing Attached Separately)
Rationale: The future vision for the subject property is to subdivide the lands into Country Residential lots but to bring this into fruition; substantial processing time will be required. During the interm, the District of Hope will be in need of several accommodation units for out‐of‐town workers and it is expected that all motels and existing campgrounds will be full therefore this proposal may assist with some of the
138 overflow lodging. The lack of local accommodation is expected to last for the next 2‐3 years.
Under the circumstances of this specific property, it does not make sense to rezone the property to accommodate the proposed temporary use especially if it must be rezoned again in three years; therefore a Temporary Use Permit is the perfect tool for both the applicant and the District of Hope. The validity period of a Temporary Use Permit also fits perfectly with the anticipated influx of workers. Support for this temporary use will further improve our local economy.
Guideline #2 “Zoning Suitabilty”
Permitted Use: The purpose of the Temporary Use Permit is to allow out‐of‐town workers to live in a recreational vehicle or a park model unit throughout the year for a period of 2‐3 years. The “Campground” defintion is for the temporary use of the travelling public. The “Holiday Park” definition is much more compatible as it allows for the temporary occupation to owners of recreational vehicles or camper sites and may contain strata lots; however, we have few properties within the community that possess this zone. Regardless, during the major influx of workers, it is anticipated that all exisiting campgrounds and holiday parks will be full.
Use Request: The type of use requested under the Temporary Use Permit is a blend of the Campground and Holiday Park zones plus the ability to allow for park models if the need arises. Further that there are no restrictions on the length of stay throughout the duration of the Temporary Use Permit.
Example of a “Park Model” Example of a “RV”
Design Criteria: The layout and design of this development must vary from some regulations within the Zoning Bylaw or the Campground and Holiday Park Bylaw namely for the following reasons:
139 Since the use is temporary, no hard surfacing such as ashphalt will be introduced onto the property.
No permanent structures with in‐ground foundations will be used as all infrastructures must be reinstated upon expiry of the permit. The only exception will be structures permitted under the current L1 Limited Use zone and as approved by the District of Hope.
The only in‐ground infrastructure will be services such as water and sanitary sewer lines to prevent freezing during the winter months.
A laundry/shower room or utility room may be introduced but will not have permanent foundations.
Other bylaw regulations such as buffer areas, set‐backs, density and drainage will be adhered to unless otherwise approved by the District of Hope.
There are no standpipes introduced to this development but the developer shall work with the District of Hope Fire Chief to ensure proper fire protection is in place.
Bear proof garbage containers or adequate garbage enclosures shall be implemented.
Fire pits are anticipated but local fire restrictions shall always be adhered to.
An entrance sign or address sign will be erected for emergency services.
No other permitted uses under the campground or holiday park zones are anticipated (ie. Restaurants, office, pools, etc.); however, any additional use considered will be reviewed for compliance by the District of Hope prior to implementation.
The number of pads will be governed by the capacity of the septic system as certified by a qualified professional. Municipal water is located on Landstrom Road at the entrance to the property. Hydro power will also come off of Landstrom Road.
Guideline #3 “Neighbourhood Notifaction”
Section 5.1.4.c. requires that the applicant notifies all residents and property owners within a 200 metre radius. This in fact will be performed by the District of Hope staff. The applicant agrees to pay for all associated costs such as newspaper ads or signs if required.
140
Guideline #4 “Removal of Temporary Use Permit”
Section 5.1.4.d. requires that the Temporary Use Permit be removed no later than 3 years from the date the permit is issued. Schedule M subsection 13 shows a Temporary Use Permit Renewal Fee of $1450.00 which is permitted under the Local Government Act. If renewal is an option, the applicant would like to reserve the ability to renew the permit if the need and time arises.
Guideline #5 “Restoration of Lands upon Termination”
Very little of the land will be disturbed during the development of the property and what little that is disturbed will easily be restored back to a vegetated state since no permanent structures are used. Very few trees were taken down during the initial construction so reinstatement will involve grading the disturbed area and planting grass.
Guideline #6 “Minimum Residential Parcel Size”
This is not a residential zone so does not apply and regardless, the subject property has an area of 4.9 hectares which is substantially larger than the minimum 0.8 hectares required in the bylaw.
Additional Supporting Information: The BC Archaeological Branch has been contacted and there are no known archeological sites recorded on the subject property; however, the applicant will adhere to the Provincial regulations should any of the works trigger an impact on archaeological materials. There is no known site contamination on the subject property and the Provincial Site Profile has been signed off indicating such. A portion of the subject property falls within the Geotechnical Hazard Development Permit Area; however, it was found that the proposed Campground/Holiday Park is outside of this portion of the property as indicated on the survey plan attached. The number of campsites will be dictated by the capacity of the septic system which was engineered by Fraser Valley Engineering Ltd. The applicant understands that approval of this Temporary Use Permit is subject to approvals from the Ministry of Transportation.
141
142
, 2020 th October 13
325 Wallace Street, P.O. Box 609 Hope, B.C. V0X IL0 Phone: 604-869-5671 Facsimile: 604-869-2275 Website: www.hope.ca Email: [email protected]
PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS 21415 Trans Canada Highway Temporary Use Permit
(Max 20 RV/Park Model Sites)
Submissions received in opposition of the proposal:
11 submissions in opposition of the proposal were received from the following residents:
Kathy Koopman, Dr. Kevin Koopman, Shaun Koopman, Rick and Linda Limb, Don Perrin, Roger and Jackie Nicholson, Dominic and Trudy Feely, Wes and Kathy Winger, David and Lori Williams, Mike Sear, Don Garrett.
Submissions also received from Trans Mountain and the Ministry of Transportation.
Petition in opposition of the proposal:
30 signatures on the Petition (excluding the signatures of those individuals for which there was a separate written submission: D. and T. Feely; R. and L. Limb; Kathy Koopman; Don Perrin; W. and K. Winger).
