Regular Meeting of the Council of the District of Monday, October 6, 2014 at 7:00 p.m.

(Please note that all proceedings are recorded)

AGENDA PAGE NO.

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. PUBLIC HEARINGS

(a) North Saanich Zoning Bylaw No. 1255 (2011) Amendment 7 Bylaw No. 1370 (2014) Re: Kolb Island Public Hearing ad 1370, 1371, 1373.pdf

(b) North Saanich Zoning Bylaw No. 1255 (2011) Amendment Bylaw No. 1371 (2014) Re: Agri-tourism

(c) North Saanich Zoning Bylaw No. 1255 (2011) Amendment Bylaw No. 1373 (2014) Re: 8720 Ebor Terrace

3. INTRODUCTION OF LATE ITEMS

4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

5. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PERIOD Rules of Procedure: (1) Persons wishing to address Council must state their name and address for identification and also the topic involved. (2) Subjects must be on topics which are not normally dealt with by municipal staff as a matter of routine. (3) Subjects must be brief and to the point. (4) Subjects shall be address through the Chair and answers given likewise. Debates with or by individual Council members will not be allowed. (5) No commitments shall be made by the Chair in replying to a question. Matters which may require action of the Council shall be referred to a future meeting of the Council. (6) Twenty minutes will be allotted for the Public Participation Period. (7) Each speaker under this section is limited to speaking for 3 minutes unless authorized by the Chair to speak for a longer period of time. REGULAR AGENDA October 6, 2014

(8) All questions from member of the public must be directed to the Chair. Members of the public are not permitted to direct their questions or comments to members of Staff. (9) Persons speaking during Public Participation period must: (a) use respectful language; (b) not use offensive gestures or signs; and (c) adhere to the rules of procedure established under this Bylaw and to the decisions of the Chair and Council in connection with the rules and points of order.

6. ADOPTION OF MINUTES

(a) Minutes of the September 15, 2014 meeting of Council. 9 - 16 2014-09-15 Council minutes.pdf

7. PETITIONS AND DELEGATIONS

8. MAYOR'S REPORT

9. REPORTS

a) Staff Reports

i. Swimming Pool Covers 17 - 31 Report dated July 2, 2014 from the Senior Building Inspector

Staff recommendation: That the pool fencing requirement of Building and Plumbing Bylaw No. 1150 be retained as a required safety enclosure for private swimming pools. Rpt Swimming Pool Covers.pdf

ii. Proposed North Saanich Exemption from Taxation 33 - 35 Bylaw Report dated September 18, 2014 from the Manager of Financial Services Staff recommendation: That Council proceed with North Saanich Exemption from Taxation Bylaw No. 1378 (2014). Rpt Exemption from Taxation.pdf

iii. Gas Operating Agreements - New Operating Fees 37 - 69 Report dated September 29, 2014 from the Chief Administrative Officer Staff recommendation:

Page 2 of 159 REGULAR AGENDA October 6, 2014

That Council endorse the AVICC recommended Gas Operating Agreement in the format as attached to the report dated September 29, 2014 from the Chief Administrative Officer. Rpt Gas Operating Agreement.pdf Rpt Gas Model Operating Agreement.pdf

iv. Regional Farm Trust and Farmland Acquisition Fund 71 - 73 Report dated July 29, 2014 from the Planner Staff recommendation: That Council direct staff to send a letter of support to the CRD and other municipalities in favour of establishing a regional farmland trust and farmland acquisition fund. Rpt Farm Trust and Acquisition Fund.pdf

v. July - September 2014 Council Follow-Up Report 75 - 80 Staff recommendation: That the July - September 2014 Council Follow-Up Report be received. 2014 Jul to Sep - Council Follow-Up Report.pdf

vi. Report dated October 2, 2014 from the Planner regarding 81 - 99 10664/10682 McDonald Park Road Staff recommendation: That Council: 1. Approve the Development Variance Permit for 10664/10682 McDonald Park Road subject to the terms within Development Variance Permit 2014-05; 2. Approve the Development Permit for 10664/10682 McDonald Park Road subject to the terms within Development Permit 2014-10. Rpt 10664 McDonald Park.pdf

b) Council Liaison Reports

c) CRD Report

d) Committee of the Whole Report

i. Committee of the Whole September 8, 2014 101 - 103

The Committee of the Whole recommendations were ratified at the Council meeting September 8, 2014. Staff recommendation: That the minutes of the September 8, 2014 meeting of the Committee of the Whole be adopted. 2014-09-08 Committee of the Whole Minutes.pdf

Page 3 of 159 REGULAR AGENDA October 6, 2014

10. BYLAWS

(a) North Saanich Zoning Bylaw No. 1255 (2011), Amendment 105 - 106 Bylaw No. 1370 (2014) Re: Kolb Island Staff recommendation: That North Saanich Zoning Bylaw No. 1255 (2011), Amendment Bylaw No. 1370 (2014) be read a third time. 1370 Zoning Bylaw Amendment - Kolb Island.pdf

(b) North Saanich Zoning Bylaw No. 1255 (2011) Amendment 107 - 109 Bylaw No. 1371 (2014) Re: Agri-tourism Staff recommendation: That North Saanich Zoning Bylaw No. 1255 (2011) Amendment Bylaw No. 1371 (2014) be read a third time. That North Saanich Zoning Bylaw No. 1255 (2011) Amendment Bylaw No. 1371 (2014) be finally adopted. 1371 Zoning Bylaw Amendment - Agri Tourism.pdf

(c) North Saanich Zoning Bylaw No. 1255 (2011) Amendment 111 Bylaw No. 1373 (2014) Re: 8720 Ebor Terrace Staff recommendation: That North Saanich Zoning Bylaw No. 1255 (2011) Amendment Bylaw No. 1373 (2014) be read a third time. 1373 Zoning Bylaw Amendment - 8720 Ebor Terrace.pdf

(d) North Saanich Exemption from Taxation Bylaw No. 1378 113 - 114 (2014) Staff recommendation: That North Saanich Exemption from Taxation Bylaw No. 1378 (2014) be read three times. 1378 Permissive Exemptions Bylaw 2014.pdf

11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

12. MOTIONS AND NEW BUSINESS

(a) Councillor McBride requests Council's consideration of the following motion: "That Council consider adding the question regarding amalgamation to the ballot at the local government election November 15, 2014 as Sidney and have done."

13. CORRESPONDENCE

Page 4 of 159 REGULAR AGENDA October 6, 2014

(a) Correspondence received September 16, 2014 from H. Richards, 115 Chairman, Friends of Shoal Harbour Society regarding All Buffleheads Day 2014 Ltr Richards.pdf

(b) Correspondence dated September 30, 2014 from L. Griffith 117 - 119 regarding Dominion Brook Park and response dated October 2, 2014 from the Works Superintendent Ltr Griffith.pdf Ltr Staff response.pdf

14. CORRESPONDENCE FOR COUNCIL'S INFORMATION

(a) Several pieces of correspondence received after July 14 public 121 - 135 hearings regarding several bylaws IP 15 letters re Zoning and OCP changes.pdf

(b) Correspondence dated September 8, 2014 from D. Turje, 137 Registrar Youth Parliament of BC Alumni Society IP Turje.pdf

(c) Correspondence dated September 16, 2014 from G. Orr with a 139 - 150 copy of letters to the North Saanich representatives on the Victoria Airport Authority Noise Committee IP Orr.pdf

(d) Correspondence dated September 17 from C. Pedrina regarding 151 City of 's resolution at UBCM regarding Kinder Morgan IP Pedrina.pdf

(e) Correspondence dated September 18, 2014 from H. and V. 153 Edwards regarding Kinder Morgan and coal exports from Fraser Surrey Docks IP Edwards.pdf

(f) Correspondence dated September 17, 2014 from C. Tanner 155 regarding amalgamation question on the ballot IP Tanner.pdf

(g) Correspondence dated September 19, 2014 from F. Halle 157 regarding amalgamation question on the ballot IP Halle.pdf

(h) Correspondence dated September 23, 2014 from B. Ruta, 159 Auditor General for Local Government regarding the Annual Report Ltr AGLG letter.pdf

Page 5 of 159 REGULAR AGENDA October 6, 2014

15. IN CAMERA

(a) In accordance with Section 90(1) of the Community Charter, the remainder of the meeting will be held In Camera to consider one item regarding personal information about an identifiable individual who holds or is being considered for a position as an officer, employee or agent of the municipality or another position appointed by the municipality. Staff recommendation: That in accordance with Section 90(1) of the Community Charter, attendance for the remainder of the Council meeting, commencing at ### p.m., be closed to the public to consider one item regarding personal information about an identifiable individual who holds or is being considered for a position as an officer, employee or agent of the municipality or another position appointed by the municipality.

16. RISE AND REPORT

17. ADJOURNMENT

Page 6 of 159 District Of North Saanich Subject Property: Lot #2, North Saanich District, inlcuding a strip 1 chain in width measured NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING inland from high water mark (2500 Kolb Island)

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held on Monday, October 6, 2014 at 7:00 p.m in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Hall, 1620 Mills Road, North Saanich, B.C. to consider the following proposed amendment to the District of North Saanich Zoning Bylaw No. 1255:

1) District of North Saanich Zoning Bylaw No. 1255, Amendment Bylaw No. 1370 (2014) 2) District of North Saanich Zoning Bylaw No. 1255, Amendment Bylaw No. 1371 (2014) 3) District of North Saanich Zoning Bylaw No. 1255, Amendment Byalw No. 1373 (2014)

In general terms, the purpose of Amendment Bylaw No. 1370 (2014) is to rezone the foreshore area and surface of the water adjacent to subject property Lot 2, North Saanich District, inlcuding a strip 1 chain in width measured inland from high water mark (2500 Figure 1 Kolb Island), from M-6 (Non-Commercial Marine 2) to M-5 (Non-Commercial Marine 1), as shown in the cross hatched portion of Figure 1. Subject Property: Parcel A of Lot 87, Section 2, In general terms, the purpose of Amendment Bylaw No. 1371 (2014) is a zoning de nition Range 3 East, North Saanich District Plan #1741 text amendment to add the de nition of Agri-tourism, Farm Camping, Commercial (8720 Ebor Terrace) Kitchens, and to amend the de nition of Farm Use by striking “subject to the same restrictions as agri-tourism accommodation” and replacing it with “and is not to exceed an accumulative maximum oor area of 400 m²”.

In general terms, the purpose of Bylaw No. 1373 (2014) is to rezone subject property Parcel A of Lot 87, Section 2, Range 3 East, North Saanich District Plan #1741 (8720 Ebor Terrace), from R-2 (Single Family Residential 2) to R-1 (Single Family Residential 1) to permit a subdivision of two lots, as shown in the cross hatched portion of Figure 2

All persons who deem their interest in property aected by the proposed bylaw amendments will be aorded a reasonable opportunity to be heard or to present written submissions at the Public Hearing.

All relevant documentation, including copies of the bylaw(s), pertaining to the above, may be inspected at the North Saanich Municipal Hall, 1620 Mills Road, between the

Page 7 of 159 hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday to Friday (excluding statutory holidays) from Friday, September 26, 2014 to Monday, October 6, 2014 inclusive. Figure 2 Planning and Community Services Department Page 8 of 159 Subject to Approval Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the District North Saanich - 1620 Mills Road Monday, September 15, 2014 at 7:00 p.m.

PRESENT: Mayor A Finall Councillor D Browne T Daly C McBride E McMurphy C Mearns C Stock

ABSENT:

ATTENDING: Chief Administrative Officer R. Buchan Director of Financial Services T. Flynn Director of Planning and Community Services M. Brodrick Director or Infrastructure Services P. O'Reilly Planner C. Breen Manager of Corporate Services C. Kingsley Deputy Clerk L. Coburn

1 CALL TO ORDER

The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

2 PUBLIC HEARINGS

3 INTRODUCTION OF LATE ITEMS

4 APPROVAL OF AGENDA

a) Approval of the agenda

The report dated July 2, 2014 regarding Swimming Pool Covers [Item 9 (a) (viii)] was postponed at the request of the applicant.

MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR MCBRIDE SECONDED BY: COUNCILLOR STOCK

466 That the agenda be approved as amended.

CARRIED

Clerk Mayor

Page 9 of 159 Page 2 of 8 Regular 2014-09-15

5 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PERIOD

a) P. Pearson, 10522 Tsaykum Road, spoke in support of her request to have the property connected to the sewer system.

b) K. Shick, 11227 Heather Road, expressed support for the approval of the development permit and development variance permit for 10664/10682 McDonald Park Road.

6 ADOPTION OF MINUTES

a) Minutes of the September 8, 2014 special meeting of Council

MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR STOCK SECONDED BY: COUNCILLOR MEARNS

467 That the minutes of the September 8, 2014 special meeting of Council be adopted as circulated.

CARRIED

7 PETITIONS AND DELEGATIONS

a) Presentation by Gary Holman, MLA Saanich North and the Islands on a Housing Needs Assessment proposal for the Saanich Peninsula.

MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR STOCK SECONDED BY: COUNCILLOR MEARNS

468 That the District of North Saanich endorse the proposal for a housing needs assessment for the Saanich Peninsula and participate in an advisory committee for the study.

CARRIED

8 MAYOR'S REPORT

The Mayor noted her attendance at the following:

a) Government House reception September 12, 2014 fro the Earl and Countess of Essex

b) Feast of Fields event September 14, 2014 at Kildara Farm

The Mayor advised Council of the open house being held September 27, 2014 at Arbutus Nursery from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

MOVED BY: MAYOR FINALL SECONDED BY: COUNCILLOR STOCK

Clerk Mayor

Page 10 of 159 Page 3 of 8 Regular 2014-09-15

469 That the Mayor's oral report be received.

CARRIED

9 REPORTS

9.1 STAFF REPORTS

a) 10664/10682 McDonald Park Road DPA No. 2 Creeks, No. 4 Multi-Family, and Development Variance Permit Report dated September 10, 2014 from the Planner

MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR BROWNE SECONDED BY: COUNCILLOR MEARNS

470 That Council direct staff to send out the required statutory notification for the Development Variance Permit for 10664/10682 McDonald Park Road and consider the Development Permit and Development Variance Permit at the advertised meeting.

CARRIED

OPPOSED: MAYOR FINALL, COUNCILLOR MCMURPHY, COUNCILLOR STOCK

b) 10255 Tsaykum Road request for Sewer Report dated July 29, 2014 from the Director of Infrastructure Services

MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR DALY SECONDED BY: COUNCILLOR MEARNS

471 That Council: 1. Approve in principle the amendment of the Patricia Bay Sewer Area to include 10255 Tsaykum road, and 2. Authorize staff to calculate owner costs and draft necessary bylaw changes to enable such an amendment.

CARRIED

c) Christmas Closure Report dated September 5, 2014 from the Director of Corporate Services

MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR STOCK SECONDED BY: COUNCILLOR MEARNS

472 That Council approves the closure of Municipal Hall, Public Works and Utilities operations to the public commencing at 12:00 noon on Wednesday, December 24, 2014 - Municipal facilities to re-open at 8:00 a.m. on Monday, January 5, 2015.

Clerk Mayor

Page 11 of 159 Page 4 of 8 Regular 2014-09-15

CARRIED

OPPOSED: COUNCILLOR BROWNE, COUNCILLOR DALY, COUNCILLOR MCMURPHY

d) Schedule of Regular Council Meetings for 2015 Report dated September 9, 2014 from the Director of Corporate Services

MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR STOCK SECONDED BY: COUNCILLOR MCMURPHY

473 That the following schedule of Regular Council meetings for 2015 be approved and staff be authorized to proceed with the notification of the schedule in accordance with Section 127 of the Community Charter:

January 19 March 16 June 15 October 19 February 2 April 20 July 13 November 2 February 16 May 4 August 17 November 16 March 2 June 1 October 5 December 7

CARRIED

e) May - June 2014 Council Follow-Up Report

MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR STOCK SECONDED BY: COUNCILLOR BROWNE

474 That the May - June 2014 Council Follow-Up Report be received.

CARRIED

f) Quarterly Work Plan Report dated September 2014 from the Chief Administrative Officer

MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR STOCK SECONDED BY: COUNCILLOR BROWNE

475 That the Quarterly Work Plan dated September 2014 be received.

CARRIED

g) Secondary Suites Program Review Report dated September 2, 2014 from the Planner

MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR MCMURPHY

Clerk Mayor

Page 12 of 159 Page 5 of 8 Regular 2014-09-15

SECONDED BY: COUNCILLOR STOCK

476 That Council: 1. Direct staff to prepare the following amendments to the Municipal Ticket Information Bylaw No. 1013 & Sanitary Sewer Regulations Bylaw No. 1164: a) Define a grace period in order to upgrade existing suites; b) Create an incremental penalty system for existing suites to obtain compliance.

2. That Council direct staff to prepare the following amendments to Zoning Bylaw No. 1255 and Annual Secondary Suite Permit Requirement Bylaw No 1244: a) Remove the minimum lot size requirements; b) Remove the requirement for parking to be behind the front building line; c) Modify the zoning class requirement to allow other zones; d) Allow Secondary Suites and home offices in the same home; e) Remove the landscaping and screening requirements; f) Allow secondary suites on septic systems in addition to municipal sewer; g) Revise the suite permit fees; h) Revise the annual suite permit system.

3. That Council: a) Exclude Dean Park as a secondary suite area; and b) Remove the statutory declaration of owner occupancy in secondary suites; c) Direct staff to draft amendments to support documentation including the finalization of the revised Secondary Suite Guide.

CARRIED

OPPOSED: COUNCILLOR DALY, COUNCILLOR MCBRIDE, COUNCILLOR MEARNS

MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR MCMURPHY SECONDED BY: COUNCILLOR STOCK

477 That staff prepare a resolution to be forwarded to AVICC and UBCM that the federal government be requested to waive the requirement to report secondary suite revenue as family income for income tax purposes.

DEFEATED

OPPOSED: COUNCILLOR BROWNE, COUNCILLOR DALY, COUNCILLOR MCBRIDE, COUNCILLOR MEARNS

9.2 COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS

a) Councillor McMurphy's report on Island Regional Library

MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR MCMURPHY SECONDED BY: COUNCILLOR MCBRIDE

Clerk Mayor

Page 13 of 159 Page 6 of 8 Regular 2014-09-15

478 That the oral report from Councillor McMurphy regarding the Regional Library be received.

CARRIED

b) Councillor McBride's report on Peninsula Streams

MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR MCBRIDE SECONDED BY: COUNCILLOR STOCK

479 That the oral report by Councillor McBride on Peninsula Streams be received.

CARRIED

c) Councillor Browne's report on an upcoming meeting of CREST

9.3 CRD REPORT

9.4 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT

10 BYLAWS

a) North Saanich Zoning Bylaw No. 1255 (2011) Amendment Bylaw No. 1372 (2014) Re: 8513 Bourne Terrace

MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR BROWNE SECONDED BY: COUNCILLOR DALY

480 That North Saanich Zoning Bylaw No. 1255 (2011) Amendment Bylaw No. 1372 (2014) be finally adopted, signed by the Mayor and the Corporate Officer and sealed with the Corporate Seal.

CARRIED

OPPOSED: MAYOR FINALL, COUNCILLOR MCMURPHY, COUNCILLOR STOCK

b) Rideau Avenue Road Closure Bylaw No. 1368 (2014)

MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR BROWNE SECONDED BY: COUNCILLOR MEARNS

481 That North Saanich Rideau Avenue Road Closure Bylaw No. 1368 (2014) be finally adopted, signed by the Mayor and the Corporate Officer and sealed with the Corporate Seal.

CARRIED

Clerk Mayor

Page 14 of 159 Page 7 of 8 Regular 2014-09-15

OPPOSED: MAYOR FINALL, COUNCILLOR MCMURPHY, COUNCILLOR STOCK

11 UNFINISHED BUSINESS

12 MOTIONS AND NEW BUSINESS

a) Councillor McMurphy requests Council's consideration of the following motion: "That staff be requested to provide a report to Council on the cost of rescheduling the regularly scheduled August 18th Council meeting."

MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR MCMURPHY SECONDED BY: COUNCILLOR STOCK

482 That staff be requested to provide a report to Council on the cost of rescheduling the regularly scheduled August 18th Council meeting.

MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR DALY SECONDED BY: COUNCILLOR BROWNE

483 That the Notice of Motion brought by Councillor McMurphy be postponed indefinitely.

CARRIED

OPPOSED: MAYOR FINALL, COUNCILLOR MCMURPHY, COUNCILLOR STOCK

A point of order was raised that a member was not speaking to the motion. The Chair ruled against the point of order. The Chair's ruling was not sustained by a vote of four to three.

b) Councillor McBride made a notice of motion: that Council consider adding the question of amalgamation to the ballot at the local government election November 15, 2014 as Sidney and Central Saanich have done.

13 CORRESPONDENCE

14 CORRESPONDENCE FOR COUNCIL'S INFORMATION

a) Correspondence for Councils information

MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR STOCK SECONDED BY: COUNCILLOR MCBRIDE

484 That the correspondence listed in item 14 of the agenda for September 15, 2014 be received.

CARRIED

15 IN CAMERA

Clerk Mayor

Page 15 of 159 Page 8 of 8 Regular 2014-09-15

a) Motion to go In Camera

MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR STOCK SECONDED BY: COUNCILLOR BROWNE

485 That in accordance with Section 90 of the Community Charter, Council close the meeting to the public for the purpose of: 1. Considering one item regarding the receipt of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose; 2. Considering whether disclosure of either of two items regarding law enforcement could reasonably be expected to harm the conduct of an investigation under or enforcement of an enactment and, if so, to consider the item(s) regarding law enforcement in a closed meeting; 3. Considering two items regarding labour relations or other employee relations; 4. Considering one item relating to negotiations between the municipality and a provincial government or the federal government or both, or between a provincial government or the federal government or both and a third party.

CARRIED

16 RISE AND REPORT

17 ADJOURNMENT

a) Motion to adjourn

MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR MCMURPHY SECONDED BY: COUNCILLOR STOCK

486 That the meeting be adjourned at 10:34 p.m.

CARRIED

CERTIFIED CORRECT APPROVED AND CONFIRMED

L. Coburn Alice Finall Deputy Clerk Mayor

Clerk Mayor

Page 16 of 159 * District of North Saanich STAFF REPORT ��

To: Rob Buchan Date: July 2, 2014 Chief Administrative Officer

From: John Post File: 3220- 11401 Westview Pl. Sr. Building Inspector

Re: Swimming Pool Covers

RECOMMENDATION:

That pool fencing requirement of Building and Plumbing Bylaw 1150 be retained as a required safety enclosure for private swimming pools.

STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLICATIONS:

Values and Operating Philosophy: 7. be flexible, innovative and progressive in our efforts to improve results while being tolerant of appropriate risks. Fiscally responsible goal; increased liability exposes the District to loss.

PURPOSE:

In August 2009 staff sent a report to Council after a request was received from a homeowner requesting that the District accept a pool cover instead of required fencing around a newly constructed swimming pool. The owner requested that the District amend Building and Plumbing bylaw 1150 to accept pool covers manufactured to ASTM F1346 as an alternative to fencing requirements.

The recommendation from Council read:

MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR SCOONES 168-COW That the Committee of the Whole recommends to Council that the repo11 dated August 12, 2009 from the Director of Development and Community Services regarding "Request to Permit Pool Covers in place of Fencing Enclosing Swimming Pools" be received, that Staff be directed to prepare a report on the feasibility of requiring certified safety covers ASTM F 1346 or pool fencing, and that Staff also investigate the liability issues associated with amending the Building and Plumbing Bylaw No. 1150 as noted. CARRIED OPPOSED: MAYOR FlNALL

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:

In 2008 Mr. G. Peters of 11401 Westview Pl constructed a swimming pool. At the time of final inspection staff requested that Mr. Peters comply with the fencing requirements of Building and Plumbing Bylaw 1150 which requires a 4 foot high non climbable fence with a self-closing gate either around the immediate pool deck or enclosing the yard where the pool was constructed. Mr. Peters had installed a mechanically operated pool cover and approached Council requesting that the bylaw be changed to allow these pool covers, constructed to an ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) standard. Staff researched the request at the time and recommended in a

Page 17 of 159 Rob Buchan, Chief Administrative Officer Page 2 Re: Swimming Pool Covers report to Council (Appendix A, with its own original appendix A,B and C) that it was preferable to maintain the fencing requirement as a minimum safety standard and that owners could elect to use pool covers as an additional safety measure but it should not be a requirement or accepted alternative to fencing. Now that this matter is being revisited further research indicates that there is no substantial change to pool cover standards or other local governments accepting them as an alternative. Staff referred the matter to the Municipal Insurance Association risk management advisor who recommended maintaining the current fence standard to lesson risk exposure.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS:

The District could incur increased liability exposure if it amends the bylaw and accepts swimming pool covers as an alternative to pool fencing requirements.

SUMMARY/CONCLUSION:

Pool fencing is a universally accepted safety requirement of most local governments and is the simplest way of ensuring a safety standard through a building inspection process. The recommendation to Council has not changed from the 2009 report on this subject. Attached to this report as appendix B is a BC Coroners Service news release regarding pool safety which recommends pool fencing for safety around swimming pools.

RECOMMENDATION(S):

That pool fencing, as required by Building and Plumbing Bylaw 1150, be retained as a safety enclosure for private swimming pools.

Attachments to this report:

Appendix A- August 12, 2009 Report to Council (with original Appendix A, B and C) Appendix B- BC Coroners Service news release regarding pool safety. Appendix C- Email from Risk Management Advisor for Municipal Insurance Association.

Respectfully submitted, Concurrence:

Chief Administrative Officer

Concurrence:

Coralie Breen Acting Director of Planning and Community Services.

Page 18 of 159 APP£ Dl

District of North Saanich STAFF REPORT

To: Bruce Williams Date: August 12, 2009 Chief Administrative Officer

From: Tracy Olsen File: 3760-04 Director, Development & Community Services

Re: Request to permit Pool Covers in place of Fencing Enclosing Swimming Pools

RECOMMENDATION:

That Building and Plumbing Bylaw No. 1150 continue to require fencing as the protective measure against drowning.

PURPOSE:

To discuss a request from a member of the public to amend Building and Plumbing Bylaw No.1150 in order to permit pool covers as an alternative to the fencing currently required to enclose swimming pools.

BACKGROUND:

For safety reasons, the District, as well as many other local governments, have enacted bylaws requiring the enclosure of all private swimming pools by a non-climbable fence with a self­ closing gate. This measure is intended to prevent small children from gaining unsupervised entry to pools. Attached as appendix "A" please find the relevant section of the bylaw.

Recently, property owners have been asking to protect their pools with pool covers instead of fencing. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has published guidelines dealing with safety barriers, pool covers and pool alarms. (See Appendix "B" attached.) It recommends that pool covers be used in conjunction with a fence. The ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) has published a standard, ASTM F1346, that certain pool covers are manufactured to. It covers manual and power pool covers and stipulates that they must be able to support a weight of 485 pounds and be able to shed surface water. Also attached is an ASTM news bulletln (see Appendix "C") whlch gives some background information on trying to establish layers of protection for pool safety.

DISCUSSION:

All municipalities in that address pools in their bylaws require a fence barrier around private swimming pools that have a minimum universal height of 1.2 m ( 4 ft) and are required to be non climbable with self closing and latching gates. Staff found one District, Langford, that will allow a pool cover as the only source of drowning protection, but a senior Building Official there said it would be reviewed in relation to overall pool requirements. The District of Langford sets no standards, the only requirements being that it support a 68 kg person and is lockable.

