planning and development committee …...part 1 (pages 1 – 100) for pages 101 – 210 see part 2,...

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE November 21, 2013

SCRD Board Room, 1975 Field Road, Sechelt, BC

AGENDA CALL TO ORDER 9:30 a.m.

AGENDA 1. Adoption of the Agenda

PART 1 (pages 1 – 100) for pages 101 – 210 see PART 2, for pages 211 – 328 see PART 3

PETITIONS AND DELEGATIONS

2. Rob Coulter, Vice President, Western Tidal Holdings Regarding potential of a Tidal Energy project in the SCRD

3. Chad Hershler, Executive Director, Deer Crossing the Art Farm Regarding proposals for funding support from economic development

ANNEX A pp 1 – 26

REPORTS 4. Application File 2410890 by West Coast Wilderness Lodge for Commercial

Moorage fronting DL 5279 & 6590 in Egmont, BC (Regional Planning Services)

ANNEX B pp 27 – 40

5. Proposed Zoning Bylaw Amendments to permit federally licensed medical marihuana production facilities (Regional Planning Services)

ANNEX C pp 41 – 56

6. Woodlots Nicolas Simmons, MLA – Powell River and Sunshine Coast Irene Wotten Jane Pike

(Regional Planning Services)

ANNEX D pp 57 – 63

7. Invasive Plants Priorities (Regional Planning Services)

ANNEX E pp 64

8. Eagle Mountain – Woodfibre Gas Pipeline Environmental Assessment (Regional Planning Services)

ANNEX F pp 65 – 74

9. Coal Shipments to Texada Island (Regional Planning Services)

ANNEX G pp 75 – 92

10. Development Variance Permit No. 310.177 (Johnson) Electoral Area B (Rural Planning Services)

ANNEX H pp 93 – 100

PART 2 (pages 101-210) for pages 1 – 100 See PART 1, for pages 211-328 see PART 3

11. OCP/Zoning Bylaw Amendment Nos. 325.18/310.131 (375703 BC Ltd. & 624031 BC Ltd.) Electoral Area B (Rural Planning Services)

ANNEX I pp 101 – 115

12. Bylaws to consider removing 6 metre minimum width regulations for dwellings (Areas A to F) Electoral Areas A to F (Rural Planning Services)

ANNEX J pp 116 – 129

Planning and Development Committee Agenda Thursday, November 21, 2013 of 3

13. Hillside Monthly Report Hillside

Verbal

14. HIDEGRO Vacancies Hillside

ANNEX K pp 130

15. Hillside Development Group Advisory Committee -Terms of Reference Hillside

ANNEX L pp 131 – 135

16. Building Department Revenues for October, 2013 (Building Inspection)

ANNEX M pp 136 – 141

17. Proposed Penalties for Completing Construction without Permits (Bylaw Compliance)

ANNEX N pp 142 – 156

18. The Notice on Title Structure (Bylaw Compliance)

ANNEX O pp 157 – 161

19. Regional Districts Utilizing BEN (Bylaw Compliance)

ANNEX P pp 162 – 207

20. Bylaw Enforcement Statistics (Third Quarter) (Bylaw Compliance)

ANNEX Q pp 108 – 210

PART 3 (pages 211- 328) for pages 1 – 100 See PART 1, for pages 101 -210 see PART 2

21. Bylaw Enforcement Pilot in Halfmoon Bay, Bylaw 638.3 (BEN Ticketing (Bylaw Compliance)

ANNEX R pp 211 – 212

22. Building Bylaw Update (Bylaw 535.9) (Bylaw Compliance)

ANNEX S pp 213 – 264

23. Dog Control Statistics 3rd Quarter 2013 (Bylaw Compliance)

ANNEX T pp 265 – 268

24. Planning and Development Monthly Report for October, 2013 (Regional/Rural Planning Services)

ANNEX U pp 269 – 276

25. Agricultural Advisory Committee Minutes of October 22, 2013 (Regional Planning Services)

ANNEX V pp 277 – 282

26. Draft Vision Statement – Agricultural Area Plan (Regional Planning Services)

ANNEX W pp 283 – 286

27. Egmont/Pender Harbour (Area A) APC Minutes of October 30, 2013 Electoral Area A (Rural Planning Services)

ANNEX X pp 287 – 290

28. Halfmoon Bay (Area B) APC Minutes of October 22, 2013 Electoral Area E (Rural Planning Services)

ANNEX Y pp 291 – 294

29. Roberts Creek (Area D) APC Minutes of October 28, 2013 Electoral Area E (Rural Planning Services)

ANNEX Z pp 295 – 296

30. Elphinstone (Area E) APC Minutes of October 23, 2013 Electoral Area E (Rural Planning Services)

ANNEX AA pp 297 – 300

31. West Howe Sound (Area F) APC Minutes of October 22, 2013 Electoral Area F (Rural Planning Services)

ANNEX BB pp 301 – 304

Planning and Development Committee Agenda Thursday, November 21, 2013 of 3 COMMUNICATIONS

32. Islands Trust Council Chair, Sheila Malcolmson, dated October 21, 2013 Regarding follow—up from UBCM derelict vessel meeting

ANNEX CC pp 305 – 312

33. Dianne Sanford, dated October 22, 2013 Regarding Invitation to workshop on Science and Stewardship – Addressing Rising Sea Level Rise Impacts on Coastal Communities

ANNEX DD pp 313 – 320

34. Community Resource Centre, Betty Baxter, Consultant, the Progress Plan Regarding economic development funding request for Information and Referral per Rural Area

ANNEX EE pp 321 – 324

35. Gibsons & District Chamber of Commerce October 2013 Report to Funders Regarding GDCC 2013 Q3 Report to Funders

ANNEX FF pp 325 – 330

36. Alliance4Democracy Regarding Invite to Community Forum - Coal Shipment to the Sunshine Coast

ANNEX GG pp 331 – 332

37. BC Food Systems Network Regarding Core Review of Agricultural Land Commmission

ANNEX HH pp 333 – 334

IN CAMERA That the public be excluded from attendance at the meeting in accordance with Sections 90 (1) (i) (of the Community Charter – “the receipt of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose.”

ADJOURNMENT

FUSE Economic Development Programming Deer Crossing the Art Farm

Society/Organization’s Legal Name: Deer Crossing – the Art Farm Society

Society #: S-‐53389

Contact Person: Chad Hershler, Executive Director

Mailing Address: 1747 Storvold Road

Phone No: 604 886 0975

E-‐mail: [email protected]

Website: www.deercrossingtheartfarm.org

Briefly describe your organization’s purpose and goals and how your programs and services help you to achieve these:

Deer Crossing the Art Farm is a registered non-‐profit organization with a mission to create positive change in people and communities through a combination of cutting edge arts and nature-‐driven programming. This is accomplished, in part, through their mandate to generate new ideas to social and environmental issues through collaboration between artists, entrepreneurs, innovators and nature-‐based professionals, and to inspire the general public by disseminating these new ideas through initiatives, festivals, tours and productions. Based out of five acres of leased farm and forest on the Sunshine Coast, the art farm serves the local regional district from Port Mellon through to Earls Cove.

The art farm was officially founded on March 11 2008 (#S53389) and spent its first year developing relationships with local artists, innovators and community organizations – and exploring integrated art and nature-‐based collaborations through a series of workshops and open houses. In five years since then the art farm has developed an annual festival attracting over 2000 people to its Rainforest Circus, children’s tent, art farm market and more, launched FUSE Community Work Hub (a Sechelt-‐based co-‐working space for creative and social entrepreneurs), provided ongoing education programming with SD46, Waldorf and SPIDER and collaborated with over 100 local organizations, business and government on various community-‐building initiatives.

The art farm’s short-‐term goals over the next three years include:

• Cultivate a diverse and active membership of over 500. • Nurture and expand their network of donors and philanthropists. • Re-‐inforce their reputation for innovation, reliability and productivity with

government funders, public and private foundations.

1

ANNEX A


• Increase the number of local collaborative partners and projects. • Develop innovative arts and nature-‐driven programming with a measurable

positive impact on communities across the Sunshine Coast, Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island.

• Plan, develop and initiate one or more social enterprises that falls with-‐in the mandate of the organization.

• The art farm’s long-‐term goals over the next ten years include:

• Become a model organization using social enterprise as the primary revenue source for programming.

• Own and operate real estate that serves the programmatic needs of the organization and others.

• Develop innovative arts and nature-‐driven programming with a measurable positive impact on communities across BC and Canada.

The art farm currently has a membership of over 150, a network of over 1000, four part-‐time employees (Executive and Artistic Director, Director of Education and Community Outreach, Managing Director and Technical Director), hundreds of volunteers, a four-‐member board and a ten member advisory. Find out more about the art farm at www.deercrossingtheartfarm.org, FUSE Community Work Hub at www.fuseworkhub.ca and more about the annual festival at www.synchronicityfestival.ca

Amount of funding being requested: $5000

Describe the proposed economic development project, including an explanation of how your project will benefit the “Local” or “Regional” Economy:

Building on the successful launch and opening 6 months of FUSE Community Work Hub, we are putting together a full year of targeted economic development programming for the Sunshine Coast as a whole in 2014. This programming will consist of 10 facilitated workshops shaped by the needs of our partners, membership and diverse network up and down the coast. The first 5 workshops planned are: 1. An introduction to the 3C model (the new Community Contribution Corporation) 2. Support streams for Entrepreneurs with Disabilities 3. Micro-‐loans for farmers 4. Child care business design 5. Social media for social enterprise The regional district from Egmont through to Port Mellon will benefit from this programming in the following ways:

2


• The strategic planning process for FUSE (The REACH Initiative) identified isolation

and separation as the main issue for self employed and small business owners working from home. Isolation and separation is even more pressing for those individuals living outside the village centers. FUSE programming and the FUSE space itself is designed to help this population overcome this issue

• The workshop programming has been and will continue to be designed to support specific challenges facing this group of entrepreneurs

• Providing a nurturing and supportive environment for creative and social entrepreneurs will attract more of them to the Sunshine Coast. This group of entrepreneurs are, in large part, younger, mobile and tenaciously determined; they are well suited and needed here on the Sunshine Coast

• Workshop programming is not geographically bound to the Sechelt space. Nor, for that matter, is the FUSE Community Work Hub concept. This particular initiative allows our project manager to reach out to entrepreneurs in all areas of the coast.

What’s FUSE Community Work Hub?

FUSE Community Work Hub is a co-‐working space for creative and social entrepreneurs on the Sunshine Coast—but FUSE is much more than that. FUSE is an incubator for our fastest growing resource: innovation. We provide the space, the services and the programming necessary for a diverse group of entrepreneurs to flourish and thrive. FUSE provides the following services to start-‐up, emerging and later stage entrepreneurs: • Standard office hours and a 24/7-‐access option • Funky and functional open and closed spaces including fixed desks, hot desks and drop-‐ins • Animation of space through networking events and programming • Wi-‐Fi Internet access • Capacity building workshops and seminars • Meeting space & communal space • Additional equipment: projector, screen, printer, and scanner

3

FUSE Economic Development Programming 2014

Sources of Cash C/PRevenue

District of Sechelt $8,000 PSunshine Coast Regional District $5,000 PTown of Gibsons $2,000 PCommunity Futures $4,000 CFUSE Pilot Income $18,375 C/PSunshine Coast Credit Union $10,000 C

Total Income $47,375

Expenses (Details below)Contract fees $18,750Programming expenses $10,000Marketing $3,000FUSE Operation Expenses $15,604

Total Expenses $47,354

FUSE Operation Expenses

Rent 6000Office Supplies + Storage 1500Internet/Phone 300Repair/Maintenance 1000Security 500Cleaning 1400Insurance 1500Bank Fees 200Loan Payments $3,204TOTAL: 15604

Contract Fees

Accountant and Book Keeper 1750Administrator 6000Project Manager 11000TOTAL: 18750

4

FUSE Pilot IncomeUnit $ ANNUAL

Hot Desk 1 75 6150Hot Desk 2 125 2625Organization annual membership 750 5250Workshops and events N/A 3150Drop in 25 600Misc Services 10 600

TOTALS: 18375

Programming expenses

Facilitator fees and honoraria 6400marketing 2000supplies/catering 1600

TOTAL 10000

5

deer crossing the art farm SCRD Economic Development

Operating Budget - 2013

Expenses

Contractors and Staff $86,500Artists and teachers $23,500Administrative staff (art farm) $6,400Artist travel and board $2,000Marketing/promotion/communications $15,450Office costs (phone, supplies, internet) $4,100Insurance $5,500Catering $2,500Accountant and bank fees $3,000Fundraising expenses $750Space Rental / Leasehold Improvements $24,100Equipment Rental and supplies $18,000

Total: $191,800

Revenue

Vancouver Foundation $15,000REFBC $17,000Investment Agriculture Foundation $30,000Sunshine Coast Community Foundation $4,500Heritage Canada $9,500BC Arts Council $9,820Community Gaming Grant $22,000Service Canada $6,500Local Government support $11,500Sponsorship (Synchronicity festival and FUSE) $10,000Individual and Corporate Donations $2,500Membership fees (directed to art farm overhead) $3,000Fundraisers $5,000Earned Revenue $14,180In-kind Goods and Services $31,300

Total: $191,800

6

DEER CROSSING - THE ART FARM SOCIETY

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

December 31, 2012

(Unaudited - See Notice to Reader)

Index page

Notice to Reader 1Statement of Financial Position 2Statement of Revenue and Expenditures 3Notes to the Financial Statements 4

7

NOTICE TO READER

On the basis of information provided by management, we have compiled the Statement of Financial Position of DEER CROSSING - THE ART FARM SOCIETY as at December 31, 2012,and the Statement of Revenue and Expenditures for the year then ended.

We have not performed an audit or a review engagement in respect of these financialstatements and, accordingly, we express no assurance thereon.

Readers are cautioned that these statements may not be appropriate for their purposes.

OFFICE ALTERNATIVES

Roberts Creek, B.C.February 13, 2013

1299 Marlene Road

Roberts Creek, BC, V0N 2W2

Phone/Fax: 604-885-0334

E-Mail: [email protected]

8

OffAlt

Stamp

2

DEER CROSSING - THE ART FARM SOCIETYSTATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION

As at December 31, 2012


2012 2011

$ $

ASSETS

Current

Cash 13,458 701

13,458 701

Capital assets (Note 3) 7,732 9,665

21,190 10,366

LIABILITIES

Current

Accounts payable - -

Payable to directors (Note 4) 12,024 12,024

12,024 12,024

MEMBERS' EQUITY 9,166 (1,658)

21,190 10,366

Approved by the Board of Directors

9

3

DEER CROSSING - THE ART FARM SOCIETYSTATEMENT OF REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES

For the year ended December 31, 2012


2012 2011

$ $

REVENUE

Grants 57,161 18,870

Donations & Sponsorships 23,696 300

Events & Arts Programming 4,988 9,144

Workshops & Education Programming 1,458 2,728

Memberships 1,225 -

88,528 31,042

EXPENDITURES

Contract fees 42,580 16,006

Festival, events, workshops and open house 10,272 10,298

Wages 6,365 8,007

Consulting 6,208 -

Marketing 4,328 3,411

Administrative and meeting expenses 2,989 1,519

Website 2,462 1,486

Amortization 1,933 2,416

Supplies 567 814

Utilities - 609

Vehicle expenses - 55

77,704 44,621

Excess (Deficiency) of revenue over expenditures 10,824 (13,579)

Members' equity (deficit), beginning of period (1,658) 11,921

Members' equity (deficit), end of period 9,166 (1,658)

10

4

DEER CROSSING - THE ART FARM SOCIETYNOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

December 31, 2012


1. ORGANIZATION

The Society was incorporated on March 11, 2008 under the Society Act (British Columbia) to create positive change in people and communities through a combination of cutting edge arts and and nature-driven programming.