Summary of reasons for opposition: Public Safety and Emergency Issues: • Concerns of increased fire risk—increased units = increased fire risk. • Concerns of a fire emergency and an accident on the bridge preventing fire apparatus from deploying back into the townsite should there be a callout for another structure fire at the same time. • Increasing risk of wildfire every year in this rural area—an even greater concern with so many campfires proposed to be introduced into this windy, wooded area with this proposal. • Consider also that the Fraser Bridge is the only route for a fire response from Hope. • Landstrom Road is a dead-end street, this is always a concern for us as there is only one way for all of the residents to drive out as an escape route. Wildfires and Wildfire Urban Interface: o No indication of provincial wildfire threat analysis. o Is there the necessary resources and equipment to combat an interface fire at this location?
1 143 Public Submissions 21415 Trans Canada Highway – Temporary Use Permit
COVID: o There are COVID protocols in place for private campgrounds to follow under the PHO guidelines. What are the COVID policies for this proposal and how are the guidelines and protocols going to be enforced? o What are the District’s guidelines to ensure that washrooms/shower/laundry areas are restricted to totally self-contained units only? o Will there be a live-in supervisor on-site to ensure COVID protocols and bylaws are adhered to? (i.e fire pits, washroom/shower/laundry area, noise.)
Sight Distances and Traffic Concerns: o Increased vehicle traffic and parent concern for their children’s safety when walking to school due to the increase in traffic. o Inadequate sight lines—a concern especially when making a right-hand turn onto Landstrom Road off the Trans Canada Highway, and coming upon campground traffic. The right-hand turn onto Landstrom Rd. from the Highway is currently questionable at best without the added vehicles exiting from the proposed location. It is already a concern for traffic turning right off the Highway onto Landstrom Road—drivers have to be very careful and pay a lot of attention to the traffic behind them in order not to get rear-ended. o Concern of accidents on the main highway as well. o For vehicles exiting the 21415 Trans Canada Highway address, it is a very, very tight left turn for them to get over to the stop sign, with no clear sight lines. o The intersection of Highway #1 and Landstrom Road is very dark as the street light is not often lit up which makes it very dangerous. o A surge of vehicle traffic will be injected at the intersection shared by Landstrom Road and Haig Station Road—already a busy and accident-prone section of the Trans Canada Highway. Septic System Capacity:
• …“as determined by a qualified professional”: Is that professional paid for by the developer or the District? If the developer, will the District hire its own qualified professional to do a peer review? • With only a well depth of 40’ some neighbours are concerned about seepage into their wells from a septic field to accommodate 20 units. • Aquifer could get contaminated just by oil leaking from RVs. When this happens, I will be insisting that the city hook us up to city water for the same price that we pay to run our electric well pumps. • Skepticism about the suitability of the subject property to sufficiently accommodate the septic/sewer demands of the proposed densely arranged residences, without a result of contamination and some detriment to adjacent properties. • Lack of municipal sewer system. Geotechnical Hazard Development Permit Area:
• What extra steps will the District of Hope take to ensure the hazard risk accurately ensures no temporary structures are placed in harms way?
2 144 Public Submissions 21415 Trans Canada Highway – Temporary Use Permit
• This property is classified as a high geotechnical hazard and therefore an assessment must be done. The applicant will not be able to use at least 100 ft of the rear section of the property. Economic Impacts:
• There would be broader economic spin-offs through local community rentals (basement suites, air BNB’s, hotels). • This proposal will not supply additional spin-offs contributing to the local economy as the pipeline workers are already here to work regardless of where they live. • Is there researched/documented need for accommodation of this type especially since Trans Mountain has already planned a temporary full-service camp for the Hope area? • The proposal lacks adequate research with respect to proposed added accommodation for Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project workers. Trans Mountain has indicated that workers and RV trailers will be directed to the newly constructed Laidlaw campsite located on the Shxw’Ow’Hamel First Nation. • Concern that if the permit is approved, anyone willing to pay for the pad rental will be accepted which goes against the proposed rationale for this application. Once the temporary campground is full of full-time residents (non-pipeline workers) and the term has expired, it will be very difficult to displace this community. Perhaps not the intention of the developer. • It would not be fair that this property be given permit to get into the campground market and make it more difficult for the indigenous owned and run campground from taking full advantage of this short-term economic boost to the local economy. • There are other campgrounds in the local area which would also welcome the extra business. If this application is successful others would want to do the same. • This location has zero amenities; no hiking, no trails, no fishing, no views, no out buildings, nothing. It is directly beside a highway. A very noisy and unattractive spot for regular RVs to stay. There is already a campground less than a km away form this spot that is right on the Fraser River. • “Holiday Park” definition (Guideline #2 “Zoning Suitability”) states in the permitted use that it may contain strata lots. The application requests a blend of campground and holiday park to allow for holiday park models if the need arises. Without the temporary pipeline workers that were anticipated, is this where the holiday park models and the strata lots idea comes into being? Trans Mountain Camp Services: o Trans Mountain Pipeline has built a temporary full-service camp which is required to have an appropriately scaled Health and Medical Services Plan, as well as site- specific plans for waster water and sewer management; potable water; solid waste; power and camp security.
Impact on Neighbourhood and Neighbourhood Character: • Concern that this is being addressed as a “Trailer Park”, instead of a residential area. • Do not feel that this permit will positively enhance our community of Landstrom Road.
