PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Thursday, March …

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Thursday, March 17, 2016 SCRD Boardroom, 1975 Field Road, Sechelt, B.C.

AGENDA

CALL TO ORDER: 9:30 a.m.

AGENDA

1. Adoption of Agenda

PETITIONS AND DELEGATIONS

REPORTS

2. GM, Planning & Development – Special Events Bylaw (Voting – A, B, D, E, F)

Annex A pp 1 - 5

3. Senior Planner and GM, Planning & Development – SCRD Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.148, 2015 (Agriculture Zone) Amendments (Areas B, D, E, F) (Rural Planning Services) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F)

Annex B pp 6 - 18

4. Planner – SCRD Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.161 – Secret Cove Landing Strata Corporation (Electoral Area B) Electoral Area B (Rural Planning Services) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F)

Annex C pp 19 - 27

5. Planning Technician - Development Variance Permit 310.191 (Lenfesty) Electoral Area D (Rural Planning Services) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F)

Annex D pp 28 - 31

6. Planning Technician - Development Variance Permit 310.195 (Austin) Electoral Area B (Rural Planning Services) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F)

Annex E pp 32 - 35

7. Planning Technician - Road Frontage Waiver – MoTI Subdivision File No. 2013-00026 (Sladey) Electoral Area A (Rural Planning Services) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F)

Annex F pp 36 - 38

8. Planner – Proposed New Entry to Sunshine Coast Community Heritage Register – Pender Harbour Cultural Centre (Area A) (Heritage Conservation) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F)

Annex G pp 39 - 44

9. Planning Secretary - Transportation Advisory Committee Recommendation Regarding Sunshine Coast Fixed Link Consultation (Voting – All)

Annex H pp 45 - 47

10. Electoral Area A (Egmont/Pender Harbour) APC Minutes of February 24, 2016 Electoral Area A (Rural Planning Services) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F)

Annex I pp 48 - 50

11. Electoral Area B (Halfmoon Bay) APC Minutes of February 23, 2016 Electoral Area B (Rural Planning Services) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F)

Annex J pp 51 - 54

Planning and Development Committee Agenda – March 17, 2016 Page 2

12. Electoral Area D (Roberts Creek) APC Minutes of February 29, 2016 Electoral Area D (Rural Planning Services) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F)

Annex K pp 55 - 57

13. Electoral Area E (Elphinstone) APC Minutes of February 24, 2016 Electoral Area E (Rural Planning Services) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F)

Annex L pp 58 - 60

14. Electoral Area F (West Howe Sound) APC Minutes of February 23, 2016 Electoral Area E (Rural Planning Services) (Voting – A, B, D, E, F)

Annex M pp 61 - 63

COMMUNICATIONS

15. Mona Helcermanas-Benge for Eoin Finn, dated February 1, 2016. Regarding Letter to Minister of Environment and Climate Change

regarding Woodfibre LNG project and delegation to PDC.

Annex N pp 64 - 89

16. Greg Kyllo, Parliamentary Secretary for the BC Jobs Plan, Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and Minister Responsible for Labour, dated February 16, 2016. Regarding BC Jobs Plan 4-Year Progress Update. (Available online)

Annex O pp 90 - 91

17. Hon. Coralee Oakes, Minister Responsible for the Liquor Distribution Branch and Hon. Peter Fassbender, Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development, dated February 24, 2016. Regarding Initiative to Issue Licences for the Sale of 100% BC Wine.

Annex P pp 92 - 94

NEW BUSINESS

IN CAMERA

That the public be excluded from attendance at the meeting in accordance with Section 90 (1) (a), (e) and (k) of the Community Charter – “personal information about an identifiable individual who holds or is being considered for a position as an officer, employee or agent of the municipality or another position appointed by the municipality”, “the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements…” and “negotiations and related discussions respecting the proposed provision of a municipal service that are at their preliminary stages…”.

ADJOURNMENT

http://engage.gov.bc.ca/bcjobsplan/files/2015/12/BCJobsPlan_4YearProgressUpdate_web.pdf

SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT STAFF REPORT

TO: Planning and Development Committee – March 17, 2016

AUTHOR: Steven Olmstead, GM, Planning and Development

SUBJECT: SPECIAL EVENTS BYLAW

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the report titled “Special Events Bylaw” be received; AND THAT staff be authorized to prepare an updated special events bylaw for consideration at a future Planning and Development Committee meeting which incorporates best practices from other local government jurisdictions.

BACKGROUND

At its May 22, 2014 meeting the Regional Board adopted the following Planning and Development Committee recommendation:

THAT staff write a report on the process for developing a Special Events Bylaw and what it should contain and report back to a future Planning and Development Committee meeting.

This planning task has been carried forward into the 2016 work plan. The issue of special events permitting has arisen in conjunction a growing number of relatively large events in Electoral Areas in recent years.

SCRD Bylaw No. 51 was adopted in 1970 to provide for the health and other protection of persons attending special events. The bylaw contains provisions regarding:

attendee threshold for permitting, property owner authorization, health considerations (domestic water supply; toilet facilities; garbage collection and

removal; food and drink storage, dispensing and use; public health facilities; and emergency medical facilities)

safety and security matters such as vehicle parking; internal security on the site; traffic control (including access routes for emergency vehicles);

adequate arrangements have been made for fire protection may require a cash bond sufficient to cover the obligations undertaken by the applicant.

Staff have searched SCRD archives and no record of a permit ever being issued under Bylaw 51 has been found.

ANNEX A

1

Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee – March 17, 2016 Special Events Permits Page 2 of 2

2016-MAR-01 PDC Report Re Special Events Bylaw

DISCUSSION

Bylaw 51 addresses the core health and safety concerns associated with the holding and permitting of special events. However, over the years more modern bylaws have addressed matters such as application fees, implementing a “tiered” approach (e.g. minor and major events), specifying a maximum number of events per year, insurance requirements and exemptions from permitting requirements.

Staff reviewed special events bylaws from around the province as outlined in Attachment A. When the first generation bylaws were established in the early 1970s, 1000 attendees was the point at which a permit was required. Over the years, for public health and safety reasons, numerous jurisdictions lowered the threshold to 500 and more recent bylaws have used a tiered system with 200 being the attendance trigger for a permit.

Organizational and Intergovernmental Implications

In terms of intergovernmental implications it could be anticipated that agencies such as Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, Vancouver Coastal Health and RCMP would welcome a more coordinated approach than is presently occurring.

Timeline for next steps or estimated completion date

A draft bylaw could be brought forward in April or May for committee review and referral to APCs.

STRATEGIC PLAN AND RELATED POLICIES

The 2016 Planning and Development work plan contains the following task: Report on the process for developing a Special Events Bylaw and what it should contain and report back to a future Planning and Development Committee meeting CONCLUSION

Staff recommend that a new Special Events Permit bylaw be prepared and brought back to a future Planning and Development Committee meeting for consideration.

Reviewed by: Manager Finance GM Legislative CAO X-JL Other

2

Jurisdiction

Attendee

Threshhold

for Permit: "Tiered Approach"

Max.

events/yr/

site Fees Security

External Agency

Authorization: Exemptions:

Administered/

permit issued

by:

SCRD (existing)

1000 no no none may require cash bond to cover obligations

MHO, RCMP, Local Assistant to the Fire Marshall ,

no Secretary/Regional Board

Town of Gibsons

n/a n/a n/a none at discretion of Director of Parks or CAO

application cc'd to RCMP and Fire Department

This bylaw is a "Public Places Regulation Bylaw" and applies only to municipal land.

Director of Parks or CAO

Squamish-Lillooet RD

200 3 classes of event: 200-499 attendees; 500-999; 1000+

no $100; $200; $300+ per additional 1000 over 2000)

Save harmless plus security deposit of $0, $5,000 or $10,000 depending on class of event. $2 million or $5 million liability insurance based on class of event with RD as named insured

MHO for all events plus RCMP, MoTI and FLNRO for Class 2 and 3 events

Yes, exemptions possible from some info requirements

CAO, must consult with appropriate Electoral Area Director before issuing

RD of Nanaimo

500 no no none, but applicant pays all costs (policing traffic control, etc)

yes, estimated policing costs; Insurance - no

MHO; RCMP. Fire Inspector;

(a) which is licensed by any government or governmental agency having the jurisdiction to do so,(b) held by a board of school trustees under the School Act,(c) held by a municipality or by the Regional District under the Municipal Act, or(d) held within the boundaries of a city, town, district or village municipality under theMunicipal Act.

Secretary

Fraser Valley RD

200 3 classes of event: 200-499 attendees; 500-999; 1000+

no $200, $400 and $400+$200 per 1000 participants in excess of 2,000

Yes, rates for 3 classes of event on private or Crown Land $5K/$7.5k; $15K/$20k and $40k/$60k. Minimum $5 million insurance.

Written certification from MHO, RCMP, LAFC, Fire Chief or Forest Fire Ranger. P.Eng certification where tempoary structures involved.

Board

Attachment "A" to Special Events Bylaw report

3

Comox Valley RD

1000 and for which a fee is charged

no no max, but bylaw provides for permits for multiple events on same land in same year

n/a yes, for policing and other costs MHO, Chief of Police, fire inspector

a) which is licensed by any government or governmental agency having the jurisdiction todo so;b) Held by a board of school trustees under the School Act;c) held by the Regional Districtd) held within the boundaries of a city, town, district or village municipality;e) held within indoor facilities in accordance with the Fire Services Act

CAO

Thompson-Nicola RD

500 no no $100 Minimum $2,000 bond, minimum $2 million insurance

Notify property owners within 1 km of the site; MHO; RCMP; Office of Fire Commissioner/ BC Forest Service Protection Branch/ Local Fire Chief (as necessary); Liquor Control and Licensing Branch

1. any annual celebration, fair, fund raising event or public assembly organized by or sponsored by a duly constituted and recognized society incorporated under the authority of the Society Act of BC, ratepayers organization, a duly constituted and recognized community association or fire department which holds valid and adequate third party liability insurance operating within the Regional District; 2. any congregation, gathering or event that is to take place in any permanent building, structure or facility lawfully existing on thedate of adoption of this Bylaw and affixed to land lawfully zoned by the authorities having jurisdiction for the holding of such congregation, gathering or event; property zoned for "Outdoor Assembly Use" and "Comprehensive Entertainment Commercial"

Regional Board

Central Okanogan RD

500 no no $1 security may be required at Board discretion

MHO, RCMP, Fire Marshal, Forest Ranger

none Regional Board

RD of Fraser-Fort George

1000 No tiers, but staged approval process. Preliminary Approval and Final Approval. Board may require PIM as part of preliminary approval process.

no $200 Save harmless agreement plus $2,000,000 (or an amount acceptable to the RD) Comprehensive General Liability policy with RD named as an insured

MHO, RCMP, MoTI, BC Forest Services Protection Officer, or where applicable, theappropriate Volunteer Fire Department Chief. Emergency plan required for events >5,000 attendees

yes, licensed theater or other place of assembly licensed or zoned by the authority having jurisdiction for the holding of such congregation, gathering or event

Regional Board

4

Peace River RD

4,000 (2,000 if lcohol served)

no no none, but applicant pays all costs (policing traffic control, etc)

none; Insurance - no Fire Chief, Environmental Health Officer, RCMP, Provincial Liquor Inspector

a) which is licensed by any government or governmental agency having the jurisdiction to do so; b) held by a board of school trustees under the School Act; c) held by a municipality or by the Regional District under the Municipal Act.

not specified

Village of Pemberton

300 Yes, Minor (<1000)

and Major Events

(1,000+). Also

where event lasts

12 consecutive

hours or more, or

less than 12 hours

but continues into

the next day.

no Minor - $200;

Major - $300

plus per

$100/200/30

0per

additional

thousand

attendees to

10000/20000

/20000+.

Save harmless, liability insurance ($5

million per occurrence), include

Village as named insured. Security

deposit of $1,000 for a minor event

and minimum $10,000 for major

event.

MHO, RCMP. Office

of Fire

Commissioner,

Liquor Inspector,

MoTI, BC Safety

Authority; ALC, Min

of FLNRO

a. Special Events held or sponsored by the Village;

b. Special Events held by Sea to Sky School District No. 48

& No. 93;

c. Special Events held outdoors that can facilitate the

attendance of less than 300 people and applied for by

a local business or a community or rate payer

association incorporated under the

Society Act and operating within the Village unless the

event is a “Commercial Event"

d. Special Events facilitated by organizations or groups

that hold a valid Parks & Public Space Use Permit issued

by the CAO.

CAO

City of Abbotsford

200 or more

people if

there is no

Beverage

Garden; or

by any

number of

people if

there is a

Beverage

Garden.

Small (<500),

Medium (500-999)

and Large (>1,000)

attendees

$200

(application

fee)

security amount to be determined

by the City Manager based on the

size, duration, and nature of the

event and associated risk; the

Applicant must provide the City with

a written undertaking to indemnify

and save harmless the City; $2

million insurance ($5 million if site

includes a highway)

MHO; Chief

Constable, Fire

Chief, ALC, MoTI.

FLRNO, adjacent

owners

City Manager

5



AUTHOR: David Rafael, Senior Planner

Steven Olmstead, General Manager, Planning and Development

SUBJECT: BYLAW 310.148 (AGRICULTURE ZONE) AMENDMENTS

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. THAT the report titled Bylaw 310.148 (Agriculture Zone) Amendments be received;

2. AND THAT Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.148, 2015 be considered for amended second reading as follows:

a. Amend section 1021.2 (2) to read:

(2) Subject to section 1021.6(1) of this bylaw, one auxiliary dwelling unit may be located within: (a) a single family dwelling; or (b) where there is no second single family dwelling in the form of a

manufactured home on a parcel, above an existing single-storey agricultural building subject to section 502(8) of this bylaw.

b. Amend section 1021.4 to include:

(3) Despite Sections 1021.2 and 1021.6 only one single family dwelling is permitted on:

(a) Lot 12, Block E, District Lot 905, Plan EPP47776;

(b) Lot 13, Block E, District Lot 905, Plan EPP47776.

Despite section 1021.10(1) each single family dwelling described within this section will have a ground floor area not exceeding 170 square metres and a total floor area not exceeding 280 square metres.

c. Amend section 1021.6 to read:

(1) Subject to sections 1021.2(1) and 1021.2(2) of this bylaw no more than three dwellings shall be located on a parcel such that there are no more than two single family dwellings and one auxiliary dwelling unit.

(2) Despite section 1021.10(1) of this bylaw, the floor area of a single family dwelling shall not exceed 350 m².

ANNEX B

6

Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee (March 17, 2016) Report Bylaw 310.148 (Agriculture Zone) Amendments Page 2 of 13

2016-Mar-17 PDC report Bylaw 310.148 (Agriculture Zone) Amendment

3. AND THAT a public hearing concerning Bylaw No. 310.148 be scheduled to be held on Tuesday April 12 at 7:00 p.m. at the SCRD Board Room, 1975 Field Road, Sechelt;

4. AND THAT the Director __________ be delegated as the Chair and Director __________ be delegated as the Alternate Chair for the public hearing;

5. AND FURTHER THAT staff bring forward a report to a future Planning and Development Committee to address anomalies where property zoning and Agricultural Land Reserve designations do not align.

BACKGROUND

At the Board meeting of January 14, 2016, the following resolutions were adopted:

004/16 Recommendation No. 5 Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.148, 2015 (AG Zone)

THAT the staff report dated December 1, 2015 and titled “Draft Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.148 – Additional Modifications” be received;

AND THAT Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.148, 2015, as amended, be forwarded to the Board for Second Reading;

AND THAT a Public Hearing be scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 17th, 2016 at the SCRD Board Room, 1975 Field Road, Sechelt;

AND FURTHER THAT Director Winn be delegated as the Chair and Director Lewis be delegated as the Alternate Chair for the public hearing.

018/16 THAT the report concerning “Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.148, 2015” be received;

AND THAT “Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.148, 2015” be read a second time as amended.

Subsequently staff found that Bylaw 310.148 was altered after the December 10, 2015, Planning and Development Committee regarding the number of dwellings that are permitted on a parcel. There was no time to address this prior to the public hearing and to amend the bylaw at third reading would trigger the need for a new public hearing. Thus the public hearing that was scheduled for February 17 was cancelled.

In the staff report to the March 2015 Planning and Development Committee, it was noted that there are a number of properties where the Rural Three zone (which will be replaced by the AG zone) and Agricultural Land Reserve boundaries are not consistent. These site specific zoning changes, though essentially housekeeping in nature, are best considered as separate bylaws. Then, if there are any concerns or issues associated with a property, the more general amendment to create the new AG zone will not be affected.

7



Staff also found that a site specific designation currently in Bylaw 310 was not carried forward in Bylaw 310.148. The property (706 Leek Road) was rezoned to allow for subdivision but limited the number of dwellings such that there would be no more than two dwellings. With a maximum floor area specified for each dwelling. Bylaw 310.148, attached to this report, has been amended accordingly.

DISCUSSION

Staff recommends that Bylaw 310.148 should be amended to clarify the total number of permitted dwellings and reschedule the hearing. This should be achieved by altering Section 1021 (6) to establish that the maximum number of dwellings is three - two single family dwelling and one auxiliary dwelling. Section 1021.2 (2) also would be amended to replace the word “and” with “or” to clarify that only one auxiliary dwelling is permitted but that it could be realized in one of two ways. Bylaw 310.148, attached to this report, has been amended accordingly.

