McKee NP Stage 1 Background Research Report Executive Council - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

11

1

McKee NP – Stage 1 Background Research Report

Executive Council Meeting July 20th, 2020

22

2

• Purpose
• Summary of the Issue
• Context
• Discussion
• Next Steps
• Recommendations

Agenda

1

33

3

• To report the findings of Stage 1 (Background Research) and request

authorization to proceed with Stage 2 (Concept).

Purpose

2

44

4

Summary of the Issue

• Staff have prepared the McKee NP Background

Research Report

• Conclusion of Stage 1
• Request authorization to proceed with Stage 2

3

55

5

4

Context

Neighbourhood Plan Process

We are here

66

6

Context

Official Community Plan

5

77

7

• Plan area – approximately 1900 ac. /

769 ha.

• Based on natural and man-made

features (i.e. topography, catchments, roads)

• Added – Clayburn Creek Ravine area
• Removed – Vicarro lands west of

Whatcom Road 6

Context

Defining a Boundary

88

8

Schools

• Elementary - Auguston Traditional
• Middle - Clayburn (outside plan area)
• Secondary - Robert Bateman (outside

plan area) Parks 5 - Neighbourhood Parks

• Atwood, Callaghan, Mathers,

McKinley and Shadbolt Trails

• City trails in Clayburn Creek Ravine
• Informal trails on McKee Peak

analyzed in Stage 2 7

Context

Existing Schools, Parks, and Trails

99

9

• Current Population – 4,000
• Dwellings – 1,193
• Household size – 3.3

8

Context

People and Households

10

10

10

• 1,193 landowners with existing dwellings
• 38 landowners (including the City)
• 6 different categories for land within the planning

process

• Property will be treated differently due to OCP

policy

Context

9

Planning Process Status

11

11

11

Context

10

Planning Process Status

Built City owned land Urban Zoning & Subdivision Urban Zoning Transitional Policy Applications Neighbourhood Planning Process

12

12

12

Context

Planning Process Status

Built City owned land Urban Zoning & Subdivision Urban Zoning Transitional Policy Applications Neighbourhood Planning Process

10

13

13

13

Context

Planning Process Status

Built City owned land Urban Zoning & Subdivision Urban Zoning Transitional Policy Applications Neighbourhood Planning Process

10

14

14

14

Context

Planning Process Status

Built City owned land Urban Zoning & Subdivision Urban Zoning Transitional Policy Applications Neighbourhood Planning Process

10

15

15

15

Context

Planning Process Status

Built City owned land Urban Zoning & Subdivision Urban Zoning Transitional Policy Applications Neighbourhood Planning Process

10

16

16

16

Context

Planning Process Status

Built City owned land Urban Zoning & Subdivision Urban Zoning Transitional Policy Applications Neighbourhood Planning Process

10

17

17

17

• Access to properties for Stage 1 assessment
• Field studies conducted for the following:
• Geotechnical (WSP)
• Watercourses and Riparian Areas (ENKON)
• Species at Risk ENKON
• Archaeological and Cultural Heritage (Inlailawatash)
• Archaeological and Cultural Heritage assessment conducted in 2 phases

11

Context

Property Assessment

18

18

18

12

Context

Property Assessment

Not Required City owned land Did not grant property access Granted property access for AOA only Granted property access

19

19

19

Context

Property Assessment

Not Required City owned land Did not grant property access Granted property access for AOA only Granted property access

12

20

20

20

Context

Property Assessment

Not Required City owned land Did not grant property access Granted property access for AOA only Granted property access

12

21

21

21

Context

Property Assessment

Not Required City owned land Did not grant property access Granted property access for AOA only Granted property access

12

22

22

22

Context

Property Assessment

Not Required City owned land Did not grant property access Granted property access for AOA only Granted property access

12

23

23

23

• Based on OCP Policy and Senior

Government legislation

• Examined:
• Geotechnical
• Watercourses and Riparian Areas
• Species at Risk
• At a neighbourhood planning scale
• Determine protected from developable

lands

Discussion

Environmental

13

24

24

24

• WSP field conducted an overview study

using desk top (LIDAR) and field checking methods Red (Unstable) - High occurrence rating/likelihood of a landslide is probable (non-developable) Yellow (Potentially Unstable) – Moderate

• ccurrence rating/likelihood of a landslide is

possible (detailed further assessment to develop)

• Setbacks are meant to protect future

development from landslides, rockfall etc.

