Tri-Municipal Council Meeting North Saanich Municipal Hall 1620 Mills

Home , North Saanich, Tofino, West Vancouver

Tri-Municipal Council Meeting Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. North Saanich Municipal Hall 1620 Mills Road

AGENDA PAGE NO.

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

3. PRESENTATIONS (a) Primary Health Care Service Delivery and Medical Education 3 - 7 Centre - Saanich Peninsula Hospital [Sidney] Dr. Carl Whiteside, Academic Adv., Faculty of Medicine UBC (ret'd) and Karen Morgan, Saanich Peninsula Hospital Foundation. Project Summary.pdf Tri Municipal PDF Final.pdf What can we do.pdf (b) Peninsula Emergency Measures Organization [North Saanich] Jean Galvin, Emergency Support Services (c) Capital Region Emergency Services Telecommunications Inc. [North Saanich] Gord Horth, General Manager (d) Saanich Peninsula Housing Options [Sidney] 9 - 16 Tim Wake and Jim Bennett Saanich Peninsula Housing Options Report.pdf (e) Earthquake Vulnerabilities of Ferry Links for Vancouver Island 17 - 26 and Coastal Communities [Sidney] Ray Hebden, Hebden Engineering Inc., and Greg Ramsay, Ramsay Machine Works Presentation Board 1 - FINAL.pdf Presentation Board 2 - FINAL.pdf Presentation Board 3 - FINAL.pdf Presentation Board 4 - FINAL.pdf Brief 21 5 14.pdf

4. PROPOSED CHANGES TO FLOOD HAZARD AREA LAND USE TRI-MUNICIPAL COUNCIL MEETING February 11, 2015 AGENDA

MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES AND SEA LEVEL RISE [Central Saanich]

(a) Central Saanich Staff report 27 - 34 Committee Report SLR.PDF

5. CREATION OF A TRI-MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE TO SECURE FUNDING FROM THE PROVINCE FOR AN AMALGAMATION STUDY [North Saanich]

6. JUBILEE CELEBRATIONS [North Saanich]

7. 2015 FLAVOUR TRAIL [North Saanich]

8. SHARING A SINGLE FACILITY FOR COUNCIL MEETINGS AND SERVICES [North Saanich]

9. POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF SHARED LEGAL SERVICES [Central Saanich]

10. LOCATION OF NEXT TRI-MUNICIPAL MEETING

11. ADJOURNMENT

Page 2 of 34 !! ! Proposal!to!Establish!a!Primary!Health!Care!Service!Delivery!and! Medical!Education!Center!on!the!grounds!of!the!Saanich!Peninsula! Hospital!(SPH)!**! ! Quick!Summary!of!Project:!! ! D The!Saanich!Peninsula!Hospital!Foundation,!(in!collaboration!with!the! South!Island!Division!of!Family!Practice!and!Vancouver!Island!Health),! has! expressed! an! interest! in! establishing! a! Primary' Health' Care,' Service'Delivery'and'Medical'Education'Center'on!the!grounds!of! the! Saanich! Peninsula! Hospital! in! order! to! address! the! present! and! future!medical!service!needs!of!the!hospital!(acute!and!chronic)!and!of! the!community!it!is!responsible!for!serving.! ! D It! is! proposed! that! the! educational! component! of! the! center!would! offer! community! and! hospital! based,! experiential!learning! opportunities!for!medical!trainees!throughout!the!continuum!of!their! training!years.!These!trainees!would!be!undergraduate/postgraduate! (FP! and! Generalist! Specialists)! who! are! linked! to! existing! medical! education!programs!on!the!South!Island.! ! D It! is! clear! that! many! community! hospitals! in! nonDurban! areas! are! losing!the!services!of!physicians!willing!to!cover!inpatient!needs!and! that!the!services!of!hospitalists!to!such!settings!are!either!not!available! or!uneconomical!either!for!the!physicians!or!the!health!authorities.! ! D It!is!proposed!that!the!Center!would!focus!on!attracting!existing!and! newly! recruited!physicians!and!their!practices!to!this!unit,!with!a! commitment!to!enhance!and!expand!coverage!of!the!hospital!services! while!maintaining!a!community!based!practice!population.!! ! D Such!a!Center!would!foster!a!model!of!education!and!service!delivery,! which! demonstrates! peer/interprofessional! and! generalist! specialist! collaboration! while! ensuring! a! balance! between! work! and! personal! needs.! ! D Medical! trainees! exposed! to! such! a! model! of! service! delivery! would! thus! graduate! with! the! skills! to! address! hospital! and! community! service!needs!in!a!collaborative!and!efficient!manner!while!having!the! skills!to!maintain!a!healthy!and!balanced!life!style.! ! **!funding!support!through!the!SPH!Foundation.!

Page 3 of 34 ! !

Page 4 of 34 Ensuring the Future Medical Human Resource Needs of the Saanich Peninsula Hospital and the Peninsula

A presentation to the Peninsula Tri Municipal Council - Feb. 11, 2015

* Clay Barber - Executive Director- South Island Division Family Practice

* Karen Morgan - Saanich Peninsula Hospital Foundation

* Aspasia Zabaras- Project Director, Island Island Health /VIHA.

* MI Cousins - Recruitment Coordinator, South Island Division of Family Practice.

* Dawn Nedzelski - Community Director Saanich Peninsula , IH/Viha

* Carl Whiteside - Academic Adv. , Faculty of Medicine UBC (ret'd) Page 5 of 34 Page 6 of 34

How can the Tri Municipal Council help out?