A number of properties have inconsistent zoning and ALR boundaries. This has arisen for a number of reasons such as: properties being excluded from or included in the ALR but zoning did not change at that time; map error; and zoning reflecting land use rather than ALR designation (park and assembly uses is the main example of this).

With regard to the properties where there zoning and ALR boundaries are not consistent staff consider that addressing this could cause significant delay and potentially complicate moving Bylaw 310.148 forward. By introducing proposals to consider these properties would restart the referral process and move consideration of Bylaw 310.148 back several months.

Staff consider that it is important to move forward with amending Bylaw 310 to incorporate the proposed AG zone. This will address the current mismatch between SCRD zoning and ALC legislation for the majority of sites currently in the ALR.

A staff report setting out property by property analysis and proposals could be brought forward at a future Planning and Development Committee. Proposals could be the subject of one or more bylaw amendments.

A public hearing should be rescheduled for Tuesday April 12, 2016 and held in the SCRD Boardroom commencing at 7:00 pm.


N/A

CONCLUSION

Prior to holding the public hearing for Bylaw 310.148, staff identified additional amendments that were needed to clarify the total number of dwellings and to incorporate site specific limitations. Staff also note that zoning and ALR boundary inconsistencies raised in March 2015 had not been addressed.

Staff consider that Bylaw 310.148 as amended should proceed to a public hearing on April 12, 2016 in the SCRD Boardroom.

8



With regard to the zoning and ALR boundary inconsistencies, staff consider that attempting to accommodate this within the context of Bylaw 310.148 would add complications and significant delay to addressing current mismatch between SCRD zoning and ALC legislation for the majority of sites currently in the ALR. Staff propose bringing forward a report to address the boundary inconsistencies to a future Planning and Development Committee.

Reviewed by: Manager Finance GM X - SO Legislative CAO X - JL Other

9



SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT

ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 310.148, 2015 A bylaw to amend the Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Bylaw No. 310, 1987

The Board of Directors of the Sunshine Coast Regional District in open meeting assembled enacts as follows: PART A – CITATION

1. This bylaw may be cited as the “Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.148, 2015”.

PART B – AMENDMENT

2. Amend Sunshine Coast Regional District Electoral Area Zoning Bylaw 310, 1987 as follows: (a) Column I of Table II in Section 509 and sections 601.2(3), 601.9, 602.7, 611.1(5) and

611.9 by deleting the words “horticultural sales” and replacing them with “horticultural product sales”;

(b) Column I of Table II in Section 509 and sections 1001.3(2), 1001A.3(1), 1001B.3(2), 1001D.3(2), 1011.4(7) and 1011A.4(9) by deleting the words “riding stable and academy” and replaced with “horse riding, training or boarding facility”;

(c) All textual references to “RU3”, “RU3A” and “RU3B” are replaced with “AG” and all

textual references to “Rural Three”, “Rural Three – A”, and “Rural Three – B” are replaced with “Agriculture”;

(d) Amend Part II by replacing and adding new definitions, as listed on Appendix A to this bylaw;

(e) Part III by replacing “RU3 Rural Three” and “RU3A Rural Three - A” with “AG Agriculture”;

(f) Schedule A to Bylaw 310 is amended by rezoning all lands zoned RU3 (Rural

Three), RU3A (Rural Three A) and RU3B (Rural Three B) to AG (Agriculture). (g) Part X by deleting sections 1021, 1021A and 1021B and replacing with the following:

10



AG Zone (Agriculture) 1021 Permitted Uses 1021.1 The following uses are permitted in the AG zone:

(1) agriculture; (2) farm or farm operation; (3) single family dwelling subject to section 1021.6 of this bylaw; (4) auxiliary dwelling unit subject to section 1021.6 of this bylaw; (5) agricultural product sales subject to sections 1021.7(2) and 1021.7(4) of this bylaw; (6) animal slaughter or processing subject to section 1021.8(1) of this bylaw; (7) farm research and education subject to section 1021.7(5) of this bylaw; (8) creamery subject to sections 1021.7(4) and 1021.8(4) of this bylaw; (9) winery or cidery subject to sections 1021.7(3) and 1021.8(3) of this bylaw; (10) brewery, distillery or meadery subject to sections 1021.7(4) and 1021.8(4) of

this bylaw; (11) agritourism excluding tourist accommodations except as permitted under

section 1021.5 of this bylaw; (12) food and beverage service lounge auxiliary to a brewery, cidery, distillery,

meadery or winery subject to section 1021.7(3) of this bylaw; (13) home occupation subject to Part 502(10) of this bylaw; (14) bed and breakfast subject to Part 502(11) and section 1021.5(2)(c) of this

bylaw.

Additional Permitted Uses 1021.2 On a parcel exceeding 1 hectare the additional permitted uses are:

(1) (a) one manufactured home, up to 9 metres wide, for housing:

(i) the parcel owner’s immediate family; (ii) farm workers;

or (b) a second single family dwelling, where authorized by the Agricultural

Land Commission in response to a non-farm use application.

(2) Subject to section 1021.6(1) of this bylaw, one auxiliary dwelling unit may be located within:

(a) a single family dwelling; or (b) where there is no second single family dwelling in the form of a

manufactured home on a parcel, above an existing single-storey agricultural building subject to section 502(8) of this bylaw.

(3) horse riding, training or boarding facility subject to section 1021.8(2) of this

bylaw.

11



1021.3 On a parcel equal to or exceeding 8 hectares the additional permitted use is:

(1) marihuana production facility.

Site Specific Uses

1021.4 (1) A garden supply centre is permitted on Lot 17, District Lot 682, Plan 13714.

(2) An additional dwelling to create a duplex is permitted on Lot B, Block H, District Lot 903, Plan 1866 in place of a second single family dwelling.

(3) Despite Sections 1021.2 and 1021.6 only one single family dwelling is permitted

on:

(c) Lot 12, Block E, District Lot 905, Plan EPP47776;

(d) Lot 13, Block E, District Lot 905, Plan EPP47776.

Despite section 1021.10(1) each single family dwelling on the two lots described within this section will have a ground floor area not exceeding 170 square metres and a total floor area not exceeding 280 square metres.

Temporary Uses

1021.5 (1) The AG zone is designated as a temporary use permit area for the purpose of permitting temporary agritourism campgrounds auxiliary to agriculture or a farm operation in Electoral Areas B, D and E.

(2) A campground approved under a temporary use permit under this section shall:

(a) be situated on a parcel having an area of at least 2 hectares and classified

for property tax assessment purposes as a farm; (b) not exceed 5% of the parcel area; (c) not exceed 10 campsites, except that where a bed and breakfast is situated

on the same parcel the combined number of bed and breakfast guest rooms plus campsites shall not exceed 10;

(d) be either connected to a community sewer facility or have on-site sewage disposal facilities in place that are in accordance with current regulations pursuant to the Health Act.

12



Number and Size of Dwellings 1021.6 (1) Subject to sections 1021.2(1) and 1021.2(2) of this bylaw no more than three

dwellings shall be located on a parcel such that there are no more than two single family dwellings and one auxiliary dwelling unit.

(2) Despite section 1021.10(1) of this bylaw, the floor area of a single family

dwelling shall not exceed 350 m².

Areas of Agricultural Buildings, Structures and Uses

1021.7 (1) The parcel coverage of all buildings and structures used as part of a park, including biodiversity conservation, passive recreation, heritage, wildlife and scenery viewing, shall not exceed 100 m².

(2) Agricultural product sales are permitted auxiliary to a farm if:

(a) all of the farm product offered for sale is produced on the farm on which the

retail sales are taking place, or

(b) the total sales area, both indoors and outdoors, for all agricultural products does not exceed 300 m² and if at least 50% of that sales area is limited to the sale of farm products produced (i) on the same farm; or (ii) by an association, as defined by the Cooperative Association Act, to

which the owner of the farm on which the agricultural product sales take place belongs.

(3) A food and beverage service lounge auxiliary to a brewery, cidery, distillery,

meadery or winery: (a) shall neither exceed:

(i) a floor area of 100 m²; (ii) an indoor seating capacity of 30; nor (iii) an outdoor area of 50 m².

(b) may serve alcoholic beverages other than produced on the same farm,

provided that the beverages are sold:

(i) as single servings for immediate consumption within an area conforming to subsection 3(a); or

(ii) in a special event area operated in accordance with a special event endorsement issued under the Liquor Control and Licensing Regulation.

13



(4) A, brewery, cidery, creamery, distillery, meadery or winery may include: (a) preparing and storing their processed products; (b) a retail sales area subject to section 1021.7(2) of this bylaw; (c) on-site tours.

(5) The parcel coverage of all buildings, structures used solely for farm education

and research shall not exceed 100 m². Conditions of Use

1021.8 (1) At least 50% of animals slaughtered and farm product processed,

packaged or stored by an animal slaughter or processing facility shall be reared and produced on the same farm.

(2) A horse riding, training or boarding facility shall not contain more than 3 horse

stalls per hectare to a maximum of 40 horse stalls per parcel.

(3) A winery or cidery shall have: (a) at least 50% of the farm products used in wine or cider products produced

on the same farm, or (b) a land area more than 2 hectares, and

unless otherwise authorized by the Agricultural Land Commission, at least 50% of the total farm product for processing supplied by a British Columbia farm under a minimum three-year contract.

(4) A brewery, creamery, distillery or meadery must have at least 50% of the farm

products used in producing beer, creamery products, distilled spirits or mead produced on the same farm.

Siting

1021.9 (1) Except as otherwise provided for in this section, no building or structure shall be sited within:

(a) 5 metres of a front or rear parcel line; (b) 1.5 metres of a side parcel line, except where the side parcel line abuts a

highway, in which case the minimum setback to side parcel line shall be 4.5 metres.

(2) Agricultural and farming activities, uses, buildings and structures shall be sited a

minimum distance from a parcel line, as follows:

14



use of land, building or structure

parcel line setback

front or abutting ALR all other

apiary beehives 5 metres to front

1.5 metres to abutting ALR

1.5 metres

agricultural buildings, structures, or outdoor storage areas, except as otherwise specified under this section.

5 metres 5 metres

agricultural buildings, structures, or outdoor storage areas having confined livestock areas including up to 1 AU of swine.

10 metres 15 metres

agricultural buildings, structures, or outdoor storage areas having confined livestock areas including more than 1 AU of swine.

25 metres 30 metres

animal slaughter or processing 25 metres 30 metres

food and beverage service lounge 10 metres 15 metres

greenhouse containing no artificial lighting 5 metres 5 metres

greenhouse containing artificial lighting 15 metres 15 metres

kennel, including outdoor runs 10 metres 15 metres

agricultural product sales except in the form of an open air stand 5 metres 5 metres

agricultural product sales in the form of an open air stand 1.5 metres 5 metres

agritourism campground (where permitted) 25 metres 30 metres

agricultural waste storage facility 25 metres 30 metres

chemical storage structure 10 metres 10 metres

marihuana production facility 60 metres 60 metres

mushroom growing medium preparation and storage 25 metres 30 metres

soilless medium preparation 10 metres 15 metres

soilless medium storage 5 metres 7.5 metres

15



(3) Agricultural and farm activities, uses, buildings and structures shall be situated a minimum distance from the natural boundary of a watercourse or waterbody, as follows:

Parcel Coverage

1021.10 Parcel coverage shall not exceed 15%, except:

(1) residential buildings and structures, including those auxiliary to a residential use, shall not exceed a parcel coverage of 10%;

(2) greenhouse parcel coverage, exclusive of all other parcel coverage, shall not exceed 50%.

PART C – ADOPTION READ A FIRST TIME this 9th DAY OF April, 2015 READ A SECOND TIME, as amended, this 8th DAY OF October, 2015 READ A SECOND TIME, as amended, this 14th DAY OF January, 2016 PUBLIC HEARING held pursuant to LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT this DAY OF 2016 APPROVED PURSUANT TO Section 52 of the TRANSPORTATION ACT this DAY OF 2016 READ A THIRD TIME this DAY OF 2016 ADOPTED this DAY OF 2016

____________________________ Corporate Officer ___________________________ Chair

use, building or structure watercourse / waterbody setback

confined livestock area containing 10 or fewer AUs animal slaughter or processing agricultural waste storage facility mushroom barn composting or compost storage chemical storage structure wood waste storage

15 metres

confined livestock area containing more than 10 AUs seasonal feeding areas field storage of agricultural solid waste

30 metres

16



Appendix A to Bylaw No. 310.148 1. Part II of Zoning Bylaw No. 310 is amended by deleting the following definitions:

“farm” “horticultural sales” “horticulture” “riding stable and academy”

2. Part II of Zoning Bylaw No. 310 is further amended by inserting the following definitions:

“agricultural building” means a building used in conjunction with agriculture, including a farm operation and, where permitted under this bylaw, may contain accommodation in the form of an auxiliary dwelling unit or sleeping unit for farm workers;

“agricultural product sales” means the use of land, buildings or structures for the sale of horticultural products, dairy, eggs, meats, apicultural products, aquacultural products, creamery products, wines, ciders, beers, meads, or distilled spirits, which are produced on the same land or, where permitted under this bylaw, transported from elsewhere;

“agricultural unit” or “AU” means an equivalent live farm animal weight corresponding to 455 kg for livestock, poultry or farmed game, or any combination these equaling 455 kg;

“agricultural waste storage facility” means land, building or structure used to contain agricultural liquid or solid waste or other biosolids for a beneficial use such as composting, or disposal;

“agritourism” means temporary and seasonal activities auxiliary to a farm operation such as farm tours, hay rides and fish ponds that promote or market agricultural products grown, raised or processed on a parcel classified for assessment purposes as a farm;

“animal slaughter or processing” means slaughtering livestock, or cutting, eviscerating, sectioning, deboning, smoking, curing or packaging meat or meat products. Where the context requires, it also means a provincially licenced animal slaughter and processing facility; “confined livestock area” means an area of land or building where non-grazing livestock are kept or secured such as by a structure such as a fence, wall or landscape barriers, and includes poultry coops, pens and outdoor runs, stables, feedlots, paddocks, corrals, exercise yards, and animal holding areas, but does not include a seasonal feeding or grazing area;

“creamery” means a facility where milk and cream are processed and where butter or cheese are produced;

“farm” or “farm operation” means an agricultural business conducted as an integrated unit on land comprising all or part of a parcel or group of parcels, contiguous or not, and involving any of the following activities:

growing, producing, raising or keeping animals or plants, including mushrooms, or the primary products of those plants or animals;

clearing, draining, irrigating or cultivating land;

using or storing farm machinery, equipment, devices, materials and structures;

agricultural activity on, in or over land in accordance with the Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act;

17



“farm research and education” means land, buildings or structures dedicated to researching, promoting and teaching methods of agriculture and farming; “greenhouse” means a translucent-clad structure that is used for horticulture and is of sufficient size for one or more persons to work within it;

“horse riding, training or boarding facility” means the use of land, buildings or structures for the keeping of horses being trained and cared for, which may also include training and instructing equestrian riders;

“horticultural product sales” means the use of land, buildings or structures for the sale of fruits, vegetables, herbs, flowers or ornamental plants that are grown and produced on the same farm or otherwise on the same parcel;

“horticulture” means the cultivation of fruits, vegetables, herbs, flowers and ornamental plants;

“livestock” means domestic farm animals including poultry, bees reared through apiculture, fish or other aquatic animals raised through aquaculture;

“manufactured home” means a transportable prefabricated structure, whether ordinarily equipped with wheels or not, that is designed, constructed or manufactured to be moved from one place to another and to be used for residential use by a single family. The structure normally conforms to the CSA Z240 series standards of the Canadian Standards Association for manufactured homes;

“poultry” means domestic birds raised for the consumption of eggs or meat such as chickens, ducks, turkeys, geese, pheasants, quail, game birds and ratites;

“sales area” means floor area or land area where customers may freely peruse, select and purchase products that are prepared, stored and displayed for sale;

18


TO: SCRD Planning & Development Committee – March 17, 2016

AUTHOR: Gregory Gebka, Planner

SUBJECT: Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.161 - Secret Cove Landing Strata Corporation

(Electoral Area B)

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. THAT the report titled “Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.161 – Secret Cove Landing Strata Corporation” be received;

2. AND THAT Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.161,

2015 be given Third Reading; 3. AND THAT following Third Reading, Bylaw No. 310.161 be forwarded to the Ministry of

Transportation & Infrastructure for approval pursuant to section 52 of the Transportation Act;

4. AND FURTHER THAT Bylaw No. 310.161 be forwarded to the Board for adoption.

BACKGROUND

At its meeting of January 28th, 2015, the Board adopted the following Planning & Development Committee recommendation:

Recommendation No. 8 SCRD Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.161, 2015 (Secret Cove Landing Strata Corporation)

THAT the staff report titled “Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.161 – Secret Cove Landing Strata Corporation (Electoral Area B)” be received;

AND THAT the registered owner for Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.161, 2015 be identified as Strata Corporation VR757;

AND THAT Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.161, 2015 be amended to incorporate the provision requiring a minimum 50% land area denoted on Strata Plan VR757, District Lot 4545, be undivided and undeveloped open space;

AND THAT Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.161, 2015 be forwarded to the Board for Second Reading, as amended;

ANNEX C

19

Staff Report to SCRD Planning & Development Committee Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.161 - Strata Corporation VR757 Page 2 of 3

2016 Report to March 17 PDC Bylaw No. 310.161 Secret Cove Strata Corp

AND THAT a Public Hearing be scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 18th, 2016, at the Coopers Green Community Hall located at 5500 Fisherman’s Road, Halfmoon Bay;

AND FURTHER THAT Director Mauro be delegated as the Chair and Director Nohr be delegated as the Alternate Chair for the public hearing.

