July 6, 2009 - District of Mission

MDISTRICT OF "006>e,„,issionON THE FRASERRegular Council AgendaJuly 6, 2009 — 6:30 p.m.Council Chambers8645 Stave Lake Street, Mission, BC1. RESOLUTION TO RESOLVE INTO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE2. DELEGATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS(a)(b)Kim AllanRe: 20 Years of Service with the District of MissionMike BlampiedRe: Sidewalks and Crosswalks at Dewdney Trunk Road andCedar StreetPage 5(c) Al LaFontaineRe: Local Area Plan for Goundrey Street/York Street/NorthHätzic CorridorPage 63. PLANNING(a)(b)Rescind Zone Amending Bylaw 3850-2005-3143(229), CloseDevelopment Application Files R05-028 and S05-033 and Refund theCommunity Amenity ContributionTemporary Commercial Industrial Permit Application TP07-001 (B.Sharp Developments) — 7011, 7015, 7019, 7021, 7025 and 7027Abbott StreetPage 7Page 9(c) Development Variance Permit Application DV09-003 (Regnier) —8150 Brown Crescent(d) Development Variance Permit Application DV09-004 (Barber) —8394 McKenzie StreetPage 14Page 18(e)(f)(g)New Zoning Bylaw R09-005 (District of Mission) First and SecondReading Report*Draft bylaw distributed under separate coverOfficial Community Plan Amendments and Establishment ofHazardous Lands Development Permit AreasRevised Development Permit Guidelines for Intensive ResidentialDevelopmentPage 24Page 31Page 104(h) Rezoning Application R09-008 (Toor/McPherson) for 32966, 32978,32982 and 32988 Cherry AvenuePage 118

Regular Council AgendaJuly 6, 200924. FORESTRY(a) Fire Preparedness Levy Conditional Compensation Agreement Page 1265. PUBLIC SAFETY AND HEALTH(a) Mission Crime Prevention Office Program Statistics 2009 Page 128(b) RCMP Contract Renewal Update Page 1296. ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE(a) Amendments to Council Agenda Structure Page 139(b) General Administration and Engineering Cost Recoveries Page 142Policy FIN.38(c) Oyama House Post Page 145(d) Proposed New Controlled Substance Property Bylaw Page 146(e) Municipal Awareness Article (Councillor Horn) Page 159(f)Community Amenities (Councillor Stevens)(g) Minutes of the Economic Development Select Committee Meeting Page 162held on May 21, 20097. ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC WORKS(a) Bylaw Amendments for Residential Metered Water Page 164(b) STR.37 — Boulevard Landscaping Policy Page 171(c) JAMES Wastewater Treatment Plant — License of Occupation Page 174for Old Outfall(d) Proposed Demolition, Land Clearing Debris and Construction Material Page 201Recovery Facility (MRF)(e) Mission Adopt-A-Block Service Page 205(f) Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Referral — Page 20631322 Caswell Avenue Sand and Gravel Mine(g) Pavement Deterioration Issues Page 210(information only — previously discussed June 22, 2009)(h) Minutes of the Mission Abbotsford Transit Committee Meeting held Page 216on April 23,2009(i) Minutes of the Abbotsford/Mission Water & Sewer Commission Page 220Meeting held on May 14, 20098. RESOLUTION TO RISE AND REPORT9. ADOPTION OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT

3Regular Council AgendaJuly 6, 200910. MINUTES(a) Special Council Meeting — March 16, 2009(Fraser Valley Transit Strategy)(b) Special Council. Meeting — March 17, 2009(Parks, Trails and Bicycle Master Plan)(c) Special Council Meeting — June 15, 2009(District of Mission Audit Results and Communications)(d) Regular Council Meeting — June 15, 2009Page 225Page 227Page 229Page 23111. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES12. CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER'S REPORT13. MAYOR'S REPORT14. COUNCILLOR'S REPORTS ON COMMITTEES, BOARDS, AND ACTIVITIES15. BYLAWS(a)(b)(c)(d)District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 3850-2005- Rescind First,3143(229) (R05-028 — Toor) — a bylaw to rezone property Second and Thirdlocated at 31712 Bench Avenue from RU-1 Rural One zone to ReadingsRS-2 One Unit Suburban Residential zoneDistrict of Mission Penitentiary Sewage Lift Catchment Area Fee AdoptionBylaw 5040-2009District of Mission Municipal Ticket Information Amending Bylaw Adoption5041-2009-2646(14) — a bylaw to increase the fine amount forlawn sprinklingDistrict of Mission Street Naming (Kenny Avenue Extension) AdoptionBylaw 5042-2009(e)District of Mission Refuse Collection and Disposal AmendingBylaw 5043-2009-1387(45) — a bylaw to increase the surchargefor unsecured loads and to increase the minimum charge forcustomers from outside the DistrictAdoption(f) District of Mission Controlled Substance Property Bylaw 5044-2009 — a bylaw to promote health and safety and to imposerequirements on altered or contaminated properties used as acontrolled substance propertyFirst, Second andThird Readings(g)(h)District of Mission Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw5034-2009-4052(4) — a bylaw to establish hazardous landsdevelopment permit areasIn accordance with Section 882 of the Local Government Act,council has considered District of Mission official community planamending bylaw 5034-2009-4052(4) in conjunction with theDistrict of Mission's financial plan and waste management planFirst Reading

4Regular Council AgendaJuly 6, 2009(i) District of Mission Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw5038-2009-4052(5) — a bylaw to redefine intensive residentialdevelopment permit area guidelinesIn accordance with Section 882 of the Local Government Act,council has considered District of Mission official community planamending bylaw 5038-2009-4052(5) in conjunction with theDistrict of Mission's financial plan and waste management plan(k) District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5046-2009-3143(330)(R09-008-Toor/McPherson) — a bylaw to rezone property at32966, 32978, 32982 and 32988 Cherry Avenue from RS-1 A OneUnit Small Lot Urban Residential zone to R1-A One Unit SmallLot Urban Residential (Suite) zone(I) District of Mission Council Procedures Amending Bylaw 5048-2009-3694(9) — a bylaw to change the order and naming ofheadings of council business on the council agenda(m) District of Mission Water Amending Bylaw 5049-2009-2196(17) —a bylaw to incorporate water metering provisionsFirst ReadingFirst and SecondReadingsFirst, Second andThird ReadingsFirst, Second andThird Readings(n)District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009 — a bylaw to dividethe District of Mission into zones and to make regulations inrelation theretoFirst and SecondReadings(o) District of Mission Water Rates Amending Bylaw 5052-2009-2197(16) — a bylaw to incorporate water metering provisions(p) District of Mission Subdivision Control Amending Bylaw 5053-2009-1500(34) — a bylaw to incorporate water metering provisions(a)District of Mission Land Use Application Procedures and FeesAmending Bylaw 5054-2009-3612(4) — a bylaw to add an applicationfee for the "Hazardous Lands Development Permit Area"First, Second andThird ReadingsFirst, Second andThird ReadingsFirst, Second andThird Readings16. CORRESPONDENCE(a)(b)Honourable Mobina Jaffer, Senator for British ColumbiaRe: Motion in the Senate Recognizing World Malaria DayMinister Responsible for Statistics CanadaRe: Update to Census Metropolitan Area Naming ConventionPage 244Page 249(c) Mission Community ServicesRe: Additional Transit PassesPage 25017. OTHER BUSINESS(a) Release of Information from Closed CouncilPage 25518. QUESTION PERIOD19. ADJOURNMENT

6DISTRICT OF MISSIONREQUEST TO APPEAR AS A DELEGATIONDate: June 25, 2009To: Dennis Clark, Director of Corporate AdministrationIN I hereby request permission to appear as a delegation before District of Mission Mayorand Council with reference to the following topic:We would like to present our first notice of our request to initiate a Local Area Plan for the areaof Goundrey Street, York Street and follow the corridor to North Hatzic. This is a unique areaboundaried by ALR on the North & the South, and presents a natural area to develop a LocalArea Plan. We would like the opportunity to inform Council of this idea, and to access City staffinput on ensuring we are following the correct process.We would also like City staff input on drawing the boundaries and ensuring any necessarystudies are taken before we submit our proposal.I understand that the deadline for submission of the request is 4:30 p.m. on the Monday preceding thedate of the meeting and that once my appearance has been confirmed, I will be allotted a maximum of 10minutes to make my presentation.Name: Al LaFontaineA 1 I oft ,••■

Memo7FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON/PRO.DEV.SUBR05-028/S05-033To: Chief Administrative OfficerFrom: PlannerDate: July 6, 2009Subject: Rescind Zone Amending Bylaw 3850-2005-3143(229), Close DevelopmentApplication Files R05-028 & S05-033 and Refund the Community AmenityContributionRecommendationThat 1 st, 2 nd and 3 rd readings of zone amending Bylaw 3850-2005-3143(229) be rescinded;That Rezoning application R05-028 and Subdivision application S05-033 be closed; andThat the $7,000 community amenity contribution be refunded.BackgroundRezoning application R05-028 and Subdivision application S05-033 are associated to theproperty located at 31712 Bench Avenue (Map 1). The applicant, Mohinder Dhaliwal, submittedthese applications on September 19, 2005. The purpose of the rezoning application was torezone the subject property from RU-1 Rural One zone to RS-2 One Unit Suburban Residentialzone to accommodate the subsequent subdivision of the subject property into 8 lots.The zone amending bylaw received 1 st and 2 nd reading on March 20, 2006, the public hearingwas held on April 24, 2006, and 3 rd reading was granted on May 15, 2006.On November 5, 2007, Council granted a 12-month extension to give the applicant some moretime to complete the outstanding rezoning requirements. On February 11, 2009, a letter wassent to the applicant advising that the outstanding rezoning requirements needed to be resolvedimmediately or another extension would be required. On March 26, 2009, the applicantsubmitted the community amenity contribution in the amount of $7,000. On June 2, 2009,another letter was sent to the applicant advising that a written extension request and theapplicable extension fee was required; subsequently, the applicant applied and paid for a 12-month extension on June 8 th .On June 17, 2009, the applicant submitted a letter requesting the development application filesbe closed. As the applicant no longer wishes to pursue the development of this property, boththe recently paid for rezoning extension and previously paid community amenity fee contributionwill be refunded.In light of this information, it is recommended that 1 st, 2 nd and 3 rd readings of zone amendingBylaw 3850-2005-3143(229) be rescinded and Rezoning application R05-028 and Subdivisionapplication S05-033 be closed.°LS\r`11. (/\11?\Marcy BondGACOMDEVTONNA-LEECOW Reports\2009 Reports \R05-028 & S05-033 Rescind Bylaws, Close Files, Refund Amenity 2009-07-06.docPAGE 1 OF

8R05-028S05-033 MAP 182791327631630317303178337334tan31nes)COVAIEY AVE.0342373=5 3173231740Oto0020semOSt 8 r141140 11051373640027FILE: PRO.DEV.ZONIPRO.DEV.DEPAGE 2 OF

Memo9FILE: PRO.DEV.TEM.TP07-001To: Chief Administrative OfficerFrom: PlannerDate: June 25, 2009Subject: Temporary Commercial Industrial Permit Application TP07-001 (B. SharpDevelopments) — 7011, 7015, 7019, 7021, 7025 & 7027Abbott StreetRecommendation1. That Council endorse the proposed Temporary Commercial Industrial Permit TP07-001 forconsideration of a two-year term so that formal requirements as per the Local Government Act canbe pursued, and2. That following such requirements, the application be forwarded to a public input meeting andconsidered for approval on July 27, 2009.ApplicationAn application has been received from B. Sharp Developments for a Temporary Permit to operate aboat storage and sales facility on the properties at 7011, 7015, 7019, 7021, 7025 and 7027 AbbottStreet located in the Waterfront area of Mission (Map 1). A site plan and artist rendering of theproposed business operation can be seen on Appendix I and II. The fenced site will be accessedthrough a gate fronting Abbott Street and the sales/security trailer will be located adjacent to thatentrance.BackgroundAs Waterfront planning continues, many land owners are left holding properties without developmentpotential or without an ability to generate income from the land. In late 2007, in an attempt to providesome development options, Council adopted Section 105.19 Temporary Commercial Industrial Permitto the Zoning Bylaw that allows properties to be utilized, on a temporary basis, and upon a Resolutionof Council, while planning takes place; this is one of those applications. Permanent structures anddevelopment cannot occur until such time as comprehensive planning regarding flood constructionlevels, engineering servicing requirements and appropriate land uses can be determined. As forzoning, the subject properties are split-zoned, 7011 is zoned C-4 Waterfront Commercial zone andlots 7015 to 7027 are zoned M-1 Service Industrial zone. However, Temporary Use Permits mayallow any commercial or industrial use as specified within the Temporary Use Permit.The 0.5 acre site is level, gravelled and fenced, and sits adjacent to the Captain's Cabin Pub locatedon Harbour Avenue. The character of the neighbourhood is primarily service industrial type uses withthe exception of the Captain's Cabin Pub located to the south of the subject properties (Map 2).Planning AnalysisThe proposed development will offer the applicant the ability earn financial return while the waterfrontplanning process continues. The proposed use will not provide for an abundance of traffic or parkingproblems and provides visual improvement of the property. The proposal provides for adequateaccess and circulation for patrons within the compound and will likely not adversely affect thecharacter of the neighbourhood or surrounding businesses. As the applicant proposes to sell andPAGE 1 OF 5

13APPENDIX I(ISOMETRIC VIEW)APPENDIX II(Aerial View)1.5 metre (5 feet)setbacks50'I' ,FILE: PRO.DEV.TEM.TP07_00 .1 PAGE 5 OF 5

14District of Mission MemoFILE: PRO.DEV.DEVDVP09-003To: Chief Administrative OfficerFrom: PlannerDate: July 6, 2009Subject: Development Variance Permit DVP09-003 (Paul Regnier) — 8150 BrownCrescentRecommendationThat Development Variance Permit Application DVP09-003, in the name of Paul Regnier,located at 8150 Brown Crescent, and legally described as:Lot 5 Section 28 Township 17 New Westminster District Plan 86629to vary Section 301.3 (Lot Area, Width at Front Lot Line, and Depth) of the District of MissionZoning Bylaw 3143-1998 on proposed Lot 2 by reducing the minimum required:■ Lot width at 6.0 meter setback from 12.0 meters (39.37 feet) to 11.74 meters (38.52feet)for a proposed two-lot subdivision located at 8150 Brown Crescent, be forwarded to Councilfor public input on July 27, 2009 and consideration of approval.BackgroundThe subject property is located in the outside road curvature of the intersection of BrownCrescent and Myrtle Avenue (see Map 1). The subject property is currently zoned RS-1 (OneUnit Urban Residential Zone) and has a lot area of approximately 1,729.6 square meters(18,617.26 square feet). The RS-1 zone has a minimum lot area of 558 square meters (6,006.4square feet).The applicant is proposing to subdivide the subject property into two (2) urban lots under thecurrent RS-1 zoning. Proposed Lot 1 is slated to be approximately 1110.3 square meters11,951.17 square feet), and proposed Lot 2 is slated to be approximately 619.3 square meters(6,666.09 square feet) (see Appendix 1 — Draft Plan).ProposalThe proposed variance is to reduce the lot width at the 6.0 meter setback of proposed Lot 2from 12.0 meters (39.37 feet) to 11.74 meters (38.52 feet). The difference equates to a varianceof 0.26 meters (0.85 feet).Planning AnalysisThe applicant wishes to retain the existing residence, a pool, and a pool house on the proposedLot 1. Therefore, the variance would allow for a proper building envelope on proposed Lot 2,which otherwise could only be achieved by non-linear lot lines and consequently irregularlyshaped lots. This is in keeping with Official Community Plan (OCP) Policy 2.1.12 which is to"Ensure that new residential lots created through subdivision maintain regular lot lineconfigurations, wherever feasible".PAGE 1 OF 4

15SummaryStaff support the proposed variance and recommend that the application be forwarded toCo 4ncil r pu nput on ly 27, 2009 and consideration of approval.Ryan A de oGACOMDEV\ YAN Devel nt Files1R nier - 8150 Brown DV09-003 - COW.docFILE: PRO.DEV.DEV. PAGE 2 OF 4DVP08-001

( 1.•JJ ICJ I03 33161 33162 331613318033167 33168 3316 733159 13316033166 3318333170 33171V)33166 3317533184 33169 3317033179 33176 3317 9 33176 33191O33180 3318233190 3317 7 33178°' 33170co 0)33187 0 o033186 33 874:1033188 33195tCo as Co 3319133196 3318 7 Oto8133 33191 818333188331843319933195PHILBERT ST33196co O 03 co33204 3320333209 80368072co33204/ /33211 8180to / I33214 332133320633220 to33223ti3322133216 3321933222O2‘,c'' 3322433224 33223332263323333230 N1V N.cv cu 3323133229■3,32.36 tzSC 33234 A:1 332363.3236 33233 O(1.)33243 3324280543324133239rn33244 33324535 3325444 ii 3324633244 33241332512 33254 3325333254 rnrn3325133249.83325633256 3325133263 33260 33259 CO 1.3326133259003 3326433270 33271 33270cornc 33263 332643326633264 33tAt•I'Cc332 7 133269CA018091332 718119 33274CA 33279 332803327633281333283433289CRES.3328833289HORNE ST 33299co 03 CO CD 0300Oco co33293O 0 0 0 0PcbCOso33298Crs to 10 op 33296CO3329907'411N3.333305 coW occs Q!17CO O8 0 0 UI0 0) CO coCO co333063330633309Co 03to0 co 1 c)8247-4 co UItoi°,4 ''' N-4.4 33316333183331935 33326OCADE BARR STCOtococo33341 03tO0CCI CO0 0*CO 03 0303 84. asrCOCOCoNK; r.ammr.333354.n)Co orn Co coCO'EN CT33351IEEE=33347CO CO 03 ,..,•••100 CO co co al0 0...3 4.0 to -.to8057 to 03 to V 3.3 bl i■VMEM 33355cotri 01 (AU1 cots)CO•01EMI= 33369 O O• VWAXBERRY CRES.to to.co 40=WI 33371co oo co33380WILLOW ST.1+61hem*.433375 tt?‘.15:1✓ V3337940 1001 4DN.1 N33381 824 9828633409 8243 coto taCO tO O(o+.94 w10 03 coCo CO CO

17Appendix 1 — Draft PlanI ADDRESS : BROYM CRESC.DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISIONLOT 5 PL. 86629 OF SEC. 28 TP 17 N.W.D.RS - IMU I :11111137136135134PL. 5106745.380PL. 51400WO. M'2EX. RET !RING WALL[PROP. DRIVEWAY5.50---"""111.11111110wAr#12,Alliv0 AIONIFOtoe 11,.•,/ rfr1619.5t4r2.1301 ..33 25WALKWAYBUILDING ENVELOPEARC LENGTH LOT 2IS II.74R.VARIANCE OF 0.26mWILL BE REQUIREDTO ACCOMODATEREQUIREMENTS SET OUTIN BYLAW 301.317.07403PL. 524302PLAN PREPARED BY :WALEMCO ENGINEERING LTD.,33070 FIFTH AVE., MISSION, BC V2V IV5PH. 604-826-4054PLAN REVISED ON : JULY 19, '09PALL REGNIERS08-017FILE: PRO.DEV.DEV. PAGE 4 OF 4DVP08-001

18Mission MemoON THE FRASERFILE: PRO.DEV.DEVDI/09-004To: Chief Administrative OfficerFrom: Marcy BondDate: July 6, 2009Subject: Development Variance Permit Application DV09-004 (Barber) for 8394McKenzie StreetRecommendation1. That Development Variance Permit Application DVP09-004, in the name of (RobertBarber), to vary Section 203.6 1(c) Setbacks of District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 3143-1998by reducing the minimum required:■ Setback to the interior side lot line from 1.5 metres (4.92 feet) to 0.90 metres (2.9feet) to allow for the construction of an attached garage with a 2" d floor addition tothe existing single family residential dwelling at 8394 McKenzie Avenue,■ be forward to Council for public input and consideration of approval on July 27, 2009.Summary of ProposalAn application has been received from Robert Barber to reduce the setback to the interior sidelot line to allow for the construction of an attached garage and a 2 nd floor addition to the existingsingle family dwelling at 8394 McKenzie Street, (Map 1).The required setback to the interior side lot line is 1.5 metres (4.9 feet). The developmentvariance permit application is requesting a reduction in the setback to 0.90 metres (2.9 feet) fora portion of the attached garage and the 2 nd floor addition above the garage, (Plan 2).BackgroundThe existing dwelling has an attached carport, a portion of which does not meet the requiredsetback of 1.5 metres from the interior side lot line (Plan 1). The rear portion of the carportmeets the 1.5 metre setback. The District has no record of a building permit for the carport.The owner's original proposal was to enclose the carport and construct a 2 nd floor addition overthe carport, as well as complete the 2" d floor addition along the length of the house (Plan 2).However, the existing carport is not structurally able to support a 2" d floor addition.Analysis of ProposalDue to the structural inability of the carport to support the second floor addition the owner is nowproposing to remove the carport, construct an attached garage with a 2 nd floor and extend the2nd floor the full length of the house (Plan 3).The garage and 2 nd floor addition will be constructed in the same location as the existingcarport. A portion of the attached garage and 2 nd floor will be 0.9 metres (2.9 feet), (Plan 2)from the interior side lot line at the front of the building, and will meet the required 1.5 metresetback at the rear of the garage.Floodplain Bylaw RequirementsThe subject property is located in the Fraser River Floodplain. Because the existing elevation ofthe property is 4.57 metres Geodetic Survey of Canada, elevating the property to the requiredPAGE 1 OF 7

19Flood Construction Level of 10.0 metres Geodetic Survey of Canada would be impractical. TheFloodplain Bylaw allows new construction to be 2.5 metres above existing grade, on a preexistinglot. A save harmless section 219 covenant is also required, acknowledging that thenew construction is in the floodplain and the construction is not being constructed to the fullflood construction level.Thus, the new 2 nd floor, along the entire length of the house, will be a minimum of 2.5 metresabove surrounding grade.A garage is exempt from meeting the flood construction requirement, provided the garage floorslab is at a minimum of 5.2 metres Geodetic Survey of Canada, for which the proposed garagemeets this elevation requirement.Development Variance Permit Application DV09-004The applicant's rationale for requesting this variance is that the new garage and 2 nd floor will notencroach further into the existing non-conforming setback (Plan 1 and 2).Due to site constraints, including the location of the new holding tank, the existing dwelling andthe lot configuration, there are no other options for locating the garage so that the 1.5 metresetback can be achieved.Thus, staff supports the proposed variance as the are no other options available for locating thegarage and there will be no further encroachment into the setback that currently exists.Staff recommends that the development variance permit proceed to public input meeting on July27, 2009 and be considered for approval at that meeting.Marcy BondSCIY4GACOMDEV\MARCY\APPLICATIONE\DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PERMITS \2009\ DV09 XXCOW REPORT ROB BARBER.DOCFILE:PRO.DEV.DEV PAGE 2 OF 7DV09-00=

mUb n0mHO( 51-G)fO-110,

McKENZIE STREETG)IT'0- 11

Memo24FILE: PRO.DEV.ZONR09-005To: Chief Administrative OfficerFrom: Deputy Director of PlanningDate: July 6, 2009Subject: New Zoning Bylaw R09-005 (District of Mission) First and Second Reading ReportRecommendation1. That the Director of Corporate Administration prepares a new bylaw for District of MissionZoning Bylaw 5050-2009 and that the above bylaw be considered for first and second readingat the Regular Council meeting on July 6, 2009; and2. That upon due consideration of Section 52 of the Transportation Act, consultation referrals goforward to the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure for consideration and approval; and3. That following such readings, the bylaw be forwarded to a Public Input at the Leisure Centrecommencing the week of July 20-24, 2009; and4. That the bylaw be forwarded to a Public Hearing to commence on August 24, 2009.IntroductionThe current District of Mission Zoning Bylaw was established in 1998 and has evolved over the pasteleven years into the document we see today. Many of the zoning regulations have evolved fromprevious iterations of the BylawThe vision for the District of Mission, as presented within the District's Official Community Plan, is asfollows:"Mission is a healthy community that has a balance of residential, commercial, and industrialland uses, amongst an abundance of parkland and natural open space. It is known as acommunity-oriented, affordable, and safe community. Mission has a mix of housing types,offering choices to people of all incomes, lifestyles, and age groups. Community neighbourhoodsreflect principles of sustainable development. The downtown is a vibrant place with a distinctidentity that attracts residents and visitors in search of unique shopping and living experiences.The number of local industries and jobs has increased over the years to allow more residents tolive and work in Mission. Natural and cultural resources provide recreation and tourismopportunities that have contributed to the attractive quality of life and the strong local economy".District of Mission Official Community Plan, 2008The new Zoning Bylaw is reflective of the vision and Policies outlined within the OfficialCommunity Plan and is the implementation tool under Section 903 of the Local Government Actin which a local government may realize the vision with "on the ground" regulations.This report introduces the proposed Bylaw for Council consideration and outlines the processtaken to date and future processes, what the new zones are and their current companion zone,and the improvements proposed for the Bylaw.PAGE 1 OF 7

25ProcessA new Zoning Bylaw, which is arguably one of the most important regulatory documents a municipalityhas, must be sensitive to different factions of the public, including but not limited to privatelandowners, the development community, the local realtors, the business community and the nonprofitsector.To this end, the Zoning Bylaw implements the public vision reflected in Official Community Planpolicies. In addition, meetings with the public have occurred such as a realtor and developer meetingheld in March of 2009. Additionally, once the Bylaw has received 1 st and 2nd reading, a PublicInput/Open House will provide opportunity for the general public to comment on the Bylaw prior to aformal Public Hearing.Furthermore, numerous in-house consultations have occurred with various departments to garnerfeedback and advice as to which areas of the Bylaw needed amending.ConversionWhen introducing a new Zoning Bylaw, there is a steep learning curve while referencing the newzones and the nomenclature associated with those zones. A Zone Conversion Guide is attached asAppendix 1 to provide a guide to users indicating the new zones and the previous zones.Bylaw ImprovementsThe following is a brief description of the regulatory improvements to the new Zoning Bylaw andhighlights the rationale for the changes.1. Re-organization to link the Official Community Plan to the Zoning BylawThe new Zoning Bylaw has implicit linkages to the newly adopted Official Community Plan whichis designed to make land use decisions easier and provide clarity for both the public and Councilas to what specific zones will complement OCP land use designations.A specific example is highlighted in the Table below:OCP Designation New Zone Previous Zone:Urban Residential Urban Residential 558 Zone One Unit Urban Residential Zone(R558)(RS-1)The new R558 Zone represents an urban residential single family dwelling zone with a minimumparcel size of 558 square meters (6006 square feet). Intuitively, the reader knows exactly thedensity of the target zone.2. Expanded Definitions SectionThe new Zoning Bylaw attempts to add clarity to many of the definitions found within the bylawand to this end, an expanded definitions section is included. Some of the highlights ofimprovements made to this section include:1) Division of Uses - where many uses were clustered into a single definition, the newBylaw attempts to separate uses and categorize each use which will make findingspecific uses easier. The logic for this change is to assist in finding properties where aspecific use may be allowed.FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON PAGE 2 OF 7R09-005

262) New and Improved Definitions - included within the Bylaw are new and improveddefinitions to add clarity to the Bylaw. Included are:i. Buildable Areaii.iii.iv.Coach HouseDensityFloor Space Ratiov. Garden Cottagevi.vii.viii.GradeHeightUndevelopable Areaix. Urban Agriculture3. Clarity of RegulationsOne of the main improvements to the new Zoning Bylaw is to increase the ease of use for the enduser through improvements to the front end of the Bylaw; namely Section 103 through to Section111Some of the highlights of these sections are outlined below:1) Section 104 - General Regulationsi. Part B. Lot Area, Width and Frontage - new diagramsii.iii.iv.Part C. Vision Clearance at Intersections - new regulations and diagramsPart H. Accessory Building and Structure Regulations - exemptions forbuildings and structures not requiring an Building PermitPart J. Panhandle Lots - the area of the panhandle will no longer be calculatedwithin the minimum parcel size and corner truncations, at the "base" end ofthe panhandle, will be limited.2) Section 106 - Use Regulationsi. Part C. Uses Prohibited - added to this section include shipping containers,drive thru restaurants, flop houses, and barge loading.ii.Part D. Use Categories - a new section to identify uses and their associatedcategory along with identifying a zone where a specific use is permitted.iii. Part F. Secondary Dwelling Units - another new section in the Bylaw identifiesthe regulations common to all secondary dwelling units which include coachhouses, garden cottages, secondary family dwellings, and secondary suites.3) Section 107 - Home Occupationsi. This is a new section that highlights Home Occupations within the bylaw itselfto encourage more home occupation uses.ii.Part A. General Regulations paragraph i. - expanded retail opportunities nowexisting for all Home Occupations.FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON PAGE 3 OF 7R09-005

27iii. Part E. Bed and Breakfast Operations - a clear and separate section for Bedand Breakfast operations now exist with less prohibitive parking regulations.4) Section 108 - Environmental Protectioni. Added to this section of the Bylaw are diagrams and tables to clearly identifyintent and application of the Section.5) Section 109 - Off Street Parking Regulationsi. Expansion of restrictions for heavy and large truck parking to the Suburbanareas.6) Section 111 - Fencing, Retaining, Landscaping, Bufferingi. Part A. Fencing - new regulations in regards to fence height to reflectaccuracy in retail fencing panels and height regulations on front yards andside yards flanking a street.ii.Part B. Walls - new regulations and diagrams for on-lot retaining walls andstructures.iii. Part C. Landscaping - a new section for landscaping requirements have beenadded to the Bylaw to clearly outline the intent and regulations forlandscaping, maintenance, screening security deposits and buffering.a. Paragraph 1 - Property owners will be required, by bylaw, to maintainlandscaping to the edge of the road.4. Specific Zoning Improvement HighlightsWhile working through a Zoning Bylaw, it is important to easily reference specific zones. In thisregard, the new Bylaw groups each section according to OCP designation and clearly identifiesuses allowed in each zone. Some of the highlighted improvements identified in Chapters 2through 13 include:1) Secondary Dwelling Zoning2) Section 201 to 202 - Rural Zonesa. Secondary Family Dwelling continues to be an allowable use in all Rural zones3) Section 301 to 302 - Rural Residential Zonesa. A reduction in minimum lot sizes from 0.8 ha (1.98 ac) to 0.7ha (1.73 ac) to:i. allow greater flexibility for development, andii.offset the change in regulations to lot area calculation for panhandles tofacilitate future road construction.4) Section 401 to 402 - Suburban Zonesa. All suburban development must be serviceable by municipal water.5) Section 500 to 600 inclusive:a. Undevelopable areas are no longer to be permitted in the minimum lot areacalculation.b. Front yard setbacks may be reduced to 4.0m (13.1 ft) provided the garage issetback 6.0m (19.7 ft) to provide a varied streetscape.ALE: PF?O.DEV.ZON PAGE 4 OF -R09-00E

28c. The maximum allowable floor space for the second storey of a single familydwelling shall be limited to 80% of the floor space of the first storey to promote:i. non-basement entry homes;ii.iii.iv.front porches;recessed garages; andspatial separation of dwellings to enhance view corridors.d. Limiting the maximum allowable access to an individual lot to 5.0m (16.4 ft) topromote landscaping and separation between lots.6) Section 501 to 502 Urban Residential Zonesa. Side yard setbacks will be a combined 4.5m (14.7 ft) which may beaccomplished by 1.5m + 3.0m (4.9 ft + 9.8 ft) side yard setbacks.7) Section 601 - Residential Compact Zonesa. Adding a 280 square meter (3014 square foot) option for residential compactlots with lane access.8) Section 602 - Residential Multiple Unit Zonesa. Allowing all RT465 (previous RT-1) zones a secondary dwelling unit withoutrezoning; however, a development permit shall be required for a garden cottageor a coach house.9) Section 701 to 703 Multiple Family Zonesa. Allowing a child care centre as a permitted use within the amenity building.10)Section 701 - Multiple family Townhouse Zonesa. Addition of a new MT79 to allow for high density ground oriented townhouseunits that are intended to simulate an urban row house.11)Section 702 - Multiple Family Row-House Zonea. This is a new zone where higher density developments can occur on fee simplelots.12) Mixed Use Zones - The new Bylaw allows for greater flexibility for commercially zonedproperties that will allow for a residential component as part of the development. Mostsignificantly, the following zones will now allow for this provision:a. Commercial Neighbourhood Centre One (CNC1)b. Commercial Highway One Zone (CH1)13) Section 1002 Industrial Business Park One Zonea. Given comments by Council at various Committee of the Whole meetings duringDevelopment Permit Applications and by Council and the Employment LandStrategy Meeting, the minimum lot coverage has increased from 25% to 33%.14) Institutional Zonesa. With a change in the legislation where municipalities can no longer distinguishbetween public and private run facilities or businesses, a change needed tooccur in the new Zoning Bylaw. To this end, the bylaw reflects a separation ofinstitutional uses to include zones catering to:FILE: PRO.DEV.Z0A PAGE 5 OF 7R09-00E

29i. Educationii.iii.iv.CareAssemblyParks Recreation and Civicv. Residential Campb. Additionally, where it has not been common practice to zone parks within theDistrict, the new Bylaw makes this a reality.SummaryThe Zoning Bylaw that a municipality adopts is the implementation tool that regulates land use. In thisregard, the District of Mission's proposed Zoning Bylaw reflects and encourages the innovation andforesight that the new Official Community Plan envisioned.Because this Bylaw is a complete re-write and contains new and innovative regulations, minoramendments may come forward for Council's consideration as each zone is "ground truthed" inMission.Moving forward, Council, staff, and the public can be confident that this proposed Bylaw reflects the"vision" that Council adopted as part of the Official Community Plan in 2008.Staff recommend that Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009 be considered for first and second reading at theRegular Council meeting on July 6, 2009 and that following such readings, the bylaw be forwarded toPublic Input at the Leisure Centre for the week of July 20-24 th , 2009 and then be forwarded to PublicHearing on August 24, 2009Barclay D. Pitkethly, MCIPDeputy Director of Planninga \COMDEV\BARCLAY\CoW Reports\Zoning tst and 2nd Reading.docFILE: PRO.DEV.ZON PAGE 6 OF 7R09-005

30Zone ConversionGuideRuralMultiple FamilyIndustrialCurrent Zone Proposed Zone Current Zone Proposed Zone Current Zone Proposed ZoneRU-3 RU80 RM-2 MT30 M-4 I NRRU-2 RU36 RM-2A MT40 M-5 INRPRU-1 RU16 RM-3 MT52 M-10 INBP1RU-3A RU8Os N/A MT79 M-8 INL1RU-2A RU36s N/A MR52 M-2 INGRU-1A RU16s RM-5 MA52 M-1 INGCRM-4 MA80 M-3A INARSuburbanN/AMA135Current Zone Proposed Zone RH-1MMPRS-2S36R-2 S36s CommercialIECurrent Zone Proposed ZoneICRural ResidentialC-14 CR ITCurrent Zone Proposed Zone N/A CRL IPRCRS-2A RR7 C-1 CL1 1-5RS-3 RR7 C-2 CNC1R-2A RR7s C-5 CH1R-3 RR7s C-5A CCGC-5BCCSUrban ResidentialC-5CCVDCurrent Zone Proposed Zone C-6 CPHRS-1B R930 C-7 CMCR-1 B R930s C-8 CTRS-1 D R669 C-9 CORR-1D R669s C-11 CNRS-1R558R-1 R558sCore CommercialRS-1CR465Proposed Zone Current ZoneR-1C R465s CCD1 C-3CCD1C-3ACompact Residential C-12 CCRCurrent Zone Proposed Zone C-4 CCWRS-1ARC465RS-1 E; RS1 F RC372RC280RC280R-1ARC465sResidential Multiple UnitCurrent Zone Proposed ZoneRT-1RT465RT-2RB558InstitutionalCurrent Zone Proposed ZonePAGE 7 OF 7

Distreht Memo31FILE: PRO.DEV.ZONR09-006To: Chief Administrative OfficerFrom: PlannerDate: July 6, 2009Subject: Official Community Plan Amendments and Establishment of HazardousLands Development Permit AreasRecommendation1. The Director of Corporate Administration prepare a bylaw to amend Official Community PlanBylaw 4052-2008 Part II: Policies Section 1.5 on Development in the Floodplain to includethe following policy changes as shown on Appendix 1, attached to a report from thePlanner dated July 6, 2009.2. The Director of Corporate Administration prepare a bylaw to amend Official Community PlanBylaw 4052-2008 Part II: Policies Section 1.6 Development on Hazard Lands to include thefollowing policy changes as shown on Appendix 2, attached to a report from the Plannerdated July 6, 2009.3. The Director of Corporate Administration prepare a bylaw to amend Official Community PlanBylaw 4052-2008 by including Fraser River Development Permit Area as shown onAppendix 3, attached to a report from the Planner dated July 6, 2009.4. The Director of Corporate Administration prepare a bylaw to amend Official Community PlanBylaw 4052-2008 by including Geotechnical Hazards Development Permit Area as shownon Appendix 4, attached to a report from the Planner dated July 6, 2009.5. The Director of Corporate Administration prepare a bylaw to amend the Official CommunityPlan Bylaw 4052-2008 by including Official Community Plan Map 5a Fraser RiverDevelopment Permit Areas as shown on Appendix 8.The bylaws be given 1 st reading at the Regular Council meeting on July 6, 2009 andforwarded to public hearing on August 24, 2009.6 The Director of Corporate Administration prepare a bylaw to amend District of Mission LandUse Application Procedures and Fees Bylaw 3612-2003 — Schedule "A" by adding thefollowing items:"Hazardous Lands Development Permit Area $300.00"The bylaws be given 1s t, 2 nd and 3rd reading at the Regular Council meeting on July 6, 2009.7. That upon due consideration of Sections 879 and 881 of the Local Government Act,consultation referrals go forward to:• Fraser Valley Regional District,• District of Maple Ridge,• City of Abbotsford,• School District No. 75,• Canadian Pacific Railway,• Ministry of Transportation,• Department of Fisheries & Oceans,PAGE 1 OF 7:

32• Land Reserve Commission,• Fraser Health Region,• Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection• First Nations, including:Kwantlen,Matsqui,Sto:lo andSumas.8. That in accordance with Section 882 of the Local Government Act, Council has consideredDistrict of Mission Official Community Plan amending bylaws in conjunction with the Districtof Mission's Financial Plan (includes Capital Expenditure Plan and Operating ExpenditurePlan) and Waste Management PlanProposalTo amend Official Community Plan Bylaw 4052-2008 by introducing policies and HazardousLands Development Permit Areas pursuant to Section 919(1)(b) of the Local Government Act.Specifically, this report will examine:1. Background - Implementation of Hazardous Land Development Permit Areas2. Official Community Plan: Policy Amendments3. Official Community Plan: Hazardous Lands Development Permit Areasi) Fraser River Development Permit Areaii) Geotechnical Hazards Development Permit Area4. Application Fee: Hazardous Land Development Permit.5. Section 879 and 881 Local Government Act6. Section 882 Local Government Act7. Summary.The purpose of the new Policies and Development Permit Areas are ensure a comprehensiveand consistent approach to address development on potentially hazardous lands to limit risk tothe District of Mission by:1. Setting thresholds for development based on the Hazard Acceptability Thresholds paper;2. Clearly outlining the expectations for geotechnical reports3. Require confirmation that the reports are being done in accordance with Association ofProfessional Engineers and Geoscientists Guidelines.1. BackgroundCurrently, the District of Mission only provides a brief outline of the requirements for reportssubmitted by Professional Engineers when addressing development on hazardous lands. Thechallenge this presents is that the Engineers, clients and staff are unsure of the level of detailand information required to address development on potentially hazardous lands and the "levelof safety" considered acceptable to permit development. The Association of ProfessionalEngineers and Geoscientists have developed guidelines (herein after referred to as "theGuidelines") for geotechnical reports to provide the technical analysis and outline the factorsthat must be considered for a comprehensive landslide assessment report. However, a keyelement that remains unaddressed in "the Guidelines" is the level of safety the QualifiedProfessional should be measuring the proposed development against. Thus, "the Guidelines"PAGE 2 OF 73

33will be supplemented by levels of safety established within new Development Permit AreaGuidelines.As Council is aware, significant weather events in the past few years have resulted in potentialflooding from the Fraser River, and landslides in the Chilliwack River Valley (Fraser ValleyRegional District), the District of Mission, and the District of North Vancouver.In 2006 the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists developed "Guidelines forLegislated Landslide Assessments for Proposed Residential Development in British Columbia,May 2006" and revised them in 2008 to include seismic stability. With the establishment of "theGuidelines" (2008) and the landslide/debris flow events in Mission over the past years, staffrecommends that a comprehensive approach be developed to address different types ofhazards that may affect development.The establishment of a comprehensive approach to address hazardous lands is best achievedwith the introduction of policies and development permit areas in the Official Community Plan,pursuant to Section 919(b) "protection of development from hazardous conditions" of the LocalGovernment Act. New policies will be introduced in the Official Community Plan and two (2)new Development Permit Areas will be created; i) Fraser River Development Permit Area andii) Geotechnical Hazards Development Permit Area.In 2008, the District adopted the Floodplain Management Bylaw to address hazards fromflooding. The Fraser River Development Permit Area will supplement the requirements in theFloodplain Management Bylaw by providing information on the requirements for the reportssubmitted by the professional engineer.2. Official Community Plan: Policy AmendmentsThe purpose of amending the Official Community Plan is to develop comprehensive andconsistent policies to address potentially hazardous lands within the District of Mission.The policy sections in the Official Community Plan to be amended include, Part II: PoliciesSection 1.5 DEVELOPMENT IN THE FLOODPLAIN described in Appendix 1 and Part IIPolicies Section 1.6 DEVELOPMENT ON HAZARDOUS LANDS described in Appendix 2.3. Official Community Plan: Hazardous Lands Development Permit AreasIntroducing the Fraser River Development Permit Area and the Geotechnical HazardsDevelopment Permit Area will allow for a comprehensive and consistent approach to addressdevelopment on potentially hazardous lands; thereby reducing risk and ensuring developmenthas met strict criteria on whether it is "safe for the use intended".The development permit area guidelines include intent, objectives, guidelines and exemptions.The Fraser River Development Permit Area is described in Appendix 3 and the GeotechnicalHazards Development Permit Area is described in Appendix 4. The Development PermitAreas will also include three documents that provide the foundation for ensuring developmenton potentially hazardous lands is addressed in a comprehensive manner. These documents willguide Engineers, their clients and District staff to ensure that engineer's reports proposingdevelopment on potentially hazardous lands are being prepared in a clear, comprehensive andrationale manner. These three documents include:i) The Guidelines for Legislated Landslide Assessments for ProposedResidential Development in British Columbia, May 2008 (Appendix 5).ii)Hazard Acceptability Thresholds for Development Approvals by LocalGovernment (Appendix 6) and,iii) Assistance to Developers and Building Permit Applicants UndertakingGeotechnical Studies (Appendix 7).PAGE 3 OF 73

34i) The Guidelines for Legislated Landslide Assessments for Proposed ResidentialDevelopment in British Columbia, May 2008.At the time of the tragic landslide in North Vancouver there were no Provincially establishedguidelines for the content of geotechnical reports. As a result of this event, and others in thelower mainland, as well as the often flawed and inconsistent geotechnical reports that werebeing submitted province wide, the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientistconsidered it necessary to establish guidelines, providing clear criteria for Engineers, theirclients and approving jurisdictions when considering development in areas subject to landslidehazards. Thus, in 2006 the Association approved "the Guidelines" and revised them in May2008 to include seismic stability.Content requirements for reportsThe Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists Guidelines requires that anylandslide assessment reports submitted to the Approving Jurisdiction, by the QualifiedProfessional meet "the Guidelines" and include the submission of Appendix D-LandslideAssessment Assurance Statement (from "the Guidelines"). The purpose of Appendix "D" is toensure the Engineer has prepared the report in accordance with "the Guidelines". Appendix"D" is not required for geotechnical reports that do not involve a landslide hazard component,such as Fraser River Flooding Hazard.Purpose of "the Guidelines"The purpose of "the Guidelines", (Appendix 5) is two fold:• Provide guidelines of professional practice for a Professional Engineer andProfessional Geoscientist who carry out a landslide analysis for a proposedresidential development.• Provide guidance to the professional as to how to relate the results of the analysis toa level of landslide safety for residential development when required by provinciallegislation (i.e. Community Charter, Local Government Act, and Land Title Act.)"The Guidelines" provide an industry standard for all landslide assessment reports in BritishColumbia. The intent is not to advise the Qualified Professional on how to a conduct a landslideassessment; only to outline the factors that must be considered for a comprehensive landslideassessment report. These guidelines basically serve as a "Terms of Reference" for the qualifiedprofessional.ii) Hazard Acceptability Thresholds for Development Approvals by LocalGovernmentThe Hazard Acceptability Thresholds, paper was prepared by Dr. Peter Cave, former Director ofPlanning at the Fraser-Cheam Regional District, (now Fraser Valley Regional District). Thepaper provides an overview of different types of geological hazards, and the damage that thesehazards can inflict on properties. The document establishes acceptable levels of safety fordevelopment, depending on the type of development. For example, a property with a probabilityof a landslide hazard of 1:200 may be allowed to rebuild or repair an aging structure; however,further subdivision would not be permitted (see Appendix 6, p. 15, Fig. 7 and p. 11, Fig. 2).The reasoning for the adoption of levels of safety for the District of Mission is that theEngineering Association of BC maintains that Qualified Professionals should not write landslideassessment reports stating development is "safe for the use intended" if the local governmentPAGE 4 OF 73

35has not adopted criteria for levels of safety that the proposed development can be measuredagainst."The Guidelines" state:"to complete a landslide assessment, the Qualified Professionalmust compare the results of the landslide analysis with a level oflandslide safety. Ideally, the level of safety used for comparisonshould be a defined level of landslide safety that has beenadopted by the approving jurisdiction".If the level of safety is not compared against a level adopted by an approving jurisdiction thenthe question arises as to how the Qualified Professional can reasonably determine that theproposed development is safe for the use intended.As Provincial legislation requires development be deemed "safe for the use intended" prior toapproval by a local government, it only seems reasonable that the approving jurisdiction providethe Qualified Professional with a policy on levels of safety and assistance with the criteria foracceptable geotechnical reports.Therefore, incorporation of the Hazard Acceptability Thresholds into the Hazardous LandsDevelopment Permit Areas allows for the establishment of clear criteria regarding acceptablelevels of safety, giving the Qualified Professional the ability to write a report stating that the landis safe for the use intended. As p. 23 of the Guidelines state:"When preparing landslide assessment report for jurisdictionsthat have adopted a defined level of landslide safety, theQualified Professional should refer to that level, and followjurisdictional guidelines for carrying out landslide assessments."However, the recommendations of the Engineering Association when levels of landslidesafety have not been adopted by an approving jurisdiction are as follows."where approving jurisdictions have not adopted defined levels oflandslide safety, the Qualified Professional should follow theappropriate jurisdictional guidelines for carrying out a landslideassessment, but whenever, possible he/she should avoid use ofstatements such as "certify that the land maybe use safely forthe use intended" or "that development may safely occur" p. 23APEG BC Guidelines.Although the Hazard Acceptability Thresholds, paper was developed for the Fraser ValleyRegional District, it is a document that is widely accepted by the Association of ProfessionalEngineers and Geoscientists and a variety of Engineering Companies throughout BC, as beinga good standard for development approvals.Establishing levels of safety ensures that all development is measured against the same criteria.For example, all Qualified Professionals must be able to prove that a new building meets a levelof safety of 1:200, for small scale localized landslip. Or, that with the mitigative works proposedthe Qualified Professional is able to reduce the potential hazard risk to 1:200. Theestablishment of "levels of safety" by the District removes the ambiguity of the "level of safety"that is considered "safe for the use intended".PAGE 5 OF 73

36At present only two jurisdictions have adopted levels of safety; Fraser Fort George RegionalDistrict who implemented their "levels of safety" in 1999 and Fraser Valley Regional Districtimplemented the Hazard Acceptability Thresholds criteria 17 years ago. The District of NorthVancouver is in the process of adopting similar policies as a result of the devastating landslidein January 2005.According to Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists:"It is not the role of the Professional Engineer or ProfessionalGeoscientist to define such levels of safety; they must beestablished and adopted by the local government or provincialgovernment after considering a range of societal values" p.4The Hazard Acceptability Thresholds paper supplements "the Guidelines" with levels of safetyfor various types of hazards and development.iii) Assistance to Developers and Building Permit Applicants undertakingGeotechnical StudiesThe third document required to complete the Development Permit Guidelines is the Assistanceto Developers and Building Permit Applicants undertaking. Geotechnical Studies (Appendix 7).This document is a detailed list of the questions that a Qualified Professional must addresswhen preparing a report within the District of Mission.This document enables a Qualified Professional to provide comprehensive reports and staff toreview those reports against a specific set of criteria, to ensure the report is comprehensive andaddresses all potential hazard issues. The District of North Vancouver, the Corporation ofDelta, as well as the Fraser Valley Regional District all have similar lists of criteria which requirethe geotechnical report be acceptable to the approving jurisdiction, prior to issuing developmentapprovals.The Municipal Insurance Association promotes the development of comprehensive geotechnicalreports. In 2002 the Municipal Insurance Association sponsored a paper entitled "Guidelines forPlanners, Approving Officers and Building Inspectors for Landslide-Prone Areas in BritishColumbia" written by Nigel Skermer, P.Eng. The paper outlines the criteria that eachgeotechnical report should address, including: description of the land, history of the property,description of the solid and rock conditions, surrounding influences, and that the reports shouldpresent hazards, consequences and risks in a clear manner. The paper goes on to say that:"If you as the regulator feel the report submitted to you by anowner is inadequate, MIA recommends that you either reject thereport, ask for clarification and expansion, or call for a secondopinion carried out independently on your behalf. Alternatively,the report may conflict with other reports which you have on theimmediate area, or it may seriously contradict overview hazardassessments. p.8 "Including the Assistance to Developers paper in the Development Permit Area Guidelines, willassist staff in determining if the geotechnical report has been prepared in a thorough, logicaland rational manner; allowing a lay person to follow the report, understand therecommendations and conclusions, and determine if the recommendations were achieved usingsound scientific methodology.PAGE 6 OF 73

37Summary: Hazardous Land Development Permit AreasThe intent of incorporating these three documents into the Hazardous Lands DevelopmentPermit Areas is not to question the recommendations of the reports submitted from QualifiedProfessionals, but to provide the Qualified Professional with the requirements for preparingcomprehensive reports. As well to ensure the District of Mission has a consistent approach toissuing approvals in areas that may be subject to potential hazards.Although there may be some reluctance for staff to undertake the role of reviewing geotechnicalreports from a legal perspective, the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists,and the Municipal Insurance Association of British Columbia, as well as case law consider thatthe approving jurisdiction has a responsibility to ensure the reports meet some basic criteria.The benefit of Hazardous Lands Development Permit Area Guidelines are:• consistent procedures for addressing and approving development on potentially.hazardous lands,• specific requirements for hazard reports,• removal of ambiguity in the report context and,• reduced delays in the approval by the Approving Officer provided completedhazard lands reports are submitted.Although staff does not believe that there will be disadvantages arising from the introduction ofthese Development Permit Area Guidelines, developers may perceive the following:• increase fees for Hazardous Lands Development Permits.;• higher standards for development approvals and;• increase costs for the client as more detailed reporting is required.Establishing clear, comprehensive polices that are applied uniformly throughout the District, willensure approvals on potential hazardous lands are approved in a consistent manner.4. Application Fee for Hazardous Lands Development Permit AreasAlthough approval of the Hazardous Lands Development Permit Areas may not involve Council,as proposed, there is work for the Planning and Building Department Staff. This work includesreading the geotechnical report and ensuring the report meets the Hazardous LandsDevelopment Permit Area Guidelines.Thus, staff recommends an application fee of $300.00 for Hazardous Lands DevelopmentPermit Area be introduced to cover staff costs.5. Sections 879 and 881 Local Government ActWhen an amendment is proposed to an Official Community Plan, the District of Mission will referthe proposed amendment to some of the organizations listed below following first reading of thebylaw, subject to provisions set out in Council policy LAN. 47 Official Community Plan Referral.The organizations identified in the policy are as follows:• Fraser Valley Regional District;• District of Maple Ridge; City of Abbotsford;• First Nations;• School District No.75;PAGE7OF 7

38• Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection;• Fraser Health Region; Ministry of Transportation;• Department of Fisheries and Oceans; Land Reserve Commission,• Utility Companies; and the• Canadian Pacific RailwayFollowing the provision of the policy, Council must consider the requirement to make referralson a case-by-case basis and adopt a resolution to clarify that the referral requirements havebeen considered. Considering the referral criteria detailed in LAN 47. policy, the referralsinclude District of Maple Ridge, City of Abbotsford, Fraser Valley Regional District, SchoolDistrict No. 75, Canadian, Pacific Railway, Ministry of Transportation, Department of Fisheriesand Oceans, Land Reserve Commission, Fraser Health Region, Ministry of Water Land and AirProtection, First Nations, including: Kwantlen, Matsqui Sto:lo and Sumas.6. Section 882 Local Government ActSection 882 of the Local Government Act requires Council to consider District of Mission OfficialCommunity Plan amending bylaws in conjunction with the District of Mission's Financial Plan(includes Capital Expenditure Plan and Operating Expenditure Plan) and Waste ManagementPlan. Given that the design guidelines for Hazardous Land Development Permit Areas arebelieved to have little to no impact on the District's Financial and Waste Management Plans, theDirector of Finance has considered the financial aspects of revising these development permitguidelines and noted no concerns with Council's further consideration of the amending bylaw.7. SummaryThe amendment to the Official Community Plan policies and the creation of two (2) HazardousLands Development Permit Areas, will ensure that the District has a comprehensive, conciseand consistent approach to addressing development on lands that may be subject to potentialhazards.I have reviewed the financial aspects of this report.Ken Bjorgaard, Director of Finance'1')/las\o-i sMarcy BondG:\COMDEV\MARCY\Geotechnical information\CoW report for Hazardous Land Development Permit Area.docPAGE 8 OF 73

39Appendix 1Part II: Policies Section "1.5 DEVELOPMENT IN THE FLOODPLAIN" the following sentence bedeleted in its entirety:"Floodplain management policies, land use regulations, zoning designations and guidelines andregulations for building flood-proofing have been developed for Mission to address the potentialhealth and safety risks from flooding. While local government decisions are key to floodplainmanagement, it is recognized that the most effective method to reduce flood damage is a multistakeholderapproach. In other words, development regulation in the floodplain will besuccessful through the cooperative efforts of all levels of government, developers buildersrealtors and the public."and replaced with the following:"Floodplain management policies, bylaws guidelines and regulations have been developed forMission to address the potential health and safety risks from flooding. The following policesaddress floodplain management. have been developed for Mission to address the potentialhealth and safety risks from flooding."The following be deleted in it's entirety"Site Specific Evaluation of DevelopmentPolicy 1.5.2 Evaluate development in the floodplain on a site-specific basis"And replaced with:"Floodplain Development RequirementsPolicy 1.5.2 Development on a floodplain shall be in accordance with District of MissionFloodplain Management Bylaw."The following new policy be added immediately following Policy 1.5.3"Fraser River Development Permit AreaPolicy 1.5.4 Development located within the Fraser River Development PermitArea, identified on OCP Map 5a, shall meet the requirements of theDevelopment Permit Area Guidelines and the District of Mission FloodplainManagement Bylaw."PAGE 9 OF 73

40Appendix 2Part II: Policies Section "1.6 DEVELOPMENT ON HAZARD LANDS"The following be deleted in it's entirety:"Lands Where Development is ProhibitedPolicy 1.6.2 Prohibit development on lands subject to subsidence, rock fall, debrisflow or other natural hazard. where a report by a qualified professionalhas not identified the site as safe for the use intended.".And be replaced with:"Policy 1.6.2 Development on potentially hazardous lands shall be prohibited wherea report from a qualified professional has not identified the site as safefor the use intended."The following be deleted in it's entirety""Development on Hazard LandsPolicy 1.6.3 Prohibit development in areas with slopes greater than 3:1 without acomprehensive geotechnical investigation demonstrating unequivocallythat the development can be successfully carried out, and that this willoccur with no increase in risk or hazard to down slope or adjacentowners"And be replaced with:"Policy 1.6.3 Development on hazardous lands shall meet the requirements of theGeotechnical Hazard Lands Development Permit Area Guidelines."Add a new policy be added immediately following Policy 1.6.4."Policy 1.6.5 Prohibit development on lands subject to hazards where a reportsubmitted by a qualified professional has not identified the land asbeing safe for the use intended."PAGE 10OF 7.

