mac 2, 20 6:0 .m. couci cames 864 sae ake see, missio, c · mac 2, 20 6:0 .m. couci cames 864 sae...

missTscacon.FON THE FRASER

Regular Council AgendaMarch 21, 2011 - 6:30 p.m.

Council Chambers8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, BC

1. PROCLAMATIONS

(a) April 2011 as "Daffodil Month" and April 27, 2011 as "Daffodil Day"Canadian Cancer Society (BC and Yukon)

(b) April 24 through 30, 2011 as "Mission Community Services Week"Mission Community Services Society

(c) May 7, 2011 as "Ukrainian Festival Day"BC Ukrainian Cultural Festival Society

(d) May 15 through 21, 2011 as "National Public Works Week" andMay 15 through 21, 2011 as "Local Government Awareness Week"Union of British Columbia Municipalities

2. DELEGATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS

Page 4

Page 6

Page 7

Page 8

(a) Arnold Muir 1Re: Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009

(b) Urban SystemsRe: Development Cost Charges Review

3. ADOPTION OF INFORMATIONAL ITEMS

(a) Ferndale Institution Population Profile — December 2010 Page 12

(b) Ferndale Institution Population Profile — January 2011 Page 13

(c) Ferndale Institution Population Profile — February 2011 Page 14

(d) Mission Institution Report — February 2011 Page 15

(e) Minutes of the Mission Abbotsford Transit Committee Meeting held on Page 22January 27, 2011

(f) Draft Minutes of the Economic Development Select Committee Page 26Meeting dated February 17, 2011

4. RESOLUTION TO RESOLVE INTO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

5. ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE

(a) Development Cost Charge Review and Update Page 29

1

Regular Council AgendaMarch 21, 2011

(b) Business Licence Bylaw 3964-2007 Page 58

(c) Ticket Information Bylaw 2646-1993 Page 59

(d) 2010/2011 Regionally Significant Gas Tax Grant Program Page 60

(e) Public/Stakeholder Presentation for Proposed Sewer Use Bylaw Page 66Codes of Practice for Abbotsford and Mission

(f) Annual Investment Performance Report Page 71

(g) Smoking Cessation — "Quit Now" Page 72

6. PLANNING

(a) Development Variance Permit Application DV10-017 (Easton) — Page 758254 Manson Street

(b) Temporary Commercial Use Permit Application TP11-002 (676517 Page 80B.C. Limited) — 32818 — 7 1h Avenue

7. ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC WORIKS

(a) BC Hydro Sponsorship of a Shared Energy Manager between Page 103Mission Public Schools and the District of Mission

(b) Community Energy and Emissions Plan (CEEP) Initiation Page 104

(c) Results of Energy Efficiency and Lighting Studies Page 106

(d) Cedar Valley Environmental Management Plan — Fish Habitat Page 113Compensation

(e) Cost Benefit Analysis of Part Time Woodwaste Inspector at Page 115the Landfill

8. RESOLUTION TO RISE AND REPORT

9. ADOPTION OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT

10. BYLAWS

MOTION: That the readings of all bylaws included in the Bylaws section of theMarch 21, 2010 regular council agenda be approved as listed.

(a) District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5146-2010- Third Reading5050(14) (R10-010 — Cheema) — a bylaw to rezone property at32620 Cherry Avenue from Suburban 36 zone (S36) toResidential Compact 465 Secondary Dwelling zone (RC465s)

(b) District of Mission 2011 — 2015 Financial Plan Bylaw 5198-2011 Adoption— a bylaw to establish the Financial Plan for the years 2011 to2015

(c) District of Mission Street Naming (Oyama Street Extension/ AdoptionOyama Place) Bylaw 5200-2011 a bylaw to name newportions of road

2

Regular Council AgendaMarch 21, 2011

(d) District of Mission Penitentiary Sewage Lift Station Catchment AdoptionArea Fee Amending Bylaw 5203-2011-5040(1) — a bylaw toamend the fee for 2011

(e) District of Mission Refuse Collection and Disposal Amending AdoptionBylaw 5204-2011-1387(51) — a bylaw to add a tipping fee forasbestos containing material

(f) District of Mission Dog Licensing and Animal Control and AdoptionImpounding Amending Bylaw 5205-2011-1782(24) — a bylaw toadd a definition for "dangerous dog"

(g) District of Mission Ticket Information Amending Bylaw 5206- Adoption2011-2646(21) — a bylaw to add a fine for a dog attack

(h) District of Mission Ticket Information Amending Bylaw 5207- First, Second and2011-2646(22) — a bylaw to make a housekeeping change to Third Readingsbe consistent with Water Bylaw 2196-1990

11. MINUTES

(a) Regular Council Meeting — February 21, 2011 Page 118

(b) Regular Council Meeting (Public Hearing) — February 28, 2011 Page 133

(c) Special Council Meeting (Community Amenities) — March 3, 2011 Page 144

(d) Regular Council Meeting — March 7, 2011 Page 154

12. OTHER BUSINESS

(a) Release from Closed Council — March 7, 2011 Page 174

13. CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER'S REPORT

14. MAYOR'S REPORT

15. COUNCILLOR'S REPORTS ON COMMITTEES, BOARDS, AND ACTIVITIES

16. QUESTION PERIOD

17. ADJOURNMENT

3

Geres A Logan

President Mi n Unit33079B First AvenueMission, BC V2V 1 G2604.820.3166e-mail: [email protected]

CanadianCancerSociety

4

BRITISH COLUMBIA AND YUKON

22 February 2011

Dear Mayor James Atebe

Re: Daffodil Day and Daffodil Month

The Canadian Cancer Society is excited to inform you of this year's Daffodil Campaign. This April,we are asking Canadians across the country to wear our iconic daffodil pin throughout the month ofApril. We have all been touched by cancer; and many of us have or are supporting someone ontheir cancer journey. What better way to declare our support than to show it on our collars. Lastyear, the B.C. and Yukon division of the Canadian Cancer Society piloted our daffodil campaign anddue to its success, it is being launched nationally this year.

We will be distributing the pin around the province, allowing champions of the cause to visuallyillustrate their support by wearing a Daffodil Pin. The pin will be worn as a symbol of courage andlets those on a cancer journey know that they are not alone in their battle. This will culminate in ashared experience of wearing the pins on Daffodil Day, April 27, 2011.

To that end, we request your office issue a proclamation of Daffodil Month in April and Daffodil Dayon April 27. You will find a suggested proclamation below.

We will follow-up with you in the coming weeks with an invitation to launch our campaign on April 1,2011, as well as to participate in activities on Daffodil Day. It is our hope that you will find time inyour busy schedule to join us for this event.

Proclamation:

Whereas the Canadian Cancer Society's British Columbia and Yukon Division continues to be aleader in funding outstanding cancer research, undertaking cancer prevention initiatives anddelivering support services to people with cancer and their families.

Whereas the Canadian Cancer Society's British Columbia and Yukon Division consistentlydemonstrates a collaborative approach to cancer control and represents the interests of all citizensof Mission affected by cancer.Whereas the Canadian Cancer Society's British Columbia and Yukon Division assists the public intaking steps to reduce the risk of cancer by adopting prevention strategies and advocates forhealthy public policy that makes healthier choices easier choices .

Therefore, let it be known that the month of April shall be proclaimed the Canadian CancerSociety's Daffodil Month and April 27th as Daffodil Day in Mission.

To some, the daffodil is just a flowerTo us, it is a symbol of strength and courage, a symbol of life. It says we will notgive up. It says we will fight back. It sayi-we will beat cancer.

This spring, the Canadian Cancer Society is fighting back - we'll be offering cutflowers and 'daffodil pins by donation and going door to door. April 27 is DaffodilDay and we're encouraging Canadians to proudly wear their pin to remember thoselost, honour those battling cancer and to show cancer we will not sit idly by while ittakes another life.

We're kick starting our campaign in businesses all over the country. Join the fightby ordering cut flowers and pins for your workplace.

Here's how it works:• Promote someone in the office as your official Daffodil Campaign Coordinator.• Order fresh daffodils and daffodil pins by filling in the attached order form.• You can also encourage employees and guests to make an additional donation

to the Canadian Cancer Society with each bunch of flowers or pin they take.

5

For more information:Name: Mission OfficePhone:604-820-3166Email:[email protected]

CanadianCancerSociety

BRITISH COLUMBIA AND YUKON

MISSION COMMUNITYSERVICES SOCIETY

33179 2nd Avenue,Mission, B.C. V2V 1J9

Phone: (604) 826-3634Fax: (604) 820-0634

www.missioncommunityservices.com

6

March 7, 2011

Mayor & CouncilDistrict of MissionP.O. Box 208645 Stave Lake StreetMission, B.C. V2V 4L9

Dear Mayor James Atebe and Mission District Council:

We were very happy to receive the declaration from Mission Council for "Mission Community ServicesWeek" for the week of January 24 th — 30 th , 2010 and would like to formally request the same declarationfor the week of April 24 th — 30th, 2011.

As you are aware, Mission Community Services Society (M.C.S.S.) has provided social services to thecommunity since 1972. Our agency offers a wide variety of services and support programs for people ofall ages, backgrounds, lifestyles and income levels. We firmly believe in our Mission Statement,"Mission Community Services identifies and responds to the needs of individuals, families and thecommunity," and are continually updating our programs/services in order to meet these needs.

Our Agency currently has 3 major fundraising events each year, and we are striving to use this week inApril to educate the public about the programs offered and how these programs can help people in need.

On behalf of the board of directors, management, staff, volunteers and the many people that are helpedthrough our programs, thank you in advance for your continuing support through the declaration ofCommunity Services Week in April 2011.

if you have any questions regarding this request, please don't hesitate to contact me atcarolvmjanousekOmissioncommunityservices.com or by phone at 604.826.3634.

Best regards,

.).)a czn.(21Carolyn JanousekFund Development OfficerMission Community Services Societycarolvn.janouseka,missioncommunityservices.com604-826-3634 phone604-820-0634 fax

BC Ukrainian Cultural Festival Society"Keeping Ukrainian Culture Alive"

6303 187A StreetSurrey BC V3S 7N9

Email: bcucfs4gmail.comWebsite: www.bcucf.ca

7

February 22, 2011

The Honourable James AtebeMayor of The District of Mission8645 Stave Lake StreetBox 20Mission, B C. V2V 4L9

Re: 16th Annual BC Ukrainian Cultural Festival

The BC Ukrainian Cultural Festival Society, a non-profit organization, is sponsoring its16th Annual Ukrainian Cultural Festival. This year's festival will take place onSaturday, May 7 from 8:45 am to 6:30 pm followed by the "Zabava" (familydance) until 10:30p.m. at the Clarke Foundation Theatre located at HeritagePark Secondary School, 33700 Prentis Avenue, Mission BC.

We feature dance competitions, arts and crafts for display and sale, Easter egg writingand Wheat Weaving demonstrations, food, entertainment and much more.

We would be greatly honoured if you and your members of City Council would be our guests at thedaytime activities (confirmation required).

We will have a brief opening ceremony at 8:50 a.m. with the singing of O'Canada andthen the Official Opening at 9:50 a.m. at which time we invite you to the stage foropening remarks.

Also, I have enclosed a copy of a previous years "District of Mission Proclamation" toproclaim "Ukrainian Festival Day". We humbly ask that you present this request at yournext meeting on our behalf. We would appreciate a new copy of the Proclamation forour festival program. Please mail to above address.

I'd like to thank you and your council for assisting our organization in the promotion ofour event.

Sincerely

Nathan ychyporukPresident604-614-9178

MEMBER RELEASEMarch 9, 2011

8

TO: Mayor and Council

Chair and Regional District Boards

FROM: UBCM Staff

RE: NATIONAL PUBLIC WORKS WEEK & LOCAL GOVERNMENT

AWARENESS WEEK: MAY 15 - MAY 21, 2011

The Public Works Association of BritishColumbia is seeking your support torecognize and promote National PublicWorks Week (NPWW) from May 15-21,2011 by acknowledging this week asNational Public Works Week in yourcommunity. This year's theme is"Serving You and Your Community".

National Public Works Week isobserved each year during the third fullweek of May and this is the 51st year.NPWW calls attention to the importanceof public works in community life andseeks to acknowledge the efforts of tensof thousands of men and women inNorth America who provide andmaintain civil infrastructure andservices. NPWW also allows Councilsremind the public of the 24/ 7 servicesthat they are responsible for and areproud of, and many make this anannual celebration in their communities.

Attached to this memo is a letter ofintroduction from the Public Works

Association of BC and a sampleproclamation for your use.

The week of May 15- 21, 2011 is alsoLocal Government Awareness Week.

We have coordinated efforts with thePublic Works Association to generateawareness and educate the public aboutthe roles and responsibilities of localgovernment, and encourage the publicto participate in local governmentprocesses, including voting in localelections. The theme for LocalGovernment Awareness Week 2011 is"Be Heard". This theme was chosen toreflect the upcoming local governmentelections.

For more information about PublicWorks Awareness Week, visit:www.apwa.net / About / npww /

For more information about LocalGovernment Awareness Week, visit:www.lgaw.bc.ca

www.ubcm.ca

PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATIONOF BRITISH COLUMBIA

CHAPTER OF CANADIAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION32985 Bruce Avenue, Mission B.C. V2V 2R1

http://pwabc.cpwa.net

9

March 4, 2011

Attention: Honourable Mayors,Members of Council andChief Administrative Officers

Re: National Public Works Week, May 15-21, 2011 — "Serving You and Your Community"

The Public Works Association of British Columbia (PWABC) is seeking your support to recognizeand promote National Public Works Week (NPWW) by acknowledging May 15-21, 2011 asNational Public Works Week in your community. This year's theme is "Serving You and YourCommunity'.

National Public Works Week is observed each year during the third full week of May and this isthe 51 st year. NPWW calls attention to the importance of public works in community life and seeksto acknowledge the efforts of tens of thousands of men and women in North America who provideand maintain civil infrastructure and services. NPWW also allows Councils remind the public ofthe 24/7 services that they are responsible for and are proud of, and many make this an annualcelebration in their communities.

The APWA encourages public works agencies and professionals to take the opportunity tocelebrate the week by parades, displays of public works equipment, high school essay contests,open houses, programs for civic organizations and media events. The occasion is marked eachyear with scores of resolutions and proclamations from mayors and governors and raises thepublic's awareness of public works issues and increases confidence in public works agencies likeyours who are dedicated to improving the quality of life for present and future generations.

For your convenience, I have attached a sample Council proclamation that you may considerusing. You may wish to go to www.apwa.net/About/npww/ for information about this year's themeand resources on making your Public Works Week a success. If you have any further questionsor require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact either of us via e-mail/phone at drichards(a.cthsystems.com 604-999-1470 or dleevictoria.ca 250.361.0467Thank you for making a difference.

Please note that declarations should be forwarded to:PWABCPO BOX 1456 STN MAINKAMLOOPS BC V2C 6L7

Yours truly,

Dan Richards, MBA Deryk LeePWABC PWABCPublic Works Week Committee Co-Chair Public Works Week Committee Co-Chair

PROCLAMATION

PUBLIC WORKS WEEKServing You and Your Community

MAY 15-21, 2011

WHEREAS:

WHEREAS:

public works infrastructure, facilities and services are vital tothe health, safety and well-being of the residents of (Enteryour city/municipality/town/etc name); and

such faculties and services could not be provided withoutthe dedicated efforts of public works professionals,engineers and administrator who are responsible forbuilding, operating and maintaining the public workssystems that serve our citizens; and

WHEREAS: the Public Works Association instituted Public Works Weekas a public education campaign "to inform communities andtheir leaders on the importance of our nation's publicinfrastructure and public works services; and

WHEREAS: it is in the public interest of citizens and civic leaders to gainknowledge of the public works needs and programs of theirrespective communities;

WHEREAS: Public Works Week also recognizes the contributions ofpublic works professionals.

NOW THEREFORE, I, (Enter Mayor's Name), Mayor of the (Enter yourcity/municipality/town/etc name), do hereby proclaim theweek of May 15-21, 2011, as Public Works Week in Enteryour municipality.

Dated this day of 2011.

(Enter Mayor's-Name), Mayor

10

t om;

(

M D ISTRICT nON THE FRASER

REQUEST TO APPEAR AS A DELEGATION

Date: VA

To: Director of Corporate Administration

I hereby request permission to appear as a delegation before District of Mission Mayor andCouncil with reference to the following topic:

I understand that the deadline for submission of the request, including any presentation orsupporting material, is 4:30 p.m. on the Monday preceding the date of the meeting and thatonce my appearance has been confirmed, I will be allotted a maximum of 10 minutes to makemy presentation.

Name: 'C;\ 167 LL

11

Ferndale Institution Population ProfileDecemlber 2010

Population Total as of December 4, 2010 123

Number of Aboriginal Offenders 11Number of Other Ethnicities 35Number of Caucasian 77

Age Groups<20 021 - 30 831 - 40 2141 - 50 4451 - 60 3861 - 70 1171+ 1

Length of Sentence2 - 5 years 37 —20.08%6- 10 years 22 - 17.89%11 - 25 years 10 — 8.13%Over 26 years 3 — 2.44%Indeterminate (Life sentences) 51— 41.46%

Number with Gang Affiliation (Member/Associate) 9Number with Sex Offence 18Number of Community Escorted Temporary Absences(Prey Month)

60

Number of Unescorted Temporary Absences (Current) 3Number of Work Releases (Current) 1

12

Ferndale Institution Population ProfileJanuary 2011

Population Total as of December 4, 2010 127


Age Groups<20 021 - 30 731 -40 2641 - 50 4351 - 60 3961 - 70 1171+ 1

Length of Sentence2 - 5 years 40 —31.40%6- 10 years 21 - 16.54%11 - 25 years 12 — 9.45%Over 26 years 3 — 2.36%Indeterminate (Life sentences) 51— 40.16%

Number with Gang Affiliation (Member/Associate) 7Number with Sex Offence . 18Number of Community Escorted Temporary Absences(Prey Month)

62

Number of Unescorted Tem s orary Absences (Current) 9Number of Work Releases (Current) 2

13

Ferndale Institution Population ProfileFebruary 2011

Population Total as of February 4, 2011 128


Age Groups<20 021 - 30 731 -40 3041 - 50 4151 - 60 3761 - 70 1171+ 2

Length of Sentence2 - 5 years 40 —31.25%6- 10 years 21 - 16.41%11 - 25 years 12 — 9.38%Over 26 years 2 —1.56%Indeterminate (Life sentences) 53 — 41.41%

Number with Gang Affiliation (Member/Associate) 9Number with Sex Offence 16Number of Community Escorted Temporary Absences(Prey Month)

197

Number of Unescorted Temporary Absences (Current) 6Number of Work Releases (Current) 3

14

03/15/2011 12:52 6048264319

MMSI WARDEN PAGE 02/08 1 5

DISTRICT OF MISSION REPORT

FEBRUARY, 2011

Enclosures:

• District of Mission Public Safety Committee Report

• Definitions

• Major Offence Profile

• institutional Programming and Community Involvement

i/case mgt/private/ccm-cilc/District of Mission Report Enclosures

CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADAMISSION INSTITUTION

DISTRICT OF MISSION PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE REPORTJan-11

STATISTICAL INFORMATION UP TO AND INCLUDING THE LAST DAY OF EACH MONTH

- . ---7 '-!1-4.1,.W -_-_ Tari171,v_41) J -1J --f---- rm. _ ina4 _ .2--x.w--wis.miiik no1.mm-i wo lu-Qww.1),_Number of Inmates at Outside Court r r

Number of Inmates at Outside HospitalNumber of inmates on Bail r r

Number of Inmates U.A.L. (1 since 1973) 1 1Number of Inmates on Temporary Absence 0 0

Total Number of Inmates at Mission 274 274

. -m- -.Ike-- ..i- , IM.T.TrAD BMA---': -.'r - • 2.-viti - anESIM}E_ - EL,-Transfer Out to Medium Security

Transfer Out to Minimum SecurityTransfer Out to Other (Provincial, etc.) I r

Transfer In from Maximum Security 1 0Transfer In from Medium Security 8 5

Transfer In from Minimum Security 1 0Transfer in from Other (Provincial, etc) 0 0

Transfer in from Multi-level Security 2 0Transfer In from RRAC 2 5

Admitted by Suspension 2 3Revocation 0 _ 7

Day ParoleM-TrfaaVr.-Pw,Z V:,41WM-

Full Parole 0 0Statutory Release 5 4

Warrant Expiry 0 0Death 0 0

Ball 0 0U.A.L. 0 0

Court Ordered Release 0 0

Number of individual Escorted Temporary Absences* for the month--.icek-17 ffv• L.=

Number of Inmates on an Unescorted Temporary Absence during the month. 0 1Number participating in the Perimeter Work Clearance Program for the month. 6 4Number of Inmates participating in the Work Release Program for the month. 0 0Tic...dens n3t incltde Medial Tempe my Absences

03/15/2011 12:52 6048264319

MMSI WARDEN PAGE 04/08

17

DEFINITIONS

BAIL

Bail is an option for the courts or police to consider, in some cases, where an offender may be able to be released onconditions, rather than being detained in custody prior to court appearance. Bail is also known as Judicial Interim Release.

TEMPORARY ABSENCES AND DAY PAROLE

Temporary Absences (TM) and Day Paroles allow the temporary release of offenders from institutions in order to accessprograms and services available in the community. All provinces/territories operate TA programs, and TAs may be grantedfor personal development, medical, compassionate, employment, administrative, parental or family-related reasons. Inmost cases, TA's are utilized for pre-parole preparation and planning.

TA's are either escorted (ETAS) or unescorted (UTAs). Typically, ETAs are not longer than eight hours and UTAs mayrun from 8 hours to 60 days. The type of offence and sentence length determines whether the Correctional Service ofCanada or the National Parole Board has authority to issue TAs. In simplistic form, the National Parole Board determinesall TAs for offenders serving Life sentences and for other violent offences that resulted in serious harm to the victims. TheWarden, as the head of the releasing institution, retains complete responsibility for the final clearance of offenders beingreleased on TAs and provides a written recommendation to the N.P.B. when they possess the legal authority.

As a general rule, all offenders are eligible for E.T.A.s the moment they commence their federal sentences. In practicehowever, very few offenders will receive authorization for TAs early within their sentence, with the exception of TAs formedical and compassionate purposes. As a general rule, medical and compassionate TAs are escorted by what isdetermined as a security escort (two officers who possess and utilize restraint equipment). However, for other types ofETAs, the offender is usually escorted by one officer only. Variations in the level of security exist and is determined byassessing the level of risk the offender poses to the public.

In terms of offender's eligibility for UTAs, this is determined by legal calculations of eligibility and vanes from one offender toanother depending on their sentence length. In the case of offenders serving a Life sentence, UTA eligibility is calculatedas three years before their full parole eligibility date.

Federal offenders may qualify to participate in work release programs outside of the correctional institution for a specifiedperiod of tine. These type of releases could see a single offender going out to work as well as groups of offenders.However, they are usually escorted by at least one officer. In addition, UTAs may be granted to allow offenders toparticipate in personal development programs or community service projects. UTAs are generally granted for a maximumperiod of 15 days, although if the UTA is for participation in a personal development program, it may be extended to 60days, renewable.

Day Parole is a flexible form of release that provides an opportunity for correctional officials to employ gradual release,preparing the inmate for release on full parole and allowing the inmate the opportunity to participate in community-basedprograms and become readjusted to life outside the institution.

Federal offenders, with the exception of those inmates in preventive detention or serving indeterminate sentences, areeligible for day parole six months prior to their parole eligibility date or after having served six months of their sentence,whichever is longer. The majority of the inmates on day parole reside in community-based facilities operated by theprovincial and federal corrections services or by private agencies on contract with the Correctional Service,

FULL PAROLE

Full Parole is a program of conditional release that allows inmates to serve a portion of their sentence in the communityunder supervision. Inmates are generally eligible for full parole after serving one-third of their sentence or seven years,whichever is shorter. Under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act enacted in 1992, however, sentencing judgeshave the authority to set the parole eligibility for offenders convicted of violent and serious drug offences at one-half ratherthan one-third of the sentence. In such cases, the period until parole eligibility cannot exceed ten years. Federal inmatesserving Life sentences are eligible for parole consideration after seven years in confinement, dated from the day theoffender was arrested and taken into custody. The exception to this are situations in which an offender is serving a Lifesentence with a mandatory minimum sentence. For example, a First Degree Murder conviction carries a mandatory 25years confinement before parole eligibility.

STATUTORY RELEASE

Statutory Release has its origins in an amendment to the Parole Act in 1970, which created a mechanism to provideassistance and control during the offenders readjustment to life in the community for inmates who had been denied parole.In contrast to parole, statutory release involves the release of offenders from the institution after serving two-thirds of theirsentence, with the remaining one-third being served under supervision of the National Parole Board in the community.

Inmates released under statutory release are supervised by parole officers and must abide by mandatory and any additionalconditions set by the NPB that are deemed necessary to successfully manage the offenders risk in the community. Aviolation of the conditions can result in suspension and revocation and return to the institution where the offender may haveto serve the remainder of his sentence.

Inmates can be Detained by the NPB and thus not released on statutory release However, it has been determined in lawthat offenders have the right to be released after serving two thirds of their sentences and thus, to detain an offender, theremust be significant grounds to establish that the offender would constitute a grievous threat to the community, or anymember thereof, if released. Following completion of their sentence, (Warrant Expiry Date), these inmates are releasedinto the community without any supervision or assistance. However, recent changes in the Corrections and ConditionalRelease Act have made provisions to allow for the supervision of some offenders beyond their Warrant Expiry dates.However, the changes in this law are not retroactive to offenders currently serving sentences and will likely involve a verysmall group of offenders determined to be extremely dangerous.

03/15/2011 12:52 6048264319 MMSI WARDEN

PAGE 05/08 18

Correctional Service of CanadaPROTECTED B

Major Offence ProfileOffenders profile at the specified site and proportion for each major offence

MISSION INSTITUTION

TRAFFIC IN NARCOTIC (000060) 1 0.37%

USE OF FIREARM WHILE COMMITTING (001810) 2 0.73%

OBSTRUCT PUBLIC/PEACE OFFICER (003480) 1 0.37%

OBSTRUCT PUBLIC/PEACE OFFICER (003490) 1 0.37%

UNLAWFULLY AT LARGE (003630) 1 0,37%

RAPE (004120) 1 0.37%

UNLAWFULLY AT LARGE (004170) 1 0.37%

FAIL TO ATTEND COURT - UNDER/RECOG (004190) 1 0.37%

FAIL TO ATTEND COURT - JUDGE'S ORDER (004210) 1 0,37%

FAIL TO COMPLY W/COND OF UNDER/RECOG (004220) 3 1.10%

FAIL TO COMPLY W/COND OF UNDER/RECOG (004230) 2 0.73%FAIL TO APPEAR - SUMMONS (004240) 1 0.37%

FAIL TO APPEAR - APPEARANCE NOTICE (004260) 1 0.37%

FAIL TO APPEAR - APPEARANCE NOTICE (004270) 3 1.10%

SEX INTER W/FEMALE U/14 (004280) 1 0.37%INVITE SEXUAL TOUCHING (004440) 1 0.37%

NON CAPITAL MURDER (006210) 2 0.73%FIRST DEGREE MURDER (006350) 5 1.83%SECOND DEGREE MURDER (006360) 5 1.83%

MANSLAUGHTER (006370) 1 0.37%ATTEMPT MURDER (006410) 1 0.37%FIRST DEGREE MURDER (006650) 27 9.89%SECOND DEGREE MURDER (006660) 51 18.68%MANSLAUGHTER (006720) 1 0.37%ADMINISTER NOXIOUS THING - ENDANGER (007130) 1 0.37%SEXUAL ASSAULT (007190) 1 0.37%DANGEROUS OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLE (007380) 2 0.73%DANG OPER MOTOR VEHICLE - CAUSE DEATH (007410) 1 0.37%IMPAIRED DRIVING - CAUSE DEATH (007800) 1 0.37%UTTER THREAT TO CAUSE DEATH/HARM (007920) 1 0.37%

03/15/2011 12:52 6048264319 MMSI WARDEN PAGE 06/08

ASSAULT - USE OF FORCE (007990) 1 0,37%

ASSAULT WITH A WEAPON (008050) 3 1.10%

ASSAULT CAUSING BODILY HARM (008060) 2 0.73%

AGGRAVATED ASSAULT (008070) 6 2.20%

ASSAULT PEACE OFFICER (008100) 2 0.73%

SEXUAL ASSAULT (008160) 12 4.40%

SEXUAL ASSAULT CAUSING BODILY HARM (008200) 3 1.10%

KIDNAP - HOLD FOR RANSOM (008280) 1 0.37%

FORCIBLE CONFINEMENT (008290) 2 0,73%

ROBBERY (008710) 1 0.37%

THEFT OVER (008990) 1 0.37%

THEFT UNDER (009000) 2 0.73%

THEFT UNDER (009010) 1 0.37%

ROBBERY WITH THREATS OF VIOLENCE (009830) 1 0_37%

BREAK ENTER W/INTENT (009970) 4 1.47%

BREAK ENTER AND COMMIT (009980) 13 4/6%

FOSS PROP OBT BY CRIME-OVER (010180) 2 0.73%

POSS PROPERTY OBTAINED BY CRIME - UNDER (010190) 2 0.73%

UTTER FORGED DOCUMENT (010500) 1 0.37%

MISCHIEF IN RELATION TO OTHER PROP (012520) 1 0.37%

ARSON - DISREGARD FOR HUMAN LIFE (012580) 2 0.73%

ATTEMPT IND OFFENCE (013280) 1 0.37%

CONSPIRE TO COMMIT MURDER (013360) 4 1.47%

DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDER (013640) 1 0.37%

PROVINCIAL STATUTES (013650) 1 0.37%

FAIL TO COMPLY W/PROB ORDER (013790) 1 0.37%

CAUSE DEATH BY GRIM NEGL - ALL OTHERS (014730) 1 0.37%

MANSLAUGHTER - ALL OTHERS (014750) 16 5.86%

ATI MURDER - USE FIREARM (014760) 1 0.37%

ATT MURDER - ALL OTHERS (014770) 1 0.37%

CBH W/INT TO WOUND - DISCH FIREARM (014780) 1 0.37%

SEXUAL ASSAULT WNVEAPON - ALL OTHERS (014850) 2 0.73%

SEXUAL ASSAULT CBH - ALL OTHERS (014890) 2 0.73%

AGG. SEXUAL ASSAULT - ALL OTHERS (014930) 2 0.73%

KIDNAP - UNLAWFULLY CONFINE - FIREARM (014940) 1 0,37%

KIDNAP - UNLAWFULLY CONFINE - ALL OTHERS (014970) 3 1.10%

KIDNAP - HOLD FOR RANSOM - ALL OTHERS (014990) 3 1.10%

ROBBERY - ALL OTHERS (015050) 31 11.36%

19

03/15/2011 12:52 6048264319 MMSI WARDEN PAGE 07/08

FAIL TO COMPLY W/ PROBATION ORDER (015090) 3 1.10%

POSS. SCHEDULE I SUBSTANCE (015160) 1 0.37%

POSS. SCHEDULE I SUBSTANCE (015170) 1 0.37%

TRAFFIC IN SCHEDULE I/II SUBSTANCE (015280) 1 0.37%

POSS SCHEDULE MI SUBST FOR PURP TRAFF (015340) 4 1.47%

POSS SCHED I/II SUBSTANCE FOR EXPORT (015450) 1 0.37%

OPERATE MV - FLIGHT (016610) 1 0.37%

BREACH LONG-TERM SUPERVISION (016650) 1 0.37%

ROBBERY - USE FIREARM ALL OTHER (017830) 2 0.73%

ASSAULT WITH A WEAPON (8055) 1 0.37%

Total Number of Offenders: 273

20

03/15/2011 12:52 6048264318

MMSI WARDEN

PAGE 08/08 21

Institution:

• 2 Pathways Sweats• 2 General Population Sweats• 4 Sharing Circles• Aboriginal. of Tender completed project requested by RHQ- gifts for Sto Lo Nation

Elders• Currently running ICPM Non-Intake Primer, leading into an ICPM Moderate

prografli• Currently running 1 Aboriginal ICPM Maintenance program• Aboriginal MBIS• Currently running Aboriginal. ICPM High• Currently running 2 Main Stream ICPM Maintenance groups• Currently running Methadone Maintenance •• Currently running SO ICPM High• Completed SO ICPM Maintenance• Bible Study• Non-Violent Communication Workshop through the Chapel• Movie Night in the Chapel• Band Practice• Alpha Group

Community Involvement

• Elders attend Gathering in Chehalis• ALO contacted Mission Indian Friendship Centre to develop relationship with for

purposes of ETA.• ALCM's provided offerings to F,lders and Drummers to attend March 19 th Social• Aboriginal CMT attended Kwi for Community House• M2 Visit February 4, 201 1• Food Night (KFC) February 25, 2011• Buddist Chaplain• Muslim Chaplain• Sikh Chaplain• Catholic Service

• Salvation Army• Protestant Service• Wiccan Chaplain

22

Minutes of the Mission Abbotsford Transit Committee meeting held January 27, 2011,at 10:00 am. in the Conference Room of the District of Mission

Members Present: Councillor Harris (Vice-Chair-Abbotsford), Councillor Gibson(Abbotsford); Coundillor Gill (Abbotsford); Coundlor Pieces (Mission); and . CoundillorGidda (Mission)

Staff Present: Director, Community Planning — C. Johannsen (AbbotSford); Planner -Director of Engineering — J. Gordon (Abbotsford); Planner-James Bryndza (Abbotsford);Deputy Director of Engineering — S. Abushawashi (MitSiOrr); Deputy Director of Planning— B. Pitkethly (Mission); Director Engineering & Public Works - Bomhof (Mission);B.C. Transit — Johann van Schailc B.C. Transit — M. Orfield; First Canada ULC -C, Brown; C. Toews, UFV; Jay MitChell, UFV Student Union Sodiety; Chamber ofCommerce-Tony Luck (Abbotsford); Finance Deputy Treasurer - K. Onken (Mission);Mission School District #75 — S. Weir; , and Recording Secretary — K. Tvergyak(Mission)

1. CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 10:00am

2. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR. FOR MISSION ABBOTSFORDTRANSIT COMMITTEE 2011

Salem Abushawashi, Deputy Director of Engineering conducted the election of Chair tothe Mission Abbotsford Transit Committee and opened the floor up for nominations.

Chair: NOtninated by Councillor Gibson and Courtillor Gidda that Mayor Atebebe elected as Chair for the following year.

The Deputy Diredor of Engineering called for nortiinations för a secondand third time. There being no further nominations, the Deputy Directordeclared Mayor Atebe elected to Chair.

Mayor Atebe was absent from the meeting but had let staff know that he would iet hisname stand and would assume the Chair if elected ..

Salem Abushawashi Deptity Director of Engineering conducted the election of the ViceChair in the absence of the Chair.

Vice Chair: Nominated by Councillors Giddy and Pieces that Councillor Harris beelected as Vide-Chair for the following year.

The Deputy Director of Engineering called for nominations for a secondand third time There being no further nominations, the Deputy Directordeclared Councillor Harris elected to Vice-Chain

Vice-Chair Coundill& Harris assumed the Chair position and conductedthe MATC meeting for January 27, 2011.

Minutes of the Mission Abbotsford Transit Committee meeting held January 27, 2011,at 10:00 a.rn. in the Conference ROOM of District of Mission Paae 2

2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA

Moved by Councillor Gibson seconded by Councillor Gidda, that theagenda of the Mission Abbotsford Transit Committee (MATC .) for January27, 2011, be accepted with the following additions:

7.2 Correspondence dated January 21, 2011 from Marlisa Powerregarding Students for Sustainability.

7,3 Correspondence dated January 14, 2011 from Mission PublicSchools regarding Aligning of Bus Service Routes.

MATC 001-2011

3. ADOPTION OF MINUTES

.1 Minutes of the MATC December 2, 2010 Meeting

CARRIED,

Moved by Councillor Gill, seconded by Councillor Gidda,that the minutes of the Mission Abbotsford TransitCommittee meeting, held December Z 2010, be adopted.

MATC 002-2011 CARRIED.

4. BUSINESS OUT OF MINUTES

.1 Mission Abbotsford Transit. Committee follow-up sheet — January 2010

Moved by Councillor Gidda, seconded by CouncillorGibson, that the Mission Abbotsford Transit Committeefollow-up sheet for January 2011, be received.


Correspondence 7.3 from the: Mission School District #75, S. Weirfrom SD#75 provided an update to the Aligning of Bus ServiceRoutes with BC Transit and the Mission Public Schools S. Weirindicated that the viability was riot there at this time but they aremaking efforts to move forward for the 2011/12 . year. Discussionsare ongoing at this time to try to make this happen.