At its January 28th meeting the Board also gave Bylaw No. 310.161 second reading.

A public hearing concerning Bylaw No. 310.161 was held on February 18th, as scheduled, and the report of the public hearing is included in Attachment A. This report summarizes the public hearing and recommends how to proceed with Bylaw No. 310.161.

Strata Corporation VR757 (the “applicant”) has applied to amend its zoning in order to legitimize residential use of 30 strata units. Originally developed as part of a resort complex in 1979, various strata units within the complex have over the years been occupied or rented out as residences rather than as tourist accommodations. Of those that are currently occupied, strata units are varyingly used as either residences or as tourist accommodation. DISCUSSION

Ten people attended the public hearing, including chair, alternate chair and staff. None of those attending expressed concerns with the application. One letter, received from an adjoining property owner, was read out. The letter expressed concerns over:

required and available number of residential parking spaces on the strata property whether the applicant has adequate contingency reserve fund for long term repair,

maintenance and replacement of infrastructure, including road maintenance along a private easement located on their property

vacant restaurant / pub as a possible fire and safety hazard rusted drain pipes leaching drain water on neighbours’ property sink holes appearing in the parking lot

With the exception of required parking, the adjoining property owner’s concerns should be addressed by means other than this zoning bylaw amendment application. Additional off-street parking could be required on a site-specific basis at a rate other than currently specified under the zoning bylaw (1.2 parking spaces per ‘apartment’ dwelling unit). However, to do so, further evidence of a residential parking deficiency should be apparent. Staff did not see such evidence at the time the applicant identified 37 parking spaces designated for residential use – although, this was during the winter season when many strata units are unoccupied while parking spaces, both residential and commercial, are substantially underutilized. To consider the matter, the Board could choose one the following options:

(1) Request further information from the applicant to more precisely determine residential parking demand and establish a site-specific parking rate to adequately meet the parking demand; or

(2) Require off-street parking using the rate established for ‘apartment’ (1.2 parking spaces per dwelling unit) and defer any detailed consideration of total combined off-street parking until such time as there is a development application to re-develop the vacant restaurant / pub.

20

Staff Report to SCRD Planning & Development Committee Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.161 - Strata Corporation VR757 Page 3 of 3

2016 Report to March 17 PDC Bylaw No. 310.161 Secret Cove Strata Corp

Deferring a detailed analysis of total combined off-street parking could result in putting the onus on other (commercial) strata owners to someday give up some of their off-street parking spaces to eliminate any shortage in residential off-street parking. However, it would seem by Policy 15.6(h) of the Official Community Plan (OCP), the community envisions considerably less commercial floor area (175 m²) mixed with multi-family residential units than currently constructed and unoccupied on the site. Such policy would likely prevent any expansion of commercial floor area, unless this maximum specifically varied following an application from the applicant. Timeline for next steps or estimated completion date

In the event the Board gives Bylaw No. 310.161 Third Reading, the bylaw will be forwarded to the Ministry of Transportation & Infrastructure for approval pursuant to section 52 of the Transportation Act.

Communications Strategy

In the event Bylaw No. 310.161 is adopted, it will be posted to the SCRD website. STRATEGIC PLAN AND RELATED POLICIES

Consistent with Halfmoon Bay OCP.

CONCLUSION

The zoning bylaw amendment application is an opportunity to legitimize residential multi-family use and to ensure on-site servicing, off-street parking and other amenities are adequate for the potential mix of current and future uses. With the exception of adjoining property owner having various concerns and issues with the applicant, no major concerns were expressed at the recent public hearing. Noted concerns over required and available off-street parking may be deferred until such time as a development application is made to redevelop any of the two ‘commercial’ strata units. A copy of Bylaw 310.161 is included in Attachment B.

Reviewed by: Manager Finance GM X-SO Legislative CAO X-JL Other

21

ATTACHMENT A

22

23

24

25

26

ATTACHMENT B


ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 310.161, 2015

A bylaw to amend the Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Bylaw No. 310, 1987 The Board of Directors of the Sunshine Coast Regional District in open meeting assembled enacts as follows: PART A – CITATION

1. This bylaw may be cited as the “Sunshine Coast Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 310.161, 2015.

PART B – AMENDMENT

1. Amend Sunshine Coast Regional District Electoral Area Zoning Bylaw 310, 1987, Part VIII by: (a) consecutively re-numbering sections 821.2 through 821.5 to sections 821.4 through

821.7; and

(b) inserting immediately following section 821.1:

Site Specific Uses 821.2 In addition to the uses permitted in section 821.1, the following use is

permitted on Strata Lots 1-30, Strata Plan VR757, District Lot 4545: (1) one dwelling per strata lot. 821.3 A minimum 50% of the land area denoted on Strata Plan VR757, District

Lot 4545, shall be undivided and undeveloped open space. PART C – ADOPTION READ A FIRST TIME this 28th DAY OF MAY 2015 READ A SECOND TIME this 28th DAY OF JANUARY 2016 PUBLIC HEARING held pursuant to LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT this 18th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016 APPROVED PURSUANT TO Section 52 of the TRANSPORTATION ACT this DAY OF 2016 READ A THIRD TIME this DAY OF 2016 ADOPTED this DAY OF 2016

____________________________ Corporate Officer ___________________________ Chair

27



AUTHOR: Sven Koberwitz, Planning Technician

SUBJECT: Development Variance Permit 310.191 (Lenfesty)

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the report titled Development Variance Permit 310.191 (Lenfesty) be received;

AND THAT Development Variance Permit 310.193 to vary the maximum allowable floor area for auxiliary buildings from 150 m2 to 193.5 m2 to allow for the construction of a workshop; be issued.

BACKGROUND

The SCRD is in receipt of a development variance permit application to legalize an existing 193.5 m2 workshop. The workshop was the subject of a building permit issued in 2010 where it was required to remain open so as to not exceed the maximum allowable floor area for auxiliary buildings. At some point prior to final inspection the workshop was completely enclosed, thereby qualifying it to be counted as an auxiliary building, which resulted in the total floor space exceeding the allowance within Bylaw 310. The applicant is now requesting a variance to allow the workshop to remain enclosed and the building permit to be completed.

Owner/Applicant: Charles Lenfesty Legal Description: Lot 11 Block C District Lot 2631 Plan 19009 P.I.D.: 007-045-115 Electoral Area: D – Roberts Creek Civic Address: 3359 & 3365 Sunshine Coast Highway Land Use Zone: CR1 OCP Land Use: Country Residential Proposed Variance: To vary the maximum allowable floor area for auxiliary buildings from 150

m2 to 193.5 m2. Parcel Area: 11,870 m2

DISCUSSION

Options and Analysis

In June 2010 building permits were issued to allow two shipping containers to be located on the property to be used as storage by the applicant. Subsequently, in August 2010 another permit was issued to allow for a roof to be constructed, between the two containers, creating an “open carport” which would not count towards the auxiliary building floor area limits. At some point prior to the final inspection the building was completely enclosed to create a 193.5 m2 workshop.

In addition to the workshop that is the subject of this application, several other auxiliary buildings of varying sizes exist on the property. The applicant will be required to either remove, or reconfigure the existing buildings to meet the allowable floor area limits. This must be done prior

ANNEX D

28

Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee Development Variance Permit 310.191 (Lenfesty) Page 2 of 4

DVP 310.191 PDC Report.docx

to completing the building permit that was issued for the workshop and issuance of the development variance permit.

The subject property fronts the Sunshine Coast Highway and is located between Roberts Creek Road and Marlene Road. At 1.18 hectares (2.93 acres) is significantly larger than many of the surrounding properties, especially those on the south side of the highway. At 1.18 hectares the maximum allowable floor area for auxiliary buildings is 150 m2. It should be noted that were the property 130 m2 larger (0.01 %) it would qualify for 200 m2 of allowable auxiliary building floor area applicable to parcels 1.2 hectares and above.

While the variance requested is quite large compared to the total floor space permitted, the property only falls short by 130 m2 from qualifying for the next bracket of auxiliary floor area allowance in which the building would be permitted. Therefore, planning staff are willing to support this application at this time. Support is contingent upon removing the additional auxiliary buildings referenced above. See Attachment A for site plan.

29



Option 1 – Recommended Option Issue the variance with the condition that all other auxiliary buildings be reconfigured or removed from the property. This will enable to applicant to maintain the existing enclosed workshop.

Option 2 Deny the variance. The applicant will need to reconfigure the workshop so it is no longer enclosed. The existing 150 m2 limit for auxiliary building floor area will continue to apply.

Organization and Intergovernmental Implications

This application was referred to the shíshálh Nation. No comments or concerns were noted, however a Preliminary Field Reconnaissance has been requested prior to any future work involving ground disturbance.


Owners and occupiers within 100 metres of the subject parcel were notified. No comments have been received to date.

The application was referred to the February 29, 2016 meeting of the Roberts Creek APC. The APC recommended supporting the variance with the condition that other auxiliary buildings be modified or removed from the property.


Not Applicable

CONCLUSION

The SCRD has received an application to vary the maximum allowable floor area for auxiliary buildings from 150 m2 to 193.5 m2. The intent of this variance request is to allow a previously constructed workshop to become legal since it is over the allowable floor area limit. Due to the relatively large size of the subject property and the fact that it is only 130 m2 short of qualifying for 200 m2 of auxiliary building floor area, planning staff support this variance application.

Reviewed by: Manager Finance GM X – SO Legislative CAO X – JL Other

30



ATTACHMENT A - SITE PLAN

31




SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PERMIT 310.195 (AUSTIN)

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the report titled Development Variance Permit 310.195 (Austin) be received;

AND THAT Development Variance Permit 310.193 to vary Section 502.8(a) and (b) of Zoning Bylaw 310 in order to relax the maximum allowable floor area for an auxiliary dwelling from 55 m2 to 58 m2, be issued;

BACKGROUND

The SCRD is in receipt of a Development Permit application to vary Section 502.8(a) and (b) of Zoning Bylaw 310 in order to relax the maximum allowable floor area for an auxiliary dwelling from 55 m2 to 58 m2. The intent of the application is to allow an existing cottage to be classified as an auxiliary dwelling once a new single family home is built on the property. Because the floor area of the cottage is over the allowable limit of 55 m2 for auxiliary dwellings, a variance is being requested to avoid structural alterations to the cottage in order to reduce floor area.

The subject property is located in a residential area on Northwood Road in Halfmoon Bay, across from a large undeveloped parcel of Crown land.

Owner/Applicant: Richard W. Austin and Bonita M. Austin

Legal Description: Lot 10 Block 3 District Lot 1330 Plan 11394

P.I.D.: 009-073-655

Electoral Area: Halfmoon Bay

Civic Address: 8035 Northwood Road

Land Use Zone: R2

OCP Land Use: Residential B

Proposed Variance: To vary Section 502.8(a) and (b) of Zoning Bylaw 310 in order to relax the maximum allowable floor area for an auxiliary dwelling from 55 m2 to 58 m2.

Parcel Area: 2306.7 m2 (0.57 acres)

DISCUSSION

Options and Analysis Bylaw 310 allows parcels over 2000 m2 to contain a single family dwelling and an auxiliary dwelling limited to 55 m2 in floor area. An existing cottage with a floor area of 58 m2 currently serves as a residence for the applicant while a new single family dwelling is being built on the property.

Once the new single family dwelling is constructed the applicant wishes to designate the existing cottage as the auxiliary dwelling (Site Plan – Attachment A). Since it is over the 55 m2

ANNEX E

32

Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee Development Variance Permit 310.195 (Austin) Page 2 of 4


floor area limit a variance will be required to avoid any alterations that may be necessary to reduce the floor area. The existing cottage was likely built prior to the existence of the SCRD; no building permits were found on file with the Building Department.

The new home is a 1498 sqft rancher, currently under construction. A new septic field, registered with Vancouver Coastal Health, is being installed to service the new home. The cottage is serviced by its own exisitng field.

Figure 1 - Location Map

Planning staff consider the variance request to be minor and to not defeat the intent of the bylaw due to the minor increase in allowable floor area and due to the fact that the cottage was likely built prior to the introduction of auxiliary dwelling floor area limits.

Option 1 – Recommended Option Issue the variance. The existing cottage will be legal for use as an auxiliary dwelling.

Option 2 Deny the variance. The applicant will be required to reduce the floor area of the existing cottage or decommission it as a dwelling by remove the cooking facilities prior to receiving final occupancy for the new single family home currently under construction.

Organizational and Intergovernmental Implications This application was referred to the shíshálh Nation. No comments have been received to date.

33



The SCRD Building Department conducted a site visit on March 2, 2016 and had no concerns with the application.

Communications Strategy Owners and occupiers within 50 metres of the subject parcel were notified. No comments have been received to date.

The application was referred to the February 23, 2016 meeting of the Halfmoon Bay APC where a recommendation to support the variance was made.

Figure 2 - Existing Cottage


Not Applicable

CONCLUSION

The applicant wishes to allow for an existing cottage to serve as an auxiliary dwelling once the construction of a new single family dwelling is complete. The existing cottage has a floor area of 58 m2 which is over the maximum allowable floor area of 55 m2. In order to avoid structural alterations a variance is being requested to allow the existing cottage to remain unaltered. The variance being requested is relatively minor and involves an existing building, therefore planning staff support this application.


34



ATTACHMENT A

35




SUBJECT: Road Frontage Waiver – Subdivision File No. 2013-00026 (Sladey)

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the report titled Road Frontage Waiver – Subdivision File No. 2013-00026 (Sladey) be received;

AND THAT the requirement for 10% lot frontage onto a road be waived for subdivision of Lot B Block 34 District Lot 1392 Plan 22426 on Harbour View Road in Pender Harbour (MOTI Subdivision File No. 2013-00026).

BACKGROUND Section 512 of the Local Government Act requires that all newly created lots have a minimum 10% parcel frontage onto a highway unless a local government waives the requirement. The SCRD Board must waive the lot frontage requirement for the above referenced subdivision to proceed.

DISCUSSION

Options and Analysis

A copy of the proposed subdivision is attached as Attachment ‘A’. The application involves a two lot subdivision of the subject property fronting both the Sunshine Coast Highway and Gulfview Road. The subject property is located within both the ‘G1’ and ‘C’ subdivision district and each new is well above the minimum size requirements of the respective subdivision zones.

While lot 1 will have sufficient frontage along the Sunshine Coast Highway, however remainder lot B will have less than 10% frontage along Gulfview Road.

Preliminary Layout Approval has been issued by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure and therefore the Ministry has accepted the proposed access points. Given that the access has been approved as part of the subdivision, the Planning and Development Division supports the frontage waiver request.

The MOTI referral was received in January of 2013 and was referred to the Area A Advisory planning Commission (APC). At its meeting of February 2013, the Area A APC expressed support for the subdivision, as proposed.

STRATEGIC PLAN AND RELATED POLICIES Not Applicable.

ANNEX F

36

Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee Road Frontage Waiver – Subdivision File No. 2013-00026 (Sladey) Page 2 of 3

2013-00026 Frontage Waiver Report for PDC.docx

CONCLUSION A waiver for the 10% frontage requirement is required by the SCRD Board for the above mentioned subdivision application to proceed. Preliminary Layout Approval has been granted by the Approving Officer, therefore planning staff support the frontage waiver request.


37

Staff Report to Planning and Development Committee Road Frontage Waiver – Subdivision File No. 2013-00026 (Sladey) Page 3 of 3

2013-00026 Frontage Waiver Report for PDC.docx

ATTACHMENT ‘A’

38


TO: SCRD Planning & Development Committee - March 17, 2016

AUTHOR: Gregory Gebka, Planner

SUBJECT: PROPOSED NEW ENTRY TO SUNSHINE COAST COMMUNITY HERITAGE REGISTER

PENDER HARBOUR CULTURAL CENTRE (AREA A)

RECOMMENDATION(S)

1. THAT the report titled “Proposed New Entry to Sunshine Coast Community Heritage Register – Pender Harbour Cultural Centre” be received;

2. AND THAT the attached draft Statement of Significance be forwarded to the Area A

Advisory Planning Commission for review and comments;

3. AND THAT following Area A APC review, the attached draft Statement of Significance be forwarded to the Board for endorsement and approval for inclusion within the Sunshine Coast Community Heritage Register;

4. AND FURTHER THAT once registered, the Regional District give notice of the Pender

Harbour Cultural Centre’s inclusion within the Sunshine Coast Community Heritage Register to:

(a) Pender Harbour Living Heritage Society; and (b) Heritage Branch, Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations

BACKGROUND

At its meeting of January 14th, the Board approved the 2016 Planning & Development Department Work Plan, as amended, which includes the following item:

Prepare a Statement of Significance for the Madeira Park Ranger Station to be included on the Sunshine Coast Community Heritage Register (Heritage Conservation-515) Local governments in BC may establish community heritage registers to formally list real property identified as having heritage value or heritage character. A ‘statement of significance’ (SoS) is a key component to this effort, which satisfies Local Government Act (LGA) requirements for documenting the reasons why property is included in a community heritage register, speaking directly to its heritage value or heritage character. An SoS:

summarizes the description, heritage value and character-defining elements of each historic place

ANNEX G

39

Staff Report to Planning & Development Committee Proposed New Entry to Sunshine Coast Community Heritage Register Page 2 of 3 – Pender Harbour Cultural Centre

2016 report to March 17 PDC

reflects modern values concerning history and historic places identifies what part of history a historic place represents, and how and why that is of value

and importance today

The SCRD established the Sunshine Coast Community Heritage Register in 2009 as part of an effort to recognize and promote heritage conservation, which may be accessed at: http://www.scrd.ca/Heritage-Register Once a community heritage register either includes or deletes a property, the local government must give notice:

(a) to the owner of the heritage property in accordance with section 974 of the LGA, and (b) to the minister responsible for the Heritage Conservation Act in accordance with

section 977 of the LGA. In general, an SoS should contain the following information:

natural or community history and/or architecture of the heritage resource significant historical dates, events, or persons photographs depictions other archived information that emphasizes heritage character and value

DISCUSSION: Options and Analysis Efforts to compile an SoS for the Pender Harbour Cultural Centre have been sporadic since 2012, when staff originally contacted various Pender Harbour community representatives concerning the initiative. Both staff and the Pender Harbour Living Heritage Society (PHLHS) undertook research and over time were able to find some historic records, including photographs, of the complex originally constructed as the “Madeira Park Ranger Station”. The PHLHS drafted an SoS in late 2015, which staff have reformatted slightly, as attached. Although staff have collaborated primarily with the PHLHS on the initiative, the draft SoS could be forwarded to the Area A Advisory Planning Commission for input. Organizational and Intergovernmental Implications

N/A

Financial Implications

N/A

Timeline for next steps or estimated completion date

In the event the Board endorses the attached SoS, staff will immediately thereafter add the SoS to the Sunshine Coast Community Heritage Register following relevant notices to the Pender

40

http://www.scrd.ca/files/File/Community/Planning/Heritage%20Register/Sunshine%20Coast%20Community%20Heritage%20Register.pdf

http://www.scrd.ca/Heritage-Register

http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96187_01

Staff Report to Planning & Development Committee Proposed New Entry to Sunshine Coast Community Heritage Register Page 3 of 3 – Pender Harbour Cultural Centre

2016 report to March 17 PDC

Harbour Living Heritage Society and Heritage Branch, Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.