 Work collaboratively to achieve the “common interest” outcomes.  Identify individuals from the Tri Municipal Council who can act as liaison persons with our efforts to achieve the outcomes.  Welcome health professions to the Peninsula.  Assist medical students and post graduate residents with accommodation costs during educational rotations at the hospital and on the peninsula.  Offer affordable housing for recruited medical and health professionals.  offer student debt repayment opportunities.  Improve Transportation opportunities on the peninsula to the SPH from your communities.

Thank you

Page 7 of 34 Page 8 of 34 Saanich Peninsula Housing Options

Finding a Way Forward Prepared by Tim Wake, Affordable Housing Consultant and submitted to the three Saanich Peninsula Councils at the request of the Saanich Peninsula Housing Roundtable, an experiment in consensus decision-making on housing issues convened by Elizabeth May, MP (Saanich – Gulf Islands).

Housing Roundtable

The Saanich Peninsula Affordable Housing Roundtable was convened in late 2013 and has met a number of times to discuss the shortage of suitable rental and ownership housing for people working in Sidney, North Saanich and Central Saanich. The Housing Roundtable is composed of a broad collection of housing stakeholders from the private, non-profit and public sectors including municipal staff, elected officials, employers, the development community, the local Chamber of Commerce as well as the existing housing organizations in the Capital Regional District. The Housing Roundtable has the following participants:

Elizabeth May, MP Saanich - Gulf Islands Gary Holman, MLA Saanich North and The Islands Councillor Tim Chad, Town of Sidney Councillor Steve Price, Town of Sidney Mayor Alice Finall, District of North Saanich Councillor Ted Daly, District of North Saanich Councillor Conny McBride, District of North Saanich Councillor Celia Stock, District of North Saanich Councillor Alicia Cormier, District of Central Saanich Councillor Carl Jensen, District of Central Saanich Councillor Ryan Windsor, District of Central Saanich Councillor Paul Gerrard, District of Saanich John Treleaven, Saanich Peninsula Chamber of Commerce, Board of Directors Ian Brown, Saanich Peninsula Chamber of Commerce, Board of Directors Art Finlayson, Saanich Peninsula Chamber of Commerce, Board of Directors Silvia Bonet, Architect, Architectural Institute of BC Henry Kamphof, Senior Manager, Capital Regional District Lee King, Consultant, with CMHC background Jim Bennett, Government Relations Coordinator, Victoria Real Estate Board Michael Hall, Director of Product Support, Viking Air Ken Lewis, President, Seastar Chemicals Casey Edge, Executive Director, Victoria Homebuilders Association Rosemary Bongars, Owner, Avalon Spa, Sidney Geoff Orr, President, North Saanich Residents Association Adam Olsen, former Central Saanich Councillor, Interim Leader of the Green Party of BC John Juricic, Executive Director, Sidney North Saanich Industrial Group Shelley Mann, Chair of Government Relations, Victoria Real Estate Board Alanna Holroyd, Executive Director, Greater Victoria Rental Development Society Ian Batey, Board Chair, Greater Victoria Housing Society …continued on next page

Saanich Peninsula Housing Options Tim Wake – Affordable Housing Consultant 1 October 2014

Page 9 of 34 Marlaina Elliott, Director of Development Services, Town of Sidney Peter Laughlin, Director (Vancouver Island), Omicron Denis Paquette, Sidney Waterfront Inn and Suites Barbara Fallott, Sidney Resident, Business Owner and candidate for Sidney Council

Sidney and North Saanich Workforce Housing Survey

The Sidney and North Saanich Industrial Group conducted a survey of its employees in 2012 to provide some context of the housing shortage. It found that 67% of respondents were commuting to work from outside the three Saanich Peninsula municipalities and there was strong demand for a range of rental and ownership housing. Interest in purchasing housing (44% of respondents) is higher than interest in rental (27% of respondents). Purchasers can afford $250,000 to $500,000 for a home (condo, townhome or single family) and 65% of renters could afford up to $1200 per month.

The Sidney and North Saanich Industrial Group consists of the following companies: (2,200 employees, $110 million annual payroll)

Scott Plastics Thrifty Foods Stantec Seastar Chemicals Cube Global Storage AXYS Analytical Services Van Isle Marina Epicure Selections Scotty Marine and Nicholson Manufacturing Ramsay Group Machine Fishing Products Slegg Lumber Works Harbour Digital Media Viking Air VIH Aviation Group

2014 Saanich Peninsula Mayors’ Breakfast and Follow Up Interviews

The housing issue was the main focus of the Saanich Peninsula Mayors’ Breakfast in February and in August, Elizabeth May’s office contracted Tim Wake to conduct a series of interviews with local developers, municipal staff and elected officials. Jim Bennett assisted with coordinating interviews with the following:

Peter Laughlin, Director (Vancouver Island), Omicron George Schell, Allanda Consulting, Real Estate Development Consultants Kaye Melliship, Executive Director, Greater Victoria Housing Society Roger Garside, Local Developer Art Finlayson and Sylvia Bonet, Finlayson Bonet Architecture, Central Saanich Jack Barker, former Councillor and Realtor, Sidney Grant Rogers, Marker Group, Sidney Bruce Greig, Director of Planning and Development Services, District of Central Saanich Randy Humble, CAO and Marlaina Elliott, Development Services, Town of Sidney Rob Buchan, CAO, District of North Saanich Councillor Ted Daly, District of North Saanich Councillor Ryan Windsor, District of Central Saanich Councillor Carl Jensen, District of Central Saanich Councillor Craig Mearns, District of North Saanich Councillor Steve Price and Randy Humble, CAO, Town of Sidney Mayor Alice Finall and Rob Buchan, CAO, District of North Saanich

Saanich Peninsula Housing Options Tim Wake – Affordable Housing Consultant 2 October 2014

Page 10 of 34 Observations

The term Workforce Housing is used throughout this report to identify affordable housing that is intended to house working families and individuals whose place of work is located in North Saanich, Central Saanich or Sidney. It is distinct and separate from social housing, which requires subsidies from higher levels of government and is the subject of a separate initiative currently being led by MLA Gary Holman.

