Mission Statement In carrying out its mandate, Bowen Island Municipality will work towards conducting operations in a way that: • Improves the economic, environmental and social well-being for present and future generations; • Encourages and fosters community involvement; • Enhances the small, friendly, caring character of the community; • Maintains an open, accountable and effective operation; and • Preserves and enhances the unique mix of natural ecosystems and green spaces that Bowen Island possesses.
NOTICE: That a regular meeting of Bowen Island Municipal Council will be held at Municipal Hall, 981 Artisan Lane on Monday, February 25, 2013 at 1:00 p.m. for the transaction of business listed below.
Lisa Wrinch, Deputy Corporate Officer
AGENDA Regular Council Meeting Monday, February 25, 2013 Page Timing
OPENING OF COUNCIL MEETING 1:00 pm
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
1.1 Introduction of Late Items --
Recommendation: That Council approve the agenda and Late Items agenda (if applicable) for the February 25, 2013 regular Council meeting.
2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES
2.1 Minutes of the January 28, 2013 Council meeting 1-7 1:05 pm (5 min) Recommendation: That the minutes of the Council meeting held January 28, 2013 be adopted.
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS 1:10 pm (15 min) Public Comment is an opportunity for members of the Public to comment regarding -- items on the agenda or any other comments or issues they may wish to bring to Council’s attention.
Bowen Island Municipality February 25, 2013 Regular Council Meeting Page 1 of 4 Page Timing
4. DELEGATIONS
4.1 Anne Silberman, Bowen Children’s Centre re: Permanent location 8-10 1:25 pm options for the After School Club, dated February 18, 2013 (10 min)
a. Bowen Island Gymnastics Club Statement of Interest in a 11 Shared Community Use Facility, February 12, 2013
b. Al and Stacey Leigh, Bowen Fuels re: Letter of Support, dated 12 February 5, 2013
c. Building Map of proposed site 13
4.2 Jacqueline Massey and Carol Cram, Bowen Island Arts Council (BIAC) -- 1:35 pm re: Update to Council: Request for Service Agreement (to be provided (10 min) separately)
5. BUSINESS ARISING FROM MINUTES
5.1 Adam Holbrook, Chair, Bowen Island Ferry Advisory Committee -- 1:45 pm (BIMFAC) re: Update to Council on transportation issues and BIMFAC (40 min) mandate
a. Briefing on Provincial consultation on ferry service, dated 14-15 November 19, 2012
b. Submission to the B.C. Coastal Ferries Consultation and 16-20 Engagement Process, dated December 17, 2012
Recommendation: Provided for Council’s information and discussion
6. BYLAWS - Nil --
7. STAFF REPORTS - Nil --
8. CORRESPONDENCE - Nil --
9. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES, COW, COMMISSIONS - Nil --
10. NEW BUSINESS
10.1 Mayor Adelaar re: Infrastructure Committee (verbal report) -- 2:25 pm (10 min) Recommendation: That the Infrastructure Committee be requested to draft a Terms of Reference, in consultation with staff, and return to Council for approval.
Bowen Island Municipality February 25, 2013 Regular Council Meeting Page 2 of 4 Page Timing
10.2 Councillor Morse re: Amendments to the Fire Hall Facilities Steering 21-38 2:35 pm Committee Terms of Reference (TOR) (10 min)
Recommendation: That Council adopt the Terms of Reference (TOR) for the Fire Hall Facilities Steering Committee.
10.3 Disclosure of contracts with Council members pursuant to Section 107 of the Community Charter
Elected Official Associated Business Description of Contract Value__ NIL NIL NIL NIL
10.4 Councillor Andrew Stone re: Update to Council on Metro Vancouver -- 2:45 pm and Islands Trust business (verbal report) (5 min)
Recommendation: Provided for Council’s information
10.5 Any other new business -- 2:55 pm (5 min)
10.6 Move to a Closed Meeting --
Recommendation: That Council move to a closed meeting immediately following the Regular Council meeting to review items pursuant to Section 90(1)(a) of the Community Charter.
11. INFORMATION ITEMS
Note to members of the Public: If your correspondence is referenced in this section below and you wish to speak to Council regarding such, you are welcome to appear during our “Public Comment” section near the beginning of this agenda
Recommendation: That Council receive the information as outlined in Section 11 of the February 25, 2013 regular Council agenda
(Note: Copies of these items are available for viewing on the Municipal website – www.bimbc.ca – or at Municipal Hall in the Counter Copy agenda package.)
11.1 Linda Jacobsen re: Garbage pick up or drop off, dated February 13, -- 3:00 pm 2013 (5 min)
11.2 Jim Cox re: Waste Collection on Bowen Island, dated February 17, -- 2013
11.3 BC Ferries re: Monthly Traffic Statistics, February 5, 2013 --
Bowen Island Municipality February 25, 2013 Regular Council Meeting Page 3 of 4 Page Timing
11.4 Islands Trust re:
a. News Release: Islands Trust Seeks Input on Draft 2013-2014 -- Budget, dated January 24, 2013
b. News Release: March Trust Council Program Announced, dated -- February 5, 2013
c. News Release: BC Supreme Court Upholds Denman Island Bylaws -- for Komas Bluff, dated February 14, 2013
d. Letter re: Mining in the Trust Area, dated January 30, 2013 --
e. Letter re: Policy Intentions Paper on Land Based Spill -- Preparedness and Response, dated February 8, 2013
11.5 Greg Moore, Chair, Metro Vancouver Board re: Expert Panel on British -- Columbia’s Tax Competitiveness, dated January 25, 2013
11.6 UBCM re:
a. Member Release: Brownfield Renewal- Update and Survey, dated -- February 12, 2013
b. The Compass, dated January 30, 2013 --
c. The Compass, dated February 13, 2013 --
11.7 Mayor Lois Jackson re: Assessment Appeal, BC Ferries Inc. Horseshoe -- Bay Ferry Terminal Properties, dated December 3, 2012
11.8 LGMA Executive Report – January 2013
12. ADJOURNMENT 3:05 pm
Bowen Island Municipality February 25, 2013 Regular Council Meeting Page 4 of 4 Regular Council meeting Page 1 of 7 January 28, 2013
BOWEN ISLAND MUNICIPALITY A video recording of this meeting may be viewed at the following link: www.bimbc.ca/livestream
Minutes of the regular meeting of Bowen Island Municipal Council held Monday, January 28, 2013 at 1:00 p.m. at Municipal Hall, 981 Artisan Lane, Bowen Island, B.C.
COUNCIL IN ATTENDANCE Mayor Jack Adelaar Councillor Wolfgang Duntz Councillor Daron Jennings Councillor Cro Lucas Councillor Alison Morse Councillor Tim Rhodes Councillor Andrew Stone
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE Kathy Lalonde, Chief Administrative Officer Casey Grundy, Administrative Assistant ( Minute Taker) Kristen Watson, Interim Manager of Finance* Keith Wahlstrom, Manager of Development and Operations* Sheana Stevenson, IT Co-ordinator*
OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE Judy Mcleod, Planning Consultant* Tom Fletcher, Planning Consultant* Bruce Howlett* Nancy Joyce, Corporal , RCMP* The Public*( 2 members of the public) (* Denotes partial attendance)
CALL TO ORDER Mayor Adelaar called the meeting to order at 1:04 p.m.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was Moved and Seconded RES #13-014 That Council approve the agenda for the January 28, 2013 Council meeting with the addition of the following On- Table Items: DELEGATIONS – Item 4.1a: Bruce Howlett re: Summary of System Planning on Bowen Island DELEGATIONS - Item 4.2a: Corporal Nancy Joyce, RCMP re: Bowen Island Activity Report 2012 STAFF REPORTS – Item 7.3 b: Tom Fletcher, Planning Consultant re: PowerPoint presentation- Government Road Corridor and Ferry Marshalling Implementation, Public Consultation Process CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTION OF MINUTES
Minutes of the Special Council meeting held December 17, 2012
RES #13-015 It was Moved and Seconded That the minutes of the special Council meeting held December 17, 2013 be adopted as amended:
Regular Council meeting Page 2 of 7 January 28, 2013
Page 1, APPROVAL OF AGENDA, second bullet, change ‘....Adam Holbrook, Chair, Bowen Island Ferry Advisory Committee re: briefing to BC Coastal Ferries....’ to ‘...Adam Holbrook, Chair, Bowen Island Ferry Advisory Committee re: submission to BC Coastal Ferries....’ Insert resolution numbers to the Minutes throughout. Insert the word ‘Interim’ in front of the words ‘Manager of Finance’ throughout. Page 10, last paragraph, change ‘Councillor Morse outlined a letter that BIMFAC submitted to the.....’ to ‘Councillor Morse outlined a letter that BIMFAC drafted to the...’ Page 10 , last paragraph, delete the second sentence of the last paragraph ‘A copy of the letter that was sent may be viewed at the following link: http://bimbc.ca/files/embedded2010/121217SpC10-5’ and insert on page 11 of the minutes as the third paragraph, which should read ‘A copy of the letter and submission sent may be viewed at the following link: http://bimbc.ca/files/embedded2010/121217SpC10-5 ‘ CARRIED UNANIMOIUSLY
Minutes of the Committee of the It was Moved and Seconded Whole meeting held December That the minutes of the Committee of the Whole meeting held 17, 2012 December 17, 2012 be adopted as amended: RES#13-016 Page 1, last paragraph, change ‘The Chair outlined work that the Committee...... ’ to read ‘The EDAC Chair outlined the work of the Committee. The Committee held an Open House meeting on Monday, December 3, 2012 to gain public input. A copy of these submissions may be viewed at the following link: http://bimbc.ca/files/embedded2010/121217COW2-1d’ Page 2, second paragraph, last bullet, change ‘Undertaking revisions of the OCP to encourage economic growth’ to ‘Undertaking revisions of the OCP and Land Use Bylaw to encourage economic growth’ Page 2, last paragraph, change wording from ‘Council will need to identify budget implications of any proposed work and include them in their strategic planning, set for mid February.’ To ‘Council will need to identify budget implications of any proposed work on the process and include them in their strategic planning, set for mid February.’ CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Minutes of the special Council The minutes of the special Council meeting held January 14, 2013 were meeting held January 14, 2013 deferred to the February 12, 2013 Council meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENTS Nil
Regular Council meeting Page 3 of 7 January 28, 2013
DELEGATIONS
Bruce Howlett re: Infrastructure Mr. Howlett provided Mayor and Council with an overview of a System Planning on Bowen Island process he calls System Planning for Bowen Island Municipality, which may aid in the implementation of long term projects for Bowen Island Municipality. A copy of Mr. Howlett’s presentation to Council may be viewed at the following link: http://bimbc.ca/files/embedded2010/130128RC4-1a.pdf
Mayor Adelaar and Council presented Mr. Howlett with a framed picture of Bowen Island, as a thank you for his many years on various committees and contributions to the community.
Corporal Nancy Joyce, RCMP re: Corporal Nancy Joyce presented the 2012 RCMP Activity Update 2012 RCMP Activity Update to Council, a copy of which may be viewed at the following link: http://bimbc.ca/files/embedded2010/130128RC4-2a.pdf and responded to questions from Council.
BYLAWS
Kristen Watson, Interim Manager It was Moved and Seconded of Finance re: Revenue That Bylaw No.333, 2013 cited as “Bowen Island Municipality Revenue Anticipation Borrowing dated Anticipation Borrowing Bylaw No. 333, 2013” be reconsidered and January 7, 2013 finally adopted. RES #13-017 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
STAFF REPORTS
Kristen Watson, Manager of The Interim Manager of Finance outlined her report regarding Lease Finance re: Fire Tanker – Lease vs. Purchase of the new Fire Tanker truck. A copy of her report may vs. Purchase, dated January 4, be viewed at the following link: 2013 http://bimbc.ca/files/embedded2010/130128RC7-1.pdf
Discussion ensued relative to: The reintroduction of the PST in April, which will be applied to the lease payments makes the cost of leasing the Fire Tanker truck more than the cost of purchasing the Fire Tanker truck with reserve funds before the end of March. The need to increase contributions to reserve funds for new fire equipment, including a new Fire Tanker that will be needed in 2019.
RES#13-018 It was Moved and Seconded That Council purchase the Fire Tanker Apparatus using the Fire Protection Reserve Fund as approved by the 2012 Five Year Financial Plan Bylaw No. 316, 2012. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Regular Council meeting Page 4 of 7 January 28, 2013
Kathy Lalonde, Chief The CAO outlined her report regarding updates needed for various Administrative Officer re: components of software at municipal hall, outlining a need for Technology updated budget software and administrative software. A copy of this Acquisition/Investment report may be viewed at the following link: Recommendations, dated http://bimbc.ca/files/embedded2010/130128RC7-2.pdf January 21, 2013 The Interim Manager of Finance outlined her report regarding budget software, which would update he current software we are using to include a budget component. A copy of this report may be viewed at the following link: http://bimbc.ca/files/embedded2010/130128RC7-2a.pdf
RES#13-019 It was Moved and Seconded That Council authorize the expenditure of $21,250 plus taxes to purchase budgeting and financial reporting software from RAC 4 Software Inc. to be funded from the 2013 Operating Budget. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY The following Motion was Moved and Seconded:
“That Council authorize the expenditure of $9570 plus taxes to iCOMPASS for the implementation of meeting, records and content management technology to replace the current meeting and records management processes to be funded from the approved 2013 BIM Operating Budget; and That Council authorize the expenditure of $10,000 plus taxes to Logical Developments for the purchase of nine (9) meeting tablets including associated server integration costs and training to be funded from the approved 2013 BIM Operating Budget.”
