official community plan - hope · district of hope official community plan bylaw no. 1147 adopted...

District of Hope

Official Community Plan

Bylaw No. 1147 Adopted December 13, 2004

EXCLUDING THE LAND USE MAPS, THIS BYLAW HAS BEEN

CONSOLIDATED TO SEPTEMBER 2014

All persons making use of this consolidation are advised that it has no legislative sanction; that the amendments have been embodied for convenience of reference only and that the original bylaw and all amending bylaws must be consulted for all purposes of interpreting and applying the law.

Any parts of the original bylaw or original bylaw as amended which have been repealed have not been included in this consolidation.

OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN BYLAW 1147 (CONSOLIDATED)

SCHEDULE OF AMENDMENTS

TEXT

Amending Bylaws are identified by a Bylaw Number in the left hand margin and bold text. For the exact amendment wording, refer to the amending bylaw.

Bylaw No. Adoption Date Bylaw No. Adoption Date

1177 June 27, 2005 (Riparian Areas Regulation)

1192 July 24, 2006

(Flooding Section Added and Housekeeping Changes)

1201 July 24, 2006 (DP Exemptions)

1262 October 27, 2008

(Silver Creek-Flood DP Area and Comp. Dev.)

1305 September 12, 2011 (Greenhouse Gas Reduction

Targets)

1338 September 8, 2014 (Housekeeping Changes)

MAPS (yet to be updated). See maps from OCP Amendment Bylaws 1186, 1209, 1223, 1214, 1259, 1267, 1276 and 1296

Bylaw No. Adoption Date Bylaw No. Adoption Date

1186 November 28, 2005 (MOTH Property on Trans

Canada Highway)

1209 September 25, 2006 (Stonecroft Homes – Birch

Street)

1223 July 23, 2007 (Property by Exit 168)

1214 November 13, 2007 (20280 Kettle Valley Road)

1259 October 27, 2008 (67601 Jason Road)

1267 March 9, 2009 (63650 Flood Hope Road)

1276 May 25, 2009 (22150 Ross Road) 1296 June 28, 2010

(19350 Silverhope Road)

THE DISTRICT OF HOPE BYLAW NO. 1147

A Bylaw to Designate a Community Plan as the Official Community Plan for the District of Hope

Whereas by Section 876 of the Local Government Act, the Council of a municipality may have Community Plans prepared and they be expressed in maps, plans, reports or any combination of them;

AND WHEREAS by Section 876 of the Local Government Act the Council of a municipality may, by bylaw, adopt any Community Plan prepared under Section 875 as the Official Community Plan or as part of the Official Community Plan;

AND WHEREAS the Municipal Council of the District of Hope has had the attached Community Plan prepared for all areas of the municipality and now deems it desirable to designate said Plan as the Official Community Plan for the District of Hope;

AND WHEREAS by Section 882 of the Local Government Act, Council cannot designate a Community Plan as an Official Community Plan unless it has first held a Public Hearing;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Municipal Council of the District of Hope in open meeting assembled enacts as follows:

1. The Community Plan attached hereto and made part of this bylaw is hereby designated as the Official Community Plan for the District of Hope.

CITATION

2. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as the District of Hope “Official Community Plan Bylaw, 2004, No. 1147.”

REPEALS

3. (a) Town of Hope Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 672, 1985 and all amendments thereto are hereby repealed;

(b) Regional District of Fraser-Cheam Bylaw 800, 1996 – Official Community Plan for Portions of Electoral Area “B” and “C” transferred to the District of Hope by way of Letters Patent effective December 7, 1992, is hereby repealed;

(c) District of Hope Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 04/95 and all amendments thereto are hereby repealed.

Read a first time by the Municipal Council of the District of Hope the 10th day of May, 2004.

Read a second time by the Municipal Council of the District of Hope the 8th day of November, 2004.

A Public Hearing was held the 22nd day of November, 2004.

Read a third time by the Municipal Council of the District of Hope the 13th day of December, 2004.

Adopted by the Municipal Council of the District of Hope the 13th day of December, 2004.

_________________________

Mayor Director of Corporate Services

Certified a true copy of District of Hope “Official Community Plan Bylaw, 2004, No. 1147” as adopted.

____________________________

Director of Corporate Services

SCHEDULE A

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Purpose of Official Community Plan ................................................................ Page 1

2. Legal Framework for the Plan .......................................................................... Page 1

3. Challenges and Opportunities .......................................................................... Page 3

4. Community Involvement .................................................................................. Page 4

5. Vision and Growth Management Objectives ....................................................

6. Policies ............................................................................................................. Page 6

6.1. Development ........................................................................................ Page 6

6.2. Residential Land Uses ......................................................................... Page 7

6.3. Commercial Land Uses ........................................................................ Page 8

6.4. Industrial Land Uses ............................................................................ Page 9

6.5. Agricultural Land Uses ......................................................................... Page 10

6.6. Reduction of Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................ Page 11

6.7. Environment ......................................................................................... Page 12

6.8. Parks, Recreation, Culture and Heritage .............................................. Page 13

6.9. Infrastructure ........................................................................................ Page 16

6.10. Implementation ..................................................................................... Page 17

6.11. Table of Concordance .......................................................................... Page 20

7. Overview of Development Permits ................................................................... Page 22

7.1. Downtown Hope DPA #1...................................................................... Page 23

7.2. Old Hope-Princeton Way DPA #2 ........................................................ Page 27

7.3. Silver Creek-Flood DPA #3 .................................................................. Page 30

7.4. Hope Intensive Residential DPA #4 ..................................................... Page 32

7.5. Hope Flood and Erosion Hazards DPA #5 ........................................... Page 34

7.6. Hope Geotechnical Hazards DPA #6 ................................................... Page 42

7.7. Hope Environmental and Riparian Areas Protection DPA # 7 ............. Page 45

Appendix A – Flood and Erosion Hazard Background Information ......................... Page 48

Appendix B – Definitions ......................................................................................... Page 52

Appendix C – Trends Affecting Hope ...................................................................... Page 53

Appendix D – Views of Hope Residents on Development & Community Issues .... Page 60

Acknowledgment ..................................................................................................... Page 68

1

1. Purpose of the Official Community Plan “The Official Community Plan (OCP) defines what the community wants to become. The OCP not only provides a statement of where and what land uses the community want to see in the future, it also speaks to our aspirations for the economy, our strategies for achieving growth in a responsible way, for meeting our social needs, and for building a more interesting and more vibrant community. It’s the single document that the community has to express its wishes and its program for the future.”

An OCP is a municipal bylaw that sets the broad framework for managing development in the District of Hope. It provides objectives for different land uses anticipated to meet future needs for a 5 to 10 year period. The OCP also sets objectives for community services and facilities.

The OCP is the most important tool available for the District of Hope to guide physical development. It includes policies and guidelines dealing with a wide range of land use planning and development matters, and provides the framework for the Zoning Bylaw and other detailed implementation tools for municipal management.

2. Legal Framework for the Plan The OCP is a legal document adopted under Part 26 of the Local Government Act, which establishes the basis and content of Official Community Plans.

The OCP must include statements and map designations for the area covered by the plan respecting the following:

(a) the approximate location, amount, type and density of residential development required to meet anticipated housing needs over a period of at least 5 years;

(b) the approximate location, amount and type of present and proposed commercial, industrial, institutional, agricultural, recreational and public utility land uses;

(c) the approximate location and area of sand and gravel deposits that are suitable for future sand and gravel extraction;

(d) restrictions on the use of land that is subject to hazardous conditions or that is environmentally sensitive to development;

(e) the approximate location and phasing of any major road, sewer and water systems;

(f) the approximate location and type of present and proposed public facilities, including schools, parks and waste treatment and disposal sites;

(g) housing policies of the local government respecting affordable housing, rental housing and special needs housing; and

(h) other matters that may be required or authorized by the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women’s Services.

2

An OCP may include the following:

(a) policies of the local government relating to social needs, social well-being and social development;

(b) a regional context statement, consistent with the rest of the community plan, on how matters referred to the regional growth strategy and other matters dealt with in the community plan, apply in a regional context;

(c) policies of the local government respecting the maintenance and enhancement of farming on land in a farming area or in an area designated for agricultural use in the community plan; and

(d) policies of the local government relating to the preservation, protection, restoration and enhancement of the natural environment, its ecosystems and biological diversity.

Under Section 884 of the Local Government Act, the OCP does not commit or authorise the District of Hope to proceed with any project specified in the Plan. However, all bylaws enacted or works undertaken by the District of Hope must be consistent with the provisions of this Plan.

The Official Community Plan is one of a number of tools that the District uses to manage land development and to ensure that development “on the ground” meets certain standards with regard to safety, health, visual amenity, “greenness” and so on. These other tools, illustrated below, must conform to the Official Community Plan.

3

3. Challenges and Opportunities The OCP is being undertaken at a key juncture in Hope’s history:

The 1992 amalgamation, which took in the neighbouring communities of Kawkawa Lake, Silver Creek/Flood and Lake of the Woods, resulted in a doubling of the municipal population. Taking this boundary expansion into consideration, the population of Hope has remained very stable over the past 30 years.

Hope is the gateway between the Lower Mainland and the Interior. In a real sense, the economy of Hope has one foot in the Lower Mainland and the other foot in the Interior. While the Lower Mainland economy has experienced sustained growth that is increasingly knowledge and service based, the interior economy has generally remained flat or declined based on traditional resource exploitation (forestry and mining).

Hope is facing significant demographic challenges as the population has lower education levels, fewer working people and more dependents compared to the provincial average.

The OCP provides an opportunity to focus on a key demographic element which can positively change the current situation: migration to and from the Lower Mainland and the rest of Canada. The dramatic growth in the Lower Mainland and in the Fraser Valley Regional District has come mainly from migration. International migration plays the largest role in greater Vancouver, while migration from other provinces predominates in the FVRD.

The strategic location of Hope makes it easily accessible by road from both the Lower Mainland and the Interior of B.C. as well as other Canadian and international travelers. There are over 10,000,000 residents of Canada and the United States within one day’s drive of Hope.

The scenic and physical attributes of Hope are exceptional. This offers a wide variety of business and recreational opportunities for residents and visitors alike.

4

4. Community Involvement From the commencement of the OCP process in the spring of 2002, the following process of consultation occurred in the District of Hope:

A Citizen’s Advisory Committee met at regular intervals over the course of almost two years to produce a mission statement, a set of goals, and to develop policies which reflect community desires;

A Web site linked to those of the District of Hope and the Hope Chamber of Commerce, was maintained and updated as the new OCP was developed;

A professionally facilitated public workshop held in June 2002 created a community vision for the next 10 to 15 years;

A public survey was conducted, which resulted in 300 responses. This helped confirm and amplify the community vision;

Council and senior District staff undertook a workshop in September 2002 and added their vision to that of the other participants;

Development Permit Area Design Guidelines were formulated at a December 2002 workshop where businesses in Downtown Hope, Old Hope-Princeton Way, and Silver Creek were represented by over 50 business people. A strong commitment to revitalize their areas and improve their “form and character” was expressed;

In January 2003 a meeting was held with builders, developers and realtors to produce guidelines for residential development in sensitive mountain environments; that is, the benchlands, slopes and streamside areas of the District; and

A workshop to discuss “affordable housing” was held in late February 2004 to examine steps that could be taken to improve the zoning bylaw and other municipal tools with regard to smaller residential lots, infill housing, “granny flats” and secondary suites, housing forms which are not currently available in the zoning bylaw.

This input from residents, staff and elected officials was coordinated into a comprehensive vision for the future of Hope, which then became the basis for the new vision, policies and design guidelines of the OCP.

5

5. Vision and Growth Management Objectives The overall vision of the District of Hope is:

To be a vibrant and active community based on sustainable and environmentally friendly economic growth.

Within the context of this overall vision, the following broad directions or growth management objectives were agreed upon:

A. Develop Hope’s unique identity further, focusing on scenery, greenery and

cultural assets to attract new businesses, tourists and residents.

B. Attract clean environmentally-friendly light industry that respects this evolving identity, providing jobs for existing and new residents and strengthening the tourism/service sector.

C. Enhance Hope’s existing economic base and strive to achieve a moderate growth rate, with good management of how and where.

D. Accommodate a broader range of housing types to address the aging population as well as attract empty nesters who want a scenic mountain environment that is less expensive than the Lower Mainland. This will allow Hope to tap into the migration flows which have contributed so much to the success of the rest of the Fraser Valley Regional District and the Lower Mainland.

E. Recognize and promote responsible stewardship of natural environmental assets, including an examination of the District’s approach to infrastructure as a key priority.

F. Work toward providing an integrated transportation network for motorized and non-motorized uses.

G. Undertake revitalization of the business areas, making them more attractive gateways for tourists and for residents. Support events and festivals which will contribute to increased tourism and stimulate local business.

H. Foster the harmonization and enhancement of community spirit.

6

6. Policies District of Hope policies have been structured under the following headings:

Development Residential Land Uses Commercial Land Uses Industrial Land Uses Agricultural Land Uses Reduction of Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions (AM #1305) Environment (protection of natural environment, hazard mitigation) Parks, Recreation, Culture and Heritage Infrastructure and Implementation

6.1 Development

While the District of Hope has experienced very little population growth in recent years, the OCP has been formulated to accommodate steady and moderate growth. There are several reasons for this approach. They include anticipated demand in the regional growth strategy, the accommodation of new housing needs, both for an aging population and for new lifestyle choices, the promotion of Hope as a community open for business and the marketing of Hope as a green, sustainable community.

It is the policy of the District of Hope to:

1. Support major economic development that meets Hope’s long-term needs.

2. Support economic diversification that takes advantage of Hope’s assets including its proximity to a large population base, its scenic attributes, natural resources, and natural environment.

3. Recognize Hope’s dramatic geography and rich historic legacy as major distinguishing features of the community to be promoted through a broad range of complimentary measures including public art through wood carvings, building design, building materials, street banners and landscaping.

4. Recognize the friendly, small town atmosphere as the District grows and maintain it wherever possible.

5. Ensure that new development contributes to making Hope a more complete community and its neighbourhoods more liveable.

6. Ensure that Hope has a suitable land base to meet its future residential, commercial, industrial and open space needs.

7. Encourage environmentally friendly design and technology that enhance sustainability.

8. Work closely with the School District to plan for the needs of students.

7

9. Develop a comprehensive signage program based on the natural assets of Hope in order to provide a distinct identity for and direction to municipal facilities, services, trails, downtown Hope and other destinations.

10. Work with community groups to develop an Action Plan for economic development initiatives, to guide the District and other groups.

11. Support the land uses as shown on the OCP maps (Figures 1-5).

6.2 Residential Land Uses

The 2001 Census indicated that Hope had a total of 2,824 private households in 2001. Of this total, nearly 70% were owner occupied with the balance rented. Over two thirds of all housing consists of conventional single family dwellings with mobile homes and apartments constituting the remainder. The OCP supports single family dwellings as the major form of housing but anticipates the need for a wider diversity of housing types including cluster housing, smaller single family lots, assisted living units and multi-family housing.

A mixture of different age groups is important to maintain community vitality and character, key attractions of the District of Hope. Housing needs for both families and retirement-aged population encompass many housing forms, from single family homes, apartments and townhouses to a range of care facilities (self-care, limited care, extended care) which cater to older groups.


1. Support a diversity of housing types, lot sizes and densities to meet the changing needs, lifestyle preferences and economic circumstances of District residents.