The Society is exempt from income taxation under the Income Tax Act as long as certain criteria are met on a continuing basis.

2. ACCOUNTING POLICIES

Basis of presentation

These financial statements have been prepared in accordance with Canadian generally accepted accounting principles, which necessarily involves the use of estimates. The financial statements have, in management's opinion been properly prepared within reasonable limits of materiality and within the framework of significant accounting policies.

Capital assets

Capital assets are carried at cost less accumulated amortization. Amortization is provided over the estimated useful life of the assets.

Statement of cash flows

A statement of cash flows has not been prepared as the cash flows are readily ascertainable from the statements presented.

3. CAPITAL ASSETS

2012 2011Accumulated

Cost amortization Net Net

Equipment $ 747 $ 441 $ 306 $ 382 Leasehold Improvements 16,115 8,689 7,426 9,282

$ 16,862 $ 9,130 $ 7,732 $ 9,665

4. PAYABLE TO DIRECTORS

The liability to directors represents a non-interest bearing loan to the Society to pay for organizational infrastructure development (contract fees, marketing, website) during the 2011 fiscal year.

11

Ignite 2014 Deer Crossing the Art Farm

Society/Organization’s Legal Name: Deer Crossing – the Art Farm Society

Society #: S-‐53389

Contact Person: Chad Hershler, Executive Director

Mailing Address: 1747 Storvold Road

Phone No: 604 886 0975

E-‐mail: [email protected]

Website: www.deercrossingtheartfarm.org

Amount of funding being requested: $3000

Briefly describe your organization’s purpose and goals and how your programs and services help you to achieve these:

Deer Crossing the Art Farm is a registered non-‐profit organization with a mission to create positive change in people and communities through a combination of cutting edge arts and nature-‐driven programming. This is accomplished, in part, through their mandate to generate new ideas to social and environmental issues through collaboration between artists, entrepreneurs, innovators and nature-‐based professionals, and to inspire the general public by disseminating these new ideas through initiatives, festivals, tours and productions. Based out of five acres of leased farm and forest on the Sunshine Coast, the art farm serves the local regional district from Port Mellon through to Earls Cove.

The art farm was officially founded on March 11 2008 (#S53389) and spent its first year developing relationships with local artists, innovators and community organizations – and exploring integrated art and nature-‐based collaborations through a series of workshops and open houses. In five years since then the art farm has developed an annual festival attracting over 2000 people to its Rainforest Circus, children’s tent, art farm market and more, launched FUSE Community Work Hub (a Sechelt-‐based co-‐working space for creative and social entrepreneurs), provided ongoing education programming with SD46, Waldorf and SPIDER and collaborated with over 100 local organizations, businesses and government on various community-‐building initiatives.

The art farm’s short-‐term goals over the next three years include:

• Cultivate a diverse and active membership of over 500. • Nurture and expand their network of donors and philanthropists.

14


• Reinforce their reputation for innovation, reliability and productivity with government funders, public and private foundations.

• Increase the number of local collaborative partners and projects. • Develop innovative arts and nature-‐driven programming with a measurable

positive impact on communities across the Sunshine Coast, Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island.

• Plan, develop and initiate one or more social enterprises that falls with-‐in the mandate of the organization.

The art farm’s long-‐term goals over the next ten years include:

• Become a model organization using social enterprise as the primary revenue source for programming.

• Own and operate real estate that serves the programmatic needs of the organization and others.

• Develop innovative arts and nature-‐driven programming with a measurable positive impact on communities across BC and Canada.

The art farm currently has a membership of over 150, a network of over 1000, four part-‐time employees (Executive and Artistic Director, Director of Education and Community Outreach, Managing Director and Technical Director), hundreds of volunteers, a four-‐member board and a ten member advisory. Find out more about the art farm at www.deercrossingtheartfarm.org, FUSE Community Work Hub at www.fuseworkhub.ca and more about the annual festival at www.synchronicityfestival.ca

Describe the proposed economic development project, including an explanation of how your project will benefit the “Local” or “Regional” Economy:

The Ignite Program proposes to surface local visionaries, transform their visions into viable social enterprises, generate collaborative groups of community volunteers to activate them and build a network of support to sustain these social enterprises over the long-‐term. Focused on the theme of food security for year one (2 subsequent years—and themes—are planned), the program aims to catalyze, build and nurture a network of community-‐driven social enterprises that brings individuals and communities from diverse age-‐groups, income-‐levels, locations and back-‐grounds together to present specific solutions to local challenges.

Social enterprise is a rapidly growing sector across BC and Canada. The Sunshine Coast is emerging as a leader amongst rural communities in this sector and The Ignite Program—partially funded through a significant grant from Vancouver Foundation—will spread this message across the province. Research in economic development has

15


shown that a statistically significant portion of the younger generation of entrepreneurs is striving to incorporate social and environmental missions into their enterprises. These socially motivated entrepreneurs are visionaries, mobile (they can work anywhere) and unafraid to hustle; in other words, they are the type of individuals who thrive here on the Sunshine Coast. The Ignite program will put the Sunshine Coast on the map for this market.

Beyond this high-‐level benefit, the program itself will generate between 5-‐8 social enterprises in its first year. Plans are already in place for a second and third year to the program. This translates into 15-‐24 potential new businesses here on the Sunshine Coast. While we recognize that social enterprise is a riskier venture than most, the design of the program ensures that these social entrepreneurs have the best possible chance of success.

TIMELINE ACTIVITY

January – February 2014 • Recruit 5-‐8 social entrepreneurs for proposed solutions to food security issues to participate in 8-‐week program

• Meet with community partners to establish recruitment strategy for community engagement programming

March – April 2014 • Facilitate 8-‐week program for social entrepreneurs

• Recruit 100 participants for community engagement program, at least 25 students, 25 seniors and 25 immigrants included

April – June 2014 • Facilitate community engagement programming, a series of workshops attended by participants above that further develop proposals by social entrepreneurs

• Host public event in which smaller groups (consisting of social entrepreneurs and workshop participants) pitch their enterprises to the wider community

16


July – October 2014 Coordinate and oversee a series of smaller events, outreach opportunities and informal gatherings (facilitated by leaders within the community-‐driven initiatives themselves)

October – November 2014 Coordinate and oversee a series of meetings to evaluate progress for each initiative with group leaders (social entrepreneurs and workshop participants) and foster network for ongoing support

Early December 2014 • Facilitate a larger-‐scale event for all social enterprises to update wider community on progress and needs

• Compile evaluation results

17

Ignite 2014 Budget

Expenses Details

ManagementIgnite Program Manager 400 hours @ $40/hr + administrator 100 hours @ $20/hr $18,000

Contract fees

Idea-‐champion workshop facilitator: 8 workshops @$750 a workshop = $6000, community engagement facilitation: 3 facilitators at all 3 workshops @ $500 each = $4500, public event coordinator = $4500, community integration event facilitation: 1 facilitator for 10 events @ $500/event = $5000, network, mentoriship and follow-‐up event coordination = $3000 $23,000

Rent/utilities/telephone portion of costs associated with program $2,300Equipment/supplies/postage portion of costs associated with program $500

Marketing

website support, initial call-‐out for idea champions, promotion for community integration workshop participants, poster and advertising for public events, follow-‐up events, networking socials $4,500

Production costs

Space for workshops and events = $5000, Travel and miscellaneous facilitation expenses = $750 A/V rental costs for events = $750, insurance = $1000, catering = $1500, supplies, ticketing, miscellaneous for events = $1000 $10,000

Evaluationon-‐line evaluation tool set-‐up, administration and reporting $2,200

Total Expenses $60,500

Revenue Confirmed/Pending

Vancouver Foundation P (application in) $27,000BC Gaming C $3,000Community Futures C $10,000Sunshine Coast Regional District P (application in) $3,000Town of Gibsons P (early 2014 application) $2,000District of Sechelt P (application in) $3,000Sunshine Coast Community Foundation P (spring 2014 application) $2,500

Deer Crossing the Art Farm -‐ Cash

C cash contributions a combination of organization fundraising + participation/event fees $5,000

Deer Crossing the Art Farm -‐ In-‐kind

C in-‐kind contributiuons a combination of space rental, A/V rental, supplies, design and website support, administration and facilitation fees $5,000

Total Income $60,500

18

deer crossing the art farm SCRD Economic Development

Operating Budget - 2013

Expenses

Contractors and Staff $86,500Artists and teachers $23,500Administrative staff (art farm) $6,400Artist travel and board $2,000Marketing/promotion/communications $15,450Office costs (phone, supplies, internet) $4,100Insurance $5,500Catering $2,500Accountant and bank fees $3,000Fundraising expenses $750Space Rental / Leasehold Improvements $24,100Equipment Rental and supplies $18,000

Total: $191,800

Revenue

Vancouver Foundation $15,000REFBC $17,000Investment Agriculture Foundation $30,000Sunshine Coast Community Foundation $4,500Heritage Canada $9,500BC Arts Council $9,820Community Gaming Grant $22,000Service Canada $6,500Local Government support $11,500Sponsorship (Synchronicity festival and FUSE) $10,000Individual and Corporate Donations $2,500Membership fees (directed to art farm overhead) $3,000Fundraisers $5,000Earned Revenue $14,180In-kind Goods and Services $31,300

Total: $191,800

19

DEER CROSSING - THE ART FARM SOCIETY

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

December 31, 2012


Index page

Notice to Reader 1Statement of Financial Position 2Statement of Revenue and Expenditures 3Notes to the Financial Statements 4

20

NOTICE TO READER

On the basis of information provided by management, we have compiled the Statement of Financial Position of DEER CROSSING - THE ART FARM SOCIETY as at December 31, 2012,and the Statement of Revenue and Expenditures for the year then ended.

We have not performed an audit or a review engagement in respect of these financialstatements and, accordingly, we express no assurance thereon.

Readers are cautioned that these statements may not be appropriate for their purposes.

OFFICE ALTERNATIVES

Roberts Creek, B.C.February 13, 2013

1299 Marlene Road

Roberts Creek, BC, V0N 2W2

Phone/Fax: 604-885-0334

E-Mail: [email protected]

21

OffAlt

Stamp

2

DEER CROSSING - THE ART FARM SOCIETYSTATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION

As at December 31, 2012


2012 2011

$ $

ASSETS

Current

Cash 13,458 701

13,458 701

Capital assets (Note 3) 7,732 9,665

21,190 10,366

LIABILITIES

Current

Accounts payable - -

Payable to directors (Note 4) 12,024 12,024

12,024 12,024

MEMBERS' EQUITY 9,166 (1,658)

21,190 10,366

Approved by the Board of Directors

22

3

DEER CROSSING - THE ART FARM SOCIETYSTATEMENT OF REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES

For the year ended December 31, 2012


2012 2011

$ $

REVENUE

Grants 57,161 18,870

Donations & Sponsorships 23,696 300

Events & Arts Programming 4,988 9,144

Workshops & Education Programming 1,458 2,728

Memberships 1,225 -

88,528 31,042

EXPENDITURES

Contract fees 42,580 16,006

Festival, events, workshops and open house 10,272 10,298

Wages 6,365 8,007

Consulting 6,208 -

Marketing 4,328 3,411

Administrative and meeting expenses 2,989 1,519

Website 2,462 1,486

Amortization 1,933 2,416

Supplies 567 814

Utilities - 609

Vehicle expenses - 55

77,704 44,621

Excess (Deficiency) of revenue over expenditures 10,824 (13,579)

Members' equity (deficit), beginning of period (1,658) 11,921

Members' equity (deficit), end of period 9,166 (1,658)

23

4

DEER CROSSING - THE ART FARM SOCIETYNOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

December 31, 2012


1. ORGANIZATION

The Society was incorporated on March 11, 2008 under the Society Act (British Columbia) to create positive change in people and communities through a combination of cutting edge arts and and nature-driven programming.

The Society is exempt from income taxation under the Income Tax Act as long as certain criteria are met on a continuing basis.

2. ACCOUNTING POLICIES

Basis of presentation

These financial statements have been prepared in accordance with Canadian generally accepted accounting principles, which necessarily involves the use of estimates. The financial statements have, in management's opinion been properly prepared within reasonable limits of materiality and within the framework of significant accounting policies.

Capital assets

Capital assets are carried at cost less accumulated amortization. Amortization is provided over the estimated useful life of the assets.

Statement of cash flows

A statement of cash flows has not been prepared as the cash flows are readily ascertainable from the statements presented.

3. CAPITAL ASSETS

2012 2011Accumulated

Cost amortization Net Net

Equipment $ 747 $ 441 $ 306 $ 382 Leasehold Improvements 16,115 8,689 7,426 9,282

$ 16,862 $ 9,130 $ 7,732 $ 9,665

4. PAYABLE TO DIRECTORS

The liability to directors represents a non-interest bearing loan to the Society to pay for organizational infrastructure development (contract fees, marketing, website) during the 2011 fiscal year.

24

N:\Land Administration\3020 Crown Land\3020-20 Crown Referrals, Leases & Licenses (Non-SCRD)\2410890 commercial moorage west coast wilderness lodge\2013 nov commercial moorage applic 2410890 pdc report.docx

SCRD STAFF REPORT

DATE: October 31, 2013 TO: Planning and Development Committee, November 21, 2013 FROM: Teresa Fortin, Planner

RE: Application File 2410890 by West Coast Wilderness Lodge for Commercial Moorage fronting DL 5279 & 6590 in Egmont, BC

RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Development Committee recommends that the applicant consider rezoning the foreshore fronting DL 5279 & 6590 in Egmont to reflect the proposed commercial moorage facility. AND that the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations be notified that respecting Application File 2410890 by West Coast Wilderness Lodge for commercial moorage that:

• The applicant inform the shíshálh First Nations of the project. • Any eelgrass beds in the vicinity of the applicant’s proposed mooring facility

must be addressed. • The Department of Fisheries and Oceans should be satisfied that the dock are

placed in the most optimal area in order to minimize the impact on foreshore habitat.

• Moorings (including anchors and floats) be made of clean material. If concrete anchors are used, they should be pre-cast and cured away from water before use to prevent seepage of potentially toxic substances into the water body.