CS- 001

Page 19 of 159 Bruce Williams, Chief Administrative Officer Page 2 Re: Fencing Standards for Enclosing Swimming Pools ·�-

If pool covers were to be permitted as an alternate method of protection from a drowning hazard then a minimum standard must be set. The only North American standard is the ASTM F 1346. Pool cover manufacturers are not bound by the requirements of this standard and extensive third party testing is required to verify whether their product does meet or exceed the standard.

Covers can be mechanically or manually operated. The cover would have to be designated as a safety cover as there are solar covers which only protect against evaporation and heat loss and will not support any weight if applied. Some covers can accumulate rain water on the surface thereby creating its own hazard.

If pool covers were to be approved as protection, then considerable staff time would be consumed in determining if the selected model met any or all of the minimum standards set. A pool cover, even if manufactured to the highest safety standard, is not a guaranteed protection because it can be left in the open position. Manual covers can take considerable time to put in place as opposed to no time for a self closing fence. Partially closed covers can present a safety hazard if a person, or pet, becomes trapped under them.

ALTERNATIVES:

1. Do not amend Building and Plumbing bylaw.

2. Direct staff to prepare the necessary bylaw to amend the Building and Plumbing bylaw to allow pool covers as protection against drowning.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: n.a.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS:

There is serious liability exposure for the District in setting a minimum standard for pool covers and enforcing that standard.

CITIZEN/PUBLIC RELATIONS IMPLICATIONS: n.a.

INTERDEPARTMENTAL INVOLVEMENT/IMPLICATIONS: n.a.

SUMMARY:

Setting and enforcing a standard for pool covers will be challenging. Pool enclosure by fence is universal and a requirement of most local and regional governments. It offers the best defense against accidental drowning. Pool covers and pool alarms are a good added layer of protection to fencing with self closing and latching gates.

CS- CJOZ

Page 20 of 159 Bruce Williams, Chief Administrative Officer Page 3 Re: Fencing Standards for Enclosing Swimming Pools

RECOMMENDATION:

That Building and Plumbing Bylaw No.1150 continue to require fencing as the protective measure against drowning.

Respectfully submitted, Concurrence:

John/86st Bruce Williams Sr. 8'6i1ding Inspector Chief Administrative Officer

Tracy Olsen Director of Development and Community Services

CS- GOS·

Page 21 of 159 APPENDIX "A": Excerpt from Building and Plumbing Bylaw No. 1150 Regarding Fencing for Swimming Pools

Fencing

9. 2. 1 Swimming pools greater than 1 m deep and with a surface area more than 15 m2, used or intended to be used for swimming, bathing or wading, shall be enclosed within a sturdy fence not less than 1.22 m in height with no openings greater than 100 mm in their least dimension and so that no member, attachment, or opening located between 100 mm and 900 mm above ground level will facilitate climbing or crawling into the pool area, except heavy gauge chain link fencing with a maximum opening size of 35 mm square may be considered acceptable for this purpose.

9.2.2 Where it is desired to tie the fence into a building, the building may be considered as part of the fence provided it has an exterior wall at least as high as the fence.

Self-Closing Gate

9. 3 The fence described in section 9. 2 shall:

a) enclose the pool itself or any portion of the premises on which the pool is situated;

b) enclose only the pool area provided the pool is open to full view through the fence; and

c) be continuous except for points of access which shall be equipped with a self closing gate, so designed as to cause the gate to return to a locked position when not in use, and be secured by a spring Jock located not less than 1070 mm above grade which can only be opened from the swimming pool side of the fence.

A cs� ·o·o·;.. ·:;.;

Page 22 of 159 CPSC Re-Issues Pool Safety Guidelines in Time for Summer Page 1of1

APPENDIX B NEWS from CPSC U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

Office of Information and Public Affairs Washington, DC 20207

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Hannah Simone May 30, 1996 (301 ) 504-7908 Release # 96-134

CPSC Re-Issues Pool Safety Guidelines in Time for Summer

WASHINGTON, D.C. - As the swimming season begins, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is re-issuing its pool barrier guidelines to help prevent about 300 drownings of children each year in residential swimming pools.

Drowning is the leading cause of accidental death in the homes of children under age 5 in states such as California, Arizona, Texas, and Florida. In addition, each year more than 2,000 young children are treated in hospital emergency rooms nationwide for submersion injuries, such as brain damage.

"Supervision is key to preventing a child from drowning in what is a silent death that happens very quickly," said CPSC Chairman Ann Brown. "A child can drown in the time it takes to answer the telephone. Most of the young victims are missing from sight for less than just five minutes."

Barriers and pool covers can reduce the risk of child drownings. CPSC recommends that parents install the following safety devices to prevent access and give parents time to locate a child before tragedy strikes: p A fence or barrier at least 4 feet high with no footholds or handholds should surround the entire pool. p If a wall of the house serves as a side of the barrier, the house doors should be protected with alarms. p In addition to the barriers, a power safety cover should protect the pool when it is not in use.

"The three barriers that CPSC recommends can buy you time and may save your child's life," Brown said.

In addition to installing safety devices, parents can take other steps to help prevent drownings. CPSC recommends that parents and other caregivers should learn cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). If a child is missing, check the pool first. Seconds count in preventing death or disability.

CPSC offers consumers two free publications to help prevent child drownings: "Safety Barrier Guidelines for Pools" (CPSC362), and "How To Plan For the Unexpected" (CPSC359). Consumers can obtain copies of the publications by sending their names and addresses to "Pool Safety," U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, D.C. 20207.

�e.mtthelink for thiSJ;!a� to a friendJ The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of serious injury or death from thousands of types of consumer products under the agency's jurisdiction. The CPSC is committed to protecting consumers and families from products that pose a fire, electrical, chemical, or mechanical hazard. The CPSC's work to ensure the safety of consumer products - such as toys, cribs, power tools, cigarette lighters, and household chemicals - contributed significantly to the decline in the rate of deaths and injuries associated with consumer products over the past 30 years.

To report a dangerous product or a product-related injury, call CPSC's Hotline at (800) 638-2772 or CPSC's teletypewriter at (800) 638-8270. To join a CPSC e-mail subscription list, please go to https://www.cpsc.gov/cgsclist.aspx. Consumers can obtain recall and general safety information by logging on to CPSC's Web site at www_,cpsc.gov.

CS- JG5 http://www.cpsc.gov/CPSCPUB/PREREL/PRHTML96/96134.html 71712009

Page 23 of 159 ASTM Swimming Pool Safety Standards Page 1 of 4

APPENDIX C

70% NEW MASONRY STANDARDS�� ou HEVl'if.O! View � Cart

0 SHARE .�m�. STANDARDIZATION MARCH 2 0 0 3

Ne-zus ASTM Home SN Contents

Feature

Merle I. Stoner is the founder and president of Poolguard, North fRll$ampft Vernon, Ind. He was chairman of the ASTM Ma gun subcommittee that 'MUWUMIUDlllWS developed the IHfOMWLMBWl standard for pool alarms. ASTM StandlldJ Sorch/ F 2208. He is a member of ASTM Committee F15 on Consumer Safety Standards for Swimming Pools Products.

: · SletMa . by Merle I. Stoner

Approximately 350 to 400 children under 5 years of age drown in pools each year in the United States and anot\"Jer 3,000 are treated Standardization in hospital emergency rooms for near-drowning incidents; most News Search of the cases involve residential pools. In some states drowning in the family pool is the leading cause of accidental death for children under 5 years of age. Nationwide, drowning in swimming pools is the second leading cause of accidental death for children under 5 years of age.

For years the problem of children drowning in backyard pools was ignored except by those families who suffered from this accidental tragedy. In the early 1980s, the U.S. Consumer Product SafetyCommission (CPSC) began a safety awareness campaign about pool safety, which is still very active today. The commission has also issued guidelines as to the combined use of layers of protection to reduce drowning in pools.

Over time manufacturers have developed various safety devices or made changes to their existing devices such as fences, ladders, gates, doors, pool and spa safety covers, pool and spa alarms, and door alarms. Concerns about the use and reliability of these devices has come from government agencies, industry cs- ooe

http://www.astm.org/SNEWS/MARCH_ 2003/stoner __ mar03 .html 7/6/2009

Page 24 of 159 ASTM Swimming Pool Safety Standards Page 2 of 4

professionals, and consumers. As the pool industry matured in its view of safety, more and more safety devices came onto the market and the need for safety and performance standards for these devices became apparent and necessary. ASTM Committee ill on Consumer Products has set standards for pool and spa safety covers, permanent barrier fencing, and pool alarms and is working on other standards at present for removable barrier fencing and anti-entrapment devices. Committee Fl 5, in conjunction with the CPSC, is also developing a Standard Guide for Proper Use of Safety Devices for Prevention of Drowning or Entrapment in Residential Swimming Pools, Hot Tubs, and Spas. Another commonly used title forthis standard is the "model barrier code."

The proposed ASTM model barrier code is of utmost importance in that it calls for the use of safety devices for pools that meet national standards. The only way to prevent accidental drowning is the use of safety devices in a "layer of protection" approach, which is advocated by all concerned drowning-prevention entities. State and local governments are passing or considering passing legislation ("barrier laws"), to make pools safer for children. These governments need guidance on which safety devices to use in their legislation. Without national standards this legislation will falter or be poorly written. This is why the need for national standards is paramount.

Florida and California Try to Solve the Problem

Two examples of how important national standards are in developing legislation for pool safety can be seen in Florida and California. ln Florida, a bill was introduced and subsequently passed by the state legislature to require residential pool owners to have a safety barrier in place at their pool. The statute, which was modeled on a similar statute in California, requires the pool owner to do one of the following:

(a) The pool must be isolated from access to a home by an enclosure. (b) The pool must be equipped with an approved safety pool cover. (c) All doors and windows providing direct access from the home to the pool must be equipped with an exit alarm that has a minimum sound pressure rating of 85 dB at l 0 ft. [3 m]; or (d) All doors providing direct access from the home to the pool must be equipped with a self-closing, self-latching device with a release mechanism placed no lower than 54 in. [13 7 cm] above the floor.

The intent of this statute is to prevent drowning but it lists only one standard for enforcement agencies to follow and that is where the problems began. The interpretation of the statute was left up to the Florida Building Commission (FBC), which changed wording and, in some instances, the original intent of the legislation. The FBC only cited two standards - ASTM standard f..! 346, Performance Specification for Safety Covers and Labeling Requirements for All Covers for Swimming Pools, Spas and Hot Tubs, and Underwriters Laboratories standard UL 2017 forresidential water hazard alarm equipment. If the FBC, after

http://www.astm.org/SNEWS/MARCH_2003/stoner_mar03.html 71612009

Page 25 of 159 ASTM Swimming Pool Safety Standards Page 3 of 4

citing the national standards, would not have added their own language the new statute might have been painless and successful. After citing UL 2017, they required the door alarms to be hard wired (no battery alarms allowed) and to sound immediately. There were no alarms on the market that could meet this language. All the alarms already being used were battery operated and sounded within seven seconds, which meets UL 2017.

Another problem with the statute is that it allows for an approved safety cover as one of the layers of protection the pool owners can use instead of a fence. The statute refers in this one case to the ASTM standard for safety covers. The problem is that not all safety covers that meet the ASTM standard are recommended as a permanent layer of protection for a pool. Only power operated, and not manually operated, safety covers are recommended by ASTM and the CPSC. Again, without proper guidelines, the legislature allows for manual safety covers, which for the most part are winter covers for pools. Manual safety covers meet ASTM safety standards but they are not considered a permanent layer of protection for pools to prevent drowning.

Adding language to a national standard - which is basically what the FBC did - can and has caused uproar, confusion, and eventually lawsuits against the FBC. If a government entity is going to cite a national standard, and they should, then they should follow that standard and not change the standard. The basic reason behind national standards is for uniformity of language as well as safety and performance requirements. If the Florida legislature had an ASTM model barrier code, much, if not all of the confusion could have been avoided by incorporating the ASTM standard into their statute in the beginning. This would have made for a much more comprehensive and uniform law.

In California, barrier laws have been around for some time in ce11ain parts of the state. All were problematic because there were no standards for the local jurisdiction to follow. Finally the state passed a state wide barrier requirement forpools, which was eventually used by Florida as the basis of its law. The California statute also calls for the pool owner to have in place one of the four layers of protection at a residential pool, but it does not cite enough national standards for different layers of protection. Like Florida, California could have really benefited from the proposed ASTM model barrier code on barrier requirements.

In 2001 a bill was introduced to the California Legislature to increase the layers of protection choices from four to six. The new law would require the pool owner to have two instead of one layer of protection devices in place, but they could now choose

from a menu of six instead of four options . The two new options added were removable barrier fencing and pool alarms. The opponents to the bill quickly jumped on the fact that there was no national standard for removable barrier fencing. While there is an ASTM standard for pool alarms, ASTM F 2208, Specification for Pool Alarms. Having no standard for removable fencing helped stall the bill, which will be introduced again next year. ASTM is working on a national standard for removable barrier fencing, CS- JOE: http://www.astm.org/SNEWS/MARCH _2003/stoner_mar03 .html 71612009

Page 26 of 159 ASTM Swimming Pool Safety Standards Page 4of4

which is necessary for the success of the bill. In order for this bill to pass and be properly written, the ASTM model barrier code is essential -just as the standard for pool alarms and the fencing is essential. Some entity has to be responsible for giving states guidance in the development of model barrier codes and providing standards for the different layers of protection in those codes. ASTM and the CPSC have accepted this challenge and are working very hard to complete their task.

A Philosophy of Accident Prevention

Will national standards make pools safor and prevent accidental drowning? This is a complicated issue. The pool industry for years has preached that adult supervision is the only way to prevent drowning. Adults do supervise their children - some better than others - but these tragedies are accidents. "Accident" is the key word in describing drowning tragedies, and understanding this is where the philosophical approach to their prevention lies. There must be layers of protection between the child and the chance that they might drown. The pool industry, drowning prevention groups, governing bodies and so forth are working separately and in different directions. In short there are many drowning-prevention entities with good intentions along with opposition groups fighting them every step of the way. Somehow all this energy must be harnessed into preventing the problem, and the interested parties need to get organized.

The development of a coordinated, strategic approach is key to preventing accidental drownings. The proposed ASTM Standard Guide for Proper Use of Safety Devices for Prevention of Drowning or Entrapment in Residential Swimming Pools, Hot Tubs, and Spas (Model Barrier Code), provides a way of becoming organized. It is a comprehensive outline, guide, and plan for preventing childhood drowning and entrapment. All the different layers of protection described in the ASTM guide have a national standard for expert objective guidance and reliability in their use. Once this task is complete - and it will be completed by ASTM and the CPSC soon - the next step is education. State and local governments must be made aware of this comprehensive standard and use it in writing laws that will protect children. There are many opponents to legislating safely but safety legislation works and can protect those who cannot protect themselves - small children. Standards are the key to saving lives, and will help in the prevention of children drowning in pools.

ASTM is leading the way with safety standards to prevent drowning in swimming pools. ASTM and the CPSC should also play a role in the acceptance of these standards, their use and their enforcement; this, of course, can be a monumental task. We must work to set standards and see that they are used properly and enforced. II

Copyright 2003, ASTM

C5- JG0

http://www.astm.org/SNEWS/MARCH_ 2003/stoner_ mar03 .html 71612009

Page 27 of 159 7/4/2014 BC Coroners Serl.ice releases report on child and �uth dro'Mling

View the printer-friendly version of this release.

BRITISH COt.lJl\'1BlA Cor,oners Service

NEWS RELEASE For Immediate Release Ministry of Justice 2014JAG0165-000878 BC Coroners Service June 26, 2014

BC Coroners Service releases report on child and youth drowning

BURNABY -The BC Coroners Service is recommending new efforts be devoted to providing more effective water safety education, especially for teenage males aged 15 to 18.

The recommendation is one of three made by a Child Death Review panel into child and youth drowning. The report was made public today.

The panel, which was chaired by Child Death Review Unit director Michael Egilson and included experts from a variety of child-serving and water safety agencies, reviewed the cases of 35 children and youth who drowned in BC In the years 2007 and 2013. The panel reaffirmed the many prevention messages put forth by the Lifesaving Society and Canadian Red Cross around water safety, supervision, boater safety, alcohol use, lifejacket/PFD use and pool safety.

The child death review panel also identified that some of these important messages are not getting through to the young people most at risk. Of the deaths reviewed, almost seven in 10 involved youths aged 15 to 18, and three-quarters of those who died were male. The cases show that males in that age group are particularly prone to underestimate the risk involved in activities, overestimate their own swimming abilities, and use substances, such as alcohol, which may affect their judgment, co-ordination and/or ability to self-rescue.

The panel recommends that the BC/Yukon branch of the Lifesaving Society bring together key stakeholders to develop messaging specifically targeted to young men in this age group. Teenaged males themselves will be asked to participate to try to determine how best to reach this demographic group.

The second recommendation was directed to the Canadian Red Cross to focus on ongoing education for parents, stressing especially the need for close and ongoing supervision of young children when in or around water, and the third backs the BC/Yukon branch of the Lifesaving Society in its efforts to work through the Union of BC Municipalities to encourage municipalities to pass bylaws which require four-sided secure fencing around backyard swimming pools.

The full text of the report can be found at: http://www.pssg.gov. be.ca/coroners /re ports/docs/Chi I dDrowningDeathPa nel Report.pdf

Media Contacts:

http:/M.wi.V2.nevvs.gov.bc.ca/nevvs_releases_2013-2017/2014JAG0165-000878.htm 1/3

Page 28 of 159 7/4/2014 BC Coroners Sen.ice releases report on child and �uth drowiing

Michael Egilson Dale Miller Chair, Child Death Review Unit Executive Director BC Coroners Service Lifesaving Society - BC & Yukon 250 356-0455 604 299-5450

Shelley Dalke Manager, Swimming & Water Safety Programs Canadian Red Cross 604 709-6601

BRITJSH COLUMBl\ Coroners Service

FACTSHEET For Immediate Release Ministry of Justice 2014JAG0165-000878 BC Coroners Service June 26, 2014

List of recommendations

Recommendation #1: By the end of 2015: The BC/Yukon Branch of the Lifesaving Society will bring together key stakeholder partners to develop water safety and drowning prevention messaging targeting young men between the ages of 15 and 18 years old. l

• Canadian Red Cross; • The Health Authority; and • School Districts.

The BC/Yukon Branch of the Lifesaving Society will engage young men between the ages of 15 and 18 years old in developing the prevention messaging and implementation strategy.

Recommendation #2: By the end of 2015: The Canadian Red Cross and The Community Against Preventable Injuries will bring together key community stakeholders to develop and implement water safety and drowning prevention messaging for parents/caregivers on:

• supervising young children in, on and near water; and • keeping teens safe in, on and near water.

l

• BC/Yukon Branch of the Lifesaving Society;

http://IMIMl2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2013-2017/2014JAG0165-000878.htm 2/3

Page 29 of 159 7/4/2014 BC Coroners Sen.ice releases report on child and �uth drowiing

• The First Nations Health Authority; and • School Districts.

Recommendation #3: That the Union of B.C. Municipalities (UBCM) reviews this report for information and education purposes. This review is intended to reinforce the efforts of the BC/Yukon Branch of the Lifesaving Society to have municipalities consider establishing a bylaw that requires barrier fencing to limit child access to backyard pools. Specifically, it is suggested this bylaw include the following requirements:

• 4-sided fencing with minimum height of 1.22 m (4 ft); • Self closing and self latching gate; • Retrofitting of 4-sided fencing for existing pools; and • Includes in-ground, above ground and inflatable pools.

This bylaw could be supplemented with water safety and drowning prevention education that would be provided to the homeowner or renter with a backyard pool.

Media Contacts:

Michael Egilson Dale Miller Chair, Child Death Review Unit Executive Director BC Coroners Service Lifesaving Society - BC & Yukon 250 356-0455 604 299-5450

Shelley Dalke Ma nag er, Swimming & Water Safety Programs Canadian Red Cross 604 709-6601

Connect with the Province of B.C. at: www.gov.bc.ca/connect

http://IMMv2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2013-2017/2014JAG0165-000878.htm 3/3

Page 30 of 159 From: Susan Ackerman [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, June 9, 2014 11:10 AM To: Theresa Flynn Subject: RE: Swimming Pool Covers

Hi Theresa,

I have checked with our claims department and they have not had any experience with this type of claim.

There isn't any exclusion in your policy that would affect your coverage were you to decide to allow pool covers as replacement for fencing.

From a risk management point of view we feel that covers, even if they meet the standard, are ineffective if they are not used. A fence is there, all the time, and with a self-closing gate, the risk is much lower which lessens your exposure.

Regards,

Susan Ackerman, CIP, CRM Risk Management Advisor

Municipal Insurance Association #390-1050 Homer Street Vancouver, BC V6B 2W9 Phone: (604) 683-6266 Fax: (604) 683-6244

The information transmitted herein is confidential and may contain privileged information. It is intended solely for the person or entity to which it is addressed. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, taking of any action in reliance upon, or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please notify the sender and delete or destroy all digital and printed copies.

Page 31 of 159 Page 32 of 159 District of North Saanich STAFF REPORT

To: Rob Buchan Date: September 18, 2014 Chief Administrative Officer

From: Stephanie Munro File: Property Taxation Manager of Financial Services

Re: Proposed North Saanich Exemption from Taxation Bylaw

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council proceed with North Saanich Exemption from Taxation Bylaw No. 1378 (2014).

STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLICATIONS:

This matter relates to Council's strategic priority:

No. 4: Build a Strong and Vibrant Community

This report outlines the proposed permissive tax exemption bylaw for the 2015 tax year. This initiative supports the corporate goal of providing ongoing support for non-profit groups that operate at both neighbourhood and community levels in North Saanich.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:

Section 224 of the Conunwiity Charter provides Council with the authority, by way of bylaw, to grant permissive property tax exemptions. Under this section, permissive tax exemptions may be provided for the following:

• Properties owned or leased by charitable, philanthropic or other not for profit organizations; • Properties owned by a municipality, regional district or other local authority; • Homes for elderly citizens; • Hospitals or Community Care Facilities; • Places of public worship; and • Properties used or occupied for use as a public park or for recreational purposes.

The proposed list of properties to be permissively exempt from tax for 2015 includes all those that were granted exemptions in 2014 (Appendix A attached). Also included in this list is other relevant information such as whether a Grant in Aid has been provided in 2014. No new tax exemption requests have been received or are proposed for 2015.

The North Saanich Exemption from Taxation Bylaw No. 1378 (2014) includes properties that Council has exempted with the understanding that these organizations are deserving of exemption.

Page 33 of 159 Rob Buchan, Chief Administrative Officer Page 2 Re: Proposed North Saanich Exemption from Taxation Bylaw

In accordance with the Coninwnity Charter a bylaw must be adopted before October 31st of any given year for the subject properties to be exempt for the following tax year.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

The estimated taxes forgone for the properties included in the proposed bylaw are $120,888 for 2015.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS:

The proposed list of properties for Council's consideration meets the conditions set out by Section 224 of the Comnwnity Charter.

If Council proceeds with the bylaw, staff will publish the Public Notice of Intention for the 2015 Permissive Property Tax Exemptions.

SUMMARY/CONCLUSION:

The North Saanich Exemption from Taxation Bylaw No. 1378 (2014) is being proposed to exempt the listed properties for the 2015 property tax year. By considering the proposed properties for exemption each year rather than granting a multiple year exemption, Council has the opportunity to assess the financial impact in view of other financial needs and grant exemptions from an informed perspective annually.

By adopting the proposed bylaw and granting the renewals of previously exempted properties, Council will demonstrate support to building a strong sense of community.

RECOMMENDATION:

That Council proceed with North Saanich Exemption from Taxation Bylaw No. 1378 (2014).

Respectfully submitted, Concurrence: a� Rob Buchan Manager of Financial Services Chief Administrative Officer

Page 34 of 159 Appendix A: Proposed Permissive Property Tax Exemptions for 2015

Receives If Yes, Roll Number Property Description Address Legal Description Grant in Amount Aid for 2014

00529.050 St. John's United Church 10990 West Saanich Rd. Block PT 1, Section 19, Range 2W PlanVIP 1211

02472.000 Sidney Pentecostal Church 10364 McDonald Park Rd. Lot A, Sec. 15, R2E, Plan 16395

03030.000 The Kiwanis Elderly Citizens Village 10585 McDonald Park Rd. Lot 1, Sec. 16 & 17, R2E, Plan 25496

19036.000 676 Kittyhawk Sponsoring Committee Society {Air Cadets) 1979 DeHavilland Way VAA Lease# B135, 23681 SQ FT Hall Site Yes $ 2,000.00 Part of Lot A, planVIP38759,Comprising of 5.56 acres 19077.000 B.C. Aviation Museum 1910 Norseman Rd. VAA Lease #B397 Yes $ 500.00

19200.300 Navy League of { Saanich Peninsula Branch) 9565 Hurricane Rd. Comprising of 2569.8 SQ MTRS, VAA Lease#BllO Yes $ 2,000.00

20007.000 Memorial Park Society {field behind Parkland School) McDonald Park Rd. Lot 1, Sec. 16, R2E, Plan 20832

Saanich Peninsula Chamber of Commerce {Visitor 21400.003 10382 Pat Bay Highway Portion of Lot 3, Plan 13825 Information Centre)

21413.000 Memorial Park Society {Blue Heron Park) 10714 McDonald Park Rd. Lot A, Sec. 17, R2E, Plan 43067

23011.000 Seventh Day Adventist Church 9300 Willingdon Rd. Lot B, Sec. 7, R2E, Plan 2822

23013.000 Capital Regional District 1717 McTavish Rd. Lot E, Sec. 5, R2E, Composite Plan 2986

Anglican Synod of the Diocese of BC 23017.000 1325 Mills Rd. Lot A, Sec. 12, RlE, Plan 38698 Holy Trinity Anglican Church - Hall

Anglican Synod of the Diocese of BC 23017.010 1319 Mills Rd. Section 12, Rl W Holy Trinity Anglican Church & Cemetery

23018.000 Town of Sidney {McTavish Fire Hall) 1665 McTavish Rd. Lot 1, Section 5, Range 2E PlanVIP 38864

23024.000 Saanich Peninsula Presbyterian Church 9296 East Saanich Rd. Lot F, Sec. 7, R2E, Plan 42734 Page 35 of 159 Page 36 of 159 District of North Saanich STAFF REPORT

To: Mayor and Council Date: September 29, 2014

From: Rob Buchan File: CAO

Re: Gas Operating Agreements - New Operating Fees

RECOMMENDATION(S):

That Council endorse the AVICC recommended Gas Operating Agreement in the format as attached.

STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLICATIONS:

This matter relates to Council's strategic priorities:

No. 5 Ensure Strong Leadership, Fiscal Responsibility and Transparent Government

Background:

For the past 4 years, the Association of Vancouver Island Coastal Communities has been engaged in a joint process with FORTIS BC to correct the historic situation whereby municipal taxpayers within AVICC were denied the opportunity to recover the costs of gas distribution lines placed within municipal streets.

This inequity occurred over 25 years ago, when the government of the day unilaterally imposed a prohibition under the Vancouver Island Gas Pipeline Act to assist in project construction financing to bring natural gas to Vancouver Island. Municipal taxpayers were not consulted about this decision, but were required to forgo literally tens of millions of dollars in fees and to subsidize gas provision in a manner not required of other taxpayers outside of METRO Vancouver.

In 2011, AVICC and its member municipalities, in cooperation with FORTIS, embarked upon a three-phase strategy to reinstate the ability to recoup annual operating fees. The strategy involved: 1. Reaching agreement on a new "Made in AVICC" model operating agreement with Fortis BC. 2. Fortis BC bringing in a new "postage rate" structure for gas rates: resulting in significant reductions for gas customers within AVICC, which has now been approved by the BC Utilities Commission. 3. The Province adopting new legislation removing the legislative prohibition on operating fees within AVICC.