2. Encourage new residents to Hope by providing attractive housing alternatives that respect Hope’s mountain views and natural environment.

3. Support residential uses above ground level commercial uses in Downtown Hope as designated on the OCP map (Figure 1).

4. Encourage housing proposals that are innovative, enhance sustainability, provide view protection, protect green space, and are appropriately serviced using ‘green’ technology.

5. Encourage future Urban and Suburban Residential Development in locations that can access community services and facilities as designated on the OCP maps (Figures 1, 3 and 4).

6. Support the demand for rural living in areas designated Country Residential and on existing parcels within areas designated Rural/Agricultural as designated on the OCP maps (Figures 2-5).

7. Land designated Country Residential is intended to accommodate large lot, single family residential uses which may include agricultural uses.

8. Support neighbourhood diversity with a broad mix of housing options to meet differing needs as well as other complementary land uses.

9. Support the provision of affordable housing, including rental and special needs housing, and investigate the appropriateness of secondary suites, granny flats and similar housing forms in areas designated Urban/Suburban Residential on the OCP maps (Figures 1-5).

8

10. Encourage proposals that integrate affordable housing throughout the community, rather than segregate or concentrate it in specific areas.

11. Support townhouses in areas designated Urban/Suburban Residential on the OCP maps (Figures 1-5) provided they complement nearby land uses.

12. Support infill development including consideration of smaller lot sizes of 400 square metres through amendments to the Zoning Bylaw in areas designated Urban/Suburban Residential on the OCP maps (Figures 1-5) provided they complement nearby land uses.

13. Support apartments and other forms of multi-family housing that complement other land uses in the area designated as Downtown Hope on the OCP map (Figure 1).

14. Support cluster housing proposals which retain the beauty of Hope’s mountain and streamside landscape while encouraging high quality developments that allow Hope to grow in a way fitting to its sensitive mountain environment. Such proposals will be considered in selected mountain benchlands within areas currently designated Country Residential, Limited Use or Rural. Allocation of large areas for environmental protection will be required.

6.3 Commercial Land Uses

The District of Hope is in a unique position, situated at the cross-roads of four major highways. Virtually all vehicular traffic between the Lower Mainland and the Interior passes through the District of Hope. Consequently, significant demand exists for tourist-oriented services such as gas stations, accommodation and restaurants. These services tend to be located on or adjacent to arterial highways. The Highway Commercial designation is intended to meet these needs in the Silver Creek/Flood area, Old Hope Princeton Way and in Downtown Hope itself.

Downtown Hope is intended to remain the primary commercial centre for Hope, strengthened by more diverse commercial uses and an increasing residential base. A strong pedestrian friendly orientation is proposed for Downtown Hope.

As the District’s population increases, there will also be an increasing need for Neighbourhood Commercial facilities and for larger commercial, service and public/community facilities.


1. Support the revitalization of Old Hope-Princeton Way as a principal highway commercial area for the travelling public.

2. Support Highway Commercial areas along the Old Hope Princeton Way, the Trans-Canada Highway and Flood Hope Road as designated on the OCP maps (Figures 1-5).

3. Designate commercial lands along Hope-Princeton Way as a Development Permit area in order to enhance its attractiveness as well as its viability for new and expanded business.

4. Encourage the concentration and upgrading of commercial lands in Silver Creek to better serve the local neighbourhood and the travelling public.

9

5. Support Downtown Hope as designated on the OCP map (Figure 1) as the primary retail, office and commercial service area in the District.

6. Designate commercial and multi-family lands in Downtown Hope as a Development Permit area in order to encourage pedestrian activity, strengthen the live-work relationship, and improve its attractiveness for new and expanded business.

7. Encourage an exciting, attractive and vibrant Downtown for residents and visitors alike.

8. Enhance Wallace Street as the primary gateway from Highway 1 to Downtown Hope.

9. Encourage mixed use development along Wallace Street and other key commercial corridors in downtown Hope.

10. Support tourist destination uses including hotels, lodges, agri-tourism accommodation, eco-tourism, cultural, and other recreation facilities.

11. Support other neighbourhood based commercial uses in areas designated Downtown Hope, Highway Commercial or Urban/Suburban Residential as designated on the OCP maps (Figures 1-5), subject to compatibility with nearby uses.

12. Support the concept of an aerial tramway on Mount Hope and proposed ski facilities near Jones Lake, and similar other developments to take advantage of the potential tourist opportunities this would bring to Hope.

6.4 Industrial Land Uses

Industrial land in the District of Hope is located adjacent to the Canadian National Railway close to Downtown Hope and in Silver Creek/Flood. The OCP supports the retention and consolidation of light and service industrial lands south of the Canadian National Railway for value added uses due to their central location. The designation of other lands for light/service industrial and business park uses west of Silver Creek is also supported in order to meet future, long-term needs. The emphasis on future industrial development should be on increasing light industrial as well as business park opportunities. It is noted that the log sort on the Light/Service Industry designation along the south bank of the Fraser River north of Airport Road is a permitted non-farm use by the Agricultural Land Commission.


1. Support a comprehensive range of facilities to serve the needs of the large trucking industry along the Provincial highways passing through Hope.

2. Encourage light industrial uses that diversify the Hope economy including small manufacturing, high technology, transportation and non-resource based uses.

3. Encourage industry including a business park along Flood-Hope Road west of the Highway 1 access to the Silver Creek neighbourhood. Such development should be comprehensively planned and designed to harmonize with the desired green character of the community so as to not detract from the tourism

10

potential of the area. The precise location of such an area will depend on negotiation with property owners and the Agricultural Land Commission where the site adjoins the Agricultural Land Reserve in order to minimize the impact on good agricultural lands.

4. Explore opportunities to expand the business potential of the municipal airport.

5. All industrial development should be undertaken in an environmentally responsible manner, in a way which supports the clean, green image of the community.

6. Support Light/Service Industry and Heavy Industry in areas designated for such uses as shown on the OCP maps (Figures 1, 3, 4 and 5).

7. Protect important sand and gravel deposits as shown on the OCP map titled Figure 6. Extraction and rehabilitation will be carried out so as to protect and enable agricultural use as these deposits are within the Agricultural Land Reserve.

6.5 Agricultural Land Uses

Over 300 hectares of land in the District of Hope are designated for agricultural use under the provisions of the Agricultural Land Commission Act. The OCP recognizes the valuable role of agricultural land, which contributes to the District’s economy, diversity and range of lifestyle opportunities. Most agricultural properties are actively used for livestock or soil based crops.


1. Support agricultural uses in areas designated for such uses as shown on the OCP maps (Figures 2, 3 and 5).

2. Support the preservation and use of lands within the Agricultural Land Reserve for agricultural purposes.

3. Support compatible, low impact non-farm uses in agricultural areas in order to enhance the viability of rural areas.

4. Encourage organic farming as a high value added use of agricultural land.

5. Encourage intensive agricultural operations on large sites where negative impacts on adjacent rural and agricultural properties can be mitigated.

6. Support edge planning along the boundary of the Agricultural Land Reserve with other land uses with the objective of protecting agricultural land uses from the negative impacts of other land uses. Such edge planning may lead to the creation of a buffer adjacent to but outside the Agricultural Land Reserve, where appropriate.

7. Support the development of agricultural lands in North Hope (as shown on the OCP map titled Figure 5). It is recognized that these undeveloped lands lack road access but contain sand and gravel deposits. Extraction of this aggregate resource is supported provided the agricultural resource is stockpiled and protected as the eventual end use.

11

6.6 Reduction of Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions (AM #1305)

As part of the Province of British Columbia’s Climate Action initiative, the Province created the Greenhouse Gas Reductions Target Act, which mandated the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in BC by 33% in 2020 and 80% in 2050 over the 2007 levels. Further, as part of this initiative, the Province introduced Bill 27, the Local Government (Green Communities) Statues Amendment Act, which mandated GHG targets and supporting policies in all local government Official Community Plans (OCP).

Recognizing the importance of the long term emission reductions and the significance of the Provincial Government’s target, the District of Hope will strive to reduce community greenhouse gas emissions 23% per a capita below 2009 levels by 2030.

It is policy of the District of Hope to:

1. Monitor and track GHG emissions target status through Community Energy & Emissions Inventory (CEEI) reports. Continue innovating adaptive strategy to remain aligned with the District’s GHG community target.

2. Support the Province’s goal of creating compact, complete sustainable communities. This will include:

‐ Continue to encourage housing proposals that are innovative, enhance sustainability, provide view protection, protect green space, and are appropriately serviced using ‘green’ technology.

‐ Continue to explore the feasibility of adopting standards in the OCP, Zoning Bylaw or in a policy form for new development which reduces the use of land, minimize the impact on the environment, conserve energy, and reduce the need for expensive municipal infrastructure.

‐ Continue to explore the feasibility of the use of alternative, stand-alone sewage treatment systems in proposed developments which are not close to municipal facilities. Such systems should use “green” technology based on natural, biological processes to maintain a natural environment while ensuring minimal impact and a high quality of effluent.

‐ Explore methods to avoid, minimize and mitigate deforestation of forest land to other purposes, such as housing or highway development.

3. Promote energy efficient retrofits for existing building forms (residential, commercial and industrial) meeting or exceeding the Energuide 80 Standard.

4. Support the integration of a healthy built environment and encourage the development of localized food production and sale.

12

Following the motto “eat local, buy local, be local.” Promote initiatives focused around edible landscapes and garden types.

5. Support and encourage development to include renewable energy such as geothermal, solar, wind, district energy plans, hybrid technologies and etc.

6. Support the development of a local and regional transit system with sustaining infrastructure and continue to ensure a transportation system including off road trails and dedicated bicycle lanes that provides a safe, accessible and integrated environment for pedestrians, bicycle riders, and users of personal mobility enhancement (e.g. battery operated carts and the Segway Human Transporter). Promote alternative modes of transportation that are not reliant on fossil fuels.

7. Continue to support recycling programs, curbside organic waste collection and residential composting.

6.7 Environment (protection of natural environment, riparian areas and fish habitats and hazard mitigation)

The natural setting is one of the District of Hope’s greatest assets. Careful stewardship of this natural asset is needed in order to benefit existing and future residents and visitors. The Fraser and Coquihalla Rivers, Silverhope Creek, Kawkawa Lake, and the many other streams, creeks and wetlands are invaluable resources for the community, and the natural habitats of birds, fish and other wildlife. The District has made a commitment under the Riparian Area Regulation to protecting these riparian areas and the flora and fauna they sustain. Much of the land in Hope is subject to significant natural hazards, including flood hazards, geotechnical hazards (i.e. slope slippage and rockfalls) and wildfires. These risks cannot be eliminated but they can be mitigated by a combination of risk assessment, avoidance and management. (AM #1177)


1. Recognize and respect the natural environment as a priceless asset for all Hope residents and visitors.

2. Support environment initiatives that enhance sustainability.

3. Protect riparian areas from the impact of the residential, commercial and industrial development, through ensuring that all development initiatives within 30 metres of a water course are properly assessed as required under the Fisheries Act and its regulations. (AM #1177)

4. Continue and enhance Hope’s recognized leadership in recycling and solid waste management.

5. Consider environmental issues in reviewing development proposals including impervious surface coverage, access, servicing impacts, maintenance costs, wildlife corridors, and the preservation of the natural environment, including replacement of vegetation cleared for development, drainage courses and other ecosystems.

13

6. Designate Development Permit areas for the protection of the natural environment.

7. Regulate development in areas with natural hazards in order to mitigate risk in such areas.

8. Designate lands within or close to the floodplains of the Fraser River, Coquihalla River, and Silverhope Creek as Development Permit areas and specify conditions under which development will be considered.

9. Designate areas subject to rockfall, slope slippage and other geotechnical hazards as Development Permit areas and specify conditions under which development will be considered.

10. Give consideration to an updated geotechnical hazards study of Hope with priority given to addressing risk affecting potential development areas and providing greater clarity for lands with uncertain geotechnical hazards.

11. Work with senior governments to establish a program of gravel extraction related to the flooding potential of rivers within the District of Hope and obtain funding to implement needed flood, erosion and geotechnical protection.

12. Work with residents and landowners to ensure that flood mitigation measures and dykes along the Fraser River, Coquihalla River and Silverhope Creek waterways are adequate.

13. Work with other stakeholders to develop a mitigation strategy to reduce the risk of wild land interface fire using a combination of factors including but not limited to burning restrictions, prescribed burning to reduce fuel build-up in forested areas, infrastructure upgrading, public education, signage, legal mechanisms and emergency planning.

6.8 Parks, Recreation, Culture and Heritage

The availability and quality of public open space, parks and leisure facilities, both public and private, is an important measure of the overall liveability of any community. The District of Hope has many natural assets, including mountains, lakes and beautiful scenery. As such, the area provides opportunity for a wide variety of outdoor activities.

Plans are aimed at achieving a system of recreation facilities to enable residents and tourists alike to enjoy the District’s natural setting to the fullest and to ensure that both natural, unstructured spaces as well as active parklands are provided. Encouragement is given to public-private partnerships to provide recreation services and facilities, either in existing public or stand-alone private facilities especially if public financial support is limited. Increasingly, municipalities are using partnerships to provide recreation and support services that exceed local financial resources. The following section outlines the strategy for meeting future park requirements.

The District of Hope Park System

The District of Hope has a relatively large amount of parkland, although much of it remains undeveloped at present. Overall, the District has some 496 hectares (1,225 acres) of park. This is well over the recommended overall ratio of 2.2 hectares per 1,000 residents in the Canadian Standards for Outdoor Recreation and Sports Facilities. While there is enough land designated for parks and recreation to last the

14

District well into the future, it is in the form of very large parks, with little land set aside for neighbourhood and community parks. As a result, not all park needs are currently being met. Creating smaller neighbourhood parks will need to be addressed when major residential development proposals are considered. There is also a need for a comprehensive trail system to link neighbourhoods within Hope and connect with regional and national systems including the Trans-Canada Trail.

There are opportunities for private, commercially-run recreation facilities such as those offered by private operators of rinks and sportplexes. The accommodation of motorized and other noise generating outdoor recreation uses such as paintball and motor race tracks, while clearly not suited to urban locations such as Memorial Park, will be considered in selected areas suited to such uses, preferably in peripheral locations.

Memorial Park

Memorial Park is unique and has a special place in the community and in the hearts of Hope residents. As such it should be preserved and maintained in accordance with the original Provincial Crown Grant dated March 18, 1964, which requires the municipality

“… in trust to maintain and preserve the same as a public park or pleasure ground for the use, recreation and enjoyment of the public”.

Accordingly, the park has been designated in the land use designation map as Parks, Recreation & Open Space rather than Downtown Hope.

Neighbourhood Parks

Neighbourhood parks play a visible and prominent role within the community. They are an important element in creating a sense of neighbourhood. They provide for a nearby gathering place and active safe play area within a neighbourhood. Neighbourhood parks are generally developed for a variety of recreation uses. This level of park becomes increasingly important where higher density housing is located. There is a need for neighbourhood parks in any new residential areas which are brought on-stream, and this should be considered when proposed developments offer their required 5% park dedication.

Community Parks

Community parks are generally larger and provide for a greater amount of organised sports. They should be accessible via major traffic routes, and serve the community at large with multi-purpose facilities. Attention should be paid in their design to safety, visibility and security so that park users feel that they are safe as they use the park.

