August 8, 2011 - District of Mission

1Regular Council AgendaAugust 8, 2011 — 6:30 p.m.Council Chambers8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, BC1. PROCLAMATIONS(a)(b)September 15, 2011 as “National Family Dinner Night”Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation of CanadaOctober 17 to 23, 2011 as “Canada World Youth Week”Canada World YouthPage 5Page 62. DELEGATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS(a)(b)Presentation to Oyama Students – Chihiro Ono and Momoko ShimizuBrad RutledgeRe: Request for Sponsorship of Athletes at Canadian NationalSoftball Championship Tournament--Page 10(c) Eric Ching, Urban Design Group Architects Ltd.Re: Text Amendments, Rezoning and Development PermitApplication for the proposed Commercial Development on 32471Lougheed Highway, Mission (R10-038/DP10-017)Page 113. ADOPTION OF INFORMATIONAL ITEMS(a) Ferndale Institution Population Profile – June 2011 Page 12(b) Ferndale Institution Population Profile – July 2011 Page 13(c) Mission Institution Report – June 2011 Page 14(d) Minutes of the Abbotsford/Mission Water & Sewer CommissionMeeting held on June 16, 2011Page 214. RESOLUTION TO RESOLVE INTO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE5. PLANNING(a)(b)Rezoning Application R10-037 & R10-038, Development PermitApplications DP10-017 & DP10-018, Development Variance PermitApplication DV10-020 and Subdivision Application S11-003 (UrbanDesign Group Architects Ltd.) – 32471 Lougheed HighwayOCP Amendment and Rezoning Application R10-035 andDevelopment Variance Permit Application DV10-019 (Sandhu) –Page 25Page 52

233009 Sylvia Avenue(c) Official Community Plan Amendment Application R1 1-012 Page 64(d) Temporary Commercial Use Permit Application TP1 1-002 (676517BC Ltd.) – 32818 – 7 th AvenuePage 69(e)Proposed Statues at the SmartCentres Site (Fraser Valley ShoppingCentres – Walmart) – 31956 Lougheed HighwayPage 94(f) Update the Urban Growth Boundary Page 101(g) Minutes from the Annual Developers and Realtors Meeting Page 102(h) Excerpt from the Minutes of the Public Hearing held on June 27, 2011and Staff Reports dated September 18, 2007, February 25, 2008and October 4, 2010Background for consideration of adoption of bylaws 4017-2007-3143(286) and 5175-2010 [Section 13 (a) (b)]Page 1046. PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURE(a) Proposal to Host a Bike Race in Mission Page 1207. ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC WORKS(a) Semi-annual Household Hazardous Waste Collection Day Page 123(b) Approval of Metro Vancouver’s Solid Waste Management Plan by Page 125Minister of Environment(c) Water Metering Update Page 132(d) Gaudin Creek Restoration Project as Compensation under Cedar Page 133Valley Environmental Management Plan(e) Subdivision Application Extension Fees Page 140(f) Gaudin Creek and Silverdale Avenue Award ---(To be circulated under separate cover)8. ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE(a) Council Meeting Procedures Page 142(b) False Alarm Bylaw Review Page 149(c) Letter from Mayor Masahide Komiyama, Oyama, Japan Page 1529. RESOLUTION TO RISE AND REPORT10. ADOPTION OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT11. BYLAWSMOTION: That the readings of all bylaws included in the Bylaws section of theAugust 8, 2011 regular council agenda be approved as listed.

3(a) District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 4017-2007-3143(286) (R05-004 - Brar) a bylaw to rezone the propertylocated at 30367 Berg Avenue from RU-2 Rural Two zone toRS-2A One Unit Rural Residential zone(b) District of Mission Street Naming (Russell Terrace) Bylaw 5175-2010 – a bylaw to name a new road extending off Berg Avenue(c) District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5227-2011 -5050(47) (R1 0-037 – Urban Design Group Architects) – a bylawto amend the text in Section 106, Part C of District of MissionZoning Bylaw 5050-2009(d) District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5228-2011 -5050(48) (R1 0-037 – Urban Design Group Architects) – a bylawto create a new CD-24 Zone and rezone a portion of theproperty at 32471 Lougheed Highway from CommercialHighway One Zone (CH-1) to Comprehensive Development 24Zone (CD-24) and rezone a portion of the property fromCommercial Highway One Zone (CH-1) to Institutional ParksRecreation and Civic Zone (IPRC)AdoptionAdoptionFirst and SecondReadingFirst and SecondReading(e)(f)District of Mission Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw5231-2011-4052(15) (R1 0-035 – Harcharan Sandhu) – a bylawto redesignate property at 33009 Sylvia Avenue from UrbanResidential to Urban Residential-CompactIn accordance with Section 882 of the Local Government Act,Council has considered District of Mission Official CommunityPlan Amending Bylaw 5231-2011-4052(15) in conjunction withthe District of Mission's Financial Plan and Waste ManagementPlanFirst Reading--(g) District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5232-2011 -5050(51) (R1 0-35 – Harcharan Sandhu) – a bylaw to rezone aportion of the property at 33009 Sylvia Avenue from Suburban36 Zone (S36) to Urban Residential Compact 465 Zone(RC465) and a portion of the property from Suburban 36 Zone(S36) to Urban Residential Compact 930 Zone (R930)(h) District of Mission False Alarm Amending Bylaw 5233-2011 -2929(5) – a bylaw to amend Section 2(b) by adding “(iii)circumstances beyond the control of the owner of the realproperty” and adding the words "in the calendar year" toSection 3First ReadingFirst, Second andThird Readings12. MINUTES(a) Regular Council Meeting – June 20, 2011 Page 153(b) Regular Council Meeting – July 18, 2011 Page 167(c) Special Council Meeting – July 19, 2011 Page 178(d) Regular Council Meeting – July 25, 2011 Page 181

413. OTHER BUSINESS(a) Release from Closed Council – July 18, 2011 Page 18914. CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER’S REPORT15. MAYOR’S REPORT16. COUNCILLOR’S REPORTS ON COMMITTEES, BOARDS, AND ACTIVITIES17. QUESTION PERIOD18. ADJOURNMENT

5\Q./ Fondation canadienne desmaladies inflammatoiresde l'intestin(Th Crohn's and ColitisFoundation of CanadaJuly 13, 2011Mayor James Atebe8645 Stave Lake Street, Box 20Mission, BCV2V 4L9Dear Mayor James Atebe:On Thursday, September 15, 2011, M&M Meat Shops, Canada's largest retail chain of specialty frozen foods, isencouraging families coast-to-coast to enjoy a meal together in celebration of the seventh annual National FamilyDinner Night.Family experts and researchers confirm that one of the most valuable gifts parents can give their children is timespent together as a family. Taking this advice, M&M Meat Shops successfully launched National Family DinnerNight six years ago and have encouraged thousands of families to sit down and have dinner together. This annualevent has contributed to the more than 21.5 million dollars M&M Meat Shops has raised for the Crohn's and ColitisFoundation of Canada (CCFC). This year, M&M Meat Shops is hoping to bring even more families across thecountry together at mealtime.Last year's program received the support of community leaders from coast-to-coast including the Prime Minister, theGovernor General, Premiers and many Mayors of Canada's largest and smallest cities. We would be mosthonoured if you, as a leader in the community, would provide a letter of support for this community-based initiativeand, if possible, formally proclaim September 15, 2011 as National Family Dinner Night. We would truly love to hearyour own memories about your family dinners growing up and what getting together for a family meal means to you.M&M Meat Shops will be asking families to register their participation in National Family Dinner Night on thewebsite: wvvw.nationalfamilydinnernight.com as of August 1, 2011. For every person who registers, M&M MeatShops will donate $1 to the CCFC.Of course, we also hope that you will enjoy a family dinner on September 15, 2011, and register your participation inNational Family Dinner Night at www.nationalfamilydinnernight.com .We thank you in advance for your consideration. We will follow up with your office in the next fewweeks. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at(416) 366-7735 x247.Yours truly,Kristi BejczakStrategic Objectives184 Front St. E., 4th FloorToronto, ON CanadaM5A 4N3416.366.7735 x 247kbeiczak@strategicobiectives.comDISTRICT OF MISSIONDate Ack'd I patpf D AD Iaita ad Ei e atm*lin7 /914,41:6-EWFile Folder Nameroc6m-taffetv-s' XIITo' ,4 MayoralCiiniltsEsR MayorliB DH ExemptOCOWt. erFor: OReport to COW ClInformation DReply for Mayors SigRequested By Cllr Din Response to Council Follow Up

CanadaWorldYouth•0JeunesseCanadaMondeDISTRICT OF MISSIONDate Ack'd -I ,Calg,Whipl•q sse pei Ifip if f 0 . re/G .File Folder Name rierY ta4pot- n2-iis ?OilTotipayor gliSouncillors0Mayor RB 0D1-10ExemptOCOWOther6District of Mission8645 Stave Lake StreetMission, BCV2V 4L9For: Report to COW 0 Information 0 Reply : to• Mayors Sig----O Requested By Cr In Response to CoV, CII Follow-usJuly le, 2011 -Subject: Request for Proclamation of Canada World Youth WeekDear Mayor James Atebe and CouncilAs a project supervisor for Canada World Youth, I would like to follow up on a request that wassent to you by my organization. As Canada World Youth will be celebrating its 40 th anniversary on,October 19, 2011, we would like to request that you proclaim the week of October 17 to 23"Canada World Youth Week" in Mission, BC. I thank you for considering our request; we would betruly honored to have your support.As we mark this milestone year, which coincides with the 10 th anniversary of the International Yearof Volunteers, we are planning celebrations in your community, as well as across the country, inorder to highlight the positive impact Canada World Youth has had on 34,000 young people,hundreds of communities, 11,000 host families and tens of thousands of Canadians of all ages.We would be honoured if you, and members of your team, were able to join us in any of thesecelebration events. We would also be happy to take part in activities that your municipality will beorganizing in relation to the proclamation of Canada World Youth Week.Thank you in advance for your attention in this matter. I look forward to hearing from you.Sincerely,Mulalo rice SadikeProject Supervisor, Canada World YouthEmail: msadikencwv-jcm orgTel: 604-768-9384Recycled • Recycle /1.J suppo.vmp... 65 teof forest mamasCaftribuo Raise.wayensgda f den nuances farestleressC•rt SpV.Z.2912e 1996Siege social / Head Office 2330 Notre-Dame 0. / Notre-Dame W., 3e etage / 3rd floorMontreal (Quebec) / Montreal, Quebec Canada H3J 1 N4Tel.: (514) 931-3526 Fax/Telec.: (514) 939-2621

7PROCLAMATIONCanada World Youth WeekOctober 17-23, 2011Whereas young people in all countries are key agents for social change and represent ourcollective hope for a more peaceful, tolerant, and just global society. Whereas, in close to 600host communities across Canada, CWY has created networks of people of different backgroundsand cultures, united by mutual respect and understanding.Whereas thousands of host families in Canada and abroad have taken CWY youth volunteers intotheir homes and have built strong, lasting relationships that have marked their lives.Whereas CWY has given the opportunity to more than 34,000 young people from Canada andabroad the opportunity to see the world and become global citizens engaged in their communitiesWhereas the annual contribution of volunteer work in host communities by CWY youth volunteersrepresents close to 1 million hours — or the equivalent of 520 full-time jobs.Whereas for 40 years, CWY's programs have fostered cross-cultural exchange, created closerties within communities and among people from different backgrounds.Whereas CWY fosters in young people the acquisition of the knowledge, skills, attitudes andvalues necessary for active community involvement.Whereas [community] proudly supports CWY's mission to increase the ability of people, andespecially youth, to participate actively in the development of just, harmonious and sustainablesocieties.Therefore be it resolved that I, , do hereby proclaim October 17 to 23, 2011Canada World Youth Week for Mission BC.

8Canada JeunesseWorld CanadaYouth MondeDistrict of Mission8645 Stave Lake StreetMission, BCV2V 4L9July 18th, 2011Re: Canada World Youth seeking Mayor and Council endorsement of Mission/Ukraineexchange programs.Dear Mayor James Atebe and Council,I would like to request the support of the Mayor and District Council in bringing Canada WorldYouth Ukraine youth exchange program to Mission BC this year.Canada World Youth is a national, non-profit organization which has offered youth exchangeprograms for over 35 years. The opportunities are offered to young people from across Canadaand countries in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Eastern Europe. Each program is focused onspecific objectives related to community and international development and offers rich crossculturallearning experiences for both the program participants and host community members.While in the communities, Canada World Youth participants live with local residents. Together,they discover each other's values, beliefs, lifestyles, languages, and experiences. Participantslearn how the community works and they become more aware of community development issues,while community members often rediscover their own communities through the eyes of theparticipants.Canada World Youth participants also integrate into their new communities by volunteering withlocal organizations. These volunteer work placements allow the participants to gain valuablework experience while making a concrete contribution to the community by providing over4000 hours of volunteer service.The would involve a team of 18 youth and 2 supervisors from across Canada and Ukraine. TheCanadian phase of the program in Mission will take place between September 10, 2011 andDecember, 2011.In July of this year, the Canadian Project Supervisor has begun project preparation in Mission toidentify host families and community work projects for their teams. Volunteer placements willfocus on social, health and educational services, community development, local government andenvironmental projects.As an expression of your support, and as a way of assisting the Project Supervisor in generatingfurther support within the community, we would like to request a letter of endorsement forthe program in Mission this year. We feel that your formal endorsement of the program willencourage community members to become involved as work placements and/or host families. Ifyou know of anyone who might be interested in being either a host family or work placement,1:, Recycled • Recycle fis‘Lussf=ne responsible use ezAContresue eutlilsationFSC • .totottxM,gCuel to 56.5-COC:2912I um Song Semmes* W.,Siege social / Head Office 2330 Notre-Dame O. / Notre-Dame W., 3e etage / 3rd floorMontréal (Québec) / Montreal, Quebec Canada H3J 1N4Tél.: (514) 931-3526 FaxiTeldc.: (514) 939-2621

9Canada ' JeunesseWorld CanadaYouth Mondeplease let them know about the program. Your suggestions and support for this year's exchangewould be very much appreciated.Also in order to facilitate the youth's mobility for transportation during the Canadian Phases ofeach program, we kindly request the provision of bus passes for the duration of the programs.For the program we would like to request a total of 20 bus passes for the months of September2011, October 2011, and November 2011.To assist the Project Supervisor in generating further support within the community, we wouldlike to make the following requests of the District of Mission:Sincerely,> Letter of endorsement from the District of Mission for the proposed programs inMission this year> Bus passes for the volunteer youth for duration of the program➢ Leisure passes for the volunteer youth for duration of the program> Suggestions of key community contactsEach year, more than 100 Canadian and exchange country communities around the world hostCanada World Youth programs. This exceptional support and collaboration is vital to the successof our programs because the stay in the community is an integral part of the Canada World Youthexperience and plays a crucial role in the participants' learning. We hope that Mission willwelcome the opportunity to host this year's BC/Ukraine program.We truly appreciate your ongoing support of Canada World Youth and we look forward to beinga part of your community. If you need more information, please do not hesitate to contact me at604-768-9384. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.Mulalo Lawrence SadikeProject SupervisorEmail: msadike@cwy-jcm.orgTel: 604-768-9384,4400 Recycled •.Recyclê /0%.Mr .:LT:66 ". 6,10,3Coraillue ■ l'NllisatienFSC . ""°'=,. tar.=I.6 Form StamecisM11,,MISiege social / Head Office 2330 Notre-Dame 0. / Notre-Dame W., 3e etage / 3rd floorMontreal (Quebec) / Montreal, Quebec Canada H3J 1 N4Tel.: (514) 931-3526 Fax/Telec.: (514) 939-2621

1 0MDISTR1CT OF .ON THE FRASERREQUEST TO APPEAR AS A DELEGATIONDate: Ttior ,7-5— 0601-To: Director of Corporate AdministrationI hereby request permission to appear as a delegation before District of Mission Mayor andCouncil with reference to the following topic:62.424-56-4. 11/4-L1--1 Ft.( 5(0 Ai 74 AtAp5 VeCT-6A-e.c._ Pe4-fecr54;gEe 16/77"/6-- 144 C5Cr AA) ol'r 06- C4O4Jif 0:1 ir- A _.A AAAe_eate.174,0-,_ 6 poAlcrieSki, inteuva&T Fpf. /Was-6- Ark e.c=reS"ti-bewiLs 13,e+o6-I understand that the deadline for submission of the request, including any presentation orsupporting material, is 4:30 p.m. on the Monday preceding the date of the meeting and thatonce my appearance has been confirmed, I will be allotted a maximum of 10 minutes to makemy presentation.Name: / -

11MissionON THE FRASERREQUEST TO APPEAR AS A DELEGATIONDate: 29 July 2011To: Deputy Director of Corporate AdministrationI hereby request permission to appear as a delegation before District of Mission Mayor andCouncil with reference to the following topic:Text Amendment, Rezoning and Development Permit Application for the proposedCommercial Development on 32471 Lougheed Highway, Mission, BC (R10-038/DP10-017)I understand that the deadline for submission of the request, including any presentation orsupporting material, is 4:30 p.m. on the Monday preceding the date of the meeting and thatonce my appearance has been confirmed, I will be allotted a maximum of 10 minutes to makemy presentation.Name: Eric Ching, Associate, Urban Design Group Architects Ltd.THIS INFORMATION COLLECTED FOR INTERNAL OFFICE USE ONLY:Address:City/Province:Postal Code:Email:Telephone:Delegation Confirmed to Appear on:Date Confirmed:Confirmed by:G:clerk/forms/request to appear as a delegation.doc

12Ferndale Institution Population ProfileJune 2011Population Total as of Tune 02, 2011 142Number of Aboriginal Offenders 16Number of Other Ethnicities 40Number of Caucasian 86Age Groups

13Ferndale Institution Population ProfileJuly 2011Population Total as of July 5, 2010 149Number of Aboriginal Offenders 13Number of Other Ethnicities 41Number of Caucasian 95Age Groups

07/14/2011 13:02 6048264318 MMSI WARDEN PAGE 02/0814DISTRICT OF MISSION REPORTJUNE, 2011Enclosures:• District of Mission Public Safety Committee Report• Definitions• Major Offence Profile• Institutional Programming and Community Involvementi/case mgdprivate/ccm-clk/District of Mission Report Enclosures

CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADAMISSION INSTITUTIONDISTRICT OF MISSION PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE REPORTApr-11STATISTICAL INFORMATION UP TO AND INCLUDING THE LAST DAY OF EACH MONTH:.-57g-::ii:VRti -Mintli;?mtiurbi , _1 - TAMS IMO, :V 122, MI al % -7-:"f:-; girligWniii f •af; :fiA ::'-?=:,.L,_. ., , _ _:-.Tvs;',1 : Vt,--ZP, 'kW . -4i-tInside Institutional Count 273 273 274 272 265 256Number of Inmates at Outside Court 0 0 0 0 0 oNumber of Inmates at Outside Hospital 0 0 0 0 0 oNumber of Inmates on Bail 0 0 0 0 0 0Number of Inmates U.A.L. (1 since 1973) 1 1 1 1 1 1Number of Inmates on Temporary Absenoe 0 0 0 0 0 0Total Number of Inmates at Mission 274 274 275 273 286 257II 128 I 124 126 F 123 I 121 I 126i l!WA- _,_ENUMEgli=graTeli. 7 -,j4. r; t;. = -T-31:1;FES:-.;FITEP.71.5 ,:;; t-,ē? .,:=!?::',::-_•..=:." -,-4--;-.- -7-,.x. - --, ia-RIViir! .:11E=-4**tile.P Tiq--;Z:'a ' .r.,,: elt-i:=7;Transfer Out to Maximum Security 4 2 5 5 6 9Transfer Out to Medium Security 0 1 1 5 3 0Transfer Out to Minimum Security 6 2 2 4 11 4Transfer Out to Other (Provincial, etc.) 0 0 0 0 0 0___..,„_,.,_,._____ASV&RgtfL,,,,,rw.-=i2ra'H; X-'=' :ih-.4-Alj7W10 =Wgr-F —. tar – 7--Day ParoleTransfer In from Maximum Security 1 0 3 1 3 11Transfer In from Medium Security 8 5 6 5 8 6Transfer In from Minimum Security 1 0 1 1 1 2Transfer in from Other (Provincial, etc) 0 0 0 0 0 0Transfer in from Multi-level Security 2 0 6 8 2 9Transfer In from RRAC 2 5 5 9 9 2Admitted by Suspension 2 3 0 1 4 2Revocation 0 7 4 1 1 1Wit:."77-7 •Vir"- -'-st-Z".'"3*-a-W -0 10Full Parole 0 0 0 0 0 0Statutory Release 5 4 7 8 9 2Warrant Expiry 0 0 0 2 0 0Death 0 0 0 0 0 0Bail 0 0 0 0 0 0U.A.L. 0 0 0 0 0 0Court Ordered Release 0 0 0 0 1 0S.2-Tz14-41.W.2.1A-iFz.!' M.IflitTst;Number of individual Escorted Temporary Absences* for the month. 2 1 2 0 6Number of Inmates on an Unescorted Temporary Absence during the month. 0 1 1 1 1 1Number participating in the Perimeter Work Clearance Program for the month. 6 4 6 3 3 1Number of Inmates participating in the Work Release Program for the month. 0 0 0 0 0 0Fvurethas nal irrAdellsadcal TECTOCrill Absenzas-e'f -..t . gf.ATO.41 -7-S~ -4.74 f_, .'71SSW-200F:: ."..:7tM kr-4.1*= WWZOng:1V---3 I2

07/14/2011 13:02 6048264319 MMSI WARDEN PAGE 04/0816DEFINITIONSBAILBail is an option for the courts or police to consider, in some cases, where an offender may be able to be released onconditions, rather than being detained in custody prior to court appearance. Bail is also known as Judicial Interim Release,TEMPORARY ABSENCES AND DAY PAROLETemporary Absences (TAs) and Day Paroles allow the temporary release of offenders from institutions in order to accessprograms and services available in the community. All provinces/territories operate TA programs, and TAs may be grantedfor personal development, medical, compassionate, employment, administrative, parental or family-related reasons. Inmost cases, TA's are utilized for pre-parole preparation and planning.TA's are either escorted (ETAs) or unescorted (UTAs). Typically, ETAs are not longer than eight hours and UTAs mayrun from 8 hours to 60 days. The type of offence and sentence length determines whether the Correctional Service ofCanada or the National Parole Board has authority to issue TAs. In simplistic form, the National Parole Board determinesall TAs for offenders serving Life sentences and for other violent offences that resulted in serious harm to the victims. TheWarden, as the head of the releasing institution, retains complete responsibility for the final clearance of offenders beingreleased on TAs and provides a written recommendation to the N.P.B. when they possess the legal authority.As a general rule, all offenders are eligible for E.TA.s the moment they commence their federal sentences. In practicehowever, very few offenders will receive authorization for TAs early within their Sentence, with the exception of TAs formedical and compassionate purposes. As a general rule, medical and compassionate TAs are escorted by what isdetermined as a security escort (two officers who possess and utilize restraint equipment). However, for other types ofETAs, the offender is usually escorted by one officer only. Variations in the level of security exist and is determined byassessing the level of risk the offender poses to the public. .In terms of offenders eligibility for UTAs, this is determined by legal calculations of eligibility and varies from one offender toanother depending on their sentence length. In the case of offenders serving a Life sentence, UTA eligibility is calculatedas three years before their full parole eligibility date.Federal offenders may qualify to participate in work release programs outside of the correctional institution for a specifiedperiod of time. These type of releases could see a single offender going out to work as well as groups of offenders.However, they are usually escorted by at least one officer. In addition, UTAs may be granted to allow offenders toparticipate in personal development programs or community service projects. UTAs are generally granted for a maximumperiod of 15 days. although if the UTA is for participation in a persona/ development program, it may be extended to 80days, renewable.Day Parole is a flexible form of release that provides an opportunity for correctional officials to employ gradual release,preparing the inmate for release on full parole and allowing the inmate the opportunity to participate in community-basedprograms and become readjusted to life outside the institution.Federal offenders, with the exception of those inmates in preventive detention or serving indeterminate sentences, areeligible for day parole six months prior. to their parole eligibility date or after having served six months of their sentence,whichever is longer. The majority of the inmates on day parole reside in community-based facilities operated by theprovincial and federal corrections services or by private agencies on contract with the Correctional Service.FULL PAROLEFull Parole is a program of conditional release that allows inmates to serve a portion of their sentence in the Communityunder supervision. Inmates are generally eligible for full parole after serving one-third of their sentence or seven years,whichever is shorter. Under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act enacted in 1992, however, sentencing judgeshave the authority to set the parole eligibility for offenders convicted of violent and serious drug offences at one-half ratherthan one-third of the sentence. In such cases, the period until parole eligibility cannot exceed ten years. Federal inmatesserving Life sentences are eligible for parole consideration after seven years in confinement, dated from the day theoffender was arrested and taken into custody. The exception to this are situations in which an offender is serving a Lifesentence with a mandatory minimum sentence. For example, a First Degree Murder conviction carries a mandatory 25years confinement before parole eligibility,STATUTORY RELEASEStatutory Release has its origins in an amendment to the Parole Act in 1970, which created a mechanism to provideassistance and control during the offender's readjustment to life in the community for inmates who had been denied parole.In contrast to parole, statutory release involves the release of offenders from the institution after serving two-thirds of theirsentence, with the remaining one-third being served under supervision of the National Parole Board in the community.Inmates released under statutory release are supervised by parole Officers and must abide by mandatory and any additionalconditions set by the NP13 that are deemed necessary to successfully manage the offender's risk in the community. Aviolation of the conditions can result in suspension and revocation and return to the institution where the offender may haveto serve the remainder of his sentence.Inmates can be Detained by the NPB and thus not released on statutory release. However, it has been determined in lawthat offenders have the right to be released after serving two thirds of their sentences and thus, to detain an offender, theremust be significant grounds to establish that the offender would constitute a grievous threat to the community, or anymember thereof, if released. Following completion of their sentence, (Warrant Expiry Date), these inmates are releasedinto the community without any supervision or assistance. However, recent changes in the Corrections and ConditionalRelease Act have made provisions to allow for the supervision of some offenders beyond their Warrant Expiry dates.However, the changes in this law are not retroactive to offenders currently serving sentences and will likely involve a verysmall group of offenders determined to be extremely dangerous.

07/14/2011 13:02 6048264319 MMSI WARDEN PAGE 05/08 1 7Major Offence ProfileCorrectional Service of CanadaPROTECTED BOffenders profile at the specified site and proportion for each major offenceMISSION INSTITUTIONPOSSESS NARCOTIC (000010) 1 0,38%TRAFFIC IN NARCOTIC (000060) 2 016%OBSTRUCT PUBLIC/PEACE OFFICER (003480) 3 1.15%PUBLIC MISCHIEF - MAKE FALSE STATEMENT (003970) 1 0.38%RAPE (004120) 1 0.38%FAIL TO ATTEND COURT - UNDER/RECOG (004180) 1 0.38%FAIL TO ATTEND COURT - UNDER/RECOG (004190) 1 0.38%FAIL TO ATTEND COURT - JUDGES ORDER (004200) 1 0.38%FAIL TO ATTEND COURT - JUDGE'S ORDER (004210) 1 0.38%FAIL TO COMPLY W/COND OF UNDER/RECOG (004220) 1 0.38%FAIL TO COMPLY W/COND OF UNDER/RECOG (004230) 2 0.76%FAIL TO APPEAR - APPEARANCE NOTICE (004260) 1 0.38%FAIL TO APPEAR - APPEARANCE NOTICE (004270) 5 1.91%SEX INTER W/FEMALE U/14 (004280) 1 0.38%NON CAPITAL MURDER (006210) 1FIRST DEGREE MURDER (006350) 6 2.29%SECOND DEGREE MURDER (006360) 6 2.29%MANSLAUGHTER (006370) 1 0.38%ATTEMPT MURDER (006410) 1 0.38%FIRST DEGREE MURDER (006650) 32 12.21%SECOND DEGREE MURDER (006660) 49 18.70%MANSLAUGHTER (006720) 3 1.15%ATTEMPT MURDER (006830) 1 0.38%OVERCOME RESISTANCE - CHOKE (007260) 1 0.38%OVERCOME RESISTANCE - ADM DRUGS (007270) 1 0.38%DANGEROUS OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLE (007380) 3 1.15%IMPAIRED DRIVING - CAUSE DEATH (007800) 1 0.38%ASSAULT - USE OF FORCE (007980) 1 0.38%ASSAULT WITH A WEAPON (008050) 3 1.15%ASSAULT CAUSING BODILY HARM (008060) 1 0.38%Date and time extracted: 2011/07/04 1:26:09PM EST Page 1 of 3

Uff14/,CUll ta94b-Lbcidi'd MMSi WARDEN PAGE 06/08AGGRAVATED ASSAULT (008070) 6 2.29%ASSAULT PEACE OFFICER (008100) 1 0,38%SEXUAL ASSAULT (008160) 10 3.82%SEXUAL ASSAULT CAUSING BODILY HARM (008200) 3 1.15%KIDNAP - HOLD FOR RANSOM (008280) 1 0.38%FORCIBLE CONFINEMENT (008290) 3 1.15%ROBBERY (008710) 1 0.38%THEFT OVER (008990) 2 0,76%THEFT UNDER (009000) 2 0.76%THEFT UNDER (009010) 1 0.38%POSSESS STOLEN CREDIT CARD (009780) 1 0.38%BREAK ENTER W/INTENT (009970) 3 1.15%BREAK ENTER AND COMMIT (009980) 11 4.20%POSS PROP OBT BY CRIME-OVER (010180) 2 0.76%POSS PROPERTY OBTAINED BY CRIME- UNDER (010190) 1 0.38%FRAUD UNDER (010850) 1 0.38%ATTEMPT (012130) 1 0.38%18MISCHIEF IN RELATION TO OTHER PROP (012520) 1 0.38%ARSON - DISREGARD FOR HUMAN LIFE (012580) 1 0.38%ARSON - DAMAGE TO PROPERTY (012590) 1 0.38%ATTEMPT IND OFFENCE (013280) 1 0,38%CONSPIRE TO COMMIT IND OFF (013380) 1 0.38%BREACH OF RECOG TO KEEP PEACE (013840) 1 0,38%OFFENCE UNDER MOTOR VEHICLE ACT - ALTA (014000) 1 0.38%USE IMIT FIREARM WHILE COMMITTING (014690) 1 0.38%CAUSE DEATH BY CR1M NEGL - ALL OTHERS (014730) 1 0.38%MANSLAUGHTER - ALL OTHERS (014750) 12 4,58%An MURDER - USE FIREARM (014760) 1 0,38%ATI MURDER - ALL OTHERS (014770) 1 0.38°.6SEXUAL ASSAULT WNVEAPON - ALL OTHERS (014850) 2 0.76%SEXUAL ASSAULT CBH - ALL OTHERS (014890) 1 0.38%AGG. SEXUAL ASSAULT -ALL OTHERS (014930) 3 1.15%KIDNAP - UNLAWFULLY CONFINE - FIREARM (014940) 1 0.38%KIDNAP - UNLAWFULLY CONFINE -ALL OTHERS (014970) 3 1.15%KIDNAP- HOLD FOR RANSOM -ALL OTHERS (014990) 2 0.76%ROBBERY - USE FIREARM (015040) 1 0.38%ROBBERY - ALL OTHERS (015050) 20 7.63%FAIL TO COMPLY W/ PROBATION ORDER (015090) 3 1.15%Date and time extracted: 2011/07/04 1:26:09PM ESTPage 1 of 3

07/14/2011 13: 02 6048264319 MMSI WARDEN PAGE 07/08 19POSS. SCHEDULE I SUBSTANCE (015170) 2 0.76%TRAFFIC IN SCHEDULE I/II SUBSTANCE (015280) 3 1.15%POSS SCHEDULE I/II SUBST FOR PURP TRAFF (015340) 4 1.53%POSS SCHED III SUBST FOR PURP TRAFF (015350) 1 0.38%PRODUCTION OF SCHED MI SUBST (015500) 1 0.38%FTC W/ COND, OF UNDER. (015640) 1 0.38%UTTER FORGED DOCUMENT (015800) 1 0.38%POSS PROH/RESTR F/ARM W/AMMUN (016050) 2 0.76%OPERATE MV - FLIGHT (016610) 1 0.38%ROBBERY - USE FIREARM ALL OTHER (017830) 1 0,38%DISCH FIREARM RECKLESS LIFE! SAFETY (018080) 1 0.38%UTTER THREAT TO CAUSE DEATH/HARM (7925) 1 0.38%ASSAULT WITH A WEAPON (8055) 1 0.38%Total Number of Offenders: 262Date and time extracted: 2011/07/04 1:26:09PM ESTPage 1 of 3

!Jr/1412011 13:02 6048264319 MMSI WARDEN PAGE 08/0820INSTITUTION:• 2 Pathways Sweats• 2 General Population Sweats• Currently running 2 Aboriginal ICPM Maintenance program• Successfully completed 1 Aboriginal Non-Intake Primer which will lead into theIC PM Aboriginal Moderate Program• Main stream Motivational Based Intervention Strategy (MBIS)• Aboriginal MBIS• Currently running I Main Stream WPM Maintenance group• Currently running I Sex Offender ICP1v1 Maintenance group• Currently running Methadone Maintenance• Currently running ICPM Multi-Target Moderate• Currently running 1 IC PM Non-Intake.Prirricr which will lead into the ICPMModerate Program• Bible Study• Movie Night in the Chapel• Band Practice• Alpha GroupCOMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT:• Is42 Visit• Buddist Chaplain• Muslim Chaplain• Sikh Chaplain• Catholic Service• Salvation Army• Protestant Service• Wiecan Chaplain• Challenge Sports Day• Population Family Visiting Event

21Minutes of the Abbotsford/Mission Water & Sewer Commission meeting heldJune 16, 2011, at 10:06 a.m. in Room 530 of Abbotsford Cit.,/ HallWSC Members Present: Mayor Peary (Abbotsford) (Chair); Mayor Atebe (Mission);Councillor Gibson (Abbotsford); Councillor Gidda (Mission); Councillor Gill (Abbotsford);Councillor Plecas (Mission); and Councillor Ross (Abbotsford)UMC Members Present: Acting General Manager Engineering, RegionalUtilities - R. Isaac (Abbotsford); Director of Finance — J. Lewis (Abbotsford); Director ofFinance - K. Bjorgaard (Mission); and Director of Engineering and PublicWorks - R. Bomhof (Mission)Staff Present: Director of Water & Solid Waste — T. Kyle (Abbotsford); General Manager,Finance & Corporate Services - P. Soanes (Abbotsford); Budget & PayrollManager- R. Millard (Abbotsford); Water Planning Engineer — K. Alexander (Abbotsford);City Manager — F. Pizzuto (Abbotsford); Deputy Director of Finance — K. Boland(Mission); and Recording Secretary - R. Brar (Abbotsford)Public Present: 11. CALL TO ORDERThe meeting was called to order at 10:06 a.m.2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES.1 Minutes of the May 5, 2011 MeetingMoved by Councillor Ross, seconded by Councillor Plecas,that the minutes of the Abbotsford/Mission Water & SewerCommission meeting held May 5, 2011, be adopted.WSC 64-2011CARRIED.3. DELEGATIONSNone.4. BUSINESS OUT OF MINUTES.1 Monthly Follow-up ReportMoved by Councillor Gibson, seconded by CouncillorGidda, that the monthly follow-up report, be received.WSC 65-2011CARRIED.