After brief discussion Council amended the motion as follows:
RES#13-020 It was Moved and Seconded That Council authorize the expenditure of $10,000 plus taxes to iCOMPASS for the implementation of meeting, records and content management technology to replace the current meeting and records management processes to be funded from the approved 2013 BIM Operating Budget; and That Council authorize the expenditure of $10,000 plus taxes to Logical Developments for the purchase of nine (9) meeting tablets including associated server integration costs and training to be funded from the approved 2013 BIM Operating Budget. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Tom Fletcher, Contract Planner The Planning Consultant outlined a PowerPoint presentation to re: Government Road Corridor Council regarding the proposed Public Consultation Process for the Regular Council meeting Page 5 of 7 January 28, 2013
Improvement Program – Government Road Corridor and Ferry Marshalling Implementation. A Implementation Public copy of this may be viewed at the following link: Consultation Process, dated http://bimbc.ca/files/embedded2010/130128RC7-3.pdf January 19, 2013 Discussion ensued relative to: The need to host any Open House on a weekend The need for Council’s Advisory Committees to review the plan in advance of the Public Open Houses, in a workshop style format. The need for up to date information on the Municipal website, as necessary. The need to complete a preliminary plan showing two lane off and on loading, or a traffic simulation model of such.
After brief discussion, Council passed the following resolution:
RES #13-021 It was Moved and Seconded That the Public Consultation Process for the Government Road Corridor Improvement Program as outlined in the report dated January 19, 2013 from Planning Consultant Tom Fletcher, and summarized in Attachment A of the report, be approved, including specifically: a. A community wide open house at which the Program will be presented for information and input; b. A general meeting for business and property owners in Snug Cove Village, followed as necessary by one-on-one meetings with individual business or property owners to resolve any issues; c. A workshop to which all members of applicable Council Advisory Committees will be invited; d. A workshop to which members of the Chamber of Commerce will be invited; e. Development of a link on the Municipal web site specifically devoted to the Government Road Corridor Improvement Program and ferry marshalling; and, f. A report back to Council on the results of the Public Consultation Process, and how staff dealt with the input received; and That the open house, workshops, and meetings be scheduled as soon as the preliminary engineering work outlined in the report has been completed for the public to review, with a view to scheduling the events in mid to late March/early April. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
CORRESPONDENCE Nil
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES, It was Moved and Seconded COW, COMMISSIONS That Council receive the information as outlined in Section 9 of the RES #13-022 January 28, 2013 Regular Council Agenda. Regular Council meeting Page 6 of 7 January 28, 2013
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Minutes of the Solid Waste & No recommendations for Council’s consideration Resource Management Advisory Committee meeting held November 22, 2012
Minutes of the Solid Waste & No recommendations for Council’s consideration Resource Management Advisory Committee meeting November 29, 2012
Minutes of Parks, Trails & No recommendations for Council’s consideration Greenways Advisory Committee meeting held December 11, 2012
NEW BUSINESS
Disclosure of contracts with Councillor Jennings disclosed that his company, Western Homesteads Council members pursuant to Ltd. provided services to the Municipality by way of a set of beach Section 107 of the Community access stairs at Catalina Beach, at a cost totalling $ 2,029.41. Charter
Councillor Andrew Stone re: Councillor Stone reported to Council on Metro Vancouver business Update to Council on Metro that Gaetan Royer is no longer with Metro Vancouver, his replacement Vancouver and Islands Trust at Metro Vancouver will be Delia Laglagaron. business Councillor Stone noted that there was no update to report on Islands Trust at this time.
Any other new business
Councillor Lucas re: Surplus Lands Councillor Lucas queried the Contract Planner as to when the Surplus update Lands report would be brought forward. The CAO noted that the Surplus Lands would be discussed at the Strategic Planning session, scheduled in February.
Councillor Morse re: Update on Councillor Morse gave a brief update on the derelict vessel issue in Derelict Vessels Mannion Bay, noting that she and members of the Friends of Mannion Bay met with MP John Weston and staff from the Federal Dept. of Navigable Waters and Transport Canada. She also noted that MLA Joan McIntyre had agreed to host a similar meeting with provincial Ministry staff regarding the issue.
Regular Council meeting Page 7 of 7 January 28, 2013
Moving to a closed meeting It was Moved and Seconded RES #13-023 That Council move to a closed meeting immediately following the regular Council meeting to review items pursuant to Sections 90(1)(a), (e )&(k)of the Community Charter. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
INFORMATION ITEMS It was Moved and Seconded RES #13-024 That Council receive the information as outlined in Section 11 of the January 28, 2013 Regular Council Agenda. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
ADJOURNMENT By unanimous consent, the meeting adjourned at 3:50 p.m.
Certified Correct:
______Jack Adelaar Kathy Lalonde Mayor Corporate Officer Bowen Island Preschool and Community Daycare Society at Bowen Children’s Centre 650 Carter Road Bowen Island, B.C. V0N 1G2 Phone: (604) 947-9626 Fax: (604) 947-9644 [email protected] www.bowenchildrenscentre.ca
February 18, 2013
To Mayor and Council,
The Bowen Children’s Centre (BCC) is exploring options to establish a permanent home for the After School Club, one of our licensed programs currently located at Bowen Island Community School.
BCC is exploring an option in order to build a permanent site for this much needed community service - located just a minute away from our current facility on Carter Road.
The Bowen Gymnastics Club has also approached us to inquire if they could be part of this journey. Letter attached.
Al Leigh, owner of the land is willing to sell the land to BCC and the BCC Board of Directors is exploring this option. Letter attached.
Background Information
The product of parental vision and initiative, BCC's journey began in 1970. Over the next three decades, the island saw many changes and the Bowen Island Preschool continued to grow, thrive and keep pace with the needs of Bowen families. In the mid- nineties, seeing the island's dramatic growth, a group of preschool parents envisioned a centre that would offer both top quality early childhood education and childcare. Bowen Children's Centre was built on determination, community generosity and a start-up grant from the provincial government. It operates as a non-profit society and provides three distinct, licensed programs:
Bowen Island Preschool The Community Daycare The After School Club
BCC also acts as a resource centre for its member families and for the greater community on issues relating to childcare, parenting and children’s development. We at BCC know that a child's early years are critically important and we strive to provide the best possible services for this community's young families.
The After School Club (ASC)
The After School Club began in 2000 answering the need for quality, convenient and consistent care for school age children on Bowen Island. The ASC offers licensed out-of- school care for children in Kindergarten through Grade 6. Although this Bowen Children's Centre program is currently situated within Bowen Island Community School, it also accepts school-age children who attend other schools, and those who are home- schooled. Children may attend on a regular (full or part time) or drop-in basis.
The Club's coordinators organize a range of indoor and outdoor activities, and prepare a substantial, healthy snack. The ASC has a relaxed, nurturing and social atmosphere and continues to be a popular and necessary care option for Bowen families.
For years the After School Club has been a community service, offered to the families of school- aged children for a nominal fee and supported financially by Bowen Children’s Centre. The families, who needed this care, needed it desperately so we felt morally obligated to answer that need. Now, however, the demand for this service has escalated and the ASC is a viable program in its own right.
In the past two years we have seen the demand for after school care double.
The After School Club (ASC) has been operating in the Community Use Room (CUR) at Bowen Island Community School for the past two years. We struggle on several fronts:
Demand Enrolled families exceed our capacity – we are currently licensed for 20 children, but that license means using two other spaces along with the CUR to be able to allow 20 children to attend. This is complicated, costly and ineffective.
The ASC would like to offer 25 daily spaces, the typical allowance for an after school club as we see a growing need on Bowen Island.
The need for after school care has increased in the last several years due to the establishment of all day kindergarten that ends at 3pm as well as an increase of families having two parents in the workforce and therefore needing after school care. Space Bowen Island Community School (BICS) has always been supportive of the ASC as we serve their school age population. However, BICS population changes on a yearly basis and we are subject to those changes. That means changing the program location according to BICS need for classroom space. Since 2010 the ASC has been housed in the Community Use Room - a space shared with other user groups. This poses several challenges:
The CUR is not a designated, single use space so there is no sense of permanence and we cannot build our program capacity for the children.
Licensed for 20 children, the space really holds 10 comfortably, so we need to use the kitchen (when available), the gym and the Multi Purpose room located upstairs. This fragments our program and is not optimal for staffing, supervision or the children’s sense of comfort and belonging.
No capacity to offer before school care or child care on professional development days to families – a real need in the community every month.
In addition to the challenges of a shared space, the needs of the different programs often conflict making it difficult to create a space comfortable for older children.
Bowen Children’s Centre questions for council
The property, drawing attached, needs to be rezoned, but has the capacity to house a new home for the After School Club. Bowen Children’s Centre Board of Directors is currently exploring this option. In anticipation of this process, we have had an initial meeting with the Bowen Island Municipal Planner, Judy McLeod, and there seems to be no impediment to our proceeding.
We would like council’s thoughts, ideas, input and support on this community project. AND, if there is a way, to speed up the process of rezoning without undo hardship to other applicants we would like to proceed in a timely fashion.
On behalf of the Bowen Children’s Centre Board of Directors, thank you for your consideration of this community project. We look forward to your comments and support.
Sincerely, Ann Silberman, Executive Director Bowen Children’s Centre
Bowen Island Gymnastics Club
Statement of Interest in a Shared Community Use Facility February 12, 2013
Who we are: We are a non-profit society and we offer gymnastics programs to 100+ children ages 2-16 on Bowen Island, BC. We are supported by parent subscription, fund-raising, grants from the municipality, grants from foundations and BC Gaming grants. We are one of the few recreational opportunities for children on the island. It is a source of considerable pride that we can offer both a girls and a boys program, and a recreational and competitive gymnastics program. We have been in operation on the island for 12 years. We are also proud to offer coaching development to interested teens and adults, and to offer employment to several junior coaches on island.
Our mission: To provide opportunities to explore and develop foundational movement, balance, strength, flexibility and overall body awareness to all in a safe and fun environment.
Current challenge: Our club is severely restricted in programming by the lack of a designated facility. We currently rent space (BICS gymnasium) that is owned by the West Vancouver School District and is only available to community use on a highly restricted basis. School events take precedence and regularly interrupt and reduce our programming. The gym also requires many additional hours a week of time from volunteers committed to bringing out equipment, setting it up, and then safely storing equipment again.
Benefits of new gym facility: The benefits of a new facility would be enormous from the BIGC club’s perspective. It would give our very popular club a home. Our club would in turn be able to widely expand the number and range of programming options. Not only could we better serve the recreational appetite for gymnastics and competitive training needs, we could tailor programs to the larger need in the community. Athletic development and Movement development appeals to a broad range of ages and interests. We envision a gym space that a diverse range of community groups on Bowen would find attractive. These groups are currently underserved on the Island, due to the lack of available facilities. The designated facility would take some pressure off the newly developed Culture and Arts Centre to have to meet so many of these needs more appropriate to a designated space for athletics and kinetic programming.
Examples of service that could be provided at a new facility include:
Seniors carpet bowling Kids Can Move Program for Educators Seniors fitness classes: SKY IPS athletics and IDLC athletics Soccer: cross training Daycare and Montessori gym spaces Martial arts Yoga classes
February 5, 2013
To: Council
In 2003, Bowen Fuels started a rezoning to permit a gas station to be built on the property at 604 Grafton Road. At this time there were no permanent sites appropriately zoned available on the Island. After four years our plan fell apart when the landowner backed out of the sales agreement. At this time we had no place to go
As a new council and mayor came in they prioritized the assistance of a gas station on the island and working together we located the gas station on Mount Gardner Road. That was in 2006 and is where it is today. In 2009, approximately three years later, we did acquire the property at 604 Grafton Road after a lengthy and costly legal process. We have no intention of moving the gas station to this property and are happy where we are.
The Grafton Road property with its current zoning only allows a gas station and nothing else. So we are asking that council would consider rezoning to permit a use that is consistent with the neighborhood plan.
Thank you, Alan & Stacey Leigh Bowen Fuels
N
PLA
EL.86.1
EL.88.9
EL.87.2
EL.84.8
EL.83.6
EL.84.2 ANCHOR POLE
POWER
EL.66.2
BOTTOM
r= 671.02 r= EL.88.4
a= 87.87 a=
EL.70.5
TOP EL.85.0 SHEET PROJECT 2109 A 0.0
EDGE OF DIRT DRIVEWAY EDGE OF BLACKTOP OF EDGE
EDGE OF DIRT DRIVEWAY
EL.64.8
EL.79.4 EL.79.5
DIRT EL.87.8
DRIVEWAY
EL.63.2
EL.65.3 EL.81.8
BOTTOM
EL.77.2
EL.70.7 TOP
8.0 15.6 EL.77.1
EL.77.4
EL.82.7
EL.76.2 161d 22' 30"
EL.81.8 EL.82.6
12.0 EL.91.1
12.0 POST IRON
CONCRETE BLOCK WALL
EL.74.2 EL.75.4 34.7
8.0 123 EL.74.5
TRAIL
EL.88.9
EL.66.1 EL.75.1
TOP
BOTTOM
EL.79.3 EL.79.0 EL.70.4 TOP CONSTRUCTION TENDERING BUILDING PERMIT DEVELOP'T PERMIT VARIANCE CONCEPT
EL.72.0 19.69 BOTTOM
EL.70.4
EL.78.2 EL.91.5
DL 491
EL.69.6 EL.89.0
EL.67.9 TOP
BOTTOM
DRIVEWAY
EL.69.3
EL.89.1
BREAK
EL.77.4
EL.77.3 BOULDER WALL BOULDER
CONCEPTUAL FEBRUARY 18 2013 NTS
EL.72.7
EL.93.0 TOP
EL.86.6
EL.63.5
BOTTOM
EL.67.2
EL.61.0 BREAK
EL.68.3
BOTTOM GRAFTON ROAD GRAFTON
DATE: ISSUED FOR: SCALE: NTS
EL.66.8 TOP
EL.77.1
EL.86.6
EL.78.0 EL.68.1
BOTTOM
EL.87.3
EL.68.0
EL.73.4 TOP
321.66
BREAK
EL.93.3
EL.77.6 EL.68.5
EL.66.7 TOP BOTTOM
89d 25' 20"
EL.72.6
TOP
EL.68.1
BREAK
EL.87.1
EL.61.5
BREAK
EL.78.4
EL.68.4
BOTTOM
EL.63.6 BOTTOM
1
EL.73.7
TOP
EL.88.7
EL.68.3 78d 13' 13" 13' 78d
AREA
165.38 EL.66.7
EL.77.4
EL.80.2 EL.96.0
EL.66.2 TOP
CONCEPT
EL.57.9
EL.77.8
EL.68.4 EL.77.0
BOTTOM 13 FEET SOUTH OF THE SOUTH WEST CORNER OF LOT 1 ASSUMED ELEVATION 100.00 FEET EL.95.7
AREA = 24821 sq.ft. EL.68.4
CONCRETE BLOCK WALL
EL.73.3
TOP
EL.68.6
EL.65.8 EL.66.8
TOP
BOTTOM EL.61.9
ELEVATIONS ELEVATIONS ARE TO AN ASSUMED DATUM.