41Appendix 3Area Q - Fraser River Development Permit Area1. CategoryThe Fraser River Development Permit Guidelines are established pursuant toSection 919(1)(a) and 919.1(b) and are applicable to the Fraser River DevelopmentPermit Area shown on Official Community Plan Map 5a.2. IntentEstablish a Fraser River Development Permit Area to ensure that the requirementsof the Floodplain Management Bylaw are being met and that any geotechnicalreports undertaken as part of development will adequately address the potentialhazards of the Fraser River.3. Objectives• To minimize damage to structures and properties from flooding;• To direct development away from land subject to potential river avulsionhazards;• To ensure adequate assessment and mitigation of river hazards• To allow for suitable land use under hazardous conditions in accordance withengineering studies; and• To minimize impact of development and land alteration on the naturalenvironment, ecosystems and biological diversity.4. ApplicabilityTo achieve the objectives of Development Permit Area, the following shall apply tothe issuance of development permits:a). Activities requiring a Development PermitA Development Permit must be obtained prior to:i) subdivision of land;ii) alteration of land;iii) construction of, addition to, or alteration of, a building or structure within thedevelopment permit area.b) Pursuant to Section 920(11) of the Local Government Act, an engineering studyprepared by a professional engineer with experience in river engineering may berequired. The report shall be certified and state that the development is safe forthe use intended.c) Guidelines for Engineers Reports to meet the Development Permit Guidelinesi) Where a geotechnical report is required, each report must• meet the levels deemed acceptable in the District of Mission's HazardAcceptability Thresholds for Development Permit Approvals by LocalGovernments;PAGE 1 1 OF 73

42• address the requirements in the Assistance to Developers and BuildingPermit Applicants Undertaking Geotechnical Studies hand out; and• meet the requirements of District of Mission Floodplain ManagementBylaw5. Exemptionsa. A development permit may not be required for construction of, addition to oralteration of, a building or structure where:i) the property is protected by a dike, as defined by the District of MissionFloodplain Management Bylaw, and the requirements of the District of MissionFloodplain Management Bylaw are being met.ii) the property is located within the London Avenue Local Exemption Areaidentified on Official Community Plan Map 5a or.iii) the type of construction, addition, or alteration, does not affect,or relate to, matters of health, safety or the protection ofproperty from damage.PAGE 12 OF 73

43Appendix 4Area R: Geotechnical Hazard Lands Development Permit Area Guidelines1. CategoryThe Geotechnical Hazards Development Permit Area Guidelines are establishedpursuant to Section 919(1)(a) and 919.1(b) of the Local Government Act and areapplicable to all lands within the District of Mission.2. IntentLands within the District of Mission include a variety of land forms, which have thepotential to create a range of different types of hazards that may affect development.These hazards include but are not limited to: steep slopes, flooding, debris flows,rock fall, liquefactions and debris floods.Pursuant to Section 919 of the Local Government Act a municipality may designatedevelopment permit areas for the purposes of protecting development fromhazardous conditions.As this Development Permit Area is established to protect areas from hazardousconditions, pursuant to Section 920(11) any requirement for a site specificgeotechnical report must be prepared by an engineer with experience or training ingeotechnical study and geohazard assessments.3. Objectives• To minimize damage to people, structures and properties from geotechnicalhazards, debris floods, debris flows and alluvial fans;• To direct development away from land subject to potential hazards;• To ensure adequate assessment and mitigation of hazards from steepslopes;• To allow for land use suitable under hazardous conditions in accordance withengineering studies; and• To minimize impact of development and land alteration on the naturalenvironment, ecosystems and biological diversity.4. ApplicabilityTo achieve the objectives of Geotechnical Hazard Land Development Permit Areathe following shall apply to the issuance of development permits:a) Activities requiring a Development PermitA Development Permit must be obtained prior to:i) subdivision of land;ii) alteration of land; andiii) construction of addition to or alteration of a building or structure withinthe development permit area.b) Pursuant to Section 920(11) of the Local Government Act, a geotechnical reportprepared by a Professional Engineer with experience in geotechnical studyand geohazard assessments may be required where:PAGE 13 OF 73

44i) There is a slope greater than 30% within a distance considered to beinfluential on the site's hazard rating or;ii) Signs of slope instability exist on the property, above or below the proposeddevelopment or;iii) Development may be affected by a watercourse and/or an alluvial fan hazardoriv) The Approving Officer or Building Inspector deem the report is necessary.5. Guidelinesa. Where possible development should be sited to avoid hazards. Where it isimpossible or impractical to avoid a hazard, mitigative measures may beconsidered.b. development permit may vary or supplement a bylaw under Part 26, Division 7or 11 of the Local Government Act provided the variance or supplement is minorand directly related to, and in accordance with, the objectives of the GeotechnicalHazard Lands Development Permit Area.c. Conditions or restrictions may be imposed respecting the uses and densitiespermitted in the zoning bylaw, the sequence and timing of construction, areas toremain free of development, vegetation or trees to be planted or retained, naturaldrainage to be maintained or enhanced.d. Where the zoning bylaw permits residential use and where the geotechnicalstudy identifies an acceptable level of risk for new construction, all new lotscreated should include suitable building sites. Clustering lots away from thehazard area may be approved and the minimum size of parcels of land that maybe created by subdivision may be varied by development permit to facilitate theoptimum and safe use of the land, provided that the average parcel size of theclustered lots shall not be less than the minimum parcel size specified in thezoning bylaw, and provided that each lot is suitable for its intended use.e. Where a geotechnical report is required, each report must:• meet the levels of safety deemed acceptable in the District of MissionHazard Acceptability Thresholds for Development Permit Approvals byLocal Governments;• Address the requirements in the Assistance to Developers and BuildingPermit Applicants Undertaking Geotechnical Studies hand out and• complete as part of the assessment and submit "Appendix D" fromGuidelines for Legislated Landslide Assessments for ProposedResidential Development in BC (p. 54 & 55)6. Exemptionsa) A development permit may not be required for construction of, addition to .or alteration of, a building or structure where:i) the potential risk of any geotechnical hazard which may affect the site asdetermined by a professional engineer, with experience or training ingeotechnical study and geohazard assessments, states in a site specificreport that the land is safe for the use intended and where AcceptabilityPAGE 14 0 ,.= 73

45Thresholds for Development Permit Approvals by Local Governments theGuidelines under Development Permit Area 5(b)(1) have been met, withno conditions.ii) the type of construction, addition, or alteration, does not affect, orrelate to, matters of health, safety, or the protection of property fromdamage.PAGE 15 OF 72

46Appendix 5Excerpt of Association of Professional Engineers andGeoscientists GuidelinesAss,xiatmn of Prote5Sional Engineersand Geasoentis'E, of Bertisti Columixa March 2006Rimed May 2008PAGE 16 OF 73

47TABLE OF CONTENTSINTRODUCTION 4Introduction to the 2006 Guidelines 4introduction to the 2008 Revisions 41..1 Purpose of the Guidelines i=„12 Role of APEGBC 6.1.3 introduction of Terms' 61.4 Scope of the Guidelines 71.5 Applicability of the Guidelines 81.6 Acknowledgments2, PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND 'RESPONSIBILMES 102.1 Common Forms of Project Organization 10'2..2 Responsibilities 102.2.1 The Client 102.22 The Qualified Professional 122_2.3 The Approving Authority 1422.4 Reviews of Landslide Assessment Reports. 14.3. GUIDELINES FOR PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE 173.1 initiation 173.1.1 Phases of a Landslide Assessment 173.1.2 Objectives.3_1.3 Type of Landslide Assessment 183.1.4 Level of Effort 183.1.5 Study Area 193.2 Background Information 191.3 Field Viliork 203.4 'Landsfide Hazard and Landslide Risk Analyses3.4 .1 Methods of Lan d slide Analysis L3.4.2 Quantative vs Qualitative nn3.4.3. Consideration of Changed Conditions 223.5 Landslide Assessment 223.6 Measures to Reduce 'Landslide Hazards andlor Landsiicie Risks 243.7 Report 24Limitations .and Qualifications o a Landslide .Assessment3_9 Specialty Services 264. SEISMIC SLOPE ANALYSIS 284.1 Seismic Slope Analysis Flowchart4.1.1 Landslide Hazard or Risk 264_1.2 Liquefaction or Strain Softening 294.1.3 Factor of Safety andicr Slope Displacements 284.1.4 Compiex Slope Displacement AnalysisPAGE 17 OF 73

484.2 Review of Earthquake-induced Landslides 305, QUALITY ASSURANCEIQUALITY CONTROL 315.1 APEGBC Quality Management Bylaws 315_2 Direct StApervision 3153 internal and External Peer Review 316. PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION; EDUCATION, TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE 336.1 Professional Registration 336_2 Education, Training and Experience 347. REFERENCES AND RELATED DOCUMENTS 3,6APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY OF SELECTED TERMS 43APPENDIX B: LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK 48PIA Land The Act (Section 86)— Subdivision .Approvais 483.2 Local Government Act (Sections 919.1 and 920) — Development Permits 4833 Community Charter (Section 56): — Building Permits 49BA Local. Government Act (Section 910) — Flood Plain BylawVariances or Exemptions 493,5 Local Government Act (Section 692(•)) — Provincial Regulation M268.Geotechnical Slope Stability (Seismic:i Regulation 50APPENDIX C: REVIEW OF LEVELS OF LANDSLIDE SAFETY 510.1 British Columbia 51C.2 Canada 52APPENDIX D: LANDSLIDE ASSESSMENT ASSURANCE STATEMENT 54APPENDIX E: METHODS OF SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF SOIL SLOPES 56E1 introduction 56E.2 Review of Current Practice 56E.3 Slope Performance During Earthouake Shaking 57EA Slope Displacement (Methorl 1) 59ES Pseudo-static Analysis using a Slope Dioplacernent-BasedSeismic Coefficient (Method 2) 52ES Limitations 63E.7 Conciuding Remarks 63E8 References 64APPENDIX F: REVIEW OF EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED LANDSLIDES 66F.1 introduction 65F.2 Extent of Earthouake-induced LeridSlides 66F.3 Some Globai Examples 67F.4 Some United States Examples 68F.6 Western Canada 59APPENDIX G: GEOTE.CHNICAL DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR BUILDINGSON LIQUEFIABLE SITES 70APPENDIX H: Preliminary site response analysis 72APPENDIX I: AUTHORS AND REVIEWERS 73PAGE 18 OF 73

49Guideli nes forLegislated Landslide Assessments forProposed Residential Development inBritish ColumbiaINTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION TO THE 2006 GUIDELINESAs British Columbia continues to grow in population, pressure for residentialdeveippmene, in areas that are prone to landslides, or have potentially unstable slopes,will increase. For the past 30 years, various pieces of provincial legislation haverequired that i'andt'ide assessments for proposed residential development in landslideproneareas be carried out by Professional Engineers. More recently. ProfessionalGeossientists have been included in some of this iegisiation. The Legislation requiresthat a Professional Engineer or Professional Geosorettst indicate whether theresidential de velooment will be 'safe from the effects of landslides.Professional Engineers, and Professional Gees -dentists with appropriate education,training and experience have the technical ability to carry out various forms of :landslideanalysis; however, to date, guidelines for such anaiyses for residential developmenthave not been documented. In addition. defined Levels of safety from the effects oflandslides" have not been adopted for most of BC. It is not the role of a ProfessionalEngineer or Professional Geoscienfist to define such levels of safety: they must beestablished and adopted by the local government or the provincial government afterconsidering a range of societal values.The lack of a landslide hazard policy was first brought to the provincial government'sattention by the Association of Professiona Engineers and Geoscientists of BritishColumbia (APEGBC) in :977, in a brief outlining a "Proposed Hazard Pipicy for BritishColumbia' (APEGBO 1977; initiated by Farquharson et al 1976, see also Williams 19E3).INTRODUCTION TO THE 2008 REVISIONSThe impetus for the 2008 revisions of these Guidelines was the publication of the 2006BC Building Code (BCBC 2006) in December 2006. subsequent to the adoption of theoriginal Guideiines by Council of A,PEGBC in March 200E,The BCBC 2006 adopted the ground motions for seismic design from the 2005 NationalBuilding Code for Canada (NBCC 2005). These around motions have a probability ofexceedance of 2% in 50 years (annual probability of 112475), whereas the previousground motions for seismic design (NBCC 1996, BCBC ...1996) had a probability ofexceedance of 10% in 50 years (annual probability of 1f475)'.Terms in italics are explained in Appendix A4 F07 the purpose of these•Cżuidelines the ievel of safety Cron the effects of landslides is referred to asbevel of landdide safely and includes le VS.! s of acceptable landslide hazard and landslide risk'.For convenience, these are referred to as "2% in 50-year ground modem" and "10% in 50-year groundmotions" ., respectively.APB...ZS° *March 2005kstiaed Semember 2.0DEauldeiMes far Leuitiareci Lancisbia A.rizassrmant 4for Probusso 4z:some:Mu' Safteiopruum in Sitar. ColumbiaPAGE 19 OF 73

50Many seismic design methods, including the analysis of the stability of slopes during andshortly after an earthquake (seismic slope analysis4 ), are based on ground motions. Insome areas of British Columbia, the above change in design ground motions resulted inan approximate doubling of the peak around acceleration (PGA) used in seismic slopeanalysis.Using current practice, the effect of this change was to increase the number of slopesthat could be considered unstable during an earthquake, and therefore potentially notsuitable for residential .deveiopment. This caused concern to Land Owners,Development Consultants, losal governments, and the provincial government (Kuan20071As a temporary measure, the provincial government, by special regulation 'LocalGovernment Act, Section ,692(d), Provincial Regulation M268, Geotechnical SlopeStability - (Seismic) Regulation (December 20067, permitted the use of the NBCC 199Eand BCBC 1998 ground motions (ID% in 50-year pound motions) for seismic slopea.naiysis. As a result, APEGBC, with support from the provincial government,established a Task Force on Seismic Slope Stability (TFSSS) to study this issue and tomake appropriate recommendations.The TFSSS reviewed current practice and recent developments in seismic slopeanaysis These 20D revised Guidelines introduce two new methods of seismic slope,analysis of soil slopes based on the concept of tolerable earthquake-induced slopedisplacements alma a slip surface_ The 2008 revisions include the addition of a newChapter 4 and four Appendices (Appendix E, Appendix F, Appendix G and Appendix H)..Other minor revisions have also been made.1.1 PURPOSE OF THE GUIDELINESThis document (1) provides guidelines of professional practice for a ProfessionalEngineer and Professionai Geossientist wnc carries out a landslide analysis for aproposed residential development, and (2) provides guidance to the professional as tohow to relate the results of the analysis to a level of landslide safety for residentialdeve.looinent when required by provincial legislation. Appendix D to these Guidelinesprovides a Landslide Assessment Assurance Statement that must be submitted, alongwith a is stilde assessment report, to an Approving Authority.Land Owners and Devei-apment Consultants: Land Use Planners, Approving Officers .and Building inspectors: kriunicipalities Reg.'onal Districts, and the islands True; theprovincial gdemment; and the general public frequently rely on such iandsiideassessments. These Guidelines may also assist those parties.These Guidelines address typical project organLzation and respcns:blhies of the venousstakeholders; professional practices that should typically be provided: qualityassuranceiquaiit-y control, and professions registration and education, training andexperience.Seismis slope analysis ine-tudes both, seismic slope sability analysis and seismic slope dispiacementanalysis.Municipalities. Regi'onal District- and the islands Trust are coitectively referred to as lose coveminents.APEGEC *March 213:26.7:e0 se September 23E18Cjiiidetne,s Ledsisted Lanciai:ds oft sseavnent.io, Precasev Fez fiarekkopment Eritisi) Cation:WEPAGE 20 OF 73

511 .2 ROLE Of APEGBCThese Guidelines have been formaliy adopted by the Council of APEGBC, and form parte APEGBC's ongoing commitment to maintaining the quality of services that itsMembers provide to their Clients and the general public. Professional Engineers andProfessional Geoscientists are professionally accountable for their work under theEngineers and Geoscientists Act (RSBC 1996, Chapter 116. as amended), which isenforced by APEGBC.A Member must exercise professional judgment when providing professional services;as such, application of these Guidelines will vary depending, on the circumstances.APEGBC supports the principle that a Member should receive fair and adequatecompensation for professional services, inciuding services provided to comply with theseGuidelines. An insufficient fee does not justify services that do not meet the intent ofthese Guidelines. These Guidelines may be used to assist in .estsbishing theobjectives, type of landslide analysis, level of effort and terms of reference of aMembers- agreement with his/her Client.By following these Guidelines a Member should fulfill his/her professional obligations,.especially with regards to APEGBC Code of Ethics Principle 1 (hold paramount thesafety, health and welfare of the public, protection of the environment and promotehealth and safety in the workplaceE). Failure of a Member to meet the intent of theseGuidelines could - be evidence of unprofessional conduct and lead to disciptinaryproceedings by APEGBC.1.3 INTRODUCTION OF TERMSAppendix A explains all terms shown in italics in these Guidelines. The followingintroduces some of the terms.For the purpose of these Guidelines, a Qualified. Professional is a Professional Engineeror Professional Geossi.entist with appropriate education, training and experience toconduct . landslide: assessments for residential development as described in theseGuidelines (refer to :Section 6). Typically, such a Professional Engineer will be practisingdeolodical enaineering, mining engineering or civil engineering and such a ProfessionalGeoscientist be practising geology or environmental geoschience'.A landslide is a movement of rock, debris or earth down a siope. Landslides can be aresult of a natural sequence of events and/or human activities. Landslides include: rockfails, rock siumps, rock slides, rock avaanches, rock creep: debris fails, debris slides,debris flows, debris floods; earth falis, earth slumps, earth slides, earth flows, earthcreep; and flow slides. Debris flows and debris floods have some characteristics of bothlandslides and floods.APEGBC's Code of Ethics is at httoim.w.ar.iebc.calliorary.'actoylawscode..thrn!.. The Code of Ethics,along ithith accompariying Guidelines and Commentary, are oubfished in the current (1994) edition ofiiiPEC- SC'S "Guidelines to Professional Excellence'.Geological enal'rr&er, mintho enoineerind and civil end:leering are disc:ital.:nes of engineeringregistration wrni 2:REGSC..a7d eni/rcinmenred geoscience are, disciplines of geoscience within AFEGBC. Unti201:3, AFEiGE 0 referred to the discipithe of environmental oeoscience as 'ideate:Ants'.APECIEC *March 20Effir,R.ewsed Samember 235GwcisPnez icr Ls.ct;sted LzrulsdsA.T.sessmentr:vpnenn Entli5.6 Golumt.,;zPAGE 21 OF

52A landslide assessment is a combination of (1) landslide analysis {recognition,characterization and estimation of hazard, and may include estimation of potentialconsequences), and (2) a comparison of the results of the analysis with a level oflandslide safety {Canadian Standards Association — CSA 1997). Based upon thecomparison, and where required by legislation, a Qualified Professional must statewhether the level of landslide safety is acceptable or unacceptable relative to an adoptedlevel of landslide safety. If required, the Qualified Professional can makerecommendations to reduce hazards and/or conseq•ence.s. For the purpose of theseGuidelines„ a /ands/ids assessment is either a landslide hazard assessment or landslidenail; assessmentAs defined by various pieces of provincial legislation, residential development includes:subdivision of propertyI construction. including construction of new buildings or structures, andstructural alteration of„ or addition to existing buildings or structures..Residential development also includes site development including, but not limited to,:removing vegetation,. :providing access, site grading, filling constn,,iction of infrastructure,,instatiation of utilities and modification of natural drainage.-Subdivision of property can result. from a number of different activities, including:• creating several lots, or strata lots, from one or more existing properties• consolidating two or more properties into one lot, and• adjusting or realigning an existing property line.Types of subdivisions include: conventional, strata, cooperative corporatiort(sharedinterest, abori hal reserves and leases.Therefore, residential development can range from the alteration of, or addition to, asingle residence to the subdivision of property containing a large number of residentiallots.A landslide assessment is only one aspect of the overall residential developmentprocess.IA SCOPE OF THE GUIDELINESThese Guidelines apply to legislated landslide assessments for proposed residentialdevelopment (refer to .Appendix B for a summary of the legislative framework). TheseGuidelines do not address other potential natural hazards such as flooding., soil erosion,subsidence or snow avalanches, except as related to landslides. If a QualifiedProiessionai identifies other potential hazards during a landslide assessment, he/sheshould notify the Client and the Land Owner (in situations where the :Client is not theLand Owner).It is recognized that landslide assessments are also carried out for other types ofproposed non-residential development including institutional, commercial, industrial andinfrastructure; sometimes as part of emergency response; and for existing rosicientalareas for a wide variety of reasons. There is, however, no provincial legislation thatpertains to landslide assessments for those other purposes, and therefore theseAPE GEC *March 20:.51Revises Separate, •DCIESixideOmes for Legislated LanOsiidi , Assessmen!! 7tnenn Brsn (ZombisPAGE 22 OF 73

53Guidelines do not address them. Some of the information contained herein may„however, be relevant to such non-legislated landslide assessments.Other pieces of residential development-related provincial legislation exist in which aQualified Professional, as defined in these Guidelines, may be involved, but for whomthere is no explicit professional mandate. For example:• a local government developing an Cffiofa:i Community Pian, designating aDevelopment Permit Area, or preparing a bylaw, including flood plain' and zoningbylaws (Loca: Government Act (RSBC 1996, Chapter 3231,• a local government issuing a tree cutting permit (Local Government Act (RSBC1996, Chapter 323), and• Integrated Land Management Bureau of BC Ministry of Agriculture and Lands(formerly Land and Water BC inc) disposing of Crown Land (Land Act, RSBC1996, Chapter 246).in such i:nstances. there is no legislated requirement for the invoiv.em-ent of a QualifiedProfessional except where such work is mandated to APEGBC Members by theEngineers and Geoscientists Act. These Guidelines do not address such non-legisLatedinvolvement of Qualified Professionals; however, some of the information containedherein may be relevant.1-5 APPLICABILITY OF THE GrUIDELINESNotwithstanding the purpose and scope. of these Guidelines, a Qualified Professional'sdecision not to follow one or more aspects of these Guidelines does not necessarilymean that heishe fails to meet histher professional obligations. Such judgments anddecisions depend upon weighing facts and circumstances to determine whether anotherreasonable and prudent Qualified Professional, in a similar situation, would haveconducted himself/herselfAlthough the Client is often .a Land Owner or Development Consultant, landslideassessments for residentia,' development are usually carrie.d, out at the request al thelocal government or the provincial government Following these Guidelines, how.ever,does not ensure that the conclusions and recommendations contained within theland:3de assessment report will be accepted by A:pprovingThese Guidelines are influenced by current provincial legisiation. provincial case law,advances in knowledge, and evolution of general professional practices in BC. As such,they may require updating from: time to time_Landslide assessments for residential development may have to address otheroeotechnical engineering-related issues and/or forestry issues. For these issues. referto "Guidelines for Geote.chnica Endi:neenna Services for Building Project (APEGBC.1998) and 'Guidelines for Terrain Stab dit,:Assessments in the Forest Sector' (APEGBC2003).Flood plains as nelai.ed to lancisi:des..An Approving 'Lifter. BEIg.diTIC: MalVd017, and Planners and Councils of a local government arecollectively referreC to as an Approving Autnarity..ataide,!rtas isr Legislated Landslide Assessments 8 •AREGE•C •March 251VFteitased September ZLIDE for nen n BritiV1 GonienbiaPAGE 23 OF 73

541.6 ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThe 2006 Guidelines. were prepared on behalf of APEGBC - by a Committee of QualifiedPrdfessionals and were reviewed by several diverse parties and stakeholders asmembers of an APEGBC internal Review Task Force and an External Review Group.The authors and reviewers are listed in Appendix 1. The authors thank the reviewers fortheir constructive suggestions. A review of this document does not necessarily indicatethe reviewer andlor his employer endorses everything in the document Any errors arethe responsibility of the authors.APEGBC thanks the 3C Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, ProvincialEmergency Program Natural Hazards Mitigation Fund, which funded the preparation ofthe 2006 Guidelines; and the BC Ministry of Forests and Range, which facilitated the the2006 Guidelines.The 2008 revisions were carried out by the TFSSS and reviewed by a number ofAPEGBC iiiiemb•rs. Members of. the TFSSS and the reviewers are listed in Appendix 1.The members of the TFSSS thank the reviewers for their constructive suggestions. Areview of this document does not necessarily indicate the reviewer and/or his employerendorses everything in the document Any errors are the responsibility of the TFSSS.APEGBC also thanks the Ministry of Forests and Range. Minister Responsible forRousing for funding the work of the TFSSS.SwrisPnaz,fc Lecisiazee. Lancids A ment, 9APEGE:: *March 2C2E(Rscse: Sepaembs- 2002 fcr PrzcssE,d'Resigent4'1:,sli,22pMElli BriiichPAGE 24 OF 73

552. PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES2.1 COMMON FORMS OF PROJECT ORGANIZATIONLandslide :assessments for subdivision approvals, development permits, buildingpermits, and flood piain bylaw variances or exemptions are typically initiated by the localgovernment or the provincial government requesting the Land Owner or DevelopmentConsultant to retain a Qualified Professional to carry out a landslide assessment andprepare a report. The Land Owner or Development Consultant then forwards that report .to the requesting government body, usually an Approving Autnanty for review and eitheracceptance or rejection of the conclusions and recommendations contained in thereport, On occasion, the local government or the provincial government will directlyretain a Qualified Professional..Therefore, tipically the Land Owner or Development Consultant is the Client, and theQualified Professional establishes an agreement for professional services with thatparty. The Qualified Professional should be aware, however, that his/her report willultimately be revie,.wed by an Approving Author*The Client should be aware that the findings cif the Qualified Professional could possibly .result in the residential development re.guring modification, the Approving Authorityrequiring covenants or the residential development being turned d.own, in this regard, itis useful if the landslide assessment is carne out early in the residential developmentplanning process,The Qualified Professional should ensure that his/her role, in relation to the Client andthe Approving Authority, is clearly defined, It is possible that a Client may not have beenpreviously 'involved in residential development, nor previously engaged a QualifiedProfessional. in such situations the Qualified Professional should consider reviewingwith the Client the typical responsibilities listed below, to assist in establishing anappropriate agreement for professional services and to inform the Client of theexpectation of appropriate and adequate compensation (APEGBC Code of EthicsPrinciple 5).2.2 RESPONSIBILITIESSections 221 to 223 describe some of the typical responsibilities of a Client, QualifiedProfessional and Approving Authority. Section 22.4 describes some of the typicalresponsibilities of a Qualified Professional when asked by an Approving Authorily orClient to review a .landslide assessment report prepared by another QualifiedProfessional.2.2.1 The ClientThe Client is typically the Land Owner or the Developmen,, Consultant, or occasionallythe local government or the provinci governmentPrior to a landslide assessment it is helpful and will likely reduce the cost of professionalservices if the Client is knowledgeable about, and can provide the Qualified Professionalwith„ the following:CiardafinesIc Ls.gisiated Lendside Assessment 10APE.-&6C .1'4h Be- ::_;eparnber 20E18 far Fnacased: Resicenzia1Devebpmentlil Bir CoitImbaPAGE 25 OF 73

56• process and procedures of subdivision approvals, development permits, buildingpermits, and flood plain bylaw variance or exemption, as applicable'• legal: description of the property, as registered with Land Titles and SurveyAuthority, and. a copy of the current land registration including covenants• for subdivision, a copy of the existing survey plan of the 'property, or the need fora survey plan, and the location of the legal property boundary markers on theground (this may require a British Columbia Land Surveyor CBCLS)ij• for subdivision, proposed subdivision plan t'• for construction, plans of existing buildings or structures, and location of theproposed construction on the ground• for construction, proposed CarlSirli CtiarT drawings• locations of existing, proposed and anticipated elements at risk on and, ifrequired, beyond the property• in general terms, proposed and anticipated land use changes (for examplelogging) on. and, if required, beyond the property• information on past or existing landslide problems, or potentially unstable slopes• recognition that the landslide assessment is based on the proposed residentialdevelopment and changes to that development may require changes to, orinvalidate, the landslide assessment• relevant background information (written or otherwise.) related to the property andthe existing and proposed residential development, including previous landslideassessment reports conducted for the Client or available to the Client, and• the Qualified Professional should have unrestricted access to and, if required,beyond the property.With assistance from the Qualified Professional, the. Client should complete anagreement with the Quaffed Professional confirming scope, schedule andcompensation for the landslide assessment: need and scope of specialty services: andneed for external peer review_ it is recommended that such an agreement include acause that deals With potential disclosure issues due to the Qualified Professional'sobiication under APEGBC Code of Ethics Principle 1 (hold paramount the safety, healthand welfare of the public, the protection of the environment, and promote health andsafety in the worlipiace). in certain circumstances the Qualified Pmfessional may haveto convey adverse landslide risk assessment findings to parties who may not be directlyinvolved, but who have a compeliing need to know. Following is suggested warding forsuch a ciause:'Subject to the following, the Qualified Professional Wit, keep confidential allinformation, including documents, correspondence, reports and opinions, unlessdisclosure is authorized in writing by the Client, However, in keeping withA3EGEC's :Code: of Ethics, if the Qualified Professional discovers or determinesthat there is a material risk to the environment or the safety, health and welfareof the public or worken safety. heishe shall notify the Client as soon aspracticable of trtis information and the need that it be disclosed to theappropriate parties. If the Con: does not take the necessary steps to notify theappropriate parties in e rea,onable amount of time, the Qualified ProfessionalIn this reoa7a. OuaiVfeci PrO7'essir.ma should consider becinning an assignment only after the Clienthas applied tit, an: recelvec a resoonse from. the approving jurisdiction forth. proposed resider-1gal,development.Subdivision and. construction pia.nhino are meratve processes and therefore proposed plans may notbe procup.ed until 're results of me land:ski& assessment are known.tklitieknes -for Leaistated Lencisibe Assessment: 11APEGEZ; *March :213e5Reiret.' Sepmmber 200'6 far FrsposedRestnential Deve0spinen.i aitisn CbiumbiaPAGE 26 OF 72

57shall have the right to disclose that information in order to fulfil his/her ethicalduties and the Client hereby agrees to that disclosure:The Client should be aware the Qualified Professional's cost estimate may have to beamended during the assessment, depending on the Qualified Professional's findings andanalysis. The Client should also be aware that a landslide assessment does notguarantee the results will be favourable for the proposed residential . development. Thecost estimate and likely results should be discussed with the Client prior to theassignmentDuring the landslide assessment it is helpfu: if the Client• shows the Qualified Professional the locations of lege property boundarymarkers on the ground and location of the proposed residential development• allows the Qualified Professional unrestricted access to the property, and• obtains access, if required, to areas beyond the property.After the landslide assessment it is helpful if the Client• reviews the landslide assessment report, and understands the limitations andqualifications that apply• nenessaly discusses the report with the Qualified Professional and seeksclarification• if desired, directs the Qualified Professional to complete a Landslide AssessmentAssurance Statement, and provides the Statement and the landslide assessmentreport to the .Approinno Authority• allows the Qualified Professional to confirm that his/her recommendations havebeen followed so that Letters of Assurance (Scheduies A, B-1, B-2. C-A and C-B)under the current edition of the BC Building Code or other applicable codes canbe prepared, and• notifies the Qualified Professional if land use, site development or slopeconditions change or vary from those described in the reportThe Landslide Assessment Assurance Statement and the landslide assessment reportare the property of the Qualified Professional unti; outstanding invoices of the QualifiedProfessional are -fully paid by the Client..2.2.2 The Qualified ProfessionalThe Qualified Professional is responsible for carrying out the landslide assessment and,if requned. making recommendations to reduce the likelihood of landslides and/oroanseqnences.Prior to carrying out a landslide assessment the Qualified Professional should:• be knowledgeable about application and approval processes: procedures ofsubdivision approval, development permit, building permit and flood plain bylawvariance and exemption; and applicable legislation• confirm teat nalshe has appropriate training and experience to carry out alandslide assessment associated with the complexity of associated terrain andoeolooy and, if not, involve required specialistGocidine5 le! Lsais4ted Landsikie Assessment7 12APEGBC March 25:SYRee'sed Septembe° 2352 for Prop:se6 Fi-sz i.-7enz;a!Levelopment Bratisn Gourn&a.PAGE 27 OF 73

58• if they exist, obtain a copy of the approving jurisdiction's guidelines for carryingout landslide assessments and/or for preparing landslide assessment reports,and• if one exists:, obtain the adopted level of landslide safely, or other landslideassessment approNoal criteria, for the proposed residential development in theapproving jurisdiction.The Qualified :Professional and Client should complete an agreement confirming scope,schedule and compensation for the landslide assessment; need for and scope ofspecialty services; and anticipated need for an external peer review. The QualifiedProfessional should comply with the requirements of A.P.EGBC Bylaw 17 regardingprofessional liability insurance_During the landslide assessment the Qualified :Professional should:• if necessary, assist the Client in obtaining relevant information such as listed inSection 2.2.1• make reasonable attempts to obtain from the Client and others all relevantinformation related to the slope stability of and, if required, beyond the property• prior to field work, review collected information• conduct field work within the limits of and, if necessary, beyond the property at anintensity appropriate to the method of landslide assessment and to meet therequirements of existing jurisdictional guidelines• conduct the landslide assessment in compliance with applicable jurisdictionalcodes and regulations• consider both landslides and their consequences on the residential development,arid the consequences of the residential development on landslides on and ifrequired, beyond the property• notify the Client as soon as reasonably possible if specialty services or changesin scope of work are required, and of associated changes to the original costestimate• write the report oleany, concisely and completely and ,conform, where applicable,.to jurisdictional guidelines for landslide assessment reports• have a draft of the report appropriately peer reviewed• submr: to the Client a signed,. sealed and dated copy of the report, and• if directed by the Cient, complete a Landslide Assessment AssuranceSraternett and provide the StatcnTrant and the landslide assessment report to theApproolng Autivonri.After the landslide assessment the Qualified Professional should:• clarify :questions the Client andior Approving Authority may have with regards tothe landslide :asse,:ssment. report; andior Landslide Assessment Assurance& sterner. and• cam out follow up work if requested by, and by agreement with, the Client.if aspects of the landslide assessment are deleciated, they should only be carried outunder ,direct supervision of the Qualified - :Professional_ The Qualified Professionalassumes full responsibility for all work delegated (refer to Section 5.2).Guitleikles far Lectsisred Landstids Alaae5513pents:A •.:7G6C; ..ehtarch 2i1.7 -5;F:strse 'EepternbeT 2:102 Prpposed Residett;af frevezpraent Beirsb Coktrnbia .PAGE 28 OF 73

59According to APEGBC Code of Ethics Principle 8, a Member should dearly indicate tohis/her Client possible consequences if recommendations are disregarded.To fulfill APEGBC Code of Ethics Principle 1 (hold paramount the safety, health andwelfare of the public, the protection of the environment, and promote health and safety inthe workplace.) and Principle 9 (report to APEGBC or another appropriate agency anyhazardous, illegal or unethical professional decisions or practices by a ProfessionalEngineer, Professional Geosoientist or others if a Client fails or refuses to accept theconclusions and recommendations o the report), the Qualified . Professional should:• advise the. Client in witting of the potential consequences of the Client's actionsor inactions, and• consider whether the situation warrants notifying APEGBC. the Land Owner (ifdifferent from the Client) and/or appropriate authorities.The above actions should be taken .particularly if loss of life andlor other significantnegative consequences are a possibility, or if workplace safety or the environment ispotentially jeopardized..2.2.3 The Approving AuthorityEven though most landslide assessments are carried out for a Land Owner orDevelopment Consultant. the local government or the provincial government typicallyinitiates the requirement for an assessment and is the Approving Author*. Aspreviously noted, an Approving .Authorizy can be an Approving Officer, Buddinginspector, or Planner an dior Council of a local government.Before the landslide assessment is initiated it is helpful if the Approving .Authority.-• informs the Client why a landslide assessment is required• informs the Client, if applicable, of the adopted /eve ./ of landslide safety forresidential develoornerit in the approving jurisdiction, and• provides the Client wAh guidelines, if they exist, for carrying out a landslideassessment andior preparing a landslide assessment report.After the landslide assessment it is helpful if the Approving Authority:• reviews the Landslide Assessment Assurance Statement and the landslideassessment report. and• if rptessary. discusses the Statement and report with the Qualified Professionaland seeks clarification.The Approving Authority may be guided by the Municipal insurance Association ofBritish Columbia's document 'Guidelines for Planners, Approving Officers and BuildingInspectors for Laridslide-Prone Areas in British Columbia (Skermer 20(12).2.2.4 Reviews of LndsIide Azzeszrnent ReportsA Qualified Professional may be engaged by ar. Approving Authority to carry out anindependent external peer review of a iandsiide assessment report and LandsiideAssessment Awarence Statement prepared by another Quaiified Professional. Lessfreduerrtly, a .Client may ask for such a review. This bipe of review is not the same as aninternal or external peer review carried out at the request of the Qualified Professional,Ciuidebres for Le.pisiated Landsik4 Aszessmentz 14APESBC March 2CadRsvaed Seplember 2 ,30Efor Proaosso" Rev.-Den:4! Dere.oprilent .01 EntiSi? COIL.Friti"ZPAGE 29 OF 73

60prior to submitting the report to his/her Client and/or the Approving Authority (refer toSection .5.3).in order for the reviewing Qualified Professional to carry out an appropriate review, it isheipful if the requesting Approving Authority or Client• is aware of the APEGBC Code of Ethics Principle 7: specifically, guideline (c).which states that a Member should not except in cases where review is usualand anticipated, evaluate the work of a fellow Member without the knowledge of,and after communication with, that Member where practicable• provides the reviewing Qualified Professional with a copy of the landslideassessment report and Landslide Assessment Assurance Statement, necessary,background information, and the reason for the review• reviews the review letter or report, and• if necessary, discusses the review letter or report with the reviewing QualifiedProfessional and seeks clarification.The reviewing Qualified Professional should consider whether there may be a conflict ofinterest and act accordingly (APEGBC Code of Ethics Principle .4), and conducthirriselffnerself with fairness, courtesy and good faith towards colleagues and providehonest and fair comment (APEGBC Code of Ethics Principle 7).Following guideline (c) of APEGBC Code of Ethics Principle 7, the reviewing QualifiedProfessional should:• if authorized to do so,. inform the Qualified Professional who prepared thelandslide assessment report and Landslide Assessment Assurance Statement ofthe review, and the reasons for the review, and document in writing that theQualified Professional was so infomied• ask the Qualified Professional who prepared: the report if the reviewing QualifiedProfessional should know about unreported circumstances that may have limitedor qualified the landslide assessment, the Statement andior the report., and• with the Client's authorization, contact the Qualified Professional who preparedthe report and Statement if the results of the review identify safety orenvironments' concerns, in order to allow the opportunity for the QualifiedProfessional to comment prior to further action.The review should be appropriately documented in a letter or a report The reviewingQualified Professional should submit a signed, sealed and dated review letter or reportincluding:• limitations and qualifications with regards to the review, and• results and/or recommendatons arising from the review.The reviewing Qualified Professional should clarify any questions the ApprovingAuthority or C:iiien't may have with regards to the review letter or report.guidelines for 1.s.gisisted Lendsitds Awsessrreentr,,AP::GE-ID •March 201,6iRErSet Sepernber 23:38for Pxwosecf Resscerz -ial Detstornent B.reish CottrnbiaPAGE 30 OF 73

61Occasionally, a Qualified Professional is retained to provide a second opinion. This rolegoes beyond that of reviewing the work of the original. Qualified Professional.. Thesecond Qualified Professional should can- out sufficient pre-field work, field work,analysis and comparisons, as required, to accept full responsibiiity for hisiner laildstideassessment.litedettnes jtr Legisiated LenssiideAssesAPEMS•tit h S prennbet20O2 ft'- seed Rssinentia! Deveisproent Eedzia Columbia6PAGE 31 OF 73

62GUIDELINES FOR PROFESSIONAL PRACTICEAs noted in Section 1, a landslide assessment is a combination of (1) landslide analysis(recognition, characterization and estimation of hazard, and may include estimation ofpotential consequences), and (2) a comparison of the results of the analysis with a levelof landslide safety (CSA 1997).A landslide analysis can either be a landslide hazard analysis or landslide risk analysis.The CSA (1997) defines a hazard as 'a source of potential harm. or a situation with apotential for causing harm, in terms of human injury; damage to health, property, theenvironment, and other things of value; or some combination. Of these:" Landslide riskconsiders both landslide hazard and potential consequences to elements at risktelementsof social, environmental, and economic value, including human well-being andProPelt11)1° -A landslide assessment compares the result of a landslide analysis with a level oflandslide safe' to determine if the residential development will be 'safe' from the effectsof landslides. As noted in Appendix C, no province-wide defined level of landslide safetyhas been adopted. Only a few local governments in the province have adopted definedlevels d'iandslide safety'.The following sections provide guidelines for carrying out landslide analyses and, wherea defined tete& of landslide safety . has been adopted, for carrying out landslideassessments. Where a defined level of landslide safety has not been adopted, guidanceis provided to assist the Qualified Professional in fulfilling the requirements of theprovincial legislation.Appendix 0 to these Guidelines is a Landslide Assessment Assurance Statement thatmust be completed, signed, sealed and dated; and submitted by the QualifiedProfessional, along with the J'andslide assessment report, to the Approving Authority3.1 iNITIATION3.1.1 Phases of a :Land:Ude AssessmentA landslide assessment typicahy involves the following phases:• initiation: determination of objectives, tyce of landslide as Assn:writ level ofeffort, study area• collection and review of background information• landslide hazard or landslide risk anal,„isis• comparison of the results of the landslide analysis with a level of landslide safety• if requested, recommendations to reduce landslide hazards andior landsliderisks, and• reporting.These Guidelines follow the steps in the Canadian Standards Association's riskmanagement process from initiation to risk control, but exclude the action/monitoringphase (CSA 1997Other den:: CnS of hazard and risk exist. The choice of definitions rests Atti the Qua fliedProfessiona' ::a .:;though the definitions should be included in the iandsi'ide assessment reoct.Gobebnes ler Legislated Landsiitte A.ssessment: 17AFCGBc March 20S51Reused September 2S32 for Prepvt,eb Resiberette Development' M British Gb4brisbiePAGE 32 OF 73

63The following sub-sections provide professional practice guidelines for the abovephases. The information in this section can assist in defining the scope of the landslideassessment. however, it is not intended to be exhaustive, and professional judgment isrequired when adding to or subtracting from specific phases.3.1.2 ObjectivesThe objectives of a landslide assessment are often defined by legislated requirementsfor either subdivision approval, development permit, building permit, or flood plain bylawvariance or exempton..The Qualified Professional should be aware of applicable legislated requirements.He/She should also be aware of the level of iandslide safety that has been adopted bythe approving jurisdiction, and jurisdictional guidellnes for carrying out landslideassessments and/or preparing the iandslide assessment report.3.1.3 Type of Landslide AssessmentThe objectives of .a landslide assessment for residential development will determinewhether a landslide hazard or andslicie risk assessment is appropnate.A landslide hazard assessment• recognizes and characterizes landslides (active, inactive., dormant and potential)within and if required, beyond the residential development• estimates associated landslide, ,hazards, and• compares estimated hazards with a level of landslide safety adopted by theapproving jurisdiction.A landslide risk assessment, in addition to a landslide hazard analysis: •• identifies existing and, where anticipated, future elements at risk• estimates potential consequences to those elements at risk, and• compares estimated risks with a level of landslide safety adopted by theapproving jurisdiction..3.1 A Level of EffortThe appropriate level of effort of a landslide assessment is a function of the objectivesand type of as sessment along with size of the study area; stability and geological andgeotechMcal, c:mplexity of the terrain; type of residential development: elements at risk,:and availab . q LJ ality and reliability of background information and field data.Overview i'E.,.fide assessment,z are tpi;:,..3vy rap-based using available provincialtopographic maps at 1:20.00C or larder more detailed) scales, or larger scaletopographic maps prepared specifically for the project (e.g. 1:5000 to 110,000 scale).Overview andalide assessments usually require at least a reconnaissance intensity offield work, but depending on the purpose and mapping scaie they may require a greaterintensity of field work. They delineate zones of landslide hazard andlor landslide riskwhere further field work is required or, with a greater leve; of effort, they can delineatepotential landslides and potential hazards anthor risks_ Results can then be comparedwith an adopted level of landslide safety.Suicir-A..ines ler Lecisisted Azseszurent 18APSSEC •March SeptembsT ZOOS fo.r Prams.eci- Rezi6enta!Deyet.,pmentBft COIUMb4PAGE 33 OF 73