22Minutes of the Abbotsford/Mission Water & Sewer Commission meeting heldJune 16, 2011, at 10:06 a.m. in Room 530 of Abbotsford City Hall Page 2.2 JAMES Plant Monthly Report — May 2011Moved by Mayor Atebe, seconded by Councillor Plecas,that Report No. WSC 64-2011, dated May 24, 2011, fromthe Director of Utility Operations, regarding JAMES PlantMonthly Report — May 2011, be received.WSC 66-2011CARRIED..3 Monthly Water Report — May 2011Moved by Councillor Gibson, seconded by CouncillorGidda, that Report No. WSC 67-2011, dated June 2, 2011,from the Director of Utility Operations, regarding MonthlyWater Report — May 2011, be received.WSC 67-2011CARRIED..4 Financial Statements — April 2011Moved by Mayor Atebe, seconded by Councillor Gidda,that Report No. WSC 66-2011, dated May 31, 2011, fromthe Budget & Payroll Manager (Abbotsford), regardingFinancial Statements — April 2011, be received.WSC 68-2011CARRIED..5 Reconsideration of Resolution No. WSC 42-2011, from the April 14, 2011 WSCMeeting by Mayor Peary, under Section 131 of the Community Charter,regarding the Extra Strength Revenue (2240-20/AMWSC)Moved by Mayor Atebe, seconded by Councillor Plecas,that Resolution No. WSC 42-2011, from the April 14, 2011WSC Meeting by Mayor Peary, under Section 131 of theCommunity Charter, regarding (part 3) the assetreplacement portion collected from the industrial extrastrength customers be transferred to the municipalitywhere the extra strength sewage is generated, bereconsidered and Report No. WSC 68-2011, datedMay 31, 2011, from the Planning/Process Engineer,regarding the Extra Strength Revenue, be received and allextra strength sewage revenue be shared based on flow,which is the current way of sharing the revenue.WSC 69-2011CARRIED.

23Minutes of the Abbotsford/Mission Water & Sewer Commission meeting heldJune 16, 2011, at 10;06 a.m. in Room 530 of Abbotsford City Hall Page 3.6 Norrish Creek Water SupplyT. Kyle, Director of Water and Solid Waste, presented a powerpoint presentation,regarding the Norrish Creek Water Supply; Background; Norrish Creek Intake Upgrade;Dickson Lake Upgrades; Norrish Creek Water Treatment Plant Improvements;Expansion of Norrish Creek Supply; Master Plan — Sources Considered; and AdditionalRisks and Challenges.Moved by Councillor Gibson, seconded by CouncillorPlecas, that the powerpoint presentation by the Director ofWater and Solid Waste, regarding the Norrish Creek WaterSupply, be received.WSC 70-2011CARRIED.5. REPORTS.1 Financial Plan AmendmentsMoved by Mayor Atebe, seconded by Councillor Ross, thatReport No. WSC 63-2011, dated May 31, 2011, from theBudget & Payroll Manager, regarding Financial PlanAmendments, be received; and the attached amendedfinancial plans to Report No. WSC 63-2011, be approvedand that each City's budget be amended accordingly, asrequired.WSC 71-2011CARRIED.-.2 Contract for Membrane Equipment Goods and Services with GEWater & Process Technologies (5650-60)Moved by Mayor Atebe, seconded by Councillor Ross, thatReport No. WSC 62-2011, dated May 20, 2011, from theWater Planning Engineer, regarding the Contract forMembrane Equipment Goods and Services with GE Water& Process Technologies, be received; (1) the AbbotsfordMission Water & Sewer Commission enter into acontract for the supply of ultrafiltration membraneequipment & services at a maximum price of $2,235,000(plus taxes) subject to the approval of a project budgetamendment as described by WSC 63-2011 by the WSCand both Abbotsford and Mission's Councils as required;and (3) Mayor Peary and the Abbotsford Corporate Officerbe authorized to execute all documents related to thismatter.WSC 72-2011CARRIED.

24Minutes of the Abbotsford/Mission Water & Sewer Commission meeting heldJune 16, 2011, at 10:06 am. in Room 530 of Abbotsford City Hall Page 4.3 Year End (2010) Water and Sewer Flow Percentage Split (5500-9015600-01)Moved by Councillor Gidda, seconded by CouncillorGibson, that Report No. WSC 46-2011, datedMay 24, 2011 from the Director of Utility Operations,regarding Year End (2010) Water and Sewer FlowPercentage Split, be received; and Sewer:Abbotsford - 80.57%; Mission — 19.43%; and Water:Abbotsford — 73.10%; Mission — 26.90% be approved andused for the allocation of revenues and water operational,sewer operational and capital expenditures for 2011, inaccordance with our agreement.WSC 73-2011CARRIED..4 Information Bulletin dated May 24, 2011, from the Ministry of Environment,regardinqthe Bevan Wells Groudwater Supply Project ApprovedMoved by Councillor Gibson, seconded by CouncillorGidda, that Information Bulletin dated May 24, 2011, fromthe Ministry of Environment, regarding the Bevan WellsGroudwater Supply Project approved, be received.WSC 74-2011CARRIED.6. NEW BUSINESSNone.7. MOTION TO CLOSEMoved by Councillor Gibson, seconded by CouncillorGidda, that the June 16, 2011, WSC meeting, beadjourned (10:59 a.m.).WSC 75-2011CARRIED.Certified Correct:AlWSf hair/Ge ge W. P aryzf)JMC hairLewis

25MDISTRICT OF103,ON THE FRASERPlanning DepartmentMemorandumFILE: PRO.DEV.ZOIV/PRO.DEV.DEV/PRO.DEV.SUBR10-037, R10-038, DP10-017, DP10-018 & DV10-020/S11-003To: Chief Administrative OfficerFrom: Senior PlannerDate: August 8, 2011Subject: Rezoning Application R10-037 & R10-038, Development Permit ApplicationsDP10-017 & DP10-018, Development Variance Permit Application DV10-020and Subdivision Application S11-003 (Urban Design Group Architects Ltd.)— 32471 Lougheed HighwayRecommendation1. That, in accordance with Rezoning Application R10-037 (Urban Design Group ArchitectsLtd.), the Corporate Officer prepare a bylaw to amend the text of District of Mission ZoningBylaw 5050-2009 by:a) Deleting from Section 106, Part C. Uses Prohibited, Paragraph 1:" h. "Drive Thru Restaurant"b) Adding to Section 106, Part C. Uses Prohibited:"2. Except where otherwise permitted within this bylaw in a ComprehensiveDevelopment Zone, the following uses are prohibited:a. Drive thru restaurantc) Re-letter accordingly "Section 106, Part C. Uses Prohibited".2. That, in accordance with Rezoning Application R10-038 (Urban Design Group ArchitectsLtd.), the Corporate Officer prepare a bylaw to amend District of Mission Zoning Bylaw5050-2009 by:a) adding the CD-24 zone (Comprehensive Development 24 zone) and that Appendix 1,attached hereto (CD-24 zone) be attached to said amending bylaw; andb) rezoning a portion of the property located at 32471 Lougheed Highway and described aspart of Parcel Identifier: 023 662 352, Lot 2, Except: Part Road Plan BCP9616, Section20, Township 17 and District Lot 165, Group 3, New Westminster District PlanLMP31617, labelled as Area A on Map 2, attached hereto, and further described asArea A in a metes and bounds description attached hereto as Appendix 2.from the CH-1 zone (Commercial Highway One zone) to the CD-24 zone(Comprehensive Development 24 zone); andc) by rezoning a portion of the property located at 32471 Lougheed Highway anddescribed as part of Parcel Identifier: 023 662 352, Lot 2, Except: Part Road PlanBCP9616, Section 20, Township 17 and District Lot 165, Group 3, New WestminsterDistrict Plan LMP31617, labelled as Area B on Map 2, attached hereto, and furtherdescribed as Area B in a metes and bounds description attached hereto as Appendix 2.from the CH-1 zone (Commercial Highway One zone) to the IPRC zone (InstitutionalParks Recreation and Civic zone).PAGE OF

263. That these bylaws be considered for 1st and 2nd readings at the Regular Council meetingon August 8, 2011; andthat following such readings, the bylaws be forwarded to a Public Hearing on August 22,2011.4. That Development Permit Application DP10-017, in the name of Mission WesternDevelopments Ltd., to provide conformity to the Official Community Plan guidelinesrespecting building form and character for a proposed commercial development forproperty located at 32471 Lougheed Highway be forwarded to Council for public input onAugust 22, 2011.5. That Development Permit Application DP10-018, in the name of Mission WesternDevelopments Ltd., to provide conformity to the Official Community Plan guidelinesrespecting the protection of the natural environment adjacent to Windebank Creek forthe purposes of protecting the spawning area for salmon and trout for property located at32471 Lougheed Highway be forwarded to Council for public input on August 22, 2011.6. That Development Variance Permit Application DV10-020, in the name of MissionWestern Developments Ltd., to vary Section 108 Environmental Protection (Part C, 3) ofDistrict of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009 by reducing the minimum required setbackfrom 30 metres to the area on the plan as shown on Map 2 (Area B), attached hereto, forproperty located at 32471 Lougheed Highway, be forwarded to Council for public inputon August 22, 2011Summary of ProposalThe proposal includes a text change to the zoning bylaw to allow drive thu restaurants inspecific comprehensive development zones on a site by site basis and a text change to createthe CD-24 zone, the proposed zoning change to the subject property, a development permit forform and character, a development permit for the enhancement of the natural environmentadjacent to Windebank Creek for the purposes of protecting the spawning area for fish, and adevelopment variance permit to vary Section 108 of the zoning bylaw. The subject property isshown on Map 1.BackgroundAn application has been received from Urban Design Group Architects Ltd. to rezone a portionof the property located at 32471 Lougheed Highway from the CH1 zone (Commercial HighwayOne zone) to the CD-24 (Comprehensive Development 24 zone) to allow for a shopping centreand to rezone a portion of the property to the IPRC zone (Institutional Parks Recreation andCivic zone) because it is undevelopable. Text changes to the zoning bylaw have also beenapplied for to create the CD-24 zone and to allow drive thru restaurants in that zone.The applicant has also applied for a development permit for form and character for the proposedcommercial development on the site, a development permit for protection of the naturalenvironment and a development variance permit to vary Section 108 (Environmental Protection)of the zoning bylaw to allow the current bylaw setback to be reduced to enable the retention ofthe existing restrictive covenant setback from the creek that is registered on the subjectproperty.FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON/PRO.DEV.DEV/PRO.DEV.SUBR10-037 & R10-038, DP10-017 & DP-018 & DV10-020/S11-003

27The development proposal is to allow for commercial businesses, including two drive-thrurestaurants. There are five buildings proposed, ranging in size from 152 square metres (1636sq. ft.) to 1215.3 square metres (13,082 sq. ft.). The proposed total building area on the site is2373.6 square metres (25,550 sq. ft.).Official Community Plan DesignationThe Official Community Plan designation for the subject property is Commercial. No change isrequired to the Official Community Plan.Zoning Amendment — Text ChangesThere are two text changes proposed. The first text change is to amend Section 106 C. UsesProhibited to allow drive thru restaurants when a Comprehensive Zone is created that permitsdrive thru restaurants within the CD zone. The second text change is to create the CD-24 zone.The proposed CD-24 zone allows two drive thru restaurants on a specific site. It is noted thatthe specific site for the proposed CD-24 zone is the 1.37 hectare western portion of 32471Loug heed Highway.Zoning Amendments — LandThe subject property located at 32471 Lougheed Highway has a useable commercial area thatis approximately 1.37 ha (3.38 ac.) and a smaller .7 hectare (1.72 ac.) area that isenvironmentally sensitive and undevelopable. The applicant wishes to subdivide off theenvironmentally sensitive area and therefore the proposed zoning change is broken down intotwo parts:1. Commercial Area (1.37 ha)The subject property is zoned CH-1, Commercial Highway One zone. The zoning is correctfor the majority of the uses proposed by the applicant for the commercial portion of the site,however, the applicant has requested two drive thru restaurants on the site.The zoning bylaw prohibits drive thru restaurants in Mission which means that new drive thrurestaurants are not permitted while existing drive thru restaurants are considered legal nonconformingand can continue to operate as such.The owner and applicant have met with staff, have made a delegation to Council, and haverequested that a CD zone be prepared to accommodate the drive thru restaurant use on thesite. They are proposing two drive thru restaurants — a proposed Tim Horton's and aproposed Burger King.Based on the applicants' request and direction from Council, staff has prepared a CD zoneand a text amendment that would allow two drive thru restaurants at this site and are puttingthese proposed changes forward to Council for Council to determine if they wish to supportthis change to accommodate the two drive-thru restaurants.The applicant's proposal is to rezone this western portion of the site (1.37 ha) from the CH-1zone to the CD-24 zone. This area is shown as Area A on Map 2.FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON/PRODEV.DEV/PRO.DEV,SUBR10-037 & R10-038, DP10-017 & DP-018 & DV10-0201S11-003

282. Environmentally Sensitive Area (.7 ha)The applicant has proposed to subdivide off this portion of the site because it isundevelopable and it is staff's understanding that the applicant wishes to gift this land areato a land conservancy group.The proposal is to rezone this portion of land from the CH-1 zone to the IPRC zone(Institutional Parks Recreation and Civic zone).This eastern part of the site is also shown on Map 2 (Area B).Drive Thru Restaurants — Vehicle StackingThe car stacking capacity for the drive thru aisle for the proposed Tim Horton' restaurant is 16cars and for the proposed Burger King restaurant is 10 cars. As outlined in a previous staffstudy regarding car stacking for drive thru restaurants, the minimum number should be 10 carsin the queuing area. It is noted that both the proposed drive thru restaurants for thisdevelopment meet or exceed that number in their capacity to stack cars in their queuing area.The site plan is attached as Drawing A.ParkingThe number of on-site parking spaces required for this commercial development is 115 parkingspaces. The development exceeds this number by 12 parking spaces for a total of 127 parkingspaces. The drive aisles meet the minimum width in the zoning bylaw of 7 metres (23 ft.). Thesite plan is attached as Drawing A.Internal CommentsThe Engineering Department Comments are attached (Appendix 3) and there are nooutstanding items with the Fire/Rescue Service Department.External ReferralThe Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure preliminary comments are attached (Appendix4). It is noted that there are off-site works required.Development Permit Application DPI 0-017 (Form and Character)The proposed commercial development comprises five buildings ranging in size from 152square metres (1636 sq. ft.) to 1215.3 square metres (13,082 sq. ft.). The proposed totalbuilding area on the site is 2,373.6 square metres (25,550 square feet).The architect has provided the following three paragraphs about the design of the site:The meeting of two highways that link the District of Mission to the Lower Mainland andmunicipalities north and south of the Fraser River drives the viability of vehicle orientedcommercial uses consistent with existing developments, particularly along this section ofLougheed Highway. This context has attracted strong and explicit interest from national retailbrands with very successful vehicle-driven business models, such as fast-food restaurants thatFILE: PRO.DEV.ZON/PRO.DEV.DEV/PRO.DEV.SUBR10-037 & R10-038, DP10-017 & DP-018 & DV10-020/S11-003

29offer drive-thru convenience, in addition to commercial services that cater directly to the needsof the commuting public, namely car wash and oil change facilities. The proposed developmentwill cater to three such tenants while the balance of commercial spaces is earmarked for retailstores and professional services of varying sizes.While the development plan supports the property's key aspect as a vehicle oriented site with astraightforward arrangement of buildings and vehicular circulation, the architecture elicits asofter, neighborhood feel with generous on-site landscaping and tree planting; varying parapetheights that break up building mass; a combination of open fabric awnings and cable-hungcanopies; subtle stucco relief details along designated points across the façade; and the use ofhorizontal lap siding, stucco and stone veneer as principal materials in a variety of hues.Accentuated cornices lend a distinct character to the buildings and are introduced to ensurevisibility for these structures that sit on a site 3 to 4 feet lower than the street at the corner. A1,500 sf open, landscaped plaza anchors this same corner with public space while a plantedtrellis screen along the Lougheed frontage frames the development with a greener edge.Materials include hardiplank lap siding, stucco, stone veneer, with steel and glass canopies andfabric canopies.Planning staff requested more architectural detail and increased usage of hardiplank on thebuildings, however, the applicant has advised that due to prospective tenant requests, thechange in materials has not been provided. It is noted that some improvements were made tothe site from with respect to traffic flow, pedestrian linkages, building alignments andlandscaping.The site plan is attached as Drawing A and the elevations are attached as Drawings Bthrough F.A coloured rendering of the site is attached as Drawing G. Colours are generally earthtoneswith some corporate colours.Pedestrian linkages have been provided across the main drive aisles and to the sidewalk on theLougheed Highway and to the Cedar Connector.LandscapingLandscaping is as shown on Drawing H and Drawing I. There are a number of trees proposedfor the site and a variety of plants and bushes, including azalea, hydrangea and rhododendrons.On the south-west corner a plaza with seating, bike racks and planters is proposed thusproviding a corner feature and a pedestrian linkage to the site.The landscape estimate for the site is approximately $138,000.Development Permit Application DPI 0-018 (Windebank Creek)The development permit for Windebank Creek is for the protection of the natural environmentadjacent to Windebank Creek for the purposes of protecting the spawning area for fish. Thedevelopment permit requires a planting plan and maintenance agreement for the vegetation. Arevised planting plan has been submitted and it has been reviewed by the Manager ofEnvironmental Services and it is deemed acceptable.FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON/PRO.DEV.DEV/PRO.DEV.SUBR10-037 & R10-038, DP10-017 & DP-018 & DV10-020/S11-003

30Development Variance Permit Application DV10-020The development variance is to vary Section 108 Environmental Protection (Part C, 3) of Districtof Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009 by reducing the minimum required setback from the creekfrom 30 metres to the area as shown on Map 2 (Area B).There is an existing restrictive covenant registered on the subject property that was placed onthe property by the Ministry of Environment in 1997. This restrictive covenant area is shownwithin Area B on Map 2.Staff is in agreement with supporting the reduced setback area due to the topography, the useof a sierra retaining wall, and configuration of the site. Increasing the restrictive covenant areawould encroach into the area that has been discussed as a commercial site with the Ministry ofEnvironment and Department of Fisheries for many years. It is noted that the Department ofFisheries typically allow existing restrictive covenant areas to remain. Staff supports themaintaining of the existing restrictive covenant.Public Hearing Information PackageIn accordance with Council Policy LAN.50 — PRE-PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATIONPACKAGES, a package will be produced containing material related to the developmentapplication.Subdivision Application S11-003The proposed subdivision is to subdivide the subject property into two parcels — the larger 1.376hectare parcel is proposed for the commercial development and the smaller .7 hectare propertyis the environmentally sensitive portion of the site with an existing restrictive covenant. Thisapplication is going through the subdivision process. Area 1 and Area 2 are shown on Map 2.The owner of the property offered the environmentally sensitive area to the District of Missionand, after referrals to various departments, it has been determined at a staff level that the landarea is not suitable for municipal park purposes and any servicing access needed can beobtained through a right-of-way rather than acquiring some of the land. There are concernsabout maintenance costs and liability and therefore the applicant was advised that staff is notsupportive of acquiring the area. The applicant was also provided with information regardingother options for gifting the land through environmental conservancy agencies, etc.Requirements Prior to Adoption of the Zone Amending Bylaw• Engineering requirements• Right-of-way over part of the environmentally sensitive area• Planting works completed within the environmentally sensitive area (or the monies for theplanting secured with the District of Mission), the maintenance agreement signed, and themonitoring monies for the planting works being secured with the conservancy agency.• Approval of Development Permit DP10-018 to be considered as part of the same Councilagenda as the Zone Amending Bylaws are considered, conditional upon the planting worksFILE: PRO.DEV.ZON/PRO.DEV.DEV/PRO.DEV.SUBR10-037 & R10-038, DP10-017 & DP-018 & DV10-020/S11-003

31being completed (or the monies for the planting secured with the District of Mission), themaintenance agreement signed, and the monitoring monies for the planting works beingsecured with the conservancy agency.• Approval of Development Permit DP10-017 to be considered as part of the same Councilagenda as the Zone Amending Bylaws are considered.• Approval of Development Variance Permit DV10-020 will be considered as part of the sameCouncil agenda as the Zone Amending Bylaws are considered.• Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MOTI) requirements are met and MOTIapproval of the amendment bylaws and development permit obtained.• Any other items that Council may require resulting from the Public Hearing or Councilconsideration of the application.SummaryIn summary, staff recommends that the Rezoning, Development Permits and DevelopmentVariance Permit applications proceed to Public Hearing and Public Input meeting on August 22,2011.D yle RetiSenior PlannerG:COMDEV/DAYLE/COVVREPORT(URBANDES1GNGROUP)HVVY7&11(R10-037ANDR10-38)FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON/PRO.DEV.DEV/PRO.DEV.SUBR10-037 & R10-038, DP10-017 & DP-018 & DV10-020/S11-003

Applio milt 4g I 32A. Zone Intent1. This zone is primarily based on the CH-1 zone and the intent of this CD zone is to provide for a broadrange of businesses to serve the general retail, office, service, restaurant (including drive thrurestaurants) and shopping needs of the community located along the Lougheed Highway corridor in theCommercial area.B. Permitted Uses1. The following Principal Uses and no other shall be permitted in the CD-24 zone:a. Accommodation limited to:i. Hotel, andii. Motel.b. Automotive limited to:i. Car Wash,ii. Parking Lot,iii. Vehicle Rental, andiv. Vehicle Service.c. Cultural limited to:i. Cultural Assembly.d. Entertainment limited to:i. Adult Entertainment Parlour,ii. Arcade,iii. Banquet Hall,iv. Cinema ,v. Night Club, andvi. Pool and Billiard Hall.e. Food and Beverage limited to:i. Café,ii. Coffee Shop, andiii. Restaurant.iv. Drive Thru Restaurants (maximum of two)f. Industrial limited to:i. Light Manufacturing.

33g. Institutional limited to:L Adult Educational Institution,H. Child Care Centre,iii. Civic Assembly,iv. College,v. Educational Facility,vi. Trade School, andvii. University.h. Office limited to:i. Escort Service,ii. Government Service,iii. General office Use, andiv. Administrative Office Use.Personal Service limited toi. Barber Shop,H. Body Art and Tattoo Parlour,Hi. Body Rub Parlour,iv. Cleaning and Repair of Clothing,v. Hair and Body Salon,vi. Medical Clinic, andvii. Spa.Recreation limited to:i. Bowling Alley, andii. Indoor Recreation Facility.k. Residential limited to:i. Apartments provided they:ii.iii.Form an integral part of a commercial Building on the lot,Are not be located on the 1st storey, andAre the only Use in a storey and in all other storeys above the Residential Use.

34Retail limited to:i. Adult Entertainment Store,ii. Adult Video Store,iii. Auction-Retail,iv. Bakery,v. Building Supply Store,vi. Butcher,vii. Convenience Store,viii.Flea Market,ix. Furniture Store,x. Garden Supply Store,xi. Household Equipment Rental,xii. Liquor Store,xiii. Pawnshop,xiv. Pharmacy,xv. Produce Sales,xvi. Retail Store,xvii. Retail Warehouse,xviii. Rural Agency Store,xix. Second Hand Store,xx. Shopping Centre,xxi. Specialty Food,xxii. Supermarket, andxxiii. Video Rental.m. Service limited to:i. Appliance Repair,ii. Beverage Container Return Centre,iii. Community Service,iv. Dog and Cat Daycare Kennel,v. Drive Through Bank,vi. Financial, Insurance and Real Estate ,vii. Funeral Parlour and/or Memorial Service Facility,viii. General Service Use,ix. Photocopying, andx. Veterinary Clinic.2. The following Accessory Uses and no other shall be permitted in the CD24 Zone:a. Storage limited to the following:i. Enclosed Storage.

35C. Lot Area1. The minimum Lot Area must not be less than 0.2 ha (0.5 ac).2. Notwithstanding Section 804, Part C.1, where a Lot contains an Undevelopable Area, that area shallnot be included in the calculation of minimum Lot Area.3. Notwithstanding Section 804, Part C.1 and C.2, where a Lot contains natural slopes greater than orequal to 33%, that sloped area shall not be included in the calculation of minimum Lot Area.D. Density1. The maximum density for the residential portion of the development shall be calculated as follows:Zone:CD24Maximum Density80 upha (32 upa)E. Setbacks1. All Buildings and Structures shall be sited in accordance with the following minimum Setbacks:Principal BuildingAccessoryBuilding/StructureFront Rear InteriorSide3.0 m 3.0 m 3.0 m(9.8 ft) (9.8 ft) (9.8 ft)7.5 m 4.5 m 4.5 m(24.6 ft) (14.8 ft) (14.8 ft)ExteriorSide3 m(9.8 ft)4.5 m(14.8 ft)2. Notwithstanding Section 804 Part E.1, all Buildings shall be sited a minimum of 4.5 m (14.8 ft) from allUndevelopable Areas as defined in this Bylaw.F. Lot Coverage1. Buildings shall together cover not more than the Lot Area as noted in the following table:Zone:Lot CoverageCD24 75%

36G. Floor Space1. The floor space should not exceed the following ratio as listed in the following table (Neither indooramenity space, garage space, detached or attached, or parking within the building envelope, includingunderground, are used in calculating total floor area).H. Height of BuildingsFloor SpaceZone:RatioCD24 2.01. The Height of the Principal Building and Accessory Buildings shall not exceed the heights outlined inthe following table:Zone:CD24PrincipalBuilding14.0 m(45.9 ft)AccessoryBuilding/Structure4.5 m(14.8 ft)I. Indoor Amenity Space1. Developments that contain 15 units or more shall provide in Indoor Amenity Space at a rate of at least2.8 sq m (30.0 sq ft) per unit.2. The Indoor Amenity Space Can house a Child Care Centre provided they comply with the followingrequirements:a. Have direct access from a highway, independent from the access to the residential uses; andb. Have direct access to an open space and play area within the lot.J. Outdoor Amenity Space1. Outdoor Amenity Space shall be a minimum of 2.8 sq m (30.0 sq ft) per unit.2. Shall have a slope of 5% or less.1. For developments that contain 10 or more units, a level children's play area with play equipment shallbe provided.K. Off Street Parking1. Off Street Parking shall be in accordance with the provisions of Section 109.2. Parking within the required setbacks is not permitted.3. All residential parking shall be provided within the Building envelope, including underground parking.

CO;0909ZE899ZE1S DIMco099ZEOEVZEOZ17ZE0 147ZEti017ZE\.176EZE9LEZEZLEZEV9EZEP9EZE9VEZEOEEZEOZEZE90EZEcoCoL617ZE9617Z£OESZEOV9ZE91.9ZE009ZE0817ZECEDAR VALLEYCONNECTORz(NICe)c\I06CZE98EZELuLulEEZEu.I c,eee6:9 0er?s,1.14 AVMHOIHZEtZEco91.17ZE00VZ£08EZEZ9EZE9EEZE•ztcta.3>i

I MAP 2 I38PlkOroSEDLtIeg-2 14 ZONE(Ara-4A- APRoPoSED1PR.c. ZONE( Ärel

AP,* nol39Metes and Bounds DescriptionAll that portion of Lot 2 Except Part Road Plan BCP9616 Section 20 Township 17 and District Lot165 Group 3 New Westminster District Plan LMP31617 which may be more particularly describedas follows:Area ACommencing at the southwesterly corner of said Lot 2;Thence 89°27'00" and following along the southerly boundary of said Lot 2, 20.12 metres more orless;Thence 359°27'00", 7.00 metres more or less;Thence 89°27'00", 42.66 metres more or less;Thence 359°27'00", 23.00 metres more or less;Thence 89°27'00", 20.00 metres more or less;Thence 179°27'00", 5.00 metres more or less;Thence 89°27'00", 12.69 metres;Thence 359°30'37", 87.20 metres;Thence 286°49'43", 39.37 metres;Thence 295°46'46", 79.43 metres more or less to a point on the westerly boundary of said Lot 2;Thence along a non tangential curve of radius 143.65 metres whose center lies 109°51'52" fromthe point on the westerly boundary of said Lot 2 and following along the westerly boundary of saidLot 2, through a central angle of 6°08'10", an arc distance to the left of 15.39 metres more or less;Thence 127°45'20", 4.99 metres more or less;Thence 178°36'30", 20.22 metres more or less;Thence along a non tangential curve of radius 9.00 metres whose center lies 178°36'30" from thepoint on the westerly boundary of said Lot 2 and following along the westerly boundary of said Lot2, through a central angle of 93°39'12", an arc distance to the left of 14.71 metres more or less;Thence 174°57'18", 30.56 metres more or less;Thence 173°02'45", 55.60 metres more or less;Thence along a tangential curve of radius 39.40 metres whose center lies 83°02'45" from thepoint on the westerly boundary of said Lot 2 and following along the westerly boundary of said Lot2, through a central angle of 43°35'08", an arc distance to the left of 29.97 metres more or less tothe point of commencement and containing 1.376 hectares more or less.Area BCommencing at the northerly corner of said Lot 2;Thence 157°29'45" and following along the northerly boundary of said Lot 2, 34.39 metres moreor less;Thence 97°16'18", 42.09 metres more or less;Thence 106°49'43", 45.78 metres more or less;Thence 179°29'00", 5.32 metres more or less;Thence 89°36'00", 22.77 metres more or less;Thence 179°30'37", 128.98 metres more or less;Thence 169°27'00", 42.68 metres more or less;Thence 369°27'00", 18.00 metres more or less;Thence 89°27'00", 12.69 metres;Thence 359°30'37", 87.20 metres;Thence 286°49'43", 39.37 metres;Thence 295°46'46", 79.43 metres more or less to a point on the westerly boundary of said Lot 2;Thence along a non tangential curve of radius 143.65 metres whose center lies 109°51'52" fromthe point on the westerly boundary of said Lot 2, through a central angle of 15°09'37", an arcdistance to the right of 38.01 metres more or less to the point of commencement and containing0.709 hectares more or less.

11pp...dui 340ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT REZONING COMMENTSFILE: R10-037R10-038July 20, 2011.CIVIC ADDRESS: 32471 Lougheed HighwayDOMESTIC WATER REQUIREMENTS:Municipal water is available on Cedar Connector, no further upgrading required.SANITARY SEWER REQUIREMENTS:Municipal sanitary sewer is available on Cedar Connector, no further upgradingrequired.STORM SEWER REQUIREMENTS:Municipal sanitary sewer is available on Cedar Connector, no further upgradingrequired.It is brought to the attention of the Developer that at the Building Permit stage, theDeveloper will be required to provide for onsite storm water management.ROAD WORK REQUIREMENTS:Cedar ConnectorCedar Connector is constructed to a standard that is consistent with the proposedrezoning, no further upgrading required.Traffic signal controls will require modification to accommodate traffic beinggenerated from this development. These modifications will be carried out by theDistrict of Mission at the Developer expense. The Developer is required to provide adeposit for these works. Cost to be determined.A traffic impact assessment will be required for review by the District of Mission andthe Ministry of Transportation and InfrastructureLougheed HighwayThe Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure has identified improvementsadjacent to this property in connection with another proposed developmentapplication. These works will be required and constructed at the Developer expense.The Developer is required to consult with the Ministry of Transportation andInfrastructure with respect to these works. Cost to be determined.

41ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT REZONING COMMENTSROAD WORK REQUIREMENTS CONT'D:Logan AvenueAs Logan Avenue will not be going through, a cul de sac would normally be requiredin accordance with the standards of the Subdivision Control Bylaw. The District didnot require the cul de sac to be constructed when the property was originally rezonedto commercial use and it was apparent that Logan Avenue was not to be extended.The current rezoning is a text amendment to create a CD zone and a rezoning of thesubject property to this CD zone to allow for drive-throughs so in staff's opinion it isunreasonable to request the road construction as a condition of this rezoningapplication. Furthermore, the construction of a cul de sac on Logan Ave wouldextend onto site at which point it would fall under subdivision requirements. Based onthese reasons, no further upgrading will be required.The District of Mission will require a statutory right of way to be established betweenthe top of the east bank of Windebank Creek and the east property line. This right ofway shall extend from Lougheed Highway north of Logan Ave to where VVindebankCreek turns to the west. The purpose of the right of way is to construct and maintaina temporary or permanent dike to the flood protection elevation of approximately9.3m.5. OTHER COMMENTS:Development Cost Charges will be applicable and paid for at the Building Permit stage.6. FEES:DESCRIPTIONAMOUNTWATER MAIN TIE-INSTo be determinedWATER SERVICE CONNECTIONSTo be determinedTRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAGETo be determined100% CONSTRUCTION DEPOSIT To be determined5% ADMINISTRATION FEE To be determinedHARMONIZED SALES TAX (HST) 12%To be determinedRECOMMENDATIONFrom an engineering point of view the rezoning application is NOT to proceed anyfurther than third reading until the owner has volunteered to install all deficient worksand is prepared to enter into a secured development agreement for the abovementioned services prior to adoption of the zoning amendment bylaw.rQYushawashi Chan SterDeputy Director of EngineeringEn ineering Technologist

App o rtel so. 14-42From: Crump, Jon TRAN:EX [mailto:Jon.Crump@gov.bc.ca]Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 12:54 PMTo: Dayle RetiCc: 'blake@maxxmg.com'; Salem Abushawashi; 'Gardner, Stephen'Subject: Zoning and Development Permit Commnets for 3040 Mission Common BCMoT File:2011-01210 Mission File: R10-038/DP10-017Dayle,Zoning/Development Permit Comments:The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure supports the noted Zoning application subjectto the construction of works identified by EBA Traffic Analysis April 8, 2011 and subsequentrevisions, notes, comments, and detailed as Urban Design Groups Site Plan SK-02 Rev 8 Jun 20,2011 and further revisions, if any. Namely, the addition of a West Bound Highway #7, right turnlane to accommodate a right turn Highway #7 access as substantially shown on the attachedPlan.All environmental works associated with the construction of the right turn lane and access arethe responsibility of the applicant.Note: There exists a Cost Sharing opportunity with Smartcentres. Smartcentres has offered tocontribute 50% of their estimate (based upon their current design)towards the construction ofthe required works herein. This agreement should be formalized by 3040 Mission Common andSmartcentres with further details to follow.Works Permit/Access Permit:The proponent is required to apply for and receive a Highways works permit prior tocommencing works within the right of way. The application may be found at:http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/permits/H0020.pdf Prior to issuing the works permit, the Ministry willrequire submission of detailed design meeting TAC Standards for review and approval. Theintersection electrical/traffic design shall be reviewed for electrical requirements andtraffic/timing revisions.Thank you,Jon Crump, Operations and Development TechnicianMinistry of Transportation and Infrastructure, Chilliwack Area Office45890 Victoria Avenue Chilliwack BC V2P 2T1Phone(604)795-8217 Mobile (604)798-5289 Fax (604)795-8214

43>rgo„IW6f1t12_069• 3 0 2FTTPINOTEBoundaries shown ne,on ore derived fromexisting records ond must be confirmed by?IIsurvey prior to the determination of dimensionsCr areas for development purposes.LANDSCAPEAH- 1.20a13.50 (TIP)500R.O.W.•IS=11PLANPROJECT STATISTICS:BLDG D2,60413FF.F.E.16.011I..ww-14 7:: !KMLEGAL : LOT; Lug GROUP 3, SECTION 21, TOVINNIP 11,NEW DESIMNSTER DISTRICT, LIP 3I617CINC ADDRESS : 32471 LOOSSEED HAMMON B.C.LINTON ZOMMO : CRONPRCCOSEI ZOOM : CD (COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT ZONE )TOTAL SR AREA .224,520 SF. (5.154 ACRES)x 9.237 +SHE COVERAGE: 25,550 EF. (TOTAL 50U01 AREA )22,520 SF. I LOT AREA )•112%I LOGAN AVENUEgpK71%. -'114871'19_919brn scnBUILONG AREA : BUNN A: L933 SEOOLONG a: 5395 SF.MUNN C: 1.631SEORONO D: 2,501 SF.NUNN E: URN SF.MTAL WRONG AREA : 25,55011F.PALM CALCULADON :PARIONG REQUIREMENTS :BLDG E -I 1I: FORE/ BEVERAGE usa (CRU AID). 1 spas per INSP. FLOOR AREA5,452 Sr' X1 PAINING REQUIRED. 51 sumIV OF1-21 II2: OFFICE USES (DSO B)= hosais pet 1,016 SF. RCOR AREAK XS MONO MOM: 15 STALLSWISP3A01 SF(C_01I II;I TIIPRORRT LTTESONATA PLANLAISI682(PLAN 64278)A. AUTOMOTIVE USES CORO C) • 2 yam per LPN SF FLOOR AREAPLUS- 3 SPACES PER SERVICE BAY1,63—i S-E PARKING REQUIRED: 3 STALLStgasE 02mys .3 LI MANN REQUIRED: 1 STALLSI: RETAL USES (CRU E). 3 spaces par 1,13 SF. ROCA AREA—,1-13 ° 2 SE X3 PARIMG REQUIRED: ST STAU.S1,1/1 SF.TOTAL PANNE REQUIRED: 115 wasSIULL CAR PARNIIG MAX ALIONED: 20%RLLIS SCREENx 12.631F RBOR15.173 HIGHWAY SOW PLAN 78212cypRICTHT-INLAXDAXAFE ACCBS6ONL „GI:5SIDE AIX BFDRAuC WEB BOXROT6 DEDICATION L- -I AS BER PIOT CORPENTS TO39..0. I I 31. 21S.:90,6,7N APPLICATION'SAFI PR TOTAL STORAGEDECELERATORVOA, MN PARALLEL DECODE DECELERATOR LCD 25.0.1DATED APRIL 5. 202N4A,t9g IBITE CENALFOR DEDICATED RIGHT-TURN LANEF SOT TIPLDECELERATILN LAIR 1.0.10.11' TOR RCPT.111 ACCESS--SITE PLANLOUGHEED HIGHWAYr--E761'''L- - - - - - - _ _ 1 ------CURB EDGE OF PROPOSED-ADJACENT MDI.EIRTYPLAN 4882LOUCHEED HIGHWAYTOTAL PARIONO PROVNED • 125 STALLSSMALL CAR PARKING PROVOB • 11(152%)NC PAFP310 PROVOS). 7PARIONG RATIOIS PAWING STALLS • ASPER NM SF.25,551 SF.OFFSTREET LOADIN: REQUIRED: 2PROPOSED: 3CONTE REFUSE SILCLOSURES: 5 ENCLINOREStionits-rmrarchttects Ii3363:■160 NEST FENCERMIMI. BC 4.E4C11lEIBIEFEQ01.6872334FACSME 400tESBELI$040SITE PLAN' 30-12',30A0A- ODAPT0 / 5. 20,1 - 5,02pp.

44.w %nEXTESSOR MATERIALS. EXTER,OR COLOURS0 PP...4...M..e0(5 emeepwsluot amerce:somas vsess unswEE . gaps, ngsOORossma0 cms.eass, war.7..8.41.S.40.1.0.C) To ruTELgwamr Esau2 ®® pas.ses.so0 P.E.FTosso ew cows dm■-•••••.f nuor.cr.isuos mut Eb.:.0 pm...ea vs on.Yantal•ne,0 steps,. larva, saxF,S.Troar-osT Toon.. ca. Tes.ts0 wax. coe.r.scs sam.m.0 mum..2 2 0 2 0architects ftdtcoiwo YAM Mall2Nrthel. EC W431ELEPICIC40107034FXSNLE

•r Val %. ti% 413EXTERIOR MATERIAL. EXTERIOR COLOR,O0 ==rEUTT‘T'ERRE ERE 0 =7=i=.E.RiEcona 0 =ERRE:ERRE ...ERRurabroe Ram0- RR...mem-ERR mE0 ETTERERau.0 um eLREERERRoR0 E to ERA AERRE mom0 =ERRE,0 anRELL RAY0 Rms.,*/61RERRET.ortuLaiRus0 Rm.0 IREE ERR...mumvosoRLER .pcmEEttoe RIR cam• ER en.urtax■RRIcouRryoarchitects ltdE001143 %et PIMANANV.A£11 0VAGITIEWlineVeOt t8723)IHOME Q006937481BUILDING BELEVATIONSorr sin'P. .30 4 94-9301.g Jul I5. 2011 - 5 Ohm

,CC)°T) eso.v.iros.5“..., T__T I0 0 TTT T 7 i... . .' ' • ' ..IrmI=BE,=-77----Iffr. WINN, MERMINCIEINIMIIIIII F.‘77.' •— ..AS''' .....,..17.7-3 '''''Ili' :1141:4112Cig ---.11:1LI: -.. .. ,91.1_ :214610 i Ira: ,,f. ^1.1,:t4i,-...--, ..,... ■,...11.11.11M ■IMANNIOIR.114 IIMM. I C .1 r d , . , ,1memo Namur imaini•- arum mem NONNII/ =mil INEWIN• wimeituFANNIN 041.10111.$1.immer—oopewl..architects Itcl830-114) WEST PENCO31wawa. EC VZ,GIIHRIOEOCM192334FOCZA.E Q04i1387481BUILDING CELEVATIONSecep wiz ac AN:al

Des„.."'^is'?EXTERIOR MATERIALS EXTMOR COLOURS.VEST EVAT)ONo s.Rosss .'o us LA. ewe00r5ssrss^k'[Rm., RamCY.0■306 agn,0 SICE.04 OPT0 [0.01E, .00 xis ' =Vsx7='."00 &MAYS -3■0.6.80W11.800 adTareR.VOLIED0 .01,11-4.,07,..0_000 '''''. 0611:4 ta IY A.00 r/p....40 MAL LW RM.%VOK001 /4.(7011.1.0110011.1 647.........'"'''M.101:71.4%. 71104,1.0 ME4N4191.5[0(IN. 0 ... ....0 L.. x.mx suxxxas_ Loom., assV. WU bidOVT1-IELEVATION€4CAST- - -archttects ttcl&01143 NEST FEICSW4tU. EC 0,E43TELEFICtf , COOL872:04FXSI/LE 4DOECV181• m 3040BUILDING DELEVATIONS• sr 74ft- ,wg 5. 201 -

CO13) rm. tibr A 5 FEXTERIOR MA-TRIALS EXTERIOR LOLLITERS-IERRI 00 oxxx•exoerRRETTREIxxxoe%TorAux•Rxixstsumwo-T5 T2 cxxxeReTwoosa0 .0T;s4—0- mamma =ea0._ S0111 171 .7.EVATION0if-)-Iii0M. I SCAM GNP, OVP14,10.41 ,..74, CY RM..0 P.S....... =Ma CV.€) Le., ftwe. nu on-m0 Laiodrer., maw0 nw pa on.0 am... onfes.ro poal(2) co rrsonri0 WW•31,... BIXTO, KY0 (Tr. , ■“,."=.......NARTAJW RN BRAYN■si. •I ill I 16 86 6 1'116416 I 6 8 8 8 66 8 6 8(!!),..:, / ES: EI:ENLAT_10N" I11Iarchitects ItdECO-1 kl3 V•137 RICOWIIMMER. EC YSE1ELEfFaf Q09E877331FiCSME C:01613741313040BUILDING EELEVATIONSn -dwE J... .5. 2011 - _TOEVE

a.v4 ■ft H Moritt p•r+ of props-pall)/ PRUITT', LINERESTRICTIVECOVENANTBOUNDARY7-1011Thilra Ilan BigRESIKTNECOANANT. BOUNDARYAPR/11SEC/10REVISED SITE PLANISSUED FOR OPDEO/1D REVISED SITE PLAN 2REVISED SITE PLANSy( ROMSEll17' NIGHPYLON SIGPLANT USTPICK--...4011111111111"mow, 4111•111.FENCES.HAVOLINAS dt ASSOCIATES INCer-suDM IMO. COM'ADODIVORD.WC KaKEY BOTANICAL NAME=YON NAME CITY 5I2E SPACING REMARKSNONE (SPC 0574371CALM WAN.KDCE/195 AMMO DAIBREAR ENERD7ACER 1111MIN 1110811ALLI 801rALL RED YAK5 CAL CAL AS 9CON or 4, it5 OIL CAL AS WM 1 • ILSat CIL AS 5110IN I CISI DORM RED CEDAR 11 150 AIMS AD MORN B. A lAILA DAPO/DCA SOW awe Pr AD. 15a POT 95 ON St• AlRNIGEA NIO 11/010P101LA NIKKO INIX RUE FLOWING NYDRAN. 11 89 POT as at noMCA WNW wooerMUDD MADER ABE.90 POT 90 OA OSP9915 INGO 71111110' MAW IWO Rd II0 IS13 POT 83 CY OC.ROSA 1095007 WPM VN.011:r MOIR ROSEPOT 90 CIL 0.C.RD0001100R011.191Mr1 'OUT MD WODCOPOPOP IA IS ,,,, S. ON StR.0.11101 MEN 'MIRA' INNIV RHOOODGAIRION P . 90 CY .SPII. ■ IMAM 'G. F LAW WO RAC SRA. 172 0 POT SE at StROSA MECUM WEE. sow IOWA ROSE1: P POE IS CIL CCCORMS SEDICFA REDTDO 00511DODD5 POT 90 ON D.C.=ICS SMOG &WONGIMOIMMG OOP/. IN POT 00 at OC.555505 INDROCI.9.15 OTTO LOW MO LODEN INJREL 99.3 POT SO CIL StPERS YMCA TORSI' FLARE'1.11-0,111E-MLY 51 IS POT 90 OA .M. OCCCENT/115 .511.0:f ENFAAW AROPPPAPAE CO 1.00 IETERS 70 ON 0.C.411-1-10.411W. OVAL ORSONAUX RPOPP'Clo'-'141.10 Plift SMUT'PAWE (604) 687-213.6 PACTOSPNANIOS WA OWNOTES / GENERAKAMM so F 50t 45 01 OCPLAN VIEWzumeasztnersawcw.,—..proartostame---"--A r roN1rw. wow row or.. lowAt or amr owLANDSCAPE PLANPROPOSED:OMMERCIAL DEVELOPMEN17471 WAWA WAWA1.169014. W.es:fit or edirr Is beor I growNrAAAA or • pre* r a-r • woro==..a..1.11.." No* wotita========.f.r. .1.1 rrryrrWOIA ANYAwe raw/ or. r oat. Err.. oar No rwo • Is ...rawWINOAAA WT.KANN+. DETAIL - SHPUBS de 41313 COvEN WANTSrL 1 of 2A

Maototo‘via“NahI (So „44• pfte + of ro peretiKEY 8071.17EAL KASEUSTCOWIN NAIESIN SWAN MARKSNOTES GENERAL61.0 DMAKNITP..SMOLA, MM.161.01016 BALMRAM WM. M.MR MAY 1171111.MA IRMA1win opal. 1101 Car117.A.A WOMPIALLA .0 0111EMIA I)E/ADO 001501MS MO SUMMA ME. Ma VANCOSIDE111.071.1631 100517116320 '0ot84133001x01 MEN IMRESPE. 7 0104x040010 RASEROSA ME. WERKE KIMCORM SEWACMOS MIA ...APRIXIS 1177.13.13 Imo 1.171%.PERS ASIONCA 10RE41 nut1. C.17017N5 VW.I APLIDSLAS171. WA 119S0160101 101011407.14 016111166110114610111MIMS O. 040LOH. NWEMS IED MARMK UMSAE RM. IDDRAM 01EDS. 60111113OWN MO RE131.0 11.PHI00170.40 19 MOOODEBILS600 710E 19ROMMUG MOM131001116 DOCK.ODD MADI EASELLILY-06-1E- 1164117MIND AM..LORBEEST6 CIL CAL AS SIM ILAGSM AS SOS 1115 CY CAL 154 at.5 C4 01 AS SCSI & 0.5 CIL 037. AS SEEN IL tEL250 SEM AS MN O. t 1f1 SOY 25004EA 1107 ES63 POT mo cu. ac.Prff oo ox.p Far 00 MI.50 601 900011 0.11.07PPOi 610 DA DCN POT 900.4113 POT EP 0,11P POT 10 OE DCKB POT 00 CIL 1115060T 90x111E0 NEMS 70 CRI.11 707 45 CIL ILEEARLEILEIMItioniPUMm maw./4.1.1.11.radsalL9m..••NwalsomaamP4NTNO DETAIL - SNRLIBIS ORO COVER PLANTSKt.womenSIGNtAPR/11 REUSED SRC PLAN 4xc/ic ISSUED FOR DP 3DEC/ICXD/1CREVISED SIZE PLINREVISED sit PLANMagaal*T.C.KAVOLINAS & ASSOCIATES INCcsu2461 ANOVIL CPR,AffERSP3R11. atV34 SEBPROW (604) 657-2376Mar!MIN (IMOAll■ arias.= .....1.11 _ -GG 171 1 • IP: I. .;RESTRICIIVECOVENANT&DUMMYPROPERTY EwER1R. SAKE LIR.VADI ■PRNSalall CROUPc/a UMW MGR CROUP AROVECTSBEST PINCER STREETWNCOLNOL SC.6700 SAD MB-2334muPLAN VIEWLANDSCAPE PLANPROPOSED.7,0MM ERCIAL DEVELOPMENT32471 LOCKED MORROMAX B.C.aweLOUGHEED HIGHWAYL2 of 2A

52MDISTRICT OFON THE FRASER ,'Planning DepartmentMemorandumFILE: PRO.DEV.ZONR10-035To: Chief Administrative OfficerFrom: PlannerDate: August 8, 2011Subject: Zoning and Official Community Plan Bylaws Amendment Application R10-035and Development Variance Permit Application DV10-019 (Harcharan Sandhu) —33009 Sylvia AvenueRecommendation1. That, in accordance with Application R10-035 (Harcharan Sandhu), the Corporate Officerprepare a bylaw to amend District of Mission Official Community Plan Bylaw 4052-2008'OCP Map 1' and 'OCP Map lb' by redesignating the portion of land located at 33009 SylviaAvenue and legally described as Parcel Identifier: 005-468-060; Lot 49, Section 28,Township 17, New Westminster District Plan 56771;referenced Area 'A' on Schedule A attached hereto;from Urban Residential to Urban Residential-Compact; andthat the bylaw be considered for first reading at the Regular Council meeting on August 8,2011; andthat following such reading, the bylaw be forwarded to Public Hearing on August 22, 2011.2. That upon due consideration of Sections 879 and 881 of the Local Government Act,consultation referrals go forward to School District No. 75.3. That, in accordance with Rezoning Application R10-035 (Harcharan Sandhu), the CorporateOfficer prepare a bylaw to amend District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009 by rezoningthe property located at 33009 Sylvia Avenue and legally described as:Parcel Identifier: 005-468-060 Lot 49, Section 28, Township 17, New Westminster DistrictPlan 56771as follows:a) That portion of land shown as Area 'A' on Schedule A from the S36 zone (Suburban 36Zone) to the RC465 zone (Urban Residential Compact 465 Zone); andb) That portion of land shown as Area 'B' on Schedule A from the S36 zone (Suburban 36Zone) to the R930 zone (Urban Residential 930 Zone);that the bylaw be considered for first reading at the Regular Council meeting on August 8,2011; andthat following such a reading, the bylaw be forwarded to a Public Hearing on August 22,2011.PAGE 1 OF 11

534. That Development Variance Permit Application DV10-019, to vary Section 601 C. 1. ofDistrict of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009 by reducing the minimum required lot Width forLots 1 and 2 from 16 metres (52.4 feet) to 15.20 metres (49.9 feet) in a proposed singlefamily residential development located at 33009 Sylvia Avenue;be forward to Council for public input on August 22, 2011.5. That in accordance with Section 882 of the Local Government Act, Council has consideredthe District of Mission Official Community Plan amending bylaw in conjunction with theDistrict of Mission's Financial Plan (includes Capital Expenditure Plan and OperatingExpenditure Plan) and Waste Management Plan.ProposalThe proposal is to subdivide the property located at 33009 Sylvia Avenue (Map 1) into three (3)residential lots. To create proposed lots 1 and 2, a rezoning from Suburban 36 (S36) to UrbanResidential-Compact 465 Zone (RC465) is required. The remainder parcel (lot A) requiresrezoning from S36 to Urban Residential 930 (R930) to meet minimum parcel size requirementswith the existing Urban Residential Official Community Plan (OCP) designation.To provide for the proposed lot configuration, the proposal requires an amendment to the OCPon the northern portion (Area A) of the parent lot (equivalent to the area of proposed lot 1 and 2)from Urban Residential to Urban Residential-Compact.The following table details the areas of each lot within the proposed lot layout (Plan 1):LotArea - Square Metres and (Square Feet)1 466 sq. m. (5,005 sq. ft.)2 466 sq. m. (5,005 sq. ft.)A2,840 sq. m. (30,569 sq. ft.)The proposed rezoning and subdivision will create three (3) lots, two of which (lots 1 and 2) willfront onto Egglestone Avenue while the remainder lot A will accommodate an existing residenceaccessed from Sylvia Avenue.Site Characteristics and Neighbourhood ContextThe property is located within Cedar Valley just west of the intersection of Egglestone Avenueand Nottman Street (Map 1) and fronts onto Egglestone Avenue and Sylvia Avenue. Theproperty is generally flat and currently contains one single family dwelling on the southernportion, which is accessed from Sylvia Avenue (Aerial 1). This existing residence will beretained in its current state on proposed lot A. The subject property does not exhibit anyenvironmentally sensitive areas. Two large cottonwood trees are within the developmentenvelope of proposed lot 1.The surrounding neighbourhood (south and west of the development property) is characterizedby large suburban residential properties that range from 0.4 hectares (.98 acres) to 0.52hectares (1.3 acres) in area. These surrounding properties include estate homes which frontonto and are located close to Sylvia Avenue. The neighbourhoods to the north haveexperienced some form of residential development similar to what is being proposed with thisapplication.FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON PAGE 2 OF 11R10-035

54ZoningThe subject property and the surrounding neighbourhood south of Egglestone Avenue arecurrently zoned Suburban 36 Zone (S36). As the proposed RC465 zoning is only permittedwithin the areas designated Urban Residential – Compact or in Urban Residential areas urbaninfill areas outside of Cedar Valley, a rezoning to the proposed RC465 zone requires an OCPamendment.Official Community Plan (OCP) Designation and Future Roadway NetworkThe subject property and surrounding lands are designated Urban Residential in the OCP (Map2). As noted, the proposed RC465 zoning is not permitted within Urban Residential designatedproperties within Cedar Valley. The RC465 zone is normally only used as part of in-filldevelopment; however, the planning department has completed a conceptual roadway networkplan for the `Sylvia Avenue' neighbourhood, which is best accommodated through small lotdevelopment. The location of future roadways will maximize density potential for most propertyowners while allowing for efficient traffic and pedestrian movements. The proposed RC465zone will also provide for the future roadway location that will transect the subject property uponfurther subdivision development.The build-out of the subject property is shown on Plan 2. It is noted that if proposed lots 1 and 2were to remain in accordance with the existing Urban Residential OCP designation and berezoned to lower density such as the Urban Residential 558 (R558) zone, the largerconfiguration of lots 1 and 2 applicable to the R558 zone would not only require greatervariances approvals, it will likely hamper the location of the future roadway and inadvertentlyforce the future roadway farther south.It is noted that future roadway network plans are conceptual and are used by staff to guidesubdivision proponents during the conceptual layout of their subdivisions. Conceptual roadwaynetwork plans are an in-house 'working document' and does not from part of an OCP or zoningbylaw.Additionally, the proposed OCP amendment will maintain frontages that are in-keeping with theexisting lot frontages north of Egglestone Avenue. Effectively, proposed lots 1 and 2 will followthe development pattern and densities of the existing neighbourhood to the north. The proposedRC465 zone provides for lots with a minimum of 465 square metres (5,005 square feet)-93square metres (1,001 square feet) less than the minimum lot area within the R558 zonecurrently permitted within the existing Urban Residential OCP designation. In recognition of theconceptual roadway network design for the general area and that the proposed density will `fit'in' with the existing neighbourhood context north of Egglestone Avenue, planning staff supportproposed Lots 1 and 2 and the redesignation to Urban Residential-Compact to allow theproposed RC465 zoning and lot configuration.Environmental Management and Tree RetentionSite visits and departmental records indicate that there are no watercourses or environmentallysensitive areas located on the property. There are two (2) significant trees to be removed aspart of the development. Two trees per lot will be required to be planted by the developer asstipulated within LAN. 32 Tree Retention and Replanting Policy. Accordingly, the developermust provide a total of eight (8) trees to be planted (i.e., 2 trees to be removed and 6 trees foreach of the three lots).FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON PAGE 3 OF 11R1 0-035

55AnalysisPedestrian and Traffic SafetyThe neighbourhood immediately to the north (Map 1) was the first large scale residentialdevelopment within Phase One of Cedar Valley Comprehensive Development Plan. Landssouth of Egglestone Avenue between Cedar Street and Nottman Street have, for the most part,remained relatively undeveloped. This has resulted in a somewhat constricted half-roadsituation for those traveling east-west along Egglestone Avenue. Recently, the propertyimmediately to the east (8589 Nottman Street) has been approved for subdivision and as aresult will upgrade a portion of Egglestone Avenue to a full arterial road standard. Throughcontinual development of the area, the south side of Egglestone Avenue will be widenedwestward to provide a larger roadway for vehicles, improved on street parking for area residentsincluding enhanced pedestrian access (another sidewalk).Development Permit — House DesignsThrough development permit approval, the Local Government Act enables municipalities toregulate the 'form and character' of intensive residential development. The objective of intensiveresidential development permits is to facilitate a high standard of building design, sitecompatibility, and site aesthetics with single-family infill residential development.Council has delegated the approval of intensive residential development to the Director ofPlanning. Staff will work with the developer's house designer to create designs that follow urbandesign principles outlined in the OCP and ensure façade elements are complimentary withsurrounding development.ParklandAs the development proposal will not create more than 3 additional lots, the Local GovernmentAct does not require parkland dedication in this instance.Community Amenity ContributionIn accordance with Council Policy LAN. 40 — COMMUNITY AMENITY CONTRIBUTIONS, theapplicant has volunteered to contribute $2680.00 per lot. Accordingly, the applicant will providea total of $5360.00 (2 lots at $2680.00) in community amenity contributions. Although proposedlot A has further development potential, additional community amenity contributions attributed toa maximum build-out of the four future lots as projected in Plan 2 will be considered as part offuture rezoning applications.Internal CommentsEngineering DepartmentThe application was forwarded the District of Mission Engineering Department. The EngineeringDepartment has reviewed the proposal and has stated that "from an engineering point of viewthe rezoning application may proceed to final adoption" (Schedule B). All engineering relatedrequirements to service the lots will be completed as part of the subdivision process.External ReferralsUtility Agencies (B.C. Hydro, Terasen, Telus)The development proposal has been sent to utility agencies as part of the subdivision process.FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON PAGE 4 OF 11R1 0-035

56Development Variance Permit Application DP10-019The development variance permit is needed to address lot width reductions on proposed lots 1and 2 from the required 16 metres (52.49 feet) lot width (Plan 1). Lots 1 and 2 can only provide15.22 metres (50 feet) widths. The proposed variances will not significantly reduce the buildableareas or amenity spaces on the proposed lots and each lot will maintain the minimum requiredlot size of 465 square metres (5,005 sq. ft.).Generally, variances that are less than 10% of lot frontage requirements are considered minorin nature and usually do not adversely impact the streetscape or the overall neighbourhoodcharacter. As minor lot frontage variances will allow for the proposed lot yield with minimaleffect on the streetscape or neighbourhood, planning staff support the frontage variance for lots1 and 2 from 16 metres to 15.2 metres.Public Hearing Information PackageIn accordance with Council Policy LAN.50 — PRE-PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATIONPACKAGES, a package will be produced containing material related to the developmentapplication.Requirements Prior to Adoption of the Zone Amending Bylaw• Receipt of the Community Amenity contribution in the amount of $5,360.00 ($2680.00 per lotat 2 lots);• Approval of Development Variance Permit DV10-019, which will be considered as part of thesame Council agenda as the Zone Amending Bylaws are considered; and• Any other items that Council may require resulting from the Public Hearing or Councilconsideration of the application.SummaryPlanning staff recommend that the rezoning, OCP Amendment and Development VariancePermit applications be supported by Council and proceed to Public Hearing and Public Inputmeeting on August 22, 2011.Erik WilhelmPLANNERI have reviewed the financial aspects of this report.ex) Ken BjorgaardDirector of FinanceGACOMDEV\ERIK\Working Development Planning Staff Reports\R10-035_Sandhu_33009 Sylvia Avenue-Aug-4-11.docxFILE: PRO.DEV.ZON PAGE 5 OF 11R10-035

329663297833028rn330663308633110rn33035330853293932909 32910 329113291933111331213313733145F,fa°co"cc,cx,32928 3292932944 3294132959 329573296032982 3297132988-11 3299432996 8425330563301933067co u,32985JUDITH ST.33009NOTTMAN ST.Cf)0)0)JO.00G32888328983290232912329183292032907 32904'32909 3290832917329233291832925 3292832935 3293432939 3294032945 3294832955 32954329633296732924329643296832973 32972,toCHRISTIE ST32983 3298833033330cOJ330 ".0330330660`\7J84HENDERSON ST.32903 32902' 32901 3290-6\873832911 32908 32909 32910 3291132915 32918 32913 32916 3291532921 32924 32919 32920 3292132927 32930 32929 32928 3292732933 32938 32931 329343293332939 32944 32937 32940 3293932941 32948 32943 32946 3294132957 32954 rilCO 32953 32950 x to32951COn4 1:1E32987 3298632993 32992••

Map 2OCP DesignationsBOOTHBY AVEDESBR1SAY AVE111 111111111111 1111111111It1111111PHELPS AVE 11111111111.• •1111111.11111111SUBJECT PROPERTYCHERRY (22nd)AVE

Plan 1Proposed Lot Layout59ars. Forum,'EGGLESTONE AVENUEROAD15.2215.22456.0m2 rif 466.0m2Portion of Property tobe rezoned RC465 anddesignated UrbanResidential-Compactwithin the OCP0 Wan COTIONN=00WOcm 0011DNiVOG30;44Portion of Property toremain with designationof Urban Residentialwithin OCPLot A0.284 haPortion of Property tobe rezoned to R930which is in accordancewith the OCPORMENNY125.445.02DITCHEDGE PffsEIMENIamorrEarstiurSYLVIA AVENUEFILE: PRO.DEV.ZON PAGE 8 OF 11R10-035

60Schedule BENGINEERING DEPARTMENT REZONING COMMENTSFILE: R10-035CIVIC ADDRESS: 33009 Sylvia Avenue1. DOMESTIC WATER REQUIREMENTS:Municipal water is available on Sylvia Avenue and Egglestone Avenue, no furtherupgrading required.2. SANITARY SEWER REQUIREMENTS:Municipal sanitary sewer is available on Sylvia Avenue and Egglestone Avenue, nofurther upgrading required.3. STORM SEWER REQUIREMENTS:Municipal storm sewer is available on Sylvia Avenue and Egglestone Avenue, nofurther upgrading required.4. ROAD WORK REQUIREMENTS:Sylvia Avenue and Egglestone Avenue provide paved access to the site, no furtherupgrading required.RECOMMENDATIONFrom an engineering point of view the rezoning application may proceed to final adoption.FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON PAGE 9 OF 11R1 0-035

61Aerial 1 IGeneral Location ofSubject PropertyEstate Style Homes in the Neighbourhood Fronting SylviaFILE: PRO.DEV.ZON PAGE 10 OF 11R10-035

62Plan 2Future Build-out of the Subject PropertyEGGIISWNE AVOILIEROAD1522 15.22Proposed Lot 1 and 2 as part ofthis development application456.0mT 466.0m2 40.00400..........°........"al".6"1".80,""4""" *****84%******%%.***44***111%.9-.0WPYTheoretical 'build-out'given future roadwaylocationFour (4) Lots TotalSYI.VIA AVENUEFILE: PRO.DEV.ZON PAGE 11 OF 11R1 0-035

SCHEDULE AC)EGGLESTONE AVEESYLVIA AVE

64n0Fi„MrisISTsioTON THE FRASER /°°.1/Planning DepartmentMemorandumFILE: PRO.DEV.ZONR11-012To: Chief Administrative OfficerFrom: PlannerDate: August 8, 2011Subject: Official Community Plan (OCP) Amendment Application R11-012Recommendation1. That the planning department hold an open house at the Silverhill Community Hall byOctober 2011 in order to gather local resident comments in respect to the possible OCPamendment to redesignate 31161, 31121, 31101, 31081, 31025, 30969, 30935, 30883,30835 Silverhill Avenue and the property located north of 30883 and 30835 SilverhillAvenue from Rural Residential to Rural. The properties are legally described as:Parcel Identifier: 013-338-889 Parcel "C" (Explanatory Plan 17082) South Half of theSouth East Quarter Section 1 Township 15 New Westminster DistrictParcel Identifier: 018-899-226 Lot 3 Section 1 Township 15 New Westminster DistrictPlan LMP18388Parcel Identifier:018-899-218 Lot 2 Section 1 Township 15 New Westminster DistrictPlan LMP18388Parcel Identifier: 018-899-200 Lot 1 Section 1 Township 15 New Westminster DistrictPlan LMP18388Parcel Identifier: 008-524-092 Lot 7 Except: Part Subdivided by Plan 38985; Section 1Township 15 New Westminster District Plan 38529Parcel Identifier: 008-610-312 Lot 9 Section 1 Township 15 New Westminster DistrictPlan 38985Parcel Identifier: 013-338-820 Parcel "A" (Explanatory Plan 8662) South Half of theSouth East Quarter Section 1 Township 15 New Westminster DistrictParcel Identifier: 024-488-267 Lot 2 Section 1 Township 15 New Westminster DistrictPlan LMP41845Parcel Identifier: 024-488-232 Lot 1 Section 1 Township 15 New Westminster DistrictPlan LMP41845Parcel Identifier: 013-339-028 North Half of Legal Subdivision 3 Section 1 Township 15New Westminster District2. That the planning department provide a follow-up report after the open house iscompleted.Summary of ProposalDistrict of Mission managed OCP amendment to potentially re-designate ten (10) propertiesnorth of Silverhill Avenue from Rural Residential to Rural (Map 1).PAGE 1 OF 5