BACKGROUND At their October 24, 2013 meeting the Regional District Board made the following recommendation after reviewing an application from the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations for a proposed commercial moorage facility by West Coast Wilderness Lodge fronting DL 5279 & 6590 in Egmont. 474/13 Recommendation No. 14 West Coast Wilderness Lodge Moorage Fronting

THAT the staff report dated October 2, 2013 titled “Application File 2410890 by West Coast Wilderness Lodge for Commercial Moorage front DL 5279 & 6590 in Egmont, BC” be received; AND THAT the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations be notified that respecting Application File 2410890 by West Coast Wilderness Lodge for commercial moorage: 1) That the application be referred to the shíshálh Nation;

27

ANNEX B

File 2410890 by West Coast Wilderness Lodge Planning and Development Committee Meeting Nov 21, 2013 Page 2 of 4

2) That the Regional District requires an extension to comment period until November 21, 2013; AND THAT the application be referred back to the November Planning and Development Committee to consider environmental conditions regarding the application.

At the October Planning and Development meeting, the Committee reviewed a staff report that recommended that the applicant rezone the application area to reflect the proposed use (see application in Attachment A). The Committee wanted to refine the recommendation to ask that the applicant rezone but not make it a condition of the Crown licence and include environmental concerns before submitting final comments to the Crown. This report will address these issues. DISCUSSION Zoning and Existing Uses The applicant is seeking permission to build a moorage facility to accommodate personal use and clients of the West Coast Wilderness Lodge. The foreshore in Egmont is not zoned. In 2002, the applicant successfully rezoned (Bylaw 337.60) the upland parcel from R3 (Residential and Auxiliary Commercial) to C2 (Tourist Commercial) in order to reflect the activity that was occurring on site. There was no mention of foreshore activities at the time of the rezoning. See zoning and map in Attachment B. The upland activity appears to comply with the zoning. In 1997 the applicant was granted a variance (337.54) to relax the maximum commercial floor area on site, from 200 m² to just over 400 m², to accommodate the on-site commercial uses. There is a commercial marina (Back Eddy Marina) adjacent (west) to the application area. The applicant implies that their intent is to service their own clients and not operate the facility for rent like a traditional marina. OCP Policies The Egmont Pender Harbour Official Community Plan has the upland property designated as Tourist Commercial (see Attachment C). The foreshore does not have a land use designation. OCP Policies 11.1, 11.2 and 11.3 are specific to Tourist Commercial designation and indicate that the zoning should be “encouraged”.

11.1 Schedule A4 designates as TOURIST COMMERCIAL land and water areas that provide full facility services for tourist commercial purposes, including tourist accommodation and restaurant facilities, marinas, as well as those areas which have been historically zoned for such facilities. 11.2 Future TOURIST COMMERCIAL sites have not been designated on Schedule A4. Applications for rezoning to Tourist Commercial that comply with the criteria stated in this policy will be encouraged.

28

File 2410890 by West Coast Wilderness Lodge Planning and Development Committee Meeting Nov 21, 2013 Page 3 of 4

Extension of zoning to permit tourist accommodation and other related facilities in areas not designated as TOURIST COMMERCIAL by Schedule A4 will be evaluated on criteria that includes but is not necessarily limited to the following:

(a) the proposed development will not pose a detrimental impact on ENVIRONMENTALLY

SENSITIVE AREAS as indicated on Schedule A2; (b) proposed expansion over tidal waters will not pose a navigational hazard; (c) the proposed development avoids GEOTECHNICAL CONSTRAINT AREAS as indicated on

Schedule A3, except where appropriate geotechnical review is provided; (d) access to the proposed development is acceptable to the Ministry of Transportation and

Highways in terms of safety and efficiency of traffic flows; (e) vehicular access to a proposed development will be provided in a location which, through

sensitive siting and design, causes minimal impact on adjacent properties; (f) if the development is outside the commercial centre of Madeira Park, the trip generating

capacity of the proposed development will be compatible with the capacity, character and traffic patterns of adjacent roads and with the character of the residential or rural area;

(g) adequate provision will be made to screen off street parking areas from neighbouring properties, including provisions to minimize or eliminate light “spill over” from illuminated parking areas;

(h) liquid waste disposal from the overall development must be acceptable to the SCRD (for community sewer systems under SCRD ownership) or Coast Garibaldi Health Unit or Ministry of Environment (depending upon sewage volume);

(i) approvals from the Coast Garibaldi Health Unit for: i. on-site sewage disposal (sewage flows less than 5,000 imperial gallons/day);

ii. food premise as specified under the Health Act; iii. commercial swimming pools; iv. community water systems.

(j) evidence of economic viability of the site and location should be demonstrated through a market feasibility study;

(k) proposed developments in residential or rural areas should respect existing neighbourhood character through compatible architectural design and landscaping, sensitive siting of all buildings and an appropriate overall scale

11.3 To ensure the public and other affected interests have adequate opportunity for representation, and that an accurate assessment has been made by the Regional District of anticipated neighbourhood impacts, the Regional Board should not waive any public hearing for a proposed TOURIST COMMERCIAL rezoning.

Egmont Pender Harbour Advisory Planning Commission (APC) The Area A APC reviewed this referral at their September 25th meeting and stated:

Area A APC supports this application and we see no need for an amendment of the foreshore zoning fronting DL 5279 and 6590, nor an amendment to the OCP at this time, and we consider the request of the Planning and Development department to be inconsistent with the current zoning practices in that area.

While it is true that most of the foreshore is not zoned in Area A, there are examples of commercial marinas in Pender Harbour that recently acquired appropriate zoning. For example:

29

File 2410890 by West Coast Wilderness Lodge Planning and Development Committee Meeting Nov 21, 2013 Page 4 of 4 - in 2006 Painted Boat resort marina received CD2 zoning and Tourist Commercial OCP

designation - in 2013 Bel Investments (marina on Sinclair Bay) received C2B zoning and Tourist

Commercial OCP designation Concerns The Planning and Development Committee discussed this application at their October 2013 meeting. The Committee did not want to make the applicant rezone the foreshore as a condition of the Crown licence. The Committee wanted to encourage the applicant to consider a rezoning. As the Egmont Pender Harbour Official Community Plan (OCP) is scheduled to start a review process next year, the Committee felt that a comprehensive review that happens during an OCP update would reflect the community’s response to foreshore zoning. Also, the Committee also wanted to relay to the Crown environmental and social concerns respecting the application. Staff suggest that the following be forwarded to the Crown:

- That the applicant inform the shíshálh First Nations of the project. - Any eelgrass beds in the vicinity of the applicant’s proposed mooring facility must be

addressed. - The Department of Fisheries and Oceans should be satisfied that the docks are placed

in the most optimal area in order to minimize the impact on foreshore habitat. - Moorings (including anchors and floats) be made of clean material. If concrete anchors

are used, they should be pre-cast and cured away from water before use to prevent seepage of potentially toxic substances into the water body.

CONCLUSION Planning and Development staff recommend that the Regional District encourage West Coast Wilderness Lodge apply to amend the Official Community Plan and Bylaw 337 to reflect the proposed use on the foreshore fronting DL 5279 & 6590 and that several environmental and social concerns be forwarded to the Crown regarding the application.

30

Attachment A

31

6659

66926688

6757

67456735

6706

67196681

66716591657

9

6545

6130

6128

6749

6746

6564

664916

630

16660

RU1-D

R3-BPA-1A

C-3A

C-2R3-B

I-2

C-3

RU-2

R3-B

I-4

R3-B

RU1-B

Maple RdÜ

1:5,000Application File 2410890 by West Coast Wilderness Lodge

Land Use Zoning - Bylaw 337

Subject Area

0 60 12030 Meters

Attachment B

39

6659

66926688

6757

67456735

6706

67196681

66716591657

9

6545

6130

6128

6749

6746

6564

664916

630

16660

Maple RdÜ

1:5,000Application File 2410890 by West Coast Wilderness Lodge

Official Community Plan Designations

Subject Area

TouristCommercial

GeneralCommercial

ComprehensiveResidential BComprehensive

Residential B AquacultureIndustrial

Future Public Recreation Use ComprehensiveResidential B

Rural Residential B

0 60 12030 Meters

LegendCrown Tenures

Attachment C

40

SCRD STAFF REPORT

DATE: October 22, 2013 TO: Planning and Development Committee – November 21, 2013

FROM: Lesley-Ann Staats – Planning Technician

RE: Proposed zoning bylaw amendments for federally licensed medical marihuana production facilities

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. THAT the report titled “Proposed zoning bylaw amendments for federally licensed medical marihuana production facilities” be received;

2. AND THAT Bylaw Nos. 310.153 and 337.108 be forwarded to the Board for First Reading;

3. AND THAT Bylaw Nos. 310.153 and 337.108 be referred the shíshálh Nation and external agencies for comments;

4. AND FURTHER THAT a letter be sent to Health Canada requesting that the federal government disclose the locations of production licenses issued under the Medical Marihuana Access Regulations.

BACKGROUND

At its regular meeting on October 24 2013, the SCRD Board adopted the following resolution:

474/13 Recommendation No. 19 Zoning Options for Medical Marihuana Production Facilities

THAT the staff report dated October 1, 2013 titled “Zoning Options for Federally Licensed Medical Marihuana Production Facilities” be received;

AND THAT staff prepare draft zoning and other bylaw amendments, as may be required to:

a. Establish medical marihuana production as a permitted use within SCRD zoning bylaws;

b. Permit medical marihuana production on lands that are within the Agricultural Land Reserve, subject to regulations such as density, siting, security related to neighbourhoods, drainage and air quality;

AND THAT consideration be given to permitting medical marihuana production in specific RU2 and industrial zones, subject to regulations such as minimum parcel size, siting, security related to neighbourhoods, drainage and air quality;

AND THAT this report be forwarded to the APCs for comments;

AND THAT staff research how the definition of “intensive agriculture” might affect zoning;

AND FURTHER THAT a report be prepared for the November Planning and Development Committee.

41

ANNEX C

Staff Report to the Planning and Development Committee – November 21, 2013 Regarding zoning amendment for medical marihuana production facilities Page 2 of 7

N:\Land Administration\3360 Zoning & Rezoning Bylaw 310\3360-20 310.153\2013-Nov 21 Medical Marijuana PDC Report.doc

This report includes discussion on the following:

• Federal security requirements • Runoff control • APC comments summarized • Zoning Bylaw 310 and 337 Analysis • Proposed zoning bylaw 310 and 337 amendments • Withholding a Building Permit that conflicts with bylaws in preparation – s929 Local Government

Act • Discussion on “intensive agriculture” • Medical marihuana production licences and lawful nonconformity

DISCUSSION

Federal regulation of marihuana production facilities Under Division 3 of the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulation (MMPR), there are a number of security measures required for the perimeter of the marihuana production site (sections 41-45) as well as the areas where cannabis is present (sections 46-51) at the production site. The security measures include, but are not limited to, the following:

- Visual monitoring: the facility must be visually monitored at all times by a visual recording device to detect illicit conduct.

- Visual recording devices: the visual recording devices must be capable of recording in a visible manner illicit conduct.

- Intrusion detection system: the system must operate at all times and allow for the detection of any attempted or actual unauthorized access to or movement in those areas.

- Physical barriers: physical barriers must prevent unauthorized access.

- Filtration of Air: The facility must be equipped with a system that filters air to prevent the escape of odours and, if present, pollen.

- Monitoring by personnel: the system must be monitored at all times by personnel who must determine appropriate steps in the case of illicit conduct detection.

- Record of detected matters: the occurrence, date, time, and measures taken in response to the occurrence must be recorded.

In addition to the MMPR security requirements for production sites, producers must meet Security Directives under the Directive on Physical Security Requirements for Controlled Substances (Security Requirements for Licensed Dealers for the Storage of Controlled Substances), which include security system design concepts based on the location of the dealer and the maximum inventory.

Runoff control Section 907 of the Local Government Act provides the SCRD authority, by bylaw, to manage the disposal of surface runoff and storm water from a paved or roofed area. This can be done by establishing a maximum parcel coverage percentage of impermeable material.

Under zoning bylaws 310 and 337, there is a maximum 15% parcel coverage by buildings and structures in the RU2 (Rural Two or Rural Resource) and RU3 (Rural Three or Rural Agriculture) zones. However, greenhouses are excluded from parcel coverage in the RU3 (Rural Agriculture) zone under zoning bylaw

42



337. Under zoning bylaw 310, there is a maximum 35-50% parcel coverage by buildings and structures in the I7 (Industrial Seven) zone.

Although SCRD’s zoning bylaws regulate parcel coverage, they do not regulate coverage of impermeable materials. Staff believe that regulating surface and storm water runoff considerations should be applied across the Sunshine Coast and not necessarily just to specific uses within a zone. Therefore, staff recommended that storm water and surface runoff from paved or roofed areas be reviewed for possible consideration in the complete review of zoning bylaws 310 and 337.

Staff note that site drainage is an issue that is often considered during subdivision, rezoning or variance permit processes.

APC comments summarized Area A – This APC supports the staff recommendation to define medical marihuana as a use and list

the use in specific zones.

Area B – This APC recommends that medical marihuana production should not be in residential neighborhoods.

Area D – This APC recommends that medical marihuana production should be permitted only in industrial zones. Regulations in the ALR should address parcel coverage, setbacks from neighbours, security, light pollution, noise and odor control, although security measures should not negatively impact neighbours.

Area E – This APC recommends maintaining the status quo (1 opposed) which would involve no bylaw amendments.

Area F – This APC recommends that federally licensed medical marihuana production should take place in an industrial park.

Zoning bylaw 310 and 337 amendment analysis The proposed zoning bylaw amendments will serve to implement Health Canada’s new regulations regarding medical marihuana production facilities. The amendment will implement new zoning provisions within zoning bylaws 310 and 337 which include the following:

1. Providing a new definition within the zoning bylaws pertaining to federally licensed marihuana production facilities;

2. Clarifying the type of use under which a marihuana production facility will be permitted;

3. Identifying appropriate zones for the location of marihuana production facilities; and

4. Clarifying appropriate regulations within the zones for marihuana production facilities.

The SCRD’s role is to mitigate possible adverse impacts on citizens and the community and to treat these facilities as any new legal venture looking to set up a business on the Sunshine Coast. As such, the Board directed staff to proceed with zoning bylaw amendments to define ‘marihuana production facilities’ as a use and to list the use in specific zones, subject to regulations.

Staff reviewed what other local governments and municipalities are doing to get a basic understanding on how others are regulating the use. (See Attachment A – What are other local government doing to regulate marihuana production facilities?)

43



Industrial Zones

Staff reviewed the Industrial zones in both zoning bylaws, and it appears that the I1 (Industrial One or Light Industry) zone in both zoning bylaws is the most appropriate zone for the use; however, the approximately 17 parcels with an I1 zone are spotted throughout the coast and appear to have all undergone a site-specific rezoning. As the locations of many of the I1 zoned parcels are in close proximity to residential neighborhoods, staff concluded that the existing I1 zones are in inappropriate locations and the use should not be included in the I1 zone.