64Detailed landslide assessments are typically field work intensive. The study area istypically ground traversed at a detailed intensity level, areas: prone to landslides aredelineated and characterized, and estimates of hazard or risk are made_ Some detailedlandslide assessments may require one or more speciatty services as described inSection 3, Accompanying maps or plans are typically larger (more: detailed) than1:5,0110 scale. The results can then be compared with an adopted level of landslidesafety.it is sometimes useful to use a phased approach of ;Elr,c's ,'de assessment trending fromoverview to more detailed.3.1.5 Study AreaLandslide assessments for residential development are either carried out for a parcel ofland in the case of:subdivision: approvals: or flood plain bylaw , variance or exemption) orfor a specific site (in the case of development permits or building permits). The studyarea should be determined by the size of the parcel of land or the size of a specific site,as well as the stability: and geological and geotechnical complexity, of the terraininvolved, and the type of existing and residential development The study area shouldnot necessarily be Limited to the property or to the specific site, but may include otherproperties or sites that could potentially affect, or be affected by, slopeSome types of landslides can travel lone distances. if it is possible that landslides fromremote sources such as upper watershed areas, glacial lakes, dammed lakes andvolcanoes could affect the residential development, the study area should also includesuch areas where appropriate.3.2 BACKGROUND INFORMATIONPrior to field work, the Qualified Professional should collect, possibly: with the help of theaent, available existing information associated with the study area. The QualifiedProfessional should consider the following, and their respective levels of reliability, aspossible sources of existing information:• large and small scale topographic and cadastral reaps• maps that snow existing proposed infrastructure such as transportationroutes, utilities. surface -drainage, in-ground disposal of storm water, and inarounddisposal of waste water andfor sewage• airphotos of different years (historical to present) and scales• terrain maps, terrain stability maps, landslide inventories, landslide hazard mapsand reports• bedrock and surfl6al: geology• seismic data including: seismic hazard maps and reports: ground motion data,seismic Site Class, and modal magnitude values of the design earthquake• water well records and hydrocieology: reports• in areas of logging: forest cover maps, forest developmentstewardship plans,watershed assessments, terrain stability' assessments, past and proposed forestroad construction and logging, and other relevant iogging-reiated information• flood plain mapping and alluvial fan mapping• evidence and history of wiidfires in the area• other resource inventory maps and reports,• previous development, including residential and non-residential, and associatedinfrastructure, andAPZ-...5B::: *Ma:1:h 2CEIRsvted Sepzernbc• 20 DE! foravideOles faf Legisieed Landsids As.seszanentie4 Resioenrial Levelopmerr: in Briboh ColumbiaPAGE 34 OF 73

65• previous geological, geotechnical and landslide assessment reports that addressthe study area and, if available, neighbouring areas.Landslide: assessment reports from neighbouring areas can be useful to the :QuaffedPmfessional and, in this regard, the brat and provincial governments are encouracied tomake such reports available to the Quaffed Professional.Information can also be obtained from published and non-published sources fromvarious federal and provincial aoencies, local governments and other local sources.For landslide assessments of larger areas, purchasing or obtaining project-specificinformation, in addition to existing background information, may be useful. Examplesare airphotos, high-resolution satellite imagery, and LiDAR (Light Detection andRanging) images that can: be used for geological and geomorphoiogical mapping andiortopographical mapping..Background information should be reviewed prior to undertaking subsequent phases,and the Qualified Professional snould consider the reliability of such information. Ifinformation is known to be available and the Qualified Profession-al did not for was notable to) obtain it, the circurnstan:ces should be reported,3.3 FIELD WORKLandslide assessments rely to a large extent on field work Field work is often precededby office-based interpretation of airphotos and possibly other imagery and mapping thatcan be used to identify', verify and chara:cteriie terrain conditions, landslides andpotentially unstable SlOp.E'S, and elements at riskThe intensity of field work depends on the objectives, type fandn,licie assessment andlevel of effort along with the size of the study area: stabinty and geological andgeotechnical complexity of the terrain: type of residential develtionient elements at riskand availability, quality and reliability of background information,Depending on the above, intensity of field work can range from:• reconnaissance or overview site visit, to detailed examination of the entire studyarea, to detailed measurements of profiles and cross sections and other surveys• reconnaissance fly-avers to detailed and systematic foot traverses, and• surface observations to subsurface investigations and specific tasks such asdencirochronological studies andior laboratory , analyses of soil or rock samples.The Qualified Professiona' must exercise professional judgment when determining theintensity of field work and which specific areas to visit in the field, Field work shouidconsider different types of landslides and potentia4y unstable slopes within and, ifrequired, beyond the residentief developme,nt. Rugged or difficult-to-access terrainshould not deter required field work in areas witn questionable: siope stability. As part ofdetermining supporting rationale, field work should review areas of past instability andshould assess the possible causes of suchComplex geological conditions can have a profound effect on the slope stability of a:residential development, and frecuently such geological complexity is hidden. TheQualified Professional should recognize the potential for slope instability. SuchAPESEC •March 2COWR ed Semmes, caviefeknes, r egisiered Lancisiide Assessments 20rfor Fn i.e. Resident4Irievebpreent Efitise Cajun-464PAGE 35 OF 73

66recognition can be initially based on local experience and review of backgroundairphotos, but typically also requires experienced, quality field work. Seismic slopeanalyses require comparatively detailed knowledge of subsurface bedrock, soil andgroundwater conditions.The Qualified Professional should appropriately record field observations and results offield investigations. Ground photographs, stereo ground photographs, videos andiorGPS landmarks should be considered as means of documentation.if there are specific areas or sites of importance, or if a building envelope or covenantboundary is to be recommended., temporary survey markers should be located andappropriately labelled during the field work. The Qualified Professional should considerrecording these areas or sites by means of photographs (with temporary survey markersin place) or GPS landmarks_Landslide assessments depend to a large extent on observation and evaluation ofunderlying geological conditions by experienced Qualified Professionals. The delegationof field work to a less experienced engineer, geoscientist, technologist or technician,under the supervision of a Qualified Professional, should be done judiciously (refer toSection 5.2).3.4 LANDSLIDE HAZARD AND LANDSLIDE RISK ANALYSES3.4.1 Methods of Landslide AnalysisThe first step in a landslide analysis is to recognize and characterize the landslide.{active, inactive, dormant and potential), within and, if required, beyond the residentialdevelopment. The next step is to analyze, dither quantitatively or qualitively, thehazard and, for a risk analysis, the potential consequences to elements at risk.Landslide nazarri can be estimated in a number of ways that include, but are not limitedto, estimating:• likelihood or probability of occurrence of a landslide,• factor of safety of a slope, or• slope displacement along a slip surface.The results of the above estimate, must then be combined with an estimate of landsliderunout (for residentia dem.opraent at the bottom of the slope l or an estimate of wherethe main scarp of the landslide will intersect the ground (for residential development on,or at the top of, the slope).Common methods of estimating landslide risk include, but are not limited to, riskmatrices, event tree decomposition and cuantitative risk analysis (ORA), including the.use of F-li (frequency-number of fatality) pots.The choice of which analytical method to use depends on a number of factors includingwhether the parcel of land or specific site of interest is upslope, downsiope or on theslope being analyzed; configuration of the slope; and most likely type of landslide. Thechoice also depends on the level of hazard and eiements at risk. in seismicaliy activeareas, seismic slope analyses should be considered as part of the landslide analys(refer to Section 4). The selected analytical method must provide results that aretechnically defensible, and can be compared with any adopted level of iandsiide safety.fv. Legislated Lendskde AssessmentsAPE55L • March 2C ev' ed Sep:ember 2108 for Frapozed Re.sigenda) LisveP2pmentBriCsiumix'aPAGE 36 OF 73

67The Qualified Professional should also consider jurisdictional guidelines for carrying outa landslide analysis, if they existThe landslide analysis should clearly state assumptions made, including a description ofthe proposed residential deveiopment. The analysis should also provide a cleardescription of the magnitude and intensity of the landslides that are envisioned, includingparameters such as velocity and flow depth that are useful to describe thedestructiveness of the landslide at: various locations along the slide, fall or flow path.Generally, any landslide analysis method requires a good deal of professional judgment,and assumptions should be carefully considered and clearly stated in the landslideassessment report..3.4.2 Quantitative vs QualitativeLandslide hazard and landslide risk anaiyses can be carried out and the results can beexpressed, either quantitatively or qualitatively_ Quantitative estimates use numericalvalues or ranges of values, while qualitative estimates use relative terms such as high,moderate and low. Both quantitative and qualitative estimates can be based on eitherobjective (statistical or mathematical) estimates or subjective (professional judgmental orassumptive) estimates, or some combination of both.No standard definitions exist for relative qualitative terms. Therefore, to avoid ambiguity,such terms must be defined with reference to quantitative values or ranges of values.Quantitative estimates may be no more accurate than qualitative estimates. Theaccuracy of an estimate does not depend on the use of numbers. Rather. it depends onwhether the components of landslide hazard and landslide risk analyses have beenappropitately considered: and on the availability, quality and reliability of required dataSection 4 addresses quantitative seismic slope analysis.The decision whether to carry out and report the results of a landslide analysisquantitatively or qualitatively also depends on how the adopted level of landslide safetyis expressed, and/or the requirements of the Approving Authority.3.4.3. Consideration of Changed Condition:Landslide analysis requires consideration of changes to existing conditions. including:• changes to siope geometry from either natural geomorphic processes or humanactivities• changes to groundwater andior surface flow patterns from either natural changesin precipitation trends and runoff patterns, or human activities and urbandevelopment• changes in land use andior changes. resulting from resource development• natural processes such as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, and• wildfires and insect: infestations on treed slopes.3.5 LANDSLIDE ASSESSMENTTo complete: a. landslide assessment, the Qualified Professional must compare theresults of the landslide analysis with a level of landslide safety. ideally, the level ofSuideines te7Leaistated Landthde Assezzraerri7 22_APESSC sktarch 2005;Reinset aeplernbsr 2ZDE in,Prapssd Rearbeneall5elec-Aurnent Bntiva GmumbiaPAGE 37 OF 73

68safety used for comparison should be a defined level of landslide safety that has beenadopted by the approving jurisdiction.As noted in Appendix C, the. statements that the land may be used safely for the useintended" and 'that development may safely occur' used in provincial legislation andassociated guidelines are not considered defined. Only a few local governments in theprovince have adopted a defined level of landslide safer}.in addition, although words such as 'certify' and "duarantee are used in everydaylanguage, they have specific legal meanings and Qualified - Professional's should avoidthe Use of such words. APEGBC considers that when a Qualified Professional signs..seals and dates a document he/she is certifying that document, although it is recognizedthat this view is not held by all Approving Authorities.When preparing landslide assessment reports for jurisdictions that have adopted adefined level of landslide safety. the Qualified Professional should refer to that level, andfollow jurisdictional guidelines for carrying out a landslide assessment. For example, ifan approving jurisdiction has adopted a level of landslide safety of 10% probability in 50years of a landslide affecting a proposed building, the Qualified Professional could uselanguage such as:"[I, we or the name of the firm] estimate the likelihood of a Ian slide occurring anderecting the proposed building site is low, which is defined as having a probability ofless than 10% in 50 , years_ The [approving jurisdiction] has adopted a 10%probability in 50 years of a landslide affecting a building as its level of landslidesafety. Therefore, as required by the [refer to Act and section], it is [my, our or thename of the firm's] professional opinion that the land may be used safely for the useintended.'A statement such as that above should refer to the assurriptions used in iandslydesanalysis (refer to Section 3.4.1).If the Qualified Professional cannot make a statement in support of the proposedresidential development, heiShe should state the reason for being unable to make sucha statementWhen preparing landslide assessment reports for approving jurisdictions that have notadopted defined levels of landslide safety - the Qualified Prafessional should follow theappropriate jurisdictional -guidelines for carrying out a landslide assessment, butwhenever possible he/she should avoid use of statements such as "certify that the landmay be used safeiy for the use intended' or 'that development may safely occur.'Although APEGBC does not agree with using undefined sta tements such as 'that theland may be used safely for the use intended' and that development may safely occur'until there are defined levels of landslide safeiv and where the Approving Authorityrequires such a statement, the Qualified Professions! should define or qualify the term'safe' in relation to:• method of landslide hazard orlands/lde nsi: analysis used▪ appropriate regional, provincial and/or national guidelines, anda specific provincial legislation (Act and section) for which the landslideassessment report is being, prepared.AP'EGBC •March 2C-05iRerset Septaguidefine4 Legis47ed Lancisiite Azseasfor Prop=s Reziaant'a!Deve.bprnarrt in British CoaumNaPAGE 38 OF 73

69The Qualified Professional should ask his/her professional liability insurer if there couldbe coverage issues relating to providing such landslide assessments_If the Client directs. the Qualified Professional to submit the landslide assessment reportto an Aoproving Authority, the Qualified Professional must also complete, sign, seal anddate a Landslide Assessment Assurance Statement (Appendix D to these Guidelines)and submit: it along with the landslide assessment report. The Statement is patternedafter BC Building Code Schedules 3-1, B-2 and C.B.3.6 MEASURES TO REDUCE LANDSLIDE HAZARDS AND/OR LANDSLIDERISKSIf unacceptable levels of landslide safety are identified it may be appropriate, andrequired, that the Qualified Professional provide recommendations for measures toreduce landslide hazards andior landslide risks. MeaRures can be 'passive' such ascovenants or relocation of proposed buildings, or 'active' such as stabilization orprotective works. Residual risks, or those that remain should the recommendations beimplemented, should be estimated and clearly explained_Design of stabilization or protective works may be beyond the scope of the landslideassessment, and may be considered a specialty engineering service. ideally,conceptual designs should be submitted to the local . Government for approval in principlebefore time and effort is expende.d on detailed designs. Stabilization or protective worksmust not transfer landslide hazards andior landslide risks TO other properties.Stabization or protective works that are constructed to reduce landslide hazards andlorlandslide risks on multiple properties may require ongoing operation and maintenancethat may have to be approved by the local andior provincial government, possiblyincluding the provincial Inspector of Dikes.. In addition, the local government andiorprovincial government may require permanent access to such works.3.7 REPORTWritten reports are the means by which the Qualified Professional communicates theresults of hisTher landslide assessment to the Client and along with the LandslideAssessment Assurance Sitaie.merit. to the: Aporovind Authority. Report formats will varydepending on the objective_ type of landslide hazard or .iandslide risk analysis, and levelof effort. If they exist, the Qualified Professional . should follow jurisdictional guidelinesfor preparing the landslide assessment report. The Qualified Professional shouldconsider reviewing the format and contents of the landslide assessment report with theClient and the Approving Authority prior to finalizing the report.Typically, a landslide assessment report should include the following:• legal description of the property• location map or description of property relative to well known Geographic features• objectives, method of landslide hazard or landslide risk analysis, and level ofeffort• iist of background information available, collected and reviewed, and itsrelevance'• terrain or physical description of the study area• map or plan of the property including topography, natural features, existingstructures, roads, infrastructure and surface drainageGtgdetmes far Legisialed Landside Assessments 24APEGBC • March 202aiReved Septembe,T 2130a tor Propvsed Resioemial Detc4zpment in 5rtii aolumWaPAGE 39 OF 73

70• description of proposed residential development• methods and intensity of field work• observations of topography, geology, iandslide processes and elements at risk• if appficable, adopted level of landslide safety used for comparison• results of the landslide assessment• conclusions, accompanied by supporting rationale• recommendations, if requested and as required, to reduce the landslide hazardsand/or landslide risks• an estimate of the associated residual risks if the recommendations areimplemented• if required, recommendations for further work and requirements for futureinspections, and by whom• definitions of qualitative terms, technical terms, concepts and variables• other information as specified in the agreement with the Client, or as required injurisdictional guidelines,• references, including maps and airphotos, and,• limitations and qualifications of the assessment and report, assumptions, errorlimits and uncertainties.Reports should be accompanied by drawings, figures, sketches, photographs, test holeor test pit Ions, laboratory test results, other tables and/or other support information asrequired_ Graphic information should be consistent with the information in the text.Maps or plans should delineate the areas of iaridslide hazard and landslide risk inrelation to existing and proposed residentiai development.The report should be clearly written with sufficient detail to allow the Client. AprovingAuthority and others reviewing the report to understand the methods, information usedand supporting rationale for conclusions and recommendations, without necessarilyvisiting the property or site. Landslide assessment reports are frequently included aspart of a covenant on the Title, and should be written accordingly.The Municipal Insurance Association of British Columbia (Skermer 2002). recommendsan independent external peer review of the report it the Aportyaric Authority feels thereport is inadequate_ Most Approving Authorities require the Cher to beer the costs ofsuch independent reviews. In some instances., a field visit by the reviewing QualifiedProfessional may be warranted, and the necessity of such a visit should be at thediscretion of the reviewer_A peer review of the landslide asa-essn -tent report, prior to its. submission to the Clientand Approving Authority, is stronoly encouraged as part of the quality assurance/qualitycontrol program (refer to Section 5)..3..8 LIMITATIONS AND QUALIFICATIONS OF A LANDSLIDE ASSESSMENTThe limitations and qualifications of a landslide assessment depend on the objectives;method of landsilde hazard or landslide risk analysis; level of effort; size of the study .area stability and geological and geotechnicai complexity of the terrain; type ofresidential development- elements at risk; availability, quality and reiiabiiity ofbackground information and field data; intensity of field work; experience and localexperience of the Qualified Professional; and whether or not a defined level of landslidesafety has been adapted by the approving jurisdiction.SaineWlesft.'Lepl'sia:ed Landsiide Assessment 25AP5GB a March 2eCtiRevriec; September 2502 for etCp0Tet Re.onent .;.:' rievetpment Erttiail irePAGE 40 OF 73

71Although field work associated with a landslide assessment can provide reasonablecoverage of the study area, field work may not cover the entire study area or all areaspotentially affected by the residential development. The extent of field work should bedescribed in the report..Many aspects of a landslide assessment are qualitative and subjective based onobserved, inferred and assumed conditions. Only some landslide assessments includesubsurface investigations, sampling, instrumentation, monitoring and laboratory testing.Conclusions and recommendations. are based on the assumption that standard methodsof residental development will be followed. Non-standard development, design andiorconstruction recommendations should be clearly described. Substandard practices ofconstruction may render the conclusions and recommendations invalid.A landslide assessment is prepared to obtain a subdivision approval, a developmentpermit, a building permit or a flood plain bylaw variance or exemption. The assessmentand the associated report is typically one early step in the residential developmentprocess. Usually, more detailed planning and/or engineering design is required tocontinue the development process.A landslide assessment cannot be relied on in perpetuity. Although both the Client andthe :Qualified Professional should attempt to anticipate reasonable changes that couldaffect the results of the landslide assessment, the 'shelf life' of a landslide assessmentreport depends on the occurrence of subsequent landslides, changes in land use, sitedevelopment, Land Owner neglect or the discovery of previously unknown information.Limitations and qualifications, including those associated with background information,assumptions, sources of error and ranges of values, should be described clearly in thereport.3,9 SPECIALTY SERVICESFor some landslide assessments for residential development, specia lty services may berequired. Such services may include:• detailed slope stability analysis• complex slope displacement analysis• piezometer andior slope indicator installation and monitoring• landslide ninout modeling• hydraulic discharge modeling• landslide magnitudeffrequency modeling• investigation of specific landslides• coordlnation of mooning, from several different landslide specialists• investigation for, and design of, slope stabilization works• investigation for, and design of, structural protective works• investigation far, and design of, debris flow control structures, and• subsurface drainage design.Specialty services may be beyond the scope of some landslide assessments, TheClient should not expect such services to be automatically included in a landslideassessment. This should be clear in the agreement between the Otraiffied Professionaland the Client. If, during the course of the landslide assessment, the QualifiedProfessional identifies a need for specialty seivices, he/she should advise the Ciient.Guidennesicr Lsnisiated Lancisike ri,Esessrnent, 26APESEC *March 201tiRrnise2 SeptembsT NOE for Pmposi,d sissitientlarDeveinpment in Brinsh CaintnniaPAGE 41 OF 73

72and either revise the scope of work or recommend another approprtatey QualifiedProfessional to carry out the specialty service or services.A Professional Engineer must take responsibility for specialty services that involveA Qualified Professional may be needed to coordinate landslide assessments wheremultiple hazards exist.G Vitt, g Ames far LegisiVed Lancisfi/P. A SS-S.1-3MM:: 27APEGBC, • March .20:151Ree

734. SEISMIC SLOPE ANALYSISAs discussed in Section 3.1.4, the landslide hazard component of landslide analysis canbe estimated in a number of ways.in seismically active areas of BC, earthquakes can destabilize slopes leading tolandsticies,, can cause liquefaction leading to landslides andior can cause slopedisplacements. Therefore, seismic slope stability analysis, or seismic slope-displacement analysis (collectively referred to as seismic slope analysis) may berequired as part of the landslide analysis.4.1 SEISMIC SLOPE ANALYSIS FLOWCHARTFigure 4.1 is a flowchart to help determine the appropriate method of seismic slopeanalysis. Initially, the .type of potential slope hazard (for example rock fall, debris flow,earth slide, earth slump, or liquefaction) should be identified, then the appropriate flowpath on Figure 4.1 should be followed, in the case of more than one slope ha7ard, ortypes of slope hazards, several different types of seismic slope analyses may beappropriate.Regardless of the method of seismic slope analy,sis, the results should then be used tocomplete the landslide analysis and used in the landslide assessment.4.1.1 Landslide Hazard or Riskif the slope hazard lends itself to a landslide hazard analysis or a landslide risk analysis(for example,. rock fail. rock avalanche or debris fiow) Row Paths 1 or 2 of Figure 4.1should be followed_4.1.2 Liquefaction or Strain SofteningIf the slope hazard is due to liquefaction or strain-softening, Flow Path 3 of Figure 4.1should be followed. Procedures to estimate the potential for, and consequences of,liquefaction are referenced in Appendix G.4.1.3 Factor of Safety and/or Slope Displacements.if liquefaction or strain softening is not considered an issik.‘, the factor of safety andiorthe amount of slope displacement should be estimated. These procedures are shown inFlow Path 4 of Figure 41, and described below.Step 1 is to determine the factor of safety (FS) using a pseudo-static limit equilibriumslope stability analysis with a seismic coefficient (k) equal to the 2% in 50-year peakground acceleration (PGA). if the resulting FS .1 1..0, no further seismic slope analysis isrequired_if :FS < U., and it is a soil slope, then further seismic siope analysis is warranted too toStep 2).Step 2 introduces two methods of seismic slope analysis for soil slopes as described inAppendix E.• Method 1 invoives estimating the median slope clispiacernent along a slip surfacewith parameters that reflect sloe properties and local seismicity (Appendix E.Equation 1). This slope displacement has an annual probability of 114753. AemideOhez far Lersista*d LarraziAssessrnerial 28APESSC •March 2120,Re*sed Sepserriber MOE for Pa! Deirefopfreri CoaramtmPAGE 43 OF 73

74slope displacement along the slip surface of 15 cm or less is consideredacceptable when the sliding surface is between the proposed residential buildingand the face of the slope.• Method 2 is based on pseudo-static limit equilibrium seismic slope stabilityanalysis of soil slopes, similar to current practice. This method uses a slopedisoiacernerit-based seismic coefficient (k, 5 ) given by Appendix E. Equation 4,• that is equivalent to a tolerable slope displacement along the slip surface of 15cm, when the slope is subjected to 2% in 50-year ground motions'.Slope displacements along the slip surface of 15 cm or less, or FS(kis) a 1.0, areconsidered tolerable with respect to life safety", as described in NBCC 2005,Commentary on. Design for Seismic Effects in the User's Guide, StructuralCommentaries,. Part 4 of Division B.'The primary objective of seismic design is to provide an acceptable level of safetyfor building occupants and the general public as the building responds to strongground motion.: in other words, to rninirne loss of life This implies that, althoughthere will likely be extensive structural and non-structural damage, during the DGM(design ground motion), there is a reasonable degree of confidence that the buildingwill not collapse nor will its attachments break off and fall on people near thebuilding. This performance level is termed 'extensive damage' because, althoughthe structure may be heavily damaged and may have lost a substantial amount of itsinitial strength and stiffness, it retains some margin of resistance against collapse*.The tolerable slope displacement of 15 cm is proposed as a guideline, based onexperience with residential wood-frame construction. This guideline is not intended to•preclude a Qualified Professional or an Appmving Autho* from selecting anotherappropriate value. Tne Qualified Professional should strive for a balance between thelocation of the proposed residential building and the associated seismic slope4.1.4 Complex Slope Displacement Analysisin some instances, for slope materials that can liquefy or strain soften (Flow Path 3), orfor some soil slopes (Flow Path 4), complex slope displacement analysis (for example,seismic response or dynamic numerical displacement analyses) may be warranted.Such instances include, but are not limited to, slopes:• that do not meet the above slope displacement (Flow Path .4) or factor of safety(Flow Path 3 or 4) criteria• composed of very soft or sensitive clay or silt soils• where soil-structure interaction analysis may allow slope displacements greaterthan 15 cm. or• where an estimate of landslide runout at the base of the slope is required.Complex slope displacement anaiysis typically requires specialized knowledge.1..4 The use of a pseudo-static limit equilibrium 'analysis with,: a seismic. coefficient that is not calibrated to aslope displacement along the slope surface of 15 cm is r: recommended because there is no atonalbasis for doing so.Guidetnes tcr Legideted Lenefsa/s Asses.smentsAPE SS • March 2C2VRev:seti September 2S:02 Pncpo5ed Fiesieemial Devetpmen: H .■ British Ccioinn&aPAGE 44 OF 73

754.2 REVIEW OF EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED LANDSLIDESAppendix F provides some global examples of, and references to, earthquake-inducedlandslides. The examples and references provide a general understanding of howearthquakes cause, or at 'least trigger, landslides, and provide a range of conditions andcircumstances that can lead to. earthquake-induced landslides,Figure 4.1: Seismic Slope Analysts Flowchart geter to text for details)Guidefirkez for Leptis:red Landsikla Au-enr - 30APE136 .3 .41March 20D.EMEnret.: :Sepzember MICR for Proposed ,Resfoeuria!Davethonrent in Bern ConurthiaPAGE 45 OF 73

76QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROLA Qualified Professional should carry out quality assuranceiqualke control (QA/QC) forall phases of his/her landslide assessments.5.1 APEGBC QUALITY MANAGEMENT BYLAWSAs a minimum, a QA1QC program must satisfy the requirements of APEGBC QualityManagement Bylaws 14(b) (1), (2) and (4) with regards to• retention of complete project files for a minimum of 10 years• in-house checks of designs as standard procedure, and• field reviews to confirm that construction of slope stabilization or structuralprotective works are in general conformance with the recommendations of theQualified Professional.5.2 DIRECT SUPERVISIONThe Engineers and Geoscientists Act (Section 1 (I)) states that direct supervisionmeans taking responsibility for the control and conduct of the engineering or geosciencework of a subordinate. With regards to direct supervision, the Qualified Professionalhaving overall responsibility should consider.• geoloaical and geotechnical complexity of the terrain and level of landslidehazards andior landslide risks• which aspects of the landslide assessment, and how much of those aspects.should. be delecated• training and experience of indMduais to whom work is delegated, and• amount of instruction, supervision and review required_Field work is one of the most critical aspects of a landslide assessment. Therefore,careful consideration must be given to delegating field work. Due to the complexitiesand subtleties of landslide assessments, direct supervision of field work is difficult andcare must be taken to ensure that delegated work meets the standard expected by theQualified Professional. Such direct supervision could typicaliy take the form of specificinstructions on what to cibsente: check, confirm, test., record and report back to theQuaiffied Professional. The Qualified Professional should exercise judgment whenrelying on delegated field observations by conducting a sufficient level of review to besatisfied with the quality and accuracy of those field observations_5.3 INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL PEER REVIEWThe QA/QC program should include, as appropriate, an internal andlor external peerreview of the landslide assessment project and report before it is submitted to the Clientand/or the Approving Authority. An internal, peer review is carried out by anotherQualified Professional usually in the same firm. An external peer review is carried outby a Qualified Professional who is independent and may be a specialistThe level of peer review should be discussed with the Client but based on theprofssional judgment of the Qualified Professional_ Considerations should include thestob.y and geological and geotechnical complexity of the terrain; type of residentialdeveiopment - elements a ts aailabdrt uality and rehabtljt of backgroundinformation and field data; and the Qualified Professional's training and experience..3wdebnez tar LeMsiated Landside Asses.sments 31ito:PEGBC eV:arch 20MTRevsed. Sepember - ZO138 for Procaseo: Re5ioemler.4traboment m Brb ColumbiaPAGE 46 OF 73

77The external peer review process should be more formal than an internal review and itshould be appropriately documented. An external reviewer should submit a signed.sealed and dated letter or report, to be either included with the report or put on file, thatincludes the following:• imitations and qualifications with regards to the review, and• results of the review_For both internal and external peer reviews, the name of the reviewing tialinedProfessional should be identified in the landslide assessment report.When an external, peer review is carried out, the Qualified ,Profe,ssionai who signed thelandslide assessment report remains the Engineer of Record or Geoscientist of Record.The internal or external peer review discussed above is not the same as an independentreview by a Qualified Professional who is retained by an Approving Authafity, orsometimes a Client, to review a landslide assessment report after it has been submitted(refer to Section 2.2.4).APESEC •tljrch .2C15:P.svised Septernter 20132far Leinted Lendaiks. AS5#2-.5.5ments 32Prantn3ed :"4-Zs.zinent'e!fierlis.ln,ornntn British Cniurrin4:PAGE 47 OF 73

78PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION; EDUCATION, TRAININGAND EXPERIENCE6.1 PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONAs summarized in Appendix 5 of these Guidelines, the following are the professionalregistration requirements for legislated landslide assessments for proposed residentialdevelopment in BC:• Land Title Act (Section 86(1)l:6)0) indicates that landslide assess.ments forsubdivision approval should be carried out by a Professional Engineer or:Professional Geoscientist "experience6 in geotecnnical engineering'• Local Government Act (Section 920(11)1 indicates that, for a development permit,the local government may require a report from a Professional Engineer withexperience relevant to the applicable matter"• Community Charter (Section 56(1)) indicates that landslide assessments forconstruction should be carried out by a Professional Engineer or Professional.Geossientist with experience or training in geotechnical study and geohazardassessments"• Local Government Act (Section 910(5)) indicates that, for flood plain bylawexemption, a Professional Engineer or Professional Geoscientist 'experienced ingeotechnical engineenrig' is required• The provincial document associated with the Local Government Act (Section910) (Ministry of Water. Land and Air Protection, c2.004) indicates that a qualifiedprofessional is a Professional Engineer or Professional Geoscientist with"geotechnicai engineering experience and expertise in river engineering andhydrology, and in appropriate cases, .... debris flow „.. processes,"A Professional' Engineer as described above is typically registered with APEGBC in thediscipline of geoicigical engineering, mining engineering or civil engineering.A Professional Geoscientist as described above is typically registered with APEGBC inthe discipline of .geolooy or environmental geoscrience'5_ Aft-hough the Land Title Act andthe Local Government Act refer to a Professional Geoscientist 'experienced ingeotechnical engineering,' by definition, a geoscientist is not experienced in engineering.APEGBC interprets the Land Title Act and the Local Government Act to mean a'Professional ;Geoscientist experienced in geotechnical study,' similar to that expressedin the Community Charter.Not all Professional Engineers registered in the disciplines of geological engineering,mining engineering or civil engineering are necessarily appropriately knowledgeable ingeotechnical engineering geohazard assessme:nts river engineering, hydrology and ordebris flow processes. Similarly, not all Professional Ge.oscientists registered withAPEGBC in the discipiines of geology or environrriental geoscience are necessarilyknowledgeable in geotechnical study, geohazard assessments and debris flows. It is theresponsibility of the Professional Engineer or Professional Geoscientist to determinewhether he/she is qualified by training or experience to undertake and acceptresponsibility for legislated landslide assessments for proposed residential development(APEGBC Code of Ethics Principle 2).Until 200u, APEGBC referred to The discipline of envinanmenrat oeoscience as 'oeote.chnics.'541idefinec Lsgeziazect Land,s Azzessmern 33APSSBC .March 2006!Revaed September 20BE- fore e Drnenn C ColumbaPAGE 48 OF 73

79As noted previously, as the complexity of the terrain increases, site characterization anda sound understanding of the geology and geologicalfgeomorpholooical processesbecomes more critical.With regards to the distinction between professional engineering and professionalgeoscience, following is an excerpt under Principle 2 of the Code of Ethics guidelines(A.PEGBC 1994; amended in 1997):"The professions are distinct and registration in one does not dive a member theright to practice in the other; however, the Association recognizes that there issome ovenap of the practices of engineering and geoscience.Nothing in this principle authorizes a professional -engineer to carry on an activitywithin the area of professional geoscience which goes beyond the practice ofprofessional engineering and nothing in this principle authorizes a professionalgeoscientist to carry on an activity within the area of professional engineeringwhich goes beyond the practice of professional geoscience.'On this basis,. the Qualihed Professional who provides designs such as reinforced ormechanically stabilized slopes, retaining walls and other geotechnical structures toreduce tandshde hazards and/or landslide risks requires registration with APEGBC as aProlesshpnal Engineer. The Qualified Professional who investigates or interprets,complex Geologica[ conditions, geomorphic processes and geochronology in support oflandslide assessments is typically registered witn APEGBC as a ProfessionalGeoscientist in the discipline of geology or environmental geoscience, or as aProfessional Engineer in the discipline of geological engineering.6.2 EDUCATION, TRAINING AND EXPERIENCELandslide assessments, as described in these Guidelines, require minimum levels ofeducation, training and experience in many overlapping areas of engineering andgeoscience. A 'Qualified .Probassional must adhere to APEGBC Code of Ethics Principle2 (to undertake and accept responsibility for professional assignments only whenqualified by training or experience), and therefore must evaluate hisfher qualificationsand possess appropriate education, training and experience- consistent with the servicesprovided.Education, training and experience can vary depending on the Qualified Professionalsbackground and whether specialty services are being provided. Whether carrying out alandslide assessment or providing specialty services, appropriate experience can onlybe gained by working under the direct supervision of a suitably knowledgeable andexeerienced Professichai Engineer or Professional Geoscientisi.Minimum qualificationsr- a Quailed Profe.ssional or a team of professionals who carryout landslide assessments for residential development should include education, trainingand experience in bedrock geology, surficial geology, geomorphology, hydrology andgroundwater geology, airphoto interpretation, soil and rock mechanics, and landslide.hazard and landslide risk anaiyses.As the complexity of the terrain increases, and depending on the location in theprovince, the minimum qualifications should be supplemented by training and5taidebne5 fof LeF:s4ted Lambe kisessment 3APEGBC *March 2006iReNosed September :we frRiDevetprnert 1,13 Brit/56 Golunt4PAGE 49 OF 73

80:experience in additional subject areas as required such as Quaternary neology,structural geology, petrology, sedimentology, permafrost, slope stability analysis (bothstatic and seismic), landslide mitigation and remediation, and site investigation methods.Specialists may have to be retained to provide experience in some of the above subjectareas.The academic training for the above skill sets can be acquired through formal universityor college courses,. or through continuing professional development There may besome .overlap in courses and specific courses may not correlate to specific skill sets.A Qualified Professional should also remain current, through continuing professionaldevelopment, with the evolving topics of landslide assessments and specialized servicesoffered (•efer to APEGBC Code of Ethics Principle 6). Continuing professionaldevelopment can include taking formal courses; attending conferences, workshops,seminars and technical talks; reading new texts and periodica;s: searching the web: andparticipating in field trips.A specialist who offers specialty services require educatron. training and experience inaddition to that discussed above.Guidenes far Legislated Landslide Assessment':APESBC *March 20B5Nievised SepternbeT 2BD8 for Prcdzsen. Xresiaerida? Dervzcvnent in British Goiumbia3EPAGE 50 OF 73

81APPENDIX D: LANDSLIDE ASSESSMENT ASSURANCE':STATEMENTNote: Tht Statement 'is to be read and camp/ate:1 in conjunction with trie 'A.PEGSC Guidelines for Legislated LanosdrieAssessment; for Proposes Residential Deusloom-tot in Bnitish Columbi.*: Ma .CT 26.Fiteifised September MC'S t;'APESBC'au:tante/ and tire 'He? SC Building :cite fBCBC 20B3).. and is to he pdovined dar ;an:AS*4 assess/riots (not fzeds or food=bolsi for the purposes of the Lent This Act, Community Charter or the Local Government Act. italicized words are defined in theAPSGBC Guidelines,To: The ApardiArtg AdMorine Date:lined:jolts and aderessWith reference to Ohecii one):E Land Trtle. Act (Section 86)— Subdivision Apormal• Local Government Act (Sections 919.1 and 920; — Development Permtt• Community Charter (Sectiono Local Government Act I:Sec:ion 910:1— Flood Plain Bylaw Varianceo Local Government Ac: iSe,:iion 910) — Flood Plain Bylaw Exemptionr: Local Government Act (Section 692 — Provincial 'Regulation M268, Septet:MicaSipe Stability (Seismtc) Re:mistier.For the Property:Lege riescricdon and civic mattress of cie PropertyThe undersigned hereby dives assurance that heishe is a Qualified Professional and is a ProfessionalEngineer or .Professional Geoscientsahave signed, sealed, and dated, and thereby certified, the attached landslide assessment report on theProperty in accordance wit- the APEGBC Guidelines. That report must be react in conjunction witi thisStatement, in preparing that report I have:Check so the left ot wiicabie1. Collected and reviewed appropriate background information2. Reviewed trio proposes residential de•iatomen: oh. tie Property• Conducted field work on and, if required. oeyond the Property4. Reported on the results of The telci wail:. on and, it required, beyond the Property5. Considered any changed Pt'onditions on and, if required, beyond the Property6. For a landslide hazard analysis or lariZ,si,'be analysis t have:6.1 reviewed and chara cterized ,1" appropriate, any landslide that. may affect the Property6.2 estimated the landslide hazarde..3 identified existing and anticipated future element -id at .fisk on and, if required, beyond theProperty•.4 estimated the potential consecuerf fes to those elements at risk7. Where the ApproViltri Autnority has adopted a level of landslide safety I have:7.1 compared teve.: of andsilde safety adopted by the Approving Authority with the findings ofmy investciaion72 made a finding on the :eve/ of landslide _safety on the Property 1: -:iased on The. comparison_7.3 made recommendations to reduce landslide hazards andior ianCalide risks.:S. Where tie 4poroong AiltrlOrt• has not adopted a level of iandslide safety :i have:E.1 descrted trF9 methoc of danCstfde hazarci ana!tes:s Cr tands;idei rev aimoysis usedE2 refereed to an appropriate and identified. provincial. national or international guicietine for levelof landslide. safety .P.7. compared this ouldellne with the :findings of my investigationGuidelines for legisiared Lanosiide Asses-m=4d:: 54APIEGEO *March aca5;Re.tsseci :September ZOE for Proposed FessiustanW DevElopment to British &cambiaPAGE 51 OF 73

828..4 made a finding on the level of iandstide safely on the Property based on the cornoanson_8.5 made :recommendations to reduce landslide hazards andior landslide risks9. Reported on the requirements for future inspectbns of the Property and recommended who shouldconduct those inspections.Based on my comparison betweenCheck onethe findings from the investigation and the adopted eve.i . of landslide safety (item 72 Wove):• the appropriate and identified proVincial, national or intunationa guideline: for level oflandslide safety (item 8-.4 above)I hereby give my assurance based on the condition contained in the attached landslide assessmentreportCheck one or more where ap.pmpriate71 for subdivision approve!, as required by the Land Trtie Act (Section 86), "that the land may beused safely for the use intended"Check oneO with : ,:ne GT more recommended registered covenants_• without any registered covenant.• for a deye,ipprrient pernlit as .reguired by the Local Government Act (Se ctions 919.1 and920), my report will 'assist the local government in determining what conditions Orrequirements under 'Section 920] subsection (r.i) it will impose in the permit'• 'for a .buliciind permit, as required by the Community Charter (Seon 56), 'the Land may beused safely for the use intended'Check one• with one or more recommended registered covenants.o without any registered covenant.El for flood plain bylaw variance (for debris: flows only), as required by the "Flood Hazard AreaLand Use Management Guidelines associated with the Local Government Act (Section 910),"the development may occur safely.'for food. oiain bylaw exemption: (for debris flows only), as required by the Local GovernmentAct (Section 910), 'the land may be used safely for the use intended.'Name fonrstDateSignatureAdoress7eierMonefAffix Professional seal hereIf the Qualified Professional is a !member of a firTri, complete the following.am a munber of the firmand l sign this letter on behalf of the firm. (Print name or firmLwhen seismic Mope szab ,#.,.. assessments are .rafoived, lever of tancisilde safety is considered: t be a life sareW - &Seta asdescribed in the National E41:;:jilIC °ode of Canada NECC: 2C 05P,. Commentary on Desvn for Seismic Effects in Me User's Go.ioe,Structural Cornmennes, 4 Dr Division E.. Thu states:.e primary obiectiva of seismic dearer pnw4e en eooucteofeenei f foribuacitna comments mad the gene:ra) Datit as thereanorris osansny ground motion; s cftre zords. to minimize foss of frfe. MilrotWes that,. elthougn. Mere **Wet( beevens-Ms .structurai and norannuntera damage. during the DGM fbesign. and meant. there k.c a reasonable aeon of confidencethat the ankkang !MR not collapse nor mg bs BeathrThElltSr iTiSak off and iari on pc-DO near the buircrean This performance 4eve;Mfaned exMnstVe damwe'decatre, eitougd the save-Aare may he heady damaged and may hate l'wt esubsandia amide' of itMit& seen. Oland stiffness resent some mergin dna:stance agakrit catGuidelines fmLecrisieved Le:ad:aide ASZSISFIErn 55APEGEC ottarch 2C:::,-;P.esefsed. Eemember 2Di. for Pawn:an:4! Deusmorreit fa British Gnanna4PAGE 52 OF 73

PAGE 53 OF 7383

84Appendix 6BRMSH COLUMBA GEOLOGIC HAZARDS WORKSHOP-TEBRUARY 20 & 2, 1931HAZARD ACCEPTAB1LM' THRESHOLDSFOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVALSBY LOCAL GOVERNMENT.(REIVISed NOV5MDer 1993)A Paper by:D. Pte W. CaveDirector of PlanningRegional District of Fraser-ChemPAGE 54 OF 73

85HAZARD ACCEPTABILITY THRESHOLDS.FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVALSBY LOCAL aOVERNWNT,Amendments. to the Act in 1.99Z empowered and reicluirecl localbovernrrients to address he question cf geotezral hazards their developmentpoiici=s and pennits. The wordind of the iegsiati•n tne policy level speaks of',..designatiric areas .., restricting the ..se of Land and c protectcm of deveidipmerr,from 'hazardous oonfitons J eon 45) The Az states that developrnet permirefor new development,. may ',...sdecily areas of and that must remain tree ofdeveioprneht....' (Section G76) and that where the geot ethnical. s,nginee,7 determinesthat tie lend may rLot ueed safaiy for the use intende.d, the building inspector snailretuse to issue tte building oarimit,'' (Section 734)i Basing their decisions on poides anddesionations in the rmmmurrity plan and or reports from.i.`-- tectinical enaineers,therefore, ft is the building inspector in the case of new construct= and the approvinoofficer in the case of new stiodivisions who must Ai:1Tel* determine what is acceptableor 'tow safe is sate enough".The mathodoh-_,igy emo;;ayfrd by itreseneam Regional Disticno impiement Mesepr*eions of the Municipal Aat has been reported. eieemhere. 1 The procedure involves,ir&the identiftoation of potentiai h=arzie through overview, seoandary end sitegehncal studirs. which provide a onarec:., , on sacn hazard in descriptive:termsand in terms of its probabffity of occurrenaeC4list ,, o, exposure to riazart.r, isthe secorid step in the procedure arid ttis is simblifie,d somewhat by the tot that it s therisk tz tne aooreoate comrrunitv over a period of time v,indh is important for denislon,.makind rel:her than the (much lower) TiSk to, any divan rz duai. AS wet as a ziarttatveaspec,. nowever, SK has a -bualitatiY=' component vhizir'. retests the type ofThe occurrence of some hamerds, for sxe -n:e wii noneliy provide adequate time toaieh. the bccuietion, thereby limiting the risk only to r..lropeny damage rather 'man oars:Ina!injuv also, whereas other types of rialw-d exhbit fevi, preliminary Slone to forewarn.of denaer. Again sonic nn -......:arcts are assozia.-sc won sp-caiiat "voluntary.' rieje,$ wnersaz1:4,11er5 expose peanie invo•ntaliy,' 3cr7: g,,eirrativz= and aspec-isof risk arc important in assessing acceptsnit) . _:eve, F.W., nowt, E. andGeraPh, R..: "Slope li.azmrdUv-aluatic,ne im Scurhwcts List' Czium±::a' e in Prche. L- famarienGteout e C.c.nference, T=e Univ. Lava.._, 199C.These issr.ez are well rataicrued ".:'..ack, R. & Mrgan, G.:'Bv'ell=eri=I and APceptane of Riak in C.:ectechmica: EncineerrnV, ;.7 .m?rocs. Vancouver rcal .7.1Piecy, May 2",', 1935PAGE 55 OF 73

86also tne en :sin:ear his characterized to hazard and quantified its p...ocurrence andits related, risks its acceptability to the reoulatory authoritywill involve en evaluation of.-:he tyT.r,a of riSk,b) the type cif development andC) any possible remedial or proteotive measuresThe factors are analyzed in the eight matrioas shown as Figures 5-10 which are usedFraser-Cheam t secure consistency' in the development approvals process, Thesemethoes all t tie same form which is illustrated rrthe sryfized "i -i=erof Aoceoteoliityfor Development Chat shown as Figure I bow, This illustt-snies now developmentswhich involve greater increases in iand use density and those eposed to greater risksare ltirolyfo be approvadie,. Each of the matrices Figures 3-10 relates to a differerittype of osotechnioal hiszart specified in the Aa and; the L,orttent 0 each CO neiSMSjudgerient as to whether the risk is arzeoMble. in fez this dues-ton of adoeptsbilltv isrot a simple black and white issue and the figures show that there are at leas: five levelsof aoceptability implied 'g the regulatory responses ranging ran- outight refusal tounconditidna aahaptance (see Figure 2).THE GEOTECHN1CAL HAZARDSThe foilowind descriptions of o.eatechnizai, namrds focus upon tniOSSonaracterslios which most affect %tether or not the rtsic of exposure is acceoabie. Thedistinctions, therefore, ere. cased on the effects of the hazards rather the - pun strictgedtechnir..21 classifications.1. INUNDATON BY FLOOD WATERS.Of those named in the Act, this iT3- the n=ard which threatens, the area:est arTIOUnftor development tn F .72.ser-Chearn_ in corns areas, particularly aior certain reaches CT theFraser, it is also the mos: bericrt &the na=rds because it is preaptattizi, theMUSS ratesof tow are retatvely slow and beZZ',Se. depth end duration o tad-drip are moderate.Bank-tull conditions are also less 7- 7.7.12Enle on toe Fra.ser than on the more volatlismountain tributaries. In other areas. rho riottard a rrILLCIn dreamt, Those portions o thefood-pier known CS primary' &Disc areas, roudniy equivaient to Vie flood onarineiare to be evaded completely,MOUNTAIN. STFSAM F:.-7R,CSI,Cr ,4 AND A' jILS1ON.Tie CnitiliNttok River, the ,,D;ciduilhais. eino. Siiverirrope ,7;reek are notoriouslyorate who tins to ore Frau--er On wrioh Senie,nriente have peen estatoltsheo,. °triers,PAGE 56 OF 73

87TYPE OFDEVELOPMENTAPPLI CAT! ONTYPE OF HAZARDPROBABI LTY OF DaaVIIRENCEiR!LOWktrm.% Arlr!' rroutsmo' 4/4.11, 14 1•;ta,,s;t-64 I roe€i 1 Tr.,,i1",.1 f ic Itgr FtekfIrLi r , 4z5.14I ifi**4 et1 ttivt, t1 .0 nI i::,Szt*tz: iS:h11#'.,.I CIliT ,iPtitw 'Au I t 41 4! 4C 4..C AC IL: Ilat.lt4tV■• 41 44r:i 1 .. MAL; V! iiik Z te t i 28 4Figure 1. hazard A=Eptalollity for Deveiopmentsubr. as Yale, Frosst, aid Fialiebez Creeks are Eas wea known but alsb have settlementsbuift on the rjva. fans e:Ar these tire 77-ountain srearrisw steeo gradiehm ant ln tney a7-e extramel ,idariberoi.is. They nave enbrrho•s cbnoe -1-2rated enemy and er:-..-Si7.7 The banks anit,o'dur rabidly where ohanne iF 0,11 in sh.ivrui-1, ah: tnere zonstant da,-tgeravi,isior at hkah ai-EaS and deobstbriat tam Triet; . sreemetteoe: is 5-.1C:t I • :711.151. re -d.hErnedFLOV'.'S .AND DEBRI TThe csons flOWEi an tr3-7-re77.2 is virtualy utiouit -dis nF-ase'-ahe.tartassoc.-ate. as 7, - ;,a,, steep. unsvedie 'first- ant 5=01-1,t-Or0e,1" arnages whibn bahbecome choke= tom erbetbr and veto. Fortunately:he effebm of :hesehRi=arits are- .':CCSILESC `,..r1 = ear: ia mo the 'fitter reabnes of thedrainages D*-It they nave cream bei7rLdtive dbwer and may acur witnoX warning.PAGE 57 OF 73

