File 0540-30-0003
CITY OF POWELL RIVER
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING
TUESDAY, JULY 16, 2019 (3:30 PM)
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
AGENDA
1. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES
2.1 Minutes of Regular Committee of the Whole meeting 3 - 7 held July 2, 2019
3. DELEGATIONS
3.1 Emma Levez Larocque regarding Meatless Monday 8 - 19 Powell River Implementation Project
4. CORRESPONDENCE
4.1 Correspondence dated July 3, 2019 from Stefan Fogarty 20 regarding Haslam Lake Water Facility Mural Project Proposal
4.2 Correspondence received June 28, 2019 from Jim Blom 21 - 24 and Sherry Burton regarding 2019 Property Taxes
4.3 Correspondence received June 25, 2019 from Katherine 25 - 74 Metz regarding The Missing Millions, Request for Support
4.4 Letter received July 10, 2019 from Daniel Fretts 75 - 76 regarding Response Requested From The Committee
4.5 Letter received July 9, 2019 from Stephen J. Miller 77 regarding Sale of City Owned Lands
5. REPORTS
5.1 Report dated July 16, 2019 from the Chief 78 - 84 Administrative Officer regarding Private Managed Forest Land Program Review
5.2 Report dated July 16, 2019 from the Senior Planner 85 - 103 regarding Development Permit 215 Amendment - Sunset Homes – Joyce Avenue
5.3 Community Engagement Reports - Councillors
5.4 Action List 104 - 109
5.5 Bylaw Tracking List 110 - 111
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
7. NEW BUSINESS
8. MOTION TO GO IN CAMERA
Recommendation: That following adjournment of this regular meeting, Council move in camera to discuss matters covered by the Community Charter under Sections 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; (j) information that is prohibited, or information that if it were presented in a document would be prohibited, from disclosure under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act; and (n) the consideration of whether a council meeting should be closed under a provision of this subsection or subsection (2).
9. QUESTIONS
10. ADJOURNMENT
Page 2 of 111 DRAFT JULY 2, 2019 Committee of the Whole Meeting Minutes File 0540-30-0005
CITY OF POWELL RIVER
Minutes of the Committee of the Whole Meeting held in the Council Chambers, City Hall on Tuesday, July 2, 2019 at 3:30 PM.
PRESENT: Councillor M.J. Hathaway, Chair Mayor D.J. Formosa Councillor G.W.F. Doubt Councillor C.A. Leishman Councillor J.G. Palm Councillor R.R.D. Southcott
ALSO PRESENT: Russell Brewer, Chief Administrative Officer Chris Jackson, Corporate Officer/Recording Secretary Tor Birtig, Director of Infrastructure Services Thomas Knight, Director of Planning Services Members of the Public Media Representatives
ABSENT WITH LEAVE: Councillor C.A. Elliott
1. ADOPTION OF AGENDA 1.1 Moved and seconded that the agenda for the July 2, 2019 Committee of the Whole meeting be adopted. CARRIED
2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES 2.1 Minutes of Regular Committee of the Whole meeting held June 18, 2019 Moved and seconded that the minutes of the Regular Committee of the Whole meeting held June 18, 2019 be adopted. CARRIED
3. DELEGATIONS 3.1 Doug Flesher regarding Citizen Petition Requesting Lowering Speed Limit on Alberni Street
Doug Flesher appeared before the Committee to provide a presentation regarding a petition requesting lowering the speed limit on Alberni Street. By unanimous consent, staff was directed to include the letter and petition under the Traffic Bylaw Action List item.
Page 3 of 111 DRAFT JULY 2, 2019 Committee of the Whole Meeting Minutes File 0540-30-0005
4. CORRESPONDENCE 4.1 Correspondence received June 16, 2019 from Pat Martin regarding City of Powell River and City Council Accountability and Transparency
By unanimous consent, the correspondence received June 16, 2019 from Pat Martin regarding City of Powell River and City Council Accountability and Transparency was received.
5. REPORTS 5.1 Report dated July 2, 2019 from the Senior Planner regarding Development Variance Permit 222 – Request to Vary North Side Setback for 3491 Selkirk Avenue Moved and seconded that staff be directed to give notice in accordance with section 499 of the Local Government Act of Council’s intention to consider issuance of Development Variance Permit 222 to vary City of Powell River Zoning Bylaw 2100, 2006, as amended, by reducing the north side setback requirement from 1.8 metres to 1.36 metres to accommodate a side access staircase for residential dwelling for the property legally described as Lot 3 District Lot 6771 New West District Plan EPP16047 Group 1. CARRIED
5.2 Report dated July 2, 2019 from the Manager of Planning Services regarding Sustainable Official Community Plan and Zoning Amendment 93 - Vacant Ontario Avenue - BC Housing
By unanimous consent, the report dated July 2, 2019 from the Manager of Planning Services regarding Sustainable Official Community Plan and Zoning Amendment 93 - Vacant Ontario Avenue - BC Housing was referred to the July 18, 2019 Council meeting.
5.3 Report dated July 2, 2019 from the Chief Administrative Officer regarding 2019 Union of British Columbia Municipalities Conference - Ministerial Meetings
By unanimous consent, staff was directed to submit 2019 Union of British Columbia Municipalities Ministerial Meeting requests, as listed in Appendix A of the July 2, 2019 staff report and arrange additional meetings with the following:
Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General via Parliamentary Secretary for Emergency Preparedness regarding Seismic Early Warning System; Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development regarding Private Managed Forest Land Act Amendments; and Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure regarding Highway 101
Page 4 of 111 DRAFT JULY 2, 2019 Committee of the Whole Meeting Minutes File 0540-30-0005
relocation and rural transit bus service on the Sunshine Coast.
5.4 Community Engagement Reports - Councillors
Councillor Palm reported on: Two new volleyball courts at Willingdon Beach
Councillor Southcott reported on: Wildwood open house last Friday Private Managed Forest Lands conference call Webinar with Roy Francis, Mayor Formosa and Hegus Clint Williams regarding working together qathet Regional District evacuation information meeting PRISMA on the Beach
Councillor Doubt reported on: Townsite Ratepayers’ Association meeting Private Managed Forest Lands consultation meeting PRISMA on the Beach Wildwood Pub carving unveiling (from 500-year-old cedar tree) Canada Day celebration - Canadian National Anthem sung in both English and Tla'amin
Councillor Leishman reported on: Only Canadian panelist participating on online webinar regarding International Climate Emergency
Councillor Hathaway reported on: Protective Services meeting
Mayor Formosa on: Chilco bylaw issue matter Upcoming “Pulling Together” event being held at Willingdon Beach on July 7 at 4:00 pm PRISMA Events Webinar with BC Rural Centre with Hegus Clint Williams and Roy Francis Calls from the public regarding speeding and Overdose Prevention Site Local contractors’ meeting Surrey Street postal service advocacy Canada Day celebration
5.5 Action List
The Action List dated June 28, 2019 was reviewed.
Page 5 of 111 DRAFT JULY 2, 2019 Committee of the Whole Meeting Minutes File 0540-30-0005
5.6 Bylaw Tracking List
The Bylaw Tracking List dated June 27, 2019 was reviewed.
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
7. NEW BUSINESS 7.1 Private Managed Forest Land Program Review - Councillor Southcott
Councillor Southcott provided an overview of the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development consultation and opportunity for input.
By unanimous consent, staff was directed to prepare a report and draft a response to the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development regarding Private Managed Forest Lands.
8. MOTION TO GO IN CAMERA 8.1 Moved and seconded that following adjournment of this regular meeting, Council move in camera to discuss matters covered by the Community Charter under Sections 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; (i) the receipt of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose; (j) information that is prohibited, or information that if it were presented in a document would be prohibited, from disclosure under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act; (n) the consideration of whether a council meeting should be closed under a provision of this subsection or subsection (2).
CARRIED
9. QUESTIONS 9.1 The following questions were asked from the media and members of the public: Correspondence regarding City Council Accountability and Transparency Zoning Amendment 93 – Vacant Ontario Avenue (BC Housing)
Page 6 of 111 DRAFT JULY 2, 2019 Committee of the Whole Meeting Minutes File 0540-30-0005
10. ADJOURNMENT Moved and seconded that the meeting adjourn at 4:55 pm. CARRIED
CERTIFIED CORRECT Chris Jackson Corporate Officer
The next regular Committee of the Whole meeting will be held at 3:30 pm on July 16, 2019.
Page 7 of 111 July 16 COTW Item 3.1 Delegation – Emma Levez Larocque Meatless Monday Pilot Project
Meatless Monday Powell River Implementation Project
Project Report – June 2019 Emma Levez Larocque, Plant-Based RHN On behalf of Climate Action Powell River Society [email protected] 604-414-8399
Meatless Monday Implementation Project Report Page 1 | 12
Page 8 of 111 PROJECT OVERVIEW:
The Meatless Monday Powell River Implementation Project was officially launched on March 1, 2019 and ran over the course of 4 months, to June 28, 2019. Key objectives of the project (as per the original proposal) were:
raising community awareness regarding the environmental impact of animal agriculture, and particularly how reducing the consumption of animal products can help Powell River to lower its greenhouse gas emissions raising community awareness regarding the health and longevity benefits of eating more whole plant foods and fewer animal products inspiring people to take part in a shared action that will help the community to reduce its collective carbon footprint helping the City to become a leader in the reduction of local consumption of animal products
Each of these objectives will be addressed in this report, with activities, results and anecdotes that demonstrate the accomplishments of this project. Raising Community Awareness (Environmental and Health Impacts):
The educational objectives were the main focus of the Meatless Monday project. The efforts carried out to raise awareness included:
Design and set up of a local Meatless Monday website www.meatlessmondaypr.com. The website has several functions, one of them being to inform people what the Meatless Monday campaign is all about, why they should take part and a resource page, which was populated with local and global articles addressing the powerful reasons for people to consider reducing their consumption of animal products for environmental and health reasons Set up and ongoing population of social media (primarily Facebook, but also Instagram). The Facebook page (www.facebook.com/meatlessmondaypr) currently has 286 followers and continues to grow; average post engagement between June 21 and 27 was 395. The Facebook page was used to share recipes, information and inspiration, and some people who were participating in the campaign enjoyed posting pictures about the meals they were making on Mondays. It will continue to be a good place to engage people who are interested in the campaign and some people who are interested in helping to continue to populate the social media pages have been recruited. Weekly newsletters. Each Monday from March 4 through to July 1 a newsletter was distributed to everyone on the mailing list (i.e. anyone who had made a Meatless Monday pledge) containing recipes, educational resources, and information about what was happening with our local campaign. Newsletters will continue to be sent out on a monthly basis.
Meatless Monday Implementation Project Report Page 2 | 12
Page 9 of 111 “Thanks so much for these weekly newsletters! I have really enjoyed them!!! And I've heard such great feedback about them from others, too.” – D. Marentette (participant and local M.D.)
“The Meatless Monday initiative has made a big impact on our household. We’ve been trying to implement more plant-based meals into our diet and this gave us the structure we needed. We experimented with new recipes, healthier twists on old faves and ended up increasing our meatless meals into other days of the week! Our family of 5, ages 10-45 will continue to follow the Meatless Monday initiative after the pilot project has ended.” – T. Cramb (participant)
Attending and holding community events to engage with members of the public. This was by far the most rewarding part of the project. I had many conversations with people who had never considered the benefits of a meat-free lifestyle, and I believe a lot of seeds of change were planted. Over the 4-month period of the project the following events were attended/organized: o Seedy Saturday – we had a table and talked to attendees about the project, the issues and took Meatless Monday pledges o Earth Day – same as above o Instant Pot Demo at Ecossentials – I did a 2-hour Instant-Pot demo which was open to the public to share tips on how to easily and quickly cook healthy plant-based meals. About 30 people attended. o Table at Save On Foods – Save On hosted a table where we were able to talk to shoppers about the project and give away coupons for some of the vegan products that Save On carries. o Cooking demonstration at Safeway – I did an onsite 2-hour cooking demonstration at Safeway on Customer Appreciation Day in May; gave away approximately 60 samples, and talked to many people about plant-based food, cooking, health advantages, environmental advantages, and the project as well. Safeway sponsored the food and also provided a Meatless Monday coupon for customers. o Vegan Cheeze and Cracker Sampling at Townsite Fruit & Veg (during the Townsite Mall Craft Fair) – a 2-hour tabling event where I gave out samples of vegan cheeze and crackers and talked to people about the project and the reasons for decreasing consumption of animal products. Over 100 samples distributed; Townsite Fruit & Veg donated the food for this. o 2 screenings of Cowspiracy: The Sustainability Secret, a public one at the Powell River Library (which about 45 people attended), which included a panel talk afterward with myself, Ana Lukyanova, Councilor Leishman and Dr. Danielle Marentette and one at Brooks Secondary (which about 200 students & teachers attended).
Meatless Monday Implementation Project Report Page 3 | 12
Page 10 of 111 o Celebratory Meatless Monday Potluck at Ecossentials – We had a wrap-up potluck to celebrate the project and I presented some of the results of the campaign to attendees. This was attended by about 45-50 people.
“This has been a great opportunity to stretch our experiences with meatless meals and lifestyle – thanks!” – participants S. Almeida and T. Edwards
Articles in local media. Several articles were written and appeared in local publications over the course of the campaign, which appeared in the Peak Newspaper and Powell River Living. Some of these were articles that focused on the project; others were written in response to criticisms of the project. The latter were valuable opportunities to clarify common misunderstandings around the issue of how the consumption of animal products affect the environment. The articles can be seen here: o https://www.prpeak.com/news/plant-based-proposal-promotes-meat-free-mondays-in- powell-river-1.23619063 o https://www.prpeak.com/opinion/viewpoint-animal-agriculture-impacts-climate- change-1.23645243?fbclid=IwAR2aEXAjz-dvhVZ_Logx7XoMiJxxhNGymJ0KVxZ- Z3cmqZT0t6g1SXg7wV4 o https://www.prpeak.com/opinion/viewpoint/viewpoint-stop-arguing-about-climate- change-and-take-action-1.23668498 o https://www.prpeak.com/community/carbonwise-reducing-our-eco-footprint- 1.23813249 o Articles also appeared in Powell River Living Magazine, which cannot be linked to; a follow-up story about the project will appear in the upcoming August issue, and a story has also been submitted to the international Meatless Monday campaign (www.meatlessmonday.com) about our local project.
Inspiring People to Take Part:
Many of the items listed above also leant themselves to this part of the campaign, but several other efforts were also made, including:
Inviting local restaurants and food-related businesses to offer a Meatless Monday incentive and be promoted through the campaign. A number of restaurants and cafes took advantage of this opportunity, offering Meatless Monday discounts or special offers, including Fruits & Roots Juice Bar, Little Hut Curry, Base Camp, A&W, Skeeter Jack’s, 7 Sprouts, Ecossentials, Townsite Fruit & Veg, Save On Foods, Safeway and Garden Gate Health. As the campaign moves into its maintenance phase I am updating the business section of the website to include as many businesses as possible that have meatless options or offerings of plant-based support. The site will stand as a resource to people who are looking for information about places they can access meatless or vegan options. Meatless Monday Implementation Project Report Page 4 | 12
Page 11 of 111 “Meatless Monday is such a good way to promote the advantages of eating a whole foods, plant-based diet!” – M. Call (Ecossentials)
Engaging youth and schools. Through the course of the project I gave several presentations -- to Youth Council, District Principals and Brooks Secondary Staff. We did a screening of Cowspiracy with Q&A at Brooks, as mentioned above, and several principals expressed an interest in engaging with the Meatless Monday campaign in the fall. A Meatless Monday poster is being made (see attached), and will be displayed in public venues (Townsite Fruit & Veg and Save On Foods have agreed to put them up, and I will be approaching Brooks School in the fall to do the same). PR Hospital Staff Training Session and Meatless Monday trial day. Over the past couple of months I have been meeting, alongside Dr. Danielle Marentette, with Sodexo personnel and Director of Coastal Community Care (VCH) Melie De Champlain to plan an informational session for hospital staff about the benefits of a whole foods plant-based diet, which will be followed by a day in which the menu is fully plant-based. This is a trial to see how we can move forward with offering more healthy and appealing plant-based options in the hospital and residential care. This is one of the very exciting things to have come about as a result of the Meatless Monday project, and though it necessarily will take more time than the timeframe of the project to complete, it is an important and significant start that has occurred because of the project.
“I am committed to support the vision of improving options for plant based - whole foods for our patients and residents.” – M. De Champlain (Director, VCH)
Demonstrating Impact On GHG Emissions (And Other Environmental Factors)
The main way this objective was tackled was by asking locals to make a pledge to lower their consumption of animal products. People noted their current diet (i.e. meat lover, average meat consumer, no beef, vegetarian or vegan), the change they wanted to make (i.e. meatless or vegan), the number of people in their family who were participating, and the number of days a week they were making a change. Results (assuming that participants achieved the goals in their original pledges) are as follows:
182 households (representing 360 people) participated; of these people… 206 people pledged to go meatless o Average Meat Consumers -> Meatless: 120 people (241 days per week) – 479.59 kgs saved per week o Meat Lovers -> Meatless: 8 people (8 days per week) – 16.48 kgs saved per week o No Beef -> Meatless: 28 people (95 days per week) – 47.12 kgs saved per week o People who were already vegetarian: 50 Meatless Monday Implementation Project Report Page 5 | 12
Page 12 of 111 154 people pledged to go vegan o Average Meat Consumers -> Vegan: 16 (39 days per week) – 97.11 kgs saved per week o Meatless -> vegan: 2 people (14 days a week) -- 7 kgs saved per week o No Beef -> Vegan: 1 person (4 days a week) – 3.984 kgs saved per week o Vegetarian -> Vegan: 34 people (150 days) – 75 kgs saved per week o People who were already vegan: 101 people TOTAL SAVED FROM CHANGES MADE AS PART OF THIS CAMPAIGN: o 726.284 kgs per week; o 2905.14 kgs per month; o 11620.55 kgs over the 4-month campaign o 37766.768 kgs (41 tonnes) would be saved if all of these people continue to honour their pledge for 1 year TOTAL SAVED BY THE 50 EXISTING VEGETARIANS WHO PARTICIPATED (as compared to the impact of an average meat eater) o 696.50 kgs per week; o 2786 kgs per month o 11,144 kgs over the 4-month campaign o 36,218 kgs (39.92 T) will be saved by these people over the course of a year TOTAL SAVED BY THE 101 EXISTING VEGANS WHO PARTICIPATED (as compared to the impact of an average meat eater) o 1760.43 kgs per week; o 7041.72 per month; o 28,166.88 kgs over the 4-month campaign o 91,542.36 (100.908 T) will be saved by these people over the course of a year
**Calculations based on data from Foodprints by Diet Type (http://www.greeneatz.com/foods-carbon- footprint.html)
Meatless Monday Implementation Project Report Page 6 | 12
Page 13 of 111 REDUCTIONS:
AVE MEAT CONSUMER -> VEGETARIAN – saves 1.99 kg CO2e per day MEAT LOVER TO VEGETARIAN – saves 2.06 kg per day NO BEEF TO VEGETARIAN – saves 0.496 kg per day AVE MEAT CONSUMER TO VEGAN – saves 2.49 kg per day VEGETARIAN TO VEGAN – saves 0.5 kgs per day NO BEEF TO VEGAN – saves 0.996 per day
NOTE: Though the vegetarians and vegans who took part in this campaign did not necessarily make a change in the way they were eating, their impact is still worth noting because it shows the powerful impact that someone’s dietary choices can have in reducing our collective carbon footprint, and that is why I have included the numbers here. Through the course of the campaign I heard a number of anecdotal stories about people who were encouraged to try Meatless Mondays because of friends and family members who were vegetarian or vegan.