Community Services

The District of Hope has a system of community services and public facilities which meet many of the present needs in the community for civic, cultural, recreational and administrative uses. As the population grows, the need for expanded and new facilities will likely increase. Currently, there are several private operators of facilities, and the future use of public-private partnerships should be investigated when the need for new rinks, pools, community centres and other public facilities are identified.

15


1. Promote Hope as an outdoor recreation destination based on its natural assets.

2. Designate sufficient parkland, open space and trail corridors to meet the anticipated future requirements of the District.

3. Create a range of parks, open space and trails that accommodate a wide range of passive and active outdoor recreation uses.

4. Develop a Parks and Open Space Master Plan to enable current and future park, open space and trail planning needs to be met.

5. Encourage enhanced access to the Fraser River waterfront for park and recreational uses (such as the Rotary viewpoint at the end of Wallace St.).

6. Identify locations suitable for the provision of scenic viewpoints permitting views of the mountains, rivers and valleys, in order to enhance Hope’s attractiveness for tourists and residents alike.

7. Provide sufficient land for the development of civic, cultural, public health and recreation facilities.

8. Encourage the display of locally produced art in the public realm including parks, pedestrian friendly transportation corridors, recreation facilities and other public buildings.

9. Encourage the display of public art in downtown Hope and other suitable locations with a focus on the use of wood carvings of wildlife and natural themes.

10. Support local artists in the creation of distinctive art works for public space that enhance Hope’s scenic attributes and build upon its natural qualities.

11. Support and encourage festivals and other events designed to enhance tourism, increase vitality, and add to the pleasures of residing in Hope.

12. Work with the Province of BC to enhance the tourist potential of the Coquihalla Canyon Provincial Park.

13. Explore opportunities to further public awareness of the area’s rich First Nations history and anthropological exploration through the display of the natural history and cultural development of the Hope area, and through working with Sto:lo and other local First Nations to protect and enhance the anthropological heritage of the region.

14. Support the retention of the small but significant legacy of heritage buildings and other historic resources and encourage conservation under the British Columbia Heritage Conservation Act.

15. Protect areas for Parks, Recreation and Open Space use as designated on the OCP maps (Figures 1-5) and for major trails (Figure 6). Other generally smaller sites may be zoned for parks and open space use within areas designated Urban/Suburban Residential.

16. Preserve and maintain Memorial Park in accordance with the uses as outlined in the Provincial Crown Grant dated March 18, 1964.

17. Investigate the feasibility of recreational vehicle parking on private property to accommodate seasonal visits.

16

6.9 Infrastructure

In the mid-1990’s, the District of Hope completed a number of drainage, sewer and water studies and a Development Cost Charge study, which reviewed existing infrastructure and made recommendations for upgrading of the existing utilities and the need for additional infrastructure. The recommendations were based on a population horizon of 10,000 people.

In general, the findings of the earlier studies still apply since there has been no substantial population growth. The emphasis when spending scarce tax dollars is to bring the existing infrastructure into a more robust state while sizing any upgrading to allow for future growth.

Growth is expected in two forms: infill/densification and development of new areas. Infill will absorb existing lots and create additional lots from minor subdivision in existing serviced areas. Densification will result from redevelopment of existing properties to higher uses and re-subdivision of larger parcels. Infill and densification will make use of existing services or extend existing services.

Growth in new areas is generally away from existing municipal services. Such development will have to extend services and upgrade roads. Alternatively, consideration can be given to each development area providing its own infrastructure, such as wells, reservoirs, and sewage disposal. The development of the new areas should be at the developer’s cost, whether new areas are serviced by extending existing infrastructure or by stand-alone works.

In addition to local traffic, the District also experiences significant traffic volumes from visitors. The District’s transportation system supports local, commercial and tourist traffic. The challenge, therefore, is to provide an optimal road network for the efficient and safe movement of people and goods throughout the District.

Comprehensive development and design standards will provide certainty to Council, staff, the community and the development industry and will enhance orderly growth.


1. Upgrade water mains to meet fire flow requirements, to integrate the separate water systems and to provide redundancy in order to meet current needs and future population growth needs.

2. Upgrade the existing sewage treatment plant to accommodate future growth requirements and meet higher effluent standards.

3. Return drainage to the ground at pre-development levels and to provide flow paths for major storm events which cannot be returned to the ground or accommodated by the storm sewer system. The storm sewer system should continue to be upgraded to reduce flooding potential.

4. Explore the feasibility of the use of alternative, stand-alone sewage treatment systems in proposed developments which are not close to municipal facilities. Such systems should use “green” technology based on natural, biological processes to maintain a natural environment while ensuring minimal impact and a high quality of effluent.

5. Explore the feasibility of adopting standards for new developments which reduce the use of land, minimize the impact on the environment, conserve energy, and reduce the need for expensive municipal infrastructure.

17

6. Ensure that any new urban development provides for paved road access, management of storm water, potable water supply, sanitary sewage collection and treatment, solid waste collection, street lighting and underground utilities, where feasible, all in an ecologically responsible manner.

7. Adopt the major road network as designated on the OCP map (Figure 6).

8. Provide a high standard of public roads to accommodate the needs of local residents and visitors. The road system should be reviewed to determine if there is a need for specific upgrades for safety or for redundancy or to determine if there is a need to re-classify certain roads to reflect the type and volume of traffic on those roads. The review should also address service standards for the different road types.

9. Consider the development of a truck route plan to regulate the movement of large trucks.

10. Ensure a transportation system including off-road trails and dedicated bicycle lanes that provides a safe, accessible and integrated environment for pedestrians, bicycle riders, and users of personal mobility enhancements (e.g. battery operated carts and the Segway Human Transporter).

11. Support an integrated trail network for pedestrians, bicycles and other non-motorized vehicles. High priority should be given to a safe bicycle route from Downtown Hope to the Silver Creek neighbourhood and in the Downtown area route connecting tourist and recreation facilities.

12. Give consideration to street furniture and features that enhance the attractiveness of Downtown Hope and contribute to its vitality (i.e. bicycle racks, street banners, benches, landscaping, signage).

13. Support the provision of community transit and the provision by interested groups of services to seniors and others with mobility concerns.

14. Ensure that future growth is consistent with the District’s financial capabilities (i.e. does not become a burden on the existing community).

15. Development standards and the related design criteria should be reviewed to ensure that any development or redevelopment provides the standards desired by the community. This will address road elements (road width, curb and gutter, sidewalk, streetlights, street trees, boulevards, medians) for the various land uses and road classifications. It will also address minimum levels of fire fighting capabilities, minimum water main sizes, flow velocities and residual pressures in the water system, and sewage collection design standards and drainage standards.

6.10 Implementation

The OCP contains a series of policies with varying cost implications, priorities and involvement with other stakeholders. Scarce resources, whether financial or human, will inevitably affect the setting of priorities. Some policies will require municipal initiatives while others will involve responses to initiatives from the private sector or other stakeholders. The following identifies key policies requiring municipal action. They are divided into policies to be acted upon over the short-to medium-term and those which are ongoing or long-term.

18

Short to Medium Term

1. Undertake zoning amendments to ensure consistency with the Official Community Plan as well as enable policies concerning infill and cluster housing to be implemented.

2. Work with community groups to support festivals and similar events, and develop an Action Plan for economic development initiatives including a joint approach to marketing the community.

3. Initiate a street banner and landscaping program in downtown Hope and selected highway commercial areas.

4. Initiate a Parks and Open Space Master Planning process, starting with the preparation of a plan for Memorial Park, to ensure its continued significance and ecological viability.

5. Develop a comprehensive signage program based on the natural assets of Hope in order to provide a distinct identity for and direction to municipal facilities, services, trails, downtown Hope and other destinations. Give top priority to improved directional signage to Downtown Hope and major tourist destinations.

6. Initiate development of a trail or dedicated bicycle path from the Silver Creek neighbourhood to Downtown Hope and along Old Hope Princeton Way.

7. Undertake a study of those lands in the Floods area generally bounded by the Trans-Canada Highway and Airport Road as shown in heavy dashed outline on the following map. This study area suffers from a number of constraints including a lack of investment, flood hazards from the Fraser River and Silver Hope Creek, some lot configurations that make any land use difficult to achieve, a high proportion of non-conforming land uses including several mobile home parks, and a number of non-complimentary land uses. The objective of this study will be to review how to maximize the area’s assets including its prime location, direct accesses to the Trans-Canada Highway, the airport lands and proximity to the large urban population in the Lower Mainland and agricultural capability.

19

Ongoing and Long Term

1. Monitor progress in addressing the goals and policies of the OCP in an annual report to Council.

2. Undertake municipal infrastructure improvements giving top priority to public safety.

3. Upgrade water mains to meet fire flow requirements, to integrate the separate water systems and to meet current needs and future population growth needs.

4. Expand the existing sewage treatment system and meet current Provincial effluent standards.

5. Work with senior governments to secure funding for needed infrastructure upgrading and hazard mitigation.

6. Identify significant heritage sites and structures within the District, and means and methods for their conservation that may be provided by the provincial and federal levels.

7. Consult with the museum staff and the general community on the long term goals for the museum, and examine possibilities for partnering with other governments and groups. Consult with the First Nations community on the feasibility of a joint museum on First Peoples and Settlers.

8. Review development standards to ensure long-term sustainability as well as emerging ‘green’ technologies. Undertake a study of development cost charges to ensure that the majority of costs associated with new development is borne by the development itself and does not become a burden on general taxes.

9. Update existing documentation of geotechnical hazards in Hope with priority given risk mitigation of existing and designated development areas and providing greater clarity for lands with uncertain geotechnical hazards.

10. Establish a program of gravel extraction related to the flooding potential of rivers within the District of Hope and obtain funding to implement needed flood, erosion and geotechnical protection.

11. Work with other stakeholders to develop a mitigation strategy to reduce the risk of wild land interface fire using a combination of measures including but not limited to burning restrictions, prescribed burning to reduce fuel build-up in forested areas, infrastructure upgrading, public education, signage, legal mechanisms and emergency planning.

6.11 Table of Concordance

The following table identifies those zones in the Zoning bylaw that are permitted within each Official Community Plan designation. No change in the Official Community Plan designation will be required for zones listed within a particular designation. However, it should be noted that the suitability of any zoning will be determined by the Council of the District of Hope following a public hearing giving consideration to the appropriate policies of the Official Community Plan and the views of all persons who believe their interest in property will be affected by the proposed land use change.

20

OCP LAND USE DESIGNATION COMPATIBLE ZONING CATEGORIES

Country Residential

CR-1 L-1 RR-1 RU-1

Country Residential Limited Use Resort Rehabilitation Rural

Comprehensive Development (AM #1262) CD

Comprehensive Development Site specific conditions to be determined

Urban/Suburban Residential

RS-1 RS-2 RT-1 RM-1 P-1 P-2 C-1 C-4 RR-1 MHP-1 RM-2 RS-1S RS-1T

Single Family Residential Compact Single Family Residential (AM #1338) Two Family Residential Multiple Family Residential Parks and Recreation Institutional Local Commercial Neighbourhood Public House Resort Rehabilitation Mobile Home Park Ground Oriented Multiple Family Residential (AM #1338) Single Family Residential with Secondary Dwelling (AM #1338) Single Family Residential with Secondary Suite (AM #1338)

Downtown Hope

CBD P-2 RS-1 RS-2 RT-1 RM-1 C-2 C-4 C-5 RM-2 RS-1S RS-1T

Downtown Commercial Institutional Single Family Residential Compact Single Family Residential (AM #1338) Two Family Residential Multiple Family Residential Highway Commercial Neighbourhood Public House Commercial Transition Ground Oriented Multiple Family Residential (AM #1338) Single Family Residential with Secondary Dwelling (AM #1338) Single Family Residential with Secondary Suite (AM #1338)

Highway Commercial

C-2 C-3 C-4 C-5 P-2

Highway Commercial Regional Commercial Neighbourhood Public House Commercial Transition Institutional

Parks-Recreation and Open Space

P-1 P-2 RRA-1 L-1

Parks and Recreation Institutional Residential & Recreational Assembly Limited Use

Light/Service Industry

I-2 I-4 I-5 I-6 P-2 AG-1

Light/Service Industrial (AM #1338) Vehicle Wrecking (AM #1338) Heliport Water Industrial Institutional Agricultural

21

OCP LAND USE DESIGNATION COMPATIBLE ZONING CATEGORIES

Heavy Industry I-1 I-2 I-4

Heavy Industrial Light/Service Industrial (AM #1338) Vehicle Wrecking (AM #1338)

Rural/Agricultural AG-1 RU-1 CHP-1

Agricultural Rural Campground & Holiday Park

Airport I-5 AP-1 AG-1

Heliport Airpark (AM #1338) Agricultural

Limited Use L-1 AG-1 P-1

Limited Use (AM #1338) Agricultural Parks and Recreation

Indian Reserve Not Applicable

22

7. OVERVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PERMITS

General

The Local Government Act (Section 919.1) provides the District of Hope with the authority to designate Development Permit areas for a number of purposes including:

protection of the natural environment, its ecosystems and biological diversity; protection of development from hazardous conditions; revitalization of an area in which a commercial use is permitted; and establishing objectives for the form and character of commercial, industrial, multi-

family residential, and intensive residential development.

Within a Development Permit area, the owner of land must first obtain, at the applicant’s expense, a Development Permit that complies with the applicable guidelines prior to (AM #1192):

1. the subdivision of land;

2. site preparation or soil movement;

3. locating of any mobile or modular home; or

4. any construction or alteration of a building or structure, including renovations, replacement of exterior finishes, repainting, landscaping, or additions (unless exempted below).

Land cannot be altered nor soil or vegetation disturbed within Development Permit areas established for environmental and riparian area protection and the protection of development from hazardous conditions unless a Development Permit has first been issued. (AM #1192):

Exemptions A Development Permit will not be required within any Development Permit Area where an existing structure is only receiving minor alterations or changes. This applies to all uses permitted under the provision of the Zoning Bylaw. Specifically, a Development Permit will not be required if the following changes are being made:

replacement of exterior building finishes; alteration of colour; replacement of sign faces or addition of new signage which meets the

District’s sign regulations; changes to plant material within already established landscaped areas; additions of canopies or other decorative building features; interior renovations.

A Development Permit will be required if the nature of the changes to the existing development will result in a major alteration. The exemption will not apply in the District when it is declared a Revitalization Area or Heritage Site and permits will be required for any exterior alterations (AM #1201).

A Development Permit for Geotechnical and Flood and Erosion Hazard areas may not be required for accessory buildings or accessory structures not exceeding a maximum area of 50 square metres, not used for human habitation, and not located within a fishery setback associated with a stream, water course or water body;

23

however, the principles of Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd. Silverhope Creek Flood Hazard Management Study of 1999 must be adhered to. The District of Hope may require that a registered covenant be placed on the property title.

A Development Permit for Flood and Erosion areas will not be required for any development which falls within the Surface Flow Area “C” of the Silverhope Creek Floodplain provided that:

all structures are setback a minimum of 60 metres from the natural boundary of the Silverhope Creek or 30 metres from the edge of the floodway, whichever is further from Silverhope Creek; and,

all structures have a minimum flood construction level of 0.6 metres above the finished grade elevation surrounding the building or 0.6 metres above the crest elevation of the nearest road where flood waters may pond, whichever is greater; and, subject to

a registered covenant on title outlining the conditions of the property and saving the District harmless. (AM #1192)

Proposed construction or alteration of a building or structure which does not meet the above exemptions will require a Development Permit.