Page 37 of 159 Rob Buchan, Chief Administrative Officer Page 2 Re:

After extensive work, two of these conditions precedent have now been achieved. In the case of the legislation, introduction is expected to occur shortly in the Fall sitting of the Legislature - Note: The Agreement includes a clause that makes the agreement null and void should the legislation change not occur).

As a result, municipal taxpayers would be in a position to have FORTIS start collecting the three percent operating fee structure based on gas volumes utilized in 2015 with the first payment to be received in March 2016.

Implementation Timing:

In order to benefit from this new revenue stream, individual municipalities served by gas must now agree to enter into a new formal agreement with FORTIS based upon the AVICC crafted model agreement by the end of October 2014.

This very aggressive timetable is necessary in order to obtain BCUC approvals and for billing preparations to be made to begin to collect fees by March 2015 for payment a year following.

Impacts:

Common rates phasing over the next several years will lower gas rates within AVICC in progressive steps beginning Jan 01, 2015.

Because of this progressive reduction in the cost of gas, the 3% fee on gas rates will not significantly affect the very significant overall reduction in gas rates projected for residential and business customers in the future. Gas rates will drop in excess of of 20% after 4 years for residential customers, and in excess of 30% for most small commercial customers, after including the application of the 3% fee.

At the same time, the three percent fee will have a very significant positive impact for local property taxpayers. This is estimated to be approximately $15,000 a year for North Saanich and would increase with increases in gas consumption and rates.

Required Action:

The AVICC has endorsed a model Operating Agreement in the form attached. This agreement was developed in partnership with FORTIS by a working group of municipal engineering staff working over the past 4 years, and has been fully vetted by Stewart McDanno/d Stuart with the special assistance of the City of and The District of Saanich.

AVICC is formally recommending this agreement to its members at this time. The desire is that each municipality will authorize the signing of its agreement without delay and that, preferably, the BCUC can be presented with the complete suite of AVICC municipal Operating Agreements as a package. This is expected to help to expedite implementation and ensure that no further available revenues are lost to local taxpayers.

Page 38 of 159 Rob Buchan, Chief Administrative Officer Page 3 Re:

Options: 1. Endorse the AVICC Agreement as requested. (Signed agreements will be presented to the BCUC as a package for approvals, and collection of fees will commence on March 01, 2015.) 2. Decline to approve the agreement and enter into individual discussions with Fortis towards another form of Agreement exclusive to the Municipality. (This is a decision to decline to receive operating fees - Operating Fees are only available under the AVICC Model Agreement. This also has implications for operating relationships as the model agreement's provisions are based on the assumption of off-setting fees)

Recommendation:

This is Council's opportunity to correct a 25year inequity, to "level the playing field" with competing municipalities in BC, to move towards a preferred "user pay" philosophy for gas service, and to access a significant new on-going revenue stream for municipal taxpayers. It is recommended that Council endorse the AVICC recommended agreement in the format as attached. p�·� Rob Buchan Chief Administrative Officer

Concurrence:

I�� � rector Infrastructure Services

Mark Brodrick, Director, Planning and Community Services

Page 39 of 159 FortisBC Operating Fee Esthnate As At September 9, 2014

2016 to 2019 Municipality Average Campbell River 202,794 Central Saanich 82,337 Col wood 75,609 Com ox 109,988 Courtenay 156,975 Cumberland 23,215 Duncan 29,636 Gibsons 38,770 Highlands 5,190 Ladysmith 60,675 Langford 136,109 11,706 12,172 Nanaimo 574,869 160,628 North Saanich 45,468 Parksville 98,910 104,603 Powell River 108,653 58,387 Saanich 470,034 73,210 Sidney 56,370 23,412 Victoria 753,505 68,795 3,542,022

Page 40 of 159 FINAL DRAFT OF MODEL FORM OPERATING AGREEMENT FOR FEVI: Sep 26, 2014

Without Prejudice

OPERATING AGREEMENT

THIS OPERATING AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") made this __day of

 20__ '

BETWEEN:

(hereinafter called the "Municipality") OF THE FIRST PART

AND:

FORTISBC ENERGY (VANCOUVER ISLAND) INC., a body corporate duly incorporated under the laws of the Province of , and having its registered office in the City of Vancouver, in the Province of British Columbia

(hereinafter called "FortisBC") OF THE SECOND PART RECITALS:

A. Whereas by a certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN), FortisBC (formerly Terasen Gas (Vancouver Island) Inc.) was granted the right to construct and operate gas distribution facilities within the Municipality;

B. And whereas pursuant to the Conununity Charter, S.B.C. 2003, a Municipal council may, by resolution adopt and enter into a licensing and operating agreement;

C. And whereas FortisBC and the Municipality are the parties to a Franchise or Operating Agreement dated the day of+, 20 which has or will expire on

3.294 FEVI Final Draft of Model Form Operating Agreement (Sep 26, 2014).docx

Page 41 of 159 - 2 -

D. And whereas FortisBC and the Municipality wish to enter into this Agreement to clarify and settle the terms and conditions under which FortisBC shall exercise its rights to use Public Places in conducting its business of distributing Gas within the Municipality;

NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSES that the parties covenant and agree as follows:

1. DEFINITIONS

1.1 For the purposes of this Agreement:

(a) "Boundary Limits" means the boundaiy limits of the Municipality as they exist from time to time and that determine the area over which the Municipality has control and authority;

(b) "BCUC" means the British Columbia Utilities Commission or successor having regulato1y jurisdiction over natural gas dish·ibution utilities in British Columbia;

(c) "CPCN" means a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity granted by the BCUC which allows F01iisBC to operate, maintain and install Company Facilities for the distribution of Gas within the Municipality;

(d) "Company Facilities" means FortisBC's facilities, including pipes (live and abandoned), buildings, structures, valves, signage, storage facilities, machinery, vehicles and other equipment used to maintain, operate, renew, repair, construct and monitor a natural Gas Distribution and transmission system;

( e) "Costs" has the meaning ascribed to it in Section 15 .1;

(f) "Distribution Pipelines" means pipelines operating at a pressure less than 2071 kilopascals (300 psi);

(g) "Emergency Work" means any work that, in its reasonable opinion, each party carrying out the work believes is urgently required to preserve public safety or health or to preserve the safety of Company Facilities or Municipal Facilities, as the case may be, or other property;

(h) "Fo1iisBC Employees" means personnel employed by or engaged by F01iisBC including officers, employees, directors, contractors, and agents;

(i) "Gas" means natural gas, propane, methane, synthetic gas, liquefied petroleum in a gaseous formor any mixture thereof;

(j) "Gas Distribution" means fixed equipment, structures, plastic and metal lines and pipe, valves, fittings, appliances and related facilities used or intended for the purpose of conveying, testing, monitoring, distributing,

3.294 FEY! Final Draft of Model Form Operating Agreement (Sep 26, 2014).docx

Page 42 of 159 - 3 -

mixing, storing, measuring and delivering Gas and making it available for use within the Municipality;

(k) "Impact Service Work" means Service Line Work that:

(i) requires cutting of asphalted or concrete surfaces

(ii) impact to trees, or requires working in or near wetlands, water bodies or other areas of special environmental sensitivity,

(iii) requires working on a site known to have archeological significance, including those designated by the Province of British Columbia or by the Municipality as heritage sites; or

(iv) impacts existing Municipal or third party underground Facilities.

(1) "Mains" means pipes used by FortisBC to carry gas for general or collective use forthe purposes of Gas Distribution;

(m) "Municipal Employees" means personnel employed by or engaged by the municipality, including officers, employees, directors, contractors and agents;

(n) "Municipal Facilities" means any facilities, including highways, sidewalks, conduits, manholes, equipment, machinery, pipes, wires, valves, buildings, structures, signage, bridges, viaducts and other equipment within the Public Places used by the Municipality for the purposes of its public works or municipal operations;

(o) "Municipal Supervisor" means the Municipal Engineer or other such person designated by the Municipality to receive notices and issue approval as set out in this Agreement;

(p) "New Work" means any installation, construction, repair, maintenance, alteration, extension or removal work of the Company Facilities in Public Places except;

(i) routine maintenance and repair of the Company Facilities that does not require any cutting of asphalted or concrete surface;

(ii) Service Line Work or Impact Service Work; or

(iii) Emergency Work;

(q) "Park" means land dedicated, held, managed or operated by the Municipality as a public park;

(r) "Pipeline Markers" means post, signage or any similar means of identification used to show the general location of Transmission Pipelines and distribution pipelines or FortisBC Rights of Way;

3.294 FEVI Final Draft of Model Form Operating Agreement (Sep 26, 2014).docx

Page 43 of 159 - 4 -

(s) "Plaimed Facilities" means those facilities not yet constructed but which have been identified by way of documented plans for Utilities, for works of third parties, where such works are identified by documented plans permitted by the Municipality;

(t) "Public Places" means any public thoroughfare, highway, road, street, lane, alley, , square, bridge, right of way, viaduct, subway, watercourse or other public place in the Municipality but does not mean Parks;

(u) "Service Line Work" means installation, construction, repair, maintenance, alteration, extension or removal work of that portion of FortisBC's gas distribution system extending from a Main to the inlet of a meter set and, for the purposes of this Agreement, includes a service header and service stubs;

(v) "Transmission Pipeline" means a pipeline of FortisBC having an operating pressure in excess of 2071 kilopascals (300 psi); and

(w) "Utilities" means the facilities or operations of any water, waste water, sewer, telecommunications, energy, cable service or similar service provider located in Public Places within the Municipality.

2. INTERPRETATION

2.1 For the purposes of interpreting this Agreement:

(a) the headings are for convenience only and are not intended as a guide to interpretation of this Agreement;

(b) words in the singular include the plural, words importing a corporate entity include individuals, and vice versa;

( c) in calculating time where the agreement refers to "at least" or "not less than" a number of days, weeks, months or years, the first and last days must be excluded and where the agreement refers to "at least" or "not less than" a number of days, Saturdays, Sundays and holidays must be excluded;

( d) the word "including", when following any general term or statement, is not to be construed as limiting the general term or statement to the specific items or matters, but rather as permitting the general term or statement to refer to all other items or matters that could reasonably fall within the broadest possible scope of the general term or statement.

3.294 FEVI Final Draft of Model Form Operating Agreement (Sep 26, 2014).docx

Page 44 of 159 - 5 -

3. OBLIGATION TO ACT IN GOOD FAITH

3.1 FortisBC and the Municipality acknowledge and agree that they will act in good faith, in carrying out the terms and conditions of this Agreement and within reasonable time frames, carry out the obligations under this Agreement.

3.2 FortisBC and the Municipality will at all times carry out all work and operations with the due care and attention that is necessary to safeguard the interests of the public, their own employees, and the other party's employees.

4. FORTISBC RIGHTS TO ACCESS & USE PUBLIC PLACES

4.1 Use of Public Places

The Municipality hereby acknowledges FortisBC's rights to:

(a) develop, construct, install, maintain or remove Company Facilities on, over, in and under Public Places in the Municipality;

(b) enter on Public Places from time to time as may be reasonably necessary for the purpose of maintaining, repailing, or operating Company Facilities; and

(c) place pipeline identification markers within Public Places where a Transmission Pipeline or Distribution Pipeline crosses or is otherwise within a Public Place;

subject to terms and conditions definedin this Agreement.

4.2 Use of Parks

(a) The Municipality may authorize Fortis BC to use Parks for the Company Facilities. The Municipality shall not umeasonably withhold permission in circumstances where Utilities owned by third parties are already placed within the Park and the Municipality does not consider that the use of the Park by Fortis BC will materially affect the public's use of the Park or existing Utilities. Where such permission has been granted to Fortis BC, the Municipality shall grant FortisBC:

(i) a right of way in registerable form; or

(ii) in the case of a dedicated Park or other Park for which there is no registered title, a license or permit;

allowing FortisBC to use the Park for the Company Facilities and Fortis BC shall pay to the Municipality compensation for the fair market value of the right-of-way, the license or permit as the case may be. Fair market value shall be as agreed by the Municipality and Fortis BC based on compensation by Fortis BC or other public utilities or other municipalities in the Province of

3.294 FEVI Final Draftof Model Form Operating Agreement (Sep 26, 2014).docx

Page 45 of 159 - 6 -

British Columbia for similar rights-of-way, licenses or permits, as the case may be, granted with respect to similar public lands in other municipalities. Failing agreement between Fortis BC and the Municipality as to the fair market value of any right-of-way, license or permit, compensation shall be determined in accordance with the Expropriation Act, RSBC 1996. c125. as amended or replaced from time to time.

5. GRANDFATHERING FOR EXISTING USE OF PARI

5.1 The Municipality acknowledges that Company Facilities may have been installed in Parks. Where FortisBC has existing Company Facilities in a Park, FortisBC may maintain, replace or remove such Company Facilities and enter such park from time to time as may be reasonably necessmy for the same purposes, subject to the same terms and conditions defined in this Agreement with respect to FortisBC's use of Public Places, as reasonably applicable.

6. FORTISBC COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS FOR USE OF PUBLIC PLACES

6.1 Non-discriminatory Standards for FortisBC

In its use of Public Places, FortisBC shall comply with all Federal and Provincial laws, regulations and codes and shall comply with all Municipal bylaws, standards and policies except that F01iisBC shall not have to comply with such Municipal bylaws, standards and policies that:

(a) conflict with terms of this Agreement or limit any rights or concessions granted to FortisBC by the Municipality under this Agreement; or

(b) conflictwith other legislation governing FortisBC.

Further, where the Municipality has established requirements and standards for work in Public Places, the Municipality shall apply them in a fair, reasonable and non­ discriminatory maimer consistent with the maimer that the Municipality establishes requirements on other Utilities.

6.2 Depth of Cover

Subject to Section 6.1 above, FortisBC shall comply with Municipal standards that establish a minimum depth of cover for the installation of Company Facilities to a maximum of 75cm depth of cover. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Municipality may require a greater depth of cover for the installation of Company Facilities where such cover is required to accommodate Plam1ed Facilities.

3.294 FEVI Final Draft of Model Form Operating Agreement (Sep 26, 2014).docx

Page 46 of 159 - 7 -

6.3 Provide emergency contacts.

FortisBC will provide the Municipality with a 24 hour emergency contact number which the Municipality will use to notify FortisBC of emergencies including; gas leaks, third pmiy accidents around work sites, ruptures of gas lines, and other potentially hazardous situations.

6.4 Assist with facility locates

FortisBC will, at no cost to the Municipality, provide locations of its Company Facilities within a time frame as may be reasonably requested by the Municipality unless the reason for the request is the result of an emergency; in which case the information shall be provided fo1thwith. F01tisBC shall provide gas locations from Fo1iisBC records. FortisBC shall perform on site facility locates in accordance with the Safety Standards Act- Gas SafetyRegulations, section 39.

7. FORTISBC WORK OBLIGATIONS:

7.1 New Work

7.1.1. Application forNew Work

For New Work, FortisBC shall submit an application to the Municipal Supervisor for a permit when it intends to performNew Work. The application shall include:

(a) a plan and specifications showing:

(i) the size and dimensions of all New Works, their proposed depth below the surface of the ground and their proposed locations related to property lines;

(ii) profiles for gas applications for gas mains 114 mm or greater that may impact Planned Facilities, if requested by the Municipality;

(iii) the edge of hard surfaces of affected roads, streets or highways or other Public Places;

(iv) the proposed location and/or clearances of the New Works where the New Works cross existing Utilities provided that all such locations and elevations are made available to FortisBC by the Municipality or the owner of such Utilities; and

(v) boundaries and legal descriptions of any private lm1ds affected or within 1.5 meters of the proposed centre line of the New Work;

(b) FortisBC's plans for the restoration of the Public Place affected by the New Work if FortisBC's restoration plans are different from those set out in Section 7.6.4 of this Agreement;

3.294 FEY! Final Draftof Model Form Operating Agreement (Sep 26, 2014).docx

Page 47 of 159 - 8 -

(c) the name of a FortisBC representative who may be contacted for more information;

( d) projected commencement and completion dates; and

(e) such other information relevant to the New Work as the Municipality may reasonably require from time to time.

7.1.2. Exception for Emergency

Where FortisBC is required to carry out Emergency Work, FortisBC shall not be required to give prior notice but shall do so as soon as possible thereafter.

7.1.3. Municipal Permits forNew Work

The Municipality shall use its best efforts to issue a permit for New Workwithin fifteen(15) days of receipt by the Municipality of an application containing all the information required under Section 7.1.1, or a time extension if large and complex. The Municipality may refuse to issue a permit for the New Work on the following grounds:

(a) the proposed location of the New Work conflicts with existing Municipal Facilities, existing third pmiy facilities or Plmmed Facilities, trees, wetlands, water bodies or other areas of special environmental sensitivity, or areas that are of archeological significance, including areas designated by the Province of British Columbia or by the Municipality as heritage sites; or

(b) the proposed location or design of the New Work is likely to compromise public safety or does not conform with Municipal bylaws, stm1dards or policies; or

(c) in instances where Fo1iisBC can delay the New Work without compromising the supply, capacity or safety of its Gas Distribution System or its customers' need for gas service and the Municipality intends within the next three (3) months to undertake work in the same location and wishes to co-ordinate both work; or

(d) FortisBC has not provided the Municipality with the information required by Section 7.1 .1;

and shall provide FmiisBC with grounds for its refusal to grant the permit, provided such grounds are reasonable, no more than fifteen (15) days after receiving FortisBC's permit application for New Work, except that in the case of work that is large or complex, the Municipality may extend the time for response by a maximum of ten ( 10) additional days.

3.294 FEY! Final Draft of Model Fonn Operating Agreement (Sep 26, 2014).docx

Page 48 of 159 - 9 -

7.1.4. Conditions of Permit

Notwithstanding Section 7.1.3 above, the Municipality may include conditions in its permit for the New Work to address the matters set out in Subsections 7. l.3(a) and 7. l.3(b). In addition, the Municipality may require FortisBC to provide the public with notice of the New Work. Any additional terms or conditions contained in a permit for the New Work shall be of no force and effect except to the extent that such terms or conditions are consistent with the terms of this Operating Agreement.

7.1.5. Work Not to Proceed

If the Municipality

(a) fails to provide FortisBC with a permit within fifteen (15) days of Fo1tisBC's application of New Work or, in the case of large and complex New Work, within such extended time as may be set out in the Municipality's notice to FortisBC; or

(b) notifies FmtisBC of its objections to the New Work;

FmtisBC may referthe matter to dispute resolution in accordance with Section 18. Fo1tisBC shall not proceed with the New Work until the Municipality provides FortisBC with a permit for such work including a permit issued as a result of the resolution of a dispute by the parties.

7.2 Impact Service Work

7.2.1. Application for Impact Service Work

For Impact Service Work, FortisBC shall submit an application to the Municipal Supervisor for a permit when it intends to perform Impact Service Work. The application shall be in the form attached as Schedule A to this Agreement and shall include a sketch showing:

(a) property lines and street addresses;

(b) existing gas main and proposed service location offset to property;

( c) all hard surfaces, trees, archeological or environmental areas impacted by the new service installation; and

(d) buried utilities identified in the plmming stages to be impacted by the proposed service.

3.294 FEY! Final Draft of Model Form Operating Agreement (Sep 26, 2014).docx

Page 49 of 159 - 10 -

7.2.2. Municipal Permits for Impact Service Work

The Municipality shall use its best efforts to issue a permit for Impact Service Work within five (5) days of receipt by the Municipality of an application containing all the information required under Section 7.2.1. The Municipality may refuse to issue a permit for the Impact Service Work on the following grounds:

(a) the proposed location of the Impact Service Work conflicts with existing Municipal Facilities, existing third party facilities or Planned Facilities, trees, wetlands, water bodies or other areas of special enviromnental sensitivity, or areas that are of archaeological significance, including areas designated by the Province of British Columbia or by the Municipality as heritage sites; or

(b) FortisBC has not provided the Municipality with the information required by Section 7.2.1;

and shall provide FortisBC with the grounds for its refusal to grant the permit, provided such grounds are reasonable, no more than ten (10) days after receiving FortisBC's permit application for Impact Service Work.

7.2.3. Conditions of Permit

Notwithstanding Section 7.2.2 above, the Municipality may include conditions in its permit forthe Impact Service Work to address the matters set out in Subsection 7.2.l(a). Any additional terms or conditions contained in a permit for the Impact Service Work shall be of no force and effect except to the extent that such tenns or conditions are consistent with the terms of this Operating Agreement.

7.2.4. Work Not to Proceed

If the Municipality

(a) fails to provide FortisBC with a permit within ten (10) days of FortisBC's application of Impact Service Work; or

(b) notifies FortisBC of its objections to the Impact Service Work;

FortisBC may refer the matter to dispute resolution in accordance with Section 18. Fo1iisBC shall not proceed with the Impact Service Work until the Municipality provides FortisBC with a permit for such work including a permit issued as a result of a resolution of a dispute between the Parties.

3.294 FEVI Final Draft of Model Form Operating Agreement (Sep 26, 2014).docx

Page 50 of 159 - 11 -

7.3 Notices of Service Line Work

7.3.1 Notice

FortisBC shall provide the Municipality with notice of its intent to undertake Service Line Work. When it intends to undertake Service Line Work, FortisBC shall provide such notice in the form attached as Schedule A to this Agreement. 7.3.2 Objections

The Municipality may object to Service Line Work on the grounds set out in Subsections 7.2.2(a) and (b) above, by providing FmtisBC with notice of its objections within five (5) days ofreceiving Fo1tisBC's notice. If the Municipality does not provide such notice of its objections to FortisBC within five (5) days of receiving FortisBC's notice, the Municipality shall be deemed to have granted its approval of the Service Line Work.

7.3.3 Resolving Objections

If the Municipality has objections to the planned Service Line Work and if the Municipality and FmtisBC are unable to agree on a resolution, then either pa1ty may refer the matter to dispute resolution in accordance with Section 18. The Municipality shall not otherwise withhold or delay its approval.

7.4 Expiry of Permit or Approval After Twelve Months

A permit or deemed approval will expire in the event that FortisBC does not carry out New Work, or Service Line Work within twelve months of the date of the permit or deemed approval.

7.5 FortisBC to Obtain Locate Information

Prior to conducting any New Work, FortisBC shall locate other Utilities and satisfy itself that it is clear to proceed.

7.6 Work Standards

7.6.1. Engineering Practices

All work carried out by FortisBC shall be carried out in accordance with sound engineering practices.

7.6.2. SpecificWork Requirements to Remove Materials

FortisBC shall keep its work sites clean and tidy. FortisBC shall remove all rubbish and surplus material from Public Places upon completion of its work.

3.294 FEVl Final Draft of Model Form Operating Agreement (Sep 26, 2014).docx

Page 51 of 159 - 12 -

7.6.3. No Nuisance

Fortis BC shall not leave any part of its gas system in such a state as to constitute a nuisance or a danger to the public through neglect, non-use and want or repair.

7.6.4. Restore Surface and Subsurface

Where FortisBC has performed any operations, Service Line Work or New Work in a Public Place, FortisBC shall restore without unreasonable delay and return such Public Place, as much as reasonably practical, to the condition and use which existed prior to such activity. The restoration will be in accordance with the specifications set out by the Municipality. Such specifications may include the degree and nature of compaction, subsurface structure, surface finish and landscaping required. Where FortisBC is required to cut pavement on a Public Place such cuts and restoration will be limited to less than 1.5 meters in width unless at the discretion of Fo1iisBC a larger excavation is warranted due to the depth or size of the pipe or requirements of the Workers' Compensation Board or other relevant Provincial or Federal regulations. FmiisBC will be responsible for any repairs and maintenance of the surface repair for a period of five (5) years. However, where pavement restoration has been conducted by the Municipality, whether or not such work was undertaken to repair cuts on Fo1iisBC's behalf, FortisBC shall not be responsible for the repairs or maintenance of the surface repair.

7.6.5. Repair Damage to Municipal Facilities

To the extent that any of the work being done by FortisBC results in damage to Municipal Facilities or Public Places, other than the usual physical disruption to Public Places caused by the installation of Company Facilities that Fo1iisBC shall restore in accordance with Section 7.6.4 above, FortisBC will, as soon as reasonably possible, report such damage and reimburse the Municipality for its Costs arising from such damage calculated in accordance with Section 15 .1 below. Where such damage results directly from inaccurate or incomplete information supplied by Municipality, and FortisBC has complied with all applicable laws and regulations, and with instructions supplied by the Municipality, then the cost of repairing damaged Municipal Facilities or Public Places will be at the expense of the Municipality.

7.6.6. Restoration Audit

FortisBC may retain a third party, at FortisBC's expense, to carry out audits of FortisBC's repairs or restoration of Municipal Facilities, and the number and frequency of such audits shall be determined in consultation with, and with the agreement of the Municipality. The audit shall take into account different road classification, the results of previous audits and other criteria agreed upon by FortisBC and the Municipality. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the extent and the frequency of the audits will be results based and therefore, the results of any

3.294 FEY! Final Draft of Model Form Operating Agreement (Sep 26, 2014).docx

Page 52 of 159 - 13 -

audits will determine whether the frequency and the extent of any audits should be increased or decreased. This system qf audits shall replace any testing required by the Municipality under its bylaws.

7.7 Conformity Requirement

The New Work and Service Line Work must be carried out in conformity with Municipal Permits or approved notices for New Work or Service Line Work, as the case may be, except that Fo1tisBC may make in-field design changes when canying out the New Work or Service Line Work to accommodate field conditions which could not have been reasonably foreseen by FortisBC. If such in-field conditions materially impact FortisBC's plans for restoration or materially change the impact of FmtisBC's work on Municipal Facilities, other than in respect of projected commencement and completion dates, Fo1tisBC shall notify the Municipality of the changes and the reasons for them prior to continuing the work.

7.8 Non-Compliance

If Company Facilities located in Public Places are later found not to be located in compliance with FmtisBC's notice of New Work or Service Line Work provided in accordance with Sections 7.1 and 7.3, then any alteration or upgrading required to bring them into compliance with such notice will be at the expense of FortisBC provided that the work has not been altered, damaged or modifiedby the Municipality or a third party.

7 .9 Prime Contractor

Where FortisBC performs any work in a Public Place, FmtisBC shall act as the prime contractor or designate in writing its contractor to act as the prime contractor, within the meaning of Section 118 of the Workers Compensation Act (British Columbia) unless otherwise designated in writing by the Municipality or a third paity working in such Public Place.

8. CLOSURE OR EXPROPRIATION OF PUBLIC PLACES

8.1 Closure of Public Places

Before any Public Places contammg Company Facilities may be legally closed or alienated by the Municipality, the Municipality shall as soon as reasonably possible notify FortisBC of its intent to close or alienate such Public Places and either:

(a) grant FortisBC a registered statutory right of way in a form satisfactory to FortisBC so as to maintain FortisBC's right to use the land; or

(b) request FortisBC to remove and (if possible and practicable) relocate those Company Facilities affected by such closure or alienation at the sole cost of the Municipality.

3.294 FEVI Final Draft of Model Fonn Operating Agreement (Sep 26, 2014).docx

Page 53 of 159 - 14 -

8.2 Expropriation of Public Places

If the Public Places are expropriated by an expropnatmg authority and FortisBC is required to remove the Company Facilities then the Municipality shall as soon as reasonably possible notify FortisBC of the expropriation. This Section 8.2 is applicable when the Municipality receives official notice of expropriation or otherwise becomes aware of expropriation through communications with the expropriating authority.