These three municipalities are very different but share a common problem – a shortage of housing for individuals, couples and families who wish to work and make their home on the Saanich Peninsula. The economic success of the region and the vitality of these three communities will depend on the degree to which the housing shortage can be addressed.

The following table highlights some of the differences across the three jurisdictions.

Density Population Area Average (persons per (2011) (sq. km.) Walk Score★ sq.km.)

North Saanich 11,089 37 289 15

Central Saanich 15,936 41 386 35

Sidney 11,583 5 2,184 90

★ Walk Score is a number between 0 and 100 that measures the walkability of any address (www.walkscore.com)

Given these and other fundamental differences, it is clear that each of these jurisdictions will have different opportunities to contribute to a regional housing solution. It is very unlikely that an effective regional solution will emerge without collaboration across the jurisdictions and the sectors (public, private and non-profit).

It is interesting to note that while all three jurisdictions have incorporated language in their OCP’s around mixed-use development, encouraging a diversity of housing size, type, tenure and price, and focusing on compact affordable options, the actual need for housing is assessed based on projected population growth rather than on employment and commuting numbers. Nonetheless, local governments, the employers and the development sector appear to be aware of the housing problem and prepared to do something about it.

In addition, there is consensus across the local governments and stakeholder groups that zoning and development opportunities exist in all three municipalities. In the limited discussions that we had, Jim Bennett and I have identified at least 200 housing units that were approved, in the approval process or about to be proposed. Clearly the willingness to develop housing is there. The challenge is that while these units will likely be built, they will not likely meet the needs of the target households ($50,000 - $90,000 annual household income), and none of these units will be purpose built rental.

Sidney, in spite of its smaller size, has the most development and redevelopment opportunities, is most comfortable with higher densities, has by far the highest Walk Score (proximity to employment, services, education and recreation) and would be a prime location for various forms of rental housing and multi-unit home ownership.

Page 11 of 34

The Central Saanich OCP has clear direction in Section 4 – Residential Growth Management and Housing: Creating Compact, Complete and Diverse Communities that lay out a framework supporting the development of a range of affordable workforce housing. A Housing Capacity Study done in 2007 identifies available land and the capacity for residential growth by dwelling type. A Residential Densification Study completed in 2012 recommends potential densification options in relation to specific physical, social and contextual restraints and opportunities. This work has informed recent rezoning and development approval decisions. Central Saanich is well positioned to contribute to regional housing solutions.

North Saanich has an important role to play in the development of housing solutions. While it does have some multi-family zoning (Eagle Ridge Estates, McDonald Park, Kiwanis Village and Lochside Drive), Kiwanis Village is the only project that addresses lower income. The Canora Mews project, a small lot subdivision currently under development, provides some options for the upper end of affordable homeownership. Two areas (one near Parkland Secondary School and the second around McTavish and Canora Roads) are under consideration for higher density affordable housing. Up to 520 new units are proposed over the next five years. If these units were approved for construction based on a range of tenures and prices, they could make a significant impact towards addressing the workforce housing shortage.

Developers, Municipal Staff and Elected Officials we spoke with were all generally supportive of the direction proposed in this document.

Comments

• The supply of workforce housing on the Saanich Peninsula, rental and ownership, can only be increased through a concerted collaborative effort. Local governments can revise OCP’s policies to increase densities, approve zoning changes, and encourage development, but this will not address affordability. It may create more units, but it will not ensure affordability.

• The way to ensure a more robust supply of affordable workforce units is to make the changes to allow for more units and then partner with the private sector to find ways to produce affordable workforce units with little or no additional cost to taxpayers or to the developers.

• Creating a diverse inventory of workforce housing units is only the first part of the challenge. We then need a functional and manageable system of administering restrictions on those units so they are in fact only available to local employees and their families and, most importantly, that their affordability is protected over time.

• In my experience, the only way this has been successfully achieved in other jurisdictions is by mandating an arm’s length non-profit housing organization to facilitate the construction of affordable workforce units, units that can be rented or purchased affordably by wage earners with average household incomes in the region. This housing organization can be small, nimble, effective and efficient and does not need to incur any ongoing cost to local taxpayers. It can develop its own funding mechanisms as well as fair and transparent processes for ensuring units retain their relative affordability over time.

Page 12 of 34 • The three primary goals of the housing organization would be:

1. To increase the supply of affordable workforce housing (rental and ownership) in the Saanich Peninsula each year for the next ten years, beginning in 2016.

2. To measure annually and consistently increase the percentage of the workforce that is resident on the Saanich Peninsula each year for the next ten years, beginning in 2016.

3. To create a qualification and waitlist process to ensure that employees working locally occupy new workforce housing units.

• This housing organization would be most likely to succeed if it was a true partnership between the public and private sectors and the local housing stakeholders. The partnership should have committed support and representation from all three municipalities, the development sector, local employers, the CRD and the Greater Victoria Housing Society. As it would be a partnership, the working name of the organization for this discussion will be the Saanich Peninsula Housing Partnership.

Recommendations

The following recommendations constitute an Action Plan to create the Saanich Peninsula Housing Partnership:

1. Secure funding from interested Founding Partners and Stakeholders to fund the creation and initial work of the organization. The budget for the first 9 months would be $45,000 and should come evenly from the employer group, the development community, and the regional district. Further funding would be based on initial performance and rely on the new organization to determine a working formula for 2016 and beyond.