7.1 Downtown Hope Development Permit Area #1

Purposes The Downtown Hope Development Permit Area is designated under Sections 919.1 (1) (d) and (f) of the Local Government Act for the purposes of

Revitalizing the commercial area in Downtown Hope; and

Establishing guidelines for the form and character of commercial, multi-family residential and mixed use development.

Area Downtown Hope Development Permit Area #1 consists of all properties bounded by the Fraser River, the Coquihalla River and the CN Railway that are zoned RM-1, CBD, C-2, C-4, C-5 or RM-2. (AM #1338)

Justification and Objectives Downtown Hope Development Permit Area #1 is the District’s commercial core. As the primary commercial area for Hope, the objectives are to:

Enhance Wallace Street as the primary gateway to Downtown Hope; Strengthen Downtown Hope as an attractive, well designed service centre for

residents and visitors alike; Encourage a broad range of commercial retail, commercial office, service

commercial uses, and cultural uses that is vibrant and pedestrian friendly; and Encourage multi-family uses within walking distance of commercial uses or

above ground level commercial businesses.

Guidelines 1. The siting of buildings at or close to the front property line is encouraged.

2. Buildings that cover the entire street frontage facing Wallace Street are strongly encouraged in order to maximize pedestrian interest and continuity.

24

3. Buildings and building entrances must be oriented toward the street frontage.

4. The use of natural building materials such as wood and natural stone (including granite and river rock) is encouraged. Building materials that will not withstand large temperature changes and challenging weather conditions such as extensive rain, snow and wind should be avoided.

5. The use of natural colours for buildings is encouraged.

6. Sloping rooflines that complement the surrounding mountains are required and flat roofs are to be avoided unless a front parapet is provided.

7. The use of wood carvings or other forms of outdoor art that recognize Hope’s outdoor heritage as a major distinguishing feature of the community is strongly encouraged at or near building entrances.

8. All garbage, recycling, outdoor storage of equipment and utility areas must be screened. Lane access to these areas will be required where available.

9. Landscaping in the form of hanging plants, window boxes, boulevard trees and/or buffer edges is required. Landscaping shall be used to soften the impact of off-street parking areas. Stand alone chain link fences are discouraged although they may be acceptable with appropriate landscaping.

10. Canopy, fascia and projecting signs are encouraged. The use of neon and

indirect illumination such as spot lit signs is encouraged. Fascia and canopy signs should not exceed a maximum copy height of 0.6 metre or more than 45%

25

of the building frontage. Canopy signs should extend a minimum of 1.5 metres in front of the entire building face in order to provide weather protection to pedestrians.

11. Pedestrian oriented projecting signs constructed of sandblasted cedar or equivalent, carved wood, metal or neon are permitted. The use of neon and indirect illumination such as spot lit signs is preferred. Backlit fluorescent projecting signs are not permitted. The maximum encroachment should be 1.0 metre with a minimum clearance of 2.5 metres above grade. The copy height should not exceed 0.3 metre.

12. The use of sandwich board signs is encouraged provided they are located close to the building or the curb and do not hinder the flow of pedestrian traffic. Sandwich board signs should not exceed a width of 0.8 metres or a height of 1.1 metres and should be anchored or weighted down to ensure their stability.

13. Freestanding signs are discouraged along Wallace Street and other areas with a pedestrian orientation.

26

14. A comprehensive sign program will be required for multi-tenant buildings to ensure that signage for individual tenants is consistent with an overall concept for the development. Such a signage program shall address the type, location, size, colours, lighting and materials to be used.

15. Ground level commercial retail, service or office uses are encouraged with closely spaced entrances, picture windows and attention to detailing of fenestration and other storefront elements.

16. Multi-family uses are encouraged above ground level commercial uses or as freestanding low rise apartment sites within easy walking distance of Wallace Street and amenities such as Memorial Park. In mixed use developments, commercial entrances must be separated from residential entrances.

17. Multi-family units may be partially screened but must be visible from the street. Walled developments that block visibility from the street will not be permitted.

18. The facades of multi-family buildings must be articulated to indicate the individual units in order to avoid a large, monolithic appearance.

19. Ground oriented multi-family infill development surrounding Downtown Hope is encouraged.

27

7.2 Old Hope-Princeton Way Development Permit Area #2

Purposes The Old Hope-Princeton Way Development Permit Area is designated under Sections 919.1 (1) (d) and (f) of the Local Government Act for the purposes of

Revitalizing the highway commercial area and Establishing guidelines for the form and character of commercial and light

industrial development.

Area Old Hope-Princeton Way Development Permit Area #2 consists of those properties south and west of the Coquihalla River, east of the CN Railway and east of Water Street that are zoned C-2, C-3, or I-2. (AM #1338)

Justification and Objectives Old Hope-Princeton Way is the historic connection through Hope between the Lower Mainland and the Southern Interior. It continues to serve as a major highway commercial area serving both the travelling public and local residents. The objective is to welcome visitors with an attractive range of tourist commercial and other compatible services within an automobile oriented setting. Since this area serves passers-by in vehicles, the form of buildings, signage and landscaping will differ from those of other areas. Nearby industrial developments should complement this highway commercial setting through landscaping and screening.

Guidelines 1. The siting and massing of buildings should be varied to avoid a monotonous

appearance.

2. Buildings must be oriented toward Old Hope-Princeton Way and blank walls facing Old Hope-Princeton Way avoided.



5. Sloping rooflines that complement the surrounding mountains are encouraged and flat roofs avoided unless a front parapet is provided.

6. The use of wood carvings or other forms of outdoor art that recognizes Hope’s outdoor heritage as a major distinguishing feature of the community is strongly encouraged.

7. All garbage, recycling, outdoor storage of equipment and utility areas must be screened from Old Hope-Princeton Way and surrounding residential areas.

28

8. Landscaping is required to provide variety and soften the impact of parking areas or other predominately hard surfaces. Preference should be given to native plant materials. The extensive use of trees and shrubs to provide a ‘green’ appearance is encouraged. The use of river rock is also encouraged as a landscape element. All areas not used for buildings, surface parking or outdoor storage must be landscaped.

9. All landscaping plans for new developments must be prepared by a member of the B.C. Society of Landscape Architects or other qualified professional. All plant materials and contractor’s work must meet the standards of the B.C. Nursery Trade Association or the B.C. Society of Landscape Architects. A letter of credit or other form of security will be required to ensure the maintenance of landscaped areas for a minimum period of one year.

10. Ground oriented freestanding signs are encouraged with a maximum of two freestanding signs per sites with over 50 metres of frontage. Ground oriented freestanding signs with a landscaped base constructed from natural building materials such as river rock, granite or wood are encouraged. The maximum height of freestanding signs with a pylon base shall be as per the District of Hope Sign Bylaw. The maximum sign area for a freestanding sign shall be as per the District of Hope Sign Bylaw. (AM #1192)

11. A directory sign not exceeding a height of 2.5 metres in order to identify individual tenants in multi-tenant buildings at access driveways is encouraged.

12. Fascia and canopy signs are encouraged subject to a maximum copy height of 1.0 metre. Fascia and canopy signs should not exceed 45% of the building frontage

29

13. The use of banners and wind activated signs is encouraged in order to add variety and interest.

14. A strong definition between the highway corridor and the private sector improvements through the use of landscaping and other means is encouraged as illustrated in the following sketch.

15. Parking for trucks and large recreation vehicles is encouraged provided it is not located where scenic views will be blocked or pose a concern about vehicular pedestrian safety.

16. Job creation in service industrial and general industrial areas is encouraged. Screening of outdoor equipment and storage areas and landscaping of parking areas in front of buildings is required.

30

7.3 Silver Creek-Flood Development Permit Area #3

Purposes The Silver Creek-Flood Development Permit Area is designated under Section 919.1 (1) (f) of the Local Government Act for the purpose of establishing guidelines for the form and character of commercial and light industrial development. (AM #1262)

Area The Silver Creek-Flood Development Permit Area #3 consists of those lands in the Flood-Hope corridor area (west of Old Hope Princeton Way) zoned C-1, C-2, C-4, CHP-1, CD, I-2, and I-5. (AM #1262) (AM #1338)

Justification and Objectives Flood-Hope Road area is the main access that serves the Silver Creek community as well as the alternative business route to Highway 1 west of Hope. The Flood-Hope corridor area provides light industrial and commercial services both to local residents and the travelling public. The objective is to provide an attractive range of tourist commercial and other retail services within a highway commercial setting. Nearby industrial developments should complement this corridor commercial setting through landscaping and screening. Within Silver Creek, the objective is also to foster a pedestrian friendly village feeling. (AM #1262)

Guidelines 1. The siting and massing of buildings should be varied to avoid a monotonous

appearance.


3. Landscaping should be used to provide variety and soften the impact of parking areas or other predominately hard surfaces. Preference should be given to naturally occurring plant materials to provide a ‘green’ appearance. All areas not used for buildings, surface parking or outdoor storage must be landscaped.

4. All landscaping plans for new developments must be prepared by a member of the B.C. Society of Landscape Architects or other qualified professional. All plant materials and contractor’s work must meet the standards of the B.C. Nursery Trade Association or the B.C. Society of Landscape Architects. A letter of credit or other form of security will be required to ensure the maintenance of landscaped areas for a minimum period of one year.

5. A safe access route for pedestrians and cyclists should be provided for each development within Silver Creek.


7. Buildings should be oriented toward Flood-Hope Road and blank walls facing Old Flood-Hope Road avoided.

8. Lower Mount Hope and other major features should be considered in site planning and building orientation in order to maximize direct sunlight and solar

31

gain. New development should be located in open areas to reduce the amount of shading from trees and major topographic features.

9. The use of wood carvings or other forms of outdoor art that recognizes Hope’s outdoor heritage as a major distinguishing feature of the community is strongly encouraged.

10. Sloping rooflines that complement the surrounding mountains are encouraged and flat roofs are to be avoided unless a front parapet is provided.

11. Parking for trucks and large recreation vehicles is encouraged provided that such parking, if located in Silver Creek, does not block scenic views or pose a concern about vehicular or pedestrian safety.

12. Ground oriented freestanding signs with a landscaped base constructed from natural building materials such as river rock, granite or wood are encouraged in Silver Creek with a maximum of two freestanding signs per site. The maximum height of freestanding signs with a pylon base shall be 6 metres. The maximum sign area for a freestanding sign shall be 6 square metres per sign face.

13. A directory sign not exceeding a height of 2.5 metres in order to identify individual tenants in multi-tenant buildings at access driveways is encouraged.

14. Fascia and canopy signs are encouraged subject to a maximum copy height of 1.0 metre. Fascia and canopy signs should not exceed 50% of the building frontage.

32

15. The use of banners and wind activated signs is encouraged in order to add variety and interest.

16. All garbage, recycling, outdoor storage of equipment and utility areas must be screened from Flood-Hope Road and surrounding residential areas.

17. Landscaping is required to provide variety and soften the impact of parking areas or other predominately hard surfaces. Preference should be given to native plant materials. The extensive use of trees and shrubs to provide a “green” appearance is encouraged. The use of river rock is also encouraged as a landscape element. All areas not used for buildings, surface parking or outdoor storage must be landscaped.

18. A strong definition between roadways in the Flood Hope Corridor Area and the private sector improvements through the use of landscaping and other means is encouraged.

19. Job creation in service industrial and general industrial areas is encouraged. Screening of outdoor equipment and storage areas and landscaping of parking areas in front of buildings is required. (AM #1262

7.4 Hope Intensive Residential Development Permit Area #4

Purposes The Hope Intensive Residential Development Permit Area is designated under Sections 919.1(1) (e) of the Local Government Act for the purposes of

Ensuring high quality residential development especially in large ground-oriented residential projects, planned unit developments, or strata developments; and

Ensuring compatibility between residential developments and adjoining land uses and projects.

Area The Hope Intensive Residential Development Permit Area #4 is defined as all areas designated Urban/Suburban Residential or Downtown Hope as shown on the OCP Land Use maps (Figures 1 to 5) where the project is intended to have more than 10 dwelling units and is a strata development or a planned unit development.

Justification and Objectives Proposed residential developments of over 10 dwelling units, strata developments, and residential planned unit developments require a higher order of design because of increased densities, the preservation of environmentally sensitive areas, the planned unit development nature of the project, and in the case of strata projects, the mixture of common and private ownership of lands within the development. (AM #1192)

The objectives of the Hope Intensive Residential Development Permit Area #4 are to ensure that the design and execution of these projects is of a high order and quality and future residents are assured of a project on which they can depend.

Guidelines: Development permits for this area should be in accordance with the following guidelines:

33

1. Comprehensive Plan Compatibility. The development density and design shall be consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Official Community Plan.

2. Density. The overall density of the project shall not exceed the maximum permitted development density of the zone in which the project is proposed. The density from non-developable areas may be applied elsewhere on the site.

3. Preservation of Natural Features. Critical areas and other significant and desirable natural features such as steep slopes, drainage courses, unique stands of vegetation, riparian areas and water bodies are to be retained and integrated into the site design, within applicable geotechnical, environmental and flooding hazard requirements.

4. Adjoining Land Use Compatibility. The project site design shall be laid out in a manner which ensures compatibility and harmony with adjoining land uses exterior to the subject project. Lot sizes along common boundary lines with other residential uses shall be at least 75 percent of the minimum lot size of the underlying zone.

5. Common Architectural Theme. All buildings and structures in the project site area are to share a common architectural theme that ensures compatibility among interior land uses, and that encourages variety, visual interest and distinctive character. This theme shall also be compatible or complementary with adjacent development, or shall be adequately screened or buffered from such adjacent development.

6. Buffering and External Linkages. The master site plan should include provisions for buffering the property from major highways and roads, through the use of berms, landscaping or sound dampening walls. All buffering shall be planted and designed as part of the landscape plan. Walkways and trails may be required at the discretion of the District.

7. Professional Assurance. All researches, investigations, analyses, plans and documentation required in the preparation of a project under this Development Permit Area shall be required to have the stamp of registered or certified professionals attesting to the competency, reliability, accuracy, and appropriateness of the statements and proposal made.

8. Master Site Plan Required. No property shall be developed under the provisions of this development permit area, unless a master site plan has been reviewed and approved by the District. Said master site plan shall indicate at least the following:

(a) The boundaries of the project site area;

(b) A context or neighbourhood plan indicating how the proposed project will fit within or extend the road system and the pattern of development in the surrounding area;

(c) Significant natural features including critical areas, topographical contours, forested areas and/or significant trees, and water bodies. Topographic information should also indicate preliminary grading contours;

(d) The gross land area of the development, the zoning classification thereof and the zoning classification and land use of the area surrounding the proposed development, including the location of structures and other improvements;

34

(e) A development site plan identifying the location, number and types of uses to be included in the development;

(f) The location, dimensions, and improvement characteristics of all proposed streets, trails, open areas, water and sewer systems, street lighting, other services, and parking facilities;

(g) Plans and elevations of buildings and structures sufficient to indicate the architectural style, building materials and construction standards;

(h) Specific development standards to be applied to the project, including building heights, yard setbacks, and individual lot sizes, widths, length and shapes;

(i) A preliminary landscaping plan;

(j) Proposed development phasing if proposed;

(k) Open space calculations for common and private open space;

(l) Such other information as may be required to enable complete analysis and appraisal of the planned development as well as its presentation to Council and the public, and the proposed zoning bylaw accommodation; and

(m) The stamp of the co-ordinating qualified design professional, community planner, architect, landscape architect or engineer indicating their assurance that the master plan has been properly prepared and meets relevant standards.

