Rural Comox Valley OCP comments by Diane Bostock September 15, 2014

Feedback on Rural Comox Valley Official Community Plan (*my copy dated: July18 2014 )

5. (8) Please add specifically “the Puntledge Triangle and the Browns River”.*these are recommended by the Western Wilderness Committee as the only two river systems that provide corridors for wildlife from the west coast of Vancouver Island to the east coast. (this is supported by the Nature Without Borders doc.)

6. (1) re: hiring qualified professionalsSince the qualified professionals are employed by the developers and this arrangement opens up an avenue for corruption, please allow for bringing in a second, (or more), qualified professional, as may sometimes be deemed necessary, to prevent bias and/or fraud that might favour the developers

8. (2) re: reducing any further disturbance...A hearty endorsement of this, especially the part about reducing fragmentation.I believe this to be extremely important not only as applies to “sensitive, rare and threatened ecosystems” but also wherever habitat that is minimally fragmented exists, like in my backyard, where the perfect storm of ALR, Upland Resource, Crown lands and Natural Features ( i.e. rivers, wetlands and retained forest cover) connect to offer corridors for wildlife. In my opinion this is why the lands onour side of the Puntledge River were removed from the Settlement Expansion Areas and must remain removed. Reducing fragmentation and avoiding disturbing of habitat and corridors for wildlife is especially important because the Inland Island Highway stock fence creates limited crossing places. These few crossing places must be recognized and formally identified on the maps.

10. (1) re: identify areas suitable for parks and green-ways ...There are two properties that I think are very “suitable”:

First- The property located in the municipality of Courtenay right beside the Condensory Bridge and it is for sale. (It has been for sale for some time. I think there are issues of easement and perhaps flooding, ( a berm was built along the river frontage), that have prevented simple building on this lot, maybe a park would be a perfect use for it. This lot connects to the One Spot Trail and could provide parking for the tubers, kayakers, swimmers and fishermen that frequently use this part of the river, (Thelot was successfully used for parking until it was fenced, presumably because of risk management and the fact that it is privately owned. Fencing it is perfectly understandable but since the fence was installed there is often a reoccurring parking side show on the road.) The place is perfect, parking should not be eliminated from the road, but included in a park/parking arrangement on the lot! Obtaining it for this purpose would limit the risk of accidents on the road. There could be washrooms, a concession, a spot for picnics. and quiet events. (Some years ago we put forward a presentation to Courtenay regarding this, check it out. I realize it is sort of jurisdictional but hey, you talk about cooperating beyond political boundaries, maybe there could be away? This affects the traffic coming from Area C and is the natural hook up place where the One Spot trail connects to Courtenay.

Secondly The lot, (also in Courtenay, also for sale), named “Stonehenge Farms” is bordered on two sides by the CVRD Exhibition Grounds. This lot has been used as a horse riding facility and contains existing horsey infrastructure, it could be used for parking and expansion of horse related fairground activities or offices as there is a residential building there. Once again, it is inter-jurisdictional, but wellworth going after if it could be done. This whole OCP/RGS is about solutions for growth. And our

Exhibition Grounds, all newly wired and plumbed could definitely be a bit bigger. Here is an opportunity to secure that space for the future.

13. 13 (2) re: greenhouse gas emissions and incentives such as density bonusingPeople here said they did not want increased density. Please exercise care when awarding density bonuses. I agree it is good to encourage the use of green innovations in building but we must start to see them as the norm and require them rather than increasing allowed density in order to get them..

18. (2) re CVEDS to attract businesses which complement and strengthen agriculture and aquaculture Please consider scale throughout all policies in thisdocument. also consider character as CVEDS frequently has not represented my rural sensibilities.

18. (13) re: wide range of employment options...Once again scale is not mentioned here please put it back in.

21. (1) re:health sciences food production … Please define “health sciences food production in the glossary.

Sounds good but please NO GMO.! Keep it out of here from now on. That science is clearly screwing up. Follow the rest of the world and disallow GMOs here.

21. (2) re: marijuana rezoningThe currently proposed rezoning for Medical Marijuana Production inside of the existingALR and Upland Resource land is yet another impediment CVRD is imposing on a sustainable and green industry. Rather than punish prospective business operators the CVRD could deflect some of the problems back to the feds and criticize what their regulations, objectives or policies are doing to our potential or existing industry in this area. You are, by further imposition of zoning, downgrading the zoning “ALR” which allows MMP's . Is that not economically prejudicial? Do we support agriculture or not? You support pet crematoriums, abattoirs and real estate agent's ability to make a living. Please have a plan in place should the fed's current “solution”, presently in court, fail that allows this kind of agriculture in the Rural Settlement Areas without further rezoning, as has been the case previously.

22. (1) re: Transportation – objectivesPlease never alter the zoning in the rural areas to support the current model of transportation, (I believe this was proposed in the Sustainability Plan.), consider rather, altering the expected transportation norms to support our rural needs.

23. (3) Correction “Regent Bridge” should read “Reese Bridge”. (and delete “road” from this name.)

24. (1) v. re: Maintain a rural policy and services framework that does not conflict with the core valuesof rural living: independence and self-sufficiency.Yes! No amalgamations for services. Another core value of rural living, IMHO, is protecting and maintaining dark skies.

26. (3) re: to identify cultural ….rights of way...Yes! No kidding. In the Land of Plenty pg. 22 I saw a picture of Stotan Falls circa 1864. People were

using the river freely for transportation. That is cultural heritage.

28. (5) re: rental housingYes to strata solutions. I would like to add the concept of renters having a stake in control of their housing and put forward that this could prevent the problem of ghettos as proposed in “A Pattern Language” Pattern 79. I think this is very good and could help with our low cost housing woes. Please read this “pattern” and consider what it is proposing. .https://archive.org/stream/APatternLanguage/A_Pattern_Language#page/n1/mode/2up

42. re: Minimum lot sizes in R S As subject to ...extension of existing subdivision areas...Whoa! Now that we are making this nice new RGS/OCP why would we want to repeat bad patterns that allowed rural sprawl? I say strike anything about an existing subdivision being a way to create more subdividing and create the zoning we want now!

51. (2) re: agricultural industries and related uses, such as … agricultural research facilitiesPlease do not allow this to include any research concerning GMOs. No GMOs, and please build some safeguards into the document to help us anticipate and avoid their further acceptance and proliferation. .

65. (5) re: watersheds and water sources must be protected...Will these 5 points be sufficient policy to protect our water from coal mining or fracking for LNG? (LNG is a misnomer as it is actually Liquefied Unnatural Gas or Liquefied Fracked Gas.)

70. (3) re: privately owned waterways to be returned to the crown.Yay! This idea is excellent and in keeping with the rest of the Province and Canada. (G's proposal is that this should happen when the property changes title, not just when development occurs.)

76. (2) re: to better incorporate connectivity of natural systems in public policy decisions...I endorse this thoroughly.

76. (3) re: endeavour to work with adjacent jurisdictions ...for planning outside of political boundaries...to better incorporate social, economic interests ...!!!!!Please exercise caution while endeavouring this! I have seen, time and time again, that Courtenay, for example, has no idea of my rural social interests, not to mention economic, transit etc.

77.(4) Correction --the sentence is incomplete.--Sufficient should be followed by a description of sufficient what.

87. Form and Character (a) re: pitched roofs are to have no less than a four in 12 pitch...

Please consider changing the wording of this to allow rooftop gardens (with only pleasing form and character, naturally). The rural form and character you are supposedly trying to protect with these regulations, evolved in a setting with no regulations. G's suggestion here is “ your job is to provide water and sewer and waste management not to tell me what slope to put on my freaking building, mind your own business!”

87. Parking please see “A Pattern Language” https://archive.org/stream/APatternLanguage/A_Pattern_Language#page/n1/mode/2up

- Pattern # 22, “9% Parking” - Pattern # 97, “Shielded Parking” - Pattern # 103, “Small Parking”

In addition to these comments on specific items, I want to point out that a lot of the future success of these policies will depend on the CVRD's ability to monitor and enforce them.. There must be funds available for this work as well as for the aspirations contained in it, such as ground truthing and continued mapping of sensitive areas.

I also want to mention an aspiration of mine that our spiffy CVRD Waste Management Centre include afacility for preventing usable items from entering the stream going into the landfill as “total garbage”. This could be accomplished several ways, it could be financed from its own proceeds or taken on by a charity. Such facilities exist on Vancouver Island and on Hornby Island. It is impractical and worse to be filling up our landfill with perfectly usable items. This comes in under “reuse”second only to “refuse” when it comes to recycling. I refuse to believe we can't accomplish this here.

Thanks for the opportunity to be involved in this process and for your attention and time.

Sincerely,

Diane Bostock Area C CVRD

1

Selena Speed

To: Ann MacDonaldSubject: RE: Idiens Way Concerns, RD Area B

From: Ann MacDonald  Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 4:29 PM To: 'Paul Jordan' Cc: Debra Oakman; Selena Speed; 'Jim Gillis' Subject: RE: Idiens Way Concerns, RD Area B 

Thank you for your note, Paul. I appreciate the time you have taken to respond and to outline your concerns. I have been away for the past week and so it will take me a bit of time to follow up on your comments.  

To that end, though, I will follow up on your suggestions and pursue what measures can be taken to address your concerns. Once we have a few more answers, I will get back in touch with you with a response to your direct recommendations and suggestions.   

Thank you again for your email.  

Regards, Ann 

Ann MacDonald, MCIP, RPP General Manager of Planning and Development Services Branch Comox Valley Regional District  600 Comox Road, Courtenay, BC V9N 3P6 Tel: 250‐334‐6077; Fax: 250‐334‐4358   Toll Free: 1‐800‐331‐6007 

From: Paul Jordan [mailto:prjordan@shaw.ca]  Sent: September‐02‐14 10:31 AM To: Ann MacDonald Subject: Idiens Way Concerns, RD Area B 

Dear Ann MacDonald, 

    If you recall we had several conversations regarding the traffic situation on the rural section of Idiens Way, one at the RGS draft presentation, and the other in the foyer of the Regional District office.   I appreciate your patience in listening to my frustrated concerns echoing the concerns of many residents who live on Idiens Way, both in the Regional District and on the Courtenay side.  It has been 4 years since the road was unilaterally pushed through by the City of Courtenay, completely disregarding and ignoring the wishes of the vast majority of residents on both the rural and urban sides of Idiens Way.   The constant noise, speeding, and rudeness of drivers that we have endured up to now is unconscionable.  Pedestrians and horses have basically been forced off the road by drivers intent on getting to their destination as quickly as possible.  I have observed 2 deer, and numerous cats and rabbits run over in front of my house.  It is only a matter of time 

6480-20

2

before someone gets seriously injured, hopefully not a small child.  Pedestrians and cyclists compete unsuccessfully with large speeding cars; as a result their numbers are declining as automobiles take over the road.  Traffic volumes have increased to approximately 2000 vehicles per day from the original 150, and with the proposed connection of Crown Isle Boulevard to Norfolk, linking up with Idiens, we can only expect a much greater increase in traffic volumes.  Factor in  the street light across Ryan Road to Cosco on Crown Isle Boulevard, the recent construction of the Thrifty’s mall, plus the building of the new hospital on Lerwick, and you can see what will happen to volumes on our road.  It has in effect been turned into a major arterial route. In no instance has the City of Courtenay, the DOT. or the Regional District ever consulted residents concerning this connection, or attempted to assess the impact this would have on residents.  There has been no impact study or remediation of the effect this would have on our quality of life or safety.  We have been completely left out of decision making, nor was any information forthcoming regarding the dispensation of the road prior to its’ construction.  The only time I talked with Peter Crawford he justified the Idiens Way extension by stating it was always planned and that it was included in the 2003 OCP.  All efforts to mitigate this incursion into our area have been instigated by residents concerned for their safety and quality of life, not by officials either with the City of Courtenay or the MOT.  It was only when we observed the size of the road leading up from the Assessment Center that residents realized the City of Courtenay was intent on using us as a major conduit or artery for traffic travelling between Comox and Courtenay and the Air Forcebase.  Kevin Lagan, The Director of Operations for Courtenay at the time, stated publicly in spite of the large differences in the rural and urban roads that they were essentially the same, the “rural stretch of the road would be capable of carrying up to 6,000‐7,000 vehicles a day as long as drivers drove responsibly.”!!! The dismissive attitude on the part of the City of Courtenay is indicative of a total lack of respect for the concerns of residents.  The only information concerning the dispensation of the road we received from them was that it was “inevitable” and also that we would be absorbed by the City of Como (or Courtanay)x anyway so what was our concern.      We did everything possible to prevent our previously quiet rural road from becoming a throughway for drivers in a hurry to shave a few minutes off their travel time to the Airport or Comox, but to no avail.  This included a petition presented to Courtenay City Council in July 2008, signed by all residents all Idiens Way and affected areas, and supported by Barbara Price, the Area B Director at the time, in which only 2 residents expressed approval of the connection; all others were opposed.  The petition gave us a brief respite, in theory to allow the MOT to review the impact and decide on improvements needed.  We were not privy to any such review, nor were any improvements made to our side of Idiens.     I forced a volume and speed count on the MOT last year.  I was categorically told by Bob O’Brien MOT Operations Manager, that regardless of the volume or speed of traffic no calming would be implemented!  The MOT was not in the business of putting in speed bumps, and stop signs were not justified.     I find it totally unbelievable that honest tax paying residents have been treated like this!  We have been completely ignored while our quality of life life deteriorates, our property values decline, and our safety is compromised!   With cooperation and responsible planning, our area could have remained and can still be an ideal quiet rural area where children could ride their bikes and residents walk their dogs and ride their horses in safety.  All we are asking for is consideration.  Some or all of these changes might alleviate the impact this connection has made on us; One: No widening of the road (as this would encourage more traffic and speeders) but a safe walkway on the side of the road on the right of way.  Two: A 3 way stop sign on Aspen.  Three: Speed bumps (the round scattered variety) from Sylvan to Parry Place.  Four: A stop sign on the boundary between the RD and Courtenay.  Five: A reduction of the speed limit to 30 between Sylvan and Aspen.  Six: Changing the pedestrian crosswalk from its current location just west of the connection to the pedestrian trail just on the boundary.  I would also suggest that Crown Isle be approached and pressured to build another exit east to Anderton to reduce the impact of traffic on Idiens, which they seem intent on using as their primary entrance and exit point.     In addition, we seem now to be  irrelevant as a rural entity as we will eventually be absorbed by a Municipality as part of a so called”rural settlement area” that has also been imposed on us by the majority 

3

seats the cities of Comox and Courtenay hold on the RD Board..  However, we are still a rural area and want to remain so. Ironically, according to the Rural Comox Valley OCP; Pg 23 Transportation‐objectives 22. (2) Increase opportunities for rural residents to walk, bicycle and use public transit. (3) Increase the proportion of trips made by non‐vehicle modes. etc, etc.  What has happened to our area which previously epitomized this ideal I think is indicative of our situation and how little regard is given to these values by the Regional District and the surrounding urban areas.     I could go on and on.  However, I think it is time for us to be truly represented and for the Regional District to make some serious changes to our road .  It is irresponsible to suggest that residents move or spend large amounts of our own money erecting sound barriers or other remedies as the volume of traffic and accompanying noise increases.  Thank you for your concern.  I look forward to your response.   Regards, Paul Jordan  2221 Idiens Way  Ph: 778‐992‐0001    

1

Selena Speed

From: Ann MacDonaldSent: Monday, August 25, 2014 4:21 PMTo: Selena SpeedCc: Alana Mullaly; Kevin BrooksSubject: FW: Comments on draft Rural OCPAttachments: CVRD_OCPreview 140825.pdf; ATT00001.htm; CVRD_OCPreview 140825unsigned.docx;

ATT00002.htm

Selena For our OCP tracking document for OCP feedback. Thanks, ann  

From: Aqua‐Tex Scientific [mailto:aqua‐tex@islandnet.com]  Sent: August‐25‐14 4:07 PM To: Ann MacDonald Cc: Sarah Karkanis; Marc Rutten; Zoe Norcross‐Nu'u; Aqua‐Tex Scientific Subject: Comments on draft Rural OCP 

Ann

We have completed our review of the draft OCP. Our comments are quite lengthy, but designed to make it easier to implement the Comox Lake Watershed Protection Plan when it is available. There are many good and strong areas in the document that protect ecosystems and drinking water. We have mentioned some that particularly caught our eye, but felt it was most efficient to focus on areas that we felt needed a bit of strengthening.

Our single overarching recommendation would be to add a "Drinking Water Supply Protection Area" overlay zoning to the Comox Lake Watershed and associated lands which currently supply drinking water. The idea would be to provide an additional level of protection, while not changing underlying zoning. We recommend this rather than a special development permit area, because the DWSPA would cover more activities than just development, e.g. recreation. The CVRD GIS department has recently updated the watershed map, so adding it to the existing maps should be simple from a technical perspective. We realize that this may cause a bit of initial public concern, but also expect that it would be strongly supported by VIHA and strengthen the filtration deferral that CVRD currently enjoys. The public comments that we read about the earlier OCP drafts indicated that the public wanted drinking water protection. We feel it that highlighting and delineating the Comox Lake watershed as a special area will also bolster future public education programs.

Please review these comments and feel free to call us with any questions. In case it is helpful, we have also included an MS word version of our comments in addition to the PDF.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Best regards,

Cori

********************************************** Cori L. Barraclough, M.Sc., R.P.Bio., PMP

6480-25

2

Aqua-Tex Scientific Consulting Ltd. 201- 3690 Shelbourne St. Victoria BC V8P 4H2 Tel: (250) 598-0266; Fax (250) 598-0263 390 7th Ave Kimberley BC V1A 2Z7 Tel (250) 427-0260; Fax (250) 427-0280 aqua-tex@islandnet.com *********************************************

On 2014-06-16, at 12:15 PM, Ann MacDonald <amacdonald@comoxvalleyrd.ca> wrote:

Good afternoon SarahWe are just finalizing the draft now and expect it to be ready for public review by mid­July, when it will go forward to the Electoral Area Services Committee. We will be starting our third and final phase of public consultation during the week of July 22­26th and hope to set the public hearing for September 9th.

I will ensure that you are on our distribution list so that you are notified when the draft is publicly available when that time comes, again, hopefully by July 14.

Thanks, Ann

Ann MacDonald, MCIP, RPPGeneral Manager of Planning and Development Services BranchComox Valley Regional District600 Comox Road, Courtenay, BC V9N 3P6Tel: 250­334­6077; Fax: 250­334­4358 Toll Free: 1­800­331­6007

From: Sarah Karkanis [mailto:sarahe.buchanan@gmail.com] Sent: June­16­14 11:39 AMTo: Ann MacDonaldCc: Marc Rutten; Beverly Suderman; Cori Barraclough (AquaTex); Zoe Norcross­Nu'uSubject: Re: ToR for the Watershed Protection Plan

Hello Ann,

I hope you are doing well.

I am following up on the conversation we started early April regarding the new CVRD OCP and opportunity for review in the context of the watershed protection plan that is in development.

You had indicated that a draft OCP may be available by the end of May and I am wondering if it would be possible to get a copy of the draft?

Thanks Ann, I look forward to hearing from you.

Warm Regards,

Sarah

Page 1 of 3

8/26/2014

On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 4:37 PM, Ann MacDonald <amacdonald@comoxvalleyrd.ca> wrote:

Many thanks Marc. I look forward to following up with you on this in the next couple of weeks Sarah.

As far as timing, we plan to have the draft OCP available for review by the end of May, so that will be a good time for us to share our insights into any policy overlaps.

Thanks, Ann

Ann MacDonald, MCIP, RPPExecutive Manager of Strategic and Long Range PlanningComox Valley Regional DistrictTel: 250-334-6077

From: Marc Rutten Sent: April-09-14 3:15 PMTo: Ann MacDonaldCc: 'Beverly Suderman'; Cori Barraclough (AquaTex); Sarah Karkanis (AquaTex); Zoe Norcross-Nu'uSubject: RE: ToR for the Watershed Protection Plan

Ann,

Attached please find the terms of reference for the watershed protection plan.

Regards,Marc

From: Ann MacDonald Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 9:58 AMTo: Marc RuttenCc: 'Beverly Suderman'Subject: ToR for the Watershed Protection Plan

Hi MarcThanks for putting Sarah Karkanis in touch with me re the watershed plan as it relates to the OCP. Would you please send me the Terms of Reference for Aqua-tex work so that Bev and I can see where any overlay exists? Thanks, Ann

Ann MacDonald, MCIP RPPExecutive Manager of Strategic and Long Range PlanningComox Valley Regional District600 Comox Road, Courtenay, BC V9N 3P6

Page 2 of 3

8/26/2014

Tel: 250-334-6077; Fax: 250-334-4358Toll Free: 1-800-331-6007

--Sarah Karkanis, M.Sc.Aqua-Tex Scientific Consulting Ltd.201-3690 Shelbourne St.Victoria, B.C. V8P 4H2(250) 598-0266www.aqua-tex.ca

Page 3 of 3

8/26/2014

Aqua-Tex OCP Review Comments Page 1 of 13

390-7th Avenue, 201-3690 Shelbourne St Kimberley, B.C. V1A 2Z7 Victoria, B.C. V8R 4H2 Tel: (250) 427-0260 Tel: (250) 598-0266 Fax: (250) 427-0280 Fax: (250) 598-0263 e-mail: aqua-tex@islandnet.com

Ann MacDonald, MCIP, RPP Executive Manager of Strategic and Long Range Planning Comox Valley Regional District 600 Comox Road Courtenay, BC V9N 3P6 Tel: 250-334-6077 Fax: 250-334-4358

August 25, 2014

Re: Review of the CVRD draft Official Community Plan dated July 18, 2014

Dear Ms. MacDonald,

Thank you for the opportunity to review the CVRD’s proposed Official Community Plan. We have reviewed this document with a primary focus on protection of the Comox Lake Watershed, but understand that there are other surface water sources within the CVRD to which the same policies will apply. We have offered suggestions to ensure continuity with the intent of the proposed Comox Lake Watershed Protection Plan (in development) and have pointed out potential conflicts where we have noted them. Amended wording is highlighted in yellow in this document.