2. Create this organization initially with one part time contract consultant to formally establish the founding partnership and seed funding, nominate the founding Board of Directors (a skills based board with representation from senior municipal staff, elected officials, experienced developers/financiers, non-profit housing providers, interested parties from the community and local employers) and begin the work of finding new workforce housing development opportunities in each of the three municipalities.

3. Secure commitments from developers for the planning, and if possible the construction, of 10 new units of workforce housing for those employed on the Saanich Peninsula per quarter for each of the first three quarters of operation.

4. Challenge this PARTNERSHIP Board to draft and approve a constitution and bylaws, register the partnership and develop a sustainable funding formula so that it will be self-funding moving forward. A number of potential funding models exist and have been utilized in other jurisdictions.

Page 13 of 34 5. Develop a five-year plan to produce workforce housing units, administer the sale and occupancy of those units to ensure they house working families and remain affordable in the future as they turn over.

6. Establish a reporting and community engagement process to ensure the community is informed of the progress made in the provision of workforce housing units and the process by which the units may be accessed.

Conclusions

Continuing with the status quo of rezoning properties and hoping that it will result in workforce housing units being developed on the Saanich Peninsula is unlikely to deliver any more in future than it has in the past.

Creating an organization with a clear mandate to facilitate the creation of workforce housing units, administer the sale and resale of those units to ensure a resident workforce and a diverse and vibrant community, and measure progress towards meeting a range of housing needs, can be achieved in these three communities with little cost to the taxpayer or the developers.

A partnership across all sectors will be most likely to succeed in this initiative.

It is worthwhile to conclude with the thought that seeking more affordability for those who choose to work in the community and live closer to their work does NOT necessarily mean providing for more density in the three Peninsula communities of North Saanich, Central Saanich and Sidney than is currently being contemplated in the latest Official Community Plans.

Page 14 of 34

Appendix A

Tim Wake Background and Experience

Tim Wake has 16 years experience working in creating affordable workforce housing, both homeownership and rental. He worked with the Whistler Housing Authority (WHA) from its inception in 1997 until 2005, served as a Municipal Councillor in Whistler and director on the WHA Board from 2005 to 2008 and has been an Affordable Housing Consultant since 2005.

Speaking Engagements and Presentations (2005 – 2014) Bowen Island Municipality Richmond Poverty Response Committee City of Calgary Saanich Peninsula Mayor’s Breakfast City of Cranbrook Town of Banff City of Nanaimo Town of Canmore City of Nelson Town of Comox City of Prince George Town of Gibsons City of Trail Town of Oliver City of Victoria Village of Kaslo City of Whitehorse Village of Nakusp City of Yellowknife Village of Valemount Hornby Island

Clients (as Consultant) Bowen Island Municipality Canada Mortgage and Housing City of Yellowknife NWT Columbia Basin Trust Columbia Institute District of Squamish BC Fresh Outlook Foundation Hesperia Development Corporation Hornby Island Community Enhancement Corporation Islands Trust, Salt Spring Island Office Jackson Hole Community Housing Trust Jackson Hole Town Council Oliver Community Economic Development Society Queenstown Lakes District Council, New Zealand Simon Fraser University City Program Smart Growth BC Teton County WY - Board of County Commissioners Tofino Housing Corporation Westbank Developments

Page 15 of 34 Boards (serving as a director) Whistler Housing Authority (2005 – 2008) Whistler Centre for Sustainability (2008 – present) Whistler Community Services Society (2005 – 2008) Maurice Young Millennium Place Society (2005 – 2011) Special Olympics BC Whistler (2006 – 2008) Abbeyfield Society of Bowen Island (2010 – 2011) Bowen Community Housing Association (2006 – 2008) Lake O’Hara Trails Club (1976 – present)

Committees Canada Green Building Council Whistler Community Services Society Maurice Young Millennium Place Society Special Olympics BC Whistler Bowen Island Sustainability Framework Working Group Whistler Transportation Advisory Group Bowen Island Affordable Housing Working Group

Publications • A Review of Best Practices in Affordable Housing (2007) • Creating Market and Non-Market Affordable Housing: A Smart Growth Tool Kit for BC Municipalities (2008) • A Guide for Canadian Municipalities for Creating a Housing Action Plan (CMHC, 2010).

Reports • Creating Housing Affordability for the City of Yellowknife (2009) • Affordable Housing Experience in Canadian Resort Communities (2009) • Comprehensive Housing Action Plan for the Town of Canmore (2008) • The Evolution and Impact of Secondary Suites in Whistler (2007)

Certificates • Certificate of Appreciation, SFU Beedie School of Business Mentors in Business Program (2012) • Real Estate Sales Person’s and Sub-Mortgage Broker’s Pre-Licensing Course – Property Management Option / UBC and The Real Estate Council of British Columbia (1996)

Awards • Georgie Award for Best Technical Innovation – Beaver Flats, Whistler (2002) • CMHC Affordable Housing Innovation Award – Beaver Flats, Whistler (2002) • Georgie Award for Excellence by a Local Government in Cooperation/Leadership with Industry – Beaver Flats, Whistler (2000)

Page 16 of 34 Risk of Major Earthquake

Alaska March 1964 Est. magnitude 9.2

Pacific NW North America January 1700 Magnitude - Unknown NEXT?? Japan March 2011 Magnitude 9.0 Mexico City September 1985 Magnitude 8.0

Sumatra Chile December 2004 May 1960 Magnitude 9.4 Magnitude 9.5 Chile February 2010 Magnitude 8.8

Christchurch February 2011 Magnitude 6.3

NOTES: 1. Scientists believe that there is an interaction between major tectonic movements around the Pacific Rim. 2. Scientists also believe that a major subjuction earthquake along the Cascadia Fault off the coast of Vancouver Island and Washington State will likely trigger slippage on other fault lines from California to Alaska. This seems to be confirmed by geologic bore holes in the continental shelf. 3. Geologic records indicate a statistical return period of 240 - 550 years, depending on magnitude. 4. Tsunami records from Japan indicate last major earthquake on Northwest Coast of North America was January, 1700 - 314 years ago.