• Setbacks could be reduced through further

geotechnical study

Discussion

Geotechnical

14

25

25

25

• Field review and GIS based

assessment of watercourses ponds and wetlands

• Classifications and setbacks are based
• n the Water Sustainability Act and

the Streamside Protection Bylaw

Discussion

Watercourses and Riparian Areas

15

26

26

26

• Federal Government and Province

require protection of critical habitat for Species at Risk

• 10 Species at Risk reside within the

plan boundary (e.g. Mountain Beaver and Red Legged Frog)

• ENKON identified 7 ‘Habitat Hubs’
• Located in steep slope and riparian

areas

Discussion

Species at Risk / Wildlife

16

27

27

27

• Connect core ‘Habitat Hubs’ and

allow Species at Risk to migrate safely through future development areas using linkages / corridors

• Used pragmatic approach to

connect critical habitat by predominantly using steep slopes and SPEA’s

Discussion

Wildlife Linkages / Corridors

17

28

28

28

• The McKee NP is located within the asserted traditional territories of the

Sumas (Sema:th), Leq’a:mel, and Matsqui First Nations of the Sto:lo Nation.

• Part of the ‘greenfield’ analysis is identifying any lands that have

archaeological or cultural significance.

• To ensure work was conducted under the terms and conditions of the

Heritage Conservation Act (HCA), the City hired a consultant who also applied for a Sto:lo Heritage Investigation Permit.

Discussion

Archaeological and Cultural Heritage

18

29

29

29

• Conducted Archaeological Overview

Assessment (AOA)

• Identified 52 areas with

archaeological potential and 4 Culturally Modified Trees (CMT’s)

• All 4 CMT’s are located with SPEA

setbacks

Discussion

Archaeological Overview Assessment Results

19

30

30

30

• All of the environmental and archaeological preliminary findings have be

layered through GIS modeling

• Result illustrates developable and protected lands
• Net Area are lands that will be used for future development and are comprised
• f:
• Unconstrained areas
• Potentially unstable areas
• Geotechnical risk areas
• Development areas with archaeological potential

Discussion

Net Area

20

31

31

31

21

Discussion

Net Area

In-Stream development City parcels Non-Developable area Unconstrained areas Potentially unstable areas Geotechnical risk areas Development areas with archaeological potential

32

32

32

Discussion

Net Area

21

In-Stream development City parcels Non-Developable area Unconstrained areas Potentially unstable areas Geotechnical risk areas Development areas with archaeological potential

33

33

33

Discussion

Net Area

21

In-Stream development City parcels Non-Developable area Unconstrained areas Potentially unstable areas Geotechnical risk areas Development areas with archaeological potential

34

34

34

Discussion

Net Area

21

In-Stream development City parcels Non-Developable area Unconstrained areas Potentially unstable areas Geotechnical risk areas Development areas with archaeological potential

35

35

35

Discussion

Net Area

21

In-Stream development City parcels Non-Developable area Unconstrained areas Potentially unstable areas Geotechnical risk areas Development areas with archaeological potential

36

36

36

Discussion

Net Area

21

In-Stream development City parcels Non-Developable area Unconstrained areas Potentially unstable areas Geotechnical risk areas Development areas with archaeological potential

37

37

37

Discussion

Net Area

21

In-Stream development City parcels Non-Developable area Unconstrained areas Potentially unstable areas Geotechnical risk areas Development areas with archaeological potential

38

38

38

In-Stream development City parcels Non-Developable area Unconstrained areas Potentially unstable areas Geotechnical risk areas Development areas with archaeological potential

Discussion

Net Area

21

39

39

39

22

Discussion

Net Area Analysis

40

40

40

23

Discussion

Existing Infrastructure

Engineering consultant examined existing conditions for the following infrastructure: Stormwater Transportation Wastewater Water

41

41

41

24

Discussion

Engagement Strategy

Who we will Engage:

• General Public
• Government and Government Agencies
• City of Abbotsford
• Key Organizations

Stage 2 Engagement

• Online
• Popup Event or Open House
• Design Charrettes
• City Committee Workshop
• Mail-out
• Social Media and Website
• Letter to Agencies

42

42

42

• Community engagement
• Begin process of creating concept
• ptions
• Engage Infrastructure consultant to

begin preliminary technical analysis of Infrastructure needs

Next Steps

25

Stage 2

43

43

43

• 1. THAT Council receive the McKee Neighbourhood Plan Background

Research Report for information;

• 2. THAT Council direct staff to proceed with Stage 2 of the McKee

Neighbourhood Plan, including engagement, as outlined in the report from the Senior Planner; and

• 3. THAT Council endorse the public engagement strategy, as outlined in the

report from the Senior Planner, pursuant to Section 475 of the Local Government Act.

Recommendations

26