1. travel
2. tourist destinations
3. canada

File 0540-30-0003
CITY OF POWELL RIVER
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING
TUESDAY, MAY 5, 2015 (3:30 PM)
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
AGENDA
1.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
2.
ADOPTION OF MINUTES
2.1 Minutes of Regular Committee of the Whole meeting
held April 21, 2015
3.
DELEGATIONS
4.
CORRESPONDENCE
4.1 Letter dated April 11, 2015 from Jack Dice and Herb
Gawley regarding Environmental Threat to Myrtle Creek
8
4.2 Letter dated April 17, 2015 from Jim Hoffman, President,
Powell River Horseshoe Pitching Club, regarding Club
House and Storage Locker
9 - 12
4.3 Letter dated April 22, 2015 from Dr. Bruce Hobson, A GP
for ME Physician Lead, Powell River Division of Family
Practice, regarding Request for Council Representative
on the A GP for ME Steering Committee
13 - 20
4.4 Email dated April 28, 2015 from Paul McMahon
regarding Council Apology for Bill C51 Resolution
5.
3-7
21
REPORTS
5.1 Report dated May 5, 2015 from the Director of
Infrastructure regarding Amendment to Municipal
Cycling Plan
22 - 24
5.2 Report dated May 5, 2015 from the Director of Planning
Services regarding Amendments to R1, R2 and RM1
Zones
25 - 29
5.3 Action List dated April 21, 2015
30 - 31
6.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
7.
NEW BUSINESS
8.
MOTION TO GO IN CAMERA
Recommendation:
That following adjournment of this regular meeting, Council move in
camera to discuss a personnel matter, land matter, legal matter,
and solicitor advice and that the meeting be closed to the public on
the grounds that the subject matters to be considered relate to
matters covered by the Community Charter under Sections:
• 90(1)(c) labour relations or employee relations;
• 90(1)(e) the disposition of land or improvements, that Council
considers the disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the
interest of the
municipality;
• 90(1)(g) litigation affecting the municipality;
• 90(1)(i) the receipt of advice that is subject to solicitor-client
privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose;
• 90(1)(k) negotiations and related discussions respecting the
proposed provision of a municipal service that are at their
preliminary stages and that, in the view of Council, could
reasonably be expected to harm the interest of the municipality if
they were held in public.
9.
QUESTIONS
10.
ADJOURNMENT
Page 2 of 31
APRIL 21, 2015
Committee of the Whole Meeting Minutes
DRAFT
File 0540-30-0005
CITY OF POWELL RIVER
Minutes of the Committee of the Whole Meeting held in the Council Chambers, City Hall on
Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 3:33 PM.
PRESENT:
Councillor K.G. Skadsheim, Chair
Mayor D.J. Formosa
Councillor R.G.W Brewer
Councillor M.J. Hathaway
Councillor C.A. Leishman
Councillor J.G. Palm
ALSO PRESENT:
Mac Fraser, Chief Administrative Officer
Marie Claxton, City Clerk/Recording Secretary
Tor Birtig, Director of Infrastructure Services
Shehzad Somji, Chief Financial Officer
Patricia Wilkinson, Legislative Assistant
Members of the Public
Media Representatives
ABSENT WITH LEAVE:
Councillor R.R.D. Southcott
1.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Addition:
4.4 Letter dated April 15, 2015 from Brad Woodside, Mayor of Fredericton, regarding
funding for wastewater systems upgrades
Moved by Councillor Hathaway, seconded by Councillor Palm that the agenda for the
April 21, 2015 Committee of the Whole meeting be adopted as amended.
CARRIED
2.
ADOPTION OF MINUTES
2.1
3.
Minutes of Regular Committee of the Whole meeting held April 7, 2015
Moved by Councillor Brewer, seconded by Councillor Leishman that the
minutes of the Regular Committee of the Whole meeting held April 7, 2015 be
adopted.
CARRIED
DELEGATIONS
3.1
Gary Fribance, Third Crossing Society, regarding an Update on Recent
Events and Request for Grant-in-Aid
During the presentation, the Director of Parks, Recreation and Culture arrived
at 3:45 pm.
Page
3 of1 of315
Page
APRIL 21, 2015
Committee of the Whole Meeting Minutes
DRAFT
File 0540-30-0005
Mr. Fribance reported on the Third Crossing Society’s achievements and plans
for moving forward to promote construction of a new highway corridor between
the Upper Sunshine Coast and a point near Squamish, noting the following
main points:



The Society has an annual budget of $7,500;
The Society has updated their website;
The Society is building strength and knowledge within their board of
directors;
 They have established relationships with BC Ferries;
 They are gathering letters of support, increasing their visibility across BC
and intend to propose a resolution in support of the road to the 2016
UBCM;
 They have ongoing communications with the Province;
 The Powell River Regional District has issued a $1,000 grant in aid to the
Society.
Mr. Fribance requested a $1,000 grant in aid from the City of Powell River.
By unanimous consent the request was referred to the April 30, 2015 Finance
Committee meeting.
4.
CORRESPONDENCE
4.1
Email dated February 17, 2015 from Marian Blank regarding Machine
Backup Warning
The email dated February 17, 2015 from Marian Blank regarding Machine
Backup Warning was received.
The Chief Administrative Officer reported that staff monitors WorkSafeBC
regulations and acts in accordance with those regulations.
4.2
Letter dated March 25, 2015 from Robert and Martha Harvey regarding
Overcrowding at South Harbour and Request to Require North Harbour
Sublets
The letter dated March 25, 2015 from Robert and Martha Harvey regarding
overcrowding at the South Harbour and a request to require North Harbour
sublets was received.
By unanimous consent, staff was directed to look into options for subletting
spaces in the South Harbour and to advise Mr. and Mrs. Harvey.