This is just the beginning of a movement – as one participant said to me, “Once you know, you can’t unknow, and that means you have to change.” Below is just a sampling of the other quotes that we collected from participants. (The full spreadsheet with numbers and quotes can be made available upon request). “I am participating because…
“I am deeply concerned about reducing carbon emissions.” “It’s better for the environment and my health.” “This is an important awareness campaign.”
Meatless Monday Implementation Project Report Page 7 | 12
Page 14 of 111 “Awareness will create momentum and hopefully change for better health for all.” “I want to be included to show how important this is.”
“I care about this planet and our life on it. I have been educated to know I cannot be an environmentalist and still eat meat! The impact is a huge negative for our bodies, the animals and our planet.”
Through this campaign we managed to encourage a couple of hundred people to make healthier diet choices for themselves and the planet. We had a lot of feedback from people about the positive impact this project had.
"I was impressed with the impact of the local Meatless Monday project – I saw people getting on board with it who I never expected would! Clearly there is something to this that people see value in, whether for ethical, ecological or personal reasons. The Meatless Monday program has been a positive thing for many people in Powell River." – M. Williams (Townsite Fruit & Veg)
If we can continue to grow this trend and encourage roughly 10% of Powell River’s population to go vegetarian (1200 people), we would save 869232 kgs CO2 emissions (958.16 T) per year.
It’s important to note that greenhouse gas emissions are just one factor that is helped by eating fewer animal products. Here are some other numbers to consider (sources and calculations can be found here: https://plantricianproject.org/food-math-101)
Meatless Monday Implementation Project Report Page 8 | 12
Page 15 of 111 Where do we go from here?
This project was set up to implement Meatless Mondays in Powell River so that the campaign can continue with smaller time inputs moving forward, and that has been accomplished. The parts of the campaign that will continue moving forward:
The website will continue to act as a resource for locals and visitors to Powell River. Newsletters will continue to be circulated to subscribers, though on a scaled-down basis. People have been asked if they would like to continue to receive these newsletters and be part of the campaign and to date no one has unsubscribed. Social media pages will continue to be populated with educational information and recipes, and membership will continue to grow. Bi-annual potlucks will be held – the next one is planned for the fall. The potluck that was held towards the end of the project was very successful and several people expressed interest in helping to organize similar future events. Meatless Monday Implementation Project Report Page 9 | 12
Page 16 of 111 Meatless Monday posters will be displayed in prominent public spaces over the summer and fall (one has already been taken, and a second one is planned). As mentioned above there are ongoing efforts with the hospital and the possibility for more engagement with the schools moving forward.
Several campaign participants have expressed interest in volunteering to help Meatless Mondays grow, and a volunteer support group is being organized presently.
BUDGET
100 hours (invoiced March 11, 2019) $3500.00 supplies/materials (invoiced March 11, 2019) $1000.00
100 hours (invoiced July 2, 2019) $3500.00 outstanding supplies/materials (invoiced July 2, 2019) $497.47
Project Total: $8497.47
(Please note that the original amount requested was $8998.75 so the project came in $501.28 under budget).
BREAKDOWN OF EXPENSES:
Company Item Expense
Doteasy Web hosting & Domain name (Doteasy) $89.26
Doteasy Website backup $26.97
Staples printing $10.00
Staples posters, handouts (Seedy Saturday display) $6.37
Staples display supplies (Seedy Saturday) $23.95
Staples poster printing (for businesses) $17.81
PR Living ad for Earth Month $267.43
Meatless Monday Implementation Project Report Page 10 | 12
Page 17 of 111
Save On supplies for Eco ipot demo $45.00
Save On Event supplies $65.00
Facebook contest advertising $24.00
Staples printing $8.96
Tugg.Com Cowspiracy Licence $173.16
7 Sprouts (e- transfer) Contest Gift Certificate $30.50
Staples Cowspiracy posters $8.96
7 Sprouts Cowspiracy supplies $100.00
Facebook event advertising $47.99
PRPL room rental for Cowspiracy Screening $125.00
Staples printing $2.30
Wild Scoop potluck ice cream $82.50
Staples large format posters $50.37
Doteasy domain name to 2021 $21.75
Doteasy hosting and backup to 2021 $270.19
Total Expenses: $1,497.47
Meatless Monday Implementation Project Report Page 11 | 12
Page 18 of 111 BREAKDOWN OF HOURS:
Activity Hours spent
Website design, setup, maintenance, updates: 34
Writing, photos (articles, interviewing, etc) 8.5
Prep and Meetings attended (CAPR, Hospital, Schools, businesses, etc) 16.5
Promotions -- Social media, posters, etc 30
Restaurant/biz recruitment 5.5
Newsletters 34
Prep, planning and execution of events 61
Planning and reporting 13.5
Presentations (developing and delivering) 14
Correspondence & office time 5.5
Total 222.5
**HOURS CHARGED & APPROVED BY PROJECT 200
**HOURS WORKED AT NO CHARGE 22.5
Meatless Monday Implementation Project Report Page 12 | 12
Page 19 of 111 Item 4.1 Correspondence July 16 COTW Agenda
From: To: Mayor_Council_CAO_CityClerk_CFO; City of Powell River Subject: Mural Proposal for Council Agenda Date: July 3, 2019 1:44:49 PM
Hello, to whom it may concern, following is a proposal letter for a mural project, intended to be proposed for city council. Thanks!
Haslam Lake Water Facility Mural Project Proposal
Akin to a previous mural proposal for the Mill Pond WasteWater Treatment facility from last year, I'm back, Stefan Fogarty(Catnip), interested in another blank structure to paint a Powell River scene on. Since its construction the Water Facility at the top of Haslam St. has taken the place of a nice little forest I used to peruse as a teen, and stands there blank and beautiful. I'd like to reclaim a bit of nature onto the nice building and adorn it with a water goddess, pouring water down the hill from her hands, and her heart a waterfall... on the side face, closest to the road, all different animals from the local area, flowing like water in a herd. Birds, deer, bumble bee, whales, and more all running together, as if a river. At the top of that same side I'd like to do different reference paintings of spots along the backcountry.. Iconic lake views, forest walks, etc. Each reference from real spots, so those that know them will recognize. Acting as a sort of visual list of places to check off and visit. Beyond that, there will be much more space for alot of the local flora and color elements in order to make the whole building visually appealing. Just as the last time I proposed, I would do this project for free, although I am not opposed to having some form of assistance for the paint. In fact I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks for listening to another catnip proposal, and I am honored to be considered in my ongoing project to paint Powell River and the qathet region with joyous, inviting images that remind us of the nature we occupy and are a part of.
Page 20 of 111 Correspondence Item 4.2 July 16 COTW Agenda
From: Jim Palm Sent: June 28, 2019 3:06 PM To: Russell Brewer
Hi Russell,
Please include this on COTW Correspondence. Have a great long weekend.
Thank you,
Jim
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 28, 2019, at 2:55 PM, Russell Brewer
Mayor and Council, forwarding FYI as requested.
Russell
From: Sent: June 28, 2019 2:38 PM To: Adam Langenmaier
Thanks for the response Mr. Langenmaier.
Of course we looked at the tax estimator. However, the biggest problem is the City’s reliance on property assessments which, as you well know, is a flawed system, based on algorithms and not reality. The assessed value of our house is not reflective of it’s actual market value, which recently bore out in a real estate assessment valuing our home at $540,000, well below the “assessed” value. We did not dispute the property assessment this year due to other priorities, but you can rest assured that we will be disputing it next January. Our biggest concern is that the mill rate is too firmly affixed to the assessed value of properties which
Page 21 of 111 will and can fluctuate. There is no guarantee that property assessments will always trend upward. The Lower Mainland is seeing property depreciations of upward 30%, which will eventually trickle down to Powell River. What then will the City of Powell River do if it continues its trend of budgeting based on current assessed values? If we are successful in having the assessed value of our home reduced next year, can we expect another big tax increase to make up the difference because the City budgeted on this year’s assessed value? It is simply not sustainable.
We have friends and family who own million dollar plus homes in other municipalities, who are paying one third to one half (!) less property taxes than we are. Yes, we understand that those municipalities have a larger tax base, but that also means they are servicing a larger tax base than Powell River.
This year the Mayor and Council were granted raises over 15%, with guaranteed yearly increases going forward until 2023. We are on a fixed income. Our income will not increase 15% this year. At no time during our careers did we receive a 15% increase in salary in one year and annual increases going forward for another four years. The City of Powell River is at risk of forcing residents to defer paying property taxes.
The trickle down effect of property taxes will directly affect the already stressed housing and rental situations in this City. Not sure how Powell River considers that servicing its tax base.
We have cc’d this email to Russell Brewer, and respectfully request that he forward this email chain to the Mayor and Council.
Regards,
Jim Blom Sherry Burton From: Adam Langenmaier Sent: Friday, June 28, 2019 12:39 PM To: Cc: Russell Brewer Subject: RE: Complaint about Exorbitant 2019 Property Taxes
Hello Jim and Sherry
I have received your email. I would encourage you to try out the City’s property tax estimator found at https://powellriver.ca/pages/tax-estimator , the estimator will help outline where the changes occurred in your property taxes. The City collects property
Page 22 of 111 taxes on behalf of the Regional District (qathet), Hospital District, School District, Municipal Finance Authority and BCAssessment. Although the City collects taxes on behalf of other governments, the City has no control as to how much these other governments are collecting.
From the BCAssessment website I see your 2018 assessment was $515,000 and your 2019 assessment is $617,000 which is an increase of $102,000 or 19.8%. The average increase in Powell River was 13.1%
With regards to your comments and concerns regarding the future of Powell River you can direct your input to Mayor and Council.
If you have further questions regarding your property taxes I will do my best to answer.
Adam Langenmaier BBA, CPA, CA Chief Financial Officer City of Powell River 604-485-8639
From: Sent: June 26, 2019 1:40 PM To: City of Powell River
Please forward this email to Property Taxation Department
Attn: Property Taxation Department Please acknowledge receipt of this email.
We are writing to express our concerns over the 2019 Property Tax. After factoring in the Home Owner Grant, our taxes are $717 more than 2018, an increase of 15.825%. Since we purchased our home in Powell River in 2013, property taxes have increased 29.26%. We have been homeowners since 1985. At no time during any prior seven year period, have property taxes risen so much.
City staff have advised that we should “get used to the increase, as that will be the status quo going forward”! The City needs to understand that it cannot expect homeowners to afford these kind of annual increases as it is unsustainable. Considering that in order to defer property taxes in British Columbia, a homeowner need only be 55 years of age, does the City of Powell River want to force residents to start deferring taxes because of exorbitant
Page 23 of 111 increases?
The City of Powell River needs to take accountability for its spending and projects. As well, it needs to become more business friendly, encouraging/enabling new businesses into the area, thereby sharing the tax load with its residents. Otherwise, these exorbitant property taxes will surely be the death knell of Powell River.
Jim Blom Sherry Burton
Page 24 of 111 Correspondence Item 4.3 July 16 COTW Agenda Attachments included separately
From: Katherine Metz
To Dave Formosa,
The Ocean Legacy Foundation, a British Columbia-based (BC) international non-profit with a mission to remove plastic pollution from our oceans, has recently released a report that finds more than one million beverage containers and 2.3 million beverage container caps are going missing in BC EVERY DAY. The attached report, British Columbia’s Beverage Container Legacy: The Missing Millions, is an evidence-informed look at the declining rates of beverage container returns in BC and provides recommendations on how to keep these containers out of landfills and waterways while realizing their economic value. It has been covered by over 300 media outlets locally, regionally and nationally!
The report recommends: Increase the regulated deposit rate Increase our minimum regulated deposit rate from five cents, a rate set in 1970 and out of touch with current economic incentives, to further encourage people to return their beverage containers to designated depots. Add all beverage containers to the deposit refund system Add all types of containers, such as milk, milk substitutes, drinkable meal replacements, and non-beverage dairy product containers (e.g., cream), to the deposit refund system. Many of these containers are consumed ‘on the go’ and need a value to encourage consumers to return them for recycling. Collecting and recycling all beverage containers reduces consumer confusion and improves container return rates. Require producers to collect and report on the recycling of bottle caps Encourage consumers to leave caps on their containers to reduce littering and ensure this material can be recycled. Require beverage container producers to collect beverage container caps and report on how many are collected for recycling versus continue to go missing. Raise regulated minimum targets to at least that achieved by Alberta and Saskatchewan, with long-term targets matching the European Union
Page 25 of 111 Increase BC’s minimum return rate target to 85% and enforce the target on all container sub- categories listed in the regulation. Increase BC’s minimum return rate target to 90% by 2025 and enforce the target on all container sub-categories listed in the regulation. Enforce regulated targets in a meaningful way, such as requiring producers to pay for the clean- up of ocean plastics equal to the amount by weight that they fail to collect and recycle Ensure compliance with strict enforcement measures. These recommendations will: Help ensure that beverage containers stay off our shorelines and out of our oceans and other waterways. Help to reduce municipal taxes by reducing the need for waste management services, landfill space, and litter clean up. Reduce greenhouse gas production by recycling materials, rather than creating new plastics. Provide a stream of funding for people and organizations who collect and return beverage containers to designated depots for the refund. Create up to 38 times more jobs than a curbside recycling system for beverage containers.
As a BC Bottle Depot operator, we support the report findings & recommendations, and have taken action by contacting the Minister of Environment & Climate Change, our MLA, regional and municipal governments as well as other concerned stakeholders in our area.
Because the outcomes support the communities that you serve, we encourage you to do the same.
Together, we can turn those “missing millions” into millions of returned containers that provide economic returns for our province and prevent these containers from finding their way into our beautiful environment.
Let’s take advantage of the incredible coverage received by OLF to create positive change. Vancouver Sun Article Globe & Mail Article
Please visit http://www.bcdepot.info/ for all of the links, templates and information you need to easily make your voice heard.
Using the templates we’ve provided, it’s really easy to get involved. You simply sign your name on behalf of yourself as the Mayor of Powell River, and send the letter off along to the correct address. If you have any questions please don’t hesitate to email me or call me at 604-219-1593, we could really use your support!
I find it really helps to take about this initiative in person or over the phone, as BC’s recycling system and it’s current issues can be a bit confusing. Let me know if you’d like to arrange a time to talk about this; I would really appreciate it!
Yours, Kat Metz Attachments: British Columbia’s Beverage Container Legacy: The Missing Millions, Letter to the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change Strategy, Letter Templates to MLAs, BC Depot Slide Deck Page 26 of 111 British Columbia’s Beverage Container Legacy: The Missing Millions
Page 27 of 111 British Columbia's Beverage Container Legacy: The Missing Millions
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...... 1 Ocean Legacy Foundation ...... 3 The Ocean Plastics Crisis...... 4 Beverage Containers Contribute to Ocean Plastics: The Facts ...... 6 British Columbia’s Leadership is Needed ...... 8 The Solution: Raise Deposits, Expand the System, Caps On ...... 14 Raise deposits ...... 14 Expand the deposit refund system to manage all beverage containers ...... 16 Keep caps on ...... 16 What’s in it for BC? ...... 17 Fewer mis-managed containers available to become ocean litter ...... 17 Increased reduction of greenhouse gases (GHGs) ...... 19 Lower taxes...... 20 Green jobs and support for low income earners ...... 20 Call to Action: BC Shows Ocean Plastic Leadership ...... 22 Appendix A: Timeline of BC’s Deposit Return System ...... 24 Appendix B: Overview of BC’s Recycling Regulation ...... 26
Table of Figures
Figure 1: A visual of Ocean Legacy Foundation’s interactive Hotspot mapping tool...... 3 Figure 2: Ocean Legacy Foundation global interactive directory dashboard mapping tool...... 4 Figure 3: Ocean Wise & WWF 2017 Dirty Dozen Statistics ...... 6 Figure 4: Plastics in the Ocean (infographic) ...... 7 Figure 5: Infographic depicting of percentage of marine mammals affected by eating plastic. ...8 Figure 6: Decline in Encorp Pacific return rates 2010-2017 ...... 9 Figure 7: Return Rates by Container Sub-Category ...... 9 Figure 8: Small plastic beverage containers return rate ...... 10 Figure 9: Bag-in-a-box containers return rate ...... 10 Figure 10: Polycoat and pouches return rate...... 10 Figure 11: Source Container Recycling Institute (2013) showing four states (Indiana, Wisconsin, Ohio, Illinois) without deposit refund systems, and one state (Michigan) with a deposit refund system...... 17 Figure 12: Source Container Recycling Institute (2013) showing litter reduction following introduction of a deposit refund system in Hawaii...... 18
ii Page 28 of 111
British Columbia's Beverage Container Legacy: The Missing Millions
Figure 13: Source CM Consulting (2018). Return rates for all non-refillable containers in Canada. In this diagram, the Ontario non-alcohol containers are the only containers not subject to a deposit refund system...... 19
Table of Tables
Table 1: Small plastic beverage containers sales and collection in Encorp Pacific’s program ..11 Table 2: Comparison of Return Rates in BC, AB, and SK over a 5-year Period ...... 12 Table 3: Beverage containers missing from BC's regulated deposit refund system ...... 14 Table 4: Comparison of Return Rates by Corresponding Minimum Deposit Level ...... 15
iii Page 29 of 111
British Columbia's Beverage Container Legacy: The Missing Millions
Executive Summary
Ocean Legacy Foundation: a British Columbia-based, internationally recognized, non-profit organization working to identify, clean-up, and prevent plastic waste from entering tributary and marine ecosystems. Ocean Legacy Foundation is calling on the BC government to make BC’s deposit refund system the leading Canadian beverage container recycling program in stewarding its beverage containers and bottle caps, ensuring none of these plastics end up in the ocean. Every year, an estimated 8 million tonnes is deposited into our oceans and waterways globally, 43% of which is single-use, disposable plastics such as beverage containers and their caps, straws, plastic bags, and plastic cutlery. Mismanaged beverage containers and bottle caps are major contributors to ocean plastics litter across Canada. BC was the first jurisdiction in the world to implement a regulated deposit refund system for beverage containers in 1970. Deposit refund systems have been proven world-wide to be the most effective tool to reduce beverage container litter and increase beverage container litter clean-up. However, BC deposit refund system return rates have been declining, and the province is not meeting its own regulated target for several beverage container sub-categories, including small plastic containers (≤1L), polycoat containers and pouches, and bag-in-a-box. Specifically, the percentage of small plastic containers in the beverage container stream is growing, while the number not returned for recycling is on the rise. At the same time, Alberta and Saskatchewan deposit refund systems have achieved average return rates 9% higher than BC in 2017. Over a 5-year period (2013-2017), more than 1.6 billion beverage containers were not returned within BC’s deposit refund system and could be coating BC’s shorelines or floating in ocean currents. In 2018, the European Parliament and Council passed a Single-Use Plastics Directive that requires its member states to increase the collection and recycling of beverage containers to achieve a 90% capture rate by 2025. At the same time, Canada led the G7 in developing the Ocean’s Plastic Charter, while the Canadian Council of Ministers announced its Strategy on Zero Plastic Waste. The Canadian government also unanimously passed Motion 151, which recognized the need for all Canadian communities to do their part to combat plastic pollution in and around aquatic environments. BC has the opportunity to become a world leader again in recycling beverage containers through a number of proven approaches, including: • Raise Deposit Levels – higher deposit rates have been proven to yield better return rates • Expand the deposit refund system to manage all beverage containers – collecting and recycling all beverage containers reduces consumer confusion and improves container return rates • Keep caps on – training consumers to leave caps on their containers reduces littering and ensures this material can be recycled
1 Page 30 of 111
British Columbia's Beverage Container Legacy: The Missing Millions
Increasing the effectiveness of BC’s beverage container recycling system will result in fewer containers becoming ocean litter, while reducing greenhouse gases through recycling, avoiding taxpayer waste management costs, and creating green jobs. Ocean Legacy Foundation calls on the BC government to: 1. Increase the regulated deposit rate. 2. Add all beverage containers to the deposit refund system. 3. Require producers to collect and report on the recycling of bottle caps. 4. Raise regulated targets to at least that achieved by Alberta and Saskatchewan, with long- term targets matching the EU. 5. Enforce the regulated targets in a meaningful way, such as requiring producers to pay for the clean-up of ocean plastics equal to the amount by weight that they fail to collect and recycle.