3 145 Public Submissions 21415 Trans Canada Highway – Temporary Use Permit
• The nature of this proposal will have an overall negative effect on our quality, family- oriented country residential neighbourhood. • This proposal, if approved, will seriously devalue potential building lots. • Already a significant amount of foot traffic/trespass, discarded litter, and nuisance black bear activity (in the area across the highway from the subject property). Concern about an increase of these issues if the permit were to be issued. • Noise pollution. Other:
• Apprehension that this “temporary” three-year provision will get extended more than once prior to quietly transitioning to permanent. • Lack of municipal water system. • Resident has a water easement for their 5 acres from a well located on the subject property that is currently not being utilized. As well, a water easement from a well located at another neighbour’s property on Landers Road. This is of significant importance as both of our potable water source. The Landers Road well is location 223.91 ft from the subject property. • Resident has concern that this proposal, if approved, would contaminate private water systems. Submissions received not indicating support or opposition—comment only:
▪ D. E. Perrin ▪ Trans Mountain (to clarify anticipated worker accommodation requirements in the Hope region) Summary of comments: • Concern of sewer supply and effects on underground water supply. • For a density of that magnitude, it should be necessary to have the District sewer system extended to that site before a permit is issued. • If approved, the entire area should also be eligible for similar use. Trans Mountain: • Under current planning, Trans Mountain intends to house the Project workforce in the Ohamil Camp Community on Ohamil Reserve #1. • Workers previously housed in local rental and commercial accommodation will be relocating to the Ohamil Camp Community on their return to work following the holiday break. • Trans Mountain anticipates minimal use of local commercial and rental accommodation in the Hope region throughout construction. This approach was described in the Worker Accommodation Strategy (Condition 59) report which has been approved by the Canada Energy Regulator. • Trans Mountain has not had any discussions with the applicant and has no plans to use the property as described. Trans Mountain is otherwise neutral on the Temporary Use Permit application.
4 146 Public Submissions 21415 Trans Canada Highway – Temporary Use Permit
Questions asked of staff, with answers provided in red: I have concerns about a fire breaking out on that side of the Fraser River Bridge and an accident occurring on the bridge preventing your apparatus from deploying back into the townsite if there is a callout for another structure fire at the same time. Increased units = increased fire risk. Why was this aspect omitted from your staff report?
Predicting motor vehicle accidents on a Provincially controlled highway with a fire event is not in the purview of the Community Development Department. The scenario you present could occur regardless of this TUP application. If land use decisions were based on motor vehicle accident scenarios and fire events, the District would be setting a precedence on development decisions. The Fire Chief was consulted on this question.
Shouldn’t a study of the increased fire risk from a holiday park be prepared? This also increases the fire risk in an area on the outskirts of town where a volunteer fire department is already delayed to respond to.
Your question implies that the user and operator that is to utilize the site is going to be negligent to fire safety or fire bans. The municipality already has 3 Holiday Parks within it’s jurisdictional boundaries and anecdotally speaking, the District has not seen an increase or frequency in fire calls to those locations. The Fire Chief was consulted on this question.
Your staff report states the septic system capacity will be “as determined by a qualified professional” Is that professional paid for by the developer or the District? If it is the former will the District be hiring (its) own qualified professional to peer review the report? Why was this aspect omitted from your staff report? If the developer is preparing the report what checks do you have in place to ensure the report is biased in favour of the developer who is contracting this service?
The subject property is not connected to the District of Hope’s sewer system and, therefore, it is subject to the jurisdiction of the provincial health authorities and the requirements of the Public Health Act and Sewerage System Regulation.
Pursuant to the Sewerage System Regulation only an “authorized person”’ as defined in the Regulation can design, install, repair, maintain and/or inspect a sewerage system. An authorized person is a professional engineer or a registered onsite wastewater practitioner (ROWP)
Suggest further questions on this issue should be addressed to the Fraser Health Authority.
How old are the attached geotech maps? The base map was created in 1989.
5 147 Public Submissions 21415 Trans Canada Highway – Temporary Use Permit
Are they from 2018 when the OCP was published?
Schedule E of the District of Hope’s Official Community Plan outlines the Geotechnical Reports that were analyzed as part of the mapping process. A copy of Schedule D is attached to this email, and the list of reports analyzed has been provided below:
If not, have they recently been updated recently to account for the increased amount of climate change induced rain events?
There is no requirement at this point to update the mapping. We’ve had discussions about this with Municipal Insurance British Columbia (MIABC). Typically, municipalities take reactive approach to updating geotechnical hazard mapping. It’s our experience that hazard assessments conducted by Geoscientist, will look into climate factors especially with water course related hazards. Your staff report indicates “that a portion of the land is Geotechnical Hazard Development Permit”, please provide the percentage (%) that is located within this hazardous area. Why was the exact percentage omitted from your staff report? The current process is for a TUP and not approval for a Geotechnical Hazard Development Permit. A development permit would be required when development is contemplated within the hazard boundary. At this point the property does not require a hazard assessment (in order to complete a development permit), unless substantial land alteration is to occur in the hazard boundary; or when there is a building permit required for habitable structures that is more than 100 sqft in area. Please keep in mind that BC Building Code does not apply to Recreational Vehicle (RV’s) and thus not requiring a Building Permit. The insurance for such vehicles falls under ICBC.