65BackgroundCouncil had considered a rezoning proposal (R10-002 — Tripod Developments) on the propertylocated at 31161 Silverhill Avenue which would have allowed a nine (9) lot subdivision to beconsidered by the Approving Officer. The development proposal was in accordance with thedensities envisioned within the Rural Residential designation within the OCP; however, theapplication was denied by Council. As part of the file closure staff report sent to Council for thatapplication, the following recommendation was provided by Council:That the planning department initiate public consultation to amend the OCP to redesignate31161, 31121, 31101, 31081, 31025, 30969, 30935, 30883, 30835 Silverhill Avenue and theproperty located north of 30883, 30835 Silverhill Avenue from Rural Residential to Rural.Neighbourhood ContextProperties along Silverhill Avenue are characterized as Rural with single family dwellings, largerlot areas, residences with long driveways and intermittent small scale farming on a number ofthe properties. Given the existing roadway pattern which ends with a turnaround atop Silver Hill,the traffic in the area is generally limited to local residents.ZoningAll the subject properties and the general Silverhill area are zoned Rural 16 (RU16). The RU16zone has a minimum lot size of 1.6 (3.95 acres) hectares. The proposed OCP amendmentwould still allow people to subdivide under the existing RU16 zone. Each lot would have varyingdegrees of development potential under the RU16 zone which is outlined in Table 1.Official Community Plan (OCP) DesignationCurrently, the subject properties are designated Rural Residential within the OCP. Theproperties to the west of the site are designated Agricultural Land Reserve and properties to theNorth are designated as Municipal Forest. Properties on the south side of Silverhill Avenue aredesignated Rural and Urban Reserve (OCP Map). As a general background, the subjectproperties were designated Rural prior to the adoption of 'Official Community Plan Bylaw 4052-2008' on July 28, 2008.If a property owner wished to develop (i.e. subdivide their property), the property owner wouldlikely apply to rezone the property to a Rural Residential Zone (i.e. RR7 or RR7s) in order tomaximize the lot yield allowed within the OCP. The minimum lot size in the Rural Residentialzones is 0.7 hectares (1.73 acres). Given the relative sizes of each lot, the proposed OCPamendment will decrease the development potential for each lot. The following Table 1 providesan indication of the decreased development potential that each lot would experience as part ofthe proposed OCP amendment:Table 1PID NumberAddressRural Residential DesignationDevelopment Potential* (RR7Zoning) - Number of LotsRural DesignationDevelopment Potential*(RU16) - Number of Lots013-338-889 31161 Silverhill Avenue 9 5018-899-226 31121 Silverhill Avenue 2 1018-899-218 31101 Silverhill Avenue 2 1018-899-200 31081 Silverhill Avenue 2 1FILE: PRO.DEVZON PAGE 2 OF 5R11-002

66008-524-092 31025 Silverhill Avenue 7 3008-610-312 30969 Silverhill Avenue 3 1013-338-820 30935 Silverhill Avenue 5 2024-488-267 30883 Silverhill Avenue 4 2024-488-232 30835 Silverhill Avenue 5 2013-339-028No Civic Address (Districtof Mission Owned) 11 4Total 50 Residential Units 22 Residential Units*The Development Potential denotes is the highest and best use and is the highest densitypossible given the specific lot area. The number of lots provided is only estimation.Analysis of ProposalAs outlined in Table 1, there is a total decrease in development potential by an estimated 28units. Given that each property identified in Table 1 would receive a decrease in theirdevelopment potential if the OCP amendment moved forward, planning staff recommend that a`open house' be held in order to understand local resident concerns.This recommended open house should be held in the Silverhill Community Hall which will allowlocal residents to directly provide their comments to planning staff. The comments provided bythe local residents can be utilized by Council in their decision making process and whether anOCP amendment should move forward.In order to property notify local residents, Planning staff will directly mail each affected propertyowner and invite them to attend the open house to be held in September 2011 at the SilverhillCommunity Hall. If certain property owners are unable to attend, they will be afforded theopportunity to provide their comments through phone, mail or email directly to planning staff.Community Amenity Contribution (CAC)Currently, the CAC is $2680.00 for each additional unit created by subdivision. Using Table 1 asan indicator, the amount of CAC provided by developers could feasibly decrease by 28 lots or$75,040.00 if the proposed OCP amendment was approved.Tree Retention and ReplantingAn OCP amendment would not directly affect the amount of trees removed; however,decreased development potential could feasibly reduce the number of trees removed to providefor development activities.Internal CommentsAs this application is only in the very initial stages, no internal referrals have been made.External ReferralsGiven that this application is only in the very initial stages, no internal referrals have been made.However, if an OCP amendment application moved forward, the Agricultural Land Commission,Department of Fisheries and Oceans and School District number 75 would be sent a referralpackage.FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON PAGE 3 OF 5R11-002

67SummaryIn summary, staff recommends that a public open house be held at the Silverhill CommunityHall in order to gather input and comments from local residents of the Silverhill Area regarding apotential OCP amendment for a number of properties north of Silverhill Avenue.ERIK WILHELMPLANNERMAP IWONSUBJECT PROPERTIES311150.0.1■11.635312.1006 13111111■3102.531.:aims SOOLT.35 3,4335101131.13136215711fAi30031,60.MOM34130.3520679137.4FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON PAGE 4 OF 5R11-002

68OCPFILE: PRO.DEV.ZON PAGE 5 OF 5R11-002

69Planning DepartmentMemorandumON THE FRASERMDISTRICT OFFILE: PRO.DEV.TEM.TP11-002To: Chief Administrative OfficerFrom: PlannerDate: August 8, 2011Subject: Temporary Commercial Use Permit Application TP11-002 (676517 B.C. Limited)— 32818 7' Avenue, Mission BCRecommendationThat Temporary Commercial Use Permit Application TP11-002 (676517 B.C. Limited) beforwarded to a Public Input Meeting on August 22, 2011.Background and Recommendation RationaleAt the March 21, 2011 Committee of the Whole meeting, Council initially considered aTemporary Commercial Use Permit requesting approval to operate a multi-tenant commercialcomplex within the existing building located at 32818 7th Avenue ['the old courthouse] (Map 1).The March 21, 2011 staff report is attached as Schedule A.Council had concerns about a number of traffic circulation improvements required by theengineering department; therefore, the application was deferred on March 28, 2011 until a trafficimpact assessment (TIA) report from a professional independent engineer could be submittedby the applicant and reviewed by staff.Development ProgressSince the temporary use permit's initial consideration by Council, Suncor Energy (whomrepresents Petro Canada) has provided a letter which outlines their opposition to a concretemedian being installed on 7th Avenue (Schedule B). Additionally, the applicant's traffic engineerprovided a TIA report that outlines all traffic recommendations; the key findings of that report areoutlined in Schedule C.Upon review of the TIA report, the engineering department required minor changes and revisedcomments from the applicant's traffic engineer. The applicant's traffic engineer has nowprovided his final recommendations for the traffic improvements to be implemented at the cornerof Cedar Street and 7th Avenue as part of the temporary use permit application; the key findingsof that follow-up report are outlined in Schedule D.A straightforward diagram provided by the applicant's traffic engineer seen in Plan 1 provides aclear indication of the recommended traffic circulation improvements. To summarize theproposed modifications, the applicant's traffic engineer has recommended that the intersectionand nearby area around Cedar Street and 7th Avenue will remain unchanged except for thefollowing changes:• The existing access on Cedar Street to the site's northern parking lot will be limited toright only movements (i.e. this access will be a one way entrance); and• The existing access on 7th Avenue will be limited to right only movements (i.e. thisaccess will be a one way exit).

70In recognition of the findings from the applicant's traffic engineer, the engineering departmentrecommends that all traffic movements proposed in the TIA should be implemented (ScheduleE).SummaryAs all traffic related issues have been addressed in the submissions from an independent trafficengineer, staff recommend that Temporary Commercial Use Permit Application TP11-002(676517 B.C. Limited) be forwarded to a Public Input Meeting on August 22, 2011.Erik WilhelmPlannerG:\COMDEV\ERIK\Working Development Planning Staff Reports \TP11-002 TCUP_Rec_Public_Input Meeting.docxFILE: PRO.DEV.ZONTP11-002

-71- -c 3i..4 7725AVE.N-NOO•crN-NcoN.N`.96 7713v-tr) Q..> N,1.-- c \I 62 770376877697MAP 1IIGJI I L.C.) cq" CD7717771677207711 77107696768476767679 76687665V1N-CON- 765732729 32759 327897662765476487642762476917687768176737665765576517643763576257690768876807674766676567650764276347624V-000.1cf)32880—tr) 0,oo co X' co "c4'"Om "—32815761332833761676087th AVECO 0N re)N-N NCI V1N111 CON- r-N NVI 01er7581OCO"zr a) co coin LON. N-crtoCONCf)c.4 etto toCO cocsj NMMa)coa,NC,100N.c0N01COa)co0.101CaLf004111.14VALLEY CCEDARON-Nr-N_--------------7561COor3cf)N-CO vN- - COr I-- coC‘i -- I-- t-- N-M cv t..1 cvr) co c",---r- ,-- OI M r..._ N...P.. Cfl CO CO N. co r....co co a) o0 co to inv4 N N C‘1 c \Icor._ N.ce) CC') co elc0 er er 0 7543"CP LO CO P•CO CO CO CON N CV N 7531CO CO`r) 7533Z.;SUBJECT PROPERTIESC0CC.1• NFILE: PRO.DEV.ZONTP11-002

District of Misiion MemoFILE: PRO.DEV.TEM.TP11-00272Schedule ATo: Chief Administrative OfficerFrom: PlannerDate: March 21, 2011Subject: Temporary Commercial Use Permit Application TP11-002 (676517 B.C. Limited) —32818 7th Avenue, Mission BCRecommendation1. That Council forward Temporary Commercial Use Permit TP11-002 (676517 B.C. Limited) for theproperties located at 32818 7th Avenue to a Public Input Meeting on March 28, 2011 and beconsidered for approval after the Public Input Meeting on March 28, 2011.Summary of ApplicationAn application has been received from 676517 B.C. Limited (Ali Shamei) for a Temporary CommercialUse Permit (TCUP) in order to operate a multi-tenant commercial complex within the existing buildinglocated at 32818 7th Avenue (Map 1).The applicant wishes to renovate the building, commonly referred to as 'the old courthouse', tooperate a commercial venture within the building that will support local and small business enterprise.Each room within the building will function as a separate business; effectually, each business willprovide their own services while utilizing cost savings through a common bathroom facility and anequitable share of upkeep costs. This business proposal will keep the overhead costs of smallbusiness to a minimum which may aid in the overall success of small or start-up businesses within thebuilding. This is similar to a business incubation model which is a proven economic developmentdriver that assists small and new start-up businesses. The applicant envisions that each storey willspecialize and target a certain segment of the population. The top storey will have on or two eatingestablishments, middle storey will provide for personal services (i.e. hair salon, accounting services,aesthetician etc.) and the bottom floor will provide for chiropractic and physiotherapy services.A surveyed site plan demarcating the location of the building on the site can be seen on Plan 1 whilethe elevation drawings of the proposed exterior improvements can be seen on Appendix II. Theapplicant plans on completing exterior renovations as part of the TCUP while the particulars of theinterior improvements will be done by the tenants once lease agreements have been signed. Theapplicant envisions that there will likely be 5-10 separate small businesses operating from the building.Given that the applicant is unsure of the square footage needs of prospective tenants, the exactnumber of separate small business occupants is undetermined at this time.The applicant wishes to obtain a TCUP in the interim and then apply for a proper rezoning in two tothree years which would allow the proposed use to continue in perpetuity. Ultimately, the applicantwishes to provide considerable façade improvements as part of a future rezoning and developmentpermit applications (See future improvements in Appendix Ill). In the interim, minor façadeimprovements will improve the appearance of the building while business activity in the building willprovide 'life' to a site that has been neglected for a number of years.PAGE 1 OF 14

73BackgroundThe applicant had initially approached the planning department through the pre-developmentapplication review process in order to rezone the site to provide for the commercial venture. Theapplicant ultimately wishes to rezone the site to allow the business proposal to operate in perpetuity.In the interim, the applicant wishes to obtain a TCUP to begin operations for a term of three (3) years.This three year period will afford the applicant time to lease the space to garner monies for futureexterior improvements and this period will also offer the District of Mission time to monitor aspects ofthe development that may need addressing as part of rezoning application within three years' time(such as parking, vehicular access, business hours etc.).Official Community Plan (OCP)The subject property and a number of sites to the north are designated as Commercial. The OCPenvisions this area to provide a small commercial node between Cedar Valley to the north and thecommercial centres at the bottom of the Cedar Valley Connector. This commercial node is intended toserve the local neighbourhood while also providing services for the larger immediate area. Therefore,given the Commercial designation of the site and the surrounding area, the proposed uses permittedby the Temporary Commercial Use Permit are supported by the OCP (Map 2).ZoningThe subject property is zoned Residential Two Unit Zone (RT465) which is a low density multiplefamily zone which only permits residential uses. The previous uses on the site, as the Department ofMotor Vehicles and the District Courthouse, were non-conforming to the RT465 zone; therefore, anyuses other than residential uses on the site require a proper rezoning to the intended use or issuanceof a temporary use permit. The applicant wishes to obtain a Temporary Commercial Use Permit in theinterim prior to applying for a rezoning in two to three years.The development site is generally surrounded by Multiple Family zones and the gas station across 7thAvenue is commercially zoned (Map 3).Development Property CharacteristicsThe overall site is comprised of four (4) legal lots; however the application does not involve the mosteasterly lot. The most western property is 239 sq. metres (2572 sq. ft) while the two other larger lotsunder application are 910 sq. metres (9795 sq. ft.) for a total of 2059 sq. metres (22,162 sq. ft.) site(Plan 1). The site has a considerable elevation change from a high plateau on the northern portion ofthe site, where the upper parking is located, down to the southern portion of the site which providesanother parking area (Map 4).The property is located on the corner of 7th Avenue and the Cedar Connector. The site has three (3) ofaccess and egress points (Plan 1):1. The laneway on the south of the site. This is currently a two way lane; however, only offersright-in and right-out movements from/onto the Cedar Connector.2. Entrance/Egress point North-West of the existing building. This point only offers right-in andright-out movements from/onto the Cedar Connector.3. Entrance/Egress point North-East of the existing building. This point is very narrow and cannotbe used for two way traffic.FILE: PRO.DEV.TEM. PAGE 2 OF 14TP11-002

74Existing Building CharacteristicsThe existing building has not received any interior or exterior maintenance in a number of years. Asdetermined by staff site visits, the building is structurally sound.and contains only minimal fixtures thatare remnants of the previous tenants (i.e. fixed desks, jail cell, and courtroom). Each floor is slated tobe renovated in accordance with the individual needs of tenants that will occupy the separaterooms/spaces. The floor space of each floor is provided in the table below and the square footages ofeach floor will be divided up into individual business sites:BasementMain FloorUpper FloorTotal Floor Area2660 sq.ft.2517 sq.ft.2517 sq.ft.7694 sq.ft.Building Design and TCUP RationaleThe elevation drawings of the proposed exterior renovations can be seen on Appendix I. Tosummarize the exterior improvements, the building is slated for an exterior paint job. The features andarticulation on the building will be highlighted in a dark brown colour which will contrast with a lighterbase of lighter brown (tan colour) for the rest of the building. The planning department was initially notsupportive of the proposed changes; however, the proposed improvements are interim while funds areraised for considerable improvements. The applicant has future• plans to provide significantimprovements in the future (likely within 2 to 3 years) as part of a rezoning and development permitapplication that would allow the proposed use to continue in perpetuity. The future improvements willinclude rock façade and metalwork treatments, entrance way improvements, extensive landscaping,metal features, and lighting improvements. A sample of the proposed exterior improvements can beseen on Appendix II. The future improvements will be subject to OCP commercial developmentpermit area guidelines as part of a rezoning and development permit application. As the exteriorimprovements will provide for an improved appearance of the building in the interim, the planningdepartment supports the proposed exterior improvements.Parking and Traffic Movement RequirementsThe zoning bylaw requires that all new development provides adequate parking. The existing site has8 parking stalls within the northern parking lot while the southern parking lot has 13 stalls, for a total of21 stalls. The zoning bylaw requires an average of 3 stalls for each 100 square metres (1076 sq. ft.)of commercial space. As the interior of the building totals 7694 sq. ft. of space, this would require anew development to have a minimum of 21 stalls. Therefore, the existing parking configuration on sitewill provide for adequate parking for the development.While parking is permitted on the sides of district roadways, there is no parking permitted on the CedarConnector or 7th Avenue and the Traffic Bylaw does not permit parking within laneways. Any overflowparking will have to be located along the roadside of Maple Street.Engineering DepartmentIn order to improve traffic movements in and out of the site, The Engineering Department have anumber of requirements that must be achieved to ensure safe and efficient traffic movements (Pleasesee Plan 2):A. On 7th Avenue, construct a concrete median east from the Cedar Street intersection to the westside of the Maple Street intersection;FILE: PRO.DEV.TEM. PAGE 3 OF 14TP11 -002

75B. Install a large `no entrance' sign facing east on the north side of the lane near CedarConnector;C. Install a curb and sidewalk on the western side of the northern parking lot next to the CedarConnector which effectively blocks in or out movements;D. Widen the existing driveway that accesses 7 th Avenue to permit two way movements ofvehicles through the driveway. This driveway improvement will require a new let-down andportion of sidewalk. Engineer design is required and must be inspected by the engineeringdepartment.The proposed Temporary Commercial Use Permit is only valid for a period of three years. This periodof time will allow district staff sufficient time to monitor the traffic flows in the area during businesshours. As part of a rezoning application, which the applicant wishes to pursue in the future, theproposed parking changes may be re-evaluated at that time and possible major modifications (such aright hand turn lane on the Cedar Connector) can be addressed.Fire DepartmentThe application was forwarded to the District of Mission Fire/Rescue Service Department. IanFitzpatrick, Fire Chief, determined that the site has sufficient access for emergency vehicles and theproposed traffic improvements required by the engineering department would improve access to thesite.Notification RequirementsAs defined within the Local Government Act, the process for approving Temporary Permits hasspecific notification requirements. Upon receipt of a Temporary Industrial Use Permit application, theplanning department forwards an advertisement (notice) to the local newspaper, stating:1. The purpose of the proposed permit;2. The lands on which the permit is proposed;3. The place, times and dates where the proposed permit may be viewed;4. The date, time and place when the resolution will be considered; and that5. The notice be published in a newspaper at least 3 and not more than 14 days beforethe adoption of the resolution to issue the permit.In addition, contiguous neighbours are provided notice through individual letters that outline first (4)four points above. As required, all notification requirements have been met by planning staff asstipulated within the District of Mission Land Use Application Fees and Procedures Bylaw and theLocal Government Act.In respect to Council conducting a Public Input Meeting, Council generally holds a public input meetingin order to gather public input on particular Temporary Use Permits (Commercial or Industrial). Thisallows the public to voice their concerns on permits that could possible affect their interest; however,there is no statutory requirement to do so.Given that the development site is located in a very visible, busy and focal point along the CedarConnector, planning staff recommend that the development proposal be forwarded to a Public Inputmeeting to allow residents to voice any concerns or comments.FILE: PRO.DEV.TEM. PAGE 4 OF 14TP11-002

76Permit Conditions and RequirementsThe permit outlines all permitted uses and conditions. The uses are limited to a number of serviceoriented uses. As required as a condition of issuance, a number of conditions must followed as part ofthe permit (a copy of the Temporary Commercial Use Permit can be seen in Schedule "A"). Mostimportantly prior to business operations begin, the applicant must:• Complete construction of driveway improvements to the satisfaction of the planning andengineering department prior to any commercial business activity;• Complete Exterior Renovations prior to any commercial business activity.RecommendationGiven that the development site is located in a very visible, busy and focal point along the CedarConnector, planning staff recommend that the development proposal be forwarded to a Public Inputmeeting on March 28, 2011.Erik WilhelmG:\COMDEV\ERIK\Working Development Planning Staff Reports\Ali Shamei_TP11-002.docxFILE: PRO.DEV.TEM. PAGE 5 OF 14TP11-002

77--N\AVE.iIT766„32729 1 32759 32789117725cv" c9) 1 .,:i, r Iti ,,r—,•,..':; '''..,3,. ..62'i: —77-137r-- 1 1.... 1,_1....I c., CNI . 0,4 CV I's .rt II" \..\ ,V11510N I 7703-1C') co I cf,, i c'') ) (,)/ I 7697 Ii7687 Ti 1•2(47679k7657,1 WMAP 1kN(Y)77177720t _ 7711769676627654764876657655765176437642 7635I 7624 7625328151 76917684 7687 j76767668CN1 I f I7681767376133283 377161-77-7-7- 10—i%j IP7690r 768876807674766644- 7656■P 76507642763476247616 .476087th AVE32880/0CO0.1 c,f0_ro_'t C.0CO COc) ; ca co co7-4.: I cv c, 0 0 v.tr)I r•-N. 1...... 7581c\I ■ co tr,r)Ire"1- (1), elCO cocg) v) I :1to 77ILO1,-CVCOCV 1...WOE ROAD)— ---%'/Ii (..)I 11) ._. PI)1,co 2ts. '-- ,...._ C.) f■ r...ti..,4_tn 1:

78Map 2OCP DesignationsFILE: PRO.DEV.TEM. PAGE 7 OF 14TP11-002

79I 1_-- 1---r—j- )11 JAcitOss---- 1Map 3Zoning MapIA II1 1...1._i_j____ jeINAN AVE.I 1 \ \ i----8Si I .J.CRANE AVE. )•---- – --1'C \rHIKAZE C T.;Ii1 TtiMT30IAR558sI E7TH AVE.CD-66th AR_ AO)416-1974 ,ccTORcy CON" I'CEDAR ‘MLLI'IPRC4TH AVESUBJECT PROPERTIESMT5a.1_.4TH AVE.FILE: PRO.DEV.TEM. PAGE 8 OF 14TP11-002

80Map 4Aerial PhotoFILE: PRO.DEV.TEM.TP11-002PAGE 9 OF 14

Plan 1Site Plan814.#7TH AVENL1E4.MIL al17.; SAINK SWIM AV WM starAMC 7TV PAW UV a DemVICE1.00 0131...4yremtitmlif"4S1;I,•.1i,mtat 100.1.4.0.1,I,'.-###alle MIK IN.\,... Nam0. WM NIIR - „i'•/nor./1• .,.. 7/ 14 i'1.4, , 1,#it' FLPL MirIR •44* ‘'°re 3,at' snomc a. -7. oo. mu' •• ,..ri, ."112i. AMAIS,., J... ...J.,....'fC VI-104A 41.4.# *t ,ruillE=11111. .4Piiiiiiiiif ' ;'. , MOM *VOW 11.% ift ,•L'' 4. II „S S . .t•r- -' :•:Et.F.-;4 •f's• •wpm. lea11:0t Waft 4,..an •f,,„ 4#AD?0.' APe ,' 1•70••■ MN4 „IP46 wf4ro 1111-1102.4J3......-COil_4,*4,•1a IIIII-0.41.4.if-1°. 7 1, `401) . ' '+'Is4 loiswool#?" 4,- -,:qtasnCe =OM MI2'..---------..)RAN 332* .0a enrm-rn--tor c• waver f,•MVP Mee Xi&SAN•PIP4,LANE82085FILE: PRO.DEV.TEM. PAGE 10 OF 14TP11-002

82Plan 2Enaineerina Department Traffic Movement Improvements.460000000.0°.°Concrete Barrier from Cedar Connector to MapleStreet to be installed with proper signage41'*OK IC MX■CIWNICT , ..R ..,t101.. MOM sow son., W 11.1x 4001.44. ,r, 131N 5 K. AMIN.aRIO .IM 1" le' •CP‘ 1A'e4*.0s:1 l,' •.,'..... • ••!''' es . ••{`,/.0 0 14$, f'.11' 4..- ''' --.e.....:.,.*„....--..,..,:t 1::„...rom.labe, MUM 411~ OWL47— 451. • . 65.7V0' 4...7.10 r's) Br\ , l''' 12NOM iLIP ,VCP.t. 01w4C We ..01.l't„o. , aaii;iipra•,..., .•i 'tfiC Ral" WRYWW1( 1$ git' ''''4 41' ago lir ti,i .,.•'' I 0•kes. prisms ti _., I . \ CI ' ..,,, l'It' 45/toralrer ',SAW.■ 0 1•47.. .44y.4,0:0 l'i, ' " .1. .? co.» troante,"--,,,.... 3417017 le, PV tol-KII-ril.......- XLINIC..„+''''#1ZI •••■•—•-/11.11111; /MCIAO ..t. Pe.,10.4IVII. LOy-,---..Driveway enlargedto allow two waymovements4AO n , 41,0,..e.'Curb and Sidewalkto be installedSI'No Entrance' sign facing east172 Of PROWFILE: PRO.DEV.TEM. PAGE 11 OF 14TP11-002

83SCHEDULE "A"COPY OF TEMPORORAY USE PERMITDISTRICT OF MISSIONTEMPORARY COMMERICAL USE PERMIT TP11-002Issued to: 676517 B.C. Limited(Owners as defined in the Local Government Act,hereinafter referred to as the Permittee)Address: PO Box 20021, RPO StationMission, BC, V2V 7P81. This Temporary Commercial Use Permit (herein after referred to as a 'permit') is issued subject tocompliance with all of the Bylaws of the Municipality applicable thereto, except as specifically varied orsupplemented by this permit.2. This permit applies to and only to those lands within the Municipality legally described below, and any and allbuildings, structures and development thereon:• Parcel Identifier and Legal Description: 011-602-601 Lot 1, Section 21, Township 17, NewWestminster District Plan 332• Parcel Identifier and Legal Description: 011-602-619 Lot 2, Section 21, Township 17, NewWestminster District Plan 332• Parcel Identifier and Legal Description: 011-602-627 Lot 3, Section 21, Township 17, NewWestminster District Plan 3323. The said lands are presently zoned RT465 (Residential Two Zone) pursuant to "District of Mission ZoningBylaw 5050-2009" as amended from time to time.4. The uses permitted by this permit allows for the following principal uses and no others (as defined by"District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009" as amended from time to time):• General Services Use• Eating Establishments• Bakery• Retail Store• Second Hand Store• Specialty Food Store• Administrative Office Use and General Office Use• Hair and Body Salon• Medical Clinic• Medical Offices (which includes Physiotherapy and Chiropractic Uses)• Spa• Barber Shop• Enclosed Storage (Accessory Use)5. The allowable uses, outlined in number 4 of this permit, shall be permitted to be conducted on the said landsfor a maximum of three (3) years from the date of issuance of the permit and the use of the property for thatpurpose is subject to the following conditions:• Business Hours are limited from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. for all uses other than Eating Establishment Uses;FILE: PRO.DEV.TEM. PAGE 12 OF 14TP11-002

84• Business Hours are limited from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. for all Eating Establishment Uses;• Upon expiry of this permit, the building must stop all business operations and either apply for Councilconsideration to renew the permit or apply for a rezoning and development permit;• All business licenses issued for the occupants of the building will have expiry dates that will not exceedthe term of this permit;• The applicant must install vehicular access improvements to the satisfaction of the planning andengineering department prior to any business operation or issuance of individual business licenses;• The applicant must complete all exterior improvements to the satisfaction of the planning department asoutlined in the Schedule "A" which forms part of this permit prior to any business operation or issuanceof individual business licenses.6. No other development or use on the land is authorized during the permitted term.7. As the remaining building straddles existing lot lines, all necessary wheelchair access improvements may belocated anywhere on the said lands.8. This permit shall lapse three (3) years after the date of issuance or upon breach of its terms or conditions.This permit is not a building permit.AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION NO. passed by the Council on the day of , 20 .IN WITNESS WHEREOF this Development Permit is hereby issued by the Municipality signed by the Mayor andDirector of Corporate Administration the day ofJames Atebe,MayorPaul Gipps,Deputy Chief Administrative OfficerTemporary Commercial Use Permit TP11-002FILE: PRO.DEV.TEM. PAGE 13 OF 14TP11-002

85APPENDIX IFILE: TP11-002 March 16, 2011.CIVIC ADDRESS: 32818 7th AvenueENGINEERING DEPARTMENT COMMENTSThe Engineering Department comments are hereby offered and only specific to a temporary use of theexisting building located at 32818 7th Avenue. If there are any requirements by the owner to theexisting municipal services such as but not limited to; water, sanitary and storm sewers, will beaddressed as a separate issue at a later date.In order to improve traffic movements in and out of the site, the following requirements must beachieved to ensure safe and efficient traffic movements:• Cedar ConnectorThe owner shall eliminate the most northerly access to this property and replace the existingcurb and driveway letdown with a yellow painted barrier curb and a sidewalk. Engineereddesign required.• 7th AvenueWiden the existing driveway that accesses 7th Avenue to permit two way movements ofvehicles through the driveway. This driveway shall only be permit to right in and right outmovements. The driveway improvements will require a new let-down, see District of MissionStandard Drawing R-12. Engineer design is required.The owner shall construct a concrete median east from the Cedar Street intersection to thewest side of the Maple Street intersection. Engineered design required. The center medianshall be 1.0 meter wide complete with concrete median curb's as defined in standard drawingC6 of the Master Municipal Construction Document and fitted with flashing luminaire, a TAC —25 'Keep Right' sign, a Hazard sign and a No Left Turn sign opposite the driveway.• Lane south of 7th AvenueInstall a large `no entrance' sign facing east on the north side of the lane near Cedar ConnectorFeesDESCRIPTION AMOUNT100% CONSTRUCTION DEPOSIT To be determined5% ADMINISTRATION FEE To be determinedHARMONIZED SALES TAX (HST) 12% To be determinedFILE: PRO.DEV.TEM. PAGE 14 OF 14TP11-002

87Schedule C4.0 KEY FINDINGS1. An existing building at the south-east quadrant of the intersection of CedarStreet & 7th Avenue in Mission is proposed to be renovated for commercialuse. The building has a total of 7694 square feet gross floor area. Theexisting total number of parking is 21 stalls which meets the District ofMission zoning bylaw requirement of 21 stalls for the proposed commercialspace. There are two existing accesses to the site, one on Cedar Street andone on 7th Avenue2. CTS conducted intersection traffic movement counts in the study area onWednesday, 20 April 2011 from 07:00 to 09:00, 11:00 to 13:00 and from15:00 to 18:00 in order to document existing conditions and to augment thehistorical traffic data. The traffic count data was tabulated and reviewed toensure data integrity and validity.3. The peak left turn volume observed at the Petro Canada gas station accesson 7th Avenue was only 13 veh/hr, which is on average 1 vehicle movementevery 4 minutes. From a traffic engineering point of view, this traffic demandis considered to be negligible.4. Assuming that the renovated building will house medical-dental offices,which represents the worst case scenario from a traffic generation point ofview, the development is estimated to generate a total of 18 vehicle tripsduring the weekday morning peak hour (i.e. 14 inbound and 4 outbound) and27 vehicle trips during the weekday afternoon peak hour (i.e. 7 inbound and20 outbound). The number of traffic generated by the renovated building isconsidered negligible from a traffic engineering point of view because thevehicle demand is on average 1 vehicle movement every 2 minutes.5. All the study intersections are projected to operate very well with the sitegenerated traffic volume during both the weekday morning and afternoonpeak hours.6. Assuming that there is no past collision history of significance at the siteaccess opposite the Petro Canada gas station on 7th Avenue, CTSrecommends that the existing accesses and movements allowed bemaintained with the following exceptions:• Site access on 7th Avenue to be restricted to right-out movementsonly.32818 77H Avenue Traffic Engineering Services - Draft Report (12 May 2011)

88CREATIV6piteitWORTATION SOLUTIONS LTD." 53W L CHAN \IV 31824Aaron NNW ;,.Project EagMle . _soSchedule CC0111.1NUEbWe would like to take this opportunity to thank you for permitting CTS to undertake thisstudy. Please call the undersigned should you have any questions or comments.Yours truly,Attachments32818 7771 Avenue Traffic Engineering Services— Draft Report (12 May 2011)

89C12.LATIVE.TIZANOPOIZT4TIO N3OLUTION-5Schedule DDate: 7 July 2011Our File No: 3902-01BY EMAILAll Shamei676517 BC Ltd.PO Box 20021RPO Station Mission HillsMission, BcV2V 7P8Re. 32818 7th Avenue, Mission, BCDear Mr. Shamei,As requested, I have reviewed the email correspondence you have received from ErikWilhem from the District of Mission on 22 June 2011. In reviewing the correspondencebetween municipal staff and their comments on the traffic impact study prepared by AaronChan, P.Eng, of CTS, I would like to offer the following comments for your consideration:1. It would have been helpful for CTS to have known about the 168 reported collisionssince the year 2006 along the 7th Avenue corridor between Eider Street and JuniperStreet prior to the undertaking of the traffic impact study. Had we known this, wecould have at least taken that into consideration when developing ourrecommendations for the site access.2. Of note, a review of any collision data is typically not part of a traffic impact study asthat is normally the responsibility of the road authority as it is considered to be a"pre-existing" condition. As well, only a detailed review of the collision data alongthe corridor would determine how many of the reported 168 collisions are actuallypreventable through implementing viable road safety improvements.3. The peak projected traffic volume for the site with the proposed use would generateonly 27 vehicle trips during the critical weekday afternoon peak hour, which is onaverage equivalent to only 1 vehicle movement every 2 minutes. From a trafficengineering point of view, this is volume of traffic is considered to be negligible. Aswell, the Provincial warrant for triggering a traffic impact assessment is 100 or morevehicles during the critical design hour. Therefore, the volume of traffic generated bythe renovated building only meets the Provincial warrant by 27%. Therefore, anyEngineering Department requirements for off-site improvements and/or mitigationmeasures as part of the development application should be tempered by that keyfact.innovative. functional, comprehensiveestablished 1993

90Page 24. I can confirm that the two existing accesses that are in close proximity to theintersection of Cedar Street / Cedar Valley Connector & 7 th Avenue do not meetcurrent TAC design standards for access spacing from a nearby signalizedintersection. However, when we reviewed the low projected driveway volumes usingthese two driveways (e.g. maximum 5 veh/hr or on average 1 vehicle movementevery 12 minutes) using the Cedar Valley Connector access, we determined that thedriveway volumes would have a negligible impact on adjacent traffic operations.That then led to the recommended access plan prepared by Mr. Chan in hisprevious submission.5. In light of the collision history for the intersection since 2006 and conducting afurther review of the two accesses closest to the intersection of Cedar Street / CedarValley Connector & 7 th Avenue, we have adjusted slightly our recommended accessplan for the site by converting the existing access on Cedar Valley Connector to aright-in only movement. This recognizes the fact that the driveway is onlyapproximately 5 metres wide and it would also reduce the chance of an outboundvehicle from the site trying to enter the northbound left turn lane on Cedar ValleyConnector to head west on 7 th Avenue. The updated recommended access plan isillustrated in FIGURE 1.FIGURE 1RECOMMENDED PERMITTED SITE ACCESS MOVEMENTS--44grAvoime-.•LEGENDTrt▪Exisenu RoodExiling Router, io, Alley...11110...oreare▪Entering RouteW7TE NET WOWtnT 10 SC0432818 7TH Avenue Traffic Engineering Services - Response Letter (7 July 2011)

91Page 3We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for permitting CTS to undertake this•additional traffic review. Please call the undersigned should you have any questions orcomments.Yours truly,CREATIVE TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS LTD.32818 7-ni Avenue Traffic Engineering Services — Response Letter (7 July 2011)

Plan 'I92RECOMMENDED PERMITTED SITE ACCESS MOVEMENTSPatio CanadaGas StationLEGENDExisbr4 Rood*UM Exibrig RouteEntering Routeton tJEIMIKK ItRIOT to scAL.F.