Any new entry to the Sunshine Coast Community Heritage Register is included within an updated, consolidated version, which is posted at http://www.scrd.ca/Heritage-Register.


Registering an SoS for the Pender Harbour Cultural Centre is consistent with Strategic Plan priority to facilitate community development, particularly to collaborate with community groups and organizations to support their objectives and capacity.

CONCLUSION

Following various efforts over time to research and compile historical records, an SoS for the Pender Harbour Cultural Centre has been compiled for the Pender Harbour Cultural Centre for final input, endorsement and registration.

Reviewed by: Manager Finance GM X-SO Legislative CAO X-JL Other

41

http://www.scrd.ca/Heritage-Register

Sunshine Coast Community Heritage Register STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE – PENDER HARBOUR CULTURAL CENTRE

Description of Historic Community Place

The Pender Harbour Cultural Centre consists of a group of buildings located in Madeira Park on the waterfront. Originally constructed as a ranger station, the historic place is now a main social centre for Madeira Park and is comprised of the School of Music, Reading Centre, Harbour Artists and Serendipity Child Care Centre. Heritage Value The Cultural Centre is situated on Block 20, which was part of local pioneer Joe Gonsalves’ 160 acres in 1910. Sometime around 1950, Lot 1 of Block 20 reverted to the Crown, on which the Ranger Station complex was built. The Ranger and his staff administered tree cutting licences and fought forest fires within their district (Pender Harbour, Texada Island, Egmont and Jervis Inlet). Their Forestry vessels were moored at the dock below. BC ranger stations were very busy between 1950 and 1978; though, most were shut down by the early 1980s. The Sunshine Coast Regional District (SCRD) purchased Lot 1 of Block 20 from the Crown for $1 in 1987, at which time the land was stipulated for community use and public recreation purposes, and has been used as such ever since.

Cultural Centre

Attachment A

42

This group of buildings is a good example of one of the few remaining forestry complexes in BC The Cultural Centre is valued as a gathering place for community events and services for both Pender Harbour residents and visitors. World class musicians come to perform, community groups meet regularly, artists create and sell their works, library books are borrowed, kindergarten and child care is offered. Annual events, such as the Chamber Music Festival, draw visitors from near and far. Activities at the Cultural Centre occur as a direct result of Pender Harbour’s energetic volunteers.

Character-defining Elements

Serendipity Child Care Centre, originally the Ranger's office

Reading Centre, originally the Ranger's living quarters

Harbour Artists, originally the Forestry garage

School of Music, originally the Forestry maintenance shop

Garage 1950

Image NA-12179 courtesy of the Royal BC Museum, BC Archives

Forest Ranger building 1950

Image NA-12630 courtesy of the Royal BC Museum, BC

Archives

43

The character-defining elements of the Pender Harbour Cultural Centre include:

typical mid 20th century design used in small BC resource towns

Dutch building style is representative of other Ranger Stations built in that period

green sheet metal roof

original garage door on the Harbour Artists building

paned windows and casings

one of the few remaining Forest Service complexes in BC

Green sheet metal roof

Garage door

44

2016-Mar-17 PDC Cover Report for TAC Recommendation Fixed Link Study



AUTHOR: Autumn Ruinat, Planning Secretary

SUBJECT: TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION REGARDING SUNSHINE COAST FIXED LINK CONSULTATION

RECOMMENDATION(S)

THAT the report titled “Transportation Advisory Committee Recommendation Regarding Sunshine Coast Fixed Link Consultation” be received for discussion.

BACKGROUND

On February 25, 2016, the SCRD Board adopted the following in-part recommendations from the Transportation Advisory Committee meeting of January 11, 2016:

085/16 Recommendation No. 4 Transportation Advisory Committee Minutes (TAC) – January 11, 2016

AND THAT the following recommendations be acted upon:

Recommendation No. 6 Sunshine Coast Fixed Link – Consultation

THAT staff send a letter to the consultant through the Ministry, requesting clarification and a summary of the governmental, public, and institutional engagement opportunities happening on the Sunshine Coast with regard to the Sunshine Coast Fixed Link study;

AND THAT this recommendation be reviewed at the next Planning and Development Committee meeting.

DISCUSSION The above recommendation is being brought forward for review. A letter was sent to the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure on February 26, 2016 and is enclosed as Attachment A. STRATEGIC PLAN AND RELATED POLICIES Support Sustainable Economic Development Facilitate Community Development

Reviewed by: Manager Finance GM X - SO Legislative CAO X - JL Other

ANNEX H

45

Attachment A

46

47


AREA A - EGMONT/PENDER HARBOUR ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION

February 24, 2016

RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE AREA ‘A’ ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD IN THE LIBRARY AT PENDER HARBOUR SECONDARY SCHOOL, 13639 SUNSHINE COAST HWY, MADEIRA PARK, BC PRESENT: Chair Geoff Craig Members Janet Dickin Jim Hall Jane McOuat Catherine McEachern Gary Park Tom Silvey Alan Skelley Alex Thomson ALSO PRESENT: Area A Director Frank Mauro Recording Secretary Kelly Kammerle Public 6 REGRETS: Sean McAllister Randy Picketts Dennis Burnham Gary Park

CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m.

NOMINATIONS FOR CHAIR

Geoff Craig was nominated and elected by acclamation.

1. AGENDA

1.1 The agenda was adopted as presented.

2. DELEGATIONS

ANNEX I

48

AREA A Advisory Planning Commission Minutes – February 24, 2016 Page 2

3. MINUTES

3.1 Area ‘A’ Minutes

The Area ‘A’ APC minutes of January 27, 2016 were approved as circulated.

The following minutes were received for information:

3.2 Halfmoon Bay (Area B) APC Minutes, January 26, 2016 3.3 Roberts Creek (Area D) APC Minutes, January 25, 2016 3.4 Elphinstone (Area E) APC Minutes, January 27, 2016 3.5 Natural Resources Committee Minutes, January 20, 2016 3.6 Planning and Development Committee Minutes, January 21, 2016 4. BUSINESS ARISING FROM MINUTES AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS

5. REPORTS

5.1 OCP / Zoning Bylaw Amendment Application No 432.25 / 337.87 (Ruby Lake Resort Ltd.) The APC discussed the staff report regarding OCP / Zoning Bylaw Amendment Application No 432.25 / 337.87 (Ruby Lake Resort Ltd.) with the following comments:

Why is a statement for economic viability necessary? It was felt this is an unnecessary burden on proponents and is of little use for the SCRD.

Amphitheatre acoustic sound plan not necessary.

Recommendation No. 1

The APC supports the OCP / Zoning Bylaw Amendment Application No 432.25 / 337.87

Have addressed the parking and noise issues Promoting economic development Positive progress and changes have been made

Please note: “Catherine McEachern excused herself from voting on this matter due to a possible conflict of interest which had been previously disclosed.”

49

AREA A Advisory Planning Commission Minutes – February 24, 2016 Page 3

5.2 Regulating Small Scale Wind Energy Systems


The APC recommended supporting the SCRD recommendations with the following concerns/points:

Need small wind energy system defined. It’s felt that 300 kW is too large to be considered small scale. Request staff to revisit this upper limit.

Recommended that the height is defined by hub height to the top of the blade. Should be 1.25 meters x total height of the wind energy system from property line and 1.5

meters from buildings. Concern about the noise and vibration and impact on birds and bats.

5.3 Development Permit with Variance A-42 (Hanson)


The APC recommended supporting the SCRD recommendations with the following points:

APC supports Option 1 with the upgrading of the septic system.

6. NEW BUSINESS

Jim Hall will be resigning from the Area “A” APC as of March 1, 2016.

Gordon Littlejohn has been appointed to the Area “A” APC starting March 1, 2016.

7. DIRECTOR’S REPORT

Round 1 of Budget review Lily Lake Trail should be completed by the Spring General discussion

8. NEXT MEETING March 30, 2016

9. ADJOURNMENT 8:20 p.m.

50


AREA B - HALFMOON BAY ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION

February 23, 2016

RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE AREA B ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD IN THE COOPERS GREEN COMMUNITY HALL AT COOPERS GREEN PARK, 5500 FISHERMAN ROAD, HALFMOON BAY, BC PRESENT: Chair Frank Belfry Members ALSO PRESENT: Area B Director Garry Nohr Recording Secretary Katrina Walters Public 1 REGRETS: Members CALL TO ORDER 7:01 p.m.

1. AGENDA The agenda was adopted with the following amendments:

1. Item 5.2 to be discussed before 5.1

2. New business items:

6.1 Len Pakulak to address the APC 6.2 Discussion about new minute taking practices & possible Board changes to the APC

2. DELEGATIONS

Ray Moscrip Bruce Thorpe Barbara Bolding Alda Grames Wendy Pearson Len Pakulak Joan Harvey

Walter Powell Lorn Campbell Elise Rutland Eleanor Lenz

ANNEX J

51

AREA B Advisory Planning Commission Minutes - February 23 2016 Page 2 3. MINUTES

3.1 Area B Minutes

The Area B APC minutes of January 26, 2016 were approved as circulated.

3.2 Minutes


Egmont / Pender Harbour (Area A) APC Minutes, January 27, 2016 Roberts Creek (Area D) APC Minutes, January 25, 2016 Elphinstone (Area E) APC Minutes, January 27, 2016 West Howe Sound (Area F) APC Minutes, none. Natural Resources Committee Minutes, January 20, 2016 Planning and Development Committee Minutes, January 21, 2016

4. BUSINESS ARISING FROM MINUTES AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS

5. REPORTS


The APC discussed the staff report regarding Small Scale Wind Energy Systems. The following concerns/points/issues respond to specific questions on page 24: a) The proposed definition for a ‘small wind energy system’

-Suggest that 300 kW system is too large and think that 30 kW or less is more reasonable

-Ask the SCRD to give their thoughts on sale of power to BC Hydro as well as roof-mounting structures.

b) Permitting small wind energy systems as an auxiliary use in all zones - The APC generally agrees with use in all zones, but think that small scale wind energy systems would be intrusive in some residential zones, but feel that restrictions should be imposed by lot size and setbacks rather than zones. -Some lots are close together and separation should be large enough so that wind energy systems are not going to be offending people: having many small wind energy systems running constantly in all zones could be a problem for neighbours with noise, vibration, and visual impact.

c) Parcel line setbacks equivalent to one times the tower height - The APC feels that the 1:1 setback is too small, but can’t provide a quantifiable setback based on limited knowledge.

d) Minimum separation to any dwelling on an adjacent lot -The APC also feels that the proposal is too small but can’t provide a quantifiable alternative based on limited knowledge.

e) A limit of one wind energy system per parcel -The APC suggests that large properties in certain zones (industrial, commercial, agricultural) may have more than 1 wind energy system (for example, greenhouses on acreage)

52

AREA B Advisory Planning Commission Minutes - February 23 2016 Page 3

f) A maximum height of 20 meters -The APC suggests that this is the maximum height

The following general concerns/points/issues were noted:

Green energy is the future; we need to find a way to support it. However, noise is the big issue; think that the setbacks are not sufficient for noise, and

visual impact, and the birds (environment). Think we should leave the visual aspect out since it is subjective; but consider noise and

vibration (vibration from wind energy systems through rock can disturb sleep). Visual impact is also a health issue: the flashing of lights and movement can be

detrimental to the health of people with migraines and visual sensitivities. Regarding setbacks, 100 feet is probably a safe distance, but one tower height/length

away on a small lot probably isn’t enough.

Recommendation No. 1 Regulating small scale wind energy systems

In addition to the feedback and rationale provided above, the APC requests that the SCRD consider a site visit for APC members from all areas to the wind energy system at Crystal and Pell Roads in Roberts Creek.

5.2 Development Variance Permit 310.195 (Austin)

Richard Austin was present for the discussion of the Development Variance Permit 310.195 (Austin).

The APC discussed the staff report regarding Development Variance Permit 310.195 (Austin) The following concerns/points/issues were noted:

Was there a permit for the existing structure? Perhaps the building department should

have a look at it to make sure it is up to code, for the owner’s protection. Note that this is an auxiliary dwelling, not an auxiliary building.

Recommendation No. 2 Development Variance Permit 310.195 (Austin)

The APC recommended that Development Variance Permit 310.195 (Austin) be supported.

6. NEW BUSINESS

6.1 Len Pakulak to address the APC: Len Pakulak presented his resignation to the committee and the APC members extended their appreciation for the decade of service that Len provided to the committee.

6.2 Comments on the Minutes/ Board consideration of changes to the APC: -The APC chair recently suggested to the SCRD that the numbering on the minutes should match the agenda and also that it is important that the new style of minute taking continue to reflect the ‘grass roots’ nature of feedback from members to the SCRD. -The Area Director pointed out that discussion comments provides good feedback for the Board Chair in case anything that comes up or needs to be discussed with other directors. Summation may happen, but other comments will stay in there.

53

AREA B Advisory Planning Commission Minutes - February 23 2016 Page 4 7. DIRECTOR’S REPORT

Director Garry Nohr presented his report.

8. NEXT MEETING March 22, 2016


54


AREA D - ROBERTS CREEK ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION

February 29, 2016

RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE AREA D ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD IN THE ROBERTS CREEK LIBRARY AT 1044 ROBERTS CREEK ROAD, ROBERTS CREEK, BC. PRESENT: Chair Bill Page Members Heather Conn Marion Jolicoeur Nicola Kozakiewicz Dana Gregory ALSO PRESENT: Area D Alternate Director Michelle Morton Recording Secretary Peggy Martin Public 1 REGRETS: Area D Director Mark Lebbell Members Barry Morrow Jeffrey Abbott ABSENT: Members Gerald Rainville CALL TO ORDER 7:08 p.m.

NOMINATIONS FOR CHAIR

Nomination for Chair and election of Chair: Bill Page by acclamation. Nomination for Alternate Chair and election of Alternate Chair: Heather Conn by acclamation. Nomination for Secretary and re-instatement of Secretary: Peggy Martin. Board renewal of appointments: Gerald Rainville, Dana Gregory, and Bill Page for 2 years. New APC member: Nicola Kozakiewicz was welcomed. 1. AGENDA The agenda was adopted as presented.

2. DELEGATIONS

2.1 Mr. Charles (Chuck) Lenfesty regarding Development Variance Permit 310.191 (Lenfesty)

Mr. Lenfesty explained that the property had been in his family for 20 years. He described the buildings currently on the site: a small house (32’ by 28’) with nearby small shop and sheds, mobile home, and the larger shop in question. The larger shop was constructed from two 40’ storage containers with a roof over them and a third shipping container was placed across the

ANNEX K

55

Area D Advisory Planning Commission Minutes – February 29, 2016 Page 2 bottom to form a “U”. The shop was enclosed to protect his woodworking tools from damage by rain and humidity, as well as the need for security and safety. However, the enclosed shop has an area greater than 150 m2, thus needing a variance. He stated that if the variance is granted, he would reduce the auxiliary building coverage on the site by opening up the small sheds and attaching one large container to the mobile home.

APC thanked Mr. Lenfesty for his delegation.

3. MINUTES

3.1 Area D Minutes

The Area D APC minutes of January 25, 2016 were approved.