884. !:„NEBIRLS FLOODS.The over reaches of these first- arid; second-order drainage.a, at the point wherethe debris tore.nt spreads out and eease rts energy, are 'typically sublect to de :ore-,flows which :tirade into debris fidoo.'9_ The former sfil carry Surriclem energy andObstructive power to be :capable el causino serious damage to buliolnigis and ever. topeopleunder nar=hr.-alone, while the later is a depositidnal hazard which will -easeproperty damage and huisarice,LA NnSLIDES. SMAL.SCALE. 1 OCAUSEDbe-stabilizabch of steep stops is a constant concern wheneverdevelopment takes place on -uncoi.nsolittiatesl material. In fact, depending upon thephysical and Oherriltral properties of the soil and re amount and distribution of water,quite shallow slopes rnay aiii.fojeiVi. to. landslip-. The event may be sudden and rapid.or and inorername4 burt-the danger si.gns flare movement are usually evident1P.:-.7t:-e the event In Freser-Chearn, slopes susoadfible to brualizeol 'failure are notuncommon arid they pose a Constant trreat to those living beiow,6. SNOW . AVALAN-HFFor the most pen, snow avalanche tracks do not reach down to the settled areasof Fraser-Chearn and use nazards tend tz be of far grealar irriporMnde to themaintenance of transporiati on routes than they are torte elevoornent approval process.iiernlook Valley ski resort, however, snow avaianches do pass a odria-tairr tosubdivision and corrstruction. in the ealancine run-out zones, ir their lowermost reaPrieswhere rnost of the enemy heteady been spent, it is posslible to engineer striutesto withstand the lateral trtrust of moving snow. For the most part, however, the hazer:is one entirety to oe avoided7. ROCK . FALL.Rook fag hazard results from the dislocePon of rook fracrneMS Or sr:12K PipCks 1'707:a shops ;„:.suaily because of me:rani:de weathering ffreeze-thaw;. For tie sake ofevaluating risk a,,,-c:eomPiirry, rock fad can be taker to include the various, forms of rollingrook hi-zero. It is dit-r,incuisherd, perhaps netine-r arbitrarily. from massive ertostas 7aZa7Cen ire i.a ol7=E'i much more frecuant occurreride and its v ritu':_t1 more 1dr:eft-radeffe..ct. There s, usualiv evidence on the around at:he toe of a Si3oz. tnti eertof land octentiaily effected cy TOOK teL Geotschnical srudlies can define a "mei: failStle-COw a ,s,..sceptible to the riazard and planning reculations can ensure 'That.development avoids. C.4PAGE 58 OF 73

89LANDSLIDES. MASSIVE. re'ATASTROPH/C.Fraser-OH-Ica: m Region is the site of as number c anent and some recent rnassiyelandslides. The best known s the Hope Slide. which moved approximately 47 mill.ou.mof -a-ia r19e5,, Others have been tejdleti in the Fraser Valley at Lake-cf-the-Wcods,Mount Crtearri, and: Katz. Off tie BurlĪola] hazards, they are the least common, the leastpred=able and by far the mastdeEarjCtillt. ,..TM TYPES OF IDEVḞ. LOPM_NT.in the lace these hazards sever, woes of develtoment application aredistinguished in order to evaluate their a=eptabfity. They are ranked v crr.ter ofincreasing irtnstlii or land use, from a minor bong repair to a mapr rezonlno,reflecting ,..orresbonOing increases in exposure to risk. Theldi0WiM: or descri.p,tri iswritten, tor tine earce or simoiicity. torn the t.b.e.r:ial rinrepactive1. MINOR REP AJR,Ira policy sehse, an apoLcarpn tor a Oullaing derrint to repair an existing buildingis one of the most difficult types to evaluate. The Municipe Act itsafftfricshes sl.gchapplications by exempting the applicant from ins require.mant to hire a geotec—: him]engineer to prove the she sate (Sec. 734.(2.1)), lt does not however, exempt the buildinginspector from the •cut refuse the permit. If tie already possesses a report wriichidentries the arte, n hazardousSec, 734.4.Accerently, r infen: of the Act In finis respect is similar to its provisions respectino''non-conforrrift.,'' :and JSC which essentlal;y perml: the nor.-ocniormity to continue forthe life-span of the DI-is:nes the fife-scan of the building whichever is the shorter. B'ydisocuraginc. piermts -or redairs in areas ci nown hazard, inhe Act is disc-curet no theextension of the life-span o thcze buain whicn would no: ri aye Peen approve:tote undermodern r%:sulatchsIn reality, of course, the analogy w -mnformity only brOVZEG a perspectiveirom Wfli1 tO view- one :general issue :7;7 a...;fidirrzs sited in unsafe areas, it aces nor.pravide all the answers to individual abO.Icar.ts wino may nave liveb in their houses tormany years 1,-,n0 writ want simply tc , repair a leelcy roof or to inaratI safer firegiace,Blar•e,m retIsa of al: such ado one beca..se cf =finSite. cc Cra0b110/indeed, parti:culerly 'of those repair:: w.7 :or are -sal' only stop-cap measures arid whiondo not the like 'of tre Cul:ding,. Therefore. at Frase-,Ohearn a Boardpolicy has c...sen strict to the alter.. tri..ef. me nature of the hazard :E not life-V7eatenino,and if the C r?..PaiT is c:ore han 25% of the vai.e of tnrPAGE 59 OF 73

90repair, and it the owner will rec,..,,:ar a covenant against the 'ate duananteeing to effectprotective measures against the hazeoci in future before any further =hstruoton isundertaken, than a permit wili be available' .2. MAJOR REPAP.,A major repair is defineo as one the cost of which exoseds 25% of the assessedvalue of the structure before repair it is seen as having the eilfact of eriendinci the tie:span of the building ant therefore of inore.asi•o the :ii.toosure to the hezehti in the bagtern-L, Foi this reason permts are n: Peneraly ..sveiredie Eri the face of stmlificant nakfrom geotecrnra ncaro L:rit rhmedia or protective work is undertaken However, If thecumulative probability cr occurrence throughout the exteribec life-a ua of the Duildino issmell, as it may be in tie case of corns low frequency events, then this type of permitmay be issued in Fraser-Chem-h.R'ECONS7741,10N,In one sense, recorteraumon is just a more corhpLete form of 'mar repair but itdiffers in two irhodrtent respects. First : rt provides the ocoort_thiltytorelocate toe buildingto a Safer site on the came: and thereby to Lessen the risk. Secondly it is the woe ofpermit which fire ins.,urence co-idles typically require to be available tp validate the polity,Cu:richt rEillaat therefore, could render the site vane cm a residentel parcel virtuallyworthless. Tnus the significance of the avaiiebRity of reconstruction permits far o sristhe numbers ausliy ever .aiDoil9c for or issued anc trie permits are usua. a- :entre::=item at any public hearings begot= With hazard rand maharternent poiotea, ingeneral, the larger the beroei tne easier it is to meet brorie.:t.ve, steno restrit7tions ant themore fikeiy is a retorstructiori permit to be issued,4. D-77.-NSION.Whereas reconstruction may simply amount to replacement ant may inct increasethis tensitv at use, an apolicancn 7.0 increase the size of a tuiiding toes impy andeineity of use end therefore a orea,-.:er arinLia 7ink. Moreover whilereconstruction may facilimte reiticatich, exte,.helcr Coes nut. Thus, a permit to extent adui:dirt at a ha:F.:a:31M area is often, more drift:xi to secure men is as permit toreconstruct,7:„ sholf", t he hetet that corns 7..yper, reneic- cdal-...- ing leerthat 20CT cc not redil:Irs s permIt =der local dyLat.-E.'.aPAGE 60 OF 73

91NEW SUILDIN„C2:,The right to construct a new home on an existiho vacant Id: is the issue mostirequentiv discussed in the context of the new legislation on hazards. it is : in a Sense,the 'acid test".Denial of such a permit, ft' most instances, is tantamount to rendering the loturisaleabie at anifthind like former value ?zit almost inv.:le:Ply this ieeds to threats oftiegai action both against those who now oany the permit and against those vi„.;fricorevlously approved the subdivision, it ciao iaacis, just as in.evitabiy, to :bairns that theowner shout' somehow be compensated by the government for The differenta betweenthe market value of the lot and the value, which it could 'command were the hazard. notoreseit. E.'.uch. reactions are Ira arid:understandable responses to Perceived financialloss. It is rarely adoreciated, however, that the act of identifying the hazard nethercreates no rnateriaNy alters the level of risk; it merely raises awareness. Equally, Iris actof refusing be pairriit does not cause the loss cf it,ira,us. It is the knowiedros that the=Pen?" tz, live oh wnitin S the soefiic deorimera to nattkat value; the refusalof the perrnit is tne consequence, indid orant aorova oobristruchanunsateabietwitting woUlO be more likely to =rot:Lin= tar.to rniticiaie the than:lie:: losses o theland owner.Fordunetely, the number of cctita.,..ons on Whiqh permits cannot be issued forvacant lots is very few. Recent subdivisions will not have been approved unless theycornzin e bu see %.v.hich born; blies with. the new proVisions of the Munizipei Act andthe Land Tait Act, it is the piper subidirsions which may nave proteins, indeed, thevery physical' and site clamẖies wnioh nave kept these older lots vacant in the castgenerally prove now to be 1,i -e very re.-- ons why the penult le refused under Section 734.From this perspective, agar_ the reusel causes no real loss of value now; instead itSEn'eF.) only to confirm now unrealistic were the owner's m---e r expect-atone ci; val.114.-LLess common is the bossibliity, whenever the trine intervai is tong between subdivisbnapprove: and buildino bermit apolization, that the sate c77 gecnechnitral Knowledge willhave aca'ced ant MI have identified a n=.-tt on a tot formally tatted as Set.j. St.i5Drkr.SIONT - w" or subdivision approving officers must aorninister respectinocreozechhil riFilsres are embed:set in the Lend Title At (Sac. B61).,..p).fv) and Sec. Bal.he,„- ars :riarige:: with. the ot ensuring that al: new /bits rectistered are surted "...Id theuse. intenteci.„.." B2li and that they corrory with a oa :timer-malt o awe thereoyinvokno the panning arid dui:id:rig 1 -,ninuiettons discussed, above, in e.Octilert Section E2repuires ma approving officer specifically to 7.eke into eocount winesner 'the land issubjact. =Lit reasons:* ths expetned to toe suttecit., .ddtrg, erosion. ',and slip,or aye:crone:-PAGE 61 OF 73

FL dO 930Vd•ssAtteuJeTe spsyN 04: sa,•seew A21Wsp.1,...s - s.i.:4L3 eeiunp=7.4,74CAEC ogs snpp..1=-.4 UMCU srs scaly -psedu lewspirdus eficielcaccie :0 lseca! at: 'swot: ct 4d sceld:_rnu 41urtILUCC =dun.,Ccucd C22ass-LIT esF7c slc:FcictietxC ,gJessecau p.:szP..1; :GLP.C rISCd: ae,..;esc ALs .,e2.1.1eLm.4.c erss!JO 'pus; ip edia aLIC :JC 'liCqC=Omp suc: LI; v,c,:ti pinoqs ;,;:tunual:pc.tLC sig, ':s14-4.aqm ot :.;cqsand 3,4sesys,', :usLupust.I.m 7;1,0-usid,f4.14nLuLucc , eLgWU pue sit'Lluczei .;cfau; L suppecicide pup., supppildte7:.:cplAopqrs '..ssemLsd ud .:curlsip sig pe:zei;a1- SLIC $1 PUPA ;C, ses,:e mauue 4:tilteif; J ja. L. `segtuntuwor; mau 38C SaApAu; L4PluAt la-2llgt,141AEZ pUSUC4SLISp(.9,40 514[4:...41.0 42U a4J1, si 4t4m USGM.Wq Uopuçp 7,q1-..NEnc ,Neveg, er\T4o,'qd gqr'..."411,4'4ep 'AEL4 s.-.674.1.a..41rrepezets.04, ograciput, lelausd e 2 JCeC5ulnps.tde Act cia)tet e-7.4 USZ% SLZ.4.%ZijetSaPia;sucio upAd Al4LITIWLLICO put dug= sir: 'csiki -diersq awes L4 C cts!drs etc ApesaleAsw 4,1awdop ztsqs SlLig due ;ueuciplans • us'c Q tIUX2 c Nu!!anzu eq; 111. suqsiAtpqns "4,ari Si UO2E9.1 sua 'sups:e9:1 CM! J04, suc,isiApqnsmau usAs, aigraze AlieleusC 2'.:attamcn.; 'paezz,4 se.;5e-p mcz stuoP-p,,ezzqoz 4.1r.sodxs atz pt,t esn lc 4susp eseara:1 uctsVAIPqns st.g. 'AipucPesTeep, usu; ssei se4s euppc. 47;f4t4 usiks spo qir Lip aiic u a'kEt4s5ulpipzi Arteu ;etc izm awes au4, so_CUES 401:es UtCLLJ t,p-A Agt; Aldu..t= fznat4s puemai sie zot es-st.4 -sudres-lotx.ics,,uorzalter sac:4 :iaL41.0 Ulan.aq C pug gloA. uq,swilpqns AkCU 2 eigeitiecCe pJa.zeu, 143 4F.4;lesdEeglau PincLs zrleA Pi-Mr Ut,1 ./17.:Edvoi. u1Acidtt 441 JCCJ LtglecitaSt LLtaMiS 2C1CC2 qui?, Euptield ][SAINO SL4 "":;r1CAE€ pue aupuieic 42;o •s-snssi 1,44m.gam; c.Anudo us: '8:41;EU 1..11:1 1?-0741CIti LeAl sAgegsmwps e1.4.01qm issoccid reAcucideuur.:s1/9pqns usta ueid Aslunwcacc uodn pe22i buluoz Li5nc.14, atitp 2qc:ossoddrs i ug; io Alor-27154u Oloupci. apz 'Aksu8pICao4s115 -sep'Ziocaj uatudpiemp .MOLI 1474,24 :PM S.:110-1:Bp SLUM-Tad Ots'eq 2L 9Tviclpkamcp ipapi-mut wu 2E AV; 'dcrishap O els's 4 wsu 14e2 W PU2 ue)ieliepunSi Oupue;'d e4s poggsp srendepe 1er.4 arsus sudgein52i36

93RmIVIEDIAL ARP_PROTECTIVE ttiSASURISS.Where the risk is consids-red urtacceptity hitch, some action is necessary tomitig,ate ti"le zzard or to reduce exposure before approve; can os given, These adtorisfait irtatural frtio two classes discussed below, vi (i) avOida.rice (i.e, exposure reduction";andCir; .brotect. ion (i.e. h.szarci reduction). Note that both purport ority to reduce thehazard, or to. cif-taloa the przbabihies. A Intro' a:ton, the grartng a "livaivere o'save--ham-flees-a the eon,-.' itiertoty is en attempt to transfer liability for 1e hazarrf and titswill also be disousc-c-'Avnidenti:e Mea-estFteductichof exPosure to nsit by simbie avoidance is obviously :nes most 'gear -ablemitinatims rnssur Examoies err:not -Red in regulation .inoiude eleiii.V.ion of bonstruZionabove a 'flood obristrucrocri teAfel", set-back re,quiremmrds train streams to vroid tiehazard of VInion and the primary 'flood area, and set-backs from the toe at a slops toavoid a rotl.K-fatE hazard or from a watercourse to avoid a debits torrent hazard. Morecorripiex techniques, EL:Z+. -tope stability monitoring devices citupleo with warning andavaituetion programs, ha .s trity rarely been employed in Fraser-C:hearn tor insttutioria.reasons but they Pot eserr to offer promise in the future far those harms iivinion are mayails= =mmunbes already estabilened.At the pciip., eveL sirhole avoidance is the preferred technique for offitoisi plans itriczohirto bylavva. Lend can as designated far uses which minime exposure to the itazatsucr s daytme suirrticr tourist cornmer=af uses 1i' arem 'Wilton are exposed to rdeons flow ramrds industrie orage uses in areas whit:it may have tow prodapityrodkfat hazard. From a teonniza• t.-iarapective, it is worth:, noting that the, Municipaler,pourages the use of ins Deyetooment Permit re7.'Leatonz, to implement such her:,avoidance policies even' to the boirt of allowing fne permit to over cc tne use and'density variations in the zoning byiatv,Protentivfi Measu-er.:Pratezi,live mes'eL:ree sr mom: viable and generally mute popular man redurmeidavahoe bu: they are teSS scours in their results aria they usually trivOlv-e a pornmitme,n1to rharceriehm whion is rindre difficult to achieve in Fiase-Cheam the most commonexamples are rip-rad, oroteoltriin of river oar ire to prevent. erosion zinc ratrisO re-et-hordedfounitiatcht„ CrDIE:"... .1 attamist debris floods Dthers M:1'; 'as.3 T:1P nrrr ;sc.= esberms and aykes .desioriett to birdied: Me edime area aaarre Oetiris ftrtoca,roiirrg 7;.= etc. 4r1C1 various forms of traps. brit:rites and deans basins desioneoriraicro downstream areas from similier tabards.PAGE 63 OF 73

94Lahstarence of Lied'rimOne of the most common arguments relefirato develoomera applications inh=ardous. areas is whether approval car., be Premed in return for some form of waiverof the right to sue the regulatory at,ornority in the event tried car ar.fe or death ocours. Thisis usualiy coupled with some form of in.:damn* , to protect the reautaf2ory authority anainetsuits launched by others, Such wai vete are Imam: as "save-harmless' covenants and,if linked: to land use reStri. ,tors, ran redistered s legei incumbrances egairmt the Otteof the property pursuant to Section 215 cif tie Land: This Act.It should be rimed mat thase covenants are in the nature- of private aoreementsbetween tie landowner 2,77: me government Thus third parties, suorr as visbors to theproperty, will be expos:so involuntarily to toe ir ,,ersi not deint, party to theacreement Their s:a --acry richts to protection cannot' be transferred by theseare eras.Nevertheless : these co,,,,enerits: do serve a vailiabis untjcn as an instrument ontitle, in nforming prospective purchaser:, of known, hazards. They may also have wahie,in some cases, as an attempt r redognize and assign the residual liability after ehreasonable remedial erd orm,scrava measures hems been undertaken. They do not,however provioe. an altenative. irnoiemsreation of the requi-ernerre of the Mt:nib:paAct and the Land Tite . 1,,= - by elected offials, planners, taL.!PrO. thspe=Ors andapprovino officers. The butes of each are rather dearly sod:leo cut in the statutes, sicno private adreaments or covenants can over-ride these abligqtions,THE4CCE.-. -PTABILI17 OF RISK IN FRASER -CHEAMFloure 2 lists the range of regulatory responses to development appilmitons.These are the numbers lr. the individual cells in fig.3--1Ci. in practice, this spectrum fromunconditional approval to outright; refusal Is tar mare complex and suo'tie than this es:implies because sac- - ' individual case confront:LI different abet:its hazards ens,' presentsditerent mitictive opportunites.There ars few derierally accepted yardsticks wnidri an provide neld in calibrathore:guiatori aoprovais cnata like those in Figs.3-1C be:ori , .. One suctri yarostcv aertvesfrom tie Pro a iv sponsored itpop-prOditho orc2ram v,rrilpr, provides firian ol al supportfor protsaov rrrrc and rep•alatoty.cOrM-01 rnarl!,' for-is of development, Thedeeo.ri event to- th,:: program has a return Ireoer.: of ::: -ra-in-20C-years„ FiCDZiSthar tie a'e regarOep as co cpaily to c7ciez, apiarist, top unlikely, or ooth;iess-er floods are seer as too irequer.i cony =ocac:,:(tzteSke.10PAGE 64 OF 73

.95***Figure 2 ***Figure 2. ice.erd-Related l expanse ponseto Development Approval ice‘or.ovel, stinz::,-.-.on4itpns,al.prateobve wofz4 , cbnctitions,.,T oblionartha mi=es1'— odaiDCIS.iAddrova%pLit Viiithiisitina.T.eqUirir-„ments to avoid tile ;pazai•of, , riee-4uirerr;a.rits to "Orcite:tiV.s . r.,3orKs.,:t..-. rritioate tie tazard,:. ..Draroval - as•!3) , ..lbove,..b.utwitha'ir:dvertaritinciutinct4isavia..harmiei..ria.•POn6itions,...proteOtivallotkarior:: . both.::.....!, ••A second yard tick can be irien ed torn Province> polity or " ion approvalhazardous areas where advice is diver, to t ectechnice encineers to in termso a 1i7% probe:city [of vo:cu; re iced in 50 yeers..„? (Le, 115,10 annual y). This appears tobe an aporopfieze standard for extertch subdivision or forA third guideline derives from the R.C. Supreme C,curt decision of Sender. J. in1973 which fount. a site exposed tc a very probability of landslide ocirarenzeilO.000) to be unsuirdote for deve.icornent,' tr. this case, the development would: haveformat the nucleus of a new comrry_inity while the SL]Spez.t. hazard was a type ofmaesive arid destructive landslide Thus t provides a solid precedent tar Proatcorn-mt.:nit; olannnig policy, Ail 0,00(j.iliw asei ȯneo, to an event the oaarrencecf VOIT: Iri, ::4-,parertly mossibi= time has not taken place within the test0,000 years (i.e. not since the icilmattc oriande at tie end ir.. the test 2 -„iiazia. tioiscce:„-this sense the 1 :10,D00 staritand has aia. .-,b1Ja-J sionificance ir that such hazards navenot occurred under existing; dirrati:_s, conditions. h may be the best pra-cticai befiniton'tate",Apart from twee few ouiceihes, the other ehthes 07 tie regulatory approvals(Figures 3-10) are al, reiative and aubje.f.tve3y, determined.. Tney are riaralaa,ine,4-o-biy' they must be torn experience in aciiiucicatng numerous iridividuaj abbitaconsant from the constant search tor cronsistercy and for that elusive threshoidC,Tince ciombilet, the chantr. are detispitivety simpleBv'' aer I 7 I: . : 'Reastms t--,-- o' the Hohoz ,- ,a,b1E,-.!Ir. —,-...., .7... oPn. on --11 ,...mau -ac,r of tas Lan ' 4-...77 2-1,1.:'. - ,a,rtti a..apv - -c a-arva .-f ti -trotoset sun _,:...aLon by C:eveLand1711 "5:,..77:, B:4:17:2Me Court t El:::: _bi=mhi :,972.11PAGE 65 OF 73

96However, irrius: be emh,,nsazeni that what is o:asSified here, 'for example, simPiy as a'type 4'" ago-oval f,se-: '2) in tact iriovJcies a wide. variety of ciontlitorts broth on the°round and ;h, thE toy...anent.NavDtEASES, together the charts comprise a public policy statement ondevelopmena safety standards, 1E; try are oynernid and wit! crange as SC:letaSaIrt.t747r-1,5 ::::a71.25 and assr,,,1:=,r;!..;ry proves.CONCLUSIONThe orincipa value of a se - of 'formalised approvals olrzrtske tigse presortedhere e to ti..7,,itate consaren a of safety regulatons end T.C: permit comparison,Untio_ttst;y, ziese standarz2 ot,J:g be enforced with even mon,- corrAction, and viirn.more certainty of fairness, if Intly rad bean debated more general:1y and if a provinbalchat hat already been adnievect. For the future, end after that consensus isachieved, tri is even possible to en‘P.rrgs a reaLliatnry scheme analogous to the BulibhgCurds which eiready p.pecifies standards for suon hazards as earthquake, wind,snowbacis, weak soils and tre-spread, mereis no intrinsic reason Wily gedtaftnnicalhf.-zerts shod not be inquded in the Coos in the tonr.-.. term.PAGE 66 OF 73

97Figure a.inundation' by Flood Watersfrom Fraser Rivet- & Tributaries2 ị ,.,„ _1:.40 1:',4,V- -;.1:ZOLn!..-.r;:,.. '- I 2 Ic' Rept .;fy.Jgr4)Recons- ,.=ion 414 tr, 4 3New Suldinc 3. azonmo, (fa' 5 Iea. cl, ilt..„4)1en, oath irurn sbzx. arso tvtosiontmwomrrn thmtwe Inv Ivo garawneet of =tr. ;pas- nozarj&'Rovisod 7,21)Ba,Hii rerstrotit.Debris Flood:SO I 1:52. 1:200- 7 ; 500-,1.2M t :5",lc 17.10.Dx.R 7 1 1,P . REZ a.7i>25R41..tmonsin...11 nkr.n 4' New Buitin;1 : ! sur.rizion .I: -- -i , r.rmle.1:-.::,J1i.1, naw uarrrnLne,-,...,;------,..-----,,,,..—”klli I13PAGE 67 OF 73

98Firer.---,QL..,.. _........ __._ __._ .Minor Repair0

,99Figure 7,***Figure 7 ***...._....._,...:— .Smal6Scale Loa1ed Landshp,,...t .:2:00 1, 54,1,7,', t 1 :I Cy.3 7M 9P%)5 4 IRecenso-uption1 4.;„i'Zxte.,:nsion 5 • 2..- 3 1Nevi' BuildirQ, ub&,lisipp,!! (.'rnfNeeXtert*Rezoning (for',,, m.o.. eommunirl)5--ir5 5 5 1Figura E.Mirc RepMrk (25%.)1 Reponerrittalar:ierr 5t*Pie Lii dr-G.51114rin.5=;(infttozprriRezonino fitffnevi '4"'arlitk•irgly:I I :Sti.1;100 17,5Xt 11 OCOfeZ7.-,00a:PAGE 69 OF 73

,10 0Figurei... _.%odamarS la ra t1:Tx, I:100- i soo .. -1.:i.::::- ct 11"----------22—Wilco Raw 52 !,...-. 1:10,C90I Marx 74eL);:r52 1iI (>25%; !i ,i Reconstn=ton 5)4 1 21 j 1,, 25.•xtExision r. 4., 4 , 1-ttjay. n LAW ing , z.1Stx.)6.ivi:543a5 5 =I; rifiliParcrg-f Fiezoninc ftxriS 5_rtativ =mrfiuritty)_.,----Fiattre 10.Major Catastraphi Landslide. r1:20D I 1 :2C.C.- 1,.500- 1:1,00C- -..:

101Chliftwack River ValleyErasion or Avulsionaciawittnsosionsemack. lineSetback between-MD year erre=4ab' and`Etmlon aetbazSinbac4, =ewerMan `-irpfl yearerc iirnrnof= Fre- ,Wr'eoansTnictor:ei,IIa •N;SA 'O-4ivisian 1 - -! firfiiie-ter„:)=no 1.'7::: -.--brni-nl,::.4e"Tabit Tioviaerii he LeiTrz 'errAi.a:.setta:.-1; arse' art= yaa: erasion limit iii" a expinec ana ci%tirked h the OfficiaiZetnierne7:, Plan, arit :77, iayCa rEFZ.7.7.. cm river award marar;,:ement i me C'41111waci; Ahrer'were na th ea: of river avuizzr, Dr EPOSIC41: is deemed to be immariore and extrerrwa c bui]binc.. permitmay riot be untl, appraveo zbtem-on isA save halre,eas =imam tc acknowlecne potential fixture err.rSari hazy rt is iropied in this wv„;.... -TovaL,re Me bracerr! cair net be prommet by orksitecorrimuniv soneme fLahneci ',nebuilding pernt may not be available ula, ,aerra-lt Plan -rms been imtnementeb,6 Abaroved Flay Mean an-z:.te prbtec,„,ity, nn 7,.di:Jidua7, cr wnere it is no: paname?roe... proper‘ cn-sim WO ME. C raayrabbmmenbee. in tetet. ...-'kiwi.,' matecnor: ar,^,narne actinea m .1-krzwo Mana9e,-tea: Pi an wnich, are admi,,islereci uy a ,!c:`.,-alAraa,Zeme as S above.PAGE 71 OF 73

Appendix 7102MissionT ofON THE FRASERASSISTANCE TO DEVELOPERS AND BUILDING PERMIT APPLICANTS UNDERTAKINGGEOTECHNICAL STUDIESGeotechnical reports are requested by the District of Mission in order to satisfy the requirements ofthe Community Charter, the Local Government Act or Land Title Act*. The purpose is to ensure thatdevelopment occurs only on sites which are safe for the use intended.Landowners and applicants are advised that geotechnical reports may only be undertaken by aprofessional engineer or professional geoscientist (qualified professional) with training or experiencein geotechnical engineering. In advising geotechnical consultants as to the extent and type of worknecessary for such reports, it should be emphasized that each study will be unique and it is difficult togeneralize. However, there is a certain minimum content which a geotechnical report must have inorder for it to be acceptable to the District of Mission.1. A topographic and geomorphological description of the site and a statement as to which typeof natural hazards may affect it. (See list in Community Charter.)2. A review of previous geotechnical studies affecting the site and/or of engineering work in thevicinity or on scientifically relevant sites elsewhere.3. An assessment of the nature, extent, frequency (probability) and potential effect of the hazardincluding a description of the scientific methodology use to define these parameters. Themethodology should be described in sufficient detail to facilitate a professional review of thestudy by the District of Mission when necessary.4. Proposed mitigative works (if any, including construction and maintenance programs for suchworks) and/or actions designed to prevent hazardous occurrences. Certificates of approval arerequired on all constructed works for which the qualified professional is responsible.5. An assessment of the effect of the mitigative works in terms of its ability to reduce the potentialimpact of the hazard.6. Any other recommendations which the qualified professional believes appropriate. Note thatitems 4, 5 & 6 should be in sufficient detail and clarity to permit their inclusion in a Section219Covenant as required by Statute.7. Seismic stability of soil slopes and liquefaction of soils must be addressed when undertakinglandslide assessments.8. An external independent peer review of a geotechnical report, the cost of which is theresponsibility of the client, may be required by the District.9. The signature and seal of a B.C. registered qualified professional in the specialized fieldappropriate to the study.The District of Mission also recommends that clients instruct their qualified professional to contact theDistrict prior to commencement of their work so that they can receive relevant information and morespecific guidelines.*See Section 56 of he Community Charter,(1) SBC Chapter 26, and Section 879 and 920 of the Local Government Act,RSBC 1996, Chapter 323, land Title Act Section 86(d).PAGE 72 OF 73

103Appendix 8Fraser River Development Permit Areamaimu,imillaramismegap,mnfirluggimmtme•-man, R,►1_0,mIlnines=m m-manhit amolusguinlith wizilkIsnim00.11111111111 •• ilunsuo= muir,1-01, _m■-1finVI,M....11---111EVIPMrdlnnIIIIIIJIA;M7%Adirgg1111.0161M1111.1101.100.11110111P- rrSILDYKEHATZIC DYKE(Continuedin FVRD)-19nodp11.1.....ne al* left Now Met-Plow lohawn In Ma.111.14,210011 Pr1.111.20011 WM boa 1110=M1012-2101A,/, 9101 ../..oseonemoofte11.1.1.10 ler pmr.11sum elty. ThaD101.11.1. ed pent. •aeas../.11......velarl.-1.000 mMISSION DYKELONDON AVENUE LOCALEXEMPTION AREA1500 m 2500 m2000 mOCP MAP SeFRASER RIVERDEVELOPMENT PERMIT AREASDiOrict of111011111111111113MOO 51 Official Community PlanPAGE 73 OF 73

ON THE FRASERFILE: PRO.DEV.ZONR09-007Memo104To: Chief Administrative OfficerFrom: Senior Policy PlannerDate: July 6, 2009Subject: Revised Development Permit Guidelines for Intensive ResidentialDevelopmentRecommendation1. That the Director of Corporate Administration prepare a bylaw to amend District ofMission Official Community Plan Bylaw 4052-2008 by replacing Development PermitAreas Appendix B. Area A - Intensive Single Family Infill Residential Development PermitArea and Development Permit Areas Appendix 0. Area N - Cedar Valley Compact SingleFamily Residential Development Permit Area with the Intensive Residential DevelopmentPermit Area Guidelines; andthat all applicable sections and headings of the Official Community Plan Bylaw beformatted accordingly; andthat the bylaw be considered for first reading at the Regular Council meeting on July 6,2009, and that following such reading, the bylaw be forwarded to a Public Hearing thatcoincides with the public hearing schedule of the upcoming Zoning Bylaw.2. That upon due consideration of Sections 879 and 881 of the Local Government Act,Council referrals go forward to: School District No.75.3. That in accordance with Section 882 of the Local Government Act, Council hasconsidered District of Mission Official Community Plan amending bylaw in conjunctionwith the District of Mission's Financial Plan (includes Capital Expenditure Plan andOperating Expenditure Plan) and Waste Management Plan.BackgroundPrior to the adoption of the District of Mission Official Community Plan Bylaw in 2008,department staff presented three fundamental changes that would come with the adoption ofthe District's new Official Community Plan (OCP). These fundamental differences orchanges included the re-organization of the bylaw into community driven themes, newpolicies to better address hazardous conditions, and an overall improvement towards a more"user-friendly" bylaw.Complementing these changes, were new policy directions that incorporated the principals ofsustainability which in turn helped develop the economic, social and environmental policyobjectives now part of the current OCP Bylaw. To ensure that the OCP is an action-orienteddocument, policies were linked to various tasks to be initiated over the short and long term.Of these action items, reviewing current development permit areas and guidelines was seenas an important tool towards implementing OCP policy objectives for "Building LiveableNeighbourhoods". Furthermore, the widening of land use regulations with the upcomingzoning bylaw that will allow for higher density development forms, infill housing, and otherPAGE 1 OF 4

105innovative housing types will need to be captured in these revised development permitguidelines. Therefore, as a measure to strengthen and facilitate the quality of residentialdevelopment in the District of Mission, staff have reviewed the OCP's development permitarea guidelines and provide a revision as detailed on Appendix 1. The proposed guidelinesfor Intensive Residential Development would replace both the Intensive Single Family InfillResidential and Cedar Valley Compact Single Family Residential development permitguidelines.Intensive residential development in MissionSection 919.1(1) (e) of the Local Government Act enables local authorities to establishobjectives for the form and character of certain land use development including IntensiveResidential Development for single family housing. To date, measures to guide the form andcharacter of intensive residential development in Mission has focussed mainly on singlefamilycompact lot development in Cedar Valley. As the new zoning bylaw will considerzones that allow development of even more compact lots, (i.e., 4,000 sq. ft. minimum downto 3,000 sq. ft. minimum) and zones that offer opportunities for secondary dwellings in theform of coach houses, garden cottages, and duplex housing, new development permit areaguidelines for these uses will also be needed. In other words, the advent of new zoningregulations necessitates additional design provisions for intensive residential development.Overview of revised development permit area guidelinesDrawing from best practices used by many other communities but also maintaining many ofthe design criteria of Mission's current Intensive Single Family Infill Residential and CedarValley Compact Single Family Residential Development Permit Areas including designprovisions for the Silverdale Neighbourhood One development area, the development permitarea guidelines (Appendix 1) aim to guide the general design objectives of the OCP. Theseguidelines are intended to direct the work of architects in developing submissions forrezoning and development permits as well as the work of District Council and staff whenreviewing these submissions. The guidelines will be used to evaluate form and characterdesign during the review of a development permit application, and if needed, suggestalternative solutions that meet the general intent of the guidelines of intensive residentialdevelopment.These revised Intensive Residential Development Permit Area Guidelines establish designcriteria for a wider variety of higher density development forms while encouraging betterbuilding design, site compatibility, and site aesthetics. The guidelines would reinforcecommunity identity and would apply to all residential development proposing urban compact,urban cluster compact and urban infill including all coach house, garden cottage and dupleximprovements within the urban area. Generally speaking, the guidelines will encourage:• urban compact and urban cluster compact development to pay particular attention tobuilding massing, architectural detail that retain a human scale and that relate to thestreet. The designs of the homes would provide a clear delineation of public andprivate space accomplished through an appropriate scale of landscaping and fencing;• infill housing to be designed to fit into the immediate surroundings of its location andnot appear out of scale or character to the adjacent homes. That building massing,scale and height of infill housing must complement and not disrupt the rhythm ofbuildings and the overall neighbourhood pattern;• coach houses and garden cottages to be architecturally compatible with the mainstructure, particularly where visible from the street; andFILE: PRO.DEV.ZON PAGE 2 OF 4R09-007

106• encourage duplexes that fit into the immediate soundings of their location and notappear out of scale or character to the adjacent homes. Duplexes would bearchitecturally designed to avoid a "mirror" image and provide the appearance of onesingle-family house on a lot.The revised guidelines also acknowledge that minor or necessary works and improvementsthat would otherwise be subject to the Intensive Residential Development Permit Area couldalso be exempted from permit provisions under certain conditions.Sections 879 and 881 referralsWhen an amendment is proposed to an Official Community Plan, the District of Mission willrefer the proposed amendment to the organizations listed below following first reading of thebylaw, subject to provisions set out in Council policy LAN. 47 Official Community PlanReferral (Appendix 2). The organizations identified in the policy are as follows:• Fraser Valley Regional District;• District of Maple Ridge;• City of Abbotsford;• First Nations;• School District No.75;• Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection;• Fraser Health Region;• Ministry of Transportation;• Department of Fisheries and Oceans;• Land Reserve Commission,• Utility Companies; and the• Canadian Pacific Railway.In accordance with the provisions of the policy, Council is to consider the requirement tomake referrals on a case-by-case basis and adopt a resolution to clarify that the referralrequirements have been considered. Considering the referral criteria detailed in the LAN 47policy, the only referral needed for this bylaw amendment is to the District of Mission SchoolDistrict No. 75. While it could be said that adjacent municipalities could be affected by anOCP text amendment generally, this proposed bylaw amendment in this case relates to formand character of urban land use designations, none of which are over lands situated adjacentto neighbouring municipal boundaries.Section 882 requirementsSection 882 of the Local Government Act requires Council to consider District of MissionOCP amending bylaws in conjunction with the District of Mission's Financial Plan (includesCapital Expenditure Plan and Operating Expenditure Plan) and Waste Management Plan.Given that the design guidelines for Intensive residential Development are believed to havelittle or no impact on the District's Financial and Waste Management Plans, the Director ofFinance has considered the financial aspects of revising these development permitguidelines and noted no concerns with Council's further consideration of the amendingbylaw.FILE: PRO.DEV.ZON PAGE 3 OF 4R09-007

107SummaryTo continue high quality intensive residential development in the District of Mission, staffrecommend that the Official Community Plan amendment bylaw that proposes to expandexisting form and character guidelines be considered for first reading at the Regular Councilmeeting on July 6, 2009 and that following such reading, the bylaw be forwarded to a PublicHearing that coincides with the public hearing schedule of the upcoming Zoning Bylaw.I have reviewed the financial aspects of this report.ft) Ken Bjorgaard, Director of FinanceMemo-Amend-DP-Guidelines-Intensive Res-Jun-15-09.docFILE: PRO.DEV.ZON PAGE 4 OF 4R09-007

I APPENDIX 1 I108INTENSIVE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AREA GUIDELINESCategorySection 919.1(1) (e) of the Local Government Act (form and character of intensiveresidential development)IntentThe Intensive Residential Development Permit Area is designated to establishguidelines for the form and character of intensive residential development byfacilitating a higher standard of building design, housing alternatives, sitecompatibility and site aesthetics that promote the important qualities of a vibrantresidential neighbourhood. The guidelines are intended to reinforce communityidentity of single-family residential neighbourhoods.Objectives• To facilitate a high standard of building design, site compatibility and siteaesthetics;• To integrate higher density single-family residential development intoneighbourhoods in the urban area through the establishment of generalprovisions for building form and character;• To minimize the impact of new single-family inf ill residential development onexisting neighbourhoods;• To provide a mix of housing forms, choices and affordability opportunities forresidents in the urban area and at the same time provide for more interesting andvaried urban neighbourhoods;• To provide for a form of sustainable development in Mission through theeconomic efficiencies gained by capitalizing on existing infrastructure andservices in the urban area by increasing single-family residential densities;• To provide a neighbourhood environment that focuses on pedestrians and awayfrom an automobile dominated streetscape; and• To incorporate Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED)principles to provide a safe residential environment.ApplicabilityAn Intensive Residential Development Permit is required for all residentialdevelopment proposing urban compact, urban cluster compact and urban infill,including all coach house, garden cottage and duplex buildings, within the urbanarea. Intensive Residential Development Permits are applicable to:• Compact residential development on lands designated Urban Compact /Multiple Family on OCP Map la and Urban Residential — Compact on OCPMaps 1 b;• Cluster residential development on lands designated Urban Compact - Clusteron OCP Maps 1 b;• Inf ill residential development on lands designated Urban Compact / MultipleFamily on OCP Map 1 a;

109• Coach house and garden cottage residential buildings on lands designatedUrban Residential and Urban Compact / Multiple Family on OCP Map 1 a; and• Duplex residential buildings on lands designated Urban Residential and UrbanCompact / Multiple Family on OCP Map 1 a.GuidelinesIntensive residential development is expected to maintain a strong single-familyneighbourhood character in which individual dwelling units are distinguishable fromone another. Intensive residential development achieves higher density of singlefamilyas is seen with the traditional neighbourhoods north of the downtown core.Increased residential density is accomplished through the development of smallerlots with or without coach houses, garden cottages, and through the development ofduplex housing. This type of neighbourhood character offers a range of housingtypes while reinforcing the relationship of the homes to the street.During the review of the development permit application, alternative solutions anddesigns that meet the general intent of the guidelines can be considered and appliedto the intensive residential development.General Form and Character• Buildings should utilize variations in the character of rooflines, steep slopingrooflines, gables, hips and dormers. Massing based on simple, regular shapeswith strong, gable roof forms.• Garages are to be detached that have access from rear lanes. Where rear laneaccess is not possible, garages should be recessed behind the front façade of theprincipal dwelling.• Dwellings should be ground entry. Basemententry designs may be considered for dwellingswhen lane access is not possible or wheretopographical constraints exist.• To allow for an interesting streetscape,buildings are to have small or staggered frontyard setbacks.• A higher level of architectural detail and, whereappropriate, landscape treatment should beused to emphasize the primary entrances.High quality materials and finishes, such aswood and masonry, are encouraged.• Strongly defined entries that retain a humanscale (i.e. no higher than one storey) andthat relate to the street are encouraged.Extended porches and recessed entries areexamples of ways to strengthen therelationship between building and the street.Veranda, elevated entrance andlandscape features provide forstrong delineation between publicand private space• Front porches and/or verandas with overhangs and wood decking with heritagestyle railings should dominate the front (and side on corner lots) of the façade.On corner lots, design articulation should continue around to exterior side walls.

110Wraparound porches of a functional size such as 1.8 metres (6 feet) in width arepreferred.• Clear delineation of public and private space is accomplished through anappropriate scale of landscaping and fencing.• Coach houses and garden cottages are to be architecturally compatible with themain structure, particularly where visible from the street.• A duplex should fit into the immediatesurroundings of its location and notappear out of scale or character to theadjacent homes.• Duplexes are to be architecturallydesigned to avoid a "mirror" image andprovide the appearance of one singlefamilyhouse.• To give the impression of similar sizeand scale to adjacent homes, the frontelevation of a duplex can incorporaterecesses, projections and treatmentsthat give the appearance of a smallerbuilding in scale with its neighbours.A duplex should fit into the immediatesurroundings of its location and notappear out of scale or character to theadjacent homes• Infill housing must be designed to fitinto the immediate surroundings of its location and not appear out of scale orcharacter to the adjacent homes. Building massing, scale and height shouldcomplement and not disrupt the rhythm of buildings and the overallneighbourhood pattern.Do This\lot ThisPervious Surface Retention• A variety of materials for driveways, walkways and patio areas should be used tomaximize pervious surface area and be designed to maximize rainwaterinfiltration on-site.

111Building Height• The height of principal single-family dwellings shall not exceed two storeys asviewed from the front, unless the third storey is incorporated entirely into the roofform. For secondary dwellings in the form of a coach house or garden cottage,the massing shall be secondary to the principal dwelling.• The height of infill houses shall not exceed the average height of the housesimmediately adjacent to ensure complementary form and character. Theincorporation of living spaces within the roof form is encouraged.Parking and Garages• Where a lane is provided, access to off-street parking is to be provided from thelane. Where lanes are not possible, access from the street will be encouraged tocombine two driveways of adjacent compactlots minimize entry driveways, curb cuts, andto enhance the streetscape of theneighbourhood.Front elevation• Garages should not be the dominant housingfeature along the street. Garage doors shouldappear to be set into the walls rather than flushwith the exterior wall. A variety of compatibledesigns that relate to the particulararchitectural design selected should be usedthroughout a development project to reducevisual repetition along the street.• Two single doors are preferred over onedouble door.Garages facing the street • Where lane access is not possible, garagesshould be set back from the facing the street should be distinctly set backfacade of the house from the façade of the house.• The massing of garages should besecondary to the primary form of thehome. The design and detailing ofthe garage must be consistent withthe architectural style of the homeespecially where doors are visiblefrom the street.Building Orientation• All residential buildings are to havetheir primary façade facing publicstreets, parks, and greenways.Houses on corner lots requirespecial design attention, and assuch flanking and corner sideGarage door design and location awayfrom the road accentuates theresidence rather than the garageelevations should incorporate variations on wall planes, substantial rooflinebetween floors, appropriate wall heights, window placement and detailing.

112• Wherever possible, garages are to belocated in the rear yard, with frontentrances and porches featured as thedominant features seen from the street.• For duplex housing, buildings are to beoriented in such a way to allow formaximum delineation of rear yard amenityfor each unit.• A duplex building that is located on cornerlot must have the two dwelling units withinthe duplex orientated and designed in away that each front entrance faces adifferent street.Effective use of separate entrancesin a duplex provides for theappearance of a single family dwelling• For infill housing, front yard setbacks shall be, on average, similar to those of thedwellings immediately adjacent.Entries, Porches, and Front Yards• Entranceways are to be covered at the first level. Front doors or individual entriesare to be emphasized through the use of entry porches or recessed front doors.• The additions of porches/verandas promote neighbourhood interaction andprovide semi-private outdoor space. They should have a functional depth withsome flexibility to project into the front-yard setback. Porches and/or verandasare to be raised above the ground and preferably extend across the entire front ofthe dwelling.• Fencing and hedging in the front yard can be used to delineate public and semiprivatespace. Hedging or fences should be kept low, and the latter should bedesigned to be in keeping with the architectural character of the dwelling.• Wood or stone fencing, or a combination of the two, is acceptable for front yardswhile chain link metal fencing is not. Picket, lattice or other similar wood fencingis acceptable, while solid fence panels are not.• Gates and/or arbours should be consistent with the style of the fence.Built Form Diversity• Diversity of building form is encouraged within the same area on the same street.• No street block should have more than two homes with the same architecturaldesign. Variation can be accomplished through the location of porches, roof form,façade articulation, and front elevation design details (i.e. variety in windowproportions, trim, materials, and colour).Building Massing• The massing of individual houses or buildings should express a strong clearhierarchy of forms. Upper floors that are proportionally smaller than the lowermain floors reduce the appearance of box-on-box housing forms while allowing forvaried roof forms.• Setbacks in the second-storey break-up the appearance of longer walls and allowfor larger skirt roofs along the side of a building.

113• Building massing should reflect the character of historic homes found in traditionalDistrict of Mission urban neighbourhoods. The massing should incorporate strongpitched roof forms, porches, and/or recessed entries.• The scale of adjacent buildings should minimize overlooking and shadowingbetween buildings.Roof Forms• Buildings should have strong primary roof forms. Secondary roofs, gables, shedor integrated skirt roofs should be incorporated into the building form to express aclear formal hierarchy and to visually support the primary roof form.Varied roo f IVES create, diverse and interesting'streetscapes• Incorporation of living spaces within the roof form is encouraged for principalbuildings and is required for the design of coach house buildings.• Roof slopes of a minimum of 7 in 12 are encouraged, with steeper roofs preferredon dominant and primary roofs.• Garage roofs are to complement the roof form of the principal dwelling• Consideration should be given to roofing materials that achieve an appropriate fitwith the building's structural massing, articulation, and roof forms.Building Finishes• Recommended exteriorfinishes include wood,shingle siding, brick andstone. Vinyl siding isacceptable provided thewindow trim and exterioroutside/inside corners arefinished with wood fasciaboard.• No more than threematerial finishes arepermitted any elevation,with a fourth materialbeing permitted above theupper storey on gable ends ordormers.I I■vf7-7,7 11100TE:milgazumit maw, arEntrance accentuated by detailedtreatment and arched roof- line variation

114• Treatments to front elevations should continue around corners to avoid a "pastedon"appearance.• Flashings, gutters and downspouts should be integrated into the design of thehome through colour or other methods.Windows• Windows are to be visually prominent and are to be articulated with color and/ortrim. The largest group of windows or those belonging to the primary livingspaces within the building should be of a scale that is compatible with themassing and roof forms of the building.• Windows are to be of a simple configuration, carefully composed to support themassing of the buildings. Groupings in the bays are encouraged.• Large horizontal picture windows are discouraged where vertical or squarewindows (individual or in groups) are preferred.• Widows can be arranged and offset from neighbours to maximize privacy.Landscaping• Fencing on corner lots must be placed in a way that ensures good visibility at thecorner as well as creates a significant corner design element by starting the fencebehind the side elevation architectural features.• Stamped concrete front walks and driveways should be considered to create aunique and distinctive feature for compact lot development.• Ornamental trees and shrubs should be included as part of the site plan.Plantings can be used to create privacy, break up elevations, and used to ensurethat compact lot subdivisions have a consistent and finished look.Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED)• Developers and designers are to consider appropriate safety and naturalsurveillance measures (such as lighting design, visual access/surveillance) as perCPTED principles.• Homes are to be designed so thatprimary living areas have a clear viewof the street, park, and/or greenway.• Garages are to be oriented so thatthey do not completely block the viewof the street or lane.• Raised functional porches are to beprovided on the street-facingelevation of residences.• The first-floor elevation should be sethigh enough to provide acommanding view of the street.ExemptionClear view of streets while maintainingprivacy for residentsThe following will be exempt from requiring an Intensive Residential DevelopmentPermit:

115• Excluding coach house and garden cottage, a development proposing toconstruct a new building(s) or an addition to an existing building(s) less than111.5 sq. m. will be evaluated by staff 'in-house' to ensure consistence with theintent of Development Permit Area Guidelines;• Internal renovations not resulting in any change to the external appearance of thebuilding;• Site improvements such as landscaping and paving;• Subdivision for the purposes of lot consolidation, lot line adjustment, or roadwidening to District of Mission standards;• Exterior building envelope repairs covered under the Homeowner Protection Act,SBC 1998 not resulting in any significant change to the external appearance ofthe building; and• Any servicing work undertaken by or on behalf of the District of Mission.