93Schedule EENGINEERING DEPARTMENT COMMENTSFILE: TP11-002 July 18, 2011.CIVIC ADDRESS: 32818 7th AvenueThe Engineering Department comments are hereby offered and only specific to a temporary useof the existing building located at 32818 7th Avenue. If there are any requirements by the ownerto the existing municipal services such as but not limited to; water, sanitary and storm sewers,will be addressed as a separate issue at a later date.Based on a TIA completed on May 12, 2011 by Aaron Chan P.Eng of Creative TransportationSolutions as well as a follow up letter on July 7, 2011 by Jan Voss P.Eng of CreativeTransportation Solutions , the following requirements must be achieved to ensure safe andefficient traffic movements in and out of the site.Cedar ConnectorThe existing access on Cedar St. to the site's northern parking lot will be limited to right in onlymovement (ie this access will be a one way entrance). The developer shall be responsible forproviding the necessary signage.7th AvenueThe existing access on 7th Avenue will be limited to right out only movement (ie this will be aone way exit). The developer shall be responsible for providing the necessary signage.FeesDescriptionAmount100% Construction Deposit To be determined5 % Administration Fee To be determinedHarmonized Sales Tax (HST) 12%To be determinedSalem AbushawashiDeputy Director of EngineeringSterling ChanEngineering Technologist

MDISTRICT OF 1,300•0/ON THE FRASERPlanning DepartmentMemorandum94FILE: PRO.DEV.DEVDP10-001To: Chief Administrative OfficerFrom: Senior PlannerDate: August 8, 2011Subject: Proposed Statues at the SmartCentres Site (Fraser Valley ShoppingCentres — Walmart) — 31956 Lougheed HighwayFor Council ConsiderationOption 1 — Support for the Smartcentres penguin statues (approximate 2 metre height)proposed by the developers for the SmartCentres Site located at 31956 Lougheed Highway.Option 2 — Non-support for the Smartcentres penguin statues (approximate 2 metre height)proposed by the developers for the SmartCentres Site located at 31956 Lougheed Highway.Background InformationThe applicants/developers of the shopping centre site located at 31956 Lougheed Highwayhave advised that they wish to put SmartCentres statues near the entranceways of thisSmartCentres site (Walmart). The proposed statues are of penguins on a podium that says"SmartCentres Mission". These statues are similar to the statues that are located at otherSmartCentres sites in the Lower Mainland. A photo of the statues at the New Westminster siteand the Grandview site (Surrey) are attached as Appendix A and Appendix B.The size of the statues is approximately 2 metres high (6.5 feet). A drawing of the proposedstatues is attached as Appendix C. The proposed locations on the site are shown onAppendix D and close-ups of the locations are attached as Appendix E (west entrance) andAppendix F (east entrance).The developers state that it is important that these logo statues become part of theSmartCentres site and therefore staff is sending this forward to Council. If Council is inagreement with the statues then staff will advise the applicants that the statues can become partof the site and if Council is not in agreement, then staff will provide Council's concerns to theapplicaDayle RetiG:COMDEV/Dayle/PenguinStatues—Smartcentres(Walmart)PAGE 1 OF 1

dik pea A.( 1)•—4111rwsi- - ------ -- - -------------------- ----------------------------------------_4 -------- ---------------- ----------------------- ---------------------------------KEY PLANLOCATION OFPROPOSEDPENGUIN LOGO-\iivi,"--MS■ Tat's*.ANAIVON,_ I? -74414/OOOOwoe sonNO OVERNIGHT PARKING sonRAISED PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGPEOESTEM CROSSNG EONO1RAMC CALM= 9GN)LOCATION CW PROPOSEDPENGUIN LOGOeLS11101111241/Mill.".......WSW=PROJECT NAME:MISSION B.C.A/C544/ -LOCATION:LOLIOHEEDWREN ROAD&nattOonlres7.. ."." 111111611.

Lir7erokr&eve.s.AreendCATION OFPROPOSEDPENGUIN LOGO(ON x1 22m BA101%*t.,A%- 11-p

1 00;,-•A,...

MissioON THE FRASERFILE: GOV.REG.FVRD/GOV.PRO.ALCRegional Growth Strategy/GeneralTo: Chief Administrative OfficerFrom: Director of PlanningDate: August 8th, 2011Subject: Update the Urban Growth Boundary101RecommendationThat, as part of the Regional Growth Strategy Review process, the Urban Growth Boundary beamended to designate agricultural lands west of Nelson Street as Agricultural Land Reserve.DiscussionWhen the Regional Growth Strategy was prepared in 2004, there were discussion underwayregard agricultural and industrial land uses in the Nelson Street area. Given that the discussionswere on-going at the time, an Urban Growth Boundary (under negotiation) designation wasapplied to the area.Now that discussions are completed, and following adoption of the Employment Land Strategyby the District of Mission and a recent decision by the Agricultural Land Commission on anapplication submitted by the landowner of the property east of Nelson Street, the Urban GrowthBoundary in the area should be amended to reflect these recent decisions.It is suggested that the Urban Growth Boundary be updated as part of the current RegionalGrowth Strategy Review that is being undertaken by the Fraser Valley Regional District. TheDistrict of Mission will be working with the Fraser Valley Regional District throughout the reviewto ensure that Mission's Official Community Plan and the Regional Growth Strategy arecompatible. Following completion of the Regional Growth Strategy Review, the LocalGovernment Act requires municipalities to complete a Regional Context Statement confirmingcompliance with the Regional Growth Strategy.The above resolution will be forwarded to the Regional District for consideration in the RegionalGrowth Strategy Review process.Sharon FletcherG:COMDEV/Sharon/COW reports/Resolution for consideration as part of the Regional Growth Strategy Review.docxPAGE 1 OF 1

102MDISTRICT OF/0 ON THE FRASER .°/ '°'°FILE: PRO.PLA.VAGDevelopers and Realtors Information MeetingTo: Chief Administrative OfficerFrom: Director of PlanningDate: August 8th , 2011Subject: Minutes from the Annual Developers and Realtors MeetingThe following is provided for Council's information.BackgroundFor the previous three years, the District of Mission has organized a meeting with localdevelopers and realtors to provide an opportunity for staff to share new policyinitiatives, providean update of issues and actions that could impact development in Mission, and provide a venuefor developers and realtors to ask questions, suggest improvements to the developmentprocess and raise issues of concern.In an effort to broaden the audience and better meet the needs of developers and realtors, theChamber of Commerce hosted this year's event and distributed the invitations throughout theFraser Valley. The event was held at the Leisure Centre on June 7 th with a number of seniorstaff attending. There were 18 developers and realtors in attendance.The minutes are attached as Appendix 1.Conclusions about the Annual MeetingWhile staff believe this annual meeting is a good opportunity for developers and realtors to haveaccess to staff to discuss a wide range of topics, participants do not appear willing to ask thehard questions or identify ways to improve our process. The presentations also did not appearto meet the audience's expectations. Either the topics were not what they were hoping to hearor the material was not presented in a way that stimulated discussion.More work needs to be done to ensure that future topics are of interest and presented in a waythat will appeal to the audience and triggers discussion. In addition, the format of the meetingmay need to be reconsidered in order to encourage more discussion and stimulate feedback.Sharon FletcherG:COMDEV/Sharon/COW Reports/ Minutes from the Annual Developers and Realtors Meeting.docPAGE 1 OF 2

103APPENDIX 1Minutes from the June 7 th Annual Developer and Realtor MeetingThe event was held at the Leisure Centre and a number of senior staff attended. There were 18developers and realtors in attendance. Presentations included topics about:• Greenfield vs infill developmentIt is cheaper to develop infill where DCC are cheaper than greenfield in Cedar ValleyFee simple row housing (small lot single family development with a zero lot line) wasdiscussed as an alternative to townhouse developments (which require a strata counciland strata fees).Performance zoning was discussed as an alternative to prescriptive zoning which haslimited flexibility. Mission has a combination of prescriptive and performance zoningwith the best example being the requirement for the second story of a dwelling to be80% of the floor area of the ground floor. This requirement reduces the perceived massof the structure so the dwelling appears to fit better on a lot. Builders have flexibility inhow they meet this requirement through design.• Downtown Revitalization discussion focused on understanding barriers to developmentdowntown and whether the downtown was driving the waterfront.Restrictive design guidelines and the need for mixed use options, building height, thecost of a 6-storey building with parking is too costly, lack of parking and the cost toconsolidate lots were identified as barriers to development downtown. In addition,perceptions about the environment increase the risk for investment although thesecurity patrols have helped.It was suggested that development on the waterfront will increase the willingness forinvestment downtown, rather than the other way around. (This topic would benefit frommore discussion.)• GIS Mapping and information related to the new system was presented to identify whatinformation will be available once the system is up and running, with a press releasepromised once the system is ready to go live. It was suggested that the press releaseanswer the following questions at a minimum:How does it compare to the Maple Ridge & Abbotsford systems?Does it have a realtor bar and if not, could it?How does it compare with similar services in other communities?Does it show contour lines?Can users layer the map with services, site lines, etc.?• Infrastructure modeling presentation outlined the information that the model will tell us andhow this information will remove the current need to oversize infrastructure as a way ofensuring future capacity. This should save the developer money at construction and savethe municipality money in the future when maintaining and replacing infrastructure.It was unclear at the time of the presentation how the information would be madeavailable to developers but it is assumed that a developer's engineer would be providedthe necessary information as part of the application process.• Development Bylaw is the new document replacing the Subdivision Control Bylaw. Anumber of significant changes were presented such as having all information related todevelopment standards in one bylaw and numerous road width options that will enable adeveloper to select the best road cross section for the topography of their site. The bylaw isin its final review before proceeding to Council for consideration.FILE: PRO.PLA.VAG PAGE 2 OF 2Developers and Realtors Information Meeting

104Excerpt from the Minutes of the Public Hearing held on June 27, 201107/1078PRO.DEV.ZONDistrict of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 4017-2007-3143(286) (R05-004 -Brar) — 30367 Berg AvenueDayle Reti, senior planner, provided information regarding District of Missionrezoning application R05-004, which proposes to amend District of Missionzoning bylaw 31 43-1 998 by rezoning the property located at 30367 Berg Avenueand legally described as Parcel Identifier: 006 476 678; Lot 2 Except: PartSubdivided by Plan 63201 Section 23 Township 15 New Westminster DistrictPlan 42446 (shown on the following map) from RU-2 Rural Two zone to RS-2AOne Unit Rural Residential zone./IN1 : /1 263112590SUBJECTPROPERTY1258412475-30121X 3012412334 .30239 30265 30317 30323 30367302083024030288I-:12589 C131244130337 30443r30476304361234502 12480The senior planner stated that the purpose of the proposed amendment is toaccommodate the subsequent subdivision of the subject property into 4 lots of aminimum 0.8 hectare (1.98 acre) lot size.The senior planner further stated that prior to adoption of the zone amending bylaw,the following requirements would need to be met:(a)(b)receipt of the community amenity fee contribution ($3,000); andreceipt of proof of filing with the Fraser Health Authority of a seweragesystem pursuant to Sewage System Regulations of the BC Health Act.The deputy director of corporate administration stated that no correspondencewas received regarding this application.Mike Patrick of Mission stated that he is not opposed to the application but isopposed to the proposed placement of the road. He questioned the type of roadthat will be constructed, where it will drain, if it will be a municipal road and whatbuffers are proposed. He also asked if consideration had been made toconstruct the road through the centre of the property as opposed to the far eastof the property.

105The senior planner responded that staff considered all options for the placementof the road but with the location of the creeks and the environmentally sensitiveareas surrounding the creeks, the proposed location on the east side was themost appropriate placement.Doug Riecken, deputy director of engineering, responded that the road will be astandard rural municipal road with a drainage ditch.Mike Patrick questioned if consideration was made to move the road allowing fora buffer between the road and the neighbouring properties.Doug Riecken responded that the applicant's engineer can consider shifting theroad when preparing the detailed design but drainage ditches must be providedwithin the boundaries of the road allowance.Wayne DoIff of Mission, questioned the butter zone as he resides on theneighbouring property.Councillor Horn noted that the environmental boundary line in the middle of theproperty does not appear to encompass the entire environmentally sensitivearea.The senior planner responded that the original report prepared by the biologistand discussed with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans was refined and themap encompasses the area that requires protection.Discussions ensued about the road and it was noted that the road will be a fullroad.Councillor Horn requested a third reading report considering creative solutionsfor a berm or a tree buffer between the roadway and the neighbouring properties.The senior planner noted that the square footage of lot B includes theenvironmentally sensitive area which is noted on the above map.Councillor Pearson requested a third reading report setting out the useable landfor Lot B (on the following map) that considered the building footprint, the mainseptic and the alternate septic that is required.

106Draft Plan of Subdivision ProposalCAC ADIFEES 3067 RERC MICE. taSKAPARCa wan. am-476-678Hearing no further questions or comments the mayor declared the public hearingon District of Mission zoning amending bylaw 4017-2007-3143(286) (R05-004-Brar) closed.

107MemoFILE: PRO.DEVZONR05-004To: Chief Administrative OfficerFrom: Senior PlannerDate: September 18, 2007Subject: Rezoning Application R05-004 (Brar) — 30367 Berg AvenueRecommendation1. That, in accordance with Rezoning Application R05-004 (Brar), the Director of CorporateAdministration prepare a bylaw to amend District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 3143-1998 byrezoning the property located at 30367 Berg Avenue and legally described as:Parcel Identifier: 006 476 678; Lot 2 Except: Part Subdivided by Plan 63201 Section 23Township 15 New Westminster District Plan 42446from RU-2 Rural Two zone to RS-2A One Unit Rural Residential zone; andthat the bylaw be considered for 151 and 2nd readings at the Regular Council meeting onOctober 1, 2007; andthat following such readings, the bylaw be forwarded to Public Hearing on November 26,2007,2. That the five percent parkland provision pursuant to Section 941 of the Local GovernmentAct and in accordance with Council Policy LAN. 26 — Subdivision for Parkland, be applied ascash-in-lieu of parkland contribution to Subdivision Application S05-007.BackgroundAn application has been received from Bant Brar to rezone the property located at 30367 BergAvenue (Map 1) to accommodate a 4-lot subdivision with a minimum lot size of 0.8 hectare(1.98 acre). The subdivision layout is attached as Map 2.Site Characteristics and Neighbourhood CharacterThe subject property comprises an area of approximately 3.7 hectares (9.15 acres). Thetopography of the property Is gently sloping towards the south with several plateau areas. Thereis an existing house and asphalt driveway on the site.The overall residential neighbourhood character is a mix of rural 5 and 10 acre lots, with somesmaller 1.98 acre lots in the area. It is noted that the majority of properties have a home onthem.Official Community PlanThis proposal is in conformance with the Official Community Plan (OCP). As the property isdesignated Rural Residential on both the Short Range and Long Range OCP maps, no OfficialCommunity Plan amendment is required to rezone the property the property to RS-2A to allowthe 4-lot subdivision with minimum 0.8 hectare (1.98 acre) size lots.PAGE 1 OF 6

108Internal CommentsThe proposal was considered by the Development Review Committee, an in-house staffcommittee with representation from Planning, Engineering, Inspection Services, Parks andRecreation, RCMP (Crime Prevention through Environmental Design) and Fire/Rescue ServiceDepartments. The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposal and their comments areoutlined in the attached Engineering Department Rezoning Comments (Appendix 1).External ReviewAs there are watercourses on and adjacent to the subject property, a referral to the Departmentof Fisheries and Oceans is required. It is noted that staff has met with the representative of theDepartment of Fisheries regarding the access to the site (proposed road and proposed accesseasement over Lot C to Lot B). Based on the information received, the applicant previouslyamended the draft plan to accommodate the suggestions. The usual external referrals will bemade to the various utility agencies as part of the subdivision process.Tree RetentionThe arborist report submitted by the applicant (prepared by Central Valley Tree & ArboristServices) identifies 458 significant trees on the site. It is noted that 350 trees are to be retainedand 108 trees will have to be removed as they are located in proposed building sites, drivewaysand road area. The applicant will be required to replace the 108 trees being removed or provide$250 cash-in-lieu for each tree not replaced. Replanting of the trees will be determined throughthe subdivision process and a letter of credit to ensure tree planting is required if the trees arenot planted prior to the completion of the subdivision.ParklandIn accordance with Section 941 of the Local Government Act and Council Policy LAN. 26 —Subdivision for Parkland, subdivisions proposing three or more new lots are to be reviewed bystaff with respect to parkland requirements. Given the close proximity of playground amenitiesat the Stave Falls Elementary School located on Brackley Avenue and the passive municipalpark site located immediately to the east of the school site, the recommendation by staff forcash-in-lieu of parkland dedication is considered appropriate.Public Hearing Information PackageIn accordance with Council Policy LAN. 50 — Pre-Public Hearing Information Packages, a publichearing information package will be produced containing material related to this developmentapplication.Community Amenity FeeIn accordance with Council Policy LAN. 40 — Financial Contribution for Community Amenities,the applicant has submitted a letter volunteering to contribute $3,000.Requirements Prior to Adoption of the Zone Amendment BylawReceipt of the Community Amenity Fee contribution ($3,000).➢ Receipt of proof of filing with the Fraser Health Authority of a sewerage system pursuant toSewage System Regulations of the BC Health Act.FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON PAGE 2 OF 6R05-004

109Department of Fisheries and Oceans requirements.> Any other items that Council may require resulting from the Public Hearing or Councilconsideration of the application.SummaryIn summary, as the proposed rezoning application is in conformance with the designation of theOfficial Community Plan for this area and the proposal is considered to be in keeping with theneighbourhood character, staff recommends that this application move forward to be consideredfor 1st and 2nci readings on October 1, 2007 and then proceed to Public Hearing on November26th, 2007.Dayle Reti,deG. \ COMDEVIDAYLESBrar RC15-004 COW Report 2007-10-01 COW.docFILE: PRO.DEV.ZON PAGE 3 OF 6R05-004

111Map 2of. 19' 2/3 of NIA/4 SECO'••... ..••••PLAN 7460Pecwoca, em caw ROM FARE Er Ear eseem e swam AVki/.3d..73 *c.'WPM ••••••-•••••-awnwr setafe? aERG AVENUE '''••• yea' 0,40FILE: PRO.DEV,ZONR05-004PAGE 5 OF 6

112Appendix 1January 30, 2007 REZ. FILE: R05-004CIVIC ADDRESS: 30367 Berg Avenue1. DOMESTIC WATER REQUIREMENTS:No municipal water is available. Developer will be required at subdivision stage toprovide an on-site source of potable water for each parcel in accordance with therequirements of the Subdivision Control Bylaw.2. SANITARY SEWER REQUIREMENTS:No municipal sanitary sewer available.3. STORM SEWER REQUIREMENTS:The setback area for the existing water course on the adjacent property near BergAvenue may interfere with the ability to construct the proposed road. Applicant isrequired to prepare a preliminary road drainage plan and obtain DFO approval priorto adoption of the zoning amendment bylaw.4. ROAD WORK REQUIREMENTS:Developer will be required at subdivision stage to construct a road into the site to aFull Rural Local Residential Standard complete with road drainage in accordancewith the standards of the Subdivision Control Bylaw. Applicant shall provide proof tothe District that the setback area for the existing watercourse located on the adjacentproperty near Berg Avenue will not prevent construction of this road to theappropriate standard prior to adoption of the zoning amendment bylaw.Please be advised that the proposed draft lot layout plan must provide for 20 metersof road dedication and not 18 meters as shown.RECOMMENDATIONFrom an engineering point of view the rezoning application may proceed to thirdreading. The owner must provide proof of DFO approval for the proposed road anddrainage construction prior to adoption.FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON PAGE 6 OF 6R05-004

113MemoT(1 Chief Administrative OfficerFi C111 Deputy Director of PlanningFebruary 25 2008Subject: 3ru Reading Report for Zone Amending Bylaw 4017-2007 3143(286) forRezoning Application R05-004 (Brar) - 30367 Berg AvenueRecommendationDistrict of Mission zone amending Bylaw 4017.-2007-3143(236) be considered for rtne Regular Council Meeting on March 3, 2008.:E.. November 26, 2007 Public Hearing, Council requested a 3rd reading report for rezoningR05-004 (Brar) for the proposal located at 30367 Berg Avenue to consider the• ;21reative solutions for a berm or a tree buffer between the roadway and the neighbouringi:.:ii:ooerties. and• r;i2i.-ifiimution of the placement of a building lot, septic field and an alternate septic field:...roposed Lot e: of the above, the developer and staff response is as follows:tic;trip of trees or a berm between the proposed road and the existing properties is notin-iplemented The following creative options were considered:wrhir: the road right of way - Staff looked at the possibility of planting treesfl: the road right of way closest to the affected property lines,,..-4andarci rural road cross section does not allow for a berm or a strip of trees to bewacEiti within the road right of way, and thus can not be accommodated.filE; ro.;id right of way to the east - Staff looked al the possibility of shifting the roadn:r df way to the east to accommodate a berm of a treed buffer strip.7:-,e Dad is situated on the property as part of the subdivision plan that best utilizedn'ible and and respects newly mapped Environmentally Sensitive Areas. A shift in road.:2t way is not possible without significantly encroaching into a covenant area for'Iiiiiviionrneritally Sensitive Area, an option that is not supported by DFO.mie. Subdivision Control Bylaw - Staff considered the possibility of varying the:.L;o:11eon Control Bylaw to accommodate a small buffer strip to the east of the road rightThe variance could consider an 18m right of way versus the requited 20m. This isction that is supported by staff given the considerations to place utilities within thesuch as hydro, gas and to ditch both sides of the road for rainwater, allii.,ments of the BylawPAGE 1 OF 2

114on. Planning perspective, the creation of a buffer strip that buffers a local rural cul-de-sacr::,aci serving three properties from rural acreage properties is not necessary, as the impacts onaceni :andowners is negligible. Each proposed property is .8ha (1.9ac) in size and the.. , :ir.erties to the east, none of which are smaller than 1.Oha (2.5ac) in size. The distance!:weer: the existing residence to the east and the proposed road right of way is approximately•14 7 ft) and the total distance between to the proposed paved portion of the road will be51.5m (168 ft),idiTionally, as viewed on the aerial photograph provided, there is indication that trees exist ont'• prclperty that will provide a buffer from the proposed roadway.Buildable Areaarea of proposed Lot B, after the Environmentally Sensitive Area is covenanted, is3400 sq m (.34 ha or .84 ac). As a comparison, the Useable area for proposed A> . mately 3300 sq m (.33 ha or .81 ac).- :i-t o the subdivision, the Approving Officer will ensure a buildable area and appropriateDtiWi be accommodated on the site. If conditions of a subdivision cannot be met, theOthcer has the right to ask for a new iayout or can simply turn down a subdivisionare the proposed lot layout and an aerial photo for reference.• rAeprA Z OrKPAGE" 2 OF fe

116SUBDIVISION DRAFT PLAN OFLOT 2EXCEPT: PART SUBDWIDED BY PLAN 63201SEC.23 TP.15 N.W.D. PLAN 42446DISTRICT OF MISSION f7LE: 505-007Scale 1 : 12500 5 0 10.0 25,0t=!1S.1/2 of, k2/3 of 4/4 SEC.23.10P• MO'• PROPOSED• •/ • •CCINNWT• rIPLAN 4,? 4 4 6'462 tsasy.••/aS.R.W.— — --PLAN 74660Cr)asoo ho£063017 1FAVOU 0 F LOT asaw a sum* AREA1317i2Q../ IVAF FI:a,U, PITEMARTISM013_,BERG AVENUE `Fi.CIVIC ADDRESS: 303.67 BERG AVENUE, MISSIONPARCEL IDENTIF7ER: 006-476-678APPLICANT: BANT BRARWade & Associates Land Surveying Ltd.R.C. Land SurveyorsMaple Ridge & Mission471e: M3395-01 PL7 RI Phone 604-826-9561oconouns ACCOF91.0 70 DOSTRICT OF MESON iev/Fler011196IONS DEMO FROM RAW 42446 et alPREPARED FOR: BANT BRARWING DATE: MAY 10, 2007

117MDISTRICT OFON THE FRASER •Planning DepartmentMemorandumFILE: PRO.DEV,SUBS05-007To: Chief Administrative OfficerFrom: Senior PlannerDate: October 4, 2010.Subject: Street Name for New Road at 30367 Berg Avenue (S05-007 Brar)RecommendationThat the Director of Corporate Administration prepare a Bylaw to name a new road over aportion of Parcel Identifier 006 476 678, Lot 2 Except: Part Subdivided by Plan 63201 Section23 Township 15 New Westminster District Plan 42446, asRussell Terrace (cul-de-sac extending north off Berg Avenue that is approximately 175metres long) as shown on the attached Plan A.BackgroundThe four-lot subdivision located at 30367 Berg Avenue (Map 1) is nearing completion and thenewly constructed road requires a street name.In accordance with STR.28 Street Naming, the applicant is required to name any new road Inthe District of Mission from a prescribed list of historic names from the District of Mission. Asshown on Plan A, the proposed road (cul-de-sac) will extend north off Berg Avenue.The name recommended for this new rbad (cul-de-sac) is Russell Terrace.The Street Naming Bylaw (STR.28) provides the following information about George Russell,World War 1 Veteran:Russell, George• lStFiejdCoyCE• Joined September 1914• Died June 17, 1917• Awarded both a military medal and a mention in Despatches for extra-ordinary servicesin the field• Remains in LaTargette British Cemetery, France• Was an employee of Western Power Co.G:COMDEVIDaylefStreet Naming off berg (Brar S05-007)PAGE 1 OF 1

118S05-007R05-004 MAP 172739MOO72510SUBJECTPROPERTY7207725114172521725090■•30239 3031730323312307200111413292730943124AVE.,309 74723,30934723.7233930240X1209 30248123951233972172304 30240 Jona 30379 309407234eanInn40630777 2024 302933029?7225772256BRICKLEYAVE.30270tOSAK77276230393GNI

119SUBDMS1ON DRAFT PLAN OFLOT 2EXCEPT: PART SUBDMDED BY PLAN 63201SEC.23 7P.15 N.W.D. PLAN 42446Scale I : 1250DISTRICT OF MISSION FILE: S05-007nen As.v.2..of.n 2/3 of N.E..174 SEC.23. •• PROPOSEDCOVENANT 8DY.R • 2.1.10PLAN 49446 0.800 ha;.'4.82. • • 15029.. • • • • • ''''''''''''' • • • • • • • •• ": S.R.W.'LAN .74660Irt8.00.800 haPROPOSED 6m ACCESS EASEMENT N FAVOUR OF LOT 8SPRNG a SWAMPY AREA..\,..cui.vpr BERG AVENUE:Z. •'''''• POLESTEELCULVERT0500CIVIC ADDRESS: 30367 BERG AVENUE, MISSIONPARCEL IDENTIFIER: 006-476-678APPLICANT: BANT BRARCONTOURS ACCORDING TO =OCT OF MTSSION MAPPINGDIMENSIONS Want FROM RAN 42445 et alWade & Associates Land Surveying Ltd.B.C. Land SurveyorsMaple Ridge & MissionPREPARED FOR: BANT BRARFile: M3395-01 PL7 RI Phone 604-626-9561 DRAWING DATE: MAY 10, 2007

120Ni[DISTRICT OFON THE FRASERParks, Recreation & CultureMemorandumTo: Chief Administrative OfficerFrom: Director of Parks, Recreation & CultureDate: August 8, 2011Subject: Proposal to Host a Bike Race in MissionRecommendationThat Council approve the request from Outback Events to host the Mission Classic cycling race inMission on May 26-27, 2012.BackgroundAt the meeting of July 18, 2011 Council received a report regarding a proposal from Outback Events tohost a large cycling event in Mission. That report is attached.Council directed the Mayor to meet with the Chair of the Mission Heritage Association Board to discussthe use of Fraser River Heritage Park as part of this proposed event. That meeting has now taken place,and the Mayor will provide an update to Council at the August 8, 2011 Committee of the Whole meeting.Outback Events would like a decision to be made on their proposal as soon as possible in order toprovide adequate time to plan a high quality event in Mission in 2012.Ray HermanFILE: [CLICK HERE TO TYPE EFS FILE CATEGORY] Page 1 of 1[Click here to type EFS File Folder Name]

Background Information that was included in the July 18, 2011 Committee of the Whole meeting 121Parks, Recreation & CultureMemorandumTo: Chief Administrative OfficerFrom: Director of Parks, Recreation & CultureDate: July 18, 2011© LDSubject: Bike Race Proposal for MissionRecommendationThat Council approve in principle, for 2012 only, the request from Outback Events to host the MissionClassic cycling race in Mission on May 26-27, 2012, subject to a successful negotiation for the use ofFraser River Heritage Park with the Mission Heritage Association.BackgroundAt the meeting of July 4, 2011 Council heard a delegation requesting Council support and approval toallow Outback Events to hold a large cycling race in Mission on May 26-27, 2012. Mr. Joe Dixonpresented a proposal which would see the Mission Classic established as the first event in what wouldbecome a Classic Cycling Series of events produced by his company. Mr. Dixon has a significantamount of experience in hosting/producing large triathlon events, and his company has a good reputationamong participants that staff have been able to contact.Mr. Dixon anticipates attracting between 750 and 1,000 participant athletes for the first year of the event.This would have a significant economic spinoff to Mission's business community. Mr. Dixon has alsoindicated his intention to utilize local community groups to help run the event, allowing them to benefitfinancially through honorariums.The District of Mission is being asked to provide the following:• Use of District streets for the races;• Barricades to help with traffic control;• Non-exclusive use of Fraser River Heritage Park (FRHP) for the weekend for a bike expo,start/finish location, entertainment and participant parking.Outback Events will liaise with the RCMP, our Engineering Department, Ministry of Transportation &Highways, BC Ambulance and any other regulatory bodies necessary to provide a safe event. As with allevents, the District would require liability insurance naming the District as co-insured. Outback Eventswould also be responsible for all race personnel, rental of portable toilets, garbage collection/removal andall other assorted event details.Mr. Dixon has approached Mr. Don Brown, Manager at FRHP for the Mission Heritage Association(MHA). Mr. Brown did advise that FRHP would not be available to a "for-profit" enterprise. Mr. Brownadvises that this has been an operating principle at the park for a number of years, supported by both theMHA and Council in the past. Based on this principle, Mr. Brown has denied other requests forcommercial use of the park. His concern is that approval of this event may set a precedent that will makePage 1 of 2

122it difficult to be consistent in protecting the park for community use. Mr. Brown has provided a list ofsignificant concerns from his perspective, which include:• The size of the event could have a negative impact on the surrounding residential neighborhood;• The park does not have sufficient parking capacity;• Will camping be allowed?• The MHA would need to be named as co-insured under the proponent's liability insurance policy;• Fraser River Heritage Park should not be used by "for profit" groups.Staff have discussed other locations with Mr. Dixon, including the Leisure Centre and the Sports Park.These other locations provide a variety of logistical issues, some of which could not be properlyaddressed. Thus, the District is being asked to re-consider making FRHP available. The weekend inquestion is available, and does not conflict with any other bookings at this time.Staff believe that the use of FRHP for this event could be justified given that it does support the District'sobjective to enhance active living in the community. The completion of the East Mission HeritageGreenway and the Bicycle Transportation Routes are examples of the District's commitment in thisregard, with FRHP being a focal point for both projects.A fee for use of the park would need to be negotiated between Outback Events and the MHA, along withfinalizing a host of other details. Council's approval in principle for use of FRHP would allow thosenegotiations to take place.In summary, staff believe Outback Events is an experienced operator of high quality events, and thisevent would be an asset to the community. The commitment required by the District is relatively small,save for use of FRHP. The next step would be to see if an agreement for park use can be negotiated tothe satisfaction of all parties.Should an agreement be reached and the event takes place in 2012, an evaluation would follow todetermine the demand and/or merit of making the race an annual event.Ray HermanPage 2 of 2

123onMDISTRICT OFON THE FRASER fp-ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC WORKSFile Category:File Folder:INF.WAS.REDRecycling — Household Hazardous WasteTo: Chief Administrative OfficerFrom: Environmental CoordinatorDate: July 26th, 2011Subject: Semi-annual Household Hazardous Waste Collection DayRecommendationTHAT the collection of household hazardous waste at the Mission Recycling Depot remain asan annual event on the Saturday following spring cleanup week, provided adequate budgetsexist.BackgroundThe first household hazardous waste (HHVV) collection day was held on May 8th, 2010, on theSaturday following spring cleanup week. The event was organized to address a number ofenquiries by residents who generally have no other viable means of managing those materialsthat are not covered under an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) program. On June 7th,2010, Council resolved to make the household hazardous waste collection day an annual eventon the Saturday following spring cleanup week, provided adequate budgets existed.The 2010 event resulted in 189 residents dropping off a total amount of 6.9 tonnes of householdhazardous waste at a total cost of $20,827. The 2011 event brought in 164 residents for a totalof 4.8 tonnes of household hazardous waste at a cost of $17,983. Both events were fundedfrom the refuse reserve. Both events also included the collection of HHW that is covered underthe EPR program, however, there was no cost to the District for this.The Mission Recycling Depot accepts a number of EPR household hazardous wastes yearround, including paint, stains, aerosol paints, solvents, certain domestic pesticides and gasoline.Residential quantities of used oil and related products, and most recently, antifreeze, can bedropped off at Canadian Tire free of charge anytime. This information is posted on the District'swebsite and has been disseminated at both HHW collection days. Residents have beenappreciative of the annual event and seem generally content to save additional unwantedproducts until May, as long as there is a drop-off option at all.The City of Chilliwack and the Township of Langley both conduct annual HHW collection eventsin October. A search of other municipalities' websites indicates that Abbotsford, Maple Ridge,Surrey and Vancouver do not appear to offer any designated HHW collection days at all.