Credit: "Earthquakes in Western Canada" (Alison L. Bird)

Page 17 of 34 Page 18 of 34 Earthquake Damage to Infrastructure

Christchurch, New Zealand - February 2011

Christchurch, New Zealand - February 2011 Christchurch, New Zealand - 1 year after

Chi-Chi, Taiwan - September 1999 (Credit: R. Boulanger, U.C. Davis)

Page 19 of 34 Page 20 of 34 Effects of Earthquake on Ferry Terminals

Deltaport/ Roberts Bank

Horseshoe Bay Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal causeway

Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal

Tsawwassen Horseshoe Bay

Swartz Bay Berth #2

Swartz Bay

NOTES: 1. Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal likely to be lost after major earthquake due to liquefaction of soft base. 2. Horseshoe Bay Ferry Terminal likely to be lost after major earthquake due to inadequacy of design. 3. Recently installed floating Swartz Bay Berth #2 expected to be fully functional after major earthquake.

Page 21 of 34 Page 22 of 34 Alternate Ferry Routes • Swartz Bay & Langdale Departures

Langdale

Horseshoe Bay

Vancouver

Departure Bay

Nanaimo Duke Point

Tsawwassen

Swartz Bay

Victoria

LEGEND: NOTES: Ferry terminal 1. Proposed that fully floating berths (similar to Swartz Bay Berth #2) be constructed at Langdale (Berth #1A) and Duke Point (Berth #2). Ferry terminal 2. New floating berth at Langdale would provide entry point for Sunshine Coast (NON-OPERATIONAL) after earthquake.

Alternate ferry route 3. Existing floating berth at Swartz Bay (Berth #2) would provide entry point for Vancouver Island after earthquake. 4. Proposed new floating berth at Duke Point would be constructed so it could be rapidly relocated to a prepared point at the east end of Burrard Inlet, providing hub point for post-disaster service to Vancouver Island and the Sunshine Coast.

Page 23 of 34 Page 24 of 34 B.C. DUE FOR MEGA-EARTHQUAKE ALONG COAST: SEISMIC RISK TO VITAL TRANSPORTATION LINKS BETWEEN VANCOUVER ISLAND, COASTAL COMMUNITIES AND THE LOWER MAINLAND

MAY 21, 2014

BACKGROUND

The probability of a very large (magnitude 9 plus) megathrust earthquake occurring off of the northwest coast of North America is increasing all of the time. Statistically it is estimated that there is a one in three chance of this major earthquake happening in the next fifty years. 1

Vancouver Island and coastal BC are at special risk to this earthquake due to the vulnerability of the ferry service links to the BC mainland. Virtually all food, essential goods and materials are transported to the island and coastal communities by truck. All truck traffic on BC Ferries is routed through either the Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal in Delta or the Horseshoe Bay Ferry Terminal in West Vancouver.

The Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal is constructed on a very deep, soft, alluvial foundation that is expected to liquefy under the heavy and prolonged shaking of a megathrust earthquake. The existing ferry terminal will be unusable after a major earthquake and will require a complete rebuild.

Horseshoe Bay Ferry Terminal is at risk due to the age of the berths that were constructed well before current codes for earthquake design. It is likely that the terminal’s three berths will be damaged beyond use or repair by the earthquake, and may in fact be buried as a result of the collapse of the adjacent steep and unstable rock walls.

Commercial drop-trailer service to Vancouver Island operated by Seaspan Ferries Inc. would also be adversely affected by a severe earthquake since their load out points are located in the Fraser River Delta, another vulnerable location not far upstream from Tsawwassen.

AFFECTED POPULATION

There are more than 760,000 people living in and around Vancouver Island and 50,000 people on the Sunshine Coast.2 These people depend on B.C. Ferries for essential goods, including food. Their homes, businesses, schools and communities all depend on a stable and secure linkage to the mainland. At present, each day an estimated 60 to 100 supply trucks use BC Ferries to deliver essential food stocks. In the absence of a functioning ferry terminal, not only food supply but the emergency medical and recovery materials would be unable to reach this vulnerable population. Food security forums suggest that the present reserve food supply on Vancouver Island would only be sufficient to sustain the population for a maximum of three weeks.

DISCUSSION POINTS

In the event of a major earthquake, the construction industry will be under severe stress to rebuild everything from marine terminals to city buildings. Demands for repair will be enormous. Alternate means of transportation such as barges will not be able to maintain the normal supply of vital goods such as food nor will they be able to transport materials and equipment for rebuilding.

Canada’s only west coast naval base is located at Esquimalt on Vancouver Island. The federal government also operates an airbase out of Comox. National Defense has a vested interest in maintaining a supply line for all the materials and goods that currently arrive at the bases by truck from the mainland. Personal transportation between the islands, coastal communities and the mainland would also be dramatically disrupted.

To construct a new ferry berth takes approximately 18 months. In the absence of functioning berths, it is expected that it will take two to three years to reconstruct the ferry berths necessary to allow for the resumption of normal transport of food and essential goods to Vancouver Island and coastal communities after a major earthquake.