The I7 (Industrial Seven) zone in zoning bylaw 310 permits uses in the I1 zone, along with other heavy industrial uses. The I7 zone is located at the Hillside Industrial Park, which appears to be in an appropriate location for the use, away from residential neighborhoods, mostly on larger parcels, and on a group of parcels within the same land use zone. Staff recommending amending the I7 zone in zoning bylaw 310 to list ‘marihuana production facilities’ as an additional permitted use.

The I4 (Heavy Industrial) zone in zoning bylaw 337 permits uses in the I1 zone, along with other heavy industrial uses, similar to I7 zone in bylaw 310. There are only 2 locations where the I4 zone is applied – one is the Pender Harbour Landfill site and the other is a slipway site where boat building and/or possibly log sorting took place. As both sites appear to have under gone a site specific re-zoning, staff do not consider these sites appropriate for permitting medical marihuana production facilities. Should a citizen want to establish a facility in a prohibiting zone, a rezoning application would then be considered.

Rural Zones and the lands in the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR)

Parcels in the RU2 (Rural Two or Rural Resource) and ALR were evaluated though an analysis on a GIS map project. The project identified all parcels in the ALR or with portions in the ALR and all parcels with RU2 zoning (including split zoned parcels) in both zoning bylaws 310 and 337. The analysis was not completed on parcels in the RU3 zone (Rural Three or Rural Agriculture – the zone applied to most ALR parcels) because some parcels in the ALR are not zoned RU3. Further analysis should be done to determine the number of parcels in the ALR which are not zoned RU3, and the reasons why. Staff recommend that when the new Agriculture zone is adopted, all parcels in the ALR or containing ALR should be zoned or split zoned with the new Agriculture zone, which should also list ‘marihuana production facility’ as a permitted use.

The first analysis was to screen out all parcels less than 4 hectares (~10 acres), thus identifying only parcels ≥ 4 hectares in the RU2 zone and in the ALR. This identified 234 private parcels zoned RU2, and 84 private parcels in the ALR, across the coast (under bylaws 310 and 337). Many of these parcels are located within residential neighborhoods, so a second analysis was completed.

The second analysis was to screen out all parcels less than 8 hectares (~20 acres), thus identifying only parcels ≥ 8 hectares in the RU2 zone and in the ALR. This identified 143 private parcels zoned RU2, and 26 private parcels in the ALR, across the coast (under bylaws 310 and 337). The parcels identified are mostly on the outskirts, farther away from residential neighborhoods.

Figure 1 shows parcels between 4 and 8 hectares located in the ALR and/or zoned RU2. Should the SCRD decide to regulate marihuana production facilities to parcels greater than or equal to 8 hectares, the parcels shown in Figure 1 would be excluded.

44



Figure 1: Sample of parcels between 4 and 8 hectares zoned RU2 and in the ALR

Because there were concerns from most APC’s about the close proximity of these facilities to residential neighborhoods, staff recommend regulating the use in the RU2 and RU3 zones on parcels greater than or equal to 8 hectares (~20 acres).

In terms of building siting, there is a tendency to implement setbacks that are farther from roads and closer to neighbours. As mentioned in the previous report, the District of Maple Ridge is proposing a 60 meter (~200 ft) front/exterior side setback with 30 meter (~100 ft) side/rear setbacks. Due to concerns over neighbour safety, staff recommend regulating with 60 meter (200 ft) setbacks from all parcel lines.

Home Occupations under General Use Provisions – Zoning Bylaw 310

In Bylaw 310, home occupations are permitted as an auxiliary use in any zone except the R1 and R1A zones. One of the limitations for a home occupation is that “the area utilized for the purpose of conducting a home occupation shall not exceed the area utilized for residential purposes”. The definition of a home occupation is ‘an occupation, profession or craft carried out on a parcel used for residential purposes but does not include kennels, vehicle equipment repair and maintenance, body shops or metal fabricating”.

Staff considered amending the definition of ‘home occupation’ to exclude ‘marihuana production facilities’ as well, but because home occupations must be an auxiliary use, and the area must be smaller than the residential area, it is highly unlikely that a federally licensed marihuana production facility can be established as a home occupation within these limits. Therefore, staff would not consider it likely that a federally licensed marihuana production facility would adequate as a home occupation.

Home Based Businesses under General Use Provisions – Zoning Bylaw 337

In Bylaw 337, a home based business is a use permitted in any zone. A home based business must be an auxiliary residential use, and is limited to 100 m² (1076 ft²) in size. Because a home based business is limited in floor area and an auxiliary residential use, it is unlikely that a federally licensed marihuana production facility can be established within the limits. Similar to the interpretation of a home occupation under zoning bylaw 310, staff would not consider it likely that a federally licensed marihuana production facility would adequate as a home based business.

45



Zoning bylaw amendment proposal The zoning bylaw amendments (see Attachments B and C) will include a definition of a new use, which will be permitted in the RU2, RU3 and I7 zones, and the use will be regulated though parcel size and setbacks. The new definition is as follows:

‘marihuana production facility’ means a facility used for the cultivation, processing, testing, destruction, packaging and shipping of marihuana used for medical purposes as permitted under federal legislation.

In zoning bylaw 310 – the ‘marihuana production facility’ use will be listed in the RU2, RU3 and I7 zones. In the RU2 and RU3 zones, the use is regulated through parcel sizes and setbacks; thus only permitting it on parcels ≥ 8 hectares (19.8 acres), with a 60 metre setback from all parcel lines. In the I7 (Industrial) zone, the use will be regulated though a 7.5 metre setback from all parcel lines.

In zoning bylaw 337 – the ‘marihuana production facility’ use will be listed in the RU2 and RU3 zones and regulated through parcel sizes and setbacks; thus only permitting it on parcels ≥ 8 hectares (19.8 acres), with a 60 metre setback from all parcel lines.

See attached map (Attachment D) which show where federally licensed marihuana production facilities will be permitted with the proposed zoning bylaw amendments.

Withholding a Building Permit that conflicts with bylaws in preparation – s 929 Local Government Act Because the SCRD Board adopted the resolution above and has begun the process of preparing zoning bylaw amendments, s929 of the Local Government Act applies. Under s.929 of the Local Government Act, the SCRD has the authority to withhold a building permit for a period of 30 days, beginning on the day the application for the permit was made, if the Board passes a resolution identifying a conflict between a development proposed and a bylaw that is under preparation. During the 30 day period, the SCRD must consider the application, and may withhold it for a further 60 days while amending the bylaw. However, if the SCRD does not adopt the bylaw within the extended 60 day period, the owners of the land for which a building permit was withheld are entitled to compensation for damages arising from the withholding of the building permit.

Discussion on “intensive agriculture” In the previous staff report on this topic, an option to consider was to classify medical marihuana production as ‘intensive agriculture’ (along with uses such as hog farming and mushroom farming for example). Section 915(2) of the Local Government Act outlines that despite a zoning bylaw, if land is located in the ALR, intensive agriculture is a permitted use.

Rather than choosing this option, the Planning and Development Committee recommended defining ‘marihuana production facility’ as a use, and listing the use in specific zones, rather than just classifying marihuana production as intensive agriculture and listing ‘intensive agriculture’ as a use in specific zones. This enables the Regional District regulatory authority over the ‘marihuana production facility’ use in specific zones.

Medical marihuana production licences and lawful nonconformity On October 18, staff received a client bulletin from Lidstone & Company Barristers and Solicitors regarding medical marihuana production licences and lawful nonconformity (Attachment E). The bulletin notes that the federal government has indicated that it will respect local government zoning, and urges local government to act promptly to enact the requisite zoning (which the SCRD is already in the process

46



of doing) to ensure that new medical marihuana production facilities are not grandparented and permitted as a lawful non-conforming use.

Regarding existing licensed production premises, the federal government has taken the position that the location of these premises is protected from disclosure under the Privacy Act. Lidstone & Company suggest that local governments should prevail upon the federal government to amend the regime such that the location of prior licences may be disclosed to ensure that production ceases and the premises are properly remediated upon the expiry of the licences. Therefore, staff recommend that the SCRD send a letter to Health Canada requesting that the federal government disclose the locations of production licenses issued under the Medical Marihuana Access Regulations.

SUMMARY

The SCRD’s role is to mitigate possible adverse impacts on citizens and the community and to treat these facilities as any new legal venture looking to set up a business on the Sunshine Coast. As such, staff have prepared zoning bylaw amendments 310.153 and 337.108 to implement Health Canada’s new regulations regarding medical marihuana production facilities. The amendment will implement new zoning provisions within the two bylaws including a new definition of ‘marihuana production facility’, clarifying the type of use, identifying appropriate zones for the location of marihuana production facilities, and clarifying regulations within the zones where marihuana production facilities are permitted.

Staff recommend that Bylaw amendments 310.153 and 337.108 be forwarded to the Board for first reading and referred to the shíshálh Nation and external agencies for comments.

In response to the client bulletin from Lidstone & Company Barristers and Solicitors, staff further recommend that the SCRD send a letter to Health Canada requesting that the federal government disclose the locations of production licenses issued under the Medical Marihuana Access Regulations.

Lesley-Ann Staats – Planning & Development Division ATTACHMENTS: 5 Attachment A – What are other local governments doing to regulate medical marihuana production facilities? Attachment B – Zoning Bylaw Amendment 310.153 Attachment C – Zoning Bylaw Amendment 337.108 Attachment D – Map Attachment E – Lidstone & Company Client Bulletin

47

What are other Local Governments doing to regulate marihuana production facilities? District of Sechelt: The DOS is drafting a new zoning bylaw which will include a definition of medical

marijuana production and list it as a use. The new bylaw will propose that it be listed as a specific permitted use in the new light and heavy industrial and agriculture zones.

Town of Gibsons: The TOG is currently maintaining the status quo. Gibsons has no provisions in the bylaw, neither permissive nor prohibitive. The Town does not have immediate plans to change zoning. At this point it is considered an industrial or agricultural use, depending on the location.

Regional District of North Okanagan: In July, the RDNO drafted an Operational Procedure for medical marihuana production that (1) permits the use in the ALR with a 30m setback (2) permits the use as a home occupation, and (3) permits the use in light industrial, general industrial, and agricultural industrial zones.

District of Maple Ridge: The DMR has amended its zoning bylaw to establish the production of medical marihuana as a permitted use only on ALR lots. The proposed setbacks are (a) 60m front/exterior side (b) 30m side/rear (c) 30m from one family, accessory employee, or temporary residential use buildings (d) not less than 200m from an elementary or secondary school, and (e) not less than 1000m from another medical marihuana production facility. The DMR has been in consultation with the ALC, which has confirmed that the setback requirements are acceptable, although the DMR is waiting for a complete review and response from the ALC prior to holding a public hearing.

Village of Lumby: In October, the Village of Lumby gave 1st reading to its proposed bylaw amendment. The Village with be defining medical marihuana production facility and also including it under its definition of ‘intensive agriculture’. The bylaw is excluding medical marihuana production facilities as a home occupation. The use is proposed to be permitted in Light Industrial and Country Residential zones.

City of Kamloops: In September, the city of Kamloops proposed to define ‘medical marihuana grow operations’ and permit the use in its General Industrial and Heavy Industrial zones.

Regional Municipality of Corman Park (located in Saskatoon – where the first two federal commercial medical marihuana production licences were issued): Prairie Plant Systems Inc., under the MMAR, was the only legal commercial medical marihuana production facility in the country that was monitored by Health Canada. Prairie Plant Systems Inc. was the sole supplier of medical marihuana to Health Canada for 13 years. The production facility is classified as “Intensive Agriculture – Horticulture” use, and is permitted in three Agricultural zones.

City of Ottawa: The city of Ottawa is in the process of a zoning bylaw amendment. The city is defining ‘medical marihuana production facilities’ and listing the use in its general industrial, heavy industrial, rural general industrial and rural heavy industrial zones. The city is proposing to implement a 150 meter setback from residential or institutional zones (similar to the DMR above).

Attachment A

48

SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT BYLAW NO. 310.153

A bylaw of the Sunshine Coast Regional District to amend “Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Bylaw No. 310.153, 1987" PART A - CITATION This bylaw may be cited as the "Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.153, 2013". PART B - AMENDMENTS Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Bylaw No. 310, 1987 is hereby amended as follows: Definition 1) Section 201 of Bylaw 310 is amended by inserting, immediately following the definition of

“mariculture”, the following:

“marihuana production facility” means a facility used for the cultivation, processing, testing, destruction, packaging and shipping of marihuana used for medical purposes as permitted under federal legislation.

Parking Requirements

2) Section 509 (Table II – Industrial) is further amended by modifying the table to include parking requirements as follows:

(a) Adding to Column I – Class of Building or Use –‘marihuana production facility'; (b) Adding to Column II – Parking Spaces – '0.5 per 100m² of gross floor area'; and (c) Adding to Columns III – Loading Spaces – 'same as light industry'.

COLUMN I

Class of Building or Use COLUMN II

Parking Spaces COLUMN III

Loading Spaces Marihuana Production Facility 0.5 per 100 m² gross floor

area same as light industry

I7 Zone 3) Section 961.1 is amended by inserting, immediately following (4):

(5) marihuana production facility

4) Section 961.2 (2) is amended by replacing “(3) and (4)” with “(3), (4) and (5)” so that it reads:

no structure or use permitted under Section 961.1 (3), (4) and (5) shall be located within 7.5 metres of a parcel line or within 7.5 metres of a zone boundary that abuts a RU2 or PA1 zone

DRAFT Attachment B

49

Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.153, 2013 Page 2 of 3

N:\Land Administration\3360 Zoning & Rezoning Bylaw 310\3360-20 310.153\2013-Nov-05 Draft Bylaw 310.153.doc

5) Section 961.4 (2) is amended “(3) and (4)” with “(3), (4) and (5)” so that it reads: the site coverage for all buildings and structures permitted under Section 961.1 (3), (4) and (5) shall not exceed 35 percent

RU2 Zone 6) Renumber Sections 1011.5 through 1011.8 to read 1011.6 through 1011.9 respectively, and

insert the following new section immediately following Section 1011.4:

1011.5 with a parcel size equal to or exceeding 8 hectares, a marihuana production facility is permitted

7) Current (Setback) Section 1011.6 is amended by replacing “1011.6” with subsections “1011.7

(1) and (2)” so that it reads: 1011.7 (1) unless otherwise provided for under Section 1011.4, all uses listed in

Sections 1011.3 and 1011.4 shall not be sited within 15 meters of any parcel line;

(2) no use permitted under Section 1011.5 shall be located within 60

metres of a parcel line

RU3 Zone 8) Renumber Sections 1021.5 through 1021.9 to read 1021.6 through 1021.10 respectively, and

insert the following new section immediately following Section 1021.4:

1021.5 with a parcel size equal to or exceeding 8 hectares the additional permitted use is a marihuana production facility

9) Current (Setback) Section 1021.6 is amended by replacing 1021.6 with subsections “1021.7

(1) and (2)” so that it reads:

1021.7 (1) no use permitted under section 1021.1 (4) shall be located within 15 metres of a parcel line;

(2) no use permitted under Section 1021.5 shall be located within 60

metres of a parcel line PART C - ADOPTION READ A FIRST TIME this DAY OF 2013 READ A SECOND TIME this DAY OF 2013

50

Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.153, 2013 Page 3 of 3


PUBLIC HEARING HELD this DAY OF 2013 READ A THIRD TIME this DAY OF 2013 APPROVED PURSUANT TO SECTION 52 OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT this DAY OF 2013 ADOPTED this DAY OF 2013

__________________________

Corporate Officer

__________________________

Chair

51

SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT BYLAW NO. 337.108

A bylaw of the Sunshine Coast Regional District to amend “Sunshine Coast Regional District Electoral Area A Zoning Bylaw No. 337.108, 1990" PART A - CITATION This bylaw may be cited as the "Sunshine Coast Regional District Electoral Area A Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 337.108, 2013". PART B - AMENDMENTS Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Bylaw No. 337, 1990 is hereby amended as follows: Definition 1) Section 201 of Bylaw 337 is amended by inserting, immediately following the definition of

“lodge”, the following:

“marihuana production facility” means a facility used for the cultivation, processing, testing, destruction, packaging and shipping of marihuana used for medical purposes as permitted under federal legislation.