3.2 Minutes


Egmont / Pender Harbour (Area A) APC Minutes, January 27, 2016 Halfmoon Bay (Area B) APC Minutes, January 26, 2016 Elphinstone (Area E) APC Minutes, January 27, 2016 Natural Resources Advisory Committee Notes of January 20, 2016 Planning and Development Committee Minutes of January 21, 2016

4. BUSINESS ARISING FROM MINUTES AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS

5. REPORTS

5.1 Development Variance Permit 310.191 (Lenfesty)

Recommendation No. 1 To vary the maximum allowable floor area for auxiliary buildings from 150 m2 to 193.5 m2.

The APC recommended that the development variance permit 310.191 (Lenfesty) located at 3359 & 3365 Sunshine Coast Highway, Roberts Creek, BC, be supported for the following reasons:

None of the neighbours nor the shishalh Nation have objected to this variance It is a large piece of land, almost 3 acres, which would allow greater coverage by

auxiliary buildings The shop is well separated from the neighbours and the property is well treed Enclosing the shop makes sense for protection of equipment, safety and security Other auxiliary buildings on the site will be modified or repurposed to remove them from

the auxiliary building area calculation

5.2. Regulating Small Scale Wind Energy Systems Recommendation No. 2 Regulating Small Scale Wind Energy Systems The APC recommended that the referral report titled Regulating Small-Scale Wind Energy Systems be received.

56

Area D Advisory Planning Commission Minutes – February 29, 2016 Page 3 The APC recommended the proposed amendments to Zoning Bylaw 310 or 337 to regulate small-scale wind energy systems as follows:

The proposed definition for a ‘small wind energy system’ be accepted, although APC hoped that selling electricity to the BC Hydro grid would be acceptable.

There should be at the least an engineering drawing put before the SCRD – to ensure a standard code of construction.

Permit small wind energy systems as an auxiliary use in all zones. That parcel line setbacks equivalent to one times the tower height be accepted. On

waterfront properties, the setback from the foreshore natural boundary should be at least 15 m.

That the minimum separation to any dwelling on an adjacent lot be 1.5 times the total height of the wind energy system.

A limit of one wind energy system per parcel, but more could be added if technology improves in the future.

The maximum height of 20 metres be accepted.

As well APC considered that this area is more suitable to solar power than wind power. APC was concerned that wind mills could have a devastating effect on migratory and resident birds in the area, and that rotor noise, flicker and shadow are major concerns for neighbours that are not addressed in these guidelines. Some models of turbines may have better performance and fewer detrimental effects, perhaps a list of recommended models should be prepared by SCRD.

6. NEW BUSINESS

7. DIRECTOR’S REPORT

Mark Lebbell (the Area D Director) was unable to attend but sent his alternate, Michelle Morton, to address the APC. The Ecology & Preparedness Forum held February 21, 2016 at the Roberts Creek Hall (arranged by Mark Lebbell, as an independent initiative) was a huge success – between 85-100 people attended, with lots of engaged participation. It became clear from participant reviews of the session, that what is really needed is affordable first aid training. The Roberts Creek Community Association will be looking into offering training in this area.

8. NEXT MEETING Monday, April 25, 2016


57


AREA E – ELPHINSTONE ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION

February 24, 2016

RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE AREA E ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AT FRANK WEST HALL, 1224 CHASTER ROAD, ELPHINSTONE, BC PRESENT: Chair Mary Degan Members Bob Morris Rod Moorcroft ALSO PRESENT: Director Lorne Lewis Alternate Director Laurella Hay Recording Secretary Diane Corbett REGRETS: Members Brenda Thomas Dougald Macdonald Lynda Chamberlin ABSENT: Members Patrick Fitzsimons Jim Gurney Jenny Groves Raquel Kolof Rob Bone CALL TO ORDER 7:02 p.m.

NOMINATION OF CHAIR as per Bylaw No. 453, Section 8 (i) (ii)

Mary Degan was nominated Chair of the Elphinstone Advisory Planning Commission.

AGENDA The agenda was adopted as presented.

MINUTES

3.1 Area E Minutes

The Area E APC minutes of January 27, 2016 were approved as circulated.

3.2 Minutes


• Egmont / Pender Harbour (Area A) APC Minutes, January 27, 2016

ANNEX L

58

Elphinstone (Area E) Advisory Committee Minutes, February 24, 2016 Page 2

• Halfmoon Bay (Area B) APC Minutes, January 26, 2016 • Roberts Creek (Area D) APC Minutes, January 25, 2016 • Natural Resources Advisory Committee Minutes, January 20, 2016 • Planning and Development Committee Minutes, January 21, 2016

BUSINESS ARISING FROM MINUTES AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS

REPORTS


The APC received the staff report regarding regulation of small-scale wind energy systems.

The following points and concerns were raised:

• Potential impacts of windmills include visual, noise, vibration, and the flicker effect, a continual flickering shadow. Windmills could potentially change wind patterns.

• The Sunshine Coast is a poor location to install windmills as winds are obstructed by Vancouver Island. Wind power does not work well here, although the head of Howe Sound gets some good blows.

• Solar is more financially viable than windmills. • There is a lot of sloped area on the coast; a windmill could interfere with views. • There was confusion and a request for clarification regarding the statement in the staff

report on a maximum height of 20 metres that appears to conflict with the information on the table titled “Parcel line setback based on tower height”, which lists larger heights. This inconsistency of information needs clarification by staff.

• There was no comment in the report about interfering with the airport; there are low flying airplanes here.

• Definition of “small scale wind energy system”: o There is a need for clarity regarding the resale of power in the proposed definition.

Does that include feeding power back into the BC Hydro system? • Zones:

o Windmills should not be allowed in residential zones. It is unlikely the setback requirements could be met in a residential area.

• Setback: o There was consensus that the setback be 1.5 times the tower height.

• Minimum separation to any dwelling on adjacent lot: o There was concern about what the impact would be on the neighbouring property once

the tower is built. Would this impact the setback for the neighbour? It puts a limit on future neighbouring construction if there is no dwelling currently. Is the intent to make an imposition on the neighbouring lot? It is like a restrictive covenant, and could restrict the price of the lot. The onus should be on the person building the windmill to situate it so it does not affect the neighbour.

• Number per parcel: o There was a general consensus to allow more than one windmill on a parcel,

depending on parcel size. Probably only one would be needed for personal use. There might be a need for more than one for a farm operation. Potentially allow more than one for larger acreages, as long as they are not used to produce power for resale.

• Height of 20 metres: o Support was expressed for a 20-meter maximum size. It was suggested it might be

possible to do a higher windmill on larger properties as long as it fits the other criteria.

59

Elphinstone (Area E) Advisory Committee Minutes, February 24, 2016 Page 3

NEW BUSINESS

DIRECTOR’S REPORT

Director Lewis gave his report.

NEXT MEETING Wednesday, March 23, 2016

ADJOURNMENT 8:40 p.m.

60


AREA F – WEST HOWE SOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION

February 23, 2016

RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE WEST HOWE SOUND (AREA F) ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AT ERIC CARDINALL HALL, 930 CHAMBERLIN ROAD, WEST HOWE SOUND, BC PRESENT: Chair Fred Gazeley Members Jurgen Kowalewski Laurel Houle Bob Small (in part, by telephone) ALSO PRESENT: Director Ian Winn Recording Secretary Diane Corbett REGRETS: Member Bruce Wallis Alternate Director Kate-Louise Stamford ABSENT: Member Lee Selmes CALL TO ORDER 7:02 p.m.

Bob Small joined the meeting by telephone at 7:05 p.m.

NOMINATIONS FOR CHAIR – per Bylaw No. 453, Section 8 (i) (ii)

Fred Gazeley and Jurgen Kowalewski were nominated Co-Chairs.

Bob Small left the meeting at 7:08 p.m.

AGENDA

The agenda was adopted as presented.

DELEGATIONS

MINUTES

3.1 Area F Minutes

The Area F APC minutes of November 24, 2015 were approved as circulated.

ANNEX M

61

Area F – West Howe Sound Advisory Planning Commission Minutes, February 23, 2016 Page 2

3.2 Minutes


Egmont / Pender Harbour (Area A) APC Minutes, November 25, 2015 and January 27, 2016

Halfmoon Bay (Area B) APC Minutes, November 24, 2015 and January 26, 2016 Roberts Creek (Area D) APC Minutes, November 30, 2015 and January 25, 2016 Elphinstone (Area E) APC Minutes, November 25, 2015 and January 27, 2016 Agricultural Advisory Committee Minutes, November 24, 2015 Natural Resources Advisory Committee Minutes, November 18, 2015 and January 20,

2016 Planning and Development Committee Minutes, November 12, 2015, December 10, 2015,

and January 21, 2016

BUSINESS ARISING FROM MINUTES AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS

There was discussion of the Bylaw Enforcement Notice (BEN) System.

REPORTS


The APC discussed the staff report regarding the regulation of small-scale wind energy systems. The following points were noted:

Proposed definition for a ‘small wind energy system’: – Clarify what is meant by “used for resale”. An example was given of a wind

energy system producing more power than required and the excess going back into the grid, with the owner receiving a credit; would that be considered “resale”?

Small wind energy systems as an auxiliary use: - These systems should not be permitted in residential (R1) zones. Where there are

concentrated residential areas, wind energy systems would create issues. In other zones, the lots should be the larger sized lots.

- Minimum parcel size of 484 square metres, as proposed, is too small. - Suggested minimum parcel size: 4000 square metres for a 20-metre tower.

Parcel line setbacks based on tower height:

- Would be okay for larger parcels. - It depends on where the lot is situated.

Minimum separation to any dwelling on an adjacent lot:

- Look at other jurisdictions, like Ontario and Alberta, before recommending setbacks.

- What if the dwelling on the adjacent lot is built after the wind system is installed?

Limit to one wind energy system per parcel.

Limit maximum height of 20 metres.

We are in a wind shadow of Vancouver Island, with a very poor wind system on the

62

Area F – West Howe Sound Advisory Planning Commission Minutes, February 23, 2016 Page 3

Sunshine Coast. Wind power would be intermittent, and would not make economic sense. There is only one small-scale wind energy system on the coast; the owner has reported that it is not cost effective.

Would like to see a process in place requiring owners proposing to build a wind energy system to consult with neighbours for their input, potentially mitigating issues. Would it require a rezoning? That may be one way to trigger a public meeting, giving all neighbours an opportunity to comment.

NEW BUSINESS

DIRECTOR’S REPORT

Director Winn gave his report.

NEXT MEETING March 22, 2016

ADJOURNMENT 9:07 p.m.

63

Mona Helcermanas-Benge6588 Wellington Avenue, West Vancouver BC V7W 2H9

monahbengeshaw.ca /604-921-6585

February 1, 2016

Garry Nohr,Chair, Sunshine Coast Regional District,

1975 Field Rd.,

_______________________

Sechelt BC VON 3A1Email; Autumn Ruinat [email protected]

Planning Committee

Re: Letter to Minister of Environment and Climate Change regarding Woodfibre LNG project

Dear Mr. Nohr:

Attached please find letters sent from the District of West Vancouver Council, Bowen Island Municipality

and Islands Trust Council to the Honourable Catherine Mckenna, Minister of Environment and Climate

Change. All express concern regarding the Woodfibre LNG project for Howe Sound and request that the

Minister delay any decision regarding the Environment Assessment approval as part of the substitution

agreement with BCEAO. The Village of Lions Bay has passed a motion to send a similar letter and I will

send you a copy when I get it.

Eoin Finn had hoped he could come as a delegate to request this letter in person however we missed

the January meeting and he is unable to come in February due to a series of presentations on Vancouver

Island regarding proposed INC projects there. It isa hopeful sign that the Honourable Catherine

McKenna has already announced the addition of a climate test for greenhouse gases to the EA process.

But as time is of the essence, we hope you may be able to consider Dr. Finn’s request in writing. If you

need the request to come via a delegation then he will apply for the Planning meeting of March 18,

2016. That would also be an opportunity to update you on his LNG presentations in the North and on

Vancouver Island.

Thank you very much for your consideration. We look forward to hearing from you.

Best wishes,

Mona Helcermanas-Benge (for Eoin Finn)

6588 Wellington Avenue

West Vancouver, BC V7W 2h9

ncnahbengeshaw.ca

SCRDRECEIVED I

FE9 0 3 2016

CHAIR

604-921-6585

ANNEX N

64

DISTRICT

I,

VANCOUVEROFFICE OF THE MAYOR

December 3, 2015

The Honourable Catherine McKenna, MPMinister of Environment and Climate ChangeParliament BuildingsOttawa ON K1AOH3

Dear Minister McKenna:

File: 01 75-01

RECEIVED

FELl 03 2016

RE: Proposed Woodfibre LNG Project

We are writing to respectfully request that you delay the federal decision on the EnvironmentAssessment Certificate for the Woodflbre LNG prolect in Howe Sound, British Columbia until yourdepartment has had an opportunity to complete a thorough review of the Assessment.

On October 26, 2015 the Province of British Columbia issued Environmental Assessment Certificate#E15-02 for the Woodfibre LNG Project. We understand that your department’s approval process isprogressing independently and we appreciate the new government’s commitment to environmentaldecisions based on science-based evidence. Given the recent change in govemment we anticipatethat additional time may be required for a thorough review of the potential environmental impacts ofthis proposed project.

The length of our municipality fronts onto Burrard Inlet and the entrance to Howe Sound which isalong the proposed shipping route for LNG tankers. The citizens of West Vancouver have takenvery keen interest in the proposed Woodfibre LNG Project. Please find enclosed our municipalCouncil resolution sent to the BC Environment Assessment Office in July of 2014 outlining WestVancouver’s concerns about the project and given these, our suggestion that LNG tankers bebanned from the waters of Howe Sound.

We welcome your new administration. We are encouraged by the new policies announced andappreciate that timelines may have to be extended to apply these new policies to this proposedproject.

cc:Pamela Goldsmith Jones, MP, West Vancouver Sea to Sky Sunshine CoastJordan Sturdy, MLA, West Vancouver Sea to Sky Sunshine CoastSandra Bicego, Manager, Environment & Sustainability

Attachment

1019966v1

THE CORPORATION OF THE

OF WEST

Sini

Smith, Mayor

750 - 17th Street, West Vancouver, B.C. V7V 3T3 Telephone: 604 925 7000 Fax: 604 925 5999

65

Scoff Bailey, Executive Project.DlrectorLNG Facilities and Coast AreaEnvironmental Assessment Office2nd Floor - 836 Yates StP0 Box 9426 Stn Prov GovtVictoria, BC VBW 9V1

Dear Mr. Bailey:

The District of West Vancouver Council at its July21, 2014 regular meetingreceived a delegation regarding Woodfibre LNG Limited Proposal for LiquefiedNatural Gas Plant in Howe Sound, and passed the following motion:

THAT

1. the District of West Vancouver Council advise the environmentalassessment office of our concerns regarding super tanker safety, roguewaves, foreshore erosion, conflicting watewvay uses, and the LNG terminalin Howe Sound and tanker traffic, in response to thefr request for feedbackon the Woodfibre LNG project; and

2. the District of West Vancouver be included in any existing and futurecommittees, working groups and consultative bodies regarding the tankertraffic and location and operation of the LNG plant; and that

3. the District of West Vancouver Council write to the federal government witha suggestion to ban the passage of LNG tankers in the waters of HoweSound.

Council respecyjjy.,,requests consideration of our concerns and our request forinclusigp_jg1i 1ting and future committees, working groups and consultativebod[eIs4aárdina the tanker traffic and location and operation of the LNG plant.

cc: Council

THE CORPORATION OF THE

DISTRICT OF WEST VANCOUVEROFFICE OF THE MAYOR

July 24, 2014 File: 0332-01

RE: Proposed Woodfibre LNG Project

V

:hael Smith, Mayor

750-17th Street, West Vancouver, B.C. V7V 3T3 Teiephone: 604 925 7000 . Fax: 604 925 5999747254

66

200-1627 Fort St.. Victoria, BC V8R 1H8Telephone (250) 405-5151 Fax (250) 405-5155

Toll Free via Enquiry BC in Vancouver 660-2421. Elsewhere in BC 1.800.663.7867

Email infoimationl%islandstnist.bc,ca

Web .islandstrust.bc.ca

January 22, 2016 File Number: 41 0-20

The Honourable Catherine McKennaMinister of Environment and Climate Change200 Sacré-Coeur BoulevardGatineau QC K1A 0H3

Via Email: ec.ministre-minister.ec(äcanada.ca

Dear Minister McKenna:

Re: Concerns with evaluation of marine shipping during environmentalassessments and suggestions for improving public participation

Congratulations on your recent election and appointment as the federal Minister ofEnvironment and Climate Change. I am very pleased that you have been appointed torepresent the Government of Canada in this capacity.

I am writing to you as Chair of the Islands Trust Council. Please allow me a briefintroduction in case you are not familiar with the Islands Trust. We are a federation ofspecial-purpose local governments created through legislation by the Government of BritishColumbia in 1974. We are charged with the mandate to preserve and protect the islandcommunities, culture and environment of the Salish Sea. This is a unique and special placecomposed of 13 major islands and more than 450 smaller islands covering approximately5,200 square kilometers of land and water - an area almost the size of Prince EdwardIsland. We represent 25,000 citizens and 10,000 non-resident property owners.

I’m writing with two requests. The first is that before you make any decisions aboutprojects that increase shipping through the Salish Sea, you consider our concerns withthe federal government’s methods for evaluating marine shipping risks and impactsduring environmental assessments. We are aware that you might soon be considering adecision regarding the proposed Woodfibre LNG Project. The second request is that youand your staff consider the Islands Trust’s 2015 suggestions to the B.C. EnvironmentalAssessment Office for improving public participation in environmental assessments(attached) during any review of the federal environmental assessment regime.