I APPENDIX 2 1116LAND USEOFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN REFERRALLAN. 47POLICYDate Policy Adopted: July 2, 2002Date Policy Amended: June 16, 2003Council Resolution Number: 02/691Council Resolution Number: 03/707During the development of a new Official Community Plan, the District of Mission will consultwith the organizations listed below prior to First Reading of the bylaw.When an amendment is proposed to an Official Community Plan, the District of Mission will referthe proposed amendment to the organizations listed below following first reading of the bylaw,subject to the following provisions.1. The Fraser Valley Regional District will be referred OCP amendment proposals that relateto land that is located adjacent to the boundary of Electoral Area "F" or that involve 100 ormore urban lots located anywhere within the District of Mission. A referral to the FraserValley Regional District will be made during the development of new OCP's.2. The District of Maple Ridge will be referred OCP amendment proposals that relate to landthat is located adjacent to its boundary. A referral to the District of Maple Ridge will bemade during the development of new OCPs.3. A referral to the City of Abbotsford will be made during the development of new OCPs.4. First Nations will be referred OCP amendment proposals that relate to lands having highpotential for archeological sites. This includes lands adjacent to the Fraser River and otherwatercourses and water bodies.5. School District No. 75 will be referred amendment proposals in all cases.6. The Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection will be referred OCP amendmentproposals that involve a redesignation for residential, institutional, commercial, agriculturalor industrial development that would result in a change to the land use, vegetative cover orsurface water management within a watershed that has been identified as high risk by theagencies, or a property that is within an environmentally sensitive area. A referral to theMinistry of Water, Land and Air Protection will be made during the development of newOCP's.District of MissionCommunity DevelopmentPaae 1 of 2

117LAN.47Official Community Plan Referral7. The Fraser Health Region will be referred OCP amendment proposals that would increasethe number of parcels to be served by on-site sewage disposal systems. A referral to theFraser Health Region will be made during the development of new OCPs.8. The Ministry of Transportation will be referred OCP amendment proposals for land that islocated within a radius of 800 metres of an intersection of a controlled access highway,where there is a companion rezoning involved. A referral to the Ministry of Transportationwill be made during the development of new OCPs.9. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans will be referred OCP amendment proposalsrelating parcels located adjacent to the Fraser River, any other watercourse or water bodyand where the subject parcels contain creeks. A referral to the Department of Fisheries andOceans will be made during the development of new OCPs.10. The Land Reserve Commission will be referred OCP amendment proposals for land that iswithin or adjacent to the Agricultural Land Reserve boundary. A referral to the Land ReserveCommission will be made during the development of new OCPs.11.Utility Companies will be referred OCP amendment proposals involving 100 or more urbanlots.12.Canadian Pacific Railway will be referred OCP amendment proposals relating to landsdirectly adjacent to its rail line.Council must consider the requirement to make referrals on a case-by-case basis and adopt aresolution to clarify that the referral requirements have been considered. If the referralsconsidered comply with the provisions of this policy, the Council resolution should include thefollowing wording "That, upon due consideration of Section 879 of the Local Government Act,consultations go forward in accordance with Policy LAN.47, and that the persons, organizationsand authorities receiving those consultation referrals are considered to be those affected for thepurposes of the Section.District of MissionCommunity DevelopmentPage 2 of

Mission "NetON THE FRASERMemo118FILE: PRO.DEV.ZONR09-008To: Chief Administrative OfficerFrom: Marcy BondDate: July 6, 2009Subject: Rezoning Application R09-008 (Toor/McPherson) for 32966, 32978 32982and 32988 Cherry AvenueRecommendation1. That, in accordance with Rezoning Application R09-008 (Toor/McPherson), the Director ofCorporate Administration prepare a bylaw to amend District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 3143-1998 by rezoning the properties located at 32966, 32978, 32982 and 32988 Cherry Avenueand legally described as:Parcel Identifiers: 027-545-563, 027-545-571, 027-545-580, 027-545-598,and legally described as Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Section 28, Township 17, New WestminsterDistrict Plan BCP 36532from RS-1A One Unit Small Lot Urban Residential zone to R1-A One Unit Small Lot UrbanResidential (Suite) zone; andthat the bylaws be considered for 1 st and 2nd reading at the Regular Council Meeting on July6th , 2009; and be forwarded to public hearing on July 27, 2009.Summary of ProposalAn application has been received from Gary Toor and KC McPherson to rezone the propertiesat 32966, 32978 32982 and 32988 Cherry Avenue (Map 1) from RS-1A One Unit Small LotUrban Residential zone to R1-A One Unit Small Lot Urban Residential (Suite) zone to allow fora legal secondary suite in each dwelling unit.BackgroundThe property was rezoned in 2007 from RS-2 One Unit Suburban Residential zone to RS-1AOne Unit Small Lot Urban Residential zone to create six single family lots.After the RS-1A zone was adopted and the servicing plan prepared by the developer's engineer,it was evident that with the location of the services in the rear lane, there was not enough roomfor detached garages, as originally proposed. Thus, staff supported a variance to reduce thefront yard setbacks facing Cherry Avenue from 6.0 metres to 4.0 metres to provide for adetached garage at the rear of the house and to create more back yard space. This reduced isa characteristic to control the massing and form and character of dwellings. Staff was able tosupport this variance because the developer had agreed to form and character covenants.Official Community Plan DesignationNo Official Community Plan amendment is required for the proposed rezoning.Policies in the Official Community Plan which support the creation of secondary suites are asfollows:PAGE 1 OF 8

119Affordable Housing thorough Innovative Housing FormsPolicy 2.5.3 Facilitate the development of affordable, rental and special needshousing through supporting multi-family housing developments, small house/small lothousing, secondary suites, duplexes in appropriate locations, mixed market/non-markethousing projects, coach houses, granny flats and other innovative housing forms.ZoningThe proposal is to rezone the existing lots created under the RS-1A zone, with a minimum lotsize of 465 sq. metres to R1-A suite zone, also with the same minimum lot size of 465 sq.metres. Therefore, there will be no change in the number or the size of the lots with theadoption of the R1-A suite zone.Analysis of ProposalThe rationale for rezoning the subject properties, is that [completion of the building permitdrawings], the designer realized, the minimum building elevations would not allow for the 2storey house designs previously approved. Thus, the developer is requesting that the covenantbe amended to allow 2 storey dwellings with basements and to further allow the dwellings toaccommodate a secondary suite.Because the proposed 2 storey dwellings, with basements on Lots 1-4, can easilyaccommodate a suite, the developer wishes to build "suite ready" homes. The requirements fora dwelling to be considered "suite ready" are described on Appendix 1. Thus, the housesdesigns (Plans 1-4) meet the requirements for the British Columbia Building Code forsecondary suites.Designing the dwellings as "suite ready" also means the suites must be permitted under thezoning bylaw. The R1-A suite zone allows for the same size lots, 465 sq. metres and uses asthe RS-1A, but also allows for a secondary suite, provided the suite does not exceed 90 sq.metres (968 sq. feet) in size.Parking for the suite must also be provided on each lot. Plans 1-4 show the location of "thesuite parking" on the site plan.Although this is a 2 storey house with a basement, the overall height of the house from the lanehas not changed from what was previously approved, due to the grade of the lane beinglowered during subdivision to better accommodate the dwellings.Public Hearing Information PackageIn accordance with Council Policy LAN.50 — PRE-PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATIONPACKAGES, a package of information will be produced containing material related to thisdevelopment application.Requirements Prior to Adoption of the Zone Amending Bylaw• Any items that Council may require resulting from the Public Hearing or Council considerationof the application.Staff, recommends that the rezoning proposal proceed to Public Hearing meeting on July 27,2009.cmr(Aas\f-it buN-d\Marcy Bonda \COMDEV\MARCY\APPLICATIONE1REZONING \2009 APPLICATIONS\ R009 TOOR MCPHERON CHERRY\COW.DOCFILE:PRO.DEV.ZON PAGE 2 OF 8RN-008

nvI 32821 o/co%) I3226 tA o3299832835328390 : 3 o• .6mto IA32845 0 ,818332857 I'll 8195'877 8200 0 co co 03 co cb8toP.) 1.4t o879 8202 'coMcINTYRE ST1212 'tp8206 CO16)CO 0316.1Cop,)29198208COCP0101"6.1CP821603 CO CO CO CO16)OJ IV IVCOA6.1BOWYER DR.to"tocoLCO CO COID1))16.1 16.) 163CO COcoP.) 01W2953 32952 32955 32956-2969iv N32967 32968t.)to1"2973g?:0 laZdH8262 3297401 64* 3298601 01 V CO01 CA V LPtA (.4to It,3co co co163 46 ...•10 0"4.329573296732977 32976iS329833299732996-3013 co co coCO33005 33006t.)P.)OI 008211 40 try*6133015.3031.3045DOGWOOD ST 33025 33024COP.3ooco4603 OiCoco1%)co82608278330443305033066330843303533045330533306733083mul3283532841f7033020 33019to330503305833064ON 8 sz330273303333047330573306533071CR V I 832836328483302833038330483305633066ID8425329093291932939329593303533067JUDITH STCDCO01329103292832944to4coOv i32960cotooo0co163P.3 0COO CI00toto

121ElevationsPlan 1Lot 1 & Elevations & Site PlanSite PlanSuiteParkingsrr PLANFILE:PRO.DEV.ZON PAGE 4 OF 8R09-008

122Site PlanPlan 2Lot 2 Elevations and Site Plan157Fr=r-''1CPI-ANSuiteParkingElevations1:1111.-T-:111111111111111111111.1IllillFILE:PRO.DEV.ZON PAGE 5 OF 8R09-008

123Plan 2Lot 3 Elevations and Site PlanSite PlanSuiteParkingLANESITE PLANElevationsE1, _ I:11Elldu:ii■iiiiFILE:PRO.DEV.ZON PAGE 6 OF 8R09-00b

124Site PlanPlan 3Lot 4 Site Plan & ElevationsSuiteParkingElevationsFILE:PRO.DEV.ZONR09-008PAGE 7 OF E

125Appendix 11 Suite must be located in the basement or on the first floor andsubstantially below the principle dwelling's living area.2. Floor plan must show location and size of potential construction, the fullextent of the suite ceiling must be dry walled with 5/8" Type X or drywallentire ceiling with 5/8" Type X.3. Where completed as part of the permitted construction, vertical fireseparations should be finished with 5/8" Type X drywall.4. Where concealed by permitted finishes, fire stopping must be installed inthe appropriate locations.5. Window areas should conform to egress requirements for futurebedrooms.6. Make provision for separate exit to the exterior.7. Make provision for in-suite or shared laundry.8. Make provision for exit protection of the suite area from the main unit (orvice versa).9. Make provision for one additional parking space (show on a site plan)-landscaping must be parking friendly.10. Headroom must meet current standard for rooms in the BCBC.11. Make provision for independent heating system, e.g. gas fireplace, secondfurnace, or electrical panel sized to accommodate electric heat for thesuite.12. Make provision for smoke detection, i.e. plan for inner-connection andphotoelectric units- pre-wire in voids that are concealed under the currentpermit.13. Make provision for separate mechanical ventilation for the suite-pre-ductin voids that are concealed under the current permit.14. Size electrical panel for split receptacles for future kitchen.FILE:PRO.DEV.ZON PAGE 8 OF 8R09-008

126MemoFORESTRY DEPARTMENTFILE CATEGORY: FOR.FIR.PREV.FILE FOLDER: MISCELLANEOUSTo: Chief Administrative OfficerFrom: Director of Forest ManagementDate: June 17, 2009Subject: Fire Preparedness Levy Conditional Compensation AgreementRecommendationThat the District of Mission sign a Fire Preparedness Levy Conditional CompensationAgreement with the Ministry of Forests.BackgroundThe Wildfire Act is the legislation that controls various forest fire issues in BC includingcompensation. The provincial government has said it intends in the future to make anamendment to section 17 of the Wildfire Act that will be able to provide licensees quicker costrecovery under certain conditions if the licensee finds themselves in a position where they needto or are obligated to fight a forest fire but would also allow the MOF to recover costs paid if laterdetermined the licensee caused or contributed to the fire. Until this amendment is made, theMOF has a new agreement called a 'Fire Preparedness Levy Conditional CompensationAgreement' (Agreement) that is an interim solution. As Mission is the holder of Tree FarmLicense 26 and pays into the fire preparedness levy through the Annual Rent Regulation underthe Forest Act, we are eligible to sign this agreement.The MOF also has 'Policy 9.1 — Wildfire Control Responsibilities & Costs' that provides moredetail on conditions of licensee cost recovery, repayment etc. Specifically, if Mission signs thisnew Agreement:• If we have a forest fire in our TFL, where the cause of a fire is undetermined the MOFwould reimburse our costs incurred for voluntary and obligated fire suppressionresponse prior to determining if we caused the fire, contributed to the spread of the fireor contravened a regulation.• If we did cause the fire but no wilful act or omission has occurred, the MOF will not seekreimbursement of its fire control costs. If it is subsequently determined that the licenseecaused the fire or contributed to the spread, compensation of our costs paid becomes adebt to government and is to be repaid to government. However, we would nonethelessbe responsible for our own costs under such a scenario anyway.• There is also a pre-approval threshold of 3 hours maximum total flight time for aircraft, ifrequired, as long as the aircraft are hired from the MOF Air Carrier Directory.PAGE 1 OF 2

127• Also, MOF Fire Centre Managers have been instructed to issue a companion exemptionto a licensee that signs the Agreement, which will limit the licensee's obligated fireresponse period to 48 hours on a fire that is not at their worksite. This will also limit theupfront costs paid by a levy paying licensee.This Agreement deals with the District of Mission's role as a 'licensee' rather than only amunicipality. Policy 9.1 also references how the MOF relates to a 'municipality' and this hasbeen discussed with the Fire Chief who said he was aware of Policy 9.1.The above Agreement may limit some of the costs that Mission could potentially spend on aforest fire and it also appears to provide some administrative and prompt cash flow benefits, sostaff recommends entering into this Agreement. At this time other coastal licensees that havesigned the agreement are Western Forest Products, Teal Cedar and International ForestProducts with Richmond Plywood to sign soon.Kim Allan, RPFg/Forestry/Nm/Fire Preparedness Levy memoPAGE 2 OF 2

ACTIVITY APRIL MAY JUNEVisitors to office 156 139Lock Out Auto Crime Audits completed 818 360Citizen Patrol hours (time on the street) 172 161Beat Patrol hours (time on the street) 101 122Speeding letters sent 71 37Subpoenas served from CPO 24 17ACTIVITY APRIL MAY JUNELicence Plates checked 3125 5873Speedwatch vehicles checked 3470 1702Mission Crime Prevention OfficeProgram Stats 2009900 -8007006005004003002001000-Visitors to officei-----__-1,---4kaii...-Lock Out Auto Crime Citizen Patrol hours Beat Patrol hours (timeSubpoenas served fromSpeeding letters sentAudits completed (time on the street) on the street)CPOtEl APRIL 156 818 172 101 71 24El MAY 139 360 161 122 37 177000 -6000 -5000 -4000 -WOO -20001000 -Licence Plates checkedSpeedwatch vehicles checked[A PRIL 3125 3470EMAY 5873 1702

129MEMBER NOTICETO:FROM:Mayor and CouncilChair and Regional BoardAdministratorGary Macisaac, Executive DirectorDATE: June 25, 2009RE: RCMP CONTRACT RENEWAL UPDATEThis memorandum is being forwarded to L.TBCM member local governments asinformation in relation to the renewal of the RCMP Contract. It also advises ofopportunities for input with respect to this important matter.Background:As you are aware, the provincial and federal governments are in the process of renewingthe Agreements (or contracts) under which the RCMP provides police services in B.C.There are three inter-connected Agreements ("the Agreements") that are being renewedsimultaneously:1. The Provincial Police Services Agreement (PPSA) - this provincial-federalAgreement engages the RCMP as the provincial police force.2. The Municipal Policing Agreement (MPA) — based on the PPSA, this provincialfederalAgreement allows the Province to sub-contract RCMP police services tomunicipalities.3. The Municipal Police Unit Agreements (MPUA) this municipal-provincialAgreement is between RCMP-policed municipalities and the Provincialgovernment.The term of the current Agreements is from 1992 to 2012 (i.e., they expire on March 31,2012). The renewal of the Agreements is referred to as the Contract Renewal Process.Each of the 3 Agreements is quite similar in terms of content.The Contract Renewal Process is being managed in two phases. The first phase, which iscurrently underway, is the "information-gathering" phase. The information-gathering01./L 'd S'v20 'ONNOISSILAJ , 01S311I1VdIDINIM dO Now Wd6t,, L 600 '9 'Nu

130phase is expected to be completed in late 2009. The second phase is the "negotiation"phase that will take place over the course of 2010.In a communication, dated March 31, 2008, to all UBCM member local governments, theExecutive Director of the UBCM advised of the appointment of a local governmentrepresentative to the Province's Contract Renewal Team and of the appointment of alocal government working group (LGWG) that would assist in developing information insupport of contract negotiations on behalf of B.C. municipalities. The local governmentrepresentative and the members of the LGWG are listed in Appendix "A".Since May 2008, the LGWG has met regularly to discuss the development of a draftmandate for negotiations and a communications process to ensure that the interests ofaffected municipalities are well understood and properly balanced in developing themandate. In addition, the working group has met on several occasions with the AssistantDeputy Minister for Policing and Community Safety, Mr. Kevin Begg, to discuss theContract Renewal Process and the list of contract issues that has been identified to dateby the local governments. Mr. Begg chairs the Provincial/Territorial Contract AdvisoryCommittee (PfCCAC), which is comprised of representatives of the eight provinces andthree territories that have an RCMP contract for police services. The P!TCAC isnegotiating the new Agreements with the Federal government.The UBCM local government representative has attended to observe the meetings of theP/TCAC with the Federal government negotiating team,Local Government Commonalities and Differences:The LGWG has come to recognize that there are some common issues facing all localgovernments in B.C. related to the delivery of RCMP police services and at the sametime there are some unique issues facing smaller communities and detachments in B.C.and some unique issues which larger communities are facing. It is the desire of theLGWG to identify the commonalities while also respecting the differences betweencommunities.Provincial Principles Forming the Basis of the New AgreementsThe preamble to the new PPSA is currently being developed by the Federal governmentand the Provinces and Territories. The preamble is intended to articulate the fundamentalprinciples upon which, the new Agreements will be based. The Province has advised thatthe three primary principles are:1. A change in the relationship between the federal government and theProvinces and Territories from being "client-based" to being "a realpartnership";2. An emphasis on at contain' nipnt in relation to the delivery of police servicesafter 2012. The Provinces and Territories want to minimize any increases to the0l/6 'd S1720 ON S3III1VJI3INPA 38 dO NOINII Acii7:C 6006 Anr

131cost base in the new Agreements and have input into policy and legislation thatwill impact costs after 2012. They want mechanisms put in place to help controlcosts now and in the future, so that the Provinces, Territories and LocalGovernments can have the best possible service for the dollars spent on policing.3, An emphasis on operational and financial accountability, including betterreporting to contract partners and the ability to conduct value for money analysisand financial and operational audits,Issues Identified to Date by Local Governments:Appendix "B" to this communication lists the key matters that have been identified todate by B.C. local governments as important considerations in relation to the renewal ofthe Agreements.Current Work of the UBC1V1 Local Government Working Group (LGWG):With a view to the feedback that has been received to date from local governments, theLGWG is reviewing on a clause-by-clause basis the current MPUA with the objective ofestablishing the following:1. Which clauses in the current MPUA need to amended and how;2. Which, if any, clauses need to be deleted; and3. What "gaps" are there in the current MPUA for which clauses need to be addedand what should those clauses contain?This clause-by-clause review will result in the development of a series of discussionpapers, with each paper addressing a specific element or clause within the MF'UA.On-going communications with local governments:The objective of the UBCM communication process is to provide clear, transparent andopen communication with every local government that contracts with the Province forRCMP police services. The following describes the communication process that will befollowed through the remainder of the information-gathering stage of the ContractRenewal Process:1. The UBCM has established a dedicated web page within its website to which allUBCM communications related to the RCMP Contract Negotiations are postedalong with any relevant information related to the key matters that have beenidentified by local governments.2. The UBCM will forward for review to each BC local government in earlySeptember a policy paper on policing costs and it will include work that iscurrently being developed by the LGWG on the RCMP contract as referencedabove.'d Yi080 'ONS3IlllVdI3INnA 38 3O NOINn ND:L. 6006 '96 vr

1323. The UBCM will organize as part of the 2009 UBCM Convention, a forum formember local governments to discuss the policy papers and the issues identifiedby the LGWG with a view to better understanding the final position with respectto each issue.4, The input from the forum will be used by the LGWG to develop a recommendedposition for each identified issue for consideration and approval by the UBCMBoard. Input from the Province will be requested on the draft recommendedposition related to each key issue prior to UBCM Board consideration. Asummary of the Board-approved positions on each of the key issues covered bythe position papers will then be forwarded to the member local governments asinformation and will be posted on the UBCM website.5. These final positions will be forwarded to the Province as input to be used in thenegotiation process with the Federal government.The communication and input process related to the "negotiation" phase of the ContractRenewal Process will be discussed with member local governments as part of the forumto be held at the 2009 UBCM Convention,Need for Continuing Local Government InvolvementParticipating in the UBCM process around the renewal of the Agreements is critical forlocal governments to ensure that the final Agreements reflect the priorities of all of theaffected parties. Therefore, it is important that there be full and on-going participationfrom the affected local governments. The LGWG needs input if it is to be effective in itsrole.If you or your local government has any comments or input related to the informationcontained in this communication, please forward such input to Ken Vance at the UBCMOffices in Richmond at 604-270-8226 or at kvanc eCik. Further informationregarding the up-coming forum at the 2009 UBCM Convention will be forwarded to youin the nest few weeks.00 d St40 S3III1VE3IM a8 JO NOINn WdPv:L 60H

133APPENDIX ALOCAL GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVESLocal Government Representative to the Provincial Negotiating team for the RCMPContract:Murray Dinwoodie, CAO/City Manager. City of SurreyUBCM Local Government Working Group — RCMP Contract:Murray Dinwoodie, CAO/City Manager. City of SurreyAndy Laidlaw, General Manager Community Services , City of NanaimoPaul Gill, General Manager, Corporate & Financial Services, District of Maple RidgePhyllis Carlyle, General Manager of Law and Community Safety, City of RichmondChad Twin, Deputy City Manager, City of BurnabyKeith Grayston, Financial Planning Manager, City of KelownaJim Chute, CAO, City of Dawson CreekFred Banham, CAO, Peace River Regional DistrictCorien Speaker, CAO, District of ElkfordVictor Kumar, CAO, City of Grand ForksKen Vance, Senior Policy Advisor, UBCMOL/S 51780 'ONS3III1VdIDINnA a8 JO NOINn AdEt:L 6002 9z Nor

134APPENDIX "B"Ha ee en !ii•I IRenewal_ of thE RCMP Contract for Police ServicestipCog.-relatgd issues:I. Continuing rapid escalation of the costs of RCMP local police services (abovethe sum of inflation and population growth): Police services -relatedexpenditures in most B.C. municipalities with a population of greater than 5,000are the single largest budget item in the annual operating budget. In the case ofthe City of Surrey the operating costs associated with the RCMP contract policeservices absorb 45% of the City's total revenues from property taxes. Thesepolice services costs have been increasing by percentages higher than the sum ofinflation and population growth for many years. Between 1999 and 2008,thecompound effect of growth and inflation combined was 55%. During this sameperiod the amount paid by Surrey for RCMP contract police services rose by129%. This trend is not sustainable and fundamental adjustments in how thesecosts are allocated between orders of government are necessary or new revenuestreams need to be provided to local governments to assist with the burden ofescalating police services costs. The cost-sharing formula in the current Contractneeds to remove a larger amount of the cost burden from local government.2. Cost Sharing for local government police services between orders ofgovernment: Most of the activities of local government police services aredriven by legislation and regulations that are within the jurisdiction of theProvincial and/or Federal governments and yet most of the costs associated withpolice services are being paid by the local order of government. A study shouldbe undertaken on this issue to be used as information in the structuring of a newcost allocation formula between orders of government related to police services.3, Cost control and certainty: Information available to local governments islimited about bow costs are controlled by the RCMP and about the reasons foradjustments in the costs of police services that occur from year to year. Thesalary adjustments that are made within the RCMP structure occur withoutconsultation with local government. In addition, there are times when little noticeis given by the RCMP or the Province in relation to changes in the cost structureof the RCMP and the payments that local governments must make for the RMCPlocal detachment. For example, in late 2007, the RCMP sent out a notice that asignificant increase in premiums payable by local governments for the RCMPpension plan. This notice came very late in the budget process of most localgovernment for 2008 making it necessary to make adjustments to the draft 2008budget late in the approval process. The RCMP can and at times do makeunilateral decisions that affect the costs payable by local government withoutconsultation with the local government This is not considered reasonable in thecontext of a "contract" or "partner' relationship.OL/9 d 5t780 'ONSElI1VdIOINnA OS JO NOINn lAcIPP:L 6006 '96 'Nu

1354. Cost-shared elements of the Contract in comparison to elements for whichthe costs are borne entirely by the local government: Under the current F/PContract and MPU Agreements, the cost-sharing formula applies to someelements of RCMP polices services costs and other elements are paid entirely bythe local government These need to be reviewed with a view to moving moreitems to the cost-sharing arrangements. For example, the cost of providingbuilding space for the RCMP is entirely borne by the local government5. Regional Integrated Teams: With the introduction of regional integrated teamsin the lower mainland a number of years ago, all local government detachmentscontributed either members or a cost-sharing contribution to the integrated teams,which reduced the manpower available for addressing local police services. Theregional integrated teams do not report to local governments in the lowermainland but rather report to the OW of the Lower Mainland District (LMD) ofthe provincial police. In that these teams report to the LMD, the costs for theseteams should be borne by the province.6. Sharing of the Proceeds of Crime (Civil Forfeiture) with local governments:Resources generated through the proceeds of crime legislation are not available tolocal government to offset the costs of the local government police serviceresources that are most often responsible for apprehending the criminals fromwhich the proceeds of crime are recovered. A formal arrangement needs to be putin place,7. Financial Planning: The RCMP does not currently provide longer term (5 year)financial plans to local government. Introducing such planning would assist localgovernments to manage anticipated cost adjustments through the "fore warning"that such a process would provide. It would also allow discussions to occurbetween the parties that would build trust and understanding of the financial sideof the RCMP operation,Accountabilitv-related issues:1. No formal dispute resolution mechanism exists: Smaller municipalities havestated that when the RCMP does not provide service in a satisfactory mannerthere is no formal complaint or resolution process. The organizational structureof the RCMP is not well understood and there is no good source of information inthis regard. A formal complaint resolution process needs to be embedded in theMPU so that when issues are identified there is an efficient and effective processin place to achieve resolution.2. Accountability for addressing local priorities: The RCMP do not provide aconsistent formal report to the local governments about their activities and attimes appear to deal with local priorities only if the local priorities align with theRCMP priorities that are established by the Federal government. It was noted thatS20 'ONflIlI1VdIDINOW 09 JO NOINO IAJJE:L 60H W Anr

136in smaller communities, depending on the OIC there is limited dialogue betweenthe OIC of the RCMP detachment and the related local government Council,particularly where the RCMP detachment facility is not located within the areaunder the jurisdiction of the local government. A formal mechanism needs to beestablished and consistently applied for the OIC of each detachment to seekagreement from and sign off by the local government on a regular basis, sayannually, regarding the local priorities that are to be addressed by the detachmentincluding service targets that are to be met and that the OIC meet with each localgovernment for which the detachment provides service on a regular recurringbasis over the course of each year.3. RCMP member vacancy rates: Concern has been raised that although thesituation has improved somewhat, RCMP member vacancy rates continue tofluctuate beyond acceptable levels in local detachments. It was also noted thatthere is a concern that Federal government RCMP positions are being left vacantto fill RCMP contract positions within local government detachments and that thevacancies in the Federal positions may in fact be causing more serious crimes atthe local level since the Federal positions address areas such as drug traffickingand organized crime, both of which if left unchecked cause serious crime in localcommunities. This is putting extra pressure on local detachments. -4. Application of Best Management Practices: Concern was raised that some ofthe approaches being used by the RCMP are not consistent with current "bestmanagement practices"; for example, civilianization, being the use of RCMPmembers in positions where civilian professionals may be more appropriate (i.e.,budget management, information technology, human resources, crime analysis,etc.), Similarly, the practice of "promoting from within" tends to lead to a strongbias toward traditional approaches as compared to the new ideas and approachesthat come with introducing on a regular basis "outsiders" in intermediate andsenior management positions.5. Performance Standards: There is no standard measuring and reporting systemfor each RCMP detachment in the Province to report to the respective localgovernment(s) served by the detachment The development of a performancestandards and a more standardized means of reporting out should be established.6, Police Buildings: The current Contract is very one-sided in relation to therequirement for local governments to provide building space for use by theRCMP. The RCMP can demand the delivery of additional space and the localgovernment must deliver the space. There is not dispute resolution mechanism inthis regard. The Contract should be adjusted to provide for the parties to come toan agreement on building requirements and where an agreement cannot bereached that a balanced dispute resolution mechanism be established.7, Reporting Structure of the RCMP: It was noted that the OW of the localdetachment reports to two "masters", being the local Council and "E" Division,OL/G d S .1720 'ON S3I111VdIDINOW O dO NOW IdE17:L 6001

137which reports to the Commissioner in Ottawa, Where there is disparities betweenthe needs and directions of the respective "masters", the needs and directions of"E" Division and Ottawa appear to supersede the local needs. There needs to bestronger focus by each local detachment in meeting the priorities and needs of thelocal government that they are serving, more like a local independent policeservice.8. Accountability Related to the Use of Detachment Resources forRegionaUProvinciaUFederal events/needs; Concern was raised that localdetachment resources are taken away from local detachments and put to use forregional/provincial/national events and that there is no formal accounting for themember-hours that are lost through this process to the local detachment. A formalregular method of reporting and accounting for such usage of member time needsto be established to ensure that local governments are not paying for policeservices that are not of a local nature and that local police service needs do notunduly suffer due to constrained resources brought on by member absences forevents outside the local jurisdiction.9. Ratio of new cadets to veteran members and continuity of members in thecommunity: A concern was raised that the number of cadets in somedetachments is disproportionately high in comparison to veteran members, Thisratio needs to consistent across detachments so that local policing is notcompromised due to lack of reasonable experience. Similarly, there is concernwith the constant turnover of members in detachments that tends to undermine thedevelopment of strong relationships, a good understanding of and an empathy forthe needs and priorities of the local community. In this regard independent policeservices have a much better track record of having long serving members thatknow the community well and understand the priorities and needs of thecommunity.10.Experienced members moved from local detachments to Provincial orFederal RCMP police services: Due to the nature of the police servicesdelivered by each order of government, there is concern that experienced veteranmembers are taken from local detachments and moved to Federal and Provincialpolicing responsibilities due the demands of the types of police services that aredelivered, which leaves the local detachments with less experienced members andbeing less capable of delivering effective police services locally.11.Involvement by the local government in the selection of the OIC and othersenior members in the local detachment: Although "E" Division has beenmoving toward a selection model that includes the involvement of localgovernment representatives in the process of selecting an OIC for the localdetachment there is no formal requirement in the MPU or Contract in this regard,This should be embedded in the Contract and MPU agreement.Ol/6 'd 5110 'ONS3I1I1VdDINnA 38 JO Now NdWC 6006 '96 vir

13812. Opting Out Provisions: The MFG agreement and the F/T Contract needs torecognize and allocate specific responsibilities and allocations to each of theparties where a local government chooses to withdraw from an MFG agreementand introduce an independent police force within its jurisdiction. Currently, thecontract does not deal with this potentiality in sufficient detail.Ol/Ol d S .n0 'ONS3I1I1VdIDINDI D8 JO NOINO Adt717:L. 600Z '9Z Anr

139DISTRICTON THE FRASERCorporate AdministrationMemorandumFile Category:File Folder:ADM.BYL.BYLCouncil Procedure BylawTo: Chief Administrative OfficerFrom: Director of Corporate AdministrationDate: June 11, 2009Subject: Amendments to Council Agenda StructureRecommendationThat section 3 (k) of District of Mission Council Procedure Bylaw 3694-2004 beamended by changing the order and the naming of the headings of council businesson the council agenda as follows:(1) Proclamations(2) Delegations and Presentations(3) Committee of the Whole*listing of each committee and the topics under each*to now include any items that would formerly have been "Correspondence"(4) Rise and Report(5) Adoption of Committee of the Whole Report(6) Adoption of Informational Items*omnibus resolution to receive all items(7) Bylaws(8) Council Minutes for Adoption(9) Other Business(10) Chief Administrative Officer's Report(11) Mayor's Report(12) Councillor's Reports on Committees, Boards and Activities(13) Question Period(14) AdjournmentPage 1 of 3

140BackgroundThe recommended changes are intended to simplify and make more efficient use ofthe agenda items that council deals with at its regular meetings.Under the proposed revisions any report or document that requires a councildecision will be included in the committee of the whole section of the agenda. As inthe past, these items will be listed under the appropriate committee.While for the most part this is not a departure from the current process, it wouldalso include items that are currently included under the "Correspondence" heading.The major change is that external documents that are informational would all belisted under the heading "Adoption of Informational Items". While it is expectedthat the number of items will be limited, whatever number there are will bedisposed of by one single omnibus resolution.The change in the order is also intended to be more audience friendly. Forexample, bylaws would be addressed much earlier in the proceedings. Currentlyaudience members often have to sit through virtually the entire meeting to find if aparticular bylaw is adopted.The c -•t order of business is attached.Page 2 of 3

141(1) Proclamations(2) Committee of the Whole(3) Adoption of Committee of the Whole Report(4) Minutes(5) Business Arising from the Minutes(6) Chief Administrative Officer's Report(7) Mayor's Report(8) Councillor's Reports on Committees, Boards and Activities(9) Bylaws(10) Correspondence(11) Other Business(12) Question Period(13) AdjournmentPage 3 of 3

mi sTsiconOFON THE FRASERFinance DepartmentMemorandum142File Category: ADM.POL.CURFile Folder: Financial AdministrationTo: Mayor and CouncilFrom: Director of FinanceDate: June 25, 2009Subject: General Administration and Engineering Cost Recoveries Policy FIN.38RecommendationThat Policy FIN.38 General Administration and Engineering Cost Recoveries be amended by increasingthe water and sewer utility administration fees (engineering) from 5% to 5.5%.BackgroundAt the March 23, 2009 closed meeting, council approved a new exempt position of Design Engineer. Inorder to partially fund this position, the director of finance and the director of engineering and publicworks recommended that a 0.5% increase to the water and sewer utility administration (engineering) feebe instituted.Staff are now seeking council's formal approval to amend the policy.Ken BjorgaardPage 1 of 1

143FINANCEGENERAL ADMINISTRATION AND ENGINEERINGCOST RECOVERIESFIN.38POLICYDate Policy Adopted: 2005/11/07 Council Resolution Number: 05/9191. GeneralGeneral administration support is provided to all operating funds/areas and to capitalprojects. In addition, engineering support is provided to certain operating funds/areasand to certain capital projects. As the operating funds/areas and the capital projects areutilizing general administration and engineering resources, the costs associated withthese support services need to be allocated to the various funds/areas and to the capitalprojects accordingly.2. Cost Recovery MethodologyWhereas is it is not feasible and practical to track the actual amount of generaladministration and engineering services/costs utilized by the various operatingfunds/areas and the capital projects, the District needs to estimate the amount ofresources utilized in each operating fund/area and by the capital projects. As such, theDistrict will hereby establish cost recovery percentages, which will be calculated on thevarious expenditures (does not include general administration and engineering costrecovery expenditures) within the various operating and capital areas.3. Cost Recovery Areas, Items and Percentage RecoveriesThe general cost items that are utilized by each operating fund/area are noted in Table 1below, together with the expenditure cost recovery percentages that will be charged.District of MissionFinance — General Administration and Engineering Cost Recoveries - FIN.38 Finance Department Page 1 of 2

GENERAL ADMINISTRATION AND ENGINEERING COST RECOVERIESFIN. 38144Table 1 — OPERATING COST RECOVERIESOperating Areas General Administration (1) Engineering (2)Equipment Operations 1% 1%Forestry Operations 5%N/ATo a maximum of $150,000 per yearRefuse Operations 3% 3%Water Utility Operations 5% 5%Sewer Utility Operations 5%5%Transit Operations 3%3%(1) For General Government Management Staff; General Accounting including Invoicing,Collections, Accounts Payable, and Payroll; Budgeting & Financial Reporting; InformationTechnology Services; Purchasing & Stores Services; and Liability Insurance(2)For General Engineering Management StaffN/A — Not ApplicableThe general cost items that are utilized by capital projects are noted in Table 2 below,together with the expenditure cost recovery percentages that will be charged.Table 2 — CAPITAL COST RECOVERIESCapital Areas General Administration (3) Engineering (4)Non-Engineering CapitalProjects 2.5% N/AEngineering Capital Projects 2.5% 2.5%(3)For General Government Management Staff; General Accounting including AccountsPayable and Payroll; Budgeting & Financial Reporting; Information Technology Services;Purchasing & Stores Services; and Liability Insurance(4)Engineering Project Management, Design, Survey and Inspection ServicesN/A — Not ApplicableDistrict of MissionFinance — General Administration and Engineering Cost Recoveries - FIN.38 Finance Department Page 2 of 2

145MDISTRICT OFissiON THE FRASERCorporate AdministrationMemorandumFile Category:File Folder:ADM.COM .SEL.Oyama Sister City Select CommitteeTo: Chief Administrative OfficerFrom: Deputy Director of Corporate AdministrationDate: June 30, 2009Subject: Oyama House PostRecommendation:That Council authorize shipping the Oyama House Post from Mayor Atebe to Mayor Takahashi.Background and Comments:Oyama International Friendship Association (OIFA) has asked if the District of Mission wouldauthorize shipping the Oyama House Post from Mayor Atebe to Mayor Takahashi. The housepost is a gift to the Town of Oyama, and sending it from one Mayor to another is seen as giftingwhich lowers the import cost impact to Oyama. Originally the pole was going to be shippedfrom the Mission Arts Council to the Town of Oyama,The house post is being shipped to Oyama on July 15, 2009 and the shipping costs are beingpaid by the Mission Arts Council who commissioned the pole. The house post is being raisedduring the delegates visit in October 2009.Once the house post is shipped and received in Japan, the Town of Oyama is covering thecosts of delivery to their community and the costs to have the pole put into place. To lessen thefinancial impact of receiving a gift from Mission, OIFA has asked us to deliver the pole in thismanner to lessen the duty fee as it is seen as a gift from one municipality to another.gAclerk\confidentiaRkelly\2009\report to counciRshipping oyama house post.docPAGE 1 OF 1

146issionDISTRICT OFON THE FRASERPublic Safety Inspection TeamMemorandumTo: Chief Administrative OfficerFrom: Manager, Public Safety Inspection TeamDate: June 16, 2009Subject: Proposed New Controlled Substance Property BylawRecommendationThat Council move forward with the adoption of District of Mission ControlledSubstance Property Bylaw 5044-2009.BackgroundSince the inception of municipal public safety inspection teams, and the creation ofthe original draft bylaw provided to municipalities by the UBCM, several legalprecedents have been set which have had an impact on the policy and procedure ofthese teams. As a result, the content and language of certain sections of ourcurrent bylaw, which is based on the original UBCM draft bylaw, has becomeoutdated.In addition, day-to-day practical experience gained over the past year, includingnetworking with other participating municipalities, has allowed the District's PublicSafety Inspection Team to "fine tune" the administration and enforcement of ourpublic safety inspection program. The new proposed bylaw reflects both the legaland administrative changes that have occurred since the current bylaw wasintroduced.Due to the numerous changes in content and format of the proposed bylaw, itwould be preferable to repeal the current bylaw and adopt the proposed bylawrather than amend the current one.ael DekkersManager, Public Safety Inspection TeamPage 1 of 1

147DISTRICT OF MISSIONCONTROLLED SUSBSTANCE PROPERTY BYLAW 5044-2009A bylaw to promote health and safety and to impose requirements onaltered or contaminated properties used as a controlled substance property.WHEREAS the Council of the District of Mission wishes to enact a bylaw to promote thehealth and safety of occupants of altered or contaminated properties and to imposerequirements on those properties;AND WHEREAS properties, including residential properties, used as a controlled substanceproperty routinely contravene standards under the British Columbia Electrical Code, BuildingCode and Fire Code, the Safety Standards Act, the Fire Services Act or other applicablelegislation, including bylaws of the District, and may present a significant risk to public safety;NOW THEREFORE the Council of the District of Mission, in open meeting assembled,enacts as follows:1. CITATIONThis bylaw may be cited as "District of Mission ControlledSubstance Property Bylaw 5044-2009".2. SEVERABILITY2.1 The provisions of this bylaw are severable and the invalidity of anypart of this bylaw shall not affect the validity of the remainder of thebylaw.2.2 Schedule "A" is attached to and forms part of this bylaw.3. DEFINITIONS3.1 In this bylaw:"alteration" or "altered" means any change made to a structuralcomponent or a mechanical system of a building without a permitissued by the authority having jurisdiction;"building" means any building or structure used or intended to beused for supporting or sheltering any use or occupancy;"Building Code" means the British Columbia Building Code, asamended from time to time;"Building Inspector" means a person appointed by the District toinspect land or buildings for compliance with building legislationincluding but not limited to statutes, regulations and bylaws;

148District of MissionControlled Substance Property Bylaw 5044-2009Page 2 of 12"clandestine drug lab" means real property used in whole or in partfor the unlicensed manufacture of amphetamines, lysergic aciddiethylamide ("LSD"), gamma hydroxybutyrate ("GHB"), crackcocaine, "ecstasy", or marijuana oil or its derivatives;"Community Charter" means the Community Charter, S.B.C. 2003,c. 26;"controlled substance" means a controlled substance as defined inSchedules I, II or III of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act,1996 c. 19, as amended from time to time, but does not includesubstances produced in a clandestine drug lab;"controlled substance property' means real property:(a)(b)used in whole or in part for the manufacture, growth, storage,sale, trade or barter of a controlled substance; orcontaminated by, or containing trace amounts of, chemical orbiological materials used in the manufacture, growth orstorage of a controlled substance;and includes a marijuana grow operation and clandestine drug lab;"Council" means the Council of the District of Mission;"dangerous goods" means those goods regulated by theTransportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, c. 34, and itsRegulations as amended from time to time;"District" means the District of Mission;"Electrical Code" means the British Columbia Electrical Code, asamended from time to time;"Engineers and Geoscientists Act" means the British ColumbiaEngineers and Geoscientists Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 116;"Fire Inspector" means the Fire Chief and every person appointedby the Fire Chief or by Council to be an officer or employee of theDistrict's Fire and Rescue Service and includes a Local Assistantto the Fire Commissioner authorized under the Fire Services Act,"Fire Code" means the British Columbia Fire Code, as amendedfrom time to time;"Fire Services Act" means the British Columbia Fire Services Act,R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 144;

District of MissionControlled Substance Property Bylaw 5044-2009Page 3 of 12149"hazardous condition" means:(a)(b)any real or potential risk of fire, noxious fumes or gases, orexplosion;any real or potential risk to the health or safety of persons orproperty;(c) , any unapproved or unauthorized building alteration; or(d)any contravention of the Electrical Code, Fire Code, BuildingCode, the Safety Standards Act, the Fire Services Act, orother applicable legislation, including bylaws of the District, allas amended from time to time;"hygienist" means a person who is:(a)(b)(c)(d)a certified industrial hygienist (CIH);a registered occupational hygienist (ROH);a registered professional biologist (R.P. Bio.); ora Ph.D. mycologist;and who carries, or is employed by a company that carries,environmental liability insurance in the minimum amount of$1,000,000.00;"Inspector" includes:(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(h)a Fire Inspector;a Building Inspector;the Manager of the Public Safety Inspection Team;the Director of Engineering and Public Works;a Bylaw Enforcement Officer;other persons designated by Council by name of office orotherwise to act in the place of a person, officer or employeereferred to in paragraphs (a) to (e);a certified electrician acting as an Electrical Advisor for theDistrict; anda Safety Officer appointed under the Safety Standards Act,

District of MissionControlled Substance Property Bylaw 5044-2009Page 4 of 12"marijuana grow operation" means real property used in whole or inpart for the growing or cultivating of marijuana;150"mechanical system" means a system installed to service a realproperty, including but not limited to, an electrical, heating, airconditioning, sewer, water and drainage system;"occupancy" means the use or intended use of real property inwhole or in part for the shelter or support of persons, animals orproperty;"owner" includes any registered owner of real property and anylessee, licensee, tenant, caretaker, user or other occupier of thereal property, or the agent of any owner;"peace officer" means a member of the Mission, British Columbiadetachment of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police;"pesticide" means any chemical, substance or mixture used todestroy, prevent, repel or mitigate fungi or animal pests, ormicroorganisms such as bacteria or viruses, and includes plantregulators, defoliants, desiccants or herbicides, fungicides or othersubstances used to control pests;"professional cleaner" means a person or company certified inremoving moulds, fungi and contaminants, including pesticides,fertilizers or chemicals, from a building;"public safety inspection" means the inspection of real property todetermine:(a)(b)whether a hazardous condition exists under the ElectricalCode, Fire Code, Building Code, the Safety Standards Act,the Fire Services Act, or other applicable legislation, includingbylaws of the District, all as amended from time to time; andwhether the real property is a controlled substance property,and includes not more than two remediation inspections;"real property" means a parcel of land and includes, withoutlimitation, any permanent or portable building or structure locatedon the parcel, as well as any personal property, equipment orchattel located on the parcel, or on or within any permanent orportable building or structure on the parcel, and includes a parcelcovered by a tenancy agreement;"remediation inspection" means the inspection of real property todetermine whether a hazardous condition identified as a result of apublic safety inspection has been remedied;

District of MissionControlled Substance Property Bylaw 5044-2009Page 5 of 12"Residential Tenancy Act" means the British Columbia ResidentialTenancy Act, S.B.C. 2002, c. 78;151"Safety Standards Act" means the British Columbia SafetyStandards Act S.B.C. 2003, c. 39;"service costs" means any direct or indirect costs incurred by theDistrict during the inspection, investigation and remediation of realproperty used as a controlled substance property including:(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)any inspections not included in Schedule "A";the replacement of consumables including equipmentexposed to a contaminant;the clean up, dismantling, removal, transportation, storageand disposal of equipment, substances or other materials onthe real property;the analysis of a substance or material found at the realproperty, to determine health and safety conditions at the realproperty;the contracting of services, including but not limited to, anelectrical advisor, an engineer, construction or demolitionpersonnel, a health professional, a Safety Officer appointedunder the Safety Standards Act, a hazardous materialsprofessional or an animal control officer;the cleaning, repairing or monitoring of the District's sanitaryor storm sewers, water mains, roadways, sidewalks or otherDistrict property affected by the use; and(g) the administration of inspections and associated activities;"tenancy agreement" means an agreement, whether written or oral,express or implied, between a landlord and tenant respectingpossession of real property;"utility" means a lawful provider of an electrical, natural gas orwater service from a distribution system.4. PROHIBITIONS4.1 A person, other than a utility or a person to whom a disconnectionor bypass permit has been issued by a utility, must not cause,allow or permit a meter installed for the purpose of ascertainingconsumption of electricity, water or natural gas from a utility to bedisconnected, tampered with or bypassed.