BENCH MARK USED : TOP OF SPIKE LOCATED APPROX.69 FEET EAST AND
BOTTOM EL.77.8
EL.77.8
EL.65.9
EL.89.8
TRAIL
BREAK
TOP EL.65.2 EL.90.5
TOP EL.65.3
EL.68.6 EL.68.8
BOTTOM
EL.57.5
EL.64.9
EL.92.8
EL.73.6
TOP EL.90.7
EL.97.4 EL.65.3
EL.59.4 BOTTOM
POLE EL.98.9
POWER
EL.66.6
EL.57.6
BOULDER WALL BOULDER
EL.61.5
EL.82.2
EL.69.1
EL.82.1 BOTTOM
EL.96.6
POST
IRON
EL.54.0
EL.74.1
TOP
EDGE OF BLACKTOP OF EDGE
EL.84.0
EL.68.9
BOTTOM EL.59.2
BENCH MARK
TOP OF SPIKE ASSUMED ELEV. 100.00 FEET
EL.98.8
EL.67.9
EL.67.0
EL.63.1 EL.85.1
EL.53.6
EL.72.6
TOP
EL.84.8
EL.68.5
EL.101.2 BOTTOM BREAK
19.69
EL.68.5
BOTTOM
BREAK EL.70.5
TOP
BREAK
71d 27' 10" 27' 71d
EL.86.8
EL.88.0
EL.59.1 83.89
EL.99.9
EL.54.2
EL.67.0
EL.86.0
EL.85.4
EL.68.6
BREAK
EL.85.5
EL.67.5
EL.63.8
EL.103.3
EL.90.2
EL.91.3
EL.53.0 EL.58.3
BOWEN ISLAND, B.C. EL.102.2
BREAK
EL.82.8
TRAIL
EL.53.1
TRAIL
EL.66.8 EL.93.0
EL.75.1
EL.68.6
EL.64.2 EL.82.6
604 (LOT 1) GRAFTON ROAD
BREAK
119.12
EL.54.4
POST EL.105.0
2d 02' 49" 02' 2d IRON
EL.55.1
EL.95.1
EL.71.8
EL.103.2
EL.63.9
POST IRON
BREAK EL.74.8
EL.74.8
EL.95.0
LINE
EL.66.4
PROPERTY
EL.80.6 EL.80.5
LMS
3032 To : Mayor and Council, Bowen Island Municipality
From: Bowen Island Municipality Ferry Advisory Committee
Date: November 19, 2012
Subject: Briefing on Provincial consultation on ferry service
Purpose
MOTI will be holding an open house on Bowen on Wednesday November 28th from 6-9 pm at BICS. There will be a facilitated Question and Answer period from 7:30-9pm. The purpose of this briefing is to provide Council with some background information on the present situation with ferry service, the consultation process and statistics and information about our Bowen route in particular The Present Situation
The Province signed a 60 year contract with BC Ferry Services Inc (BCF) in 2003 that sets out what ferry services must be delivered by BCF and how much money the province will pay towards that service. There has been very little change in the amount of service that must delivered. The service fees have increased for the northern routes but have basically remained the same for nine years for the minor routes which include route 8, Bowen. Costs have increased significantly and the only revenue source to offset those costs has been the fares. The Ferry Commissioner conducted a review of the Coastal Ferry Act in 2011 and his report http://www.bcferrycommission.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/12-01-24-BCFC-CFA- Regulatory-Review-FINAL.pdf indicated that fares had reached the tipping point, that something had to be done to keep fares at a reasonable level and that the Province in conjunction with BC Ferries and the coastal communities needed to establish a long term vision for ferry service. The recent amendment to the contract between BC Ferries (BCF) and the provincial government (MOTI) requires $30M in savings to be found. $4M has already been identified from the major routes, leaving $26M still to be found. The contract lists criteria to be used to identify “service adjustments”, including: - routes that incur significant financial shortfalls annually - routes that have an annual capacity utilization level of less than 55% - routes where specific roundtrips have a less than 20% usage The contract states “specific adjustments will take into account the need to ensure basic ferry service at the route level, where applicable. Examples of basic ferry service include travel to and from school, work, and significant community events”. If the service adjustments are not agreed to by June 30, 2013, BCF may apply directly to the Ferry Commissioner for relief. The Commissioner, in setting the recently announced price caps assumed that the $30M of savings would be found so the relief applied for would probably result in a fare increase. The consultation process
The consultation process is being conducted by the MOTI; they have engaged Kirk & Co. to assist them with the process. A Discussion Guide and a Feedback Form have been created and route specific information assembled. These as well as other background information can be found on the Coastal Ferries Engagement website at http://www.coastalferriesengagement.ca/ Kirk & Co. will be submitting a report to MOTI in February 2013 on the input received during the consultation process. They will not be making direct recommendations on either dollar savings or sailing cuts. We anticipate that the next step after that will be for MOTI to indentify routes and runs where service adjustments could be made. MOTI has indicated they will then consult with the affected communities but that has not been confirmed nor has the process that they would follow if they did. The MOTI consultation process will focus on two areas: the immediate challenge being the need to reduce BCF operating costs, and the long term vision for the future. Some information from the cost reductions portion of the consultation include:
• Only four routes have more than 55% utilization: route 1(Tsawwassen-Swartz Bay), route 2 (HSB-Nanaimo), route 3 (HSB-Langdale) and route 12 (Mill Bay-Brentwood). The two that are 50% and 55% are route 4 (Swartz Bay-SSI/Fulford - 54.4%) and route 8 (HSB-Bowen - 51.6%). All others are below 50%. • The losses per vehicle1on routes vary widely: Langdale ($5.66), Bowen ($11.21), SSI/Fulford ($18.21), and Mill Bay ($30.63). • The most comparable routes to Bowen are SSI/Fulford, and route 19, Gabriola with a utilization of 45.1% and a loss per vehicle of $12.53. • MOTI is focusing on round trip utilization. Most “minor” routes have only one vessel serving them, so that, such as Bowen, commuter traffic goes one way in the morning and reverses in the evening, with lower round-trip utilization. MOTI is also seeking input as to the long-term future of the ferry system. Their list of options, besides continuation of conventional ferry service (presumably with service adjustments), includes: - Connecting coastal communities using alternative ferry options such as cable ferries and passenger only ferries; - Serving some routes with passenger only ferries and a barge that carries vehicles - Using alternative fuels such as LNG; - Investigating the economics of bridges and - Improving linkages with better bicycle and public transit access to the BCF system MOTI is also interested in feedback on alternative means of financing the ferry system such as a property tax or a fuel tax in coastal communities. (They seem to be unaware that Bowen already pays a property tax and a fuel tax to fund Translink)
1 Automobile equivalents – AEQs. Key to the continued economic and social viability and growth of Bowen Island is a reasonably- priced, frequent, ferry service for both vehicles and foot passengers. Savings could likely be found by careful rescheduling to remove the “built-in” overtime that exists within the existing schedule. Bowen, as a commuter ferry, must operate on a two-shift basis, and the current union contracts do not permit split shifts. It is unlikely that a reduction in sailings would either be acceptable to Bowen Islanders or practical within the constraints of scheduling and contracts. Other considerations come into play: for example, the Bowen ferry shares use of the HSB terminal and as such pays a share of the costs of operating that terminal where other minor routes have small terminals more appropriate to the route and do not get nor do they get frequently delayed due to the arrival or departure of other, larger, ferries and/or a lack of berthing space which incurs unplanned overtime costs for the Bowen route. Recommendations
The FAC recommends that Council members attend this open house, both to gauge the views of the public and to participate in the question and answer period. Councillors may wish to seek clarification from MOTI on: - the time line of the service adjustment discussions and how will MOTI consult with affected routes - how was the 55% capacity utilization cut-off level determined - how was the 20% round trip capacity utilization cut-off level determined - the utilization % is very much related to the size of the vessel and hence the number of vehicles and passengers that are on any given sailing. Will MOTI look past the percentages to actual numbers of passengers affected. -Many vessels need to be replaced that serve the minor routes. The present size of vessel available during a refit is inadequate for our route. In looking to the future and size of vessels to be built a consideration should be ensuring that there are adequate vessels available for replacement vessels at refit times. - The inland ferries are free and the Minister on a CBC interview was asked why and her response was “that there were very different principles at play with the inland ferries”. Can you tell us what those principles are? A follow- up question would be to ask why the overall economic treatment of the provincial highway system is different from the coastal ferries. - Bowen is very much a commuter route and a large percentage of runs each morning leaving Bowen and returning in the afternoon are routinely overloads. - The utilization statistics appear to count the dead head run over to Bowen in the morning as unused capacity. The boat home ports in Horseshoe Bay so it is not fair to consider the dead head run in the utilization calculations.
BC Coastal Ferries Consultation and Engagement PO Box 2223 Vancouver Main Vancouver, B.C. V6B 3W2
Via email [email protected]
Dear Sirs:
Bowen Island Municipal Council at its meeting of Monday December 17th considered the attached document prepared for Council by the Bowen Island Municipality Ferry Advisory Committee (FAC).
Council fully supports the points made by the Bowen FAC and passed the following resolution:
“That Council endorse the submission in response to the B.C. Coastal Ferries Consultation and Engagement undertaken in the fall of 2012 by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure as prepared by the Bowen Island Municipality Ferry Advisory Committee; and,
That staff be directed to submit the submission with Council’s endorsement, and,
That copies of the submission be sent to:
Mary Polak, Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure Joan McIntyre, MLA Sheila Malcolmson, Chair, Island Trust Council Greg Moore, Chair, Metro Vancouver Regional District Gord Mcatee, BC Ferry Commissioner Jane L. Peverett, Chair B.C. Ferry Authority Donald P. Hayes, Chair of the Board, British Columbia Ferry Services Inc. Mike Corrigan, President and CEO, British Columbia Ferry Services Inc.”
Yours truly,
Jack Adelaar Mayor, Bowen Island Municipality
Bowen Island Municipality Submission to the B.C. Coastal Ferries Consultation and Engagement December 17, 2012
Bowen Island is served by BC Ferries (BCF) Route 8 from the Horseshoe Bay terminal in West Vancouver to the Snug Cove terminal on Bowen Island. The trip is approximately 20 minutes and connects Bowen Island to the Greater Vancouver area. Bowen has a year round population of about 3,500 which increases to approximately 5,000 in the summertime. Bowen is member municipality of the Metro Vancouver Regional District (also known as the Greater Vancouver Regional District). The population of Metro Vancouver is expected to increase by almost 60% or 1.4 million people by 2040; this will also impact Bowen. Bowen Island Municipality is also the first island municipality within the Islands Trust.
Route 8 has the fifth highest traffic volume for both vehicles and passengers of all of BCF routes, with 482,735 vehicles and 1,145,637 passengers carried in fiscal 2011/12. This traffic volume is not far behind that of route 30, Duke Point to Tsawwassen with 597,137 vehicles and 1,396,232 passengers. The other three routes that have more traffic than route 8 are routes 1, 2 and 3. The traffic on route 8 is significantly higher than the traffic on any of the other minor routes or the northern routes. Another interesting point is that the traffic on route 8 has levelled off and unlike other routes has not continued to drop for the last two fiscal years.
Route 8 could best be described as a commuter route with a significant portion of the working population of Bowen Island using the ferry to access their place of work in downtown Vancouver and elsewhere within the Metro Vancouver area. There is very little seasonal change to the volumes carried with many runs that routinely overload in the mornings leaving Bowen and on the runs in the afternoon and early evening returning to Bowen. Bowen has the highest number of overloads of all the minor routes. The high school students travel to West Vancouver to attend high school in SD 45. Residents of Bowen made their choice to live on Bowen knowing that there is a reliable ferry service that enables them to commute to Vancouver from the first run of 5:30 a.m. to the last ferry home at 9:35p.m. . The reliability of the morning ferry is also important to get the high school students to school; the last ferry home at 9:35 p.m. allows them to participate in sports, drama and other extra curricular activities that are so much a part of the whole school experience. As well there are residents who rely on the ferry to get them to health care, activities and shops in the lower mainland for the services, activities and goods that we do not have available on the island.
The ferry is not solely a commuter ferry for Bowen residents. There are also people that come to work on Bowen from other parts of the lower mainland, such as our teachers, trades people and people that work in our shops and restaurants. Students also come from other parts of the lower mainland to attend grades 6-9 at the private school on Bowen. Tourism and visitors to Bowen are a vital part of Bowen’s economy. They come to visit the island, to visit friends and family and frequent our shops and renowned restaurants.
All of the above illustrates that reliable, adequate and reasonably priced ferry transportation is vital to the health, welfare and economy of Bowen Island and its residents.
The ferry consultation process as set out by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MOTI) is flawed. The considerations proposed in the discussion document to find $26 million in savings are not necessarily the best. . We question the logic of the number of $26 million and, indeed, even the necessity of having to find that amount. The consultation process seems to ignore the fact that the whole ferry system is part of the province’s public transportation system. As such it plays an important role in the economic and social fabric of our island community.