6 148 Public Submissions 21415 Trans Canada Highway – Temporary Use Permit
Your map even states that the data provided has been compiled from various sources and may not be complete or accurate. The District of Hope is not responsible for any errors, omissions, or deficiencies in the data. This disclaimer is typical for many municipalities, Cadastral information like properties are constantly changing through development like subdivision and therefore, the representation may not be complete or accurate. Secondly, these maps are a representation of the property boundaries and should not be interpreted for being a legal plan. What extra steps will the District of Hope take to ensure the hazard risk accurately ensures no temporary structures are placed in harms way? Municipalities are bound by process. At this point the District can always confirm with the property owner if any hazards have occurred on the property since their ownership and to what frequency. And to reconfirm, any future structures are not going to be placed within the hazard boundary. Given the rural nature of this road, and that the proposed development is at the entrance of Landstrom Road) of the road, will all of the residents on the road be consulted? 200m only covers a fraction of the tax payers in this area. Would a fair and equitable practice not be to ensure everyone on the Landstrom Rd. is aware? If your answer is no please justify it. In accordance to section 5.3 subsection (c) Temporary Use Permits of the Zoning Bylaw:
“5.3 TEMPORARY USE PERMITS 5.3.1 A temporary use permit may be issued by resolution by the Council of the District in any Rural, Commercial, Industrial, Residential or Public Use and Institutional Zone subject to the following provisions (AM #1416): c) Notification by the applicant to all residents and property owners within 200 metres of the location of the proposed temporary use permit;” Further, An ad in Hope Standard January 15th, 2021 was required in accordance with the procedural bylaw. The following questions have been forwarded to the Fire Department: *There are a plethora of news articles indicating these type of worker camps are hot spots for Covid-19 outbreaks. This concern was not addressed in your staff report – do you feel it is irrelevant? What type of covid protocols will be in place? For clarification, the TUP is not for a “work camp” or industrial camp, which is defined in and would be subject to the Industrial Camps Regulation under the Public Health Act. Health officers are authorized under the Public Health Act to enforce public health orders. Effective August 21, 2020, under the Emergency Program Act (EPA), the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General (Minister) issued Order M314 “Gatherings and Events (COVID-19) Order” to address ongoing concerns where information and education is not deterring behaviours in violation of the Provincial Health Officer (PHO) Gatherings
7 149 Public Submissions 21415 Trans Canada Highway – Temporary Use Permit
and Events Order (PHO Order) and persistent non-compliance is occurring. Police and select special provincial constables were empowered by Order M314 to issue violation tickets for infractions related specifically to contravention of the PHO Order. Local government’s role is to support compliance with the PHO Order. Local government bylaw enforcement officers are not empowered to issue violation tickets in response to the PHO Order. *Regarding your comment “this site will provide temporary accommodations for those pipeline workers which would include a spin-off of the worker contributing to the local economy” can you please provide evidence from prior development on the contribution the local economy may receive? This statement is general it’s basis is anecdotal, however, the nearest services and amenities for these users would be within Hope proper. This would be no different than tourist visiting the community and spending their money in our community. Would it not receive more economic inputs if these workers stayed in basement suites, air bnbs, and hotels because then they also contributing more dispersed rents throughout the community? There is limited housing and rental stock available within the community. Rental vacancy is approximately 0 to 2%. Please see response below provided by AdvantageHOPE. Is it all about the economy and risks are irrelevant? This question is for Council’s consideration. However, the legislated process is being followed out. Why was this balance omitted from your staff report? Because economic development is not within purview of the Community Development.
Hasn’t Trans Mountain also built sites to accommodate their workers? Yes, the municipality is aware of this. Given the economic loss many households are experiencing due to Covid-19 shouldn’t a more equitable approach that spreads this economic input into the hands of many households as opposed to a single developer at least be studied and considered? This is application for a Temporary Use Permit and not a District wide study for Covid-19 impact on the local economy. Your staff report quotes “in anticipation of all existing motels, campgrounds will be at capacity” but you offer no studies or evidence to back this claim…is this a common practice? Is it fair to make these assumptions? Staff and even members of Council who sit on the Economic Development board have an ongoing dialogue with AdvantageHOPE. AdvantageHOPE has a pulse on vacancy matters when it comes to accommodations and capacity. In accordance to AdvantageHOPE:
8 150 Public Submissions 21415 Trans Canada Highway – Temporary Use Permit
"Currently there is a dire need for solutions to support additional workforce accommodations.
Their office consistently receives inquiries from private sector contractors who are temporarily working within the area on the Trans Mountain Pipeline looking for accommodations. At the point of which we are receiving a phone call we are being told that these contractors have tried every avenue available before calling our office with no results.
Though the pipeline is providing a camp within the area, the message that we are receiving from individual inquiries is that there is a need for options that are more independent. They are seeing a very large majority of our local B&B's being rented now as long-term rentals as contractors are occupying those accommodations as well as our local motels.
The data that support this is:
1. 87% of our B&B's are full homes averaging 2.3 bedrooms per home making these attractive accommodations as a long-term rental. 2. The collection of the Municipal & regional District Tax (MRDT).
• Hope, Cascades & Canyons started the collection of MRDT Oct 01, 2019. The estimated collection in year one based off a five-year average was $80,000. Within the first year Hope, Cascades & Canyons has collected $143,000. • This tells me that based on previous occupancy rates we have seen a very large increase in our accommodations. • The data that we collect monthly also tells me that in previous years we have seen high occupancy rates mainly within a four-month period due to the increase of tourism during the summer months. This is not currently the case. We are seeing a steady increase in occupancy rates throughout the whole year and they have remained higher than expected during the shoulder season (October to April) which tells me that our accommodations are being used for purposes other than tourism.
Therefore, if a solution has been proposed for alternate options/solutions for workforce accommodations that it be taken into strong consideration. If an opportunity to provide a viable solution is proposed but not supported, then we face the dilemma of not being able to support over night stays in our region to visitors. There needs to be a solution that is workforce specific so that we can support our tourism season and have those visitors' book over night stays. For every motel room or B&B that is not available to a visitor, we lose that opportunity to have that visitor support our local economy. Yes, that visitor may come to hope for the day, but we need them booking rooms. We want them to go back to their accommodation after a long day of exploring and then go out and visit our local restaurants or shop our downtown core and get their groceries in town. If our visitors are leaving the area to stay in a hotel in Harrison or Chilliwack, chances are they are eating and shopping there as well.
9 151 Public Submissions 21415 Trans Canada Highway – Temporary Use Permit
The district be aware that if we have workforce employees occupying our motels and B&B's for more than 27 days at a time, they are considered a long-term rental which means they do not pay the Municipal & Regional District Tax. We only collect that tax on short term rentals. So, every night that we have a long-term rental in our accommodations we are missing an opportunity to collect those funds that are then used to market our tourism region.
We collect the tax on both motel and B&B rentals.
During the summer months our visitor centre receives a very large number of inquiries looking for campground accommodations. In an effort to be pro active we often reach out to our local campgrounds to check occupancy rates prior to weekends and holidays. It is very rare for our staff to hear anything other than we are 100% booked. If we do not have availability in our motels and B&B's the next best option is our campgrounds. We can not risk the chance that the overflow of workforce employees will be booking our campsites as well in the summer months. We know that this is an possibility because we have heard the question multiple times from those who are inquiring that since there is nothing available, do we know where they can park their travel trailers and camp? if this is an abundance of information but I do want to make sure that all points are addressed and that the need for additional workforce accommodation is recognized."