7.5 Flood & Erosion Hazards Development Permit Area #5

Purposes The Hope Flood and Erosion Hazards Development Permit Area is designated under Section 919.1(1)(b) of the Local Government Act for the purpose of protecting development from hazardous conditions. The local government does not represent to any person that any building or structure, including a mobile home, used, constructed or located in accordance with these provisions will not be damaged by flooding or erosion.

Exemptions

The following types of development are exempt from the requirements of the flood construction levels specified in this Bylaw:

(a) A renovation of an existing building or structure that does not involve an addition thereto.

(b) Except in the East Kawkawa Lake Area, an addition to a building or structure, at the original non-conforming floor elevation, that would increase the size of the building or structure by less than 25% of the non-conforming floor area existing at the date this Bylaw was adopted, provided that the degree of non-conformity regarding the floodplain setback is not increased.

(c) That portion of a building or structure used as a carport, garage or entrance foyer.

(d) An addition to an existing building or structure created by raising the existing building or structure less than 1.5 meters and creating a non-habitable area underneath that doesn’t require floodproofing.

35

(e) Farm buildings other than dwelling units and closed sided animal enclosures.

(f) Hot water tanks and furnaces behind standard dykes.

(g) Heavy industrial uses behind standard dykes.

(h) On-loading or off-loading facilities associated with water-oriented industry and sawmills.

The District of Hope may consider minor variances to the above exemptions upon written request; however, a covenant saving the District of Hope harmless may be required.

In extreme/unusual circumstances, an application by the property owner to the District of Hope for a site specific exemption shall be submitted. (AM #1192)

Location

The Hope Flood and Erosion Hazards Development Permit Area #5 consists of all lands subject to flooding and erosion within the floodplains of the

Fraser River Coquihalla River Silverhope Creek and Kawkawa Lake

as shown on the OCP maps (Figures 1F to 5F).

Justification and Objectives

The District of Hope and the Province of British Columbia are responsible for the mitigation of flood hazards through the Local Government Act, the Land Title Act and the Dyke Management Act. The floodway and flood fringe of the Fraser River, Coquihalla River, Silverhope Creek and Kawkawa Lake all represent hazards to development. The nature of these hazardous conditions varies depending on the risk analysis as documented in the studies identified in Appendix A. The objectives of the Hope Flood and Erosion Hazards Development Permit Area #5 are to:

Protect property and minimize the risk to individuals; (AM #1192) Prevent development within floodways; Avoid intensive development on land subject to flooding and erosion hazards;

and Minimize the risk of damage from flooding on land up to the designated flood

level by requiring floodproofing measures to be incorporated into new development.

Any development within a floodplain must comply with the floodproofing requirements including floodplain setback and flood construction levels.

General Requirements

Before a Development Permit can be issued by the District of Hope, the applicant shall provide confirmation that any development within a floodplain complies with the following floodproofing requirements:

36

a) Where flood construction levels and floodplain setbacks are specified, confirmation from an Applied Science Technologist registered in site improvement surveys or equivalent that construction has occurred according to the guidelines below is required. Where more than one floodplain setback or flood construction level is applicable, the greater figure shall apply; or

b) Where an engineered design of structures or comprehensive flood protection works are required, a report from a Professional Engineer with experience in hydraulic and river engineering with respect to flooding, erosion and sedimentation, is required to ensure development which protects property and human safety.

Either or both of these requirements will apply as indicated in the detailed guidelines below. (AM #1192)

For reference purposes, the table in Appendix A titled Flood and Erosion Hazard Terminology consists of a list of terms, definitions and applicable requirements used to identify and regulate flood and erosion hazards.

A. Guidelines for Development within the Fraser River Floodplain

1. Mapping for the Fraser River floodplain within the present boundaries of the District of Hope was carried out by the Ministry of Environment in 1987 and represents the most recent mapping of the area. The boundaries and Flood Construction Levels for the Fraser River floodplain are as specified on the OCP maps (Figures 1F, 2F, 3F and 5F).

2. No development within the Fraser River floodplain as indicated on Figures 1F, 2F, 3F and 5F shall be permitted unless a site specific report from a qualified professional engineer certifies that development can safely occur on the site. (AM #1192)

3. No habitable space shall be constructed below the Flood Construction Levels as specified on the OCP maps (Figures 1F, 2F, 3F and 5F).

4. Flood Construction Levels up river of 41.0 geodetic elevation on the OCP map (Figure 5F) have not been calculated. No habitable space shall be constructed within the Fraser River floodplain upriver of this location except in compliance with a site specific engineering design.

5. Area 1B Avulsion Hazard at the mouth of the Coquihalla River no building or any part thereof shall be constructed, reconstructed, moved or extended nor shall any mobile home, modular home or structure be located within 60 metres from the natural boundary of the Fraser River; and, the minimum flood construction level shall be 6 metres above the natural boundary of the Fraser River.

6. No building or any part thereof shall be constructed, reconstructed, moved or extended nor shall any mobile home, modular home or structure be located on any island within the natural boundaries of the Fraser River. (AM #1192)

37

B. Guidelines for Development within the Coquihalla River Floodplain

1. The boundaries and Flood Construction Levels for the Coquihalla River floodplain are as specified on the OCP map (Figures 1F and 4F).

2. The Coquihalla River floodplain consists of five hazard areas as shown on Figures 1F and 4F.

3. No development is permitted in Area 1, which consists of the floodway of the Coquihalla River.

4. No habitable space in Areas 1A, 1B, 2 or 3 shall be constructed below the Flood Construction Levels as specified on the OCP map (Figures 1F and 4F).

5. Floodproofing requirements for each of the five flood and erosion hazard areas are summarized in Table 1. (AM #1192)

Coquihalla River Background Information

The boundaries and Flood Construction Levels for the Coquihalla River floodplain are based on mapping for the Coquihalla River floodplain within the present boundaries of the District of Hope carried out by the Ministry of Environment in 1985. This represents the most recent floodplain mapping of the river. (It should be noted that Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd. revised the 200-year flood limit in 1994 and recommended that new floodplain mapping be carried out.)

Two possible flood break-through channels (avulsions) were identified by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd. (1994b). They are located along the left bank at the Trans Mountain Pipe Line crossing close to the Old Hope-Princeton Highway. The second is along the left bank west of the CN Rail line. The downstream boundary of the designated flood shown for the break-through channels assumes the break-through channels are blocked off.

The Hope Golf Course and private property upstream of the Golf Course Bridge are potentially affected by an avulsion of the Coquihalla River. Due to the high risk to life and structures in the event of an avulsion, no increase in density is permitted in Area 1B.

Building setbacks are usually 30 metres based on Ministry standards; however, site specific inspections can result in increases or decreases to the standard. Setbacks determined by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd. (1994b) for the Coquihalla River vary from 30 metres to 70 metres depending on the type and quality of bank material (i.e. bedrock, riprap or natural). Natural banks and low quality rip-rap banks are more susceptible to failure than bedrock or engineered rip-rap banks. As a result, greater setbacks have been established for development in areas where structural protection is less than the 200 year flood limit.

Flooding risk and erosion risk for 11 specific areas in the five zones within the 200-year flood limit on the Coquihalla River was assessed based on a low, moderate or high rating by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd. (1994b). The rating depends on the probability that the banks will be overtopped, the floodplain inundated and both areas eroded.

38

TABLE 1: COQUIHALLA RIVER HAZARD ZONES1

AREA HAZARD MINISTRY EQUIVALENT TERM

FLOOD CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS

1 Floodway Floodway No building construction or alteration

1A Erosion Hazard Setbacks

(a) 70 metre setback from the natural boundary of the Coquihalla River opposite the Glenhalla Subdivision west of Mount Hope Road;

(b) 60 metre setback from the natural boundary of the Coquihalla River opposite the Glenhalla Subdivision east of Mount Hope Road;

(c) 60 metre setback from the natural boundary of the Coquihalla River at the Olson Avenue property located between Park Avenue and Golf Course Road;

or unless otherwise determined by a site specific report prepared by a qualified professional engineer with experience in hydraulic and river engineering with respect to flooding, erosion and sedimentation.

1B Avulsion Hazard Setback/Flood Fringe

No increase in density or change of use shall be permitted within the avulsion hazard area of the Coquihalla River.

For any major structures, a distance determined by a site specific engineering report prepared by a qualified professional engineer with experience in hydraulic and river engineering with respect to flooding, erosion and sedimentation.

2 Moderate and High Flooding Hazard

Flood Fringe (a) 60 metre setback from the natural boundary of the Coquihalla River at the Teresan Pipeline Crossing and Old Hope Princeton Way and along Riverview Drive;

(b) 7.5 metre setback from the landward toe of the dyke within the Glenhalla Subdivision and River Parade/Town Park Area;

or unless otherwise determined by a site specific report prepared by a qualified professional engineer with experience in hydraulic and river engineering with respect to flooding, erosion and sedimentation.

3 Low Flooding Hazard

Flood Fringe 60 metre setback from the natural boundary of the Coquihalla River along Forrest Crescent and Mallard Drive.

The flood construction level for all zones on the Coquihalla River shall be as recommended in the Coquihalla River Flood Hazard Management Study and as per Figures 1F and 4F (AM #1192).

1Coquihalla River Flood Hazard Management Study, Final Report, March 1994 prepared by Northwest Hydraulics Consultants Ltd.

39

C. Guidelines for Development within the Silverhope Creek Floodplain

1. The floodplain of Silverhope Creek consists of three main hazard risk areas as shown on the OCP map (Figure 3F).

2. No increase in density through subdivision is permitted in Area A, which consists of the floodway of Silverhope Creek. New construction should be limited and must not proceed without a report from a qualified engineer supporting the recommendations outlined in Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Silverhope Creek Flood Hazard Management Study of 1999. The objective in this zone would be to limit further construction or encroachment, which would prevent increases in flood levels and help prevent opposite bank erosion. Building permits for new construction would only be issued following a report by a qualified engineer that demonstrates little or no potential for increased flood levels upstream or for increased erosion on the opposite back as a result of the development, and provides a design to resist the forces imposed by the velocity and depth of water, impact by debris, and scour protection. (AM #1192)

3. No habitable building shall be allowed in Area B except in compliance with a site specific engineering design or comprehensive flood protection works.

4. No new development in Area C shall be constructed below the flood construction level set at 0.6 metres above the finish grade elevation surrounding the building or 0.6 metres above the crest elevation of the nearest road where flood waters may pond, whichever is greater. (AM #1192)

5. Where a lot is bisected by Silver Skagit Road, a building site west of Silver Skagit Road is preferred. (AM #1192)

6. Floodproofing requirements for each of the three flood and erosion hazard areas are summarized in Table 2:

40

TABLE 2: SILVERHOPE CREEK FAN HAZARD ZONES

AREA HAZARD /

RISK

MINISTRY EQUIVALENT

TERM RECOMMENDED REQUIREMENT

A Flood Inundation / High

Floodway

Flood construction levels and setbacks shall be determined by a qualified professional in the field of hydraulics and river engineering with respect to flooding, erosion and sedimentation.

B Avulsion / Medium

Setback / Flood Fringe

No habitable buildings shall be allowed except in compliance with a site specific engineering design prepared by a qualified professional in the field of hydraulics and river engineering with respect to flooding, erosion and sedimentation.

Garage and accessory buildings shall be setback a minimum of 60 metres from the natural boundary of the Silverhope Creek or 30 metres from the edge of the floodway, whichever is further from Silverhope Creek; and, all structures have a minimum flood construction level of 1.0 metres above the finished grade elevation surrounding the building or 1.0 metres above the crest elevation of the nearest road where flood waters may pond, whichever is greater; and, subject to a registered covenant on title outlining the conditions of the property and saving the District harmless.

C Surface Flow / Low

Flood Fringe See Exemptions

Silverhope Creek Background Information

The floodplain of Silverhope Creek is based on Flood Inundation Mapping carried out for the Silverhope Creek fan by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd. in 1999. The entire fan was divided into three main zones as shown on the OCP map (Figure 3F). Flood Construction Levels for 20 cross-sections of the fan ranging from the Fraser River to the fan apex and are shown on the OCP map (Figure 3F). This study also identified avulsion points, which indicate points where flood flows from Area A are most likely to inundate Area B. The left bank near the outlet of Silverhope Creek is subject to extensive erosion.

D. Guidelines for Development within the Kawkawa Lake Floodplain

1. No new development or major alteration of any structure is permitted in any of the three flood hazard areas east of Kawkawa Lake as shown on the OCP map (Figure 4F) except in compliance with a site specific engineering design or comprehensive flood protection works.

41

2. The minimum setback for any new development shall be 15 metres from the natural boundary of Sucker Creek or 15 metres from the natural boundary of Kawkawa Lake, whichever is applicable.

3. The minimum Flood Construction Level shall be 1.5 metres above the natural boundary of Sucker Creek or Kawkawa Lake, whichever is applicable.

Kawkawa Lake Floodplain Background Information

The area east of Kawkawa Lake is subject to flood hazards as shown on the OCP map (Figure 4F). These flood hazard areas are as identified by Stanley (1987). Flooding could be caused by debris flows or inundation due to surface runoff that is not necessarily associated with debris flows. The lower part of the floodplain is also exposed to flood and erosion hazards resulting from channel avulsions (Hayco, 1991).

The potential debris flow hazard areas as shown on the OCP map (Figure 4F) have the potential to carry rock, gravel and organic debris in addition to water. Below these areas, potential flood areas are also shown on Figure 4F. They are divided into high, medium and low hazard areas as denoted by the letters A, B and C respectively (Hayco, 1991). The degree of risk and the severity of potential damage on an alluvial fan typically diminish at lower elevations on the fan, based on the premise that a fan generally widens and flattens at lower elevations. The flow depth, flow velocities, and amount of debris and alluvium during an extreme event decrease at lower elevations.

Flood mitigation for the area east Kawkawa Lake floodplain will likely require a comprehensive approach to flood protection rather than a series of site specific measures.

Flooding and erosion issues from Kawkawa Lake exist but are not considered a significant concern. Slight increases in lake levels in recent years were reported by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (2001) but the rate appeared to be slow which would suggest the risk of flooding and erosion from the lake is low.

Sucker Creek (also known as Kawkawa Creek) is the outflow creek for Kawkawa Lake, which flows into the Coquihalla River. The floodway of this environmentally sensitive area includes a marsh up to 100 metres in width bounded on the south by the former railroad embankment for the Kettle Valley Railway and on the north by Thacker Mountain Road.

E. Guidelines for Development in Other Flood Hazard Areas

Unless otherwise specified in Section 7.5 for Flood and Erosion Hazards Development Permit Area #5, the following shall apply:

1. 7.5 metre setback from the natural boundary of a lake, marsh or pond and 1.5 metres above the natural boundary of a lake, marsh or pond.

2. For water courses other than a lake, marsh or pond, 15 metre setback from the natural boundary and 1.5 metres above the natural boundary of any other watercourse. (AM #1192)

42

7.6 Hope Geotechnical Hazards Development Permit Area #6

Purpose The Hope Geotechnical Hazards Development Permit Area is designated under Section 919.1 (1) (b) of the Local Government Act for the purpose of protecting development from hazardous conditions.