4.3
Email dated April 11, 2015 from Barbara Illerbrun regarding the Tree
Protection Amendment Bylaw
The email dated April 11, 2015 from Barbara Illerbrun regarding the Tree
Protection Amendment Bylaw.
Page
4 of2 of315
Page
APRIL 21, 2015
Committee of the Whole Meeting Minutes
DRAFT
File 0540-30-0005
By unanimous consent it was agreed that a recommendation be made to
Council to hold a public open house clarifying the Millennium Park trees and
land, the PRSC-owned lands and the private managed forest land within the
City.
4.4
Letter dated April 15, 2015 from Brad Woodside, Mayor of Fredericton,
regarding Funding for Wastewater System Upgrades
The letter dated April 15, 2015 from Brad Woodside, Mayor of Fredericton,
regarding Funding for Wastewater System Upgrades was received.
It was noted that Mayor Formosa and Councillor Brewer will have the
opportunity to advocate for funding for wastewater systems upgrades required
by the federal Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations at the 2015
Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) 2015 annual convention.
The Director of Infrastructure left the meeting.
5.
REPORTS
5.1
Report dated April 21, 2015 from the Director of Parks, Recreation and
Culture regarding the Expanded Regional Recreation Initiative
By unanimous consent, the report dated April 21, 2015 from the Director of
Parks, Recreation and Culture regarding the expanded regional recreation
initiative was referred to the May 7, 2015 Council meeting.
5.2
Report dated April 21, 2015 from the Director of Parks, Recreation and
Culture regarding a Designated Dog Park
By unanimous consent, the report dated April 21, 2015 from the Director of
Parks, Recreation and Culture regarding a Designated Dog Park was referred
to the May 7, 2015 Council meeting.
The Director of Parks, Recreation and Culture left the meeting.
The Director of Planning Services arrived at 4:30 pm.
5.3
Report dated April 21, 2015 from the City Clerk regarding Administration
Department Policy Review
By unanimous consent, the report dated April 21, 2015 from the City Clerk
regarding the Administration Department Policy Review as referred to the May
7, 2015 Council meeting.
The Chief Financial Officer and the Director of Human Resources and
Corporate Planning arrived at 4:55 pm.
Page
5 of3 of315
Page
APRIL 21, 2015
Committee of the Whole Meeting Minutes
DRAFT
File 0540-30-0005
5.4
Report dated April 21, 2015 from the Director of Planning Services
regarding the Integrated Community Sustainability Plan
By unanimous consent, the report dated April 21, 2015 from the Director of
Planning Services regarding the Integrated Community Sustainability Plan was
referred to the May 7, 2015 Council meeting.
5.5
Action List dated April 7, 2015
The action list dated April 7, 2015 was reviewed.
The Chief Administrative Officer advised of the following report deadline
updates:
Item 1 North Saanich Nav Canada assessment appeal – May 2015
Item 7 Inn at Westview property – May 2015
Item 9 restrictive covenant – May 2015
Item 10 Rotary outdoor fitness equipment proposal, awaiting CUPE response –
May 2015
Item 11 fishing platform on Cranberry Lake – May 2015
Item 13 relinquishing Marine Avenue from Province – June 2015
Item 14 proposed committees – June 2015
Item 19 Catalyst Emergency Response Team to remain in building –
September 2015
Item 23 Invasive species management – May 2015
Item 25 divestiture of 4315 Marine pending removal of existing building – to be
determined
6.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
7.
NEW BUSINESS
7.1
Holding Committee of the Whole/Council Meetings Outside of City Hall Councillor Leishman
Councillor Leishman suggested that a Committee of the Whole meeting be
held at Brooks School in May and that other Committee of the Whole meetings
be held in the community coinciding with ratepayer meetings.
By unanimous consent it was agreed that Councillor Palm will discuss options
for holding a Committee of the Whole meeting at Brooks with the school
principal, and that the councillors who regularly attend ratepayer meetings
discuss options for holding Committee of the Whole meetings in the community
and report back to Council in June.
Page
6 of4 of315
Page
APRIL 21, 2015
Committee of the Whole Meeting Minutes
DRAFT
File 0540-30-0005
8.
MOTION TO GO IN CAMERA
Moved by Mayor Formosa, seconded by Councillor Brewer that following adjournment
of this regular meeting, Council move in camera to discuss personal information
regarding an identifiable person being considered for a municipal honour, and an
employee relations matter and that the meeting be closed to the public on the
grounds that the subject matters to be considered relate to matters covered by the
Community Charter under Sections:
• 90(1)(b) personal information about an identifiable individual who is being considered
for a municipal award or honour; and
• 90(1)(c) labour relations or employee relations.
CARRIED
9.
QUESTIONS
Prior to adjournment, the Chair received a question from the public regarding Policy
247 Conflict of Interest - Committee Members.
10.
ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Mayor Formosa, seconded by Councillor Hathaway that the meeting
adjourn at 4:32 pm.
CERTIFIED CORRECT:
Marie Claxton
City Clerk
The next regular meeting of Committee of the Whole will be on May 5, 2015 at 3:30 pm.
Page
7 of5 of315
Page
-c-
6947 Butedale Avenue
Powell River, B.C.
j P1tCLt,LL 071..’
3483 Padgett Road
Powefl River, B.C.
April 11, 2015
1 t,i— qiUd
‘7 c<J
T2( Ha-c
/—Li/7e, 4z77fc
ccTh)
1
F/d-’
3
c(
ORGNLb))
To Mayor and Council
Westview’s Squatters Creek was destroyed fifty years ago by our City fathers when they allowed the
dumping of garbage in the creek gully that later became the playing fields of the old Max Cameron
and J.P Dallos schools.