All governments invest in transportation infrastructure as part of their economic (and for that matter social) development policies. Access to resources, employment, markets and tourism are all recognized as community objectives that the provincial government supports. Hence the government supports the provincial highway system, public mass transit, and enters into agreements of various descriptions with railways, ports and airport authorities. Ferries are equally part of this transportation infrastructure. Thus the argument exists that the coastal ferry system should receive the same level of support as the other modes of transportation. Currently BCF is expected to recover a far higher percentage of its operating costs from its fare structure than other forms of public mass transit. The inland ferry system is deemed to be part of the provincial highway system, and no fares are charged to its users (and this system has recently received major capital funding to replace existing vessels).
The minor routes are almost always the only public access to the communities they serve. Thus the level of service has a direct impact on the economic and social health of the community in question. BCF appears to have a policy of providing capacity that follows demand, not leads it.. The consequences of reducing capacity must be a matter of policy, not a technical one of finding savings to meet current operating deficits. The current consultation process does not even begin to reflect the policy consequences of changes to the BCF system.
Indeed the "throttling" of capacity that is experienced whenever a smaller replacement vessel is assigned to route 8, is a unilateral constriction of economic (and social) opportunities for the community, yet there has been no policy discussion, at any level, about the effect of reduced transportation access on the economic and social futures of Bowen Island or any of the coastal communities. While short-term interruptions in capacity are (sometimes) manageable, as when a vessel is in for refit, longer term interruptions, or permanent downsizing, will have clear negative impacts, ranging from reductions in tourism in the summer to long-term impacts on the value of real estate in the community. Many of these impacts are as much perception as real - if a community is deemed to be difficult to access, it suffers a corresponding reduction in economic and social activity.
There are specific failings in the analysis of the various routes. In the case of Bowen, considering round trips ignores the realities of a commuter island. Utilization rates are a factor of the size of the vessel. When there is only one vessel on a route that has significant traffic peaks a larger vessel may be needed to service those peaks. Thus it is a given that it will be too large for some of the runs that are also very important to the community. Also the utilization data as set out in the Appendix: “Route specific information”, focuses on vehicles and ignores passengers. Both should be considered. Thus just considering round trip or even run utilization is not the answer. Also, “Significant annual shortfalls” is not defined and could be measured in several ways, total shortfall, amount per vehicle or amount per passenger. There may a shortfall that in total is much smaller than other routes but in amount per vehicle or amount per passenger is much larger than that of other routes. All routes are different and as such a one size fits all criteria or solution is not appropriate.
An integrated transportation system is important and in that regard it is important to Bowen that there is good connectivity with the Translink service from Horseshoe Bay to other parts of the lower mainland with the ferry to and from Bowen. This is crucial to the many commuters; good connections greatly improve their quality of life and allows for much needed family time. As for cycling connections these must be considered in the context of narrow roads on Bowen, and the Upper Levels highway leading out of Horseshoe Bay both for safety and as an alternative for those who wish to travel by bicycle.
We note that questions have been asked about LNG, cable ferries and bridges. LNG is an operational issue and should be considered by BCF. Cable ferries are a way to deliver ferry service and bridges as way to connect communities. It is reasonable to address these in those communities where there is an adequate business case for doing so. For Bowen LNG could be an option, subject to a reasonable plan for retrofitting the Queen of Capilano, but the other options simply do not apply to Route 8.
There are many vessels that need to be replaced on the minor routes. It makes sense to have a standard design of vessel that is interchangeable amongst the routes. The adequacy of the size of the vessel for the route it serves also has to be considered so the suggestion by the commissioner of perhaps three sizes of ferries makes sense. As decisions are being made about new vessels and the routes they should operate on consideration should be given as to whether the existing vessels are deployed on the appropriate route. In designing and building the new vessels the need for vessels as replacement vessels during refits and emergencies must also be considered. The refit/replacement vessels need to be of adequate size so that the community is as well served by the replacement vessel as its normal vessel.
We strongly disagree with the suggestion of increasing property tax in coastal communities to help fund ferry service. This question goes far beyond the concept suggested in the BC Ferry Commissioner’s Report. In any case, Bowen Island Municipality is a member municipality of Translink and as such already pays an exorbitant amount towards public transportation in the Lower Mainland through a property tax. Bowen property owners must not be subject to a form of “double taxation” for transportation services.
We also strongly disagree with the suggestion of increasing fuel taxes in coastal communities to help fund ferry service. As noted above Bowen is a member of Translink: Bowen vehicle users/owners already pay a gas tax of 17 cents a litre, regardless of whether they fuel up on Bowen or on the mainland, to fund Translink. Another consideration is the economic and security of supply reality of gas stations on islands. A gas station is an essential service and a price increase due to a tax to fund ferry service would make the economic viability of a small local island gas station even more tenuous.
The Bowen Island Municipal Council, its Ferry Advisory Committee and members of the community would be pleased to sit down with the Marine Branch of the Ministry and BCF to discuss ways to improve and augment the route 8 service. We would be pleased to explore passenger-only ferries to downtown Vancouver as a way to augment our service. We would also be pleased to explore the three vessel option for Howe Sound to augment service during peak times for routes 3 and 8 and to provide better utilization for early morning and late evening runs.
We look forward to continuing discussions with the appropriate officials from BCF and the MOTI.
(original signed by)
Adam Holbrook, Chair, Bowen Island Ferry Advisory Committee
BOWEN ISLAND MUNICIPALITY
Bowen Island Fire Hall Facilities Steering Committee (FHFSC) Terms of Reference
OVERVIEW:
When developing its Strategic Plan in 2006, and confirmed in subsequent strategic planning sessions, Council identified the seismic upgrade of the Fire Hall/Emergency Operations Centre as one of their top priority initiatives.
In early 2001 a seismic study of the main Fire Hall/Emergency Operations Centre determined that the structure would fail during a low to moderate earthquake. In addition it was acknowledged that the present main Fire Hall/Emergency Operations Centre is inadequate for use as an emergency command centre and general purpose use (e.g. turnout gear, hose, pumps, associated equipment and routine maintenance).
In 2007, Council authorized the Fire Chief to issue an Expression of Interest to the architectural community for conducting a space needs analysis for a replacement Fire Hall/Emergency Operations Centre l. As a result this scope of work was awarded to Johnston Davidson Architecture + Planning Inc. Their report entitled Building Audit and Site Analysis – Bowen Island Fire Hall, dated June 30, 2008 was presented to Council in July 2008. The report recommended building a new main Fire Hall/Emergency Operations Centre. The report also contained a recommended function analysis and space needs for the new building. The Committee then set about identifying potential building sites. The preferred option did not materialize and a satellite fire hall was constructed on Adams Road in 2012. This impacts the decision on location and space needs for the new main Fire Hall/Emergency Operations Centre.
1. PURPOSE:
To provide recommendations and advice to Council on the development of a new main Fire Hall/Emergency Operations Centre and provide oversight to the process.
2. MANDATE ‐ RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES:
The Fire Hall Facilities Steering Committee (FHFSC) is a select committee that acts in an advisory capacity to Council, and final decisions in all matters brought before the Committee rests with the Council.
2.1 The Committee will: a. Review existing reports; b. Present progress reports to Council, as needed; c. Prepare a budget and request for funding for consultants, if necessary, for approval by Council; and d. Prepare a final report to Council regarding the siting, cost and conceptual design for a main Fire Hall/Emergency Operations Centre.
Bowen Island Fire Hall Facilities Steering Committee (FHFSC) Terms of Reference (DRAFT: February 18, 2013) Page 1 of 3 2.2 Any other items assigned by Council to the Committee related to fire hall facilities on Bowen Island.
3. MEMBERSHIP – COMPOSITION AND TERM OF OFFICE:
3.1 The FHFSC shall consist of a maximum of two (2) members of Council, the Chief Administrative Officer, the Fire Chief and one (1) member of the public with expertise to assist the Committee.
3.2 The Deputy Fire Chief and members of the Bowen Island Volunteer Fire Department shall be resource persons to the Committee on an as‐needed basis.
3.3 The FHFSC membership will be appointed by Council.
3.4 The term of office of Committee members shall expire upon occupancy of the new main Fire Hall/Emergency Operations Centre. Where a member resigns or ceases to act as a member, Council may appoint a new member to serve the remainder of the term.
3.5 Committee members shall serve without remuneration.
3.6 Council, pursuant to Section 144 of the Community Charter, may rescind appointment of a committee member at any time and appoint another person in place of the person whose appointment was rescinded.
4. HOLDING OF MEETINGS – QUORUM, VOTING AND CONDUCT:
4.1 The Committee shall elect a Chair at its first meeting.
4.2 The Committee shall decide from time to time by resolution where and when its meetings shall be held. The Committee shall post notice of a schedule of regular meetings and of each meeting in accordance with the municipality’s procedure bylaw.
4.3 Unless specified as a Closed Meeting for reasons allowed under the Community Charter, all meetings shall be open to the public.
4.4 Meetings of the Committee shall be conducted in accordance with Bowen Island Municipality Council Procedure Bylaw. In the absence of comment in the Procedure Bylaw, Robert’s Rules of Order shall apply.
4.5 A quorum for a meeting of the Committee is 50% of the voting members.
4.6 Decisions of the Committee shall be decided by a majority vote, with the names of those voting in the minority being recorded. Each voting member on the Committee shall have one vote.
Bowen Island Fire Hall Facilities Steering Committee (FHFSC) Terms of Reference (DRAFT: February 18, 2013) Page 2 of 3 5. ADMINISTRATION
5.1 The minutes of the proceedings of all Committee meetings shall be recorded. All minutes once approved by the Committee shall be signed by the Chairperson.
5.2 A minute taker will be provided for committee meetings.
5.3 A staff member of Bowen Island Municipality will be identified by the Chief Administrative Officer to provide clerical support for the FHFSC and municipal staff from the Finance, Administration, Planning and Engineering departments will act in an advisory capacity as required.
5.4 All costs related to the functioning of the FHFSC shall be charged to the Fire Department budget.
Bowen Island Fire Hall Facilities Steering Committee (FHFSC) Terms of Reference (DRAFT: February 18, 2013) Page 3 of 3
News Release 200 - 1627 Fort Street Victoria BC V8R 1H8 Telephone 250.405.5151 FAX: 250.405.5155 Toll Free via Enquiry BC in Vancouver 604.660.2421. Elsewhere in BC 1.800.663.7867 [email protected] www.islandstrust.bc.ca
January 24, 2013 2013-03-IT
Islands Trust Seeks Input On Draft 2013-2014 Budget
VICTORIA The Islands Trust is seeking public input on its draft budget for 2013-2014. The Islands Trust Council will make a final budget decision at its March 5-7, 2013 meeting on Thetis Island.
Islands Trust taxes account for between 10-20% of the total property tax bill for property owners in the Islands Trust Area, depending on other property taxes charged on each island. The Financial Planning Committee is recommending that the Islands Trust Council adopt a budget of $6.9 million for 2013-2014. This figure is comprised of an increase of $133,517 in expenditures, which would result in a 1.3% increase in Islands Trust property taxes for 2013-2014.
Last year, the owner of a property assessed at $450,000 paid about $343 in Islands Trust taxes. If approved by Trust Council, the proposed Islands Trust budget for 2013-2014 would mean a tax increase of approximately $4 for a $450,000 property.
“We are trying to keep budget increases low, while responding to our constituents’ requests for improvements and new programs to address issues that are important to islanders.” said Sheila Malcolmson, Chair of the Islands Trust Council. “We want to know what people think of this year’s budget proposal, and whether we have struck the right balance.”
The proposed budget will enable the Islands Trust to continue its work on the following strategic priorities, in addition to its core functions: • Compliance with provincial requirements under the Riparian Areas Regulation. This provincial regulation requires local governments to ensure that potential fish habitat within their jurisdiction is protected to specific standards. Funding to continue the work to bring the Islands Trust Area into compliance includes public consultation to develop necessary bylaws and mapping streams where the regulation would apply. • Improved public communication and streamlining information sharing tools, in response to increased community demand for access to information. • A modest increase in bylaw enforcement capacity, responding to constituent requests to uphold local bylaws.
The proposed increase will also fund several other strategic projects, some with significance throughout the Islands Trust Area, and some of importance to individual island communities. The proposed 2013-2014 budget would complete or advance community work in addressing local planning issues in all local trust areas. In addition to public consultation, specific work would be related to a variety of strategic initiatives such as groundwater and shoreline protection.
The proposed budget also addresses a reduction in the provincial grant revenues in 2013-14 and BCGEU collective agreement wage increases negotiated by the Government of British Columbia for 2012-13 and 2013-14.
“We work hard to meet islanders’ expectations to carry out our provincial mandate in a cost-effective manner that minimizes pressures on taxpayers,” said Malcolmson. “At the same time, as a local government we must also undertake a number of mandatory tasks and are faced with cost increases beyond our control.”
“Before proposing this budget, Trust Council’s Financial Planning Committee carefully considered the options for providing the many projects islanders asked for as well as meeting legal obligations as a local government,” Malcolmson said. “The proposed budget represents many hours of discussion, debate and difficult decisions. Now we need to hear from islanders.”
- More -
Bowen, Denman, Hornby, Gabriola, Galiano, Gambier, Lasqueti, Mayne, N. Pender, Salt Spring, Saturna, S. Pender, Thetis
budget…2
Budget details are available from the Islands Trust website at http://www.islandstrust.bc.ca/news/budget.cfm or directly from the following Islands Trust offices:
1-500 Lower Ganges Road 700 North Road 200-1627 Fort Street Salt Spring Island, BC Gabriola Island, BC Victoria, BC Phone: 250.537.9144 250.247.2063 250.405.5151
The Islands Trust welcomes comments from the public on the proposed budget. If you want your submission to be considered as part of the Financial Planning Committee’s budget recommendation to Trust Council, your submission must be received by NOON Friday, February 8, 2013. After that, if you get your input to us by February 13, 2013 it can still be in the public Trust Council meeting agenda package and posted to the website. Later submissions will be accepted until NOON Thursday, February 28th and be delivered to Trust Council at its March 6, 2013 meeting on Thetis Island.