Parking Requirements

2) Section 518 (Table II – Industrial) is further amended by modifying the table to include

parking requirements as follows: (a) Adding to Column I – Class of Building or Use –‘marihuana production facility'; (b) Adding to Column II – Parking Spaces – '0.5 per 100m² of gross floor area'; and (c) Adding to Columns III – Loading Spaces – 'same as light industry'.

COLUMN I

Class of Building or Use COLUMN II

Parking Spaces COLUMN III

Loading Spaces Marihuana Production Facility 0.5 per 100 m² gross floor

area same as light industry

RU2 Zone (Rural Resource) 3) Section 1061.1 is amended by inserting, immediately following (5):

(6) On parcels equal to or exceeding 8 hectares, the additional permitted use is a marihuana production facility

4) Section 1061.5 is amended by deleting the current wording under Section 1061.5, and

replacing it with subsections “1061.5 (1) and (2)” so that it reads:

1061.5 (1) No structure shall be located within: (a) 5 metres of the front or rear parcel line; (b) 1.5 metres of a side parcel line; or

DRAFT Attachment C

52

Sunshine Coast Regional District Electoral Area A Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 337.108, 2013 Page 2 of 3


(c) 4.5 metres of an exterior side parcel line.

(2) No use permitted under Section 1061.1 (6) shall be located within 60 metres of a parcel line.

RU3 Zone (Rural Agriculture) 5) Section 1081.1 is amended by inserting, immediately following (3):

(4) On parcels equal to or exceeding 8 hectares, the additional permitted use is a marihuana production facility

6) Section 1081.3 is amended by inserting, immediately following (2):

(3) no use permitted under Section 1081.1 (4) shall be located within 60 metres of a parcel line

PART C - ADOPTION READ A FIRST TIME this DAY OF 2013 READ A SECOND TIME this DAY OF 2013 PUBLIC HEARING HELD this DAY OF 2013 READ A THIRD TIME this DAY OF 2013 APPROVED PURSUANT TO SECTION 52 OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT this DAY OF 2013 ADOPTED this DAY OF 2013

__________________________ Corporate Officer

__________________________

Chair

53

Legend

Parcels >= 8 ha containing RU_2

Parcels >= 8 ha containing RU2

Parcels containing I7

Parcels >= 8 ha containing ALR

0 3 6 9 121.5Kilometers

µ

Date: 06/11/2013

Parcels >= 8 ha containing RU2 and ALRCrown parcels whited out

1:330,269

Attachment D

54

Suite 1300 - Sun Tower - 128 Pender Street West - Vancouver BC - V6B 1R8Telephone 604-899-2269 - Facsimile 604-899-2281 - Toll Free 1-877-339-2199

{00261562; 1}

LIDSTONE & COMPANYBarristers and Solicitors

CLIENT BULLETIN

TO: Clients

FROM: Sara Dubinsky

DATE: October 18, 2013

RE:Medical Marihuana Production Licences and Lawful Nonconformity

The new Federal Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations (“MMPR’s”) are currently in force. The old regime, pursuant to the Medical Marihuana Access Regulations (“MMAR’s”), is in the process of being phased out.

As of October 1, 2013, Health Canada is no longer accepting new applications for production licences under the MMAR’s or applications to change the location of, or number of plants at, an existing production site under the MMAR’s. Health Canada is currently accepting applications for commercial production licences under the new MMPR’s, and has already issued production licences to two companies.

The Federal Government has indicated that it will respect local government zoning when determining whether to issue production licences. For this reason is it critical that local governments wanting to regulate or prohibit the location of commercial producers within their borders act promptly to enact the requisite zoning. Failure to do so could result in medical marihuana production facilities being grandparented and permitted as a lawful non-conforming use. In the short term, we suggest that Councils and Boards consider adopting a resolution to direct the preparation of the zoning amendment bylaw, in order to give the local government the option of withholding building permits and business licences in the interim, as authorized by s. 929 of the Local Government Act. A critical element of an application for a licence to produce (or for an amendment to the licence to produce) under the MMPR’s is that the applicant must first notify the local police force, fire authority and government of the pending application for a licence, and the notices must include the address of the proposed production facility. The applicant must submit copies of these notices to the federal government as part of the application materials for a licence. If the applicant has not provided the requisite notice to local authorities, the licence (or licence renewal or amendment) must be refused.

Attachment E

55

- 2 -

{00261562; 1}

The intent of these requirements appears to be to provide local authorities with notice and the opportunity to comment regarding the applicant or application. Comments regarding whether the zoning permits the production facility in the specified location should be provided by the local government to the federal government at this point.

With respect to licensed production premises under the MMAR’s that are in the process of being phased out and will expire on April 1, 2014, the federal government has taken the position that the location of these premises is protected from disclosure under the Privacy Act. As this will create difficulty in ensuring that production ceases and the premises are properly remediated upon the expiry of the licences, local governments should prevail upon the federal government to amend the regime such that the location of prior licences may be disclosed.

For more information, Health Canada’s website is available at:

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/marihuana/index-eng.php

56

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/marihuana/index-eng.php

N:\Administration\0440 Islands Trust\0440-01 General\2013 nov gambier woodlot.docx

SCRD STAFF MEMO

DATE: November 6, 2013 TO: Planning and Development Committee, November 21, 2013 FROM: Teresa Fortin, Planner RE: Woodlots BACKGROUND At their October 24, 2013 meeting the Regional District Board made the following recommendation: 474/13 Recommendation No. 7 New Woodlots on Gambier Island

THAT the correspondence from Patty Lee, (and five other property owners: Rosalie Boulter, Jeff Gau, Patrick & Pamela Yearwood, H. Frank Foster) dated Sept. 30, 2013 regarding New Woodlots on Gambier Island, Howe Sound be received;

AND THAT staff investigate whether Islands Trust requires support from the SCRD respecting the woodlot sales on Gambier Island;

AND THAT staff report back to the Planning and Development Committee whether the draft BC Timber Sales protocol agreement covers woodlots.

DISCUSSION Gambier Island Woodlots Planning staff contacted the Islands Trust about the proposed woodlots on Gambier Island. The Islands Trust staff have been in conversation with the Ministry of Forests about the current wood lot proposals. The Islands Trust has a 1999 protocol agreement with the Ministry of Forests respecting woodlots: Islands Trust is working on updating it. In 2004 and 2010 the Ministry of Forests had contacted Islands Trust about the potential of additional woodlots on Gambier. There is an existing woodlot on Gambier. The proposed woodlot areas do lie in areas that community timber harvesting is permitted: the zoning permits harvesting. See attached map. Recently Islands Trust has notified the Ministry of Forests of their 12 advocacy policies around harvesting on Gambier.

57

ANNEX D

Woodlots Planning and Development Committee Meeting Nov 21, 2013 Page 2 of 2 Islands Trust is also working with the Ministry (Brian Kukulies) about the application package for proposed bidders. Islands Trust have also compiled a Q&A sheet on their website:http://www.islandstrust.bc.ca/islands/local-trust-areas/gambier.aspx Attached are three letters (including one from Nicholas Simon, MLA) copied to the Regional District regarding the Gambier Island woodlots. BCTS SCRD (draft) Communications Protocol Agreement The Regional District has drafted a protocol agreement with BC Timber Sales. In July 2013, the Regional District modified the draft version and sent it to BCTS for review. The draft agreement only applies to that part of Crown land that is administered by BCTS. Woodlots are a type of forest tenure that are outside of the BCTS operating area. The Minister of Forests has the authority under Section 44 of the Forest Act to establish a woodlot. The Ministry of Forests is the agency that administers woodlots: BCTS is a division within the Ministry of Forests but it does not have the management authority to administer woodlots. Woodlot licences are administered out of the Forest District office: the woodlot licence is issued by the District Manager and associated plans are also approved by the District Manager. Planning staff have contacted the local Ministry of Forest representative (Brian Kukulies) and he has stated there are no plans for a woodlot with the Regional District.

58

http://www.islandstrust.bc.ca/islands/local-trust-areas/gambier.aspx

Susan Hunt

Cecilia GarciaMonday, November 04, 2013 11:12 AMSusan HuntFW: Gambler Island Woodlots - no public consultation?

To: Honourable Steve Thomson (email: FLNR.Ministerqov.bc.ca)

Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource OperationsP0 Box 9049 Stn Prov GovtVictoria BC V8W 9E2

From:Sent:To:Subject:

-

REC E 1VD

NOV 0 5 2013

CHAIRFrom: Simons. MLA, Nicholas {mailto:Nicholas.Simons. [email protected])Sent: November-04-13 10:31 AMTo: SHARON PROSKE; Minister, FLNR FLNR:EX; [email protected]; Minister, JTST T JTST:EX;Sturdy.MLA, Jordan; [email protected]; [email protected]; SCRD General Inquiries; Kukulies,Brian FLNR:EXSubject: RE: Gambler Island Woodlots - no public consultation?

Dear concerned citizen,

I have received so many copies of letters addressed to the Minister of Forests that I can only reply by template letter.

Once again Sunshine Coasters have been put in the unenviable position of having to balance the competing interests ofindustry vs. the community and the environment through a process that doesn’t satisfy anyone. For years we have beenasking the government for a high-level Land Use Plan to no avail. Actually, it was once promised, but that promise wasbroken.

Once vacant Crown Land, the Gambier Island woodlots in question have been opened for bidding without any publicinvolvement whatsoever. I will continue to express my concern to the Minister in charge, and ask for a delay duringwhich time some consultation with the community could take place. Clearly the values of the community are not beingconsidered.I have requested a meeting with the Minister, and look forward to bringing your request and your concerns directly tohim.

Sincerely,

Nicholas Simons, MLAPowell River—Sunshine Coast

From: SHARON PROSKE [mailto:[email protected]: November 3, 2013 8:39 PMTo: Minister, FLNR FLNR:EX; [email protected]; Minister, JTST T JTST:EX; Sturdy.MLA, Jordan;Simons.M L.A. Nicholas; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Kukulies, BrianFLNR:EXSubject: Gambier Island Woodlots - no public consultation?

1

59

Subject: URGENT: Gambler Island Woodlots — STOP AND LISTEN

Dear Minister Thomson,

One quarter of the land base of Gambler Island (including the lands around Gambler Lake) is about to be turned into logging

zones, without public consultation.

Stakeholders from the public, business, and industry are working together with local, provincial and federally elected people on a

planning initiative for Howe Sound that would deal with this issue. Yet your staff at the Ministry of FLNRO, are ignoring the public’s

requests for dialogue. Furthermore, it is ludicrous that the annual income to the people of BC through stumpage fees would only be

$1500 per yearfor the use of Crown-owned timber in the two woodlots.

This is completely unacceptable, and we will not be ignored.

Please instruct your staff to engage the public in a meaningful dialogue on this issue, before these woodlot licences are tendered.

Sharon Proske

Gambler Island Sea Ranch

Gambler Island, BC

Cc:

Tim Sheldan, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations

(email:FLNR. deputyministersdofficr(dciov. bc. ca)

Honourable Shirley Bond, Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training (email: JTST.Minister(äcigv.bc.cj

Jordon Sturdy, MLA, West Vancouver — Sea to Sky (email: lordan.sturdv.mlaCã3ieq.bc.ca)

Nicholas Simons, MLA Powell River — Sunshine Coast (email: nicholgs.simgris.rnlaciJeg.bc.cp)

John Weston, MP, West Vancouver - Sunshine Coast - Sea to Sky

(email: John. We$(on. c 1eparlc. ca)

Gambler island Local Trust Committee(email: bc, ca and ihaqedorncUJslandstrusf. bo. c&

Gary Nohr, Chair, Board of Directors, Sunshine Coast Regional District (email: infoscrd. caj

Lee Turnbull, Electoral Area F Representative (West Howe Sound), Board of Directors, Sunshine Coast

Regional District (email: info(dscrd.ca)

Brian Kukulies, RPF, Land Officer, Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations

(email: BrIan.KukuIIes(qv.bc.c)

2

60

Susan Hunt

From: Cecilia GarciaSent: Monday, November 04, 2013 11:55 AMTo: Susan HuntSubject: FW: Gambler Woodlots

Original MessageFrom: Irene Wotton [mailto:IEWShaw.ca]Sent: November-04-13 11:21 AMTo: SCRD General InquiriesSubject: Gambier Woodlots

November 3, 2014

Sunshine Coast Regional District

Attention: Mr. Gary Nohr, Chair, Board of Directors

Dear Mr. Nohr,

SCRDRECEIVED

: N0V052013

Gambier Island is a unique area, both to the Islands Trust and to Greater Vancouver and LowerMainland. Gambier Island provides a uniquely rural and unspoiled area for recreation due thethe fact that access is by foot passenger ferry and other non vehicular means of transportand the island’s relatively low population base. This has provided unique wildernessexperiences for camps both on the island and off, that use the island for hiking, camping andwilderness survival experience. These activities have value that is far beyond the projected$1,500 per year in stumpage fees if one quarter of Gambier’s land base is turned intowoodlots for logging.This is a ridiculously low amount of revenue to jeopardize an accessible rural area thatprovides marine park access, hiking, camping and safe outdoor experiences to residents of thelower mainland and other camps serving children and youths.

Further, numerous local organizations and citizens have contacted the minister of ForestLands and Natural Resource Operations asking for dialogue on this issue but these requestshave been disregarded.Surely there should be due process and consultation before any such sweeping changes arepermitted to take place. Residents of the island whose views and wilderness access may bedegraded through these potential changes could apply for reductions in their taxes due toreduced pleasure of their properties and the value of just a couple of potential taxreductions could exceed the projected stumpage fees.