Myrtle Creek remains a salmon bearing stream today and it’s watershed is the source for the domestic
consumptive wells of Paradise Valley residents. This creek has not yet been destroyed but its water
quality has been jeopardized by another ill-advised action of yet another generation of City fathers who
approved the stockpiling, in the headwaters of Myrtle Creek (at the airport), twenty years of Willingdon
Baech incinerator ash. This ash was tested as early in 1995 and it was shown to have exceedingly toxic
levels of copper, lead and zinc.
The environmental risks posed by this stockpile have finally been recognized by both the Province and
by the previous Mayor and Council, but no action to date has been taken. We are hoping for a quicker
response from our new Mayor and council. Can they tell us when and what actions they are taking to
resolve this environmental threat to Myrtle Creek?
Yours truly
Jack Dice and Herb Gawley
POWELLRIVEJ
Page 8 of 31
-:
-1d-jô
cY4
p
(2.-P-O
C fe-fr
April 17, 2015
AC i REQUIRED
BY1I
Mayor and Council
City of Powell River
6910 Duncan Street
Powell River, BC V8V 1V4
172015
APR
rø’
tttUC1€
I.4z44 5 OT1A)
-tjevt d
pOWE RIVER
ORGNA
—0/
SUBJECT: CLUB HOUSE AND STORAGE LOCKER
Congratulations on the successful opening of the new Bike and Skateboard Park. What a terrific
addition to the recreation amenities available at the complex. It is good to see more development
on the grounds surrounding the Recreation Complex.
The Powell River Horseshoe Pitching Club has been using the courts on the east side of the
complex since 1986. At that time a verbal agreement with the Municipality of Powell River
allowed us the use of the concession for our coffee & snacks (provided by members and sold
only to members for a small profit that is used to finance club activities), storing paper supplies
and displaying our trophies.
As of this spring we lost our access to the concession due to the new contract with a private
operator. In a recent meeting with Ray Boogaards, Director of Parks, Recreation and Culture,
Paul Nassichuk and two other Complex representatives it was suggested that we should approach
the Municipality with the following proposal.
The Powell River Horseshoe Pitching Club is seeking approval to construct a club house on the
Recreation Complex grounds adjoining the Horseshoe Courts, either on the east side or the south
end of the existing courts. (See enclosed map)
We propose a building approximately 32’ x 24’. The structure would contain the following
spaces:
• Two wasbrooms
• One small office space for running our tournaments, league and Sunday play and storing
our trophies
• One small kitchen area
• Space for holding meetings
• Two storage lockers
o One for Horseshoe Club equipment
o One for Recreation Complex storage needs (per Ray Boogaards suggestion)
• A deck off the front for spectators to watch games
(See enclosed Draft Floor Plan)
1
Page 9 of 31
In our meeting it was noted that the complex was in need of more storage and also that it would
be helpful to not have the doors constantly being opened when they are in the process of making
ice.
We plan to apply for grants from the Powell River Community Forest and the Lotto Corporation
to fund this project.
If you find this proposal to be suitable, please advise us as soon as possible so we can begin
applying for funding. Please contact me if you have any questions at 604-483-4853.
We sincerely hope that we can find a solution that will have a positive outcome for our club and
the Recreation Complex.
Thanks for your consideration,
Jim Hoffman, President
Powell River Horseshoe Pitching Club
2
Page 10 of 31
Proposed locations of
Powell River Horseshoe
Club Club House and
storage lockers.
Page 11 of 31
\
J
cs
L’
cL
1
\v
I
I
Zt
çj
Hy1f
ZL
--
—
-
//
•1
I
I
I
-1-
-
V3
-
zD
Page 12 of 31
Powell River
Division of Family Practice
A GPSC initiative
April 22, 2015
VIA E-MAIL ([email protected])
Patricia Wilkinson
Legislative Assistant
The City of Powell River
6910 Duncan Avenue
Powell River, BC
V8A 1V4
Dear Patricia:
Re:
Powell River Division of Family Practice —A GPfor ME Steering Committee
We write at this time to request the appointment of a city councilor to the A GPfor ME Steering Committee. As we
are now entering the implementation phase of the project, it would be greatly beneficial to have a City of Powell
River representative on our team to ensure alignment and communication for the benefit of our community. We
have included below a brief list of Q&As that might be helpful in understanding our organization, the project and
the representative commitment.
Are we a Not-for-Profit Organization?
What is our official name?
Is the representative expected to be active and contribute?
Is the representative expected to be a liaison?
Is the representative expected to participate in decision-making?
What is the frequency and duration of the meetings?
Where are the meetings held?
Yes.
Powell River Division of Family Practice.
Yes, by attending meetings.
Yes.
Yes, based on consensus.
Every second month for2 hours.
Division Hub on Marine Avenue
Enclosed please find our Terms of Reference.
We trust you will find the foregoing in order, but invite you to contact us with any questions or concerns.
Sincerely
Dr. Bruce Hobson
A GP for ME Physician Lead
Div[sions of Family Practice
An initiative of the General Practice Services Committee
www.divisionsbc.ca
Page 13 of 31
Powell River
Division of Family Practice
Terms of Reference
A GPSC initiative
A GP for Me Steerinc Committee
1. Purpose & Objectives
The long-term aim of the GP4Me initiative is to:
V
Confirm and strengthen the relationship between family physicians and
patients, including better support for the needs of vulnerable patients;
V
Enable patients who want a family doctor to find one;
V
Increase the capacity of the local primary health care system.
We want to achieve this in a way that improves patient and provider satisfaction,
improves population health outcomes, and minimizes costs to the health care
system as a whole.