Comments can be sent to: Islands Trust Council, Attention: Treasurer at #200-1627 Fort Street, Victoria, BC V8R 1H8; by fax: 250.405.5155 or by e-mail to: [email protected].
The Islands Trust Council is a federation of local government bodies representing 25,000 people living within the Islands Trust Area. The Islands Trust is responsible for preserving and protecting the unique environment of the Islands Trust Area through planning and regulating land use, development management, education, cooperation with other agencies, and land conservation. The area covers the islands and waters between the British Columbia mainland and southern Vancouver Island. It includes 13 major and more than 450 smaller islands covering 5200 square kilometres.
CONTACT Sheila Malcolmson Linda Adams Chair, Islands Trust Council Chief Administrative Officer 250.247.8078 250.405.5160
News Release
200 - 1627 Fort Street Victoria BC V8R 1H8 Telephone 250.405.5151 Fax: 250.405.5155 Toll Free via Enquiry BC in Vancouver 604.660.2421. Elsewhere in BC 1.800.663.7867 [email protected] www.islandstrust.bc.ca
February 5, 2013 No. 2013-04-IT
March Trust Council Program Announced
VICTORIA - The Islands Trust Council will hold its next quarterly business meeting March 5-7, 2013 on Thetis Island. The public meeting starts Tuesday, March 5 at 1:45 pm and is expected to finish by 12:15 pm on Thursday, March 7.
The 26-member Council makes decisions about overall policy, staff resources and financial management for the Islands Trust and has broad responsibilities to uphold the Islands Trust mandate. Trust Council invites members of the public to participate in a town hall session, a regular forum to promote dialogue between islanders and trustees, starting at 2:00 pm on Wednesday, March 6. Persons or organizations wishing to reserve time to make a formal delegation to the Islands Trust Council must receive an appointment through the Executive Committee. Please send the topic, speaker’s name and contact information to the attention of Marie Smith (email: [email protected]; fax: 250.405.5155) by Monday, February 18, 2013. Guidelines for making a presentation to Council are available at www.islandstrust.bc.ca/tc/addresstips.cfm. Please note that the Islands Trust Council does not make local land use decisions, which are the responsibility of the local trustees within their respective local trust areas. The agenda package for the March Trust Council meeting will be available for viewing on the Islands Trust website on Monday, February 25 and at our Gabriola, Salt Spring and Victoria offices.
Trust Council Sessions will include:
2013-2014 Budget – Trustees will review and discuss the draft budget for Council’s core operations and potential projects. Trustees will consider the public input received and discuss options for amending the draft budget. Council will then finalize and approve the Islands Trust’s 2013-2014 budget and consider its annual Financial Plan Bylaw.
Working with the Islands Trust Fund – Trustees will receive an overview of the programs of the Islands Trust Fund and discuss how collaboration with island-based organizations and other units of the Islands Trust can result in increased protection of special areas.
Delegations and Town Hall – Trust Council encourages members of the public to participate in dialogue between islanders and trustees. The public is invited to discuss issues, ask questions and make suggestions about the work of Islands Trust Council.
Decision and Information Items – Trust Council will consider a variety of routine business updates and decisions and will review recommendations from each Council Committee regarding proposed work programs for the coming quarter.
The Islands Trust Area, home to more than 25,000 people, covers the islands and waters between the British Columbia mainland and southern Vancouver Island, including Howe Sound and as far north as Comox. The Islands Trust is responsible for preserving and protecting the unique environment of the Islands Trust Area through planning and regulating land use, development management, education, cooperation with other agencies, and land conservation. - 30 - Attached: 3 day agenda program
Contact: Linda Adams, Chief Administrative Officer 250.405.5160 Sheila Malcolmson, Chair, Islands Trust Council 250.247.8078
Bowen, Denman, Hornby, Gabriola, Galiano, Gambier, Lasqueti, Mayne, N. Pender, Salt Spring, Saturna, S. Pender, Thetis
March 2013 Islands Trust Council Agenda Program Meeting Location: Overbury Resort, 288 Forbes Drive – Thetis Island
Feb 5/13
Tuesday, March 5 Wednesday, March 6 Thursday, March 7
A.M. 8:30 – 10:30 *Closed Meeting* 8:30 – 10:15 Decision and Information Items • Legal Session • Litigation Update 10:15 – 10:45 Break
10:30 – 11:00 Break 10:45 – 12:15 Trustee Roundtable
11:00 – 11:30 Decision and Information Items
P.M. 1:45 Call to Order/Notice of New Items 11:30 – 1:00 Lunch and Island Visit
1:50 – 3:30 2013/14 Budget Overview 1:00 – 2:00 Working with the • Revenue & Expenses Islands Trust Fund • Salaries and Staffing • Strategic Plan Implications 2:00 – 3:00 Delegations & Town Hall
3:30 – 4:00 Break 3:00 – 3:30 Break
4:00- 5:30 Decision and Information Items 3:30 – 4:30 2013/14 Budget Discussion • Budget Debate and Approval
4:30 – 5:30 Decision and Information Items
** Members of the public are invited to attend all sessions except any closed meetings and meals.
News Release
200 - 1627 Fort Street Victoria, BC V8R 1H8 Telephone (250) 405-5151 FAX: (250) 405-5155 Toll Free via Enquiry BC in Vancouver 604.660.2421. Elsewhere in BC 1.800.663.7867 [email protected] www.islandstrust.bc.ca
February 14, 2013 2013-06-IT
BC SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS DENMAN ISLAND’S BYLAWS FOR KOMAS BLUFF
VICTORIA – In its decision released yesterday, the Supreme Court of British Columbia upheld Denman Island bylaws that regulate development on the Komas Bluff. The decision relates to construction and land alterations at the crest and on the plateau above the Komas Bluff, on land owned by Daniel and Debra Stoneman of Denman Island.
The Stonemans' property lies within the Komas Bluff Development Permit Area, which requires geotechnical studies before activities such as tree-cutting and building construction can take place. In areas of BC that are subject to natural hazards, development permits are one of the primary mechanisms that local governments use to protect structures from flooding, mudflows, erosion, land slip, rock falls, avalanche and wildfire. While development is allowed, it must be done pursuant to permit conditions to reduce the risks associated with natural hazards. This normally happens as a matter of course. Legal action is very unusual, but this one property has now been the subject of three court cases.
In his Reasons for Judgment, the Honourable Mr. Justice Curtis found that the Stonemans breached the Local Government Act when they cleared and excavated their land, and constructed buildings and structures, including a path, stairs, a ramp, drainage works, a residence and accessory buildings within the Komas Bluff Development Permit Area without the necessary permits. The judgment prohibits the Stonemans from further altering the land within the Komas Bluff Development Permit Area without valid permits or further order of the Court. It also orders the Stonemans to:
work with the Denman Island Local Trust Committee to either obtain the required permits, or remove any unpermitted structures and rehabilitate the property at their own expense, allow access to the property to Islands Trust staff or contractors in order to assess and ensure compliance with the order, and pay the full legal costs incurred by the Denman Island Local Trust Committee in enforcing the Local Government Act and defending its bylaws.
The case dates from 2005, when the Honourable Mr. Justice Groberman ruled that the Komas Bluff Development Permit Area was valid, in relation to an earlier court action involving the Stonemans and Mr. Dean Ellis, the previous owner of the property. In 2006, the Stonemans applied for and were granted a development permit for their proposed construction, subject to their submission of plans for erosion protection from a geotechnical engineer. However, the Stonemans began construction of a residence without submitting the requested reports. Beginning in 2010 they constructed stairs down the face of Komas Bluff, also without permits. They claimed the bylaws were invalid and that no development permit was required.
In yesterday’s Reasons for Judgment, the Honourable Mr. Justice Curtis said: “Any person who read Justice Groberman’s decision could not fail to understand that his decision was that the Komas Bluff Bylaw was valid and that no person should be in violation of its provisions.”
The Court went on to find that: “The Stonemans bought the property intending to build a home on it and live there. When they appeared before Groberman J. they were well aware of this. They argued that Bylaw 111 [establishing the development permit area] was invalid and did not apply to their property and they lost that argument. They are now attempting to re-argue the issues having chosen to build without a permit in spite of a court order they ought to have understood very clearly indicated that they were not free to do so.”
-more-
Bowen, Denman, Hornby, Gabriola, Galiano, Gambier, Lasqueti, Mayne, N. Pender, Salt Spring, Saturna, S. Pender, Thetis Komas Bluff…/2
David Graham, a Denman Island local trustee responded to the judgment saying, “I’m pleased that this judgment confirms and clarifies the options available to the landowners. They must now work with the local trust committee to comply with Denman bylaws both by remediating the land and fulfilling the conditions necessary to obtain the proper permits.”
Laura Busheikin, also a local trustee on Denman Island added, “We are glad the community’s bylaws are once again upheld, and look forward to resolving this situation with the Stonemans.”
The Islands Trust is a federation of local government bodies representing 25,000 people living within the Islands Trust Area. The Islands Trust is responsible for preserving and protecting the unique environment and amenities of the Islands Trust Area through planning and regulating land use, development management, education, cooperation with other agencies, and land conservation. The area covers the islands and waters between the British Columbia mainland and southern Vancouver Island. It includes 13 major and more than 450 smaller islands covering 5200 square kilometres.
Note: chronology, photo and Reasons for Judgment attached.
-30-
CONTACT David Marlor Director, Local Planning Services (250) 405-5169 Cell: (250) 250-812-5923 Chronology: Daniel John Stoneman and Debra Monica Stoneman versus Denman Island Local Trust Committee
2003: A significant slump on the property received province wide attention. A geotechnical report prepared by Thurber Engineering concluded the slump was a result of “incautious human activity” tree cutting and ditching too close to the crest of the bluff without a development permit. In areas of BC that are subject to natural hazards, development permits are one of the primary mechanisms that local governments can use to require geotechnical reports or place other conditions on development to protect structures from flooding, mudflows, erosion, land slip, rock falls, avalanche and wildfire.
2005: The BC Supreme Court found that the previous owner of the property, Mr. Ellis, had contravened the Local Government Act by altering land in the Komas Bluff Development Permit Area without a development permit, and issued an order that prohibited “cutting trees on, clearing, developing, excavating or otherwise altering” the Stoneman property within 50 metres of the top edge of the Komas Bluff or on the face of the Komas Bluff. In that action, the Court rejected the many arguments made by both Mr. Ellis and Mr. Stoneman that the Komas Bluff Development Permit Area was invalid or inapplicable to the property, and that they did not require further development permits to alter the land. Costs were awarded against Mr. Ellis, but not against Mr. and Mrs. Stoneman at that time, on the basis that there was no indication that the Stonemans would continue the unauthorized clearing and land alterations on the property.
2006: The Stonemans applied for a development permit to build a house and outbuildings in the Komas Bluff Development Permit Area. That development permit was approved by the Denman Island Local Trust Committee, subject to the Stonemans’ complying with the recommendations of a geotechnical engineer hired by the Stonemans, and a requirement that that engineer review and approve their plans. The Stonemans later declined to complete the requirements for issuance of the development permit, but nevertheless proceeded to construct the house and outbuildings.
2007: The BC Court of Appeal upheld the orders of the BC Supreme Court, and specifically the Komas Bluff Development Permit Area as validly protecting development from hazardous conditions through restrictions on land alteration and tree clearing
March 2012: Islands Trust bylaw enforcement staff received a complaint about tree removal and path construction on the face of the Komas Bluff on the property. A visit to the Stonemans’ property confirmed new construction of a path, stairs, ditching work, the removal of trees and vegetation on the slope face, as well as the installation of drainage works, all without the necessary permits.
July 2012: The Denman Island Local Trust Committee filed proceedings with the BC Supreme Court seeking a court order prohibiting Daniel John Stoneman and Debra Monica Stoneman from doing any further construction or works in the development permit area without a permit, and requiring them to remove a pathway and stairs on the face of the Komas Bluff, and to obtain a development permit for their house and outbuildings within the Komas Bluff Development Permit Area on their property on Denman Island. That same month, the Stonemans file an amended petition for judicial review seeking an order that the Komas Bluff development permit area is either invalid, or inapplicable to the Stonemans property.
February 13, 2013: The Honourable Mr. Justice Curtis, Supreme Court of British Columbia, releases Reasons for Judgement.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Citation: Stoneman v. Denman Island Local Trust Committee, 2013 BCSC 218 Date: 20130213 Docket: 12-2406 Registry: Victoria
Between: Denman Island Local Trust Committee Petitioner
And
Daniel John Stoneman and Debra Monica Stoneman Respondents
Docket: S062427 Registry: Vancouver Between: Daniel John Stoneman and Debra Monica Stoneman Petitioner
And
Denman Island Local Trust Committee, Minister of Community Services Respondents
Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Curtis
Reasons for Judgment Stoneman v. Denman Island Local Trust Committee Page 2
Counsel for Daniel and Debra Stoneman: Daniel W. Burnett
Counsel for Denman Island Local Trust Francesca Marzari Committee:
Place and Date of Hearing: Victoria, B.C. December 10-12, 2012 Place and Date of Judgment: Victoria, B.C. February 13, 2013
Stoneman v. Denman Island Local Trust Committee Page 3
[1] The Denman Island Local Trust Committee has applied by petition filed July 6, 2012 for a declaration that the Stonemans have altered land which they own at 2600 Swan Road, Denman Island, without a development permit contrary to s. 920(1)(b) and (d) and 928 of the Local Government Act, and for other orders flowing from that allegation. In response, the Stonemans, allege that the bylaw the Trust Committee seeks to enforce is invalid, as set out in their petition in action S062427, in which they claim in the alternative, an order declaring that the Development Permit Area boundaries are invalid, that no permit is necessary, or alternatively, an order that they be issued a permit validating the property development they have done.
[2] The property in issue is approximately 22.8 acres in size. It is located on the east coast of Denman Island and bisected by Swan Road. The coastline of the property is a bluff approximately 25 meters high and 23-31 meters wide, set back from the ocean by a beach of about 15 meters. The land is included in the Agricultural Land Reserve. The Stonemans currently live in a house they have constructed on the property. Other construction includes outbuildings and a stairway running down the bluff to the beach.