2 Page 31 of 111
British Columbia's Beverage Container Legacy: The Missing Millions
Ocean Legacy Foundation
We are the Ocean Legacy Foundation: a British Columbia-based, internationally recognized, non-profit organization that was founded in 2014 to end ocean plastic waste. We work to identify, clean-up, and prevent plastic waste from entering tributary and marine ecosystems. Since 2014, we have collected over 70 tonnes of plastic waste from five different countries including focused operations in the Pacific Northwest, which have formed and enabled plastic waste removal collaborations worldwide. We use a combination of tools and sustainable technologies, such as mapping (Figure 1 and Figure 2), education, collaboration, skills training, research, policy development, clean-up expeditions and plastic-to-fuel technologies, which when integrated together make up Ocean Legacy’s unique and globally-leading Marine Debris Solutions Program. Our goal is to give all types of plastic waste and litter economic value and to encourage greater global stewardship around ocean health issues. We believe that every action towards eliminating plastic pollution counts. We also believe that we need jurisdictions around the world to do their part to clean up the plastics that exist while preventing new plastics from entering ocean ecosystems. Together, we believe we can leave an ocean legacy that can sustain the health of our waterways for present and future generations.
FIGURE 1: A VISUAL OF OCEAN LEGACY FOUNDATION’S INTERACTIVE HOTSPOT MAPPING TOOL1.
1Ocean Legacy Foundation, 2019. https://oceanlegacy.ca/help-info/
3 Page 32 of 111
British Columbia's Beverage Container Legacy: The Missing Millions
FIGURE 2: OCEAN LEGACY FOUNDATION’S GLOBAL INTERACTIVE DIRECTORY DASHBOARD MAPPING TOOL2.
The Ocean Plastics Crisis
Oceans play a key role in our survival; we depend on the ocean. They provide sustenance and play, an integral role in regulating our global climate. Marine life depends on them, including 25 species at risk off British Columbia’s shores3. Canada has more coastline than any other country in the world4, including our beautiful British Columbia (BC) shorelines, which is home to seabirds, whales, and sensitive marine ecosystems. Canadian marine activities dependent on the health of our oceans and contribute more than $30 billion to our GDP5; providing more than 320,000 Canadian jobs. Yet we are facing an undeniable, planet-wide ocean plastic waste crisis. Every year, of the more than 300 million tonnes of plastic produced globally6,7, an estimated 8 million tonnes is
2 Ocean Legacy Foundation, 2019. https://oceanlegacy.ca/help-info/. Retrieved February 8, 2019. 3 Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2018. Search aquatic species at risk: British Columbia. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/sara-lep/identify-eng.html?province=British%20Columbia. 4 Office of the Prime Minister, 2016. Canada’s Ocean Protection Plan. Available at: http://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/communications-eng/oceans-protection-plan.pdf . Retrieved: February 8, 2019. 5 Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2018. Maritime sector in Canada summary tables. Available at: http://www.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/stats/maritime-eng.htm. Retrieved: February 8, 2019. 6 European Commission, 2018. A European strategy for plastics in a circular economy. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/pdf/plastics-strategy-brochure.pdf. Retrieved February 8, 2019. 7 UNESCO, 2017. Facts and figures on marine pollution. Available at: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural- sciences/ioc-oceans/focus-areas/rio-20-ocean/blueprint-for-the-future-we-want/marine-pollution/facts-and- figures-on-marine-pollution/. Retrieved February 8, 2019.
4 Page 33 of 111
British Columbia's Beverage Container Legacy: The Missing Millions deposited into our oceans and waterways8. Of this, 43% is single-use, disposable plastics such as beverage containers and their caps, straws, plastic bags, and plastic cutlery9. Shorelines all around the world are becoming coated in plastic waste, the oceans are becoming the largest “dumps” on the planet, and aquatic ecosystems are being transformed into “plastic soup” 10,11,12. Ocean plastics are ubiquitous, polluting our freshwater ways and shorelines; causing damage to marine wildlife, habitat; and compromising human health. According to UNESCO13, plastic debris causes the deaths of more than a million seabirds and 100,000 marine mammals every single year. Plastics have been found in the stomachs of birds, fish and whales; in our drinking water, beer, seafood, and table salt; and even in the human body14. Without intervention, global ocean plastics are expected to double by 203515. If practices remain unchanged, it’s expected there will be more plastic than fish in the ocean (by weight) by 205016.
8 Jambeck, J; Geyer, R; Wilcox, C, Siegler, T.S.; Perryman, M, Andrady, A; Narayan; Lavender Law, K., 2015. Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science 13 Feb 2015: vol. 347 (6223). pp. 768-771 9 CCME, 2018. Strategy on Zero Plastic Waste. Available at: https://www.ccme.ca/files/Resources/waste/plastics/STRATEGY%20ON%20ZERO%20PLASTIC%20WASTE.p df. Retrieved: February 14, 2019. 10 Charles Moore, 2009. Seas of Plastic. Ted Talk. Retrieved: February 6, 2019. https://www.ted.com/talks/capt_charles_moore_on_the_seas_of_plastic?language=en. 11 Plastic Soup Foundation, no date. Available at: https://www.plasticsoupfoundation.org/en/files/what-is-plastic- soup/. Retrieved: February 6, 2019. 12 Cho, R., 2011. Blog: Our Oceans: A Plastic Soup. January 26, 2011. Available at: https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2011/01/26/our-oceans-a-plastic-soup/. Retrieved: February 6, 2019. 13 UNESCO, 2017. Facts and figures on marine pollution. Available at: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural- sciences/ioc-oceans/focus-areas/rio-20-ocean/blueprint-for-the-future-we-want/marine-pollution/facts-and- figures-on-marine-pollution/. Retrieved: February 6, 2019. 14 Parker, 2018. In a first, microplastics found in human poop. National Geographic. Environment: planet or plastics. Available at: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/10/news-plastics-microplastics-human- feces/. Retrieved: February 8, 2019. 15 European Commission, 2018. A European strategy for plastics in a circular economy. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/pdf/plastics-strategy-brochure.pdf. 16 Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017. The new plastics economy: rethinking the future of plastics & catalysing action. Available at: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/publications/NPEC- Hybrid_English_22-11-17_Digital.pdf. Retrieved February 8, 2019.
5 Page 34 of 111
British Columbia's Beverage Container Legacy: The Missing Millions
Beverage Containers Contribute to Ocean Plastics: The Facts
Mismanaged beverage containers and their caps are a big concern locally and globally. Despite deposit refund programs for plastic soft drink containers operating in every province except Manitoba and Ontario17, they are major contributors to ocean plastics litter across Canada (Figure 3).
FIGURE 3: OCEAN WISE & WWF 2017 DIRTY DOZEN STATISTICS18
Beverage containers and their caps (and even drink box straws) enter the ocean through a variety of direct and indirect pathways. Direct pathways include: ocean dumping, shoreline littering, natural disasters and climatic variables such as blowing winds and rains (that pull beverage containers and other plastics from streetscapes, garbage cans, and recycling bins). The indirect pathways are through land-based sources (i.e., both inland and coastal communities) where plastic waste is allowed to funnel into stormwater runoff systems that eventually lead to the ocean19,20 (Figure 4).
17 CM Consulting, 2018. Who pays what? An analysis of beverage container collection and costs in Canada, 2018. Available at: https://www.cmconsultinginc.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/WPW-2018-FINAL- 5OCT2018.pdf. Retrieved February 10, 2019. 18 WWF, 2018. 2017’s Dirty Dozen. Available at: http://www.wwf.ca/newsroom/?uNewsID=27401#. 19 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, last revised February 1, 2019. Plastics. Available at: https://marinedebris.noaa.gov/info/plastic.html. Retrieved February 14, 2019. 20 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2018. Plastic marine debris. https://marinedebris.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2018_Plastics_Fact_Sheet.pdf. Retrieved February 14, 2019.
6 Page 35 of 111
British Columbia's Beverage Container Legacy: The Missing Millions
FIGURE 4: PLASTICS IN THE OCEAN (INFOGRAPHIC)21
Once in the ocean, polyethylene terephthalate (PET or PETE) beverage containers, like pop bottles, will eventually sink (due to their density compared to salt water) and become part of the ocean floor or can be swept back to shore22. Other plastic beverage containers made from high density polyethylene (HDPE), like milk jugs, and bottle caps (which can be made from HDPE or polypropylene) will float indefinitely, can be swept out to sea becoming caught in ocean currents (gyres) and travel great distances. Once in the ocean, containers and caps begin slowly degrading into microplastic fragments and can be consumed by marine life23,24. WWF-Australia (2018) reports an estimated 40% of all marine mammals have been affected by eating marine plastics, and 56% of all whale and dolphin species have been recorded eating marine plastics. (Figure 5) 25 According to the Ocean Conservancy, more than 80% of ocean plastics originate due to waste mismanagement by land-based sources, and three-fourths of this comes from uncollected waste or litter26.
21 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2011. Plastics in the ocean. Available at: https://marinedebris.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/OR%26R_Plastic_In_the_Ocean_Infographic_FINAL.pdf 22 Smithsonian, 2018. Ocean: find your blue. Marine Plastics. Authored by the Ocean Portal Team. Reviewed by Dr. Jenna Jambeck, University of Georgia. April 2018. Available at: https://ocean.si.edu/conservation/pollution/marine-plastics. Retrieved: February 8, 2019. 23 The Association of Plastics Recyclers, 2018. Recycling rigid plastics beyond bottles: caps on! Available at: https://www.plasticsrecycling.org/education/faqs/caps-on. Retrieved: February 9, 2019. 24 Weule, 2017. Plastic and how it affects our oceans. ABC News. February 2017. Available at: https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-02-27/plastic-and-plastic-waste-explained/8301316. Retrieved: February 9, 2019. 25 WWF-Australia, 2018. Available at: https://www.wwf.org.au/news/blogs/plastic-in-our-oceans-is-killing-marine- mammals#gs.b0wHDpPb. Retrieved February 10, 2019. 26 Ocean Conservancy, 2015. Stemming the Tide: Land-based strategies for a plastic- free ocean. Available at: https://oceanconservancy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/full-report-stemming-the.pdf. Retrieved: February 8, 2019.
7 Page 36 of 111
British Columbia's Beverage Container Legacy: The Missing Millions
FIGURE 5: INFOGRAPHIC DEPICTING OF PERCENTAGE OF MARINE MAMMALS AFFECTED BY EATING PLASTIC (SOURCE: WWF-AUSTRALIA).
British Columbia’s Leadership is Needed
BC was an early leader in tackling the issue of used beverage containers. In 1970, our province became the first jurisdiction in the world to implement a regulated deposit refund system for beverage containers, under its Litter Act27. In 1971, Oregon followed suit and became the first jurisdiction in the United States to implement a system28. Today, 40 jurisdictions (and counting) around the world have followed BC’s lead and established their own deposit return systems to reduce litter and improve the collection and recycling of beverage containers29. BC now has the opportunity to show leadership once again. It’s been fifty years since BC’s deposit refund system was first implemented, and 15 years since its regulation was last updated. Unfortunately, its age is showing. Our deposit refund system (for all containers except beer) have seen declining, year-over-year returns (Figure 6 and Figure 7). At the same time, BC is not
27 CM Consulting, 2012. Multi-Stakeholder Review of Prescriptive Measures in the Beverage Container Regulation Final Report. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/waste-management/recycling/recycle/rel- res/multi_stakeholder_beverage_consultation.pdf. 28 Container Recycling Institute, 2016. Bottle bill resource guide. Available at: http://www.bottlebill.org/. Retrieved February 10, 2019. 29 CM Consulting and Reloop, 2018. Deposit Refund Systems for Beverage Containers: Global Review. Available at: https://reloopplatform.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/BOOK-Deposit-Global-27-APR2018.pdf. Retrieved February 14, 2019.
8 Page 37 of 111 British Columbia's Beverage Container Legacy: The Missing Millions meeting its own regulated targetDecline for several in Encorp beverage Return container Rates sub-categories30, including: small plastic containers (≤1L); polycoat containers(Regulated and Target pouches; 75%) and bag-in-a-box (Figure 8 to Figure 10). 100
90
80.4 79.8 80.1 78.7 79.1 78.9 78 80 75.8 Return RateReturn%
70 20102011201220132014201520162017 Year FIGURE 6: DECLINE IN ENCORP PACIFIC RETURN RATES 2010-2017
FIGURE 7: RETURN RATES BY CONTAINER SUB-CATEGORY
30 Government of British Columbia. Recycling Regulation, Approval of extended producer responsibility plan. Section 5(1)(a)(i). Available at: http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/ID/freeside/449_2004. Retrieved February 14, 2019.