The work of the GP 4 Me initiative is divided into two phases:
1. Assessment and Planning (April 2014
—
March 2015)
The purpose of this Assessment and Planning (A&P) phase is to:
•
Identify and engage the community and key stakeholders
•
Assess the current state of access to primary health care in Powell River
with a specific eye to the profiles of unattached or weakly attached
residents
•
Identify key areas for improvement that will allow for increased capacity
of primary health care in Powell River.
•
Develop a plan to implement and test sustainable improvements to
identified key areas.
2. Implementation Phase (March 2015
—
March 31, 2016)
The work of this 2 phase of the project is exactly as implied in the nam& To
implement the suggested strategies to increase primary care capacity in Powell
River.
1
Page 14 of 31
Powell River
Division of FamAy Practice
Terms of Reference
A GPSC initiative
Evaluation will be key to this phase of the project as ongoing funding will likely
be dependent on presenting a good business case and strong initial outcome
measures (that focus on the triple aim of increased patient and provider
satisfaction, improved population health outcomes, and reduced costs to the
health care system).
2. Membership
The Steering Committee consists of:
•
2 Division physician members, one as committee chair, as appointed by the
Division board of directors.
•
1 Health Authority management representative
•
1 Allied Health Professional
•
1-2 Community representatives
See the table in the Appendix for up-to-date membership contact information.
Quorum for the steering committee meetings will be a majority of the members of
the committee.
The Steering Committee may invite guests to its meetings, such as Division staff
and contractors, and the Physician Engagement Lead for the Division. All guests
must be pre-approved by consensus of the group.
3. Term and Frequency of meetings
The project cycle includes three phases: assessment and planning; implementation;
and evaluation. This committee Terms of Reference are specifically for the
Assessment and Planning phase which will run through to March 1, 2015.
2
Page 15 of 31
PoweN River
Terms of Reference
Division of FamNy Practice
A GPSC ritiative
Steering committee meetings will take place every 1
—
2 months and every effort
will be made not to exceed a total of nine, two-hour meetings. Additional meetings
will be at the discretion of the committee so long as within the project budget.
4. Minutes
Minutes of meetings will be recorded and circulated to committee members. Every
effort will be made to have minutes circulated within a week of meeting dates.
5. Reporting relationship/procedure
Each steering committee member is responsible for ensuring that their organization
receives project updates that are in-line with their organizational reporting
requirements.
The Division of Family Practice, as the main governing body of this steering
committee will provide reports to the Division Board on matters relating to its
responsibility and authority on a monthly basis. Items of business from the Board
are brought to the attention of the committee by the chair.
At the close of the project (mid-February 2015), the final implementation proposal
will be submitted to the General Practices Steering Committee (GPSC) for review
and approval.
Part of the work of this committee will be to approve and then follow a
communications plan for all GP4Me communications. This plan will be a living and
evolving strategy that will be reviewed and changed as needed. The Provincial
Divisions communication team must also approve this plan. The local Divisions
Communication Manager and the Provincial Divisions Communications Team must
vet all formal media communications relating to the GP4Me project.
3
Page 16 of 31
Powell River
Division of FamNy Practice
Terms of Reference
A GPSC initiative
6. Remuneration of Committee Members
Division physician members will receive sessional payment for participation on the
committee. Health authority members will be compensated through their existing
positions. Project staff and support services will be funded through the Division.
Individual discussions will be held with other steering committee members or
guests to steering committee members and remuneration will be decided on a caseby-case basis.
7. Committee Budget
The budget is outlined in the A GP for Me contract. The Division Executive Director
and Treasurer are responsible for fiscal management and will provide budget
updates to the committee for review.
8
Decision-making
Decision-making will be made by consensus. Consensus decision-making is a group
decision-making process in which all committee members have their chance to
express their views with a focus of discussion amongst the group. Consensus seeks
the agreement of participants with minority objections. Consensus does NOT mean
everyone gets exactly what they want. It does mean that everyone can live with
and support the decision.
Decision-making Guiding Principles
1.
Transparency
Committee members will have prior notice, on an agenda, that a decision is
required. At meetings where significant decisions are to occur, all members
will be notified and encouraged to attend. Key reasons leading to a decision
will be made available to all committee members
2. Fair mindedness
Committee Members agree that the grounds for the decision are relevant and
focus on a shared/common good
3.
Accountability
4
Page 17 of 31
Powell River
Division of Family Practice
Terms of Reference
A GPSC initiative
Committee members are collectively accountable for implementing the
decisions made by the steering committee
4.
Collaborative consensus decision-making
Collaborative consensus decision-making is the preferred mechanism to
make decisions. Collaborative consensus is achieved when committee
members accept and support a decision and understand how it was reached.
Decisions are implemented under the following conditions:
If the majority of committee members are present at the meeting and agree
with the decision; or if the members present at the meeting agree and any
absent member(s) communicate their agreement to the Chair in advance of
the meeting
•
1 physician and 1 health authority representative must be present for
substantive decisions; otherwise, a decision will be held off
•
If consensus cannot be reached, further discussion will occur in order to
understand the underlying concern and try to create a solution that will gain
consensus
•
If consensus cannot be reached after trying to understand the concern and
creating a solution, a decision request will be sent to the Powell River
Division of Family Practice Board for final decision-making. The Board
decision will stand and be implemented by the GP for Me Steering committee.
9. Member Roles & Responsibilities
Responsibilities of Chair (with support from Division staff/consultants):
•
Agenda
—
ensure the agenda is set and circulated to committee members
prior to the meeting
•
Minutes
—
ensure minutes are recorded and distributed to committee
members within two weeks of the meeting and submitted as an attachment
to the agenda of the next committee meeting
•
Facilitation of meeting
•
Ensure that a master file of all minutes and meeting documents is maintained
5
Page 18 of 31
Powell River
Division of Family Practice
Terms of Reference
A GPSC initiative
Responsibilities of members:
Prepare for and attend all meetings;
Communicate activities to and solicit input from other members of your
organization, health authority leaders or contractors, as required;
•
1O
Respond to committee directives in a timely fashion.