John Behrens letter states they will complete “restoration of the condition similar to the date the permit was issued” Can you please provide more detail about exactly what type of restoration will take place? Question has been given to applicant to respond to. What steps will be taken to address the increased vehicle traffic in an already hazardous area? Why was this theme omitted from your staff report? Trans Canada Highway is within the jurisdiction of MOTI, they were notified as part of the process their response: “Subject to the property not seeking access off of TCH and using the existing access off of Landstrom Road the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure has no issue with the proposed TUP.”
10 152 153 154 155 156 December 8, 2020
District of Hope PO Box 609 325 Wallace Street Hope, BC V0X 1L0
Attention: Mayor Peter Robb and Council John Fortoloczky, CAO Donna Bellingham, Director of Corporate Services Jas Gill, Director of Community Development
Re: Temporary Rezoning of 21415 Trans-Canada Highway
Address: Landstrom Road Hope, BC V0X1L3 I have lived on Landstrom Road for 36 years. Prior to that, we were clearing and building.
I have thoroughly reviewed the staff report titled Application for Temporary Use Permit Campground/Holiday Park 21415 Trans Canada Highway and I have many concerns to the temporary land use rezoning which were not addressed by Jas Gill’s report to council. In light of these important aspects being omitted, I will be strongly opposed to this proposal. I hope staff and Council members share my concerns.
Forty years ago, my late husband and I were part of a delegation from Landstrom Road opposing the rezoning proposal for that same parcel of land at 21415 Trans-Canada Highway, to be changed from CR to Mobile Home Park (RMH).The planning department of the regional district was opposed to this proposal because it was contrary to the official regional plan. Landstrom Road residents’ rationale was that the rezoning proposal would disrupt the rural residential life style of the neighbourhood. Dr. Peter Cave “Urged his committee to consider this proposal very carefully. The problem of “spot zoning” ahead of forward-planning studies must be carefully weighed.” He further urged members “to think of this in terms of the town center of the future community which must ultimately grow up opposite Hope, on the other side of the River.” (Quoted from Regional District of Fraser-Cheam Planning and Land Use Committee Monday June 1, 1981)
The first attempt of rezoning this parcel of land was in May 16, 1977. Second attempt was in March, 1979 at which time there were a number of difficulties. The planning and Land Use Committee unanimously carried that “no reconsideration be given to the proposed zoning amendment”. The by-law was defeated April, 1979 as the Directors “felt it was unfair to place a commercial mobile home park next to country residential properties”.
157 (Quoted from minutes of the Regional District of Fraser-Cheam Wednesday May 16, 1979) The final attempt was in June, 1981. In Sept 1981, the application was withdrawn by the applicants.
I realize that the circumstances are slightly different in that this is a temporary proposal and it is not for a mobile home park but for a recreational vehicle park or campground. Still not the intended use of land that is presently zoned L1.
-Septic System Capacity Jas Gill’s report states the septic system capacity will be "as determined by a qualified professional". John Behrens report says that an assessment has been done but that report has not been given to the District of Hope as of yet. With only a well depth of 40’, some neighbours are concerned about the seepage into their wells from a septic field to accommodate 20 units. With the rezoning proposal in 1979, due to the concerns about the septic field, it was decided that the location of the tile field would be on the opposite side of the road pumping the sewage across the highway. I am not suggesting that this is a viable solution but it shows that concerns about seepage was seen as a problem at the time.
-Covid There are covid protocols in place for private camp grounds to follow under the PHO guidelines.
“All Lodging, Campgrounds and RV parks must have a published COVID -19 policy and this will identify the additional hygiene steps being taken and the role of physical distancing plus social distancing in preventing group gatherings.”
What are the guidelines and how are these guidelines going to be enforced on the campground? Many private parks have reduced their capacity to ensure safe distancing practices, closed their washrooms/laundry areas and restricted units to totally self-contained units only. What are the District’s plan for these protocols?
-By Laws enforced -Will there be a live-in supervisor on site to make sure by laws are adhered to? (such as fire pits, washroom/shower/laundry area, noise, covid protocols)
-Intent of the proposed temporary proposal -The accommodations at 21415 Trans-Canada Highway will not supply additional spin-off contributing to the local economy as the pipeline workers are already here to work regardless of where they live. Getting a temporary permit to use this land as a campground for three years is on speculation, not researched to show and prove that there is a need for accommodation of this type especially since Trans Mountain has already planned a temporary full-service camp for the Hope area.
“Trans Mountain is engaging with local communities and businesses to ensure non-local workers have a place to live while they’re working — either temporary camps or dispersed in hub communities through a mix of commercial and rental accommodation.”
158
“Temporary full-service camps are planned for five British Columbia locations — Valemount, Blue River, Clearwater, Merritt and Hope. All camps will be required to have an appropriately scaled Health and Medical Services Plan, as well as site-specific plans for wastewater and sewer management; potable water; solid waste; power; and camp security. Each camp will also have a site-specific Traffic Access and Emergency Management Plan.”
-Driveway I understand that the Ministry of Transportation report has not been submitted to the District Office. I would like to challenge every staff and council member to drive up to Ross Road and drive back on the Trans Canada and make a right hand turn onto Landstrom Road. Making a right hand turn at the best of times is risky when you have vehicles close behind. Now add the fact that even with the trees cleared in front of the driveway, there will be not room left to maneuver when a vehicle suddenly appears in front of you coming from the campsite. The campsite vehicle also does not have a clear line of vision while checking right and left as well as behind to see if traffic is coming off the Trans-Canada highway. According to https://www2.gov.bc.ca/ ,when planning any driveway accesses, it is essential to consider sight distances. Incoming traffic must be able to see vehicles on the right-of-way at a far enough distance to allow safe entry onto the road. Safe access / entry must consider: -Stopping sight distance - the distance that traffic on the right-of-way must have to come to a safe stop. Stopping sight distance varies with prevailing vehicle, pavement and weather conditions. -Turning lanes and right turn tapers
-Fire safety risk assessment -Has a fire safety risk assessment been done for this proposal? Have hazards been identified and precautions been decided? We, who live in the neighbourhood, are very much aware of the fire hazards and are very cautious within our single dwelling residential area. Personally, we put up a metal roof due to the risk factor associated with wildfires. With an increased allocation of temporary dwellings, my concerns would be in treating this as a “Holiday Park” as the name implies, instead of a residential area. Increased amounts of fire pits would increase the fire risk.