9 Page 38 of 111
British Columbia's RBeverageeturn RContainerates P lLegacy:astics 80 73 73 72 70 % 70 70 % e t e t 60 60 a a 47 47 47 48 48 R 45 46 R 44 50 50 n n r r u u 40 t t 40 e e 30 R 30 R 20 20 10 10 0 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Year Year FIGURE 8: SMALL PLASTIC BEVERAGE FIGURE 9: BAG-IN-A-BOX CONTAINERS CONTAINERS RETURNR RAetuTErn Rates Polycoat & PouchesRETURN RATE (Regulated Target 75%) 100 90 80 % 70 60 59 59 58 58 e 57 t 60 56 56 a R 50 n r u 40 t e 30 R 20 10 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Year FIGURE 10: POLYCOAT AND POUCHES RETURN RATE The decline in return of small plastic beverage containers seems to be a growing issue in the Encorp Pacific operated program. The percentage of these in this program is growing (from 30% in 2010 to 35% in 2017) and the number of small plastic containers lost (not returned for recycling) annually is on the rise (from 24% in 2010 to 30% in 2017) (see Table 1). Over the last five years, missing small plastic containers have made up large component of all missing containers in BC (see Table 2). 10 Page 39 of 111 British Columbia's Beverage Container Legacy: The Missing Millions TABLE 1: SMALL PLASTIC BEVERAGE CONTAINERS SALES AND COLLECTION IN ENCORP PACIFIC’S PROGRAM31 % small plastic Small plastic All containers Small plastic containers containers sold containers % small plastic ENCORP sold32 sold (% of total lost containers lost PACIFIC (<1L, units) (units) sold) (units) (% of total sold) 2010 380,805,378 1,277,506,339 30% 89,662,767 24% 2011 379,081,054 1,237,182,406 31% 100,400,220 26% 2012 381,385,703 1,237,108,765 31% 101,351,852 27% 2013 380,158,047 1,214,144,300 31% 96,286,321 25% 2014 397,071,333 1,224,579,061 32% 106,218,404 27% 2015 418,711,159 1,266,027,839 33% 109,526,421 26% 2016 431,900,607 1,282,922,473 34% 119,522,548 28% 2017 471,268,072 1,349,149,437 35% 143,627,268 30% These results are disappointing when BC’s performance is compared to the results achieved by Alberta and Saskatchewan, where deposit refund systems have achieved average return rates 5% higher than BC in 2017 (Table 2). The differences in regulated materials between the three provincial programs are noted. 31 Encorp, 2017. Annual Report. Encorp Pacific, 2017. 2017 Annual Report. Page 21. Available at: https://www.return-it.ca/ar2017/pdf/AnnualReport.pdf. Retrieved November 2, 2018. 32 In all tables and figures, units for plastic containers ≤1L or <1L include all plastic containers for the appropriate size category (i.e., including liquor and non-liquor containers). This was necessary because in 2017, Encorp began reporting plastic containers as one category regardless of the beverage it contained. Prior to this Encorp reported plastic containers and plastic liquor containers for both ≤1L and <1L). 11 Page 40 of 111 British Columbia's Beverage Container Legacy: The Missing Millions TABLE 2: COMPARISON OF RETURN RATES IN BC, AB, AND SK OVER A 5-YEAR PERIOD33 BC ENCORP PACIFIC + AB SK BRCCC Beer Cans ABCRC SARCAN YEAR (combined return rate) (return rate) (Return rate) 2013 84% 82% 82% 2014 83% 83% 86% 2015 83% 85% 82% 2016 82% 86% 87% 2017 80% 85% 85% Regulated All ready-to-serve, All ready-to-serve, All ready-to-serve, materials including milk, milk excluding milk, milk including milk, milk included substitutes. substitutes and meal substitutes and meal Excludes meal replacements. Beer cans. replacements. replacements. Regulated materials not Refillable Beer Refillable Beer Refillable Beer collected by organization(s) Minimum 5 cents Encorp containers 10 cents 10 cents deposit 10 cents beer cans BC’s declining beverage container recycling performance is creating the perfect ocean litter storm in a province situated with a large coastline. In 2017, more than 387 million beverage 33 Return rates for Encorp, Alberta Beverage Container Recycling Corporation (ABCRC), and SARCAN were taken from each organization’s Annual Report for each respective year. Like Encorp, neither ABCRC nor SARCAN manage domestic refillable beer bottles; in BC, AB and SK refillable beer bottles are managed by the national brewers’ association in each province (e.g., the BC Brewers Recycling Container Collection Council). AB and SK return rates include all aluminum beer cans; whereas the BC Encorp return rate does not. As a result, we have included the combined return rates of Encorp Pacific plus BRCCC’s beer cans to provide a more accurate comparison to the AB and SK programs. • Encorp Pacific 2013-2017 Annual Reports. Available at: https://www.return-it.ca/about/annualreports/. Retrieved November 2, 2018. • ABCRC 2014-2017 Annual Reports. Available at: https://www.abcrc.com/sustainability/. Retrieved November 2, 2018. • SARRCAN 2013-2017 Annual Reports. Available at: https://issuu.com/search?q=SARCAN. Retrieved November 2, 2018. • Brewers Recycling Container Collection Council, 2017. Annual Report to the Director 2017 Calendar Year. Available by email from Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy. The BC Brewers Recycling Container Collection Council (the Brewers) collects and recycles BC’s refillable beer bottles and beer cans. 12 Page 41 of 111 British Columbia's Beverage Container Legacy: The Missing Millions containers34 went ‘missing’ from BC’s deposit refund system (Table 3), along with the almost 840 million beverage container caps35 that once sealed those containers36. Over a 5-year period (2013-2017), more than 1.6 billion beverage containers went “missing” from BC’s deposit refund system37 and could be coating BC’s shorelines, ocean floors or floating in ocean currents (Table 3). This equates to over a million beverage containers per day that are sold and not recycled. 34 The 387 million containers missing in 2017 was calculated using data provided by Encorp Pacific’s 2017 Annual Report and the Brewers Recycled Container Collection Council’s (BRCCC) 2017 Annual Report to the Director. Missing containers = Encorp Pacific (325,843,398) + missing BRCCC 2017 (58,967,820 beer + 2,359,980 refillables). 35 The 840 million beverage container caps missing in 2017 was calculated using data provided by Encorp Pacific’s 2017 Annual Report and the Brewers Recycled Container Collection Council’s (BRCCC) 2017 Annual Report to the Director. Assume containers made of plastic, glass, refillable glass and gable top containers have caps (or corks). Missing caps (including corks) = Encorp Pacific (782,866,803) + BRCCC (57,004,620). 36 Encorp Pacific (the producer responsibility organizations operating BC’s deposit refund system for non-beer containers) requires ‘caps off’ when containers are returned to depots. Encorp encourages consumers to return caps to depots, but it does not report on the quantity of caps recycled. See Encorp Pacific, 2019. General Return-It Recycling Questions. Available at: https://www.return-it.ca/beverage/faqs/general/; and Encorp Pacific, 2017. 2017 Annual Report. Available at: https://www.return-it.ca/ar2017/pdf/AnnualReport.pdf. Retrieved November 2, 2018. 37 Calculated using data from: • Encorp Pacific, 2013-2017 Annual Reports. Available at: https://www.return-it.ca/about/annualreports/. Retrieved November 2, 2018. • Brewers Recycled Container Collection Council, 2013-2017 Annual Report to the Director Calendar Year. The 2013-2016 reports are available at: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/waste- management/recycling/product-stewardship/stewardship-reports-plans. Retrieved February 14, 2019. The 2017 report is available by email from Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy. 13 Page 42 of 111 British Columbia's Beverage Container Legacy: The Missing Millions TABLE 3: BEVERAGE CONTAINERS MISSING FROM BC'S REGULATED DEPOSIT REFUND SYSTEM ENCORP BRCCC ENCORP BRCCC PACIFIC refillable Total all PACIFIC refillable Total all beverage beer and beverage beverage beer and beverage containers beer cans containers containers beer cans containers sold sold sold missing missing missing (million (million (million (million (million (million YEAR units) units) units) units) units) units) 2013 1,214 606 1,820 242 45 287 2014 1,225 623 1,848 256 43 299 2015 1,266 645 1,911 267 50 317 2016 1,283 659 1,942 282 62 344 2017 1,349 670 2,019 326 61 387 5-Year 6,337 3,204 9,540 1,372 262 1,634 Total The Solution: Raise Deposits, Expand the System, Caps On There are a number of proven approaches that could reduce the number of beverage containers not collected under the beverage container system that potentially become ocean plastic waste. These are outlined below: Raise deposits Effective deposit refund systems have been proven to drastically improve beverage container collection, reuse and recycling rates by placing a value on beverage containers38. Consumers and ‘binners’ (people who seek to collect wasted containers) have a financial incentive to collect containers and either directly return them to the collection system to realize their refund or donate the ‘street value’ of those containers to charities. A global review of deposit return systems for beverage containers shows that higher deposit rates have been proven to yield better return rates39,40 (Table 4). According to the European 38 CRI: Container Recycling Institute, 2013. Bottled Up: Beverage Container Recycling Stagnates (2000-2010). Available at: http://www.container-recycling.org/index.php/publications/2013-bottled-up-report. Retrieved March 14, 2019. 39 CM Consulting and Reloop, 2018. Deposit Refund Systems for Beverage Containers: Global Review. Available at https://reloopplatform.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/BOOK-Deposit-Global-27-APR2018.pdf. 40 CM Consulting, 2003. Evaluating the Relationship Between Refund Values and Beverage Container Recovery. Available at: http://www.bottlebill.org/assets/pdfs/legis/canada/2003-RefundRecovery.pdf 14 Page 43 of 111 British Columbia's Beverage Container Legacy: The Missing Millions Commission, in their European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy, “the five best performing Member States with deposit schemes for PET bottles (Germany, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands and Estonia) reached an average collection rate for PET of 94% in 2014”41. The minimum deposit rates for PET containers in these jurisdictions ranges from € 0.10 to € 0.13 per container. TABLE 4: COMPARISON OF RETURN RATES BY CORRESPONDING MINIMUM DEPOSIT LEVEL Minimum regulated deposit Deposit Return Rate (CAD) Value (2017) Return Rate Germany .37 98% Netherlands .37 95% Norway .31 92% BC Brewers42 .10 91% Alberta .10 86% Saskatchewan .10 85% Oregon43 .10 82% BC’s Encorp Pacific .05 76% BC has the opportunity to raise its minimum regulated deposit along with target return rates with the objective to achieve return rates that rival those in other jurisdictions across the globe. For example, the European Parliament and Council Single-Use Plastics Directive (passed on December 19, 2018) requires its member states to increase the collection and recycling of beverage containers to achieve a 90% capture rate by 2025 44,45 41 European Commission, 2018. European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy. p.42. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/pdf/plastics-strategy-brochure.pdf 42 Brewers Recycling Container Collection Council, 2017. Annual Report to the Director 2017 Calendar Year. Available by email from Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy. The BC Brewers Recycling Container Collection Council (the Brewers) collects and recycles BC’s refillable beer bottles and beer cans. 43 The Oregon Beverage Container Recycling Cooperative (OBCRC), which targets a list of designated containers. Oregon raised its regulated deposit refund level from 5-cents to 10-cents in April 1, 2017. The return rate of 82% was achieved from April -December 2017. The rate achieved by the organization under a 5-cent deposit for the period of January to March 2017 was 59%. 44 European Parliament, 2018. Single-use plastics: Commission welcomes ambitious agreement on new rules to reduce marine litter. Brussels, 19 December 2018. Available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18- 6867_en.htm. 45 European Parliament, 2018. Parliament and Council agree drastic cuts to plastic pollution of environment. Available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20181219IPR22301/parliament-and-council- agree-drastic-cutsto-plastic-pollution-of-environment 15 Page 44 of 111 British Columbia's Beverage Container Legacy: The Missing Millions Expand the deposit refund system to manage all beverage containers Consumers drink a wide range of beverages away-from-home, including: milk, chocolate milk, soy milk and almond milk. In BC, only those milk, milk substitute and meal replacement beverage containers consumed ‘residentially’ are collected and recycled (through Recycle BC’s residential paper and packaging recycling program). This is because the BC’s Recycling Regulation only collects and recycles residentially generated packaging. There are two problems with BC’s approach: 1) consumers purchasing and wanting to recycle beverages ‘on-the-go’ have limited recycling options; and 2) the number of overall non-deposit beverage containers recycled versus sold are not accurately tracked or reported on. Without data, it’s impossible to accurately calculate the number of these containers available to become ocean litter. However, it is reasonable to assume, based on the performance of BC’s residential curbside program (which achieved a 75% residential recycling rate in 201746) versus the provincial deposit refund system (that achieved 75.8% province-wide across the residential and industrial, commercial and institutional sectors (Figure 6)), that at least 25% of the containers sold become available as litter. Alberta and Saskatchewan have taken a different approach. These provinces added milk and milk substitutes to their regulated deposit refund systems in 2009 and 2017, respectively. Alberta’s system also includes drinkable meal replacements and non-beverage dairy product containers (like cream) that are sold in containers that are similar to milk containers. Keeping the system simple by collecting and recycling all beverage containers the same way regardless of where it is consumed (at home, work or play) reduces consumer confusion and improves container return rates. Keep caps on When consumers remove caps from their beverage containers, those caps become available for intentional or unintentional littering and could end up as ocean plastic. Bottle caps are too small to be captured in modern day ‘material recovery facilities’ or MRFs. Bottle cap litter is a big ocean plastic problem. Besides being one of Canada’s ‘dirty dozen’ plastics found on Canadian shorelines (Figure 3), the international community is also seeking ways to curb this nuisance material. The European Parliament and Council Single-Use Plastics Directive agreement suggests ‘caps on’ measures to make it more difficult for the public to litter this material. Bottle caps can be recycled when left on empty beverage containers without contaminating the quality of recycling stream, as plastics recyclers generally shred the containers and then ‘float’ materials to separate the caps from the container materials. Alberta has recycled their containers 46 Recycle BC, 2017. Annual Report 2017. Available at: https://recyclebc.ca/wp- content/uploads/2018/07/RecycleBCAR2017-June292018.pdf. Retrieved March 14, 2019. 16 Page 45 of 111 British Columbia's Beverage Container Legacy: The Missing Millions with ‘caps on’ in this way since 2010. In Alberta’s system, the cap material is recycled47. Training consumers to leave caps on their containers reduces the likelihood this material will be littered and ensures this small material can be recycled. What’s in it for BC? Fewer mis-managed containers available to become ocean litter Well-managed deposit refund systems have been proven world-wide to be the most effective tool to reduce beverage container litter and increase beverage container litter clean-up48,49 (see Figure 11 and Figure 12). FIGURE 11: SOURCE CONTAINER RECYCLING INSTITUTE (2013) SHOWING FOUR STATES (INDIANA, WISCONSIN, OHIO, ILLINOIS) WITHOUT DEPOSIT REFUND SYSTEMS, AND ONE STATE (MICHIGAN) WITH A DEPOSIT REFUND SYSTEM. 47 Guy West, Alberta Beverage Container Recycling Corporation. Personal communication February 7, 2019. 48 European Parliament, 2011. Directorate General for external policies of the union. Briefing paper: a European refunding scheme for drinks. Available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/note/join/2011/457065/IPOL-AFET_NT(2011)457065_EN.pdf 49 Container Recycling Institute, 2013. Impacts of Container Deposit Laws: Proven Effectiveness of Deposits to Reduce Beverage Container Litter. Presentation by: Susan V. Collins Container Recycling Institute on November 15, 2013. Available at: http://www.sjenvironment.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/2167. Retrieved February 7, 2019. 17 Page 46 of 111 British Columbia's Beverage Container Legacy: The Missing Millions FIGURE 12: SOURCE CONTAINER RECYCLING INSTITUTE (2013) SHOWING LITTER REDUCTION FOLLOWING INTRODUCTION OF A DEPOSIT REFUND SYSTEM IN HAWAII. Evidence also shows collection in Canada deposit refund systems get significantly higher return rates than non-deposit systems (Figure 13). 18 Page 47 of 111 British Columbia's Beverage Container Legacy: The Missing Millions FIGURE 13: SOURCE CM CONSULTING (2018). RETURN RATES FOR ALL NON-REFILLABLE CONTAINERS IN CANADA50. IN THIS DIAGRAM, THE ONTARIO NON-ALCOHOL CONTAINERS ARE THE ONLY CONTAINERS NOT SUBJECT TO A DEPOSIT REFUND SYSTEM. At the same time, evidence from Alberta and, Saskatchewan (Table 2) suggests that raising deposits from 5-cents to 10-cents would enable BC to increase its return rate to 80-85% recovery, while evidence from the EU (Table 4) suggests that raising deposit rates to 30-cents or higher would enable BC to achieve return rates above 95%. Increased reduction of greenhouse gases (GHGs) Encorp Pacific reports on the GHG benefits of its deposit return system: In total, Encorp’s activities in 2017 contributed to the reduction of about 103.8 thousand tonnes of CO2 equivalent being released into the atmosphere, compared to 101.9 thousand tonnes in 2016. The increase in reduction is primarily due to the increase in volume of material recycled51. Every container recycled reduces GHG emissions. As shown, increasing return rates would have significant GHG benefits. 50 CM Consulting, 2018. Who Pays What? An Analysis of Beverage Container Collection and Costs in Canada. Available at: https://www.cmconsultinginc.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/WPW-2018-FINAL- 5OCT2018.pdf. Retrieved February 10, 2019. 51 Encorp Pacific, 2017. 2017 Annual Report. Page 21. Available at: https://www.return- it.ca/ar2017/pdf/AnnualReport.pdf. Retrieved November 2, 2018. 19 Page 48 of 111 British Columbia's Beverage Container Legacy: The Missing Millions Lower taxes The most obvious economic benefit of deposit refund systems is their ability to increase the diversion of valuable commodities from local landfills and waterways. The need for diversion from landfill is becoming increasingly important as existing BC landfills near capacity and new ones are a greater challenge and cost to site. Deposit refund systems successfully pull materials from the waste stream for recycling and reduce the costs associated with municipal landfilling. A report by Morrison Hershfield (2016)52 found that in 2014, BC’s deposit refund system resulted in $17 million in avoided waste collection and landfilling costs and $21 million worth of recovered materials. In 2016, after a review of 20 studies on deposit refund systems around the world, CM Consulting concluded that deposit refund systems provide a significant net cost savings to municipalities, even when regulated packaging recycling programs exist alongside regulated deposit refund programs53. Recycle BC supports activities that divert glass (e.g., like glass beverage containers) from curbside recycling bin to depots. It states: “separating glass at curbside or delivering glass to depots helps ensure that more of it—and more of the other material—is recycled”54. Successful diversion programs benefit taxpayers who otherwise face the long-term costs of landfill closures, and who can benefit from savings related to reduced municipal spending on waste collection costs and from recovered material value. Green jobs and support for low income earners In a report commissioned by the Container Recycling Institute, CM Consulting and Morris (2011)55 calculated that deposit refund systems create 11 to 38 times more jobs than a curbside recycling system for beverage containers: the more successful the system, the more jobs that are created. A report by Morrison Hershfield (2016)56 found that in 2014, BC’s deposit refund system resulted the addition of approximately 640 jobs. It should be noted that in 2014, Encorp’s overall return rate was hovering around 79%, but this has since fallen to 76%. As a result, it’s likely these values have declined correspondingly. However, if BC were able to reverse this trend and achieve the new European target of 90% recovery by 2025, then the avoided waste 52 Morrison Hershfield, 2016. Assessment of Economic and Environmental Impacts of Extended Producer Responsibility Programs Operating in BC in 2014. Available at: http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/solid- waste/SolidWastePublications/AssessmentofEconomicandEnvironmentalImpacts2014.pdf 53 CM Consulting & Reloop, 2016. Studies confirm that Container Deposit Systems show big net savings to municipal budgets. Available at: https://reloopplatform.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Summary-of- studies_impact-of-DRS-on-munis-FINAL-31May2016.pdf. Retrieved March 14, 2019. 54 RecycleBC, 2019. Recycling at home: How to recycle glass. Available at: https://recyclebc.ca/recycling-at- home/how-to-recycle-glass/. Retrieved March 14, 2019. 55 CM Consulting and Jeffery Morris, 2011. Returning to Work Understanding the Domestic Jobs Impacts from Different Methods of Recycling Beverage Containers. Report for the Container Recycling Institute. Available at: http://www.container-recycling.org/assets/pdfs/reports/2011-ReturningToWork.pdf 56 Morrison Hershfield, 2016. Assessment of Economic and Environmental Impacts of Extended Producer Responsibility Programs Operating in BC in 2014. Available at: http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/solid- waste/SolidWastePublications/AssessmentofEconomicandEnvironmentalImpacts2014.pdf 20 Page 49 of 111 British Columbia's Beverage Container Legacy: The Missing Millions collection and landfilling costs, the value of recovered material and the jobs created would increase proportionally. Low income populations also significantly benefit from deposit refund systems by using them as a means to supplement their income. In California, Ashenmiller57, 58 found that deposit refund systems provide a significant percentage of income for professional scavengers, i.e., up to 22% of their total income. Ashenmiller also found that petty crime rates are 11% lower in the 11 American states that currently have bottle deposit laws, likely because these populations have other methods to supplement their incomes by seeking and returning bottles for refund. British Columbia charities and community groups also benefit from BC’s deposit refund systems by fund raising through bottle drives. While Encorp Pacific doesn’t publicly report the overall net revenue contribution of bottle drives to non-profit causes, they do report that “the average bottle drive raises between $1,000 and $1,500” per drive, and that “some groups have even made over $3,000” in a half-day’s work”59. When waste has value, British Columbians have proven they are happy to collect, save and then donate it for a good cause. 57 Ashenmiller, B., 2009. Cash Recycling, Waste Disposal Costs, and the Incomes of the Working Poor: Evidence from California. Land Economics. August 2009. 