[3] Demand Island is an island in the “local trust” area as defined by the Islands Trust Act. It is constituted as a corporation under the Islands Trust Act with authority to adopt an Official Community Plan for Denman Island including the designation of development permit areas.
[4] The Local Government Act provisions relevant to these proceedings state:
919.1 (1) An official community plan may designate development permit areas for one or more of the following purposes: (a) protection of the natural environment, its ecosystems and biological diversity; (b) protection of development from hazardous conditions; ... 920 (1) If an official community plan designates areas under section 919.1 (1), the following prohibitions apply unless an exemption under section 919.1 (4) applies or the owner first obtains a development permit under this section: Stoneman v. Denman Island Local Trust Committee Page 4
(a) land within the area must not be subdivided; (b) construction of, addition to or alteration of a building or other structure must not be started; ... (d) land within an area designated under section 919.1 (1) (a) or (b) must not be altered; ... (2) ... a local government may, by resolution, issue a development permit that ... (b) includes requirements and conditions or sets standards under subsections (7) to (10.2), and (7.1) For land designated under section 919.1 (1) (b), a development permit may do one or more of the following: (a) specify areas of land that may be subject to flooding, mud flows, torrents of debris, erosion, land slip, rock falls, subsidence, tsunami, avalanche or wildfire, or to another hazard if this other hazard is specified under section 919.1 (1) (b), as areas that must remain free of development, except in accordance with any conditions contained in the permit; ... (11) Before issuing a development permit under this section, a local government may require the applicant to provide, at the applicant's expense, a report, certified by a professional engineer with experience relevant to the applicable matter, to assist the local government in determining what conditions or requirements under subsection (7.1) it will impose in the permit. ... 928 ... (2) Land must be developed strictly in accordance with the permit or permits issued.
[5] Denman Island Local Trust Committee Bylaw No. 4 created an Official Community Plan for Denman Island in 1978. In April of 1984, that Official Community Plan was amended by Bylaw No. 19 which included the following wording:
By adding a new Policy No. 3 to the policies in the Special Area Policies Section, Coastal Area, is as follows: 3. Komas Bluff is being eroded by the action of waves and tides as well as landslides activated by groundwater, geological or slope stability conditions. This is a natural process which is hastened by the stripping of vegetation from the bluffs, by introducing water into the soil, modifying slope geometry, and by the placement of fill. Stoneman v. Denman Island Local Trust Committee Page 5
Erosion is usually a slow and uneventful process when the area is left in a natural state. If the area is developed in a way that drastically changes vegetative cover, the groundwater, or the bluff slope, then landslide erosion could increase rapidly. In the absence of a detailed geological examination of the Komas Bluffs area, development of land should be minimized.
[6] In September of 1991, the Denman Island Local Trust Committee adopted Bylaw 60 which included the Komas Bluff area of the Island in a development permit area under “Category “b” (Protection of development from hazardous conditions) which required that, among other stipulations “no permanent structures shall be permitted in the area subject to sloughing or damage from sloughing”.
[7] Denman Island Local Trust Committee Bylaw No. 111 adopted May 1999 amended the Komas Bluff Development Permit area provision to read as follows:
1. Denman Island Official Community Plan No. 60, cited as "Denman Island Official Community Plan No. 60, 1991", is amended as follows: A) Schedule "A" is amended by deleting the Komas Bluff Development Permit Area in Section IV(l)(1)(d)(1) in its entirety and replacing it with the following: "Development Permit Area No. 1: Komas Bluff Category: The area indicated on Schedule "E" as Development Permit Area No 1: Komas Bluff is designated a development permit area according to Section 879(1 )(b) of the Municipal Act for the protection of development from hazardous conditions. Area: Development Permit Area No. 1: Komas Bluff shown on Schedule "E" Justification: In 1980 the Resource Analysis Branch of the Ministry of Environment conducted a reconnaissance study and identified bank instability in the area referred to as the Komas Bluff. Sloughing was confirmed by detailed site inspection. The majority of the area was classified as active or inactive, with relatively little classified as stable. Past logging and road construction have already demonstrated that this area is prone Stoneman v. Denman Island Local Trust Committee Page 6
to landslides and other forms of erosion. The area has subdivision potential. Objectives: The objectives of this development permit area are as follows: 1. To protect areas of unstable terrain from increased risk of slope failure and/or erosion due to cutting or removal of trees and other development 2. To protect ground water and surface water from degradation due to development
[8] Bylaw No. 111 was enacted by the Local Trust Committee as part of a package of Bylaws numbers 110-114 inclusive amending the Official Community Plan.
[9] In June of 1997, a company named 4064 Investments Ltd. bought 4,256 acres of land on Denman Island for $18 million and began to harvest timber at a considerable higher cut rate than had previously been the case. The May 1999 amendments to the Denman Island Bylaws included Bylaw 113 entitled “Forest Cover Development Permit Area” as a result of which parts of 4064 Investments Ltd land became subject to new development permit requirements, particularly forest cover and a limitation on removal of trees. The Denman Island Local Trust Committee began an action against 4064 Investments Ltd. and in June 1999 sought an injunction to restrain the removal of trees without a permit in four development permit areas. In a judgment dated November 7, 2000 (2000 BCSC 1618), Bauman J. as he then was, declared the entire package of Bylaws to be illegal. He held that the amending Bylaws, particularly Bylaw 113 amounted to a detailed regulatory scheme which purported to fill “the forest practices regulatory gap by extending regulations to private forest lands not otherwise touched by the provincial scheme” and was not within the legislative competence of the Islands Trust under the Local Government Act.
[10] In his Reasons, Bauman J. stated:
[127] I will not refer to the other bylaws in any detail. Stoneman v. Denman Island Local Trust Committee Page 7
[128] There is no doubt that they take a more focused approach to the regulation of logging in specific areas like streams and wetlands (Bylaw 112) and steep slopes (Bylaw 111). [129] And there is no doubt that aspects of these more focused bylaws are within the letter and spirit of the powers granted under s. 879 of the Act and, in particular, under s-ss.(1)(a) and (b). [130] However, it is clear that the Amending Bylaws are an integrated package and their primary thrust, their pith and substance, is the regulation of forest practices on private lands. ...
[11] The matter was taken to the Court of Appeal where Saunders J.A. in delivering the Reasons of the majority in the B.C. Court of Appeal stated at paras. 86-89:
[86] The Local Trust Committee contends that even in the event this Court finds that bylaw 113 is beyond the scope of its powers, the other bylaws in the package should not be declared invalid. I agree. [87] Bylaws 110 to 114 were each passed separately, and in the manner of their enactment the Local Trust Committee has shown an intention to deal separately with the subject matter. This separation of subject matter is, in my respectful view, confirmed on a reading of the bylaws. Bylaws 110 and 114 deal with definitions and procedures respectively, and to the extent that any provisions are interrelated to and dependent upon bylaw 113 for substance, they can be severed. Bylaws 111 and 112 have substance, but independent of bylaw 113. [88] Further, bylaws 111 and 112, as observed by the chambers judge, are more narrow in focus than bylaw 113. Bylaw 111 purports to protect land from erosion in a fashion that may bring the bylaw within s. 923 of the Local Government Act. Bylaw 112 purports to protect riparian and wetland areas in a fashion that may fit within the ambit of s. 920(7) as I have described it. Given the fashion in which the issues developed in the Supreme Court, these questions were not explored in the reasons of the chambers judge. Nor were they addressed fully, or at all, on appeal. In any case, as noted by Madam Justice Rowles, the issues of vagueness and the application of the bylaws to existing tree cutting operations, have not been dealt with by the chambers judge. Those issues on bylaws 110, 111, 112 and 114 should be remitted to the trial court for determination. [89] In conclusion, I would dismiss the appeal as it concerns bylaw 113. I would set aside the order appealed declaring bylaws 110, 111, 112 and 114 invalid and remit the issue of their validity to the Supreme Court of British Columbia for fresh determination.
[12] Following the appeal decision, the Denman Island Local Trust Committee and 4064 Investments entered into a consent order dismissing the challenge to Bylaws 110, 111, 112 and 114. Stoneman v. Denman Island Local Trust Committee Page 8
[13] In early 2000, the then owner of the land in question obtained a development permit to harvest trees and clear part for a Christmas tree farm. The permit included the following conditions:
No Harvesting of trees and/or clearing or alteration of land is permitted within 50 metres of the top edge of the bluff situated on the eastern side of the subject property. Harvesting of trees and/or clearing or alteration of land lying 50 metres or more from the top edge of the bluff … is permitted only if the 50-metre setback line mentioned above has first been located and clearly identified on site by the applicant, to the satisfaction of the Denman Island Local Trust Committee.
[14] The next owner had a surveyor flag the 50-meter buffer zone and cleared to the inland side leaving the 50-meter zone extending to the bluff under forest cover.
[15] The land was purchased by Mr. Dean Ellis in February 2002. In June 2002, Mr. Ellis was granted a Development Permit to adjust lot boundary lines by way of subdivision. The geotechnical report which accompanied the application recommended the maintenance of the buffer zone, but suggested it might be possible to improve the view on the lots by removing some trees. Mr. Ellis made inquiries to the Island Trust and was advised he needed a permit before any trees were cut. By the fall of 2002, the Trust was receiving complaints that trees were being cut in the buffer zone. It became clear that Mr. Ellis was cutting trees and clearing land without a permit in the 50-meter zone set aside to protect the bluff.
[16] The Denman Island Local Trust Committee commenced court action against Mr. Ellis seeking a declaration he had violated the Bylaw, an injunction to prevent further violations and an order compelling Mr. Ellis to remediate the damage he had caused. On the 8th of July 2004, the Stonemans purchased their portion of the property from Mr. Ellis while the litigation was ongoing. The Stonemans were added as parties to the Trust’s action against Mr. Ellis and Daniel Stoneman filed a defence on behalf of himself and his wife. The case proceed to trial before Groberman J, as he then was, January 24-28, and February 1, 2005, at which time Mr. Ellis was represented by counsel and Mr. Stoneman represented himself and Debra Stoneman. In a decision dated August 31, 2005, Groberman J. made a declaration Stoneman v. Denman Island Local Trust Committee Page 9 that Mr. Ellis “unlawfully contravened section 920(1)(d) of the Local Government Act by altering land within the Komas Bluff PDA without a development permit”, granted an injunction against further breach, and ordered there to be a mandatory injunction for remediation of the land upon terms to be set at a subsequent hearing.
[17] At para. 32 of his Reasons, Groberman J. concluded:
I am satisfied that the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from the facts is that there has been a deliberate and systematic effort on the part of Mr. Ellis to clear the buffer zone of tree cover. He has knowingly ignored the requirement to obtain a Development Permit before clearing the land ...
[18] In reaching his decision, Groberman J. rejected the submissions that the Bylaw was void for vagueness because it failed to adequately define the boundaries, that the Agricultural Land Commission Act rendered the Bylaw unenforceable, that the Trust had a history of rejecting applications for development permits, and that the Bylaw was unenforceable because it conflicted with the provisions of the Workers Compensation Act.
[19] At para. 65 of his Reasons, Groberman J. states:
I am not prepared to extend the injunction to persons other than Mr. Ellis. The evidence does not indicate that any other person has persistently violated the Komas Bluff DPA provisions, nor is there any reason to suspect that such violations will occur in the absence of an injunction.
Any person who read Justice Groberman’s decision could not fail to understand that his decision was that the Komas Bluff Bylaw was valid and that no person should be in violation of its provisions.
[20] The following order was entered. “Approval as to form”: by the signature of the parties including Mr. Stoneman:
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE WEDNESDAY, MR. JUSTICE GROBERMAN THE 31st DAY OF AUGUST 2005
THE APPLICATION of the Plaintiff, Denman Island Local Trust Committee coming on for hearing at Vancouver, British Columbia, on October 20, 2005 and on hearing Francesca Marzari, counsel for the Stoneman v. Denman Island Local Trust Committee Page 10
Plaintiff, Brent Lokash, counsel for the Defendant, and Daniel John Stoneman, representing himself and Debra Monica Stoneman: THIS COURT DECLARES THAT: 1. The Defendant Ellis unlawfully contravened section 920(l)(d) of the Local Government Act by altering lands legally described as Lot A Section 23 Denman Island Nanaimo District Plan VIP74719 ("Lot A") and Lot B Section 23 Denman Island Nanaimo District Plan VIP74719 ("Lot B") (together the "Lands") within Development Permit Area No. 1: Komas Bluff without a development permit authorizing such alteration; and THIS COURT ORDERS: 2. A permanent injunction restraining the Defendant Ellis from cutting trees on, clearing, developing, excavating or otherwise altering those portions of the Land that are within fifty metres of the top edge of the Komas Bluff or on the face of the Komas Bluff (the “Buffer”), or causing any of those activities to be carried out, on, or in the Buffer, without first obtaining a development permit authorizing such activities, or in accordance with a further order of this Court; 3. A mandatory injunction requiring the Defendant Ellis to undertake rehabilitative measures on the Lands to restore the Komas Bluffs on the Lands to a level of stability sufficient to protect existing and future development on and around the Lands from accelerated slope failure, erosion or other hazardous conditions related to the Defendant Ellis' breach of s 920(1)(d) of the Local Government Act, such measures to be specified by further order of this Court, either upon application of the Parties, or as consented to by the Parties; 4. The Defendants Daniel and Debra Stoneman shall allow the Defendant Ellis access to Lot A in order to investigate and undertake rehabilitative measures on Lot A, pursuant to paragraph 3; and 5. The Parties may make further application to the court with respect to the terms of the mandatory injunction and the issue of costs.
[21] By order dated October 20, 2005, special costs were awarded against Mr. Ellis with respect to the Bylaw violation.
[22] The B.C. Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from the order in Reasons dated November 6, 2007 (2007 BCCA 536). The Stonemans did not participate in the appeal. Stoneman v. Denman Island Local Trust Committee Page 11
[23] On the 25th of August 2006, the Stonemans submitted an application for a development permit and siting and use permit to build a house and other buildings on the property. A revised site plan and further information from the Stonemans was submitted September 12, 2006.