.2 Central Fraser Valley. Transit System Planning! Activities.201012011 (C. Joharmsen S. Abushawashi J. van Schalk.

Moved by Councillor Gibson, seconded by CouncillorPietas, that the informatiOn be received.


23

Minutes. of the Mission .Abbotsford Transit Committee meeting held January 27, 2011,at.10:00 aM. in the Conference Room of District Of Mission Page. 3

.3 Transit Future Plan — Terms of Reference (M. Orfield, BCTransit)

Moved by Councillor Gibson, seconded by CouncillorGidda, that the report dated January 24, 2011 from. BCTransit be received; and that the Transit Future Plan forthe Central Fraser Valley Transit System Terms ofReference be approved with taking the comments ofmaking the objectives more measureable into advisory.


5. REPORTS .

.1 Ridership and Revenue. Report (J. van Schalk, BC Transit)

Moved by Councillor Gidda, seconded by CouncillorGibson., that the informatiOn be received and that BCTransit add to the report on an annual basis the Ridershipand Revenue over the lattB years for .coMparitOn.

MATC 006-2011

6. NEW BUSINESS

CARRIED.

West Coast.: Express .0. van. Schalk)

Notification was received that West Coast. Express is changing their scheduleand Making trips earlier than previously . scheduled. BC Transit has looked at.lheproposals and reworked our scheddles so that they still connect with the WCEtrains.

.2 2011 MATC Schedule

Moved by Councillor Gidda, seconded by CouncillorGibson, that the 2011 MATC'Schedule be received.


24

Minute§ of the Mon Abbotsford Transit Committee meeting held January 27, 2011,at 10:00a.m. in the Confer nee. ROorri of District of Mission Pace 4

7. CORRESPONDENCE

Moved by Councillor GibsOh., seconded by Councillor Pietas, that thecorrespondence Perreceived.


Corresponcience. dated January 3, 2011 from Dr. Ron Van Wyk ASDACThank you Letter to MATC

2 Correspondence dated January 21, 2011 from Marlisa. Power regardingStudents for Sustairiability.

.3 Correspondence dated January 14, 2011 from Mission Public Schoolsregarding Aligning of Bus Service - Routes.

8. PUBLIC QUESTIONS

9. MOTION TO CLOSE

Moved by Councillor Gidcla, seconded. by Councillor Gill, that theJanuary 27, 2011 MATC meeting, be adjourned (11:50 a.m.).

MATC 009 -2011 CARRIED.

10. NEXT MATC MEETING—February 24, 2011 at the. City of Abbotsford Room#530

Certified Correct;

25

Lynne Harris, MATC Vice Chair

MINUTESThe Minutes of the ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SELECT COMMITTEEMeeting held at the Mission Regional Chamber of Commerce Boardroom, 34033Lougheed Hwy, Mission, BC on Thursday February 17, 2011 commencing at 8:00 a.m.

Committee Members Present: Rex Blane, Chair — Ec. Dev. CommitteeOleene Herman, Community Futures North FraserHeather Stewart, District of MissionRemco Bergman, Specto Civil TechnologyGrace Saris, Vancity Credit UnionSean Melia, Mission Chamber of CommerceCarlo Billinger, Rex Cox Men's WearJames Atebe, District of MissionRaymond Szabada, SRCTecJason Roessle, Mission City Record

Committee Members Absent: Anne Senae, CGASteve Yap, Mission Downtown Business Assoc.Steve Sharpe, Sharpe TimberDr. Erik Davis, University of the Fraser Valley

Staff Members Present: Glen Robertson, Chief Administrative OfficerSharon Fletcher, Director of PlanningStacey Crawford, Economic Development OfficerAllison Jack, EDO Assistant

Guests: Mike Younie, Manager Environmental Services

1. MINUTESa) `Moved by C. Biliinger and seconded by 0. Herman.

RECdMMENDED: That the minutes of the Economic Development SelectCommittee meeting held January 20, 2011 be adopted. Carried

2. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES

a) Presentation: Mike Younie- M. Younie, Manager of Environmental Services, District of Mission spoke on theCommunity Energy and Emission Plan that the District of Mission hasundertaken. The plan looks at reduction in the use of energy and reducingGreenhouse Gas emissions in the community The District of Mission believessupport from the business community is essential and would like members of theEDSC to consider involvement on the panel.

26

Economic Development Committee MinutesFEBRUARY 17, 2011

b) Planning Department Updatei) Waterfront Development Update

S. Fletcher reported that the waterfront feasibility study is on schedule and will goto council in March.

ii) Summary Applications/Major Project UpdateS. Fletcher reported that there were 8 applications received in January and thehistorical average for January is 5. Total inquires for the month of January was12 the average normally is 10.

S. Fletcher reported that Biz Pal has had a soft launch. Some connections were notworking properly, the IT department is in the process of fixing them and the siteshould be fully operational within the next few days.

S. Fletcher reported that the Town Square project has been approved by council.S. Fletcher is planning a meeting with the DBA, Mission Chamber of Commerceand the Downtown Residents Association to discuss ideas for the square. TheTown Square will be located at the end of First Avenue by Inform Fitness.

c) Downtown Business AssociationC Billinger reported that there are two new restaurants opening in the nextmonth.

d) Chamber of CommerceS. Melia reported that the Chamber of Commerce has launched their new website.The Mission Chamber of Commerce AGM will be held on March 9 th , and theChamber is pleased to have Scott Achles as the guest speaker.

e) Council Request for Recommendations re: Business Needs in TargetSectors Study

S. Crawford reported that a delegation has been requested by Council to make apresentation on March 7. The EDC prefers that S. Crawford present to council apresentation on the Business Needs in Target Sectors Study and the key areas ofspecific interest for the EDC and the EDO.

f) Closed MeetingsG. Robertson spoke to the question raised at the January EDC meeting aboutinvolving the EDC in Closed Meetings of Council where economic developmentmatters are discussed. Glen shared that Council very rarely has discussions onactual development inquiries or development applications in a closed meeting.However, some community planning work, such as the waterfront, is done inclosed meetings for a period of time until it is at a point where information can bereleased to the public.

3. NEW BUSINESS

27

Economic Development Committee MinutesFEBRUARY 17, 2011

a) Managers ReportS. Crawford reported that it has been a very busy six weeks with many land use,rezoning, and building purchase inquiries.

• The Urban Development Institute Fraser Valley Chapter has beententatively approved. A formal announcement for the chapter will be onApril 21.

• S. Fletcher and S. Crawford are going to be hosting a building/ownerbreakfast sometime in the spring.

• S. Fletcher and S. Crawford are working on a Development IncentivePackage for the municipality.

• S. Crawford has been asked to speak at the Morning Rotary Club andFraser River Heritage Park AGM.

• A Community Amenity Public Open House meeting is scheduled forMarch 3 at the Mission Leisure Centre.

b) E. Newsletter/Communications StrategyR. Blane reported that there was a meeting on February 10 with Click Media. Afirst draft of the newsletter will be ready for the EDSC meeting on March 17. R.Blane discussed the content of the first e newsletter. Click Media will supply thedraft stories and pictures. S. Crawford has been working closely with the ITdepartment on the platform and the tracking mechanisms.

c) Education Sub CommitteeH. Stewart reported that the next subcommittee meeting is scheduled for February24. The Committee is ready to make a couple of recommendations. TheEducation brochure is almost complete.

d) RoundtableO .Herman announced that on February 22 the CFDC will announce federalfunding for the Mission Harbour Authority.

e) CorrespondenceThe EDSC has been invited to participate in a joint tour of Riverside College onMarch 31 at 3:30pm.

4. OLD BUSINESSa) None

5. Next MeetingThursday March 17, 2011 at 8:00am at the Chamber of Commerce Boardroom

6. ADJOURNMENTMeeting Adjourned at 10:00am.

28

MissionON THE FRAS

Finance DepartmentMemorandum

29

File Category: ADM.BYL.PROFile Folder: Development Cost Charges

To: Chief Administrative Officer

From: Deputy Director of Finance

Date: March 9, 2011

Subject: Development Cost Charge Review and Update

Recommendation

That the proposed Development Cost Charge (DCC) rates from Urban Systems' DCC review report beforwarded to a public open house.

Report

The District has engaged Urban Systems to perform a review and update of the District's DevelopmentCost Charge (DCC) bylaws, and the related DCC rates.. The results of this review are attached in a reportprepared by Urban Systems. Within the attached report is a schedule that lists the remaining tasks in theDCC review, with the next step being a public open house scheduled for April 5, 2011.

Fraser Smith, Senior Engineer and Principal with Urban Systems, will be present at the March 21 councilmeeting to answer any questions pertaining to the attached report, and will also be present to answerquestions at the April 5th open house.

Kris Boland, CGA

G:\FINANCE\Development Cost Charges\2010 DCC Update\Memo - DCC update draft report to council.docx

Page 1 of 1

2353 - 13353 Commerce Parkway, Richmond, BC V6V 3A1Telephone: 604-273-8700 Fax: 604-273-8752

URBANSYSTEMS.

30

March 14, 2011 File: 0995.0037.01

District of Mission8645 Stave Lake StreetBox 20Mission, BC V2V 4L9

Attention: Ken Bjorgaard, Director of Finance

RE: 2011 DCC REVIEW FINAL RATES

We are pleased to provide this summary letter report on the 2011 Development Cost Charge (DCC)

review to date. The District currently has a number of DCC bylaws in place. The DCC bylaws

allow the District to collect DCCs to help fund engineering infrastructure and parkland acquisition

and development that benefits future growth in the community. Some DCCs are collected on a

District wide basis, such as the Silvercreek Parkway Parkland DCC, general Roads DCC and

Regional Water Supply and Sewage Treatment DCCs. Other DCCs are collected on an area specific

basis, such as the Cedar Valley DCCs, Silverdale Creek Bridge DCC and Silverdale Industrial Sewer

and Water DCCs. The last DCC update was in 2007. The DCC bylaws we have reviewed as part of

our work include:

• Bylaw 3748-2004 (3993-2007-3753) Roads and Silvercreek Parkway Parkland District Wide

DCCs, Cedar Valley Roads, Drainage, Sanitary, Water, Environmentally Sensitive Park

Acquisition and Development DCCs, Regional Water Supply and Sewage Treatment DCCs,

and Silverdale Industrial Water and Sewer DCCs

• Bylaw 3748-2004 Silverdale Creek Bridge DCC

• Bylaw 2065-1990 Silverdale DCC for Water and Sewer Service Facilities

Reasons for the DCC Review

The DCC rates are calculated using engineering and parkland capital programs that will service

future growth. Over the past few years, a number of issues related to the basis of the DCC

calculations have changed. Growth projections for the community as a whole and for the specific

areas have also been updated. Due to cost increases in land and construction, the DCC capital

programs needed to be brought up to 2011 values. In addition, a number of studies have also

refined and in some cases expanded the DCC construction program. There have been significant

program expansion and cost increases in the District wide roads and Regional water supply and

Regional sewage treatment DCC programs. Some DCC programs have decreased in cost due to

projects being completed since the 2007 DCC review resulting in decreased DCCs (e.g. Cedar

Valley roads, drainage and environmentally sensitive parkland and Silvercreek Parkway DCC

programs). Finally, the proposed DCC rates were drafted to reflect the current DCC reserves, a

proposed municipal assist factor of 1% and the revised engineering, contingency and

administration costs.

www.urban-systems.com'.GARY EDMOI FORT ST. :JOHN I KAMLOOPS I KELOWNA I NELSON I QUESNE. RICHMOND

District of MissionFile: 0995.0037.01March 14, 2011Page 2

URB-ANSYSTEMS,

31

Bill 27

On May 29, 2008 the Provincial Government enacted new legislation pertaining to DCCs. The

legislative changes include the option for municipalities to exempt or waive DCCs for the following

classes of "eligible development":

• not-for-profit rental housing, including supportive living housing (similar provisions were in

the previous legislation, but did not require a bylaw to waive or reduce DCCs for not-for-

profit rental housing);

• for-profit affordable rental housing;

• subdivisions of small lots designed to result in low green house gas emissions; and

• developments designed to result in a low environmental impact.

If the District of Mission wishes to provide DCC waivers or reductions, it must adopt a DCC bylaw

that establishes definitions for each class of "eligible development", corresponding rates of

reduction, and requirements that must be met in order to obtain a waiver or reduction. Council,

however, is not obligated to adopt any of these new provisions. To make up for any foregone DCC

revenue, the District would have to secure alternate revenue sources.

Low impact or green development practices are not expected to have an impact on the District's

DCC program at this time (i.e., these practices are not expected to reduce the need for identified

DCC projects); therefore, providing DCC waivers or reductions for this type of development would

not likely reflect a decreased impact on infrastructure. Providing DCC waivers or reductions may

not be the most effective incentives for development. DCC costs are typically a fairly small portion

of development costs which have historically been driven by land costs.

The new legislation includes a mandatory requirement for Council to consider whether the new

DCCs are excessive in relation to the capital cost of the servicing standards, will deter

development, discourage the construction of reasonably priced housing on serviced land, or will

discourage development designed to result in a low environmental impact. Consideration of these

factors should be part of the DCC Bylaw adoption process. In discussion with District Staff, they

believe the new rates will not negatively impact development.

Bylaw Exemptions

The Local Government Act is quite clear that a DCC cannot be levied if the proposed development

does not impose new capital cost burdens on the District or if a DCC has already been paid in

regards to the same development. However, if additional further development for the same

development creates new capital cost burdens, the DCCs can levied for the additional costs.

www.urban-systems.comCALGARY 1 EDMONTON i FORT.

JOHN 1 KAMLOOPS 1 KELOWNA 1 NELSON E QUESNEL E RICHMOND


URBANSYSTEMS•

32

The Actfurther restricts the levying of DCC at the time of application for a building permit if:

• the building permit is for a church or place of worship;

• the value of the work authorized by the building permit does not exceed $50,000 or some

other value established by Council by bylaw; or

• the building permit is for a residential building with fewer than four dwelling units.

Changes to legislation now allow local governments to levy DCCs at the time of building permit on

buildings containing fewer than four (4) dwelling units, e.g. on duplexes and triplexes, provided

such a charge is provided for in the local government's DCC bylaw. It is the intent to amend

Mission's DCC bylaw to collect DCCs at building permit stage on buildings containing less than four

(4) units. It should be noted that local governments have always, and continue to be able to levy

DCCs on developments with fewer than four (4) dwelling units at the time of subdivision, which

Mission already does.

In-stream Applications and Grace Period

The WA requires that subdivision applications provided the application is complete and application

fees have been paid, be provided one-year protection from the proposed DCC rates. These in-

stream active subdivision applications will be exempted from any increase in DCCs for one year

from the date of implementation of the new DCC bylaw.

Effective January 1, 2011, building permits are also given the same in-stream exemptions as

subdivision applications under the LGA. Complete building permit applications will also be exempt

from any increase in DCCs for one year from the date of implementation of the new DCC bylaw.

It is our understanding that District Staff will not be recommending a grace period for

implementation of the new DCC Bylaw.

Growth Estimates

The residential growth projections for Areas A, B and C were based on a build-out scenario at

2061. The residential growth projections for Regional Sewage Treatment, Regional Water Supply

and Silvercreek Parkway Parkland were based on a 25 year projection. The Cedar Valley Sewer

Extension growth projections were based on build-out. The DCC capital programs in all cases

match the growth projections. The various time periods were selected to reflect the growth and

capital information available. Growth projections for the industrial, commercial and institutional

land uses may change in the future based on the outcome of the employment lands study and

waterfront redevelopment plan.

www.urban-systems.comCALGARY EDMONTON !FORT ST. JOHN 1 KAMLOOPS 1 KELOWNA NELSON WESNEL 1 RICHMOND


URBIINSYSTEMS®

33

Commercial, industrial and institutional development estimates for Areas A, B and C, Regional

Sewage Treatment, Regional Water Supply were based on a 25 year projection. Silverdale

Industrial Water, Silverdale Industrial Sewer, Silverdale Creek Bridge and Cedar Valley Sewer

Extension were based on build-out.

Proposed DCC Rates

The proposed DCC rates are summarized in Appendix A. Note that the Cedar Valley DCCs include

the Cedar Valley Environmentally Sensitive Parkland Acquisition and Development DCCs. Also note

that the proposed rates for the Regional Sewer and Water DCCs are also included in the rates.

The rates reflect the proposed total DCC payable in different areas of Mission. As mentioned,

some of the DCCs are District wide and some are area specific. This approach reflects that growth

related costs do vary throughout Mission. In some areas of Mission the engineering infrastructure

and parkland is already in place or limited improvements are required to meet the needs of future

growth. In other areas, significant infrastructure and parkland needs exist to service future

growth. The DCC capital programs are attached in Appendix C.

Proposed DCC rates are to decrease for Cedar Valley and increase for Mission Central, Fraser,

Hatzic, Silverdale and Rural Areas.

The Cedar Valley area residential DCC rates (which include District wide and Cedar Valley Roads,

Drainage, Sewer, Water, Environmentally Sensitive Parkland Acquisition and Development,

Silvercreek Parkway Parkland, Regional Water Supply and Sewage Treatment) would increase on

average by 4% for most of the residential land uses and a 7% average decrease for the

commercial and institutional DCC rates. These rates exclude the Cedar Valley Sewer Extension

DCC, which only applies to a portion of Cedar Valley.

In the Mission Central and the Fraser Area and Hatzic, Silverdale and Rural Areas the DCC rates

(which include District wide Roads, Silvercreek Parkway Parkland, and Regional Water Supply and

Sewage Treatment) are proposed to increase by approximately 17% for the residential land uses

and 32% for the commercial, institutional and industrial land uses. The main reasons for the DCC

non-residential rate increase are the larger regional water and sanitary programs and District wide

road program. The increases are greater than the Cedar Valley are because some of the utility

DCC programs are smaller and the Parkland Acquisition program has decreased.

The increase in the Area "A" Central Mission and Fraser Area, and Area "C" Hatzic, Silverdale and

Rural Areas DCCs is related to the increase in the general Road DCC and Regional Water Supply

and Sewage Treatment DCCs. The works in these programs have been reviewed and the benefit

to future growth varies from 47% to 100%. The benefit factor reflects whether the works benefit

www.urban-systems.comCALGARY 1 EDN1ONTON 1 FORT ST, jOH N I KAMLOOPS j KELOWNA I NELSON QUESNEL RICHMOND


URBANSYSTEMS.

34

future growth or also benefit the existing community to some degree. The benefit factors reflect

that the DCC works are being built mostly due to servicing the needs of future growth. The

general Road DCC recoverable cost increased from approximately $14.3 million in the 2007 DCC

report to $33.3 million in the proposed DCC program. The main reason for the increase is the

addition of the Silvercreek Bridge and arterial road improvements.

The Regional Water Supply DCC recoverable cost increased from approximately $16.9 million to

$28.1 million, and the Regional Sewage Treatment DCC recoverable increased from approximately

$20.6 million to $24.0 million. The dollar value of Mission's Regional Water DCC program has

increased on the basis of a new, comprehensive water master plan that was completed. This plan

identified the region's growth related water capital needs more precisely and provided greater

certainty over the scope and cost of projects including a major second water source infrastructure

project that is planned for. The dollar value of Mission's Regional Sewer DCC program has

increased on the basis of a new sewer master plan that was completed. This plan identified the

region's growth related sewer capital needs more precisely and provided greater certainty over the

scope and cost of projects including the need for an additional trickling filter, with associated

works, at the regional sewer treatment plant. In addition, Mission is adding a second river

crossing project to the DCC program as a result of expected growth.

The Cedar Valley specific DCCs (Cedar Valley Roads, Drainage, Sewer, Water, Environmentally

Sensitive Parkland Acquisition and Development) have decreased because many works have been

completed and capital costs have increase to a small amount. The total DCC recoverable cost

decreased from approximately $38.3 million in the 2007 DCC report to $29.4 million in the

proposed DCC program.

Units of Charge

In the current DCC Bylaw, multi-family residential developments are levied DCCs on per dwelling

unit basis. The size of multi-family townhouse and apartment development units can vary

considerably within a development and within the community. Collection of the multi-family DCCs

on a per square metre basis at the building permit stage is more accurate in assessing the impact

of the development not only because the number of units is known, but also because the unit size

is known, which ultimately corresponds to the occupancy. rate. Multi-family DCCs are proposed to

be collected on an area basis not on the number of dwelling units in the new DCC bylaw.

Municipal DCC Rate Comparison

Appendix B shows the Mission proposed DCC rates for single-family and commercial in comparison

with other similar municipalities. These municipalities are: City of Abbotsford, City of Surrey,

Township of Langley, District of Maple Ridge, City of Chilliwack, City of Coquitlam and City of

www.urban-systems.comCALGARY I EDMONTON I FORT ST. JOHN I KAMLOOPS I KELOWNA NELSON I D')ESNEL RICHMOND


URBANSYSTEMS.

35

Vernon. The proposed single family DCC rates are lower than many of the lower mainland and

Fraser Valley communities. The DCCs are close to other communities with Greenfield and

redevelopment potential with large DCC capital programs. If the Regional water and sanitary DCCs

are removed from the comparisons, the proposed single family DCCs are the lowest of the

communities surveyed. The proposed commercial DCC rates are near the top of the communities

surveyed. This reflects the very large Regional water and sanitary DCC capital program and

expanded District-wide road program. The larger programs reflect better information of the works

required to service growth in the future.

Proposed DCC Schedule

• Council presentation (March 21, 2011)

• Public open house (April 5, 2011)

• Council gives 1st, rd, and 3 rd readings of DCC Bylaw, and submits to Ministry (April 26,

2011)

• Submit Final DCC Background Report (May 2, 2011)

• Council gives final reading of DCC Bylaw (June 6, 2011)

Conclusion

Based on the DCC rate changes; we recommend that the proposed DCC rates be taken to a public

open house. Following the public open house, the DCC rates will be refined, if necessary, based

on the comments and suggestions from both the development community and public. Once the

final DCC rates have been established the DCC Background Report and draft DCC Bylaw will be

prepared for consideration by the District of Mission Council.

Yours truly,

URBAN SYSTEMS LTD.

Fraser Smith P.Eng., MBASenior Engineer, Principal

/alEnclo.U: \Projects_VAN \0995 \0037\01 \R-Reports-Studies-Documents\Report to Coundl Vinal\2011-03-14 Council Report Final Rates.doc

www.urban-systems.comCALGARY EDMONTON FORT ST. 3OHN KAMLOOPS I KELOWNA I NELSON I QUESNEL RICHMOND

URBANSYSTEMS.

36

APPENDIX A

DCC Rates Summary

www.urban-systems.corriCALGARY I EDMONTON 1 FORT ST. JOHN 1 KAMLOOPS 1 KELOWNA I NELSON I QIJESNEL I RICHMOND

8 13,591.0 6 1051.93 5 2.026,75 1714

s 82.88. 8.74 5 11.1. 858.7500.14

660.76

1.1175.07 441091 5 1,110,15 17N

5 • 52.71

: ee.1 1 9 52.611 21.0

t 34.21 9 111.23 4.0

$ 5•.75 3 41.96 1,03

6 71.5404

6 26.60.34

915.7161.111 I 11,00.0 1 05.11

S 145.16

551.19

8. !?'Y!

.1.17 6 151.. S..

5 12.60.18 1101.93 206.75

+1.Ittat t 11 481.93 6 457.79

5 10,177,65 se..24 057.0 17.

5 0.75

!_ efee.?! 6 . 7/09.79 1115

12.719

88.18 5 test 71.0 34.

88.21 t 106 4.93

51.76 5 42... ...2 14

34.71 19.211 4.0

0.521.2. t 70.11144 707.11 00.

1.73114 76 .1.1

54.54 46 1.

101 3165

1 524.12

104 17

01 01

0.11

11

'nous.

sspx 1 674.17

2.061.9. 1 624 17

05 77 1,34.0

44.61 11.0

10.04 7.77

817.93 1157.57

1..41517 0 774 07

.119 8456

:504

7060 070 55

N1 8R17.62

77.00 77.34

25.62 . 20.94

DISTRICT OF MISSIONPROPOSED VS. EXISTING DCC RATE SUMMARY

„letst.1

0961 V4.2 .111./

e'"484),

Axe ......

9t0 105. 5.81861.

1440,1,1.441

R4.1...41900.

P1.515,01.

&vivo• l ego v • •

CVallay 6.0116.151

le.tvivo 0468.

God. V..5110.400,95,

P.926.409±kp1.r1W 6 51,

.• [Sear 244 8 ,

E.

8,80 br.ppr9.51

...teenv.11. •

Cenn1 and

ea-Va.,

04.0110910

..660 .

9.044.' P. ne 0004444..

per rn' wen

I ve 011 area

1.200.40 4..411nor6464

5.80.51

4 712.30

2.7,0

9 65

6 54

IH

1 /airing fa. gam 012 005 20.0 3753-2004 w 3 40904 (Ma Creek...775014 vamry•.10.• 551n. 5.01* F4.2 Com,. Lel 550'.

4

0000 ...3, ov...10 500 °nano.. st. or us.•15m. 0 750

, gp.n.41.61 en an nanape .6 a 97.50 zg .6m.(1.060 nunIn. Mel5 //1.1.110.1.416 1.1.1•1.010.161.11.)11......0900

7., E.. 6ommnclal rates gm. 005. 6ve41..01160,11.1 5 400.660 0..6991 un. larew.austanag.1.00062 6.6 an a 0.61. 5490.5.179.112. anaapurnent rates wen 944.690 0.00 en a 005.0.0.10.6 *re no

per .009 und

ay. Duplex 5.919,

Toweesewav

1244.690' ^ 6944 arM rya

ewer Rev v.

Cemmercla,' pet rr. 410.1 2■64

7.77502

7.051.95

1.04 77

11.55

05.11/

110

1194

4.264.81.

•4.513 30

1940

.21.0 .

1140 97

60

060.4.512.30

17176.

29.94

2070

2.7201

3 734.5.

720 34

064 61

7 19

4 97

33240

57175

6.021.61

4.34252

34.63

1410.45

35.4.

!..P8.vise t.

0•!.e!

3.774.56

7 071.0

7.'57 7.0

5 345.73

4.7

9,7709

IC 31

14

5.245.72

•ova a. 5 .

IC

517 SS

4.92

604

1.02716.0

•

961,Z

961.52

734 67

60.52

774 97

55

•

1156

..1•?9° .1196

75

150877

111.31

1.711...49905 1151.54

.623.60

1.0507

1.46

!IA!, ...

1.151.6.0

ItO

r? 0'995.07

755 00 .eo .

dir5122

=n.«

1. 55

0.04535 49.407.64 14.7603 165763. 6.3.,411

URB1NSYSTEMS®

38

APPENDIX B

Municipal DCC Rates Comparison

www.urban-systems.comCALGARY I EDMONTON I FORT ST. JOHN 1 KAMLOOPS I KELOWNA I NELSON QUESNEL 1 RICHMOND

Abbotsford

Chilliwack

Langley (Township)

Surrey

c=> Mission - Cedar Valley(Proposed)

Vernon

Maple Ridge

Coquitlam

Misson - w/o Cedar Valley(Proposed)

$10,000$5,000$0

DCC Comparison (w/ Regional DCCs)Single Family (per lot)

■ Water DCC

■ Sewer DCC

• Roads DCC

0 Drainage DCC

■ Parks DCC

0 Regional DCC

$30 000$25 000$20,000 $35 000

Single Family DCC Comparison Rates (per lot)With Regional DCCs

Municipality Water DCC Sewer DCC Roads DCC Drainage DCC Parks DCC Regional DCC Total DCC

Misson - w/o Cedar Valley (Proposed) $ 2,275.02 $ 812.93 $ 10,610.74 $ 13,698.69Coquitlam $ 1,480.10 $ 432.94 $ 7,056.15 $ 3,628.97 $ 5,373.82 $ 1,731.00 $ 19,702.98Maple Ridge $ 1,715.00 $ 151.00 $ 10,741.00 $ 1,644.00 $ 4,510.00 $ 1,731.00 $ 20,492.00Vernon $ - $ 3,569.00 $ 12,099.00 $ 761.00 $ - $ 5,024.00 $ 21,453.00Mission - Cedar Valley (Proposed) $ 1,394.49 $ 619.35 $ 4,944.38 $ 6,873.81 $ 1,762.92 $ 10,610.74 $ 26,205.69Surrey $ 1,680.00 $ 2,193.00 $ 13,351.00 $ 3,287.00 $ 5,255.00 $ 1,731.00 $ 27,497.00Langley (Township) $ 2,051.00 $ 879.00 $ 8,814.00 $ 3,663.00 $ 10,700.00 $ 1,731.00 $ 27,838.00Chilliwack $ 1,862.48 $ 2,202.43 $ 14,332.80 $ 1,762.05 $ 2,527.60 $ 5,325.42 $ 28,012.78Abbotsford $ 998.00 $ 1,919.00 $ 10,940.00 $ 758.00 $ 8,360.00 $ 8,863.00 $ 31,838.00

Note1.) Abbotsford rates based on DCC Bylaw No. 1983-2010. Regional rates based on JAMES Treatment Plant DCC Bylaw No. 1812-2008.2.) Surrey rates based on DCC Bylaw No. 17111 (2010). Regional rates based on Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage DCC Bylaw No. 254, 2010.3.) Township of Langley rates based on DCC Bylaw No. 4640 (2008). Regional rates based on Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage DCC Bylaw No. 254, 2010.4.) Maple Ridge rates based on DCC Bylaw No. 6705-2009. Regional rates based on Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage DCC Bylaw No. 254, 2010.5.) Chilliwack rates based on DCC Bylaw No. 3710-2011. Regional rates based on FVRD Water DCC Bylaw No. 0797, 2007.6.) Coquitlam rates based on DCC Bylaw No. 3885-2007. Regional rates based on Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage DCC Bylaw No. 254, 2010.7.) Vernon rates based on DCC Bylaw No. 5233, 2010. Regional rates based on Regional District of North Okanagan Parks DCC Bylaw No. 2040 (2005) and Water DCC Bylaw No. 1983 (2004).8.) Mission Cedar Valley rates include District wide and Cedar Valley Roads, Drainage, Sewer, Water, Environmentally Sensitive Parkland Acquisition and Development,Silvercreek Parkway Parkland, Regional Water and Sewer. Rates exclude the Sewer Extension DCC.9.) Mission w/o Cedar Valley rates include District wide Roads, Silvercreek Parkway Parkland, and Regional Water Supply and Sewage Treatment.

Chilliwack

i Mission - Cedar Valley(Proposed)

Surrey

Abbotsford

=> Misson - w/o Cedar Valley(Proposed)

Langley (Township)

Coquitlam

Vernon

Maple Ridge

DCC Comparison (w/ Regional DCCs)Commercial (per sq. m. of gross floor area)

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

Commercial DCC Comparison Rates (per sq.m. of gross floor area)With Regional DCCs

Municipality Water DCC Sewer DCC Roads DCC Drainage DCC Parks DCC Regional DCC Total DCC

Maple Ridge $ 9.44 $ 0.83 $ 21.02 $ 2.79 $ - $ 8.73 $ 42.81Vernon $ - $ 11.90 $ 23.72 $ 1.43 $ - $ 7.27 $ 44.32Coquitlam $ 4.84 $ 1.42 $ • 41.40 $ 12.77 $ - $ 8.73 $ 69.16Langley (Township) $ 7.08 $ 3.04 $ 44.07 $ 11.21 $ - $ 8.73 $ 74.13Misson - w/o Cedar Valley (Proposed) $ - $ - $ 64.68 $ - $ - $ 20.47 $ 85.15Abbotsford $ 1.14 $ 2.89 $ 73.00 $ 2.10 $ - $ 11.21 $ 90.34Surrey $ 5.38 $ 7.10 $ 63.16 $ 23.03 $ - $ 8.73 $ 107.40Mission - Cedar Valley (Proposed) $ 2.69 $ 1.19 $ 140.57 $ 22.00 $ - $ 20.47 $ 186.92Chilliwack $ 8.28 $ 4.89 $ 26.07 $ - $ - $ 172.77 $ 212.01

Note1.) Abbotsford rates based on DCC Bylaw No. 1983-2010. Regional rates based on JAMES Treatment Plant DCC Bylaw No. 1812-2008.2.) Surrey rates based on DCC Bylaw No. 17111 (2010). Regional rates based on Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage DCC Bylaw No. 254, 2010.3.) Township of Langley rates based on DCC Bylaw No. 4640 (2008). Regional rates based on Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage DCC Bylaw No. 254, 2010.4.) Maple Ridge rates based on DCC Bylaw No. 6705-2009. Regional rates based on Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage DCC Bylaw No. 254, 2010.5.) Chilliwack rates based on DCC Bylaw No. 3710-2011. Regional rates based on FVRD Water DCC Bylaw No. 0797, 2007.6.) Coquitlam rates based on DCC Bylaw No. 3885-2007. Regional rates based on Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage DCC Bylaw No. 254, 2010.7.) Vernon rates based on DCC Bylaw No. 5233, 2010. Regional rates based on Regional District of North Okanagan Parks DCC Bylaw No. 2040 (2005) and Water DCC Bylaw No. 1983 (2004).8.) Mission Cedar Valley rates include District wide and Cedar Valley Roads, Drainage, Sewer, Water, Regional Water and Sewer. Rates exclude the Sewer Extension DCC.9.) Mission w/o Cedar Valley rates include District wide Roads, Regional Water Supply and Sewage Treatment.

URBIINSYSTEMS®

43

APPENDIX C

Capital Programs

www. urba n-systems.comCALGARY I EDMONTON I FORT ST. JOHN I KAMLOOPS I KELOWNA NELSON I QUESNEL I RICHMOND

DISTRICT OF MISSIONREGIONAL WATER UTILITY DCC PROGRAM

ProjectNO.

Column Col, (1) • Col. (2)Col. (3) =Col.(1) X Col. (2) , Cpl. (4)

, COl.(5)(3) - Col.

= Col .(4)

Col (6) = Col (1) •. .Col. (5)

__...,...._. . ,

.E.coketWessirlp.tkm, -

Cost Estimate(Mission's, ,

-Stigra-,0f1=-FaEligible Worki)

Benefita.,or-

,Benefit to :New-,,,-Development-,

-‘, -, Municipal.Assist. Factor

1%.' , -------Recoverable-

DCC , Total MunicipalResponsibility

88008 Bevan production wells - 25M1/Day $111,264 100% $111,264 $1,113 $110,151 $1,11388058 Norrish Intake Pipe Works $565,440 100% $565,440 $5,654 $559,786 $5,654

Stave transmission mains $8,247,520 100% $8,247,520 $82,475 $8,165,045 $82,475Stave preliminary studies $115,520 100% $115,520 $1,155 $114,365 $1,155Stave Lake Supply - Intake & 215MLD Pump Station $2,440,512 100% $2,440,512 $24,405 $2,416,107 $24,405Stave water sampling program $17,328 100% $17,328 $173 $17,155 $173Stave environmental assessment $115,520 100% $115,520 $1,155 $114,365 $1,155Fore Rd PRV station $72,960 100% $72,960 $730 $72,230 $730Hyde Buker PRV station $24,320 100% $24,320 $243 $24,077 $243Stave VVTP - phase 1 $8,086,400 100% $8,086,400 $80,864 $8,005,536 $80,864Stave development plan landacquisition $121,600 100% $121,600 $1,216 $120,384 $1,216Stave WPT - Phase 2 (250MLD) $4,377,600 100% $4,377,600 $43,776 $4,333,824 $43,776

88064 Maclure Reservoir - 28ML $3,447,360 100% $3,447,360 $34,474 $3,412,886 $34,474

88064AInternal borrowing for Maclure

65), ()Reservoir (without interest) ( $102,000 100% $102,000 $0 $102,000 $088016 Water Master Plan $63,960 100% $63,960 $640 $63,320 $640

Stave pump station - phase 2(270ML) $364,800 100% $364,800 $3,648 $361,152 $3,648P3 business case $57,760 100% $57,760 $578 $57,182 $578Water modeling (4(4) $8,266 50% $4,133 $41 $4,092 $4,174

Totals $28,340,130 $28,335,997 $282,340 $28,053,657 $286,473

Notes1.) Project list from District of Mission 03/02/2011.2.) Mission's share of growth-related projects is 12.16%.3.) Project not shared with City of Abbotsford.4.) Project from Kris Boland email 10/26/2010.5.) The District has already contributed a municipal assist factor when the project was constructed.6.) Amount from outstanding internal loans (Amount borrowed less repayments, excluding interest repayments). Provided by District of Mission 03/02/11.

3/9/20119:48 AM

Urban Systems Ltd.U.)Projects_VANI099510037\01)D-Draning-Design-Analysis01-Calculations12010 Current Calculations12011-03-02_Mission DCC 2011 Calculations (with 2010 year ends)

DISTRICT OF MISSIONREGIONAL SEWAGE TREATMENT DCC PROGRAM

PrOject .

No..