I look forward to your response to my questions and comments.
Sincerely, Kathy Koopman
159 160 161 162 From: Shaun Koopman < > Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 9:13 AM To: John Fortoloczky
Jas, District Staff, Mayor and Council As a former resident of Landstrom Rd and someone who still considers Hope his home I am so deeply disappointed that the District is even considering this proposal. If District staff were acting fair and rationale the safety and emergency issues with this proposal alone would be enough to scrap this proposal so it will be interesting to see if Jas and the rest of this group shares my same concerns for public safety. I have identified at least 20 public safety questions below that I believe require addressing for the public record. As someone with 16 years in local government I was always taught that all items of importance and interest to the public record should be included in my staff report, therefore I am concern about Jas' glaring omissions in the staff report titled Application for Temporary Use Permit Campground/Holiday Park 21415 Trans Canada Highway. And if the points below don’t make it obvious, I am registering my vehement opposition to this proposal. Either the bullet points below haven’t been considered or Jas and District staff did not feel that these public safety items were important enough to submit for the public record in Jas' staff report and I’m curious to find out which one fits each category. *As an emergency program professional with a MA in Disaster Management and over a decade of experience as a first responder I have concerns about a fire breaking out on that side of the Fraser River Bridge and an accident occurring on the bridge preventing your apparatus from deploying back into the townsite if there is a callout for another structure fire at the same time. Increased units = increased fire risk. Why was this
163 aspect omitted from your staff report? Shouldn’t a study of the increased fire risk from a holiday park be prepared? This also increases the fire risk in an area on the outskirts of town where a volunteer fire department is already delayed to respond to. *Your staff report states the septic system capacity will be “as determined by a qualified professional” Is that professional paid for by the developer or the District? If it is the former will the District be hiring (its) own qualified professional to peer review the report? Why was this aspect omitted from your staff report? If the developer is preparing the report what checks do you have in place to ensure the report is biased in favour of the developer who is contracting this service? *How old are the attached geotech maps? Are they from 2018 when the OCP was published? If not, have they recently been updated recently to account for the increased amount of climate change induced rain events? Your staff report indicates “that a portion of the land is Geotechnical Hazard Development Permit”, please provide the percentage (%) that is located within this hazardous area. Why was the exact percentage omitted from your staff report? Your map even states that the data provided has been compiled from various sources and may not be complete or accurate. The District of Hope is not responsible for any errors, omissions, or deficiencies in the data. What extra steps will the District of Hope take to ensure the hazard risk accurately ensures no temporary structures are placed in harms way? *Given the rural nature of this road, and that the proposed development is at the entrance of Landstrom Road) of the road, will all of the residents on the road be consulted? 200m only covers a fraction of the tax payers in this area. Would a fair and equitable practice not be to ensure everyone on the Landstrom Rd. is aware? If your answer is no please justify it. *Unfortunately up until this time the District of Hope has not pursued the development of a Community Wildfire Protection Plan even though I have volunteered on several occasions to coordinate this application and project on your behalf the same way I volunteered to assist Chief DeSorcy with the 2019 Volunteer Composite grant application (you’ll find my name on District of Hope staff report on pg.15)
164 https://hope.ca/sites/default/files/2019_08_26_regular_council_agenda_we bsite.pdf. Consulting a Community Wildfire Protection Plan before recommending any type or application in the Wildfire Urban Interface is Standard Operating Procedure in my jurisdictions and many other in our province. Your staff report doesn’t even reference the bare bones Provincial Wildfire Threat analysis maps for your area. Why was the Wildland Urban Interface omitted from your staff report? More on this at the end of this email. *Expanding on the point above. What extra training / equipment allows the Hope Fire Department the ability to handle an interface fire at this location? Have Structure Protection units been purchased and training obtained? *There are a plethora of news articles indicating these type of worker camps are hot spots for Covid-19 outbreaks. This concern was not addressed in your staff report – do you feel it is irrelevant? What type of covid protocols will be in place? *Regarding your comment “this site will provide temporary accommodations for those pipeline workers which would include a spin-off of the worker contributing to the local economy” can you please provide evidence from prior development on the contribution the local economy may receive? Would it not receive more economic inputs if these workers stayed in basement suites, air bnbs, and hotels because then they also contributing more dispersed rents throughout the community? Is it all about the economy and risks are irrelevant? Why was this balance omitted from your staff report? Hasn’t Trans Mountain also built sites to accommodate their workers? Given the economic loss many households are experiencing due to Covid-19 shouldn’t a more equitable approach that spreads this economic input into the hands of many households as opposed to a single developer at least be studied and considered? Your staff report quotes “in anticipation of all existing motels, campgrounds will be at capacity” but you offer no studies or evidence to back this claim…is this a common practice? Is it fair to make these assumptions? *John Behrens letter states they will complete “restoration of the condition similar to the date the permit was issued” Can you please provide more detail about exactly what type of restoration will take place?
165 *What steps will be taken to address the increased vehicle traffic in an already hazardous area? Why was this theme omitted from your staff report? *The District of Hope is one of the only local governments that I’m aware of that hasn’t developed a Community Wildfire Protection Plan. Why has a Community Wildfire Protection Plan not been developed for Hope? Funding has been available since 2006 and I have even volunteered to coordinate this process on behalf of the District. Every year this important item is delayed this District misses out on tens of thousands of free grant money that can be put towards wildfire risk reduction. Spuzzum First Nation recently developed a CWPP.
166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 -----Original Message----- From: Donald Perrin < > Sent: Friday, December 4, 2020 12:50 PM To: Jas Gill
Re the property at 21415 Trans Canada Hwy (Landstrom road)
My property is located at Landstrom Rd. and I am concerned about the Facilitation of sewage and its effects on our underground water supply.
This whole area is subject to minimum sized lots of approximately 2 1-2 acres for A reason; what are they?