85:539-551. 58 Ashenmiller, B., 2010. Externalities from Recycling Laws: Evidence from Crime Rates. American Law and Economics Review. Vol. 12, No. 1 (Spring 2010), pp. 245-261. Published by: Oxford University Press 59 Encorp Pacific, 2019. Encorp Return it, It’s worth it -Programs and Events -Bottle Drives. Available at; https://www.return-it.ca/programs/bottledrives/. Retrieved: March 14, 2019. 21 Page 50 of 111 British Columbia's Beverage Container Legacy: The Missing Millions Call to Action: BC Shows Ocean Plastic Leadership In 2018, Canada led the G7 in developing the Ocean’s Plastic Charter60 (which was signed by the leaders of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, United Kingdom, the European Union), and the Canadian Council of Ministers announced its Strategy on Zero Plastic Waste61. These Canadian initiatives recognized the importance of deposit refund systems and extended producer responsibility to tackle beverage container waste and other single-use plastics. On December 5, 2018, the Canadian government also unanimously passed Motion 151, which recognized the need for all Canadian communities (federal, provincial, municipal and indigenous) to do their part to combat plastic pollution in and around aquatic environments, including implementing: • New regulation to reduce (among other plastic debris) single-use plastics like beverage containers; • Permanent, dedicated, and annual funding for the cleanup of plastic debris; and • Education and outreach campaigns on the root causes and negative environmental effects of plastic pollution in and around all bodies of water62. On December 19, 2018, the European Parliament and Council passed a trialogue agreement – the Single-Use Plastics Directive – that specifically requires its member states to increase the collection and recycling of beverage containers (and their caps) to achieve a 90% capture rate by 2025 63 64. Ocean Legacy Foundation is calling on the BC government to make BC’s deposit refund system the leading Canadian beverage container recycling program in stewarding its beverage containers and bottle caps, ensuring none of these plastics end up in the ocean. 60 G7 2018 Charlevoix, 2018. Ocean Plastics Charter. Available at: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2018/amc-gac/FR5-144-2018-32-eng.pdf 61 CCME, 2018. Strategy on Zero Plastic Waste. Available at: https://www.ccme.ca/files/Resources/waste/plastics/STRATEGY%20ON%20ZERO%20PLASTIC%20WASTE.p df. Retrieved: February 14, 2019. 62 Parliament of Canada, House of Commons, 42 Parliament, 1st Session, 2018. Gord Johns, private members motion, current session. M-151: National strategy to combat plastic pollution. Decision made/agreed to: 2018-12- 05. Available at: http://www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/Gord-Johns(89263)/Motions. Retrieved February 14, 2019. 63 European Parliament, 2018. Single-use plastics: Commission welcomes ambitious agreement on new rules to reduce marine litter. Brussels, 19 December 2018. Available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18- 6867_en.htm. 64 European Parliament, 2018. Parliament and Council agree drastic cuts to plastic pollution of environment. Available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20181219IPR22301/parliament-and-council- agree-drastic-cutsto-plastic-pollution-of-environment 22 Page 51 of 111 British Columbia's Beverage Container Legacy: The Missing Millions We at Ocean Legacy Foundation call on the BC government to: 1. Increase the regulated deposit rate. 2. Add all beverage containers to the deposit refund system to reduce litter and increase the litter clean-up of containers not yet in the system. 3. Require producers to collect and report on the recycling of bottle caps to reduce bottle cap waste available to become ocean plastic. 4. Raise regulated targets to at least that achieved by Alberta and Saskatchewan, with long-term targets matching the EU. 5. Enforce the regulated targets in a meaningful way. For example, make producers pay for the clean-up of ocean plastics equal to the amount by weight that they fail to collect and recycle. 23 Page 52 of 111 British Columbia's Beverage Container Legacy: The Missing Millions Appendix A: Timeline of BC’s Deposit Return System 1970 British Columbia implemented Canada’s and the world’s first deposit return system for beverage containers. It is followed by Oregon in 1971 and Alberta in 1972. 1997 BC government enacts the Beverage Container Stewardship Program Regulation, which includes extended producer responsibility (EPR) requirements including: • requiring producers to take responsibility for the system; • managing the consumer paid deposit return system; • financing system operations; • meeting a minimum 85% recovery rate; and • requiring that all containers supplied into BC be re-filled or recycled65. 1998 Government expands its beverage recycling program • The system now includes all regulated ready-to-drink containers; this led to 196 million more containers being recycled. Milk and milk substitutes are notable exclusions. 1999 Polycoat containers were added to the deposit return system. 2004 The government enacts the Recycling Regulation and Encorp was established as the Producer Responsibility Organization • The regulation streamlined its EPR regulatory structure by implementing a single comprehensive, results-based regulation to cover all producer operated stewardship programs. • It also lowered the required minimum recovery rates for beverage containers from 85% (Beverage Container Stewardship Program Regulation) to 75% and sets the current deposit and refund rates. • Encorp was formed to manage all non-alcohol beverage containers, and later forms an agreement to also manage non-beer alcohol containers on behalf of liquor and wine stewards. 2007 Government approved Encorp’s first five-year stewardship plan (2007-2012). 2014 Government approved Encorp’s second five-year stewardship plan (2013-2017). 2017 Government approved Encorp’s application to continue operating its 2013-2017 plan for the 2018-2023 period, pending consultation on and receipt of approval for two amendments: 65 Recycle BC. Available at: https://recyclebc.ca/about-recyclebc/epr/. Retrieved: October 19, 2018. 24 Page 53 of 111 British Columbia's Beverage Container Legacy: The Missing Millions • Updated program performance targets for the period of 2018-2022. • Measures to address specific government policy guidance, such as dispute resolution. 2018 • May 8 Encorp began a 45-day public consultation on proposed plan amendments. • July 24 Encorp releases a summary of the consultation findings. • August 10 Encorp submits proposed amendments to government for review/ approval 2018 Current status of Deposit Return Systems • Deposit return programs exist in every province except Manitoba, though the programs range in scope and service, • Hundreds more have been implemented globally. • BC has regulated EPR requirements for 14 categories of materials66, which are managed by more than 20 EPR program operators67. 66 Recycling Regulation. Available at: http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/ID/freeside/449_2004 Retrieved: October 19, 2018. 67 Government of British Columbia. Product Stewardship Plans and Annual Reports. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/waste-management/recycling/product-stewardship/stewardship- reports-plans Retrieved: October 19, 2018. 25 Page 54 of 111 British Columbia's Beverage Container Legacy: The Missing Millions Appendix B: Overview of BC’s Recycling Regulation BC’s Recycling Regulation: • Establishes the requirement for a deposit return system, i.e., establishes the minimum deposits that must be collected from and refunded to consumers; • Requires “sellers” of beverage containers to collect a deposit from consumers that is not less than the minimum regulated deposit. • Identifies and limits which containers are subject to deposit refund and who must pay the refund; • Requires beverage container producers have a plan that collects and recycles beverage containers from container redemption facilities (e.g., depots, retailers that sell beverage containers); • Requires producers to provide proof that materials collected are managed according to a 3Rs hierarchy that maximizes recycling over energy recovery; and • Requires producers meet a minimum 75% recovery rate (i.e., collection rate) for 10 beverage container product sub-categories including: 1. aluminum cans; 2. refillable glass bottles; 3. non-refillable glass bottles; 4. plastic containers, able to hold 1 litre or less; 5. plastic containers, able to hold more than 1 litre; 6. drinking boxes; 7. bag in a box; 8. bimetal cans; 9. gable top containers; and 10. stand up pouches. Since 1970, BC’s deposit refund system has undergone many changes and has been regulated under several iterations of BC law (Appendix A). Since 2004, the BC system has been regulated under BC’s Recycling Regulation, which establishes the legal framework requiring and defining: 1. Extended Producer Responsibility for designated materials (i.e., those identified in Schedules 1-5), including requiring producers (e.g., beverage container producers) to develop and implement a plan to meet regulated government recycling outcomes and targets; and 2. BC’s deposit return system (Schedule 1). 26 Page 55 of 111 British Columbia's Beverage Container Legacy: The Missing Millions Interestingly, the implementation of the Recycling Regulation actually lowered the regulated target recovery rate for beverage containers from 85% to 75% (Appendix A). Since maximum deposits are not regulated, beverage container producers have the legal authority to charge higher than the minimum regulated deposits to encourage increased container returns. If the regulated targets were effectively enforced (e.g., with significant consequences for failure to achieve targets), then producers would have a legal (and potentially financial) incentive to make the program changes necessary to achieve regulated targets. Additional notes 1. Since 2004, BC’s deposit refund system (i.e., the Recycling Regulation, 2004) has remained virtually unchanged. 2. BC’s deposit return system targets only a portion of the ready-to-serve beverage containers on the market. Milk, milk substitutes, and meal replacement containers are not subject to Schedule 1 of the Recycling Regulation and are not included in BC’s deposit return system. 3. BC’s deposit return system is operated by two producer responsibility organizations: Brewers Recycling Container Collection Council (the Brewers), which collects and recycles all domestic refillable beer containers and beer cans, and Encorp Pacific (Encorp), which manages all other regulated containers and the vast majority of containers in the system. 27 Page 56 of 111 The Honourable George Heyman, Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy Member of the Legislative Assembly, British Columbia Room 112 Parliament Buildings Victoria, BC V8V 1X4 Deliver via email to: [email protected] [Suggestion: Send a cc: to BC’s newly appointed special advisor on marine debris protection [email protected] and your local MLA. Find your MLA’s email address here.] Dear Minister Heyman, As the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy develops strategies for the effective protection and conservation of British Columbia’s (BC) water, land, air, and living resources, we want to emphasize the importance of the findings laid out in the recently released report: British Columbia’s Beverage Container Legacy: The Missing Millions. The Ocean Legacy Foundation’s (OLF) report shows that in BC alone, more than one million beverage containers and 2.3 million beverage container caps go missing each day. These “missing millions” are containers sold to consumers in BC that don’t get returned to bottle depots. They are containers that eventually find their way into our environment, including landfills, shorelines, and oceans. If left this way, they cost residents of BC millions of dollars in landfilling and clean up costs. If recycled, they can create millions in economic opportunities. BC was once a world leader in recycling beverage containers; its approach and regulations are now fifty years old and the results are concerning. With immediate regulatory updates, BC has the opportunity to reclaim its position as an environmental leader, diverting single-use plastics from both waterways and landfills while creating economic and social gains for its citizens. We strongly support policy changes to our province’s deposit refund system and call on the Government of British Columbia to take action on OLF’s five recommendations: Increase the regulated deposit rate Increase our minimum regulated deposit rate from five cents, a rate set in 1970 and out of touch with current economic incentives, to further encourage people to return their beverage containers to designated depots. Add all beverage containers to the deposit refund system Add all types of containers, such as milk, milk substitutes, drinkable meal replacements, and non-beverage dairy product containers (e.g., cream), to the deposit refund system. Many of these containers are consumed ‘on the go’ and need a value to encourage consumers to return them for recycling. Collecting and recycling all beverage containers reduces consumer confusion and improves container return rates. Require producers to collect and report on the recycling of bottle caps Encourage consumers to leave caps on their containers to reduce littering and ensure this material can be recycled. 1 Page 57 of 111 Require beverage container producers to collect beverage container caps and report on how many are collected for recycling versus continue to go missing. Raise regulated minimum targets to at least that achieved by Alberta and Saskatchewan, with long-term targets matching the European Union Increase BC’s minimum return rate target to 85% and enforce the target on all container sub-categories listed in the regulation. Increase BC’s minimum return rate target to 90% by 2025 and enforce the target on all container sub-categories listed in the regulation. Enforce regulated targets in a meaningful way, such as requiring producers to pay for the clean-up of ocean plastics equal to the amount by weight that they fail to collect and recycle Ensure compliance with strict enforcement measures. These recommendations follow proven policy tools in similar regulatory jurisdictions that are available to BC and support positive environmental, economic, and social outcomes. An effective regulated beverage container deposit refund system: Helps ensure that beverage containers stay off our shorelines and out of our oceans and other waterways. Helps to reduce municipal taxes by reducing the need for waste management services, landfill space, and litter clean up. Reduces greenhouse gas production by recycling materials, rather than creating new plastics. Provides a stream of funding for people and organizations who collect and return beverage containers to designated depots for the refund. Creates up to 38 times more jobs than a curbside recycling system for beverage containers. We are pleased to see BC sitting up and taking notice of the devastating impact of plastics in our environment. We support the appointment of Sheila Malcolmson, MLA for Nanaimo, as minister’s special advisor on marine debris protection. We also urge BC to move beyond recommendations to curb the disposal of plastics and take immediate action where it will make a difference. An effective deposit refund system will help turn our “missing millions” in beverage containers into millions in economic returns for this province. The time for action is now. We would appreciate a response that outlines how the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy will take action on The Missing Millions recommendations to modernize BC’s regulated beverage container deposit refund system and combat plastic pollution. Thank you for your time and consideration. Yours truly, 2 Page 58 of 111 Date: April 29, 2019 To: (Insert MLA email address for LIBERAL MLAs. Example: [email protected]. Please also send an email to [email protected] in addition to the Liberal MLAs.) Subject line: For review and immediate action: Reclaim BC’s position as a global leader in beverage container management Content: Dear (Insert name, title, and constituency. Example: Mr. Dan Ashton, MLA for Penticton), As a consortium of bottle depot operators committed to reducing the number of beverage containers that end of up disposed of in municipal landfills and littered along British Columbia’s (BC) streetscapes, public places, and shorelines, we would like to call your attention to a report recently released by The Ocean Legacy Foundation (OLF): British Columbia’s Beverage Container Legacy: The Missing Millions. In its report, OLF points to a growing and concerning problem in our province: More than one million beverage containers and 2.3 million beverage container caps are going missing in BC each day. The majority of these wayward containers are small plastic containers, the second most common category of shoreline litter in Canada and, if not collected for recycling, a contributor to landfills. In its report, OLF recognizes the true value of beverage containers and beverage containers caps, pointing to numerous opportunities to turn BC’s “missing millions” into millions in economic returns. Specifically, OLF calls on the Government of British Columbia to adopt five evidence-informed recommendations, all directed at modernizing our once world-leading and now sorely dated regulated beverage container deposit refund system. As a member of the BC Liberal caucus and official opposition, we are seeking your support to help raise the alarm on BC’s outdated beverage container deposit refund system and call on the Government of British Columbia to make changes that benefit all British Columbians. The New Democratic Party of British Columbia (NDP) was the governing party in 1970 when British Columbia became the first jurisdiction in the world to adopt a regulated beverage container deposit refund system. Its leadership was remarkable, and the benefits of the system that it introduced to the world are well-documented. Regulated deposit refund systems get significantly higher returns than non-deposit systems, and they also help to reduce municipal waste collection and landfilling costs, create green jobs, and bring notable economic benefit to community organizations and low income earners. This system is now 50 years old and the enabling regulations haven’t been updated in 15 years. The five cent deposit set in 1970 is no longer a reasonable economic incentive to encourage consumers to return their beverage containers to bottle depots, and the result is that the province is not meeting its own regulated target for several beverage container sub-categories. In your position, we ask that you call the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy and, following BC’s very recent marine protection appointment, his special advisor on marine debris protection to task. We ask you to use the spring sitting of the Legislature and, following 1 Page 59 of 111 spring recess, Question Period, to implore the NDP to address the challenges with BC’s regulated beverage container deposit refund system and, more specifically, adopt the five recommendations in OLF’s report. Sincerely, [Insert names, electronic signatures, and preferred contact information] Attachments: British Columbia’s Beverage Container Legacy: The Missing Millions 2 Page 60 of 111 Date: April 29, 2019 To: (Insert MLA email address for NDP MLAs. Example: [email protected]) Subject line: For review and immediate action: Reclaim BC’s position as a global leader in beverage container management Content: Dear (Insert name, title, and constituency. Example: Mr. Garry Begg, MLA for Surrey-Guildford), As a consortium of bottle depot operators committed to reducing the number of beverage containers that end of up disposed of in municipal landfills and littered along British Columbia’s (BC) streetscapes, public places, and shorelines, we would like to call your attention to a report recently released by The Ocean Legacy Foundation (OLF): British Columbia’s Beverage Container Legacy: The Missing Millions. In its report, OLF points to a growing and concerning problem in our province: More than one million beverage containers and 2.3 million beverage container caps are going missing in BC each day. The majority of these wayward containers are small plastic containers, the second most common category of shoreline litter in Canada and, if not collected for recycling, a contributor to landfills. In its report, OLF recognizes the true value of beverage containers and beverage containers caps, pointing to numerous opportunities to turn BC’s “missing millions” into millions in economic returns. Specifically, OLF calls on the Government of British Columbia to adopt five evidence-informed recommendations, all directed at modernizing our once world-leading and now sorely dated regulated beverage container deposit refund system. We are joining OLF’s call for change and are seeking your support, as a member of the BC’s governing caucus, to make it happen. As a member of the New Democratic Party of British Columbia, you will be proud to know that your predecessors were the visionaries responsible for adopting the world’s first regulated beverage container deposit refund system. Their leadership was remarkable, and the benefits of the system that they introduced to the world are well-documented. Regulated deposit refund systems get significantly higher returns than non-deposit systems, and they also help to reduce municipal waste collection and landfilling costs, create green jobs, and bring notable economic benefit to community organizations and low income earners. However, BC’s leadership is waning and so are consumers’ efforts to recycle their beverage containers. Our deposit refund system is now 50 years old and the enabling regulations haven’t been updated in 15 years. The five cent deposit set in 1970 is no longer a reasonable economic incentive to encourage consumers to return their beverage containers to bottle depots, and the province is not meeting its own regulated target for several beverage container sub-categories. In your position, we ask that you implore your colleague, the Honourable George Heyman, Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, to adopt the five recommendations in OLF’s report. By taking this multi-faceted approach, we believe BC can effectively modernize its regulated beverage container deposit refund system and reclaim its position as a global environmental leader. Sincerely, Page 61 of 111 [Insert names, electronic signatures, and preferred contact information] Attachments: British Columbia’s Beverage Container Legacy: The Missing Millions Page 62 of 111 Undeniable, planet-wide ocean plastic waste crisis: • 8 million tonnes of plastic is deposited into our oceans and waterways globally British • 43% is single-use, disposable plastics such as beverage containers, their caps and straws Columbia’s • Global ocean plastics are expected to double by leadership is 2035 needed • Neither voluntary action nor the market are solving this problem • Leadership to reduce beverage container litter is Page 63 of 111 needed BCDepot.info Page 64 of 111 BCDepot.info BC’s system is in a state of year over year decline Page 65 of 111 BCDepot.info Small plastic bottles, polycoats & pouches, and bag-in-a-box below target All others steady or falling No significant improvement in sight Page 66 of 111 BCDepot.info 387 million containers go missing every year more than 1 million containers and 2.3 million caps go missing every single day Page 67 of 111 BCDepot.info 143 million small plastic containers lost in 2017 Page 68 of 111 • Increase the regulated deposit rate • Add all beverage containers to the deposit refund system Call to Action for • Require producers to collect and report BC government on the recycling of bottle caps • Raise regulated