Column . Col. (1) Col: (2)Col. (3) =Col.

' (1) X do1; (4 cot. (4)Col.(5)= Col. (3) -

'COL (4)Col. (8) = Col.(1).

cot. 0)

•• • •••• •. Project Description .

•

Cost Estimate. (Mission's .,

•Share) : •.•

.Benefit

•• -••Factr

. • .

Benefit tO•New: Devalopment

Municipal•AssistFactor

•DCC Recoverable

•

•Total MunicipalResponsibility

Centrate, pilot-scale process investigation $10,876 47% $5,112 S51 $5,061

$10 360 $2,641

$5,815

$10,570$2,695

General, engineering study for local beneficial use ofbiosolids $20,930

$5,33650%50%

$10,465$2,668

$105$27General, lighting for Val-E-Gro production tent

General, water stations at Val-E-Gro production site $5,336 50% 52.668 $27 $2,641 $2,695Solids, process selection and pasteurization efficiencystudy $21,341 100% $21,341 $213 $21,128 $213Electrical, replace co-generation engine with microturbines#1 to #4 $297,334

$27,70247%47%

$139,747$13,020

$1,397$130

$138 350$12,890

$158984$14,812Electrical, add electrical feeder line #2

General, allowance for boreholes drilling for west expansionarea $10,670 100% $10.670 $107 $10,563 $107Secondary, add pump #3 to PEP station #2 $102,190 100% $102,190 $1,022 $101,168

$346,018$36,872

$1,022$397 627$37,616

Centrate add 8 cells centrate bioreactor $743,645$74,488

47%50%

$349,513$37,244

$3,495$372General, remove sludge from west lagoon

General, fill in half of west lagoon $573,740 50% $286,870 $2,869 $284 001 $289 739Solids, add pasteurization system #2 and digester #4 $2,549,405 100% $2,549,405 $25,494 $2,523,911 $25,494Odour (H2S) Audit (every year 2012 - 2030) $198 854 50% $99,427 $994 $98 433 $100,421

$51,130Electrical, add 500 kW standby generator #2 $95,623 47% $44,943 $449 $44,493Odour add odour scrubber $382,493

$743,645

100%

100%

$382,493

$743,645

S3 825

$7,436

$378,668

$736,209

$3,825

$7,436Solids, add centrifuge #3 and extend dewatering building

Electrical add microturbine #5 and related infrastructure $89,467$102,189

100%47%

$89,467$48,029

$895$480

$88 572$47,549 $21 128

$126,155 $44,493

$895$54,640

$213$1,274

$51,130

Secondary, add pump #4 to PEP station #2Influent, upgrade existing wet well $21,341

$127,429100%100%

$21,341$127,429

$213$1,274Secondary, add 1 pump to RBS pump station #3

Electrical, add 500 kW standby generator #3 $95,623 47% $44,943 $449Secondary, add pump #5 to PEP station #2 $102,189 47% $48,029 5480 $47,549 $54.640

Odour, cover primary tanks #1 to #9 & grit tanks #1 to #5 $531,262 50% $265,631 $2,656 $262,975 $268,287Effluent, twin existing river section of outran $998,503 100% $998,503 $9,985 $988,518 $9,985

Electrical, add microturbine #6 and related infrastructure $89 467 100% $89,467 $895 $88,572 $895Influent, add centrifugal pump #6 $119,016

$1 232 226100%100%

$119,016$1 232 226

$1,190$12,322

$998

$117,826 $1,219,904

$98,821

$1,190$12,322

$113,561Primary, add primary sedimentation tanks #10 & 11Centrate, add centrate tanks #9 & 10 $212,382 47% $99,820Odour cover centrate tanks #9 & 10 $53,147

$10629447%

100%$24,979

$106,294$250

$1,063$24, 729

$105 231$28 418$1 063Odour, cover primary tanks #10 & 11

48081 Headworks, Upgrade screenings handling $176,472 47% $82,942 $829 $82,112 S94,360Stage VII: Add #3 TF/SC V 655,698

$924,836100%47%

$2,655.698$434,673

$26,557$4,347

$2,629,141$430 326

$26 557$494 51048084 Outfall, Upgrade effluent pump station

48086 Electrical, Add two pad mounted transformers $679,828 47% $319,519 $3,195$540

$316,324$53 469

$363,504$61 443Influent Add #4 screw pump $114,912 47% $54,009

Headworks Add #4 and #5 grit tanks $165,802 100% $165,802 $1,658 $164,144 $1,65848124 Stage VII: Add #4 clarifier/piping $921,759 47% $433,227 $4,332 $428.894 $492 865

48125Stage VII: Upgrade Phase 1: New primary effluent pumpstation #2 $967,928

$967,72347%47%

$454,926$454,830

$4,549$4,548

$450,377$450,282

$517 551$517,44148126 Stage VII Upgrade: Add RBS pumping station

Disinfection Add #2 contact Channel $446,310 47% $209,766 $2,098 $207,668$73,615

$238,642$84,59448108 Solids, Add #2 WBS thickner $158,209 47% 574.358 $744

Solids, Expand biosolid storage area $32,216 100% $32,216 $322 $31,894 $322Influent eng. study - installing dry pit centrifugal pumps inexisting wet wells $10,876 100% $10,876 $109 $10,767 $109

48032 Update Sewer master plan $230,648 50% $115,324 $1.153 $114,171 $116,477Headworks, add #4 screen and wash compactor $116,964 100% $116,964 $1,170 $115,794 $1,170Odour control for TF#1 2 & 3 $2 379,294

$127,63450%47%

$1,189,647$59,988

$11,896$600

$1,177,751$59,388

$1,201,543$68,246$85,803

48129 Generation, Add second generatorOdour, cover pressate/ centrals tanks #1 to #8 $169,906 50% $84,953 $850 $84,103Secondary, Add #5 clarifier $764,780 100% $764,780 $7,648 $757,132 $7,648Primary, Add #8 and #9 primary tanks $1.296,043 47% 5609,140 $6,091 $603,049 $692,994

48030 Centrifuge solids dewatering $32,217 47% $15,142 $151 $14,991 $17,226Solids, Add #5 digestor $1 550,902 100% $1.550,902 $15,509 $1,535,393 $15,509

48088 Electrical SCADA upgrades $559:990 50% $279,995 $2,800 $277,195 $282,795750mm siphon river crossing (3) $5.400,000 100% $5,400,000 $54,000 $5,346,000 $54,000Influent, add centrifugal pump #5 to existing wet well (4) $121,273 100% $121,273 $1.213 $120 060 $1,213

$25,75598400 Sanitary sewer master plan and modeling 13L141 $51,000 50% S25,500 $255 $25,245

Internal borrowing in 2010 for stage 7 upgrades, including#4 clarifier, primary effluent pump station # 2, RBS pump

station and digester gas upgrades (without interest) (51.16)$97,000 100% $97,000 $0 $97,000 $0

Internal borrowing in 2009 for headworks, relocate septagereceiving station, JAMES biosolids dewatering, add # 3trickling filer and piping, and solids, expand biosolids

storage area (without interest) (5) : (8)$322,876 100% $322,876 $0 $322,876 $0

Totals $31,187,239 $24,252,919 $238,330 $24,014,588 57,172,650

Notes1.)Project list from District of Mission 03/022011.2.) Mission's share of growth-related projects is 20.52%.3.)Project not shared with City of Abbotsford.4.)Project from Kris Boland email 10/25/2010.5.)The District has already contributed a municipal assist factor when the project was constructed.6.)Amount from outstanding internal loans (Amount borrowed less repayments, excluding interest repayments). Provided by District of Mission 03/02/11.

Urban Systems Ltd. 3/9/20111,Proyeels_VAINK.007101.0.111.0,in-Arerys.K.Calc.ons.10 cumin Ctuuto.2011-0102..misson OCC 2011 C.X.A5ans (.11 20. year rnas,

9A8 AM

45

Urban Systems Ltd.U10/0,01,0/122000510027101.2.0ng-Deugn-Ar01,020131-.1001000.20100ert Calalalorks12011-03-02_1200on OCC 2011 C 2010 ye. ends)

3/9/20119:48 AM

DISTRICT OF MISSIONROADS DCC PROGRAM

AREAS A, B, AND C

MISSION CENTRAL FRASER; CEDAR VALLEY; HATZIC, SILVERDALE, RURAL AREAS

Project.• •• • •• No. •

•

r•• .:Colurnri

•001..0)

•• '• '••. Col. (2):

.: COI: (3).••• . :..• • • •

Col. (4) = Col. (2)

x Col. (3)• DOL(5) : -

Col. (6) = CoL(4) . -. . ,Col. (5)" :-".

-

. ... .. .... ..COI. (7) = Col, (2) :=

Col. (6)

_ __ ,.

'•, LocatIon. ..., ...

s DescriptionDescription.•

.•.Cost, ,iilmia. to.' Bthiefit•Fedor

Benefit to New••DeVelcipmeir .

•-• ""• ' •-•••- •

Municipal Assist... .. • • . , . •• •••

...,,,Eactoi. ..•:. • ••••••• • • • • •

..

,DCC Recoverable

. . •• !Ttal i

•Responsibility

•Qn•• I From :: To .1 Intersection Murray Street Seventh Avenue Signal $188,000 100% $188,000 $1,880 $186,120 $1,880

3 Cedar Valley Connector (2).m Fraser Crescent Seventh Avenue Arterial Road $1,049,000 100% $1,049,000 $0 $1,049,000 $0

4 Stave Lake Street Best Avenue Cherry Avenue (22nd) Road Upgrade Road Upgrade

$1,317,000 $2,937,000

100% 100%

$1,317,000$2,937,000

$13,170$29,370

$1,303,830 $2,907,630

$13,170$29,370'5 Stave Lake Street Best Avenue Eleventh Avenue

6 Wren Street Teal Street Kenny Avenue • Road Upgrade $695,000 100% $695,000 $6,950 $688,050 $6,950

7 Wren Street Seventh Avenue Teal Street Road Upgrade $1,089,000 100% $1,089,000 $10,890 $1,078,110 $10,890

8 Wren Street Tyler Street Silvercreek Bridge Brid e U gradeRoad Upgrade

$938,000$3,151,000

100% $938,000 $9,380 $928,620 $9,3809 Fourteenth Grand Street Hurd Street 100% $3,151,000 $31,510 $3,119,490 $31,5101,

110 Stave Lake Street Cherry Avenue bewdney Trunk Road Road U gradeIntersection Intersection

$1,234,000 100% $1,234,000 $12,340 $1,221,660 $12,3401

11 Highway 7 Cedar

Highway 7 Cedar

Nelson 7th Avenue

$1,870,000$1,002,260

100% 100% $1,002,260

$1,870,000 $18,700 $10,023

$1,851,300 $992,237

$18,700$10,02513

14 Transportation Study Silverdale Silverdale Cherry Street

Study Arterial Road & Bridge

$100,000$18,000,000

100% 100%

$100,000 $18,000,000

$1,000$180,000

$99,000$17,820,000 $1,000

$180,00015'16 Intersection Cherry Avenue Stave Lake St. Signal $88,000 100% $88,000 $880 $87,120 $880

TOTALS $33,658,260 $33,658,260 $326,093 $33,332,167 $326,093

Notes

1.)Project list from District of Mission 03/02/2011.

2.)Amount from outstanding internal loans (Amount borrowed less repayments, excluding interest repayments). Provided by District of Mission 03/02/11.

3.)Cost estimates for projects 1, 4-11 and 13 updated by USL Sept 2010.

4.)The District has already contributed a municipal assist factor when the project was constructed.

DISTRICT OF MISSIONSILVERCREEK PARKWAY PARKLAND DCC PROGRAM - ALL AREAS

ProjectNo:

Column Col. (1) Col:42) - Col. (3) ,• ,

Col (4) = Col

' col:.

(2) x‘ Col (3)-Col (5). '

Col (6) - Col- '

(4) - Col (5)Col (7) - C I

. - a '(2) - Col. (6)

Name Roll # Total Site':'''Size

ArnOunt of'tend ' '

Required

Total ParcelCost Estimate

ll)

DCC LandCost EStithate

BenefitFactor /o

Benefit to NewDevelopment

MunicipalAs, . ist Factors

1%.

•DCCRetoverable

Total MunicipalResponsibility

1 9429 VViebe Street 612999000 10.4 10.4 $255,177 $255,177 100% $255,177 $2,552 $252,625 $2,5522 32193 Mingo Avenue 612197000 43.3 43.3 $19,086 $19,086 100% $19,086 $191 $18,895 $1913 9018 Clay Street 611199000 10.2 5.1 $188,450 $94,225 100% $94,225 $942 $93,283 $9424 9428 Clay Street 611805000 5.0 1.6 $118,154 $37,809 100% $37,809 $378 $37,431 $3785 9414 Clay Street 611825000 5.0 1.8 $135,335 $47,367 100% $47,367 $474 $46,894 $4746 9386 Clay Street 611774000 5.9 2.1 $139,027 $50,050 100% $50,050 $500

$496$49,549$49 110

$500$4967 9350 Clay Street 611744000

611644000692451000 692354000

5.9 2.1 $137,795 $49,606 100% $49,6068 9266 Clay Street 10.0

8.9 4.8

2.48.94.8

$103,189 $456,002 $513,002

$24,765 $456,002$513,002

100% 100% 100%

$24,765$456,002 $513,002

$248 $4,560$5,130

$24,518 $451,442 $507,872

$248$4,560$5,130

9 32484 Tunbridge Avenue 32251 Cherry Avenue10

12 7792 Nelson Street . 772191000 14.3 10.4 $5,709 $4,167 100% $4,167 $42 $4,126 $4213 31529 Silverdale Avenue 772262000 7.7 1.9 $122,030 $30,508 100% $30,508 $305 $30,203 $30514 7738 Hemlock Street 772300000 9.7 9.6 $13,171 $13,039 100% $13,039 $130 $12,909 $13016 31277 Silverdale Avenue 771714100 5.0 5.0 $427,000 $427,000 100% $427,000 $4,270 $422,730 $4,27017 31380 Silverdale Avenue 771712000 0.9 0.9 $2,500 $2,500 100% $2,500 $25 $2,475 $2518 31215 Silverdale Avenue 771303000

7716960009.80.2

0.90.2

$35,841$999

$3,226 100% $3,226 $32 $3,193 $32k19 7774 Hemlock Street $999 100% $999 $10 $989 $1033 32310 Tunbridge Avenue 692081000 9.7 9.7 $30,000 $30,000 100% $30,000

$246,995$300

$2,470 $244,525$29,700 $300

$2,47021 8088 Tyler Street 690943000 1.1 1.1 $246,995 $246,995 100%22 8085 Tyler Street 690941000 0.3 0.3 $198,992 $198,992 100% $198,992 $1,990 $197,002 $1,99023 7727 Hemlock 771698000 5.4 5.4 $13,819 $13,819 100% $13,819

$619$138

$6$13,681

$612$138

$624 9320 Clay Street 611695000 5.0 1.3 $2,379 $619 100%25 9338 Clay Street 611697000 5.1 1.7 $112,329 $37,069 100% $37,069 $371 $36,698

$5,316$371

$5427 31420 Silverdale 771601000 2.3 2.2 $5,774 $5,370 100% $5,370 $5428 No Address 771401000 0.8 0.8 $23,902 $23,902 100% $23,902 $239 $23,663 $239

TRAIL CONSTRUCTIONMain Silver Creek Trail $502,800 $502,800 100% $502,800 $5,028 $497 , 772 $5,028Main Trail Crossings $72,000 $72,000 100% $72,000 $720 $71,280

$495,000$720

$5,000Trailheads $500,000 $500,000 100% $500,000 $5,000Northeast Loop Trail $231,000 $231,000 100% $231,000 $2,310 $228,690 $2,310Southwest Loop Trail $102,000 $102,000 100% $102,000 $1,020 $100,980 $1,020Loop Trail Crossings Crossing of Silver Creek

$96,000$30,000

$96,000$30,000

100%100%

$96,000 $30,000

$960$300

$95,040 $29,700

$960 $300

Totals 186.6 133.8 $4,840,454 $4,119,092 $4,119,092 $41,191 $4,077,901 $41,191

Notes1.) Project list from District of Mission 03/02/2011.

3/9/20119:48 AM

Urban Systems Ltd.U.1Projech_VAI.0995,003710109ra0in9-0eslon-Analysis01-Calcul l2010 Current CakulatIn.2011-03-02_1601sion DCC 2011 Cakulations(oNh 2010 you ends)

DISTRICT OF MISSIONROAD DCC PROGRAM

AREA B

CEDAR VALLEY

t OlUtnn :Col. (1).

COL (2) .

Col. (3)Col (4) = Col

- ' ', (2) x CoL (3)

,CoL (5)

" ' ' - -

Col. (6) = Col..; -

; -i-if) 7 Col. (5)

Col (7) = Col (2) -' '

Col.-(6) .

Project No.location

Description7----

Cost Estimate--Benefit-

Factor--Bnfit to New-ee

DeVelopment

Municipal Assitt- -- , ----,-:-. - ----,-,

Factor 1%

- -DOG- , --- ----Recoverable

-Total- MunicipalRespontibility

FromCVR1 Cade Barr Wdening DTR 14th Road Widening $2,725,000 100% $2,725,000 $27,250 $2,697,750 $27,250CVR 3, 5, 20 Cedar Street Cherry

TunbridgeTunbridge

150m NorthRoad Wdening Signalization Road Wdening

$466,158$714,000

100% 100%

$466,158$714,000

$4,662 $7,140

$461,496 $706,860

$4,662$7,140CVR4 Cedar Street

CVR11 14th Cade Barr Grand Road Widening $1,479,000 100% $1,479,000 $14,790 $1,464,210 . $14,790CVR12 Grand

Intersection14th14th

11thGrand

Road WdeningSignalization

$879,000$250,000

100% 100%

$879,000$250,000

$8,790$2,500

$870,210$247,500

$8,790$2,500CVR13

CVR15 Intersection Cedar Laminmen Signalization $250,000 100% $250,000 $2,500 $247,500 $2,500CVR16 Intersection Cedar Tunbridge Signalization $250,000 100% $250,000 $2,500 $247,500 $2,500CVR17 Intersection Cherry Cade Barr Signalization $250,000 100% $250,000 $2,500 $247,500 $2,500CVR18 Intersection DTR Cade Barr Signalization $250,000 100% $250,000 $2,500 $247,500 $2,500

CVR19 Intersection DTR Tunbridge Signalization $250,000 100% $250,000 $2,500 $247,500 $2,500CVR21 Intersection Cade Barr Best Signalization $250,000 100% $250,000 $2,500 $247,500 $2,500

TOTALS $8,013,158 $8,013,158 $80,132 $7,933,026 $80,132

Notes1.) Project list from District of Mission 03/02/2011.2.) Cost estimate for CVR4 has been revised to reflect reduce road length to 150m, as per email Sept. 14, 2010.3.) Cost estimates for CVR1, CVR4, CVR11, CVR 12 and all signalization updated by USL Sept 2010.4.) CVR20 and CVR 3&5 combined for grant purposes, email from DoM 01/17/2011.

319/20119:48 AM

Urban Systems Ltd.Prolects_VAN ,09950337,01Z-Dratting-Design-Analysis01-C.alculabon.2010 Curren( Cakuktions1201103-02_Mission OCC 2011 Calculations (vAth 2010 year ends)

DISTRICT OF MISSIONSTORM DRAINAGE DCC PROGRAM

AREA B

CEDAR VALLEY

Column, _ Col.(1),

Cal, p.) Col. (3) =Col. (1) xCol. (2)

Col. (4)Col. (5) = Col. (3) -

Col. (4)Col. (6) = Col.(1) -

Col. (5)Project No.

____:__ ,_:______ ____ ____Name____ _ ., _ ,,,ost,EstimateC Benefit_-- Benefit to New.-.-_

- "Mel/elf:15MM -

Municipal_AssittEactor-

% .--

1.D.CC.R.ecnierable_..

Total Municipal-ReSpOnSibilltyrector To---

, "CVD1 CV Master Drainage Report $50,000 100% $50,000 $500 $49,500 $500

CVD2 CV Culvert Area A $198,738 100% $198,738 $1,987 $196,751 $1,987CVD3 CV Culvert 1 Area B $134,000 100% $134,000 $1,340 $132,660 $1,340

CVD4 CV Culvert 2 Area B $121,625 100% $121,625 $1,216 $120,409 $1,216

CVD6 CV Culvert 2 Area D $126,000 100% $126,000 $1,260 $124,740 $1,260

CVDB CV Culvert Area E $50,000 100% $50,000 $500 $49,500 $500CVD9 CV Trk Stm Sewer Area A $495,000 100% $495,000 $4,950 $490,050 $4,950

CVD 10 CV Trk Stm Sewer Area B $669,000 100% $669,000 $6,690 $662,310 $6,690CVD11 CV Trk Stm Sewer Area C $101,000 100% $101,000 $1,010 $99,990 $1,010

CVD12 CV Trk Stm Sewer Area D $150,000 100% $150,000 $1,500 $148,500 $1,500!

CVD13 CV Detention Pond A (2), (5) $139,271 100% $139,271 $0 $139,271 $0CVD14 CV Detention Pond B $2,527,000 100% $2,527,000 $25,270 $2,501,730 $25,270CVD15 CV Detention Pond C $1,539,000 100% $1,539,000 $15,390 $1,523,610 $15,390

CVD16 CV Detention Pond D1 (3) $1,755,000 100% $1.755.000 $17.550 $1,737,450 $17,550Internal borrowing for CV Dentention Pond D1

CVD 16A (without interest) (2), (5) $578,000 100% $578,000 $0 $578,000 $0

CVD17 CV Detention Pond D2 (3) $300,000 100% $300,000 $3,000 $297,000 $3,000CVD18 CV Detention Pond D3 $929,000 100% $929,000 $9,290 $919,710 $9,290CVD19 CV Detention Pond D4 $516,000 100% $516,000 $5,160 $510,840 $5,160

CVD24 CV Detention Pond E4 (4) $204,000 100% $204,000 $2,040 $201,960 $2,040

CVD25 CV Detention Pond E5 (4) $122,400 100% $122,400 $1,224 $121,176 $1,224CVD26 Dewdney Trunk Ditch Improvements $468,000 100% $468,000 $4,680 $463,320 $4,680

CVD27 Gaudin Creek South Realignment (3) $2,675,000 100% $2,675,000 $26,750 $2,648,250 $26,750

CVD28 Rainfall Management Monitoring Program $82,825 100% $82,825 $828 $81,997 $828CVD29 Stormwater Modeling Software $34,496 100% $34,496 $345 $34,151 $345

Tota ls $13,965,355 $13,965,355 $132,481 $13,832,874 $132,481

Notes1.) Project list from District of Mission 03/02/2011.2.) Amount from outstanding internal loans (Amount borrowed less repayments, excluding interest repayments). Provided by District of Mission 03/02/11.3.) Cost estimate provided by District of Mission 11/15/2010.4.) Cost estimate based on remaining land costs.5.) The District has already contributed a municipal assist factor when the project was constructed.

3/9/20119:48 AMUrban Systems Ltd.

1.1,ProiecisVAN10995,0027101104.1.2-12.1(....0•101.0.410.312010 Cunon1Calculations‘2011-02-02111.1. MC 2011 Cale... (v. 2010 year .,Ms)

DISTRICT OF MISSIONSANITARY SEWER PROGRAM

Area BCedar Valley

ProjectColumn Col.(1) Col. (2) Col. (3) =Col. (1) x•

•Col (2).ol(4)' .

Col. (5) = Col.(3) - Col. (4)

Col. (6) = Col.(1) -Col. (5)

----- -.--Municipal Assist Factor

0%

' " Tater rifiiiiirdiparResponsibility

No. Name Cost Estimate.,.-Benefit Factor . Benefit to New

DevelopmentDCC

Recoverabie

CVS1 2), (3)Gravity trunk sewer, forcemain and pump station ( $1,491 486 100% $1,491,486 $0 $1,491,486

Totals $1,491,486 $1,491,486 $0 $1,491,486 $0

Notes1.)Project list from District of Mission 03/02/2011.2.) Amount from outstanding internal loans (Amount borrowed less repayments, excluding interest repayments). Provided by District of Mission 03/02/11.3.) The District has already contributed a municipal assist factor when the project was constructed.

Urban Systems Ltd.UNhojects VAN0995E037 \ 01 \ D-Dmiling-Oestn-Anelystall1-Calculalions ,2010 Curtent Calcolallons2011-03-0 2_Miubn DCC 2011 Colculations (with 2010 yew took)

3/9/20119:48 AM

$0$340,401$340,401$340,401Totals

Column

_ ,Coil Estimate

Col. (2)

• 1 .,Benefit FiCtor . %.

Col. (3)=Col. (1)x Col. (2)

BenCfit to New:• : :Development

Col. (4)

MirnicipilAssistFactor PI

0%

Col. (5) =Col. (3) -Col. (4)

DCC Recoverable

Col: (6) = Col.(1) -( 5 )

Total MunicipalResponsibility .

- 112rOject--

No.

Cedar Valley Specified Area Sanitary Sewer $340,401 $340,401 $340,401100% $0 $0

District of Mission - Extension of Sewer FacilitiesSANITARY PROGRAM

Area BCedar Valley

Notes1.) Project list from District of Mission 03/02/2011.2.) Amount from outstanding internal loans (Amount borrowed less repayments, excluding interest repayments). Provided by District of Mission 03/02/11.3.) The District has already contributed a municipal assist factor of 3% when the project was constructed.

Urban Systems Ltd.U:Projects_VAM09951003710110-Drafting-Design-Analysis101-Calculations12010 Current Calculations12011-03-02_Mission DCC 2011 Calculations (with 2010 year ends)

3/9/20119:48 AM

DISTRICT OF MISSIONWATERMAIN PROGRAM

Area BCedar Valley

i PtOjeCtI ... NCL

C.OlUmn' :, , ,

001.(1)2: -.„ , ; Col. (2)Col (3) =C01::(1):* ,Col; (2) : : „::,„,

Col' . (4) :i

col. (6) = COL' :: (3) 7 Col: (4) :

Col: (6) = C01.(1) -C01. (5),.

. . Cost ' -;Benefit: '''' ,

: ,-.Betiefit tO.:NewMunicipal‘m, : DCC Total MiniiCipal

I ::Name : . Estimate FaOttit %

::-: ':Develcipitient -: :,,..:,-,,..-, ecoverable : Retponsi i i

CVW1 Emiry -North of Laminman $74,250 100% $74,250 $743 $73,508 $743CVW2 Laminman - Cedar to Emiry $233,750 100% $233,750 $2,338 $231,413 $2,338CVW3 Rosetta - Cedar to Hammond $302,500 100% $302,500 $3,025 $299,475 $3,025CVW4 Egglestone - West of Cedar

Dalke - DTR west 350m$561,000$238,000

100%100%

$561,000$238,000

$5,610$2,380 $235,620

$555,390 $5,610$2,380CVW5

CVW6 Right-of-way - Dewdney Trunk Rd. (DTR) to E. end of Rosetta DTR - Ferndale to Cedar

$190,400 $780,000

100%100%

$190,400$780,000

$1,904 $7,800

$188,496 $772,200

$1,904$7,800CVVV7

CVW8 DTR - Tunbridge to Ferndale $624,000 100% $624,000 $6,240 $617,760 $6,240$6,708

$250CVW9 DTR - Tunbridge to Harms $670,800 100% $670,800 $6,708 $664,092

$24,750CVVV10 CCV Water Master Plan $25,000 100% $25,000 $250

Totals $3,699,700 $3,699,700 $36,997 $3 662,703 $36,997

Notes1.) Project list from District of Mission 03/02/2011.


VIP/ejects VANO29510027101042ralting-DesignAnalya6221-CatIcolations12010 Current Calculaliens,2011-03022Assien OGG 2011 Calculations @e 2010 year ends)

..„85'4'.,,,,E-- %'irla

-m1

EaVi

m o.s-aumaaaum------;PAFIgi:ig.Ens.....,

.m--' :.°. tin7.ANEEL*alsEsa„"' 2 °Ns§Es.4,-"uumuussla„ 2- s-,..

.- amRagai,;;: A

„,,,lar.SAEa AN

--Xn

V

—

mu,T.'

PI

2

08-8&

a'F.zg55EZ

r,g x N - 83 ..-71ivaEa"EIEEE 314 ESEPMEEREEZD12" 23 u

Par.36,RAEia ,Z. g g 4. .

,---maa.E"EA2uuslax-"E4u

$ 8 .0'.._ ''m c.uow8 .NN 8,as ,..a Lo

,..1

”.Lit

- a 3U2 . .3 "A'NFRAnN82582gNNFWE270,i8EFNMSalaVng"83U 3..A.. . "RN".. HNNSO ...— EFaREFEZRA5r-aas

psm5V V—.

Zig

-

BE.,,,tl

ifs

-. ...'ISIFJEg4,

.. ..."4"w72 PaavinEgiM§F.3:2 .

13 u... Mill.s

ENHERasEM,W9U4-gasasam . ..--

ERZ5'' 4

P14.q7,1!83EtiliZSEM"aNg2wRUnia'"

ROPliPEEh

1.7_0

ao$st50/ .1

... ..............................e-,,e?weeeawee*aelw6geeeggeelgeete-e*ataRemlzgaR6w.e*eeeeeage

........... . .. .

,.

..................

o

vC C3 .1

"

asE.t.omwr.mum..... gv .aa

,. u.Rustic,aImmacyncomgmg,

OENEEARE4gRaua um.us...

i E.

A4 .- ..

-.

N..

E;

.' .wRzlaun

NMEU-,

. ,...maREEpEngEsaa,,MAWON

, , n-FIS001...

-,-

.1in.=7; N..

888888§§§§.4988Naammartnamanummureammeammameammemmannmannwelmacca00

8§§§..§§§§§8§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§88.80,§§§§§§g80O §§§§§§§§880§§1§§§§§§§

.E.133 ,1.,E Vt-

_.-n5oogg _nn:nrro=?]!M',;.—-, -.00,AHEnHVE- FnFM*-20,–,=c-,gg .g=2;vg;‘,...---.,

A.20sib".1

g

8‘r

tmm- ,,c,61LAM.8g'2t1-,2 r-gAg2AAAgA"" 7,4,',1A 0AV‘';.AAAAVPT,WAT,gN I

N

ai

Y001Pm 10

"888§§842§§

8g§F'

. .GgNgg!=" 1—"

8888 8A

U Og

:2 §§8§88*.i14133ggEggggg

gG'-Ng

'8

gpit'n.gg

§§g8.-EAA--

88

.--

8---sg,;,%-..

§

,-PPGXEGGGG;;Gg8--882,4

88 8i§

R

§§888w:'"-NN AP

40io

ig§§§§§P:ri .0

8

E88

§88E§§

.8.

COVINNNNNN

'-ggggg

88PrliOM

gngs

8

,.

P" vairW - m ',,7,63:--M.U7,n8P0'38g

' 28 NNFINXNNNM ''A34ggsv

ifiN 22 ggvc:-„.Zir..2

208,ig wgm

881MNIMN NN

EME5RgUNMAPP

'

rn62. g

DAL1888880Hg. B

b).

.gggg

.

c2(2'VglIllit-VAttttr2V444444,,,,,

81WAAAMA11181MA3!iii1=1

2c212WWaxN. -EN -SNN

-1=v

Nce

4

11c2

›. ,33aa...

VSrec"

-.

-5-57g-5iiig.ELFZEALLT

a,z,z-z'tz-rzs.2

-

g-°aiii.zrn,2,2

<c‹amf''

-<-

A.

m......<c

m.zzv.

t

P—.,.. ‘,...,. ',,TAR, N RWAR;;P, XAAt,144.7;4'44.24"4"4.7-VSER Agg'OR3A'Aggg!4,7! ' R42

...

]8

aes

.11--z,r4m

5829.00Totals $86,604$350,571$3,541$354,112$437,175$75

Amount ofTrail -

Required '(metres)

Col. (1)

Cost Estimateer LinearMeter (1)

2)

DCC TrailDevelOpinent

CotBenefit

Fadtor %

COL (4) .:==' COL: . :(2) *Col. (3)

Benefit to Newbevel(*trent

COI. (5),"..„

MunicipalAssist Factor

1%

Col. (6) = Col.(4) x COI. (5)

DCCRecoverable

Col. (7) = Col.(2) - Col. (6)


ProJeet----

No.

Trails associated with theopen space land aquisition

$437,175 $354,112 $350,571 $86,6041 5829.00 $75 81% $3,541

DISTRICT OF MISSIONCEDAR VALLEY

ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS PARK DEVELOPMENT DCC PROGRAM

Notes1.) Cost estimate provided by the District of Mission, email from Kris B. 01/25/11.

Urban Systems Ltd. 3/9/2011U‘Projects_VAN10995100371010-Draffing-Design-Analysis01-Calculations \ 2010 Current Calc,1elions12011-03-02 _htssion DCC 2011 Calculatons (with 2010 year ends)

9:48 AM

$0$353,204$353,204Totals

Column

Silverdale Water Works (1). (2)

Col. (4)

Municipal AssistFictor

0%

$0

Col.(5) = Col. (3) - Col.(4)

DCC Recoverable

$353,204

Col. (6) = Col.(1) - Col.

(5)

Total MunicipalResponsibility -

$0$353,204 100.0% $353,204

ProjectNo.

1

Cost Estimate Benefit Factor 'Ye

Col, (3) =Col. (1) XCol. (2)

Benefit to New Devetopment

Col.(2)Col.(1)

DISTRICT OF MISSIONSILVERDALE IND. WATER PROGRAM

Notes:1.) Amount from outstanding internal loans (Amount borrowed less repayments, excluding interest repayments). Provided by District of Mission 03/02/11.

2.) The District has already contributed a municipal assist factor when the project was constructed.3.) Project list from District of Mission 03/02/2011.


UVrojects_VAN10995‘00371011D-Drafting-Design-Pnalysis \ 01-Cakulationat2010 Curren! CaleulationA2011-03-02Mission DCC 2011 Calclationa (with 2010 year ends)

Totals $160,831$160,831

Benefit Fic'tol'%

100.0%

COI. (3) =Col. '

(1)• C04.Pr.

Benefit to . NewDevelopment

$160,831

061:14)

Municipal AssistFaCtoi

$0

Col.(5) = (3) - Cpl.

DCC Recoverable

$160,831

Col: (6) COL(1) o(5) :

Total Munitipal__RespopPibility

$0

PeojectNo.

1

Column

Silverdale Industrial Sewer Works (1), (2)

Cost Estimate

$160,831

DISTRICT OF MISSIONSILVERDALE IND. SEWER PROGRAM

Notes:

1.)Amount from outstanding internal loans (Amount borrowed less repayments, excluding interest repayments). Provided by District of Mission 03/02/11.

2.)The District has already contributed a municipal assist factor when the project was constructed.3.) Project list from District of Mission 03/02/2011.

Urban Systems Ltd. 3/9/201111 . Trojects_VAN10995 ,00371010-Drafting-Design-AnalysIsZI-Cakulollonal2010 Current Cakulalions12011-03-02_Mission DCC 2011 Calculations (.1111 2010 year ends)

9:48 AM

Column

Silverdale Bridge (1), (2)

District of Mission - Silverdale Bridge, Local Industrial AreaROAD PROGRAM

coM i)

$941,835

$941,835

Col, (2)°

100%

Col. (3) =Col. (1) XCol. (/)

Benefit to NewDevelopment

$941,835

Cbl. (4)

Municipal AssistFactor

0% -

$0

Col. (5) = Col. (3) -Col (4)

DCC Recbverable:

$941,835

$941,835

Col. (6) = Col.(1) - Col.

(5)


$0

$0

Cost Estimate Benefit Factor I

Notes1.) Amount from outstanding internal loans (Amount borrowed less repayments, excluding interest repayments). Provided by District of Mission 03/02/11.2.) The District has already contributed a municipal assist factor of 3% when the project was constructed.

Urban Systems Ltd.U:1Projects_VAN10995100371011D-Dratting-Design-Analysis1D1-Calculations12010 Current Calculations12011-03-02_Mission DCC 2011 Calculations (with 2010 year ends)

3/9/20119:48 AM

Inspection ServicesMemorandum

58

MDISTRICT OF

lsslonON THE FRASER

To:

Director of Corporate AdministrationFrom:

Senior Bylaw Enforcement OfficerDate:

March 10, 2011

Subject: Business Licence Bylaw 3964-2007

Recommendation

The current Business Licence Bylaw 3964-2007 is adequate in addressing compliancerequirements and that no amendments be made to the bylaw.Background

Council asked staff to prepare an amendment to Business Licence Bylaw 3964-2007 that setsout compliance requirements with other relevant District bylaws, and the consequence ofpossible revocation of a business licence for non-compliance with other District bylaws.