If our government is working for the people of British Columbia, then the people of BritishColumbia, who pay the wages of ministers, MLAs, MPs and government employees, have a right tobe part of the decision making process.

Gambier is a unique island that is close and accessible to anyone in the lower mainland area.The potential for greater value is to keep this island for wilderness experiences. Whenmining claims were staked on Gambier in the ealry 1980’s, the value of recreationalactivities through boating alone were surprisingly high with each boat in Howe Soundrepresenting at least $100 a day to local businesses over 30 years ago.

An open dialogue with stakeholders is essential before any decisions are made.

1

61

Regards,

Irene Wotton3444 West 5th AvenueVancouver, BC V6R 1R8604-736-6889

2

62

Susan Hunt

From: Cecilia GarciaSent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 8:39 AMTo: Susan Hunt CR C)

::z___ZarnbIEEZ______From: Jane Pike [mailto:jmpccryahoo.ca3Sent: November-04-13 4:35 PMTo: FLNR.Ministergov.bc.caCc: FLNR.deputyministersdofficrckiov.bc.ca; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; John.weston.c1eparl.gc.ca; [email protected]; SCRD General Inquiries; [email protected]: Gambier Island Woodlots

Honourable Steve ThomsonMinister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource OperationsP0 Box 9049 Stn Prov GovtVictoria BC V8W 9E2

Dear Minister Thomson,One quarter of the land base of Gambier Island (including the lands around Gambier Lake)is about to be turned into logging zones, without public consultation.Stakeholders from the public, business, and industry are working together with local,provincial and federally elected people on a planning initiative for Rowe Sound that woulddeal with this issue. Yet your staff at the Ministry of FLNRO, are ignoring the public’srequests for dialogue. Furthermore, it is ludicrous that the annual income to the people ofBC through stumpage fees would only be $1500 per year for the use of Crown-owned timberin the two woodlots.This is completely unacceptable, and we will not be ignored.Please instruct your staff to engage the public in a meaningful dialogue on this issue, beforethese woodlot licenses are tendered.

Yours sincerely,Jane PikeVancouver, BC

Cc:Tim Sheldan, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource OperationsHonourable Shirley Bond, Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills TrainingJordon Sturdy, MLA, West Vancouver — Sea to SkyNicholas Simons, MLA Powell River — Sunshine CoastJohn Weston, MP, West Vancouver - Sunshine Coast - Sea to SkyGary Nohr, Chair, Board of Directors, Sunshine Coast Regional DistrictLee Turnbull, Electoral Area F Representative (West Howe Sound), Board of Directors, Sunshine CoastRegional District)Brian Kukulies, RPF, Land Officer, Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations

1

63

N:\Infrastructure & Public Works\5280 Environmental Management\5280-16 Invasive Species\2013 nov invasive plant priorties pdc rpt.docx

SCRD STAFF MEMO

DATE: November 7, 2013 TO: Planning and Development Committee, November 21, 2013 FROM: Teresa Fortin, Planner RE: Invasive Plants Priorities BACKGROUND At their September 12, 2013 meeting the Regional District Board made the following recommendation: 395/13 Recommendation No. 25 Invasive Species

THAT the SCRD send a letter to Capilano Highways requesting information on Japanese Knotweed eradication activities, including how they prioritize which areas will be addressed and inquiring about what areas will be completed in 2013.

DISCUSSION Capilano Highway is a sub-contractor to the Coastal Invasive Species Committee (Coastal ISC) The Coastal ISC make all decisions regarding priorities for treatment. Staff contacted Rachelle McElroy, the Executive Director for Coastal ISC and she commented that the Coastal ISC consider the following when prioritizing treatments:

1. Re-treat 2013 sites 2. Sites in high value conservation areas or have the potential of spreading into water

courses. She observed that they “do not have sufficient funding to treat all sites”. They will be deciding the 2014 sites by June 2014. In 2013 a total of 28 sites, 0.1719 ha, were treated (see attached list). ___________ Teresa Fortin

64

ANNEX E

SCRD STAFF REPORT

DATE: November 1, 2013 TO: Planning and Development Committee – November 21, 2013

FROM: David Rafael, Senior Planner

RE: Eagle Mountain – Woodfibre Gas Pipeline Environmental Assessment

RECOMMENDATIONS 1. That the Planning and Development Committee receive the report titled

“Eagle Mountain – Woodfibre Gas Pipeline Environmental Assessment” and dated November 1, 2013”;

2. AND THAT staff notify the following regarding the upcoming public consultation period for the draft Application Information Requirements (AIR):

a) Squamish Nation; b) Sechelt Nation; c) Town of Gibsons; d) District of Sechelt; e) Islands Trust; f) Area F Advisory Planning Commission; and g) Natural Resources Advisory Committee;

3. AND THAT staff refer the draft AIR to the above to seek input to assist the SCRD to submit a full response by the end of the public consultation period;

4. AND THAT staff update the SCRD website and place a notice within the SCRD Bulletin regarding the public consultation period, when the dates are confirmed;

5. AND THAT staff prepare a response for the Board to consider at a meeting in December, prior to the end of the consultation period.

BACKGROUND Fortis BC’s is proposing to expand the natural gas pipeline capacity to the Woodfibre site located on the North West end of Howe Sound, within Squamish Lillooet Regional District. The project will also include increasing compression to the existing compressor at Port Mellon to facilitate delivery to the proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility at Woodfibre. The pipeline proposal is the subject of a BC Environmental Assessment (EA).

65

ANNEX F

Staff Report to the Planning and Development Committee (November 21, 2013) Page 2 of 10 Regarding Eagle Mountain – Woodfibre Gas Pipeline Environmental Assessment

N:\Infrastructure & Public Works\5500 Utilities\5500-03 Gas\Eagle Mountain Woodfibre Gas Pipeline 2013-Nov-21 PDC report.docx

A separate EA, which has yet to commence, will take place for the proposed LNG site at Woodfibre. As they are closely linked, the pipeline expansion is to serve the LNG export terminal, there will be some overlap. The Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) staff noted that attempts will be made to ensure that proponents/consultants from both projects will be available at any public meetings to answer questions even if the focus of the meeting is on one of the projects.

As set out in the pipeline project’s July 2013 Project Description (copy available on EA website, from SCRD staff and on the SCRD website):

“The Port Mellon compressor station design involves adding an estimated 6,100 BHP [brake horsepower] of natural gas fired turbo-compression (as backup to the existing compression) including high pressure yard piping, isolation valves, electrical, control and gas systems. A backup compressor unit is used to provide redundancy and ensure the reliability of gas supply to FortisBC customers and is only used when the existing compressor needs to be taken out of service for maintenance and repairs, or the existing compressor is unable to operate due to mechanical malfunction. In this regard, only one of the two compressor units would be operating at any one moment in time. The new back-up compressor unit is required in order to provide FortisBC with increased reliability to meet gas supply requirements on the Sunshine Coast and Vancouver Island.”

Attachment A shows the compressor station and the nearby area along with a map of the existing pipeline route in the Port Mellon area. No changes to the route are proposed for this area.

At the September 26, 2013 meeting the SCRD Board adopted the following resolution:

395/13 Recommendation No. 1 Eagle Mountain Woodfibre Natural Gas Pipeline Project

THAT the staff report dated August 28, 2013 titled “Fortis BC, Eagle Mountain Woodfibre Natural Gas Pipeline Project Environmental Assessment” be received;

AND THAT the SCRD contact the BC Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) requesting to be a member of the working group;

AND THAT staff post information about the proposal on the SCRD website;

AND FURTHER THAT a letter, noting the SCRD request to be a member of the working group, be sent to:

a) Fortis BC

b) Squamish Nation

c) Squamish Lillooet Regional District

d) Howe Sound Community Forum.

The pipeline proposal is in the early stages of the EA and the draft Application Information Requirements (AIR) was the subject of review by the Working Group from October 4, 2013 to October 25, 2013. Due to the timing and staff resources, it was not possible to provide a report to the October Planning and Development Committee.

Staff attended a meeting of the EA Working Group (WG) on October 25, 2013 to discuss the draft AIR for the pipeline proposal. The meeting was also attended by representatives of the proponent, BC Oil and Gas Commission (OGC), District of Squamish, Tsleil-Waututh Nation,

66



Kwikwetlem Nation; Climate Action Secretariat, Ministry of Environment and Ministry Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation.

The meeting focused on setting out the EA process, OGC’s role, project description and the draft AIR. One issue raised is the location of a new compressor station in Squamish, currently the proposal identifies a site within than industrial area however other locations outside of the built area are being considered. Concern was expressed by representatives of the two Nations in attendance regarding the short turnaround for considering the draft AIR and lack of detail, at present, regarding the actual pipeline route.

The WG also includes representation from the Squamish Nation and Town of Gibsons and a range of local governments, provincial and federal agencies who were unable to attend the October 25th meeting. EAO noted that comments from WG members can also be submitted in the public consultation period which is currently scheduled for November 15th to December 15th, 2013 (additional information below).

DISCUSSION The documentation provided for WG review is in draft form and the EAO requested that it not be made publically available until the public review process starts. Amended documents will be available for public review. Copies of the draft documents and presentations given at the WG meeting are available from staff for the Directors to review.

The proponent (Fortis BC) provided copies of an initial draft AIR and a document setting out what the “valued components” (VC) will be. Valued components are those aspects of environment, economic, social, health and heritage that are considered to be important and have the potential to interact with the project. Using these, the proponent identified key indicators and these will be the focus of the AIR. The VC document sets out the following range of items:

1. Environment • Geophysical Environment • Atmospheric Environment • Water • Fish • Wildlife • Vegetation • Wetlands

2. Economic • Employment and Economy

3. Social • Community and Regional Infrastructure and Services • Land and Resource Use

4. Heritage • Heritage

5. Health • Human and Ecological Health

Each of these is broken down further to identify the key indicators and will be looked at under the following headings:

a) Context and boundaries b) Existing Conditions c) Potential Effects(including during construction and operation)

67



d) Mitigation Measures e) Residual Effects and their Significance f) Cumulative Effects and their Significance g) Follow-up Strategy

Each of the above VCs is accompanied by a proposed study area. The study area boundaries change depending on the VC; for example the geophysical study area is a 1 km buffer around the pipeline and the atmospheric study area is a 30 km buffer. In general, the level of detail in the studies will vary with greater detail given to areas closer to the project and more general for wider areas that are further away.

At the meeting comment was made about the broad area that is currently being considered for the pipeline route. This area is a one kilometer buffer. The OGC noted that for its permitting process the buffer area is likely to be 200-300 metres to allow for small shifts in the actual route that will arise during the construction period. The First Nations’ concerns related to the level of detail that they will need to consider in the review. The broader the area to study, the greater the resources needed by the Nation. The exact route will determine the actual impacts; thus it may be that more detailed engagement is required as the actual route emerges to ensure significant heritage interests are not impacted.

The Valued Components review and EAO experience of considering similar proposals for new or expanded gas pipelines informed the draft AIR.

Port Mellon Compressor Station Site The Port Mellon compressor is located on a property owned b FortisBC. The property is located in West Howe Sound Electoral Area and on the McNair Creek Forest Service Road (Attachment A). It is within the Hillside/Port Mellon Official Community Plan area and has the Comprehensive Industrial land use designation. This designation allows for a range of forestry/lumber, light/heavy industrial, manufacturing and commercial support services. The site is zoned RU2 (Rural Two). Bylaw 310 allows for “public use” in any zone and defines "public use" to include natural gas and oil transmission lines. This public use provision reflects the fact that a compressor station is not subject to local government zoning (as per section 121 of the Utilities Act) as it is an integral component of a gas pipeline operation. The compressor site is already configured to accommodate the new compressor unit; there is an available “slot” for the unit. At the WG meeting the representative from FortisBC noted that the unit will be powered by gas. This is likely to add to air pollution/greenhouse gas emission from the site and will be the subject of study within the EA.

FortisBC is investigating the potential for the compressor to be powered by electricity. This is being discussed between FortisBC and BC Hydro to consider the impact of adding this compression station, along with the new one proposed for the Squamish area and the existing one in Eagle Mountain area to the electrical network. The energy draw for these facilities is significant and it will need to be clear that any such addition does not cause problems to the delivery of electricity to existing and anticipated new connections.

Staff note that a building permit will be required for the addition to the Port Mellon compression station if new foundations and a new building (or extension to existing building) is require; staff will inform FortisBC and the EAO of this.

Cumulative Impact The draft AIR includes a table of existing and proposed developments in the wider area. At the working group meeting, staff reviewed this and provided additional information about developments such as the Clowhom and Bear hydro projects to add to the list. There is also a

68



repetition as the Narrows Inlet Hydro project is on the list twice (once under its old name Stl’ixwim); this was also brought to the EAO’s and proponent’s attention. The BURNCO gravel proposal and Box Canyon hydro project are on the list. The Phantom Lake (Hydromax) and Jervis Inlet (Swift Power Corp) proposals are listed as is the Pan Pacific Aggregates Ltd Sechelt Carbonate Project. The District of Sechelt’s proposed Biosolids Handling Facility and the Yrainucap Development Corp proposed Sechelt airport expansion are also on the list.

Staff note that additional power projects in the area should also be added, such as McNair and Sechelt Creeks. Staff will forward a complete list to the EAO and proponent. Staff will inform the District of Sechelt staff regarding the proposal as a whole and the two items on the list that are in the District. Staff will also inform Sechelt Nation, Squamish Nation and Town of Gibsons staff about the EA and the upcoming public consultation period.

EA process timelines (Estimated by EAO and including Public Consultation Periods) The EAO provided a timeline that assumes there are no significant issues or holdups.

• Proponent files Project Description – July 2013 • Section 10 Order (of the Environmental Assessment Act sets out that the project is

reviewable and may not proceed without an environmental assessment) – issued August 1, 2013

• EAO issues Section 11 Order – issued November 5, 2013. The Section 11 Order establishes the direction to the proponent on the scope of the project, what parts of their proposed project will be assessed, what effects will be considered in the assessment and what actions and activities the proponent is responsible for in the assessment. It also sets out required consultation activities and time frames.

• WG review and comment on the VC Selection and the dAIR documents – October 4 to 25, 2013

• Proponent to update dAIR – by Nov 8 • Public comment period for dAIR – Nov 15 to Dec 15

The EAO noted that the current plan is to hold two public meetings for the draft AIR; one will be in Squamish (on Saturday November 16) and the other in Coquitlam area (on Thursday November 21). Staff will inform the Board when details are available. No meeting is proposed for the SCRD area as there is only a minor component of work taking place on the Coast. The SCRD has an opportunity to submit additional comments during this period. This allows for an opportunity to seek advice from the West Howe Sound Advisory Planning Commission, Natural Resources Advisory Committee and other community groups.

• Proponent to update dAIR – by Dec 18 • Final AIR issued by EAO – Dec 24 • Proponent prepares Environmental Assessment Certificate (EAC) Application – Jan 2014

to Jan 2015 • Proponent submits EAC Application to EAO – Jan 2015 • EAO evaluation screening of application – Jan 2015 • Submission of permit applications to OGC – Jan 2015 • Second WG meeting – February 2015 • Public comment period – March 2015

69



ANALYSIS Staff reviewed the draft AIR and did not identify any obvious gaps.