[24] At their meeting on October 17, 2006, the Trust Committee passed a resolution authorizing issuance of a development permit to the Stonemans upon receipt of specified information which resulted in a letter of October 24, 2005 which stated:
Re: Lot A, Section 23, Denman Island, Nanaimo District, Plan VIP74719 At their October 17, 2006 regular business meeting, the Denman Island Local Trust Committee passed the following resolution with respect to the referenced application: It was MOVED and SECONDED that the Denman Island Local Trust Committee instructs Staff to issue DE-DP-2006.2 contingent on receipt of: written proof that the Court Order incorporating the recommendations of the April 4, 2006 Thurber Engineering report have been entered by the Court; a letter signed by Madrone Environmental Services Ltd stating that the planting recommended for the Property in the October 2003 Madrone Report has been completed; a drainage plan affixed with the Seal of the EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. showing all hard surfaces including walkways, driveways and patios; and a site plan affixed with the Seal of EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. showing all developed areas including walkways, driveways, patios and septic tank and clearly states that the agricultural building is "farm use − no principal residential or accessory residential uses". On receipt of the above information, Staff will issue the Permit as per the Denman Island Local Trust Committee instructions. The Siting and Use Permit application will be issued simultaneously. The drainage plan and the site plan may be combined onto a single plan, provided the siting and drainage information is clearly presented. Stoneman v. Denman Island Local Trust Committee Page 12
A copy of the DRAFT permit is attached for your information. This permit is not official until signed by the Deputy Secretary and is included here for your information only.
[25] The Stonemans however did not comply with the requests but rather started construction without a permit in October of 2006. Legal counsel for the Trust Committee wrote on November 6, 2006 to advise the Stonemans they were in breach of the Bylaw. In March 2007, the Stonemans submitted a further engineering report prepared by EBA. On June 7, 2007, legal counsel for the Trust wrote to advise the Stonemans that staff would recommend issuance of a development permit for the residence and related structures upon provision of the information and reports recommended in the March 2007 EBA report they had submitted. No permit was obtained and construction of the house and buildings proceeded without a permit.
[26] In addition to construction of a house and outbuildings without the permit required by the Bylaw, in 2010 the Stonemans began construction of stairs down the face of the bluff itself leading from their house to the beach.
[27] Mr. Stoneman in his affidavit sworn August 24, 2012 deposes:
7. It is my belief that since our property lies outside the boundaries of the hazard area Holden identified, is stable and not of quadra sands composition, there can be no requirement binding on us to obtain a development permit for its farm use or the issuance of Siting and Use permit. 9. Even if Bylaw 111 boundaries were valid on our property, we say they are only valid to 50 meters. Since our home and buildings lie outside the 50 meters, it is our belief we never required a development permit for the issuance of a Siting and Use permit.
[28] The position of the Denman Island Local Trust Committee is that the validity of Bylaw 111 establishing the Komas Bluff Permit Area and of its boundaries has already been decided by Justice Groberman in the Ellis case to which the Stonemans were a party. In legal terms, the Trust argues those issues are res judicata and cannot be raised again by the Stonemans. The Stonemans’ position is that no remedy was claimed against them in the Ellis case and that therefore it Stoneman v. Denman Island Local Trust Committee Page 13 would be unfair to treat them as if they had put forward their whole case when there was no need to do so. The Stonemans did however file a defence in the Ellis case. In that defence, it was alleged that Bylaw 111 was invalid and did not apply to their property because the land was subject to the Agricultural Land Commission Act, the Trust did not have the authority to regulate farming, that Bylaw 111 was invalid because it was directed to protection of land rather than development, and that the boundaries of Bylaw 111 were invalid because they were established for a forestry purpose found invalid in the 4064 Investments case.
[29] Justice Groberman’s decision specifically dismissed submissions that:
(i) the Komas Bluff DPA as amended by Bylaw 111 was not introduced for a purpose authorized by s. 919.1(b) of the Local Government Act; (ii) the designated boundaries of the Komas Bluff DPA as amended by Bylaw 111 were invalid; (iii) the Komas Bluff DPA as amended by Bylaw 111 did not comply with the agricultural land use regime in B.C.; and (iv) no additional development permits were required to clear trees or to alter land on the property within the Komas Bluff DPA or 50 meters Buffer.
[30] The Stonemans bought the property intending to build a home on it and live there. When they appeared before Groberman J. they were well aware of this. They argued that Bylaw 111 was invalid and did not apply to their property and they lost that argument. They are now attempting to re-argue the issues having chosen to build without a permit in spite of a court order they ought to have understood very clearly indicated that they were not free to do so.
[31] In the case of Petrelli v. Lindell Beach Holiday Resort Ltd., 2011 BCCA 367 at para. 81, the B.C. Court of Appeal states:
Cause of action estoppel is focused primarily on fairness to litigants. The idea behind it is that a party should not be “twice vexed” with litigation, and should be entitled to deal with the entirety of the opposite party’s case within a single piece of litigation. Issue estoppel, on the other hand, as discussed in Toronto v. C.U.P.E., is primarily concerned with the integrity of the judicial Stoneman v. Denman Island Local Trust Committee Page 14
system – the efficiency of the trial process and the authority and credibility of judicial findings.
[32] Analyzing this case from either perspective, the Stonemans ought not to be heard to re-litigate the decided issues. They were present, they argued the issues and they lost. They knew then that the ruling would apply to them and their property. Having had their day in court on those issues, they cannot re-argue the matter now. Furthermore, their conduct challenges the integrity and credibility of the judicial findings in the Ellis case; having lost their argument and being fully apprised of the court’s decision and reasons, they close to proceed in direct violation of the Bylaw and any reasonable interpretation of the court’s decision, attempting to justify that in the manner set forth in Mr. Stoneman’s affidavit referred to earlier.
[33] There is of course another aspect to this case and that is that as the evidence attacking the Bylaw is in essence the same as before, the result would very likely have to be the same even if the case were to be re-argued.
[34] In the written submission submitted by the counsel at the hearing, the Stonemans’ position in their petition for judicial review is stated as follows:
1. The petitioners (the “Stonemans”) apply for an order: a) Declaring that Denman Island Official Community Plan Bylaw no. 60, 1991, Amendment Bylaw No. 2, 1998 ("Bylaw 111"), and subsequent amendments, are invalid and of no force and effect, or alternatively, the said Bylaw is invalid and of no force and effect; b) Declaring that no development permit is needed for the development proposals set out in the Stonemans' development permit applications, DE-DP-2005.2, and DE-DP-2006.2. c) In the alternative, if Bylaw 111 is valid, an order: i) declaring that the boundaries of the Development Permit Area set out in Schedule '"E", Development Permit Area #1 Komas Bluff, and subsequent amendments, (the "DPA Boundaries") are invalid and are of no force and effect; ii) in the nature of mandamus, compelling the Denman Island Local Trust Committee (the "DILTC") to amend the DBA Boundaries based on the authorized objective conferred on it by s. 919.1(b) of the Local Government Act; Stoneman v. Denman Island Local Trust Committee Page 15
iii) Declaring that no development permit is needed for the development proposals set out in the Stonemans' development permit applications, DE-DP-2005.2, and DE-DP-2006.2; iv) in the alternative, in the nature of mandamus, compelling the DILTC to issue development permits pursuant to application DE-DP-2005.2 and DE-DP-2006.2. d) Requiring the DILTC to pay the Stonemans' costs of this proceeding. e) Any other order that this honourable court may deem appropriate.
[35] The claims that Bylaw 111 is invalid, that the bylaws boundaries are invalid, and that no permit is needed for development are all matters that have been heard and decided. I find them to be res judicata, and that they cannot now be argued further by the Stonemans.
[36] The petitioner claims in the alternative, an order of mandamus compelling the Denman Island Local Trust Committee to issue a development permit validating the present development on the property without further requirements. In support of their position it is argued that in dealing with the permit, the Trust Committee based its decisions on improper considerations. Having reviewed the evidence, I find no merit in that submission.
[37] I dismiss the petition for judicial review and order as follows:
1. It is declared that Daniel John Stoneman and Debra Monica Stoneman have altered land through clearing and excavation, and have constructed buildings and structures, including a path, stairs, ramp, drainage works, residence and accessory buildings on property located at 2600 Swan Road, Denman Island with a legal description of Lot A, Section 23, Denman Island, Nanaimo District, Plan VIP74719 in the Development Permit Area No. 1: Komas Bluff, without a development permit contrary to s. 920(1)(b) and (d), of the Local Government Act; 2. Daniel John Stoneman and Debra Monica Stoneman shall not make, or permit further alternation to the land within the Komas Bluff Development Permit Area, without a valid development permit for each work as is undertaken, except as may be specifically ordered by the Court. Stoneman v. Denman Island Local Trust Committee Page 16
3. Daniel John Stoneman and Debra Monica Stoneman, at their own expense, shall undertake such rehabilitation measures on the property, including the removal of such structures for which they are unable to obtain a permit, as are ordered by a Judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia upon further application, or as agreed to by the parties by filing a consent order with this Court. 4. Daniel John Stoneman and Debra Monica Stoneman shall provide such access to their property as is required to the Denman Island Local Trust Committees’ employees, agents, or experts in order to properly assess the state of the property and enable and ensure compliance with this order.
[38] This order does not determine what requirements or conditions are appropriate in the permit process, nor does it decide what specific remediation or rehabilitation is required. These are matters to be worked out between the parties upon such expert advice as is obtained or determined by further order of a Judge of this Court if necessary.
[39] The Denman Island Local Trust Committee shall have costs to and including the entry of this judgment on both proceedings as special costs in the circumstances as earlier described.
“V.R. Curtis J.”
200-1627 Fort Street, Victoria BC V8R 1H8 Telephone (250) 405-5151 Fax (250) 405-5155
Toll Free via Enquiry BC in Vancouver 604.660.2421. Elsewhere in BC 1.800.663.7867 Email [email protected] Web www.islandstrust.bc.ca
January 30, 2013 File No.: 0420-20
Via Email: [email protected]
Honourable Rich Coleman Minister of Energy, Mines and Natural Gas PO BOX 9060 STN PROV GOVT Victoria BC V8W 9E3
Dear Minister Coleman:
Re: Mining in the Trust Area
The Islands Trust Council holds that there should be no extraction of peat, metals, minerals, coal or petroleum resources in the Trust Area. This has been the position of Council for twenty years and is enshrined in the Islands Trust Policy Statement, a statutory document founded in extensive community consultation and approved in 1994 by the then-Minister of Municipal Affairs.
In the past few months, approximately twenty mineral claims have encompassed 4,200 acres of private property on North and South Pender Islands. People living on small residential lots and active farms have contacted the Islands Trust asking for help, as the activity of two free miners on the Penders have left them feeling threatened and vulnerable. Members elected to the North Pender Island Local Trust Committee have identified, with Ministry staff and with their MLA Murray Coell, that regulations could be created under the Mineral Tenure Act that reserves land in the Trust Area from the staking of mineral claims and restricts the exercise of free miner’s rights under existing claims.
The object of the Islands Trust is to preserve and protect the Trust Area and its unique amenities and environment for the benefit of the residents of the Trust Area and of British Columbia generally, and the Islands Trust Act invites the Islands Trust Council to recommend policies to the Province that could achieve this goal.
It is in this context that I respectfully request that the Ministry of Energy and Mines consider regulations that would reserve the Islands Trust Area from the staking of mining claims and exploration under the Mineral Tenure Act, as recommended by the North Pender Island Local Trust Committee as a way to achieve the intent of the Islands Trust Policy Statement that there be no extraction of minerals in the Islands Trust Area. Please advise if you require the Islands Trust to go through the steps of formally applying for a no-registration reserve through the completion of the ministry Request for Reserve form.
…/2
Bowen Denman Hornby Gabriola Galiano Gambier Lasqueti Mayne North Pender Salt Spring Saturna South Pender Thetis
Honourable Rich Coleman January 30, 2013 Page 2
In 2007, Ministry of Energy and Mines staff initiated such mineral and coal reserves over much of Greater Victoria, the Saanich Peninsula and Metro Vancouver, resulting in their protection through BC Regulation 119/2008 (attached). We hope that you and your staff can show similar leadership for the ecologically sensitive islands in the Islands Trust Area.
Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to your reply.
Sincerely,
Sheila Malcolmson Chair, Islands Trust Council
Attachment: BC Regulation 119/2008 cc: Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development Bowen Island Municipality Trust Area MLAs: Ron Cantelon, Parksville – Qualicum Murray Coell, Saanich North and the Islands Joan McIntyre, West Vancouver – Sea to Sky Don McRae, Comox Valley Doug Routley, Nanaimo – North Cowichan Nicholas Simons, Powell River – Sunshine Coast Islands Trust Council Trust Fund Board Islands Trust website
B.C. Reg. 116/2008 THE BRITISH COLUMBIA GAZETTE--PART II June 17,2008
-Section 21 (2) (a)]. B.C. Reg. 116/2008, deposited June 4, 2008, pursuant to the RAILWAY SAFETYACT Ministerial Order M140/2008, dated June 4, 2008. B.C. Reg. 116/2008, Ministerial Order M140/2008 ,j INOPERATIVE ,! B.C. Reg. 117/2008, deposited June 5, 2008, pursuant to the MINERAL TENURE ACT [Section 22] and the COAL ACT [Section 21]. Regulation of the Chief Gold Commissioner, dated June 4, 2008. I, Bill Phelan, Chief Gold Commissioner, Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, order that the Mineral and Coal Land Reserve Regulation, 2007, B.C. Reg. 280/2007, is amended by adding the following sites to the Table:
COLUMN 1 COLUMN 2 Site Number and Site Name Mining Division and Land District 1002902 [ Atlin -- Taku Ruby Creek North [ Atlin Mining District, Cassiar Land District I I
--W. PHELAN, Chief Gold Commissionel; Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petlvleum Resources.