Meeting Ground Rules
•
Meetings start and stop on time
•
Honour opinions
-
focus on issues not personalities
-
soft on people, hard on
ideas
•
Participate
•
Engage in respectful, open and honest communication
-
everyone contributes to conversation
-
give benefits first,
share all relevant information
•
All pertinent issues will have a full airing. Alternate agendas may be stated
but will not unduly influence committee activities or decisions.
•
No side conversations
•
Parking lot
—
document issues that are not in scope and return to them as
time permits. Bring forward issues to future meetings as appropriate.
•
Use action item and key decision lists as appropriate
Effective date
Approved by (Signature)
Date Approved
Approved by (Name)
6
Page 19 of 31
Powell River
Terms of Reference
Division of Family Practice
A GPSC nitiatve
Appendix A: Poweil River Division of Family Practice A SP for Me Team
Streering Committee Members
Role
Name
Chair
Dr. Bruce Hobson, GP and Division Board Chair
VCH Rep
Pat Townsley, VCH Director for Powell River
Nurse Practitioner Rep
David Marceniuk, Tla’Amin Health Centre
Physician Rep
Dr. Martin Andreae, GP and Division member
Community Rep
Lyn Adamson, Director PREP and Career Link
Division Central Rep
Afsaneh Moradi, Physician Engagement Leader
PR Division Rep
Guy Chartier, Executive Director
Members-at-large
Role
Name
City of Powell River
Regional District
Cohn Palmer, Director Electoral Area C
Last updated: July 3, 2014
7
Page 20 of 31
Patricia Wilkinson
Subject:
FW: Email requesting Council Apology re Bill C51 for COTW agenda and file 220-01
From: Marie Claxton
Sent: April-28-15 11:13 AM
To: Elaine Bidiuk; Patricia Wilkinson
Cc: Mac Fraser
Subject: Email requesting Council Apology re Bill C51 for COTW agenda and file 220-01
From: Gail & Paul <[email protected]>
Date: April 28, 2015 at 9:36:50 AM PDT
To: Caroleann Leishman <[email protected]>, Dave Formosa <[email protected]>,
Jim Palm <[email protected]>, Karen Skadsheim <[email protected]>, Maggie
Hathaway <[email protected]>, Rob Southcott <[email protected]>, Russell Brewer
<[email protected]>
Action: Clerk to inclu
Subject: Council Apology
agenda
File 220-01
To Mayor & Council
Subject; Bill C-51
April 27, 2015
Ref; Peak article Apr 22, Council supports resolution;
I believe, Council owes the citizens of PR a public apology, I for one, did not vote for city councillors to
represent me on federal and provincial issues. Council has overstepped it’s authority. We the citizens of
PR, have elected representatives through which we can voice our opinions on the federal and provincial
issues.
Bill C51, for some, is a partisan issue, which as such, has no place in municipal government. Is Council
becoming an advocate for all federal and provincial political issues?
I doubt that the supporting councilors have read the multitude of pages in the Bill and apparently are
unaware of the amendments incorporated weeks ago, in which CSIS can not arrest individuals, only
police, and now the bill excludes protests.
I am disappointed that the new councillors are incorporating partisan issues into council and representing
me and all PR citizens on issues for which they have no mandate.
Former councilor Myrna Leishman frequency had expressions of wisdom for many situations, Myrna
may well have offered the following words of political wisdom “don’t bite the hand that feeds you”
Politicians have long memories. When is the City’s next request for a grant?
I look forward to a retraction / apology.
A very disappointed voter.
Paul McMahon
1
Page 21 of 31
CITY OF POWELL RIVER
REPORT
File No. 4820-20-0084
DATE:
May 5, 2015
TO:
Mayor and Council
FROM:
Tor Birtig, Director of Infrastructure
SUBJECT:
Amendment to Municipal Cycling Plan
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the Municipal Cycling Plan be amended to include Phase IIC - a separated bike lane
and multi-use pathway around the Recreation Complex.
That the submission of a grant application to BikeBC for Phase II of the Municipal
Cycling Plan be endorsed.
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’S COMMENTS:
I concur with the recommendation.
Mac Fraser, CAO
MF:pw
ORIGIN/PURPOSE:
To receive Council’s approval of an amendment to the Municipal Cycling Plan (MCP) and
endorsement of a grant application for the project.
BACKGROUND:
The Municipal Cycling Plan was approved by Council at its regular meeting of January 15, 2015.
Phase I of this plan has been designed and construction will commence this summer. City staff
and members of the Powell River Cycling Association have learned that there is another intake
for BikeBC grants. This would allow the City to complete Phase II of the MCP.
STRATEGIC PRIORITY:
Strategic Priority # 6: Enhanced Recreational Services
The City will facilitate, encourage and provide enhanced recreational services in the region.
EXISTING POLICY:
This amendment to the MCP will be consistent with:
• Sustainable Official Community Plan, Bylaw 2370, 2014
Part 7.2: Cycling Network, Trails and Greenways Policies
• the City’s goal to increase patronage at the Complex
• health goals for the community
• resident attraction and economic development strategy
ANALYSIS AND IMPACT:
City staff have worked with the Powell River Cycling Association (PRCA) throughout the
development of the MCP and together have created a proposed amendment/addition to the plan
identified as Phase IIC – separated bike lane and multi-use pathway. (see attached map)
Page 22 of 31
Amendment of Municipal Cycling Plan
2 of 2
May 5, 5015
______________________________________________________________________________
One of the guiding principles in the development of the MCP was that it should provide
connections to key amenities in the City. This path would provide better access to the new
skate and bike park as well as the newly upgraded Millennium Park trails. Both attractions have
been very popular with residents but were not specifically addressed in the MCP. This pathway
would also improve access to the Complex from the newly opened Willingdon Creek Village
facility.