These comments and suggestions are provided within the following frame of reference:

i. The CVRD has been granted a filtration deferral from Island Health (VIHA)contingent upon the development and implementation of a Watershed ProtectionPlan (WPP).

ii. The Official Community Plan has the ability to support a WPP by ensuring thatland use activities permitted within the Comox Lake Watershed are restricted toavoid degradation of water quality and quantity.

iii. The intent of this review is to determine whether there is anything in thisproposed bylaw that will impede the implementation of the WPP.

Overall the draft Official Community Plan is clearly laid out and contains excellent content with respect to regional objectives, policies, and fostering shared responsibility and coordination. Please consider our suggested amendments and comments intended to support the implementation of this bylaw. We have made several suggestions to harmonize it with terms and requirements of watershed protection.

Aqua-Tex OCP Review Comments Page 2 of 13

Part 1: Community vision and context, population, demographic and housing projections Population, demographic and housing projections Projected 20 year growth is concentrated in the municipal areas of Courtenay, Comox and Cumberland (48.32%) and not in the rural areas (.02%). Areas A, B and C have collectively dropped in population from 24,800 in 1996 to 22,540 in 2011 (15 years). (page 8) While growth in rural areas, including those lands within the Comox Lake Watershed, is minimal, the projected high population growth in the region will increase drinking water pressure on Comox Lake, which is within the area covered by the Rural OCP. Growth policies must consider the ability to provide a sustainable, safe drinking water supply over the long-term. Additional growth may also lead to increased needs for local recreational access. This need will need to be carefully balanced with drinking water supply risks. Part 2: Regional objectives and policies Natural environment - objectives 4 (5) To ensure all developments within drinking water supply watersheds adopt a precautionary principle when being reviewed for approval. (page 13) While we recognize that there are multiple watersheds that provide drinking water in the CVRD, and that there is a moderate level of development in some of them, development within drinking water watersheds is generally not supportable. In many communities where there is development in their drinking water watershed, the community would choose to avoid development in favour of protecting the land base as a primary water supply, if they had the choice and could turn back the clock. The Comox Lake watershed is still largely undeveloped, with the exception of a small area near the east end of the lake. Given the ecological, social and economic value of clean water to the community, development within the Comox Lake watershed should be discouraged. Those communities who have maintained protected watersheds, such as Metro Vancouver and the Capital Regional District, have far better control over their future infrastructure costs and community health management than most of the rest of BC and Canada. The CVRD is still in a position to protect Comox Lake, through collaborative management, but the foundation for future land use direction must be set by the OCP. We recommend modifying Map 3, Land Use Designation Map to include the boundary of the Comox Lake Watershed and downstream water supply area. We further suggest designating these lands as a “Drinking Water Supply Protection Area”. This can be considered as “overlay zoning” which creates additional development restrictions without significantly changing existing zoning. This zoning could regulate activities that threaten drinking water quality such as construction and use of on-site septic systems, impervious area, stormwater runoff, use of fertilizers and pesticides, use of fire-retardants over the lake and shoreline modification. This will allow for further elaboration and specific review of the activities permitted within this zone, once the Comox Lake Watershed Protection Plan is complete. It will also permit amendment to this zoning as the WPP is revised and updated on an on-going basis. At present, the Drinking Water Supply

Aqua-Tex OCP Review Comments Page 3 of 13

Protection Area should include all lands that drain to the current Puntledge River intake. In future, this boundary can be modified to reflect only the Comox Lake catchment, once the deep water intake is operational. We also recommend marking the watershed boundary on Map 1 (Electoral Areas) to help highlight the importance of the Comox Lake Watershed. Natural environment – natural systems and biodiversity corridors policies 5 (1) Promote best management practices that protect natural systems and land forms, streams, lakes, wetlands, fish and wildlife habitats, shores and the water quality of the marine environment and other marine areas. (page 14) While it may be implied, it is not clear that the water quality of freshwater systems should also be protected, especially considering the reliance on the Comox Lake watershed, the Puntledge, and Browns Rivers as drinking water supply areas. We suggest the following amendment: 5 (1) Promote best management practices that protect natural systems and land forms, streams, lakes, wetlands, fish and wildlife habitats, shores and the water quality of freshwater and marine environments. Natural environment – surface water and ground water policies Protect watersheds and water sources by: 7 (1) (a) Considering all development proposals using the principles of precaution, connectivity and restoration for initiatives within the drinking water supply watersheds.

See comments above under 4(5). If overlay “Drinking Water Supply Protection Area” zoning is applied, then the concepts of precaution, connectivity and restoration are fine, but as a stand-alone statement this section is insufficient to provide clear guidance on what is and is not acceptable within the drinking water supply. We reiterate that development within the water supply areas should be discouraged.

7 (1) (b) Requiring appropriate professionals to assess potential water quality and quantity impacts prior to approval of any development proposal. (page 15) Consider including an example of who an appropriate professional might be i.e. registered professional biologist, professional geologist, professional engineer, all with expertise in hydrology/water quality etc. 7 (1) (b) Requiring appropriate Qualified Environmental Professionals (e.g. aquatic ecologist, hydrogeologist) to assess potential water quality and quantity impacts prior to approval of any development proposal. (page 15) Parks and greenway – policies 11 (4) When accepting land intended for new trails in the rural settlement area adjacent to the marine environment, riparian, wetland, and other aquatic areas the CVRD will implement those lands using best practices of stewardship for planning and design in sensitive areas.

Aqua-Tex OCP Review Comments Page 4 of 13

It is not clear whether any lands within the Comox Lake watershed are considered rural settlement areas. If there are lands in the Comox Lake watershed where new trails may be accepted we suggest the following amendment: When accepting land intended for new trails in the rural settlement area adjacent to the marine environment, riparian, wetland, and other aquatic areas, or within the Comox Lake drinking water supply protection area, the CVRD will implement those lands using best practices of stewardship for planning and design in sensitive areas. 11 (6) All road right of ways that provide public access to water, including lakes, streams and foreshore areas shall be kept open and access will be mapped and, in collaboration with the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MoTI), improved access shall be pursued. Given the risk that public access/recreation can pose to drinking water quality, it is recommended that road rights of way and access routes within the Comox Lake drinking water supply protection area not be publicly identified or promoted. While we recognize that people do access and utilize the drinking water supply area, we recommend that the CVRD does not encourage it. We suggest the following adjustment: 11(6) All road rights of way that provide public access to water, including lakes, streams and foreshore areas shall be kept open and access will be mapped and, in collaboration with the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MoTI), improved access shall be pursued where it does not compromise drinking water quality or sensitive ecosystems. 11(9) The provision of buffers along trails may include a combination of fencing, physical separation, water, vegetation and elevation differences. We are not certain how water could be used to buffer a trail. This could be interpreted as allowing a trail along a riparian area in order to buffer a neighbour from the effects of a trail. We need clarification on the intended outcome of the wording. 11(11) Private owners of rural agricultural landscapes may provide public access in order to support the area as an important privately owned green space, over and above any requirements that may apply through development approval. Similar to above, it may be prudent to qualify this statement to lands outside of the drinking water supply protection area or identify that additional measures may be required if these greenspaces fall within the drinking water supply area. Note that this may also be accomplished with the “overlay” zoning of a Drinking Water Supply Protection Area as noted above in section 4(5). Climate change- objectives 12(1) To identify and understand risks associated with climate change and climate variability impacts. This is a commendable objective. Climate change, including glacier retreat, has the potential for a very significant impact on water supply in the Comox Valley. In this

Aqua-Tex OCP Review Comments Page 5 of 13

context, we suggest highlighting this risk by adding a comment to the end of the objective: 12(1) To identify and understand risks associated with climate change and climate variability impacts, including drinking water supply. Climate change- policies (adaptation) This section is very well thought-out. We particularly appreciate section 14(3) which speaks to drought and promotion of water conservation strategies. Natural Hazard- policies 16(6) The CVRD will work with land owners and other stakeholders to identify, assess and map hazardous area throughout the CVRD. One of the greatest challenges of a changing climate, coupled with increased impervious cover, is that the historical hydrological data is no longer accurate. Old floodplain maps are no longer reliable as indicators of areas of greatest flood risk. We recommend adding another line, either as 16(7) or as 15(10): The CVRD will work with other stakeholders, land owners and government agencies to map the current 200- year floodplain of its waterbodies using up-to-date hydrological models and ensure that floodplains are protected from future development and infrastructure is not placed at risk. Economy and industry – objectives 17 (7) To recognize the importance of active recreational pursuits such as mountain biking, rock climbing, hiking, birding, canoeing, kayaking, diving, and other outdoor activities to the economy of the Comox Valley and pursue opportunities to map and promote important recreational and bird areas. Again, consider qualifying this statement so that recreation is encouraged in areas that do not harm ecological function or increase drinking water supply risks, for example: …pursue opportunities to map and promote bird areas and important recreational areas located in ecologically-suitable areas. Economy and industry – policies (agriculture and aquaculture) 18(6) Through partnerships, the CVRD will explore options and mechanisms that improve access to potable water at a reasonable price available to the agriculture and aquaculture industries. Advances in wastewater treatment have created opportunities to close the water cycle and reuse treated (and disinfected) wastewater for non-potable purposes including crop production. Water reuse is an important element of overall potable water conservation, and therefore should be encouraged where appropriate. We suggest adding the following wording as a placeholder to encourage consideration of water reuse:

Aqua-Tex OCP Review Comments Page 6 of 13

18(6) Through partnerships, the CVRD will explore options and mechanisms that improve access to potable water or, where appropriate, reclaimed water, at a reasonable price available to the agriculture and aquaculture industries. 18(10) The CVRD will encourage to require that any new aquaculture activity follow best management practices… We are not clear whether the CVRD is “encouraging” or “requiring” BMPs, because the language is confusing. While not related to drinking water, we noticed this item and are pointing it out to improve the document readability. Economy and industry – policies (tourism, arts and culture) 19 (4) In collaboration with other partners, continue to promote the Comox Valley in terms of its natural environment including identifying and promoting important bird areas, local culture, hiking, kayaking, and other recreational activities that rely on a healthy natural environment. The activities listed above, while relying on a healthy natural environment can also negatively impact ecological function. We suggest the following amendment: 19 (4) In collaboration with other partners, continue to promote responsible use of the natural areas of the Comox Valley while identifying and promoting important bird areas, local culture, hiking, kayaking, and other recreational activities that rely on a healthy natural environment. Economy and industry – policies (resource users) 20 (3) The CVRD will work with the province and other senior government agencies to ensure that mineral resource and aggregate extraction is undertaken is a manner that protects environmental features, ecosystems, surface and groundwater resources and significant wildlife habitat. While surface and groundwater resources are included we suggest the following amendment to highlight drinking water protection: 20 (3) The CVRD will work with the province and other senior government agencies to ensure that mineral resource and aggregate extraction is undertaken in a manner that protects environmental features, ecosystems, surface and ground water resources, significant wildlife habitat, and drinking water quality and quantity. 20 (4) The CVRD will encourage the province and senior government agencies with approval authority to provide for, within the terms of license agreements, progressive rehabilitation of pits, quarries and underground mines to an appropriate after-use… Given the current controversy in the Shawnigan Lake Watershed over the request from South Island Aggregates to store contaminated waste in their quarry, as part of their closure plan, this OCP should lay the groundwork for outright prohibition of storage of contaminated or hazardous waste in the drinking water supply watershed or above vulnerable aquifers. Though we have not reviewed the CVRD fill bylaw, we recommend reviewing the bylaw for potential amendments to prohibit contaminated waste, and then

Aqua-Tex OCP Review Comments Page 7 of 13

revisiting the OCP before it is finalized to ensure that there is nothing prohibiting a fill bylaw amendment. 20 (8) Forestry and supporting activities should incorporate best practices and should be designed and carried out in a manner that minimizes negative impact on surrounding land uses and the natural environment of the CVRD. Given that the majority of the resource lands within the Comox Lake watershed are owned and managed by forestry companies, we suggest the following adjustment: 20 (8) Forestry and supporting activities should incorporate best practices and should be designed and carried out in a manner that minimizes negative impact on surrounding land uses and the natural environment of the CVRD, including drinking water supply protection areas. Infrastructure- objectives 24(1) To encourage rural residents to properly maintain their septic systems to:

iv. protect drinking water resources. The potential risk to the Comox Lake water supply from improperly maintained septic systems is significant. We recommend making septic system maintenance a requirement when those systems are within a drinking water supply. This should be done in consultation with Island Health and may require an additional bylaw. 24 (3) The agency responsible for wastewater disposal shall be encouraged to: We recommend adding a seventh bullet: vii. ensure wastewater systems are not subject to flood inundation. The rationale for this addition is that properties adjacent to the Comox Lake, particularly on the east end, have wastewater systems that could be inundated if BC Hydro allows the reservoir to reach maximum capacity, whether by intention or due to weather events. Release of septage into the lake could cause waterborne illness. Part 3: Land Use The land use designation map identifies seven land use designations: settlement nodes, settlement expansion areas, rural settlement areas, park and natural areas, agricultural areas, resource areas, fresh water, and coastal areas. While drinking water sources are mentioned within the OCP document, there is no clear indication of where these water supply areas are located. We suggest identifying the water supply watershed on the land use designation map. As noted above in 4(5), the Comox Lake Watershed should be zoned as a “Drinking Water Supply Protection Area” as overlay zoning that is in addition to, rather than as a replacement of, existing zoning (see attached illustrative map as an example). The introductory line to this section reads: The land use designation map, appendix A, identifies the location of seven land use designations:

Aqua-Tex OCP Review Comments Page 8 of 13

There are currently eight identified, and we suggest adding the ninth “Drinking Water Supply Protection Area”. The text should therefore be amended to read: The land use designation map, appendix A, identifies the location of nine land use designations: Parks and Natural Areas In a number of places within the Parks and Natural Areas headings in this section, there are references to providing access to the natural environment for recreational purposes. These statements appear to imply that recreation is permitted in all areas of the CVRD. As mentioned previously, increasing access and encouraging/promoting recreation within the drinking water supply area may lead to a degradation of water quality through the input of bacteria, viruses, hydrocarbons and other chemicals, garbage etc. Particularly: Parks and natural area – objectives 56(2) To provide access to the natural environment for recreational purposes in the communities and neighbourhood of the CVRD. We suggest rewording as: 56(2) To provide access to the natural environment for recreational purposes in the communities and neighbourhood of the CVRD where it does not compromise drinking water quality or sensitive ecosystems. Parks and natural area – policies (general) 57. (2) Parks, recreation and open space is permitted in all land use designations and zones.

We suggest rewording as: 57. (2) Parks, recreation and open space is permitted in all land use designations and zones, except where it could compromise drinking water quality or is restricted by the Comox Lake Watershed Protection Plan. Note that this does not mean that recreation is not or will not be permitted in the Comox Lake Watershed, but it does allow for some closure of specific sensitive areas. It also allows for restriction in other drinking water supply areas other than the Comox Lake Watershed. Resource areas 63. The resource area is designated on map 3. The intent of the resource areas is to support primary resource uses in the CVRD. These uses include forestry and industrial uses such as resource extraction. The resource areas are contained within significant watersheds for the CVRD and as such these areas require long-term protection to ensure a healthy and adequate water supply for the entire Comox Valley. In addition, the resource areas act as the primary wildlife areas and contains significant wildlife habitat and corridors. The resource areas designation applies to the lands found predominantly west of the Inland Island Highway 19. These lands largely comprise privately managed working forests.

Aqua-Tex OCP Review Comments Page 9 of 13

This wording is clear and highlights the need protect the water supply. Our only suggestion is a grammatical one: remove the “s” on the word “contains” since it refers to “area” which is plural. Also note the caution as noted in section 20(4) since mining is resource extraction and mine closure must be prevented from causing contamination. Resource area – objectives 64. (1) To encourage responsible practices with respect to soil conservation, water

conservation, and vegetation removal. (2) To regulate the processing of extracted materials. (3) To maintain the long-term viability of renewable resource industries. (4) To protect resource area lands from encroachment by residential and other

sensitive uses. Given that a significant amount of the resource areas are located within the Comox Lake watershed, add a specific item about drinking water protection:

(5) To protect the water quality and quantity of the main CVRD drinking water supply catchment (Comox Lake Watershed).

Resource areas policies (general) There are several sections that would benefit from highlighting watershed protection. The additions are noted in yellow below: 65. (2) The board may consider medical marihuana production licensed pursuant to the marihuana for medical purposes regulations through a site specific rezoning within the resource areas designation subject to consideration of the following: ix. Mitigation of potential negative impacts on environmentally sensitive areas and/or features, including drinking water security, quality and quantity; 65. (3) The board may consider a temporary commercial use permit (TCUP) or temporary industrial use permit (TIUP) on lands designated as resource area, without compromising drinking water quality or quantity. 65 (4) Recreational trails and support infrastructure are permitted, excluding commercial structures. This policy indicates that recreational trails and supporting infrastructure are permitted activities within the resource areas. The term “supporting infrastructure” is very broad and subject to interpretation. While it is understood that the resource areas include locations outside of the Comox Lake Watershed, a large proportion of these resource lands do border the CVRD drinking water supply area or are within the Comox Lake Watershed. Consider adjusting this policy to the following: 65 (4) Recreational trails and support infrastructure are permitted in designated areas that do not negatively impact the quality and quantity of the CVRD water supply and that are consistent with the Comox Lake Watershed Protection Plan. Commercial structures are excluded. 64 (5) Watersheds and water sources must be protected. This can be achieved by

Aqua-Tex OCP Review Comments Page 10 of 13

providing appropriate buffering from adjoining uses, including forestry activity. The protection of watersheds and water sources can be achieved by: While we understand the intent of this statement, watersheds cannot be buffered from adjoining forestry activities if those forestry activities are occurring inside (not adjacent to) the watershed. We do not want to lose the intent of this statement, which implies that buffers around a watershed are important; we agree, buffers are very important. Using the word “surrounding” rather than adjacent may clarify. We suggest the following wording: 64 (5) Watersheds and water sources must be protected. This can be achieved by providing appropriate buffering from surrounding uses, including resource extraction, development and recreation. The protection of watersheds and water sources can be achieved improved by: i. Requiring appropriate professionals to assess potential impacts prior to issuing

a development approval. ii. Creation of an aquifer protection development permit area that addresses

groundwater vulnerability and protection measures may be considered. iii. Working with all jurisdictions and agencies responsible for the provision and

safety of water in the region on a plan to protect drinking water for the Comox Valley.

iv. Requiring or conducting consultation with other jurisdictions dependent on the affected water supply prior to approving a development permit within that water supply area or watershed.

v. Working with landowners to establish watershed and wildlife conservation areas around primary watershed and water source features.

Managing recreation is a key factor in protecting watersheds and water sources. Recreation activities can be sources of erosion, sedimentation, fire, garbage, and bacteria/viruses that may cause waterborne disease. Managing recreation is, in large measure, a question of managing access. Consequently, recreation and access routes should be included in Section 64 (5). We suggest adding: vi. Working with landowners, local governments, regulators, and recreation groups to establish codes of conduct and bylaws for areas around primary watershed and water source features. vii. Considering the effects of proposed trails, roads, cutblocks and other corridors adjacent to the Comox Lake Watershed on the ability to maintain the access restrictions which may be in place to protect drinking water. viii. Following the policies and practices contained within the most current version of the Comox Lake Watershed Protection Plan. Fresh water 68. The freshwater designation includes all watercourses and lakes within the CVRD. Fresh water areas in the CVRD are used for potable water, recreation and environmental protection purposes. The intent of the freshwater designation is to encourage greater protection of the water resources in the CVRD for ecological

Aqua-Tex OCP Review Comments Page 11 of 13

function, long term recreation and current and future water supply requirements. The fresh water areas of the CVRD represent critical wildlife habitat and corridors.

The focus on ecological function here is commendable. Only ecologically functional systems can support and provide the ecological services on which we rely. The second sentence suggests that recreation goals come before water supplies. We suggest changing the order to the following: The intent of the freshwater designation is to encourage greater protection of the water resources in the CVRD for ecological function, current and future water supply requirements, and long term recreation where recreation is appropriate and not incompatible with ecological and water supply needs. Freshwater - objectives

69. (1) To protect, restore and enhance fresh water ecosystems for future generations (2) To recognize the importance of waterways as a wildlife corridors. (3) To encourage appreciation of the fresh water environment, by providing for

public access to, and enjoyment of, waterways in ways that avoid negative impacts to natural systems and processes.

(4) To protection and maintain water quality and quantity within CVRD watercourses.

We recommend adding two objectives: (5) To ensure a safe and sustainable drinking water supply for the CVRD. (6) To ensure that land use does not alter sediment supply to or transport within the freshwater environment Freshwater- policies This section is very well written. We have no suggested changes. We appreciate the explicit intent to avoid rip-rap and hardening of stream channels and the emphasis on restoration. Part 4- Administration of the OCP Community Partnerships This section is critically important and we applaud its inclusion. In particular, sections 76(1)(3) and (4) which speak to the need for partnerships and cooperation, especially as related to natural systems and drinking water protection. Thank you for including this as it directly supports the development of the Comox Lake Watershed Protection Plan. We would note that section 76(19) is problematic. In order to support local food production, the regional district will support the provision of potable water to agriculture and aquaculture industries in order to supplement surface and groundwater.

Aqua-Tex OCP Review Comments Page 12 of 13

Surface water, ground water, and potable water are all linked. An increasing reliance on groundwater may negatively affect surface water flows and ecosystem health. We refer back to our comments in section 18(6). Agriculture and aquaculture are major water users and the CVRD is already facing a water supply problem which may be magnified by glacier retreat, reduced snowpack and summer drought (as we are seeing in 2014). We do not recommend augmenting agricultural and aquacultural water supplies with drinking water. We do support water reclamation and reuse to accommodate agriculture, ensuring the crops/ species are suited to the climate, and using best management practices to reduce water consumption. Development permit areas (general exemptions) Section 79 makes provision for the construction of (1) farm buildings (2) buildings less than 10 m2 and (5) growing, rearing, producing and harvesting of agricultural products. These uses should not be promoted within the drinking water supply area. 79. (11) Trail construction or maintenance where trail construction and area of intrusion does not exceed 2.5 meters in width, the trail’s surface is pervious and where there is limited excavation or removal of native soils. Notwithstanding this exemption, trail construction or maintenance within eagle nest tree or blue heron nest area development permit area, is permitted without an application, provided that a registered professional biologist with a specialization in ornithology has confirmed that no eagle or great blue heron activity is present as of April 30th of any given year. Given the potential for trail development and increased access in the drinking water watershed to alter risk to drinking water supply, we recommend that all proposed trail development within the drinking water supply area, be excluded from the above exemption and be required to occur under a development permit. We suggest adding an additional sentence to the Section 79 (11): All trails, regardless of their design, within the drinking water supply area are not exempt and must be dealt with through the development permit process. Aquatic Habitat Development Permit Area This section is well written. We have reviewed the proposed Aquatic Development Permit language separately, and provided our comments to the CVRD. We note that the latest version of “Develop with Care” (mentioned in section 82 under bio-physical assessments) is 2014. Under “Additional Guidelines”, item b (page 55) we suggest a 30 m setback from Comox Lake for a sewage system may be inadequate. Note also our comments in section 24(3) regarding flood inundation.