District of Mission Business Licence Bylaw 3964-2007 currently permits a business Licence tobe cancelled by the licence inspector as follows in section 4 of the bylaw.Section 4.1 Licence Inspector may:

(e) suspend or cancel a licence for reasonable cause, including where a licensee

(i) has failed to comply with a term or condition of the licence,

ii) or the licensee's premises ceases to comply with a bylaw regulating building,land use, health, fire, environmental or business,

(iii) is convicted of an offence under an Act or bylaw in respect of the business forwhich the licence has been issued or with respect the premises named in thelicence,

(iv) is deemed, under the Offence Act, to have pleaded guilty to an offence undera bylaw in respect of the business or with respect to the premises named inthe licence;

(f) refuse a licence where satisfied that the applicant or the premises named in theapplication are not in compliance with this bylaw, provided reason is given to theapplicant for such refusal.

A business licence may be suspended or cancelled for any reasonable cause. If the business isoffending on an ongoing bases, this could be deemed reasonable cause. Subsections (iii) & (iv)also allows for the cancellation of a business licence if there is a conviction under one of theDistrict's other bylaws.

Pat Northup

GAINSPECT\pattlb-1.docx

FILE: ADM.BYL.PRO PAGE 1 OF 1Business Licence Bylaw

inspection ServicesMemorandum

59

To:

Chief Administrative Officer

From:

Bylaw Enforcement Officer

Date:

March 7, 2011

Subject: Ticket Information Bylaw 2646-1993

Recommendation

That Ticket Information Bylaw 2646-1993 Schedule 10 (Water Bylaw 2196-1990) be amendedby changing Section 5.1(a) to read 5.1.

Background

This is a housekeeping item in order to update the Ticket Information Bylaw to reflect changesmade in the numbering system of the Water Bylaw.

Water Bylaw 2196-1990 previously consisted of subsection (a) which read:

"5.1 Sprinkling Restrictions

(a) The Engineer may for the purpose of reducing water demands from the works, orderall consumers to suspend or stop using water for fountains, gardens or lawn, or mayregulate the days and/or hours for using water for the same."

Now subsection (a) is not reflected in this paragraph. It reads as follows (with the (a) omitted):

"5.1 Sprinkling Restrictions

The Engineer may for the purpose of reducing water demands from the works,order all consumers to suspend or stop using water for fountains, gardens, or lawn,or may regulate the days and/or hours for using water for the same."

Chris Race

GAInspechbylawenforce\crwater

FILE: ADM.BYL.PRO PAGE 1 OF 1Ticket information Bylaw 2646-1993

misIsTsio, n0FyON THE FRASER ,

Corporate AdministrationMemorandum

60

File Category: INF.WAT.WATFile Folder: J.A.M.E.S. Treatment Plant

To: Mayor and CouncilFrom: Chief Administrative OfficerDate: March 10, 2011

Subject: 2010/2011 Regionally Significant Gas Tax Grant Program

Recommendation

That council endorse the selection of the JAMES Plant Stage VII Secondary Treatment Expansion —Phase 1 project as the priority application for the 2010/2011 Regionally Significant Gas Tax GrantProgram.

Background

Municipal staff have been in discussions recently with Fraser Valley Regional District staff and othersenior staff representatives from the member municipalities regarding the recent release of the2010/2011 Regionally Significant Gas Tax Grant Program. This program has made available to themunicipalities within the Fraser Valley Regional District approximately $13.8 million for projects which fitthe criteria of regionally significant projects. The following table and Appendix A contain the breakdownof the base funding when allocated on a population based model. At the staff level, the District of Missionhas been in discussion with Abbotsford senior staff and are proposing that the JAMES Plant Stage VIISecondary Treatment Expansion — Phase 1 be submitted as the priority application for the base fundingwhich would be allocated to Abbotsford and Mission and equals approximately $8.561 million.

The City of Abbotsford council has recently endorsed the JAMES Plant application as their priority for theshare of the , Regionally Significant Project funding. Mission staff are now requesting that the District ofMission council endorse the selection of the JAMES Plant project as the submission which will beforwarded to the Regional District Working Group who will, in turn, have preliminary discussions with theUBCM staff on the various applications submitted across the region.

In order to move this item forward, the above recommendation is required from council. It should benoted that the matter will also be taken to the Water & Sewer Commission for ratification once there hasbeen an indication from the UBCM approval process that the applications meet the criteria for theprogram.

FULGlen Robertson

Page 1 of 2

2011 RSP Funding 13,815,552

BC STATSAbbotsfordChilliwackMissionKentHopeHarrison

135,86676,10637,167

5,5156,2691,594

48.5%27.2%13.3%2.0%2.2%0.6%

262,51717,693 6.3%

280,210 100.0%Electoral AreasTotal

Population Based Allocation

Abbotsford 6,698,775 48.5%Chilliwack 3,752,351 27.2%Mission : 1,832,492 13.3%Kent 271,913 2.0%Hope 309,089 2.2%Harrison 78,591 0.6%Electoral Areas 6.3%872,341

13,815,552 100.0%

Appendix A

61

Page 2 of 2

2010 Gas Tax ApplicationJAMES Plant - Stage VII Secondary Treatment Expansion — Phase 1

1. Jurisdiction of Applicability:Abbotsford & Mission

2. Project Name:JAMES Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) - Stage VII Secondary TreatmentExpansion — Phase 1

3. Project Description:Phase 1 of the Stage VII Expansion includes the design and construction of the followingcomponents:

• Primary Effluent Pump Station #2• Secondary Clarifier #4• Return Biological Sludge Pump Station #3• Effluent Pump Station Upgrade• Waste Solids Thickener #2

4. Total Project Cost:

The total project costs included in the 2011 Capital Plan is shown as below in 2011dollars:

Stage VII Expansion — Phase 1Project Components

Project Costs(2011 Dollars)

Primary Effluent Pump Station #2 $4.717MSecondary Clarifier #4 $4.492MReturn Biological Sludge Pump Station #3 $4.716MEffluent Pump Station Upgrade $4.507MWaste Solids Thickener #2 $0.771MTotal $19.203MTotal Eligible Costs(Excluding Staff Time) $18.919M

The Abbotsford-Mission Water and Sewer Commission have included provision forfunding this work in its Capital Plans for 2011 to 2012. Detailed design for the project isunderway. A more detailed cost estimate will be obtained before tendering of theproject. No grants have been received to support this project to date.

Of the total eligible project costs, 47% is DCC eligible (growth-related) and 53% is non-DCC eligible. The non-DCC eligible portion of the project cost would be funded by userrates if there is no funding assistance. The total non-DCC eligible cost is $10.027M.

5. RSP Funding Amount:Approximately $8.56M

6. Other Funding Amounts:N/A

62

1

7. Construction Timeline:2011 to 2012

8. Council Resolution and Date:TBD

9. How does the proposed project meet the criteria of reducing greenhouse gasemissions, cleaner air and water?The JAMES Plant Stage VII Secondary Expansion — Phase 1 is an EnvironmentallySustainable Municipal (ESMI) Project which improves the quality of the environment inparticular the water quality, and improves aquatic habitat.

The intent of the Stage VII Expansion — Phase 1 is to increase the current average daydesign flow capacity of 62 ML/d to 100 ML/d, at the current treatment level requirements.The majority of the project components are intended for this purpose. The fourthsecondary clarifier is required to provide redundancy as set out in the Province'sMunicipal Sewage Regulation (MSR). This allows the Plant to meet the dischargecriteria set out in the MSR while Plant personnel perform maintenance in the system.

The Stage VII Secondary Expansion — Phase 1 allows the Plant to continue maintainingthe discharge criteria in the MSR while providing capacity for regional and communities'growth. The MSR discharge criteria is 45/45 mg/L for BOD and TSS on a maximumday, and the Plant currently is meeting the criteria with its high standard of effluentquality which averages at 10-15 mg/L for both BOD and TSS. The Stage VII Expansionwill maintain and/or improve the quality of the treated effluent discharging to the FraserRiver.

10.Why is this potential project regionally significant?The JAMES Wastewater Treatment Plant services Abbotsford, Mission, Sumas(Washington) and part of Langley (to be disconnected later in 2010). The currentequivalent service population is approximately 214,000. The Plant treats an average of62,000 m 3/d of sewage and discharges the treated effluent in the Fraser River.

A Master Plan update for the JAMES Plant was undertaken in 2009/2010, which outlinesthe required capital improvements at the Plant for the next 25 years. The 2010 MasterPlan Update recommends increased primary effluent pumping capacity, a fourthsecondary clarifier, a new return biological sludge (RBS) pump station, a second wastesolids thickener and upgrades to the effluent pumping station in 2011. Thesecomponents are considered as the Stage VII Expansion — Phase 1 due to their upgradetiming and possible reduction in construction costs.

The Stage VII Secondary Treatment Expansion — Phase 1 is regionally significantbecause:

To support the economy of a growing RegionThe JAMES Plant servicing communities including Abbotsford and Mission havegrown rapidly in the past few years and its population and economic base isprojected to continue to grow in the future. The Stage VII Expansion is essentialin protecting the environment and ensuring regional growth for residential,commercial, institutional and industrial is sustainable.

63

2

• To safeguard the environment and benefit downstream communitiesFraser River, where the treated effluent is discharged to, is one of the world'smost productive salmon river systems, supporting 5 salmon species and 65 otherspecies of fish, including steelhead and giant sturgeon. Continue maintaining thecurrent high level of secondary treatment standards, which meets the MunicipalSewage Regulations (MSR), is therefore very important to the aquatic habitatand downstream communities. This project enables the JAMES Plant tocontinue meeting its discharge requirement, and benefit communities that aresituated along the Fraser River downstream of the JAMES Plant site.

11. Please provide detailed explanation of the outcomes that are anticipated from thisproject.

The following outcomes are anticipated from the Stage VII Secondary TreatmentExpansion — Phase 1 Project:

• The Plant average annual flow capacity will be increased from 62 ML/d to 100ML/d. Similarly, the current equivalent service population will be increased fromapproximately 214,000 to 345,000, which is an approximately 61% increase forsustainable regional growth.

• The Secondary Clarifiers at the JAMES Plant are the last line of defense in thesecondary treatment system before the effluent is disinfected and discharged intothe Fraser River. The Stage VII Secondary Treatment Expansion — Phase 1allows the Plant personnel to perform required maintenance in the secondaryclarifiers, without jeopardizing the effluent quality and adversely impacting theaquatic habitat in the Fraser River.

• The quality of the effluent discharged into the Fraser River is anticipated to meetor exceed the MSR discharge criteria. Cleaner effluent benefits the Fraser Riveraquatic habitat and downstream communities.

12. How does this project link to the Regional Growth Strategy?

The JAMES' Plant - Stage VII Secondary Treatment Expansion — Phase 1 project meetsGoal 8. Manage Water, Energy Resources and Waste Responsible as set out in theRegional Growth Strategy for the FVRD in the following ways:

Support and Enhance the Agricultural Sector

The JAMES Plant provides secondary sewage treatment services to approximately 30agricultural food processing users which produce higher strength waste. Food producedfrom these agricultural processing plants, such as Saputo, Lucern, and Vanderpol'sEggs, etc, are distributed and sold to the food service industry within the region andWestern Canada. There are many economic activities associated with these agriculturalfood processing users, which directly benefits the Agricultural Sector. The Stage VIIExpansion supports and enhances the continuous growth of the Agricultural sector andthe associated economic activities in the agricultural food processing industry. Inaddition, to plan for the Stage VII and future expansion, the City has recently acquired aproperty west of the existing JAMES Plant site, which was owned by a local farmer forfarming activities. As part of the land deal, the City traded a property of equal acreage in

64

3

the vicinity with the farmer. It is anticipated that the same farming activities will beperformed in the traded property without any interruption.

Protect the natural environment and promote environmental Stewardship

Fraser River, where the treated effluent is discharged to, is one of the world's mostproductive salmon river systems, supporting 5 salmon species and 65 other species offish, including steelhead and giant sturgeon. Continue maintaining the current high levelof secondary treatment standards, which meets the Municipal Sewage Regulations(MSR), is therefore very important to the aquatic habitat and downstream communities.

The Stage VII Secondary Expansion — Phase 1 allows the JAMES Plant to continuemaintaining the discharge criteria in the MSR while providing capacity for regional andcommunities' growth. The MSR discharge criteria is 45/45 mg/L for BOD and TSS on amaximum day, and the Plant currently is meeting the criteria with its high standard ofeffluent quality which averages at 10-15 mg/L for both BOD and TSS. The Stage VIIExpansion will maintain and/or improve the quality of the treated effluent discharging tothe Fraser River.

65

4

MDISTRICT OF

isON THE FRASER

Engineering DepartmentMemorandum

66

FILE: FIN.BUD.DOMRegional Utilities

To: Chief Administrative OfficerFrom: Deputy Director of FinanceDate: March 15, 2011

Subject: Public/Stakeholder Presentation for Proposed Sewer Use Bylaw Codes ofPractice for Abbotsford and Mission

Recommendation

That the attached proposed Codes of Practice presentation for the Public/Stakeholder review, tobe held on Monday, March 28, 2011, at the Mission Leisure Centre between 6:00 and 8:00 pmbe approved.

Report

The attached report entitled "Public/Stakeholder Presentation for Proposed Sewer Use BylawCodes of Practice for Abbotsford and Mission" was presented at the March 10, 2011,Abbotsford/Mission Water & Sewer Commission (WSC) meeting and the followingrecommendations were approved:

"THAT the WSC recommend to the respective councils of the District of Mission and City ofAbbotsford to accept the proposed Codes of Practice presentation for Public/Stakeholderreview."

Summary

Water & Sewer Services staff are recommending, and District of Mission staff concur, to acommitment to the development and implementation of Codes of Practice for automotiveoperations, vehicle wash operations and dry cleaning operations that were developed in 2010and are proposed to be incorporated into the District's Sewer Bylaw. Prior to making changesto the District's sewer bylaw, a public/stakeholder codes of practice presentation needs to beheld.

Kris Boland

G:\FINANCE\UTILITY TRANSFER1Budget Amendment Reports\ Sewer Use Bylaw Codes of Practice presentation 11-03-21.doc

PAGE 1 OF 1

Abbotsford 67

Water & Sewer. Services

REPORT111•1111111111111■1111••111111111111=1111•1111111111■,

To: Abbotsford/Mission Water & Sewer Commission (WSC)

From: Joe Vurzinger, Utilities Environment Manager

Date: February 15, 2011

Subject: Public/Stakeholder Presentation for Proposed Sewer Use Bylaw Codes ofPractice for Abbotsford and Mission

File: 5500-60

Report No.: WSC 29-2011

UTILITY MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (UMC) RECOMMENDATIONS

1. THAT Report No. WSC 29 -2011, dated February 15, 2011, from Joe Vurzinger, UtilitiesEnvironment Manager, regarding the Public/Stakeholder Presentation for ProposedSewer Use Bylaw Codes of Practice for Abbotsford and Mission, be received; and

2. THAT the WSC recommend to the respective councils of the District of Mission and Cityof Abbotsford to accept the proposed Codes of Practice presentation forPublic/Stakeholder review.

BACKGROUND

The Abbotsford/Mission Water & Sewer Commission has made a commitment to thedevelopment and implementation of Codes of Practice to regulate non-domestic wastedischarges to the sanitary sewer from the commercial, industrial and institutional sectors.Contaminants from these business sectors pose significant risk for adversely impacting theenvironment, infrastructure, treatment processes, health & safety of workers, and quality ofbiosolids. Codes of Practice set out minimum waste treatment, equipment maintenance andrecord keeping requirements for various operations.

Implementation of Codes of Practice for Dental operations and for Photo Imaging operationsoccurred in June/July 2009.

The proposed Codes of Practice for Automotive operations, Vehicle Wash operations and DryCleaning operations were developed in 2010 and are estimated for implementation into eachperspective sewer use bylaw for July 2011 pending review and adoption by each council.

ANALYSIS

The proposed Codes of Practice are consistent with the practices and requirements in MetroVancouver, the Capital Regional District and other local governments. The following are thecontaminants of concern for each Code of Practice (business type) and the related concern:

$120 $27,360228

EstirnatedVostito inspecteact)tus'iness'

• Automotive Operations• Vehicle Wash Operations• Dry Cleaning Operations

NUMbeT ofEusiness

UMC Report No. 29 — 2011

Page 2 of 3 68

Business Type: Contaminant(s) of Concern:Detrimental impact & Related

Goal:

Automotive • Total suspended solids (TSS) • EnvironmentOperations • Oil & grease • Workers

• Heavy metals • i nfrastructure • Chlorinated solvents • Treatment processes

• Capital program• Biosolids

Vehicle Wash • Total suspended solids (TSS) • EnvironmentOperations • Oil & grease • Workers

• Heavy metals • infrastructure• pH (high levels of • Treatment processes

acidity/alkalinity) • Capital program• Biosolids

Dry Cleaning • Tetrachloroethylene (PERC) • EnvironmentOperations • Petroleum based solvents • Workers

• Treatment processes

Businesses operating under a Code of Practice are inspected by Source Control staff to ensureeach business is operating within the minimum requirements of the code. If a discharger persistsin grievous contraventions, the Sewer Use Bylaw allows municipalities to fine and /or disconnectthe sewer service.

Benefits and Costs

The primary benefits associated with the proposed codes of practice are associated with thebeneficial end-use of biosolids, environmental impact, improved heath & safety of workers,treatment plant process stability and ensuring that the plant runs efficiently so that capitalupgrades are delayed as long as possible.

Costs to automobile and dry cleaning businesses may occur from the purchase, installation andmaintenance of treatment equipment required under the code. The associated costs areestimated at $6000 to $15,000. A five-year phase in period is proposed for those businessesrequiring treatment equipment.

Dry cleaning operations using tetrachloroethylene in their process are required under theCanadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA 1999) to have the required equipmentinstalled.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Currently the Contaminant Source Control Program is funded from the utility rates through theJAMES Plant Operations budget so there are no financial implications to either municipality.

The following table summarizes the annual estimated operation costs associated with theproposed codes of practice:

69UMC Report No. 29 — 2011

Paae 3 of 3

COMMUNICATIONS PLAN

Stakeholder/Public Presentation (See Appendix A for Summary of Presentation) andConsultation meetings will be held in each municipality. Invitations will be sent to all businessesthat may be impacted by the proposed codes of practice. Notices will also be advertised innewspapers(s) that are distributed in each municipality.

Results of the stakeholder/public consultation meetings will be reported back to the WSC.

SUMMARY

It is recommended that staff present the proposed Sewer Use Bylaw Codes of Practice atstakeholder/public consultation meetings in Mission and Abbotsford and report the commentsback to the WSC.

Len Stein, A.ScDirector of itylaperations

Jim Gordon, P.EngGeneral Manager, ngineering & Regional Utilities

JoeVurzingerVC —Tech7,7`-Utility Environment Manager

Appendix A — Presentation Summary ..AbbotsfordMission

70

PURPOSE OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO SEWER USE BYLAW

The JAMES Plant and the municipal sewer collection systems are intended to convey and treat water and organicloadings found in household sewage. However, these systems are resilient enough to handle low levels of a broadrange of contaminants from various types of industrial, commercial and institutional discharges, with a limit. Ascontaminant levels increase in sewage the risk for adversely impacting the environment, infrastructure, treatmentplant processes, health, safety and biosolids also increases.

GOALS OF PROPOSED CHANGES

The proposed changes to the sewer use bylaw will put into place tools to better protect:

• Environment• Sewer Workers & Public• Sewer infrastructure• Treatment Plant Processes• Quality of Biosolids• Management of Capital Program

GENERAL PROPOSED CHANGES TO BYLAW

• Addition of Code of Practice for Automotive Operations• Addition of Code of Practice for Vehicle Wash Operations• Addition of Code of Practice for Dry Cleaning Operations

REASONS FOR PROPOSED CHANGES

The proposed Sewer Use Bylaw changes include Prohibited and Restricted Wastes that are typically not inhousehold sewage. The contaminant/waste schedule prioritization was determined through a risk assessment ofthese Prohibited or Restricted Wastes. Highest risk contaminants were focused on first, and as a result, thefollowing business types were identified as the high-risk dischargers:

Business Type: Contaminant(s) of Concern: Detrimental Impact & Related Goal:

Automotive Operations • Total suspended solids (TSS)• Oil & grease• Heavy metals• Chlorinated solvents

••••

EnvironmentWorkersInfrastructureTreatment processes

• Capital program• Biosolids

Vehicle Wash • Total suspended solids (TSS) • EnvironmentOperations • Oil & grease • Workers

• Heavy metals • infrastructure• pH (high levels of • Treatment processes

acidity/alkalinity) • Capital program• Biosolids

Dry Cleaning Operations • Tetrachloroethylene (PERC) • Environment• Petroleum based solvents • Workers

• Treatment processes

71

MDISTRI CT OF 4,,.4

lsslonON THE FRASER

Finance DepartmentMemorandum

File Category:

FIN.LOA.VAGFile Folder:

Investment Information

To: Chief Administrative Office

From: Deputy Director of FinanceDate: February 4, 2011

Subject: Annual Investment Performance Report

ReportPer the District's Investment Policy FIN.20, staff are required to report to council on the District'sinvestment holdings on a quarterly basis, and annually on the performance of the overall investmentportfolio.

The following table summarizes the District's investment holdings and performance as at December 31,2010. It is important to note that the District's portfolio balances vary throughout the year to meet cashflow requirements.

2010 AveragePortfolio Balance 2010 Investment

Investment

as at Dec. 31, 2010

Earnings Return

MFA Short-Term Bond Fund $13,238,888 $395,823 3.71%MFA Intermediate Fund 20,641,031 213,018 1.19%MFA Money Market Fund 7,073,767 67,170 0.59%Total Investment Portfolio $40,953,686 $676,011 1.68%

In addition to the 2010 investment earnings noted above, there was approximately $24,500 of interestearned on the District's bank account during 2010.Finance department staff have implemented a new cash flow projection model, in order to align theduration of funds available for investment with the estimated cash flow needs according to the financialplan. This strategy, along with the diversification inherent in the MFA Pooled Investment Funds, allow forthe maximization of investment returns while minimizing risk.

Kris Boland, CGA

GAFINANCEInvestments\Memos\Annual Investment Performance Report 2010.docx

Page 1 of 1

72


ADM.COM .SEL.Mission Healthy Community Council 2011

TO: Chief Administrative Officer

FROM: Deputy Director of Corporate Administration

DATE: March 4, 2011

SUBJECT: SMOKING CESSATION — "QUITINOW"

BACKGROUND:

At the November 15, 2011 council meeting, council passed the following resolution:

"That staff provide a report with options regarding:

(a) the possibility of a council proclamation of January 7 through February 4, 2011 as"QuitNow Month";

(b) how to publicize the QuitNow program within District facilities and to District staff;

(c) the possibility of an internal contest to encourage District staff to stop smoking; and

(d) the possibility of discounts or enhanced access to the leisure centre for registeredcontestants of the QuitNow program."

Initially, staff contacted Ron Plowright from Fraser Health to discuss the program and get copiesof literature promoting the program. He sent brochures and posters which were forwardedthroughout the municipal buildings for the public to access.

Unfortunately we missed proclaiming January 7 to February 4, 2011 as "QuitNow Month".

To publicize the QuitNow program internally, staff inserted into the employee's pay chequeenvelopes information about the program. (see attached). This information was also sent outthrough our email system.

Council had asked staff to look into the possibility of an internal contest to encourage Districtstaff to stop smoking. Based on the number of staff who currently smoke (approximately 24 outof 260 the QUITNOW initiative is a very effective program and I do not think that District couldpromote a better initiative internally.

Staff reviewed the possibility of discounts or enhanced access to the leisure centre forregistered contestants of the QuitNow program and several issues arose such as how could wereceive information on the Mission QuitNow participants without violating privacy rights, as well,the logistics of managing this kind of program would require additional staff time and funding.Staff are recommending that no further action be taken on this program this year and that nextyear should a no smoking initiative be planned by Fraser Health, that staff work with them topromote it within the District of Mission again.

g:tclerktonfidential \kelly12011 \reports to counciltregulanquitnow.doc

PAGE 1 OF 1

QuitNow & WIN a Smoke-Free Life!

With more than $20,000 in prizes, a 24/7 network of online and telephone support and awhole community of people providing advice and encouragement, the 3rd Annual QuitNow &WIN contest is a great way to motivate BC smokers to commit to quit.

How it works in 3 easy steps

Step 1: Find a quit buddy to provide encouragement and support during your quit.Step 2: Enter the contest before 11:59 p.m. PST on January 7, 2011.Step 3: Commit to remain tobacco-free from January 8 thru February 4, 2011.

Contest entry methods

1. Complete our online entry form2. Call 1.877-455-22333. Download a hard copy of the contest entry form and fax it to 604.731.5810 or mail it to

(postmarked no later than January 7, 2011) QuitNow & WIN Contest c/o BC LungAssociation, 2675 Oak Street, Vancouver, BC V6H 2K2

Maximize your chances to win weekly CASH PRIZES MI

The earlier you enter, the greater your chances of winning early bird weekly cash prizedraws of $500 during the registration period of October 22 to January 7, 2011.Remain tobacco free from January 8 to February 4 th , 2011 and you could win one of three$1,000 weekly cash prize draws as well as the GRAND PRIZE of $5,000 or one of five$1,000 cash regional prizes! (Note: every contest period winner's buddy also receives a$200 cash buddy prize). Check out Prizes for more details.

Use support tools to double your chances of a successful quit!

Read more in the FAQ, contest rules and prizes sections.

Organized by the BC Lung Association through grant funding by the Ministry of Healthy Livingand Sport. Prizes are donated by McNeil Consumer Healthcare.

FRASER HEALTH REGION

14.9 per cent of people in the Fraser region (181,850) smoke cigarettes.20.5 per cent smoking rate (43,475) in Fraser East14.0 per cent smoking rate (64,811) in Fraser North13.5 per cent smoking rate (73,564) in Fraser South

Quit Attempts

80,462 smokers in the Fraser region tried to quit in 2008Nearly half of the smoking population (45.1 per cent) tried to quit

73

FAQsWho is eligible?

Contest entrants may quit tobacco any time on or after May 1, 2010 but must be tobacco-free fromJanuary 8, 2011 through and including February 4, 2011 in order to be eligible for a prize.

To be eligible the following criteria must apply:

• be a resident of BC 19 years or older by January 7, 2011;• be current tobacco users (cigarettes, cigars, pipes, chewing tobacco) for at least one year prior

to their most recent quit date between May 1, 2010 and January 7, 2011;• Register yourself and a support buddy who supports your quit;• Remain tobacco-free for the contest quit period January 8th through and including February 4,

2011• Limit one entry per person/email address regardless of method of entry.Read Contest Rules for further details.

Am I eligible if I quit before the start of the contest?

Yes. You may have quit using tobacco anytime on or after May 1, 2010. To be eligible for theQuitNow & WIN prizes you must remain tobacco-free (at a minimum) from January 8, 2011 throughand including February 4, 2011, and then until the prizes are awarded and announced.

Do I have to use QuitNow Services to participate?

No, you do not. However, QuitNow By Phone 1-877-455-2233 AND QuitNow Online are free supportservices that will increase your chances of quitting successfully.

Can I use Nicotine Replacement Therapy, including nicotine gum, patch, and lozenges and inhalerduring the Contest?

Yes, using a quit smoking medication can reduce nicotine cravings and greatly help some people quit.If you choose to use the patch, gum, inhaler or lozenge, it may show up in the urine test; so the use ofa carbon monoxide breathalyzer test will be used as a back up. We encourage people to use themedications they need to help them quit. Talking with your health care professional can help find thebest option for you. For information on nicotine replacement therapies, download this stop smokingmedications guide.

What products are considered tobacco for this contest?

Contest participants must quit and stay quit from any tobacco product for the four week contest.Tobacco products include, but are not limited to: cigarettes, cigars, loose leaf tobacco, chewingtobacco, and cigarillos. Those who use tobacco for ceremonial purposes will have specialconsideration by contest organizers. (See question below on ceremonial use of tobacco)

What is policy regarding ceremonial use of tobacco?

The ceremonial use of tobacco by the First Nations populations will have special consideration bycontest organizers. There are a number of steps within the verification process that will mitigate thisissue.

74

Planning DepartmentMemorandum

75

FILE: PRO.DEV.DEVDV10-017


From: Planning Technician

Date: March 21, 2011

Subject: Development Variance Permit Application DV10-017 (Easton) — 8254Manson Street

Recommendation

That Development Variance Permit application DV10-017, in the name of Mary and BradEaston, to vary District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009, Section 501 Urban ResidentialZones C. 1. Lot Depth by reducing the minimum required lot depth for proposed Lot B from 30metres (98.42 ft.) to 23 metres (75.45 ft.), on the property located at 8254 Manson Street andlegally described as:Parcel Identifier: 005-312-507 Lot 20 District Lot 6 Group 3 New Westminster District Plan21684be forwarded to Council for consideration of approval on March 21, 2011.

Summary of Proposal

The applicant is proposing to subdivide the property located at 8254 Manson Street (Map 1) intotwo (2) lots under the existing R930 zone. The minimum lot area for the R930 zone is 930square metres (10,010 sq. ft.). Proposed Lot A is approximately 1,009 square metres (10,861sq. ft.) and proposed Lot B is approximately 1,156 square metres (12,443 sq. ft.). The draft planis attached as Appendix 1.

Site Description

The subject property is located in Hatzic on the east side of Manson Street within a residentiallydeveloped area. The vacant 0.23 hectare (0.57 ac.) exhibits several changes in elevationthroughout the property with the majority of the property sloping south. The proposed panhandledriveway to Lot B requires the building of a retaining wall. To ensure the quality of thisdevelopment complements the existing neighbourhood, the applicant has volunteered to installa decorative rock wall along the perimeter of the panhandle driveway to provide an attractiveaesthetic feature for this development.A watercourse located in the southwest corner of the property has been assessed by ScottResources Services as a seepage headwater to an unnamed tributary of the Fraser River. Theseepage headwater does not meet the definitions of a stream in the Zoning Bylaw because itdoes not provide a significant source of food, nutrients or base-flow to downstream fish habitat;therefore, the headwater seepage will not require protection with a streamside enhancementand protection area (SPEA).Scott Resource Services has recommended that a hydrologist assess the stability of the slopearound the seepage area and make recommendations for site drainage. Along with treemanagement, the need for a hydrologist report will be considered as part of the subdivisionprocess.

PAGE 1 OF 4

Official Community Plan

The subject property is designated Urban Residential in the Official Community Plan. OCPPolicy 2.3 HOUSING CHOICE AND QUALITY states in part:

It is important to plan for future growth in designated urban areas to prevent incrementaldevelopment; it is equally important to encourage compatible intensification ofdeveloped areas in order to take advantage of existing service capacity, createsustainable densities, and to reduce the pressure on the urban edge. The urbanresidential fabric should reflect a mix of residential densities and integratedneighbourhoods, which provide for a healthy, diverse, complete community.

It is noted that the proposed lots will be serviced by municipal water, storm and sanitary sewer.In order to achieve the OCP's objectives for compatible intensification of developed areas,flexibility with lot configuration is required for this development.

Public Input

Notices were mailed to neighbouring residents and property owners as per District of Mission'sLand Use Application Procedures and Fees Bylaw. No written comments were receivedregarding the proposed development variance permit application; however, two verbal inquirieswere received with general questions about the subdivision proposal.

Planning Analysis

The R930 zone stipulates a minimum lot depth of 30 metres (98.42 ft.). In order to facilitate thesubdivision of this property, a variance to reduce the lot depth of proposed Lot B is required.Staff supports this variance because:

• the existing lot configuration of the parent property does not allow for subdivision with lotsmeeting bylaw requirements;

• the infrastructure and services are in place to accommodate this infill development;

• options to coordinate development with adjacent properties is no longer possible given fullbuild-out of the neighbourhood; and

• approval of the two lot subdivision would support OCP objectives for compatibleintensification of developed areas.

Summary

Staff supports the proposed variance and recommends that the application be forwarded toCouncil for consideration of approval on March 21, 2011.

e,„Donn -Le akesGACOMDEV \DONNA-LEE \COW REPORTS \2011 REPORTSTV10-017 (EASTON) 8254 MANSON ST 2011-03-21 COW.DOCX

FILE: PRO.DEV.DEV PAGE 2 OF 4DV10-017

76

MAP 134538

34725

DEWDNEY TRUNK RD

FENMO PL14 8250tt) o ti

co p.

-a- ..-1

Zr 8240 cn 5

.8219 41 8226 to to-4r) ":,1--- N.tzr34695 34721 co c.)

3460334607346153462334631 (GORDON PL)3463534643346513466334675

34743

PAKENHAM8130 34750 34755

34759

34763 8141

8136

8126

8114

FERGUSON AVE.

34508

8099

8087

807534658 8069

8063

FILE: PRO.DEV.DEV PAGE 3 OF 4DV10-017

77

79

M DISTRICT OF

issionON THE FRASER

PLANNING DEPARTMENT

FILE: PRO.DEV.DEVDV -I 0-017March 3, 2011

Dear Owner/Occupant:Re: Development Variance Permit Application DV10-017 (Easton) — 8254 Manson

StreetThe District of Mission planning department has received a Development Variance Permitapplication from Mary and Brad Easton to vary District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009,Section 501 Urban Residential Zones C. 1. Lot Depth, for the property located at 8254 MansonStreet (see Map 1).The purpose of the Development Variance Permit is to reduce the minimum required lot depthfor proposed Lot B from 30 metres (98.42 ft.) to 23 metres (75.45 ft.) in a proposed 2-lotsubdivision.It should be noted that this application has not gone to Council and is at a very preliminarystage. As such, different aspects of the proposal may change as the application proceedsthrough the review process.If you have any comments regarding the application please contact Donna-Lee Lakes via mail,email diakesmission.ca or by telephone (604) 820-3790.

This preliminary notice provides you an opportunity to express your opinion about theapplication early in the land development review process. Your concerns and comments will beused in reviewing and evaluating the development variance permit application. Concerns andcomments may also be included in the report to Council prepared by the planning departmentalthough individuals will not be identified in this report. Please note that your comments mustbe received by March 14, 2011.Please note that due to the volume of responses that could be received, staff will be unable toprovide written responses to you regarding your comments or concerns.

District of Mission Council will consider this application for approval at the March 21, 2011Regular Council meeting.

Yours truly

Sharon FletcherDIRECTOR OF PLANNING

Encl.

GACOMDEVCORRESPDV10-017 Owner Occupant lir 2011-03-03.docx

P.O. Box 20, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, B.C. \QV 419Phone (604) 820-3748 Fax (604) 826-795 & (604) 820-37 I 5 Web Site: www.mission.ca E-mail: [email protected]

District of Mission MemoFILE: PRO.DEV.TEM.TP11-002


From: Planner


Subject: Temporary Commercial Use Permit Application TP11-002 (676517 B.C. Limited) —32818 7th Avenue, Mission BC

Recommendation

1. That Council forward Temporary Commercial Use Permit TP11-002 (676517 B.C. Limited) for theproperties located at 32818 7th Avenue to a Public Input Meeting on March 28, 2011 and beconsidered for approval after the Public Input Meeting on March 28, 2011.

Summary of Application

An application has been received from 676517 B.C. Limited (Ali Shamei) for a Temporary CommercialUse Permit (TCUP) in order to operate a multi-tenant commercial complex within the existing buildinglocated at 32818 r Avenue (Map 1).

The applicant wishes to renovate the building, commonly referred to as 'the old courthouse', tooperate a commercial venture within the building that will support local and small business enterprise.Each room within the building will function as a separate business; effectually, each business willprovide their own services while utilizing cost savings through a common bathroom facility and anequitable share of upkeep costs. This business proposal will keep the overhead costs of smallbusiness to a minimum which may aid in the overall success of small or start-up businesses within thebuilding. This is similar to a business incubation model which is a proven economic developmentdriver that assists small and new start-up businesses. The applicant envisions that each storey willspecialize and target a certain segment of the population. The top storey will have on or two eatingestablishments, middle storey will provide for personal services (i.e. hair salon, accounting services,aesthetician etc.) and the bottom floor will provide for chiropractic and physiotherapy services.

A surveyed site plan demarcating the location of the building on the site can be seen on Plan 1 whilethe elevation drawings of the proposed exterior improvements can be seen on Appendix II. Theapplicant plans on completing exterior renovations as part of the TCUP while the particulars of theinterior improvements will be done by the tenants once lease agreements have been signed. Theapplicant envisions that there will likely be 5-10 separate small businesses operating from the building.Given that the applicant is unsure of the square footage needs of prospective tenants, the exactnumber of separate small business occupants is undetermined at this time.

The applicant wishes to obtain a TCUP in the interim and then apply for a proper rezoning in two tothree years which would allow the proposed use to continue in perpetuity. Ultimately, the applicantwishes to provide considerable façade improvements as part of a future rezoning and developmentpermit applications (See future improvements in Appendix Ill). In the interim, minor façadeimprovements will improve the appearance of the building while business activity in the building willprovide 'life' to a site that has been neglected for a number of years.