Feedback received so far by the PRCA from staff and residents is that a multi-use path around
the complex would be very well received, and it would create another wheelchair accessible
recreation trail in Powell River.
As part of B.C. on the Move, the Government of B.C.'s 10-year transportation plan, the Ministry
of Transportation and Infrastructure is increasing the amount of funding for cycling infrastructure
through the BikeBC program, by committing $6 million this year. To be considered for funding,
local governments must describe how the project benefits their communities and how they
contribute to increased physical activity and healthy living. The deadline for applications is May
15, 2015. The granting process requires approval from council authorizing the project to
proceed.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Staff are in the process of estimating costs for this project. If grant funding is approved BikeBC
will provide up to 50% of the project costs to a maximum total of $440,000.
If the City is successful in receiving the grant, the city’s 50% share will come from the 2015
capital budget for bike lanes. If additional funds are required, a request for Gas Tax funds will
be brought to Council.
STAFF TIME/INPUT:
Staff spent an estimated 4 hours preparing this report.
PUBLIC CONSULTATION:
This report will be circulated on the Committee of the Whole agenda and posted on the City`s
website for public review.
OPTIONS:
1. THAT the Municipal Cycling Plan be amended to include Phase IIC - a separated bike
lane and multi-use pathway around the Recreation Complex,
And that Council endorse the submission of a grant application to BikeBC for Phase II of
the Municipal Cycling Plan.
2. That Council does not approve amendment of the Municipal Cycling Plan.
3. Other.
Respectfully submitted,
Tor Birtig, A.Sc.T.,
Director of Infrastructure
TB/nm
Page 23 of 31
Page 24 of 31
CITY OF POWELL RIVER
REPORT
File No. 3900-20-2399
3360-20-0062
DATE:
May 5, 2015
TO:
Mayor and Council
FROM:
Thomas Knight, Director of Planning Services
SUBJECT:
Amendments to R1, R2 and RM1 Zones
RECOMMENDATION:
That amendments to Zoning Bylaw 2100, 2006 in regards to proposed changes to the R1,
R2 and RM1 zones be deferred until a comprehensive review of the Zoning Bylaw is
considered in its entirety; and
That the application dated May 14, 2014 to allow secondary suites as a permitted use
within the RM1 zone be denied.
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’S COMMENTS:
I concur with the recommendation.
Mac Fraser, CAO
MF/pw
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Although the recommendations to simplify or consolidate regulations within the City’s five single
family zones and increase densities through the provision of smaller in-fill lots is warranted, it is
suggested that such a review be deferred. Preparation of a comprehensive review of the
Zoning Bylaw in its entirety would allow for an enhanced consultative process with both the
public and the development industry and allow for a financial analysis to assess potential
servicing costs where increased densities are to be considered. Given that this review process
originated from an earlier rezoning request to permit secondary suites within an RM1 zoned
neighbourhood, it is recommended that this application be denied.
PURPOSE:
The intent of this report is consider both the request from the February 19th, 2015 Council
meeting to provide additional information in support of amendments to the R1, R2 and RM1
zones and, to address the original request of this rezoning application to permit secondary
suites as a permitted use within the RM1 zone.
BACKGROUND:
Page 25 of 31
Amendments to R1, R2 and RM1 Zones
2 of 4
May 5, 2015
______________________________________________________________________________
On April 23, 2014 the City received a written complaint from a citizen regarding the construction
of unauthorized secondary suites in two new single family residences in their neighbourhood.
The properties were zoned RM1 which does not allow for secondary suites as a permitted use.
The owner of the properties in question, a local developer, was contacted by the City and
requested to bring the properties into conformity to the Zoning Bylaw. Rather than remove the
secondary suites, the developer submitted an application for rezoning on May 14, 2014 to
amend the Bylaw to “allow secondary suites into properties zoned RM1”.
In review of this request for rezoning, the former Director of Planning Services recognized the
opportunity to simplify regulations within the City’s five single family zones through the
consolidation or removal of certain provisions within each zone. The rationale, in addition to
simplifying regulations, was to increase densities within existing single family areas through the
provision of smaller in-fill lots. In support of this rationale, the former Director advised Council
that within the past three or four years, nearly all single family residential subdivisions have
occurred within the RM1 zone thus reflecting the demand for smaller sized lots.
Since submission of the original rezoning application, Planning Services has prepared three
separate staff reports to Council. After initial support from Council of the first report (June 19th,
2014), Amendment Bylaw 2399 was given First and Second Readings. At the Public Hearing, a
number of local builders and developers were present to protest against the number of the
changes being proposed and to the lack of consultation between City Hall and the development
industry. Council asked that staff consult with the industry to address the concerns raised.
Following a meeting with the industry, a second report was prepared (November 6th, 2014).
The report generally followed the majority of proposed changes recommended in the first report.
The only significant change based on the input received was to delete duplexes as a permitted
use in the amended R1 zone. Rather than approve an amendment to Bylaw 2399 and proceed
to a second Public Hearing, Council asked staff to provide background to the private building
scheme for the neighbourhood where the original complaint was raised. Once this information
was received through the Land Titles and Surveys Office, a third report was prepared (February
5th, 2015). This report reiterated the recommendations presented in the second report along
with the same appendices and revised Amendment Bylaw. In review of this report, Council then
asked staff to determine the number and location of all restrictive covenants (private building
schemes) in RM1 zones (Action List - item #5).