Aqua-Tex OCP Review Comments Page 13 of 13

Maps: Map 1 Electoral Area of the CVRD We suggest including the Comox Lake Watershed boundary on this map Map 2 Sensitive Ecosystem Inventory Map The entire riparian shoreline and borders of all streams, and all wetlands, ponds and other water features should be included on the Sensitive Ecosystem Inventory under the label “Riparian” or “Wetland” as appropriate. Updated mapping should be a priority. Map 3 Land Use Designation Map This map should include the Comox Lake Watershed boundary and the entire watershed marked/ zoned as “Drinking Water Protection Area”. This could be considered as “overlay zoning”. Additional Comments: We were pleased to see specific references to drinking water protection plans along with the provision of surface water and groundwater policies. Furthermore, identifying the link between maintaining septic systems and protecting drinking water sources is commended (Section 24 (1)). While we recognize that the scope of this review is somewhat beyond that strictly required to assess its applicability to drinking water protection, we hope that you will find our comments valuable. Sincerely,

Cori L. Barraclough, M.Sc., R.P. Bio., C. Biol., PMP Freshwater Ecologist C: Mr. Marc Rutten, CVRD Sr. Manager of Engineering Services Ms. Zoe Norcross-Nu, CVRD Engineering Analyst

1

Selena Speed

From: Ann MacDonaldSent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 1:26 PMTo: 'p.horgen@utoronto.ca'Cc: Selena Speed; Alana MullalySubject: RE: Comox Valley Regional District Draft OCP

Many thanks Paul. I appreciate you taking the time to review and comment on the document.  

BTW, the document does reference the K'omoks Estuary Management Plan...first mention in Part 1, Community Vision, (page 7) and Part 3, Section 71 (11), (page 46) also mentions the KEMP.   On your point about the shoreline hardening devices, these are prohibited without site specific approval from the board, which will generally be assessed as being undesirable, unless there are extenuating circumstances and good science.  Fines and follow up etc will find their way in the bylaw enforcement section and the zoning bylaw.  

Thanks again, and enjoy the rest of the summer.  

Regards, Ann  

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: p.horgen@utoronto.ca [mailto:p.horgen@utoronto.ca] Sent: August‐20‐14 12:47 PM To: Ann MacDonald Subject: RE: Comox Valley Regional District Draft OCP 

Dear Ann 

As I will not be able to attend the meeting Thursday , I thought I would communicate my thoughts to you about the process of the OCP review from  my perspective..  I  believe that I have attended about as many sessions as anyone else on our commission. It has been a well choreographed experience and I believe a splendid example of rural democracy, Canadian  style . Please excuse any typos as I did this in a hurry this am. 

You and your staff have dealt with all kinds of feedback ranging from    well thought out and insightful comments to merely shooting off criticism from the hip .  What has resulted in my perspective is a document in which everyone who had enough interest to care had an opportunity to make their views known and were able to receive an answer to their specific issue from you or one of your staff. 

Thank you for sending me the word versions of the documents which I    have reviewed..  Your document which summarized the main policy differences in the new OCP, I found especially useful something like this should be available to all CVRD residents interested in the major differences. between the old and new OCP. There are a few things that I especially think are important from an environmental stewardship perspective which I will mention for my other APC members to ponder. 

• .  Includes provision for the return of privately owned beds ofwater to the crown.  This is especially important as large multi‐ billion dollar companies  close down their local operations as did   Lafarge many years ago and Interfor(Field Saw Mill) in   2005   They   

6480-25

2

are required by law to do some restoration of damaged environment.  As a matter fact, the usual practice is that nothing is done.  What is done instead, is that these large companies let their tenure lapse and now we have an opportunity to restore and protect those damaged   aquatic ecosystems.   Congratulations for taking the lead and putting   this into our new OCP. •  As water is one of the worlds mose important and necessary natural   resources, I am pleased to see the section that deals with Rain water management changes.  We need to protect, ration and revitalize our local aquifers and fresh water sources.  APC members should note that   the term storm water is not a good descriptor as all rain water is     necessary to manage and redirect back into our water sources. In the near future, you will be hearing about rain gardens and rainwater collection  This will replenish our lakes and aquifers  further to this the section that deals  with shoreline  protection (soft shores and green shores ) is very important as flood control and ocean rise is now a reality.  If anything I would encourage major fines for those who put in hard shore  protection which does not work and generally affects properties on either side of the property  owner who practices this negative shoreline practice..  Finally, with the up[coming meeting with KFN and stakeholders regarding the Estuary management plan, I hope some mention of this and hopefully its adoption will make it into the final OCP document.  I agree with all of the discussions relating to the  different types of rural areas in the CVRD and it may be a useful  exercise to come up with terms that describe areas like the one I live in, areas like the one Brian H. lives in and the truly rural areas.  Finally, your staff may wish to put a pamphlet together that deals with rights, practices and privileges for rural residents focusing on settlement expansion areas and services such as water and sewer, as well as what is needed or required for a municipality to annex a settlement area..  . Sorry I cannot make the meeting this Thursday .  I hope these comments are of some use.  Paul Horgen    • Quoting Ann MacDonald <amacdonald@comoxvalleyrd.ca>:  > Good morning Phil > I think  you might find a bit of relief in the final draft OCP    > policies pertaining to the Settlement Expansion Area, as discussed    > at the Joint APC meeting on August 13.  It was a productive meeting,   >  with lots of good suggestions for improvement to the OCP policies,    > so thank you all again for your thoughtful input. I have attached    > the policies at the end of this email. Please disregard the overall    > numbering for now, but policies 25 (4) through (8), shown in bold,     > are particularly relevant to your concern. > > At the next Area B APC meeting on  Thursday August 21 I will provide   >  copies for members, per their input from the meeting on the 13th,     >  as this will be the version going forward for First Reading at the    > August 26th CVRD board meeting. > > Hope to see you all tomorrow evening. 

3

> Regards, Ann > > Ann MacDonald, MCIP, RPP > General Manager of Planning and Development Services Branch Comox  > Valley Regional District > 600 Comox Road, Courtenay, BC V9N 3P6 > Tel: 250‐334‐6077; Fax: 250‐334‐4358 > Toll Free: 1‐800‐331‐6007 > > Settlement expansion areas > > 23.             The settlement expansion areas have been identified    > as future growth areas for the adjacent urban municipalities.    > Development is limited in these areas to ensure the phased and    > timely development of lands that is consistent with the goals and    > objectives of the member municipalities. The areas contain a broad    > range of uses. Generally, significant change to the existing land    > use or further subdivision that increases the density, impact or    > intensity of use of land is not envisioned until these areas have    > been amalgamated, except in those areas where public infrastructure    > is required to address environmental issues. > > Settlement expansion areas ‐ objectives > > 24.             In accordance with the RGS, development in a   > settlement expansion areas must generally maintain a rural character  > with on‐site servicing and low densities, and must not detract from  > future municipal compact growth, until such time as the adjacent  > municipal area has obtained an approved boundary expansion. The long  > termed objective for the upland area east of Comox Road along the  > K'ómoks estuary is to enhance and restore the environmental values and  > public access. > > Settlement expansion areas ‐ policies (general) > > 25.             The following policies apply to the lands designated   >  as "settlement expansion area" > > (1)             The minimum parcel size for new lots within a    > settlement expansion area is four hectares. > > (2)             Any land use application for subdivision,    > development or rezoning will be reviewed in light of the planning    > direction in the adjacent municipality in order to ensure that    > consideration is given to compatible planning and zoning    > requirements of that municipality. > > (3)             Use of density averaging, density bonusing and    > density transfer provisions are prohibited during subdivision or    > rezoning of land within a settlement expansion area. > > (4)             The municipality proposing an extension into a    

4

> settlement expansion area will be encouraged to demonstrate their    > efforts to intensify within existing boundaries prior to expanding    > into a settlement expansion area. > > (5)            Upon receipt of a referral from a municipality    > seeking a boundary extension the municipality shall be asked to    > provide to the CVRD a comprehensive assessment of potential costs    > and services including but not limited to water, sewer, street    > lighting and road improvements. > > (6)            This information will be provided to affected    > residents allowing for a reasonable amount of time for affected    > residents to consider the extension and to respond. > > (7)            Municipalities, in accordance with the BC Ministry of   >  Community, Sport and Cultural Development regarding a municipal    > boundary extension process and policy guidelines, per the Local    > Government Act, are required to demonstrate that they have obtained    > the consent for a municipal boundary extension of a majority of the    > affected rural residents. > > (8)            Municipal boundary extensions intended to incorporate   >  lands for green field development are discouraged. > > Settlement expansion areas ‐ policies (residential) > > 26.             (1)        Existing residential uses are permitted    > to continue. > > (2)             Subdivision in the form of a "lot line adjustment"    > may be considered without amendment to the plan where: > > (a)              The additional land does not create an opportunity    > for increased density; and > > (b)             The adjustment is proposed to accommodate servicing    > requirements (e.g. new well site, septic field replacement) or    > address errors in survey or building encroachment; and, > > (c)              Where the adjustment does not extend beyond the    > settlement expansion area. > > (3)             New residential development must not preclude future   >  land assembly and subdivisions that are compatible with the standard  > of the adjacent municipality. > > Settlement expansion areas ‐ policies (commercial) > > 27.             (1)        Existing commercial uses are permitted to   >  continue. > > (2)             Expansion or change to existing commercial    

5

> development is permitted only when it can be demonstrated that the    > proposed use or expansion: > > (a)              is compatible with a local (municipal) area plan; > > (b)             is compatible with adjacent municipal uses and/or    > does not preclude redevelopment of the site in accordance with a    > municipal local area plan affecting adjacent lands; and > > (c)              does not trigger an unplanned expansion of adjacent   >  public servicing. > > (3)             The board may consider permitting new commercial    > uses through temporary use permits where it can be illustrated that    > the proposed use will not result in additional pressure on local    > servicing and infrastructure. > > Settlement expansion areas ‐ policies (industrial) > > 28.             (1)        Existing industrial uses are permitted to   >  continue. > > (2)             Expansion or change to existing industrial    > development is permitted only when it can be demonstrated that the    > proposed expansion or change: > > (a)              is compatible with a local (municipal) area plan > > (b)             is compatible with adjacent municipal uses and/or    > does not preclude future redevelopment of the site in accordance    > with a municipal local area plan affecting adjacent lands; and > > (c)              does not trigger an unplanned expansion of adjacent   >  public servicing. > > (3)             The board may consider permitting new industrial    > uses through temporary use permits where it can be demonstrated that   >  the proposed use will not result in additional pressure on local    > servicing and infrastructure. > > Settlement expansion areas ‐ policies (institutional) > > 29.             (1)        Exiting institutional uses are permitted. > > (2)             New institutional uses may be considered by the    > board. Any new institutional use must be assessed in concert with    > the goals, objectives and policies of the applicable OCPs of    > adjacent municipalities. Proposals must demonstrate that the    > proposed use will not result in additional pressure on local    > servicing and infrastructure. > > 

6

> > > From: Phil [mailto:lindaha1@shaw.ca] > Sent: August‐19‐14 7:28 PM > To: Storzer, Mary CSCD:EX > Cc: tim.rabbitt@shaw.ca; Ann MacDonald; lp.north@telus.net; Gillis    > Jim; p.horgen@utoronto.ca; hotsies@shaw.ca; Brad Chappell; Mellin    > Barbara and David; Richard Hallett; Danielle Fortosky > Subject: Re: Comox Valley Regional District Draft OCP > > Hi Mary, > > Thanks for the clarification and information. Many others are on the   >  CVRD approval or comment list for the revised OCP. If there is no    > role for your level of government, perhaps the list should be    > shortened to save time and money. I have had one other response from   >  Hornby Island asking why they are asked to comment  on the CVRD    > Rural OCP. They are governed by Island Trust. Government number 5 or >  6 in the Comox Valley. > > There have been many discussions in the area B APC on boundary    > extension into rural areas. The concern is that the annexing    > municipality will collect city /municipal taxes and provide no new    > services. > > For example, the Town of Comox charges about 20% more in taxes and    > fees for services that those in my rural neighborhood receive for    > the same appraised value of property and improvements. Comox    > resident receive services such as sewer, storm water, wide well    > maintained streets, side  walks, street lights and some wide streets   >  with bicycle lanes as well as landscaped boulevards. Comox is  a    > great town, but rural resident moved into rural areas because they    > do not value many of these municipal services, but value green space   >  and... space. Comox taxpayers seem to be receiving good    > infrastructure value for taxes and fees‐but will the services be    > extended to annexed rural area? Not Likely. > > It is unlikely that Comox would provide sewers, storm water, wide    > streets, sidewalks, street lighting, landscaping, bicycle lanes ‐for >  decades‐ but rural residents would be paying for these services that  > they won't receive, once annexed. Annexed Royston residents have  been  > given a 3 year blended tax rate to bring them up to Courtenay  tax  > rates. Some will not receive Courtenay city service in their lifetime,  > but they will pay for them. > > This is why the rural OCP needs to define the rights of rural    > residents within settlements expansion areas . Annexation and    > taxation without services is unfair and undemocratic. > > We hope you will support the rights of rural residents. > > best regards 

7

> > Phil > > > From: Storzer, Mary CSCD:EX<mailto:Mary.Storzer@gov.bc.ca> > Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 10:18 AM > To: 'lindaha1@shaw.ca'<mailto:'lindaha1@shaw.ca'> > Cc: 'tim.rabbitt@shaw.ca'<mailto:'tim.rabbitt@shaw.ca'> ;    > 'amacdonald@comoxvalleyrd.ca'<mailto:'amacdonald@comoxvalleyrd.ca'> > Subject: Comox Valley Regional District Draft OCP > > Dear Mr. Phil Harrison, > > Thank you for your email received by me on July 30, 2014.  I am a    > Senior Planner (responsible for the Comox Valley area) with the    > Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development, not the    > Minister, as you had addressed me in your email. > > In BC, our land use planning system emphasizes local government    > autonomy in decision‐making in the development of local land use    > planning bylaws.  The Ministry does not have an approval role for    > most local government Official Community Plans (OCPs) in BC.     > Therefore, it is not appropriate for me to review this OCP as you    > have requested.   I would encourage you to continue to provide input   >  through the appropriate local channels, e.g. through the Regional    > District's public processes for seeking public input on the Rural    > Comox Valley OCP, and, through your Area B Advisory Planning    > Commission, as well as, your Electoral Area Director. > > In addition, as you may be aware, my Ministry has put out several    > documents regarding Municipal Boundary Extensions.  Included in    > these document is information such as ‐ if a municipal boundary    > extension were to be initiated, during that process, the    > municipality has to gauge the support of property owners in the    > proposed area of extension.  The municipality must refer the    > proposed boundary extension to the regional district for comment.     > It is at this time that the regional district has the opportunity to  > undertake an analysis of the impacts of proposed boundary extension on  > the remaining portion of the electoral area. > http://www.cscd.gov.bc.ca/lgd/gov_structure/library/Municipal_Boundary > _Extension_Policies_Guide.pdf > http://www.cscd.gov.bc.ca/lgd/gov_structure/library/Municipal_Boundary > _Extension_Process_Guide.pdf > > Thanks for writing and hope this is helpful to you, Mary > > From: Phil [mailto:lindaha1@shaw.ca] > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 7:19 AM > To: Storzer, Mary CSCD:EX > Cc: tim.rabbitt@shaw.ca<mailto:tim.rabbitt@shaw.ca>; Ann MacDonald > Subject: Comox Valley Regional District Draft OCP > 

8

> Good Morning, Minister Storzer, > > I am concerned about the CVRD process for meaning full input into    > the Official Community Plan. I have attended several meetings and    > provided input on the CVRD OCP. > > Specifically, I'm concerned about the democratic rights of CVRD    > administered residents who reside in "settlement expansion areas".     > This issue has been discussed many times in our Area B Advisory    > Planning Commission and members have asked that this issue be    > addressed in the rural OCP.  The CVRD administration is very aware    > of this concern .The CVRD legislative officer held an information    > session  a few years ago with all APC members to explain that the    > CVRD had no role in representing rural residents when adjoining    > munipalities applied to annex rural land . > > It is my understand that the Official Community Plan is the highest    > level document that establishes the direction for the Regional    > Government polices and bylaws. This is the only opportunity that    > rural residents will have to shape the document for the next decade    > or so. > > I ask that you review the CVRD rural OCP, within the context of this   >  concern and in consideration of the many other OCP's in Regional    > Districts in the Province of BC. > > regards > > Phil Harrison > > 1204 Wilkinson Road > > Comox, BC >    

1

Selena Speed

From: Phil <lindaha1@shaw.ca>Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 10:43 AMTo: Ann MacDonaldCc: tim.rabbitt@shaw.ca; lp.north@telus.net; Gillis Jim; p.horgen@utoronto.ca;

hotsies@shaw.ca; Brad Chappell; Mellin Barbara and David; Richard Hallett; Danielle Fortosky; Alana Mullaly; Selena Speed; 'Storzer, Mary CSCD:EX'; James Warren

Subject: Re: Comox Valley Regional District Draft OCP

Thanks Ann

This looks good. Iv'e wondered if the municipal expansion into settlement expansion areas was different within CVRD, because the RGS was approved by all local governments. I'm pleased that rural residents will have choices, be informed and  have a vote.

Thanks for hearing the concerns.  

Phil

From: Ann MacDonald Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 8:56 AM To: 'Phil' Cc: tim.rabbitt@shaw.ca ; lp.north@telus.net ; Gillis Jim ; p.horgen@utoronto.ca ; hotsies@shaw.ca ; Brad Chappell ; Mellin Barbara and David ; Richard Hallett ; Danielle Fortosky ; Alana Mullaly ; Selena Speed ; 'Storzer, Mary CSCD:EX' ; James Warren Subject: RE: Comox Valley Regional District Draft OCP

Good morning Phil I think  you might find a bit of relief in the final draft OCP policies pertaining to the Settlement Expansion Area, as discussed at the Joint APC meeting on August 13.  It was a productive meeting, with lots of good suggestions for improvement to the OCP policies, so thank you all again for your thoughtful input. I have attached the policies at the end of this email. Please disregard the overall numbering for now, but policies 25 (4) through (8), shown in bold,  are particularly relevant to your concern.  

At the next Area B APC meeting on  Thursday August 21 I will provide copies for members, per their input from the meeting on the 13th,   as this will be the version going forward for First Reading at the August 26th CVRD board meeting.  

Hope to see you all tomorrow evening.  Regards, Ann  

Ann MacDonald, MCIP, RPP General Manager of Planning and Development Services Branch Comox Valley Regional District  600 Comox Road, Courtenay, BC V9N 3P6 Tel: 250‐334‐6077; Fax: 250‐334‐4358   Toll Free: 1‐800‐331‐6007 

6480-25

2

 

Settlement expansion areas 23. The settlement expansion areas have been identified as future growth areas for the adjacent urban

municipalities. Development is limited in these areas to ensure the phased and timely development of lands that is consistent with the goals and objectives of the member municipalities. The areas contain a broad range of uses. Generally, significant change to the existing land use or further subdivision that increases the density, impact or intensity of use of land is not envisioned until these areas have been amalgamated, except in those areas where public infrastructure is required to address environmental issues.

Settlement expansion areas - objectives 24. In accordance with the RGS, development in a settlement expansion areas must generally maintain a rural

character with on-site servicing and low densities, and must not detract from future municipal compact growth, until such time as the adjacent municipal area has obtained an approved boundary expansion. The long termed objective for the upland area east of Comox Road along the K’ómoks estuary is to enhance and restore the environmental values and public access.

Settlement expansion areas – policies (general) 25. The following policies apply to the lands designated as “settlement expansion area”

(1) The minimum parcel size for new lots within a settlement expansion area is four hectares. (2) Any land use application for subdivision, development or rezoning will be reviewed in light of the

planning direction in the adjacent municipality in order to ensure that consideration is given to compatible planning and zoning requirements of that municipality.

(3) Use of density averaging, density bonusing and density transfer provisions are prohibited during subdivision or rezoning of land within a settlement expansion area.

(4) The municipality proposing an extension into a settlement expansion area will be encouraged to demonstrate their efforts to intensify within existing boundaries prior to expanding into a settlement expansion area.

(5) Upon receipt of a referral from a municipality seeking a boundary extension the municipality shall be asked to provide to the CVRD a comprehensive assessment of potential costs and services including but not limited to water, sewer, street lighting and road improvements.

(6) This information will be provided to affected residents allowing for a reasonable amount of time for affected residents to consider the extension and to respond.

(7) Municipalities, in accordance with the BC Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development regarding a municipal boundary extension process and policy guidelines, per the Local Government Act, are required to demonstrate that they have obtained the consent for a municipal boundary extension of a majority of the affected rural residents.

(8) Municipal boundary extensions intended to incorporate lands for green field development are discouraged.

Settlement expansion areas – policies (residential) 26. (1) Existing residential uses are permitted to continue.

(2) Subdivision in the form of a “lot line adjustment” may be considered without amendment to the plan where: (a) The additional land does not create an opportunity for increased density; and

3

(b) The adjustment is proposed to accommodate servicing requirements (e.g. new well site, septic field replacement) or address errors in survey or building encroachment; and,

(c) Where the adjustment does not extend beyond the settlement expansion area. (3) New residential development must not preclude future land assembly and subdivisions that are

compatible with the standard of the adjacent municipality.

Settlement expansion areas – policies (commercial) 27. (1) Existing commercial uses are permitted to continue.

(2) Expansion or change to existing commercial development is permitted only when it can be demonstrated that the proposed use or expansion: (a) is compatible with a local (municipal) area plan; (b) is compatible with adjacent municipal uses and/or does not preclude redevelopment of the

site in accordance with a municipal local area plan affecting adjacent lands; and (c) does not trigger an unplanned expansion of adjacent public servicing.