1242Staff feels that, while it would be feasible to conduct a second HHW collection event in the fall,which could be funded from the refuse reserve, it would seem excessive, given the above.Holding an annual event after spring cleanup week is still deemed to be the most efficient andcost-effective way to provide a drop-off opportunity for unwanted residential products.470.1.4€4,Jennifer MeierEnvironmental CoordinatorF:\ENGINEERU Meier\Memos\HHW Day 2011, follow up.docxP.O. Box 20, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, B.C. V2V 4L9Phone (604) 820-3703 Fax (604) 826-1363 & (604) 820-3715 Web Site: www.city.mission.bc.ca E-mail: info@city.mission.bc.ca

MDISTRICT OFON THE FRASEREngineering and Public WorksMemorandum125File Category: GOV.REG.GREFile Folder: Solid Waste Management Plan 2010To: Chief Administrative OfficerFrom: Manager of Environmental ServicesDate: July 26, 2011Subject: Approval of Metro Vancouver's Solid Waste Management Plan by Minister ofEnvironmentBackgroundAs with the Fraser Valley Regional District (FVRD), Metro Vancouver (MV) is required to develop a solidwaste management plan (SWMP) which sets out a framework for managing MV's municipal solid waste,usually over a 5 year time period. The SWMP is required to be approved by the Minister of Environment.Metro Vancouver released a draft SWMP in 2010 and carried out extensive public consultation prior tofinalizing the SWMP and submitting to the Minister of Environment for approval. The MV SWMP sets outgoals, actions and strategies to manage solid waste. The MV SWMP identifies four goals:Goal 1: Minimize waste generationGoal 2: Maximize reuse, recycling and material recoveryGoal 3: Recover energy from the waste stream after material recyclingGoal 4: Dispose of all remaining waste in landfill, after material recycling and energy recoveryOver the last two years, there has been a great deal of discussion regarding solid waste management inMV due to the impending closure of the Cache Creek landfill. Currently, approximately half of MV's solidwaste is disposed at the Cache Creek landfill while a quarter is disposed of through incineration andenergy recovery at the Burnaby facility and the remaining quarter is disposed of at the Vancouver landfillin Delta. As per the third goal above, MV has been aggressively promoting the use of waste to energyfacilities to recover energy from residual waste incineration. This has resulted in significant concernsfrom a variety of stakeholders, most noticeably the FVRD, who have concerns regarding the impacts toair quality in the Fraser Valley's sensitive airshed.The Minister of Environment approved MV's SWMP on July 25, 2011 with several conditions, includingrecognition that the FVRD and MV share a critically important airshed and that MV must consult with andaddress FVRD's concerns prior to construction of any waste to energy facility. A working group with theFVRD must be established to develop emission standards, monitoring programs etc.District staff has contacted FVRD staff to request that a Mission representative be placed on the workinggroup. The Ministry's news release and backgrounder are attached here for additional information as is anews release issued by the FVRD..er.71eMichael YounieManager of Environmental ServicesF:\ENGINEER\Environmental Services\MYOUNIE\Memos\MV SWMP Approval Jul 2011.docxPage 1 of 7

126BRITISHOft. COLUMBIAFor Immediate Release2011ENV0044-000925July 25, 2011NEWS RELEASEMinistry of EnvironmentMetro Vancouver Solid Waste Management Plan approvedVANCOUVER — Environment Minister Terry Lake announced the approval of a solid wastemanagement plan (SWMP) that minimizes garbage generation, maximizes recycling andincludes the addition of several conditions to ensure the environment is protected.The plan, as approved, includes:• New goals for diverting 70 per cent of the Metro Vancouver region's waste throughrecycling, composting and other programs by 2015, increasing to 80 per cent by2020.• Strategies for reducing the amount of waste produced by 10 per cent by 2020.• A range of options to deal with the greatly reduced waste stream that this plan willproduce."Metro Vancouver now has the ability to pursue a mix of options for managing waste, providedthey balance the interest of surrounding communities that share their airshed," said Lake. "I'mconfident this plan will reduce the amount of garbage generated in the region and providestrong environmental protection.""This solid waste management plan will help us preserve non-renewable resources, saveenergy, generate revenue, protect the environment and reduce greenhouse gases," said MetroVancouver board chair Lois Jackson.Solid waste management plans must protect both the environment and the health of people.The ministry thoroughly reviews the plan to ensure it meets both provincial and federal rulesfor waste management, including a requirement for waste reduction and recycling beforelandfilling or waste-to-energy (WTE) options are considered.Local governments are required to consult the public, and First Nations, before submittingthe plan and the ministry considers the results of that consultation when reviewing theproposal.

127Metro Vancouver's SWMP has met these requirements. Ministry of Environment approval ofthe SWMP allows local government to begin implementing the plan, including pursuingdevelopment of any new facilities outlined in the plan.NOTE: Lake will be available to speak to media from 2 - 3:30 p.m. Monday, July 25.A backgrounder follows.Contact: Suntanu DalaiCommunicationsMinistry of Environment250 387-9745Suntanu.Dalal@gov.bc.caConnect with the Province of B.C. at: www.gov.bc.ca/connect

128For Immediate Release2011 ENV0044-000925July 25, 2011BACKGROUNDERMinistry of EnvironmentMetro Vancouver Solid Waste Management PlanConditions of approvalThe SWMP has been approved with the addition of a number of conditions that recognize theimportance of safeguarding air quality. Among those conditions, Metro Vancouver must:• Undertake a competitive process for any new or upgraded WTE facilities or landfills thatconsiders options both inside and outside of the Metro Vancouver region.• Recognizing that the Fraser Valley Regional District (FVRD) and Metro Vancouver share acommon and critically important airshed, if Metro Vancouver pursues establishingadditional in-region WTE capacity, it shall consult with the FVRD to address air qualityconcerns prior to beginning construction of a new or expanded facility.• At a minimum, Metro Vancouver must establish a working group with the FVRD on thepotential impact to the airshed due to additional WTE capacity. The working group mayinclude the local health authority(s) and must, within one year of any Metro Vancouverdecision to pursue in-region WTE:a. Develop recommendations for WTE emission standards that do not conflict withprovincial or federal policy and/or legislation;b. Develop recommendations for an environmental monitoring program for anynew or expanded in-region WTE facility(s);c. Establish mitigation measures that address reasonable concerns of the FVRDwith respect to additional WTE in-region;d. Include any other reasonable related issue agreed to by the parties;e. If the parties are unable to reach consensus within the timeframe, they willsubmit their respective positions to an arbitrator who will render arecommendation and report to the Ministry of Environment's Directorresponsible for the Environmental Management Act for consideration in anyconcurrent or subsequent regulatory process;f. Be supported and resourced by Metro Vancouver;g. Provide quarterly updates to the Regional Manager, Environmental Protection.• Ensure methane gas collected from solid waste management facilities can be used as analternative fuel, and for generating clean electricity or heat.

129Waste to energy regulationsApproval to pursue WTE under a solid waste management plan should not be considered alicense to burn garbage. Proposed WTE facilities require a number of further authorizations —beyond approval as part of a SWMP — before they can be built and begin operation. The detailsof these authorizations will vary depending on the size, location and type of technologyproposed for the facility.A permit or operational certificate will most likely be required. This would include an extensivereview of the proposed location, size, amount and type of emissions and other factors. Thisprocess includes further public consultation.Depending on the size and scale of a proposed facility, an assessment by the EnvironmentalAssessment Office may also be required;Proposed WTE facilities must have a high degree of energy recovery, consistent with Europeanstandards. They must also meet B.C.'s emission standards, which are among the most stringentin the world.The Ministry of Environment also requires communities to target 70 per cent waste diversionthrough reducing, reusing and recycling before they consider waste-to-energy as an alternativeto landfilling.Contact: Suntanu DalaiCommunicationsMinistry of Environment250 387-9745Suntanu.Dalal@gov.bc.caConnect with the Province of B.C. at: www.gov.bc.ca/connect

130k—Riser Valley Regional DistrictMEDIA RELEASEJuly 25, 2011The FVRD responds to Environment Minister Terry Lake's decision to approve incineration ofgarbage as a part of the Metro Vancouver Solid Waste Management Plan.CHILLIWACK, BC: The Fraser Valley Regional District (FVRD) responded with disappointment tothe BC Minister of Environment's decision to conditionally approve Waste-to-Energy (WTE)incineration of garbage as a part of Metro Vancouver's Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP).Minister Terry Lake, while requiring further consultation with the FVRD, approved MetroVancouver's plan to incinerate garbage both inside Metro Vancouver as well as out-of-region.While Minister Lake's approval contained a number of conditions that Metro Vancouver mustcomply with in order to implement additional WTE capacity, the announcement comes as asurprise to this region, particularly considering the vocal opposition from many of its residentsand elected representatives, to siting an incinerator that may affect an airshed known for itsunique meteorological and geographic features. Metro Vancouver is currently the largestcontributor of emissions to the Fraser Valley - many of the airborne pollutants generated inMetro Vancouver are trapped in the Fraser Valley's confined airshed due to the prevailing windpatterns:"We are alarmed by this decision and concerned about its impact on our region's airquality and the health of our residents," said Patricia Ross, chair of the FVRD, upon hearing newsof the announcement. "We were hopeful that the concerns raised by so many, particularly atconsultation meetings held by Metro Vancouver within our region, were heard loud and clearand would be taken into consideration."In June 2010, the FVRD's Board of Directors unanimously voted to oppose incineration as aviable option for managing residual municipal solid waste, given the on-going need to supplyincinerators with waste, the uncertainty regarding the contaminants that would be dischargedand the potential effects on human health and the environment in the entire Lower FraserValley airshed.The FVRD urged the Minister to reject incineration considering recent scientific evidenceindicating the many potential risks and concerns associated with the use of this technology. In alengthy submission sent to the Minister in August of last year, the FVRD advocated that aprecautionary approach be taken, until the full impacts associated with the use of this and othercombustion technologies are known and understood, and until there is conclusive evidenceindicating no harm to human health and the environment.Chair Ross would like to remind the public that due to their vocal opposition the proposedSumas Energy 2 (SE2) project was rejected, although it met the air quality standards of the day."Metro Vancouver's proposed WTE initiative could see the additional burning of garbage which

131will add another new point source of pollution and have a far greater impact on our air qualitydue to the toxins being released", said Ross.The Minister established a joint working group to review the implementation of WTE as acondition of Metro Vancouver's SWMP approval. "The FVRD Board will consider activelyparticipating in the joint working group, however we encourage the Minister and his staff torequire a thorough and comprehensive environmental assessment (EA) regardless of size, scaleand/or location of the incinerator prior to approving any WTE technology that could affect ourairshed. We also encourage the public to voice their thoughts on the matter by taking advantageof the comment opportunities provided in the EA process", said Ross.For more information about the FVRD's concerns around incineration, please visitwww.airqualitymatters.ca .For more information:Gerald KingstonChief Administrative OfficerFraser Valley Regional District604-702-5023gkingston@fyrd.bc.caPatricia RossBoard ChairFraser Valley Regional District1-778-549-0708pross@fvrd.bc.a

MissionDISTRICT OFON THE FRASER ierEngineering and Public WorksMemorandum132File Category:File Folder:INF.WAT.METResidential Water MeterTo: Chief Administrative OfficerFrom: Manager of Environmental ServicesDate: August 2, 2011Subject: Water Metering UpdateBackgroundAt their June 20, 2011 regular meeting, Council resolved to have staff gather and report on the qualitativeand quantitative factors that led some of the other jurisdictions and organizations to support or notsupport water metering, to undertake a limited internal financial review and to simultaneously moveforward with the issuance of the water meter RFP. In addition, at their June 27, 2011 regular meeting,Council decided to wait until the quantitative review was complete until releasing the RFP.A draft memo has been produced by staff but requires additional information which is proving to bedifficult to procure from other jurisdictions given the holiday season. At this time, staff expects to bringthe report to Council in early September. The RFP continues to be worked on and should be completeabout the same time.Mike YounieManager of Environmental ServicesF:\ENGINEER\Environmental Services\MYOUNIE\Memos\Water Meter Update Aug 2011.docxPage 1 of 1

134Staff would like to proceed with the already approved habitat restoration project whether the trail isapproved or not. Should this be acceptable, staff would proceed with notifying residents of the habitatrestoration work prior to work commencing in late August or September. The notification is simply to letthem know that they can expect to see planting crews and equipment working in the stream channel.If a trail is desired, staff recommends proceeding with consulting local residents to gauge the impacts ofthe two potential trail locations. Staff would bring a follow-up report to Council at a subsequent meetingsummarizing the feedback from the residents and a recommendation to proceed or not. Should the trailbe located on the south side of Gaudin Creek, a bridge will not be required and the cost of clearing andplacing gravel is minimal and can be accommodated by the habitat restoration project's budget. Shouldthe trail be located on the north side of the creek, a clear span lok-blok supported wooden bridge wouldbe required to cross Gaudin Creek and would cost approximately $10,000. These funds could besourced from the Tunbridge Park Development Capital Project. A recommendation to amend theDistrict's Financial Plan would be made with the subsequent report after consultation with local residentsis done provided the trail is still recommended.Michael YounieManager of Environmental ServicesF:\ENGINEER\Environmental Services\MYOUNIEWemos\Gaudin Creek Restoration Jul 2011.doccPage 2 of 3

136MDISTRICT OF Aloe/ON THE FRASER /,'?'$1,1 '.%Engineering and Public WorksMemorandumAPPENDIX TO JULY 27, 2011 REPORT ENTITLED "GAUDIN CREEK RESTORATIONPROJECT AS COMPENSATION UNDER CEDAR VALLEY ENVIRONMENTALMANAGEMENT PLAN"File Category: INF.STO.STUFile Folder: Cedar Valley Master Drainage PlanTo: Chief Administrative OfficerFrom: Manager of Environmental ServicesDate: July 2, 2010Subject: Cedar Valley Environmental Management Plan — Fish Habitat CompensationRecommendation1. That up to $7,000 be spent on a Habitat Enhancement Feasibility Study for Gaudin Creek 'A';2. That funds are allocated from the Cedar Valley ESA Enhancements account and that the District'sFinancial Plan be amended accordingly.BackgroundThe District is signatory to the Cedar Valley Environmental Management Plan along with Fisheries andOceans Canada. The plan allows the District to collect $25/m2 from developers for fish habitat that hasbeen identified to be removed for development. These funds are placed in the Cedar Valley ESAEnhancements account and are to be allocated to fish habitat compensation projects on an ongoing basis.At the current time, there is approximately $115,000 in the account.District and DFO staff has identified several possible compensation projects and are ready to proceed withcompleting a feasibility study to restore the portion of Gaudin Creek 'A' that flows to the south of GreenePlace west towards Tunbridge Park and then north to Tunbridge Ave (map attached). The work couldconsist of complexing the stream channel by meandering, creating pools and large woody debrisplacements as well as riparian planting.Mike YounieManager of Environmental ServicesFAENGINEEMEnvironmental Services\MYOUNIEMemos\Gaudin Creek A Feasibility.docKris BolandDeputy Director of FinancePage 1 of 2

E 'DMZ OUnr6E6Z: I. ole'S%man atn Aq pia!)am; 14 patimpoa aq 1.srna uopeuuqui assnoilalem JO A4flpn•suoissiwa act soaua Jai AmIcq.suodi Idaaaelou saap Losstn 4Ja1 am0q !auunaze aq o; pananaq aaep PupilPP1s10 aL13 Aq PolldaJoa sem dew situ uauqeps!CIPuod uloPuol8043X0)100.13011OPO 0 —1-1aNn3peal Wee —RUB roluouoon •sointlueP1 •"Wool )0olt() —lung winsIPA - JoinAilitiepunoe Jap3AA —A-loPunoa Prtil3P1P1 C.3H(0 —RAWIA30 PIONslowed AlladINd 0puseel110/13J 3I-1 NOUOISSITATO 1311t41.10UORIUNSO Me0.10 twigs

138MDISTRICT OFON THE FRASEREngineering and Public WorksMemorandumAPPENDIX TO JULY 27, 2011 REPORT ENTITLED "GAUDIN CREEK RESTORATIONPROJECT AS COMPENSATION UNDER CEDAR VALLEY ENVIRONMENTALMANAGEMENT PLAN"File Category: PRO.PLA.CED.File Folder: Environmental Management PlanTo: Chief Administrative OfficerFrom: Environmental CoordinatorDate: March 16 th, 2011Subject: Cedar Valley Environmental Management Plan — Fish Habitat CompensationRecommendations1. That up to $50,000 be spent on a restoration project for Gaudin Creek 'A';2. That funds are allocated from the Cedar Valley ESA Enhancements account and that the District'sFinancial Plan be amended accordingly.BackgroundThe District is signatory to the Cedar Valley Environmental Management Plan along with Fisheries andOceans Canada. The plan allows the District to collect $25/m 2 from developers for fish habitat that hasbeen identified to be removed for development. These funds are placed in the Cedar Valley ESAEnhancements account and are to be allocated to fish habitat compensation projects on an ongoingbasis. At the current time, there is approximately $108,750 in the account.Following the identification of several possible compensation projects, a feasibility study to restore aportion of Gaudin Creek A that flows to the south of Greene Place west towards Tunbridge Park and thennorth to Tunbridge Avenue was conducted. The study suggested improvements to Areas A and C(a),however, Fisheries and Oceans staff felt that, since these areas had been part of a previous mitigationeffort, no compensation credits could be assigned. In contrast, Areas B and C(b) in Figure 1 were foundto be most suitable for restoration efforts as part of a compensation scheme. The property on TunbridgeAvenue (Area D, Figure 1) was acquired by the District after completion of the feasibility study, but wasfound to provide good opportunity for additional restoration activities, and therefore will form part of thecompensation.Restoration activities will include complexing the stream channel by meandering, creating pools andplacing large woody debris, as well as planting native trees and shrubs in riparian areas.The Cedar Valley Environmental Management Plan requires a total compensation area of 12.6 hectares.Being the first compensation project under the Environmental Management Plan, Areas B, C(b) and Dwill account for a total compensation credit of 0.45 hectares at a 1:1 ratio.

139Figure I - Restoration AreasThe budgeted amount of $50,000 for this compensation project represents an approximate cost of$111m2, which is well below the $25/m2 paid by developers. However, the lower cost for this project willhelp to offset higher compensation costs which can be expected for future projects.Jennifer MeierKris BolandEnvironmental Coordinator Deputy Director of FinanceFAENGINEER\J Meier\Memos\Gaudin Creek A Restoration.docxCreek A Feasibility.doc2

140District of Mission MemoFile Category: PRO.DEV.SUBFile Folder: SO4-030To: Chief Administrative OfficerFrom: Director of Engineering and Public WorksDate: July 29, 2011Subject: Subdivision Application Extension FeesRecommendation:It is recommended that:An Engineering extension fee of $566 be charged for subdivision application SO4-030 extensionrequest, and;For all in stream applications the Engineering Administrative fee (minimum portion) be appliedat the time of an extension request and where the initial fee was not paid at the time ofapplication, and;The Subdivision Control Bylaw, Schedule D under section 'Subdivision 6-month Extension isrevised as follows:Delete`ENGINEERING ADMINISTRATION FEE $2205(2010) $2272(2011)5% of the total cost of the works, but not less than the minimum feecharged, plus GST (plus HST July 1, 2010)'and replace with:`ENGINEERING ADMINISTRATION FEE5% of the total cost of the works, but not less than the minimum fee charged, plus HSTMinimum fee for subdivision of 4 lots or less $566(2011)Minimum fee for subdivision of over 4 lots $1131(2011)DiscussionThis is in follow up to Council's request that staff review the Subdivision Extension fee's in followup to a request (attached) received by Dick Hellofs regarding their subdivision extensionapplication SO4-030. They are currently being requested to pay $2272 plus HST.At the beginning of 2011 the subdivision extension fees (Engineering portion) changed so theminimum portion of the fee is applied at the time of application rather than at the end when theapplications move to the construction phase. The full fee is based on 5% of offsite constructioncosts or the minimum fee whichever is more. The issue was not 'if' the fee should be paid butrather at what time in the process. Rationale for charging the fee at the time of application wasthat there are many times when applications do not proceed or numerous extensions grantedand engineering fees are not collected to cover the staff time involved on the processing theF:\ENGINEER\RBOMHOF\Sudivision extension fee report July 7 2011.doc Page 1 of 2

141LATE ITEM: Regular Council Meeting - July 4, 2011 - Planning Item 4(g)Subject: FW: Unreasonable Fees City of MissionFrom:To: James AtebeSent: Fri Jul 01 10:57:29 2011Subject: Fw: Unreasonable;Fees City of MissionHello Mayor and CouncilMy name is Dick Hellofs and I am contacting you on behalf of my Mother in Law, Margo Gillespie. Margo has owned andpaid taxes on a piece of lard in Mission for over 30 yrs and recently, in the last few years, has applied to subdivide the 10acre parcel into 2, 5 acre lots. The file number is SO4-030. Through reasons beyond her control she has had to put thesubdivision of this property on hold. She continues to pay the taxes and the regular extension fees on time but hasrecently been faced with an extra bill for the latest 6 month extension. It is an Engineering Administration feethat increases her regular eixtension fee of $1565 for 6 months by 170%. Her new total that the city is asking for every sixmonths is $4109.64.I have checked with the Relining and Engineering Department to see if the city would wave this fee and they have toldme that it is from a bylaw arid the only people that can wave it are the Mayor and Council. It is bylaw number 1500-1985sched "D". We have unfortunately had to pay the regular 6 month extension fee since before 2008 and have acceptedthis but can't afford to pay this new extension fee every six months as well. I have reviewed our options with the PlanningDepartment and found out that we can just end the extensions but then there are aproximately $6000 in fees to restart thesubdivion when we are able to. this therefore is not an option.We don't believe this extra fee is fair. When we originally asked the city what we could do to get the extension prior to2008 the city representative explained we just had to pay the extension fee every 6 months. Back then it was$1432. Margo agreed to pay and unfortunately had to continue every six months ever since. That is approximately$13000 in fees the City ha S made to just extend her dates, not to mention the taxes on the property as well. Now she hasput this $13000 into the exensions and the city is changing the agreement. This is not right. I was told that thisbylaw was just never enforced but will be now. It makes me worry that land owners in Mission will have to review thehundreds of pages of city bylaws just in case they are surprised by other bylaws that have "not been enforced".Hopefully you too see that this is not fair. Please let me know if the city will honour the agreement and only chargethe regular extension fees.I relies there is a meeting on July 4th so hopefully someone can get back to me after the meeting to let me know what theCity of Mission can do. Please do not hesitate to call or email any time if you need clarification on anything.Please also know that Dayle Reti in Planning and the rest of her team are extreamly proffesional, friendly and helpfull todeal with. It is great that there are people like her that we can speak to.thank youDick Hellofs

M...DISTRICTnOF-g142ON THE FRASERCorporate AdministrationMemorandumTo: Chief Administrative OfficerFrom: Deputy Chief Administrative OfficerDate: August 8, 2011Subject: Council Meeting ProceduresBackgroundA review of our Council meeting procedures is currently underway as well as our processes around thedevelopment of agendas and the preparation of minutes. The review of our current process for agendasand minutes is substantially complete, and suggested changes are provided below.The review was centered on how the various agendas and minutes are prepared, when they areprepared and how the agendas and minutes are communicated. A number of minor changes are beingimplemented that will increase clarity regarding the open portion of a meeting where Council will considerto enter into a closed meeting.The changes proposed are as follows and each item has been appended:1) Ad sample for council meetings2) Typical meeting notice posted on meeting board3) Annual advertising, also posted on meeting board4) Typical agenda posted on website (looking at restructuring that portion of the website)5) Minute sampleThese proposed changes will make the public more aware of Council's meeting schedule and clarify theirclosed meetings as well. It is anticipated that some members of the public would like to attend thatportion of the open meeting that will announce a closed meeting and as such the entrance to theconference room will be opened during this time.Any additional changes to the meeting process will be brought forward to Council as part of the"Development Pilot Project" update in October.ksct.i.\\11/4Paul GippsPage 1 of 1

143APPENDIX 1District of Mission Council wishes to invite the public to attend open meetings andregular meetings of Council. The following meetings are scheduled for the weeks of July14, 2011 to July 28, 2011.PUBLIC MEETINGS OF COUNCILJuly 14 to July 28, 2011Date Meeting Location TimeJuly 14 Abbotsford Mission Water & Sewer Commission Room 530 Abbotsford City Hall 9:00 a.m.July 18 Regular Council (including Committee of the Whole) Council Chamber 6:30 p.m.July 25 Regular Council (Public Hearing and Delegations) Council Chamber 6:30 p.m.July 28 Mission Abbotsford Transit Committee Meeting Room 530 Abbotsford City Hall 10:00 a.m.Please note that this schedule will be updated weekly.Pursuant to Section 92 of the Community Charter, a council must state, by resolution passed in a public meeting, thefact that the meeting or part of the meeting is to be closed and the basis under the applicable subsection of section 90on which it is to be closed. Municipal Council will, therefore, hold a Regular Meeting of Council for the sole purpose ofgoing into a closed council meeting at 3:30 p.m. in the Conference Room at Mission Municipal Hall, 8645 Stave LakeStreet, Mission, BC. on the following date(s) if required: July 18, 2011 and July 28, 2011.

144APPENDIX 2MDISTRICT OFON THE FRASER"0",NOTICE is hereby given that a REGULAR MEETING of COUNCIL of the DISTRICT ofMISSION (for the purpose of going into a closed meeting) and a CLOSED MEETING ofCOUNCIL of the DISTRICT of MISSION will be held in the Conference Room of the MunicipalHall at 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, British Columbia on Monday, >>> , 2011 commencingat >» p.m.Pursuant to Sections 90 and 92 of the Community Charter, this Regular Meeting of Council willbe closed to the public as the subject matter being considered relates to the following:• Section 90(1)(e) of the Community Charter — the acquisition, disposition or expropriation ofland or improvements, if the council considers that disclosure could reasonably be expectedto harm the interests of the municipality; and• Section 90(2)(b) of the Community Charter — the consideration of information received andheld in confidence relating to negotiations between the municipality and a provincialgovernment or the federal government or both, or between a provincial government or thefederal government or both and a third party.GIVEN UNDER MY HAND this>» th day of >» , 2011OPaul GippsDEPUTY CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERADMINISTRATION

145IgTg IT OFAPPENDIX 3ON THE FRASER .7PUBLIC NOTICESection 127 (1) of the Community Charter provides that Council must make available to the public a schedule of the date, time andplace of regular Council meetings and give notice of the availability of the schedule at least once a year.The following is a list of meetings of the Municipal Council of the District of Mission for 2011. This schedule is also available on theDistrict's web page and is posted on the Notice Board at Municipal Hall. All meetings will be held in the Council Chamber attlissionMunicipal Hall, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, BC. Regular Council meetings take place on Monday evening at 630 p.m. unlessotherwise noted by an *.2011 Council Meeting Schedule:REGULAR COUNCIL MEETINGS1COMMITTEE OF THEWHOLEREGULAR COUNCIL.MEETINGS,FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS (IF REQUIRED)DATETIMEJanuary 24. 2011"' 6:30 p.m.Januar,,, 31. 2011—6:30 p.m.February 7, 20116:30 p.m.February 21. 20116:30 p.m.February 28, 20116:30 p.m.fvlarch-7,120116:30 p.m.rMarch 21 20116:30 p.m.March 28, 20116:30 p.m.April 4, 2011' 6:30 p:m.April 18. 20116:30 p.m.April 26. 2011'6:30 p.m.May 2 2011_• 6:30 p.M.,May 16, 20116:30 p.rq.May,.24. 2 011 -6:30 p.m.' :.lunb6,2011June 20. 20116:30 p.m.June 27, 20116:30 p.m.4, 2011:July 18. 20116:30 p.m.July 25, 20116:30 p.m.Audust 8_2011'1L41#6:30 p.m.August 15, 20116:30 p.m.August 22. 20116:30 p.m.September 6.2011'September 12 2011**September 19, 20116:30 p.m.6:30 p.m.October 2011630 p m.October 17, 20116:30 p.m.I October 24, 20116:30 p.m.November 7, 2011November 21. 2011December 5,.20116:30 p.m I November 28. 2011 6:30 p.m.6'30 p.m December-12. 2011 **. 6.'30 p.m.December 19, 20116:30 p.m.." Meeting takes place on Tuesday due to statutory hoIrday ** Meetings take place on irregular dates due to scheduling issuesREGULAR COUNCIL MEETINGS FOR THE PURPOSE OF GOING INTO A CLOSED MEETING (IF REQUIRED)'Pursuantto Section 92 of the Community Charter, a council must state, by resolution passed in a public meeting, the fact thatthe meeting or part of the meeting is to be closed and the basis under the applicable subsection of section 90 on which it is tobe .closed. Municipal Council will, therefore, hold a Regular Meeting of Council for the purpose of going into a closed councilmeeting at 3:30 p.m. in the Conference Room at Mission Municipal Hall, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, BC. on the followingdates if required:January 10, 17, 18, 24, 31. ctober 3, 11. 17;24February 5. 7. 14. 21 28 Mat, 2 9. 11. 16, 24. 30 August B, 15. 22, 29 November 7. 14. 21 28March7, 14, 15, 28, 30 June 6, 13, 20, 27September 6, 1;414 .1. December 5, 12, 19'Kelly Ridley, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE ADMINISTRATIONDated at Mission, BC this 2151day of June, 2011.

146APPENDIX 4miIsT ssioTnOFON THE FRASER ,Regular CouncilAgendaThe agenda for the Regular Meeting of Council (for the purpose of going into a closedmeeting) to be held in the Conference Room of the Municipal Hall, 8645 Stave Lake Street,Mission, British Columbia on >>> , >>> , 2011 commencing at 3:30 p.m.1. CALL TO ORDER2. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE PUBLICThat, pursuant to Sections 90 and 92 of the Community Charter, this Regular Meeting of Councilbe closed to the public as the subject matter being considered relates to the following:• Section 90(1)(e) of the Community Charter— the acquisition, disposition or expropriationof land or improvements, if the council considers that disclosure could reasonably beexpected to harm the interests of the municipality;• Section 90(2)(b) of the Community Charter— the consideration of information receivedand held in confidence relating to negotiations between the municipality and a provincialgovernment or the federal government or both, or between a provincial government orthe federal government or both and a third party;3. RECESS TO CLOSED COUNCIL MEETING4. RECONVENE TO REGULAR MEETING OF COUNCIL5. RISE AND REPORT OUT OF CLOSED MEETING6. ADJOURNMENT

147APPENDIX 5Minutes of the REGULAR MEETING of the DISTRICT OF MISSION COUNCIL (forthe purpose of going into a closed meeting) held in the Conference Room of theMunicipal Hall, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, British Columbia, on >>> , 2011commencing at 3:30 p.m.Council Members Present:Staff Members Present:Mayor James AtebeCouncillor Paul HornCouncillor Terry GiddaCouncillor Danny PlecasCouncillor Mike ScudderCouncillor Jenny StevensCouncillor Heather StewartGlen Robertson, Chief Administrative OfficerPaul Gipps, Deputy Chief Administrative OfficerKelly Ridley, Deputy Director of CorporateAdministrationChristine Brough, Acting Executive Assistant1. CALL TO ORDERThe meeting was called to order.2. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE PUBLICRC(C)2011/>»>» /11Moved by Councillor >» , seconded by Councillor >>> , andRESOLVED: That, pursuant to Sections 90 and 92 of the Community Charter, thisRegular Meeting of Council be closed to the public as the subject matter beingconsidered relates to the following:• Section 90(1)(e) of the Community Charter — the acquisition, disposition orexpropriation of land or improvements, if the council considers that disclosurecould reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality; and• Section 90(2)(b) of the Community Charter — the consideration of informationreceived and held in confidence relating to negotiations between themunicipality and a provincial government or the federal government or both,or between a provincial government or the federal government or both and athird party.CARRIED. RECESS TO CLOSED COUNCIL MEETINGRC(C)11/>»>>> /11Moved by Councillor >>> , seconded by Councillor >» , andRESOLVED: That the Regular Council meeting be recessed.CARRIEDThe meeting recessed at >>> p.m.