B.C. Reg. 118/2008, deposited June 5, 2008, pursuant to the MINERAL TENURE ACT [Section 22] and the COAL ACT [Section 21]. Regulation of the Chief Gold Commissioner, dated June 4, 2008. I, Bill Phelan, Chief Gold Commissioner, Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, order that the Mineral and Coal Land Reserve Regulation, 2007, B.C. Reg. 280/2007, is amended by adding the following site to the Table:
COLUMN 1 COLUMN 2 Site Number and Site Name Mining Division and Land District 1002882 J Lower Mainland Highway 1 Nanaimo and Vancouver Mining Divisions 1 New Westminster Land District
--W. PHELAN, Chief Gold Commissionel; Ministly of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.
B.C. Reg, 119/2008, deposited June 5, 2008, pursuant to the MINERAL TENURE ACT [Section 22] and the COAL ACT [Section 21]. Regulation of the Chief Gold Commissioner, dated June 4, 2008. t I, Bill Phelan, Chief Gold Commissioner, Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, order h that the Mineral and Coal Land Reserve Regulation, 2007, B.C. Reg. 280/2007, is amended by adding the following sites to the Table:
COLUMN 1 COLUMN 2 Site Number and Site Name Mining Division and Land District 1002443 Greater Victoria and Victoria Mining Division Saanich Peninsula Cowichan, Esquimalt, Goldstream, Highland, Lake, Metchosin, North Saanich, South Saanich, Victoria Land Districts 1002442 Greater Vancouver Regional New Westminster and Vancouver Mining Divisions District New Westminster Land District
--W. PHELAN, Chief Gold Commissionel; Ministiy of Energy, Mines and Petlvleum Resources.
433 I II
200-1627 Fort Street, Victoria BC V8R 1H8 Telephone (250) 405-5151 Fax (250) 405-5155
Toll Free via Enquiry BC in Vancouver 604.660.2421. Elsewhere in BC 1.800.663.7867 Email [email protected] Web www.islandstrust.bc.ca
February 8, 2013 File No.: 0420-20
Via Email: [email protected]
Honourable Terry Lake Minister of Environment PO BOX 9047 STN PROV GOVT Victoria BC V8W 9E2
Dear Minister Lake:
Re: Policy Intentions Paper on Land Based Spill Preparedness and Response
As Chair of the Islands Trust Council, I’m writing to express support for the potential improvements to the provincial spill preparedness and response regime that are outlined in the Ministry of Environment’s policy intentions paper on Land Based Spill Preparedness and Response and to encourage the Ministry of Environment to proceed with measures that will: • establish higher standards for land-based spill preparedness and response (including marine spills affecting coastal shorelines); • develop effective rules for restoration of the environment following a spill; and, • ensure effective government oversight and coordination of industry spill response.
The Islands Trust Council has been advocating to senior governments about oil spill issues since 1979 and has raised numerous concerns relating to oil spill preparedness and response. Even a small oil spill within the Islands Trust Area could have devastating impacts on the abundant biodiversity of the region and could significantly affect species already at risk, as well harm the livability and economic well-being of local communities.
The Islands Trust Policy Statement, a statutory document founded in extensive community consultation and approved in 1994 by the then Minister of Municipal Affairs, includes a policy to encourage provincial and federal agencies to ensure safe shipment of materials hazardous to the environment.
In 2009, Trust Council’s interest in marine shipping and oil spill issues was heightened when the bulk carrier Hebei Lion grounded in Plumper Sound, between Saturna, Mayne and North and South Pender Islands. After the incident, the Manager of the Washington State Department of Ecology’s Spill Prevention, Preparedness and Response Program stated that “damage to fuel tanks on a cargo ship that size could have oiled the islands on both sides of the border” and that “a major spill also could have forced a closure to vessel traffic.” In the following 16 months, Council’s concern was heightened when two more bulk carriers dragged anchors in Plumper Sound.
In June 2010, the Islands Trust Council hosted a marine shipping safety information session with shipping industry panelists, where we learned that marine conditions in the Salish Sea make oil spill response particularly challenging and that if a major spill occurred, responders would be unlikely to contain or recover more than 10%-15% of the spilled oil. In April 2012, an Islands Trust hosted workshop at the Association of Vancouver Island Coastal Communities convention revealed deep concern about the lack of provincial capacity to advise and prepare local governments for their roles in oil spill response. ../2
Bowen Denman Hornby Gabriola Galiano Gambier Lasqueti Mayne North Pender Salt Spring Saturna South Pender Thetis
Honourable Terry Lake February 8, 2013 Page 2
In September 2012 the Islands Trust asked that the Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM) “encourage the Province to secure on-going revenue from industry for a sustained increase in provincial spill prevention, preparedness, mitigation and response resources and for a permanent BC spill response fund”; this was reflected in the UBCM’s 2012 convention endorsement of Resolution B122, Shipping of Dangerous Goods Liabilities. For the convention, we gathered information for the 2011-12 fiscal year which is summarized below in chart form and illustrates our concern about British Columbia’s lack of spill-response resources and industry funding in relation to its neighbours.
It is our hope that by acting on the ideas and plans laid out in the intentions paper, the Province of British Columbia will make long-overdue progress towards: • increasing the amount of provincial staff and resources that are dedicated to spill prevention, preparedness and response; • establishing a BC spill response fund; • increasing the standards for spill preparedness and response; • ensuring effective government oversight and coordination of industry spill preparedness; • establishing a natural resource damage assessment process; • preparing local governments to assist the provincial and federal governments in managing major spill responses; and, • supporting development of geographic response plans that include protection strategies for containing oil and diverting it away from priority areas.
…/3
Honourable Terry Lake February 8, 2013 Page 3
The Islands Trust’s support for this long-overdue initiative to improve the BC spill prevention and response regime should in no way be construed as lessening the Islands Trust Council’s opposition to oil pipeline projects that lead to the expansion of oil export by barge and tanker from Canada’s west coast.
Thank you for considering this submission to your consultation process.
Sincerely,
Sheila Malcolmson Chair, Islands Trust Council cc: Bowen Island Municipal Council Trust Area MLAs: Ron Cantelon, Parksville – Qualicum Murray Coell, Saanich North and the Islands Joan McIntyre, West Vancouver – Sea to Sky Don McRae, Comox Valley Doug Routley, Nanaimo – North Cowichan Nicholas Simons, Powell River – Sunshine Coast San Juan County Council AVICC UBCM Cindy Bertram, contractor to Ministry of Environment consultation process Islands Trust Council Islands Trust website
Member Release February 12, 2013
TO: Boards and Councils Chief Administrative Officers FROM: UBCM Secretariat RE: BROWNFIELD RENEWAL: UPDATE & SURVEY
UBCM members are asked to provide feedback to the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations on their Brownfield Renewal initiative.
Attached is an update on the initiative, as well as 4 short survey questions that will help the Province determine the gaps and opportunities for brownfield redevelopment at the local government level.
Please complete the survey by March 4, 2013 and send your responses via email to Karen McRae at [email protected] or by fax to 250-356-6791.
The BC Brownfield Renewal Strategy was created in 2008 to address brownfield sites on both private and Crown land. The strategy includes three (3) key components: funding, policy and legislation, and education. The initiative has: • provided approximately $5.3 million in funding for early environmental investigation activities to local governments and private property owners for 65 brownfield properties in communities across BC. • reviewed and streamlined the Provincial contaminated sites (brownfields) legislation overseen by the Ministry of Environment. • offered training and educational opportunities across the province.
More information on the Strategy is available in the attached document.
www.ubcm.ca Casey Grundy
From: Union of BC Municipalities [[email protected]] Sent: January-30-13 3:50 PM To: Bowen Island Municipality Subject: The Compass: UBCM Executive Meet; Federal Support for C2C; and Packaging & Printed Paper Update
Having trouble viewing this email? Click here
Forward this Email
News and information from the Union of BC Municipalities January 30, 2013
Meetings with Four Ministers Highlight UBCM Executive Meeting
The UBCM Executive took their January board meeting on the road to Victoria last week. Among the many highlights from the sessions were meetings with Ministers Bennett, Lake, Chong, and Cadieux. Read More ubcm.ca twitter.com/ubcm Federal Support for C2C Funding in Question
The future of the UBCM's successful and popular Community-to-Community (C2C) Quick Links Forum program is in doubt as a result of changes proposed by the federal funding partner. Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada recently signalled 2012 UBCM Convention that they may no longer be able to fund C2C within the current program design. Minutes Read More Events Packaging and Printed Paper Update Electoral Area Directors' Local governments involved in post-collection packaging and printed paper Meeting services are advised that Multi-Material British Columbia (MMBC) has issued a Feb. 19 - 20, 2013 Request for Expressions of Interest (REOI) for Post-Collection Services. Richmond, BC
As well, MMBC has released a draft, updated list of the packaging and printed LGLA Forum - Leading paper that it proposes to collect under the stewardship plan in May 2014. Local Through Relationships governments should note that glass is proposed for collection at depots only. Feb. 20 - 22, 2013 Read More RD CEO/CAO Forum March 19 - 20, 2013 Online Resolutions Database Now Current to Victoria, BC 2012
The online database of UBCM resolutions has been updated to include all resolutions from 1984 to 2012. The database also includes resolution responses received from the provincial or federal governments, or other organizations, from 1984 to 2011. Responses to the 2012 resolutions will be added to the database later in 2013.
Freely available on the UBCM website for the reference of local government staff,
1 elected officials, and the general public, the searchable online database of UBCM resolutions is a detailed resource that provides the current policy position of the UBCM membership, supported by a clear record of past policy decisions and the evolution of UBCM policy directions over time.
© Copyright Union of British Columbia Municipalities 2012 Forward this email
This email was sent to [email protected] by [email protected] | Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy. Union of BC Municipalities | 60 - 10551 Shellbridge Way | Richmond | BC | V6X 2W9 | Canada
2 Casey Grundy
From: Union of BC Municipalities [[email protected]] Sent: February-13-13 3:16 PM To: Bowen Island Municipality Subject: The Compass: Elections Legislation, Throne Speech, RFP for 2014 Convention
Categories: Red Category
Having trouble viewing this email? Click here
Forward this Email
News and information from the Union of BC Municipalities February 13, 2013
Minister Bennett Provides Update on Elections Legislation
The UBCM Executive met with Minister Bill Bennett on January 23rd to discuss the status of local government elections legislation, the BC Ferries' Horseshoe Bay terminal and receive the provincial responses to the resolutions endorsed by the ubcm.ca 2012 UBCM Convention. Read More twitter.com/ubcm
Throne Speech Highlights Potential of LNG Events
Electoral Area Directors' The Honourable Judith Guichon, B.C.'s Lieutenant-Governor, delivered the Meeting government's priorities for the last legislative session before May's provincial Feb. 19 - 20, 2013 election yesterday. The speech focused on the potential benefits of development Richmond, BC of the liquid natural gas industry in British Columbia, and the creation of a British Columbia Prosperity Fund. The fund is projected to begin collecting royalties from LGLA Forum - Leading liquid natural gas industries in 2017. Read More Through Relationships Richmond, BC UBCM Issues RFP to Host 2014 Convention Feb. 20 - 22, 2013
UBCM is issuing a 2014 Host Community Request for Proposals for September 22- RD CEO/CAO Forum 26, 2014. Read More March 19 - 20, 2013 Victoria, BC Triennial UBCM Member Survey Now Open
Take the UBCM Member Survey! Responses welcome prior to Monday, March 4, 2013.
Every three years, in the year following a local government election, UBCM surveys its members about UBCM's overall performance, and how well the organization is achieving its values, vision and purpose. In addition, UBCM uses the survey to seek feedback on the services we deliver, such as our website or weekly email newsletter. Read More
1
© Copyright Union of British Columbia Municipalities 2013 Forward this email
This email was sent to [email protected] by [email protected] | Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy. Union of BC Municipalities | 60 - 10551 Shellbridge Way | Richmond | BC | V6X 2W9 | Canada
2
Executive Report - JANUARY 2013 Meeting in Review The LMLGA Executive met at the UBCM office in Other agenda items included an update from Flood Richmond for the January meeting. This location Committee Chair Jason Lum on upcoming meeting change from our usual spot at Metro gave the dates, and a discussion regarding communications Executive an opportunity to speak with UBCM received, including a letter from the Auditor General. Executive Director Gary MacIsaac and to tour the office and meet staff. The following motions were adopted: • That the minutes for the December 5, 2012 meeting The January meeting was also be approved. the first for Fraser Valley Regional • That the Call for Nominations document be approved District representative, Director for distribution. Bill Dickey. Director Dickey joins the • That the Call for Resolutions document be approved Executive as the FVRD’s appointee for distribution. for the next year. We welcome him • That, in response to her request, the Auditor General and look forward to his participation. be invited to attend the February (or future) meeting of the Executive. • That the LMLGA luncheon at UBCM Convention Leaving us is Director Dennis budget and actuals be added as a separate line item Adamson, who previously to future LMLGA budgets. represented the FVRD on the • That LMLGA provide space for the Select Committee Executive. We thank Director on Local Government Finance on the Conference Adamson for his years of dedication agenda. and look forward to seeing him at • That staff research options for handling registration future LMLGA events! monies, to ensure best practices, and bring back a report to the Executive on the subject. The January agenda included regular reports from President Barbara Steele and staff. In addition, the Executive heard from the Communications and Convention Sub-Committees, both of which are working on furthering the vision of the Association. Annual Conference They have met with representatives from IBM and Conference registration is now open! To register, SFU and we expect to broaden these relationships to check out www.lmlga.ca under “Events”. If you missed include future joint endeavours. previous e-mail broadcasts, you can also download copies of the Resolutions advisory and Nominations The January meeting is traditionally a time to talk guide on the Events page. budget and finances. In an effort to continually exhibit best practices, staff provided suggestions to Do you know someone interested in sponsoring or improve our reporting systems and will bring forward hosting a tradeshow booth? This information can also recommendations and a draft budget in February. be found on our website.
www.LMLGA.ca