It is worth noting that throughout the course of this entire process, no direct dialogue was
focused on the original rezoning application - whether the applicants would be permitted to allow
secondary suites into properties zoned RM1.
STRATEGIC PRIORITY:
Consideration of simplified regulations and the encouragement of infill development within
single family areas is consistent with the City’s 2013 - 2014 Corporate Plan: Strategic Priority
#2, Governance, Priority #3 Economic Revitalization Plan and, Priority #4, Sustainability.
EXISTING POLICY:
The subject lands of the original rezoning application are currently designated Urban Residential
Low Density within the Sustainable Official Community Plan (SOCP) and zoned RM1: Compact
Residential. The RM1 zone is intended for ground-oriented single family, townhouse, cluster
housing or compact housing in areas designated Suburban or Urban Residential. Given the
multiple family residential intent of this zone, secondary suites are not permitted.
ANALYSIS AND IMPACT:
Page 26 of 31
Amendments to R1, R2 and RM1 Zones
3 of 4
May 5, 2015
______________________________________________________________________________
Although the intent of this report is to respond to the request from Council to provide additional
information in support of amendments to the R1, R2 and RM1 zones (February 5th, 2015), the
provision of all private building schemes (registered as Sec. 219 Restrictive Covenants) in RM1
zones provides little to advance or support the amendments being proposed. As shown on
Appendix 1, a number of private building schemes exist but are generally focused on exterior
design, building height or size and in two instances, pet or age restrictions. A review of these
private building schemes also note that few identify a restriction to secondary suites as this is
already a use that is not permitted in the RM1 zone. The only document that staff could find
such a restriction was in the private building scheme where the original complaint regarding
construction of two unauthorized secondary suites occurred. This building scheme was
subsequently amended by the developer in order to allow secondary suites to be permitted
within their subdivision.
Based on the foregoing, the question then becomes how to move forward with respect to the
proposed changes to the R1, R2 and RM1 zones as recommended by the former Director of
Planning. Presently, Amendment Bylaw 2399 is in place with additional changes suggested to
the Bylaw as presented in the second and third staff reports by the former Director. Given that a
review of the private building schemes within the RM1 zone provides little to support or deny the
amendments going forward, an alternate recommendation may be considered. In review of all
information contained within the file to date, it appears that one of the most critical aspects - that
of the financial impacts on increasing density through the provision of smaller in-fill lots, was not
analyzed. Based upon the potential number of infill lots which may be permitted (as yet
undetermined), it would be inappropriate to proceed without knowing the increased costs to
provide municipal servicing requirements. To this end and in view of the concerns expressed by
the public in regards to secondary suites in the RM1 zone and, the request for greater
consultation between City Hall and the development industry, it is suggested that Council defer
the proposed changes to the R1, R2 and RM1 zones at this time. A better process would be to
conduct a comprehensive review of the Zoning Bylaw in its entirety rather than as a series of
omnibus bylaw amendments.
With respect to the original application submitted on May 14, 2014 to amend the Bylaw to “allow
secondary suites into properties zoned RM1”, it is suggested that this request for rezoning be
denied. Given that secondary suites are not a permitted use within the RM1 zone, the
construction of such units within two existing single family residences regardless of a change in
the applicants' private building scheme, is illegal. In addition, the question of whether application
fees should be reimbursed to the applicants as no direct dialogue or review was focused on the
original intent of their rezoning application is a moot point. Through the course of three staff
reports to Council, one Public Hearing and one further meeting between staff and the
development industry, the original intent of the rezoning application to “allow secondary suites
into properties zoned RM1” was considered. Accordingly, should Council decide to deny this
application, no application fees are required to be returned.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Depending on which zoning request is to be considered (amendment to the R1, R2 and RM1
zones or the addition of secondary suites as a permitted use within the RM1 zone), the financial
impact may vary significantly. To consider the former, major water and sanitary servicing
requirements may be applicable based on the potential number of infill lots which may be
created as a result of the proposed increase to density. No financial analysis was completed by
Engineering Services to assess these costs prior to introduction of the original Amendment
Bylaw.
Page 27 of 31
Amendments to R1, R2 and RM1 Zones
4 of 4
May 5, 2015
______________________________________________________________________________
For the latter, the addition of secondary suites as a permitted use within the RM1 zone may
provide minimal to negligible tax revenue to offset any rise in municipal servicing costs. While
increased servicing costs may be distributed between a greater number of residential units,
secondary suites - which may have double the number of "family members", to that of an
existing single family residence, will not necessarily pay their fair share of municipal taxes for
the services they require.
STAFF TIME/INPUT:
Approximately 6.5 hours has been spent by Planning Services staff to review previous reports,
minutes and background information to draft this report.
PUBLIC CONSULTATION:
As with potential financial Impacts, public consultation may vary depending on which zoning
request is to be considered. Implementation of the recommendations to amend the R1, R2 and
RM1 zone will require the undertaking of a public consultation process as prescribed by
provincial legislation. Given the level of complexity involved in the proposed recommendations,
it is suggested that additional public consultation be considered. In respect to the original
request to allow secondary suites as a permitted use within the RM1 zone, a public consultation
process would also be required. Both processes will require that a Public Hearing be held.
Should Council decide not to consider either request, there is no need to proceed further with a
public consultation process.