9. FACILITY CHANGES REQUIRED

9.1 By FortisBC

FortisBC may provide Notice to the Municipality that it requires Municipal Facilities to be altered, changed or relocated to accommodate its requirements. The Municipality will comply with FortisBC's requests to the extent it is reasonably able to do so and with reasonable speed and dispatch after receipt of written request. FmiisBC agrees to pay for all of the Costs for changes to the affected Municipal Facilities. The Municipality shall provide estimates and invoices to FortisBC in respect of such work in accordance with Section 15 of this Agreement.

9.2 By the Municipality

The Municipality may provide Notice to FortisBC that it requires Company Facilities to be altered, changed, temporarily shut-down, temporarily by-passed, or relocated to accommodate its requirements. FortisBC will comply with the Municipality's requests to the extent it is reasonably able to do so and with reasonable speed and dispatch after receipt of written request. The Municipality agrees to pay for all of the Costs for changes to the affected Company Facilities except where such Company Facilities were not installed in conformity with Section 7.7 of this Agreement. FortisBC shall provide estimates and invoices to the Municipality in respect of such work in accordance with Section 15 of this Agreement.

This Section 9.2 is an agreement between the Municipality and FortisBC for the purpose of section 76(1)(c) of the Oil and Gas Activities Act.

10. JOINT PLANNING, COOPERATION AND COORDINATION

10.1 Conduct of Construction and Maintenance Activities

The Municipality and FortisBC agree to use reasonable efforts in carrying out their construction and maintenance activities in a manner that is responsive to the effect that it may have on the other party, as well as other users of Public Places. Such reasonable efforts include attending the plaiming meetings described in Section I 0.2 below and reducing as much as is practical, the obstruction of access to Public Places, and interference with the facilities and activities of others in Public Places.

3.294 FEVI Final Draft of Model Form Operating Agreement (Sep 26, 2014).docx

Page 54 of 159 - 15 -

10.2 Communication and Coordination Activities

At the initiation of the Municipality, representatives of the Municipality, FortisBC and other affected Utilities and third parties will meet each year, prior to the construction season, to discuss the parties' anticipated construction activities for that year and to review Planned Facilities. Such discussions will include

(a) safe working practices;

(b) the use of common trenching, common utility access facilities and such other common facilities as may be commercially reasonable and comply with operating and safety standards; and

(c) the consolidation of planned New Work, Impact Service Work and maintenance work especially where pavement must be cut in order to avoid multiple excavations.

10.3 Municipal Planning Lead

During such annual planning meetings, the Municipality shall lead the planning process for all Utilities and third parties with Plaimed Facilities in Public Places.

10.4 Mapping Information

10.4.1. Municipal Information

The Municipality shall supply to FortisBC at no cost all record drawings and information it has forMunicipal Facilities.

10.4.2. FortisBC Information

FortisBC shall supply to the Municipality at no cost all record drawings and information it has for Company Facilities within the Municipality, including abandoned mains.

lOA.3. Co-Operation

FortisBC and the Municipality shall co-operate to improve their mapping systems so they are compatible, provide the necessary information and are easily accessible to both paiiies.

11. MUTUAL INDEMNITY

11.1 Indemnity by FortisBC

11.1.1. FortisBC indemnifies and protects and saves the Municipality harmless from and against all claims by third parties in respect to loss of life, personal injmy (including, in all cases, personal discomfort and illness), loss or damage to property caused by FortisBC in:

3.294 FEY! Final Draft of Model Form Operating Agreement (Sep 26, 2014).docx

Page 55 of 159 - 16 -

(a) placing, constructing, renewing, altering, repamng, maintaining, removing, extending, operating or using the Company's Facilities on or under any Public Places; and

(b) any breach of this Agreement by FortisBC;

except to the extent contributed by negligence or default of the Municipality or the Municipal Employees.

11.1.2. This indenmity expressly extends to all acts and om1ss10ns of FortisBC Employees.

11.2 Indemnity by the Municipality

11.2.1. The Municipality indemnifies and protects and saves FortisBC harmless from and against all claims by third pa1ties in respect to loss of life, personal injury (including, in all cases, personal discomfort and illness), loss or damage to prope11y to the extent caused by the Municipality in:

(a) placing, constructing, renewing, altering, repamng, maintaining, removing, extending, operating or using the Municipal Facilities on or under any Public Places;

(b) any breach of this Agreement by the Municipality;

except to the extent contributed by the negligence or default of FortisBC or FortisBC Employees.

11.2.2. This indemnity expressly extends to all acts and om1ss10ns of Municipal Employees.

11.3 Limitations on Municipality's Liability

All property of FortisBC kept or stored on the Public Places will be kept or stored at the risk of F01tisBC. For further certainty, FortisBC acknowledges that the Municipality has made no representations or warranties as to the state of repair or the suitability of the Public Places for any business, activity or purpose whatsoever. FortisBC accepts its use of Public Places on an "as is" basis.

11.4 No Liability for Approval of Drawings and Plans

The Municipality shall not be liable to FortisBC as a result only of the Municipality's approval of drawings and plans in c01mection with notices or applications for permits provided by FortisBC to the Municipality pursuant to this Agreement.

3.294 FEY! Final Draft of Model Form Operating Agreement (Sep 26, 2014).docx

Page 56 of 159 - 17 -

12. OPERATING FEE

12.1 Fee Calculation

12.1.1. FortisBC agrees to pay to the Municipality a fee of three percent (3%) (the "Operating Fee") of the gross revenues (excluding taxes) received by FortisBC for provision and distribution of all gas consumed within the Boundary Limits of the Municipality, other than gas consumed by customers from whom the BCUC has not allowed F01iisBC to collect the Operating Fee, provided that the Municipality is permitted by law to charge such a fee. Such amount will not include any amount received by FortisBC for gas supplied or sold for resale.

12.1.2. The Municipality will provide FortisBC with thirty (30) days prior written notice of any boundary expansion so that existing and new customers in the expanded area can be included as a part of the annual payment fee.

12.1.3. FortisBC will be responsible for adding those existing and new customers within the new Municipal boundary upon receipt of such notice from the Municipality and the revised calculation of the fee will commence effective the date that is the later of the date of actual boundary change or thirty (30) days after the notification under section 12.1.2.

12.2 Payment Date and Period

Payments by FortisBC to the Municipality will be made on the firstday of March of each year of the Agreement in respect of the amount received by F ortisBC during that p01iion of the term of this Agreement which is in the immediately preceding calendar year. By way of example only, payment made on March 1, 2015 will be the amount received during the 2014 calendar year.

12.3 BCUC Decision or Provincial Legislation

In the event that a decision by the BCUC, other than periodic rate changes as a result of commodity, delivery or margin increases or decreases, or new legislation by the Provincial Govenm1ent, impacts the operating fee being paid to the Municipality so as to increase it or decrease it by more than 5% annually at the time of the decision or in subsequent years, the parties shall negotiate a new operating fee formula which best reflects the revenue stream received by the Municipality under this Agreement. For greater certainty, the parties acknowledge that a change to the BCUC's decision that FortisBC shall provide the agency billing and collections service for marketers on a mandatory basis, as set out in the "Business Rules for Commodity Unbundling", dated June 5, 2003 as set out in Appendix A to Letter No. L-25-03, may impact the operating fee being paid to the Municipality.

13. OTHER APPROVALS, PERMITS ORLICENSES

Except as specifically provided in this Agreement, the Municipality will not require FortisBC to seek or obtain approvals, permits or licenses related to FortisBC's use of the

3.294 FEVl Final Draft of Model Form Operating Agreement (Sep 26, 2014).docx

Page 57 of 159 - 18 -

Public Places as contemplated in this Agreement. The Municipality will not charge or levy against FortisBC any approval, license, inspection or permit fee, or charge of any other type, that in any maimer is related to or associated with FortisBC constructing, installing, renewing, altering, repairing, maintaining or operating Company Facilities on any Public Places or in any maimer related to or associated with FortisBC exercising the powers and rights granted to it by this Agreement (other than for repair of damage to the Municipal Facilities or Public Places in accordance with Section 15) .

If the Municipality does charge or levy fees or costs against FortisBC (other than for repair of damage to the Municipal Facilities or Public Places in accordance with Section 15) then FortisBC may reduce the annual operating fee payable to the Municipality under Section 12 by an amount equal to such charges, fees or costs or in the event no annual operating fee is payable, FortisBC will not be required to pay such charges or fees or costs.

14. MUNICIPAL OBLIGATIONS

14.1 Municipal Work

14.1.1. Beforethe Municipality undertakes routine maintenance and repair that is likely to affect Company Facilities, it must give FortisBC as much notice as it can but not less than fifteen (15) days before commencing such construction or maintenance activity.

14.1.2. Where the Municipality is required to carry out Emergency Work, the Municipality shall not be required to give prior notice but shall do so as soon as possible thereafter.

14.1.3. FortisBC will be entitled to appoint at its cost a representative to inspect any construction or maintenance activity undertaken by the Municipality. The provisions of this section do not relieve the Municipality of its responsibilities under the Gas Safety Act, Oil and Gas Activities Act, and successor legislation, regulations thereunder, or the requirements of the BC Workers' Compensation Board.

14.1.4. In addition, the Municipality shall provide Notice to FortisBC of any work plaimed that will be adjacent to, across, over or under a Transmission Pipeline or within a right-of-way for a Transmission Pipeline. To the extent that FortisBC requires that permit be issued for construction or other activities within a Transmission Pipeline right-of-way, the Municipality will submit an application for such a permit in sufficient time for the application to be reviewed and approved by FortisBC prior to the commencement of the construction or other activity.

14.1.5. The Municipality shall assist FortisBC in FortisBC's efforts to reduce instances of residences being built over gas lines and other similarly unsafe building practices by third parties.

3.294 FEVI Final Draft of Model Fonn Operating Agreement (Sep 26, 2014).docx

Page 58 of 159 - 19 -

14.1 .6. The Municipality shall not interfere with Transmission Pipeline markers.

14.1.7. The Municipality shall provide notice to FortisBC of any damage caused by the Municipality to Company Facilities or Transmission Pipeline Markers as soon as reasonably possible. To the extent that any of the work being done by the Municipality results in damage to the Company Facilities, the Municipality will report such damage and pay FortisBC its Costs arising from such damage in accordance with Section 15.1 below. Where such damage results directly from inaccurate or incomplete information supplied by FortisBC, and the Municipality has complied with all applicable laws and regulations, and with instructions supplied by FortisBC, then the cost of repairing the damaged Company Facilities will be at the expense of FortisBC.

14.1.8. The Municipality shall notify FortisBC of any new bylaws, standards or policies adopted or passed by the Municipality that are likely to affect F01tisBC's operations in Public Places.

15. COSTS AND PAYMENT PROCEDURES

15.1 Definition of Costs

Wherever one party is required to pay the other party Costs as a result of damage caused by one patty to the other's prope1ty or for facility changes required in accordance with Section 9 of this Agreement, the Costs shall be:

(a) all direct expenses and disbursements incmTed to restore such property to as good a state of repair as had existed prior to the damage;

(b) reasonable administration and overhead charges on labour, equipment and materials;

( c) such taxes as may be required in the appropriate jurisdiction;

(d) the cost of the lost commodity as determined by the claiming patty;

(e) the cost for additional work related to the damage (for example, gas relights, flushing water mains); and

(f) cost of supplying alternate or temporary service until the repair of the property is made.

15.2 Cost Claim Procedures

15.2.1. Wherever one party is claiming Costs of the other party in regard to any work or issue arising under this Agreement the claiming party shall:

(a) Notify the other party of the loss no later than two (2) months after incurring costs and provide an invoice to the other party no later than one year after incurring Costs;

3.294 FEVI Final Draft of Model Form Operating Agreement (Sep 26, 2014).docx

Page 59 of 159 - 20 -

(b) provide detailed descriptions of the cost items, provided that claiming party may require the other party to keep sensitive business information, including third party information, confidential;

(c) provide the time period the invoice covers;

(d) provide a minimum of twenty-one (21) day terms for payment of the invoice; and

(e) provide for late payment interest at the rate consistent with the party's policy for charging for late payments, which rate must be reasonable.

15.2.2. The party claiming Costs shall have no right of set off for these invoices against any amounts otherwise payable to the other party, except to the extent so approved in writing by the other party.

15.3 Cost VerificationProcedures

15.3.1. Wherever either party is the recipient of or is claiming Costs and or fees thatparty may at its own discretion request from the other paiiy:

(a) Certification by an officer or designated representative verifying the calculations and computations of the Costs and or fees; or

(b) An internal review or audit of the calculations and computations of the Costs and or fees, with the internal review or audit to be carried out by a person appointed by the party being asked to provide the review; or

(c) An independent external audit of the calculations and computations of the costs and fees, with the independent external auditor being a Chartered or a Certified General Accountant in British Columbia appointed by the party requesting the external audit.

15.3.2. The costs of this cost verification process shall be borne by the party who is required to supply the information except as otherwise specified providing the frequency of such requests does not exceed once per calendar year. For all future cases which occur in that calendar year, the costs of such further verifications shall be at the expense of the requester.

Where the independent external audit finds and establishes errors representing a variance greater than two (2%) percent of the originally calculated value in favour of the paiiy claiming Costs, the costs shall be at the expense of the party supplying the information. Once an error has been verified, payment or refund of the amount found to be in error will be made within twenty-one (21) days.

3.294 FEVI Final Draft of Model Fonn Operating Agreement (Sep 26, 2014).docx

Page 60 of 159 - 21 -

16. START, TERMINATION AND CONTINUITY

16.1 Municipal Authority to Enter into Agreement

Prior to entering into this Agreement the Municipality will complete all procedures, obtain all consents and enact and bring into force all resolutions required under the Community Charter, and amendments thereto, and all other applicable legislation, to approve and authorize this Agreement.

16.2 Agreement Not Binding Until Conditions Met

This Agreement will not come into effect and does not bind the parties until:

(a) FortisBC has obtained such approvals of this Agreement, or its terms, as may be required under the Ut ilities Commission Act; and

(b) The Municipality has obtained authority permitting it to charge the operating fee set out in Section 12.1 this Agreement.

Upon executing this Agreement FortisBC shall make reasonable efforts to fulfill the condition under paragraph (a) and the Municipality shall make reasonable efforts to fulfill the condition under paragraph (b) . If these conditions is not fulfilled or waived within one (1) year of the date of execution of this Agreement, then the obligation on FmtisBC or the Municipality, as the case may be, to make reasonable efforts to fulfill the condition will terminate, and neither party will have any further obligation to the other under this Agreement.

16.3 Termination of Franchise Agreement

If not already terminated or expired, any franchise and operating agreement between the Municipality and FortisBC is terminated upon the effective date of this Agreement as referred to in Section 16.2 of this Agreement.

16A· Term of Agreement

This Agreement will have a term of twenty (20) years from the date that it comes into effect and after the initial term shall continue indefinitely unless terminated in accordance with Section 16.5 below.

16.5 Termination of Agreement

16.5.1. This Agreement may be terminated by the Municipality upon the occunence of any of the following events:

(a) FortisBC admits its inability to pay its debts generally as they become due or otherwise acknowledges its insolvency;

3.294 FEVl Final Draft of Model Form Operating Agreement (Sep 26, 2014).docx

Page 61 of 159 - 22 -

(b) FortisBC starts proceedings or takes any action to commence or executes an agreement to authorize its participation in any proceeding:

(i) seeking to adjudicate it bankrupt or insolvent;

(ii) seeking liquidation, reorganization, arrangement, protection, relief or composition of it or any of its property or debt or making a proposal with respect to it under any law relating to bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization or compromise of debts or other similar laws; or

(iii) seeking the appointment of a receiver, trustee, agent, custodian or other similar official for it or for any substantial part of its assets or if a creditor seeks the appointment of a receiver, trustee, agent, custodian or other similar official for any substantial part of its assets; and such proceeding is not dismissed, discharged, stayed or restrained within twenty (20) days of the Municipality becoming aware of it.

16.5.2. Either party may terminate if other breaches any term, prov1s10n, obligation hereunder and such breach, is a material major breach, and has not been cured within sixty (60) days of receipt of Notice of such breach. A Party will not be considered to be in default if such matter is in dispute or has been referred to commercial arbitration, the outcome of which is pending, or is being resolved in good faith compliance with the dispute resolution and arbitration processes of this Agreement.

16.5.3. After the initial twenty (20) year term of this Agreement, either party may terminate this Agreement by giving the other not less than one (1) year's notice of termination.

16.6 Amendments and Waivers

This Agreement may be amended only by an agreement in writing signed by the parties. No waiver of any provision nor consent to any exception to the terms of this Agreement shall be effective unless in writing and signed by the parties to be bound, and then only to the specific purpose, extent and instance so provided. No waiver, delay or failure to exercise any rights under this Agreement shall be construed as a continuing waiver of such right or as a waiver of any other right under this Agreement.

The parties agree to meet to discuss the operations of the Agreement within thirty (30) days of either party making the request. Such a meeting will determine whether any amendments are required to this Agreement and the parties shall discuss any proposed amendments with a view to maximizing the benefit of the relationship.

3.294 FEY! Final Draft of Model Form Operating Agreement (Sep 26, 2014).docx

Page 62 of 159 - 23 -

16.7 Negotiations on Termination or Expiry of this Agreement

Upon one party giving Notice to the other of termination of this Agreement, the parties shall negotiate in good faith to enter into a new agreement with respect to the terms and conditions under which F oriisBC may use the Public Places. In the event that such negotiations break down and in the opinion of one or other of the parties acting in good faith that settlement is unlikely, either party may give Notice to the other of its intention to apply to the BCUC to seek resolution of the terms and conditions applicable to FortisBC's continued operations and construction activities within the Municipality.

16.8 Continuity In The Event No Agreement Is Settled

Upon the expiry or termination of this Agreement, if a new agreement has not been ratified or if the BCUC has not imposed the terms and conditions under which FortisBC may use the Public Places, the following provisions will apply:

(a) The Company Facilities within the boundary limits of the Municipality both before and after the date of this Agreement, shall remain ForiisBC's property and shall remain in the Public Places.

(b) The Company Facilities may continue to be used by FortisBC for the purposes of its business, or removed from Public Places in whole or in part at FortisBC's sole discretion.

(c) FmiisBC may continue to use Public Places within the Municipality for the purposes of its business. FortisBC's employees, may enter upon all the Public Places within the Boundary Limits of the Municipality to maintain, operate, install, construct, renew, alter, or place Company Facilities; provided that FortisBC continues to operate in a manner consistent with the terms and conditions of this Agreement as if the term had been extended except with respect to the payment of the operating fee.

(d) FortisBC will with the support of the Municipality take such steps necessary to seek BCUC approvals of the extension of terms and conditions including payment of the operating fee under the terminated agreement during negotiations of a new agreement.

(e) Should FortisBC no longer be authorized or required to pay the operating fee under this or any other Agreement between it and the Municipality or by any order of the BCUC, the Municipality shall be free to apply such approval, permit and licence fees, charges and levies it is legally entitled to collect.

3.294 FEVI Final Draft of Model Form Operating Agreement (Sep 26, 2014).docx

Page 63 of 159 - 24 -

17. ACCOMMODATION OF FUTURE CHANGES

17.1 Outsourcing of InfrastructureManagement

In the event that the Municipality assigns the task of infrastructure management to a third party:

(a) the Municipality will ensure that its contracts for such infrastructure management contain provisions that will allow the Municipality to meet its obligations under and to comply with the terms and conditions of, this Agreement; and

(b) FortisBC will accept the appointment of such third party as the Municipality's agent or subcontractor to enable such third party to deal directly with FortisBC so as to enable the Municipality to comply with the terms, obligations and conditions of this Agreement.

17.2 Changes to the Community Charter

In the event that the provisions of the Community Charter or other legislation affecting the rights and powers of municipalities change in such a way as to materially, in the opinion of the Municipality, affect municipal powers in respect to matters dealt with in this Agreement,

(a) the Municipality may within one year of the change coming into effect propose new agreement terms with respect to only those specific changes and FortisBC agrees to negotiate such terms; and

(b) failing satisfactory resolution of the terms of the Agreement either of the parties may seek resolution through the Dispute Resolution Process, Section 18.

17.3 Changes to the Utilities Commission Act

In the event that the provisions of the UtWties Commfa·sion Act or other legislation affecting the rights and powers of regulated Utilities change in such a way as to materially, in FortisBC's opinion, affect Fo11isBC's powers in respect to matters dealt with in this Agreement,

(a) FortisBC may within one year of the change coming into effect propose new agreement terms with respect to only those specific changes and the Municipality agrees to negotiate such terms; and

(b) failing satisfactory resolution either of the parties will seek resolution throughthe Dispute Resolution Process, Section 18.

3.294 FEY! Final Draft of Model Form Operating Agreement (Sep 26, 2014).docx

Page 64 of 159 - 25 -

18. DISPUTE RESOLUTION

18.1 Mediation

Where any dispute arises out of or in connection with this Agreement, including failure of the parties to reach agreement on any matter arising in com1ection with this Agreement, the parties agree to try to resolve the dispute by participating in a structured mediation conference with a mediator under the Rules of Procedure for Commercial Mediation of The Canadian Foundation for Dispute Resolution.

18.2 Referral to the BCUC or Arbitration

If the parties fail to resolve the dispute through mediation, the unresolved dispute shall be referred to the BCUC if within its jurisdiction. If the matter is not within the jurisdiction of the BCUC, such unresolved dispute shall be referred to, and finally resolved or determined by arbitration under the Rules of Procedure for Commercial Arbitration of The Canadian Foundation for Dispute Resolution. Unless the paiiies agree otherwise the arbitration will be conducted by a single arbitrator.

18.3 Additional Rules of Arbitration

The arbitrator shall issue a written award that sets forth the essential findings and conclusions on which the award is based. The arbitrator will allow discovery as required by the Arbitration Act of British Columbia in arbitration proceedings.

18.4 Appointment of Arbitrator

If the arbitrator fails to render a decision within thitiy (30) days following the final hearing of the arbitration, any party to the arbitration may terminate the appointment of the arbitrator and a new arbitrator shall be appointed in accordance with these provisions. If the parties are unable to agree on an arbitrator or if the appointment of an arbitrator is terminated in the manner provided for above, then any party to Agreement shall be entitled to apply to a judge of the British Columbia Supreme Court to appoint an arbitrator and the arbitrator so appointed shall proceed to determine the matter mutatis mutandis in accordance with the provisions of this Section.

18.5 Award of Arbitrator

The arbitrator shall have the authority to award:

(a) money damages;

(b) interest on unpaid amounts from the date due;

(c) specific performance; and

(d) permanent relief.

3.294 FEVT Final Draft of Model Form Operating Agreement (Sep 26, 2014).docx

Page 65 of 159 - 26 -

18.6 Cost of Arbitration

The costs and expenses of the arbitration, but not those incurred by the parties, shall be shared equally, unless the arbitrator determines that a specific party prevailed. In such a case, the non-prevailing party shall pay all costs and expenses of the arbitration, but not those of the prevailing party.

18.7 Continuation of Obligations

The parties will continue to fulfill their respective obligations pursuant to this Agreement during the resolution of any dispute in accordance with this Section 18, provided that, neither party shall proceed with any work or activity or take any further action which is the subject matter of the dispute.

18.8 Matters Not subject to Arbitration

For certainty the conditions precedent referred to in Section 16.2 shall not be subject to arbitration.

19. GENERAL TERMS & CONDITIONS

19.1 No Liens

FortisBC will do its best to not allow, suffer or permit any liens to be registered against the Company Facilities located in Public Places as a result of the conduct of Fo1iisBC. If any such liens are registered, FortisBC will start action to clear any lien so registered to the Public Place within ten ( 10) days of being made aware such lien has been registered. FortisBC will keep the Municipality advised as to the status of the lien on a regular basis. In the event that such liens are not removed within ninety (90) days of the registration of such lien, FortisBC will pay them in full or post sufficient security to ensure they are discharged from title.

19.2 Corporate Authority

FortisBC now warrants, represents and aclmowledges that:

(a) it has the fullright, power and authority to enter into this Agreement; and

(b) it is a corporation, duly organized, legally existing and in good standing under the laws of its jurisdiction of incorporation or continuance and is lawfully registered and licensed to do business in British Columbia.

19.3 Representations

Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed in any way or for any purpose to constitute either party as the legal representative, agent, partner or joint venturer of the other, nor shall either paiiy have the right or authority to assume, create or incur any liability or any obligation of any kind, express or implied, against, in the name of, or on behalf of the other party.

3.294 FEVI Final Draft of Model Form Operating Agreement (Sep 26, 2014).docx

Page 66 of 159 - 27 -

19.4 Assignments and Enurement

This Agreement and any rights or obligations under it are not assignable by either party, without the prior written consent of the other party hereto, such consent not to be umeasonably withheld. This Agreement shall be binding upon, enure to the benefit of, and be enforceable by, the successors and permitted assigns of the parties hereto.

19.5 Governing Law

This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Province of British Columbia.

19.6 General

This Agreement is subject to the laws of Province of British Columbia and the applicable laws of Canada, and nothing in this Agreement will be deemed to exclude the application of the provisions of such laws, or regulations thereunder.

19.7 Entire Agreement

This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and understanding of the patties with respect to the subject matter herein contained and supersedes all prior agreements and unde1takings with respect thereto.

19.8 Severability

If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid by any court, govenm1ental agency or regulatory body, the other provisions to the extent permitted by law shall remain in full force and effect. To the extent permitted by applicable law, the parties hereby waive any provision of law that renders any provision hereof prohibitive or unenforceable in any respect.

19.9 Force Majeure

Neither party shall be liable to the other for temporary failure to perform hereunder, if such failure is caused by reason of an Act of God, labour dispute, strike, temporary breakdown of facilities, fire, flood, government order or regulations, civil disturbance, non-delivery by program suppliers or others, or any other cause beyond the parties' respective control.

3.294 FEVI Final Draft of Model Form Operating Agreement (Sep 26, 2014).docx

Page 67 of 159 - 28 -

19.10 Notice

Any notice or other written communication required, or permitted to be made or given pursuant to this Agreement (the "Notice") shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been validly given if delivered in person or transmitted electronically and acknowledged by the respective parties as follows:

(A) If to the Municipality:

• • • •

(B) If to F01iisBC:

FORTISBC ENERGY (VANCOUVER ISLAND) INC. 16705 Fraser Highway Surrey, B.C. V4N OE8 Attention: Director, Regulatory Affairs

CITY OF ��- by its authorized signatories

Authorized Signatory

Authorized Signatory

FORTISBC ENERGY (VANCOUVER ISLAND) INC. by its authorized signatories

Authorized Signatory

Authorized Signatory

3.294 FEVl Final Draft of Model Form Operating Agreement (Sep 26, 2014).docx

Page 68 of 159 Gas Service Line Work SCHEDULE A Permit Request Vancouver Island Municipalities �FORTIS BC..