1 “Alison L. Bird, Earthquakes in Western Canada”. 2 BC Stats 2011

Page 25 of 34 Public safety is of paramount importance and this issue presents an enormous risk to B.C. residents living on Vancouver Island and on the Sunshine Coast who are reliant on B.C. Ferries to provide essential services, materials and food. This is not an issue with the ongoing financial management of B.C. Ferries. It is, however, a critical special needs situation to address the risks to approximately 10% of the population of B.C. These unique island and coastal populations are at risk of being cut off from supplies for several years. It is a situation that requires pre-emptive action. It will be extremely difficult if not impossible to implement an effective plan to respond to this situation after the disaster.

SOLUTION

A mitigation strategy is available. A ferry berth design exists that is ‘post-disaster’ capable. It will not only survive the anticipated major earthquake but it would be serviceable after the event. A fully floating, concrete pontoon berth at Swartz Bay Berth 2 constructed in 2006 has the capability to remain functional following a major earthquake and would provide the access point for ferry traffic to Vancouver Island. An inherent characteristic of the floating berth is the compliant positional restraint employed. The mass of the berth is essentially isolated from ground motion. A consortium of B.C. industry professionals is proposing that two similar berths be constructed. One would be located at Langdale on Howe Sound to ensure there is a working berth to serve the coastal communities that depend on supply by B.C. Ferries. A second floating berth would be constructed and temporarily located at Duke Point near Nanaimo on Vancouver Island. It would have the capability to rapidly disconnect it at that site and towed to a prepared site in Burrard Inlet. This would become the hub to serve Vancouver Island and Sunshine Coast communities following a major earthquake.

REQUESTED ACTION:

It is proposed that the provincial government, as the representative body for citizens of Vancouver Island, the Gulf Islands and the Sunshine Coast, along with local and federal governments, B.C. Ferries and industry experts, commence a review of this proposed megathrust earthquake risk mitigation strategy. There are ways of managing the capital cost of this strategy if all levels of government are willing to focus on resolving this challenge cooperatively. We need to act together now.

PREPARING FOR A MEGATHRUST EARTHQUAKE IS OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE:

We look forward to hearing from you to ensure that we respond collectively, proactively and responsibly to protect the lives of B.C. residents living on Vancouver Island and in coastal communities who are reliant upon ferry services. We welcome your leadership in these important discussions.

Vancouver Pile Driving Ltd. Wayne Saunders, P. Eng., VP 604-986-5911 Ramsay Group Greg Ramsay, President 250-656-5314 Janox Fluid Power Ltd. Richard Crauford, President 604-952-6666 Hebden Engineering Inc. Ray Hebden, P. Eng., President 250-652-1605

Page 26 of 34 COMMITIEE REPORT

For Planning and Development Committee meeting on October 27th, 2014

To: Patrick Robins Chief Administrative Officer

From: Bruce Greig Priority: 0 strategic Director of Planning & Building Services 0 operational

Date: October 20th, 2014

Re: Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations proposed changes to Flood Hazard Area Land Use Management Guidelines to include Sea Level Rise

RECOMMENDATIONS:

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend that Council:

1) Provide any comments for input to the Ministry of Forests, Lands and

Natural Resource Operations on the proposed changes to the Flood Hazard

Area Land Use Management Guidelines as a means to address Sea Level

Rise;

2) Direct staff to prepare a supplemental budget request to engage

consultants to prepare mapping of the 2100 Flood Construction Level for

the District, utilizing the province's recommended methodology (Ausenco

Sandwell, 2011 );

3) Endorse pursuing opportunities to work with neighbouring municipalities

to ensure consistent mapping results and reduce costs; and,

4) Refer the issue of regulatory options for land use management in response

to Sea Level Rise to a future tri-municipal Council meeting, to discuss the

options and benefits of a coordinated approach to addressing this issue.

1903 mounl newlon Cro:MRoad, Saatiichlon, BC. V8m 2..//9 /?une: 250-652-4444 .2.,._.250-652-0135

Page 27 of 34 To: Patrick Robins, Chief Administrative Officer October 20, 2014 For: October 27, 2014 Planning & Development Committee Meeting Re: proposed changes to Flood Hazard Area Land Use Management Guidelines to include Sea Level Rise Page 2

BACKGROUND:

Changes to provincial legislation in 2003 and 2004 shifted the authority to manage land use in flood hazard areas from the Province to local governments. Central Saanich does not have any designated flood hazard areas or ufloodplains".

Currently, the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natl.Ira! Resource Operations (FLNRO) is in the process of changing the "Flood Hazard Area Land Use Management Guidelines" to also include considerations for land development in areas that will be affected by sea level rise. New section 3.5 and 3.6 of the guidelines have been drafted, and FLNRO is currently seeking comments from local governments (see Appendix 'A').

In late September, the CRD hosted a legal seminar presenting preliminary analysis and discussion of the proposed guidelines. Discussion centred on the potential implications for those local governments that choose to designate flood hazard areas, as well as the implications for those not adopting such designations within their land use regulations.

The measures recommended by the province are, at this point, guidelines. There is currently no requirement for local governments to identify and adopt regulations for development in flood hazard areas.

This report is intended to bring the changes being proposed by FLNRO to Council's attention

DISCUSSION:

Subsequent to the seminar hosted by the CRD, Planning staff met with staff from both

Sidney and North Saanich to discuss and understand where each municipality is at on this issue. It became clear that if the District is to undertake work in this area, it would be efficient to take a common approach and, where practical, share resources (e.g. for analysis and mapping).