Location The Hope Geotechnical Hazards Development Permit Area #6 consists of all lands subject to High or Uncertain Geotechnical Hazards as shown on the OCP maps (Figures 1G to 5G). Justification and Objectives The District of Hope and the Province of British Columbia are responsible for the mitigation of geotechnical hazards through the Local Government Act.

Research and analysis supporting the identification of geotechnical hazards are set out in the following geotechnical reports:

1. Hardy Associates Ltd. (May 1986). Review of Geological and Snow Avalanche Hazards for the Official Community Plan for Electoral Areas “B” and “C”, Upper Fraser Valley, BC. Prepared for Regional District of Fraser-Cheam.

2. Stanley Associates Engineering Ltd. (November 1987). East Kawkawa Lake Drainage Study, Final Report. Prepared for Regional District of Fraser-Cheam.

3. Thurber Consultants Ltd. (May 1977). Report on Lake of the Woods Slide. Prepared for Ministry of Highways and Public Works.

4. Thurber Consultants Ltd. (December 1986). Geotechnical Hazards Assessment, Silverhope, BC. Prepared for Regional District of Fraser-Cheam.

5. Thurber Consultants Ltd. (May 1990). Geotechnical Hazards Assessment, Silverhope, BC. (Clarification letter from December 1986 report). Prepared for Regional District of Fraser-Cheam.

6. Thurber Consultants Ltd. (January 1992). Proposed Sub-division of Lots 11 and 16. (Clarification letter from December 1986 report). Prepared for Regional District of Fraser-Cheam.

7. Thurber Consultants Ltd. (September 1987). Rockfall Hazards Assessment, North end of Kawkawa Lake Road, Electoral District “B”. Prepared for Regional District of Fraser-Cheam.

8. Thurber Consultants Ltd. (November 1990). Thacker Mountain and Hobson Slope Inspections. Prepared for Regional District of Fraser-Cheam.

9. Thurber Consultants Ltd. (June 1991). East Kawkawa Lake. Prepared for Regional District of Fraser-Cheam.

A review of the information in the above reports was conducted by Thurber Engineering Ltd. in 1997. Thurber Engineering Ltd. prepared information that confirmed or adjusted the extent of previously identified geotechnical hazard areas in a letter dated November 13, 1997 and faxes dated November 7 and November 21, 1997. A further review was carried out in June 2003.

43

Current guidelines for geotechnical practice suggest that an annual probability of 1:500 of occurrence for slope hazards (rockfalls, debris, avalanches, debris flows) should be the basis for evaluating the acceptability of development. Based on the above reports, Figures 1G to 5G identify areas where an annual probability of 1:500 of occurrence of combined slope hazards may exist. These areas are designated as High Geotechnical Hazard Development Permit Areas.

The Uncertain Geotechnical Hazard Development Permit Areas designation is used in areas which may be subject to a high geotechnical hazard but insufficient information is available in the reports listed above to determine with certainty if the areas are subject to a high geotechnical hazard.

The objectives of the Hope Geotechnical Hazards Development Permit Area #6 are to restrict development in areas noted as subject to geotechnical hazards and to protect development from such geotechnical hazards.

Guidelines

Development Permits for Geotechnical Hazard Areas shall be in accordance with the following guidelines:

1. Before a Development Permit can be issued by the District, the applicant shall provide, at the applicant’s expense, a site specific geotechnical report, certified by a professional engineer with experience in geotechnical engineering, hazard assessment and risk management. The report will assist the District in determining what conditions or requirements it will impose in the permit.

2. The geotechnical report shall be in sufficient detail and clarity to determine the geotechnical hazard to which the site is subjected. As a minimum, the report should include the following:

a) A topographic and geomorphic description of the site and a statement as to which type of natural hazards may affect it.

b) A review of previous geotechnical studies affecting the site and engineering work in the vicinity.

c) An assessment of the nature, extent, frequency (probability) and potential effect of the hazard including a description of the scientific methodology used to define these parameters. The methodology should be described in sufficient detail to facilitate a review of the study by another professional if deemed necessary by the District of Hope.

d) A description of proposed mitigative works, if any, including construction and maintenance programs for such works, or actions designed to prevent the hazardous occurrence and an assessment of the effect of the mitigative work in terms of its ability to reduce the potential impact of the hazard. Certificates of approval will be required on all constructed works for which the engineer is responsible.

e) Any other recommendations which the engineer believes appropriate.

f) A statement documenting the conditions under which the land may be used safely for the use intended.

g) The signature and seal of a Professional Engineer registered in the Province of British Columbia, with experience in the specialized field appropriate to the study.

44

3. The geotechnical report will be used by the District to determine the conditions and requirements to be specified in the Development Permit.

4. On the basis of the geotechnical report, conditions or restrictions may be imposed on the uses and densities permitted in the Zoning Bylaw, the sequence and timing of construction, areas to remain free of development, vegetation or trees to be planted or retained, natural drainage to be maintained or enhanced or other matters as specified in Sections 920(7) and (7.1) of the Local Government Act.

5. Notwithstanding the uses permitted in the Zoning Bylaw, where the geotechnical report identifies a hazard which has an annual probability greater than 1:500 and presents a risk to public health and safety, no uses shall be permitted which involve overnight accommodation or the assembly of people on, or the attraction to people to the site.

6. No alterations to the natural drainage, construction or excavation shall be permitted which might cause or contribute to hazardous conditions on the site or on adjacent lands.

7. Where the Zoning Bylaw permits residential use, and where the geotechnical report identifies safe building sites, all new parcels shall include a safe building site which is not subject to high geotechnical hazards.

45

7.7 Environmental and Riparian Areas Protection Development Permit Area #7

Purposes The Hope Environmental Protection Development Permit Area is designated under Section 919.1 (1) (a) of the Local Government Act for the purposes of protecting the natural environment, its ecosystems and biological diversity including fisheries habitats, as defined under the Riparian Areas Regulation. (AM #1177) Location The Hope Environmental Protection Development Permit Area #7 consists of the following lands as shown on the OCP map (Figures 4F and Figures 1-5):

The West Kawkawa Lake floodplain and all water courses shown on Figures 1-5 and

Coquihalla River Aquifer Protection area (east of Kawkawa Lake). Justification and Objectives As required by the Riparian Areas Regulation, under the Fish Protection Act, local governments must protect fish and fish habitats as they are impacted by new residential, commercial and industrial development, on private lands or privately-used Crown Lands. Any development intended for the area within 30m of a water course that provides fish habitat is to be subject to an assessment conducted by a Qualified Environmental Professional, who will indicate how the land may be developed so as to ensure that there is no Harmful Alteration, Disruption or Destruction of Fish Habitat (HADD).

All streams, creeks, ditches, ponds, lakes, springs and wetlands connected by surface flow to a waterbody that provides fish habitat are covered by these requirements. For the purposes of the Riparian Areas Regulation and this Development Permit Area, development is defined as:

a) removal, alteration, disruption, or destruction of vegetation; b) disturbance of soils; c) construction or erection of buildings and structures; d) creation of non-structural impervious or semi-impervious surfaces; e) flood protection works; f) construction of roads, trails, docks, wharves, and bridges; g) provision and maintenance of sewer and water services; h) development of drainage systems; i) development of utility corridors; j) subdivision as defined in section 872 of the Local Government Act.

No development is permitted within the indicated area of Sucker Creek (Kawkawa Creek) and the adjoining marsh, or within West Kawkawa Lake Floodplain, as shown on Figure 4F of the OCP. (AM #1177)

A major water bottling plant (AM #1192) approximately one kilometre east of Kawkawa Lake. This major employer is dependent on a continuous supply of high quality water from an on-site well. This aquifer is also a major domestic water source to meet the future needs of the District of Hope. Both well locations are dependent on groundwater from the Coquihalla River and, to a lesser extent, the steep surrounding

46

mountain slopes in the area. Research on the groundwater source for the water bottling plant is provided in the following engineering report:

Piteau Associates Engineering Ltd. (January 1999). Hydrogeologic Assessment of Proposed Source for Bottled Water, Hope, B.C.

The objectives of the Hope Environmental Protection Development Permit Area #7 are to: Protect all riparian areas throughout the District so that fish stocks and

habitats are maintained and enhanced and to;

Protect the high water quality of the aquifer required by the District of Hope and the water bottling plant. (AM #1192)

Guidelines 1. No development is permitted within the West Kawkawa Lake Floodplain.

2. The minimum setback for any development as defined above shall be 30 metres from the high water mark of a stream or top of ravine bank of any watercourse or water body, and no development shall be permitted within this setback area, without meeting the Provincial Riparian Areas Regulation. The riparian assessment area is defined as the area where the assessment occurs to determine the streamside protection and enhancement areas. See diagram. (AM #1177) (AM #1192)

3. Notwithstanding #2, the District may permit development within the riparian

setback provided that:

a. An Assessment Report has been prepared by a Qualified Environmental Professional who provides an opinion that:

i. the proposed development will not cause a Harmful Alteration, Disruption or Destruction of Fish Habitat (HADD);

47

ii. certain measures are required to maintain the integrity of the riparian area in the development project;

iii. certain measures are advised regarding the nature and layout of the development itself; and

iv. any other advice related to the protection or enhancement of the riparian area.

b. The Assessment Report has been submitted electronically to the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, with a copy provided to the District;

c. The Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection deems that all conditions have been met; and

d. The Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection notifies the District that the proposed development may proceed.

4. A Qualified Environmental Professional who undertakes to prepare an Assessment Report shall certify that he or she is qualified to conduct the assessment; has followed the required assessment methods, and that no natural features, functions or conditions that support fish life processes in the assessment area will be harmfully altered, disrupted or destroyed.

5. The District may allow development to proceed if Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) authorizes the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction (HADD) of fish habitat, provided that the District has first agreed that use of the riparian area is needed and supports the application to DFO to authorize a HADD.

6. The District requires the Qualified Environmental Professional to work with the developer in the design of the project, monitor work during actual development activity, and certify that the project has been carried out as defined in the Assessment Report.

7. The Qualified Environmental Professional shall also give attention in the Assessment Report to the hydrological impacts on fish habitats resulting from land use and development and the associated creation of impervious surfaces; the water quality impacts on fish from point and non-point source pollution associated with the development; and the role and importance of riparian ecosystems to terrestrial species.

8. The District may, at its discretion, require the proponent to enter into a restrictive covenant under Section 219 of the Land Title Act, and to provide a save harmless agreement with regard to any matters or conditions under this Development Permit Area guideline. (AM #1177)

48

APPENDIX A

FLOOD AND EROSION HAZARD BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Senior government agencies including the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection do not support development within floodplains unless adequate floodproofing measures are taken. As well, disaster assistance is available only if new developments have incorporated adequate floodproofing measures. Buildings erected prior to designation will remain eligible for disaster relief (Environment Canada, 1991).

Flood and Erosion Hazard Terminology

TERM DEFINITION REQUIREMENTS

Designated Flood

A significant historic flood or a flood having an annual probability of one in 200 years based on analysis of historic flow records.

Not Applicable

Development

Means the construction of a structure or a major addition to a structure except required for marine purposes such as a pier or dock, a change in land use under the B.C. Building Code, or the subdivision of land.

Approval of a Development Permit.

Flood Construction Level (FCL)

The minimum elevation for the underside of any floor system used for dwelling purposes, business or the storage of goods susceptible to damage by floodwaters. The FCL is based on the calculated elevation of the designated flood and includes freeboard unless otherwise stated.

Habitable space must be constructed above the FCL.

Flood Fringe Means the portion of the floodplain not in the floodway, which is susceptible to occasional flooding.

Limited development is permitted subject to flood-proofing requirements.

Floodplain

Means a lowland area, whether dyked, floodproofed, or unprotected, which is at an elevation susceptible to flooding. The floodplain is comprised of the floodway and the flood fringe. The extent of the floodplain is typically defined by the 200 year flood limit.

Limited development is permitted in the flood fringe portion of the floodplain subject to compliance with floodproofing requirements.

49

TERM DEFINITION REQUIREMENTS

Flood-proofing

Means a series of measures including the alteration of land and buildings to mitigate the risk of flooding and the damages in the event of flooding.

Floodproofing may include adding fill to raise the elevation of a building site to the FCL, scour protection, structural measures such as foundation walls or columns to raise a building to the FCL, or a combination of fill and structural measures. It includes the use of setbacks to maintain a floodway and to allow for erosion and is required in the flood fringe.

Floodway

Means the channel of the watercourse and those portions of the floodplain, which are required to convey the designated flood.

The floodway is frequently inundated; therefore development of any kind in a floodway is not permitted.

Freeboard

Means a vertical distance added to the actual calculated flood level to accommodate hydraulic & hydrologic variables, potential for waves, surges, and other natural phenomena.

Freeboard is included in the Flood Construction Level. The 1894 flood level for the Fraser River Freeboard includes Freeboard of 0.6 metres.

Natural Boundary

Means the visible high water mark of any river, stream, or lake where the presence and action of the water are so common and so long continued in all ordinary years that it marks a distinct character on the vegetation and the nature of the soil itself. The natural boundary includes the edge of old side channels and marshes.

Development setbacks are measured horizontally from the natural boundary.

Habitable Space

Any part of a building used for dwelling purposes, business or the storage of goods susceptible to damage by floodwaters.

All habitable space must be constructed above the FCL.

Setback

Means a distance from which a structure or landfill must be set back from a natural boundary or other reference line to maintain a floodway and allow for erosion. This typically represents the area between the riverbank/shoreline & the flood fringe.

The standard minimum required setback is 30 metres from the natural boundary unless otherwise specified.

50

Air photos

Year Flight Line Frame Scale

1939 BC140 100-102 1:20,000

1947 BC339 103-108 1:35,000

1954 BC1686 79-85 1:15,000

1961 BC4014 50-55, 66-70 1:20,000

1965 BC5169 199-200 1:30,000

1966 BC5212 169-170 1:30,000

1973 BC7471 184-190, 242-246 1:20,000

1978 BC78101 010-011 1:50,000

1979 BC79069 133-143171-180 1:15,000

1983 BC83010 076-083 1:20,000

1983 BC83018 166-171 1:20,000

1992 BCB92111 84-89, 126-128 1:20,000

1999 BCB99001 1-4 1:40,000

Flood and Erosion Hazard Reports

Dayton & Knight Ltd. (December 1994). Coquihalla River Area Drainage Study. Prepared for the District of Hope.

District of Hope (1995). District of Hope Official Community Plan.

Environment Canada (1991). Canada – British Columbia: Floodplain Mapping Program.

Hay and Company Consultants Inc. (July 1987). East Kawkawa Lake Drainage Study: Initial Drainage Review, Site Inspection and Field Investigation, Stream Channel Capacities, Flood Control Concepts. See drawing references for list of report drawings.

Hay and Company Consultants Inc. (January 1991). Flood and Bank Protection – Coquihalla River. Prepared for Fraser Valley Regional District.

Hay and Company Consultants Inc. (August 1991). East Kawkawa Lake. Prepared for the Regional District of Fraser-Cheam.

Hay and Company Consultants Inc. (May 1992). Coquihalla Erosion – Mount Hope Road. Prepared for Fraser Valley Regional District.

National Research Council of Canada, Division of Building Research (May 1975). Avalanche Hazard District Lot 80 at Hope BC. Prepared for Avalanche Task Force, BC Department of Highways.