To Municipality: Fax/email: Date (Yr/ Mth/ Day) I I

FortisBC Energy (Vancouver Island) Inc. hereby gives notice of its intention to perform work on a natural gas service to the following listed addresses, and that excavations within a public place will occur at each location

Project Service Fortis Contact Address Impacts involved Permit# number location

Instructions: o Email is preferred o Describe service location relative to fa cing front of property. i.e. FronVLeft, Centre or Right: Back/Right Centre or Right o Brief description of impact; Impa cts are: � Public pavement � Public trees, wetlands or other such environmentally sensitive areas � Archeologically significant areas � Existing municipal or third party fa cilities

General Conditions: As contained in the operating agreement between the Muncipality and FortisBC Energy (Vancouver Island) Inc. Reply to: Pre-Requisite Desk FortisBC Energy (Vancouver Island) Inc. 16705 Fraser Highway, Surrey, BC V4N OE8 E-mail: [email protected] Toll free tel: 1-866-771-7337 Toll free fax: 1-877-413-1 152

Page 69 of 159 Page 70 of 159 . District of

• . North Saanich �I STAFF REPORT

To: Rob Buchan Date: July 29, 2014 Chief Administrative Officer

From: Jamai Schile File: 3015 Planner

Re: Notice of Motion: Regional Farm Trust and Farmland Acquisition Fund

RECOMMENDATION(S): THAT Council:

Direct staff to send a letter of support to the CRD and other municipalities in favor of establishing a regional farmland trust and farmland acquisition fund.

PURPOSE: To advance the North Saanich Agricultural Plan Strategy No.11 to actively protect farmland by supporting the establishment of a farmland trust.

STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLICATIONS: Land trusts are a well-established planning tool that can be used to preserve and protect farmland. The participation of the District in the establishment of a regional farm trust and farmland acquisition fund would contribute to the advancement of the District's Strategic Priorities #1 and #4.

Strategic Priority#1: Protect rural, agricultural, heritage, marine and environmental habitats.

Strategic Priority #4: Build a strong and vibrant community.

BACKGROUND: Access to affordable farmland for existing and aspiring farmers remains a challenge in North Saanich and across the south Island. While leasing agreements have become common practice for agricultural operations, such agreements tend to be of shortduration (e.g., 1-2 years), subject to conditions (e.g., non-compete clause), and subject to changes made by the land owners. As a result lessees are reluctant to make capital investments in farm infrastructure which affects soil quality and the ability of small-scale farmers to implement adaptive strategies to sustain and grow their business. One strategy to address this issue proposed in the North Saanich Agricultural Plan (2010) is to support the establishment a farmland trust.

At the May 51h, 2014 meeting Mayor Finall presented a Notice of Motion:

WHEREAS the Capital Region is working to support agriculture and farming through the Regional Sustainability Strategy and the Regional Food Systems Sub-Strategy AND WHEREAS individual municipalities have begun efforts to work regionally to support these aims BE IT RESOLVED that the District of North Saanich work in concert with the CRD and other regional municipalities to support a regional farm trust and farm land acquisition fund to acquire a supply of farm land, and including land already acquired, for lease to farmers, including incubator farm plots for new farmers. AND FURTHER RESOLVED that the CRD Board be notified of this resolution and encouraged to work actively toward this initiative.

Page 71 of 159 Rob Buchan, Chief Administrative Officer Page 2 Re: Notice of Motion Referral to AAC

258 That the District of North Saanich work in concert with the CRD and other regional municipalities to support a regional farm trust and farm land acquisition fund to acquire a supply of farm land, and including land already acquired, for lease to farmers, including incubator farm plots for new farmers and that the CRD Board be notified of this resolution and encouraged to work actively toward this initiative.

Subsidiary Motion

259 That the initiative to work in concert with the CRD and other regional municipalities to support a regional farm trust and farm land acquisition fund be referred to the Tri-Municipal meeting.

260 That the initiative also be referred to the District Agricultural Advisory Commission.

Mayor Finall's motion and two subsidiary motions were passed.

On June 51h, 2014 the Agricultural Advisory Commission discussed the referral and passed the following resolution in response to Council:

23-AAC The Agricultural Advisory Commission agrees in principle with the idea of farmland trust and recommends to Council that the District of North Saanich work in concert with the CRD and other regional municipalities to support a regional farm trust and farm land acquisition fund to acquire a supply of farm land, including land already acquired, for lease to farmers at fair market value, and incubator farm plots for new farmers provided that the regional farm trust and farmland acquisition fund address the following concerns: • full public consultation process on all acquisitions and expenses; • a cap to be set on taxpayer funding; • possible unfair competition of existing local farmlands must be addressed in a fair and equitable way; and • a management and sound business plan must be presented. And, further resolved that the CRD Board be notified of this resolution and encouraged to work actively toward this initiative.

DISCUSSION: Land trusts have been operating in Canada for the past 20 years. They vary in scale (local, regional, provincial and national) and in organization structure (government agency, non-for-profit), however, they all hold the common goal of land preservation.

Farmland trusts provide long-term protection of farmland and are one mechanism used to help farmers secure affordable, long-term land tenures in the face of increasing land prices. They are voluntary agreements involving the sale or donation of property or a perpetual conservation covenant by a will/ estate of a land owner to a government agency (e.g., District of North Saanich) or a private, non-for-profit land trust organization (e.g., Salt Spring Island Farmland Trust) and are intended to complement the existing provincially designated Agricultural Land Reserve.

A farmland trust can also broaden its mandate to help strengthen the economic viability of local agriculture by:

i. becoming the coordinating body to promote and develop economic opportunities for local farmers; ii. increasing local agricultural training and mentoring opportunities for existing and new farmers; iii. supporting the implementation of beneficial farm management practices; and iv. advocating for policies to preserve and enhance regional agriculture.

A broader mandate for the proposed trust would not only consistent with the "North Saanich Agricultural Plan", it would also be consistent with the "Whole Community Agriculture Strategy" and "The Economic Development Strategy for Agriculture in North Saanich." Thus, the AAC and Staff are in support of the concept of a regional farmland trust and acquisition fund.

Page 72 of 159 Rob Buchan, Chief Administrative Officer Page 3 Re: Notice of Motion Referral to AAC

OPTIONS: 1. Send a letter of support to the CRD and other municipalities in favor of establishing a regional farmland trust and farmland acquisition fund. 2. Take no further action.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A

CONSULTATIONS: N/A

INTERDEPARTMENTAL INVOLVEMENT/IMPLICATIONS: N/A

REFERRALS: N/A

SUMMARY /CONCLUSION: With the continued pressure on farmland within the CRD a regional farm land trust and acquisition fund would be a viable option to: preserve farmlands, increase the economic viability of farming, and increase the availability of locally grown food items and farm products. Thus, the AAC and Staff support the concept of a regional farm trust and land acquisition fund.

RECOMMENDATION(S): THAT Council:

Direct staff to send a letter of support to the CRD and other municipalities in favor of establishing a regional farmland trust and farmland acquisition fund.

Respectfully submitted, -.>

Jamai s�lfe ;Planner

Concurrence: Concurrence:

� L � �)en 2 I � Mark Bradick V Patrick O'R Director of planning and Community Services Director of Infrastructure Services

Concurrence:

Theresa Flynn Curt Kingsley Director of Financial Services Manager of Corporate Services

X:\Building-Planning\3015 Agricultural Land (category-year)\20 Issues (year-address)\Farmland Acquisition and Land Trust Concept

Page 73 of 159 Page 74 of 159

COUNCIL FOLLOW UP REPORT July to September 2014 Page 75 of 159 Meeting Agenda Item Resolution Action Required Manager Follow-Up No.

2013 Feb 25 COW Deer Management Strategy 24-COW That Council accept Staff recommendation #1 regarding fencing for M. Brodrick not started agricultural land and refer the matter back to staff with respect to residential properties. Feb 25 COW Deer Management Strategy 34-COW That staff prepare a report on the deer management strategy as it applies to M. Brodrick not started residential properties in North Saanich. Sept. 23 COW Sandown Proposal 113 COW That Council: R. Buchan Finalizing PDA Oct 7 Council 408 1) Direct staff to prepare if necessary the memorandum of understanding with the ALC in accordance with the staff recommendations in the March 20, 2012 staff report. 2) Prepare a Phased Development Agreement and bylaw to establish the requirements for the owner to remediate the lands per the ALC’s requirements and the transfer of ownership to the municipality. 3) Proceed to Public Hearing once the PDA and its supporting bylaw are prepared. Oct. 28 COW Community Amenity Contribution Policy 121-COW That staff create a statutory reserve fund for general community amenities T. Flynn in progress; non-stat reserve set up in meantime Nov 4 COW Follow-Up 446 expenditures. Nov. 18 Council Rezoning Application/Draft Bylaws for 478 That Council directs Staff to prepare a short report on Development Permit M. Brodrick Completed 9317 Canora Road and 9270, 9274, Area – Energy and Water Conservation and Greenhouse Gas Emission 9277, 9280 and 9285 Rideau Avenue Reduction Development Permit Area. [Canora-Rideau/Reay Creek Lands] Nov. 18 Council Rezoning Application/Draft Bylaws for 479 That Council directs the developer to provide a nuisance easement. P. O'Reilly In progress 9317 Canora Road and 9270, 9274, 9277, 9280 and 9285 Rideau Avenue [Canora-Rideau/Reay Creek Lands] Dec. 9 COW Development Application Procedures – 139-COW That Council postpone motion 139-COW which is as follows: M. Brodrick On hold pending direction from Council Dec 16 Council Draft Bylaw Amendments and Policies 547 1. Proceed with first, second and third readings of draft Bylaw No. 1324 (Appendix A); 2. Proceed with first, second and third readings of draft Bylaw No. 1341 (Appendix D); 3. Proceed with first and second readings of draft Bylaw No. 1340 (Appendix F) and to Public Hearing; 4. Gives consideration to the Financial Plan and Waste Management Plan; 5. Rescind and replace the Notification Signage Policy 10003.1; and 6. Endorse the updated Notification Signs information. Dec. 9 COW Development Application Procedures – 140-COW That Staff provide a report on how to review the content of the development M. Brodrick not started Dec 16 Council Draft 548 permit guidelines. Development Permit Guidelines and Development Permit Areas Dec. 9 COW Development Application Procedures – 141-COW That staff prepare a report on comparative fees for development application M. Brodrick not started Dec 16 Council Draft 549 permits. 2014 Jan 13 COW Secondary Suite Program Review 6-COW That Council receive the report from the Planner dated January 7, 2014 on M. Brodrick Completed Jan 20 Council 34 Secondary Suites Program Review and that the report be placed on the District website, information be provided in the next newsletter and that a future public forum be held with this new information. Page 76 of 159 Meeting Agenda Item Resolution Action Required Manager Follow-Up No. Jan 27 COW District QR (Quick Response Code) 30-COW That Council: M. Brodrick Public Works installing posts with QRC on top. program 91 1. Direct staff to implement a QR Code Program. 2. Direct staff to target District of North Saanich Heritage sites as an initial demonstration/pilot project subject to the agreement of the owners of private property heritage sites. 3. Direct staff to monitor/track the public utilization and report back after six months.

Feb 24 COW McDonald Park Sewer System 41-COW That Council authorizes staff to prepare the necessary documents to transfer P. O'Reilly in progress Mar 3 Council Reconnections 130 three District of North Saanich properties currently connected to the Town of Sidney sewer system to the District’s McDonald Park sewer system.

Mar 24 COW Compliance issues arising from special 59-COW That Council refer recommendation number 4 in the report dated March 6, M. Brodrick Completed events on ALR lands and proposed 173 2014 from the Planner to the Agricultural Advisory Commission for comment changes to District Zoning Bylaw No. and recommendation and all of the recommendations be referred to Staff for 1255 further discussion and report back to Council on April 7, 2014 if possible Mar 24 COW Notice of Motion Councillor McMurphy re: 62-COW That Council request the Heritage, Environment, Agricultural and Parks C. Kingsley Committee 2015 Golden Jubilee anniversay 176 Advisory Commissions for advice and ideas on how the District of North Saanich might commemorate its 2015 Golden Jubilee, and further, that Council strike an ad hoc committee of interested volunteers to advise and assist in planning the 50th birthday celebration May 12 COW Addition of 10350 McDonald Park Road to 97-COW That Council authorizes staff to prepare the necessary documents to add the P. O'Reilly In Progress June 2 Council our Sewer System. 305 property at 10350 McDonald Park Road to the District Sewer System. May 12 COW Section 57 on 11127 Chalet Road 106-COW That Council refer the matter to Staff until a staff report is provided to M. Brodrick Staff report pending June 2 Council 310 Council. June 9 COW Development Permit 2013-19 for the 114-COW That Council approve the draft Development Permit DP 2013-19 permitting M. Brodrick Completed: DP issued construction of a new mixed-used building construction of a mixed-use agriculture building at 1819 McTavish Road at 1819 McTavish Road subject to confirmation that there are no changes to the proposal resulting from the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MOTI) requirements. (See June 16 Council Resoultion 352) June 9 COW Compliance issues arising from special 116-COW That Council: M. Brodrick 1. Completed (no compliance to date) June 16 Council events on ALR Lands and proposed 354, 355 1. Direct Staff to formally request Kildara Farm and The Muse Winery submit 2. first and second reading given to amending changes to District Zoning Bylaw No. a parking sketch/plan and a Development Variance Permit application to bylaws 1255 - Staff Report No. 2 come into compliance with the zoning bylaw requirements; and (report from Planner dted May 29/14 2. Direct Staff to prepare draft zoning bylaw amendments based on the recommendations A-C to regulate agri-tourism use and accommodations, pursuant to Section 2(2) of the Agriculture Land Reserve Use, Subdivision and procedures Regulation.

June 9 COW Compliance issues arising from special 117-COW That Council direct Staff to send a formal letter to each of the property M. Brodrick Completed: Letters sent with deadlines of August June 16 Council events on ALR Lands and proposed 359 owners to advise them of the requirement to have a current Business 22 and August 25; DVP-2014-07 (Muse) changes to District Zoning Bylaw No. License that includes accessory use (agri-tourism) associated with the farm application received; Kildara anticipated 1255 - Staff Report No. 2 use. (report from Planner dated May 29/14) June 9 COW Compliance issues arising from special 118-COW That staff recommendation number 1 in the report dated May 29, 2014 from M. Brodrick Completed June 16 Council events on ALR Lands and proposed 360 the Planner regarding Compliance Issues arising from special events on ALR changes to District Zoning Bylaw No. lands be referred back to staff for further consideration. 1255 - Staff Report No. 2 (report from Planner dted May 29/14) Page 77 of 159 Meeting Agenda Item Resolution Action Required Manager Follow-Up No. June 9 COW Rezoning/OCP Amendment, 122-COW That Council direct staff to work with Peninsula Streams Society and the M. Brodrick File closed, Council did not proceed with RZ June 16 Council Development Variance Permit, and 365, 366 Victoria Airport Authority on remediation efforts for Reay Creek on an Development Permit Application for 9270 ongoing basis but that such work not be a condition precedent to the bylaws Lochside Drive and permits being approved. That consideration of 122-COW (direct Staff to work with Peninsula Streams Society and the Victoria Airport Authority on remediation efforts for Reay Creek on an ongoing basis but that such work not be a condition precedent to the bylaws and permits being approved) be referred to a future meeting of Council after the advisory commissions have had an opportunity to report Jun 16 Council 1819 McTavish Road Development Permit 352 That Council refer the staff recommendation contained in the report from the M. Brodrick Completed: DP issued application Planner dated June 2, 2014 (that Council approve the draft Development Permit DP 2013-19 permitting construction of a mixed-use agriculture building at 1819 McTavish Road be subject to confirmation that there are no changes to the proposal resulting from the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MOTI) requirements) to a future meeting Jun 16 Council Compliance Issues on ALR Lands 356 That Council adopts recommendation D from the report dated May 29, 2014 M. Brodrick Completed from the Planner and directs staff to enforce the existing District Noise Control Bylaw No. 20 when triggered by a written complaint or by Council direction Jun 16 Council Compliance Issues on ALR Lands 357 That recommendation E from the report dated May 29, 2014 from the M. Brodrick Completed Planner be referred to a future meeting of Council Jun 16 Council Compliance Issues on ALR Lands 358 That Council adopts recommendation F from the report dated May 29, 2014 M. Brodrick Completed (amending bylaw given first and from the Planner and directs staff to amend Section 306.2.1 of the Zoning second reading) Bylaw to exempt parking lots on ALR lands from requiring a permanent surface of asphalt, concrete or pavement Jun 24 COW Report dated June 18, 2014 from the 128-COW That Council receive the introductory report dated June 18, 2014 from the R. Buchan Being advanced Jul 14 Council Planner regarding Glen Meadows Planner regarding the Glen Meadows Rezoning and request a further staff Rezoning: Future Farmland and Rural report addressing referral comments Agricultural Neighbourhood - Introductory Staff Report Jun 24 COW Report dated June 18, 2014 from the 129-COW That Council refer the application regarding Glen Meadows Golf Course to C. Kingsley Referrals sent and AAC, APA, EAC and PAC Jul 14 Council Planner regarding Glen Meadows the Agricultural Advisory Commission, the Advisory Planning Commission, have had meetings on application Rezoning: Future Farmland and Rural the Environmental Advisory Commission, the Parks Advisory Commission, Agricultural Neighbourhood - Introductory the Peninsula Agricultural Commission, the Tseycum and Pauquachin First Staff Report Nations, and School District No. 63 Jun 24 COW Report dated June 18, 2014 from the 131-COW That staff be directed to host a public meeting on the proposed rezoning of M. Brodrick In progress - post election Jul 14 Council Planner regarding Glen Meadows the Glen Meadows Golf Course to create a rural residential neighbourhood Rezoning: Future Farmland and Rural and request the attendance of the proponent’s representative Agricultural Neighbourhood - Introductory Staff Report Jun 24 COW Report dated June 16, 2014 from the 132-COW That the issue of pickleball courts be referred to staff to obtain details R. Maylen Completed: REP-dated2013-04 Staff report Jul 14 Council Works Superintendent regarding regarding the cost to remediate the Wain Road tennis courts and to consider drafted - September 8th Council agenda Pickleball Courts other options Sept 8 COW 1780 Lands End Road Development 153-COW That Council approve the Development Permit for 1780 Lands End Road M. Brodrick Completed: DP issued Sept 8 Council Permit Application in DPAs 1, 2, and 4 442 subject to the terms and conditions contained within the draft Development Permit Sept 8 COW Development Variance Permit Application 154-COW That Council direct staff to advance to public notification for DVP 2014-01 for M. Brodrick Completed Sept 8 Council 928 Birch Road 442 928 Birch Road. Page 78 of 159 Meeting Agenda Item Resolution Action Required Manager Follow-Up No. Sept 8 COW Administrative OCP Amendment 155-COW That Council: M. Brodrick 1. Completed 2. Completed Sept 8 Council Application for 1364 McTavish Road 442 1. Direct staff not to enforce the requirements of the District of North Saanich Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1130 (2007), Development Permit No. 2: Creeks, Wetlands, Riparian Areas, and Significant Water Resources with respect to the septic tank repairs at 1364 McTavish Road; and 2. Give first and second reading for 1364 McTavish Road Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 1374.

Sept 8 COW Towner Bay Country Club Bylaw No. 1369 156-COW That the issue of the Towner Bay Country Club Bylaw No. 1369 be referred M. Brodrick staff report being drafted Sept 8 Council 442 back to staff until discussions with all the owners have taken place. Sept 8 Council Development Permit Application for 432 That Council approve Development Permit DP 2014-05 for slope M. Brodrick Completed: DP issued 10974B Madrona Drive stabilization and landscaping at 10974B Madrona Drive with the deletion of items 2(c), (e), (j) and (k), and any conditions related to sea level rise. Sept 8 Council 1819 McTavish Road, Development 434 That Council approve the draft Development Permit DP 2013-19 for 1819 M. Brodrick Completed: DP issued Permit No. 5: Commercial/Industrial McTavish Road. Sept 8 Council Bylaw 1344 Zoning, Bylaw 1366 Phased 435 That council" M. Brodrick 1. Completed 2. Completed 3. Completed Development Agreement, Bylaw 1368 1. Give final reading to Bylaw 1344 Reay-Canora cited as the "District of Road Closure Re: Canora-Rideau/Reay North Saanich Zoning and Development Bylaw No. 1255" Amendment Bylaw Creek Lands No. 1344. 2. Give final reading to Canora-Rideau Phased Development Agreement Bylaw 1366 cited as the "District of North Saanich Bylaw No. 1366." 3. Give third reading to Rideau Road Closure Bylaw 1368 cited as the "District of North Saanich Bylaw No. 1368."

Sept 8 Council Phased Development Agreement for 436 That Council adopt the 10664/10682 McDonald Park Road Phased M. Brodrick Completed 10664 and 10682 McDonald Park Road Development Agreement Bylaw No. 1367 (2014). Sept 8 Council Phased Development Agreement for 437 That the staff report regarding the Development Permit and the Development M. Brodrick being advanced 10664 and 10682 McDonald Park Road Variance Application for 10664/10682 McDonald Park be presented at the next Council meeting and not be required to go to a Committee of the Whole meeting first. Sept 8 Council Phased Development Agreement and 438 That Council: M. Brodrick 1. Completed Development Variance Permit for 9270 1. Approve the inclusion of $50,000 as a valid Community Amenity 2. File closed as Council did not proceed with RZ Lochside Drive Contribution item for on-site Reay Creek restorative work; and 2. Direct staff to send out the required statutory notification for the Development Variance Permit (DVP 2014-02) for 9270 Lochside Drive once Zoning Bylaw No. 1375 has been adopted.

Sept 8 Council Info Pack N/A Council requested that a letter of condolence be sent to the Village of L. Coburn - letter sent Zeballos following the death of Mayor Ted Lewis. Sept 15 Council Presentation by G. Holman re: housing 468 That the District of North Saanich endorse the proposal for a housing needs C. Kingsley - letter sent needs assessment for the Saanich assessment for the Saanich Peninsula and participate in an advisory Peninsula committee for the study Sept 15 Council 10664/10682 McDonald Park Road DPA 470 That Council direct staff to send out the required statutory notification for the M. Brodrick Completed No. 2 Creeks, No. 4 Multi-Family, and Development Variance Permit for 10664/10682 McDonald Park Road and Development Variance Permit consider the Development Permit and Development Variance Permit at the advertised meeting. Page 79 of 159 Meeting Agenda Item Resolution Action Required Manager Follow-Up No. Sept 15 Council 10255 Tsaykum Road request for Sewer 471 That Council: P. O'Reilly In Progress 1. Approve in principle the amendment of the Patricia Bay Sewer Area to include 10255 Tsaykum road, and 2. Authorize staff to calculate owner costs and draft necessary bylaw changes to enable such an amendment.

Sept 15 Council 2014 Christmas Closure 472 That Council approves the closure of Municipal Hall, Public Works and C. Kingsley - preparations underway Utilities operations to the public commencing at 12:00 noon on Wednesday, December 24, 2014 - Municipal facilities to re-open at 8:00 a.m. on Monday, January 5, 2015. Sept 15 Council 2015 Schedule of Regular Council Meetings 473 That the following schedule of Regular Council meetings for 2015 be C. Kingsley - Notice prepared for December approved and staff be authorized to proceed with the notification of the schedule in accordance with Section 127 of the Community Charter: January 19 March 16 June 15 October 19 February 2 April 20 July 13 November 2 February 16 May 4 August 17 November 16 March 2 June 1 October 5 December 7

That Council: Sept 15 Council Secondary Suites Program Review 476 1.Direct staff to prepare the following amendments to the Municipal M. Brodrick draft amending bylaws being prepared Ticket Information Bylaw No. 1013 & Sanitary Sewer Regulations Bylaw No. 1164: Section 2: Enforcement a) Define a grace period in order to upgrade existing suites; b) Implement an Incremental penalty system for existing suites to obtain compliance 2. That Council direct staff to prepare the following amendments to the Zoning Bylaw No. 1255 and Annual Secondary Suite Permit Requirement Bylaw No. 1244: Section 3: Zoning a) Remove the minimum lot size requirements; b) Remove the requirement for parking to be behind the front building line; c) Modifyf the zoning class requirement to allow other zones; d) Allow Secondary Suites and home offices in the same home; e) Remove the landscaping and screening requirements; Section 4: Service Requirements a) Allow secondary suites on septic systems in addition to municipal sewer; Section 5: Permits a) Revise the suite permit fees: b) Revise the annual suite permit system; Section 6 Ancillary: a) Remove Dean Park as a secondary suite area; and b) Remove the statutory declaration of owner occumpancy in secondary suites. Appendix C: Direct staff to draft amendments to support documentation including the finalization fo the revised Secondary Suite Guide. Page 80 of 159 , District of North Saanich STAFF REPORT

To: Rob Buchan Date: October 2,2014 Chief Administrative Officer

From: Luke Mari File: DP 2014-10, DVP 2014-05 Planner

Re: 10664/10682 McDonald Park Road- Development Permit Area No. 2: Creeks Development Permit Area No. 4: Multi-Family Development Variance Permit: Height & Rear Setbacks

RECOMMENDATION:

1. THAT Council Approve the Development Variance Permit for 10664/10682 McDonald Park Road subject to the terms within the attached Development Variance Permit 2014-05;

2. THAT Council Approve the Development Permit for 10664/10682 McDonald Park Road subject to the terms within the attached Development Permit 2014-10.

STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLICATIONS:

Maintain a Safe Community The location supports active/healthy lifestyles and sustainable transportation methods through its proximity and connections to bus routes, bike paths, schools, parks, and the Sidney commercial centre.

Protect and Enhance Rural, Agricultural, Heritage, Marine, and Environmental Resources: Amenity contributions from the developer can be used to fund improvements to community parks, , heritage resources, and other public amenities. Stream restoration will add value to the environment and community.

Build a Strong and Vibrant Community

A variety of housing forms would contribute to a more complete and diverse community.

PURPOSE: to To request:

1. Development Permit for three, eighteen unit condominium buildings (total of 54) in Development Permit Area (DPA) No. 6 Multi-family, form & character permit, subject to the terms and conditions contained in the attached draft permit. 2. Development Permit for streamside restoration in Development Permit Area (DPA) No. 2 Creeks, Wetlands Riparian Areas, and Significant Water Resources, subject to the terms and conditions contained in the attached draft permit.

Page 81 of 159 Rob Buchan, Chief Administrative Officer Page 2 Re: 10664 & 10682 McDonald Park Road - DVP, DPA No. 2 & 6

3. Development Variance Permit for height and rear setback.

SITE PARTICULARS

Owner: Brent Going

Applicant: Kyle Shick

Civic Address: 10664/10682 McDonald Park Road

Legal Description:

10664 McDonald Park Rd: Lot A, Section 17 Plan 51447, Range 2 East

10682 McDonald Park Rd: Lot 1, Section 17, Plan 16179, Range 2 East

Parcel Identifier (PID): 016-813-537 (10664), 004-017-633 (10682)

Existing Lot Size: 1.05ac (10664), 1.95ac(10682) = 3ac (1.21ha)

Existing Zoning: RM-3 Multiple Family Residential 3

Surrounding Land Uses: North: R-2 Single Family Residential 2 South: P-l Community Use (Parkland School) East: R-2 Single Family Residential West: P-4 Park

Current Land Use: Single family dwelling

OCP Designation: Multi-family Residential

LOCATION MAP:

BACKGROUND: Figure 1: Aerial Map

The subject property is located in the Curteis Point/McDonald Park Neighbourhood east of Highway 17 and north of the town of Sidney. The parcel is a flat lot with a small knoll towards the southwest of the

Page 82 of 159 Rob Buchan, Chief Administrative Officer Page 3 Re: 10664 & 10682 McDonald Park Road-DVP, DPA No. 2 & 6

property. Sporadic dense vegetation and two single-family structures also occupy the lands. The property is located among several other differing land uses, however only 20m of the northern property line are shared with another single-family lot. Parkland School to the south and park lands to the west are the dominant adjacent uses.

DISCUSSION:

Zoning Bylaw

Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 1320 was recently adopted. This amendment from R-2 Single Family Residential 2 to RM-3 Multiple Family Residential 3 allows for the development of up to 52 units per hectare. This density would allow for a total of 62 units on the applicant's lands. The applicant is only proposing 54 total units (45 units per hectare).