-. ./2

r’re5erving cloud communities, culture nna cnvfronnientBowen Denman Hornby Gabdola Galiano Gambler Lasqueti Mayne North Pender Salt Spring Satuma South Pender Thetis

IslcrndsTrust

67

The Honourable Catherine McKennaJanuary 22, 2016Page 2

With respect to our first request, we are concerned about the federal government’spractice of administering and concluding a project’s environmental assessment processbefore the Transport Canada’s Technical Review Process of Marine Terminal Systemsand Transshipment Sites (TERMPOL) Review Committee recommendations for thatproject are available. This lack of integration of the processes thwarts your fullunderstanding of the Project’s marine shipping effects and limits the scope of publicparticipation. This concern arises from the Islands Trust’s recent participation in theWoodfibre LNG environmental assessment process. Woodfibre LNG stated in itsapplication that recommendations from the TERMPOL Review Committee will beintegrated into the Project design and operating procedures, but the environmentalassessment process provided no opportunity for the public to comment on the adequacyor environmental and socio-economic consequences of these future mitigationmeasures.

The Islands Trust Council is also concerned that the federal government’s environmentalassessment of new marine terminals has hindered full consideration of the cumulativeeffects of increased marine traffic in the Salish Sea (e.g Woodfibre LNG Project, WesPacTilbury Marine Jetty Project). Limiting consideration of marine shipping impacts to asmall geographic area near the proposed terminal provides no meaningful protection forthe environment. In the case of the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 project assessment, thefederal government is not permitting collected information on the effects of marineshipping to be considered as an environmental effect of the project. These narrowapproaches prevent proper consideration of the regional risks and impacts associatedwith increased shipping, such as increased oil spill risk, reduced air quality, socioeconomic impacts associated with increased marine traffic and use of anchorages, anddisturbance to species at risk, such as our iconic Southern Resident Killer Whales.

We have a legislated responsibility to be vigilant about the impacts of new marineprojects in our jurisdiction and respectfully ask for similar vigilance from your department.We believe that every project that increases shipping in the Salish Sea should beassessed in the context of the cumulative effects of increased marine shippingthroughout our region (see attached list of proposed projects). Special measures arewarranted for Salish Sea projects as this international region is among the mostproductive marine ecosystems in the world. The federal government’s Tanker SafetyExpert Panel’s 2013 report stated that the waters around the southern tip of VancouverIsland were one of four areas in Canada with the highest probability of a large spill. Thereport also stated that the southern coast of British Columbia, including VancouverIsland, was one of two areas in Canada with the highest potential impact from a spill.

./3

68

The Honourable Catherine McKennaJanuary22, 2016Page 3

The Islands Trust Council hears steadily increasing concerns from our constituents aboutincreased vessel traffic and the risk of oil spills that could irrevocably damage coastalenvironments, economies and communities. Trust Council is taking a constructiveapproach to promoting safer shipping. In light of the identified risks, Trust Council isopposed to oil pipeline projects that lead to the expansion of oil export by barge andtanker from Canada’s west coast. Trust Council has also considered these issues in thecontext of a national energy strategy and has asked previous federal governments tophase out crude oil export from Canada’s west coast by tanker and barge.

Thank you for considering our requests. If your work brings you to our coast, I invite you tovisit our islands. I would be more than happy to show you first-hand the shorelines, marinelife and island communities that make this region such a Canadian and global treasure.

Yours sincerely,

Peter LuckhamChair, Islands Trust [email protected]

Attach:1. Islands Trust Chair letter to the BC Environmental Assessment Office re:

improving public participation in environmental assessment, May 26, 20152. Friends of the San Juan Salish Sea Traffic Projections, September 2015

cc: Islands Trust Area MPsJonathan Wilkinson, MP, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment

and Climate ChangeTrust Area First NationsIslands Trust CouncilGambier Island Local Trust CommitteeBowen Island Municipal CouncilSan Juan County CouncilWoodfibre LNGIslands Trust website

69

200-1627 Fort Street, Victoria BC VBR IHSTelephone (250) 405-5151 Fax (250) 405-5155

Toll Free via Enquiry BC In Vancouver 604.660-2421 Elsewhere in BC 1.800.663.7067

Email [email protected]

Web .isIandstrust.bc Ca

May 26, 2015 File No.: 0420-20

Via e-mail: [email protected]

Environmental Assessment Office (EAO)P0 Box 9426 Stn Prov GovtVictoria BC V8W 9V1

Dear Environmental Assessment Office reviewers:

Re: Improving public participation in environmental assessment

On behalf of the Islands Trust Council, I am writing to provide input to BC EnvironmentalAssessment Office’s (EAO) consultation on ways to improve the participation of the public inenvironmental assessment. I understand that the EAO’s intention when seeking public input is toensure that all potential environmental, social, heritage and health effects that might result from theproposed Project are identified for consideration as part of the assessment process.

In recent years, Islands Trust trustees and staff have engaged in environmental assessmentprocesses relating to the proposed Raven Coal Mine Project, the proposed BURNCO AggregateMine Project and the proposed Woodfibre LNG Project. Drawing on their experiences, I’ve heardthe following suggestions for improvement:

• Public comment periods should always be a minimum of 60 days, and these dates shouldbe well-advertised at least 10 days in advance of the public comment period start date intraditional and non-traditional (e.g social media) ways.

• The EAO website should be improved so that it is easy to do keyword searches on publiccomments on applications. This would allow members of the public to see not only what theproponent has to say but also what others have to say in order that they might be properlyinformed on the spectrum of opinion and ideas.

• The EAO should support town haIl style meetings to support democratic dialogue and toallow for question and answer periods to be heard by all participants, rather than just the“open house” format. I’ve heard that the current open house format results in theproponent’s representatives surrounding and overwhelming individual members of thepublic. Town hail style meetings would allow citizens to hear each other’s perspectives.

• Public information sessions/town hall meetings should be hosted as early as practical in theprocess and should be hosted in affected communities selected by the EAO. In the case ofprojects that involve marine shipping, affected coastal communities should have the sameopportunities to learn and comment as communities close to the proposed facilities.

• There should be more training available to local government staff and elected officials tohelp them participate effectively in EAO working groups. Training could include examples ofhow other local governments have structured and funded their participation.

.12

Preserving Island conimtinities, culbire cind envirorInlerl[

IslandsTrust

Bowen Denman Hornby Gabdola Galiano Gambier Lasqueti Mayne North Pender Salt Spring Saluma South Pender Thetis

70

Environmental Assessment OfficeMay 26, 2015Page 2

• Working group meeting minutes should be taken by EAO staff and posted promptly to thewebsite.

• The EAO should formally advise local governments of new environmental assessmentprocesses in their regions through correspondence or notices that can be placed on publicmeeting agendas. There should also be notices to advise of each public consultationopportunity as well as opportunities to participate on EAO working groups.

• The EAO should consider the principles and best practices within the Auditor General ofBritish Columbia’s 2008 report•Pub!ic Participation: Principles and Best Practices for BritishColumbia as it reviews its public consultation and engagement methods.

• To address community concerns that members of the public do not have the same ability asthe proponent to provide expert reports, the EAO should:

o hire the expert consultants and charge the proponent for the consulting costs,and/or

o provide funding to public interest intervenors to hire qualified experts to interpret andverify the proponent’s information and ensure that there is a formal avenue forsubmission of public evidence.

• The EAO should ensure that projects within or adjacent to the Islands Trust Area boundaryspecifically acknowledge the Islands Trust’s provincial mandate to preserve and protect theregion.

The Islands Trust Policy Statement is a statutory document founded in extensive communityconsultation and approved in 1994 by the then Minister of Municipal Affairs. In the Islands TrustPolicy Statement the Islands Trust Council holds that public participation should be part of thedecision-making processes of all levels of government, and that economic opportunities should becompatible with the conservation of resources and protection of community character.

The Islands Trust Council is a federation of local government bodies representing 25,000 peopleliving within the Islands Trust Area and about 10,000 non-resident property owners. The IslandsTrust is responsible for preserving and protecting the unique environment and amenities of theIslands Trust Area through planning and regulating land use, development management,education, cooperation with other agencies, and land conservation. The area covers the islandsand waters between the British Columbia mainland and southern Vancouver Island. It includes 13major and more than 450 smaller islands covering 5200 square kilometres.

Thank you for your consideration,

Yours sincerely,

• 1.

Peter LuckhamChair, Islands Trust Council

cc: Islands Trust CouncilBowen Island Municipal CouncilLisa Gordon, Director, Trust Area ServicesIslands Trust website

71

See rou’so doe Is ml ore rIot nclion

For more details and sowces www son100ns oig/saFeshippng/

0

0a00

NEW ANNUAL VESSEL TRANSITS

) ti sser Surrey

Richardson Int’l (increase in vessel sizel

NeptuneCenterm I

W. Coast ReductionViterro Jd

Westridge CPacific Coast

Roberts Bank 2 CWestshoreDeltaport

OPT

TesoroSeaport Alliance

TOTAL NEW TRANSITS II

2013 TRANSITS

TOTAL 2013 + NEW TRANSITS0

ED

iiENU,

72

Proposed ProposedSalish Sea Current Approved Current Approved

Vessel Traffic Proiections: Capacity & Recent Vessel & Recent Project Status SummaryNew and Expanding Increase in Transits Increase in

Terminals and Refinery Capacity Transits1 Discovery LNG export 0 20 MTPA 0 Estimate: LNG export license issued in June ‘15.

facility 7602 Port Metro Vancouver 0 4 MMTA 0 160 Project permit issued in August14.

(PMV): Fraser Surrey Application amended to direct-loadDocks - Coal ocean-going vessels (OGVs).

3 PMV: Woodfibre LNG 0 2.1 MTPA 0 80 LNG export license issued in Dec. ‘13.export terminal Environmental Assessments underway.

4 PMV: Richardson 3,000,000 5,000,000 Permitted in 2013. No increases to vessel traffic. “AnticipateInternational Grain MT MT that the smaller vessels currently servicing the terminal will beTerminal replaced by larger vessels (Panamax 70,000 MT).’

5 PMV: Neptune 12.5 6 MMTA Coal + 1 352 Phosphate Rock constructionTerminals - Coal and MMTA MMTA Phos. Rock completed in ‘14. Coal upgrades/Phosphate Rock Coal construction to be completed in ‘15.

6 PMV: Centerm 900,000 600,000 268 Estimate: Prolect is in the preliminary designContainer Terminal TEU TEU 130 phase.

7 West Coast Reduction 700,000 1,100,000 40 Estimate: Export via Vanterm Terminal. $9.5 MLtd. Canola MT MT 22 expansion completed in April’15.

8 Viterra Pacific Terminal 2,200,000 3,800,000 190 144 Final project permit issued in July ‘15.—Grain MT MT

9 PMV: Westridge 300,000 590,000 120 696 Facilities application under review byTerminal — Crude Oil BPD BPD National Energy Board until Jan. ‘16.

10 PMV: Pacific Coast 0 575,000 0 46 Project permit issued in Feb. ‘14.Terminals - Canola MT per yr. Expected operational Q3 ‘14.

10 PMV: Pacific Coast 0 2,000,000 0 88 Project permit issued in March ‘15.Terminals - Potash MT per yr.

11 PMV: WesPac LNG 0 3.5 MTPA 0 244 LNG export license issued in May ‘15.12 PMV: Roberts Bank 2 0 2,400,000 0 520 Environmental Impact Statement filed

Container Terminals TEUs in April ‘15.13 PMV: Westshore 2012: 9.9 MTPA 540 86 Project permit issued in January ‘14.

Terminals - Coal 26.1 MTPA

14 PMV: Deltaport Terminal 1,800,000 600,000 538 86 Construction and increases in TEUs— Containers TEUs TEUs underway.

15 Island Gas Connector 0 Pipeline: 0 Estimate: Pipeline project requires US andPipeline & Malahat LNG 30 MTPA 228 Canadian approvals. Applicationsfloating export facility pending. Expected operational in ‘20.

16 Gateway Pacific Coal 0 48 MMTA 0 974 The USACE, WA Dept. of Ecology, andTerminal, Ferndale WA coal + 6 Whatcom County DEISs due in ‘16.

MMTA USACE reviewing Lummi request forpermit denial re. treaty rights violation.

17 Tesoro Refining and 0 5,475,000 0 120 Application submitted June ‘15 for newMarketing Company, bbl/year infrastructure to produce mixed xylenesAnacortes WA for export to Asia.

18 NW Seaport Alliance, 3400,000 2,600,000 — Estimate: Seattle and Tacoma ports’ allianceSeattle and Tacoma WA TEUs TEUs 564 plans to expand container terminals.

Total New, Approved, & Proposed Vessel Transit Increases 5,300 = 43% Increase in Annual Vessel Traffic2013 Total Vessel Transits in the Salish Sea 12,3942013 Transits + New, Approved, & Proposed Annual Transits 17,694

Only OGV traffic included. No local barge traffic, anchoring, cueing, and/or bunkering (ship fueling) transits included.Abbreviations: bbl = barrels, BPD = barrels per day, LNG = liquefied natural gas, MT = metric tonnes,MMTA = million metric tonnes per annum, MTPA = million tonnes per annum, OGVs = Ocean-Going Vessels,PMV = Port Metro Vancouver, THU = twenty-foot equivalent unit, USACE = US Army Corps of Engineers

September 201573

-a-.BOWEN ISLAND MUNICIPALITY

November 18, 2015

The Honourable Catherine McKenna, M.P.Minister of Environment and Climate ChangeParliament Buildings

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

K1A OH3

Dear Minister Mckenna;

Re: Woodflbre LNG Project in Howe Sound, British Columbia

We are writing to respectfully request that you delay the federal decision on the EnvironmentalAssessment Certificate for the Woodfibre LNG project in Howe Sound, British Columbia until yourdepartment has had an opportunity to complete a thorough review of the Assessment.

On October 26, 2015 the Province of British Columbia issued Environmental Assessment Certificate # E15-02 for the Woodfibre LNG project. We understand that your department’s approval process is progressingindependently and we appreciate the new government’s commitment to environmental decisions basedon science-based evidence. Given the recent change in government we anticipate that additional timemay be required for a thorough review of the potential environmental impacts of this proposed project.

Our island community sits at the entrance to Howe Sound and along the proposed shipping route for LNGtankers. The citizens of Bowen Island have taken a very keen interest in the proposed Woodfibre LNCProject. Please find enclosed our municipal Council resolution sent to the BC Environment AssessmentOffice in March of this year outlining Bowen Island Municipality’s concerns about the project, and giventhese, our suggestion that LNG tankers be banned from the waters of Howe Sound.

We welcome your new administration. We are heartened by the new policies announced and appreciatethat timelines may have to be extended to apply these new policies to this proposed project.

Murray Skeels

Mayor

Bowen Island Municipality

cc: Pamela Goldsmith Jo,jes, Member of Parliament, West Vancouver Sea to Sky Sunshine CoastJordan Sturdy, ML4, West Vancouver Sea to Sky Sursh,ne Coast

• 981 Artisan Lane, Bowen Island, BC, VON 1G2 4 TEL: 604 9474255 * FAX: 604-947-0193 •• e’mail: bimbLmbc.ca • website: www.bimbc.ca •

74

BOWEN ISLAND MUNICIPALITY

March 4, 2015

Mr. Michael Shepard via email: [email protected] Assessment OfficeP.O. Box 9426 Stn.

Provincial Government

Victoria, BC, V8W 9V1

Dear Mr. Shepard:

At its regular Council meeting held February 23, 2015, Bowen Island Municipal Council adoptedthe following resolution:

“It was Moved and Seconded

BIM Council advise the environmental assessment office of our concerns regarding LNG tanker safety,extreme wakes, foreshore erosion, conflicting waterway uses including possible ferry service disruptions,and the LNG terminal in Howe Sound and tanker traffic, and related negative impacts on the marineenvironment in response to the request for public feedback on the Woodfibre LNG project due by March24, 2015; and

BlM Council write to the provincial government with a suggestion to ban the passage of LNG tankers inthe waters of Howe Sound; andThat Bowen Island Municipality be included in any existing and future committees, working groups andconsultative bodies regarding the tanker traffic and location and operation of the LNG plant.

CARRIED”

Should you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact our office.

Sincerely,

Casey Grundy

Interim Deputy Corporate OfficerBowen Island Municipality

• 981 Artisan lane, Oowen Is’and, BC, VON 1G2 • TEl 604-947-4255 • FAX: 604-947-0193 •• e-maU b’.,:fhir,t3ca • website: •

75

Dan RogersGambler Island Local Trustee

JslandsTruist

___________

Email: [email protected] wwislandstrust.bc.ca

January 5, 2016 Via E-mail? Mail

Pam Goldsmith-Jones, M.P.House of CommonsOttawa, OntarioCanadaK1A 0A6

Dear Ms. Goldsmith-Jones:

I write as one of the Local Trustees of the Gambler Islands Trust Area to provide my congratulationson your recent election. Your role as the Member from this fascinating and beautiful area willundoubtedly provide many interesting challenges for you as will your role as the ParliamentarySecretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

As you are no doubt aware, the Gambler Islands Local Trust area is the local planning governmentcovering the islands and waters of Howe Sound (excluding Bowen Island) and the eastern half theStraight of Georgia as far north as the south end of Texada Island. In other words, your ridingencompasses all of this Local Trust Area. As the local planning authority here, the Gambier IslandsTrust Council has many responsibilities but the overriding mandate and mission provided by theprovincial Islands Trust Act is to preserve and protect” the Trust area for future generations and forthe benefit of all British Columbians.