(3) The board may consider permitting new commercial uses through temporary use permits where it can be illustrated that the proposed use will not result in additional pressure on local servicing and infrastructure.

Settlement expansion areas – policies (industrial) 28. (1) Existing industrial uses are permitted to continue.

(2) Expansion or change to existing industrial development is permitted only when it can be demonstrated that the proposed expansion or change: (a) is compatible with a local (municipal) area plan (b) is compatible with adjacent municipal uses and/or does not preclude future redevelopment

of the site in accordance with a municipal local area plan affecting adjacent lands; and (c) does not trigger an unplanned expansion of adjacent public servicing.

(3) The board may consider permitting new industrial uses through temporary use permits where it can be demonstrated that the proposed use will not result in additional pressure on local servicing and infrastructure.

Settlement expansion areas – policies (institutional) 29. (1) Exiting institutional uses are permitted.

(2) New institutional uses may be considered by the board. Any new institutional use must be assessed in concert with the goals, objectives and policies of the applicable OCPs of adjacent municipalities. Proposals must demonstrate that the proposed use will not result in additional pressure on local servicing and infrastructure.

    

From: Phil [mailto:lindaha1@shaw.ca]  Sent: August‐19‐14 7:28 PM To: Storzer, Mary CSCD:EX Cc: tim.rabbitt@shaw.ca; Ann MacDonald; lp.north@telus.net; Gillis Jim; p.horgen@utoronto.ca; hotsies@shaw.ca; Brad 

4

Chappell; Mellin Barbara and David; Richard Hallett; Danielle Fortosky Subject: Re: Comox Valley Regional District Draft OCP 

Hi Mary,  Thanks for the clarification and information. Many others are on the CVRD approval or comment list for the revised OCP. If there is no role for your level of government, perhaps the list should be shortened to save time and money. I have had one other response from Hornby Island asking why they are asked to comment  on the CVRD Rural OCP. They are governed by Island Trust. Government number 5 or 6 in the Comox Valley. There have been many discussions in the area B APC on boundary extension into rural areas. The concern is that the annexing municipality will collect city /municipal taxes and provide no new services. For example, the Town of Comox charges about 20% more in taxes and fees for services that those in my rural neighborhood receive for the same appraised value of property and improvements. Comox resident receive services such as sewer, storm water, wide well maintained streets, side  walks, street lights and some wide streets with bicycle lanes as well as landscaped boulevards. Comox is  a great town, but rural resident moved into rural areas because they do not value many of these municipal services, but value green space and... space. Comox taxpayers seem to be receiving good infrastructure value for taxes and fees‐but will the services be extended to annexed rural area? Not Likely. It is unlikely that Comox would provide sewers, storm water, wide streets, sidewalks, street lighting, landscaping, bicycle lanes ‐for decades‐ but rural residents would be paying for these services that they won't receive, once annexed. Annexed Royston residents have been given a 3 year blended tax rate to bring them up to Courtenay tax rates. Some will not receive Courtenay city service in their lifetime, but they will pay for them. This is why the rural OCP needs to define the rights of rural residents within settlements expansion areas . Annexation and taxation without services is unfair and undemocratic. We hope you will support the rights of rural residents.  best regards Phil From: Storzer, Mary CSCD:EX Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 10:18 AM To: 'lindaha1@shaw.ca' Cc: 'tim.rabbitt@shaw.ca' ; 'amacdonald@comoxvalleyrd.ca' Subject: Comox Valley Regional District Draft OCP Dear Mr. Phil Harrison,  Thank you for your email received by me on July 30, 2014.  I am a Senior Planner (responsible for the Comox Valley area) with the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development, not the Minister, as you had addressed me in your email.     

5

In BC, our land use planning system emphasizes local government autonomy in decision‐making in the development of local land use planning bylaws.  The Ministry does not have an approval role for most local government Official Community Plans (OCPs) in BC.  Therefore, it is not appropriate for me to review this OCP as you have requested.   I would encourage you to continue to provide input through the appropriate local channels, e.g. through the Regional District’s public processes for seeking public input on the Rural Comox Valley OCP, and, through your Area B Advisory Planning Commission, as well as, your Electoral Area Director.    In addition, as you may be aware, my Ministry has put out several documents regarding Municipal Boundary Extensions.  Included in these document is information such as – if a municipal boundary extension were to be initiated, during that process, the municipality has to gauge the support of property owners in the proposed area of extension.  The municipality must refer the proposed boundary extension to the regional district for comment.  It is at this time that the regional district has the opportunity to undertake an analysis of the impacts of proposed boundary extension on the remaining portion of the electoral area.   http://www.cscd.gov.bc.ca/lgd/gov_structure/library/Municipal_Boundary_Extension_Policies_Guide.pdf http://www.cscd.gov.bc.ca/lgd/gov_structure/library/Municipal_Boundary_Extension_Process_Guide.pdf  Thanks for writing and hope this is helpful to you, Mary  

From: Phil [mailto:lindaha1@shaw.ca] Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 7:19 AM To: Storzer, Mary CSCD:EX Cc: tim.rabbitt@shaw.ca; Ann MacDonald Subject: Comox Valley Regional District Draft OCP Good Morning, Minister Storzer, I am concerned about the CVRD process for meaning full input into the Official Community Plan. I have attended several meetings and provided input on the CVRD OCP. Specifically, I'm concerned about the democratic rights of CVRD administered residents who reside in "settlement expansion areas".  This issue has been discussed many times in our Area B Advisory Planning Commission and members have asked that this issue be addressed in the rural OCP.  The CVRD administration is very aware of this concern .The CVRD legislative officer held an information session  a few years ago with all APC members to explain that the CVRD had no role in representing rural residents when adjoining munipalities applied to annex rural land . It is my understand that the Official Community Plan is the highest level document that establishes the direction for the Regional Government polices and bylaws. This is the only opportunity that rural residents will have to shape the document for the next decade or so. I ask that you review the CVRD rural OCP, within the context of this concern and in consideration of the many other OCP's in Regional Districts in the Province of BC.  regards Phil Harrison 1204 Wilkinson Road Comox, BC

1

Selena Speed

From: Ann MacDonaldSent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 10:52 AMTo: Selena SpeedSubject: FW: CVCS review of draft CVRD OCPAttachments: CVCS review of CVRD OCP Aug 11.docx

Follow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: Flagged

Categories: Red Category

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: DAVID STAPLEY [mailto:dsconsulting@shaw.ca]  Sent: August‐12‐14 7:20 AM To: Alana Mullaly; Ann MacDonald Cc: Jack Minard; Lynda Fyfe; To; Pietr Rutgers Subject: CVCS review of draft CVRD OCP 

Hello Alana, Ann and Kevin: Thank you for the opportunity to discuss with you the draft OCP last week. We value your willingness to listen and share information with us. Effective discussion and feedback loops benefit the consultation process and in the end produce a better document.  

I have attached the CVCS review of the draft OCP.  Please note that the focus and scope of the review was primarily on the environmental objectives and policies in section 2.  We have only had the chance to provide you with a cursory review of sections 3 and 4.  We will focus our attention on these sections as we move forward in the consultation process.  

In the document we have used the following editing format: 

Text in black font is original text.  Text in red font with strikeout is deleted text. Text red bolded is added.  In some cases we have inserted new objectives or policy statements, these are marked as new and are in bolded green font.  

It was also suggested by our CVCS review team that the objective and policy statements contain some redundancies and repetition and likely could do with additional editing. Some of the objectives and policies seem to be placed under the wrong headings.   

We would like to thank the consultants and staff for the hard work they are doing to update and improve the OCP.  We look forward to our continued work together in the consultation process. 

If you have any questions please feel free to contact me by email and I will get back to you by phone.  I am currently, out of town until September first and will be checking my email on a regular basis. 

Regards, David Stapley Program Manager 

6480-25

2

Comox Valley Conservation Strategy Community Partnership 250‐897‐1271 

CVCS review of draft OCP Aug 11, 2014 

1  

Part 2: Regional objectives and policies The following regional policies apply to all decisions and land use designations within this official community plan. They are intended to augment the specific land use policies included within part 3. Natural environment – objectives 4. (1) To identify the unique natural characteristics (physiographic areas) of the Comox Valley and environmentally sensitive areas. New Objective: 1a) To protect and, where possible, restore the natural systems, physiographic areas and environmentally sensitive areas. New Objective 1b) To protect and, where possible, rare and threatened Sensitive Ecosystems (2) To protect the quality of air, land, and water, and through stewardship, maintain the quantity of ground water and surface water. ((3) To protect and, where possible, restore coastal shorelines, streams, wetlands, and the marine environment. (4) To consider impacts of a development application on the hydrology at a watershed scale. (5) To ensure all developments within drinking water supply watersheds and recharge areas adopt a precautionary principle when being reviewed for approval.  New Objective 5) a To ensure no new subdivisions within drinking water supply watersheds and recharge areas.  (6) To implement rainwater management practices and policies that preserves or restores the natural water balance during development and redevelopment, in order to maintain and improve watershed health and protect downstream properties and infrastructure. New Objective (6)a New Policy: To ensure that all new development maintains the pre-development (ie greenfield) hydrology on site, for surface runoff, interflow, and groundwater. (7) To maintain or restore the natural hydrological regime in CVRD watersheds, Including Proper Functioning Condition (PFC), natural rates of surface runoff, infiltration to shallow groundwater (interflow) and infiltration to deep groundwater. (8) To control future development in a way that maintains and/or enhances significant groundwater recharge and prevents undesirable groundwater level decline and reduction in base flow to watercourses. (9) To implement practices that support resilient natural systems that can better adapt to pressures resulting from climate change.

Commented [D1]: There are no objectives or policies concerning water quality and quantity monitoring. Currently there is a lack of monitoring of the conditions placed on developments during and after development has occurred. This is an objective and policy gap that needs to be filled. 

Commented [D2]: Definition of natural characteristics needed. Does this mean physiographic areas? 

Commented [D4]: Please define what is a drinking water supply watershed. How are they different from any other watershed where residents get drinking water through wells, or surface water? Identification and protection of groundwater recharge areas is needed. 

Commented [D5]: Why would the precautionary approach only be applied to developments in drinking water supply watersheds?  The principle should be applied to all developments. 

Commented [D6]: Need definition of precautionary principle. We recommend referring to NWB, second edition, pages 13‐15. 

Commented [D7]: Replace 6 with new policy 6a 

Commented [D8]: Need to include PFC and include a definition in the glossary 

Commented [D9]: Replaced 8. with new policy 6a.  

CVCS review of draft OCP Aug 11, 2014 

2  

(10) To manage development and construction activity in a manner that prevents sediment loading to receiving watercourses, the K’ómoks estuary, and the marine environment. (11) To foster shared responsibility among all levels of government and the community, for protecting and restoring watershed, estuary and coastline health. Natural environment – natural systems and biodiversity corridors policies 5. (1) Promote best management practices that protect natural systems and land forms, streams, lakes, wetlands, fish and wildlife habitats, shores and the water quality of the marine environment and other marine areas. (1a) Protect natural systems, air, land and water quality, ground water, coastal shorelines, streams, wetlands and the marine environment by ensuring the use of best management practices in site development. (2) Recognize aquatic habitats and resources as environmentally sensitive areas that need to be protected and enhanced restored. (3) Protect riparian areas as an important component of an aquatic ecosystems, including riparian areas, using, amongst other tools the provincial riparian areas regulation (RAR), development permit regulations and sound rain water management policies and practices, where applicable. (4) Maintain, to the extent possible, an inventory of environmentally sensitive sites and protect them through development permit regulations, development information areas and best practices, wherever possible. 4a)It is the policy of the CVRD to maintain the Sensitive Habitat Atlas as a sound information base about all environmentally sensitive areas to inform land-use plans, regulatory processes, and other priorities for protecting sensitive ecosystems. The CVRD will collaborate with other levels of government, non-governmental organizations, and neighboring local governments in inventorying, mapping, and conserving environmentally sensitive areas and shared watersheds.

4b)Undertake a comprehensive environmental survey and mapping of the coastal sand dunes in conjunction with the Town of Comox with a view to establishing a coastal sand dunes environmental development permit area.

4c) The CVRD will protect environmentally sensitive areas wherever possible using, amongst other tools, the provincial riparian areas regulation (RAR), development permit regulations, zoning, conservation incentives, integrated watershed or rainwater management plans, neighborhood plans, design and policy manuals (on rainwater or low-impact development) that are incorporated by reference into the Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw, development information areas and best practices.

Commented [M11]: delete 1. and replace with 1 a. 

Commented [D12]: This is written as an objective not a policy. Check objectives to see if it is already covered. 

Commented [D13]: Delete and replace with 4 a, 4.b, 4 c. 

Commented [O14]: Refer to Town of Comox OCP page 188 

CVCS review of draft OCP Aug 11, 2014 

3  

(5) All development will use design developments with nature principles to reduce environmental, social and economic vulnerabilities and to build community and ecological resiliency. (6) Encourage practices that reduce the pollution of air, soil and water and that have beneficial effects on aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, such as the preservation and planting of trees shall be encouraged. (7) Development proposals shall to the maximum possible degree the preservation describe measures that will be taken during and after development to protect natural features that are recognized as significant areas identified in the Sensitive Ecosystem Inventory, biodiversity corridors identified in Nature Without Borders, steep slopes and coastlines, wooded areas, aquatic habitat, watercourses, groundwater recharge areas, physiographic areas, sand dunes, valley lands and existing hedgerows. (8) Encourage the identification, protection and restoration of priority ecological areas and wildlife corridors to increase the resilience of the natural environment such as Courtenay River estuary, the Trent River system and other priority ecological areas. This will be implemented through development approval information and development permit guidelines. 8a) Protect and restore environmentally sensitive areas, their living resources, and connections between them in a natural condition and maintain these areas free of development and human activity to the maximum extent possible. Environmentally sensitive areas include rare and important ecosystems, habitats for species at risk, aquatic and upland habitat corridors, wooded areas, watercourses, existing hedgerows, steep slopes and natural contours, coastlines, and drinking water resources including groundwater recharge areas. Zoning, development approval information, development permit guidelines and conservation incentives will be used to conserve and protect these areas and to create a natural areas network. (9) Recognize and support the efforts of local non-governmental groups in promoting watershed, estuary and coastline health.  

Natural environment – watershed management/protection policies 6. (1) Prior to development approval, and considering the precautionary principle the applicant may be required to employ a appropriately qualified professional to assess potential water quality and quantity impacts through submission of an on-site drainage hydrology report that contains recommendations for ensuring that the pre-development (greenfield) or natural hydrologic regime is, at a minimum, maintained or restored by the development. (2) ) In the design and construction of new developments rain water management techniques such as on retention of native vegetation, narrower road widths, vegetated swales, and pervious paving material shall be used to maintain the balance of the pre-development (ie greenfield) hydrology on site, for surface runoff, interflow, and groundwater in the design and construction of new developments to control both the quantity and quality of rain water runoff. The degree of control and water management techniques used will depend on the scale of development and the conditions in the downstream receiving water bodies. The adverse effects of

Commented [D15]: Definition of design with nature in glossary needs some work.   The overall wording of the policy is unclear. Use of plain language would help. 

Commented [D16]: Please clarify or delete 

Commented [D17]: Delete and replace with 8a)

Commented [D18]: Should this section be called Watershed or rainwater management? 

Commented [D19]: Check OCP for requirements for a QEP to assess water quality and quantity impacts.. 

Commented [D20]: Under what circumstances? 

CVCS review of draft OCP Aug 11, 2014 

4  

development Proper Functioning Condition of the downstream aquatic environment and adjacent lands shall be maintained or avoided or kept to a minimum improved. (3) For those development sites draining into the marine environment and the K’omoks Estuary, the CVRD may request an enhanced level of rain water quality control, in order to assist with the protect of these important aquaculture areas and to maintain water quality in Baynes Sound and the Strait of Georgia. ((4) The CVRD will Encourage water conservation through the adoption of low irrigation landscaping and may discourage or prohibit the use of natural surface or ground water for non-agricultural irrigation or non-food producing irrigation. (5) All jurisdictions dependent on a given water supply should will be consulted prior to approving during consideration of a development within that watershed or water supply area. (6) Where possible, Efforts will be taken to work with adjacent jurisdictions and other agencies to create opportunities for planning within natural boundaries, over and above those established by the jurisdictions. (7) Watershed level hydrological studies and watershed management plans shall be required as necessary to guide major developments such as large subdivisions. Requirements may include: a) physiographic mapping b) hydrologic studies c) integrated stormwater/ rainwater management plans d) detailed mapping of sensitive ecosystems e) identification of isolated ecosystems and corridors, and linkages with larger ecosystem networks. Natural environment – surface water and ground water policies 7. (1) Protect watersheds and water sources by: (a) Considering all development proposals using the principles of precaution, connectivity and restoration (as outlined in Nature Without Borders, second edition) for initiatives within drinking water supply watersheds. (b) Require appropriate professionals to assess potential surface and groundwater quality and quantity impacts prior to approval of any development proposal, and to propose appropriate mitigation strategies. (2) Establish an aquifer protection development permit area for aquifers with community water supplies will be established with guidelines that address groundwater quantityfication, vulnerability, and protection measures. Retrofitting of existing development and infrastructure, with an aim to preserve or restore the natural hydrologic regime of the watershed/recharge area, shall be encouraged required.

Commented [D22]: What does enhanced mean.

Commented [D23]: The estuary IS the marine environment    Should it say Baynes Sound and K Estuary?  Ergo all developments within a watershed draining into the estuary or Baynes Sound?? 

Commented [D25]: What is the criteria for  triggering a study or a watershed management plan seems unrealistic?  If you keep watershed management plan then please define what it is means. 

Commented [D26]: These principles should be applied to all development as all developments happen in a watershed.  Why apply only to drinking watersheds? 

Commented [D27]: Aquifer protection requires protection of recharge area – not watershed. 

CVCS review of draft OCP Aug 11, 2014 

5  

PLEASE CONSIDER ADDING SECTIONS FOR INCENTIVES AND ZONING (USING THE PROVISIONS BELOW WHERE APPLICABLE) FROM THE GREEN BYLAWS TOOLKIT Official Community Plans Sample Bylaw Provisions from the Green Bylaws Toolkit for Conserving Sensitive Ecosystems and Green Infrastructure November 2007. http://www.greenbylaws.ca/ Incentives for Environmental Protection (p 163) Encourage voluntary placement of conservation covenants, dedication of land, or voluntary changes in zoning to protect sensitive ecosystems, by considering increased density on the balance of the subject property, an amenity bonus for another property, trading land, purchasing land, offering grants-in aid, or granting tax exemptions. Exempt eligible riparian property from property taxes if a property is subject to a conservation covenant registered under section 219 of the Land Title Act. Allow the owner(s) of land affected by dedications for environmental protection to use the original site area in computing density and floor area ratios and minimum areas for development or subdivision purposes. Other suggestions for an Incentive Section: Employ a conservation incentives program that identifies and encourages specific practices that developers can take to reduce the pollution of air, soil and water and that have beneficial effects on aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, such as the preservation and planting of trees. Zoning (p 166) Review and amend permitted uses in zones near sensitive ecosystems to prohibit or regulate uses that would have adverse impacts on the ecological function of the sensitive ecosystem. Review and amend density, lot size, and site coverage regulations on a watershed basis to ensure that they maintain or enhance ecosystem functions, specifically hydrologic functioning. Review and amend regulations for the siting, size, and dimensions of uses and buildings in zones adjacent to sensitive ecosystems to ensure that the uses will not compromise the sensitive ecosystem. Ensure that protection and dedication of sensitive ecosystems is the priority amenity for any development that involves a density bonus. Create cluster housing zones for residential areas adjacent to sensitive ecosystems to allow a tighter grouping of houses or multiple-unit buildings on the most buildable portions of a site in exchange for retaining a large portion of the land, such as a sensitive ecosystem, in a natural state.