Development Variance Permit

Rear Setbacks: The RM-3 zone requires a 15m setback from the rear property line. The southern most proposed structure infringes into this setback by 7.56m

as shown in Figure 2. The applicant has requested a Requested Setback.„J) relaxation to 7.44m away from the rear property line. of 7.44m

Height: The RM-3 zone requires a maximum height of 10.6m. The applicant has requested increases as follows:

o Building A: 13.95m (variance of 3.35m)

o Building B: 13.85m (variance of 3.25m) Figure 2: Rear Setback Illustration o Building C; 13,965m (variance of 3.365m)

Current Applications Completed Projects I2.8tn 11.7m 10.6m

fT? M .Sili :

I0864/B2 McDonald Pk SZ7QLfltJisicb \0-JZ0 McDonald ph. 91 to Lochsidc I OtjCKJ McDonald Pk Storoy: 3 Storey: 3 Storey: 3 Storoy: 3 Stoioy: 2 Zoning: RM-3 Zoning: RM-3 Zoning. RM-2 Zoning; Filvt 3 Zoning. RM-2 Tyf tology: Condo Typology; Condo Typology: Condo Typology: Condo Typology. Townhouse

Figure 3: Height Comparison Illustration

The applicant has stated that a building height at or within the RM-3 zone (10.6m), limits the parkade slab level of the buildings. This requirement would place the slab at a grade that would undermine the restoration efforts in Blue Heron Creek. Additional excavation would be required to a depth that would significantly impact the existing creek bed and adjacent riparian areas. Re-profiling of the creek and riparian areas may be required.

Page 83 of 159 Rob Buchan, Chief Administrative Officer Page 4 Re: 10664 & 10682 McDonald Park Road-DVP, DPA No. 2 & 6

Official Community Plan

The subject property is designated Multi-family Residential in the OCP, which provides for the development of small lot residential, townhouses, or condominiums. The applicant has rezoned to RM- 3 for the purpose of constructing condominiums.

Development Permits

DPA No. 2: Creeks, Wetlands, Riparian Areas, and Significant Water Resources Activity in DPA: Creek Restoration

Official Community Plan guidelines for Development Permit Area No.2 relate to the protection of water- based resources. Riparian areas are those sections of land that border streams and rivers. They maintain water quality by filtering chemicals and water-borne sediments, provide wildlife corridors and habitat, provide additional greenspace and may assist in flood protection and prevention of erosion. No site alterations shall be permitted in a riparian area unless allowed in a development permit pursuant to OCP guideline 14.4. Relevant OCP guidelines for the DP area directly relate to:

• Conservation of natural watercourses (guidelines 14.4.2, 14.4.7, 14.4.11, 14.4.14), • Erosion into watercourses (14.4.3, 14.4.4,14.4.5,14.4.6,14.4.10, 14.4.12), and • Development impacts (14.4.8,14.4.13).

The DP guidelines closely follow the provincial Riparian Area Regulations (RAR) administered by the Ministry of Environment. DP guidelines 14.4.13 state that no development in a Riparian Assessment Area (RAA) can proceed without the regulations of the RAR being satisfied. The Watershed Ecological Services report details how the proposed works can be safely undertaken within DPA No. 2 provided the recommendations in the draft Development Permit are followed (Appendix B).

# DPA No. 2 (Creeks) Guidelines Proposed Features No habitable buildings or other structures requiring foundations will be constructed and no sewage disposal system will be installed in The siting of the buildings respect the riparian area these development permit areas except those allowed in a 14.4.1 setback development permit or subject to the gerneral exemptions outlined in section 14.2 Modification of channels, banks or shores which could result in environmental harm or significantly alter local hydrological Exemptions allow for creek restoration in OCP section 14.4.2 conditions will not be permitted 14.2.1 (j) & (k)

Development must be designed so as to maintain the quality of any Existing surface stormwater runoff will be treated via stormwater flowing toward or into identified water features. Any passive measures (plantings) and the new parking areas 14.4.3 detrimental effects on the environment from effluent or stormwater will have permeable paving and will have oil interceptors discharge must be avoided in the catch basins to mitigate contamination

Intensively landscaped areas associated with the new development Riparian areas will be planted with native and non­ 14.4.6 should be sited so as to prevent nutrient rich water from entering invasive species under the guidance of the RP Biologist natural water features

Development permits issued with regard to road and driveway 14.4.8 construction in these areas will ensure that:

Page 84 of 159 Rob Buchan, Chief Administrative Officer Page 5 Re: 10664 & 10682 McDonald Park Road-DVP, DPA No. 2 & 6

watercourse crossings are located so as to minimize disturbance of The bridge on the interior roadway will be designed to a) water feature banks, channels, shores, and existing vegetation minimize the structural impact to the existing creek bank

Wherever possible, bridges are used instead of culvert for crossings There is bridge in the roadway design however we have b) offish bearing watercourses added a culvert conforming to 14.4.8(c)

culverts are sited to allow unrestricted movement offish in both The culvert used in the rehabilitation of Blue Heron Creek c) directions. Where desirable, culvert may be designed to retard low will allow for water retention in the upstream pond to flows and encourage in stream storage of water facilitate a marine habitat year round

Drainage into these areas will be designed an constructed so that Stormwater flow calculations to ensure a "net zero" 14.4.10 there is no increase or decrease in the amount of surface water increase will be provided as part of the engineering drainage discharging into wetlands and watercourses. requirements

Any development in the Riparian Areas or Wetland Ecosystems as The QEP report indicates proposed works are in 14.4.13 shown on DPA No.2 map must not proceed unless the requirements compliance with Riparian Area Regulation of the Riparian Area Regulation have been satisfied.

DP Area No. 6: Multi-family (form + character):

The OCP guidelines for Development Permit Area No. 6 are intended to ensure that multi-family residential development is compatible with the form and character of adjacent land uses and neighbourhoods. These primarily relate to exterior design, siting, and landscaping. Being zoned for residential use along with its neighbouring properties, the proposed development is consistent with the current and future built character of the adjacent area. The design elements of the proposed development are similar to those found in other North Saanich properties differing only in the size and density.

# DPA No. 6 (Form & Character) Guidelines Proposed Features

Where possible, the siting and design of buildings shall be integrated with present and future development in the area. Multi-family 14.8.1 developments adjacent to lower density or single detached dwelling Surrounding area follows similar design elements made should: up of cement fibre siding, stone masonry, and wood accents

(a) Be consistent in form and massing with the surrounding area

Be sited near major streets to provide a transition to lower density The proposal is oriented away from adjacent property (b) uses lines

Blue Heron Creek divides the property limiting the siting Concentrate density to the centre of the development or towards a of the structures. The current building layout provides (c) non-residential boundary and locate lower density component setbacks beyond the zoning bylaw on the boundaries that adjacent to lower density residential uses are shared with residential uses

Create a transition in building mass and form towards the setbacks (d) See above of the adjacent neighbourhood

Page 85 of 159 Rob Buchan, Chief Administrative Officer Page 6 Re: 10664 & 10682 McDonald Park Road- DVP, DPA No. 2 & 6

Maximize privacy and minimize views onto adjoining sites, (e) particularly for portions of the development abutting the side yards See above of adjacent single detached residential uses

Attractive perimeter fencing and landscaping shall be provided to Stone fencing along Mcdonald Park Road and black chain create a buffer between development and adjacent properties 14.8.2 link along all other property boundaries with landscaped including those properties zoned multi- family in the vicinity of border will be provided McDonald Park and John Road.

The siting location and depth of the foundations are The siting of residences and buildings must be integrated with the 14.8.4 designed to minimize the impact on Blue Heron Creek surrounding landscape and maintain ecologically sensitive areas. and the restoration work proposed

Although there are no identified sensitive areas in the immediate vicinity, the proposed landscape concept plan includes the planting of varying species to achieve the guidelines of the Development Permit. The developer plans to include non-invasive and drought resistant species.

# DPA No. 6 (Landscaping) Guidelines Proposed Features

Existing trees in riparian area deemed to be unhealthy or dangerous by arborist to be removed. Some of the trees Mature trees shall be preserved and, where possible, integrated 14.8.5 along property perimeter to be removed. Extensive tree with new landscaping. The planting of trees is strongly encouraged. replanting strategy to be provided as part of landscape design.

Landscape design will include: Energy efficiency and conservation should be considered in the design of landscaped areas and in the selection of plant material. Non-invasive species, retention of existing coniferous This can be accomplished through, using native and/or drought- forest to provide shading on the buildings, new trees will resistant species, designing the landscaping to moderate the effect 14.8.7 be planted to provide additional shading, natural of wind, providing shade in summer, allowing natural drainage to drainage pathways to be maintained and enhanced, occur throughout the site, allowing daylight into buildings, cleared areas are designed to permit long periods of redirecting water from rooftop runoff and downspouts into natural daylight, and the redirecting of roof drains to vegetated areas or rain barrels for later irrigation use. cisterns for irrigation system

Consider incorporating rain gardens and vegetated swales into Rain gardens to be provided as part of impervious surface 14.8.8 parking lot landscaping to increase the natural absorption of drainage system rainwater runoff from paved areas into the ground.

The site coverage for all buildings is 25%. The remainder Maximize the amount of landscaped areas and minimize the amount of the hard surfaced areas of the site are to have either 14.8.9 of impervious paved surfaces to increase the natural absorption of permeable pavers or will designed to drain into a rain rainwater on a site. garden

Consider the use of permeable parking pavers or shallow concrete All parking areas to have permeable paving surfacing. 14.8.10 swales with rolled edges as an alternative treatment for surface Roadway to have concrete curb and gutter to direct drainage. rainwater to designated locations

Page 86 of 159 Rob Buchan, Chief Administrative Officer Page 7 Re: 10664 & 10682 McDonald Park Road- DVP, DPA No. 2 & 6

OPTIONS:

Council has the following options:

Development Variance Permit:

1. Approve the request for the DVP; or 2. Deny the request for the DVP.

Development Permit:

1. Approve the Development Permit subject to the terms and conditions contained within the attached draft Development Permit; or 2. Provide further direction to the applicants if it determines that OCP Development Permit Area guidelines have not been adequately satisfied.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: n.a.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS: n.a.

CONSULTATIONS:

A sign has been posted in accordance with the District's policy.

INTERDEPARTMENTAL INVOLVEMENT/IMPLICATIONS: n.a SUMMARY:

The owners of 10664 & 10682 McDonald Park Road have requested a Development Permit and Development Variance Permit for the development of 54 condominiums. The subject property is located on lands designated for Multi-family Residential in the OCP and zoned RM-3 Multiple Family Residential 3. All relevant zoning, land-use requirements, and OCP guidelines have been satisfied. Staff believes that the subject development will contribute to long-term District and CRD policy objectives relating to regional growth and housing.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. THAT Council Approve the Development Variance Permit for 10664/10682 McDonald Park Road subject to the terms within the attached Development Variance Permit 2014-05;

2. THAT Council Approve the Development Permit for 10664/10682 McDonald Park Road subject to the terms within the attached Development Permit 2014-10.

Respectfully submitted,

Page 87 of 159 Rob Buchan, Chief Administrative Officer Page 8 Re: 10664 & 10682 McDonald Park Road-DVP, DPA No. 2 & 6

Concurrence:

Rob Buchan Mark Brodrick Chief Administrative Officer Director of Planning and Community Services

Concurrence:

Patrick O'Reilly Director of Infrastructure Services

Appendix:

Appendix A- Draft Development Variance Permit (2014-05)

Appendix B- Draft Development Permit (2014-10) Schedule A: Site Plan (August 15, 2014) Schedule B: Gate Details & Building Elevations (August 15, 2014) Schedule B: Landscape Plan (August 2014) Schedule C: Biologist Report (August 7, 2014)

Page 88 of 159 Appendix

DISTRICT OF NORTH SAANICH DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PERMIT DVP 2014-05

Name of Applicant: Art Finlayson

Name of Owner(s) Brent Going

Street Address of Property Subject to Permit: 10664 & 10682 McDonald Park Road

Legal Descriptions of Lands Affected: Lot 1, Section 17, Range 2 East, North Saanich District, Plan 16179 (except parts in Plans VIP51447 and VIP51449); and

Lot A, Section 17, Range 2 East, North Saanich District, Plan VIP51447

Parcel Identifiers: PID 004-017-633 (10664 McDonald Park Road) PID 016-813-537 (10682 McDonald Park Road)

By-Law to which Variance Permit Pertains: Zoning Bylaw # 1255

Details of Variance:

1. Vary section 503.3.3(a) to increase the maximum height from from 10.6 metres to 13.965 metres;

2. Vary section 503.3.3(b)(ii) to reduce the minimum rear setback from 15 metres to 7.44 metres;

Registration: Notice of this Permit shall be filed in the Land Titles Office at Victoria, B.C. under s.927 of the Local Government Act, and upon such filing, the terms of this Permit (DVP 2014 - 05) or any amendments hereto shall be binding upon all persons who acquire an interest in the affected Lands affected by this Permit. Other Permits: Despite issuances of this Permit, construction may not start without a Building Permit, a Construction Permit, an Access Permit or other necessary permits. It is the owner's responsibility to determine whether such permits are required.

Approved by Council Resolution No.

Dated:

Page 89 of 159 Appendix B DISTRICT OF NORTH SAANICH DEVELOPMENT PERMIT DP 2014-10

This Development Permit is hereby issued by the Council of the District of North Saanich to Brent Going for Lot 1, Section 17, Range 2 East, North Saanich District, Plan 16179 (except parts in Plans VIP51447 and VIP51449); PID 004-017-633 (10664 McDonald Park Road) and Lot A, Section 17, Range 2 East, North Saanich District, Plan VIP51447; PID 016-813-537 (10682 McDonald Park Road) subject to the following terms and conditions as imposed under sections 920(7) and (7.1) of the Local Government Act:

1. SCHEDULES: Development of the site must be completed in substantial compliance with the attached drawings and documents:

Schedule A Site Plan (August 15, 2014) Schedule B Gate Details & Building Elevations (August 15, 2014) Schedule C Landscape Plan (August 2014) Schedule D Biologist Report (August 7, 2014)

2. CONDITIONS: As provided for under sections 919.1(1), 920(7), and 920(7.1) of the Local Government Act, the following conditions must be adhered to:

1. Ensure minimal disturbance in the Development Permit areas as per OCP Guidelines; 2. All works will be monitored by the designated Qualified Environmental Professional during construction and remediation to ensure that the recommendations and design detailed in Schedule C and D are adhered to; 3. All construction activity must be done in accordance with the Best Management Practices published by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the BC Ministry of Environment Riparian Area Regulations.

3. REGISTRATION: Notice of this Permit shall be filed in the Land Title Office at Victoria under S. 927 of the Local Government Act, and upon such filing, the terms of this Permit (DP 2014-10) or any amendment hereto shall be binding upon all persons who acquire an interest in the land affected by this Permit.

4. PERMIT EXPIRY: If the Permittee does not substantially start any construction permitted by this Permit within two years of the date of this Permit as established by the authorizing resolution date, this Permit shall lapse.

5. SCHEDULES: The plans and specifications attached to this Permit are an integral part of this Permit.

6. OTHER PERMITS: Despite issuance of this permit, construction may not start without a Building Permit, Tree Cutting Permit or other necessary permits. It is the owner's responsibility to determine whether such permits are required.

Approved by Council Resolution No. Date:

Page 90 of 159 Page 91 of 159 DECORATIVE METAL BEAM - DECORATIVE METAL POST

K2 STONE OCEAN PEARL MASONRV VENEER ON CONCRETE WALL

Al.2 - ENTRY GATE & FENCING DETAILS 1,100 SCALE MCDONALD PARK ESTATES FINLAYSON 1O6OI ft 10&64 MCDONALD PARK ROAD NORTH SAANICH. BC SONET. 15AUGI0H Page 92 of 159 MATERIALS PALETTE StONC MASONRY

I / m I ikKFYRl s

SIGNAGE DETAILS

EAST ELEELEVATIOV N • SOCKEYE BUILT ING © 1:100 scale

PR r SMS •n.

3 ;Tin 1111 MrrTrtrm 3 A SOUTH ELEVATION - SOCKEYE BUILDING NORTH ELEVATION • SOCKEYE BUILDING 1.100 A3.1 - ELEVATIONS SOCKEYE' 1:100 SCALE Page 93 of 159 Page 94 of 159 o igo oz > z sis fig s £ s s >Z 5m 2

> 10'n S I I ! S I IS | ! I I ! :Zr- 11" 1i11 ft i s = O : z

Page 95 of 159 Page 96 of 159 Schedule D Watershed Ecological Services 743 Kispiox Place North Saanich, B.C. V8L SK5 lTU AUG 1 9 20tt 1^ DISTRICT OF NORTH SAANICH

August 7, 2014.

District of North Saanich

Attention: Luke Mark

Re: Recommendations with Respect to Development Permit #2 - McDonald Park Estates

Preamble This development is unique in that there will be a reconstruction of part of a severely degraded stream ecosystem, Blue Heron Creek, on the subject property. This stream reconstruction is intended to provide greater ecosystem benefits than are currently provided by this ephemeral creek, as well as improving on local environmental aesthetics. Earlier on in the property's development plans, a contribution of funding and well water for the upstream section of the creek was proposed. This would have given the creek a chance to possibly produce a self-sustaining population of sea-run cutthroat trout or coho . However it is my professional opinion that, although introduced salmon or trout juveniles may be able to rear successfully to smolt, numbers are unlikely to sustain a population without continuous enhancement. It could also be stated that even if the complete stream to the Pat Bay highway had been restored, a self-sustaining population of salmonids would have been a tenuous expectation.

During the redevelopment of the property into multi-family condominiums an opportunity is provided for the stream to be restored to a better functioning condition, from a hydraulic, riparian and ecosystem-service perspective. Aesthetics will also be improved.

Restoration plans include a complete reconstruction of the upper part of the stream on the property including grade re-profiling, addition of large rock, large woody debris and gravel, riffle & pool construction and pond creation. Re-vegetation of the riparian area next to the creek with native plants will help stabilize the new creek channel and provide benefits such as shade, food for birds and wildlife, bank stability, etc.

On the lower section (also degraded) of the creek where there is a dominant stand of coniferous trees, primarily Douglas fir, a different approach is required. The invasive species such as non-native willows and ivy will be reduced and controlled and native shrubs present will be encouraged. Additional plantings of native shrubs will likely be

1

Page 97 of 159 Watershed Ecological Services 743 Kispiox Place North Saanich, B.C. V8L 5K5 needed. Channel modifications will be minimal in terms of re-grading or re-direction but gravel and rock will be added as appropriate.

Specific Recommendations

1. Notwithstanding what is discussed below, all standard recommendations found in the BC Best Management Practices when working around water must be observed and adhered to. (http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wsd/water_rights/cabinet/ working_around_water.pdf) 2. During construction the discharge of the silt and finer clay particles downstream into the near-shore marine environment should be the most significant concern. Mitigation would include but not be limited to isolation of any work site from the stream with vegetated buffers left where possible & silt fencing installed where appropriate. 3. Utilization of salvageable, existing native plants where possible and practical - coordination between work with landscape architect, biologist and construction crews will be required. 4. Stream reconstruction and riparian planting activities to be supervised by a Registered Professional Biologist who has these fields as part of his expertise of practice. 5. Channel design needs to be appropriately sized to function at low summer flows while being robust enough to fully handle winter peak flows from the upper watershed upstream from the property. 6. Delivery of pumped well water to the upper part of the property is necessary to achieve maximum ecological benefits while ensuring aesthetic values. This may be on a single pass basis but may also some consideration could be made for recycling - this is a decision that could be made by a future strata group upon the advice of a professional biologist.

Please do not hesitate to contact me for further information.

Yours truly,

2

Page 98 of 159 Watershed Ecological Services 743 Kispiox Place North Saanich, B.C. V8L 5K5

Ian D. Bruce, R.P.Bio. #496 (Stamp here)

Page 99 of 159 Page 100 of 159

DISTRICT OF NORTH SAANICH

Minutes of the meeting of the District of North Saanich Committee of the Whole

Monday, September 8, 2014 at 6:00 p.m.

PRESENT: Chair C. Mearns Mayor A. Finall Councillors D. Browne T. Daly C. McBride E. McMurphy C. Stock ATTENDING: Chief Administrative Officer R. Buchan Director of Infrastructure Services P. O’Reilly Director of Planning and Community Services M. Brodrick Planner C. Breen Director of Corporate Services C. Kingsley Deputy Clerk L. Coburn

The Chair called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR MCBRIDE

150-COW That the agenda be approved as circulated.

Subsidiary Motion:

MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR STOCK

151-COW That Council consider which agenda items can be postponed to a later meeting.

Subsidiary Motion:

MOVED BY: MAYOR FINALL

152-COW That the report on sea level rise and the report on regulatory bylaw review be postponed to a later meeting. DEFEATED

OPPOSED: COUNCILLOR BROWNE, COUNCILLOR DALY, COUNCILLOR MCBRIDE, COUNCILLOR MEARNS

MOTION 150-COW CARRIED

OPPOSED: MAYOR FINALL, COUNCILLOR MCMURPHY, COUNCILLOR STOCK

A point of order was raised requesting a Council member stay on topic.

Page 1 of 3 Clerk Chair COW 2014-09-08

Page 101 of 159

PRESENTATIONS

REFERRALS / REPORTS

a) Development Permit Application in DPAs 1, 2 and 4 at 1780 Lands End Road

Report dated July 7, 2014 from the Planner

MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR MCBRIDE

153-COW That Council approve the Development Permit for 1780 Lands End Road subject to the terms and conditions contained within the draft Development Permit. CARRIED

b) Development Variance Permit Application 928 Birch Road

Report dated July 23, 2014 from the Planner

MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR STOCK

154-COW That Council direct staff to advance to public notification for DVP 2014-01 for 928 Birch Road. CARRIED

c) Administrative OCP Amendment Application for 1364 McTavish Road

Report dated July 24, 2014 from the Planner

Councillor Mearns left the meeting at 6:28 p.m. due to a potential conflict of interest. Mayor Finall took the chair in his absence.

Garth Porteous, 1364 McTavish Road, representing his mother who owns the property, provided clarification on the location of the stream on the property.

MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR MCBRIDE

155-COW That Council: 1. Direct staff not to enforce the requirements of the District of North Saanich Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 1130 (2007), Development Permit No. 2: Creeks, Wetlands, Riparian Areas, and Significant Water Resources with respect to the septic tank repairs at 1364 McTavish Road; and 2. Give first and second reading for 1364 McTavish Road Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 1374. CARRIED

Councillor Mearns returned to the meeting at 6:34 p.m.

Page 2 of 3 Clerk Chair COW 2014-09-08

Page 102 of 159

d) Towner Bay Country Club Bylaw No. 1369

Report dated July 24, 2014 from the Planner

MOVED BY: MAYOR FINALL

156-COW That the issue of the Towner Bay Country Club Bylaw No. 1369 be referred back to staff until discussions with all the owners have taken place.

CARRIED

e) Review of Regulatory Bylaws

Report dated July 10, 2014 from the Manager of Corporate Services

Fran Hackett, 2285 Tryon Road, expressed support for the report on regulatory bylaws being provided to newly elected councillors following the local election.

MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR MCMURPHY

157-COW That the report dated July 10, 2014 from the Manager of Corporate Services regarding review of regulatory bylaws be received for information.

CARRIED

ADJOURNMENT

MOVED BY: MAYOR FINALL

158-COW That Committee of the Whole recess until the next meeting.

CARRIED

______Curt Kingsley, Corporate Officer Councillor Mearns

Page 3 of 3 Clerk Chair COW 2014-09-08

Page 103 of 159 Page 104 of 159

DISTRICT OF NORTH SAANICH

BYLAW NO. 1370

A BYLAW TO AMEND “DISTRICT OF NORTH SAANICH ZONING BYLAW NO. 1255 (2011)”

The Council of the District of North Saanich, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

MAP AMENDMENTS

1. The Official Zoning Map attached as Schedule “A” to the “District of North Saanich Zoning Bylaw No. 1255 (2011)” is hereby amended to rezone the foreshore area and surface of the water adjacent to 2500 Kolb Island, from M-6 (Non-Commercial Marine 2) to M-5 (Non- Commercial Marine 1) as denoted in the highlighted portion of the map below:

CITATION

2. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as “North Saanich Zoning Bylaw No. 1255 (2011), Amendment Bylaw No. 1370 (2014)”.

READ A FIRST TIME the 8th day of September, 2014

READ A SECOND TIME the 8th day of September, 2014

Page 105 of 159

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING published in the September 26th and October 1st, 2014 editions of the Peninsula News Review.

PUBLIC HEARING held at the North Saanich Municipal Hall ______the day of ______, 2014

READ A THIRD TIME the______day of ______, 2014

FINALLY PASSED AND ADOPTED the______day of ______, 2014

MAYOR

CORPORATE OFFICER

Page 106 of 159

DISTRICT OF NORTH SAANICH

B Y L A W N O. 1371

A BYLAW TO AMEND “DISTRICT OF NORTH SAANICH ZONING BYLAW NO. 1255 (2011)”

The Council of the District of North Saanich, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

TEXT AMENDMENTS

1. The “District of North Saanich Zoning Bylaw No. 1255, 2011” is hereby amended as follows:

(a) Section 102 is amended by adding in alphabetical order, the following definitions:

““agri-tourism use” means an organized seasonal or temporary tourist activity, service or facility accessory to land that holds farm status under the BC Assessment Act and promotes or markets farm products grown, raised or processed on the farm to the traveling public through educational exhibits and programs and private and public special events. This use may include Commercial Kitchens, subject to the general conditions of the zone and i, ii.

A building or structure used or established for the purpose of agri-tourism on ALR Lands must: i. not exceed a maximum floor area of 125 m2 indoors and 125 m2 outdoors ii. be in compliance with the District Bylaws; BC Building Code and Fire Standard for the intended use(s).”

““farm camping” means seasonal and temporary accommodations of the travelling public in tents, and for this purpose “temporary” means for not more than 30 consecutive days in one calendar year.”

““commercial kitchens” means a permanent food preparation area for the purpose of “value-add” small scale food processing and education within the Agricultural Land Reserve, and where used for tourist activity the use, service or facility is subject to the terms of agri-tourism use.”

(b) Section 102 is amended by striking Subsection (b) from the definition “farm use”.

(c) Subsection (c) of the definition “farm use” under Section 102 is amended by striking “subject to the same restrictions as agri-tourism accommodation;” and replacing it with: “and, is not to exceed an accumulative maximum floor area of 400m2.”

Page 107 of 159

(d) Section 201 is amended by adding the following Subsection after Subsection 201.2:

“201.3 A temporary use permit for seasonal and temporary farm camping may be issued to a farm operation that holds farm status, and is subject to the general conditions of that zone and the following:

(a) Farm camping use requires a minimum lot size 0.8ha within the Agricultural Land Reserve, and the total site area cannot occupy more than 160m2;

(b) The combined total of Bed and Breakfast and farm camping (sleeping units) are not to exceed ten (10) sleeping units per lot;

(c) No farm camping site shall be connected to any utilities, and grey water and sewage must be contained and properly disposed of in accordance with the provincial Health Act, the Sewerage System Regulation and the Sewerage System Standard Practice Manual;

(d) Fire pits are not permitted;

(e) Any exterior lighting must be fully-shielded, low intensity lighting directed down and away from surrounding residential areas.”