Staff have not had an opportunity to fully analyse the proposed changes to the provincial

Page 28 of 34 To: Patrick Robins, Chief Administrative Officer October 20, 2014 For: October 27, 2014 Planning & Development Committee Meeting Re: proposed changes to Flood Hazard Area Land Use Management Guidelines to include Sea Level Rise Page 3

guidelines and their implications for the municipality, and are not suggesting specific

changes to the draft guidelines be submitted to FLNRO. Given the request for comment,

however, Council may consider whether it wishes to provide feedback to the province on

the general approach of flood hazard management as a local government responsibility.

Staff see several potential issues, including:

0 lack of resources and expertise at the local government staff level to implement

the guidelines;

0 potential for inconsistent approaches among local governments leading to a

patchwork of regulations - resulting in an uneven field with respect to land use

regulations, degree of public safety and impacts on land values;

0 uncertainty about the appropriate roles and legal responsibilities of the province,

municipalities, professionals and land owners; and,

0 basic questions about whether adopting the flood hazard guidelines is the

appropriate tool to also address sea level rise.

CONCLUSION:

Sea level rise will affect both private properties and municipal infrastructure in the years

to come. To better understand the potential impacts and areas affected, staff

recommend that, as a first step, the District consider developing detailed mapping of the

year 2100 Flood Construction Level as recommended by provincial guidelines. Staff

further recommend that Council endorse the approach of working with neighbouring

municipalities on this project to ensure consistency and, where possible, save on costs.

Respectfully submitted,

� - I Bruce Greig, mcip, bcsla Director of Planning and Building Services

Attachments: Endorsed by: Appendix 'A' - draft FLNRO guidelines

I JV"""- r """'V""VI 'V1

David McAllister, P.Eng. MSc. MBA Director of Engineering & Public Works

Page 29 of 34 --- BRITISH COLUMBIA

AMENDMENT (DRAFT-MAY 7, 2013)

Section 3.5 and 3.6 - Flood Hazard Area Land Use Management Guidelines

3.5 The Sea

3.5.1 Background and Reference Documents

The content for this Amendment is drawn primarily from, " Climate Change Adaptation Guidelines for Sea Dikes and Coastal Flood Hazard Land Use - Guidelines for Management of Coastal Flood Hazard Land Use", Ausenco Sandwell, report to BC Ministry of Environment, January 27, 2011 and the companion reports, "Sea Dike Guidelines" and "Draft Policy Discussion Paper", also dated January 27, 2011.

These 2011 reports, including terminology, definitions and explanatory figures, supplement this Amendment to the "Flood Hazard Area Land Use Management Guidelines". Where there is any inconsistency between the Ausenco Sandwell (2011) reports and this Amendment document, the Amendment document shall govern. These reports are referenced in this Amendment as:

"Draft Policy Discussion Paper" - AS(2011 a) "Guidelines for Management of Coastal Flood Hazard Land Use" -AS (2011 b) "Sea Dike Guidelines" -AS (2011c)

These reports are available on the ministry web page: http://www.env.qov.bc.ca/wsd/public safety/flood/fhm-2012/draw report.html

3.5.2 Design and Planning Time Frame

Requirements for buildings, subdivision, and zoning should allow for sea level rise (SLR) to the year 2100.

Land use adaptation strategies should allow for sea level rise to the year 2200.

3.5,.3 Recommended Sea Level Rise Scenario for BC

Allow for 0.5 m by 2050, 1.0 m by 2100 and 2.0 m Global Sea Level Rise by 2200 relative to the year 2000 as per Figure 1.

Adjust for regional uplift and subsidence using the most recent and best information available. Where no information is available, assume neutral conditions (i.e. no uplift or subsidence).

Ministry of Flood Safety Section Mailing Address: Location: Forests, Lands, & Resource Stewardship Division PO Box9340 Sin Prov Govt 3rd Floor, 395 WaterfrontCrescent Natural Resource Water Management Branch Victoria BC V8W 9M1 Victoria BC V8T 5K7 Operations Website: www.env.gov,bc.ca/wsd Telephone: (250) 387-9962

Page 30 of 34 DraftAmendment Sections 3.5 and 3.6 "Flood Hazard Area Land Use Management Guidelines"

The scenario in Figure 1 is intended to be reviewed in 2015, or sooner if there is significant new scientific information.

Recommended Curve for Sea CllE 4 Level Rise Policy in BC - O> ...... Co nJ 0 �o 3 (.) N - 0 Cl)_ > Cl) 2 � .2! - nJ Cl) ..rn (/) � 1

0 . ------o;tS·------1900 1950 2000 2050 2100 2150 2200 2250 2300 Year

Figure 1. Recommended Global Sea Level Rise Curve for Planning and Design in BC

3.5.4 Sea Level Rise Planning Areas

Local Governments should consider defining SLR Planning Areas and developing land use planning strategies integrating both flood protection (sea dikes) and flood hazard management tools. These areas should include inland floodplains adjacent to tidally influenced rivers where potential flood levels will be increased by sea level rise.

3.5.5 Strait of Georgia

3.5.5.1 Standard FCLS and Setbacks

The Year 2100 FCL should be established for specific coastal areas during the SLR Planning Area process by a suitably qualified professional. The Year 2100 FCL should be the minimum elevation for the underside of a wooden floor system or top of concrete slab for habitable buildings, and should be determined as the sum of: • The 1:200 Annual Exceedence Probability (AEP) water level as determined by joint probability analyses of high tides and storm surge; • Allowance for future SLR to the year 2100; • Allowance for regional uplift, or subsidence to the year 2100; • Estimated wave effects associated with the Designated Storm; and • Freeboard.