National Research Council of Canada, Division of Building Research (July 1988). Avalanche Hazard at District Lots 7, 2, 3, 80 at Hope BC. Prepared for Ministry of Transportation and Highways, Avalanche Section.

Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd. (1994a - January). Coquihalla River Flood Hazard Management Study, Appendices A, B, C and D. Prepared for the District of Hope.

Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd. (1994b - March). Coquihalla River Flood Hazard Management Study, Final Report. Prepared for the District of Hope.

51

Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd. (September 1999). Silverhope Creek Flood Hazard Management Study, Final Report. Prepared for the District of Hope.

Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd. (March 2001). Kawkawa Lake Flooding Assessment. Prepared for Fraser Valley Regional District.

Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd. (March 2002). Coquihalla River Gravel Deposition Study – Hope Reach, Final Report. Prepared for the District of Hope.

Stanley Associates Engineering Ltd. (November 1987). East Kawkawa Lake Drainage Study, Final Report. Prepared for Regional District of Fraser-Cheam.

Stewart – EBA Consulting Ltd. (March 1982, 1992). Thacker Mountain Geotechnical Report - Inspection of Roads and Driveway Access at Mallard Construction Ltd.’s Subdivision on Thacker Mountain. Prepared for Mallard Construction Company Ltd.

Hardy Associates Ltd. (May 1986). Review of Geological and Snow Avalanche Hazards for the Official Community Plan for Electoral Areas “B” and “C”, Upper Fraser Valley, BC. Prepared for Regional District of Fraser-Cheam.

Stanley Associates Engineering Ltd. (November 1987). East Kawkawa Lake Drainage Study, Final Report. Prepared for Regional District of Fraser-Cheam.

Flood and Erosion Hazard Drawings / Mapping

Hay and Company Consultants Inc. (July 1987). East Kawkawa Lake Drainage Study: Nine drawings: Streams and Catchment Boundaries, Streams and Catchment Details, Streamflow Measurements, Culvert Sizes and Bankfull Stream Capacities, Extent of Potential Flooding, Bed Material Size, Scheme 1, Scheme 2, Scheme 3.

Ministry of Environment, Water Management Branch (August 1984). Coquihalla River at Hope, Flood and Erosion Mitigation – As Constructed Site Plan and Dyke Profiles. Drawing No. 5409-1D, Figure 2.

Ministry of Environment, Surveys Section, Water Management Branch (March 1990). Coquihalla River Cross-Sections 1 to 19 for 1982 and 1990.

Ministry of Environment, Environmental and Engineering Services Water Investigations Branch (June 1990). Coquihalla River Glenhalla Dyke, Dyke Crest Profile and Observed Water Elevations. Figure 1, Drawing No. 90-29.

52

APPENDIX B

DEFINITIONS

Airport means lands used primarily for fixed wing aircraft or helicopters.

Agricultural means lands used primarily for the growing of crops or the keeping of animals and includes all lands within the boundaries of the Agricultural Land Reserve.

Cluster Development means residential land uses where the development is concentrated within a site, usually with a combination of on-site and municipal services. Such development typically groups housing units in order to protect the environment and often results in more green space.

Country Residential means large lot, single family residential areas, usually with on-site services or limited municipal services.

Downtown Hope means the main commercial area of the District of Hope and includes Public/Community and Multi-Family Residential uses.

Heavy Industrial means land uses which take place outside a building or which create high impacts such as noise, smoke, fumes, vibration or electrical interference on adjacent properties.

Highway Commercial means commercial land uses which serve highway traffic and include tourism.

Indian Reserve means land held in trusteeship for First Nations under the Indian Act. Indian Reserves within the District of Hope are shown on the land use maps for illustrative purposes only as the District does not have jurisdiction over land use within Indian Reserves.

Light/Service Industry means land uses associated with processing, manufacturing, assembly, fabrication, repair, storage of goods and materials within a building and includes a business park and accessory retail uses.

Limited Use means areas characterised by geotechnical and topographic constraints which severely limit development potential.

Multi-Family Residential means housing consisting of a building with at least three individual self-contained dwelling units.

Neighbourhood Commercial means commercial facilities which primarily serve the local community.

Public/Community means land uses by public agencies or organisations that provide community services, including schools, churches, recreation facilities, government offices, public care facilities and utility services.

Parks and Recreation means outdoor recreation and open space areas such as neighbourhood parks, regional parks, playing fields, trail corridors and natural areas.

Single Family means single family dwellings at varying lot sizes and densities and may, subject to suitable zoning, include two family dwellings (duplex and semi-detached dwellings) and manufactured homes.

Wildland Interface Fire means a wildland fire that threatens a habitable structure or improvement.

53

APPENDIX C

TRENDS AFFECTING HOPE

1. 2001 Census

From the 1996 to the 2001 census, the population in the District of Hope declined by 1% from 6,247 to 6,184.2 This population decline, although small, ran counter the 6.8% population growth that took place in the Fraser Valley Regional District as a whole. Of the four regional districts with the highest growth rates from 1996 to 2001, two are located in the Lower Mainland (GVRD at 8.5% and FVRD at 6.8%). The Squamish-Lillooet Regional District on the edge of the Lower Mainland had a population growth rate of 12.3%, the highest in B.C. The only other regional district with a population increase above the B.C. average of 4.9% was the Central Okanagan Regional District with an increase of 8.2 %. In fact, a clear majority of all regional districts in B.C. (15 of 25 or 60%) actually declined in population.

2. Long Term Population Changes

The long term trend shows that the population of Hope has been very stable since 1971. The graph on the following page shows the population changes that have taken place in Hope at each census. Each census from 1931 to 1971 recorded a population increase. The rate of increase was large from 1941 to 1961 but slowed significantly from 1961 to 1971. The Town of Hope reached a population of 3,153 in 1971, which was not exceeded until the 1991 census when a modest increase to 3,222 occurred.

The large increase in the 1996 census was a result of a 1992 amalgamation, which took in the neighbouring communities of Kawkawa Lake, Silver Creek/Flood and Lake of the Woods. The population of the new district municipality in 1996 was double that of the Town of Hope in the previous census, which did not include these nearby unorganized areas.

When the estimated undercount is included, Hope’s 1996 population was 6,468 compared to 6,455 in 2001. In December 2003, BC Statistics indicated that the population of Hope was 6,431, largely unchanged since 2001. After adjusting for the boundary expansion of 1992, the population of Hope has shown little overall change for over 30 years.

The provincial government prepares population projections, which can be examined using several different local jurisdictions. This information is not available for smaller municipalities like Hope. The closest database is the Hope Health Area 32.3 This consists mainly of the District of Hope but also includes small communities to the east, west and north including Sunshine Valley, Flood, Laidlaw, North Bend, Yale, Boston Bar and Spuzzum. The Hope Health Area has a geographical base much larger than the District of Hope but its population base is less than 30% larger than the District of Hope.

2 1996 and 2001 population counts not including the census undercount for comparability of data. 3 Source: P.E.O.P.L.E. Projections Run 26, B.C. Statistics, Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations.

54

HOPE POPULATION

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

1931 1941 1951 1956 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001

The provincial population projections for the Hope Health Area include the following:

YEAR 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026

POPULATION 8,314 8,382 8,583 8,753 8,842 8,849

These provincial projections indicate a very low rate of population growth and a significant reduction in the growth rate compared to the past. As an example, from 1976 to 1996, the population of B.C. grew at an annual compound rate of 2.16%. B.C. Statistics anticipates that the overall growth rate from 1996 to 2016 will drop to 1.39% annually. The population growth rate in the Hope Health Area is projected to be even lower, less than 1.0% annually and well below the provincial average.

One of the major components of population growth is migration. Virtually every year over the last decade has resulted in lower migration levels. This consists of three components: migration to and from other part of B.C., migration to and from other provinces in Canada, and international migration. The following table documents the most recent year for which data is available compared to the level of five years earlier:

55

FRASER VALLEY REGIONAL DISTRICT MIGRATION

YEAR NET INTL. NET.

INTERPROV. NET

INTRAPROV. TOTAL NET MIGRATION

1994-1995 +1,305 +1,124 +3,078 +5,507

1999-2000 +942 -979 +1,729 +1,692

3. Socio-Economic Trends

Due to the minimal population changes, the number of occupied private dwellings increased marginally from 2,530 in 1996 to 2,590 in 2001 (+2.4%). The number of owned dwellings remained essentially unchanged while the number of rented dwellings increased from 725 to 790. Owned dwellings comprised approximately 70% of all privately owned dwellings in Hope in 2001.

Over five of every six Hope residents reported in the 2001 census that they had lived at the same address for the last year. Over half of Hope residents (54.6%) reported they had lived at the same address for the past five years and a further 41.9% of Hope residents reported they had lived in B.C. for the past five years but at a different address. Both of these figures are higher than the provincial average, which indicates a higher degree of stability or less mobility in Hope. Hope’s housing stock is aging. Only 440 housing units were constructed in Hope during the decade from 1991 to 2001. Only about one of every six private dwellings in Hope (17.0%) was built before 1991. In B.C. as a whole, over 22% of private dwellings were built after 1991. This suggests that any increase in housing demand could result in significant housing construction.

In the 1996 census, the labour force structure was broadly similar to the province as a whole. As the following table below notes, the vast majority of the labour force consisted of the service sector:

1996 NON-GOVT.

SERVICE GOVT.

SERVICE PRIMARY

MANUFACT-URING

CONST.

HOPE L.H.A. 70.2% 8.2% 8.5% 6.3% 6.7%

B.C. 70.6% 5.9% 5.7% 10.4% 7.5%

The labour force participation rate for both men and women in the Hope Local Health Area has remained significantly below the B.C. average. The total labour force participation rate was 59.7% compared to the B.C. average of 66.4% in the 1996 census. This was partly due to a lower proportion of full-time workers in the Hope Local Health Area (42.1% compared to 47.8% in B.C.). In the 2001 census, the Hope labour force participation rate increased slightly to 60.4% but remained well below the B.C. average of 65.2%.

The Hope population is also significantly older than the B.C. average. In the 2001 census, the median age (i.e. half above and half below) in Hope was 42.7 compare to only 38.4 in the province as a whole. There were 1,175 persons aged 65 or older, which represented 19.0% of Hope’s total population. Throughout B.C., only 13.6% of the population were 65 or older. One quarter of Hope’s population was under 20 years

56

old, the same proportion as the province as a whole. Compared to the 1996 census, the senior citizen proportion of the Hope population remained well above the B.C. average in 2001. However, Hope’s youth population was very similar to the provincial average in 2001.

In the 2001 census, average earnings for 2000 in the District of Hope were reported as 10.0% below the B.C. average. All persons with earnings in Hope reported average incomes of $28,368 compared to a B.C. average of $31,544. This represents a similar but somewhat narrower gap as documented in individual tax returns in 1999. One major factor that accounts for the Hope’s lower incomes is the fact that pension incomes accounted for 18% of total 1999 income in Hope compared to only 11.9% in B.C. as a whole. Another is the fact that female compared to male incomes in Hope tend to be proportionately lower than in the province as a whole. In 2001, recipients of employment insurance and BC Benefits in Hope represented 15.8% of the population, nearly double the 7.7% in the province as a whole.

Education attainment levels in the Hope Local Health Area were substantially below the B.C. average in the 1996 census. Over one third of persons the Hope Local Health Area did not have a high school education (35.0%) compared to 22.6% for the province as a whole. Similarly, a majority (52.2%) of the Hope Local Health Area working age population (18-65) did not have post-secondary education, a higher proportion than the provincial average of 46.0%. This trend continued in the 2001 census although the reporting format was different. Of the population aged 20-34, 24.0% of Hope residents did not have a high school graduation certificate compared to only 14.6% in the province as a whole.

In terms of ethnic composition, the aboriginal population for Hope in the 2001 census was 8.6%, nearly double the B.C. average of 4.4%. In 2001, 525 persons in Hope identified themselves as having an aboriginal identity4. Other visible minorities in Hope comprised 5.1% of the population. This was much smaller than the 21.6% throughout B.C. The largest visible minority in Hope is Chinese, but they formed less than 2.0% of Hope’s population. Two other ethnic groups comprised over 1% of the Hope population in 2001: Koreans (1.5%) and Japanese (1.1%).

The vast majority of Hope residents (85.3%) were born in Canada. This compares with only 72.9% for B.C. as a whole. Of the 900 Hope residents that were foreign born in the 2001 census, 80% immigrated before 1991. As a result, only 3.1% of Hope’s 2001 census population of 6,115 arrived in Canada after 1991.

4. Lower Mainland vs. Interior Trends

The 2001 census demonstrated that British Columbia has two very different economies. The Lower Mainland and to a lesser extent, the Okanagan, are diversified service based economies. Most of the interior and much of Vancouver Island are highly dependent on natural resource extraction and processing. The mining industry has suffered from low commodity prices and the forest industry has suffered from punitive trade action from the U.S. protectionists in addition to low commodity prices. This has resulted in population declines in much of the B.C. interior. In most of the Lower Mainland, on the other hand, a solid growth trend has taken place. Key drivers of the Lower Mainland economy have been tourism, the growth in high technology and

4 North American Indian, Metis or Inuit, which includes but is not limited to membership in an Indian Band or First Nation.

57

construction. Compared to Toronto and Calgary, however, Vancouver has been a weak third as a desirable investment market in Canada.5

Hope is on the cusp of these two diverging economies. The community has traditionally depended on the forest and mining industries to drive the local economy. Former mines in the Hope area are no longer in operation and most forest based activity has been in decline. The coastal forestry industry has been particularly hard hit because its cost structure is much higher than the interior forest industry. That combined with the final duty of 27.22% by the U.S. Commerce Department against Canadian lumber imports resulting in sawmill closures affecting 10,000 forestry workers in B.C.

On the other hand, Hope is located along several major transportation corridors and has benefited from the movement of people and goods. The vast majority of rubber tire traffic to the interior of B.C. passes through Hope. These major transportation corridors and multiple interchange accesses provide opportunities available to few other communities. Hope’s spectacular scenery and its strategic location close to large recreational playgrounds provide superb potential to lengthen stays. It also offers a wide range of settings for the film industry within a two hour drive from Vancouver.

5. Future Economic Growth

B.C.’s Gross Domestic Product grew by only 0.9% in 2001, well below the Canadian average of 1.6%. The Bank of Montreal has predicted a broad based recovery that will accelerate next near and continue at a healthy non-inflationary pace right through to the second half of this decade. The Bank of Montreal estimates that B.C.’s economy will pick up slightly to 1.4 % in 2002 and accelerate to between 3.1% and 3.4% annually from 2003 to 2006. External factors will be a major cause as the world economy strengthens and as commodity prices improve. Domestic growth factors include tax cuts and low interest rates. Despite an improvement in economic growth in B.C., the Bank of Montreal anticipates that B.C. will still lag behind the national average.

The Scotiabank Global Outlook for B.C. is similar but slightly more pessimistic than the Bank of Montreal. Real growth in gross domestic product is predicted to reach 2.0% in 2002 and increase to 2.8% in 2003. This compares to anticipated economic growth nationally of 3.1% in 2002 and 3.4% in 2003. Scotiabank predicts that B.C. will have one of the lowest rates of economic growth in the short term. However the trend is positive due to signs of global economic revival including an improved level of export trade with Asia. Provincial government cutbacks will “have the effect of moderating” the rate of economic rebound and the continuing softwood lumber dispute will slow growth in the resource sector.