There have been numerous challenging situations and proposals arise in our area in the past andthese have been growing exponentially since 2010. No doubt you have heard from many of yourconstituents about proposals to “reindustrialize” Howe Sound just as the Sound is starting to reallyrecover from many years of abuse. Proposals such as logging on Gambier Island, a gravelextraction facility I at McNabb Creek and the proposed Woodfibre LNG facility have led many groupsto urgently call for greater protection for the Sound and indeed for the whole Salish Sea.

In addition, concerns have been raised about the impact of the proposed expansion of the KinderMorgan oil export facility in Burrard Inlet and the coal processing facility in the Fraser River andTexada Island and how those impact the fragile ecosystems of this area. As a Trustee for this area, Ishare those concerns. The Islands Trust Council has made submissions related to various proposalsemphasizing the need to protect the marine (and other) ecosystems. Kate-Louise Stamford (my coTrustee) and I, as individual Trustees, have also taken positions on various proposals emphasizingthe incompatibility of large industrial and extraction projects with the sensitive and unique naturalenvironment surrounding us.

I write at this time to welcome you to your role and to invite an ongoing dialogue between Kate-Louiseand myself as Trustees and yourself on issues of mutual interest and concern. As part of the greater

76

Howe Sound community of locally elected representatives we look forward to participating in a regularschedule of communications and meetings with you.

As well I write to highlight two specific issues related to this region which I hope you will consider.

First, a number of municipalities have written to the Minister of the Environment to urge postponing afederal environmental decision on the Woodfibre LNG proposal until a full review of theEnvironmental Assessment process has been completed and hopefully the process has beenoverhauled. I, as a local trustee, join in that call and will be writing the Minister directly but also urgeyou to take that same position with the Minister. This is an opportunity for the new federalgovernment to take a leadership position to protect the environment on this important issue.

Secondly, there is a definitive lack of leadership on an overall growth and impact strategy for HoweSound. In addition to the variety of industrial proposals for Howe Sound, we are a facing a myriad ofresidential and recreational projects for the area including in Gibsons, Horseshoe Bay, BrittaniaBeach and Squamish. Independently, each of these proposals may have some merit and may havetaken the immediate local environment into consideration. What is clearly missing however is anoverall land/marine management plan for the Howe Sound area to guide these proposals and gaugetheir impact on the environment as well as physical and social infrastructure of the region. This highlyactive area is one of the few areas of the province without a comprehensive plan relating to itsdevelopment and overall growth. The provincial government continues to back away from a RegionalLand Management Plan citing jurisdictional issues. Therefore, as our MP and the only politicalrepresentative whose jurisdiction covers the whole of the Howe Sound area, I urge you to take aleadership role on this issue.

As a Trustee of the Gambier Island Local Trust Area I look forward to hearing from you at yourearliest convenience and hope to be able to set up a time early in the new year to discuss how best tosupport you, our fellow local governments, and the first nations stewards in the protection andenhancement of this remarkable area. I am happy to help coordinate a meeting that would includeKate-Louise who knows about and supports me writing to you at this time.

All the best in the New Year.

Yours sincerely,

(signed) “Dan Rogers”

Dan RogersGambier Island Local Trustee

cc Kate-Louise Stamford, Gambier TrusteeIslands Trust Northern OfficeIslands Trust Executive Committee

Preserving Island communities, culture and environment

Bowen Denman Hornby Gabriola Galiano Gambier Lasqueti Mayne North Pender Salt Spring Saturna South Pender Thetis

77

200-1627 Fort St., Victoria, BC V8R 1HBTelephone (250) 405-5151 Fax (250) 405-5155

Toll Free via Enquiry BC in Vancouver 660-2421. Elsewhere in BC 1.800.663.1867

Email [email protected]

Web ,islandstwst.bC.ca

November 18, 2015 File Number: 41 0-20

Via Email: Min(ädfo-mpo.gc.ca.

The Honourable Hunter TootooMinister of Fisheries, Oceans and Canadian Coast Guard200 Kent StreetStation 15N100Offawa,ON K1AOA6

Dear Minister Tootoo:

Request for glass sponge reef protection in Salish Sea

Congratulations on your election and your new appointment as Minister of the Department ofFisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard.

The Islands Trust Council, at its meeting of September 17, 2015, passed a resolution to recommendthat the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada implement fishery closures, in addition tothose already announced, to protect all glass sponge reefs in the marine waters of the TrustArea.

Trust Council’s resolution followed a compelling presentation from Adam Taylor of the Marine LifeSanctuary Society of BC about the ecological importance of glass sponge reefs and the ongoingdiscovery of new reefs in our region. We understand that these reefs provide important rockfish habitatand are extremely vulnerable to unintentional damage by fishing gear.

IslandsTrust

Mr. Taylor advised that in April 1, 2016 DFO will place a fishing closure on 12 glass sponge reefs in theSouthem Strait of Georgia and Howe Sound, but protection will not be in place for 12 more reefsrecently discovered by Marine Life Sanctuary Society volunteers.

r’rescn’ing Islond communities, culture caid environment

Bowen Denman Hornby Gabriola Galiano Gambier Lasqueti Mayne North Pender Salt Spring Saturna South Ponder Thetis

78

This request is consistent with Policy 3.4.6 of the Islands Trust Policy Statement, a statutory documentfounded in extensive community consultation and approved by the Province of British Columbia in 1994.This policy encourages the provincial and federal governments to develop existing and new programssuch as “harvest refugia,” which protect and enhance the populations of native marine species of theIslands Trust Area.

The Islands Trust Council is a federation of local government bodies representing 25,000people living within the Islands Trust Area and about 10,000 non-resident property owners. TheIslands Trust is responsible for preserving and protecting the unique environment and amenitiesof the Islands Trust Area through planning and regulating land use, development management,education, cooperation with other agencies, and land conservation. The area covers the islandsand waters between the British Columbia mainland and southern Vancouver Island. It includes13 major and more than 450 smaller islands covering 5200 square kilometres.

Thank you for considering this request and we look forward to yourmarine conservation issue and others.Yours sincerely,

Peter LuckhamChair, Islands Trust CouncilpluckhamNslandstrust.bc.ca

leadership on this important

cc: Regional Director General, Fisheries andBowen Island Municipal CouncilGambier Island Local Trust CommitteeSunshine Coast Regional DistrictOther members of the Howe Sound Community ForumIslands Trust CouncilIslands Trust websiteAdam Taylor

Oceans Canada

Islands Trust Area Map

—w

Lafl lJ a,,—,

I,, ‘

VANCOUVLM UL A’iD

A A

A‘a’—

‘tr”

79

Dan RogersGambler Island Local Trustee

Ca.

#306 1232 Harwood StreetVancouver BC V6E 152

IsIa rids Tr[Ast Telephone: 604.220.1500

Email: drogers©islandstrust.bc.caWeb www.islandstrust.bc.ca

March 23, 2015

Michael Shepard, Project Assessment ManagerEnvironmental Assessment Office (EAO)P0 Box 9426 Stn Prov GovtVictoria BC V8W 9V1

Dear: Environmental Assessment Office

Re: Woodflbre LNG Proiect Proposal

I write in my capacity as a Trustee of the Gambier Islands Trust Area. These are mycomments as an individual Trustee, not the official comments of the Islands Trust or made onbehalf of the Local Trust Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to make submissions.

Background related to the Gambier Island Trust Area

As the EAO office is likely aware, the Gambier Island Trust (GIT) is one of 13 Local Trustareas created by the Islands Trust Act with planning authority for both the Islands of HoweSound and the surrounding waters. (In fact jurisdiction expands beyond Howe Sound toencompass the waters and Islands up the Sunshine Coast to Pender Harbour but HoweSound is the main focus of these comments). I point out that Bowen Island, while obviouslyin Howe Sound, is a separate Municipality within the Island Trust structure and thus notwithin the jurisdiction of the GIT Council.

The Gambier Local Trust Committee is subject to the principals of the Islands Trust Act andthe overall Islands Trust Policy statement. As set out in s. 3 of the Act,

“The object of the Trust is to preserve and protect the trust area andits unique amenities and environment for the benefit of the residents

of the trust area and of British Columbia generally, in cooperationwith municipalities, regional districts, improvement districts, other

persons and organizations and the government of British Columbia”

PreserAng Island communities, culture and environment

Bowen Denman Harnby Gabriola Galiano Gambier Lasqueti Mayne North Pender Sak Spring Saturna Soulh Pender Thetis

80

Environmental Assessment OfficeMarch 23, 2015Page 2

The Islands Trust Policy Statement can be accessed here:http://www.islandstrust.bc.ca/tc/pdf/orgpolstatement.pdf,however the three main objects are to:

a) foster the preservation and protection of the Trust Area’s ecosystems;b) ensure that human activity and the scale, rate and type of development in the

Trust Area are compatible with maintenance of the integrity of Trust Areaecosystems; and

c) sustain island character and healthy communities.

These are important statutory objectives that the Islands Trust and the Gambier Islands TrustCommittee takes seriously. The Policy Statement mandates an approach that includes notonly technical planning issues but also an overall approach to development that impacts thearea to advocate for the objects of both the Act and the Policy Statement.

My Background

I am a landowner and part time resident on Keats Island. I am also a sailor and boater andkayaker and have travelled around Howe Sound and other areas of the Salish Sea for over30 years. Before my recent retirement, I was a lawyer in Vancouver and elsewhere for closeto 33 years.

I take the mandate of the Islands Trust very seriously. As a lawyer, I understand due processand natural justice. I was the Chair of our Community Association on Keats for over 10years and the founder of the Keats Conservancy. I have attended workshops and meetingsput on by the Howe Sound Forum, the Future of Howe Sound Society and other groupswithin Howe Sound and the Sea to Sky corridor. I have attended a number of the ‘openhouses” hosted by the EAO and Woodflbre and attempted to educate myself on as manyaspects of this application as I have been able to. As you can well imagine, it is extremelydifficult for anyone for whom this is not a full time job to keep on top of most or even many ofthe fundamental issues however I have asked as many questions as I can in order to makean informed judgement about this application.

Main Comment and Conclusion

I will expand on the reasons for my submission in what follows but in summary I have cometo the conclusion that this application should not proceed and urge the EAO to stronglyrecommend to the Government that it refuse the Environmental permit sought by theproponent.

I will address a number of issues below starting with general observations and commentsand then deal with some specific issues of most concern.

81


Islands Trust Objects

In pursuing its review, the EAC should respect and heed the objectives of the Islands TrustAct. It is provincial legislation that should be a governing document in all applications fordevelopment that are within or affect the Islands Trust areas.

It is acknowledged that the Woodfibre LNG plant itself including the storage ships are notphysically within the area of the GIT. There is a “carve out” around Squamish harbor whichapparently includes the location of the proposed LNG facility. It is also acknowledged thatthe Islands Trust Act is not the originating statute for the EAO. However, it is provinciallegislation setting the object and policy of the Province governing all many aspects within theIslands Trust areas.

The Woodflbre proposal will impact marine, shipping, air quality and land developmentvalues (amongst other things) within Howe Sound and the Salish Sea. It clearly has animpact on the areas covered by the Gambier Islands Trust Council. The fact that HoweSound will be impacted is clear from the fact that the working group includes members fromcommunities throughout Howe Sound.

Beyond the “preserve and protect” mandate of the Islands Trust Act, the first object of theTrust Policy (which is adopted by the government as a Provincial Regulation!) is to foster thepreservation and protection of the Trust areas ecosystems. I submit that the EAO must beguided by that principle in reviewing this proposal.

Having reviewed the proposal, there is nothing in the proposal which actually purports to“foster” the Trust Areas ecosystems. There are measures proposed to purportedly “mitigate”impacts on ecosystems but nowhere are there measures or proposals to “foster” protection ofthe ecosystems... to make those ecosystems better than they currently are. There is nothingto have this project actually ensure that it is more likely that herring, and dolphins, and rockcod and glass sponges and seabirds and reefs and whales do better — have a greaterchance to thrive and increase in numbers. That is what the word “foster” means ... toenhance.

In other words, in my view a primary criterion for reviewing this project is not on the basis ofwhether the “effects” of the proposal can be “mitigated” but whether the proposal actuallyenhances the ecosystem of Howe Sound. This is a very different review but in my view ismandated by the terms of the Islands Trust Act and regulations and this view should apply toall reviews done within an Islands Trust area.

On this standard the proposal fails and I suggest should be rejected.

Industrial Proposal for Howe Sound Inappropriate

Many individuals have commented to the proponent and the EAO that “Howe Sound is justrecovering and here you are proposing reindustrialization”. Many of those people have long

82


histories in Howe Sound and can speak eloquently about the impacts of prior industrialdevelopment before there was a widespread understanding of the impacts on the ecosystem.As you will have heard, it was devasting. I won’t belabour the point.

My point is that Howe Sound has in many ways moved beyond large scale industrialdevelopment. That happens to areas where the activities of people and the reality of theenvironment and usage of the natural environs make it inappropriate any longer to considerindustry and particularly a resource industry.

While not a perfect analogy, think of False Creek in Vancouver. It was an industrial zone fordecades and frankly mostly unfit for human habitation (let alone marine life) for much of thelast century. Expo 86 started to radically change that and now False Creek is surrounded bythriving residential and commercial areas. It is entirely different and people use it differentlythan they used to. It moved beyond industrial development.

Interestingly, one piece of heavy industry in False Creek has remained, a cement plant thathas managed to adapt to its neighbours and thus thrives while the community changes.

In Howe Sound, much of the heavy industry has gone. Squamish is radically changing,obviously Brittania has cleaned up, and the Woodfibre pulp mill has gone. One heavyindustrial plant remains (Howe Sound pulp and paper) by getting along with its neighbours,adapting and cleaning up.

In the meantime however much has also changed in Howe Sound since the heavy industrystarted to leave. Bowen Island is a thriving ecology minded municipality. Lions Bay hasexpanded. Summer camps on Keats, Anvil and Gambier continue to thrive with busyrecreational property sites. Fury Creek is now a recreational and residential development.Brittania has plans to become a residential destination. Many areas on Gambier (includingmuch of the east side ) have become recreational properties. Howe Sound is full ofrecreational boaters. The Sea to Sky Gondola has become a success. And Squamish andHowe Sound are marketing themselves as the recreational capital of Canada!!

The point is, Howe Sound has changed and should no longer be considered as a location forheavy industry that is not compatible with these changes and frankly an LNG plant is not.And a prime reason is that the pristine recreational attractions are far more valuable than theheavy industry and will be threatened by this project.

The value of maintaining the pristine ecosystem in Howe Sound in purely economic terms isset out in the thorough study by the David Suzuki foundation which can be found here

http://davidsuzuki.org/publications/reports/2O1 5/sound-investment-measuring-the-return-on-howe-sounds-ecosystem-assets/

In summary, it is my submission that Howe Sound has evolved in a different direction from aresource extraction based heavy industry development. It has changed and that change

83


must be reflected in the consideration of whether to approve this project. New heavy industrywouldn’t be allowed in False Creek and shouldn’t be allowed in Howe Sound.

The Proposal is being advanced in the absence of a full environmental review or aRegional plan.

This comment relates to both the absence of full environmental hearings and the fact that theproposal is being considered in the absence of a comprehensive management plan for HoweSound.

Howe Sound is a unique ecosphere. And it is an awkward geopolitical location. Surroundedby 3 Regional Districts, a number of municipalities including Squamish, Brittania, Lions Bay,West Vancouver, Bowen Island and Gibsons and much of it encompassed by the GambierIsland Local Trust area. It is of course the traditional home of the Squamish First Nation —

the SkwxwU7mesh Uxwumixw.

All of these groups have expressed a strong desire to come together to plan and determinethe future of Howe Sound. They have done so through a number of forums and meetingsorganized by the Howe Sound Forum and the Future of Howe Sound Society and othergroups. These regional political groups joined with the Union of BC Municipalities to call for acomprehensive regional plan to determine the future of Howe Sound. The Squamish Nationhas supported the need for such a plan and is taking steps to develop their own plans. Theyare doing their own environmental assessment of the Woodflbre proposal and have indicatedthat they will develop a marine plan for the Sound. This is laudable and entirelyunderstandable.

Yet in the face of the clear need and unanimous view of those affected that a regionalplanning process is needed, the province has said none will be forthcoming. What theyhave offered instead is an assessment tool called “Cumulative Effects Assessment” which isvery much still in the development stage and will not be ready for use for years to come. It iseffectively not of any use to us in this EAD process.

In this void of a proper land or marine or air shed management plan, this project is beingassessed on a short time frame without a full environmental hearing process. While Iappreciate that this decision was made by the Minister and not the EAO office, I cannot helpbut comment that in the context of a major industrial development with other developmentproposals in the offing in Howe Sound and the complete lack of a management plan, thefailure to have a full public hearing is negligent.

Keeping in mind that this is a project that has been opposed by many of the local politiciansand Councils in the vicinity and for which public opposition has been very vocal andcontinuous, in the absence of a full public hearing that allows full participation and properpresentation of expert and other evidence, there can be no community endorsement of anypositive outcome. In current parlance, there can be no social license for this project giventhe minimal opportunity for public involvement.