148Regular Council Meeting>» , 2011 Page 2 of 24. RECONVENE TO REGULAR MEETING OF COUNCILRC(C)1 1 />»>>> /11Moved by Councillor >» , seconded by Councillor >» , andRESOLVED: That the meeting be reconvened.CARRIEDThe meeting reconvened at >» p.m.5. RISE AND REPORT OUT OF CLOSED MEETINGRC(C)2011 />»>>> /11>>> / Council did not report.Moved by Councillor >» , seconded by Councillor »> , andRESOLVED: That >»CARRIED6. ADJOURNMENTRC(C)201 1 />»>>> /11Moved by Councillor , seconded by Councillor >>> , andRESOLVED: That the meeting be adjourned.CARRIEDThe meeting was adjourned at >>> p.m.JAMES ATEBE PAUL GIPPSMAYORDEPUTY CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

149MDISTRICT OF /4,411#ON THE FRASERMission Fire Rescue/RCMPMemorandumTo: Chief Administrative Officer, Glen RobertsonFrom: Fire Chief and Manager of RCMP AdministrationDate: July 25, 2011Subject: False Alarm Bylaw ReviewRecommendationThat False Alarm Bylaw 2929-1995 be amended as follows:(a)(b)(c)(d)by adding the following new section after the words "of any utility company" in Section 2 b):"iii) circumstances beyond the control of the owner of real property";by adding the words "occurring in a 12 month period" to Section 3, after the words "false alarm";by adding the words "in a 12 month period" to Sections 3 a), b) and c) after the words "false alarm;andby adding the words "in a 12 month period" to Section 3 d) after the words "subsequent falsealarm".BackgroundEarlier this year Council received correspondence with respect to a number of false alarm fees leviedagainst two properties. Further to this, Council met with the Mission District School Board and receivedenquiries from school district staff on how false alarms are assessed to the school district on an annualbasis. Council requested that both Mission Fire Rescue and the RCMP review the false alarm bylawprocess and provide a report on the following:A. How the District tracks false alarms for both Mission Fire Rescue and the RCMP and,B. That staff review False Alarm Bylaw 2929-1995 and provide a report with options - for theescalating fee structure and consideration for multiple service calls at one location due tocircumstances beyond the owner's control:Mission Fire/RescueMission Fire Rescue on a weekly basis processes all incidents that the department responds to. Theseincidents are initially entered into our FDIV,I database by the suppression crews then a hard copy isforwarded to the admin office for paid on call pay processing. At this time our admin staff identify allresponses that resulted in a false alarm and forward these to the Chief Officer for final review and adecision as to whether a false alarm fee is assessed under the bylaw.When reviewing these incidents the Chief Officer bases his decision on the narrative by the officer incharge and takes into account the circumstances to which the cause of the alarm resulted. One keyPage 1 of 3

150factor that is considered is whether the activation of the alarm is due to circumstances beyond the controlof the resident or business owner, i.e.: pull station activated at a school by a student. In the case of aninspectable property the Chief Officer will take a look at the inspection history to determine if the propertyhas been in compliance with the requirements, of the Fire services Act and our Fire Department Bylaw, tomaintain all fire alarm systems in proper working order and required annual servicing by a fire protectioncompany. The final area we review is the number of false alarms that we have attended at that propertyin a given calendar year. If we see a pattern that is preventable then we will have staff follow up with theproperty representative to discuss options to reduce these nuisance false alarms.Once we determine a property is assessed a fee under the false alarm bylaw our admin staff will enterthe address into a spread sheet and a monthly report is forwarded to finance for billing purposes. At theFire department level we can monitor closely the number of false alarms at a given address through ourFDM system and also through a spread sheet that our admin staff maintains.RCMPMission RCMP has set up a false alarm tracking system through our Crime Prevention Office and ourBusiness Watch Program. A template has been created to track all police dispatches for false alarm callsand within a week of the first call, auxiliary constables visit the business owner to identify any issuesregarding their alarm systems or training of staff in the use of these systems, provide crime preventiontips and update contact information. In the event of a second alarm dispatch, a follow-up phone call ismade to the business owner to determine what steps have been taken to resolve outstanding issues.Should a third false alarm be received and it's clear the business owner has not taken steps to resolveissues around training of staff or a faulty alarm system, information is sent to the District of Mission forbilling purposes under the False Alarm By-Law. This tracking system will be monitored over the next sixmonths with a view to determine the reduction of calls for service. At that time, and depending on theoutcome, consideration will be given to monitor home alarms in a similar fashion.FINANCEFinance department receives false alarm invoicing request from the RCMP and Mission Fire/Rescuewhich are entered into a spreadsheet by address and sorted to determine the infraction number (first,second, third etc.). The fee charged is based on the infraction number. For each address that has two ormore infractions, the property ownership is investigated. If ownership has changed, the infraction fee willbe charge as if this false alarm was the first infraction.The invoices are prepared and sent to the occupant and/or owner of the property. Statements are sentout on a monthly basis. Unpaid invoices are transferred to property taxes on December 31 st of eachyear. If they cannot be transferred to property taxes (property is a crown lease or otherwise owner by theprovince) collection action is taken as per council policy, FIN.2 Accounts Receivable — Credit andCollection.Where an owner disagrees with the charge they contact the RCMP or the Mission Fire/Rescue. TheRCMP or Mission Fire/Rescue will provide a review of the file and if the review determines that theincident is not a false alarm, the fee and any interest accrued are reversed.Page 2 of 3

151It is as a result of the information contained in this report the above recommendations are made.P411.Ian patrickFire ChiefCURMargie LaueManager, RCMP AdministrationPage 3 of 3

RECEIVED152JUL 2 0 2011DISTRICT OF 10819,11July 13, 2011Mayor James AtebeDistrict of MissionBox 20-8645Stave Lake StreetMission. BCV2V 4L9Dear Mayor Atebe,I am the present Mayor of Oyama town, Masahide Komiyama. I hope tocontinue the relationship with you and the people of the District of Missionthat has been matured by our former mayor Takahashi.The people of Japan, Oyama town and I am sure deeply appreciate andthank you and your people for the most generous donation made by theMission International Cultural Association, through the Oyama SocialWelfare Council to assist in the reconstruction of the East Japan GreatEarthquake disaster areas. We assure you that this donation will be used tothe best possible way to achieve this. We are overwhelmed by the helpreceived from your people and the people of the world in our time of need,and we pray that the people of Japan will write to reconstruct the disasterareas in the manner that is Japan.Sincerely yours,Mayor Masahide KomiyamaTown of Oyama

153MINUTES of the REGULAR MEETING of the COUNCIL of the DISTRICT OF MISSIONheld in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Hall, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission,British Columbia, on June 20, 2011 commencing at 6:30 p.m.Council Members Present:Staff Members Present:Mayor James AtebeCouncillor Terry GiddaCouncillor Paul HornCouncillor Danny PlecasCouncillor Mike ScudderCouncillor Jenny StevensCouncillor Heather StewartGlen Robertson, Chief Administrative OfficerPaul Gipps, Deputy Chief Administrative OfficerKelly Ridley, Deputy Director of Corporate AdministrationTina Mooney, Administrative AssistantThe mayor introduced the new Officer in Charge Inspector Richard Konarski and the newDeputy Director of Parks, Recreation and Culture, Stephanie Key.1. DELEGATIONS AND PRESENTATIONSPresentation of Mart Kenny Staff Excellence Awards toJennifer Meier and Mike Younie (Environmental Services)Mayor Atebe presented Mart Kenny Staff Excellence awards to:Jennifer Meier, Environmental Coordinator, in recognition and appreciation forher exemplary service to the District of Mission, including special recognition forher work on the pilot curb side composting program in 2010, andMike Younie, Manager of Environmental Services, in recognition andappreciation for his exemplary service to the District of Mission, including specialrecognition for his work in coordinating the operational improvements at thelandfill, his role in the Mission dike expansion and his participation in the energyaudits for the District of Mission.David JamiesonRe: Appeal of Refusal of Taxi PermitMr. Jamieson appeared before Council to appeal a refusal by the RCMP to grant him ataxi and chauffeur's permit.He discussed his past and the reason given for the refusal. He noted that he was denieda taxi and chauffeur's permit in the City of Nanaimo as well however they issued him atemporary permit for a probationary twelve month period. Following the probationaryperiod they issued him a further two year period with no restrictions attached to hislicence. He asked Council to approve the same conditions as the City of Nanaimo so thathe can obtain a permit.Moved by Councillor Horn, seconded by Councillor Stevens, andRESOLVED: That the RCMP report back on the potential issuance of a provisional taxi

154Regular Council Meeting Page 2 of 14June 20, 2011permit and this item be listed on the next agenda.CARRIEDRC11/329JUN. 20/11Max VoykinRe: 25tn Anniversary Rick Hansen Man in Motion World TourMr. Max Voykin, Regional Route Coordinator for the 25th Anniversary Rick Hansen Man inMotion World Tour, appeared before Council to invite the District of Mission to be includedas a "Route Community" in Rick Hansen's journey.On August 24, 2011 the relay will launch from Cape Speer, Newfoundland as they areretracing Rick Hansen's original Man in Motion tour and will be similar to the OlympicTorch Relay.The 25" Anniversary tour will pass through on May 16, 2012 at approximately noon andthey are requesting support from council to include Mission as a route community on theday of the tour when it travels from Abbotsford to Maple Ridge.He noted there will be a contest with the details posted on their websitewww.rickhansenrelav.com which would allow a resident of Mission to be a medal bearer.He stated that this event already has support for a dedicated escort from Hope toVancouver and this would alleviate costs from the District of Mission. This is not afundraiser but a grass roots accessibility and inclusion campaign.Mayor Atebe thanked Mr. Voykin for the information.Moved by Councillor Stevens, seconded by Councillor Plecas, andRESOLVED: That staff prepare a report providing options and the financial or in-kindcontribution impact.CARRIEDRC11/329AJUN. 20/11Moved by Councillor Horn, seconded by Councillor Gidda, andRESOLVED: That the following items of business be added to the agenda in theapplicable committee sections:(a)(b)discussion about the stolen search and rescue equipment be added as item (a)under the heading of Public Safety (verbal — Councillor Horn); and •discussion about changing the day of the first Committee of the Whole meeting inAugust be added as item (a) under Other Business.CARRIED2. ADOPTION OF INFORMATIONAL ITEMSRC11/330JUN. 20/11Moved by Councillor Stewart, seconded by Councillor Horn, andRESOLVED: That the following items be received as information:(a) Ferndale Institution Population Profile — March, April and May 2011;

155Regular Council Meeting Page 3 of 14June 20, 2011(b) Mission Institution Report — April and May, 2011;(c) minutes of the Traffic Safety Committee meeting held on May 11, 2011;(d) draft minutes of the Mission Healthy Community Council meeting held on May 17,2011;(e)draft minutes of the Economic Development Select Committee meeting held onMay 19, 2011; and(f) letter from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities dated June 9, 2011 regardingthe Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) Program.CARRIEDRC11/331JUN. 20/11Moved by Councillor Horn, seconded by Councillor Scudder, andRESOLVED: That the chief administrative officer report back as to why the Parks,Recreation and Culture department is not participating in the new physical activityprogram being offered by the Province to communities.CARRIEDCouncillor Horn reported that the program would help train volunteers to help communitymembers improve their health and fitness, especially seniors and those with chronicillnesses. In order to make this program as easy as possible, the Parks Department maybe required to host and promote some of the trainer/trainee sessions, provide trainingspace and go beyond the RAP card.3. RESOLUTION TO RESOLVE INTO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLERC11/332JUN. 20/11Moved by Councillor Stevens, seconded by Councillor Gidda, andRESOLVED: That council now resolve itself into committee of the whole.CARRIED4. PLANNINGCouncillor Stewart assumed the Chair.RC11/333JUN. 20/11Major Development Project Update — Current to June 15, 2011A report from the Planning Technician dated June 20, 2011 regarding the current majordevelopment projects within the District was provided for the Committee's information.RC11/334JUN. 20/11Excerpt from the Minutes of the Public Hearing held on May 25, 2009 andStaff Reports dated April 20 and October 19, 2009 —Background for consideration of adoption of Bylaw 5012-2009An excerpt from the minutes of the Public Hearing held on May 25, 2009 and copies of therelated staff reports dated April 20 and October 19, 2009 were provided to the Committeeas background information for the consideration of adoption of bylaw 5012-2009.

Regular Council Meeting Page 4 of 14June 20, 20111565. FORESTRYCouncillor Plecas assumed the Chair.RC11/335JUN. 20/11Amendment of Policies Related to the Forestry DepartmentMoved by Councillor Horn,RECOMMENDED: That Policy PRO.26-Forestry Gate Keys be deferred pending furtheramendments to the language and an incentive program for people to return the keys.CARRIEDRC11/336JUN. 20/11Moved by Councillor Stevens, andRECOMMENDED:1. That Policy LIC.11-Firewood Cutting Permit be revoked as this is adequatelycovered in existing Procedure LIC.18-Minor Forest Product and Permit Activity; and2. That Policy RIS.14-Municipal Forest Trail Inspections be amended as set out in thereport from the Director of Forest Management dated June 7, 2011.CARRIED6. PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURECouncillor Scudder assumed the Chair.RC11/337JUN. 20/11Centennial Park Off-Leash Fencing InformationMoved by Councillor Horn, andRECOMMENDED:1. That the installation of a split-rail fence around the off-leash area at Centennial Parkat a cost of $24,580, which includes perimeter shrubbery and contractor suppliedrails, be approved;2. That funding for the fencing come from existing 2011 capital projects UpgradeExisting Parks ($12,500), Create Off-Leash Dog Areas ($4,300) and the transfer offunding from Pool, Weight Room & Fitness Equipment ($7,780); and3. That the financial plan be amended accordingly.CARRIEDRC11/338JUN. 20/11Request from Mission Heritage Association for MowerMoved by Mayor Atebe, andRECOMMENDED:1. That Parks mower unit 5284 be donated to the Mission Heritage Association for useat Fraser River Heritage Park; and

157Regular Council Meeting Page 5 of 14June 20, 20112. That $4,285 be transferred from Council Contingency to the Equipment Reserve inorder to properly fund the donation.CARRIEDRC11/339JUN. 20/11Spirit Square FencingMoved by Councillor Horn, andRECOMMENDED:1. That staff install fencing along the bottom of the Spirit Square utilizing galvanizedsteel mesh panels, at a cost of $23,200;2. That funding for the fencing come from the Experience the Fraser funds; and3. That staff prepare a report on the viability of adding visual effects such as concreteplanters and/or evergreens to the end of the fencing.CARRIEDRC11/340JUN. 20/11Mission Community Activity Centre — Parking LotMoved by Mayor Atebe, andRECOMMENDED:1. That staff proceed with resurfacing the Mission Community Activity Centre parkinglot in 2011, at a cost of $26,000;2. That funding for the project come from the Financial Stabilization Reserve Fund; and3. That the financial plan be amended accordingly.CARRIED7. ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC WORKSCouncillor Gidda assumed the Chair.RC11/341JUN. 20/11Design Alternatives and Budget Revisions for Silverdale AvenueReconstructionMoved by Councillor Horn, andRECOMMENDED:1. That the budget for Silverdale Avenue reconstruction be increased from $650,000 to$780,000;2. That the Roads Reserve be used as the source for the additional funding required;3. That the financial plan be amended accordingly; and4. That staff prepare a report on traffic calming for the area.CARRIED

Regular Council Meeting Page 6 of 14June 20, 2011158RC11/342JUN. 20/112011 Nuisance Mosquito Program and West Nile Virus RiskReduction ProgramA report from the Manager of Environmental Services dated June 13, 2011 regarding the2011 nuisance mosquito and West Nile virus risk reduction programs was provided for theCommittee's information.RC11/343JUN. 20/11Public and Staff Comments Regarding FVRD Solid Waste ManagementPlan (SWMP)Moved by Councillor Horn, andRECOMMENDED: That the following Council comments regarding the draft Fraser ValleyRegional District Solid Waste Management Plan be forwarded to FVRD staff for inclusionin the final plan:(a) To ensure that the unregulated landfills are included in the correspondence to theMinister of Environment when submitting the plan and share this information withother communities.CARRIEDRC11/344JUN. 20/11BC Hydro Energy Management Assessment (EMA) UpdateA report from the Manager of Environmental Services and the Manager of Energy andSustainability dated June 13, 2011 regarding the District's progress under the EnergyManagement Assessment program was provided for the Committee's information.RC11/345JUN. 20/11Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) Partners for Climate Protection(PCP) Milestone RecognitionA report from the Manager of Environmental Services and the Manager of Energy andSustainability dated June 13, 2011 regarding the District's progress in meeting thePartners for Climate Protection Program (PCP) was provided for the Committee'sinformation.RC11/346'JUN. 20/11Press Release from Water & Sewer CommissionA copy of the press release from the Abbotsford/Mission Water & Sewer Commissionregarding a new Memorandum of Understanding between Mission and Abbotsford thatoutlines general principles for moving forward with the regional water system wasprovided for the Committee's information.The chief administrative officer responded to questions from council concerning theprocess and confirmed that a draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) will beforwarded to the Water & Sewer Commission and then forwarded to council for approval.Any comments or concerns will be forwarded back to the Water & Sewer Commission forfurther discussion and a revised draft of the Memorandum of Understanding will beforwarded to council.

159Regular Council Meeting Page 7 of 14June 20, 2011RC11/347JUN. 20/11Stave Lake Water LicenseMoved by Councillor Horn, andRECOMMENDED: That the District of Mission not be jointly named with the City ofAbbotsford on the Stave Lake water supply license, Crown Land application, and BCHydro agreement.CARRIEDRC11/348JUN. 20/11Metering of All Residential Water ServicesMoved by Councillor Horn, andRECOMMENDED: That staff gather and report on the qualitative and quantitative factorsthat led some of the other jurisdictions and organizations to support or not support watermetering and undertake a limited financial review of our specific situation by attempting toquantify any estimated cost savings or costs around water metering and move forwardsimultaneously with our RFP process and staff make adjustments to the RFPs asnecessary.CARRIED8. ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCECouncillor Stevens assumed the Chair.RC11/349JUN. 20/11Contract Award for the Supply and Delivery of One Custom PumperFire ApparatusMoved by Councillor Plecas, andRECOMMENDED:1. That the contract for the supply and delivery of one custom pumper fire apparatus beawarded to Hub Fire Engines and Equipment Ltd. in the amount of $499,941.12(12% HST included); and2. That a contingency budget be established in the amount of $25,000.00 plus HST toallow staff to negotiate and authorize required design changes during themanufacturing process, if and as required.CARRIEDRC11/350JUN. 20/11Clarification of Municipal Grants in Aid for Community EventsMoved by Mayor Atebe, andRECOMMENDED:1. That a one-time grant of $300.00 be provided to Mission Elks Lodge #30 to assistwith the cost of the 2011 Easter Egg Hunt, funded from Recreation and SocialServices Account No. 20503-340;

160Regular Council Meeting Page 8 of 14June 20, 20112(a). That $300.00 be provided to the Mission & District Lions Club to assist withtransportation costs for their annual Christmas Dinner event;2(b). That there be a permanent transfer of $100.00 from Arts and Culture Account20500-340 to Community Events Account 20498-340 to cover the budget shortagefor the annual Mission & District Lions Club Christmas Dinner; and3. That staff proceed with drafting a three year contract agreement for communityspecial event grant recipients, similar to the Fee for Service Agreements, for furtherconsideration by Council.CARRIEDStaff are to clarify that the $300.00 that is allocated to the Mission & District Lions Club willbe used for the annual Christmas Dinner event.RC11/351JUN. 20/11Communications StrategyMoved by Councillor Horn, andRECOMMENDED:1. That a fixed term position within the District workforce is developed to prepare astrategy and implementation plan;2. That a budget of $35,000 be allocated initially from stabilization reserve withreplenishment to come from existing municipal department 2011 budgets at yearend; and further;3. That a review of this term position be considered during the 2012 budget cycleOPPOSED: Jenny StevensCARRIEDThe deputy chief administrative officer read an email that was received from the Chamber• of Commerce. He noted that for future projects, staff should consider whether acommunication strategy is required and if so ensure the cost of this strategy is included inthe budgeting.RC11/352JUN. 20/11Joint Sewer Capital Cost Sharing FormulaMoved by Councillor Plecas, andRECOMMENDED:1. That the new regional sewer cost sharing formula as set out in WSC report 12-2011(Joint Sewer Capital Cost Sharing Formula) be approved; and,2. That the Joint Water Supply and Distribution and Sewage Treatment Systems"Ownership & Governance Agreement" and "Operation and MaintenanceAgreement" be amended accordingly.CARRIEDRC11/353JUN. 20/11Financial Plan AmendmentsMoved by Councillor Scudder, and

161Regular Council Meeting Page 9 of 14June 20, 2011RECOMMENDED: That the District's financial plans for regional water and sewer beamended to take into account the following:A) New sewer funding formula for growth related capital as follows:AbbotsfordMissionFlow-triggered 81.30% 18.70%Load-triggered 85.00% 15.00%B) Water capital budget amendments are as follows:Wells disinfection — this budget is increased from $600,000 to $2,700,000 (Mission'sshare of increase is $564,900)Norrish Creek Water Treatment Plant Membrane Expansion — the combined budgetsfor membrane expansion and replacement of $2,585,000 is increased to $4,500,000(Mission's share of increase is $515,135)C) The updated percentage flow splits as follows:AbbotsfordMissionWater 73.10% 26.90%Sewer 80.57% 19.43%CARRIEDRC11/354JUN. 20/112010 Annual ReportThe draft 2010 District of Mission Annual Report was provided for the Committee'sinformation.Moved by Councillor Horn, andRECOMMENDED:1. That the 2010 District of Mission Annual Report be amended as follows:(a)include issues being discussed in the Mission Healthy Community Councilmeetings;(b) start the graphs on page 61 of the report at 0;(c) the number of building permits issued listed under miscellaneous on page 62should show any changes from 2006 to 2010.(d)include discussion of municipal revenues with the discussion of increases inmunicipal taxation on page 64; and(e) include a map of the boundaries of the District of Mission at page 74.

162Regular Council Meeting Page 10 of 14June 20, 20112. That staff prepare packages of excerpts of information from the report that can bedistributed throughout the community.CARRIEDRC11/355JUN. 20/112010 Statement of Financial InformationMoved by Councillor Scudder, andRECOMMENDED: That the District of Mission 2010 Statement of Financial Informationbe approved for submission to the Ministry of Community, Sport and CulturalDevelopment.CARRIEDRC11/356JUN. 20/11Ron Leger, Agent for the Roman Catholic Archbishop of VancouverRe: Request to Waive Development Cost Charges for St. Joseph's FoodBank Building at 32550 — 7th AvenueCouncillor Scudder declared a conflict of interest and removed himself from the meeting at9:07 p.m.Moved by Mayor Atebe, andRECOMMENDED:1. That consideration of the request to waive development cost charges for the Sta.Joseph's food bank be deferred pending a staff report outlining the legislativeprocedures to provide the relief requested; and2. that Mr. Leger be advised that staff are looking for ways to accommodate hisrequest.CARRIEDCouncillor Scudder returned to the meeting at 9:09 p.m.RC11/357JUN. 20/11Central Valley TaxiRe: Request for Council Approval to Increase TariffMoved by Councillor Horn, andRECOMMENDED: That consideration of the request for council approval to increase thetaxi tariff be deferred pending information from staff as to whether Council can receive therequest as information or if a Council resolution is required to approve a fare increase.CARRIEDRC11/358JUN. 20/11Fr. John TritschlerRe: 150th Anniversary of the Founding of Mission, BCCorrespondence from Father John Tritschler, St. Anthony's Catholic Church, datedJune 14, 2011 regarding the 150 th anniversary of the founding of Mission, BC wasprovided for the Committee's information.

163Regular Council Meeting Page 11 of 14June 20, 2011Moved by Councillor Scudder, andRECOMMENDED: That the information from St. Anthony's Catholic Church advising that2011 is what could be interpreted as the 150th anniversary of the founding of Mission, bereferred to Mission Archives and the Heritage Commission for their input and ideas for apotential event in partnership with the District of Mission.CARRIED9. PUBLIC SAFETYCouncillor Horn assumed the Chair.RC11/359JUN. 20/11Mission Search and Rescue (late item)Councillor Horn noted that a theft of equipment had taken place from the Search andRescue building.Moved by Councillor Plecas, andRECOMMENDED: That staff investigate:(a)(b)CARRIEDhow much will it cost to replace the communications equipment that was stolen; andwhether security is adequate at the Search and Rescue storage facility.10. RESOLUTION TO RISE AND REPORTMayor Atebe resumed the Chair.RC11/360JUN. 20/11Moved by Councillor Scudder, seconded by Councillor Gidda, andRESOLVED: That the committee of the whole now rise and report.CARRIED11. ADOPTION OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORTRC11/361JUN. 20/11Moved by Councillor Horn , seconded by Councillor Stevens, andRESOLVED: That the recommendations of the committee of the whole, as contained initems RC11/327 to RC11/360, except item RC11/351 (Communication Strategy), beadopted.CARRIEDRC11/362JUN. 20/11Moved by Councillor Horn , seconded by Councillor Plecas, andRESOLVED: That the recommendations of the committee of the whole, as contained initem RC11/351 (Communication Strategy), be adopted.

Regular Council Meeting Page 12 of 14June 20, 2011164OPPOSED: Councillor StevensCARRIED12. BYLAWSRC11/363JUN. 20/11Moved by Councillor Stevens, seconded by Councillor Scudder, andRESOLVED: That the reading of the bylaw included in the Bylaws section of the June 20,2011 regular council agenda be approved as listed:(a) District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5012-2009 (R07- Adoption030 — TGK Engineering) — a bylaw to rezone property at 33769and 33801 Knight Avenue from Rural Residential 7 Zone(RR7) to Urban Residential 465 Zone (R465)CARRIED13. MINUTESRC11/364JUN. 20/11Moved by Councillor Stevens, seconded by Councillor Stewart, andRESOLVED: That the minutes of the regular meetings of Council held on April 4 andMay 16, 2011 be adopted.CARRIED14. OTHER BUSINESSRC11/364AJUN. 20/11Moved by Councillor Stevens, seconded by Councillor Stewart, andRESOLVED: That the Regular Council meeting scheduled for August 2, 2011 berescheduled to August 8, 2011.OPPOSED: Councillor HornCARRIED15. CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER'S REPORTThe chief administrative officer did not report.16. MAYOR'S REPORTThe mayor reported on various activities, meetings and events attended since the lastregular council meeting.17. COUNCILLOR'S REPORTS ON COMMITTEES, BOARDS AND ACTIVITIESCouncillors Scudder, Stewart, Horn, Gidda, Plecas reported on various activities,meetings and events attended since the last regular council meeting.

165Regular Council Meeting Page 13 of 14June 20, 201118. QUESTION PERIODCouncil and staff responded to questions from the following people:RC11/365JUN. 20/11Moved by Councillor Scudder, seconded by Councillor Gidda, andRECOMMENDED: That the meeting be extended until all items of business have beenconcluded.CARRIEDRon Taylor asked if the minutes of the open portions of the closed meetings wereavailable online.The Deputy Chief Administrative Officer responded that before any in-camera meeting iscommenced, the beginning of the meeting is open and minutes are taken and areincluded in the in-camera meetings and this is an administrative function only.Ron Taylor asked if open portions of the minutes will be available to the public and if so,the items being held in-camera should include the subsection of Section 90 of stated inthe Community Charter.Mayor Atebe noted that staff will provide council with direction regarding this matter.Larry Nundal noted that on page 241 of the annual report there is an increase in municipalemployees from 2006 to 2010 and asked which departments required this increase inemployees.The Chief Administrative Officer responded that he can contact the human resourcesdepartment to confirm this information and confirmed that the fire department was part ofthis increase.Larry Nundal stated that at page 71 of the 2010 Annual Report it notes that in 2008 therewas 82 volunteer fire fighters and in 2010 there is 63 volunteer fire fighters and he asked ifthere is a recruitment program in place.The Mayor responded that a new program is in place that recruits high school students forcadet training.Larry Nundal noted that at page 71 of the 2010 Annual Report the response calls haveincreased substantially since the commencement of full time fire fighters and asked whythe increase.Councillor Horn responded that the benefit of having full-time firefighters is that thisenables them to be able to attend motor vehicle accidents and other emergency calls thatthey were not able to attend to when they were just paid on-call volunteers. They are ableto respond to more calls than previously able to.Larry Nundal asked if there is a policy regarding attendance of emergency vehicles atincidents and if there was a time frame for notifying the fire department or is the firedepartment responding to all the emergency calls. He asked why the ambulance and thefire department are both at the scene.