80

PAGE 1 OF 14

Background

The applicant had initially approached the planning department through the pre-developmentapplication review process in order to rezone the site to provide for the commercial venture. Theapplicant ultimately wishes to rezone the site to allow the business proposal to operate in perpetuity.In the interim, the applicant wishes to obtain a TCUP to begin operations for a term of three (3) years.This three year period will afford the applicant time to lease the space to garner monies for futureexterior improvements and this period will also offer the District of Mission time to monitor aspects ofthe development that may need addressing as part of rezoning application within three years' time(such as parking, vehicular access, business hours etc.).

Official Community Plan (OCP)

The subject property and a number of sites to the north are designated as Commercial. The OCPenvisions this area to provide a small commercial node between Cedar Valley to the north and thecommercial centres at the bottom of the Cedar Valley Connector. This commercial node is intended toserve the local neighbourhood while also providing services for the larger immediate area. Therefore,given the Commercial designation of the site and the surrounding area, the proposed uses permittedby the Temporary Commercial Use Permit are supported by the OCP (Map 2).

Zoning

The subject property is zoned Residential Two Unit Zone (RT465) which is a low density multiplefamily zone which only permits residential uses. The previous uses on the site, as the Department ofMotor Vehicles and the District Courthouse, were non-conforming to the RT465 zone; therefore, anyuses other than residential uses on the site require a proper rezoning to the intended use or issuanceof a temporary use permit. The applicant wishes to obtain a Temporary Commercial Use Permit in theinterim prior to applying for a rezoning in two to three years.

The development site is generally surrounded by Multiple Family zones and the gas station across 7 th

Avenue is commercially zoned (Map 3).

Development Property Characteristics

The overall site is comprised of four (4) legal lots; however the application does not involve the mosteasterly lot. The most western property is 239 sq. metres (2572 sq. ft) while the two other larger lotsunder application are 910 sq. metres (9795 sq. ft.) for a total of 2059 sq. metres (22,162 sq. ft.) site(Plan 1). The site has a considerable elevation change from a high plateau on the northern portion ofthe site, where the upper parking is located, down to the southern portion of the site which providesanother parking area (Map 4).

The property is located on the corner of 7th Avenue and the Cedar Connector. The site has three (3) ofaccess and egress points (Plan 1):

1. The laneway on the south of the site. This is currently a two way lane; however, only offersright-in and right-out movements from/onto the Cedar Connector.

2. Entrance/Egress point North-West of the existing building. This point only offers right-in andright-out movements from/onto the Cedar Connector.

3. Entrance/Egress point North-East of the existing building. This point is very narrow and cannotbe used for two way traffic.

FILE: PRO.DEV.TEM. PAGE 2 OF 14TP11-002

81

Existing Building Characteristics

The existing building has not received any interior or exterior maintenance in a number of years. Asdetermined by staff site visits, the building is structurally sound and contains only minimal fixtures thatare remnants of the previous tenants (i.e. fixed desks, jail cell, and courtroom). Each floor is slated tobe renovated in accordance with the individual needs of tenants that will occupy the separaterooms/spaces. The floor space of each floor is provided in the table below and the square footages ofeach floor will be divided up into individual business sites:

Basement 2660 sq.ft.Main Floor 2517 sq.ft.Upper Floor 2517 sq.ft.Total Floor Area 7694 sq.ft.

Building Design and TCUP Rationale

The elevation drawings of the proposed exterior renovations can be seen on Appendix I. Tosummarize the exterior improvements, the building is slated for an exterior paint job. The features andarticulation on the building will be highlighted in a dark brown colour which will contrast with a lighterbase of lighter brown (tan colour) for the rest of the building. The planning department was initially notsupportive of the proposed changes; however, the proposed improvements are interim while funds areraised for considerable improvements. The applicant has future plans to provide significantimprovements in the future (likely within 2 to 3 years) as part of a rezoning and development permitapplication that would allow the proposed use to continue in perpetuity. The future improvements willinclude rock façade and metalwork treatments, entrance way improvements, extensive landscaping,metal features, and lighting improvements. A sample of the proposed exterior improvements can beseen on Appendix II. The future improvements will be subject to OCP commercial developmentpermit area guidelines as part of a rezoning and development permit application. As the exteriorimprovements will provide for an improved appearance of the building in the interim, the planningdepartment supports the proposed exterior improvements.

Parking and Traffic Movement Requirements

The zoning bylaw requires that all new development provides adequate parking. The existing site has8 parking stalls within the northern parking lot while the southern parking lot has 13 stalls, for a total of21 stalls. The zoning bylaw requires an average of 3 stalls for each 100 square metres (1076 sq. ft.)of commercial space. As the interior of the building totals 7694 sq. ft. of space, this would require anew development to have a minimum of 21 stalls. Therefore, the existing parking configuration on sitewill provide for adequate parking for the development.

While parking is permitted on the sides of district roadways, there is no parking permitted on the CedarConnector or 7 th Avenue and the Traffic Bylaw does not permit parking within laneways. Any overflowparking will have to be located along the roadside of Maple Street.

Engineering Department

In order to improve traffic movements in and out of the site, The Engineering Department have anumber of requirements that must be achieved to ensure safe and efficient traffic movements (Pleasesee Plan 2):

A. On 7th Avenue, construct a concrete median east from the Cedar Street intersection to the westside of the Maple Street intersection;


82

B. Install a large 'no entrance' sign facing east on the north side of the lane near CedarConnector;

C. Install a curb and sidewalk on the western side of the northern parking lot next to the CedarConnector which effectively blocks in or out movements;

a Widen the existing driveway that accesses 7 th Avenue to permit two way movements ofvehicles through the driveway. This driveway improvement will require a new let-down andportion of sidewalk. Engineer design is required and must be inspected by the engineeringdepartment.

The proposed Temporary Commercial Use Permit is only valid for a period of three years. This periodof time will allow district staff sufficient time to monitor the traffic flows in the area during businesshours. As part of a rezoning application, which the applicant wishes to pursue in the future, theproposed parking changes may be re-evaluated at that time and possible major modifications (such aright hand turn lane on the Cedar Connector) can be addressed.

Fire Department

The application was forwarded to the District of Mission Fire/Rescue Service Department. IanFitzpatrick, Fire Chief, determined that the site has sufficient access for emergency vehicles and theproposed traffic improvements required by the engineering department would improve access to thesite.

Notification Requirements

As defined within the Local Government Act, the process for approving Temporary Permits hasspecific notification requirements. Upon receipt of a Temporary Industrial Use Permit application, theplanning department forwards an advertisement (notice) to the local newspaper, stating:

1 The purpose of the proposed permit;

2. The lands on which the permit is proposed;

3. The place, times and dates where the proposed permit may be viewed;

4. The date, time and place when the resolution will be considered; and that

5. The notice be published in a newspaper at least 3 and not more than 14 days beforethe adoption of the resolution to issue the permit.

In addition, contiguous neighbours are provided notice through individual letters that outline first (4)four points above. As required, all notification requirements have been met by planning staff asstipulated within the District of Mission Land Use Application Fees and Procedures Bylaw and theLocal Government Act.

In respect to Council conducting a Public Input Meeting, Council generally holds a public input meetingin order to gather public input on particular Temporary Use Permits (Commercial or Industrial). Thisallows the public to voice their concerns on permits that could possible affect their interest; however,there is no statutory requirement to do so.

Given that the development site is located in a very visible, busy and focal point along the CedarConnector, planning staff recommend, that the development proposal be forwarded to a Public Inputmeeting to allow residents to voice any concerns or comments.


83

Permit Conditions and Requirements

The permit outlines all permitted uses and conditions. The uses are limited to a number of serviceoriented uses. As required as a condition of issuance, a number of conditions must followed as part ofthe permit (a copy of the Temporary Commercial Use Permit can be seen in Schedule "A"). Mostimportantly prior to business operations begin, the applicant must:

• Complete construction of driveway improvements to the satisfaction of the planning andengineering department prior to any commercial business activity;

• Complete Exterior Renovations prior to any commercial business activity.

Recommendation

Given that the development site is located in a very visible, busy and focal point along the CedarConnector, planning staff recommend that the development proposal be forwarded to a Public Inputmeeting on March 28, 2011.

Erik Wilhelm

G:\COMDEV\ERIK\Working Development Planning Staff Reports\Ali Shamei_TP11-002.docx

84


O

tiCV

(0 0O4ts-CV CVC?)

0

if

0

7679

to

N-

ColCOCO

MAP 17725 CV I LO I LL

tococo O

CV

Lc-)

:Nr

0)COCs. I

7717 77167713 7720

7711 77107703 7696 7691 7690

328807697

7684 7687 . 76887687 7680

J14 7676 7681

7673 7674CC 7668

g■L7665 C:1 7665 7666

Lu 7662

zz76567657 7654

7651

7655

76507648 7643 7642

7642 7635 763432789 7624 7625 7624

7613 761632815

32833 7608

85

32729 32759

CO04 CV

I,- P..-CV CVco co

a

7th AVE

.cl. 4•0COC° C000COM

.4-to

CV Vc,0 CO

COCD

CON.

C°

CDCOCDCO LO

N- N-c‘ico

cv c‘ic," cr)

CVco

CVco

C \Ico

000

MCV

T—l0COCVCO

-,—COCOCVCO

0)COCONCO

0)1"--COCOCO

r...... r....,(0 1,—LO LOr... r....

7581

CO 007)

CVCO0.1

Ct)

7543

P-c)CO

C-)

AG E

GEDAR IAI°coCOCV

COCO

C SUBJECT PROPERTIESCC.

r

N(NICC) 7531

7533

cs4a •


"Im 111111111111111111 11111

iris

Map 3Zoning Map

1111.771211 11111101111,SISHIKAZEIECT 1.1116111

11111114111 1111111111111 kur r11121111/e Th

CRANE AVE

111 Ind! • 1.1 111 "1111co

IN id Imam zEno -)Imo 0 arm 11.1.1

11.1 • .1 I I I 11116.1.1 378-1974

CD-6

MEM .IKI■

111111111

ROAD)

1FRONtA

C465 5TH AVE.

R558s

I E

C) IN MEPMilirlAVE II MIMI MEN

4TH AVE

w

w00ce „,CL

9

LL I-

89

Plan 1Site Plan

IR7TH AVENUE

L_ PLAN 82085

LANE


Plan 2Enaineerina Department: Traffic Movement Improvements

444'

moron- me s

Concrete Barrier from Cedar Connector to MapleStreet to be installed with proper signage

817E2

MIT .•05'. /40

WAS ,0;4..1 dii

1 a 7..L' tt .."4/,'

.." 4' 4" ak. canacjet 3'1 Cledirlf 1$. "..' II0 011-1103.27

_Ire, .,,S

T1'

4PO 01,4712-4A

Driveway enlargedto allow two way

movements

PC 0,-MPAIr

`No Entrance' sign facing east

PLAN 82085

rorn

4

90


91

SCHEDULE "A"COPY OF TEMPORORAY USE PERMIT

DISTRICT OF MISSIONTEMPORARY COMMERICAL USE PERMIT TP11-002

Issued to: 676517 B.C. Limited

(Owners as defined in the Local Government Act,hereinafter referred to as the Permittee)

Address: PO Box 20021, RPO StationMission, BC, V2V 7P8

1. This Temporary Commercial Use Permit (herein after referred to as a 'permit') is issued subject tocompliance with all of the Bylaws of the Municipality applicable thereto, except as specifically varied orsupplemented by this permit.

2. This permit applies to and only to those lands within the Municipality legally described below, and any and allbuildings, structures and development thereon:

• Parcel Identifier and Legal Description: 011-602-601 Lot 1, Section 21, Township 17, NewWestminster District Plan 332



3. The said lands are presently zoned RT465 (Residential Two Zone) pursuant to "District of Mission ZoningBylaw 5050-2009" as amended from time to time.

4. The uses permitted by this permit allows for the following principal uses and no others (as defined by"District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009" as amended from time to time):

• General Services Use• Eating Establishments• Bakery• Retail Store• Second Hand Store• Specialty Food Store• Administrative Office Use and General Office Use• Hair and Body Salon• Medical Clinic• Medical Offices (which includes Physiotherapy and Chiropractic Uses)• Spa• Barber Shop• Enclosed Storage (Accessory Use)

5. The allowable uses, outlined in number 4 of this permit, shall be permitted to be conducted on the said landsfor a maximum of three (3) years from the date of issuance of the permit and the use of the property for thatpurpose is subject to the following conditions:

• Business Hours are limited from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. for all uses other than Eating Establishment Uses;


• Business Hours are limited from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. for all Eating Establishment Uses;

• Upon expiry of this permit, the building must stop all business operations and either apply for Councilconsideration to renew the permit or apply for a rezoning and development permit;

• All business licenses issued for the occupants of the building will have expiry dates that will not exceedthe term of this permit;

• The applicant must install vehicular access improvements to the satisfaction of the planning andengineering department prior to any business operation or issuance of individual business licenses;

• The applicant must complete all exterior improvements to the satisfaction of the planning department asoutlined in the Schedule "A" which forms part of this permit prior to any business operation or issuanceof individual business licenses.

6. No other development or use on the land is authorized during the permitted term.

7. As the remaining building straddles existing lot lines, all necessary wheelchair access improvements may belocated anywhere on the said lands.

8. This permit shall lapse three (3) years after the date of issuance or upon breach of its terms or conditions.This permit is not a building permit.

AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION NO. passed by the Council on the day of , 20 .

IN WITNESS WHEREOF this Development Permit is hereby issued by the Municipality signed by the Mayor and

Director of Corporate Administration the day of

James Atebe,Mayor

Paul Gipps,Deputy Chief Administrative Officer

Temporary Commercial Use Permit TP11-002


92

APPENDIX I

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS

FILE: TP11-002 March 16, 2011.

CIVIC ADDRESS: 32818 7th Avenue

The Engineering Department comments are hereby offered and only specific to a temporary use of theexisting building located at 32818 7th Avenue. If there are any requirements by the owner to theexisting municipal services such as but not limited to; water, sanitary and storm sewers, will beaddressed as a separate issue at a later date.

In order to improve traffic movements in and out of the site, the following requirements must beachieved to ensure safe and efficient traffic movements:

• Cedar ConnectorThe owner shall eliminate the most northerly access to this property and replace the existingcurb and driveway letdown with a yellow painted barrier curb and a sidewalk. Engineereddesign required.

• 7th AvenueWiden the existing driveway that accesses 7th Avenue to permit two way movements ofvehicles through the driveway. This driveway shall only be permit to right in and right outmovements. The driveway improvements will require a new let-down, see District of MissionStandard Drawing R-12. Engineer design is required.The owner shall construct a concrete median east from the Cedar Street intersection to thewest side of the Maple Street intersection. Engineered design required. The center medianshall be 1.0 meter wide complete with concrete median curb's as defined in standard drawingC6 of the Master Municipal Construction Document and fitted with flashing luminaire, a TAC —25 'Keep Right' sign, a Hazard sign and a No Left Turn sign opposite the driveway.

• Lane south of 7th AvenueInstall a large 'no entrance' sign facing east on the north side of the lane near Cedar Connector

FeesDESCRIPTION AMOUNT100% CONSTRUCTION DEPOSIT To be determined5% ADMINISTRATION FEE To be determinedHARMONIZED SALES TAX (HST) 12% To be determined


93

D D Design Ltd. NORTH ELEVATION

DESIGN • PLANNING • DRAFTING Appendix II 3242 BEVERLY CR. phone : 604-854-8175ABBOTSFORD, B.C. fax : 604 854 3125 FE:MARY 2010

94

95

fox : 604—B54-31253242 BEVERLY CR. phone : 604—B54—B175ABBOTSFORD, B.C.

D D Design Ltd.DESIGN • PLANNING • DRAFTING

SOUTH ELEVATION

Appendix IIContinued

FEBRUARY 2010

z

fox : 604—B54-31253242 BEVERLY CR. phone : 604-854-8175ABBOTSFORD, B.C.


YIEST ELEVATION

Appendix 11Continued

FEBRUARY 2010

96

fax : 604-854-31253242 BEVERLY CR. phone x 604-854-8175ABBOTSFORD, B.C.

97

D D Design Ltd.DESIGN • PLANNING DRAFTING

EAST ELEVATION

Appendix IIContinued

FE5RUARY 2010

z

11l01 , 311VIIIIIIIIIElltIld11110L11 Pr ii 1:11 1,1ilif!iilAlli. Id, INIIII !altjantil lgig:}INJ,MggiA, '614,12.;1111;i[;I:INNAIR

lit 1 iii 0

viv qiiirlieif tifhoi, '. ill

4 I , Iii

llo'i 4 ,

1 1 iidif. 1, A! )410),) ,li rl',mail,' imitrupo Al ia 9,4141:4 1 ,4 01 ,!PT II.i"."'Nrilli ''fIll'iil o I , ' lo01 qilli

Iii4 1 , I ii,

i , : p 11 1,1 11 ,11III 1

hi HillAl!Jill I

!ull fillik I li; 1 IIIII , fi 1 if 1.1

,1 11

illIk11,1i,I-IiIi

MC .1.',4,11MEN1 gilitliIII!!All:111;110,111241153t1E1111111111104111NE NI1F.:111 r.likklIU KIIIII,1!iltD11111hrHIL111?%11!JIMI!I „ 'Il !I ' IAill$

!III 1

11 11111i !ill IIIIII;11 111111ifi 1'1 111 ,1"11 !ii1)1;I I , iiic,iii i,111 If ill irt,,I ifil

lillif 0 11 11f11,1loll liJ^nill I !

1A.11!: V1 114i

fa.I t fl

Li

,HI I I 1\11

iiNignin"SEANAINSI', MIIIIVMINIONIIII. Aildilfliiild',M,VindiltliiIMP■ISSilitd■lif.iiIIIITIVAITIZII,VAtIlr,;;

rn

ioirtirlior"A JII,I I1 Iv11 1 'o llil i1 , 11, I, 11111Er''',0 „ iti 1,'1,h11 1 .0 111 1

igralai43fROVAIL I, RE7ITTNIM'AreiENShaiNniiMBITIltrelEt

edit tgilhi'eulIT',11111 ,141Jilltt

1 • E

III , W111 1111f11111

ill/ it ',t II .111

'411V,,T*110111,Id

D D Design Ltd.DESIGN PLANNING DRAFTING

3242 BEVERLY CR. phone . 604-854-8175ABBOTSFORD, B.C. 604-854-3125

PRELIMINARYFEBRUARY 2010

Appendix III

11,111!1410101,11VIAtIVIIIIIRIV,111■4111VV!illYli 41141'11n1101AZkil!RIM!1

SOUTH ELEVATION OPTION 112

98

99

fox : 604-654-3'253242 BEVERLY CR. phone : 604-854-8175ABBOTSFORD, B.C.

D D Design Ltd.PRELIMINARYFEBRUARY 2010

Appendix IIIContinued

EAST ELEVATION OPTION #2

DESIGN • PLANNING • DRAFTING

I1E ''10 li1.3102112.11i iglItlitilniti501:16 1

iiimi tilvillilif,„1 1114 il lo,1100 oit,o ,

LI il

1,00iiiiiilii11 11'411 1

hi ll Ill ii 0ti1101(1/ I'll ill ll1 '1 0 it API11

Si hill,III 1 1 41011

I , Si 1 ili, 11 ; Irl,mare,; rimpinsumn imonteffei Liam

III 1,11 11 1 1

8911111.90 t,litill

l ' 111

161

11111111,110iiii1111:11:

11 1111111 1 —110

,114VII IIIail

11 III

11014 1[115111"11111 Ir 11110 li r0 1111111011 11 11 1r01111A111111 ili119111r1111111111111 Psi

I it IrliP110"F rIPPF


3242 BEVERLY CR. phone : 604-855-8175ABBOTSFORD, B.C. fox : 604-854-3125

NEST ELEVATION OPTION *2

Appendix IIIPRELIMINARY Continued

FEBRUARY 2010

100

101

IMMEN11111711 11,111MMLEMISU

1111111814 11018111111 11 au 131g1g1111INIIIISIFt

D D Design Ltd.PRELIMINARYFEBRUARY 2010 •

Appendix IIIContinued3242 BEVERLY CR.

ABBOTSFORD. B.C.phone : 604-854-8175fox : 604-854-3125

'NEST ELEVATION,OPTION *2


t;126,12 121,11'64'MBO' 11'511

il, 11.IA

N➢ d1.1 )11 , 16MPri i , MILIOP1 INI I re— IIiitii Aril

Iliklillil iirilli

pir11 ,Iiri l t

.11 110 ,I , CII

1111Il l 'Illh i 1 1 1 It

011'1 10

th,111 I I

1,11Y 111111 , il101 1 11111

Ill iqdrkilf III M il irillf1D" '11110111:4111,11 E1/211.2%.141'

NORTH ELEVATION! OPTION P2

3242 BEVERLY CR. phone 604 - 854 -8175ABBOTSFORD, B.C. fox 604-854-3125


PRELIMINARYFEBRUARY 2010

Appendix IIIContinued

102

misIsTsionOF ,5,4•10ON THE FRASER

Engineering and Public WorksMemorandum

103

File Category: INF.ENV.GREFile Folder: Corporate Energy Manager


From: Mike Younie, Manager of Environmental Services


Subject: BC Hydro Sponsorship of a Shared Energy Manager Between Mission PublicSchools and the District of Mission

Recommendation

1. That, should BC Hydro confirm full funding for the 2011-2012 year, the District renew theagreement with Mission Public Schools and BC Hydro to engage the services of an EnergyManager who will be under contract to Mission Public Schools, but who will also assist the Districtwith improving energy efficiency throughout the organization and community.

Background

BC Hydro presented the District with an opportunity to participate in the Energy Manager (EM) programin 2009. The program provides 100% funding support (up to a maximum of $100,000) for salary andbenefits to school districts and 50% funding support for local governments to engage an EM. Givenfunding issues, District staff did not pursue an EM for the District alone but did discuss the option ofsharing one with Mission Public Schools. As a result, Mission was chosen as a provincial pilot where BCHydro supplied 100% funding but the Energy Manager was shared between the school district andmunicipality.

Mark Heieis has been working in the position of Energy Manager for the last year and would like tocontinue. Mark has worked on several projects including completing energy assessments on fourmunicipal buildings, energy conservation awareness and furthering the District's commitment tosustainability. BC Hydro has indicated that they would like to continue with the shared Energy Managerfor an additional year and is working on preparing the extension.

In 2011-2012, Mark will focus his efforts on implementing energy efficiency improvements withinmunicipal buildings, completing the Community Energy and Emissions Plan and furthering thesustainability initiatives that were recently supported by Council. Staff recommends that, should BCHydro fully fund the Energy Manager position, that the District extend the current agreement with MissionPublic Schools.

Mike YounieManager of Environmental ServicesF:\ENGINEER\Environmental Services\MYOUNIE\Memos\BC Hydro EM Mar 2011.doc

Page 1 of 1


104

File Category: INF.ENV.GREFile Folder: Community GHG Emissions


From: Manager of Environmental Services


Subject: Community Energy and Emissions Plan (CEEP) Initiation

Recommendation

1. That Council appoint one Councillor or the Mayor and an alternate to sit on the CEEP task force.

Background

Council supported the idea of completing a Community Energy and Emissions Plan (CEEP) at theirDecember 7, 2009 meeting. The District's share of the funding ($7,500) was confirmed last summer andis coming from the Environmental Charter implementation funds. Funding from the Federation ofCanadian Municipalities ($32,500) and from BC Hydro ($30,000) has now been secured.

The District issued a RFP to complete the project and received two responses. The successfulproponent is Stantec and will commence work on the project shortly. The CEEP will present acomprehensive long term framework to achieve reductions in the use of energy, including electricity, andto reduce greenhouse gas emissions within the District of Mission. The CEEP will be integrated into allother municipal planning and infrastructure strategies (e.g. Environmental Charter, Official CommunityPlans, local area and neighbourhood plans, infrastructure plans, Economic Development Strategy, SocialDevelopment Plan, etc).

The plan will be developed with the assistance of a task force and input from the community throughsurveys and open houses. At this time, staff has identified several members of the community that arewilling to sit on the task force and are requesting that one local elected official, with one alternate,participate on the task force. The committee will meet approximately 3 times over the next 4 months toensure that the values and the priorities of the community are fully captured in the CEEP.

Mike YounieManager of Environmental ServicesF:\ENGINEER\Environmental Services\MYOUNIE\Memos\CEEP Initiation.doc

Page 1 of 2

M DISTRICT OFMissionON THE FRASER

Responsibilities

COMMUNITY ENERGY & EMISSIONS PLANTask Force Invitation and Terms ofReference

105

Background

The District of Mission is committed to building a sustainable community and has already made progresson a number of fronts, including: establishing greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets for localgovernment operations and for the community as a whole; hiring an Energy Manager in partnershipwith the School District and BC Hydro; signing the BC Climate Action Charter, and; developing aCorporate Energy Action Plan (to name a few).

Building on this momentum, the District has recently initiatedihe development of a Community Energyand Emissions Plan (CEEP). The CEEP will be a high-level, long term plan that sets clear energy and GHGemissions-related priorities for the community and defines overall goals and strategic direction againstan established baseline. The District of Mission is taking a collaborative approach and inviting municipalstaff, key stakeholders, and the general public to parfiCipate in and contribute to the CEEPdevelopment process. The intent is to create a plan with broad support that reflects our values, needsand goals as a community.

CEEP Task Force

At this time we are inviting key stakeholders from the community qi.e. representatives from localorganizations and businesses) to join the CEEP Task Force.

Role

The Task Force will play arradvisory role in CEEP development, supporting the District in developing aplan that reflects the valties and priorities of the community. The Task Force will largely be made up oflocal stakeholders with local:interests. A limited number of representatives from organizations outside ofMission may also be invited to participate on the Task Force, where appropriate.

Members of the Task Force are expected .to consistently attend and provide input at three meetingsduring the CEEP development process. The meetings are outlined as follows:

• Meeting #1: A half-day workshop to discuss opportunities and challenges with respect toreducing energy demand and GHG emissions in the community; identify a long-term vision andkey areas for action, and; establish goals for the plan.

• Meeting #2: A full-day workshop to review and refine strategies and actions for the CEEP;develop reduction scenarios for the community, and; identify CEEP implementationrequirements.

• Meeting #3: A 2-hour meeting to review the draft CEEP and provide feedback prior to it beingpresented to Council and the general public.

If you are interested in joining the CEEP Task Force, please reply by April 1, 2011 to:

Michael Younie, M.Sc., P.Ag., P.Geo.Manager of Environmental ServicesDistrict of Mission604-820-3798myouniemission.ca

For more information, please visit our website:

www.mission.ca/CEEP

Page 2 of 2


106

File Category:

INF.ENV.GREFile Folder:

Corporate Greenhouse Gas Emissions


From: Mark Heieis, Manager of Sustainability and EnergyMike Younie, Manager of Environmental Services


Subject: Results of Energy Efficiency and Lighting Studies

Recommendations:

1. That staff prepare a Request for Pre-qualification to identify suitable companies capable ofdesigning and constructing the recommended mechanical energy efficiency improvements to theMission Leisure Centre.

2. That staff prepare a Request for Pre-qualification to identify suitable companies capable ofdesigning and constructing the recommended lighting efficiency improvements to the MissionLeisure Centre, City Hall, RCMP and Firehall #1 facilities.

Background

The District of Mission signed the B.C. Climate Action Charter in October 2007, which recognizes theneed to take action on climate change. The Climate Action Charter sets a goal of local governmentsbecoming carbon neutral in respect of their corporate operations by 2012. The District is committed totaking action through a number of recommended actions to reduce corporate and community greenhousegas (GHG) emissions. These include the setting of GHG reduction targets and attaining those targets.

The OCP was recently amended to include a reduction target for corporate GHG emissions of 10% below2008 levels by December 31, 2015. Community GHG emissions reduction targets of 20% below 2007levels by December 31, 2020 and 80% below 2008 levels by 2050 were also set in the OCP.

Page 1 of 7

Fleet (12,770 G4 17% 77, General Facilities (13,111 G.# 18%

Infrastructure (13,980 G4 19%

Leisure Centre (34,189 G4 46%

Fleet (883 tCO2e) 35%

Infrastructure (115 tCO2e) 5%Leisure Centre (1,107 tCO2e) 44%

Energy Cost (2009)General Facilities ($178,800) 15%

Fleet ($344,000) 28%

Infrastructure ($249,000) 2o%Leisure Centre ($455, 000) 37%

Figure 1: Corporate Energy Consumption, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Costs

Energy Consumption (2009)

Greenhouse Gas Emission (2009)

General Facilities (404 tCO2e) 16%

107

INF.ENV.GRE Page 2 of 7CORPORATE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

As part of the province's climate action initiatives, municipalities will be required to purchase carbonoffsets beginning in 2012 to reach carbon neutrality. The cost of offsets could range from $10 per tonne toas high as $25 per tonne of CO2 equivalent (tCO 2e) depending on the quality of offsets that the Districtpurchased. Given that the District of Mission's corporate emissions are approximately 2,500 tCO2e,purchasing carbon offsets could cost $62,500.

The District undertook an energy efficiency study at the Leisure Centre and lighting studies at the LeisureCentre, RCMP, Firehall #1 and City Hall in 2010. This report discusses the results of those studies andpresents a business case to proceed with implementing the recommendations. All studies were placed inCouncil's reading basket and the main findings are summarized below.

A summary of the District's corporate energy consumption, GHG emissions and costs are provided inFigure 1. The largest energy consumer, GHG producer and most expensive to operate is the LeisureCentre, followed by the District's fleet of vehicles.

Energy Efficiency and Lighting Studies

Four lighting energy management studies (RCMP, City Hall, Firehall #1 and Leisure Centre) and 1mechanical system energy management (Leisure Centre) study have been undertaken and completed bytwo consulting firms — SES Consulting (Leisure Centre mechanical study) and Quantum Lighting (lightingstudies). To date, the consulting fees total $23,363.62 with half being reimbursed by BC Hydro. Theremaining 50% may be reimbursed by BC Hydro on completion of the identified projects and on conditionthat the energy savings are realized. These studies did not address energy savings due to behaviouralchanges. Studies were not performed at the sports park, library or public works building, however, thesefacilities may be assessed in 2011.

Firehall #1 and City Hall

Energy savings projects have been defined and entail lighting redesign, installation of occupancysensors, and replacement of old technology lighting. The end result would be improved lighting, reducedelectricity consumption and reduced operating expenses. The internal lighting changes will also provide ahealthier working environment through correction of either over or under lit work areas. Although the BCBuilding Code does not specify lighting levels other than where safety is concerned, lighting levels willadhere to workplace I ghting standards such as CIBSE/SLL Lighting Guide 7 and Code for Lighting,BS/EN 12464, and ISO 8995.

RCMP

Although there are numerous electrical and mechanical energy savings opportunities to be had at thisfacility, the return on investment is not as attractive as the other projects. This is a result of the building'smetric "T-Bar" fixtures and the fact that replacements are either no longer available or very costly. Thereare external lighting issues for safety at the RCMP that form part of the recommendations. Significantmechanical upgrades should be considered as part of the review of this building that is currentlyunderway.

108


Leisure Centre

The mechanical energy efficiency study completed on this facility indicated that significant energy savingsand GHG emission reductions can be achieved. Several energy efficiency improvements arerecommended at the Leisure Centre and consist of mechanical equipment upgrades and controlupgrades. The mechanical equipment upgrades typically involve heat recapture such as capturing theheat that is exhausted from the pool area by the dehumidifier and putting this heat back into heating thewater. Similarly, heat removed from the ice rinks can be used to heat the water used by the ice cleanersand to heat the ice cleaner storage area.

Adjustments to existing controls and new controls will optimize the amount of heat reclaimed, minimizethe use of power during off hours and minimize the intake of outside air that requires heating. The reportauthors found that there is exceptionally high natural gas use in the Leisure Centre and that there areconsiderable savings to be realized.

Increased savings due to reduced maintenance costs can also be realized from these projects but havenot been included in the analysis. By addressing the Leisure Centre energy saving opportunities, theDistrict would significantly surpass its corporate GHG emission reduction target set in the OCP. Staff isrecommending that these improvements be undertaken.

Similarly, there are significant improvements in lighting at the Leisure Centre that will result in energysavings and improved, lighting conditions. For the most part, the lighting study recommended changing tomore energy efficient lights. Staff is recommending that the report's recommendations be implemented.

The study also recommended that a solar hot water project be considered for the Leisure Centre giventhe excellent exposure on the roof and the opportunity for the District to demonstrate leadership insustainability. The authors determined that 150m 2 of solar panels would cost approximately $240,000 butcould save $9,000 in energy costs and 32.5 tCO 2e although the return on investment would be 26.7years. At this point, staff has not included this project as it is likely to become more appealing within thenext 5 years as energy costs increase and technology improves.

Financial Implications

Table 1 provides a summary of capital costs, incentives, annual operational savings and return oninvestment information for the various projects.

BC Hydro is prepared to provide generous incentives to the District to complete all these projects. Whilethere is the option of completing one project at a time, the BC Hydro incentive is considerably more whenthe projects are lumped together ($260,000 vs $195,673). The net capital cost is estimated atapproximately $675,000 before any provincial or federal grants are obtained.

The incentives are based on the energy study reports completed to date and will be firmed up after thedetailed designs are complete. Incentives are based on actual energy savings and are supplied after thework is complete and monitoring has confirmed the savings. Even without incentives, the return oninvestment is attractive.


109

Table 1: Lighting and Mechanical Energy Improvements Cost, Energy Savings and GHG Emission Reductions

Project Estimated Capital CostReturn on

Investment(R01-years)

Estimated CapitalIncentives

NetCapitalCost

Return onInvestment(R01-years)

Annual Savings

Design Construction Total BC Hydro Terasen Energy GHG(tonnes)

CarbonCredits*

MLC -Mechanical $100,000 $605,500 $705,500 3.8 $134,242 $20,000 $551,258 3.0 $185,200 648.0 $16,200

MLC -Lighting $3,000 $114,428 $117,428 9.8 $48,072 0 $69,356 5.8 $12,007 3.4 $85

Fire Hall #1- Lighting $1,000 $7,670 $8,670 3.9 $3,793 0 $4,877 2.2 $2,250 0.5 $13

City Hall -Lighting $500 $20,308 $20,808 6.4 $9,566 0 $11,242 3.5 $3,258 1.0 $25

RCMP-Lighting $500 17,223 $17,723 11.4 0 0 $17,723 11.4 $1,557 0.3 $8

Owner'sEngineer $30,000 $11,682* $18,318

Total $105,000 $765,129 $900,129 4.4 $207,355 $20,000 $672,774 3.3 $204,272 653.2 $16,330

*This amount is the second 50% of the cost of the studies that could be returned should the work be completed.

Page 5 of 7

The mechanical efficiency improvements at the Leisure Centre would result in a greenhouse gasemissions reduction of approximately 650 tCO2e which would be a 26% reduction in corporate GHGemissions which far surpasses the OCP target of 10% by 2015.

Given the estimated operational savings in energy costs and the purchase of carbon offsets, the projectcould pay for itself in 3.3 years. Staff will continue to search for other grants and incentives to improvethe return on investment for the project.

Figure 2 provides a ten year forecast of Leisure Centre energy costs comparing the existing situationagainst the situation that would result from implementing this project. The comparison includes projectedBC Hydro electricity and natural gas rates and carbon offset costs. The figure suggests that up to $3Mcould be saved in energy costs over a ten year period and 6,953 tCO 2e of GHG emissions will not havebeen emitted into the atmosphere.

Figure 2: Leisure Centre historical and predicted energy costs

Mission Leisure CentreHistorical and Predicted Energy Costs, including Carbon Offset Cost

111

No energy systems change1,200,000

1,000,000

800,000

600,000-rnC.)

400,000

200.000Energy systems upgrade I Forecast assumption 5% annual

increase in energy cost

2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022

Year

Staff recommends that the entire project proceed but with some caution given the District's lack ofexperience with these types of projects. Staff would like to release a pre-qualification request toidentify companies that are capable of completing the detailed design and installation for the lightingand mechanical energy efficiency work. Following the pre-qualification, staff will prepare a follow-upmemo for Council recommending development of a RFP for each of the lighting and mechanicalimprovements as well as funding sources. Given the District's lack of experience, the subsequent

Page 6 of 7

memo will also recommend that an "owner's engineer" be retained to assist staff with developing andevaluating the Requests for Proposals and for overseeing the construction to ensure all elements ofthe design are met.