84


A complete hearing process would allow:

a) evidence to be presented and tested about the environmental and economic impacts ofthe proposal;

b) an independent review (or reviews) of the evidence and arguments;c) an ability for interveners to retain their own experts to review and respond to the experts

hired by the proponent. At this point there is no such ability;d) a time frame that would allow for the involvement of counsel and a hearing panel to

review the arguments for and against the proposal.

None of this is present. Instead we have thousands of pages of documents much of ittechnical in nature presented to the public with the instruction for them to review andcomment. There are no resources provided to allow for the public to have an independentexpert review any of the reports or proposals. And the time frame is measured in days andweeks, not months. And there is a parallel process ongoing on another proposal by Fortis tobuild a pipeline to deliver the natural gas to this plant.

The public part of the process was a series of ‘open houses”. Granted there have beenpresentations to various municipal governments most particularly Squamish and perhapsthose residents are better served, but the open houses have been full of lightly veiledpromotional material for the project, not real opportunities to really test the assertions of theproponent. My experience is that if you start to really question someone, you were“swarmed” by representatives wearing Woodfibre tags all of whom began to challenge you. Iwill acknowledge the EAO team was far more open and informative but the reality was theseopen houses were simply Woodfibre managed “information” sessions. Not anything like apublic hearing process.

This is not “natural justice” as my professional training would lead me to understand theprocess. It’s a review process but one that ends up being determined by the governmentalbodies that are tasked to review it. In other words, there is an great amount of “trust us” inthis process. Trust the expert studies from the proponent, trust the consultants hired by theWoodflbre, and trust the EAO staff to review the proposal fully and with the appropriateconsiderations in mind and finally trust the Minister and Cabinet to take an independent andimpartial view of the various information despite repeated political calls for these projects tobe approved.

This is not a process that leads to public acceptance particularly, as I said, when there hasbeen no overall strategy or plan advanced or proposed or even contemplated for HoweSound as a whole.

It’s completely understandable that the Squamish Nation is doing its own environmentalreview. If others had the jurisdiction and the wherewithal to do it as well, we would.

85


It is impossible to support this project given this process as it leaves far too many questionsunanswered and an overwhelming feeling that the outcome was predetermined.

Any process or project that doesn’t consider the larger impact on Climate Change isfatally flawed.

This is obviously a “high level concern about the project but in my view our society andprovince must come to grips with Climate Change and the impact of Green House Gasemissions on that problem. We are hopefully not Florida where Environmental Officers arenot allowed to refer to Climate Change. Indeed B.C. proudly (and justly) points to its carbontax as a successful model to combat climate change.

I appreciate the EAO does not have the mandate to consider this point, but the reality is thatLNG plants are not a positive step forward to combat Climate Change as they massivelyexpand the use of fossil fuels at a time when we must be cutting back on them. The reviewof this project is limited to the GHG emissions created by the plant itself (enough of aconcern) but the reality is that the expansion of the natural gas industry means a largegrowth in GHG emissions. Most of the largest emitters of GH gasses in BC are Natural Gasprocessing plants in Taylor, Chetwynd, Fort Nelson and elsewhere. I will not even commenton the emissions from the extraction process especially fracking as others undoubtedly will.

B.C. will definitely not be able to meet its Carbon emissions targets with industries focusedon the expansion of the extraction, processing and export of natural gas. Yet this reviewdoes not even consider this environmental impact for Howe Sound or indeed for anywhere.

“Once Through” Seawater cooling system is inappropriate

This system has attracted a lot of attention and criticism for its potential impact on the Marinehabitat in Howe Sound. Here is what we know:

a) This system is designed in order to help dissipate a great deal of the heat that isgenerated in cooling the natural gas.

b) The system as designed will extract 17,000 cubic metres (17,000,000 litres) per hour fromHowe Sound - that is 408,000 cubic metres per day (408 million litres or about100,000,000 gallons per day)and thus just over 148,000,000 cubic metres per year or 148Billion litres. Or approximately 35 billion gallons. That’s a lot of water.

c) The system will attempt to exclude sea life from the water that is sucked up from 75 feetbelow the surface and will also try to extract sea life it does suck up and return it to thesound.

d) The water will be returned to the Sound at a depth of about 25 metres with a smallamount of chlorine added and as much as 10 degrees warmer than it was extracted.

e) The “diffuser” used to distribute the warmed seawater will, according to the proponent,ensure that the water will be no more than 1 degree warmer than ambient temperatureonce it is 10 metres from the diffuser.

86


“Once through” Seawater cooling systems are very controversial and have effectively beenbanned for power plants in California all of which are being retrofitted with either air coolingtowers or alternate closed cooling systems. In fact wet cooling or closed cooling systemshave been determined under the US Clean Water Act to be the Best Technology Available.That technology is not being proposed or considered here.

We have been constantly told that this facility will have world class technology and will be thecleanest greenest LNG facility in the world. The plan isto withdraw 17 million litres of waterper hour (and any sea life that happens to be in that 17 million litres and get sucked throughthe screens ... assuming they live), try and extract that sea life and put it back into the Soundunharmed, then heat the water and return 17 million litres per hour (every hour) 10 degreeswarmer and rely upon “dilution” to lower the water temperature back.

I know Howe Sound is a relatively big body of water but it is also has a relatively speakingnarrow exit. Near the outlet of this warm water are some extremely important salmonspawning rivers and some important forage fish and herring spawning areas.

Frankly I have trouble believing with the volume of water we are talking about that we canrely on “computer modelling” (and that is the answer when asked how they know it will onlybe one degrees warmer at 10 metres from the outlet) when so much depends on the healthof our marine ecosystem.

This is also at a time when we are justly worried about our oceans increasing in temperatureand this proposal suggests purposely adding to that increase in temperature to the tune of408 million litres of warm water per day!

At the very least I would ask the EAO to have significant independent scientific review ofthese assumptions and conclusions to ensure the end result and to ensure that this issustainable overtime. I imagine the Sound actually warming up because of this processwhich would be catastrophic.

Alternatives should be sought. Nobody seems to have considered taking the heat andfinding ways to pipe it to Squamish or elsewhere to use to warm homes or the like. Why arethese proposals not more environmentally benign and “world class” solutions being sought todeal with this excess heat.

I asked a lot of questions and based on the answers I frankly could not support this proposalon this issue alone. This to my mind has the prospect of having the greatest environmentalimpact on the marine life and overall health of Howe Sound.

Shipping Rules aren’t even established

There are have been many questions about shipping and ship safety that have arisen andthe answers have tended to focus on the proposal to tether the large LNG ships to large tugs

87


(that I don’t believe even exist yet?) to guide them in and out of Howe Sound. This soundsgood as far as it goes and certainly large tugs are an important part of any safety mitigation

It is my understanding however that the rules of shipping surrounding this proposed projecthaven’t even been developed and thus there has been no opportunity for the public tocomment or even ask questions about the rules. My understanding is that the TERMPOLReview Committee will not be even begin hearing from the proponent until August of 2015and the regulations or recommendations will not be issued until December of 2015 at theearliest.

The problem, naturally, with this timeline is that the EAO process will be over. At the veryleast the matter will be in the hands of the politicians. And then the shippingrecommendations will come out.

This is actually an absence of public and community participation not merely an inadequacy.The marine hazard mitigation processes, the effect on other forms of shipping, the controlson time and speed of transfer... none of these are known at this time.

It is impossible to support a project that has potentially tremendous impact on a region by thevery fact that enormous ships are transiting a narrow water way without knowing what therules for that transiting will be.

Siting in Howe Sound seems to violate international Standards

It is my understanding that the Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators(SIGTTO) LNG Terminal Siting Standards states that LNG terminals should not be located innarrow, inland waterways with dense local populations and significant commercial,recreational, and ferry traffic. Why would that guideline not apply to Howe Sound?

I have asked this question and have never received a suitable answer. Here are morequestions. Why isn’t Woodflbre or its parent company a signatory to SIGTTO as Iunderstand it is not? Wouldn’t Woodfibre want to comply with the gold standard” for siting ofLNG terminals?

Does Woodfibre not believe that Howe Sound is a “narrow inland waterway with a denselocal population and significant commercial, recreational and ferry traffic:”. If Woodfibrechallenges that assertion then I would challenge their judgement on most matters.

It is clear that Woodfibre chose its current site because:

a) it’s a brown site so they do not have to deal with degrading an existing green site;b) there is an existing power and gas supply; andc) there is a deep water port.

88


My sense is they are ignoring or disregarding the SIGTOO standards because of theseeconomic factors. This is unacceptable.

Glass Sponge Reefs off Halkett Bay

As you may be aware, 9000 year old glass sponge reefs have been located off Halkett Bay.This marine life is important to protect. Other similar reefs in the Strait of Georgia are in theprocess of receiving federal protection as valuable habitat and ecosystems.

There is a tremendous unknown about what impact the extremely large LNG vessels wouldhave on these reefs. Nothing close to the size of these vessels transits up Howe Sound atpresent and little large marine traffic at all goes up the Sound north of Bowyer Island.

I would expect that a thorough study of the impact on these reefs (and of course all otherwildlife ) of the impact of propellers, wake and noise from these large ships be undertakenindependently and that the public and the EAO be certain that no harm can come to thesecreatures or other marine life before this project is considered.

Summary

I am fully cognizant that hundreds of other comments and submissions will be filed with theEAO and I am grateful for this opportunity to add to the consideration. I am confident theEAO will carefully consider these as well as all other submissions. I am also confident thatothers will raise a multitude of other concerns that I might share.

As will be clear from the above, I can see nothing from the proposal that adds to or enhancesthe ecosystem of Howe Sound and in particular the Gambier Island Trust Area. In theabsence of evidence of enhancement and for all of the other reasons I lay out above, Iopposed the application and urge the EAO to not recommend issuing an environmentallicense.

Yours sincerely,

(signed) Den Rogers”

Dan RogersGambier Island Local Trustee

cc Islands Trust Northern Office

89

BRITISHCOLUMBIA

Mr. Gany NohrChairSunshine Coast Regional District1975 Field RoadSechek, BC VON 3A1

Dear Chair Nohr:

As a province, we have a responsibility to create an environment that is welcoming to investmentand business. “Canada Starts Here: The BC Jobs Plan” (BC Jobs Plan) was launched four yearsago to do just that: diversify and grow our economy and support long-term job creation in theprovince.

We are now seeing the benefits of this effort: BC’s economy is diverse, strong and growing.Today, more British Columbians are working than ever before, and our economic performance isreaching record levels. While growth has slowed in much of the rest of Canada, BC is expectedto lead the country in economic growth over the next two years. The prosperity we are seeing isa product of the actions and commitments that were initiated in the BC Jobs Plan.

Together with municipalities like yours, as well as industry, our government has actionednumerous commitments to enable job creation, strengthen BC’s infrastructure to facilitate themovement of goods to market and expand markets for BC’s goods and services while at the sametime reducing red tape and other barriers for our key sectors. As the BC Jobs Plan has evolvedover the past four years, the eight key sectors have grown together and yielded new opportunitiesto fuel significant growth of BC’s economy.

As a leader of your community, you are also a partner in our province’s economic development.As Mayor, you are a major stakeholder in the future of our economy, which is why I am sendingyou the “BC Jobs Plan 4-Year Progress Update” (4-Year Progress Update).

The 4-Year Progress Update highlights significant achievements we have made over the pastfour years and allows us to proudly reflect on our accomplishments and the momentum that wehave generated by working together to diversifS’, strengthen and grow our economy.

.12

Minisiry of lobs, Tourism and Parliamentary Secretary Mailing Address.Skills Training and Minister for the BC Jobs Plan East AnnexResponsible for Labour Parliament Buildings

Victoria, BC WV 1X4Phone: 250 953-0964Fax: 250 952-7263

February 16, 2016

FEB 2620,6S.C.R.D

Ref: 111867

A:y:11 FILE Copy

SCRORECEIVED

FEB29 2016

ANNEX O

90

Mr. Garry NohrPage 2

I hope, as you read through the 4-Year Progress Update, you feel confident that our partnership —

municipalities, the Province and the private sector — is working to build on BC’s economicsuccesses as we look ahead to how we can continue to drive diversity and growth in the provincefor years to come.

Work is already underway for the Jobs Plan update in 2016 and we welcome your ideas.

Best wishes for you and your municipality in 2016.

Sincerely,

Greg KylloParliamentary Secretary

Enclosure

91

SCRDRECEIVED

BRITISH FEB e 2016COLUMBIA

Ref:37429 CHAIR

To Local Governments

February 24, 2016

Dear Mayors and Board Chairs:

We are writing to inform you of an exciting new iniliative, announced on Thursday, February 18,to issue a limited number of licences for the sale of 100% BC wine on grocery store shelves. Wewould like to take this opportunity to explain the rationale for this offering, pan of the secondround of changes to the liquor laws to permit the sate of BC wine on grocery store shelves.

The BC wine industry has been a true success story with over 300 wineries now producing worldclass wines. The citizens of British Columbia have shown their appreciation of these wines assates continue to increase.

During the 2013 Liquor Policy Review conducted by Parliamentary Secretary John Yap, weheard from thousands of British Columbians who wanted more convenient access to liquor andparticularly to BC wines. The Government listened to these concerns and initiated a number ofreforms including:

• Permitting the 21 licensed VQA wine stores to relocate to grocery stores to sell their wine ongrocery store shelves;

• Permitting full service licensee retail stores and government liquor stores to relocate togrocery stores to operate as a store in store; and

• Committing to issue a limited number of special wine store licences for the sale of BC wineon grocery store shelves, as announced today.

Initially, we will auction six opportunities to apply for the special wine store licence, anapproach which will ensure fairness and transparency. The successful bidders will then proceedthrough the regular application process to obtain the licence. Only grocery stores which meet thespecified regulatory criteria will be eligible to bid. These criteria include that the store be aminimum of 10,000 sq. ft. and be focused on food sales; the same criteria that apply to therelocation of the other types of wine and liquor stores to grocery stores.

To provide the greatest consumer convenience, the products permitted for sale include all typesof BC wine made from 100% BC agricultural inputs. This includes cider, honey wine, fruit vineand sake. The rules for VQA stores have also changed to permit them to sell these same types ofproducts.

1

ANNEX P

92

As you may know, Provincial regulations do not permit the relocation of a licensee retail store or

government liquor store to within 1 km of one another. This rule does not apply to existing wine

stores and will not for these special wine store licences.

The rationale for the 1 km rule is to provide some degree of market certainty for retailers and to

ensure a community is not over-served with liquor stores which can have negative community

impacts.

The product selection sold in these stores is very limited compared to the full variety of domestic

and international beer, wine, and spirits sold in a private or government liquor store. BC wines

represent only 26 percent of the total wine sales in BC and this also represents 9% of all liquor

sales in the Province. In addition, a significant percentage of these BC wine sales are made from

the winery or sold directly by them to restaurants and bars. This means overall sales in

competing full service liquor stores are unlikely to be significantly impacted.

Were the 1 km rule to apply to wine stores, a community would be prevented from having a full

service liquor store in its neighbourhood due to a wine store’s location. Consumers wishing to

buy beer, spirits or imported wines would be inconvenienced. For your information, there has

existed lbr many years an additional 20 wine store lieenees issued to individual wineries or small

groups of wineries. Once again, the location of one of these stores, perhaps selling only one

winery’s products, would prevent a Cull sen’ice liquor store moving to within 1 km of the wine

store.

In summary, the number of wine stores selling BC wine is very limited with only 21 VQA stores,

20 issued to wineries and up to 18 of the announced special wine stores. This compares to 671

full service private liquor stores, 196 government liquor stores and 221 rural agency stores all

selling all types of liquor.

We understand concerns have been expressed about the retailing practices of grocery stores in

jurisdictions where liquor is sold in grocery stores and more specifically that this sector tends to

favour larger producers and employ low priced sales strategies to build market share. We believe

that these concerns are not legitimate in the BC market in regard to wine stores. On Tuesday,

Febmaiw 23, our government announced — effective May 1,2016 — minimum liquor pricing for

licensee retail stores, wine stores, and manufacturer on-site stores. The same policy will apply to

BC Liquor Distribution Branch stores and, by extension, rural agency stores. This policy will

effectively protect against pricing practices using wine (or other liquor) as a “loss leader”.

For the VQA and special wine store licences it will be a licence term and condition that the

stores carry a broad selection of product from all sizes of wineries to ensure the most number of

wineries possible have shelf space in these stores. In addition, Provincial law prohibits liquor

suppliers from offering incentives to licensees to gain greater shelf space or market access. The

whole intent of special wine store licence is to provide cnhanced consumer access to our

wonderful wines and to help support our wine industry. In our discussions with the grocery

industry they understand and support these goals.Finally, we are aware that concerns have been expressed that the special wine store licence is

non-compliant with our trade obligations. Our intention with the recent changes is to strike a

2

93

balance that meets our trade requirements and also promotes the quality products that are madeand bottled here in B.C. The special wine store licences are not new licencesper se but rather arere-issued and reconfigured dormant BC wine store licences that were issued several years ago.Any licences issued will remain consistent with those allowed and already created under existingtrade laws.

We appreciate the opportunity to explain the Province’s wine store retailing strategy and wehope you will take these matters into consideration should any of these stores plan to open in orrelocate to your community’.

Sincerely,

awThe Honourable Coralee OakesMinister of Small Business and Red Tape ReductionMinister Responsible for the Liquor Distribution Branch

The l-lonoumble Pcter FassbendcrMinister of Community, Sport and Cultural DevelopmentMinister Responsible for TransLink

3

94

Date post:	16-Feb-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Thursday, March …

Documents