The information and communications technology sector was a major growth leader in the major urban centres in the 1990s. This sector expanded at an annual rate of 19% from 1996 to 2000 compared to the rest of the economy, which grew at a 3.6% annual rate. The Vancouver area is the third largest high technology centre after Toronto and Ottawa-Gatineau. During this upswing from 1996 to 2000, Vancouver’s high technology employment increased from 38,000 to 63,000 jobs. Lower Mainland employment in this sector was driven by high technology services such as the design

5 Source: Royal LePage Advisors Real Estate Investment Survey Report February 2002

58

of telecommunications and computer systems rather than manufacturing based employment in Toronto and Ottawa-Gatineau. However, high technology employment dropped across Canada in 2001. This included a 6% drop to 58,000 jobs in the Vancouver area leaving questions about the future of planned high technology parks including the major redevelopment east of False Creek. The Bank of Montreal expects this sector to be a laggard in the economic recovery, in part due to massive over capacity. Although high speed internet access is now available in the District of Hope, expectations about its potential need to be moderated by a realistic assessment about local resources and overall industry trends.

Tourism is a sector in which Hope is well positioned to benefit. The long term trend has been positive driven by an aging population with more leisure time. The tourist industry has largely recovered after the events of September 11, 2001. In fact the automobile based hospitality component has shown an increase in business as tourists have sought out destinations not requiring airplane travel. Hope is within a one day’s drive of over 10,000,000 residents in B.C., Alberta, Washington and Oregon. The range of opportunities is vast and includes the following:

Hiking Camping Fishing Boating, canoeing and kayaking River rafting Sightseeing Mountain climbing Mountain biking Flying and gliding Skiing Ecotours

59

6. Conclusions

Previous trends are not necessarily a guide to the future nor are demographic and economic forecasts. However all provide useful information as well as a context to consider future action.

Based on the above information, the following conclusions are made:

Significant population changes are not likely to take place in the District of Hope over the next decade.

The new OCP should provide for future growth although this will not necessarily require large new areas to be set aside.

An assessment of future commercial and industrial needs will need to address any existing deficiencies such as niche markets but should focus on the retention and strengthening of existing commerce and industry.

Residential needs will not remain static over the next decade even if no change in the total population occurs. The OCP will need to accommodate the housing needs of an aging population, consider housing affordability and the overall context of sustainability.

The demand and price of resource commodities are by their nature cyclical. The value of forest products and minerals has been depressed and are likely to increase. However, this will not necessarily translate to increased employment in Hope to due a variety of factors (i.e. competing land use pressures, labour force productivity changes).

Hope has limited potential in the high technology and biotechnology fields due to the small size of its labour market, a lack of post-secondary institutions and its educational profile.

Hope is well positioned to take advantage of increased land based travel due to its wealth of leisure opportunities, excellent transportation connections and proximity to large urban centres in B.C. and the U.S north-west.

The demand for leisure activities will increase as the baby boomer generation begins to retire.

60

APPENDIX D

Views of Hope Residents on Development and Community Issues:

Analysis of the First Survey, Official Community Plan Review

Prepared for the Citizen Advisory Committee Meeting August 1st, 2002

Council Chambers

August 1st, 2002

61

Views of Hope Residents on Development and Community Issues:

Analysis of the First Survey, Official Community Plan Review

Summary The majority of respondents wish to see positive change in the District. This should address the economic situation and the direction they see Hope going, through downtown clean-up, beautification, and revitalization, as well as a new approach to promoting and keeping business. Growth is generally seen as acceptable, but respondents living in some areas are not as supportive. Leadership and government are seen as issues. A number of specific concerns were also addressed, covering community services, transportation, the environment, and measures for improving trails, downtown, and so forth.

Analysis

Survey The attached survey was devised to accompany a mail-out to the community designed to inform them that the District of Hope was starting a process to review the Official Community Plan. Rather than an exhaustive and thorough questionnaire, the survey was designed to get residents thinking about the issues, and challenged to participate in the review process.

It is anticipated that a more detailed survey will be conducted later in the process.

Responses Approximately 2,500 surveys were sent out with the tax bills, during the last week of May 2002. Responses were received from early June through the end of July, with a total of 292 received, most as hard copies but with a handful received electronically through the District website.

This represents a response rate of about 12 percent which is quite acceptable for a survey of this type. The survey prior to the 1995 OCP had a response rate of less than 5%.

Attitudes to Growth and Development The majority of respondents are willing to see growth in the District (Table 1). Some 83 percent felt that small or major growth was acceptable. Almost half the respondents supported a “major increase” in the size of the District (48.7%). A relatively small percent felt that the District was either too big now, or just the right size (~16%).

Of the respondents, those identifying themselves as from Hope Centre were most in favour of a “major increase” in community size, with some 53 percent indicating support. Both Kawkawa Lake and Silver Creek/Flood areas were similarly supportive, but North of Fraser was considerably less in favour (48.0 and 48.1 versus 33.3%) (Table 2).

62

Too bigRight size

Small growthMajor increase

Support

0

50

100

150

200

Res

pond

ents

Support for Growth

Pro

tect

ser

vi

Su

stai

na

ble

Do

wn

tow

n r

e

Nat

ura

l h

aza

En

viro

nm

ent

Par

ks

& r

ec

Aff

ord

able

h

Tra

nsp

ort

ati

Issues

0

50

100

150

200

250

Res

pon

den

ts

Issues of Concern

Those in Kawkawa Lake had the largest proportion favouring “small growth”, at 39 percent, with Silver Creek/Flood and Hope Centre close, at 35 percent and 32 percent, respectively. North of Fraser indicated a majority (58.3%) in favour of “small growth.”

The areas most in favour of keeping things as they are (“right size”) were Hope Centre (14.9%), Silver Creek/Flood (14.8%) and Kawkawa Lake (11.7%)

One can conclude that small to major increases would probably be acceptable in Hope Centre, Kawkawa Lake and Silver Creek/Flood, but that North of Fraser would prefer limited or “small” growth.

Issues of Most Concern Residents were given a list of eight issue areas in which to indicate what concerns they had. Overall, they were most concerned about protecting the level of services provided to them (28.1%), and then by the issue of sustainable development (26.1%). Next in ranking, but of less importance, was “downtown

revitalization”, with 16.5 percent supporting this (Table 1).

Other issues concerning respondents were: natural hazards (10.2%); environmental protection (7.8%); parks, recreation and community services (5.3%); affordable housing (3.9%); and transportation planning (2.0%).

As indicated in Table 3, Hope Centre, Kawkawa Lake and Silver Creek/Flood appear to have similar levels of concern about protecting services (30.8%, 27.5% and 27.6% respectively), sustainable development (28.1%, 24.8%, and 26.2%), and downtown revitalization (15.7%, 18.5% and 16.6%), with North of Fraser indicating a lower level of concern in all of these areas (11.5%, 19.2% and 19.2%

respectively).

Natural hazards elicited a higher level of response in North of Fraser and Silver Creek/Flood than in the other areas, not surprisingly given the terrain there (15.4% and 12.4%).

Parks, recreation and community services were of most concern in North of Fraser (11.5%), with much less interest elsewhere (2.8% to 6.3%), perhaps reflecting proximity to existing services.

63

A n

ew v

isio

n

Bet

ter

go

vt

Bea

uti

fica

tio

Hea

lth

/saf

ety

Tra

nsp

ort

En

viro

nm

ent

De

vt

Mem

ori

al

Par

Po

lic

ing

Oth

ers

Issue area

0

10

20

30

40

50

# c

omm

ents

Number

Write-in Comments

Written-In Comments One hundred and twenty-two of the two hundred and ninety-two respondents provided some written comments in the space left for that purpose on the survey form. These comments were tabulated and the following results indicated in Table 4.

Vision for Hope The largest category of response was related to Hope’s vision or its purpose, and the need to change this. Some 43 comments were made by the 122 respondents, dealing with their desire that Hope change in the future, what form this might take, and what measures were needed to address the perceived difficulties. This represents over a third of those providing comments (35%).

Many who addressed this area indicated that there needed to be an aggressive approach to soliciting business and keeping those that exist in the District (39.5%). Measures could include decreasing the business tax and being more “business friendly.”

Many indicated that Hope must market itself as “more than a place to stop for gas and a bite to eat,” (26%) and must shake off its image as a loggers’ town. The town must be marketed to bring in business and people.

However, a substantial number of comments (23%) reflected the belief that wage levels were depressed and that only forestry and mining jobs would improve the situation.

Leadership and Government Of the 122 people writing in comments, some 14 or 11.5 percent, complained about “City Hall,” the “Old Guard,” and the perception of waste and over-taxation. The need for a new approach was implied.

Beautification Almost 11 percent of those commenting wanted to see more effort put into downtown beautification (“dress up”) and clean-up, but there were ambiguous comments about the Old Hope Princeton Way revitalization.

Memorial Park and the InfoCentre Six responses dealt with the proposed InfoCentre in Memorial Park, with an even-split pro and con.

Other Areas of Concern Comments made by three or more of those commenting addressed a number of other areas of interest:

64

selecting industrial land in the OCP and “sticking to it” (5 comments)

improving trails and their safety (5)

the water system on Stevens Road (3)

bus service and public transit (3)

returning bus station to downtown (3)

protecting the environment: air quality etc (3)

promoting non-motorized watercraft on Kawkawa Lake (3)

Table 1. ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES, FIRST OCP SURVEY

Number = 292

Survey conducted by mailout responses received June 1 to July 31st, 2002

Views Number %

GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT 308 100.0

Too big now 2 0.6

Right size 47 15.3

Small growth 109 35.4

Major increase 150 48.7

MOST IMPORTANT CONCERNS* 830 100.0

Protect services 233 28.1

Sustainable development 217 26.1

Downtown revitalization 137 16.5

Natural hazards 85 10.2

Environmental protection 65 7.8

Parks, recreation & community services 44 5.3

Affordable housing 32 3.9

Transportation planning 17 2.0

* Respondents may have indicated concerns in a number of areas, thus total exceeds 292

65

Table 2. ANALYSIS OF GROWTH PREFERENCES, BY AREA

percentages

Views Hope Centre

n = 134

Kawkawa L

n = 77

Silver Crk/Fld

n = 54

N of Fraser

n = 12

Total of Areas Provided

Too big now 0.0 1.3 1.9 0.0 0.7

Right size 14.9 11.7 14.8 8.3 13.7

Small growth 32.1 39.0 35.2 58.3 35.7

Major increase 53.0 48.0 48.1 33.3 49.8

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table 3. ANALYSIS OF ISSUE PREFERENCES, BY AREA

percentages

Views

Hope Centre

n =363

Kawkawa Lake

n = 22

Silver Creek/Flood

n = 145

N of Fraser

n = 26

Total of Areas

Provided

Protect services 30.8 27.5 27.6 11.5 28.5

Sustainable development 28.1 24.8 26.2 19.2 26.4

Downtown revitalization 15.7 18.5 16.6 19.2 16.8

Natural hazards 7.7 10.4 12.4 15.4 9.6

Environmental protection

6.6 8.6 8.3 7.7 7.5

Parks, recreation & community services

5.2 6.3 2.8 11.5 5.3

Affordable housing 3.3 3.2 6.2 7.7 4.0

Transportation planning

2.5 0.0 0.0 7.7 1.7

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

66

Table 4. ANALYSIS OF SURVEY COMMENTS, FIRST OCP QUESTIONNAIRE Number of respondents =122 Number of written comments = 137

Comments were grouped when they were referring to more or less the same thing. Numbers indicate the actual number of comments, not individual respondents. Unique comments (single entries) are grouped at the end of each subject category.

STRENGTHENING THE VISION 43

Need to be aggressive in drawing businesses to Hope, work on supporting existing ones, supporting small businesses, we are becoming a ghost town, decrease business tax, promote rather than regulate, business friendly

17

A plan to make Hope more than a place to stop for gas and a bite to eat, summer fun ideas, no longer a “logging town,” change, attract business and population

11

Hope has gone from good paying jobs to minimum wages and welfare, bring in forest management jobs, support the Magnesium Mine

10

Hope is a good place to retire, we should encourage this 2

Neighbours working together for the betterment of the community, remain a small community 2

Keep small town atmosphere

LEADERSHIP & GOVERNMENT 14

Less Town Hall misuse of funds, new Council, treat everyone equally 5

Drop taxes, spending control, freeze property tax 4

Rid District Hall and Chamber of Commerce of the “Old Guard” and bring in Visionaries 2

During elections vote for a candidate that supports Hope; Enforce existing zoning bylaws; Open political thinking

BEAUTIFICATION 13

“Dress up” the town in order to cover unsightly blank/empty buildings, clean garbage around tourist attractions

5

Hope becoming a theme town / destination area 2

Scrap plans for revitalization of the Old Hope Princeton Hwy 2

Completion of Old Hope Princeton Hwy.; Build statue/tourist attraction; Businesses forced to keep sidewalk free from refuse and snow; Clean up old U Save Gas Station

HEALTH & SAFETY 12

Water supply lines on Stephens Rd. are a disgrace, better water system, independent water system, for health and safety

3

Reduce the higher sand and gravel banks on Coquihalla River 2

Hospital 2

Focus on the “dogs at large” problem 2

Dyke on Robertson Crescent in severe need of repair; Protection from natural hazards; Remove large trees from residence areas to avoid fire hazards, falling and flying branches, etc.

67

TRANSPORTATION 12

Bus service, public transportation for outside Hope 3

Kawkawa Lake bridge is too narrow 2

Road repair 2

Build walk way for pedestrians to avoid use of train whistle; A pedestrian/bike lane over Richmond Hill; Stop transport trucks from parking on Water Street in front of Dairy Queen

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES & PROTECTION ETC 8

Maintain resources, environmental protection, air quality 3

Promote canoes, kayaks, fishing, etc. in Kawkawa Lake, cannot afford more abuse. Canadian goose 3

Stop open burning completely 2

DEVELOPMENT 7

The community plan has to define potential industry and stick to it 5

Obtain lands for the Province to create potential development land 2

INFOCENTRE & MEMORIAL PARK 6

InfoCentre in park, Old Overwaitea should be Town Hall, Town Hall should be InfoCentre 3

Keep buildings out of Memorial park, park is asset to community 3

POLICING 2

Crime prevention, more downtown night policing 2

SPECIFIC IMPROVEMENTS 20

Markers on hiking trails, added trails and beaches - safety, hike through Othello tunnels 5

Bring the bus station back to down town area 3

Parking down town, tour buses 2

Noticeable highway exits 2

Promote Rotary Trails 2

More advertising in the city; Hope needs a radio station; Tool/equipment rental store; Year round organic fruit and vegetable stand; Keep gas prices low and consistent; More open fishing for seniors

TOTAL NUMBER OF COMMENTS 137

TOTAL RESPONDENTS MAKING COMMENTS 122

68

8. ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Official Community Plan Review Citizen Advisory Committee Members:

Garry Arrowsmith Bob Romano

Wes Bergmann Calvin Stephenson

Jack Delair Sue VandeVelde-Savola

Laurence French Henry Weaver

Hans Jeschek

District of Hope Staff:

Graham Murchie

Wendy Dickie

Cindy Skoro

Consultant:

Graham Farstad, Arlington Group

official community plan - hope · district of hope official community plan bylaw no. 1147 adopted...

Documents