112

Mike Younie

Manager of Environmental Services

Mark Heieis

Manager of Sustainability and Energy


113

Engineering and Public WorksMemorandumM

DISTRICT OF

lsslonON THE FRASER

File Category:

PRO.PLA.CED.File Folder:

Environmental Management Plan


From: Environmental Coordinator

Date: March 16 th , 2011

Subject: Cedar Valley Environmental Management Plan — Fish Habitat Compensation

Recommendations

1. That up to $50,000 be spent on a restoration project for Gaudin Creek `A';

2. That funds are allocated from the Cedar Valley ESA Enhancements account and that the District'sFinancial Plan be amended accordingly.

Background

The District is signatory to the Cedar Valley Environmental Management Plan along with Fisheries andOceans Canada. The plan allows the District to collect $25/m 2 from developers for fish habitat that hasbeen identified to be removed for development. These funds are placed in the Cedar Valley ESAEnhancements account and are to be allocated to fish habitat compensation projects on an ongoingbasis. At the current time, there is approximately $108,750 in the account.

Following the identification of several possible compensation projects, a feasibility study to restore aportion of Gaudin Creek A that flows to the south of Greene Place west towards Tunbridge Park and thennorth to Tunbridge Avenue was conducted. The study suggested improvements to Areas A and C(a),however, Fisheries and Oceans staff felt that, since these areas had been part of a previous mitigationeffort, no compensation credits could be assigned. In contrast, Areas B and C(b) in Figure 1 were foundto be most suitable for restoration efforts as part of a compensation scheme. The property on TunbridgeAvenue (Area D, Figure 1) was acquired by the District after completion of the feasibility study, but wasfound to provide good' s opportunity for additional restoration activities, and therefore will form part of thecompensation.

Restoration activities will include complexing the stream channel by meandering, creating pools andplacing large woody debris, as well as planting native trees and shrubs in riparian areas.

The Cedar Valley Environmental Management Plan requires a total compensation area of 12.6 hectares.Being the first compensation project under the Environmental Management Plan, Areas B, C(b) and Dwill account for a total compensation credit of 0.45 hectares at a 1:1 ratio.

1

igure t - Restoration Areas

The budgeted amount of $50,000 for this compensation project represents an approximate cost of$111m2, which is well below the $25/m 2 paid by developers. However, the lower cost for this project willhelp to offset higher compensation costs which can be expected for future projects.

4/1/be,e4

Jennifer MeierEnvironmental Coordinator

Kris BolandDeputy Director of Finance

FAENGINEER\J Meier\Memos\Gaudin Creek A Restoration.docxCreek A Feasibility.doc

114

2

MDISTRICT OF


115

ON THE FRASER

File Category: PUB.DOM.LANFile Folder: Organics


From: Manager of Environmental Services


Subject: Cost Benefit Analysis of Part Time Woodwaste Inspector at the Landfill

BackgroundAt their January 10, 2011 regular meeting, Council requested that staff provide details regarding theaddition of a part-time woodwaste inspector to the landfill operations contract, including a cost/benefitanalysis of the wage. At that meeting, Council agreed to spend up to a maximum of $30,000 per year ona part time woodwaste inspector.

A properly run organics management program requires minimal contamination. A key component toensuring minimal contamination is the presence of a regular inspector to assist the general public withwhere to put their organic materials at the landfill. The inspector will also be expected to operatemachinery to build the woodwaste pile on a regular basis and to assist with other landfill managementtasks.

Financial ImplicationsThe landfill operator, SSG Holdings Ltd. pays this position $21.69 an hour which includes benefits. Amaximum of $30,000 would translate to approximately 4.5 hours per day for 6 days a week or somethingsimilar depending on what works best for the program.

Table 1 provides a summary of costs for carrying on with the status quo of landfilling woodwaste andfoodwaste versus implementing the organics management program. This table was included in aprevious memo regarding organics management that was presented to Council at their December 6,2010 regular council meeting. The table has been modified by adding the cost of the part time inspectorcompared to adding the cost of an additional fulltime inspector/labourer at the landfill under the currentmanagement scenario. The table has also been modified by using a rate of $40 per tonne forcomposting clean organics instead of $50 per tonne as was used previously. This is a result of thecomposting location now being confirmed at the landfill resulting in a cheaper processing price.

Without the organics management program, SSG Holdings Ltd. would insist on adding additional labour,fuel and equipment due to the large increase in annual refuse requiring disposal than what was requiredin 2005 when their contract was first signed. It is estimated that this cost would be at least $75,000 peryear.

The previous memo to Council included extra annual revenue from initiating a compost operation at thelandfill in the amount of $20,000 due to additional interest payments gained from delaying construction ofnew landfill cells. This item has been removed and is now listed below the table as the additionalrevenue is difficult to quantify as an annual increase in revenue. The increase is real when a new cell isdelayed but at this point in time the delay is not known and, in addition, it is impossible to know what theactual interest rate will be.

Page 1 of 3

Table 1 indicates that the cost of starting an organics management program at the landfill which includesdiverting woodwaste, increased foodwaste diversion and composting of appropriate materials isapproximately $20,000 more than current costs associated with burying all this material. Staff does feelthat the difficult to quantify benefits far outweigh this additional cost.

Table 1: Current and proposed costs associated with implementing an organics composting andwoodwaste diversion program.

Item Current (no composting offoodwaste)

Proposed (Transform compostingfoodwaste, greenwaste, clean lumber)

Notes

Rate/Tonne Tonnage Total Rate/Tonne Tonnage TotalCurbside yardand foodwastetipping fee @compostingfacility (CEI)

$38 1900 $72,200 $40 2900 $116,000 Assumes 1000 tonnes offoodwaste is divertedfrom garbage tocomposting

Cost totransportcurbsidefood/yard wasteto CEI

$7,500 0 $7500 would be saved, ifmaterials weretransported to Transformfacility or Mission Landfill.

FVRD solidwaste levy

$1.40 1000 $1,400 0 Diverting 1000 tonnes offoodwaste would save theburial levy for that amountto the FVRD. .

Landfillgreenwaste

$25 1300 $32,500 $40 1300 $52,000

Landfill cleanwood

$25 800 $20,000 $40 800 $32,000 Current rate reflects thecost of grinding, and doesnot take into account fullcost implications oflandfilling this material.

Landfillcontaminatedwood

$25 800 $20,000 $25 800 $20,000 Current rate reflects thecost of grinding, and doesnot take into account fullcost implications oflandfilling this material.

Part timewoodwasteinspector

$30,000

Additional 1fulltimeequivalentlandfill staff,fuel, equipmentetc

$75,000 Would have beenrequired iforganics/woodwastediversion notimplemented

Total $228,600 $250,000 Net Cost Increase:$21,400

There are numerous off-setting yet difficult to quantify factors which have not been included in the cost-benefit analysis including:

• Re-use, composting or burning of clean dimensional lumber is a better environmental use thanlandfilling.

• There will be a reduction in carbon emissions from less transportation resulting in less carbonoffsets to be purchased in the future.

116

PUB.DOM.LAN

Page 2 of 3Organics

• Fewer methane emissions from the landfill given the ability to actively promote foodwaste diversionfrom residential garbage. This will reduce community GHG emissions.

• Fewer organics in the garbage produces a less toxic landfill leachate.• Extending the life of the landfill will delay high costs in the future associated with finding a new

landfill or constructing a transfer station. Additional interest revenue will be realized during thedelay period for each new cell.

• Grinding contaminated dimensional lumber and using it in lieu of gravel as cover for garbage mayallow potential sale of commercial aggregate and it may also reduce leachate volumes by absorbingwater. Sale of gravel from the landfill would require a Mines Permit, negotiations with the IntegratedLand Management Bureau and rezoning.

• Fewer tonnes of garbage being disposed of and fewer methane emissions could result in theDistrict being able to sell carbon credits for a longer period or could result in a public-privatepartnership to offset capital costs of installing a landfill gas collection system.

Michael YounieManager of Environmental Services

I agree with the financial aspects of this report.

Kris BolandDeputy Director of Finance

FAENGINEEMEnvironmental Services\MYOUNIEMemos\Woodwaste Inspector Analysis.docx

117

PUB.DOM.LAN

Page 3 of 3Organics

MINUTES of the REGULAR MEETING of the COUNCIL of the DISTRICT OF MISSIONheld in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Hall, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission,British Columbia, on February 21, 2011 commencing at 6:30 p.m.

118

Council Members Present:

Staff Members Present:

1. PROCLAMATIONS

Mayor James AtebeCouncillor Terry GiddaCouncillor Paul HornCouncillor Danny PlecasCouncillor Mike ScudderCouncillor Jenny StevensCouncillor Heather Stewart

Glen Robertson, Chief Administrative OfficerPaul Gipps, Deputy Chief Administrative OfficerKelly Ridley, Deputy Director of Corporate AdministrationJennifer Russell, Legislative Assistant

RC11/096FEB. 21/11

March, 2011 as "Community Social Services Awareness Month"B.C. Government and Service Employees' Union, HospitalEmployees' Union, BC Division of Canadian Union of PublicEmployees BC, Health Sciences Association

Moved by Councillor Horn, seconded by Councillor Plecas, and

RESOLVED: That March 2011 be proclaimed as "Community Social Services AwarenessMonth" within the District of Mission; the District to assume no costs related thereto.

CARRIED

RC11/097FEB. 21/11

RC11/098FEB. 21/11


Council Recognition of Ron Plowright, Tracey Takahashi andAmanda Tesluk for contributing to the "Back to Health... for Good"event held on January 15, 2011

Mayor Atebe thanked Ron Plowright, Healthy living/Healthy community Specialist withFraser Health, Tracey Takahashi, Administrative Clerk, and Amanda Tesluk, ProgramCoordinator for their efforts in organizing the "Back to Health... for Good" event held at theLeisure Centre on January 15, 2011.

Mission Downtown Business AssociationRe: Recommendations from the Community Forum held on

October 19, 2010

Lyndon Balisky, president of the Mission Downtown Business Association, appearedbefore Council to provide an overview of the recommendations resulting from thecommunity forum that was held on October 19, 2010.

Dr. Balisky stated the community forum identified several issues and areas ofimprovement that would benefit the downtown area including:

119

Regular Council Meeting Page 2 of 15February 21, 2011

• expansion of the Ambassador Program or RCMP presence to increase safety andsecurity and decrease vandalism;

• increased parking enforcement to reduce the misuse of customer parking areas byemployees and commuters;

• possible increase of parking time limit from two hours to three hours;

• creation of and collaboration on a long-term vision and/or plan for the downtownarea;

• encouragement of new or renovated developments through zoning that allows forhigher densities and possible relaxation of height restrictions;

• reduction of the speed limit along First Avenue to 30 km/h to increase pedestriansafety;

• eventual creation of a bypass route for heavy trucks and dangerous goodstransport; and

• increased West Coast Express service.

RC11/099FEB. 21/11

Mayor Atebe thanked Dr. Balisky for the information.

Moved by Councillor Horn, seconded by Councillor Scudder, and

RESOLVED: That staff provide a report on the viability of the recommendations putforward by the Mission Downtown Business Association to improve the downtown area,and to notify the Association when that report will be presented to Council.

CARRIED

Ken Bjorgaard, Director of FinanceRe: Community Amenities Contribution

Sharon Fletcher, Director of Planning, and Ken Bjorgaard, Director of Finance, appearedbefore Council to present the following information to initiate the public process of thecommunity amenity project update:

• Community amenities are facilities or improvements that make a communitycomplete and are often needed as a community grows, such as parks, trails,libraries and sports fields.

• Municipalities seek community amenity contributions from developers to helpoffset the financial burden that new development imposes on a community.

• These contributions can be received from the development community throughvolunteering, density bonus zoning and comprehensive development zoning.

• A preliminary review showed that there was a need for more amenities, howeverthe District was not keeping up with the contributions needed for those amenities.

• Community amenity projects have been separated into two lists: one beingCouncil's high priority projects, and the other being Council's lower priority projectsthat may move to the high priority list if sufficient funds become available.

• The timing of each project is approximate or estimated as it is dependent uponmany factors including actual versus estimated growth, changing project priorities,

120

Regular Council Meeting Page 3 of 15

February 21, 2011

and/or available funding„ including grants, private partnership opportunities and/orcommunity group fundraising.

• The high priority list includes projects such as upgrading the existing skateboardpark, a new sports park and a new arts centre.

• The lower priority list includes projects such as a District-wide trail system, pooladdition and additional leisure centre.

• The initial steps in the community amenity project update are to increase thecontribution amounts to $2,815 for each new residential lot/unit, and to hold aspecial council meeting for the public to provide comments and input.

• After a second public information meeting and consultations with the developmentcommunity, Council will decide on a revised amenity list and draft a new policy forcommunity amenities.

Mayor Atebe thanked the directors and invited the public to attend the special councilmeeting being held on March 3, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. at the Leisure Centre.

RC11/100FEB. 21/11

RC11/101FEB. 21/11


Moved by Councillor Plecas, seconded by Councillor Stewart, and

RESOLVED: That the following items be received as information:

(a) report from the Deputy Treasurer/Collector dated February 14, 2011 — RevisedDollar Impact on Average Home In Mission;

(b) report from the Planning Technician dated February 21, 2011 — 2010 Year-endReport — Development Activity, Previous Years Active Applications and BuildingPermit Information;

(c) minutes of the Abbotsford/Mission Water & Sewer Commission meeting held onJanuary 13, 2011;

(d) minutes of the Traffic Safety Committee Meeting held on January 26, 2011; and

(e) draft minutes of the Mission Healthy Community Council meeting held on January 6,2011.

CARRIED


Moved by Councillor Scudder, seconded by Councillor Gidda, and

RESOLVED: That council now resolve itself into committee of the whole.CARRIED

5. PUBLIC SAFETY AND HEALTH

Councillor Horn assumed the Chair.

121


RC11/102FEB. 21/11

LATE ITEM — Public Safety Inspection Team Update — Mayor Atebe

Mayor Atebe made the following statement:

On January 24, 2011 Council passed a motion to defer for 30 days the PublicSafety Inspection Team inspections, except those referred by the RCMP. Duringthat time a comprehensive review would be undertaken to address manyconcerns that were raised to Council.

Since then a review has been ongoing providing Council with feedback on PSIToperations and options for moving forward. As part of the review process theDistrict has engaged consultants to help with the review process and to helpimprove communications.

The review is being conducted in three separate areas and is 95% complete. Asummary report will be compiled and provided to the March 7, 2011 committee ofthe whole meeting.

The PSIT deferral on January 24, 2011 will need to continue until any potentialbylaw amendments have been completed sometime in May 2011 and as such Iwill make the motion that Council continue the deferral until May 24, 2011.

Further communications on the review will be provided later this week throughour website.

RC11/103FEB. 21/11

Councillor Horn asked for order in the Chamber at approximately 7:18 p.m.

Mr. Peter Bulla repeatedly disrupted the council meeting. Councillor Horn asked him toleave the Chamber at approximately 7:23 p.m. so the meeting could proceed.

Moved by Councillor Scudder, and

RECOMMENDED: That the meeting be recessed until Peter Bulla leaves the building.

CARRIED

The meeting recessed at 7:25 p.m. to allow the audience to settle.

The meeting reconvened at 7:27 p.m.

Mr. Bulla returned and disrupted the meeting.

Councillor Horn asked Mr. Bulla to leave the Chamber at approximately 7:30 p.m.

The meeting recessed at 7:32 p.m. to allow the audience to settle.


Moved by Councillor Stevens, and

RECOMMENDED: That the Public Safety Inspection Team only accept referrals from theRCMP when criminal charges are being laid.

OPPOSED: Mayor AtebeCouncillor GiddaCouncillor HornCouncillor Plecas

122


Councillor ScudderCouncillor Stewart

RC11/104FEB. 21/11

DEFEATED

Moved by Mayor Atebe, and

RECOMMENDED: That with the exception of referrals from the RCMP, any new PublicSafety Inspection Team inspection operations be further deferred until May 24, 2011.

CARRIED

Mayor Atebe assumed the Chair and invited those who had questions to come forward.

QUESTION PERIOD:

Ron Taylor:

(a) Is there a private company helping with the process?

(b) Is the only reason this company has been hired at a cost of $30,000 is tocommunicate Council's position to the public?

(c) If that is so, isn't there enough talent between the seven elected Council membersand the several professional District staff members to communicate Council'sposition to the public?

Mayor Atebe responded that Council did hire a company to build capacity to communicatethoroughly on this issue. He further stated that he is of the opinion that so far Council hasdone a poor job of communicating on this issue, and there is a lot of misinformation out inthe public, and Council needs to do a better job of communicating the facts of the programand the Outcome of the review of the process.

Councillor Horn responded that the cost involved is $5,000, not $30,000. Further, Councilhad stated at the January 24 th meeting that they would be seeking public input, and forthat to happen people need to have accurate information, which is part of what Councilhas asked for. Councillor Horn further stated that Council had understood that peoplewanted tlfie District to improve the way that PSIT communicated, which is also part of whatthose dollars are paying for.

(d) So I have an assurance that if I make a Freedom of Information request, the onlycontractual commitment I will find to that company is for $5,000? Not a commitmentor a provision of funds for $30,000?

Mayor Atebe responded that he was correct.

(e) Why is this the first time in the history of Mission that we have had to spend publicmoney on a spin doctor to sell the public on a program that the public doesn't like?

Mayor Atebe responded that as the issue at hand has touched the community soextensively and broadly, that it deserves more attention than staff can provide off the sideof their desks. Council felt that we needed to build capacity to communicate very clearlyand to the community's satisfaction.

(f) Have you asked the hired company to take your decisions, discuss them and spinthem with the media before you tell the public of those decisions? If I put in an FOIrequest will I find that that was done? Is this company going to be speaking with themedia before communications are released to the public?

123


Councillor Horn responded that District staff will be speaking to the media.

(g) Will the conversation with the media be prepared by this media consulting company?

Mayor Atebe responded that either he or staff will be communicating with the media. Theconsulting company is building capacity and providing advice to Council.

Larry Nundal:

Why did Council require this bylaw in the first place, since unsafe building conditions aredealt with in the Building Code, the Fire Services Act deals with fire hazards, and the FirePrevention Bylaw also has fire safety provisions?

The Deputy Chief Administrative Officer responded that the intent of the bylaw is to bringtogether all the powers necessary to do the inspections, as the municipality does not havethe authority to deal with electrical safety, one of the largest safety issues associated withcontrolled substances, as that falls under Provincial jurisdiction.

Stacey Gowanlock:

People are still receiving bills and collection notices from the District, so are you in factdeferring the billing process and collection of revenue as well until May 24 th?

Mayor Atebe responded that Council was aware that staff had made a mistake and sentout correspondence. District staff were immediately directed to communicate directly withthose people and inform them that the Council decision stands, and that everything is onhold for now. They can disregard the notice until May 24 th .

Mark Ulmer:

If the bylaw does get reversed, what is Council going to do about those people who havealready been charged the fee and have it attached to their property taxes?

Mayor Atebe responded that information on all of the issues, including financial details,will be in a summary report on the March 7 th agenda. This report will state how Councilwill move forward and address all the issues.

Councillor Horn added that the agenda for the March 7 th meeting would be posted on the.District's website on the Thursday or Friday before the meeting.

Brian Fairfax:

Would Council consider a motion that allows those people who have already paid thePSIT fee to hold back their property taxes, with no interest accruing, until such time as thebylaw issue has been resolved?

Mayor Atebe responded that a report is coming forward on March 7 th that will share witheveryone a framework how those issues will be addressed.

Art:The Constitution says a man's home is his castle, and you've passed a bylaw under theguise of public safety that allows people to walk into my home with a 24 hour noticewhether I like it or not.

Woman:

What happens to the people who are losing their home to foreclosure because no one willlend money with a Section 57 notice on the title? I am losing my home and will not own iton March 1 st , so cannot wait until March 7 th to find out what is going on.

124


February 21, 2011

RC11/104(A)FEB. 21/11

RC11/105FEB. 21/11

Mayor Atebe responded that each case will be reviewed individually and asked her toplease meet with staff.

Mr. Bulla entered the Council Chamber. Mayor Atebe informed Mr. Bulla that he hadbeen asked to leave.


RECOMMENDED: That the meeting be recessed until Mr. Bulla leaves the building.

CARRIED

The meeting recessed at 8:28 p.m.


6. PLANNING

Councillor Stewart assumed the Chair.

Temporary Use of a Tent for Special Events (Royal Canadian Legion) —Follow-up Report

Moved by Councillor Plecas, and

RECOMMENDED:

1. That Council support the Temporary Change to a Liquor License application of theRoyal Canadian Legion to allow the use of an outdoor tent accommodating up to 95occupants for the following special events in 2011:

• May 28 — May Day celebrations

• July 1 — Canada Day car rally

• August 6 — Summerfest

• September 10 — Annual Barb Quinn Chili Cook Off

• September 24 — Royal Canadian Legion/American Legion Travelling Gavel

• November 11 — Remembrance Day

at the Royal Canadian Legion property located at 32627 Logan Avenue, Mission,British Columbia and that Council's comments on the prescribed considerations areas follows:

The potential for noise if the application is approved. The Royal CanadianLegion is located in an area that is primarily zoned and designated forcommercial land uses. Furthermore, the activities undertaken at the legion aresuch that would not generate excessive noise, even within the proposed tent. Inthis regard, no adverse impact is anticipated.

• The impact on the community if the application is approved. Theamendment application is to enable use of a tent for five special event days bythe existing Royal Canadian Legion. No adverse impact on the community isanticipated in this regard.

•

125


• The view of residents. Views of residents were not sought as the application isconsidered to be a minor amendment to an existing operation in an area that isprimarily commercial in nature; and

2. That the Corporate Officer be authorized to complete and sign Part 12 of theTemporary Change to a Liquor License application.

CARRIED

RC11/106FEB. 21/11

RC11/107FEB. 21/11

Application to Amend the Urban Growth Boundary of the Fraser ValleyRegional District's Regional Growth Strategy

Moved by Councillor Gidda, and

RECOMMENDED: That the Fraser Valley Regional Board be requested to amend theRegional Growth Strategy's Urban Growth Boundary to include the properties located at34059, 34081, 34097 Dewdney Trunk Road; 34051, 34058, 34069, 34085, 34072, 34088,34112 York Avenue; and 8738 Stave Lake Street.

OPPOSED: Councillor Horn

CARRIED

Rezoning Application R10-020 and Development Variance PermitApplication DV10-013 (D&D Design Ltd.) — 33764, 33782 and 33790Dewdney Trunk Road

Moved by Councillor Horn, and

RECOMMENDED:

1. In accordance with rezoning application R10-020 (D & D Design Ltd) the CorporateOfficer prepare a bylaw to amend District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009 byrezoning the properties located at 33764, 33782, and 33790 Dewdney Trunk Roadand legally described as:

Parcel Identifier: 017-713-153 Lot 1, Section 27, Township 17, New WestminsterDistrict Plan LMP3632



from Suburban 36 zone (S36) to Urban Residential 465 Secondary Dwelling zone(R465s);

2. That the bylaw be considered for first and second readings at the regular councilmeeting on February 21, 2011;

3. That following such readings, the bylaw be forwarded to a public hearing onMarch 28, 2011;

4. That development variance permit application DV10-013 (Rajan Taneja and RajinderKumar), to vary Section 501 D. Setbacks of District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009 by reducing the minimum required:

126


■ Setback to the rear lot line for the existing dwelling on proposed Lot 6 from7.5 metres (24.6 ft.) to 6.4 metres (20.9 ft.).

be forwarded to public input on March 28, 2011;5. That.Council approve the Tree Retention and Replanting plan dated December 16,

2010 , submitted by Central Valley Tree & Arborist Service committing to plant thirty-nine (39) trees in accordance with LAN.32 Tree policy, attached as Appendix 2 —Tree Survey to the report of the planner dated February 21, 2011;

6. That the five percent parkland provision in Section 941 of the Local Government Actbe applied as cash-in-lieu of parkland to subdivision file S10-009; and

7. That one road extension, over a portion of




be named with the road extending east off of Bowie Drive as Bowie Drive.CARRIED

Staff were directed to provide further information regarding the driveways fronting ontoDewdney Trunk Road at the Public Hearing.

RC11/108FEB. 21/11 Follow-up Report and Development Variance Application DV11-002 (R10-023

— Toor/McPherson) — 8566 Cedar Street, 32895 and 32911 Sylvia Avenue


RECOMMENDED:

1. That Development Variance Permit Application DV11-002, in the name of (Toor andMcPherson), to vary Section 104 C. 3. a. of District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009 by reducing the minimum required:

Lot width for Lot 19 from the required 13.5 metres (44.29) feet to 12.8 metres(41.99 feet);

in a proposed single family residential development located at 8566 Cedar Street,32895 and 32911 Sylvia Avenue be approved by Council on February 21, 2011.

2. That number 15 that forms part of resolution RC10/630 provided on November 15,2010 be amended to read:

"That the applicants be permitted to remove all trees on proposed lot 4 and berequired to replant 65 trees in addition to the requirement to plant two trees perlot in accordance with LAN.32 Tree Policy for a total of 151 trees within thesubdivision."

3. That should the development proposal receive final approval, that staff install "NoParking" signs on all of the lanes in the proposed development.

CARRIED

127


RC11/109FEB. 21/11

RC11/110FEB. 21/11

RC11/111FEB. 21/11

Excerpt from the Minutes of the Public Hearing held on December 13, 2010with Related Staff Reports dated November 15, 2010 and February 7, 2011(R10-014 - Toor)

An excerpt from the minutes of the Public Hearing held on December 13, 2010 and copiesof the related staff reports dated November 15, 2010 and February 7, 2011 were providedfor the committee's information as background information for consideration of theadoption of Zoning Amending Bylaw 5158-2010-5050(17).


Councillor Stevens assumed the Chair.

2010 Budget Carry Forwards

Moved by Councillor Pieces, and

RECOMMENDED: That the 2010 capital budget carry forwards be approved for inclusionin the 2011 Financial Plan (final dollar amounts will depend on year-end balances).

CARRIED

Lease Renewal — 33344 Harbour Avenue


RECOMMENDED: That the District of Mission renew the current lease agreement withJake Fehr for the municipal property located at 33344 Harbour Avenue and legallydescribed as Lots 14 and 15, Block 60, District Lot 411, Group 1, Plan 594, NewWestminster District for a term of no longer than 5 years, with the following amendmentsto the current agreement being made:

(a) The Lessee shall allow pedestrian access through the northern part of the propertyin order to allow people access to the "Experience the Fraser Trail";

(b) A letter of credit in the amount of $10,000 shall be deposited with the District ofMission to ensure that when the lease is terminated, the building on the lot shall beremoved to the satisfaction of the District of Mission;

(c) That the monthly rent of $244.24 shall be increased annually at a rate equivalent tothe increase in the prior year's Vancouver Consumer Price Index beginning January2011; and

(d) That Mr. Fehr be advised that if he wishes to develop the lands that a developmentapplication or a development inquiry application be submitted to the planningdepartment in order to allow for a comprehensive review of his proposal prior to alonger term agreement being entered into.

OPPOSED: Councillor Pieces

CARRIED

128


RC11/112FEB. 21/11

RC11/113FEB. 21/11

RC11/114FEB. 21/11

RC11/115FEB. 21/11

Revised Draft Policy for Public Complaints Concerning the RCMP


RECOMMENDED: That Council Policy CUS.16 — Public Complaints Concerning theRCMP be adopted.

CARRIED

Downtown Coalition

Moved by Councillor Stewart, and

RECOMMENDED:

1. That the Red Card Program be discontinued as of June 30, 2011;

2. That the remaining budgeted funding for 2011 of up to $4,207.50 be used to coverthe Red Card Program costs;

3. That the District of Mission ask Mission Community Services to continue to managethe program until June 30, 2011; and

4. That Mission Community Services distribute the funds raised ($4,560.00) at thespaghetti western dinner evenly between the Union Gospel Mission, MissionFriendship Centre and Street Hope.

CARRIED

8. ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC WORKS

Councillor Gidda assumed the Chair.

Signing 2010/2011 Transit Annual Operating Agreement

Moved bit Mayor Atebe, and

RECOMMENDED: That the 2010/2011 Transit Annual Operational Agreement be signed.

CARRIED

Parking on North Railway Avenue


RECOMMENDED:

1. That signage be changed at 19 parking stalls along the south side of 32900 NorthRailway Avenue from "no limit" to "No Parking 5 am to 8 am"; and

2. That two parking stalls on 33000 North Railway Avenue at the southwest corner ofJames Street and North Railway Avenue have the signage changed to 2 hourparking from 9 am to 6 pm to specifically accommodate customers of businesseslocated in that block of Railway Avenue.

CARRIED

129


RC11/116FEB. 21/11

RC11/117FEB. 21/11

RC11/118FEB. 21/11

RC11/119FEB. 21/11

Fraser Valley Transit Future Plan Terms of Reference


RECOMMENDED:

1. That the Terms of Reference for the Central Fraser Valley Transit Future Plansubmitted by BC Transit and attached as Appendix 1 to the report from the DeputyDirector of Planning and the Deputy Director of Engineering and Public Works datedFebruary 21, 2011 be received; and

2. That Council does not support the utilization of the Strategic Review of the Transit inthe Fraser Valley as a reference for the Transit Future Plan.

CARRIED


RECOMMENDED: That the meeting be extended until all business on the agenda hasbeen concluded.

CARRIED

Options for Regulating the Use of District Roads


RECOMMENDED: That staff report further on the implementation of option 2 set out inthe report from the Deputy Director of Engineering dated February 10, 2011 regardingoptions for regulating the use of District roads.

CARRI ED


Councillor Horn assumed the Chair.

Council Follow Up Recreational Fire Pit Permits


RECOMMENDED:

1. That all recreational backyard fire pit permits issued in 2010 and expiringDecember 31, 2010 be extended to December 31, 2011 at no additional cost to theproperty owners;

2. That any new recreational backyard fire pit permits issued be subject to the $20.00fee; and

3. That staff report back with a comprehensive strategy and cost analysis forrecreational backyard fire pits in the Fall of 2011.

CARRIED

130

Regular Council Meeting Page 13 0115February 21, 2011


Mayor Atebe resumed the Chair.

RC11/120FEB. 21/11

RC11/121FEB. 21/11

RC11/122FEB. 21/11

RC11/123FEB. 21/11

Moved by Councillor Stevens, seconded by Councillor Scudder, and

RESOLVED: That the committee of the whole now rise and report.CARRIED


Moved by Councillor Gidda, seconded by Councillor Plecas, and

RESOLVED: That the recommendations of the committee of the whole, as contained initems RC11/101 to RC11/120, except items RC11/106 (urban growth boundary) andRC11/111 (lease renewal), be adopted.CARRIED


RESOLVED: That the recommendation of the committee of the whole, as contained initem RC11/106 (urban growth boundary), be adopted.OPPOSED: Councillor HornCARRI ED

Moved by Councillor Horn, seconded by Councillor Stewart, and

RESOLVED: That the recommendation of the committee of the whole, as contained initem RC11/111 (lease renewal), be adopted.OPPOSED: Councillor PlecasCARRIED

RC11/124FEB. 21/11

12. BYLAWS

Moved by Councillor Stevens, seconded by Councillor Stewart, and

RESOLVED: That the readings of all bylaws included in the Bylaws section of theFebruary 21, 2010 regular council agenda be approved as listed:

(a) District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5158-2010- Adoption5050(17) (R10-014 — Toor) — a bylaw to make amendments toSection 602 Residential Compact Secondary Dwelling Zones,and to rezone properties at 33100, 33102, 33116, 33128,33134, 33142, 33156, 33160 Tunbridge Avenue and 33157,33149, 33141, 33135, 33123, 33115, 33109, 33103 PinchbeckAvenue from Residential Compact 372 zone (RC372) toResidential Compact 372 Secondary Dwelling zone (RC372s)

(f)

131


(b) District of Mission Official Community Plan Amending. Bylaw5181-2010-4052(12) (R10-023 — Toor/McPherson) — a bylaw toredesignate properties at 32895 and 32911 Sylvia Avenue fromParks, Recreation and Open Space and Urban Residential toUrban Residential-Compact on Maps 1 and 1 b

(c) District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5177-2010-5050(28) (R10-023 — Toor/McPherson) — a bylaw to rezoneproperties at 32895 and 32911 Sylvia Avenue from Suburban36 zone (S36) to Compact Residential 372 zone (RC372), andto rezone property at 8566 Cedar Street from Suburban 36zone (S36) to Compact Residential 280 zone (RC280)

District of Mission Street Naming (McQuarrie Lane andLissimore Avenue Extension) Bylaw 5195-2011 — a bylaw toname two logical road extensions

District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5196-2011-5d50(34) (R10-020 — D&D Design) — a bylaw to rezoneproperties at 33764, 33782 and 33790 Dewdney Trunk Roadfrom Suburban 36 zone (S36) to Urban Residential 465Secondary Dwelling zone (R465s)

District of Mission Street Naming (Bowie Drive Extension)Bylaw 5197-2011 — a bylaw to name a logical road extension

Second and ThirdReadings


First, Second andThird Readings

First and SecondReadings


RC11/125FEB. 21/11

CARRIED


RESOLVED: That staff provide a further report regarding Rezoning Application R10-023and Devdlopment Variance Application DV11-002 containing the following information:

(a) whether Sylvia Avenue needs to be extended through to Cedar Street and whatalternative options exist; and

(b) the value of the District owned right-of-way.

CARRIED

RC11/126FEB. 21/11

13. MINUTES

Moved by Councillor Stevens, seconded by Councillor Scudder, and

RESOLVED: That the following minutes be adopted:

(a) Regular Council Meeting — January 24, 2011

(b) Regular Council Meeting — January 31, 2011

(c) Administration and Finance Committee Meeting — February 2, 2011

132


(d) Regular Council Meeting — February 7, 2011

(e) Administration and Finance Committee Meeting — February 9, 2011

CARRI ED

14. OTHER BUSINESS

There was no other business.


The Chief Administrative Officer did not report.

16. MAYOR'S REPORT

The Mayor reported on various activities, meetings and events attended since the lastregular council meeting.

The Mayor commended the Canada World Youth participants for their volunteer effortsand the value they are contributing to our community.

17. COUNCILLOR'S REPORTS ON COMMITTEES, BOARDS AND ACTIVITIES

Councillors Scudder, Stewart, Horn and Plecas reported on various activities, meetingsand events attended since the last regular council meeting.

18. QUESTION PERIOD

There were no questions from the public.

19. ADJOURNMENT

Moved by Councillor Gidda, seconded by Councillor Scudder, and

RESOLVED: That the meeting be adjourned.CARRIED

The meeting was adjourned at 10:04 p.m.

JAMES ATEBE, MAYOR PAUL GIPPS, DEPUTY CHIEFADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

G:\clerk\minutes\rc110221.doc

MINUTES of the REGULAR MEETING of the COUNCIL of the DISTRICT OFMISSION held in the council chambers of the municipal hall, 8645 Stave Lake Street,Mission, British Columbia on Monday, February 28, 2011 commencing at 6:30 p.m.

Council Members Present: Mayor James AtebeCouncillor Terry GiddaCouncillor Paul HornCouncillor Danny PiecesCouncillor Mike ScudderCouncillor Heather Stewart


G. Robertson, chief administrative officerP. Gipps, deputy chief administrative officerT. Takahashi, administrative clerk

Council Members Absent: Councillor Jenny Stevens

133

PH11/004FEB 28/11

PH11/005FEB 28/11


Mission Community Heritage Commission — Presentation of Annual HeritageAwards

Jim Hinds, Janis Schultz and Mayor Atebe presented the 2011 Community HeritageAward for Special Achievement to Mildred Vallick in recognition of her dedication topreserving the history of Mission.

Canada World YouthRe: Silverdale Creek Wetland Management Plan

Saad Iftik -rar and Dia Slivinska appeared before Council to provide an outline of theproposed Silverdale Creek Wetland Management Plan.

Mr. Iftikher and Ms. Slivinska stated:

the Silverdale Creek Wetland and watershed are extremely important to theDistrict of Mission for recreational and biodiversity conservation purposes;

• regionally, the Fraser Valley wetlands have been disappearing at an alarmingrate;

• there is now an urgent need to preserve wetlands for the health of ourecosystems and District of Mission is assuming responsibility for preservingwhat is left of this essential natural resource;

• Mission's environmental charter recommends that the district must developand implement a management plan for the Silverdale Creek Wetland whichwill include conservation, education and recreational components;

• past projects include culverts to control seasonal water levels, mosquitocontrol, new channel, trails, planting, removal of invasive fish and plants, dogleash counts, wildlife monitoring, bird boxes; and

• recommendations for the future include: Educational projects — formallinkages, public education, and school wetland workshops; Recreationalprojects — wheelchair access to trail, improved parking, and wildlife viewingtowers; and Ecological projects — removal of invasive species, installing ofsigns, and wildlife monitoring cameras.

•

134


PH11/006FEB 28/11

PH11/007FEB 28/11

PH11/008FEB 28/11

The mayor thanked Mr. lftikhar and Ms. Slivinska for their presentation andcommented that the proposed plan will be an excellent tool for the District of Mission.