District of MissionControlled Substance Property Bylaw 5044-2009Page 6 of 121524.2 Where the supply of electricity, natural gas or water to a realproperty has been disconnected by a utility or by the District underthis bylaw, an owner must not cause, allow or permit the supply tobe reconnected until the requirements of this bylaw and otherapplicable legislation have been met.4.3 An owner must not cause, allow or permit a building to be alteredfor the purpose of manufacturing or growing a controlledsubstance, including but not limited to:(a)(b)the installation, alteration or disconnection of a supply ofelectricity, natural gas, propane, heating oil or water to thereal property;the installation, alteration or disconnection of a mechanicalsystem, or to any equipment or appliance connected to themechanical system;(c) the removal of fire stopping required under applicablelegislation.4.4 An owner must not cause, allow or permit in any building on realproperty:(a)(b)the storage or use of dangerous goods in quantities greaterthan that permitted under the Fire Code;any obstruction of an access or egress required under theBuilding Code or other applicable legislation; or(c) the growth of mould, mildew or fungus.4.5 A person must not:(a)(b)interfere with or obstruct the Building Inspector or FireInspector from posting a notice under section 5.2;remove, alter, cover or mutilate a notice posted under section5.2.; or(c) enter or occupy any real property where a notice has beenposted under section 5.2.5. POWERS OF INSPECTORS5.1 An Inspector may enter on real property to:(a) deliver a form of notice under this bylaw, including posting anotice in a conspicuous place on the real property;

(b)(c)District of MissionControlled Substance Property Bylaw 5044-2009Page 7 of 12carry out a public safety inspection or remediation inspection;andattend at the real property from time to time during the courseof remediation work required under this bylaw to ascertainwhether the work is taking place and to monitor any workbeing done.1535.2 Where a Building Inspector or Fire Inspector has reason to believethat a real property contains a hazardous condition or is acontrolled substance property, including being informed by a peaceofficer, and where:(a)(b)(c)the Fire Inspector has ordered every occupier of the realproperty to vacate;Council has ordered every occupier of the real property tovacate under the Community Charter; oran owner has delivered written notice to the District undersection 6.2,he or she may post a notice in a conspicuous place anywhere onthe real property prohibiting any person from entering or occupyingthe real property.5.3 Where a real property is the subject of a notice posted undersection 5.2 and the owner complies with the requirements of thisbylaw and other applicable legislation, the Building Inspector orFire Inspector shall remove the notice.5.4 The Fire Inspector may:(a) enter on real property and inspect it for conditions that maycause a fire, increase the danger of a fire or increase thedanger to persons or property from a fire;take measures to prevent and suppress fires, including thedemolition of buildings and other structures to prevent thespreading of fires;order the owner of real property to undertake any action forthe purpose of removing or reducing any thing or conditionthat the Fire Inspector considers is a fire hazard or increasesthe danger of a fire;(d)request that a utility discontinue electrical service to a realproperty if the Fire Inspector determines that the condition ofthe electrical system on the real property constitutes animminent fire hazard; and

District of MissionControlled Substance Property Bylaw 5044-2009Page 8 of 12154without limiting paragraphs (a) to (d), exercise the powers of theFire Commissioner under sections 21 and 25(1) to (4) of the FireServices Act.5.5 Where an Inspector has reason to believe that a real property is acontrolled substance property he or she may require the owner toclean, disinfect, remove, replace or otherwise remediate anysurface, object or thing which in the opinion of the Inspector iscontaminated, including but not limited to:(a)(b)ceilings, walls and floors, including insulation;carpets, rugs, curtains, drapes and wall coverings; and(c) the furnace, including all air ducts, main distribution ducts,venting, and filtering.5.6 Any work required under section 5.5 must be performed by aprofessional cleaner and inspected by a hygienist who mustprovide written certification that the real property is substantiallyfree of any pesticides, fertilizers, toxic chemical contamination,moulds or fungi.5.7 Where the Building Inspector has reason to believe that the watersupply on a real property is or may be contaminated he or shemay:(a)(b)post a notice subject to the Community Charter in aconspicuous place anywhere on the real property orderingthe disconnection of the water service;require that the water be tested by a hygienist to determine ifcontaminants are present and if so, which contaminants arepresent; and(c) require the chlorination or flushing of water lines on the realproperty.5.8 The Inspector may, having regard to the amount and complexity ofremediation work required under this bylaw, grant a reasonableextension of time to complete any work.6. DUTIES OF OWNERS6.1 Every owner of real property that is subject to a tenancy agreementmust inspect the real property at least once every threeconsecutive calendar months to determine whether the property isa controlled substance property or contains a hazardous condition.6.2 Where an owner believes there is a contravention of this bylawafter an inspection under section 6.1, the owner must:

155District of MissionControlled Substance Property Bylaw 5044-2009Page 9 of 12(a) within 24 hours of the determination, deliver written notice tothe District of the particulars of the contravention; andb) subject to the Residential Tenancy Act, within two months ofthe delivery of the notice, take such action as may benecessary to bring the real property into compliance with thisbylaw.6.3 Where a controlled substance property has been remediated andmay be re-occupied, the owner must notify any occupant in writingprior to occupancy that the real property was used as a controlledsubstance property.6.4 Every owner of real property must undertake any action directed bythe Fire Inspector for the purpose of removing or reducing anything or condition that the Fire Inspector considers is a fire hazardor increases the danger of fire.6.5 Where occupancy of a real property has been prohibited undersection 5.2, an owner must not cause, allow or permit the realproperty to be used or occupied until:(a)(b)a public safety inspection has been carried out under section5.1;the owner has carried out or caused to be carried out, thework required under this bylaw and other applicablelegislation including:(i)(ii)obtaining any permit, approval or authorizationnecessary to carry out the work;submitting to the District any written certification or otherdocumentation required; and(iii) paying all service costs, inspection fees, permit feesand other applicable fees; and(c) the Building Inspector or Fire Inspector has removed anynotice posted under section 5.2.7. DISTRICT RELIANCE7.1 Where an owner is required to perform work under this bylaw,neither:(a)the issuance of a building permit;(b) the removal of a notice posted under section 5.2,(c) the acceptance or review of plans, drawings or specificationsor supporting documents; or

(d) any inspections or monitoring of work;District of MissionControlled Substance Property Bylaw 5044-2009Page 10 of 12156by or on behalf of the District constitutes in any way a warranty,assurance or statement of compliance with this bylaw or any otherapplicable code, standard or legislation.7.2 Where a professional engineer, architect or other person providescertification or other documentation to the District that:(a)(b)work performed as a requirement under this bylawsubstantially conforms to this bylaw or any other applicablelegislation; ora building complies with the requirements of the BuildingCode, Safety Standards Act, District bylaws or otherapplicable legislation;the District may rely solely on that certification or otherdocumentation as evidence of conformity with these requirements.8. FEES AND SERVICE COSTS8.1 Where a public safety inspection is conducted on a controlledsubstance property the owner must pay the District the fees andservice costs set out in Schedule "A" 1.1 and 2.2, and paymentmust be made prior to the first remediation inspection beingconducted.8.2 Where a remediation inspection is required which is not includedas part of the public safety inspection, the owner must pay theDistrict the fee set out in Schedule "A" 1.2, and the fee must bepaid prior to the inspection being conducted.8.3 In addition to any fee payable under this section, the owner of acontrolled substance property must pay the District the servicecosts set out in Schedule "A" 2.1.8.4 Where water service is shut off, reconnected or otherwise servicedunder this bylaw, the owner must pay the District the applicablefees set out in Schedule "A" 1.3 to 1.5.8.5 Notwithstanding section 8.1, if any owner reports to the District thatreal property owned by him or her is a controlled substanceproperty, prior to the District or a peace officer identifying the realproperty as such, only the service costs set out in Schedule "A" 2,shall be payable to the District.

District of MissionControlled Substance Property Bylaw 5044-2009Page 11 of 121579. DEFAULT9.1 If an owner fails to comply with a requirement under this bylaw orother applicable legislation, the District, by its officers, employeesor agents may enter on the real property and take such action asmay be required to correct the default, including to remediate thereal property or bring it up to a standard specified in the bylaw orapplicable legislation, at the expense of the owner, and mayrecover the costs incurred as a debt.9.2 If the owner has failed to pay any fee or cost imposed or incurredunder this bylaw before the 31 st day of December in the year thefee or cost was imposed or incurred, the amount payable may beadded to and form part of the taxes payable on the real property astaxes in arrears.10. OFFENCES AND PENALTIES10.1 Every person who contravenes any provision of this bylaw commitsan offence punishable upon summary conviction and is liable to afine not exceeding $10,000.00.10.2 If an offence is a continuing offence, each day that the offence iscontinued constitutes a separate and distinct offence.11. REPEAL11.1 District of MiSsion Controlled Substance Property Bylaw 4040-2008is hereby repealed.READ A FIRST TIME this ## day of [month], 2009READ A SECOND TIME this ## day of [month], 2009READ A THIRD TIME this ## day of [month], 2009ADOPTED this ## day of [month], 2009MAYORDIRECTOR OFCORPORATE ADMINISTRATION

SCHEDULE "A"District of MissionControlled Substance Property Bylaw 5044-2009Page 12 of 121581. FEESThe following fees apply under this bylaw:1. Public Safety Inspection: includes the initial public safety inspection andnot more than two remediation inspections. The fee must be paid prior tothe first remediation inspection.2. Additional Remediation Inspection: for each additional remediationinspection required after the two remediation inspections included in thepublic safety inspection. The fee must be paid prior to each inspection.$4,900.00$250.003. Shutting off a water service $100.004. Re-connecting a water service $100.005. Re-inspecting and re-sealing a water distribution system $500.002. SERVICE COSTSThe following service costs apply under this bylaw:1. Items defined in section 3.1 (a) through (f) of this bylaw Actual cost2. Administration as defined in section 3.1 (g) of this bylaw $300.00

Langley Times - Students learn all about getting local 159BlackEra PRINTTH ISPowered by fiClidcabilltyStudents learn all about getting localLangley Township Councillor Jordan Batemanacts as mayor as a group of school children fromJames Hill Elementary and St. Catherine'sRoman Catholic School fill councillor's chairsduring Municipal Awareness Day. Left to rightare Riley Driediger, Stephanie Toddington, LukePoirier and Ethan Morgan.John Gordon/Langley TimesBuy Langley_Times Ph.otos OnlinePublished: May 19, 2009 11:00 PMDave StarkSpecial to The Times"More hot dog sales," says a future mayor.This was the passionate and animated responsefrom Ethan Shimmin, a Grade 2 student at JamesKennedy Elementary School to my question, "Ifyou were the mayor of the Township of Langley,what would you do to make it a better place?"I was attending the seventh annual MunicipalAwareness Day at the Township's Civic Facility,and made a conscious effort to gather a child'sperspective on this unique, and highly successfulevent — not a difficult task with close to 1,800Grades 1 to 4 students from local schools inhttp://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Langley+Times+-+Students.. . 6/15/2009

Langley Times - Students learn all about getting local 160attendance.Mayor Rick Green commented, "MunicipalAwareness Day is a chance to raise awarenessand show local students the type of services andprograms that are provided to Township residentsby their municipality."The kids are eager to do everything from climbon machinery and engage in a mock councilmeeting, to learn about the environment and trytheir hands at technology. They were also treatedto hot dogs, drinks, and snacks that weregenerously donated by Save-On Foods."We look forward to greeting these youngsters,who may one day be Township taxpayers,employees, or even elected officials," says Green."I am not aware of any other municipalityoffering this type of event to elementary schoolchildren," Green said.Although civic staff, children, teachers, parents,and volunteers were understandingly caught up inthe excitement of the day, the vision of Townshipcouncil seven years ago should not gounacknowledged.The first event was held on a much smaller scalein a town hall- type atmosphere at the old civicfacility in Murrayville. The event has grownsignificantly in the Township over a few shortyears, exposing thousands of children to localgovernment and services.Most importantly, this event encourages socialresponsibility in children by raising awarenessand breaking down any barriers, perceived orreal, that they may encounter while gettinginvolved in their communities now and in thefuture.After all, resource economists have proven thatthe best people to manage a resource, or in thiscase a community, are those that are mostaffected by its use — in this case, all of us.When asked about a long-term commitment tothis event, Green responded, "Council and myselfhttp://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Langley+Times+-+Students.. . 6/15/2009

Langley Times - Students learn all about getting local 161have made a commitment to support this event,invest in our young people, and continue thispositive event."Speaking of the future, here are more great ideasfrom some of our prospective mayors that, theysay, will make the Township of Langley a betterplace to live:James L., Grade 2, R.C. Garnett Elementary —"Make more wild areas and less houses."Jeannie S., Grade 2, R.C. Garnett Elementary —"Make it so everyone is treated like they shouldbe."Shaughnessy F., Grade 2, James KennedyElementary — "Stop everyone from pollutingeverything."Gavin M., Grade 2, James Kennedy Elementary— "Turn all the schools into swimming pools."Georgia M., Grade 2, James Kennedy Elementary— "Put preschools so people don't have to walkso far."Samantha B., Grade 2, James KennedyElementary — "Nothing. I think it's already agreat place!"I could not resist taking the brevity of the day toGreen and ask him how "little" Ricky Greenwould have responded to this question when hewas in Grade 2.Green chose to echo the words of his younggrandson. "I would make hockey cards free toeveryone."Dave Stark is a Langley freelance writer.Find this article at:http://www.bclocalnews.com/surrey_area/langleytimes/news/45440477.html[] Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article.http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Langley+Times+-+Students.. . 6/15/2009

162DisiRicroF AL 7\-- MINUTESThe Minutes of the ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SELECT COMMITTEE Meeting held atthe Mission Regional Chamber of Commerce Boardroom, 34033 Lougheed Hwy, Mission, BC onThursday, May 21s t, 2009 commencing at 8:00 a.m.Committee Members Present:Committee Members Absent:Staff Members Present:Carlo Billinger, Rex Cox Men's WearJames Atebe, District of MissionHeather Stewart, District of MissionOleene Herman, Community Futures North FraserBob Mackovic, Mission Downtown Business AssociationJim Sward, Anglo American Cedar ProductsJason Roessle, Mission City RecordLinnea Battel, Xa:ytemSean Melia, Chamber of CommerceLiz Clay, Greenwood Estates & MortgagesJohn Laing, Westisle Marketing GroupDianne Common, UFVDave Nick, Fraser Valley Building SuppliesGlen Robertson, Chief Administrative OfficerSharon Fletcher, Director, PlanningAnne Stacey, Chamber of Commerce1. MINUTESMotion: Moved by J. Roessle and seconded by 0. Herman, andRecommended: That the minutes of the Economic Development SelectCommittee (EDC) meeting held April 16 th, 2009 be adopted.CARRIED2. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTESa) Education Task ForceS. Fletcher reported that the report will go to Council May 21, 2009.b) Greenwood Video ConferencingA. Stacey is to send an email inviting the committee view the presentation at CommunityFutures North Fraser on June 18 th 6:00pm.c) Budget Request from Downtown Business Association:Budget request rescinded — no further action is required.3. NEW BUSINESSa) Employment Land StrategyS. Fletcher reported that Guiding Principles and strategies for achieving the principles will beconsidered by Council along with suggested next steps to complete the Employment LandStrategy. The strategy will include a monitoring framework.b) Planning Department Update:S. Fletcher reported applications are being received at 1/4 the rate of previous years howeverinquiries are increasing and counter staff report that there is a lot of inquiries at the counter.

163Economic Development Committee MinutesMAY 21, 2009c) Hotel Market AnalysisMotion: Moved by L. Battel and seconded by J. Roessle,Recommended: That the Hotel Market Analysis be released as a completed document.CARRIED.d) Hiring Process for EDOG. Robertson reported that the confirmation of acceptance of the job should be received bythe end of the week with the EDO in place by mid-June.Action: G. Robertson to email the Committee with announcement when confirmed.f) Mission Tourism PlanFinal report is available to the committee. The new EDO will write a report to Council withrecommendations. The report indicates a need for funding to hire staff to implement the planand a discussion was held on possible sources for this funding.g) Manager's ReportS. Fletcher reported on upcoming trade shows and correspondence received.4. OTHER BUSINESSNext MeetingThursday, June 18 th, 2009 at 8:00 a.m. at the Mission Regional Chamber of CommerceBoardroom.5. ADJOURNMENTMotion: Moved by J. Sward and seconded by J. Roessle, andRecommended: That the Economic Development Select Committee Meeting be adjourned.CARRIED.

164issionMDISTRICT OFON THE FRASER ft-Engineering and Public WorksMemorandumFile Category:File Folder:INF.WAT.METResidential Metered Water — Report to CouncilTo: Chief Administrative OfficerFrom: Director of Engineering and Public WorksDate: June 15, 2009Subject: Bylaw Amendments For Residential Metered WaterRecommendationThat Water Bylaw 2196-1990 be amended as follows:Replace Section 3.2 (b) (iii) with "A meter read system prepayment fee as described in schedule A"In Section 3.5 (a) replace the words "spool piece" with the word "meter" and insert the words "readsystem" between the words "meter" and "are" in the last sentence.In Section 3.5 (b) add the following sentence: "Fees and charges for prepaying the meter read systemare set out in the attached Schedule A".In Section 3.5 (c) add the following sentence: "Fees and charges for prepaying the meter read systemare set out in the attached Schedule A".In Section 4.2 insert the words "single family, two family" between the words "any" and "triplex".In Schedule A Service Connection Charges replace $860.00 with $960.00 and replace $1,029.59 with$1,210.00.In Schedule A replace the words "METER PREPAYMENT FEE" with "METER READ SYSTEMPREPAYMENT FEE" and replace " 19 mm service $254.8525 mm service $335.5638 mm service $638.7750 mm service $739.04"With" all services 19 mm diameter through 50 mm diameter inclusive $130.00"In Schedule D 2. Metering Requirements, in the first bullet add the words "complete with a meter"between the words "chamber" and "plus" and add the words "read system" after the word "meter" at theend of the sentence.In Schedule D Section 2. Metering Requirements, in the second bullet add the words "and pay for thefuture installation of a water meter read system" and the end of the sentence.In Schedule D Section 2. Metering Requirements, in the third bullet add the words "and pay for thefuture installation of a water meter read system" and the end of the sentence.In Schedule D Section 4.1 Water Meters Delete "Neptune T-10", "ABB C-700", "Neptune Tru/Flo", and"ABB C-3000" from Table 2 and add the following at the end of the section "Meters for one and twofamily residences shall have a straight reading register conforming to the latest version of AWWA C 700."Page 1 of 2

165In Schedule D Section 4.2 Registers insert the words "for land uses other than one and two familyresidential" between the words Meters" and "must" in the first sentence.Replace Drawings CS-W-21 and CS-W-21A with the attached revised versions of these drawings.and;That Water Rates Bylaw 2197-1990 be amended as follows:In Schedule A Section 3. remove the words "A Zone, R Zone, RS Zone, RT Zone"Add a section 4. as follows:"4. All metered one and two family residentialand;Annually Metered water User Rate: $0.84 per cubic meter of water consumedThat Subdivision Control Bylaw 1500-1985 be amended as follows:In Section 3.14 (g) Service Connections in Schedule C Part 1 Design Criteria Manual Section 3 WaterDistribution System; replace the words "spool piece" in the first sentence with "meter"In Schedule D Subdivision Fees add the words"WATER METER READ SYSTEM PREPAYMENT19, 25, 38, and 50 mm services $130.00"Replace Standard Drawings CS-W-21 and CS-W-21A with the attached revised versions of thesedrawings.BackgroundAt the May 4, 2009 Council meeting the recommendations of the attached staff report dated April 22,2009 were approved by Council. The above recommendations are the bylaw amendments necessary toimplement these approved measures.R ck BomhofFAENGINEER\DRIECKENReport on BL Amendments re Metering land 2 Family res.docEnclPage 2 of 2

166MD1STRICT OF0\ THE FRASEREngineering and Public WorksMemorandumFile Category: INF.WAT.METFile Folder. Residential Metered Water — Report to CouncilTo: Chief Administrative OfficerFrom: Director of Engineering and Public WorksDate: April 22, 2009Subject: Residential Metered Water Invoicing — Follow-up ReportRecommendationThat notwithstanding Council resolution 09/208, which accepted the staff report on postponing residentialmetered water invoicing; staff are directed to proceed immediately with the following step to implement ameter reading and invoicing of all new residential service:1. Residential water meters to be read manually by District staff on an interim basis until District hassufficient water meters to make it cost effective to proceed with reading by a more advancetechnology.2. Residential meters are read and invoiced annually in October.3. A water user charge of $0.84 per cubic meter is established for one and two family residentialmetered water.4. Staff prepares for Council consideration all the, necessary bylaw changes.BackgroundCouncil directed staff to investigate and report on installing and implementing meter readingiinvoicing onall new water services rather then installing spool pieces and postponing implementing reading/invoicingto a future date when more meters would exist.The previous staff report recommending postponing implementing reading/invoicing to a future dateidentified a number of basic questions that needed to be answered prior to starting a meterreading/invoicing program. Listed below are the questions with staff recommendations, to accommodatethe implementation of a meter reading/invoicing program immediately:1. What type of water meter should be installed? Currently there is the touch read, drive:-. by radioread and recently introduced fixed-site - radio read meters. The City of Abbotsford is proceedingwith the installation of fixed-site radio read meters because of the benefit this system has over theother systems. Staff is recommending we proceed with a standard manual read meter to beread and invoiced by District staff, until such time as there are a sufficient number ofmeters to merit the investment in one of the new reading technologies.2. How often will the water meters be read and invoices sent to residents? Reads could be donebimonthly, quarterly semiannually or annually. Existing meters on industrial, commercial andinstitutional services are read quarterly. Staff is recommending we read the water meters onthe same frequency as the City of Abbotsford, which is once a year.

1673. What water usage rate structure will be applied? There is declining (the more you use the lessyou pay), flat line (rate per cubic meter is constant) and inclining (the more you use the more youpay) rate structures.Usage Ex. 2009 declining rate Flat Rate Example Inclining Rate ExampleUp to 300 cubic meters $0.7060 $0.7060 $0.7060Next 300 cubic meters $0.5789 $0.7060 $0.7500Next 300 cubic meters $0.5245 $0/060 $0.8000Next 300 cubic meters $0.4706 $0.7060 $0.8500On balance $0.3617 $0.7060 $0.9000These are not recommended rates ust examples of the 3 types (declining, fiat line and inclining) rate structures.Staff is recommending we adopt a fiat rate structure similar to the City Abbotsford of $0.84the cost per cubic meter for residential users.4. Will there be a different rate structure for one and two residential, multifamily, commercial,industrial and institutional water users? Staff is recommending a different rate structure forone and .two family residential versus multifamily, commercial, industrial and institutionalwater users as is the situation in the City of Abbotsford. The following chart shows acomparison between the District of Mission and the City of Abbotsford commercial, industrial andinstitutional water users meter rates.Usage District of Mission (2009) City of Abbotsford (2009)Up to 10,000 cubic meters $0.73Up to 300 cubic meters $0.7060 $0.73Next 300 cubic meters $0.5789 $0.73Next 300 cubic meters $0.5245 $0.7310,001 — 100,000 cubic meters $0.66Next 300 cubic meters $0.4706 $0.66On balance $0.3617 $0.535 . Will there be a fixed minimum charge or rate structure based strictly on volume used? Staff isrecommending there be no minimum charge as is the case with the City of Abbotsford.With the approval of the above recommendations, there still remains the basic question; when to startreading/invoicing residences .based on metered usage? Staff is recommending we proceed with astandard manual read meter to be read and invoiced by District staff, until such time as there issufficient number of meters to merit the investment in the new reading technology.Staff anticipate having approximately 10 residential water meters to read in 2009 increasing to 25 by theend of 2010, based on the Planning staff projections for new residential homes in 2009 and 201D ofapproximately 50 new homes each year and majority of these will be in developments already servicedwith water connection that do not have meter boxes.If Council accepts staff recommendations; amendments to the Water, Water Rates and SubdivisionControl Bylaw will be presented to address the various specifications for the installation of water metersfor the variety water service sizes and land uses that will occur.Page 2 of

168ConclusionIt is possible to proceed with reading and invoicing new residential water meters as they are installed.Based on limited growth projections it will likely be a number of years before it would be cost effective forthe District to invest in new technology systems to read meters; therefore the District staff would prepareto manually residential read meters for the next few years.Currently District staff manually read approximately 350 industrial, commercial and institutional watermeters four times a year. The addition of approximately 25 residential water meters over the next twoyear to be read and invoiced once a year will not have a significant impact on operational costs and willallow time to determine the best future method to read meter as more development occurs in later years.Manually read meters are easily converted into any one of the new reading technologies at anapproximate cost of $150.00.In 2008 it cost $2.61 for District Staff to read a meter on average; therefore in a decade if we have notbegun a metering existing residential water services and thus move to a newer technology; we wouldanticipate having installed approximately 1,500 residential water meters, which would costs a total of$4,000 annually to read.Ken Bjorgaard, I have reviewed the financial aspects of this report.File g:pworksigreglgreg 2008/Memo Res Water Meier Reading .docof 3

169100 STYROFOAMINSULATION CUTTO FIT METERBOX OPENING \ROADPRIVATEPROPERTYCOVER PER •SPECIFICATIONSff • 7,,,AW . AWV• MIIIIHMIli1111 'lilt/----- 45 DIAMETER OPENINGFOR REMOTE METERRECEPTACLE, PLUGGED UNTILMETER IS INSTALLEDV lr141.1■•■••■..I .1 IMMO 11111INLETBALL VALVE—(PART OF SETTER)METER BOXCONCRETESECTIONSTO SUITOUTLETCHECK VALVE(PART OF SETTER)/—BY-PASS VALVE,CLOSED ANDSEALED150 150FLOW— — —II•—DO NOT GROUT / ' IOPENING (TYP)111°.,0 . 0 • c 0 poo0o 0 0METER SETTER(FORD SERIES 70OR APPROVED EQUAL)0oP o 0p 0 C0• \2_°0 • 25mm BRACE. 0 o PIPE (TYP)50mm DRAIN HOLEMAIN VALVEfr A '11 VAlitti7 CONCRETE BASE SECTIONIN TRAVELLED AREAS,GRAVEL TO 150 DEPTH,ELSEWHERE.100mm CRUSHED GRAVELMETER SIZE.38mm positive displacement 330mm50mm oositive displacement 432mmNOTES:1. THIS DRAWING SHOULD BE REVIEWED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE DOCUMENT,"WATER METER INSTALLATION STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS."2. FOR SUPPLY OF METERS REFER TO TABLE 1 OF THE"WATER METER INSTALLATION STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS."METER INSTALLATIONFOR 38mm & 50mmSERVICE CONNECTION(ONE & TWO FAMILY)MissionOFDRAWN Jan. 2009REVISEDSCALE NTSC ... \IV 12 1

170100 STYROFOAM INSULATIONCUT TO FIT METER BOX OPENINGLID PER SPECIFICATIONS45 DIA. OPENING FOR REMOTEMETER RECEPTACLE, PLUGGEDUNTIL METER IS INSTALLEDROAD PRIVATER.O.W. PROPERTYINLETBALLVALVE(PART OFSETTER).MAIN VALVE\---(CURB STOP w/ RISER)SERVICE CONNECTIONPIPE19mm CLEAR CRUSHEDDRAIN ROCKMETER SIZE "D"16:419 19119 22925 271METER SETTER •(FORD 70 SERIES,OR APPROVED EQUAL)NOTES:I. THIS DRAWING SHOULD BE REVIEWED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE DOCUMENT, •"WATER METER INSTALLATION STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS" IN SCHEDULED' OF BYLAW 2190-19902. FOR SUPPLY OF METERS REFER TO TABLE 1 OF THE"WATER METER INSTALLATION STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS."METER INSTALLATIONFOR 25mm & SMALLERSERVICE CONNECTION(ONE TWO 7-741\4!DisMissionON THE FRASERDRAWN Jan. 2009REVISEDSCALE- NTS

171MisISTsRiCoT nOFON THE FRASERsoeo.eiEngineering and Public WorksMemorandumTo: Chief Administrative OfficerFrom: Superintendent of Roads and DrainageDate: June 19, 2009Subject: STR. 37 Boulevard Landscaping PolicyRecommendationThat the attached Boulevard landscaping Policy STR. 37 be approved.BackgroundCouncil at its Regular Meeting held March 16, 2009 received the attached memorandum andproposed policy dated February 19, 2009. After consideration Council made the followingrecommendation:Moved by Councillor Horn, andRECOMMENDED: That this item be deferred pending further information.CARRIEDStaff were directed to bring back an amended version incorporating the following:1. Item 5 should include the species of trees that are permitted;2. Item 5 or 6 should include if equipment such as benches, concrete planners,garbage reciprocals or basketball hoops are allowed in boulevards;3. Item 8 first sentence should be amended as follows: "Based on publiccomplaints for safety concerns or on the observation of a municipal officer...".Attached please find the revised proposed STR. 37 Boulevard Landscaping Policy thataddresses the above listed concerns as well as adding a paragraph concerning retaining walls.This revised version of the proposed policy has been reviewed by Keith Gibson of the MunicipalInsurance Association.It is recommended that the current proposed policy be adopted by Council.Matt DunhamPworks/Matt/STR. 37 Recommendation Memo.docFILE: ADM.POL.PRO PAGE 1 OF 1STR. 37 Boulevard Landscaping Policy

172STREETS & ROADSBOULEVARD LANDSCAPINGSTR.37Date Policy Adopted:Council Resolution Number:Context:The District recognizes that landscaping of a boulevard area adds to the overall beauty of ourcommunity. As a result the District will not take any steps to discourage this activity, whenboulevard landscaping falls within the policy guidelines set out below.Inspections:The District will not inspect boulevards for potential hazards, and will only respond to publiccomplaints.Policy Guidelines:1. For the purpose of this policy, "boulevard" means the area between the curb lines, theedge of pavement or the shoulder of a roadway, and the adjacent property line.In practical terms for a curbed road the boulevard is the part of the road allowancebetween the back of curb or back of sidewalk and the adjacent property line defining thelimit of the road allowance.Where there are no curbs, the boulevard is the area between the edge of the roadshoulder and the property line, or if there is no shoulder, the area between the edge ofpavement and the property line.2. A property owner whose property is adjacent to a municipal boulevard may landscapeand maintain the boulevard provided that the landscaping does not interfere withpedestrians who are using either a sidewalk, walking strip or road shoulder (if there is nosidewalk or walking strip), or contravene the provisions of the District's subdivisioncontrol bylaw or traffic control bylaw, or interfere with the required sight lines atintersections.3. All boulevard landscaping must not interfere with underground and above ground utilitiesand fire hydrants.District of MissionStreets & Roads — Boulevard Landscaping — STR.37 Engineering & Public Works Page 1 of 2

1734. If it becomes necessary for the District of Mission or a utility company to perform work onthe above ground or underground utility services, efforts will be made to restore theboulevard landscaping to its original state.5. Acceptable landscape materials include grass, shrubs, tree species that are permitted bythe subdivision control bylaw, flowers, decorative gravel, environmentally neutral mulchsuch as bark mulch, wood chips and class 'A' compost, asphalt and concrete.6: Other features such as low profile fences (to a maximum height of .75 metres),decorative stones, rocks, benches, concrete planters, basketball hoops and garbagereceptacles will be permitted as part of landscaping only when they are set back aminimum of 2.5 metres from the edge of pavement or curb and gutter and 1 metre fromthe edge of sidewalks. Placement of these items must not present a hazard to motoristsor pedestrians.7. Retaining walls are not generally permitted in the boulevard and must be constructed onprivate property and must meet the requirements as set out in Section 8 RetainingStructures of the District of Mission Building Bylaw 3590-2003 as amended from time totime. If in the opinion of the Director of Engineering & Public Works a retaining wall isnecessary and it cannot be constructed on private property a special permit may beissued. Landscaping aesthetics will not be considered a necessity.8. After receiving due notice, if the property owner fails to maintain the landscaping on theboulevard, the District of Mission may remove the landscaping at the owners cost.9. Based on safety concerns through public complaints or municipal employeeobservations, the Risk Inspector will inspect the boulevard area to determine the extentof the public safety risk. If the Risk Inspector determines that there is a legitimateconcern, s/he will contact the property owner to determine an acceptable solution,including the time frame to implement the solution. A follow-up letter will be sent to theowner.If the solution is not implemented within the agreed time frame, the Risk Inspector willcontact the Director of Engineering and Public Works, who will issue an order for theowner to either comply with the solution or face removal of the offending landscapefeature within a specific time frame. The Director will issue an order for removal uponexpiry of the specified compliance time frame. Cost of removal to be paid by propertyowner.Revised: June 16, 2009g/common/policies and procedures/STR.37 Boulevard Landscaping Policy.docDistrict of Missionstreets & Roads — Boulevard Landscaping - STR.37 Engineering & Public Works Page 2 of 2

fissionDISTRICT OFEngineering and Public WorksMemorandum174File Category:File Folder:INF.WAT.WATJ.A.M.E.S Treatment PlantTo: Chief Administrative OfficerFrom: Director of Engineering & Public WorksDate: June 22, 2009Subject: James WWTP — License of Occupation for Old OutfallRecommendationThat the Mayor and Director of Corporate Administration be authorized to sign the Offer and Licensesubstantially in the form attached and to return one copy to the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands oncesigned by both the District of Mission and City of Abbotsford.BackgroundThis matter was considered by the Abbotsford Mission Water and Sewer Commission (WSC) on June 11,2009 with the following motion being made:"Moved by Councillor Ross, seconded by Councillor Gidda, that Report No. UMC 43-2009, datedMay 28, 2009, from the Wastewater Planning/Process Engineer, regarding the JAMES WWTP —License of Occupation for Old Outfall, be received; (1) the enclosed Offer and two copies of theLicense be signed by the City of Abbotsford and District of Mission, and be returned to the Ministryof Agriculture and Lands by July 13, 2009; and (2) the application fee be funded from the JAMESOperating Budget.WSC 72-2009 CARRIED.Abbotsford is in the process of signing the Offer and License and will forward to the District of Missiononce signed.The JAMES Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) was previously owned by the Fraser Valley RegionalDistrict (FVRD). Ownership of the treatment plant was transferred to the Abbotsford Mission Water andSewer Commission (WSC) in 2005, with the exception of the land owned by the Ministry (Crown Land).DiscussionThe existing old 900 mm diameter outfall is located on Crown Land and was under the name of FVRD.The License of Occupation (License No. 236804) expired on June 1, 2008.The WSC submitted an application for a license for the outfall purposes over "Unsurveyed foreshore orland covered by water being part of the bed of Fraser River, Group 2, New Westminster Districtcontaining 0.0145 hectares, more or less", and received a Tenure Offer from the Ministry of Agricultureand Lands on May 12, 2009 (attached).The WSC does not have any current plans to reuse the old outfall; however, it is believed to be prudentto renew the license to keep future options open.Page of 2

175By signing and returning the copies of Offer and License, the WSC gains permission to use and occupythe land in Fraser River where the old outfall is located.The new License of Occupation is dated for reference June 2, 2008 and will replace the expired license(Li ense No. 2368Q4).V■IRic iiernhofF:\ENGINEER\RBOF\Water & Sewer\James WWTP Lisense of Occupation for Outfall.docFILE CATEGORY: INF.WAT.WAT Page 2 of 2FILE FOLDER J.A.M.E.S Treatment Ptam

176BRMSHCOWMBIAMinistry of Agriculture and Lands200-10428 153 StSurrey, BC V3R 1E1Telephone No: 604-586-2888Facsimile No: 604-586 1414GST Registration No: R107864738Your contact is: Barb HudsonOur file: 2403098Your file: 5750-70TENURE OFFERMay 12, 2009/CITY OF ABBOTSFORDRob Isaac, Engineering Manager32315 South Fraser WayAbbotsford, BC V2T 1W7 andDISTRICT OF MISSIONRick Bomhof, Director of Engineering8645 Stave Lake St. PO Box 20Mission, BC V2V 4L9Dear Rob Isaac:Re: Your Application for a Tenure over Crown LandYour application for a licence for sewer/effluent line purposes over:UNSURVEYED FORESHORE OR LAND COVERED BY WATER BEING PART OFTHE BED OF FRASER RIVER, GROUP 2, NEW WESTMINSTER DISTRICT,CONTAINING 0.0145 HECTARES, MORE OR LESS,(the "Land") has been accepted by us subject to fulfillment of certain requirements.Accordingly, we are offering to you a licence on the terms and conditions set out in thisletter.This is to replace Licence No. 236804 which expired June 1, 2008.When you have executed the two enclosed documents please forward to the District ofMission, attention Rick Bomhof, Director of Engineering, for signature.

177- 2 -File No.: 2403098Please be aware that you are required under this licence to observe, abide by andcomply with all applicable laws, byiaws; orders, directions, ordinances and regulationsof any competent governmental authority which in any way affects your use andoccupation of the Crown land and any improvements made to that land. If you haveany concerns or questions regarding any such laws, bylaws, orders, directions,ordinances and regulations you are encouraged to seek legal advice.Deadline for Your Acceptance of this OfferThis offer may be accepted by you no later than July 13, 2009 (unless this deadline isextended in writing by us). To accept this offer, you must complete and return to usthe enclosed acceptance page by that time. If you do not wish to accept this offer,please check the applicable box on the acceptance page and sign and return the pageto us so that we may record your rejection of our offer.1. Conditions of OfferEnclosed are two copies of your licence. If you accept this offer by returningthe acceptance page to us within the time set out above, you must then executeand return these documents to us on or before July 13, 2009 together with all ofthe following:Monies PayableYou must deliver to us the following amounts:Application Fee *$ 500.00GST Total $ 25.00Total Fees Payable $ 525.00* denotes GST payableYour cheque or money order must be payable to the Minister of Finance and bedelivered to 200-10428 153 St Surrey, BC V3R 1E1. Please quote our filenumber when sending us your payment.The enclosed tenure documents must all be signed in the spaces provided on thesignature page by persons authorized to sign on behalf of the municipality. Return allcopies to us.If you sign the licence documents and return them to us on or before July 13, 2009(unless this deadline is extended in writing by us), together with each of the itemslisted in this section, the licence documents will be signed on behalf of the Province.Ne will then .return an executed copy of the licence to you. If the licence documentsand each of the items listed in this section are not returned to us on or before July 13,

178- 3 -File No.: 24030982009, we will be under no further obligation to issue the licence to you and this offerwill terminate.2. Acknowledgments of the ApplicantBy accepting this offer, you agree that:(a)(b)(c)(d)This offer cannot be transferred to another personThis offer and the licence do. not guarantee that(i) the Land is suitable for your proposed use,(ii) the Land can be built on,(iii) there is access to the Land, or(iv) the Land is not susceptible to flooding or erosion.This offer will survive the signing and issuance of the licence but if anycontradiction exists between the terms of this offer and the licence, theterms of the licence will prevail.This offer does not give you any right to use or occupy the Land for anypurpose.Under the Land Act, this offer is not binding upon the Province until thelicence is sicned by the Province.(fi Time is of the essence ir this offer.Your RepresentationsBy accepting this offer, you confirm that(a)(b)You (or your authorized representative) have inspected the Land and arefully aware of its condition.You have knowledge of all municipal and regional bylaws regulating theuse and development of the Land.(c) You acknowledge that you have no right to use or occupy the Landunless and until the licence is issued to you under this offer.Freedom of InformationPersonal information is collected under the Land. Act for the purpose of administeringCrown land. Information on your application, and if issued, your tenure, will becomepart of the Crown Land Registry, from which information is routinely made available tothe public under freedom of information legislation.

179- 4 -Fiie No.: 2403098Yours truly,Authorized representative

180File No: 2403098- 5 -Acceptance of Offer of licenceFile No. 2403098Ministry of Agriculture and Lands200-10428 153 StSurrey, BC V3R 1E1Dear Barb Hudson:Re: Application for licenceIfINe accept the offer of licence made to me/us by way of a letterdated May 12, 2009 from the Ministry of Agriculture and Landsand I/we agree to perform and abide by my/our covenants,acknowledgements and representations set out in that offer.fl 1/We do not accept the offer of licence made to me/us by way of aletter dated May 12, 2009 from the Ministry of Agriculture andLands.DATED the off.signaturelApplicant's rUipik ,.../Cli ILrepresentative's signature representative's signatureIL JPrint name of person signing Print name of person signing

181„BRMSHLOWMBRLICENCE OF OCCUPATIONLicence No.: File No.: 2403098Disposition No.: 864326THIS AGREEMENT is dated for reference June 2, 2008 and is made under the Land Act.BETWEEN:AND:HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF THE PROVINCE OF BRITISHCOLUMBIA, represented by the minister responsible for the Land Act, Parliament Buildings,Victoria, British Columbia(the "Province”)CITY OF ABBOTSFORD• 32315 South Fraser WayAbbotsford, BC V2T 1Vs7 andDISTRICT OF MISSION8645 Stave Lake St. PO Box 20Mission, BC V2V 4L9(the "Licensee")The parties agree as follows:ARTICLE 1 - INTERPRETATION1.1 in this Agreement,"Agreement" means this licence of occupation;"Commencement Date" means June 2, 2008;"disposition" has the meaning given to it in the Land. Act and includes a licence of occupation;"Fees" means the fees set out in Article 3;"Improvements" includes anything made, constructed, erect-d, built, altered, repaired orUTILITY LICENCE • Page 1

182Licence File No.: 2403098Disposition No.: 864326added to, in, on or under the Land, and attached to it or intended to become a part of it,and also includes any clearing. excavating. digging. drilling, tunnelling, filling, gradingor ditching of in, on or under the Land:"Land" means that part or those parts of the following described land shown outlined by boldline on the schedule attached to this Agreement entitled "Legal Description Schedule":UNSURVEYED FORESHORE OR LAND COVERED BY WA I ER BEING PARTOF THE BED OF FRASER RIVER. GROUP 2, NEW WESTMINSTER DISTRICT,CONTAINING 0.0145 HECTARES, MORE OR LESS,except for those parts of the land that. on the Commencement Date, consist of highways(as defined in the Transportation Act):"Realty Taxes" means all taxes, rates, levies, duties, charges and assessments levied orcharged, at any time, by any government authority having jurisdiction which relate tothe Land, the Improvements or both of them and which you are liable to pay underapplicable laws;"Security" means the security referred to in section 6.1 or 6.2, as replaced or supplemented inaccordance with section 6.5;"Term" means the period of time set out in section 2.2:"we". "us" or "our" refers to the Province alone and never refers to the combination of theProvince and the Licensee: that combination is referred to as "the parties"; and"you" or "your" refers to the Licensee..1.2 In this Agreement, "person" includes a corporation, firm or association and wherever thesingular or masculine form is used in this Agreement it will be construed as the plural orfeminine or neuter form, as the case may be. and vice versa where the context or partiesrequire.1.3 The captions and headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience only and do notdefine or in any way limit the scope or intent of this Agreement.1.4 This Agreement will be interpreted according to the laws of the Province of British Columbia.1.5 Where there is a reference to an enactment of the Province of British Columbia or of Canada inthis Agreement, that reference will include a reference to every amendment to it, everyregulation made under it and any subsequent enactment of like effect and, unless otherwiseindicated, all enactments referred to in this Agreement are enactments of the Province ofUTILITY LICENCEPale 2 of

183Licence File No.: 2403098Disposition No.: 864326British Cdlumbia.1.6 If any section of this Agreement, or any part of a section, is found to be illegal orunenforceable, that section or part of a section, as the case may be, will be considered separateand severable and the remainder of this Agreement will not be affected and this Agreement willbe enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law.1.7 Each schedule to this Agreement is an integral part of this Agreement as if set out at length inthe body.of this Agreement.1.8 This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and no understanding oragreement, oral or otherwise, exists between the parties with respect to the subject matter ofthis Agreement except as expressly set out in this Agreement and this Agreement may not bemodified except by subsequent agreement in writing between the parties.1.9 Each party will, upon the request of the other, do or cause to be done all lawful acts necessaryfor the performance of the provisions of this Agreement.1.10 All provisions of this Agreement in our favour and all of our rights and remedies, either at law- or in equity, will survive the termination of this Agreement.1.11 Time is of the essence of this Agreement.1.12 Wherever this Agreement provides that an action may be taken, a consent or approval must beobtained or a detellnination must be made, then you or we, as the case may be, will actreasonably in taking such action, deciding whether to provide such consent or approval ormaking such determination; but where this Agreement states that you or we have solediscretion to take an action, provide a consent or approval or make a determination, there will• be no requirement to show reasonableness or to act reasonably in taking that action, providingthat consent or approval or making that determination.T CLE 2 - GRANT AND TERM7 . 17 :1On the terms and conditions of this Agreement, we grant you, your employees, agents andcontractors a licence to occupy the Land only for the purposes of excavating for. constructing,operating, removing, replacing,- reconstructing, repairing and safegnsrding the Improvementsnecessary for sewer/effluent line and for telecommunications equipnient necessary for theoperation of such Iniprovements; and you acknowledge this licence of occupation does notgrant you exclusive use and occupancy of the Land.The term of this Agreement commences on the Commencement Date and terminates on the10th anniversary of that date, or such earlier date provided for in this Agreement.UTILITY LICENCEPage 3 of -.:C.2—e)

184Licence File No.: 2403098Disposition No.: 864326ARTICLE 3 - FEES3.1 The Fee for the Term is $1.00, the receipt of which we acknowledge.ARTICLE 4 - COVENANTS4.1 You must(a) pay, when due,(i) the Fees to us at the address set out in Article 10,(ii)the Realty Taxes, and(iii) all charges for electricity, gas, water and other utilities supplied to the Land foruse by you or on your behalf or with your permission;(b) deliver to us, immediately upon demand, receipts or other evidence of the payment ofRealty Taxes'and all other money required to be paid by you under this Agreement(c)observe, abide by and comply withall applicable laws, bylaws, orders, directions, ordinances and regulations of anygovernment authority having jurisdiction in any way affecting your use oroccupation of the Land or the Improvements, and(ii) the provisions of this Agreement:.(d)(e)(f)in respect of the use of the Land by you or by anyone you permit to use the Land. keepthe Land and the Improvements in a safe, clean and sanitary condition satisfactory to us,and at our written request, rectify any failure to comply with such a covenant by makingthe Land and the Improvements safe, clean and sanitary;not commit any wilful or voluntary waste, spoil or destruction on the Land or doanything on the Land that may be or become a nuisance or annoyance to an owner oroccupier of land in the vicinity of the Land;use and occupy the Land only in accordance with and for the purposes set out in section21;not construct, place or affix any improvement on or to the Land except as necessary forUTILITY LICENCEFaze 4 of c;-- -?