(e) Section 306.1 is amended by: (i) adding the text “except when lands are designated within the Agricultural Land Reserve” after “…purpose intended”

(f) Section 501.1.1 (b) is amended by adding the following: “(vii) Agri-Tourism Use”

(g) Section 501.2.1 (b) is amended by adding the following: “(vii) Agri-Tourism Use”

(h) Section 501.3.1 (b) is amended by adding by adding the following: “(vii) Agri-Tourism Use”

(i) Section 501.4.1 (b) is amended by adding the following: “(viii) Agri-Tourism Use”

(j) Section 501.5.1 (b) is amended by adding the following: “(vii) Agri-Tourism Use”

(k) Section 501.6.1 (b) is amended by adding the following: “(vii) Agri-Tourism Use”

Page 108 of 159 CITATION

2. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as “North Saanich Zoning Bylaw No. 1255 (2011) Amendment Bylaw No. 1371 (2014)”.

READ A FIRST TIME the 8th day of September, 2014.

READ A SECOND TIME the 8th day of September, 2014.

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING published in the September 26th and October 1st, 2014 editions of the Peninsula News Review.

PUBLIC HEARING held at the North Saanich Municipal Hall the day of , 2014

READ A THIRD TIME the day of , 2014

FINALLY PASSED AND ADOPTED the day of , 2014

MAYOR

CORPORATE OFFICER

Page 109 of 159 Page 110 of 159

DISTRICT OF NORTH SAANICH

BYLAW NO. 1373

A BYLAW TO AMEND “DISTRICT OF NORTH SAANICH ZONING BYLAW NO. 1255 (2011)”

The Council of the District of North Saanich, in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows:

MAP AMENDMENT

1. The Official Zoning Map attached as Schedule “B” to the “District of North Saanich Zoning Bylaw No. 1255 (2011)” is hereby amended to rezone 8720 Ebor Terrace, from R-2 (Single Family Residential 2) to R-1 (Single Family Residential 1) as denoted in cross hatched portion of the map below:

CITATION

2. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as “North Saanich Zoning Bylaw No. 1255, (2011), Amendment Bylaw No. 1373 (2014)”.

READ A FIRST TIME the 8th day of September, 2014. READ A SECOND TIME the 8th day of September, 2014. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING published in the September 26th and October 1st, 2014 editions of the Peninsula News Review PUBLIC HEARING held at the North Saanich Municipal Hall the day of , 2014. READ A THIRD TIME the ____ day of ______, 2014. FINALLY PASSED AND ADOPTED the ____ day of ______, 2014.

MAYOR

CORPORATE OFFICER

Page 111 of 159 Page 112 of 159

DISTRICT OF NORTH SAANICH

B Y L A W N O. 1378

A BYLAW TO EXEMPT CERTAIN PROPERTIES, BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES FROM TAXATION FOR 2015

WHEREAS Section 224 of the Community Charter authorizes a Council to exempt land or improvements, or both, from taxation for a period as provided by bylaw;

NOW THEREFORE the Municipal Council of the District of North Saanich, in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows:

Exemptions

1. The following property, together with the buildings and structures thereon, is hereby declared exempt from taxation from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015 pursuant to Section 224 of the Community Charter:

(a) B.C. Aviation Museum Part of Lot A, plan VIP38759, Comprising of 5.56 acres Victoria Airport Authority Lease #B397 (b) Navy League of Canada (Saanich Peninsula Branch) – Sea Cadets Comprising of 2569.8 SQ MTRS, Victoria Airport Authority Lease #B110 (c) 676 Kittyhawk Sponsoring Committee Society – Air Cadets Victoria Airport Authority Lease # B135, 23681 SQ FT Hall Site (d) St. John’s United Church Block PT 1, Section 19, Range 2W Plan VIP 1211 (e) Anglican Synod of the Diocese of BC - Holy Trinity Anglican Church Hall Lot A, Section 12, Range 1 East, Plan 38698 (f) Anglican Synod of the Diocese of BC – Holy Trinity Anglican Church & Cemetery Section 12, Range 1 West (g) Sidney Pentecostal Church Lot A, Section 15, Range 2 East, Plan 16395 (h) Saanich Peninsula Presbyterian Church Lot F, Section 7, Range 2 East, Plan 42734 (i) Seventh Day Adventist Church Lot B, Section 7, Range 2 East, Plan 2822 (j) The Kiwanis Elderly Citizens Village Lot 1, Sections 16 and 17, Range 2 East, Plan 25496

Page 113 of 159 Bylaw No. 1378 Page 2

(k) Town of Sidney Lot Lot 1, Section 5, Range 2E Plan VIP 38864 (l) Capital Regional District Lot E, Section 5, Range 2 East, Composite Plan 2986 (m) Saanich Peninsula Chamber of Commerce That portion of Lot 3, Plan 13825 housing the Pat Bay Highway Visitor Information Centre (n) Memorial Parks Society – Blue Heron Park Lot A, Section 17, Range 2 East, Plan 43067 (o) Memorial Parks Society Lot 1, Section 16, Range 2 East, Plan 20832

Citation

2. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as “North Saanich Exemption from Taxation Bylaw No. 1378 (2014)”.

READ A FIRST TIME the day of October, 2014. READ A SECOND TIME the day of October, 2014. READ A THIRD TIME the day of October, 2014. FINALLY ADOPTED the day of October, 2014.

MAYOR

CORPORATE OFFICER

Page 114 of 159 INVITATION

Celebration of All Buffleheads Day 2104 th October 15 2014 From I lam to lpm (foot of Ardwell Road on Roberts Bay, Sidney)

Dear Mayor Finall, The Friends of Shoal Harbour Society again celebrates the return of over fifty species of migrating birds to their winter stopover or shelter at Saanich Peninsula's Federal Migratory Bird Sanctuary. Most especially we eagerly await the arrival of the most punctual of all species - The Bufflehead Duck. Please accept our invitation to yourself and members of your council to attend this event by replying to:

Hugh Richards, Chairman, Friends of Shoal Harbour Society,

11065 Salal Place, DIS ffllCT OF i'JrFlTH ,j/:.l\r-JICH 1620 Mil.LS H01\u i'liJHrn Si\;11�1c L 11 ric l·;�t :i_s'l _ ·- North Saanich, --- , V8L 5N6 ,ION CIR Ma CA 11itorporate Officer W ACTION efcouncilAgenda 0 Info Pk o Reading File on o Staff Recommendati H.M Richards

Page 115 of 159 Page 116 of 159 Janice LeBlanc

From: Larry Griffith Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 8:30 AM To: admin I U sr;pn m j Subject: Dominion Brook Park DISH-ilCT OF NORTH 3AANICH H520 MILLS ROAD NORTH SAANICM 3C V81 5S9 Mayor and Council

I live at 2045 Bazan Bay Road. My property is beside the Experimental Farm and adjacent to Dominion Brook Park. Over the past few years the use of the park for dog walking/running has increased significantly. This is not a problem for my wife or I in the daytime unless of course the dogs bark incessantly, which can be very annoying. The problem we are experiencing is people taking their dogs for an early morning or sometimes late in the evening run and not considering the people who live in the area when they yell and holler for their dogs. It is especially annoying to be woken at 6 in the morning by someone just outside my bedroom window yelling for Fifi to come or talking very loudly to their partner. If the dogs were on leash and in control the yelling would be minimized however I understand people want to let their dogs get some exercise and have a run, chase a ball etc. I would therefore request the access to the park be restricted to 9 am to 9 pm.

Thank you

Larry Griffith 250 656 2588 Cell 250 889 1561 CIRCULATION Mayor LA/ CA0 y A Corporate Officer - ACTION • CounciCoi l Agenda • Info Pk • Reading File • Staff Recommendation

Jhl.

1

Page 117 of 159 Page 118 of 159 Ron Maylen

To: [email protected] Subject: Dominion Brook Park

Hello Mr. Griffith,

This letter is a follow up to a phone message I left you earlier this morning (Oct 2) regarding your letter from September 30, 2014. I am sorry to hear about your recent experiences with the early morning and late night dog walkers calling (yelling) for their dogs. I can appreciate that it would be frustrating to have someone talking or shouting close to your bedroom window.

I would like to contact you so we can talk over opportunities to help mitigate the problem. You can contact me at the number listed below.

Sincerely,

Ron Maylen A.Sc.T. Works Superintendent District of North Saanich 250-655-5481

l

Page 119 of 159 Page 120 of 159 July 7, 2014 \oJ �1('.b[��' lf\l JUL 111 2C1� ruJV1 H SAAM I CH DISTHICT O� MOHT District of North Saanich t 620 MILLS ROAD BC VSL 5S9 NORTH SAANICH To Mayor and Council

1h I would like my voice to be heard at the public hearing on July 14 . 2014 at the Mary Wlnspear Center.

I support the amendments to the current bylaws listed below:

DNS OCP Bylaw No. 1130 amendment Bylaw No. 1352(Regional Context Statement) (AS per CRD Meetings)

DNS OCP Bylaw No. 1130 amendment Bylaw No. 1321 (OCP Table & DPA No. 6)

DNS OCP Bylaw No. 1130 amendment Bylaw No. 1345 (Rideau Canara)

DNS Zoning Bylaw No. 1255 amendment Bylaw No. 1344(Rideau Canara)

DNS Zoning Bylaw No. 1255 amendment Bylaw No. 1320 (McDonald Park Estates)

DNS Bylaw No. 1366 Phased Development Agreement (Rideau-Canara)

DNS Bylaw No. 1367 Phased Development Agreement(McDonald Park Estates)

Leslie Hart

2190 Tryon Road 0 Council Agenda Pk North Saanich BC verlnfo 0 Reading File 0 StaffRecommendation 250 665-6070

--�---·---

Page 121 of 159 Janice LeBlanc

From: ainsley viggers Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 3:30 PM To: admin Subject: attn: District of North Saanich - Notice of Public Hearing Zoning Bylaw No. 1255 & Bylaw No. 1130

To Mayor & Council;

I would like my voice to be heard at the Public Hearing on July 14th, 2014 at the Mary Winspear Centre.

I support the amendments to the current bylaws listed below;

• DNS OCP Bylaw No. 1130 amendment Bylaw No. 1352 (Regional Context Statement) (AS per CRD Meetings) • DNS OCP Bylaw No. 1130 amendment Bylaw No. 1321 (OCP Table & DPA No. 6) • DNS OCP Bylaw No. 1130 amendment Bylaw No. 1345 (Rideau Canara) • DNS Zoning Bylaw No.1255 amendment Bylaw No. 1344 (Rideau Canara) • DNS Zoning Bylaw No. 1255 amendment Bylaw No. 1320 (McDonald Park Estates) • DNS Bylaw No. 1366 Phased Development Agreement (Rideau Canara) • DNS Bylaw No. 1367 Phased Development Agreement (McDonald Park Estates)

Regards Ainsley Viggers

#4-7855 East Saanich Road ACTION , BC V8M 2B4 0 (JluncilAgenda p - 250.656.2224 JJ'fnfo Pk E - [email protected] 0 Reading File O StaffRecommendation

1

Page 122 of 159 Janice LeBlanc

From: Chris Maier Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 3:46 PM To: admin Cc: Mark Brodrick Subject: expansioin of the urban containment area in North Saanich

North Saanich Council,

My name is Chris Maier, my address is 9254 Rideau Ave. I have resided here = since 1992.

I would like to show my support for the development of the suggested areas.=

Having canvassed the area surrounding the purposed Rideau/Canara Project. I= found that the over whelming concern of the families living in the area wa= s having affordable housing for their children near by. North Saanich, in my opinion also needs affordable developments to support = the community. North Saanich needs to move forward.

Sincerely Chris Maier DISTRI CT OF NORTH SAANICH 1620 MILLS ROAU NORTH SA!\NICH 13C VBL 5S9 I 0 IE This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.Martt: CAO Corp ate Of fi ce ACTIQN

D Council Agenda Info Pk 0 Reading Fife D StaffRecommendation

1

Page 123 of 159 Janice LeBlanc o. �a;�owL�FrY1 I JUL 1 5 20:� t.'._, From: Lynda&Glen I Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 4:49 PM DISIHICT OF NOfHH SMiNICH . 1 G20 MILLS HOAO To: admin t__I �I O flTli SMNICH GC V!)I [)S9 J. Cc: Alice Finall; x-Conny McBride; x-Craig Mearns; x-Celia Stock; x-Elsie McMurphy; x­ Dunstan Browne; x-Ted Daly Subject: Our OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN

Dear Madam Finall and Council members -

Having chosen to move from Oak Bay twelve years ago to experience the healthy and holistic environment that North Saanich affords, it is with deep disappointment that the results of an apparently dysfunctional council has lead to un-reviewed (by the electorate) development in this paradise. Careful planning, along with reasonable and democratic consultation might have given me more understanding to support a change of our OCP. Dozens of other residents have spoken to me also about this shocking outcome, and feel quite 'abused' actually. We will hope for a reasonable outcome this evening.

Mayor Finall, thank you for your wise and steadfast guidance.

Lynda Craig 11305 Ravenscroft Place, North Saanich

a���cu. AO orporate ff ,

A TION D Council Agenda Ja'fnfo Pk D Reading File O StaffRecommendation

______.

Page 124 of 159 Janice LeBlanc

From: Tillie DISTHiCT OF NOflTH SAANiCH Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 4:52 PM 1620 MILLS 110AD To: admin; Lisa Coburn NOl1TH Si\ANICH BC VHL 559 Cc: [email protected] Subject: FW: LETTER TO NORTH SAANICH COUNCIL RE: PUBLIC HEARING OG RIDEAU-CANORA DEVELOPMENT Attachments: SIGNED JULY 13, 2014 LETTER TO NS COUNCIL.pdf; LAND FOR ABBEYFIELD HOUSE-1.pdf; LAND FOR ABBEYFIELD HOUSE-2.pdf; ABBEYFIELD HOUSE PRINCE ALBERT.pdf

Importance: High

To Mayor and Council

This is to advise you of my support for the Rideau - Canara development and for the request by the Saanich Peninsula Housing and Senor Care Society for a lot within the Rideau-Canara Development land for the construction of Supportive Housing for Seniors.

Please accept this e-mail submission as I am unable to attend the Public Hearing tonight, July 14, 2014, as I am the sole caregiver for my 92 year old husband who has Dementia.

Tillie Baines, 8978 Mainwaring Road CIRCU. North Saanich, B.C. Mayor V811J7 CAO Corporate Offie_e ACTION Dj:: ouncil Agenda Ea'Info Pk 0 Reading File D Staff Recommendation

1

Page 125 of 159 D, �©� Janice LeBlanc Q,

From: 01::;rniCT OF ;�onrn SM Catriona and Chris Harker NICP� 1620 MILLS HOAU Sent: Mon d ay, Ju I y 14 ' 2014 4·ss. PM NORTH . SAM�l�H BC Vo SS 9 To: x-Cra1g. Mearns; x-Conny McBride; x-Ted Daly; x-Dunstan Browne; x-te11a fatk;-X"'�ls1e McMurphy; Alice Finall; admin Subject: Bylaw 1352 comments

Dear Councillors, I regret that I am not able to attend tonight's meeting. I do however wish to express my view and therefore hope you will take the time to read what follows.

I am a resident of North Saanich residing at 9229 Lochside, virtually across the road from one of the planned developments.

There is little doubt that Southern Vancouver Island is one of the nicest places to live in Canada. For that reason, we can expect a continued flood of (re)settlers into the area for many years to come. As the population grows, so will the need for housing. Few of those arriving will want or be able to afford estates, acreages and hobby farms. They will need less expensive housing on smaller lots. Such homes are being built to accommodate this influx in all municipalities in Greater Victoria save North Saanich. Is it fair to expect our neighbours to house all those with modest means and for "us" to maintain our stance that this is a rural district and must forever remain so? Do we not have a moral obligation to share our land as others do? It would be lovely to maintain our wide open spaces but like it or not, we are a suburb of the second largest city in the province and the Capital city at that. Turning over modest plots of land that have sat unused for as long as I have lived here (42 years) seems a small price to pay.

I therefore support the development that is proposed.

Sincerely, Mayor Chris Harker CAO

D Council Agenda 1;121lnfo Pk D Reading File D StaffRecommendation

1

Page 126 of 159 Janice LeBlanc

From: Cord Maclean Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 5:02 PM To: ad min - Cc: Mark Brodrick; [email protected] � JUL 1 5 Ull �©Lio 2C! � Subject: Re: North Saanich Bylaw 1352 w� 1 DISTRICT OF NOiHH SA/\NICHr r�1 1620 MILLS HOAD MOflTH SAl\IJICH BC VSL 5S9J d)J,

Dear Mayor and Council

I have been residents of North Saanich, at 8502 Lochside Dr., since 2009. I live there with my fiance and 3 year old daughter. I am writing to express our support for the proposed changes to the OCP being contemplated in Bylaw 1352. In my opinion the community could use more diverse and affordable housing options that will most likely attract an increase in young families for support of community services. As many families can not afford the real estate currently available in North Saanich.

Thank You

Cl RC Cord Maclean Mayor CAO corporate ACTION genda 0 council A Pk u;aiOfo ding file 0 Rea . n mmendatlO 0 Staff Reco

----­ ..-- -- ... � ..---- i �--=------.::.-::::·_, \

1

Page 127 of 159 Janice LeBlanc

From: madramafiles < [email protected]> I Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 5:10 PM

'l i'1 1 J. L - 1 u u JUI 1 .._ lr To: admin rm�©1�0\01l..i.J � 'l� lQJlr) Subject: Building houses on soil is stupid DISTf\ICT OF fWRTH SMt•!ICH ! 620 MILLS RO./.\ll NORTH Sf\AN I CH BC v8L 5 S9 ------��---� ._.__..! To Mayor and Council,

I am totally opposed to the changes to the OCP that are being proposed here tonight. If we imagine the earth as an apple then quarter it, then take 3 sections away for oceans, we are left with one section-the land, divide that 1/4 into 1/8ths and take one away for areas on the earth that are inhospitable for agriculture, deserts, icecaps etc. The remaining 1/8 is where we live our hospitals, roads, schools and houses, however if you want to know how much soil we have to feed 7.1 billion people cut the peel off the 1/8 of an apple that is 1/32 of an apple

that is the amount of soil available to grow food for the entire planet. We are failing miserably 1 billion are hungry. Even here in our backyard.

Canada failed (2012) its UN issued food security test, BC is the poorest province with the highest rates of child poverty and we are the highest users of food banks, in fact CS and NS are the highest in the area.

You may think, oh this is because we have so many First Nations reserves in this area, this is unacceptable thinking, it is racist and inhumane. It is the mind of the colonizer.

The First Nations stewarded these areas since time immemorial and whose sustainable land practices resulted in the 6- 10 ft soils that now are beneath our feet. Ownership of the land does not give one the right to impair future generations ability to grow food or meet their needs. Short term economic gain by the wealthy while others live in squalor does not seem very productive use of our cerebral and infinite creative potential. Building houses on soil is stupid! There is more biodiversity in one cubic foot of soil than in an entire rainforest. It is alive. It is the heart of the land.

Civilizations have rose, Greek, Roman, Easter Island and fallen on one thing alone, soil. Soils can be i life when we are sick the doctors don't make us lay down and build condos on us-they ? try to restore us to health. Farming practices dictate soil condition. ACTION Soil can be improved drastically. From class 6-2 with time and practice. D Council Agenda J41nfo Pk Future generations are counting on us and I am counting on all of you to make the right decision. D Reading File D StaffRecommendation Farmer Nathalie Chambers

1

Page 128 of 159 Janice LeBlanc

From: Concerned Citizens < [email protected] > Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 5:59 PM To: admin Subject: a call for a proper OCP review

Dear Mayor and Council,

A single public hearing on issues of such magnitude is completely inappropriate and must be regarded as an attempt to circumvent proper public process in order to advance a personal agenda. Such drastic changes should be decided one by one and not during summer vacation, when many residents are away.

Such proposed density needs a full OCP review. We are still a democracy. We residents have to decide the future of our community, not developers and not industry and business.

We residents want a proper OCP Review before any more changes. This is still our community and our lifestyle. We do need a healthy balance in life and we urge you to listen to us residents, not ignore us!

Hildegard Horie

Mayor CAO Corporat A.CTION D Council Agenda_,,. iP-Jnfo Pk D Reading File 0 Staff Recommendation

-----­ ··----·• -r,_ __

1

Page 129 of 159 Janice LeBlanc

From: Ginny & Joan Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 6:11 PM To: admin; x-Craig Mearns; x-Conny McBride; x-Ted Daly; x-Dunstan Browne; x-Celia Stock; x-Elsie McMurphy; Alice Finall Subject: Rezoning Applications - OCP changes

July 14, 2014 01srn1cr OF iJOHrH SAAN 1 ICH 620 MILLS HDAO '----�N �O fl��� .!3.f.!.81. 5S9 ----l

Dear Council; A few years ago we, North Saanich Residents, voted for a Community Plan. Why are we going through this again? At that time, additional density to the community was turned down, residents do not wish to have North Saanich any more congested than it already is.

The argument that lower income families cannot afford North Saanich is really not fair to those of us (lower income families) who have worked very hard over the years to earn the privilege to live in this community. To now have Council change our Community Plan to accommodate what seems to be developers' dreams come true. So far, the homes that have been built on subdivided properties have all been wo1th a lot more than our home is worth - is this for low income families??? , if so, there is an even bigger problem with our municipality and our Council.

If these high density areas are allowed - what is going to stop us, in the future from applying to subdivide our property (just under 2 acres) into 28 units? The idea is absolutely appalling! If you allow one, two or three, you will have to allow 100 and ruin North Saanich for good!

The rural aspects of North Saanich are of vital importance to us. As No1th Saanich Residents, I think it only fair that if the Community Plan is changed it should go to a referendum - All NORTH SAANICH residents (and only residents) should have an official say on this matter. CIRCU. Thank you r J Byers and V Porter Mayo CAO corporate Office ACTION. o council Agenda Z{nto Pk o Reading File dati. on o Staff Recommen

.. -- ---

1

Page 130 of 159 Janice LeBlanc

From: Jon Edgell Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 6:29 PM To: admin; Mark Brodrick; Luke Mari; [email protected]; x-Conny McBride Subject: July 14th Public Hearing -·-- ....-�--- -

�©�JUL 1 5IJ 2.Y/�lr014 o·'\ I District of North Saanich ID)lfll U:..) DISTHICT OF N U HTH SAANICH To Mayor and Council 1620 MILLS HOAD MOf1TH Si\l\NICH BC V8L 5S�

11 I would like my voice to be heard at the public hearing on July 14 1• 2014 at the Mary Winspear Center.

I support the amendments to the current bylaws listed below:

DNS OCP Bylaw No. 1130 amendment Bylaw No. 1352(Regional Context Statement) (AS per CRD Meetings)

DNS OCP Bylaw No. 1130 amendment Bylaw No. 1321 (OCP Table & DPA No. 6)

DNS OCP Bylaw No. 1130 amendment Bylaw No. 1345 (Rideau Canara)

DNS Zoning Bylaw No. 1255 amendment Bylaw No. 1344(Rideau Canara)

DNS Zoning Bylaw No. 1255 amendment Bylaw No. 1320 (McDonald Park Estates)

DNS Bylaw No. 1366 Phased Development Agreement (Rideau-Canara)

DNS Bylaw No. 1367 Phased Development Agreement(McDonald Park Estates)

Thank you; Mayor Jonathan Edgell CAO 8915 Marshall Rd Corp ate Offic r��-;> Nmth Saanich A.CTI ON D CJ>uncilAgenda Ja1nfo Pk D Reading File D Staff Recommendation

1

Page 131 of 159 Alice Finall

From: Jill Sechley Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 9:39 AM To: Alice Finall Cc: x-Ted Daly; x-Conny McBride; x-Craig Mearns; x-Celia Stock; x-Elsie McMurphy; x­ Dunstan Browne Subject: OCP and regional context statement amendments

Honorable Mayor and Councilors,

At the community meeting held Tuesday July 1 5 2014 at the Mary Winspear Centre, I found many people on both sides of the debate over the bylaw changes to permit high density housing in North Saanich to have interesting and valuable points to make. Clearly this is an issue that affects all residents of North Saanich (and neighbouring Sidney), the outcome of which will have serious impacts on us all.

As such, it seems to me that this is far too serious an issue to be decided upon by council alone and that we MUST have a full OCP review to put the decision to the residents of North Saanich eg. via a referendum or as an election issue. That is the only way for this to be decided in a truly democratic way. After such a vote, I will be happy to accept the majority decision even if it is not my preference. The "majority decision" must not mean "majority of councilors" but the majority of the residents. The opinions of the CRD or the Saanich Peninsula Chamber of Commerce should not influence the outcome this issue.

If Council is convinced this is the appropriate future for our community, then you should not be worried to put it to the people to see if they share your view.

Thank you, Sincerely,

Jill Sechley 1056 Lands End Rd.

1

Page 132 of 159 .. "=� 1· Mayo(, , CAO!}­ Corporate Peter Wood 10008 Simkin Pl., ACTION Sidney B.C. 0 <;ouncil Agenda $Info Pk V8L3N4 O Reading File [email protected] o Staff Recommendation 905 490 0420 Mayor and Council District of North Saanich 1620 Mills Rd. V8L 5S9

I am a relatively new resident to the area of North Saanich, Sidney, and have been looking for a home to rent or buy over the last half year or more.

I came across a house for sale on Webster Pl in Sidney which I am quite interested in. It adjoined a property at 9270 Lockside Dr. North Saanich with a proposed zoning change from agriculture to residential apartment RM-3. I have some concern about the intensity of this proposed Zoning change. The density, coverage and height of the proposed zoning change do not mesh with the surrounding neighborhoods or land use and create compatibility problems to the people and community of this area, Including; traffic, park space, other infrastructure demands, intrusiveness on neighbours, appearance, and overall congestion and its social and environmental impacts.

I feel that a more appropriate zoning for this property would be something similar to the R2 Zoning that is on Webster PL that adjoins this property. It is a density that is more compatible to the character and nature of the community. It also encourages some modest multi-family use on a more human scale helping the housing stock supply for rental and ownership in a smaller more personal manner which is a notable and desirable characteristic to this area. I hope that you will consider and value protecting against the excessiveness of this proposed zoning change as I am sure corporate pressure can be quite strong. I am not against development, But would like it to be balanced, compatible and keeping to the character that makes our communities so desirable.