Regular Council Meeting Page 14 of 14June 20, 2011166Staff are to respond to provide this information to Mr. Nundal.Arnold Muir asked if the District of Mission has a liaison that meets with both Mission andFerndale Institutions and what actions, if any, has council taken regarding the two recentinmate escapes.The Chief Administrative Officer responded that council meets periodically with theWardens from both Mission and Ferndale Institutions and council has had discussionsabout the Ferndale walk-aways and that they are taken seriously.Council responded as follows to Mr. Muir's concerns regarding walk-aways:• any inmate that is serving time in the Ferndale Institution is considered to be aminimum risk;• the RCMP works closely with the institution should an inmate walk away;• if any inmate does walk away, council is notified within a couple of hours of therebeing a walk away;• there is a risk assessment performed on every inmate transferred to FerndaleInstitution;• the District of Mission does not have any mandate over Mission or FerndaleInstitution expanding their facilities;• staff can ask that the public consultation process regarding changes in the prisonsin Mission be added to the next meeting between council and the MPs office.Michelle Favero applauded council for passing a resolution to develop a communicationstrategy and she stated that the Chamber of Commerce could be included as a liaison.19. ADJOURNMENTMoved by Councillor Horn, seconded by Councillor Pieces, andRESOLVED: That the meeting be adjourned.CARRIEDThe meeting was adjourned at 9:52 p.m.JAMES ATEBE, MAYOR PAUL GIPPS, DEPUTY CHIEFADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

167MINUTES of the REGULAR MEETING of the COUNCIL of the DISTRICT OF MISSIONheld in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Hall, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission,British Columbia, on July 18, 2011 commencing at 6:30 p.m.Council Members Present:Mayor James AtebeCouncillor Terry GiddaCouncillor Danny PlecasCouncillor Mike ScudderCouncillor Jenny StevensCouncillor Heather StewartCouncil Members Absent: Councillor Paul HornStaff Members Present:Glen Robertson, Chief Administrative OfficerPaul Gipps, Deputy Chief Administrative OfficerKelly Ridley, Deputy Director of Corporate AdministrationTina Mooney, Administrative Clerk1. DELEGATIONS AND PRESENTATIONSMulalo Sadike, Canada World YouthRe: Canada-Ukraine Exchange September to December 2011Mulalo Sadike, program coordinator for the Canada World Youth Mission/Ukraineexchange, appeared before council to request support for this year's program.Mr. Sadike provided the following information about this year's exchange:• The youth will be in Mission from September 10 to December 30, 2011;• the team consists of 18 youth (9 from Ukraine and 9 from Canada) who will livewith host families;• Canada World Youth will be celebrating its 40th Anniversary on October 19, 2011and Mr. Sadike asked council to proclaim October 17 to 23, 2001 as "CanadaWorld Youth Week" in Mission; and• The youth would like to participate in the Celebrating Mission event and asked forcontact information for this eventMr. Sadike asked council to provide transit and leisure centre passes for the team for theduration of the exchange program.The Mayor thanked Mr. Sadike for the information.Moved by Councillor Scudder, seconded by Councillor Plecas, andRESOLVED:1. That staff prepare a report regarding the costs associated with providing leisurecentre and transit passes;2. That Canada World Youth forward a letter requesting that Council proclaimOctober 17 to 23, 2011 as Canada World Youth Week in Mission; and

168Regular Council Meeting Page 2 of 11July 18, 20113. That the Canada World Youth group be referred to the Mission InternationalCultural Association to participate in welcoming and facilitating the students.CARRIEDRC11/408JULY 18/11Hirod Gill, Design EngineerRe: Asset ManagementMr. Hirod Gill appeared before Council to provide information regarding information onasset management. Mr. Gill stated:• That Mission needs an asset management plan.• The estimated replacement cost of assets/infrastructure in Mission is $700 to$900 Million.• The assets need to be managed in a proactive manner rather than a reactivemanner.• asset management is a balance between how much is spent on maintenanceand capital programs.• without asset management you are operating in the dark and all your decisionmaking, is constrained by having such a limited view.• implementing asset management to the District of Mission is very importantand helps to move forward more confidently, make better decision, and avoidpotential problems.• asset management is a business model and includes the following information:• What do we own• What is it worth• What is the asset risk• What is the remaining service life• What/when to do it• What is the cost impact• as infrastructure ages and funds available to provide upgrades are limited,asset management will become extremely important to prioritize futureprojects/expenditures.• asset management creates best practice roadmaps and while as it is notpresently legislated, many communities have an asset management plan inplace.• in order to move forward effectively Council can help by supporting an assetmanagement policy which guarantees the continuous commitment of theDistrict to implement this program .• with existing staff it would be difficult to manage this program and one moreemployee may need to be hired to manage the program.In response to questions from council, Mr. Gill noted:

169Regular Council Meeting Page 3 of 11July 18, 2011• other levels of government have indicated they may be allocating grants in thefuture to help with municipalities with their asset management program but this isnot presently a mandate.• the $700 to $900 million is all assets in the District which includes undergroundassets, building infrastructures and vehicles etc.• the government is presently creating best practice roadmaps for every areaincluding drainage, water, sanitary, etc. and this will form part of assetmanagement.• many communities have implemented an asset management program and theDistrict of Mission is actually one of the few communities that does not have one inplace.Moved by Councillor Scudder; and seconded by Councillor Stevens, andRESOLVED: That staff liaise with a sustainability working group to draft a potential AssetManagement Policy and/or implementation strategy including a phased-in approach that istied with the District's budgetary process.CARRIEDMayor Atebe thanked Mr. Gill for the information.2. ADOPTION OF INFORMATIONAL ITEMSRC11 /409JULY 18/11Moved by Councillor Gidda, seconded by Councillor Plecas, andRESOLVED: That the following items be received as information:(a) Draft Minutes of the Economic Development Select Committee Meeting held onJune 16, 2011.CARRIEDStaff were directed to obtain a copy of the minutes from the Developers and RealtorsAnnual Meeting held on June 7, 2011 and provide copies to Council.3. RESOLUTION TO RESOLVE INTO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLERC11/410JULY 18/11Moved by Councillor Scudder seconded by Councillor Stewart, andRESOLVED: That council now resolve itself into committee of the whole.CARRIED4. PLANNINGCouncillor Stewart assumed the Chair.RC11/411JULY 18/11Rezoning Application R11-013 (Dundas) — 30489 Nikula Avenue

Regular Council Meeting Page 4 of 11July 18, 2011170Moved by Councillor Plecas, andRECOMMENDED:1. That, in accordance with Rezoning Application R11-013 (Barry and ShaneDundas), the Corporate Officer prepare a bylaw to amend District of MissionZoning Bylaw 5050-2009 by rezoning the property located at 30489 Nikula Avenueand legally described as:Parcel Identifier: 009-930-540 Lot 4, Section 26, Township 15, NewWestminster District, Plan 77000from Rural 16 (RU16) zone to Rural Residential 7 zone (RR7);2. That the bylaw be considered for first and second readings at the Regular Councilmeeting on July 18, 2011; and3. That following such readings, the bylaw be forwarded to a Public Hearing onAugust 22, 2011.CARRIEDRC11/412JULY 18/11RC11/413JULY 18/11Rezoning Application R11-018 (Goertz) — 31509 Israel AvenueMoved by Councillor Gidda, andRECOMMENDED:1. That, in accordance with Rezoning Application R11-018 (Goertz), the CorporateOfficer prepare a bylaw to amend District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009 byrezoning the property located at 31509 Israel Avenue and legally described as:Parcel Identifier: 028 167 007; Lot 1 Section 30 Township 17 NewWestminster District Plan BCP43965from Suburban Residential 36 zone (S36) to Suburban Residential 36Secondary Dwelling zone (S36s);2. That the bylaw be considered for first and second readings at the Regular Councilmeeting on July 18, 2011; and3. That following such readings, the bylaw be forwarded to Public Hearing on August22, 2011.CARRIEDDevelopment Permit DP11-009 (Winel) — 33039 and 33043 — 1 st AvenueMoved by Councillor Scudder, andRECOMMENDED: That Development Permit Application DP10-009, in the names ofJosef and Clara Winel, to provide conformity to the Official Community Plan guidelinesrespecting building form and character for a proposed commercial development withapartment units, on the property located at 33039 and 33043 1 st Avenue be forwarded toCouncil for public input on August 22, 2011.CARRIED

171Regular Council Meeting Page 5 of 11July 18, 2011RC11/414JULY 18/11Third Reading Report for Rezoning Application R08-010 (MapleviewEnterprises Ltd.) — 7260 and 7290 Maple Street, 32822, 32848, 32852 and32858 — 1st Avenue, 32819, 32825, 32829, 32853, 32851, 32853 and 32859View Avenue, and 7288 Wardrop StreetA report from the senior planner dated July 18, 2011, regarding rezoning application R08-010 was provided for the committee's information.RC11/415JULY 18/11Third Reading Report for Rezoning Application R11-010 — (Supportive CareHolding Society) — 33032 — 11th AvenueA report from the Director of Planning dated July 18, 2011, regarding rezoning applicationR11-010 was provided for the committee's information.RC11/416JULY 18/11Minutes of the Regular Meeting of Council (Public Hearing) held on June 27,2011The minutes of the Regular Meeting of Council (Public Hearing) held on June 27, 2011was provided for the committee's information5. PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURECouncillor Scudder; assumed the Chair.RC11/417JULY 18/11Bike Race Proposal for MissionMoved by Mayor Atebe, andRECOMMENDED: That1. That Mayor Atebe meet with the chair of the Mission Heritage Association on theMission Classic bike race proposal.CARRIEDRC11/418JULY 18/11Hatzic Park WashroomsMoved by Mayor Atebe, andRECOMMENDED:1. That staff bring back an update in November 2011 to indicate the status of thesewer services that may become available nearby as part of the proposed HatzicRidge development; and2. That following a review of the staff report in November, Council will commit to oneof the options and move forward with the washroom facilities prior to the 2012softball season.OPPOSED: Councillor ScudderCouncillor StewartCARRIED

172Regular Council Meeting Page 6 of 11July 18, 20116. ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCECouncillor Stevens assumed the Chair.RC11/419JULY 18/11Social Development Program UpdateA report from the Manager of Social Development dated June 30, 2011 was provided forthe committee's information.RC11/420JULY 18/11Appointment to Fraser Valley Regional District Regional Growth Strategy —Intergovernmental Advisory CommitteeMoved by Mayor Atebe, andRECOMMENDED: That Sharon Fletcher, Director of Planning, be appointed as District ofMission representative to the Fraser Valley Regional District Regional Growth Strategy —Intergovernmental Advisory Committee.CARRIEDRC11/421JULY 18/11Council and Staff Expenses Policy COU. 14AMoved by Councillor Gidda, andRECOMMENDED:1. That Section 1 of Council and Staff Expenses Policy 14.A be amended by deletingsubsection (a) in its entirety and replacing it with new subsections (a) and (b) asfollows:a) use of personal vehicle (Council Members) = $.52 per kilometer* for traveloutside the District of Missionb) use of personal vehicle (Staff Members) = $.52 per kilometer* for travelboth within and outside the District of Missionand*Effective August 1, 2008 and that the rate henceforth reflect the Canada RevenueAgency Rate as set in January of each year)2. That the remaining subsections be renumbered accordingly.CARRIEDRC11/422JULY 18/11Pilot Project — Development Application ProcessA report from the Deputy Chief Administrative Officer dated July 18, 2011 regarding a pilotproject to look at how the District of Mission manages development was provided for thecommittee's information.

Regular Council Meeting Page 7 of 11July 18, 20111737. ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC WORKSCouncillor Gidda assumed the Chair.RC11/423JULY 18/11Pavement Rehabilitation TenderMoved by Councillor Plecas, andRECOMMENDED: That Pavement Rehabilitation Contract ITT 2011-007 be awarded tothe low bidder, Imperial Paving Limited, in the amount of $960,712.48, including HST,subject to the contractor fulfilling the mandatory requirements as required in the tenderand contract documents.CARRIEDRC11/424JULY 18/11Energy Efficiency and Lighting Projects UpdateMoved by Councillor Scudder, andRECOMMENDED:1. That the District consider the energy efficiency upgrade projects for the City Hall,Firehall #1, RCMP and the Leisure Centre facilities when reviewing the District'scapital financial plan as a whole at budget time in the fall of 2011, which will include areview of all the District's capital needs and requests.2. That RC11/207 (1 and 2) to release a "Request for Pre-qualification" be delayed untilfunding is secured for this project.CARRIEDRC11/425JULY 18/11Proposed Walking Trail Along Gaudin Creek AThe Environmental Coordinator provided a report outlining the communication strategy fora trail connecting Tunbridge Park with the residential development to the east alongGaudin Creek A.Moved by Mayor Atebe, andRECOMMENDED: That this project be deferred pending receipt of a staff report settingout the financial implications before any consultation is put forth to the community.RC11/JULY 18/11Late Item — Additional Costs Contract No. 2011-005; Clegg Street, 14th Streetand N. Railway Avenue Storm Sewer WorksMoved by Councillor Scudder, andRECOMMENDED:1. That the additional costs of $73,485 be approved for contract 2011-005; and2. That funding of $55,079 come from account 42250 (Improvements next tosubdivisions) and $18,406 come from account 42345 (General Drainage).CARRIED

Regular Council Meeting Page 8 of 11July 18, 20111748. PUBLIC SAFETY AND HEALTHMayor Atebe assumed the Chair as the alternate for Councillor Horn.RC11/426JULY 18/11Correspondence from Fraser HealthRe: Heat Health Warning System, Heat Alerts and the Role of LocalGovernmentsA letter dated June 13, 2011 received from Fraser Health regarding the HeatHealth Warning System was provided for the committee's information.RC11/427JULY 18/11Correspondence from R. RiedlingerRe: BC Hydro Smart Meter — Concern and RequestAn email dated July 4, 2011 regarding concerns about the installation of thewireless smart meters by BC Hydro was provided for the committee's information.Council noted that the BC Hydro website responds to many of the questionsraised by R. Riedlinger.9. RESOLUTION TO RISE AND REPORTMayor Atebe resumed the Chair.RC11/428JULY 18/11Moved by Councillor Stevens, seconded by Councillor Plecas, andRESOLVED: That the committee of the whole now rise and report.CARRIED10. ADOPTION OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORTRC11/429JULY 18/11Moved by Councillor Gidda, seconded by Councillor Stevens, andRESOLVED: That the recommendations of the committee of the whole, as contained initems RC11/407 to RC11/428, except item RC11/418 (Hatzic Park Washrooms), beadopted.CARRIEDRC11/430JULY 18/11Moved by Councillor Gidda, seconded by Councillor Plecas, andRESOLVED: That the recommendation of the committee of the whole, as contained initem RC11/418 (Hatzic Park Washrooms), be adopted.OPPOSED: Councillor ScudderCouncillor StewartCARRIED

175Regular Council Meeting Page 9 of 11July 18, 201111. BYLAWSRC11/431JULY 18/11Moved by Councillor Stevens, seconded by Councillor Stewart, andRESOLVED: That this item be separated out from the reading of the bylaw so that councilcould provide comments on it.(c) District of Mission Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw5216-2011-4052(13) (R11-010 — Supportive Care HoldingSociety) — a bylaw to redesignate property at 33032 — 11thAvenue from Urban Compact — Multiple Family to InstitutionalRC11/431AJULY 18/11Moved by Councillor Stevens, seconded by Councillor Stewart, andRESOLVED: That the readings of all bylaws included in the Bylaws section of the July 18,2011 regular council agenda be approved as follows:(a)District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5010-2009 (R08- Third Reading010 — Mapleview Enterprises Ltd.) — a bylaw to create a newcomprehensive development zone (CD-25) and to rezoneproperty at 7260 and 7290 Maple Street, 32822, 32848, 32852and 32858 —1st Avenue, 32819, 32825, 32829, 32853, 32851,32853 and 32859 View Avenue, and 7288 Wardrop Streetfrom Commercial Tourist Recreation Zone (CT) andResidential Two Unit Zone (RT465) to ComprehensiveDevelopment 25 Zone (CD-25)(b) District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5213-2011-5050(39) (R10-029 — DhaliwalfToor) — a bylaw to rezoneproperty at 32876 Sylvia Avenue from Suburban 36 Zone(S36) to Residential Compact 372 Zone (RC372) andResidential Compact 465 Zone (RC465)Third Reading(d)District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5217-2011- Second and Third5050(40) (R11-010 — Supportive Care Holding Society) — a Readingsbylaw to rezone property at 33032 — 11th Avenue from UrbanResidential 558 Secondary Dwelling Zone (R558s) toInstitutional Education Zone (1E)(e) District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5218-2011- Third Reading5050(41) (R11-011 — May) — a bylaw to rezone property at7865 Nelson Street from Rural 16 Zone (RU16) to Rural 16Secondary Dwelling Zone (RU16s)(f) District of Mission Election Procedures Amending Bylaw 5224- Adoption2011-2669(5) — a bylaw to add a Special Voting Opportunitylocation

Regular Council Meeting Page 10 of 11July 18, 2011176(g)(h)District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5225-2011- First and Second5050(45) ( R11-013 — Dundas) — a bylaw to rezone property at Reading30489 Nikula Avenue from Rural 16 Zone (RU16) to RuralResidential 7 Zone (RR7)District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5226-2011- First and Second5050(46) (R11-018 — Goertz) — a bylaw to rezone property at Reading31509 Israel Avenue from Suburban Residential 36 Zone(S36) to Suburban Residential 36 Secondary Dwelling Zone(S36s)CARRIEDCouncillor Scudder expressed concern over 5216-2011-4052(13) (R11-010 — SupportiveCare Holding Society) and the expanded hours but said he would not oppose anyreadings of the bylaw.12. MINUTESRC11/432JULY 18/11Moved by Councillor Scudder, seconded by Councillor Plecas, andRESOLVED: That the following Council meeting minutes be adopted:(a) Regular Council Meeting (Public Hearing) — June 27, 2011;(b)Special Council Meeting — June 29, 2011; and(c) Regular Council Meeting — July 4, 2011CARRIED13. OTHER BUSINESSThere was no other business.14. CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER'S REPORTThe chief administrative officer did not report.15. MAYOR'S REPORTThe Mayor reported on various activities, meetings and events attended since the lastregular council meeting.16. COUNCILLOR'S REPORTS ON COMMITTEES, BOARDS AND ACTIVITIESCouncillors Gidda, Plecas and Stewart reported on various activities, meetings and eventsattended since the last regular council meeting.

177Regular Council Meeting Page 11 of 11July 18, 201117. QUESTION PERIODShelly Clarkson asked if council would consider changing their decision to put thewashrooms at Hatzic Park on hold until NovemberThe Mayor responded that the decision will be made to ensure that the next softballseason has washroom facilities at Hatzic Park.Jim Hinds asked if Council would consider installing temporary port-a-potties until adecision has been made on the washroom facilities.The Mayor responded that the user groups are not requesting temporary port-a-potties buthave asked for permanent facilities and that is what council is working towards.18. ADJOURNMENTMoved by Councillor Gidda, seconded by Councillor Plecas, andRESOLVED: That the meeting be adjourned.CARRIEDThe meeting was adjourned at 8:16 p.m.JAMES ATEBE, MAYOR PAUL GIPPS, DEPUTY CHIEFADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

178Minutes of the SPECIAL MEETING of the DISTRICT OF MISSION COUNCIL held inthe Conference Room of the Municipal Hall, 8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, BritishColumbia, on July 19, 2011 commencing at 8:00 a.m.Council Members Present:Mayor James AtebeCouncillor Terry GiddaCouncillor Danny PlecasCouncillor Mike ScudderCouncillor Jenny StevensCouncillor Heather StewartCouncil Members Absent: Councillor Paul HornStaff Members Present:Glen Robertson, Chief Administrative OfficerPaul Gipps, Deputy Chief Administrative OfficerStacey Crawford, Economic Development OfficerSharon Fletcher, Director of PlanningChristine Brough, Acting Executive AssistantEconomic Development Select Committee Members Present:Remco BergmanRex BlaneOleen HermanGrace SarisAnn SenaeSteve SharpeEconomic Development Select Committee Members Absent:Carlo BillingerEric DavisSean MeliaJason RoessleRay Szabada1. TOPICS FOR DISCUSSIONSC2011/042JUL 19/11Update on the District of Mission's Interdepartmental DevelopmentApplication Process Enhancement Team / Pilot ProjectMayor Atebe welcomed the Economic Development Select Committee (EDC)members and Council.Staff provided a brief update on the District of Mission's InterdepartmentalDevelopment Application Process Enhancement Team / pilot project, noting thefollowing:• The team is headed by the Deputy Chief Administrative Officer (DCAO) andis comprised of District-of Mission staff from several departments.• The goal is to examine new and existing development applications forimpediments and determine the best way to facilitate projects and streamlineprocesses.• The team will develop strategies for dealing with both interdepartmental andcross jurisdictional challenges to development within the District of Mission.

Special Council MeetingJuly 19, 2011 Page 2 of 3179• The intention is to foster a positive, problem-solving environment while stillensuring that standards are maintained.• The Economic Development Officer's (EDO) input is available to the team asneeded and regular communication takes place between the EDO and theDCAO.• While the team will focus their efforts on the more complex and challengingdevelopment applications, a variety of applications will be examined andeveryone will ultimately benefit from the process improvements.• Information about the team and its objectives is being disseminated in avariety of ways.• One of the defined deliverables is improved communication/informationmaterials which will assist all developers, regardless of experience level, innavigating the system.SC2011/043JUL 19/11SC2011/044JUL 19/11Review of Annual Work PlanThe EDO provided a brief recap of the June 29, 2011 meeting and reviewed theannual work plan, noting that the Economic Development strategic plan requiresupdating.Strategic Vision: General discussion of Goals and ObjectivesDiscussion about Vision for Next 12, 24, 36 MonthsThe EDO stated that he would like feedback from the EDC members and Council ontheir vision and priorities for the Economic Development Office for the next 12 to 36months so that he can incorporate this information into a draft strategic plan. Henoted that a clear strategic vision is necessary in order to ensure that the Districtfocuses its resources and is ready to take advantage of opportunities as they arise.Discussion ensued and the following summarized comments were provided:• The Economic Development Office currently consists of just the EconomicDevelopment Officer and is both understaffed and at risk of losing continuityand momentum should Mr. Crawford decide to leave his position for anyreason. Adequate resourcing and succession planning is integral to the longtermdevelopment and survival of the economic development function in theDistrict of Mission. It represents an investment in the future.• It is important to promote/project a positive image of the community bothinternally and throughout the region.• It will take consistent effort to change negative perceptions where they existbut doing so is essential to the District's ability to attract development.• Customer service and improved communication is of paramount importance.• There is value in identifying, promoting and protecting the strengths alreadyinherent in the community.• The District needs to be proactive in targeting specific types of developmentin order to shape the character and economic future of the community.• The EDC is a valued advisory committee and its input/feedback is bothwelcome and necessary.Mayor Atebe and the EDC Chair, Mr. Blane, recommended that the committee andCouncil meet more than once a year.

Special Council MeetingJuly 19, 2011 Page 3 of 3180At the request of the EDC members, the Chief Administrative Officer and DeputyChief Administrative Officer confirmed the following:• that staff will provide updates on the District of Mission's InterdepartmentalDevelopment Application Process Enhancement Team / pilot project at EDCmeetings; and• that one or two members of the team will be selected to attend an EDCbriefing on the pilot project so that the committee can directly communicateits enthusiasm and support for the project.2. ADJOURNMENTSC2011/045JUL 19/11Moved by Councillor Scudder, seconded by Councillor Plecas, andRESOLVED: That the meeting be adjourned.CARRIEDThe meeting was adjourned at 9:50 a.m.JAMES ATEBE PAUL GIPPSMAYORDEPUTY CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

181MINUTES of the REGULAR MEETING of the COUNCIL of the DISTRICT OFMISSION held in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Hall, 8645 Stave LakeStreet, Mission, British Columbia on Monday, July 25, 2011 commencing at 6:30p.m.Council Members Present: Councillor Jenny Stevens, Acting MayorCouncillor Terry GiddaCouncillor Danny PlecasCouncillor Mike ScudderCouncil Members Absent: Mayor James AtebeCouncillor Paul HornCouncillor Heather StewartStaff Members Present:P. Gipps, Deputy Chief Administrative OfficerK. Ridley, Deputy Director of Corporate AdministrationT. Takahashi, Administrative Clerk1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDAPH11/044JULY 25/11Moved by Councillor Plecas, seconded by Councillor Scudder, andRESOLVED:1. That a report dated July 25, 2011 from the Deputy Director of CorporateAdministration regarding bylaws considered at the public hearing be added tothe agenda under section 4. Bylaws;2. That the Bylaws and Question Period sections of the agenda be moved tofollow the Public Hearings; and3. That the agenda be adopted as amended.CARRIED2. DELEGATIONS, PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONSPH11/045JULY 25/11Presentation of Community Service AwardsActing Mayor, Jenny Stevens, presented Community Service Awards to the followingrecipients:• Stuart Coates received the Lifetime Achievement Award for his dedication toYouth Soccer in Mission.• Kristina Marie Norman received the Community Service Award (under age 25)for her commitment to volunteerism and her support of other young people withinthe District of Mission. Following the Community Service Award presentation,Mission Scout Leader, John Robinson, presented Kristina Marie with a gift fromthe Chief Scout in commemoration of completing her first year of service as aBeaver Leader with the Scouts.PH11/046JULY 25/11Cal Crawford, President, Mission Regional Chamber of CommerceRe: Business Excellence Awards NominationsMr. Crawford provided information about the annual Mission Business ExcellenceAwards, which will be presented on October 21, 2011. Awards to be presentedinclude:• Business of the Year (15+ employees);

Regular Council Meeting Page 2 of 8July 25, 2011182• Business of the Year (1-15 employees);• Business Leader of the Year;• Non-Profit Association of the Year;• Customer Experience Award;• Home-based Business Award;• Entrepreneurial Excellence Award; and• Young Entrepreneur of the Year.Mr. Crawford explained that nominations are currently being accepted and thedeadline for submission of nominations is August 1, 2011 and asked Council andmembers of the public to consider submitting nominations.PH11/047JULY 25/11Kathryn PhillipoffRe: Medicinal Grow-opsMs. Phillipoff submitted documentation and photos for council to view as backgroundinformation to her presentation. She described the history of illegal marijuana growopsin her neighbourhood. She explained that the initial illegal grow-op next doorwas busted and a new family moved into the house. The neighbour on the otherside of her home now has a medical marijuana grow-op license.Ms. Phillipoff said that she has been in contact with the RCMP and various otheragencies regarding the situation, but the owner continues the operation unhinderedand she is worried for the safety of her family, her home and her neighbourhood.Ms. Phillipoff asked council to work to have this licensed grow-op removed from herneighbourhood.Councillor Gidda asked if Ms. Phillipoff had received any response from MP RandyKamp with regard to her email on this issue.Ms. Phillipoff replied that she has not heard back.Councillor Steven assured Ms. Phillipoff that Council is doing everything possible totake care of the situation in Mission with regard to these kinds of operations and thata letter from the District of Mission was going out to Health Canada listing thedistrict's concerns.PH11/048JULY 25/113. NEW BUSINESSDraft Letter from Fire Chief Ian Fitzpatrick to Health CanadaRe: Medical Marijuana Grow LicensesA letter dated July 21, 2011 from the Fire Chief to the Federal Minister of Health,Honourable Leona Aglukkaq, regarding the future of individual medical marijuanalicenses was provided for Council's information.PH11/049JULY 25/114. PLANNINGInformation Pertaining to Consideration of Adoption of District of MissionZoning Amending Bylaw 5218-2011-5050(41) (R11-011 — May)An excerpt from the minutes of the Public Hearing held on June 27, 2011 and arelated staff report dated June 6, 2011 were provided as background information forCouncil's consideration of adoption of District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw5218-2011-5050(41) to rezone property located at 7685 Nelson Street.

Regular Council Meeting Page 3 of 8July 25, 2011183PH11/050JULY 25/11Late Item — Bylaw Considered at Public HearingA report dated July 25, 2011 from the Deputy Director of Corporate Administrationwas presented regarding the potential for Council giving second and third readings toDistrict of Mission Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw 5222-2011-4052(14)(R11-009 — Mission Association for Seniors' Housing) and District of Mission ZoningAmending Bylaw 5223-2011-5050(44) (R11-009 — Mission Association for Seniors'Housing).Moved by Councillor Scudder, seconded by Councillor Gidda, andRESOLVED: That the regular portion of the meeting be recessed and the PublicHearing portion of the meeting be opened.CARRIEDPH11/051JULY 25/115. PUBLIC HEARINGActing Mayor Jenny Stevens called the public hearing to order and Deputy ChiefAdministrative Officer Paul Gipps outlined the procedures to be followed.(i) District of Mission Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw 5222-2011-4052(14) (R11-009 — Mission Association for Seniors' Housing) — a bylawto redesignate property at 8352 Cedar Street and 32821 and 32835 JanzenAvenue from Seniors Congregate to Apartments(ii) District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5223-2011-5050(44) (R11-009— Mission Association for Seniors' Housing) — a bylaw to rezone property at8352 Cedar Street and 32821 and 32835 Janzen Avenue from Suburban 36Zone (S36) to Multiple Family 135 Apartment Zone (MA-135)Dayle Reti, Senior Planner, provided information regarding District of Mission OfficialCommunity Plan Amending Bylaw 5222-2011-4052(14), in the name of MissionAssociation for Seniors' Housing, which proposes to amend District of MissionOfficial Community Plan 4052-2008 by redesignating the following legally describedproperties:Parcel Identifier: 008-043-604, Lot 44, Section 28, Township 17, New WestminsterDistrict Plan 26403Parcel Identifier: 007-208-537, Lot 43, Section 28, Township 17, New WestminsterDistrict Plan 26403Parcel Identifier: 011-431-750, Parcel "D" (Explanatory Plan 17245), Lot 5, Section28, Township 17, New Westminster District Plan 9302from Seniors Congregate to Apartment.Ms. Reti also provided information regarding District of Mission Zoning AmendingBylaw 5223-2011-5050(44) (R11-009 — Mission Association for Seniors' Housing),which proposes to amend District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009 by amendingthe zoning of the preceding legally described properties:from the Suburban 36 (S36) zone to the Multiple Family 135 Apartment (MA-135)zone.

Regular Council Meeting Page 4 of 8July 25, 2011184The Senior Planner stated that location of the subject properties is 8352 CedarStreet, 32821 Janzen Avenue and 32835 Janzen Avenue, as shown on the followingmap:SUBJECT PROPERTIESCNE.Itn, pfwn AYELISSOME .14af 13 lvV •Ms. Reti explained that purpose of the proposed amendments is to accommodate aseniors' apartment building.The Senior Planner stated that the following requirements would need to be met priorto adoption of the bylaw:• Engineering Department requirements and Fire Department Requirements;• Easements (access);• Right of way for public access to the park; and• Resolution of Development Permit details.The Deputy Director of Corporate Administration stated that the following writtencorrespondence was received regarding this application:• Letter dated July 24, 2011 from residents of 32794, 32796, 32798, and 32800Hood Avenue — opposed due to concerns about increased noise in the area.• Email dated July 25, 2011 from Fortis BC — no objection to the proposeddevelopmentIan Waters said that the Cedar Valley Seniors Housing Society is strongly in supportof this development, noting that they donated two of the three lots to the MissionAssociation for Seniors' Housing for this project.Abe Neufeld said that the Cedar Valley Mennonite Church congregation is very muchin support of this project.Don Lobb said he is in support of adding this type of affordable housing option forpeople in Mission and asked council to support it.Judith Ray commented that she thinks the noise impact on the surrounding area willbe minimal, but assured council that the Mission Association for Seniors' Housing willtake the concerns into consideration as the building and landscaping plans aredeveloped. She commented that having seniors remain in Mission as they age willbe a benefit to the community in terms of legacy.Councillor Gidda asked for clarification about the location of access to the property.

185Regular Council Meeting Page 5 of 8July 25, 2011The Senior Planner replied that the primary access will be off Cedar Street, but therewill also be access via an easement from Cherry Avenue.Councillor Gidda asked if the extra access from Cherry would cause problems withextra traffic.Ms. Reti replied that the traffic impact study indicates that it will not.Councillor Scudder asked what would be done to ensure maintenance of the buildingis kept up.Judith Ray replied that there would be monthly fees assessed to residents to coveron-going maintenance costs, noting that re-lease fees would never increase morethan 50% of the average property value increase for other properties in the area.She said that the aim is for the housing units to remain affordable for seniors.Hearing no further questions or comments the acting mayor declared the publichearing on District of Mission Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw 5222-2011-4052(14) and District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5223-2011-5050(44) (R11-009 — Mission Association for Seniors' Housing) closed.PH11/052JULY 25/11District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5220-2011-5050(42) (R11-004 —Mikes) — a bylaw to rezone property at 29585 Hudson Avenue from Rural 16Zone (RU16) to Rural Residential Zone (RR7)Erik Wilhelm, Planner, provided information regarding District of Mission ZoningAmending Bylaw 5220-2011-5050(42) (R11-004 - Mikes), which proposes to amendDistrict of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009 by amending the zoning of the followinglegally described property:Parcel Identifier: 003-915-654, Lot 2, Section 22, Township 15, New WestminsterDistrict Plan 66683from the Rural 16 (RU16) zone to the Rural Residential 7 (RR7) zone.The planner stated that the location of the subject property is 29585 Hudson Avenue,as shown on the following map:Mr. Wilhelm explained that the purpose of the proposed amendment is toaccommodate the subsequent subdivision of the subject property into two (2) lots ofa minimum 0.7 hectare (1.73 acre) lot size.

Regular Council Meeting Page 6 of 8July 25, 2011186The Planner stated that the following requirements would need to be met prior toadoption of the bylaw:• Receipt of a Community Amenity Contribution in the amount of $2,680; and• Any other items that Council may require as a result of the Public Hearing orconsideration of the application.The Deputy Director of Corporate Administration stated that no writtencorrespondence was received regarding this application.Councillor Plecas asked if the existing driveway would be used for both lots ratherthan adding a panhandle driveway for the second lot, and if there would be anyupgrades done to the existing driveway.The Planner replied that the existing driveway would be used for both lots under anaccess agreement tied to the land that would remain in effect even if the propertyowner changes. He said this was done to maintain the tree cover on the westernside of the property and that a requirement of the subdivision would be anengineering report to determine that the driveway is able to support emergencyvehiclesTony Mikes said that the owner would like to protect the trees, but, at the same time,does not object to constructing a new driveway for the second lot, if that is the wishof Council.Hearing no further questions or comments the acting mayor declared the publichearing on District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5220-2011-5050(42) (R11-004 — Mikes) closed.PH11/053JULY 25/11District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5221-2011-5050(43) (R11-005 —Mikes) — a bylaw to rezone property at 30265 Berg Avenue from Rural 16 Zone(RU16) to Rural Residential Zone (RR7)Erik Wilhelm, Planner, provided information regarding District of Mission • ZoningAmending Bylaw 5221-2011-5050(43) (R11-005 - Mikes), which proposes to amendDistrict of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009 by amending the zoning of the followinglegally described property:Parcel Identifier: 017-971-659, Lot B, Section 23, Township 15, New WestminsterDistrict Plan LMP7120from the Rural 16 (RU16) zone to the Rural Residential 7 (RR7) zone.The planner stated that the location of the subject property is 30265 Berg Avenue, asshown on the following map:

Regular Council Meeting Page 7 of 8July 25, 2011187SUBJECT PROPERTYMr. Wilhelm explained that the purpose of the proposed amendment is toaccommodate the subsequent subdivision of the subject property into two (2) lots ofa minimum 0.7 hectare (1.73 acre) lot size.The Planner stated that the following requirements would need to be met prior toadoption of the bylaw:• Receipt of a Community Amenity Contribution in the amount of $2,680; and• Any other items that Council may require as a result of the Public Hearing orconsideration of the application.The Deputy Director of Corporate Administration stated that no writtencorrespondence was received regarding this application.Hearing no questions or comments the acting mayor declared the public hearing onDistrict of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5221-2011-5050(43) (R11-005 — Mikes)closed.Moved by Councillor Plecas, seconded by Councillor Scudder, andRESOLVED: That the Public Hearing portion of the meeting be adjourned and theregular council meeting reconvened.CARRIEDPH11/054JULY 25/116. BYLAWSMoved by Councillor Gidda, seconded by Councillor Scudder, andRECOMMENDED: That the readings of all bylaws listed below be approved aslisted.(a)(b)District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5218-2011- Adoption5050(41) (R11 -011 — May) — a bylaw to rezone property at7865 Nelson Street from Rural 16 Zone (RU16) to Rural 16Secondary Dwelling Zone (RU16s)District of Mission Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw5222-2011-4052(14) (R11-009 — Mission Association forSeniors' Housing) — a bylaw to redesignate property at 8352Cedar Street and 32821 and 32835 Janzen Avenue fromSeniors Congregate to ApartmentsSecondand ThirdReadings

Regular Council Meeting Page 8 of 8July 25, 2011188(q) District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5223-2011-5050(44) (R11-009 — Mission Association for Seniors' Housing)— a bylaw to rezone property at 8352 Cedar Street and 32821and 32835 Janzen Avenue from Suburban 36 Zone (S36) toMultiple Family 135 Apartment Zone (MA-135)CARRIEDSecondand ThirdReadings7. QUESTION PERIOD (on new business only)There were no questions from the public.8. ADJOURNMENTMoved by Councillor Gidda, seconded by Councillor Scudder, andRESOLVED: That the meeting be adjourned.CARRIEDThe meeting was adjourned at 7:49 p.m.JENNY STEVENS, ACTING MAYOR PAUL GIPPS, DEPUTY CHIEFADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

M§§1611ON THE FRASER 1"/0,040•*°'''..°/Corporate AdministrationMemorandum189To: Chief Administrative OfficerFrom: Acting Executive AssistantDate: July 19, 2011Subject: Release from Closed Council — July 18, 2011: Temporary Appointment Captain B.OdenbachAt the July 18, 2011 closed council meeting, the following resolution was released from closed council:RESOLVED: That Captain Blaine Odenbach be temporarily appointed to the position of ActingAssistant Fire Chief from July 11, 2011 to November 5, 2011.Christine BroughPage 1 of 1