collection targets • Enforce the regulated targets in a meaningful way Page 69 of 111 BCDepot.info Raise deposits Higher deposits = higher returns EU target is 90% by 2035 Page 70 of 111 BCDepot.info Ocean Legacy Foundation’s recommendations will help: • Ensure beverage containers stay out of our environment • Reduce municipal taxes by reducing waste management services, landfill space, & litter clean-up. • Reduce greenhouse gas production by recycling materials, rather than creating new plastics* • Provide an increase in funding for people & organizations who collect and return beverage containers to designated depots for the refund Page 71 of 111 • Create up to 38 times more jobs than a curbside recycling system for beverage containers BCDepot.info Greenhouse gas production saved by recycling beverage containers Page 72 of 111 BCDepot.info • Less beverage containers ending up as Let’s advocate ocean plastic or marine litter • Littered beverage container waste to be for change cleaned up • BC to lead the way in dealing with container recycling Page 73 of 111 BCDepot.info Please visit BCDepot.info for all of the tools you need to contact the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change Strategy and your local MLA. Thank you for your support! Page 74 of 111 BCDepot.info Correspondence Item 4.4 July 16 COTW Agenda July 10, 2019 To: City of Powell River “Committee of the Whole “ 6910 Duncan Street Powell River, BC V8A 1V4 To the Chair, RE: Response Requested from the Committee: I am contacting you regarding matters of this committee. I will appreciate if you will include my concerns within the agenda of the next committee meeting, and attach as correspondence for each member. I have noted over recent months that several items have been brought to the committee by a local citizen, acting with the knowledge and support of many local Powell River citizens. Remembering that it is within the mandate of the mayor and council and its sub-committees to provide leadership and governance, and to represent the will of the public, I would like to request any updates re the status of the following concerns. No#1 – the loop road, Timberlane Avenue No#2 – Forensic Audit re PRSC, CDPR, PRWDC No#3 – “Dive Shop Property” Litigation and Purchase One. Timberlane Avenue. What is the final cost to the public of the remediation of the loop road, following an order of the Agricultural Land Commission? Why did the city report to the ALC that costs to taxpayers would be around $600,000 but then report to the public the cost would be about $100,000? Can we please be advised of the actual cost? This was an oversight made by our City, and paid for by taxpayers. Any response from the Chair or the CAO would be welcome. Two. Forensic Audit. As of the March COTW meeting, a request was made to conduct a forensic audit looking into matters of City legal costs shouldered by taxpayers. The response of the members of the committee became a spectacle of emotion and outrage, and a member of the public, politely bringing Page 75 of 111 her point of view to the local government, was subjected to a barrage of abusive comments from members of the committee. Several committee members were insulted and complained of the prohibitive cost of a side by side forensic audit, and the Mayor, in the heat of the moment, offered to donate $50,000 or 50% of the cost of the audit should it reach $100,000 (apparently in the interest of clearing his name). Has the mayor provided the $50,000 donation, and will the forensic audit, or any audit go ahead? Will the citizen receive any answer to her questions that were formally presented to the committee as a delegation at the COTW meeting? Any response from the Chair or the CFO would be welcome. Three. The Dive Shop Property. In recent correspondence, requests have been made to identify costs to taxpayers related to the acquisition of a property known as the Dive Shop on Marine Avenue. Apparently litigation initiated on behalf of the citizens of Powell River, and subsequently an out of court conclusion to litigation involving the purchase of the property, has resulted in significant expenses to tax payers. Of course it is understood there would be some justification for the City’s actions. However, where large costs are incurred on behalf of taxpayers, does the government not have an obligation to report the events, and report why litigation was commenced, and the outcome of the litigation and ultimate real estate transaction? The City has been asked, now that the litigation has been concluded and there is no longer a reason to keep this quiet, to release the details of the Dive Shop expenses to the public. Any response from this committee will be welcome. My final comment is that many of us take some pride and comfort in living in a free and democratic society where governments abide by their duty to act on behalf of the citizenry and adhere to principles of transparency and financial accountability. May I say that I am well acquainted enough with several members of the committee and staff to know that they are highly motivated to act ethically and respond appropriately to the public they serve. I look forward to any responses from you. Thank you very much for considering my requests. Sincerely, Daniel Fretts Powell River, BC Page 76 of 111 Correspondence Item 4.5 File: 0220-01 July 16 COTW Received July 9, 2019 ec: Mayor & Council cc: CAO, CO. Dir. Ec. Dev. & Comm. L.A L.A. to include July 16 COTW Agenda July 9, 2019 Mayor Dave Formosa Councillors of Powell River Russell Brewer Scott Randolph Chris Jackson Re: Letter to the City dated March 26, 2019 Please add this to the next Council of the Whole meeting on July 16th. In my previous letter to the City I asked to be informed when any of the lands the City owns or controls either directly or indirectly were for sale or 'being' contemplated for sale. My interest is to possibly come in as a Buyer. Since I have not heard anything from the City I would have to assume that nothing is being contemplated at this time. I understand that at times the City takes meetings with Developers or other interested Buyers of real estate to discuss possibilities. If that is the case I would welcome meeting with officials to have a discussion of what pieces are being contemplated, possible uses the City would like to see and timing on considering and accepting offers. My intent is to do the right and best thing for the City of Powell River and its residents. Thank you. Sincerely, Stephen J. Miller Powell River, BC Page 77 of 111 City of Powell River REPORT File No. 0410-20-0001 DATE OF MEETING: July 16, 2019 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Russell Brewer, Chief Administrative Officer SUBJECT: Private Managed Forest Land Program Review RECOMMENDATION: That staff be directed to submit feedback to the Private Managed Forest Land Program Review as presented. ORIGIN/PURPOSE: To confirm feedback to be provided to the Private Managed Forest Land (PMFL) Program Review. BACKGROUND: The BC Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development is conducting a review of the Private Managed Forest Land Program (Appendix A). The city of Powell River was invited to attend an information session and provide input for the review. Councillors Doubt and Southcott attended an information session regarding the review on June 28, 2019 and reported on the session at the July 2, 2019 Committee of the Whole. The committee subsequently directed staff to bring back a report with suggested feedback for consideration that could be submitted. Written submissions are requested to be made by July 22, 2019. Council has advocated for Private Managed Forest Land Act amendments during Ministerial meetings at UBCM conferences in response to feedback from residents. A City of Powell River resolution regarding Private Managed Forest Land Act amendments was endorsed by the UBCM in 2018 (Appendix B). STRATEGIC PRIORITY: Community Engagement Community Planning Economic Revitalization Page 78 of 111 Private Managed Forest Land Program Review 2 of 2 July 16, 2019 ______ Financial Resiliency EXISTING POLICY: The Sustainable Official Community Plan outlines lands designated as “Resource” and intended for forestry and other resource use. The objectives and policies for resource lands include continued use of forestry resource lands for tree farming and forestry-related uses and encouraging the connectivity of trails. ANALYSIS AND IMPACT: Amendments to the Private Managed Forest Land Act and Regulations are recommended to provide more local government authority regarding uses of PMFL within municipal boundaries. Amendments are also recommended to ensure annual consultation and sharing of the management commitment, harvesting plans and long-term disposition or development intentions for land within municipal boundaries. Residents of municipalities reasonably expect that their local government should be able to regulate activities on PMFL, particularly given the reduced taxation benefits. A proposed written response submission for the PMFL Program review is attached as Appendix C. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact required for providing feedback to the PMFL Program Review. However, although property assessment calculations for PMFL are considered beyond the scope of the review, suggestions for amendments to the PMFL Regulation with respect to the exit fee adjustment factors could result in subsequent changes to assessment calculations. COMMUNICATIONS AND ENGAGEMENT: The review is one of several public engagements announced as part of the Coast Forest Sector Revitalization Initiative and part of a province-wide public engagement process running from May 28 to July 22. OPTIONS: 1. That staff be directed to submit feedback to the Private Managed Forest Land Program Review as presented. 2. That the committee direct staff with respect to feedback to be provided to the Private Managed Forest Land Program Review. Attachment(s) Appendix A – Information Session regarding Private Managed Forest Land Program Review Appendix B – Provincial Response to 2018 Resolution Appendix C – Proposed Written Submission Page 79 of 111 APPENDIX A Private Managed Forest Land Program Review Information Session - What to Expect The BC Ministry of Forests, Lands, organization may have before formally Natural Resource Operations and Rural providing your input. Development (ministry) is conducting a review of the Private Managed Forest Following the information session, you Land Program (also known as the will be encouraged to provide your Managed Forest Program). The ministry input to the ministry by completing would like to invite you to attend an the EngageBC online questionnaire in-person information session to discuss and/or submit a formal written the Managed Forest Program and submission of up to five pages to the the program review process that is ministry by emailing your document currently being undertaken. to [email protected]. The review is one of several public engagements announced as part of Can I provide input at the Coast Forest Sector Revitalization the session? Initiative. The purpose of the information session The review will examine how well the is to answer your questions so you are Private Managed Forest Land Program well informed before providing your is meeting its goals to: input through the public engagement process. However, if your organization • Encourage private landowners wishes to provide a written submission to manage their lands for long- to the project team at this session, term forest production, and you are welcome to bring your document with you. Please review • Encourage sustainable forest the guidelines at: https://engage. management practices, gov.bc.ca/privatemanagedforest/ including the protection of key guidelines-for-formal-submissions/ public environmental values To determine where the program is How long will the most effective, and if improvements information session be? are needed, the ministry is asking British Columbians to provide their The information session will last for different views and concerns through no more than 60 minutes. This will a province-wide public engagement allow our project team to meet with process from May 28 to July 22. Input as many groups as possible. Sessions received from this engagement will begin and end promptly and will process will be an important part of be scheduled on a first-come first the ministry’s review of the program. -served basis. Purpose of the Who will be there to information session answer my questions? To ensure those who are most affected Ministry representatives who are by forestry activities on private knowledgeable about the Private forested land are well prepared Managed Forest Land Program will to provide informed input, ministry be present to provide information representatives are offering to meet and answer your questions. with individuals and groups for brief information sessions. These sessions are intended to provide information about the Managed Forest Program, the program review process, and to answer any questions you or your Page 80 of 111 The following review topics are areas for which government is seeking feedback online or through written submissions: Review Topic Details Program Goals The primary goals of the Private Managed Forest Land Program are: • To encourage private landowners to manage their lands for long-term forest production; and • To encourage sustainable forest management practices, including protecting key public environmental values. Management The Private Managed Forest Land Act establishes management objectives for the following Objectives key public environmental values: for Public • Soil conservation Environmental • Critical wildlife habitat Values • Fish habitat • Drinking water quality • Reforestation These requirements are in addition to provincial and federal environmental laws that apply to all private landowners such as the Water Sustainability Act, Environmental Management Act, Wildfire Act, federal Fisheries Act, Migratory Birds Act, and Species at Risk Act. Regulatory The regulatory framework includes the legislative provisions, regulations, policies, guidelines, Framework for processes and organizational structures associated with achieving the objectives. Included Environmental in this framework are audits and regulatory reviews completed by the Managed Forest Council. Values Incentives for Key benefits of participation include: Participation in program • Opportunity for lower property assessed values and taxes • Landowners have the right to harvest trees and local governments cannot adopt bylaws or require permits that would restrict forest management activities. Disincentives Exit fees are applied when land is removed from the Managed Forest Land class within 15 years. for Exit from the Program The following areas are considered out of scope for this review process as they are currently being addressed as part of other government initiatives or conversations: • Property assessment calculation conducted by BC Assessment • Public access to private managed forest land • Building of dwellings on private managed forest land • Log export policies as they relate to private managed forest land • Deletion of managed forest land from Tree Farm Licences or Woodlots Page 81 of 111 APPENDIX B Page 82 of 111 APPENDIX C City of Powell River City Hall – MacGregor Building 6910 Duncan Street, Powell River, BC V8A 1V4 Telephone 604.485.6291 Fax 604.485.2913 www.powellriver.ca [email protected] File No. 0410-20-0001 July 16, 2019 Via-Email: [email protected] Honourable Doug Donaldson Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development PO Box 9049 Stn Prov Govt Victoria, BC V8W 9E2 Dear Minister Donaldson: Re: Private Managed Forest Land Program Review Thank you for the information session and the opportunity to provide written input to the Private Managed Forest Land Program Review. There is a significant amount of Private Managed Forest Land (PMFL) within and adjacent to the City of Powell River. The local government and community would benefit significantly from the PMFL landowner sharing the management commitment, operations map, harvesting plans and supporting assessments and long-term disposition or development intentions for their land. Consultation from landowners of PMFL regulated by the Private Managed Forest Land Act and Regulations and the Managed Forest Council that administers the Managed Forest Program is not considered adequate and does not meet the expectations of local government or the community. The benefit of sharing such information would be the coordination of PMFL landowner activities and plans with community planning initiatives such as official community plans, integrated community sustainability plans and economic development initiatives. Sharing information should be welcomed by the landowners and the Managed Forest Council, particularly given the benefits of lower taxation and the right to harvest trees largely unrestricted by local government bylaws. Approximately 245 hectares of private land within City boundaries are classed as managed forest land under the Assessment Act. These lands are being harvested at a rate suggesting they are not being managed for long-term production and harvesting of timber but rather short- term liquidation and disposition. This is arguably inconsistent with the intent of the managed forest property classification to encourage private landowners to manage their lands for long- term forest production. If disposition is intended, it is certainly unfair to the remaining landowners within the municipality that will have shouldered an unfair taxation burden in previous years given the exit fee adjustment factors that would apply as outlined in the Private Managed Forest Land Regulation. …/2 Page 83 of 111 Page 2 Private Managed Forest Land Program Review ______Amendments to the Private Managed Forest Land Act are required to provide more local government authority regarding uses of Private Managed Forest Land within municipal boundaries. Section 21 of the Act is an unacceptable restriction on the authority of local government to adopt bylaws or issue permits that would regulate activities on PMFL. Residents of municipalities reasonably expect that their local government should be able to regulate activities on PMFL, particularly given the reduced taxation benefits. Amendments are also required to the PMFL Regulation with respect to the exit fee adjustment factors. The timelines and adjustment factors are not reasonable given the intent of the managed forest property classification to encourage private landowners to manage their lands for long-term forest production. Amendments should also be made to require annual consultation and sharing of the management commitment, operations map, harvesting plans and supporting assessments and long-term disposition or development intentions for land within municipal boundaries. Yours truly, CITY OF POWELL RIVER Russell Brewer Chief Administrative Officer RB/mcs Ec: Mayor and Council ______ Page 84 of 111 City of Powell River REPORT File No. 3060-20-0215 DATE OF MEETING: July 16, 2019 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Jason Gow, Manager of Planning Services SUBJECT: Development Permit 215 Amendment – Sunset Homes – Joyce Avenue RECOMMENDATION: That Development Permit 215 be approved as amended to accommodate a proposal to relocate the proposed 34-unit Affordable Rental Housing facility to the south west corner of the vacant Joyce Avenue parcel, legally described as Lot 2 District Lot 5121 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan EPP38557, and reduction of the proposed site infrastructure subject to the following conditions: a) Submission of an amended engineering site plan to confirm location of proposed sidewalk and cycling lane on Field Street and link to existing infrastructure on Joyce Avenue to the satisfaction of the Manager of Engineering Services; b) Submission of an amended storm water management plan to the satisfaction of the Manager of Engineering Services; and, c) Submission of an amended landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning Services. CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’S COMMENTS: I concur with the recommendation. Russell Brewer, CAO ORIGIN/PURPOSE: To consider a proposal to amend Development Permit 215 to accommodate a relocation of the proposed building and reduction of proposed on-site infrastructure. BACKGROUND: The subject property is located along Joyce Avenue between Field and Duncan Street. It is a large property that measures 0.95 hectares (2.35 acres) and is legally described as Lot 2 Page 85 of 111 DP 215 Amendment – Sunset Homes 2 of 4 July 16, 2019 ______ District Lot 5121 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan EPP38557 (PID 029-385-725). Attached to this report as Appendix A and B are a locator map and orthographic image of the subject property and surrounding lands. The site previously housed a portion of Max Cameron High School. The site is now vacant and owned by Powell River Sunset Homes Society. In April of last year, staff presented a development permit application for a 34-unit affordable rental apartment building for seniors. For convenience, attached to this report as Appendix C is the original staff report without attachments. Development Permit 215 was approved and issued June 1, 2018. Today, due to cost, the applicant wishes to relocate the building to the south west corner of the same property near to the proposed access point off Field Street. This move would reduce the length of interior access road required. The applicant also wishes to reduce the number of parking stalls proposed in their initial submission from 68 to 46. Both changes will reduce the cost of on-site infrastructure and make the project more viable. STRATEGIC PRIORITY: Consideration to issue a development permit for a multi-family residential building that focuses on affordable rental housing for seniors aligns with the City's 2016 - 2018 Corporate Plan: Strategic Community Priority #2, Economic Revitalization; Priority #3 Social Planning and Action and, Strategic Corporate Priority #5, Community Planning. EXISTING POLICY: Integrated Community Sustainability Plan (ICSP) The City’s Integrated Community Sustainability Plan (ICSP) summarizes the goals from the Sustainability Charter and Sustainable Official Community Plan (SOCP) to articulate the community’s shared outcomes for a successful and sustainable future. It is broken into five Strategy Areas: Our Land, Neighbourhoods and Homes; Our Environment; Our Community Life; Our Transportation and Infrastructure; and, Our Economy. The plan identifies goals and actions that the City should strive to achieve in terms of land use planning and new development. Examples of these include: Building walkable neighborhoods located close to commercial amenities; Promoting infill development rather than rural sprawl; and, Ensuring a diversification of housing type to better accommodate individual and family needs through all life stages. The proposed development is an example of infill development. It is close to commercial and recreational services which encourages walkability and potentially lessens car dependency. As it will provide affordable rental housing for seniors, it addresses actions and goals related to increasing the supply of housing units for seniors. Sustainable Official Community Plan (SOCP) In the SOCP the subject property has a land use designation of Uptown Mixed-Use. The intent of this designation is to accommodate commercial and multi-family uses. In terms of the proposal to establish affordable, rental, seniors-oriented, multi-family and infill housing units within the neighbourhood of Westview, the SOCP includes many policies that support this type of development. These include: Page 86 of 111 DP 215 Amendment – Sunset Homes 3 of 4 July 16, 2019 ______ Westview Neighbourhood Planning Objectives and Policies: 3.9.1 (a) Support Westview as the primary commercial and residential area of the City with the greatest capacity to accommodate