2. PLANNING

Information Pertaining to Consideration of Adoption (Fraser Valley ShoppingCentres Limited, File R10-011)


RECOMMENDED: That an excerpt from the minutes of the public hearing held onAugust 30, 2010 and a copy of the related staff reports dated August 3, 2010 andSeptember 20, 2010 be received by council as background information to assist inthe consideration of adoption of bylaw 5163-2010-5050(20).CARRIED

3. BYLAWS

Moved by Councillor Gidda, seconded by Councillor Scudder, and

RECOMMENDED: That the readings of all bylaws included in the Bylaws section ofthe February 28, 2011 regular council agenda be approved as listed.

(a) District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5163-2010-5050(20) Adoption(R10-011 — Fraser Valley Shopping Centres Limited) — a bylaw torezone property at 31924 and 31970 Lougheed Highway

CARRIED

4. DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATIONS

Development Permit Application DP10-001 (John Meeker, Anthony and JosephineGrehan, and Apex Self Storage (Mission) Ltd.) — 31924, 31940, 31970 and 31980Lougheed Highway(for consideration of approval)

Moved by Councillor Scudder, seconded by Councillor Plecas, and

RECOMMENDED: That Development Permit Application DP10-001, in the nameof John Meeker, Anthony and Josephine Grehan, and Apex Self Storage (Mission)Ltd., to provide conformity to the official community plan guidelines respectingbuilding form and character and landscaping for property located at 31924, 31940,31970 and 31980 Lougheed Highway be approved.CARRIED

5. QUESTION PERIOD (on new business only)


6. PUBLIC HEARING

Mayor Atebe called the public hearing to order and outlined the procedures to befollowed.

135

Regular Council Meeting . Page 3 of 11February 28, 2011

PH11/009FEB 28/11

District of Mission Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw 5137-2010-4052(9) (R10-013 — District of Mission) — a bylaw to incorporate new IndustrialDevelopment Permit Guidelines

Erik Wilhelm, planner, provided information regarding rezoning application R10-013,in the name of the District of Mission, which proposes to amend the text of District ofMission Official Community Plan 4052-2008 by:

a) deleting all text within "Area K Industrial Business Park Development PermitArea" in its entirety from Part IV — Development Permit Areas;

b) deleting "0 (i) and 0 (iii)" in their entirety from Schedule 1, Part IV —Development Permit Areas; and

c) inserting a new "Industrial Development Permit Area" section after DevelopmentPermit Area J and before Development Permit Area L.

The planner stated that the purpose of the proposed amendments is to incorporatenew Industrial Development Permit Guidelines into the Official Community Plan toimprove the streetscape and built environment within industrial areas of Mission.

The deputy chief administrative officer stated that no written correspondence wasreceived regarding this application.

Councillor Stewart asked why industrial development was addressed beforecommercial development.

The planner explained that the creation of industrial development permit guidelineswas a high priority within the Official Community Plan.

Hearing no further questions or comments the mayor declared the public hearing onDistrict of Mission Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw 5137-2010-4052(9)(R10-013 — District of Mission) closed.

PH11/009FEB 28/11

District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5146-2010-5050(14) (R10-010 —Cheema) — a bylaw to rezone property at 32620 Cherry Avenue fromSuburban 36 zone (S36) to Residential Compact 465 Secondary Dwelling zone(RC465s)Erik Wilhelm, planner, provided information regarding rezoning application R10-010,in the name of Cheema, which proposes to amend District of Mission Zoning Bylaw5050-2009 by amending the zoning of the following legally described property:

Parcel Identifier: 005-742-773, Lot 2, Section 29, Township 17, New WestminsterDistrict Plan 59339

from S36 - Suburban 36 zone to RC465s - Residential Compact 465 SecondaryDwelling zone.

The planner stated that the location of the subject property is 32620 Cherry Avenue(as shown on the following map):


February 28, 2011

STOKES AVE.5445 8448 42690

2579 8437

8431 8420 LAdeirrE LANE

8421

C 8409

83,51

8357

46 8381LLI 8397

tt 8385an$

8359

53?

S

. •

SUBJECT PROPERTY

iQ

8275

8390

•8355

A''°W4, ,,,NE LANE 8320 a

8183 I- 8164 %

LISSIMORE AVE310353 IZ 8152 E

'238

8330 f31,

HOOD AVE

ana

8285

8305

8301

The planner explained that the purpose of the proposed amendment is toaccommodate the subsequent subdivision of the subject property into 6 lots of aminimum 465 square metre (5,005 square foot) lot size — lots 1 to 3 with proposedcoach houses and lots 4 to 6 with proposed secondary suites.

The planner stated that the following requirements would need to be met prior toadoption of the zone amending bylaw:

• Receipt of the Community Amenity Contribution in the amount of $13,400.00;and

• Any other items that council may require as a result of this public hearing.

The deputy chief administrative officer stated that no written correspondence wasreceived regarding this application.

Artur Gryz commented that he is opposed to so many multi-family dwellings beingdeveloped, and would like to see some developed without suites. Mr. Gryz asked ifthe width of Cherry Avenue would continue full width.

The deputy director of engineering responded that Cherry Avenue will be developedfull width.

The mayor explained that council receives comments from people both opposed toand in support of secondary dwellings being built and takes both sides intoconsideration in the approval process.

Councillor Horn clarified that the district does not receive additional taxes fromhomes with secondary suites, but noted that the utilities are higher for legal suites.

Othmar Kagi asked how many new families can be expected in the area.

The planner replied that there will be six primary residences and possibly sixsecondary dwelling units, likely occupied only by one or two people due to the smallsize of the secondary dwellings.

Mr. Kagi asked expressed concern about additional population in the schools.

The mayor replied that the school district welcomes new enrolment and that there isroom in this area for more students

Councillor Horn commented that the school district is routinely consulted in the

136

137


PH11/009FEB 28/11

development process with regard to school population.

The deputy director of planning confirmed that the school district was consultedthrough the OCP process with the Cedar Valley Comprehensive Development Planto identify areas where new schools may be located as the population grows in thearea.

Karen Herford said that she is opposed to secondary dwellings on these lots due toconcerns about additional parking in the area.

The planner responded that each property must provide a minimum of three parkingstalls on site, including two dedicated for the primary residence and one dedicated tothe secondary dwelling unit.

Kim Herford said he is opposed to secondary dwellings on these small lots due toconcerns about parking.

Artur Gryz asked about possibility of prohibiting parking on Cherry Avenue.

The deputy director of engineering replied that the idea of designating a street as ano parking area is looked at on a case by case basis and would be assessed if theneed arises in the area, but Cherry Avenue will remain a street on which parking ispossible at this time.

Councillor Gidda asked for clarification about whether there is an easement on theproperty.

The planner confirmed that there is an easement for a storm sewer line on theproperty.

Councillor Scudder asked for clarification about whether the issue of permit parkingis going to be looked at in the district.

The deputy director of engineering responded that in response to a council resolutionat the last council meeting, staff are currently looking into the issue of permit parking.

Hearing no further questions or comments the mayor declared the public hearing onDistrict of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5146-2010-5050(14) (R10-010 —Cheema) closed.

District pf Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5189-2010-5050(31) (R08-004 —OTG Developments) — a bylaw to rezone the property at 34159 KirkpatrickAvenue from Rural 16 zone (RU16) to Rural Residential 7 Secondary Dwellingzone (RR7s), and to rezone a portion of the property at 34221 KirkpatrickAvenue from Rural Residential 7 zone (RR7) to Rural Residential 7 SecondaryDwelling zone (RR7s)Erik Wilhelm, planner, provided information regarding rezoning application R08-004,in the name of OTG Development Concepts, which proposes to amend District ofMission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009 by amending the zoning of the following legallydescribed properties:

Parcel Identifier: 011-200-341, Lot 2, Section 3, Township 18, New WestminsterDistrict Plan 6858

A portion of Parcel Identifier: 017-493-404, Lot 1, Section 3, Township 18, NewWestminster District Plan LMP1826

from Rural 16 (RU 16) zone to Rural Residential 7 Secondary Dwelling (RR7s) zone.

9740

34104 U196

Portion to be Rezonedfrom RR7 to RR7s

3431;

343

138


The planner explained that the location of the subject properties is 34159 and 34221Kirkpatrick Avenue (as shown on the following map):

The planner stated that the purpose of the proposed amendment is to accommodatethe subsequent subdivision of the subject properties into 4 lots of a minimum 0.8hectare (1.73 acre) lot size incorporating secondary dwelling units on proposed lots1,2 and 3.

The planner stated that the following requirements would need to be met prior toadoption of the zone amending bylaw:

• Receipt of the Community Amenity Contribution in the amount of $5,360.00;and

• Any other items that council may require as a result of this public hearing orcouncil consideration of the application.

The deputy chief administrative officer stated that no correspondence was receivedregarding this application.

Bob White said that he lives next door to the subject property and is concerned aboutwater that runs onto his property from this property, washing away soil from hisgarden, and what may happen when additional wells are placed on the subjectproperty.

The planner said an approved well report must be received from a hydrologist for anywell proposed on a lot, which should include comment about effects on anysurrounding wells. He suggested that a professional engineer look at what can bedone on lot three with regard to possible runoff from the property.

Councillor Gidda asked if the wells will be drilled.

The planner replied that the wells will be shallow wells because the property is withinthe Ferndale Drilled Exemption Area due to arsenic in the area.

Kim Herford asked who is responsible for grading on the property.

The planner replied that it is the responsibility of the developer to ensure that anyimprovements should not negatively affect the neighbours.

Councillor Horn asked about neighbourhood context, whether there are other homes

139


PH11/009FEB 28/11

in the area with a rural `s' designation.The planner replied that there are not any other parcels with the rural 's' designationin the area.Councillor Horn asked if there are services already in place in the area that would beof advantage to the district in terms of building up density.

The deputy director of engineering replied that there are not.

Councillor Scudder asked if the requirements of well quantity have to address thepotential for the extra suite and/or secondary dwelling.

The planner responded that quality and quantity provided by each well would have tobe addressed in the hydrology report and that the current subdivision control bylawonly requires 2,500 litres per day, which is essentially the same requirement as asingle family dwelling.Councillor Scudder asked if there has been any indication from the applicant as towhat kind of secondary dwelling is being considered and if there is sufficient lot sizeto accommodate an actual secondary dwelling as opposed to a suite.

The planner replied that the lot sizes are sufficient to support a secondary dwelling,but he does not know what the applicant is planning in terms of the type ofsecondary dwelling.Hearing no further questions or comments the mayor declared the public hearing onDistrict of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5189-2010-5050(31) (R08-004 — OTGDevelopments) closed.

Moved by! Councillor Horn, seconded by Councillor Gidda, and

RECOMMENDED: That staff provide a third reading report that includes thehydrology study, addresses water flow issues and the impact within theneighbourhood context, and includes a report from the applicant on their intentionwith regard to secondary dwellings.CARRIED

District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5191-2011-5050(32) (R10-027 —Hermanson) — a bylaw to rezone property at 11193 Wilson Street from Rural16 Secondary Dwelling zone (RU16s) to Rural Residential 7 SecondaryDwelling zone(RR7s)Marcy B nd, planner, provided information regarding rezoning application R10-027,in the name of Hermanson, which proposes to amend District of Mission ZoningBylaw 5050-2009 by amending the zoning of the following legally described property:

Parcel Identifier: 018-167-951, Lot 1, Section 10, Township 15, New WestminsterDistrict P an LMP9398from Rural 16 Secondary Dwelling zone (RU16s) to Rural Residential 7 SecondaryDwelling zone (RR7s).The planner explained that the location of the subject property is 11193 WilsonStreet (as shown on the following map):

SUBJECT PROPERTY

140


The planner stated that the purpose of the proposed amendment is to accommodatethe subsequent subdivision of the subject property into two lots of a minimum 0.7hectare (1.73 acre) lot size incorporating secondary dwelling units on the proposedlots.

The planner stated that the following requirements would need to be met prior toadoption' of the zone amending bylaw:

• Community Amenity Contribution;

• Approval of Development Variance Permit DV10-018;

• Letter of Credit for implementation of a tree planting plan;

• Garden cottage on proposed Lot A must obtain a building permit and receivefinal inspection;

• Basement suite on proposed Lot B must obtain a building permit and receivefinal inspection or be decommissioned;

• building permit application for both lean-to sheds on proposed Lot B; and

• Any other items that council may require as a result of this public hearing.


Roberta Lindsay said that she is concerned about steepness of the slope, geologycomposition of the area, the watercourse on the property and effluent flowing fromthe septic fields to her property. She noted that there are several illegal structuresand an illegal basement suite already on the property. Ms. Lindsay asked if thereare other` secondary suites allowed in the area. She encouraged council to considernot approving this application.

The planner replied that there have been no rezoning applications approved in thearea.

Councillor Horn asked if there are any, new structures proposed on the properties.

The planner responded that there are not, but the owner is considering possiblybuilding a coach house and decommissioning the illegal basement suite in the future.

Othmar Kagi asked if council has looked into safety of the area with regard towaterways and stability of the land. He asked if there will be any vegetation removedfrom the property as a result of the subdivision.

141


P1-111/009FEB 28/11

The planner replied that no new buildings will be built and if any trees have to beremoved for construction of the access lane, they will be replaced one to one.

Craig Hermanson commented that he believes he has gone through all the properchannels to this point. He noted that the proposed coach house is intended forguests and family, so there will be no increase in the number of residents on theproperties.

Brian Wright, who lives on Lot B, said he doesn't plan to add a coach house now, butperhaps will in the future. He commented that he does not see a concern with theseptic fields because it was approved by the district in the past.

Councillor Stewart commented that she appreciates the work done by staff and theapplicant. She said she feels that this is precedent-setting, whether good or bad.Councillor Stewart asked at what point the decommissioning and other conditions willneed to be met.

The planner responded that the conditions will need to be met prior to adoption of thezoning bylaw.

Councillor Horn asked if it would be possible to limit the type of secondary dwelling toa secondary suite rather than an outbuilding on a one-off basis.

The planner replied that a restrictive covenant agreement could be perhapsnegotiated with the developer.

Councillor Horn clarified whether there could possibly be a new building built on eachlot in the future.

The planner confirmed that there could.

Hearing no further questions or comments the mayor declared the public hearing onDistrict of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5191-2011-5050(32) (R10-027 —HermanSon) closed.


RECOMMENDED: That staff provide a third reading report that explores thepossibility of placing a restrictive covenant on the property to limit the secondarydwelling on Lot B to a secondary suite, consider whether or not a secondary dwellingis necessary on Lot A and describe the rationale for secondary dwelling zones in thisapplication given its rural context.CARRIED

District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5194-2011-5050(33) (R10-033 —District of Mission) — a bylaw to incorporate housekeeping text amendmentsto various sections of the zoning bylaw

Barclay Pitkethly, deputy director of planning, provided information regardingrezoning, application R10-033, in the name of the District of Mission, proposes toamend the text of District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009 by:

a) Amending the secondary dwelling regulations by:

i. Defining a maximum separation for coach houses and carriage homes;ii. Regulating the location of secondary dwelling units on a lot;iii. Clarifying the definition of a garden cottage;iv. Allowing greater flexibility for aging in place for secondary dwelling units; andv. Amending the requirements for rezoning to an "s" zone.

142


b) Redefining the single family dwelling height definition to allow greater flexibilitywith design;

c) Clarifying the requirements for garage setbacks;

d) Increasing the allowable density in the downtown core; and

e) Adding new setback requirements for R558 zoned lots that existed prior toOctober 2009.

The deputy director of planning stated that the purpose of the proposed textamendments is to provide clarification of definitions, language and zone-specificamendments.


Jim Hinds expressed concern about the heritage concept of the downtown core withregard to building heights.

Mr. Pitkethly responded that the downtown core has its own heritage and façadeguidelines that must be adhered to and there is a maximum height restriction of 15metres in the area.

Councillor Scudder asked what the impact would be of adding the word 'generally' toamendment a) ii. to give the planning department flexibility depending on thecircumstances.

The deputy director of planning replied that zoning bylaws typically should be asclear as possible. He noted that if an applicant needs to amend something, thenthey can seek a variance.

Councillor Scudder asked about adding wording that allows consideration of viewswith respect to height regulations.

Mr. Pitkethly replied that private views are not typically something that is protected inour bylaws.

Councillor Plecas asked for clarification of the current height and pitch regulations.

The deputy director of planning responded that the maximum height is typically 9.5metres and noted that this amendment would allow a maximum height up to 10.6metres.

Councillor Horn asked what makes steeper pitch a better design.

The deputy director of planning said that the point is to reduce the amount of walland allow varied roof lines.

Hearing no further questions or comments the mayor declared the public hearing onDistrict of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5194-2011-5050(33) (R10-033 — Districtof Mission) closed.


RECOMMENDED: That staff provide a third reading report to consider whether7:12 roofs should be a standard across the board, whether there would be anadvantage to specifying the type of secondary dwelling unit (garden cottage, coachhome or secondary suite) in rural residential and suburban applications, and whetherit would be advantageous to specify family use for secondary dwellings in ruralareas.

143


CARRIED

7. ADJOURNMENT




MAYOR JAMES ATEBE PAUL GIPPS, DEPUTY CHIEFADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

Minutes of the SPECIAL MEETING of the DISTRICT OF MISSION COUNCIL held in theGymnasium of the Leisure Centre at 7650 Grand Street, Mission, British Columbia, onThursday, March 3, 2011 commencing at 7:00 pm.

Committee Members Present: Mayor James AtebeCouncillor Paul HornCouncillor Danny PlecasCouncillor Mike Scudder

Committee Members Absent: Councillor Terry GiddaCouncillor Jenny StevensCouncillor Heather Stewart

Staff Members Present: Paul Gipps, Deputy Chief Administrative OfficerKen Bjorgaard, Director of FinanceRick Bomhof, Director of Engineering & Public WorksSharon Fletcher, Director of PlanningRay Herman, Director of Parks, Recreation & CultureInspector Walsh, RCMPDebi Decker, Administrative Assistant

Mayor Atebe called the meeting to order.

S2011/019MAR 3/11

1. Community Amenities

Mayor's Welcoming Remarks

The Mayor welcomed the public to this meeting and advised that the following Councillorssend their regrets as they all have the flu and are unable to attend this evening, Stewart,Stevens, and Gidda. The Mayor continued by explaining the process for the evening'smeeting.

• He stressed the important of planning and putting funds aside for community amenityprojects.

• Some grant funds that are provided by the senior levels of governments requireprojects to be "shovel ready" and have matching funds available.

• Projects need to align with the vision or the views of the leaders of governmentsproviding the grants.

• The process for moving the community amenity projects forward include:o Council prioritizing the list of amenities and approving the list going forward from

the comments from the various feedback;o Staff having discussions with the development community and focus groups; ando A final opportunity for the public to provide comments on community amenity

projects.

• Council will, after all the public feedback has been received, move forward with thepolicy that will provide the framework as to how the District can collect the amenitycontributions from the development community.

144

File: ADM.COM.STAAdministration & Finance Meetings 2010

Special Council Meeting Page 2 of 10 145

March 3, 2011

S2011/020MAR 3/11

The Mayor introduced the Director of Planning who was giving the presentation of theproposed community amenity program.

Staff PowerPoint Presentation

The Director of Planning noted that this is the first of three input opportunities for Council toreceive comments for the proposed update to the community amenity program.

The following are the highlights from the presentation:

• Community amenities are generally capital facilities or improvements that are neededto serve a growing population and to create a more complete community.

• Development brings growth and growth increases the need for more amenity capacity.

• As part of a new development developers volunteer a community amenity contributionor they build an amenity.

• A process was developed to review the projects and for an implementation strategy toimplement the updated policy.

• Each project was analyzed to determine estimated cost, when construction wouldstart, - whether the project would be an expansion or new facility, and a location of theproject.

• Cost estimates for each project are subject to change because of different factors suchas:o facility design, the design may increase or decrease the cost,o the scope or size of the project may increase or decrease affecting the cost,o prevailing construction and economic environment always affects the cost of

projects based on the availability of trades and materials.o private partnership opportunities and other relevant factors affect funding models

significantly.

• The timing of the project is based on:o actual versus estimated population growth,o changing project priorities, and/oro available funding, including grants, private partnership opportunities and/or

community group fundraising

• Community amenity projects have been separated into two lists:o List A - identified by council as having in their opinion, the highest priority.o List B - these projects are also important, but will only be considered when

alternative funding becomes available or the need becomes greater than initiallydetermined and may be moved to List A.

• Each project has an estimated contribution amount that the developer and thetaxpayer would pay based on the percentage of the cost allocated to newdevelopment.

• Identifying future needs enables the District to plan ahead and to save for the costs inadvance of construction of the facilities. By anticipating needs the requirements forborrowing could be removed or reduced and therefore reduce the overall costs of aproject significantly.

File: ADMCOU.REGMinutes 2011

146Special Council Meeting Page 3 of 10

March 3, 2011

• Council will review the list from time to time and will consider the projects on List B iffunding opportunities arrive.

• Based on the estimated costs of the projects on List A the increase in the communityamenity contribution amount is proposed from $2,680 to $6,200. List B estimatedcosts are not included in the community amenity contribution amount.

• Once a new policy document is in place the new amount will be applied to newapplications only.

The Director of Planning thanked the audience for their time and advised that aquestionnaire was available for comments and that a box for completed forms was locatedat the back of the room.

S2011/021 Councillors' CommentsMAR 3/11

Councillor Horn commented that the community amenity program is very complex for boththe public and Council but that it is very important to communicate this issue and to receivepublic feedback/comments. He noted that it is not a matter of "if" but "when" amenities areneeded and that we need to answer the questions, where, how much, who should pay(division between developer and taxpayer), when can we afford it and when do we need it?He pointed out that amenities are not strictly a "Mission issue", but common amongst allmunicipalities l. The only variable is how each municipality collects community amenitycontributions pr provides for amenities to be constructed. He asked the audience to providecomment on whether or not a specific amenity was needed and when was it needed. Thatthe community was playing "catch-up" but that a balance needed to be met as well thatdidn't deter development. Council is trying to avoid borrowing funds and paying interest(debt) costs, which is also part of the balancing act.

Councillor Plecas stated that he had four points to bring up.

1. Communication. It is very important to have a discussion with the community and thatthe storyboards tell what is important.

2. ProcesS. The process we are following is responsible as it sets the tone for futuredeveloPment and coincides with the Official Community Plan. It is important to showthat the community is planning ahead.

r'3. Partne hip. It would be beneficial if the District could partner with the Provincial or

Federal governments for grants or with other groups.

4. Financially responsible. It helps if the District does not have to borrow money to fundthe amenities, to be able to avoid the borrowing costs.

Councillor Plecas closed by saying he is looking forward to hearing from the public.

Councillor Scudder commented that it had been a long road since he was sitting in theaudience and that Council were still trying to find the balance from people in the communityand the development community. That enough revenue needed to be collected so theamenities could be built without borrowing, but not so much that the developmentcommunity stops investing in our municipality. That the projects listed were fluid, asCouncils and community groups change as well as their priorities. He noted that Council

File: ADM.COU.REGMinutes 2011

147Special Council Meeting Page 4 of 10March 3, 2011

needed a good dialogue with the community to find out what is needed/wanted and toconfirm whether or not an amenity was missing from the proposed list. He concluded bysaying that this process has to be fluid and will only evolve to a good place if we get goodinput from everyone.

Mayor Atebe stated that this has been a visioning exercise, with staff checking with othercommunities to see how they are approaching community amenities, as this is not unique toMission. That the District had fallen behind in collecting amenity contributions and planningahead for new amenity projects and had to borrow funds to build the leisure centre and wedon't want to put the future community in that situation. The District is capable of planningand needs to come up with a plan for the future with input from the community. The Mayorinformed the audience that he is looking forward to constructive comments and wants tohear if any amenities are missing from these lists.

The Mayor asked for the first person to step forward to give their comments.

S2011/022 Public CommentsMAR 3/11

Judith Ray, President of the Mission Association of Seniors' Housing:

• Concerned about the amenity contribution amount when developing affordable seniorhousing now and in the future, as well as the percentages attributable, i.e. 80%, tonew growth and the developer community.

• 70% of Mission residents commute out of the community for work, and that theprojects listed are not big employer activities so they wouldn't be assisting withkeeping people in the community.

• Believes that a referendum should be held for the projects even if borrowing is not anissue.

• Concerned that community amenity contributions are described as voluntary when infact if they are not paid your rezoning application may not be approved.

• Doesn't want to see additional barriers put in place to deter/defer the hoped fordevelopment.

The Mayor responded by saying that the percentages attributable to new growth areproposed and can be adjusted, that the District would have to go to referendum if they wereborrowing funds that would take longer than five years to repay and the District is trying toavoid borrowing and the associated servicing costs. In regard to the voluntary contribution,the Community Charter states that Council can determine if a development is premature ornot, and can therefore not approve an application.

Councillor Horn responded that Council would be open to negotiate with not-for-profitorganizations or other developers, who are developing something that would benefit thecommunity such as a senior complex/housing, or including space for public art and/orrecreation space for not-for-profit groups within their development. He noted that these arevalid comments and need to be integrated into the policy. He commented that this is aperfect example of how the contribution is voluntary.

File: ADUCOU.REGMinutes 2011

Special Council Meeting Page 5 of 1 0 148

March 3, 2011

The Director of Finance confirmed that if the District is borrowing funds over five years,legislatively there needs to be either a referendum or a counter petition (where 10% of theelectorate can sign a petition if they object to borrowing funds). If no borrowing is involved,there doesn't have to be a public pfocess, but Council can choose to do so.

Councillor Plecas responded that if an organization has shown that they could provide acommunity need, then Council would look at the contribution and could negotiate with thedeveloper. With regards to the percentages attributable, some projects have a lesserpercentage and this is tied to the specific amenity and growth in the community.

Councillor Scudder responded that the taxpayers' portion is just as important as thedeveloper amenity contribution amount and this shows the complexity of these discussions.We need to focus on what projects to have on the list and collecting amenity contributions.Once the District gets to the point of building projects, where and how to fund will be a hugepart of the discussions.

Shelley Clarkson:

Has come with questions and solutions and believes two things are missing, a permanenthome for the soap box derby and exhibition grounds. It would be nice to have a show barnamenity that we could build on ALR lands. She questioned when does a park become acivic complex? She was specifically asking about the Fraser River Heritage Park, a centrewhere most community events take place, there is a recreational area and walking trails.The new trail bridge is beautiful, except when people get there and realize they need to usethe washroom, they have to go back to the main entrance.

She noted that with the possible future Parr Avenue development, the new shopping area at11 th Avenue and Stave Lake Street, and the in-fill in the neighbouring community, the park isexperiencing and will experience more increases in its use, both off-season and in-season.

Possible solutions:

• Washrooms located within a new maintenance building at the east end of the parknear the bridge.

• Add irrigation (from washrooms in the new maintenance building) for the new gardenson the trail and the orchard.

• Move the current repair shop out of the concession area behind the currentwashrooms (into the new maintenance building) and turn the loft above thewashrooms into the caretaker suite.

• Top floor of the Norma Kenney House will now be available (current caretaker suite) toincrease the seating for the Blueberry Kitchen to meet bus tour requirements.

• Extend the east patio of Norma Kenney House and cover it. This will provide acovered area for concerts or could be booked for catering engagements and/or toallow for expansion of the kitchen.

• These improvements would increase efficiency, viability and access to the park.• There would be no increase of the building footprint in the park as the new

maintenance building would be replacing the containers which house the tractors,mowers, chipper, etc.



March 3, 2011

Jim Hinds:

Had the following questions:

1. Would there be any Federal or Provincial funding towards the new police building?2. To Inspector Walsh, is the current location a good location?3. If the police building was relocated, would the existing building be suitable to be

renovated into another community amenity?

The Mayor responded that the Federal or Provincial governments do not contribute anyfunds towards a new police building, and that if the police building was relocated, therewould be a process where Council and staff would look at the options for that site and whatit could be used for.

Inspector Walsh responded that the current police detachment was in a good location, butthat there were some limitations with respect to the footprint, such as parking for the site.He indicated that the detachment not only housed Mission members and support staff butalso had integrated teams on location for extended periods of time.

Councillor Horn responded by stating that if the police building was relocated, due to thecommercial development in the surrounding area, it was quite possible that the best use forthat land may be a commercial venture and purchase land elsewhere.

Councillor Horn questioned whether or not the Provincial government would contributefunds as there are Provincial Police housed in our detachment, and was there a provisionwhereby we could ask the Provincial government for a portion of the new facility?

The Director of Finance advised that there was a formula in ratio to the number of provincialmembers over the total number of members in the detachment, for both capital andoperating costs.

Councillor Horn requested that this small portion be reflected in the future.

Councillor Scudder responded by stating that if a new police building location is identified,co-locating and/or leveraging should be discussed. What other amenity could be locatedbeside or within a police building? Creating a park surrounding the facility may be a greatidea. Once a new project has been identified, thought needs to be given to what otheramenity could be included within the initial project.

Linda Goodair, Mission Seniors' Association:

Seniors are very disturbed to see that a permanent seniors' facility has been put off until2015, and believe that is unacceptable as they expect more from Council. While the currentlocation of the seniors' facility is good, the office space is the size of a closet, there is nodesignated "seniors' only" space and the association has to book room space in advanceand this is not acceptable. The idea of a multi-generational facility is good as one amenitywould complement another, but something needs to be done to enlarge the designatedspace for seniors now. She advised that the seniors association has access to variousgrants and other funding that they could assist with.


150Special Council Meeting Page 7 of 10

March 3, 2011

The Mayor responded by stating that Council values seniors and there are many things thatCouncil does to demonstrate this, such as providing fee-for-service grants for life timelearning, lawn bowling, etc. as well as working with the Mission Association for Seniors'Housing to have The Cedars built. Council realizes that the seniors need a centre wherethey can all gather and call their own. Council cannot however, take a community asset (theMission Community Activity Centre) and give it to one organization. Council will work withthe seniors to find a permanent location for a centre.

Councillor Horn responded by stating he had a number of questions that Council wouldappreciate receiving answers to. The questions are:

1) Do you want to stay at the current location or move?

2) How much more space do you need?

3) What other improvements — besides space do you need/want? We know about theparking lot.

4) Which of these improvements are priorities and how could they be phased-in?

5) Funding sources. Do you know of grants we can co-apply for or that you can applyfor?

Council Horn requested that Ms Goodair have a discussion with the board members andemail the answers.

Sieglinde Stieda:

Questioned Whether Council considers permanent community gardens as an amenity, ifthere are plans for additional community gardens, and could a permanent communitygarden be part of the amenity project list?

She continued by stating that she agreed that a referendum should be held prior to buildingeach amenity, as this is too important to only be discussing with small groups. She alsoagreed that the Heritage Park is a wonderful facility and agrees that there needs to bechanges at the seniors centre and that a new facility needs to be built sooner than 2015.

The Director of Planning responded by stating that currently there are no specific plans withregards to community gardens, but that the rezoning bylaw could be changed so that multi-family developments are required to provide a community garden, but then the gardenwould be privately managed and not for the general public. New parks could include acommunity garden, but these decisions would have to be made by Council.

Blake Hudema, Vice-President of Genstar Development:

Expressed that community amenities are an important matter to Genstar and that we havelived through one of the most trying economic times, are trying to establish new businessesand that it's a very sensitive time to be looking forward. He agreed that it is not a matter of"if" but "when" for amenities and that this community has fallen behind and needs to catch-up, but there is that balancing act to allow communities to flourish and grow.



March 3, 2011

Mr. Hudema voiced his concerns on:

1. The industry is in a weak moment and trying to keep development moving in thiscommunity with the tremendous opportunity on the west side of the city and thewaterfront and inner city development. The District must be careful about goingforward with initiatives and understanding how they fit into the context of the coststructure of what we have to go through.

2. Comments made that development fees (such as development cost charges (DCCs),community amenity contributions (CACs), levies, etc.) could further reduce the cost ofland, when the development community actually sees the opposite. Raw land priceskeep rising and so do the development fees, and these costs are passed onto the enduser and the price of housing goes up.

3. The voluntary nature of the community amenity contribution.

4. While there is a difference between DCCs and CACs, developers only see the totalcost of all fees. Things that could add to an unsustainable set of housing conditions.

5. How MiSsion fits in with Abbotsford/Langley/Maple Ridge. Will it be too expensive todo business in Mission?

He concluded by saying the community needs to look at innovative ways to deliver theseservices, multi-use levering, marrying projects together, and municipalities need to worktogether with developers.

The Mayor responded that the District is very conscious that we are competing with othercommunities, and not to be uncompetitive. He asked Mr. Hudema if he knew of any bestpractices froM other communities, of how Mission is doing things differently, and that wewould appreciate hearing from him, and having him as part of a developer stakeholder.

Councillor Horn commented that Genstar has a tremendous amount of developmentexperience all across western Canada, and would appreciate receiving comments on thefollowing:

1. Genstar's experiences locally and with other municipalities.

2. What other models have worked? We know the Phased Development Agreement(PDA) is unique, to see that municipalities and developers can work together.

3. Ask around and have other developers' impact comments.

4. What is that bottom line developers are willing to pay as it is just one cheque?

5. How does Genstar see the phasing-in of the amenity contribution? What sort of time-frame to come up to $6,200?

6. We need touchstones from the community.


Special Council Meeting Page 9 of 10 152March 3, 2011

Mr. Hudema responded that the market moves on a diminished land base, wildly differenteconomic micro climates. The frameworks here are healthy devises, contextual, howeveryou need to be cognizant of setting expectations and need to ensure you are fiscallyresponsible especially in these interesting times. The old way of doing business is nolonger, business is being done differently now.

Barb Strachan:

The final $6,200 developer contribution amount is extremely high, but what has been startedhere tonight, an open discussion is just the start. She understands that the amenities needto be there and that the money has to come from somewhere, and if not from thedevelopers, then from where? .There are answers somewhere there.

Jean Price, Mission Seniors Centre Association:

She wanted to commend Parks and Recreation staff who have worked with her associationand are very willing to help. She believes her association should work more closely withCouncil and staff so ways can be found to do the things we want to do, to see if work can bedone in phases or temporary arrangements to fill in the time. She requested a copy of thequestions that Councillor Horn asked of the Mission Seniors' Association.

The goal is to achieve obtaining a bigger seniors' centre in Mission and would like somehelp from Council to find ways to make things go a little bit faster.

Jim Hinds:

Asked if the District had looked at some of the schools that aren't currently being used forsome of the amenities? If the seniors' move out of the Mission Community Activity Centre,perhaps the youth could move into that location.

The Director of Parks, Recreation and Culture responded by stating that some of theschools not in use are in the outlying areas and the locations are not particularly good forseniors. He noted that Fraserview is pretty much rented or leased out to capacity, but hewould check into the existing facilities situation again.

Mr. Hinds responded that the biggest problem for the seniors is that instead of their facilities,programs, etc. growing each year, they are getting smaller. The seniors gave up a fullystocked kitchen, recreation and meetings rooms when they were temporarily moved to thePLAY Station (now the Mission Community Activity Centre). Council needs to do somethingfor these people.

The Mayor extended his sincere thanks to everyone who came out this evening, andencourages everyone to check the website, pick-up information provided this evening and tosend in your written comments. Once Council receives the priorities and comments fromthe stakeholders another meeting will be advertised.



March 3, 2011

2. ADJOURNMENT

Moved by Councillor Scudder seconded by Councilor Plecas, and

RESOLVED: That the meeting be adjourned.

CARRIED.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 pm.

JAMES ATEBE, PAUL GIPPS,MAYOR DEPUTY CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

G:\FINANCE\Community Amenitiesk2011 - March 3 Open House\SC minutes 20110303 (cac).docx


MINUTES of the REGULAR MEETING of the COUNCIL of the DISTRICT OF MISSIONheld in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Hall, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission,British Columbia, on March 7, 2011 commencing at 6:30 p.m.

154

Council Members Present:


1. PROCLAMATIONS

Mayor James AtebeCouncillor Terry GiddaCouncillor Paul HornCouncillor Danny PlecasCouncillor Mike ScudderCouncillor Jenny StevensCouncillor Heather Stewart

Glen Robertson, Chief Administrative OfficerPaul Gipps, Deputy Chief Administrative OfficerJennifer Russell, Legislative AssistantTina Mooney, Administrative Clerk

RC11/127MAR. 07/11

RC11/128MAR. 07/11

RC11/129MAR. 07/11

April 2011 as "Male Survivors of Sexual- Abuse Awareness MonthBC Society for Male Survivors of Sexual Abuse

Moved by Councillor Plecas, seconded by Councillor Gidda, and

RESOLVED: That April 2011 be proclaimed as "Male Survivors of Sexual AbuseAwareness Month" within the District of Mission; the District to assume no costs relatedthereto.