I think it should be necessary to have the Hope sewer system extended to that site before a permit is issued for a density of that magnitude.
If approved, I think the entire area here should also be eligible for similar use!
Thanks for the consideration.
D E Perrin Landstrom Rd Hope BC V0X1L3
Sent from my iPhone
189 190 Corporate
From: Corporate Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2021 3:45 PM To: Corporate Subject: FW: Trans Mountain Submission Regarding Temporary Use Permit for 21415 Trans Canada Highway
From: Stebbings, Kate
Good afternoon John – Happy New Year. I hope you enjoyed some time away from your desk over the holiday break.
I am writing on behalf of the Trans Mountain Expansion Project to clarify anticipated worker accommodation requirements in the Hope region. Trans Mountain is aware a Temporary Use Application was submitted to the District of Hope during the November 23, 2020 Council meeting with the applicant citing an anticipated shortage of local commercial accommodation for Project workers as rationale for the application (see below).
Temporary Use Permit Re: 21415 Trans Canada Highway The Director of Community Development advised that the applicant for this Temporary Use Permit (TUP) is anticipating that all the local motels and campgrounds will be at capacity for the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project. The applicant, as property owner, is proposing this TUP in order to open a bare parcel of land to out‐of‐town workers to be able to stay in their RV, or park model unit, while they are here working on the project.
Under current planning, Trans Mountain intends to house the Project workforce in the Ohamil Camp Community on Ohamil Reserve #1. Workers previously housed in local rental and commercial accommodation will be relocating to the Ohamil Camp Community on their return to work following the holiday break. Trans Mountain anticipates minimal use of local commercial and rental accommodation in the Hope region throughout construction. This approach was described in the Worker Accommodation Strategy (Condition 59) report which has been approved by the Canada Energy Regulator.
Trans Mountain has not had any discussions with the applicant and has no plans to use the property as described. Trans Mountain is otherwise neutral on the Temporary Use Permit application. The purpose of this communication is to clarify the anticipated use of local accommodation in the Hope region.
Please let me know if you require further information.
Kate Stebbings | MA, Accredited Business Communicator Senior Community Liaison, Stakeholder Engagement and Communications Trans Mountain Expansion Project C: |1.866.514.6700 | www.transmountain.com
1 191 192 193 194 195 196
THE DISTRICT OF HOPE
BYLAW NO. 1496
A bylaw to amend the Municipal Ticketing Information Bylaw
NOW THEREFORE the Council of the District of Hope in open meeting assembled enacts as follows:
1. This bylaw shall be cited for all purposes as Municipal Ticket Information Amendment Bylaw No. 1496, 2021.
2. That Municipal Ticket Information Bylaw No. 1453, 2019 be amended as follows:
(a) “Schedule Q” is repealed and replaced with the revised “Schedule Q”, attached to and forming part of this bylaw.
3. This bylaw comes into force and takes effect on the date of its adoption.
Read a first, second and third time this 11th day of January, 2021
Adopted this XX day of XXXXX, 2021.
Mayor Director of Corporate Services
197
SCHEDULE “Q”
Municipal Ticket Information Amendment Bylaw No. 1496, 2021
Bylaw Section Description of Offence Penalty Designated Enforcement Officer
Zoning Bylaw No. 1324, 2012 3.3.2 Obstructing authorized entry $150.00 B.E.O./RCMP/ D.C.D./B.I. Zoning Bylaw No. 1324, 2012 5.4.1 (a-d) Unauthorized temporary $100.00 B.E.O./RCMP/ building/structure D.C.D./B.I. Zoning Bylaw No. 1324, 2012. 5.5.1 $100.00 B.E.O./RCMP/ 5.5.2 Unauthorized accessory building D.C.D./B.I. 5.5.3 Zoning Bylaw No. 1324, 2012 Unauthorized parking/storage of $100.00 B.E.O./RCMP/ 5.6.1 recreational vehicle/camper/trailer/boat D.C.D./B.I. in residential zones Zoning Bylaw No. 1324, 2012 Unauthorized vehicle repairs or $100.00 B.E.O./RCMP/ 5.6.3 maintenance of a commercial nature, D.C.D./B.I. vehicle sales, or storage of wrecked vehicles in any residential zones Zoning Bylaw No. 1324, 2012 5.7.1 Unauthorized dwelling unit $100.00 B.E.O./RCMP/ D.C.D./B.I. Zoning Bylaw No. 1324, 2012 8.6.1 (a) – (g) $100.00 B.E.O./RCMP/ 8.6.2 (a) – (h) Unauthorized home based business D.C.D./B.I. 8.6.3 (a) – (i) Zoning Bylaw No. 1324, 2012 8.8.1 (a-c) Unauthorized outdoor storage in $250.00 B.E.O./RCMP/ residential zones D.C.D./B.I.
2 198
THE DISTRICT OF HOPE
BYLAW NO. 1497
A bylaw to amend the Bylaw Notice Enforcement Bylaw
NOW THEREFORE the Council of the District of Hope in open meeting assembled enacts as follows:
1. This bylaw shall be cited for all purposes as Bylaw Notice Enforcement Amendment Bylaw No. 1497, 2021.
2. That Bylaw Notice Enforcement Bylaw No. 1454, 2019 be amended as follows:
(a) “Schedule A (17)” is repealed and replaced with the revised “Schedule A (17)”, attached to and forming part of this bylaw.
3. This bylaw comes into force and takes effect on the date of its adoption.
Read a first, second and third time this 11th day of January, 2021
Adopted this XX day of XXXXX, 2021.