With regard to impact the key issues for the SCRD will arise from the Port Mellon component of the project. Primary concerns will be noise and air quality issues that might arise from the increase in capacity and use of the compressor station in Port Mellon. The draft AIR includes reference to examining these issues. A secondary issue could arise if the Port Mellon and other compressor stations are powered by electricity; the proponent will need to demonstrate that this will not harm hydro supply to the wider area and identify what improvements may be needed to facilitate this. This would need to be considered in the context of cumulative impact and any site specific works will need to be proceeded by an assessment of potential impact, in effect an environmental impact statement if it is presented outside of the context of this EA. Alternatively the EA could include sufficient information to address potential impacts arising from anticipated works to the existing BC Hydro facilities in the area.

The draft AIR could be amended to expressly note that the acoustic and air quality studies will expressly reference the Port Mellon area.

1. We Envision

The project as a whole, especially as it will facilitate the proposed LNG export facility at Woodfibre, could have significant impact and a detailed analysis will be needed. At this point staff concentrated on the potential impact of the Port Mellon compression station expansion.

The site’s use would not change and it is sensible to make use of existing facilities/development rather than develop a new site. Thus the proposal supports focusing growth and concentrating new development within existing areas; thus there is no need to extend services such as roads and so on. This component of the proposal has no direct impact on resource extraction, agriculture, marine/freshwater, housing or transportation. As noted above there is likely to be increased greenhouse gas emission form the site and this will need to be considered during the EA. The draft AIR includes sections on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. Reference is made to emissions from compressor stations as an issue to be studied and where mitigation measures, cumulative effects and follow up strategies are needed.

FortisBC is considering an alternative that will reduce emissions for the site. As the EA moves forward additional information and SCRD comments will be provided on the possible impact of emissions and the ability to alter each compressor’s energy supply from gas to electricity.

2. OCP consistency analysis

The Port Mellon compressor station is within the Hillside/Port Mellon Official Community Plan area. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Industrial land use designation.

3. FN considerations

The following First Nations are members of the working group: Tsleil-Waututh Nation, Squamish Nation, Musqueam First Nation and Kwikwetlem First Nation. There is also a separate but parallel process for engagement with First Nations by the proponent and is overseen by the EAO.

The Port Mellon compressor station is within Squamish Nation territory and the Nation’s Xay Temixw (Sacred Land) Land Use Plan. SCRD staff have examined the plan and did

70



not identify any site specific designation for the Port Mellon site or area. The area seems to be within the broad “Forest Stewardship Zone” that refers to all forested areas within the traditional territory, outside of settlement areas, existing Parks and proposed Wild Spirit Places.

SCRD staff will follow up with Squamish Nation staff to confirm this interpretation.

4. Servicing Considerations – water, sewage disposal, storm water management, solid waste disposal, roads/access, park dedication

There are no servicing implications for the SCRD.

Options 1. Continue Active SCRD Participation in the Environmental Assessment

SCRD staff continue to review the documents and provide additional comments to the Environmental Assessment Office and FortisBC. This will include referring the proposal to the Area F APC and NRAC to provide additional support in reviewing the proposal. Staff will also contact the Squamish Nation, Sechelt Nation, Town of Gibsons, District of Sechelt, Future of Howe Sound Society and the Howe Sound Community Forum; copies of staff reports and Board resolutions will be made available. The SCRD website will be updated and a notice can be added to the SCRD Bulletin Board in the Coast Reporter to inform the wider community about the proposal and the EA.

Staff will provide a report to the December 12th Community Services Committee and Board to be in time to meet the proposed December 15 deadline for public comments. It is likely that some information will be provided as a late item given the tight timeline and the meeting schedule for advisory groups.

Staff support maintaining active participation in the EA process for this proposal. This will allow the SCRD to draw on the expertise that is available in the community and in neighbouring jurisdictions.

2. Reduce SCRD Participation in the Environmental Assessment

SCRD staff would continue to review the EA and inform the Board, however additional efforts to inform the wider community and other interested parties (such as the Squamish and Sechelt Nations) do not take place.

Staff do not support this option as it would prevent the SCRD from being able to access the broader knowledge base in the wider community.

Recommendations Based on the above, Planning staff recommend that:

1. That the Planning and Development Committee receive the report titled “Eagle Mountain – Woodfibre Gas Pipeline Environmental Assessment” and dated November 1, 2013”;

2. AND THAT staff notify the following regarding the upcoming public consultation period for the draft Application Information Requirements (AIR):

a) Squamish Nation;

b) Sechelt Nation;

c) Town of Gibsons;

d) District of Sechelt;

71



e) Islands Trust;

f) Area F Advisory Planning Commission; and

g) Natural Resources Advisory Committee;

3. AND THAT staff refer the draft AIR to the above to seek input to assist the SCRD to submit a full response by the end of the public consultation period;

4. AND THAT staff update the SCRD website and place a notice within the SCRD Bulletin regarding the public consultation period, when the dates are confirmed;

5. AND THAT staff prepare a response for the Board to consider at a meeting in December, prior to the end of the consultation period.

David Rafael, Senior Planner

72



ATTACHMENT A

Compressor Station (parcel lines shown)

Compressor Station (nearby area)

73



Gas Pipeline Route (Port Mellon Area)

74

SCRD STAFF REPORT

DATE: November 7, 2013

TO: Planning and Development Committee- November 21, 2013

FROM: David Rafael, Senior Planner

RE: COAL SHIPMENTS TO TEXADA ISLAND

RECOMMENDATIONS 1. THAT the report titled “Coal Shipments to Texada Island” and dated November 1,

2013, be received; 2. AND THAT the SCRD Board forward the following comments to the Minister of

Environment Port Metro Vancouver and the Ministry of Energy and Mines: a) The SCRD Board is concerned about the potential health and environmental

impacts of coal dust from barge traffic in the Sabine Channel; b) The barges should be covered to prevent coal dust escaping during transport; c) That a full environmental assessment be conducted to allow for

comprehensive public input from people along the entire route and that it includes consideration of: (i) Health Impact Assessment, that includes consideration of coal dust

transfer during barge transport; (ii) Navigational Risk Assessment; (iii) Environmental Management Plan; (iv) Spill Response Plan; (v) Air Quality Management Plan

3. The comments be copied to: a) Squamish Nation b) Sechelt Nation c) Powell River Regional District d) Nicholas Simmons, MLA Powell River Sunshine Coast

75

ANNEX G

Report to Planning and Development Committee (November 21, 2013) Page 2 of 18 Regarding Coal shipments to Texada Island

N:\Planning & Development\6850 Industrial & Mining Development\6850-20 Projects\Texada Coal Transfer\2013-Nov-21 PDC report re Coal shipment to Texada.docx

BACKGROUND At the September 26, 2013 Board meeting the following resolution was adopted:

433/13 Recommendation No. 30 Coal Shipments to Texada Island

THAT a staff report be prepared for information on the issue of shipping of coal to Texada Island.

At the October 24, 2013 Board meeting the following resolution was adopted:

464/13 THAT the correspondence from Nicholas Simons, MLA, Powell River-Sunshine Coast regarding Coal Shipping on Texada Island be received;

AND THAT staff provide a report that addresses the concerns raised regarding increases in coal traffic and include the letter as an attachment;

AND FURTHER THAT that an inquiry be made with the Union of B.C. Municipalities (UBCM) to determine their actions regarding issues raised on increases in coal traffic.

A copy of the correspondence from Nicholas Simons, MLA, is included in Attachment A.

The Texada portion of the project is under review by the Ministry of Energy and Mines. The Fraser Surrey Dock portion is under review by Port Metro Vancouver. SCRD staff confirmed that there is still an opportunity for the SCRD to provide input into the review. The Ministry requested comments by November 22, 2013. Port Metro Vancouver informed staff that the environmental impact assessment report will soon be posted on its website for comments and the comment period will close on December 13.

The project will involve moving coal via the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railway from Wyoming Powder River Basin to the Fraser Surrey Docks (FSD) opposite New Westminster on the Fraser River. The forecast is for the docks to handle two million metric tonnes in 2013, increasing to four million in 2014. The coal would be delivered to Texada by twined barges carrying 8,000 tonnes every two days in 2013, increasing to two barges a day in 2014. The barges would travel through the Sabine Channel between Texada and Lasqueti Islands (Attachment B). The coal would be stored at the Texada quarry, owned by Lafarge Canada Ltd., until there is sufficient quantity to load on ocean going ships for export to Asia.

A formal provincial or federal environmental assessment was not required. However an Environmental Impact Assessment was conducted.

Information about the project can be found at:

Port Metro Vancouver http://portmetrovancouver.com/en/projects/OngoingProjects/Tenant-Led-Projects/FraserSurreyDocks.aspx

Fraser Surrey Docks http://www.fsd.bc.ca/index.php/company/community-outreach/

All articles referred to in this report are available from staff for review.

DISCUSSION The Coast Reporter article (September 8, 2013) stated:

Lafarge has applied to the provincial government for a permit amendment to increase its coal storage capability. The company plans to expand the area that is used to stockpile and trans-ship coal. According to the company, the volume of coal that will need to be stockpiled will increase to 800,000 tonnes. While FSD’s

76

http://portmetrovancouver.com/en/projects/OngoingProjects/Tenant-Led-Projects/FraserSurreyDocks.aspx

http://portmetrovancouver.com/en/projects/OngoingProjects/Tenant-Led-Projects/FraserSurreyDocks.aspx

http://www.fsd.bc.ca/index.php/company/community-outreach/



application is specific up to year five, the full build-out of the proposal is for eight million tonnes of coal to be exported starting in year six.

Lincoln Kyne is Lafarge’s project manager, and André Balfe is the general manager of the Texada quarry. They said the operation is not expanding its footprint, but is removing a section of the aggregate plant on the inland side of the stockpile area. The amount of coal it will stockpile will essentially double, Kyne said.

In 2007, Lafarge upgraded its ship loader, which can handle over 10-million tonnes of material a year. Kyne said that capacity is currently under-utilized. “That’s the reason why we’re investigating options to expand our commodities or change the commodity mix that we have,” he said.

The Texada Island facility currently handles 350 to 400 thousand tonnes of coal from Quinsam off Vancouver Island annually (FSD, September 2013).

Powell River Regional District Board voted to support the project in part due to the economic benefits (around 15 jobs and estimated $750,000 economic benefit to Texada Island) and that the Texada Island Official Community Plan supports mining and development of the economy. The PRRD motion also stated that those responsible for the project must report out on dust levels, water pollution and other environmental concerns quarterly to the public.

The FSD produced a frequently asked questions sheet in September 2013 (available from SCRD staff). It states that:

Before coming to a decision to apply an environmentally benign “binding agent” to prevent fugitive dusting during barge transit, FSD and the barge contractor looked at several other options. The pros and cons of each option were reviewed and evaluated. After careful review it was concluded that applying an environmentally benign “binding agent” to prevent fugitive dusting during barge transit offered the best combination of proven effectiveness, technical feasibility, safety, cost and impact on design and operational plans for the other elements of the project.

Nicholas Simmons (MLA for Powell River and Sunshine Coast) commented that:

No decision on the FSD proposal should be contemplated until a Navigational Risk Assessment, an Environmental Management Plan, a Spill Response Plan, an Air Quality Management Plan, a Health Impact Assessment, and public consultations can be conducted for people and the environment that exist beyond the sand heads at the mouth of the Fraser River. (Correspondence received by SCRD from Mr Simmons and The Local, October 2, 2013)

Mr Tim Howard (Sunshine Coast resident) provided comments on the proposal (Attachment D) along with letters from the Vancouver Health Authority’s Medical Health Officer (MHO) based on the Sunshine Coast (Attachment E) and Coal Dust Free Salish Sea (Attachment F). Additional comments from these letters are included below. Mr. Howard is concerned about the lack of an environmental assessment (EA) conducted by the BC Environmental Assessment Office. He requests that the SCRD support Coal Dust Free Salish Sea’s request to the Minster of Environment that an EA is conducted.

Reports/Studies Accompanying the Proposal

The Fraser Surrey Docks (FSD) website contains several documents that consider different aspects of the proposal. These can be found at:


77




Staff reviewed the following:

The Draft Air Quality Management Plan includes consideration of barge movement to Texada and was designed to assess mitigation measure and confirm the results of the air quality assessment prepared for the Environmental Impact Assessment of the Facility which predicted low air quality impacts localized around the Facility and from the transport of coal by barge to Texada Island. The main issue of concern is fugitive dust from a variety of aspects (such as the loading at the terminals) including coal barge transit. The proposed mitigation will be to load the coal on the barges and wet it to minimize wind transfer; additional detail is provided in Attachment C. Monitoring of loaded and unloaded for coal dust emissions will take place to test whether the mitigation measures are effective. The report notes that “If warranted, based on the data collected, additional mitigation measures will be considered, such as using a dust suppressant or if feasible covering the barge during transport.” The monitoring will take place for at least one year. Reports will be provided quarterly and posted on the FSD website.

The Direct Coal Transfer Facility: Air Dispersion Modelling Assessment document includes consideration of fugitive dust and looks at exhaust from tugboats. The report estimates a peak emission rate for course (PM10) and fine particles (PM2.5.). PM is a measure of particle size equal to a micrometre or one thousandth of a millimetre; 25 to 100 times thinner than a hair. Particles of this size can be breathed in and get deep into one’s airways. The report provides contour maps derived from modelling that show potential concentrations arising from fugitive dust. With respect to barges the information concentrates on an area on the Fraser River, due to the proximity of residences and commercial development. The conclusion drawn is that “the air quality impacts from the barges traveling along the Fraser River are predicted to be negligible.”

The Spill Response Plan sets out the steps to be taken with respect to informing the relevant agencies (such as Transport Canada) and the information that is required by the Provincial Emergency Program.

There are two Community Engagement reports. Phase 1 – Engagement Summary Report Sept 10 2012 to May 12 2013 noted who was consulted near the docks by post and via meetings. This included contacting First Nations, although the document does not list which nations were contacted. The Phase 2 (May 13 to July 31 2013) report noted the two open houses (in Surrey), stakeholder meetings and other outreach efforts; it also included comments received by subject area. Meetings were held with Kwantlen, Qayqayt, Musqueam and Tsawwassen First Nations. FSD did not facilitate any consultation with communities or local governments outside of the area around the docks, such as with the Sunshine Coast. With respect to the Texada terminal a public open house was arranged on Texada Island on August 19, 2013, by Lafarge.

Staff have not found any notices sent to the SCRD regarding the meetings.

Lafarge, in support of its letter of amendment to the Ministry of Energy and Mines, provided some additional reports that consider the potential impacts and mitigation measures at the Texada facility. The main considerations are stormwater management and the design of the loading/unloading facility. No mention was made of coal dust, environmental impact or health impact.