Note: Alternatively, the Year 2100 FCL can be determined by a simplified but more conservative method as described in the Ausenco Sandwell (2011) reports. Example calculations of FCLs for specific areas in coastal BC are provided in Table 3-2 AS(2011b) where the FCL is determined as the sum of:

Page 31 of 34 Draft Amendment Sections 3.5 and 3.6 "Flood Hazard Area Land Use Management Guidelines"

• Allowance for future SLR to the year 2100; • Allowance for regional uplift. or subsidence to the year 2100; • Higher high water lar ge tide (HHWLT); • Estimated storm surge for the Designated Storm; • Estimated wave effects associated with the Designated Storm; and • Freeboard.

The building setback should be at least the greater of 15 m from the future estimated Natural Boundary of the sea at Year 2100, or landward of the location where the natural ground elevation contour is equivalent to the Year 2100 FCL (refer to Figure 2-2 in AS (2011 b) for a definition sketch).

The setback may be increased on a site-specific basis such as for exposed erodible beaches and/or in areas of known erosion hazard.

3.5.5.2 Subdivision

All lots created through subdivision should have viable building sites on natural ground that comply with the Year 2100 FCL and setback guidelines noted above.

To regulate redevelopment at the end of the building lifespan, the development approving officer should require a restrictive covenant stipulating that any future reconstruction must meet the FCL and setbacks requirements in force at thetime of redevelopment, and including a liability disclaimer if reconstruction does not take place at or before the planned lifespan of the building.

3.5.5.3 Development on Existing Lots

On existing lots, if meeting the setback guidelines noted above would sterilize the lot (i.e., not allow even one of the land uses or structures permitted under the current zoning). the development approving official may agree to modify setback requirements as recommended by a suitably qualified professional, provided that this is augmented through a restrictive covenant stipulating the hazard, building requirements, and liability disclaimer.

The Year 2100 FCL requirements would still apply to new habitable building construction.

3.5.5.4 Lots with Coastal Bluffs

For lots containing coastal bluffs that are steeper than 3(H):1(V) and susceptible to erosion from the sea, setbacks should be determined as follows:

1. If the future estimated Natural Boundary is located at least 15 m seaward of the toe of the bluff, then no action is required and the setback should conform with other guidelines that adequately address terrestrial cliff and slope stability hazards.

2. If the future estimated Natural Boundary is located 15m or less seaward of the toe of the bluff, then the setback from the future estimated Natural Boundary should be located at a horizontal distance of at least 3 times the height of the bluff, measured from 15 m landwards from the location of the future estimated Natural Boundary.

In some conditions, setbacks may require site-specific interpretation and could result in the use of a minimum distance measured back from the crest of the bluff. The setback may be modified provided the modification is supported by a report, giving consideration

Page 32 of 34 DraftAmendment Sections 3.5 and 3.6 "Flood Hazard Area Land Use Management Guidelines"

to the coastal erosion that may occur over the life of the project, prepared by a suitably qualified professional.

3.5.6 Outside the Strait of Georgia Area • Areas Subject to Signiflicant Tsunami Hazard

For coastal lands subject to tsunami hazards, the tsunami setback and elevation as determined below will typically exceed the "standard" setbacks and elevations determined for the Year 2100 as described in 3.5.5.1. Where the tsunami hazard is low, the greater FCLs and setbacks shall apply.

A subdivision application in tsunami prone areas must include a report by a suitably qualified professional who must formulate safe building conditions for each proposed lot based on a review of recent Tsunami hazard literature plus the historical report, "Evaluation of Tsunami Levels Along the British Columbia Coast", by Seaconsult Marine Research Ltd., dated March 1988.

At a minimum, building conditions should protect improvements from damage from a tsunami of equal magnitude to the March 28,1964 tsunami that resulted from the Prince William Sound, Alaska earthquake.

Setback- Setback requirements should be established on a site-specific basis and take into account tsunami hazards.

The setback must be sufficient to protect buildings and must be at least 30 metres from the Year 2100 estimated natural boundary.

FCL- FCL requirements should be established on a site-specific basis and take into account tsunami hazards.

Reductions to these requirements should only be considered where the building can be built to the Tsunami FCL on bedrock.

3.6 Areas Protected by Standard Dikes

Residential, commercial and institutional developments in areas protected by standard dikes are required to comply with full flood proofing requirements for their respective categories, with a possible exception for development within Sea Level Rise Planning Areas as noted below.

Setback-

Buildings should be located a minimum of 7.5 metres away from any structure for flood protection or seepage control or any dike right-of-way used for protection works. In addition, fill for floodproofing should not be placed within 7.5 metres of the inboard toe of any structure for flood protection or seepage control or the inboard side of any dike right of way used for protection works.

Page 33 of 34 Draft Amendment Sections 3.5 and 3.6 "Flood Hazard Area Land Use Management Guidelines"

Additional dike right of way and building set back requirements should be defined for Sea Level Rise Planning Areas to accommodate upgrading of dikes for sea level rise

Any change to these conditions requires the approval of the Inspector of Dikes.

FCL-

Buildings and manufactured homes in areas protected by standard dikes should meet minimum FCLs prescribed for the primary stream, lake or sea adjacent to the dike and the FCL requirements for any internal drainage (minimum ponding elevations).

Relaxation of FCL requirements for new development in coastal areas protected by standard dikes may be appropriate for Sea Level Rise Planning Areas where the long term flood protection strategy and dike upgrading program has been approved by the Inspector of Dikes. This relaxation should be augmented through a restrictive covenant stipulating the hazard and protection strategy, building requirements, and liability disclaimer.

3.6.1 Secondary sources of flooding

Where there are secondary sources of flooding within diked areas, the appropriate requirements as set out in Clauses 3.1 through 3.5 should be applied. These should include consideration of minimum ponding elevations behind the dike to protect against internal drainage.

AMENDED: __, 2013

Page 34 of 34