CVCS review of draft OCP Aug 11, 2014 

6  

Establish comprehensive development zones for complex sites within the UCSB development areas to enable careful site planning for conservation of sensitive ecosystems. SUGGESTED PREAMBLE FOR SENSITIVE ECOSYSTEMS SECTION: Sensitive ecosystems By the late 1980s, ecologically significant lands and important wildlife habitats were fast disappearing throughout the lowlands surrounding the Strait of Georgia due to intense development pressure fueled by population and economic growth. To address this concern, the joint federal/provincial Sensitive Ecosystems Inventory (SEI) of East Vancouver Island and Gulf Islands was undertaken as a pilot project. In 1993-1997, the Sensitive Ecosystems Inventory mapped seven different natural ecosystem types considered rare and ecologically sensitive on the east coast of Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands: wetland, riparian, older forest, woodland, terrestrial herbaceous, sparsely vegetated and coastal bluff ecosystems. Two other ecosystem types, although clearly altered by human use, were also mapped because of their general biodiversity and wildlife habitat values: seasonally flooded agricultural field and older second growth forest ecosystems. Results of the SEI mapping project showed that less than 8 percent of the landscape was occupied by sensitive ecosystems in a relatively natural state. Approximately ten years later, Axys Environmental Consulting Ltd was hired by the Canadian Wildlife Service to assess the condition of the original SEI polygons. Axys developed a set of methods to quantify the impacts of human disturbance to ecosystems mapped by the SEI. Air photos taken in 2002 were used to assess current conditions. Within the lowland portion of the CVCS project area the data Axys produced showed that the amount of ecosystems considered highly rare and valuable had dropped significantly - even with the addition of ecosystems to the SEI as a result of improved mapping in 2002. Of the seven rare and threatened ecosystems types that covered the landscape approximately 150 years ago, the amount considered viable had dropped from eight to seven percent of the landscape. Of the other important ecosystems types, the amount considered viable had dropped from ten percent to seven percent. The status of the SEI in the lowland area of the Comox Valley was assessed again by the Comox Valley Conservation Strategy Community Partnership in 2014 – air photos from 2012 were used to assess current conditions and the methodology developed by Axys was applied. Analysis of results shows that human activities continue to cause the loss of rare intact ecosystems and other ecosystems considered highly valuable for biodiversity. The areas that remain are becoming increasingly critical for the preservation of species, community resilience and natural beauty in the Comox Valley. Sensitive ecosystems – objectives Add: New Objective:

CVCS review of draft OCP Aug 11, 2014 

7  

To preserve sensitive ecosystem areas, their living resources, and connections between them in a natural condition and maintain these areas free of development and human activity to the maximum extent possible. 8. (1) To maintain, to the extent possible, a mapped inventory of ecosystems and wildlife habitat corridors that are considered rare and threatened or have high biodiversity values (priority ecological areas) in order to take measures to protect them. This includes sites and ecosystems currently in the SEI inventory under the following categories: Coastal Bluff (vegetated rocky islets and shorelines, vegetated cliffs and bluffs) Sparsely Vegetated (coastal sand dunes, coastal gravel and sand spits, inland cliffs and bluffs) Terrestrial herbaceous (natural grasslands and moss dominated ecosystems, rocky outcrops) Wetland (bog, fen, marsh, swamp, shallow water, wet meadow) Riparian (all stages of riparian vegetation, riparian gullies) Woodland (open broad leafed forests, pure stands of Garry oak or Trembling aspen,

mixed stands of Douglas-fir-Garry oak and Douglas-fir-arbutus) Older Forest (conifer stands older than 100 years) Older Second Growth Forest (coniferous stands 60-100 years old) Seasonally Flooded Agricultural Fields (agricultural fields that flood in winter and early

spring) Sensitive ecosystems also include natural areas that contain remnants of the above ecosystems types. These may be small in area* and/or highly disturbed examples include the Point Holmes Coastal Sand Dune ecosystem and remnant stands of Garry oak. *The SEI does not map ecosystems that are smaller than half a hectare (0.5 ha) in size. New Objective: 1a)  To assess, map, protect and restore the rare and sensitive Point Holmes  Coastal Sand Dune and Garry Oak ecosystems. (2) To reduce prevent any further disturbance, reduction, fragmentation and loss to sensitive, rare and threatened ecosystems, including those shown in map 2 in appendix A. (3) To improve protection of sensitive ecosystems. (4) To further map, update and ground-truth priority ecological areas, through collaboration with provincial and federal government agencies, CVRD municipalities, First Nation governments, private landowners and non-governmental organizations, and as part of the development process for individual properties. Sensitive ecosystems – policies 9. Approval of any Development applications may will be required to include provisions to protect, and where possible restore sensitive, threatened and rare ecosystems, included within the 2012 sensitive ecosystem inventory as amended from time to time, by way of development permits,

Commented [D28]: Lynda needs to review this before we submit.  

Commented [D29]: The SEI does not include all the ecosystems that need protection and or restoration.  The following are not included: ‐  ecosystems less than .5 of a hectare, ‐  ecosystems that have been reduced or fragmented greater then 25% of its original area ‐ the garry oak/ coastal sand dune ecosystem that exists in the Point Holmes area 

CVCS review of draft OCP Aug 11, 2014 

8  

conservation zoning1, amenity density bonusing2, conservation incentives, community amenity contributions and submission of development approval information in accordance with policies included within this OCP. Parks and greenway - objectives 10. (1) To identify areas suitable for parks and greenways that meet the present and future needs of residents. (2) To protect, preserve and restore where possible, the nine sensitive ecosystem types identified by the SEI with highest priority on those that are most rare (coastal bluff, sparsely vegetated and woodland ecosystem types).  (3) To recognize the parks and greenway system as a vital part of the existing CVRD network of parks, open space, trails and recreational facilities. (4) To improve and maintain public access to water bodies – lakes, streams and the foreshore. (5) To ensure that access to water is provided for in all subdivision as applicable. (6) To protect private lands from public trespass by requiring clear identification of public lands where public access shall be encouraged. (7) To provide for partnerships that help plan and implement a valley-wide parks and greenways network. (8) To pursue activities that nurture community environmental stewardship. Parks and greenway - policies 11. (1) New parks and greenways shall be consistent with the Comox Valley parks and greenways strategic plan. (2) In any situation where the CVRD accepts and manages land for parks and greenway purposes, by way of community amenities, public land dedications, donation of private lands or other any other process, support and consideration will be given to the vision, goals, objectives, policies and priorities of the rural Comox Valley parks and greenways strategic plan.

                                                            1 Conservation zoning refers to large lot zoning outside of urban containment boundaries designed to protect ESAs, greenways, and habitat corridors. These zones reduce the intensity of use or density. 2 Where a local government uses amenity density bonus, a developer who seeks an amenity density bonus will be allowed

to build additional density in return for providing the local government and the public an amenity in return. Amenities can include environmental protection, habitat restoration, and the acquisition of parkland. 

CVCS review of draft OCP Aug 11, 2014 

9  

(3) Proposals for parkland acquisition not identified in the rural Comox Valley parks and greenways strategic plan shall be evaluated using the criteria for park and greenway acquisition in that plan. (4) The CVRD will implement those lands using best practices of stewardship for planning and design in sensitive areas when accepting land intended for new trails in the rural settlement area adjacent to the marine environment, riparian, wetland, and other aquatic areas. (5) Lands obtained for parks shall be selected in order to assist in achieving an interconnected trail and park system that minimizes conflicts and prioritizes environmental protection. (6) All road right of ways that provide public access to water, including lakes, streams and foreshore areas shall be kept open and access will be mapped and, in collaboration with the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MoTI), improved access shall be pursued. (7) Efforts shall be made to work with senior government, utilities and crown corporations with respect to opportunities and appropriate agreements for trails and greenways to be developed on lands affected by their mandates. (8) Plans for trail design, development, and management standards will ensure that environmental values are protected and the potential for land use conflicts is minimized. (9) The provision of buffers along trails may include a combination of fencing, physical separation, water, vegetation and elevation differences. (10) During the planning and design of trails in an agricultural area, the CVRD will consult with the CVRD agricultural community advisory panel. (11) Private owners of rural agricultural landscapes may provide public access in order to support the area as an important privately owned green space, over and above any requirements that may apply through development approval. Climate change - objectives 12. (1) To identify and understand risks associated with climate change and climate variability impacts. (2) To meet energy and emission targets. (3) To establish strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from new development. (4) To identify the areas of high risk to climate change impacts within the CVRD. (5) To foster greater awareness and support public education and awareness regarding climate change impacts, mitigation and adaptation strategies.

Commented [D30]: Why not all trails?

CVCS review of draft OCP Aug 11, 2014 

10  

Climate change – policies (mitigation) 13. (1) In accordance with Section 877 (3) of the Local Government Act, that requires an OCP to include targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions as well as policies and actions of the local government to assist in achieving those targets, the following targets, as identified in the Comox Valley sustainability strategy, (CVSS) will assist the CVRD in reducing greenhouse gas emissions: Greenhouse gas emission targets (using 2007 baseline data) Targets reduction Target year

33% 2020 50% 2030 65% 2040 80% 2080

(2) Recognizing that the majority of greenhouse gas emissions are due to home heating and the use of fossil fuel burning automobiles, incentives such as density bonusing and community amenity contributions may be considered when: i. developments utilize green building methods and technologies; ii. car share options that reduce parking requirements, or other features that reduce the number of autos per household, that are included as part of a subdivision or intentional community design iii. active modes of transportation are included within an intentional community design. iv. the new development is located in a settlement node near existing services and transportation options v. presenting a new comprehensive development project that uses alternative technologies to reduce energy use and includes integrated strategies that work towards a net zero development. (3) The CVRD will encourage proposals for renewable energy technologies that show compatibility with surrounding land uses and the environment by mitigating noise, vibration, visual impacts by distance separations, screening and buffering. Climate change – policies (adaptation) 14. (1) Develop strategies to reduce the environmental, social and economic impact of sea level rise and increasing extreme storm surge events in coastal areas. This will be implemented through development permits, community amenity contributions and submission of development approval information in accordance with policies

CVCS review of draft OCP Aug 11, 2014 

11  

included within this OCP. New policy: Planned Retreat should be considered for all existing development in flood plains. (2) The CVRD will work with stakeholders to complete an assessment of risk and susceptibility of the coastal areas to increasing sea level and extreme storm surge impacts. (3) Recognizing that increasing climate variability will result in more frequent and severe drought, the CVRD may consider the use of incentives such as density bonusing and community amenity contributions to promote water conservation design in new development. This may be considered when a developer proposes water conservation design measures such as: i. composting toilets ii. xeriscaping iii. grey water reuse (i.e. purple pipe, irrigation) iv. alternative rain water management for aquifer protection and recharge Economy and industry - policies (resource uses) 20. (1) Aggregate extraction and processing should incorporate best practices and should be designed and carried out in a manner that minimizes negative impact on surrounding land uses, the quality of life of residents and the natural environment of the CVRD. (2) Uses such as vehicle storage, offices or other workplaces, or outside storage of materials which are not accessory to the aggregate operation or which are not required for the safe and efficient operation and maintenance of the aggregate operation, will not be permitted. (3) The CVRD will work with the province and other senior government agencies to ensure that mineral resource and aggregate extraction is undertaken is in a manner that protects environmental features, ecosystems, surface and groundwater resources and significant wildlife habitat.

Part 3

Resource area - objectives 64. (1) To encourage responsible practices with respect to soil conservation, water conservation, and vegetation removal. (2) To regulate the processing of extracted materials. (3) To maintain the long-term viability of renewable resource industries. (4) To protect resource area lands from encroachment by residential and other sensitive uses.

Commented [D31]: CVCS supports renewable resource industries.  However, within the Resource area we do not think it is the responsibility of the CVRD to maintain the viability of the PMFL industries. 

CVCS review of draft OCP Aug 11, 2014 

12  

Part 4 Community amenity contributions 75. In instances where the board is satisfied that a proponent of increased density, through an amendment to the OCP or zoning bylaw, has demonstrated good planning, the board may consider voluntary contribution by the development proponent of a community amenity that offsets impacts of the increased density on the recipient community and/or broader community. The board may negotiate community amenity contribution when and if: a) the board is satisfied that the proposal demonstrates good planning; b) that the community amenities being offered directly assist in the mitigation of any impacts associated with the increased density; Development permit guidelines Aquatic habitat development permit area 82. Justification Aquatic and riparian habitat protection development permit area is designated pursuant to Section 919.1 (1)(a) of the Local Government Act for the protection of the natural environment, its ecosystems and biological diversity; and Section 919.1 (1)(b) for the protection of development from hazardous conditions. The mutual objectives of this development permit area are to protect the natural environment, ecosystems and biological diversity. An additional objective of the development permit area is to protect development from hazardous natural conditions. More specifically, the objectives are to: 1. To work toward objective 2b of the RGS objectives of precaution, connectivity and restoration; 2. preserve, protect, restore or enhance both terrestrial and aquatic natural features or areas associated with streams, watercourses and riparian areas; 3. protect development from hazardous conditions associated with watercourses and riparian areas; 4. implement the requirements of the riparian areas regulation for the protection of fish habitat within those plan areas where the regulation applies; and 5. protection of non-fish habitat attributes and promote the establishment of wildlife corridors. Area This development permit area applies within the area of this OCP to:  

Commented [D32]: Please define

Commented [D33]: Please define 

Commented [D34]: Proper Functioning Condition should be included as part of the DPA regulations.  Proper Functioning condition is being used in the planning of the CVRD Comox Lake Watershed protection plan.  Proper Functioning Condition is included in Nature Without Borders first and second edition, endorsed unanimously by all local governments in 2008. 

CVCS review of draft OCP Aug 11, 2014 

13  

1. all lands within a 30 metres measured from the present natural boundary, or top of slope where a steep slope is located immediately adjacent to a watercourse, on both sides of a watercourse, including the area of the watercourse.  2. all lands within a 30 metres measured from the present natural boundary, or top of slope where a steep slope is located immediately adjacent to a the sea. For assistance in identifying lands likely to fall within aquatic habitat development permit area, the CVRD may make available mapped data to applicants, but for greatest certainty the development permit area applies to all lands described above, whether depicted in this mapped data or not, and will be measured on the ground. Exemptions Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Ministry of Environment have confirmed that Robinson Lake is a manmade lake that is privately stocked with fish through a permit from the Ministry of Environment. All fish in the lake are only for the benefit of private residents of the lake and are not considered as a public resource. Accordingly, areas located within 30 metres of Robinson Lake, legally described as Lot 27, Sections 21 and 22, Township 4, Comox District, Plan 26336, Except that part in Plan 26755, is exempted from: aquatic environmentally sensitive development permit area requirements. Guidelines Development permits shall be issued in accordance with the following guidelines. 1. The board may consider a reduction of the 30 metre buffer in the event that it has determined that the following guidelines have been satisfied. 2. Where it appears one or more of the following guidelines are not applicable, the guideline(s) may be waived by a CVRD officer. Bio-physical assessments a. A bio-physical assessment is required. The assessment shall be prepared by a qualified professional biologist with the assistance of other professionals with relevant expertise as warranted by the assessment. The assessment must include: i. a site plan; ii. written summary of proposed development works; iii. a review of development alternatives that have been considered; iv. inventories of the existing environmentally sensitive feature(s); v. assessments of the environmental impact of the proposed development; vi. identify all proposed protective measures; vii. identify measures to preserve, protect, restore or enhance identified ESA impacted by the development; viii. identify measures to control drainage or erosion, and to protect banks; and ix. recommendations for the for mitigation, restoration and protection of habitat during and after construction. b. The bio-physical assessment shall: i. Be in accordance with Develop with Care 2012 or most current version;

CVCS review of draft OCP Aug 11, 2014 

14  

ii. Examine the natural features within the development permit area including rare and threatened plant communities, endangered species and identified critical habitats; iii. Provide description and maps of the parcel delineating the proposed development in relation to the development permit area, the vegetation buffer area, and any identified habitats including the watercourse; iv. Examine the impact of the proposed development on the identified habitats and propose measures to restore and mitigate impacts; v. As part of section (iv) provide a landscaping/planting plan with recommended species; and, vi. Integrate, where possible, the other information requirements, such as site drainage plans, as outlined in the development permit area guidelines. vii. Where a fish bearing stream is present a RAR assessment must be provided as per the riparian area regulations. Site design a. The proposed project design considers protection of the natural systems as a priority and should demonstrate that reasonable efforts have been made to establish a development envelope in a clustered area away from any watercourse. b. No buildings, structures or retaining walls should be permitted within 30 metres of the present natural boundary of the sea, stream or watercourse unless mitigative measures are proposed that will result in the same or greater protection of a 30 metre buffer. Vegetation buffers a. A landscape plan is required where disturbance or alteration of the native vegetation within the development permit area is proposed. The plan shall include a revegetation and restoration strategy and a quote for the full cost of materials and labour for the works to the satisfaction of the CVRD officers b. One of the most effective and least expensive tools for watercourse protection from impacts of development is maintaining a natural vegetation buffer between a sensitive feature and adjacent development. Well established native vegetation, tree cover and large woody debris found in natural vegetation buffers support channel and biological diversity, provide shade, mitigate rain water runoff effects, protect the stream stability from erosion and provide for wildlife corridors. c. The vegetation buffer should be void of invasive plant and noxious weed species. Removal of invasive plant and noxious weed species as identified in schedule A of the CVRD weed control bylaw no. 2347, as amended from time to time, may be required. d. Where development activities, including soil disturbance, are proposed in close proximity to a designated vegetation buffer, temporary silt fencing should be installed to protect the area prior to any construction activities. The temporary silt fencing should remain in place until external works are completed and materials and

CVCS review of draft OCP Aug 11, 2014 

15  

equipment are moved offsite. e. Rain water treatment ponds and rain water engineered wetlands shall not be located within the vegetation buffer. f. Large woody debris provides an essential ecosystem function within riparian and aquatic ecosystems. Such debris should not be removed from the vegetation buffer unless it is demonstrated that it poses an immediate flood threat to buildings or structures. Debris associated with the removal of trees and tree limbs certified as hazardous by a qualified professional within the vegetation buffer should remain in the vegetation buffer. g. The location of buildings, structures and impervious surfaces shall have adequate setbacks from established trees within a vegetation buffer to retain the trees and maintain an undisturbed soil vegetation buffer around them. Generally, a tree’s drip line (extent of branches) corresponds with the root system area. h. Where proposed development activities involve temporary soil stockpiling within the development permit area, soil shall be covered with a waterproof material to prevent any sediment from entering the vegetation buffer. i. On properties where vegetation separating the sensitive habitat, corridor or riparian feature from proposed development has been removed an applicant may be required to restore native vegetation in the vegetation buffer area. A restoration plan shall be provided by the RPBio/QEP as part of the bio-physical assessment. j. Selection of plant species should be based on site conditions and minimal reliance on maintenance. To ensure diversity, a minimum of three native species of trees and three native species of shrubs should be selected. k. For the purpose of subdivision design, proposed lot configuration should consider the protection of aquatic, riparian ecosystems and wildlife corridors. The proposed lot configuration should demonstrate that enough developable land is available to establish a development envelope that includes a reasonable yard area outside of the 30 metre area measured from the present natural boundary of a watercourse or stream and/or top of bank of a slope. Site drainage and erosion control a. As part of the bio-physical assessment, applicants must provide a site drainage plan as prepared by a professional engineer in good standing. b. Proposed development should minimize impervious surface coverage by utilizing site design techniques based on the principles of low impact development. Each proposal should consider the following principles: i. Where development features such as driveways, parking areas and pathways are proposed to be located within the development permit area, pursuant to section (a) above, such surfaces should be limited to narrow widths necessary

CVCS review of draft OCP Aug 11, 2014 

16  

to service development and use pervious or semi-pervious materials such as natural stone, packed gravel or unsealed paving stones. ii. Alteration of the contours of the land should be avoided to minimize the deposit of fill and/or the removal of soil; iii. The total impervious surface area within the development permit area should not exceed 10 per cent of that portion of the lot situated within the development permit area. Proposals exceeding the 10-per cent coverage requirement should incorporate permanent design features for ground infiltration or retention of run-off from impervious surfaces based on the principles of low impact development. When low impact development principles are incorporated, the remaining impervious surfaces should meet the 10 per cent coverage requirement. Watercourse dedication a. Natural watercourses covered by this development permit area are required to be dedicated to the crown, as per section 920 (7) (c) of the Local Government Act. Additional guidelines a. On properties where significant or potential archeological features are identified, the applicant will contact the appropriate agency to ensure that the proposed development complies with the provincial heritage legislation. b. The minimum setback for a sewerage system should be 30 metres from the present natural boundary or top of bank of the sea, watercourse or stream. Proposals to reduce this setback should demonstrate a reasonable effort to comply with the setback guideline and should be certified by a registered qualified professional with recognised specialization in hydrology. Setback reduction proposals should address the assurance of environmental performance standards equal to or exceeding those that would be provided by the 30 metre setback. c. Where a proposed development is affected by multiple development permit areas, the biological assessment report should be coordinated with other applicable assessments, such as a geotechnical evaluation. d. The sequencing and timing of development activities should be carried out to minimize negative impacts on riparian and aquatic ecosystems. e. The CVRD will consider variance of or supplement a bylaw under Division 7 or 11 of Part 26 of the Local Government Act provided that it is in accordance with the objective of this development permit area. f. The CVRD will require confirmation by a registered professional biologist qualified to assess the sensitive aquatic or riparian feature that any work as part of the development proposal has been completed in accordance with the recommendations

CVCS review of draft OCP Aug 11, 2014 

17  

outlined in the assessment report and other conditions of the development permit. g. Discharge from swimming pools, hot tubs and spas shall be to an approved treatment system. h. A post development report is required from the qualified environmental professional and/or registered professional biologist providing an assessment of all constructed works. The report shall assess if the works are in compliance with the development permit conditions as approved by the CVRD. OTHER In Part 3 it says: 73(8) (8) “Hardening” of the coastal shoreline through the use of “rip rap”, concrete embankments and revetment walls, and other similar structural interventions that interrupt natural sediment transfer, disturb natural vegetation, redirect wave energy to adjacent properties and/or destroy fish habitat, including forage and spawning areas, is prohibited. is contradicted by in Part 4: 85 Shorline Protection Devices Justification Shoreline protection devices can threaten the ecological and physical integrity of the shoreline. These areas have high ecological and aesthetic values and may contain unstable slopes subject to erosion and land slip. Due to their physical and biological characteristics and situation, these devices need to be carefully managed in order to avoid potential negative impacts to the shoreline. Glossary: Priority ecological areas: Are as defined in Nature Without Borders second edition (Comox Valley Conservation Strategy), and include aquatic habitat corridors, upland habitat corridors, sensitive ecosystems, aquatic ecosystems, community drinking water sources, and estuaries.

Commented [a35]: This policy is contradicted by the Shoreline Protection DP 

1

Selena Speed

From: Ann MacDonaldSent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 10:54 AMTo: Selena SpeedSubject: OCP review

Follow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: Flagged

Categories: Red Category

From: LeRoy McFarlane [mailto:yorelwest@telus.net]  Sent: August‐10‐14 3:01 PM To: Ann MacDonald Subject: Draft LAP 

Hi Ann. One brief correction, tho significant to the residents for the Draft OCP report: Page 6 - please correct the name of our settlement node, it is: Saratoga Miracle Beach. And our LAP Committee is interested to participate in a review of the LAP document, is the date known for the release of the draft? To facilitate organizing individual schedules it will benefit us if we have a heads up - in order to allow a thorough response of the LAP ( Saratoga Miracle Beach) to the CVRD. Thanking you LeRoy

6480-25

1

Selena Speed

From: Ann MacDonaldSent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 8:33 AMTo: 'TIM RABBITT'Cc: Selena Speed; 'Phil'; beachwood6@shaw.ca; hotsies@shaw.ca; Jacqueline Kinney;

jimgillis@shaw.ca; Karen Isenor; lp north; p horgen; Alana Mullaly; Debra Oakman; James Warren; Teresa Warnes; Leigh Carter; Alana Mullaly

Subject: RE: Draft OCP agency referral

Thank you for your email Tim.  I appreciate you taking the time during your vacation to send me your thoughts.  

I agree that the summer period is not the ideal time to have the draft out for public review.  In this day of the internet that seasonal restriction is mitigated somewhat given that residents can access the draft online from anywhere and can submit questions or comments online as well.  I realize that it is a long document and so that is why we had the open houses to discuss the key new initiatives.  

We have planned a meeting with Area B APC for August 21st where we will discuss the draft OCP and I hope that you will be available to attend that meeting.  In the meantime, please do send me any specific questions.   