OPTIONS:
1. That staff be directed to defer amendments to Zoning Bylaw 2100, 2006 in regards to
proposed changes to the R1, R2 and RM1 zones at this time until a comprehensive
review of the Zoning Bylaw is considered in its entirety;
2. That staff be directed to prepare an amendment to Zoning Bylaw 2100, 2006 to allow
secondary suites as a permitted use within the RM1 zone as originally requested by the
applicants;
3. That the original application be denied;
4. That an alternative recommendation be considered.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas Knight, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning Services
TK/tw
Attachment(s)
Page 28 of 31
APPENDIX 1
CHARGES against Titles in RM1 Zones, Powell River BC
RM1
Locations
Folio
PID
Dieppe Cres
0419-016
023-782-692
Hemlock St
0400-164
Drake St
Legal Description
Feb 13, 2015
Covenants
Building
Schemes
Lot 16 DL 450 Plan LMP33538
None
BL253384
028-584-074
Lot 18 DL 450 Plan BCP 47959
BB1949661
BB1949685
2714-004
027-507-122
Lot B DL 5304 Plan BCP35751
BB650863
None
Parsons Crt
2974-058
027-077-527
Lot 2 DL 5306 Plan BCP29911
None
BB418063
Abbotsford/Anne
2954-050
026-928-493
Lot 1 DL 5306 Plan BCP27586
BA582586
None
DL 5120
Plan BCP44598
Georgia Cres
BB1949636
Comments
Multiple strata
properties
Lots 56-66
Bowness/Glacier
2088-032
028-761-961
Lot 11 DL 5110 Plan EPP16039
BB1500760
CA2802743
Bowness/Kemano
1660-080
027-931-412
Lot 14 DL 5103 Plan BCP40809
BB953012
BB937395
Lots 1-4, 11-17
Saturna
1240-299
024-859-672
Lot 19 DL 3688 Plan LMS2399
SROW
for utilities only
None
Multiple strata
properties
Westview/Manson
1240-319
023-693-347
Lot 16 DL 3688 Plan LMP32076
None
None
Vacant
Joyce/Lytton
1814-002
017-336-911
Lot 30 South ½ DL 5106
Plan LMP399
SROW
for utilities only
None
Vacant
Ontario/Field
2135-015
027-555-003
Blk C DL 5121 Plan BCP37000
BB975446
SROW x 3
Easement
Vacant
Page 29 of 31
tw
ACTION LIST
Action Item
April 21, 2015 COTW meeting
1. Look into options for subletting in South Harbour
March 19, 2015 COTW meeting
2. Prepare a report clarifying the impact of the District of North Saanich’s
Nav Canada Assessment Appeal on Powell River’s Airport and Ferry
lands.
3. Report on the outcome of the City’s offer to purchase property in that
area from the Crown.
March 5, 2015 COTW meeting
4. Report on Reserve Fund Bylaw review and establishment of a CARIP
Reserve Fund
February 5, 2015 COTW meeting
5. Contact owners of the Inn at Westview to get an update on plans for
the property.
6. Suggest to lessees of the Mill Administration building that they meet
with the Townsite Heritage Society directly to address concerns.
7. Work with Sunrise Rotary Club to prepare report with recommendation
regarding their outdoor fitness equipment proposal
Page 30 of 31
January 15, 2015 COTW meeting
8. Prepare detailed report re proposed fishing platform on Cranberry
Lake
December 18, 2014 COTW meeting
9. Prepare report regarding City utilizing Powell River dollars program
10. Include the idea of relinquishing Marine Avenue from the Province and
directing the main traffic route via the Manson Avenue connector in
2015 strategic planning
11. Work with Mayor to prepare report regarding proposed Committees
August 21, 2014 Council meeting
12. Proceed with removal of former barge facility building
May 15, 2014 COTW meeting
13. Bring LNG issue back to Council after hearing from SFN
May 14, 2014 Council meeting
14. Consider ethical purchasing in Purchasing Policy Review
April 21, 2015
File No. 110-01 Page 1 of 2
Staff
Status
Dir Infra
Action Planned
Date of Return
to Committee
Report to COTW
Dir Infra
IP
Report to COTW
May 2015
Dir Plan
IP
Report to COTW
May 19, 2015
Report to Finance Committee
Apr 30, 2015
Report to COTW
May 2015
Contact proponents
n/a
CFO
Dir Plan
IP
CFO
Dir PRC
IP
Report to COTW, awaiting
CUPE response re volunteer
policy
May 2015
Dir PRC
IP
Report to COTW
May 2015
CFO
CAO
IP
IP
Report to Finance Committee
Include in strategic planning
June 2015
June 2015
CAO
IP
Include in strategic planning
June 2015
Dir Infra
IP
Report to COTW
n/a
Waiting on SFN response
unknown
Report to Finance Committee
Apr 30, 2015
City Clerk
CFO
IP
ACTION LIST
Action Item
December 19, 2013 COTW meeting
15. Prepare report and recommendation regarding request for Catalyst
Emergency Response Team to remain in Catalyst Admin building and
provide a mutual agreement for services with the City
September 12, 2013 COTW meeting
16. Further investigate/create bylaw to permit low speed vehicles
17. Included proposed truck route in Traffic Bylaw
March 21, 2013 COTW meeting
18. Prepare report re invasive species management
September 20, 2012 Council meeting
19. Prepare City traffic calming implementation plan
December 15, 2011 Council meeting
20. Commence discussions with Crown re divestiture of 4315 Marine and
adjacent property to the City
21 October 2010 COTW meeting
21. Provide options for Council training/development/travel in new policy
April 21, 2015
File No. 110-01 Page 2 of 2
Staff
Status
Action Planned
Date of Return
to Committee
CFO
IP
Pending negotiation of lease of
building to pave – dominant
tenant
Sep 2015
Dir Infra
Dir Infra
IP
IP
Traffic bylaw update in progress
Traffic bylaw update in progress
May 2015
May 2015
Dir PRC
IP
Report to COTW
May 2015
Dir Infra
IP
Dir Plan
IP
Pending removal of existing
industrial building
TBD
DIR HRCP
IP
Include with revision of policy for
all staff
Early 2015
Traffic bylaw update in progress
May 2015
Page 31 of 31