future growth in a sustainable manner; and, 3.9.2 (c) The City encourages residential infill development of large lots including double fronting lot, deep and underutilized lots subject to any required infrastructure installation and upgrading by the developer and compliance with Zoning Bylaw provisions. Growth Management Objectives and Policies: 4.1.2 (d) Residential growth shall be directed to lands designated for Mixed Use and Urban Residential development; and, 4.1.3 (f) The City will encourage employment growth and residential densification to occur in the vicinity of existing and proposed public transport corridors, to promote and encourage more efficient use of public transport. Affordable, Rental & Special Needs Housing Objectives and Policies: 4.9.1 (a) Ensure an adequate supply of affordable, rental and special needs housing and to increase the supply of affordable housing in co-operation with senior government and partnerships with other stakeholders; and, 4.9.2 (a) Affordable, rental and special needs housing – including supportive seniors’ housing and transition homes – is permitted in areas designated for Urban Residential, Suburban Residential and Mixed Use development, with preference given to locations in close proximity to amenities, services and public transit; and, 4.9.2 (d) Parking requirements for affordable, rental or special needs housing may be reduced in locations close to services and amenities and public transit and if the nature of the intended client base will have low vehicle ownership rates. Environmental Sustainability & GHG Emission Reduction Policies - Land Use and Development Planning Policies: 5.1.3 (a) Strive to improve the long term social, environmental and economic well- being of the City through the application of Smart Growth principles in the evaluation of, and decision-making process for, land use, building, transportation, and environmental planning; and, 5.1.3 (c) Work towards a more compact urban form through development that maximizes the use of existing infrastructure. This will be done by increasing housing densities where service infrastructure exists or is easily expanded (e.g. total residences within 400 metres walking distance of transit stops). New developments should be required to align with desired neighbourhood design esthetics. The above objectives and policies provide strong support and good rationale for considering increased residential density through multi-family developments that offer affordable rental housing units in strategic locations throughout the City. Page 87 of 111 DP 215 Amendment – Sunset Homes 4 of 4 July 16, 2019 ______ City of Powell River Zoning Bylaw 2100, 2006 (Zoning Bylaw) The subject property is zoned as RM3 (Medium Density Multiple Family Residential). This zone is intended for apartments, townhouses and cluster housing. ANALYSIS AND IMPACT: The relocation of the building and reduction of on-site infrastructure is deemed by staff to have no impact to the proposed development in terms of the development permit guidelines. First, the form and character of the building remains the same as originally proposed, only its location is will change if the amendment is approved. Second, the new location is street-oriented which meets the intent of the guidelines. The biggest changes will be to the siteworks which include parking, interior access roads and landscaping. The applicant is currently working on amendments to the engineering site plan, stormwater management plan and landscape plan. Staff recommend that these amended documents be required as subject conditions to be met prior to issuance of the amended development permit. Attached as Appendix D is an amended version of Development Permit 215 for consideration. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Staff do not foresee any financial impact linked to amending Development Permit 215. COMMUNICATIONS AND ENGAGEMENT: This staff report is attached to the Committee of the Whole agenda which is available to the public and posted on the City’s website. No additional engagement with the community is proposed. OPTIONS: 1. That Development Permit 215 be approved as amended to accommodate a proposal to relocate the proposed 34-unit Affordable Rental Housing facility to the south west corner of the vacant Joyce Avenue parcel, legally described as Lot 2 District Lot 5121 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan EPP38557, and reduction of the proposed site infrastructure subject to the following conditions: a) Submission of an amended engineering site plan to confirm location of proposed sidewalk and cycling lane on Field Street and link to existing infrastructure on Joyce Avenue to the satisfaction of the Manager of Engineering Services; b) Submission of an amended storm water management plan to the satisfaction of the Manager of Engineering Services; and, c) Submission of an amended landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning Services. 2. That Council provides an alternate direction to staff; or, 3. That Council not endorse this application. Attachment(s) Appendix A (locator map) Appendix B (orthographic image) Appendix C (staff report – Development Permit 215 – April 17, 2018) Appendix D (draft Development Permit 215 Amendment) Page 88 of 111 APPENDIX A SUBJECT PROPERTY Page 89 of 111 City of Powell River 2018-03-06 APPENDIX11:24:38 BAM SUBJECT PROPERTY Page 90 of 111 ± Disclaim er : This map is an unofficial docum ent of the City of P owell River and is consolidated for convenienc e purpos es only and is not to be relied 0 0.010.02 0.04 0.06 upon in m aking financial or other comm itm ents . City of P owell River does not warrant the ac curacy of infor mation on this m ap nor will it ac cept res ponsibility for er ror s or om is sions. City of Powell River reserves the r ight to alter or update this information without notic e. This map is not Km intended for navigational purpos es . APPENDIX C CITY OF POWELL RIVER REPORT File No. 3060-20-0215 DATE: April 17, 2018 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Thomas Knight, Director of Planning Services SUBJECT: Development Permit 215 – Proposal to Construct a 34 Unit Affordable Rental Housing Facility for Seniors 55 Plus (Powell River Sunset Homes Society) RECOMMENDATION: That Development Permit 215 to facilitate construction of a 34-unit Affordable Rental Housing facility, legally described as Lot 2 District Lot 5121 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan EPP38557 be issued subject to the following conditions: a) Submission of an engineering site plan to confirm location of proposed sidewalk and cycling lane on Field Street and link to existing infrastructure on Joyce Avenue to the satisfaction of the Manager of Engineering Services; b) Submission of storm water management plan to the satisfaction of the Manager of Engineering Services; c) Submission of a detailed landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning Services; and, d) Receipt of a security deposit to ensure that the approved landscape works are completed. CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’S COMMENTS: I concur with the recommendation. Mac Fraser Chief Administrative Officer ORIGIN/PURPOSE: To obtain Council approval for a development permit to facilitate construction of a 34-unit affordable rental housing facility for seniors 55 plus on Joyce Avenue. BACKGROUND: The City has received an application to consider development of a multiple-family project located fronting Joyce Avenue just south of Duncan Street. Overall, the property measures 0.95 Page 91 of 111 Page 47 of 95 Development Permit Application 215 Sunset Homes Society – 4360 Joyce Avenue 2 of 6 April 17, 2018 hectares (2.35 acres) and is legally described as Lot 2 District Lot 5121 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan EPP38557 (PID 029-385-725). The subject property was part of the former Max Cameron High School site. The property was purchased by Powell River Sunset Homes Society from proceeds received from the sale of the former complex care facility building known as “Olive Devaud”. As a registered charitable not- for-profit society, Sunset Homes intention is to finance the construction of a 34-unit affordable rental apartment building for seniors. Attached to this report as Appendices A and B are a locator map and orthographic image that illustrate the property under this development permit application. STRATEGIC PRIORITY: Consideration to issue a development permit for a multiple residential building that focuses on affordable rental housing for seniors aligns with the City's 2016 - 2018 Corporate Plan: Strategic Community Priority #2, Economic Revitalization; Priority #3 Social Planning and Action and, Strategic Corporate Priority #5, Community Planning. EXISTING POLICY: The City’s Integrated Community Sustainability Plan (ICSP) is broken into five Strategy Areas: Our Land, Neighbourhoods and Homes; Our Environment; Our Community Life; Our Transportation and Infrastructure; and, Our Economy. It identifies a number of goals and actions that the City should strive to achieve in terms of new development. Examples of these include building walkable neighbourhoods located in close proximity to commercial amenities; promoting infill development rather than rural sprawl; and, ensuring a diversification of housing type to better accommodate individual and family needs through all life stages. The subject property is currently designated: Uptown Mixed Use Area (Central Westview) and applies to the commercial lands along Joyce Avenue from Westview Avenue north to Abbotsford Street. As identified in the City of Powell River Sustainable Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 2370, 2014, (SOCP), the intent of this designation is to accommodate predominately commercial (both general and service commercial) uses and to allow for multi-family residential uses. As Powell River still contains an oversupply of commercially zoned land and vacant buildings, development of multiple residential can assist in fostering activity and diversity in existing commercial business areas. The proposed 34 unit affordable rental facility for seniors therefore meets with the intent of this designation. Within the City of Powell River Zoning Bylaw 2100, 2006 (the Zoning Bylaw), the subject property is zoned RM3 Medium Density Multiple Family Residential. The RM3 Zone is intended for apartments, townhouses and cluster housing. The proposed 34 unit multiple residential building therefore meets with the intent of this zone. As the proposed project is multiple residential, the property is subject to the guidelines of Development Permit Area (DPA) #2: Uptown Mixed Use. The intent of this DPA is to provide guidelines for the form and character of commercial and multi-family residential developments where applicable. As the guidelines within this DPA #2 are more focused towards commercial design and layout, Planning Services staff prefer to assess multi-family proposals under the guidelines outlined in DPA #1: The objectives of DPA #1 are to: Page 92 of 111 Page 48 of 95 Development Permit Application 215 Sunset Homes Society – 4360 Joyce Avenue 3 of 6 April 17, 2018 (a) Achieve good quality, aesthetically pleasing multi-family residential development that is appropriate to the character of Powell River’s neighbourhoods; (b) Support development of a variety of housing types, tenures and densities to meet the diverse needs and income levels of individuals and families at all stages of life; (c) Minimize the loss of views and other negative impacts on adjacent areas; (d) To reduce the environmental impacts of larger residential developments; and, (e) Improve and maintain pedestrian infrastructure and conditions, including access, safety and aesthetics. ANALYSIS AND IMPACT: Project Overview The proposed 34-unit affordable rental housing facility on Joyce Avenues is the first phase of what is intended to be a three phased development. The proposal represents yet another multiple-family development to those recently presented at the April 3, 2018 Committee of the Whole meeting (three fourplexes on Joyce Avenue, a 21-unit rental apartment on Alberta Avenue and 112 unit rental apartment where Nootka, Manson and Westview Avenue converge). Unlike the previous applications - which were all rezoning applications that focused on land use, this application is a Development Permit where the need to assess the project in relation to the applicable DPA guidelines is required. Accordingly, greater scrutiny is required to assess the overall attributes of the project from a design perspective. Does the building design provide an aesthetically pleasing street facade to Joyce Avenue? Does the building layout take advantage and enhance the existing site? And does the layout provide pedestrian and non- vehicle connectivity both on-site and to adjacent properties? To facilitate this review, a draft Development Permit 215 is attached to this report as Appendix E. Included are the schedules that contain the perspectives and elevations that illustrate the applicant’s intent with respect to development of the exterior façades of the building, site and landscaping. Based on these drawings, staff have provided the following evaluation of the project in terms of how it adheres to the guidelines of DPA 2. Siting and Orientation of Building A key requirement of all multiple residential developments is to be street-oriented in order to enhance to the overall streetscape. The shape of the subject property is conducive to having this building – and future phases, oriented to Joyce Avenue. This orientation is preferred and is departure from the past where major buildings have been oriented to the rear of a property (e.g. the City’s two major shopping malls). The proposed orientation also provides that all access and parking is located to the rear of the property. This is particularly relevant for a facility that will house seniors as opposed to a development that is oriented to other demographics. This provides an enhanced safety provision as there is no direct access to the facility from Joyce Avenue. Although a pedestrian access is provided at the front of the building, all pickups, drop- offs and parking are provided at the rear of the building. View Impact The proposed development poses no view impact to adjacent properties. In fact, the orientation towards Joyce Avenue will assist in mitigating any negative view impact to those residents who live further up the escarpment in Westview. Phase 2 and 3 are proposed to be similarly oriented to Joyce Avenue. Page 93 of 111 Page 49 of 95 Development Permit Application 215 Sunset Homes Society – 4360 Joyce Avenue 4 of 6 April 17, 2018 Façades and Roof Lines While the building provides a standard rectangular massing, the roofline is proposed to be an inverted V-shape that provides a modern articulation to the overall building. It is assumed that this configuration as opposed to the typical flat roof, has been designed in consideration of the higher amount of rainfall received on the West Coast. The extension of the roof line over the balconies and windows, should also provide enhanced rain screening and greater protection to the elements. Exterior Materials The main exterior cladding material will be multi-coloured fiber cement board that are considered reliable and long lasting to withstand West Coast elements. The use of these materials along with brick veneer and aluminum picket railings will assist in setting design parametres for an area – that apart from Phoenix Plaza at the corner of Joyce Avenue and Duncan Street, is surrounded by buildings with limited to no aesthetic design consideration whatsoever. Sustainability Initiatives With implementation of the ICSP, Planning Services staff have been more vigilant with development applications to ensure that each proposal incorporate sustainability initiatives. Several recent developments that include Creekside Commons (located behind the new Public Library) provide examples on the various types of sustainability initiatives that may be implemented. For Pacific Point, the applicant provided a detailed Statement of Intent to outline the sustainability initiatives proposed for their development. For this proposal, the applicant has provided an expanded brief that categories all of the sustainability initiatives proposed. Of particular note is that the building will incorporate green building practices and an energy efficient design to Built Green standards. To avoid repetition to that already provided by the applicant, members are requested to review the applicant’s detailed sustainability brief attached (Schedule D). Landscaping The draft landscape plan provides a design that for the most part, limits landscaping to the periphery of the site where parking is to be provided. As staff have only received a letter sized drawing to review, it is difficult to determine the quantity, size and type of deciduous, conifers and shrubs to be planted. It is suggested that prior final execution of Development Permit 215, that the applicant provide a larger sized drawing similar to the building schedules received to date in order to properly assess the proposed planting plan. One concern staff have with the proposed landscape plan is that there is no "sense of arrival" from Joyce Avenue. There is no issue with the “sense of arrival” from Field Street as this is seen as the main service entry. However, from the public access from Joyce Avenue, it is recommended that some additional consideration be made to highlight this entrance through landscaping as this will provide the main corridor to both Phase 1 and 2 buildings. As noted in a previous staff report for Coastal Wind’s 75-unit care facility, a comparison to other seniors facility such as Berwick in Campbell River, provide for an exceptionally designed landscape/sign Page 94 of 111 Page 50 of 95 Development Permit Application 215 Sunset Homes Society – 4360 Joyce Avenue 5 of 6 April 17, 2018 feature at their entrance. Members of the Committee may wish to go on-line to access these landscape design features for the Campbell River project. Additionally, some consideration should be made towards an amenity where tenants may be able to have room to gather and socialize outside. As designed, the landscape plan essentially anchors an outdoor area that is predominantly made up of access corridors and parking. For a project of this magnitude, the plan is similar to what would be designed for any commercial strip mall development - uniformed plantings limited to the perimetres of the property with limited understanding of who the end user group is. Accordingly, it is suggested that an improved landscape plan be provided to address some of the concerns noted above. Provision of Housing Agreement The proposal to construct a 34-unit affordable rental housing facility for seniors raises the question whether a Housing Agreement is required. At the April 3, 2018 Committee of the Whole meeting, members gave approval to two multiple family projects with the requirement that the applicants enter into a Housing Agreement. As explained in the respective staff reports, the intent was to ensure that approval of the new RM4 and RM5 zones would be received provided that the proposed rental units be achieved. The concern provided in the report was that without such an Agreement, there was little to stop the building owners from advertising for a different type of tenancy such as condominiums once zoning had been put in place. In respect to this application, the fact that Sunset Homes is a charitable not-for-profit society and has recognized the need for affordable rental apartments is a definite plus and greatly appreciated. However, the fact that the appropriate RM3 zoning is in place, the applicant has the right to proceed with a multiple family project regardless of the type of tenancy proposed. Therefore, the City does not have the right to request a Housing Agreement in this instance. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The overall financial impact of the Sunset Homes Society project will be moderate. Unlike the recently proposed fourplex development on Joyce, or the Pacific Point and Coastal Winds projects in 2017, it is doubtful that there will be the same anticipated resale of existing homes for those seeking to downsize to this 34 unit affordable rental seniors facility. Taxation revenue to the City are however, expected to increase once the proposed development and subsequent phases are completed. In addition, the practice to allow for higher density developments within existing core areas of the City increases efficiencies in the provision of municipal services over conventional single lot subdivisions or lower density developments. STAFF TIME/INPUT: Approximately 19 hours has been spent by Planning Services staff to review various components of this Development Permit including all schedules and plans pertaining to the proposed development and on-going consultation with the applicant. PUBLIC CONSULTATION: The staff report attached to the Committee of the Whole agenda will be available to the public and posted on the City’s website. There is no legal requirement for a formal public notification process as no variances are required in regards to this application. Page 95 of 111 Page 51 of 95 Development Permit Application 215 Sunset Homes Society – 4360 Joyce Avenue 6 of 6 April 17, 2018 OPTIONS: 1. That Development Permit 215 to facilitate construction of a 34-unit Affordable Rental Housing facility, legally described as Lot 2 District Lot 5121 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan EPP38557 be issued subject to the following conditions: a) Submission of an engineering site plan to confirm location of proposed sidewalk and cycling lane on Field Street and link to existing infrastructure on Joyce Avenue to the satisfaction of the Manager of Engineering Services; b) Submission of storm water management plan to the satisfaction of the Manager of Engineering Services; c) Submission of a detailed landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning Services; and, d) Receipt of a security deposit to ensure that the approved landscape works are completed. 2. That Council provides an alternative direction to staff; or 2. That Council not endorse this application. Respectfully submitted, Thomas Knight MCIP, RPP Director of Planning Services TK/kh Attachment(s) Appendix A (locator map) Appendix B (orthographic Image) Appendix C (proposed drawings Appendix D (statement of intent & sustainability considerations) Appendix E (draft Development Permit 215 Page 96 of 111 Page 52 of 95 APPENDIX D CITY OF POWELL RIVER DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 215 AS AMENDED TO: POWELL RIVER SUNSET HOMES SOCIETY P.O. BOX 146 POWELL RIVER, B.C. V8A 4Z5 (PERMITTEE) 1. This Development is issued subject to compliance with all the bylaws of the City applicable thereto, except as specifically varied or supplemented by this Development Permit. 2. This Development Permit applies to and only to those lands within the City described below and all buildings, structures and other development thereon; Lot 2 District Lot 5121 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan EPP38557 PID: 029-385-725 (LAND) 3. The Land has been designated as a Development Permit Area in City of Powell River Sustainable Official Community Plan Bylaw 2370, 2014, as amended. 4. The character of the proposed development including the siting, form, exterior design and finish of buildings, structures and site shall be in accordance with the drawings numbered DP 215 (B) through (G) (DRAWINGS) which are attached hereto and form part of this Development Permit. 5. The Permittee is required to install landscaping upon the Land, in conformance with DP 215 (G). 6. Minor changes to the drawings that do not affect the general form and character of the siting, form, exterior design and finish of buildings, structures and site, may be permitted subject to the approval of the City. 7. The terms of this Development Permit or any amendment to it, are binding on all persons who acquire an interest in the Land. 8. The Land described herein shall be developed strictly in accordance with the terms, conditions and provisions of this Permit and by the remaining stipulations of the Zoning Bylaw. 