185Licence File No.: 2403098Disposition No.: 864326the purposes set out in sectionpay all accounts and expenses as they become due for work performed on or materialssupplied to the Land at your request, on your behalf or with your permission, except formoney that you are required to hold back under the Builders Lien Act;if any claim of lien over the Land is made under the Builders Lien Act for workperformed on or materials supplied to the Land at your request, on your behalf or withyour permission, immediately take all steps necessary to have the lien discharged,unless the claim of lien is being contested in good faith by you and you have taken thesteps necessary to ensure that the claim'of lien will not subject the Land or any interestof yours under this Agreement to sale or forfeiture;(j) not cut or remove timber on or from the Land without(i)(ii)our prior written consent, andbeing granted the right under the ForeSt Act to harvest Crown timber on theLand;(10 obtain our prior written consent, which consent may be unreasonably withheld, beforepermitting any other person to use the Land or the Improvements (including withoutlimitation, any copper, coaxial, fibre optic or similar material or device) for anytelecommunications purpose;(1) obtain our prior written consent, which consent may be unreasonably withheld, beforeusing the Land or the Improvements for any telecommunications purpose other than atelecommunications purpose which is necessary for your operation of theimprovements;(m)(n)if any soil is disturbed by you as a result of your construction or maintenance of theImprovements, at your expense, restore the surface of the Land to a conditionsatisfactory to us;take all reasonable precautions to avoid disturbing or damaging any archaeologicalmaterial found. on or under the Land and, upon discovering any archaeological materialon or under the Land, you must immediately notify the minisl v responsible foradministering the Heritage Conservation Act;not alter, repair or add to any improvement without our prior written consent;at our request and at your expense, have a British Columbia Land Surveyor conduct asurvey of the Land within one year;UTILITY LICENCEPac.e 5 of

186Licence File No.: 2403098Disposition No.: 864326(q)(r)permit us, or our authorized representatives, to enter on the Land at any time to inspectthe Land and the Improvements, provided that in - regard to our inspection of theImprovements we take reasonable steps to minimize any disruption of your operations;indemnify and save us and our servants, employees and agents harmless against allclaims, actions, causes of action, losses, damages, costs and liabilities, including fees ofsolicitors and other professional advisors, arising out of(i)(ii)your breach, violation or nonperformance of a provision of this Agreement, andany personal injury, bodily injury (including death) or property damageoccurring or happening on or off the Land by virtue of your entry upon, use oroccupation of the Land,and the amount of all such losses, damages, costs and liabilities will be payable to usimmediately upon demand; and(s) on the termination of this Agreement,(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)peaceably quit and deliver to us possessiOn of the Land and, subject toparagraphs (ii), (iii) and.(iv), the improvements in a safe, clean and sanitarycondition,within 30 days, remove from the Land any Improvement you want to remove, ifthe Improvement was placed on or made to the Land by you and you are not indefault of this Aueement„not remove any Improvement from e Land if you are in default of thisAgreement, unless we direct or permit you to do so under paragraph (iv),remove from the Land any Improvement that we, in writing, direct or permit youto remove, other than any improvement permitted to be placed on or made to theLand under another disposition, andrestore the surface of the Land as nearly as may reasonably be possible to thesame condition as it was on the Commencement Date, to our satisfaction, but ifyou are not directed or permitted to remove an Improvement under paragraph(iv), this paragraph will not apply to that part of the surface of the Land onwhich that Improvement is located,and all of your right, interest and. estate in the Land will be absolutely forfeited to us,and to the extent necessary, this covenant will survive the termination of thisAgreement.UTILITY LICENCEPage 6 of

187Licence File No.: 2403098Disposition No.: 8643264.2 You will not permit any person to do anything you are restricted from doing under this Article.4.3 We will not do anything on the Land that will interfere materially with the Improvements oryour use of the Improvements, or that creates a public hazard.5.1 You agree with us thatARTICLE 5 - LIMITATIONS(a)(b)we are under no obligation to provide access or services to the Land or to maintain orimprove existing access roads:this Agreement is subject to'(i) all subsisting dispositions and'subsisting grants to or rights of any person madeor acquired under the Coal Act, Forest Act, Mineral Tenure Act, Petroleum andNatural Gas Act, Range Act, Wildlife Act or Water Act, or any extension orrenewal of the same, whether or not you have actual notice of them, and •(ii) the exceptions and reservations of interests, rights, privileges and titles referredto in section 50 of the Land Act;(c)(d)without limiting subsection 4.1(0, you must indemnify and save us and our servants,employees and agents harmless from and against all claims, actions, causes of action,losses, damages; costs and liabilities, including fees of solicitors and other professionaladvisors, arising out of any conflict between your rights under this Agreement and therights of any person under a disposition or under a subsisting grant to or right of anyperson made or acquired under the Coal Act, Forest Act, Mineral Tenure Act, Petroleumand Natural Gas Act, Range Act, Wildlife Act or Water Act (or any prior or subsequentenactment of the Province of British Columbia of like effect), or any extension orrenewal of the same, whether or not you have actual notice of them, and the amount ofall such losses, damages, costs and liabilities will be payable to us immediately upondemand;you release us from all claims, actions, causes of action. suits, debts and demands thatyou now have or may at any time in the future have against us arising out of anyconflict between your rights under this Agreement and the rights of any person under adisposition or under a subsisting grant to or right made or acquired under theenactments referred to in subsection (c), and you acknowledge that this Agreement andyour rights under this Agreement are subject to those grants and rights referred to insubsection (c) whether or not you have actual notice of them.(e) we may make other dispositions of or over the Land:UTILITY LICENCEPage 7 of cr:2--6

188Licence File No.: 2403098Disposition No.: 864326(f)(g)(h)(i)you will make no claim for compensation, in damages or otherwise, in respect of adisposition made under subsection (e), where such disposition does not materially affectthe exercise of your rights under this Agreement;subject to subsection (f), all of your costs and expenses, direct or indirect, that arise outof any lawful interference with your rights under this Agreement as a result of theexercise or operation of the interests, rights, privileges and titles reserved to us insubsections (b) and (e) will be borne solely by you;you will not commence or maintain proceedings under section 65 of the Land Act inrespect of any lawful interference with your rights under this Agreement that arises as aresult of the exercise or operation of the interests, rights, privileges and titles describedin subsections (b) and (e);you will not without our prior written consent, which consent may be unreasonablywithheld, permit any other person to use the Land or the Improvements (including,without limitation, any copper, coaxial, fibre optic or similar material or device) for anytelecommunications purpose;a) you will not without our prior written consent, which consent may be unreasonablywithheld, use the Land or the improvements for any telecommunications purpose otherthan a telecommunications purpose which is necessary for your operation of theImprovements;(k)you will not remove or permit the removal of any Improvement from the Land except asexpressly permitted or required under this Agreement;(1) any interest you may have in the Improvements ceases to exist and becomes ourproperty upon the termination of this Agreement, except Where an. Improvement may beremoved under paragraph 4.1(s)(ii), (iii) or (iv) in which case any interest you may havein that Improvement ceases to exist and becomes our property if the Improvement is notremoved from the Land within the time period set out in paragraph 4.1(s)(ii) or the timeperiod provided for in the direction or permission given under paragraph 4.1(s)(iii); and(m)if, after the termination of this Aorreement, we permit you to remain in possession of theLand and we accept money from you in respect of such possession, a tenancy from yearto year will not be created by implication of law and you will be deemed to be amonthly occupier only subject to all of the provisions of this Agreement, except as toduration, in the absence Of a written agreement to the contrary.UTILITY LICENCEPage 8 of ,-.77) =1'

189Licence Fite No.: 2403098Disposition No.: 864326ARTICLE. 6 - SECURITY AND INSURANCE6.1 On the Commencement Date, you will deliver to us security in the amount of $0.00 which will(a)(b)guarantee the performance of your obligations under this Agreement;be in the form required by us; and(c) remain in effect until we certify, in writing, that you have fully performed your .obligations under this Agreement.6.2 Despite section 6.1, your obligations under that section are suspended for so long as youmaintain in good standing other security acceptable to us to guarantee the performance of yourobligations under this Agreement and all other dispositions held by you.6.3 We may use the Security for the payment of any costs and expenses incurred by us to performany of your obligations under this Agreement that are not performed by you or to pay anyoverdue Fees and, if such event occurs, you will, within 30 days of that event, deliver furtherSecurity to us in an amount equal to the amount drawn down by us.6.4 After we certify, in writing, that you have fully performed your obligations under thisAgreement, we will return to you the Security maintained under section 6.1, less all amountsdrawn down by us under section 6.3 .6.5 You acknowledge that we may, from time to time, notify you to(a► change the fo or amount of the Security; and(b) provide and maintain another form of Security in replacement of or in addition to theSecurity posted by you under this Agreement;and you will, within 60 days of receiving such notice, deliver to us written confirmation that thechange has been made or the replacement or additional form of Security has been provided byyou.6.6 You mustwithout limiting your obligations or liabilities under this Agreement, at your expense,effect and keep in force during the Term the following insurance with insurers licensedto do business in Canada:(i) Commercial General Liability insurance in an amount of not less than$1,000,000.00 inclusive per occurrence insuring against liability for personal.injury, bodily injury (including death) and property damage, including, coverageUTLLI ICENCE Pare 9 of

190Licence File No.: 2403098Disposition No.: 864326for all accidents or occurrences on the Land or the Improvements. Such policywill, include cross liability, liability assumed under contract, provision to provide• 30 days advance notice to us of material change or cancellation, and include usas additional insured;(b)(c)(d)(e)ensure that all insurance required to be maintained by you under this Agreement isprimary and does not require the sharing of any loss by any of our insurers;within 10 working days of Commencement Date of this Agreement, provide to usevidence of all required insurance in the form of a completed "Province of BritishColumbia Certificate of Insurance";if the required insurance policy or policies expire or are cancelled before the end of theTerm of this Agreement, provide within 10 working days of the cancellation orexpiration, evidence of new or renewal policy or policies of all required insurance in theform of a completed "Province of British Columbia Certificate of Insurance";notwithstanding subsection (c) or (d) above, if requested by us, provide to us certifiedcopies of the required insurance policies.6.7 We may, acting reasonably, from time to time, require you to(a)(b)change the amount of insurance set out in subsection 6.6(a); andprovide and maintain another type. or types of insurance in replacement of or in additionto the insurance previously required to be maintained, by you under this Agreement;and you will, within 60 days of receiving such notice, cause the amounts and types to bechanged and deliver to us a completed "Province of British Columbia Certificate of insurance"for all insurance then required to be maintained by you under this Agreement.6.8 You shall provide, maintain, and pay for any additional insurance which you are required bylaw to carry, or which you consider necessary to insure risks not otherwise covered by theinsurance specified in this Agreement in your sole discretion.6.9 You waive all rights of recourse against us with regard to damage to your own property.ARTICLE 7 - ASSIGNMENT7.1 You must not sublicense, assign, mortgage or transfer this Agreement, or permit any person touse or occupy the Land, without our prior written consent, which Consent we may withhold.7.7 For the purpose of section 7.1, if you are a corporation, a change in control (as that term isUTILITY LICENCEPage 10 of

191Licence File No.: 2403098Disposition No.: 864326defined in subsection 2(3) of the Business corporations Act) will be deemed to be a transfer ofthis Agreement.7.3 Section 7.2 does not apply to a corporation if the shares of the corporation which carry votesfor the election of the directors of the corporation trade on a stock exchange located in Canada.7.4 Prior to considering a request for our consent under section 7.1, we may require you to meetcertain conditions, including without limitation, that you submit to us a "site profile","preliminary site investigation" or "detailed site investigation" (as those terms are defined hithe Environmental Management Act) for the Land or other similar type of investigation of theLand.8.1 You agree with us that •(a) if youARTICLE 8 - TERMINATION(i)(ii)default in the payment of any money payable by you under this Agreement, orfail to observe, abide by and comply with the provisions of this Agreement(other than the payment of any money payable by you under this Agreement),and your default or failure continues for 60 days after we give written notice of thedefault or failure to you,(b)if, in our opinion, you fail to make diligent use of the Land for the purposes set out inthis Agreement, and your failure continues for 60 days after we give written notice ofthe failure to you;(c) if youbecome insolvent or make an assignment for the general benefit of yourcreditors,(ii)(iii)commit an act which entitles a person to take action under the Bankruptcy andInsolvency Act (Canada) or a bankruptcy petition is filed or presented against .you or you consent to the filing of the petition or a decree is entered by a courtof competent jurisdiction adjudging you bankrupt under any law relating tobankruptcy or insolvency, orvoluntarily enter into an arrangement with your creditors;UTILITY LICENCEPage 1 I of

192Licence File No.: 2403098Disposition No.: 864326(d) if you are a corporation,(i)(ii)a receiver or receiver-manager is appointed to administer or carry on yourbusiness, oran order is made, a resolution passed or a petition filed for your liquidation orwinding up;(e) if you are a society, you convert into a company in accordance with the Society Actwithout our prior written consent;(f)if this Agreement is taken in execution or attachment by any person; orif we require the Land for our own use or, in our opinion, it is in the public interest tocancel this Agreement and we have given you 60 days' written notice of suchrequirement or opinion;this Agreement will, at our option and with or without entry, terminate and your right to useand occupy the Land will cease.8.2 If the condition complained of (other than the payment of any money payable by you under thisAgreement) reasonably requires more time to cure than 60 days, you will be deemed to havecomplied with the remedying of it if you commence remedying or curing the condition within60 days and diligently complete the same.8.3 You agree with us that(a)(b)you will make no claim for compensation, in damages or otherwise, upon the lawfultermination of this Agreement under section 8.1; andour remedies under this Article are in addition to those available to us under the LandAct.ARTICLE 9 - DISPUTE RESOLUTION9.1 If any dispute arises under this Agreement, the parties will make all reasonable efforts toresolve the dispute within 60 days of the dispute arising (or within such other-time periodagreed to by the parties) and, subject to applicable laws, provide candid and timely disclosureto each other of all relevant facts, information and documents to facilitate those efforts.9.2 Subject to section 9.5, if a dispute tinder this Agreement cannot be resolved under section 9.1,we or you may refer the dispute to arbitration conducted by a sole arbitrator appointed pursuantto the Commercial Arbitration Act.UTILITY LICENCEPage 12 of

193Licence - File No.: 2403098Disposition No.: 8643269.3 The cost of the arbitration referred to in section 9.2 will be shared equally by the parties and thearbitration will be governed by the laws of the Province of British Columbia.9.4 The arbitration will be conducted at our offices (or the offices of our authorized representative)in City of Surrey, British Columbia, and if we or our authorized representative have no office inCity of Surrey, British Columbia, then our offices (or the offices of our authorizedrepresentative) that are closest to City of Surrey, British Columbia.9.5 A dispute under this Agreement in respect of a matter within our sole discretion cannot, unlesswe agree, be referred to arbitration as set out in section 9.2.ARTICLE 10 - NOTICE10.1 Any notice required to be given by either party to the other will be deemed to be given ifmailed by prepaid registered mail in Canada or delivered to the address of the other as follows:to usMINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE ANTULANDS200-10428 153 StSurrey, BC V3R 1E1;to youCITY OF ABBOTSFORD32315 South Fraser Way. Abbotsford, BC V2T 1W7 andDISTRICT OF MISSION8645 Stave Lake St. PO Box 20Mission, BC V2V 4L9or at such other address as a party may, from time to time, direct in writing, and any such noticewill be deemed to have been received if delivered, on the day of delivery, and if mailed, 7 daysafter the time of mailing, except in the case of mail interruption in which case actual receipt isrequired.10.2 In order to expedite the delivery of any notice required to be giVen by either party to the other,a concurrent facsimile copy of any notice will, where possible, be provided to the other partybut nothing in this section, and specifically the lack of delivery of a facsimile copy of anynotice, will affect the deemed delivery provided in section 10.1.UTILITY LICENCEPage 13 of -;").-‘'-

194Licence File No.: 2403098Disposition No.: 86432610.3 The delivery of all money payable to us under this Agreement will be effected by hand, courieror prepaid regular mail to the address specified above, or by any other payment procedureweed to by the parties, such deliveries to be effective on actual receipt.ARTICLE MISCELLANEOUSNo provision of this Agreement will be considered to have been waived unless the waiver is inwriting, and a waiver of a breach of a provision of this Agreement will not be construed as orconstitute a waiver of any further or other breach of the same or any other provision of thisAgreement, and a consent or approval to any act requiring consent or approval will not waiveor render unnecessary the requirement to obtain consent or approval to any subsequent same orsimilar act.No remedy conferred upon or reserved to us under this Agreement is exclusive of any otherremedy in this Agreement or provided by law, but that remedy will be in addition to all otherremedies in this Agreement or then existing at law, in equity or by statute.11.3 The grant of a sublicence, assignment or transfer of this Agreement does not release you fromyour obligation to observe and perform all the provisions of this Agreement on your part to beobserved and performed unless we specifically release you from such obligation in our consentto the sublicence, assimment or transfer of this Agreement.11.4 This Agreement extends to, is binding upon and enures to the benefit of the parties, their heirs,executors, administrators, successors and permitted assigns.11.5 If, due to a strike, lockout, labour dispute, act of God, inability to obtain labour or materials,law, ordinance, rule, regulation or order of a competent governmental authority, enemy orhostile action, civil commotion, fire or other casualty or any condition or cause beyond yourreasonable control, other than normal weather conditions, you are delayed in performing any ofyour obligations under this Agreement, the time for the performance of that obligation will beextended by a period of time equal to the period of time of the delay so long as(0 you give notice to us within 30 days of the commencement of the delay setting forth thenature of the delay and an estimated time frame for the performance of your obligation;and(b) you diligently attempt to remove the delay.11.6 You agree with us that(a) we are under no obligation, express or implied, to provide financial assistance or tocontribute toward the cost of servicing, creating or developing the Land or theUTILITY LICENCEPage 14 of

195Licence File No.: 2403098Disposition No.: 864326Improvements and you are solely responsible for all costs and expenses associated withyour use of the Land and the Improvements for the purposes set out in this Agreement;and(b)nothing in this Agreement constitutes you as our agent, joint venturer or partner or givesyou any authority or power to bind us in any way.11.7 This Agreement does not override or affect any powers, privileges or immunities to which youare entitled under any enactment of the Province of British Columbia.The parties have executed this Agreement as of the date of reference of this Agreement.SIGNED on behalf of HER MAJESTYTHE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF THEPROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIAby the minister responsible for the Land Actor the minister's authorized representativeMinister responsible for the Land Actor the minister's authorized representativeSIGNED on behalf of CITY OF ABBOTSFORDby its authorized signatoriesAuthorized SignatoryAuthorized SignatoryUTILITY LICENCE Page 15 of ...-

196Licence File No.: 2403098Disposition No.: 864326SIGNED on behalf of DISTRICT OF MISSIONby its authorized signatoriesAuthorized SignatoryAuthorized SignatoryUTILITY LICENCEPage 16 of

197LicenceFile No.: 2403098Disposition No.: 864326LEGAL DESCRIPTION SCHEDULEA AC-A--; 0.0 ! 4S 1FRASER . • RIVERLa•LP• 344' 34° 50.Z.12 454v c:r44ee( CALCULATF.17) 41144.1 14AREA COVEREDBY WATERPRESENT K.W.U. 1 42.vs) _e• 2z., .1 zto _ , - - 4 2-- - - - - 22!so°ir., 7,C.. *". 22- 11%, .4J1‘,-4 . ... "..1.4( 5T --...- .?- r''' - - -\, .••°OM/ 00 , ‘C..........162. 3S5 or 4.6 ./... 576 32: 04.1 40 ....0. 0 .- .313fft"°:.„. .0 i?..LOT 1216.06 HA.Scale 1:1250UTILITY LICENCEPage 17 of

198Filo No.: caz# 3 o#Disposition No.: 86OLYMPIC SIGNAGE SCHEDULEFor the purpose, of this schedule:(a) "Ad Space" means any area of the Land on which:(i)(ii)you have been permitted to place, oryou have been permitted to allow other persons to place,signage, advertising or commercial identification of any kind but does not include anyarea that is within a building or structure and which is not visible from outside of theLand;(b)(c)(d)(e)"Games Advertising Period" means the period from and including January 12, 2010toand including March 23, 2010;"Option Exercise Period" means the period from and including the date of thisAgreement to and including September 30, 2009;"Subsequent Ad Space" means Ad Space which has been created by a permissiongranted by us after the Option Exercise Period; and"VANOC" means the Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic andParalympic Winter Games.This schedule does not constitute a Nrmission for you to place, or allow others to place,signage, advertising or commercial identification of any kind on the Land and does not modifyany other provision of this Agreement under which such permission is required.3. You hereby grant VANOC the irrevocable option (Option) to purchase from you any Ad Space(other than Subsequent Ad Space), for use by VANOC for the Games Advertising Period, orany portion thereof, at rates equal to the average price charged for the same or, in the case ofnew advertising space, similar advertising space during the year 2006, adjusted for inflation to2010, as measured by the Canadian Consumer Price Index. The Option may be exercised bynotice in writing from VANOC to you at any time during the Option Exercise Period.4. You hereby agree that VANOC will have the right of first refusal to purchase Subsequent AdSpace, if any, during the period from the expization of the Option Exercise Period to the end ofthe Games Advertising Period for use during the Games Advertising Period and you agree notto sell or place any signage, advertising or commercial identification of any kind on thePage/i

199File No.:J2V4 3 o ?)„. 2_LDisposition No,: S'.7Subsequent Ad Space during the Games Advertising Period until such time as you have firstoffered, in writing, such Subsequent Ad Space to VANOC. On receipt of the written offer,VANOC will have ten business days to accept such Subsequent Ad Space for use during theGames Advertising Period. In the event VANOC does not accept such Subsequent Ad Spacewithin the time contemplated above, you may sell such Subsequent Ad Space for use during theGames Advertising Period as you determine on terms no more favourable than those offered toVANOC provided always that any such sale is allowed by the permission that we have givenwhich gives rise to the Subsequent Ad Space.5. Other than in respect of the Ad Space and Subsequent Ad Space referred to above, you will notinstall or permit to be installed any other signage, advertising or other commercialidentification of any kind on the Land during the Games Advertising Period.6. During the Games Advertising Period, you agree that VANOC has the right to remove orconceal any signage, advertising or commercial identification of any kind on the Land that is inthe line of sight of or from or around any venue that is hosting any of the events associated withthe Vancouver 2010 Winter Games or any roads used as a primary means of accessing any suchvenue so as to ensure clean venues during the Games Advertising Period provided VANOC hasdelivered to you its agreement to restore the same to original condition at its sole expensefollowing the Games Advertising Period. The determination of whether such signage orcommercial identification is in the line of sight of or from or around any such venue will bemade by VANOC, acting reasonably.7. Without limitation to section 5.1(e) you agree that we may grant to VANOC a license to useany portion of the Land for the temporary placement of signage, advertising or commercialidentification provided:(a)(b)You are given notice in advance of such license;The license is for a term that does not extend beyond the Games Advertising Period;and(e) The area over which the license is granted does not include any building or otherstructure used by you on the Land and does not materially interfere with your ability touse the Land for the purpose intended by this Agreement.You acknowledge and agree thRt the Option, the right of first refusal and the rights andobligations associated therewith and as otherwise contemplated by this schedule may beenforced against you by VANOC, the, Province (on behalf of VANOC) or both and ifnecessary, you agree that VANOC may become a party to this Agreement for the purposes ofenforcing its rights granted hereunder, You agree that the Province does not have anyobligation to you as a result of the exercise of the Option, the right of first refusal and the rightsPage /I of

200...101 ••••••••■■•••■•••••••••■•■1/No....?/0 3 c 2S:7Disposition No.: g6 z4..3and obligations associated therewith and as otherwise contemplated by this schedule and,without limitation, any payment required under the Option or as a result of the exercise of theright of first refusal, shall be solely the obligation of VANOC.Pag4;2`6 of

201MDISTRICT OFON THE FRASEREngineering and Public WorksMemorandumFile Category: PRO.PRI.BROFile Folder: 33610 Broadway Ave.To: Chief Administrative OfficerFrom: Manager of Environmental ServicesDate: June 29, 2009Subject: Proposed Demolition, Land Clearing Debris and Construction Material RecoveryFacility (MRF)Recommendation1. That staff send a letter to the Fraser Valley Regional District confirming Council support for thefacility and that the correct zoning is in place for the portion of the MRF that is concerned withwoodwaste.2. That the letter in (1) also confirm that the proposed property is currently zoned correctly for thenon-wood recyclable materials but that some materials will need to be stored in buildings to meetthe zoning requirements for covered space.3. That the letter in (1) also confirm that a new business licence may need to be applied for and theowners are requested to speak with Building Department staff and that any new buildings onindustrially zoned land will require a development permit.BackgroundThe District received a letter from the FVRD on April 22, 2009 asking for the District's support for aProposed Demolition, Land Clearing Debris and Construction Material Recovery Facility (MRF) to belocated at the Green River Log Sales site at 33610 Broadway Ave. The proposal includes accepting andsorting non-hazardous construction, demolition and land clearing waste for downstream recyclingpurposes. Processed materials could include wood waste, waste concrete, plastics, roofing materials,tires and scrap metal but the focus initially will be on processing wood waste materials. Althoughprocessing of woodwaste will include sorting, grinding and barging off site as a fuel there is interest inconstructing a bioenergy facility on the site which would transform wood chips into value added products.Under the FVRD's solid waste management plan, any new recycling facilities need to be included withinthe plan. In order to include a facility within the plan, the FVRD is required to solicit the local governmentfor their approval in principle, confirmation of zoning and business licence as well as to identify anyconcerns.The property owner currently has a valid business licence to operate a shake and shingle mill. Currentzoning of the property is M-2 which requires principle uses to be inside completely enclosed buildingsexcept for parking, loading and unenclosed storage, where accessory to a principal use.Staff supports the application for the wood waste recycling component as it is generally consistent withPage 1 of 4

202current zoning and the activities that have been carried out at the site for some time — namely import oflogs, shake and shingle production, grinding to produce wood chips and export via barges. In addition,informal discussions with the property owner indicate that there is interest in exploring the bio-energymarket which is a market likely to expand greatly in the next several years as cheaper energy sources aresought as well as ones that are less dependent on fossil fuels. Having a close and reliable supply of woodfuel products could give Mission a significant advantage in terms of offsetting greenhouse gas emissionsas climate change initiatives move forward, developing a new market for municipal forest products as wellas the potential for positioning Mission as a leader in renewable and sustainable energy.The existence of a MRF in Mission can help to divert many more materials away from burial at the landfill.For example, a MRF could allow the District to mandate increased recycling from the commercial,institutional and industrial sectors including the construction industry. Nevertheless, staff does haveconcerns regarding handling of non wood waste materials. Some of these materials have the potential toresult in contamination of the site and care will be needed to prevent contamination from occurring thatcould affect future development or result in pollution and non-compliance with the EnvironmentalManagement Act. It should be noted that the property owner is well aware of the contamination potentialand the resulting adverse impact to property values. Much of this contamination can be preventedthrough short term storage of materials which is proposed as well as maintaining some materials undercover as per the zoning.Of greater concern is the potential to generate a significant amount of waste from accepting recyclablematerials and staff are concerned with this waste being disposed of at the District's landfill. Currently,waste derived from outside of Mission or electoral areas C, F or G is charged a much higher tipping fee asa disincentive in order to preserve landfill airspace. Based on travel distance, it is likely that residualwaste will be taken to the Matsqui Transfer Station from the proposed facility. Nevertheless, theproponent should meet with District staff should there be a need to access the District's landfill to ensurethat an agreement to manage waste from within and outside of Mission can be agreed to.It is recommended that Council support the application for inclusion in the solid waste management planas it is generally consistent with the current zoning and will be entirely consistent provided additionalbuildings are erected for storage of certain materials. The support should be conditional upon whether ornot a new business licence is required, submission of a development permit application for any newbuildings and developing an acceptable agreement on how to handle residual waste. Also, supportremains conditional upon compliance with all existing statutes and regulations.Mike YounieManager of Environmental ServicesFAENGINEER\MYOUNIEMemos\DLC MRF.docPage 2 of 4

203FRASER VALLEY REGIONAL DISTRICT45950 Cheam Avenue, Chilliwack, British Columbia V2P 1116Phone: 604-702-5000 Toil Free: 1-800-528-0061 (BC only) Fax: 604-792-9684websne: www.tvrd.bc.ca info@fvrd.bc.caApril 20, 2009 File: 5360-21-028Mike YounieDistrict of MissionManager of Environmental Services8645 Stave Lake StreetMission, BC V2V 4L9Dear Mr. YounieRe: Proposed DLC FacilityLouis Clarke, owner of 0733403 B.C. LTD (a company owned by The Clarke Group) hassubmitted an application to the Fraser Valley Regional District (FVRD) for the approval of aproposed Demolition, Land Clearing Debris and Construction (DLC) Material Recovery Facility(MRF) in the FVRD's Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP).The applicant would like to establish and operate the proposed DLC MRF at the Green River Site,owned by the applicant, and located at 33610 Broadway Avenbe.in :Mission, BC,The 7-acre Green River Site formerly housed a shake and shingle operation, and much of theinfrastructure still remains in place, including two material storage containers, and a barge loadingfacility with conveyors for transport of the ground material on to deck barges.The applicant has indicated that he holds a business licence with the District of Mission under thename Green River Log Sales for the operation of a shake and shingle mill, and that the site isappropriately zoned (Light Industrial)for the type of activity proposed in the application.The applicant is proposing to receive and sort non-hazardous construction, demolition and landclearing waste for downstream recycling purposes. Incoming wood-waste material would besorted, inspected and ground into hog fuel in an on-site Horizontal Grinder, and transported viadeck barge or truck for use in pulp mills.Materials would be accepted from within the FVRD, and the facility is expected to processapproximately 30,000 tonnes of DLC material annually. At this point it is unclear what the volumeof residuals generated by the operation will be.Attached to this letter is an Operations Plan outlining the details of the proposed operation, alongwith a spreadsheet listing the types of DLC materials to be accepted., Also attached are temporary

204storage methods, proposed transport modes and downstream processors for each material(where applicable).The FVRD and District of Mission staff recently toured the facility, and while no immediateconcerns were identified, it was noted that the proposed wood grinding area was not paved. Thesite is elevated on a substantial wood-chip foundation. The owner advised that environmentalassessments periodically conducted at the site indicated no contamination.Another area that may need to be addressed is the barge-loading facility at the site.The FVRD is currently waiting for approval-in-principal of the host municipality, accompanied by acopy of the company's business license and statement indicating that facility meets themunicipalities zoning requirements.In following the procedure as outlined in Section 4.7 of the FVRD's SWMP, the FVRD requires aletter from the municipality in which the facility is located, that addresses the following issues:• Confirming your receipt of the application• Identifying any immediate concerns with the application• Confirming that the facility meets all zoning bylaws and business license requirements;and• A statement that the municipality endorses (at least in principle), inclusion of the facility inthe PLAN.Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any further questions, please contactSabina Kasprzak at 604. 602. 5047, or skasprzakfvrd.bc.caSincerely,Sabina KasprzakAttachments:a) 0733403 B.C. LTD. SWMP Applicationb) 0733403 B.C. LTD. Operations Plan for proposed DLC MRFc) List of materials to be accepted at proposed DLC MRFd) Kermode Environmental Reporte) Scale House Operation Descriptioncc: Ashley Smith (Ministry of Environment)Mike Hofer (FVRD)Louis Clarke (0733403 B.C. LTD.)

205MDISTRICT OFON THE FRASER ,o0/°1Engineering and Public WorksMemorandumFile Category: FIN.GRA.FEEFile Folder: Mission Adopt-A-Block SocietyTo: Chief Administrative OfficerFrom: Manager of Environmental ServicesDate: June 15, 2009Subject: Mission Adopt-A-Block ServiceRecommendationThat this report be received as information.BackgroundThis report is being provided to review the Mission Adopt-A-Block Society mandate, deliverymodel and relationship with the District. Council approved a 3 year Fee for Service grant toMission Adopt-A-Block Society in the amount of $24,500 per year starting January 1, 2008.These funds are to be used for a variety of activities associated with controlling litter andeducating businesses and residents about proper litter management.Recently, the uptake for the 2009 fall cleanup has been poor relative to other years. MissionAdopt-A-Block placed an advertisement in the City Pages requesting non-profit groups apply. Aselected group can earn up to $250 for participating in a cleanup event- not $100 as describedin the City Page article. The groups are chosen by lottery in the event there are more than 4applications each fall or spring.Mike YounieManager of Environmental ServicesFAENGINEERWIYOUNIE\Memos\Adopt-A-Block.doc

MoniDs ISTsRiCo TON THE FRASEREngineering and Public WorksMemorandum206File Category: PRO.PUB.S01File Folder: Caswell PitTo: Chief Administrative OfficerFrom: Manager of Environmental ServicesDate: June 22, 2009Subject: Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Referral — 31322Caswell Ave. Sand and Gravel MineRecommendationThat this report be accepted as information.BackgroundThe District received a referral from the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resourcesregarding a proposed sand and gravel mine located at 31322 Caswell Ave. The property is the16.5 ha parcel located at the end of Caswell Street directly north of Allard Contracting Ltd.'saggregate operation and directly east of Shaw Pit. The proposal plans to extract and processapproximately 230,000 tonnes (12,000 trucks per year) provided market demand exists. Accessinto and out of the site is proposed along Caswell Street which is a steep narrow road that joinsShaw Street just north of the District owned Shaw Pit.The property was cleared of trees in 2008. The headwater of Lynch Brook exists along thenorth edge of the property and one small unconnected wetland is also present on the property.Slopes are generally gently sloped and undulating and hummocky.An advertisement will be placed in the Mission City Record and the BC Gazette allowing thepublic an opportunity to comment. This parcel is currently identified as a yellow zone in the draftFraser Valley Regional District Aggregate Pilot Project which suggests that the operation wouldbe permitted subject to conditions placed on it by the local government.District staff plan on sending a response that does not object to the proposal provided thefollowing conditions and comments are considered:• Current zoning is rural residential and will need to be changed to an industrial zoning toallow processing on the site other than what is required to transport the material.• The applicant must apply for a soil removal permit provided a Mines Permit is issued.• The District's Noise Bylaw is referenced in the application and must be adhered to.• Shaw Street and Caswell Street are not appropriate for use with large, heavy graveltrucks. A road right of way exists along the east side of the District's property south ofShaw Pit and along the west side of Allard Contracting Ltd.'s property which would beaccessible by the applicant. Development of this road should be examined, inconjunction with the District, for access to Keystone Ave. as it will also assist the DistrictPage 1 of 4

207to meet its commitment to not use Shaw Street to remove aggregate from Shaw Pit.This will entail discussions with the Forestry Department as these two parcels arecontained within the Municipal Forest.• Measures should be taken to ensure the protection of the headwater areas of LynchBrook and the wetland should also be protected and its margins revegetated.• The District would be interested in entering into a common boundary agreement with theproperty owner for the shared boundary with Shaw Pit.Mike YounieManager of Environmental ServicesF:\ENGINEER\MYOUNIE\Memos\Gravel Pits/Caswell Gravel Pit.docxPage 2 of 4

MAP 1208103301027010232CASWELL AVE.31524S haw1010031101 314113126831457

O0o.0o.0oc0• o

210MiDISTRICT nOFON THE FRASER.....1:rEngineering and Public WorksMemorandumFile Category :File Folder.INF.ROA.MAIPaving ProgramsTo:Chief Administrative OfficerFrom: Director of Engineering and Public WorksDate: June 18, 2009Subject: Pavement Deterioration IssuesRecommendationThat:1. Repairs be made immediately to road sections noted on the attached 2009 list of urgentroad repairs at an estimated cost of $580,000;2. a. A portion of the repairs be funded from the following sources:Account # Budget Source Comment46112 $28,000 Hatzic railway crossing Surplus44000 $29,959 Road weather information station Defer to 201444001 $6,800 Road weather information station Defer to 201442789 $30,000 Westcoast Express sandblast and paint Defer to 201543098 $83,949 7 th /Murray Culvert Lining Defer to 201443099 $83,771 7 th /Horne Culvert Lining Defer to 201446040 $4,145 Utility relocations Delete in 200942000 $2,953 Right of Way Acquisitions Delete in 200942330 $2,271 Road Analysis Delete in 2009Gravel Pit Reserve $84,175 Shaw Pit Restoration Delete70995 $19,803 Lacrosse Box Rebuild Defer to 201070991 $32,448 Griner Park Parking Lot Paving Defer to 2010SUBTOTAL $408,274b. The remaining $171,726 is funded from the Arterial Road Reserve.c. And financial plan amended accordingly.3. A meeting be arranged with MLA's Randy Hawes and Marc Dalton and with MP RandyKamp as soon as possible to raise awareness of this matter and to request theirassistance with respect to advancing the Districts pavement grant application under theBuilding Canada program;4. Should either the Building Canada grant request not be approved or indication ofimminent approval has not been received by July 6 th , 2009 the District's original 2009pavement program be completed as budgeted and;5. Staff prepare a strategy for long term pavement rehabilitation including an analysis ofwhat additional funding will be required on an annual basis and options for funding theexpanded program;PAGE 1 OF 6

MemorandumTo: Chief Administrative OfficerFrom: Director of Engineering and Public WorksSubject: Pavement Deterioration IssuesDate: June 18, 2009211Background .Current SituationWith the' announcement of an increased allowance for infrastructure grants from othergovernments, staff received approval from Council to make application for $1,800,000 in fundingfor both 2009 and 2010 with the intention of matching a one third with our existing pavementrepair and resurface budgets. Although receipt of these grants would provide an incredibleboost to our roads, there are challenges arising with that process as well:• Staff would normally be completing asphalt repairs in preparation for overlays but cannotuse this budget as it must be held as our share of the grant money.• With an expectation of not receiving an answer on the grants until the end of June, wewill be entering a tendering process when paving will be at its highest pricing for theyear.As staff continues to analyze roadway conditions, several new critical issues have arisen in thepast few weeks. Initial estimates for repair of these roads totaled $886,000. In further review,staff believes that some interim measures can be taken to delay full repairs in some instancesand have since reduced the estimate for urgent repairs to $580,000. The tables attachedindicate the repair locations for the urgent 2009 repairs and the repairs that can be deferred to2010. The 2010 repairs total $306,000 and a funding source will have to be identified for thiswork separately. This is barring any further requirements for additional road failures.These remaining urgencies have the potential to create situations to the extent that we haveseen previously on Silverdale Avenue with closures required. In addition, if the shortages inpavement rehabilitation funding are not offset by the $1.8 million pavement grant program thisyear, the likelihood of the failures we've seen recently compounding and continuing to occur willincrease.Because the urgent repairs cannot be funded from the current budget for pavement resurfacingfor the reasons noted above, staff has located several areas from the 2009 capital budget wherefunds could be reallocated to assist in funding these repairs as follows:Account # Budget Source Comment46112 $28,000 Hatzic railway crossing Surplus44000 $29,959 Road weather information station Defer to 201444001 $6,800 Road weather information station Defer to 201442789 $30,000 Westcoast Express sandblast and paint Defer to 201543098 $83,949 7th/Murray Culvert Lining Defer to 201443099 $83,771 7th/Horne Culvert Lining Defer to 201446040 $4,145 Utility relocations Delete in 200942000 $2,953 Right of Way Acquisitions Delete in 200942330 $2,271 Road Analysis Delete in 2009Gravel Pit Reserve $84,175 Shaw Pit Restoration Delete70995 $19,803 Lacrosse Box Rebuild Defer to 201070991 $32,448 Griner Park Parking Lot Paving Defer to 2010SUBTOTAL $408,274PAGE 2 OF 6

MemorandumTo: Chief Administrative OfficerFrom: Director of Engineering and Public WorksSubject: Pavement Deterioration IssuesDate: June 18, 2009212The consequence of deferral of the above noted projects is as follows:Road weather information stations:Snow and ice removal operations will continue at status quo. Our hope was to have thesestations to aid us in being more proactive in snow-fighting and to reduce the environmentalimpact of any excessive salt and brine use. Deferring installation of these stations will not effectthe current status or system of snow removal.Culvert relining at 7th Ave and Horne and Murray:A recent culvert inspection confirms that the lining can be delayed (Matt to confirm). With adelay in relining the culverts under 7 th Avenue, roads and drainage staff will use the time toreview alternatives to improve the structural integrity of the culverts and minimize cost. In 2012,the culverts will be TV inspected again to provide an updated evaluation at a cost of+$12,000($6000 each).West Coast Express sandblast and paint:Following inspections of the Westcoast Express overpass, staff has determined that + $8000work could be done this year to further prolong the requirement to complete the more expensiveand extensive sandblasting and painting of the overpass.Shaw Pit Restoration:The Gravel Pit Reserve has a current balance of $ 84,175, and is held for the purpose ofremediating Shaw Pit. With the proposal to sell the gravel from Shaw Pit, the successfulcontractor will be required to restore the pit after the gravel is extracted. There is a slight risk tothe District that if the RFP process is not successful we may need to fund this from capital in thefuture. This is considered a very low risk and would not be required until after 2020 with thegravel being extracted over 10 years.Lacrosse Box RebuildStaff have applied for a provincial grant and it is unlikely that this project will be completed thisyear.Griner Park — Parking Lot Paving deferred to next year.Long Term StrategyMissions' roadway system has reached a critical point in its life cycle. Without the injection of asubstantial stimulus, we could easily reach. a situation of disrepair that would be extremelycostly to correct. Staff continues to monitor the situation and review all available data to find thesolution to this problem but realizes the necessity to keep Council aware and informed thatadditional funding must be provided to protect the incredibly valuable asset that our roadwaysystem is.PAGE 3 OF 6

MemorandumTo: Chief Administrative OfficerFrom: Director of Engineering and Public WorksSubject: Pavement Deterioration Issues -Date: June 18, 2009213Throughout the beginning of 2009, it became apparent that Public Works was beginning to loseground on the maintenance of our roadway system. Although staff has overseen and performedapproximately $3,000,000 in repairs in the last 2 years and managed to save a few roads, theentire system continues to decline at a rate that our current budgets simply cannot correct.In response to these arising concerns, staff enlisted the aide of EBA Engineering to verify thatwe were correctly assessing our situation. EBA completed the review and provided an in-depthsummary presentation to Council on April 6, 2009 and concluded that our situation was morecritical than our observations and that our paving program needs an additional $2,000,000 peryear in order to maintain the pavement structure to a reasonable condition. They also providedan option to phase in the budget increase over three years and concluded the budget in thethird year and beyond must be $2,600,000 due to the fact that all road repairs would be delayedwhich in turn reduces the pavement condition and increases the cost of repairs. This is 30 %more than if it was implemented all at once.Staff has reviewed these results in comparison to our own pavement management system inthe hopes of finding a balanced budgetary requirement, believing that we can reduce thesuggested additional $2,000,000 requirement and the obvious impact that would have onMission taxpayers.By manually adjusting the paving and repairing program we are able to more specifically targetprojects with appropriate treatments, i.e. rather than pave and repair the full road width andlength staff will target only those sections needing repairs. Staff believe that we could achieveour goals with an additional $1,400,000/yr in our asphalt repair and resurfacing budgets vs the$2,000,000 identified by EBA.If this is phased over four years the increase will need to be $1,820,000 in the fourth year andbeyond. This is based on the same increase of 30 % recommended by EBA noted above. Thisassumes a cumulative budget increase of $450,000 per year for 2010, 2011 and 2012 and$470,000 in 2013 for a total increase of $ 1.82 Million/yr.Sources of funding will have to be identified to cover this additional expense. Possible sourcesof funding include a combination of property tax increases, fuel tax revenue, Shaw Pit revenue,and an increase in the soil removal fee.Staff will prepare a detailed funding strategy for Council's review later this year for both the 2010urgent repairs and the long term pavement management program. In staff's view it is essentialto start addressing this issue with the 2010 budget.Rick BomhofKen Bjorgaard, I have reviewed the financial aspects of this report.FAENGINEER\RBOMHORCouncil Reportpavement condition 09 R1 4.doc.docxPAGE 4 OF 6

MemorandumTo: Chief Administrative OfficerFrom: Director of Engineering and Public WorksSubject: Pavement Deterioration IssuesDate: June 18, 20092142009 Urgent Road RepairsStreet Location Recommended Action Cost Alternate ActionDewdney TrunkAt switch backs,east of Stave Damexcavate, geogrid wraplifts, repave$276,000 Allow road to slideout, partial roadclosure, single lanealternatingAt 12195, north ofCardinalexcavate, geogrid wrap,lifts, repave$48,000 Allow road to slideout, partial roadclosure, single lanealternatingEdwards StreetMain hill, north ofMcEwen Avenueexcavate, geogrid wraplifts, repave$100,500 Allow road to slideout, partial to full roadclosureEast side, l st areaexcavate, geogrid wraplifts, repave$35,000 Allow road to slideout, full road closureEast side, 2 nd areaexcavate, geogrid wraplifts, repave$22,500 Allow road to slideout, full road closureStave Lake StreetNorthAt 10423Northwest of10060excavate, geogrid wraplifts, repaveexcavate, geogrid wraplifts, repaveTOTAL $580,000$54,500 Allow road to slideout, partial to full roadclosure$33,500 Allow road to slideout, partial to full roadclosurePAGE 5 OF 6

MemorandumTo: Chief Administrative OfficerFrom: Director of Engineering and Public WorksSubject: Pavement Deterioration IssuesDate: June 18, 20092152010 Urgent RepairsStreet Location Recommended Action Cost Alternate ActionWilson StreetManzer StreetWren StreetClay StreetNorth of RuskinDamAt 11616, south ofDTRAt 9537 nearSilverhillBetween Teal andSilver CreekbridgeBetween Keystoneand Townshiplineexcavate, geogrid wraplifts, repaveexcavate, geogrid wraplifts, repaveexcavate, geogrid wraplifts, repaveexcavate, geogrid wraplifts, repaveexcavate, geogrid wraplifts, repaveTyler Street South of Clay excavate, geogrid wraplifts, repaveTOTAL $306,000$68,000 Crack seal andmonitor. Repair 2010.$38,000 Crack seal andmonitor. Repair 2010.$30,000 Crack seal andmonitor. Repair 2010.$88,000 Crack seal andmonitor. Repair 2010.$50,000 Crack seal andmonitor. Repair 2010.$32,000 Crack seal andmonitor. Repair 2010.PAGE 6 OF 6

216Minutes of the Mission Abbotsford Transit Committee meeting held April, 23, 2009, at10:00 a.m. in Room 530 of Abbotsford City HallMembers Present: Mayor Atebe (Chair-Mission); Councillor Harris (Vice Chair-Abbotsford); Councillor Loewen (Abbotsford); Councillor Gill (Abbotsford); and CouncillorPiecas (Mission)Staff Present: Director of Engineering — J. Gordon (Abbotsford); Manager, EngineeringServices — E. Riou (Abbotsford); Director of Engineering and Public Works - R. Bomhof(Mission); Engineering Technologist-Traffic M. Ghafoor (Mission); BC Transit -J. VanSchaik; FirstBus Transit - C. Brown; Abbotsford Chamber of Commerce -D. MacDonald: UFV C. Toews; and Recording Secretary — S. Sharma (Abbotsford)1. CALL TO ORDERThe meeting was called to order at 10:05 a.m.Late agenda items:3.1 Surjit Sandhu — Requesting Bus Pass for Subhdev Uppal5.4 Revenue and Ridership Report6.3 BC Transit Conference 20097.7 Correspondence dated March 11, 2009 to Mayor Peary, from Rachel regardingHandy Dart7.8 Correspondence dated March 11, 2009 to Mayor Peary, from R. Dirks regardingHandy Dart7.9 Correspondence dated March 11, 2009 to Mayor Peary, from Janna K. regardingHandy Dart7.10 Correspondence dated March 11, 2009 to Mayor Peary, from B. Rushiaskiregarding Handy Dart2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES1 Minutes of the MATC March 26, 2009 MeetingMoved by Councillor Pieces, seconded by CouncillorLoewen, that the minutes of the Mission Abbotsford TransitCommittee meeting, held March 26, 2009, be adopted.MATC 42-2009CARRIED.3. DELEGATIONS.1 Subhdev Lima{ — Requestina a Bus PassS. Uppai requested no-charge travel on the bus system. C. Brown will provide a letter toMr. Uppal stating that he may ride the bus, while he applies for the Government BusPass Program.

217Minutes of the Mission Abbotsford Transit Committee meeting held April 23, 2009, at10:00 am. in Room 530 of Abbotsford City Hall Page 24. BUSINESS OUT OF MINUTES.1 Mission Abbotsford Transit Committee follow-up sheetMoved by Councillor Harris, seconded by CouncillorLoewen, that the Mission Abbotsford Transit Committeefollow-up sheet, be received.MATC 43-2009 CARRIED.REPORTS.1 Transit Service to the Abbotsford Entertainment Sports Center (ESC)J. Gordon suggested that staff draft a transit service plan for the ESC for the Maymeeting.Moved by Councillor Loewen, seconded by CouncillorHarris, that the report regarding transit service to •theAbbotsford ESC, be received.MATC 44-2009 CARRIED..2 10 by 10 ChallengeMoved by Councillor Harris, seconded by CouncillorPieces, that (a) the report regarding the 10 by 10challenge, be received; and (b) that staff work with theMeasure-up Group to incorporate their training with thetraining FirstBus Transit currently offers,MATC 45-2009 CARRIED..3 Five Year Transit Business PlanM. Ghafoor presented a report to MATC and a draft letter to BC Transit regardingthe Five Year Transit Business Plan. Mayor Atebe expressed concern regardingthe delay in the planning process by BC Transit.Moved by Councillor Harris, seconded by CouncillorLoewen, that (a) the report regarding the Five YearBusiness Plan, be received; and (b) that the letter, asamended, be sent to the BC Transit Board of Directors witha copy to Graeme Masterton, Director of Planning, BCTransit.MATC 46-2009 CARRIED.

218Minutes of the Mission Abbotsford Transit Committee meeting held April 23, 2009, at10:00 am. in Room 530 of Abbotsford City Hall Page 3.4 Revenue and Ridership ReportJ. Vanschaik presented the ValleyMAX Transit Revenue and Ridership Reportfor the Fourth Quarter of 2008.Moved by Councillor Gill, seconded by Councillor Pieces,that (a) the Revenue and Ridership Report, be received;and (b) that FirstBus prepare a presentation for Abbotsfordand Mission Council regarding ridership.MATC 47-2009CARRIED.6. NEW BUSINESS.1 Reorganization of FirstGroup's Canadian EntitiesMoved by Councillor Loewen, seconded by Councillor Gill,that the information regarding the Reorganization ofFirstGroup's Canadian Entities, be received.MATC 48-2009 CARRIED..2 2009 Service ExpansionMoved by Councillor Harris, seconded by CouncillorPieces, that staff develop options and provide direction forthe 2009 Service Expansion.MATC 49-2009 CARRIED..3 BC Transit Conference 2009J. Vanschaik advised the Committee that the BC Transit Conference 2009 will be heldMay 6 to 8 in Comox.7. CORRESPONDENCE1 Correspondence dated April 8, 2009 to Mayor Peary, from P. Bain regardingphysical assault at the Bourquin Crescent bus exchange.2 Correspondence dated April 5, 2009 to Mayor Peary, from P. Yakashiroregarding physical assault at the Bourquin Crescent bus exchange.3 Correspondence dated March 28, 2009 to Mayor Peary, from P. Guest regardingTransit Buses.4 Correspondence dated March 25, 2009 from S. Uppal regarding an annual buspass.5 Correspondence dated March 31, 2009 to Cameron, from E. Riou regardingHandy Dart service

219Minutes of the Mission Abbotsford Transit Committee meeting held April 23, 2009, at10:00 a.m. in Room 530 of Abbotsford City Rail Page 4.6 Correspondence dated April 19, 2009 to Elvis Riau, from D. van der Koonregarding Transit Service on weekends and holidays, and reply from E. Rioudated April 20, 2009..7 Correspondence dated March 11, 2009 to Mayor Peary, from Rachel regardingHandy Dart.8 Correspondence dated March 11, 2009 to Mayor Peary, from R. Dirks regardingHandy Dart.9 Correspondence dated March 11, 2009 to Mayor Peary, from Janna K. regardingHandy Dart.10 Correspondence dated March 11, 2009 to Mayor Peary, from B. Rushiaskiregarding Handy DartMoved by Councillor Loewen, seconded by CouncillorPiecas, that correspondence items 7.1 to 7.10, bereceived.MATC 50-2009CARRIED.8. MOTION TO CLOSEMoved by Councillor Loewen, seconded by CouncillorHarris, that the April 23, 2009, MATC meeting, beadjourned (11:50 a.m.).MATC 51-2009 CARRIED.The next MATC meeting will be held Thursday, May 28, 2009.Certified Correct:Mayor Atebe, iVIATC Chair - S. Sharma, Recorder

220Minutes, of the Abbotsford/Mission Water & Sewer Commission meeting heldMay 14, 2009, at 9:07 am. in Room 530 of Abbotsford City HallWSC Members Present: Mayor Peary (Chair) (Abbotsford) (part); Mayor Atebe(Mission); Councillor Gibson (Abbotsford); Councillor Gidda (Mission); Councillor Gill(Abbotsford); and Councillor Pieces (Mission)UMC Members Present: General Manager Engineering, Regional Utilities — J. Gordon(Abbotsford); Acting Director, Corporate Services — J. Lewis (Abbotsford); Manager ofCapital Utilities, Financial Planning & Investments — K. Boland (Mission); and DeputyDirector of Engineering — D. Riecken (Mission)Other Staff Present: Manager of Utility Operations — L. Stein (Abbotsford);Wastewater & Asset Engineering Manager — R. Isaac (Abbotsford); Water & Solid WasteEngineering Manager — T. Kyle (Abbotsford); Utility Construction and Source ControlEngineering Manager - M. Mayfield (Abbotsford); Asset Manager — T. Henry(Abbotsford); Wastewater Planning/Process Engineer - S. Chiu (Abbotsford); andRecording Secretary — R. Brar (Abbotsford)1. CALL TO ORDERThe meeting was called to order at 9:07 a.m.2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES.1 Minutes of the April 9, 2009 Meeting3. DELEGATIONSMoved by Councillor Gill, seconded by Councillor Gidda,that the minutes of the Abbotsford/Mission Water & SewerCommission meeting held April 9, 2009, be adopted.WSC 54-2009 CARRIED..1 Presentation by David Main, AECOM, on the PSAB/Asset Management Study forthe JAMES PlantThe Wastewater & Asset Engineering Manager introduced David Main from AECOM,who presented the WSC members with a powerpoint presentation on the PSAB/AssetManagement Study for the JAMES Plant.Moved by Councillor Gibson, seconded by Mayor Atebe,that the delegation of by David Main, AECOM, on thePSAB/Asset Management Study for the JAMES Plant, bereceived.WSC 55-2009CARRIED.

221Minutes of the Abbotsford/Mission Water & Sewer Commission meeting heldMay 14, 2009, at 9:07 am. in Room 530 of Abbotsford City Hall Page 24. BUSINESS OUT OF MINUTES.1 Monthly Follow-up ReportMoved by Councillor Gibson, seconded by CouncillorGidda, that the monthly follow-up report be received.WSC 56-2009 CARRIED..2 JAMES Plant Monthly Report April 2009 (5700-02)Moved by Councillor Gibson, seconded by Mayor Atebe,that Report No. UMC 30-2009, dated April 30, 2009, fromthe Manager of Utility Operations, regarding JAMES PlantMonthly Report — April 2009, be received.WSC 57-2009 CARRIED..3 Monthly Water Report — April 2009 (5720-02)Moved by Councillor Gill, seconded by Councillor Plecas,that Report No. UMC 36-2009, dated May 6, 2009, fromthe Manager of Utility Operations, regarding the MonthlyWater Report — April 2009, be received.WSC 58-2009 CARRIED..4 Financial Statements — March 2009 (5700-01)Moved by Mayor Atebe, seconded by Councillor Gibson,that Report No. UMC 29-2009, dated April 30, 2009, fromthe Acting Director, Corporate Service (Abbotsford),regarding Financial Statements — March 2009, bereceived.WSC 59-2008CARRIED.5. REPORTS.1 Joint Water Capital Cost Sharing Formula (5710-50)The Wastewater & Asset Engineering Manager introduced Stella Chiu, WastewaterPlanning/Process Engineer, who presented the WSC members with a powerpointpresentation on the Joint Water Capital Cost Sharing Formula.

222Minutes of the Abbotsford/Mission Water & Sewer Commission meeting heldMay 14, 2009, at 9:07 am. in Room 530 of Abbotsford City Hall Page 3Moved by Mayor Atebe, seconded by Councillor Gibson,that Report No. UMC 32-2009, dated April 30, 2009, fromthe Wastewater Planning/Process Engineer, regarding theJoint Water Capital Cost Sharing Formula, be received;(1)the proposed cost sharing strategy for Joint WaterCapital projects be approved in principle by the WSC; and(2) the WSC recommend the proposed cost sharingstrategy be forwarded to Abbotsford and Mission Councilsfor approval and that the Joint Water Supply andDistribution and Sewage Treatment Systems"Ownership & Governance Agreement" and the "Operationand Maintenance Agreement" be amended accordingly.WSC 60-2009 CARRIED.Mayor Peary was excused from the meeting at 10:36 a.m., during the discussion of thefollowing item and Councillor Gibson assumed the Chair. Mayor Peary rejoined themeeting at 10:40 a.m..2 Proposed New Sewer Use Bylaws for Abbotsford and Mission (3900-02)Moved by Mayor Atebe, seconded by Councillor Gibson,that Report No. UMC 34-2009, dated May 1, 2009, fromthe Utility Construction & Source Control EngineeringManager, regarding the proposed New Sewer Use Bylawsfor the City of Abbotsford and District of Mission, bereceived; and the WSC recommend that the City ofAbbotsford and District of Mission Councils adopt the newSewer Use Bylaws.WSC 61-2009 CARRIED..3 SCADA Upgrades for Mission Sewer Flows (5750-01)Moved by Councillor Gidda, seconded by CouncillorGibson, that Report No. UMC 35-2009, dated May 6, 2009,from the Director of Engineering & Public Works (Mission),regarding SCADA upgrades for Mission Sewer Flows, bereceived; and the SCADA communication upgrades atJAMES and two Mission sewer locations be funded fromthe joint sewer capital contingency fund.WSC 62-2009 CARRIED.