Potential Impact

There is a wider issue regarding the environmental impact of exporting coal to be used as an energy source given the impacts from the burning of fossil fuels and the release of greenhouse gases. However the review of the project is not concerned with this issue. It is only considering localised impacts.

78



There are health impacts from coal dust as it contains a range of toxic elements (e.g. arsenic, lead, mercury and other toxic heavy metals). The Powell River Peak noted that:

BC’s provincial health officer, Dr. Perry Kendall, as well as Dr. Patricia Daly, Vancouver Coastal Health’s chief medical health officer, and Dr. Paul Van Buynder, Fraser Health Authority’s chief medical officer, have all called for an independent health impact assessment of FSD’s proposal.

Staff received a copy of a letter from the Vancouver Health Authority’s Medical Health Officer (MHO) based on the Sunshine Coast (Attachment E). The MHO raises a series of recommendations including that a full Health Impact Assessment be completed. A meeting will take place prior to the SCRD’s Planning and Development Committee between the MHO and Ministry of Energy and Mines staff to discuss the recommendations. SCRD staff will follow up with the MHO on the results of the meeting.

Most of the potential impact from coal dust during transport would be within 500 metres of the rail line and bulk handling terminals as noted in an article in Island Tides (July 4, 2013) which went on to report that:

…a spokesperson for FSD indicated that they would stop operations when the wind exceeded 45 kph (26 knots). Winter storms in Sabine Channel might prove a problem; up to eight loaded barges a day may pass between Texada and Lasqueti Islands (and eight empty, but dusty, returning barges).

Small particles as noted above can infiltrate a person’s lungs and. Standards for coal mining that set out acceptable level of particles in the air for a period of time) however staff have not yet found equivalent ‘acceptable’ levels for areas near transport routes or coals storage areas.

The SCRD received a copy of a letter from Coal Dust Free Salish Sea to the Minister of Environment that raises several issues such as the potential impact of a major spill (Attachment F). The group asks for an environmental assessment to take place. The letter was endorsed by Gibsons Alliance of business of Community Society, Sunshine Coast Conservation Association, and Friends of Gospel Rock Society.

In reviewing the information staff consider that, depending upon the route that the barges take from the Fraser River, the impact of coal dust from is unlikely to be significant for the Sunshine Coast on a day to day basis. This depends on the particle size and the speed/direction of the wind. There may be occasions when the wind is particularly strong that coal dust could reach the coast. Significant events might cause impacts to the Coast. However it would be useful to have detailed information about the potential impacts resulting from barge movement.

Coal dust, depending on the amount, might impact marine vegetation such as eelgrass and glass sponge reefs if it is deposited on the water in sufficient quantities to ‘cloud’ the area and block sunlight. The coal may also include other minerals/metals in such as selenium mercury and arsenic. These are toxic and could have significant localised impact. This is more likely to be an impact near the terminals and is shallow waters. However a spill resulting from a significant event (e.g. a barge being damaged or sinking) could deliver significant amount of coal dust to the SCRD shoreline and material to the sea floor (with potential impact on eel grass, glass sponge reefs and other marine life). Staff do not have the information or resources to determine if this is a significant risk.

Staff note that a community forum is arranged by Alliance4Democracy at the Sechelt Indian Band Hall at 2 pm on Saturday November 23. The invite to the SCRD Board and additional details is included elsewhere in the agenda.

79



Ministry of Energy and Mines Review

As part of the review process, the Ministry referred the proposal to the Ministry of Health and Ministry of Environment. Based upon information provided by the Powell River Regional District staff report (dated September 10, 2013), both Ministries are expected to set up appropriate monitoring schedules to ensure compliance with legislation, regulations and standards. SCRD staff are following up to determine if these were completed and are available.

Union of British Columbia Municipalities Position

Staff contacted UBCM to find out if it has taken a position regarding the proposal. The response noted that:

UBCM does not have any resolutions that speak specifically to the transportation of coal through the Georgia Strait and/or to Texada Island. (UBCM) currently have a number of resolutions regarding transportation of Hazardous Materials and response to environmental disasters. The resolutions call for training of emergency teams, fiscal responsibility of spills by industry responsible for the spill, building community emergency response capacity , ecosystem and wildlife restoration funding, and restricting oil tanker travel through BC’s coastal waters.

Input from SCRD

The project is under review by the Ministry of Energy and Mines. As noted above, SCRD staff confirmed that there is still an opportunity for the SCRD to provide input into the review. Pending receipt of additional information noted above, staff suggest that the following comments be sent to the Minister of Environment, Port Metro Vancouver and the Ministry of Energy and Mines:

a) The SCRD Board is concerned about the potential health and environmental impacts of coal dust from barge traffic in the Sabine Channel;

b) The barges should be covered to prevent coal dust escaping during transport;

c) That a full environmental assessment be conducted to allow for comprehensive public input from those along the entire route and includes consideration of:

(i) Health Impact Assessment, that includes consideration of coal dust transfer during barge transport;

(ii) Navigational Risk Assessment; (iii) Environmental Management Plan; (iv) Spill Response Plan; (v) Air Quality Management Plan

And that the comments could be copied to:

(i) Squamish Nation (ii) Sechelt Nation (iii) Powell River Regional District (iv) Nicholas Simmons, MLA Powell River Sunshine Coast

David Rafael, Senior Planner

80



ATTACHMENT A

81



82



ATTACHMENT B

Source: Fraser Surry Docks website http://www.fsd.bc.ca/index.php/company/community-outreach/

83




ATTACHMENT C

84



ATTACHMENT D

85



86



ATTACHMENT E

87



88



89



90



ATTACHMENT F

91



92

N:\Land Administration\3090 Development Variance Permits\3090-20 DVP Bylaw 310\DVP 310.177 (Johnson)\2013 PDC Report Nov 21.doc

SCRD STAFF REPORT

DATE: October 31st, 2013

TO: Planning & Development Committee – November 21st, 2013

FROM: Gregory Gebka, Planner

RE: Development Variance Permit Application No. 310.177 (Johnson)

RECOMMENDATION(S) THAT Development Variance Permit No. 310.177 be forwarded to the Board for approval subject to: Receipt and consideration of any Ministry of Transportation and shíshálh Nation comments concerning the application.

BACKGROUND The Regional District received an application to vary Section 507.1(a) of Zoning Bylaw No. 310, in order to relax the minimum required building setback to ocean. OWNER/APPLICANT: Garfield Johnson LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 2, Block 6, District Lot 1326, Plan 7274, PID: 004-351-908

(“the property”) ELECTORAL AREA: Halfmoon Bay LOCATION: 8347 Redrooffs Road ZONE: R1 PROPOSED VARIANCE: to vary the minimum required building setback to ocean from 7.5

metres to 3.17 metres PARCEL AREA: 2600 m² +/- (0.64 acres +/-) DISCUSSION The property is located at 8347 Redrooffs Road (see Attachment ‘A’ showing site location). The lot contains two dwellings and an auxiliary building (“gazebo”). Originally approved under Building Permit No. 6228 in 1999, the gazebo building contains an attached deck and stair case structure that was recently altered without a valid Building Permit, resulting in a bylaw compliance matter. Following a recent bylaw compliance review, and becoming aware of potential siting concerns, the applicant immediately stopped construction work and voluntarily applied for a Development Variance Permit for the additional deck and staircase structures, part of which is not fully constructed. Copies of the 1999 Building Permit site plan and building review summary were referenced during the application review (and available upon request). According to these records, the gazebo building was to be sited at least 7.5 metres from the natural boundary of ocean. It appears, however, the natural boundary depicted on the original site plan may not be accurate and/or the Gazebo building may have been inadvertently sited incorrectly. In addition, the building’s actual location was not verified at the time of final occupancy. Considering these circumstances, the Planning & Development Division recommends that the Development

93

ANNEX H

Staff Report to Planning & Development Committee

DVP Application No. 310.177 (Johnson) Page 2 of 3


Variance Permit application pertain to both the portions of existing, approved building sited within the required 7.5-metre ocean setback and all proposed new deck and staircase additions within 7.5 metres of the ocean. A site plan showing the existing gazebo, along with existing and proposed attached deck and staircase structure are enclosed as Appendix ‘A’ to the draft Development Variance Permit. Existing buildings on the lot account for approximately 190 m² (7.5%) lot coverage, which is well below the maximum 35% permitted under the zoning bylaw. The applicant submitted rationale in support of their development variance application, enclosed as Attachment ‘B’. The applicant’s main rationale focuses on the deck structure providing safer access in compliance with Building Code and minimizes the potential ocean wave attack. As part of their rationale, the applicant explains that the existing structures are aging and the proposed staircase (to replace an existing wood walkway) is located 2.5 metres farther away from the natural boundary of ocean. The applicant contends that pedestrian access and movement around the gazebo remains the same as before except on a raised landing instead of a ground level walkway. CONSULTATION APC Comments The Halfmoon Bay APC considered the application at its meeting of October 22nd. The APC expressed no concerns with the proposed setback variance, so long as it applies only to the existing gazebo building and structure. The APC also requested staff correct some errors in the draft permit relating to the type of building and requested variance, which caused confusion at the APC meeting. Staff confirm the errors in the draft permit have been corrected. In addition, the updated draft also includes a general condition that the gazebo building not be used as a dwelling, as only two dwellings (principal and auxiliary) are permitted on the property, both of which already exist. Referral Agencies The Development Variance Permit application was referred to the Ministry of Transportation & Infrastructure (MoTI), shíshálh Nation and SCRD Building Division for comments. The shíshálh Nation may request a preliminary field reconnaissance to determine the presence of any archaeological deposits within the area. Owner / Occupier Notification Adjacent property owners and residents located within 50 metres of the property were also notified of the application by letter. To date, no adjacent property owners have expressed any concerns over the proposed siting of ‘gazebo’, attached deck and staircase structures. Staff corresponded with an adjacent property owner concerning a separate matter involving retaining walls constructed at or over a property line shared with the applicant. The applicant recently confirmed that all retaining walls constructed on their property are within a 2-metre height limit and, for this reason, qualify as a ‘fence’ that may be located up to the property line. The affected neighbour contends that the applicant’s father (who previously owned the property and is now deceased) previously constructed retaining walls onto their property without their permission, leaving a liability concern to them. Building staff confirm the applicant has commissioned a geotechnical engineer to help address this specific matter, separate from the Development Variance Permit application.

94

Staff Report to Planning & Development Committee

DVP Application No. 310.177 (Johnson) Page 3 of 3


SUMMARY The application concerns permitting an existing gazebo building and adjoining deck/staircase structure located partly within the required 7.5-metre setback to ocean. Rationale for the variance focuses on providing safe and compliant access to the gazebo, with little or no adverse impact on adjacent properties or environmental qualities. ___________________________ Gregory Gebka, Planner Planning & Development Division

95

site map

0 30 60 90 m.Scale: 1:1,000

ATTACHMENT 'A'96

flA. Gwo

Variance Criteria:

All new development should meet the Regional District’s applicable bylaw standards. A varianceis considered only as a last resort. An application for a development variance permit shouldmeet most, if not all, of the following criteria, in order to be considered for approval:

o The variance should not defeat the intent of the bylaw standard or significantly depart from the planningprinciple or objective intended by the bylaw. Please elaborate how the requested variance meets thiscriteria:

The nev rmJ ; I ‘flCLY

F1

AflflflJ1n

_

O The variance should not adversely affect adjacent or nearby properties or public lands. Please elaboratehow the requested variance meets this criteria:

$6c4 5 (c old . cpL &cesrp

___________

ha p

0 The variance should not be considered a precedent, but should be considered as a unique solution to anunusual situation or set of circumstances. Please elaborate how the requested variance meets this criteria:

w;r14 rq

o The variance represents the best solution for the proposed development after all other options have beenconsidered. Please elaborate how the requested variance meets this criteria:

O ççd frkr1r4

751QI1’I %

o The variance should not negatively affect the natural site characteristics or environmental qualities of theproperty. Please elaborate how the requested variance meets this criteria:

m1 wi$ riii4The çirr edhr +LY 1

Ir-

naiw Cr-vn

Page 5 of 5

ATTTACHMENT 'B'97

…./2

DRAFT SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT

DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PERMIT NO. 310.177

TO: Garfield Johnson ADDRESS: 8347 Redrooffs Road Halfmoon Bay, BC V0N 1Y1 This Development Variance Permit is issued for an auxiliary building (“gazebo”) including attached deck and staircase structure subject to compliance with all of the bylaws of the Sunshine Coast Regional District applicable thereto, except those specifically varied or supplemented by this Permit. This Development Variance Permit applies to those lands within the Sunshine Coast Regional District described as follows: Legal Description: Lot 2, Block 6, District Lot 1427, Plan 7134 P.I.D.: 004-351-908 Civic Description: 8347 Redrooffs Road The lands described herein shall be developed strictly in accordance with the provisions, terms and conditions of this Permit and any plans and specifications attached hereto as a schedule and which forms part of this Permit. This Development Variance Permit is issued pursuant to Section 922 of the Local Government

Act for the purpose of locating an auxiliary building (“gazebo”) including attached deck and staircase structure on those lands described herein, and Sunshine Coast Regional District

Electoral Area Zoning Bylaw No. 310, 1987 is specifically varied as follows:

To relax the minimum required building setback to ocean, as required under section 507.1(a) of Zoning Bylaw No. 310, from 7.5 metres to 3.17 metres.

This Development Variance Permit is not a Building Permit. No construction shall commence without prior written consent of the Building Inspector. If the Permittee does not commence the development permitted by this Permit within two (2) years of the date of this permit, this Development Variance Permit shall lapse. This Development Variance Permit is issued subject to compliance with the following terms and conditions:

98

Development Variance Permit No. 310.177 Page 2 of 2

N:\Land Administration\3090 Development Variance Permits\3090-20 DVP Bylaw 310\DVP 310.177 (Johnson)\Draft DV Permit Oct 22 13.doc

General Conditions: (1) Adhere to site plan prepared by Forma Design Inc., attached hereto as Appendix

‘A’; (2) The auxiliary building (“gazebo”) must not be used as a dwelling;

(3) Except as may be authorized by the Minister responsible for heritage conservation, no

person may damage, alter, or remove from a site any object, artifact, feature, material or other physical evidence of unknown origin that may be protected under the Heritage

Conservation Act. In the event of finding a possible archaeological site or artifact immediately stop work and contact:

(a) the Archaeology Branch, Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations; and

(b) the Rights and Title Department, shíshálh Nation (604-740-5600).

Except as specifically provided above, this Development Variance Permit in no way relieves the owner or occupier of the responsibility of adhering to all other legislation of responsible authorities, which may apply to the Lands. AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION No. ____ ADOPTED BY THE SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT BOARD THE ___th DAY OF___________, 2013. ISSUED THIS____th DAY OF _______________, 2013. _____________________________________ Ms. Angie Legault, Corporate Officer SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT

99

APPENDIX 'A'100

planning and development committee …...part 1 (pages 1 – 100) for pages 101 – 210 see part 2,...

Documents