Sincerely Peter Wood

('i)viXv 0r ,;,,r�+

0 11\, q�c 1/e // o' et11J;j

Page 133 of 159 ID)�©�OW�l[jl lf� J LlL 1 7 201L1 tJdJ Mayor and/ Council, DISrHICT OF NOHTH SAANICH July 14, 2014 1620 MILLS ROAD N0f1TH SAAN i CH BC V8L 5S9 I fititnly support all seven bylaws which passed third reading on Monday. With the median price of a single familyhome in North Saanich now at $850,000, our community needs housing options at more affordable levels. Problems of growth and how to handle it, are not unique to North Saanich. 1 Our neighboring communities of Sidney and Central Saanich are also facing challenges of how and where, and what type of housing is needed to fill the demand. Neither of those communities has the capacity to absorb all this growth on their own. Sidney is quickly becoming maxed out on how much more it can build and it can only go up so far because of its proximity to the airport. Central Saanich, for its part has done a brilliant job of providing pleasant family neighborhoods with a nice mix of single family and multi-family units, as well as rental units, built around the village centers of Saanichton and Brentwood. Central Saanich also has a large core of ALR farmland which provides a significant percentage of the islands food. Central Saanich treasures its farmland at least as much as does NS, so build up of its farmland is not an option. It is time for North Saanich to step up to the plate and do its share, rather than expecting its neighbors to caITy the load. Particularly since its many new industries have made the airport a major employer. In my opinion, it is hypocritical for North Saanich to happily collect revenues from the airport industries, yet deny housing for its employees. The areas between the airport and the highway, and along McDonald Park are well suited to higher density neighborhoods and their development will have no impact on other areas. The oft repeated statements by the anti­ developers that this is the beginning of the end of NS as we know it, is nothing more than fear mongering. As far as the mayors statement that this level of growth is "unprecedented," I beg to differ. I lived through the boom decade when the areas of Dean Park, Green Park, Cloak Hill and Curtis Point were developed. All the reasons that the NO side have given for denying these amendments to the OCP can be summed up by a comment made by more than one prominent voice "I paid good money to buy into this community. If they can't afford to buy, then we don't want them here." That attitude is called ELITISM. It is ugly. I have lived here too long to want to see my community disintegrating into this kind of natTow minded bigotry. Is North Saanich air so rarified that it is only to be breathed by people of a certain

Page 134 of 159 income, professional profile, ethnicity, and age. (Statistics show that, per capita, NS is the OLDEST community in the country. That is a problem on so many levels, think about it for a little while.) I strongly believe that the community of North Saanich requires new vision, new blood, and a spectrum of people to help counter the smug, and stultifying entitleme9t of affluence.. .. -:! /( // ')

--;.. ·Z-��y·/,_- l Nancy Eaton 10287 Wilson Rd. North Saanich CIRCULATION Mayor CAO Corporate Officer ACTION 0 Council Agenda 0 Info Pk 0 Reading File 0 StaffRecommendation

Page 135 of 159 Page 136 of 159 Youth Parliament • �- .-:� of British Columbia Alumni Society 208 - 7191 Barnet Road v 1E1 Burnab , BC V5A

(604) 728-0446 [email protected]

Dear Sir or Madam: 8 September 2014

Re: British Columbia Youth Parliament, 86th Parliament

The British Columbia Youth Parliament's 86th Parliament will hold its parliamentary session in Victoria at the Provincial Legislative Chambers from December 27 to 31, 2014. The Youth Parliament is a province-wide non­ partisan organization for young people ages 16 to 21. It teaches citizenship skills through participation in the December parliamentary session and in community service activities throughout the year. Youth Parliament is a 011e year cummitmeut.

l invite you to encourage eligible youth from your municipality or region to apply to sit as members of the Youth Parliament. Youth Parliament is non-partisan, and applicants need only be interested in learning more about the parliamentary process and in serving their community.

Each applicant who is accepted to attend as a member ofBCYP must pay a $275 registration fee. Thanks to a grant from Coast Capital Savings, a substantial portion of the cost of transportation and accommodation is covered for all members. Financial support is available for applicants who cannot meet the expense of the registration fee. Requesting financial assistance will not affect an applicant's chance of being selected as a member. We also provide resources for applicants attempting to secure funding from community sources, including schools and service clubs (see www.bcyp.org/joinus.html).

Members will sit and debate in the Legislative Chambers for five days and will be accommodated for four nights at the Harbour Towers Hotel in Victoria. Dming that time, participants are supervised by members of the Board of Directors of the Youth Parliament of B.C. Alumni Society and other youth parliament alumni. In addition, transportation to and from Victoria will be provided for all members who require it.

I have enclosed an application form and two copies of a brochure about BCYP. I encourage you to make the application form and brochure available to interested young people and to make copies of the fom1s as needed. If your municipality sponsors a "youth of the year" award or has a municipal youth council, young people with that sort of initiative and involvement are ideal candidates for our organization. A soft copy of the form is available from our website at www.bcyp.org/joinus.html, along with soft copies of the brochure and a promotional poster.

All applications must be received by October 22, 2014. Applicants will be notified whether they have been selected in early November. If you require more information, please contact me by telephone or e-mail as indicated above, or ---�--�...,..���--. visit our website at www.bcyp.org.

Mayor· Yours truly, CAO Corporate Officer ACTION Dora Tmje Registrar, Youth Parliament ofB.C. Alumni Society

C coast ,.,,_,,,,_.,, �

Sponsoring the British Columbia Youth Parliament

Page 137 of 159 Page 138 of 159 Dan Moreton

From: Geoff Orr Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 12:27 PM To: admin Subject: Correspondence for Mayor and Council - VAA Noise Committee Attachments: Letter to VAA Noise Committee Representatives Sep 2014 Final.pdf

Please find attached an electronic copy of two letters sent to the District of North Saanich VAA Noise Committee representatives. The letters have been cc'd to Mayor and Council for information. rgds geoff orr President North Saanich Residents Association

CJ 'ouncil Agenda lklinfoPk D Reading File D Staff Recommendation

1

Page 139 of 159 North Saanich Residents Association P.O Box 2273, Main Post Office Sidney, BC V8L 3S8

September 10, 2014

Pete Snell 9225 Basswood Rd North Saanich, BC V8L 3W8

Dear Mr. Snell:

Subject: Squadron 443 Cyclone Helicopter Training Centre

The North Saanich Residents Association hosted a community meeting earlier this year to which we invited representatives from the Victoria Airport Authority and Department of National Defence to provide an update on their respective operations. One of the topics discussed was the status of the new Cyclone Helicopter Training Centre and the potential forincreased helicopter noise levels that may impact North Saanich residents.

We learned that although the number of flightsmay not increase, the noise from these helicopters will be more noticeable and nighttime flying will still be required.

Based on this meeting and follow up, we have learnedthat the training facility building project triggered a federal Enviromnental Assessment screening. However, the screening report, 1) did not consider the enviromnental effects of helicopter flights, and 2) did not afford any opportunities forpublic consultation.

The NSRA is therefore seeking your support as one of the North Saanich representatives on the VAA Noise Committee to formally request that DND initiate communication and engagement with residents of North Saanich regarding the Cyclone helicopters.

We see the benefits of this engagement as allowing for, 1) further understanding of the potential noise impacts on North Saanich residents, and 2) identification of opportunities to mitigate any potential impacts.

Please findattached two memoranda from the University of Victoria Enviromnental Law Centre that provides a legal opinion on the basis for DND embarking on a public engagement process.

We have sent the same letter to the other North Saanich representative Mr. David Reid

Page 140 of 159 Thank you in advance foryour consideration.

I can be reached at 250-656-4562 or email at [email protected].

Sincerely yours,

Geoff Orr, President, North Saanich Residents Association cc: Mayor and Council, District of North Saanich attach:

Page 141 of 159 North Saanich Residents Association P.O Box 2273, Main Post Office Sidney, BC V8L 3S8

September 10, 2014

David Reid 8500 East Saanicb Rd. North Saanich, BC V8L 5W2

Dear Mr. Reid:

Subject: Squadron 443 Cyclone Helicopter Training Centre

The North Saanich Residents Association hosted a community meeting earlier this year to which we invited representatives from the Victoria Airport Authority and Department of National Defence to provide an update on their respective operations. One of the topics discussed was the status of the new Cyclone Helicopter Training Centre and the potential forincreased helicopter noise levels that may impact North Saanich residents.

We learned that although the number of flights may not increase, the noise from these helicopters will be more noticeable and nighttime flying will still be required.

Based on this meeting and follow up, we have learned that the training facility building project triggered a federal Enviromnental Assessment screening. However, the screening report, 1) did not consider the enviromnental effects of helicopter flights, and 2) did not afford any opportunities for public consultation.

The NSRA is therefore seeking your support as one of the North Saanich representatives on the VAA Noise Committee to formally request that DND initiate communication and engagement with residents of North Saanich regarding the Cyclone helicopters.

We see the benefits of this engagement as allowing for, 1) further understanding of the potential noise impacts on North Saanich residents, and 2) identification of opportunities to mitigate any potential impacts.

Please findattached two memoranda from the University of Victoria Environmental Law Centre that provide a legal opinion on the basis for DND embarking on a public engagement process.

We have sent the same letter to the other North Saanich representative Mr. Pete Snell

Page 142 of 159 Thank you in advance for your consideration.

I can be reached at 250-656-4562 or email at [email protected].

Sincerely yours,

Geoff Orr, President, North Saanich Residents Association cc: Mayor and Council, District of North Saanich attach:

Page 143 of 159 MEMORANDUM

TO: Mark Haddock FROM: Kyle McNeill, articled student DATE: 25 July 2014 RE: EA Exemption for Department of National Defence

DISCLAIMER: The information provided in this document is not intended to be legal advice. While we attempt to ensure the accuracy of the material provided, much of the information is produced by students, not lawyers, and we do not guarantee that it is correct, complete or up to date. The Environmental Law Centre does not warrant the quality, accuracy or completeness of any information in this document. Such information is provided "as is" without warranty or condition of any kind.

Summary

This memo answers the question of whether Canada's Department of National Defence (DND) is exempt from conducting environmental assessment (EA) of its facilities and operations. At issue is the adequacy of the environmental assessment of the DND's new Cyclone helicopter hangar and training facility at Victoria International Airport, which assessed only the hangar building and related facilities and did not take into account the (often low-altitude) flights of the Cyclone helicopters themselves.

The brief answer is that there is no general exemption from EA legislation for DND facilities or operations. Military bases and stations, and certain activities such as weapons testing, are listed as designated physical activities under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 20121 (CEAA, 2012) regulations. So are frequent low-altitude flights by military fixed-wing jet aircraft, though the regulation is silent on non-fixed-wing aircraft such as helicopters. The Minister may still designate a military facility as a physical activity under the regulations, and order an environmental assessment, the same as with any other project undertaken by a federal agency­ there is no specific exemption for DND.

CEAA, 2012 and federal policy directives do contain exemptions in which DND is relieved from conducting EA, but only in specifically listed circumstances, generally emergency or national security situations. There is no general 'operational' exemption for regular DND activities, such as a peacetime training facility.

Environmental Assessment Legislation

Sections 14 and 15 of CEAA, 2012 govern the triggering of environmental assessments. The Minister has discretion whether or not to conduct EAs of projects listed in Schedule I of the Regulations Designating Physical Activities;2 the Minister also has discretion to designate a project that is not already listed in Schedule I, which then gives him or her discretion to order an EA of that project.

ISC 2012, c 19.

2SOR/20 12- l 4 7 ["the Regulations"].

Page 144 of 159 Military bases,facilities, and weapons testing are listed in the Regulations Designating Physical Activities,3 and are thus subject to EA at the Minister's discretion. This includes frequent low­ altitude military aircraft training flights, but only of "fixed-wing jet aircraft" -frequent low­ altitude training flights of military helicopters such as the Cyclone are not included. Therefore, the Minister would have to exercise his or her discretion to add Cyclone training flights as a designated physical activity, and then exercise his or her discretion a second time to decide that an EA was required for the helicopter flights.

There is no blanket exemption for DND in CEAA, 2012. Under the previous CEAA, 1992,4 projects that were listed in the exclusion list regulations5 did not require an EA. None of these listed projects specifically captured military facilities or operations, or aircraft hangars or flights, but if DND undertook a project that was listed, then it would have been exempt from EA; regardless, this legislative scheme is no longer in force.

There are exemptions in CEAA, 2012 for matters of national security or national emergency. Section 70 exempts projects located on federal lands or outside Canada from EA if they relate to a matter of national security, or respond to a national emergency pursuant to the Emergencies Act,or if they respond to an emergency that threatens public health and safety, the environment, or property.6 The Governor in Council may also exempt any project from EA for these above reasons.7 None of these exemptions would likely apply to a peacetime helicopter training facility.

3Schedule I of the Regulations incudes the following items: 18. The construction and operation of a new military base or military station that is to be established for more than 12 consecutive months.

19. The construction, operation, decommissioning and abandonment outside an existing military base of a new military training area, range or test establishment for training or weapons testing that is to be established for more than 12 consecutive months.

20. The expansion of an existing military base or military station that would result in an increase in the area of the military base or military station of 50% or more.

21. The decommissioning and abandonment of an existing military base or military station.

22. The testing of military weapons for more than five days in a calendar year in an area other than the training areas, ranges and test establishments established before October 7, 1994 by or under the authority of the Minister of National Defence for the testing of weapons. 23. The low-level flying of military fixed-wingjet aircraft for more than 150 days in a calendar year as part of a training program at an altitude below 330 m above ground level on a route or in an area that was not established before October 7, 1994 by or under the authority of the Minister of National Defence or the Chief of the Defence Staff as a route or area set aside for low-level flying training.

4SC 1992, c 37.

SExclusion List Regulations, 2007, SOR/2007-108.

6CEAA, 2012, s. 67-68 & 70.

7CEAA, 2012, s. 87.

Page 145 of 159 Cabinet Directive

According to DND policy directives, DND is also bound to conduct an EA pursuant to the terms of the Cabinet Directive on the Environmental Assessment of Policy, Plan and Program Proposals, last revised in 2010.8 While this directive may have been rendered obsolete by the coming into force of CEAA, 2012, it still remains part of DND policy, which was last updated in 2013. According to the Cabinet Directive, DND must conduct an EA when its policy, plan, or program is 1) submitted to a Cabinet Minister for approval, and 2) its implementation may result in important environmental effects, whether positive or negative.9 The Cabinet Directive also contains several exemptions from EA for DND projects in the following situations:10

• DND or the CF are responding to a clear and immediate emergency and time is insufficient to undertake an EA;

• the matter is of such urgency that the normal process of Cabinet consideration is shortened and even a simplified EA cannot be presented; or

• issues have been previously assessed for their environmental impacts, for example, an initiative that is a subset of a policy, plan or program that was previously assessed, or a Treasury Board submission on a matter that has already been the subject of an EA under a previous proposal to Cabinet or assessed as a project under the CEAA.

Again, none of these exemptions likely apply to the Cyclone training facility, since it is not responding to an emergency or urgent situation, and the environmental effects of Cyclone flights have not been previously assessed.

Previous DND Environmental Assessments

DND has a policy of conducting environmental assessments as part of a practice of "due diligence", even if an EA is not strictly required by law.11 There are a number of cases which refer to DND EAs, from as recent as February 2014 (although the EA in that case, Ostrander Point,had been conducted in 2011).12 These cases are illustrative of DND's practice of carrying out EAs.

8Government of Canada, Privy Council Office,Strategic Environmental Assessment - The Cabinet Directive on the Environmental Assessment ofPolicy. Plan and Program Proposals. on line: https://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/Content/B/3/l /B3 I 86435-E3D0-467 l-8F23- 2042A82D3F8F/Cabinet Directive on Environmental Assessment of Policy Plan and Program Propos als.pdf ["Cabinet Directive"].

9Department of Defence, DAOD 4003-0, "Environmental Protection and Stewardship", on line: http://www. forces. gc. ca/ en/about-po Iici es-stan dards-defence-admin-orders-d irec tives-4000/ 4003-2. page I ODAOD 4003-0; Cabinet Directive s. 4.4, p.8-9.

11 DAOD 4003-0. The policy contains a section entitled "Due Diligence", which reads: "An EA is a useful means to show due diligence. It should be conducted for any DND or CF project or activity that potentially may have an adverse effect on the enviromnent, even if there is no legal requirement for an EA."

12See OstranderPoint GP Inc. and another v. Prince Edward County Field Naturalists and another, 20 14 ONSC 974 at para. 110- 112; Nanoose Conversion Campaign v. Canada, [ 1997] 14 1 FTR 54 at para. 6 & 15 ; VancouverlslandPeaceSocietyv. Canada, [1994] I FC 102.

Page 146 of 159 MEMORANDUM

TO: Mark Haddock FROM: Kyle McNeill, articled student DATE: July 30, 2014 RE: Issue Summary- EA Scoping of 443 Squadron Relocation

DISCLAIMER: The information provided in this document is not intended to be legal advice. While we attempt to ensure the accuracy of the material provided, much of the information is produced by students, not lawyers, and we do not guarantee that it is correct, complete or up to date. The Environmental Law Centre does not warrant the quality, accuracy or completeness of any information in this document. Such information is provided "as is" without warranty or condition of any kind.

Background

The North Saanich Residents' Association {NSRA) has asked the ELC to provide an opinion on the environmental assessment {EA) of a Department of National Defence (DND) helicopter facility at Victoria International Airport. The NSRA is concerned about the environmental impacts of noise from the helicopters that will be operated out of this facility.

The Canadian Air Force 443 Maritime Helicopter Squadron leases the land from Victoria International Airport. The 443 decommissioned their previous site at the airport in order to relocate to an adjacent lease. Construction on the new facility is substantially complete and, when operational, it will house nine Sikorsky CH-148 Cyclone helicopters (replacing the squadron's six existing Sea King helicopters). The Cyclone is a twin-engine helicopter and is heavier that the Sea King, and could generate more noise. These helicopters will be flown on training exercises, potentially at all hours of the day and night.

On March 1, 2009, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency determined that an environmental assessment of the helicopter facility was needed. There were two triggers under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA, 1992) that was in force at the time -1) a federal agency (ONO) was the proponent, and 2) ONO proposed to fund the project. The EA was scoped as follows:

a single large hangar near the centre of the new lease area with a paved apron between the new hangar and the existing runways and a paved parking area south of the hangar.13

The EA was tracked as a screening, and was assigned registry nos. 09-01-46523 and 09-01- 47544. The latter registry entry was abandoned on February 22, 2010, 14 while the EA continued under the former registry number and concluded on February 17, 2011, with the decision that

l 3Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, "Relocation of 443 Squadron Facilities to a New Lease. Area: British Columbia", CEAA Registry No. 09-0 1-46523, online: http://ww\v.ceaa.gc.ca/052/details­ eng.cfm?pid=46523. L 4Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, "Relocation of 443 Squadron Facilities to a New Lease Area: British Columbia", CEAA Registry No. 09-0 L-47544, on line: http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/052/details­ eng.cfm ?pid=4 7 544.

Page 147 of 159 "the project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects" .15 There was no 1 opportunity for public input into the screening, "due to the scope and scale of the project" . 6 The screening report did not consider the environmental effects of helicopter flights; although the report did consider ambient noise in the context of construction and demolition activities, it did not list ambient noise as a potential effect of facility operation. 17 The report's only recommendation regarding ambient noise is that the facility "comply with bylaws" - there is no recommendation for ongoing monitoring or follow-up of ambient noise impacts.18

Opinion

The NSRA requested an opinion on whether there are legal grounds to argue that DND ought to have included Cyclone helicopter flights in scoping the physical activity that was assessed in the EA screening; specifically, the EA ought to have assessed the ambient noise effects of the Cyclone helicopters. There are some grounds for this. DND scoped the EA narrowly, taking into account only the physical buildings and surrounding tarmac and the activities that take place inside and around the building (e.g. aircraft washing, painting, and repair)19, but did not consider an activity that was essential to the facility's existence - flying the aircraft. There are several cases under CEAA, 1992 that stand for the proposition that a responsible authority (RA), in this case DND, ought to scope its EA to include activities that are a necessary consequence of the proposed project.

° In Friends of the West Country Assn. v. Canada {Minister of Fisheries and Oceans)2 ("Sunpine"), the applicants challenged an EA of a logging road. This road included several bridges, two of which were over navigable waters, the latter of which triggered a federal EA under CEAA, 1992. The RA (the Coast Guard) scoped the EA only as the two bridges, ignoring the rest of the logging road (including bridges over non-navigable waters) and the cumulative effects of the logging activities that were the necessary consequence of the road. The Federal Court concluded that, although the project was appropriately scoped as two bridges, restricting the EA scoping to only the project as scoped was inappropriate - section 16 of CEAA, 1992 "expressly broaden[s] the considerations beyond the project as scoped".21 The court then pointed out that it was logical to go beyond the project as scoped because the proposed logging road included other bridges over non-navigable waters that were part of the same watershed as the bridged navigable waters, so there would be direct downstream effects flowing from them.22 The court emphasized that the RA has discretion about which projects to assess, but cannot decline to exercise this discretion by explicitly restricting the EA to

l 5Supra note I. 16Screeni11g report, p. 3. I ?Screening report, p. 22. 18Ibid. , p. 27. 19Screening report, p. 22-24. 20[2000] 169 FTR 298. 21Sunpine, at paras. 29 & 33-34. Section 16( 1) of CEAA, 1992 reads: "Every screening ... shall include a consideration of the following factors: (a) the environmental effects of the project, including ... any cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result from the project in combination with other projects or activities that have been or will be carried out". 22S11npine at para. 35.

Page 148 of 159 only the project as scoped - in this case, the Coast Guard misapprehended the law by concluding that they did not have the power to consider anything beyond the two bridges, when in fact they did. 23

The subsequent Supreme Court of Canada decision in Mining Watch Canada v. Canada {Fisheries and Oceans}24 ("Red Chris") somewhat modified the law as articulated in Sunpine, but arrived at a similar result. Red Chris Development Company and BCMetals sought to develop a gold-copper mine in BC - the proponents scoped the project as a mine pit, mill, tailings pond, explosives area, water diversion system, power lines, roads, and related buildings, but the federal RA down-scoped the project EA to include only the tailings pond and explosives area.25 The court held that the RA did not have statutory authority to scope the EA as less than the project as proposed by the proponent. 26 The court affirmed (as in Sunpine) that the RA has discretion to scope an EA,27 and stated that this discretion is exercised in the following way:

the minimum scope is the project as proposed by the proponent, and the RA or Minister has the discretion to enlarge the scope when required by the facts and circumstances of the project28

In this case, the Court held that the RA was required to assess the project as proposed by the proponent, as it had failed to meet this minimum standard.

In sum, the RA must assess, at minimum, the entire project proposed by the proponent, and is also compelled to exercise discretion under section 16(1) to assess the scoped project in conjunction with other activities that have been or will likely be carried out. In the case of the 443 Squadron, this likely includes the helicopter flights that are necessary to operate the hangar facility. DND, as both the proponent and the RA, is required to turn its mind to whether the noise effects of the helicopter flights require EA. The Screening Report does not indicate whether or not this was done.

It is important to highlight that this is an area of discretion. The case law only confirms that the RA must not misapprehend its statutory grant of discretion or refuse to exercise it. The cases do not place a positive duty on the RA to always assess the cumulative effects of other projects or activities, only that the RA must turn its mind to these issues and decide whether or not they should be assessed. However, on these facts, with the helicopter flights being a necessary component of the hangar facility, with more helicopters being housed, and with some evidence that the Cyclone helicopters will generate more noise than the existing Sea Kings, the argument can be made that this ought to have formed part of DND's screening.

23Sunpine at para. 35. 242010 sec 2. 25Red Chris, at paras. 5-6. 26Red Chris, at paras. 39 & 42. 27Red Chris, at para 36. 28Red Chris, at para 39.

Page 149 of 159 DND may argue that the helicopter facility's operations have not changed, since it is replacing an older helicopter facility that also ran training flights, and therefore there is no need to carry out a fresh EA of the helicopter flights. It is true that this facility is replacing an older and smaller, though substantially similar, helicopter facility. However, constructing the new facility allows it to service the newer Cyclone helicopters, which could generate more noise and therefore have a greater environmental impact. This likely goes beyond merely altering an existing facility and arguably involves a new physical activity which triggers a new EA.

Page 150 of 159 Janice LeBlanc

From: Carla Pedrina Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 7:14 PM To: ad min Subject: UBMC next week

I urge our North Saanich representative to this conference to support the effort of the Burnaby municipality

in the fight against Kinder Morgan expansion. This is a fight for the good of all British Columbia. From the roots up we need to defend our right to a healthy environment for our community and our future generations. We also do not need to become the dumping grounds of the US coal industry export and further support poor air quality, acid rain and pollution around the world.

Sincerely Carla Pedrina 1495 Hillgrove North Saanich BC CIRCULATION V8L 5K6 Mayor

DISTRICT O� i'IOHlH SAMllCH CAO [email protected] 1 G20 MILLS ROAD Nonrn SAANICH GC V8L 5$9 ACTION 0 Council Agenda t94nfo Pk 0 Reading File D Staff Recommendation

im&�a__ �[email protected]

!..=::::�- . ·::.:=:.::.:-�::.-::.. �··

1

Page 151 of 159 Page 152 of 159 Janice LeBlanc

From: H & V Edwards < [email protected]> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 8:29 AM To: ad min Subject: UBCM Vancouver Dl:)fr;ICl Di- NOi1TH S1\1'NICH 1 G20 Mill.!;; H OAD 1 � o r-:n1 S/l.MHCH BC Vilt !1S9 ____, Respected members of the administration ofN01th Saanich, Please let me have your assurance that we will be represented at the UBCM in Vancouver next week. We have to oppose the Kinder Morgan pipeline and Burnaby is very likely not up to this task. At the same time, may I ask how you are going to vote on the equally unacceptable proposal to enlarge coal exports from Fraser Surrey Docks. This is unacceptable. These two projects will have enormous, possibly disasterous negative impacts on our community, and you are our elected representatives for our community interests.

Yours faithfully,

Hans and Valerie Patzak Edwards

I 0 IE This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.

CIRCULATION Mayor CAO Corporate Off�: ACTION ' o ;:ouncil Agenda ua' l nfo Pk O Reading File \ o Staff Recommendaticm

1

Page 153 of 159 Page 154 of 159 Mayor CAO� Corporate O� ACTION !ZI Council Agenda J21'into Pk D Reading File D Staff Recommendation

September 17, 2014

The Mayor and Council Municipality of North Saanich North Saanich, BC

Dear Mayor and Council:

As you know, both Central Saanich and Sidney Councils have made the decision to put an Amalgamation Question on the Ballot at the upcoming municipal elections. It is a non-binding Question and seeks only to ascertain an opinion from the public as to their "attitude" towards amalgamation.

I would ask your Council to reconsider your decision not to ask your electorate the same Amalgamation question as Sidney and Central Saanich.

North Saanich being in "the middle of things" so to speak is essential to the subject. If only as a courtesy to your adjoining municipalities, and since it would be four years to the next inexpensive opportunity, I ask you to give this request your serious consideration.

Sincerely,

./ C�' �

{i� iJnner

2426C Bevan Ave. Sidney, BC V8L 1 Wl

Page 155 of 159 Page 156 of 159 Janice LeBlanc

From: Francine & Keith Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 10:47 AM To: admin Subject: Amalgamation question

Please add my name to the list of North Saanich residents who want to see the amalgamation question on the next municipal ballots.

Thank you.

.....--.....__... ,...,.--,...... _.. _._...,...... ,.,'"" ... ' '"··- .. ,_-..... , Francine Halle r:\-:� i 11 \ I 250-656-5150 1 .. -� j lS:1 trt" �. f'-;L;;-;J Li� \./fi/ !TU. f? ' ' \� .�:' " l \ n { I \ ·1•·i - 1 _.., w· o�.rr i :1 g_(JI� 1I. l -) ..! u SEP CH O\STRIC1 OF NOHTH SMNI 1620 MILLS ROAD 559 MOHTH Sf\AMIGH BC VSL

D council Agenda �oPk o Reading File o Staff Recommendation

1

Page 157 of 159 Page 158 of 159

September 23, 2014 Ref: 14-181

To: Mayors and Councillors Chairs and Directors Chairs and Directors of Greater Boards

Greetings to All:

I am pleased to advise you that the Auditor General for Local Government Annual Report for the period of April 1, 2013 to March 31, 2014 will be released on our website www.aglg.ca at the end of day September 24, 2014.

The Annual Report fulfills a requirement under the Auditor General for Local Government Act that I prepare a report on the activities of my office and progress in relation to the goals, objectives and measures established in the office’s annual service plan.

I hope you will take the opportunity to read our Annual Report and share your feedback and comments with us. Please send your comments to [email protected] or call the office at (604) 930-7100.

Best regards,

Basia Ruta, CPA, CA Auditor General for Local Government

pc: Chief Administrative Officers

201 – 10470 152nd Street Phone: 604-930-7100 www.aglg.ca Surrey, BC V3R 0Y3 Fax: 604-930-7128

Page 159 of 159