Mayor Director of Corporate Services
199
SCHEDULE “A (17)”
Municipal Ticket Information Amendment Bylaw No. 1497, 2021
Bylaw Section Description of Offence Penalty Designated Enforcement Officer
Zoning Bylaw No. 1324, 2012 3.3.2 Obstructing authorized entry $150.00 B.E.O./RCMP/ D.C.D./B.I. Zoning Bylaw No. 1324, 2012 5.4.1 (a-d) Unauthorized temporary $100.00 B.E.O./RCMP/ building/structure D.C.D./B.I. Zoning Bylaw No. 1324, 2012. 5.5.1 $100.00 B.E.O./RCMP/ 5.5.2 Unauthorized accessory building D.C.D./B.I. 5.5.3 Zoning Bylaw No. 1324, 2012 5.6.1 Unauthorized parking/storage of $100.00 B.E.O./RCMP/ recreational vehicle/camper/trailer/boat D.C.D./B.I. in residential zones Zoning Bylaw No. 1324, 2012 5.6.3 Unauthorized vehicle repairs or $100.00 B.E.O./RCMP/ maintenance of a commercial nature, D.C.D./B.I. vehicle sales, or storage of wrecked vehicles in any residential zones Zoning Bylaw No. 1324, 2012 5.7.1 Unauthorized dwelling unit $100.00 B.E.O./RCMP/ D.C.D./B.I. Zoning Bylaw No. 1324, 2012 8.6.1 (a) – (g) $100.00 B.E.O./RCMP/ 8.6.2 (a) – (h) Unauthorized home based business D.C.D./B.I. 8.6.3 (a) – (i) Zoning Bylaw No. 1324, 2012 8.8.1 (a-c) Unauthorized outdoor storage in $250.00 B.E.O./RCMP/ residential zones D.C.D./B.I.
2 200
FOR INFORMATION CORRESPONDENCE
January 25, 2021 Regular Council Meeting
1. Joint Statement dated January 6, 2021 from the Ministry of Health and Office of the Provincial Health Officer regarding BC’s COVID-19 response, latest updates. 7130-16
2. News Release dated January 6, 2021 from the Ministry of Health re: “Adding surgeries for patients: Catching up from COVID-19”. 0400-30/GEN
3. News Release dated January 6, 2021 from the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation, Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy re: “Province doubles CleanBC home energy retrofit rebates.” 0400-30/GEN
4. News Release dated January 7, 2021 from the Ministry of Children and Family Development re: “Nominations open for Child Care Awards of Excellence.” 0400-30/GEN
5. News Release dated January 8, 2021 from the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries re: “Latest funding to benefit bee health in B.C.” 0400-30/GEN
6. News Release dated January 8, 2021 from the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General Emergency Management BC re: “Province makes changes to simplify, clarify emergency orders.” 0400-30/GEN
7. Joint Statement dated January 8, 2021 from the Ministry of Health and Office of the Provincial Health Officer regarding BC’s COVID-19 response, latest updates. 7130-16
8. News Released dated January 11, 2021 from the Ministry of Finance re: “Speculation and vacancy tax expands rental options for British Columbians.” 0400-30/GEN
9. Copy of letter dated January 11, 2021 from Mayor Buchanan, City of North Vancouver, to Minister George Heyman re: Implementing a Province-wide Ban on Anticoagulant Rodenticides. 0400-50/NV
10. Information Bulletin dated January 12, 2021 from the Ministry of Citizens’ Services Re: “Online tool helps people book appointments with Service BC.” 0400-30/GEN
11. Information update from the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries re: “Land matching program reaches milestone.” 0400-30/GEN
12. News Release dated January 12, 2021 from the Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport re: “Helping artists adapt during the pandemic.” 0400-30/GEN
13. Joint Statement dated January 12, 2021 from the Ministry of Health and Office of the Provincial Health Officer regarding BC’s COVID-19 response, latest updates. 7130-16
14. Email correspondence dated January 12, 2021 from Mr. Peter Julian, MP, House of Commons seeking support for Bill C-213 an Act to enact the Canada Pharmacare Act. 0400-40/MP File No. 0550-07 Page 1 of 2 201 For Information Correspondence List January 25, 2021
15. News Release dated January 14, 2021 from the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure re: “Port investment to create jobs, spark economic recovery.” 0400-30/GEN
16. News Release dated January 14, 2021 from the Ministry of Children and Family Development re: “Fee cap keeps new child care spaces affordable.” 0400-30/GEN
17. News Release dated January 15, 2021 from the Honours and Awards Secretariat re: “Nominate an exceptional citizen for B.C.’s highest honour.” 0400-30/GEN
18. Joint Statement dated January 15, 2021 from the Ministry of Attorney General and Ministry of Education re: Black Shirt Day. 0400-30/GEN
19. Joint Statement dated January 15, 2021 from the Ministry of Health and Office of the Provincial Health Officer regarding BC’s COVID-19 response, latest updates. 7130-16
20. News Release dated January 18, 2021 from the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction re: “New funding helps people with disabilities return to work.”0400-30/GEN
21. News Release dated January 18, 2021 from the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction re: “Work Experience Opportunities Grant supports inclusive economic recovery.” 0400-30/GEN
22. News Release dated January 18, 2021 from the Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Training Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions re: “Nicola Valley Institute of Technology (NVIT) to train more community mental health workers.” 0400-30/GEN
23. Statement dated January 19, 2021 from the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions Re: “Minister’s Statement on Representative for Children and Youth’s Report.” 0400-30/GEN
24. News Release dated January 19, 2021 from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs Re: “Organizations providing people access to food receive funding boost.” 0400-30/GEN
25. News Release dated January 19, 2021 from the Intergovernmental Relations Secretariat Re: “Applications open for French-language funding.” 0400-30/GEN
26. News Release dated January 19, 2021 from the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General Emergency Management BC regarding “State of emergency extended to continue BC’s COVID-19 response.” 7130-16
27. News Release dated January 19, 2021 from the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy re: “Applications open for BC Parks Student Ranger Program.”0400-30/GEN
28. Joint Statement dated January 19, 2021 from the Ministry of Health and Office of the Provincial Health Officer regarding BC’s COVID-19 response, latest updates. 7130-16
29. News Release dated January 20, 2021 from the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction re: “New funding helps people connect to rewarding careers.”0400-30/GEN
30. Joint Statement dated January 20, 2021 from the Ministry of Health and Office of the Provincial Health Officer regarding BC’s COVID-19 response, latest updates. 7130-16
Page202 2 of 2