9. This Development Permit shall lapse if construction is not substantially started within two (2) years of Council’s resolution regarding issuance of the Development Permit. Lapsed Permits cannot be renewed; therefore, application for a new Development Permit must be made and approved by Council in order to proceed. 10. This is neither a Sign Permit nor a Building Permit. Page 97 of 111 AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION PASSED BY COUNCIL THE 3RD DAY OF MAY 2018. ISSUED THIS 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2018. AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 215 AS AMENDED PASSED BY COUNCIL THE ____ DAY OF ______2019. DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 215 AS AMENDED ISSUED THE ____ DAY OF ______2019. ______City Clerk In consideration of Council’s approval of this Development Permit and other good and valuable consideration, I/We, the undersigned, hereby agree to the terms and conditions of DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 215 AS AMENDED and acknowledge that we have read and understood it. ______Authorized Signatory ______Print Name and Title ______Date Page 98 of 111 DP 215 (A) Page 99 of 111 DP 215 (A)(B) Page 100 of 111 DP 215 (C) Page 101 of 111 DP 215 (D) Page 102 of 111 DP 215 (E) Page 103 of 111 Follow Up Action List: Updated July 12, 2019 Page 1 of 6 Chief Administrative Officer 1. Private Managed Direction: July 2, 2019 COTW: Direction to prepare a report and draft response to the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Forest Land Program Operations and Rural Development regarding Private Managed Forest Lands. Review Updates: July 12, 2019: Staff report included in July 16, 2019 COTW Agenda. 2. Vacant Building Direction: Oct 18, 2016 COTW: To prepare Preliminary Report Bylaw Feb 28, 2017 COTW: Reference Kelowna bylaw as part of review Aug 15, 2017 COTW: Increase scope to include vacant lots, unsightly premise and inclusion of ticketing authority for violations. Updates: June 28, 2019: Draft report and amendment bylaws require further consultation. Scheduled to come forward July 16 COTW. July 12, 2019: Staff continue with internal consultation and bylaw drafting. Anticipated to come forward August 13, 2019. 3. Municipal Response Direction: Jul 7, 2016 Council: Develop actions for approval by Council to implement the calls to action that explicitly recognize the to Truth and role of municipal government. Note: Item #47 in the report requires a greater level of detail. Reconciliation Mar 13, 2018 Council: Direction to investigate options for presentation of the blanket exercise and report back to Council. Report Updates: May 10, 2018: municipal calls for action approved; implementation forthcoming. March 12: Discussions underway with VIU to collaborate on delivery of blanket exercise with VIU/Koosan Pielle and Zoe Ludki. Administrative Services Department 4. North Harbour Direction: Jan 30, 2018 COTW: To prepare report and draft video surveillance policy. Observation Camera Updates: Feb 28, 2019: Video Surveillance Policy draft scheduled for May COTW Access May 16, 2019: project delayed in order to move forward with electric fencing bylaw revisions. 5. Keeping of Poultry Direction: and Rabbits May 1, 2018 COTW: To review the Animal Control Bylaw with intent to increase the number of chickens and rabbits, and to include bylaw provisions that consider bear smart recommendations and electric fencing. Jun 5, 2018 COTW: Supplementary considerations: Location and maintenance of coops; Appropriate lot size and number of animals; Minimize rat and bear problems; Possible inspections of coops and treatment of animals, with appropriate fee. Update: Feb 28, 2019: Animal Control Bylaw review scheduled for late 2019. 6. BearSmart Direction: Sep 1, 2016 COTW: To prepare Report on becoming a Bear Smart Community, in cooperation with WildsafeBC Community Coordinator. Aug 15, 2017 COTW: To include amendment to the Garbage Bylaw re: not putting garbage out before 7am. Update: Feb 28, 2019: Pending Strategic Planning Outcome June 28, 2019: Draft Bylaw amendments coming forward to July 2 COTW which would permit electric fences in residential zones. Page 104 of 111 Economic Development and Communications Financial Services Department 7. EfficiencyBC Direction: Feb 7, 2019 Council: Allocate $20,000 be allocated from the Climate Action Reserve Fund towards a municipal top-up of Municipal Top-Up $350 per heat pump to existing EfficiencyBC residential incentives to promote the program and increase its uptake in the Recommendations community. Follow Up Action List: Updated July 12, 2019 Page 2 of 6 Updates: May 30, 2019: Heat pump rebates were launched on April 1, 2019 and are now available to Powell River residents. Rebate information has been posted on the website ( https://powellriver.ca/pages/heatpump ) and a quarter page ad was placed in the PR Peak. Staff will continue to work to promote the rebates in the community. 8. Meatless Monday Direction: Feb 7, 2019 Council: approved up to $9,000 from the Climate Action Reserve Fund as per the proposal from Climate Pilot Project Action Powell River to run a Meatless Monday Pilot Project. Proposal Update: March 15: contract issued. Done 9. Powell River Council Direction: Feb 28, 2019 Finance: Staff to work with the PR Council for Arts and Culture to bring back a report with their funding for Arts and Culture, request, including research with comparable communities. regarding Funding Update: March 15: will included as part of Financial Plan discussions at March 27 Finance Committee. Increase Request 10. Affordable Housing Direction: Jun 19, 2018 COTW: To prepare Draft policy in collaboration with Planning Department. Reserve Fund Update: May 16: report and proposed policy is scheduled to be brought to COTW in summer 2019. 11. Social Procurement Direction: Feb 4, 2016 Council: Prepare report & draft policy Policy Nov 1, 2016 COTW: Prepare draft social procurement policy request confirmed Jul 18, 2017 COTW: Prepare a report to address social procurement Update: Oct 4: Staff are reviewing activities and progress of the “Vancouver Island Social Procurement Committee” addressing this matter. Fire and Emergency Services Infrastructure Services (includes Engineering, Operational Services, Transit and Wharf) 12. Free Transit Pilot Direction: June 18, 2019 COTW: Direction for staff to prepare an options report to Council for a free ridership, free ridership for Program youth or by donation bus pilot program. Update: June 28, 2019 COTW: memo to July 2 COTW re: BC Transit implementation challenges for this program for this summer. Done 13. Parking in Bike Lanes Direction: April 2, 2019 COTW: near Mitchell provide options report to COTW regarding implementing vehicle parking and the use of sharrows across from Mitchell Brothers Store Brothers store on Manson Avenue in consultation with the Powell River Cycling Association and the store owner; and review lowering the speed limit in the Cranberry commercial area from DA Evans Park through to Mitchell Brothers store. May 2, 2019 Council: remove the North bound cycling lane all together and install "BIKE LANE ENDS" signage; reduce the speed limit to 30 kilometers per hour from D.A. Evans Park, through the Commercial area, past Mitchell Brothers store; and install a crosswalk across Manson near the Mitchell Brothers store. Update: June 28, 2019: staff are reviewing crosswalk regulations and requirements; reduction of speed limits require additional Page 105 of 111 resources not currently available; intent is to incorporate the speed limit into the traffic bylaw review. 14. Multi-Separation Direction: Feb 7, 2019 Council: allocate up to $14,936.88 from the Community Works Fund for the purchase of up to eight (8) Recycling Bins more multi-unit recycling bins: five (5) for the Complex, two (2) for the Public Works Yard, and one for City Hall. Update: May 1, 2019: Recreation Complex has purchased bins. 15. Microfiber Pollution Direction: Feb 7, 2019 Council: staff provide information, after discussing with the engineering consultant, as to whether a Follow Up Action List: Updated July 12, 2019 Page 3 of 6 microfibre filtration system would eliminate the microfibre contamination in the biosolids residue produced by the new wastewater treatment plant Update: June 28, 2019: Council forwarded resolution to UBCM 2019 requesting development of microfibre pollution standards and associated challenges. 16. Council Chambers Direction: Jun 5, 2018 COTW: Direction that staff refer to Youth Council recommendation: that Council Chambers be moved to the Relocation old library location on the ground floor of City Hall so that Council meetings will be more inclusive and accessible to the public and recommend forwarding the draft plan (as circulated to Youth Council) to City staff to action this summer. July 31, 2018 COTW: Direction for staff to provide timeline and status update. Updates: Nov 9: Testing for hazardous materials underway; layout and plans being prepared. Feb 28, 2019: Awaiting report from HVAC Consultants June 28, 2019: Staff report coming forward July 16 with recommendations to move forward with relocating chambers. 17. Letter regarding Direction: Apr 17, 2018 COTW: Direction to provide an options report to reduce vehicle speeds along Harvie St, near Quality Vehicle Accidents on Foods, including consideration of roundabouts, speed bumps and alternate traffic flow. Harvie Street near Updates: April 27: traffic monitoring has started; report expected late summer. Quality Foods Feb 28, 2019: Spoke with complainant and currently monitoring 18. Traffic Study, portion Direction: Apr 17, 2018 COTW: Direction to undertake a traffic study along Joyce Ave corridor between Lytton St and Duncan St, of Joyce Ave taking into account impacts from current, proposed and potential future developments. June 20, 2019 Council: Direction to include an Active Transportation component in the planned Business Corridor Traffic Study of Joyce Avenue Updates: April 27: staff has identified as a project and initiated collected of information. Feb 28, 2019: Trying to secure funding 19. City Buildings Energy Direction: Feb 22, 2017 FC: Direction to prepare a report to Council for funding of City buildings’ energy audits and engineering Efficiency studies. Recommendations Update: May 22, 2019: Staff are working with an engineering firm to install LED lighting in the Rec Complex, City Hall, Public Works Yard, Dwight Hall, Willingdon Beach and Campsite, and Museum and Archives. Rec Complex lighting (including theatre lighting) is funded through Community Forest grant and the other buildings through CWF. 20. Garburators Direction: Dec 7, 2017 Council: Direction that staff bring a report forward on proposed amendments to the existing sewer bylaw that would ban garburators from being installed in new construction, and would prohibit the use of garburators in commercial spaces subject to a potential phasing-in period. July 17, 2018 COTW: Direction to reduce the scope of work in order to amend the sewer bylaw to indicate that garburators are not allowed in new construction. The intent with the reduced scope of work is to reduce staff time required provide an amendment bylaw. Page 106 of 111 Update: April 27: identified as items for consideration when sewer bylaw is reviewed. 21. Solar Energy Direction: Aug 30, 2016 COTW: Prepare report assessing solar energy production feasibility at Recreation Complex, Willingdon Production Beach Pavilion and Library Feasibility Update: 22. Traffic Bylaw 2412, Direction: Several ideas and items have been identified as part of this bylaw review. That list is included in the bylaw review file 2016 and not noted in this action list. Follow Up Action List: Updated July 12, 2019 Page 4 of 6 Update: Jun 29: staff resources assigned to other priority work; project to be brought back in 2019 Parks, Recreation and Culture Department 23. Dog Parks Report Direction: Sep 5, 2017 COTW: Direction to: prepare draft amendments to the Animal Control Bylaw to address issues related to not cleaning up after animals, dogs digging holes on sports fields, aggressive animals, community outreach, communication, enforcement options and so on; prepare a report regarding additional off leash dog parks, beaches and trail systems, including commenting on shelters, shading, potable water, parking and washroom facilities Updates: Apr 27: Public Meeting Scheduled May 2, 7:00-8:30pm, Recreation Complex-Elm Room May 10: Public Meeting held May 2; report forthcoming. Aug 9: Staff recommend a parks plan be developed in the fall of 2018 and presented to Council February 2019. Nov 29, 2018: in process of arranging public meeting May 1, 2019: This item will be added to the Parks and Trails Master Plan that has been budgeted for in 2019. 24. Recreation Complex Direction: Aug 15, 2017 COTW: Direction to include amendment to the bylaw in November 2017 such that the disparity with Fee Schedule - family pass rates between two parents with one child, and the cost for a single parent with one child is corrected Family Passes Updates: Feb 23: On hold pending fees and charges bylaw discussions. March 26: Report anticipated for April 26 Finance Committee. Aug 9: Report coming to Sept 18. 25. Christmas Lighting - Direction: Dec 5, 2017 COTW: Direction that staff investigate the Christmas Lighting along Marine Ave with the Marine Avenue Marine Avenue Business Association and Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure Updates: Feb 13, 2019: Report will be submitted to Council in April 2019 April 30, 2019: Staff to arrange discussions with BC Hydro and the Marine Avenue Business Association about available options. Planning Services (includes Building Inspection and Business Licensing) 26. Section 21, Former Direction: June 20, 2019 Council: Resolution passed requesting Province to amend section 21 of the City of Powell River PRSC lands Incorporation Act in order to allow community bylaws to apply to lands no longer used for mill purposes. Updates: 27. Single Use Plastic Direction: June 20, 2019 Council: Direction to work with Let's Talk Trash Team on the creation of a single use disposable product Products Ban reduction strategy for the City of Powell River, and report to Council at a future meeting. Updates:. 28. Electric Fencing Direction: May 14, 2019 COTW: To prepare report and draft amendments to bylaws to allow electric fencing in support of BearSmart and urban agriculture. Updates: May 30, 2019: There are no amendments required to the Animal Control Bylaw. Development Services will be bringing Page 107 of 111 forward a report to the June 18 COTW with zoning bylaw amendment options for consideration. June 13, 2019: Draft report prepared, amendment bylaws being drafted. Scheduled to come forward to either July 2 COTW or July 4 Council. June 28, 2019: Report and bylaws prepared. Scheduled for July 4 Council. July 12, 2019: Bylaws given initial readings. Zoning Bylaw requires public hearing. 29. Bruce Gibbons Direction: April 2, 2019 COTW: prepare a report regarding the prohibition of all bottling of groundwater for commercial sale and Follow Up Action List: Updated July 12, 2019 Page 5 of 6 regarding Protection bulk export in Powell River. of Groundwater Update: 30. Heritage Direction: Feb 5, 2019 COTW: Staff directed to arrange a meeting with Planning Department staff, Townsite Ratepayers Commission, Grant & Association, Townsite Heritage Society and Councillor Elliott to discuss the matters outlined in Mr. Van Delft's letter Inventory Update: Assessment 31. Grasshopper Dev’ts Direction: Dec 4, 2018 COTW: direction to prepare a report regarding the proposal Proposed Updates: Dec 14: task added to department work program; anticipate report to be brought forward in February 2019 Annexation & Dev’t March 11: staff preparing report of 7440 & 7406 May 17, 2019: Engineering coordinating with developer on servicing requirements. Nootka St 32. Residential DPA4: Direction: To provide a report regarding parking relaxations to Townsite Development Permit Area 4 similar to those along Marine Townsite Centre Avenue, Section 6.5 of the Zoning Bylaw, as well as review parking needs and opportunities for Townsite Commercial Area Mixed Use s. 6.4.7 & generally. 6.5 – Marine Ave Update: Feb 13, 2018: To be implemented once funding received through 2019 budget. Parking Proposed Zoning Amendment 33. BC Energy Step Code Direction: Jan 30, 2018 COTW: Direction to prepare report on implementation of the BC Energy Step Code Feb 7, 2019 Council: organize public information and training session on the BC Energy Step Code for the local building community Update: May 30, 2019: Staff are in communication with Community Energy Association to host a public information session on the BC Energy Step Code in the fall of 2019. The training will be provided for free by the Community Energy Association. 34. Solar Ready Homes Direction: Aug 17, 2017 Council: Direction to prepare a report on amending City of Powell River Building Bylaw 2141, 2007 to require all new construction in the City to be solar-ready Update: 35. Electric Vehicle (EV) Direction: Nov 2, 2017 Council: Direction to prepare a report implementing EV-ready infrastructure requirements into the Zoning Ready New Bylaw, the report shall include information on new construction cost estimates; for clarity the proposed charging stations are for Construction overnight charging, not the fast charging units Update: May 22, 2019: Report by scheduled for June 4, 2019 COTW meeting. 36. Business Façade Direction: Dec 5, 2017 COTW: Direction for staff to report to Council regarding establishment of a Business Façade Improvement Improvement Program, and that the Finance Committee allocate $25,000 to the Planning Department Special Project budget Program Updates: Aug 9: Bylaw scheduled for consideration in Aug; staff meeting with Community Futures Nov 9: Program is currently live, and Community Futures is accepting applications. Partnership Agreement with Community Page 108 of 111 Futures is being finalized. Nov 29, 2018: Signed partnership agreement in place; meeting with Community Futures in for January to review designs. May 17, 2019: One of 8 program participants has started improvements, five finalizing designs, two working on initial design. 37. Tree Protection Direction: Aug 16, 2016 COTW: Prepare preliminary scoping report re: maximum height of trees and protection of viewscapes. Bylaw Review Jun 13, 2017: Maximum Height of Trees be supplemented with a staff review of the Tree Protection Bylaw regarding concerns raised by the delegate, Ms Barnsley at Jun 13, 2017 COTW; Follow Up Action List: Updated July 12, 2019 Page 6 of 6 July 4, 2017 COTW: Staff directed to initiate the process to replace City of Powell River Tree Protection Bylaw 2174, 2008 with a new tree protection bylaw that is more equitable, flexible and in keeping with other jurisdictions that regulate tree cutting. Oct 17, 2017 COTW: Tree Protection Bylaw Review with scope to include: maximum height of trees and protection of viewscapes; addressing concerns raised by delegate Trish Barnsley at the Jun 13 COTW meeting; and that amendments to the bylaw be more equitable, flexible and in keeping with other jurisdictions that regulate tree cutting Update: Nov 29, 2018: on hold, pending availability of staff resources 38. Steep Slope Bylaw Direction: Dec 1, 2015 COTW: Logging/Water Management Above Timberland: Council discussed the potential impacts of logging on land with a slope greater than 30% and the impending logging on property near Timberlane. To prepare a report with policy recommendations, such as a DPA, to address areas with a slope greater than 30%. Request geotech or hydrologist reports from Catalyst and Island Timberlands for the areas near Timberlane barracks. Update: Nov 29, 2018: on hold, pending availability of staff resources Topics and Information Items for Future Reference 39. 2019 and Beyond - Items Identified as Possible Future Budgets, Projects and Tasks: Animal Control Bylaw (Bylaw to be reviewed in 2019) Proposed Timberlane Estates Zoning Amendment on Hemlock St. Review of Infrastructure Design and Construction Bylaw Grief Point/ Westview Neighbourhood Development Permit Area Crosswalk near Tofino Street and Joyce Avenue 4315 Marine Ave, Former Barge Facility Curbside Solid Waste Implementation Plan Public Event Policy Council Policy 230 - Civic Facilities Naming Renovations to Dwight Hall Planning Committee Renovations to City Hall Community Amenity Contribution Bylaw Options to enhance public transportation and transit 40. Upcoming AVICC/UBCM/FCM Resolution Topics: The following have been submitted to UBCM 2019 as resolutions: o Delivering Community Power o Standards for Microplastic Filtration, Liquid Waste Treatment o Free Post-Secondary Education in British Columbia o Inclusion of Brain Injury in Titled Office - Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions o Environmental Education Curriculum The following is identified as a possible FCM 2020 resolution submission: o National Strategy for Acquired Brain Injury (June 18, 2019 COTW) 41. Committee Reminders: Page 109 of 111 Survivor Climate Challenge April 16, 2019 COTW: Council members agreed to participate in the Local Government Survivor Climate Challenge, initiated by Mayor Ken Williams, District of Highlands, in letter dated February 26, 2019. Page 1 of 2 ACTIVE BYLAW TRACKING LIST – July 10, 2019 1st 2nd Public 3rd Bylaw # Parent Bylaw Subject Matter Adoption Comments Reading Reading Hearing Reading 2498 To amend Zoning Bylaw For Multi Family: ZA 83 April 19, April 19, May 17, June 7, Waiting for proponent Alberta Avenue 2018 2018 2018 2018 to complete conditions 2516 To amend SOCP Bylaw Townsite Development June 21, April 18, May 16, June 6, June 6, Community Permit Area 2018 2019 2019 2019 2019 consultation complete 2551 Liquid Waste Loan Loan authorization for April 4, April 4, April 4, June 20, Inspector of Authorization treatment plant 2019 2019 N/A 2019 2019 Municipalities approval given May 31, 2019 2565 To amend Zoning Bylaw Small Lot Rural April 18, April 18, June 6, June 20, June 20, ZA92 Residential – 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 Public Notice given May Cranberry/Haslam 24th and 31st 2566 To amend Zoning Bylaw Small Lot Residential – April 4, April 4, May 2, May 16, ZA91 Marine/Hammond 2019 2019 2019 2019 2568 To amend Zoning Bylaw Townsite Development April 18, April 18, May 16, June 6, June 6, Permit Area 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 2569 Highway closure and May 16, May 16, May 16, Public notice given July dedication removal 2019 2019 N/A 2019 5th & 12th Undeveloped portion of Cascade Place Cedar Creek Rental Apartments, Manson and Westview 2496 To amend SOCP Bylaw Cedar Creek Rental April 19, Oct 18, Nov 15, Pending subject Apartments 2018 2018 2018 conditions (Manson Avenue) 2497 To amend Zoning Bylaw Cedar Creek Rental April 19, Oct 18, Nov 15, Pending subject Apartments 2018 2018 2018 conditions (Manson Avenue) 2520 To exchange portion of Exchange portion of July 19, July 19, July 19, Dependent on unnamed park unnamed park 2018 2018 N/A 2018 Amendment Bylaws dedication near Upper dedication 2496 and 2497 Westview Avenue and Page 110 of 111 Lower Manson Avenue Page 2 of 2 ACTIVE BYLAW TRACKING LIST – July 10, 2019 1st 2nd Public 3rd Bylaw # Parent Bylaw Subject Matter Adoption Comments Reading Reading Hearing Reading Electric Fences 2575 To amend Zoning Bylaw To include electric July 4, July 4, To be fencing 2019 2019 scheduled 2576 To amend Animal To allow electric fencing July 4, July 4, N/A July 4, Control Bylaw 2019 2019 2019 2577 To amend Sign Bylaw To include electric July 4, July 4, N/A July 4, fencing 2019 2019 2019 2572 To amend MTI Bylaw To include electric July 4, July 4, N/A July 4, fencing 2019 2019 2019 Page 111 of 111