Thank you again for your comments.  

Regards, Ann  

Ann MacDonald, MCIP, RPP General Manager of Planning and Development Services Branch Comox Valley Regional District 600 Comox Road, Courtenay, BC V9N 3P6 Tel: 250‐334‐6077; Fax: 250‐334‐4358 Toll Free: 1‐800‐331‐6007 

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: TIM RABBITT [mailto:tim.rabbitt@shaw.ca] Sent: July‐30‐14 1:24 AM To: Ann MacDonald Cc: Selena Speed; 'Phil'; beachwood6@shaw.ca; hotsies@shaw.ca; Jacqueline Kinney; jimgillis@shaw.ca; Karen Isenor; lp north; p horgen; Alana Mullaly; Debra Oakman; James Warren; Teresa Warnes; Leigh Carter; Alana Mullaly Subject: RE: Draft OCP agency referral 

Hello Ann, 

I can't speak for anyone else, but I must say that I'm very disappointed that the CVRD chose to schedule Phase 3 of the public consultation meetings regarding the OCP in the latter half of July when it is well aware that a large proportion of residents are away on holidays or have many other commitments at that time. This can be verified by anyone in the travel and recreation industry. In fact, there has been a long‐held belief within many political circles that if you want to slip something 'under the radar' so that few people will take notice or get actively involved, the time to do that is during 

6480-25

2

the summer ‐ much more so than at most other times of the year.  I would hate to think that the CVRD made this decision deliberately, but I would be not at all surprised if many people definitely believe that is the case.  I am one of those residents taking vacation time this year from mid‐July to mid‐August and so am unable to attend any of the meetings around this matter which were scheduled during that time: the one originally planned for Area B APC, the other public consultation meetings July 23‐28, and the one planned for August 13. The fact that we were unable to achieve a quorum for the Area B meeting in July would strongly suggest that I am not the only one in this situation.   However, it would appear that there is little that can be done at this point. I felt, however, that it was necessary to voice my comments ‐ even from a considerable distance via email ‐ lest it be thought that there is unanimous support for all aspects of the process as it is presently unfolding.  Tim   ‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐ From: Ann MacDonald <amacdonald@comoxvalleyrd.ca> To: Selena Speed <sspeed@comoxvalleyrd.ca>, 'Phil' <lindaha1@shaw.ca>, beachwood6@shaw.ca, hotsies@shaw.ca, Jacqueline Kinney <jacquie_kinney@yahoo.ca>, jimgillis@shaw.ca, Karen Isenor <dkisenor@shaw.ca>, lp north <lp.north@telus.net>, p horgen <p.horgen@utoronto.ca>, Tim Rabbitt <tim.rabbitt@shaw.ca>, Alana Mullaly <amullaly@comoxvalleyrd.ca>, Debra Oakman <djoakman@comoxvalleyrd.ca>, James Warren <jwarren@comoxvalleyrd.ca>, Teresa Warnes <twarnes@comoxvalleyrd.ca> Cc: Leigh Carter <lcarter@comoxvalleyrd.ca>, Alana Mullaly <amullaly@comoxvalleyrd.ca> Sent: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 10:31:46 ‐0600 (MDT) Subject: RE: Draft OCP agency referral  Good morning Phil, and thank you for your email.  I understand that Selena has provided you with the list of agency contacts in response to your request.  For your information, we have just completed the third phase of public consultations last week.  We held four open houses and met with both Area A and Area C APC members to discuss the plan. Unfortunately, the planned meeting for Area B was cancelled as we were advised that not enough members were available to attain quorum.  You may be happy to learn that a joint APC meeting is planned for all three APC members in mid‐August (and you will be advised of that date soon) so hopefully you will be available to attend that meeting.  We will also be discussing the draft at the August 21st  Area B APC meeting.  At any rate, at the four open house meetings last week we did discuss the policies included in the draft for the Settlement Expansion Areas.  This policy framework begins on page 28 of the draft and includes Sections 33 to 39 on page 30. If you have concerns about these policies, this is the time and process to provide those comments so please do forward any concerns.  As far as process, we have held three phases of public consultation to seek input from ratepayers, as noted below. In this third round, we are asking that you provide any comments or concerns by August 28th.  I hope you are able to take some time in that four week period to summarize your concerns and comments on the draft, as this is exactly the purpose of this round of consultations.   You will find a comment sheet on our website to submit comments, or please feel free to call or email me directly with any questions or concerns or suggestions for improvement.  I hope to hear back from you, or to see you at one of the upcoming APC meetings.  Best regards, Ann  Draft OCP:  Public Consultation to Date  

3

Phase 1 Public Consultation:  January 15, 2014 10‐12 Meeting with Developers  January 16, 2014 7‐9 pm Joint APC meeting, Public Meeting  January 17, 2014 2‐6 pm, Oyster River Fire Hall, Public Meeting  January 18, 2014 2‐6 pm, CVRD Boardroom, Public Meeting    Phase 2 Public Consultation:  March 10, 2014 EASC Policy Alternatives Report, Public Meeting  March 12, 2014  4‐6 pm 4H CVRD, Public Meeting  March 12, 2014 7‐9 pm, Environment, CVRD, Public Meeting  March 13, 2014 9‐11 Senior's issues, CVRD, Public Meeting  March 13, 2014 Cycling Issues CVRD, Public Meeting  March 13, 2014, Tourist Commercial Operators, CVRD  March 13, 2014 6‐7 pm, Black Creek AGM, Public Meeting  March 14, 2014 Open House, Union Bay Hall  March 15, 2014 Open House, CVRD  March 15, 2014 Open House, Oyster River Fire Hall    Phase 3 Public Consultation:  July 23, 2014 CVRD Open House, 2‐ 6 pm  July 23, 2014 APC Area C meeting, 7‐9 pm  July 24, 2014 Grantham Hall Open House, 3‐6 pm  July 25, 2014, Oyster River Fire Hall Open House, 3‐6 pm  July 26, 2014 Union Bay ID Bldg. Open House, 1‐3 pm  July 28, 2014, APC Area A meeting, 7‐9 pm  August 13, 2014, Joint APC Meeting, 7‐9 pm (planned)  

4

August 21, 2014, APC Area B meeting, 7‐9 pm (planned)   Ann MacDonald, MCIP, RPP General Manager of Planning and Development Services Branch Comox Valley Regional District 600 Comox Road, Courtenay, BC V9N 3P6 Tel: 250‐334‐6077; Fax: 250‐334‐4358 Toll Free: 1‐800‐331‐6007      From: Selena Speed Sent: July‐29‐14 8:50 AM To: 'Phil'; beachwood6@shaw.ca; hotsies@shaw.ca; Jacqueline Kinney; jimgillis@shaw.ca; Karen Isenor; lp.north@telus.net; p.horgen@utoronto.ca; Tim Rabbitt; Alana Mullaly; Ann MacDonald; Debra Oakman; James Warren; Teresa Warnes Cc: Ann MacDonald Subject: RE: Draft OCP agency referral  Good morning Phil,  Thank you for your email. I have forwarded your request onto our general manager of planning and development services and she will respond to you shortly.  Thank you, Selena  From: Phil [mailto:lindaha1@shaw.ca] Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 7:31 PM To: Selena Speed; beachwood6@shaw.ca<mailto:beachwood6@shaw.ca>; hotsies@shaw.ca<mailto:hotsies@shaw.ca>; Jacqueline Kinney; jimgillis@shaw.ca<mailto:jimgillis@shaw.ca>; Karen Isenor; lp.north@telus.net<mailto:lp.north@telus.net>; p.horgen@utoronto.ca<mailto:p.horgen@utoronto.ca>; Tim Rabbitt; Alana Mullaly; Ann MacDonald; Debra Oakman; James Warren; Teresa Warnes Cc: Ann MacDonald Subject: Re: Draft OCP agency referral  Hi Selena,  Could you send me the email contacts for each of the referral agencies. I would like to comment on the lack of meaningful input from CVRD ratepayers in the OCP,  and  the lack of CVRD response to concerns about representing rights of CVRD administered rural residents who live in the CVRD settlement expansion areas.  Thank you  Phil  From: Selena Speed<mailto:sspeed@comoxvalleyrd.ca> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 2:36 PM To: beachwood6@shaw.ca<mailto:beachwood6@shaw.ca> ; hotsies@shaw.ca<mailto:hotsies@shaw.ca> ; Jacqueline Kinney<mailto:jacquie_kinney@yahoo.ca> ; jimgillis@shaw.ca<mailto:jimgillis@shaw.ca> ; Karen 

5

Isenor<mailto:dkisenor@shaw.ca> ; lp.north@telus.net<mailto:lp.north@telus.net> ; p.horgen@utoronto.ca<mailto:p.horgen@utoronto.ca> ; Phil Harrison (lindaha1@shaw.ca)<mailto:lindaha1@shaw.ca)> ; Tim Rabbitt<mailto:tim.rabbitt@shaw.ca> ; Alana Mullaly<mailto:amullaly@comoxvalleyrd.ca> ; Ann MacDonald<mailto:amacdonald@comoxvalleyrd.ca> ; Debra Oakman<mailto:djoakman@comoxvalleyrd.ca> ; James Warren<mailto:jwarren@comoxvalleyrd.ca> ; Teresa Warnes<mailto:twarnes@comoxvalleyrd.ca> Cc: Ann MacDonald<mailto:amacdonald@comoxvalleyrd.ca> Subject: Draft OCP agency referral  Area 'B' APC members,  Please find attached the formal referral for the draft OCP. Please feel free to contact me if you would like a hard copy.  Thank you,  Selena Speed Branch Assistant ‐ Executive Management Branch Comox Valley Regional District 600 Comox Road, Courtenay, BC, V9N3P6 Tel: 250‐334‐6073 [cid:image001.jpg@01CFAB0D.739C4760]<http://www.facebook.com/comoxvalleyrd> [cid:image002.jpg@01CFAB0D.739C4760] <http://www.twitter.com/comoxvalleyrd>  [cid:image003.jpg@01CFAB0D.739C4760] <http://gplus.to/comoxvalleyrd>  [cid:image004.png@01CFAB0D.739C4760] <http://twitter.com/statuses/user_timeline/168701102.rss>  [cid:image005.jpg@01CFAB0D.739C4760] <http://www.youtube.com/comoxvalleyrd>   

1

Selena Speed

From: no-reply@comoxvalleyrd.comSent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 11:44 AMTo: planningdevelopment@comoxvalleyrd.caSubject: Feedback: Planning

Topic: Planning

Name: Hal Weinberg

Email: halweinberg.ca@gmail.com

Phone: 778 999 7251

Address: 303 Stern Road Fanny Bay B.C. V0R 1W0 Canada

Message: This is a response to the request for input regarding the Official Community Plan.

The provision below is clearly intended for punitive measures to implement the concept of 946 in the Local Government Act and has nothing to do with the control of density. Various covenants could be implemented to insure that subdivisions for a family remain for the family of a specified interval after subdivision.

Why does the CVRD hate 946? This should be made public so that there is clear understanding of the reasons for the CVRD to reject normal use of 946 - requiring twice the minimum lot size as a remainder clearly is intended to reject the whole concept of "Family First".

"The subdivision of land in the RSA for a residence for a relative under Section 946 of the Local Government Act shall only be permitted when the parent lot is at least two times the minimum lot size required within the applicable zone in the zoning bylaw." .

6480-25

1

Selena Speed

From: no-reply@comoxvalleyrd.comSent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 11:36 PMTo: planningdevelopment@comoxvalleyrd.caSubject: Feedback: Planning

Topic: Planning

Name: Diana Schroeder

Email: brjll@telus.net

Phone: Not provided

Address: Not provided

Message: Re: Rural Comox Valley OCP Yes to the new freshwater policy, the natural hazards policy and the small scale agriculture policy. Section 44 density bonussing only with a public hearing. Yes to tiny houses if garden area included. Need feedback on changes to handy dart eligibility. We need to improve this essential transportation and decrease the red tape. Transportation - Careful planning will benefit everyone. - We nee integrated transportation to include a transportation hub and scheduling to enhance public transit from the ferries and from Victoria. Please investigate the possiblility of moving the downtown Courtenay terminal to the train depot whether or not the train runs again. The terminal downtown creates unwanted traffic congestion downtown and uses 2nd as access to the terminal for too many out of service busses. It isn't necessary and if bus stops remain, will not interfere in service. We also need park and ride options for Comox and rural areas. Please decrease traffic congestion. No new roads and bridges!

6480-25

1

Selena Speed

From: Ann MacDonaldSent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 9:32 AMTo: Selena Speed; 'Phil'; beachwood6@shaw.ca; hotsies@shaw.ca; Jacqueline Kinney;

jimgillis@shaw.ca; Karen Isenor; lp.north@telus.net; p.horgen@utoronto.ca; Tim Rabbitt; Alana Mullaly; Debra Oakman; James Warren; Teresa Warnes

Cc: Leigh Carter; Alana MullalySubject: RE: Draft OCP agency referral

Good morning Phil, and thank you for your email.  

I understand that Selena has provided you with the list of agency contacts in response to your request.  

For your information, we have just completed the third phase of public consultations last week.  We held four open houses and met with both Area A and Area C APC members to discuss the plan. Unfortunately, the planned meeting for Area B was cancelled as we were advised that not enough members were available to attain quorum.  You may be happy to learn that a joint APC meeting is planned for all three APC members in mid‐August (and you will be advised of that date soon) so hopefully you will be available to attend that meeting.  We will also be discussing the draft at the August 21st  Area B APC meeting.  

At any rate, at the four open house meetings last week we did discuss the policies included in the draft for the Settlement Expansion Areas.  This policy framework begins on page 28 of the draft and includes Sections 33 to 39 on page 30. If you have concerns about these policies, this is the time and process to provide those comments so please do forward any concerns.  

As far as process, we have held three phases of public consultation to seek input from ratepayers, as noted below. In thisthird round, we are asking that you provide any comments or concerns by August 28th.  I hope you are able to take some time in that four week period to summarize your concerns and comments on the draft, as this is exactly the purpose of this round of consultations.   You will find a comment sheet on our website to submit comments, or please feel free to call or email me directly with any questions or concerns or suggestions for improvement.  I hope to hear back from you, or to see you at one of the upcoming APC meetings.  

Best regards, Ann  

Draft OCP:  Public Consultation to Date 

Phase 1 Public Consultation:  January 15, 2014 10-12 Meeting with Developers January 16, 2014 7-9 pm Joint APC meeting, Public Meeting January 17, 2014 2-6 pm, Oyster River Fire Hall, Public Meeting January 18, 2014 2-6 pm, CVRD Boardroom, Public Meeting

Phase 2 Public Consultation:  March 10, 2014 EASC Policy Alternatives Report, Public Meeting March 12, 2014 4-6 pm 4H CVRD, Public Meeting March 12, 2014 7-9 pm, Environment, CVRD, Public Meeting March 13, 2014 9-11 Senior’s issues, CVRD, Public Meeting March 13, 2014 Cycling Issues CVRD, Public Meeting March 13, 2014, Tourist Commercial Operators, CVRD March 13, 2014 6-7 pm, Black Creek AGM, Public Meeting

6480-25

2

March 14, 2014 Open House, Union Bay Hall March 15, 2014 Open House, CVRD March 15, 2014 Open House, Oyster River Fire Hall Phase 3 Public Consultation: July 23, 2014 CVRD Open House, 2- 6 pm July 23, 2014 APC Area C meeting, 7-9 pm July 24, 2014 Grantham Hall Open House, 3-6 pm July 25, 2014, Oyster River Fire Hall Open House, 3-6 pm July 26, 2014 Union Bay ID Bldg. Open House, 1-3 pm July 28, 2014, APC Area A meeting, 7-9 pm August 13, 2014, Joint APC Meeting, 7-9 pm (planned) August 21, 2014, APC Area B meeting, 7-9 pm (planned)   Ann MacDonald, MCIP, RPP General Manager of Planning and Development Services Branch Comox Valley Regional District  600 Comox Road, Courtenay, BC V9N 3P6 Tel: 250‐334‐6077; Fax: 250‐334‐4358   Toll Free: 1‐800‐331‐6007  

   

From: Selena Speed  Sent: July‐29‐14 8:50 AM To: 'Phil'; beachwood6@shaw.ca; hotsies@shaw.ca; Jacqueline Kinney; jimgillis@shaw.ca; Karen Isenor; lp.north@telus.net; p.horgen@utoronto.ca; Tim Rabbitt; Alana Mullaly; Ann MacDonald; Debra Oakman; James Warren; Teresa Warnes Cc: Ann MacDonald Subject: RE: Draft OCP agency referral  Good morning Phil,  Thank you for your email. I have forwarded your request onto our general manager of planning and development services and she will respond to you shortly.  Thank you, Selena  

From: Phil [mailto:lindaha1@shaw.ca]  Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 7:31 PM To: Selena Speed; beachwood6@shaw.ca; hotsies@shaw.ca; Jacqueline Kinney; jimgillis@shaw.ca; Karen Isenor; lp.north@telus.net; p.horgen@utoronto.ca; Tim Rabbitt; Alana Mullaly; Ann MacDonald; Debra Oakman; James Warren; Teresa Warnes Cc: Ann MacDonald Subject: Re: Draft OCP agency referral  

Hi Selena, 

3

Could you send me the email contacts for each of the referral agencies. I would like to comment on the lack of meaningful input from CVRD ratepayers in the OCP,  and  the lack of CVRD response to concerns about representing rights of CVRD administered rural residents who live in the CVRD settlement expansion areas.  Thank you Phil  From: Selena Speed Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 2:36 PM To: beachwood6@shaw.ca ; hotsies@shaw.ca ; Jacqueline Kinney ; jimgillis@shaw.ca ; Karen Isenor ; lp.north@telus.net; p.horgen@utoronto.ca ; Phil Harrison (lindaha1@shaw.ca) ; Tim Rabbitt ; Alana Mullaly ; Ann MacDonald ; Debra Oakman ; James Warren ; Teresa Warnes Cc: Ann MacDonald Subject: Draft OCP agency referral Area ‘B’ APC members,  Please find attached the formal referral for the draft OCP. Please feel free to contact me if you would like a hard copy.  Thank you,  Selena Speed Branch Assistant – Executive Management Branch Comox Valley Regional District 600 Comox Road, Courtenay, BC, V9N3P6 Tel: 250-334-6073

  

-4 CD

-U, 0 (D0 0 CD

z 3 CD0 •0 0 :3

I

0 z (D(D C

,,C

,,

z 0) 30 0 .-

I. 0 0)

0 U’ 1

c

n

O o

0p 0 z

Cl)

p‘

oo

p 0 C-) 0 0 p 0

Comox ValleyREGIONAL DSTR1CT

DRAFT• RUitL CoMox V4LLEY

OFFIcL4L COMMUNITYPLAN

We are interested in your feedback. Please tell us what you think!

Or leave your feedback online on at www.cornoxv ailevrd.ca.i:-•N / main/commumt/ruriL-sfficia-COflirnUflltV -plan

Comments:

,( /_

/L’--& r/ 1fA&J

p 4

Optio na

Na me:

Address: / / /Phone: ‘3 - / - :3 4 -

Comox ValleyREGIONAL DISTRICT

DRAFTRuRAL CoMox VALLEY

OFFIcIAL COMMUNITYPLAN

We are interested in your feedback. Please tell us what you think!

Or leave your feedback online on atCOflllfflUfllfl plan

Comments: (Q ç

L4c-i doA ci jZ

- tL kcnPA1U± t4è L-L-t4s?

LcL ft 1&U Q & LZA&- LU st±fu- dQ&ft acw w5Q ftt us4 o

a- n coc-5%r r (v 4

Optiona’ CDW.Name: - UAddress:

Phone:

Comox VaIeyREGIONAL DSTRCT

DRAFTRuRAL CoMox VALLEY

OFFIcIAL CoMMuNITYPLAN

We are interested in your feedback. Please tell us what you think!

Or leave your feedback online on at .*iHu alle\ rd.ca,L i-mconirnum,_rura1otficia1-c otnmunltv-pIan

Comments:

Ia or 1O JQ &/A/r[ 0

o pto na I

Name:

Address:

Phone:

0 (D

0 0 -‘ (D

z D)

rD

0 0

C-.) IH n

c)

c)c)

U2SCUCS-9CUCC11C

l)

CI

€(c,IiL

111U

.1

p IIc’4

\

(‘3000

G)

Co-C

Comox ValleyREGIONAL DISTRICT

DRAFT

RuRAL CoMox VMLEY

OFFIcIAL COMMUNITYPLAN

Optional

Name:

Address:

Phone:

We are interested in your feedback. Please tell us what you think!

Or leave your feedback online on at v\;c o:c aIi&\ / LN nain / comrnumtv /rural-áfficialcommuniti -plan

-AComments: /f %i-z’’ ivtJ ,cz-teii

u K7h4M4-7; CL1 /A ‘ I

‘‘M1 -14? %:‘4/4f7, ty

Li 2t9 1 zev2U

/ /a- Ø4AtL41q O a-Jie;-c-T4L

rt

-o

CD p C-) I -a

>z

CD

iD

z

CDCD

0 :5

-o 0 :5 CD

‘jJ

C •1n

—

7’J c) C j

I700C-)

V—

I

iisO

(V)

1a)0-c

CDo0)

0CD

oz

Cl)a)-o

UJC)D

-JEpyJo-JUnJ/AUfltULUD7T1Jtt’JJ7DpT13UOUT[UOpqpjflOAAJo

j3UTqnoSflp4S1MqpjnoArn

NV1JALINf1]2lrJ2t[O37Y13L-IJQ

A7TVjjXOJVO37TQ1LI[

JJV[G

1)IiScI1VNOIflI

‘IIAXOWO)

IeuoidO

sUi1rtITo

-J -ç

5— P

CD

VC CD n C CD 0 p

0 CD

0 0 -‘ CD Li)

Li-)

z 3 CD ccI

CD CD

iiC

, n 0

Cprj0I

G):

(j

IC04-,ci

0

a)Ec’zz

(I)

ci)ci)C0-C0

U-J

U

-IIri

0—

wI.

3U,

a)1-o0

ca)E

(1000

a)0

c)

UUCILII

•‘-4

C

04-.00

wEz

I)

ci)ci)

0-t

C Comox ValleyREGIONAL DISTRICT

DRAFT

RuRAL CoMox VALLEY

OFFIcIAL COMMUNITYPLAN

Comments:

co1 .‘

9.(L(c J •/c(J

We are interested in your feedback. Please tell us what you think!