223Minutes of the Abbotsford/Mission Water & Sewer Commission meeting heldMay 14, 2009, at 9:07 a.m. in Room 530 of Abbotsford City Hall Page 4.4 Design of Disinfection System for Townline, Marshall & East AbbotsfordWells (5710-50)Moved by Mayor Atebe, seconded by Councillor Plecas,that Report No. UMC 37-2009, dated May 6, 2009, fromthe Project Engineer, regarding the Design of DisinfectionSystems for Townline, Marshall & East Abbotsford Wells,be received; (1) the Design of Disinfection System forTownline, Marshall & East Abbotsford Wells be awarded toDayton & Knight Ltd. for $399,945 (GST excluded); and(2) the Mayor and Corporate Officer be authorized toexecute all documents related to this matter.WSC 63-2009CARRIED..5 Alternate Water Source Scenarios for the Water Master Plan (5710-40)Moved by Councillor Gibson, seconded by CouncillorPlecas, that Report No. UMC 38-2009, datedMay 11, 2009, from the Water & Solid Waste EngineeringManager, regarding Alternate Water Source Scenarios forthe Water Master Plan, be received; and (1) the RockyPoint 3, Stave 6 and Norrish 2 new water source optionsbe explored further; and (2) the WSC recommend theAlternate Water Source Scenarios for the Rocky Point 3,Stave 6 and Norrish 2, be forwarded to Abbotsford andMission Councils for approval.Mayor Peary was excused from the meeting at 11:20 a.m., and the Mayor Atebeassumed the Chair.The motion was then put, andWSC 64-2009CARRIED..6 NEW BUSINESSNone.

224Minutes of the Abbotsford/Mission Water & Sewer Commission meeting heldMay 14, 2009, at 9:07 a.m. in Room 530 of Abbotsford City Hall Page 57. MOTION TO CLOSEMoved by Councillor Gibson, seconded by Councillor Gill,that the May 14, 2009, WSC meeting, be adjourned(11:20 a.m.).WSC 65-2009CARRIED.Certified Correct:WSC cAdiAum C r

225Minutes 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 March 16, 2009 commencing at 3:30 p.m.Council Members Present: Mayor James AtebeCouncillor Terry GiddaCouncillor Paul HornCouncillor Danny PlecasCouncillor Mike ScudderCouncillor Jenny StevensCouncillor Heather StewartStaff Members Present:Glen Robertson, chief administrative officerDennis Clark, director of corporate administrationRick Bomhof, director of engineering and public worksSharon Fletcher, director of planningKelly Ridley, deputy director of corporate administration1. FRASER VALLEY TRANSIT STRATEGYThe Mayor welcomed representatives from the Ministry of Transportation and theFraser Valley Regional District and stated that the purpose of today's meeting was todiscuss transit plans for the Fraser Valley.The following summarized comments were provided:(a) The approach used to develop the Fraser Valley Transit Strategy will include theuse of best practices, understanding issues and markets, discussing fundingand organizational challenges early in the process, developing regional andlocal visions concurrently, committing to a high level of community engagement,and management of resources;(b) Stakeholders will be consulted through the use of meetings, workshops, openhouses, direct contact & information exchange, surveys and questionnaires,website, and reports;(c) The phasing strategy (2013) will include confirming cost estimates, prioritizingservices, facilities and support strategies;(d) The long term plan (2020 & 2030) will summarize market research results andforecast travel demands, identify magnitude of potential transit markets, andreview and assess transit targets for regional travel.Council thanked the Ministry of Transportation and Highways for the information andprovided the following comments and questions:(i)Municipalities should be involved at the earliest possible date in developing along term strategy, followed by consultation with the Council of Councils toensure that the process is partner driven;(ii) When identifying the scope of the project, ensure that it is a realistic one that allpartners can achieve;

Special Council MeetingMarch 16, 2009 Page 2 of 2226(iii) Appointments to various committees should include representation frommunicipal councils, health and education agencies, and members of the public;(iv) The Fraser River should be included when assessing transportation options;(v) Due to economic realities we may have to develop more inter-regionalconnections to resolve transportation issues in the Fraser Valley (i.e. WestCoast Express);(vi) Is BC Transit cancelling its 5 year plan, and if so, this topic needs to bediscussed at an open meeting.The Ministry of Transportation and Highways thanked council for their input andstated that any further comments from council about the future of transit in the FraserValley will be appreciated and valued.2. ADJOURNMENTMoved by Councillor Horn, seconded by Councillor Plecas, andRESOLVED: That the meeting be adjourned.The meeting adjourned at 4:40 p.m.MAYOR DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE ADMINISTRATION

227Minutes 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 March 17, 2009 commencing at 3:30 p.m.Council Members Present:Council Members Absent:Staff Members Present:Mayor James AtebeCouncillor Terry GiddaCouncillor Danny PlecasCouncillor Mike ScudderCouncillor Heather StewartCouncillor Paul HornCouncillor Jenny StevensGlen Robertson, chief administrative officerDennis Clark, director of corporate administrationKen Bjorgaard, director of financeSharon Fletcher, director of planningRay Herman, director of parks, recreation, and cultureWendy McCormick, deputy director of parks, recreation,and cultureKelly Ridley, deputy director of corporate administration1. PARKS, TRAILS, & BICYCLE MASTER PLANThe Mayor welcomed Mr. Eric Lees and Ms. Catriona Hearn from LEES &Associates, and stated that the purpose of today's meeting was to review the finaldraft of the Parks, Trails, & Bicycle Master Plan.Mr. Lees reviewed the process used to finalize the master plan, noting that the last ofa series of meetings with council to review the plan was held on December 3, 2008.He stated that the comments provided by council at the December meeting were, forthe most part, incorporated into the report.Council discussed the plan and provided the following comments:(a) In order to create small 'pocket' parks in the area south of 7 th Avenue, a strategyto determine the location of these parks needs to be identified and a strategy toacquire land for this purpose must be undertaken;(b) More information about field use needs to be compiled to determine thecommunity's need for track & field, cricket, and tennis;(c) Shelters and tables for groups to meet, play cards, or picnic, would be a valuedasset for Mission parks;(d) These shelters and tables should also be located along trails, especially wheretwo or more trails meet;(e) An off leash dog park in the Fraser River Heritage Park is a priority; and(f)Bicycle and trail plans should be added as an appendix to the report.

Special Council MeetingMarch 17, 2009 Page 2 of 2228Council thanked Mr. Lees and Ms. Hearn, and it was agreed that once the finalversion of the plan is complete it will be placed on a regular council meeting agendafor formal endorsement by council.2. ADJOURNMENTMoved by Councillor Gidda, seconded by Councillor Plecas, andRESOLVED: That the meeting be adjourned.The meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m.MAYOR DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE ADMINISTRATION

229MINUTES of the SPECIAL MEETING of the COUNCIL of the DISTRICT OFMISSION held in the Conference Room of the Municipal Hall, 8645 Stave. LakeStreet, Mission, British Columbia, on June 15, 2009 commencing at 5:10 p.m.Council Members Present: Mayor James AtebeCouncillor Terry GiddaCouncillor Paul HornCouncillor Danny PlecasCouncillor Mike ScudderCouncillor Jenny StevensCouncillor Heather StewartStaff Members Present:Glen Robertson, chief administrative officerDennis Clark, director of corporate administrationKen Bjorgaard, director of financeKern Onken, deputy treasurer/collectorKelly Ridley, deputy director of corporate administrationCarmelle Jullion, executive assistant1. TOPICS FOR DISCUSSIONSC09/091JUNE 15/09District of Mission Audit Results and CommunicationsMayor Atebe welcomed Mr. Bill Cox from BDO Dunwoody Chartered Accountants,and stated that the purpose of today's meeting was to review the audit commentsprepared by BDO Dunwoody for the District of Mission's fiscal year ended December31, 2008.Mr. Cox reported the following:■■■■■■■There were no fraudulent or illegal activities, or material misstatementsdetected as a result of the audit;The financial results and position reported by the District for 2008 is inaccordance with generally accepted Canadian accounting principles.There were no significant disagreements with management;There were no uncorrected misstatements during the 2008 audit;After consideration of both quantitative and qualitative factors with respect tomisstatements, the financial statements are fairly stated;A prior year recommendation regarding the security of cash receipts has beenaddressed;Current year management letter observations include:i) a recommendation to deactivate terminated staff user accounts in a timelymanner;ii) implementation of a formal policy to ensure that the IT department reviewsuser privileges for systems and MATS every six months;iii) the establishment of individual usernames and passwords for each staffmember that will be doing cash disbursements;iv) a recommendation that the District invoice suppliers for GST not collected

230Special Council Meeting Page 2 of 2June 2, 2009between 2004 to 2008;v) the implementation of a change in procedure whereby changes to utilityrates and usage are performed by different accounting staff to ensure thatthere is appropriate segregation of duties;vi) a recommendation that the District start identifying improvements to itscarbon inventory to ensure optimum rebates from the Climate ActionRevenue Incentive Program.Council thanked Mr. Cox for his review of the audit and commended the director offinance and his staff for a job very well done.2. ADJOURNMENTMoved by Councillor Stevens, seconded by Councillor Horn, andRESOLVED: That the meeting be adjourned.CARRIEDThe meeting was adjourned at 6:05 p.m.JAMES ATEBE, MAYOR DENNIS CLARK, DIRECTOR OFCORPORATE ADMINISTRATION

231MINUTES 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 June 15, 2009, 2009 commencing at 6:30 p.m.Council Members Present: Mayor James AtebeCouncillor Terry GiddaCouncillor Paul HornCouncillor PlecasCouncillor ScudderCouncillor Jenny StevensCouncillor Heather StewartStaff Members Present: Glen Robertson, chief administrative officerDennis Clark, director of corporate administrationKelly Ridley, deputy director of corporate administrationJennifer Russell, administrative clerk1. RESOLUTION TO RESOLVE INTO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLERC09/361JUNE 15/09Moved by Councillor Stewart, seconded by Councillor Stevens, andRESOLVED: That council now resolve itself into committee of the whole.CARRIED2. DELEGATIONS AND PRESENTATIONSRC09/362JUNE 15/09Barb StrachanRe: Town Square Sub-CommitteeMs. Barb Strachan appeared before council on behalf of the town square subcommitteeto ask for a decision on its commitment to the volunteer-drivendevelopment of a rain garden at 7th Avenue and Grand Street.Ms. Strachan provided an overview of:■■■■■■the sub-committee's goals;the reasons for choosing that site;the vision for the site;the draft site plan;discussions with various community partners; andthe proposed plan for maintenance of the square.Ms. Strachan stated that the focus of the square is on people-centred benefits, andcreating a natural habitat out of an area that is currently void of substantive peoplefriendlyamenities or environmental supports. She noted that the committee wouldlike construction to start in early fall to allow for the least amount of stress on theplants.

232Regular Council Meeting Page 2 of 13June 15, 2009In conclusion, Ms. Strachan stated that the sub-committee needs an officialcommitment to the project from council now, subject to meeting logical expectedbasic requirements.The mayor thanked Ms. Strachan for the presentation.Staff were directed to provide a report specifying what would be required from theDistrict and the associated costs.RC09/363JUNE 15/09Jacquie Symington (on behalf of Clegg Street Flood Victims)Re: Clegg Street FloodingMs. Jacquie Symington appeared before council on behalf of several Clegg Streetresidents to provide information about the May 11 th flood event and some history ofrun-off flooding in that area.Ms. Symington outlined the residents' concerns about the ongoing problem, thedamage to their properties and homes,, and the potential risk to their families. Shestated that the residents would like to see the bylaws changed so that municipalrunoff does not go through private drainage systems.Mr. Marc Hanslow stated that various residents can attest to flooding happening over20 years ago, and that he has video footage of the acceleration of water comingdown the creek. Mr. Hanslow also stated that the residents have consulted their ownengineer who has provided options to fix the problem.The mayor thanked Ms. Symington and Mr. Hanslow for the presentation.Staff were directed to:(a)(b)provide a full report as soon as possible; andrefer this matter to a closed council meeting.RC09/364JUNE 15/09Allison WhippleRe: Employment Lands in MissionMs. Whipple did not appear as a delegation.RC09/365JUNE 15/09KC McPhersonRe: Amendment to Development Permit for 32966 Cherry AvenueDarren Hall appeared before council on behalf of KC McPherson to provide furtherinformation about the proposed development for 32966 Cherry Avenue.Mr. Hall stated:■■the original design for the houses was based on a lot grading plan that had notyet been produced;once the land was cleared and the lane put in the rear, it was noticed that thelot supports a three storey home from the front;

233Regular Council Meeting Page 3 of 13June 15, 2009■■■■■all of the homes meet the RS-1A zoning bylaw for height, which does allowhomes to be three storeys from the front;the placement of the homes is actually lower on lots 1 through 4 than originallydesigned;staff have asked them to artificially raise the grades from Cherry Street, whichwould require retaining walls of up to 6 to 7 feet in some places;they would like to see windows on the front of the homes, at a lower grade withless retaining wall; andthey feel having more windows in the basement as well as a door providesbetter fire safety.The mayor thanked Mr. Hall for the presentation.3. PLANNINGCouncillor Stewart assumed the Chair.RC09/366JUNE 15/09Rescind Zone Amending Bylaw 3864-2006-3143(231) and CloseDevelopment Application Files R05-032 and DV05-018Moved by Councillor Scudder, andRECOMMENDED:1. That first, second and third readings of zone amending bylaw 3864-2006-3143(231) be rescinded; and2. That rezoning application R05-032 and development variance permitapplication DV05-018 be clos ed.CARRIEDRC09/367JUNE 15/09Rezoning Application R09-004 (Toor/McPherson) at 31509 and 31591 IsraelAvenueMoved by Councillor Gidda, andRECOMMENDED:1. That in accordance with rezoning application R09-004 (Toor/McPherson), thedirector of corporate administration prepare a bylaw to amend District ofMission zoning bylaw 3143-1.998 by rezoning the properties located at 31509and 31591 Israel Avenue and legally described as:Parcel Identifier: 009-281-185, Lot 2, Section 30, Township 17, NewWestminster District Plan 23910, andParcel Identifier: 009-281-126 Lot 1, Section 30, Township 17, NewWestminster District Plan 23910from RU-1 Rural One zone to RS-2 One Unit Suburban Residential zone;

234Regular Council Meeting Page 4 of 13June 15, 20092. That the bylaw be considered for first and second reading at the regular councilmeeting on June 15, 2009;3. That following such a , reading, the bylaw be forwarded to a public hearing onJuly 27, 2009;4. That the five percent parkland provision in Section 941 of the LocalGovernment Act be applied as cash-in-lieu of parkland to subdivision file S09-004; and5. That one new road extension over a portion of Lots 1 and 2, Section 20,Township 17, New Westminster District Plan 23910, be named with the roadrunning east from Nelson Street as "Kenny Avenue Extension".CARRIEDRC09/368JUNE 15/09Spirit Square UpdateMoved by Mayor Atebe, andRECOMMENDED: That staff proceed with the tender process and the hiring ofcontractors for the foundation, construction and landscaping of the Spirit Square.CARRIEDRC09/369JUNE 15/09Agricultural Land Reserve Exclusion — 31380 Lougheed HighwayMoved by Councillor Gidda, andRECOMMENDED: That the Agricultural Land Commission be advised that while thestudy of industrial land needs is under discussion, council supports the inclusion ofthe subject property at 31380 Lougheed Highway for future industrial development.CARRIEDOPPOSED: Councillor HornCouncillor StewartRC09/370JUNE 15/09Consideration for Form and Character Covenant AmendmentMoved by Mayor Atebe, andRECOMMENDED: That the covenants placed on the properties at 32966, 32978,32982, 32988, 32994 and 32996 Cherry Avenue be amended to allow the frontelevations to be as proposed on appendix 4 of the report from the deputy director ofplanning dated June 1, 2009, to allow two storey buildings with basements.CARRIEDOPPOSED: Councillor HornCouncillor Stevens

235Regular Council Meeting Page 5 of 13June 15, 20094. PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURECouncillor Scudder assumed the Chair.RC09/371JUNE 15/09Cultural Infrastructure StudyMoved by Councillor Stewart, andRECOMMENDED:1. That the suggested scope of work to conduct a cultural infrastructure study, asattached to the report from the director of parks, recreation and culture datedJune 15, 2009 be approved; and2. That the spending of $15,550 plus GST for consulting services to conduct thecultural infrastructure study be approved, with the funds to come from councilcontingency.CARRIEDRC09/372JUNE 15/09LATE ITEM — Grant Application — Recreational Infrastructure Canada(RInC) ProgramMoved by Councillor Gidda, andRECOMMENDED:1. That staff prepare and submit an application under the RecreationalInfrastructure Canada program to re-build the lacrosse box at Centennial Park,including permanent washrooms;2. That, if the application is successful, the District's share of the funding willcome from community amenity contributions; and3. That LAN.40 Financial Contributions for Community Amenities policy beamended to add re-building of the lacrosse box to the project list.CARRIED5. ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCECouncillor Stevens assumed the Chair.RC09/373JUNE 15/09Policy COU.22 — Role of Council LiaisonA report from Dennis Clark, director of corporate administration dated May 15, 2009regarding a new draft policy (Role of Council Liaison) was provided for thecommittee's information.Staff were directed to reword the policy with council's recommended changes andbring it back for consideration at a future committee of the whole meeting.

236Regular Council Meeting Page 6 of 13June 15, 2009RC09/374JUNE 15/092008 Annual ReportMoved by Mayor Atebe, andRECOMMENDED: That the report from Ken Bjorgaard, director of finance, datedJune 10, 2009 regarding the draft 2008 annual report be received as information.CARRIEDRC09/375JUNE 15/09Audit Results and CommunicationsMoved by Councillor Scudder, andRECOMMENDED: That the audit results and communications report from BDODunwoody regarding the District's financial statements for the fiscal year 2008 bereceived as information.CARRIEDRC09/376JUNE 15/09Joint Water Capital Cost Sharing FormulaMoved by Mayor Atebe, andRECOMMENDED: That discussion regarding the joint water capital cost sharingformula be deferred to the committee of the whole meeting scheduled for July 6,2009.CARRIEDOPPOSED: Councillor HornRC09/377JUNE 15/09Social Development ReportA report from Kirsten Hargreaves, manager of social development, dated June 3,2009 regarding current social development projects and sub-committee updates wasprovided for the committee's information.RC09/378JUNE 15/09Enforcement of Lawn SprinklingMoved by Councillor Scudder, andRECOMMENDED: That municipal ticket information bylaw 2646-1993 be amendedto increase the fine amount for lawn sprinkling from $50.00 to $100.00 per offence,and to keep the current procedure of enforcement as is.CARRIEDRC09/379JUNE 15/09Dangerous Dogs — Bylaw OptionsA report from Dennis Clark, director of corporate administration, dated June 5, 2009regarding bylaw options for dealing with dangerous dogs was provided for thecommittee's information.

237Regular Council Meeting Page 7 of 13June 15, 2009Moved by Councillor Scudder, andRECOMMENDED: That staff provide a report regarding the legal issues andpractical application of a dangerous dog bylaw.CARRIEDRC09/380JUNE 15/09Business Licence Statistics and ComplianceA report from Beverly Endersby, manager of inspection services, dated June 1, 2009regarding business licence statistics and compliances was provided for thecommittee's information.Staff were directed to provide a report regarding the feasibility of checking forbusiness licenses, similar to what is done for dog licenses.6. ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC WORKSCouncillor Gidda assumed the Chair.RC09/381JUNE 15/09Upgrading of Penitentiary Pump Station and Gravity MainMoved by Mayor Atebe, andRECOMMENDED:1. That $460,000 be included in the non regional sewer capital expenditure planin year 2012 for the upgrading of the penitentiary sewage pumping station andincoming gravity mains, with the funding source identified as the sewer capitalreserve;2. That the director of corporate administration prepare a fee bylaw in accordancewith the authority granted under Sections 12(1) and 194 of the CommunityCharter to establish a fee per lot to be paid by property owners in thecatchment area of the pump station as a condition of subdivision approval orconnection of existing dwellings to the sewer;3. That all fees received under the bylaw be deposited in the sewer capitalreserve account; and4. That the fee per lot under the bylaw be established at $2,995.CARRIEDRC09/382JUNE 15/09Landfill FeesMoved by Councillor Scudder, andRECOMMENDED:

238Regular Council Meeting Page 8 of 13June 15, 20091. That item 8 of Schedule A of the Refuse Collection and Disposal Bylaw 1387-1984 be amended to reflect an $11 minimum charge per 73.5 kg load forcustomers from outside of Mission and Electoral Areas C, F and G, effectiveJuly 1 st, 2009; and2. That the surcharge for unsecured loads arriving at the landfill be increased to$10, effective October 1 st, 2009.CARRIEDRC09/383JUNE 15/09Requirement for Garbage CansA report from Jennifer Meier, environmental coordinator, dated June 4, 2009regarding the District's new requirement for garbage cans was provided for thecommittee's information.7. PUBLIC SAFETY AND HEALTHCouncillor Horn assumed the Chair.RC09/384JUNE 15/09Don ChapmanRe: Burning BylawCorrespondence from Don Chapman dated June 6, 2009 regarding the District'sburning bylaw was provided for the committee's information.Staff were directed to inform Mr. Chapman that the proposal to amend the burningbylaw did not receive council support at this time.RC09/385JUNE 15/09Mission Institution Report — May 2009A statistical year to date report from Mission Institution for the month of May, 2009that provides a list of inmates classified by major offence profile was provided for thecommittee's information.RC09/386JUNE 15/09Ferndale Institution Population Profile — June 2009A population profile report from Ferndale Institution for the month of June, 2009 wasprovided for the committee's information.RC09/387JUNE 15/09LATE ITEM: Verbal (Councillor Horn)Mission Memorial HospitalCouncillor Horn suggested that staff arrange a meeting between council and FraserHealth Authority to discuss the proposed cuts to the Mission Memorial Hospital.Moved Mayor Atebe, andRECOMMENDED:

239Regular Council Meeting Page 9 of 13June 15, 20091 That a strongly worded letter be sent to Fraser Health stating that the Districtshould be involved in every decision regarding Mission Memorial Hospital;2. That a meeting be arranged as soon as possible with Randy Hawes and MarcDalton to discuss council's concerns about the recent announcement by FraserHealth;3. That a meeting be arranged as soon as possible between council and theFraser Health board of directors and senior staff; and4. That staff issue a press release stating council's position.CARRIEDMoved by Councillor Stewart, andRECOMMENDED: That the meeting be extended until all business on the agenda isconcluded.CARRIED8. RESOLUTION TO RISE AND REPORTMayor Atebe resumed the Chair.RC09/388JUNE 15/09Moved by Councillor Scudder, seconded by Councillor Stevens, andRESOLVED: That the committee of the whole now rise and report.CARRIED9. ADOPTION OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORTRC09/389JUNE 15/09Moved by Councillor Plecas, seconded by Councillor Gidda, andRESOLVED: That the recommendations of the committee of the whole, ascontained in items RC09/361 to RC09/388, except items RC09/369 (ALR exclusion),RC09/370 (covenant amendment), and RC09/376 (joint water plan deferral) beadopted.CARRIEDRC09/390JUNE 15/09Moved by Councillor Stevens, seconded by Councillor Gidda, andRESOLVED: That the recommendation of the committee of the whole, as containedin item RC09/369 (ALR exclusion), be adopted.CARRIEDOPPOSED: Councillor HornCouncillor Stewart

240Regular Council Meeting Page 10 of 13June 15, 2009RC09/391JUNE 15/09RC09/392JUNE 15/09Moved by Councillor Scudder, seconded by Councillor Plecas, andRESOLVED: That the recommendation of the committee of the whole, as containedin item RC09/370 (covenant amendment), be adopted.CARRIEDOPPOSED: Councillor HornCouncillor StevensMoved by Councillor Stevens, seconded by Councillor Gidda, andRESOLVED: That the recommendation of the committee of the whole, as containedin item RC09/376 (joint water plan deferral), be adopted.CARRIEDOPPOSED: Councillor Horn10, MINUTESRC09/393JUNE 15/09Moved by Councillor Stevens, seconded by Councillor Plecas, andRESOLVED: That the minutes of the regular meeting of council held on June 1,2009 and the minutes of the special meetings of council held on May 14 and June 2,2009 be adopted.CARRIED11. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTESThere was no business arising from the minutes.12. CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER'S REPORTThe chief administrative officer did not report.13. MAYOR'S REPORTThe mayor reported on various activities, meetings and events attended since thelast regular council meeting.14. COUNCILLOR'S REPORTS ON COMMITTEES, BOARDS AND ACTIVITIESCouncillors Plecas, Gidda, and Stewart reported on various activities, meetings andevents attended since the last regular council meeting.15. BYLAWSRC09/394JUNE 15/09District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 3864-2006-3143(231)(R05-032 — Rockwell) — 33815 Cherry AvenueMoved by Councillor Gidda, seconded by Councillor Scudder, and

Regular Council Meeting Page 11 of 13June 15, 2009241RESOLVED: That the first, second and third readings of District of Mission zoningamending bylaw 3864-2006-3143(231) be rescinded.CARRIEDRC09/395JUNE 15/09District of Mission Sewer Bylaw 5033-2009Moved by Councillor Stevens, seconded by Councillor Plecas, andRESOLVED: That District of Mission sewer bylaw 5033-2009 be adopted.CARRIEDRC09/396JUNE 15/09District of Mission Officers Amending Bylaw 5035-2009-3986(7)Moved by Councillor Horn, seconded by Councillor Scudder, andRESOLVED: That District of Mission officers amending bylaw 5035-2009-3986(7) beadopted.CARRIEDRC09/397JUNE 15/09District of Mission Street Naming (McQuarrie Lane extension)Bylaw 5036-2009Moved by Councillor Stewart, seconded by Councillor Gidda, andRESOLVED: That District of Mission street naming (McQuarrie Lane extension)bylaw 5036-2009 be adopted.CARRIEDRC09/398JUNE 15/09District of Mission Council Procedures Amending Bylaw 5037-2009-3694(8)Moved by Councillor Scudder, seconded by Councillor Stevens, andRESOLVED: That District of Mission council procedures amending bylaw 5037-2009-3694(8) be adopted.CARRIEDRC09/399JUNE 15/09District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5039-2009-3143(328)(R09-004 - Toor/McPherson) - 31509 and 31591 Israel AvenueMoved by Councillor Gidda, seconded by Councillor Plecas, andRESOLVED: That District of Mission zoning amending bylaw 5039-2009-3143(328)be read a first and second time.CARRIEDRC09/400JUNE 15/09District of Mission Penitentiary Sewage Lift Catchment AreaFee Bylaw 5040-2009Moved by Councillor Stewart, seconded by Councillor Horn, and

242Regular Council Meeting Page 12 of 13June 15, 2009RESOLVED: That District of Mission penitentiary sewage lift catchment area feebylaw.5040-2009 be read a first, second and third time.CARRIEDRC09/401JUNE 15/09District of Mission Municipal Ticket Information Amending Bylaw5041-2009-2646(14)Moved by Councillor Scudder, seconded by Councillor Gidda, andRESOLVED: That District of Mission municipal ticket information amending bylaw5041-2009-2646(14) be read a first, second and third time.CARRIEDRC09/402JUNE 15/09District of Mission Street Naming (Kenny Avenue extension)Bylaw 5042-2009Moved by Councillor Stevens, seconded by Councillor Stewart, andRESOLVED: That District of Mission street naming (Kenny Avenue extension) bylaw5042-2009 be read a first, second and third time.CARRIEDRC09/403JUNE 15/09District of Mission Refuse Collection and Disposal AmendingBylaw 5043-2009-1387(45)Moved by Councillor Horn, seconded by Councillor Plecas, andRESOLVED: That District of Mission refuse collection and disposal amending bylaw5043-2009-1387(45) be read a first, second and third time.CARRIED16. CORRESPONDENCERC09/404JUNE 15/09Howard MeakinRe: Application for Detailed Site Investigation — former MeekerCedar Products SitesMoved by Councillor Horn, seconded by Councillor Gidda, andRESOLVED: That the correspondence from Howard Meakin dated May 25, 2009regarding the former Meeker Cedar Products property be received as information.CARRIEDRC09/405JUNE 15/09Neil KernahanRe: Reader Board ProposalMoved by Councillor Scudder, seconded by Councillor Stevens, and

243Regular Council Meeting Page 13 of 13June 15, 2009RESOLVED:1. That the correspondence from Neil Kernahan dated May 28, 2009 regarding aproposal for the regulation of reader boards within the District be received asinformation; and2. That Mr. Kernahan be advised that council did not support his proposal.CARRIEDRC09/406JUNE 15/09Pat Bays (Stand Up for Mental Health)Re: Official Host Community for the Valley Comedy FestivalMoved by Councillor Scudder, seconded by Councillor Stewart, andRESOLVED:1. That August 21, 2009 be proclaimed as "Stand Up for Mental Health Day"within the District of Mission; the District to assume no costs related thereto;and2. That the Stand Up for Mental Health organization is authorized to use theDistrict's official logo on its promotional materials for the comedy festival onAugust 21 and 22, 2009.CARRIED17. OTHER BUSINESSThere was no other business.18. QUESTION PERIODThere were no questions from the public.19. ADJOURNMENTMoved by Councillor Scudder, seconded by Councillor Plecas, andRESOLVED: That the meeting be adjourned.CARRIEDThe meeting was adjourned at 9:44 p.m.JAMES ATEBE, MAYOR DENNIS CLARK, DIRECTOR OFCORPORATE ADMINISTRATIONG: \clerk \minutes \rc090615.doc

244SENATESENATHONOURABLE MOBINA JAFFER, Q.C.BRITISH COLUMBIACANADAL'HONORABLE MOBINA JAFFER, C.R.COLOMBIE-BRITANNIQUEJune 12, 2009Mayor James AtebeDistrict of MissionBox 20MissionBritish ColumbiaV2V 4L9Dear Mayor Atebe:RE: Motion in the Senate Recognizing World Malaria DayIn an effort to bring recognition to World Malaria Day at the federal level, this year Iintroduced a motion in the Senate to have it formally recognized. A copy of my speech onthis motion is enclosed for your information. I believe recognizing this day represents achance for all of us to make a difference, whether you are government, a company, a charityor an individual. It is also an opportunity for malaria free countries, like Canada to learnabout the devastating consequences of the disease and for new donors to join a globalpartnership against malaria.World Malaria Day is recognized around the world as April 25 th . It is a day of unifiedcommemoration of the global effort to provide effective control of malaria, a disease thatclaims the lives of 2,000 children every day around the world. This year this day marked acritical threshold: as the world has only two years to meet the 2010 targets of deliveringeffective and affordable protection and treatment to all people at risk of malaria.Over the past few years, British Columbia municipalities have taken the lead on initiativesacross Canada recognizing April 25 th as World Malaria Day through proclamations. Thisrecognition has been an invaluable tool in the fight to eradicate Malaria.Ultimately the eradication of this disease world-wide is the goal, but to achieve this requires asustained commitment by all of us. I wish to take this opportunity to thank you for yourefforts to bring awareness and global solutions to this disease. I truly believe together we canmake a difference.Kindest personal regards,Honourable Mobina JafferSenator for British Columbiaenc.TEL: (613) 992-0189 FAX: (613) 992-0673 1-800-267-7362

245CANADAebateg of tbemate2nd SESSION • _ 40th PARLIAMENT • VOLUME 146 • NUMBER 29Motion:That the Senate Recognize andEndorse April 25th Annually as World Malaria DaySpeech by:The Honourable Mobina S.B. Jaffer &Tuesday, April 28, 2009(Unofficial Version)

246Motion Recognizing April 25As World Malaria Day:The Hon. Mobina Jaffer: Honourablesenators, today I rise to speak on mymotion to proclaim April 25 as WorldMalaria Day. I believe this action willhelp to raise awareness and to educate. Ibelieve it will help raise necessaryfunding to prevent this disease.World Malaria Day has been formallyacknowledged by Canadianmunicipalities and provinces across ournation. Every year, municipalities andprovinces have_taken a leadership roleby acknowledging this day throughproclamations and educational activities.In fact, I returned to Ottawa last weekwith a proclamation from the City ofVancouver acknowledging April 25 asWorld Malaria Day.Malaria is a global health crisis that putsmore than 40 per cent of the world'spopulation at risk. Each year, there areover 500,000,000 cases. This illness willtake the life of one in five Africanchildren before their fifth birthday. It isheartbreaking that the world has theability to prevent this disease but peopleare still dying in such high numbers.Malaria is a potentially deadly diseasetransmitted through mosquito bites andkills more than 2,000 children every day.Children make up 90 per cent of thenearly 1 million people who die frommalaria every year, mainly in sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Asia.Honourable senators, World MalariaDay is an opportunity for malaria-freecountries like Canada to learn about thedevastating consequences of the diseaseand for new donors to join a globalpartnership against malaria. It is anopportunity for research and academicinstitutions to flag their scientificadvances to both experts and the generalpublic. It is a chance for countries inaffected regions to learn from eachother's experiences and support eachother's efforts. It is an opportunity forinternational partners, companies andfoundations to showcase their results andreflect together how to move forward inthe fight against this disease.In Canada, this day should also be a dayof reflection. We should be askingourselves what else we could be doing tocombat this killer, which costsdeveloping countries billions of dollarsper year in lost economic output.According to Foreign Minister JonasGahr Store of Norway:The results will go beyond saving lives ... By controlling malaria, we canimprove school attendance andproductivity, open new areas to businessand tourism and reduce health costs.Investing in malaria control is anexcellent value for Canadian aid dollars.The disease is 100 per cent treatablewith highly effective artemisinincombinationtreatments and nearly 100per cent preventable. Bed nets, forexample, reduce all-cause child deaths— not malaria deaths only but all deathsby 20 per cent.2

247Taken together with other tools, there isno scientific controversy: Everyoneagrees malaria can be reduced and eveneliminated in places. Honourablesenators, one net at the-cost of $6 willsave the lives of four people. That is avery sound investment of a Canadian aiddollar.The drugs I mentioned have beendifficult to obtain. The high cost of thesedrugs has made them out of reach forthose afflicted with malaria, and, as aresult, many were still purchasing thecheaper, less effective drugs. Currently,only one in five afflicted with malariahas access to these drugs.I am pleased to report to you that as ofApril 17, these drugs have become easierand more affordable to obtain. Lastweek, a new initiative called theAffordable Medicines Facility —Malaria was announced. It originateswith international partnerships frompublic and private institutions, whichinclude the Global Fund to Fight AIDS,Tuberculosis and Malaria, the WorldBank, the UNChildren's Fund, the Dutch government,the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundationand the Clinton Foundation. Once it getsgoing, it will put affordable, life-savingmalaria drugs within the reach ofmillions of people, especially children insub-Saharan Africa. The new program isexpected to change the global malariasituation significantly.The $225 million partnership reduces thecost of artemisinin combinationtherapies or ACTs, which have been 10to 40 times more expensive than the olddrugs.The drugs that were once used have losttheir effectiveness because the malariaparasite has developed a resistance tothem.Other global international initiatives toprevent malaria include the Roll BackMalaria Partnership, launched by theWorld Health Organization, UNICEF,the United Nations DevelopmentProgramme and the World Bank. Its aimis a coordinated international approachto combat malaria. This partnershipbrings together multiple players with acommon goal of halving the grobalburden of malaria by 2010.On a personal note, honourable senators,I have often gone to Uganda and otherplaces to work on the issue of malaria.Today, I will take the opportunity torecognize the work of the CanadianNGO Buy-A-Net and its founder, DebraLefebvre. They work in Uganda byproviding nets and have been one of thegreatest successes at creating malariafreezones. I have been in Uganda whereI observed Canadian nurse Gail Fones ofBuy-A-Net. Gail first creates trust withvillagers and then she educates andprovides them with the nets. She andothers go one-step further by vaccinatingthe children in the village.Honourable senators, I want to recognizethe Canadian Nurses Association, anassociation that has nurses from ourcountry spend up to eight months in onevillage to help those villagers becomemalaria free.Gail Fones then goes further. Shevaccinates the children in the village,and then she continues to help create anatmosphere that prevents the spread ofmalaria.3.

248Honourable senators, when I havevisited these villages, I have been proudto say I am a Canadian becauseCanadian nurses are making thedifference in the lives of Africanchildren.I want to share my experience on arecent trip to Uganda. I visited a village.While there, I was befriended by ayoung girl who was about four years old.Her name was Margaret. Everywhere Iwent, she followed me like a shadow. Ibecame quite taken with her, and in a-short time were inseparable.- On mynext visit to Uganda, I came back to thesame village and I looked for my littlefriend, Margaret. I went to her homewith a present — an anti-malarial for herand her family. I had a recollection of ahouse filled with laughter, butMargaret's home sounded eerily quiet. Ientered the home and found Margaret'smother crying. Margaret had just beenburied. She had died of malaria. I arrivedtoo late.Honourable senators, I ask for yoursupport to have April 25 declared WorldMalaria Day. Ffurther ask or yoursupport to encourage our government todo more, so that we are not too late forthe other "Margarets" of this world.4

249Minister Responsible forStatistics CanadaMinistre responsable deStatistique CanadaOttawa, Canada K1A 0T6JUN 1 6 2009His Worship James AtebeMayor of the District of MissionHis Worship George PearyMayor of the City of Abbotsford8645 Stave Lake StreetP.O. Box 20Mission, British Columbia V2V 4L9Dear Mayor Atebe and Mayor Peary:Thank you for your joint letter requesting that Statistics Canadarename the Abbotsford Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) to Abbotsford—Mission Census Metropolitan Area.The definition and naming of CMAs are based on standards setout by Statistics Canada. I am pleased to inform you that your request meetsall the criteria of the recently updated CMA naming convention. The newname of Abbotsford—Mission will become the standard name for this CMA andwill be implemented as soon as operationally possible in Statistics Canada'sprograms.For further information, please do not hesitate to contact JoeKresovic, Director of the Geography Division of Statistics Canada(613-951-9276, Joe.Kresovic@statcan.gc.ca).Yours sincerely,c.c. Mr. Ed Fast, M.P.Mr. Randy Kamp, M.P.CanadigTony Clement

250From: Noreen Carter [mcssexecsec@shawbiz.ca]Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 1:32 PMTo: Kelly RidleyCc: Dennis Clark; Glen RobertsonSubject: Bus passes for Red CardAttachments: Red Card Usage 2008 - 2009.xls; Red Card Stats 2009-2010.xlsDear Kelly Ridley, and District of Mission / Council members:May 2009 bus ticket usage was 270June 2009 - to date - is 220.We have used all the ETAP tickets provided by United Way for JuneI have 40 bus tickets left as of this morning, from the 1440 received from the District in Jan./09We have been rationing the bus tickets for the past week. Even if someone comes in with several Red Cards,we are only giving out 1 or 2 bus tickets at a time at present.At an average [?] of 250 bus tickets per month, we would need approximately 1500 to the end of the year.However, if usage continues to increase as it has been doing - that won't be enough to last until the 2010allotment!I have included a spread sheet on the # of Red Cards disbursed over approximately the past year. - 2,255.Each Red Card usually translates into 1 bus ticket, 1 food voucher and most often, 1 toiletry kit.Meal voucher usage has almost doubled in the past year.Due to the increased usage of the Red Cards, our donated supplies [gratefully recei,ved!!] do not meet thedemand and MCSS is having to purchase a major percentage of the kit items.We could really use some financial assistance and/or more bus tickets to keep this program going, as thisservice is much needed in Mission for the consumers we are supporting.Thank you to Mission District Council for your consideration of this matter at your July 6th meeting.Noreen CarterExecutive SecretaryMission Community Services Society33179 2nd Avenue, Mission, BC V2V 1J9Ph: (604) 826-3634 / Fax (604) 820-06341

Red Cards given out / sold - 2008 - 2009251MonthNr. Reception Shelter Outreach All Saints Extreme Downtown Mental Health Total CardsChurch Weather Businesses Given OutJuly 11/08 25July 18/08 12July 23/08 30July 24/08 20Aug. 7/08 15Aug. 8/08 1Aug. 11/08 16Aug. 18/08 30Aug. 22/08 15Aug. 27/08 40Sep. 9/08 13Sep. 23/08 25Oct 6/08 20Oct. 8/08 70Oct. 9/08 30Oct. 21/08 15Oct. 22/08 25Oct. 28/08 25Nov. 3/08 12Nov. 6/08 20Nov. 7/0810Nov. 13/08Nov. 20/08Nov. 26/08302025-4-Dec. 8/08 25Dec. 9/08 10 20Dec. 12/08 25Dec. 15/08 20Dec. 17/08 20Dec. 19/08 50Dec. 30/08 5Dec. 31/08 23Jan. 15/09 10 5Jan. 16/09 27Jan. 21/09 25 14Jan. 23/09 25Jan. 27/09 201Jan. 30/09 25Feb. 3/09 15Feb. 4/09 25 50Feb. 10/09 25 7Feb. 16/09 15Feb. 17/09 20Feb. 18/09 25Feb. 19/09 20Feb. 20/09 25Feb: 25/09 25Feb. 27/09 13Mar. 3/09 20— ,Mar. 6/09 50Mar. 10/09 30 50Mar. 11/09 20 14Mar. 12/09 30—,——10-,1+

Red Cards given out / sold - 2008 - 2009 Page 2252Month/Yr. Reception Shelter Outreach All Saints Extreme Downtown Mental Health Total CardsChurch Weather Businesses Given OutMar. 16/09 20Mar. 20/09 20Mar. 24/09 20 10Mar. 26/09 25 15Mar. 31/09 25 25Apr. 6/0910l_Apr. 14/0925Apr. 15/09 3010Apr. 21/09 25Apr. 22/09 25May 4/09 25May 6/09 10May 8/09 50May 11/09 30May 19/09 18May 20/09 17May 22/09 30May 26/09May 28/092525May 29/09 25June 2/09 14June 4/09 30June 10/09 25June 11/09 20June 12/09 10June 17/09 25June 18/09 301June 22/091150June 23/09 25June 24/099,June 25/0925+June 26/0925June 29/09 25TOTALS: 1338 217 80 310 180 105 25 2255Each Red Card usually translates into 1 bus ticket, 1 food voucher and most often1 toiletry kit [which, when donations are low, MCSS is purchasing all the components for]This is a very important program for Mission, but it is getting increasing expensive for MOSS.

Heart of Mission Red Card ProgramStatistics SheetItem Apr-09 May-09 Jun-09 Jul-09 Aua-09 Sep-09 Oct-09 Nov-09 Dec-09 Jan-10 Feb-10 Mar-10Total to dateCurrentYearBus Tickets purchased by MCSS 0 0 0 As at June 26, 2009: 0Bus Tickets donated (Dist of Mission) 140 270 220 We are rat oning, as we only have 40 tickets eft of the 1440 received from the District in Jan. 2009 630Bus Tickets donated (ETAP) 150 174 150 Balance of ETAP tickets for the month have been transferred to Red Card 474Total Bus Tickets 290 444 370 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1104Meal Vouchers submitted 759 731 1490Clothing Vouchers Redeemed 53 71 124Laundry Usage 15 19 34New Donation box locations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Credits:4100 Donations collected from boxes $293.24 $140.75 $ 433.99 41004100 Donations received (other) $110.00 $100.00 $ 210.00 41004100 Emergency Shelter Program-Food $2,755.00 $3,550.00 $ 6,305.00 41004100 Emergency Shelter Program-Red Cards $36.00 $82.00 $ 118.004140 Manna - St. Stephen's $ - 41404140 Deferred revenue allocation-St. Stephen's $100.00 $ 100.00 41403800 United Wa $166.66 $ 166.66 38004351 Emergency Shelter Program $ - 43514905 Recoveries Admin. $125.00 $125.00 $ 250.00 4900Total Donations To date $3,585.90 $3,997.75 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00j $0.00 $ 7,583.65Debits: Expenses5060 Payments for meal vouchers $3,500.88 $3,371.73 $ 6,872.61 5060Payments for bus tickets $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $ -Total Expenses $3,500.88 $3,371.73 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $ 6,872.615000 Admin. Allocations MCSS IN KIND $125.00 $125.00$ 250.00 50005275/5010 Toiletry Items/ProgSupp/Copying $134.18 $25.42 $ 159.60 5275/50105170-5185 Office/Postage/Copying/Fax $20.31 $ 20.31 5170-51855300 Travel $0.00 $0.00, $0.00, $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $ - 5300Total bi•Kind IVICSS CpratIbUtiOlis $279,49 $160.42 $0,00100,00 $0.00 80660 $cLati $0.00 $6166 $0.00 $0.00 $0.40 $ 429.9180r0010 / befit it 11194.41 4/5.00 $0,00 $0.06 $k00 $0.00 $0,00 $0.00 $O00 $0.00 $0600 $0,004, $ 281.13 Balanced> ETAP Bus Tickets Donation: January 2009 - continuing.Reflects total # of tickets donated Last Updated: 29/06/2009IN)CJ1CA)

Heart of Mission Red Card ProgramStatistics SheetItem - Apr-08 May-08 Jun-08 Jul-08 Aua-08 Sep-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08 Jan-09 Feb-09 Mar-09Total to dateCurrent Year)Bus Tickets purchased by MCSSBus Tickets donated (Dist of Mission)Bus Tickets donated (ETAP)Total Bus Tickets0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 090 120 50 50 80 70 110 70 210 230 250 380150 150 150 200 150 150 - 150 150 174 150 165 172240 270 200 250 230 220 260 220 384 380 415 5520171019113621Meal Vouchers submittedClothing Vouchers RedeemedLaundry UsageNew Donation box locations291 469 382 546 511 375 455 505 463 545 480 89562 54 missing 56 60 36 64 55 57 67 66 9017 21 16 10 23 25 13 19 23 12 14 150 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 05917667208'1. ,Donations collected from boxes - $199.36 $147.86 $213.96 $239.10 $185.20 $200.85 $290.00 $180.60 $316.02 $171.79 $459.56 $271.61 $ 2,875.91Donations received (other) $66.62 $90.00 $60.00 $120.00 $60.00 $190.00 $340.00 $0.00 $440.00 $125.00 $100.00 $80.00 $ 1,671.62Emergency Shelter Program- Food $1,110.00 $2,144.00 $2,605.00 $2,529.00 $1,973.00 $2,100.00 $2,050.00 $2,100.00 $1,880.00 $1,850.00 $2,805.00 $3,540.00 $ 26,686.00Emergency Shelter Program- Red Card $48.00 $52.00 $48.00 $50.00 $60.00 $ 258.00Manna - St. Stephen's $0.00 $480.00 $0.00 $0.00 $240.00 $600.00 $120.00 $ 1,440.00Deferred revenue allocation $75.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $ 675.00United Way $250.00 $250.00 $250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $250.00 $250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,499.67 $0.00 $ 2,749.67Emergency Shelter Program $392.01 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $337.72 $148.22 $0.00 $ 877.95Recoveries Admin. $125.00 $125.00 $125.00 $125.00 $125.00 $125.00 $125.00 $125.00 $930.00 $840.00 $525.00 $685.00 $ 3,980.00Total Donations To date $2,142.99 $3,236.86 $3,253.96 $3,013.10 $2,658.20 $2,715.85 $3,155.00 $3,141.32 $3,866.24 $3,734.79 $5,659.23 $4,636.61 $ 41,214.15ExpensesPayments for meal vouchers $1,886.50 $2,168.43 $1,761.97 $1,872.66 $2,356.98 $1,732.56 $2,098.70 $2,320.09 $2,135.58 $2,492.68 $2,642.96 $4,128.18 $ 27,597.29Payments for bus tickets $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $ -Total Expenses $1,886.50 $2,168.43 $1,761.97 $1,872.66 $2,356.98 $1,732.56 $2,098.70 $2,320.09 $2,135.58 $2,492.68 $2,642.96 $4,128.18 $ 27,597.29Admin. Allocations (MCSS IN KIND) $125.00 $125.00 $125.00 $125.00 $125.00 $125.00 $125.00 $125.00 $125.00 $125.00 $125.00 $125.00 $ 1,500.00Toiletry Items/ProgSupp/Copying $564.40 $21.21 $56.13 $22.38 $47.38 $101.72 $72.65 $494.14 $305.83 $55.18 $149.37 $3,512.24 $ 5,402.63Office/Postage/Copying/Fax $28.98 $41.06 $54.17 $36.56 $112.49 $149.45 $14.23 $58.60 $20.00 $23.25 $110.06 $15.63 $ 664.48Travel $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2.40 $1.20 -$11.38 $0.00 $0.00 $1.23 $0.00 -$ 6.55Total In Kind MCSS ContributiOns $718.38 $187.27 • $235.30 $183.94 $284.87 $378:57 $213.08 $666.36 $450.83 $203:43 , $385.66 $3,652.87 $ 7,560.56Surplus / Deficit - -$461x89 $881.16 $1,256.69 $956.50 $16.35 $604.721 $843.22 $154.87 $1,279.83 $1,038.68 $2,630.61 -$3,144.44 $ 6,056.30> Etap Bus Tickets Donation: January 2009 - continuing, reflects total number of tickets donatedLast Updated 14/04/2009

mis,sTs.i. conoF*ON THE ERASERCorporate AdministrationMemorandum255To: Chief Administrative OfficerFrom: Executive AssistantDate: June 9, 2009Subject: Release of Information from Closed CouncilAt the June 8, 2009 closed council meeting, council released the following resolutions:RESOLVED: That the District of Mission submit an application for funding under the Brownfield RenewalFunding Program to carry out preliminary site investigation for the undedicated Highway 11 easternbypass property with the District's share ($15,000) to come from contingency.CARRIEDRESOLVED: That the Ferndale Institution Population Profile for June, 2009 be released from closedcouncil and placed on the agenda for the regular council meeting on June 15, 2009."CARRIED3Page 1 of 1