CARRIED

April 2 through 9, 2011 as "Adult Learners' Week"Ron Coreau

Moved by Councillor Stewart, seconded by Councillor Scudder, and

RESOLVED: That April 2 through 9, 2011 be proclaimed as "Adult Learners' Week" withinthe District of Mission; the District to assume no costs related thereto.

CARRIED


Stacey Crawford, Economic Development OfficerRe: Findings of "Business Needs in Target Sectors" Study

Stacey Crawford, Economic Development Officer, appeared before Council on behalf ofthe Economic Development Committee to provide an overview of the recently completed"Business Needs in Target Sectors" study. Mr. Crawford provided the followinginformation:

• The study is the result of an economic development partnership between MapleRidge, Pitt Meadows and Mission, which is formally called Invest North Fraser.

• These three municipalities share several commonalities (proximity, location,affordability, lifestyle) and have chosen to work together to achieve common

155

Regular Council Meeting Page 2 of 20March 7, 2011

economic development objectives such as creating an economic environment thatencourages job growth.

• Invest North Fraser commissioned the study through UBC's Sauder School ofBusiness to gain a better understanding of the business growth needs of specificsectors.

• The highest opportunities identified in the study include advanced energy, light andadvanced manufacturing, information and communications technology, andprofessional services and other small businesses.

• Factors which may help to attract advanced energy business include availability ofinvestment-ready land, utilization of outside expert advice on environmental issueswhen required, and the willingness to fund supporting infrastructure such as districtheating or smart grid space (which itself provides environmental benefits to acommunity).

• The key needs of the manufacturing sector are low cost, flat industrial land, flexibleoffice space, public transport and access to highways, ports and border crossings.

• Light and advanced manufacturing business is important for economic developmentas it provides varied job opportunities (highly skilled to entry-level) which are good fora growing municipality.

• Local economic development opportunity related to the information andcommunications technology (ICT) sector would be tied closely to development ofregional educational programs.

• The ICT sector overlaps heavily with the new media and wireless sectors, andincludes activity such as engineering services, components and electronics,hardware, software and infrastructure and service providers.

• The Economic Development Committee is in the process of finalizing a short-termeconomic development strategy, including a marketing and communicationscomponent specific to these sectors, and is asking for Council support for thisstrategic sectors focus.

Mayor Atebe thanked Mr. Crawford for the information.

Moved by Councillor Scudder, seconded by Councillor Horn, andRESOLVED: That the Economic Development Select Committee forward the BusinessNeeds ir Target Sector Study to Council together with a recommendation and strategicsummary of the 2011 areas of specific sector interest that the Economic DevelopmentOfficer and Economic Development Select Committee support a focus on, those being:1. Light and Advanced Manufacturing2. Information and Communications Technologies3. Advanced EnergyCARRIED

156


RC11/130MAR. 07/11

RC11/131MAR. 07/11

Mulalo Sadike, Canada World YouthRe: Mission/Ukraine Exchange 2010/2011

The participants of the 2010/2011 Canada World Youth Mission/Ukraine exchangeprogram appeared before Council to provide an overview of the group's activities sincearriving in Mission in December. Two of the students, Sonja and Michael, stated:

• There are 17 members on the team, from across Canada and Ukraine, and havebeen in the community since December 13, 2010.

• Since arriving, the team has been volunteering with several organizations includingthe Canadian Cancer Society, Christmas Bureau, Union Gospel Mission, MissionCommunity Services Society (Multicultural Department), The Cedars, Women'sResource Society of the Fraser Valley, Fraser Valley Humane Society, Mission FoodAccess Network, Salvation Army, Senior Animals in Need Today Society, LifetimeLearning Society, Canadian Blood Services, Mission Restorative Resolutions, AllSaints Anglican Church and the Mission Friendship Centre.

• Each person contributed 278 volunteer hours, for a grand total of 4,726 hours in thecommunity.

• The team extended their gratitude to:

o the All Saints Anglican Church, University of the Fraser Valley, Mission FriendshipCentre and the Mission Community Library for providing space for them,

o Youth Unlimited for providing transportation,

o BC Hydro, the Sikh Temple and RCMP for providing educational experience,

o the various host families for opening up their homes,

o the community of Mission in general; and

o various District of Mission staff including Tina Mooney, Kirsten Hargreaves, MikeYounie, Tanya McLean, Kelly Ridley, the leisure centre staff, and Mayor andCouncil for providing bus passes, leisure centre passes, and support.

Mayor Atebe thanked the youth exchange participants and leaders for their contribution tothe community, and extended appreciation to the host families for the support given to thestudents.

Councillor Horn thanked the team for the work done around the Silverdale wetlands, andfor participation in the Back to Health Fair in January.


Moved by Councillor Scudder, seconded by Councillor Stewart, and

RESOLVED: That the following items be received as information:

(a) report from the Manager of Social Development dated February 14, 2011 — SocialDevelopment Program Update;

(b). Mission Institution Report — January 2011;

157


(c) minutes of the Mission Abbotsford Transit Committee meeting held on December 2,2011.

RC11/132MAR. 07/11

RC11/133MAR. 07/11

CARRIED


Moved by Councillor Gidda, seconded by Councillor Pieces, and

RESOLVED: That council now resolve itself into committee of the whole.CARRIED


Councillor Horn asked Mayor Atebe to assume the Chair.

Public Safety Inspection — Summary Report

Mayor Atebe made the following opening remarks:

Welcome everyone and thank you all for being here. The deferral of the PublicSafety Inspection program began on January 24, 2011. Council has instructedstaff to undertake a comprehensive review of the program. The review hasbeen completed and is included in tonight's package. I know there will be morequestions to answer and as we move forward through the reviewimplementation.

To get to this point in the review we have had to make a number of decisions.Please consider this review as a framework for change and that with your inputthe review will be completed. Following the presentation of the report by staff Iwilt ask Council to move the question period forward.

The Deputy Chief Administrative Officer provided the following overview of the summaryreport and the next steps in the process:

• The summary report is a draft framework of the review — there is much more work tobe done.

• On January 24, 2011 Council resolved to defer the inspection program for 30 days,other than those led by the RCMP, and directed staff to initiate a comprehensivereview.

• There was a subsequent further deferral of PSIT-led inspections until May 24, 2011.

• Staff had already initiated a review of the process because the number of incidencesof hydro thresholds being exceeded had dropped significantly.

• The review was undertaken in three areas: moving forward — what would a newpublic safety inspection look like; past practice — what to do with the previous files;and notice on title — when and how should this practice continue.

• If Council decides to proceed with the public safety inspection process, it will be areduced program, with the team internally resourced on a part-time basis.

• Any new process will need to address the following issues:

158


o number of properties in the threshold range,

o checks and balances how to be more effective,

o a separate review process for remediation orders and when fees are assessed,

o awareness of neighbourhood perceptions of police presence,

o determination of what needs to be remediated if the property has been determinedto have had a controlled substance in it,

o training of the inspection team,

o communication with property owners, and

o what bylaw changes are needed.

• The past practice part of the review examines what was done, what can be learnedfrom it, and how to move forward with the existing open files.

• The remaining files from the RCMP led inspections will have a review of theremediation orders.

• The remaining files from the PSIT led inspections will have a review of theremediation orders, a legal review, and a fee assessment review.

• Reviews of the open files will begin immediately, starting with the oldest files first,with a target completion date of April 30.

• The results of the reviews need to be effectively communicated with the owners,whether positive or negative.

• The purpose of any Notice on title is to advise prospective owners that there is acondition or an infraction on the property.

• Further information will be provided by a building official about the types of thresholdsneeded to determine when a Notice on title needs to be registered, and whetherthere are different options.

• The public participation part of the review is now open, and everyone is encouragedto provide comments through the District's website (www.mission.ca ), by email(infcOmission.ca) or by letter.

• The public input and submissions need to close on April 11 so that there is time tocompile the information and bring it back before Council prior to May 24, 2011.

The Mayor thanked the Deputy Chief Administrative Officer for the information.

Discussion ensued regarding the summary report and the format of the questions set outin Section 6 — Community Input.

Moved by Councillor Stevens, and

RECOMMENDED: That staff be directed to prepare a new bylaw restricting the PublicSafety Inspection Team activities only to those cases referred by the RCMP, including anynew fee structures which may be developed in the meantime, to be ready for Councilapproval prior to May 24, 2011.

OPPOSED: Mayor AtebeCouncillor GiddaCouncillor HornCouncillor Plecas

159


March 7, 2011

Councillor ScudderCouncillor Stewart

DEFEATED

QUESTION PERIOD:

Siglenda Steida:

(a) Did the person drafting the questionnaire have a research background, or takencourses in research design?

The Deputy Chief Administrative Officer responded that it was not intended to be a surveyor a formal questionnaire, it is a list of questions to illicit thoughts and comments to getpeople talking, rather than having just one open question. The questions are leading, andit will be brought back and reworked to try to reword the questions in a much more openmanner to encourage people to provide input, rather than trying to lead.

(b) Does the person or persons who made the questionnaire check the document forspelling errors?

(c) Is the person who created the report aware that the tone of the report assumes thatwe all live the same kind of lifestyle?

(d) Is Council and the creator of the report aware that the measurement of moulds in ahouse is very difficult? Is the person aware that almost half of Mission has mouldproblems in the houses because of poor construction and because of poverty?

Mayor Atebe invited Ms. Steida to write down her comments and suggestions and providethem to Council or to staff.

(e) Is the person who wrote the report aware that the term "obvious" is not obvious toeveryone?

(f) Is the person who wrote the report aware that women who live alone and seniors donot like to keep their curtains open because it's too dangerous?

Ron Taylor:

(a) Could we get a report saying how the criteria and operating practices of the othercommunities who carry out public safety inspections vary from ours?

(b) Could staff provide a copy of the report from Surrey, as mentioned in the summaryreport?

(c) How many fires have there been in Mission that can be attributed to grow-ops, andwere they caused by generators going around the electrical system or caused by thegrow-op itself?

(d) Could we get a detailed report of the accounting of how the inspection costs $5,200?

(e) What is the justification why each of the recommendations set out in the summaryreport were adopted in-camera and not in a public meeting?

Mayor Atebe responded that staff will provide further information.

(f) Why are the properties that have completed the remediation orders and paid thefees in excluded from this general review? When it says that all fees are paid, doesit mean that if someone hasn't paid the fees but they have been added to their taxes,then the District treats it like it is now an accounts receivable and therefore the

160


District takes the view that that amounts to an admission, so those files won't bereviewed?

(g) Why were people told they were forbidden by the team to accompany theinspectors? Could we get back an accurate answer from the team?

(h) When reviewing the number of inspections as set out in the report, doesn't it botheryou that 115 of those 228 inspections were on people who were innocent?

Mayor Atebe responded that there has been a framework established to review this, and acase by case review will be done and answers given to individuals.

(i) On any of the cases where the properties were inspected on an administrativewarrant, did you get any other facts other than the kilowatt hour usage? Did youever go by any of the other items mentioned in the report?

(j) Did the questions originate from staff or from the consulting company you havehired?

Mayor Atebe responded that the report was prepared in-house.

(k) Are you prepared to make the commitment right now that any process you devisewill have the intention of not hurting one innocent person?

Mayor Atebe responded that a question framed in that manner is leading andunanswerable.

(I) Will the people who were inspected and were innocent get letters of apology? Willall cases be reviewed?

The Deputy Chief Administrative Officer responded that all open files will be reviewed,including the ones were the fees have been attached to the taxes. All questions andcomments will be taken into consideration. There is no intention to exclude anyonespecifically. If there are files where the fee has been paid and there are reasons that wefeel we can defend legally, then those fees will stand. We will not be reviewing files thatare closed.

(m) Will the information being put into the review be prepared by one of the people whodid the inspection that is being reviewed in the first place?

The Deputy Chief Administrative Officer responded that current staff are filling out a formprepared by a third party to collect all the evidentiary information.

(n) Will any review process in the future respect natural justice, meaning that a personwill have an opportunity to confront their accusers, cross examine, and produce theirown witnesses?

The Deputy Chief Administrative Officer responded that in future, affected persons willhave the opportunity to ask for a review, including being asked for their input. Thissummary report put forward is just a framework, and we are still building it based on publicinput. It is not intended to provide every answer, it is intended as a framework to movethe process forward.

(o) Have you considered just writing to anyone who goes over 93 kwh, to notify themthat the usage is above average and the information has been passed on to theRCMP?

Stacey Gowanlock:

(a) Does this council honestly feel comfortable in relying on the input from the public

161


regarding this survey and review, as public input may not reflect what is legallycorrect?

Mayor Atebe responded that Council listened to the concerns of the public and made acommitment to consult the public for feedback. The District will also be seeking a legalopinion.

(b) Do you find it acceptable that CKNW had a media release before the general publicwas made aware of what the media released contained?

Mayor Atebe responded that the District did not share information with the media before itwas shared with the public. The information was released at the same time to everyone.

Ron Harris:

(a) Can you explain what it means when the report says there is a "...perception that theDistrict is out inspecting properties looking for 'marijuana grow operations'.Properties declared as controlled substance properties need , to meet the test ofwhether or not it is likely that a property was used for the production or storage of acontrolled substance."?

The Deputy Chief Administrative Officer responded that there is public perception that theteam is just looking for grow ops, however what they are looking for are safety infractionsrelating to controlled substance properties. The team does not expect that when they gothere they will actually find one, due to the 24 hours' notice of an inspection. The legaltest is whether it is reasonable to assume that the property was used as a controlledsubstance property, given the condition of the property.(b) You mean my African violets that I grow downstairs with 12 grow lamps and

consuming approximately 150 kw/day to do this, there is a perception that it may bea grow operation? Where's the difference?

The Deputy Chief Administrative Officer responded that the statement referred to saysthat there is a perception by many members of the public that the District safety inspectionteam is out looking for grow operations, when in fact the team is looking for safetyinfractions that are often found in controlled substance properties. If the team came inand found that you are growing African violets, they would see that the above averagehydro usage was legitimate.

Larry Nundal:

(a) If the team is just looking for safety infractions, yet they seem to spend more timelooking for a grow op than they do performing an inspection, why would I have thatperception?

The Mayor responded that he cannot speculate on that perception.(b) Will there be another meeting where people can come and give input and not just

ask questions, as many members of the public do not like writing letters or do nothave access to the internet?

(c) Does this Council understand the meaning of administrative fairness, since I havebeen asking for two years for certain information and evidence regarding theconclusion that a property was used for a controlled substance, and have not yetreceived it?

Mayor Atebe responded that staff can look into that matter.

162


(d) Why can't you use the existing authorities to deal with the safety issues? Why doyou need a bylaw when Council does have the authority to deal with hazardousconditions under the Building Code and Fire Services Act?

Mark Ulmer:

(a) My hydro bills have large fluctuations because they are estimating my usage, sohow can I be found guilty of using too much power based on an estimation?

Mayor Atebe responded that his situation is very specific, and that is why Council hasasked staff to review every individual file.

(b) If hydro only uses estimates, how can those figures be held as the 93 kw/h gospel?

The Deputy Chief Administrative Officer responded that the question is fair, and reviewingthe hydro usage thresholds will certainly be examined in the extensive review. Staff willalso be looking at what other criteria will be used to initiate an inspection because we do ,

not want to include people with legitimate hydro use. We want to find out how to do abetter job of that.

(c) When did suspicion of a grow op at some point back in time become enoughevidence to deem you as a grow op? What gives you the right to determine that myproperty was used as a grow op?

The Deputy Chief Administrative Officer responded that the point of the detailed review ofeach property situation is to determine if there is sufficient evidentiary information tosupport that decision. We need to determine how to not get into those situations in thefuture.

(d) Is the team giving out fines so they can keep their jobs?

Mayor Atebe responded that the public safety inspection program has never been a wayto generate revenue. If it is found through the review that the team has made mistakes,the District will take responsibility for it.

(e) How long will the review take?

The Deputy Chief Administrative Officer responded that the review of individual propertieswill start immediately, and is anticipated to finish by the end of April.

Art:

Will you in fact throw this bylaw out?

Mayor Atebe responded that Council and staff are going through a review process whichwill provide a framework for decision making.

Dan Williamson:

(a) Until BC Hydro sets parameters for power usage, will you give us our money back?

(b) When it is proven that the majority of us did not have a grow op in our homes, willeach one of you go and speak to my neighbours and explain that I was not doingsomething illegal?

(c) If I have to come back here and go through a review are you going to pay for mytime?

163


Mayor Atebe responded that part of the review is how to better communicate with propertyowners and with neighbours. Council is taking this issue very seriously and has made it atop priority.

Trish Banfield:

How could my home have a red "do not occupy" sign on it when all that was found was 5electrical covers missing, a small cap missing for my gas, and a missing backflowpreventer on my hot water tank?

Mayor Atebe responded that in this particular situation, there are two people sayingdifferent things about what has happened. The file will be reviewed with both propertyowners, and an answer given at that time.

Larry Nundal stated that Mr. Gipps had told him that there will be an answer on Ms.Banfield's file by the end of March.

Brad:

(a) What will keep the public safety inspection team from coming back to my house, as Icurrently use 150 kw/h or more? An inspection was done on my home and nothingwas found, and I would appreciate you informing my neighbours of that there wasnothing illegal going on.

The Deputy Chief Administrative Officer responded that the review clearly identifies thatthe District has to do a better job of communicating with the public, with individuals, andwith neighbours, particularly with legitimate power use. We also have to adjust thethresholds and the parameters by which an inspection is done. We have to find a betterway to be more effective on those properties that are hazardous, not the ones withlegitimate power use.

(b) How many dollars or hours is the District prepared to spend in proceeding with legalcases and defending that you have invaded people's homes and levied fines? Areyou prepared to spend $5200?

Mayor Atebe responded that there are other bylaws in place that allows a buildinginspector into properties with 24 hours' notice. There are also other laws that govern howa home is entered. The review will be taking everything into consideration, and theDistrict viill also be seeking a legal opinion.

(c) Is the RCMP in attendance at the meeting tonight to speak?

Mayor Atebe responded that firstly, there are other items of business on the agenda andsecondly, that there were several members of the public at the last meeting who did notfeel safe. Everyone needs to feel safe in a community forum.

(d) Do I have some kind of special mark or clause next to my name when I travelbecause of this inspection? Am I going to be scrutinized differently than I wouldhave been before?

The Deputy Chief Administrative Officer responded that there should be no correlation atall between a bylaw infraction and anything to do with travelling.

Mayor Atebe responded that they will ask staff to provide further information on that issue.

(e) Is it fair to ask that BC Hydro should be responsible for delivering a safe andaccurately measured utility service and by doing so should be responsible to pay for

164


the accurate measuring and billing if they have been inaccurate?

Mayor Atebe responded that the question should be directed to BC Hydro.

(f) What constitutes an open or a closed file? What keeps the inspection team fromcoming back due to consistent, legitimate, high hydro consumption?

The Deputy Chief Administrative Officer responded that if the inspection is done andnothing was found, the file is closed. There is currently a hold on all PSIT led inspectionsuntil May 24. After that time, and part of the review, is to try to adjust the thresholds, sowe are only looking at properties that have an exceptionally high probability of being acontrolled substance property, so that those properties with high legitimate use are notcaptured within this.

Mayor Atebe added that by May 24t h there will be a new process brought forward, afterhearing from the community.

Siglenda Steida:

(a) Would Council consider approaching an expert in restorative justice to restore justicein this community? Someone who is not on staff?

Mayor Atebe responded that issue that has brought people here this evening has beenwell heard by Council. Council is now in the middle of a review process, and thatsuggestion may not be practical for this situation.

(b) Have you spoken to the restorative justice people on staff about this?

Mayor Atebe stated that Council is working toward resolving the issue, and welcomes anycomments and suggestions.

Councillor Horn asked that if the inspection turned up nothing, then can we make sure thatanswer is in the review? If the inspection was done and found to have understandableusage, etc. can we make that clear in the review?

The Deputy Chief Administrative Officer responded that yes, if there was documentationthat the hydro usage was legitimate, the file would not come back up again.

Mayor Atebe thanked everyone for attending the meeting and participating. He invited thepublic to provide their comments to Council, either by visiting the website or writingdirectly.

RC11/134MAR. 07/11

6. PLANNING

Councillor Stewart assumed the Chair.

Street Name for New Roads at 7900 Oyama Street (S08-018)


RECOMMENDED:

1. That the Corporate Officer prepare a bylaw to name a new road over a portion ofParcel identifier: 002-397-307, Lot 7 Except: Firstly: Part Subdivided by Plan 38530Secondly: Part Subdivided by Plan 39652, Section 19, Township 17, NewWestminster District Plan 38403 as Oyama Street as shown as Road 1 on Plan A

165


attached to the report of the senior planner dated March 7, 2011; and

2. That the Corporate Officer prepare a bylaw to name a new road over a portion of theparent property Parcel Identifier 002-397-307, Lot 7 Except: Firstly: Part Subdividedby Plan 38530 Secondly: Part Subdivided by Plan 39652, Section 19, Township 17,New Westminster District Plan 38403 as Oyama Place as shown as Road 2 on PlanA attached to the report of the senior planner dated March 7, 2011.

RC11/135MAR. 07/11

RC11/136MAR. 07/11

CARRIED

Rezoning Application R11-002 (FirstOnSite Restoration) — 7485 Lark Street


RECOMMENDED:

1. That, in accordance with rezoning application R11-002 (FirstOnSite Restoration), theCorporate Officer prepare a bylaw to amend District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009 by rezoning the property located at 7485 Lark Street and legally described as:

Parcel Identifier: 006-958-753; Lot 117 Section 19 Township 17 NewWestminster District Plan 43568

from Urban Residential 558 zone (R558) to Urban Residential 558 SecondaryDwelling zone (R558s);

2. That the bylaw be considered for first and second readings at the regular Councilmeeting on March 7, 2011; and

3. That following such readings, the bylaw be forwarded to a public hearing onMarch 28, 2011.

CARRIED

Rezoning Application R11-006 (Forwood Construction) — 7371 Birch Street


RECOMMENDED:

1. That, in accordance with rezoning application R11-006 (Forwood Construction), theCorporate Officer prepare a bylaw to amend District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009 by rezoning the property located at 7371 Birch Street and legally described as:

Parcel Identifier: 026 382 652; Lot 7 Section 3 Township 18 New WestminsterDistrict Plan BCP18989

from Residential Compact zone (RC465) to Residential Compact SecondaryDwelling zone (RC465s);

2. That the bylaw be considered for first and second readings at the regular Councilmeeting on March 7, 2011; and

3. That following such readings, the bylaw be forwarded to a public hearing onMarch 28, 2011.

CARRIED

166


RC1.1 /137MAR. 07/11

RC11/138MAR. 07/11

RC11/139MAR. 07/11

RC11/140MAR. 07/11

Third Reading Report for Zone Amending Bylaw 5162-2010-5050(19)(R10-017 — District of Mission)

A report from the Manager of Environmental Services dated February 28, 2011 regardingZone Amending Bylaw 5162-2010-5050(19) was provided for the Committee'sinformation.

7. FORESTRY

Councillor Plecas assumed the Chair.

Log Marketing and Dry Land Sort Services Agreement


RECOMMENDED: That Canadian Overseas Log & Lumber Ltd. be awarded a contract toprovide log marketing services and arrange for dry land sort services from March 2011 toDecember 31, 2012 with possible extensions based on mutual consent to December 31,2015.

CARRIE!)


RECOMMENDED: That the meeting be extended until all business on the agenda hasbeen concluded.

CARRIED

8. ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC WORKS

Councill8r Gidda assumed the Chair.

Sustainability Statement

Moved by Councillor Stewart, and

RECOMMENDED:

1. That Council adopt the following sustainability statement:

The District of Mission takes pride in the many steps it has completed tocreate a livable community.

We have done so by ensuring that economic, social, cultural, andenvironmental criteria are fully considered in all decision-making.

In striving to build on our successes in creating a livable community, we arecommitted to making decisions that do not compromise our future andrecognize that there is urgency but that change takes time.

The principles, objectives and strategies that guide our decisions can befound in our key strategic plans - Official Community Plan, SocialDevelopment Plan, Economic Development Strategy, Employment Land

167


RC11/141MAR. 07/11

RC11/142MAR. 07/11

Strategy, Cultural Master Plan, Heritage Strategic Plan, Parks, Trails andBicycle Master Plan, Municipal Forest Plans and the EnvironmentalCharter.

2. That staff develop a page on the District's web site dedicated to sustainability with adirect link from the District's home page which will include:

a. Inventory of sustainability initiatives including links to all related documents,references and initiatives, and

b. Key performance indicators for measuring sustainability;

3. That staff promote sustainability within the organization by encouraging discussionof sustainability issues at department meetings and providing avenues for staff togive feedback and suggestions for improved sustainability.

4. That when undergoing planned revisions, our strategic documents shall be amendedto:

a. Include a brief sustainability section quoting the above sustainability statement,

b. Include applicable linkages to other strategic documents, and

c. Include recommendations that are consistent with the sustainability statement;

5. That a sustainability policy be developed.

CARRIED

Earth Hour 2011


RECOMMENDED:

1. That the Manager of Environmental Services be authorized to register the Districtwith the Earth Hour program to promote energy conservation;

2. That staff be encouraged to turn off all unnecessary lights, appliances, computersetc. for an hour starting at 8:30 p.m. on March 26, 2011; and

3. That staff advertises the Earth Hour program using the website, City Page andcoupons.

CARRIED

Upgrading of Penitentiary Pump Station and Gravity Main


RECOMMENDED:

1. That section 3 of Penitentiary Sewage Lift Station Catchment Area Fee Bylaw 5040-2009 be amended by changing the fee per lot of $3,177.40 to $2,421.50 for all newunits to be constructed within the Penitentiary Pump Station catchment area; and

2. That the $473,800 budget for the upgrade scheduled to take place in 2012 bedelayed to 2014 and be increased to $518,000. Of the total budget of $518,000, that$26,000 be put into the 2013 budget to pay for the design of the pump stationupgrades.

CARRIED

168


March 7, 2011

RC11/143MAR. 07/11

Amendment to the Refuse Collection and Disposal Bylaw 1387-1984:Addition of Tipping Fee for Asbestos Containing Material


RECOMMENDED:

1. That Schedule A of the Refuse Collection and Disposal Bylaw 1387-1984 beamended by replacing it with the following:

SCHEDULE 'A'

MISSION LANDFILL SITE DISPOSAL FEES

2011

Extra garbage bag sticker (per sticker) $3.00

All refuse except as specified below (per tonne) $85.00

Minimum charge for loads of refuse up to 58kg for Mission andElectoral Areas C, F & G residents (per load)

$5.00

Minimum charge for loads of refuse up to 73.5 kg for customers fromoutside Mission and Electoral Areas C, F and G (per load)

$11.00

Surcharge for unsecured loads (any size) $10.00

Municipal collection contract refuse $0.00

Gyproc (per tonne) $140.00

Tires (passenger car and light truck tires only) — per tire plus weight atregular refuse rate

$2.00

Brush waste (per tonne) $60.00

Residential recyclables* for DOM and Electoral Area C,F,G residents $0.00

At the Engineer's discretion, loads with refuse received from outsidethe District of Mission or Electoral Areas C, F and G (per tonne)

$150.00

At the Engineer's discretion, loads with refuse requiring specialmanagement practices, collected outside or within DOM or ElectoralAreas C,F,G (per tonne)

$150.00

Surcharge for unsorted loads arriving at the Mission Landfill (chargedat the highest tipping fee of recyclable material not being sorted out)

50%

Commercial loads of asbestos waste from within Mission and othersources at the Engineer's discretion

$200 daily burialcharge plus $200 pertonne

Any mixed loads will be assessed at the higher tipping fee

*Residential recyclables include only those items generated in dwelling units in theDistrict of Mission or Fraser Valley Regional District Electoral Areas C, F, or G and do not

169


include any materials generated through a commercial, industrial or institutional process.Recyclables include separated scrap metal and appliances (dishwashers, stoves, fridges,washers, and dryers) as well as other recyclable materials as defined in the Collection,Removal, and Marketing of Recyclables Bylaw (2639-1993).

CARRIED

RC11/144MAR. 07/11

RC11/145MAR. 07/11

RC11/146MAR. 07/11


RECOMMENDED: That Section 4 of the Refuse Collection and Disposal Bylaw 1387-1984 be amended to omit the property at 10271 Dewdney Trunk Road from electedcurbside collection service.

CARRIED

Universal Water Metering System Update

A report from the Manager of Environmental Services dated February 22, 2011 regardingthe status of the request for proposals for a universal water metering system was providedfor the Committee's information.


Councillor Stevens assumed the Chair.

JAMES Plant Outfall Pipe Restoration of Cover


RECOMMENDED:

1. That the District of Mission amend the regional sewer financial plans by re-allocatingfunds from the following projects to the Outfall Pipe Restoration of Cover project:

Project DescriptionsMission'sPortion

Re-allocatedAmount

2011 Re-allocation from Primary, Add WatertightIsolation Gate to the Mid-Channel

$96,034 $468,000

2011 Re-allocation from Effluent, Mag-meter inBypass Ports for the Effluent Weirs

$21,546 $105,000

2011 Re-allocation from General, MiscellaneousRepairs to Concrete Tanks and Channels

$154,722 $754,000

2011 Re-allocation from General, UED ManagerVehicle

$9,234 $45,000

General, Move Bio-solids Storage (green) Tentadjacent to Val-E-Gro Storage (small white tent)

$21,546 $105,000

2011 Joint Sewer Contingency $4,718 $23,000

170


TOTALS

$307,800

$1,500,000

2. That staff ask the Water & Sewer Commission to investigate if any reparations areavailable from the installer of the original pipeline; and

3. That staff ask the Water & Sewer Commission to properly mark the location of thenew pipeline once it is installed.

CARRIED

RC11/147MAR. 07/11

RC11/148MAR. 07/11

RC11/149MAR. 07/11

District of Mission's 2011 — 2015 Financial Plan Bylaw


RECOMMENDED: That the District's 2011 — 2015 Financial Plan Bylaw 5198-2011 beconsidered for first three readings on March 7, 2011 and considered for final adoption onMarch 21, 2011.

CARRIED


RECOMMENDED: That staff provide a report containing alternative funding opportunitiesfor a domestic violence coordinator.

OPPOSED: Mayor AtebeCouncillor GiddaCouncillor PlecasCouncillor Scudder

DEFEATED

Amendments to District of Mission Dog Licensing and Animal Control andImpounsling Bylaw 1782-1988


RECOMMENDED:

1. That District of Mission Dog Licencing and Animal Control and Impounding Bylaw1782-1988 be amended as follows:

A. by adding the following definition to section 2.1:

"a) "dangerous dog" means a dog that;

(i) has killed or seriously injured a person without provocation;

(ii) has killed or seriously injured a domestic animal without provocation,while in a public place or while on private property, other than propertyowned or occupied by the person responsible for the dog; or

(iii) an animal control officer has reasonable grounds to believe is likely tokill or seriously injure a person or an animal."

B. by replacing the definition g) Poundkeeper with:

"'Poundkeeper/Animal Control Officer' means, any person designated by

171


Council from time to time to administer and enforce the provisions of thisbylaw; and be the Poundkeeper/Animal Control Officer' for theMunicipality for the purposes of Section 49 of the Community Charter"and renumbering the remaining subsections accordingly.

C. by amending section 4.1 b) to read as follows:

"b) any dog owned, possessed or. harboured by him to be on a highway or anypublic place unless such dog is on a leash and is under the control of aperson who is competent to control the dog except while in an authorized offleash park or attendance at an authorized performance a dog may be offleash and under control of a person who is competent to control the dog, or"

D. by adding the following to section 4.1:

"d) any dog owned, possessed or harboured by him while in a public place orwhile on private property, other than property owned or occupied by theperson responsible for the dog, to attack or kill or injure a person or anotherdomestic animal without provocation.

e) any dangerous dog to be possessed or harboured within the Municipality."

2. That Schedule 2 of District of Mission Ticket Information Bylaw 2646-1993 beamended by adding the following fine:

Offence Section Fine

Dog Attack 4.1 (d) $500.00CARRIED


Mayor Atebe resumed the Chair.

RC11/150MAR. 07/11

RC11/151MAR. 07/11

Moved by Councillor Stewart, seconded by Councillor Stevens, and

RESOLVED: That the committee of the whole now rise and report.CARRI ED



RESOLVED: That the recommendations of the committee of the whole, as contained initems RC11/132 to RC11/150, be adopted.CARRIED

RC11/152MAR. 07/11

12. BYLAWS

Moved by Councillor Stevens, seconded by Councillor Plecas, and

RESOLVED: That the readings of all bylaws included in the Bylaws section of theMarch 7, 2011 regular council agenda be approved as listed:

172


(a) District of Mission Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw 5137-2010-4052(9) — a bylaw to incorporate new Industrial DevelopmentPermit Guidelines

(b) District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5162-2010-5050-(19)(R10-017 — District of Mission) — a bylaw to add definitions, to insertSection 1006 Industrial Waste Resource Management (INWM)Zone and to rezone property at 32000 Dewdney Trunk Road, L.S.7(no civic), 32122 Dewdney Trunk Road and 32138 Dewdney TrunkRoad from Rural 36 zone (RU36) and Rural 16 zone (RU16) toIndustrial Waste Management (INWM) zone

(c) District of Mission 2011 — 2015 Financial Plan Bylaw 5198-2011 — abylaw to establish the Financial Plan for the years 2011 to 2015

(d) District of Mission Street Naming (Oyama Street Extension/ OyamaPlace) Bylaw 5200-2011 — a bylaw to name new portions of road

(e) District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5201-2011-5050(35)(R11-002 — FirstOnSite Restoration) — a bylaw to rezone propertyat 7485 Lark Street from Urban Residential zone (R558) to UrbanResidential 558 Secondary Dwelling zone (R558s)

(f) District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5202-2011-5050(36)(R11-006 — Forwood Construction) — a bylaw to rezone property at7371 Birch Street from Residential Compact zone (RC465) toResidential Compact Secondary Dwelling zone (RC465s)

(g) District of Mission Penitentiary Sewage Lift Station Catchment AreaFee Amending Bylaw 5203-2011-5040(1) — a bylaw to amend thefee for 2011

(h) District of Mission Refuse Collection and Disposal Amending Bylaw5204-2011-1387(51) — a bylaw to add a tipping fee for asbestoscontaining material

(i) Distridt of Mission Dog Licensing and Animal Control andImpounding Amending Bylaw 5205-2011-1782(24) — a bylaw to adda definition for "dangerous dog"

(j) District of Mission Ticket Information Amending Bylaw 5206-2011-2646(21) — a bylaw to add a fine for a dog attack


Third Reading









RC11/153MAR. 07/11

CARRIED

13. OTHER BUSINESS

Release from Closed Council — February 28, 2011

The following resolution was released from the closed CouncilFebruary 28, 2011:

meeting held on

That the fact that a stop work order has been issued by the Agricultural Land

173Regular Council Meeting Page 20 of 20March 7, 2011

Commission (ALC) on the property at 30297 Silverhill Avenue be releasedfrom closed council.


The chief administrative officer did not report.

15. MAYOR'S REPORT

The mayor reported on various activities, meetings and events attended since the lastregular council meeting.

16. COUNCILLOR'S REPORTS ON COMMITTEES, BOARDS AND ACTIVITIES

The Councillors did not report.

17. QUESTION PERIOD


18. ADJOURNMENT

Moved by Councillor Horn, seconded by Councillor Scudder and



JAMES ATEBE, MAYOR PAUL GIPPS, DEPUTY CHIEFADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

G:\clerk\minutes\rc110307.doc

MI§T§1611/7% /ON THE FRASER


174

To: Chief Administrative OfficerFrom: Acting Executive AssistantDate: March 8, 2011

Subject: Release from Closed Council — March 7, 2011

At the March 7, 2011 closed council meeting, following resolutions were released from closed council:

Proposal to Establish Public Art at Fraser River Heritage Park

RESOLVED: That council support in principle the proposal by Mr. Raphael Silver forpublic art in Fraser River Heritage Park with the provision that Mr. Silver consult withthe Fraser River Heritage Park staff/board, the Cultural Resources Commission, FirstNations stakeholders and District of Mission Parks, Recreation and CultureDepartment staff on the project and that he meet with District of Mission staff and theChair of the Cultural Resources Commission prior to March 18, 2011.

Cultural Resources Commission — Member Appointments

RESOLVED: That Pam Alexis, Diana Muntigl and Sharon Syrette be reappointedretroactive to January 2010 to the Cultural Resources Commission, with their termsto expire in January 2012.RESOLVED: That Nancy Arcand, Kusum Soni and Bronwen Sutherland beappointed to the Cultural Resources Commission.RESOLVED: That the new members appointed to the Cultural ResourcesCommission (Nancy Arcand, Kusum Soni and Bronwen Sutherland) have terms toexpire in January 2013.

Christine Brough

Page 1 of 1