Or leave your feedback online on at hl4 \\ ii J1 \ intinnimuniiili1ticial

CofliflUlFiltY

Ce-%s4d aJ

Optiona!

Name:

Address:

Phone:

L)I

CCUI(z

oI

>

—

>x:

04.-,

0

Q)

2c3z

U,

U,

a)-C-D0

?:‘....

i/c. /ALLEN HOPWOOD ENTERPRISES LTD.FORESTRY CONSULTING / FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT

ymYX-------iEvEDFiL (fc6-O- 2S

28201kPlanning Department

, l

Como’alley Regional District

January 28, 2014

Re: Comox Valley Official Communityjn, Rgional Growth Strategy & Community WatershedI write as the owner of 34 ha of private land / improvements at 5501 and 5535 Forbidden PlateauRoad and as the holder of a Woodlot Licence on 98 ha of Crown land adjoining (to the south) myprivate land.

I am concerned about land-use designations you have placed on some of these lands, especially asyou have never consulted with me or the Ministry of Forests in this regard. Specifically, I refer to:• The designation of a Greenway Trail on my private land.• The designation of Aquatic Habitat Greenways on the Crown and.• The imposition of Community Watershed designation.

There are implications which are significant: trespass, compensation, liability, safety, wildfire andprivacy on my private land, not being the least. The Greenways designations on the Crown landshave the same implications, since I have resporisibilityfor management and protection.In recent years, the C.V. Community Watershed has been expanded to include my WoodlotLicence’s three main streams, because, as I understand it, drinking water is infrequently derivedfrom the downstream BC Hydro dam (ratherthan strictly from the dam at Comox Lake). This hascaused me to place reserves on these three streams, resulting in an 8% socio-economic loss. Myapproach to forest management (single-tree selection harvesting, etc.) has no impact on waterquality / quantity-of-flow. But you require me to put in place unnecessary restrictions, whileadjoining industrial forest landowners (whose forestry practices have major impacts) are notaffected.

5501 Forbidden Plateau Road Courtenay, BC Canada V9J 1R3Phone: (250) 334-3043 Fax: (250) 703-2043Email: hopwood.@iohind.not

2

Operating my Woodlot Licence has become increasingly difficult, complicated and costly due tounauthorized mountain biking trails, adjoining subdivisions and rural property developments,watershed designation, new land-use designations, pending Species-At-Risk restriction, andincreasing public influx (mushroom pickers, hunters, mountain bikers, hikers, RVers, etc.).

To an extent, I, as a Woodlot Licensee, bought into and welcomed some of this when I got theprivilege of holding a Woodlot Licence. But, at the same time, I deserve / expect commensurateconsultation and cooperation from government (and sometimes the general public and adjoininglandowners).

I therefore urge you to rescind the applicable Land Use Designations’ immediately. If, thereafter,you would like to discuss the possibility of site-specific designations, I am more than willing tocooperate.

Yours truly,

Allen Hoood

Cc: Mr. Edwin Grieve, Area CB.C. Ministry of Forests

1 Community Watershed, Greenway Trail and Aquatic Greenways.

The focus of this survey s environment’ ion)ncluding a variety of issues.* Natural areas protection* Minimizing development impact* Climate change ----cr

It should not take you more than 10-15 minutes to complete this survey.

All responses will be treated confidentially, and used only to obtain input into the OCP review process.

Em,ironmentaI Conservation

The CVRDs Regional Growth Strategy emphasizes two ways to protect and conserve the natural environment:* Prevent development in certain areas through land use designation (parks, conservation areas), and* Minimizing development impacts by encouraging conservation and environmental protection practices in thedevelopment process.

1. The RGS emphasizes the following areas for conservation:* Estuaries (the tidal mouth of a river or stream, where the tide meets the stream)* Riparins (those areas that are on or relate to the banks of a watercourse)* Sensitive ecosystems (rare and fragile ecosystems on land, which may contain rare,threatened or endangered species)* Critica[,wateheds (where Comox Valley residents get their drinking water)* Biodiversity corridors (linkages between natural features for wildlife and plants to movebetween different parts of their habitats)* Parks (existing and proposed) and greenways (recreation corridors).

of areas that you think should be protected or conserved?

•f)/ // /-

—‘ V/7 -i/

é4’ /)z //(//7

(9t- t’— 9Z

1/r/ -

e /-•/.— _*._<c

/‘ 3/c:/_ç::--

- / j_ / c

jA4J, 1v6!p

.—. -/ í S:2 7 c. - / c—’

//ó-// 7j

:

- — —V —

f . z’ /

/y’4&

2. For the rural areas, the RGS promotes environmental best practices to balance theinterests between private landowners, the need for economic production in the ruralareas, and the need for environmental protection.

These best practices can include:* Education programs* Habitat restoration (for example, invasive species management, replanting of nativevegetation)* Conservation covenants (a voluntary, but binding, agreement between a landowner anda conservation organization in which the owner of the land promises to protect the land inspecific ways)* Buffering and transition zones (a certain distance, with vegetation, between the workinglandscape and residential development)* Incentives of various types

Are there other ways to balance the interests of the working rural landscape aridenvironmental protection?

Infrastructure

EonmentaI Conservation

/

;;-.- J1

The RGS goal for infrastructure is to provide affordable, effective and efficient services and infrastructure that conservesland, water and energy resources.’ Key aspects of infrastructure development include water, stormwater management,sewer, and solid waste systems.

The extension of sewer lines, or other types of infrastructure, should be guided by an understanding of where and howgrowth should occur, considering natural capacity, environmental impact, costs and efficiency, and to resolve health riskimplications from failing onsite systems.

Aside from some water systems in the “settlement nodes”, most rural properties rely on their own wells for water supply.However, water systems for the urban areas depend on lakes and aquifers in the rural areas.

On rural properties, most homes and farms rely on their own septic systems for wastewater management. In most areasof the Comox Valley, this works very well. However, in some areas, too many septic systems are failing. In some casesthese are contaminating the drinking water wells.

ronmentaI Conservationuo you have any concerns about your drinking water?0 Yes

No

Corn ments

/

-—__--_-___-___Li4. Do you have any concerns about the way sewage is managed in the CVRDs ruralareas?

Yes

No

Comments

/L19 417/c ‘74O .f

/ r/

____________________________________

Climate Change

The RGS identifies two major aspects of addressing climate change. minimizing regional greenhouse gas (GHG)emissions, and planning for adaptation.

Specific areas for GHG emission reduction include;* the building sector - how buildings are built, how much land is taken up by buildings* transportation -- use of fossil fuels for transporting goods and people* change in land use through deforestation -- changes in land use disturb the carbon cycle and result in increasedemissions

Climate change is expected to result in more frequent and more intense storm activity, reduced predictability ofprecipitation, and rising sea levels. Therefore. aspects of life in rural areas might change quite dramatically.5. In thinking about the proposed settlement nodes (Saratoga Beach and Union Bay, as

well as Mount Washington), which of these kinds of communities best represents theplace where you might like to live?

Q A Houses are built far apart on larger lots, and drivtng is required to get to work schools, stores, restaurants and recreation areasQ B. Houses are built close together on smaller lots and it is easier to walk t schools stores and restaurants0 C A mix of housing choices isingle family homes. townhouse. apaOment) integrated with commercial and community services such as

stores, restaurants and schools

A

6. In the CVRDs rural areas, do you think there is too much, too little, or the right amountof each of the following?

Too much The right amount Too little Not appiicaoiePublic transportation 0 0 0Shops or restaurants C) C) C)Safe pieces to bike C) 0 0Places to walk or exercise 0 0for fun

Sidewalks Q 0Parks and playgrounds

Large discount or C) C) 0warehouse stores

Newhousesand C) Q C)apartments being built

A mix of housing options. (Dsuch as town-homes or row

houses and low to mid--rise

apartment/condom in ti rn s

7. How concerned are you about the implications of climate change for rural quality of life?

Q Very concerned

C) Somewhat concerned

Not thinking about it

C) Climate change is a hoax

8. If you are concerned about climate change, please say which aspects concern you themost?

C) Sea level rise

C) Agricultura implications

Increased storms

C) Weather unpredictabiity

C) Increased fire risk I

C) Flooding

C) Food shortages

Other (please specify)

EonmentaI Conservation-

EonmentaI Conservation9. Are there specific actions that the OCP should include to address climate changeconcerns?

J

To help us to understand the responses to this survey, we ask that you answer a few questions about yourself.

10. Are you a resident or business or property owner in the Comox Valley RegionalDistrict? (Check as many as apply.)

Resident -- Homeowner

Resident -- Renter

“Busrness owner

Bu,siness manager

Property owner -- non-resident

Other (please specify)

T

11. Are you a resident of:

QQ

Courtenay

QUnion Bay

Q Saratoga Beach

Q tvlt Washington

(J Area A

Q Area B

Area C

Other (please specify)

12. Are you male or female?

(‘Ma le

Q Female

Eonmentat Conservation13. What is your postal code? (This question is posed to try to sort responses fromoutside the region, and will not be used to identify individual responses.)

__/ ___jThank You!

Thank you for completing this survey. Your opinions will be very helpful in formulating the revised and updated OCR

Please watch for further opportunities to participate by monitoring the CVRDs website, or following the CVRD onFacebook or Twitter.

5 7- ,

/// C/ ‘ /

*- 7 7 / j

‘,*Vc ;r c T&-.r 7 / i /1 /V fr’

C/’_ t:c-)

Thank you for your interest in the Rural Comox Valley Official Community Plan (OCP).

The focus of this survey is on the OCP goals and community values. It should take you approximately 10-15 minutes tocomplete.

All responses will be treated confidentially, and used only to obtain input into the OCP review process.

1. What are the things that you value about living in the Comox Valley?Quiet, peaceful setting

Rural character

Affordable

Healthy natural environment 6tr r JGood facilities and services

Caring, safe feeling

LI Marine setting

Easy access to trails and green space

Nearby employment/business opportunities

Varied population mix

Distinct character of the communities

Nothing

Other (please specify)

2. What is the most important issue you feel should receive the greatest attention fromyour local leaders?

3 Are there any other important local issues?

Vf J

(-*

2 s

000

ZCD

Cl)

C>

CD-

3D

0CD

C)) CD 1)

3CD

C0

C) C

,CD

CD C) C

0 3 0 ‘C CD 0

0‘0

C’

N

‘\

C):0

-

0C

nC

C)

(DC

- 3o —

00)

DO

no

CD-o

0—

—‘C

l)

DO 3 0 C,

)

0 0 (0 CV 3 0) 0 0 CD C C CD cC)

:0 ci

0) 0 ci

CD C),

(CD

CD C),

0) 0 :0 0 CD 0 ci

CD CD

“1

c’.) H

dL

N \ .ç\

0k.

o Ui

Q‘

1<

C CD o —‘

-.C

mc

cn’

U, m-

\_‘

C 9 C

Ui

0 0 1< 0 C -4

’CD CD -S

-S CD .0 C -S 0 -4’

-4’

CD -S CD C,

0 3 0 CD ‘< -S CD U, P.

-I’

CD CD w

O0

X0

<

a0

<O

H’

0 C at<

=A

‘ C

‘.

Mi

c:L

to

‘!

•!c\

.))•

N=

-‘f’

— ‘“C

‘•cj

1’\

CD

‘:

‘

“.

‘—

S‘

CD

z rD

,)( 1N

0 Q ,“1

f0o

‘C .%

i03

)U

)(D g)E

;:3

0)

0I

XkD )03-

H

ciN

CD D CD a <

rN

c

H

DC CD DC 0

N N N

CD 0 CD DC 0

oro

cro

o

a05

DC a5.

D5°

aD

CDDC

‘0

05C

oCD

aDC

CCC

a -,

CDC D

—a

DC-r

=0

CC

as

oD

o-(0 0 CC CD DC DC C a

5>

DC

2-C

CDC

O

CDDC

DCC

CS

aDC

0t

02-

C Co2

CD DC(N

—D

CS

oC

o 0 DC 0 C DC C a 0 DC a

a CD 0 DC 0 C 3 DC Cr

C a

DC

m>

C0

CO

ao C

0C

oC

a3 o-,

CD

5.0

5

o2-

3DC

CD

N N N

‘fl I

0°W

oCD

DCa

So

aC

Dj

or

35C

Do

DC

2-

0an

2--,

CD

CD-

3 CDa0

a-r

DCDC

C

DC CO CD

a CD C DC C DC CD C 0 0 C 3 CD C

N

‘Cvs

C:’

—P

b

0000000000oooj!

Pb

N t NN

N

Pb

z.

m 0 C,

3P

b

000000

o00oo0o

it’ ‘1

N CN

N

C

2-a 5.

000000

‘‘‘

I-”

z 0

000000

000000Q

OGoals and Values8. Which of these issues are the most important to you? (Check all that apply.)

The natural environment

Basic services such as sewer, water, and garbage

Public involvement in decision making

Agriculture and forest

Economic development and job creation

Transportation and road network

Active transportation, walking and cycling

Transit services in the rural areas

Recreation

L1 Housing choices and affordability

Food Supply and security

Climate change

Susfainsbility of water and energy use

Comments

—

QCP 1998 Goals,

The 1998 Goals of the Rural Comox Valley Official Community Plan were organized into three categories, with sevengoals in total:1. Land Use and Environment2. Land Use and Economy3. Land Use and Settlement

Goals and Values9. The 1998 OCP goals are listed in this question. How well do you think they have beenmet?

Very poor lob Somewhat ponr job Somewhat good job Very good joToentifyth e unique Q Q Qnatural characteristics of

the Comas Valley and /(/ fY - 2-’--rZ.,‘ /9

protect environmentally‘/‘9 _,- V_’c ,sensitive areas.

To protect the quality and Q ED CDquantity of ground water

and surface water.

To encourage economic Q Q Qactivities that utilize the

resources of the areas and

which complement the

environmental

characteristics and natural

qualities, culture, and

geographic setting of the

Comox Valley

Toencouragethe ED. ED ED

stewardship of the land:

forest, agriculture, fisheries,

mineral, and aquatic

resource bases

To promote lana use ED ED EDpatterns which maintain the

rural character of the

Comox Valley and promote

a strong rural community

that reflects a disersity of

lifestyles and economic

activities.

To designate appropriately ED )‘ ED EDserviced settlement areas.

To support urban growth in ED ED EDthe Comox Valley to occur

in the municipalities

Comments

To h&p us to understand the responses to this survey, we ask that you answer a few questions about yourself.

10. Are you a resident or business or property owner in the Comox Valley Regional

District? (Check as many as apply.)

E’Resident -- Homeowner

Resident-- Renter

Business owner

Business manager

Property owner-- non-resident

Other (please specify)

-

11. Are you a resident of:

QQQ

Union Bay

Q Saratoga Beach

Mt Washington

Q AreaA

Q Area B

Area C

Other (please specify>

12. Are you male or female?

Ma i e

Q Female

13. What is your postal code? (This question is posed to try to sort responses from

outside the region, and will not be used to identify individual responses.)

____c2___ Li

Thank you for completing this survey. Your opinions will be very helpful in formulating the revised and updated OCP.

Please watch for further opportunities to participate by monitoring the CVRDs website, or following the CVRD onFacebook or Twitter.

1

Selena Speed

To: Ann MacDonaldSubject: RE: Feedback: Planning

From: no‐reply@comoxvalleyrd.com [mailto:no‐reply@comoxvalleyrd.com]  Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2014 11:52 AM To: planningdevelopment@comoxvalleyrd.ca Subject: Feedback: Planning 

Topic: Planning

Name: Neil H. Ross

Email: moandneil@gmail.com

Phone: Not provided

Address: 1457 Seaview Road Black Creek V9J 1J7

Message: Re- Rural OCP Draft

1. In general I see the OCP as positive. The attention to environmental issues, efforts to maintain rural characterwhile allowing for creative housing options (e.g. density bonuses, intentional communities, etc.) and the encouragement of walking and cycle options are all to be commended. That being said, please consider the points below.

2. 23.6 mentions working with MoTI to reduce speed limits in places such as Miracle beach and the OysterRiver. Given MoTI's reluctance to consider that option previously, it might be more productive to work with them on "ways to increase safety and traffic flow efficiency" at such places, with reduced speeds being one possible solution.

3. Please make specific recommendations for maintaining public beach accesses. My local access (SeaviewRoad, Black Creek) is blocked by rip-rap that was placed by neighbours either side of the access. My wife and I (both seniors) are unable to clamber over large rocks to get to the beach. I know this is an issue in other 'public' accesses as well. Maybe this will be more specifically dealt with in the LAP?

4. Community Amenity Contributions (75)...Although I understand that this sections deals with a very commonpractice (not just in the CVRD) employed to encourage developers to 'shoulder some of the burden' created by developments, it remains, in my estimation a means whereby developers can get increased density provisions as long as they have enough resources to 'buy them'. In situations where the residents are reluctant through the

6480-25

2

standard measures (i.e. taxation or user fees) developers can be asked to 'voluntarily' contribute to "assist in mitigating" the effects of increased density. The fact remains, however, that consequences of increased density are not limited to 'wear and tear' on roads, increased noise, air pollution and other physical, measurable effects. What many don't realize is that increased density is a consequence in and of itself. That is, there are simply more people. Many see that as a negative consequence of increased density and no amount of voluntary developer contribution can diminish that effect. More people is, quite simply, more people. So the developer is simply 'buying the ability to add more people' to an area with no recompense to the existing residents. It is simply a substitute for citizen payed services, but I contend the cost may be never recovered in areas where growth is detrimental. No amount of 'conditions' set out in the OCP takes into account the simple addition of people. Citizens need to understand what they may be giving up to get developers, for example, to 'help pay for sewers". Let's not hide that fact. Thanks for your attention. I look forward to being able to respond more specifically to my Saratoga/Miracle LAP.

1

Selena Speed

From: Edwin Grieve <edwingrieve@shaw.ca>Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 8:34 AMTo: Ann MacDonaldCc: Isabelle and Dave; Selena Speed; Netterville David; Johnston Sue; Girard Liz; Kirk

Robert; Wilkinson Norm; gretawebster@shaw.caSubject: Re: draft rural Comox Valley official community plan public consultation invitation

I am looking forward to the next round of public meetings as well. Looks like our APC has an extra kick at the can as well.  As well as Wednesday, Thursday we have Grantham Hall 3‐5 and Oyster River 3‐6 on Friday. Edwin  Sent from my iPad  On Jul 21, 2014, at 10:48 AM, Ann MacDonald <amacdonald@comoxvalleyrd.ca> wrote: 

Very good Isabelle. Thank you for letting me know that.  We will follow up on any streets or neighborhoods that do not receive the card so please let us know that if there are others in additions to the streets you have mentioned. That way we will ensure to correct any glitches at the post office cut off (with postal codes) next time.    I am looking forward to seeing you on Wednesday.     Best regards, Ann    Ann MacDonald 250‐334‐6077       

From: Isabelle and Dave [mailto:isdavep@shaw.ca]  Sent: July‐21‐14 10:45 AM To: Ann MacDonald Cc: Selena Speed; Netterville David; Johnston Sue; Girard Liz; Kirk Robert; Wilkinson Norm; gretawebster@shaw.ca; Grieve Edwin Subject: Re: draft rural Comox Valley official community plan public consultation invitation   

Good morning Ann. First, my apologies re the newspaper advertisement.  We did not receive our Echo, so just did a check with neighbours who hadn’t seen it in their papers.  However when we searched for a copy, we did find it, and must apologize, it is definitely prominent.   Just for your info re the card mail out, I had checked with residents in the immediate area (Webdon Road, Carron Road), as well as rural residents on Lake Trail Road, and out at Kitty Coleman.  None of them had received it.  As you stated that many people did, this is obviously an issue with the local postal service, which is out of your hands but probably should be addressed.  (maybe they will give you a refund!)  We also did a check just now in today’s mail, which had other letters etc., but still no postcard.   

2

We look forward to the opportunity to participate in the public process.   Also, people that I have individually spoken with when doing these checks are also very interested and will be attending, so there should be some good sessions.   Thank you again for the reply and for the opportunity to be involved.   See you on Wednesday.  Isabelle Pacholuk    From: Ann MacDonald  Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 10:16 AM To: 'Isabelle and Dave'  Cc: Selena Speed ; Netterville David ; Johnston Sue ; Girard Liz ; Kirk Robert ; Wilkinson Norm ; gretawebster@shaw.ca ; Grieve Edwin  Subject: RE: draft rural Comox Valley official community plan public consultation invitation   Thank you for your email Isabelle.    I understand that many people have received a postcard in the mail, but appreciate that you and some of your neighbors have not yet received theirs yet.  We will do our best to let people know about the meetings.  Please appreciate that the information has been on our webpage for several weeks now, identifying that the third phase of meetings would occur sometime in mid‐July, and to stay tuned for the finalizing of the dates.  We also have an email distribution list so many people who have been involved in the past would have received this notice as well. I think the ads in the paper this week are quite prominent, but we will look for other ways to get the message out as well, as you suggest.    We appreciate the input you have provided to date, and most certainly did consider your suggestions in formulating the draft. I hope you are able to attend some of the meetings, and to provide any further feedback on the draft. Also please keep in mind that this is not the last chance to comment on the document as there will be a formal public hearing prior to the draft being considered for adoption.    Please feel free to contact me with any questions or feedback you have on the document, and I look forward to seeing you at the meetings.  Regards, Ann    Ann MacDonald, MCIP, RPP General Manager of Planning and Development Services Branch Comox Valley Regional District  600 Comox Road, Courtenay, BC V9N 3P6 Tel: 250‐334‐6077; Fax: 250‐334‐4358   Toll Free: 1‐800‐331‐6007   

      

From: Isabelle and Dave [mailto:isdavep@shaw.ca]  Sent: July‐21‐14 10:03 AM To: Ann MacDonald Cc: Selena Speed; Netterville David; Johnston Sue; Girard Liz; Kirk Robert; Wilkinson Norm; gretawebster@shaw.ca; Grieve Edwin Subject: Re: draft rural Comox Valley official community plan public consultation invitation   

Good morning Ann & Selena: 

3

David sent this inquiry as he had “been in the loop” about the process with the planning of the special APC meeting.  However neither of us were aware of the public meetings.  The only way we learned about it was through an email I received from a member of our Arden Area Residents Association (AARA)  who is involved with the CV Conservation Strategy (David Netterville, via David Stapley)  He forwarded it to our executive and to myself for distribution to our residents through our email list serve.   I was rather shocked at the late notice of this email, thus David’s inquiry to you if it was indeed open to the public.  Please be advised I have done a random check of residents and not one of us has received a postcard about this.  Also in this same random check no one has seen any notices in the newspaper.  Not to say they aren’t in there but they definitely are not prominent. And my concern here is that when the City of Courtenay went through their whole process with the Arden Corridor Local Area Plan (which we were all heavily involved in as it includes our area), there were front page articles and headlines advising the public of each stage, and emails sent out to all of us that had been involved at any point.  As residents we embrace the idea of the CVRD OCP and the importance of it.  Thus it is crucial we all are aware of this final public meeting.  My suggestion at this late date is that announcements be made regularly over local radio and that large prominent notices be put into the local papers if at all possible.  I also had emailed you as a resident in March as we had been unable to attend the other open houses due to medical treatment out of town.  At that time you invited me to give input via email,  which I did, and commented that I appreciated the opportunity at that time.  I received a reply from both of you, advising you had received it and thanking me for it.   I am hoping those comments were considered and included in this draft where possible.   Both David and myself will be attending the Open House on Wednesday at the CVRD Board Room.   Thank you for your  reply to David, and for you attention to this email. Isabelle Pacholuk Area C Resident (Webdon Road) President Arden Area Residents Association   c.c.:Arden Area Residents Association Executive      From: Ann MacDonald  Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 8:48 AM To: mailto:isdavep@shaw.ca  Cc: Selena Speed  Subject: draft rural Comox Valley official community plan public consultation invitation   Good morning Dave, Yes, this is most certainly open to the public. We have been advising people via email and phone as they call or write in, and for several months t has been posted on our website that the third phase of public consultation will be scheduled for the middle of July. More recently, we have mailed out postcards again to all residents in the rural Comox Valley and there are advertisements in both papers.    Hopefully, we will see you at one of the meetings?     Please call if you have any questions or specific concerns.    Regards, Ann  

4

  Ann MacDonald, MCIP, RPP General Manager of Planning and Development Services Branch Comox Valley Regional District  600 Comox Road, Courtenay, BC V9N 3P6 Tel: 250‐334‐6077; Fax: 250‐334‐4358   Toll Free: 1‐800‐331‐6007   

      

From: I D [mailto:isdavep@shaw.ca]  Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 4:43 PM To: Selena Speed Subject: Re: draft rural Comox Valley official community plan public consultation invitation   Selena, is this open to the general public, if it is, there have't been any notices posted Dave  Sent from my iPad  On Jul 18, 2014, at 4:17 PM, Selena Speed <sspeed@comoxvalleyrd.ca> wrote: 

Good afternoon,    We have scheduled the third phase of public consultation for the week of July 23 to 26th to review the draft official community plan.  A series of open houses are planned for that week and the specific times and locations can be found in the link below. I hope you will be able to drop in during those times in order to discuss the new policies contained in the plan. Planners will be on hand to discuss the plan and hear your thoughts.    We appreciate the extensive public involvement and interest that the community has expressed since we began this planning review last December.  Copies of the draft plan can be viewed on our website  and we will have printed copies available at the open houses.     http://www.comoxvalleyrd.ca/EN/main/community/rural‐official‐community‐plan.html   I hope you will be able to drop in during one of the open houses between July 23rd and 26th.  I look forward to seeing you then and hearing your thoughts about the draft official community plan.    Best regards, Ann    Ann MacDonald, MCIP, RPP General Manager of Planning and Development Services Branch Comox Valley Regional District  600 Comox Road, Courtenay, BC V9N 3P6 Tel: 250‐334‐6077; Fax: 250‐334‐4358   Toll Free: 1‐800‐331‐6007 

5

  **this message has been send on behalf of Ann MacDonald 

  

1

Selena Speed

From: Ann MacDonaldSent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 11:05 AMTo: 'LeRoy McFarlane'; Selena SpeedCc: Alana Mullaly; 'Beverly Suderman'; Edwin Grieve (edwingrieve@shaw.ca); Kevin Brooks;

Debra OakmanSubject: RE: draft: Comox Valley OCP public consultation // LAP?

Hi Leroy,  Thanks for your note. We do not have a draft of the LAP to share with the community yet, but do hope to get back to you with a draft in the next few weeks. This set of meetings will focus on the broader OCP policies, as you note.  Having said that, one of the objectives at this meeting is to get the community assistance to firm up the contacts for a committee with whom we can meet specifically to review the draft in early August.  Perhaps your SAMBRA group can help with that by identifying a contact person that I can contact and set up the specific LAP meetings with?    Please pass my apologies on to your group on this…we did hope to have the LAP and the OCP running together, but it has turned out to be more work and time than  we had hoped for.  We want to get it right rather than get it done fast, and we are confident that when we arrive with a LAP draft in hand we will have addressed the community interests.   I hope to see you and the other members of SAMBRA at the meeting this week, as please keep in mind that the policies included in the OCO apply to all areas of the CVRD, including the settlement node of Saratoga Miracle Beach.   Please call if you have any further questions,   Regards, Ann   Ann MacDonald, MCIP, RPP General Manager of Planning and Development Services Branch Comox Valley Regional District  600 Comox Road, Courtenay, BC V9N 3P6 Tel: 250‐334‐6077; Fax: 250‐334‐4358   Toll Free: 1‐800‐331‐6007  

  

From: LeRoy McFarlane [mailto:yorelwest@telus.net]  Sent: July‐22‐14 10:34 AM To: Selena Speed Cc: Ann MacDonald Subject: draft: Comox Valley OCP public consultation // LAP?  Hi Ann.. Please clarify, will the session/presentation this friday speak to our LAP - or only the broader C Valley OCP.. There is discussion in our group - SAMBRA - to what degree of interest this will be for our residents.. And ( if i have the baove correct) what is the rough date for a session at the oyster river firehall to speak directly to our community LAP..? thanking you leroy

2

----- Original Message ----- $ From: Selena Speed Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 4:17 PM Subject: draft rural Comox Valley official community plan public consultation invitation Good afternoon,   We have scheduled the third phase of public consultation for the week of July 23 to 26th to review the draft official community plan.  A series of open houses are planned for that week and the specific times and locations can be found in the link below. I hope you will be able to drop in during those times in order to discuss the new policies contained in the plan. Planners will be on hand to discuss the plan and hear your thoughts.   We appreciate the extensive public involvement and interest that the community has expressed since we began this planning review last December.  Copies of the draft plan can be viewed on our website  and we will have printed copies available at the open houses.    http://www.comoxvalleyrd.ca/EN/main/community/rural‐official‐community‐plan.html  I hope you will be able to drop in during one of the open houses between July 23rd and 26th.  I look forward to seeing you then and hearing your thoughts about the draft official community plan.   Best regards, Ann   Ann MacDonald, MCIP, RPP General Manager of Planning and Development Services Branch Comox Valley Regional District  600 Comox Road, Courtenay, BC V9N 3P6 Tel: 250‐334‐6077; Fax: 250‐334‐4358   Toll Free: 1‐800‐331‐6007  **this message has been send on behalf of Ann MacDonald 

 

No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4716 / Virus Database: 3986/7877 - Release Date: 07/18/14

My name is Gloria Nicholls and I have resided on McLarey Avenue since February of 2007. I pay Watutco for my water supply. I attend SAMBRA meetings and I sit on the LAP Committee of SAMBRA. While I have not been privy to what transpired prior to my move to McLarey in 2007, I have since followed all the meetings and information with regard to the Saratoga Beach development (formerly Emerald Estates).

The Regional District held several meetings in order to garner support for the development and to support amending the Official Community Plan and the zoning bylaws. Written information was provided to residents, upon which the residents relied to make their decision to support the amendment and zoning bylaw changes.

The Regional District put out written information stating “All properties within the proposed sewer catchment area will be able to connect to the system”. There was even a rough estimate quoted of approximately $7,200 per household (one time payable fee or $424 per year for 20 years). The Regional District said they would be applying for a provincial infrastructure grant of approximately $3 million dollars. They also stated that if the service is established, all development properties within the service area boundaries will be required to connect to the system. It was very clearly written that the developer is responsible for costs associated with designing and constructing the sewer system, as well as the necessary upgrades to the existing water system to service the development, and costs for servicing the lots in his proposed development.

Again, I stress that the local residents relied upon the Regional District’s written information to support the amendment and zoning bylaw changes.

According to Debra Oakman’s letter dated August 18, 2010 addressed to the Chair and Directors of the Black Creek-Oyster Bay Services Committee, the development met the criteria and expansion of the service area was recommended. This letter also speaks to the Watutco System and possible connection. And I quote: “The option of connecting to Watutco was discarded as the Watutco system does not have the capacity, especially with respect to fire flows. In addition, referral comments from VIHA, with respect to rezoning application, stated that it is questionable that the Watutco Water System would be approved for expansion due to the outstanding issues with the existing system”.

The Regional District has stated in writing throughout this process that they cannot “take over” a private water utility (Watutco) and that there is no legal ability for the Regional District to assume a separate corporate entity.

We now know that the information provided by the Regional District with regard to the sewer connectability was misleading. We are now being told that the system is expandable and may be expanded within 20 years to accommodate existing homes who are currently on septic systems. Within the next 20 years, most existing properties will have to replace their septic systems.

I would refer you to the Province of B.C. Environment Appeal Board decision #2003-WAT-018(a) between Watutco Enterprises Ltd. and Pacific Playground Holdings Ltd. and the Deputy Water Comptroller. While the subject of this appeal is not relevant, there are facts stated in this appeal document that pertain to the Watutco Water System and they should be brought to the attention of the residents. I am certain that the Regional District is aware of this appeal.

The Watutco Water System dates back to 1980 and during that time and for many years running, the system was operated without a license under the Water Act. I am unclear how they could continue to take water from the Oyster River when their license was in fact cancelled, or how they could legally supply safe drinking water to the existing homes during these extended periods of time.

In addition, this document states: “It was apparently Watutco’s plan to transfer its water utility operations to the Regional District of Comox Strathcona, including one-half of a reinstated licence for servicing the campground. Pacific Playground would retain the other half for the purposes of the mobile home park.” This was in 2002.

I would point out it appears that Watutco was in fact approachable and this document indicates that there were in fact discussions between Watutco and the Regional District as far back as 2002. There was no need for a “take over” approach, as the Regional District has put it.

I now refer you to the CGI Municipal Consulting Services Fire Protection Service Study provided to the Comox Valley Regional District in 2009. Specifically, I refer you to the Black Creek-Oyster River portion of the report, which includes the Watutco Water System.

This report states that the Comox Valley Regional District is responsible for operating and providing water throughout the Black Creek–Oyster River Water Local Service Area. They have approximately 111 hydrants within the distribution system. Hydrants are serviced annually and are inspected and tested for leaks. The public works department of the Comox Valley Regional District maintains maintenance records of hydrant inspection and testing.

However, when it comes to the Watutco portion, it states it is operated by an independent water purveyor within the Fire Protection Local Service Area of the Black Creek–Oyster Bay. It states Watutco does not have any reservoirs for water storage. Back-up power is provided for the well pumps so water would be available for fire protection in the event of a power outage. It states that the Watutco System has 10 fire hydrants installed. Hydrant maintenance is not conducted annually, information indicated inspections rarely occur. It was recommended that in order to reduce the risk of hydrants failing due to maintenance issues, a maintenance schedule needs to be set up and detailed records kept for all hydrant maintenance and flushing. Records need to be available for review.

My question is this. Given that these hydrants are in fact installed on Regional District property, what agreement has been entered into by the Regional District and Watutco regarding same? Is there any reason why the Watutco hydrants cannot be inspected and reports kept alongside the other inspection reports? Yes, it is a private system, but the hydrants are located on Regional District property, as are the water lines. The Watutco Water system falls within the Black Creek–Oyster River Local Service Area. Residents should be entitled to the same fire safety protection, regardless of the water source.

This report states on page 53 that the Black Creek-Oyster Bay water distribution system meets the minimum fire insurance grading requirements needed to be recognized. It also has adequate storage to meet minimum storage, but not adequate to meet the criteria to satisfy good supply.

Has this matter been upgraded since 2009 and if so, what standard does it now meet?

Also on page 53, with regard to the Watutco water distribution system, the system is not capable of meeting the minimum requirements to be recognized for fire insurance grading. To meet even the minimum requirements for fire insurance grading, a storage reservoir needs to be installed on the distribution system and increasing the main size between the well and the pump station.

“The water system (Watutco) in the fire protection area lacks consistency and does not meet minimum requirements for fire insurance grading. There are numerous issues related to deficient design and lack of adequate management and maintenance. To improve the reliability and consistency of the water system (Watutco) within the fire protection area, consideration should be given to forming a single local government body to manage and administrate the water system. Alternatively, the Regional District could be approached to manage the water system. Additionally, to improve redundancy and meet fire insurance grading requirements the water system should be connected where possible. Standards for design, installation, and maintenance should be developed and applied to all water systems within the fire protection area.”

Has this matter been addressed since 2009 and if so, what actions were taken?

I pay taxes to the Regional District and to the Oyster River Fire Department. I do not pay taxes to Watutco. I should expect the same safe drinking water and adequate fire protection that other residents in the area enjoy. This is not the case for the Watutco residents. I personally am tired of hearing how the Regional District’s hands are tied. Clearly they are not. It is time that the health and safety of all existing residents is addressed and it should be addressed and satisfied prior to expanding the area as a development node. The Watutco residents pay higher fire insurance premiums because the water system is inadequate. At times, there is insufficient water pressure to even provide fire protection. We all know how many times during the peak months (June to September) when our water pressure is low in our homes. These are the times when we

are at risk for a major fire disaster because there would not be sufficient water pressure to fight a fire.

Could we find our insurance companies denying claims due to inadequate water pressure and/or proper maintenance, given that all this information has been provided to the parties in writing?

At our last Sambra meeting, it was suggested that a Ratepayers’ Association be set up to deal with this matter. The Regional District has agreed that they will include the Watutco issue in the LAP and will “look at it”.

I state here that far too much time has passed without any action. The Watutco residents have been trying to get resolve for years and years and it cannot be allowed to continue any longer.

In addition, the residents of McLarey and Henderson have noted very high cancer incidents and cancer-related deaths for such a small population. It is my intention to compile statistics and research this matter. In my opinion, the only common link that all these residents have is the water supply.

VIHA has acknowledged, in writing, that there are major problems. The Regional District has acknowledged, in writing, that there are major problems. The CGI Municipal Consulting Services Fire Protection Service Study report clearly acknowledges, in writing, that there are major problems.

The Regional District has more than enough information to act on these matters and the time is now. The Regional District has known since at least 2009 how poor the fire protection is for the Watutco residents. What is it going to take for appropriate action??

Gloria Nicholls

March 10, 2014

1

Selena Speed

From: Ann MacDonaldSent: Friday, April 04, 2014 4:08 PMTo: 'gloria.nicholls@gmail.com'Cc: Marc Rutten; James Bast; 'Beverly Suderman'; Curtis Scoville; 'Chris Hall'; 'LeRoy

McFarlane'; Selena SpeedSubject: Watutco Water concernsAttachments: Gloria Nicholls letter.docx

Good afternoon Gloria,   I wanted to thank you for taking the time to advise myself and the other members of the planning team of your concerns regarding the Watutco water service, as identified in your March 10, 2014 letter.  I appreciate the time you have taken to share your concerns.  It is important that we take the time to have this matter clarified in the newly revised and updated official community plan  that we are now engaged in, as I am sure you would like to see as well.   I would like to meet with you to discuss your concerns in more detail, and to clarify a few of the statements that are included in your letter. Among other things, we want to clarify that your lot, along with the other properties registered along McLarey Road and McLarey Avenue, and registered in Plan 39339 in 1983, is not included in the existing Black Creek Oyster Bay Local Service Area, as identified in Bylaw 1557.  Further, you and other residents who receive their water from Watutco do not pay into the water service for this area, as you purchase your water from Watutco.  I think it will be really helpful for us to meet and discuss this in more detail.   Would you please Selena Speed at 250 334 6073 in order to set up a time that works for us all?   I will invite Marc Rutten, Senior Manager of Engineering Services and James Bast, Manager of Fire Services to join us in that discussion, and please also feel free to invite others serviced by  Watutco so that we can discuss your outstanding  concerns and clarify the varying responsibilities and study findings.  We would be available to meet with you here in the CVRD offices or at Saratoga Miracle Beach Fire hall, so please also advise Selena of your preference for a meeting location.   Thank you again for taking the time to share your concerns with us, and I look forward to meeting with you in the next several weeks if possible.   Ann MacDonald, MCIP RPP Executive Manager of Strategic and Long Range Planning Comox Valley Regional District  600 Comox Road, Courtenay, BC V9N 3P6 Tel: 250‐334‐6077; Fax: 250‐334‐4358   Toll Free: 1‐800‐331‐6007  

 

1

Selena Speed

From: Ann MacDonaldSent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 1:48 PMTo: Selena SpeedSubject: FW: LAP

For mirage pls 

From: Ann MacDonald  Sent: April‐02‐14 1:37 PM To: 'Chris Hall'; gwl250@telus.net Cc: Beverly Suderman Subject: RE: LAP 

Thanks Chris and LeRoy. 

Thanks for all of your good work on this, LeRoy.  I have just a few additional comments;  

I have checked on the discharge of a firearm and the only recourse residents have is to contact the RCMP and to refer to the BC Hunting synopsis, if the discharge involves duck hunting, as may be the case in the Saratoga Miracle Beach area.  We do not have any mechanism to make this a bylaw matter and so the LAP will not be able to address this.  

As far as greenways, this is a good opportunity to dispel any myths, as to what was being used as public trail ways, but is actually private property, and what is public lands and trail ways, though the adjacent owners may have blocked it off. Let’s ensure that the LAP is really clear on what trails are and should be open to the public, and the LAP can commit to better signage and to making this really clear on the maps. We will want to put all of the public greenways on the LAP maps though.  

On the matter of commercial, it is important to recall that the RGS designates this area as waterfront tourist commercial, so the LAP should recognize that there is expected to be more and perhaps even more intense commercial uses along the waterfront, over time.  

The LAP will not address any zoning issues. The CVRD will take this next step next year once the OCP and LAP is in place. 

There is no opportunity to include Sea view in the LAP boundaries as these boundaries were set by the RGS. Is there some reason why they should be included, other than the fact that the previous LAP included the area?  Are the residents asking about this?  The RGS projected that there be more intense and serviced development within the LAP boundaries, but this vision did not extend to the Sea View area, even though there are several smaller lots in the area now, and because it is on the other side of the park, so no servicing will extend beyond the current boundary. This is designated as a low or no growth area in the future as this is not within the Settlement Node. 

Looking forward to the next meeting on April 8th.  Hopefully we will have the maps ready for the community to look at during that time Chris?  

Thanks,  Ann  

Ann MacDonald, MCIP, RPP Executive Manager of Strategic and Long Range Planning Comox Valley Regional District 

6480-25

2

Tel: 250‐334‐6077     

From: Chris Hall [mailto:chrishalldnc@gmail.com]  Sent: April‐02‐14 9:43 AM To: gwl250@telus.net Cc: Beverly Suderman; Ann MacDonald Subject: LAP 

Good Morning LeRoy Bev has forwarded your comments to me as I will be doing the majority of drafting on the LAP for S/MB. I am seeking to incorporate them into the document but have some comments and would appreciate any further views from you and your group. We can also chat about it at the next meeting. 1. Greenways...we have had conversations with CVRD Parks regarding concerns that rights of way are viewed as being lost. Further investigation is being undertaken to assess the status in areas that residents have identified during our consultation. I would also point out that the substantive number of trails etc that currently show up on plan maps will probably materialize only through further subdivision and development. So while I believe we can place some specific emphasis on trail connections using the school as a hub, more trails means more development which may be contrary to the residents broader objective. There are of course some other methods that can be employed to acquire R/W's but usually at financial cost 2. Hunting...I believe Ann was to follow up on this matter to see what the powers and practice is in the CVRD 3. Commercial Hub...At our last meeting it was the consensus that given such services on the north side of the Oyster, there is no great need for added commercial at this time. Moreover there is under-utilized properties already designated for such use in zoning and the current land use plan. So the direction I received was to keep what we have but be open to pedestrian based, small scale services ( as is provided for in the current plan). In reviewing zoning and the land use plan, there are several designations on the plan that are not reflected in the zoning. Some of these designations warrant rethinking. In particular the plan shows a significant block of land on the NE corner of the Highway and Miracle Beach road as Commercial. It is not show as such on zoning but rather is zoned CR1. Given concerns voiced by residents and supported by the Transportation Planner about the problems experienced due to the proximity of Hamm Rd with Miracle Beach Drive, this designation on the plan may warrant reconsideration specifically in the short term...it may make sense in 10-20 years but I am not sure we wish to encourage it now. 4. Zoning - Residential...your latest additions suggest maintaining existing lot sizes for most of the LAP...again I suggest you review the Plan designations with current zoning to assess whether the current zoning stand and the Plan map be modified. For example there is an areas along the highway shown as 2.5 ac lots whereas current zoning is for 5 ac. I doubt that having more lots and access to the highway in this area is appropriate and there seems to be no opportunity for an interior road. There are also some similar anomalies along Miracle Beach Road and Wilfred area that should be examined further (ie 1 ac lots on Plan but 5 ac lots based on zoning 5. Tree clearing and use of excavators requiring CVRD approval...this is always a challenge for policy makers, but is done where there are known environmental issues; but for the construction of a single family home in a rural context, it may appear as too much intervention on the part of government. Can you give us more justification? 6. Seaview Drive in LAP...as mentioned at the meeting, we are reluctant to suggest changing the boundaries as set out in the Regional Growth Strategy. I suspect that the concern is sewage issues and impacts on the beach similar to that along Driftwood. Your memo suggest that it be included as it is "high risk" residential and should be lumped in with other similar high risk areas. Can you clarify further whether it is a sewage issue or includes other risks such as sea level rise. Thanks for the assistance

3

Chris Hall, MCIP, Registered Professional Planner IPS Island Planning Services British Columbia 3230 Hillwood Rd., Duncan, BC 250.715.0246 250-710-5758 (c) www.island-planning.net